Probabilistic Forecasting and Model
Validation for the First-Eocene Large-Scale
Pilot Steamflood, Partitioned Zone,
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait
W. Terry Osterloh and Don S. Mims, Chevron Energy Technology Company; and
W. Scott Meddaugh, Chevron Global Upstream and Gas
Summary
The First-Eocene heavy-oil reservoir (1E) in the Wafra field is a
candidate for steamflooding because of its world-class resource
base and low-estimated primary recovery. However, industry has
little experience in steamflooding carbonate reservoirs, which has
prompted the staging of several 1E steamflooding tests, the latest
of which is the large-scale pilot (LSP) started in 2009. To assist in
facilities design, to help understand expected performance in a
very heterogeneous reservoir, and to provide input to early-deci-
sion analyses, numerical thermal simulation was used to generate
probabilistic forecasts. When adequate pilot history was available,
the model was validated with probabilistic methods.
The LSP model contained 1.5 million cells, which allowed the
maintenance of adequate resolution and proper boundary condi-
tions in the pilot area. Parallel computation enabled a probabilistic
workflow to be implemented with this large thermal model.
In this paper, we highlight the methodologies and inputs used
to generate the probabilistic forecasts and validate the model.
Major results of this work include the following: In contrast to
many greenfield forecasts, the LSP forecasts were conservative,
likely because of the unique aspects of the forecasting methodol-
ogy, proper selection of uncertainty ranges, and the relatively
high density of input data for model construction; wide variations
in production metrics were forecast, indicative of a highly hetero-
geneous reservoir; results indicated that the validated model
adequately captured the global or statistical pilot heterogeneity,
enabling proper capture of steamflood flow/drainage mechanisms;
and despite this heterogeneity, forecast oil-recovery levels were
comparable with those observed in steamfloods in sandstone
reservoirs.
Introduction
The 1E is in the Wafra field in the Partitioned Zone (PZ), Saudi
Arabia and Kuwait (Fig. 1). Discovered in 1953, it is the shallow-
est of five significant producing reservoirs at Wafra and contains
world-class volumes of heavy oil—more than 10 bbl of 13 to
19 API oil (Meddaugh et al. 2007). A simplified stratigraphic col-
umn for the PZ is shown in Fig. 2. The 1E averages a 750-ft thick-
ness with a gross average porosity of 35% and a gross average
permeability of 250 md on the basis of core-plug measurements.
The 1E is a depletion-drive reservoir with partial-solution gas
drive and limited aquifer support. The aquifer support is not suffi-
cient to maintain reservoir pressure at the current production rate.
Oil recovery by primary production to date is approximately 5%,
which makes the 1E a large enhanced-oil-recovery (EOR) target.
Screening studies (Hale 2002) showed that continuous steam-
flooding was the best EOR method for the reservoir, which placed
it among the few steamfloods to date in carbonate rock (Naka-
Copyright V
C 2013 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 150580) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Heavy Oil Conference
and Exhibition, Kuwait City, Kuwait, 12–14 December 2011, and revised for publication.
Original manuscript received for review 7 November 2011. Revised manuscript received for
review 31 October 2012. Paper peer approved 10 December 2012.
February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
mura et al. 1995; Bahonar et al. 2007; Das 2007; Manrique et al.
2007; Penney et al. 2007). The screening studies were confirmed
by dynamic modeling and economic analyses, which led to the de-
cision for a steamflood pilot (Barge et al. 2009). The initial pilot
small scale test (SST) consisted of a single 1.25-acre inverted five
spot with central injector and one temperature observation well
(TOW). The SST’s primary objectives were to test long-term
injectivity and water-treatment technology as a prelude to the
larger 16-inverted-five-spot-pattern pilot (2.5-acre spacing) known
as the LSP. The location of the two pilots is shown on the structure
map for the 1E in Fig. 3. Steam injection at the SST began in 2006
and currently continues primarily to evaluate scale- and corrosion-
mitigation options (Barge et al. 2009). Steam injection into the
LSP C-Zone, which is the focus of this paper, began in 2009. After
the demonstration of reservoir response to continuous steam injec-
tion, the project was recompleted to the B-Zone. Steam injection
into the LSP B-Zone was scheduled to begin in October 2011. Fig.
4 shows a type log for the LSP and a crossplot of porosity and per-
meability for all available core-plug data. Note that core-perme-
ability values range up to 15,000 md.
Geology
The 1E is composed mainly of highly dolomitized, meter-scale
depositional cycles of basal peloid dolopackstones (subtidal) that
were capped by peloid dolowackestones and dolomudstones (Bach-
tel et al. 2011). The 1E production largely comes from dolomitized
peloidal wackestones, packstones, and grainstones. The abundance
of evaporites and the low abundance of normal marine fauna suggest
that 1E deposition took place on a shallow, gently dipping, and gen-
erally restricted ramp environment. Subsequent chemostratigraphy,
magnetostratigraphy, and biostratigraphic work confirmed the initial
core and well log with stratigraphy for the 1E (Montgomery et al.
2011).
The diagenetic history of the reservoir is very complex and
begins with an early period of dolomitization/dissolution of depo-
sitional CaCO3. This episode was followed by a period of the dis-
solution of dolomite and precipitation of anhydrite cement. The
final late-stage period includes anhydrite dissolution and calcite
cementation. Pollitt and Saller (2011) concluded that, on the basis
of petrographic and isotope analyses, bacterial sulfate reduction
(BSR) was responsible for dissolving the sulfate nodules, the pre-
cipitation of calcite cement and native sulfur, and the biodegrada-
tion of the oil. BSR also likely contributes to the high sulfur
content of the oil. The very high porosity in this reservoir is likely
related to its shallow burial and early oil emplacement (Pollitt and
Saller 2011). Oil emplacement is not fully understood, but it is
believed to have occurred in one or more relatively recent phases
and may be continuing at present (Patience et al. 2011). The per-
meability variability in the reservoir is related to depositional fa-
cies and stratigraphic position. There is little evidence of areal or
geographical variations in diagenetic-facies distribution at the
overall field scale (Pollitt and Saller 2011).
Some fractures occur in the reservoir, but a core and formation
microimage (FMI)-based interpretative study together with
97
 N

Kuwait

Ara
Mina
South Umm Gudair

bia
Saud

nG
Wafra

ulf
Kuwait Partitioned Kuwait
Saudi Arabia
Zone Saudi Arabia

South Khafji
Fuwaris

Humma
Arq

Saudi Arabia
0 5 10 20

Kilometers

Fig. 1—Map showing the approximate location of major fields in the PZ. The large, central field is Wafra.

Miocene
Oligocene Kuwait G
p
Eocene
Tertiary

Rus
First E
ocene
Seco
nd An
Paleocene hydrite
Seco
nd Eo
cene

Maastricht. Tayra
t

Sad
Senonian i an
dR
um
aila
Cretaceous

Ah
ma
di
Wa
Cenomanian ra
Bur
gan

Albian
Rat
awi
Rat
awi
ooli
Aptian Arab te
S
Hithulaiy
Barremian

Neocomian

Fig. 2—A simplified stratigraphic column for the Wafra field, PZ, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, showing major producing intervals. The
First-Eocene reservoir is the shallowest reservoir at the Wafra field. The other major producing zones are the Second Eocene
(includes the informally named 1[3/4] eocene reservoir), Maastrichtian, Wara, and Ratawi oolite reservoirs. All the major reservoirs
are carbonate reservoirs except for the Wara sandstone reservoir (after Dvoretsky et al. 2012).

98 February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 limited available dynamic data do not support the 1E as a
“classic” fractured reservoir (Playton et al. 2011).

Static Model
SST
A detailed static model for the LSP was generated to support
dynamic modeling. The reservoir properties by stratigraphic inter-
val for the LSP area of the 1E ranged as follows: unit thickness—
7 to 57 ft; average porosity—24 to 43%; average water saturation

Ma
(Sw)—27 to 59%; and permeability 20 to 960 md (Meddaugh

in
et al. 2007). Table 1 provides a summary of the semivariogram-

Ar
model parameters used to build the LSP area static model. Geo-

ea
statistical analysis of the pilot project and surrounding wells
W

yields semivariogram models with an average XY range of 290 m

es
tA

(range 135 to 480 m). Wells at full-field development spacing

re

(approximately 500 m) in the same part of the field give semivar-

a

Southeast iogram-model range values of approximately 1600 m, a factor 4

Area to 5 times larger than that obtained from the pilot-project wells.
This is consistent with the view of Western and Bloschl (1999)—
LSP as the data density increases (data spacing decreases), the semi-
variogram-range parameter decreases. Meddaugh et al. (2010)
showed that the difference between semivariogram ranges derived
Fig. 3—Structure map for top of the First-Eocene reservoir only from the LSP project data and those derived from the full-
shows the location of the two steamflood pilots. SST 5 the sin- field data had no significant impact of steamflood-recovery fore-
gle 1.25-acre five-spot-pattern pilot; LSP 5 the 16-inverted-five- casts. The anisotropy (as measured by the ratio of the Range 1
spot-pattern pilot (2.5 acre). The SST is in the main area of the
value to the Range 2 value) is generally very low. The full-field
reservoir, and the LSP is in the west area of the reservoir (modi-
fied from Meddaugh et al. 2011a, b). Note that producing wells static model was populated by use of the following “standard”
are offset from the structural high somewhat to the east (most workflow: porosity distributed with sequential Gaussian simula-
apparent in the west area). According to Rowan et al. (2012), tion constrained by stratigraphic layer; permeability distributed by
this apparent offset may reflect the impact of hydrodynamic cloud transform with calibration data appropriate to the strati-
effects and oil biodegradation. graphic layer for intervals above the EOC900 surface and all

Core Porosity Vs. Permeability (log10) Type Log for First Eocene
5
VOL_UWAT_1
01 v/v

4 DEPTH CSW_2
CPOR_2
01
VOL_UOIL_1
v/v
10
TVDSS

VOL_GYPSUM_1

TOPS
0.50 V/V
SWIRR_WFS_2 01 v/v
FEET

FEET

CALI_1
3 020 IN
RXO
0.22000 OHMM
CPERM_1
0.110000 MD
10 V/V 0.50
VOL_UOIL_1
V/V 01
VOL_ANHYDR_1
v/v
GRN_1 RT PERM_3 SWT_1 VOL_UWAT_1 VOL_DOLOM_1
080 GAPI 0.22000 OHMM 0.110000 MD 10 V/V 0.50 V/V 01 v/v

2
Log10 Perm

400
B1A
1
0
450
1100 E1
SZ1
–1
–2 500

–3
–4 550
SZ1
1200

E12a
–5
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 600

Porosity E12

Steamflood 650
1300 SZ3
Average Porosity and Sw Pilot TT

1.00
Completions 700
Mean PHIE of Stratigraphic Interval

0.90
0.80 Producers 750
1400

0.70 Injectors
0.60 800

0.50
0.40 850
1500

0.30
0.20 900

0.10
0.00 950
1600
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00
Relative Stratigraphic Depth (Feet; EOC000 = 0)
1000 BODC1

Fig. 4—Right—Type log at right shows the vertical variability of the reservoir interval. Curves shown (left to right) are gamma ray
and caliper; depth with 2007 stratigraphic interval names, resistivity; core and regression-based calculated permeability; core and
calculated well-log water saturation; core and calculated well-log porosity; and log-derived mineralogy in which purple indicates
dolomite, yellow indicates gypsum, pink indicates anhydrite, green indicates oil saturation, and blue indicates water saturation.
SZ labels are shown at far right; blue arrow corresponds to approximate depth of only known vertical barrier to steam at the SST
pilot. Bottom left—Plot showing the variation of average porosity and Sw by stratigraphic depth. Red bar shows the location of SZ-
3 injection perforations, and green bar shows location of SZ-3 producer completions. Black and gray bars show the same for the
SZ-2 completions (injection into SZ-2 began in late 2011). Top left—Gives a summary of the core-plug data for First-Eocene reser-
voir. Note the large number of plugs with measured porosity greater than 50%. Maximal measured core-plug permeability is
approximately 15,000 md (from Meddaugh et al. 2011a, b).

February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 99

 TABLE 1—SEMIVARIOGRAM PARAMETERS—POROSITY (LSP AREA)

Azimuth, degrees Range Range

Interval from north 1 (m) 2 (m) Nugget Sill Form

EOC000 (top) 148 284 225 0 0.8 Exponential

EOC050 154 250 139 0 1 Exponential
EOC100 37 259 193 0 1 Exponential
EOC180 74 176 109 0 1 Exponential
EOC200 24 250 100 0 1 Exponential
EOC210 36 204 177 0 1 Exponential
EOC300 69 166 161 0 1 Exponential
EOC400 37 246 179 0 1 Exponential
EOC500 122 224 118 0 1 Exponential
EOC510 47 213 199 0 1 Exponential
EOC600 133 212 162 0 1 Exponential
EOC620 119 150 102 0 1 Exponential
EOC700 57 186 165 0 1 Exponential
EOC800 64 208 174 0 0.8 Exponential
EOC900 19 278 207 0 0.8 Exponential
EOC1000 90 298 232 0 1 Exponential
EOC1200 81 229 131 0 1 Exponential

core-plug data for intervals below the EOC900 surface; and Sw
distributed by colocated cokriging with SGS constrained by strati-
graphic layer by use of the previously distributed porosity as soft
data and the layer- specific correlation coefficient between poros-
ity and Sw. The layer-specific correlation coefficients varied from
0.5 to 0.8. Additional details regarding the workflow and its
application to this reservoir are provided by Meddaugh et al.
(2005a) and Meddaugh et al. (2007). The use of petrophysically
derived lithofacies as an additional constraint was investigated
but not ultimately used because of a relatively low correlation
between predicted and actual lithofacies in the validation wells.
The LSP model covers a 1.7  1.7-km area (Fig. 5), and it was
generated with a 5-m areal cell size. The 5-m areal grid was used
to ensure that there were at least 10 to 15 cells between wells in

West East West East

EOC000 EOC000
EOC050 EOC050
EOC100 EOC100
EOC180 EOC180
EOC200 EOC200
EOC210 EOC210
EOC300 EOC300

EOC400 EOC400

EOC500 EOC500
EOC510 EOC510

EOC600 EOC600
EOC620 EOC620
EOC700 EOC700

EOC800 EOC800

EOC900 EOC900
0.2 Porosity 0.6 0.0 Sw 0.8

West East West East

EOC000 EOC000
EOC050 EOC050
EOC100 EOC100
EOC180 EOC180
EOC200 EOC200
EOC210 EOC210
EOC300 EOC300

EOC400 EOC400

EOC500 EOC500
EOC510 EOC510

EOC600 EOC600
EOC620 EOC620
EOC700 EOC700

EOC800 EOC800

EOC900 EOC900
Stratigraphic Layers in Model 1 Perm2 (log10) 4

Fig. 5—West-to-east cross-sections from LSP model (only immediate LSP area is shown; about 1600 ft horizontal, 300 ft vertical).
Shown clockwise from upper left are porosity, water saturation, permeability (log10), and stratigraphic layer. Ball markers show C
Zone (Steam Zone 3) perforations.

100 February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 Swir Sw Sw - Swir
400

500

Sub-sea Depth (ft)

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Saturation

Fig. 7—An example of Sw, Swir , and their difference as a func-

Fig. 6—3D view (exaggerated vertical dimension) of LSP “tartan
grid” model showing refined cells in C and B zones in the cen-
tral 40-acre pilot region and increasingly upscaled regions out-
side of this area. Also shown are the 25 production and 16
injection pilot wells and the existing (prepilot) primary produc-
tion wells in the surrounding “buffer” region.
the pilot area, including injectors, producers, and temperature-
observation wells (Meddaugh et al. 2011a, b). Vertical layering is
nominally 0.3 m (1 ft). The static-model dimensions (X, Y, Z)
were 334  334  651, respectively, which give approximately 73
million total cells.
Dynamic Model
To create the LSP dynamic model, a flow-based method was used
to vertically scale up the static model by approximately 3:1 in
both the B-Zone and the C-Zone, with increasingly higher ratios
used in the A-Zone and deeper sections. To best maintain the flow
characteristics of possible barriers/baffles to vertical fluid migra-
tion, evaporite-rich layers were not scaled up. Cells were not
scaled up areally in the central 40-acre pilot and a 50-m belt sur-
rounding this region. However, outside of this inner region, cells
were progressively scaled up to as high as 20:1. This gridding
method provided superior parallel computational performance
compared with the use of local grid refinement, and it gave the
model a tartan-like appearance (Fig. 6). The large “buffer region”
surrounding the pilot (16:1 area ratio) enabled the physics at pilot
boundaries to be properly modeled. Total model and pilot-area
cell-areal dimensions were 119  119 and 80  80, respectively.
With 106 layers, the total model-cell count was 1.5 million. The
tion of depth, sampled from the center column of cells in a
probabilistic LSP model.
pilot consisted of 16 2.5-acre-spaced inverted-five-spot patterns
with 25 production wells, 16 injection wells, and 16 temperature-
observation wells.
Initial model porosity, permeability, and saturations were
derived from the static model. Irreducible water saturation (Swir)
was calculated as a function of Sw and depth. A plot of Sw and Swir
from the center of a probabilistic model is shown in Fig. 7.
Probabilistic Forecasts
Computation. LSP forecasts were generated with the company’s
thermal simulation code running in parallel mode on a distrib-
uted-memory 108-node Linux cluster with 648 active cores. Each
case used 5 nodes, which enabled 21 cases to run concurrently.
Model Conditioning. To condition model saturation and pres-
sure to levels present at the start of steam injection (starting condi-
tions for the subsequent steamflood probabilistic forecasts), the
model was validated to the primary production of oil and water
from 1958 to July 2009. For this step, a simple deterministic vali-
dation procedure was used instead of a more complex probabilis-
tic method. Comparisons of historical and validated model
forecasts for primary production are shown in Fig. 8. Model pres-
sure in the LSP area was within 10 psi of the field pressures meas-
ured before steam injection.
Model Configuration. Steam quality was 85% for all simulation
cases, and the initial injection rate was 1,500 STB/D. To incorpo-
rate the impact of a common steamflood best practice, heat

Oil Match and 20% History Error Band Water Match and 20% History Error Band
3.5E+07 3.0E+07
Sim Cum Oil Sim Cum Water
3.0E+07 History Cum Oil 2.5E+07 History Cum Water
Cumulative Water (stb)
Cumulative Water (stb)

2.5E+07
2.0E+07

2.0E+07
1.5E+07
1.5E+07
1.0E+07
1.0E+07

5.0E+06
5.0E+06

0.0E+00 0.0E+00
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
DATE DATE

Fig. 8—Comparison of forecasts from the deterministically validated model and historical primary production oil (left) and water
(right) from 1958 to the startup of the LSP pilot. The gray areas represent error bands (620%) for the historical data.

February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 101

 1600
Steam Injection Rate (stb/day)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0 The use of metamodels is pervasive in many fields of engineer-
Date
Fig. 9—Steam-injection-rate schedule for simulation cases
used to generate probabilistic forecasts.
management (decreasing steam-injection rate as steamflood
matures) was used in all cases. Time to steam breakthrough at pro-
ducers is a metric that can help guide the time to start heat manage-
ment. As will be seen later, forecast steam-breakthrough times
(SBTs) varied widely, making impractical any attempt to develop
steam schedules for each injector. Therefore, heat management
was started simultaneously at all injectors when steam break-
through had been achieved at approximately 80% of the producers.
The steam schedule used for all injectors is shown in Fig. 9. Pilot
production and injection wells were configured as follows:
 Producer maximal fluid lift: 1,850 res bbl fluid/D
 Producer steam-production rate: unconstrained
 Producer minimal flowing bottomhole pressure: 27 psia
 Producer-casing backpressure: 25 psia
 Producer completions: bottom of C-Zone plus 50 to 60 ft
above
 Injector maximal initial steam-injection rate: 1,500 STB/D
 Injector maximal flowing bottomhole pressure: 650 psia
 Injector completions: bottom of C-Zone plus 10 to 20 ft
above
Probabilistic-Forecasting Workflow and
Uncertainty Factors
Managing the risks associated with forecasts from numerical res-
ervoir models has been a very active research topic within the pe-
troleum industry (Meddaugh et al. 2011a, b). The risk inherent in
the use of a single deterministic-model forecast for making invest-
ment decisions in major capital projects in existing or new fields
is widely recognized. The dominant risk is attributed to the sub-
stantial uncertainties in the subsurface model factors (inputs) that
control the forecast responses (outputs). These factor uncertainties
arise from sparse or often absent data; when factor data are avail-
able, uncertainty arises from random errors made in data collec-
tion and/or measurements (i.e., noisy data). The geological and
engineering models are themselves imperfect representations of
the subsurface geology and physics of fluid flow.
When historical production data are available, the numerical-
model factors are adjusted to validate the model to improve the
match between the model prediction and the historical responses.
This step is performed with the intent to reduce the uncertainty in
forecasting future production. However, this is a difficult, ill-con-
ditioned problem that in the past produced a single deterministic,
nonunique match that provided no information regarding forecast
uncertainty. Much progress has been made in recent years to de-
velop probabilistic frameworks around greenfield (new fields with
no history) forecasts and model validation. Probabilistic-model
forecasts and calibrations provide assessments of project uncer-
tainty and risk that were unavailable with the old deterministic
methods. In addition, researchers realized that these methods pro-
vided a new means for assisting or substantially automating the
model-calibration process.
102
A comprehensive review of the various methods reported for
developing probabilistic forecasts and calibrated models is beyond
the scope of this paper. Briefly, the methods can be grouped into
two major categories: those that iteratively use the actual finite-dif-
ference simulation codes in combination with various optimization
routines (Landa et al. 2005; Castellini et al. 2006; Choudhary et al.
2007) and those that build metamodels (mathematical approxima-
tions to expensive computer models) that are then used with a sim-
ilar range of optimization methods (Cullick et al. 2006; Rodriguez
et al. 2007; Schaff et al. 2008; Slotte and Smorgrav 2008). The lat-
ter method was used for this work.
ing design (Simpson et al. 2001; Barton et al. 2006). Although the
literature in this field is extensive and the options are many, the
approach chosen for this work was originally developed by statisti-
cians (Sacks et al. 1989a, b; Welch et al. 1992).
Probabilistic LSP forecasts and model validation were per-
formed by use of a workflow developed by Osterloh (2008) with
the commercially available statistics program “JMP” from SAS
Institute Incorporated. The method consists of four main steps,
which are briefly reviewed next.
Step 1—Design of Experiment and Simulation. If uncertainty
factors that significantly affect the forecast responses are
unknown, a screening design is typically used first to identify the
factors that are significant. Although it is tempting and common-
place to use nearly saturated Resolution III designs for screening
[e.g., Plackett-Burman (PB)], it is not well-known that such
designs may be inappropriate for experiments in which factors
interact. Our experience has shown that PB designs should not be
used for screening reservoir-simulation experiments because fac-
tors have been identified as significant when they were not and
vice versa. Resolution IV designs (e.g., folded-PB) are appropri-
ate for screening. To prevent the creation of metamodels plagued
with large predictive errors, it is important to identify all factors
that significantly affect the responses of interest. Equally impor-
tant, all responses of interest must be identified and used in the
screening because the sets of significant factors will likely not be
identical for all responses. Any factor found significant, even for
just one of many responses, must be carried forward.
Next, a design that will be used to create the metamodel must
be chosen. Designs that were meant for use with physical experi-
ments focus the factor settings near the perimeter of the design
space, because of the random error associated with such experi-
ments. These designs provide little benefit for building metamodels
of reservoir-simulation computer experiments for the following
reasons: Computer experiments are deterministic—they are free of
random error—and because these designs do not sample the entire
design space, the predictive accuracy of the metamodel, which is
paramount, is likely to be poor.
Space-filling designs, such as Latin-hypercube sampling (LHS),
have been widely used for sampling the multidimensional factor
space of computer experiments, X (the number of factors or inputs)
(McKay et al. 1979). Space-filling designs are useful in situations in
which run-to-run variability is of far less concern than the form of
the model. Briefly, an LHS divides each dimension of X into n inter-
vals; n points in X are selected with the property that when projected
onto any dimension, exactly one point is in each of the intervals for
that dimension. When projected onto any dimension, the points in
an LHS are spread evenly along that dimension. Additional refine-
ments, such as maximin conditioning (the minimal distance between
any pair of n points in X is maximized), further improve the LHS
design. More thorough and regular sampling of the factor space,
coupled with the fact that they are relatively easy to generate in mul-
tiple dimensions, accounts for the popularity of maximin LHS.
Factor levels from an LHS are usually generated in coded
form, ranging from 1 to 1. Typically, at this stage, engineers
and Earth scientists must specify the uncoded (actual) values that
correspond to 1 and 1 (i.e., the lower and upper ranges of the
factors, respectively). The uncoded levels are needed later for
building the simulation decks.
February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 There are no formal specifications for sizing n—the number of
intervals (i.e., the number of simulation cases to run)—in an LHS.
Obviously, as the complexity of the underlying simulation func-
tion increases, n must increase to prevent increased metamodel
predictive error. Recent work suggested that when the predictive
accuracy of metamodels is important, the uniformity of the space-
filling design, excluding extremely nonuniform cases, was less
important than ensuring adequate sample size (Liu 2005). Error
analysis is typically used to determine whether an LHS has a suf-
ficiently large n. Error levels between simulator responses (these
responses are generated with a separate, usually smaller, LHS)
and metamodel responses are used to evaluate the adequacy of
LHS size. In our applications, metamodel predictive accuracy was
adequate (error statistic is unpublished) when n was calculated as
the total terms in a second-order polynomial, times a factor rang-
ing between 1.0–1.5.
n ¼ ðX þ 1ÞðX þ 2Þ=2  ð1:0 to 1:5Þ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð1Þ
To date, LHS with X as large as 13 and n up to 160 has been cre-
ated with no difficulty. Next, simulation cases are constructed
with the LHS design and are run. We use a custom Excel/VBA
application to quickly build error-free decks.
Step 2—Metamodel Creation. To provide a means of calculat-
ing responses from unknown factor levels, metamodels are cre-
ated by fitting the design factors from each simulation case to
every simulation response of interest. Least-squares multiple
regression has often been used to easily fit the responses to
explicit lower-order polynomials. However, fit is often poor,
yielding models with poor predictive accuracy, which thus give
poor results in Step 4. Higher-order polynomials could be used,
but they can be troubled by instabilities or require too large of a
design to estimate all coefficients (Simpson et al. 2001). Metamo-
dels created by fitting second-order polynomials to our data were
found to give unacceptably high predictive errors, likely resulting
from the nonlinear nature of the responses.
Nonparametric Gaussian-process (kriging) models are appro-
priate for modeling random-error-free computer responses of
unknown character. Kriging treats the computer responses as if
they were a realization of a stochastic process (Sacks et al. 1989a).
A kriging model is a combination of a polynomial regression
model plus departures modeled as the realization of a normally
distributed Gaussian random process with mean zero, variance r2,
and nonzero covariance (Sacks et al. 1989b). A kriging model pla-
ces the fit exactly through the known points and provides optimal
interpolation in between. However, kriging fits were not widely
used because they are more complex and can be very large and dif-
ficult to import into other software. These difficulties were recently
eliminated when kriging became available in a commercial statis-
tics program that also integrated all the other process steps. Using
LHS designs of the size discussed previously, we find that the pre-
dictive error of kriging-derived metamodels is typically 610%.
Step 3—Optimization Targets: Create or Identify. If model
validation is the objective, historical responses serve as optimiza-
tion targets needed for the fourth step. These typically are cumu-
lative oil/water/gas sampled at various times, but they can be any
forecast response that is deemed important for proper model vali-
dation. If the work objective is generating probabilistic models/
forecasts, then the targets are response levels that correspond to
particular percentiles, determined with Monte Carlo simulation.
Step 4—Multiple-Response Optimization and Confirmation.
The final step is to find a factor set or sets that yield an appropriate
level of a response or responses when plugged back into the simu-
lation deck and run (i.e., confirmed). Finding a factor set that
yields the appropriate level for a single forecast response is trivial,
as easy as picking out a set from a listing of Monte Carlo results.
However, as will be discussed in more detail later in this paper, a
February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
model in which a single response is at an appropriate level is still
quite highly unconstrained, and thus much less useful compared
with a model in which multiple responses are at appropriate lev-
els. Achieving the latter goal requires the use of multiple-
response-optimization (MRO) methods.
The MRO method used in this workflow was derived from
desirability functions, which balance ease of use with the time-
tested ability to find an optimum. Other attractive features of the
desirability approach include the ability to weigh responses and
optimize responses with different units. Desirability functions
were first proposed as a criterion for response optimization by
Harrington (1965) and were popularized by Derringer and Suich
(1980).
The desirability approach is one of the most widely used meth-
ods in industry for dealing with the optimization of multiple
responses (NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods
2003). It assigns a “score” to a set of responses and chooses factor
settings that maximize that score. The method was created with
the idea that the “quality’’ of a product or process that has multi-
ple quality characteristics, with one of them outside of some
“desired” limit, is completely unacceptable. The method finds
operating conditions x (in our case, levels for each factor in a
response metamodel) that provide the “most desirable’’ response
values (e.g., in our case, the response level closest to its target).
For each response Yi(x), a desirability function di(Yi) assigns num-
bers between zero and unity to the possible values of Yi, with
di(Yi) ¼ 0 representing a completely undesirable response and
unity representing a completely desirable or ideal response. The
individual desirabilities are then combined by the use of the geo-
metric mean, which gives the overall desirability D a single objec-
tive function amenable to optimization:
D ¼ ½w1 d1 ðY1 Þ  w2 d2 ðY2 Þ  …  wk xdk ðYk Þ1=k . . . . . . . ð2Þ
Variable k denotes the number of responses being simultane-
ously optimized. In addition, each Yi(x) response can be weighd
by wi. Notice that if any response i is completely undesirable
[di(Yi) ¼ 0], then the overall desirability is zero. For this work, the
desirability functions hard-wired into a statistics code were used
because they are smooth and work well with the code’s optimiza-
tion algorithms. Depending on whether a particular response Yi is
to maximize, minimize, or match a target, different desirability
functions can be used. A useful feature of this MRO method is
that different optimization goals (maximize, minimize, or match
target) can be simultaneously used with different responses.
In this work, the MRO objective was to match a target. Results
of the optimization are multiple solutions ranked by D. A solution
is simply a set of factor levels that produced a match (of some
rank D) between all the specified metamodel responses and tar-
gets. These multiple solutions provide the probabilistic framework
for this method.
We suggest that this workflow creates probabilistic forecast
models that are physically more realistic than those created with
older methods. The new method constrains the forecast model just
as model validation constrains a model, except in this case the
model is constrained by response probability levels instead of his-
toric production levels. Furthermore, the method constrains the
models to a greater degree than older methods because factor sol-
utions are found for multiple responses instead of a single
response. With older methods, typically only one response from a
model has the desired probability level—probability levels of
other responses of interest in that model will be distributed seem-
ingly randomly. For example, with older methods, cumulative oil
may be at the desired P50 level, but cumulative water may be at
its P05 level and SBT at its P95 level. However, with the MRO
method (Osterloh 2008), all responses of interest will be near the
same desired probability level. The only way to attempt overcom-
ing these older-method limitations is to develop separate models
for each response. However, downsides to this include substan-
tially increased future workload when using these models and that
each response model for a particular probability level necessarily
describes an independent physical process.
103
 TABLE 2—UNCERTAINTY FACTORS AND RANGES USED IN THE LATIN-HYPERCUBE DESIGN

Uncoded Uncoded
Factor Minimum Maximum Description

f_kx_mult 0.5 8 Global x- and y-perm multiplier

f_kz_mult 0.1 8 Global z-perm multiplier
f_soi_mult 0.65 1.04 Global oil-saturation multiplier
f_viso 396 6422 Dead-oil viscosity
f_sorg 0.05 0.2 Residual oil saturation (ROS) to gas
f_swir_mult 0.6 1 Irreducible water-saturation multiplier
f_sorw_mult 1 1.67 ROS to water multiplier
f_krw 0.3 0.6 Water relative permeability at ROS

Krw Max Oil Wet Krw Max Water Wet

evidence of areally significant barriers in TOW data within the
Krow Max Oil Wet Krow Max Water Wet zone and time period of interest. Future studies, including those
1.0 with a B-Zone data basis, will be needed to address the impact of
0.9 barriers and baffles on forecasts.
The Latin-hypercube design created with these eight factors is
0.8 not documented, but was sized at 60 runs. Seven years of steam-
0.7 flooding was simulated. Relative permeability curves, which
0.6 describe the range of rock wettabilities used, are shown in Fig. 10.
Triangular-factor distributions were used in Monte Carlo simula-
Kr

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
SW
Fig. 10—Relative permeability curves represent the minimum
and maximum wettability used in the design of experiment.
The eight uncertainty factors used in this work (Table 2) were
found during screening work to significantly affect one or more
LSP steamflood responses. Factor ranges were determined by ei-
ther physical measurements or the author’s experience with other
steamflood projects including the SST pilot. Those factors deter-
mined by experience are generally much larger than those factors
that could be constrained by sufficient physical measurements.
This screening work included additional factors such as porosity
and Sw uncertainty, which were found to have little impact com-
pared with the impact caused by the uncertainty associated with
the final eight factors listed in Table 2. Note that our analysis
showed that the porosity uncertainty is no more than 61 porosity
unit, and the Sw uncertainty is on the order of 63 saturation units
(Meddaugh et al. 2005b). Some uncertainties normally included
in probabilistic studies, such as net reservoir cutoffs (e.g., poros-
ity, Sw, Vshale), are not relevant to this study. Additional uncertain-
ties (such as the number of and areal/vertical distribution of steam
barriers and baffles) were not considered because there was no
tions. Uncoded-factor minima and maxima were 1 and 1, respec-
tively. Uncoded-factor peak levels were zero, with the exceptions
of the f_kx_mult, f_ky_mult, f_soi_mult, and f_sorg_mult, which
were set to 0.3, 0.3, 0.8, and 0.333, respectively. A custom Excel
application was written to simplify/automate error-free generation
of the very large simulation decks used in this work.
Results and Discussion
Probabilistic Forecasts. Math proxies were generated for the 19
responses shown in Table 3 by fitting the factors to those re-
sponses from the 60 Latin-hypercube cases with Gaussian-process
modeling. The modeling code also generates and ranks the impact
of factors on these responses, which are listed in Table 4. Charts
showing the relative magnitude of factor impacts on some key
steamflood responses are shown in Fig. 11. Discounted cumula-
tive oil (DCO) is controlled mainly by soi_mult, viso, and swir_-
mult. Peak oil rate is dominated by viso. Cumulative steam/oil
ratio (SOR) is controlled mainly by soi_mult, swir_mult, and
viso. SBT is controlled almost exclusively by kx_mult. Although
interesting, such information is also valuable in that it shows the
factors that should be used in the upcoming model-validation
exercise.
Next, the proxies were used with Monte Carlo simulation to
calculate P10/P50/P90 levels for each of the 19 responses. Desir-
ability-function-based MRO was then used to determine factor
sets that, when plugged into the LSP simulation model, produced
levels for all 19 responses that were nearly equal to the prescribed
P10, P50, or P90 levels calculated previously with Monte Carlo
simulation. These three factor sets are listed in Table 5.
The three sets of factors from Table 5 were plugged into the
LSP model to generate P10/P50/P90 forecasts. Probability levels

TABLE 3—FORECAST RESPONSES USED TO DEVELOP P10/P50/P90 MODELS

Response Description

DCO Discounted (10%) cumulative oil year 7;

sum interior-9 producers (million STB)
Peak_OPR_I9P Peak oil-production rate for sum interior-9 producers (STB/D)
SOR_I9P Cumulative SOR for interior-9 producers year 7
Peak_T_CEN4 600 Peak temperature in EOC600 in central-4 patterns ( F)
SBT_90 Months for 90% of producers to achieve SBT
OPC_Yr 17 Cumulative oil production at year number (million STB)
WPC Yr. 17 Cumulative water production at year number (million STB)

104 February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 for the 19 responses in Table 3 were determined from the earlier
TABLE 4—FACTORS WITH SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (RANKED) distributions calculated with Monte Carlo simulation. In Fig. 12
ON 19 FORECAST RESPONSES charts, the probability levels for the simulated responses are com-
pared with their desired P10/P50/P90 levels and shown to be in
Forecast Response Significant Factors (Ranked) close agreement. To contrast the value of such constrained, physi-
cally realistic models to those in which only a single response
DCO soi maxstm viso swir
level has the desired probability level, six models (of thousands
Peak_OPR_I9P viso soi kx kz swir
possible) were created in which the DCO response was at the P50
SOR_I9P soi swir viso kz level. As seen in the charts in Fig. 13, the level of DCO was cor-
Peak_T_CEN4 600 kz viso kx rect in all three models, but the levels of the other 18 responses
SBT_90 kx swir krw varied seemingly randomly. This demonstrates why the physical
OPC_Yr1 viso soi kx swir reality of such models may be questionable.
OPC_Yr2 viso soi swir P10/P50/P90 forecasts were generated for a 15-year steam-
OPC_Yr3 soi viso swir flooding with the factor sets in Table 5 and an initial steam-injec-
OPC_Yr4 soi viso swir tion rate of 500 STB/D. Plots of oil-production rates and oil-
OPC_Yr5 soi viso swir recovery factors are shown in Fig. 14. The rate curves indicate
that displacement is the dominant recovery mechanism for the
OPC_Yr6 soi viso swir
first couple of years. As steam breakthrough begins at the pro-
OPC_Yr7 soi viso swir
ducers, the recovery mechanism shifts to gravity drainage in parts
WPC Yr1 swir soi kx of the reservoir. Finally, when steam breakthrough has occurred
WPC Yr2 swir soi kx at most of the producers (after approximately 2015), the oil-pro-
WPC Yr3 swir soi kx duction rates indicate that gravity drainage dominates. The pro-
WPC Yr4 swir soi kx duction characteristics in this model of a heterogeneous dolomite
WPC Yr5 swir kx soi reservoir are similar to those seen in sandstone reservoirs.
WPC Yr6 swir kx A key objective of this work was to help understand how
WPC Yr7 swir kx steam might propagate in the 1E. As discussed in the geology sec-
tion and shown in Figs. 5 and 15, 1E permeability is very

Factor Effect for DCO Interior 9 Producers Yr. 7 Factor Effect for Peak Oil Rate Interior 9 Prod. Yr. 7
NORMALIZED MAIN EFFECT

NORMALIZED MAIN EFFECT

1.0 1.0
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0
f_ f_ f_ f_ f_ f_ f_ f_ 0.0
so vis sw kz so kx so kr f_ f_ f_ f_ f_ f_ f_ f_
i_ o ir_ _m rw _m rg w vis so kx kz sw so kr so
m _m o i_ _m _m ir_ rw w rg
ul m ul ul m ul ul m _m
t ul t ul t ul t t ul
t t t t ul
t
FACTOR FACTOR

Factor Effect for Cum. SOR Interior 9 Producers Yr. 7 Factor Effect for 90% Producers Achieve Steam Breakthrough
NORMALIZED MAIN EFFECT
NORMALIZED MAIN EFFECT

1.0 1.0
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
f_ f_ f_ f_ f_ f_ f_ f_ f_ f_ f_ f_ f_ f_ f_ f_
so sw vis kz so kx so kr kx sw kr so so vis kz so
i_ ir_ o _m rw _m rg w _m ir_ w rg i_ o _m rw
m m ul _m ul ul m m ul _m
ul ul t t t ul ul t
t t ul t t ul
t t
FACTOR FACTOR

Fig. 11—Normalized factor effect magnitudes for select forecast responses.

TABLE 5—FACTOR LEVELS FOR LSP P10/P50/P90 MODELS

Uncoded Factor Values for LSP P-Levels

P-Level f_kx_mult f_kz_mult f_soi_mult f_viso f_sorg f_swir_mult f_sorw_mult f_krw

P10 5.776 6.219 0.752 5630 0.099 0.978 1.316 0.395

P50 5.639 5.957 0.835 3480 0.114 0.885 1.071 0.369
P90 3.308 5.345 0.850 1565 0.187 0.800 1.000 0.437

February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 105

 P10 LSP Response Alignment P50 LSP Response Alignment
RESPONSE PROBABILITY LEVEL 1.0 1.0
Simulation Level Simulation Level

RESPONSE PROBABILITY LEVEL

0.9 0.9
Desired Level Desired Level
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0

RESPONSE RESPONSE

P90 LSP Response Alignment Simulation Level

1.0 Desired Level

0.9
RESPONSE PROBABILITY LEVEL

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0

RESPONSE

Fig. 12—LSP P10-50-90 models derived using method of Osterloh (2008) have multiple responses all near their desired levels.

heterogeneous. Several areally extensive bedded evaporative
zones may act as barriers to the vertical migration of steam, but
this is highly uncertain at this time. As seen in Fig. 15, the nodular
evaporite zone that separates the C-Zone from the shallower B-
Zone did impede the vertical migration of steam in sections of the
model, but there were locations in which the permeability was not
as low (i.e., a baffle), and steam did rise above the nodular evapo-
rite interval. In addition, within the C-Zone (and others), there are
areas with high permeability contrast, but which are not so great
that they act as barriers to steam vertical migration, as did the
evaporite. Instead, this characteristic causes steam to propagate
laterally more extensively than in reservoirs without such high per-
meability contrast, in which steam typically rises vertically very
near the injector before eventually reaching a barrier and then
spreading laterally. The example TOW trace shown in Fig. 16
demonstrates this flow characteristic—two “convective events”
are seen, but they are vertically close together and merge quickly.
The convective events in the 1E, which occur in zones between
two evaporites, are thus not the same as the classic convective
events often described in conceptual steamflood models (i.e.,
steam flow in two or more hydraulically isolated zones). The num-
bers in the blue boxes in Fig. 16 indicate the number of 1E-type
convective events observed at TOW locations in the model.
The highly heterogeneous nature of the 1E is also demonstrated
by the wide variation in SBTs at model producers (Fig. 17). Addi-
tional analysis revealed that several adjacent producers had among
the earliest and latest SBTs. Yet another response indicative of
high heterogeneity is the large variability in oil-production fore-
cast for the 25 individual producers (Fig. 18).
LSP-Model Validation. A decision was made in February 2011
to halt the steamflooding in C-Zone and recomplete and steam-
flood the B-Zone. This provided the opportunity to validate the
LSP C-Zone steamflooding model. In contrast to the all-too-often
result that models overpredict oil production (Meddaugh et al.
2011a), the P10/P50/P90 models all underpredicted oil and over-
predicted water (Fig. 19). This increased confidence that the deci-
sion analyses that had been derived from these forecasts were
perhaps conservative. However, this is tempered by the fact that
the more mature stages of the steamflooding could not be com-
pared. Four possible reasons that the forecasts were not overly op-
timistic were the following: the high input-data density for
constructing the static model, the relatively fine gridblock resolu-
tion (e.g., minimum of 10 to 15 cells or more between wells), the
proper identification and inclusion of key uncertainty factors and
good assignment of uncertainty ranges, and the models being
more physically realistic because multiple responses had the cor-
rect probability level.
Level of Validation—Pilot or Individual Wells. The LSP vali-
dation was performed at the pilot level, not at individual wells.
The basis for this decision is briefly discussed.
An earlier project was conducted to determine the impact of
semivariogram length on model forecasts (Meddaugh et al. 2010).
The models used in this work were very similar to the LSP model.
The models were in the same 40-acre location as the LSP, but
they included only the B-Zone and were not scaled up. Otherwise,
the same workflow used to generate the LSP static model was
used to construct models for this project. To enable analysis that
would result in statistically valid conclusions, multiple (25) geo-
statistical-model realizations were used to generate forecasts.
Comparisons of cumulative-oil-production responses for indi-
vidual wells from the 25 models (Fig. 20) indicated that the
response variation at individual wells was very large. Coefficients

106 February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 P-Levels for Responses When Alignment P-Levels for Responses When Alignment
Performed with Only 1 Response (DCO) Performed with Only 1 Response (DCO)
P-Levels from Single-Alignment (DCO) Desired Level P-Levels from Single-Alignment (DCO) Desired Level

RESPONSE PROBABILITY LEVEL

1.0 1.0

RESPONSE PROBABILITY LEVEL

0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0

RESPONSE RESPONSE

P-Levels for Responses When Alignment

Performed with Only 1 Response (DCO)
P-Levels from Single-Alignment (DCO) Desired Level
1.0
RESPONSE PROBABILITY LEVEL

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0

RESPONSE

Fig. 13—LSP P50 models derived using older method have only one response (DCO) at the desired level; levels of other responses
vary seemingly randomly.

of variation (CV) for responses sampled in 2024 (standard devia- nically reasonable to use a single model realization to validate his-
tion/mean) had ranges of 0.25 to 0.62 for oil. The results suggest torical production at the pilot level.
that the effort to validate historical production at individual wells Further work demonstrated that the large variation in
with a single model realization would be of limited use. responses at individual wells was largely caused by permeability
In contrast, variation in oil responses for the pilot (sum of all heterogeneity resulting from the use of a cloud-transform (CT)-
producers) from the 25 models (Fig. 21) was small. CVs for based workflow to distribute permeability, with constraint at only
responses sampled in 2024 were 0.035 and 0.001 for oil and the few cored wells. Note that the CTs were constrained by strati-
water, respectively. This low variation indicated that it was tech- graphic layer.

200 800 0.60

Mean Oil Rate Interior Wells (stb/day)

Interior Patterns Oil Recovery Factor

P10 Model
Well Steam Injection Rate (stb/day)

P50 Model P10

0.50
P90 Model P50
150 600
P90
Injector Steam Rate
0.40

100 400 0.30

0.20
50 200
0.10

0 0 0.00
2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025
Date Date

Fig. 14—P10-50-90 LSP forecasts with initial steam-injection rate of 500 stb/day. Left, mean oil rate for interior nine producers.
Right, oil recovery factor in the four interior C-Zone patterns. Oil rate curves indicate that the oil recovery mechanism in early years
is displacement but in later years is gravity drainage.

February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 107

 Z-permeability SATURATIONS WATER
10.000 223.607 5000.000

500 500 GAS OIL

550 550
Z (Depth)

Z (Depth)
600 600

650 650

700 700

2000 2500 3000 3500 2000 2500 3000 3500

X X

Fig. 15—Left, vertical permeability in a cross section (exaggerated vertical dimension) through a row of LSP injectors; blue arrow
indicates location of a low-permeability evaporite zone. Right, saturations in a vertical cross section through a row of LSP injec-
tors indicate steam has migrated vertically above the depth of the evaporite layer where the evaporite is not contiguous (a baffle);
steam vertical migration was stopped by the evaporite zone where it was contiguous (a barrier).

SP-800 SP-801 SP-802 SP-803 SP-804

ST-900 ST-901
2 4
SI-880 SI-881 SI-882 SI-883

SP-805 SP-806 SP-807 SP-808 SP-809

ST-904
ST-902 ST-903
3 ST-905
3 2
ST-906 SI-884 SI-885 ST-907 SI-886 SI-887 ST-908
3 2 3
4

SP-810 SP-811 SP-812 ST-909 SP-813 SP-814

ST-910 2
ST-911
ST-912 1
SI-888 SI-889 SI-890 SI-891
3
1
ST-913
3
SP-815 SP-816 SP-817 SP-818 SP-819

ST-914 ST-915
3 3
SI-892 SI-893 SI-894 SI-895

SP-820 SP-821 SP-822 SP-823 SP-824

ST-915 on 1 Oct 2009

500
520
540
560
580
600
Cell Top Depth (FEET)

620
640
660
680
700
720
740
760
780
800
820
840
860
880
900
80 160 240 320 400 480
Temperature

Fig. 16—Top, number of convective events observed at temperature observation wells in the P50 LSP model; bottom, example tem-
perature observation well trace indicating occurrence of two convective events in the C-zone.

108 February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 1.0 1.0
1-Jul-2014
0.9

Fraction of Producers with Steam

0.9
1-Jul-2019

Cumulative Distribution
0.8
0.8
1-Jul-2024
0.7
Breakthrough 0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2

0.1
0.2

0.0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84
Months for Producer Steam Breakthrough
Fig. 17—Wide variation in distribution of steam breakthrough
time (SBT) at producers in the P50 model is indicative of a
highly heterogeneous model.
Model Validation—Probabilistic Workflow. Injection wells
were rate constrained by distributing daily pilot steam-injection
rate (Fig. 22) and steam quality equally across all 16 injectors.
Production wells were rate constrained by distributing daily pilot
fluid-production rate (Fig. 23) equally across all 25 producers.
Starting model conditions were the same as those used previously
in the forecasting work, with the following exceptions.
The probabilistic validation workflow was very similar to the
workflow described previously for the P10/P50/P90 forecasts.
The difference was that targets in Step 3 were the historic steam-
flooding responses instead of Monte-Carlo-derived percentile lev-
els. Five uncertainty factors (Table 6) were used to generate a 40-
run Latin-hypercube design. The five uncertainty factors were
chosen because the aforementioned forecasting work showed that
they significantly affected early-time oil and water production.
The other three factors in Table 6 with gray background were
held fixed at their P50 levels.
Note that the oil-viscosity range changed from the values used
in the probabilistic forecast; the maximal value was substantially
lower. This was performed after viscosity measurements of prop-
erly cleaned and dried oil samples from throughout the 1E became
available. None of these samples had viscosities as high as the ear-
lier data. Use of the lower maximal viscosity was further supported
by a lack of quality-control information for the samples with the
much higher viscosity. Although not quantified in this study, the
use of the initial, too high maximal oil viscosity also likely contrib-
uted to the conservative nature of the probabilistic forecasts.
Model Validation—Results and Discussion. Cumulative pilot
oil and water forecasts from the 40 Latin-hypercube cases are
0.1
96 108 120
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Normalized Well Cumulative Oil
Fig. 18—Wide variation in well cumulative oil distribution (P50
model; 500 stb/day initial injection rate) is indicative of highly
heterogeneous model.
shown in Fig. 24. Proxies were generated for 57 (19  3)
responses by the monthly sampling of forecast cumulative pro-
duced oil, water, and fluid. Response targets for the MRO were 57
(19  3) historic monthly sampled pilot cumulative produced oil,
water, and fluid. MRO produced numerous factor sets that, when
plugged back into the simulation model, produced forecasts that
bracketed the historical data (not shown). Taken as a whole, the
factor ranges in these sets were still quite broad. However, the
results changed significantly when the sets were culled down to
the two that provided the best matches between forecast and his-
torical data. As seen in Figs. 25 and 26, two of the factor sets pro-
duced model forecasts of cumulative oil and water that matched
the historical data very closely. The factor levels for the two best-
validated models are also shown in Figs. 25 and 26. The high
quality of the match is also evident in Fig. 27, in which simulated
and historical oil and water rates are compared. Interestingly, the
factors in both sets are quite similar, which when considered
along with the high quality of the match perhaps indicates that a
distinctive solution was found.
Oil-recovery factors were plotted for forecasts generated by
three factor sets from the MRO step—the most optimistic, the
best-validated, and the most pessimistic. As seen in Fig. 28, the
recovery factor for the LSP C-Zone steamflooding ranged
between 6 and 9% of oil in place present at the start of steam
injection. Instantaneous SOR was derived from the best-validated
model plotted in Fig. 29. SOR during the last few months, when
steam injection was higher and more sustained, was approxi-
mately 4 to 5. This is a reasonable level for an early-stage
steamflooding.

3.0E+06 3.0E+06
Sim P10 Factors Sim P10 Factors
Sim P50 Factors Sim P50 Factors
2.5E+06 2.5E+06
Sim P90 Factors Sim P90 Factors
Cumulative Water (stb)
Cumulative Oil (stb)

Actual Actual
2.0E+06 2.0E+06

1.5E+06 1.5E+06

1.0E+06 1.0E+06

5.0E+05 5.0E+05

0.0E+00 0.0E+00
0.0E+00 5.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.5E+06 2.0E+06 0.0E+00 5.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.5E+06 2.0E+06
Cumulative Steam Injected (stb) Cumulative Steam Injected (stb)

Fig. 19—Left, comparison of actual (historical) and P10-50-90 forecast oil production vs. steam injected. Right, comparison of
actual and P10-50-90 forecast pilot water production vs. steam injected. Note that forecasts underestimated actual oil production
and overestimate water production. Resolution between simulation levels is slight because of immature nature of the pilot.

February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 109

 400000 400000

300000 300000
Cum Oil Prod (STB)

Cum Oil Prod (STB)

200000 200000

100000 100000

0 0
2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025
Date (YEARS) Date (YEARS)

400000

300000
Cum Oil Prod (STB)

200000

100000

0
2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025
Date (YEARS)

Fig. 20—Cumulative oil production for three interior wells from 25 LSP-like P50 B-zone geostatistical models. Note the large
response variation at individual wells as a function of model realization. CV range at 2024 5 0.25 to 0.62.

As expected and explained previously, the differences between permeability is statistically constrained by separate porosity vs.
historic and best-validated cumulative oil at the end of the C- permeability CTs for each stratigraphic layer. The CTs are derived
Zone steamflooding were very large for all but a few wells. from the five cored wells in the pilot area.
Importantly, as seen in Fig. 30, the distributions of wells’ historic Comparisons of pilot and validated model TOW counts
and forecast cumulative oil were very similar. This suggests that grouped by temperature range are listed in Table 7. The compari-
the model global heterogeneity was very similar to that in the son shows that the well counts for pilot and model were equal,
pilot and that the model captured the global flow/drainage physics which provides additional evidence that the model captured the
of the steamflood pilot without the need of fractures or other high- global flow/drainage physics of the steamflooding pilot. As seen
extreme-permeability pathways. The results also suggest that, at in Fig. 31, steam did not propagate to any of the producers in the
the local level, the model does capture an overall statistically best-validated model, which is consistent with field observation
valid description of the local heterogeneity. Porosity is reasonably and provides additional evidence that the model captured the
well-constrained locally by well-log data from 56 wells, and the global flow/drainage physics of the steamflood pilot.

5E+06 9000 900

Pilot Level
Historic Mean-Well Level Steam Injection Rate (stb/day)
Historic Pilot-Level Steam Injection Rate (stb/day)

8000 Mean Injector Level 800

4E+06
7000 700
Cum Oil Prod (STB)

6000 600
3E+06
5000 500

2E+06 4000 400

3000 300

1E+06
2000 200

1000 100
0
2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025
Date (YEARS) 0

Fig. 21—Cumulative pilot (sum of 25 producers) oil from 25

LSP-like P50 B-zone geostatistical models. Note the variation is
much smaller than it is for wells (Figs. 25 and 26). CV for oil at Fig. 22—Historic LSP C-Zone steam injection rate, at pilot level
2024 5 0.035. and mean across 16 injectors.

110 February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 11,000 SOR (Fig. 32) was forecast to be very reasonable, with a range
Liquid
of 2 to 3 during the early oil-displacement period and 4 to 5 dur-

Historic LSP Oil, Water, Liquid Rates (STB/DAY)

10,000 Oil
Water
ing the later gravity-drainage phase. Because the P10/P50/P90
9,000
forecasts were known to have underpredicted historic oil produc-
8,000 tion, oil-production forecast with the validated model should be
7,000 higher. Plots in Fig. 33 show that oil-production forecast with the
validated model was indeed higher.
6,000
As seen in Fig. 34, the distribution of steam breakthrough to
5,000 producers forecast with the validated model was still broad. This
4,000 result, coupled with the broad distribution of oil produced at wells
(Fig. 30), indicates that the validated model is still very heteroge-
3,000
neous. Despite this heterogeneity, oil recovery in the 1E by con-
2,000 tinuous steamflooding is forecast to be very reasonable.
1,000 Steam saturations in northeast/southwest cross sections at sev-
eral times during the steamflooding are shown in Fig. 35. Vertical
0
steam migration was largely halted by a nodular, evaporite-rich
zone except in areas where baffles existed. At 7 months, the satu-
rations indicate there was a substantial lateral component to steam
propagation before steam breakthrough. However, after steam
Fig. 23—Historic LSP C-Zone oil, water, and liquid production breakthrough was established, the expansion of steam was gravity
rate. dominated, which is evident by the depth of the steam/liquid
interface increasing around the interior producers in cross sections
of Years 5 through 15.
Forecasts by Use of the Validated Model—Results and
Discussion. The best validated model was used to forecast pro-
duction from a C-Zone steamflood in which larger amounts of Conclusions
steam were injected for a longer period of time. The steam-injec- LSP probabilistic forecasts were created and validated to historic
tion schedule and the pore volume (PV) of steam injected are production by (1) using a stochastic static model-building work-
shown in Fig. 32. Note the point on the PV-injected curve that flow that incorporated all necessary data, (2) avoiding excessive
indicates that the actual C-Zone steamflood ended in early matu- upscaling of the static model in regions of interest, (3) using an
rity—a total of 0.24 PV of steam was injected. unconstrained pilot model (i.e., one surrounded by a large

TABLE 6—UNCERTAINTY FACTORS AND RANGES FOR VALIDATION;

THREE FACTORS WERE FIXED AT LEVELS FROM P50 MODEL

Uncoded Uncoded
Factor Minimum Maximum Description

f_kx_mult 0.5 8 Global x- and y-perm multiplier

f_kz_mult 0.1 8 Global z-perm multiplier
f_soi_mult 0.65 1.04 Global oil-saturation multiplier
f_viso 110 1820 Dead-oil viscosity
f_sorg P50 0.114 P50 0.114 ROS to gas
f_swir_mult 0.6 1 Irreducible water-saturation multiplier
f_sorw_mult P50 1.071 P50 1.071 ROS to water multiplier
f_krw P50 0.369 P50 0.369 Water relative permeability at ROS

4E+06 1.2E+06
Water Produced (STB)

Oil Produced (STB)

1E+06

3E+06
800000
Cumulative WPC_Norm)

OPC_Norm)

2E+06 600000
Cumulative

400000
1E+06
200000

0 0
2009.5 2009.75 2010 2010.25 2010.5 2010.75 2011 2011.25 2009.5 2009.75 2010 2010.25 2010.5 2010.75 2011 2011.25
Date (YEARS) Date (YEARS)

Fig. 24—Cumulative water (left) and oil (right) production from the five-factor 40-count Latin hypercube design cases used in the
LSP probabilistic model validation work. Math proxies were created by fitting the factors and 40 responses (sampled at monthly
intervals) using Gaussian process modeling; 57 proxies total, 19 proxies each for cumulative produced oil, water, and liquid).
These proxies were then used with desirability-function-based multiple response optimization (MRO) to find sets of factors that
gave the best overall match to the historical response targets.

February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 111

 3.5E+06
Best Validation Model Second Best Validation Model
5.E+05
Second Best Validation Model
3.0E+06 Best Validation Model
Historical

PILOT CUMULATIVE WATER (STB)

Historical
PILOT CUMULATIVE OIL (STB)

Uncoded Level Uncoded Level

4.E+05 BEST 2nd BEST
FACTOR Case: 3MRO_7
5.66
Case: 3MRO_4
5.83
2.5E+06 Uncoded Level Uncoded Level
f_kx_mult FACTOR BEST
Case: 3MRO_7 2nd BEST
Case: 3MRO_4
f_kz_mult 5.25 4.71 f_kx_mult 5.66 5.83
f_soi_mult 1.006 1.017 f_kz_mult 5.25 4.71
457 470
3.E+05 f_viso 2.0E+06 f_soi_mult 1.006 1.017
f_swir_mult 0.764 0.752 f_viso 457 470
f_swir_mult 0.764 0.752

1.5E+06
2.E+05

1.0E+06
1.E+05
5.0E+05

0.E+00 0.0E+00

Fig. 25—Historic oil production, two forecasts that best Fig. 26—Historic water production, two forecasts that best
matched it, and levels of the corresponding five uncertainty matched it, and levels of the corresponding five uncertainty
factors. Note factor levels are highly constrained. Shaded area factors. Note factor levels are highly constrained. Shaded area
is historic measurement error. is historic measurement error.

2,500 10,000
Best Validation Model PILOT WATER PRODUCTION RATE (STB/DAY) Best Validation Model
Historical 9,000 Historical
PILOT OIL PRODUCTION RATE (STB/DAY)

2,000 8,000

7,000

1,500 6,000

5,000

1,000 4,000

3,000

500 2,000

1,000

0 0

Fig. 27—Comparison of historic and best-validated LSP forecast oil (left) and water (right) production rates.

reservoir area), (4) using a modern dynamic probabilistic method large static and dynamic models, and (7) securing availability of
that created physically realistic models in which forecast levels dense, high-quality historic pilot production data.
for dozens of responses had relatively equal probability levels, (5) The validation process took advantage of earlier work that pro-
properly identifying and quantifying the impact of key process vided an understanding of what can and cannot be attempted with
uncertainties, (6) securing the availability of state-of-the-art paral- geostatistical models of the 1E—and why. This knowledge saved
lel computational facilities and codes that enabled use of very substantial time and effort by avoiding validating the model at the
Instantaneous Steam Oil Ratio (SOR)

0.1 30
Oil_Recovery_Factor
Recovery from most optimistic validation case
Oil_Recovery_Factor-Conf_3MRO_7_mtb
0.09 Recovery from best validation case
Oil_Recovery_Factor-Conf_MRO_9_mtb
Recovery from most pessimistic validation case 25
0.08
Oil_Recovery_Factor

0.07
20
0.06

0.05 15
0.04
10
0.03

0.02 5
0.01
0
0
2009.5 2009.75 2010 2010.25 2010.5 2010.75 2011 2011.25
Date (YEARS)

Fig. 28—LSP C-zone oil recovery factor forecasts using three

factor sets from the MRO step—those that produced the most Fig. 29—Instantaneous LSP SOR forecast using the best-
optimistic, best validated, and the most pessimistic forecasts. validated factor set.

112 February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 1
TABLE 7—COMPARISON OF PILOT AND VALIDATED MODEL
0.9

Cumulative Distribution
TEMPERATURE-OBSERVATION-WELL COUNTS GROUPED
0.8 BY TEMPERATURE RANGE
0.7
0.6 No. TOWs No. TOWs
(>140 F) (> 190 F)
0.5
0.4 Pilot 9 6
0.3 Best validation 9 6
0.2
Historical Data
0.1
Best Validation Model Steam Injection Rate HCPV Steam Injected Instant SOR
0 12000 6
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

LSP Steam Injection Rate (stb/day)

Well Cumulative Oil Feb. 9, 2011 10000 5

C-Zone PV Steam Injected or

Instant Steam-Oil Ratio
Fig. 30—Chart of distributions for historic and best-validated 8000 4
forecast well cumulative oil. Although there was overall poor
agreement between historic and best-validated forecast oil pro-
duction for individual wells, the distributions of historic and 6000 3
best-validated forecast well oil production were very similar.
4000 2
WATER

2000 0.24 PV of steam injected 1

X Y
GAS OIL during actual LSP C-Zone
SP-820 SI-892 SP-816 SI-889 SP-812 SI-886 SP-808 SI-883 SP-804 steamflood
Z
0 0
2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027
Date

Fig. 32—Instantaneous SOR, steam injection rate (700 stb/D per

well initial) and PVs injected to forecast long term C-zone
steamflood using the best validated LSP model. Note the level
of steam injected during the actual C-zone steamflood is com-
paratively small.

than individual wells) imposes inherent limits on some applica-

tions of the model. These include specifying locations for infill
wells and forecasting production from subsectors to separate pro-
duction facilities. Until model permeability can be constrained at
Fig. 31—Saturations in a NE-SW cross section (exaggerated more than a few cored wells, such limitations are largely unavoid-
vertical dimension) through the best-validated LSP model at able. Although validation at individual wells can be performed,
the end of the C-zone pilot (Feb 2011). Consistent with field the required manipulations to the model could significantly limit
observations, steam did not migrate above the low permeability the usefulness of such a model for specific applications.
evaporite zone (represented by the dashed yellow line) or reach Similarity between numerous forecast and field responses sup-
a producer.
ports conclusions that the validated model captured both the het-
erogeneity at the global (pilot) scale and the global flow/drainage
well level. Validating the model at the pilot level by distributing physics of the steamflood pilot. Capturing the impact of heteroge-
historic injection and liquid production across all injectors and neity at the well scale is likely to require constraining the perme-
producers, respectively, worked very well. However, the require- ability at a majority, if not all, of the actual producer- and
ment to validate the model at the pilot level (i.e., levels higher injector-well locations.

400
Validated
OPR
Model Forecast Validated
OPC Model Forecast
OPR-p10_2ft_700_nomaxstm_ovis_1 OPC-p10_2ft_700_nomaxstm_ovis_1
400000 P90 Model Forecast
P90OPR-p50_2ft_700_nomaxstm_ovis_1
Model Forecast OPC-p50_2ft_700_nomaxstm_ovis_1
Mean Interior Well Cum Oil (STB)

OPR-p90_2ft_700_nomaxstm_ovis_1
P50 Model Forecast P50 Model Forecast
OPC-p90_2ft_700_nomaxstm_ovis_1
320
P10 Model Forecast P10 Model Forecast
Oil Prod Rate (STB/DAY)

300000
240

200000
160

80 100000

0 0
2009.5 2011.5 2013.5 2015.5 2017.5 2019.5 2021.5 2023.5 2025.5 2009.5 2011.5 2013.5 2015.5 2017.5 2019.5 2021.5 2023.5 2025.5
Date (YEARS) Date (YEARS)

Fig. 33—Left, comparison of mean oil rate forecasts for nine interior LSP C-zone wells using best-validated and P10-50-90 models.
Right, comparison of mean cumulative oil forecasts for nine interior LSP C-zone wells using best-validated and P10-50-90 models.
Initial steam injection rate for these cases was 700 stb/D, and heat management was used.

February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 113

 1.0
Fraction Producers with Steam Breakthrough
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 2
Fig. 34—Wide variation in distribution of SBT at producers in
the validated model is indicative of a highly heterogeneous
model.
The LSP models provided first looks at possible (yet still
uncertain) characteristics of a multipattern steamflood in the 1E.
Expected key production characteristics include wide variation in
SBT to producers and wide variation in oil and water production
at producers. Steam propagation is expected to have more of a lat-
eral component compared with reservoirs that do not have as great
a permeability contrast, in which the steam propagates largely
vertically near the injector until reaching a barrier and spreading
laterally. In the models, the evaporite zones acted as barriers to
vertical steam migration across wide areas, but not in areas where
baffles existed. Similar to steamfloods in many other reservoirs,
traditional steamflood oil-recovery mechanisms—displacement
early followed by gravity drainage after steam breakthrough—are
expected in the 1E.
This work substantially increased confidence in forecasts of
early-time (presteam-breakthrough) steamflood response in the 1E
reservoir. However, confidence in post-stream-breakthrough fore-
casts remains lower until additional pilot data become available
for validating the gravity-drainage phase of the steamflood. Addi-
tional data are also needed for understanding the nature of possi-
ble vertical barriers to steam migration.
On the basis of forecasts with this partially validated model, as
long as an adequate amount of steam can be injected in a reasona-
ble period of time, steamflooding in the 1E should be technically
successful.
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 Nomenclature
Months for Producer Steam Breakthrough D ¼ overall desirability
diYi ¼ a desirability function
i ¼ response
k ¼ variable that notes number of responses being simultane-
ously optimized
n ¼ number of intervals/points
P10 ¼ forecast-response level for which there is a 10% proba-
bility that the true level is lower and a 90% probability
that it is greater
P50 ¼ median or expected forecast-response level
P90 ¼ forecast-response level for which there is a 90% proba-
bility that the true level is lower and a 10% probability
that it is greater
Sw ¼ water saturation
Swir ¼ irreducible water saturation
wi ¼ response weight
X ¼ number of factors or inputs

Y X Y X

7 Months 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 5 Years 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Z Z

SP-820 SI-892 SP-816 SI-889 SP-812 SI-886 SP-808 SI-883 SP-804 SP-820 SI-892 SP-816 SI-889 SP-812 SI-886 SP-808 SI-883 SP-804

Y X Y X

10 Years 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
15 Years 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Z Z

SP-820 SI-892 SP-816 SI-889 SP-812 SI-886 SP-808 SI-883 SP-804 SP-820 SI-892 SP-816 SI-889 SP-812 SI-886 SP-808 SI-883 SP-804

Fig. 35—Steam saturation in NE-SW cross sections (exaggerated vertical dimension) through the best-validated LSP model at sev-
eral times; initial injection rate was 700 stb/day. In a few places, steam did rise through a baffle in the low permeability evaporite
zone (dashed yellow line). Steam flowed mainly laterally in early months, but in later years (post steam breakthrough) steam flow
was gravity dominated. Gravity drainage of oil is evident in later years around the three interior producers.

114 February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 Yi ¼ particular response
Yi(x) ¼ response
r ¼ variance
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the support and permissions granted
by Saudi Arabian Chevron, the Saudi Arabia Ministry of Petro-
leum and Mineral Resources, and Chevron Energy Technology
Company.
References
Bachtel, S., Toomey, N., Pollitt, D.A. et al. 2011. Reservoir Characteriza-
tion of the Paleocene/Eocene First Eocene Dolomite Reservoir at
Wafra Field, Partitioned Zone (Saudi Arabia and Kuwait). Paper pre-
sented at the AAPG Annual Meeting, Houston, Texas, 10–13 April.
Bahonar, M., Ataei, A. Masoudi, R. et al. 2007. Evaluation of Steam Injec-
tion in a Fractured Heavy-Oil Carbonate Reservoir in Iran. Paper SPE
105299 presented at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Con-
ference, Manama, Bahrain, 11–14 March. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
105299-MS.
Barge, D., Al-Yami, F., Uphold, D. et al. 2009. Steamflood Piloting the
Wafra Field Eocene Reservoir in the Partitioned Neutral Zone,
Between Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Paper SPE 120205 presented at the
SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, Bahrain, 15–18
March. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/120205-MS.
Barton, R.R., Chen, V.C.P., Meckesheimer, M. et al. 2006. A Review on
Design, Modeling, and Applications of Computer Experiments. IIE
Trans. 38 (4): 273–291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07408170500
232495.
Castellini, A., Yeten, B., Singh, U. et al. 2006. History Matching and
Uncertainty Quantification Assisted by Global Optimization Techni-
ques. Paper presented at the European Association of Geologists and
Engineers (EAGE) and Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recov-
ery, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 4–7 September.
Choudhary, M.K., Yoon, S., and Ludvigsen, B.E. 2007. Application of
Global Optimization Methods for History Matching and Probabilistic
ForecastingCase Studies. Paper SPE 105208 presented at the SPE Mid-
dle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, Bahrain, 11–14 March.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/105208-MS.
Cullick, A.S., Johnson, D., and Shi, G. 2006. Improved and More-Rapid
History Matching With a Nonlinear Proxy and Global Optimization.
Paper SPE 101933 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 24–27 September. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/101933-MS.
Das, S. 2007. Application of Thermal Processes in Heavy-Oil Carbonate
Reservoirs. Paper SPE 105392 presented at the SPE Middle East Oil
and Gas Show and Conference, Bahrain, 11–14 March. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/105392-MS.
Derringer, G. and Suich, R. 1980. Simultaneous Optimization of Several
Response Variables. J. Quality Tech. 12 (4): 214–219.
Dvoretsky, R., Saller, A., Bachtel, S. et al. 2012. Diagenetic Controls on
Reservoir Characteristics of the Second Eocene Reservoir, Wafra
Field, PZ. Paper presented at the AAPG Annual Convention and Exhi-
bition, Long Beach, California, 22–25 April.
Hale, J.L. 2002. Steamflood Potential for Heavy-Oil Carbonate Reservoirs
in the Partitioned Neutral Zone of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Paper
KIPCE-A11 presented at the Kuwait International Petroleum Confer-
ence and Exhibition, Kuwait, 2–5 February.
Harrington, J. 1965. The Desirability Function. Industrial Quality Control
21: 494–498.
Landa, J.L., Kalia, R.K., Nakano, A. et al. 2005. History Match and Asso-
ciated Forecast Uncertainty Analysis—Practical Approaches Using
Cluster Computing. Paper IPTC 10751 presented at the International
Petroleum Technology Conference, Doha, Qatar, 21–23 November.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2523/10751-MS.
Liu, L. 2005. Could Enough Samples Be More Important Than Better
Designs for Computer Experiments? ANSS 2005 Proceedings of the
38th Annual Simulation Symposium, Spring Simulation Multiconfer-
ence, San Diego, California, 2–8 April. 107–115, Washington, DC:
IEEE Computer Society. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ANSS.2005.17.
February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Manrique, E.J., Muci, V.E., and Gurfinkel, M.E 2007. EOR Field Experi-
ences in Carbonate Reservoirs in the United States. SPE Res Eval &
Eng 10 (6): 667–686. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/100063-PA.
McKay, M.D., Conover, W.J., and Beckman, R.J. 1979. A Comparison of
Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis
of Output from a Computer Code. Technometrics 21 (2): 239–245.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1268522.
Meddaugh, W.S., Champenoy, N. Osterloh, W.T. et al. 2011a. Reservoir
Forecast Optimism—Impact of Geostatistics, Reservoir Modeling,
Heterogeneity, and Uncertainty. Paper SPE 145721 presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado,
30 October–2 November. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/145721-MS.
Meddaugh, W.S., Dull, D., Garber, R.A. et al. 2007. The Wafra First
Eocene Reservoir Partitioned Neutral Zone (PNZ), Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait: Geology, Stratigraphy, and Static Modeling. Paper SPE
105087 presented at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Con-
ference, Kingdom of Bahrain, 11–14 March. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
105087-MS.
Meddaugh, W.S., Dull, D., Griest, S.D. et al. 2005a. Stochastic Reservoir
Model for the First Eocene Reservoir, Wafra Field, Partitioned Neutral
Zone (PNZ). Geostatistics Banff 2004 (Quantitative Geology and Geo-
statistics series—Vol. 14), ed. O. Leuangthong and C.V. Deutsch, Vol.
2, 757–762. The Netherlands: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-
1-4020-3610-1_78.
Meddaugh, W.S., Griest, S.D., and Gross, S. J. 2005b. Application of
Design of Experiments to Expedite Probabilistic Assessment of Reser-
voir Hydrocarbon Volumes (OOIP). Geostatistics Banff 2004 (Quanti-
tative Geology and Geostatistics—Vol. 14), ed. O. Leuangthong and
C.V. Deutsch, Vol. 2, 751–756. The Netherlands: Springer. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-3610-1_77.
Meddaugh, W.S., Osterloh, W., Hoadley, S.F. et al. 2011b. Impact of Res-
ervoir Heterogeneity on Steamflooding, Wafra First Eocene Reservoir,
Partitioned Zone (PZ), Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Paper SPE 150606
presented at the SPE Heavy Oil Conference and Exhibition, Kuwait
City, Kuwait, 12–14 December. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/150606-MS.
Meddaugh, W.S., Osterloh, W.T., and Tang, H. 2010. Semivariogram Pa-
rameters for Carbonate Reservoirs—Geological Variability and Poten-
tial Impact on Dynamic Modeling. Paper presented at the EAGE
Annual Meeting in Barcelona, Spain, June.
Montgomery, P., Ratcliffe, K., Wray, D. et al. 2011. Application of Whole
Rock Inorganic Geochemistry to Stratigraphic Understanding of
Mixed Carbonate Evaporite Reservoirs, an Example from the First
Eocene of the Wafra Field, PZ. Paper presented at the AAPG Annual
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 10–13 April.
Nakamura, S. Sarma, H.K., and Umucu, T. 1995. A Critical Evaluation of
a Steamflood Pilot in a Deep Heavy Carbonate Reservoir in Ikiztepe
Field, Turkey. Paper SPE 30727 presented at the SPE Annual Techni-
cal Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 22–25 October. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/30727-MS.
NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods. 2003. http://
www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pri/section5/pri5322.htm.
Osterloh, W.T. 2008. Use of Multiple-Response Optimization to Assist
Reservoir Simulation Probabilistic Forecasting and History Matching.
Paper SPE 116196 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 21–24 September. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/116196-MS.
Patience, R., Denny, T., Johansen, S. et al. 2011. Large vertical variations
in fluid composition and properties in a biodegraded heavy-oil column
(Wafra field) from geochemical analysis. Internal Report, Chevron.
Penney, R., Baqi Al Lawati, S., Hinai, R. et al. 2007. First Full-Field
Steam Injection in a Fractured Carbonate at Qarn Alam, Oman. Paper
SPE 105406 presented at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and
Conference, Bahrain, 11–14 March. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/105406-
MS.
Playton, M.E., Heesakkers, V., Flodin, E. et al. 2011. Fracture Characteri-
zation of the 1st Eocene, Wafra Field, Kuwait-Saudi Arabia. Paper
presented at the AAPG Annual Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
Texas, 10–13 April.
Pollitt, D.A. and Saller, A.H. 2011. Sedimentology and Diagenesis of a
Paleocene-Eocene Pervasively Dolomitized Epeiric Carbonate Ramp;
115
 the 1st Eocene Reservoir, Wafra Field, Partitioned Zone, Kuwait. Pa-
per presented at the AAPG Annual Meeting, Houston, Texas, April.
Rodriguez, A.A., Klie, H., and Wheeler, M.F. 2007. Assessing Multiple
Resolution Scales in History Matching With Metamodels. Paper pre-
sented at the SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, Texas,
26–28 February. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/105824-MS.
Rowan, D.E., Patience, R, Champenoy, N. et al. 2012. Significant Biologic
and Hydrodynamic Control on Reservoir Oil Properties and Resultant
Reservoir Geometry in the Wafra, First Eocene Reservoir, Partitioned
Zone, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, AAPG, Long Beach, California, April.
Sacks, J., Schiller, S.B., and Welch, W.J. 1989a. Designs for Computer
Experiments. Technometrics 31 (1): 41–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00401706.1989.10488474.
Sacks, J., Welch, W.J., Mitchell, T.J. et al. 1989b. Design and Analysis of
Computer Experiments. Statistical Sci. 4: 409–423.
Schaff, T., Coureaud, B., and Labat, N. 2008. Using Experimental
Designs, Assisted History Matching Tools and Bayesian Framework to
Get Probabilistic Production Forecasts. Paper SPE 113498 presented
at the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Rome,
Italy, 9–12 June. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/113496-MS.
Simpson, T.W., Peplinski, J., Kock, P.N. et al. 2001. Metamodels for
Computer-based Engineering Design: Survey and Recommendations.
Engineering with Computers 17 (2): 129–150. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/PL00007198.
Slotte, P.A. and Smorgrav, E. 2008. Response Surface Methodology
Approach for History Matching and Uncertainty Assessment of Reser-
voir Simulation Models. Paper presented at the 2008 Europec/EAGE
Conference and Exhibition, Rome, Italy, 9–12 June. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/113390-MS.
Welch, W.J., Buck, R.J., Sacks, J. et al. 1992. Screening, Predicting, and
Computer Experiments. Technometrics 34 (1): 15.
Western, A.W. and Bloschl, G. 1999. On the Spatial Scaling of Soil Mois-
ture. J. Hydrol. 217 (3–4): 203–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-
1694(98)00232-7.
W. Terry Osterloh is a reservoir engineer at Chevron Energy
Technology Company with 30 years of industry experience with
Getty, Texaco, and Chevron. His early work was focused on
116
EOR research, including polymers, surfactant/polymer, alka-
line/surfactant/polymer, gels, and steam foam. Osterloh has
written numerous EOR papers and patent applications, and he
has designed applications from the laboratory, to numerical
simulation, and to the field. More recent work has focused on
reservoir-engineering aspects of heavy-oil recovery, with con-
tributions to designing and evaluating projects in California,
Texas, Alberta, British North Sea, Brazil, Venezuela, and Middle
East. Osterloh’s current interests include the development of
new probabilistic forecasting methods, full-field steamflood
forecasting with very large models, reactive transport model-
ing of steam/rock interactions, and forecasting steamflood-
induced acid-gas production. He earned a PhD degree in
organometallic chemistry from the University of Texas at Austin.
Don S. Mims is a reservoir engineer in the Heavy Oil and
Unconventional Resources Unit at Chevron Energy Technol-
ogy Company. He has 35 years of experience in performing
reservoir-engineering studies of steamflood and heavy-oil proj-
ects for Texaco and Chevron. Mims has performed studies for
fields in Texas, California, Canada, Trinidad, Colombia, Vene-
zuela, Indonesia, China, Kazakhstan, Russia, North Sea, and
Middle East. He earned BS and MS degrees in mechanical en-
gineering from Rice University.
W. Scott Meddaugh has been with Chevron for 32 years, and
he is currently a Subsurface Team Leader with Saudi Arabian
Chevron. Previously, Meddaugh was an Earth Science Consul-
tant with Chevron Energy Technology Company in Houston.
Meddaugh’s technical focus areas are reservoir characteriza-
tion, modeling, and uncertainty assessment. He has completed
a variety of carbonate- and clastic-reservoir-modeling projects
worldwide that includes reservoirs in Kuwait; Saudi Arabia PZ;
the US; Canada; Australia; Venezuela; Nigeria; Angola; Russia;
England; and Kazakhstan. Meddaugh has developed and pre-
sented numerous internal company and partner courses in
geostatistics, reservoir modeling, and uncertainty analysis for
the past 20 years. He is currently an associate editor for SPE Res-
ervoir Evaluation & Engineering as well as a reviewer and ses-
sion chairperson for numerous US and international American
Association of Petroleum Geologists and European Association
of Geoscientists and Engineers meetings. Meddaugh earned a
PhD degree in geology from Harvard University.
February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering