Search USGS⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70015955

Comparison of structural and least-squares lines for estimating geologic relations

G. P. Williams·B.M. Troutman
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Two different goals in fitting straight lines to data are to estimate a "true" linear relation (physical law) and to predict values of the dependent variable with the smallest possible error. Regarding the first goal, a Monte Carlo study indicated that the structural-analysis (SA) method of fitting straight lines to data is superior to the ordinary least-squares (OLS) method for estimating "true" straight-line relations. Number of data points, slope and intercept of the true relation, and variances of the errors associated with the independent (X) and dependent (Y) variables influence the degree of agreement. For example, differences between the two line-fitting methods decrease as error in X becomes small relative to error in Y. Regarding the second goal-predicting the dependent variable-OLS is better than SA. Again, the difference diminishes as X takes on less error relative to Y. With respect to estimation of slope and intercept and prediction of Y, agreement between Monte Carlo results and large-sample theory was very good for sample sizes of 100, and fair to good for sample sizes of 20. The procedures and error measures are illustrated with two geologic examples. ?? 1990 International Association for Mathematical Geology.

Explore related subjects

Mathematical GeologyArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

G. P. Williams, B.M. Troutman. 1990. Comparison of structural and least-squares lines for estimating geologic relations. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00890122

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2007

Declustering of clustered preferential sampling for histogram and semivariogram inference

Measurements of attributes obtained more as a consequence of business ventures than sampling design frequently result in samplings that are preferential both in location and value, typically in the form of clusters along the pay. Preferential sampling requires preprocessing for the purpose of properly inferring characteristics of the parent population, such as the cumulative distribution and the semivariogram. Consideration of the distance to the nearest neighbor allows preparation of resampled sets that produce comparable results to those from previously proposed methods. Clustered sampling of size 140, taken from an exhaustive sampling, is employed to illustrate this approach. ?? International Association for Mathematical Geology 2007.

Mathematical Geology↗
USGS2002

Comparison of two probability distributions used to model sizes of undiscovered oil and gas accumulations: Does the tail wag the assessment?

Undiscovered oil and gas assessments are commonly reported as aggregate estimates of hydrocarbon volumes. Potential commercial value and discovery costs are, however, determined by accumulation size, so engineers, economists, decision makers, and sometimes policy analysts are most interested in projected discovery sizes. The lognormal and Pareto distributions have been used to model exploration target sizes. This note contrasts the outcomes of applying these alternative distributions to the play level assessments of the U.S. Geological Survey's 1995 National Oil and Gas Assessment. Using the same numbers of undiscovered accumulations and the same minimum, medium, and maximum size estimates, substitution of the shifted truncated lognormal distribution for the shifted truncated Pareto distribution reduced assessed undiscovered oil by 16% and gas by 15%. Nearly all of the volume differences resulted because the lognormal had fewer larger fields relative to the Pareto. The lognormal also resulted in a smaller number of small fields relative to the Pareto. For the Permian Basin case study presented here, reserve addition costs were 20% higher with the lognormal size assumption. ?? 2002 International Association for Mathematical Geology.

Mathematical Geology↗
USGS2000

Uncertainty estimation for resource assessment-an application to coal

The U.S. Geological Survey is conducting a national assessment of coal resources. As part of that assessment, a geostatistical procedure has been developed to estimate the uncertainty of coal resources for the historical categories of geological assurance: measured, indicated, inferred, and hypothetical coal. Data consist of spatially clustered coal thickness measurements from coal beds and/or zones that cover, in some cases, several thousand square kilometers. Our procedure involved trend removal, an examination of spatial correlation, computation of a sample semivariogram, and fitting a semivariogram model. This model provided standard deviations for the uncertainty estimates. The number of sample points (drill holes) in each historical category also was estimated. Measurement error in the thickness of the coal bed/zone was obtained from the fitted model or supplied exogenously. From this information approximate estimates of uncertainty on the historical categories were computed. We illustrate the methodology using drill hole data from the Harmon coal bed located in southwestern North Dakota. The methodology will be applied to approximately 50 coal data sets.

Mathematical Geology↗