Monte Carlo Simulations for Uncertainty Estimation in 3D Geological Modeling, A Guide for Disturbance Distribution Selection and Parameterization

Three-dimensional (3D) geological modeling aims to determine geological information in a 3D space using structural data (foliations and interfaces) and topological rules as inputs. They are necessary in any project where the properties of the subsurface matters, they express our understanding of geometries in depth. For that reason, 3D geological models have a wide range of practical applications including but not restrained to civil engineering, oil and gas industry, mining industry and water management. These models, however, are fraught with uncertainties originating from the inherent flaws of the modeling engines (working hypotheses, interpolator’s parameterization) combined with input uncertainty (observational-, conceptual- and technical errors). Because 3D geological models are often used for impactful decision making it is critical that all 3D geological models provide accurate estimates of uncertainty. This paper’s focus is set on the effect of structural input data uncertainty propagation in implicit 3D geological modeling using GeoModeller API. This aim is achieved using Monte Carlo simulation uncertainty estimation (MCUE), a heuristic stochastic method which samples from predefined disturbance probability distributions that represent the uncertainty of the original input data set. MCUE is used to produce hundreds to thousands of altered unique data sets. The altered data sets are used as inputs to produce a range of plausible 3D models. The plausible models are then combined into a single probabilistic model as a means to propagate uncertainty from the input data to the final model. In this paper, several improved methods for MCUE are proposed. The methods pertain to distribution selection for input uncertainty, sample analysis and statistical consistency of the sampled distribution. Pole vector sampling is proposed as a more rigorous alternative than dip vector sampling for planar features and the use of a Bayesian approach to disturbance distribution parameterization is suggested. The influence of inappropriate disturbance distributions is discussed and propositions are made and evaluated on synthetic and realistic cases to address the sighted issues. The distribution of the errors of the observed data (i.e. scedasticity) is shown to affect the quality of prior distributions for MCUE. Results demonstrate that the proposed workflows improve the reliability of uncertainty estimation and diminishes the occurrence of artefacts.

[1]  J. Florian Wellmann,et al.  Information Theory for Correlation Analysis and Estimation of Uncertainty Reduction in Maps and Models , 2013, Entropy.

[2]  Keith Beven,et al.  The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction. , 1992 .

[3]  Martin Stigsson Orientation Uncertainty of Structures Measured in Cored Boreholes: Methodology and Case Study of Swedish Crystalline Rock , 2016, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering.

[4]  J. Patel,et al.  Handbook of the normal distribution , 1983 .

[5]  Lucie Nováková,et al.  Assessment of the precision of smart phones and tablets for measurement of planar orientations: A case study , 2017 .

[6]  Holger Cremer,et al.  A staged geogenetic approach to underwater archaeological prospection in the Port of Rotterdam (Yangtzehaven, Maasvlakte, The Netherlands): A geological and palaeoenvironmental case study for local mapping of Mesolithic lowland landscapes , 2015 .

[7]  Hans Levenbach,et al.  The Estimation of Heteroscedasticity from a Marginal Likelihood Function , 1973 .

[8]  David Entwisle,et al.  Benefits of a 3D geological model for major tunnelling works: an example from Farringdon, east–central London, UK , 2012 .

[9]  J. Wellmann,et al.  Structural geologic modeling as an inference problem: A Bayesian perspective , 2016 .

[10]  A. E. Annels,et al.  Errors and Uncertainty in Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve Estimation: The Importance of Getting it Right , 2002 .

[11]  Roland Martin,et al.  Next Generation Three-Dimensional Geologic Modeling and Inversion , 2014 .

[12]  E. B. Wilson First and Second Laws of Error , 1923 .

[13]  E. Kragh,et al.  Seismic repeatability, normalized rms, and predictability , 2002 .

[14]  R. L. Eubank,et al.  Detecting Heteroscedasticity in Nonparametric Regression , 1993 .

[15]  Roland Martin,et al.  Geophysical joint inversion using statistical petrophysical constraints and prior information , 2016 .

[16]  Kurt Hornik,et al.  On conjugate families and Jeffreys priors for von Mises–Fisher distributions , 2013, Journal of statistical planning and inference.

[17]  H. Omre Bayesian kriging—Merging observations and qualified guesses in kriging , 1987 .

[18]  J. Wellmann,et al.  Uncertainties have a meaning: Information entropy as a quality measure for 3-D geological models , 2012 .

[19]  Michael Maxelon,et al.  Three-dimensional geometry and tectonostratigraphy of the Pennine zone, Central Alps, Switzerland and Northern Italy , 2005 .

[20]  Ola Eiken,et al.  A proven method for acquiring highly repeatable towed streamer seismic data , 2003 .

[21]  Stuart J. Cormack,et al.  The validity and reliability of GPS units for measuring distance in team sport specific running patterns. , 2010, International journal of sports physiology and performance.

[22]  M. Clark,et al.  A philosophical basis for hydrological uncertainty , 2016 .

[23]  Irwin Guttman,et al.  Theoretical considerations of the multivariate von Mises-Fisher distribution , 1988 .

[24]  Thomas Hamelryck,et al.  Using the Fisher-Bingham distribution in stochastic models for protein structure , 2022 .

[25]  Holger Kessler,et al.  Interpretative modelling of a geological cross section from boreholes: sources of uncertainty and their quantification , 2014 .

[26]  Roland Martin,et al.  Uncertainty reduction through geologically conditioned petrophysical constraints in joint inversion , 2017 .

[27]  P. Gupta,et al.  Electrical resistivity cross-section across the Garhwal Himalaya: Proxy to fluid-seismicity linkage , 2014 .

[28]  J. Florian Wellmann,et al.  pynoddy 1.0: an experimental platform for automated 3-D kinematic and potential field modelling , 2015 .

[29]  R. J. Moffat,et al.  Contributions to the Theory of Single-Sample Uncertainty Analysis , 1982 .

[30]  C. Bond,et al.  LiDAR, UAV or compass-clinometer? Accuracy, coverage and the effects on structural models , 2017 .

[31]  Peter R. Leyshon,et al.  Stereographic Projection Techniques for Geologists and Civil Engineers: Idea of stereographic projection , 2004 .