EVIDENCE
Browse the complete project archive below. Rock and outcrop photographs are presented as the original field images; maps, logs, documents and software records use short descriptions of what is shown and how it was used.
SOURCE 01
Rock photographs from this research are collected in the Rock Outcrop section below.
The geological map fixes the spatial problem before any facies or model interpretation begins: Pit N, mapped coal traces and the borehole collar distribution are shown in one reference frame. Boreholes constrain the subsurface only where they exist, so confidence should decrease away from collars and along extrapolated seam edges.
The stratigraphic column orders the Muara Enim coal succession and its intervening clastic units from Seam D upward to A1. It provides the naming framework used by the core panels, electrofacies and three-dimensional surfaces, but does not by itself establish thickness continuity.
The Pit N view is dominated by an anthropogenic open-pit landscape—excavated benches or walls, haul access, spoil and exposed working surfaces—with residual natural low hills around the operation. Calling the entire scene a natural geomorphic unit would erase the process that now controls slope form, drainage and exposure.
The source places Seam D at about 142–147 m in RTB 09 and 181–185 m in RTS 01; the correlated coal interval is approximately 4 m thick and is described as banded coal, locally with a clay band or parting. In the thesis evidence chain, the photograph records recovered material and superposition but does not directly demonstrate between-well continuity.
Seam C is traced through five boreholes and is described as an 8–14 m banded-coal interval containing a clay parting; the larger control count makes it better constrained laterally than Seams D, B2, B1, A2 or A1.
The C–D interburden is represented by very fine- to fine-grained sandstone and siltstone, locally coarser, with flaser, wavy and lenticular bedding. Those heterolithic structures record alternation between traction and suspension fallout, but they do not, on their own, distinguish tidal modulation from other fluctuating-current processes.
The panel correlates Seam B2 at approximately 104–109 m in RTB 11, 107–112 m in RTS 74 and 161–165 m in RTS 06. Across those three wells the source treats it as a roughly 4–5 m banded-coal interval.
The B2–C interburden is dominated by very fine sandstone and siltstone. Its heterolithic character is the principal core observation; environmental assignment requires bed-boundary relationships, sedimentary structures and lateral persistence rather than a log motif alone.
Seam B1 is correlated through RTB 11, RTS 74 and RTS 06 as a comparatively thick, approximately 9–14 m coal body. Clay partings of roughly 0.5–2.5 cm are recorded within the seam and must be carried into any clean-coal thickness or quality calculation.
Between B1 and B2, the source describes pale grey claystone and siltstone with fine heterolithic layering. This interval is a correlation separator as well as a depositional record, so thickness changes must be distinguished from drilling loss, core breakage and marker-pick uncertainty.
Seam A2 is represented in three boreholes as an approximately 12–15 m banded-coal interval. The source records clay bands or partings about 2–15 cm thick, so the apparent seam envelope is not equivalent to uninterrupted clean coal.
The A2–B1 package contains heterolithic fine-grained clastics and the Suban marker used in the source correlation. Its value lies in the conjunction of lithology, marker position and log response; none of those components should be treated as an independent chronostratigraphic datum without regional calibration.
Seam A1 is correlated in RTB 11, RTS 74 and RTS 06 at approximately 29–37 m, 14–24 m and 87–96 m respectively. The source describes a variable 3–10 m seam with clay bands or partings about 2–8 cm thick beneath a mudstone–shale roof.
Seam A1 is correlated in RTB 11, RTS 74 and RTS 06 at approximately 29–37 m, 14–24 m and 87–96 m respectively. The source describes a variable 3–10 m seam with clay bands or partings about 2–8 cm thick beneath a mudstone–shale roof.
The A1–A2 interburden is described as fine, locally tuffaceous sandstone with subordinate finer beds. Volcanic input may aid recognition, but a tuffaceous appearance is not automatically an isochron unless petrography or geochemistry demonstrates a correlatable event bed.
The thesis panel tests the core pick for Seam D against wireline response in two boreholes. A relatively low gamma trace and boxcar-to-cylindrical geometry support recognition of a low-clastic interval; brief departures from that motif are evaluated against partings seen in core.
The thesis panel tests the core pick for Seam C against wireline response in five boreholes. A relatively low gamma trace and boxcar-to-cylindrical geometry support recognition of a low-clastic interval; brief departures from that motif are evaluated against partings seen in core.
In the thesis correlation, the C–D is bounded by coal markers already identified in core.
The thesis panel tests the core pick for Seam B2 against wireline response in three boreholes. A relatively low gamma trace and boxcar-to-cylindrical geometry support recognition of a low-clastic interval; brief departures from that motif are evaluated against partings seen in core.
In the thesis correlation, the B2–C is bounded by coal markers already identified in core. The irregular gamma motif is consistent with the observed alternation—the b2–c interburden is dominated by very fine sandstone and siltstone—but the curve is an averaged petrophysical response rather than a facies name.
The thesis panel tests the core pick for Seam B1 against wireline response in three boreholes. A relatively low gamma trace and boxcar-to-cylindrical geometry support recognition of a low-clastic interval; brief departures from that motif are evaluated against partings seen in core.
In the thesis correlation, the B1–B2 is bounded by coal markers already identified in core. The irregular gamma motif is consistent with the observed alternation—between b1 and b2, the source describes pale grey claystone and siltstone with fine heterolithic layering—but the curve is an averaged petrophysical response rather than a facies name.
The thesis panel tests the core pick for Seam A2 against wireline response in three boreholes. A relatively low gamma trace and boxcar-to-cylindrical geometry support recognition of a low-clastic interval; brief departures from that motif are evaluated against partings seen in core.
In the thesis correlation, the A2–B1 is bounded by coal markers already identified in core. The irregular gamma motif is consistent with the observed alternation—the a2–b1 package contains heterolithic fine-grained clastics and the suban marker used in the source correlation—but the curve is an averaged petrophysical response rather than a facies name.
The thesis panel tests the core pick for Seam A1 against wireline response in three boreholes. Here the diagnostic target is the coal-top boundary: the upward change into a finer, generally higher-gamma roof is more important than the shape of the coal trace in isolation.
The thesis panel tests the core pick for Seam A1 against wireline response in three boreholes. Here the diagnostic target is the seam body, including short departures from the low-gamma motif that can be tested against the documented internal partings.
In the thesis correlation, the A1–A2 is bounded by coal markers already identified in core. The irregular gamma motif is consistent with the observed alternation—the a1–a2 interburden is described as fine, locally tuffaceous sandstone with subordinate finer beds—but the curve is an averaged petrophysical response rather than a facies name.
The five-well panel is the central correlation test because it places lithofacies, seam picks and interpreted stratigraphic packages side by side. A correlation is credible where marker order, core character and log response remain coherent without implausible thickness jumps; it weakens where picks depend on one motif or cross long uncontrolled distances.
The topographic model spans source-reported elevations of roughly 69–99 m and carries the borehole collars used to construct the seam surfaces. Its job is geometric control: collars must sit on the correct surface, elevations must share one datum and no seam should cross above terrain.
The A1 structure-contour and surface pair is built from three boreholes, an interpreted thickness range of about 3–10 m, and a source-reported attitude of N310°E/18° NE. Contours summarize the interpolated roof or floor elevation; they are not additional measurements between boreholes.
The A2 structure-contour and surface pair is built from three boreholes, an interpreted thickness range of about 12–15 m, and a source-reported attitude of N306°E/25°. Contours summarize the interpolated roof or floor elevation; they are not additional measurements between boreholes.
The B1 structure-contour and surface pair is built from three boreholes, an interpreted thickness range of about 9–14 m, and a source-reported attitude of N287°E/33°. Contours summarize the interpolated roof or floor elevation; they are not additional measurements between boreholes.
The B2 structure-contour and surface pair is built from three boreholes, an interpreted thickness of about 4–5 m, and a source-reported attitude of N291°E/24°. Contours summarize the interpolated roof or floor elevation; they are not additional measurements between boreholes.
The C structure-contour and surface pair is built from five boreholes, an interpreted thickness range of about 8–14 m, and a source-reported attitude of N299°E/28°. Contours summarize the interpolated roof or floor elevation; they are not additional measurements between boreholes.
The D structure-contour and surface pair is built from two boreholes, an interpreted thickness of about 4 m, and a source-reported attitude of N291°E/30°. Contours summarize the interpolated roof or floor elevation; they are not additional measurements between boreholes.
The stacked three-dimensional view assembles all principal seam surfaces into one geometric hypothesis. Correct superposition and broadly coherent dip are encouraging, but they are necessary rather than sufficient tests: independently interpolated surfaces can look orderly while carrying the same biased picks.
This section converts the three-dimensional seam stack back into a two-dimensional geological test. Vertical spacing, local thickness and surface continuity can be compared directly with borehole intersections, making the section more diagnostic than an oblique 3D view.
The strike-oriented section should display comparatively small apparent dip if its orientation is genuinely close to strike. Departures from that expectation may record seam undulation, structural complexity, changing strike or simply a section that is oblique to the local surface.
The dip-oriented section is the clearest view of down-dip seam separation and the cumulative geometry of the coal-bearing stack. Source-reported dips range from about 18° to 33° among the seams, so exact parallelism should not be assumed.
SOURCE 02
Rock photographs from the internship archive are collected in the Rock Outcrop section below.
The borehole map is the spatial control for every internship correlation that follows. Collar distribution, coordinate reference system, elevation datum and the distinction between mapped seam traces and subsurface picks determine where continuity is observed and where it is interpolated.
The photograph records an active open-pit landscape rather than an untouched natural landform. Excavated slopes, haul access, exposed benches or working surfaces and spoil have modified relief, drainage and exposure, while low residual hills preserve part of the inherited terrain.
Only three plotted observations support the Seam A1 quality panel. Ash and inherent moisture appear to vary inversely with calorific value within that small set, whereas sulfur and volatile matter show no stable visual relation.
The source reports low ash (about 1.30–3.42%) and low sulfur (about 0.18–0.24%) for the plotted Seam A2 samples. That makes A2 the cleanest interval in this limited comparison, but it does not prove a raised-mire origin or a uniform product specification.
The Seam B1 source is internally inconsistent: one summary gives ash of 3.30–4.15%, sulfur of 0.26–0.35% and calorific value of 4,836–4,920, while the later plot/table text gives ash of 2.8–7.0%, sulfur of 0.12–0.20% and calorific value of 4,327–5,030.
Seam B2 combines moderate ash values reaching roughly 6.8% with sulfur around 0.96–1.06% in the source dataset. The restricted sample population can show the observed range, not its mine-wide frequency.
For Seam C, the source gives ash of approximately 3.03–7.29% and sulfur of 0.38–1.39%. The spread is geologically meaningful because it may reflect parting abundance, mineral matter, sulfur mode or sampling support, yet the scatter plot alone cannot choose among those explanations.
Seam D is represented by only two values: total moisture about 24.60–26.78%, ash 4.12–4.90%, sulfur 1.00–1.32% and calorific value 5,171–5,189 in the source table. Two points define a line mathematically but provide no estimate of natural scatter, so correlation coefficients, causal claims and rank comparisons beyond the sampled material would be misleading.
The source places Seam D at about 142–147 m in RTB 09 and 181–185 m in RTS 01; the correlated coal interval is approximately 4 m thick and is described as banded coal, locally with a clay band or parting. In the internship report, the core photograph establishes recovered lithology and vertical order; it cannot measure continuity between boreholes.
Seam C is traced through five boreholes and is described as an 8–14 m banded-coal interval containing a clay parting; the larger control count makes it better constrained laterally than Seams D, B2, B1, A2 or A1. In the internship report, the core photograph establishes recovered lithology and vertical order; it cannot measure continuity between boreholes.
The C–D interburden is represented by very fine- to fine-grained sandstone and siltstone, locally coarser, with flaser, wavy and lenticular bedding. Those heterolithic structures record alternation between traction and suspension fallout, but they do not, on their own, distinguish tidal modulation from other fluctuating-current processes.
The panel correlates Seam B2 at approximately 104–109 m in RTB 11, 107–112 m in RTS 74 and 161–165 m in RTS 06. Across those three wells the source treats it as a roughly 4–5 m banded-coal interval.
The B2–C interburden is dominated by very fine sandstone and siltstone. Its heterolithic character is the principal core observation; environmental assignment requires bed-boundary relationships, sedimentary structures and lateral persistence rather than a log motif alone.
Seam B1 is correlated through RTB 11, RTS 74 and RTS 06 as a comparatively thick, approximately 9–14 m coal body. Clay partings of roughly 0.5–2.5 cm are recorded within the seam and must be carried into any clean-coal thickness or quality calculation.
Between B1 and B2, the source describes pale grey claystone and siltstone with fine heterolithic layering. This interval is a correlation separator as well as a depositional record, so thickness changes must be distinguished from drilling loss, core breakage and marker-pick uncertainty.
This composite panel places Seams A2 and A1 beside the A1–A2 interburden and the partings that interrupt the coal.
The A2 interburden panel records fine heterolithic clastics together with the Suban marker used in the source correlation. The marker is operationally useful because it provides a recognisable level between seam packages, but visual similarity alone does not make it an isochron.
The A2 parting photograph isolates a thin non-coal interval within an otherwise thick, approximately 12–15 m seam envelope. Its thickness, lithology and continuity affect clean-coal thickness, dilution and quality sampling, so it should be logged separately rather than absorbed into an average seam description.
Seam A1 is correlated in RTB 11, RTS 74 and RTS 06 at approximately 29–37 m, 14–24 m and 87–96 m respectively. The source describes a variable 3–10 m seam with clay bands or partings about 2–8 cm thick beneath a mudstone–shale roof.
The A1–A2 interburden is described as fine, locally tuffaceous sandstone with subordinate finer beds. Volcanic input may aid recognition, but a tuffaceous appearance is not automatically an isochron unless petrography or geochemistry demonstrates a correlatable event bed.
The internship panel compares the core-defined D interval across two boreholes with its wireline character. The low-gamma, broadly boxcar-to-cylindrical response is compatible with a laterally recognisable low-clastic interval, while short excursions can be checked directly against the recorded partings.
The internship panel compares the core-defined C interval across five boreholes with its wireline character. The low-gamma, broadly boxcar-to-cylindrical response is compatible with a laterally recognisable low-clastic interval, while short excursions can be checked directly against the recorded partings.
The internship log panel brackets the C–D between core-constrained coal markers. Its serrated or irregular gamma expression is compatible with the alternation described in core—the c–d interburden is represented by very fine- to fine-grained sandstone and siltstone, locally coarser, with flaser, wavy and lenticular bedding.
The internship panel compares the core-defined B2 interval across three boreholes with its wireline character. The low-gamma, broadly boxcar-to-cylindrical response is compatible with a laterally recognisable low-clastic interval, while short excursions can be checked directly against the recorded partings.
The internship log panel brackets the B2–C between core-constrained coal markers. Its serrated or irregular gamma expression is compatible with the alternation described in core—the b2–c interburden is dominated by very fine sandstone and siltstone.
The internship panel compares the core-defined B1 interval across three boreholes with its wireline character. The low-gamma, broadly boxcar-to-cylindrical response is compatible with a laterally recognisable low-clastic interval, while short excursions can be checked directly against the recorded partings.
The internship log panel brackets the B1–B2 between core-constrained coal markers. Its serrated or irregular gamma expression is compatible with the alternation described in core—between b1 and b2, the source describes pale grey claystone and siltstone with fine heterolithic layering.
The internship panel compares the core-defined A2 interval across three boreholes with its wireline character. The low-gamma, broadly boxcar-to-cylindrical response is compatible with a laterally recognisable low-clastic interval, while short excursions can be checked directly against the recorded partings.
The internship log panel brackets the A2–B1 between core-constrained coal markers. Its serrated or irregular gamma expression is compatible with the alternation described in core—the a2–b1 package contains heterolithic fine-grained clastics and the suban marker used in the source correlation.
The internship panel compares the core-defined A1 interval across three boreholes with its wireline character. Here the diagnostic target is the coal-top boundary: the upward change into a finer, generally higher-gamma roof is more important than the shape of the coal trace in isolation.
The internship panel compares the core-defined A1 interval across three boreholes with its wireline character. Here the diagnostic target is the seam body, including short departures from the low-gamma motif that can be tested against the documented internal partings.
The internship log panel brackets the A1–A2 between core-constrained coal markers. Its serrated or irregular gamma expression is compatible with the alternation described in core—the a1–a2 interburden is described as fine, locally tuffaceous sandstone with subordinate finer beds.
SOURCE 03
All field photographs from Karangkancana are collected in the Rock Outcrop section below.
The elevation model establishes the first-order physiographic boundary conditions of the 81 km² survey, but elevation alone cannot discriminate lithology or structure.
The slope product converts topography into a process-sensitive surface that can support terrain segmentation, traverse planning and first-pass instability screening.
The landslide montage confirms that slope failure occurred at several mapped localities and provides valuable scale, material and morphological context, yet photographs alone cannot establish a regional causal mechanism.
The river segmentation is useful if the reaches were divided by reproducible changes in gradient, confinement, sinuosity, substrate, tributary junctions or valley-floor width rather than by visual convenience.
Drainage organisation records the integrated response of substrate, relief, runoff and geological discontinuities, so the map is best treated as convergent rather than diagnostic evidence.
The elongated ridge is consistent with a resistant volcanic or volcaniclastic substrate, but morphology cannot uniquely identify a lava-controlled landform.
The steep-sided residual hill is morphologically compatible with karst developed in carbonate rock, especially when considered with the mapped limestone and cave photographs, yet conical form alone is not sufficient.
A valley positioned over a mapped synclinal domain is a plausible example of structural inversion in which erosion preferentially follows weaker or more fractured core strata, but the photograph cannot demonstrate synclinal geometry.
The ridge aligned with the interpreted anticline is consistent with a resistant bed exposed around a folded structural high, but positive relief is not direct proof of an anticline.
The low-relief surface adjacent to the active channel is compatible with a floodplain, although a single oblique image cannot distinguish active floodplain from a slightly elevated terrace, abandoned channel belt or anthropogenic surface.
The LP22 thin section can test the mineralogical and textural basis of the sandstone classification, but only if the sample code, field station and image labels are internally consistent.
The exposed sandstone beds show parallel lamination and grain-size or weathering contrasts compatible with tractional reworking within a gravity-flow deposit.
The planktonic foraminiferal plate provides potentially high-value biostratigraphic evidence, but taxonomic confidence depends on preservation, diagnostic views, scale, picking protocol and expert verification.
The LP59 range chart is an interpretive calculation rather than new fossil evidence: its reliability cannot exceed the underlying identifications, taxonomic ranges and chosen zonation. Range overlap should document the reference calibration, regional applicability, treatment of uncertain taxa and whether datums represent global, tropical or local bioevents.
The benthic assemblage is relevant to palaeoenvironment because habitat preferences integrate oxygenation, substrate, food supply and water depth, but no taxon is a mechanical depth gauge.
The palaeobathymetric chart synthesises ecological ranges for LP59 and is useful as an auditable bridge between taxonomy and environmental interpretation. Its endpoints should not be read as exact depositional depths because published ranges overlap broadly and respond to oxygen, productivity and substrate as well as depth.
The LP4 thin section can substantiate a clay-rich rock only if imaging resolution and preparation permit matrix, silt grains, carbonate and alteration products to be distinguished.
The claystone planktonic assemblage may provide a more nearly depositional age than sandstone-hosted specimens because fine-grained sediment is less likely to contain coarse reworked lag, but reworking and contamination remain possible.
The LP21 range chart should make the inferential chain fully reproducible: specimen identification, published range, selected zonation, overlap interval and final confidence. A zonal conclusion is robust only when multiple diagnostic taxa converge and when the sample’s stratigraphic position is secure.
The LP21 benthic plate is an assemblage-level environmental dataset, not a collection of independent depth markers. Relative abundance, diversity, wall composition, preservation and evidence of transport should accompany identifications.
The LP21 depth chart reportedly places the sample in an upper-bathyal envelope, a plausible setting for fine-grained deposits associated with the Halang deep-water system. That conclusion remains conditional on the ecological calibration and preservation of the controlling benthic taxa.
The submarine-fan diagram is a conceptual analogue used to organise observations, not field evidence from Karangkancana.
The LP82 carbonate thin section is classified as wackestone, consistent with a matrix-supported fabric containing more than ten percent allochems under the Embry and Klovan framework.
The LP51 planktonic plate is used to date the limestone, yet carbonate samples may contain reworked pelagic tests, diagenetically altered specimens or mixed material introduced through cavities. Identifications should therefore be tied to preservation state, host microfacies and individual views, with contamination and reworking explicitly screened.
The LP51 range chart reportedly supports an N17–N19 or Late Miocene to Early Pliocene interval, but the precision and nomenclature must be tied to a named zonation and current taxonomic calibration. A broad three-zone range may be scientifically honest if diagnostic overlap is limited; compressing it to a single age would overstate resolution.
The LP51 benthic assemblage provides environmental context for carbonate deposition, but carbonate-platform, slope and deep-water taxa can coexist through downslope transport. Interpretation should document relative abundance, abrasion, fragmentation, encrustation and matrix association, then separate likely autochthonous from allochthonous components.
The LP51 palaeobathymetric synthesis is a model output whose uncertainty is inherited from taxonomy, ecological range and transport history. The displayed overlap should be recalculated with abundance weighting and a leave-one-taxon-out test so reviewers can see whether one questionable identification controls the result.
The analysed LP80 clast plots in the andesite field after QAP normalisation and shows a porphyritic, plagioclase-rich volcanic texture, supporting an intermediate volcanic source for that clast. It cannot classify the entire coarse body because a breccia may be polymictic and matrix composition may differ from clasts.
The lithostratigraphic framework is a synthesis of mapped units, fossil ages and inferred relationships, so it should visually separate observed contacts, inferred contacts, age constraints and regional correlation.
The stereographic solution translates the Sukarapi measurements into a three-dimensional kinematic hypothesis, but the input notation and projection conventions must be auditable. Plane strike/dip, slickenline rake or trend/plunge, lower- versus upper-hemisphere projection and assumed movement sense should be listed explicitly.
The anticline stereonet can estimate a fold axis from bedding poles only when the dataset samples both limbs adequately and poles define a statistically meaningful girdle. The plate should report the number of attitudes, limb grouping, orientation convention, best-fit great circle, calculated axis and angular confidence or dispersion.
The syncline stereonet requires the same discipline as the anticline analysis: balanced limb sampling, consistent right-hand-rule notation, a defensible girdle fit and an uncertainty measure for the calculated fold axis.
The conceptual structural mechanism explains how folding and faulting might coexist, but it is a causal model rather than a direct observation. Its usefulness depends on explicit predictions: expected fault orientation and slip, fold vergence, strain localisation, bed rotation and cross-cutting relationships.
The geological cross-section is the project’s principal integration test because every contact, attitude, fold and fault must coexist geometrically beneath measured topography.
The first structural worksheet combines field photographs, traced discontinuities and a stereographic plot, creating a useful chain from exposure to orientation analysis. The principal audit question is whether every plotted plane and line corresponds to a traceable measurement rather than an interpretive line drawn after the fact.
The worksheet juxtaposes a tabulated plane and lineation with a classification of dip-slip geometries and a directional distribution plot. That structure makes the reasoning auditable, provided the field notation is converted consistently and the rake is measured on the stated fault plane.
The combination of pole-density stereonet, rose diagram and shaded relief tests whether structural orientations have a landscape expression. Alignment is meaningful only if the datasets are independent: the DEM lineaments should be extracted without reference to the measured fault set, then compared statistically rather than visually.
The fold-analysis sheet organises limb attitudes and applies a cylindrical-fold construction to estimate a hinge or fold axis. Its validity depends on correct identification of the two limbs, exclusion or separate treatment of fault-dragged beds, and adequate coverage along the mapped fold.
This plate couples a second fold-orientation dataset with terrain imagery, allowing the statistical solution to be checked against the mapped landscape.
The syncline worksheet assembles numerous bedding attitudes and a conceptual classification diagram. The larger table improves regional coverage, but the analysis must prevent clustered stations from dominating the solution and should identify measurements projected from outside the section corridor.
The geomorphological compilation combines terrain classes, field photographs, regional position and conceptual block views. Its principal strength is multi-scale traceability: mapped landforms can be compared with what was actually observed on the ground.
The final geological map and cross-sections are the highest-level synthesis of the survey, integrating 85 GPS-controlled stations across the 9 × 9 km area.
The BG thin-section plate records a matrix-supported carbonate assigned to wackestone, with reported microspar, spar, skeletal grains, pisoids and minor quartz.
The Embry and Klovan classification table is a reference framework rather than a new observation. Its correct use requires deciding whether the rock is mud- or grain-supported, whether allochems exceed ten percent, whether components larger than two millimetres are significant and whether organisms bound the sediment during deposition.
The BV micrograph shows a holocrystalline, porphyritic intermediate volcanic clast with plagioclase, hornblende, quartz, opaque minerals and a fine groundmass, plus weak sericitic alteration.
Petrography — Sheet 12 records the mineral, fossil, matrix/cement and textural relationships visible in thin section. Microscopic texture is compared with the field description to refine lithological classification and evaluate the mapped unit.
The QAP diagram transparently converts the BV modal framework-mineral proportions into an andesite classification. The plotted point is meaningful only after quartz, alkali feldspar and plagioclase are recalculated to 100 percent and after fine groundmass or altered material is treated consistently with the scheme.
The BL micrograph is dominated by very fine clay-rich matrix and is classified as mudrock under the Pettijohn framework. The reported 81 percent matrix strongly supports that broad class, but routine optical petrography cannot identify clay mineral species reliably; XRD would be required for mineralogical resolution.
Petrography — Sheet 15 records the mineral, fossil, matrix/cement and textural relationships visible in thin section. Microscopic texture is compared with the field description to refine lithological classification and evaluate the mapped unit.
The Pettijohn ternary diagram places the BL sample in the mudrock field because matrix overwhelmingly exceeds the arenite–wacke threshold. This is a classification translation of the modal estimate, not an independent line of evidence.
The BS micrograph is classified as lithic wacke and reportedly contains quartz, feldspar, sedimentary and volcanic lithic fragments, abundant opaques, chlorite, microquartz matrix, sericite and clay cement.
Petrography — Sheet 18 records the mineral, fossil, matrix/cement and textural relationships visible in thin section. Microscopic texture is compared with the field description to refine lithological classification and evaluate the mapped unit.
The Pettijohn diagram translates the BS proportions into the lithic-wacke field by combining framework composition with matrix content. Its location should be recalculated from the documented point count and accompanied by an error envelope, especially because matrix thresholds determine whether ‘wacke’ is appropriate.
ROCK PHOTOGRAPHS
77 photographs from the thesis, internship and geological mapping archives.
SOURCE 04
Constricted Cave Traverse — Moist Wall Surfaces and Passage Continuity
Assigning geological-unit symbology is documented in ArcGIS Pro at the 02 · data preparation stage. Assigning geological-unit symbology is documented in ArcGIS Pro at the 02 · data preparation stage.
Reviewing attribute-driven unit classes is documented in ArcGIS Pro at the 03 · data preparation stage. Reviewing attribute-driven unit classes is documented in ArcGIS Pro at the 03 · data preparation stage.
Editing symbol properties for selected units is documented in ArcGIS Pro at the 04 · data preparation stage. Editing symbol properties for selected units is documented in ArcGIS Pro at the 04 · data preparation stage.
Selecting and checking mapped features is documented in ArcGIS Pro at the 05 · map production stage. Selecting and checking mapped features is documented in ArcGIS Pro at the 05 · map production stage.
Refining colours and boundary contrast is documented in ArcGIS Pro at the 06 · map production stage. Refining colours and boundary contrast is documented in ArcGIS Pro at the 06 · map production stage.
Checking contact geometry and internal features is documented in ArcGIS Pro at the 07 · map production stage. Checking contact geometry and internal features is documented in ArcGIS Pro at the 07 · map production stage.
Comparing thematic versions for consistency is documented in ArcGIS Pro at the 08 · map production stage. Comparing thematic versions for consistency is documented in ArcGIS Pro at the 08 · map production stage.
Composing the geological map layout is documented in ArcGIS Pro at the 09 · map production stage. Composing the geological map layout is documented in ArcGIS Pro at the 09 · map production stage.
Finalising the publication map is documented in ArcGIS Pro at the 10 · map production stage. Finalising the publication map is documented in ArcGIS Pro at the 10 · map production stage.
Defining discontinuity sets and kinematic inputs is documented in Rocscience Dips at the 01 · structural input stage. Defining discontinuity sets and kinematic inputs is documented in Rocscience Dips at the 01 · structural input stage.
Stereonet density and kinematic assessment is documented in Rocscience Dips at the 02 · structural result stage. Stereonet density and kinematic assessment is documented in Rocscience Dips at the 02 · structural result stage.
Topographic control for the geological model is documented in MineScape at the 01 · topographic control stage. Topographic control for the geological model is documented in MineScape at the 01 · topographic control stage.
Stacked seam-floor surfaces is documented in MineScape at the 02 · stratigraphic surfaces stage. Stacked seam-floor surfaces is documented in MineScape at the 02 · stratigraphic surfaces stage.
Stratigraphic cell framework is documented in MineScape at the 03 · cell framework stage. Stratigraphic cell framework is documented in MineScape at the 03 · cell framework stage.
Wireframe review of model geometry is documented in MineScape at the 04 · geometry review stage. Wireframe review of model geometry is documented in MineScape at the 04 · geometry review stage.
Spatial-domain coding review is documented in MineScape at the 05 · domain review stage. Spatial-domain coding review is documented in MineScape at the 05 · domain review stage.
3D project scene and data loading is documented in Micromine Origin at the 01 · geological modelling stage. 3D project scene and data loading is documented in Micromine Origin at the 01 · geological modelling stage.
Drillhole or string visualization is documented in Micromine Origin at the 02 · geological modelling stage. Drillhole or string visualization is documented in Micromine Origin at the 02 · geological modelling stage.
Wireframe interpretation is documented in Micromine Origin at the 03 · geological modelling stage. Wireframe interpretation is documented in Micromine Origin at the 03 · geological modelling stage.
Surface construction is documented in Micromine Origin at the 04 · geological modelling stage. Surface construction is documented in Micromine Origin at the 04 · geological modelling stage.
Geological-domain modelling is documented in Micromine Origin at the 05 · geological modelling stage. Geological-domain modelling is documented in Micromine Origin at the 05 · geological modelling stage.
Model intersection review is documented in Micromine Origin at the 06 · geological modelling stage. Model intersection review is documented in Micromine Origin at the 06 · geological modelling stage.
Solid validation is documented in Micromine Origin at the 07 · geological modelling stage. Solid validation is documented in Micromine Origin at the 07 · geological modelling stage.
Topographic integration is documented in Micromine Origin at the 08 · geological modelling stage. Topographic integration is documented in Micromine Origin at the 08 · geological modelling stage.
Block-model framework is documented in Micromine Origin at the 09 · geological modelling stage. Block-model framework is documented in Micromine Origin at the 09 · geological modelling stage.
Property display and colour legend is documented in Micromine Origin at the 10 · geological modelling stage. Property display and colour legend is documented in Micromine Origin at the 10 · geological modelling stage.
Sectional inspection is documented in Micromine Origin at the 11 · geological modelling stage. Sectional inspection is documented in Micromine Origin at the 11 · geological modelling stage.
Spatial continuity review is documented in Micromine Origin at the 12 · geological modelling stage. Spatial continuity review is documented in Micromine Origin at the 12 · geological modelling stage.
Domain comparison is documented in Micromine Origin at the 13 · geological modelling stage. Domain comparison is documented in Micromine Origin at the 13 · geological modelling stage.
Model refinement is documented in Micromine Origin at the 14 · geological modelling stage. Model refinement is documented in Micromine Origin at the 14 · geological modelling stage.
Output visualization is documented in Micromine Origin at the 15 · geological modelling stage. Output visualization is documented in Micromine Origin at the 15 · geological modelling stage.
Final model presentation is documented in Micromine Origin at the 16 · geological modelling stage. Final model presentation is documented in Micromine Origin at the 16 · geological modelling stage.
Project data organization is documented in Petrel at the 01 · well correlation and model control stage. Project data organization is documented in Petrel at the 01 · well correlation and model control stage.
Well-log display setup is documented in Petrel at the 02 · well correlation and model control stage. Well-log display setup is documented in Petrel at the 02 · well correlation and model control stage.
Multiwell correlation panel is documented in Petrel at the 03 · well correlation and model control stage. Multiwell correlation panel is documented in Petrel at the 03 · well correlation and model control stage.
Log-curve alignment is documented in Petrel at the 04 · well correlation and model control stage. Log-curve alignment is documented in Petrel at the 04 · well correlation and model control stage.
Marker and interval review is documented in Petrel at the 05 · well correlation and model control stage. Marker and interval review is documented in Petrel at the 05 · well correlation and model control stage.
Correlation refinement is documented in Petrel at the 06 · well correlation and model control stage. Correlation refinement is documented in Petrel at the 06 · well correlation and model control stage.
Electrofacies inspection is documented in Petrel at the 07 · well correlation and model control stage. Electrofacies inspection is documented in Petrel at the 07 · well correlation and model control stage.
Well-section comparison is documented in Petrel at the 08 · well correlation and model control stage. Well-section comparison is documented in Petrel at the 08 · well correlation and model control stage.
Property-track review is documented in Petrel at the 09 · well correlation and model control stage. Property-track review is documented in Petrel at the 09 · well correlation and model control stage.
Cross-well continuity assessment is documented in Petrel at the 10 · well correlation and model control stage. Cross-well continuity assessment is documented in Petrel at the 10 · well correlation and model control stage.
Structural framework view is documented in Petrel at the 11 · well correlation and model control stage. Structural framework view is documented in Petrel at the 11 · well correlation and model control stage.
Surface and horizon inspection is documented in Petrel at the 12 · well correlation and model control stage. Surface and horizon inspection is documented in Petrel at the 12 · well correlation and model control stage.
Model quality control is documented in Petrel at the 13 · well correlation and model control stage. Model quality control is documented in Petrel at the 13 · well correlation and model control stage.
Project scene and string loading is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 01 · geological modelling stage. Project scene and string loading is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 01 · geological modelling stage.
Drillhole visualization is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 02 · geological modelling stage. Drillhole visualization is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 02 · geological modelling stage.
Geological string preparation is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 03 · geological modelling stage. Geological string preparation is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 03 · geological modelling stage.
Section interpretation is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 04 · geological modelling stage. Section interpretation is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 04 · geological modelling stage.
Wireframe construction is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 05 · geological modelling stage. Wireframe construction is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 05 · geological modelling stage.
Surface triangulation is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 06 · geological modelling stage. Surface triangulation is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 06 · geological modelling stage.
Solid-model inspection is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 07 · geological modelling stage. Solid-model inspection is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 07 · geological modelling stage.
Topographic integration is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 08 · geological modelling stage. Topographic integration is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 08 · geological modelling stage.
Domain clipping and validation is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 09 · geological modelling stage. Domain clipping and validation is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 09 · geological modelling stage.
Block-model setup is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 10 · geological modelling stage. Block-model setup is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 10 · geological modelling stage.
Attribute display is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 11 · geological modelling stage. Attribute display is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 11 · geological modelling stage.
Sectional model review is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 12 · geological modelling stage. Sectional model review is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 12 · geological modelling stage.
Spatial continuity inspection is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 13 · geological modelling stage. Spatial continuity inspection is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 13 · geological modelling stage.
Model comparison is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 14 · geological modelling stage. Model comparison is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 14 · geological modelling stage.
Volume-domain quality control is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 15 · geological modelling stage. Volume-domain quality control is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 15 · geological modelling stage.
Output scene composition is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 16 · geological modelling stage. Output scene composition is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 16 · geological modelling stage.
Final technical visualization is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 17 · geological modelling stage. Final technical visualization is documented in GEOVIA Surpac at the 17 · geological modelling stage.
Project and terrain context is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 01 · geological modelling stage. Project and terrain context is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 01 · geological modelling stage.
Geological data visualization is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 02 · geological modelling stage. Geological data visualization is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 02 · geological modelling stage.
Drillhole or sample display is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 03 · geological modelling stage. Drillhole or sample display is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 03 · geological modelling stage.
Interpretive string review is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 04 · geological modelling stage. Interpretive string review is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 04 · geological modelling stage.
Triangulation workflow is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 05 · geological modelling stage. Triangulation workflow is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 05 · geological modelling stage.
Surface-model construction is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 06 · geological modelling stage. Surface-model construction is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 06 · geological modelling stage.
Solid-domain creation is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 07 · geological modelling stage. Solid-domain creation is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 07 · geological modelling stage.
Domain validation is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 08 · geological modelling stage. Domain validation is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 08 · geological modelling stage.
Block-model framework is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 09 · geological modelling stage. Block-model framework is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 09 · geological modelling stage.
Attribute colouring is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 10 · geological modelling stage. Attribute colouring is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 10 · geological modelling stage.
Grade or category display is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 11 · geological modelling stage. Grade or category display is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 11 · geological modelling stage.
Sectional interrogation is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 12 · geological modelling stage. Sectional interrogation is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 12 · geological modelling stage.
Model boundary review is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 13 · geological modelling stage. Model boundary review is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 13 · geological modelling stage.
Resource-domain comparison is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 14 · geological modelling stage. Resource-domain comparison is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 14 · geological modelling stage.
Pit or design context is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 15 · geological modelling stage. Pit or design context is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 15 · geological modelling stage.
Integrated 3D scene is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 16 · geological modelling stage. Integrated 3D scene is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 16 · geological modelling stage.
Output quality control is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 17 · geological modelling stage. Output quality control is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 17 · geological modelling stage.
Final geological model presentation is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 18 · geological modelling stage. Final geological model presentation is documented in Maptek Vulcan at the 18 · geological modelling stage.
Building the stratigraphic slope section is documented in Rocscience Slide2 at the 01 · model setup stage. Building the stratigraphic slope section is documented in Rocscience Slide2 at the 01 · model setup stage.
Defining slip-surface search parameters is documented in Rocscience Slide2 at the 02 · model setup stage. Defining slip-surface search parameters is documented in Rocscience Slide2 at the 02 · model setup stage.
Running the stability search is documented in Rocscience Slide2 at the 03 · analysis and result stage. Running the stability search is documented in Rocscience Slide2 at the 03 · analysis and result stage.
Reviewing the calculated slope model is documented in Rocscience Slide2 at the 04 · analysis and result stage. Reviewing the calculated slope model is documented in Rocscience Slide2 at the 04 · analysis and result stage.
2D seismic section with multi-horizon interpretation is documented in Petrel at the 14 · seismic structural interpretation stage. 2D seismic section with multi-horizon interpretation is documented in Petrel at the 14 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Intersecting seismic sections with interpreted horizons in 3D is documented in Petrel at the 15 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Intersecting seismic sections with interpreted horizons in 3D is documented in Petrel at the 15 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Vertical seismic panel with interpreted surface intersection is documented in Petrel at the 16 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Vertical seismic panel with interpreted surface intersection is documented in Petrel at the 16 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Orthogonal seismic panels for crossline consistency review is documented in Petrel at the 17 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Orthogonal seismic panels for crossline consistency review is documented in Petrel at the 17 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Seismic display opacity and colour-control review is documented in Petrel at the 18 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Seismic display opacity and colour-control review is documented in Petrel at the 18 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Interpreted horizons across a vertical seismic section is documented in Petrel at the 19 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Interpreted horizons across a vertical seismic section is documented in Petrel at the 19 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Multi-panel seismic intersection for horizon tie checking is documented in Petrel at the 20 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Multi-panel seismic intersection for horizon tie checking is documented in Petrel at the 20 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Horizon surface introduced beneath the seismic framework is documented in Petrel at the 21 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Horizon surface introduced beneath the seismic framework is documented in Petrel at the 21 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Horizon continuity review across a disrupted seismic interval is documented in Petrel at the 22 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Horizon continuity review across a disrupted seismic interval is documented in Petrel at the 22 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Seismic-to-surface relationship in a 3D intersection is documented in Petrel at the 23 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Seismic-to-surface relationship in a 3D intersection is documented in Petrel at the 23 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Time-structure surface visualisation is documented in Petrel at the 24 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Time-structure surface visualisation is documented in Petrel at the 24 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Fault-stick geometry displayed on orthogonal panels is documented in Petrel at the 25 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Fault-stick geometry displayed on orthogonal panels is documented in Petrel at the 25 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Fault traces and horizon offsets on a seismic section is documented in Petrel at the 26 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Fault traces and horizon offsets on a seismic section is documented in Petrel at the 26 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Single fault surface positioned against seismic control is documented in Petrel at the 27 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Single fault surface positioned against seismic control is documented in Petrel at the 27 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Fault surface cut by the seismic–horizon framework is documented in Petrel at the 28 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Fault surface cut by the seismic–horizon framework is documented in Petrel at the 28 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Alternative fault-surface geometry against seismic control is documented in Petrel at the 29 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Alternative fault-surface geometry against seismic control is documented in Petrel at the 29 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Multi-fault stick set with seismic context is documented in Petrel at the 30 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Multi-fault stick set with seismic context is documented in Petrel at the 30 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Expanded fault-stick network and segmentation is documented in Petrel at the 31 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Expanded fault-stick network and segmentation is documented in Petrel at the 31 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Dense multi-fault interpretation framework in 3D is documented in Petrel at the 32 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Dense multi-fault interpretation framework in 3D is documented in Petrel at the 32 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Fault-stick subset isolated for structural review is documented in Petrel at the 33 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Fault-stick subset isolated for structural review is documented in Petrel at the 33 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Colour-coded fault surfaces from interpreted fault sticks is documented in Petrel at the 34 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Colour-coded fault surfaces from interpreted fault sticks is documented in Petrel at the 34 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Structural surface map with elevation or time colour ramp is documented in Petrel at the 35 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Structural surface map with elevation or time colour ramp is documented in Petrel at the 35 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Surface morphology and lineament continuity review is documented in Petrel at the 36 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Surface morphology and lineament continuity review is documented in Petrel at the 36 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Surface map integrated with orthogonal seismic sections is documented in Petrel at the 37 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Surface map integrated with orthogonal seismic sections is documented in Petrel at the 37 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Fault-controlled surface geometry in map view is documented in Petrel at the 38 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Fault-controlled surface geometry in map view is documented in Petrel at the 38 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Mapped surface tied back to vertical seismic control is documented in Petrel at the 39 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Mapped surface tied back to vertical seismic control is documented in Petrel at the 39 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Stacked interpreted horizons and fault framework is documented in Petrel at the 40 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Stacked interpreted horizons and fault framework is documented in Petrel at the 40 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Single interpreted structural surface for morphology QC is documented in Petrel at the 41 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Single interpreted structural surface for morphology QC is documented in Petrel at the 41 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Surface attribute map highlighting structural texture is documented in Petrel at the 42 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Surface attribute map highlighting structural texture is documented in Petrel at the 42 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Categorical surface-attribute display is documented in Petrel at the 43 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Categorical surface-attribute display is documented in Petrel at the 43 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Attribute surface inspected with intersecting seismic panels is documented in Petrel at the 44 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Attribute surface inspected with intersecting seismic panels is documented in Petrel at the 44 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Multiple stacked surfaces for vertical-relationship review is documented in Petrel at the 45 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Multiple stacked surfaces for vertical-relationship review is documented in Petrel at the 45 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Contoured structural surface and smoothing review is documented in Petrel at the 46 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Contoured structural surface and smoothing review is documented in Petrel at the 46 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Stacked horizon surfaces with colour-coded stratigraphic order is documented in Petrel at the 47 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Stacked horizon surfaces with colour-coded stratigraphic order is documented in Petrel at the 47 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Selected horizon stack emphasising vertical separation is documented in Petrel at the 48 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Selected horizon stack emphasising vertical separation is documented in Petrel at the 48 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Complete multi-horizon stack in 3D is documented in Petrel at the 49 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Complete multi-horizon stack in 3D is documented in Petrel at the 49 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Fault framework beneath an overlying structural surface is documented in Petrel at the 50 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Fault framework beneath an overlying structural surface is documented in Petrel at the 50 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Grid-based structural framework above interpreted faults is documented in Petrel at the 51 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Grid-based structural framework above interpreted faults is documented in Petrel at the 51 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Surface and fault framework viewed as one structural system is documented in Petrel at the 52 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Surface and fault framework viewed as one structural system is documented in Petrel at the 52 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Seismic section, surfaces and faults integrated in 3D is documented in Petrel at the 53 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Seismic section, surfaces and faults integrated in 3D is documented in Petrel at the 53 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Alternative view of the integrated seismic–fault–surface model is documented in Petrel at the 54 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Alternative view of the integrated seismic–fault–surface model is documented in Petrel at the 54 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
Final integrated structural framework with horizons, faults and seismic panels is documented in Petrel at the 55 · seismic structural interpretation stage. Final integrated structural framework with horizons, faults and seismic panels is documented in Petrel at the 55 · seismic structural interpretation stage.
SOURCE 05
Sheet 20 opens the 5-sheet RTB 09 profile and establishes the track order and scale that must remain unchanged through the following tranches. Across the complete RTB 09 profile, Seam D is source-correlated at approximately 142–147 m; that interval is an anchor for checking the order and scale carried across these sheets.
Sheet 21 is tranche 2 of the 5-sheet RTB 09 profile, bounded by Sheets 20 and 22; continuity at both joins is part of the evidence. Across the complete RTB 09 profile, Seam D is source-correlated at approximately 142–147 m; that interval is an anchor for checking the order and scale carried across these sheets.
Sheet 22 is tranche 3 of the 5-sheet RTB 09 profile, bounded by Sheets 21 and 23; continuity at both joins is part of the evidence. Across the complete RTB 09 profile, Seam D is source-correlated at approximately 142–147 m; that interval is an anchor for checking the order and scale carried across these sheets.
Sheet 23 is tranche 4 of the 5-sheet RTB 09 profile, bounded by Sheets 22 and 24; continuity at both joins is part of the evidence. Across the complete RTB 09 profile, Seam D is source-correlated at approximately 142–147 m; that interval is an anchor for checking the order and scale carried across these sheets.
Sheet 24 closes the 5-sheet RTB 09 profile; its upper boundary must join Sheet 23 without a duplicated or omitted depth interval. Across the complete RTB 09 profile, Seam D is source-correlated at approximately 142–147 m; that interval is an anchor for checking the order and scale carried across these sheets.
Sheet 25 opens the 4-sheet RTB 11 profile and establishes the track order and scale that must remain unchanged through the following tranches. The thesis correlation places Seam A1 at about 29–37 m and Seam B2 at about 104–109 m in RTB 11, providing two separated anchors for testing track alignment and intervening stratigraphy.
Sheet 26 is tranche 2 of the 4-sheet RTB 11 profile, bounded by Sheets 25 and 27; continuity at both joins is part of the evidence. The thesis correlation places Seam A1 at about 29–37 m and Seam B2 at about 104–109 m in RTB 11, providing two separated anchors for testing track alignment and intervening stratigraphy.
Sheet 27 is tranche 3 of the 4-sheet RTB 11 profile, bounded by Sheets 26 and 28; continuity at both joins is part of the evidence. The thesis correlation places Seam A1 at about 29–37 m and Seam B2 at about 104–109 m in RTB 11, providing two separated anchors for testing track alignment and intervening stratigraphy.
Sheet 28 closes the 4-sheet RTB 11 profile; its upper boundary must join Sheet 27 without a duplicated or omitted depth interval. The thesis correlation places Seam A1 at about 29–37 m and Seam B2 at about 104–109 m in RTB 11, providing two separated anchors for testing track alignment and intervening stratigraphy.
Sheet 29 opens the 4-sheet RTS 74 profile and establishes the track order and scale that must remain unchanged through the following tranches. The source places Seam A1 at about 14–24 m and Seam B2 at about 107–112 m in RTS 74; the wide vertical separation makes continuous depth registration between sheets especially important.
Sheet 30 is tranche 2 of the 4-sheet RTS 74 profile, bounded by Sheets 29 and 31; continuity at both joins is part of the evidence. The source places Seam A1 at about 14–24 m and Seam B2 at about 107–112 m in RTS 74; the wide vertical separation makes continuous depth registration between sheets especially important.
Sheet 31 is tranche 3 of the 4-sheet RTS 74 profile, bounded by Sheets 30 and 32; continuity at both joins is part of the evidence. The source places Seam A1 at about 14–24 m and Seam B2 at about 107–112 m in RTS 74; the wide vertical separation makes continuous depth registration between sheets especially important.
Sheet 32 closes the 4-sheet RTS 74 profile; its upper boundary must join Sheet 31 without a duplicated or omitted depth interval. The source places Seam A1 at about 14–24 m and Seam B2 at about 107–112 m in RTS 74; the wide vertical separation makes continuous depth registration between sheets especially important.
Sheet 33 opens the 7-sheet RTS 01 profile and establishes the track order and scale that must remain unchanged through the following tranches. Across the assembled RTS 01 record, Seam D is source-correlated at approximately 181–185 m; the pick is meaningful only when the adjoining tranches preserve an unbroken depth sequence.
Sheet 34 is tranche 2 of the 7-sheet RTS 01 profile, bounded by Sheets 33 and 35; continuity at both joins is part of the evidence. Across the assembled RTS 01 record, Seam D is source-correlated at approximately 181–185 m; the pick is meaningful only when the adjoining tranches preserve an unbroken depth sequence.
Sheet 35 is tranche 3 of the 7-sheet RTS 01 profile, bounded by Sheets 34 and 36; continuity at both joins is part of the evidence. Across the assembled RTS 01 record, Seam D is source-correlated at approximately 181–185 m; the pick is meaningful only when the adjoining tranches preserve an unbroken depth sequence.
Sheet 36 is tranche 4 of the 7-sheet RTS 01 profile, bounded by Sheets 35 and 37; continuity at both joins is part of the evidence. Across the assembled RTS 01 record, Seam D is source-correlated at approximately 181–185 m; the pick is meaningful only when the adjoining tranches preserve an unbroken depth sequence.
Sheet 37 is tranche 5 of the 7-sheet RTS 01 profile, bounded by Sheets 36 and 38; continuity at both joins is part of the evidence. Across the assembled RTS 01 record, Seam D is source-correlated at approximately 181–185 m; the pick is meaningful only when the adjoining tranches preserve an unbroken depth sequence.
Sheet 38 is tranche 6 of the 7-sheet RTS 01 profile, bounded by Sheets 37 and 39; continuity at both joins is part of the evidence. Across the assembled RTS 01 record, Seam D is source-correlated at approximately 181–185 m; the pick is meaningful only when the adjoining tranches preserve an unbroken depth sequence.
Sheet 39 closes the 7-sheet RTS 01 profile; its upper boundary must join Sheet 38 without a duplicated or omitted depth interval. Across the assembled RTS 01 record, Seam D is source-correlated at approximately 181–185 m; the pick is meaningful only when the adjoining tranches preserve an unbroken depth sequence.
Sheet 40 opens the 5-sheet RTS 06 profile and establishes the track order and scale that must remain unchanged through the following tranches. The thesis places Seam A1 at about 87–96 m and Seam B2 at about 161–165 m in RTS 06.
Sheet 41 is tranche 2 of the 5-sheet RTS 06 profile, bounded by Sheets 40 and 42; continuity at both joins is part of the evidence. The thesis places Seam A1 at about 87–96 m and Seam B2 at about 161–165 m in RTS 06.
Sheet 42 is tranche 3 of the 5-sheet RTS 06 profile, bounded by Sheets 41 and 43; continuity at both joins is part of the evidence. The thesis places Seam A1 at about 87–96 m and Seam B2 at about 161–165 m in RTS 06.
Sheet 43 is tranche 4 of the 5-sheet RTS 06 profile, bounded by Sheets 42 and 44; continuity at both joins is part of the evidence. The thesis places Seam A1 at about 87–96 m and Seam B2 at about 161–165 m in RTS 06.
Sheet 44 closes the 5-sheet RTS 06 profile; its upper boundary must join Sheet 43 without a duplicated or omitted depth interval. The thesis places Seam A1 at about 87–96 m and Seam B2 at about 161–165 m in RTS 06.
The integrated correlation panel places the individual well sheets in one stratigraphic frame. Marker continuity is persuasive only where lithology, gamma response, density behaviour and superposition agree; line smoothness between wells is interpretive and should not be confused with measured continuity.
SOURCE 06
Advance Well Control records formal training, participation or completion issued by the named provider. The document supports the training history; practical application is shown separately in the relevant project and software records.
APDI Drone Training records formal training, participation or completion issued by the named provider. The document supports the training history; practical application is shown separately in the relevant project and software records.
ArcGIS Pro Training records formal training, participation or completion issued by the named provider. The document supports the training history; practical application is shown separately in the relevant project and software records.
Geotechnical Software Suite records formal training, participation or completion issued by the named provider. The document supports the training history; practical application is shown separately in the relevant project and software records.
Micromine EduBlast records formal training, participation or completion issued by the named provider. The document supports the training history; practical application is shown separately in the relevant project and software records.
MineScape Planning records formal training, participation or completion issued by the named provider. The document supports the training history; practical application is shown separately in the relevant project and software records.
Geological Modelling Training records formal training, participation or completion issued by the named provider. The document supports the training history; practical application is shown separately in the relevant project and software records.
PT Bukit Asam Internship records formal training, participation or completion issued by the named provider. The document supports the training history; practical application is shown separately in the relevant project and software records.
Surpac & MineSched records formal training, participation or completion issued by the named provider. The document supports the training history; practical application is shown separately in the relevant project and software records.
Surpac Resource Modelling records formal training, participation or completion issued by the named provider. The document supports the training history; practical application is shown separately in the relevant project and software records.
Vulcan Foundation records formal training, participation or completion issued by the named provider. The document supports the training history; practical application is shown separately in the relevant project and software records.
The document presents verified education, selected technical projects, research, software, technical training, leadership, mobility and evidence-based role alignment. The CV is a recruiter-facing summary; detailed proof remains in the linked project, software, field, publication and documentary records.
Undergraduate Thesis Visual Archive records formal training, participation or completion issued by the named provider. The document supports the training history; practical application is shown separately in the relevant project and software records.
Geological Mapping Visual Archive records formal training, participation or completion issued by the named provider. The document supports the training history; practical application is shown separately in the relevant project and software records.
PTBA Internship Visual Archive records formal training, participation or completion issued by the named provider. The document supports the training history; practical application is shown separately in the relevant project and software records.
Accepted Manuscript records formal training, participation or completion issued by the named provider. The document supports the training history; practical application is shown separately in the relevant project and software records.
Letter of Acceptance records formal training, participation or completion issued by the named provider. The document supports the training history; practical application is shown separately in the relevant project and software records.
Petrel Reservoir Training — Completion with Grade A records formal training, participation or completion issued by the named provider. The document supports the training history; practical application is shown separately in the relevant project and software records.
SOURCE 07
This record is the publication checkpoint for the Pit N research, not a substitute for the underlying thesis data. The official journal page identifies Muhammad Rafi Al Hawari and Harnani as authors, records publication on 25 February 2026 in GeoScienceEd Journal 7(1), pages 661–673, and assigns DOI 10.29303/goescienceed.v7i1.1741.
The opening page defines the research question: how core lithology and wireline response can be integrated across Seams A1 through D in Pit N. Its abstract is best read as a map of the analytical sequence—identify coal and interburden intervals, compare gamma-ray and density behaviour, correlate the wells, then interpret vertical facies change.
The second page sets the operational and geological motivation for correlating a vertically stacked coal succession in the Muara Enim Formation. It connects the objective to regional stratigraphy and the practical need to separate seam from interburden, while also exposing the scale gap between basin-level depositional models and five-well Pit N control.
Here the manuscript moves from regional context to the actual evidence chain: borehole locations, lithologic descriptions, gamma-ray and density tracks, marker correlation and qualitative electrofacies. The method is appropriate for a reconnaissance facies synthesis, but it is not a quantitative petrophysical inversion.
This page establishes the log-reading grammar used in the paper. Low gamma response and a boxcar or cylindrical motif are associated with coal, whereas serrated or irregular traces characterize mineralogically mixed interburden; the source also uses density counts per second, whose direction must not be confused with calibrated bulk-density units.
The summary table is the manuscript’s interpretive ledger, aligning each seam and interburden with lithology, log motif and proposed environment. Its strength is consistency across the vertical succession; its vulnerability is circularity if the same motif first defines a facies and is then cited as proof of that facies.
The D–C interval compares two levels of borehole control: Seam D is represented by two wells and about 4 m of banded coal, whereas Seam C is traced through five wells and is approximately 8–14 m thick with a clay parting. Both show low-gamma coal signatures, but C’s greater spatial coverage makes its continuity more defensible.
Across C, B2 and B1 the page documents repetition rather than uniformity: low-gamma coal bodies are separated by finer, more variable interburden, while seam thickness and parting character change between levels. B2 is about 4–5 m and B1 about 9–14 m in the source interpretation, both from three-well control.
The B1–A2 comparison shows two thick coal packages separated by a heterolithic interval that includes the Suban marker. B1 carries thin clay partings; A2 is approximately 12–15 m thick and includes clay bands or partings about 2–15 cm.
This page completes the upper succession: fine heterolithic A2–B1 strata pass into the mudstone–shale roof and the variable 3–10 m Seam A1, with A1–A2 interburden containing fine, locally tuffaceous sandstone. The vertical change is real at the sampled wells; its lateral persistence is interpretive.
The first synthesis table compresses the lower and middle succession into one correlation framework. It is valuable for checking whether lithology, seam name, core depth and log motif remain internally consistent across the manuscript.
The continuation table carries the same audit through the upper seams and interburdens. Apparent environmental cyclicity is plausible because coal, fine clastic packages and marker beds recur vertically, but sequence boundaries and systems tracts require more than recurrence.
The environmental diagram is the paper’s highest-order interpretation. It organizes the vertical succession into changing peat-forming and clastic depositional conditions, drawing on core texture, heterolithic structures and electrofacies.
The conclusion accurately condenses the observed contrast between relatively uniform low-gamma coal seams and more variable interburden, then relates that contrast to the proposed vertical facies evolution. Its generalization is bounded by the small well set and qualitative log analysis.
The reference page documents the intellectual provenance of the electrofacies, coal-geology and depositional interpretations. References provide definitions and analogues; they do not validate a local facies assignment unless the Pit N observations satisfy the cited criteria.
The acceptance letter records manuscript number 1741/UN18.9.5/DT/V7N1/2026, the authors Muhammad Rafi Al Hawari and Harnani, and an acceptance date of 23 February 2026 for Volume 7 Number 1. It verifies the editorial milestone only; peer-review content and publication metadata are governed by the journal record.
SOURCE 08
The organising committee checks participant readiness and coordinates the room before the technical programme begins. As Organising Committee Chair, I coordinated the committee, participant flow and communication with the host team.
Committee members are documented in the event uniform after completing preparation for the Pertamina Hulu Rokan programme. The record supports my leadership role in organising the visit and keeping the team aligned.
The presentation introduces Pertamina’s AKHLAK values and the organisational context of the upstream programme. I included this session in the visit agenda to connect technical exposure with professional culture and workplace expectations.
A commemorative token is presented to the host representative at the close of the programme. The handover formed part of the formal closing sequence that I coordinated as Organising Committee Chair.
The group photograph records the organising committee, participants and host representatives after the technical session. It documents the completed programme and the cross-team coordination required to deliver it.
A technical presentation is in progress while the committee manages the room, participants and supporting equipment. This stage shows the event moving from preparation into technical delivery under the organising team I led.
The final session brings together the committee and host team after the programme activities have been completed. The documentation closes the event record and supports my role in programme coordination.
The committee and participants gather at Universitas Sriwijaya with the official visit banner before travelling to the geothermal facility. I coordinated the participant group, schedule and departure readiness as Organising Committee Chair.
The group is documented at the Ulubelu facility after arrival for the industry programme. This photograph records the site visit delivered by the committee I led.
An individual photograph at the facility entrance confirms the location and institutional context of the visit. It forms part of the complete documentation set for the Ulubelu programme.
The full delegation is documented with the official visit banner before the technical programme. The record shows the scale of the group and the coordination responsibility carried by the organising committee.
Participants attend a technical briefing with site helmets prepared for the field programme. The session connects geothermal-industry exposure with safety preparation and structured technical learning.
Participants and instructors are documented after completing the supervised UAV training activities. The training strengthened my familiarity with UAV equipment for field documentation and mapping support.
Participants practise equipment preparation and component handling under instructor supervision. The activity builds practical discipline in setup, checking and safe equipment handling.
The instructor and participant document the completion of the practical training session. This record supports the training history shown alongside the technical portfolio.