FRACTURE HETEROGENEITY in the NATIH E FORMATION, JEBEL MADAR, OMAN by Brittney Leanne Blake

Home , Rake (geology)

FRACTURE HETEROGENEITY IN THE NATIH E FORMATION, JEBEL MADAR, OMAN

by Brittney Leanne Blake A thesis submitted to the Faculty and the Board of Trustees of the Colorado

School of Mines in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of

Science (Geology).

Golden, Colorado Date ______

Signed: ______Brittney L. Blake

Signed: ______Dr. J. Frederick Sarg Thesis Advisor

Signed: ______Dr. Bruce Trudgill Thesis Advisor

Golden, Colorado Date ______

Signed: ______Dr. John D. Humphrey, Department Head Department of Geology and Geological Engineering

ABSTRACT

Carbonate platforms around the world contain significant hydrocarbon reserves, and the Late Cretaceous carbonates of the Middle East include many prolific reservoirs. However, elements of these reservoirs are still poorly constrained. This study provides an evaluation of fracture heterogeneities and connectivity within carbonate deposits of the Natih Formation in a salt cored dome that crops out in the Adam Foothills of northern Oman. The Natih E is a significant producing unit throughout the Middle East. Natih shallow-water carbonates were deposited on a Cenomanian carbonate platform, and in the Jebel Madar area are comprised of skeletal peloidal wackestones, packstones and grainstones. Permeability of potential reservoir intervals is thought to be largely dependent on an extensive fracture network, comprised of multiple generations of fractures. This study examines the complex outcrop fracture pattern of the Natih Formation through field mapping and photorealistic LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) image analysis. An evaluation of the mechanical stratigraphy reveals that bed-bounded fractures occur largely in wackestone layers, which are connected by through-going fractures. The dominant fracture orientations at Jebel Madar are NNW-SSE and NNE- SSW, and the secondary orientations are NW-SE and ENE-SSE. Three tectonic events are largely responsible for the development of the fracture system at Jebel Madar: obduction of the Semail ophiolite (Campanian), uplift and exhumation of the Oman Mountains (Miocene), and localized salt doming (Late Cretaceous and Miocene). Fractures at Jebel Madar are primarily radial and concentric in orientation and are interpreted to have developed predominantly through folding associated with active salt diapirism.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... iii LIST OF FIGURES ...... vi LIST OF TABLES ...... x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... xi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Importance ...... 1 1.2 Objectives ...... 2 CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND ...... 3 2.1 Field Area Location ...... 3 2.2 Previous Work ...... 3 2.3 Regional Geology ...... 8 2.3.1 Stratigraphy ...... 8 2.3.2 Natih Formation ...... 12 2.3.3 Porosity ...... 16 2.3.4 Structure ...... 17 2.4 Jebel Madar ...... 20 2.4.1 Stratigraphy ...... 21 2.4.2 Structure ...... 22 2.5 Petroleum System ...... 26 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY ...... 31 3.1 Field Work ...... 31 3.2 Fracture Maps ...... 31 3.3 Photorealistic LiDAR ...... 36 3.3.1 Data Collection and Processing ...... 36 3.3.2 Interpretation ...... 38 3.3.3 Advantages and Biases of LiDAR ...... 47 3.3.4 Fracture Maps: Field Work vs. Photorealistic LiDAR Images ...... 48 3.3.5 LiDAR Methodology Recommendations ...... 53 3.4 Structural Model ...... 54 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS ...... 57

iv 4.1 Fracture Maps ...... 57 4.2 Vertical Ridge Face ...... 69 4.3 Mechanical Stratigraphy ...... 70 4.4 Comparison: Fracture Maps and Vertical Ridge Face ...... 81 4.5 Structural Model ...... 83 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION ...... 87 5.1 Mechanical Stratigraphy ...... 87 5.2 Orientation Distribution and Tectonic Events ...... 89 5.2.1 Regional Tectonic Events ...... 89 5.2.2 Local Tectonic Events ...... 90 5.2.3 Jebel Madar Fracture Orientation Interpretation ...... 91 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS ...... 95 6.1 Conclusions ...... 95 6.2 Recommendations for Future Work ...... 96 REFERENCES CITED ...... 98 APPENDIX A FRACTURE MAP DATA ...... DVD APPENDIX B FRACTURE MAPS ...... DVD APPENDIX C ROSE DIAGRAMS...... DVD DVD ...... Pocket

v LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1. Map of Oman showing structural features. Jebel Madar location shown by black star. Location of A-A` cross section (Figure 2.13). Location of Figure 2.18 shown by blue box. Modified after Pollastro (1999); Peters et al. (2003) ...... 4 Figure 2.2. Local geology map showing structural features. Modified after Béchennec et al. (1992) ...... 5 Figure 2.3. Stratigraphic section of Wasia Group in Oman. Modified after Razin et al. (2007) ...... 7 Figure 2.4. Stratigraphic column of Oman Mountains and interior region. Ages based on Remane at al. (2002). Modified after Glennie (1995) ...... 10 Figure 2.5. Jebel Madar 1-Well gamma-ray and sonic logs with Natih member boundaries (A-G) labeled. Third-order sequence boundaries are marked in red. Depth is in meters. Modified after van Buchem et al. (2002) ...... 13 Figure 2.6. Schematic cross section showing location of formations in relation to platform edge. Note the low angle clinoforms and intrashelf basins within the Natih Formation. Modified after Droste and van Steenwinkel (2004) .... 14 Figure 2.7. Paleogeographic map showing the location of Jebel Madar during deposition of Natih E (late Albian–early Cenomanian). Modified after van Buchem et al. (2002) ...... 15 Figure 2.8. Facies associated with Natih E carbonate ramp and intrashelf basin depositional model. Modified after Philip et al. (1995) ...... 15 Figure 2.9. Structural evolution of the Arabian Plate. A: Anatolia; CA: Central Afghanistan; CI: Central Iran; H: Helmand; K: Kawr Ridge; L: Lut Block; O: Oman Mountains. Modified after Glennie (1995) ...... 18 Figure 2.10. Plate tectonics of the Neo-Tethys Oceans 1 and 2, Oman Mountains, and the Kawr-Lut Microcontinent. K: Kawr. Modified after Glennie (1995) ... 19 Figure 2.11. Location of Oman relative to the Equator. Modified after Hughes-Clarke (1990) ...... 20 Figure 2.12. Schematic diagrams showing the process and results of obduction. Modified after Hughes-Clarke (1990) ...... 21 Figure 2.13. Cross section A-A' (Figure 2.1) showing present-day structures and units. Modified after Hanna (1990); van Buchem et al. (2002) ...... 22 Figure 2.14. Geologic map of Jebel Madar. From Béchennec et al. (1992) ...... 23 Figure 2.15. Natih E type section from Jebel Madar (T. Birdsall, personal communication, 2009) ...... 24 Figure 2.15, continued. Legend for Natih E type section. Black dots in the texture column represent sample locations ...... 25 Figure 2.16. Channel incision at top of Natih E. Modified after Grélaud et al. (2006) ... 25

vi Figure 2.17 Seismic line showing Ara salt diapir below Jebel Madar. Modified after Immenhauser et al. (2007) ...... 27 Figure 2.18. Geologic map of Jebel Madar and surrounding area. Map location shown on Figure 2.1. From Béchennec et al. (1992) ...... 28 Figure 2.19. Stratigraphic and combination structural-stratigraphic traps in Cretaceous deposits. See Figure 2.6 for key. Modified after Droste and van Steenwinkel (2004) ...... 30 Figure 3.1. Aerial image of Jebel Madar showing priority areas (orange), fracture map locations (pink), and additional GPS points (yellow) ...... 32 Figure 3.2. Rope system used to aid in creating a mapping window...... 33 Figure 3.3. Example of a digitized field fracture map. Trend and plunge of fracture map edges shown in upper left hand corner. Numbers along fracture traces represent orientation ...... 34 Figure 3.4. Example of fracture map (Figure 3.3) after conversion to a circular window and re-orientation ...... 35 Figure 3.5. Example of circular window with mapped fracture traces. (A) Red dots are fracture traces intersections (n) with the circle. (B) Blue dots are the trace endpoints (m) within the circle. Modified after Rohrbaugh et al., 2002 ...... 36 Figure 3.6. Example of conversion from fracture trace orientation to trend and plunge ...... 38 Figure 3.7. Riegel z420i scanner at Jebel Madar with Nikon D200 mounted on top. Photo taken by Trond Mjøs Johnsen ...... 39 Figure 3.8. Screenshots of toggle features in the Digitizer. (A) Filled; (B) Wireframe; (C) Points; and (D) Anaglyphic ...... 41 Figure 3.9. Example of digitized fractures (blue and white points) ...... 41 Figure 3.10. Fracture plane surfaces in 3D Move Model Browser ...... 42 Figure 3.11. Stereo Plot showing mean principal orientation for selected fracture surface...... 43 Figure 3.12. Statistics summary for selected fracture surface ...... 44 Figure 3.13. Fracture surface shown as (A) solid surface, and (B) triangulated mesh ..... 45 Figure 3.14. Object Property Table showing selected attributes for all selected fractures ...... 46 Figure 3.15. Screenshots showing image quality difference when viewing the shot (A) at the same orientation as the scanner, and (B) perpendicular to the scanning direction. Black arrows show the scanner orientation ...... 49 Figure 3.16. Screenshots showing the effect of distortion on when trying to pick a fracture. (A) Filled screenshot showing a major fracture going across the picture. (B) Wireframe screenshot of same fracture showing the

vii stretched triangulated mesh. Black arrows show the scanner orientation ...... 50 Figure 3.17. Screenshot showing features that are hard to distinguish on LiDAR images ...... 51 Figure 3.18. Rose diagrams showing differences between LiDAR and fieldwork orientation results. Red arrows represents angle from which LiDAR data were captured ...... 52 Figure 3.19. Create Surface From Points toolbox...... 55 Figure 4.1. Effect of increasing radius on intensity, density and mean trace length measurements. Data points represent fracture maps ...... 59 Figure 4.2. Orientation distribution of fractures from fracture maps ...... 60 Figure 4.3. Rose diagram generated using fracture orientations from every fracture map ...... 61 Figure 4.4. Jebel Madar with rose diagrams placed next to fracture map locations. Red lines represent faults, and areas are shown in yellow boxes. Pink line along priority 1 ridge face represents interpreted section ...... 62 Figure 4.5. Orientation vs. length for fractures from fracture maps ...... 63 Figure 4.6. Age relationship examples from fracture maps that show NW-SE trending fractures developed first ...... 64 Figure 4.7. Texture vs. primary orientation for each fracture map ...... 67 Figure 4.8. Texture vs. fracture intensity for each fracture map. Note the data point for FM 17 (texture = packstone; intensity = 8.75 L-1) was removed ...... 67 Figure 4.9. Texture vs. fracture density for each fracture map. Note the data point for FM 17 (texture = packstone; intensity = 17.03 L-1) was removed ...... 68 Figure 4.10. Texture vs. mean fracture trace length for each fracture map ...... 68 Figure 4.11. Priority one ridge with all of the digitized fractures shown (white). The red circles represent sampling windows ...... 69 Figure 4.12. Priority one ridge face fractures in 3DMove Model Browser...... 70 Figure 4.13. Rose diagram generated using fractures digitized from priority 1 vertical ridge face ...... 71 Figure 4.14. Distribution of fracture orientations from priority 1 ridge face ...... 72 Figure 4.15. Orientation vs. height for all fractures on priority 1 ridge face ...... 73 Figure 4.16. Photorealistic LiDAR image along priority 1 ridge ...... 74 Figure 4.17. Photorealistic LiDAR image along priority 1 ridge with fracture interpretation shown ...... 75 Figure 4.18. Stratigraphic bed boundaries (yellow) were chosen based on the stratigraphic section shown here (Figure 2.15) ...... 76

viii Figure 4.19. Mechanical boundaries (blue) were placed where abundant fracture terminations occurred ...... 77 Figure 4.20. Comparison between stratigraphic (yellow) and mechanical boundaries (blue) ...... 78 Figure 4.21. Weathering-related boundaries (pink), such as over-hangs, were traced along discontinuous surfaces ...... 79 Figure 4.22. Comparison between mechanical (blue) and weathering-related (pink) boundaries. Yellow ovals mark where the boundaries match or are similar ...... 80 Figure 4.23. Comparison of intensity calculations for fracture maps and priority 1 ridge face. Note the data point for FM 17 (texture = packstone; intensity = 8.75 L-1) was removed ...... 81 Figure 4.24. Comparison of density calculations for fracture maps and priority 1 ridge face. Note the data point for FM 17 (texture = packstone; intensity = 17.03 L-1) was removed ...... 82 Figure 4.25. Comparison of mean trace length calculations for fracture maps and mean trace height calculations priority 1 ridge face ...... 82 Figure 4.26. Map view of structural model showing priority areas and fracture data locations ...... 84 Figure 4.27. Structural model showing location of bedding in relation to fracture maps 1 and 2, and priority one ridge face fractures ...... 84 Figure 4.28. View of structural model that shows increasing dip measurements from the top of the surface towards ground level. This is the surface between priorities 1 and 5 ...... 85 Figure 5.1. Explanation of dominant fracture trends at Jebel Madar ...... 92 Figure 5.2. Schematic cross section showing formation of Jebel Madar through time .... 93

ix LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1. Fracture map measurements and calculations ...... 57 Table 4.2. Thin section descriptions for each fracture map (FM = fracture map) ...... 65 Table 4.3. Comparison between texture and fracture properties at each fracture map location. They are listed in order of increasing grain size. (FM = fracture map; DO = dominant orientation; SO = secondary orientation; MTL = mean trace length) ...... 66 Table 4.4. Priority 1 ridge face sampling window measurements and calculations ...... 70

x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisors, Dr. Rick Sarg and Dr. Bruce Trudgill, for always having open doors and the patience to answer my never- ending questions. This thesis was made possible through their guidance and encouragement. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. John Humphrey and Dr. Charles Kluth for their support and suggestions over the past two years. I would like to thank StatoilHydro for funding my project and providing all of the data. Specific thanks to John Thurmond, Trond Johnsen, Dave Hunt and Stephane Homke for answering my numerous emails and helping solve many problems. Thank you to Johan Claringbould for endless hours of discussion on the structural evolution of the Arabian Plate, and for all of your input and efforts on the project. Also, thank you to Terrance Birdsall for your help with my thin sections and the stratigraphic sections. Thanks to Mike Doe who was always willing to help tackle my frequent software issues. I would like to thank the Colorado School of Mines Department of Geology and Geological Engineering for accepting me into the Masters program, and for providing an excellent education and endless opportunities. Specifically, I would like to thank Marilyn Schwinger and Debbie Cockburn, who always knew the answers to all of my questions. Thank you to all of my friends at Colorado School of Mines that offered daily support through encouraging words and coffee breaks. I will be forever indebted to my parents, Brian and Babbie Blake, for selflessly providing me with every opportunity to pursue my dreams, no matter how extreme they seemed. They have shown incredible support throughout my academic career, and I would have never made it this far without their continual encouragement. Special thanks go to Duncan for offering continual encouragement and enduring support that never let me lose sight of the finish line.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Importance A significant percentage of the world’s hydrocarbon reserves are held within carbonate platforms, and Late Cretaceous carbonate platform deposits of the Middle East contain some of the world’s largest oil and gas producing reservoirs (Scott et al., 1993). This study focuses on the Albian–Turonian Natih Formation of Oman, which is one of the major hydrocarbon producers throughout the region. Reservoir quality of the Natih Formation is variable, and parameters controlling this variation are not well constrained. An extensive fracture network in the Natih is suspected to have a significant impact on permeability of the high-porosity reservoir zones (de Keijzer et al., 2007; Razin et al. 2007). The Jebel Madar exposure of the Natih Formation provides an opportunity to study and map the fracture system, determine fracture density and properties, and to differentiate between fracture generations. This study aims to fully characterize the fracture networks in the Natih E interval. Integration of outcrop work with photorealistic LiDAR data provides insight into the fracture heterogeneities and systems, and better defines multiple generations of fractures. A simple structural model develops a general overview of the interaction between fractures and stratigraphy at Jebel Madar. This information will be used to build a geomodel for the Natih, to determine the effects of fluid movement through the fracture system in a reservoir model, which can help better understand the complexities and variations within the Late Cretaceous carbonate reservoirs in the Middle East. These results can be used to enhance methods of hydrocarbon recovery from the reservoir and to determine the best potential targets. Additionally, this study tests the extent to which LiDAR data collection can replace outcrop work in developing an understanding of fracture networks. This technique could prove to be highly advantageous when conducting work in areas of high political and social sensitivity by reducing the amount of time spent in the field. Focus

was also placed on recognizing and evaluating the biases that exist in the interpretation of LiDAR data.

1.2 Objectives The main goals of this study include:

1) Map primary fracture orientations, determine how orientation and density vary spatially, and delineate different fracture generations.

2) Interpret photorealistic LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) data to give a 3D digital representation of fracture orientations and density, and to determine the effectiveness of photorealistic LiDAR data compared to outcrop observations.

3) Build a simple 3D structural model of Jebel Madar to establish a general understanding of the interaction between fractures, stratigraphy and structural setting.

4) Produce results that can subsequently be used to aid in generation of a reservoir geomodel, incorporating the effect of fluid flow through the fracture network.

CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND

The geologic history of Oman is complex and has been the focus of many studies in the Middle East. Several studies have been completed at Jebel Madar, and this chapter presents a comprehensive overview of the previous completed work, regional and local geology, and the Natih petroleum system.

2.1 Field Area Location Jebel Madar (jebel is the Arabic term for mountain) is located within the Adam Foothills of Northern Oman, south of the Semail Ophiolite complex. It is approximately 140 km south of Muscat, and the closest village, Sinaw, is roughly six km to the northwest (Figures 2.1; 2.2). The Jebel is approximately eight km long and five km wide, and there are two primary access points along dirt roads. Driving around the Jebel is limited to four-wheel drive vehicles that can navigate the rough terrain of the desert dissected by wadis. Entrance to the core of Jebel Madar is limited, but excellent bedding planes are exposed in the dip-slopes surrounding the dome.

2.2 Previous Work Because of extensive and excellent exposure, the Natih E member of the Natih Formation is the focus of this study. Extensive research has been conducted on the Natih Formation throughout Oman, although very few of these studies have included the outcrops at Jebel Madar. There has been one fracture study on a nearby anticline (de Keijzer et al., 2007), but most of the local studies have focused on the stratigraphy and petroleum system (e.g., Beydoun, 1991; Philip et al., 1995; Pollastro, 1999; Terken et al., 2001; van Buchem et al., 2002; Droste and van Steenwinkel, 2004; Grélaud et al., 2006; Immenhauser et al., 2007; Razin et al., 2007).

logy map showing structural features. Modified after Béchennec et al. (1992). al. et logy after Modified Béchennec structural features. showing map

Local geo Local

. .

Figure 2. Figure

Van Buchem et al. (2002) determined two depositional systems were dominant during deposition of the Natih Formation: 1) flat-bedded, mixed carbonate-clay ramp, and 2) carbonate-dominated ramp bordering an intrashelf basin. These systems alternated through time, resulting in interfingering of source and reservoir facies. Van Buchem et al. (2002) constructed two transects for sequence analysis and correlation, and the southern transect intersected Jebel Madar at its easternmost extent. The van Buchem et al. (2000) work concluded that Jebel Madar was located on the mid-to-inner ramp of a carbonate ramp-intrashelf basin environment during the time of Natih E deposition. Four third-order sequences and thirteen fourth-order sequences in the Natih Formation were defined using both subsurface and outcrop data (Figure 2.3). Grélaud et al. (2006) recognized channel incision surfaces associated with two fourth-order depositional sequences of the Natih Formation. The channel incisions formed during periods of platform emergence, and are 10 to 20 m deep by 500 to 1000 m wide. Grélaud et al. (2006) focused on three outcrops in the Adam Foothills, including Jebel Madar, across which the incision surfaces were correlative. The top incision at Jebel Madar corresponds to the top of the Natih E member, and incises into a bioturbated bioclastic lime wackestone-packstone. Immenhauser et al. (2007) studied Pleistocene phreatic cave deposits of the Shuaiba Formation at Jebel Madar. They determined four calcite phases: (1) acicular, (2) blocky to stubby elongated, (3) proto-palisade, and (4) macro-columnar with cyclic red zonation. Immenhauser et al. (2007) focused on the macro-columnar calcites and suggested zoning resulted from monsoonal climate patterns during the Pleistocene. Within the Jebel, karst systems of the Shuaiba and Natih Formations vary in characteristics and age. Jebel Madar is the only outcrop in the Oman Foothills where four-phase calcite infill has been reported, and its unique nature may be attributable to the Jebel’s diapiric nature.

Figure 2.3. Stratigraphic section of Wasia Group in Oman. Modified after Razin et al. (2007).

In addition, De Keijzer et al. (2007) integrated subsurface and outcrop data to determine fracture heterogeneities within the Natih Formation at Jebel Madmar, an anticline located approximately 50 km west of Jebel Madar (Figure 2.1). The study utilized a variety of datasets including: (1) high-resolution Quickbird images, (2) outcrop data, (3) petrographic and geochemical analysis, and (4) seismic data. This study concluded the fracture system at Jebel Madmar formed during two regional tectonic events, Alpine Phases I and II. Alpine Phase I occurred during Late Cretaceous ophiolite emplacement and resulted in W and NW-trending normal and transtensional faults. Alpine Phase II involved Pliocene folding and thrusting in the Oman Mountains, and resulted in WNW-trending normal faults and NE and NW trending fracture systems. These results correspond closely to subsurface data in the surrounding area.

2.3 Regional Geology Middle Eastern geology is complex in both its tectonic history and stratal architecture. The stratigraphy across the Arabian plate is remarkably correlative during the Cretaceous, but there are many localized tectonic features. This section describes the stratigraphic and structural histories of Oman, with an emphasis on the Natih Formation.

2.3.1 Stratigraphy The Cretaceous stratigraphy of Oman includes the Kahmah, Wasia and Aruma Groups. The Kahmah and Wasia Groups are included in the Hajar Supergroup of the Mesozoic (Figure 2.4). The Kahmah Group (Tithonian – Albian) includes the Rayda, Salil, Habshan, Lekhwair, Kharaib and Shuaiba formations. The Rayda and Salil formations are interpreted to be slope and deep-marine deposits that correlate to prograding platform- edge deposits of the Habshan Formation (Droste and van Steenwinkel, 2004). The Lekhwair, Kharaib and Shuaiba formations represent carbonate platform units that were primarily deposited in inner platform and intrashelf basin environments. The Lekhwair and Kharaib formations are aggradational, and the Shuaiba Formation is aggradational to progradational (Droste and van Steenwinkel, 2004). Lithologies in the Kahmah Group

formations are summarized below (Hughes Clarke, 1988; Pratt and Smewing, 1993; Droste and van Steenwinkel, 2004; Grélaud et al., 2007; Razin et al., 2007):

 Rayda Formation: thinly-interbedded lime mudstone and marl, and thin beds of nodular chert  Salil Formation: interbedded lime mudstone and calcareous shale  Habshan Formation: bioclastic and oolitic grainstones, packstones and wackestones  Lekhwair Formation: skeletal lime mudstones-wackestones, peloidal-skeletal lime packstones-floatstones with abundant rudists, and bioclastic and peloidal grainstones  Kharaib Formation: bioturbated, bioclastic and peloidal lime packstones and wackestones  Shuaiba Formation: massively-bedded bioturbated bioclastic and peloidal packstones with abundant rudists

The Wasia Group (Albian – Turonian) includes the Nahr Umr and Natih Formations. The Nahr Umr Formation lies unconformably over the Shuaiba Formation and forms a recessive shale between thick limestone units of the Shuaiba and Natih formations in outcrop. The Natih Formation consists of interfingering carbonate platform and intrashelf basin deposits. Both units are aggradational, and the Natih contains internal progradation associated with intrashelf basins. Lithologies are summarized below (Hughes Clarke, 1988; Béchennec et al., 1992; Pratt and Smewing, 1993; Droste and van Steenwinkel, 2004; Grélaud et al., 2007):

 Nahr Umr Formation: calcareous shales and lime mudstones; contains abundant Orbitolinidae forams  Natih Formation: thickly-bedded lime mudstones, bioturbated wackestones, packstones, and grainstones; with abundant rudists and Thalassinoides burrows

Figure 2.4. Stratigraphic column of Oman Mountains and interior region. Ages based on Remane at al. (2002). Modified after Glennie (1995).

The Muti Formation of the Aruma Group (Turonian – Paleocene) lies unconformably above the Natih Formation, and is known as the Fiqa Formation in the subsurface (Razin et al., 2007). The lowermost portion of the Muti Formation fills incised valleys with estuarine and lagoonal deposits, overlain by hemipelagic and deep gravity deposits. The top of the Muti is truncated by the Hawasina nappes. The lithology of the Muti Formation is summarized below (Béchennec et al., 1992):

 Muti Formation: calcareous shale

Other units that are important to this study and understanding regional geology include: Ara Salt, Hawasina Complex and the Semail Ophiolite. The Ara Salt was deposited at the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary and is correlative to the Hormouz salt of Iran (Glennie, 1995). The Ara Salt has migrated beneath salt basins located in southern and central Oman, and has formed a series of salt diapirs, including Jebel Madar. In both Oman and Iran, subsurface diapiric structures have created structural traps that contain significant hydrocarbon accumulations (Glennie, 1995; Peters et al., 2003). The Hawasina Complex is an allochthonous unit that was thrust onto the Arabian Platform from its original depositional location, northeast of Oman. It was formed into an accretionary prism during early phases of obduction and consists of calcareous sandstone deposits ranging in age from Late Permian to mid-Cretaceous. Most of the unit contains turbidite deposits that formed in deep water of the continental rise and abyssal plain (Glennie, 1995). The Semail Ophiolite was emplaced on the Arabian Platform in the Late Cretaceous, and is comprised of mantle and oceanic crust. It is one of the most studied ophiolite complexes in the world, because it exposes a full ophiolite sequence – mantle peridotites and harzburgites, gabbros, sheeted dikes, and basaltic pillow lavas (Glennie, 1995). A global sea-level drop brought sedimentation to an abrupt halt across the Arabian Platform at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary (Béchennec et al., 1992).

2.3.2. Natih Formation The Natih Formation is a significant hydrocarbon producer throughout the Middle East and is correlative to the Mauddud and Mishrif Formations of the United Arab Emirates, and the Sarvak Formation of Iran (van Buchem et al., 2002). The major reserves of the Natih Formation are largely attributed to its stratigraphic distribution of reservoir, source and seal facies. The Natih Formation lies conformably above the Nahr Umr Formation and was deposited as part of a broad Cenomanian carbonate platform that covered much of the Arabian Plate throughout the Cretaceous (Droste and van Steenwinkel, 2004). The Natih comprises a series of shoaling-upward carbonate deposits that are primarily skeletal peloidal lime packstones and grainstones. It is divided into seven members, based on distinctive log characteristics (Figure 2.5). The members are denoted as A-G from top to base, and their order is based on location relative to depth, not time. Their boundaries correspond to a change from a high gamma-ray interval above (clays to organic-rich carbonate) to a low gamma-ray interval below (clean carbonate) (Grélaud et al., 2006; Razin et al., 2007). It is important to note that these members were chosen on lithostratigraphic terms and may not follow sequence stratigraphic boundaries. Two depositional systems were dominant during the deposition of the Natih Formation: 1) flat-bedded, mixed carbonate-clay ramp, and 2) carbonate-dominated ramp bordering an intrashelf basin (van Buchem et al., 2002). In the latter system, carbonate platforms developed on paleo-highs, and subtle clinoforms began prograding into areas between highs. These low areas became intrashelf basins and subsequently filled with shales (Droste and van Steenwinkel, 2004). These systems alternated through time, which resulted in interfingering of source and reservoir facies (Figure 2.6).

Figure 2.5. Jebel Madar 1-Well gamma-ray and sonic logs with Natih member boundaries (A-G) labeled. Third-order sequence boundaries are marked in red. Depth is in meters. Modified after van Buchem et al. (2002).

This study focuses on massive limestone deposits of the Natih E member. The base of the Natih E represents the formation of an organic-rich intrashelf basin during transgression (Grélaud et al., 2006). Overlying the basal lime mudstones are a series of coarsening-upward deposits that represent shallowing-upward cycles, and the surface at the top of the Natih E deposit indicates periods of platform emersion and development of incisions. Philip et al. (1995) notes the Natih E is remarkably homogeneous between outcrops of the Oman Mountains and Adam Foothills.

Figure 2.6. Schematic cross section showing location of formations in relation to platform edge. Note the low angle clinoforms and intrashelf basins within the Natih Formation. Modified after Droste and van Steenwinkel (2004).

The Natih E was deposited in a carbonate ramp and intrashelf basin system (Figure 2.7), and Philip et al. (1995) determined it was comprised of four primary facies (Figure 2.8): 1) Orbitolinid (benthic foraminifera) wackestones formed in the outer part of the carbonate platform in shallow water, 2) Sphaerulites/Eoradiolites rudist patches formed in moderate energy, 3) bioturbated Praealveolinid (benthic foraminifera) mudstones dominated the restricted, inner platform, and 4) shoals formed in the shallow

region that was frequently exposed. During Natih E deposition, Jebel Madar was generally located in a mid-ramp position.

Figure 2.7. Paleogeographic map showing the location of Jebel Madar during deposition of Natih E (late Albian–early Cenomanian). Modified after van Buchem et al. (2002).

Figure 2.8. Facies associated with Natih E carbonate ramp and intrashelf basin depositional model. Modified after Philip et al. (1995).

According to Philip et al. (1995), Natih units F-G represent a transgressive systems tract and are overlain by Natih E, which represents a highstand systems tract. Subaerial exposure surfaces at the top of Natih E likely coincide with a regional tectonic uplift and/or sea-level drop. Development of a foreland bulge in early phases of nappe emplacement could have led to a regional uplift and termination of the carbonate platform (Philip et al., 1995; Droste and van Steenwinkel, 2004). However, Grélaud et al. (2006) suggested these surfaces represent channel incisions that occurred before the onset of significant structural activity. Above the incision surfaces, Natih units A-D represent an overlying transgressive systems tract. According to Philip et al. (1995), the Natih E unit is comprised of two types of rudist banks, Praeradiolites/Sphaerulites and Eoradiolites (Figure 2.8). The Praeradiolites/ Sphaerulites rudist banks occur in the lower Natih E. They are broadly extensive, up to several square kilometers, but have a thickness of less than 10 centimeters. The Eoradiolites biostromes are smaller, reaching a lateral extent of less than 10 meters and a thickness of up to half a meter. Thalassinoides-burrowed surfaces are common in the Natih E and become more frequent towards the top of the unit. The thalassinoides burrows are largely dolomitized.

2.3.3 Porosity In Oman, primary porosity types of the Natih Formation are moldic and vuggy. Porosity in this reservoir has been affected by both diagenetic and tectonic events. Early marine cementation was followed by dissolution and leaching, and in areas that were buried during ophiolite emplacement, porosity was likely destroyed by stylolitization and associated cementation (Wagner, 1990; Scott et al., 1993; Glennie, 1995). A study conducted by Smith et al. (2003) focused on porosity types in the Natih E reservoir at Al Ghubar field in Oman. Well-log calculations yield high porosity values; however, most of this porosity has been found to be ineffective. Within the Natih E reservoir, four permeable grainstone units with interparticle porosity make up approximately 20% of the total thickness. Packstones and wackestones comprise the remaining 80%, and are dominated by moldic, vuggy and intraparticle porosities with little interconnectivity and ineffective permeability.

2.3.4 Structure The Neo-Tethys Ocean formed in the Permian due to crustal extension as Gondawana began breaking up at the southern margin of the Paleo-Tethys (Béchennec et al., 1992; Terken et al., 2001; Razin et al., 2007). During the Permian to Triassic, a passive margin dominated the Arabian plate. At the end of the Triassic to Early Jurassic, Neo-Tethys 2 began opening because of the splitting of the Kawr-Lut microcontinent, and the Arabian platform was subjected to flexure (Glennie 1995) (Figures 2.9A; 2.9B; 2.10A; 2.10B). These events led to emergence of the Arabian platform, which resulted in formation of a stratigraphic unconformity. Most of the Jurassic deposits show tectonic stability, but the Late Jurassic is characterized by uplift of the eastern margin of the Arabian platform due to rifting that preceded the opening of the proto Indian Ocean (Figures 2.9B; 2.10C). During the Cretaceous, Oman was located at an equatorial position (Farzadi, 2006) (Figure 2.11), and extensive carbonate platforms developed on the passive margin of the Neo-Tethys. Thick accumulations of progradational and aggradational strata make up the Kahmah and Wasia groups (Béchennec et al., 1992; Razin et al., 2007). During the Aptian-Albian, the South Atlantic Ocean opened and led to the formation of a major convergence zone in the Neo-Tethys (Terken et al., 2001; Razin et al., 2007) (Figures 2.9E; 2.10d; 2.12A). This convergence resulted in intra-oceanic subduction, which led to the development and thrusting of an accretionary wedge, the Hawasina Complex, and obduction of the Semail Ophiolite onto the Arabian Platform during the Campanian (Patton and O’Connor, 1988; Terken et al., 2001; Razin et al., 2007) (Figures 2.10E; 2.12B). The Cretaceous platform deposits were widely buried by the Semail ophiolite; however, obduction did not extend as far south as the Adam Foothills (van Buchem et al., 2002) (Figure 2.13). Continued compression led to the uplift and exhumation of the Oman Mountains. This period of tectonic activity is known as the Eoalpine tectonic phase (Razin et al., 2007) (Figure 2.10F).

Figure 2.9. Structural evolution of the Arabian Plate. A: Anatolia; CA: Central Afghanistan; CI: Central Iran; H: Helmand; K: Kawr Ridge; L: Lut Block; O: Oman Mountains. Modified after Glennie (1995).

Figure 2.10. Plate tectonics of the Neo-Tethys Oceans 1 and 2, Oman Mountains, and the Kawr-Lut Microcontinent. K: Kawr. Modified after Glennie (1995).

Figure 2.11. Location of Oman relative to the Equator. Modified after Hughes-Clarke (1990).

Closure of the Neo-Tethys 2 occurred during the Oligocene, and was followed by the onset of the Alpine tectonic phase during the Miocene (Glennie 1995) (Figure 2.9D). Alpine compression was caused by the collision of Arabia and Asia and led to the deformation of the Oman Mountains that resulted in their current shape (van Buchem et al., 2002; Razin et al., 2007) (Figure 2.10G; 2.12C).

2.4 Jebel Madar Jebel Madar is a salt-cored domal structure that exposes the Natih Formation at the surface (Figure 2.2). It is located in the Adam Foothills, south of the Oman Mountains, and is one of few topographic highs in an area surrounded by flat-lying desert (Figures 2.2; 2.13). There are several places that allow access to the core of the Jebel, but the Natih bedding planes are easily reached on the dip-slopes surrounding the Jebel.

Figure 2.12. Schematic diagrams showing the process and results of obduction. Modified after Hughes-Clarke (1990).

2.4.1 Stratigraphy The Cretaceous-aged Rayda, Salil, Habshan, Lekhwair, Kharaib, Shuaiba, Nahr Umr and Natih formations are exposed at Jebel Madar, and the center of the Jebel is mapped as including formations of the older Akhdar and Sahtan Groups (Triassic- Jurassic) (Béchennec et al., 1992) (Figure 2.14) . Several wadis allow access into the Jebel, where formations of the Kahmah Group are exposed. This fracture study has focused on the Natih Formation, specifically the E member (Figure 2.15). Grélaud et al. (2006) mapped two channel incisions around Jebel Madar in the upper Natih E member. The younger channel incision is partially superimposed upon the

older channel incision and wraps around the Jebel, suggesting existing topography at time of incision (Figure 2.16). An intensely dolomitized layer (< 0.5 m) is present above and below the incision surface. The overlying fill consists of a fining-upward, cross-bedded grainstone unit (~4 m thick) that passes upward into a wackestone unit (~1 m thick) that is dolomitized at the top and base. The fill is capped by a thick unit of gray-green clays, which is interpreted to represent a decrease in depositional energy (Grélaud et al., 2006).

Figure 2.13. Cross section A-A' (Figure 2.1) showing present-day structures and units. Modified after Hanna (1990); van Buchem et al. (2002).

2.4.2 Structure Jebel Madar is a domal structure cored by the Precambrian-Cambrian Ara salt (Figure 2.17). The exact age of active salt diapirism has not been determined, and several possibilities have been presented. Farzadi (2006) suggested that it began shortly after initiation of ophiolite emplacement. Terken et al. (2001) attributed the Ara salt diapirism to tilting of the eastern flanks of the salt basins during the Alpine compressional phase. Ericsson et al. (1998) and Peters et al. (2003) suggested minor salt movement initiated in the Late Jurassic, followed by two periods of significant growth acceleration associated with obduction and the Alpine orogeny. However, Grélaud et al. (2006) mapped a channel incision that formed prior to ophiolite emplacement, and the arrangement of the incision suggests existing topography at the time of incision (Figure 2.16). The salt has

not pierced the surface at Jebel Madar, and it is unknown if movement is still occurring (Immenhauser et al., 2007).

Figure 2.14. Geologic map of Jebel Madar. From Béchennec et al. (1992).

Figure 2.15. Natih E type section from Jebel Madar (T. Birdsall, personal communication, 2009).

Figure 2.15, continued. Legend for Natih E type section. Black dots in the texture column represent sample locations.

Figure 2.16. Channel incision at top of Natih E. Modified after Grélaud et al. (2006).

The frontal thrust associated with ophiolite obduction (Late Cretaceous) did not extend as far south as Jebel Madar (Figure 2.13) (Bechennec et al., 1992; van Buchem et al., 2002), although it did influence the tectonics of the surrounding area. Less than 100

kilometers west of Jebel Madar, the Salakh Arch was formed during uplift of the Oman Mountains (de Keijzer et al., 2007) (Figure 2.18). Older formations in the core of the Jebel have undergone intense compressional deformation, but no detailed work has been conducted to document the extent of this deformation. The Jebel contains an extensive fracture network in the form of faults and joints, but only major faults have been mapped (Figure 2.14). This study focuses on characterization of fracture patterns within the Natih E, through utilization of field mapping and photorealistic LiDAR data interpretation.

2.5 Petroleum System According to Scott et al. (1993), Cretaceous carbonate platforms contain approximately 16% of the world’s hydrocarbon reserves. Most of the reservoirs are associated with shallow-water carbonate facies, including ooid and bioclastic grainstones, packstones, wackestones and mudstones. Source rocks formed primarily during transgressions in the mid-Cretaceous, and the seals are typically fine-grained or completely cemented limestone and shale (e.g., Nahr Umr Formation). Most reservoir traps are structural and stratigraphic combinations. Mesozoic carbonate platforms of the Arabian plate are prolific due to their vast size; several thousand kilometers in length and width. The source rocks, seals and reservoirs have significant areal extent, which has led to the major reserves held in the region (Beydoun, 1991). Close juxtaposition of reservoir and source rock facies in the same depositional sequences also contributes to the productive nature of many Natih reservoirs (van Buchem et al., 2002). There are several sets of major source rocks, ranging from Precambrian to Cretaceous (Terken et al., 2001), and it is thought that the Natih reservoirs have been charged largely by Natih source rocks (van Buchem et al., 2002). The Natih petroleum system began oil generation during the Late Cretaceous, and is classified as a supercharged, laterally drained foreland petroleum system with high-generation trapping efficiency due to undisturbed migration paths and large structural closures (Terken et al., 2001).

diapir below Jebel Madar. Modified after Madar. Modified Immenhauserdiapir (2007). al. Jebel after et below

. Seismic line showing Ara salt salt Ara Seismic . showing line

2. Figure

)

1992

(

et al. et

FromBéchennec

Map location 2.1. Map Figure on shown

. Geologic map of Jebel Madar surrounding Jebel area. and of map Geologic .

Figure 2.1 Figure

Structural traps have dominated hydrocarbon exploration, and common traps in central Oman are north-plunging structural highs that developed during the late Cretaceous and Tertiary (Pollastro, 1999; Terken et al., 2001). Although most exploration has focused on structural traps, many stratigraphic traps exist and can also be exploited (Figure 2.19). Combination structural-stratigraphic traps can be formed where grainstones are trapped against mudstones in both (1) lowstand wedge and (2) platform edge positions (Figure 2.19a), and where shale-filled incised valleys create lateral seals (Figure 2.19b). In a regressive setting (Figure 2.19c), traps can form where grainstones are trapped below (1) lagoonal deposits or (2) deep-water mudstones. Truncation traps form where grainstones are trapped above and laterally by mudstones (Figure 2.19d). The primary producing areas in Oman are located in the central and southern regions where Cretaceous reservoirs are buried beneath approximately two kilometers of Tertiary sediment (Droste and van Steenwinkel, 2004). Several of the large basins in Oman include Ghaba Salt Basin, Fahud Salt Basin and South Oman Salt Basin (Pollastro, 1999; Terken et al., 2001). The Ara salt has migrated through overlying sediments and formed diapirs that act as structural traps for hydrocarbon accumulations (Glennie, 1995) (Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.19. Stratigraphic and combination structural-stratigraphic traps in Cretaceous deposits. See Figure 2.6 for key. Modified after Droste and van Steenwinkel (2004).

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Field Work This project incorporated two field seasons in Oman; the first session lasted 30 days during February 2008, and the second season was ten days long during January 2009. The first field season focused on the northwest and northeast sides of Jebel Madar and included the bulk of the mapping. The second field effort focused on additional mapping on the south side of the Jebel, and updated the previous season’s work. The study area contains five vertical faces that display the Natih E Formation along the northwest and northeast sides of Jebel Madar, and were the priority areas for collection of photorealistic LiDAR data. A total of 21 fracture maps were generated from around the perimeter of the Jebel on Natih E bedding surfaces, approximately 140 strike and dip measurements were taken, and photorealistic LiDAR data were collected by StatoilHydro from four fracture map locations (1, 2, 15 and 16), and from all five vertical faces (Figure 3.1) A rope system was used to construct rectangular mapping windows for each of the 21 fracture maps (Figure 3.2). Window sizes range from two meters by four meters to eight meters by eight meters. At each location, bedding plane strike and dip were taken, fractures were mapped, orientation measurements were recorded for the major fractures, and their characteristics were noted (open/closed, composition of fill, etc.) (Figure 3.3).

3.2 Fracture Maps Circular windows were placed inside the fracture map windows to reduce sampling bias (Mauldon et al., 2001; Rohrbaugh et al., 2002), and they were re-oriented such that north was pointing upward (Figure 3.4). Fracture intersections with the circle (n) and fracture endpoints within the circle (m) were calculated and used to determine fracture density, intensity and mean trace length (Figure 3.5). Intensity refers to fracture length per unit area and has units of m-1 (Equation 3.1), and density is the number of

fractures per unit area and has units of m-2 (Equation 3.2). Mean trace length refers to the mean trace length for individual fractures in a sampling area (Equation 3.3).

Fracture intensity = n/4r (Equation 3.1) Fracture density = m/2πr2 (Equation 3.2) Mean trace length = (πr/2)(n/m) (Equation 3.3)

Where, n is the number of intersections with the circle, m is the number of endpoints within the circle, and r is the radius of the circle.

Figure 3.1. Aerial image of Jebel Madar showing priority areas (orange), fracture map locations (pink), and additional GPS points (yellow).

Figure 3.2. Rope system used to aid in creating a mapping window.

The length of the radius has a significant impact on the accuracy of intensity, density and mean trace-length measurements (Rohrbaugh et al., 2002). In order to accurately calculate these values, the radius needs to be greater than the average fracture block size. Smaller circular windows tend to overestimate density and underestimate mean trace length. These inaccuracies decrease as the radius increases. Each fracture was given an orientation and length, and this information was recorded in a spreadsheet (Appendix A). The endpoints of each fracture were recorded as terminated against circle (C), terminated against a fracture (F), natural termination (E), or terminated by rubble (R). Since the fracture maps are located on inclined bedding planes, the recorded orientations do not represent the true trend of the fracture trace. These measurements are used to calculate the rake (angle between the horizontal and any linear feature) of the trace, and this number, along with the bedding plane strike and dip, is plugged into a spreadsheet to yield the true trend and plunge of the fracture trace.

Figure 3.3. Example of a digitized field fracture map. Trend and plunge of fracture map edges shown in upper left hand corner. Numbers along fracture traces represent orientation.

Figure 3.6A shows an example where a fracture measurement of 185° is recorded on a bedding plane with a strike of 225° and dip of 60°. The rake of the fracture relative to the strike direction of the bedding plane is calculated to be 40°. Each variable is then plugged into a spreadsheet which coverts the rake according to the right-hand rule, if applicable, and calculates the trend and plunge of the fracture trace (R. Nelson, personal communication 2009) (Figure 3.6B). These calculations assume fractures are perpendicular to bedding. Although field data from Jebel Madar show this assumption is not always correct, most fractures are close to perpendicular to bedding. The trend, plunge and length measurements are used to generate rose diagrams in Orient 2.0.4 and graphs in Microsoft Excel.

Figure 3.4. Example of fracture map (Figure 3.3) after conversion to a circular window and re-orientation.

The results of this study will be used to predict reservoir permeability; therefore, greater emphasis was placed on the connectivity of the fractures, and less emphasis was placed on variable orientations within a single non-systematic fracture. In the case where a fracture was curved and showed multiple orientations, a best-fit orientation (typically endpoint to endpoint) was chosen. If a best-fit orientation was chosen, the fracture was tagged as curved and averaged in the properties spreadsheet (Appendix A). Rock samples were collected from the 19 fractures maps used in the interpretation, and thin sections were made from each sample. Textures were determined

for each sample, and a series of charts were generated to compare the textures to the intensity, density and mean trace length values for each fracture map.

Figure 3.5. Example of circular window with mapped fracture traces. (A) Red dots are fracture traces intersections (n) with the circle. (B) Blue dots are the trace endpoints (m) within the circle. Modified after Rohrbaugh et al. (2002).

3.3 Photorealistic LiDAR Terrestrial laser scanning has become a common tool used in many industries to conduct surveys, but its use in the field of geology is still relatively recent (Buckley et al., 2008). LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) data are collected by sending a laser pulse from the scanner to the outcrop and calculating the distance (Z) by dividing the two-way travel time in half and multiplying by the speed of light (Bellian et al., 2005). Although exact values vary depending on the specific instrument, most scanners are able to collect thousands of X, Y, Z points per second with an accuracy in the millimeter to centimeter range. Photorealistic LiDAR merges these laser data with high-resolution photography to enhance the imagery of stratigraphy and structure.

3.3.1 Data Collection and Processing LiDAR and the accompanying photographic data were collected and processed for this project by StatoilHydro. They used a Riegl z420i terrestrial laser scanner (Figure

3.7), which has an accuracy of 10 mm, a measurement range of 2-1000 m, and a measurement rate of between 8000 to 11,000 points per second. RiScan Pro software was used for texturizing. Each outcrop was scanned from several locations to get optimal reflection angles and to minimize the effect of shadows (T. Johnsen, personal communication 2009). Alignment of each scan position was performed so that one pointcloud could be generated from several scans, and it was then filtered into a less dense, but more evenly distributed pointcloud (e.g., single point per 200 mm along priority one ridge). All of the points in this pointcloud were then connected to their neighboring points to make a triangulated mesh, creating the 3D effect of the model. The photographs for the model were shot using a tripod and a Nikon D200 camera with a calibrated 85 mm lens (Figure 3.7). Using a calibrated lens means that the lens distortion is known and the image can be "undistorted" prior to draping it onto the 3D model. The undistorted images were used to texturize the model Texturizing of the model is a manual process that is very labor intensive and time consuming. The RAW photographic files are converted into jpegs, and image adjustments (brightness, white balance, contrast, etc.) are made in Adobe Photoshop. The images are then imported into RiScan Pro, and each image is manually connected to the 3D mesh by at least four corresponding points. The mesh is texturized with each image, one-by-one, to check the accuracy of the image alignment. This results in a texturized mesh, and an image translation matrix for each image. This matrix is saved alongside the image and can be used to texturize the image onto the mesh, making it appear at the exact same location on the mesh as before. Because there is around 30% overlap in the images, each image 3D mesh has to be edited alongside the adjacent image 3D mesh. To create minimal overlap between the individual image meshes, parts of each image mesh are deleted around the perimeter. Each image 3D mesh is then exported to an individual .obj file with associated jpeg files, and one .ive file is created from several .obj files. This was completed for five priority areas (ridge faces) and four fracture map bedding plane surfaces (1, 2, 15 & 16) (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.6. Example of conversion from fracture trace orientation to trend and plunge.

3.3.2 Interpretation The StatoilHydro interpretation process requires the StatoilHydro Digitizer, ArcView and a series of Excel spreadsheets. To open the photorealistic LiDAR images, the .ive file is dropped on a batch file that opens the image in the Digitizer. This opens the Digitizer window, as well as a command box that records every action made in the digitizer. The image can be manipulated using the right and left mouse buttons, and the Digitizer has a series of tools to aid in interpretation, such as: texture toggle (filled, wireframe, points), lighting toggle, strike and dip tool, distance tool, and an anaglyphic mode that creates a 3-D effect when viewed through 3-D glasses (Figure 3.8). Interpretation methods are different for bedding planes and ridge faces, and both are described in detail below.

Figure 3.7. Riegel z420i scanner at Jebel Madar with Nikon D200 mounted on top. Photo taken by Trond Mjøs Johnsen.

To interpret fractures on bedding planes, points are digitized by placing the cursor over the desired location and pressing the Shift key (Figure 3.9). After digitizing all of the points along a fracture, the X, Y, Z locations are saved as an .osg file that must be converted to a .txt file. The LiDAR images have an associated origin file that defines a location shift that must be applied to each digitized X, Y, Z location in the .txt file in order for them to show up in the correct location. The following workflow was created by Casini and Fernández (2008) to extract the orientation data. The text file is imported into ArcView using a UI Control Button that converts the .txt file into a PolylineZ file. Azimuth and length are calculated by opening the PolylineZ file attribute table and loading the appropriate .cal files into the Field Calculator (Tchoukanski, 2004). The azimuth that is calculated using this method does not incorporate the bedding plane dip and dip direction, so the azimuth value is entered into an Excel spreadsheet that uses the bedding dip and dip direction to appropriately calculate the true dip and dip direction of the fracture plane. This process is repeated for each digitized fracture.

For this study, every fracture was digitized on all four fracture maps, and the resulting data were compared to the data extracted from the fracture maps completed in the field. To interpret fractures on ridge faces, the points are digitized and saved in the same way as explained above. However, orientations cannot be extracted using the same workflow, because there is no associated bedding dip or dip direction values. For these fractures, the software package 3D Move is used to generate data. After digitizing and saving a fracture, each .osg file must be converted into a .txt file, and the appropriate location shift must be applied. The .txt files are imported into 3D Move as Ascii Surface Data files and loaded as surfaces (Figure 3.10). To extract orientation information, the user must select a fracture and open the Orientation Analysis module under the Analysis Tab. The mean principal plane represents the mean orientation and is plotted on the stereo plot under the Stereo Plot Tab (Figure 3.11). The dip and dip azimuth of the plane associated with the mean principal orientation are recorded under the Statistics Summary Tab (Figure 3.12). It is important to note that these values are calculated from a series of triangulated surfaces that are automatically generated from the original X, Y, Z point data (Figure 3.13). The dip and dip azimuth values were manually recorded in a spreadsheet (Appendix C), and the dip azimuth values were converted to strike measurements. To obtain length data for the fractures, each file must be reloaded into a new 3D Move project as lines instead of surfaces. Each fracture is listed under Object Types in the Model Browser, and the Object Property Table icon is located at the bottom of the Model Browser. To view length data, all fractures must first be selected, and then the Object Property Table must be opened by clicking the icon (Figure 3.14). Each fracture name and length is displayed by turning on these attributes, and these values are also manually recorded in the spreadsheet. For this study, a representative half-kilometer section along the priority one ridge was chosen, and every fracture was interpreted. The section included both fracture swarms and the less fractured areas in between. Three circular sampling windows were used to calculate density, intensity and mean trace length (Equations 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3). Strike, dip, and length measurements were used to generate rose diagrams in Orient 2.0.4 and graphs in Microsoft Excel.

A list of lessons learned and recommendations to improve the StatoilHydro digitizer and interpretation workflow are described in section 3.3.5 of this thesis.

Figure 3.8. Screenshots of toggle features in the Digitizer. (A) Filled; (B) Wireframe; (C) Points; and (D) Anaglyphic.

Figure 3.9. Example of digitized fractures (blue and white points).

Figure 3.10. Fracture plane surfaces in 3D Move 3D in Move plane Browser. Model surfaces Fracture 3.10. Figure

Figure 3.11. Stereo Plot showing mean principal orientation for selected fracture surface. fracture selected orientation for principal Plot mean showing Stereo 3.11. Figure

Figure 3.12. Statistics summary for selected fracture surface. fracture selected for Statistics 3.12. Figure summary

Figure 3.13. Fracture surface shown as (A) solid surface, and (B) triangulated mesh.

cted attributes for all selected all for ctedfractures. attributes Figure 3.14. Object Property Table showing sele Property showing Table Object 3.14. Figure

3.3.3 Advantages and Biases of LiDAR Using LiDAR data in geological studies has many advantages over traditional fieldwork (Bellian et al., 2005; McCaffery et al., 2005; Buckley et al., 2008). Due to the advances in terrestrial scanning technology, the amount of time spent in the field to capture data is significantly less than the time it would take to complete traditional fieldwork over the same area. This can be particularly beneficial in areas that are politically or socially sensitive (e.g., National Parks). It also allows interpretation on areas that can be very dangerous or difficult to access, such as steep cliff faces. Although processing and interpretation of LiDAR data can still be very time- consuming, this work can be done in an office, where elements such as weather and daylight do not hinder progress. It is easy to access, view and edit the LiDAR data and interpretations at any time, without the restriction of having to visit the outcrop. This technology is increasingly being used as a virtual field trip (Bellian et al., 2005). The accuracy of LiDAR data is incredibly high (in this project, 10 mm); however, it is important to note that this accuracy can deteriorate during processing and interpretation. When using an interpretation program such as the StatoilHydro Digitizer, the accuracy relies heavily on how exact the user is in his or her digitization. It is also hard to constrain the third dimension on a bedding surface or face when there is minimal topography along the feature being digitized. This study incorporated a significant amount of LiDAR data interpretation, and many biases were discovered during the interpretation process. These biases are summarized below:

 The angle at which the LiDAR data were captured in relation to the outcrop is critical to yield an un-biased view of the surface. If the data were captured at a low angle to the outcrop, fractures orientated in the same direction as the scanner are clearly imaged and easy to distinguish, whereas, fractures oriented obliquely to perpendicular to the scanner are much more difficult to distinguish (Figure 3.15).  Digitizing fractures in areas where the LiDAR data are distorted or stretched can yield false data. This can add or subtract length to a fracture and/or give an

incorrect Z value. This becomes a significant issue when picking fractures that are perpendicular to the scanner orientation (Figure 3.16).  Weathering of the Natih Formation at Jebel Madar makes it hard to distinguish fractures from exfoliation on LiDAR images (Figure 3.17).  Calcite veins are very hard to discern on LiDAR images. Since viewing them on the LiDAR data relies primarily on a color difference, there is a very low confidence level in calcite vein picks, and many veins are likely overlooked

(Figure 3.17).

Despite the advantages of LiDAR, it cannot fully replace traditional field work. Although the images have high resolution and show incredible detail, they still cannot act as a substitute for examining outcrops, and it is important for a user to understand that LiDAR should be used as a tool to aid in interpretation (Bellian et al., 2005). Fieldwork is necessary to ground-truth the interpretation.

3.3.4 Fracture Maps: Field Work vs. Photorealistic LiDAR Images After a careful comparison between fractures maps completed in the field versus fractures digitized using the photorealistic LiDAR images, it was decided to not use the latter in the interpretation for this study. Fractures digitized on the LiDAR images show a wide range of values instead of more precisely constraining the primary orientation (Figure 3.18). This range of variable orientations is likely due to the biases associated with the processing and interpretation of the LiDAR, as discussed in section 3.3.3. The dominant orientations extracted from both sets of data vary markedly, and the reasoning behind this is not fully understood. Visually, the field-mapped and digitized fracture maps look very similar. Since there is minimal topography on the bedding planes where the LiDAR images were captured, it is difficult to accurately constrain the third- dimension of the fracture plane. Calculation of the third dimension is only as accurate as the digitization of the points along the fracture trace. Certain features, such as weathering along the fracture traces, rubble blocking the trace and stretching or distortion of the LiDAR data, can cause misinterpretation of the fracture, which would lead to inconsistent and possibly incorrect orientation measurements.

Figure 3.15. Screenshots showing image quality difference when viewing the shot (A) at the same orientation as the scanner, and (B) perpendicular to the scanning direction. Black arrows show the scanner orientation.

Figure 3.16. Screenshots showing the effect of distortion when trying to pick a fracture. (A) Filled screenshot showing a major fracture going across the picture. (B) Wireframe screenshot of same fracture showing the stretched triangulated mesh. Black arrows show the scanner orientation.

Figure 3.17. Screenshot showing features that are hard to distinguish on LiDAR images.

The orientation results which are most consistent between field work and LiDAR interpretation were from fracture map 15 (Figure 3.1). Even though the dominant and secondary orientations are reversed between the two datasets, they still represent the same general orientations. The similarities are likely due to the fact that the LiDAR data were captured from above the fracture map location, instead of at a low angle. The other three fracture maps that have LiDAR data (1, 2, and 16) were shot at lower angles. This bias is discussed in section 3.3.3. Due to inconsistency of the two datasets and the inability to constrain the accuracy of the third dimension associated with the fractures digitized on the LiDAR images, fracture maps generated during fieldwork retain a higher confidence level and were used for the interpretation in this study. Topography of the priority 1 ridge face makes it easier to more accurately constrain the fracture orientations. This accuracy is also shown by how clearly the dominant orientation was constrained along the studied section (see section 4.2). Photorealistic LiDAR data along a vertical ridge face also allows interpretation of fracture and fracture swarm spacing.

Figure 3.18. Rose diagrams showing differences between LiDAR and fieldwork orientation results. Red arrows represents angle from which LiDAR data were captured.

3.3.5 LiDAR Methodology Recommendations Throughout the LiDAR interpretation process, challenges were encountered using the StatoilHydro Digitizer. The following is a list of recommendations for adjustments and/or improvements:

 Develop a way to select and import multiple files instead of having to load each file individually.  Develop a file view panel that allows the user to turn each of the imported files on or off.  Develop a simplified way to save each digitized feature to a unique file name without having to digitize, save, delete and reload the points.  Allow the user the ability to select, move, delete, join, or change the color of individual lines and/or points.  Add the ability to view information (name, length, etc.) of selected feature.  Develop a tool that takes the X, Y, Z data from a selected feature and calculates the strike and dip for a best-fit plane. This should also include the capability to select multiple features and create a single best-fit plane through each of them.  Allow the triangulation tool to be used on a saved file.  When using the triangulation or strike and dip tools in mesh mode, the planes should be viewed as solid surfaces.  Add a scale bar and adjust the compass to make it easier to view when looking at an angle, such as on a bedding plane.  Develop an optional magnification box tool that shows a magnified view of the area surrounding the cursor. This will improve the user's ability to accurately digitize along a line, while still seeing the larger picture.  Add the option to export information (name, length, etc.) directly from the digitizer in a report format.  Export files as .txt files, not .osg files.  Develop an option to make origin conversions (location shifts) automatically on output.

Despite the current interpretation limitations of the StatoilHydro Digitizer, it is an excellent visualization tool. One option may be to couple the Digitizer with another software package that is already suited for interpretation of LiDAR data (e.g., Ahlgren et al., 2002; Ahlgren and Holmlund, 2002; Slob et al., 2007). The triangulated mesh could initially be interpreted in another program, and the results could then be loaded into the Digitizer. Since the Digitizer allows the user to view the photorealistic LiDAR images, it could serve well as a medium to perform quality control on the interpretation. The adjustments listed above would still be necessary to allow the interpretation to be edited (move, delete or adjust features).

3.4 Structural Model A simple 3-D structural model was generated in 3D Move by importing data that had been digitized in the StatoilHydro Digitizer. The data include fractures from four fracture maps (1, 2, 15 and 16), fractures from the priority 1 ridge face, and a bedding plane (Natih F-E contact) from four priority ridge faces (1, 2, 4 and 5). After each fracture and bedding surface was digitized, they were converted from .osg files into .txt files (see section 3.3.2, above). Each fracture was imported as an Ascii Data Surface file and loaded as a line, and each bedding surface was imported as an Ascii Data Surface file and loaded as points. To create a surface from each of the bedding planes, each bedding plane was selected, and then a surface was generated by clicking on Create → Create Surface From → Points. In the Create Surface From Points toolbox, each surface was collected and the surface was renamed (Figure 3.19). After all of the data were loaded into 3D Move, the model can be manipulated and viewed at any angle. The strike and dip values at any point of the surface are displayed at the bottom right corner of the model browser by clicking on the location. Properties are viewed by right-clicking on any of the bedding planes or fractures under the Object Types, and attributes are shown by clicking on the Object Property Table icon located at the bottom left corner of the Model Browser.

Surface From Points Create 3.19. toolbox. Figure

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS

4.1 Fracture Maps For this interpretation, 19 of the 21 fracture maps generated during field work were used. The two fracture maps (3 and 4) not used were mapped on outcrop faces, and the associated orientations and measurements were poorly constrained. The 19 fracture maps are located around the perimeter of the Jebel on Natih E bedding surfaces (Figure 3.1). Density, intensity, and mean trace length were calculated for each fracture map (Table 4.1), and rose diagrams were generated using trend and plunge for each fracture (Appendix C).

Table 4.1. Fracture map measurements and calculations.

FM Radius No. Fractures Intensity Density Mean Trace Length 1 4 61 2.31 0.85 2.74 2 4 82 1.75 1.35 1.29 5 2.5 37 2.10 1.35 1.56 6 4 44 1.63 0.62 2.63 7 4 68 1.81 1.06 1.70 8 4 9 0.50 0.10 5.03 9 4 10 0.75 0.08 9.42 10 4 36 0.69 0.61 1.13 11 4 22 1.19 0.25 4.78 12 3 44 2.00 1.13 1.77 13 4 88 2.50 1.35 1.85 14 4 35 1.19 0.51 2.34 15 4 34 1.31 0.47 2.81 16 4 31 1.13 0.44 2.57 17 1 71 8.75 17.03 0.51 18 2.5 16 1.20 0.51 2.36 19 2 15 1.63 0.68 2.40 20 3 30 1.75 0.69 2.54 21 2.5 10 0.80 0.31 2.62

Figure 4.1 shows the relationship between radius values and intensity, density and mean trace length for the fracture maps. As the radius increases, intensity and density slightly decrease, but mean trace length increases. These calculations become more accurate as the radius increases, because smaller radii tend to overestimate density and underestimate mean trace length (Rohrbaugh et al., 2002). The distribution of orientations from the fracture maps is highly variable, but two primary and two secondary orientation directions can be determined (Figures 4.2; 4.3). The primary trend directions are NNW-SSE and NNE-SSW, and the secondary orientations are NW-SE and ENE-WSW. Figure 4.4 shows a rose diagram for each fracture map, located around the perimeter of the Jebel, and five areas have been designated by the letters A-E. These areas have been assigned solely for the purpose of this explanation. Distinct, localized trends exist, and progressive rotation of these orientations can be seen, moving around the Jebel. Starting at area A and moving counter-clockwise, there is a dominant NW-SE orientation that begins to rotate towards NNW-SSE. The orientations continue to rotate in a clockwise direction, and the dominant direction at Area B is NNE-SSW to NE-SW. Area C has a general NW-SE orientation and a secondary NE-SW direction. Moving west, the orientations at area D rotate from a dominant ENE-WSW direction to NNW- SSE, but there are also variable secondary orientations at each location. Area E has a wide array of orientations, but is dominated by general NW-SE and NE-SW orientations. Orientations at areas D and E of the Jebel seem to be influenced by faults (red lines on figure 4.4) that are near the fracture map locations, and, in several cases, the primary fracture orientations line up with the fault orientations. This could also explain the highly variable orientations of Area E (Ozkanli and Standen, 1993). Figure 4.5 shows a comparison between fracture length and orientation. Fracture length is variable at all orientations, although longer fractures are more abundant in the NE-SW and NNW-SSE directions. Age relationships at the fracture map locations largely show NW-SE trending fractures developed first, followed by fractures of various orientations (Figure 4.6).

Figure 4.1. Effect of increasing radius on intensity, density and mean trace length measurements. Data points represent fracture maps.

Figure 4.2. Orientation distribution of fractures from fracture maps. from fracture distribution fractures of Orientation 4.2. Figure

Figure 4.3. Rose diagram generated using fracture orientations from every fracture map.

placed next to fracture map locations. Red lines represent faults, and areas are shown areas locations. map in and represent are lines placedfaults, Red to fracture next

ine along priority 1 ridge face represents interpreted section. face represents ridge 1 priority along ine

. Jebel Madar diagrams Jebel . rose with

ellow boxes. Pink l boxes. ellow

Figure 4. Figure y

Figure 4.5. Orientation vs. length for fractures maps. vs. fromfractures Orientation 4.5. fracture Figure for length

Figure 4.6. Age relationship examples from fracture maps that show NW-SE trending fractures developed first.

Rock samples were collected from each fracture map location, and textures were determined from thin sections (Table 4.2). The textures were similar at all of the fracture map locations, ranging from mudstone-wackestone to packstones. Table 4.3 compares texture, primary and secondary fracture orientations, intensity, density and mean trace length for each fracture map. Fracture map 17 has extreme values for intensity and density compared to the other fracture maps in this study because the mapping window radius was only one meter, which skews the values (discussed in section 4.1). Also, fracture map 17 was located on a fracture swarm, so high intensity and density values are reasonable. This data point was removed from several charts in order to view the remaining data more clearly.

Table 4.2. Thin section descriptions for each fracture map. (FM= fracture map).

FM Thin Section Description 1 Wackestone; completely recrystallized 2 Wackestone; orbitolinid forams; bivalve fragments; sparry calcite 5 Mudstone-wackestone; miliolid forams; bivalve fragments; sparry calcite 6 Wackestone; forams (miliolid, orbitolinid, fusilinid) 7 Wackestone; forams (miliolid, orbitolinid, fusilinid); sponge spicules 8 Wackestone-packstone; forams (miliolid, fusilinid, uni/biserial); bivalve frag 9 Peloidal wackestone; orbitolinid forams; rudist and bivalve fragments 10 Wackestone; orbitolinid forams; bivalve and rudist fragments 11 Peloidal packstone; orbitolinid forams; bivalve and rudist fragments 12 Peloidal packstone; orbitolinid forams; largely recrystallized 13 No Thin Section 14 Wackestone; forams (miliolid, orbitolinid) 15 Wackestone; forams (miliolid, fusilinid); rudist fragments 16 Wackestone; forams (miliolid, uni/biserial); bivalve fragments 17 Peloidal packstone; orbitolinid forams; extensive dissolution and fill 18 Wackestone; forams (miliolid, biserial, fusilinid, orbitolinid) 19 Wackestone; forams (orbitolinid, uni/biserial); rudist and bivalve fragments 20 Wackestone; forams (miliolid, bi/triserial); bivalve fragments; sparry calcite 21 Wackestone; forams (miliolid; orbitolinid); bivalve fragments

Table 4.3. Comparison between texture and fracture properties at each fracture map location. They are listed in order of increasing grain size. (FM = fracture map; DO = dominant orientation; SO = secondary orientation; MTL = mean trace length).

Map Texture DO SO Intensity Density MTL (L-1) (m-2) (m) 5 MS-WS 135 -- 2.1 1.35 1.556 1 WS 35 75 2.313 0.846 2.735 2 WS 20 130 1.75 1.353 1.294 6 WS 150 45 1.625 0.617 2.635 7 WS 105 40 1.813 1.064 1.703 9 WS 145 50 0.75 0.08 9.425 10 WS 35 130 0.688 0.607 1.133 14 WS 55 0 1.188 0.507 2.341 15 WS 30 70 1.313 0.468 2.807 16 WS 175 60 1.125 0.438 2.57 18 WS 155 90 1.2 0.509 2.356 19 WS 145 50 1.625 0.676 2.402 20 WS 150 5 1.75 0.69 2.537 21 WS 135 15 0.8 0.306 2.618 8 WS-PS 140 15 0.5 0.099 5.027 11 PS 70 140 1.188 0.249 4.775 12 PS 150 -- 2 1.132 1.767 17 PS 25 90 8.75 17.03 0.514 13 -- 160 65 2.5 1.353 1.848

A comparison between fracture map textures and primary orientations show the fractures associated with wackestone textures have two general orientations, NE-SW and NNW-SSE (Figure 4.7). There are too few data points to determine any trends between other textures and primary orientations, but they mostly fall in the same two orientations as the wackestone. No apparent trends exist between texture and fracture intensity or density (Figures 4.8 and 4.9). Most of the wackestone textures have mean trace lengths between one and three meters, but no trends are seen between the mean trace lengths of other textures (Figure 4.10).

Figure 4.7. Texture vs. primary orientation for each fracture map.

Figure 4.8. Texture vs. fracture intensity for each fracture map. Note the data point for FM 17 (texture = packstone; intensity = 8.75 L-1) was removed.

Figure 4.9. Texture vs. fracture density for each fracture map. Note the data point for FM 17 (texture = packstone; intensity = 17.03 L-1) was removed.

Figure 4.10. Texture vs. mean fracture trace length for each fracture map.

4.2 Vertical Ridge Face The priority 1 ridge was used to determine properties of fractures exposed on a vertical face (Figure 3.1). A representative 500 meter section was chosen, and every fracture in this area was interpreted using the StatoilHydro Digitizer. The section included fracture swarms and less fractured areas in between. Three circular sampling windows were placed within the 500 meter section to calculate intensity, density and mean trace length (Figure 4.11). One window was placed within a fracture swarm (FS_1), and two windows were placed in areas in-between fracture swarms (IB_1 and IB_2). The fracture swarm sampling window has the highest intensity and density values and the smallest mean trace length (Table 4.4). Values for the two sampling windows located in-between fracture swarms vary significantly. These values are compared against the fracture map values in section 4.4. A total of 936 fractures were digitized, and their orientations were calculated in 3DMove (Figure 4.12). The dominant orientation along the ridge face is strongly concentrated in the general WSW-ENE (Figures 4.13; 4.14), the average height is 7.22 meters, and the range is less than one meter to over 80 meters long. Figure 4.15 compares fracture orientation and height, and the longer fractures commonly have ENE- SSW, NW-SE and NE-SW orientations.

Figure 4.11. Priority one ridge with all of the digitized fractures (white). The red circles represent sampling windows.

Table 4.4. Priority 1 ridge face sampling window measurements and calculations.

Name Radius No. of Fractures Intensity Density Mean Trace Height IB_1 12.5 41 0.475 0.06 8.12 IB_2 12.5 20 0.34 0.02 14.51 FS_1 10 33 0.48 0.07 6.35

Figure 4.12. Priority one ridge face fractures in 3DMove Model Browser.

4.3 Mechanical Stratigraphy Mechanical stratigraphy of the Natih E Formation was interpreted along an approximately 300 meter long section of the priority 1 ridge face (Figures 4.16; 4.17). Stratigraphic, mechanical and weathering-related boundaries were traced across the section in Adobe Illustrator. The stratigraphic bed boundaries were derived from a stratigraphic section that was completed 200 meters to the east (Figure 4.18), and the mechanical boundaries were picked along surfaces where there are abundant fracture terminations (Figure 4.19). A comparison between the mechanical and stratigraphic boundaries shows the boundaries are similar in some areas, but differ across most of the section (Figure 4.20). In some cases, the mechanical boundaries diverge from the stratigraphic boundaries. Intense weathering of the face also provides an additional set of boundaries (Figure 4.21). A comparison between the weathering-related and mechanical boundaries shows that they are commonly correlative (Figure 4.22). In Figure 4.22, areas where these boundaries are

similar have been marked by yellow ovals. This shows that mechanical boundaries picked in this section may be heavily influenced by weathering-related features. Weathering makes it hard to determine whether fractures propagate past these boundaries, such as overhangs. There are also complications associated with tracing fractures through significant lithology changes, such as wackestone to mudstone. There are sets of through-going and bed-bounded fractures along the studied section. The bed-bound fractures are more prevalent in the wackestone layers (Figure 4.18), and they terminate against the packstone boundaries. Fracture heights range from less than one meter to greater than 80 meters, and the longer, through-going fractures are most commonly associated with ENE-SSW, NW-SE and NE-SW orientations.

Figure 4.13. Rose diagram generated using fractures digitized from priority 1 vertical ridge face.

s from priority 1 ridge face. from s ridge 1 priority Figure 4.14. Distribution of fracture orientation Distribution 4.14. fracture Figure of

for all fractures on priority 1 ridge face. ridge 1 priority on fractures all for

height

Figure 4.15. Orientation Orientation 4.15. Figure vs.

Photorealistic LiDAR image along priority along image ridge. 1 LiDAR Photorealistic

16 Figure 4. Figure

Photorealistic LiDAR image along priority along shown. fracture with interpretation image ridge 1 LiDAR Photorealistic

7 1

4. Figure

wnhere

Stratigraphic bed boundaries (yellow) were correlated across the section based on the stratigraphic section the on sho the stratigraphic based section across correlated (yellow) boundaries were bed Stratigraphic

Figure 4. Figure 2.15). (Figure

. Mechanical boundaries (blue) were placed where abundant fracture terminations occurred. fracture terminations where placed (blue) abundant were Mechanical . boundaries

9 Figure 4.1 Figure

echanical boundaries (blue). echanical

Comparison between stratigraphic (yellow) and m and (yellow) stratigraphic between Comparison

20 Figure 4. Figure

hangs, were traced along discontinuous were along hangs, traced surfaces.

related boundaries (pink), such as over (pink), boundaries as such related

. Weathering .

2 Figure 4. Figure

related (pink) boundaries. Yellow the relatedboundaries. where mark (pink) ovals

. Comparison between mechanical weathering (blue) and between Comparison .

Figure 4. Figure or match are boundaries similar.

4.4 Comparison: Fracture Maps and Vertical Ridge Face Figures 4.23, 4.24 and 4.25 show comparisons of intensity, density and mean trace length/height calculations for the interpreted fracture maps and priority one vertical ridge face. The intensity and density values for the priority 1 ridge face are among the smallest values for the fracture maps (Figures 4.23; 4.24). The mean trace length/height values for the priority 1 ridge face are among the largest values for the fracture maps (Figure 4.25). It is important to note that the two interpretation areas being compared here are different types of exposures. The fractures associated with the fracture maps were measured on bedding planes, and the priority one ridge fractures are exposed on a vertical face. The mean trace length/height values were measured as length on bedding planes and as height on vertical faces; therefore, comparisons between these two measurements may be irrelevant.

Figure 4.23. Comparison of intensity calculations for fracture maps and priority 1 ridge face. Note the data point for FM 17 (texture = packstone; intensity = 8.75 L-1) was removed.

Figure 4.24. Comparison of density calculations for fracture maps and priority 1 ridge face. Note the data point for FM 17 (texture = packstone; intensity = 17.03 L-1) was removed.

Figure 4.25. Comparison of mean trace length calculations for fracture maps and mean trace height calculations priority 1 ridge face.

4.5 Structural Model The structural model generated for this project was constructed using the interpreted LiDAR dataset, which included a bedding surface (Natih F-E contact) at four priority areas (1, 2, 4 and 5), fractures from four fracture map bedding planes (1, 2, 15 and 16), and fractures across a 500 meter section along the priority one ridge face (Figures 4.26). These data cover a very small portion of Jebel Madar, and this lack of control results in interpolation of data across significant distances and areas with no associated interpretation. This can be seen in Figure 4.26, where the model stretches from priority areas one and two, directly through the Jebel. There is also a lack of coverage around the whole perimeter of the Jebel, where most of the fracture maps are located (Figure 4.26). In areas with greater data coverage, the model shows the interaction between bedding surfaces and fractures (Figure 4.27). The model allows the user to view strike and dip variations along bedding surfaces. Figure 4.28 shows increasing dip measurements from the top of the surface towards ground level, which fits the generalized model for a domal structure. This simple model yields basic results and will provide the framework for a more integrated model in the future. The model will be enhanced by the additional of strike and dip measurements, bedding contacts and an orthorectified digital elevation model.

Figure 4.26. Map view of structural model showing priority areas and fracture data locations.

Figure 4.27. Structural model showing location of bedding in relation to fracture maps 1 and 2, and priority one ridge face fractures.

Figure 4.28. View of structural model that shows increasing dip measurements from the top of the surface towards ground level. This is the surface between priorities 1 and 5.

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION

Fracture patterns at Jebel Madar show strong heterogeneity, but the different fracture generations have previously been unresolved. Several tectonic events influenced the development of fractures at Jebel Madar. The three main events include: obduction of the Semail ophiolite (Campanian), uplift and exhumation of the Oman Mountains (Miocene), and salt doming at Jebel Madar. The ages of the first two events are fairly well constrained; however, the age of the salt movement is debatable. This chapter focuses on constraining the fracture heterogeneities and defining the regional and local tectonic events that impacted the generation of each fracture pattern.

5.1 Mechanical Stratigraphy The fracture properties collected and/or calculated for this study include: orientation, intensity, density, mean trace length/height, and texture (Table 4.1). The orientation is derived from the stress state at the time of fracturing, but the intensity, density and mean trace length/height depend largely on the texture (Nelson, 1987). Plots were generated to show the relationship between fracture properties and texture (Figures 4.7; 4.8; 4.9; 4.10). In this dataset, no apparent trends exist between fracture intensity or density and texture, but mean trace lengths of wackestone textures were mostly confined between one and three meters (Figure 4.10). The lack of trends suggests fracture properties vary across the Jebel. Along the priority 1 ridge face, the intensity, density and mean trace length values for areas in-between fracture swarms (IB_1 and IB_2) varied markedly (Table 4.4). This discrepancy shows the variability in fracture properties along the vertical faces. Weathering features and/or proximity of the sampling window to fracture swarms could have a large impact on the fracture properties along a vertical face. The sampling window in the fracture swarm (FS_1) yielded the highest intensity and density measurements and the smallest mean trace height, as expected from a highly fractured area.

A comparison between the intensity, density and mean trace length/height values for the fracture maps and priority 1 ridge face shows the ridge face has low intensity and density values, but high mean trace height values (Figures 4.23; 4.24; 4.25). Since the radii of the sampling windows were larger on the faces, these differences could be due to size of the sampling windows. However, it is important to note that the mean trace length values calculate a different dimension of the fracture plane on vertical faces as opposed to bedding planes. In the Natih reservoir of Yibal Field, located in the Fahud Salt Basin of Oman (Figure 2.1), fractures range up to two meters in length and fracture density ranges from 0.07-0.23 m-2 (Al-Anboori et al., 2006). The Yibal Field fracture length is very similar to mean trace length values calculated using the fracture maps at Jebel Madar; however, the density value is less than most of the values derived from the fracture maps. The Yibal Field values were derived from seismic data, so the discrepancy in density and intensity values could be the result of different sampling sizes. Through-going fractures form by the linkage of previously bed-bound fractures, and they can join multiple layers of bed-bounded fractures, increasing connectivity of the fracture system and ultimately increasing permeability of the reservoir (Gross and Eyal, 2007). The through-going fractures at Jebel Madar generally trend ENE-SSW, NW-SE and NE-SW, but spacing of the fractures has not been constrained. The intense weathering of the priority 1 ridge face makes a detailed mechanical stratigraphic analysis very difficult only using photorealistic LiDAR images. The stratigraphic bed boundaries deviated from the mechanical boundaries in many instances, but this is likely due to the mechanical boundaries being chosen on weathering features that occlude the view of fracture traces on the outcrop face (Figures 4.20; 4.22). Removing the mechanical boundaries that were likely affected by weathering features showed a correlation between bed-bounded fractures and stratigraphic beds with wackestone textures (Figure 4.18). This is also supported by the trend between wackestone textures and shorter (~1-3 m) fracture heights (Figure 4.10).

5.2 Orientation Distribution and Tectonic Events The dominant fracture orientations at Jebel Madar are NNW-SSE and NNE-SSW, and the secondary orientations are NW-SE and ENE-WSW (Figures 4.2; 4.3).

5.2.1 Regional Tectonic Events Regional fractures represent regional tectonic events, and are usually long and form orthogonal sets (Nelson, 2001; Tiab and Donaldson, 2004). Two regional tectonic events impacted fracture development at Jebel Madar. The first event was the obduction of the Hawasina Complex and Semail ophiolite onto the Arabian Platform during the Late Cretaceous (Bertotti et al., 2005; Fournier et al., 2006; de Keijzer et al., 2007) (Figures 2.10E; 2.12B). This event was characterized by NE-SW extensional strain due to the downbending of the continental plate (de Keijzer et al., 2007). The second event; the Alpine tectonic phase, was caused by the collision of Arabia and Asia during the Oligo-Miocene, and resulted in regional NE-SW compression (Figure 2.9D). De Keijzer et al. (2007) documented the fracture patterns at Jebel Madmar, approximately 100 km west of Jebel Madar (Figure 2.18). They determined the two dominant fracture orientations as NE and NW. NW-trending fractures formed by NE- SW extension during obduction in Late Cretaceous. The NE-trending fracture set and additional NW-trending fractures formed in response to regional NE-SW compression during the Alpine tectonic phase (Figure 2.9D). Several additional studies from the region also documented abundant fracture sets trending in general NE and NW directions (Bertotti et al., 2005; Morettini et al., 2005; Fournier et al., 2006). In addition, Dunne and North (1990) conducted a study in southwestern Wales, focused on an orthogonal fracture system within the autochthonous foreland just beyond the Variscan thrust. They determined the fracture sets developed parallel and perpendicular to the compressional stress. The tectonic location of the Wales study area is analogous to Jebel Madar, which sits just outside the frontal thrust associated with obduction. In the case of Jebel Madar, the principal stress direction was NE-SW, which, according to the Dunne and North (1990) study, would suggest formation of NW and NE trending fractures sets.

However, the dataset presented in this study does not show the dominance of NW and NE trending regional fracture sets. There is a secondary NW-trending fracture set; however, no significant trend exists in the NE direction (Figure 4.3). The major faults at Jebel Madar (Figure 4.4) generally trend NW-SE and NE-SW, and these likely resulted from the Late Cretaceous extensional and Tertiary compressional events. However, the influence of these events on the fracture patters at Jebel Madar is less pronounced compared to other regions in the area.

5.2.2 Local Tectonic Events Local tectonic fractures are typically shorter than regional systems and are dominated by local events (Nelson, 2001; Tiab and Donaldson, 2004). Jebel Madar is a salt-cored dome surrounded by desert in Central Oman, and the only known local tectonic influence is salt movement. Fracture patterns in the stratigraphy overlying a salt diapir can be generated from multiple states of stress throughout the uplift history (van Golf-Racht, 1996). Van Golf- Racht (1996) suggested that two fracture patterns, concentric and radial, are commonly associated with folding due to salt doming. Both form conjugate sets of approximately 60º and 120º. Over time, both of these patterns may develop in a single bed. The fractures along the priority 1 ridge face are generally steeply dipping (average ~78º), which suggests a radial fracture pattern exists at Jebel Madar. As seen on the priority 1 ridge face, the radial fractures are generally oriented in a WSW-ENE direction. The fracture maps largely show a concentric fracture pattern around the Jebel, but a more subtle radial pattern is also present in most the fracture maps. Orientation distribution of the fractures from the fracture maps shows two possibilities for general conjugate sets around the Jebel, NW-SE and NNE-SSW, NW-SE and ENE-WSW. The conjugate sets could also be formed by more subtle orientations at individual fracture map locations. These radial and concentric patterns can be seen in the rose diagrams on Figure 4.4. The age of salt doming at Jebel Madar has not been well constrained, but several studies on other salt-cored domes in the region suggest minor salt movement initiated in Late Jurassic, followed by two periods of significant growth acceleration (Ericsson et al., 1998; Peters et al., 2003). These two periods are associated with obduction in the Late

Cretaceous and the Alpine orogenic event during the Miocene. Figure 2.17 is a seismic line over Jebel Madar, which shows growth strata at the base of the Upper Fiqa (Campanian - Masstrichtian). This also supports significant salt movement following obduction. Variability in dip along a single fracture plane suggests the possibility of continual tectonic movement during fracture propagation. Grélaud et al. (2006) suggested that evidence of faulting before channel incision of the Natih Formation (early Cenomanian) exists at Jebel Madar. This supports the possibility of localized tectonic movement prior to onset of regional tectonic influence at Jebel Madar. The faults could be linked to an early period of minor salt movement after Natih deposition.

5.2.3 Jebel Madar Fracture Orientation Interpretation The dominant fracture orientations in the Natih E Formation at Jebel Madar are NNW-SSE, NNE-SSW, NW-SE and ENE-WSW. The three tectonic events that impacted fracture development include: Semail ophiolite obduction (Late Cretaceous), Alpine orogeny (Oligo-Miocene), and salt movement (Late Cretaceous and Miocene). The results of this study show that regional tectonic events had an impact on large-scale (> 1km) fault development at Jebel Madar, but salt movement was the dominant influence on the fracture patterns. Varied orientation distribution of fractures at each fracture map location and steeply dipping fracture planes on the priority 1 ridge face suggest the fractures have radial and concentric distributions across the Jebel. Age relationships show the NW-SE fractures likely formed first, followed by fractures of various orientations. This suggests that development of the salt-influenced radial and concentric fractures began after obduction, which generated the NW-SE trending fractures. Figure 5.1 shows the dominant fracture trends and the general fracture trends associated with the Semail obduction and Alpine orogeny, as well as the possible general conjugate sets formed by radial fracturing during salt movement.

Figure 5.1. Explanation of dominant fracture trends at Jebel Madar.

The formation of Jebel Madar and active diapirism of the Ara Salt is shown in Figure 5.2. The Ara salt was overlain by a thick succession of Paleozoic and Triassic deposits (Figures 5.2A; 5.2B; 5.2C). Initial salt diapirism may have begun in the Late Jurassic due to differential loading and/or normal faulting below Jebel Madar (Figure 5.2C). This was followed by deposition of carbonates across a Cretaceous carbonate platform (Figure 5.2D). The first stage of significant active diapirism occurred after ophiolite emplacement in the Late Cretaceous and resulted in NW-SE trending faults and radial and concentric fractures at Jebel Madar (5.2E). This was followed by the development of a foreland basin and deposition of the Fiqa Formation SW of the Oman Mountains (Figure 5.2F). Differential loading due to nappe emplacement and the deformation of the Oman Mountains led to the second stage of active diapirism at Jebel Madar, which resulted in NW-SE and NE-SW trending faults and radial and concentric fractures (Figure 5.2G).

Figure 5.2. Schematic cross section showing formation of Jebel Madar through time.

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS

6.1 Conclusions The main conclusions of this study are:

1) The dominant orientations of the fractures at Jebel Madar are NNW-SSE and NNE-SSW, and the secondary orientations are NW-SE and ENE-WSW. Salt movement played the dominant role in development and orientation distribution of the fracture systems. Rotation and variance of fracture orientations around the Jebel and steeply dipping fracture planes along the priority 1 ridge face suggest a radial and concentric distribution that was derived primarily from folding of strata associated with vertical salt movement. 2) The three tectonic events primarily responsible for development of the fracture system at Jebel Madar include: obduction of the Semail ophiolite (Campanian), uplift and exhumation of the Oman Mountains (Oligo-Miocene), and salt movement at Jebel Madar (Late Cretaceous and Miocene. The dominant regional NW and NE trending fracture sets related to ophiolite emplacement and the Alpine orogeny are less pronounced at Jebel Madar than other locations in the area. This is likely due to the Jebel's location, in front of the thrust front, and the prevailing influence of salt movement. 3) An evaluation of the mechanical stratigraphy across the priority 1 ridge face shows bed-bounded fractures occur largely in wackestone layers. Through-going fractures have general orientations of ENE-SSW, NW-SE and NE-SW and link the bed-bounded layers. This increases the connectivity of the fracture system and, provided fractures are open in the subsurface, improves permeability of a reservoir. 4) Intensity, density and mean trace length show minimal dependence upon rock texture. These values vary markedly within bedding planes around Jebel Madar

and across ridge faces. The calculations become increasingly more accurate as the sampling size increases.

6.2 Recommendations for Future Work The following is a list of recommendations for future work to build upon the conclusions and results of this thesis.

 Collection of additional data points over a more varied range of textures is necessary to develop a better understanding of the influence of textures on fracture intensity, density and mean trace length.  Additional field work needs to be conducted to more accurately constrain the mechanical stratigraphy of the ridge faces. Time needs to be spent along the outcrops to determine the ratio of fractures that propagate across weathering- related boundaries and lithology changes to fractures that terminate at these boundaries. Constraining the occurrence and properties of through-going fractures can improve the understanding of connectivity of the fracture system, and ultimately the permeability of the reservoir. An investigation of the mechanical stratigraphy needs to be conducted on additional areas around Jebel Madar and subsequently compared to the work completed on the priority 1 ridge face.  Interpretation of photorealistic LiDAR data along additional vertical faces around the Jebel must be completed to further constrain the fracture orientation distribution and the fracture and fracture swarm spacing across vertical faces.  A detailed examination of age relationships between fractures should be conducted in the field to develop a better understanding of the relative ages of the fracture generations.  Analysis of the age and nature of fracture fill would provide useful information to better constrain reservoir properties. This information would also be important to the geologic history of Jebel Madar.  Acquisition of additional data is necessary to better constrain the present day stratigraphy and structure of the Jebel to enhance the structural model. A more

dynamic model could produce valuable results, such as strain distributions and structural reconstructions through time. Additional data should include seismic and well data from the surrounding areas, as well as field mapping of the structure and stratigraphy of the formations in the core of the Jebel.

REFERENCES CITED

Ahlgren, S., and Holmlund, J., 2002, Outcrop scans give new view: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Explorer, July, p. 22-23.

Ahlgren, S., Holmlund, J., Griffiths, P., Smallshire, R., 2002, Fracture model analysis is simple: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Explorer, September, p. 30- 31.

Al-Anboori, A., Kendall, M., and Chapman, M., 2006, Fracture-induced frequency- dependent anisotropy, Yibal Field, Oman: SPE Europec, 68th EAGE Conference, Vienna, Austria, Extended Abstracts, pap. no. A047.

Béchennec, F., Wyns, R., Roger, J., Le Métour, J., and Chevrel, S., 1992, Geological Map of Nazwa (including explanatory notes): Sultanate of Oman, Ministry of Petroleum and Minerals, scale 1:250,000, sheet NF 40-07.

Bellian, J.A., Kerans, C., and Jennette, D.C., 2005, Digital oucrop models: applications of terrestrial scanning lidar technology in stratigraphic modeling: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 75, p. 166-176.

Bertotti, G., Immenhauser, A., and Taal-van Koppen, J.K.J., 2005, Stratigraphic and regional distribution of fractures in Barremian-Aptian carbonate rocks of Eastern Oman: outcrop data and their extrapolation to Interior Oman hydrocarbon reservoirs: International Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 94, p. 44-461.

Beydoun, Z.R., 1991, Arabian plate hydrocarbon geology and potential – a plate tectonic approach: Tulsa, Oklahoma, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Studies in Geology, no. 33, 77 p.

Buckley, S.J., Howell, J.A., Enge, H.D., Kurz, T.H., 2008, Terrestrial laser canning in geology: data acquisition, processing and accuracy considerations: Journal of the Geological Society, London, v. 165, p. 625-638.

Casini, G., and Fernández, N., 2008, Unpublished internal report, IOR Bangestan Project: Manual for ArcMap and Excel tools: Group of Dynamics of the Lithosphere - Institute of Earth Sciences "Jaume Almera", CSIC, Barcelona, p. 1-63. de Keijzer, M., Hillgartner, H., Al Dhahab, S., and Rawnsley, K., 2007, A surface- subsurface study of reservoir-scale fracture heterogeneities in Cretaceous carbonates, North Oman, in Lonergan, L., Jolly, R.J.H., Rawnsley, K., and Sanderson, D.J., eds.,

Fractured Reservoirs: Geological Society, London, Special Publications 270, p. 227– 244.

Droste, H., and van Steenwinkel, M., 2004, Stratal geometries and patterns of platform carbonates: The Cretaceous of Oman, in Eberli, G.P., Masaferro, J.L., and Sarg, J.F.R., eds., Seismic imaging of carbonate reservoirs and systems: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 81, p. 185-206.

Dunne, W.M., and North, C.P, 1990, Orthogonal fracture systems at the limits of thrusting: an example from southwestern Wales: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 12, p. 207-215.

Ericsson, J.B., McKean, H.C., and Hooper, R.J., 1998, Facies and curvature controlled 3D fracture models in a Cretaceous carbonate reservoir, Arabian Gulf, in Jones, G., Fisher, Q.J., and Knipe, R.J., eds., Faulting, fault sealing and fluid flow in hydrocarbon resrvoirs: Geological Society, London, Special Publications 147, p.299- 312.

Farzadi, P., 2006, The development of Middle Cretaceous carbonate platforms, Persian Gulf, Iran: constraints from seismic stratpgraphy, well and biostratigraphy: Petroleum Geosciences, v. 12, p. 59-68.

Fournier, M., Lepvrier, C., Razin, P., and Jolivet, L., 2006, Late Cretaceous to Paleogene post-obduction extension and subsequent Neogene compression in the Oman Mountains: GeoArabia, v.11, p. 17-40.

Glennie, K.W., 1995, The geology of the Oman Mountains: an outline of their origin, second edition: Great Britain, Cambrian Printers, Aberystwyth, 110 p.

Grélaud, C., Razin, P., Homewood, P.W., and Schwab, A.M., 2006, Development of incisions on a periodically emergent carbonate platform (Natih Formation, late Cretaceous, Oman): Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 76, p. 647-669.

Gross, M.R., and Eyal, Y., 2007, Throughgoing fractures in layered carbonate rocks: Geological Society of America, v. 119, p. 1387-1404.

Hanna, S.S., 1990, The Alpine deformation of the Central Oman Mountains, in Robertson, A.H.F., Searle, M.P., and Ries, A.C., eds., The Geology and Tectonics of the Oman Region: Geological Society, London, Special Publication 49, p. 341-359.

Hughes Clarke, M.W., 1988, Stratigraphy and rock unit nomenclature in the oil- producing area of interior Oman: Journal of Petroleum Geology, v. 11, no. 1, p. 5-60.

Hughes-Clarke, M., 1990, Oman’s Geological Heritage: London, Stacey International Publishers, 247 p.

Immenhauser, A., Dublyansky, Y.V., Verwer, K., Fleitman, D., and Pashenko, S.E., 2007, Textural, elemental, and isotopic characteristics of Pleistocene phreatic cave deposits (Jabal Madar, Oman): Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 77, p. 68-88.

Mauldon, M., Dunne, W.M., and Rohrbaugh, M.B., Jr., 2001, Circular scanlines and circular windows: new tools for characterizing the geometry of fracture traces: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 23, p. 247-258.

McCaffery, K.J.W., Jones, R.R., Holdsworth, R.E., Wilson, R.W., Clegg, P., Imber, J., Holliman, N., Trinks, I., 2005, Unlocking the spatial dimension: digital technologies and the future of geoscience fieldwork: Journal of the Geological Society, London, v. 162, p. 927-938.

Morettini, E., Thompson, A., Eberli, G., Rawnsley, K., Roeterdink, R., Asyee, W., Christman, P., Cortis, A., Foster, K., HItchings, V., Kolkman, W., van Konijnenburg, J.H., 2005, Combining high-resolution sequence stratigraphy and mechanical stratigraphy for improved reservoir characterisation of the Fahud field of Oman: GeoArabia, v. 10, p.17-44.

Nelson, R.A., 1987, Fracture reservoirs: turning knowledge into practice, Journal of Petroleum Technology, v. 39, p. 407-414.

Nelson, R.A., 2001, Geologic analysis of naturally fractured reservoirs, second edition: Houston, Gulf Professional Publishing, 332 p.

Ozkanli, M., and Standen, E.J.W., 1993, Fracture morphology in Cretaceous carbonate reservoirs from south-east Turkey: First Break, v. 11, p. 323-333.

Patton, T.L., and O’Connor, S.J., 1988, Cretaceous Flexural History of Northern Oman Mountain Foredeep, United Arab Emirates: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 72, p. 797-809.

Peters, J.M., Filbrandt, J., Grotzinger, J., Newall, M., Shuster, M., and Al-Siyabi, H., 2003, Surface-piercing salt domes of intereir North Oman, and their significance for the Ara carbonate ‘stringer’ hydrocarbon play: GeoArabia, v. 8, p. 1-40.

Philip, J., Borgomano, J., and Al-Maskiry, S., 1995, Cenomanian-Early Turonian carbonate platform of Northern Oman: stratigraphy and palaeo-environments: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 119, p. 77-92.

Pollastro, R.M., 1999, Ghaba Salt Basin Province and Fahud Salt Basin Province, Oman – Geological Overview and Total Petroleum Systems: United States Geological Survey Bulletin 2167, 49 p.

100

Pratt, B.R., and Smewing, J.D., 1993, Early Cretaceous Platform-Margin Configuration and Evolution in the Central Oman Mountains, Arabian Peninsula: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 77, p. 225-244.

Razin, P., Grélaud, C., and Mattner, J., 2007, The Cretaceous carbonate platform in Oman: Norsk Hydro Field Trip, v.1-4.

Riegel, 2009, Scanner selection guide. http://www.riegl.com/products/terrestrial- scanning.

Rohrbaugh, M.B., Jr., Dunne, W.M., and Mauldon, M., 2002, Estimating fracture trace intensity, density, and mean length using circular scan lines and windows: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 86, p. 2089-2104.

Scott, R.W., Simo, J.A.T., and Masse, J.P., 1993, Economic resources in Cretaceous carbonate platforms: an overview, in Simo, J.A.T., Scott, R.W., and Masse, J.P., eds., Cretaceous carbonate platforms: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 56, p. 15-23.

Slob, S., Hack, H.R.G.K, Feng, Q., Roshoff, K., and Turner, A.K., 2007, Fracture mapping using 3D laser scanning techniques, in Sousa, L. Ribeiro e., Olalla, C., Grossmann, N., eds., 11th Congress of the International Society for Rock Mechanics: the second half century of rock mechanics: London, Taylor & Francis, p. 299-302.

Smith, L.B., Eberli, G.P., Masaferron, J.L., and Al-Dhahab, S., 2003, Discrimination of effective from ineffective porosity in heterogeneous Cretaceous carbonates, Al Ghubar field, Oman: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 87, p. 1509-1529.

Terken, J.M.J., Frewin, N.L., and Indrelid, S.L., 2001, Petroleum systems of Oman: charge timing and risks: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 85, p. 1817-1845.

Tchoukanski, I., 2004, Easy Calculate 5.0. http://www.ian-ko.com/free/free_arcgis.htm.

Tiab, D., and Donaldson, E.C., 2004, Petrophysics: theory and practice of measuring reservoir rock and fluid transport properties, second edition: Amsterdam, Gulf Professional Publishing, 889 p. van Buchem, F.S.P., Razin, P., Homewood, P.W., Oterdoom, W.H., and Philip, J., 2002, Stratigraphic organization of carbonate ramps and organic-rich intrashelf basins: Natih Formation (middle Cretaceous) of northern Oman: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 86, p. 21-53.

101

van Golf-Racht, T.D., 1996, Naturally-fractured carbonate reservoirs, in van Golf-Racht, T.D., ed., Developments in Petroleum Science, v. 44, p. 683-772.

Wagner, P.D., 1990, Geochemical stratigraphy and porosity controls in Cretaceous carbonates near the Oman Mountains, in Robertson, A.H.F., Searle, M.P., and Ries, A.C., eds., The Geology and Tectonics of the Oman Region: Geological Society, London, Special Publication 49, p. 127-137.

102

APPENDIX A FRACTURE MAP DATA

103

Fracture Map 1 Strike 11 Dip 38 Y = yes N = no Number of Fractures 61 C = terminated against circle Radius 4 F = terminated against a fracture Intersections 37 E = natural termination Endpoints 85 R = terminated by rubble Intensity 2.3125 Density 0.8455106 Used RHR Rake Mean trace length 2.7350336

Fracture Orientation MO + 180 Rake RHR Rake Trend Plunge Length Averaged Curved End 1 End 2

104 40 7 187 4 176 188 2 2.25 N N F F 57 11 191 0 180 191 0 0.95 Y Y F F 5 14 194 3 3 13 2 2.2 Y Y F F 60 18 198 7 7 17 4 1.1 N N F F 55 20 200 9 9 18 6 0.4 N N F C 8 21 201 10 10 19 6 0.95 N N E E 30 21 201 10 10 19 6 4 Y Y F F 61 21 201 10 10 19 6 0.5 N N F C 11 25 205 14 14 22 9 0.7 N N E C 10 26 206 15 15 23 9 0.5 N N E C 17 26 206 15 15 23 9 1.25 N N E E 16 28 208 17 17 25 10 1.1 N N F E 38 29 209 18 18 25 11 5.5 Y Y C F 1 30 210 19 19 26 12 0.6 N N C C

23 30 210 19 19 26 12 0.7 N N C F 42 30 210 19 19 26 12 0.4 N N E E 7 31 211 20 20 27 12 5.95 N N F C 15 31 211 20 20 27 12 0.3 N N E F 51 34 214 23 23 29 14 1.3 Y Y C C 14 35 215 24 24 30 15 1 N N F C 33 35 215 24 24 30 15 0.9 N N C F 48 35 215 24 24 30 15 2.2 N N F F 49 35 215 24 24 30 15 1.25 N N C F 54 35 215 24 24 30 15 2.65 N N F C 31 37 217 26 26 32 16 3.75 Y Y C E 12 39 219 28 28 34 17 0.4 N N E F 43 40 220 29 29 35 17 3.75 Y Y F C

105 44 40 220 29 29 35 17 2.6 N N F F 4 42 222 31 31 36 18 5.7 Y Y C C 59 49 229 38 38 43 22 3.85 Y Y F C 46 51 231 40 40 44 23 3.55 Y Y F C 28 52 232 41 41 45 24 2.55 Y Y C F 21 74 254 63 63 68 33 0.45 N N C E 36 74 254 63 63 68 33 2.1 N N F F 6 75 255 64 64 69 34 1.5 N N E F 2 76 256 65 65 70 34 2.4 N N F C 25 76 256 65 65 70 34 0.75 N N C E 3 77 257 66 66 72 34 3.8 Y Y C C 53 80 260 69 69 75 35 0.5 N N F F 13 81 261 70 70 76 35 2.35 N N E C 32 83 263 72 72 79 36 3.15 N N C F

45 83 263 72 72 79 36 1.45 N N F F 29 85 265 74 74 81 36 1.55 N N F F 18 88 268 77 77 85 37 5.8 Y Y F E 19 91 271 80 80 88 37 2.55 Y Y F F 22 91 271 80 80 88 37 0.7 N N C E 9 92 272 81 81 90 37 0.95 N N F C 20 93 273 82 82 91 38 1.3 N N F E 41 95 275 84 84 93 38 4.3 N N F C 34 104 284 87 93 105 38 0.45 N N F F 39 120 300 71 109 125 36 0.35 N N F F 26 144 324 47 133 151 27 0.2 N N C F 50 145 325 46 134 152 26 0.75 N N C E 56 150 330 41 139 157 24 0.15 N N C F 106 58 150 330 41 139 157 24 0.85 N N F F

47 155 335 36 144 161 21 0.35 N N F F 52 155 335 36 144 161 21 0.25 N N C F 35 157 337 34 146 163 20 3.8 N N E F 37 159 339 32 148 165 19 1.2 N N F F 27 171 351 20 160 175 12 0.6 N N F C 24 175 355 16 164 178 10 1.8 Y Y F F

If MO = 0-11, rake = 11-MO; USE RHR RAKE If MO = 11-101, rake = MO-11 If MO = 101-180, rake = 191-MO; USE RHR RAKE

Fracture Map 2 Strike 6 Dip 35 Y = yes N = no Number of Fractures 82 C = terminated against circle Radius 4 F = terminated against a fracture Intersections 28 E = natural termination Endpoints 136 R = terminated by rubble Intensity 1.75 CV = calcite vein Density 1.352817 Mean trace length 1.293597 Used RHR Rake

107 Fracture Orientation MO + 180 Rake RHR Rake Trend Plunge Length Averaged Curved End 1 End 2 Notes 25 1 181 5 175 182 3 0.2 N N E E

35 2 182 4 176 183 2 2.1 Y Y E F 3 5 185 1 179 185 1 0.6 N N F E CV 8 5 185 1 179 185 1 0.3 N N C E CV 21 5 185 1 179 185 1 0.25 N N E C 74 10 190 4 4 9 2 2.05 Y Y F C 24 11 191 5 5 10 3 0.8 N N E E CV 55 12 192 6 6 11 3 0.9 N N E F 1 15 195 9 9 13 5 0.6 N N C E CV 4 15 195 9 9 13 5 0.7 N N E E CV 5 15 195 9 9 13 5 0.45 N N E E CV 9 15 195 9 9 13 5 0.6 N N E E CV 10 15 195 9 9 13 5 0.85 N N E E CV 32 16 196 10 10 14 6 4 Y Y E F

11 17 197 11 11 15 6 0.45 N N E E CV 6 18 198 12 12 16 7 0.95 N N E E CV 54 18 198 12 12 16 7 2.7 Y Y C E 7 19 199 13 13 17 7 2.05 Y Y E C CV 72 20 200 14 14 18 8 0.15 N N F C 2 22 202 16 16 19 9 2.2 Y Y C E 23 26 206 20 20 23 11 3.15 Y Y F E 79 28 208 22 22 24 12 0.55 N N F C 36 30 210 24 24 26 13 0.35 N N F E 77 30 210 24 24 26 13 1.1 Y Y C F 40 31 211 25 25 27 14 0.8 N N C E 53 31 211 25 25 27 14 0.5 N N F E 82 33 213 27 27 29 15 4 Y Y F C

108 42 35 215 29 29 30 16 0.1 N N C F

33 38 218 32 32 33 18 4 Y Y E E 46 38 218 32 32 33 18 1.05 N N E E 12 39 219 33 33 34 18 1.3 N N E E CV 31 40 220 34 34 35 19 0.4 N N E F 80 40 220 34 34 35 19 0.55 Y Y C F 27 41 221 35 35 36 19 0.8 N N E C 66 41 221 35 35 36 19 2.4 Y Y F E CV 67 41 221 35 35 36 19 5.8 Y Y C C 13 43 223 37 37 38 20 3.1 Y Y E F 30 43 223 37 37 38 20 2.4 Y Y F E 47 45 225 39 39 40 21 3.7 Y Y C F 52 45 225 39 39 40 21 0.5 N N E F 70 45 225 39 39 40 21 0.4 N N F E CV

75 45 225 39 39 40 21 0.8 Y Y F E 29 50 230 44 44 44 23 0.2 N N E E 41 50 230 44 44 44 23 1.25 N N E E CV 59 51 231 45 45 45 24 0.3 N N F F 18 53 233 47 47 47 25 3.35 Y Y F C 71 55 235 49 49 49 26 1.1 Y N F C CV 76 60 240 54 54 54 28 0.25 N N F F 14 69 249 63 63 64 31 1.05 Y Y F E 58 70 250 64 64 65 31 0.2 N N F F 28 72 252 66 66 67 32 0.7 Y Y E E 48 72 252 66 66 67 32 0.75 Y Y F F 78 72 252 66 66 67 32 0.5 N N C F 22 75 255 69 69 71 32 0.45 N N E E

109 16 87 267 81 81 85 35 0.4 N N F F

17 89 269 83 83 87 35 0.45 N N F F 61 89 269 83 83 87 35 0.35 N N F E 15 95 275 89 89 95 35 0.25 N N F F 69 95 275 89 89 95 35 0.2 N N F F 51 98 278 88 92 98 35 0.7 Y Y C F 20 100 280 86 94 101 35 0.2 N N E F CV 62 110 290 76 104 113 34 0.7 N N E E 63 112 292 74 106 115 33 1.05 Y Y F E 19 120 300 66 114 125 32 0.2 N N F F 44 120 300 66 114 125 32 0.95 N N F F 50 125 305 61 119 130 30 0.2 N N F F 57 125 305 61 119 130 30 0.6 N N C F 49 130 310 56 124 135 28 0.2 N N F F

60 130 310 56 124 135 28 0.2 N N F F 64 132 312 54 126 138 28 1.6 Y Y F E 56 134 314 52 128 140 27 1.4 Y Y F F 81 135 315 51 129 141 26 0.35 N N C F 45 145 325 41 139 151 22 0.35 N N F F 73 145 325 41 139 151 22 0.1 N N C F 37 150 330 36 144 155 20 0.55 N N F F 39 155 335 31 149 160 17 1.25 Y Y F F 34 156 336 30 150 161 17 8 Y Y C C 38 160 340 26 154 164 15 0.3 N N E E 65 170 350 16 164 173 9 0.8 Y Y F F 43 175 355 11 169 177 6 0.2 N N C F 68 178 358 8 172 179 5 0.6 N N F E

110 26 179 359 7 173 180 4 0.8 Y Y E E

If MO = 0-6, rake = 6-MO; USE RHR RAKE If MO =6-96, rake = MO-6 If MO = 96-180, rake = 186-MO; USE RHR RAKE

Fracture Map 5 Strike 318 Dip 50 Y = yes N = no Number of Fractures 37 C = terminated against circle Radius 2.5 F = terminated against a fracture Intersections 21 E = natural termination Endpoints 53 R = terminated by rubble Intensity 2.1 Density 1.3496339 Mean trace length 1.5559775 Used RHR Rake

Fracture Orientation MO + 180 Rake RHR Rake Trend Plunge Length Averaged Curved End End 2

111 27 5 185 47 47 353 34 0.25 Y Y F F

6 10 190 52 52 357 37 0.25 N N F F 34 10 190 52 52 357 37 0.15 Y Y C C 5 25 205 67 67 15 45 0.32 N N F F 15 40 220 82 82 36 49 1.2 N N R F 19 60 240 78 102 66 49 0.7 Y Y C F 14 75 255 63 117 86 43 0.6 N N C F 25 75 255 63 117 86 43 1.9 N N C F 13 80 260 58 122 92 41 0.6 N N F F 36 84 264 54 126 97 38 4.8 Y Y F C 33 85 265 53 127 98 38 0.4 N N F F 37 88 268 50 130 101 36 4.9 Y Y F C 35 92 272 46 134 104 33 3.2 Y Y C F 7 95 275 43 137 107 31 1.65 N N F C

20 95 275 43 137 107 31 0.35 Y Y F F 9 100 280 38 142 111 28 0.15 N N F C 1 105 285 33 147 115 25 0.3 N N C R 18 120 300 18 162 126 14 0.3 N N C F 4 125 305 13 167 130 10 1 Y Y C F 24 125 305 13 167 130 10 2.5 Y Y F C 32 125 305 13 167 130 10 0.45 Y Y C F 10 130 310 8 172 133 6 0.3 Y Y F F 11 135 315 3 177 136 2 0.25 Y Y F F 22 137 317 1 179 137 1 3.3 N Y F C 21 140 320 2 2 319 2 0.25 N N F C 26 140 320 2 2 319 2 1.4 Y Y F C 28 145 325 7 7 323 5 0.4 Y Y F F

112 3 150 330 12 12 326 9 1.2 Y Y C F

2 152 332 14 14 327 11 0.85 N N R F 23 155 335 17 17 329 13 3 Y Y F C 8 158 338 20 20 331 15 2.4 N N F C 12 170 350 32 32 340 24 0.225 Y Y F F 17 170 350 32 32 340 24 0.55 N N F F 29 170 350 32 32 340 24 0.3 Y Y F F 30 170 350 32 32 340 24 0.3 Y Y F F 16 175 355 37 37 344 27 0.3 N N F F 31 180 360 42 42 348 31 0.3 Y Y F F

If MO = 0-48, rake = 42 + MO If MO = 48-138, rake = 138-MO; USE RHR RAKE If MO = 138-180, rake = MO-138

Fracture Map 6 Strike 315 Dip 40 Y = yes N = no Number of Fractures 44 C = terminated against circle Radius 4 F = terminated against a fracture Intersections 26 E = natural termination Endpoints 62 R = terminated by rubble Intensity 1.625 CV = calcite vein Density 0.6167254 Mean trace length 2.6348842 Used RHR Rake

Fracture Orientation MO + 180 Rake RHR Rake Trend Plunge Length Averaged Curved End 1 End 2 Notes

113 22 6 186 51 51 358 30 2.9 Y Y F R

25 8 188 53 53 0 31 1.6 N N F E 26 9 189 54 54 2 31 1.25 Y Y F E 8 17 197 62 62 10 35 0.75 N N C F 9 17 197 62 62 10 35 0.25 N N C F 43 30 210 75 75 26 38 0.95 N N F F 7 32 212 77 77 28 39 0.45 N N C E 12 33 213 78 78 29 39 2 Y Y D E 44 38 218 83 83 36 40 1.85 N N F F 1 43 223 88 88 42 40 4.85 N N C E CV 37 44 224 89 89 44 40 1.1 N N C E CV 36 48 228 87 93 49 40 5.35 Y Y F C CV 31 49 229 86 94 50 40 2.5 N N F F 30 53 233 82 98 55 40 1 Y Y E E

17 61 241 74 106 66 38 1.2 Y Y C F 16 71 251 64 116 77 35 0.95 N N F F 13 72 252 63 117 79 35 3.35 Y Y F R 24 73 253 62 118 80 35 0.14 Y Y R F 40 80 260 55 125 87 32 0.7 N N F F 2 82 262 53 127 90 31 2 Y Y C E 20 83 263 52 128 91 30 0.95 Y Y F F 28 105 285 30 150 111 19 1 N N F F 15 106 286 29 151 112 18 1.95 Y Y F F 19 109 289 26 154 115 16 0.7 N N F C 10 115 295 20 160 119 13 0.5 N N F E 39 122 302 13 167 125 8 1.45 Y Y F F 38 128 308 7 173 130 4 3.1 Y Y F C

114 42 131 311 4 176 132 3 0.45 N N F C

6 132 312 3 177 133 2 0.8 N N C E 5 133 313 2 178 133 1 0.8 N N C E 4 135 315 0 180 135 0 0.85 N N C E 35 135 315 0 180 135 0 0.1 N N F C 11 149 329 14 14 326 9 0.55 Y Y F F 21 152 332 17 17 328 11 1.65 Y Y F E 32 153 333 18 18 329 11 1.45 Y Y C F 3 155 335 20 20 331 13 0.8 N N C E 18 158 338 23 23 333 15 1.85 Y Y F C 23 158 338 23 23 333 15 6.1 Y Y F C 14 164 344 29 29 338 18 1.7 Y Y C C 33 165 345 30 30 339 19 1.15 N N C C 41 165 345 30 30 339 19 1.2 N N F C

34 168 348 33 33 341 20 3.7 Y Y C C 29 172 352 37 37 345 23 24 Y Y F F 27 177 357 42 42 350 25 2.3 Y Y F F

If MO = 0-45, rake = MO + 45 If MO = 45-135, rake = 135-MO; USE RHR RAKE If MO = 135-180, rake = MO-135

Fracture Map 7 Strike 188 Dip 13 Y = yes N = no

115 Number of Fractures 68 C = terminated against circle Radius 4 F = terminated against a fracture Intersections 29 E = natural termination Endpoints 107 R = terminated by rubble Intensity 1.8125 Density 1.0643487 Mean trace length 1.7029194 Used RHR Rake

Fracture Orientation MO + 180 Rake RHR Rake Trend Plunge Length Averaged Curved End 1 End 2 46 3 183 5 175 3 1 0.7 N N F C 24 10 190 2 2 190 0 1.3 N N F F 41 12 192 4 4 192 1 5.9 Y Y C E 28 21 201 13 13 201 3 1.5 Y Y F C 36 25 205 17 17 205 4 0.4 N N F F

51 27 207 19 19 207 4 1.1 N N F F 33 30 210 22 22 209 5 0.9 Y Y F F 49 30 210 22 22 209 5 0.55 N N F F 3 40 220 32 32 219 7 0.3 N N C F 14 40 220 32 32 219 7 0.3 N N F F 42 40 220 32 32 219 7 0.6 N N F C 34 54 234 46 46 233 9 4.25 Y Y R F 66 55 235 47 47 234 9 0.7 N N F C 32 57 237 49 49 236 10 0.6 N N F F 52 60 240 52 52 239 10 0.8 N N F C 53 60 240 52 52 239 10 0.55 N N F C 45 64 244 56 56 243 11 1.2 N N F F 54 64 244 56 56 243 11 2.6 N N F F

116 11 65 245 57 57 244 11 0.5 N N E C

44 67 247 59 59 246 11 2.15 Y Y F C 18 68 248 60 60 247 11 2.6 Y Y E C 15 70 250 62 62 249 11 0.45 N N F F 20 80 260 72 72 260 12 0.35 N N R F 47 95 275 87 87 275 13 0.2 N N F C 21 97 277 89 89 277 13 0.8 N N R R 27 99 279 89 91 279 13 0.4 N N C F 37 100 280 88 92 280 13 0.7 N N F F 38 104 284 84 96 284 13 1.3 N N C F 61 104 284 84 96 284 13 2.55 Y Y F F 12 105 285 83 97 285 13 3.45 Y Y F F 22 105 285 83 97 285 13 2 N N R F 26 105 285 83 97 285 13 0.25 N N C F

30 105 285 83 97 285 13 2.4 Y Y F F 48 105 285 83 97 285 13 3.7 N N F C 29 106 286 82 98 286 13 4.5 Y Y F F 40 107 287 81 99 287 13 0.7 N N C F 1 110 290 78 102 290 13 0.4 N N E E 39 110 290 78 102 290 13 1.45 N N C F 60 110 290 78 102 290 13 2 Y Y F F 50 114 294 74 106 294 12 2.25 N N E R 13 115 295 73 107 295 12 2.55 N N F F 23 115 295 73 107 295 12 2.4 N N R F 43 115 295 73 107 295 12 1.05 N N C F 55 116 296 72 108 296 12 5.15 N N F C 56 116 296 72 108 296 12 1.9 N N F C

117 58 117 297 71 109 297 12 1.5 Y Y F F

67 117 297 71 109 297 12 2.5 Y Y F C 68 117 297 71 109 297 12 2.7 Y Y F C 35 118 298 70 110 298 12 2.6 Y Y C F 62 118 298 70 110 298 12 4.3 Y Y F F 63 118 298 70 110 298 12 2.5 Y Y F F 17 119 299 69 111 300 12 0.65 N N E F 6 120 300 68 112 301 12 0.55 N N E E 16 120 300 68 112 301 12 0.25 N N E F 31 120 300 68 112 301 12 1.8 Y Y F F 57 120 300 68 112 301 12 1.35 N N E F 8 125 305 63 117 306 12 1.4 N N R C 4 126 306 62 118 307 11 1.6 N N E C 64 126 306 62 118 307 11 2.7 N N F F

65 126 306 62 118 307 11 2.35 N N F E 5 130 310 58 122 311 11 2.55 N N R C 7 130 310 58 122 311 11 0.4 N N E E 9 130 310 58 122 311 11 0.6 N N C E 10 130 310 58 122 311 11 0.65 N N E F 19 135 315 53 127 316 10 0.15 N N E C 25 165 345 23 157 346 5 2.1 Y Y F R 59 172 352 16 164 352 4 0.6 N N F F 2 179 359 9 171 359 2 0.2 N N F E

If MO = 0-8, rake = 8-MO; USE RHR RAKE If MO = 8-98, rake = MO-8 If MO =98-180, rake = 188-MO; USE RHR RAKE

118

Fracture Map 8 Strike 169 Dip 33 Y = yes N = no Number of Fractures 9 C = terminated against circle Radius 4 F = terminated against a fracture Intersections 8 E = natural termination Endpoints 10 Intensity 0.5 Density 0.09947 Mean trace length 5.02655 Used RHR Rake

Fracture Orientation MO +180 Rake Trend Plunge Length Averaged Curved End 1 End 2 7 1 181 12 179 7 0.8 N N E C 6 19 199 30 195 16 0.45 N N C C 8 55 235 66 231 30 5.3 Y Y C F 1 110 290 59 295 28 0.75 N N C F 5 110 290 59 295 28 0.45 N N E F 2 130 310 39 315 20 0.3 N N C E 9 132 312 37 317 19 1.8 Y Y C E 3 135 315 34 320 18 1.8 Y Y E E 4 137 317 32 321 17 1.9 Y Y E C

If MO = 0-79, rake = 11 + MO If MO = 79-169, rake = 169-MO; USE RHR RAKE

119 If MO = 169-180, rake = MO-169

Fracture Map 9 Strike 182 Dip 32 Y = yes N = no Number of Fractures 10 C = terminated against circle Radius 4 F = terminated against a fracture Intersections 12 E = natural termination Endpoints 8 R = terminated by rubble Intensity 0.75 Density 0.0795775 Mean trace length 9.424778 Used RHR Rake

Fracture Orientation MO + 180 Rake RHR Rake Trend Plunge Length Averaged Curved End 1 End 2 8 50 230 48 48 225 23 1.7 Y Y C C 7 75 255 73 73 252 30 0.9 Y Y C C 3 103 283 79 101 285 31 6.5 Y Y C C 2 112 292 70 110 295 30 4.8 Y Y C F 9 125 305 57 123 309 26 0.7 N N E E 6 130 310 52 128 315 25 3.2 Y Y F C 4 152 332 30 150 336 15 3.45 Y Y E E 1 158 338 24 156 341 12 1.2 Y Y C F 5 175 355 7 173 356 4 5.95 Y Y C C 10 175 355 7 173 356 4 0.45 N N E C

120 If MO = 0-2, rake = 2-MO; USE RHR RAKE If MO = 2-92, rake = MO-2

If MO = 92-180, rake = 182-MO; USE RHR RAKE

Fracture Map 10 Strike 207 Dip 25 Y = yes N = no Number of Fractures 36 C = terminated against circle Radius 4 F = terminated against a fracture Intersections 11 E = natural termination Endpoints 61 R = terminated by rubble Intensity 0.6875 Density 0.6067782

Mean trace length 1.1330334 Used RHR Rake

Fracture Orientation MO + 180 Rake RHR Rake Trend Plunge Length Averaged Curved End 1 End 2 16 10 190 17 163 12 7 0.4 N N F C 2 20 200 7 173 21 3 0.3 N N E E 3 20 200 7 173 21 3 0.65 N N E E 35 22 202 5 175 22 2 0.35 N N F R 36 22 202 5 175 22 2 0.3 N N F E 20 25 205 2 178 25 1 1.7 Y Y C E 22 25 205 2 178 25 1 1 N N F F 11 28 208 1 1 208 0 0.2 N N E R 18 28 208 1 1 208 0 1.5 Y Y E C 24 29 209 2 2 209 1 1.5 N N F F

121 1 30 210 3 3 210 1 0.75 Y Y C E

30 30 210 3 3 210 1 0.8 N N F F 21 34 214 7 7 213 3 2.4 Y Y F E 17 40 220 13 13 219 5 0.8 N N E C 19 40 220 13 13 219 5 0.45 N N E R 25 42 222 15 15 221 6 1.55 Y Y E F 10 45 225 18 18 223 8 1.25 N N R R 31 48 228 21 21 226 9 0.15 N N F F 7 52 232 25 25 230 10 2 N N E R 6 55 235 28 28 233 11 4.5 Y Y C F 12 60 240 33 33 237 13 0.35 N N R F 27 60 240 33 33 237 13 0.35 N N F F 14 78 258 51 51 255 19 0.25 N N F C 9 92 272 65 65 270 23 0.4 N N R F

32 110 290 83 83 289 25 0.4 N N E E 33 110 290 83 83 289 25 0.25 N N F F 13 118 298 89 91 298 25 0.9 Y Y C F 8 120 300 87 93 300 25 0.35 N N E E 28 120 300 87 93 300 25 0.2 N N F F 15 122 302 85 95 303 25 0.7 N N C E 29 125 305 82 98 306 25 0.4 N N F F 4 142 322 65 115 324 23 6.1 Y Y R C 23 145 325 62 118 327 22 0.7 N N F F 5 147 327 60 120 329 21 0.8 N N R F 26 148 328 59 121 331 21 5.15 Y Y F C 34 165 345 42 138 348 16 3.05 Y Y R F

122 If MO = 0-27, rake = 27-MO; USE RHR RAKE

If MO = 27-117, rake = MO-27 If MO = 117-180, rake = 207-MO; USE RHR RAKE

Fracture Map 11 Strike 150 Dip 37 Y = yes N = no Number of Fractures 22 C = terminated against circle Radius 4 F = terminated against a fracture Intersections 19 E = natural termination Endpoints 25 R = terminated by rubble Intensity 1.1875

Density 0.2486796 Mean trace length 4.7752208 Used RHR Rake

Fracture Orientation MO + 180 Rake RHR Rake Trend Plunge Length Averaged Curved End 1 End 2 15 42 222 72 72 218 35 2 Y Y C E 8 50 230 80 80 228 36 0.2 N N F C 11 55 235 85 85 234 37 1.5 Y Y F C 3 57 237 87 87 236 37 7.85 Y Y C C 20 57 237 87 87 236 37 4.45 Y Y F C 6 58 238 88 88 237 37 3.15 N N E C 7 58 238 88 88 237 37 1.3 N N E E 10 60 240 90 90 240 37 0.3 N N E C 19 60 240 90 90 240 37 2 N N C C

123 21 64 244 86 94 245 37 2.95 Y Y F C

4 65 245 85 95 246 37 1.9 N N C E 5 65 245 85 95 246 37 1.95 N N C E 17 68 248 82 98 250 37 5.25 Y Y C C 9 80 260 70 110 265 34 0.3 N N F C 22 95 275 55 125 281 30 0.4 N N E C 1 125 305 25 155 310 15 0.45 N N C E 2 125 305 25 155 310 15 1.7 N N C F 12 130 310 20 160 314 12 0.5 N N F E 13 145 325 5 175 326 3 2.7 N N F F 14 145 325 5 175 326 3 1.7 N N F E 16 145 325 5 175 326 3 3.2 N N F F 18 148 328 2 178 328 1 1.2 N N F F

If MO = 0-60, rake = MO+30 If MO = 60-150, rake = 150-MO; USE RHR RAKE If MO = 150-180, rake = 180-MO

Fracture Map 12 Strike 230 Dip 32 Y = yes N = no Number of Fractures 44 C = terminated against circle Radius 3 F = terminated against a fracture Intersections 24 E = natural termination Endpoints 64 R = terminated by rubble 124 Intensity 2

Density 1.1317685 Mean trace length 1.7671459 Used RHR Rake

Fracture Orientation MO + 180 Rake RHR Rake Trend Plunge Length Averaged Curved End 1 End 2 19 3 183 47 133 8 23 0.3 N N E E 5 13 193 37 143 17 19 2.15 N N E F 29 58 238 8 8 237 4 0.65 Y Y F F 6 104 284 54 54 279 25 2.4 Y Y C F 2 108 288 58 58 284 27 0.8 N N C E 36 108 288 58 58 284 27 0.7 N N F F 24 125 305 75 75 302 31 0.55 N N E R 31 128 308 78 78 306 31 1.1 N N F F 35 128 308 78 78 306 31 1.4 N N E C

1 130 310 80 80 308 31 0.6 N N C E 13 130 310 80 80 308 31 0.6 N N F F 21 132 312 82 82 311 32 1.95 Y Y C E 14 133 313 83 83 312 32 0.3 N N F F 34 133 313 83 83 312 32 2.2 N N E C 22 134 314 84 84 313 32 1.95 Y Y C E 12 136 316 86 86 315 32 1.2 N N E F 44 136 316 86 86 315 32 3.8 N N F C 8 138 318 88 88 318 32 0.35 N N E E 9 138 318 88 88 318 32 0.65 N N E E 37 138 318 88 88 318 32 0.85 N N R F 38 138 318 88 88 318 32 1.45 N N E F 41 138 318 88 88 318 32 0.85 N N F F

125 4 140 320 90 90 320 32 1 N N C E 7 140 320 90 90 320 32 0.8 N N E E 10 140 320 90 90 320 32 1 N N E E 3 148 328 82 98 329 32 0.5 N N C F 28 150 330 80 100 332 31 0.95 Y Y F E 23 155 335 75 105 338 31 0.2 N N C E 32 155 335 75 105 338 31 2.5 Y Y C C 33 155 335 75 105 338 31 0.9 N N E E 18 158 338 72 108 341 30 0.45 N N C E 26 158 338 72 108 341 30 1.65 Y Y C E 40 158 338 72 108 341 30 1.65 Y Y R E 16 160 340 70 110 343 30 6.1 Y Y C C 17 160 340 70 110 343 30 0.25 N N F C 43 162 342 68 112 345 29 1.6 Y Y F F

15 166 346 64 116 350 28 1.5 Y Y F C 30 166 346 64 116 350 28 2.05 Y Y C E 42 169 349 61 119 353 28 2.15 N N E C 39 170 350 60 120 354 27 0.5 N N F F 11 173 353 57 123 357 26 0.45 N N E C 20 173 353 57 123 357 26 0.45 N N F F 25 173 353 57 123 357 26 1.25 Y Y C F 27 176 356 54 126 1 25 0.65 N N C E

If MO = 0-50, rake = 50-MO; USE RHR RAKE If MO = 50-140, rake = MO-50 If MO = 140-180, rake = 230-MO; USE RHR RAKE

126

Fracture Map 13 Strike 275 Dip 37 Y = yes N = no Number of Fractures 88 C = terminated against circle Radius 4 F = terminated against a fracture Intersections 40 E = natural termination Endpoints 136 R = terminated by rubble Intensity 2.5 Density 1.352817 Mean trace length 1.8479957 Used RHR Rake

Fracture Orientation MO + 180 Rake RHR Rake Trend Plunge Length Averaged Curved End 1 End 2

7 1 181 86 86 360 37 1.45 Y Y E E 51 2 182 87 87 1 37 1.9 Y Y C E 8 5 185 90 90 5 37 0.15 N N F C 50 10 190 85 95 11 37 1.25 N N F C 66 35 215 60 120 41 31 0.4 N N F F 53 40 220 55 125 46 30 0.4 N N F F 76 40 220 55 125 46 30 0.45 N N F E 61 51 231 44 136 57 25 0.85 Y Y F F 68 52 232 43 137 58 24 1.2 N N F F 3 55 235 40 140 61 23 0.7 N N F C 77 56 236 39 141 62 22 0.7 N N E C 22 58 238 37 143 64 21 1.4 N N F E 58 60 240 35 145 66 20 1.4 N N F F

127 84 60 240 35 145 66 20 0.6 N N F F 32 62 242 33 147 68 19 2.05 Y Y F C 45 62 242 33 147 68 19 0.7 N N C F 79 62 242 33 147 68 19 0.8 N N F F 25 63 243 32 148 68 19 0.55 N N F F 28 65 245 30 150 70 18 0.45 N N F E 43 65 245 30 150 70 18 0.8 Y Y C F 59 65 245 30 150 70 18 0.75 N N F E 17 66 246 29 151 71 17 1.4 N N F F 56 83 263 12 168 85 7 0.5 N N F F 46 84 264 11 169 86 7 0.75 N N F F 18 85 265 10 170 87 6 1.7 Y Y F F 4 91 271 4 176 92 2 0.85 Y Y F E 23 92 272 3 177 93 2 0.55 Y Y F F

29 95 275 0 180 95 0 0.35 N N F E 57 95 275 0 180 95 0 0.45 N N F F 34 101 281 6 6 280 4 1.3 N N F F 48 101 281 6 6 280 4 0.8 N N F F 38 103 283 8 8 281 5 0.3 N N F F 86 103 283 8 8 281 5 0.55 N N E E 85 104 284 9 9 282 5 1.45 N N F E 37 105 285 10 10 283 6 0.4 N N F F 67 109 289 14 14 286 8 0.25 N N F F 36 140 320 45 45 314 25 0.35 Y Y F F 78 140 320 45 45 314 25 6.8 Y Y C E 62 149 329 54 54 323 29 1.55 Y Y C F 9 150 330 55 55 324 30 0.3 N N C E

128 13 155 335 60 60 329 31 0.5 N N E C 33 155 335 60 60 329 31 1.75 Y Y F E 47 155 335 60 60 329 31 1.5 Y Y E E 52 155 335 60 60 329 31 1.7 Y Y C F 26 160 340 65 65 335 33 0.95 N N F F 60 160 340 65 65 335 33 2.2 Y Y F F 69 160 340 65 65 335 33 3.1 Y Y C F 83 160 340 65 65 335 33 0.3 N N F F 14 162 342 67 67 337 34 2.1 N N F C 15 162 342 67 67 337 34 2.3 N N F C 19 162 342 67 67 337 34 3.5 N N E F 82 164 344 69 69 339 34 4.6 N N E F 55 165 345 70 70 340 34 1.2 Y Y F F 88 165 345 70 70 340 34 3.1 N N F E

39 166 346 71 71 342 35 1.15 N N E E 81 166 346 71 71 342 35 3.8 N N E F 11 167 347 72 72 343 35 6.55 N N C C 20 167 347 72 72 343 35 0.5 N N F C 27 167 347 72 72 343 35 4.3 Y Y F E 30 167 347 72 72 343 35 8 Y Y C C 54 167 347 72 72 343 35 3.1 Y Y C E 74 167 347 72 72 343 35 3 N N C F 80 167 347 72 72 343 35 0.9 N N E E 87 167 347 72 72 343 35 2.1 N N E E 10 168 348 73 73 344 35 1.9 N N C E 63 168 348 73 73 344 35 1.8 N N C F 65 168 348 73 73 344 35 0.4 N N C F

129 72 168 348 73 73 344 35 1.8 N N C F 75 168 348 73 73 344 35 2.7 N N C E 41 169 349 74 74 345 35 2.6 Y Y F E 64 169 349 74 74 345 35 0.2 N N C F 1 170 350 75 75 346 36 0.65 N N C F 2 170 350 75 75 346 36 0.4 N N F C 12 170 350 75 75 346 36 0.5 N N E C 21 170 350 75 75 346 36 0.5 N N F C 35 170 350 75 75 346 36 1.65 Y Y E E 42 170 350 75 75 346 36 0.75 N N C F 24 171 351 76 76 348 36 0.6 N N F F 5 172 352 77 77 349 36 0.85 N N F E 40 172 352 77 77 349 36 1.9 N N F E 70 172 352 77 77 349 36 1.3 N N C F

73 172 352 77 77 349 36 2.15 N N C F 44 173 353 78 78 350 36 3.75 Y Y C C 49 174 354 79 79 351 36 1.9 N N E F 16 175 355 80 80 353 36 1.3 N N E C 31 177 357 82 82 355 37 1.85 N N F F 71 177 357 82 82 355 37 1.6 N N C F 6 178 358 83 83 356 37 1.05 N N F E

If MO = 0-5, rake = 85+MO If MO = 5-95, rake = 95-MO; USER RHR RAKE If MO = 95-180, rake = MO-95

130 Fracture Map 14

Strike 275 Dip 37 Y = yes N = no Number of Fractures 35 C = terminated against circle Radius 4 F = terminated against a fracture Intersections 19 E = natural termination Endpoints 51 R = terminated by rubble Intensity 1.1875 Density 0.5073064 Mean trace length 2.3407945 Used RHR Rake

Fract ure Orientation MO + 180 Rake RHR Rake Trend Plunge Length Averaged Curved End 1 End 2 14 11 191 84 96 12 37 0.3 Y Y F F

23 20 200 75 105 24 36 0.7 Y Y F C 6 25 205 70 110 30 34 0.55 N N E C 25 35 215 60 120 41 31 0.95 N N F C 26 35 215 60 120 41 31 1.5 N N F F 28 38 218 57 123 44 30 2 Y Y F F 22 40 220 55 125 46 30 0.9 N N F F 29 40 220 55 125 46 30 2.2 Y Y F F 27 45 225 50 130 51 27 1.45 Y Y F C 12 46 226 49 131 52 27 1.05 Y Y C F 2 47 227 48 132 53 27 1.35 Y Y C E 10 48 228 47 133 54 26 1.35 Y Y F E 32 52 232 43 137 58 24 0.2 N N F C 35 52 232 43 137 58 24 0.55 N N F F

131 9 57 237 38 142 63 22 4.65 Y Y C E 7 58 238 37 143 64 21 6.55 Y Y C F 15 59 239 36 144 65 21 1.35 Y Y F F 33 61 241 34 146 67 20 0.85 N N F F 4 62 242 33 147 68 19 6.2 Y Y C C 30 62 242 33 147 68 19 1.45 Y Y F F 34 63 243 32 148 68 19 0.35 N N F F 21 65 245 30 150 70 18 0.35 N N E F 3 68 248 27 153 73 16 3.05 Y Y F E 16 75 255 20 160 79 12 0.45 N N F C 8 80 260 15 165 83 9 1.8 Y Y C F 17 80 260 15 165 83 9 0.15 N N F F 24 80 260 15 165 83 9 0.4 Y Y F F 18 90 270 5 175 91 3 0.15 N N F F

31 109 289 14 14 286 8 1.4 Y Y E C 13 130 310 35 35 304 20 1.1 Y Y F C 1 154 334 59 59 328 31 0.45 N N E E 5 162 342 67 67 337 34 0.25 N N C F 11 176 356 81 81 354 36 2.55 N N F F 19 176 356 81 81 354 36 3.5 Y Y C F 20 177 357 82 82 355 37 7.05 Y Y C C

If MO = 0-5, rake = 85+MO If MO = 5-95, rake = 95-MO; USE RHR RAKE If MO = 95-180, rake = MO-95

132 Fracture Map 15

Strike 242 Dip 30 Y = yes N = no Number of Fractures 34 C = terminated against circle Radius 4 F = terminated against a fracture Intersections 21 E = natural termination Endpoints 47 R = terminated by rubble Intensity 1.3125 Density 0.4675176 Mean trace length 2.8073807 Used RHR Rake

Fracture Orientation MO + 180 Rake RHR Rake Trend Plunge Length Averaged Curved End 1 End 2 1 2 182 60 120 6 26 1.9 N N F E

8 2 182 60 120 6 26 7.95 Y Y C C 33 2 182 60 120 6 26 1.5 N N C F 14 4 184 58 122 8 25 0.6 N N F F 20 4 184 58 122 8 25 4.35 Y Y F F 5 11 191 51 129 15 23 4.95 Y Y C F 4 14 194 48 132 18 22 7.8 N N C C 22 15 195 47 133 19 21 0.45 N N F C 7 18 198 44 136 22 20 1.25 N N E F 15 18 198 44 136 22 20 1.5 N N F F 25 19 199 43 137 23 20 1.85 Y Y F C 6 21 201 41 139 25 19 0.95 N N F C 28 24 204 38 142 28 18 2.9 N N F C 29 24 204 38 142 28 18 2.9 N N F C

133 17 25 205 37 143 29 18 3.1 Y Y C F 21 46 226 16 164 48 8 1.15 N N C F 3 51 231 11 169 52 5 3.45 N N C E 34 54 234 8 172 55 4 1.05 Y Y F C 26 56 236 6 174 57 3 2.55 Y Y F F 27 63 243 1 1 243 0 1.7 Y Y F F 11 64 244 2 2 244 1 1.2 Y Y F C 24 79 259 17 17 257 8 0.35 Y Y C C 19 81 261 19 19 259 9 1.4 Y Y F F 13 84 264 22 22 261 11 0.5 N N F F 23 85 265 23 23 262 11 0.25 Y Y F F 18 88 268 26 26 265 13 0.85 N N F F 9 100 280 38 38 276 18 0.6 N N F F 31 113 293 51 51 289 23 0.25 Y Y F F

32 113 293 51 51 289 23 0.4 Y Y F F 30 120 300 58 58 296 25 0.2 N N F F 16 161 341 81 99 342 30 3.05 Y Y C F 2 174 354 68 112 357 28 2.35 N N F E 12 174 354 68 112 357 28 0.1 N N C F 10 179 359 63 117 2 26 0.85 N N C F

If MO = 0-62, rake = 62-MO; USE RHR RAKE If MO = 62-152, rake = MO-62 If MO = 152-180, rake = 242-MO; USE RHR RAKE

Fracture Map 16 134 Strike 211

Dip 41 Y = yes N = no Number of Fractures 31 C = terminated against circle Radius 4 F = terminated against a fracture Intersections 18 E = natural termination Endpoints 44 R = terminated by rubble Intensity 1.125 Density 0.4376761 Mean trace length 2.570394 Used RHR Rake

Fracture Orientation MO + 180 Rake RHR Rake Trend Plunge Length Averaged Curved End 1 End 2 21 50 230 19 19 226 12 0.6 N N F F 10 60 240 29 29 234 19 7.55 N N F C

14 62 242 31 31 235 20 7.25 Y Y C C 6 65 245 34 34 238 22 5.4 N N F E 11 65 245 34 34 238 22 3.9 N N E F 19 65 245 34 34 238 22 5.9 N N C C 20 69 249 38 38 242 24 5.25 Y Y C C 24 70 250 39 39 242 24 0.85 N N F C 15 75 255 44 44 247 27 5.5 N N C E 18 78 258 47 47 250 29 3.5 Y Y F C 16 87 267 56 56 259 33 2.95 N N C C 3 115 295 84 84 293 41 1.85 Y Y F F 27 140 320 71 109 326 38 0.3 N N F F 28 145 325 66 114 332 37 0.3 N N F F 29 145 325 66 114 332 37 0.4 N N F F

135 22 148 328 63 117 335 36 0.8 N N E F 9 152 332 59 121 340 34 0.6 N N F F 8 155 335 56 124 343 33 0.5 N N F F 12 155 335 56 124 343 33 1.3 N N F F 23 155 335 56 124 343 33 0.95 N N C F 30 155 335 56 124 343 33 0.55 N N F F 31 155 335 56 124 343 33 0.75 N N F F 5 160 340 51 129 348 31 3.9 Y Y F E 7 160 340 51 129 348 31 4.75 Y Y F E 13 160 340 51 129 348 31 3.7 N N E C 25 160 340 51 129 348 31 0.65 N N C F 4 162 342 49 131 350 30 0.6 N N F E 26 162 342 49 131 350 30 0.15 N N C F 1 165 345 46 134 353 28 3.2 Y Y C C

17 165 345 46 134 353 28 5 N N F F 2 172 352 39 141 360 24 0.7 Y Y F F

If MO = 0-31 rake = 31-MO; USE RHR RAKE If MO = 31-121, rake = MO-31 If MO = 121-180, rake = 211-MO; USE RHR RAKE

Fracture Map 17 Strike 20 Dip 37 Y = yes N = no Number of Fractures 71 C = terminated against circle 136 Radius 1 F = terminated against a fracture

Intersections 35 E = natural termination Endpoints 107 R = terminated by rubble Intensity 8.75 Density 17.0295789 Mean trace length 0.51381188 Used RHR Rake

Fracture Orientation MO + 180 Rake RHR Rake Trend Plunge Length Averaged Curved End 1 End 2 18 2 182 18 162 185 11 0.25 N N F F 52 2 182 18 162 185 11 0.3 N N E F 40 3 183 17 163 186 10 0.75 N N F F 32 5 185 15 165 188 9 2.5 N N F C 45 5 185 15 165 188 9 0.3 N N F C 51 5 185 15 165 188 9 1.15 N N F F

65 5 185 15 165 188 9 0.1 N N E C 66 5 185 15 165 188 9 0.3 N N C F 8 7 187 13 167 190 8 1.15 Y Y C F 16 7 187 13 167 190 8 0.35 N N F F 4 10 190 10 170 192 6 1.6 Y Y C C 15 10 190 10 170 192 6 0.2 N N F F 42 10 190 10 170 192 6 0.05 N N F F 47 10 190 10 170 192 6 0.2 Y Y F C 3 11 191 9 171 193 5 1.3 N N C C 22 11 191 9 171 193 5 0.1 N N C F 39 11 191 9 171 193 5 0.3 Y Y F F 2 12 192 8 172 194 5 1.05 N N C C 23 12 192 8 172 194 5 0.1 N N F F

137 44 12 192 8 172 194 5 0.15 N N F C 11 15 195 5 175 196 3 0.85 N N C F 27 15 195 5 175 196 3 0.55 N N C F 46 15 195 5 175 196 3 0.3 N N F C 50 16 196 4 176 197 2 0.65 Y Y F F 19 18 198 2 178 198 1 0.35 N N F F 31 20 200 0 180 200 0 2.5 N N C F 20 20 200 0 180 200 0 0.65 Y Y F F 49 20 200 0 180 200 0 0.1 N N F F 14 23 203 3 3 22 2 0.25 N N C F 26 28 208 8 8 26 5 0.35 Y Y C F 55 29 209 9 9 27 5 0.8 Y Y F C 61 30 210 10 10 28 6 0.5 N N F F 28 35 215 15 15 32 9 0.2 Y Y F F

36 72 252 52 52 66 28 0.35 N N F F 67 74 254 54 54 68 29 1.15 Y Y F F 43 75 255 55 55 69 30 0.2 Y Y F F 25 82 262 62 62 76 32 0.2 N N F F 48 82 262 62 62 76 32 0.35 Y Y F F 24 83 263 63 63 77 32 0.25 Y Y F F 5 85 265 65 65 80 33 0.05 N N C F 57 89 269 69 69 84 34 0.1 N N F C 68 89 269 69 69 84 34 0.25 Y Y F F 59 90 270 70 70 85 34 0.35 N N F C 64 91 271 71 71 87 35 0.2 N N F C 33 92 272 72 72 88 35 0.6 Y Y F C 38 92 272 72 72 88 35 0.45 N N F F

138 63 94 274 74 74 90 35 1 Y Y F F 21 95 275 75 75 91 36 1.3 Y Y F C 10 97 277 77 77 94 36 0.45 N N C F 13 100 280 80 80 98 36 0.075 N N F F 34 101 281 81 81 99 36 0.5 N N F C 54 101 281 81 81 99 36 1 Y Y F C 60 101 281 81 81 99 36 0.65 Y Y F F 37 102 282 82 82 100 37 1.5 Y Y F C 29 105 285 85 85 104 37 0.45 Y Y F F 41 105 285 85 85 104 37 0.15 N N F F 69 105 285 85 85 104 37 0.75 Y Y F F 9 106 286 86 86 105 37 0.55 N N F F 6 110 290 90 90 110 37 0.25 N N C F 62 110 290 90 90 110 37 0.35 Y Y F F

1 111 291 89 91 111 37 0.5 N N C F 35 115 295 85 95 116 37 0.3 Y Y F F 7 120 300 80 100 122 36 0.35 Y Y C F 53 120 300 80 100 122 36 0.2 N N F F 12 135 315 65 115 140 33 0.25 N N F F 70 159 339 41 139 165 23 0.1 N N F F 30 161 341 39 141 167 22 0.25 N N F F 71 161 341 39 141 167 22 0.1 N N F F 56 174 354 26 154 179 15 0.3 Y Y F C 17 178 358 22 158 182 13 0.35 N N F F 58 179 359 21 159 183 12 0.5 N N F F

If MO = 0-20, rake = 20-MO; USE RHR RAKE

139 If MO = 20-110, rake = MO-20

If MO = 110-180, rake = 200-MO; USE RHR RAKE

Fracture Map 18 Strike 28 Dip 29 Y = yes N = no Number of Fractures 16 C = terminated against circle Radius 2.5 F = terminated against a fracture Intersections 12 E = natural termination Endpoints 20 R = terminated by rubble Intensity 1.2 CV = calcite vein Density 0.5092958

Mean trace length 2.3561945 Used RHR Rake

Fracture Orientation MO + 180 Rake RHR Rake Trend Plunge Length Averaged Curved End 1 End 2 Notes 8 22 202 6 174 203 3 4.25 Y Y F C 5 71 251 43 43 67 19 1.2 Y Y C F 15 89 269 61 61 86 25 1.55 Y Y F F 14 93 273 65 65 90 26 4.1 Y Y C C 3 94 274 66 66 91 26 2.5 Y Y R F 11 100 280 72 72 98 27 1.8 Y Y F C 4 105 285 77 77 103 28 3.1 Y Y C C 13 152 332 56 124 156 24 0.9 Y Y E F CV 12 155 335 53 127 159 23 1.25 N N E E CV 9 156 336 52 128 160 22 1.1 N N F F CV

140 16 158 338 50 130 162 22 0.6 N N C E CV

1 160 340 48 132 164 21 1 N N C E CV 2 160 340 48 132 164 21 0.95 N N E E CV 7 165 345 43 137 169 19 0.5 N N E C CV 6 168 348 40 140 172 18 2.9 N N E C CV 10 170 350 38 142 174 17 2.05 N N F C CV

If MO = 0-28, rake = 28-MO; USE RHR RAKE If MO = 28-118, rake = MO-28 If MO = 118-180, rake = 208-MO; USE RHR RAKE

Fracture Map 19 Strike 62 Dip 23 Y = yes N = no Number of Fractures 15 C = terminated against circle Radius 2 F = terminated against a fracture Intersections 13 E = natural termination Endpoints 17 R = terminated by rubble Intensity 1.625 Density 0.6764085 Mean trace length 2.4023944 Used RHR Rake

Fracture Orientation MO + 180 Rake RHR Rake Trend Plunge Length Averaged Curved End 1 End 2

141 14 15 195 47 133 197 17 1 N N F C

1 20 200 42 138 202 15 0.1 N N F C 6 38 218 24 156 220 9 0.55 Y Y F F 12 45 225 17 163 226 7 1.6 Y Y F F 11 50 230 12 168 231 5 0.65 N N F F 4 69 249 7 7 68 3 0.65 N N C F 10 69 249 7 7 68 3 1.05 N N F F 9 123 303 61 61 121 20 3.85 Y Y C F 15 123 303 61 61 121 20 0.6 Y Y C C 8 132 312 70 70 130 22 3.75 Y Y C C 5 138 318 76 76 137 22 1 N N F C 2 140 320 78 78 139 22 3.95 N N C C 13 145 325 83 83 144 23 1.6 Y Y F C 7 153 333 89 91 153 23 1.3 Y Y F F

3 156 336 86 94 156 23 1.1 Y Y C F

If MO = 0-62, rake = 62-MO; USE RHR RAKE If MO = 62-152, rake = MO-62 If MO = 152-180, rake = 242-MO; USE RHR RAKE

Fracture Map 20 Strike 194 Dip 30 Y = yes N = no Number of Fractures 30 C = terminated against circle Radius 3 F = terminated against a fracture 142 Intersections 21 E = natural termination

Endpoints 39 R = terminated by rubble Intensity 1.75 Density 0.68967142 Mean trace length 2.53744022 Used RHR Rake

Fracture Orientation MO + 180 Rake RHR Rake Trend Plunge Length Averaged Curved En d 1 End 2 5 15 195 1 1 195 0 0.7 N N F C 8 15 195 1 1 195 0 0.75 N N F C 20 20 200 6 6 199 3 0.7 N N F F 26 31 211 17 17 209 8 1 Y Y C C 30 40 220 26 26 217 13 0.3 N N F F 2 68 248 54 54 244 24 5.75 Y Y C C 9 101 281 87 87 281 30 0.25 N N F F

12 105 285 89 91 285 30 1.15 N N F F 13 105 285 89 91 285 30 0.45 N N C F 16 109 289 85 95 290 30 2.35 Y Y F F 7 119 299 75 105 301 29 3 Y Y F C 27 120 300 74 106 302 29 0.1 N N F C 25 125 305 69 111 308 28 2.1 Y Y F F 4 127 307 67 113 310 27 2.25 Y Y F F 19 132 312 62 118 316 26 4.25 Y Y C F 28 132 312 62 118 316 26 1.4 Y Y F C 1 140 320 54 126 324 24 2.05 N N C F 14 143 323 51 129 327 23 1.25 Y Y F F 18 145 325 49 131 329 22 2.2 Y Y C F 22 147 327 47 133 331 21 2.85 Y Y F F

143 10 150 330 44 136 334 20 1 Y Y F F 29 151 331 43 137 335 20 1.25 N N F C 23 153 333 41 139 337 19 3.15 Y Y F C 11 155 335 39 141 339 18 3.15 Y Y C F 24 162 342 32 148 346 15 1.75 N N F C 15 170 350 24 156 353 12 1.45 Y Y F F 21 170 350 24 156 353 12 0.85 N N C F 6 172 352 22 158 355 11 2.45 Y Y F C 3 175 355 19 161 357 9 1.25 N N F C 17 179 359 15 165 1 7 0.3 N N C F

If MO = 0-14, rake = 14-MO; USE RHR RAKE If MO = 14-104, rake = MO-14 If MO = 104-180, rake = 194-MO; USE RHR RAKE

Fracture Map 21 Strike 80 Dip 26 Y = yes N = no Number of Fractures 10 C = terminated against circle Radius 2.5 F = terminated against a fracture Intersections 8 E = natural termination Endpoints 12 R = terminated by rubble Intensity 0.8 Density 0.3055775 Mean trace length 2.6179939 Used RHR Rake

Fracture Orientation MO + 180 Rake RHR Rake Trend Plunge Length Averaged Curved End 1 End 2

144 10 15 195 65 115 197 23 3.75 Y Y C C

6 120 300 40 40 117 16 0.375 N N E F 5 130 310 50 50 127 20 0.7 N N C F 3 133 313 53 53 130 20 2.6 N N E E 1 135 315 55 55 132 21 0.4 N N C C 4 135 315 55 55 132 21 0.25 N N E C 2 138 318 58 58 135 22 1.75 N N F E 7 139 319 59 59 136 22 1.9 N N F E 8 140 320 60 60 137 22 0.7 N N F C 9 140 320 60 60 137 22 2.5 Y Y F C If MO = 0-80, rake = 80-MO; USE RHR RAKE If MO = 80-170, rake = MO-80 If MO = 170-180, rake = 260-MO; USE RHR RAKE

APPENDIX B FRACTURE MAPS

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

APPENDIX C

ROSE DIAGRAMS

167

FRACTURE MAP 1

FRACTURE MAP 2

168

FRACTURE MAP 5

FRACTURE MAP 6

169

FRACTURE MAP 7

FRACTURE MAP 8

170

FRACTURE MAP 9

FRACTURE MAP 10

171

FRACTURE MAP 11

FRACTURE MAP 12

172

FRACTURE MAP 13

FRACTURE MAP 14

173 174 FRACTURE MAP 15

FRACTURE MAP 16

175 FRACTURE MAP 17

FRACTURE MAP 18

176 FRACTURE MAP 19

FRACTURE MAP 20

177 FRACTURE MAP 21

ALL FRACTURE MAPS

178 LIDAR FRACTURE MAP 1

LIDAR FRACTURE MAP 2

179 LIDAR FRACTURE MAP 15

LIDAR FRACTURE MAP 16

180