Advertisement

Mathematical Geosciences

, Volume 46, Issue 7, pp 815–840 | Cite as

A Multiple Training Image Approach for Spatial Modeling of Geologic Domains

  • Daniel A. SilvaEmail author
  • Clayton V. Deutsch
Article

Abstract

Characterization of complex geological features and patterns remains one of the most challenging tasks in geostatistics. Multiple point statistics (MPS) simulation offers an alternative to accomplish this aim by going beyond classical two-point statistics. Reproduction of features in the final realizations is achieved by borrowing high-order spatial statistics from a training image. Most MPS algorithms use one training image at a time chosen by the geomodeler. This paper proposes the use of multiple training images simultaneously for spatial modeling through a scheme of data integration for conditional probabilities known as a linear opinion pool. The training images (TIs) are based on the available information and not on conceptual geological models; one image comes from modeling the categories by a deterministic approach and another comes from the application of conventional sequential indicator simulation. The first is too continuous and the second too random. The mixing of TIs requires weights for each of them. A methodology for calibrating the weights based on the available drillholes is proposed. A measure of multipoint entropy along the drillholes is matched by the combination of the two TIs. The proposed methodology reproduces geologic features from both TIs with the correct amount of continuity and variability. There is no need for a conceptual training image from another modeling technique; the data-driven TIs permit a robust inference of spatial structure from reasonably spaced drillhole data.

Keywords

Geostatistics MPS Training image Linear opinion pool Entropy Geologic domains 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research work was supported by the industry sponsors of the Centre of Computational Geostatistics at University of Alberta. Also, we thank three anonymous reviewers for their valuable and constructive comments. Finally, thanks to Teck Resources Inc. and the Red Dog Mine for providing the dataset used in the example.

References

  1. Boisvert J (2007) Mineral deposit modeling with pseudo-genetically constructed training images. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Alberta, EdmontonGoogle Scholar
  2. Caers J (2001) Geostatistical reservoir modeling using statistical pattern recognition. J Pet Sci Eng 29 (3–4):177–188Google Scholar
  3. Caers J, Journel A (1998) Stochastic reservoir simulation using neural networks trained on outcrop data. In: Proceedings of the SPE Technical Exhibition and Annual Conference, Society of Petroleum Engineers, New Orleans, pp 321–336Google Scholar
  4. Chilès J, Delfiner P (1999) Geostatistics-modeling spatial uncertainty. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Christakos G (1990) A Bayesian/maximum-entropy view to the spatial estimation problem. Math Geol 22(7):763–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chugunova TL, Hu LY (2008) Multiple-point simulations constrained by continuous auxiliary data. Math Geosci 40(2):133–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Comunian A, Allard D, Renard P (2012) A review of probability aggregation methods. Math Geosci 44(5):545–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cowan ER, Beatson RK, Ross HJ, Fright WR (2003) Practical implicit geological modelling. In: 5th international mining geology conference. The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, BendigoGoogle Scholar
  9. Deutsch C (1996) Direct assessment of local accuracy and precision. In: Baafi E, Schofield N (eds) Fifth international geostatistics congress, Wollongong. Springer, pp 115–125Google Scholar
  10. Deutsch CV (1992) Annealing techniques applied to reservoir modeling and the integration of geological and enginnering (well test) data. Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  11. Deutsch CV (1998) GSLIB: geostatistical software library: and user’s guide, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Deutsch C (2002) Geostatistical reservoir modeling. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Deutsch CV (2006) A sequential indicator simulation program for categorical variables with point block data: BlockSIS. Comput Geosci 32(10):1669–1681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deutsch J, Deutsch C (2012) Accuracy plots for categorical variables. Centre for Computational Geostatistics, EdmontonGoogle Scholar
  15. Dimitrakopoulos R, Mustapha H, Gloaguen E (2010) High-order statistics of spatial random fields: exploring spatial cumulants for modelling complex, non-Gaussian and non-linear phenomena. Math Geosci 42(1):65–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goovaerts P (1998) Geostatistics for natural resources evaluation. Oxford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Guardiano FB, Srivastava RM (1992) Multivariate Geostatistics: Beyond Bivariate Moments. In: Soares A (ed) Geostatistics Troia ’92. Kluwer Academic Pubnl., Dordrecht, pp 133–144Google Scholar
  18. Hong S (2010) Multivariate analysis of diverse data for improved geostatistical reservoir modeling. Ph.D. Thesis, University of AlbertaGoogle Scholar
  19. Hosseini AH (2009) Probabilistic modeling of natural attenuation of petroleum hydrocarbons. University of Alberta, EdmontonGoogle Scholar
  20. Journel AG (1983) Nonparametric estimation of spatial distribution. Math Geol 15(3):445–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Journel AG, Isaaks EH (1984) Conditional indicator simulation: application to a Saskatchewan uranium deposit. Math Geol 16(7):685–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Journel AG (1992) Geostatistics: roadblocks and challenges. In: Soares A (ed) Geostatistics Troia ’92. Kluwer Academic Pubnl, Dordrecht, pp 213–224Google Scholar
  23. Journel AG, Deutsch CV (1993) Entropy and spatial disorder. Math Geol 25(3):329–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Journel AG (2002) Combining knowledge from diverse sources: an alternative to traditional data independence hypothesis. Math Geol 34(5):573–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Journel A (2004) Beyond covariance: the advent of multiple point geostatistics. In: Leuangthong O, Deutsch C (eds) Geostatistics 2004. Springer, Banff, pp 225–233Google Scholar
  26. Journel A, Zhang T (2006) The necessity of a multiple-point prior model. Math Geol 38(5):591–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lyster S, Deutsch CV (2008) MPS simulation in a Gibbs sampler algorithm. In: Ortiz JM, Emery X (eds) VIII international geostatistics congress. Santiago, p 10Google Scholar
  28. Mariethoz G (2009) Geological stochastic imaging for aquifer characterization. University of Neuchatel, NeuchatelGoogle Scholar
  29. McLennan JA (2007) The decision of stationarity. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Alberta, EdmontonGoogle Scholar
  30. McLennan JA, Deutsch CV (2006) Implicit boundary modeling (boundsim). Centre for Computational Geostatistics, EdmontonGoogle Scholar
  31. Ortiz JM (2003) Characterization of high order correlation for enhanced indicator simulation. Ph.D. thesis, University of AlbertaGoogle Scholar
  32. Perez C, Ortiz J (2011) Mine-scale modeling of lithologies with multiplepoint. In: Marschallinger R, Zobl F (eds) IAMG 2011, Salzburg, pp 123–133Google Scholar
  33. Polyakova EI, Journel AG (2007) The Nu expression for probabilistic data integration. Math Geol 39(8): 715–733Google Scholar
  34. Pyrcz M (2004) The integration of geological information into geostatistical models. Ph.D. thesis, University of AlbertaGoogle Scholar
  35. Savchenko VV, Pasko AA, Okunev OG, Kunni TL (1995) Function representation of solids reconstructed from scattered points and contours. Comput Gr Forum 14(4):188–191Google Scholar
  36. Silva DA, Deutsch CV (2012) Multiple point statistics with multiple training images in geostatistics. Centre for Computational Geostatistics, University of Alberta, EdmontonGoogle Scholar
  37. Srivastava RM (1992) Iterative methods for spatial simulation. Stanford Center for Reservoir Forecasting, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  38. Stone M (1961) The opinion pool. Ann Math Stat 32(4):1339–1342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Straubhaar J, Renard P, Mariethoz G, Froidevaux R, Besson O (2011) An improved parallel multiple-point algorithm using a list approach. Math Geol 43(3):305–328Google Scholar
  40. Strebelle SB, Journel AG (2000) Sequential simulation drawing structures from training images. In: Krige DG, Kleingeld WJ (eds) 12th international geostatistics congress, Cape Town, p 12Google Scholar
  41. Winkler RL (1968) The consensus of subjective probability distributions. Manage Sci 15(2):B61–B75CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Mathematical Geosciences 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 3-133 Markin/CNRL Natural Resources Facility, Center for Computational GeostatisticsUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations