IPA16-495-G

PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION

Fortieth Annual Convention & Exhibition, May 2016

INTEGRATED CHRONOSTRATIGRAPHIC CORRELATION AND ITS DILEMMA: A CASE

STUDY IN WEST NATUNA BASIN BLOCK “B” ARANG FORMATION

Hanaga Simabrata*
Budi R Permana*
Agus Sulistiarso*
Retno Wijayanti*
Redo D Waworuntu*

* ConocoPhillips Indonesia Ltd.

ABSTRACT
In well correlation, biostratigraphy typically
underpins the chronostratigraphic framework.
Unfortunately, biostratigraphy has some
shortcomings. These issues arise because
biostratigraphic analysis is commonly performed
using cuttings data which is prone to caving, mixing
during transport and improper sampling. These
issues can lead to erroneous age interpretation
which can make well correlation sometimes
inaccurate. In order to improve the
chronostratigraphic correlation in the West Natuna
Basin, an integrated approach using log characters,
the biostratigraphic data and the seismic has been
utilized.
The first step of this method was to characterize the
key seismic markers (i.e. reflectors) which are
continuous and consistent across the study area.
These markers potentially represent flooding
surfaces, regionally extensive coal layers or other
major events. These markers were then tied to each
well and used as age-equivalent horizons. The
seismic markers were then compared and combined
when possible to the biostratigraphic age to form an
integrated interpretation. Finally, incised valleys
identified on seismic were incorporated with the
environment signal from the biostratigraphic
analysis to interpret sequence stratigraphic surfaces.
After combining this data, it was observed that the
seismic markers rarely matched the biostratigraphic
age. Based on the relative quality of the data, the
seismic markers were interpreted to be more
reliable and therefore were used as the primary
source for the chronostratigraphic framework. For
major events such as sequence boundaries (SB) and
maximum flooding surfaces (MFS), a combination
of seismic and biostratigraphy were used. Using
these methods, five seismic markers, seven possible
sequence boundaries (SB) and two maximum
flooding surfaces (MFS) were identified.
In conclusion, this study illustrates that
biostratigraphy alone may not be sufficient to
identify and correlate key events. An integrated
approach using both seismic and biostratigraphy is
the best method to determine chronostratigraphic
correlation. For the West Natuna Basin, this
methodology has provided new insights in
correlation of the Miocene Arang Formation across
the basin.
Keywords: Chronostratigraphy, Biostratigraphy,
Seismic Marker, West Natuna Basin, Arang
Formation
INTRODUCTION
Conventional well correlation is commonly
conducted by simple log pattern matching from one
well to another. This lithostratigraphic correlation
method is highly subjective and therefore the
correlation model could be different from one
geologist to the other, especially on a basin scale. In
order to provide the best possible correlation,
biostratigraphic age data and seismic correlation
should be utilized. These markers will provide
boundaries which will help to restrict the
uncertainty in the correlation (Figure 1).
Previously in Block B, a chronostratigraphic
framework for the Miocene Arang Formation was
constructed using only biostratigraphic data. This
interpretation, although sufficient for first pass
regional work, was fraught with many uncertainties
since the biostratigraphic data consisted of many
different vintages and interpreters and the quality of
the interpreter was unknown. Furthermore, most of
the data in that study was taken from ditch cuttings
which at best represent a mixture of samples from a
narrow depth interval and at worse from several
depth intervals due to cavings in the well bore. This
uncertainty will obviously have a considerable
impact on the interpretation. In order to address this
issue, this study utilized high resolution seismic
with the biostratigraphic data. Seismic reflectors are
equivalent to chronostratigraphic horizons as
demonstrated by Vail (1977), thus are
complementary to biostratigraphy and other
chronostratigraphic methods. Moreover, high
resolution seismic is also very useful to detect
sequence boundary which usually manifests as an
incised valley in the continental shelf (Figure 2).
This paper highlights how careful integration of
seismic and biostratigraphic data can improve the
chronostratigraphic framework and provide an
interpretation that can identify sequence boundaries
for regional and local data. In addition, this paper
discusses the consistency and inconsistency of
seismic and biostratigraphic data and provides
insight for solving difficult correlations (e.g. abrupt
facies changes). The study was conducted on the
Miocene Arang Formation in Block B of the West
Natuna Basin where high quality seismic and
abundant well and biostratigraphic data are
available.
Data
Forty-eight (48) wells were used in the study. All of
the wells have standard electric logs (i.e. gamma ray
and resistivity) and 25 out of 48 have
biostratigraphic reports. In addition, 7117 square
kilometers of high resolution 3D merge post-stack
seismic data and several thousand kilometers of 2D
seismic data were used in this study (Figure 3). In
total, the seismic data covers an area of 120 Km X
200 Km in the West Natuna Basin.
Stratigraphy
Contemporary stratigraphic successions of the West
Natuna Basin are grouped based on the prevalent
tectonic regime in which the sediments were
deposited. Ginger et al (1993), classified the
stratigraphy of West Natuna Basin into four tectono-
megasequences: syn-rift, post-rift, syn-inversion
and post-inversion respectively from the oldest to
the youngest. This division also became a standard
model for the stratigraphic column presented in this
paper (Figure 4).
The Miocene Arang Formation was deposited in a
compressional tectonic regime, where its
depositional process was strongly controlled by
reactivated basement faults. Near those faults,
anticlines were formed and the accommodation
space near those anticlines was decreasing rapidly.
Consequently, thinning and onlaps were frequently
seen around them. The results of biostratigraphic
analysis, well log analysis and amplitude
extractions suggested that the dominant depositional
environments were fluvial to tidal (which were
suitable for coal development).
METHODOLOGY
The method used in this study involved several
steps of seismic interpretation and extracting
information about biostratigraphic age and
environment signals from historic internal
biostratigraphy reports (Figure 5). The seismic
interpretation consisted of seismic marker
identification where age-equivalent horizons were
interpreted; and incised valley identification where
sequence boundary cycles were identified. Upon
integration, the seismic markers were combined
with the biostratigraphic age data to get a final
chronostratigraphic framework. The sequence
stratigraphic surfaces were determined by
integrating the interpreted incised valleys and the
environmental signals indicated from the
biostratigraphic data. These were then correlated
using the final chronostratigraphic framework.
Detail explanations about the methods are follows:
Seismic Marker Identification
The most fundamental step of this study was to
identify seismic markers (i.e. reflectors) that were
used as regional chronostratigraphic boundaries
(age-equivalent horizons). The most favorable
seismic markers were those which are continuous
over an extensive area. Some examples of this
included a flooding surface, a regional coal layer, or
a significant geological event such as an angular
unconformity (Figure 6 Top). Other reflectors
whose genetic relationship is unknown were also
used as markers for age-equivalent horizons as long
as they are continuous and easy to interpret (Figure
6 Bottom). These genetically-unidentified markers
provided additional surfaces which can help define
the chronostratigraphic framework. In order to
characterize these regional seismic markers/events
(i.e. flooding surface, or coal layer etc.), the well
data were tied to the seismic.
Incised Valley Identification
After regional seismic marker picks had been
identified and all of the wells were tied to seismic,
the next step was to determine if there were any
incised valleys present on the seismic sections. The
Incised valleys were then used as a sequence
boundary indicator and the number identified
vertically gave an insight on how many sequence
boundary indicators could be directly seen in the
seismic data. The incised valleys should represent a
high order sequence boundary that can be traced
regionally on relatively the same interval. In order
to accurately determine the position of the sequence
boundary away from the incised valleys, one needs
to trace that incision point up to the interfluve.
Even though this approach makes sequence
boundary identification easier, caution must be
taken because sequence boundaries do not
necessarily manifest themselves as incised valleys.
An incised valley is mostly formed when base-level
falls creating negative accommodation space on
continental shelf (exposure of the shelf-slope
break), thus triggering fluvial incision and sediment
bypass (Posamentier, 2001).
Integration of Seismic and Biostratigraphic Data
In this study, there are two aspects in which seismic
interpretation and biostratigraphic analysis were
being integrated. The two aspects are:
A. Seismic Marker vs. Biostratigraphic Age
In this aspect, the seismic markers (age-equivalent
horizons) and the biostratigraphic ages were
compared to see the consistency between those data.
Theoretically both data are time horizons and
therefore they should not intersect. If the horizons
intersect each other, then they must be re-evaluated
and erroneous data should be eliminated. The goal
of this work was to generate a consistent
chronostratigraphic framework between these two
data sources. This framework can then be used as a
guide to constrain other correlation methods such as
the shale-resistivity marker (SRM) method or the
sequence stratigraphy method which is
demonstrated in this paper.
B. Incised Valley vs. Biostratigraphic
Environment Signal
In this aspect, an integration of incised valleys and
environment signal from the biostratigraphic reports
were utilized to decipher sequence stratigraphic
surfaces. This integration was guided by the final
chronostratigraphic framework so that correct
sequence stratigraphic surfaces between wells can
be correlated. In this case study, seismic only
deciphered sequence boundaries (from incised
valley), whereas biostratigraphy revealed both
sequence boundary and flooding surface/maximum
flooding surface using the environmental signals.
Figure 7 shows an example of environment signal
from biostratigraphy that represents change in
depositional environment. Maximum basin-ward
curve in environment signal was marked as a
candidate for maximum flooding surface/flooding
surface, whereas abrupt/sharp environment change
(either landward or seaward) was considered as a
candidate for sequence boundary based on
biostratigraphy.
RESULTS AND DISCUSION
Seismic Marker
Six seismic markers (SM) were identified in Block
B, two of which are genetic markers: TS 1000
(transgressive surface) and SM100 (regional coal
marker).The others are unidentified markers: SM 0,
SM 300, SM 500 and SM 700 (Figure 8). In terms
of continuity, the genetic markers are better than the
unidentified markers. For example, the TS 1000 and
SM 100 are remarkably continuous across the study
area whereas SM500 becomes discontinuous in the
southern area.
Incised Valley
Four incised valleys (SB1000, SB 950, SB 920 and
SB 910) were identified in Miocene Arang
Formation, Block B (Fig 9). Observations of
seismic section suggested that the incised valleys
are only visible in the Muda Formation to Upper
and Middle Arang interval. In the Lower Arang and
older units, no incised valleys were identified
(might be a genetic issue or just lack of seismic
resolution in the deeper section). Consequently,
determining sequence boundaries in the lower part
of Arang Formation depended solely on the
biostratigraphy.
Integration of Seismic and Biostratigraphic Data
A. Seismic marker vs. Biostratigraphic Age
The result of the study showed that most of the
seismic markers do not agree with the
biostratigraphic age in the wells. (e.g., one seismic
marker is above a biostratigraphic pick in one well
and below the same biostratigraphic pick in another
well). The only seismic marker that agrees
regionally with biostratigraphy is SM 0 which is
coincident with Top Casuarina Zone (Figure 10).
Based on a thorough evaluation, there were no
problems regarding the well to seismic tie.
There are two possible reasons why the seismic
markers do not agree with the biostratigraphic data.
The first possible reason was associated with the
data quality and is the author’s preference in
explaining the dispute between seismic and
biostratigraphy. The second one was conceptual and
is presented on this paper as an alternative or a
second opinion regarding the issue. Each of the
possible reason is explained as follows:
The First possibility:
The potential error might have come from the
cutting data which were used for biostratigraphic
analysis. During drilling, cutting samples can
consist of several depth intervals if the well bore is
unstable. In addition, improper sampling during
drilling could also affect the precision of the
biostratigraphic data and resulting analysis. Another
concern is that biostratigraphic zonations have
changed through time. Biostratigraphic age is an
interpretation contemporary only to the date of their
publication (Bigood, et.al. 2015). The
biostratigraphic information used in this study were
taken from reports with varying years of publication
(multi-vintage), hence the references used among
biostratigrapher could have been different.
On the other hand, the quality of the seismic data in
this study was considered to be better than the
biostratigraphy because most of the study area has
been covered by a high resolution 3D seismic. Two
dimensional (2D) seismic sections from older
vintage also agree with the 3D seismic. Seismic
data also provides an areal interpretation of the
stratigraphy whereas biostratigraphy only gives
information for a single point in space (1D
resolution).
The two genetic seismic markers (TS 1000 &
SM100/coal) are incredibly continuous, hence
unlikely to miss pick/interpret. The genetically-
unidentified seismic markers are also good in term
of continuity, even though the reflector is unclear in
several areas locally.
Based on those arguments, most of the
biostratigraphic ages were eliminated and the
seismic markers were used as the primary source for
final chronostratigraphic framework in this study.
Perfect correlation between seismic and
biostratigraphy rarely occurs and is only possible if
both the seismic data quality clearly identifies the
seismic events and the wells have high resolution
biostratigraphic sampling and high quality
interpretation like that demonstrated by Eberli et al
(2000) in the Bahamas.
The Second possibility:
The second possibility is that the seismic reflector
might not actually be a chronostratigraphic surface.
This issue had already been raised by He & Zeng
(2013) opposing Vail’s basic assumption. Their
paper attempted to forward modeling the data used
by Vail et.al (1997) to recreate the
chronostratigraphic correlation (Figure 11). He and
Zeng created four forward models to test this
theory. Two forward models using frequency 90 Hz
and 20 Hz shows that seismic reflector is a
chronostratigraphic line and another two models
show lithostratigraphic pattern that cross-cut time
lines (Figure 12). Apparently this is just a matter of
resolution.
B. Incised Valley vs. Biostratigraphic
Environment Signal
The sequence boundary and flooding
surface/maximum flooding surface candidates from
biostratigraphic analysis were plotted together with
the four sequence boundaries defined from the
incised valleys and the final chronostratigraphic
framework (i.e. the seismic markers) (Figure 13).
The plot shows that some of the SB and MFS
candidates from biostratigraphy were fairly
consistent in some wells but were unidentified in
others. One of the MFS/FS candidates coincides
with SM 700, indicating that SM 700 may actually
be a flooding surface. Furthermore, the
biostratigraphy suggested that there are three other
possible candidates for sequence boundaries in the
section below SM300 that do not manifest as
incised valleys. Therefore, the combination of
biostratigraphy and seismic gave the best result
(Figure 14).
In summary (Figure 14), there are four sequence
boundaries (SB 1000, SB 950, SB 920 and SB 910)
identified directly from incised valley, and three
sequence boundaries (SB 800, SB 600 and SB
500) taken from biostratigraphic analysis. Two
maximum flooding surfaces (MFS 940 and MFS
700) were identified from biostratigraphy and log
pattern.
An evaluation was conducted to answer why the
candidate SB & MFS/FS do not appear consistently
on every well. As stated in the previous section, the
data used on biostratigraphy analysis is of poor
quality (from cutting), thus decreasing the accuracy
of the interpretation. Strong evidence supporting
this conclusion is observed in well Cucut-1 where
the biostratigraphic analysis (i.e. environmental
curve) failed to reveal SB 910 even though the well
penetrates directly into the well-imaged incised
valley (Figure 15).
Benefits of an integrated approach to well
correlation rather than conventional methods
Chronostratigraphic well to well correlation is an
effort to determine a structural or stratigraphical
unit that might be equivalent in time. Classical
methods use log pattern recognition to correlate and
the proficiency will increase with experience in a
certain region (Tearpock and Bischke, 1991). In this
approach, shale sections are assumed to be
regionally extensive and therefore correlatable. The
issue with this methodology is not all shales are
regionally extensive and there is no framework to
determine how to reliably correlate the shale units.
Additionally, this accuracy of determining sequence
stratigraphic surfaces is low since they may
manifest themselves differently in each well. For
instance, the classical sequence boundary
identification in a well is a sharp-based sandstone,
representing the fill in a lowstand channel. A well
not intersecting this channel (just penetrating the
interfluve) would not manifest the same character at
the sequence boundary and therefore would be hard
to correlate. An effective solution to address this
issue is well and seismic correlation where log
pattern is not the only parameter considered, but
also the position of the marker in each well with
respect to the seismic reflector (Figure 16). This
method is also effective to identify incised valleys
that were filled in by shale (Figure 17). This
methodology relies on a good well to seismic tie in
order to provide confidence in the correlation
scheme.
CONCLUSIONS
In order to obtain a high quality chronostratigraphic
framework, integration of biostratigraphy and
seismic data were utilized. Upon integration, it was
observed that only a few biostratigraphic ages were
in agreement with seismic markers, thus causing the
dilemma. In response to the dilemma, most of the
biostratigraphic ages were considered invalid except
the Casuarina zone which is dominantly consistent
with the SM 0 seismic marker. This option was
chosen based on the fact that the quality of seismic
data is better than that of the biostratigraphy (3D
seismic versus cuttings). Accordingly, six seismic
markers (SM 0/Top of Casuarina, SM 100, SM 300,
SM 500, SM 700 and TS 1000) were taken as the
final chronostratigraphic framework. Seven
sequence boundaries (SB 500, SB 600, SB 800, SB
910, SB 920, SB 950 and SB 1000) and two
maximum flooding surfaces (MFS 700 and MFS
940) were identified from integrations of incised
valleys and biostratigraphic environment curves.
In addition to the identification of key sequence
stratigraphic events in this area, this study
demonstrated that well and seismic correlation
could help improve correlation in an area which
exhibits rapid facies changes (e.g. landward
environment) over a short distance. This
methodology also can help identify key
chronostratigraphic surfaces in well which are very
difficult to detect using a simple well correlation
method (e.g., shale-filled incised valley or other
shale to shale contacts).
One suggestion would be to review and normalize
the biostratigraphic database to investigate whether
the previous interpretations could be improved or
additional sampling of cuttings intervals would help
solve the apparent problems.
Finally, this study illustrates that biostratigraphy
alone may not be sufficient to identify and correlate
key events due to limited sampling, interpretational
differences and erroneous data. An integrated
approach using both seismic and biostratigraphy is
the best method to determine chronostratigraphic
correlation. For the West Natuna Basin, this
methodology has given a new insight in correlation
across the basin.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Many thanks to Yulfi Indra and all geologists who
gave tons of inputs and reviews about the geological
concept of this paper. A Credit also goes to all
geophysicists whose well-seismic ties were used in
this study. Finally, the authors want to express a
special recognition for Timothy J. Keller, Derik W.
Kleibacker and the Management of ConocoPhillips
who gave this paper a thorough review.
REFERENCES
Bidgood, M., Dlubak, M., Simmons, M., 2015,
Making The Most of Biostratigraphic Data:
Examples from Early Cretaceous to Late Jurassic
Clastic Reservoirs in Papua New Guinea and
Australasia: Neftex Exploration Insights,
Halliburton Landmark.
Eberli, Gregor.P., Anselmetti, Flavio.S., Kroon,
Dick., Sato, Tokiyuki., Wright, James.D., 2000,
The Chronostratigraphic Significance of Seismic
Refection Along the Bahamas Transect: Marine
Geology 185 (2002), p.1-17.
Ginger, D.C., Ardjakusumah, W.O., Hedley, R.J., &
Pothecary, J., 1993, Inversion History of the West
Natuna Basin: Examples from the Cumi-Cumi PSC:
Proceedings of 22nd annual convention of
Indonesian Petroleum Association, p. 181-196.
He,Yawen & Zeng,Hongliu., 2013,
Chronostratigraphy at the Seismic Scale:
Rethinking Vail et al.’s Basic Assumption: SEG
Huston, 2013 Annual meeting, p.1456-1461.
Posamentier, H. W., 2001, Lowstand Alluvial
Bypass Systems: Incised vs. Unincised: American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, Vol.
85, no. 10, p. 1771–1793.
Posamentier, H. and Allen, G., 1999, Siliciclastic
sequence stratigraphy – concepts and applications:
SEPM Concepts in Sedimentology and
Paleontology, no. 7, p. 210.
Tearpock, D.J., & Bischke, R.E., 1991, Applied
Subsurface Geological Mapping, Prentice-hall Inc.
 level. In: Payton,C.E. (Ed.), Seismic Stratigraphy
Applications to Hydrocarbon Exploration:
Vail, P.R., Mitchum, R.M. Jr., Thomson, S., 1977,
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Seismic stratigraphy and global changes of sea
Memoir 26, pp. 49-212.

Figure 1 - Comparison of conventional (pattern based, left figure) well correlation vs. biostratigraphic
correlation (right figure): The left figure shows possible picks for marker X in well B given a
pick in well A, whereas the right figure shows the correlation based on a biostratigraphic marker.
Figure 2 - Illustration of stratigraphic architecture in continental shelf (top left picture) and shelf break (top
right picture): Sequence boundaries on the continental shelf usually manifest as incised valleys
which can be seen on a seismic section.

Figure 3 - Case study area and data availability: Data consist of 2D seismic (hundreds of lines), 3D seismic
(7117 Km2) and 48 wells, 25 of which have biostratigraphy reports.
Figure 4 - (A) West Natuna stratigraphic column (The tectono-stratigraphic division is adopted from Ginger
et al, 1993). (B) The reference cross section used to create the stratigraphic column.

Figure 5 - Flow chart of the study: Consists of two branches of seismic interpretation. The left hand branch
works on seismic markers interpretation, which will be integrated later with the biostratigraphic
ages. The right hand branch, on the other hand, works on identifying incised valley, which will be
integrated later with the biostratigraphic environment curves. Note: Yellow means interpretation
and green means data extraction from reports.
Figure 6 - The 3D seismic sections above show seismic response for a transgressive surface (TS) (upper left
section), a regional coal layer (upper middle section) and an angular unconformity (upper right
section) in the study area. Bottom figure shows an example of a genetically-unidentified seismic.
Figure 7 - Biostratigraphic well summary for the West Belut-2 well in the study area: The log illustrates
how the sequence stratigraphic surfaces in this study were interpreted based on shift in
environment signal. The sequence boundaries are interpreted as an abrupt shift in the
environment signals (track with the blue bars). Independent from the biostratigrapher’s
interpretation, this study took maximum basinward shift of environment as a candidate for
flooding surface or maximum flooding surface.

Figure 8 – The Seismic section illustrates the two genetic seismic

markers: transgressive surface (TS 1000), and regional coal
layer (SM 100); and four genetically-unidentified seismic
markers: SM 0, SM300, SM 500 and SM 700. These
horizons were considered to be time-equivalent.

Figure 9 - The seismic section above shows several incised valleys of different age. In this section there are
at least four periods of incision between TS 1000 and SM 0. The four figures on the left illustrate
 all identified incised valleys in various locations. The right figure illustrates all of the incised
valleys in one seismic section

Figure 10 - The regional well correlation illustrates how the seismic markers (represented by dashed line)
and biostratigraphic ages (represented by solid line and named after fossils) compare to one
another. Most of the seismic markers (SM) are not in agreement with biostratigraphic ages. The
seismic markers crosscut the biostratigraphic age in several places. Top of Casuarina is the only
zone that matches consistently with Seismic marker (SM 100).

Figure 11 - Well data and interpreted geologic model in Tertiary example of South America (from Vail et al.,
1977). (a) Well locations, blue contours in are subsea depth of the major unconformity. (b) Well
correlation. (c) Velocity model, orange line is lithostratigraphic (LB) surface. (He and Zeng,
2013)
Figure 12 - Synthetic seismogram for the Tertiary model: Dominant frequencies for the input Ricker
wavelet are 90, 40, 20, and 8 Hz. Most seismic events follow interpreted geologic-time surfaces,
however apparent time-transgressive reflectors (lithostratigraphic line) are observed in (b) and
(d), and are marked with green arrows (He and Zeng, 2013).

Figure 13 - Demonstration of how sequence boundaries from incised valley and sequence stratigraphic
surface candidates from biostratigraphy were plotted together with seismic markers as the
chronostratigraphic framework. Coincidence of flooding surface candidate with SM 700 in Well
 Buntal-1, Cucut-1, Tembang-3 and Belut-3 illustrate that SM 700 may be a flooding surface.
Biostratigraphy suggest that there are three other possible sequence boundaries below SM 300.

Figure 14 - This well section illustrates the integrated correlation. The best result is achieved when
biostratigraphy is combined with seismic. In this case, seismic resolve sequence boundaries
(incised valleys) on the upper part (above SM 300), while biostratigraphy resolve possible
sequence boundaries on the lower part where incised valleys do not present.
Figure 15 - Comparison of sequence boundary candidate using biostratigraphy to the seismic data in the
Cucut-1 well: Biostratigraphic data from the well does not identify the sequence boundary
which is clearly identified by the incised channel shown in the seismic section.

Figure 16 - Illustration of well based correlation vs. well and seismic correlation: The upper figure shows
how simple log pattern matching does not provide clear picks of key events in the well. The
lower figure illustrates how integrating seismic with the well logs makes correlation of these
wells much simpler.
Figure 17 - Using log based correlation (upper figure), the incised valley is most likely unrecognized. In
contrast, the incised valley can be clearly seen on seismic section (lower figure).