Seismic Attributes And Their

Application In Faults Interpretation of

Kupe Field, Taranaki Basin, New
Zealand
Nur Zulfa Abdul Kalid
Post graduate student
School of Environmental Science and Natural Resources, National University of
Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
e-mail: zulfakalid@gmail.com

Umar Hamzah
Professor, School of Environmental Science and Natural Resources, National
University of Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
e-mail: umar@ukm.edu.my

Abdul Rahim Samsudin

Professor, School of Environmental Science and Natural Resources, National
University of Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
e-mail: abrahim@ukm.edu.my

ABSTRACT
Several seismic attributes were used in analyzing 3D seismic data of Kupe Field, New Zealand to
study the structural pattern especially the faults and fractures. The size of 3D seismic block
volume used in this study is approximately 37 Km x 15 Km x 5 Km consisting of 288 inline and
736 crossline seismic sections. A Kingdom computer software was used in the interpretation. The
attributes were used to improve the presence of horizontal faults in the time slice. In this paper, a
time slice of 0.6s was used to test the application of the attributes. A total of 6 different attributes
including amplitude, dip of maximum similarity, maximum curvature, minimum curvature, most
positive curvature and most negative curvature were applied at the chosen time slice. A total of 20
normal faults (F1to F20) were identified in the 2D seismic section of inline 549 and these faults
were well correlated laterally in the time slice of all applied seismic attributes especially in the
most negative and minimum curvature seismic attributes. A total of 238 horizontal faults and
fractures were identified in the time slice representing Giant Foresets Formation of late Pliocene in
age. All the measured faults and fractures trend were plotted in the rose diagram. The major trend
of the fault is N30ºE to N40ºE or NE – SW.
KEYWORDS: Seismic Attributes, Faults, Kupe Field.

INTRODUCTION
Taner (2001) and Thapar (2004) defined seismic attribute as all information either measured,
computed or implied quantities derived from seismic data. Chopra and Marfurt (2005) further
defined seismic attribute as any information that can be derived from seismic data such as interval
velocity, inversion for acoustic impedance, pore pressure prediction (Lianbo Hu et al., 2013),

- 2169 -
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 05 2170

reflector terminations and etc. They also mentioned that seismic attribute analysis is very
important aid in seismic interpretation since 1930 where the first seismic section was discovered
by geophysicists. Since then, more than 50 attributes of seismic data were obtained and more
types of attributes were found with the advance in computer technology. Seismic attributes have
been increasingly and widely used by most researchers and interpreters in the seismic
interpretation process especially for reservoir characterization (Vetrici & Stewart, 1996; Strecker
et al., 2004; Chen Xiaohong et al., 2012; Ajisafe & Ako, 2013). The seismic attributes were also
used to determine depositional environments like fluvial (Ahmad & Rowel, 2013; Matos &
Marfurt, 2013) and carbonate buildups (Hartman et al., 2012), detect and enhance faults and
fracture (Ayolabi & Adigun, 2013; Castillo, 2010; Francelino & Antunes, 2013; Santosh et al.,
2013; Odoh et al., 2014) to unravel structural history and even to provide direct hydrocarbon
indicator (Adepoju et al. 2013). This technique is frequently used in seismic data processing as it
can enhance many aspects of geological information which are not easily visible through
conventional processing method (Ayolabi & Adigun, 2013).
Chopra (2002) used similarity as a coherence attribute in detecting trace discontinuities of the
seismic data to detect faults and stratigraphic features. The presence of fault will change the trace
characteristic in a way that the seismic traces lose similarity. In general, the coherence attribute
shows how similar the traces are. Robert (2001) used curvature attribute in 3D horizon
interpretation to characterize faults and fracture system where curved surface is closely related to
discontinuity zones. He also proved that fault throw can be identified based on difference of
curvature values. In the study of fault systems, Marfurt et al. (1998 & 1999) used semblance-
based coherency algorithm in their 3D seismic attribute study to determine faults dipping.
Chopra and Marfurt (2007) also applied different seismic attribute to the 3D seismic cube such as
coherence, most negative and most positive curvature. In their study, fault images which were not
clear in using coherence attribute were clearly observed by using most positive and most negative
curvature attributes. Upthrown and downthrown fault blocks were clearly highlighted in the strata
slices when the most positive and most negative curvature attribute were applied on the horizon
(Chopra and Marfurt 2008). Odoh et al. (2013) used another seismic attribute namely maximum
curvature in 3D seismic interpretation in the study of Niger delta fault system whereby the
upthrown and downthrown fault blocks in the extensional zone were clearly observed. Jones and
Roden (2012) used the geometry seismic attribute technique of dip of maximum similarity and
curvature types in investigating the fault system of South Texas oil field. They proved that the
geometry seismic attribute technique was successfully used in enhancing the detection of faults
and fractures. At the same time, the curvature attributes were also applied to further highlight
features not revealed by the geometry attributes application.
This paper focuses on improving the visualization of faults in the study area located in the
southern part of Taranaki Basin, below the north island of New Zealand continent (Figure 1) by
using different seismic attributes such as geometry and curvature techniques. The data used in
this study is a large 3D seismic survey. The survey volume is approximately 37 Km x 15 Km
(288 line x 736 traces) and was processed by the Kingdom software.
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 05 2171

Figure 1: The left figure shows the location of 3D Kerry survey in the Kupe field within
the Taranaki Basin. The right figure shows the enlargement of the 3D Kerry basemap
with the location of wells and inline 549.

GEOLOGICAL SETTING
The Taranaki Basin is predominantly an offshore basin covering an area of around 100,000
km2 situated along the western margin of North Island, New Zealand. The eastern margin of the
basin is delineated by Patea-Tongaporutu-Herangi basement high, which lies immediately east of
the subsurface Taranaki Fault (King and Thrasher, 1996). According to Palmer and Bulte (1991),
the structures developed in the Taranaki Basin were due to the movement of the Taranaki and
Cape Egmont faults. They also stated that the tectonic regime of the Taranaki basin was changed
from extension to compression during Early Miocene. By Late Tertiery, three primary structures
were formed which are the faulted anticlines, high-angle overthrust structures and tilted fault
blocks. The study area which is the Kupe field is located within the Eastern Mobile Belt of the
southern Taranaki Basin which includes the offshore part of the Manaia Anticline. The north-
south Taranaki fault located in the east of the basin was active since mid Oligocene. The major
fault in the Kupe field is a north-south oriented Manaia fault which runs through the central part
of the area (King and Thrasher, 1996). They further explains that during Cretaceous until Late
Paleocene, the formation of Manaia normal fault is followed by the deposition of sediment in the
eastern part of the down-thrown block of the fault. According to Stagpoole and Nicol (2008),
Manaia and other normal faults became reverse in direction until they reached the maximum
positions during Late Miocene. The reverse fault movement is believed to be the caused of all
Miocene structures such as the Manaia anticline (Figure 2).
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 05 2172

Figure 2: Map of major structural elements of the Taranaki Basin showing the major
faults and the location of study area within the basin.
Source: Palmer and Bulte (1991)

METHODOLOGY
The analysis began with identifying the best location of the fault system by looking at the 3D
seismic cube and applying the time slice technique. The 3D time slice works by analyzing the
difference of seismic wave amplitudes. Time slice was applied within the time span from seabed
until 5 second two-way time of the seismic cube. The best fault and fracture systems were
identified close to 0.6 second two-way time and the middle inline seismic section no. 549 was
selected for detail analysis of the structure system. The seismic attributes of geometry and
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 05 2173

curvature were then applied for 3D time slice to the whole cube in enhancing the appearance of
the structural patterns. A total of six different geometry and curvature attributes were tested in
this study including amplitude and dip of maximum similarity of the geometry attribute and four
types of curvature attributes known as maximum, minimum, most positive and most negative
curvatures. In the analysis, different colors were tested to produce the best image representing
fault and fracture patterns. Basically, for any particular attribute the structures are enhanced by
selecting a particular color scheme. Therefore proper and careful selection of color map is always
sought for a better display of fault and fracture systems on the screen. Roberts (2001) defined
curvature as how much the curve deviates from a straight line (Figure 3). In order to calculate the
curvature at a particular point (y), Young (1978), Evans (1979), Wood (1996) and Roberts (2001)
used least squares quadratic approximation to the mapped surface. They put a local quadratic
surface on the surrounding eight grids values known as 3x3 grid cell approach (Figure 4 & 5).

Figure 3: The definition of curvature. a) P= Point where line curve. b) R= radius

of curvature for osculating circle.. c) T= Tangent for both curve and circle. d) N=
Vector normal to curve at point P. e) θ= Local dip angle.

Source: Roberts (2001)

Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 05 2174

Figure 4: 3 x 3 grid cell.

Figure 5: Curvature in 3D where x and y represent the map axes with z

representing the time or depth axis. The intersection of two orthogonal planes
with the surface describes the maximum curvature, Kmax and the minimum
curvature, Kmin . Dip curvature, Kd and strike curvature, Ks are two orthogonal
normal curvatures. N= vector normal to the surface at point P, θ= dip angle. The
underlying gridded map surface are used in the curvature calculation, where node
5 represents the point P whose curvature value is being calculated.
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 05 2175

The calculation of the coefficients (a, b, c, d, e, f) in Equation 1 reduce to a series of simple

arithmetic expressions (Equation 2 to 7):

y = a𝑎𝑎𝑥𝑥 2 + 𝑏𝑏𝑦𝑦 2 + 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 + 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 + 𝑓𝑓 (1)

1 𝜕𝜕2 𝑧𝑧 ( 𝑧𝑧1 + 𝑧𝑧3 + 𝑧𝑧4 + 𝑧𝑧6 + 𝑧𝑧7 + 𝑧𝑧9 ) ( 𝑧𝑧2 + 𝑧𝑧5 + 𝑧𝑧8 )
a= = − (2)
2 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥 2 12 𝛥𝛥𝑥𝑥 2 6 𝛥𝛥𝑥𝑥 2

1 𝜕𝜕2 𝑧𝑧 ( 𝑧𝑧1 + 𝑧𝑧2 + 𝑧𝑧3 + 𝑧𝑧7 + 𝑧𝑧8 + 𝑧𝑧9 ) ( 𝑧𝑧4 + 𝑧𝑧5 + 𝑧𝑧6 )
b= = − (3)
2 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥 2 12 𝛥𝛥𝑥𝑥 2 6 𝛥𝛥𝑥𝑥 2

𝜕𝜕2 𝑧𝑧 ( 𝑧𝑧3 + 𝑧𝑧7 − 𝑧𝑧1 − 𝑧𝑧9 )

c= = (4)
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 4 𝛥𝛥𝑥𝑥 2

𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 ( 𝑧𝑧3 + 𝑧𝑧6 + 𝑧𝑧9 − 𝑧𝑧1 − 𝑧𝑧4 − 𝑧𝑧7 )

d= = (5)
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 6 𝛥𝛥𝛥𝛥
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 ( 𝑧𝑧1 + 𝑧𝑧2 + 𝑧𝑧3 − 𝑧𝑧7 − 𝑧𝑧8 − 𝑧𝑧9 )
e= = (6)
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 6 𝛥𝛥𝛥𝛥

Peet and Sahota (1985) derived the maximum curvature, Kmax (10) by combining the mean
curvature, Km (8) and gaussian curvature, Kg (9).

𝐾𝐾𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 + 𝐾𝐾𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Km = 2
(8)

Kg = KminKmax (9)

where, Kmin is minimum curvature and the equation of maximum curvature, Kmax is shown as
below:

2
Kmax = Km + �𝐾𝐾𝑚𝑚 − 𝐾𝐾𝑔𝑔 (10)

Minimum curvature attribute is defined by equation 11:

2
Kmin = Km − �𝐾𝐾𝑚𝑚 − 𝐾𝐾𝑔𝑔 (11)

The edges of faults, ridges or valleys can be investigated by searching all possible normal
curvature for the most positive (K+) or most negative values (K-). The most positive and most
negative curvature attributes are very sensitive to brittle deformation and the curvature values are
directly proportional to the brittle deformation. These curvature attributes also good in finding
lateral continuities of fault lineaments (Santosh et al, 2013). Most positive curvature (K+) and
most negative curvature attributes (K-) are defined as;

K+ = (𝑎𝑎 + 𝑏𝑏) + �(𝑎𝑎 − 𝑏𝑏)2 + 𝑐𝑐 2 (12)

K- = (𝑎𝑎 + 𝑏𝑏) − �(𝑎𝑎 − 𝑏𝑏)2 + 𝑐𝑐 2 (13)

 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 05 2176

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The interpretation of fault system was started by picking the faults segment on north-south
trending 2D seismic section of inline 549. These faults were identified by looking at the fault
planes separated by the upthrown and downthrown block positions along each of its plane. A total
of 20 normal major faults assigned as F1 to F20 were identified and traced in this seismic section
as shown in Figure 6. The dip directions of the mapped faults are then simplified in Table 1. In
general, the identified faults strike along the east-west directions and steeply dipping towards the
north and south. The length of the fault plane ranges from 0.5 to 1 Km. In general a total of 11
faults dip approximately towards the north and 9 faults are found dipping towards the south.
These faults cut accross the basin sediment in the E-W strike direction.

Figure 6: Uninterpreted seismic section and faults positions of line 549. All the
faults are labelled as F1 to F20 along the 30 km N-S line and basically dip either
towards the south and north. The blue horizontal line indicates the position of
time-slice cutting through the faults.

Table 1: Interpreted faults on seismic section of inline 549.

FAULTS DIP DIRECTIONS

F1 South
F2 North
F3 South
F4 North
F5 North
F6 North
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 05 2177

F7 South
F8 South
F9 North
F10 North
F11 North
F12 North
F13 North
F14 North
F15 South
F16 South
F17 South
F18 South
F19 North
F20 South

Faults system in 3D were studied by using several seismic attributes such as amplitude, dip of
maximum similarity, minimum curvature, maximum curvature, most negative curvature and most
positive curvature by time-slice at 0.6 sec two-way time. The resulting structural pattern
especially fault and fracture systems for each attribute are shown in Figure 7 for comparison. As
different attribute emphasizes on different type of measurements, all the 6 maps show different
structural patterns. Figure 8 shows the enlarged diagram of each attribute for a clear view of the
structural maps from a small part of the study area within a rectangular box. The existence of
faults in other attributes are not as clear as observed in maps of Minimum and negative curvature
attributes. Comparison can be made by visualizing the zone in circle where faults and fractures
are much denser in minimum curvature and most negative curvature as shown in figures 8(c & e).
These structural patterns are not clearly visible in amplitude and dip of maximum similarity
attributes as shown in figure 8 (a & b). Based on visual analysis of the fault and fracture pattern,
map of minimum curvature is used for further interpretation (Figure 9). Figure 9a shows the map
of minimum curvature indicating the fault and fracture pattern of the study area. Figure 9b shows
the positions of the traced faults and fractures on the attribute map while figure 9c shows the
detail faults and fractures positions separated from the attribute map. In general most of the faults
and fractures trend along NE-SW direction with length ranging from 0.5 to about 20 km. Most of
the faults in the northern and southern parts are in simple straight line shape while the group in
the middle of the study area are curving (Figure 10). The NE-SW trend curved fault shape is
interpreted to be the effect of some relative north-south extensional fault movement during the
early tertiary. The major fault movement is most likely the north-south trending Taranaki fault
which was active since mid-oligocene. The formation of faults and fractures pattern in the study
area could also be due to the reversal movement of Manaia fault which took place in Miocene.
Since the study area is part of Giant Forests formation which is late Pliocene in age, it could be
inferred that the Manaia fault reversal event has extended into Pliocene.
Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 05 2178

Figure 7: Comparison of different seismic attribute technique a) Amplitude b)

Dip of maximum similarity c) Minimum curvature d) Maximum curvature e)
most negative curvature and f) Most positive curvature on time slice 0.6 second
and the location of faults.
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 05 2179

Figure 8: Closed up of different seismic attributes technique in the rectangular area for
comparison.

Figure 9: Minimum curvature time slice maps with and without fault interpretation.
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 05 2180

Figure 10: Trend of faults and fractures in Giant Foresets Formation as deduced from
minimum curvature and most-negative curvature seismic attributes.
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 05 2181

A total of 238 horizontal faults and fractures were identified in the time slice of Giant
Foresets Formation deposited in late Pliocene. All measured faults and fractures lineaments were
plotted in the rose diagram to determine their trend distributions (Figure 11). The roset diagram
shows the faults and fractures trend within N20ºE to N60ºE. In general, majority of the faults
trend between N30ºE to N40ºE approximately NE–SW in direction.

Figure 11: Trend of faults and fractures of Giant Foresets Formation plotted in the rose
diagram.

CONCLUSION
The most negative and minimum curvature seismic attributes have succesfully enhanced the
presence of faults and fractures in the Giant Foresets formation as compared to the other seismic
attributes. The fault and fracture systems are mapped and general trend of the structural elements
are observed to be in NE-SW direction. These smaller faults and fractures are most likely
originated by the movement of bigger north-south trending Taranaki and Manaia faults during
late Oligoncene-Miocene.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank New Zealand Petroleum and Mineral (NZPM) for providing the seismic
and well data.
Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 05 2182

REFERENCES
1. Adepoju, Y. O., J. O. Ebeniro, and C. N. Ehirim (2013) “DHI analysis using seismic
frequency attribute on field-AN Niger Delta, Nigeria,” IOSR Journal of Applied Geology
and Geophysics, 1(1), 5–10.

2. Ahmad, M. N., and P. Rowell (2013) “Detection of fluvial sand systems using seismic
attributes and continuous wavelet transform spectral decomposition: case study from the
Gulf of Thailand,” Mar Geophys Res, Springer.

3. Ajisafe, Y.C., and B. D. Ako (2013) “3-D Seismic Attributes for Reservoir
Characterization of “Y” Field Niger Delta, Nigeria,” IOSR Journal of Applied Geology
and Geophysics, 1(2), 23-31.

4. Ayolabi, E. A., and A. O. Adigun (2013) “The Use of Seismic Attributes to Enhance
Structural Interpretation of Z-Field, Onshore Niger Delta,” Earth Science Research, 2(2),
Canadian Center of Science and Education.

5. Castillo, F. (2010) “Seismic attributes for 3-D fracture interpretation,” Halliburton,

GeoCanada.

6. Chen Xiaohong, Liu Zhan, Wang Zhimin and Wang Yunzhuan (2012) “The analysis of
two reservoir parameters influence on AVO Intercept-gradient cross-plot,” Electronic
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 17:2509-2522. Available at ejge.com as Paper
2012.237.

7. Chopra, S. (2002) “Coherence cube and beyond,” EAGE First break, 20, 27-33.

8. Chopra, S., and K. J. Marfurt (2005) “Seismic attributes- A historical perspective,”

Geophysics, 70 (5).

9. Chopra, S., and K. J. Marfurt (2007) “Volumetric curvature-attribute applications for

detection of fracture lineaments and their calibration,” Geohorizon special issue, 27-31.

10. Chopra, S., and K. J. Marfurt (2008) “Seismic attributes for stratigraphic feature
characterization,” AAPG search and discovery article, GeoConvention, Canada.

11. Evans, I. S. (1979) “An integrated system of terrain analysis and slope mapping,” Final
report on grant DA-ERO-591-73-G0040, University of Durham, England.

12. Francelino, A. V. M., and A. F. Antunes (2013) “Applying filters and seismic attributes
for enhancing faults in the 3D seismic survey of Alto De Siririzinho (Sergipe-Alagoas
Basin, northeast Brazil),” revista Brasileira de geofisica, 31(1), 109-123.

13. Hartmann, H. V., H. Buness, C. M. Krawczyk, and R. Schulz (2012) “3-D seismic
analysis of a carbonate platform in the Molasse Basin - reef distribution and internal
separation with seismic attributes,” Tectonophysics, elsevier, 572–573: 16–25.
Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 05 2183

14. Jones, G., and R. Roden (2012) “Fracture Detection Interpretation Beyond Conventional
Seismic Approaches,”

15. King, P. R., and G. P. Thrasher (1996) “Cretaceous-Cenozoic geology and petroleum
system of the Taranaki Basin, New Zealand,” Institute of Geological and Nuclear
Sciences Monograph, 5, 243.

16. Lianbo Hu, Jingen Deng, Haiyan Zhu, Hai Lin, Zijian Chen, Fucheng Deng and
Chuanliang Yan (2013) “A new pore pressure prediction method-back propagation
artificial neural network,” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 18:4093-
4107. Available at ejge.com as Paper 2013.371.

17. Marfurt, K. J., R. L. Kirlin, S. L. Farmer, and M. S. Bahorich (1998) “3-D seismic
attributes using a semblance-based coherency algorithm,” Geophysics, 63, 1150–1165.

18. Marfurt, K. J., V. Sudhaker, A. Gersztenkorn, K. D. Crawford, and S. E. Nissen (1999)

“Coherency calculations in the presence of structural dip,” Geophysics, 64, 104–111.

19. Matos, M. C. D., and K. J. Marfurt (2013) “Subsurface geometry interpretation by

integrating continuous wavelet transform seismic attributes,” Sismo research and
consulting, The university of Oklahoma, 13th international congress of the Brazillian
geophysical society.

20. Odoh, B. I., J. N. Ilechukwu, and N. I. Okoli (2014) “The Use of Seismic Attributes to
Enhance Fault Interpretation of OT Field, Niger Delta,” International Journal of
Geosciences, 5, 826-834.

21. Palmer, J., and G. Bulte (1991) “Taranaki Basin, New Zealand,” M 52: Active Margin
Basins, A135, 261-282.

22. Peet, F.G., and T.S. Sahota (1985) “Surface curvature as a measure of image texture,”
IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, PAM1, 7(6), 734-738.

23. Roberts, A. (2001) “Curvature attributes and their application to 3D interpreted

horizons,” First Break, 18, 85-99.

24. Santosh, D., B. Aditi, K. Poonam, S. Priyanka, P.H. Rao, S. Z. Hasan, and T.
Harinarayana (2013) “An Integrated approach for faults and fractures delineation with
dip and curvature attributes,” 10th Biennial International Conference & Exposition,
Kochi.

25. Stagpole, V., and A. Nicole (2008) “Regional structure and kinematic history of a large
subduction back thrust: Taranaki Fault, New Zealand,” Journal of Geophysical Research,
113.

26. Strecker, M. R., B. Carrapa, G. E. Hulley, L. Scoenbohm, and E. R. Sobel (2004)

“Erosional control of Plateau evolution in the Central Andes,” Geological Society of
America, 36(5).
Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 05 2184

27. Taner, M. T. (2001) “Seismic attribute,” CSEG Recorder, 48-56.

28. Thapar, M. R. (2004) “Seismic attributes; Principal & application,” Petro Skills, 73–123.

29. Vetrici, D. G., and R. R. Stewart (1996) “3-D seismic attributes,” CREWES research
report, 8(45), 1–30.

30. Wood, J.D. (1996) “The geomorphological characterisation of Digital Elevation Models,”
PhD Thesis, University of Leicester.

31. Young, M. (1978) “Statistical characterisation of attribute matrices by computer,” The

fifth progress report on Contract DA-ERO-591-73-G0040, U.S. Army European
Research Office, London. Report 5, 1-16.

© 2016 ejge