Interactive fault mapping:
a case study
By E. C. BREDE and STEPHEN W! THOMAS
Landmark Graphics Corporation
Houston. Texas
T he growing use of interactive seismic interpretation
systemsrepresentsan opportunity for innovation in inter-
pretation tools and techniques. These systemsprovide an
environment with fast graphics, computer power, and
storage for both seismic data and picks. Such resources
can be used to construct interpretation tools which are
impossible or impractical to create without them. Some
by now well-known examples are interactive horizon flat-
tening and attribute extraction, and mapping along
structural boundaries. Horizon flattening provides an ap-
proximate section as it would have been at the time of
horizon deposition, and is a valuable structural interpreta-
tion tool. Horizon attribute extraction can be diagnostic
of changes in both lithology and fluids along structural
boundaries, and is useful in stratigraphic interpretation.
It is possible to imagine carrying out both of these opera-
tions by hand (and flattening has been done, in the past,
with judicious use of razor blades) but neither operation
is practical without computer tools. The ongoing develop-
ment of interactive interpretation technology promises to
make many new tools available of which interactive fault
mapping is another example.
The interactive fault mapping process described here
is basedon tools providing multiple, but integrated, access
to the many types of information about faults which are
contained in seismic data. The interpretational objective
is to provide a correct (or at least most probable!) picture
of the fault planes in the survey area, at least as far as
these planes delineate fault blocks of interest.
F ault abasing: an example. In many structural plays, the
correct association of fault picks into fault-horizon cuts
has a profound effect on the resulting horizon structure
map. The significance of correct fault mapping is illus-
trated by two structure maps resulting from alternative
interpretations developedin this casestudy. Figures 1 and
2 show two maps resulting from the same data and the
same horizon picks, differing only in the way in which
identical fault picks are associated into planes. In Figure
2 the white cross (cursor) points out a structural trap
which is present only as a minor structural high on the
other map. This trap, if real, would be an attractive drill-
ing target. Obviously, only one of these maps can be cor-
rect, and a correct drilling decision may ride on knowing
which one.
How can two very different maps be consistent with
the same data? The answer lies in the phenomenon of
fau/t aliming. For many combinations of fault structure
and seismicline spacing (for two-dimensional surveys)the
fault-cut data conventionally posted to a shotpoint map
46 GEOPHYSICS: THE LEADING EDGE OF EXPLORATION SEPTEMBER
are not closely spaced enough to uniquely define fault-
horizon intersections. Viewed this way, the problem is
one of spatial aliasing, where fault-horizon cuts are not
sampled densely enough to reproduce the underlying
structure.
When fault aliasing is present it is one of the most dif-
ficult problems in seismic interpretation. It is imperative
that all of the information available in the data, not just
a fault-cut map, be used in associating seismic section
picks into planes. The tools described in this case study
provide this capability.
T he data used in this study are from offshore Texaswhere
an elongated basement uplift trends southwest-northeast
in the study area. Figure 3 showsa shotpoint map of the
segment of the survey selected. In this area, the lines
trending northwest-southeast are dip lines for both the
horizons of interest and the faults.
Two of these parallel dip lines, 106 and 108, are shown
in Figure 4 as migrated sections. The locations of these
lines are highlighted in green on the shotpoint map. The
influence, particularly in the fault structure, of the base-
ment ridge can be seen near the center of both dip sec-
tions. A reflector mapped in this study, designated the
A Horizon, is shown picked between 1.6 and 2.0 set on
there sections. Strike sections in the area tend to be con-
fused because of a large amount of sideswipe.
F ault picks. Figure 5 showsa shotpoint map of dip lines
interpreted from the area, with associatedfault cuts. Each
pair of tick marks in the figure representsa fault cut at
the level of the horizon, i.e., the intersection of the A
Horizon and a fault pick on a seismic line. The arrow on
each pair of ticks points to the down-thrown side of the
fault. The arrows not connectedto tick marks in the figure
show dip of the A Horizon. This fault-cut map represents
a starting point in assigningthe fault picks from individual
sections into planes. In a clearer situation, the one with
fewer cuts or closerlines, the interpreter might simply con-
nect the ticks with heave lines, the outlines of fault heave
zones in the horizon, and proceedto contour the horizon.
In this case, the correct association is ambiguous from
the fault-cut map, and the need for examining the fault
data in other views is clear.
The assignmentof fault picks on sectionsto fault planes
is equivalent to the assignment of horizon segments, be-
tween fault cuts, to fault blocks. For this reason the corre-
lation of horizon segmentsshapesfrom line to line is often
useful in discerning a fault assignment. Figure 6 shows
the A Horizon as it appears on seven dip SeCtiOnSfrom
1986
 line 102 at the top to line 114at the bottom. The yellow
dots show the points with picks on strike lines 111and
115. A mistie is apparent on 110. Tools like interactive
mistie display and correction, while not a direct part of
fault mapping,contributea quality checkon the process.
Study of the horizon patternsin Figure6 beginsto sug-
gestsome plausiblefault blocks. For example,there is a
roll overfeature,probablyan echoof the ridge,whichcor-
relatesacrossseverallines.This providesone startingpoint
for interpretation.

F ault plane mapping is accomplishedby assigninga fault

pick, or fault segment,from eachintersectingseismicline
to an interpreted fault plane and then producinga con-
tour map. The idea is to provide another check on fault
plane consistency.Do the fault segmentsfrom a single
fault surfaceshowreasonablegeometricconsistency across
severalseismiclines? Is there continuity of fault olane
shape and slope? If fault planes intersect, which is
Figure 1. Interpreter’s work map computed from fault inter-
pretation.
younger? All of these factors as well as others can be

Figure2. Interpreter’swork map computedfrom alternativefault

plane assignment. Figure 4. ‘Qpical dip lines.

investigatedthrough fault plane mapping.

Figure 7 showsa multiwindow displaywhich is central
to interactivefault interpretation.The eight cross-sections
acrossthe top show the fault segmentsfrom lines 100
through 114 in left-to-right, top-to-bottom order. The
number of windows,their location, and their contentsis
userselectable.Thesecross-sectionwindowsallow ready
visual correlation of fault shapefrom sectionto section.
The colorsof the fault segmentscorrespondto fault plane
assignmentsseenin the map of the fault planes in the
lower centerof the figure. Unassignedsegments,as in 114
at the right end of the secondrow,remainwhite The color
bar along the left sideof the figure designatesthe colors
used for highlighting time contours. Fault planes may
either be shownin their assignedcolor, as in the figure,
or in time-contourcolors.Unassignedsegments are shown
as a seriesof closelyspacedarrowsin time-contourcolors.
The contour map window contains examplesof unas-
signedsegmentson lines 110 and 114.
Figure 3. Shotpoint map of offshore Texasstudy area. Figure7 representsan end point of an interactiveinter-

GEOPHYSICS: THE LEADING EDGE OF EXPLORATION SEPTEMBER 1986 47

 Figure 5. Fault cuts from the study area dip lines. Figure 6. Horizon correlation across dip lines.

pretation session.Typically the interpreter starts with

unassignedsegmentsonly, in both sectionand map view
windows.
By workingthroughoneplaneat a time selectingmulti-
ple viewsinteractively as necessary,the interpreter tries
out variouscombinationsof segments.A segmentcan be
assignedto, or deassignedfrom, a fault plane by point-
ing with the cursor. For example, the red-orange fault
planeat the northwesternend of the surveyis distinguished
by a number of features, including:
l Shapecorrelationsof the horizon roll over in Figure6
l Shape correlation of the fault segmentsthemselves
l Ppence of distinguishing antitheticfaults(in yellow)
radiating from the base of the red-orange fault
l Continuous shape of the resulting fault plane

F ault plane perspective.The contour map viewsalone

can be deceivingin viewingfault planes.For example,con-
sider the yellow fault plane just southeastof the red-
orange plane in Figure 7. From the contour map alone, Figure 7. Fault plane map and cross-section windows.
this planecould be parallelto the others.Of course,study
of the sectionsrevealsthis fault to be antitheticto the red-
orange. A perspectiveview, shownin Figure 8, makesit
possibleto pick out theserelationshipsdirectly. Note the
presenceof the north arrow in the top of the cubeoutline
used to orient the display.The orientation of the views
is interactivelyselectableby the user.This particularview
is from the bottom up, and showsthe yellow as clearly
antitheticto the red-orangefault. Note alsothe unassigned
segmentsshown in perspectiveview as white lines.

H o&on-fault intersections.Once fault plane assign-

mentshave been made, the intersectionsof theseplanes
with the horizon of interest- in this casethe A Horizon
- can be computedand displayed.This displayof hori-
zon cuts is, in itself, a useful and important part of the
fault assignment process.Trial fault assignments
mustlead
to believablehorizon-fault cut patterns. Figure 9 shows
computed fault-horizon intersectionsresultingfrom the
fault plane assignmentin Figure 8. Each intersectionline
is automatically computedand shownin the color asso- Figure 8. Perspective view of assigned fault planes.

48 GEOPHYSICS: THE LEADING EDGE OF EXPLORATION SEPTEMBER 1986

ciated with the fault plane that producedit. Fault heave
line polygonshavebeen digitized as an overlay in Figure
9, usingthe coloredfault-horizonintersectionsas a guide.
The width of the fault-cut ticks, now shown in time-
contour colors,providesa guideto establishingthe width
of the fault heave zones outlined by the polygons.The
underlying shotpoint grid provides frame of reference.
Once a consistentfault planeassignmenthasbeenmade,
a faulted contour map can be generated.This is accomp-
lishedby passinghorizon picks, in this casethe A Hori-
zon, and fault heave line polygons, shown in Figure 9,
to a contouring algorithm. The resultis shownin Figure
1. The contoursare time codedaccordingto the color bar
on the left side of the figure. Note how the addition of
the greencolor marker has clarified structuralhighson
the map. The systemproducesmaps of the type shown
in Figure 1 with very short responsetime suitablefor use
in making a judgment whether to proceedwith further
interactive fault or horizon interpretation.

A n alternativeinterpretation. An advantageof interac- Figure 9. Horizon-fault intersectionsand heaveline polygons.

tive interpretationtechnologyis the ability to quickly pose
and testalternativeinterpretationhypotheses. This process
of testing multiple alternativesis beneficial in reducing
the risk of an incorrect drilling decision.An alternative
fault plane interpretation,basedon the sameseismicsec-
tion picks previously used, is shown in Figure 10. The
layout of this figure is the same as that of Figure 7.
The interpretationshownin Figure10 isdifferent mainly
in that a seriesof fault segmentshavebeenassembledinto
a continuousfault plane, shownin yellow,cutting across
the study area. The associatedcross-sectiondisplaysin
the figure showthis interpretationis not impossible.This
particular fault plane interpretation producesa signifi-
cant change in the structural picture of Horizon A, as
shownin Figure2. This faulted contour map is computed
and displayedin the sameway as Figure 1. The new fault
interpretation has introduced a much larger structural
closurethan was presenton the earlier map. On struc-
tural groundsalone,the spotmarked with the white cross
(cursor) is a viable drilling location.
Figure 10. Alternative fault plane assignment.
Testing alternatives. The maps of Figures 1 and 2 are
obviously inconsistentin a very significant way. Figure
2 supportsa drilling location where no trap is indicated
in Figure 1. Which interpretation is more correct? This
is an example,albeit a dramatic one, of the many alter-
nativesthe interpretermust continuouslytest and accept
or discard.Computer-aidedfault mappingmakesit possi-
ble to test those alternativesinteractively,as ideascome
to mind.
One way to test the two interpretationsrepresentedby
Figures1 and 2 is to examinethe evidencesupportingkey
fault planes.The orange fault plane of Figures9 and 1
and the yellowfault planeof Figures10and 2 are mutually
exclusiveinterpretations.The yellow fault planeof the sec-
ond interpretationclosesthe suspected trap that it shows.
Figures 11 and 12 show fault plane maps and segment
assignmentsfor the orange and the yellow fault planes,
respectively.Figures 13 and 14 isolate perspectiveviews
of the orangeand yellow fault planes.From thesefigures,
it is possibleto judge the relativeconformity of shapeof
the fault segmentsin each plane, and the shape and Figure 11. Fault plane map, orange plane, first interpretation.

GEOPHYSICS: THE LEADING EDGE OF EXPLORATION SEPTEMBER 1986 49


Figure12. Fault planemap, yellowplane,alternateinterpretation.
Figure 13. Perspectiveview of orange plane.
Figure 14. Perspectiveview of yellow plane.
50 GEOPHYSICS: THE LEADING EDGE OF EXPLORATION
smoothnessof the assignedfault planesthemselves.Ex-
aminingFigure 13closely,it is possibleto seethat the fault
segmentin line 108 is geometricallydisjointed from the
rest of the fault plane. The yellow fault plane in Figure
14, seenedge-onin the samecritical regionof the survey,
showsbettergeometricconformity.The alternateinterpre-
tation of Figures 12 and 14, which leads to the struc-
tural closure on Figure 2, may be judged the better ,
interpretation. /
T*
hsarticlepresentsonly a samplingof the interactivefault i
i
interpretationand mapping tools available,and an even I
smallersamplingof the manywaysthesetoolscan be com-
bined in the interpretationprocess.The systemdemon-
stratedin this study allowsthe userto constructhis own
data windowsand viewsat will and to interactwith several 1
viewssimultaneously. This capabilityprovidestremendous
freedomto exploreand understandthe datain the waybest 1;
suited for each interpretationproblem. &
(The authors thank Landmark GraphicsCorp. for permission
to publish thispapen and Grant-NorpacCorp.for permission to
useand displaythe seismicdata. The authorsalso wishto thank
Kevin Donihoo and J. A. Coffeenfor their ideasand help.)
StephenW Thomasis vice-president for
New BusinessDevelopmentat Landmark
Gmphicscorporation wherehe istespon-
sible for developing new applications
for interactiveinterpretationtechnology.
Prior to joining Landmark in 1985, Dr.
Thomas was with Mobil Researchand
Development Corporation as manager
and technologyevaluation and research
consultant. Dr. Thomas conducted or
managedresearchand developmentprojectsin areasincluding
interactiveseismicinterpretation,imageprocessing,computer
mapping, seismicsignal processing,shear-waveinterpretation,
marine seismicdata acquisitionand non-seismicexploration
As manager, TechnologyEvaluation, he was responsiblefor
evaluatingcapabilitiesand planning developmentin all areas
of explorationand production technology.He earned his doc-
toratein electricalengineeringand computersciencefrom Cor-
nell University.
Chuck Brede is corpomte geophysicist
with Landmark Gmphics Corporation.
He hasmore than 30 yearsof exploration
experience,advancingfrom field work to
sophisticated3-D interpretation. Brede
supervisedsomeof thefirst field crewsto
use digital equipment.Bmde becamein-
volvedin pioneer3-D surveysin the early
1970s.He servedas US marketing man-
ager for Geophysical Service Inc. for
sevemlyearsb&on?leavingthat firm, in 1982,to becomea con-
sultant who specializedin 3-D interpretation.He joined Land-
mark in 1985.
SEPTEMBER 1986