GEOHORIZONS
Oriol Falivene
Geomodels-3D Geological
Best practice stochastic facies
modeling from a channel-fill
turbidite sandstone analog
(the Quarry outcrop, Eocene
Ainsa basin, northeast Spain)
Oriol Falivene, Pau Arbués, Andy Gardiner,
Gillian Pickup, Josep Anton Muñoz, and Lluı́s Cabrera
ABSTRACT
Using data from an outcrop characterization of a sandstone-rich
turbidite channel fill (the so-called ‘‘Quarry outcrop’’ in the Ainsa
basin), several stochastic facies models were constructed at bed-
scale resolution (cells 2.5 m [8 ft] wide and 0.05 m [2 in.] thick).
Several industry-standard reservoir-modeling algorithms were em-
ployed: truncated Gaussian simulation, sequential indicator simu-
lation, multiple-point geostatistics, and object-based methods with
varying degrees of complexity. The degree of similarity (i.e., re-
alism) between realizations and the outcrop characterization was
quantified through the use of several responses: (1) static connec-
tivity, (2) effective permeability, and (3) recovery efficiency from
waterflood simulations.
Differences in the responses measured from the outcrop and
facies models were observed: these are mostly algorithm related,
instead of caused by soft data or different stochastic realizations. Dif-
ferences increase greatly when the permeability of the heterolithic
packages and mudstone beds (Ht-M) decreases and reflect the
methods’ ability to model the inclined and undulating Ht-M pack-
ages and beds that occur in the outcrop. These packages and beds
can drape scours and sandstone beds with depositional topography
and pinch-outs, producing sandstone thinning and dead ends.
Object-based methods capable of introducing highly undulat-
ing Ht-M beds provided the most realistic models. Variogram-based
and simple object-based methods failed to capture and reproduce
the whole length of undulating beds. Multiple-point geostatistics
Copyright #2006. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.
Manuscript received July 18, 2005; provisional acceptance December 1, 2005; revised manuscript
received January 16, 2006; final acceptance February 7, 2006.
DOI:10.1306/02070605112
AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, no. 7 (July 2006), pp. 1003 –1029
AUTHORS
Modeling CER-Group of Geodynamics and Basin
Analysis, Facultat de Geologia, Universitat de Barce-
lona, Barcelona, Spain; oriolfalivene@ub.edu
Oriol Falivene received his degree in geology in
2002 from the Universitat de Barcelona. Currently,
he is finishing his Ph.D. dissertation dealing with
reservoir-scale modeling of outcrop analogs in the
Geomodels–Geodynamics and Basin Analysis Group
(Universitat de Barcelona). His areas of study in-
clude turbidite and alluvial-fan reservoir analogs.
Pau Arbués
Geomodels-3D Geological Model-
ing CER-Group of Geodynamics and Basin Analysis,
Facultat de Geologia, Universitat de Barcelona,
Barcelona, Spain
Pau Arbués received his degree in geology in 1987
from the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. He has
worked as an independent consultant for 11 years,
contracting research for the Servei Geològic de
Catalunya and various oil companies. For the last
7 years, he has been working as a researcher in sedi-
mentology for the Geomodels – Geodynamics and
Basin Analysis Group (Universitat de Barcelona).
Andy Gardiner
Institute of Petroleum Engi-
neering, Heriot-Watt University (Edinburgh), Edin-
burgh, Scotland, United Kingdom
Andy Gardiner graduated in 1974 from Churchill
College, Cambridge, before undertaking Ph.D. re-
search on fluviodeltaic sedimentology at the Univer-
sity of Leeds. From 1978 to 1984, he taught in
the Universities of Swansea and Liverpool, before
spending 13 years with Robertson Research Interna-
tional, where he worked on a wide range of explo-
ration and development studies. In 1997, Andy
moved to Heriot-Watt University, where his research
interests include reservoir modeling, using both
outcrop-derived and generic reservoir geometries,
with the aim of examining the impact of geological
heterogeneity on hydrocarbon recovery.
Gillian Pickup
Institute of Petroleum Engineer-
ing, Heriot-Watt University (Edinburgh), Edinburgh,
Scotland, United Kingdom
Gillian Pickup gained her B.Sc. degree and Ph.D. in
astrophysics from Edinburgh University, but since
then has worked on more down-to-earth subjects.
She joined the Department (now Institute) of Pe-
troleum Engineering at Heriot-Watt University in
1990 to work on a project assessing the effect of
geological heterogeneity on oil recovery. Her main
research interest is in upscaling, i.e., taking account of
fine-scale structures in coarse-scale models. Re-
cently, she has also started investigating the effects of
uncertainty in reservoir models at different scales.
1003
 Josep Anton Muñoz
Geomodels-3D Geological
Modeling CER-Group of Geodynamics and Basin
Analysis, Facultat de Geologia, Universitat de
Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
Josep Anton Muñoz is a professor of structural ge-
ology at the Universitat de Barcelona. He received
his Ph.D. in 1985 from the Universitat de Barcelona
and worked for the Servei Geològic de Catalunya
from 1985 to 1990, when he joined the Universitat
de Barcelona. His research interests include the
structure of thrust and fold belts, tectonosedimentary
relationships, tectonics of collisional orogens, and
construction of three-dimensional structural models.
He is, at present, the director of the Geomodels
Research Center.
Lluı́s Cabrera
Geomodels-3D Geological
Modeling CER-Group of Geodynamics and Basin
Analysis, Facultat de Geologia, Universitat de Bar-
celona, Barcelona, Spain
Lluı́s Cabrera is a professor of stratigraphy at the
Universitat de Barcelona, where received his Ph.D. in
1983 and is, at present, the head of the Special
Research Center (CER) of 3D Geological Modeling.
His research interests include the application of
clastic sedimentology, sequence stratigraphy, and
the three-dimensional reconstruction and modeling
of sedimentary bodies to the exploration, develop-
ment, and production of coal and oil.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was conducted in the Geomodels In-
stitute. This institute is sponsored by Generalitat de
Catalunya (DURSI) and Instituto Geologico y Minero
de España (IGME) and includes the 3-D Geological
Modeling CER (University of Barcelona). Financial
support from the Ministerio de Educación y Ciéncia
(Proyectos COMODES GGL 2004-05816-C02-01/BTE
and MARES CGL 2004-05816-C02-02/BTE) and from
the Generalitat de Catalunya (Grup de Recerca de
Geodinàmica i Anàlisi de Conques, 2005 SGR 00397)
is acknowledged. Research by O. Falivene is funded
by a predoctoral grant from the Spanish government
(MEyC). Roxar is thanked for providing the IRAP
RMS1 reservoir modeling software. Eclipse1 flow
simulations were conducted during the O. Falivene’s
stay at Heriot-Watt University. O. Falivene is indebted
to H. Lewis, J. M. Questiaux, G. Carvajal, and S. Neal
for their support. The original manuscript has been
improved thanks to the comments by M. Sweet,
T. Good, W. Parcell, and E. Mancini.
1004 Geohorizons
provided realizations with responses intermediate between vario-
gram-based and simple object-based methods and the more suc-
cessful advanced object-based methods. The conditioning-to-hard-
data capabilities of multiple-point geostatistics are higher than those
of the object-based methods, which give them an added advantage.
INTRODUCTION
Technical Context
Reservoir facies models improve appraisal and development wher-
ever petrophysics can be correlated with facies. Following initial
development during appraisal phase, the reservoir facies model
becomes the foundation of the reservoir management workflow
designed for efficient recovery of reserves. Generally, seismic data
provide a deterministic architectural framework, and well data al-
low detailed facies and petrophysical description at discrete lo-
cations, whereas the interwell scale of heterogeneity remains the
objective of facies modeling (e.g., Krum and Johnson, 1993; Hurst
et al., 1999; Slatt and Weimer, 1999). Facies modeling is typically
achieved by means of stochastic methods. These methods are useful
tools to build realistic equiprobable facies distributions when hard
data (i.e., well data) are not enough to capture the detailed facies
distribution (e.g., Haldorsen and Damsleth, 1990; Srivastava, 1994;
Koltermann and Gorelick, 1996; Dubrule, 1998; Webb and Davis,
1998; Deutsch 1999). Within a cycle of execution of the reservoir
management workflow, facies modeling is followed by petrophys-
ical modeling, upscaling, and flow simulation. Production decisions
are made using the results of this modeling and simulation cycle.
Therefore, it is important to construct realistic facies models, with
realism being judged by the ability of the model to predict the flow-
related responses of the reservoir.
Uncertainties in Facies Models
Uncertainties involved in stochastic facies modeling can be grouped
into three types (Dubrule, 1994): (1) algorithm related, derived
from the mathematical parameterization, assumptions, and simpli-
fications of the modeling algorithm chosen; (2) soft data related,
derived from a poor knowledge of the values of parameter for
input to the modeling algorithm; dealing with uncertainties re-
lated to soft data commonly involves the use of outcrop analogs
and the consideration of several geological scenarios (e.g., Dreyer
et al., 1993; Cossey, 1994; Mijnessen, 1997; Satur et al., 2000; Dal-
rymple, 2001; Johnson et al., 2001; Larue, 2004; Larue and Friedmann,
2005); and (3) stochastic related, derived from the stochastic
nature of the algorithms, which incorporate random numbers to
generate equiprobable realizations because heterogeneity in the
facies distribution cannot be totally constrained by hard data.
Collecting and using more hard data to build facies
models can reduce stochastic-related uncertainties.
Regarding algorithm-related uncertainties, a varie-
ty of algorithms are available in the arena of stochastic
modeling (e.g., Deutsch, 2002). Consequently, the choice
of the optimal modeling strategy is crucial in reservoir
management. The optimal modeling strategy is, of course,
a balance between the amount of realism desired and
practical constraints (such as the time available, computa-
tion capabilities, simplicity of the method, and costs).
Aims and Workflow
This article is focused exclusively on the scientific part
of the balance, namely, realism. Assessment of real-
ism is achieved by comparing several responses from
a well-known example of reservoir analog geometry
(an outcrop of a sandstone-filled turbidite channel)
with the responses from several realizations produced
using diverse stochastic modeling algorithms. This
procedure enabled us to establish which algorithm pro-
duces the most realistic bed-scale models of the outcrop.
Both pixel-based and object-based modeling methods,
implemented in the industry-standard reservoir model-
ing packages, were compared. Soft data-related uncer-
tainties could be neglected because soft data were ex-
tracted directly from the outcrop, and stochastic-related
uncertainties were reduced to a minimum by averaging
responses from 10 realizations for each modeling ap-
proach. Therefore, most of the differences observed in
the responses were algorithm related.
Some studies comparing several algorithms to re-
produce fluvial depositional systems at several hetero-
geneity scales have already been presented (Journel et al.,
1998; Scheibe and Murray, 1998; Seifert and Jensen,
2000). We chose an outcrop of a sandstone-filled tur-
bidite channel, the Quarry outcrop in the Ainsa basin,
to guide our comparison because these types of res-
ervoirs are increasingly important in the petroleum
industry (Weimer et al., 2000). This outcrop has been
widely used as analog for slope channel deposits such
as those located offshore in west Africa, Brazil, the
Gulf of Mexico, and the North Sea, as well as other
areas (Schuppers, 1995). Thick-bedded sandstone beds
commonly dominate this type of channel fill, although
other facies (e.g., gravels, conglomerates, heterolithics,
and shales) also occur. The presence of nonreservoir
facies exerts important effects on the flow-related pat-
terns in these bodies. It is therefore of primary impor-
tance to reproduce them in the construction of realistic
facies models with stochastic modeling algorithms for
improved oil recovery predictions. The results pre-
sented here will be applicable to similar facies archi-
tectures elsewhere.
The workflow we used involved the following steps
(Figure 1): (1) detailed characterization of the out-
crop; (2) resampling of outcrop characterization into
a two-dimensional (2-D) grid; (3) extraction of soft
data from the outcrop characterization and the gridded
outcrop; (4) extraction of hard data from the gridded
outcrop by selecting five vertical logs across the out-
crop; (5) building of facies models using the stochastic
algorithms; (6) computation of several flow-related re-
sponses (static connectivity, effective permeability using
single-phase upscaling, and recovery efficiency from
waterflood simulations) for both the gridded outcrop
and the facies models; and (7) comparison of the results
of the responses derived from the gridded outcrop
(which we assume is reality) with the averaged results
of the responses predicted by the facies models. The
more complex responses (single-phase upscaling and
waterflood simulations) required the assignation of sev-
eral additional parameters, including rock and fluid
properties. Because the outcrop is not at reservoir con-
ditions, typical reservoir values were used, and diverse
scenarios were assumed for the petrophysical values.
Results obtained demonstrate that not all the stochastic
methods produce facies distributions with responses
similar to those derived for the outcrop characteriza-
tion; and magnitude of the differences (but not the rela-
tive ordering) was largely affected by the petrophysical
scenario.
GEOLOGICAL SETTING
The outcrop selected for this study occurs in the Ainsa
basin, in the southern Pyrenees, northern Spain. The
Ainsa basin is the slope part of a lower Eocene fore-
deep, which developed in the footwall of the Montsec
thrust sheet western oblique ramp (Figure 2a). East-
ward, the Ainsa basin was fed from a fluviodeltaic
complex deposited piggyback on top of the Montsec
thrust sheet. Westward, it grades into the more basinal
part of the foredeep (referred as the Jaca basin). During
the middle Eocene, the basin was incorporated into
the hanging wall of the Gavarnie – Sierras Exteriores
thrust sheet and evolved into a piggyback setting as the
thrust front propagated toward the foreland (Muñoz
et al., 1998; Fernández et al., 2004). Several turbidite
systems are preserved in the Ainsa basin slope complex,
among them the Ainsa turbidite system, which has a
Falivene et al. 1005
Figure 1. Flowchart
showing the steps under-
taken in this study. See text
for detailed description.
preserved width of 8 km (5 mi) and length of 9 km
(5.6 mi), and a maximum thickness of 305 m (1000 ft).
The bottom of the system corresponds to an angular
unconformity, and the top is a gradual facies transition
into a mudstone unit. The system has been subdivided
into three cycles of channel-complex development and
abandonment (Figure 2b) (Arbués et al., in press).
Facies and Architecture of the Quarry Outcrop
The Quarry outcrop was chosen for this study because
of the infill characteristics and the quality and extent of
the exposure. This exposure corresponds to a basal part
1006 Geohorizons
of the lowermost cycle of channel-complex develop-
ment and abandonment in the Ainsa turbidite system
(Figure 2b, c). Detailed inspection of the channel-fill
deposits is possible along a road cut and quarry face
(Figures 2c; 3a, b). The exposed section is approximately
40 m (130 ft) thick and 750 m (0.5 mi) long and oriented
oblique (south-southeast–north-northwest) to the mean
paleoflow (west-northwest). Mutti and Normark (1987),
Schuppers (1993, 1995), Clark and Pickering (1996), and
Arbués et al. (in press) have presented sedimentological
descriptions and interpretations for this outcrop.
The outcrop characterization by Arbués et al. (in
press) was used as the starting point for this study
Figure 2. (a) Location of the Ainsa basin (boxed area) in the Pyrenean context. (b) General architecture of the Ainsa turbidite system
restored to paleodepositional state; the system comprises three cycles of channel-complex development and abandonment (A1, A2, and
A3), and view is from the southeast. Arrows indicate paleocurrent direction. Approximate stratigraphic position of the Quarry outcrop is
shown. Vertical exaggeration is 12, and the vertical coordinates datum corresponds to a paleodepositional surface in the Ainsa turbidite
system (Fernández et al., 2004; Arbués et al., in press). Heights increase with depth. Horizontal coordinates are in meters in Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) zone 31. (c) Geological map of the Quarry outcrop and surrounding areas (from Arbués et al., in press).

(Figure 4a). In the characterization, five facies have
been distinguished:
1. Gravelly mudstones: soft-sediment deformed ma-
terial with a mudstone-dominated composition, but
including lesser amounts (generally less than 5%) of
other coarser grained sediment. This facies classifies as
F1 on Mutti’s (1992) scheme and, on account of its
disorganized character and mudstone-dominated com-
position, has been interpreted as cohesive debris-flow
deposits.
2. and 3. Conglomerates and mudstone-clast con-
glomerates: two facies that are clast supported, very
poorly to poorly sorted, with clast size up to cobbles,
and include a matrix of sand. Pebble and cobble-size
clasts include rounded to subrounded limestone clasts
with extrabasinal provenance and mudstone clasts. Both
facies correspond to facies F3 of Mutti (1992) and
represent the deposits left behind from hyperconcen-
trated flows that were experiencing a transformation
into high-density turbidity currents.
4. Thick-bedded sandstones: consist of sandstone
beds thicker than 10 cm (4 in.); most sandstones are
medium or coarse grained. The thicker beds are erosively
based, whereas others have sharp soles but nonerosive
bases. These strata correspond to F5 and F9b facies of

Falivene et al. 1007

1008
Geohorizons

Figure 3. Photographs showing parts of the Quarry outcrop. The limits of the intervals identified in the outcrop characterization in Figure 4a are shown. Positions of the photographed
parts in the outcrop characterization are shown in Figure 4a. Lengths of the outcrop faces shown in (a) and (b) are nearly 80 and 100 m (262 and 328 ft), respectively.
Figure 4. (a) Quarry outcrop characterization (from Arbués et al., in press; used with permission from AAPG). (b) Schematic
bedding architecture of the C2 interval (from Arbués et al., in press). (c) Gridded and simplified characterization corresponding only
to the C2 architectural interval used as the starting point for this study. (d) Hard data used to condition the facies models.

Falivene et al. 1009

Mutti (1992), which are interpreted as deposits of both
high- and low-density turbidity currents.
5. Heterolithic packages and mudstone beds: com-
posed of packages of layered mudstones and sandstone
beds up to 10 cm (4 in.) thick; thicker mudstone beds are
also included in this facies. The elements of this facies can
be described in terms of the Bouma sequence and include
representatives of facies F9a and F9b of Mutti (1992),
which correspond mostly to the deposits of low-density
turbidity currents; some mudstones may also have been
deposited by pelagic settling.
The outcrop can be subdivided into three archi-
tectural intervals (C1 –C3, Figure 4a). Interval C1 is
composed of laterally stacked channel forms domi-
nated by nonsandstone facies. Interval C2 corresponds
to a mixed erosional to depositional channel fill (sensu
Mutti and Normark, 1987). It is dominated by medium-
to coarse-grained thick-bedded sandstones, which were
deposited above a stepped erosional surface. Interval C2
is overlain by a truncation at the base of C3, which rep-
resents an episode of cannibalistic rejuvenation. The
infill of interval C3 mainly consists of gravelly mud-
stones, although it includes lenses of other coarse-grained
facies.
Only the sandstone-rich interval C2 was consid-
ered for this study (Figure 4a). Following the work of
Arbués et al. (in press), this interval can be further sub-
divided into C2.1 and C2.2 channel forms, separated by
a relatively minor erosive surface. C2.1 and C2.2 are
both characterized by a multistory bedding architec-
ture. Sandstone beds show different architectures: ero-
sionally confined (onlapping to the channel base), un-
confined within the outcrop extension (layered), with
depositional terminations (depositional lobe geom-
etry), and depositionally confined in the topograph-
ic low alongside a lobe (accommodation geometry)
(Figure 4b).
This geometry, with the presence of minor chan-
nels, oblique erosive surfaces with or without shale
drapes, and local bed pinch-out, is also found in sev-
eral other turbidite systems in the Ainsa basin slope
complex (e.g., Gerbe and Morillo turbidite systems)
and may therefore be common in sandstone-rich chan-
nel fills. Many of the features observed in the Quarry
outcrop occur at a scale below seismic resolution, and
their presence may not always be discernible in core.
It is therefore not clear to what extent this geometry
may occur in channelized turbidite reservoirs. An
understanding of the potential impact of the lateral
variation of sandstone and shale geometry may there-
1010 Geohorizons
fore be important if we are to understand the range
of possible reservoir behaviors of such sandstone-rich
bodies.
STOCHASTIC FACIES MODELING
Input Data and General Setup
The outcrop characterization was constructed from a
photomosaic and several closely spaced field-measured
stratigraphic logs reporting on facies (texture, compo-
sition, geometry, sedimentary structures, and fossil
content). A widespread shale layer located in the mid-
dle of C2 was used as a datum to correlate the logs.
This enabled us to consider the general bedding in C2
parallel to the horizontal for facies modeling purposes.
The characterization (Figure 4a), originally recorded by
means of digitized polygons in a CAD (computer-aided
design) environment, was resampled onto a 2-D rect-
angular grid, with cells oriented parallel to the horizon-
tal. Cell dimensions were 2.5 m (8 ft) wide and 0.05 m
(2 in.) high (256 columns and 512 rows), covering an
area that is 640 m (0.4 mi) wide and 25.6 m (84 ft) high
(Figure 4c). To optimize the modeling procedure, the
original genetic facies in the gridded characterization
were transformed into three modeling facies based on
genetic and petrophysical criteria (Figure 4c):
1. thick-bedded sandstone facies (Ss), with the assumed
highest porosity and permeability
2. conglomerate facies (Cc); grouping the facies that
represent the highest energy levels in the system
(mainly gravelly mudstones, conglomerates, and mud-
stone clast conglomerates), with assumed low po-
rosity and permeability
3. heterolithic packages and mudstone beds (Ht-M);
comprising the lowest energy deposits, with the as-
sumed lowest porosity and permeability, consider-
ing the presence of beds and laminae of silt and shale
Selected hard data consisted of five, regularly
spaced, vertical logs extracted from the gridded char-
acterization (Figure 4d). These logs conditioned the
modeling (except in one algorithm) and were intended
to reproduce an extremely well-known subsurface set-
ting. Soft data required for conditioning the modeling
algorithms were extracted from the outcrop charac-
terization. These include facies proportions, variograms
(Figure 5), indicator variograms (Figure 6), object
parameters (Table 1), and indirectly, training images
(Figure 7). In terms of facies modeling, conditioning is
about posing restrictions to the modeling algorithms;
for example, honoring hard data or soft data in the fa-
cies model (Deutsch, 2002). Because soft data were
directly derived from the outcrop characterization, un-
certainties need not be considered, except for the case of
Ht-M undulations because their capture from the out-
crop is not straightforward. All the algorithms were set
up to reach the facies proportions obtained from the
gridded outcrop (7% for Cc, 63% for Ss, and 30% for
Ht-M). No facies trends were set up because not all the
modeling methods are able to handle them.
Modeling Procedure
The modeling grid had the same geometry and dimen-
sions as the gridded outcrop. This discretization was
fine enough to capture detailed bed geometries and
allowed reasonable computing times when performing
facies modeling and response measurement. Different
modeling algorithms, with variants, were used to gen-
erate facies distribution models (Figure 8). To obtain
average results of the responses considered and reduce
the effect of ergodic fluctuations (i.e., variations be-
tween the different stochastic realizations), 10 realiza-
tions for each algorithm were built.
Some of the modeling algorithms were pixel-based
methods (truncated Gaussian simulation [TGS], se-
quential indicator simulation [SIS], and multiple-point
geostatistics [MPG]), whereas other methods were ob-
ject based (Ellipsim: Deutsch and Journel, 1998; and an
advanced object-based algorithm based on Lia et al.,
1997). Most of the algorithms (TGS, SIS, and Ellipsim)
used the code available in Geostatistical Software Li-
brary (GSLIB) (Deutsch and Journel, 1998). The MPG
algorithm used Snesim (single normal equation simu-
lation) code (Strebelle, 2002), and advanced object-
based modeling was achieved using the implementa-
tion in the facies:composite module in Reservoir
Modeling System (RMS) (by Roxar, AS).
Pixel-Based Methods
All the pixel-based methods applied correspond to
stochastic, sequential, geostatistical-based facies mod-
eling algorithms (Deutsch, 2002). These algorithms
are fast and allow direct hard data conditioning, avoid-
ing iterative time-consuming solutions. Common to
these algorithms is the fact that to obtain a simulated
field or realization, a value (category) is assigned to
each cell according to a probability distribution func-
tion (PDF). The assignation proceeds sequentially,
following a preset path visiting the grid nodes. At
each node, the PDF is calculated considering both
hard data, previously simulated node values, and soft
data (variograms in the case of TGS and SIS and
training images in the case of MPG). Commonly, the
visiting paths are not completely random to improve
on soft data integration (Tran, 1994). The pixel-based
methods used herein differ in the assumptions made to
deal with facies categories and to compute the PDF.
Truncated Gaussian Simulation
A prerequisite for TGS (Figure 8a) (Deutsch, 2002) is
the ordering of the facies, which was done following
grain size criteria (Cc, Ss, and Ht-M). The algorithm
starts by calculating the thresholds between facies; as-
suming a Gaussian distribution, the areas between thresh-
olds correspond to the proportions measured in the
outcrop. The next step is to assign to each facies a value
between their thresholds; constant values located in the
center of each category were used. The values assigned
to the outcrop characterization and the hard data were
used to derive experimental variograms, and standardized
sills were used. The theoretical variogram models were
adjusted to the experimental ones (Figure 5). Because
the facies distribution in the outcrop is not completely
stationary, the variogram sill did not reach the stan-
dard deviation of the population (Kupfersberger and
Deutsch, 1999; Gringarten and Deutsch, 2001). This
trend effect was considered using nested variogram struc-
tures, one of them with a very large range (Figure 5).
Then, a simulated field, conditioned by the theoretical
variograms (Figure 5) and the transformed hard data
(Figure 4c) was built using sequential Gaussian simu-
lation with the code provided in GSLIB (Deutsch and
Journel, 1998). The sequential Gaussian simulation al-
gorithm uses kriging (Cressie, 1990) to obtain the PDF
in each node. To assure that the simulated field repro-
duces the input variogram, the simulation was conducted
over a larger grid, with the hard data located in the center.
Dimensions of the larger grid were set to at least 10 times
the variogram range in each direction. After cropping
the area of interest, the final step of the algorithm was to
truncate the simulated field with the thresholds be-
tween facies categories to obtain the facies distribution.
The TGS has several limitations when compared
to the other geostatistical algorithms presented here
(i.e., SIS and MPG) because of its simplicity. This sim-
plicity is induced by the transformation of the facies
categories to a single continuous variable and imposes
(1) continuous facies ordering, (2) dependence on the
Falivene et al. 1011

Figure 5. Variograms for the transformed Gaussian variable.
Black dots correspond to the experimental variogram derived
from the log data, the dashed curve to the experimental vario-
gram derived from outcrop data, and the continuous curve to
the theoretical model fitted:
g(h) ¼ 0:82  Exp (Rh ¼ 120 m, Rv ¼ 0:6 m)
þ 0:18  Exp (Rh ¼ 1000 m, Rv ¼ 5 m)
Note that only the experimental vertical variogram can be ap-
proximated when using the hard data. Rh and Rv stand for
horizontal and vertical variograms, respectively.
procedure used to assign values to the categories be-
tween thresholds (W. Xu and A. G. Journel, 1993, per-
sonal communication), and (3) use of only one vario-
gram model to characterize the spatial variability. Facies
ordering is not a prerequisite when using SIS and MPG
because these are not based on transforming facies cat-
egories into a continuous variable.
Sequential Indicator Simulation
The code provided in GSLIB (Deutsch and Journel,
1998) was used to generate SIS realizations (Figure 8b).
Sequential indicator simulation is based on the indi-
cator approach (Journel, 1983; Gomez-Hernandez and
Srivastava, 1990). When dealing with categorical vari-
ables like facies, the indicator approach transforms
1012 Geohorizons
each facies into a new variable, and the value of each
variable corresponds to the probability of finding the
related facies at a given position. Where hard data exist,
the value of the variable corresponding to the facies
present is set to 1, whereas the values of the other var-
iables are set to zero. The transformed outcrop char-
acterization and hard data were used to estimate in-
dicator variograms for each facies (Figure 6). Some
variograms (Cc and Ht-M) did not reach the standard
deviation of the variables because of the presence of
areal trends (Figure 6) (Kupfersberger and Deutsch,
1999; Gringarten and Deutsch, 2001), as observed in
the variograms used for TGS. This trend effect was
accounted for using nested variogram structures for
each indicator variogram, one of them with a very large
range. A simulated field was built, which was condi-
tioned by hard data and the theoretical variograms. In
this case, and differing from TGS, the PDF involves
kriging of new variable category. As in the case of TGS,
and to assure that the simulated facies distribution re-
produces the variograms, the simulation grid extended
well beyond the limits of the area of interest, with the
hard data located in the center. In this case, the di-
mensions of the larger grid were set to at least 20 times
the variogram range in each direction. The final simu-
lated facies distribution was obtained by cropping the
area of interest; it reproduced the original variograms
and the targeted facies proportions.
Multiple-Point Geostatistics
This is a recently developed algorithm (Caers, 2001;
Strebelle, 2002; Caers and Zhang, 2004; Liu et al.,
2004), which is not yet widely available in standard
industry reservoir modeling packages (Figure 8c, d).
We used the Snesim code, introduced in Strebelle
(2002). At each grid node, the PDF is now obtained
by considering hard data, previously simulated nodes,
and training images. A training image is a template
from which to find spatial configurations of facies re-
sembling the one around the node to be simulated.
From each of the spatial configurations found in the
training image (which resembles the one around the
node to be simulated), the facies of the corresponding
homologous node is recorded. Facies records are used
to construct the PDF corresponding to the node to be
simulated. Multiple-point geostatistics should repre-
sent an improvement with respect to the classical
variogram-based geostatistical methods (i.e., TGS and
SIS) because it characterizes the spatial structure by
considering more than two data points each time (it
searches for spatial configurations, whereas variograms
Figure 6. Variograms for the indicator variables. Black dots correspond to the experimental variograms derived from the log
data, dashed curves to the experimental variograms derived from outcrop data, and continuous curves to the theoretical variogram
models fitted:
g (h) Cc facies ¼ 0:04  Exp (Rh ¼ 112 m, Rv ¼ 0:75 m) þ 0:025  Exp (Rh ¼ 500 m, Rv ¼ 2:5 m)
g (h) Ss facies ¼ 0:23  Exp (Rh ¼ 115 m, Rv ¼ 0:46 m)
g (h) Ht-M facies ¼ 0:16  Exp (Rh ¼ 112 m, Rv ¼ 0:46 m) þ 0:05  Exp (Rh ¼ 400 m, Rv ¼ 0:5 m)
Note that only the experimental vertical variograms can be approximated when using the hard data. Rh and Rv stand for horizontal and
vertical variograms, respectively.

only account for measures between pairs of points),
enabling the reproduction of more complex patterns.
The training image represents a conceptual image
of the heterogeneity to be reproduced. Although it
could be drawn by a geologist or directly input from an
outcrop characterization, training images have been
generally derived from object-based realizations (e.g.,
Strebelle, 2002; Caers and Zhang, 2004). In our model-
ing, we used training images extracted from advanced
object-based unconditioned realizations with differ-
ent degrees of Ht-M bed undulations (low and high
degree [see below]; Figure 7a, b). Because the modeled
elements are, in many cases, longer than the modeling
grid, a training image four times the modeling grid
width was used to assure the reproduction of large-
scale correlations (Caers and Zhang, 2004). Training
images derived directly from the outcrop characteriza-
tion could not be used because their width was insuf-
ficient to assure reproduction of large-scale correlation
patterns.

Falivene et al. 1013

Figure 7. Training images used in multiple-point geostatistics. Both correspond to unconditioned realizations derived from an
advanced object-based method with a low degree of undulations for Ht-M beds (a) and with a high degree of undulations (b). Note
the change of scale with respect to Figures 4c, d, and 8.
Object-Based Methods
The general modeling operation with object-based meth-
ods consists of the introduction of objects replacing
a background, which commonly represents the most
laterally extensive facies. The introduced objects can
have different geometries and dimensions, reproduc-
ing the variability of elements in the depositional model
(e.g., Haldorsen and Chang, 1986; Clementsen et al.,
1990; Tyler et al., 1994; Deutsch and Wang, 1996;
Deutsch and Tran, 2002). The objects are discretized
according to the grid geometry; thus, each object may
span several cells. Objects are introduced until a set
of conditions is met. Among these, facies propor-
tions are generally considered to be the most criti-
cal. In addition, conditioning to hard data is frequently
achieved through the implementation of iterative pro-
cedures. Object-based methods allow the reproduc-
tion of more sharply bounded elements than pixel-
based ones.
Among the many available object-based algorithms,
we have used two different ones with different mod-
eling capacity. In both algorithms, a background of Ss
was used because it is the most laterally extensive facies
into which objects of the Cc and Ht-M facies were
introduced. In addition, outcrop observations indicate
that Cc beds have a lenticular shape and Ht-M beds are
commonly planar and undulated, and it is much easier
to model these geometries if Cc and Ht-M are modeled
as objects placed into a background of Ss facies.
1014 Geohorizons
Ellipsim
This method only handles elliptical objects with con-
stant orientation of their main axes, and it is not capa-
ble of conditioning to hard data (Deutsch and Journel,
1998) (Figure 8e). It can only introduce objects of a
single facies in each run, so the modeling was split into
three steps: (1) modeling of Ht-M facies in a back-
ground of Ss facies; (2) modeling of Cc facies in a
background of Ss facies; and (3) merging of the two re-
alizations into a single one. The criteria used for merg-
ing is that the Cc facies replaces Ht-M facies. Ellipses
were considered to have their long axis parallel to the
horizontal grid axis, which is parallel to bedding.
Dimensions and proportions for the ellipses were de-
rived from the outcrop characterization (Table 1).
Advanced Object-Based Algorithm
Here, we refer to the facies:composite module in the
RMS package, which contains an algorithm to repro-
duce complex geometries (Figure 8f– h) (Lia et al.,
1997). In addition to the basic setups for object-based
facies modeling (different shapes, dimensions, and cor-
relation factors between dimensions), simulated Gaus-
sian fields can be used to introduce undulations of
the object center plane and to add roughness to the top
and base of each object, yielding a more realistic object
shape geometry. The simulation algorithm allowed con-
ditioning to hard data, which is achieved via an iter-
ative routine based on simulated annealing.
Table 1. Dimensions and Proportions of the Ellipses Used in Ellipsim*
Facies
Ht-M** 30 + 2%
Type 1
Ccy
f Type 2
Type 3
7%
*Deutsch and Journel (1998).
**Ht-M proportions were increased to account for the erosion after merging with Cc facies.
y
Three types of different Cc geometries were considered.
The basic shape for the Cc elements was set up as
ellipses, aimed at reproducing their general lenticular ex-
ternal geometry. In addition, the center plane and rough-
ness were set up to mimic the more detailed concave-
convex nature of the erosive bounding surfaces observed
in the outcrop. In the case of the Ht-M elements, rect-
angles were used as the basic shape. Ht-M center plane
undulations were not directly extracted from the out-
crop characterization; these are difficult to derive from
outcrop data and traditionally have not been consid-
ered for facies modeling. However, in our case, we con-
sidered it useful to compare different degrees of un-
dulations, aimed at reflecting the overall erosive and
depositional geometry of these elements: low (Figure 8f),
medium (Figure 8g), and high degree (Figure 8h).
Roughness was set at low values because small-scale
erosive features are generally absent. Object dimensions
were also derived from the outcrop characterization.
STATIC CONNECTIVITY
Static connectivity is generally used to estimate drain-
able volumes (King, 1990; Mijnessen, 1997; Larue and
Legarre, 2004), and several definitions exist (e.g.,
Deutsch, 1998; Pardo-Igúzquiza and Dowd, 2003;
Jackson et al., 2005; Knudby and Carrera, 2005). We
have used measures of this parameter to compare the
outcrop and the facies distribution models. More spe-
cifically, we adopted the connectivity definition given
by Pardo-Igúzquiza and Dowd (2003) because it is
more sensitive to facies distribution variation than
others. In this definition, two cells of the same facies are
connected if a continuous path of cells with the same
facies exists, this path can be relatively straightfor-
ward or tortuous. Then, connectivity is defined as the
percentage of pairs of connected cells for a particular
facies, direction, and separation. We measured the con-
Proportion Horizontal Radius Vertical Radius
225 m 0.16 m
5% 25 m 0.23 m
f 5%
90%
20
52
m
m
0.21
0.43
m
m
nectivity of the Ss facies in the horizontal and vertical
directions considering only face connections, both for
the outcrop and the models. Each connectivity curve
derived from a facies modeling method is the average
of the connectivity curves measured from 10 realiza-
tions, which was required to avoid ergodic fluctuations
(Figure 9).
Results
The vertical connectivity measured from the outcrop
decreases to zero at 6-m (20-ft) separation (Figure 9a),
which is a relatively high value considering that the
mean Ss bed thickness is less than 1 m (3 ft), and that
the most apparent bedding architecture is layered.
This relatively high value is caused by local amalgam-
ation of Ss beds. The horizontal connectivity mea-
sured from the outcrop shows a smoother decreasing
slope toward values of 52% at 500-m (0.3-mi) sepa-
ration (Figure 9b). Factors responsible for horizontal
disconnection are bedding geometries displaying un-
dulations and intersections of Ht-M beds. Connectivity
curves obtained from facies distribution models, either
horizontal or vertical, are always higher than those mea-
sured from the outcrop characterization (Figure 9).
The largest differences in connectivity between
outcrop and models correspond to TGS. Sequential
indicator simulation also yields large differences. In the
vertical direction, differences at 10-m (33-ft) separa-
tion reach up to 79 percentage points for connectivity
predicted by models built using TGS and 55 percent-
age points for connectivity predicted by models built
using SIS (Figure 9a). These large differences are re-
lated to the presence of undulating Ht-M beds in the
outcrop. These beds are not seen as laterally continu-
ous by the standard sampling methods used to derive
the experimental horizontal variograms; this has the
effect of underestimating horizontal variogram ranges.
Falivene et al. 1015
Figure 8. Example realizations for each of the facies modeling algorithms compared.

1016 Geohorizons
Figure 9. Sandstone facies connectivity curves derived from the outcrop and the stochastic methods compared. Each curve for the
stochastic methods corresponds to the average of 10 realizations.
Underestimated horizontal variogram ranges may re-
sult in the reproduction of unrealistically narrow Ht-M
beds and, thus, vertically overconnected Ss beds.
In the horizontal direction, differences at 500-m
(0.3-mi) separation reach up to 31 percentage points
for connectivity predicted by models built using TGS
and 27 percentage points for connectivity predicted by
models built using SIS (Figure 9b). This significant over-
estimation derives in part from the fact that the code
used for TGS and SIS fails in both cases to reproduce
undulating Ht-M beds because the dip of the variogram
is constant along the simulation grid. Another factor
causing increased connectivity in TGS and SIS models
is the tendency of the algorithm to produce small-scale
noise (Journel and Deutsch, 1993; Strebelle, 2002). The
problem with constant variogram dip might be ap-
proached by introducing a variable variogram dip, as
has been shown by Xu (1996).
Falivene et al. 1017
 In contrast to TGS and SIS, MPG models tend to
yield connectivity curves closer to those obtained from
the outcrop. In vertical direction and at a separation of
10 m (33 ft), differences between connectivity mea-
sured at the outcrop characterization and connectiv-
ity predicted by models built using MPG reach up
to 64 percentage points for a training image with low
Ht-M bed undulations and to 53 percentage points
for a training image with high undulations (Figure 9a).
In the horizontal direction and at a separation of 500 m
(0.3 mi), differences between the connectivity mea-
sured in the outcrop and the connectivity predicted
by models built using MPG are 26 percentage points
for a training image with low Ht-M bed undulations
and 24 percentage points for a training image with
high undulations (Figure 9b). The general improve-
ment of the connectivity predictions by models built
using MPG (compared to predictions by models using
SIS and TGS) is obviously related to the fact that MPG
captures the spatial facies distribution from multiple-
point observations, instead of from a simple two-point
variogram. However, connectivity values are still far
from the outcrop. The facies models obtained with the
training image incorporating a high degree of undu-
lations for Ht-M beds gave connectivities that were
closer to those measured in the outcrop than the models
constructed using a training image with a low degree of
undulation. This reveals that MPG is sensitive to the
presence of undulations in the training images.
In general, object-based models reproduce con-
nectivities that better fit the outcrop connectivity
(Figure 9c, d). The Ellipsim models present a rea-
sonably good match to the outcrop connectivity in the
vertical direction (differences at 10-m [33-ft] separa-
tion are reduced to only 6 percentage points, Figure 9c).
However, differences in connectivity in the horizontal
direction are much larger (differences at 500-m [0.3-mi]
separation reach up to 41 percentage points, Figure 9d).
The differences in horizontal connectivity are, as in the
case of TGS and SIS, caused by the fact that the algo-
rithm does not reproduce the undulations of Ht-M
beds.
In the vertical direction and at 10-m (33-ft) sepa-
ration, differences in the connectivity predicted by the
advanced object-based modeling algorithm are be-
tween 7 and 19 percentage points depending on the
degree of undulation used for Ht-M beds (Figure 9c).
These differences are similar to the ones measured for
the Ellipsim models. However, the horizontal connec-
tivity from advanced object-based modeling is much
closer to outcrop connectivity than the predictions ob-
1018 Geohorizons
tained from the other algorithms, and the differences
decrease as undulation of Ht-M beds increases from
low to high. The differences at 500-m (0.3-mi) separa-
tion are 20, 19, and 11 percentage points for the low,
medium, and high degree of undulation, respectively
(Figure 9d).
EFFECTIVE PERMEABILITY
The effective permeability is the permeability of a ho-
mogeneous coarse cell, which gives rise to the same
flow as a heterogeneous fine-scale model, when the
same pressure gradient is applied (Christie, 1996; Renard
and de Marsily, 1997). The calculation of effective per-
meability is commonly referred as upscaling and is
generally aimed at lowering the number of cells in a
model and, thus, reducing computing time for full-
field reservoir-flow simulation. Effective permeability
is strongly dependent on facies distribution and was used
as a response to compare outcrop and facies models.
The permeability and porosity of rocks in the out-
crop may be very different from those properties in
actual reservoirs (Schuppers, 1993; Schuppers, 1995).
To produce realistic results, typical reservoir values
for the different lithologies were used for the base
case: 1000 md for facies Ss and 1 md for facies Cc and
facies Ht-M (e.g., Slatt and Weimer, 1999; Slatt et al.,
2000; Stephen et al., 2001; Larue, 2004). Lower per-
meability values for the Ht-M facies were also con-
sidered (e.g., Dewhurst et al., 1999; Larue, 2004). For
the sake of simplicity, isotropic and uniform perme-
ability values for each facies were used.
Eight scale-up factors were considered (i.e., eight
different sizes for coarse grid cells). Starting from the
cell size of the original outcrop and facies models,
each successive coarser grid doubled the dimensions
of the cells in both the horizontal and vertical direc-
tions and, thus, reduced the total number of cells by a
factor of 4. Effective permeabilities were calculated for
each scale-up factor using the diagonal tensor single-
phase upscaling algorithm implemented in the RMS
package, which is based on King and Mansfield (1999).
For each scale-up factor, the mean effective perme-
ability was obtained by arithmetically averaging the
corresponding effective permeability values found in all
the grid cells. For each facies modeling method, the
average results from 10 realizations were, in turn, aver-
aged to avoid ergodic fluctuations.
Because of the irregular shape of the gridded out-
crop (Figure 4c), upscaling from the characterization
Figure 10. (a) Completed outcrop characterization to reach rectangular boundaries. The black line encircles the original charac-
terization. (b) Vertical and horizontal connectivity match of the completed rectangular characterization (dashed lines) to the original
one (solid lines).
should be restricted to a more regular area in the out-
crop, reducing the number of coarse cells available for
calculation and giving rise to a biased mean effective
permeability (too high), measured just from the central
and lower part of the outcrop, where amalgamated
beds of the Ss facies dominate. These problems were
resolved by the interpretive extrapolation of facies into
the void cells beyond the irregular boundaries of the
C2 interval to complete a rectangular grid coincident
with the modeling grid (Figure 10a). The irregular
boundaries of the interval are partly caused by the
outcrop discontinuity and partly by onlap and trunca-
tion relationships with other architectural intervals
(Figure 4a). Beds of the different facies were extended
from the gridded outcrop across the boundaries, with
trends overall parallel to bedding, and mimicking bed-
ding geometries observed in the outcrop. Facies pro-
portions and connectivity were kept equal to the origi-
nal gridded outcrop characterization (Figure 10b). The
added portion represents one-third of the total area of
the extended outcrop.
Results
The comparison between the extended outcrop char-
acterization and models in terms of effective perme-
ability was conducted by examining normalized mean
effective permeability. This parameter is defined as the
percentage ratio between upscaled mean effective per-
meability, measured for each scale-up factor, and non-
upscaled mean effective permeability. It is not affected
by small differences in Ss percentage and corresponds
to the effective permeability decrease in percent, as the
scale-up factor increases. Effective normalized perme-
ability was evaluated in vertical (Kveff) and horizontal
(Kheff) directions (Figure 11a –d).
Falivene et al. 1019
Figure 11. Normalized mean effective permeability along the vertical (Kveff) and the horizontal direction (Kheff). Apart from the
original outcrop and facies models scale (denoted as O and M scale), eight scale-up factors were used (denoted as Coarse 2  2, Coarse
4  4, etc.), cell sizes for each scale are shown in brackets. Each curve for the stochastic modeling methods corresponds to the average of
10 realizations. Line styles are the same as in Figure 9. Note the different scales used for the vertical axis of Kveff and Kheff.

1020 Geohorizons
 Both pixel-based and object-based modeling meth-
ods provide higher normalized mean effective perme-
ability than the extended outcrop (except TGS and Kveff
from SIS). Most differences are comprised between 1
and 5 percentage points in Kheff and 1 and 10 percent-
age points in Kveff. Although these differences are
small, they are enough to rank the different methods.
The TGS and SIS modeling methods provide the poorest
reproductions of outcrop heterogeneity in terms of ef-
fective permeabilities (Figure 12).
The maximum differences in Kveff are located at
intermediate scale-up factors (Coarse 4  4 to Coarse
16  16, Figure 11a, c). These differences decrease
toward the largest scale-up factors because Kveff
from facies models and the outcrop both decrease
toward the harmonic average of the original perme-
ability values (2–4 md) as expected for layered systems
(Figure 11a, c).
Regarding Kheff, values obtained from the upscaled
outcrop deviate from the arithmetic average perme-
ability calculated from the gridded outcrop (which
correspond to 100% in terms of normalized mean ef-
fective permeability), demonstrating that the system
Figure 12. Differences in the normalized mean effective per-
meability for each modeling method with respect to the outcrop-
derived results. To obtain a single representative value, all the
absolute differences for the scale-up factors considered were
averaged.
is not perfectly layered (Figure 11b, d). The differ-
ences in Kheff between the outcrop and the facies
models increase with the scale-up factor. The best fits
are achieved by the algorithms capable of reproduc-
ing Ht-M beds that deviate from the mean layering
direction (Figures 11d, 12), i.e., the advanced object-
based modeling method with a high degree of undula-
tions for Ht-M beds.
Sensitivity of Kheff Permeability to Ht-M Permeability
Being aware that Ht-M beds may present substan-
tial differences in permeability in subsurface settings
(Haldorsen and Lake, 1984; Dewhurst et al., 1999;
Larue, 2004), we tested the sensitivity of effective per-
meability to variations of Ht-M permeability. This anal-
ysis was restricted to Kheff because Kveff tends to the
harmonic average when the scale-up factor increases,
independently of the applied modeling method. Only
MPG, Ellipsim, and the advanced object-based method
were considered because these are the methods yield-
ing the best predictions of Kveff.
The sensitivity analysis was conducted for the fifth
scale-up factor (Coarse 32  32). At this scale, cells are
80 m (262 ft) long and 1.6 m (5.2 ft) thick, well in the
ranges of typical geological and simulation cell sizes.
We foresee that the resulting tendencies will be simi-
lar for other scale-up factors. The considered perme-
ability scenarios for Ht-M beds ranged between 1 and
10  5 md (which means that Ss/Ht-M permeability
ratios are between 103 and 108). Permeability assign-
ment for other facies was kept the same as in the base
case.
Results show that the difference between outcrop
and models is strongly dependent on Ht-M perme-
ability values assigned at the outset. In the lowest Ht-
M permeability scenario, differences reach up to two
times the base case differences (Figure 13).
FLOW SIMULATION
The Eclipse simulator was used to predict two-phase
flow results for the outcrop and facies models; pre-
dictions of recovery efficiency and water saturation
distributions were used to compare the outcrop and
facies models (Figures 14, 15). Horizontal water flood-
ing was chosen because it is a common driving mecha-
nism for producing subsurface turbidite reservoirs.
Two-phase flow simulations were conducted on
the finely gridded extended outcrop characterization
Falivene et al. 1021

Figure 13. Evolution of normalized mean effective perme-
ability measured along the horizontal direction for different Ht-M
permeability scenarios. Results correspond to Coarse 32  32
scale-up factor (see Figure 11). Each curve for the facies mod-
eling methods corresponds to the average of 10 realizations.
Line styles are the same as in Figure 9.
and on the finely gridded facies models obtained from
Ellipsim and the advanced object-based algorithm.
Facies models derived from TGS, SIS, and MPG were
discarded for two-phase flow simulation because of
their limited performance in the previously compared
responses. Because of computing time restrictions, only
one realization was simulated from each facies model-
ing method. Therefore, the uncertainty range linked to
ergodic fluctuations of each stochastic facies modeling
method could not be statistically averaged. To choose a
representative realization, one-phase streamline-based
flow simulation was previously conducted on all the
realization sets.
Once again, the permeability of Ht-M facies varied
between 10  5 and 1 md. The porosity was 25% for
Ss and 1% for the Cc and Ht-M facies. Relative per-
meability curves were derived using typical Corey-type
functions (for formulations, see Pickup et al., 2000).
The Corey exponent was set to 3. The initial oil sat-
uration was 0.895 for Ss facies and 0.4 for Ht-M and
Cc facies. Residual oil saturation was 0.3 for all facies.
Oil and water viscosity was 1 cp, simulating a highly
favorable displacement. Other oil and rock properties
and pressures were set to common reservoir values.
An injector was located on the left edge of the
extended gridded outcrop and the facies models, and a
producer was located on the right. Only the central
layer of the outcrop (12.8 m [42 ft] thick) was sub-
1022 Geohorizons
jected to waterflood simulation, which was again in-
tended to make computing times reasonable. This layer
was selected because it corresponds to the best exposed
and characterized area.
Results
For the highest Ht-M permeability scenario (1 md),
which corresponds to a low Ss/Ht-M permeability
ratio (103), all the simulations conducted on the fa-
cies models predict recovery efficiencies similar to
the outcrop; differences are less than 1 percentage
point (Figure 14a). This means that the relatively
thin-bedded character of Ht-M beds and their relative
high permeability makes them act as baffles instead
of barriers (Figure 15a, c, e, g). In this case, recovery
efficiency is independent of the stochastic modeling
method used.
When the Ht-M permeability decreases toward
the lowest values (10  5 md), which corresponds to
very high Ss/Ht-M permeability ratio (108), the simu-
lations conducted on the facies models predict recov-
ery efficiencies differing from the outcrop by as much
as 13 percentage points. The facies model that pre-
sents recovery efficiency closest to the outcrop values
is the one built with the advanced object-based algo-
rithm with highly undulating Ht-M beds (difference is
less than 4 percentage points, Figure 14b). The high
sensitivity of the predicted recovery efficiencies to the
presence of undulating and intersecting Ht-M beds is
now caused by their very low assigned permeability,
which makes them act as effective barriers for oil and
water displacement, capable of completely isolating Ss
beds, although Ht-M beds are thin (Figure 15b, d, f, h).
Recovery efficiencies simulated from the outcrop
and facies models decrease with permeability as ex-
pected. These changes are not linear and occur mostly
in the Ht-M permeability range of 10  2 –10  4 md
(Figure 14c).
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
Summary
The results show that there are differences between
the responses measured from the outcrop and facies
models. These differences occur despite the presence
of closely spaced hard data, which would not normally
be available for a real reservoir. Differences are inter-
preted as algorithm related, instead of caused by soft
data or stochastic realizations because most soft data
used for the facies modeling (except for Ht-M bed
undulations) were directly extracted from the outcrop,
and ergodic fluctuations were averaged. Although the
differences between responses measured from the out-
crop and responses related to facies models are a small
percentage (in some cases, less than 1 percentage point),
they are sufficient to provide a ranking of how well
the modeling algorithms reproduce the outcrop. This
ranking is fairly consistent, independent of both the re-
sponse measured and the permeability scenario consid-
ered (where applicable), which reinforces the algorithm-
related origin of the measured differences.
The responses produced by models built with ad-
vanced object-based algorithms are the closest to the
outcrop responses. Among these, best fits are for mod-
els built by introducing a high degree of undulation
for Ht-M beds and when the response is measured in
the horizontal direction (horizontal connectivity, hori-
zontal effective permeability, and horizontal water
flooding). Ellipsim models yield very small differences
for responses measured in the vertical direction (ver-
tical connectivity and vertical effective permeability),
with values similar to those of responses related to
advanced object-based models. However, Ellipsim mod-
els show the largest differences for responses mea-
sured in the horizontal direction, even compared to
results related to pixel-based algorithms. Responses
related to models built with MPG provide intermedi-
ate differences from the outcrop responses, which de-
crease slightly when the training image used accounts
for Ht-M beds with a high degree of undulation. Fol-
lowing in the rank are SIS models, with responses de-
parting slightly from MPG responses, and TGS models,
which give the largest differences from the outcrop.
Although different permeability scenarios were
considered for the comparison of dynamic responses
(effective permeability and water flooding), they did

Figure 14. (a) Recovery efficiency versus pore volumes

injected considering a 1-md permeability for Ht-M beds; note
that differences between the different modeling methods and
the outcrop are not significant. (b) Recovery efficiency versus
pore volumes injected considering a 10  5-md permeability for
Ht-M beds. (c) Recovery efficiency at 0.6 pore volumes injected
for different scenarios of Ht-M permeability beds. Both the
outcrop and the models are at breakthrough and producing
more than 95% water, and thus, the recovery efficiency at this
point is very close to the total recovery efficiency; frames (a)
and (b) represent extreme situations in this plot.

Falivene et al. 1023

Figure 15. Water satu-
ration at 0.33 pore vol-
ume injected for two
permeability scenarios
of the outcrop and ex-
ample realizations. Note
the change of vertical
scale with respect to
Figures 4c, 8, and 10a.

not alter the ordering of the methods but did alter the
magnitude of the differences in the responses mea-
sured. These differences increase as Ht-M permeability
decreases.
Ht-M Permeability
Generally, the permeability of Ht-M beds in a sub-
surface setting will be influenced by the permeability
of the fine-grained fraction. This will, in turn, depend
largely on its origin. If the fine-grained fraction was
deposited from low-density turbidity currents, it
would show relatively high permeability. Conversely,
pelagic settling would give rise to the lowest perme-
ability because of the lowest mean grain size, lowest
porosity, high preferred grain orientation, and the low-
est degree of bioturbation (Ethridge, 2004). As the
percentage of shale originated by pelagic settling in-
creases distally, Ht-M permeability will be influenced
by their proximal or distal position in the turbidite
system, with the lowest permeability values occurring

1024 Geohorizons
in distal settings. Detailed attention should be paid to
the measurement of Ht-M permeability in reservoir
successions, to establish whether the use of advanced
object-based algorithms, capturing Ht-M undulations,
is needed to predict effective permeability and water-
flooding results, or whether simpler algorithms are
sufficient.
Ht-M Modeling and Undulations Origin
Several classical studies have addressed the importance
of considering the presence of shales to upscale and
simulate sandstone-dominated reservoirs (Haldorsen
and Lake, 1984; Begg and King, 1985; Haldorsen and
Chang, 1986; Desbarats, 1987; Thomas, 1990). The
facies models in these studies used planar and perfectly
horizontal shale beds. Recently, some authors working
in deltaic deposits have shown that although shale beds
should be included in the facies model, the shale-
modeling parameters are not critical to obtaining re-
alistic models if the shale continuity is not sufficient
to compartmentalize the reservoir (Novakovic et al.,
2002; Li and White, 2003). However, other authors
have noticed that differences in sweep efficiency by
water flooding can be significant when shales have in-
clined geometries with respect to the draining front,
intersect with other shales, and spread over large areas
(Jackson and Muggeridge, 2000; Willis and White,
2000; Larue, 2004).
The Quarry outcrop corresponds to a turbidite
channel fill, with Ht-M beds displaying large-scale
continuity, compared to the above-cited deltaic exam-
ples. Because of the presence of a fine-grained fraction
in the Ht-M beds, these should not be considered dif-
ferent in terms of heterogeneity from the shales in the
above examples. In the outcrop studied, realism of the
facies model largely depends on the possibility of re-
producing undulations in the Ht-M beds.
The Ht-M undulations and crosscutting relation-
ships, causing sandstone thinning and dead ends that
can be observed in the outcrop, are caused by the sedi-
mentological processes of (1) scouring by bypassing
turbidity currents or construction of subtle reliefs by
depositional pinch-outs of Ss beds and (2) subsequent
draping by finer grained sediments, which were de-
posited from low-density turbidity currents and pelagic
settling.
As pointed out by the comparisons made, object-
based methods that are capable of introducing highly
undulating Ht-M beds are the best approaches for
realistic facies modeling of this outcrop. However, it is
important to bear in mind their major drawbacks:
1. Object-based methods generally are not conditioned
to hard data by construction and require iterative
procedures to be conditioned. This contrasts with
pixel-based methods, which are conditioned sequen-
tially during the modeling. The use of iterative pro-
cedures to achieve conditioning renders object-based
methods considerably slower, especially when a high
number of conditioning data are used, and the objects
to be placed are large compared with data spacing.
Moreover, if the input parameters provide too many
constraints so that the algorithm does not converge,
artifacts may be produced, with nonrealistic discon-
tinuities near hard data. This effect can be observed
in the realizations obtained with the advanced object-
based modeling algorithm using different degrees of
undulation for Ht-M beds (Figure 8f–h). Abrupt
lateral facies changes near hard data are most abun-
dant in the realizations considering a high degree of
undulations for Ht-M beds. Tests using the advanced
object-based algorithm without conditioning to hard
data were also conducted to compare measured re-
sponses from conditioned realizations with responses
from nonconditioned realizations. The measured re-
sponses (see horizontal connectivity in Figure 16)
did not change significantly, and the obtained rank-
ings remained the same, indicating that the artifacts
observed in the conditioned realizations (Figure 8f–h)
did not significantly affect the measured responses
and the validity of the comparison.
2. Advanced object-based methods also need a large
number of parameters to obtain reliable reproduc-
tions of heterogeneity.
The predictions obtained by MPG were not as
good as the ones obtained by object-based methods
with highly undulating shales because of difficulties in
reproducing large-scale continuous structures (Liu et al.,
2004). However, future implementations of the MPG
method cannot be discarded for modeling this deposi-
tional setting because of its ability to generate realistic
conditioned realizations when data density is high.
Limitations
Although the comparison of the models was in 2-D
(limited by the 2-D nature of the outcrop) and reality
is three-dimensional (3-D), we are of the opinion that
Falivene et al. 1025

Figure 16. Comparison of Ss facies horizontal connectivity
curves derived from: the original outcrop characterization, the
completed outcrop characterization, and the conditioned and
unconditioned advanced object-based models using different
degrees of undulation for Ht-M beds. Each curve for the sto-
chastic methods corresponds to the average of 10 realizations.
some valid lessons can be learned from this study.
Values for connectivity, effective permeability, and
recovery efficiency will probably increase from 2-D to
3-D (e.g., Desbarats, 1987), but the 2-D results con-
tain value in that they give at least a qualitative un-
derstanding of some of the modeling issues.
The lateral variation seen at the Quarry outcrop
would be mostly related to variations perpendicular to
paleocurrent direction because the outcrop deposi-
tional setting is effectively 2.5-dimensional. Howev-
er, because of the obliquity of the outcrop face to the
paleocurrent direction, the presence of some variations
parallel to paleocurrent direction cannot be discarded.
This suggests one important conclusion of the model-
ing and flow-simulation study: that Ht-M undulations
and crosscutting relationships have to be captured in
the modeling process if the flow behavior of the out-
crop is to be accurately simulated, and that this is as
likely to apply to the 3-D as to the 2-D models used
1026 Geohorizons
here. At present, most facies modeling exercises based
on outcrops are restricted to 2-D because of the shortage
of 3-D data on an appropriate scale, but this may change
as new technologies (LIDAR [light detection and
ranging] and GPR [ground penetrating radar]) be-
come more widely used to obtain deterministic images
of outcrop exposures.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The differences observed between outcrop and fa-
cies models responses are algorithm related instead
of soft data related or stochastic related.
2. Variogram-based methods (TGS and SIS) fail to
capture the whole length of heterolithic packages
and mudstone (Ht-M) beds when they are undu-
lating and also fail to reproduce the undulations in
facies models. The MPG models are able to capture
and reproduce more continuous and undulating Ht-M
beds, but not accurately enough to reproduce the
outcrop heterogeneity in terms of the measured
responses. Object-based modeling methods that do
not account for undulations in Ht-M beds produce
too continuous sandstone (Ss) beds, leading to over-
estimations of the measured responses in the hori-
zontal direction. Object-based methods introducing
Ht-M beds with a high degree of undulations are
revealed to be the ones that provide more realistic
models.
3. In advanced object-based facies models, the pres-
ence of Ht-M beds with a high degree of undulations
is able to reproduce the sedimentological character-
istics observed in the outcrop (scouring, depositional
pinch-outs, and draping), which are critical in con-
trolling the continuity of sandstone beds and repro-
ducing the heterogeneity observed.
4. Differences found in effective permeability and wa-
ter flooding are greatly increased when the perme-
ability of Ht-M beds is reduced; in reservoir settings,
this permeability may vary by several orders of mag-
nitude. In the case of water flooding, if the Ht-M
permeability is sufficiently high (greater than 10  4
of the Ss permeability), no significant differences are
found between the facies models and the outcrop.
However, for low Ht-M permeability (from 10  4 to
10  8 of the Ss permeability), differences can reach
up to 13 percentage points of recovery efficiency.
5. Bed-scale geometries may have a large influence on
connectivity, effective permeability, and two-phase
 flow, as demonstrated here. Results presented here-
in will apply during the process of building facies
models to upscale petrophysical properties from
lamina scale to geological cell scale, and for building
field-scale reservoir models if sufficiently fine (i.e.,
able to reproduce bed-scale geometries) grids are
considered.
REFERENCES CITED
Arbués, P., D. Mellere, O. Falivene, O. Fernández, J. A. Muñoz,
M. Marzo, and J. M. de Gibert, in press, Context and architecture
of the Ainsa-1-quarry channel complex, Ainsa basin, Spain, in
T. H. Nilsen, R. D. Shew, G. S. Steffens, and J. R. J. Studlick,
Atlas of deep-water outcrops: AAPG Studies in Geology 56.
Begg, S. H., and P. R. King, 1985, Modeling the effect of shales on
reservoir performance: Calculation of effective vertical per-
meability: Society of Petroleum Engineers Paper 13529, 15 p.
Caers, J., 2001, Geostatistical reservoir modelling using statistical
pattern recognition: Journal of Petroleum Science and Engi-
neering, v. 29, p. 177 – 188.
Caers, J., and T. Zhang, 2004, Multiple-point geostatistics: A quan-
titative vehicle for integrating geologic analogs into multiple
reservoir models, in M. Grammer, P. M. Harris, and G. P. Eberli,
eds., Integration of outcrop and modern analogs in reservoir
modeling: AAPG Memoir 80, p. 383 – 394.
Christie, M. A., 1996, Upscaling for reservoir simulation: Journal of
Petroleum Technology, v. 48, p. 1004 – 1010.
Clark, J. D., and K. T. Pickering, 1996, Submarine channels:
Processes and architecture: London, Vallis Press, 231 p.
Clementsen, R., A. Hurst, R. Knarud, and H. Omre, 1990, A
computer program for evaluation of fluvial reservoirs, in A. T.
Buller, E. Berg, O. Hjemeland, J. Kleppe, O. Torsaeter, and
J. O. Aasen, eds., North Sea oil and gas reservoirs II: London,
Graham and Trotham, p. 373 – 385.
Cossey, S. P., 1994, Reservoir modeling of deepwater clastic se-
quences: Mesoscale architectural elements, aspect ratios, and
producibility, in P. Weimer, A. H. Bouma, and B. F. Perkins,
eds., Submarine fans and turbidite systems: Gulf Coast Section
SEPM 15th Annual Research Conference, p. 83 – 93.
Cressie, N., 1990, The origins of kriging: Mathematical Geology,
v. 22, p. 239 – 252.
Dalrymple, M., 2001, Fluvial reservoir architecture in the Stratfjord
Formation (northern North Sea) augmented by outcrop analog
statistics: Petroleum Geoscience, v. 7, p. 115 – 122.
Desbarats, A. J., 1987, Numerical estimation of effective perme-
ability in sand-shale formations: Water Resources Research,
v. 23, p. 273 – 286.
Deutsch, C. V., 1998, Fortran programs for calculating connectivity
of three dimensional numerical models and for ranking multi-
ple realizations: Computers and Geosciences, v. 24, p. 69 – 76.
Deutsch, C. V., 1999, Reservoir modeling with publicly available
software: Computers and Geosciences, v. 25, p. 355 – 363.
Deutsch, C. V., 2002, Geostatistical reservoir modeling: Applied
Geostatistics Series: New York, Oxford University Press, 376 p.
Deutsch, C. V., and A. G. Journel, 1998, GSLIB: Geostatistical
software library and user’s guide, 2d ed.: Oxford, Oxford
University Press, 350 p.
Deutsch, C. V., and T. T. Tran, 2002, FLUVISIM: A program for
object-based stochastic modeling of fluvial depositional sys-
tems: Computers and Geosciences, v. 28, p. 525 – 535.
Deutsch, C. V., and L. Wang, 1996, Hierarchical object-based
stochastic modeling of fluvial reservoirs: Mathematical Geol-
ogy, v. 28, p. 851 – 880.
Dewhurst, D. N., Y. Yang, and A. C. Aplin, 1999, Permeability and
fluid flow in natural mudstones, in A. C. Aplin, A. J. Fleet, and
J. H. S. Macquaker, eds., Muds and mudstones: Physical and
fluid flow properties: Geological Society (London) Special
Publication 158, p. 23 – 43.
Dreyer, T., L. M. Falt, T. Hoy, R. Knarud, R. Steel, and J. L.
Cuevas, 1993, Sedimentary architecture of field analogues for
reservoir information (SAFARI): A case study of the fluvial
Escanilla Formation, Spanish Pyrenees, in S. Flint and I. D.
Bryant, eds., The geological modelling of hydrocarbon reser-
voirs and outcrop analogues: International Association of Sedi-
mentologists Special Publication 15, p. 57 – 80.
Dubrule, O., 1994, Estimating or choosing a geostatistical model?,
in R. Dimitrakopoulos, ed., Geostatistics for the next century:
Dordrecht, Holland, Kluwer Academic Publishers, p. 3 – 14.
Dubrule, O., 1998, Geostatistics in petroleum geology: AAPG
Course Note Series 38, 52 p.
Ethridge, F. G., 2004, Sealing capacity and petrographic character-
istics of Eocene marine mudrocks, south-central Pyrenean
foreland basin, Spain (abs.): AAPG Annual Meeting, April 18 –
21, Dallas, Texas, v. 13, p. A42.
Fernández, O., J. A. Muñoz, P. Arbués, O. Falivene, and M. Marzo,
2004, 3-D reconstruction of geological surfaces: An example
of growth strata and turbidite systems from the Ainsa basin
(Pyrenees, Spain): AAPG Bulletin, v. 88, p. 1049 – 1068.
Gomez-Hernandez, J., and R. M. Srivastava, 1990, ISIM 3D: An
ANSI-C three-dimensional and multiple indicator conditional
simulation program: Computers and Geosciences, v. 16, p. 355 –
410.
Gringarten, E., and C. V. Deutsch, 2001, Variogram interpreta-
tion and modeling: Mathematical Geology, v. 33, p. 507 –
535.
Haldorsen, H. H., and D. M. Chang, 1986, Notes on stochastic
shales — From outcrop to simulation model, in L. W. Lake
and H. B. Carroll, eds., Reservoir characterization: Orlando,
Academic Press, p. 445 – 485.
Haldorsen, H. H., and E. Damsleth, 1990, Stochastic modeling:
Journal of Petroleum Geology, v. 42, p. 404 – 412.
Haldorsen, H. H., and L. Lake, 1984, A new approach to shale
management in field-scale models: Society of Petroleum Engi-
neers Journal, v. 24, p. 447 – 457.
Hurst, A., I. Verstralen, B. Cronin, and A. Hartley, 1999, Sand-rich
fairways in deep-water clastic reservoirs: Genetic units, cap-
turing uncertainty, and a new approach to reservoir modeling:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 83, p. 1096 – 1118.
Jackson, M. D., and A. H. Muggeridge, 2000, The effects of
discontinuous shales on reservoir performance during horizon-
tal waterflooding: Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, v. 5,
p. 446 – 455.
Jackson, M. D., S. Yoshida, A. H. Muggeridge, and D. Johnson,
2005, Three-dimensional reservoir characterization and flow
simulation of heterolithic tidal sandstones: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 89, p. 507 – 521.
Johnson, S. D., S. Flint, D. Hinds, and H. D. V. Wickens, 2001,
Anatomy geometry and sequence stratigraphy of basin floor to
slope turbidite systems, Tanqua Karoo, South Africa: Sedi-
mentology, v. 48, p. 987 – 1023.
Journel, A. G., 1983, Nonparametric estimation of spatial distribu-
tions: Mathematical Geology, v. 15, p. 445 – 468.
Journel, A. G., and C. V. Deutsch, 1993, Entropy and spatial
disorder: Mathematical Geology, v. 25, p. 329 – 355.
Journel, A. G., R. Gundeso, E. Gringarten, and T. Yao, 1998, Sto-
chastic modelling of a fluvial reservoir: A comparative review
Falivene et al. 1027
 of algorithms: Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering,
v. 21, p. 95 – 121.
King, M. J., and M. Mansfield, 1999, Flow simulation of geologic
models: Society of Petroleum Engineers Reservoir Evaluation
and Engineering, v. 2, p. 351 – 367.
King, P. R., 1990, The connectivity and conductivity of overlapping
sand bodies, in A. T. Buller, E. Berg, O. Hjemeland, J. Kleppe,
O. Torsaeter, and J. O. Aasen, eds., North Sea oil and gas
reservoirs II: London, Graham and Trotham, p. 353 – 362.
Knudby, C., and J. Carrera, 2005, On the relationship between
indicators of geostatistical, flow and transport connectivity:
Advances in Water Resources, v. 28, p. 405 – 421.
Koltermann, C. E., and S. M. Gorelick, 1996, Heterogeneity in
sedimentary deposits: A review of structure-imitating, process-
imitating, and descriptive approaches: Water Resources Re-
search, v. 32, p. 2617 – 2658.
Krum, G. L., and C. R. Johnson, 1993, A 3-D modelling approach
for providing a complex reservoir description for reservoir
simulations, in S. S. Flint and I. D. Bryant, eds., The geologic
modelling of hydrocarbon reservoirs and outcrop analogues:
International Association of Sedimentologists Special Publica-
tion 15, p. 253 – 258.
Kupfersberger, H., and C. V. Deutsch, 1999, Methodology for
integrating analog geologic data in 3-D variogram modeling:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 83, p. 1262 – 1278.
Larue, D., 2004, Outcrop and waterflood simulation modeling of
the 100-foot channel complex, Texas and the Ainsa II channel
complex, Spain: Analogs to multistory and multilateral
channelized slope reservoirs, in M. Grammer, P. M. Harris,
and G. P. Eberli, eds., Integration of outcrop and modern
analogs in reservoir modeling: AAPG Memoir 80, p. 337 – 364.
Larue, D., and F. Friedmann, 2005, The controversy concerning
stratigraphic architecture of channelized reservoirs and recovery
by waterflooding: Petroleum Geoscience, v. 11, p. 131 – 146.
Larue, D., and H. Legarre, 2004, Flow units, connectivity, and res-
ervoir characterization in a wave-dominated deltaic reservoir:
Meren reservoir, Nigeria: AAPG Bulletin, v. 88, p. 303 – 324.
Li, H., and C. D. White, 2003, Geostatistical models for shales in
distributary channel point bars (Ferron Sandstone, Utah): From
ground-penetrating radar to three-dimensional flow modelling:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 87, p. 1851 – 1868.
Lia, O., H. Tjelmeland, and L. E. Kjellesvik, 1997, Modeling of
facies architecture by marked point model in E. Y. Baafi and
N. A. Schofield, Geostatistics Wollongong ’96: 5th Interna-
tional Geostatistics Congress in Wollongong, Dordrecht, Kluwer
Academic, v. 1, p. 386 – 398.
Liu, Y., A. Harding, W. Abriel, and S. Strebelle, 2004, Multiple-
point simulation integrating wells, three-dimensional seismic
data, and geology: AAPG Bulletin, v. 88, p. 905 – 921.
Mijnessen, F. C. J., 1997, Modelling of sandbody connectivity in the
Schooner field, in K. Ziegler, P. Turner, and S. R. Daines, eds.,
Petroleum geology of the southern North Sea: Future po-
tential: Geological Society (London) Special Publication 123,
p. 169 – 180.
Muñoz, J. A., P. Arbués, and J. Serra-Kiel, 1998, The Ainsa basin
and the Sobrarbe oblique thrust system: Sedimentological and
tectonic processes controlling slope and platform sequences
deposited synchronously with a submarine emergent thrust
system, in A. Meléndez Hevia and A. R. Soria, eds., Field trip
guidebook of the 15th International Association of Sedimen-
tologists International Congress of Sedimentology, p. 213 –
223.
Mutti, E., 1992, Turbidite sandstones: AGIP-Istituto di Geologia,
Università di Parma, 275 p.
Mutti, E., and W. R. Normark, 1987, Comparing examples of
modern and ancient turbidite systems: Problems and concepts,
1028 Geohorizons
in J. K. Legget and G. G. Zuffa, eds., Deep water clastic de-
posits: Models and case histories: London, Graham and Trotham,
p. 1 – 38.
Novakovic, D., C. D. White, R. Corbeanu, W. S. Hammon III,
J. Bhattacharya, and G. A. McMechan, 2002, Hydraulic effects
of shales in fluvial-deltaic deposits: Ground-penetrating radar,
outcrop observations, geostatistics and three-dimensional flow
modeling for the Ferron Sandstone, Utah: Mathematical Ge-
ology, v. 34, p. 857 – 893.
Pardo-Igúzquiza, E., and P. A. Dowd, 2003, CONNEC3D: A
computer program for connectivity analysis of 3D random set
models: Computers and Geosciences, v. 29, p. 775 – 785.
Pickup, G. E., P. S. Ringrose, and S. Ahmed, 2000, Steady-state
upscaling: From lamina-scale to full-field model: Society of
Petroleum Engineers Journal, v. 5, p. 208 – 217.
Renard, P., and G. de Marsily, 1997, Calculating equivalent perme-
ability: A review: Advances in Water Resources, v. 20, p. 237 –
278.
Satur, N., A. Hurst, B. Cronin, G. Kelling, and K. Gurbuz, 2000,
Sand body geometry in a sand-rich, deep-water clastic system,
Miocene Cingoz Formation of southern Turkey: Marine and
Petroleum Geology, v. 17, p. 239 – 252.
Scheibe, T. D., and C. J. Murray, 1998, Simulation of geologic
patterns: A comparison of stochastic simulation techniques for
groundwater transport modeling, in G. S. Fraser and J. M.
Davis, eds., Hydrogeologic models of sedimentary aquifers:
Concepts in Hydrogeology and Environmental Geology, v. 1,
p. 107 – 118.
Schuppers, J. D., 1993, Quantification of turbidite facies in a
reservoir-analogous submarine-fan channel sandbody, south-
central Pyrenees, Spain, in S. S. Flint and I. D. Bryant, eds.,
The geologic modelling of hydrocarbon reservoirs and outcrop
analogues: International Association of Sedimentologists Spe-
cial Publication, p. 99 – 112.
Schuppers, J. D., 1995, Characterization of deep-marine clastic
sediments from foreland basins: Outcrop-derived concepts for
exploration, production and reservoir modelling: Ph.D. thesis,
Delft University of Technology, Netherlands, 272 p.
Seifert, D., and J. L. Jensen, 2000, Object and pixel-based reservoir
modeling of a braided fluvial reservoir: Mathematical Geology,
v. 32, p. 581 – 603.
Slatt, R. M., and P. Weimer, 1999, Turbidite systems: Part 2.
Subseismic-scale reservoir characteristics: The Leading Edge,
v. 18, no. 5, p. 562 – 567.
Slatt, R., H. Al-Siyabi, C. VanKirk, and R. Williams, 2000, From
geologic characterization to ‘reservoir simulation’ of a turbidite
outcrop, in A. Bouma and C. Stone, eds., Fine-grained turbi-
dite systems: AAPG Memoir 72/SEPM Special Publication
No. 68, p. 187 – 194.
Srivastava, R. M., 1994, An overview of stochastic methods for
reservoir characterization, in J. M. Yarus and R. L. Chambers,
eds., Stochastic modeling and geostatistics: Principles, methods
and case studies: AAPG Computer Applications in Geology 3,
p. 3 – 16.
Stephen, K. D., J. D. Clark, and A. R. Gardiner, 2001, Outcrop-
based stochastic modelling of turbidite amalgamation and its
effects on hydrocarbon recovery: Petroleum Geoscience, v. 7,
p. 163 – 172.
Strebelle, S., 2002, Conditional simulation of complex geological
structures using multiple-point statistics: Mathematical Geol-
ogy, v. 34, p. 1 – 22.
Thomas, J. M. D., 1990, The movement of oil initially bypassed
behind stochastic shale barriers: North Sea oil and gas res-
ervoirs: II. Proceedings of the North Sea Oil and Gas Reser-
voirs Conference, p. 437 – 444.
Tran, T. T., 1994, Improving variogram reproduction on dense
 simulation grids: Computers and Geosciences, v. 20, p. 1161 –
1168.
Tyler, K., A. Henriquez, and T. Svanes, 1994, Modeling heterogene-
ities in fluvial domains, a review on the influence on production
profile, in J. M. Yarus and R. L. Chambers, eds., Stochastic
modeling and geostatistics: Principles, methods and case studies:
AAPG Computer Applications in Geology 3, p. 77 – 89.
Webb, E. K., and J. M. Davis, 1998, Simulation of the spatial
heterogeneity of geologic properties: An overview, in G. S.
Fraser and J. M. Davis, eds., Hydrogeologic models of
sedimentary aquifers: Concepts in Hydrogeology and Environ-
mental Geology, v. 1, p. 1 – 24.
Weimer, P., R. M. Slatt, P. Dromgoole, M. Bowman, and A.
Leonard, 2000, Developing and managing turbidite reservoirs:
Case histories and experiences: Results of the 1998 European
Association of Geoscientists and Engineers – American Associ-
ation of Petroleum Geologists Research Conference: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 84, p. 453 – 465.
Willis, B. J., and C. D. White, 2000, Quantitative outcrop data for
flow simulation: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 70,
p. 788 – 802.
Xu, W., 1996, Conditional curvilinear stochastic simulation using
pixel-based algorithms: Mathematical Geology, v. 28, p. 937 –
950.
Falivene et al. 1029