5. task geoscience - structural interpretation methodology
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
1/63
Structure 1/1
Image log & dipmeteranalysis course
Structural interpretation
methodology
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
2/63
Structure 1/2
Structural interpretation from borehole images
Dip analysis
Structural zonation Structural boundary interpretation
Curvature analysis
Integration with logs and seismic data
Fracture characterisation Fracture description
Fracture distribution and sampling bias
Influence upon flow
Structural issues in deviated wells In-situ stress analysis
Interpreting in-situ stress indicators
Geomechanical applications
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
3/63
Structure 1/3
Primer
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
4/63
Structure 1/4
Plane orientation elements & notation
Dip: maximum inclination of plane from horizontal.
Azimuth: direction of maximum inclination as compass
bearing from 0-360.
Strike: trend of any horizontal line on plane, 90 from azimuth.
Reported as dip/azimuth, e.g. 45/045.
Azimuth
North
Horizontal plane
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
5/63
Structure 1/5
Upper hemisphere stereoplot
Planes plotted as poles. Centre of circle horizontal.
Rim of circle vertical (unless
otherwise labelled).
Dip denoted by distance
from centre of stereoplot.
Azimuth denoted by angle
clockwise from top ofstereonet N).
N
45/045
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
6/63
Structure 1/6
Dip azimuth and strike histograms
Dip azimuth rose histogram
Petals denote dip directions
Small petal: few dips in this direction
Large petal: many dips in this direction
Used commonly for visualising beddirections.
Strike histogram
Petals denote strike of plane
Symmetrical about centre
Used commonly for fracture work
N
N
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
7/63Structure 1/7
Dip tadpole plot:Glyphs representing feature attitude.
Dip azimuth plot:
Symbols represent feature dipazimuth, scaled from 0 (North) to
360 (North)
Depth (ft)
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
10 30 50
Tadpole Plot
120 240
Dip Azimuth Plot
0 360
Increasing
inclination
N
39115
39/115
N E S W N
115
Tadpole plot emphasises dip domains,
Azimuth plot emphasises azimuth domains.
Dip data representation
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
8/63Structure 1/8
Each bed is drawn as an arrow pointing to
its dip azimuth. The plot is built from the base of the study
interval up-section, with the tail of eachfeature arrow placed at the head of theprevious arrow.
Sections of consistent dip azimuth becomeapparent, boundaries may be distinguishedas sharp or gradational.
Arrow length varied with pick confidence toemphasise good data over poor.
Used to identify subtle structural changes.
Base of interval
Top of interval
Dip azimuth vector walkouts
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
9/63Structure 1/9
Each bed is drawn as an arrow oriented to its dip magnitude(where right is 0 and down is 90).
The plot is built from the interval base up-section.
Sections of consistent dip magnitude become apparent,
boundaries may be distinguished as sharp or gradational.
Arrow length varied with pick confidence to emphasise good data
over poor.
Used to identify bulk structural zonation.
Base of interval
Top of interval Dip angle
Cumulative dip magnitude plots
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
10/63Structure 1/13
Dip analysis
Analysis of bedding fabrics and
key structural surfaces to produce
a bulk structural zonation
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
11/63Structure 1/14
Objective setting Initial visual analysis of succession
Review of image data
Dip picking
Structural zonation
Structural dip determination
Structural boundary interpretation
Analysis of folded successions Integration with seismic data
Outline
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
12/63Structure 1/15
Objective setting
Objective
Verification of seismic
structure
Bulk structure model in
area of poor seismic data
due to e.g. shallow gas
Fault location and
orientation to plan
sidetracks
Structural input to a
deterministic reservoir
model
Reorientation of fabrics in
core
Input
Regional information.
Zones of interest.
Budget?
Advice on acquisition practice.
Output
Specification of information
required.
Objectives met?
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
13/63Structure 1/16
Scales of measurements
15m
1cm
Borehole
images
and
dipmeters
3D seismic
Core
Fault throw (m)
Cumulativefau
ltdensity
(faultspe
rkm)
0.0
1 1
100
10000
10000
100
1
0.01
Real geology and
limitless resolution
but limited coverage
& hard to see largescale structure
VSP
Fabrics resolved down
to fractions of an inch
using microresistivity
and acoustic tools, an
inch using dipmeters
and inches to feet using
LWD devices
Seismic finds large-
scale reflective
packages but littleinternal detail; VSP
adds more detail to
under 10m
resolution
Open hole WBM resistivity tools
Open hole OBM resistivity tools
Open hole acoustic tools
LWD tools: density, resistivity,
gamma-ray, photo-electriceffect
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
14/63Structure 1/17
Faultdamage
zone
Look at all scales!
Core to seismic
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
15/63Structure 1/18
Initial visual assessment
Objectives:
Identify major structural zones and
bulk structure
To identify areas which require further
detailed examination
Data required: Automatic dip results
Open hole logs to identify lithology
changes, etc.
Known stratigraphy
Use overview scale (1:500 or 1:1000) to
identify major zones in the context of the
open hole log suite.
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
16/63Structure 1/19
Close examination of images (often 1:5 to 1:20 scale)
Assessment of automatic dip data Are computed dips representative of primary bedding fabric?
Do events in computed dips represent structural boundaries?
Are dip artefacts present?
Do outlier dips represent fractures or over-steep beds?
Recognition and description of artefacts Evaluation of types of features that are visible
Core comparison where possible
Construction of dip classification types
Picking of a small number of manual dips to assistinterpretation of automatic dips
Is data representative and reliable can analysis of theautomatic dip data satisfy objectives?
Image review
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
17/63Structure 1/20
If automatic dips are representative fabric orientations then
analysis can continue: Classification of automatic dips using log cut-offs and
inclinations (e.g. shale beds, sandstone beds from
gamma-ray log, over-steep beds where inclination is over
15 above the background dip) Infill picking of bedding fabric where automatic dips have
low correlation coefficients or dips are absent
Detailed manual picking over intervals where structure is
thought to change
Dip analysis to produce a structural zonation and
representative dips
Reclassify and analyse?
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
18/63Structure 1/21
Pros and cons of this approach
Pros
Rapid turnaround Provides a bulk
structural
interpretation
Adds value to a
traditional dipmeteranalysis
Cost-effective
Cons
Using modern image logs as dipmetersmisses a significant amount of information:
Data is low resolution
Detailed description and classification of
textures is not done
Automatic dips are placed at the centreof each correlation window; the position
of a features within this is not known
Fractures and faults are unlikely to be
imaged
Fine-scale fabric variations are omittedbut these are important in understanding
the sedimentology
Manual dip picking allows much greater
interpretation resolution and confidence
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
19/63Structure 1/22
Systematic pass at appropriatescale (often 1:5 to 1:20)
Fit sine curves to features
Assign categories based on
static image character, open
hole log response and context
Adjust scales and reverse
colour-scaling to get the most
from the images and reclassify
dips if necessary Flag important features that
require further analysis
Manual dip picking
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
20/63Structure 1/23
1:10 scale, section 1.5 metres
Manual dip picking example
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
21/63Structure 1/24
Where possible use static image to define major
changes in lithology and nature of fractures (hereresistive is bright, conductive dark).
The dynamic image captures more detail within lowcontrast intervals and allows dense dip picking.
Dip categories may change after structural dip isremoved, as anomalous orientations become moreevident; dips are finalised after initial structuralanalysis, derotation and facies picking.
Dips are assigned a quality based on the confidenceof category type assigned, fit of sine curve andfeature continuity in image.
Manual dip picking
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
22/63
Structure 1/25
Dip analysis and structural dip determinationVector walkout plots, cumulative dip magnitude plots,
Interactive stereographs, derotated tadpole tracks
Initial dip data assessment
Dip tadpole and dip azimuth plotsInterval stereoplots and rose histograms
PRELIMINARY STRUCTURAL
ZONATION
STRUCTURAL ZONATION,STRUCTURAL DIPS
Zone boundary interpretationCurvature analysis plots, integration of evidence
from images, well tops and other available data-sets
STRUCTURAL INTERPRETATION
OF DIP DATA
Fracture and fault analysis,curvature analysis
ITERATIVE!
Structural interpretation workflow
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
23/63
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
24/63
Structure 1/27
Top zone 1
Top zone 2
Top zone 3
Top zone 4
Dip azimuth vector walkout plot
Overall NE dip
Top zone 2
Top zone 3Top zone 4
Top zone 1
Cumulative dip magnitude plot
0 AZIM 0
0 DIP 90
Dip analysis plots
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
25/63
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
26/63
Structure 1/29
Further division of structure
Domain 210-30 SSEUp-holeshallowingFault drag?
Domain 110 SEUniform dip
Domain 35 NWUniform dip
Fault?
Fault?
Fault?
Subdomain 1aModerately uniformorientation; localup-hole shallowing-depositional?
Subdomain 1bVariable azimuthsSerrate dip profile
-complexdepositional dipsor faulting
Subdomain 2aUp-hole shallowingdips. Ends atsteep S dips thatmay be faults.
Subdomain 2b
Up-hole shallowingdips. Ends atfault with no footwalldrag - listric?
Subdomain 3aShallow NW dips
Subdomain 3bChaotic WNW dips
Subdomain 3cUp-hole steepening - drag?
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
27/63
Structure 1/30
Dip analysis exercise: part 1
15 mins
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
28/63
Structure 1/31
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
29/63
Structure 1/32
Part 1 discussion
Automatic dips good;
representative of beddingfabric, but rarely captures
fractures and some spurious
dips (2554 m, 2610-2620 m,
below 2755 m).
Shales and sandstones are
present; sandstones at
2497-2543 m with some shale
partings.
Automatic dips good, even insandstones
Possible structural breaks:
Azimuth?
Dip?
Lithology?
Data quality?
Lumpers versus splitters
Start at large scale,
refine later
Structural zones and
sub-zones?
Work in isolation from other
data (e.g. stratigraphy) and
incorporate later?
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
30/63
Structure 1/33
Initial dip interpretation
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
31/63
Structure 1/34
Importance of scale
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
32/63
Structure 1/35
Structural dip in slumped sequences
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
33/63
Structure 1/36
Objective:
Break the logged interval into intervals of consistent structural
dip or dip motif. Produce a table of structural dip zones
Techniques:
Visually recognise large scale structural zones from manual
dip data plotted on vector walkouts and dip magnitude plots. Use zones of originally horizontal bedding (e.g. shales or
limestone bedding) to measure post-depositional dip.
Use stereographic techniques and statistic methods to refinezone picking and representative structural dips.
Use statistical curvature analysis techniques where noparallel bedding exists.
Structural dip determination
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
34/63
Structure 1/37
Upper hemisphere stereoplots of poles to
planes and bed azimuth rose histograms.
1% Schmidt contoured poles, weighted tointerpretation confidence.
Only palaeohorizontal proxies used.
Eigenvector and Fisher Analyses.
Peak count of the weighted contour plot.
Structural dip is used to de-rotate post-
depositional tilt from bedding dips and the
method which flattens bedding most
successfully is chosen.
NEqual Area
(Schmidt)
Upper Hem.
Wtd Point Density
N = 553
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
22%
24%
26%
28%
Structural dip calculation
Schmidt
Wulff
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
35/63
Structure 1/38
Subsurface dip is the sum of depositional dip, compaction,
soft sediment deformation and cumulative tectonic deformation
Subsurface dip components
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
36/63
Structure 1/39
Dip analysis exercise: part 2
15 mins
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
37/63
Structure 1/40
2460 2470 2480 24902500 2510
2520
25302540
2550
2560
2570
2580
2590
2600
2610
26202630
2640
2650
2660
2670
2680
2690
2700
2710
2720
2730
2740
2750
2760
2450
STRUCTURAL INTERPRETATION EXERCISE
Top of interval
Base of interval
Dip azimuth vector walkout plotGreen: shale bedding
Brown: sandstone bedding
Cumulative dip magnitude plotGreen: shale bedding
Brown: sandstone bedding
2460 2470 2480 2490 2500
25102520
25302540
2550 25602570
25802590
26002610
26202630
26402650
26602670
2680
2690
27002710
2720
2730
2740
2750
2760
N
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
38/63
Structure 1/41
Part 2 discussion
Zone Top Base Orientation Comments
1 2450 2543 6/260 Includes sandstones and
slumps; W dips at base
2 2543 2650 8/290 Rotation to N dips at top
may be depositional
3 2650 2683 10/320 As above4 2683 2713 18/320 As above
5 2713 2755 15-28/320 Progressive down hole
dip increase - rotation
into fault below section?6 2755 2770 ? Unreliable
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
39/63
Structure 1/42
Part 2 discussion
Sandstones at 2497-2542 m are problematic:
Internally inconsistent cross-bedded and/or slumped
West dips at base are consistent with shales above
Internal NW shale parting dips are consistent with
shales below
Sand presence may be due to a structural change(i.e. should be derotated using shale dips above).
A change in depositional slope may have led to slumping.
Use the wrong structural dip, get inaccurate orientations
from sandstone beds during analysis of deposition andpalaeoslope.
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
40/63
Structure 1/43
Examine images over the boundary
Indications of fracturing, faulting, folding, erosion etc.
Changes in structural dip? Sharp or gradual?
Dip rotation trends?
Changes in lithology/stratigraphy? Biostratigraphical events?
Open hole log responses that mayindicate weathering, erosion or hiatus?
A dip pattern alone is insufficient evidence for positiveidentification; more evidence is required.
Structural zone boundary interpretation
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
41/63
Structure 1/44
0 90
0 90
Parallel unconformity
Angular unconformity
Planar unconformitywith weathered zone
Buried topography
with weathered zone
Unconformities dip patterns
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
42/63
Structure 1/45
Bedding fabric in lower unit truncated by overlying unit. Juxtaposition of distinctly different lithologies.
Abrupt dip change with no progressive rotation.
Presence of clasts.
Presence of drape, seen in anomalous dips. Compactiontends to make the orientation change more gradual.
Change in static image response due to weathering,
changes in cement, reworking.
Regional knowledge; unconformities are often known fromseismic data and so explain changes in dip from images
Unconformities evidence from images
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
43/63
Structure 1/46
Normal fault
Fault dip exceeds maximum bedding dip in drag zone
Deformation in hanging-wall and foot-wall
Reverse fault may also display deformation in hanging-walland foot-wall but dip azimuth in drag fold opposes fault plane
azimuth.
Listric growth fault
Fault dip exceeds maximum inclination
of beds in drag zoneBut has opposing dip direction
Deformation restricted to hanging-wall
Ramp antiform above thrust fault
Only evident at ramps; flats will not
display drag.
Faults dip patterns
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
44/63
Structure 1/47
Fault kinematics from displacement
FW
HW
FW
HW
Vertical well
Normal
Reverse
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
45/63
Structure 1/48
Identifying faults
It is rarely possible to demonstrate
displacement unequivocally on images:
we normally describe fractures andonly inferfaults
(Parkinson et al. 1999).
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
46/63
Structure 1/49
Direct observation: clear offset of bedding or fractures
Indirect observations: Change in structural dipblock rotation
Juxtaposition of differing lithofacies across adiscrete fracture
Progressive rotation into structural boundaryfault drag
Enhanced fracture densitydamage zone
Change in cement type
Fluid interface (if sealing)
Pressure change
Hole damage (commonly washout)
Change in the intensity and/or orientation ofpresent day in-situ stress features
Faults evidence from images
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
47/63
Structure 1/50
Buried topography
with weathered zone
Normal fault with adjacent drag
Caution
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
48/63
Structure 1/51
Upright, symmetric synform
Upright, symmetric antiform
Upright, asymmetric antiform
Recumbent similarfold (left)
Upright parallel
fold (right)
Plunging upright
antiform
Parasitic folds
Folds dip patterns
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
49/63
S ti l di l
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
50/63
Structure 1/53
Zone 1
5/220
Zone 2
6/140
Zone 3
8/350
1.
Cromer
Knoll
2.
Valhall3.
Pre-ValhallOriginal
Sequential dip removal
St t l di f b ddi
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
51/63
Structure 1/54
Poles to cross-beds
Rotation
axis
Depositional attitude:
Cross-beds depositedon horizontal surface
Subsurface attitude:
Bedding tilted through
large-scale rotation duringregional tectonism
Tilt
If enough sets of cross-beds
are sampled, their axes of
curvature will define a girdle,the pole to which is the
structural dip.
The poles to cross-bedding
planes in a single unit
will fall on a girdle, the pole
of which (i.e. axis of curvature
lies within the plane of the
structural dip.Upper hemisphere stereoplot
Structural dip from cross-bedding
F ld
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
52/63
Structure 1/55
Folds are more commonly observed in horizontal wells than
the analysis of vertical wells would suggest. Identification & classification chevrons and tadpole facing
directions, synclinal and anticlinal.
Analysis wavelength, amplitude orientation & plunge.
SCAT analysis. Dipping beds can have an effect on fluid flow, varying as a
part function of up-dip and down dip fluid transport.
Can be hard to track single bed in horizontal wells.
Problems with dip removal non-linear changes in dipsacross a fold.
Folds
Statistical Curvature Analysis Techniques
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
53/63
Structure 1/56
Graphical techniques used to assess presence and attitude
of folds in a dip data-set (Bengtson 1980).
Used to identify and orientate:-
1. Large-scale fold trends in compressive regimes.
2. Growth faults.
3. Drag folds against faults to derive fault strike if dip-slip.
4. Slump fold axes; may identify palaeoslope strike.Bengtson, C.A. 1980. Statistical Curvature Analysis Techniques for
Structural Interpretation of Dipmeter Data. AAPG Bulletin 65, 312-332.
Statistical Curvature Analysis Techniques
(SCAT)
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
54/63
St hi l l i f f ld
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
55/63
Structure 1/58
+
N
Fold girdle
(great circle)
Pole to bedding plane
Upper hemisphere
Schmidt stereoplot
Limb 1
Centre of cluster defines
limb orientationLimb 2
Scatter defines hinge;
few dips indicates angular,
smooth spread suggestsfold is gently curved.
Inter-limb angle measured
along great circle
Fold axis is pole
to fold girdle if
fold is parallel
Fold axis is line of intersection between
mean limb orientations if fold is similar
Stereographical analysis of folds
Dip analysis exercise
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
56/63
Structure 1/59
p y
Part 3
10 mins
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
57/63
Structure 1/60
2460 2470 2480 24902500 2510
2520
25302540
2550
2560
2570
2580
2590
2600
2610
26202630
2640
2650
2660
2670
2680
2690
2700
2710
2720
2730
2740
2750
2760
2450
STRUCTURAL INTERPRETATION EXERCISE
Top of interval
Base of interval
Dip azimuth vector walkout plotGreen: shale bedding
Brown: sandstone bedding
Cumulative dip magnitude plotGreen: shale bedding
Brown: sandstone bedding
2460 2470 2480 2490 2500
25102520
25302540
2550 25602570
25802590
26002610
26202630
26402650
26602670
2680
2690
27002710
2720
2730
2740
2750
2760
N
P t 3 di i
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
58/63
Structure 1/61
Part 3 discussion
Fractures strike E-W and N-S; low bias as vertical well.
Fracture inclinations show normal distribution around 45; may beearly and rotated or compacted.
Faults strike E-W and N-S.
Inclinations scattered from 30-75; slightly steeper than fractures
and so may be later?
Fractures and faults are clustered into possible damage zones or
due to mechanical stratigraphy.
SCAT of whole interval shows E-W curvature axis is this the
basin axis or related to E-W striking fault population?
SCAT in sandstones is inconclusive; needs derotating?
SCAT below 2710 m shows curvature about a NE-SW trend
suggests rotation or fault drag above feature below study interval.
Part 3 discussion
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
59/63
Structure 1/62
Part 3 discussion
Depth Type Comments
2543 Unconformity Sharp, no drag, few fractures, significantlithology change. Grade B.
2650 Unconformity Gradual azimuth rotation at top looksdepositional. Grade B.
2683 U/C or fault Possible drag, fracturing but also azimuth
swing as above. Grade C.2713 U/C or fault Drag? Fractures define damage zone?Faults picked striking E-W to ENE-WSW.Grade B.
2755 Data quality End of reliable inclinometry and caliper
data no geological significance. Possibledrag downwards through zone above mayindicate that a fault is present beneath.
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
60/63
Integration with seismic interpretation
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
61/63
Structure 1/64
Integration with seismic interpretation
X
X
B
A
A
B
Possible
faulting
well pathWNW (286) ESE (106)
crestal graben
western flank
Eastern flank
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
62/63
This section has covered
-
7/29/2019 5. Task Geoscience - Structural Interpretation Methodology
63/63
Objective setting
Initial analysis of succession
Review of image data
Manual dip picking
Structural zonation
Structural dip determination
Zone boundary description
Folded zones Integration with seismic data
This section has covered