Hydrocarbon Generation, Migration and Trapping in Suriname’s Tambaredjo

GLIAG  |  STRATEGIC PETROLEUM INTELLIGENCE

GLIAG · GIP RESEARCH ARTICLE · GLIAG-RES-2026-1012-TBJ-004 · VERSION 1.0 · 12 OCTOBER 2026

Generation and migration of hydrocarbons from the Suriname kitchen to Tambaredjo and Tambaredjo-II: an integrated basin study

Follow the oil, forty years after Maracaibo

M.P.T. (Marcel) Chin-A-Lien

Golden Lane Investments Advisory Group B.V. (GLIAG), Zoetermeer / Delft and Paramaribo · GLIAG GSB Intelligence Platform™ (GIP)

Drs. M.P.T. Chin-A-Lien, MBA, M.Sc., Ing. Geologist · AAPG CPG Nr. 5201-1996 · EFG ChEGeol Nr. 92-1996 · AIEN Energy Negotiator, June 2021

ABSTRACT The Tambaredjo heavy-oil complex onshore Suriname holds about 1 billion barrels in place in Paleocene sands 275–400 m deep and, before biodegradation, plausibly about 2 billion. This study reconstructs where that oil was generated, when, and along which road it travelled, using the GLIAG GSB Intelligence Platform (GIP) modules for burial and maturation (BMS-01), kitchen maturity through time (KMM-01, 4,498 cells), generated volumes (GEN-01) and observed fluids (FLU-01), integrated with public data from the Staatsolie GeoAtlas of Suriname (2025) and GLIAG’s own structural, potential-field and mass-balance work. The Albian–Turonian (ACT) source generates only north of a WNW–ESE main basin fault (MBF) along the southern edge of Blocks 58, 53 and 52; the shelf never generates. The southern flank of that kitchen, the part nearest Tambaredjo, generated most of its oil after 35 Ma (14 → 38 MMbbl/km²), after the Paleocene trap and Eocene seal were complete, in two pulses (35–25 Ma and after 11 Ma). Gas stays minor (about 7 MMboe/km²). Oil left the kitchen across the MBF, crossed from the overpressured slope into the hydrostatic shelf at the Guiana Escarpment, travelled about 150 km up-dip in Upper Cretaceous carriers along canyon and fairway corridors, and stepped into the Paleocene where the Cretaceous onlaps the reactivated Bakhuis–Tambaredjo Horst. A continuous trail of oil-bearing wells marks that road, and the eastern shelf is mainly dry. A mass balance closes at 5–11% retention: 27–52 billion barrels generated since 35 Ma in a drainage of 1,500–2,900 km² deliver the 2 billion barrels of Tambaredjo. By fill-and-spill, any closure on the seaward nose of the horst filled before Tambaredjo. That closure, Tambaredjo-II, is a two-storey lead (Paleocene above, Maastrichtian below) with 140–570 MMbbl STOIIP (P90–P10) and a geological chance of success of 0.25 (GLIAG judgement).

Keywords: Guyana–Suriname Basin; Tambaredjo; petroleum system; basin modelling; long-distance migration; fill and spill; biodegradation; GIP; GeoAtlas of Suriname.

1. Introduction

In 1982–1984, at Intevep in Los Teques, Suhas Talukdar, Orlando Gallango and I carried out an integrated basin study of the Maracaibo Basin, published as Talukdar, Gallango and Chin-A-Lien (1986) in Organic Geochemistry, volume 10, pages 261–279 (EarthDoc, 1985 conference version).

The study asked four questions of one source rock, the La Luna Formation: where it was mature, when it generated, how much it generated, and how the oil reached the fields.

It remains a standard reference for the La Luna–Maracaibo petroleum system (USGS).

This article asks the same four questions of the Albian–Turonian source of the Guyana–Suriname Basin, for one destination: the Tambaredjo complex, Suriname’s only giant onshore field, and a second accumulation of the same kind on its road, Tambaredjo-II, which I have looked for since my years with Staatsolie in Paramaribo (2008–2010).

Three things make the question answerable now. Staatsolie’s GeoAtlas of Suriname (2025) puts regional seismic, well results and a 3D migration model in one public volume.

The GLIAG GSB Intelligence Platform (GIP) runs a pseudo-3D maturity and generation screen across the whole offshore. And the 2019 nearshore wells and the 2025–2026 shallow-offshore surveys reach the ground between the kitchen and the field.

2. Database and methods

Data or tool	Content	Use in this study
GIP BMS-01 (burial–maturation)	1D burial history, EASY%Ro, transformation ratio; Maka Central-1 kitchen column	Timing of generation in the kitchen core (Fig. 3A)
GIP KMM-01 (kitchen maturity through time)	One BMS column per 5′ cell, 4,498 offshore cells; depth to top ACT from GLIAG essays and operator data; legacy heat flow 38 → 60 mW/m²; Suriname kinetics	Kitchen extent and generation through time (Figs. 3B, 4)
GIP GEN-01 (generated volumes)	Oil, condensate and gas generated to any age; phase check against wells	Basin totals; observed-versus-modelled phase
GIP FLU-01 (fluids)	159 register wells, fluid type as published, Staatsolie shows marked	Fluid trail (Fig. 6)
GIP potential fields	XGM2019e Bouguer and free-air gravity; EMAG2v3 magnetics	Basement architecture steering migration
Staatsolie GeoAtlas (2025)	Depth maps (p. 34), regional seismic (pp. 38–50), facies (pp. 60–64), source rocks, oil families, maturity, 3D migration model (pp. 67–80), well history (pp. 16–18)	Framework data; cited by page
Published studies	Wong (1986); Schwarzer & Krabbe (2009); Nelson (2016); Girjasing et al. (2019); 2019 Nearshore Drilling Project results	Calibration and test
GLIAG calculations	Mass balance, migration-time reconstruction, corridor mapping, volumetrics and risk	Interpretation (Figs. 1, 5–8)

All GIP outputs are screening grade, not a calibrated basin model.

Values read from GIP map colours carry ±3–5 MMbbl/km².

Every figure in this article is GLIAG’s own; GeoAtlas information is used as data and cited by page, and none of its figures is reproduced.

3. Geological framework

Fig. 1. Structural elements of the central Suriname margin. MBF = main basin fault (southern limit of the mature ACT kitchen, GIP KMM-01). Escarpment after GeoAtlas p. 34; horst after Girjasing et al. (2019) and GeoAtlas p. 49; grabens after Nelson (2016). Schematic.

The Suriname margin steps down from the Guiana Shield across three structural domains (Fig. 1).

Onshore and on the inner shelf, the Bakhuis–Tambaredjo Horst, a NE-trending granulite block raised along Trans-Amazonian border faults, uplifts the whole sedimentary section; the Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary thin onto it and the Lower Cretaceous is absent on its crest (Girjasing et al., 2019; GeoAtlas p. 49).

The Nickerie and Commewijne grabens flank it to the west and east (Nelson, 2016).

Across the shelf the strata dip gently north, the Top Paleocene descending from about −350 m at Tambaredjo to about −1,000 m at mid-shelf and −2,000 m at the Guiana Escarpment, the Upper Cretaceous shelf margin (GeoAtlas p. 34). North of it lies the deep basin.

The main basin fault (new).

 On every GIP KMM-01 time slice the mature kitchen ends abruptly along a WNW–ESE line at the southern edge of Blocks 58, 53 and 52 (Figs. 1, 4).

The GeoAtlas maps major WNW–ESE basement and Jurassic faults offset by NE-trending faults (p. 32).

I interpret the kitchen edge as a WNW–ESE rift-margin fault zone, here named the main basin fault (MBF), that drops the ACT into the oil window to the north and leaves it immature on the shelf.

On Regional Dip Line 2 the faults at this position are confined to the rift section (GeoAtlas p. 41): the MBF is the kitchen’s edge and launch line, not a conduit through the Tertiary.

Fig. 2. Petroleum system events chart for the kitchen-to-Tambaredjo system (GLIAG). Black = active; hatched = partial or inferred. Critical moment shown as the charge window from about 25 Ma to the present.

4. Source rock

The proven source is the Albian–Cenomanian–Turonian (ACT) interval, the Caledonia Formation of the GeoAtlas and the Canje equivalent of Guyana, with a secondary Late Aptian source (GeoAtlas pp. 27, 67).

It is poor on the proximal shelf and rich toward the distal shelf and deep water, where TOC exceeds 1.5% and HI exceeds 350 mg HC/g TOC; its expellable potential peaks along the paleo-distal shelf margin (GeoAtlas pp. 67–69). In NCO-1 the Upper Albian–Cenomanian is a good to excellent Type II marine source whose bulk kinetics resemble the La Luna Formation (Schwarzer & Krabbe, 2009), the source of the Maracaibo study.

Tambaredjo oil belongs to the marine Oil Family 1, which grades from lighter offshore oils to heavier onshore oils by biodegradation and links the onshore fields to the Golden Lane source (GeoAtlas pp. 72–74, 79).

5. Thermal maturity and timing of generation

Fig. 3. (A) Maturity history of the top ACT at Maka Central-1, the kitchen core, from GIP BMS-01 (constant 60 mW/m²; milestones as computed, curve interpolated). (B) Cumulative oil and gas generated per km² at the kitchen core, southern flank and B63 east, read from GIP KMM-01.

At Maka Central-1 the top ACT lies about 5,400 m below mudline at 166 °C and 1.35% Ro today; GIP BMS-01 places Ro 0.6 at about 52 Ma, Ro 1.0 at about 17 Ma and Ro 1.3 at about 1.8 Ma, with 10% and 50% transformation at about 51 and 38 Ma (Fig. 3A).

The kitchen core was therefore an Eocene–Oligocene generator.

The GeoAtlas places the onset of oil expulsion in the greater Golden Lane at about 50 Ma and in the Eastern arm at about 18 Ma (p. 77);

Schwarzer and Krabbe model generation from about 55 Ma in the deep kitchen and about 34 Ma at its flanks (2009).

Fig. 4. GIP KMM-01 oil generated (ACT + Aptian) at 35, 25, 11, 5 and 0 Ma, with the main basin fault and the migration routes to Tambaredjo-II and Tambaredjo. GLIAG GSB Intelligence Platform™, Rev 0.22.98.

Age	Oil, core	Oil, southern flank	Oil, B63 east	Gas, core	Reading
35 Ma	24	14	13	2	Core more than 60% spent; flank starting; trap and seal just complete
25 Ma	29	25	19	3	Flank main increment (pulse 2); oil reaches the shelf break
11 Ma	37	30	22	4	Core nearly spent; flank continues
5 Ma	38	32	24	6	Late flank pulse (pulse 3)
0 Ma	38	38	26	7	Flank still in the oil window; gas minor

Table 1. Cumulative generation per km² read from GIP KMM-01 (oil MMbbl/km²; gas MMboe/km² at 35, 21, 14, 5 and 0 Ma). The shelf blocks B5–B10 and B14 show no generation at any age.

The decisive result is the contrast between core and flank (Fig. 3B, Table 1).

The southern flank, the part of the kitchen nearest Tambaredjo, generated nearly two-thirds of its oil after 35 Ma, in two steps: 35–25 Ma and after 11 Ma.

These match the 35–25 Ma recharge and 15–5 Ma late pulse of the GLIAG Maka-1 model.

Because the Paleocene T-sand trap and its Eocene seal were complete by about 34 Ma (Fig. 2), this flank oil arrived when traps were ready.

Gas generation stays small and late, consistent with the very low gas content of Tambaredjo oil. GIP flags one open conflict: its 52 Ma onset at Maka Central-1 is later than the 55–45 Ma of the published GLIAG Maka-1 model, which would need higher Paleogene heat flow or deeper burial.

6. Generated volumes

GIP GEN-01 totals 608 billion boe generated to the present in offshore Suriname from the ACT and Aptian: 495 billion barrels oil, 25.5 billion barrels condensate and 503 Tcf gas, at a current rate of 12.6 billion boe per million years.

Tambaredjo’s 2 billion barrels before biodegradation is about 0.4% of the modelled oil.

The issue is not generation but focusing: how a small fraction of a very large charge was gathered onto one point 150 km away.

GIP’s phase check matches the dominant generated phase at 31 of 57 hydrocarbon wells, all 31 oil wells and none of the 24 condensate wells; since condensate cannot come from the column beneath those wells, its presence is itself evidence of migration or of phase separation on the way.

7. Migration

7.1 Two pressure regimes

Staatsolie’s 3D model separates an overpressured deep domain, where charge rises by vertical fill-and-spill, from a hydrostatic shelf and onshore domain, where migration is lateral and focused toward the present shoreline (GeoAtlas p. 79).

The boundary lies at the Guiana Escarpment. Mud logs record vertical migration at Turonian level and elevated wet gas near SON-1 and MO-1 (GeoAtlas p. 70).

The escarpment is therefore the pressure gate where kitchen oil enters the shelf carriers. On Dip Line 2 the Cretaceous units run continuously from slope to coast without a through-going fault (GeoAtlas p. 41), so the gate is vertical within the Cretaceous of the slope, not a fault into the Tertiary.

7.2 The road: Cretaceous carriers and canyon corridors

Fig. 5. Schematic S–N migration section: lateral route in Upper Cretaceous carriers from the kitchen, pressure transition at the shelf margin, step-up into the Paleocene on the Bakhuis–Tambaredjo Horst (GLIAG). Depths after GeoAtlas p. 34.

North of the coast the oil stays in Upper Cretaceous carriers beneath the Paleocene–Eocene carbonate platform, its wash-over shales (the Harde Bank) and the Eocene transgressive shale (GeoAtlas pp. 34, 50, 64).

Maastrichtian rivers crossed the shelf during lowstands, and the Coniacian–Maastrichtian shelf margin was cut by canyons, valleys and channels that fed the deep water (GeoAtlas pp. 34, 63).

Seismic geomorphology compiled by Vinnels (2023) shows five such canyon and fairway corridors on the central shelf.

I propose that their sand-rich axes were re-used in reverse as the main up-dip routes: C1 to C5 in Fig. 6, of which C3, C4 and C5 end at the Tambaredjo-II lead and Weg naar Zee.

Abandoned canyons are often mud-filled; the hypothesis stands only where the axes are sand-prone and connected.

7.3 The step-up

Where the Upper Cretaceous carriers climb the Bakhuis–Tambaredjo Horst and subcrop the Maastrichtian unconformity beneath the onshore fields, and where reactivated NE–SW basement faults such as the Coppename fault cut the section, oil steps up into the Paleocene T-sand (GeoAtlas pp. 34, 49).

The GIP potential fields show the same architecture: the −20 to −40 mGal Bouguer saddle of the Bakhuis belt plunges north-east under the coast as the funnel; the 40–60 mGal coastal Bouguer step marks the hinge where the carriers rise toward the surface; NE magnetic lineaments mark the step-up faults (GLIAG-ESS-2026-GRV-001).

7.4 The fluid trail

Fig. 6. Migration and fluid map: mature kitchen, main basin fault (MBF), escarpment as pressure gate, canyon and fairway corridors C1–C5 (traced after Vinnels, 2023), Bakhuis gravity saddle, and well fluids from GIP FLU-01 (fluid type as published). GLIAG.

Belt	Wells (GIP FLU-01; GeoAtlas)	Fluid	Meaning
Kitchen edge, Block 52	West Tapir-1; North Coronie-1	Oil; oil + condensate	Charge leaving the kitchen
Block 8	Aitkanti-1ST2; Coronie Offshore-1	Oil; oil + condensate	Road across the outer shelf
Shelf margin	CO-1, CRC-1, SP-1 (GeoAtlas pp. 16, 48)	Cretaceous oil shows, inclusions	Road in the Cretaceous
Escarpment	SON-1, MO-1 (GeoAtlas p. 16)	Dry to Eocene	No Tertiary road at the gate
Inner shelf	Marai-01, Tukunari-01, L-series, K/6-2, B/34-1X, I/23-1X; Electric Ray-01 RD, L/10-1X	Oil; oil + condensate	Road reaches the coast; NSD shows mainly Maastrichtian–Campanian (GeoAtlas p. 70)
Eastern shelf	Spari-1ST1, Suriname Offshore Nord-1, Roselle-1, Gonini-01, Powisi-01	Dry (exception: Suriname Offshore-1)	Focused, not sheet-like, migration
Coast	Block 4 nearshore discoveries; Tambaredjo, Calcutta	Tertiary oil	Step-up into the Paleocene (GeoAtlas p. 71)

Table 2. The fluid trail from kitchen to coast.

8. Mass balance

Fig. 7. Mass balance for the Tambaredjo drainage (GLIAG calculation on GIP KMM-01). Bars at the geometric mean, red lines show the range.

The Suriname part of the mature kitchen covers about 9,700 km². If 15–30% of it drains south toward the Calcutta High (GLIAG judgement), the drainage is 1,500–2,900 km².

Oil generated there since 35 Ma averages about 18 MMbbl/km², giving 27–52 billion barrels generated and, at an expulsion efficiency of 0.7 (consistent with up to 75% bulk expulsion measured for La Luna at peak generation, Talukdar et al., 1988), 19–37 billion expelled.

Two billion barrels at Tambaredjo needs 5–11% retention; counting only oil generated since 25 Ma, 9–17%. Most of the expelled oil is lost on the road to residual saturation, leakage (the largest concentration of seeps and slicks lies in less than 200 m of water, GeoAtlas p. 70) and dead-end traps, exactly as Schwarzer and Krabbe anticipated (2009).

The budget closes in every case tested (Fig. 7).

9. Accumulation, timing and preservation

Fig. 8. Migration–time diagram from the main basin fault to Tambaredjo (GLIAG interpretation, schematic): flank oil front (pulse 2), late flank oil (pulse 3), gas front stalling at the shelf break, the long Golden Lane route, fill-and-spill order and the biodegradation domain.

Fig. 8 assembles the timing. Golden Lane oil, expelled from about 50 Ma, travelled the long route from the north-west and may have given the Saramacca high an early, partly lost charge before the Eocene seal was complete; the GeoAtlas reads 50 Ma as the likely first emplacement and notes a migration lag to the onshore fields (pp. 77, 80).

Flank oil of pulse 2 left the kitchen from about 35 Ma and reached the inner shelf by about 25 Ma.

By Gussow’s principle any closure on the seaward nose of the horst filled first and spilled up-dip; Tambaredjo was the last stop on the road and received the spill, then a pulse 3 top-up after 11 Ma.

The gas front, late and weak, stalled near the shelf break, where Block 52 now holds gas (Sloanea-1, commercial in November 2025, Rigzone).

Below about 80 °C, which on the inner shelf means everywhere above roughly 1.7 km, the oil was biodegraded; at Tambaredjo (37 °C) about half of the original charge was destroyed, leaving 1 billion of 2 (Schwarzer & Krabbe, 2009).

10. Tambaredjo-II

Tambaredjo-II is the closure, if one exists, where the Upper Cretaceous carriers climb the seaward nose of the Bakhuis–Tambaredjo Horst before reaching the onshore fields.

Four observations support it:

it lies on the road and was charged before Tambaredjo; the nearshore Block 4 discoveries show that oil has already stepped up there (GeoAtlas p. 71);

the 2019 nearshore wells carry their best shows in the Maastrichtian and Campanian (GeoAtlas p. 70);

and the corridors C3–C5 converge on it. Because the road runs in the Cretaceous, the lead is two-storey: a Paleocene T-sand closure above and a Maastrichtian fluvial or onlap closure below (GeoAtlas pp. 83–85).

Against it stand the six 2019 wells, four with oil shows and none commercial (Offshore Energy, 2019).

Item	Value	Basis
STOIIP (P90–P50–P10)	140–280–570 MMbbl	20–40 km² closure, 5–9 m net, φ 0.30–0.33, So 0.75–0.78 (GLIAG)
Oil quality	16–25° API	Deeper and warmer than Tambaredjo, less biodegraded (judgement)
Geological chance of success	0.25	Charge and migration high; trap and seal the risks; reduced from 0.33 after the 2019 wells
Tests	Block 4 3D (2012); NSD well targets; 2025–2026 surveys; fluid by level	In order of cost

11. Discussion: Maracaibo and Suriname compared

Question	Maracaibo (1986 study and USGS synthesis)	Suriname (this study)
Source	La Luna Formation, Upper Cretaceous marine	ACT (Albian–Turonian) marine, OAE-2; NCO-1 kinetics similar to La Luna
Where mature	Foredeep to the south and south-east	Deep basin north of the main basin fault; shelf immature
When	Oil window from the Eocene in the north-east; most of the basin later	Kitchen core from about 52 Ma; southern flank mainly after 35 Ma, in two pulses
How the oil moved	Up-dip from the foredeep; vertically along major faults (USGS)	Vertical fill-and-spill in the overpressured slope; lateral up-dip in Cretaceous carriers on the hydrostatic shelf; step-up at basement faults on the horst
What controlled focus	Structural highs and faults	Basement promontory (Bakhuis–Tambaredjo Horst), canyon corridors, pressure gate
Methods	Time–temperature maturity modelling, geochemistry, mass balance [VERIFY: method details]	GIP pseudo-3D screening (4,498 cells), EASY%Ro, potential fields, fluid register, GeoAtlas data, mass balance

The two basins share the decisive lesson of the 1986 study: a giant field is the product of a kitchen, a timing window and a focusing geometry, and the geometry is what explorers can map. In Maracaibo the faults did the focusing.

In Suriname a basement promontory, a pressure gate and a set of old canyons do it, over a much longer distance.

12. Conclusions

1. The Suriname ACT kitchen lies north of a WNW–ESE main basin fault along the southern edge of Blocks 58, 53 and 52; the shelf never generates.

2. The southern flank of the kitchen, nearest Tambaredjo, generated most of its oil after 35 Ma, in two pulses (35–25 Ma and after 11 Ma), after the trap and seal were complete; gas is minor and late.

3. Oil crossed from the overpressured slope into the hydrostatic shelf at the Guiana Escarpment, travelled about 150 km south in Upper Cretaceous carriers, probably along re-used canyon and fairway corridors, and stepped into the Paleocene on the Bakhuis–Tambaredjo Horst.

4. A continuous oil trail of wells marks the road; the eastern shelf is mainly dry, so migration was focused.

5. A mass balance closes at 5–11% retention of 19–37 billion barrels expelled since 35 Ma.

6. Tambaredjo-II, on the seaward nose of the horst and before Tambaredjo on the road, is a two-storey lead of 140–570 MMbbl STOIIP at a chance of 0.25.

Acknowledgements

I thank my Intevep colleagues of 1982–1984, Suhas Talukdar and Orlando Gallango, whose method this article follows;

Prachand Naigi, whose AdeKUS thesis on the Nickerie–Paramaribo line I had the privilege to guide;

and the geoscientists of Staatsolie whose GeoAtlas made the public framework possible. Interpretations and errors are mine.

References

[1] Girjasing, R., S. B. Kroonenberg, R. Ramdajal, and T. E. Wong, 2019, Timing of the origin and uplift of the Bakhuis–Tambaredjo Horst, Suriname: Mededeling GMD Suriname 29, p. 67–70. ResearchGate

[2] Gussow, W. C., 1954, Differential entrapment of oil and gas: a fundamental principle: AAPG Bulletin, v. 38 [VERIFY: pages].

[3] Nelson, A., 2016, Staatsolie’s VISION 2030: Netherlands Journal of Geosciences, v. 95, no. 4, p. 375–392. Cambridge Core

[4] Offshore Energy, 2019, No oil discovery after Staatsolie’s six-well campaign off Suriname. offshore-energy.biz

[5] Rigzone, 2025, Petronas to file development plan for Suriname’s Sloanea discovery. rigzone.com

[6] Schwarzer, D., and H. Krabbe, 2009, Source rock geochemistry and petroleum system modeling in the Guyana Basin, offshore Suriname: AAPG Search and Discovery #90091. searchanddiscovery.com

[7] Staatsolie, 2025, GeoAtlas of Suriname (pages as cited). staatsolie.com

[8] Talukdar, S., O. Gallango, and M. Chin-A-Lien, 1985, Generation and migration of hydrocarbons in the Maracaibo Basin, Venezuela: 2nd Simposio Bolivariano. EarthDoc

[9] Talukdar, S., O. Gallango, and M. Chin-A-Lien, 1986, Generation and migration of hydrocarbons in the Maracaibo Basin, Venezuela: an integrated basin study: Organic Geochemistry, v. 10, p. 261–279.

[10] Talukdar, S., et al., 1988, Observations on the primary migration of oil in the La Luna source rocks of the Maracaibo Basin, Venezuela: Revue de l’IFP, v. 43 [VERIFY: authors]. OGST

[11] USGS, Maracaibo Basin Province 6099, La Luna/Maracaibo total petroleum system. USGS

[12] Vinnels, J., 2023, Guyana–Suriname seismic geomorphology, wells and fairways compiled from public sources: LinkedIn, October 2023 [VERIFY: link].

[13] Wong, Th. E., 1986, Outline of the stratigraphy and the geological history of the Suriname coastal plain: Geologie en Mijnbouw, v. 65, p. 223–241. TNO

Companion GLIAG work

▪ Follow the Oil, GLIAG-ESS-2026-1012-TBJ-003 draft v0.98 (working essay); The Twin on the Plunge, GLIAG-ESS-2026-1012-TBJ-002; The Second Tambaredjo, GLIAG-ESS-2026-1011-TBJ-001 v1.1.

▪ GLIAGOGRAPH™ GLIAG-GGR-2026-1012-TBJ-007; Petroleum Systems Chart GLIAG-PSC-2026-1012-TBJ-001.

▪ GLIAG GSB Intelligence Platform™ modules BMS-01, KMM-01, GEN-01, FLU-01; GLIAG Basin Watch daily newsletters.

About the author

Drs. M.P.T. (Marcel) Chin-A-Lien, MBA, M.Sc., Ing. Geologist is Principal Founding Partner, Managing Partner and Chief Architect of Golden Lane Investments Advisory Group B.V. (GLIAG). Born in Willemstad, Curaçao, in 1950 and trained at Leiden University, he has nearly five decades of international petroleum experience, including co-discovery of the Ceuta giant field in Lake Maracaibo and co-authorship of the 1986 Talukdar–Gallango–Chin-A-Lien study of Maracaibo Basin generation and migration. He worked with Staatsolie in Paramaribo in 2008–2010 on Suriname’s PSC and offshore promotion and originated the term Golden Lane for the Guyana–Suriname fairway. AAPG Certified Petroleum Geologist Nr. 5201-1996 · EFG Chartered European Geologist Nr. 92-1996 · AIEN Energy Negotiator (June 2021).

Golden Lane Investments Advisory Group B.V. (GLIAG) · Zoetermeer / Delft · Paramaribo · petroleumenergyinsights.com · www.gliag.com · info@gliag.com · GLIAG GSB Intelligence Platform™ (GIP) · GLIAG Basin Watch (GSB and South America editions).

Disclaimer and legal notice

1. No advice. This essay is published for information and professional discussion only. It is not investment, legal, tax, engineering or financial advice, and it is not a resources or reserves statement under PRMS or any other standard.

2. No offer or solicitation. Nothing in this essay is an offer, invitation or solicitation to buy or sell any security, licence interest, asset or service in any jurisdiction.

3. Independence of analysis. The analysis is the independent professional judgement of the author and GLIAG, based on public sources as of 12 October 2026. GLIAG has no mandate from, and receives no compensation from, Staatsolie or any operator, partner or government named. No confidential data were used. Statements labelled judgement, hypothesis or [VERIFY] are marked as such. GIP results are screening grade.

4. Forward-looking statements. Statements on generation, migration, prospectivity, chance of success and volumes are forward-looking and uncertain, and may differ materially from outcomes. GLIAG undertakes no obligation to update this essay.

Copyright, proprietary rights and AI/ML opt-out

© 2026 Marcel P.T. Chin-A-Lien / Golden Lane Investments Advisory Group B.V. (GLIAG). All rights reserved. Essay GLIAG-RES-2026-1012-TBJ-004, Version 1.0, 12 October 2026. All figures, the main basin fault interpretation, the migration reconstruction, mass balance and Tambaredjo-II assessment are proprietary intellectual property of GLIAG; GeoAtlas data are © Staatsolie (2025) and used with citation; corridors in Fig. 6 are traced after Vinnels (2023). Reproduction requires prior written permission, except brief quotation with full attribution.

Text and data mining reservation. Under Article 4(3) of Directive (EU) 2019/790 and Article 15o of the Dutch Auteurswet, the rightsholder reserves all rights to text and data mining of this work, including training, fine-tuning or evaluating AI or machine-learning systems, without a written licence.

Trademarks. Golden Lane™, GLIAGOGRAPH™, GLIAG GSB Intelligence Platform™, Sovereign Molecule™, Sovereign Conversion Capacity™ and Caribbean Gas Arc™ are trademarks of GLIAG. Third-party names and data belong to their owners.

Converting bare headlines into deep strategic, added value

GLIAG · WHERE INFORMATION BECOMES INTELLIGENCE

Soso Lobi

Marcel Chin-A-Lien

GLIAG-RES-2026-1012-TBJ-004  |  © 2026 M.P.T. Chin-A-Lien / GLIAG B.V.  |  Proprietary  |