SPE 54307
The Role of Geology in Stochastic Reservoir Modelling: The Future Trends
D. Tamhane, SPE, L. Wang and P.M. Wong, SPE, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 20–22 April 1999.
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 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 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 part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of 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.
Abstract
Stochastic simulation is a popular approach for the
quantification of reservoir heterogeneity. From the geological
viewpoints, however, the role of reservoir geology in
stochastic models is diminishing in recent years. This paper
reviews the major characteristics of the stochastic models, and
geological knowledge is identified as the major missing
element in the current practices of the simulation techniques.
A detailed discussion of the meaning and usefulness of
geological knowledge is given. We have also provided a list of
future research directions showing how we can make use of
conceptual geological models to bridge the gap between
reservoir geology and stochastic simulation practices.
Introduction
Reservoir characterisation plays a crucial role in reservoir
management practices. It is an important joint between
geology, geophysics and reservoir simulation. It aims to
integrate information from various sources and generate
numerical models from sparsely distributed reservoir
properties, such as lithofacies, porosity, permeability and fluid
saturations. Without a realistic geological framework
incorporated into the reservoir study, no reservoir model can
be used reliably as a predictive tool1.
Philosophical Issues in Reservoir Modelling. Obtaining
realistic reservoir models requires fast and flexible processes
to handle reservoir data which are, unfortunately, often
incomplete. Because of the incompleteness of the available
data, reservoir modelling becomes a very challenging problem
as the establishment of truth is impossible (although the
reservoir is of a deterministic nature in reality). This means
that verification and validation of any reservoir models also
becomes impossible2.
Many studies have used history matching as a tool to
“verify” the accuracy of the reservoir models. This, in fact, is
a result of committing a logical fallacy of “affirming the
consequent” because there exists more than one numerical
model which can produce the same outputs2. This situation is
referred to by scientists as nonuniqueness. Therefore, if a
reservoir model fails to match the observed data (e.g.
production data), then we know that the model is faulty in
some way, but the reverse is never the case. This means that
we may need to rely on other criteria in order to define a better
model. Hence, reservoir characterisation studies are, in fact,
not purely scientific works, but depend heavily on subjective
modelling decisions.
Data Integration. In order to reduce the subjectivity
involved, the current practice is to incorporate as many inputs
(e.g. well data, seismic attributes, well tests and production
data) as possible into the modelling algorithms. The only
advantage of data integration is to reduce the uncertainty of
the model, but may not necessarilly produce a more “accurate”
model because the truth is never available for verification.
In order to integrate data from various sources into the
reservoir models, geologists have experienced many
difficulties, as it is difficult and nearly impossible for them to
process these data quantitatively and to provide high
resolution 3D models. With the rapid development of modern
computer technology, stochastic simulation becomes a popular
approach for simulating unknowable reservoir properties and
quantifying reservoir heterogeneity with extensive risk
analysis capability.
Despite the usefulness of stochastic models, there is still
much evidence that the predicted performance is below
expectation. This is an indication of our failure to understand
the process involved and to recognise the uncertainty inherent
in the definition of important reservoir characteristics3. There
are many possibilities for poor predictions, and all of them are
more or less associated with the input parameters to the
simulation algorithms. We can certainly improve the
predictions if we are able to identify the problem inputs and
model their uncertainty appropriately.
2 D. Tamhane, L. Wang and P. M. Wong
Model Uncertainty. According to Zimmermann4, “certainty”
implies that a person [model] has quantitatively and
qualitatively the appropriate information to describe, prescribe
or predict deterministically and numerically a system, its
behaviour or other phenomena. The situations which are not
described by this definition shall be called “uncertain.” The
causes of uncertainty mainly include lack of information,
abundance of information (complexity), conflicting evidence,
ambiguity, engineering measurement, and subjective belief.
From our experience, the major uncertainty in reservoir
modelling is the subjective geological interpretation of the
field. This strongly relates to the understanding of the
reservoir geology. However, the commonly identified problem
inputs in stochastic models are hardly related to reservoir
geology. Hence, there is a great need to re-examine the
characteristics of the conceptual geological models, which are
known to be fully charged with valuable geological
knowledge.
Objective. The objective of this paper is to firstly revisit the
current practices of stochastic simulation. This is followed by
a discussion of the conceptual geological models. Lastly, we
will provide a list of future research directions, showing how
we can make use of geological knowledge in stochastic
simulation for improved predictions.
Stochastic Simulation
Stochastic simulation is a very fast and flexible approach to
generate reservoir models. The use of Monte Carlo methods is
extremely convenient to simulate unknowable events. Many
are able to generate multiple conditional realisations for local
uncertainty analysis. With the increasing interest of stochastic
modelling in reservoir characterisation, many stochastic
models have been developed in the past several years. They
can be classified into two broad types: pixel-based models and
object-based models. In this section, we will briefly discuss
the characteristics of these models.
Pixel-based Models. Most of the pixel-based stochastic
methods are based on kriging or cokriging in a sequential
manner. Examples are sequential Gaussian simulation,
sequential indicator simulation and truncated Gaussian
simulation5-7. They are all able to obtain estimates of the
necessary conditional distributions by using simple kriging or
ordinary kriging. In order to incorporate soft data (e.g. seismic
impedance), cokriging technique can be used during the
sequential simulation processes. They can directly analyse the
quantitative data and utilise them for prediction purpose via
the use of direct-variograms or cross-variograms. Apart from
the sequential simulation algorithms, simulated annealing is
also flexible to incorporate more data types into the model by
adding new components to the objective function7.
Object-based Models. Object-based models present a
promising concept to integrate stochastic geological objects.
They treat each geological body (e.g. a sand body) as an
object, and parameterise the body by constructing a series of
SPE 54307
probability distributions according to the known data8-10,
Then, they generate different bodies for the geological model
by Monte Carlo sampling from the distributions of the
parameters. During the process, geologists can also put
specific sedimentary body with certain parameters into the
model and match their geological knowledge. The most
popular model is the marked point processes. The small-scale
features are simulated mostly by the use of simulated
annealing.
The Major Difficulty. From the geological viewpoints, the
role of reservoir geology in stochastic models is diminishing
and is increasingly replaced by two-point statistics (e.g.
variograms) used in pixel-based models that are far too simple
to parameterise complex geology, and are often
unrepresentative when the data are sparse, limited and biased.
The object-based models present a more geologically intuitive
concept, but it requires many parameters that are difficult to
interpret geologically and does not consider information
derived from sedimentary processes.
From our experience, geological knowledge is extremely
important and often represents the major uncertainty
component in reservoir characterisation. Unfortunately, this is
not what the current practices of stochastic simulation are
trying to model. There also exists a general misunderstanding
of what “geological knowledge” really means. The next
section will give a detailed discussion of conceptual
geological models and clarify the meaning of geological
knowledge.
Conceptual Geological Models
Conceptual models have placed a central role in reservoir
modelling for many decades, even before the birth of modern
computers. Despite the boom of stochastic simulation in recent
years, there are still many so-called “conservative geologists”
who do not appreciate the value of stochastic simulation,
partly because of the complex mathematics involved, but
mostly because of the lack of geological soundness in the
simulated models. We forecast that the merging of conceptual
models and stochastic simulation will become an important
breakthrough in reservoir characterisation.
Construction of conceptual models is in fact a highly non-
linear and complex process, which is difficult to be described
by precise mathematics. It involves a good understanding of
physical and chemical reactions in earth sciences, and depends
heavily on the knowledge of the geologist(s) involved. The
next section will expound the meaning of geological
knowledge.
Geological Knowledge. The meaning of “knowledge” is
abstractive and difficult to be quantified11. It is a result of
learning and understanding of a certain subject. In the
formalism of knowledge, there is a set of facts contained in the
knowledge. When the subject wants to speak about its
knowledge, it can only use its concepts12.
In geology, the subject knowledge can give rise to
conceptual models and is commonly shown as hand-drawings
SPE 54307 The Role of Geology in Stochastic Reservoir Modelling: The Future Trends
for technical communication. The knowledge (conceptual
model) contains two main groups of information:
Geological rules. Geological rules are the result of the
basic theories in petroleum geology. They include the
scientific rules of structural geology, stratigraphy,
sedimentology, paleontology, diagenesis, geochemistry and
others13. We can call them “objective knowledge,” as they are
generally agreeable among geologists. The spatial
distributions of lithofacies and reservoir properties are
basically controlled by the geological rules for a given
sedimentary environment.
Geological experience. Geological experience from long-
term geological practice is extremely valuable for reservoir
prediction, especially when there is insufficient reservoir data
to support the geological rules. As opposed to the geological
rules, geological experience is generally considered as
“subjective knowledge,” as they are almost disagreeable
among geologists, especially those with different research
experience. It is therefore important for geologists to work in
various types of environments and subsequently improve the
confidence of their own intuition. Because of the existence of
subjectivity in geological intuition, it becomes the major cause
of uncertainty in reservoir modelling.
Model Construction. The construction of conceptual model
involves a number of steps. The first step is to construct a
structural model based on seismic, regional geology and well
data. The next step is to identify a depositional model. This
identification is based on the regional geological information
(tectonics and stratigraphy), global sea level eustatic
interpretation, seismic interpretation (structural and
stratigraphic), sequence stratigraphy, well logs, core
description, paleontological, geochemical and analog data.
Based on the depositional model, sedimentary facies model
comprising reservoir and non-reservoir facies along with
reservoir geometry (external form) can be inferred. High
resolution 3D seismic and statistical database regarding
reservoir geometry in different environments, if available, can
also be used to derive the reservoir geometry. Orientation of
reservoirs can be inferred from 3D seismic (amplitude slices)
and dip meter log interpretations.
As the original reservoir characteristics are greatly affected
by diagenesis, the next important step is to envisage diagenetic
facies model. This model is constructed based on post-
depositional, physio-chemical, biological and mechanical
processes, detailed core description, logging, petrophysical
and geochemical data. Based on the diagenetic facies model,
reservoir flow units and barriers can be identified. The final
model is a 3D conceptual geological model depicting
structural picture, reservoir geometry, spatial distribution of
flow units and barriers along with the qualitative knowledge
regarding reservoir heterogeneities. It represents the
geological knowledge and remains as an important tool for
reservoir modelling.
Model Limitations. There are a number of limitations in the
use of conceptual models for reservoir simulation14. Firstly,
3
the conceptual model is mostly of a symbolic nature (e.g. sand
distribution) rather than a numerical one (e.g. permeability).
Secondly, it represents only the global trends of
heterogeneities and is not able to provide any fine-scale
features. The problems are worse if a full 3D model is being
sought, as the traditional approach is based on 2D techniques
(e.g. cross-section method) with limited interpolation choices.
This is why stochastic models are useful as they have the
ability to handle such problems efficiently. However, the
simple statistical measures and distribution functions should
never replace the contribution of the conceptual model, which
provides a geological framework of the reservoir. More
research works are required to develop methodologies for
combining the usefulness of the conceptual models and the
efficient stochastic models.
Future Trends
This final section outlines five major research directions
showing how we can make use of geological knowledge and
conceptual geological models to bridge the gap between
reservoir geology and stochastic simulation practices.
Formalisation of Geological Knowledge. A strong emphasis
on how the geological knowledge is evolved is required. The
formalisation of the knowledge allows the development of a
flexible computer system for the generation of conceptual
models with different scenarios. As the major uncertainty lies
on the subjective interpretation of the reservoir data, it is
necessary to consider multiple or alternative geological
interpretations15,16. This will be a dramatic improvement on
the current methodologies (e.g. the use of different random
seed) for simulating multiple, equally-probable realisations,
which are only indirectly related to reservoir geology.
The potential research tool to understand and model
geological knowledge is artificial intelligence (AI). AI is a
specialised field of computer science concerned with concepts
and methods of symbolic inference by computer and symbolic
knowledge representation for use in making inferences. AI can
be seen as an attempt to model aspects of human thought on
computers. The particular AI technologies are rule-based
expert systems (or knowledge-based systems) with a strong
focus on the incorporation of fuzzy-based information. These
are extremely useful in modelling uncertain, qualitative and
linguistic information, which contribute significantly to the
derivation of the conceptual geological models17.
Use of Possibility Theory in Reservoir Modelling. So far,
probability theories dominate the fundamentals in stochastic
simulation, especially in facies simulation. From the
geological viewpoints, however, some geological facies
cannot simply be described by probability. For example, the
diagenetic facies is generally identified in core plugs. There
are a number of transitional types between the end facies
types, and the definition of target diagenetic facies types is
often imprecise, or fuzzy. Unlike simple depositional facies,
which can be expressed by facies proportions in clastic
sedimentary sequences, the definition of diagenetic facies is
4 D. Tamhane, L. Wang and P. M. Wong
not as straightforward. Possibility theory is a prominent
methodology to handle such fuzzy information16.
There is a fundamental difference between probability and
possibility. Probability expresses a binary decision (yes or no),
but possibility is for multi-valued decision. Consider an
attempt to describe a core plug using two minerals: type “A”
and type “B.” Very often, we describe that the plug looks
more like “A” than “B.” If we use probability to implement
such a statement, the best we can do is to use a X% chance
belonging to “A” and a (100-X)% chance belonging to “B,”
where X>50%. This in fact does not reflect the true meaning
of the statement. In the statement, the plug actually looks like
both types of minerals, but is certainly not composed of X% of
“A” and (100-X)% of “B.”
In possibility theory, we are able to assume the co-
existence of both types, and use X% to express the degree of
membership belonging to “A” and Y% to express the degree
of membership belonging to “B,” where X>Y. The major
characteristic of possibility theory is that (X+Y)% is not
100%. From this example, we can clearly see the failure of
probability in describing a core plug, which is visible to us.
The problem is worse if we use probability concepts to
describe the underground reservoirs. Therefore, research in the
use of possibility theory in stochastic models will offer a
completely new insight to reservoir modelling practices.
Quantification of Reservoir Geology. The most commonly
available quantitative geological model is the iso-porosity
contours which are often hand-sketched by geologists. As
discussed previously, the incorporation of as many inputs as
possible into the modelling algorithm can reduce the
uncertainty of the model. There is no reason why geological
hand drawings cannot be used. Although they represent only
global or large-scale features, they do contain valuable
geological knowledge18. If stochastic simulation is used, the
small-scale features can be simulated, and the final model can
be constrained by the large-scale features. Techniques such as
neural network residual simulation are particular useful19. As
the quantitative information is so useful, it is a great challenge
to provide more quantitative maps. Methods to convert the
conceptual models into quantitative hand drawings (e.g.
expressing the sedimentary facies model and the diagenetic
model) will contribute to many stochastic models.
Rule-based Ranking of Multiple Realisations. Ranking
multiple realisations from stochastic models is important.
Many criteria can be used to choose the “best” image20. If
geological knowledge could be converted into rules, we may
develop rule-based systems to rank the multiple realisations
and examine if any of the realisations are geologically
interpretable or worth further investigation. This is strongly
dependent on the success of the formalisation of geological
knowledge discussed previously.
Rule-based Reservoir Upscaling. Reservoir upscaling is a
challenging field. It aims to convert fine-scale reservoir model
to a coarser one, but to retain some characteristics according to
SPE 54307
some criteria. There is a potential research area for
constraining the upscaled model to the conceptual model. It is
because the conceptual model represents the large-scale
geological trends of the reservoir features. When larger grid
size is used, the upscaled model should reflect the same
geological trends. Again, we may develop rule-based systems
to evaluate the performance of various upscaling techniques.
On the other hand, we may also use the conceptual model as
the starting point and then downscale it using stochastic
simulation. This is similar to the ideas presented in Wang et al.
(1998)19, but further investigation is required.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Australian Petroleum
Cooperative Research Centre for funding the work published
in this paper.
References
1. Simlote, V.N. and Nikolayenko, S.A.: “Dealing with
Uncertainty: Geostatistics and the New Era in Reservoir
Studies,” paper SPE 39546 presented at the SPE Iindia Oil
and Gas Conference and Exhibition, New Delhi, India
(1998) 383-397.
2. Oreskes, N., Shrader-Frechette, K. and Belitz, K.:
“Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical
Models in the Earth Sciences,” Science (1994) 263, 641-
646.
3. Foley, L., Ball, L., Hurst, A., Davis, J. and Blockley, D.:
“Fuzziness, incompleteness and randomness: classification
of uncertainty in reservoir appraisal,” Petroleum
Geoscience (1997) 3, 203-209.
4. Zimmermann, H.-J.: “A fresh perspective on uncertainty
modeling: Uncertainty vs. Uncertainty modeling,”
Uncertainty Analysis in Engineering and Sciences: Fuzzy
Logic, Statistics, and Neural Network Approach, B.M.
Ayyub and M.M. Gupta (eds), Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Massachusetts, USA (1998) 353-363.
5. Goovarts, P.: “Comparison of CoIK, IK, mIK
performances for modelling conditional probabilities of
categorical variables,” Geostatistics for the next century,
M. Armstrong and P.A. Dowd (eds), Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Netherlands (1994) 18-29.
6. Gotway, C. A. and Rutherford, B. M.: “Stochastic
simulation for imaging spatial uncxertainty: Comparison
and evaluation of available algorithms,” Geostatistics for
the next century, M. Armstrong and P.A. Dowd (eds),
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands (1994) 1-21.
7. Deutsch, C. V. and Journel, A. G.: GSLIB: Geostatistical
software library and user’s guide, Oxford University
Press, New York (1992).
8. Lia, O., Tjielmeland, H. and Kjellesvik, L. E.: “Modelling
of facies architecture by marked point processes,”
Geostatistics Wollongong ’96 Volume 1, E.Y. Baafi and
N.A. Schofield (eds), Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Netherlands, (1997) 386-397.
9. Syversveen, A. R. and Omre, H.: “Marked point models
for facies units conditioned on well data,” Geostatistics
SPE 54307 The Role of Geology in Stochastic Reservoir Modelling: The Future Trends 5

Wollongong ’96 Volume 1, Kluwer Academic Publishers,

Netherlands, (1997) 415-423.
10. Holden, L., Hauge, R., Skare, and A. Skorstad, A.:
“Modelling of Fluvial Reservoirs with Object Models,”
Mathematical Geology, (1998) 30, no.5, 473-496.
11. Phillips, D.C. “3D Geological Modeling,” Geotimes (July
1993), 14-16.
12. Umkehrer, E. and Schill, K.: “General perspective on the
formalization of uncertain knowledge,” Uncertainty
Analysis in Engineering and Sciences: Fuzzy Logic,
Statistics, and Neural Network Approach, B.M. Ayyub and
M.M. Gupta (eds), Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Massachusetts, USA (1998) 21-35.
13. Chapman, R. E.: Petroleum Geology, Elsevier Publisher,
Amsterdan, New York, (1983).
14. Freulon, X. C., Dunderdale, I. D.: “Integrating Field
Measurements with Conceptual Models to Produce a
Detailed 3D Geological Model,” paper SPE 28877
presented at the SPE European Petroleum Conference,
London, U.K. (1994), 99-108
15. Frodeman, R.: “The earth sciences and the public realm --
rethinking geology's role,” Geotimes (March 1997), 24-26.
16. Fang, J. H.: “Fuzzy Logic & Geology,” Geotimes (October
1997) 23-26.
17. Nordlund, U.: “Formalizing geological knowledge – with
an example of modeling stratigraphy using fuzzy logic,”
Journal of Sedimentary Research (1996) 66, no. 4, 689-
698.
18. Wong, P.M., Tamhane, D. and Wang, L.: “A neural
network approach to knowledge-based well interpolation:
A case study of a fluvial sandstone reservoir,” Journal of
Petroleum Geology (1997) 20, no. 3, 363-372.
19. Wang, L., Wong, P.M. and Shibli, S.A.R.: “Modelling
porosity distribution in the Anan Oilfield: Use of
geological quantification, neural networks and
geostatistics” paper SPE 48884 presented at the 6th
International Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition,
Beijing (1998) 509-515.
20. Deustch, C.V.: “Fortran programs for calculating
connectivitiy of three-dimensional numerical models and
for ranking multiple realizations,” Computes &
Geosciences (1998) 24, no. 1, 69-76.