Reconstruction of model conditions for periodic solutions in the variational-grid method of geological mapping

Tyumen State University Herald. Physical and Mathematical Modeling. Oil, Gas, Energy


Release:

2019, Vol. 5. №2

Title: 
Reconstruction of model conditions for periodic solutions in the variational-grid method of geological mapping


For citation: Plavnik A. G. 2019. “Reconstruction of model conditions for periodic solutions in the variational-grid method of geological mapping”. Tyumen State University Herald. Physical and Mathematical Modeling. Oil, Gas, Energy, vol. 5, no 2, pp. 105-123. DOI: 10.21684/2411-7978-2019-5-2-105-123

About the author:

Andrey G. Plavnik, Dr. Sci. (Tech.), Chief Researcher, West Siberian Branch of Trofimuk Institute of Petroleum Geology and Geophysics of Siberian Branch Russian Academy of Sciences, Tyumen, Russia; Professor, Department of Oil and Gas Geology, Institute of Geology and Oil and Gas Production, Industrial University of Tyumen, Tyumen, Russia; plavnikag@ipgg.sbras.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8099-4874

Abstract:

The variety of geological objects properties and the nature of their formation determine the presence and usage of a large number of different mapping methods, as well as the need to choose the method that is most suitable for each specific data set.

The problem is that the predictive properties of the results depend on the compliance or non-compliance of the model conditions used in the mapping methods with real laws. One of the approaches involves mapping according to the training data, with the subsequent comparison of the constructed maps predictive properties according to the examination data. Such an approach requires multivariate, computationally expensive calculations.

Under these conditions, determining the appropriate model conditions from the observed data is relevant in the development of geological mapping methods.

Within the framework of the variational-grid geological mapping method, there is considered the problem of determining model conditions that describe the spatial regularities of mapping parameters change in the form of partial differential equations and are consistent with observed set of experimental data on the properties of geological objects. A special feature of the problem is the need to define two or more equations to ensure uniqueness of the solution.

In this paper, the authors propose an approach based on the search for a parameter space including the values of the function being mapped, its first and second derivatives such a system of orthogonal hyperplanes that consistent for available experimental data with greatest degree. Direct implementation of this approach is complicated by the fact that the necessary values of the derivatives are not actually determined experimentally. Under these conditions, an iterative method is used to sequentially refine the values of the derivatives and restore the model conditions. The method has been successfully tested on examples of the reconstruction of partial differential equations corresponding to a series of periodic solutions.

The problem mathematical formulation general nature and the possibility of optimizing the computational scheme determine the prospects of the approach considered for restoring model conditions in a wider class of functions.

References:

  1. Akhmetsafina A. R., Minniakhmetov I. R., Pergament A. Kh. 2010. “Stochastic methods in the program of geological modeling”. Vestnik TsKR Rosnedra, no 1, pp. 34-45. [In Russian]
  2. Volkov A. M. 1988. Geological Mapping of Oil and Gas Areas with Computers. Moscow: Nedra. [In Russian]
  3. David M. 1980. Geostatistical Ore Reserve Estimation. Translated from English. Leningrad: Nedra. [In Russian]
  4. Demyanov V. V. 2010. Geostatistics: Theory and Practice. Moscow: Nauka. [In Russian]
  5. Dubrule O. 2003. Geostatistics for Seismic Data Integration in Earth Models. Moscow: EAGE Publications. DOI: 10.1190/1.9781560801962 [In Russian]
  6. Matheron G. Basics of Applied Geostatistics. Moscow: Mir. [In Russian]
  7. Plavnik A. G., Sidorov A. N. 2018. “Mapping the Properties of Geological Objects with Allowance for Anisotropy Based on the Simulation of the Deformation Transformation”. Mathematical Models and Computer Simulations, vol. 10, no 5, pp. 629-638. DOI: 10.1134/S2070048218050095
  8. Plavnik A. G. 2010. “Generalized spline-approximation problem formulation for spatial data modeling in geosciences”. Russian Geology and Geophysics, vol. 51, no 7, pp. 801-807. DOI: 10.1016/j.rgg.2010.06.008
  9. Sidorov A. N., Plavnik A. G. 2009. “Calculation and Accounting of Integral Parameters in Geological Mapping Tasks”. Avtomatizatsiya, telemekhanizatsiya i svyaz’ v neftyanoy promyshlennosti, no 5, pp. 16-20. [In Russian]
  10. Chai H. et al. 2011. “Analysis and comparison of spatial interpolation methods for temperature data in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, China”. Natural Science, vol. 3, no 12, pp. 999-1010. DOI: 10.4236/ns.2011.312125
  11. Chilès J. P., Delfiner P. 1999. Geostatistics Modeling Spatial Uncertainty. New York: Wiley. DOI: 10.1002/9780470316993
  12. Desbarats A. J., Hinton M. J., Logan C. E., Sharpe D. R. 2001. “Geostatistical mapping of leakance in a regional aquitard, Oak Ridges Moraine area, Ontario, Canada”. Hydrogeology Journal, no 9, pp. 79-96. DOI: 10.1007/s100400000110
  13. Deutsch C. V. 2002. Geostatistical Reservoir Modeling. New York: Oxford University Press.
  14. Falivene O., Cabrera L., Tolosana-Delgado R., Sáez A. 2010. “Interpolation algorithm ranking using cross-validation and the role of smoothing effect. A coal zone example”. Computers and Geosciences, vol. 36, no 4, pp. 512-519. DOI: 10.1016/j.cageo.2009.09.015
  15. Gong G., Mattevada S., O’Bryant S. E. 2014. “Comparison of the accuracy of kriging and IDW interpolations in estimating groundwater arsenic concentrations in Texas”. Environmental Research, vol. 130, pp. 59-69. DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2013.12.005
  16. Gundogdu K. S., Guney I. 2007. “Spatial analyses of groundwater levels using universal kriging”. Journal of Earth System Science, vol. 116, no 1, pp. 49-55. DOI: 10.1007/s12040-007-0006-6
  17. Li J., Heap A. D., Potter A., Daniell J. J. 2011. “Application of machine learning methods to spatial interpolation of environmental variables”. Environmental Modelling and Software, vol. 26, no 12, pp. 1647-1659. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.07.004
  18. Mueller T. G., Pusuluri N. B., Mathias K. K., Cornelius P. L., Barnhisel R. I., Shearer S. A. 2004. “Map quality for ordinary kriging and inverse distance weighted interpolation”. Soil Science Society of America Journal, vol. 68, no 6, pp. 2042-2047. DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2004.2042
  19. Sidorov A. N., Plavnik A. G., Sidorov A. A., Shutov M. S. 2013. “Use of variational methods in geological mapping”. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the International Association for Mathematical Geosciences (2-6 September, Madrid, Spain). Edited by E. Pardo-Igúzquiza, C. Guardiola-Albert, J. Heredia, L. Moreno-Merino, J. L. Durán and J. A. Vargas-Guzmán. Pp. 325-328. New York; Dordrecht; London: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-32408-6_72
  20. Wise S. 2011. “Cross-validation as a means of investigating DEM interpolation error”. Computers and Geosciences, vol. 37, no 8,  pp. 978-991. DOI: 10.1016/j.cageo.2010.12.002