Geological Interpretation and Computer-Generated
Maps!
Thomas A. Jones, Exxon Production Research Company, Houston Texas
Computers became. available to earth
scientists duri ng the 1960s, and since that
time computer usage has explodcd.
Parallel ing development of the computer,
contour mapping packages have grown
from primitive programs to complex inte-
grated systems. Many vendor-created
packages are available for the mainframe
and scientific workstation, and dozens of
programs have been written for the Pc.
Most of these programs can generate a
simple map that looks reasonable and that
honours the input data.
However, there are problems with this
wide availability. In mai1Y projects, data
are passed to the machine without special
instructions - and the resulting maps are
accepted without question, even though the
maps may ignore or violate geologic
knowledge or interpretation. Modern pro-
grams have the capability to incorporate
geology, and explorationists are negligent
if that information is not used.
In any geological or geophysical map-
ping study, two types of information are
available. The first type consists of the
well-known data points; these typically are
in card-image or formatted-record fon11,
and contain X- Y coordinates and one or
more measured values, such as average
porosity or depths to horizons.
The second type of information often is
ignored or is not recognized as data, but it
consists of geologic knowledge,
principles, and interpretation. A computer-
mapping program that is limited only to
measured data will not produce good maps.
When this happens, the explorationist may
believe that computer mapping is not use-
ful, when in reality the lack of geologic
interpretation is responsible for incorrect
maps.
Jones (1989) pointed out that good com-
puter mapping depends jointly on
measured data, geologic knowledge or in-
terpretation, and a modern computer pro-
gram. All of these must be taken into ac-
I This paper is based on a talk given at the Roundtable on Computer Applications Technology at the Canadian Society of
Petroleum Geologists and Canadian Society of Exploration Geophysicists Joint Convention, June 15, 1989, Calgary, Alberta.
---------------------3----------------------
by
count for geologically acceptable maps to
be obtained. Jones et a!. (1986) discuss
how to force geological concepts into com-
puter maps without special software. Most
modern programs are flexible enough that
a general, three-step approach to mapping
can be followed: (I) interpret the geology
in the area, both spatially and temporally;
(2) process the input data according to this
interpretation; (3) operate the mapping
program in such a way that the interpreted
geologic history is followed. In a sense, we
reconstruct geologic events in sequence
with the mapping program.
Interpretation should influence many
aspects of mapping, and Table I lists a few
examples. Perhaps the most widely used
interpretation involves stratigraphic
relationships. Three possible relationships
between two surfaces are: conformity,
truncation, and baselap. In addition, an in-
terval can pinchout without the presence of
an unconfomlity.
Figure I shows an example of how con-
formity can provide information. Fivedata
points define stnlcture in the upper surface,
but the lower surface does not have a point
to define the sag in the middle. The com-
puter will make the simple surface that
includes the erroneous projection of the
- - - ERRONEOUS
PROJECTlml
Figure 1. Conformable surfaces showing erroneous projection when maps are gener-
ated independently. (After Jones and Johnson, 1983, p. 1418).
dashed line. Use of this surface would be
an en"or, as the lower surface will have a
much simpler form than the upper surface,
even though conformable surfaces should
be similar. The correct way to map the
lower, confomlable surface is: (I) map the
upper surface; (2) map the interval isopach;
and (3) hang the isopach below the mapped
upper surface.
Truncation or baselap can be used to
relate two surfaces which would otherwise
intersect unrealistically. For example, ho-
rizon A in Figure 2 truncates surface B. If
the computer is not told differently, it
would treat the two surfaces independently
and simply project surface B through the
unconformity A, thereby making two
stratigraphic surfaces pass through each
other. However, we can instruct the pro-
gram to truncate map B, giving a new map
BB which will have contours where sur-
face B exists and will be blank in the area
where it does not exist (dotted line).
Figure 3 shows baselap. Here surface A
laps onto the continuous surface B.
Without other infonnation, the computer
would simply project surface A through
surface B. However, using the interpreta-
tion, the program can lap A onto B. This
new map AA will have contours where the
 surface exists and be blank in the area
where it does not, as indicated by the dotted
line.

These three simple, interpreted

A relationships can be expanded to include
sets of surfaces or maps for more complex
situations. A sequence can be defined to be
composed of one or more conformable sur-
B---+-----+-- faces that are bounded on the top and base
by unconformities. If all unconformities
have been identified, intervening surfaces
A B will belong to sequences. Maps of these
surfaces and the sequences may be related
to each other through the confom1ity,
truncation, and baselap operations. Fol-
lowing these steps in turn from oldest to
Figure 2. Cross section showing truncation of horizon B by A. (A) Configuration be- youngest leads to a stratigraphic frame-
fore truncation. (B) Discontinuous surface BB results after "eroded" area has been work.
blanked out (dotted line). (After Jones et al., 1986, p. 134).
Figure 4 shows a stratigraphic frame-
work consisting of two sequences of con-
formable surfaces. The oldest sequence
contains conformable horizons A, B, and
C. These are truncated by the unconformity
labelled D. A second set of confOimable
surfaces E and F laps onto the unconform-
ity. Finally, a second unconformity G de-
A AA fines the top of the framework. It is a sim-
ple maller to introduce conformity, trunca-
tion, and baselap into the group of maps
B B that defines the framework.

The fom1 and location of a pinchout or

A B zero-line (that is, the edge of a unit) is
another type of stratigraphic relationship.
Two aspects come into play in this case:
data collection, and projection to the zero-
Figure 3. Cross section showing horizon A lapping onto B. (A) Configuration before edge. If mapping the thickness of a sand
baselapping. (B) Discontinuous surface BB results after baselap operation. (After Jones body, do not use the value zero at those
etal.,1986,p.134) wells in which the sand is missing. In Fig-
ure 5, the zero-points were used and the
program forced the zero-line to wander
through those locations. Rather than indi-
cating thickness, here zero really indicates
the qualitative property "Missing". Mixing
the qualitative and quantitative numbers
causes the problem.

After the zero-thickness points are

removed, we use the positive thicknesses
to project toward the zero-line. The trend
of data toward smaller values as we ap-
proach the pinchout often will produce a
map that goes to zero thickness. If reason-
able results are not obtained, we can force
an acceptable zero-line (c.f., Jones et al.,
1986). For instance, we may need to add
pseudowells (perhaps with negative
values) or a digitized hand-drawn contour
to control the location of the zero line.
Special software is also available for map-
ping these features; Figure 6 was derived
with such a program.
Figure 4. Cross section through a stratigraphic framework showing two sequences
separated by unconformity D. (After Jones et al., 1986, p. 96).

---------------------4---------------------
 0-2
+
o

-38 0-30 R-38

+ +
0 0
R-37 R-37
+ +
0 0
.III + 0 0-1
R-30
+
0 + 0
0
-5 0-8 0-5 0-8
+ + + +
0 0 0

S. 9
0-]2
10
@
-6 0-6
+
0

0-7 0-7
+
0 0

-29 0-29

Figure 5. Map of sand thickness generated by using all data Figure 6. Map of sand thickness generated by deleting zero-
values, including zero where sand is missing. values where sand is missing, and then projecting gradients
through the zero-line.

Table 1: EXAMPLES WHERE G EO-
LOG IC INTERPRETATION MAY
BE REQUIRED
Stratigraphic relationships
Truncation, baselap, conformity
Sets of sequences (stratigraphic
frameworks)
Pinchouts
Mixtures of populations
Stratigraphic-tops versus rock-tops
Tops from seismic versus from
wells
Mistied seismic lines
Spatial changes in mapped property
Trends
Faults
The second major type of interpretation
listed in Table I deals with mapping data
from two or more separate populations. It
might seem obvious to avoid mixing dif-
ferent variables when mapping, but
mixtures can be as subtle as distinguishing
between rock-tops and stratigraphic-tops.
A stratigraphic pick is the intersection of a
borehole with a litho-, bio-, or chro-
nostratigraphic horizon. Unconformity
picks represent the intersection of a bore-
hole and an unconformity. Rock-top is a
tenn that may represent either. When map-
ping a truncated surface, use only
stratigraphic tops. Rock-tops for an eroded
zone do not represent the same geologic
horizon at all locations, whereas
stratigraphic-tops are consistent spatially.
Stratigraphic and unconformity surfaces
should be identified and mapped
separately and then combined to form the
complete top of the rock unit.
A second common mixture combines
well tops and seismic tops (convel1ed from
travel-time to elevation). The seismic data
are closely spaced along the seismic lines
so that details of structure are present. On
the other hand, widely spaced wells show
only broad features when contoured. In
addition to having data with different de-
grees of detail, time-depth conversion er-
rors can make the two kinds of tops dis-
agree with each other. Combining the
datasets into a common pool can produce
maps with serious anomalies. Methods are
available for merging different datasets
into a consistent set (c.f., Jones et aI.,
1986).
A third example comes from contouring
seismic data. Here we may have different
vintages of shooting or processing, or even
just minor differences in crossing lines,
that give different populations. We have all
seen maps in which anomalies are found at
crossing lines, even with lines that are well
tied. Because of the way contouring pro-
grams handle gradients, even small misties
can create large features if special care is
not taken. The several sets of intersecting
seismic lines should be specially merged
before mapping.
A fOUl1h example involves mapping
pinnacle reefs. Here the mapped surface
will have different properties on the reef
top, reef flank, and inter-reef areas, that is,
we have three potential populations. Ham-
ilton and Skye (1989) found that reefs did
not have a realistic appearance if all the
data were combined and mapped simply,

---------------------5----------------------
 Figure 7. Map of surface on top of pinnacle reefs, generated by Figure 8. Map of surface on top of pinnacle reefs, generated by
simply mapping all data in a single set. (Figure courtesy of Dave separately mapping the pinnacles and inter-reef areas, and then
Hamilton, Zycor Inc.). combining into a final map. (Figure courtesy of Dave Hamilton,
Zycor Inc.).

15000 ---!r--.----+--.----L ..- - - , - - - ' - - - - - - - - J -

+
87.5

14000

~~
+
81.5

+
83.5 0
+
13000 84.0

GJ
c
77.0
80.0 +
7tS 72.5

12000 + +
82.5 82.5

+ +
82.0 82.0
I 1000 _+_~___,__-'------------'----,-----'---'----'--l___,__L---"---+-

27500 29000 30500 27500 29000 3050C

A B

Figure 9. (A) Map generated without trend applied. (B) Map generated with trend oriented N40W at strength 3. (After Jones et ai.,
1986, p. 199).

as shown in Figure 7. Data from the d iffer-
ent portions of the reef must be separated
and mapped individually, and then the in-
dividual portions are combined into a final
map of the reefs, as in Figure 8.
Another example of interpretation 111-
volves a variable which may contain
trends. Nomlal mapping algorithms oper-
ate on a nondirectional basis, so trends are
not introduced preferentially. The maps
tend to be isotropic, with isolated data
points sUITounded by more-or-Iess circular
contours. Figure 9A shows a map that was
generated normally, and Figure 9B shows
a map from the same data, but with bias
incorporated. Note that separate closures
are joined, that contours are more linear,
that an obvious grain is present, and that all
data values are honoured.
The explorationist must provide two
pieces of in formation: direction or orienta-
tion of the bias, and strength of the trend.
(Col1linued 011 pg. 23)

---------------------6---------------------
(Continued rrom pg. 6)
The trend direction is conveniently
specified as an azimuth from north, and
strength can be estimated as a ratio on the
basis of how predictability improves in the
trend direction relative to the cross-trend
direction. Figure 9B was generated with a
direction ofN40W and strength-ratio of3.
Biased methods can be programmed di-
rectly into mapping programs, although
this is difficult for some algorithms. Jones
et al. (1986) present methods using com-
mon program capabilities to induce trends.
An important aspect of contour map-
ping involves faults. There are several ap-
proaches to fault mapping, but all viable
methods depend on interpretation (e.g.,
vertical versus dipping fault planes, fault
cOIl'elation, zero-throw locations, mapped
throw), data and application. Computers
can deal with faults in some areas, but the
general approach is still to be found.
Frankly, no one has completely solved the
fault problem. We are in a lot better posi-
tion than even three years ago, but the
general solution to complex faulting still
eludes the industry.
In addition to creating contour maps or
cross sections, computer-generated surfa-
ces are used to compute volumes. In addi-
tion, these surfaces can be sources of infor-
mati on for other programs. For instance, a
framework of stratigraphic and structural
horizons is an important element in con-
trolling correlations in 3-D geologic mod-
eling (Jones, 1988). Computer-generated
surfaces are also used for geophysical
modeling, and for calculating burial his-
tory curves used in geohistory analysis
(van Hinte, 1978).
Where is contour mapping going? I feel
that we will see increased use of work-
stations and personal computers, and a de-
crease in mainframe usage, as hardware
becomes more powerful. However, main-
frames will have many uses. We will also
see much friendlier user interfaces, in-
creased data availability and integration,
and improved interactive editing capabil-
ity. Mapping software will be written to
combine steps in a job, so that the philo-
sophy that I have been talking about will
be simplified. Further, I expect that contour
mapping will become more closely allied
with geographic infom1ation systems.
But regardless of the advancements in
hardware and software, placing geological
interpretation into contour maps must be
done through geological reasoning, a pro-
blem-solving approach or philosophy to
mapping, and a set of mapping procedures.
A good grasp of these three factors, plus
access to virtually any modern mapping
system, allows consistent, real istic maps to
be generated.
References
Hamiltoll, David E, alld Hellize, Skye,
1989, Modelillg pillllacle reefs alld their
associated sUlfaces (Abs.): AAPG Bul-
letill, v. 73, p. 360.
JOlles, Thomas A., 1988, Modelillg geology
ill three dimellsiollS: Geobyte, Febm-
ary, p. 14-20.
JOlles, Thomas A., 1989, The threefaces of
geological computer comourillg:
Mathematical Geology, v. 2/, p. 271-
283.
JOlles, Thomas A., Hamiltoll, David E, alld
JOhllSOll, Carltoll R., 1986, COlltourillg
Geologic sll/faces IVith the computer:
Vall Nostralld Reillhold co., NelV York,
314 p.
JOlles, Thomas A., alld JOhllSOll, Carltoll
R., 1983, Stratigraphic relatiollships
alld geologic histOf')' depicted by com-
pliler mappillg: AAPG Bulletill, V. 67,
p.1415-1421.
vall Hillte, 1. E, 1978, Geohistoryallalysis
- applicatiolls of micropaleolltology ill
exploratioll strategy: AAPG Bulletill, I'.
62, p. 201-222

An invitation for you to join us at the 1990 CSEG

Annual Dinner
ON: FebrualY 15, 1990
AT: The ~stin Hotel
SPEAKER: Terence Dickinson-
Canadian Science writer, the country's
foremost astronomy author, and part
time astrononry teacher, he is frequently
heard on CBC radio as a commentator
on astronomical events.
TOPIC: "NEPTUNE FLY-BY"
PRICE: $15.00 per ticket
CONTACT: M?ra McIntosh at:
Mapworld Services Inc., 294-0393

-------------------23-------------------