A Methodology for Establishing a Data Reliability Measure for Value of Spatial Information Problems

Mathematical Geosciences - Tập 43 - Trang 929-949 - 2011
W. J. Trainor-Guitton1, J. K. Caers2, T. Mukerji2
1Program of Earth, Energy, and Environmental Science, Stanford University, Stanford, USA
2Energy Resources Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, USA

Tóm tắt

We propose a value of information (VOI) methodology for spatial Earth problems. VOI is a tool to determine whether purchasing a new information source would improve a decision-makers’ chances of taking the optimal action. A prior uncertainty assessment of key geologic parameters and a reliability of the data to resolve them are necessary to make a VOI assessment. Both of these elements are challenging to obtain, as this assessment is made before the information is acquired. We present a flexible prior geologic uncertainty modeling scheme that allows for the inclusion of many types of spatial parameter. Next, we describe how to obtain a physics-based reliability measure by simulating the geophysical measurement on the generated prior models and interpreting the simulated data. Repeating this simulation and interpretation for all datasets, a frequency table can be obtained that describes how many times a correct or false interpretation was made by comparing them to their respective original model. This frequency table is the reliability measure and allows a more realistic VOI calculation. An example VOI calculation is demonstrated for a spatial decision related to aquifer recharge where two geophysical techniques are considered for their ability to resolve channel orientations. As necessitated by spatial problems, this methodology preserves the structure, influence and dependence of spatial variables through the prior geological modeling and the explicit geophysical simulation and interpretations.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Auken E, Christiansen A, Jacobsen L, Sørensen K (2008) A resolution study of buried valleys using laterally constrained inversion of TEM data. J Appl Geophys 65:10–20 Bhattacharjya D, Eidsvik J, Mukerji T (2010) The value of information in spatial decision making. Math Geosci 42:141–163 Bickel JE, Gibson RL, McVay DA, Pickering S, Waggoner J (2006) Quantifying 3D land seismic reliability and value. Soc Pet Eng J SPE102340 Bickel JE (2008) The relationship between perfect and imperfect information in a two-action risk-sensitive problem. Decis Anal 5(3):116–128 Bickel JE, Bratvold RB (2008) From uncertainty quantification to decision-making in the oil and gas industry. Energy Explor Exploit 26(5):311–325 Bishop C (1995) Neural networks for pattern recognition. Oxford University Press, New York Bratvold RB, Bickel JE, Lohne HP (2009) Value of information in the oil and gas industry: past, present, and future. Soc Pet Eng J SPE110378 Caers JK (2005) Petroleum geostatistics. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Texas Christiansen AV (2003) Application of airborne TEM methods in Denmark and layered 2D inversion of resistivity data. PhD dissertation, University of Århus, Denmark, 136 p Clemen RT, Reilly T (2001) Making hard decisions, 2nd edn. Duxbury Press, Pacific Grove Cornell CA, Newmark NM (1978) On the seismic reliability of nuclear power plants. In: ANS topical meeting on probabilistic reactor safety. Newport Beach, California Coopersmith E, Burkholder M, Schluze J (2006) Value-of-information lookbacks—was the information you gathered really worth getting? Soc Pet Eng J SPE101540 Eidsvik J, Bhattacharjya D, Mukerji T (2008) Value of information of seismic amplitude and CSEM resistivity. Geophysics 70(4):R59–R69 Feyen L, Gorelick S (2005) Framework to evaluate the worth of hydraulic conductivity data for optimal groundwater resources management in ecologically sensitive areas. Water Resour Res 41(3), 13 p Howard RA (1966) Decision analysis: applied decision theory. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on operational research. Wiley-Interscience, New York, pp 55–71 Houck RT (2004) Predicting the economic impact of acquisition artifacts and noise. Lead Edge 23(10):1024–1031 Houck RT, Pavlov DA (2006) Evaluating reconnaissance CSEM survey designs using detection theory. Lead Edge 25(8):994–1004 Houck RT (2007) Time-lapse seismic repeatability—How much is enough? Lead Edge 26(7):828–834 Marcotte D (1996) Variograms/covariances in the frequency domain via the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT). Comput Geosci 22(10):1175–1186 Matheson JE (1990) Using influence diagrams to value information and control. In: Oliver RM, Smith JQ (eds) Influence diagrams, belief nets and decision analysis. Wiley, New York, pp 25–48 Mavko G, Mukerji T, Dvorkin J (1998) The rock physics handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Paté-Cornell ME, Fischbeck PS (1993) Probabilistic risk analysis and risk-based priority scale for the tiles of the space shuttle. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 40(3):221–238 Paté-Cornell ME (1990) Organizational aspects of engineering system safety: the case of offshore platforms. Science 250:1210–1217 Paté-Cornell ME (2007) Engineering risk analysis, vol. 1, MS&E 250A Course Reader. Stanford University, Stanford Polasky S, Solow AR (2001) The value of information in reserve site selection. Biodivers Conserv 10:1051–1058 Raiffa H (1968) Decision analysis. Addison-Wesley, Reading Reichard EG, Evans JS (1989) Assessing the value of hydrogeologic information for risk-based remedial action decisions. Water Resour Res 25(7):1451–1460 Remy N, Boucher A, Wu J (2009) Applied geostatistics with SGeMS: a user’s guide. Cambridge University Press, New York Ripley BD (1996) Pattern recognition and neural networks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Scheidt C, Caers J (2009) Uncertainty quantification in reservoir performance using distances and kernel methods—application to a West-Africa deepwater turbidite reservoir. Soc Pet Eng J 14(4):680–692, SPEJ 118740-PA Strebelle S (2002) Conditional simulation of complex geological structures using multiple-point statistics. Math Geol 34(1):1–26 Suzuki S, Caers J (2008) A distance-based prior model parameterization for constraining solutions of spatial inverse problems. Math Geosci 40(4):445–469