Figure 1 shows the comparison of original seismic data before and after applying dip deviation attributes at 0° threshold angle in crossline 1460. By using dip deviation, we can see the presences of fractures at the upper part of the seismic data. From here we can know that the fractures might have cause the possibility of gas leak in the study area (potential gas identified at the earlier part of the interpretation).
Dip Deviation
​
Dip deviation is a new approach for mapping faults and fracture networks (Aguado et al., 2009), that we have used in this study. It utilizes a multi-trace-based seismic attribute that tracks rapid changes in the local orientation of seismic reflectors, which can be interpreted as edges.
From Figure (a), the data looks chaotic with threshold angle 0Ëš. The presences of fractures can be seen clearly. In Figure (b), the data looks less chaotic with threshold angle 5Ëš and the fractures is still visible but less chaotic. In Figure (c), the data with threshold angle 10Ëš is bad as some of the data have been eliminated and resolution becomes bad. From here we can say that, an increase in threshold angle can be give us a better resolution of fractures and faults too. But excessive increase may eliminate important data and interpretation will become inaccurate.