Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Multiple-Point Statistics Simulation Models: Pretty Pictures or Decision-Making Tools?

  • Special Issue
  • Published:
Mathematical Geosciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Abundant literature has been produced for the last two decades about multiple-point statistics simulation, or MPS. The idea behind MPS is very simple: reproduce patterns from a 2D, or most often a 3D, training image that displays the type of geological heterogeneity deemed to be relevant to the reservoir or field under study, while honoring local data. Replicating an image is a traditional computer science problem. Thus, it should come as no surprise if a growing number of publications on MPS borrow ideas and techniques directly from computer vision and machine learning to improve the reproduction of training patterns. However, quoting Andre Journel, “Geostatistics is not about generating pretty pictures.” Models have a purpose. For example, in oil and gas applications, reservoir models are used to estimate hydrocarbon volumes and book reserves, run flow simulations to forecast hydrocarbon production and ultimate recovery, and make decisions about field development or optimal well drilling locations. Specific key features such as the extent and connectivity of shale barriers may have a major impact on the reservoir performance forecasts and the field development decisions to be made. Those key features that need to be captured in the model, along with the available subsurface data and constraints of the project, should be the primary drivers in selecting the most appropriate modeling techniques and options to obtain reliable results and make sound decisions. In this paper, the practitioners’ point of view is used to evaluate alternative MPS implementations and highlight remaining gaps.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arpat B, Caers J (2007) Stochastic simulation with patterns. Math Geol 39:177–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boisvert J, Pyrcz M, Deutsch C (2007) Multiple-point statistics for training image selection. Nat Resour Res 16(4):313–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caumon G, Strebelle S, Caers J, Journel A (2004) Assessment of global uncertainty for early appraisal of hydrocarbon fields. SPE paper 89943

  • Chugunova TL, Hu LY (2008) Multiple-point simulations constrained by continuous auxiliary data. Math Geosci 40:133–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly C (2004) Higher order models using entropy, Markov random fields and sequential simulation. In: Leuangthong O, Deutsch C (eds) Proceeding of the 2004 international geostatistics congress. Springer, Banff, pp 215–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch C (1992) Annealing Techniques Applied to Reservoir Modeling and the Integration of Geological and Engineering (Well Test) Data. Dissertation, Stanford University

  • Deutsch C, Journel A (1998) GSLIB: geostatistical software library and user’s guide, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch C, Tran T (2002) FLUVSIM: a program for object-based stochastic modeling of fluvial depositional systems. Comput Geosci 28(4):525–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emery X, Lantuéjoul C (2014) Can a training image be a substitute for a random field model? Math Geosci 46(2):133–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farmer C (1992) Numerical rocks. In: King P (ed) The mathematical generation of reservoir geology. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gloaguen E, Dimitrakopoulos R (2009) Two-dimensional conditional simulations based on the wavelet decomposition of training images. Math Geosci 41:679–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goovaerts P (1997) Geostatistics for natural resources evaluation. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Guardiano F, Srivastava M (1993) Multivariate geostatistics: beyond bivariate moments. In: Soares (ed) Geostatistics-Troia. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 133–144

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Haas A, Formery P (2002) Uncertainties in facies proportion estimation I. Theoretical framework: the Dirichlet distribution. Math Geol 34:679–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadavand M, Deutsch C (2017) Facies proportion uncertainty in presence of a trend. J Pet Sci Eng 153:59–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harding A, Strebelle S, Levy M, Thorne J, Xie D, Leigh S, Preece R, Scamman R (2004) Reservoir facies modeling: new advances in MPS. In: Leuangthong O, Deutsch C (eds) Proceeding of the 2004 international geostatistics congress. Springer, Banff, pp 559–568

    Google Scholar 

  • Journel A (2002) Combining knowledge from diverse sources: an alternative to traditional data independence hypotheses. Math Geol 34:573–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Journel A (2004) Beyond covariance: the advent of multiple-point geostatistics. In: Leuangthong O, Deutsch C (eds) Proceeding of the 2004 international geostatistics congress. Springer, Banff, pp 225–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Journel A, Alabert F (1989) Non-Gaussian data expansion in the earth sciences. Terra Nova 1:123–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laloy E, Herault R, Jacques D, Linde N (2018) Training-image based geostatistical inversion using a spatial generative adversarial neural network. Water Resour Res 54(1):381–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava M (2018) The origins of the multiple-point statistics (MPS) algorithm. In: Sagar, Cheng and Agterberg (eds) Handbook of mathematical geosciences. Springer, pp 652–672

  • Strebelle S (2000) Sequential simulation drawing structures from training images. Dissertation, Stanford University

  • Strebelle S, Cavelius C (2014) Solving speed and memory issues in multiple-point statistics simulation program SNESIM. Math Geosci 46:171–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strebelle S, Remy N (2004) Post-processing of multiple-point geostatistical models to improve reproduction of training patterns. In: Leuangthong O, Deutsch C (eds) Proceeding of the 2004 international geostatistics congress. Springer, Banff, pp 979–988

    Google Scholar 

  • Strebelle S, Zhang T (2004) Non-stationary multiple-point geostatistical models. In: Leuangthong O, Deutsch C (eds) Proceeding of the 2004 international geostatistics congress. Springer, Banff, pp 235–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Tahmasebi P (2017) Structural adjustment for accurate conditioning in large-scale subsurface systems. Adv Water Resour 101:60–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis B, Sun T (2019) Relating depositional processes of river-dominated deltas to reservoir behavior using computational stratigraphy. J Sediment Res 89:1250–1276

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Zhang T, Journel A (2008) A fast FILTERSIM simulation with score-based distance. Math Geosci 40:773–788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang T, Switzer P, Journel A (2006) Filter-based classification of training image patterns for spatial simulation. Math Geol 38:63–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastien Strebelle.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Strebelle, S. Multiple-Point Statistics Simulation Models: Pretty Pictures or Decision-Making Tools?. Math Geosci 53, 267–278 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-020-09908-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-020-09908-8

Keywords

Navigation