Conditioning the Probability Field of Facies to Facies Observations Using a Regularized Element-free Galerkin (EFG) Method

References

1. Avseth, P., Mukerji, T., Jørstad, A., Mavko, G. and Veggeland, T. [2001] Seismic reservoir mapping from 3-D AVO in a North Sea turbidite system. Geophysics, 66(4), 1157–1176.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Deutsch, C.V. [2002] Geostatistical Reservoir Modeling.Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Galli, A., Beucher, H., Le Loc, G., Doligez, B. [1994] The pros and cons of the truncated Gaussian method. In: Geostatistical simulations, Springer, 217–233.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Krishnan, S., Boucher, A. and Journel, A.G. [2005] Evaluating information redundancy through the tau model. In: Geostatistics Banff 2004, Springer, 1037–1046.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Massonnat, G.J. [1999] Breaking of a paradigm: geology can provide 3D complex probability fields for stochastic facies modelling. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston TX. 329–342.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Ng, S., Dahle, P., Kolbjϕrsen, O., Hauge, R. [2008] Estimation of facies probabilities on the Snorre field using geostatistical AVA inversion. In: 2008 SEG Annual Meeting9-14 November, Las Vegas, Nevada. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Sebacher, B., Hanea, R. and Heemink, A. [2013] A probabilistic parametrization for geological uncertainty estimation using the ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF). Computational Geosciences, 17(5), 813–832.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Sebacher, B., Hanea, R. and Stordal, A. [2017a] An adaptive pluri-Gaussian simulation model for geological uncertainty quantification. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 158, 494–508.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Sebacher, B., Hanea, R. and Stordal, A. [2017b] The Adaptive Plurigaussian Simulation (APS) Model Versus the Truncated Plurigaussian Simulation (TPS) Model Used in the Presence of Hard Data. In: Geostatistics Valencia 2016.Springer International Publishing. ISBN: 978-3-319-46819-8.
   [Google Scholar]