Geothermics 116 (2024) 102833

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geothermics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geothermics

Fracture characterisation using 3-D seismic reflection data for advanced

deep geothermal exploration in the NE German Basin
Asrillah Asrillah a, b, c, *, Agus Abdullah d, Klaus Bauer a, Ben Norden a, Charlotte M. Krawczyk a, b
a
German Research Centre for Geosciences (GFZ), Potsdam, Germany
b
Institute for Applied Geosciences, Technische Universität Berlin (TUB), Germany
c
Department of Geophysical Engineering, Universitas Syiah Kuala (USK), Banda Aceh, Indonesia
d
Department of Geophysical Engineering, Universitas Pertamina (UP), Jakarta, Indonesia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: At the geothermal research platform Gross Schönebeck (NE German Basin), we analysed 3-D seismic reflection
3-D seismic-reflection-data data to determine the degree and direction of azimuthal velocity anisotropy which is interpreted as the effect of
Zechstein-salt sub-vertical fracturing. Above the Zechstein salt, the observed anisotropy roughly correlates to fault structures
Fracture
formed by an upwelling salt pillow. Below the salt, faults are not obvious and the direction of less pronounced
Anisotropy
Velocity-Variation-with-Azimuth
anisotropy and interpreted fracturing follows the trend of the regional stress field. The fracturing in an exten­
Northeast-German-Basin sional setting above salt pillows may cause higher permeability and better conditions for geothermal
exploitation.

1. Introduction is difficult to resolve them directly from the data. For this purpose,
various options for attribute analyses e.g., coherence, curvature, RMS
Comprehensive information about subsurface natural fractured amplitude and instantaneous frequencies, ant-tracking analysis, spectral
reservoir characteristics is especially important for prospection and decomposition using wavelet transform, impedance inversion and
subsurface utilization, for instance for geothermal energy engineering crossplots (Gazar et al., 2011; Suo et al., 2012; Pussak et al., 2014;
(e.g., Wenke et al., 2010; Grant, 2013; Faulds and Hinz, 2015; Lepillier Marfurt, 2018; Ziesch et al., 2019; Bauer et al., 2020; Wadas and von
et al., 2019), because fractures can act as channels for fluid flow Hartmann, 2022; Wadas et al., 2023) and numerical modelling, such as
enhancing hydraulic permeability if the fractures are open and 3-D palinspastic reconstruction (LaPointe et al., 2002), exist to better
conductive for fluids (Stober and Bucher, 2014 and 2015; Bakulin et al., explore the sub-seismic scale of fracture networks (Krawczyk et al.,
2000; Shapiro and Kaselow, 2005) or need to be considered in stimu­ 2015).
lation concepts. The degree and direction of natural fracturing is related Approaches considering Amplitude Variation with Offset or Azimuth
with an anisotropy signature of the rock matrix. Both parameters are (AVO, AVA respectively) as well as Velocity Variation with Azimuth
relevant to develop reservoir models with preferred directions and (VVA) have widely been implemented for hydrocarbon exploration (e.
magnitudes of hydraulic permeability. g., Lynn et al., 1999; Hall and Kendall, 2003; Al-Marzoug et al., 2006;
While borehole data allows direct access to lithology and reservoir Lüschen et al., 2014; Aleardi et al., 2015; Schmelzbach et al., 2016),
properties, such as porosity and permeability, 3-D seismic field experi­ especially to identify fracture-induced anisotropy (Garotta, 1989;
ments with different layouts of source and receiver setup are applied to Alkhalifah et al., 1995; Craft et al., 1997; Li et al., 1999; Bakulin et al.,
optimize drilling strategies ahead of the operation, and to minimize the 2000; Jenner et al., 2001; Shen et al., 2002; Shouli et al., 2007; Wang
risk of unsuccessful geothermal exploitation in an area (Liu and Marti­ et al., 2007; Gray, 2007; Liu et al., 2014).
nez, 2012; Aleardi et al., 2015; Lüschen et al., 2015; von Hartmann In this study, we apply the VVA approach for the first time to
et al., 2015; Bauer et al., 2017; Krawczyk et al., 2019; Wawerzinek et al., geothermal reservoir data and show along the 3-D reflection seismic
2021). However, fault zones and fracture networks often bear an data at the geothermal research platform Groß Schönebeck (Krawczyk
inherent small-scale complexity close to the seismic resolution, so that it et al., 2019) how the fracture properties of different subsurface layers

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Asrillah).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2023.102833
Received 23 June 2023; Received in revised form 26 August 2023; Accepted 25 September 2023
Available online 6 October 2023
0375-6505/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
A. Asrillah et al. Geothermics 116 (2024) 102833

relevant to potential geothermal utilization can be evaluated in terms of Schönebeck site, two geothermal boreholes focused on
presence, intensity, and orientation. Permo-Carboniferous reservoir targets provide more details that can be
traced by 3-D seismic data into the surrounding (Krawczyk et al., 2019;
2. Geological setting Fig. 1). To investigate the suitability of this deeper geothermal system
for power generation, the Permo-Carboniferous targets were tested for
The Geothermal Research Platform Groß Schönebeck is located in the hydraulic fracturing in wells (Holl et al., 2005; Legarth et al., 2005;
Northeast German Basin (NEGB), ca. 50 km north of Berlin (Fig. 1). The Zimmermann et al., 2011; Blöcher et al., 2016), and for facies discrim­
study area underwent different geodynamic phases encompassing ination using seismic data (Bauer et al., 2020; Norden et al., 2023).
Caledonian and Variscan collision tectonics, Rotliegend volcanism and While information about the spatial distribution of natural fractured
Mesozoic basin development (see reviews in Krawczyk et al., 2008a, b reservoir characteristics at the site were derived from 2-D seismic
and Doornenbal and Stevenson, 2010 with references therein). In the models and geological concepts before (Moeck et al., 2009b), we use
course of this, the stress field varied and probably produced faults and new 3-D seismic data (Krawczyk et al., 2019) in this study to derive
fractured reservoir compartments (Marotta et al., 2001; 2002). information on possible fractures and fracture orientations for four
The geology in the study area shows the typical lithology expected in seismically well-traceable horizons at Groß Schönebeck.
the North German Basin (Hoth et al., 1993; Norden et al., 2023 and The studied reflector horizons from top to bottom with lithological
references therein). After late Carboniferous thermal relaxation, sedi­ types (see in detail Fig. 1b for reference) comprise stratigraphic horizons
mentation provided thick deposits of up to 6 km, consisting often of from the Mesozoic (S1), top of Zechstein (X1), base of Zechstein (Z1) and
thick Permian (Rotliegend and Zechstein, ca. 2 km thick), Triassic (ca. close to the Rotliegend Elbe Reservoir Sandstone (ERS). As shown in
1.5 km thick), and Jurassic sediments. Fig. 1b, the depth and time domain of the target horizons are as follow.
The thickness of the Mesozoic sequences is quite variable within the The S1 reflector within the Upper Buntsandstein formation is seated at
basin and depends on the local structural setting, especially for the ca. 1600–2400 m depth (equivalent to 1.1–1.6 s two-way-traveltime,
Cretaceous and Tertiary deposits. Fractures as indicators for present or twt), the Zechstein salt body characterized by the horizons X1 and Z1
ancient stress regimes in the North German Basin were analysed by occurs at 2400–3800 m depth (ca. 1.6–2.1 s twt), and a horizon within
several authors (e.g., Röckel and Lempp, 2003; Blöcher et al., 2016 and the sedimentary Rotliegend is located at about 4050 m depth (2.3 s twt).
Nadoll et al., 2019) showing that the ductile Zechstein salt causes a For details of horizon definition, see also Reinhardt (1993), Krawczyk
decoupling of the stress field with a more regional component below and et al. (2019) and Norden et al. (2023). The analysed target horizons are
a more variable local stress field above the Zechstein deposits. Thus, roughly sketched in Fig. 2 and are derived from the interpreted 3-D
fracture analysis of zones above the Zechstein unit is likely to show a seismic data (Krawczyk et al., 2019). The sketched model of the target
different fracture pattern than analysis for zones below the Zechstein, horizons (c.f., Fig. 1b) shows the view of horizon shapes and their lith­
like the Permian Rotliegend. ological architecture. All of the target horizons in the depth domain (km)
The North German Basin represents a low-enthalpy setting requiring and their lithological types are clearly noticeable. The S1 and X1
deep boreholes to reach higher temperatures needed for electricity reflectors/horizons present the anticlinal forms which result in a
generation – meeting petrothermal conditions at great depths (> 4 km). thickness of ca. 800 m and the inferred almost vertical normal faults
A hydrothermal utilization, like applied in the other two geothermal (black lines) are the result of salt mobilisation. The lithology between S1
type localities in Germany (Molasse Basin, Upper Rhine graben; Agemar and X1 horizons is generally alternated by marlstone and claystone.
et al., 2014), is therefore often restricted to shallower depths with lower Norden et al. (2023) reported that the anhydrite (S1 lithology) is brittle
temperatures (below 100 ◦ C) in the North German Basin. At the Groß compared to rock salt (X1 lithology) which is ductile. The Z1 and ERS

Fig. 1. Tectonic and geologic overview of the study area in the North German Basin around the Groß Schönebeck geothermal research platform which is located ca.
50 km north of Berlin. a) Permian (Lower Rotliegend) sediments (in brownish colours; after Dornenbal & Stevenson 2010) are shown together with the distribution of
Zechstein salt structures (dark blue: salt pillow, light blue: salt diapirs; after INSpEE project data, BGR 2020). Inset shows the site of Groß Schönebeck with the area of
acquired 3-D seismic data (red rectangle) and location of well E GrSk 3/90 (yellow star). b) Stratigraphic sequence of the drill hole from the Quaternary down to
Rotliegend at Groß Schönebeck (after Krawczyk et al., 2019 and Norden et al., 2023). Seismic marker horizons are labelled (according to nomenclature after
Reinhardt 1993), and analysed ones in this study are given in bold letters.

2
A. Asrillah et al. Geothermics 116 (2024) 102833

Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of the target horizons marked by labels (S1, X1,
Z1 and b_EBS) that lie sequentially from the top to bottom. The depth of the
target horizons is in km and their lithological types are indicated by colours and
names. The near vertical black lines point out the inferred normal faults
(Krawczyk et al., 2019; Hansen et al., 2007). Fig. 3. Basic principles of analysed anisotropy of this study. The Horizontal
Transversely Isotropy (HTI) model visualizes vertical fracture sets (Rüger,
(b_EBS; base of Elbe Sandstone) horizons which are separated by around 1998). Source-receiver (S-R) pairs and Common Midpoint (CMP) are located
a 250 m thick layer of rock salt and claystone exhibit almost flat shapes. relative to the symmetry axes (X1). The fast velocity (Vfast) with its orientation
(β0) and the slow velocity (Vslow) perpendicular to it form the normal moveout
(NMO) ellipse.
3. Methodical background to fracture, anisotropy, and velocity
analyses
with vertical aligned fractures have been studied worldwide using the
Fractured rocks are one of the causes of seismic anisotropy, because HTI model (e.g., Jenner et al., 2002, Hall and Kendall, 2003; Grechka
they alter parameters such as travel time and wave velocity in a medium et al., 2006; Liu, 2014) to investigate anisotropy.
with respect to azimuthal dependence of seismic wave-propagation In the study presented here, we use the HTI model as reference to
(Tsvankin, 2012; Vannucci, 2018). determine azimuthal velocity anisotropy. The most common explana­
The anisotropy of sedimentary strata is influenced by several factors. tion for azimuthal velocity anisotropy is the presence of sub-vertical
One aspect originates from grain orientation of the medium itself and fracturing which runs parallel in a predominant azimuth direction
isotropic layers. Their small size, if compared to the seismic wavelength, over larger areas (see detail in Tsvankin, 1997 and Treadgold et al.,
causes the intrinsic anisotropy. Another effect from near-vertical frac­ 2008).
tures or microcracks which are affected by both regional and local In seismic data processing, the velocity analysis makes use of the
stresses generates the extrinsic anisotropy (e.g., Crampin, 1994; Shapiro normal moveout (NMO) from hyperbolic events in Common Midpoint
and Kaselow, 2005; Tsvankin et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2013). (CMP) data based on different source-receiver offsets. The objective of
Anisotropy models based on elastic properties of the rock matrix are this type of velocity analysis is to flatten the hyperbola associated with a
divided into three types of Transverse Isotropy (TI) media (Tsvankin and reflection into a straight horizontal event. Therefore, the velocity that
Grechka, 2011). Firstly, the Vertical Transverse Isotropy (VTI) model produces the best alignment of stacking the multi-fold CMP traces is
describes a sub-horizontal layering structure with fine-scale velocity considered the best-fit velocity (Yilmaz, 2001; Upadhyay, 2013). In
alternations in vertical direction, with a symmetry axis in the vertical terms of assessing fractured reservoirs, the approach of Velocity Varia­
direction. Of importance for seismic wave propagation is that the VTI tion with Azimuth (VVA) analyses the velocity variance of P-waves in
model significantly affects the seismic attributes, as for instance, travel azimuthal sectors (Tsvankin and Grechka, 2011; Liu and Martinez,
time, amplitude, and velocity. Waves travelling perpendicular to the 2012). The basic assumption here is that P-wave velocities can be fast
fine-scale velocity variations will have a reduced velocity value, while a (Vfast) or slow (Vslow), depending on their propagation direction either
propagation parallel to the alternating velocity structure will have a parallel or perpendicular to fracture direction, respectively.
high velocity value. Secondly, the Horizontal Transverse Isotropy (HTI) Referring to Grechka & Tsvankin (1998) the non-converted mode of
model (see Fig. 3) is characterized by fine-scale velocity alternations in reflection moveout for the P-wave’s travel time dependence with respect
horizontal direction, typically caused by vertically aligned fractures to azimuth is formulated in equation Eq. (1):
with a specific, predominant azimuthal orientation. In this case, the 1 1 1
horizontal direction is the symmetry axis. For this anisotropy model, = cos2 (β − β0 ) + 2 sin2 (β − β0 ) (1)
V 2nmo (β) V 2slow V fast
waves travelling parallel to fracture strike are faster than for other
propagation directions (Lynn et al., 1999). The difference between VTI where Vnmo(β) is the azimuthally dependant velocity with respect to the
and HTI model lies only on their symmetry axis orientation. Finally, the source-receiver azimuth β, β0 is the azimuth of Vfast (parallel to fracture),
Tilted Transverse Isotropy (TTI) model assumes that the symmetry axis and Vslow describes the P-wave velocity perpendicular to fracture. Fast
is tilted against the vertical axis. and slow velocity form as the normal moveout ellipse and they are
A fractured reservoir is typically considered as an HTI medium orthogonal each other (Fig. 3; X1 and X2 axes). Fig. 3 shows the basic
(Gray, 2008), consisting of a single set of aligned, vertical fractures or principle of the anisotropy analysis for the HTI model. X1 and X2 are the
penny-shaped cracks (parallel vertical cracks), usually caused by symmetry axis (perpendicular to fractures) and the isotropy axis (par­
regional and smaller-scale tectonics (Minsley et al., 2003). Reservoirs allel to fractures), respectively, while the vertical Z axis and the

3
A. Asrillah et al. Geothermics 116 (2024) 102833

horizontal X2 axis constitute the isotropy plane. S and R are the source- unitless anisotropy notations ε, δ, and γ proposed by Thomsen (1986).
receiver pairs that form Common Midpoint (CMP) at their half distances. Hence, Rüger (1998) uses the Thomsen parameters in the anisotropy
The determination of Vfast and Vslow (Grechka and Tsvankin, 1998; analysis of fractured reservoirs. In our study we make use of parameter ε:
1999a) is based on Eq. (2): c11 − c33
ε= (5)
1 2c33
= W11 cos2 (β) + 2W12 cos(β)sin(β) + W22 sin2 (β) (2)
V 2nmo (β) The notation of c11 and c33 is equivalent to Vfast and Vslow, respec­
tively. This parameter is a measure for the anisotropy magnitude which
where W11, W12, W22 denote the gradient ellipses in orthorhombic is approximately proportional to the fracture intensity (Berryman,
media. The velocity analysis results in the root-mean-square velocity 2009).
(Vrms) that has a close relationship to the normal-moveout velocity Vnmo
and is often conceptually approached (Yilmaz, 2001).
4. Database and workflow for anisotropy analysis
The interval velocity (Vint) can be derived from Vrms using the Dix
equation, that was re-arranged by Tsvankin & Grechka (2011) in Eq. (3):
The data used in this study is the 3-D reflection seismic volume at
[ ]2 V 2nmo(n). T0(n) − V 2nmo(n− 1). T0(n− 1)
Groß Schönebeck (Krawczyk et al., 2019). The controlled-source 3-D
(n)
Vint = (3) seismic measurements cover an 8 km x 8 km large survey area
T0(n) − T0(n− 1)
(Fig. 4a) which was designed to study geothermal targets below the
where Vint is the interval velocity, T0 is the twt at zero offset, and n is the Zechstein salt in more than 4 km depth. Data acquisition comprised 409
n-th horizon. inlines (IL) and 399 crosslines (XL) whose Source Line Interval (SLI) and
To observe seismic anisotropy it is most reasonable to use the in­ Receiver Line Interval (RLI) are 700 m and 400 m, respectively (Fig. 4).
terval velocity rather than Vrms because the interval velocity reflects the The source and receiver lines were arranged by placing the source and
anisotropy of the layer instead of providing a velocity from a surface receiver positions at 50 m distance. This layout specifically produced the
down to a horizon (Alkhalifah and Tsvankin, 1995; Tsvankin and 25 m x 25 m size of Common Midpoint (CMP) bins of variable trace fold,
Grechka, 2011). ranging from 60 traces, at the outer areas, to about 100 traces at the
To reformulate Eq. (2) in order to compute the azimuth of Vfast, we centre of the survey (Stiller et al., 2018). These geometric parameters of
introduce Eq. (4) (Grechka and Tsvankin., 1999a, b; Jenner et al., 2002): the measurement yield the methodically required wide azimuth-offset
⎧ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅⎫ coverage for fracture characterization (Craft et al., 1997; Ji-feng et al.,
⎨W22 − W11 + (W22 − W11 )2 + 4W 2 ⎬ 2018).
(4)
12
(β0 ) = arctan
⎩ 2W12 ⎭ The data used were already processed with 3-D seismic data pro­
cessing tools, such as static, spherical divergence, and amplitude
In addition to the azimuth direction of anisotropy (parameter β0 ), the correction then followed by deconvolution, residual statics correction,
other important parameter of anisotropy analysis is the magnitude of and denoising (see details in Krawczyk et al., 2019). This dataset pro­
azimuthal velocity anisotropy interpreted as fracture intensity (Rüger, vides the basis for picking the target horizons, and for the fault inter­
1998). In the context of geothermal exploration, high values of fracture pretation (Norden et al., 2023).
intensity indicate a potentially higher permeability if the fractures are In addition to this, we introduce here the supplementary azimuth-
open. For parallel vertical cracks embedded in an isotropic matrix (c.f., dependant velocity analysis which makes use of the prestack 3-D
Fig. 3), transversely isotropic media with a horizontal axis of symmetry seismic reflection data that is un-NMO corrected and stacked zer­
(HTI media) are generally chosen as model. In order to determine ophase, respectively. The 3-D un-NMOed data is used to perform ve­
anisotropy magnitude in TI media, it is more applicable to utilize three locity analysis, where the NMOed stacked zerophase is utilized to pick
target horizons and fault interpretation as a comparison.

Fig. 4. Geometry of data used in the presented study. a) Acquisition scheme of 3-D reflection seismic survey (black filled circle marks CMP 77,398 exemplified in b).
b) Azimuthal offset distribution (30◦ -segments labelled) of CMP 77,398 that is located close to the centre of the research area and extracted from Inline 10,391 and
Crossline 2381. The offset length (metre) runs from 0 to 9000 m, the zero coincides with the CMP position.

4
A. Asrillah et al. Geothermics 116 (2024) 102833

The first step in the workflow is to read and convert the Groß result in a velocity profile versus two-way-traveltime (twt) and twt of
Schönebeck SEGY data to Python including inline (IL) and CMP infor­ the horizon outlooks. As shown in Fig. 6, the semblance spectra show a
mation (Fig. 5), because ProMax does not have a tool to perform azimuth good quality coherence which leads to a confident picking for flattening
division. azimuthal gathers in advance. At this stage, we also calculate the in­
Secondly, we evaluate the azimuth-offset distribution for all data terval velocities for all sectors and the target horizons in sequential way.
(according to the example given in Fig. 4). The evaluation step is sorting The computation of the interval velocity is performed after fitting the
rich offset-azimuth coverage to fulfil the requirement of fracture delin­ picked travel time (twt) to a horizon (using the Petrel software), and the
eation for target horizons. travel time to this horizon is derived from the velocity analysis of every
The third step is dividing the full azimuth data into six azimuthal CDP. This ensures that the time slices from two different approaches
sectors, encompassing 30◦ each, for subsequent azimuthal velocity picking the same horizon actually match. The interval velocity is finally
analysis. This aims to provide the spatial fracture characteristics in more calculated by using Eq. (3). Layer means that we consider the target
detail and results in localized information. To evaluate the quality of the horizon as the top of the layer, and add 20 ms of the seismic volume
data and to enhance the robustness of horizon picking, five neighbour­ below it, so that a layer thickness is assigned and we can work with
ing CMPs were combined to a central CMP for maximum coherence, and interval velocities.
the semblance-velocity spectra displayed (Fig. 6). The example spectra The pre-final step in the workflow Fig. 5) is to determine the Vfast and
extracted for CMP 77,398 in the middle of the study area (compare Vslow values for every CDP in each layer and all six azimuth sectors in
Fig. 3) reveal that the semblance maxima correlate well with the ex­ which azimuths exist. From this result, the azimuthal fast velocity is
pected depths of the target horizons in the area (see horizons S1, X1, Z1, assigned as the fracture strike, where the fractional difference between
and ESR in Figs. 1, 2 and 6). Apparently, the panels with azimuths of Vfast and Vslow divided by 2 times of Vslow is stated as the anisotropy
0–90◦ exhibit a strong signal for the shallower subsurface (panels b-d in magnitude or an approximation to the fracture intensity. The calculation
Fig. 6; upper 1.5 s twt), while azimuths within the range of 90 to 180◦ of these two fracture characteristics are based on the Eqs. (4) and ((5)
show a strong signal at larger depth (panels e-g in Fig. 6; 1.5–3 s twt). respectively. Finally, the anisotropy maps are plotted as the end product
Because of the multi-fold survey character and data redundancy, such and interpreted in the overall geological context.
weaker azimuthal sectors are easily compensated by other CMPs, The anisotropy phenomenon could also be observed through the
resulting in robust velocity analyses. Common Offset Common Azimuth (COCA). The COCA is also useful for
The fourth step is to re-convert the Python based CMP.py files to the analysis of azimuthally dependant seismic attributes. It is a sorted
SEGY as input for the ProMax software. The following stage is to perform offset and azimuth of the NMO gather. Therefore, azimuthal gathers
velocity analyses on each azimuth from sector 1 to sector 6. In parallel to after NMO has been applied, provided a snail pattern expressing the
the velocity analyses, the target horizons are picked. This enables us to anisotropy signatures if they exist at subsurface horizons (Li, 2008).
interactively compare the horizons from different pickings. Both picks The first outcome of the anisotropy analysis is that the azimuthal
COCA gathers tested for the GrSk dataset show the anisotropy signature
of the target horizons from only one CDP (Fig. 7). Fig. 7a shows the
COCA gather before the trace interpolation was performed. It is note­
worthy that empty traces are present before the interpolation is carried
out and this results in an unclear snail gather at the horizons because of
discontinuing events. However, after employing an interpolation
(Fig. 7b), the snail gathers are moderately apparent as shown in the
zoomed-in black boxes. There is only the Z1 horizon, where the
anisotropy is not clearly apparent, but the S1, X1, and ERS horizons
show the snail gather moderately. For the Mesozoic horizon S1, the
anisotropy is present at the offset range of 2047–2200 m and in the
azimuth range of 150–180◦ . This result suggests to carry out a further
assessment of the anisotropy to the target horizons, and its results are
presented in Section 5.

5. Deduced horizon characteristics

With the method explained above, we analysed in total four hori­

zons, one representing Mesozoic strata (above the Permian Zechstein
salt, S1) and three representing Palaeozoic strata (Permian Zechstein
salt and below: X1, Z1, ERS). Similar to other comparable studies (e.g.,
Hall and Kendall, 2003; Zhang et al., 2020) we assume that natural
sub-vertical fracturing is the main source of the observed azimuthal
anisotropy.
Figs. 8 and 9 show the time and the velocity anisotropy maps of the
studied horizons. The time maps of the Mesozoic horizon (S1) and those
above the Permian Zechstein salt (X1) show a very similar pattern
(Fig. 8a and b), recapturing the structure and geometry of the underlying
salt pillow. The anticlinal structure is SSW-NNE orientated and shows a
maximum rise north of the Groß Schönebeck (GrSk) drill sites. The
corresponding velocity anisotropy maps (Fig. 8c and d) exhibit, how­
ever, different patterns for the two horizons. For the Mesozoic horizon
S1, a distinct change of the velocity anisotropy is observed within the
mapped fault system at the top of the salt structure (Fig. 8c). The
magnitude of anisotropy amounts to about 0.1, which is higher than the
Fig. 5. Workflow for anisotropy analysis used in this study. values < 0.03 that are observed in the adjacent areas towards the south,

5
A. Asrillah et al. Geothermics 116 (2024) 102833

Fig. 6. Semblance velocity spectra for CMP 77,398 (c.f., Fig. 4) between 0 and 3 s twt. The panels for full azimuth and six azimuthal sectors (0–180◦ with 30◦
increment; a-g show azimuthal semblance maxima for the target horizons (labelled with white colour capital letters S1, X1, Z1, and ERS (b_EBS) and lines; see also
Figs. 1, 2).

Fig. 7. . Common Offset Common Azimuth (COCA) gathers a) before and b) after trace interpolation. The four analysed horizons are shown in the red rectangle
boxes, where the detailed views of the variable anisotropy signatures of the four analysed horizons (S1, X1, Z1, and ERS) are highlighted in the black rectangle boxes.

6
A. Asrillah et al. Geothermics 116 (2024) 102833

Fig. 8. Analysis of horizon S1 (within Upper Buntsandstein; subfigures a, c) and of the horizon X1 (top of Permian Zechstein, subfigures b, d) showing the colour-
coded two-way travel time (a, b) and the magnitude of anisotropy (parameter ε) and inferred fracture orientation (black lines, the length of the line correlates to the
magnitude of anisotropy; c, d). The colour-coded travel time map is additionally contoured in 50 ms intervals that are also projected onto the velocity anisotropy
maps. Superimposed are the mapped fault system at the top of Zechstein after Norden et al., 2023 (bold black lines) and the positioning of the Groß Schönebeck Pilot
Site (white circle) with the drill paths to the final depths of the E GrSk 3/90 and Gt GrkSk 4/05 wells (solid black).

west and east. The fracture orientation estimated by the applied method higher magnitude of anisotropy. The smaller-scaled anomaly around the
shows a very consistent orientation of ca.15⁰ to the north for this area. In coordinate 406.5/5860.5 shows a value of about 0.14 and a fracture
physical terms, this area represents a zone where the enclosed rocks orientation of ca. 75⁰ N. The lowest anisotropy values of the X1 horizon
show a faster velocity of waves in the north direction compared to the are found north and east of the drill sites, showing no distinct fracture
west-east direction. Lower anisotropy values do prevail for large regions orientation. While the magnitude of velocity anisotropy is different
south of the Groß Schönebeck drill sites (i.e. on most of the structural between the two layers, the fracture orientation correlates quite often,
flanks), higher values are observed north of the drill sites, at the top of except for an area in the central eastern margin (coordinate 409.7/
the salt pillow, again. Another region with a higher degree of anisotropy 5861.5).
is located in the NE (around the top-right corner of the research area). For the horizon at the base of the Permian Zechstein salt (Z1) and for
This area exhibits the maximum values of anisotropy for this layer. Due the Rotliegend ERS horizon, the two-way travel time structure patterns
to the low data coverage at the marginal position, we will not discuss look quite similar (Fig. 9a, b). The horizons are relatively flat, covering a
this feature in more detail. range of about 200 ms between minimum and maximum two-way travel
Compared to the anisotropy orientation determined for the S1 ho­ time. In contrast, the corresponding velocity anisotropy maps for the
rizon, the orientation for the X1 layer (Fig. 8d) is shifted to the north­ two marker horizons (Fig. 9c, d) look different. The analysis of the ve­
west, and the fracture orientations are rotated clockwise and amount to locity anisotropy of Z1 (Fig. 9c) shows a trend towards lower magni­
ca. 75⁰ N. The anisotropy pattern of X1 south of the GrSk drill sites is tudes (especially in the vicinity of the wells) compared to the Mesozoic
similar to the pattern of the analysed S1 horizon, but in general shows a S1 horizon (Fig. 8c), whereas in this layer the moderate anisotropy is

7
A. Asrillah et al. Geothermics 116 (2024) 102833

Fig. 9. Analysis of Z1 horizon (at the base of Permian Zechstein; subfigures a, c) and of the ERS horizon (within Dethlingen Formation, subfigures b, d) showing the
colour-coded two-way travel time (a, b) and the magnitude of anisotropy (parameter ε) and inferred fracture orientation (black lines, the length of the line correlates
to the magnitude of anisotropy; c, d). The colour-coded travel time map is additionally contoured according to the range of the colour bar, and also projected onto the
velocity anisotropy maps. Superimposed is the positioning of the Groß Schönebeck Pilot Site (white circle) with the drill paths of the E GrSk 3/90 and Gt GrkSk 4/05
wells (solid black). From the 3-D seismic, no faults were mapped for these horizons.

separated by the lowest degree anisotropy areas. This weak anomaly has setting. For example, anisotropy could be caused by near vertical frac­
a fracture orientation of ca. 75⁰ N in the south and north-eastern regions. tures (Rüger, 1997 and references therein) and by fine-layered and
Zones with a higher degree of anisotropy are found in the north and east dipping shale, or by overthrust belts which tilt more than 30◦ (Behera,
of the well spots. Those anomalies have a fracture orientation of ca. 75⁰ 2022). Based on the respective geological setting, an adequate anisot­
N. ropy model should be used. For observing the azimuthal anisotropy, the
The ERS horizon (Fig. 9b) is flatter than the Z1 horizon (Fig. 9a), HTI model serves best. For fine-layered strata, the VTI model is preferred
indicated by a-100 ms difference of minimum and maximum twt (see the while for thrust belt settings, the TTI model is recommended (Behera,
interval scale), and the highest values of anisotropy are found close to 2022). We decided to use the HTI model because based on the observed
the drill sites (Fig. 9d). This anomaly has a fracture orientation of ca.15⁰ fault pattern, a near-vertical fracture (normal faulting) regime appears
N. Another anomaly with high anisotropy values is located in the north reasonable. Areas showing a high anisotropy will represent zones of a
of the well locations and indicates predominant fracture orientations of high fracture swarm density, and thus highlight possible exploration
around 75⁰ N. targets that may exhibit good fracture permeability. Compared to other
methods, using seismic amplitude and frequency data is not a robust
6. Discussion and interpretation method due to unsolved acquisition footprints and it would require
perfect true amplitude processing. In contrast, the azimuthal velocity
The appropriateness of anisotropic models applied on seismic sub­ analysis is a robust method which is not so sensitive to the data quality
surface data depends on the characteristics of the respective geological (noise to signal ratio) and it is taking advantage of the many trace fold

8
A. Asrillah et al. Geothermics 116 (2024) 102833

data and the rich offset azimuth coverage. The HTI model could be 6.2. Base and below Zechstein (sub-salinar) horizons (Z1 and ERS)
further improved by the integration of additional data, e.g., if any
structural borehole data were available, ambiguous HTI patterns could The anisotropy analysis of velocity for the Z1 horizon comprises
be interpreted and cross-checked. Additionally, an inversion of anisot­ larger areas of lowest anisotropy magnitude (Fig. 9c). The anisotropy
ropy parameters could be performed and compared to the HTI anisot­ orientation in those areas as well as in the areas of more moderate
ropy model. Future work may also consider a combination with the anisotropy magnitudes may be influenced by short-scale effects. From
Amplitude Variation with Azimuth (AVA) approach. seismic analysis of the 3-D seismic volume, no distinct fault patterns
In our study, we have chosen well-pronounced, traceable seismic were mapped in this depth interval. Kossow et al. (2000) and Scheck
horizons and applied the HTI approach, considering strata above and et al. (2003) report similar observations for the base of the Zechstein
below the Permian Zechstein, to provide some first insights into possible salt, concluding that faults, if present in that depth level, are of minor
fracture network orientations for an initial structural characterization of offsets showing lengths below seismic resolution.
potential geothermal targets (e.g., within the Buntsandstein or the Therefore, the overall trend of anisotropy magnitude in this layer
sedimentary Rotliegend). It was expected that the horizons will cover should be fairly consistent. For the layer associated with the ERS hori­
different stress-field regimes (Marotta et al., 2001), as the Zechstein salt zon, the high-magnitude anomaly of anisotropy east of the GrSk 3/90
decouples the stress field between the subsalinar and the suprasalinar borehole is a dominant feature (Fig. 9d). The observed fracture orien­
(see, e.g., Röckel and Lempp, 2003). Hence, we evaluated if this tation is roughly in agreement with the expected orientation of the
assumed difference of stress-field is reflected in different anisotropy maximum horizontal stress, which was determined for the sedimentary
patterns above and below the Zechstein salt succession. Rotliegend by borehole imaging of artificially induced fractures in the
GrSk 3/90 borehole to amount to 18.5◦ N (Moeck et al., 2009a). For the
6.1. Top salt and Supra-Salinar pattern (S1 and X1 horizons) sub-salinar, other studies show similar stress field orientations (e.g.,
Roth et al., 1997; Marotta et al., 2001; 2002, and World Stress Map,
The moderate magnitude of anisotropy (north of drill sites) for the 2000).
uppermost studied horizon (S1, Fig. 8c) can be linked to seismically The higher magnitudes of anisotropy in the north of the well sites
mapped faults in the anticlinal top. The fault system consists of NNE- may originate from fractures around a system of paleo-channels that
SSW and NE-SW orientated faults that intersect with NW-SE orien­ were derived from a 3-D seismic analysis of seismic attributes (Bauer
tated faults. The orientation of the moderate anisotropy anomaly seems et al., 2020). This may also cause the prominent anisotropy magnitude
to follow the NE-SW fault structure orientations (see Fig. 8c). The faults (green colour) in the northeast.
mapped from the 3-D volume by Norden et al. (2023) were interpreted In contrast to the other investigated layers in this study, the domi­
to originate from the salt doming process, producing normal faults. nant rock type in the ERS layer is sandstone. Sandstone is less susceptible
Based on the 3-D seismic data, fault offsets are expected to be small. to stress-induced fracture, because it is in general more porous. There­
Such systems are known from Hansen et al. (2007) for the upper Bunt­ fore, the anisotropy in this layer is less pronounced compared with the
sandstein forming fracture swarms. In contrast, the two parallel NW-SE other three investigated layers. The variability of anisotropy (fracture)
orientated faults are more or less perpendicular to the velocity anomaly orientation may also be affected by lithological changes due to varia­
orientation. The faults are interpreted as a graben structure (Bauer et al., tions of the depositional system (McCann, 1998; Norden et al., 2023).
2010; Norden et al., 2023), and the anomaly does not follow the graben
trend because the moderate anisotropy is seemingly controlled by the 7. Conclusion
NNE-SSW and NE-SW faults patterns. Unfortunately, no structural logs
or other data is provided by any drilling in that area. Our velocity anisotropy analysis represents a first attempt to use this
The analysed horizon correlated with the X1 horizon (Fig. 8d), shows method for geothermal reservoir characterization and future site
a different velocity anisotropy pattern than the S1 horizon. Whereas one development. In particular, the study faced some challenges which are
part of the observed anisotropy anomaly at the top of the anticlinal related to site-specific characteristics, such as the limited number of
structure is still in some agreements with the NE-SW orientated faults boreholes and the lack of detailed information on existing fractures
(right beside the NNE-SSW fault), this is not the case for other parts. The based on the structural data. The observed heterogeneity of velocity
anisotropy distribution of layer X1 physically represents the structural anisotropy within the different horizons also reflects a natural litho­
setting at the top of the Zechstein salt structure. According to the dis­ logical heterogeneity leading to different fracture behaviour or to local
tribution of higher anisotropy magnitudes from southeast to northwest, fracture cementation, overprinting the fracture signature in the seismic
the pattern can be inferred as a footprint of salt motion, where the length velocity analysis. If more data were available, i.e. cores and borehole
of the slope/flank of the southeastern side is longer than of the north­ structural imaging tools, a direct comparison of the result or an inver­
western side (see also Krawczyk et al., 2019, in Fig. 5b), causing variable sion approach could be performed and compared to our velocity
fracture directions. These various strikes are to be expected anisotropy analysis.
geo-dynamically due to the process in the up-doming salt structure We conclude that for the horizons above the Zechstein salt, such as
experiencing two stages which are up and down (Norden et al., 2023). the Mesozoic S1 horizon, the interesting anisotropy anomalies are
On the other hand, the highest anisotropy magnitude, forming such a located in the vicinity north of the drill sites which have a consistent
counter clockwise trend of fracture orientation, is probably affected by fracture orientation of ca. 15⁰ N, fairly agreeing with the NNE-SSW and
salt mobilization that ended at the vicinity northwest of the well sites NE-SW faults mapped by the 3-D seismic. The pronounced magnitude
forming the salt anticline. As a general trend along horizon X1, the anisotropy of the uppermost Permian X1 horizon in the northwestern
largest anisotropy values are observed in the outer parts of the area of the well sites which show variable fracture orientation also
updoming salt pillow, where the top of the Zechstein runs deeper and the seems to be partly controlled by the NE-SW fault. The detection of larger
thickness of the salt layer is decreasing (Fig. 8b,d; Norden et al., 2023). A anisotropy anomalies above the salt structure may justify to study the
seismic tomography study of Bauer et al. (2010) revealed systematic geothermal potential of possible Mesozoic reservoirs. Due to a normal
velocity variations within the Zechstein layer. Higher velocities in salt faulting regime which is expected at the top of the salt anticline, even
lows compared with lower velocities in the up-doming salt pillows were reservoirs with lower thicknesses may allow sufficient fluid production,
interpreted as the remaining denser components of the mobilized salt. if the faults are still permeable. The higher productivity would
Such denser, and, hence, more brittle salt rocks could be responsible for compensate for the lower temperatures that have to be expected at
the increased anisotropy and interpreted fracturing in the outer regions shallower depths.
of the salt pillow. The deeper horizons below the Zechstein show a different anisotropy

9
A. Asrillah et al. Geothermics 116 (2024) 102833

distribution pattern. The Permian Z1 horizon (base Zechstein) exhibits Bakulin, A., Grechka, V., Tsvankin, I., 2000. Estimation of fracture parameters from
reflection seismic data—Part I: HTI model due to a single fracture set. Geophysics 65
no traceable faults. The observed anisotropy anomaly trends show var­
(6), 1788–1802. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1444863.
iable fracture orientations mostly from north to south with a clockwise Bauer, J.F., Krumbholz, M., Meier, S., Tanner, D.C., 2017. Predictability of properties of a
pattern. For the analysed ERS horizon, higher anisotropy values mag­ fractured geothermal reservoir: the opportunities and limitations of an outcrop
nitudes are present in the area east of well sites, well corresponding to analogue study. Geotherm. Energy 5 (1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40517-
017-0081-0.
the orientation of the determined stress field showing an orientation of Bauer, K., Norden, B., Ivanova, A., Stiller, M., Krawczyk, C.M., 2020. Wavelet transform-
18.5⁰ N. based seismic facies classification and modelling: application to a geothermal target
For future geothermal exploration and exploitation of the Groß horizon in the NE German Basin. Geophys. Prospect. 68 (2), 466–482. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1365-2478.12853.
Schönebeck site, horizons above the top of the Zechstein structure Behera, L., 2022. Elastic anisotropic finite-difference full-wave modeling and imaging of
should be considered in more detail. The velocity anomalies found may 2D tilted transversely isotropic (TTI) media. J. Appl. Geophy. 207, 104837. https://
result from a more intense fracturing in an extensional setting, which doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2022.104837.
Berryman, J.G., 2009. Aligned vertical fractures, HTI reservoir symmetry and Thomsen
will additionally build up flow paths, create secondary permeability and seismic anisotropy parameters for polar media. Geophys. Prospect. 57 (2), 193–208.
thus enhance the fluid productivity by assessing larger rock volumes. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2008.00767.x.
Our results present a first understanding of the fracture character­ Blöcher, G., Reinsch, T., Henninges, J., Milsch, H., Regenspurg, S., Kummerow, J.,
Francke, H., Kranz, S., Saadat, A., Zimmermann, G., Huenges, E., 2016. Hydraulic
istics below and above the Permian Zechstein salt in and around Groß history and current state of the deep geothermal reservoir Groß Schönebeck.
Schönebeck area. When new explorational data will become available, Geothermics 63, 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2015.07.008.
the robustness of the method can be better evaluated and be used to Bauer, K., Moeck, I., Norden, B., Schulze, A., Weber, M., Wirth, H., 2010. Tomographic P
wave velocity and vertical velocity gradient structure across the geothermal site
verify the findings of this study.
Groß Schönebeck (NE German Basin): relationship to lithology, salt tectonics, and
thermal regime. J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth 115 (B8), B08312. https://doi.org/
10.1029/2009JB006895.
Credit authorship contribution statement
Craft, K.L., Mallick, S., Meister, L.J., Van Dok, R., 1997. Azimuthal anisotropy analysis
from P-wave seismic traveltime data. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts
Asrillah Asrillah: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, 1997. Society of Exploration Geophysicists 1214–1217.
Data analysis, Visualization, Interpretation, Writing – original draft, Crampin, S., 1994. The fracture criticality of crustal rocks. Geophys. J. Int. 118 (2),
428–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1994.tb03974.x.
Writing – review & editing. Agus Abdullah: Methodology, Software Doornenbal, H., Stevenson, A., 2010. Petroleum Geological Atlas of the Southern
curation, Data analysis, Writing – review & editing. Klaus Bauer: Su­ Permian Basin Area. EAGE.
pervision, Data curation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. Ben Faulds, J., Hinz, N., 2015. Favorable tectonic and structural settings of geothermal
systems in the Great Basin region, western USA: proxies for discovering blind
Norden: Visualization, Interpretation, Writing – review & editing. geothermal systems. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress, Melbourne,
Charlotte M. Krawczyk: Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – Australia, 19-25 April 2015 (No. DOE-UNR-06731-02). Nevada Bureau of Mines and
review & editing. Geology, University of Nevada, Reno. NV 89557.
Gazar, A.H., Javaherian, A., Sabeti, 2011. Analysis of effective parameters for semblance-
based coherency attributes to detect micro-faults and fractures. J. Seismic. Explor.
20, 23–44.
Declaration of Competing Interest Garotta, R., 1989. Detection of azimuthal anisotropy. SEG Technical Program Expanded
Abstracts 1989 Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 861–863. https://doi.org/
10.1190/1.1889795.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Grant, M., 2013. Geothermal Reservoir Engineering. Elsevier, pp. 3–4.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Gray, D., 2007. Observations of seismic anisotropy in prestack seismic data. In: 2007 SEG
Annual Meeting, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2792394.
the work reported in this paper. Gray, D., 2008. Fracture detection using 3D seismic azimuthal AVO. CSEG Recorder 33
(3), 40–49.
Data availability Grechka, V., Tsvankin, I., 1998. 3-D description of normal moveout in anisotropic
inhomogeneous media. Geophysics 63 (3), 1079–1092. https://doi.org/10.1190/
1.1444386.
The authors do not have permission to share data. Grechka, V., Tsvankin, I., 1999a. 3-D moveout velocity analysis and parameter
estimation for orthorhombic media. Geophysics 64 (3), 820–837. https://doi.org/
10.1190/1.1444593.
Grechka, V., Theophanis, S., Tsvankin, I., 1999b. Joint inversion of P-and PS-waves in
Acknowledgments orthorhombic media: theory and a physical modeling study. Geophysics 64 (1),
146–161. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1444512.
Grechka, V., Vasconcelos, I., Kachanov, M., 2006. The influence of crack shape on the
The 3-D seismic data set used in this study was generated as part of effective elasticity of fractured rocks. Geophysics 71 (5), D153–D160. https://doi.
the research project RissDom-A, for which funding was provided by the org/10.1190/1.2240112.
German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi grant Hall, S.A., Kendall, J.M., 2003. Fracture characterization at Valhall: application of P-
wave amplitude variation with offset and azimuth (AVOA) analysis to a 3D ocean-
0324065). The author and co-authors further acknowledge the support bottom data set. Geophysics 68 (4), 1150–1160. https://doi.org/10.1190/
of the Indonesian Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Tech­ 1.1598107.
nology (BPP-LN Scholarship T/918/D3.2/KD.02.01/2019) through the Hansen, M.B., Scheck-Wenderoth, M., Hübscher, C., Lykke-Andersen, H., Dehghani, A.,
Hell, B., Gajewski, D., 2007. Basin evolution of the northern part of the Northeast
Directorate of Higher Education-Dikti Scholarship Board which fully German Basin—insights from a 3D structural model. Tectonophysics 437 (1–4),
financed the author’s study and we are also grateful to Dr. Daniele 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2007.01.010.
Hoffmann for proofreading the manuscript. Holl, H.-G., Moeck, I., Schandelmeier, H., 2005. Characterisation of the tectono-
sedimentary evolution of a geothermal reservoir – implications for exploitation
(Southern Permian Basin, NE Germany). In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress
References 2005, Antalya, Turkey, 24-29 April 2005, pp. 1–5.geothermal-energy.org.
Hoth, K., Rusbült, J., Zagora, K., Beer, H., Hartmann, O., Schretzenmayr, S., 1993. Die
tiefen Bohrungen im Zentralabschnitt der Mitteleuropäischen Senke: dokumentation
Aleardi, M., Mazzotti, A., Tognarelli, A., Ciuffi, S., Casini, M., 2015. Seismic and well log
für den Zeitabschnitt 1962-1990, Schriftenreihe für Geowissenschaften. Verl. d. Ges.
characterization of fractures for geothermal exploration in hard rocks. Geophys. J.
f. Geowiss. 145. Berlin.
Int. 203 (1), 270–283. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggv286.
Jenner, E., Williams, M., Davis, T., 2001. A new method for azimuthal velocity analysis
Agemar, T., Alten, J.A., Ganz, B., Kuder, J., Kühne, K., Schumacher, S., Schulz, R., 2014.
and application to a 3D survey, Weyburn field, Saskatchewan, Canada. SEG
The geothermal information system for Germany–GeotIS. Zeitschrift der deutschen
Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2001. Society of Exploration Geophysicists
Gesellschaft für Geowissenschaften 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1127/1860-1804/
102–105. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1816256.
2014/0060.
Jenner, E., 2002. Azimuthal AVO: methodology and data examples. The Leading Edge 21
Alkhalifah, T., Tsvankin, I., 1995. Velocity analysis for transversely isotropic media.
(8), 782–786. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1503184.
Geophysics 60 (5), 1550–1566. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1443888.
Ji-feng, D., Yi, B., Jia-yi, W., Jiang-yun, P., 2018. OVT domain regularization technique
Al-Marzoug, A.M., Neves, F.A., Kim, J.J., Nebrija, E.L., 2006. P-wave anisotropy from
application in Wide-azimuth, Broadband and High-density seismic data processing.
azimuthal AVO and velocity estimates using 3D seismic data from Saudi Arabia.
In: International Geophysical Conference, Beijing, China, 24-27 April 2018. Society
Geophysics 71 (2), E7–E11. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2187724.

10
A. Asrillah et al. Geothermics 116 (2024) 102833

of Exploration Geophysicists and Chinese Petroleum Society, pp. 286–288.https:// the 3D model of Groß Schönebeck (North German Basin). Geothermal Energy 11 (1),
doi.org/10.1190/IGC2018-070. 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40517-022-00242-2.
Kossow, D., Krawczyk, C., McCann, T., Strecker, M., Negendank, J.F., 2000. Style and Pussak, M., Bauer, K., Stiller, M., Bujakowski, W., 2014. Improved 3D seismic attribute
evolution of salt pillows and related structures in the northern part of the Northeast mapping by CRS stacking instead of NMO stacking: application to a geothermal
German Basin. Int. J. Earth Sci. 89 (3), 652–664. https://doi.org/10.1007/ reservoir in the Polish Basin. J. Appl. Geophy. 103, 186–198. https://doi.org/
s005310000116. 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2014.01.020.
Krawczyk, C.M., McCann, T., Cocks, L.R.M., England, R., McBride, J., Wybraniez, S., Reinhardt, H.G., 1993. Structure of Northeast Germany: regional depth and thickness
McCann, T., 2008a. Caledonian tectonics. In: The Geology of Central Europe, 1. maps of Permian to Tertiary intervals compiled from seismic reflection data.
Geological Society, London, pp. 301–381. ISBNprint: 978-1-86239-245-8. Generation, Accumulation and Production of. Europe’s Hydrocarbons III. Springer,
Krawczyk, C.M., Rabbel, W., Willert, S., Hese, F., Götze, H.-J., Gajewski, D., SPP- Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-77859-9_13.
Geophysics Group., 2008b. Crustal structures and properties in the Central European Roth, F., Sperner, B., Jarosinski, M., Krupsky, Y., Weigold, G., Bäbler, H., Müller, B.,
Basin system from geophysical evidence. In: Littke, R., Bayer, U., Gajewski, D., 1997. Orientation of tectonic stress from boreholes in NE Germany. Poland and the
Nelskamp, S. (Eds.), Dynamics of Complex Intracontinental Basins: The Central Western Ukraine. Terra Nostra 11 (1), 18–120.
European Basin System. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 67–95. ISBNprint: 978-3- Röckel, T., Lempp, C., 2003. Der spannungszustand im norddeutschen becken. Erdöl
540-85084-7. Erdgas Kohle 119 (2), 73–80.
Krawczyk, C.M., Tanner, D.C., Henk, A., Trappe, H., Ziesch, J., Beilecke, T., Aruffo, C.M., Rüger, A., 1997. P-wave reflection coefficients for transversely isotropic models with
Weber, B., Lippmann, A., Görke, U.J., Bilke, L., 2015. Seismic and sub-seismic vertical and horizontal axis of symmetry. Geophysics 62 (3), 713–722. https://doi.
deformation prediction in the context of geological carbon trapping and storage, org/10.1190/1.1444181.
pp. 97–113. Geological Storage of CO2–Long Term Security Aspects: Rüger, A., 1998. Variation of P-wave reflectivity with offset and azimuth in anisotropic
GEOTECHNOLOGIEN Science Report No. 22. Springer. media. Geophysics 63 (3), 935–947. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1444405.
Krawczyk, C.M., Stiller, M., Bauer, K., Norden, B., Henninges, J., Ivanova, A., Scheck, M., Bayer, U., Lewerenz, B., 2003. Salt redistribution during extension and
Huenges, E., 2019. 3-D seismic exploration across the deep geothermal research inversion inferred from 3D backstripping. Tectonophysics 373 (1–4), 55–73. https://
platform Groß Schönebeck north of Berlin/Germany. Geothermal Energy 7 (15), doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1951(03)00283-X.
1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40517-019-0131-x. Schmelzbach, C., Greenhalgh, S., Reiser, F., Girard, J.-F., Bretaudeau, F., Capar, L.,
LaPointe, P.R., Hermanson, J., Parney, R., Eiben, T., Dunleavy, M., Steele, K., Bitri, A., 2016. Advanced seismic processing/imaging techniques and their potential
Whitney, J., Eubanks, D., Straub, R., 2002. 3-D reservoir and stochastic fracture for geothermal exploration. Interpretation 4 (4), SR1–SR18. https://doi.org/
network modeling for enhanced oil recovery, circle ridge phosphoria/tensleep 10.1190/INT-2016-0017.1.
reservoir, wind river reservation, arapaho and shoshone tribes. Wyoming, tulsa, Shapiro, S.A., Kaselow, A., 2005. Porosity and elastic anisotropy of rocks under tectonic
Oklahoma. US Department of Energy Technical Report, 221 DE-FG-00BC15190. stress and pore-pressure changes. Geophysics 70, 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1190/
https://doi.org/10.2172/815454. 1.2073884.
Legarth, B., Huenges, E., Zimmermann, G., 2005. Hydraulic fracturing in a sedimentary Shen, F., Zhu, X., Toksöz, M.N., 2002. Effects of fractures on NMO velocities and P-wave
geothermal reservoir: results and implications. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 42 (7–8), azimuthal AVO response. Geophysics 67 (3), 711–726. https://doi.org/10.1190/
1028–1041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2005.05.014. 1.1484514.
Lepillier, B., Daniilidis, A., Gholizadeh, N.D., Bruna, P.O., Kummerow, J., Bruhn, D., Shouli, Q., Yuxin, J., Xin, W., Xiuling, W., Xinrong, C., Guoqiang, S., 2007. Fracture
2019. A fracture flow permeability and stress dependency simulation applied to detection by using full azimuth P wave attributes. Appl. Geophys. 4 (3), 238–243.
multi-reservoirs, multi-production scenarios analysis. Geothermal Energy 7 (24), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11770-007-0032-9.
1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40517-019-0141-8. Stiller, M., Bauer, K., Henninges, J., Norden, B., Krawczyk, C., Huenges, E., 2018. 3D
Li, X., 2008. An introduction to common offset vector trace gathering. CSEG Recorder 33 seismic survey at the geothermal research platform Groß Schönebeck /Germany.
(9), 28–34. EAGE Conference, p. 5.https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201801627.
Li, X.Y., 1999. Fracture detection using azimuthal variation of P-wave moveout from Stober, I., Bucher, K., 2014. Hydraulic and hydrochemical properties of deep
orthogonal seismic survey lines. Geophysics 64 (4), 1193–1201. https://doi.org/ sedimentary aquifers of the Upper Rhine Graben, Europe. Geofluids 15 (3), 464–482.
10.1190/1.1444626. https://doi.org/10.1111/gfl.12122.
Liu, E., Martinez, A., 2012. Seismic Fracture Characterization – Concepts and Practical Stober, I., Bucher, K., 2015. Hydraulic conductivity of fractured upper crust: insights
Applications, Education Tour Series. EAGE Publications, The Netherlands, from hydraulic tests in boreholes and fluid-rock interaction in crystalline basement
pp. 17–18. bv. PO Box 59 3990 DB HOUTEN. rocks. Geofluids 16, 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119166573.ch15.
Liu, Y., 2014. AVAz and VVAZ practical analysis for estimating HTI anisotropic Suo, C., Peng, S., Chang, S., Duan, R., Wang, G., 2012. A new calculating method of the
properties. In: Beijing 2014 International Geophysical Conference & Exposition. curvature to predicting the reservoir fractures. Procedia Environ. Sci. 12, 576–582.
Society of Exploration Geophysicists and Chinese Petroleum Society, Beijing, China, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2012.01.320.
pp. 1132–1135, 21-24 April 2014. https://doi.org/10.1190/IGCBeijing2014-287 Thomsen, L., 1986. Weak elastic anisotropy. Geophysics 51, 1954–1966. https://doi.org/
Lüschen, E., Wolfgramm, M., Fritzer, T., Dussel, M., Thomas, R., Schulz, R., 2014. 3D 10.1190/1.1442051.
seismic survey explores geothermal targets for reservoir characterization at Treadgold, G., Sicking, C., Sublette, V., Hoover, G., 2008. Azimuthal processing for
Unterhaching, Munich, Germany. Geothermics 50, 167–179. https://doi.org/ fracture prediction and image improvement. SEG Technical Program Expanded
10.1016/j.geothermics.2013.09.007. Abstracts 2008 Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 988–992.https://doi.org/
Lüschen, E., Görne, S., von Hartmann, H., Thomas, R., Schulz, R., 2015. 3D seismic 10.1190/1.3063803.
survey for geothermal exploration in crystalline rocks in saxony, Germany. Geophys. Tsvankin, I., 1997. Reflection moveout and parameter estimation for horizontal
Prospect. 63, 975–989. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12249. transverse isotropy. Geophysics 62 (2), 614–629. https://doi.org/10.1190/
Lynn, H.B., Beckham, W.E., Simon, K.M., Bates, C.R., Layman, M., Jones, M., 1999. P- 1.1444170.
wave and S-wave azimuthal anisotropy at a naturally fractured gas reservoir, Tsvankin, I., Grechka, V., 2011. Seismology of azimuthally anisotropic media and seismic
Bluebell-Altamont Field. Utah. Geophysics 64 (4), 1312–1328. https://doi.org/ fracture characterization. Soci. Explorat. Geophys, p. 1–122. https://doi.org/
10.1190/1.1444636. 10.1190/1.9781560802839.refs.
Marfurt, K.J., 2018. Seismic attributes as the framework for data integration throughout Tsvankin, I., 2012. Seismic signatures and analysis of reflection data in anisotropic
the oilfield life cycle. SEG Distinguished Instructor Ser. 21, 508. media. Soc. Explorat. Geophys, p. 7–161. https://doi.org/10.1190/
Marotta, A.M., Bayer, U., Scheck, M., Thybo, H., 2001. The stress field below the NE 1.9781560803003.refs.
German Basin: effects induced by the Alpine collision. Geophys. J. Int. 144 (2), Upadhyay, S.K., 2013. Seismic Reflection Processing: with Special Reference to
F8–F12. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-246x.2001.00373.x. Anisotropy. Springer Science & Business Media. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg,
Marotta, A.M., Bayer, U., Thybo, H., Scheck, M., 2002. Origin of the regional stress in the pp. 77–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-09843-1.
North German basin: results from numerical modeling. Tectonophysics 360, Vannucci, P., 2018. General anisotropic elasticity. Anisotropic Elasticity. Springer,
245–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1951(02)00358-X. Singapore, pp. 19–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5439-6_2.
McCann, T., 1998. Sandstone composition and provenance of the Rotliegend of the NE von Hartmann, H.von, Beilecke, T., Buness, H., Musmann, P., Schulz, R., 2015.
German Basin. Sediment. Geol. 116, 177–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0037-0738 Seismische exploration für tiefe Geothermie. Geol. Jb. B 104 27, 171 figures7 tables;
(97)00106-1. Hannover.
Minsley, B.J., Burns, D.R., Willis, M.E., 2003. Fractured reservoir characterization using Wadas, S.H., von Hartmann, H., 2022. Porosity estimation of a geothermal carbonate
azimuthal AVO. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Earth Resour. Lab. 1–20. reservoir in the German Molasse Basin base on seismic amplitude inversion.
http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/67865. Geotherm. Energy 10 (1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40517-022-00223-5.
Moeck, I., Kwiatek, G., Zimmermann, G., 2009a. Slip tendency analysis, fault Wadas, S.H., Krumbholz, J.F., Shipilin, V., Krumbholz, M., Tanner, D.C., Buness, H.,
reactivation potential and induced seismicity in a deep geothermal reservoir. 2023. Advanced seismic characterization of a geothermal carbonate reservoir –
J. Struct. Geol. 31 (10), 1174–1182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2009.06.012. insight into the structure and diagenesis of a reservoir in the German Molasse Basin.
Moeck, I., Schandelmeier, H., Holl, H.G., 2009b. The stress regime in a Rotliegend Solid Earth 14 (8), 871–908. https://doi.org/10.5194/se-14-871-2023.
reservoir of the Northeast German Basin. Int. J. Earth Sci. 98 (7), 1643–1654. Wang, N., Mantagner, J.-P., Fichtner, A., Capdeville, Y., 2013. Intrinsic versus extrinsic
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00531-008-0316-1. seismic anisotropy: the radial anisotropy in reference Earth models. Geophys. Res.
Nadoll, P., Sośnicka, M., Kraemer, D., Duschl, F., 2019. Post-Variscan structurally- Lett. 40, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50873.
controlled hydrothermal Zn-Fe-Pb sulfide and F-Ba mineralization in deep-seated Wang, J., Zheng, Y., Perz, M., 2007. VVAZ vs. AVAZ: practical implementation and
Paleozoic units of the North German Basin: a review. Ore Geol. Rev. 106, 273–299. comparison of two fracture-detection methods. SEG Technical Program Expanded
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2004.10.009. Abstracts 2007. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 189–193.
Norden, B., Bauer, K., Krawczyk, C.M., 2023. From pilot site knowledge via integrated Wawerzinek, B., Buness, H., von Hartmann, H., Tanner, D.C., 2021. S-wave experiments
reservoir characterization to utilization perspectives of a deep geothermal reservoir: for the exploration of a deep geothermal carbonate reservoir in the German Molasse

11
A. Asrillah et al. Geothermics 116 (2024) 102833

Basin. Geotherm. Energy 9 (1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40517-021-00189- Zhang, J., Qi, J., Zeng, Y., Marfurt, K., Slatt, R., 2020. Azimuthal anisotropy analysis
w. applied to naturally fractured unconventional reservoirs: a Barnett Shale example.
Wenke, A., Kreuter, H., Gall, W., Gutekunst, S., Rohrer, L., Zühlke, R., 2010. First steps in Interpretation 8 (4), SP13–SP29. https://doi.org/10.1190/INT-2019-0206.1.
the development of a new geothermal field in the Northern part of the Upper Rhine Ziesch, J., Tanner, D.C., Krawczyk, C.M., 2019. Sub-seismic pathway prediction by three-
Graben, Germany. In: Proceedings Word Geothermal Congress: Bali, Indonesia, dimensional structural restoration and strain analysis based on seismic
pp. 25–29. interpretation. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull. 103 (10), 2317–2342. https://doi.org/
World Stress Map, 2000. http://www-wsm.physik.uni-karlsruhe.de. 6th December 2022. 10.1306/0130191516517255.
Yilmaz, Ö., 2001. Seismic Data Analysis: Processing, Inversion, and Interpretation of Zimmermann, G., Blöcher, G., Reinicke, A., Brandt, W., 2011. Rock specific hydraulic
Seismic Data. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 271–324. fracturing and matrix acidizing to enhance a geothermal system—concepts and field
results. Tectonophysics 503 (1–2), 146–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tecto.2010.09.026.

12