Achievements and challenges in petroleum geostatistics

Olivier Dubrule1 and Eivind Damsleth2

1
TotalFinaElf, CSTJF Avenue Larribau, 64000 Pau, France (email: olivier.dubrule@totalfinaelf.com)
2
Norsk Hydro HTP, 0246 Oslo, Norway (email: eivind.damsleth@hydro.com)

ABSTRACT: The current use of geostatistics in the petroleum industry is reviewed

and the main issues that need to be tackled before the potential of geostatistics is
fully realized are highlighted. The paper reviews and discusses three main topics: (1)
geostatistics and geology; (2) multidisciplinary data integration; and (3) uncertainty
quantification with multiple realizations. Our main message is that geostatistics has
come a long way and reached maturity. In the years ahead, geostatisticians should
focus less on the development of new algorithms and more on the training of
geoscientists and the development of new work flows for decision support with
geostatistics as the core.

KEYWORDS: reservoir model, risk analysis, history matching, uncertainty, decision

INTRODUCTION environments have been modelled, but experience remains

In the last twenty years, the development of petroleum geosta-
tistics has been spectacular. Many companies now recognize
geostatisticians as professionals of similar importance to geol-
ogists, geophysicists or reservoir engineers. Geostatistical mod-
elling studies have become widespread and major vendors offer
geostatistical software in their portfolio. At the same time, it is
fair to say that the potential of geostatistics is not yet fulfilled.
Many geoscientists still regard it as a black box approach – little
more than coin tossing to decide which lithology is present at
specific locations. Geophysicists and reservoir engineers have
been interested in geostatistical developments in seismic inver-
sion or history matching, but have seldom adopted a multi-
realization paradigm into their work flows. The Bayesian
formalism that they often use tends to limit itself to the search
for a unique ‘most likely’ solution, regardless of the uncertainty.
Multi-realization approaches are generally not used in project
economics or after project sanction once development has
started.
GEOSTATISTICS AND GEOLOGY
Successes
On the basis of papers published during the past twenty years,
petroleum geostatistics has mainly been used for the construc-
tion of 3D reservoir heterogeneity models. Conditional stochas-
tic simulations have been used to generate heterogeneous 3D
reservoir models where the discontinuities between wells reflect
geological assumptions about the various geological bodies.
These heterogeneous reservoir models have been successfully
used by engineers to evaluate and understand hydrocarbon
production and fluid flow in realistic heterogeneous reservoirs.
Object-based models, Sequential Indicator Simulation, Trun-
cated Gaussian Simulation or Sequential Gaussian Simulation
(Haldorsen & Damsleth 1990; Deutsch & Journel 1992), are
now frequently used, sometimes in conjunction with each
other, sometimes independently, depending on the scale of the
problem, or on the depositional environment. Thanks to the
variety and flexibility of available techniques, most depositional
weak with carbonates, due to the lack of clear relationships
between the different scales of heterogeneity present. Also,
although it is technically straightforward to generate a large
number of reservoir realizations, the practical use of the models
has, in most cases, been limited to generating one single
realization to carry forward.
Parameter inference or parameter choice?
Geostatistics came from the mining world, where the high
density of boreholes, shafts and drifts in several directions
provide sufficient data (Journel & Huijbregts 1978) to ‘infer the
3-D variogram model’. In the oil industry, it quickly became
apparent that little quantitative information about the lateral
extent of bodies could be statistically derived from wells which
are usually too scarce and too widespread. Analogue informa-
tion provided an alternative: geologists and geostatisticians
needed to combine their efforts to derive statistical information
about the size of modelled objects from outcrops or mature
fields. This generated a fruitful dialogue between disciplines,
and many outcrop studies were much better focused thanks to
this need to fill quantitative databases. As a result, many major
oil companies now have their own quantitative databases,
which are used to input quantitative geometrical information
into geostatistical simulations (Fig. 1).
Strangely enough, the approaches have remained somewhat
different between users of object-based and variogram-based
techniques. Users of object-based techniques usually acknowl-
edge the fact that they cannot obtain reliable lateral information
from well data alone. The unfortunate result is that sometimes
their input geometrical information is not compatible with the
well data. On the other hand, many users of variogram-based
techniques still define their variogram models on the basis of
noisy experimental variograms. Although there are some exam-
ples where a reasonable model can be obtained from wells
alone (Dubrule 1998), the quantification of lateral variation is
above all a geological problem. Input parameters must often be
chosen, rather than inferred, according to the geological
knowledge available about specific depositional environments.

Petroleum Geoscience, Vol. 7 2001, pp. S1–S7 1354-0793/01/$15.00 2001 EAGE/Geological Society of London
S2 O. Dubrule and E. Damsleth

· Low sinuosity 2.6

2 Meandering 1h
Channel 0.0
Braided w= 7
morphology 2.0
∆ Anastomosed 5h
0.8
5
1.8
x Channel morphology w= 2 .1h
=1
4
not known 1.5
x w x
· 2 .6h 1.
36
x 64 3h
x = 51
· x w
· x 2x w
=
x x
x 2
x 2 ·
· 2 x · ·
2
·
· x x x
· x
x x 2· · 22 2
2xx · 2 x· ·x x 2
x 2 2 2 2
xx ·x x x
∆ 2xx x 2· x · x 2 2x
·x x xxxxx x x 2 2 · · 2·
22
x x x x 2 x ·
2 ·
x xx 2 2 2
xx xx xx
22
· xx x · x x
·
· x x 2x x x ·
x xx x ∆ x x · 2 2
2 · x2 2 x x x2 2
∆x
x 2 x x
x x x x xx x
x x
x
x ·
x

·
· ·
·

Fig. 1. Example of compilation of

geometrical information for various
channel morphologies (Fielding &
Crane 1987).

Meaning of geostatistical parameters geostatistical software, including the GSLIB programs

It is clear that significant effort is required to explain the (Deutsch & Journel 1992), constructed 3D geostatistical realiz-
meaning of variogram parameters: what does the range mean? ations in a rectangular box which was intended to represent the
And the sill? What is the relation between variogram models geological formation at the time of deposition, before folding
and transition probabilities? Geologists will not use these and faulting. With these ‘sugar-box’ models the link with the
concepts if they do not fully understand them. It is still structural context was difficult to represent. Now, most com-
common to read papers where the indicator variogram range is mercial ‘Earth Modelling’ programs use a similar three-stage
identified with the size of heterogeneities. This is obviously work flow (e.g. Dubrule et al. 1997):
wrong as, in a zero or one situation, the variogram of the ‘zero’ (1) construction of the geometrical model, incorporating
variable is identical to the variogram of the ‘one’ variable. The surfaces picked on seismic data, large-scale faults and
size of heterogeneities is a function of both the variogram stratigraphic surfaces correlated between wells;
range, the variogram model and the spatial proportion of the (2) construction of the 3D stratigraphic grid controlled by the
indicator variogram (Fig. 2). Also, in multivariate situations, the geometrical model. Each cell of this grid is identified by
indicator cross-variogram can be interpreted in terms of tran- two types of coordinate: the (x,y,z) structural or absolute
sition probabilities, which is another way of making the coordinates and the (u,v,w) relative or stratigraphic
variogram model more meaningful from a geological point of coordinates (Fig. 3);
view (Carle & Fogg 1996). (3) generation of the property model within the stratigraphic
grid. The model is equivalent to the sugar box model in
the (u,v,w) coordinates, but is automatically positioned
Geostatistics and earth modelling tools in the structural space with the (x,y,z) coordinates.
The emergence of 3D earth modelling software has greatly
enhanced the realism of 3D geological realizations. Pioneer

Variogram

P L

P(1-P)

Distance

Fig. 2. The average length of a given facies along the variogram Fig. 3. The construction of a stratigraphic grid between strati-
direction is a function of the slope of the variogram at the origin, and graphic surfaces provides a structural framework at the scale of the
of the proportion p of this facies (Carle & Fogg 1996). individual grid cell.
 Achievements and challenges
One major challenge: scale change
It is surprising that, until now, geoscientists have been more
concerned about how to up-scale geostatistical models from
geological to reservoir simulation scale rather than from core
plug to geological grid scale. It is still common to read papers
where many pages are spent explaining the up-scaling from
geological to dynamic grid scale, but where cells of the
geological grid are given their value from one single core plug
that is believed to be representative. This happens in spite of
the fact that the latter change of support is much more drastic
than the former. This is one of the major weaknesses of the
stochastic modelling work process. The ‘mini 3D’ approach has
been developed to deal with this up-scaling problem: very
detailed models are generated at plug scale within a group of
geological grid cells (Alabert & Massonnat 1990; Wen et al.
1998). These models are then up-scaled to the geological grid
scale and the geostatistical parameters (histogram and vari-
ogram) associated with the up-scaled model are calculated.
These parameters are then used as the input to the generation
of the model at geological grid scale. In this approach, the
geostatistical distribution of plug-scale values within the geo-
logical grid cells has an important impact: up-scaling, too often
regarded as a problem for the reservoir engineer only, is now
also rightly understood as a problem of imaging the heterogen-
eity distribution at very small scale, in order to understand its
impact on heterogeneity distribution at geological grid scale
(Fig. 4). Hurst et al. (2000) argue that the heterogeneity
distribution can only be modelled deterministically in deposi-
tional environments where repetitive features can be identified
through a range of scales (fluvial, aeolian or shallow marine)
whereas, in other depositional environments (sand-rich tur-
bidites, carbonates), up-scaling relationships are elusive and
heterogeneity can only be modelled geostatistically.
New challenges: the progress in sequence stratigraphy
and seismic imaging
Recently, geological science has made strong progress in the
following areas:
+ sequence stratigraphy, particularly for shallow-marine
deposits;
S3
Fig. 4. Fine scale model of
permeability distribution within a tidal
bundle (Wen et al. 1998). The
dimension of this model is
1 m1 m1 m. Up-scaling from core
to geological grid scale requires similar
assumptions about the distribution of
permeability values within the geological
grid cell.
+ the mapping of deep-water environments, thanks to the
excellent quality of 3D seismic data.
As a result of these developments, geostatisticians are now
faced with new challenges.
+ How to incorporate sedimentologists’ knowledge about
high-resolution sea-level variation into the models? Sedi-
mentary environment maps at significant chronostrati-
graphic surfaces, as produced by sedimentologists, can be
used as a constraint in the generation of 3D sedimentary
models between wells (Fig. 5). Macdonald et al. (1992) are
great supporters of constraining geostatistical models by
using sequence stratigraphic concepts, for depositional en-
vironments where these concepts can be applied. This
interaction between sequence stratigraphy and geostatistics
will become even more important in the future.
+ The excellent seismic quality in the deep-water clastic fields
of offshore West Africa has led to the construction of
high-resolution geological models on the basis of seismic
data alone (Fig. 6). Now, new questions are raised: is the
geological interpretation correct? How can we go one step
further, and use the seismic-derived information as a con-
straint in the construction of 3D petrophysical property
models?
New methods
It is the authors’ view that no radically new geostatistical
algorithm has been developed in the recent past. The main
objective of recent developments has been to adapt exist-
ing algorithms so that they better support the work of the
petroleum geologist.
The improvement of object-based models continues. With
an increasing focus on ancient deep-water systems, there is a
shift away from modelling fluvio-deltaic systems (Holden et al.
1998) to turbidite systems (Portella & Lanzarini 1999).
New modelling techniques are being developed that are
better at handling the relationships between various facies.
Examples of these developments are the work of Carle & Fogg
(1996) or that of Haas & Dubrule (1999), who try to account
for transition probability information in the modelling of facies
architecture. Recent developments with the Pluri-Gaussian
technique (Le Loc’h & Galli 1997) go in the same direction.
S4 O. Dubrule and E. Damsleth
Wells
Turbiditic channels
picked from seismic
MULTIDISCIPLINARY DATA INTEGRATION
For multidisciplinary data integration, two approaches are
possible. The first one, which could be called the ‘soft’
approach, relies on statistical relationships between the simu-
lated parameter and another attribute, already simulated or
measured. In the geostatistical literature, this other attribute is
often called the secondary variable. The second approach, more
ambitious, consists of running a stochastic inversion approach,
assuming that there is a functional (deterministic) relationship
(the forward model) linking the simulated parameter with the
secondary variable. This approach finds applications both in
seismic and production data integration. In relation with this
approach, Omre and his colleagues have, over the years,
developed an elegant formalism for integration of data from
multiple sources with varying quality, based on a likelihood
concept (for a brief summary, see Damsleth & Omre 1997).
This approach has contributed to a better understanding of the
Fig. 5. This cross-section is extracted
from a 3D sedimentary model
generated in two steps. First, the
sedimentologist produced a depositional
environment maps at the level of the
two bounding chronostratigraphic
surfaces. Then the depositional
environment was interpolated between
the two surfaces (Fontaine et al. 1998).
Main erosional
surface
Fig. 6. This model was built entirely
from seismic data acquired over a
turbidite deposit in West Africa
(Wonham et al. 2000). The main
features are the erosive envelope of the
channel complex, and the individual
channels picked from detailed attribute
analysis of the 3D seismic dataset.
formal integration of seismic data as well as production data
during geological model building.
The soft approach
This approach is often used to predict permeability using
information from an already simulated porosity realization, or
for predicting porosity from seismic information. The first step
consists of calibrating a statistical relationship between the two
parameters. This is most often a linear relationship. The second
step consists of using this calibrated formula in conjunction
with kriging or conditional simulation to generate a realization
of one parameter constrained by the other. A great variety of
techniques have been developed in the last decade: Markov–
Bayes, external drift, cosimulation, cloud-transform or Bayesian
approaches (Dubrule 1998). It now seems that the collocated
 Achievements and challenges
cokriging approach, reformulated by Doyen et al. (1996) in the
Bayesian framework, is becoming widely adopted.
Stochastic inversion techniques
In multidisciplinary data integration, multi-realization
approaches such as seismic geostatistical inversion are used
more and more commonly (Dubrule et al. 1998). They tend
to compete with Bayesian-type seismic inversion techniques.
Unfortunately, geoscientists familiar with the latter often tend
to be suspicious of the former. Bayesian formalism does not
usually include generation of realizations, but simply leads to
expressions for the posterior distribution. Its application is, in
most cases, reduced to the calculation of the most likely or
maximum a posteriori (MAP) model. Actually, the formalisms of
stochastic and Bayesian inversion are closely related. Only when
this is clearly recognized and explained will geophysicists fully
accept the stochastic formalism. Computer time is also an issue,
since the generation of a large number of 3D realizations that
are constrained by seismic data still takes too much time to be
done routinely. Development of techniques such as Fast
Fourier Transform (FFT) simulation should contribute to make
these techniques more acceptable (Le Ravalec et al. 2001).
History-matching techniques
History-matching techniques used in the industry tend to focus
on the calculation of one single model matching the production
data. Most of these techniques also work at the scale of the
up-scaled dynamic model. This model is updated in order to
match the production data, but seldom are the modifications
applied to the original geological model. These two issues have
been major obstacles to the use of geostatistical techniques by
reservoir engineers.
The non-uniqueness topic is discussed in this issue of
Petroleum Geoscience by Floris et al. (2001). The pilot-point
method, or the method of gradual simulations proposed by Hu
et al. (2001), allows the generation of a large number of
up-scaled geostatistical realizations that are consistent with
production data.
To solve the problem of linking the up-scaled model and the
geological model, Chevron uses a ‘down-scaling’ approach.
They history match a number of realizations using streamline
simulation (for streamline simulation, see Brandsaeter et al.
(2001) or Datta Gupta et al. (2001), both in this issue).
Then they down-scale, assuming that a power-law relates
up-scaled permeabilities of the reservoir simulation grid to the
permeabilities of the geological grid (Tran et al. 1999).
The techniques proposed to history match at the scale of the
geological model while quantifying uncertainties will not be
accepted immediately. There is a fundamental need for reser-
voir engineers to address history matching in a different way, if
geostatistical techniques are to be used to their full benefit.
UNCERTAINTY QUANTIFICATION WITH
MULTIPLE REALIZATIONS
Still unestablished
Initially, geostatistics, with its toolbox of multi-realization
simulation techniques, promised to be ideally suited to address-
ing the quantification of uncertainty. However, only recently
has the use of multiple realizations proven to be operationally
practical. Reasons for the slow progress of multi-realization
approaches are as follows.
+ Computer time and storage. Many years of research have
been spent looking for tools that screen quickly the dynamic
S5
behaviour of large numbers of realizations, in order to
recognize the extremes within a realistic time frame. It now
seems like the streamtubes approach (Datta Gupta et al.
2001; Brandsaeter et al. 2001) is providing a satisfactory
solution to this problem. However, the generation and
storage of multiple realizations is still a computer-intensive
operation.
+ The need for history-matching methods that are adapted to
multiple realizations from a geostatistical model. Currently,
computer-aided history-matching techniques still assume
that there is only one single model to be history matched. As
mentioned above, the approach that is used is Bayesian,
but almost always limited to the calculation of a MAP
(maximum a posteriori) model.
+ Reservoir engineers have traditionally focused on optimizing
recovery using a single ‘base case’ model. Rather, they
should look for robust developments and well locations that
perform well for a range of plausible realizations. A change
is needed in the way engineers address uncertainty in their
decision-making.
The use of earth modelling tools is crucial in the generation of
multi-realizations incorporating all major uncertainties. It is
only lately that commercially available tools have become close
to being capable of incorporating all the major uncertainties
(Fig. 7). Only recently have we seen complete studies where the
uncertainty in the seismic interpretation, depth conversion,
stratigraphic interpretation, faults (both interpreted and sub-
seismic) is combined with the uncertainty in the facies distri-
bution and petrophysical properties (Corre et al. 2000). In this
respect, it is crucial that not only the uncertainty induced by
generating multiple realizations with the same set of input
parameters is considered, but also that the parameter uncer-
tainty is taken into account. The two authors do not quite agree
with each other as to whether the use of 3D modelling tools for
integrating all these major uncertainties is the best way to
address the full uncertainty quantification. If the objective is the
quantification of in-place volume or reserve uncertainty, the
alternative is to use Monte Carlo (MC) simulation of more or
less refined global models. However, the input to the various
components in the MC-model and their interrelationships
should be derived from geostatistical (sub-) models.
Multiple realizations vs. discrete scenarios:
Min/Median/Max
In most operating companies, uncertainty quantification still
consists of calculating, for each parameter or each map, a
minimum, a most likely and (although less important in the
decision-making and in the reporting process) a maximum
value. Then these optimistic, most likely and pessimistic sce-
narios associated with each variable are combined to derive
minimum, median and maximum values for the associated
economic parameters. This approach has the advantage of
being simple to use in many different situations. However, it is
well known that combining a minimum with another minimum
to calculate a combined minimum is over-pessimistic. Also,
approaches used for deriving minimums, medians or maxi-
mums are often subjective and, in many cases, no probability
figure is associated with the different scenarios. On the other
hand, the multi-realization approach documents probabilities at
each step of the process and translates these probabilities on
pdfs of the output parameters. A stochastic approach can thus
be combined with one based on discrete scenarios, as long as
probabilities are quantified (Corre et al, 2000). This move from
the ‘Min/Median/Max’ paradigm to a fully probabilistic for-
malism is taking place slowly in the industry, but it will take
S6 O. Dubrule and E. Damsleth

3/5/01 7

Fig. 7. Three realizations of a geological model combining a sampling of the various uncertainties affecting the model: each realization has a
different hydrocarbon–water–contact, a different top structure and a different heterogeneity distribution.

many years to become widely accepted. To achieve this, the model itself changes, uncertainty has no reason to decrease as
‘scenario’ approach and the probabilistic approach must be the amount of data increase. In a multi-realization approach, it
recognized as complementary and combined. is crucial to emphasize that any uncertainty quantification is
conditional to a set of basic assumptions, e.g. the assumption
that the overall conceptual model is correct. These assumptions
Multi-realizations and economic uncertainty analysis must be made clear and documented. This issue is not one of
Geostatistical uncertainty evaluations are often too limited in developing further geostatistical algorithms, but of making the
their scope. Only one development plan is considered, and the work flow and its assumptions very clear to everyone involved
influence of subsurface uncertainties on this single develop- in the decision-making process.
ment scheme is quantified. This is obviously too limited. For
instance, the choice of well locations should be derived from
the geostatistical uncertainties, to achieve a choice of locations
that maximize production while minimizing risk. It is likely that,
in the future, subsurface uncertainties will be integrated in a
more general work flow where the impact of subsurface
uncertainties on NPV (or other economic characteristics), or on
the optimization of development decisions, will be integrated
(Fig. 8). A major revision is required of the approaches
currently used by petroleum companies.

Our perception of uncertainty improves as more data are

gathered
Often, the acquisition of new data leads to a fundamental
revision of models built before these data were acquired. This is
because, at appraisal stage, when only a few wells and lower
quality seismic data are available, it is very difficult to forecast
all the possible scenarios. As more data are acquired, faults Fig. 8. The uncertainty on reserves, obtained using such approaches
appear, or permeability barriers, which complicate the defini- as that illustrated on Figure 7, must be incorporated with other
tion of the reservoir model, become apparent. As a result, if the economic parameters to provide a support to decision-making.
 Achievements and challenges
THE FUTURE
What is the future of petroleum geostatistics? To us, there are
few areas where more algorithms need to be developed. A
crucial development though is that of history matching under
uncertainty. As long as reservoir engineers do not have a
method to handle multiple realizations at the geological model
scale, they will remain uninterested in uncertainty quantification
using geostatistics.
Apart from this crucial area of research, the message is to
focus less on the development of new algorithms, but rather to
train geoscientists, and develop new work flows based on
geostatistics. We need to train geophysicists and reservoir
engineers, especially those working on seismic inversion, reser-
voir geophysics, reservoir characterization and computer-aided
history matching. We need to work more closely with geol-
ogists, who must understand that geostatistics is simply a
toolbox that can be tailored to the geological problem at hand.
We also need to tackle the issue of reserves reporting, prob-
abilistic economic evaluation and their integration with the
geostatistical multi-realization approach.
The authors would like to express their thanks to the management of
TotalFinaElf and Norsk Hydro ASA for permission to publish this
paper. However, the views and opinions presented in this paper are
those of the authors only.
REFERENCES
Alabert, F. G. & Massonnat, G. J. 1990. Heterogeneity in a Complex
Turbiditic Reservoir: Stochastic Modelling of Facies and Petrophysical
Variability. Paper SPE 20604 presented at the 65th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, New
Orleans, Louisiana.
Brandsaeter, I., Wist, H. T., Naess, A., Lia, O., Arntzen, O. J. & Ringrose,
P. S. 2000. Ranking of stochastic realizations of complex tidal reservoirs
using streamline simulation criteria. Petroleum Geoscience, 7, S53–S63.
Carle, S. F. & Fogg, G. E. 1996. Transition Probability-Based Geostatistics.
Mathematical Geology, 28, 453–476.
Corre, B., Thore, P., De Feraudy, V. & Vincent, G. 2000. Integrated
Uncertainty Assessment for Project Evaluation and Risk Analysis. Paper
SPE 65205.
Damsleth, E. & Omre, H. 1997. Geostatistical Approaches in Reservoir
Evaluation. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 49, 498–502.
Datta-Gupta, A., Kulkarni, K. N. & Yoon, S. 2000. Streamlines, ray tracing
and production tomography: generalization to compressible flow. Petroleum
Geoscience, 7, S75–S86.
Deutsch, C. V. & Journel, A. G. 1992. GSLIB: Geostatistical Software Library and
User’s Guide. Oxford University Press, New York.
Doyen, P. M., Den Boer, L. D. & Pillet, W. R. 1996. Seismic Porosity
Mapping in the Ekofisk Field using a New Form of Collocated Cokriging.
Paper SPE 36498 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Colorado.
Dubrule, O. 1998. Geostatistics in Petroleum Geology. AAPG Continuing
Education Course Note Series, 38.
Dubrule, O., Basire, C., Bombarde, S., Samson, P., Segonds, D. & Wonham,
J. 1997. Reservoir Geology Using 3-D Modelling Tools. Paper SPE 38659
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Antonio, Texas.
Received 7 February 2000; revised typescript accepted 4 September 2000
S7
Dubrule, O., Thibaut, M., Lamy, P. & Haas, A. 1998. Geostatistical Reservoir
Characterization constrained by 3D Seismic Data. Petroleum Geoscience, 4,
121–128.
Fielding, C. R. & Crane, R. C. 1987. An Application of Statistical Modelling
to the Prediction of Hydrocarbon Recovery Factors in Fluvial Reservoir
Sequences. In: Ethridge, F. C., Flores, R. M. & Harvey, M. D. (eds)
Recent Developments in Fluvial Sedimentology. SEPM Special Publication, 39,
321–327.
Floris, F. T., Bush, M. D., Cuypers, M., Roggero, F. & Syversveen, A. R.
2000. Comparison of production forecast uncertainty quantification
methods – an integrated study. Petroleum Geoscience, 7, S87–S96.
Fontaine, J. M., Dubrule, O., Gaquerel, G., Lafond, C. & Barker, J. 1998.
Recent Developments in Geoscience for 3D Earth Modelling. Paper SPE
50568 presented at the SPE European Petroleum Conference, The Hague,
The Netherlands.
Haas, A. & Dubrule, O. 1999. Petroleum Geostatistics, from the Stone Age
to Industrial Times. In: Lippard, et al. (ed.) Proceedings of the 5th Annual
Conference of the International Association for Mathematical Geology. Tapir,
Trondheim, Norway, 485–492.
Haldorsen, H. H. & Damsleth, E. 1990. Stochastic Modelling. Journal of
Petroleum Technology, April, 404–412.
Holden, L., Hauge, R., Skare, O. & Skorstad, A. 1998. Modelling of fluvial
reservoirs with object models. Mathematical Geology, 30.
Homewood, P., Guillocheau, F., Eschard, R. & Cross, T. A. 1992.
Corrélations Haute-Résolution et Stratigraphie Génétique: Une Démarche
Intégrée. Bulletin Centre Recherche Exploration-Production Elf-Aquitaine,
57–381.
Hu, L. Y., Le Ravalec, M. & Blanc, G. 2000. Gradual Deformation
and Iterative Calibration of Truncated Gaussian Simulations. Petroleum
Geoscience, 7, S25–S30.
Hurst, A., Cronin, B. & Hartley, A. 2000. Reservoir modelling sand-rich
deep-water clastic: the necessity of down-scaling. Petroleum Geoscience, 6,
67–76.
Journel, A. G. & Huijbregts, Ch. 1978. Mining Geostatistics. Academic Press,
New York.
Le Loc’h, G. & Galli, A. 1997. Truncated Pluri-Gaussian Method: Theoretical
and Practical Points of View. In: Baafi, & Schofield, (eds) Geostatistics
Wollongong ’96. Kluwer, Amsterdam.
Le Ravalec, M., Noetinger, B., Hu, L. Y. & Blanc, G. 2000. conditioning to
dynamic data: an improved zonation approach. Petroleum Geoscience, 7,
S9–S16.
Macdonald, A. C., Hoye, T. H., Lowry, P., Jacobsen, T., Aasen, J. O. &
Grindheim, A. O. 1992. Stochastic Flow Unit Modelling of a North Sea
Coastal-Deltaic Reservoir. First Break, 10, 124–133.
Portella, R. C. M. & Lanzarini, W. L. 1999. Impact of Heterogeneities
in Horizontal Well Performance. Paper SPE 53982 presented at the
SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference,
Caracas, Venezuela.
Tran, T. T., Wen, X.-H. & Behrens, R. A. 1999. Efficient Conditioning of 3D
Fine-Scale Reservoir Model To Multiphase Production Data Using
Streamline-Based Coarse-Scale Inversion and Geostatistical Downscaling.
Paper SPE 56518 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Texas.
Wen, R., Martinius, A. W., Naess, A. & Ringrose, P. S. 1998. Three-
dimensional simulation of small-scale heterogeneity in tidal deposits. A
process-based stochastic method. In: Buccianti, et al. (ed.) Proceedings of the
4th Annual Conference of the International Association for Mathematical Geology.
Ischia, Italy.
Wonham, J. P., Jayr, S., Mougamba, R. & Chullion, P. 2000. 3D Sedimentary
Evolution of a Canyon Fill (lower Miocene age) from the Mandorove
Formation, Offshore Gabon. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 172, 175–197.