PROCEEDINGS

Joint Convention Balikpapan 2015

HAGI-IAGI-IAFMI-IATMI
58 October 2015

Gravity and magnetics for hydrocarbon and geothermal exploration (Invited)

Hendra Grandis
Applied and Exploration Geophysics Research Group, Faculty of Mining and Petroleum Engineering,
Institut Teknologi Bandung.
Introduction
Seismics remains the primary method for exploring hydrocarbon prospects. However, for preliminary and regional
scale exploration, it is rationally to implement inexpensive
geophysical exploration methods before seismic detailing.
The use of gravity and magnetic methods for basin
delineation at a regional scale, especially in hydrocarbon
exploration, is well-known (e.g. Chapin and Ander, 1999;
Oru et al., 2013). In such cases, gravity method can be
applied in different scenarios. This talk will discuss those
scenarios by giving several examples. Magnetic method
will be more emphasized in geothermal exploration.

the data for a particular area of interest. At this sub-regional

scale, it is possible to model the basement topography in
2D or 3D. Both simple approximative technique using the
Bouguer plate concept and state-of-the-art algorithm (e.g.
Handyarso, 2015) can be applied. The gravity data
modeling can be performed either before or after seismic
data acqusition. The latter case may help in the basement
delineation when it is less obvious from seismic data. Both
regional and sub-regional gravity data may serve as "tie" to
more local and detailed gravity data discussed below.

Regional Scale Gravity Data

Gravity data at a very broad regional scale can be
downloaded freely from repositories, e.g. the Bureau
Gravimtrique International or BGI (http://bgi.omp.obsmip.fr) and others. The data were derived either from
satellite altimetry or Earth Gravity Model (EGM). Both are
continuously updated and improved. The regional gravity
data are available as free-air gravity or Bouguer gravity
anomalies. When only free-air gravity data, further
processing steps are needed to obtain the Bouguer anomaly,
for example by using a computer program provided by
Fullea et al. (2008). Figure 1 shows an example of gravity
data from around birds head area Papua.
Regional gravity data from such a very broad area are
seldom directly interpreted quantitatively, by modeling for
example. However, they can be used, along with regional
geology information, to delineate and to limit the area of
interest. A qualitative analysis of freely available gravity
data showed that they are comparable to airborne gravity
data. The difference is only minor detail in the high
frequency content. This situation may sometimes avoid the
necessity of acquiring relatively expensive airborne (or
ground) regional gravity data. A number of leading
companies, e.g. GETECH, further claimed that they have
improved significantly the satellite derived gravity data
(Fairhead et al., 2004). Their processing algorithm resulted
in a better resolution of data near to the shore with a good
accuracy compared to shipborne gravity data (Figure 2).

Figure 1. An example of gravity data from BGI http://

bgi.omp.obs-mip.fr from around birds head area Papua.

Sub-Regional Scale Gravity Data

Bouguer gravity maps have been published by Geological
Survey of Indonesia since a long time ago. Maps are
available in quadrangles similar to geological maps but
with smaller scale. We can digitize those maps and re-grid

Figure 2. Near-shore improved gravity data from satellite

altimetry (Fairhead et al., 2004).

PROCEEDINGS
Joint Convention Balikpapan 2015
HAGI-IAGI-IAFMI-IATMI
58 October 2015
Local Scale Gravity Data
The regional and sub-regional gravity data as mentioned
above are usually able to give an insight on the regional
scale tectonic framework of the interest area. However,
conducting a dedicated gravity survey is sometimes needed
before a seismic survey. In such case, a trade-off between
regional coverage (hence, with low spatial resolution) and
obtaining more detailed gravity anomalies must be decided.
It is also a current practice to perform gravity and magnetic
surveys at the same time with the seismic survey. This
strategy is adopted mainly for marine survey and is
justified by both technical and practical reasoning as well.
An addition of gravity and magnetic passive measurement
instruments will not disturb the seismic data acquisition
process. Furthermore, adding only a small fraction of the
total budget of the entire survey will lead to more
significant information obtained from a single field
campaign. For land seismic survey, it is also customary to
conduct a gravity survey along the seismic traverse lines
having a well defined GPS positioning. The disadvantage
of such combined survey is that the extent of gravity and
magnetic surveys is rather limited.

causative bodies associated with gravity and magnetic data

is assumed identical. Then, we can always assign lateral
variation of magnetization parameters, i.e. magnetic
susceptibility, to obtain calculated magnetic anomalies
matched to the observed data.
In geothermal exploration, magnetic data can play an
important role, especially at the preliminary and regional
scale survey. Altered rocks related to heating and
hydrothermal process underneath will be significantly
demagnetized, giving rise to magnetic anomalies. However,
rough topography of geothermal areas related to volcanism
leads to difficulties in applying magnetic method. Ideally,
magnetic method is conducted as an airborne survey to
cover a vast area in the preliminary and regional scale
survey for geohtermal prospecting. Figure 4 shows an
example on how magnetic data are interpreted in terms of
demagnetized zones (Sungkono, 2015).

With an adequate spatial resolution, the gravity data can be

interpreted and modeled independently or along with the
seismic data when they are available later. The basement
topography from gravity data can either confirm or
different than the one from seismic data. In any case, the
information on the basement depth can be used for hydrocarbon prospectivity evaluation.
Anomaly Enhancement Processing
The availability of gridded data allows further processing
for anomaly enhancements, e.g. regional - residual anomaly
separation and application of different filtering techniques.
Current practice in anomaly enhancement processing
employs spectral analysis and filtering in the Fourier
domain. For that purpose 2D FFT (Fast Fourier Transform)
processing is necessary since the data are in 2D cartesian
space. Therefore, 1D FFT applied to profile data to obtain
the spectrum of the 2D distributed data is questionable.
Furthermore, processing in the Fourier domain is superior
both in speed and accuracy than the one in space domain,
e.g. moving average. Figure 3 is an example of the radially
averaged spectrum of gravity data showing also depth
estimates related to certain anomalies wavelength.
Magnetic Data
The basement delineation from magnetic data is sometimes more difficult, although they can be integrated with
gravity data. The airborne magnetic data are usually of low
amplitude. Therefore, in most cases magnetic data are
interpreted qualitatively. In practice, the geometry of

Figure 3. Radially averaged spectrum obtained from 2D

FFT of gravity data (top). The spectrum is used to
determine the spatial frequency cut-off for further filtering
process. The depth estimates (bottom) are obtained from
the spectrum gradient at 3 to 5 successive points.
Conclusions
Regional and sub-regional gravity data opens possibilities
in hydrocarbon explorations, especially in frontier areas
where data availability is very limited. In addition to
basement geometry from seismic data (if available), gravity
data may also contribute to its further refinement. Hence,
comprehensive hydrocarbon prospectivity analysis of the
interest area can be conducted. With a rather limited role,
magnetic data may complement gravity data in the
hydrocarbon exploration. However, magnetic data have
been proven to be very effective in geothermal exploration.

PROCEEDINGS
Joint Convention Balikpapan 2015
HAGI-IAGI-IAFMI-IATMI
58 October 2015
Acknowledgments
The author is grateful to the technical session committee
for providing the opportunity to present the paper in a
specialized session. Dr. Supriyono from BP Indonesia is
thanked for providing some of the gravity data processing
results presented in this paper.
References
Chapin, D.A. and M.E. Ander, 1999, in Beaumont, E.A.
and N.H. Foster (eds.), American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Treatise of Petroleum Geology
Handbook, Exploring for Oil and Gas Traps.

Fullea, J., M. Fernndez and H. Zeyen, 2008, Computers &

Geosciences, 34, 16651681.
Fairhead, J.D., C.M. Green and K.M.U. Fletcher, 2004,
First Break, 22, 59-63.
Handyarso, A., 2015, Gravity Inversion Modeling with
Regularization for 3D Basement Topography Estimation, Master Thesis, Geophysical Engineering, Institut
Teknologi Bandung (text in Indonesian).
Oru, B., I. Sertelik, . Kafadar and H.H. Selim, 2013,
Journal of Applied Geophysics, 88, 105113.
Sungkono, S., 2015, Proceedings World Geothermal
Congress, Melbourne, Australia, 19-25 April 2015.

Figure 4. Example of 3D magnetic modeling result of airborne magnetic data showing demagnetized zones correlated with wellknown geothermal prospect areas (Sungkono, 2015).