SPE 128350

Modelling Subsurface Uncertainties with Experimental Design:

Some Arguments of Non-Conformists
Kazeem A. Lawal ∗ , SPE; Shell Nigeria Exploration & Production Company

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

understanding of the effect of a controllable variable on a
rd
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 33 Annual SPE International Technical Conference and dependent variable is required, or where the range of
Exhibition in Abuja, Nigeria, August 3-5, 2009.
uncertainties is well known within a narrow interval. These
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, as presented, have not been include production/injection management, ‘model-based’
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The
material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
control algorithms for ‘intelligent’ completions, business
officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial
Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any
planning and similar areas of the E&P business
part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum characterised by continuous data, and where the
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 acknowledgement of independent variables could be engineered for the desired
where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX
75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. objectives.

Abstract Introduction
As a consequence of limited capability for the acquisition, Risks, recognised herein as threats and opportunities,
analysis and interpretation of subsurface data, pervade the exploration and production (E&P) industry.
uncertainties pervade the Exploration and Production While the industry has apparently developed “pragmatic”
(E&P) business. To minimise investment risks, robust management strategies for economic, political, security
development plans, premised on adequate understanding and other macro-scale risks, technical risks are still an
of uncertainties, are critical. Experimental Design (ED), area of exposure. Given that technical risks are
complemented with Response Surface Method (RSM), subsurface and surface, mitigating subsurface risks is
which uses a statistical proxy equation to model the more challenging. This is a consequence of man’s limited
response (dependent variable) as a function of ability to influence natural processes, especially those that
independent variables (uncertainties), is a common predate man, such as formation of hydrocarbon reservoirs.
method for studying subsurface uncertainties.
Subsurface uncertainties (realisations), which are
In this paper, current applications of ED to subsurface elements of subsurface risks, largely relate to subsurface
modelling are evaluated from fundamental principles- data- acquisition, processing, interpretation and utilisation.
mathematical and physical consistencies of the proxy How representative of the reservoir is the data? How
equations, as well as robustness in modelling reliable are the data processing procedures/algorithms?
uncertainties. Within the context of modelling and Are the interpretation assumptions valid? How
mitigating subsurface uncertainties, major shortcomings of accurate/convergent are the simulator’s interpolation of
the ED and their implications for decision-making are data, and approximations of the conservation and
highlighted. These include inconsistency and non- equilibrium equations? These are some sources of
uniqueness of proxy models, violation of basic theoretical subsurface uncertainties in E&P projects. Undoubtedly,
physics, non-preservation of the correlation between understanding these uncertainties and their impacts is a
variables that are known to be inherently related, non- prerequisite for mitigating the associated risks.
controllability of input variables, under-estimation of the
impact of uncertainties, and the challenge of constructing In response to this challenge, various subsurface
(interpolating) realistic simulation models from an ED modelling techniques, including deterministic method (1)
output. and Bayesian design (2) and their variants (3), have been
developed. However, as evident from the trend of recent
Although ED is consistent with statistical principles, its publications on this subject, experimental design (ED),
description of reservoir physics is not satisfactory. In its coupled with response surface method (RSM), is the most
present form, reservoir complexities are apparently too popular technique. Although the recent surge could partly
overwhelming for reliable modelling or optimisation by the be explained by increased level of activities induced by oil
proxy models. Consequently, it is recommended that the price (Fig. 1), perhaps, the main reason is higher risks of
application of ED be limited to situations where a simple developing new discoveries, characterised by relatively

∗
Currently a PhD student at Imperial College London
2 K.A. Lawal
marginal returns and greater complexities. Typical
upstream applications are parametric studies,
performance prediction, history-matching and optimisation
(4-14)
. least squares method, are not necessarily superior in
In principle, ED uses empirical means to establish a
statistical relationship between an objective variable and
the factors influencing it (15, 16). In current E&P applications,
the outcome of ED is a proxy model, which in theory, is a
surrogate of the reservoir simulator. The ultimate objective
is to minimise the number of simulation runs (experiments)
required to understand reservoir behaviour, thereby
reducing project cycle time.
The chemical process industry (CPI), characterised by
controllable variables, has huge ED experiences (17, 18). In
CPI applications, proxy models are based on actual plant
input and response. Ironically, this contrasts the current
practice in E&P where, despite the non-controllability of
subsurface variables (e.g. permeability and saturation
distributions, reservoir architecture, etc), proxies are based
on simulator output and not actual reservoir performance.
But how reliable are our reservoir models (input data) and
numerical schemes? How about grid orientation and
upscaling issues?
Kabir et al (19) queried the modelling of discrete variables
such as stratigraphy in continuous probabilistic terms.
They also criticised the inclusion of controllable variables
(e.g. well count), which are decision factors, into the proxy
model of uncontrollable subsurface uncertainties. By
incorporating well count into the design matrix, Peng et al
(4)
wondered how the wells would be optimally placed
under different subsurface realisations without having
biased conclusions. There is also the tendency of such
controllable variables masking the subsurface
uncertainties (19).
Proxy models are not perfect. They may appear
statistically sound, yet generate unrealistic (artefacts)
forecasts. Amudo et al (20) discussed an example where
the probabilistic water-cut prediction at the field level is
statistically correct but not at the well level- some
probabilities had more than 100% water cut! Although this
anomaly was attributed to the quadratic nature of the proxy
model, regrettably, they did not report the performance of
a non-quadratic model to establish this claim.
Lawal and Eweje (3) raised concerns on the tendency of
ED to mask the effects of subsurface uncertainties, and its
implications for decision-making. To mitigate these and
other challenges, they proposed the structured
deterministic technique as a more pragmatic method for
modelling subsurface uncertainties.
Ironically, despite the plethora of publications, very few
highlighted the shortcomings of the method. To the best of
our knowledge, there has not been any critique of the ED
from a strictly quantitative viewpoint. Consequently,
employing quantitative arguments, this article highlights
some issues with current applications of ED in E&P.
Because of its relative simplicity and popularity, this paper
focuses on the least squares regression technique of
RSM. However, most of the conclusions are valid for the
SPE 128350
other RSM methods such as kriging (21), artificial neural
network (22), thin-plate splines (23) and amplitude factor
analysis (24), which though are more sophisticated than the
performance (25).
The main objective of this work is to analyse current
modelling of subsurface uncertainties by ED, highlight the
shortcomings and provide suggestions for improvement.
The paper proceeds by identifying the respective issues,
augmenting the critiques with examples, and identifying
scope for more consistent and value-adding applications in
the E&P business.
1.0 Mathematical Consistency of Proxy Models
For an analysis based on consistent theory, fundamental
correlations between the response variables should be
preserved, even when the proxies are derived
independently. For example, hydrocarbon initially in-place
(HCIIP), recovery factor (Rf) and ultimate recovery (UR)
are known to have a fundamental relationship (Eq. 1).
Using any of these as response variable, a proxy model
could be developed. Intuitively, such proxies should satisfy
Eq. 1. Using examples 1A and 1B, we investigate the
hypothesis that irrespective of the response variable
(HCIIP, Rf, or UR) used to derive the proxy equation, Eq. 1
should be satisfied.
UR
Rf = x100 ………………………..……………….(1)
HCIIP
Example 1A: This is a model of a hypothetic depletion-
drive gas reservoir. Model uncertainties are structural
extent, porosity and permeability. Eqs. 2-4 are the
response surfaces of the dependent variables obtained by
employing full factorial design (FFD) and regression
method. Although not shown, the proxy predictions
compared very well (R2 > 0.98) with the simulator output.
G = −399.3 + 0.028L + 0.028W + 1273.6φ …....(2)
G p = −314.6 + 0.025L + 0.025W − 0.17k + 1107.2φ ………....(3)
R f = 89 .9 − 7.433 x10 −5 L − 7 .506 x10 −5 W + 0 .001k − 5 .689φ ……
……………………………………………...…………...(4)
G = gas initially in-place (Bscf), Gp = gas UR (Bscf), Rf =
gas recovery factor, RF (%), L = reservoir length (ft),
W = reservoir width (ft), φ = porosity, k = permeability (mD)
Substituting Eqs. 2 & 3 into Eq. 1, the following results:
−314 .6 + 0.025 L + 0.025W − 0.17 k + 1107 .2φ
Rf ≡ ……..(5)
− 399 .3 + 0.028 L + 0.028W + 1273 .6φ
Clearly, Eq. 5 is in no way the same as Eq. 4. Therefore,
the functional relationship between Rf, Gp and G is not
conserved. In fact, considering only Eqs 2-4, it is difficult to
3 Modelling Subsurface Uncertainties with Experiemental Design: Some Arguments of Non-Conformists
claim that the dependent variables are fundamentally
related.
Example 1B: This is a huge offshore gas reservoir (Fig.
2), earlier discussed by Lawal and Eweje (3). Using FFD
augmented with two centre-points and creating the surface
with a regression method, the non-linear model in Eq. 6 is
the ‘best’ surrogate of the simulator’s UR. Eqs. 7 and 8 are
respectively the RF and FGIIP proxies.
G p = 259 .94 + 28 .24 F + 35 .16 SC + 20 .95 A + 125 . 67 C + 86 .85 S …
.…………………………………………….…………..(6)
R f = 72.82 − 0.25S + 7.12F − 0.40C + 3.85 A ……….(7)
G = 479.8 + 240.4S + 109.3C ….…………………..…..(8)
A = aquifer size, C = gas-water contact, S = static model,
F = fault conductivity. All the independent variables are
normalised (-1 to 1). As observed for Example 1A, Eqs. 6-
8 are not consistent with Eq. 1.
2.0 Derivative of Proxy Models
Theoretically, some physical variables are simply the
derivatives of other variables (‘source’). Hence, a good
measure of the reliability of a ‘source’ proxy model is the
ability of its derivative to yield the expected physical
variables. For example, for a producing system (Fig. 3),
average oil rate over any time interval, including the
lifetime, is the time derivative of the recoverable volume
over that interval (Eq. 9).
dN p
Qo = ……………………………………………...(9)
dt
Example 2A: The proxy model derived by Portella et al (26)
is used to investigate the possibility of deriving the average
oil rate consistent with a UR proxy. Invoking a 33 factorial
design with oil recovery as the response, Portella et al (26)
obtained the following regression equation.
N p = 18.787 + 6.220 g + 1.046k + 3.979C
+ 1.727 gC + 2.751g 2 − 1.047k 2 − 3.926C 2
….…..……...(10)
Np = oil recovery (MMstb) at end of the 12th year,
g = net/gross ratio, C = oil-water contact,
k = permeability. All the independent variables have
continuous values ranging from -1 to 1.
Applying Eq. 9 to Eq. 10, we have:
Qo = 0 ………………………………………............….(11)
Obviously, if the oil rate was indeed zero, there would not
have been an Np at the end of the 12th year.
Example 2B: In one of their field examples, Lawal and
(3)
Eweje used a 24 FFD with two centre-points to derive
SPE 128350
Eq. 12 as the nonlinear regression model for oil recovery
in an oil reservoir. Again, the time-derivative of Np is zero.
N p = 19.84 + 7.088S + 2.363F + 4.95C + 4.325 A + 0.163SF
.…
+ 1.95SC + 1.95SA + 0.85 FC + 1.425FA + 0.313CA
………………………………………………………...(12)
A = aquifer size, C = oil-water contact, F = fault
conductivity, S = static model. Besides Np (MMstb), all
variables are normalised (-1 to 1).
Technically, these examples erroneously infer that Np is
independent of the oil rate hence exactly the same proxy
model would have been obtained if the reference had been
year 5 or 50! Consider another interpretation- it could be
argued that although there is no physical production (zero
oil-rate), statistically, oil is still recoverable! Obviously, this
is misleading. In simple terms, the models could not
isolate the effect of oil rate because it ‘sees’ oil rate as a
dependent variable (similar to oil recovery), defined
statistically by some other independent factors.
3.0 Integral of Proxy Models
Similar to derivatives, some variables are simply the
integrals of other variables. A good example is the
estimation of oil recovery over a time interval by
integrating, relative to time, the average oil rate function
over the same interval.
For the reservoir discussed in Example 2B, another study
was performed to generate a response function for the
average oil rate. Eq. 13 is the resulting model.
Qo = −4894.6 + 428.5k + 92.6ho − 182.4s
.…….…...(13)
− 0.012k 2 − 0.98ho 2 − 1.25 Kho
Qo = oil rate (stb/d), K = permeability (mD), ho = oil column
(ft), s = skin factor.
Considering that the derived Qo is time-independent, its
integration over an interval t is simply given by Eq. 14.
Curiously; there is no similarity between Eqs. 14 and 12.
t
∫
N p = Qo dt = Qo t ………………………………..….(14)
0
Interestingly, a check on the Darcy equation (Eq. 15)
reveals that Qo only has a linear, and not quadratic,
relationship with k and ho. Although Eq. 13 is statistically
correct, it is inconsistent with the physics of porous media
flow. Hence, its use for any reservoir engineering analysis
is debatable.
Qo ∝ kho ….………………………………………….…(15)
4.0 ED-Based Correlations
Some situations may not warrant the immediate
deployment of numerical simulators. Under such
circumstances, which include screening and preliminary
4 K.A. Lawal
engineering designs, engineers typically rely on
correlations. ED is one method of developing statistically
significant correlations. With two examples, the physical
consistency of such ED-based correlations is examined.
(27)
Example 4A: Employing factorial design, Chu
developed the following correlation β for the prediction of
steamflood performance- recovery factor (%) and project
life (years).
y = d o + d1(So − 50) + d 2 (μ − 7000) + d3 (h − 80) + d4 (is − 300)
( )
+ d5 ( A − 2.6) + d6 f g − 55 + d7 (φ − 0.31) + d8 (k − 3500) + ...
….……………………………………….……………....(16)
y = Rf (%) or project life (years), μ = oil viscosity (cP),
So = initial oil saturation (%), h = reservoir thickness (ft),
φ = porosity (%), A = pattern size (acre), is = steam rate
(b/d),
fg = steam quality (%), k = permeability (mD).
Although the original paper has much longer equation (45
coefficients) than presented here, space consideration has
restricted us to only the main (linear) effects. However, the
truncation does not affect the logic of this discussion
because all the coefficients (d’s) are non-zero and do > 0.
Physical consistency of the model is studied as follows.
a. k = 0. For an impermeable rock, Eq. 16 predicts non-
zero RF and project life. One wonders the basis of
such performance in an absolutely impermeable rock.
b. h = 0 or So = 0. Despite a non-reservoir or dry
discovery, non-zero RF and project life are statistically
feasible!
Example 4B: Combining ED and multivariate
regression, Kabir et al
(28)
proposed Eq. 17 for the
screening and evaluation of thin-oil reservoirs. The
correlation was reportedly tested and validated with
independent sets of experimental and published field data.
R f = −24.626 + 1.722ho + 9.687 x10−4 kh + 3.171Sorw
+ 2.062 x10−3 Lw + 0.276hGOC + 4.983 x10− 4 q − 0.026ho 2
+ 1.482 x10− 4 qho − 0.019qSorw
…………………………………………………………....(17)
Rf = RF (%), ho = oil-column thickness (ft), q = oil rate
(stb/d)
kh = horizontal permeability (mD), Sorw = residual oil
saturation to water (fraction), Lw = horizontal-well length
(ft), hGOC = well standoff from the gas-oil contact (ft)
In Eq. 17, where there is no oil-rim (ho = 0), oil recovery is
still a possibility! Similarly, for an impermeable (kh = 0)
system, there could still be oil reserves! Surprisingly, for a
β
Structurally, the correlations are essentially the same for both RF and
project life. They only differ in the coefficients (d’s). The correlations
are not limited to specific data ranges
SPE 128350
horizontal completion, the impact of vertical permeability is
conspicuously missing.
5.0 Masking of Uncertainties
Two related, but distinct, issues are discussed here. The
first concerns the distribution model of the input variables.
The second is the range of input variables. Both cases are
illustrated with stock-tank oil initially in-place (STOIIP)
calculated with Eq. 18.
N=
GRV * NTG * φ * Soi
Boi
………………...…………….(18)
Example 5: Table 1 presents the input data for the
simulation and the STOIIP’s obtained from deterministic
(worst/best-case) calculations. It should be noted that the
low and high data are the known ‘minimum’ and
‘maximum’ values, corresponding to P0 ξ and P100
respectively. From available data, these ranges and
STOIIP’s are the limits of the system.
For the probabilistic simulation, uniform, triangular, and
lognormal input distribution functions are evaluated. For
each case, all the input variables are assumed to have the
same distribution. However, the curves are bounded by
the P0 and P100 data. With triangular distribution, the
base values are assumed to be the likeliest.
Fig. 4 depicts the STOIIP distributions and the
deterministic bounds. While the uniform and triangular
results conform to the deterministic limits, the lognormal
outcome is non-representative. Relative to the
deterministic P0 STOIIP, the deviations of uniform,
triangular and lognormal assumptions are 16, 54 and -62%
respectively. Corresponding deviations for P100 are -12, -
21 and 146% respectively. That is, while uniform and
triangular models underestimate the range of STOIIP
uncertainties, lognormal exaggerates it considerably. Put
in another way, whereas uniform and triangular models
undervalue the risks and reward, lognormal amplifies
them.
It is not uncommon to see some engineers (20) constrain
the range of input variables, and using, for example, P10
and P90 as the bounds of the input factors for probabilistic
simulations. Ironically, from the results obtained with these
constrained data, P0 and P100 are estimated for the
dependent variable! This is double counting. The
implication of this practice is investigated with the data
shown in Table 2, which are P10 and P90 of the input data
used in Table 1.
Comparing the deterministic results of Tables 1 and 2, the
‘constrained range’ simulation causes 82% increase in the
‘actual’ P0 and 33% reduction in the ‘actual’ P100 STOIIP.
As observed in the earlier example, probabilistic
simulations cause additional deviations from the
deterministic ‘constrained’ results (Fig. 5).
ξ
PX = there is an X % probability that the outcome would be less than a
particular value
5 Modelling Subsurface Uncertainties with Experiemental Design: Some Arguments of Non-Conformists
6.0 Extracting ‘Unique’ Simulation Models
A key output from the ED is a probability distribution of the
response variable, which entails repetitive random
(29)
sampling (Monte Carlo simulation)
Unfortunately,because of the randomness of the
simulation, the results (distribution) are rarely repeatable.
Furthermore, the distribution curve of the response
variable implicitly assumes continuous input variables.
This is contrary to the fact that most subsurface variables
are inherently discrete, especially when aggregated into
say, a static model. For example, how does one transit
continuously in a model with uncertain stratigraphy? Or
how does one interpolate between different realisations of
fault pattern?
Considering the randomness of the simulations and
discreteness of the independent variables, deconvolving
an output data into its contributing parameters (models) is
an inverse problem. Regrettably, such inverse problems
are usually ill-posed, and have no unique solution,
especially when there is non-linearity. Consequently,
creating a unique simulation model by combining the input
variables to satisfy a particular output (e.g. P10, P50, or
P90) is questionable. Additionally, the practice of
interpolating input variables to create the model that
conforms to a desired probability is even more misleading.
Another issue is the basis on which the simulation models
should be created. Although one option is the distribution
curve based on recovery, another equally important
alternative is that based on recovery factor. In contrary to
what one might expect, these options do not yield the
same conclusion (run). This is investigated with the
following example.
Example 6: For the problem discussed in Example 1B,
the ED matrix and results are presented in Table 3. From
the quality of UR and RF crossplots respectively shown in
Figs. 6 and 7, the derived surfaces (Eqs. 6 and 7) are
satisfactory. Assuming uniform distribution of input factors,
UR and RF distribution curves are illustrated in Figs. 8 and
9 respectively.
The next step is the creation of P10, P50 and P90 models
by mapping respective probabilities to the simulation runs.
Table 4 shows the mapped models for UR and RF
responses. As the two responses yield different sets of
runs, the concern is: “which set of models does one select
without compromising consistency? “ For instance, run ‘4’
which approximates a P90 model in UR, is only a P4
model in terms of RF!
Apparenetly, the resolution of the foregoing issue is not
trivial. While the UR-based mapping seems consistent with
economic analysis, RF-based models tend to be
manifestations of technical factors (e.g. recovery
mechanisms). In resolving this issue, a pertinent question
to be anwered by the E&P industry is: “Is subsurface
modelling driven by economic factors or vice versa?”
As a remark, the current practice of ‘tweaking’ the highest-
impacting variables (heavy hitters) to achieve a simulation
SPE 128350
model of specific probability does not resolve the foregoing
issues. In fact, this practice is misleading when applied to
discrete variables such as static models, fluid models, etc.
Using the work on Chuchupa field by Rivera et al. (13),
other issues associated with the creation of ‘compliant’
.
simulation models from the response distribution curve
have been highlighted by Lawal and Eweje (3).
7.0 Dynamics of Response and Input Variables
In their present forms, ED and RSM implicitly ignore time
effects, as the response variable always undergoes a
constant change per unit perturbation of the independent
variable (e.g. Eq. 19). However, this contradicts the
essence of ‘dynamics’ as time-dependent variations.
∂R
= Ai …………………………………………….…..(19)
∂x i
Where Ai is the coefficient of the independent variable xi in
the R proxy model.
∂Q o
Using Eq. 13 as an example, = −182.4 for all time.
∂s
For time-dependent changes of skin factor (s), as shown in
Fig. 10 for a real reservoir, current ED theory may not be
able to reflect the effect of such dynamics on the oil rate or
other dependent variables.
Another concern is the estimation of the time (steady-state
time) at which the calculated response, after an input
perturbation, would be achieved, or the path taken by the
response variable before reaching the steady-state. For
example, in Eq. 7, increasing or decreasing the aquifer
size by 0.5 unit while keeping other inputs at their base
values (0), would yield RF of 70.9 and 74.7% respectively.
However from the proxy, there is no idea on when the
reservoir would realise these RF’s, or the production
profile associated with each response.
8.0 Reservoir Proxy or Simulator Proxy?
In principle, current application of ED to subsurface
studies merely generates a surrogate for the simulator and
not the reservoir itself! This implies that uncertainties
associated with subsurface modelling (data) and
limitations of numerical simulators are simply propagated
to the proxy. Yet, this model is applied as the reservoir
surrogate. While this may appear reasonable where a
‘reliable’ history-matched model exists, it is debatable for
green fields. This approach contradicts the practice in CPI
and other industries which, in spite of availability of
rigorous mathematical models, still employ actual plant
performance data to construct proxy models of plant
dynamics. This notwithstanding, such models are updated
regularly as remarkable changes are observed in plant
behaviour.
Although the objective of history-matching, an inverse
problem, is to establish the most consistent and plausible
subsurface realisation which fits observed performance,
the exercise is rarely unique as several, apparently
6 K.A. Lawal
unrelated, models could satisfy (within allowable error
bounds) this criterion. Yet, these supposed history-
matched models yield different forecasts, hence
uncertainties in decision-making.
In addition, numerical models including history-matching,
are very sensitive to prevailing reservoir characteristics
and assumptions. Consequently, with a switch from one
recovery mechanism to another, e.g. from depletion to
gas-cap drive, a previously history-matched model may no
longer be valid for the new mechanism (31). Further, results
of history-matching tend to depend on the algorithm used
(32, 33)
. These issues, which are some of the drawbacks of
automatic history-matching, make it imperative to be
cautious at relying on conclusions of ED obtained from the
so-called ‘history-matched’ models.
Besides dynamic issues, static models have some implicit
uncertainties which might be difficult to approximate as
continuous functions. For example, in a very recent
comparative study of four reservoir modelling techniques
(object based modelling, sequential indicator simulation,
multiple point statistics, and spectral component geologic
modelling) using high resolution ferron sandstone outcrop
data, it was discovered that none of the algorithms could
accurately reproduce the proportions of the reference
model facies (34). In fact, despite being conditioned to the
same dataset, the resulting models differ significantly in
volumetrics and flow characteristics.
Discussion
Inconsistency with reservoir physics is a major drawback
of implementing ED for modelling subsurface
uncertainties. However equally important, is paucity of
data. Although it appears straightforward, successful
application of ED requires large amount of quality data,
especially for systems, such as reservoir processes,
characterised by significant non-linearities. In contrast to
the discrete nature of most subsurface variables, in strict
sense, ED and RSM presume continuous variables.
The issue of ‘heavy hitters’ is debatable. Our experience
indicates that this depends strongly on the assumed
development option. For instance, while the ratio of
vertical-to-horizontal permeability (kv/kh) may be critical for
a horizontal well development, it is not likely to be
important for vertical well development. Imagine applying a
proxy model (without kv/kh) developed with vertical
completions in a heterogeneous system to predict/optimise
the performance of horizontal completions in the same
system! Obviously, there is need for specific proxy models
which may differ considerably between development plans,
and possibly, between reservoir sectors or blocks.
The dynamism of ‘heavy hitters’ is also of concern. For
example, the key uncertainties under a gascap drive are
likely to differ from those of water drive or combination
drive. Therefore, in a scenario where the development
plan had been ‘optimised’ with respect to gascap drive,
how exposed are the investments if water drive becomes
the outcome? Green fields and poorly understood mature
fields are particularly vulnerable to this risk.
SPE 128350
The practice of using P10 and P90 realisations as the ‘low’
and ‘high’ values of the input variables for performing
stochastic simulations has negative implications on the
‘true’ distribution of the output. By limiting the input data
range to P10 - P90, there is no theoretical justification for
estimating the ranges P0 - P9 and P91 - P100 in the
output distribution. Consequently, we do not agree with the
practice of ‘deliberately’ constraining the uncertainty
ranges of the independent variables, as recommended by
Amudo et al (20). Rather, such reduction in uncertainty
range, even for mature systems, should be triggered by
improved knowledge such as availability of new data, re-
interpretation of existing data or perhaps, analogue.
Moreover, we opine that combinations of the extreme
values would effectively define the edges of the response
surface (1).
Some Pragmatic Applications of ED in E&P
Despite the drawbacks of ED in modelling subsurface
uncertainties, scope exists for deployment in the following
areas of E&P which, contrary to subsurface variables, are
characterised by independent variables that are
continuous and controllable for the achievement of desired
responses.
Management of production and injection: As
examples, optimising separator performances relative to
chemical dosage, operating pressure, valve setting, etc,
requires a good understanding of process dynamics.
Applying fundamental principles, which couple
conservation equations and phase equilibrium, to develop
and solve complex mathematical models may not be
practical. Besides, in the case of chemical dosage, the
chemical vendor is not likely to ‘reveal’ the true chemical
composition of the product, making it impossible to model
reaction kinetics. However, ED provides a cheap
alternative, which though limited to a narrow operating
envelop, is suitable for most engineering purposes.
Model-based control: automated systems such as
‘intelligent’ completions require models relating the
controllable variables (e.g. position of inflow control valves,
ICV) with the output variables (e.g. fluid
production/injection rate and pressure). By empirical
identification, ED may provide cheaper alternative
modelling (17) than more rigorous first-principle models,
and where available, ED-based model may also
complement such first-principle models. However, where
digital control, entailing conversion of continuous analog
signals to discrete digital signals, is implemented, it is
instructive to ensure appropriate sampling frequency to
minimise loss of high-frequency information (35).
Business planning: Using profitability indicators such as
net present value, payout time or internal rate of return as
dependent variables, ED may be used to develop useful
response surfaces incorporating effects of uncertainties
such as production, price, schedule, cost and discount-
rate on project performance. Such proxies would also
facilitate construction of probability distribution curves of
the profitability indicators, which enhance decision-making
compared to deterministic tools such as spider diagram
and tornado chart.
7 Modelling Subsurface Uncertainties with Experiemental Design: Some Arguments of Non-Conformists
Conclusion
Main findings of this work include:
• Data acquisition, processing, interpretation and
utilisation are critical for robust modelling of
subsurface uncertainties
• Although statistically consistent, most ED-based proxy
models do not conform to reservoir physics
• Depending on the input distributions, ED may
underestimate or exaggerate the impacts of
subsurface uncertainties
• Reservoir mechanisms are too complex for reliable
modelling with ED-based proxy equations
• There is yet no convincing method of constructing a
unique simulation model from the distribution curve of
the response variable.
Recommendation
Based on this study, the following are recommended:
• Analysis and mitigation of subsurface uncertainties
should be multidisciplinary
• Reduction of uncertainties should be driven by
acquisition and (re)interpretation of quality data
• Known ‘minimum’ (P0) and ‘maximum’ (P100) data
should always be used to bound the input factors
• Relatively greater efforts should be expended on
reservoir geosciences and physics than the
mathematics and statistics
• Possibility of applying ED for production management,
business planning and other applications should be
investigated.
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to Jonathan Umurhohwo, for useful
discussions on Experimental Design.
Nomenclature
Boi initial oil formation volume factor, L3L-3
GRV gross rock volume, L3
NTG net-to-gross ratio, LL-1
Soi initial oil saturation, L3L-3
STOIIP stock-tank oil initially in-place, L3
φ
3 -3
porosity, L L
References
1. O’Dell, M. and Lamers, E. (2003). “Subsurface
Uncertainty Management in the Harweel Cluster,
South Oman”. SPE 84189 presented at Annual
Technical Conference & Exhibition, Denver, Colorado,
5 - 8 Oct
2. Passone, S. and McRae, G.J. (2007). “Probabilistic
Field Development in Presence of Uncertainty”. IPTC
11294 prepared for the International Petroleum
Technology Conference, Dubai, 4 - 6 Dec
SPE 128350
3. Lawal, A.K. and O. Eweje (2009). “On Field
Development Planning: A Comparative Study of
Experimental Design and Structured Deterministic
Techniques”. Paper presented at Offshore West
Africa Conference & Exhibition, Abuja, 27 - 29 Jan
4. Peng, C.Y., R. Gupta, K. Vijayan, G.C. Smith, M.A.
Rayfield, and D.R. DePledge (2004). “Experimental
Design Methodology for Quantifying UR Distribution
Curve- Lessons Learnt and Still to be Learnt”. Paper
88585 presented at SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference & Exhibition, Perth, 18 - 20 Oct
5. Badru, O., and C.S. Kabir (2003). “Well Placement
Optimisation in Field Development”. Paper 84191
presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference &
Exhibition, Denver, 5 - 8 Oct
6. Queipo, N.V., J.V. Goicochea, and S. Pintos (2002).
“Surrogate Modelling-based Optimisation of SAGD
Processes”. J. of Petroleum Science & Eng., 35, 83-
93
7. Aanonsen, S.I., A.L. Eide, L. Holden, and J.O. Aasen
(1995). “Optimising Reservoir Performance under
Uncertainty with Application to Well Location”. Paper
30710 presented at SPE Annual Technical
Conference & Exhibition, Dallas, 22 - 25 Oct
8. Guyaguler, B. and R.N. Horne (2001). “Uncertainty
assessment of Well-Placement Optimisation”. Paper
71625 presented at SPE Annual Technical
Conference & Exhibition, New Orleans, 30 Sep - 3
Oct
9. Onwunalu, J., M. Litvak, L.J. Durlofsky, and K. Aziz
(2008). “Application of Statistical Proxies to Speed Up
Development Optimisation Procedures”. Paper
117323 presented at International Petroleum
Exhibition & Conference, Abu Dhabi, 3 - 6 Nov
10. Artus, V., L.J. Durlofsky, J. Onwunalu, and K. Aziz
(2006). “Optimisation of Nonconventional Wells under
Uncertainty”. Comput. Geosci., 10, 389 – 404
11. Vincent, G., B. Corre, and P. Thore (1999). “Managing
Structural Uncertainty in a Mature Field for Optimal
Well Placement”. SPERE, 2, 377-384
12. Litvak, M.L., B. Gane, and L. McMurray (2007). “Field
Development Optimisation in a Giant Oil Field in
Azerbaijan and a Mature Oil Field in the North Sea”.
Paper 18526 presented at Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, 30 Apr - 3 May
13. Rivera, N., N. Meza, J. Kim, P. Clark, R. Garber, A.
Fajardo, and V. Pena (2007). “Static and Dynamic
Uncertainty Management for Probabilistic Production
Forecast in Chuchupa Field, Colombia”. SPERE, 10,
4, 433 - 439
14. Koci, P.F. and J.G. Mohiddin (2007). “Realistic History
Matching of Cyclic Steam Stimulation Performance of
Several Groups of Multilateral Wells in the Peace
River Field, Canada”. Paper 107201 presented at
SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition,
London, 11 - 14 Jun
15. Montgomery, D.C. (1976). Design and Analysis of
Experiments, John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York
8 K.A. Lawal
16. Myers, R.H. and D.C. Montgomery (2002). Response
Surface Methodology, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons Inc,
New York
17. Marlin, T.E. (1995). Process Control: Designing
Processes and Control Systems for Dynamic
Performance. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York
18. Hougen, J. (1964). “Experiences and Experiments
with Process Dynamics”, Chem. Eng. Prog.
Monograph Ser., 60, 4
19. Kabir, C.S., A. Chawathe, S.D. Jenkins, A.J. Olayomi,
C. Aigbe, and D.B. Faparusi (2002). “Developing New
Fields Using Probabilistic Reservoir Forecasting”.
Paper 77564 presented at SPE Annual Technical
Conference & Exhibition, San Antonio, 29 Sep - 2 Oct
20. Amudo, C., T. Graf, R. Dandekar, and J.M. Randle
(2009). “The Pains and Gains of Experimental Design
and Response Surface Applications in Reservoir
Simulation Studies”. Paper 118709 presented at SPE
Reservoir Simulation Symposium, The Woodlands, 2 -
4 Feb
21. Deutscf, C.V. and A.G. Journel (1998). GSLIB
Geostatistical Library and User’s Guide, 2nd ed.,
Oxford University Press
22. Masters, T. (193). Practical Neural Network Recipes
in C++, Academic Press
23. Li, B. and F. Friedmann (2005a). “Novel Multiple
Resolutions Design of Experiment/ Response Surface
Methodology for Uncertainty Analysis of Reservoir
Simulation Forecasts”. Paper 92853 presented at
SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Texas, 31 Jan
- 2 Feb
24. Li, B. and F. Friedmann (2005b). “A Novel Response
Surface Methodology Based on Amplitude Factor
Analysis for Modelling Nonlinear Responses Caused
by Both Reservoir and Controllable Factors”. Paper
95283 presented at SPE Annual Technical
Conference & Exhibition, Texas, 9 - 12 Oct
25. Yeten, B., A. Castellini, B. Guyaguler, and W.H. Chen
(2005). “A Comparison Study on Experimental Design
and Response Surface Methodologies”. Paper 93347
presented at SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium,
Texas, 31 Jan - 2 Feb
26. Portella, R.C.M., M.C. Salomao, M. Blauth, and R.L.B.
Duarte (2003). “Uncertainty Quantification to Evaluate
SPE 128350
the Value of Information in a Deepwater Reservoir”.
Paper 79707 presented at SPE Reservoir Simulation
Symposium, Houston,
3 - 5 Feb
27. Chu, C. (1990). “Prediction of Steamflood
Performance in Heavy Oil Reservoirs Using
Correlations Developed by Factorial Design Method”.
Paper 20020 presented at 60th California Regional
Meeting, California, 4 - 6 Apr
28. Kabir, C.S., M. Agamini, and R.A. Holguin (2004).
“Production Strategy for Thin-Oil Columns in
Saturated Reservoirs”. Paper 89755 presented at
SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition,
Houston, 26 - 29 Sep
29. Hubbard, D. (2007). How to Measure Anything:
Finding the Value of Intangibles in Business, John
Wiley & Sons, 2007
30. Adenuga, A. (2008). Private Communication, 28th
February 2008
31. SPE (2009). Advert on “Propagation of Uncertainties”
32. Dong, Y. and S. Dean (2008). “Reservoir Simulation
Model Updates via Automatic History Matching With
Integration of Seismic Impedance Change and
Production Data”. Paper IPTC 12550 presented at the
International Petroleum Technology Conference,
Kuala Lumpur, 3 - 5 Dec
33. Cheng, H., X. Wen, W.J. Milliken, A., and A. Datta-
Gupta (2004). “Field Experiences with Assisted and
Automatic History Matching Using Streamline
Models”. Paper 89857 presented at SPE Annual
Technical Conference & Exhibition, Houston, 26 - 29
Sep
34. Deveugle, P. (2009). “A Comparative Study of
Reservoir Modelling Techniques Using High
Resolution Ferron Sandstone Outcrop Data”,
Postgraduate Seminar, Earth Science & Engineering
Dept., Imperial College London
35. Ogata, K. (1987). Discrete-Time Control Systems,
Prentice-Hall, New Jersey
9 Modelling Subsurface Uncertainties with Experiemental Design: Some Arguments of Non-Conformists SPE 128350

80

($/bb
70 ED S PE p a p e r s

60 O il Pr ic e

No, Pric e ($/bbl)

50

40

30

20

10

0
1971 - 1976 - 1981 - 1986 - 1991 - 1996 - 2001 - 2006 -
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2009
T im e In t e r v a l

Fig. 1: Historic Trend of ED Publications ∗ & Oil Price #

Gas Producer

Fig. 2: Simulation Model for Example 1B (3)

60,000 1.0E+08

9.0E+07
Table 1: Deterministic STOIIP Simulation (P0 - P100)
50,000
8.0E+07 High
Oil Rate (stb/d)(stb/d

7.0E+07 Low (P0) Base (P100)

40,000
Oil Cum (stb) (stb)

6.0E+07
GRV (MMft3) 2962 3833 4530
30,000 5.0E+07
Oil rate Porosity 0.15 0.22 0.32
4.0E+07
Oil recovery
20,000
3.0E+07 NTG 0.58 0.66 0.79

2.0E+07 Soi 0.52 0.72 0.88

10,000
1.0E+07
1/Boi (stb/rb) 0.72 0.78 0.89
0 0.0E+00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Time (days) STOIIP (MMstb) 17.2 55.8 160.2

Fig. 3: Oil Rate and Recovery as Functions of Time

∗
Obtained with the SPE search engine, using the key words: Design of experiments, factorial design, response surface methodology, proxy model,
probabilistic forecasting. Valid as at Feb. 18, 2009
#
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp, accessed Feb 20, 2009
10 K.A. Lawal SPE 128350

Table 2: Deterministic STOIIP Simulation (P10 - P90)

Table 3: ED for Example 6

Low High GP Rf
(P10) Base (P90) Run S F C A (Bscf) (%)
1 0 0 0 0 279 72.8
GRV (MMft3) 3441 3833 4051
2 -1 1 -1 1 88 84.4
Porosity 0.18 0.22 0.29 3 -1 -1 -1 -1 68 62.5
4 1 -1 1 -1 414 61.2
NTG 0.62 0.66 0.71
5 1 1 1 1 605 83.1
Soi 0.66 0.72 0.79
6 1 1 -1 -1 191 76.2
1/Boi (stb/rb) 0.68 0.78 0.92 7 1 -1 -1 1 172 69.7
8 -1 1 1 -1 264 75.9
STOIIP (MMstb) 31.3 55.8 107.7
9 0 0 0 0 279 72.8
10 -1 -1 1 1 254 69.4

1.0

0.8 Table 4: Mapping Simulation Runs to Probability

(<x

GP Rf
0.6 P100 PX (Bscf) Run Ψ (%) Run
Probability (<x)

P10 144 7 66.5 10

0.4
P50 258 10 72.9 1, 9
P90 394 4 79.1 5

0.2 P0 Uniform
Triangular
LogNorm al
0.0 700
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 y = 1.0152x
STOIIP (M M s tb) 600 R2 = 0.9704
Fig. 4: End-points (P0, P100) of Deterministic & ED
UR
Actu al UR (Bscf)

500
Simulations
400

300
1.0
200

0.8
(<x

100
Probability (<x)

0
0.6
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Predicted UR (Bscf)
0.4

Fig. 6: Cross-plot of Actual & Predicted UR

0.2 Uniform(P10-P90)

Unifom(P0-P100)
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
STOIIP (MMstb)

Fig. 5: (P10-P90) and (P0-P100) Distribution Curves

Ψ
The runs are the closest ones to the respective probabilities. There is
no interpolation between runs
11 Modelling Subsurface Uncertainties with Experiemental Design: Some Arguments of Non-Conformists SPE 128350

90
y = 1.0013x 1.0
(% R2 = 0.9799
85

Probability (<x) (<x)

0.8
A ctu al R F (% )

80

75 0.6
70
0.4
65

60 0.2
60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Pr e dicte d RF (%)
0.0
60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Fig. 7: Cross-plot of Actual & Predicted RF
Gas RF (%)

Fig. 9: Gas RF Distribution

1.0

0.8 30
Probability (<x) (<x)

0.6 25

0.4 20
Skin factor`

0.2 15

0.0 10
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Gas UR(Bscf)
5
Fig. 8: Gas UR Distribution
0
7-Jun-2007

5-Oct-2007
6-Aug-2007

2-Apr-2008
8-Apr-2007
12-Jun-2006

7-Feb-2007
9-Dec-2006

4-Dec-2007

2-Feb-2008
15-Oct-2005

11-Aug-2006

10-Oct-2006
13-Apr-2006
12-Feb-2006
14-Dec-2005

Time

(30)
Fig. 10: Variation of Actual Skin Factor over Time