Identifying and Estimating
Significant Geologic Parameters
With Experimental Design
Christopher D. White, SPE, Louisiana State U.; Brian J. Willis, BP Canada Energy Co.;
Keshav Narayanan,* SPE, Object Reservoir Inc.; and Shirley P. Dutton, Bureau of Economic Geology
Summary
Variability in production predictions caused by geologic heterogene-
ity and uncertainty was examined with a new method. The experi-
mental design maximized the information derived from the flow
simulation of various geologic models. Empirical response surface
models were fit to simulation results to assess the consequences of
varying several geologic factors. Posterior distributions of geologic
parameters were estimated from flow responses. Improvements in
the accuracy of the reservoir model were quantified by computing
changes in factor uncertainties resulting from response measure-
ments. Monte Carlo simulations with prior and posterior factor
distributions illustrate uncertainty reduction. This approach can be
used for model comparison, sensitivity analysis, and estimation of
probability distributions of geologic model parameters.
Introduction
Reservoir simulation is used widely to investigate the effects of
geologic heterogeneity and engineering parameter variability on
reservoir production performance. Because many geologic and
engineering factors interact to affect recovery predictions, an
exhaustive examination of recovery behavior for all possible
parameter combinations is prohibitively time-consuming and
expensive. The factors that most strongly influence production
behavior should be identified to focus analyses and measurements.
If reservoir-simulation studies are conducted with an experi-
mental design, response surface models can estimate how the varia-
tion of input factors affects reservoir behavior with a relatively small
number of reservoir-simulation models. Response surface models
can test the relative importance of the factors in experimental
designs statistically. Because response surfaces are accurate and sim-
ple to evaluate, they are efficient proxies for reservoir simulators.
A method based on response surfaces, Monte Carlo simulation,
and Bayes’ theorem (RSMCB) was used to examine the effects of
geologic variability and different models for permeability fields.
The method was demonstrated in an analysis of outcrop data from
a heterolithic tide-influenced deltaic sandstone. The data set
includes probe permeameter measurements, detailed bedding
maps, shale diagrams, cement maps, facies maps, facies-specific
rock properties, and variograms. Because of the importance of
geostatistical methods for reservoir model construction, designed
simulations examined the effects of varying geostatistical parame-
ters and compared stochastic and deterministic geologic models.
Methods
Experimental Design. Experimental design1,2 has been used in reser-
voir engineering applications, including performance prediction,3
uncertainty modeling,4–6 sensitivity studies,7–9 upscaling,10,11 history
matching,12 and development optimization.13
The first step in a designed simulation study is to identify the
factors that may influence flow responses. These factors may be
geologic (e.g., cement nodule permeability) or engineering (e.g.,
* Now with Landmark Graphics Corp.
Copyright © 2001 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 74140) was revised for publication from paper SPE 62971, first presented
at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 1–4 October. Original
manuscript received for review 12 October 2000. Revised manuscript received 26 February
2001. Manuscript peer approved 26 March 2001.
September 2001 SPE Journal
skin factor) parameters; they may be deterministic (e.g., well spac-
ing), stochastic (e.g., permeability fields), or controllable (e.g.,
injection rate).
Factor ranges should include all feasible factor values. Factors
are usually scaled to span the range of -1,1. Factor-response
relationships should be as linear as possible. However, linear
factor-response relations are difficult to guarantee a priori and are
impossible to obtain when many responses are modeled. This
scaling difficulty is a motivation for using quadratic rather than
linear models.7,11 Factor scaling should reflect the range of factor
variability. For example, although a permeability range from 1 md
to 1 darcy could be mapped linearly to the range of -1,+1, a log-
arithmic scaling to the same range gives a more nearly linear
response in most cases.
A design is a set of factor-value combinations for which
responses are measured.1,2 In a two-level factorial design, each
factor is assigned to its maximum or minimum value (±1) in all
possible combinations with other factors (Fig. 1). For three fac-
tors, this requires eight experiments; for K factors, 2K experiments
are needed. Similarly, three-level factorial designs assign each
factor its minimum, centerpoint, or maximum value (-1,0,+1) in
all possible combinations with other factors (Fig. 1b); this design
requires 27 experiments for three factors, or 3K experiments for K
factors. Box-Behnken14 designs are modified three-level factorials
(Fig. 1c). This design requires 15 experiments for three factors,
including three at the factor centerpoint (all factors assigned to
their centerpoint values). Centerpoint replicates make the design
more nearly orthogonal, which improves the precision of esti-
mates of response surface coefficients. There is no simple formula
relating the number of required experiments to the number of factors
for Box-Behnken designs; however, the number of experiments
needed will always be between 2K and 3K.
Box-Behnken designs were used in this study. This design has
several advantages relative to alternatives. Compared with a three-
level full-factorial design, a Box-Behnken design reduces the
number of required experiments by confounding higher-order
interactions. This reduction becomes more significant as the num-
ber of factors increases. For five factors, a Box-Behnken design
requires 41 experiments, compared to 243 experiments required
for a full three-level factorial and 32 for a full two-level factorial.
Box-Behnken designs have the desirable qualities of being nearly
orthogonal and rotatable for many cases.14 Unlike D-Optimal
designs,1,2,4 Box-Behnken designs neither require nor depend on
prior specification of the model. Further, unlike first-order (e.g.,
two-level factorial) designs,8,9 Box-Behnken designs allow esti-
mation of quadratic terms and do not imply constant sensitivities
of responses to factors. Most two-level designs do not include
experiments at the design centerpoint. By including the center-
point, Box-Behnken designs reduce estimation error for the most
likely responses. Box-Behnken designs require only a few more
experiments than two-level designs and allow construction of
more versatile and accurate models.
Response Surface Models. A response surface model is an empir-
ical fit of experimental or computed responses. The responses are
usually measured or computed at factor combinations specified by
an experimental design. The model is usually a polynomial fit
with linear regression. Each term in the polynomial (or regressor)
is a function of one or more factors. The coefficients in the poly-
311
 Factor Ranges
Fig. 1—Examples of designs for three factors. (a) A two-level factorial requires eight experiments, (b) a three-level factorial requires
27 experiments, and (c) a Box-Behnken design requires 15 experiments (including three replicates at the centerpoint).
nomial are the factor effects and the interactions. The coefficients
are found by solving15
H H
{ }
−1
b = ëéX'ûë
ùéX ûù ëéX'ûù y , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
where [X]=a rectangular matrix with a row rank equal to the num-
ber of observations (or design points), n, and a column rank equal


to the number of regressors, r; [X']=its transpose; and y =an n-
long column vector of observed responses. The solution of Eq. 1

yields r-long vectors of estimates of the regression coefficients b


and the standard errors s b. The standard errors are calculated from
{ }
−1
sβ i = sr2 ëéX'ûë
ùéX ûù , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
ii
where s r2 = the estimated variance of the residual,
H H ′
( yˆ − yH )( yˆ − yH ) /(n − r ) . The degrees of freedom are v=n-r, and i
indicates the i th regressor.
In this study, the initial regression model consisted of the mean,
all first-order effects and interactions, and quadratic terms for all
factors. This commonly used model is particularly appropriate for
Box-Behnken designs.14 For an experiment with K factors, the max-
imum number of regressors in this model is rmax=1+K(K+3)/2.
Two potential problems must be considered before interpreting
or applying regression results: some model coefficients may be sta-
tistically insignificant, and the model may not fit the simulation
results well.
The first problem can be addressed with stepwise regression to
eliminate insignificant effects from the model.1,15 Coefficients are
tested for significance using three statistics: the univariate t-test, the
multivariate Bonferroni t-statistics, and the adjusted correlation
2
coefficient Radj . For a univariate t-test, coefficients are significant if
bi
≥ t n − r ,α / 2 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
sβ i
where t=the student’s t-distribution with v=n-r degrees of free-
dom, and a=1-psig ( psig is the significance level). The univariate
t-test gives optimistically tight confidence intervals for multivari-
ate regression.15,16 The Bonferroni t-method provides reasonable
rectanguloid multivariate confidence intervals and is easy to com-
pute. The confidence interval is redefined with aB=a/2r.
Otherwise, the analysis is identical to the univariate case with aB
substituted for a in Eq. 3.15 The final component of the signifi-
cance test is the adjusted correlation coefficient,
sr2
2
Radj =1− , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
s y2


where sy=the standard deviation of the response y with v=n-r
degrees of freedom.
312
Experimental Point (some are hidden from view)
The initial model contained all possible regressors for the sec-
ond order model. At each step, the coefficient with the lowest t-
value was eliminated (i.e., assigned a value of zero) if (1) its
Bonferroni confidence interval included zero, and (2) its univariate
2
confidence interval included zero or Radj of the model was lower
with the term included.
Stepwise significance checking continued until no statistically
insignificant terms remained in the model. Finally, all possible
additions were considered to ensure that no significant terms had
been omitted from the model. If any significant terms were found,
the most significant term (i.e., the coefficient with the highest t-
value) was added, and the addition process was repeated until no
more significant terms could be found. The last pass provided esti-
mates for the coefficients and standard errors of regressors not
retained in the model.
The second problem—determining whether the regression sur-
face adequately fits the simulated responses—was addressed by
examining
®
the coefficient
®
of regression, R2, and the residuals,
ŷ -y®, where ŷ =the regression estimate and y®=the actual
response. A poor fit is indicated by R2 being much less than 1.0. All
models in this study had correlation coefficients greater than 0.95.
Other studies with response surfaces have also obtained good
fits.10,11,13
Sensitivity. In reservoir evaluation, project economics must be
evaluated in the presence of uncertainty. For example, the net pres-
ent value may depend strongly on initial rate, which in turn
depends on factors such as cementation, tubing diameter, skin fac-
tor, shale length, and variogram parameters. It is important to
determine which factors cause variability or uncertainty in project
economics. This dependence can be investigated with sensitivity
analysis. The sensitivity of a response to a factor is the partial
derivative of the response with respect to that factor.17 Because
response surfaces are usually polynomials, it is simple to compute
their sensitivities.
With linear models (usually obtained from two-level designs), the
sensitivity is the slope across the entire factor domain. This implies
that responses vary in a constant ratio relative to factor changes. For
many cases, however, this is not a reasonable prediction; for example,
effective permeability does not typically vary as a constant multiple
of shale permeability (or its logarithm). Models from Box-Behnken
and other three-level designs can include quadratic terms and better
predict sensitivity variations across factor ranges.
Response variability is caused by both factor uncertainties and
factor sensitivities; their influences must be combined to under-
stand response uncertainty and the value of additional information.
In the following sections, these elements will be combined using
Monte Carlo simulation and Bayes’ theorem.
Discrimination. Differences between models can be assessed in
several ways. Although F-tests assess overall model suitability,
and t-tests compare individual coefficients, neither of these tests
September 2001 SPE Journal
is easy to interpret if the goal is to compare responses with
respect to prior distributions of model factors.18 Kolomogorov-
Smirnov,16 or c2-tests19 comparing two Monte Carlo distribu-
tions, are not meaningful because the Monte Carlo simulations
were designed to ensure that small differences in response distri-
butions would be statistically significant. Instead, the test should
indicate whether a single realization is significantly more likely
to be drawn from one realization than the other. A c2-likelihood
test was used to quantify such differences between pairs of dis-
tributions (see Appendix).
Monte Carlo Simulations. Monte Carlo simulation is widely used
to propagate uncertainty in input parameters through a perform-
ance model.16 However, for models with many factors, it is bur-
densomely expensive to perform the large number of flow simula-
tions required. As other investigators have found,4,6 response sur-
faces provide an efficient and surprisingly accurate10,11,13 alterna-
tive. Several applications of Monte Carlo simulation will be con-
sidered in this paper.
Posterior Distributions. Bayes’ theorem quantifies how new
information changes current perceptions of the state of nature.19–21
To use Bayes’ theorem to estimate factor posteriors, one must have
prior estimates of the probability that factors assume various val-
ues (based on historical data, probability models such as a binomi-
al distribution, or a reasonable guess) and response distributions
conditional to various values of the factors, pR,F.
Response surfaces can be used to estimate the distribution of
responses conditional to any factor combination. The posterior
probability that factors have particular values, given observed
responses, can then be calculated from Bayes’ theorem.
pF , R C pF
pR , F = , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
pR
where pF,R=the probability density of the factor conditional to the
response, pF=the probability density of the factor, and pR=the
probability density of the response. Bayesian statistics is some-
times criticized because of its reliance on priors.19 However, the
ability to use appropriate priors, integrate new data, and infer event
probabilities makes the Bayesian approach attractive.
Computing pR,F is time-consuming if flow simulations must be
performed for each factor combination. Because response surfaces
are inexpensive to compute, the conditional distributions needed in
Eq. 5 can be computed easily.
In the RSMCB approach, the probability-density functions of
one or more responses are specified. Factor values are drawn ran-
domly from their prior distributions. The response surface is used
to compute the reservoir response for the given factor combina-
tion, and the error characteristics of the measurements are used to

Limit of exposure Bedding surface

Shale Cement Permeameter transect

.
Scale, meters 0 5,000
Vertical Exaggeration =2X Permeability, md (linear scale)

Fig. 2—View of the bed model. (a) Each stratum bounded by bedding planes was represented as a distinct reservoir-simulation
layer using a cornerpoint grid. (b) The clusters of shale drapes (at the left center and extreme right bottom of Fig. 2b) and the con-
tinuous cement layer (near the top of the right half of the model, Figs. 2b through 2d) have visible effects on flow behavior (Fig. 4).
Probe permeameter measurements were taken every 0.2 m along transects.7 The (c) kriged and (d) sequential Gaussian simula-
tions of permeability use the same variogram (at the centerpoint values for the variogram factors) and conditioning data.

September 2001 SPE Journal 313

estimate the probability that the computed response could be
drawn from the measured response distribution. This probability
will be small if the computed response is far from the measured
response. The sum of these response probabilities divided by the
total number of trials is proportional to pR in Eq. 5. The number of
times this joint response is observed is tabulated into discrete bins
for each factor. These counts are proportional to the product of
pR,F and pF in Eq. 5. After a large number of realizations (each one
using response surface models rather than flow simulation), joint-
factor posterior distributions pF,R can be computed. Computing the
joint-factor posterior distributions may require millions of evalu-
ations of the response surfaces, but because response surfaces are
easy to evaluate, the calculations can be done in a spreadsheet on
a personal computer.
Application and Results
The RSMCB approach was used to investigate the sensitivity and
uncertainty of geologic parameters for a model based on an out-
crop exposure of the Frewens sandstone.
Geologic Setting. The Frewens sandstone is a heterolithic tide-
influenced deltaic deposit within the Cretaceous-age Frontier for-
mation in north-central Wyoming.22 Variations within this sand-
stone were quantified using sedimentologic logs, photomosaics
of the outcrops, probe permeameter measurements along vertical
and horizontal transects, and thin section analysis.7,23,24 The sand-
stone comprises two major elongate bodies 3 to 4 km wide,
approximately 20 km long, and up to 20 to 30 m thick.
Basinward-dipping beds within each sandstone body (meters
thick by hundreds of meters long and wide) record episodic
aggradation of sands on the delta front. Shaly layers that formed
during pauses in delta progradation commonly separate sand-
stone beds. Near the top of the upper sandstone body, calcite
cement nodules are common; they reduce permeability and
porosity locally.24 Beds are composed of cross sets formed by
dunes migrating down the delta front. Grain size and permeabili-
ty trends along individual cross sets reflect coarsening preserved
during initial dune growth, followed by fining as the dune was
gradually abandoned and its trough filled. Variations down indi-
vidual cross strata reflect grain sorting on the lee face of the dune.
Shale drapes within cross sets, formed during pauses in the depo-
sitional tidal currents, are preserved preferentially in the lower
parts of the cross sets. Reactivation surfaces with superimposed
ripple-cross lamination and lateral clustering of shale drapes
along cross sets record episodic dune migration caused by longer-
term tidal current fluctuations.23 This paper focuses on a single
bed of a cross-stratified sandstone (Fig. 2).7,23
Permeability Fields. The bedding diagram, shale maps, and probe
permeameter transects used in simulation models of a cross-strati-
fied sandstone bed within the lower Frewens sandstone body are
10
Permeability Variogram
Permeability, darcies
Normal-Score
1
.1
.01
0 10 20 30 40
(a) Distance, m
Fig. 3—Probe permeameter measurements. (a) Example of a horizontal probe permeameter transect (moving average superim-
posed to show trends) and (b) overall horizontal semivariogram of normal score transformed data for Facies 3. Vertical semivari-
ograms indicated an anisotropy ratio (horizontal range divided by vertical range) of approximately 0.4. Variogram shape varies
from facies to facies within the Frewens sandstone.7,24
314
shown in Fig. 2. More than 800 probe permeameter measurements
were made along vertical and horizontal transects within this 16-
m-long by 1-m-high area. A horizontal transect and semivariogram
of the probe permeameter data are shown in Fig. 3. The semivari-
ogram (based on normal-score transformed data) has a well-
defined range and sill. The vertical semivariogram is similarly well
behaved. The semivariograms were used to compute kriged and
conditionally simulated permeability fields (Figs. 2c and 2d).7,25
Several different models were considered for sandstone perme-
ability: uniform, kriged, and conditionally simulated with sequen-
tial Gaussian simulation.25 All geostatistical algorithms used the
normal-score transform of permeability. Shale resistance and
cement permeability were assumed to be spatially uniform but
were varied from case to case.
These permeability fields are different from those commonly
encountered in field-scale modeling. First, the horizontal correla-
tion of permeability is small compared to the flow length (Figs. 2
and 3), whereas field-scale models often assume correlation
lengths that are comparable to the interwell distance.20,26 Different
correlation lengths will affect flow behavior and, therefore, sensi-
tivity analysis and parameter estimation. Generally, the shorter cor-
relation range causes higher kriging-estimation error and greater
stochastic fluctuations among permeability realizations. Second, in
this study, there are many permeability measurements within the
flow domain, as shown by the heavy gray traces on Fig. 2b. The
abundant conditioning data decrease kriging-estimation variance,
opposing the effect of the relatively short semivariogram range.
Results of geostatistical studies at different scales and in different
settings must be compared with caution.
Simulation-Model Construction. The reservoir simulation mod-
els were built using methods presented in earlier studies of the
Ferron sandstone27 and the Frewens sandstone.7,10,11 Permeability
fields were assigned with an average value, kriging, or stochastic
simulation.7 Flow models were discretized with a 2D cornerpoint
grid.28 Transmissibility multipliers between layers were based on
the presence of draping shales.7,27,29 Simulation studies with cor-
nerpoint grids have demonstrated the importance of accurately rep-
resenting the geometry of rock property variations and barrier loca-
tions within geologically complex systems.7,10,11,27,29 Although the
skewness of these cornerpoint grids causes errors, it is difficult to
model these systems with reasonable-sized rectangular grids.7,29
Experimental Design. Five factors were selected for study: semi-
variogram range, semivariogram nugget, semivariogram
anisotropy, cement permeability,24 and shale resistance (=hsh/ksh).27
The factor ranges are presented in Table 1. The semivariogram
nugget was scaled linearly with xi=( fi-fi,c)/( fi,max-fi,c); all other
factors were scaled with logarithms, such as,
xi=log( fi/fi,c)/log( fi,max/fi,c), where xi=the scaled factor and fi=the
unscaled factor.
2
Data
1.5
1
0.5
Model
0
0 5 10 15 20
(b) Lag, m
September 2001 SPE Journal
 TABLE 1—FACTOR RANGES AND SCALING
Factor Mappings
Index Factor Name Symbol Units -1 0 1
1 Variogram range r m 1 3 9
2 Variogram nugget n fraction of sill 0 0.4 0.8
3 Variogram anisotropy a ratio, vert/horz 0.16 0.4 1
4 Cement permeability c md 0.01 1 100
5 Shale resistance d m/md 0.000328 0.032808 3.28084

Factor combinations for the simulation models were specified number of pore volumes injected, NpD=Np/N,Np=the connate fluid
by a 41-experiment Box-Behnken design14 for the five-factor produced, and N=the connate fluid initially in place. The initial
kriged and stochastic model sets and a nine-experiment three-level regression models considered were of the form
full factorial2 for the two-factor uniform permeability model set. H K

Six realizations were run at each design point for the stochastic yˆ j ( x ) = b j ,0 + å b j ,i xi + b j , K +1 x1 x2
i =1
permeability fields.
+b j , K + 2 x1 x3 + K + b j ,K ( K +1) / 2 xK −1 xK
Flow Simulations. Flow was simulated with a commercial reser- K
voir simulator.30 Fluid was injected over the entire left face of the + å b j ,i + K ( K +1) / 2 xi2 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
model and produced from the entire right face of the model (Fig. 4). i =1

Fluid and rock properties correspond to ideal tracer flow (no capil-
lary pressure, straight-line relative permeabilities, and liquids with
no density or viscosity contrasts). Although these simplifications
reduced the resources needed for flow simulation, such assump-
tions are not needed to use response surface models.3–13 The flow
model has been described previously.7
The flow simulations for selected factor combinations are
shown in Fig. 4. For this pair of kriged and conditional simulations
(taken at the factor-space centerpoint, [0,0,0,0,0]), differences in
front geometry at breakthrough appear to be small. In both models,
there is a region near the left end in which flow is downward and
to the left. This tortuous path is caused by shale drapes (Fig. 2b).
The flow must be viscous-driven because there is no significant
density contrast in these flow models. Vertical flow is impeded by
the cemented zone near the top in the right half of both models
(Figs. 2 and 4). These features appear to exert a strong influence on
flow behavior.
Response Surface Models. Response surfaces for the stochastic,
kriged, and uniform permeability fields were computed with step-~
wise regression. Analyzed responses are effective permeability k
(computed from steady-state pressure drop and rate in the numerical
flow model), breakthrough time in pore volumes tBT, recovery effi-
ciency NpD (fw=0.99), and time to flood-out t(fw=0.99); t is the
where j=a particular response, and K=the number of factors. Final
models were determined with stepwise regression.15 Full five-
factor models and reduced two-factor models (neglecting vari-
ogram parameters) were constructed for the kriged and stochastic
permeability fields. The reduced models permit direct comparison
of the kriged and stochastic permeability fields to the uniform per-
meability results. The correlation coefficients and model coeffi-
cients for stochastic, kriged, and uniform-permeability response
surface models are shown in Table 2. Statistically insignificant
terms were not retained in the models. All models have acceptably
high correlation coefficients. Several response surfaces are shown
in Fig. 5. These surfaces are 2D slices through the 5D factor space.
Several points are clear:
• All factors are significant for at least one response.
• Most interaction terms are insignificant.
• All factors have significant quadratic terms for at least one
response. A two-level design, or linear model, would be inadequate.
• The variogram parameters have significant effects.
• The kriged and stochastic permeability fields give somewhat
different predictions for some responses. For example, the effect of
semivariogram anisotropy is opposite for the kriged and stochastic
permeability fields (Figs. 5a and 5c, Table 2).
• For most responses, the largest effect is caused by shale
resistance (Figs. 5a and 5b).

1
0 1
Tracer Concentration, fraction
0.5
Scale, meters
Vertical Exaggeration = 2X
0
0 1 2

Fig. 4—Tracer simulations of (a) kriged (Fig. 2c) and (b) conditionally simulated permeability (Fig. 2d) models at the center of the
factor space [0,0,0,0,0].7 The shales at the left-center of the model (Fig. 2c) shunt flow upward, and the cemented zone at the right
top of the model causes layer-like flow. Although fine details differ, the two flow models appear to be similar.

September 2001 SPE Journal 315

 TABLE 2 — RESPONSE SURFACE MODEL REGRESSION RESULTS
Effective Permeability, Breakthrough Time, τBT , Recovery at Flood-out, N pD , Total Throughout to Flood-
Response k, md pore volumes fraction out, τ(f w =0.99), pore volumes
Permeability Model Simulated Kriged Uniform Simulated Kriged Uniform Simulated Kriged Uniform Simulated Kriged Uniform
Correlation Coefficient 0.9793 0.9859 0.9974 0.9671 0.9797 0.9917 0.9966 0.9984 0.9952 0.9975 0.9963 0.9890
Adjacent Correlation Coefficient 0.9627 0.9747 0.9930 0.9408 0.9635 0.9778 0.9940 0.9970 0.9873 0.9954 0.9934 0.9707
Number regressors retained 6 9 3 7 8 3 7 12 4 8 7 3
Constant b 99.0 101.9 119.1 0.3490 0.4052 0.4185 0.9378 0.9403 0.9598 4.895 4.820 3.858
r -6.1 -19.4 0.0250 -0.0158 0.0007 -0.0028 -0.106 0.032
n -27.3 8.1 0.0091 -0.0121 0.0047 0.0040 -0.237 -0.070
Linear Terms a -10.8 -10.8 0.0215 0.0054 0.0006 -0.0030 -0.129 0.016
c 5.5 6.3 3.6 0.0120 0.0089 0.0072 0.0200 0.0231 0.0244 0.144 0.150 -0.002
d -103.0 -95.6 -100.7 -0.1239 -0.1160 -0.1285 -0.0911 -0.0874 -0.0740 3.590 3.570 3.651
r*n 1.2 7.2 -0.0109 -0.0075 0.0011 0.0031 0.064 0.026
r*a -6.2 0.1 0.0025 0.0085 0.0025 0.0064 -0.059 -0.104
r*c -0.5 -1.1 0.0019 0.0027 -0.0012 0.0026 0.032 0.264
r*d 7.5 23.8 0.0021 -0.0062 0.0037 0.0015 0.056 0.110
n*a 4.2 5.4 0.0118 0.0201 0.0016 0.0051 -0.051 0.030
Interaction Terms
n*c -1.7 -0.1 0.0037 0.0080 -0.0025 -0.0006 -0.117 -0.201
n*d 7.6 -8.4 -0.0145 -0.0065 0.0051 0.0015 -0.054 -0.032
a*d -0.2 -1.0 0.0040 0.0009 -0.0005 0.0010 0.044 0.247
a*c 7.9 13.5 -0.0042 0.0001 0.0027 0.0009 -0.011 0.108
c*d -2.3 -3.7 2.9 0.0010 0.0017 0.0128 -0.0075 -0.0031 0.0080 0.026 -0.010 0.381
2
r 8.4 4.1 -0.0206 -0.0084 -0.0010 0.0042 -0.012 -0.078
2
n 10.3 2.1 0.0038 0.0113 -0.0017 0.0029 0.070 0.057
2
Quadratic Terms a 5.2 -0.4 -0.0105 0.0086 -0.0005 0.0043 -0.031 -0.082
2
c 5.0 -0.2 7.1 -0.0001 0.0084 0.0193 0.0125 0.0075 0.0025 -0.193 -0.339 -0.587
2
d 67.1 61.0 48.5 0.0633 0.0724 0.0824 -0.0815 -0.0808 -0.0733 1.511 1.498 2.072
Notes: r=variogram range, n=variogram nugget, a=variogram anisotropy, c=cement permeability, d=shale resistance
Significant coefficients are shown in bold type, and insignificant coefficients are italicized .
Number of flow models used in response surface models: conditionally simulated, 246; kriged 41, uniform, 9.

In addition to the response surfaces for the primary variables,
response surfaces were computed for the variances of all responses
for the stochastic permeability fields. Independent surfaces were fit
for the mean response and the logarithm of its variance. The model
coefficients for variance were not significant at 90%. Thus, the
mean variances are acceptable estimates of variance for all values
of the factors (Table 3). Although this case appears to have uni-
form variance, it is possible that variance trends simply cannot be
demonstrated with only six replicates. The additional response
variance in stochastic permeability fields affects the resolution of
posterior distributions.
Discriminating Models With Monte Carlo Simulation. The dif-
ferences between the response surfaces for various models of per-
meability (stochastic, kriged, and uniform) were analyzed with the
c2-likelihood test (Fig. 6). The distributions for effective perme-
ability and breakthrough time are different at 90%. The other
response distributions do not differ at the 90% significance level.
In this analysis, all prior factor distributions were uniform.
Triangular and normal probability distributions were also ana-
lyzed; the conclusions were similar.
The comparisons between flow models for kriged and stochas-
tic permeability fields imply that it may be unnecessary to use con-
ditional simulations to estimate recovery efficiency or time to 99%
water cut for this system. The similarities in recovery efficiency
and throughput for the kriged and stochastic permeability fields are
caused partly by the short correlation length of permeability. All
connected regions, even those with low permeability, can be swept.
On the other hand, fractional flow and effective permeability
responses of kriged and stochastic permeability fields are signifi-
cantly different. Breakthrough time depends only on the continuity
of the fastest flow paths, in contrast to the smoother, time-integrat-
ed character of the recovery efficiency and throughput responses.
The effective permeability for the stochastic field (Table 2) is high-
er partly because of the greater continuity of the low-permeability
zone in the kriged model compared to the stochastic model, espe-
cially in the left half of the models (Fig. 2).
The differences between kriged and stochastic permeability
field-flow responses are related to the standard deviation among
stochastic replicates. Compared with throughput and recovery effi-
ciency, effective permeability and breakthrough times have higher
ratios of stochastic variance to overall Monte Carlo variance (Table
3, Column 8). These responses with high components of stochastic
variance are significantly different by the c2-likelihood test (Figs.
6a and 6d). This makes sense; stochastic and kriged permeability
fields should respond differently when stochastic fluctuation is a
large fraction of the total response variance.
If Monte Carlo simulations of recovery efficiency (Np/N) for the
kriged and conditional cases were compared with the Kolmogorov-
Smirnov test, the test statistic, dmax, would be approximately
6´105 times greater than the value required to reject the null
hypothesis that the distributions are the same.16 The test statistic is
large because the Monte Carlo distributions each include approxi-
mately 5´104 samples. All the pairs of distributions (Fig. 6) would
be considered significantly different by either Kolmogorov-
Smirnov or a standard c2 test. The results from the c2-likelihood
test seem more useful.
The responses for the three permeability field models (uniform,
kriged, and stochastic) were compared with the c2-likelihood test.
The kriged and stochastic response surfaces were significantly dif-
ferent from the uniform responses; the probability of identical dis-
tributions exceeding the computed values of c2 was far less than
1%. Therefore, uniform permeability fields are inadequate for
modeling tracer displacements through this sandstone bed.
Simulation responses based on uniform permeability fields will not
be considered further.
Computing Sensitivities. For the three-level designs and models
(Eq. 6) used in this study, sensitivities of responses to factors may
vary over the factor range. For example, the form of the sensitivity
of response j to factor 1 for a five-factor design is as follows.
∂yˆ
Sˆ j1 ( x) = j = b j ,1 + b j ,6 x2 + b j ,7 x3 + b j ,8 x4 + b j ,9 x5 + 2b j ,16 x1
∂x1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
Because sensitivity varies over the factor range, it is not possible
to extract a single sensitivity measure for these quadratic models.
In contrast, the linear, two-level models would impose a single
sensitivity measure.
The estimated sensitivities of all responses to all factors are
shown in Fig. 7. This presentation is possible for the models based
on stochastic permeability fields because all interaction terms are

316 September 2001 SPE Journal

zero; this form of plot is not valid if the interactions are nonzero
(e.g., the kriged responses in Table 2). Shale resistance is the dom-
inant factor (Fig. 7).
Posterior Factor Distributions. Response surfaces for measura-
ble responses, such as breakthrough time, can be used to estimate
the posterior distributions of the factors. The accuracy of the
response measurement can be characterized with either a tabulated
histogram or a normal error distribution. A normal error distribu-
tion was used in this study (Table 4). The response and error model
are used in Eq. 5 to compute pR.
Models for kriged and stochastic permeability fields must be
treated differently. For models based on conditionally simulated
permeability, the stochastic variance of the response (estimated
from multiple realizations) must be added to the variance caused
by measurement error. Thus, stochastic variations in permeability
introduce random fluctuations in responses that make estimates of
factor posteriors less precise. This decreased precision reflects
uncertainty in the responses of the more chaotic stochastic perme-
ability models compared to the kriged models. In addition, increas-
ing the variance in the observations gives the prior distributions
greater weight if the prior is informative.31

a b
350

Effective Permeability,

Effective Permeability, md
300 150
250
200 100

md
150
100 50
50
0
0
-1

-1

-1

-1
-0.4

r Nu
-0.2

-0.4
cto

-0.2
Sh gg
0.2

ale a

0.2
yF et py
0.6

0.8

0.6
Fa Fa

0.8
cto ot rop cto otr
o
r is r is
An An

c d
300
250
Effective Permeability, md

200 0.6
0.55
150 0.5
0.45

τBT, PV
100
0.4
50 0.35
0 0.3
0.25
-1

0.2
0.8
-0.4

-1

-1
0.2
0.2

py
-0.4
-0.2

Sh An
otro
-0.4
0.8

0.2

ale s iso
-1

Ani
0.6

tro ale
0.8

py Sh
Fig. 5—Two-dimensional slices through 5D response spaces. All factors that are not plotted are set to the zero level. Surfaces are
curved because the quadratic terms are significant. The variability of permeability owing to shale is greater than the effects of
anisotropy or nugget (compare Fig. 5a with 5b). The response surface for the kriged permeability model (Fig. 5c) has less variability
than the conditionally simulated model (Fig. 5c). Response surfaces were also computed for breakthrough time (Fig. 5d), recovery
and throughput, and response variances.

TABLE 3— STANDARD DEVIATIONS DUE TO STOCHASTIC FLUCTUATIONS AND FROM MONTE CARLO
SIMULATIONS OF CONDITIONALLY SIMULATED PERMEABILITY MODELS
Standard Deviatio ns Observed in For Monte Carl o Simu lations
Condit io nal Simulat ion Standard Deviatio ns Rati o of
(Stoc hastic Fluc tuations ) Uniform Triangul ar Col. 3 to
Resp ons e Mini mum Average Maximum Mean Pri ors Pri ors Col. 6.
Colu mn: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Effect ive Permeabilit y, m d 14.6 30.6 48 112 65.0 46 0.47
Breakt hrough Time, PV 0.035 0.041 0.047 0.356 0.077 0.054 0.53
Recovery at 2 PV, fractio n 0.001 0.013 0.025 0.926 0.060 0.04 0.22
Throu ghpu t, PV 0.058 0.25 0.46 5.11 2.13 1.5 0.12

September 2001 SPE Journal 317

 1.2 0.02
a Difference is significant.
1 0.8 b PDF from S 16
0.016
PDF from K

Probability Density
Probability Density
0.8 Likelihood of S PDF from K

Likelihood
0.6 12
Likelihood

0.012
0.6 Likelihood of S
0.008 0.4 8
0.4 Difference is not significant.
PDF from S
0.004 0.2 4
0.2

0 0 0 0
0 100 200 300 400 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
Effective Permeability, md Recovery Efficiency, fraction

1.2 12 1.2
Likelihood of S d PDF from K
c Difference is not significant. 0.4
1

Probability Density
1 10

Probability Density
PDF from K PDF from S
0.8 PDF from S

Likelihood
Likelihood

8 0.8 0.3
Difference is significant.
0.6 6 0.6 Likelihood of S
0.2
0.4 4 0.4
0.1
0.2 2 0.2

0 0 0 0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Breakthrough Time, PV Throughput, PV

Fig. 6—Monte Carlo simulations of stochastic (indicated by ‘S’) and kriged (‘K’) permeability field responses and the likelihood of the
simulated response based on a null hypothesis that the distributions are identical. The permeability (a) and breakthrough time (b) are
significantly different by the c2-likelihood test. The differences in recovery efficiency (c) and throughput (d) are not significant.

The RSMCB approach was used to estimate posterior distribu- The correct variance, including the stochastic variation of the
tions of variogram parameters, cement permeability, and shale response, must be used when computing posteriors for the condi-
resistance given observations of effective permeability, break- tionally simulated model. Otherwise, incorrect posterior distribu-
through time, total throughput, and sweep efficiency. The respons- tions are obtained (Fig. 8d). Seen on the multivariate posteriors
es are summarized in Table 4. The factor combinations used in this (Figs. 9c and 9d), the correct maximum-likelihood estimate was
example were not part of the experimental design. The responses obtained in this case, but the peaks are higher if stochastic fluctua-
could be obtained from field measurements (e.g., effective perme- tions of the responses are neglected (compare Figs. 9a and 9c and
ability from a pressure-transient test or breakthrough time from a Figs. 9b and 9d). While the tighter peaks might seem attractive,
tracer test). they are unrealistically optimistic—they understate factor uncer-
tainty. On the other hand, more precise factor posteriors could be
Discussion of Posteriors. For simplicity, some of this discussion obtained by reducing the measurement variance of the responses,
will refer to univariate distributions (Fig. 8), but ultimately, one making multiple measurements, or obtaining data to justify more
must refer to the multivariate posteriors (Fig. 9). restrictive priors. In general, the correct maximum-likelihood esti-
The maxima in the joint-probability distributions correspond to mate will not be obtained if the incorrect measurement error is used
the maximum likelihood estimates of the factors given the obser- and the parameter prior is informative (rather than the flat, nonin-
vations; these maxima are similar to Bayes-based methods used for formative prior used for this case).31
history matching.20 The factor posteriors become more sharply Incorrect factor posteriors may be obtained if response surfaces
defined (i.e., have lower variance) when additional responses are fit to kriged models are used when permeability variations are not
used to compute the posterior (Fig. 8a). Other authors have com- smooth (compare Figs. 8e and 8f). More generally, response sur-
mented on the improvement of estimates owing to multiple data face models based on unrealistic permeability fields will misesti-
sources.32 The multivariate distributions show that the posterior mate factor posteriors.
distributions provide reasonable estimates of factor values (Fig. 9). The posterior distributions are not normal, and their shapes
With the correct model and variance, the only factor that was vary for different factors (compare Figs. 9a and 9b and Figs. 9e and
misestimated (i.e., assigned to the wrong interval) is the range fac- 9f) and for different measured responses (compare Figs. 9a and 9e
tor for Point I. This poor estimation is not surprising, given the low and Figs. 9b and 9f). Although all factors had identical uniform
sensitivity of most responses to the variogram range (Table 2, Fig. priors, posterior distributions of the factors are quite different
7). Unfortunately, this is one of the parameters that is hardest to (Figs. 8b and 9).
measure directly. The resolution of the factor posteriors could be improved by
The high sensitivity to the shale factor dominates the joint pos- increasing the number of bins. However, even with only five bins
terior estimates. To filter this effect, the univariate posterior of the per factor, this five-factor problem required 3,125 total bins to
shale factor was used as if it were a prior when computing the pos- compute the multivariate posterior.
teriors of the remaining factors in Figs. 8c through 8f. Applying the
univariate posterior is not a solution method; it was done to sim- Discussion
plify the presentation of the results. The uniform shale prior was Factor posteriors derived from RSMCB can be used in several
retained when computing the joint posteriors (Fig. 9). ways. If some responses were not measured, factor posteriors can

318 September 2001 SPE Journal

 50 0.05
a: Effective Permeability
Sensitivity, md 0 0

Sensitivity, PV
-0.05
-50
-0.1
-100
-0.15
-150 -0.2 b: Breakthrough Time
-200 -0.25
-250 -0.3
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Factor Value Factor Value
0.1 7
Sensitivity, fraction

c: Sweep Efficiency
6 d: Throughput

Sensitivity, PV
0 5
4
-0.1 Range 3
Nugget 2
-0.2 Anisotropy 1
Cement 0
-0.3 Shale -1
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Factor Value Factor Value
Fig. 7—Sensitivity of stochastic permeability fields to study factors. Shale is the most important factor for all responses over the
majority of the factor ranges. Overall, the responses are least sensitive to variogram range. Many factor sensitivities vary across
the response range because of quadratic terms. Different responses are sensitive to different factors. Therefore, even if a given
response is not sensitive to a given factor (e.g., effective permeability is insensitive to variogram range), other responses (e.g.,
breakthrough time) may be sensitive.

give improved Monte Carlo estimates of the unknown response
distributions conditional to the measured response(s). For example,
if effective permeability were measured, then improved estimates
of breakthrough time, recovery efficiency, and throughput could be
obtained (Fig. 10). In this example, RSMCB has correctly classi-
fied Point I as having higher shale permeability than Point II on the
basis of its relatively high measured-effective permeability (Table
4). This leads to intuitively reasonable predictions of later water
breakthrough, higher recovery, and less required throughput for the
high shale permeability (Point I). These updated estimates show
how the measurement and parameter-estimation procedure reduced
response uncertainty compared to prior estimates.
If the estimated posteriors are applicable at another location,
then updated estimates of all responses could be made on the basis
of the observed response. This could improve estimates of uncer-
tainty at the analogous location.
Shale resistance dominates other factors (variogram range, var-
iogram nugget, variogram anisotropy, and cement permeability) in
this system. Although shale resistance was assigned a wide range
compared to other factors (Table 1), examination of the coeffi-
cients in the response models (Table 2) and the sensitivity plots
(Fig. 7) indicates that shale resistance would remain the dominant
factor even if its range were reduced up to four-fold. Further, the
specified range in shale resistance realistically reflects uncertain-

TABLE 4— POSTERIOR FACTOR ESTIMATION

Point Point 1 Point 2
Fact or Settings (0.5,0.25,0.75,0.0,-0.5) (-0.5,0.75,0.25,0,0.5)
Maximum Likelihood Estimate (0.8,0.0,0.8,0.0,-0.4) (-0.4,0.8,0.0,0.0,0.4)
Permeability Resp onse Resp onse
Variable Model Response Std. Dev. Response Std. Dev.
Simulated 153 34 47 38
k, md
Kriged 138 14 78 8
N pD , fraction Simulated 0.964 0.016 0.875 0.023
Kriged 0.968 0.010 0.881 0.010
Simulated 0.450 0.046 0.291 0.061
τ BT , PV
Kriged 0.475 0.020 0.374 0.020
(f w =0.99), Simulated 3.27 0.27 6.91 0.35
PV Kriged 3.41 0.10 6.98 0.10
Notes: Response standard deviation based on reasonable measurement errors.
Conditionally simulated response variance includes stochastic fluctuations.
Maximum likelihood estimates are based on bin widths of 0.4.

September 2001 SPE Journal 319

 0.3 0.07 0.07
a b c Range

Anisotropy
0.06 Shale Range 0.06

Probability Density

Probability Density
Nugget
Probability Density All
0.05
Nugget
0.05
Anisotropy
0.2
~
k 0.04 0.04
Prior Prior
0.03 0.03
0.1 τ - Cement Cement
BT τ(fw=0.99) 0. 0.02 0.02
0.5 N5pD
Factor
Prior
Value 0.01 0.01
0
0 0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Factor Value Factor Value
Factor Value
0.07 0.07 0.07
d e Cement f Cement Range
Anisotropy
0.06 Nugget 0.06 0.06
Range Nugget
0.05 Cement 0.05 Nugget 0.05
Probability

Anisotropy
0.04 0.04 0.04

Prior

Probability
Probability
Prior Range Prior
0.03 0.03 0.03
Anisotropy
0.02 0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01 0.01
0 0 0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Factor Value Factor Value Factor Value

Fig. 8—Univariate posterior distributions of factors computed from responses. Figs. 8a through 8d use Point I (Table 4), and Figs.
8e and 8f use Point II. Vertical arrows pointing to the corresponding posterior distributions indicate the correct (input) factor val-
ues (Table 4). Figs. 8b through 8f use all four responses for posterior estimation. Figs. 8c through 8f use a modified shale prior. (a)
The posterior of the shale factor becomes increasingly precise as more responses are used to estimate it. (b) Univariate posteri-
ors for all factors estimated from all four responses show that the shale factor is estimated most precisely. The complete shale
factor posterior is shown in Fig. 8a. Although the peaks are not pronounced, the maximum likelihood in the univariate distribu-
tions is near the correct value for all factors (Table 4). (c) The posteriors of factors other than shale are clearer if a more restrictive
prior is imposed on the shale factor; in Figs. 8c through 8f, the univariate shale posterior was used as if it were a prior. (d) If
response variability owing to stochastic fluctuations is neglected, incorrect posterior distributions are obtained. (e) At Point II
(Table 4), the univariate posteriors are more disperse. Posterior factor distribution depends on the response measurement,
response errors, factor priors, and factor sensitivity. (f) If a response surface model computed from kriged permeability models is
used to estimate posteriors when the response is drawn from a conditionally simulated model, incorrect estimates of the factor
posteriors are obtained. All analyses should be done with multivariate distributions (Fig. 9).

ties in shale permeability and thickness. The effects of the shale Examinations and statistical tests of Monte Carlo simulations
factor would be different if shale resistance varied spatially. The and factor posteriors indicate that appropriate spatial models of
effects of shales also depend on the 3D distribution of shales permeability must be used. Although some of the kriged and sto-
in reservoirs. chastic permeability-response models were similar, front shape and
There is sufficient response sensitivity to estimate posteriors for effective permeability were different. In addition, response vari-
all factors, including variogram parameters. In this study, vari- ability caused by stochastic permeability fields significantly affects
ogram range is estimated with the least precision. The precision of posterior factor distributions.
estimating variogram parameters is related to the variogram range The spreads of the posterior factor distributions are often quite
and the density and locations of conditioning data. These factors wide (e.g., Figs. 8 and 9). This is not a flaw in the approach, but a
may be very different in field cases compared to this outcrop study, reflection of response and factor uncertainty.
which would affect the relative sensitivities of responses to vari- The response surface approach is best suited to problems with
ogram and other parameters. a limited number of factors and responses, especially when models
Previous investigators have used response surfaces for reser- for response-factor relationships would provide useful insights. On
voir-simulator history matching, with the response surfaces serving the other hand, if there are many factors and responses—there may
as proxies for the reservoir simulator in a least-squares approach.12 be for field-scale history matching problems—then conventional
The RSMCB method is different in that it does not use least- gradient approaches or Bayesian inversion without response sur-
squares optimization but does incorporate prior information. faces might be a better solution method.
Response surface history-matching procedures could be modified In the course of this study, many millions of responses were
to include prior distributions.12 computed from the response surfaces based on fewer than 300
Reservoir models should be based on sound measurements and numerical flow simulations. The direct Monte Carlo/Bayes
geologic principles. This designed simulation study of the Frewens approach would not be economically feasible if a flow simulator
sandstone used detailed maps of shale layers and cemented zones, were used rather than response surface models.
dense permeability measurements, and well-behaved variograms. RSMCB analysis can be integrated into the reservoir modeling
process. It allows a systematic identification and investigation of
Conclusions factors and their influence on responses.
Response surface models can be used to summarize results of
designed simulation sets. The response models can test differences Nomenclature
between scenarios, assess sensitivities to factors, estimate the effects bi = estimated coefficient in response model
of measurements on response uncertainty, and calculate maximum- fi = unscaled factor i
likelihood estimates of factors conditional to sets of responses. fi,c = unscaled factor, i, center
Compared to the resources required for numerical simulation, analy- fw = fraction of injectant flowing
sis of response surfaces using statistical methods (RSMCB) is very
k = permeability, md
efficient. Response surface models can represent flow behavior over
the factor ranges with acceptable accuracy (R2 > 0.95). The error K = number of factors
caused by having response surfaces as proxies for flow simulations  = likelihood
often will be small compared to measurement errors, numerical n = number of simulations
errors, and stochastic fluctuations in responses. M = model (Eq. A-1)

320 September 2001 SPE Journal

 0.8 0.8 X
a b

0.4 0.4

Anisotropy
Shale
0 0

-0.4 X -0.4

-0.8 -0.8
-0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8
Range Probability Density Nugget
0 0.3 0.6
0.8 0.8 X
c d

0.4 0.4

Anisotropy
Shale

0 0

-0.4 X -0.4

-0.8 -0.8
-0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8
Range Nugget
Probability Density

0 0.6 1.2
0.8 0.8
e f

0.4 X 0.4
Anisotropy
Shale

0 0 X

-0.4 -0.4

-0.8 -0.8
-0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8
Range Nugget
Probability Density
Input point
X Maximum likelihood estimate
0 0.2 0.4
Fig. 9—Joint posterior distributions of factors at Points I and II (Table 4). All four responses were used. All figures show 2D slices
through the 5D joint multivariate posterior distributions. Slices were taken through the plane containing the maximum likelihood
point. Figs. 9a through 9d are for Point I; Figs. 9c and 9d neglect stochastic variance; and Figs. 9e and 9f are for Point II. The shape
of the distributions is different for different factors for the coarse binning used (five bins for each factor). The distributions do not
appear to be normal. There is a pronounced ridge in the shale-range cross sections owing to the much greater sensitivity to shale
compared to range (Figs. 9a, 9c, and 9e). If the stochastic fluctuations in responses are ignored, and a lower response variance is
used in computing the posteriors, an unrealistically concentrated joint posterior is obtained (compare Fig. 9a with Fig. 9c and Fig.
9b with Fig. 9d; note that the color scale for Figs. 9c and 9d is twice as wide). The factor posteriors have different shapes at Points
I and II (compare Figs. 9a and 9e and Figs. 9b and 9f). The maximum likelihood points are all in the correct intervals except for the
variogram range estimate at Point I (Table 4).

N= initial volume of fluid in place, standard conditions pR = probability density, responses

Np = volume of initial fluid produced, standard conditions pR,F = conditional probability density of responses given
p= probability density factors
pF = probability density, factors r = number of regressors
pF,R = conditional probability density of factors given R = coefficient of correlation
responses s = estimated standard deviation

September 2001 SPE Journal 321

 14

12
a Posterior II

Probability Density
10

or
Posterior I

pr i
ied
4

dif
mo
2

Un
0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Breakthrough Time, PV
35

30
b
Posterior I
Probability Density

25

or
pr i
20

ied
dif
15

mo
Un
10 Posterior II

0
0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Recovery Efficiency, fraction

0.8

0.7 c Posterior I

0.6
Probability Density

0.5
or

0.4
d pri

0.3 Posterior II
odifie

0.2
Unm

0.1

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Throughput, PV
Fig. 10—Updated response distributions using factor posteriors. Univariate posteriors computed from measurements of effective
permeability (Points I and II, Table 4) were used to generate estimates of the distribution of (a) breakthrough time, (b) recovery
efficiency, and (c) throughput. Knowledge of the effective permeability reduces uncertainty in other responses.

t= student’s t-statistic Subscripts

x= scaled factor value adj = adjusted
[X] = matrix BT = breakthrough
y= response value D= dimensionless
a= probability of excessive results in significance tests i, j, m = dummy subscripts
bi = true coefficient in response model max, min = extreme values
n= degrees of freedom r= residual
s= standard deviation sig = significance level
t= time in pore volumes w= injectant or water
c2 = chi-squared statistic x® = vector

322 September 2001 SPE Journal

 x¢ = transpose of a vector
~ = effective
^ = estimated
Acknowledgments
This work was sponsored by the Clastic Reservoirs Group, the
Bureau of Economic Geology (U. of Texas at Austin), and the Craft
and Hawkins Dept. of Petroleum Engineering (Louisiana State U.).
Janok Bhattacharya, Sharon Gabel, Chris Sweezey, and Charl
Brouquet did field work, mapped, and helped interpret the geolo-
gy. Yugong Gao prepared bedding diagrams. Reservoir-simulation
software was provided by the Computer Modeling Group Ltd.30
Three anonymous reviewers improved the text with corrections
and suggestions. Geostatistical algorithms are from GSLIB by
Clayton Deutsch and Andre Journel.25
References
1. Myers, R.H. and Montgomery, D.C.: Response Surface Methodology:
Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments,
Wiley, New York City (1995) 700.
2. Box, G.E.P. and Draper, N.R.: Empirical Model Building and Response
Surfaces, Wiley, New York City (1987) 699.
3. Chu, C.F.: “Prediction of Steamflood Performance in Heavy Oil
Reservoirs Using Correlations Developed by Factorial Design
Method,” paper SPE 20020 presented at the 1990 California Regional
Meeting, Ventura, California, 4–6 April.
4. Damsleth, E., Hage, A., and Volden, R.: “Maximum Information at
Minimum Cost: A North Sea Field Development Study With
Experimental Design,” JPT (December 1992) 1350.
5. Egeland, T. et al.: “Designing Better Decisions,” paper SPE 24275 pre-
sented at the 1992 SPE European Petroleum Computer Conference,
Stavanger, 25–27 May.
6. Bu, T. and Damsleth, E.: “Errors and Uncertainties in Reservoir
Performance Prediction,” SPEFE (September 1996) 194.
7. Willis, B.J. and White, C.D.: “Use of Quantitative Outcrop Description
for Reservoir Modeling,” J. Sedimentary Research (2000) 70, No. 4, 788.
8. Kjonsvik, D., Jacobsen, T., and Doyle, J.: “The Effects of Sedimentary
Heterogeneities on Production From a Shallow Marine Reservoir—
What Really Matters?” paper SPE 28455 presented at the 1994
European Petroleum Conference, London, 25–27 October.
9. Jones, A. et al.: “Which Subseismic Heterogeneities Influence
Waterflood Performance? A Case Study of a Low Net-to-Gross Fluvial
Reservoir,” New Developments in Improved Oil Recovery, Geological
Society Special Publication No. 84, London (1995) 5.
10. Narayanan, K. et al.: “Response Surface Methods for Upscaling
Heterogeneous Geologic Models,” paper SPE 51923 presented at the
1999 SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, 14–17 February.
11. Narayanan, K.: “Applications for Response Surfaces in Reservoir
Engineering,” MS thesis, U. of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas (1999).
12. Eide, A.L. et al.: “Automatic History Matching by Use of Response
Surfaces and Experimental Design,” paper presented at the 1994
European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Roros,
Norway, 7–10 June.
13. Dejean, J.P. and Blanc, G.: “Managing Uncertainties on Production
Predictions Using Integrated Statistical Methods,” paper SPE 56696
presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, 3–6 October.
14. Box, G.E.P. and Behnken, D.W.: “Some New Three Level Designs for the
Study of Quantitative Variables,” Technometrics (1960) 2, No. 4, 455.
15. Montgomery, D.C. and Peck, E.A.: Introduction to Linear Regression
Analysis, John Wiley, New York City (1982) 527.
16. Jensen, J.L. et al.: Statistics for Petroleum Engineers and Geoscientists,
Prentice-Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey (1997) 390.
17. Van Voorhees, F.D. and Bahill, T.A.: “Parametric Sensitivity Analysis:
A Tool for Robust Design,” paper presented at the 1995 IEEE Intl.
Conference On Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vancouver, Canada,
22–25 October.
18. White, C.D. et al.: “Identifying Controls on Reservoir Behavior Using
Designed Simulations,” paper SPE 62971 presented at the 2000 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 1–4 October.
19. Bulmer, M.G.: Principles of Statistics, Dover Publications Inc., New
York City (1979) 252.
September 2001 SPE Journal
20. Oliver, D.S., Cunha, L.B., and Reynolds, A.C.: “Markov Chain Monte
Carlo Methods for Conditioning a Permeability Field to Pressure Data,”
Mathematical Geology (1997) 29, No. 1, 61.
21. Tarantola, A. and Valette, B.: “Inverse Problems=Quest for
Information,” J. of Geophysics (1982) 50, No. 3, 159.
22. Bhattacharya, J.P. and Willis, B.J.: “Lowstand deltas in the Frontier
Formation, Powder River basin, Wyoming; implications for sequence
stratigraphic models,” AAPG Bull. (2001) 85, No. 2, 261.
23. Willis, B.J. et al.: “Architecture of a Tide-Influenced River Delta in the
Frontier Formation of Central Wyoming, USA,” Sedimentology (1999)
46, No. 4, 667.
24. Dutton, S.P. et al.: “Outcrop Characterization of Reservoir Quality
and Interwell-Scale Cement Distribution in a Tide-Influenced Delta,
Frontier Formation, Wyoming, USA,” Clay Minerals (2000) 35, 95.
25. Deutsch, C.V. and Journel, A.G.: GSLIB Geostatistical Library and
User’s Guide, Oxford U. Press, Oxford, U.K. (1998) 369.
26. Xue, G. and Datta-Gupta, A.: “Structure Preserving Inversion: An
Efficient Approach to Conditioning Stochastic Reservoir Models to
Dynamic Data,” paper SPE 38727 presented at the 1997 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,
5–8 October.
27. White, C.D. and Barton, M.D.: “Translating Outcrop Data to Flow
Models, With Applications to the Ferron Sandstone,” SPEREE (August
1999) 341.
28. Ponting, D.K.: “Corner Point Geometry in Reservoir Simulation,”
Proc., First European Conference Math. Oil Recovery, Cambridge
(1989) 45.
29. King, M.J. and Mansfield, M.P.: “Flow Simulations of Geologic
Models,” SPEREE (August 1999) 351.
30. IMEX Version 1999 User’s Guide, Computer Modeling Group, Calgary
(1999).
31. Box, G.E.P and Tiao, G.C.: Bayesian Inference in Statistical Analysis,
John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York City (1992) 588.
32. Landa, J.L. and Horne, R.H.: “A Procedure To Integrate Well Test Data,
Reservoir Performance History and 4D Seismic Information Into a
Reservoir Description,” paper SPE 38653 presented at the 1997 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,
5–8 October.
33. Evans, M., Hastings, N., and Peacock, B.: Statistical Distributions,
John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York City (1993) 170.
Appendix—cc2-Likelihood Test
The purpose of the c2-likelihood test is to assess whether the dif-
ferences between two distributions would be significant for infer-
ring factor sensitivities or for model identification. When the like-
lihood of one of a pair of models is near 0.50, we have no prefer-
ence for one model over the other. With this hypothesis, a test sta-
tistic was constructed based on likelihood and c2. The test proce-
dure is as follows.
1. Generate probability distributions of the response(s) for
each of the alternative models with the Monte Carlo simulation and
the prior factor distributions. The Monte Carlo distributions should
be binned identically to simplify calculations.
2. Adopt the null hypothesis that the distributions are identical.
If this is true, then the likelihood of each model should be 1/2 for all
values of the response:
p( y | M 1 )
l( M 1 ) = , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-1)
p( y | M 1 ) + p( y | M 2 )
where the prior probability of each model is equal to 1/2, consistent
with the null hypothesis.
3. Compute the likelihood of Model 1 from the Monte Carlo
simulations of the responses (Eq. A-1).
4. Because the likelihood is a probability, we can convert the
vector of likelihoods (computed for each y-value, with Eq. A-1)
into a vector of standard normal deviates.
5. The sum of the squares of normal deviates computed in Step
2 follows a c2 distribution and can be tested accordingly.
For responses y with =1/2, stipulated by the null hypothesis, the
normal deviate is zero, the contribution to the c2 sum is zero, and
the null hypothesis will tend to be supported. On the other hand,
323
when  is near one or zero, the square of the normal deviate will be
large, and the null hypothesis will tend to be rejected.
The null hypothesis will be rejected (i.e., the distributions will
be considered different) for values of c2 greater than the critical
value on the basis of the confidence level and the number of
degrees of freedom, n.33
Likelihoods must be computed carefully at the extremes of the
distributions (i.e., where the probability density is small). For dis-
tributions with infinite ranges, a minimum cutoff probability must
be used. Similarly, the tails of the Monte Carlo distributions have
to be extrapolated sensibly for tabulated probability functions. In
this study, the distributions were rebinned and the tails extrapolat-
ed with a power-law formula.25 In addition, the likelihood was
restricted to the range of e££1-e , where e is small relative to
the smallest nonzero probability tabulated in the distribution.
The c2-likelihood test performed well for a wide range of trial
distributions, including normal, Cauchy, and triangular.33
Christopher White is an assistant professor of petroleum engi-
neering at Louisiana State U. e-mail: CDWhite@lsu.edu. His
research includes reservoir engineering and statistics. He pre-
324
viously worked at the Bureau of Economic Geology and for
Shell Development Co., principally researching reservoir simu-
lation of complex geologic models. White holds a PhD degree
from Stanford U. in petroleum engineering. Brian Willis, a geol-
ogist with BP Canada Energy Co., specializes in sedimentol-
ogy, stratigraphy, and reservoir characterization. e-mail:
WillisBJ@bp.com. Willis spent several years at the Smithsonian
Inst. and the U. of Texas documenting large outcrops of fluvial-
deltaic strata in northern Pakistan and the western United
States. His interests include developing process-based deposi-
tional models and better methods for quantifying geologic
variation. He holds a PhD degree from Binghamton U. Keshav
Narayanan is a petroleum engineer with Landmark Graphics
Corp. in Austin, Texas. e-mail: N_Keshav@yahoo.com. His inter-
ests include reservoir simulation, upscaling, and experimental
design. Narayanan holds a BS degree in chemical engineering
from I.I.T., Madras, India, and an MS degree in petroleum engi-
neering from the U. of Texas at Austin. Shirley Dutton is a senior
research scientist at the Bureau of Economic Geology, where
she has been employed for 24 years. e-mail:
Shirley.Dutton@beg.utexas.edu. Her research focuses mainly
on clastic sedimentology and diagenesis. Dutton holds a PhD
degree in geology from the U. of Texas at Austin.
September 2001 SPE Journal