A new Zealandia-wide seismic horizon naming

scheme

D.P. Strogen P.R. King

GNS Science Report 2014/34

June 2014
 BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE

Strogen, D.P., King, P.R. 2014. A new Zealandia-wide seismic horizon naming
scheme, GNS Science Report 2014/34. 20 p.

D. P. Strogen, GNS Science, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt 5040, New Zealand
P. R. King, GNS Science, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt 5040, New Zealand

© Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited, 2014

ISSN 1177-2425 (Print)

ISSN 2350-3424 (Online)
ISBN 978-1-927278—59-8
 CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ..........................................................................................................................III
KEYWORDS .........................................................................................................................III
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1
2.0 EXISTING HORIZON NAMING SCHEMES ................................................................2
2.1 PREVIOUS GNS SCIENCE TARANAKI (4DT) HORIZON NAMING SCHEME ................. 2
2.2 TARANAKI SCHEMES IN USE WITHIN THE EXPLORATION INDUSTRY ......................... 2
2.3 CANTERBURY-GREAT SOUTH BASIN SCHEMES (GNS AND INDUSTRY)................... 3
2.4 COMMENTS ON EXISTING SCHEMES ....................................................................3
3.0 NEW ZEALANDIA-WIDE HORIZON NAMING SCHEME ........................................... 5
3.1 NUMBERING SYSTEM .........................................................................................5
3.1.1 Letter prefix.........................................................................................................5
3.1.2 Numbers .............................................................................................................5
3.2 THE ONGOING SAGA OF BASE VS. TOP .................................................................6
3.3 COLOUR SCHEME ..............................................................................................7
3.4 DEALING WITH UNCONFORMITIES ........................................................................7
3.5 TRANSLATION OF OLDER SCHEMES .....................................................................8
4.0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...........................................................................................11
5.0 REFERENCES .........................................................................................................11

FIGURES
Figure 1 Comparison between existing naming schemes for seismic horizons in Taranaki and
Great South Basin, used by GNS Science and industry. .............................................................. 4
Figure 2 Zealandia-wide seismic horizon naming scheme and comparison with previous scheme
used in 4DT project, and showing updated 4DT horizon names using the new scheme.............. 9

TABLES
Table 1 The new naming scheme applied to Taranaki seismic horizons from the 4DT. .......................... 10

GNS Science Report 2014/34 i

 APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: EXISTING INDUSTRY SCHEMES FROM PETROLEUM REPORTS ......... 15

APPENDIX FIGURES
Figure A1 Old Fletcher Challenge scheme used for onshore Taranaki....................................................... 15
Figure A2 Older STOS scheme from Taranaki. .......................................................................................... 16
Figure A3 Todd scheme from Taranaki....................................................................................................... 17
Figure A4 Modern STOS scheme from Taranaki. ....................................................................................... 18
Figure A5 OMV scheme from northern Taranaki. ....................................................................................... 19
Figure A6 OMV scheme from the Great South Basin. ................................................................................ 20

ii GNS Science Report 2014/34

 ABSTRACT

This report introduces a new Zealandia-wide seismic horizon naming scheme. It also
explains the need for such a scheme to overcome incompatibilities between existing
schemes and the difficulties in their application, both within the Taranaki Basin and
elsewhere.

Our new standardised horizon scheme has been adapted from an earlier version devised for
the 4D Taranaki mapping project being undertaken by GNS Science as part of our core-
funded research. The scheme uses a letter prefix (K, P, N) to demarcate horizons of
Cretaceous, Paleogene and Neogene age respectively, which are individually numbered in
ascending (younging) order in multiples of 5 or 10 within each of these major time periods.
The main modification herein is the tying of these benchmark horizons to national
biostratigraphic events (i.e. New Zealand stage boundaries), rather than tectono-stratigraphic
events that might only occur locally within individual basins.

The currently oldest horizon assigned within the Cretaceous is K40. This provides plenty of
scope for naming any older horizons should they be mapped in future. The basal horizon for
each of the Paleogene and Neogene intervals has been renumbered 00 rather than 10, as
was the case previously (e.g. the base Paleocene is now P00 not P10). This minor revision is
aimed at reducing confusion by removing any implication that Paleocene strata may be
present beneath (i.e. there might be such strata beneath a horizon labelled P10, but not
below one labelled P00). To accommodate previously-released reports from the 4D Taranaki
project we present a translation from the immediate precursor GNS Science Taranaki
naming scheme to the new scheme, which will henceforth be used for future outputs from
Taranaki and other basins.

KEYWORDS

Seismic horizon naming scheme; unconformity; Zealandia; Taranaki Basin; Canterbury

Basin; Great South Basin

GNS Science Report 2014/34 iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In New Zealand petroleum geology, seismic horizon names are usually assigned in an ad
hoc way by different companies in different areas for different projects. In the same vein,
GNS Science has used various naming schemes over the years, with the most elaborate
being that devised for our ongoing flagship 4D Taranaki mapping project. However, it has
become increasingly clear from a number of in-house seismic interpretation projects, both
within the greater Taranaki region, but especially in areas outside of Taranaki, such as
Reinga-Northland, East Coast and Canterbury-Great South basins, that there is a need for a
standardised Zealandia-wide seismic horizon naming scheme.

To some extent, the need for a new Zealandia-wide horizon naming scheme has been
precipitated by the recently completed NZ Seismic Framework (NZSF) project carried out by
GNS Science for NZP&M (Bland et al., 2014). This project required a standardised set of
horizons to be mapped throughout a number of basins across Zealandia. Given that
geological time is a constant across all basins the NZSF project therefore mapped horizons
of selected ages (top Cretaceous, top Paleocene, top Eocene etc.), rather than horizons with
particular sequence stratigraphic relevance to any one basin. This made it much easier to
compare and contrast broad sedimentary successions across a wide area, without
necessarily requiring a detailed knowledge of the stratigraphic intricacies of individual
basins.

The need to develop a standardised horizon naming convention also reflects our increasing
push towards more detailed seismic mapping of frontier regions beyond the Taranaki Basin.
Through the initiative presented here we hope to pre-empt and avoid an unnecessary
proliferation of similar sounding, but non-compatible naming schemes being erected in
different basins (see comparison of Taranaki and Great South basin schemes in Figure 1).

The main aim of our seismic interpretation projects is to map chronostratigraphic horizons
(geological time lines). The naming scheme initially developed by GNS Science for Taranaki
Basin (see below) was based on local stratigraphic events, correlated to approximate
absolute age through calibration with, and at times interpolation of, biostratigraphic data. For
more regional Zealandia-wide application, it is preferable to have a standard set of seismic
horizons benchmarked to standard age markers that are as well defined as possible.
Accordingly, the amended scheme documented here nominally assigns a seismic horizon for
virtually every mid-Cretaceous to Pleistocene stage boundary in the NZ Geological
Timescale.

The scheme proposed here is conceptually broadly similar to various schemes used by
industry, but differs in detail, as do each of the company schemes. We hope that the
proposed scheme will gain wider acceptance, because a standardised convention for naming
New Zealand seismic stratigraphy would be ideal. However, we recognise that individual
companies may be reluctant to alter their established systems.

GNS Science Report 2014/34 1

2.0 EXISTING HORIZON NAMING SCHEMES

2.1 PREVIOUS GNS SCIENCE TARANAKI (4DT) HORIZON NAMING SCHEME

Within the GNS Science 4-D Taranaki (4DT) project, which involves detailed seismic
reflection mapping over the greater Taranaki Basin region, a standardised horizon naming
scheme has been in use since 2009 (Bland et al., 2009), as described in Roncaglia et al.
(2010) and used in Fohrmann et al. (2012). This eschewed naming horizons for
lithostratigraphic formation boundaries (e.g. Top Taimana, Top Tikorangi etc.) for an
alphanumeric naming scheme with no formational affinities, using a prefix (K, P, N for
Cretaceous, Paleogene and Neogene respectively), followed by a number from 10 to 90 in
ascending (younging) stratigraphic order. The main numbers (multiples of 10) were chosen
to reflect major surfaces or sequence boundaries within the basin, with intermediate numbers
available to be used as required. It was felt that using formation names was a bad idea in a
project covering the whole basin, given that some formations are not present everywhere
throughout the basin, and many formation tops are highly diachronous over large distances.
In either of these cases, lithostratigraphic correlation (e.g. between wells) becomes
confusing. Ideally, seismic reflection mapping, at least on a regional scale, should be
attempting to correlate geological time lines, not lithostratigraphic boundaries.

Importantly, horizons are only named with their alphanumeric qualifier; there is no top or
base as a prefix (i.e. not base_K90 or top_K90). Sequences contained between two given
horizons are named after the lowermost horizon (e.g. the interval between horizons K80 and
K90 is called the K80 sequence). As another example, the top Cretaceous/base Paleocene
is named P10, not K90 or K100. The premise relates to sequence stratigraphy, in which
sequences correspond to deposition through time, with progressive stacking of strata above
a basal boundary. Whilst there was some resistance to this approach from those more
familiar with using tops, it has worked satisfactorily. It certainly is more logical, at least from a
sedimentological and basin-fill viewpoint. In terms of seismic mapping, the important thing is
knowing what to call the mapped reflectors/horizons, with the naming of the intervening
sequences of less importance

This historical naming scheme was arrived at after much prolonged discussion, and has
been used successfully within the 4DT project for roughly five years. This scheme is shown
in Figure 1.

2.2 TARANAKI SCHEMES IN USE WITHIN THE EXPLORATION INDUSTRY

A large number of different regional horizon naming schemes have been used over the years
by exploration companies. Many of these have been based on formation tops alone, and will
not be further discussed here (for the reasons stated above, that formation tops do not make
good regional markers due to their diachroneity and non-ubiquity).

However, alphanumeric naming schemes have been or are in use within a number of
companies; these are shown in Figure 1 alongside the previous 4DT GNS Science scheme.
Existing horizon naming schemes that are publically available, include those of STOS (Shell
Todd Oil Services Ltd., 2004; Telford and Murray, 2006), Todd (Todd Petroleum Mining
Company Limited, 2006) and OMV (Clayton, 2011). An older Fletcher Challenge scheme for
onshore Taranaki (Yang, 2001) is also shown for comparison, as it is quite different in style,
although as this company no longer exists it is unclear if this is in use by anyone at present.

2 GNS Science Report 2014/34

Whilst these compilation of schemes may not be comprehensive, and others may be in use,
they represent those that are in the public domain, and give a good idea of the variation
between schemes. The petroleum report figures from which these schemes have been
harvested are given in Appendix 1.

2.3 CANTERBURY-GREAT SOUTH BASIN SCHEMES (GNS AND INDUSTRY)

Recent renewed exploration in the Canterbury-Great South Basin has also resulted in
naming schemes being adopted in this region. Some of these, such as that used by Exxon
(ExxonMobil Exploration Company, 2010) used a mix of named ages and sequence
stratigraphy (e.g. Top Danian flooding surface, Top Campanian 2nd order flooding surface
etc.), and will not be further considered here. That used by Origin Energy in Canterbury, was
Top Cretaceous, Base Oligocene etc. (Mogg, 2007). More recently, an alphanumeric scheme
used by OMV in the Great South Basin (Constable and Crookbain, 2011) has been released,
and this is shown in Figure 1. It should be noted that this is very different to that used by
OMV (and others) in Taranaki.

Previous GNS work in Great South Basin used major epoch/period boundaries (top
Cretaceous, top Paleocene etc.; Uruski and Ilg, 2006). More recent, detailed GNS
interpretation in the region (Sahoo et al., 2014), has used an alphanumeric scheme (Figure
1), which was developed separately from that released by OMV (see above), although the
numbering style was altered to mimic the OMV scheme once this was released.

2.4 COMMENTS ON EXISTING SCHEMES

The wide variety of different (although sometimes only subtly so) schemes in use within the
Taranaki Basin shows that a more systematic regional naming scheme is required, and
certainly that there is no one pre-eminent scheme that could be easily adopted by all. This
was a key reason for erecting our original scheme for the 4-D Taranaki project.

Whilst the extant GNS scheme has worked well within Taranaki, it is clear that it does not
apply well to other basins such as the Great South Basin, which led us to adopt another
scheme there (Sahoo et al., 2014), similar to the one used by OMV. However, the overall fact
that the schemes in use in the Great South and Taranaki basins are very different highlights
the need for a common Zealandia-wide scheme, so that seismic horizons of any particular
age will always be given the same name. Put another way, no matter where a seismic
horizon is mapped, its name (e.g. K90) will automatically convey some idea of the relative
age of that horizon.

GNS Science Report 2014/34 3

Figure 1 Comparison between existing naming schemes for seismic horizons in Taranaki and Great South
Basin, used by GNS Science and industry.

4 GNS Science Report 2014/34

3.0 NEW ZEALANDIA-WIDE HORIZON NAMING SCHEME

This section briefly outlines some of the philosophy and rationale behind the new Zealandia-
wide scheme, and some pertinent background points relating to the discussions that led to
the new scheme. The new scheme is shown in Figure 2.

3.1 NUMBERING SYSTEM

Our new alphanumeric horizon naming convention is in accord with the apparent preference
of most New Zealand petroleum companies for this type of scheme.

3.1.1 Letter prefix

Current practice in New Zealand is to use letter prefixes to denote the very broad geological
time periods for a given horizon. In terms of what periods to use, and hence which letters to
use as prefixes, there are several options, each with its pros and cons. These include the
GNS Science status quo (K, P, N), a simpler scheme (K, T; as in some industry schemes) or
an expanded scheme using each epoch, that is, Early and Late Cretaceous (combined as K),
Paleocene (P), Eocene (E), Miocene (M), and Pliocene-Pleistocene (combined as Pl). It was
decided that the simpler (K, T) scheme was not ideal, as it would require an extended
numbering hierarchy and otherwise provides insufficient subdivision through the Tertiary,
given the complexity of Tertiary geology across Zealandia. If we used only T for the Tertiary,
we would be merely adding another set of numbered variations to those already present
within industry. However we believe that an expanded (K, P, E, O…) scheme goes too far in
the other direction, and is a bit too much removed from existing schemes, thereby creating
more potential for confusion. We have therefore retained K, P and N as the primary time
subdivisions for packaging horizons within. This will provide better discrimination compared
to many company schemes that use K and T only. It will also clearly distinguish this new
Zealandia-wide scheme from existing parochial basin or company schemes. The latter
schemes are not really interchangeable, as they have a number of differences, ranging from
significant to subtle. Thus, our proposed scheme (K, P, N) will provide an alternative
standardised framework that will potentially allow these contradictions and variances to be
eliminated entirely. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that its adoption is clearly optional.

3.1.2 Numbers

Numbers are sequentially assigned from the bottom up within each of the major time
subdivisions (K, P, N). The lowest name assigned for a horizon in the Cretaceous is K40,
which leaves plenty of scope for allocating numbers for older strata should it be deemed
necessary to map horizons of Urutawan age or older. The lowest numbers for Paleogene
and Neogene are P00 and N00, respectively (see below). Thereafter, we have allocated
major number increments (usually in multiples of five or ten) to most of the main divisions of
the New Zealand timescale. The only exception to this is the Clifdenian-Lillburnian boundary,
which is assigned N32, due to the short duration of the Clifdenian Stage.

We specifically calibrate our benchmark horizons to stage boundaries, but also include sub-
stage boundaries within long stages (e.g. Haumurian, Teurian, Whaingaroan). Many horizons
already in use in local schemes, both in Taranaki and elsewhere, already closely fit with
these stage boundaries. This numbering approach also allows scope to introduce extra
integers (1–4 or 1–9) to cater for additional mapped horizons between the standard horizon
markers. For example, locally important reflectors with intra-stage ages in Taranaki Basin

GNS Science Report 2014/34 5

have been assigned intermediate numbers N34, N68 and N82 in our updated scheme
(Figure 2). Also, this system provides flexibility for naming different horizons in various
basins, given that the geology of each basin will have differences, and not all of the
benchmark horizons may be present or mappable. We chose to use numbers, rather than
letter abbreviations based on stage names, because this is a general convention, and
because overseas geoscientists unfamiliar to New Zealand chronostratigraphy should find it
easier to assimilate.

We are not suggesting that local sequence stratigraphic schemes shouldn’t be used within
basins, merely that the horizon naming protocol should be consistent throughout the basins.
The advantage of using a time-based scheme (i.e. NZ stage boundaries) for the overall
framework, rather than local sequence stratigraphic schemes, is that it can be applied
throughout Zealandia, given that geological time is the common denominator in all basins.
So, for instance, wherever a horizon representing the Ar-Lwh time boundary is mapped, it will
be labelled the same way (i.e. P50).

The New Zealand stages are defined by endemic biostratigraphic datums and correlated to
the international time scale to establish their absolute ages. However we have purposefully
tied the benchmark horizons to stage boundaries, rather than fixed ages (in Ma), to preclude
the need to rename them whenever future changes are made to the precise ages of the
timescale. The numbers used in the naming convention increase up-section, to illustrate the
progressive stacking of depositional intervals, and to also explicitly convey that they do not
equate to absolute age. However, absolute ages (in Ma) for any given horizon can be
obtained by correlating to or interpolating between the designated stage boundary ages on
the current New Zealand timescale (Raine et al., 2012).

One obvious change compared to the previous GNS 4DT scheme, is the adoption of 00
rather than 10 for the basal horizon in the Paleogene and Neogene. Because the Paleocene
spans a relatively long time interval, we previously labelled the nominal base Paleocene as
P10, which would allow the possibility for older horizons (in the range P00–P09) to be used,
in the event that we subsequently found that P10 was within, rather than the base of the
Paleocene. However, given that the new system is time based, P00 is by definition, the K-T
boundary. Ideally, if a mapped horizon cannot be unequivocally dated as the K-T boundary, it
should be assigned a name other than P00. Equally, should a mapped horizon turn out to be
younger than this, it can be renamed P01, P02 etc.

We note that OMV have named their lowest mapped sequence in the Great South Basin as
T00 (Figure 1), but unlike our scheme, they label its top as 00 (i.e. T00). This does not allow
for any future subdivision of their lower interval (unless a negative number is used).

Whilst there should be sufficient numbers available within our new scheme for most
purposes, any further sub-division required as a result of very detailed studies can be
achieved using any number of suffixes, such as ‘P01a, P01b…’ or ‘P01_1, P01_2…’.

3.2 THE ONGOING SAGA OF BASE VS. TOP

As with the previous 4DT scheme (and many industry schemes), the horizons are simply
named e.g. ‘P00’, with no prefixes such as ‘base_P00’ or ‘top_P00’. This helps to constrain
seismic mapping to specific geological time lines and avoids any potential confusion with
mapping of lithostratigraphic datums. We continue the tradition inherent in sequence
stratigraphy, and consider any major horizon subdividing a stacked sedimentary succession
to mark the base of the overlying unit in the succession, not the top of the underlying. It is

6 GNS Science Report 2014/34

this reason that, for instance, the Cretaceous-Paleocene boundary is named ‘P00’ and not
‘K90’ or ‘K100’. This makes considerably more sense in terms of seismic stratigraphic and
basin analysis, given that sediments were originally deposited from the bottom up. However
from a well drilling perspective, these same sediments are encountered from the top down,
which has led to a preponderance of formation tops and biostratigraphic tops in well data.
There has been no consistent use of horizons as bases or tops within industry seismic
mapping schemes, but the STOS scheme does provide a precedent for the use of bases
(Figure 1). Nevertheless, we concede that the use of base instead of top might cause some
confusion.

Based on the arguments above, we name the intervening seismic-stratigraphic units between
mapped horizons according to their lower boundary. For example, the interval between N45
and N50 is referred to as “sequence N45”. For simplicity, some intervals can be named
according to their collective age. For instance, the interval between the ‘P00’ and ‘P10’
horizons may be referred to as ‘sequence P00’, or just “the Paleocene”. We are not
prescriptive in this case, as long as the horizons are named correctly.

3.3 COLOUR SCHEME

A colour palette has been suggested for this horizon naming scheme, and is shown in Figure
2. Whilst an attempt has been made to differentiate between horizons, particularly major
frequently used horizons, there are some inevitable colour similarities given the large number
of horizons being catered for. However, in practice, only a small subset of horizons (or
intermediate horizons) will be interpreted in any given interpretation project.

This colour scheme is suggested as a guide, and is certainly not meant to be prescriptive.
However, we suggest that some standard horizons could have fixed colours, namely top
basement (red), seabed (dark blue) and volcanics (bright pink). We would then suggest the
following (with colours lightening with decreasing age): greens for Cretaceous, browns-
purples for Paleocene–Eocene, blues for Oligocene and oranges-yellows for Miocene–
Pliocene.

3.4 DEALING WITH UNCONFORMITIES

Whilst the previous GNS 4-D Taranaki scheme has worked well within that region, one
possible downside has been not treating regional continuous reflectors (conformities) and
surfaces of stratal truncation (unconformities) as separate types of horizon. This has led to
conceptual and practical difficulties where a conformable approximately isochronous reflector
and a laterally equivalent, but quite diachronous unconformity are assigned the same horizon
name (P50 and N50 being prime examples). It would perhaps be better to only label the
conformable reflectors according to the naming scheme, and have a separate naming
convention for unconformities. As ever, there is a balance to be struck, and we would
suggest that unconformities be identified as separate surfaces only where there is clear
discordance, or a significant time gap suggested by well biostratigraphy.

We do not necessarily suggest a prescriptive naming scheme for unconformities, but offer a
number of suggestions:
1. U1, U1a, U2, U3 etc. A simple naming scheme, independent of age, and numbered
sequentially from either the base or top of the overall succession, as used by many
workers, especially in frontier areas with little age control (e.g. Bache et al., 2012).

GNS Science Report 2014/34 7

2. U_TB_1, U_TB_2 etc. As above, but with a geographical qualifier, in this case, ‘TB’ for
Taranaki Basin. This allows a myriad of local or regional surfaces to be named. Where
correlatives of such unconformities are found in two or more areas, the local name
could be dropped.
3. U_TB_Lt_Mio, U_TB_E_Olig etc. Simply named for the approximate general age of
the unconformity, in this case, within the Taranaki Basin. This might be useful where
the unconformity is somewhat diachronous (with missing section encompassing 2-3
time stages).
4. U_TB_N50, U_TB_N52 etc. This is likely to be used where unconformities represent
little missing time, and ties them to the naming scheme, e.g. ‘U_N50’ being an
unconformity of roughly ‘N50’ age (i.e. roughly Tt-Tk boundary).

The unconformity naming styles (1) and (2) above are clearly more appropriate in
circumstances where there may be less control on the absolute age of the unconformities,
particularly when they are long-lived apparently compound erosional or omission surfaces.
Styles (3) and (4) are likely to work well for relatively short-lived and well constrained (dated)
unconformities, but are inappropriate for those of longer duration, or with poor age control. In
practice, and depending on the level of mapping detail and age control, any one of the above
or any hybrid combination thereof ought to be workable, provided that the scheme is applied
in a consistent and logical fashion.

By their very nature, unconformities are likely to be related to the local tectono-stratigraphic
evolution of individual basins (or even parts thereof), and so would not necessarily be
expected to be correlatable across or between basins. For instance, a Late Miocene
unconformity in one basin may not precisely correlate, or be genetically related, to a Late
Miocene unconformity in another basin, or indeed, in another part of the same basin.
Because of this, we recommend the use of geographical identifiers to help specify the extent
or uniqueness of a given unconformity. Some unconformities created by large-scale drivers,
e.g. pan-regional tectonics or eustatic sea level variations, may correlate across basins.
Some degree of age control is implied in order to make these correlations. In these cases, a
compound geographic qualifier with an age qualifier is probably the best suited naming style.

3.5 TRANSLATION OF OLDER SCHEMES

A translation of the previous 4DT naming scheme using this new Zealandia-wide scheme is
shown in Figure 2 and also in Table 1. The new scheme has already been successfully
applied to representative Taranaki regional seismic transects produced by Strogen et al.
(2014), and we intend to use it in all local and regional mapping projects from now on.

Application of the new scheme to other basins should also be straightforward. For instance a
direct translation of the NZ Seismic Framework horizons (Bland et al., 2014), which were
placed at top epoch boundaries is very easy (e.g. top Cretaceous becomes P00, top
Paleocene becomes P10 etc.). There should be no impediment to similarly updating the
naming schemes in use in other basins, although the efficacy of this for detailed mapping will
be partly contingent on the degree of age control.

8 GNS Science Report 2014/34

Figure 2 Zealandia-wide seismic horizon naming scheme and comparison with previous scheme used in
4DT project, and showing updated 4DT horizon names using the new scheme.

GNS Science Report 2014/34 9

Table 1 The new naming scheme applied to Taranaki seismic horizons from the 4DT.

Taranaki

naming scheme
Previous 4DT

approximate)
seismic
horizons: new Age

Age (Ma,
Comments
Zealandia-wide (approximate)
naming
scheme
Seabed Seabed Recent 0

Younger than Age somewhat uncertain due to poor dating at

N82 N80 ~2
Mangapanian this level – may be time transgressive

Waipipian–
N75 N70 ~3
Mangapanian

N68 N60 late Opoitian ~4

Latest
“Late Miocene unconformity” in proximal
N50 N50 Tongaporutuan– ~7
areas
Early Kapitean

Intra
N45 N48 ~8.5
Tongaporutuan

N40 N45 Late Waiauan ~11

N38 N40 Intra Waiauan ~12

Intra Late
N34 N30 ~14
Lillburnian

N15 N15 Intra Otaian ~19

N05 P60 Late Waitakian ~21

P50 P50 Early Whaingaroan ~30 Whaingaroan unconformity in proximal areas

~Bortonian-Kaiatan
P40 P40 ~38
boundary

Heretaungan–
P22 P30 ~48
Porangan

Teurian-Waipawan
P10 P20 -56
boundary

Haumurian-Teurian
P00 P10 -66
boundary

K96 K90 Late Haumurian ~68

K90 K80 Early Haumurian ~74

Undrilled, but probably close to PM1a/PM1b

?mid–Late
K80 K75 ~83? zonal boundary, as just below basal section
Cretaceous
from Tane-1

?mid–Late
K65 K70 ~88?
Cretaceous Undrilled, so age within likely mid–Late
?mid–Late Cretaceous succession is unclear
K50 K50 ~95?
Cretaceous

10 GNS Science Report 2014/34

4.0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This naming scheme and its predecessor have benefitted from many colleagues (and former
colleagues) within GNS as well as from geoscientists within a number of exploration
companies. These include, but are by no means limited to: Kyle Bland, Suzanne Bull, Robert
Crookbain, Miko Fohrmann, Matt Hill, Karsten Kroeger, Scott Langdale, Rosemary Quinn,
Eva Reid, Tusar Sahoo and Glenn Thrasher. Internal reviews of this report were provided by
Kyle Bland and Suzanne Bull.

5.0 REFERENCES
Bache, F., Sutherland, R., Stagpoole, V., Herzer, R., Collot, J. and Rouillard, P., 2012. Stratigraphy of
the southern Norfolk Ridge and the Reinga Basin: A record of initiation of Tonga-Kermadec-
Northland subduction in the southwest Pacific. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 321-322,
41-53.
Bland, K.J., Hill, M.G., Strogen, D.P., Bache, F., Barker, D.H.N., Bull, S., Davy, B. and Sahoo, T.R.,
2014. New Zealand National Seismic Framework: Reinga-Northland, Taranaki, Canterbury-
Great South, Bounty Trough, and Pegasus-East Coast-Raukumara basins, GNS Science
Consultancy Report, 2013/254. 55p & 51 enclosures & 1 Kingdom seismic project.

Bland, K.J., Kroeger, K., Strogen, D.P. and Fohrmann, M.F., 2010. An allostratigraphic framework for
the Cretaceous-Recent fill of Taranaki Basin: insights from the Kupe area. In: Barrell, D.J.A.
and Tulloch, A.J. (eds.), Joint Geological and Geophysical Societies Conference, 2009.
Programme & Abstracts. Geological Society of New Zealand Miscellaneous Publication, 128A,
p25.
Clayton, C., 2011. 3D Basin Modelling of PEP 38485, Offshore Taranaki Basin. New Zealand
Unpublished Openfile Petroleum Report, PR4313, 110p.

Constable, R.M. and Crookbain, R., 2011. A sequence stratigraphic study of the Great South Basin.
New Zealand Unpublished Openfile Petroleum Report, PR4348, 223p.

ExxonMobil Exploration Company, 2010. Great South Basin 3D/2D seismic interpretation report, PEP
50117. New Zealand Unpublished Openfile Petroleum Report, PR4233, 42p.

Fohrmann, M., Hill, M., Reid, E., King, P.R., Zhu, H., Roncaglia, L., Bland, K.J., Strogen, D.P. and
Scott, G., 2012. Time-structure, depth-structure, and isopach maps from the Kupe mapping
area (4-D Taranaki project), southeastern Taranaki Basin, GNS Science data series, 12a. 53p.
Mogg, W.G., 2007. Final interpretation report Carrick seismic survey & associated reprocessing. New
Zealand Unpublished Openfile Petroleum Report, PR3584, 33p.

Raine, J.I., Beu, A.G., Boyes, A.F., Campbell, H.J., Cooper, R.A., Crundwell, M.P., Hollis, C.J. and
Morgans, H.E.G., 2012. New Zealand Geological Timescale v. 2012/1 GNS Science, Lower
Hutt, 1 folded chart.

Roncaglia, L., Milner, M., Baur, J., Fohrmann, M., Kroeger, K., Strogen, D.P., Zhu, H., Arnot, M.J.,
Bland, K.J., Bushe, H., Funnell, R.H., Ilg, B., Hill, M., Jones, C.M., King, P.R., Leitner, B.,
Morgans, H.E.G. and Reid, E., 2010. Procedures and metadata protocols used in modelling
Taranaki Basin petroleum systems: guidelines from a pilot case study in the Kupe area, GNS
Science Report, 2009/49. 94p.

GNS Science Report 2014/34 11

Sahoo, T.R., King, P.R., Bland, K.J., Strogen, D.P., Sykes, R. and Bache, F., 2014. Tectono-
sedimentary evolution and source rock distribution of the mid to Late Cretaceous succession
in the Great South Basin, New Zealand. APPEA Journal, 54, 259-274.

Shell Todd Oil Services Ltd, 2004. Remaining Prospectivity in PEP38737 (Kaheru). New Zealand
Unpublished Openfile Petroleum Report, PR3102, 60p.

Strogen, D.P., Bland, K.J., Bull, S., Fohrmann, M.F., Scott, G. and Zhu, H., 2014. Regional seismic
transects of selected lines from Taranaki Basin, GNS Science data series 7b. 1 CD.
Telford, C. and Murray, D., 2006. MA-02A Well Completion Report. New Zealand Unpublished
Openfile Petroleum Report, PR4275, 769p & 6 enclosures.

Todd Petroleum Mining Company Limited, 2006. Geological and geophysical evaluation of PEP38487.
New Zealand Unpublished Openfile Petroleum Report, PR3479, 30p & 14 enclosures.

Uruski, C.I. and Ilg, B., 2006. Preliminary interpretation and structural modelling of DUN06 seismic
reflection data from Great South Basin, offshore New Zealand. New Zealand Unpublished
Openfile Petroleum Report, PR3450, 52p.

Yang, J.S., 2001. PEP38730. Permit evaluation report. Eastern margin, Onshore Taranaki Basin. New
Zealand Unpublished Openfile Petroleum Report, PR2620, 19p & 6 enclosures.

12 GNS Science Report 2014/34

APPENDICES
This page is intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX 1: EXISTING INDUSTRY SCHEMES FROM PETROLEUM REPORTS

This appendix presents existing alphanumeric seismic horizon (and in some cases
sequence) naming schemes. This is most likely not exhaustive, but the following examples
are in the public domain, having been included within released petroleum reports.

Figure A1 Old Fletcher Challenge scheme used for onshore Taranaki. From PR2620 (Yang, 2001).

GNS Science Report 2014/34 15

Figure A2 Older STOS scheme from Taranaki. From PR3102 (Shell Todd Oil Services Ltd., 2004).

16 GNS Science Report 2014/34

Figure A3 Todd scheme from Taranaki. From PR3479 (Todd Petroleum Mining Company Limited, 2006).

GNS Science Report 2014/34 17

Figure A4 Modern STOS scheme from Taranaki. From PR4275 (Telford and Murray, 2006).

18 GNS Science Report 2014/34

Figure A5 OMV scheme from northern Taranaki. From PR4313 (Clayton, 2011).

GNS Science Report 2014/34 19

Figure A6 OMV scheme from the Great South Basin. From PR4348 (Constable and Crookbain, 2011).

20 GNS Science Report 2014/34