Abstract
Computer recognition of prospective areas through the processing of digital exploration data can be effective if the statistical tests for the determination of the prospects are pertinent to the presence of the desired mineral. Where exploration involves the application of polynomial trend analysis to structure contour maps in the search for petroleum and natural gas, standard analysis of variance tests may not indicate the best exploration maps. Variance tests may be completely invalid where isolated dips and clustered samples cause the surfaces generated by some of the most common trend programs to oscillate, creating a false impression of variance. On the other hand, tests that directly compare the position of residual features with areas of known production consistently indicate the best map for the determination of new prospects. They are simple to apply and appear to offer the most opportunity for the automatic recognition of prospective areas.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Davis, J. C., 1973, Statistics and data analysis in geology: John Wiley & Sons, New York, 550 p.
Harbaugh, J. W. and Merriam, D. F., 1968, Computer applications in stratigraphic analysis: John Wiley & Sons, New York, 282 p.
Harbaugh, J. W., Doveton, J. H., and Davis, J. C., 1977, Probability methods in oil exploration: John Wiley & Sons, New York, 269 p.
Lancaster, P. and Salkauskas, K., 1977, A survey of curve and surface fitting: published by the authors, 3052 Conrad Dr., Calgary, Alberta, 162 p.
Robinson, J. E., 1980, Statistical comparison of quantitative computer maps: Sciences de la Terre, Informatique Geologique, no. 15, Dec. 1980, p. 33–45.
Waters, N. M., 1981, Computer mapping: a review of what is available and what is useful for exploration purposes: Bull. Canad. Pet. Geol., v. 29, no. 2, p. 182–196.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Robinson, J.E., Singh, V. Automatic recognition of geologic prospects. Mathematical Geology 15, 183–195 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01030082
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01030082