Math Geosci

DOI 10.1007/s11004-016-9667-5

Integration of Uncertain Data in Geostatistical

Modelling

Amílcar Soares1 · Rúben Nunes1 ·

Leonardo Azevedo1

Received: 13 April 2016 / Accepted: 28 November 2016

© International Association for Mathematical Geosciences 2016

Abstract Most geostatistical estimation and simulation methodologies assume the

experimental data as hard measurements, meaning that the measures of a given prop-
erty of interest are not associated with uncertainty. The challenge of integrating
uncertain experimental data at the geostatistical estimation or simulation models is
not new. Several attempts have been made, either considering the uncertain data as
soft data or interpreting it as inequality constraints, based on the indicator formalism or
decreasing the weight of soft data in kriging procedures. This paper presents a stochas-
tic simulation methodology where the uncertain experimental data are modelled by
a probability distribution at each sample location. Data values are firstly drawn, by
stochastic simulation, at these locations prior to the simulation of the rest of the grid
nodes. This method is also extended to the simulation of categorical uncertain data, as
well as to the simulation with uncertain block support data. To illustrate the proposed
methodology, an application to a real case study of pore pressure prediction of oil
reservoirs is presented, as well as an upscaling problem.

Keywords Pore pressure · Sequential simulation · Uncertainty integration

B Rúben Nunes
ruben.nunes@tecnico.ulisboa.pt
Amílcar Soares
asoares@ist.utl.pt
Leonardo Azevedo
leonardo.azevedo@tecnico.ulisboa.pt

1 CERENA, Pavilhão de Minas, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco
Pais, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal

123
 Math Geosci

1 Introduction

Geostatistical methods of stochastic simulation are used for the spatial characterization
of many physical phenomena, such as property distributions in hydrocarbon reservoirs
or mineral deposits and allowing the assessment of the spatial uncertainty related with
the property of interest simultaneously. When these methods are grounded on experi-
mental data (e.g., measured chemical values, ore grades, porosity, and permeability),
the experimental data are considered as hard data, with no uncertainty attached for the
purpose of estimating histograms, variograms and for conditioning stochastic simula-
tions. When the existing experimental information is uncertain, that is, it is not exact
or should not be considered hard data, integration of this uncertainty into stochastic
models when characterizing the spatial dispersion of the main properties of a spatial
phenomenon is challenging. In fact, this challenge is not new, and it has been the object
of several works, either to estimate local cumulative distribution functions (cdfs) with
indicator cokriging with soft data (Journel 1986; Zhu and Journel 1993) or to estimate
local cdfs for stochastic simulation, with the indicator formalism (Alabert 1987). The
main limitation of these methods is related with the properties of using an indicator
formalism to characterize continuous variables, in particular the cumbersome task of
indicator covariance models estimation (Goovaerts 1997). These were among the first
attempts to integrate uncertain data in geostatistical estimation and simulation algo-
rithms. Srivastava (1992) with the probability field (P-Field) simulation introduced a
different approach. Firstly, the uncertainty at any spatial location, which is character-
ized by a local cdf, can be guessed (expertize guess), or estimated (indicator kriging or
multiGaussian kriging). P-Field simulation consists of a simulation of random fields
and, consequently, a structured realization of a main variable is drawn from the local
predefined cdfs. Although fast and simple, this algorithm contains some drawbacks of
implementation (Pyrcz et al. 2001). Recently, new efforts have been made to simul-
taneously integrate hard and soft data into reservoir modelling using the Tau-model
(Naraghi et al. 2015), multi-point statistics and multinomial logistic regression (Rezaee
and Marcotte 2016) and collocated co-kriging and artificial neural networks (Moon
et al. 2016).
This paper keeps one interesting part of the P-Field method: the characterization of
uncertainty data with a pdf, prior to the stochastic sequential simulation of spatially
correlated realizations. Once we define the uncertainty at the data location, through a
local pdf, we propose to generate realizations of data values from the local probability
distribution functions, defined at experimental sample data locations xβ , previous
to the simulation of entire grid of nodes. This new framework can be applied to
continuous variables, categorical variables and block support data. The uncertain data
of categorical variables (e.g., lithofacies, ore types) are considered a local probability
to belong to each class and, after generating the data values at xβ with direct sequential
simulation (DSS; Soares 2001), the entire grid of nodes is simulated with sequential
indicator simulation (Alabert 1987). This approach is also extended to the simulation
of block data with uncertain data defined at the block spatial support. Uncertain block
data at experimental locations are firstly generated before the application of block
sequential simulation (Liu and Journel 2009).

123
Math Geosci

To illustrate the proposed methodology, two application examples are shown. The
first is a one-dimensional application that deals with upscaling high-resolution well-
log data into a coarser grid. The second is a real case study of pore pressure gradient
prediction of oil reservoirs. The available dataset comprises six wells located within a
model of 740,050 cells. Uncertain pore pressure well data, derived from mud weight,
are used as conditioning local pdf for the stochastic simulation of uncertain data to
obtain spatial uncertainty maps of pore pressure gradient as represented, for example,
by variance models.

2 Stochastic Simulation with Uncertain Data

2.1 Simulation of Data Values with Local Distributions

Uncertainty of experimental data can be interpreted as a lack of accuracy and precision

of measurements, that is, measurement errors. In this context, this is usually modelled
in geostatistical practice by decreasing the weight of these samples in spatial inter-
polation or stochastic sequential simulation processes, for example, by increasing the
nugget effect, or assuming the soft data as local means in simple kriging (Goovaerts
1997), or by adding an error in the diagonal of samples covariance matrix (Goovaerts
2006a, b; Kyriakidis 2004; Liu and Journel 2009; Monestiez et al. 2006).
In the framework of this study, uncertainty of a data measurement at a given location
xβ , say z(xβ ), is interpreted as a result of our lack of knowledge about the uncertain
data (β) and it is modelled by a set of possible values z which can occur according to
a probability distribution function F(z(xβ ).
Let us assume one knows some hard experimental data z(xα ) and also the pdf
F(z(xβ )) at another Nd experimental sample locations associated with uncertain
measurements of the same property. These experimental pdfs, referred here as local
distributions, can be derived by expertize guesses (see case study, Sect. 3.1), or
derived from auxiliary variables, such as inferred porosity from a secondary acoustic
impedance model (Nunes et al. 2015).
The proposed method aims at integrating the uncertainty of data measurements—
local distributions—in the framework of a stochastic sequential simulation. It consists
of a sequential approach where, in a first step and before simulating the entire grid, the
experimental data values located at xβ are firstly drawn from the local distributions,
and in a second step the entire grid of nodes is sequentially simulated, conditioned
to the previously simulated experimental data. The data values z(xβ ) drawn from
F(z(xβ )) must reproduce not only these local cfds, but also the spatial correlation as
revealed by the spatial covariance.
The idea of generating a spatially correlated set of data values consists of two steps:
calculating the local mean and variance at the experimental data location, conditioned
to the neighborhood “hard” data z(xα ) and also to the values previously drawn from
other uncertain data distributions; and, afterwards, generating the simulated values
with the local distributions, centered at the local mean and variance, following the
outline of direct sequential simulation (Soares 2001).

123
 Math Geosci

The simulated data values, as they come from distributions centered at simple
kriging mean and variance, reproduce not only the spatial covariances (Journel 1994),
but also the local distributions (Soares 2001). This is a development of a version
of direct sequential simulation with joint probability distributions (Horta and Soares
2010), which can be summarized into two basic steps:
1. The direct sequential simulation starts by generating first the Nd values at the
experimental sample data locations, xβ = 1, …, Nd , using the local distributions
F(z(xβ )). At a given sample location xβ , the mean and variance of z(xβ ) are
calculated by simple kriging based on the known “hard” data z(xα ) and previously
simulated uncertain experimental data z l (xβ ). A value z l (x0 ) at the experimental
location x0 is drawn from the local distribution F(z(x0 )) centered at the simple
kriging estimate of local mean
   
z (x0 ) ∗ = λα (x0 ) z (xα ) + λβ (x0 ) z l xβ , (1)
α β

and with a local variance identified with simple kriging variance where λα and λβ
are, respectively, the kriging weights associated with the known “hard” data and
the previously simulated uncertain experimental data.
2. After a set of Nd experimental sample data is generated from the local distributions,
in a second stage, the direct sequential simulation methodology generates z(x)
values on the entire grid of nodes conditioned to the simulated values at the exper-
imental locations plus the eventual hard data {z(xα ), α = 1, . . . , N ; z(xβ ), β =
1, . . . , Nd }. For each realization, a new set of sample data is generated before the
rest of the model is simulated.

2.2 Variogram Estimation

When only uncertain data are available, the variogram models must be estimated with
that data. A simple solution consists on estimating the variogram with the average
values of the distribution and perform a transformation a posteriori.
At any experimental well data   xβ , one can calculate the average values z v
 location
from the local distributions z v xβ = z (xβ,u )du . The variogram of average values can
be calculated as follows
1  2
γv (h) = z v (xi ) − z v (xi+h ) , (2)
N (h)
i

and modeled. The a priori point variogram can be obtained with the following Markov–
Bayes approximation

C (0)
γ (h) ≈ γv (h) . , (3)
Cv (0)

where C(0) and Cv (0) are the variances of the point and block values z(x) and z v (x).

123
Math Geosci

The variogram model (Eq. (3)) can be calibrated with an inverse procedure: exper-
imental variograms γv (h)* can be calculated with simulated well data values by the
exposed method, assuming the point variogram model of Eq. (3). A comparison
between γv (h)* and γv (h) obtained with average values (Eq. (2)) allows the cali-
bration of point variogram until a satisfactory match is reached.

2.3 Simulation of Categorical Variables with Uncertain Data

This approach can be extended to the simulation of categorical variables with uncer-
tain experimental data. The spatial characterization of categorical variables has
been the object of different geostatistical approaches. The more common are the
simulation algorithms based on auxiliary Gaussian variables—truncated Gaussian,
pluri-Gausssian simulations (Le Loc’h and Galli 1997)—and the sequential simula-
tions algorithms based on an indicator variable or vector—the sequential indicator
simulation (Alabert 1987) and the different versions of multi-point simulation (Mari-
ethoz and Caers 2014). These are based on a simple idea: following a random path
over all grid nodes to be simulated, a local probability to belong to different categories
is estimated by indicator kriging (sequential indicator simulation) or using a reference
image (stochastic simulation based on multi-point statistics, MPS). The indicator value
is generated by Monte-Carlo based on those local probabilities.
In the context of this work, a further aim is the integration of uncertain data in the
outline of the sequential indicator simulation algorithms. Let us define the indicator
variable I (x) which can take, at the experimental hard data locations, the values “1”
or “0” depending on the category to which the sample x belongs. For simplicity of
demonstration, let us consider just two categories X and the complementary X c . The
indicator variable I (x) is

1 if x ∈ X
I (x) = . (4)
0 otherwise

Define p(x) = prob{x X } as the probability of x belonging to X . p(x) has exactly

the same meaning of I (x) but it can take any value between 0 and 1. At the uncertain
data locations, a local probability distribution function of p(x) can be used to define
the uncertainty. For example, Fig. 1 is a three-dimensional view of two lithofacies
(center region of the reservoir) with different spatial continuity: a more continuous
and predictable dispersion of both categories at the lower part and a more erratic
dispersion of both lithofacies in the upper zone. Two samples with uncertain data of
lithofacies, indirectly characterized/classified by well-log data, could be represented,
for example, in the lower part of low uncertainty, by a lognormal distribution of p(x),
and in the upper part of high uncertainty, by for example a bimodal distribution of
p(x).
The outline described in Sect. 2.1 can be applied to the simulation of categorical
variables with uncertain data, in two steps:
1. First, in order to generate the Nd values of p l (x) at the sample uncertain data
locations xβ , the use of direct sequential simulation with the local distributions of

123
 Math Geosci

Fig. 1 Three-dimensional view of two lithofacies with different spatial continuity: a more continuous and
predictable dispersion of both categories at the upper part and a more erratic dispersion of both lithofacies
in the lower zone

p(x), F( p(xβ )), xβ = 1, …, Nd is proposed. At a given sample location x0 , the

local mean and variance of p(x0 ) are calculated by simple indicator kriging based
on the known “hard” data I (xα ) and previously simulated uncertain experimental
data I l (xβ )
   
p (x0 )∗ = λα (x0 ) I (xα ) + λβ (x0 ) I l xβ . (5)
α β

The local variance of p(x0 ) is identified with the simple indicator kriging variance.
A value p l (x0 ) x0 is drawn from the point distribution F( p(x0 )) centered at the
simple indicator kriging estimate of local mean and with the local variance iden-
tified with simple indicator kriging variance, following the algorithm presented in
Sect. 2.1. Finally, a simulated indicator value is generated by Monte Carlo based
on the simulated p l (x0 ) and one realization from a uniform pdf

I l (x0 ) = 0 if p l (x0 ) < u otherwise I l (x0 ) = 1, u ∈ U [0, 1] . (6)

I l (x0 ) then becomes a data value for the next data node simulation.

123
Math Geosci

2. After a set of Nd data sample values of p(x) is generated from the point distri-
butions, in a second stage, the sequential indicator simulation, or MPS, generates
I l (x) values on the entire grid of nodes conditioned to the simulated values at
the experimental locations and to existent hard data {I (xα ), α = 1, N , I (xβ ),
β = 1, Nd }. For each realization, a new set of sample data is generated before the
rest of the image is simulated.

2.4 Block Sequential Simulation with Uncertain Data

The joint use of point and block support data for stochastic simulation of a point support
Z (x) was proposed by Liu and Journel (2009). In this work, the authors interpreted
uncertainty of data as an error. Hence, they approached the uncertain block data by
adding to it an “error”, in a similar way as other authors have done before in Poisson
kriging (Goovaerts 2006a, b, 2010; Kyriakidis 2004; Monestiez et al. 2006). At an
experimental block data location vβ , the block data DB (vβ ) are interpreted as the sum
of the true value B(vβ ) plus an error R

DB (vβ ) = B(vβ ) + R(vβ ). (7)

As the uncertainty of block data is interpreted as an error, the idea of this method is to
reduce the “weight” of block data in kriging procedure, by adding the variance of the
error, σ R,
2 to the diagonal of the block–block covariance matrix of the left hand side

of kriging system

C B (0)
 + σ R (vα )
2 if vα = vβ
C Bα Bβ = . (8)
C B vα , vβ if vα = vβ

But in the context of this work, the uncertainty of block data is interpreted as a measure
with some randomness and can be approached by a probability distribution function.
Hence, the proposed method can be extended to direct block simulation with uncertain
data, either with point or block local distributions.
In the first step, the uncertain block values are generated, at the experimental loca-
tions vβ based on the local block pdf FB (D(vβ )) associated with uncertainty of block
data. At the block location x0 , a simple block kriging (Liu and Journel 2009) is cal-
culated with existing point data z(xα ) and with previously simulated block values
DBl (vβ )
   
DBl (x0 )∗ = λα (x0 ) z (xα ) + λβ (x0 ) DB xβ . (9)
α β

To solve the block kriging system with block data, point–point, point–block, and
block–block covariances need to be modeled.
In the case where the data uncertainty is defined not on the block but on the point
pdf, block data are assumed as the average value of the points inside vβ

123
 Math Geosci


DBl (vβ ) = z(xi ). (10)
i=1,N

Hence, the simulated block value at the experimental locations is obtained as the
average of simulated point values (method described in Sect. 2.1).
After a set of Nd point data sample values and NB experimental block data is
generated from the distributions F(z(vβ) ) and FB (D(vβ )), in the second step, the
direct sequential simulation method generates z(x) values on the entire grid of nodes
conditioned to the point and block simulated values at the experimental locations plus
the eventual hard data {z(xα ), α = 1, N, z l (xβ ), β = 1, Nd, DBl (vβ ), β = 1, NB }. As
in the previous case, for each realization a new set of sample data is generated before
the rest of the image is simulated.

3 Application Examples

This section illustrates two distinct application examples. The first example is a
one-dimensional example that aims to show the accuracy of the proposed stochas-
tic sequential simulation algorithm. The second one is a case study for inferring the
pore pressure gradient by simultaneously integrating seismic processing velocities and
uncertain well data.

3.1 One-Dimensional Synthetic Example

This one-dimensional example intends to reproduce the problem of upscaling high-

resolution well-log data into a coarser scale (i.e., the reservoir grid). In geostatistical
seismic inversion, an important step for the data conditioning is the upscaling of the
original well-log data, with very high vertical resolution, into the inversion grid, nor-
mally at the seismic scale and, therefore, with lower vertical resolution than the original
well-log data. However, in seismic reservoir characterization studies the upscaling
procedure is often overlooked and tackled with simplistic and deterministic method-
ologies such as arithmetic or harmonic means of the original high-resolution well-log
values located within a given cell. However, assigning an average value to a given cell
may not be representative of the real behavior of the subsurface property and does not
allow assessing the uncertainty associated with the upscaling procedure.
The proposed stochastic sequential simulation methodology may be used to assess
the uncertainty related with the upscaling. One may consider the original high-
resolution values located within a given coarse cell to build local point distributions,
from where values are simulated using the proposed stochastic sequential simula-
tion methodology (Fig. 2). With this upscaling approach, several realizations of the
upscaled well-logs may be generated, allowing the assessment of the uncertainty
related with the change of scale and assess its impact, for example, in geostatisti-
cal seismic inversion methodologies.
This one-dimensional example shows an example of upscaling a high-resolution
acoustic impedance log into a reservoir model of 49 cells in the vertical directions.
Figure 3 shows a set of 100 realizations of acoustic impedance using the point distribu-

123
 Math Geosci

Fig. 2 Point distributions built from the high-resolution well-log data samples of acoustic impedance within each coarser cell penetrated by the well

123
 Math Geosci

Fig. 3 Set of 100 realizations of acoustic impedance using the point distributions shown in Fig. 2

tions shown in Fig. 2 built from the original well-log data. From this set of realizations,
statistics such as the mean acoustic impedance model or the models corresponding to
the 25, 50 and 75 quantiles (Fig. 4) may be computed.
Each one of these realizations may be used as constraining data for geostatisti-
cal seismic inversion methodologies allowing the creation of different scenarios and
assessing the impact of the resulting acoustic impedance models within the retrieved
petro-elastic models.

123
Math Geosci

Fig. 4 Set of 100 realizations of acoustic impedance using the point distributions shown in Fig. 3 with
corresponding mean and quantiles: 25, 50 and 75 models

3.2 Case Study: Gradient Pore Pressure Model with Uncertain Well Data

To illustrate the flexibility of the proposed stochastic sequential simulation methodol-

ogy, this section comprises a real three-dimensional case study to infer the subsurface
gradient pore pressure (GPP).

3.2.1 Dataset Description

The available dataset for this real case application comprises six wells and an initial
GPP model derived from seismic processing velocities with 41 per 50 per 361 cells

123
 Math Geosci

Fig. 5 Dataset used for the real case application and composed of a seismic grid and six wells. Yellow line
represents a vertical well section shown in Figs. 6, 8 and 10

in i, j, k directions respectively (Fig. 5). Along with well positions the initial dataset
contained the maximum and minimum values for expected GPP derived from the mud
weight used during drilling.

3.2.2 Pore Pressure Gradient Prediction with Seismic Data

In this case, a study of gradient pore pressure prediction in petroleum reservoirs with
uncertain data (Nunes et al. 2015) is performed. Abnormal pore pressure gradients
can result in drilling problems such as borehole instability, stuck pipe, circulation
loss, kicks, and blow-outs. Gradient pore pressure prediction is of great importance
for risk evaluation in planning new wells in early stages of appraisal and production
of hydrocarbons reservoirs, particularly in complex geological situations with high-
pressure gradients. The knowledge of the local pore pressure risk helps preventing
blow-outs and is crucial for planning the casing and mud weights and all the logistics
associated with drilling in those situations.
Traditionally, pore pressure gradient prediction is based on existent relationships
between seismic velocities (i.e., velocities inferred from velocity analysis during seis-

123
Math Geosci

mic processing) and the gradient pore pressure (Boer et al. 2006). This study proposes
the following outline, summarized in these sequence of steps:
In a first step, a velocity volume resulting from velocity analysis during seismic
processing and calibrated at the wells locations is transformed to gradient pore pressure
using classical relations like, for example, Eaton’s equation (Eaton 1975)

GPP = GPG − (GPG − GPH) ∗ (V /V N )e . (11)

The GPP volume results from the integration of geostatic and hydrostatic pressure
gradients, GPG and GPH with the observed interval velocities (V ), the normal com-
paction trend for interval velocity (VN ) and the modeled exponent e. The exponent e,
which measures the degree of sensitivity of the relationship between the velocity and
GPP, after being calibrated at the well locations, is interpolated for all the study area
(using, for example, kriging).
In a second step, the GPP volume obtained from (Eq. (11)) is calibrated with the
very uncertain GPP values inferred at the well locations from the mud weights used
during drilling. Commonly, the calibration is performed using values of GPP at the
wells locations. The use of a mean value to predict extreme GPP values, the ones that
may cause hazards, is problematic. However, one has not only an average value for
GPP but also a range of values resulting from the lack of precision when measuring the
mud weights used during drilling. The uncertain well data (i.e., the mud weights used
during drilling) can and should be used to calibrate the GPP obtained from seismic
velocities.

3.2.3 Integration of Uncertain Well Data in GPP Model

At the existing well locations, the available values of GPP can eventually be measured
by resorting to repeat formation tester data but, most of the times, they are just inferred
by the mud weight used during drilling operation. It is worthwhile noting that the
value for the mud weight is often uncertain and only a range of expected values is
normally available, resulting in very uncertain data. After the interpretation of GPP
at the well samples’ locations, the uncertainty of this “soft” information is quantified
by local probability distribution functions. These distribution functions can be any
analytical cdf (e.g., triangular, truncated normal, beta) or experimentally built from
the set of discrete GPP values at the wells locations derived from the mud weights.
Usually, only lower and/or upper limits boundaries’ values of GPP are assumed for
each sample along the well path.
GPP data interpreted as local “soft” data, with high uncertainty, can be the only
available well data. The aim of this study is to take into account the uncertainty, as a
probability distribution function, and implement the methodology described in Sect.
2.1 (i.e., to perform the stochastic simulation with the local cdf of GPP available at
the well samples’ locations).
Assume one has Nd well data points, with corresponding distribution functions
Fz (xα ), α = 1, Nd of the GPP variable. These distribution functions are derived from
the values of mud weight used during drilling and represent the uncertainty of these

123
 Math Geosci

Fig. 6 Vertical well section of the initial model of GPP. The location of the vertical section is shown in
Fig. 5

measures. To propagate this uncertainty for the entire model simulation of GPP values
for the regular grid of nodes xi , i = 1, N is needed.
The initial GPP volume derived exclusively from velocity models inferred during
seismic processing and after the calibration of exponent e (Eq. (11)) is shown in Fig.
6. The only available well data have associated uncertainty. Triangular distributions
(based on a maximum, minimum and mode values) were assumed for the point distri-
butions of GPP along all the wells (Fig. 7). Two different regions are identified from
the well data: the top with low GPP values and low uncertainty; the bottom region
with high values and high uncertainty.
The proposed method, described in Sect. 2.1, can be summarized in the sequence
of these two steps:
1. Direct sequential simulation starts by first generating the Nd values of GPP values
at the well data location using the local distributions of Fig 7.
2. After a set of Nd well data GPP values is generated from the local distributions, in
a second stage, the direct sequential simulation method generates GPP values on
the entire grid of nodes, assuming the known velocity-based GPP cube as a local
mean model (Fig. 6).
The initial GPP model derived from the velocity model generated during velocity
analysis (Fig. 6) was used as a local mean model for the direct sequential simu-
lation with point distributions. One could use the initial GPP model as an a priori

123
 Math Geosci

Fig. 7 Uncertain wells data. In each well, the mode is represented by the dark line. The minimum, Q25, Q75 and maximum are represented in light to dark tones. The spatial
location of the wells is represented in Fig. 5

123
 Math Geosci

Fig. 8 Vertical well section of the of the final simulated GPP model: a average model; b P90; c P50; d P10

123
Math Geosci

Fig. 8 continued

123
123
Fig. 9 Wells 1, 2, 3 (a) and 4, 5, 6 (b)—realizations of simulated well data values. The location of the vertical section is shown in Fig. 5
Math Geosci
Math Geosci

Fig. 10 Vertical well section of the of the GPP variance model showing the uncertainty areas of pore
pressure. The location of the vertical section is shown in Fig. 5

trend model, instead of the simulation of GPP with local means, and simulate the
residuals according to the same proposed methodology. At each cell penetrated by
the available 5 wells, local distributions were generated based on the GPP values
inferred from the mud weight used during drilling (i.e., uncertain soft data) (Fig.
7). Due to the lack of reliable data, these distributions were considered triangular
based on the minimum, maximum and mode values as interpreted from the mud
weight.
Fifty realizations of GPP following the proposed methodology were generated.
First, the cells intersected by the wells are simulated taking into account the local
point distributions and the initial GPP model derived from the seismic processing.
Then, the rest of the cell grids are visited and simulated following the traditional
direct sequential simulation procedure (Fig. 8) (Soares 2001). The experimental point
distributions at the wells are well reproduced in different simulated models (Fig. 9).
Figure 10 depicts the variance of the 50 realizations and can be used to assess
the spatial uncertainty associated with the GPP. The low spatial uncertainty/variance
at the top, attached to the low GPP values, is derived from the low variance in the
point distributions at the top, and the increasing uncertainty to the bottom zone of
the high GPP values reflects an increased variance of the point distributions in that
area.

123
 Math Geosci

4 Conclusions

This paper presents a new method of integrating uncertain “soft” data in stochastic
simulations of continuous variables, categorical variables and block support data. The
case study has shown the potential of the method with a new update approach of the
GPP forecasting model. Integration of local distributions of “soft” data of pore pressure
gradient, allowing the exploration of the uncertainty of data measurements, is the most
important achievement of this new proposal. This method can be applied to any point
distribution, either analytical or experimental distributions. Stochastic simulation with
uncertain data may be directly integrated in the velocity model characterization by
seismic inverse modelling (Azevedo et al. 2013).

References
Alabert F (1987) Stochastic imaging of spatial distributions using hard and soft information. Master’s thesis,
Stanford University, Stanford, CA
Azevedo L, Nunes R, Soares A, Neto GS (2013) Stochastic seismic AVO inversion. 75th EAGE conference
and exhibition, no. June 2013, pp 10–13
Boer LD, Sayers C, Nagy Z, Hooyman P, Woodward J (2006) Pore pressure prediction using well-
conditioned seismic velocities. First Break 24:43–49
Eaton BA (1975) The equation for geopressure prediction from well logs. SPE paper #5544
Goovaerts P (1997) Geostatistics for natural resources evaluation. Oxford University Press, New York
Goovaerts P (2006a) Geostatistical analysis of disease data: visualization and propagation of spatial uncer-
tainty in cancer mortality risk using Poisson kriging and p-field simulation. Int J Health Geograph
5:7
Goovaerts P (2006b) Geostatistical analysis of disease data: accounting for spatial support and population
density in the isopleth mapping of cancer mortality risk using area-to-point Poisson kriging. Int J
Health Geogr 5:52
Goovaerts P (2010) Combining areal and point data in geostatistical interpolation: applications to soil
science and medical geography. Math Geosci 42:535–554
Horta A, Soares A (2010) Direct sequential co-simulation with joint probability distributions. Math Geosci
42(3):269–292. doi:10.1007/s11004-010-9265-x
Journel A (1986) Constrained interpolation and qualitative information. Math Geol 18(3):269–286
Journel A (1994) Modeling uncertainty: some conceptual thoughts. In: Dimitrakopoulos R (ed) Geostatistics
for the next century. Kluwer Academic Pub., Dordrecht, pp 30–43
Kyriakidis P (2004) A geostatistical framework for area-to-point spatial interpolation. Geogr Anal
36(3):259–289
Le Loc’h G, Galli A (1997) Truncated PluriGaussian method: theoretical and practical points of view. In:
Baafi et al (eds) Geostatiscs Wollongong ’96. Kluwer Pub., Dordrecht, pp 211–222
Liu Y, Journel A (2009) A package for geostatistical integration of coarse and fine scale data. Comput
Geosci 35:527–547
Mariethoz G, Caers J (2014) Multi-point geostatistics: stochastic modeling with training images. Wiley,
New York, p 376
Monestiez P, Dubroca L, Bonnin E, Durbec J, Guinet C (2006) Geostastistical modeling of spatial distri-
bution of Balaenoptera physalus in the Northwestern Mediterranean Sea from sparse count data and
heterogenous observation efforts. Ecol Model 193:615–628
Moon S, Lee GH, Kim H, Choi Y, Kim H (2016) Collocated cokriging and neural-network multi-attribute
transform in the prediction of effective porosity: a comparative case study for the Second Wall Creek
Sand of the Teapot Dome field, Wyoming, USA. J Appl Geophys 131(2016):69–83
Naraghi ME, Srinivasan S (2015). Integration of seismic and well data to characterize facies variation in a
carbonate reservoir-the tau model revisited. In: Petrroleum Geostatistics 2015. European Association
of Geoscientists and Engineers, EAGE, Biarritz, France, pp 243–247

123
Math Geosci

Nunes R, Correia P, Soares A, Costa JFCL, Varalla LES, Neto GS, Silka MB, Barreto BV, Ramos TCF,
Domingues M (2015) Gradient pore pressure modelling with uncertain well data. Petrol Geostat.
EAGE Conference, Biarritz, France
Pyrcz MJ, Deutsch CV (2001) Two artifacts of probability field simulation. Math Geol 33(7):775–799
Rezaee H, Marcotte D (2016) Integration of multiple soft data sets in MPS thru multinomial logis-
tic regression: a case study of gas hydrates. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 1–19. doi:10.1007/
s00477-016-1277-8
Soares A (2001) Direct sequential simulation and cosimulation. Math Geol 33(8):911–926
Srivastava RM (1992) Reservoir characterization with probability field simulation. SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Washington, DC
Zhu H, Journel A (1993) Formating and integrating soft data: stochastic imaging via Markov–Bayes algo-
rithm. In: Soares A (ed) Geostatistics Troia 92, vol 1. Kluwer Academic Pub., Dordrecht, pp 1–12

123