PROCEEDING, SEMINAR NASIONAL KEBUMIAN KE-8

Academia-Industry Linkage
15-16 OKTOBER 2015; GRHA SABHA PRAMANA

CROSS-SECTION RESTORATION FOR VALIDATING INTERPRETATION IN

POOR SEISMIC IMAGE, STUDY CASE: BETARA HIGH, JAMBI SUB-BASIN

Rahmadi Hidayat*, Jasmin Jyalita

Jurusan Teknik Geologi, Fakultas Teknik, Universitas Gadjah Mada
Jl. Grafika No.2 Bulaksumur, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
* corresponding author: rahmadihidayat@ugm.ac.id

ABSTRACT
Study area is located at Betara High of Jambi Sub-basin, northernmost area of South Sumatera Basin.
Seismic re-study become quite active recently, especially in less-explored area surrounding Betara
Complex as main hydrocarbon field in the area. However, poor seismic data due to Plio-Pleistocene
syn-inversion requires better justification for seismic interpretation to reduce uncertainty and
geological risk. This research proposed an alternative validation method for seismic interpretation,
especially in horizon picking, utilizing cross-section restoration based on geometrical point of view.
Fault-horizon network and flexural slip unfolding were carried out in interpreted regional NNE-SSW
seismic line to define cross-section restoration. Slip movement of fault-horizon network, controlled in
Hz-4, of Fault 1 (1055 m) and Fault 2 (400 m) produced near perfect joint-bed of all horizons on each
segments. Flexural slip unfolding also depicted similar true vertical thickness (TVT) across segments
of all intervals (Near GUF, UTAF and LTAF). This method indicated good geometrical validity in
seismic interpretation. In visualizing TVT map as validation, cross-section restoration gives better
image than conventional flattening method because it can resolve thickness ambiguity in fault zone. In
tectonically inverted area, it is critical to resolve this problem in order to avoid irregular interpolation
value near to fault zone.

I. INTRODUCTION well control. If there is no control for

Study area is located in Betara High, Jambi
Sub-basin, northernmost part of South
Sumatra Basin (SSB). There are proven and
prolific hydrocarbon fields, mainly gas with oil
rim, near to this area, such as Betara Complex
and Geragai Deep (Figure 1). Betara Complex
itself consists of several closures such as North
Betara; Northeast Betara; and Gemah Field
that are included in Jabung Area in South
Sumatra (Saifuddin et al., 2001; Chuanli et al.,
2007). This fact implies to active exploration
studies recently, such as seismic re-
interpretation in surrounding proven Betara
Complex that mainly focusing on less explored
areas.
Compare to Betara Complex, research area
has experienced more severe deformation of
syn-inversion phase. Consequently, image
quality of seismic data is generally poor and
difficult to trace the horizon continuity on
each faulted segments. Exploration wells are
also limited for validating horizon
interpretation because not all segments have
479
validation (fully assumption-
based/uncontrolled interpret-ation),
uncertainty in subsurface mapping would
definitely increase and cause higher geological
risk in trap definition.
In this condition, multiple interpretation
scenarios of targeted horizon should be
conducted and have to be validated using
alternative method. Cross-section resto-ration
is proposed validation method in this research
for validating seismic inter-pretation in poor
image and limited well control. Utilizing this
method, it will have better interpretation than
uncontrolled interpretation and minimize both
uncertainty and geological risk by concerning
geometrical point of view.
II. GEOLOGICAL SETTINGS
Structural features in the Betara High are
produced by three main tectonic phases: (1)
Early Eocene to Early Miocene extensional, (2)
relative quiescence during Early Miocene to
Early Pliocene, and (3) Plio-Pleistocene oblique
 PROCEEDING, SEMINAR NASIONAL KEBUMIAN KE-8
Academia-Industry Linkage
15-16 OKTOBER 2015; GRHA SABHA PRAMANA
compressional (Argakoesoemah & Kamal,
2004). Several horst-grabens as well as
inverted structures are obviously seen in
present day structural condition (Figure 2A).
Early Eocene to Early Miocene extensional
phase is believed as result of subduction along
the West Sumatran Trench, the continental
crust in the South Sumatra area was subjected
to a major extensional event from Eocene to
Early Oligocene times. This extension phase
created several half-grabens in SSB with
various geometry and orientation due to
basement heterogeneity. Initially, extension
appears to have been orientated east-west
producing a sequence of north-south horsts
and grabens. Rotational moving by
approximately 15 degrees clockwise since the
Miocene was resulting present-day graben
orientation (Ginger & Fielding, 2005). NE-
trending faults as well as NS-trending faults
control the development of this extension
phase (Saifuddin et al., 2001).
Early Miocene to Early Pliocene (Post-Rift
Megasequence; Ginger & Fielding, 2005) is
marked as the end of rifting phase. However,
the thinned continental crust under the SSB
continued to subside as lithospheric thermal
equilibrium was re-established. High
subsidence rates and high relative sea level
resulted in a long-lived transgression of the
basin which reached its maximum extent
approximately 16 Ma ago with flooding in the
entire basin (Ginger & Fielding, 2005).
Plio-Pleistocene oblique compression is the
last major tectonic events to have affected the
geologic development of Sumatera and it is
this event that is responsible for massive
inversion in entire basin. Elongate northwest-
southeast orientated trans-pressional folds-
faults of varying magnitude were formed
across the basin and cut across much of the
underlying syn-rift fabric. Most of
hydrocarbon-bearing structural traps in the
SSB were formed at this time (Ginger &
Fielding, 2005).
480
III. METHOD
Northeast-southwest trending seismic line
perpendicular to fault system was utilized for
performing cross-section restoration. Horizon
interpretation was mainly focusing on four
deeper targets, referred to Betara Complex.
Basement (HZ-1, purple) was picked as the
lowest horizon to determine basin
configuration. Talangakar was analyzed above
basement that consists of Lower Talangakar
(HZ-2, yellow) and Upper Talangakar (HZ-3,
pale green). Lower Talangakar is predicted as
main reservoir target within study area. Near
Gumai (HZ-4) was picked as the uppermost
horizons (Figure 2B).
After conducting all horizon interpretation,
cross-section restoration could be applied. The
concept is adopted from Dahlstrom (1969)
that states interpretation of deformed
structures can be restored back to
undeformed to provide a validation for initial
interpretation. Two schemes were essential to
build this restoration: (1) Fault-horizon
network and (2) Restoring fold. Fault-horizon
network is basically to move initial hanging-
wall horizon back to non-fault condition
(modified horizon) with rigid-body
displacement. In order to do this scheme,
hanging-wall horizon should be slipped via
fault with given length (slip length) to match
precisely (joint-bed) to footwall horizon.
Restoring fold attempts to unfold the horizon
with a model of flexural slip. Compare to
common flattening method, flexural slip
considers restoring folding horizon while
maintaining its bed length. In most cases, it
provides a better correct view for interpreting
the faulting during the time of deposition
(Jamaludin et al., 2015). Bed length
consistency also is one of requirements to
make valid restoration (Dahlstrom, 1969)
along with constant surface area and volume
(Stewart, 2012).
For validating interpretation, true vertical
thickness map (TVT) of each interval was built.
Detection of unrealistic or uncommon
 PROCEEDING, SEMINAR NASIONAL KEBUMIAN KE-8
Academia-Industry Linkage
15-16 OKTOBER 2015; GRHA SABHA PRAMANA
thickness (rapid change of thickness without
any geological explanation), especially at edge
of fault segment, can be considered as bad
interpretation.
IV. DATA ANALYSES
Initial seismic interpretation depicted two
major northeastward facing thrust faults (F1
and F2) that divided this area into three
segmentations (S1, S2 and S3). Initial bed
length is 27.7 km. First attempt was moving S2
and S3 via F1 fault controlled by HZ-4.
Calculated slip length of HZ-4 was 1055 m.
After conducting this attempt, HZ-4 matched
perfectly in between S1 and S2 as well as
other lower horizons. Bed length extended to
28.5 km (2.88% from initial condition). Second
attempt was delivering S3 via F2 fault to
established S1 and S2. Calculated slip length in
HZ-4 was 400 m. In this attempt, 3.97% bed
length was extended from initial condition
(28.8 km). Simulation of fault-horizon network
schemes can be seen in Figure 3.
Fold restoration with flexural slip model could
be done after doing fault-horizon network has
been established (see Figure 4). In first
attempt, it managed to restore of unfaulted
HZ-4 as active restored horizon to datum
plane while others are acted as passive
horizons. It generated an extension 4.69%
from initial condition (bed length was 29 km).
Second attempt was restoring unfaulted HZ-3
as active and it extended bed length as long as
29.1 km (5.05% from initial condition). Last
movement was attempted to restore
unfaulted HZ-2. It produced bed length around
29.2 km or 5.41% of extension from initial
condition.
V. DISCUSSIONS
In order to depict clearer image of thickness
anomaly, TVT maps of each interval were
made (Figure 5). In validation purpose, the
main focus point should be in between two
segments. Near GUF TVT has TVT range 237 to
647 m, appeared thinning towards Tiga Puluh
Mountain as basement high in SSW area.
481
Contacts between segments were relatively
smooth (357 m – 368 m in S2 – S3 and 526 m –
509 m in S2 – S1). Similar to Near GUF, UTAF
interval with TVT in range 230 – 561 m, also
suggested smooth contacts (347 m – 366 m in
S2 – S3 and 425 m – 436 m in S2 – S1). High
contact anomaly occurred in LTAF TVT map in
S2 – S3 contact (550 m to 179 m). However,
this area was expected as paleo-graben during
Early Eocene to Early Miocene extensional
phase which inverted in last tectonic episode.
Furthermore, it would not count as validation
due to geological reasoning. In this case, all
horizons were categorized as good
interpretation.
To compare the usability of this method,
ordinary flattening also established in this
research (Figure 6). Near GUF TVT map
utilizing flattening method, contact of S2 – S3
has an extremely high value around 669 m and
as well as S1 – S2 (1505 m). It also occurred in
UTAF (S2 – S3: 913 m and S1 – S2: 1481 m)
and LTAF (S1 – S2: 1239 m). These numbers
were more than maximum TVT in each interval
and could be categorized as unrealistic
number. By applying this number to grid map,
especially in limited or sparse seismic data, it
would give residual interpolation and created
“thickness ambiguity” for interpreter. Cross-
section restoration method attempted to
avoid unrealistic number and give better
imaging than ordinary flattening method.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Working in poor and sparse seismic data with
tectonically inverted area must be taken
carefully to minimize speculative
interpretation. It needs to be validated, at
least qualitatively, by reasonable method.
Flattening method can be offered to do this
but it doesn’t resolve thickness ambiguity in
contact between two segments. In making TVT
maps, residual interpolations will appear in
certain area and create difficulties to validate
interpretation. This research proposed an
alternative method, known as cross-section
restoration, as validation. Contrast to
flattening method, it can clarify thickness
 PROCEEDING, SEMINAR NASIONAL KEBUMIAN KE-8
Academia-Industry Linkage
15-16 OKTOBER 2015; GRHA SABHA PRAMANA

ambiguity and gives clearer image of TVT grid
for validation.
VII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research is the result of a Joint Study
project carried out by collaboration of LKFT
(Lembaga Kerjasama Fakultas Teknik) Gadjah
Mada University. and Ditjend MIGAS. Author
would like to thank to geological team
members of LKFT Gadjah Mada University for
supporting analysis and technical discussions.

REFERENCES
Argakoesoemah, R. M. I., & Kamal, A., 2004. Ancient Talang Akar Deepwater Sediments in South
Sumatra Basin : A New Exploration Play. Proceedings, Deepwater and Frontier Exploration In Asia &
Australasia Symposium.
Chuanli, X., Haofan, M., Honggang, L., Dongmei, L., Xiuli, Q., & Benzhong, X., 2007. Alluvial fan facies
and their distribution in the Lower Talang Acar Formation, Northeast Betara Oilfield, Indonesia.
Petroleum Science, 4(2), 18-28.
Dahlstrom, C. D. A., 1969. Balanced cross sections. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 6(4), p. 743-
757.
Ginger, D., & Fielding, K., 2005. The petroleum systems and future potential of the South Sumatra
basin. Proceedings of the Indonesian Petroleum Association, 30th Annual Convention, Jakarta.
Groshong Jr, R. H., 2006. 3-D Structural Geology: A Practical Guide to Quantitative Surface and
Subsurface Map Interpretation. 3-D Structural Geology: A Practical Guide to Quantitative Surface and
Subsurface Map Interpretation 2nd Edition, Berlin: Springer.
Jamaludin, S. F., Latiff, A. A., & Ghosh, D. P., 2015. Structural Balancing vs Horizon Flattening on
Seismic Data: Example from Extensional Tectonic Setting. IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science (Vol. 23, No. 1).
Saifuddin, F., Soeryowibowo, M., Suta, I. N., & Chandra, B., 2001. Acoustic impedance as a tool to
identify reservoir targets: A case of the NE Betara-11 Horizontal well, Jabung block, South Sumatra.
Proceedings of the Indonesian Petroleum Association, 28th Annual Convention, Jakarta.
Stewart, S. A., 2012. Interpretation validation on vertically exaggerated reflection seismic sections.
Journal of Structural Geology, 41, p. 38-46.

FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of study area (red box) and Betara Complex as proven fields (green box).
482
 PROCEEDING, SEMINAR NASIONAL KEBUMIAN KE-8
Academia-Industry Linkage
15-16 OKTOBER 2015; GRHA SABHA PRAMANA

Figure 2. (A) Structural elements and (B) Regional stratigraphic column of South Sumatra Basin
(Ginger & Fielding, 2005) as well as seismic horizons utilized in this study.

483
PROCEEDING, SEMINAR NASIONAL KEBUMIAN KE-8
Academia-Industry Linkage
15-16 OKTOBER 2015; GRHA SABHA PRAMANA

Figure 3. Fault-horizon network steps.

484
PROCEEDING, SEMINAR NASIONAL KEBUMIAN KE-8
Academia-Industry Linkage
15-16 OKTOBER 2015; GRHA SABHA PRAMANA

Figure 4. Restoring Fold steps.

485
 PROCEEDING, SEMINAR NASIONAL KEBUMIAN KE-8
Academia-Industry Linkage
15-16 OKTOBER 2015; GRHA SABHA PRAMANA

Figure 5. True Vertical Thickness (TVT) maps.

Figure 6. Comparation of flattening method to cross-section restoration.

486