Can a Training Image Be a Substitute for a Random Field Model?

In most multiple-point simulation algorithms, all statistical features are provided by one or several training images (TI) that serve as a substitute for a random field model. However, because in practice the TI is always of finite size, the stochastic nature of multiple-point simulation is questionable. This issue is addressed by considering the case of a sequential simulation algorithm applied to a binary TI that is a genuine realization of an underlying random field. At each step, the algorithm uses templates containing the current target point as well as all previously simulated points. The simulation is validated by checking that all statistical features of the random field (supported by the simulation domain) are retrieved as an average over a large number of outcomes. The results are as follows. It is demonstrated that multiple-point simulation performs well whenever the TI is a complete (infinitely large) realization of a stationary, ergodic random field. As soon as the TI is restricted to a limited domain, the statistical features cannot be obtained exactly, but integral range techniques make it possible to predict how much the TI should be extended to approximate them up to a prespecified precision. Moreover, one can take advantage of extending the TI to reduce the number of disruptions in the execution of the algorithm, which arise when no conditioning template can be found in the TI.

[1]  L. Y. Hu,et al.  Multiple‐point geostatistics for modeling subsurface heterogeneity: A comprehensive review , 2008 .

[2]  C. Deutsch,et al.  Geostatistics Banff 2004 , 2005 .

[3]  Jef Caers,et al.  Modeling Spatial Uncertainty , 2011 .

[4]  Sebastien Strebelle,et al.  Post-processing of Multiple-point Geostatistical Models to Improve Reproduction of Training Patterns , 2005 .

[5]  Jef Caers,et al.  Sequential simulation with patterns , 2005 .

[6]  Gregoire Mariethoz,et al.  The Direct Sampling method to perform multiple‐point geostatistical simulations , 2010 .

[7]  J. Chilès,et al.  Geostatistics: Modeling Spatial Uncertainty , 1999 .

[8]  K. Eskandari,et al.  Reservoir Modelling of Complex Geological Systems - A Multiple Point Perspective , 2008 .

[9]  C. Lantuéjoul,et al.  Ergodicity and integral range , 1991 .

[10]  Sebastien Strebelle,et al.  Conditional Simulation of Complex Geological Structures Using Multiple-Point Statistics , 2002 .

[11]  Christian Lantuéjoul,et al.  Geostatistical Simulation: Models and Algorithms , 2001 .

[12]  Yuhong Liu,et al.  An Information Content Measure Using Multiple-point Statistics , 2005 .

[13]  G. Mariéthoz,et al.  Conditioning Facies Simulations with Connectivity Data , 2011 .

[14]  Jean Serra,et al.  Image Analysis and Mathematical Morphology , 1983 .

[15]  A. Journel,et al.  The Necessity of a Multiple-Point Prior Model , 2007 .

[16]  G. Matheron Random Sets and Integral Geometry , 1976 .

[17]  R. M. Srivastava,et al.  Multivariate Geostatistics: Beyond Bivariate Moments , 1993 .

[18]  Sebastien Strebelle,et al.  Non-Stationary Multiple-point Geostatistical Models , 2005 .

[19]  A. Soares,et al.  Geostatistics Tróia '92 , 1993 .

[20]  M. Stein Estimating and choosing , 1989 .