DISTINGUISHED AUTHOR SERIES
Probabilistic Subsurface Forecasting—
What Do We Really Know?
Martin Wolff, SPE, Hess Corporation
Abstract
The use of single-valued assessments of company portfolios
and projects continues to decline as the industry accepts that
strong subsurface uncertainties dictate an ongoing consider-
ation of ranges of outcomes. Exploration has pioneered the
use of probabilistic prospect assessments as being the norm,
in both majors and independents. Production has lagged,
in part because of the need to comply with US Security and
Exchange (SEC) reserves-reporting requirements that drive a
conservative deterministic approach.
Look-backs continue to show the difficulty of achieving a
forecast within an uncertainty band as well as the difficulty
of establishing what that band should be. Ongoing challenges
include identifying relevant static and dynamic uncertainties,
efficiently and reliably determining ranges and dependen-
cies for those uncertainties, incorporating production his-
tory (brownfield assessments), and coupling subsurface with
operational and economic uncertainties.
Despite these challenges, none of which are fully resolved,
a systematic approach based on probabilistic principles
[often including design-of-experiment (DoE) techniques]
provides the best auditable and justifiable means of forecast-
ing projects and presenting decision makers with a suitable
range of outcomes to consider.
Introduction
Probabilistic subsurface assessments are the norm within
the exploration side of the oil and gas industry, both in
majors and independents (Rose 2007). However, in many
companies, the production side is still in transition from
single-valued deterministic assessments, sometimes carried
Martin Wolff, SPE, is a Senior Reservoir
Engineering Advisor for Hess Corporation.
He earned a BS degree in electrical engi-
neering and computer science and an
MS degree in electrical engineering from
the University of Illinois and a PhD
degree in petroleum engineering from the
University of Texas at Austin. Previously,
Wolff worked for Schlumberger, Chevron,
Fina, Total, and Newfield. He has served as a Technical Editor
and Review Chairperson for SPE Reservoir Evaluation &
Engineering and has served on steering committees for several
SPE Forums and Advanced Technology Workshops.
86
out with ad-hoc sensitivity studies, to more-rigorous proba-
bilistic assessments with an auditable trail of assumptions
and a statistical underpinning. Reflecting these changes
in practices and technology, recently revised SEC rules
for reserves reporting (effective 1 January 2010) allow for
the use of both probabilistic and deterministic methods in
addition to allowing reporting of reserves categories other
than “proved.” This paper attempts to present some of
the challenges facing probabilistic assessments and pres-
ent some practical considerations to carry out the assess-
ments effectively.
Look Backs—Calibrating Assessments
Look-backs continue to show the difficulty of achieving a
forecast within an uncertainty band along with the difficulty
of establishing what that band should be. Demirmen (2007)
reviewed reserves estimates in various regions over time and
observed that estimates are poor and that uncertainty does
not decrease over time.
Otis and Schneidermann (1997) describe a comprehen-
sive exploration-prospect-evaluation system that, starting
in 1989, included consistent methods of assessing risk and
estimating hydrocarbon volumes, including post-drilling
feedback to calibrate those assessments. Although detailed
look-backs for probabilistic forecasting methodologies have
been recommended for some time (Murtha 1997) and are
beginning to take place within companies, open publica-
tions on actual fields with details still are rare, possibly
because of the newness of the methodologies or because of
data sensitivity.
Identifying Subsurface Uncertainties
A systematic process of identifying relevant subsurface
uncertainties and then categorizing them can help by break-
ing down a complex forecast into simple uncontrollable
static or dynamic components that can be assessed and
calibrated individually (Williams 2006). Nonsubsurface,
controllable, and operational uncertainties also must be
considered, but the analysis usually is kept tractable by
Copyright 2010 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This is paper SPE 118550. Distinguished Author Series articles are general, descriptive
representations that summarize the state of the art in an area of technology by describing recent
developments for readers who are not specialists in the topics discussed. Written by individuals
recognized as experts in the area, these articles provide key references to more definitive work
and present specific details only to illustrate the technology. Purpose: to inform the general
readership of recent advances in various areas of petroleum engineering.
JPT • MAY 2010
including them later with decision analysis or additional
rounds of uncertainty analysis.
Grouping parameters also can reduce the dimensionality
of the problem. When parameters are strongly correlated
(or anticorrelated), grouping them is justifiable. In fact,
not grouping or “Balkanizing” a group of such parameters
could cause them to be dropped in standard screening
methods such as Pareto charts. For example, decompos-
ing a set of relative permeability curves into constituent
parameters such as saturation endpoints, critical satura-
tions, relative permeability endpoints, and Corey exponents
can cause them all to become insignificant individually.
Used together, relative permeability often remains a domi-
nant uncertainty.
Assigning Ranges to Uncertainties
Having been identified, ranges for each uncertainty must be
quantified, which may appear straightforward but contains
subtle challenges. Breaking down individual uncertainties
into components (e.g., measurement, model, or statistical
error) and carefully considering portfolio and sample-bias
effects can help create reasonable and justifiable ranges.
Some uncertainties, especially geological ones, are not
handled easily as continuous variables. In many studies,
several discrete geological models are constructed to repre-
sent the spectrum of possibilities. To integrate these models
with continuous parameters and generate outcome distribu-
tions, likelihoods must be assigned to each model. Although
assigning statistical meaning to a set of discrete models may
be a challenge if those models are not based on any under-
lying statistics, the models do have the advantage of more
readily being fully consistent scenarios rather than a combi-
nation of independent geological-parameter values that may
not make any sense (Bentley and Woodhead 1998).
As noted previously, validation with analog data sets and
look-backs should be carried out when possible because
many studies and publications have shown that people have
a tendency to anchor on what they think they know and to
underestimate the true uncertainties involved. Therefore,
any quantitative data that can help establish and validate
uncertainty ranges are highly valuable.
Assigning Distributions to Uncertainties
In addition to ranges, distributions must be specified for
each uncertainty. There are advocates for different approach-
es. Naturalists strongly prefer the use of realistic distribu-
tions that often are observed in nature (e.g., log normal),
while pragmatists prefer distributions that are well-behaved
(e.g., bounded) and simple to specify (e.g., uniform or trian-
gular). In most cases, specifying ranges has a stronger influ-
ence on forecasts than the specific distribution shape, which
may have little effect (Wolff 2010). Statistical correlations
between uncertainties also should be considered, although
these too are often secondary effects.
Uncertainty-to-Forecast Relationships
Having been identified and quantified, relationships then
must be established between uncertainties and forecasts.
JPT • MAY 2010
These relationships sometimes can be established from
analytical and empirical equations but also may be derived
from models ranging from simple material-balance through
full 3D reservoir-simulation models. When complex mod-
els are used to define relationships, it often is useful to
use DoE methods to investigate the uncertainty space effi-
ciently. These methods involve modeling defined combina-
tions of uncertainties to fit simple equations that can act
as efficient surrogates or proxies for the complex models.
Monte-Carlo methods then can be used to investigate the
distribution of forecast outcomes, taking into account cor-
relations between uncertainties.
DoE methods have been used for many years in the
petroleum industry. The earliest SPE reference found
was from a perforating-gun study by Vogel (1956), the
earliest reservoir work was on a wet-combustion-drive
study by Sawyer et al. (1974), while early references to
3D reservoir models include Chu (1990) and Damsleth
et al. (1992). These early papers all highlight the main
advantage of DoE over traditional one-variable-at-a-time
(OVAT) methods—efficiency. Damsleth et al. (1992) give a
30 to 40% advantage for D-optimal designs compared with
OVAT sensitivities.
For an extensive bibliography of papers showing pros and
cons of different types of DoE and application of DoE to
specific reservoir problems, see an expanded version of this
paper, Wolff (2010).
Model Complexity
Given that computational power has increased vastly from
the 1950s and 1970s to ever-more-powerful multicore
processors and cluster computing, an argument can be
made that computational power should not be regarded
as a significant constraint for reservoir studies. However,
Williams et al. (2004) observe that gains in computational
power “are generally used to increase the complexity of the
models rather than to reduce model run times.”
Most would agree with the concept of making things no
more complex than needed, but different disciplines have
different perceptions regarding that level of complexity.
This problem can be made worse by corporate peer reviews,
especially in larger companies, in which excessively com-
plex models are carried forward to ensure “buy in” by all
stakeholders. Highly complex models also may require
complex logic to form reasonable and consistent develop-
ment scenarios for each run.
Finally, the challenge of quality control (QC) of highly
complex models cannot be ignored—“garbage in, garbage
out” applies more strongly than ever. Launching directly
into tens to hundreds of DoE runs without ensuring
that a base-case model makes physical sense and runs
reasonably well will often lead to many frustrating
cycles of debug and rework. A single model can readily
be quality controlled in detail, while manual QC of
tens of models becomes increasingly difficult. With
hundreds or thousands of models, automatic-QC tools
become necessary to complement statistical methods by
highlighting anomalies.
87
DISTINGUISHED AUTHOR SERIES

Linear Terms Only Linear and Interaction Terms

3 5

2.5
4

2
3
1.5

1 2

0.5
1

0
1 0 1
–0.5 0.6
0.6
0.2 0.2
–1 –1
–1 –0.8 –0.2 –1 –0.8 –0.2
–0.6 –0.6 –0.4
–0.4 –0.6 –0.6
–0.2 –0.2 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.2
–1 0.4 –1
0.6 0.8 0.6
1 0.8 1

Linear, Interaction, and Lumped

Second-Order Terms Full Second-Order Polynomial

8 9

7 8

7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3

2
2
1 1
1 1 0.6
0.6
0.2 0.2
0 0
–1 –0.8 –0.2 –1 –0.8 –0.2
–0.6 –0.6 –0.4 1
–0.4 –0.6 –0.2 –0.6
–0.2 0
0 0.2 0.2
0.4 –1 0.4 –1
0.6 0.6 0.8
0.8
1

Fig. 1—Proxy surfaces of varying complexity.

Proxy Equations can provide interaction terms and lumped second-order

Fig. 1 shows proxy surfaces of varying complexity that
can be obtained with different designs. A Plackett-Burman
(PB) design, for example, is suitable only for linear prox-
ies. Folded-Plackett-Burman (FPB) (an experimental design
with double the number of runs of the PB design formed by
adding runs reversing the plus and minus 1s in the matrix)
terms (all second-order coefficients equal). D-optimal can
provide full second-order polynomials. More-sophisticated
proxies can account for greater response complexities, but
at the cost of additional refinement simulation runs. These
more-sophisticated proxies may be of particular use in
brownfield studies in which a more-quantitative proxy could

88 JPT • MAY 2010

The Kuwait Oil Company invites you to discover the opportunities of a lifetime in its
exploration and production.
We are looking for petro-technical specialists for full time internal employment
within the company and based in Kuwait City.
We offer attractive employment benefits that includes a tax-free salary package,
annual bonuses, 42 calendar days annual paid vacation with airfare, accommodation
and furnishing allowances, world class free healthcare for employees and their
families, children education allowance, a fully maintained company vehicle and
other great benefits.
We also offer a challenging, safe and healthy work environment along with an
enviable lifestyle filled with leisure activities such as a golf course, cricket pitch, football
field, tennis & squash courts, horse riding facilities, bowling alley, swimming pools,
health & social clubs, modern shopping malls and many more...

Available vacancies for E & P SPECIALISTS

• Petrophysicist
• Facility Specialists
• Reservoir Engineers
• Reservoir Modelling Specialists
• Mechanical Training Specialists
• Specialist Development Geologists
• Geologists Modeller
• Petroleum Engineers
• Instrument Training Specialists
• Gas Operations Training Specialists
• Electrical and Power Training Specialists
• Process and Production Operations Training
Specialists

Minimum Requirements
• Bachelors Degree
• 15+ years of experience in the relevant positions
• Excellent English written and verbal communication skills
www.jvg-media.com
DISTINGUISHED AUTHOR SERIES
be desirable, but may not always add much value to green-
field studies where the basic subsurface uncertainties remain
poorly constrained.
A recognized problem with polynomial proxies is that
they tend to yield normal distributions because the terms
are added (a consequence of the Central Limit theorem).
For many types of subsurface forecasts, the prevalence of
actual skewed distributions, such as log-normal, has been
documented widely. Therefore, physical proxies, especially
in simple cases such as the original-oil-in-place (OOIP)
equation, have some advantages in achieving more-realistic
distributions. However, errors from the use of nonphysical
proxies are not necessarily significant, depending on the
particular problem studied (Wolff 2010).
A question raised about computing polynomial prox-
ies for relatively simple designs such as FPB is that often
there are, apparently, too few equations to solve for all
the coefficients of the polynomial. The explanation is that
not all parameters are equally significant and that some
parameters may be highly correlated or anticorrelated. Both
factors reduce the dimensionality of the problem, allowing
reasonable solutions to be obtained even with an apparently
insufficient number of equations.
Proxy Validation
At a minimum, a set of blind test runs, which are not used
in building the proxy, should be compared with proxy
predictions. A simple crossplot of proxy-predicted vs.
experimental results for points used to build the proxy
can confirm only that the proxy equation was adequate to
match data used in the analysis. However, it does not prove
that the proxy is also predictive. In general, volumetrics
are more reasonably predicted with simpler proxies than
are dynamic results such as recoveries, rates, and break-
through times.
Moving Toward a Common Process
Some standardization of designs would help these methods
become even more accepted and widespread in companies.
The reader of this paper likely is a reservoir engineer or
earth scientist who, by necessity, dabbles in statistics but
prefers not to make each study a research effort on math-
ematical methods. Another benefit of somewhat standard-
ized processes is that management and technical reviewers
can become familiar and comfortable with certain designs
and will not require re-education with each project they
need to approve. However, because these methodologies are
still relatively new, a period of testing and exploring differ-
ent techniques is still very much under way.
The literature shows the use of a wide range of method-
ologies. Approaches to explore uncertainty space range from
use of only the simplest PB screening designs for the entire
analysis, through multistage experimental designs of increas-
ing accuracy, to bypassing proxy methods altogether in favor
of space-filling designs and advanced interpolative methods.
A basic methodology extracted from multiple papers listed
in Wolff (2010) can be stated as follows:
(1) Define subsurface uncertainties and their ranges.
(2) Perform screening analysis (e.g., two-level PB, or FPB),
and analyze to identify the most-influential uncertainties.
90
(3) If necessary, perform a more detailed analysis (e.g.,
three-level D-optimal or central-composite).
(4) Create a proxy model (response surface) by use of lin-
ear or polynomial proxies, and validate with blind tests.
(5) Perform Monte-Carlo simulations to assess uncertainty
and define distributions of outcomes.
(6) Build deterministic (scenario) low/mid/high models
tied to the distributions.
(7) Use deterministic models to assess development alter-
natives.
However, variations and subtleties abound. Most studies
split the analysis of the static and dynamic parameters into
two stages with at least two separate experimental designs.
The first stage seeks to create a number of discrete geologi-
cal or static models (3, 5, 9, 27, or more are found in the
literature) representing a broad range of hydrocarbons in
place and connectivity (often determined by rapid analyses
such as streamline simulation). Then, the second stage
takes these static models and adds the dynamic param-
eters in a second experimental design. This method is
particularly advantageous if the project team prefers to use
higher-level designs such as D-optimal to reduce the num-
ber of uncertainties in each stage. However, this method
cannot account for the full range of individual interac-
tions between all static and dynamic parameters because
many of the static parameters are grouped and fixed into
discrete models before the final dynamic simulations are
run. This limitation becomes less significant when more
discrete geological models are built that reflect more major-
uncertainty combinations.
Steps 2 and 3 in the base methodology sometimes coin-
cide with the static/dynamic parameter split. In many
cases, however, parameter screening is performed as an
additional DoE step after having already determined a set
of discrete geological models. This culling to the most-
influential uncertainties again makes running a higher-level
design more feasible, especially with full-field full-physics
simulation models. The risk is that some of the parameters
screened from the analysis as insignificant in the develop-
ment scenario that was used may become significant under
other scenarios. For example, if the base scenario was a
peripheral waterflood, parameters related to aquifer size
and strength may drop out. If a no-injector scenario is later
examined, the P10/50/90 deterministic models may not
include any aquifer variation. Ideally, each scenario would
have its own screening DoE performed to retain all relevant
influential uncertainties.
An alternative is running a single-stage DoE including all
static and dynamic parameters. This method can lead to a
large number of parameters. Analysis is made more trac-
table by use of intermediate-accuracy designs such as FPB.
Such compromise designs do require careful blind testing
to ensure accuracy although proxies with mediocre blind-
test results often can yield very similar statistics (P10/50/90
values) after Monte Carlo simulation when compared with
higher-level designs. As a general observation, the qual-
ity of proxy required for quantitative predictive use such as
optimization or history matching usually is higher than that
required only for generating a distribution through Monte
Carlo methods.
JPT • MAY 2010
 Determining which development options (i.e., uncon-
strained or realistic developments, including controllable
variables) to choose for building the proxy equations and
running Monte Carlo simulations also has challenges. One
approach is to use unconstrained scenarios that effectively
attempt to isolate subsurface uncertainties from the effects
of these choices (Williams 2006). Another approach is to
use a realistic base-case development scenario if such a
scenario already exists or make an initial pass through the
process to establish one. Studies that use DoE for optimiza-
tion often include key controllable variables in the proxy
equation despite knowing that this may present difficulties
such as more-irregular proxy surfaces requiring higher-
level designs.
Integrated models consider all uncertainties together
(including surface and subsurface), which eliminates pick-
ing a development option. These models may be vital for the
problem being analyzed; however, they present additional
difficulties. Either computational costs will increase or com-
promises to subsurface physics must be made such as elimi-
nating reservoir simulation in favor of simplified dimension-
less rate-vs.-cumulative-production tables or proxy equa-
tions. That reopens the questions: “What development
options were used to build those proxies?” and “How valid
are those options in other scenarios?”
Deterministic Models
Short of using integrated models, there still remains the
challenge of applying and optimizing different development
scenarios to a probabilistic range of forecasts. Normal prac-
tice is to select a limited number of deterministic models that
capture a range of outcomes, often three (e.g., P10/50/90)
but sometimes more if testing particular uncertainty com-
binations is desired. Normal practice is to match probability
levels of two outcomes at once (e.g., pick a P90 model that
has both P90 OOIP and P90 oil recovery). Some studies
attempt to match P90 levels of other outcomes at the same
time, such as discounted oil recovery (which ties better to
simplified economics because it puts a time value on produc-
tion), recovery factor, or initial production rate. The more
outcome matches that are attempted, the more difficult it is
to find a suitable model.
The subsurface uncertainties selected to create a deter-
ministic model, and how much to vary each of them, form
a subjective exercise because there are an infinite number of
combinations. Williams (2006) give guidelines for building
such models, including trying to ensure a logical progression
of key uncertainties from low to high models.
If a proxy is quantitatively sound, it can be used to test
particular combinations of uncertainties that differ from
those of the DoE before building and running time-consum-
ing simulation models. The proxy also can be used to esti-
mate response behavior for uncertainty levels between the
two or three levels (−1/0/+1) typically defined in the DoE.
This can be useful for tuning a particular combination to
achieve a desired response, and it allows moderate combina-
tions of uncertainties. Such moderate combinations, rather
than extremes used in many designs, will be perceived as
more realistic. This choice also will solve the problem of not
being able to set all key variables to −1 or +1 levels and
JPT • MAY 2010
follow a logical progression of values to achieve P90 and
P10 outcomes. However, interpolation of uncertainties can
sometimes be:
• Challenging (some uncertainties such as perme-
ability may not vary linearly compared with others such
as porosity)
• Challenging and time-consuming (e.g., interpolating
discrete geological models)
• Impossible [uncertainties with only a discrete number
of physical states such as many decision variables (e.g., 1.5
wells is not possible)]
Finally, selecting the deterministic models to use is usu-
ally a whole-team activity because each discipline may have
its own ideas about which uncertainties need to be tested
and which combinations are realistic. This selection process
achieves buy-in by the entire team before heading into tech-
nical and management reviews.
Probabilistic brownfield forecasting has the additional
challenge of needing to match dynamic performance data.
Although forecasts should become more-tightly constrained
with actual field data, data quality and the murky issue
of what constitutes an acceptable history match must be
considered. History-match data can be incorporated into
probabilistic forecasts through several methods. The tra-
ditional and simplest method is to tighten the individual
uncertainty ranges until nearly all outcomes are reasonably
history matched. This approach is efficient and straightfor-
ward but may eliminate some more-extreme combinations
of parameters from consideration.
Filter-proxy methods that use quality-of-history-match
indicators (Landa and Güyagüler 2003) will accept these
more-extreme uncertainty combinations. The filter-proxy
method also has the virtue of transparency—explanation
and justification of the distribution of the matched models
is straightforward, as long as the proxies (especially those
of the quality of the history match) are sufficiently accurate.
More-complex history-matching approaches such as genetic
algorithms, evolutionary strategies, and ensemble Kalman
filter are a very active area for research and commercial activi-
ties, but going into any detail on these methods is beyond the
scope of this paper.
Conclusion—What Do We Really Know?
In realistic subsurface-forecasting situations, enough uncer-
tainty exists about the basic ranges of parameters that
absolute numerical errors less than 5 to 10% usually are
considered relatively minor, although it is difficult to give
a single value that applies for all situations. For example,
when tuning discrete models to P10/50/90 values, a typical
practice is to stop tuning when the result is within 5% of
the desired result. Spending a lot of time to obtain a more
precise result is largely a wasted effort, as look-backs have
shown consistently.
Brownfield forecasts are believed to be more accurate than
greenfield forecasts that lack calibration, but look-backs also
suggest that it may be misleading to think the result is the
correct one just because a great history match was obtained.
Carrying forward a reasonable and defensible set of working
models that span a range of outcomes makes much more
sense than hoping to identify a single “true” answer. As
91
DISTINGUISHED AUTHOR SERIES
George Box (an eminent statistician) once said: “All models
are wrong, but some are useful.”
In all these studies, there is a continuing series of tradeoffs
to be made between the effort applied and its effect on the
outcome. Many studies have carried simple screening designs
all the way through to detailed forecasts with well-accepted
results that are based on very few simulation runs. These
studies tend to study the input uncertainty distributions in
great depth, often carefully considering partial correlations
between the uncertainties. Although the quality of the prox-
ies used in these studies may not be adequate for quantitative
predictive use, it still may be adequate for generating reason-
able statistics.
Other studies use complex designs to obtain highly accu-
rate proxies that can be used quantitatively for optimization
and history matching. However, many of these studies have
used standardized uncertainty distributions (often discrete)
with less consideration of correlations and dependencies.
Higher-speed computers and automated tools are making
such workflows less time-consuming so that accurate prox-
ies and a thorough consideration of the basic uncertainties
should both be possible. Whichever emphasis is made,
the models that are used should be sufficiently complex to
capture the reservoir physics that influences the outcome
significantly. At the same time, they should be simple
enough such that time and energy are not wasted on refining
something that either has little influence or remains funda-
mentally uncertain.
In the end, probabilistic forecasts can provide answers
with names like P10/50/90 that have specific statistical
meaning. However, it is a meaning that must consider the
assumptions made about the statistics of the basic uncer-
tainties, most of which lack a rigorous statistical under-
pinning. The advantage of a rigorous process to combine
these uncertainties through DoE, proxies, Monte Carlo
methods, scenario modeling, and other techniques is that
the process is clean and auditable, not that the probabil-
ity levels are necessarily quantitatively correct. However,
they are as correct as the selection and description of the
basic uncertainties.
Having broken a complex forecast into simple assumptions,
it should become part of a standard process to refine those
assumptions as more data become available. Ultimately, like
the example from exploration mentioned at the beginning,
we hope to calibrate ourselves through detailed look-backs
for continous improvement of our forecast quality.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Kaveh Dehghani, Mark
Williams, and John Spokes for their support and stimulat-
ing discussions. Thank you also to Hao Cheng for our work
together on the subject and for supplying the graphics for
Fig. 1.
92
References
Bentley, M.R. and Woodhead, T.J. 1998. Uncertainty Handling
Through Scenario-Based Reservoir Modeling. Paper SPE 39717
presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Conference on Integrated
Modeling for Asset Management, Kuala Lumpur, 23–24 March.
doi: 10.2118/39717-MS.
Chu, C. 1990. Prediction of Steamflood Performance in Heavy Oil
Reservoirs Using Correlations Developed by Factorial Design
Method. Paper SPE 20020 presented at the SPE California
Regional Meeting, Ventura, California, USA, 4–6 April. doi:
10.2118/20020-MS.
Damsleth, E., Hage, A., and Volden, R. 1992. Maximum Information
at Minimum Cost: A North Sea Field Development Study With an
Experimental Design. J Pet Technol 44 (12): 1350–1356. SPE-
23139-PA. doi: 10.2118/23139-PA.
Demirmen, F. 2007. Reserves Estimation: The Challenge for the
Industry. Distinguished Author Series, J Pet Technol 59 (5):
80–89. SPE-103434-PA.
Landa, J.L. and Güyagüler, B. 2003. A Methodology for History
Matching and the Assessment of Uncertainties Associated With
Flow Prediction. Paper SPE 84465 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 5–8 October. doi:
10.2118/84465-MS.
Murtha, J. 1997. Monte Carlo Simulation: Its Status and Future.
Distinguished Author Series, J Pet Technol 49 (4): 361–370. SPE-
37932-MS. doi: 10.2118/37932-MS.
Otis, R.M. and Schneidermann, N. 1997. A process for evaluating
exploration prospects. AAPG Bulletin 81 (7): 1087–1109.
Rose, P.R. 2007. Measuring what we think we have found: Advantages
of probabilistic over deterministic methods for estimating oil and
gas reserves and resources in exploration and production. AAPG
Bulletin 91 (1): 21–29. doi: 10.1306/08030606016.
Sawyer. D.N., Cobb, W.M., Stalkup, F.I., and Braun, P.H. 1974.
Factorial Design Analysis of Wet-Combustion Drive. SPE J. 14
(1): 25–34. SPE-4140-PA. doi: 10.2118/4140-PA.
Vogel, L.C. 1956. A Method for Analyzing Multiple Factor
Experiments—Its Application to a Study of Gun Perforating
Methods. Paper SPE 727-G presented at the Fall Meeting of the
Petroleum Branch of AIME, Los Angeles, 14–17 October. doi:
10.2118/727-G.
Williams, G.J.J., Mansfield, M., MacDonald, D.G., and Bush, M.D.
2004. Top-Down Reservoir Modeling. Paper SPE 89974 pre-
sented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, 26–29 September. doi: 10.2118/89974-MS.
Williams, M.A. 2006. Assessing Dynamic Reservoir Uncertainty:
Integrating Experimental Design with Field Development
Planning. SPE Distinguished Lecturer Series presentation given for
Gulf Coast Section SPE, Houston, 23 March. http://www.spegcs.
org/attachments/studygroups/11/SPE%20Mark%20Williams%20
Mar_06.ppt.
Wolff, M. 2010. Probabilistic Subsurface Forecasting. Paper SPE
132957 available from SPE, Richardson, Texas. JPT
JPT • MAY 2010