Advertisement

Nonparametric Geostatistical Simulation of Subsurface Facies: Tools for Validating the Reproduction of, and Uncertainty in, Facies Geometry

  • Nasser MadaniEmail author
  • Mohammad Maleki
  • Xavier Emery
Original Paper
  • 61 Downloads

Abstract

Delineation of facies in the subsurface and quantification of uncertainty in their boundaries are significant steps in mineral resource evaluation and reservoir modeling, which impact downstream analyses of a mining or petroleum project. This paper investigates the ability of nonparametric geostatistical simulation algorithms (sequential indicator, single normal equation and filter-based simulation) to construct realizations that reproduce some expected statistical and spatial features, namely facies proportions, boundary regularity, contact relationships and spatial correlation structure, as well as the expected fluctuations of these features across the realizations. The investigation is held through a synthetic case study and a real case study, in which a pluri-Gaussian model is considered as the reference for comparing the simulation results. Sequential indicator simulation and single normal equation simulation based on over-restricted neighborhood implementations yield the poorest results, followed by filter-based simulation, whereas single normal equation simulation with a large neighborhood implementation provides results that are closest to the reference pluri-Gaussian model. However, some biases and inaccurate fluctuations in the realization statistics (facies proportions, indicator direct and cross-variograms) still arise, which can be explained by the use of a single finite-size training image to construct the realizations.

Keywords

Geological uncertainty Pluri-Gaussian model Sequential indicator simulation Single normal equation simulation Filter-based simulation Statistical fluctuations 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The first author acknowledges the Nazarbayev University for financial supporting. The second and third authors acknowledge the support of the Chilean Commission for Scientific and Technological Research (CONICYT), through projects CONICYT/FONDECYT/POSTDOCTORADO/N°3180655 and CONICYT PIA Anillo ACT1407, respectively. The examples presented in “Essential Statistical and Geometrical Characteristics of Facies” section were provided by Dr. Bijan Biranvand from the Department of Petroleum Geology, Research Institute of Petroleum Industry, Tehran, Iran. The data for the case study were provided by CODELCO—Chile. Constructive comments by two anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged. Also, we deeply thank Dr. Carranza for the valuable comments on the final version of manuscript.

References

  1. Alabert, F. (1987). Stochastic imaging of spatial distributions using hard and soft information. Master’s thesis, Department of Applied Earth Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, pp. 332.Google Scholar
  2. Al-Mudhafar, W. J. (2018). Multiple-point geostatistical lithofacies simulation of fluvial sand-rich depositional environment: a case study from Zubair formation/South Rumaila oil field. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 21(1), 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong, M., Galli, A., Beucher, H., Le Loc’h, G., Renard, D., Renard, B., et al. (2011). Plurigaussian Simulations in Geosciences (p. 187). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beucher, H., & Renard, D. (2016). Truncated Gaussian and derived methods. Comptes Rendus Géoscience, 348, 510–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boisvert, J. B., Pyrcz, M. J., & Deutsch, C. V. (2007). Multiple-point statistics for training image selection. Natural Resources Research, 16(4), 313–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boisvert, J. B., Pyrcz, M. J., & Deutsch, C. V. (2010). Multiple point metrics to assess categorical variable models. Natural Resources Research, 19, 165–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chautru, J. M., Meunier, R., Binet, H., & Bourges, M. (2015). Geobodies stochastic analysis for geological model parameter inference. Petroleum Geostatistics 2015 (pp. 293–297). Houten: European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.Google Scholar
  8. Chilès, J. P., & Delfiner, P. (2012). Geostatistics: Modeling spatial uncertainty (p. 699). New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Iaco, S. (2013). On the use of different metrics for assessing complex pattern reproduction. Journal of Applied Statistics, 40(4), 808–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Iaco, S., & Maggio, S. (2011). Validation techniques for geological patterns simulations based on variogram and multiple-point statistics. Mathematical Geosciences, 43, 483–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dubrule, O. (2017). Indicator variogram models: do we have much choice? Mathematical Geosciences, 49(4), 441–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Emery, X. (2004). Properties and limitations of sequential indicator simulation. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 18(6), 414–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Emery, X. (2007). Simulation of geological domains using the plurigaussian model: New developments and computer programs. Computers & Geosciences, 33(9), 1189–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Emery, X. (2008). Statistical tests for validating geostatistical simulation algorithms. Computers & Geosciences, 34(11), 1610–1620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Emery, X., Arroyo, D., & Porcu, E. (2016). An improved spectral turning-bands algorithm for simulating stationary vector Gaussian random fields. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 30, 1863–1873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Emery, X., & Lantuéjoul, C. (2006). TBSIM: A computer program for conditional simulation of three-dimensional Gaussian random fields via the turning bands method. Computers & Geosciences, 32(10), 1615–1628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Emery, X., & Lantuéjoul, C. (2011). Geometric covariograms, indicator variograms and boundaries of planar closed sets. Mathematical Geosciences, 43(8), 905–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Emery, X., & Lantuéjoul, C. (2014). Can a training image be a substitute for a random field model? Mathematical Geosciences, 46(2), 133–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Emery, X., & Ortiz, J. M. (2011). A comparison of random field models beyond bivariate distributions. Mathematical Geosciences, 43(2), 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Emery, X., & Silva, D. A. (2009). Conditional co-simulation of continuous and categorical variables for geostatistical applications. Computers & Geosciences, 35(6), 1234–1246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Galli, A., Beucher, H., Le Loc’h, G., & Doligez, B. (1994). The pros and cons of the truncated Gaussian method. In M. Armstrong & P. A. Dowd (Eds.), Geostatistical simulations (pp. 217–233). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Journel, A. G., & Alabert, F. G. (1990). New method for reservoir mapping. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 42(2), 212–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Journel, A. G., & Gómez-Hernández, J. J. (1993). Stochastic imaging of the Wilmington clastic sequence. SPE Formation Evaluation, 8(1), 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lantuéjoul, C. (1994). Non conditional simulation of stationary isotropic multigaussian random functions. In M. Armstrong & P. A. Dowd (Eds.), Geostatistical Simulations (pp. 147–177). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lantuéjoul, C. (2002). Geostatistical simulation, models and algorithms (p. 256). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Le Loc’h, G., & Galli, A. (1997). Truncated plurigaussian method: Theoretical and practical points of view. In E. Y. Baafi & N. A. Schofield (Eds.), Geostatistics Wollongong’96 (pp. 211–222). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  27. Leuangthong, O., McLennan, J. A., & Deutsch, C. V. (2004). Minimum acceptance criteria for geostatistical realizations. Natural Resources Research, 13(3), 131–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lowell, J. D., & Guilbert, J. M. (1970). Lateral and vertical alteration-mineralization zoning in porphyry ore deposits. Economic Geology, 65, 373–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Madani, N., & Emery, X. (2015). Simulation of geo-domains accounting for chronology and contact relationships: Application to the Río Blanco copper deposit. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 29(8), 2173–2191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Madani, N., & Emery, X. (2017). Plurigaussian modeling of geological domains based on the truncation of non-stationary Gaussian random fields. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 31(4), 893–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Madani, N., Naderi, A., Biranvand, B., & Keshavarz, N. (2018). Lithofacies uncertainty modeling in a siliciclastic reservoir setting by incorporating geological contacts and seismic information. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-018-0531-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maleki, M., Emery, X., & Mery, N. (2017). Indicator variograms as an aid for geological interpretation and modeling of ore deposits. Minerals, 7(12), 241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mariethoz, G., & Caers, J. (2014). Multiple-point geostatistics: Stochastic modeling with training images (p. 376). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. Matheron, G. (1989). Estimating and choosing: An essay on probability in practice (p. 141). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Matheron, G., Beucher, H., Galli, A., Guérillot, D., & Ravenne, C. (1987). Conditional simulation of the geometry of fluvio-deltaic reservoirs. In: 62nd Annual technical conference and exhibition of the society of petroleum engineers, pp. 591–599. SPE Paper 16753, Dallas.Google Scholar
  36. Modis, K., & Sideri, D. (2013). Geostatistical simulation of hydrofacies heterogeneity of the West Thessaly aquifer systems in Greece. Natural Resources Research, 22(2), 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Oriani, F., & Renard, P. (2014). Binary upscaling on complex heterogeneities: The role of geometry and connectivity. Advances in Water Resources, 64, 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Renard, P., & Allard, D. (2013). Connectivity metrics for subsurface flow and transport. Advances in Water Resources, 51, 168–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rongier, G., Collon, P., Renard, P., Straubhaar, J., & Sausse, J. (2016). Comparing connected structures in ensemble of random fields. Advances in Water Resources, 96, 145–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rossi, M. E., & Deutsch, C. V. (2014). Mineral resource estimation (p. 332). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Strebelle, S. (2002). Conditional simulation of complex geological structures using multiple-point statistics. Mathematical Geology, 34(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tan, X., Tahmasebi, P., & Caers, J. (2014). Comparing training-image based algorithm using an analysis of distance. Mathematical Geosciences, 46(2), 149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yunsel, T., & Ersoy, A. (2011). Geological modeling of gold deposit based on grade domaining using plurigaussian simulation technique. Natural Resources Research, 20(4), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhang, T., Switzer, P., & Journel, A. (2006). Filter-based classification of training image patterns for spatial simulation. Mathematical Geology, 38(1), 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Mathematical Geosciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nasser Madani
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mohammad Maleki
    • 2
    • 3
  • Xavier Emery
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Mining Engineering, School of Mining and GeosciencesNazarbayev UniversityAstanaKazakhstan
  2. 2.Department of Mining EngineeringUniversity of ChileSantiagoChile
  3. 3.Advanced Mining Technology CenterUniversity of ChileSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations