Geostatistical Modeling with Histogram Uncertainty: Confirmation of a Correct Approach
- First Online:
- 318 Downloads
There is always uncertainty in the representative histogram required as an input for geostatistical modeling. This uncertainty should be quantified correctly and incorporated into final modeling because it affects resource/reserve estimation, investment and development decisions. This paper confirms a correct approach of quantifying histogram uncertainty by comparing to reference uncertainty found by an automated scan-based approach. The true variance of the mean is considered as the reference uncertainty. This variance is calculated by finding similar patterns of a data configuration within a large image: The mean of the specified domain is computed for each pattern to attain the true variance of the mean. The correct quantification of histogram uncertainty is defined. The spatial bootstrap provides prior uncertainty that does not consider the domain limits and is not conditioned to the data. This uncertainty is updated in geostatistical modeling to consider the limits and data. The resulting uncertainty closely matches the scan-based approach. A realistic case study is presented.
KeywordsGeostatistics Reference uncertainty Image scanning Spatial resampling Posterior uncertainty
- Chu, J., Xu, W., & Journel, A. G. (1994). 3-D implementation of geostatistical analyses—The Amoco case study. AAPG Special Volumes, 16, 201–216.Google Scholar
- Davis, M. W. (1987). Production of conditional simulations via the LU triangular decomposition of the covariance matrix. Mathematical Geology, 19(2), 91–98.Google Scholar
- Deutsch, C. V. (1992). Annealing techniques applied to reservoir modeling and the integration of geological and engineering (well test) data. Technical report, Ph.D. Thesis. Stanford University.Google Scholar
- Deutsch, C. V. (2004). A statistical resampling program for correlated data: Spatial_Bootstrap. Technical report, CCG Annual Report 6-401, Centre for Computational Geostatistics, University of Alberta. Retrieved from http://www.ccgalberta.com/resources/reports/.
- Deutsch, C. V., & Journel, A. G. (1998). GSLIB: Geostatistical Software Library and User’s Guide (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Deutsch, J. L., & Deutsch, C. V. (2010). Some geostatistical software implementation details. Technical report, CCG Annual Report 12-412, Centre for Computational Geostatistics, University of Alberta. Retrieved from http://www.ccgalberta.com/resources/reports/.
- Kaleta, M. P., Bennett, R., Brint, J., Van Den Hoek, P., Van Doren, J., Van Essen, G., & Woodhead, T. J. (2012). Coupled static/dynamic modeling for improved uncertainty handling. In 74th EAGE Conference and Exhibition.Google Scholar
- McVay, D. A., & Dossary, M. N. (2014). The value of assessing uncertainty. SPE (Society of Petroleum Engineers) Economics & Management, 6(02), 100–110.Google Scholar
- Merrow, E. W. (2011). Oil industry megaprojects: Our recent track record. In SPE (Society of Petroleum Engineers) Offshore Technology Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers.Google Scholar
- NASA (n.d.). Retrieve from http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/FEATURE/IMAGES/A2004358041000.Tasmania.nLw.jpg.
- Pyrcz, M. J., & Deutsch, C. V. (2014). Geostatistical reservoir modeling (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar