Reservoir Performance Forecasting:

Acceleration by Parallel Planning

Nansen G. Salerl, SPE, Chevron E&P Services Co.

Summary
This paper evaluates reservoir performance Nansen G. Salerl has been a senior petroleum
forecasting . Actual field examples are dis- engineering consultant with Saudi Aramco in Dhahran .
cussed, comparing past forecasts with ob- since Oct. 1992. He previously was manager of reserVOIr
served performances. The apparently weak engineering at Chevron E&P Services Co. in Houston. His
correlation between advances in technolo- responsibilities at Chevron, which he joined in 1974,
gy and forecasting accuracy is assessed. included worldwide reservoir projects and directing the
Parallel planning is presented as an approach company's reservoir management training programs . He
Saler! holds MS and PhD degrees in chemical engineering from
that can significantly accelerate reservoir
forecasts. The recognition of inevitable fore- the U. of Virginia. Saleri was a 1991-92 Distinguished Lecturer.
casting uncertainties constitutes the
philosophical basis of parallel planning.
effect" example points to inevitable limits Discretization
Introduction of predictability. The analogies between Both geostatistical and finite-difference
weather and reservoirs have been noted 4,5 ; models discretize reservoirs. The two
To say that reservoir performance forecast- specifically, the sensitivity of reservoir per-
models, however, have dissimilar discreti-
ing is not an exact science would be an un- formance and hence forecasts to certain ge-
zation scales (geostatistical models use
derstatement. Even with all the significant ologic parameters (i.e., flow boundary
inches to several feet; finite-difference
advances occurring across a wide spectrum conditions) have been highlighted. This sen-
models use hundreds of feet) .
of related areas, questions still remain sitivity suggests that performance forecasts
Current and projected hardware and soft-
regarding the reliability of reservoir predic- will remain uncertain indefinitely.
ware limitations suggest that the discretiza-
tions. In fact, our efforts today are aimed Both internal and external reservoir fac- tion gap between finite-difference and
as much at defining the limits of uncertainty tors contribute to forecast uncertainties (Fig.
geostatistical models will not disappear for
envelopes as at producing forecasts. The dis- 1). When model forecasts diverge from ac-
giant fields. Consider the multibillion-barrel
cussion here pursues the following ques- tual performance , distinctions among
ATLlINB field in West Africa . A finite-
tions : (1) What are realistic accuracy primary causes are sometimes lost. For ex-
difference model using I_ft3 cells will re-
expectations in performance forecasts? and ample, accurate models may produce appar-
quire about 0.5 trillion cells . The cor-
(2) Are our conventional thought process- ently poor forecasts when presumed field
responding figure for the Safaniya field in
es in modeling inherently ill-structured to management strategies and facility outlays
the Middle East is about 7 trillion cells. Cells
produce rapid forecasts? are not actually implemented as a result of (1 in. 3 ) will suggest models with roughly
By their very nature, EOR processes in- external factors.
800 trillion cells for the ATLlINB field.
troduce additional levels of complexity to When model forecasts duplicate actual These numbers imply our indefinite need for
forecasting . This discussion relates mainly performance , this can also be misinterpret-
a scale-up process and hence the resulting
to conventional reservoir systems. ed as model validation. In fact , the duplica- uncertainties.
tion could simply reflect compensating
Forecasting Methods errors among the internal and external fac- Homogenization
and Uncertainty tors. The point here is that accurate fore-
An obvious outcome of the scale-up process
Methods and Limits. Current reservoir ' casts do not mean accurate models. (The is homogenization. Porosity/permeability
performance forecasting methods can be hypothetical corollary also appears notewor- transforms, often used to describe permea-
classified into two broad categories: empir- thy: poor forecasts do not necessarily equate bility fields, also contribute to homogenized
ical and mathematical. This paper focuses to poor reservoir models.) The nature of the property assignments in simulation models.
on finite-difference methods because they oil industry limits predictability of external Fig. 2 gives the porosity/permeability core
represent the predominant industry-wide ve- factors, such as exact field operating prac- data for the ATLlINB field. This field ex-
hicle in reservoir evaluations. Empirical tices. At best, multiple forecasts need to be hibits a complex lithology of predominant-
methods , such as decline curves, are use- developed for a range of external factors . ly silica sands intermixed with dolomite. The
ful, yet they have a limited application do- Of the four uncertainty causes in Fig. I, data use of a single-variable transform, represent-
main. Continuation of past production quality and mathematical solutions are be- ed by the solid line, filters the observed
practices and mechanisms is a precondition coming less pronounced, and reservoir variability in the core data. An alternative
for forecast reliability. Likewise, hybrid characterization and scale-up present the approach that would reduce the homogeni-
methods , 1,2 while suitable for a wide class primary obstacles to improving performance zation effect is the use of "cloud trans-
of problems (e.g., miscible, pattern floods) forecasts . forms " developed by Kasischke and
have not yet fully matured to offer a univer- The lack of determinism in both external Williams. 8 Cloud transforms produce
sal forecasting capability. and internal factors suggests only the obvi- property representations in models that can
Lorenz 3 recognized the stochastic nature ous: all reservoir performance forecasts car- mimic distributions observed in real data
and hence the inherent limitations of weather ry a band of uncertainty. Ballin et aL 6 (e.g., cores or logs) . Fig. 3 shows a sam-
forecasting. Lorenz's celebrated " butterfly attempted to quantify this uncertainty for a ple distribution generated by a cloud trans-
special class of problems. Haldorsen and form for the Elk Hills 26 R reservoir. The
'Now with Saudi Aramco. Damsleth 7 described a general methodolo- reservoir is an Upper Miocene submarine
Copyright 1993 Society of Petroleum Engineers gy for producing stochastic forecasts. channel deposit.

July 1993 JPT

 Sources of
Uncertainty in Forecasting
'-~~~~~~-'~~~~-l~~'I~~~1~~~~------,
Reservoir Scale-Up
Characterization
Fig. i-Uncertainty sources.
All forecasting is reservoir-specific and
the historical comparisons given below are
not meant to represent a statistical sampling
of fields. They are interesting examples be-
cause (1) they offer two well-studied fields
and (2) their accuracy aspects are fairly con-
sistent with industry-wide observations. In
this sense, they are not atypical.
ATL Field
The ATL field has been on production since
Dec. 1982, with a production rate of 80,000
BOPD as of Jan. 1993. It contains 33 API0
crude with no associated gas cap. The field
has roughly 40 producers.
A reservoir simulation study was under-
taken during 1986-87 to predict reservoir
performance under natural depletion and
water injection and to assist in the planning
of a regional water injection project. The
model was history matched through March
1987 and calibrated to duplicate field
production rates. Several prediction cases
also were conducted. We now can evaluate
the 1987 forecast accuracies by examining
4 years (Table 1) of production information
(Fig. 4).
Fieldwide, model forecasts appear to
match the ATL production/pressure perfor-
mance during 1987-91 reasonably well.
This is not unexpected. given the continua-
tion of an operational mode (natural deple-
tion) on which the model was history
matched and calibrated. On a well-by-well
basis, individual performance forecasts fared
.05 .15 .25 .35
Core Porosity
Fig. 2-ATLIINB porosity/permeability transform.
JPT. July 1993
! TABLE 1-ATL FIELD CUMULATIVE
L -_ _ _ _--.J : PRODUCTION (JAN. 1, 1987 TO
I
I JAN. 1, 1991), MMSTB/Bscf
I
External
Factors
poorly (Fig. 5). In fact, from gas produc-
tion comparisons, 43 % of the total wells
were considered "busts."
The poor well performance forecast is
neither coincidental nor isolated. Its coin-
cidence with a fairly successful fieldwide
match points to a certain dichotomy between
field and well forecasts. In the latter, un-
certainties appear to be much more ampli-
fied. The increased difficulty in well
performance forecasting is caused by several
factors.
1. Larger near-wellbore potentials, which
amplify the effects of slight reservoir or
wellbore misrepresentations.
2. Manmade factors (poor cement jobs,
casing leaks, stimulation effects) that can
seldom be described or anticipated fully.
3. Sensitivity of well performance to sur-
face conditions (e.g., backpressures), which
can seldom be known on a well-to-well ba-
sis for sustained periods.
4. Frequent absence of high-quality well
production data. Often, individual well rates
are allocated estimates based on metered
flow information on trunklines, flowlines,
etc.
Factor 1 is not unlike Lorenz's butterfly
effect. A minor perturbation in initial reser-
voir descriptions leads to a significant diver-
gence in performance. This apparent
forecasting "instability" is magnified by
near-wellbore potentials. In a larger sense,
the net effect of these factors is to limit se-
verely the reliability of finite-difference
104 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .
"0
E
~ 102
:0
CII
Q)
E
CD
a..
0.00
Fig. 3-Cloud transform.
Difference
Actual Model (%)
~-
~~
Oil 97.5 102.7 4.7
Water 8.0 6.9 14.1
Gas 73.6 85.9 16.6
methods in well performance forecasting.
This assessment, although discomforting,
probably will remain unchanged for the
foreseeable future.
Factors 1 through 3 are not strongly sen-
sitive to ongoing advances in reservoir
characterization. This observation also ex-
plains the apparent inelasticity between tech-
nology changes and improvements in
forecast reliability for wells. The same is
true to a lesser degree for fieldwide fore-
casts where compensating errors for in-
dividual wells tend to dampen field wide
error amplitudes. Factors 2 and 3, for in-
stance, can be predicted more accurately
fieldwide than well by well, and thus the dis-
parity favors field forecast accuracies over
those for wells.
A distinction can also be made between
long- and short-term forecasting. The ac-
curacy of short-term predictions is more sen-
sitive to near-well factors under a set of
external factors. Thus, one can expect, para-
doxically perhaps, better success in estimat-
ing ultimate recoveries than in making a
IO-year production forecast.
The ATL field example also underscores
how external factors, often unpredictable,
affect forecasts. The 1987 study assumed a
waterflood startup of mid-1989 for the water
injection evaluation. Yet the program actu-
ally began in Dec. 1990. Because of the dis-
placement in the startup date, it is difficult
to gauge the true success of the 1987 model
in matching waterflood performance.
0.10 0.20 0.30
Porosity
653
 TABLE 2-NINIAN FIELD ACTUAL
VS. MODEL DIFFERENCE

Difference *
(%)
1976 1985
Based On Model Model
-- --
Cumulative oil 7.6 16.5
production
Cumulative water 27.6 8.9
production
Cumulative water 53.0 5.5
injection
Peak water injection 32.0 14.6
'The 1976 model is based on data from Jan. 1,
1979, to June 1, 1991; the 1985 model is based
on data from Jan. 1, 1984, to June 1, 1991. The
difference is calculated as (actual
modellactual)100%.

Fig. 4-Actual vs. forecast performance (1987-90), ATL field.

Ninian Field
The Ninian field in the North Sea was dis-
covered in Sept. 1973. The reservoir is in
the Middle Jurassic Brent Group. Six ap-
praisal wells followed the two discovery
wells to establish the extent of the field. In
May 1990, 105 wells remained active (73
producers, 32 injectors). The multibillion-
barrel field produced 93 MSTBID in June
1991, with an average water cut of 86 % .
The Ninian field has been the subject of
several finite-difference modeling studies.
The 1976 model was concluded 3 years be-
fore the field came on stream in 1979. The
reservoir and geologic information was
limited to six wells. The 1985 model incor-
porated actual production/injection history
(1979-85).
Table 2 and Figs. 6 and 7 present graphi-
cal comparisons of actual performance vs.
the 1976 and 1985 model forecasts. Differ-
ences in cumulative production and injec-
tion varied from 5.5% to 15.5% and from
7.6% to 53% for the 1976 and 1985 models,
respectively.
Review. As noted, the two field examples
are not meant to represent a statistical sam-
pIing of fields or forecasts. The reported
range of forecast accuracies, however; is
consistent with other field performance
predictions: Casablanca (offshore Spain),
Anoa (Indonesia), Vuko (Angola), Mibale
(Zaire), among others. Some generaliza-
tions, albeit SUbjective, can be made.
1. Barring major geologic and/or reser-
voir data limitations, fieldwide cumulative
production forecast accuracies would tend
to range from 10% to 40%. Availability of
field performance information can push
forecasts to the lower end of the spectrum.
Accuracies below 10% are more likely to
be artifacts of compensating errors or luck
than precise engineering or geology.
2. Well performance forecasts are bound
to be less successful than field wide
predictions.
These observations are not meant to
diminish the value of finite-difference
models. While a 10% to 40% forecast un-
certainty may appear alarming in an abso-
lute sense, the majority of reservoir
engineering decisions require choices based
solely on comparative analyses (e.g.,
peripheral vs. pattern flood). Thus, in select-
ing optimum management strategies, finite-
difference models still offer the most effec-
tive tools.
Acceleration by Parallel
Planning
This discussion addresses two central ques-
tions in finite-difference modeling: (1) Why
do modeling studies often fail to meet es-
tablished deadlines? and (2) Are our conven-
tional thought processes in modeling
inherently flawed? Two approaches-
sequential planning and parallel planning-
are discussed. The recognition of inevita-
ble forecasting uncertainties, as noted in the
field examples, constitutes the philosophi-
cal basis for parallel planning.
Sequential Planning Approach. Historical-
ly, finite-difference reservoir simulation
studies have been conducted with a sequen-
tial planning approach (Fig. 8). Its under-
lying philosophy is a linear logic that
assumes a steady progression from raw data
to final forecasts in five modular steps.
Step 1. Data analysis.
Step 2. Model construction.
Step 3. History matching.

Model vs. Actual (1987 - 1990)

Water Oil Gas

Good 8% Good 31%
Bust26~
"Parallel planning is a
flnltedifference
modeling strategy that
Bust 58% \....J Bust 43%

can be considered the Fair 43%

antithesis of sequential
~ o{1! Differen!:<e
planning." Good <10
Fair 10 to 50
Bust >50
Model - Actual
% Difference = I I x100
Actual

Fig. 5-Well forecast quality based on cumulative production.

654 July 1993 JPT

 500 1400
en 1985
.. " 1976 ~ 1200
~
o
400
oco ,:ir '-'.... ( ~ 1000
6300
./ \
"0
OJ
0
.... 800
tii a..
.... 600
~ 200 ~
"
o E 400 //,,/ t..
100
:::J
()
200
",,"<~ . . . . . . . ..
................ 1976
Actual
o 0
79 81 83 85 87 89 91 79 81 83 85 87 89 91
Time, Year Time, Year

Fig. 6-Actual vs. model forecasts, oil rate vs. time. Fig. 7-Actual vs. model forecasts, cumulative water produc-
tion vs. time.

Step 4. Calibration.
Step 5. Predictions.
In sequential planning, each step can be
started only after the preceding steps are
completed. The process is sequentially con-
ditioned. Thus, predictions will begin after
calibration, which can begin only after all
history-matching steps are finished. Also,
this method presupposes that conditions and
information available at the inception of the
modeling work will remain unchanged (i.e.,
static modeling). The noted dual attributes
of sequential planning (sequential condition-
ing and static modeling) manifest themselves
in several ways:
1. Delays accumulate. Each "problem"
step delays progress on all subsequent steps.
2. Critical flaws can be identified only at
the arbitrary time that they are discovered.
3. When new data become available (e.g.,
PVT or relative permeability information),
the entire sequential process must be repeat-
ed to produce forecasts.
These factors impose severe handicaps in
producing forecasts, namely increased
project times and costs and delayed decisions
(thus missed opportunities).
Delay Accumulation. Delays occur be-
cause each step depends on all preceding
steps. Often, history matching will not be
started because some (but not all) of the rela-
tive permeability or PVT data may be un-
available. Similarly, until the history
matching is considered final, no predictions
are undertaken. Data-acquisition delays
translate directly to forecast delays. In fact,
any delay in the entire process causes a cor-
responding delay in the final delivery.
Critical Flaws. All reservoir modeling
studies, regardless of their complexity, are
likely to encounter some type of problem.
In sequential planning, success depends on
the occurrences (or absences) and locations
of critical flaws. An extreme case may in-
volve a 4O,OOO-cell model, successfully con-
structed and history matched, that displays
severe instabilities in the prediction mode.
In essence, this is a fatal flaw because
predictions cannot be produced owing to ex-
cessive time requirements and/or computer
costs.
New Data Incorporation. Sequential plan-
ning offers little or no flexibility with respect
to incorporating information that becomes
available while studies are in progress. For
instance, the introduction of new reservoir
data during the prediction step suggests that
prediction runs be discontinued and Steps
2 through 5 be repeated. The resulting de-
lays are evident.
Parallel Planning Approach. Parallel plan-
ning is a finite-difference modeling strate-
gy that can be considered the antithesis of
sequential planning. Its conceptual origins
are based on numerous "rush" modeling
studies during the last decade. The rush
evaluations were conducted on a variety of
fields to address a number of reservoir
management decisions under strict time
schedules. Typically, their project deadlines
varied from a few weeks to 6 months.
Scheduling requirements necessitated the use
of unconventional planning methods.
Parallel planning emerged as an unorthodox,
albeit experimental, solution. Advances in
hybrid simulation offer cost-effective solu-
tions for a special class of problems. Their
emergence also underscores the need for
more rapid turnaround times in forecasting.
In essence, parallel planning has five as-
sumptions.
1. Preliminary forecasts are a business
necessity.
2. Problems will arise in all five phases
of modeling.
3. It is not possible to predict a priori
where and when these problems will occur.
4. New information probably will become
available while the study is in progress.
5. Identification of critical flaws is of
paramount importance in all studies.
Parallel planning has several architectur-
al and conceptual analogs. Beta testing in
software installations is one such conceptu-
al example. Parallel processing in computer
hardware offers the architectural analog.
Parallel planning uses several (as opposed
to single) channels to advance from raw in-
formation to a final forecast. The method
uses multiple numerical models: the actual
model and its pseudo model analogs (Figs.
9 through 11).
The actual model rigorously represents
reservoir and geologic information and is
used to produce the definitive forecasts. The

Planned

-
Analyze
Construct
History Match "Well performance
Actual Calibrate forecasts are bound to
Analyze be less successful than
Construct Predict
-HistOry Match
Calibrate fieldwide predictions."
-Predict
Time
Time

Fig. a-Sequential approach in modeling. Fig. 9-Parallel planning.

JPT. July 1993 655

 engineering information. Their function is
Parallel Planning Approach to develop analogous test models quickly to
capture potential software, hardware, model
Actual stability, or other problems. Their numeri-
Model Final cal configuration (grid size/number, orien-
Results
tation, etc.), however, will be identical to

Starl~_...........- the actual model configuration. Pseudo-
models contain synthetic data segments that
are convenient substitutes for actual data be-
cause actual data either are unavailable or
are too time- and resource-consuming to
pseudo . Preliminary
Results construct.

A = Analysis MC = Model Construction
HM = History Match C = Calibration P = Prediction
Fig. i0- Parallel planning .
Pseudo Model
Synthetic
Preliminary Results
Fig. ii-Data flow in parallel planning.
pseudomodels act as testing tools to identi-
fy and eliminate potential problems. They
also help produce rapid, yet preliminary
(beta), forecasts. The information gained
through pseudomodels is networked into the
actual model. The main attributes of parallel
planning include pseudomodels, multichan-
Actual Model
Actual
Rigorous Results
nel progression, identification of critical
flaws, and bypassing of "choke" points. Its
primary benefits are acceleration of model-
ing, and hence final forecasts, and rapid
availability of preliminary forecasts.
Pseudomodels. Pseudomodels represent
gross approximations of actual geologic and
The synthetic data segments Illay repre-
sent any or all of the following reservoir/sur-
face facility parameters.
I. Relative permeability.
2. Permeability (vertical or horizontal).
3. PVT.
4. Well and surface facility.
5. Geologic description (structure, net
sand, etc.).
6. Other (e.g., prediction guidelines).
In parallel planning, several pseu-
domodels may coexist for use at different
times for various reasons. Consider the
hypothetical case of a reservoir evaluation
involving a virgin field using a 30,OOO-cell
(lOOXlOOx3-1ayer) model. One can pro-
ceed with the construction and initialization
of a pseudomodel as soon as the grid dimen-
sions and orientation are determined. This
pseudomodel can have synthetic relative per-
meability and PVT data, assuming that the
actual information will be unavailable for a
while (perhaps 2 to 3 months). Pseudomodel
PVT properties can be approximated with
industry-accepted API correlations, assum-
ing that some limited information exists.
Similarly, neighboring fields on reservoirs
with analogous geologic /lithologic attributes
can be a source for relative permeability
relationships. A gross average permeabil-
ity value can be assigned with appropriate
engineering approximations. Pseudomodel 1,
thus constructed and initialized, will then be
used for test runs.
Any generic problems independent of spe-
cific reservoir parameters can thus be diag-
nosed and corrected early. The majority of
software, hardware, and model stability
problems fall into this category. Similarly,
one can formulate approximate development
scenarios (i.e., production targets, number
of wells, facility constraints) for this virgin
field that can then be used for preliminary
forecasts. The value of these early results
are three-fold: (1) to help identify problems,
(2) to assist in formulating more informed
scenarios for the actual model, and (3) to
provide first-order estimates of reservoir
performance.
Parallel planning also helps in mature-
field studies where history matching is a sig-
nificant portion (e.g., more than 75%) of
the total effort. Sequential planning would
advocate conducting prediction runs only af-
ter the completion of history matching.
History-matching nonuniqueness and the
imprecise forecasts discussed earlier sug-
gest, however, the prudence of using par-
tially history-matched pseudomodels for
preliminary forecasts. The benefits are simi-

656 July 1993 JPT

 TABLE 3-EXAMPLES OF SIMULATION STUDIES CONDUCTED WITH PARALLEL PLANNING

ANCA LlBWA-7 Elk Hills, 26R* ATUINB

---
Study type Prospect evaluation Horizontal well evaluation Mature field recovery Field development
improvement
Simulator Black oil Black oil (CHEARS) Black oil/compositional Black oil (CRS3D)
(CHEARS)
Cells
Number-Active 3,402 17,800 28,359 14,162
(27 x 42 x 3 layers) (89 x 8 x 25 layers) (50x10x74 layers) (32 x 82 x 8 layers)
History period, years 0 2 15 8
Prediction period, 10/5 5/7 15/5 5/4
years/cases
Number of wells 16 2 13 117
Total elapsed time, 2 1 10* 2
months
Total man-months 4.5 2 17 4
Number of active 3 3 4 2
participants
Objectives of study To evaluate various de- To optimize the fracture- To evaluate the effects To optimize placement
velopment scenarios space design and of heterogeneity on of proposed injection
involving gas and vertical placement of a vertical and areal wells
water injection horizontal well sweep efficiency

'Includes 2'/2 months for developing the geostatistic 1T,0del.

lar to those realized for the virgin-field
example.
Parallel vs. Sequential Planning. Fig. 12
shows the principal advantages of parallel
over sequential planning. One qualification
needs to be made: parallel planning involves
additional manpower at any given time be-
cause of the need for simultaneous proc-
essing of the actual model and the
pseudomodels.
On a total-project basis. the manpower re-
quirements always are less for parallel than
for sequential planning. In fact, our finite-
difference studies suggest that the use of
parallel planning can realize resource sav-
ings (labor plus computer) of 10% to 50%
over sequential planning. Precise compari-
sons are unavailable because no modeling
studies were conducted with both sequen-
tial and parallel planning.
Table 3 gives data on four studies con-
ducted with parallel planning. The Elk Hills
26 R study involved a simulation model con-
structed with fractal geostatistics. Its objec-
tive was to evaluate fine- and medium-scale
heterogeneity effects on recovery. Model
complexities (28,000 cells, fine-grid size)
posed a difficult flow simulation problem.
Parallel planning was instrumental in this
project's timely completion.
In summary, the superiority of parallel
planning lies in its spontaneous conformance
to the dynamic and probabilistic nature of
reservoir forecasting.
Conclusions
1. The sequential approach, the conven-
tional finite-difference method, is inherently
ill-structured to produce timely forecasts.
Parallel planning offers an alternative that
can significantly accelerate forecasting.
Recognition of inevitable forecasting uncer-
tainties constitutes the philosophical basis for
parallel planning.
2. The apparent inelasticity between im- Parallel vs. Sequential Approach
provements in forecasting accuracy and Advantages
technological advances can be explained in Critical Flaws _ Identified Early
terms of the nature of the causal factors, Delays Do Not Accumulate
e.g., near-wellbore uncertainties and surface Elapsed TIme Less
conditions. Overall Cost _ Less
3. Actual field examples tend to suggest (Manpower/Computer)
that fieldwide cumulative production fore-
cast accuracies range from 10% to 40 %.
Well performance forecasts are bound to be Fig. 12-Advantages of parallel vs. se-
less successful. quential planning.
4. Reservoir performance forecasting is
5. Saleri, N.G.: "Discussion of Stochastic
bound to remain probabilistic indefinitely.
Modeling," JPT (July 1990) 929.
6. Ballin, P., Journel, A., and Aziz, K.: "Pre-
Acknowledgments diction of Uncertainty of Reservoir Perfonn-
ance Forecasting," paper CIM 91-88 presented
I thank the managements of Chevron E&P
at the 1991 CIM/AOSTRA Conference, Banff,
Services, Cabinda Gulf, Chevron U.K.,
April 21-24.
AGIP, Sonongal, Enterprise, Lasmo, Mur-
7. Haldorsen, H.H. and Damsleth, E.: "Stochas-
phy/Ocean, Neste, Oryx, and Ranger for
tic Modeling," JPT (April 1990) 404.
permission to publish this work. Sharon A.
8. Kasischke, W.F. and Williams, G.R.: "Reser-
Sloan's valuable help in the preparation of voir Characterization by a 'Cloud' Transfonn:
the manuscript is acknowledged. Also, the Elk Hills 26R," report No. EPAD920050, "
contributions of my reservoir engineer- Chevron E&P Services Co., Houston (1992).
ing colleagues-particularly Robert M.
Toronyi, Chul-Hee K. Chun, and Mark A. 51 Metric Conversion Factors
Williams-to the intellectual foundation of
'API 141.5/(131.5+' API) = g/cm 3
the work are appreciated. bbl x 1.589 873 E-Ol = m)
ft x 3.048* E-Ol = m
References ft3 x 2.831685 E-02 = m3
in. X 2.54 E+OO = cm
1. Emanuel, A.S. et ai.: "Reservoir Perfonnance
md X 9.869 233 E-04 = I'm'
Prediction Methods Based on Fractal Geostatis- psi x 6.894757 E+OO = kPa
tics," SPERE (Aug. 1989)' 311; Trans.,
AIME,287. Conversion factor is exact.
2. Hewett, T .A. and Behrens, R.A.: "Condition-
al Simulation of Reservoir Heterogeneity With Provenance
Fractals," SPEFE (Sept. 1990) 217; Trans.,
AIME,289. Original SPE manuscript, Reservoir Per-
3. Lorenz, E.N.: "Nonlinear Statistical Weather formance Forecasting: Limits Field Ex-
Predictions," paper presented at the 1980 amples and Acceleration by Parallel
World Meterological Organization Symposi- Planning, received for review May 6, 1992.
um on Probabilistic and Statistical Methods in Revised manuscript received Jan. 13, 1993.
Weather Forecasting, Nice, Sept. 8-12. Paper (SPE 25151) accepted for publication
4. Saleri, N.G., Toronyi, R.M., and Snyder, May 10, 1993.
D .E.: "Data and Data Hierarchy, " JPT (Dec.
1992) 1286; Trans., AIME, 293. JPT

JPT July 1993 657