Analysis of computational performance in multivariate geological modeling of various scales

This article is devoted to the multivariate calculation performance analysis as well as practical recommendations development for the use of specific computer configurations depending on a range of factors. The analyzed parameters include the type of calculation (multivariate forecast of a fluid-saturated volume of varying scales in two- and three-dimensional formats during mapping and modeling, as well as various auxiliary calculations, such as dynamic attributes calculation base on seismic data and extracting statistics from a large array of maps) and a number of implementations. Each process was repeatedly calculated on all computer configurations, after which the best, average, and worst results were determined to obtain indicative statistics. The advantages and disadvantages of specific computer configurations based on benchmarking results are presented, trends and dependencies for each type of calculation are identified, and recommendations for selecting optimal workstation parameters are provided. In the vast majority of disciplines, the determining factor for fast calculations is central processing unit performance per 1 core/thread. The amount of random access memory has a lesser impact on calculation speed, but if the maximum allowed amount is exceeded, the calculation process may be interrupted. In addition to selecting the most suitable hardware for geological modeling, software optimization by developers is equally important. Improving algorithms to maximize the efficiency of multiple central processing unit cores and threads and thus significantly increase task performance should be a top priority.

References

1. Zakrevskiy K.E., Geologicheskoe 3D modelirovanie (3D geological modeling), Moscow: Publ of IPTs Maska, 2009, 376 p.

2. Bukatov M.V., Peskova D.N., Nenasheva M.G. et al., Key problems of Achimov deposits development on the different scales of studying (In Russ.), Proneft’. Professional’no o nefti, 2018, no. 2, pp. 16–21, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24887/2587-7399-2018-2-16-21

3. Alekhin I.I. et al., Reserves probabilistic assessment approach involving quantitative geological risks accounting for Achimov deposits with low exploration maturity

(In Russ.), PRONEFT’’. Professional’no o nefti, 2024, No. 9(3), pp. 6–16, DOI: https://doi.org/10.51890/2587-7399-2024-9-3-6-16

4. Perepletkin I.A., Tekhnicheskie resheniya dlya ucheta vertikal’nykh neodnorodnostey razreza v algoritmakh 2D modelirovaniya pri provedenii veroyatnostnoy otsenki (Technical solutions for accounting vertical inhomogeneities in 2D-modeling algorithms during reserves probabilistic estimation), Collected papers “Geologiya v razvivayushchemsya mire” (Geology in the developing world), Proceedings of XVIII International scientific and practical conference of students, postgraduates and young scientists, Perm’: Publ. of Perm State National Research University, 2025, pp. 313–317.

5. Perepletkin I.A. Zakharova O.A., Baza algoritmov veroyatnostnoy otsenki ob»ektov razlichnogo genezisa (A database of algorithms for probabilistic assessment of objects of various origins), Collected papers “Aktual’nye problemy geologii, geofiziki i geoekologii” (Current issues in geology, geophysics and geoecology), Proceedings of XXXVI youth scientific school-conference dedicated to the memory of Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences K.O. Kratz and Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences F.P. Mitrofanov, Publ. of Perm State National Research University, 2025, pp. 61–65.

6. Alekhin I.I. et al., Reserves probabilistic assessment approach for fluvial Upper-Middle Jurassic deposits in the northern part of Tazovsky Peninsula (In Russ.), PRONEFT’’. Professional’no o nefti, 2024, No. 9(4), pp. 15–29, DOI: https://doi.org/10.51890/2587-7399-2024-9-4-15-29

7. Zakrevskiy K.E., Popov V.L., The history of development of 3D geology modeling as a method for studying oil and gas reservoirs (In Russ.), Izvestiya Tomskogo politekhnicheskogo universiteta. Inzhiniring georesursov = Bulletin of the Tomsk Polytechnic University. Geo Assets Engineering, 2021, V. 332, No. 5, pp. 89–100,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18799/24131830/2021/5/3188

8. Swanson D.C., A new geological volume computer modeling system for reservoir description, SPE-17579-MS, 1988, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2118/17579-MS

9. Istoriya kompanii Roxar (History of Roxar), URL: http://roxar.ru/about-us/history

10. Schlumberger Petrel Deployment guide, 2007, 518 p.

11. IRM. Rukovodstvo pol’zovatelya. TNavigator 25.1. Dizayner Geologii i Modeley (IRM. User’s Guide. TNavigator 25.1. Geology and Model Designer), 2025, 3209 p.

12. Saakyan M.I., Zakrevskiy K.E., Gazizov R.K. et al., The prospects of corporate geological modeling software creation (In Russ.), Neftyanoe khozyaystvo = Oil Industry, 2019, No. 11, pp. 50-54., DOI: https://doi.org/10.24887/0028-2448-2019-11-50-54

13. Informatsionnaya geologicheskaya sistema GeoMate (GeoMate Geological Information System), URL: https://neftegaz.ru/news/Geological-exploration/236562-gazprom-neft-vnedryaet-informatsionnuyu-geolo...

14. Zinchenko I.A., Analysis of the parallel computing implementation and practical advice to reduce the calculation time of basin models in the PetroMod® software

(In Russ.), Neftyanoe khozyaystvo = Oil Industry, 2023, No. 7, pp. 76–82, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24887/0028-2448-2023-7-76-82

15. Kovalevskiy E.V., Geologicheskoe modelirovanie na osnove geostatistiki (Geological modeling based on geostatistics), Moscow: Publ. of TsGE, 2011, 100 p.

16. Perepletkin I.A., Kosmacheva M.S., Dynamic analysis capabilities for predicting reservoir propagation with a low seismic data maturity (In Russ.), PRONEFT’’. Professional’no o nefti, 2025, No. 10(3), pp. 14–27, DOI: https://doi.org/10.51890/2587-7399-2025-10-3-14-27