We present a new geological map of the Mexico Basin (Mexico City) based on field descriptions, a compilation of data from previous publications, and new ⁴⁰Ar/³⁹Ar geochronology data. The oldest rocks described in the Mexico Basin are Cretaceous limestones, overlaid by Oligocene (26.0 Ma) and Miocene (22.8–5.0 Ma) volcanic successions, followed by Pliocene-Pleistocene (3.7–1.2 Ma) to Recent volcanic rocks around the basin. The Mexico basin is surrounded by volcanic ranges mainly andesitic and dacitic in composition: Sierra de Guadalupe (∼20 to ∼13 Ma), Sierra de las Cruces (3.7–0.03 Ma), Sierra Nevada (1.4 Ma to Recent), and Sierra de Chichinautzin (1.2 Ma to Recent). The basin has formed and evolved through complex tectonic and volcanic events: A NNW and NNE-Cañón de Lobos trending reverse fault affected the Cretaceous basement, the NW-SE Mixhuca normal fault displaced Oligocene-Miocene volcanics, the NE-SW Tenochtitlan fault system displaced Plio-Pleistocene rocks, and finally E-W normal faults affected the most recent volcanic rocks, paleosols, and lacustrine sediments.

We use log permeability and porosity data obtained from single-hole pneumatic packer tests in six boreholes drilled into unsaturated fractured tuff near Superior, Arizona, to postulate, calibrate and compare five alternative variogram models (exponential, exponential with linear drift, power, truncated power based on exponential modes, and truncated power based on Gaussian modes) of these parameters based on four model selection criteria (AIC, AICc, BIC and KIC). Relying primarily on KIC and cross-validation we select the first three of these variogram models and use them to parameterize log air permeability and porosity across the site via kriging in terms of their values at selected pilot points and at some single-hole measurement locations. For each of the three variogram models we estimate log air permeabilities and porosities at the pilot points by calibrating a finite volume pressure simulator against two cross-hole pressure data sets from sixteen boreholes at the site. The traditional Occam’s window approach in conjunction with AIC, AICc, BIC and KIC assigns a posterior probability of nearly 1 to the power model. A recently proposed variance window approach does the same when applied in conjunction with AIC, AICc, BIC but spreads the posterior probability more evenly among the three models when used in conjunction with KIC. We compare the abilities of individual models and MLBMA, based on both Occam and variance windows, to predict space–time pressure variations observed during two cross-hole tests other than those employed for calibration. Individual models with the largest posterior probabilities turned out to be the worst or second worst predictors of pressure in both validation cases. Some individual models predicted pressures more accurately than did MLBMA. MLBMA was far superior to any of the individual models in one validation test and second to last in the other validation test in terms of predictive coverage and log scores.