Skip to Main Content
Book Chapter

Geomodelling of carbonate mounds using two-point and multipoint statistics

By
Xavier Janson
Xavier Janson
Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin, University Station Box X, Austin, TX 78727, USA
Search for other works by this author on:
Darrin D. Madriz
Darrin D. Madriz
Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin, University Station Box X, Austin, TX 78727, USAExxonMobil Development Company, 12450 Greenspoint Dr., Houston, TX 77060, USA
Search for other works by this author on:
Published:
January 01, 2012

Abstract

The Late Carboniferous strata exposed in the Sacramento Mountains in Southern New Mexico, USA, have long been considered classic exposures documenting reciprocal high-frequency mixed carbonate–siliciclastic cyclicity and shelf-edge algal-mound growth. The growth style and internal architecture of these phylloid algae mounds depend on their position on the shelf and are controlled by potential accommodation space, depth of the photic zone and hydrodynamic energy. The combination of these parameters results in a laterally variable amount of reworked phylloid algae debris and in-situ mound core facies along the depositional profile. This variable architecture can be observed on the outcrop and results in a complex distribution of these two lithofacies in three dimensions that is challenging to reproduce in a 3D geocellular model. Two geostatistical estimation algorithms are used to stochastically model carbonate buildups: surface-based and multipoint statistics (MPS)-based. The surface-based model uses two-point statistics and is built by first recreating the overall geometry of the mound and then reproducing the internal architecture using indicator Gaussian simulation, but requires strong secondary trend data to reproduce the correct facies architecture. The MPS model successfully recreates both the geometry and internal architecture of the mound, but requires a complicated training image and complex multigrid simulation that would be hard to implement in subsurface. This comparison demonstrates that modelling carbonate buildup geometry and internal architecture is not trivial and requires complex workflow with secondary trends. These secondary trends require a significant amount of prior knowledge that is easily extracted from outcrop observations, but would be difficult to assess in subsurface data.

You do not currently have access to this article.

Figures & Tables

Contents

Geological Society, London, Special Publications

Advances in Carbonate Exploration and Reservoir Analysis

J. Garland
J. Garland
Cambridge Carbonates Ltd, UK
Search for other works by this author on:
J. E. Neilson
J. E. Neilson
University of Aberdeen, UK
Search for other works by this author on:
S. E. Laubach
S. E. Laubach
University of Texas at Austin, USA
Search for other works by this author on:
K. J. Whidden
K. J. Whidden
USGS, USA
Search for other works by this author on:
Geological Society of London
Volume
370
ISBN electronic:
9781862396180
Publication date:
January 01, 2012

GeoRef

References

Related

Citing Books via

Close Modal
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal