See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/301485860

Probabilistic Reserves Assessment and Evaluation of Sandstone Reservoir in the

Anadarko Basin

Conference Paper · January 2016

DOI: 10.2118/179953-MS

CITATIONS READS
2 969

5 authors, including:

William Ampomah Dhiraj Gunda

New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
43 PUBLICATIONS   421 CITATIONS    5 PUBLICATIONS   54 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Martha E. Cather
New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
45 PUBLICATIONS   254 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Co-optimization of Oil recovery and CO2 storage View project

Caprock integrity analysis in CO2 storage View project

All content following this page was uploaded by William Ampomah on 12 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE-179953-MS

Probabilistic Reserves Assessment and Evaluation of Sandstone Reservoir

in the Anadarko Basin
W. Ampomah, R. S. Balch, H. -Y. Chen, D. Gunda, and M. Cather, New Mexico Institute of Mining and
Technology

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IAEE Hydrocarbon Economics and Evaluation Symposium held in Houston, Texas, USA, 17–18 May 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
This paper presents a field scale reservoir evaluation and uncertainty analysis of hydrocarbon reserves
estimation for the Upper Morrow B reservoir of the Farnsworth Unit (FWU), Ochiltree County, Texas.
The degree of uncertainty in volumetric reserves estimation for hydrocarbon in place is controlled in larger
order by the geological complexity of the reservoir and quality of available geologic data.
Morrow B core and thin sections were examined to determine composition, porosity types, depositional
environment and diagenetic history. Composition and porosity types determined from XRD and optical
microscopy were compared with results from an ELAN analysis. This information together with addi-
tional core, well log, borehole image logs, vertical seismic profiles and 3D surface seismic data were used
to characterize and subsequently create a fine scale lithofacies based geocellular model (Ampomah et al.,
2016b). The reservoir is classified as a highly heterogeneous.
Probability density functions for input uncertain variables were constructed to estimate probabilistic
reserves using first order, parametric and Monte Carlo simulation methods. The relative impact of input
variables from these methods were compared and analyzed based on geology, petrophyiscs and engi-
neering knowledge from the FWU to ascertain the applicability of these approaches.
The result for each method is presented with expectation curve and log-probability plot elaborating the
likelihood of occurrence as P10, P50, P90 and Mean reserves. A P10-to-P90 ratio and a coefficient of
variance were used to analyze the total uncertainty of the reserves estimation. Histograms were used to
illustrate the sensitivity of input parameter’s contribution towards the overall uncertainty. Statistical mean
reserves from the three methodologies were close to the deterministic calculations. Formation thickness
and area were the most uncertain variables and have to be topmost priorities to ensure accuracy in reserves
estimation for FWU.
The results from this study show that an analytical procedure such as the parametric method which is
easily generated within spreadsheets can be used to replace the ⬙black box⬙ Monte Carlo simulation of
estimating hydrocarbon reserves in the oil and gas industry.
2 SPE-179953-MS

Introduction
Hydrocarbon reserves estimation is a fundamental activity of the oil and gas industry. It is an essential tool
to assess the future of any project, irrespective of scale. In general, reserves are defined as the estimated
quantities of crude oil and associated substances that are anticipated to be commercially recovered from
known accumulations from a given date to the future (Petroleum Reserves Definitions, 1997). Even with
latest technology and elaborate testing the large number of variables involved in estimating the reserves
always gives rise to uncertainty. Uncertainty in estimation is inherent to the petroleum industry and the
objective should be to tackle it in the best possible way. Based on the degree of uncertainty, reserves are
classified into the following three types: proved (1P or P90), probable (2P or P50), and possible (3P or
P10). According to this classification, proved reserves are those that have at least 90 percent probability
that the quantities recovered will equal or exceed the estimate. In the case of probable reserves there
should be at least 50 percent probability that the quantities recovered will equal or exceed the estimate.
For possible reserves there should be at least 10 percent probability that the quantities recovered will equal
or exceed the estimate (Petroleum Reserves Management System, 2007).
The reserves estimation variables are often expressed using probability distributions instead of a
deterministic value (also known as ⬙best estimate value⬙) as it is more meaningful to consider all the
possible input parameters available to evaluate the hydrocarbon in place using probabilistic distributions
(Walstrom et al., 1967). The uncertainty in the variables involved in volumetric reserves estimation of the
hydrocarbon in place need to be quantified in order to achieve accurate estimates. There have been several
methods proposed for the quantification. This paper primarily focuses on the first order, parametric and
the Monte Carlo simulation methods.
The first order method is based on the Taylor series expansion theorem (Cacuci, 2003). It uses simple
mean and standard deviations as inputs. The analysis outputs a base mean with uncertainty of the sought
outcome (Chen, 2012). This approach also analyses the contribution of individual inputs toward the total
uncertainty. The computed mean is mostly the same as the deterministic outcome.
The parametric method is a statistical technique developed (Davidson and Cooper, 1976, Smith et al.
1993) to obtain results quickly using an analytical procedure to quantify the uncertainty in reserves as
compared to the black box Monte Carlo method (Ampomah et al. 2014). The advantage of this method
lies in its simplicity for classifying variables in terms of their importance in estimating reserves. The
parametric method, as the name suggests, involves the use of the mean, variance and coefficient of
variation for a normal, log normal or triangular distribution for a given parameter or set of parameters. A
set of rules is followed to combine the distributions and thereby evaluate the mean and the coefficient of
variation for the hydrocarbon in place. An expectation probability plot is generated to represent the P90,
P50, and P10 reserves and histograms can be used to show the sensitivity of the variables in order of their
contribution to the overall uncertainty.
The Monte Carlo method in general can be defined as a means of designing and understanding a
stochastic model which simulates a mathematical or physical process (Stoian, 1965). It is a standard
statistical technique used by the oil and gas industry to estimate the hydrocarbon reserves in place. Monte
Carlo simulation along with reserves estimation can also be used as a sensitivity test simultaneously which
helps in understanding the impact of the individual input variables. The evaluation process incorporates
all the statistical variables in terms of their probability distributions rather than the best case values. The
software calculates the hydrocarbons in place hundreds of times during the simulation process and
ultimately generates a probability distribution function for the hydrocarbons in place. The major draw-
backs of this method are that it is expensive and its non-transparent ⬙black box⬙ nature.
Ampomah et al. (2016a) presented an improved static model for FWU. The model serves as the basis
for other research activities in hydrogeology, reactive transport, and risk assessment at this field, In order
to construct a dynamic reservoir model, the next step in the field study, it is necessary to analyze the
SPE-179953-MS 3

hydrocarbon reserves potential of FWU before embarking on a history matching study. The three
probabilistic methods, first order, parametric, and Monte Carlo, were used to analyze reserves estimate as
part of the field study.

Theory
This section describes the mathematical formulations and statistical distributions used in hydrocarbon
reserves estimation with uncertainty. Volumetric reserves estimation methodology is widely used in the
industry. However, this approach may be subjected to a considerable uncertainty which is dependent on
geologic setting and quality of geologic and engineering data available (Cronquist, 2001). There is
therefore the need to quantify the uncertainty associated with reserves estimations instead of relying on
deterministic computations. Statistical distribution of input parameters used in mathematical models is an
important facet of probabilistic analysis. In volumetric reserves estimation, the probability density
function (PDF) for input parameters can be normal distribution, triangular and/or lognormal. Chen (2012)
illustrates a possible approach for generating input statistical distribution such as mean and standard
deviation from an existing data set. Normal or Gaussian distribution is bell-shaped, symmetric with
respect to the mean. The normal distribution is usually defined by the mean and standard deviation of the
input parameter X~N (m, s2). The PDF equation for a random variable X represented by normal
distribution is illustrated in Equation 1. The mean, median and mode for normal distribution are generally
equal due to its symmetrical nature. Triangular distribution is predominantly used in situations with
limited amounts of data. A triangular distribution is represented by a minimum (a) , mean (m) and a
maximum (b) to indicate a random variable X (X~ triangular (a, m, b). A PDF equation to specify a
triangular distribution of a random variable X is shown in Equation 2. A random function is lognormally
distributed when the logarithms of the values of X are normally distributed. Lognormal distribution is
mostly asymmetric and represented by In(X) ~ N (␣, ␤2). For a lognormal distribution, the degree of
skewness increases with increase in standard deviation. For a minute standard deviation, the lognormal
distribution behaves as that of normal. An equation illustrating PDF of lognormal distribution is shown
in equation 3. Normal and lognormal distributions are used in this paper.
(1)

(2)

(3)

Considering a hydrocarbon reservoir, reserves can be estimated by a generally known equation;

(4)

where HCIIP⫽ hydrocarbon initially in place, Stb; A⫽ area, acre; hgross⫽ gross thickness, ft; NGR⫽
net-to-gross ratio, fraction; ␾⫽ porosity, fraction; Shi ⫽ hydrocarbon saturation, fraction; bhi ⫽ inverse
of fluid volume factor.
Uncertainty Quantification Procedure
This sub-section presents detailed mathematical procedures for quantification of uncertainty in hydrocar-
bon reserves estimation. These methods investigated include Monte Carlo simulation, the first order
4 SPE-179953-MS

method and the parametric method. The approach in generating outcomes such as expectation curves and
log probability plots are also presented.
Monte Carlo Simulation Method The Monte Carlo Simulation method (MCMS) uses input variables
with specified probability distribution functions to ascertain total uncertainty in predictions (Kalos and
Withlock, 2008). It is usually good for solving non-linear random function problems (Karacaer et al.,
2012). In this work, Crystal Ball software, a spreadsheet-based application is used. A total of 10,000 trials
were conducted to reach the accepted outcome. Input parameters were assumed to be lognormally
distributed.
First Order Method For the first order method, which is based on the Taylor series expansion, input
random variables are represented by a mean (base value) and standard deviation. The analytical procedure
is presented in equations 5-9 (Chen, 2012). The output mean of HCIIP (m⍀) is the product of input base
values as shown in equation 5. Relative uncertainty (Vj) of each input variable (j) is given by equation 6.
The squared relative uncertainty of output is the sum of squared relative uncertainties of inputs (equation
7). The relative impact of various inputs is the normalized Vj2 as the fraction of total uncertainty 冱V⍀2
as shown in equation 8. The total uncertainty that can be classified as the output standard deviation (s⍀)
is computed by equation 9. The output base value (m⍀) and standard deviation (s⍀) can be transformed
logarithmically to lognormal mean (␣⍀) and lognormal standard deviation (␤⍀) respectively to compute
various statistical outcomes such as measures of location, spread and shape for HCIIP. A flow chart
illustrating the first order method as applied in this work is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1—Flow chart illustrating the first order method

(5)

(6)
SPE-179953-MS 5

(7)

(8)

(9)

Parametric Method The parametric method is an analytical procedure which uses common statistical
information such as mean (mj) and standard deviation (sj) and easily quantifies uncertainty. The
mathematical procedures are illustrated in equations 10-14. The first step in parametric uncertainty
quantification is to transform mean (mj) and standard deviation (sj) from original space to lognormal mean
(␣j) and lognormal standard deviation (␤j) as shown in Equations 11 and 10 respectively. The output
lognormal mean (␣⍀) and lognormal variance (␤⍀2) of HCIIP is computed by summing input lognormal
mean (␣j) and lognormal variance (␤j2) as illustrated in equation 12 and 13 respectively. Equation 14 is
used to compute the relative impact of individual input. A flow chart illustrating the parametric method
is shown in Figure 2.
(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

Figure 2—A flow chart showing parametric procedure in probabilistic reserves estimation

A lognormal output of mean (␣⍀) and standard deviation (␤⍀) are used to generate various statistical
measurements. These statistical outputs are categorized into three main divisions that include measures of
6 SPE-179953-MS

location, measures of variability and measure of shape. For example P90, P50, P10, Variance and
P10-to-P90 ratio are shown in equations 15-19 respectively (Capen 2001).
(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

Plotting Tools In this work there are two approaches utilized to present the probabilistic distribution
(expectation plots) of HCIIP estimation. They are the ⬙manual⬙ approach and the Microsoft Excel built-in
function. The manual approach is generated with equation 14. The zc in the equation can be interpreted
as the number of lognormal standard deviations. It’s obvious from the equation that one needs only
lognormal mean (␣) and lognormal standard deviation (␤) (e.g. HCIIP). The expectation curve becomes
the exceedance probabilities (at various confidence levels) vs. Pc (HCIIP).
(20)

The Microsoft Excel has two built-in functions that can be utilized to generate expectation curves (e.g.
HCIIP) at various confidence levels. These are LOGNORM.INV(x, lognormal mean, lognormal standard
deviation) and LOGNORM.INV (p, lognormal mean, lognormal standard deviation). All input variables
(x, ␣, ␤) ⬎ 0. The ⬙p⬙ is classified as cumulative probability (0ⱕ pⱕ 1). From these two functions, a plot
of exceedance probabilities (1-p) vs. x is the expectation curve. Outcome from parametric studies can also
be illustrated by using ⬙log probability plot⬙. This straight-line plot elaborates the relationships between
key confidence levels.

Farnsworth Unit Static Model

Farnsworth Unit (FWU), situated on the northwestern margin of the Anadarko basin, is the site of an
active CO2 EOR project as well as a large-scale demonstration carbon capture and storage project. The
field was discovered in 1955 and was unitized in 1963 with Unocal as operator. Secondary recovery
commenced in 1964. Chaparral Energy, LLC (CELLC) acquired the FWU in November 2009 and tertiary
CO2-EOR began in December 2010. The Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestration
(SWP), one of the seven U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE) Regional Carbon Sequestration
Partnerships, is currently working to demonstrate the utilization and storage of CO2 in the FWU EOR site
under the large scale demonstration phase of this U.S. DOE program. SWP involvement in the FWU site
began in late 2013. The initial deterministic oil reservoir volume computed for FWU is approximately 120
MMStb with approximately 42 MMScf of dissolved gas (Ampomah et al. 2016a). The primary production
was driven by a solution gas drive mechanism, as there is no reported aquifer associated with the reservoir.
The area of 12652.5 ⫾ 3795.75 acres for FWU was computed from field boundary (Ampomah et al.,
2016b).
Ampomah et al. (2016b) presented an improved geological model which is used as the basis for
this work. Detail geological description for FWU has been presented in several publications
(Ampomah et al., 2015a; Ampomah et al., 2015b; Ampomah et al., 2016a; Ampomah et al., 2016b;
Ross-Coss et al., 2015; Hutton, 2015; Gallagher, 2014; Czoski, 2014; Munson, 1988). The improved
static model has a grid distribution of 1759*1142*22 with total 3D grids of 44,193,116. Each grid
SPE-179953-MS 7

block has a dimension of 25ft * 25ft. Figure 3 shows the structural model for the main target Morrow
B reservoir and the overlying Morrow shale and Thirteen Finger caprock. The model includes 17
surfaces and 9 faults interpreted from 3D surface seismic surveys (Ampomah et al. 2016b; Hutton,
2015; Hutton and Balch, 2015).

Figure 3—Structural model for FWU. It contains Thirteen Finger limestone, Morrow shale, Morrow B sands. Three wells are shown in
the plot to illustrate trajectory of wells within FWU

The Morrow B formation is the target reservoir and ranges in depth from 7550 ft to 7950 ft with
an average dip of less than one degree. It has been interpreted as a fluvial incised-valley deposit
(Gallagher, 2014, Rose-Coss et al., 2015). Data from about 260 wells that penetrate through the
Morrow B formation were available from the field operator. Surface tops and thickness maps were
created based on well top information using the convergent interpolation method available in Petrel
software. The thickness maps were used to estimate formation volume and architecture. The Morrow
B has an average thickness of 22 ft on the west side of the field and 52 ft thick on the east side with
a mean thickness for the field of 24.47 ft and a standard deviation of 11.65ft (Ross-Coss et al., 2016).
Figure 4 shows the net thickness map for FWU within the field unit boundary. Thickest sands are
restricted to the middle of the field, whereas the sands thin along the periphery. Thicker accumula-
tions occur in discreet areas such as to the west of well 13-10A and to the east of well 32-8. The north
to south width of the reservoir and thinning along the periphery is interpreted to correspond to the
width of the incised valley. The discreet areas of thicker accumulations could represent the
accumulation of sands in fluvial channel bar forms or meander belts.
8 SPE-179953-MS

Figure 4 —Net sand thickness within Morrow B reservoir based on well top information. The mean of the net sand is 24.47 ft with a
standard deviation of 11.65ft

At FWU, 58 wells had porosity core and/or log data. A Sequential Gaussian simulation algorithm was
used to interpolate between cored and uncored wells into the 3D grid (Ampomah et al., 2016b). The
porosity distribution for the Morrow B reservoir has a mean of 14% and a standard deviation of 2%.
Figure 5 shows 3D distribution of porosity of the target reservoir enclosed within the FWU boundary. A
net-to-gross ratio map was constructed from gamma ray logs; however, the computed net sand thickness
is used in the volumetric analysis presented in this paper.

Figure 5—3D porosity distribution within the Morrow B sand target reservoir enclosed within FWU boundary. It has a mean of 14% and
a standard deviation of 2%
SPE-179953-MS 9

Initial fluid saturations for FWU were measured from special core analysis. The mean of oil saturation is
69% with a standard deviation of 3.45%. %. The initial reservoir pressure and temperature was 2217.7 psia at
a datum of 4900 ft subsea and 168°F respectively. The original bubble point pressure was 2073.7 psia. It had
a formation volume factor of 1.192 RB/STB. The reservoir was slightly undersaturated at time of discovery.
The several volumetric reserves computational parameters mentioned in the above paragraphs, including
area, net thickness, porosity, fluid saturation and formation volume factor are used in analyzing the uncertainty
of oil reserves potential for FWU using the first order, parametric and Monte Carlo simulation methods. A
summary of input parameters is presented in Table 1. The initial distributions of these parameters for the
parametric and Monte Carlo methods, which assume lognormal distribution are shown in Figure 6. All input
parameters are assumed to be lognormal distributed. Porosity, saturation and fluid shrinkage factor from Figure
6 show near normal distribution due to minute standard deviations. A flow chart illustrating the approach used
in first order and parametric uncertainty analysis is shown in Figures (1) and (2) respectively.

Table 1—Mean and standard deviation of input parameters used in analysis

Mean Standard deviation

Parameter Unit mj sj

Area, A acre 12652.5 3795.75

Net Thickness, hnet ft 24.47 11.65
Porosity, ␸ frac. 0.141 0.02
Initial Oil Saturation, Soi frac. 0.69 0.036
Initial Oil Shrinkage factor, boi⫽ 1/Boi stb/rb 0.52 0.002

Figure 6 —it shows input parameters such as area (A), net thckness (hnet), porosity, oil saturation (Soi) and oil shrinkage factor (boi)
probability density function distribution
10 SPE-179953-MS

Results and Discussion

The main objective of this work is to provide a distribution of OIIP estimates, identify confidence levels
in these estimates and to rank individual input parameter uncertainty towards the total spread for the FWU.
Three different probabilistic approaches were compared to ascertain the robustness of each method. The
deterministic OIIP for FWU based on input data is 121.75 MMstb which is equal to the mean computed
from other three methods. The output mean and standard deviation of the first order method were
transformed to lognormal to generate detail statistical measures. Figure 7 shows the expectation curve for
the three methods. The OIIP curve depicts various possible total reserves estimates and their correspond-
ing probabilities. These three methods yield practically the same results. However, a total of 10,000 trials
were conducted in the Monte Carlo simulation showing the expensive computational efforts to result in
same outcome with the other two less-costly methods. In order to ensure accuracy in the Monte Carlo
approach, there should be prior knowledge of the possible best value (mean) outcome to guide the number
of trials to be performed. The parametric and first order methods, being analytical methods, were simply
constructed using a spreadsheet. The first order method has a few approximation errors which are evident
in Table 2. Except the mean computation, all other statistical measures are slightly different from other
two methods. Figure 8 shows the log probability plot which shows a probabilistic reserves distribution on
a straight line. All prominent location measures lie on the straight line. This plot is similar to expectation
curves since it shows the entire distribution of reserves estimate at different confidence levels. It is an easy
tool to visualize the uncertainty in estimation. More often, the steeper the P90-P50-P10 straight line, the
smaller the uncertainty.

Figure 7—Expectation curve showing probabilistic distribution of OIIP for FWU

SPE-179953-MS 11

Table 2—Summary of some statistical measures of OIIP distribution

Statistical Summary Unit First Order Parametric Monte Carlo

P90 MMstb 52.62 50.84 51.05

P50 MMstb 105.20 104.12 103.53
P10 MMstb 210.31 213.24 214.30
Mean MMstb 121.75 121.75 121.23
Standard Deviation MMstb 70.92 73.80 72.63
P10/P90 4.00 4.19 4.20
Coefficient of Variation 0.58 0.61 0.60

Figure 8 —log probability plot showing probabilistic distribution of OIIP for FWU

It can be deduced from the expectation curve that mean ⫽ median ⫽ mode, which signifies the
skewness or asymmetry of the output probability density function. P99 and P1 on the expectation curve
can be acknowledged as a good practical boundary for FWU reserves estimation. P90 ~ 51 MMstb
represents a 90% confidence that estimated FWU reserves will be at least this value. It can be presented
as 10% chance of OIIP estimation will be less than 51 MMstb. From the analysis, there is a 50%
probability that OIIP estimation for FWU will be at least 104 MMstb which represents P50. The mean of
121.75 MMstb corresponded to P40.1. There is also 90% certainty that estimated reserves will be less than
213 MMstb which translates to P10. The overall uncertainty for the FWU reserves estimation is high with
a coefficient of variation of about 60% which translates to a standard deviation of ~ 73 MMstb. The major
contributors to this total uncertainty are net sand thickness and area. This is illustrated in the relative
impact plot shown in Figure 9. All three methods predicted more than 65% net thickness contribution to
the total uncertainty. This is expected due to the variability in the constructed sand thickness map shown
in Figure 4. Porosity, fluid saturation and formation volume factor together contributed to about 7% of
total uncertainty. This means that reducing the uncertainties involved in net thickness and area are the top
priorities to decrease overall uncertainty in FWU OIIP estimation. Figure 9 again, illustrates the
12 SPE-179953-MS

robustness of these methods in predicting similar relative impact from input data. The inclination of the
straight line trend in Figure 8 again is a measure of lognormal standard deviation ␤. The probability that
OIIP lies between 51 MMstb and 213 MMstb shows 80% confidence interval. The P90, P10 range
quantifies the uncertainty in estimation. Therefore P10/P90 is a simple but reliable approach in measuring
uncertainty range. A value above 4.0 signifies a high uncertainty similar to coefficient of variation. This
outcome is a function of lognormal standard deviation only.

Figure 9 —Relative impact plot illustrating input parameters contribution to total uncertainty

Conclusions
This paper presented probabilistic reserves estimation for FWU with three different methods. The
probabilistic methods provide probability distribution of reserves estimate rather than a single determin-
istic estimate. All three methods yielded similar expectation curves and relative impact analysis. It was
obvious that net thickness and area are to be prioritized to reduce total uncertainty in FWU reserves
estimation. The first order method is based on the Taylor series expansion. The only difference between
first order and parametric methods is that the latter assumes input variables as lognormally distributed.
These approaches are classified as analytical procedures which can be performed in a simple spreadsheet
type application. Monte Carlo, on the other hand, is a black box model, which is computationally
expensive. In this work, a total of 10,000 trials were needed to yield acceptable results with the Monte
Carlo method. For HCIIP computations, our presented analytical approaches can be utilized to reduce time
without compromising on accuracy. These methods are easy to deduce the confidence level of a project
using tools such as the expectation curve and log probability plot. This approach may help management
personnel to make viable decisions concerning a project that meet corporate preferences and also save
SPE-179953-MS 13

resources by not embarking on computationally expensive Monte Carlo simulations whose accuracy
depends mostly on prior experience.

Acknowledgements
Funding for this project is provided by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Energy
Technology Laboratory (NETL) through the Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestration
(SWP) under Award No. DE-FC26-05NT42591. Additional support has been provided by site operator
Chaparral Energy, L.L.C. and Schlumberger Carbon Services.

DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States
Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees,
makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents
that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,
process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute
or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency
thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of
the United States Government or any agency thereof.

References
Ampomah, W., Balch, R. S., Grigg, R. B. Will, R., and Dai. Z., M.D. White (2016a): ⬙Farnsworth Field CO2-EOR Project:
Performance Case History⬙ paper SPE-179528-MS. SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference held in Tulsa, OK, USA.
April 11-13 2016
Ampomah, W., Balch, R. S., Ross-Coss, D., Hutton, A., M. Cather and Will, R., (2016b): ⬙An Integrated Approach for
Characterizing a Sandstone Reservoir in the Anadarko Basin⬙ paper OTC-26952-MS Offshore Technology Confer-
ence held in Houston-Texas USA, May 2-5 2016
Ampomah, W., Balch, R. S., and Grigg, R. B. (2015a) Analysis of Upscaling Algorithms in Heterogeneous Reservoirs with
Different Recovery Processes. SPE Production and Operations Symposium March 1-5 2015, Oklahoma USA. doi:
10.2118/173588-MS
Ampomah, W., Balch, R. S., and Grigg, R. B., Dai Z., and Pan F. (2015b) Compositional Simulation of CO2 Storage
Capacity in Depleted Oil Reservoirs. Carbon Management Technology Conference November 16-19 2015, Sugarland,
Houston-Texas USA. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7122/439476-MS
Ampomah, W., Chen, H. Y., & Assad, J. (2014). Comparison of Probabilistic Techniques in the Study of Fluid Effects on
Seismic Properties. International Petroleum Technology Conference. January 19-21 2014, Qatar. Doi: http://dx.do-
i.org/10.2523/17452-MS
Capen, E.C. (2001). Probabilistic Reserves! Here at Last? SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering. 387–394.
Cacuci, D. G., Wadsley, A. W., Society of Petroleum Engineers, Yamaguchi, I., Ericok, O., Gumrah, F., Antunez, S.
(2013). Application of the Monte Carlo Simulation in Calculating HC-Reserves. Journal of Petroleum Technology,
12(1), 1–15. http://doi.org/10.2118/152923-MS
Chen, H.-Y. (2012). Engineering Reservoir Mechanics, New Mexico Tech, Socorro New Mexico.
Cronquist, C., (2001). Estimation and Classification of Reserves of Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Condensate. Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Houston, Texas.
Czoski, P., (2014). Geologic characterization of the Morrow B reservoir in Farnsworth Unit, TX using 3D VSP seismic,
seismic attributes, and well logs: M.S. Thesis, New Mexico Tech
Davidson, L.B. and Cooper, D.O., (1976). A Simple Way of Developing a Probability Distribution of Present Value. J.
Pet. Tech, 1069 –1078; Trans., AIME, 261.
Gallagher, S. R. (2014). Depositional and Diagenetic Controls on Reservoir Heterogeneity: Upper Morrow Sandstone,
Farnsworth Unit, Ochiltree County, Texas. M.S. Thesis, New Mexico Tech, Socorro NM, USA.
Hutton, A., (2015). Geophysical Modeling and Structural Interpretation of A 3D Reflection Seismic Survey In Farnsworth
Unit, TX. M.S. Thesis, New Mexico Tech, Socorro NM, USA
 14 SPE-179953-MS

Karacaer, C., & Onur, M. (2012). Analytical Probabilistic Reserve Estimation by Volumetric Method and Aggregation of
Resources. SPE Hydrocarbon, Economic and Evaluation Symposium, Calgary, Alberta 24-25 September, 2012. doi:
10.2118/162875-MS
Kalos, M.V. and Whitlock P.A. (2008). Monte Carlo Methods, Willey-Blackwell.
Munson, T., 1988, ⬙Depositional, diagenetic, and production history of the Upper Morrowan Buckhaults sandstone,
Farnsworth Field, Ochiltree County, Texas,⬙ unpub. MS thesis, West Texas State University, Canyon, TX. 354. pp.
Rose-Coss D., Ampomah W., Hutton A., Gragg E., Mozley P., Balch R.S., and Grigg R. (2015) Geologic Characterization
for CO2-EOR Simulation: A Case Study of the Farnsworth Unit, Anadarko Basin, Texas. Search and Discovery
Article #80484 Posted October 19, 2015 presented May 31-June 3, 2015.
Smith, P. J., Hendry, D. J., Crowther, A. R., & Exploration, B. P. (1993). SPE 26056 The Quantification and Management
of Uncertainty in Reserves The Parametric Method Application to Oil in Place, (I), 275–284.
SPE, AAPG, WPC & SPEE. (2007, January 1). Petroleum Resources Management System. Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
SPE & WPC (1997, January 1). Petroleum Reserves Definitions. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Stoian, E. (1965, July 1). Fundamentals and Applications of the Monte Carlo Method. Petroleum Society of Canada. doi:
10.2118/65-03-02
Walstrom, J. E., Mueller, T. D., & McFARLANE, R. C. (1967). Evaluating Uncertainty in Engineering Calculations.
Journal of Petroleum Technology, 19(12). http://doi.org/10.2118/1928-PA

View publication stats