Abstract
Most geostatistical estimation and simulation methodologies assume the experimental data as hard measurements, meaning that the measures of a given property of interest are not associated with uncertainty. The challenge of integrating uncertain experimental data at the geostatistical estimation or simulation models is not new. Several attempts have been made, either considering the uncertain data as soft data or interpreting it as inequality constraints, based on the indicator formalism or decreasing the weight of soft data in kriging procedures. This paper presents a stochastic simulation methodology where the uncertain experimental data are modelled by a probability distribution at each sample location. Data values are firstly drawn, by stochastic simulation, at these locations prior to the simulation of the rest of the grid nodes. This method is also extended to the simulation of categorical uncertain data, as well as to the simulation with uncertain block support data. To illustrate the proposed methodology, an application to a real case study of pore pressure prediction of oil reservoirs is presented, as well as an upscaling problem.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alabert F (1987) Stochastic imaging of spatial distributions using hard and soft information. Master’s thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
Azevedo L, Nunes R, Soares A, Neto GS (2013) Stochastic seismic AVO inversion. 75th EAGE conference and exhibition, no. June 2013, pp 10–13
Boer LD, Sayers C, Nagy Z, Hooyman P, Woodward J (2006) Pore pressure prediction using well-conditioned seismic velocities. First Break 24:43–49
Eaton BA (1975) The equation for geopressure prediction from well logs. SPE paper #5544
Goovaerts P (1997) Geostatistics for natural resources evaluation. Oxford University Press, New York
Goovaerts P (2006a) Geostatistical analysis of disease data: visualization and propagation of spatial uncertainty in cancer mortality risk using Poisson kriging and p-field simulation. Int J Health Geograph 5:7
Goovaerts P (2006b) Geostatistical analysis of disease data: accounting for spatial support and population density in the isopleth mapping of cancer mortality risk using area-to-point Poisson kriging. Int J Health Geogr 5:52
Goovaerts P (2010) Combining areal and point data in geostatistical interpolation: applications to soil science and medical geography. Math Geosci 42:535–554
Horta A, Soares A (2010) Direct sequential co-simulation with joint probability distributions. Math Geosci 42(3):269–292. doi:10.1007/s11004-010-9265-x
Journel A (1986) Constrained interpolation and qualitative information. Math Geol 18(3):269–286
Journel A (1994) Modeling uncertainty: some conceptual thoughts. In: Dimitrakopoulos R (ed) Geostatistics for the next century. Kluwer Academic Pub., Dordrecht, pp 30–43
Kyriakidis P (2004) A geostatistical framework for area-to-point spatial interpolation. Geogr Anal 36(3):259–289
Le Loc’h G, Galli A (1997) Truncated PluriGaussian method: theoretical and practical points of view. In: Baafi et al (eds) Geostatiscs Wollongong ’96. Kluwer Pub., Dordrecht, pp 211–222
Liu Y, Journel A (2009) A package for geostatistical integration of coarse and fine scale data. Comput Geosci 35:527–547
Mariethoz G, Caers J (2014) Multi-point geostatistics: stochastic modeling with training images. Wiley, New York, p 376
Monestiez P, Dubroca L, Bonnin E, Durbec J, Guinet C (2006) Geostastistical modeling of spatial distribution of Balaenoptera physalus in the Northwestern Mediterranean Sea from sparse count data and heterogenous observation efforts. Ecol Model 193:615–628
Moon S, Lee GH, Kim H, Choi Y, Kim H (2016) Collocated cokriging and neural-network multi-attribute transform in the prediction of effective porosity: a comparative case study for the Second Wall Creek Sand of the Teapot Dome field, Wyoming, USA. J Appl Geophys 131(2016):69–83
Naraghi ME, Srinivasan S (2015). Integration of seismic and well data to characterize facies variation in a carbonate reservoir-the tau model revisited. In: Petrroleum Geostatistics 2015. European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers, EAGE, Biarritz, France, pp 243–247
Nunes R, Correia P, Soares A, Costa JFCL, Varalla LES, Neto GS, Silka MB, Barreto BV, Ramos TCF, Domingues M (2015) Gradient pore pressure modelling with uncertain well data. Petrol Geostat. EAGE Conference, Biarritz, France
Pyrcz MJ, Deutsch CV (2001) Two artifacts of probability field simulation. Math Geol 33(7):775–799
Rezaee H, Marcotte D (2016) Integration of multiple soft data sets in MPS thru multinomial logistic regression: a case study of gas hydrates. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 1–19. doi:10.1007/s00477-016-1277-8
Soares A (2001) Direct sequential simulation and cosimulation. Math Geol 33(8):911–926
Srivastava RM (1992) Reservoir characterization with probability field simulation. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Washington, DC
Zhu H, Journel A (1993) Formating and integrating soft data: stochastic imaging via Markov–Bayes algorithm. In: Soares A (ed) Geostatistics Troia 92, vol 1. Kluwer Academic Pub., Dordrecht, pp 1–12
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Soares, A., Nunes, R. & Azevedo, L. Integration of Uncertain Data in Geostatistical Modelling. Math Geosci 49, 253–273 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-016-9667-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-016-9667-5