Mathematical Geosciences

, 41:29 | Cite as

Application of Multiple Point Geostatistics to Non-stationary Images

  • Luis Manuel de Vries
  • Jesus Carrera
  • Oriol Falivene
  • Oscar Gratacós
  • Luit Jan Slooten
Article

Abstract

Simulation of flow and solute transport through aquifers or oil reservoirs requires a precise representation of subsurface heterogeneity that can be achieved by stochastic simulation approaches. Traditional geostatistical methods based on variograms, such as truncated Gaussian simulation or sequential indicator simulation, may fail to generate the complex, curvilinear, continuous and interconnected facies distributions that are often encountered in real geological media, due to their reliance on two-point statistics. Multiple Point Geostatistics (MPG) overcomes this constraint by using more complex point configurations whose statistics are retrieved from training images. Obtaining representative statistics requires stationary training images, but geological understanding often suggests a priori facies variability patterns. This research aims at extending MPG to non-stationary facies distributions. The proposed method subdivides the training images into different areas. The statistics for each area are stored in separate frequency search trees. Several training images are used to ensure that the obtained statistics are representative. The facies probability distribution for each cell during simulation is calculated by weighting the probabilities from the frequency trees. The method is tested on two different object-based training image sets. Results show that non-stationary training images can be used to generate suitable non-stationary facies distributions.

Keywords

Geostatistics Multiple point statistics Non-stationary Training image Reservoir modelling 

References

  1. Caers J (2001) Geostatistical reservoir modelling using statistical pattern recognition. J Petroleum Sci Eng 29:177–188 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Caers J, Zhang T (2004) Multiple-point geostatistics: A quantitative vehicle for integrating geologic analogs into multiple reservoir models. In: Gramer M, Harris PM, Eberli GP (eds) Integration of outcrop and modern analogs in reservoir modeling. Am Assoc Petroleum Geol Memoir, 80:383–394 Google Scholar
  3. Carrera J (1993) An overview of uncertainties in modeling groundwater solute transport. J Contam Hydrol 13:23–48 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chugunova TL, Hu LY (2008) Multiple-point simulations constrained by continuous auxiliary data. Math Geosci 40:133–146 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deutsch CV, Hewet TA (1996) Challenges in reservoir forecasting. Math Geol 28:829–842 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deutsch CV, Journel AG (1998) GSLIB: Geostatistical Software Library and user’s guide. Oxford University Press, New York. 369 p Google Scholar
  7. Dowd PA, Pardo-Igúzquiza E, Xu C (2003) Plurigau: a computer program for simulating spatial facies using truncated plurigaussian method. Comput Geosci 29:123–141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Falivene O, Arbués P, Gardiner AR, Pickup GE, Muñoz JA, Cabrera L (2006) Best-pactice stochastic facies modeling from a channel-fill turbidite sandstone analog (the Quarry Outcrop, Eocene Ainsa Basin, NE Spain). Am Assoc Petroleum Geol Bull 90:1003–1029 Google Scholar
  9. Falivene O, Cabrera L, Muñoz JA, P. A, Fernández O, Saez A (2007) Statistical grid-based facies reconstruction and modelling for sedimentary bodies. Alluvial-palustrine and turbiditic examples. Geol Acta 5:199–230 Google Scholar
  10. Galli A, Beucher H, Le Loc’h G, Doliguez, Heresim Group (1994), The pros and cons of the truncated Gaussian method. In: Armstrong M, Dowd PA (eds) Geostatistical simulations, pp 217–233 Google Scholar
  11. Guardiano F, Srivastava RM (1993) Multivariate geostatistics: beyond bivariate moments. In: Soares A (ed) Geostatistics-Troia. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 133–144 Google Scholar
  12. Haldorsen HH, Damsleth E (1990) Stochastic modeling. J Petroleum Geol 42:404–412 Google Scholar
  13. Journel AG, Deutsch CV (1993) Entropy and spatial disorder. Math Geol 25:329–355 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Journel AG, Isaaks EH (1984) Conditional indicator simulation: Application to a Saskatchewan uranium deposit. Math Geol 16:685–718 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Journel A (1985) The deterministic side of geostatistics. Math Geol 17:1–15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. King MJ, Mansfield M (1999), Flow simulation of geologic models. Society of Petroleum Engineers Reservoir Eval. & Eng, vol 2 (SPE Paper number 57469) Google Scholar
  17. Knudby C, Carrera J (2005) On the relationship between indicators of geostatistical, flow and transport connectivity. Adv Water Resour 28:405–421 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koltermann CE, Gorelick SM (1996) Heterogeneity in sedimentary deposits: A review of structure-imitating, process-imitating, and descriptive approaches. Water Resour Res 32:2617–2658 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liu Y (2006) Using the Snesim program for multiple-point statistical simulation. Comput Geosci 32:1544–1563 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liu GS, Zheng CM, Gorelick SM (2004a) Limits of applicability of the advection-dispersion model in aquifers containing connected high-conductivity channels. Water Resour Res. doi: 10.1029/2003WR002735 Google Scholar
  21. Liu Y, Harding A, Abriel W, Strebelle S (2004b) Multiple-point simulation integrating wells, three-dimensional seismic data, and geology. Am Assoc Petroleum Geol Bull 88:905–921 Google Scholar
  22. de Marsily G, Delay F, Teles V, Schafmeister MT (1998) Some current methods to represent the heterogeneity of natural media in hydrogeology. Hydrogeol J 6:115–130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pardo-Igúzquiza E, Dowd PA (2003) CONNEC3D: a computer program for connectivity analysis of 3D random set models. Comput Geosci 29:775–785 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pryor WA (1973) Permeability-porosity patterns and variations in some holocene sand bodies. Am Assoc Petroleum Geol Bull 57:162–189 Google Scholar
  25. Slooten L, Batlle F, Carrera J, Gamazo P, De Vries LM (2007), Prosit manual: Getting started Google Scholar
  26. Strebelle S (2002) Conditional simulation of complex geological structures using multiple-point statistics. Math Geol 34:1–22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Strebelle S, (2006), Sequential simulation for modeling geological structures from training images. In: Yarus JM, Chambers RL (eds) Stochastic modelling and geostatistics: Principles, methods and case studies, vol 2, pp 139–149 Google Scholar
  28. Strebelle S, Payrazyan K, Caers J (2002) Modeling of a deepwater turbidite reservoir conditional to seismic data using multiple-point geostatistics. Society of Petroleum Engineers Paper number 77425, 10 p Google Scholar
  29. Tetzlaff DM, Harbaugh JW (1989) Simulating clastic sedimentation. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. 202 p Google Scholar
  30. Wu J (2007) 4D Seismic and multiple-point pattern data integration using geostatistics. PhD Thesis, Energy Resources Engineering Department, Stanford University (California, USA), 275 p Google Scholar
  31. Xu W (1996) Conditional curvilinear stochastic simulation using pixel-based algorithms. Math Geol 28:937–950 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Mathematical Geology 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luis Manuel de Vries
    • 1
    • 3
  • Jesus Carrera
    • 2
    • 3
  • Oriol Falivene
    • 3
  • Oscar Gratacós
    • 3
  • Luit Jan Slooten
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Earth SciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Institut Jaume Almera de Ciencies de La Terra, CSICBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Geomodels Institute, Group of Geodynamics and Basin AnalysisUniversitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  4. 4.BP Exploration Company LimitedSunbury on ThamesUK
  5. 5.Hydrogeology GroupTechnical University of Catalonia (UPC)BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations