Understanding Dual-Phase Petroleum Systems in Guyana–Suriname

GLIAG · GOLDEN LANE INVESTMENTS ADVISORY GROUP

Petroleum & Energy Insights  ·  Working Paper Series

Dual-Phase Charge, Column, and Seal in the Guyana–Suriname Basin

A Petroleum-System Architecture Framework for Realistic Prospect Assessment in Mixed Oil–Gas Provinces

Drs. Marcel P. T. Chin-A-Lien, MBA, M.Sc., Ing. Geologist

Founding Partner & Chief Architect · Golden Lane Investments Advisory Group (GLIAG N.V.)

GLIAG Working Paper · Rev-02   ·   3 August 2026

Abstract

Prospect volumetrics in the Guyana–Suriname Basin are still routinely reported as if pore volume were the dominant uncertainty. In dual-phase provinces such as the SE Golden Lane — where oil, retrograde condensate, wet gas and dry gas coexist within a single kitchen-and-migration framework — the recoverable outcome is instead governed by the coupled interplay of charge phase (PVT), trap geometry, and top- and fault-seal capacity. This paper reframes that assessment problem inside the GLIAG Guyana–Suriname Petroleum System Architecture. It integrates four stacked marine source intervals (Aptian–Cenomanian–Turonian, Late Aptian, Barremian, Tithonian), two migration regimes (onshore–nearshore hydrostatic lateral migration; deep-offshore overpressured vertical fill-and-spill), and a nineteen-well DST and fluid dataset spanning Blocks 52, 53 and 58 (2019–2026). We show that the basin behaves as several partially independent petroleum systems rather than one uniform province; that oil–GOR–API co-vary linearly along a single ACT (Aptian–Cenomanian–Turonian) charge family; and that any credible column-height or recoverable-volume estimate must be evaluated through an integrated probabilistic frame that respects PVT, capillary entry pressure, gas–oil seal contrast and structural leak point together. A documented mass balance for the SE Golden Lane kitchen — 1,455 → 949 → ~170 trapped → ~73 bnboe recoverable — is offered as a worked example. The framework is intended as a defensible template for prospect risking and portfolio decisions across the ACT-charged frontiers of the basin.

Keywords · Guyana–Suriname Basin · dual-phase trap · petroleum-system architecture · ACT source · Canje Formation · GOR–API family · capillary entry pressure · fill-and-spill · mass balance · GLIAG

Table of Contents

1. Framing: Why Pore Volume Is Not the Problem

2. The Guyana–Suriname Petroleum System Architecture

2.1 Four Stacked Source Intervals

2.2 Two Migration Regimes

2.3 Fluid Provinces, Not Fluid Averages

3. The Well-Calibrated GOR–API Family

4. The Integrated Column-Height Equation

4.1 A Simple Diagnostic

5. From Trap to Kitchen: A Documented Mass Balance

6. Analogue Control: Canje ↔ Querecual ↔ La Luna

7. The Tambaredjo Anchor

8. Implications for Prospect Risking

9. Where the Framework Is Vulnerable — and Where It Is Not

10. Conclusion

References — GLIAG / Author

Annex A — Trusted External References Applied to GLIAG Data

Legal Notice, IP Reservation and Attribution

1. Framing: Why Pore Volume Is Not the Problem

Two decades of deepwater exploration in the Guyana–Suriname Basin have made it possible, for the first time, to interrogate a full ACT (Aptian–Cenomanian–Turonian) petroleum system with public well data. The doctrinal starting point of this paper — that the basin is best read as a single, coherent petroleum architecture rather than as a block-by-block collection of discoveries — is developed at length in Understanding the Guyana–Suriname Basin Petroleum System and in The Evolution of Petroleum Systems in Suriname Offshore Exploration. The results of that interrogation are unambiguous: the basin is not one province, it does not produce a single fluid family, and its volumetric outcome at trap scale is not controlled by pore volume alone. Nineteen flow-tested and logged wells drilled between 2019 and 2026 across Blocks 52, 53 and 58 record a continuous fluid spectrum, from 25° API biodegraded oil at Bonboni-1 through volatile oil and retrograde condensate at Sapakara South-1, Krabdagu-1 and Kwaskwasi-1, to near-dry-gas conditions at Maka Central-1.

That spectrum is not a series of isolated accidents; it is the fingerprint of a single, still-charging kitchen whose expelled fluid PVT varies systematically with maturity, depth and lateral distance from the depocentre. The SE Golden Lane fluid population — worked through in SE Golden Lane: A Dual Oil and Gas Condensate Basin — is the empirical anchor for that reading. A dual-phase basin of this class demands a corresponding assessment doctrine. The recoverable volume of any prospect is set by the interaction of three parameters that cannot be dissociated: (i) charge PVT at the time of arrival, (ii) trap height and pore volume, and (iii) top- and fault-seal capacity as a function of the fluid that is trying to breach them. Where the industry-standard workflow treats these as independent draws, the GLIAG framework treats them as coupled — because in a mixed oil–gas trap, they physically are.

2. The Guyana–Suriname Petroleum System Architecture

The GLIAG framing rejects the block-by-block map of the basin in favour of an architecture map — a representation of the source kitchens, migration fairways, pressure regimes and fluid provinces that actually govern where and how hydrocarbons accumulate. Petroleum-system architecture changes much more slowly than companies, licence rounds, or individual discoveries; it is therefore the appropriate long-lived unit of interpretation for a strategic geological contribution, as argued in Transforming Suriname’s Petroleum Strategy Through Systems Thinking.

2.1 Four Stacked Source Intervals

Publicly disclosed geochemistry and thermal-maturity control from the Guyana–Suriname wells, calibrated against DSDP Leg 14 (1970) and ODP Leg 207 (2003), support four marine source intervals rather than the single ACT surface routinely assumed in first-order thermal models. The world-class quality of the primary interval is documented at length in A World-Class ACT Marine Source Rock System and in ACT Petroleum Systems Insights:

• Aptian–Cenomanian–Turonian (ACT / Canje-equivalent) — proven, world-class, Type II kerogen, TOC 4–15 percent, δ13C and biomarker signature consistent with restricted-marine deposition.

• Late Aptian — proven in the western Demerara Plateau and in the deeper Block 58 wells; mixed oil–gas expulsion character.

• Barremian — inferred from regional stratigraphy and analogue control (Levant, West African conjugate margin); undrilled at the scale of the basin but geophysically indicated.

• Tithonian — deepest and hottest interval; inferred as an increasingly gas-prone contributor toward the outboard depocentre.

2.2 Two Migration Regimes

The basin operates under two distinct pressure regimes that impose different migration behaviours on the same expelled fluids. The migration doctrine used here is set out in full in Revolutionizing Petroleum Migration in the Guyana Basin:

• Onshore–nearshore hydrostatic lateral migration — the shallow landward end-member preserved at Tambaredjo, where long-distance up-dip migration from the offshore ACT kitchen feeds a biodegraded, low-GOR accumulation approximately 200 km updip from the depocentre. See Tambaredjo Revisited.

• Deep-offshore overpressured vertical fill-and-spill — the characteristic Golden Lane regime, in which sub-hydrostatic to significantly overpressured turbidite reservoirs are charged in successive pulses through vertical migration ladders, with spill points repeatedly re-set by the interplay of trap geometry and fluid density contrast; see The Pulse Beneath the Golden Lane and Understanding Maka-1’s Role in Golden Lane.

2.3 Fluid Provinces, Not Fluid Averages

Once source stacking and migration regime are respected, the basin resolves into fluid provinces with distinct PVT signatures — oil-dominant, mixed oil–gas, gas-condensate and dry-gas — and into uncertainty provinces where the fluid outcome is set by the seal response rather than by the charge itself. The Petroleum Systems of the Guyana–Suriname Basin essay develops the fluid-province typology in the wider basin context; this is the architecture against which any single-well or single-prospect volumetric must be evaluated.

3. The Well-Calibrated GOR–API Family

The nineteen-well DST dataset shows a striking linear covariance between gas–oil ratio, gravity, and stratigraphic position that is the empirical signature of a single kinetic source expelling into progressively hotter, deeper traps. The full population — plotted, annotated and reconciled to depth in SE Golden Lane: A Dual Oil and Gas Condensate Basin — spans a continuous range: Bonboni-1 (Maastrichtian) records 25° API heavy oil and a GOR of the order of 300–500 scf/bbl; Sapakara South-1 (upper Campanian) records 34–37° API black oil at roughly 1,100 scf/bbl and a restricted flow rate of 4,800 bopd on an initial reservoir pressure of about 9,300 psi with only 48 psi of drawdown; Krabdagu-1 (mid-Campanian) records volatile oil at 2,000–2,800 scf/bbl; Kwaskwasi-1 and Maka Central-1 (Santonian–lower Campanian) record retrograde condensate and near-dry-gas fluids at 42–50° API. Plotted together, these points describe a continuous GOR–API–maturity vector — not a scatter — and constitute a direct, quantitative anchor for the ACT charge family.

The importance of this observation is methodological as much as geochemical. In a dual-phase basin, a linear GOR–API family across wells provides the single most defensible bridge between what the kitchen produces and what the trap will actually be asked to hold. It allows PVT at reservoir conditions to be inferred, before drilling, from stratigraphic position and burial depth — and therefore allows the column-height calculation to begin from a physically constrained fluid, not from a generic assumption of black-oil PVT.

4. The Integrated Column-Height Equation

Column height in a dual-phase trap is the outcome of an integration, not a single subtraction. Four coupled controls set the retained column at any given moment in the charge history of the trap:

• Charge PVT at the entry point — density, viscosity, GOR, condensate-to-gas ratio, saturation pressure at reservoir temperature — inferred from the ACT GOR–API family and the local geothermal gradient.

• Trap geometry — closure area, closure height, spill-point depth, internal compartmentalisation, and any fault-plane cut-outs that modify the effective closure.

• Top-seal capillary entry pressure — Pce measured or estimated for the specific rock and fluid pair, with the correct interfacial tension for the actual PVT at reservoir conditions rather than a generic water–oil or water–gas figure.

• Fault-seal capacity — shale gouge ratio and juxtaposition analysis calibrated for the phase in contact with the fault, recognising that a fault that seals oil will not necessarily seal gas at the same interfacial tension.

Ignoring the coupling produces two characteristic errors. First, an over-estimate: a black-oil column is assumed under a seal whose real capacity, evaluated against the actual gas phase, is a fraction of the assumed value. Second, an under-estimate: a gas-only column is assumed at a depth where PVT in fact places the trap in the retrograde-condensate window, and the STOIIP contribution from the liquid phase is missed entirely. Both errors are common in the public record of the basin; the second is the specific failure that the Orinduik discoveries expose in the industry-standard workflow, as analysed in Evaluating the Commercial Potential of Orinduik’s Oil Discoveries and in Investor Insights: The Future of Orinduik’s Petroleum Potential.

4.1 A Simple Diagnostic

A rapid diagnostic for whether an assessment respects the coupling is to compare the assumed top-seal capillary entry pressure against the interfacial tension expected at the trap’s PVT, and to compare the assumed charge-GOR against the ACT family curve for the trap’s depth and stratigraphic position. If either mismatch exceeds a factor of two, the volumetric is not defensible.

5. From Trap to Kitchen: A Documented Mass Balance

Trap-scale doctrine is only credible if it closes at basin scale. The GLIAG SE Golden Lane reconstruction, developed in SE Golden Lane: A Dual Oil and Gas Condensate Basin and in The Golden Lane, Guyana: From Deep-Water Turbidite Petroleum Systems to FPSO-Driven National Revenue, anchors the ACT engine of Blocks 52 and 58 with a documented, source-published mass balance using Pepper & Corvi (1995) organofacies kinetics fed into a Pepper & Roller (2017/2018) Ultimate Expulsion Potential framework, reconciled to the Staatsolie GeoAtlas 2026 basin-wide balance:

Cascade step	Value	Unit
Generated in-place	1,455	bnboe
Expelled from source	949	bnboe
Trapped after losses	~170	bnboe
Recoverable (total)	~73	bnboe
— oil	26	bnboe
— condensate	18	bnboe
— gas	29	bnboe
Discovered to date	~11 percent	of recoverable
Yet-to-find	~89 percent	of recoverable

The mass balance is presented cascade by cascade — generated, expelled, trapped, recoverable — so that any single step can be independently interrogated and, if necessary, revised. The critical moment (in the sense of Magoon & Dow, 1994) is placed at approximately 45 Ma (Middle Eocene), consistent with the observed trap ages and with the migration-timing evidence embedded in the downdip flow-test record.

6. Analogue Control: Canje ↔ Querecual ↔ La Luna

A defensible ACT-source interpretation must be tied to conjugate-margin analogues that have been independently instrumented. The GLIAG framework uses the Canje ↔ Querecual ↔ La Luna analogue triangle to constrain source-rock quality, expulsion efficiency and fluid character across the ACT interval. This triple-analogue approach — introduced in A World-Class ACT Marine Source Rock System — draws on the author’s own 1986 Maracaibo Basin geochemistry work (Talukdar, Gallango & Chin-A-Lien) to constrain the plausible parameter space for the Canje kitchen and to discipline the mass-balance inputs. La Luna and Querecual provide onshore, cored calibration for restricted-marine deposition and Type II kerogen behaviour; the West African conjugate margin constrains lateral facies variation and preservation.

7. The Tambaredjo Anchor

The Tambaredjo field, on the shallow coastal plain of Suriname some 200 km updip of the ACT depocentre, is the most useful updip anchor available in the basin. Its biodegraded 12–18° API oil records the landward end-member of a dynamic offshore-to-onshore petroleum conveyor in which hydrocarbons have undergone repeated migration, temporary accumulation, biodegradation, mixing, and remigration. The full anatomy of that system is worked out in Tambaredjo Revisited: Anatomy of a World-Class Shallow Onshore Petroleum System. Geochemically, the Tambaredjo oils sit on the same ACT source signature as the deep-offshore fluids. This is decisive evidence that the basin’s charge system operates as a single, connected engine across two migration regimes, and it provides a hard anchor for the long-distance migration term in the mass balance.

8. Implications for Prospect Risking

The framework has direct operational implications for prospect risking in the ACT-charged frontiers of the basin, including the Demerara plays discussed in Why Companies Are Competing in Demerara and the anomalous porcellanite plays flagged in Exploring the Porcellanite Clue in Araku-1:

• Charge risk should be evaluated against the local source-stack map, not against a single ACT surface. Wells that appear under-charged relative to a single-interval model may in fact be correctly charged from a deeper Aptian or Barremian contributor.

• Fluid-type risk should be inferred from the GOR–API family curve at the prospect’s depth and stratigraphic position — not defaulted to the average of the nearest discovery.

• Column-height risk should be resolved by a coupled PVT–capillary assessment, not by a pore-volume Monte Carlo alone.

• Seal-failure risk should be scored against the phase that will actually reach the seal in the migration sequence; a top seal that holds oil may still leak gas.

• Trap-timing risk should be scored against the ~45 Ma critical moment rather than against the modern structural configuration.

9. Where the Framework Is Vulnerable — and Where It Is Not

The framework depends on public data, and its principal vulnerability is therefore the absence of proprietary pressure, geochemical and PVT datasets that would tighten every parameter. That vulnerability is real but bounded. The nineteen-well DST dataset, the Staatsolie GeoAtlas 2026 mass balance, the DSDP and ODP coring calibration, and the Canje ↔ Querecual ↔ La Luna analogue triangle jointly place the framework at a screening-plus level that is directly defensible in front of technical committees. The wider public-vs-proprietary reconciliation — including the USGS 2020 assessment — is discussed in From Forecasts to Findings: The Guyana–Suriname Oil Story. What the framework cannot do — and does not claim to do — is replace a properly instrumented FDP-grade evaluation with confidential 3D seismic, cores, PVT and production data. It is intended as the public-domain geological backbone against which such evaluations can be tested for consistency.

What the framework does do, and what less coupled workflows cannot, is prevent the two most common errors in dual-phase prospect reporting: assigning a black-oil column to a trap that will in fact receive a gas cap that breaches the seal, and assigning a gas-only column to a trap that will in fact retain a substantial condensate leg. Neither error is small; either can invalidate a resource estimate by a factor of two or more.

10. Conclusion

The Guyana–Suriname Basin is a dual-phase petroleum system with a single dominant kitchen, four stacked source intervals, two migration regimes, and a clearly resolved fluid spectrum. In such a province, the assessment of oil versus gas phase and of the associated column heights cannot be reduced to a pore-volume exercise. It requires an integrated probabilistic treatment of charge PVT, trap geometry, and top- and fault-seal capacity — all three at once. The GLIAG Guyana–Suriname Petroleum System Architecture provides the geological scaffolding for that treatment: a source-stack map, a migration-regime map, a fluid-province map, a GOR–API family curve, a documented mass balance, and an updip anchor. Together they turn a set of block-by-block anecdotes into a basin-scale, testable, and defensible framework for exploration and development decisions.

The next generation of exploration in the basin will not be decided by the discovery of new source rocks. It will be decided by how carefully explorationists reconstruct the interaction between multiple kitchens, migration pathways, trap geometry and fluid evolution — in a single, coupled probabilistic frame. That is the work the architecture is built to support.

References — GLIAG / Author

• Chin-A-Lien, M.P.T. (2026a). Understanding the Guyana–Suriname Basin Petroleum System. Petroleum & Energy Insights, 24 February 2026.

References — GLIAG / Author

• Chin-A-Lien, M.P.T. (2026a). Understanding the Guyana–Suriname Basin Petroleum System. Petroleum & Energy Insights, 24 February 2026.

• Chin-A-Lien, M.P.T. (2026b). The Evolution of Petroleum Systems in Suriname Offshore Exploration. Petroleum & Energy Insights, 11 July 2026.

• Chin-A-Lien, M.P.T. (2026c). SE Golden Lane: A Dual Oil and Gas Condensate Basin — The Charge Fairway of Blocks 52 & 58 (Suriname). Petroleum & Energy Insights, 13 July 2026.

• Chin-A-Lien, M.P.T. (2026d). A World-Class ACT Marine Source Rock System: Petroleum Systems and Exploration Implications for the Guyana–Suriname Basin. Petroleum & Energy Insights, 1 February 2026.

• Chin-A-Lien, M.P.T. (2026e). ACT Petroleum Systems: Insights from the Guyana–Suriname Basin. Petroleum & Energy Insights, 2 February 2026.

• Chin-A-Lien, M.P.T. (2026f). Understanding Maka-1’s Role in the Golden Lane Petroleum System. Petroleum & Energy Insights, 9 February 2026.

• Chin-A-Lien, M.P.T. (2026g). The Pulse Beneath the Golden Lane. Petroleum & Energy Insights, 9 February 2026.

• Chin-A-Lien, M.P.T. (2026h). Tambaredjo Revisited: Anatomy of a World-Class Shallow Onshore Petroleum System. Petroleum & Energy Insights, 6 February 2026.

• Chin-A-Lien, M.P.T. (2026i). Revolutionizing Petroleum Migration in the Guyana Basin. Petroleum & Energy Insights, 23 July 2026.

• Chin-A-Lien, M.P.T. (2026j). The Golden Lane, Guyana: From Deep-Water Turbidite Petroleum Systems to FPSO-Driven National Revenue. Petroleum & Energy Insights, 27 January 2026.

• Chin-A-Lien, M.P.T. (2026k). Petroleum Systems of the Guyana–Suriname Basin. Petroleum & Energy Insights, 25 January 2026.

• Chin-A-Lien, M.P.T. (2026l). Evaluating the Commercial Potential of Orinduik’s Oil Discoveries. Petroleum & Energy Insights, 27 July 2026.

• Chin-A-Lien, M.P.T. (2026m). Investor Insights: The Future of Orinduik’s Petroleum Potential. Petroleum & Energy Insights, 27 July 2026.

• Chin-A-Lien, M.P.T. (2026n). Exploring the Porcellanite Clue in Araku-1. Petroleum & Energy Insights, 21 May 2025.

• Chin-A-Lien, M.P.T. (2026o). Why Companies Are Competing in Demerara: Insights from Recent Discoveries. Petroleum & Energy Insights, 6 July 2026.

• Chin-A-Lien, M.P.T. (2026p). Transforming Suriname’s Petroleum Strategy Through Systems Thinking. Petroleum & Energy Insights, 17 July 2026.

• Chin-A-Lien, M.P.T. (2026q). From Forecasts to Findings: The Guyana–Suriname Oil Story. Petroleum & Energy Insights.

• Talukdar, S., Gallango, O. and Chin-A-Lien, M. (1986). Generation and migration of hydrocarbons in the Maracaibo Basin, Venezuela. Organic Geochemistry, 10 (1–3), 261–279.

Annex A — Trusted External References Applied to GLIAG Data

The following peer-reviewed publications, AAPG memoirs, industry handbooks and open technical resources are the international reference frame against which the GLIAG Guyana–Suriname Petroleum System Architecture has been calibrated. Each group is mapped to the section of this paper it corroborates or constrains.

A.1  Petroleum-system framework (Sections 2, 5, 7)

• Magoon, L.B. and Dow, W.G. (Eds.) (1994). The Petroleum System — From Source to Trap. AAPG Memoir 60, 655 pp. Defines the source-to-trap cascade and the concept of the critical moment; underpins the mass-balance architecture of Section 5.

• AAPG (2005). Suriname Basin Gets a Good Look. AAPG Explorer, industry review of the pre-Golden Lane basin knowledge base.

A.2  Source-rock kinetics and expulsion (Sections 3, 5, 6)

• Pepper, A.S. and Corvi, P.J. (1995). Simple kinetic models of petroleum formation, Part III: Modelling an open system. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 12(4), 291–319. The organofacies kinetics used to compute expelled tonnage in the SE Golden Lane mass balance.

• Pepper, A. et al. (2020). The Petroleum System of the Guiana Basin, Guyana and Suriname. AAPG LACR webinar. Independent application of the same kinetics to the basin at issue in this paper.

• Peters, K.E., Walters, C.C. and Moldowan, J.M. (2005). The Biomarker Guide, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, 2 vols., 1155 pp. Reference frame for biomarker interpretation of ACT and Tambaredjo oils.

A.3  Seal capacity and capillary column height (Section 4)

• Watts, N.L. (1987). Theoretical aspects of cap-rock and fault seals for single- and two-phase hydrocarbon columns. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 4(4), 274–307. Foundational treatment of two-phase seal capacity used in the coupled column-height equation.

• Vavra, C.L., Kaldi, J.G. and Sneider, R.M. (1992). Capillary pressure — AAPG Methods in Exploration Series 10. Standard method for laboratory Pce measurement referenced in Section 4.

• Yielding, G., Freeman, B. and Needham, D.T. (1997). Quantitative fault seal prediction. AAPG Bulletin, 81(6), 897–917. Basis for shale-gouge-ratio fault-seal scoring.

• Sneider, R.M. (1996). Evaluation of Seals and Flow Barriers. AAPG Search and Discovery, industry short-course material on seal typing.

• AAPG Wiki. Seal capacity of different rock types. Reference table for typical Pce values used in the Section 4 diagnostic.

A.4  Regional Guyana–Suriname Basin context (Sections 2, 5, 6, 9)

• Yang, W. and Escalona, A. (2011). Tectonostratigraphic evolution of the Guyana Basin. AAPG Bulletin, 95(8), 1339–1368. Regional structural framework used to place the ACT kitchen in its Cretaceous context.

• Sapin, F. et al. (2011). Tectonostratigraphic evolution of the Guyana Basin. AAPG Bulletin, 95(8). Independent structural reconstruction cross-checked against the GLIAG architecture.

• Yang, W., Escalona, A. and Mann, P. (2010). Guyana–Suriname Basin architecture and petroleum systems. AAPG 2010 Annual Convention Abstracts — University of Houston CBTH consortium.

• Bihariesingh, V. (2014). Is the Cretaceous an effective petroleum system offshore Suriname?. AAPG Search and Discovery. Pre-Golden Lane Suriname regional assessment.

• Raghoenath, V. and Sontohartono, Z. (2014). Overview of the Cretaceous petroleum systems of the Suriname–Guyana Basin. AAPG Search and Discovery.

• Griffith, C. (2015). Evidence for a Jurassic source rock in the Guyana–Suriname Basin. AAPG Search and Discovery. Anchors the deeper Tithonian/Late-Jurassic contributor listed in Section 2.1.

• Meyers, P.A. et al. (2006). Organic carbon burial rate and the molecular fossil record of black shales at ODP Site 1259 (Demerara Rise). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. Direct laboratory calibration of Canje-equivalent TOC (to 29 percent) on the conjugate rise.

• Staatsolie Maatschappij Suriname N.V. (2026). Staatsolie corporate and technical resources. Operator of Suriname’s onshore and shallow-water acreage; source of Tambaredjo geochemistry cited in Section 7 and the GeoAtlas 2026 mass balance in Section 5.

A.5  Conjugate-margin analogue frame (Section 6)

• Talukdar, S., Gallango, O. and Chin-A-Lien, M. (1986). Generation and migration of hydrocarbons in the Maracaibo Basin, Venezuela. Organic Geochemistry, 10(1–3), 261–279. The author’s own 1986 Maracaibo Basin geochemistry — cited by the USGS as part of the Guyana–Suriname Basin assessment framework.

• Escalona, A. and Mann, P. (2006). Tectonic controls of the Maracaibo Basin. AAPG Bulletin. Provides the conjugate structural template for La Luna / Querecual comparison to Canje.

Legal Notice, IP Reservation and Attribution

© 2026 Drs. Marcel P. T. Chin-A-Lien and Golden Lane Investments Advisory Group (GLIAG N.V.). All rights reserved. This paper is a GLIAG Working Paper published on petroleumenergyinsights.com. No part of this paper — in whole or in part, in any form, electronic, print, digital or otherwise — may be reproduced, redistributed, republished, translated, adapted, incorporated into derivative works, or commercially exploited without the prior written consent of the author and of GLIAG N.V.

Proprietary framework. The “Guyana–Suriname Petroleum System Architecture™”, the “GLIAG Sovereign Reconstruction” of the ACT petroleum system, the “Golden Lane” methodology as applied by GLIAG, the “GLIAG Coupled Charge–PVT–Seal Doctrine”, the “SE Golden Lane Mass Balance”, and the “Canje ↔ Querecual ↔ La Luna Analogue Triangle” as articulated in this paper are proprietary intellectual property of the author and of GLIAG N.V. The nomenclature, structure and argumentative sequence of this framework are original scholarly work; unauthorised use for commercial screening, prospect ranking, training material, marketing, licence-round preparation, or third-party reserves reporting is expressly prohibited.

No AI/ML training. No content of this paper — including text, figures, tables, mass-balance values, GOR–API family construction, architecture nomenclature and citation graph — may be used to train, fine-tune, evaluate, benchmark or ground artificial-intelligence or machine-learning systems (including large language models, embedding models, retrieval-augmented systems and derivative products) without the prior written consent of the author and of GLIAG N.V. Automated extraction, crawling, or scraping of this paper for the training or operation of AI systems is expressly withheld under applicable database, copyright and sui generis rights.

Not investment advice, not a reserves report. This document is intended for scientific and strategic-advisory use. It is not investment advice, a securities recommendation, a resource or reserves certification, or a bankability opinion. Any resource, recoverable-volume, or mass-balance figure cited herein is a public-domain screening-level estimate; nothing in this paper constitutes a reserves report under SPE-PRMS, SEC Regulation S-K, or NI 51-101. Forward-looking statements are made in good faith on the basis of publicly available data as of the date of this paper and are subject to material geological, commercial, fiscal, regulatory and geopolitical uncertainty. No warranty, express or implied, is given as to accuracy, completeness or fitness for a particular purpose. The author and GLIAG N.V. accept no liability for any loss arising from reliance on this paper.

Third-party marks and citations. All third-party trademarks, company names, well names, block names, and product names remain the property of their respective owners and are used solely for identification and scholarly discussion under fair-use / fair-dealing principles. Peer-reviewed and industry sources cited in the References and Annex A are the intellectual property of their respective authors and publishers.

Suggested citation. Chin-A-Lien, M.P.T. (2026). Dual-Phase Charge, Column, and Seal in the Guyana–Suriname Basin — A Petroleum-System Architecture Framework for Realistic Prospect Assessment. GLIAG Working Paper Rev-02, 3 August 2026. Petroleum & Energy Insights, https://www.petroleumenergyinsights.com.

Contact / permissions. Requests for permission, licensing, or collaboration should be directed to GLIAG N.V., Paramaribo, Suriname, via petroleumenergyinsights.com.

GLIAG · Dual-Phase Charge, Column and Seal in the Guyana–Suriname Basin   ·   Page