See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270219547

Reservoir Characterization: A look back and ways forward

Article  in  AAPG Bulletin · December 2011

CITATIONS READS
0 1,416

1 author:

Zee Ma
Schlumberger Limited
133 PUBLICATIONS   444 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

teaching a graduate class View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zee Ma on 01 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 19
Yu, Xinghe, Y. Zee Ma, David Psaila, Paul La Pointe, Ernest Gomez, and Shengli Li,
2011, Reservoir characterization and modeling: A look back to see the way
forward, in Y. Z. Ma and P. R. La Pointe, eds., Uncertainty analysis and reservoir
modeling: AAPG Memoir 96, p. 289 – 309.

Reservoir Characterization and Modeling:

A Look Back to See the Way Forward
Xinghe Yu
School of Energy Resources, China University of Geosciences, Beijing, China
Y. Zee Ma and Ernest Gomez
Schlumberger, Greenwood Village, Colorado, U.S.A.

David Psaila
WesternGeco, Gatwick, West Sussex, United Kingdom
Paul La Pointe
Golder Associates Inc., Redmond, Washington, U.S.A.

Shengli Li
School of Energy Resources, China University of Geosciences, Beijing, China

ABSTRACT
As the demand for fossil fuels continues to grow and fields mature, reservoir characterization
has become increasingly important. At the same time, the maturation of many of the world’s
fields presents new challenges for reservoir characterization. The history of various phases of
petroleum geology and reservoir characterization illustrates how these challenges were met in
the past, and what new tools and techniques will be emerging in the future. Important past
developments include the transition from general petroleum geology to reservoir geology, from
disciplinary-focused reservoir description to integrated reservoir characterization, from two-
dimensional conceptual mapping of geology to three-dimensional numerical modeling of res-
ervoirs, and from reservoir deterministic analysis to uncertainty analysis. The challenges and
perspectives for the future developments in reservoir characterization are also discussed in this
chapter.

INTRODUCTION for energy resources. During this period, oil wells were
drilled in many places worldwide. The Drake well
The industrial revolution in Europe and North Amer- drilled on August 27, 1859, in Pennsylvania, however,
ica in the 19th century spurred the growth in demand had a special significance in that it marked a shift to a

Copyright n2011 by The American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

DOI:10.1306/13301421M963458

289
290 YU ET AL.
more systematic operation for oil production. For the
remainder of the 19th century, Pennsylvania produced
about the half of the world’s oil.
In the beginning, from the late 19th century until
the early 20th century, geologists mostly were factors
in the exploration for oil, but not in its development.
Up to this time, most hydrocarbon discoveries were oil
fields formed in anticlinal traps. After the discovery of
an oil field, the operator tried to increase production
through drilling more wells instead of conducting geo-
logic or reservoir studies. Industry began to recognize
the importance of understanding the geology of these
fields. The AAPG was established in 1917 to promote
the study of petroleum geology. One of the first books
on petroleum geology was published by Emmons (1921).
Over time, well interferences were slowly recognized,
and studies on petrophysics, fluid flow in porous me-
dia, and other geologic and engineering problems
related to reservoir production started to emerge. In
the meantime, wireline logging was growing rapidly
after the first electrical log was recorded in 1927 in
a well in a small oil field in France (Schlumberger,
1999).
In the 1920s, the oil industry started water flooding
for secondary recovery, which helped spur studies of
petroleum geology further. Forest Oil pioneered the use
of water flooding in the Bradford oil field in northwest-
ern Pennsylvania, increasing oil rates from 38 bbl/day
in 1916 to more than 10,000 bbl/day by the late 1920s.
Operators recognized that geology affected the success
of a waterflood, increasing the drive to understand the
reservoir geology better.
Several significant publications on petroleum geology
emerged in the 1940s that had both scientific and tech-
nical significance, including Field Geology by Mirchink
(1946) and Subsurface Geologic Methods by LeRoy and
Cram (1949). These publications discussed not only pe-
troleum geology and basic geologic problems in the
early phase of oil field development, but also the ap-
plication of geologic knowledge to drilling and logging
operations. Along with contributions of other works,
petroelum geology was gradually becoming a distinct
scientific discipline.
Secondary recovery became more and more impor-
tant in oil field development during the 1950s, which
provided additional opportunities for petroleum geol-
ogy to grow. For example, stratigraphic correlations
and log interpretations were used to study the con-
tinuity of oil-bearing sand bodies. Several methods for
studying reservoir sand bodies based on the geology
of various worldwide oil fields were proposed in the
1950s and 1960s (King, 1972). Sedimentology was used
to guide reservoir studies in petroleum exploration and
development, and the concept of depositional facies
was integrated into reservoir studies, which eventually
resulted in the emergence of reservoir sedimentology.
Early geologic studies of reservoirs involved reser-
voir descriptions using geologic, geophysical, and well-
logging data. Petroleum engineering became increasing-
ly important to understand and control fluid flow in
porous media and to improve recovery efficiency. The
Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) was founded in
1957 as a spin-off from the American Institute of Min-
ing Engineers. Practical problems related to geology
and engineering highlighted the importance of inte-
grated reservoir characterization, as numerical mod-
els for flow simulation and reservoir geology moved
from research to application in the larger oil compa-
nies (Swanson, 1988). The first International Reservoir
Characterization Workshop was held in 1985, followed
by three more (Table 1). Since then, the theme, Reser-
voir Characterization and Modeling, is generally in-
cluded in AAPG and SPE annual meetings.
Reservoir characterization is the study of reservoir
properties using geologic, geophysical, petrophysical,
and engineering disciplines, including uncertainty anal-
ysis of geologic and engineering data and spatial vari-
ations (Ma, 2011, this volume). Two important aspects
are (1) characterization of the reservoir’s geometric fea-
tures, including structural and stratigraphic controls and
depositional facies bodies, and (2) characterization of
petrophysical properties, including porosity, fluid satu-
ration, and permeability. From a causal point of view,
sedimentation, diagenesis, structural movement (fault-
ing and fracturing), diapirism, and salt movement are
some of the main processes that control geologic and
petrophysical properties and their spatial distributions.
Because of the limitation in understanding the subsur-
face, building several realistic models is a way to assess
uncertainty (Deutsch and Journel, 1992). The differences
Table 1. Summary of the four international reservoir
characterization workshops.
Year Important Discussion Themes
1985 Geology and Petrophysics; Spatial Variation;
Simulation Parameters Definition; Fluid Flow
in Heterogeneous Media
1989 Microheterogeneity; Macroheterogeneity;
Large-scale Heterogeneity
1991 Heterogeneity and Anisotropy; Oil Field
Research and Data Demand; Reservoir
Modeling and Interwell Simulation; Optimal
Reservoir Management
1997 General Reservoir Description; Methods for
Improving and Enhancing Recovery; Fracture
Analysis; Simulation and Modeling
 Reservoir Characterization and Modeling: A Look Back to See the Way Forward
between different models express uncertainty. It is com-
monly necessary to select one or a few models for oper-
ational uses, such as reservoir simulation or field de-
velopment planning because of the expense of running
multiple models through a flow simulator. The selection
of a model can be done using optimization with new
information or new criteria that were not initially in-
corporated in the modeling. Streamline simulation can
also be used to analyze the impact of geologic uncer-
tainty on fluid flow and storage parameters and, thus,
help select a model for a more computationally intensive,
yet more realistic, simulation. One of the main objec-
tives in reservoir characterization is to construct a pre-
dictive model of a reservoir using various types of data
by both descriptive and quantitative methods, includ-
ing conceptual models based on geologic interpretations
and stochastic modeling (Ma et al., 2011, this volume).
Geology and reservoir engineering should be inte-
grated into reservoir characterization to quantitatively
determine the petrophysical properties needed to pre-
dict subsurface fluid flow, including reservoir perfor-
mance prediction, increasing displacement efficiency,
and optimizing scavenging efficiency (Schatzinger and
Jordan, 1999).
Figure 1. Illustration of integrated multidisciplinary reservoir characterization.
291
Reservoir characterization is now a broad discipline,
integrating several geoscience and engineering branches,
as shown in Figure 1. It includes formation evaluation or
petrophysical characterization of the reservoir, as well
as geologic, geophysical, and engineering characteriza-
tions of the reservoir. Petrophysical analysis provides
data for the integrated reservoir characterization and
is always important in a reservoir study. Well-log and
petrophysical interpretations and their uncertainty anal-
ysis are discussed by Moore et al. (2011, this volume).
History matching and other engineering-related res-
ervoir characterizations are discussed by Devegowda
and Gao (2011, this volume) and Du et al. (2011, this
volume) and are not separately discussed here. In-
stead, the focus will be on the discussions of geologic,
geophysical, and integrated reservoir characterizations.
GEOLOGIC RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION
Mackenzie and Bricker (1971) proposed the concept
of petroleum reservoir geology, which includes stud-
ies of reservoir sedimentary characteristics, reservoir
292 YU ET AL.
correlation, and the continuity of sand or other reser-
voir bodies. Finding oil and gas and enhancing recov-
eries from reservoirs are two of the most important
tasks in the petroleum industry. Although the first task
requires sedimentologic studies of basins and prospect
evaluation, the second task requires reservoir descrip-
tion, especially of lithological heterogeneities within a
reservoir.
Reservoir Description
The notion of reservoir description was introduced by
Jahns (1966). Reservoir description from field perfor-
mance data using the least squares method was pro-
posed by Coats et al. (1970). Reservoir description based
on well-logging data was conducted in Algeria and
other parts of the world between the late 1970s and
early 1980s (Schlumberger, 1999). Descriptions using
two-dimensional (2-D) reservoir mapping were later
broadened to multidisciplinary integrations using seis-
mic data, well logs, and geology. This integration even-
tually led to the analysis and description of reservoir
characteristics with three-dimensional (3-D) models using
geostatistical and other mathematical methods (Hewett,
1986; Hewett and Behrens, 1988) to construct the mod-
el beyond well control.
Reservoir Sedimentology
Understanding the spatial distributions of petrophys-
ical properties in a reservoir is critical to increasing oil
recovery while possibly reducing the number of wells
to drill. Reservoir sedimentology emerged in the 1960s
in this context. Moreover, the development of new wire-
line logging tools in the late 1970s led to the proliferation
of data that made interpreting depositional character-
istics of the reservoirs possible. Reservoir sedimentol-
ogy, including depositional facies, reservoir continuity,
and heterogeneity emerged as one of the major themes
at the 1976 SPE annual meeting.
Reservoir sedimentology applies sedimentary prin-
ciples to reservoir studies, including the use of concep-
tual models for depositional facies modeling (Figure 2),
and was considered to be one of the top five disciplines
for enhanced recoveries (Richardson and Stone, 1973).
The relationships between the sedimentary environ-
ment and heterogeneity have been studied by many
and can be better understood with classification of fa-
cies or rock types (Qiu, 2000). Reservoir sedimentology
is not limited to depositional facies analysis, but in-
cludes the impact of diagenesis. In fact, the function
of diagenetic processes in the formation of various
pore types was discussed extensively in the literature
(Shanmugam, 1985; Meshri, 1986) during the 1980s.
The 13th International Sedimentology Congress in
1990 included a topical discussion on reservoir sedi-
mentology and geologic modeling. The purpose was to
encourage the integration of sedimentology into res-
ervoir models. The 13th World Petroleum Congress in
1991 also discussed reservoir sedimentology, with an
emphasis on quantitative geologic models.
Reservoir Heterogeneity and Connectivity
Pettijohn et al. (1973) and Pettijohn (1983) proposed the
concept of hierarchical classification in reservoir hetero-
geneity studies based on sedimentary genesis, bound-
ing surfaces, and their effects on fluid flow. Five scales
of heterogeneities were identified, including reservoir,
interlayer, intralayer (e.g., sand bodies), pore scale, and
lamination.
Haldorsen and Lake (1984) classified reservoir het-
erogeneities into four types in the context of reservoir
modeling: microscopic heterogeneity (pore or sand
grain scale), macroscopic heterogeneity (core scale),
megascopic heterogeneity (large-scale grid in simula-
tion model), and gigascopic heterogeneity (large strata
or regional scale).
Weber (1982) considered reservoir compartmental-
ization criteria and proposed a comprehensive classifi-
cation system that added structural features, interlayer
distribution, and the influence of crude oil properties
on reservoir heterogeneities. They also distinguished
eight types of important heterogeneities: (1) sealing and
nonsealing faults; (2) genetic unit boundaries; (3) per-
meable stratum in a genetic unit; (4) interlayers in a
genetic unit; (5) laminae and series of strata of bedding;
(6) microheterogeneity; (7) sealing and open fracture; and
(8) crude oil viscosity and its variation. Moreover, to bet-
ter describe and simplify the geometric features of sand
bodies, stacking patterns were divided into three types:
jigsaw puzzle, labyrinth, and layer cake. These basic
stacking patterns are mainly based on marine clastic
reservoirs. A fourth spatial architecture type was pro-
posed later for the continental clastic reservoirs (Yu,
2008). Table 2 gives a summary of main features in res-
ervoir properties for these common stacking patterns.
In summary, although various definitions of hetero-
geneity exist, heterogeneities exist at all scales and are
commonly hierarchical, from giga scale to small scale.
Obviously, the scales of the heterogeneities that need
to be modeled depend on the nature of the problem to
be solved.
Reservoir Architecture Analysis
The study of the geometric and internal architectures of
reservoir sand and the spatial variation of impermeable
 Reservoir Characterization and Modeling: A Look Back to See the Way Forward 293

Figure 2. Illustration of deposi-

tional facies in an oil field guided
by a conceptual model (modified
from Yu, 2008). (A) Distributary
channels of a modern deltaic plain
in Daihai Lake, Inner Mongolia,
China. (B) Contour map of the
sand bodies more than 2 m thick.
(C) Depositional facies map guid-
ed by the conceptual model.

Table 2. Some typical stacking patterns in clastic depositional environments (modified from Yu, 2008).

Type Stacking Pattern of Sand Bodies Main Features

Jigsaw puzzle Sand layers often connected No large void space between sand bodies; occasional presence of
impermeable layers; good vertical continuity
Labyrinth Isolated lenticular sand bodies Sand bodies interbedded with the sheetlike low-permeability layers;
thin thickness, poor vertical continuity
Layer cake Unilateral or multilateral sand Sand bodies interbedded with the sheetlike low-permeability layers;
bodies good horizontal continuity and permeability, stable thickness; poor
to moderate vertical permeability
Pie Isolated large sand bodies Poor connectivity; moderate or poor continuity, variable thickness
294 YU ET AL.
thin intercalations has been considered as an im-
portant reservoir component (Qiu, 2000). Miall (1985)
studied the heterogeneity of fluvial facies using ar-
chitectural element analysis and proposed the hier-
archy of the internal building structures for fluvial
systems.
Based on the relationships between depositional pro-
cesses and reservoir heterogeneities, eight depositional
patterns were proposed by Yu (2008). These include ver-
tical accretion, progradation, lateral accretion, overbank
accretion, sieve accretion, winnowing accretion, chan-
nel filling, and turbidity deposition. These depositional
schemes are associated with distinct reservoir architec-
tures as well as well-log and seismic responses. Such a
classification can lead to a better understanding of res-
ervoir heterogeneities and provides a basis for analyz-
ing genetic sedimentary depositional mechanisms.
Sequence Stratigraphy
Sequence stratigraphy (Vail et al., 1977) is one of the
most important disciplines to study petroleum geol-
ogy and hydrocarbon accumulations, as discussed in
the two AAPG memoirs and a methodology book (Van
Wagoner et al., 1990; Loucks and Sarg, 1993; Weimer
and Posamentier, 1993). Sequence stratigraphy provides
a framework to study rocks based on genetically related
units bounded by stratigraphically significant geologic
surfaces, including unconformities, and correlative con-
formities (such as sequence boundaries); and it also pro-
vides a framework for facies analysis. Many consider
that sequence stratigraphy grew out of seismic stratig-
raphy in the 1980s (Emery and Myers, 1996; Martinsen,
2010). The latter was developed in the 1970s, and will be
discussed below. Historically, facies analysis was one of
the first major methods for studing basin fills (Walker
and James, 1992). Seismic stratigraphy and sequence
stratigraphy may be considered as second- and third-
generation methods, respectively, for such studies
(Martinsen, 2010).
One of the main implications from sequence stra-
tigraphy is that bedding surfaces have chronostrati-
graphic significance, and they are either isochronous
or unconformable. Major changes in rock properties
tend to occur from bed to bed. Two of the most impor-
tant notions in sequence stratigraphy are sequences
and sequence boundaries. Sequences can be subdivided
into system tracts based on bounding surfaces and dis-
tributions of parasequence sets (Van Wagoner et al.,
1990). Interpretations of sequences, sequence bound-
aries, and related stratigraphic units have significant
impacts on petroleum exploration and reservoir char-
acterization (Larue and Yue, 2003).
High-Frequency Sequence Stratigraphy
High-frequency sequence stratigraphy enables estab-
lishing higher resolution sequence-stratigraphic frame-
works (Jervey, 1988; Van Wagoner et al., 1990; Cross
et al., 1993; Posamentier and Weimer, 1993), which can
be helpful in the classification of depositional systems
tracts and in the prediction of the spatial distribution
of reservoir properties. Studies of high-frequency se-
quence stratigraphy fall under the framework of the
hierarchy of multiscale depositional cycles in relation
to the eustatic cyclicity (Mitchum and Van Wagoner,
1991). For reservoir-scale applications, however, stack-
ing patterns of high-frequency sequences are particu-
larly important because of its impact on modeling the
high-frequency reservoir heterogeneities.
The question of how to divide small layers more ac-
curately has long been a concern, and the correlation of
relatively thin reservoir units sets a foundation for more
detailed reservoir characterization. High-frequency se-
quence stratigraphy addresses these issues and pro-
vides a means to predict the macroscopic and micro-
scopic heterogeneities of reservoir. It uses the rock
record changes resulting from fluctuations in depo-
sitional base level to predict reservoir properties. Out-
crops, cores, and well logs can commonly be used to
study high-frequency sequence stratigraphy. Figure 3
shows an example of an effective porosity log, which
can be used to define stratigraphic packages based on
the frequency content in the log. Although this example
shows high-frequency depositions in the entire ob-
served interval, the upper half stratigraphic interval
contains isolated high-frequency depositions, where-
as the lower half interval shows more extensive high-
frequency stratigraphy with intensely intermittent de-
positional changes. This has a large impact on how
the facies and petrophysical property models are con-
structed. An example of modeling high-frequency fa-
cies and associated pitfalls was discussed in Ma (2009a).
In general, the macroscopic large-scale allocyclicity
is relatively easy to identify. Small depositional units
may be caused by either autocyclicity or allocyclicity
and are generally more difficult to identify. In the future,
we envisage that thin-bed analysis based on petrophys-
ical formation evaluation could be combined with anal-
ysis of high-frequency sequence stratigraphy to better
characterize small-scale stratigraphic heterogeneities.
GEOPHYSICAL RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION
Although seismic data were mainly used for structural
mapping before the early 1980s, 3-D seismic data are
 Reservoir Characterization and Modeling: A Look Back to See the Way Forward
now commonly used for detailed stratigraphic inter-
pretations, reservoir descriptions, and inputs for geo-
logic modeling. One of the main objectives is to use
seismic data for interwell predictions of reservoir prop-
erties. Many new techniques have been proposed, includ-
ing forward reservoir modeling (Lewis, 1997), seismic
inversion (Schwab et al., 2011, this volume), attribute
analysis (Chen and Sidney, 1997), spectral decompo-
sition (Partyka et al., 1999), seismic facies classification
(Fournier and Derain, 1995; Zeng, 2004), direct hydro-
carbon detection (Hördt et al., 2000), and 3-D visualiza-
tion (Gerald, 1999). One of the most important seismic
disciplines that has had a significant impact on both pe-
troleum exploration and sequence stratigraphy is seis-
mic stratigraphy (Vail and Mitchum, 1977).
Seismic Stratigraphy
Seismic stratigraphy is basically a geologic approach to
the stratigraphic interpretation of seismic data based on
the properties of seismic reflections (Vail and Mitchum,
1977). It can be highly valuable in studying chronostra-
tigraphy and depositional facies through the identifi-
cation of genetically related strata using reflection ter-
minations and changes in reflection amplitude and
phase. One main assumption in seismic stratigraphy is
that the succession of strata is cyclical in nature and
predictable from variations in accommodation space.
Variations in accommodation space are related to the
relative sea level changes. Haq et al. (1987) provided
295
Figure 3. Well-log (effective po-
rosity) responses to the high-
frequency sequence stratigraphy
(two wells, numbers are mea-
sured depths in feet). Above
2600 ft (792 m), there exist some
high-frequency layers (reflected
in isolated porosity peaks), but
the overall stratigraphy does not
show intermittent high-frequency
depositional layers. However,
below 2600 ft (792 m), rapid in-
termittent effective porosity
changes reflect high-frequency
depositions.
global cycle charts of the sea level fluctuations since
the Triassic and explained the linkage among the sea
level changes, sedimentary packages, and depositional
models.
Seismic stratigraphy provides a powerful founda-
tion for the analysis of basin history and can be used
to describe basin evolution and the effects of the rel-
ative sea level changes on the spatial and temporal
variations of sedimentary deposition and related hydro-
carbon potential. Seismic stratigraphy places chrono-
stratigraphic constraints on both the sedimentologic
and mechanical stratigraphy of a basin, and includes
seismic sequence and facies analysis, and reflection
character analysis. The latter may be based on infor-
mation from borehole seismic data. Lateral changes in
the wave shape of individual reflection events may
suggest where stratigraphic changes and hydrocarbon
accumulations occur.
Seismic Attributes
Seismic attributes have been used for reservoir charac-
terization, especially since the emergence of 3-D seis-
mic data. Numerous attributes can be extracted from
the 3-D seismic volume and can be used for predict-
ing reservoir properties and their dynamic monitor-
ing (Chen and Sidney, 1997; Brown, 2004). Obviously,
different attributes will contain different information.
Selecting an appropriate attribute to describe a rele-
vant reservoir property is commonly critical. Figure 4
296 YU ET AL.
Figure 4. Azimuthal angle ex-
tracted from a three-dimensional
seismic survey of a South China
Sea offshore gas reservoir. Notice
the mud gullies.
shows an azimuth angle attribute extracted from a 3-D
seismic survey on an offshore gas field in the South
China Sea. Channel boundaries and mud gullies are
shown quite clearly on this attribute map, whereas they
are not clear on other seismic attributes in this area.
The main advantages of the 3-D seismic data include
the large area of spatial coverage and dense sampling;
the spacing of a typical 3-D seismic grid might be on the
order of 12.5  12.5 m (41  41 ft). Mu et al. (2008) showed
examples of using seismic attributes to analyze the size
and distribution of sand bodies in a deltaic environ-
ment. Many examples of using seismic attributes for
petrophysical property mapping and 3-D geologic mod-
eling can be found in Dubrule (2003) and Doyen (2007).
The key issues in the quantitative interpretation of
seismic data are their limited vertical resolution and
nonuniqueness in their relationships with geologic and
petrophysical properties. For example, seismic attri-
butes commonly respond to physical parameters asso-
ciated with the geologic or petrophysical property of
interest, but more than one property may have the same
associated parameter, rendering the seismic attribute
nonunique. This commonly causes a dilemma regard-
ing the selection of seismic attributes, including which
attribute(s) to select and how many to use. An impor-
tant practical consideration when selecting appropriate
seismic attributes is the danger of a spurious correlation
arising between seismic attributes and petrophysical
properties. A spurious correlation is an apparent corre-
lation that can arise between two uncorrelated variables
purely by chance. In general, the more seismic attri-
butes that are generated and correlated against petro-
physical properties of interest, the greater the chances
of a spurious correlation arising. Hirsche et al. (1998)
give an overview of this and other pitfalls that can occur
in geostatistical workflows for the quantitative inter-
pretation of seismic attributes.
The use of layer-based seismic attributes coupled
with geologic knowledge is quite common for reservoir
characterization and prediction. A general practice is
to seek a good correlation between multiple seismic
attributes and the geologic parameter of concern. How
to combine various attributes to characterize a geo-
logic property generally requires careful examination.
Otherwise, significant errors can be committed, such
as false positives (type 1) and false negatives (type 2)
(Glossary, this volume; Ma, 2011).
Seismic Inversion
Seismic inversion is a process that attempts to invert
seismic amplitudes for properties that can be directly
 Reservoir Characterization and Modeling: A Look Back to See the Way Forward
related to the geologic and petrophysical properties that
are the objective of a reservoir characterization study.
The aim of the inversion process is to remove the effect
of the seismic wavelet, increase resolution, and provide
absolute values of elastic properties in the subsurface.
The inverted properties can be calibrated against well-
log–derived measurements where available and used
as constraints in populating reservoir models with lith-
ologic, fluid, and petrophysical property predictions.
Another motivation for seismic inversion is that seismic
amplitudes are related to relative contrasts in elastic
properties across geologic interfaces in the subsurface
and not directly to the properties of the stratigraphic
layers themselves. That explains why a phase rotation
sometimes helps improve the correlation between a
seismic attribute and rock property (Ma, 2010).
Several different types of seismic inversion are pre-
sent. The main distinction is between inversion per-
formed before stacking, prestack inversion, and inver-
sion performed after stacking, poststack inversion.
Poststack inversion is limited in being able to resolve
only acoustic impedance (the product of velocity and
density) variations. Prestack inversion, however, is
commonly used to invert multiple partial angle stacks
for elastic properties such as P-wave (compressional)
velocity, S-wave (shear-wave) velocity, and density.
Compared with poststack inversion, inversion of
AVO data is more demanding because the relation-
ship between reflection coefficient and angle of inci-
dence is a complicated function of P-wave velocity,
S-wave velocity, and density (Zoeppritz, 1919). In
practice, approximations of the Zoeppritz equations
are used to make amplitude versus offset (AVO) in-
version tractable (Aki and Richards, 1980; Shuey, 1985).
The approximations differ in the number of terms used
in the simplification of the reflection coefficient versus
angle of incidence relationship and the number of elas-
tic properties inverted for. Usually two or three prop-
erties are solved for. An example of a two-parameter
inversion might be to calculate P-wave impedance and
S-wave impedance. An example of a three-parameter in-
version might be to calculate P-wave impedance, Pois-
son ratio, and density.
The number of elastic properties that can be re-
solved depends on the range of available angles and
the quality of the seismic data. A large range of angles
and a high signal-to-noise ratio at large angles make it
possible to resolve three elastic properties. A limited
range of angles and poor signal-to-noise ratio limit
the number of properties that can be reliably inverted;
it may only be possible to resolve two properties in this
case. It is commonly most difficult to resolve variations
in density. Successful resolution of density requires large
angles and a high signal-to-noise ratio.
297
An important issue in geophysical reservoir char-
acterization is to provide a closer integration between
the seismic inversion on one side and reservoir mod-
eling on the other. Seismic inversion results provide
important information about the spatial distribution
of reservoir properties between the wells but have
limited vertical resolution compared with the scale of
the reservoir model. Like many geophysical inverse
problems, the seismic inversion process is nonunique,
meaning that a large number of elastic property mod-
els fit the seismic data equally well above some thresh-
old misfit. The problem of integrating seismic data in
reservoir modeling has led to the development of meth-
odologies known as geostatistical or stochastic inver-
sion (Haas and Dubrule, 1994) that address these dual
issues of vertical resolution and nonuniqueness. Suc-
cessful application of these methods will lead to better
constrained reservoir property models and a better
understanding of the uncertainties in the reservoir mod-
el. The seismic data are inverted directly into a high-
resolution 3-D geologic model, where the results are
immediately available at the appropriate scale for in-
tegration into seismic-to-simulation workflows. Com-
pared with deterministic inversion, stochastic methods
account for nonuniqueness in the inversion process by
delivering multiple realizations consistent with the
available well and seismic data. The multiple realiza-
tions produced by stochastic inversion possess several
advantages, including (1) honoring well data; (2) reali-
zations that are at the vertical frequency required for a
detailed 3-D reservoir model; and (3) uncertainty anal-
ysis that is possible as a result of multiple realizations.
The integration of seismic inversion results in reser-
voir characterization studies is now common practice.
A variety of geostatistical methods have been proposed
that can integrate well-log and seismic data and gen-
erate rock property models (Doyen, 2007). In recent
years, the focus has shifted away from geostatistical
algorithms that adopt a purely statistical approach to
linking seismic inversion results with petrophysical
properties toward more rock physics–based methodol-
ogies. As described by Mavko et al. (1998) and Avseth
et al. (2005), the study of rock physics has emerged as a
key tool that provides the theoretical foundation to
link the elastic properties determined by seismic inver-
sion to petrophysical properties such as porosity, clay
volume, and fluid saturation. One widely recognized
issue is that large uncertainty generally associated with
lithology and fluid prediction from seismic data exists.
The uncertainty arises first from the nonuniqueness in
the relationship between the measured seismic ampli-
tudes and elastic properties. Typically, many alternative
elastic property models can produce the same seismic
response. The second source of uncertainty is in the
298 YU ET AL.
link between the elastic properties and petrophysical
properties. A given set of elastic property values can
be generated by many alternative combinations of po-
rosity, clay content, and fluid saturation values. Ac-
counting for uncertainty in rock physics relations has
become an important part of quantitative seismic in-
terpretation workflows (Bachrach, 2006; Sengupta and
Bachrach, 2007; Kjonsberg et al., 2010).
Four-Dimensional Seismic Application
The goal of using time-lapse or four-dimensional (4-D)
seismic data is to analyze the changes of the reservoir
properties through time as a result of hydrocarbon pro-
duction or injection of water or gas into the reservoir by
comparing repeated seismic surveys (Lumley et al., 1994;
Watts et al., 1996; Jack, 1998; Gouveia et al., 2004; Calvert,
2005). It involves acquisition, processing, and interpre-
tation of repeated seismic surveys over a producing
hydrocarbon field and has had significant applications
in the last two decades. A typical final processing prod-
uct is a time-lapse difference data set, whereby the
seismic data from an early survey are subtracted from
a later survey. The difference should be close to zero,
except where reservoir changes have occurred.
In history matching a reservoir, a major issue is how
to handle the uncertainties associated with seismic and/
or dynamic data inversion. Integration of geologic, seis-
mic, dynamic, and geomechanical data is very impor-
tant. To effectively use 4-D seismic data for dynamic
reservoir modeling, transforming the information con-
tained within the seismic changes into reservoir param-
eters, for example, porosity, permeability, or pressure,
is critical. Stochastic inversion techniques, simulated
annealing, and ensemble Kalman filters have been used
to invert 4-D seismic data or to jointly invert 4-D seismic
and production data (Huang et al., 2000; Dong and
Oliver, 2003; Yamamoto et al., 2004; Buland and El Ouair,
2006; Aanonsen et al., 2009).
Deep-Reading Technologies
Surface seismic measurements can image large areas
between wells but with limited vertical resolution com-
pared with well-log data. Recently, there has been an
increased interest in technologies that fill the so-called
deep-reading gap by providing measurements that
have higher resolution than surface seismic measure-
ments and deeper depth of investigation than well
logs. Cross-well seismic, crosswell electromagnetics,
and microseismic monitoring are all examples of these
technologies. In each case, the acquisition equipment
is deployed in the well and is more focused on the res-
ervoir than traditional techniques, and as a result, the
deep-reading technologies image the interwell space
at a higher resolution than was previously possible.
Cross-well seismic data are acquired by deploying
an array of receivers in one well and a seismic source
in another well. The source is moved at regular inter-
vals, emitting a pulse that is measured at the receiver
array. The objective is to illuminate as much of the
subsurface as possible through the range of source and
receiver locations. Images of the reservoir in a cross
section between the two wells are at a fine scale and
thus provide detailed information for porosity, lithol-
ogy, and fluid saturation. Successful applications of
the seismic tomography to petroleum exploration and
development occurred before the 1980s (He, 2008). Since
the late 1980s, crosswell seismic technique has been
used to characterize the fluid saturation (Idrobo et al.,
1999) and monitor the movements of subsurface fluids
and carbon dioxide (CO2). The technique has proven
useful to identify small structures, faults, and sand bod-
ies, and to study lateral connectivity of the reservoir
and, therefore, help develop oil fields more efficiently
(Lee and Stevenson, 1995; Mathisen, 1995; Peterson et al.,
1998). Crosswell seismic technology currently has the
following characteristics: (1) high-resolution monitor-
ing of interwell reservoirs with a resolution of 10 to 100
times higher than conventional seismic data; (2) 2-D,
3-D, and 4-D (i.e., time-lapse) data; and (3) possibility
of depth-domain data, which can be more easily inte-
grated with logging data.
The crosswell electromagnetic method (Al-Ali et al.,
2009) uses the principle of electromagnetic induction
to measure formation resistivity between boreholes. In
a typical field, setup measurements are made between
two boreholes up to 1000 m (3281 ft) apart. A trans-
mitter is placed in the first borehole and broadcasts an
electromagnetic signal into the formation. The signals
are detected in the second well by an array of induction
coil receivers that rely on the same physical principles
as the borehold induction log. Typically, the transmitter
and receivers are placed at regular intervals above, be-
low, and within the zone of interest. The tomographic
data are inverted to image the interwell space. The re-
sulting crosswell electromagnetic sections provide resis-
tivity and apparent saturation images and can be used
to directly monitor the fluid front with the acquisition
of time-lapse data. The electromagnetic detection of sat-
uration changes requires sufficient resistivity contrast
between the hydrocarbons and the water. Bhatti et al.
(2008) described the successful application of crosswell
electromagnetic methods to time-lapse waterflood mon-
itoring in a Middle East carbonate field, where injected
water is very saline and produces a large response.
 Reservoir Characterization and Modeling: A Look Back to See the Way Forward
Microseismic data provide insight into the stress
changes that occur in the reservoir caused by produc-
tion and injection operations. Microseismic events are
small earthquakes and acoustic emissions induced as a
result of the changing stress distribution resulting from
hydrocarbon extraction or hydraulic fracture stimula-
tion. Systems for monitoring microseismic events are
required to record high-fidelity low-noise data to max-
imize the accuracy of locating the events in space. A
velocity model for compressional (Vp) and shear waves
(Vs) is also required for event location. Microseismic
data can be acquired by sensors at the surface or buried
in shallow holes in onshore settings. Noise in the sur-
face environment and the large distance to the reser-
voir tend to limit the application of these acquisition
methods. Sensors can be placed closer to the reservoir
by placing them in a well where they can better record
low-magnitude events. However, dedicated monitor-
ing wells are rarely available, and this has limited the
application of the technique so that it is currently a niche
reservoir management tool. The occurrence of micro-
seismic events can be monitored and mapped in both
space and time. This information is important for ver-
ifying the movement of reservoir fluids including in-
jected water and hydrocarbons. The microseismic
events can provide information about the occurrence of
fracturing (Du et al., 2011, this volume) or the activation
of faults that are not visible on conventional seismic data
and can be used to update the fracture network model.
INTEGRATED RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION
AND MODELING
In mature oil fields where high water cut occurs, both
appraisal of the remaining hydrocarbon and fluid flow
in the heterogeneous subsurface environments are im-
portant. This requires a multidisciplinary integration of
all the available data. The introduction of geostatistics
to reservoir characterization enabled geoscientists to in-
tegrate multiple sources of data from various disciplines
in a reservoir model. It also has helped bridge some of
the gaps between various disciplines, which makes res-
ervoir characterization truly a multidisciplinary team
effort. Several critical concepts, methods, and integrated
workflows are discussed here, including the concept of
flow units and various geostatistical methods.
Flow Unit
The concept of flow units itself is a manifestation of a
multidisciplinary integration. It was proposed by Hearn
et al. (1984, 1986) and defined as ‘‘continuously vertical
299
and horizontal flowing space in genetic units.’’ Several
methods for dividing flow units were later proposed
with different emphases such as geology and hydro-
dynamic factors (Rodriguez, 1988; Barr and Altunbay,
1992). The discussion of the flow unit eventually led to
the notion of flow zone index for dividing flow units
using a revised Kozeney-Carman function (Amaefule
et al., 1993). Quantitative analyses were conducted in
the Endicott oil field of the North Slope, Alaska (Ti et al.,
1995), in which cluster analysis was used to classify
flow units using various logging data, flow and storage
variables, and net-to-gross ratio. Other definitions and
applications of flow units can be found in Hamlin et al.
(1996), and Alden et al. (1997). The linkage between the
flow unit concept and the hierarchy of reservoir het-
erogeneities and production phase was also discussed
(Qiu, 1997).
Petroleum Geostatistics
Geostatistics was initially developed for mining ap-
plications (Krige, 1951; Matheron, 1963; Journel and
Huijbregts, 1978). In the early 1970s, geostatistics was
mostly used for mapping in the petroleum industry,
especially surface mapping using kriging interpola-
tions, as 3-D geocellular models were not available
because of limitations in computer technology. The
need for modeling subsurface heterogeneities in ex-
ploration and production has been brought up by other
authors (Bennion and Griffiths, 1966; Haldorsen and
Lake, 1984). As 3-D geocellular models became feasible
in the mid-1980s, stochastic methods made significant
inroads in reservoir characterization (Lake and Carroll,
1986; Journel and Alabert, 1990; Dubrule, 2003) for mod-
eling the subsurface heterogeneities. One of the main
reasons for the uncertainty in reservoir production fore-
casts is the effect of subsurface heterogeneities. There-
fore, modeling heterogeneities of geologic variables,
such as faults and spatial distributions of shale, and
petrophysical variables (i.e., porosity, permeability, and
fluid saturation) is critical in handling uncertainty in
production forecasts, including cumulative oil produc-
tion, recovery rate, and water cut (Lia et al., 1997).
Chilès and Lantuéjoul (2005) discussed conditional
simulation as a prediction method, although stochas-
tic simulation, from a theoretical standpoint, is not as
accurate as kriging in terms of the local estimation.
Srivastava (1994) gave an overview of stochastic meth-
ods used for reservoir characterization before the mid-
1990s. Deutsch (2001), Jones and Ma (2001), Kelkar and
Perez (2002), and Caers (2005) discussed more recent
applications of petroleum geostatistics in reservoir
characterization and modeling. Many chapters in this
volume discuss the latest research and applications of
300 YU ET AL.
Figure 5. Example of integrating
a seismic attribute to constrain
a porosity model (only a map view
is displayed). (A, B) Two realiza-
tions of the porosity model built
with 10 well controls. (C) A noisy
seismic attribute. (D) Porosity
model built with (C) using collo-
cated cosimulation.
uncertainty analysis, and reservoir characterization
and modeling. Here, we will briefly review some of
the most commonly used geostatistical methods for
integrated reservoir characterization.
Geologic Modeling by Integrating Well Logs and
Seismic Data
Although a geologic model can be built using limited
data, it is wise to use as much data as possible to im-
prove the accuracy of the model. Well-log data are
typically very limited, but 3-D seismic data are laterally
of wider and denser coverage. Integrating both the well-
log and seismic data can significantly improve the geo-
logic model. Several methods have been proposed to
integrate seismic data in building a geologic model.
Collocated cokriging and cosimulation, and kriging with
external drift are some of the common methods for seis-
mic data integration in distributing petrophysical prop-
erties in a reservoir model (Xu et al., 1992). Bayesian
sequential indicator simulation (Doyen, 2007) and se-
quential indicator cosimulation (Fichtl et al., 1997) are
common methods for integrating seismic data in litho-
facies modeling.
The use of seismic data, together with well-log data,
helps better model the facies and petrophysical prop-
erties. Figure 5 shows an example of modeling porosity
with a seismic attribute by collocated cosimulation com-
pared with the model without using the seismic attribute.
One of the challenges in integrating seismic data and
well logs is the difference in scale. Although well logs
are typically sampled every half foot (sometimes even
finer), vertical resolution of seismic data is much lower.
Reconciling this discrepancy for 3-D reservoir modeling
has been a subject of many studies (Deutsch et al., 1996;
Doyen et al., 1997; Tran et al., 2001) and is an important
ongoing research subject.
Integrating Depositional Facies Analysis in
Reservoir Modeling
It has become increasingly important to study deposi-
tional facies systematically and to incorporate the de-
positional model into reservoir modeling. Depositional
facies are important for predicting the distributions of
reservoir bodies and associated petrophysical proper-
ties. A conceptual model can be used to guide the res-
ervoir model. Philosophically, studies in depositional
facies are causal analyses and should help to better un-
derstand the geology of the reservoir, and thus, help
build more accurate models. One of the problems in
exploration and development is the disconnection be-
tween sedimentary facies analysis and numerical reser-
voir modeling (Ma et al., 2009). Methods have been pro-
posed to better incorporate a geologic conceptual model
into the reservoir model (Massonnat, 1999; Ma, 2009b).
Traditionally, one of the challenges is how to quan-
tify and represent geologic information in a 3-D nu-
merical reservoir model. This can be done using the
propensity concept, which was initially proposed by
Popper in the late 1950s as a probability theory (Popper,
1959). The propensity concept allows for conversion of
a conceptual geologic model into facies probability
maps or cubes. In turn, these facies probabilities can be
used to guide stochastic modeling of facies, making the
geologic model more realistic. Figure 6 shows such an
 Reservoir Characterization and Modeling: A Look Back to See the Way Forward
example in which a facies model for a carbonate rimmed
shelf was constructed with or without the constraint by
the conceptual model. The one built with the conceptual
model as a constraint is geologically more realistic.
Reservoir Modeling by Integrating Well-Log, Geologic,
Seismic, and Engineering Data
Well data are typically quite limited, especially for lat-
eral control. This deficiency can be mitigated by inte-
grating more extensive 3-D seismic data and/or geo-
logic conceptual models in reservoir modeling, as
previously discussed. Another source of data is from
reservoir engineering, including well performance
tests and production data.
Multiple realizations of a reservoir model, even with
relatively dense well control and the integration of geo-
logic and seismic data, are generally very different,
which leads to different reservoir performance pre-
dictions and depletion strategies. Well performance
tests and production data provide insights into what is
happening with the reservoir and should be used as a
feedback to updating the reservoir model (Hird and
Kelkar, 1994). Integration of reservoir engineering in
building a reservoir model is, therefore, as important as
integrating other sources of data.
301
Figure 6. Comparison of a facies
model constructed with or without
using the conceptual model as a
guide. (A) Conceptual model of a
carbonate rimmed shelf. (B) Fa-
cies model constructed using se-
quential indicator simulation (SIS)
without the guide/constraint by
the conceptual model in panel A.
(C) Facies model constructed
using SIS constraint by the con-
ceptual model in panel A.
Several methods for integrating well performance
tests and production data are available. These include
collocated cosimulation, block kriging (Tran et al., 2001),
frequency-domain methods (Huang and Kelkar, 1996),
gradual deformation (Hu, 2000; Mezghani and Roggero,
2004), streamline modeling (Yoon et al., 2001), simulat-
ed annealing (Deutsch and Journel, 1992), and ensem-
ble Kalman filtering (Zafari and Reynolds, 2007).
Integrated Characterization and Modeling of
Fractured Reservoirs
Up through the late 1980s, fractured reservoirs were
regarded more as problems than prospects. The pres-
ence of fractures in reservoirs gave rise to many un-
desired results: premature breakthrough of water, CO2,
heat, or other substances used in improved oil recovery
and/or enhanced oil recovery; lower than forecast re-
covery factors; downgraded estimates of ultimate re-
covery; and higher development costs. Wilkinson’s (1953,
p. 265) view of fractured reservoirs in his description
of the Spraberry reservoir in west Texas persisted until
the late 1980s:
‘‘It is fabulous in areal extent, puzzling with its pro-
duction problems, and baffling with its geological phe-
nomena. Here, in an area devoid of typical folded
302 YU ET AL.

traps. . .flowed the aforementioned 2,744,156 bbl of oil By the early 1990s, industry had the ability to re-
from 1558 wells during the month of April, primarily cover more oil out of fractured reservoirs through hor-
the result of fractures.’’ izontal drilling and a means to obtain widespread hard
Vast amounts of in-place oil, recovery factors well fracture data through image logs. These data made it
below 10%, and no apparent method to predict good possible to build reservoir-scale and field-scale models
wells from bad, both frustrated and intrigued the in- of the fracturing for inclusion in static and dynamic
dustry for decades. Reservoirs in Texas and California, reservoir modeling.
because of the substantial oil in place, continued to In the 1970s and 1980s, various governments com-
tantalize the industry. This fostered systematic studies mitted themselves to isolating nuclear waste in under-
in the geologic causes of natural fractures, so that ex- ground hard rock repositories. Many of the proposed
plorationists might have the means to improve their repositories and hard rock laboratories were in crys-
predictions of where fractures were most favorably talline rocks such as the granitic rocks of the Baltic and
developed. Canadian shields. In the United States, sites in basalt
Much of the early work in the oil industry focused and salt were eventually abandoned for the fractured
on understanding how joints and faults related to struc- tuffs adjacent to the Nevada test site. A feature com-
ture (Hodgson, 1961; Cloos, 1968). Stearns and Friedman mon to these sites was the fact that the natural fractures
(1972) proposed one of the first geomechanical models provided the main pathway for escaped radionuclides
to predict fracture orientations related to folding, and to reach the surface or otherwise impact human health
their classification system and nomenclature were and safety.
widely adopted by oil companies in the 1970s and Geotechnical engineers working on site characteri-
1980s. Others, such as Hubbert (1951), continued their zation for these proposed repositories developed math-
geomechanical studies of brittle rock fracture and eval- ematical methods for describing the geometry of nat-
uated mechanisms other than folding to generate re- ural fracture patterns (Baecher et al., 1977; Baecher and
gional fracture joint systems. Advances in servocon- Lanney, 1978; Priest and Hudson, 1981; Hudson and
trolled laboratory testing equipment in the 1960s Priest, 1983; La Pointe and Hudson, 1985). This was
enabled industry and academic researchers alike to combined with an objective modeling approach to nat-
expand their understanding of how rock fractures and ural fracture systems in 2-D (Hudson and La Pointe,
different conditions of material properties, load rates, 1980; La Pointe and Hudson, 1985) and 3-D (Dershowitz,
pore pressures, and other factors can give rise to dif- 1979, 1984) that became known as discrete fracture
ferent fracture patterns.
Two important developments in the 1980s started
to change how industry viewed fractured reservoirs,
and both spurred efforts to incorporate fractures or
fracture-related properties into reservoir descriptions.
These were horizontal drilling and the development
of fracture image logs.
Horizontal wells were rare in the 1980s, but led to
substantial increases in recovery in many fractured
reservoirs, such as the Austin Chalk, that had been
exploited for decades by vertical wells. Horizontal wells
have made it more possible to intersect an increased
number of productive fractures than vertical wells did,
which made fractured reservoirs more economically
attractive. Still, not all horizontal wells were good pro-
ducers or even economic because fracture intensity and
orientation varied throughout the field.
In the mid-1980s, Schlumberger commercialized the
Formation MicroScanner tool, the first oil field tool
that could directly image fractures downhole. The
first use of the tool in Saudi Arabia occurred in 1986
(McNaboe, 1991). This tool and its successors provided
the first means of directly measuring fracture loca- Figure 7. An example of a discrete fracture network (DFN)
tion, orientation, size, and aperture without having to reservoir-scale model showing deterministic faults and
obtain core. stochastic subseismic fractures.
 Reservoir Characterization and Modeling: A Look Back to See the Way Forward
network (DFN) modeling (Figure 7). In the DFN ap-
proach, fractures are represented as finite planar poly-
gons or as surfaces composed of tessellated polygons
with fluid flow and geomechanical properties. Fractures
are represented as deterministic objects where they are
known with a high degree of certainty. Large seismic-
scale faults are commonly represented as deterministic
fractures. Fractures below seismic resolution, however,
are represented stochastically, and their local statistical
properties are conditioned to the geologic, geophysical,
or geomechanical data.
Because many conceptual explanations for the origin
of the natural fracture system commonly exist, as well
as significant variability in the fracture properties be-
cause of the high heterogeneity found in most fractured
reservoirs, much uncertainty in predicting fracture ge-
ometry and fracture property values is present between
measured data at wells. Moreover, the fracture data at
wells also contain uncertainties. These uncertainties can
be modeled through the DFN approach using Monte
Carlo or similar stochastic sampling methods to gener-
ate statistical realizations of the stochastic component
of the fracture model.
Uncertainty is reduced in DFN models using the
alternative models or their realizations to predict en-
gineering data such as tracer transport, transient well
test results, or microseismicity associated with hydro-
fracturing (La Pointe et al., 2009). The DFN framework
thus provides an approach that integrates a wide variety
of data, including geologic conceptual models, fracture
image log data, conventional well-log data, production
and transient test data, tracer experiments, mud losses,
geophysical attributes from 3-D volumes of P-wave or
S-wave data, and the 3-D static matrix model. Two hall-
marks of a DFN reservoir model are that a DFN model
provides an integrative framework for a wide variety of
data that can be quantitatively tested against various
types of engineering and production data, and the sto-
chastic nature of the models allows for various types of
quantitative sensitivity and uncertainty analyses.
The development of integrated fracture character-
ization and modeling followed the path of other as-
pects of reservoir characterization. In the early stages,
fractures were either ignored or avoided. However,
industry soon recognized that a significant financial
incentive to understand fracture development exists,
although the lack of tools hindered exploitation. With
the advent of some breakthrough technologies, such as
horizontal drilling and fracture image logs, the eco-
nomic potential of integrated reservoir characteriza-
tion could finally be translated into increased recovery
and better economics. New modeling approaches led
to new modeling tools, which in turn led to better
models of fracturing between wells that increased re-
303
covery or lowered costs. In this way, the technology
became self-sustaining.
CHALLENGES AND PERSPECTIVES
Reservoir characterization is a multidisciplinary inte-
gration exercise, including both descriptive and quan-
titative aspects. Although geologic problems in explo-
ration and production have become more and more
complex, new technology and methods are increasing-
ly used for reservoir characterization. Ultimately, one
of the main goals of reservoir characterization is to ac-
curately evaluate hydrocarbon resources for reservoir
management applications. Significant progress has been
made in this regard, and many challenges remain; some
perspectives on the way forward are discussed in the
following.
Better Characterization of Heterogeneities
Many oil fields in the world have high water cuts. With
the increasing demand for better development efficien-
cy, the study of the distribution of remaining subsurface
hydrocarbon resources is very important. Understand-
ing subsurface heterogeneities is critical for exploiting
the remaining hydrocarbon reserves in reservoirs with
a high water cut and thin oil-bearing layers. The way in
which intrastratal heterogeneities control the distribu-
tion of the remaining hydrocarbons can be analyzed
by various disciplines, including high-resolution seis-
mic surveys, sedimentology, diagenesis, and integrated
studies. One of the problems is that core observations
and descriptions are not systematic enough, and it is
difficult to conduct a genetic analysis of sedimentary
deposits from such data.
Diagenetic Studies
Understanding diagenesis is important in predicting
favorable porosity, hydrocarbon saturation, and per-
meability in a reservoir. In the last decade, however,
research in diagenesis has shown no significant prog-
ress. The problem mainly lies in how to quantify and
predict favorable secondary porosities with the use of
diagenetic indices. Diagenetic studies use petrographic
thin sections and experimental analysis. Most geolo-
gists, however, are not adequately familiar with exper-
imental science. Perhaps in the future geologists should
be trained more systematically on laboratory methods
for sample analysis.
304 YU ET AL.
Linkage between Sedimentary Process Modeling and
Reservoir Modeling
Two major branches of geologic modeling currently
exist: sedimentary process modeling and reservoir mod-
eling. Significant disconnections between the two are
present. Although the former focuses on depositional
processes of sediments, the latter emphasizes the nu-
meric modeling for providing inputs for reservoir sim-
ulation and management.
Whereas many description-focused geologists tend
to analyze the genetic origins of sedimentary bodies
by studying outcrops and present-day depositional
analogs, reservoir modelers tend to generate numer-
ical models using stochastic methods with a focus on
methodology and probability theory. It would be
highly useful to quantify and integrate the descriptive
geology more accurately into a geologic model to guide
reservoir modeling and then provide a basis for nu-
merical simulation. Although computer technology and
numerical simulation of the sedimentation process have
developed rapidly, it is still difficult to simulate the true
condition of subsurface sedimentary bodies because
of the effect of complex and interchangeable factors in
the sedimentation process.
Improving Seismic Resolution
Many seismic inversion methods lack accuracy be-
cause of the limited vertical resolution of seismic data.
It is becoming increasingly important to improve the
accuracy with which reservoir properties can be pre-
dicted, especially in thin layers. Because of the narrow
frequency band of seismic data, it is difficult to distin-
guish layers thinner than 10 m (33 ft). Currently, com-
mon practice is to analyze the characteristics of thin
layers by the seismic response amplitude and frequen-
cy spectrum and to study the factors influencing the
characteristics of the seismic waveform. Higher reso-
lution seismic data are required to distinguish very
thin layers, especially thin lenticular bodies and thin-
bed analysis. It is especially important in the study of
subsurface heterogeneities when few wells exist.
Gridding and Support Effect
Various sources of data in reservoir characterization
have different volumes of support. Core plugs are of
inches, well logs are typically sampled every half foot,
and seismic vertical resolution is on the order of me-
ters to tens of meters. At the same time, whereas a
reservoir is a continuous field, a reservoir model con-
sists of a discrete grid of 3-D cells with assigned reser-
voir properties. Furthermore, because of the limitation
of computing power in numerical simulation, a res-
ervoir model for dynamic simulation is much coarser
than a geocellular model. Many questions remain in
regard to representing a continuous reservoir by vari-
ous scales of data.
 What is the best grid to represent the reservoir and
how can it accurately represent each domain, in-
cluding geologic, core, outcrop, logging, seismic,
and rock mechanics?
 Can a unified standard be applied in different
domains?
 What is the best way to map a model from one
domain to another?
 How does one accurately upscale or downscale
grids from one resolution to another?
 How can the seismic data be refined to accurately
calibrate it with core, logging, and geologic data?
Geostatistics plays a key role in this problem be-
cause support effect is quite well studied in geostatis-
tics, especially nonlinear geostatistics (Rivoirard, 1994;
Chilès and Delfiner, 1999). Because streamline simula-
tion significantly reduces the computing times, it can
also be used to help define the grid size for reservoir
simulation by balancing the computing time and ac-
curacy of dynamic simulation.
Fracture Characterization
Many challenges to increasing recovery and lowering
costs in reservoirs still exist in which natural fractures
impact reservoir-scale flow and transport. Prediction
of fracturing between wells is still highly uncertain.
Uncertainty can be reduced in several ways, such as
improving the spatial resolution of seismic data and
finding more attributes that relate to fracture intensi-
ty, size, or orientation. Three-dimensional seismic is
the only data set that does not require interpolation
for use in conditioning a fracture model, but most of
the attributes are indirect and at a coarser resolution
than the fracture mechanical stratigraphy.
Another challenge lies in developing numerically
efficient multiphase flow simulators and meshers for
discrete fracture flow. Because fractures are represented
by discrete objects with arbitrary geometry, they are not
amenable to solution using finite difference methods
but are best modeled through finite element methods.
Meshing the fractures and the matrix in between the
fractures is a significant limitation for large-scale DFN
models, as is multiphase flow.
 Reservoir Characterization and Modeling: A Look Back to See the Way Forward
Finally, although industry and academia have made
substantial progress in understanding the origin of nat-
ural fracturing, it is clear that much is still left to be
learned. Wilkinson’s (1953, p. 265) statement concern-
ing the Sprayberry that ‘‘it is fabulous in areal extent,
puzzling with its production problems, and baffling
with its geological phenomena’’ is still true.
Resource Evaluation and Uncertainty Analysis
One challenge in constructing an accurate model for
resource evaluation is to properly mitigate the sam-
pling bias. Although it is well known that wells tend to
be drilled in more favorable locations, no established
practice in how to account for a sampling bias exists.
This is because each case is different, it is difficult to
establish a best practice, and researchers have not yet
paid enough attention to this problem. Some methods
used in mining geostatistics, however, can be used to
debias/decluster some simple schemes of sampling bias
(Deutsch and Journel, 1992). For more complicated sam-
pling biases, geologic propensity analysis and strati-
graphic heterogeneity analysis can help discern and
mitigate the bias (Ma, 2009a, 2010b). It is well known
that reservoir heterogeneities tend to increase uncer-
tainty; but note that sampling bias is another impor-
tant complication that can cause increased uncertain-
ties in reservoir characterization.
Uncertainty analysis is discussed in many chapters
of this volume and only briefly discussed here. One
challenge is how to account for uncertainties in our
measurements. Nearly all measurements have a cer-
tain degree of uncertainty. For example, although well
logs and cores are generally more accurate than geo-
logic and seismic data, they may also contain a sig-
nificant range of uncertainty (Moore et al., 2011, this
volume). Another challenge is how to quantify the
uncertainties in geologic and seismic interpretations,
including conceptual depositional facies models. Other
issues include the propagation of uncertainty in com-
plex multistepped reservoir characterization workflows,
as well as the criteria for screening good models from
multiple realizations of a stochastic modeling workflow.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the reviewers for many helpful suggestions.
This work was partially supported by the Program for
Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team at
the China University of Geosciences (IRT0864) and by
the Key Laboratory of Marine Reservoir Evolution and
Hydrocarbon Accumulation Mechanism, Ministry of
305
Education (EEL2008-6). Correspondence author is Y.
Zee Ma.
REFERENCES CITED
Aanonsen, S. I., G. Nævdal, D. S. Oliver, A. C. Reynolds, and
B. Valles, 2009, The ensemble Kalman filter in reservoir
engineering: A review: SPE Journal, v. 14, no. 3, p. 393 –
412.
Aki, K., and Richards, P. G., 1980, Quantitative seismology:
Theory and methods: New York, San Francisco, W. H.
Freeman, 557 p.
Al-Ali, Z. A., et al., 2009, Looking deep into the reservoir:
Oilfield Review, v. 21, no. 2, p. 38 – 47.
Alden, J. M., T. S. Stephen, and J. H. Dan, 1997, Character-
ization of petrophysical flow units in carbonate reser-
voirs: AAPG Bulletin, v. 81, no. 5, p. 731 – 759.
Amaefule, J. O., M. Altunbay, D. Tiab, D. G. Kersay, and
D. K. Keelan, 1993, Enhanced reservoir description: Using
core and log data to identify hydraulic (flow) units and
predict permeability in uncored interval wells: Proceed-
ings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-
tion, October 3 – 6, 1993, Houston, Texas, SPE paper 26436,
p. 205 – 220.
Avseth, P., T. Mukerji, and G. Mavko, 2005, Quantitative
seismic interpretation: Applying rock physics tools to re-
duce interpretation risk: Cambridge, Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 359 p.
Bachrach, R., 2006, Joint estimation of porosity and saturation
using stochastic rock-physics modeling: Geophysics, v. 71,
no. 5, p. O53 – O63, doi:10.1190/1.2235991.
Baecher, G. B., and N. A. Lanney, 1978, Trace length bias in
joint surveys: Proceedings of the 19th U.S. Symposium
on Rock Mechanics, Reno, University of Nevada, v. 1,
p. 56 – 65.
Baecher, G. B., N. A. Lanney, and H. H. Einstein, 1977, Sta-
tistical description of rock properties and sampling: Pro-
ceedings of the 18th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics,
Keystone, Colorado: Boulder, Colorado, Johnson Publish-
ing Co., p. 5C1-1– 5C1-8.
Barr, D. C., M. Altunbay, 1992, Identifying hydraulic units
as an aid to quantifying depositional environments and
diagenetic facies: Proceedings of the Geological Society of
Malaysia Symposium on Reservoir Evaluation/Formation
Damage, Kuala Lumpur, p. 61– 73.
Bennion, D. W., and J. C. Griffiths, 1966, A stochastic model
for predicting variations in reservoir rock properties: Trans-
actions of the American Institute of Mining Metallurgical
and Petroleum Engineers, v. 1, p. 9 – 16.
Bhatti, Z., Y. Al Mansoori, S. El Sembawy, V. Vahrenkamp,
N. Clerc, M. Wilt, and S. Reeder, 2008, Tracking interwell
water saturation in pattern flood pilots in a giant Gulf oil
field: Proceedings of the Abu Dhabi International
Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, November 3 – 6,
2008, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, SPE paper
118434, 11 p.
Brown, A., 2004, Interpretation of three-dimensional seismic
306 YU ET AL.
data: AAPG Memoir 42 and SEG Investigations in Geo-
physics 9, 6th ed., 341 p.
Buland, A., and Y. El Ouair, 2006, Bayesian time-lapse inver-
sion: Geophysics, v. 71, no. 3, p. R43– R48, doi:10.1190
/1.2196874.
Caers, J., 2005, Petroleum geostatistics: Society of Petroleum
Engineers, SPE Interdisciplinary Primer Series, 96 p.
Calvert, R., 2005, Insights and methods for 4-D reservoir
monitoring and characterization: Society of Exploration
Geophysicists and European Association of Geoscientists
and Engineers Distinguished Instructor Short Course 8,
p. 52 – 58.
Chen, Q., and S. Sidney, 1997, Seismic attribute technology
for reservoir forecasting and monitoring: The Leading
Edge, v. 16, no. 5, p. 445 – 450, doi:10.1190/1.1437657.
Chilès, J.-P., and P. Delfiner, 1999, Geostatistics: Modeling
spatial uncertainty: New York, John Wiley Sons, 695 p.
Chilès, J.-P., and C. Lantuéjoul, 2005, Prediction by condi-
tional simulation: models and algorithms, in M. Bilodeau,
F. Meyer, and M. Schmitt, eds., Lecture notes in statis-
tics: Space, structure, and randomness: Contributions in
honor of Geroges Matheron in the field of geostatistics:
Berlin, Springer, p. 39 – 68.
Cloos, E., 1968, Experimental analysis of Gulf Coast fracture
patterns: AAPG Bulletin, v. 52, no. 3, p. 420 – 444.
Coats, K. H., J. R. Dempsey, and J. H. Henderson, 1970, A
new technique for determining reservoir description from
field performance data: SPE Journal, v. 10, no. 1, p. 19 – 27.
Cross, T. A., et al., 1993, Application of high resolution se-
quence stratigraphy to reservoir analysis, in R. Eschard
and B. Doligez, eds., Subsurface reservoir characteriza-
tion from outcrop observations, Paris: Editions Technip,
p. 11 – 33.
Dershowitz, W. S., 1979, Jointed rock mass deformation: a
probabilistic approach: M.S. thesis, Massachusetts Insti-
tute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 291 p.
Dershowitz, W. S., 1984, Rock joint systems: Ph.D. thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mas-
sachusetts, 918 p.
Deutsch, C. V., 2001, Geostatistical reservoir modeling: New
York, Oxford University Press, 376 p.
Deutsch, C. V., and A. G. Journel, 1992, Geostatistical soft-
ware library and user’s guide: New York, Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 340 p.
Deutsch, C. V., S. Srinivasan, and Y. Mo, 1996, Geostatistical
reservoir modeling accounting for precision and scale of
seismic data: Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, October 6 – 9, 1996, Denver,
Colorado, SPE paper 36497, 11 p.
Devegowda, D., and C. Gao, 2011, Reservoir characterization
and uncertainty assessment using the ensemble Kalman
filter: Application to reservoir development, in Y. Z. Ma
and P. R. La Pointe, eds., Uncertainty analysis and reser-
voir modeling: AAPG Memoir 96, p. 235 – 248.
Dong, Y., and D. S. Oliver, 2003, Quantitative use of 4-D
seismic data for reservoir description: Proceedings of the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Oc-
tober 5 – 8, 2003, Denver, Colorado, SPE paper 84571, 11 p.
Doyen, P. M., 2007, Seismic reservoir characterization: An
earth modeling perspective: Houten, Netherlands, Europe-
an Association of Geoscientists and Engineers Publication
BV, 255 p.
Doyen, P. M., D. E. Psaila, L. D. den Boer, and D. Jans, 1997,
Reconciling data at seismic and well-log scales in 3-D earth
modeling: Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition, October 5 – 8, 1997, San Antonio,
Texas, SPE paper 38698, 10 p.
Du, C. M., X. Zhang, Y. Z. Ma, P. Kaufman, B. Melton, and S.
Gowelly, 2011, Integrated shale gas reservoir modeling,
in Y. Z. Ma and P. R. La Pointe, eds., Uncertainty analysis
and reservoir modeling: AAPG Memoir 96, p. 265 – 280.
Dubrule, O., 2003, Geostatistics for seismic data integration
in earth models: Society of Exploration Geophysicists and
European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers Dis-
tinguished Instructor Short Course 6, 271 p.
Emery, D., and K. Myers, eds., 1996, Sequence stratigraphy:
London, Wiley-Blackwell, 304 p.
Emmons, W. H., 1921, Geology of Petroleum: New York,
McGraw-Hill, 610 p.
Fichtl, P., F. Fournier, and J. J. Royer, 1997, Cosimulations of
lithofacies and associated reservoir properties using well
and seismic data: Proceedings of the SPE Annual Tech-
nical Conference and Exhibition, October 5 – 8, 1997, San
Antonio, Texas, SPE paper 38680, 13 p.
Fournier, F., and J. P. Derain, 1995, A statistical methodol-
ogy for deriving reservoir properties from seismic data:
Geophysics, v. 60, no. 5, p. 1437 – 1450. doi:10.1190/1
.1443878.
Gerald, D. K., 1999, Fundamentals of 3-D seismic volume
visualization: Proceedings of the Offshore Technology
Conference, May 3 – 6 1999, Houston, Texas, 13 p.
Gouveia, W. P., D. H. Johnston, A. Solberg, and M. Lauritzen,
2004, Jotun 4-D: Characterization of fluid contact move-
ment from time-lapse seismic and production logging tool
data: The Leading Edge, v. 23, p. 1187 – 1194, doi:10.1190
/1.1825941.
Haas, A., and O. Dubrule, 1994, Geostatistical inversion: A
sequential method of stochastic reservoir modeling con-
strained by seismic data: First Break, v. 12, no. 11, p. 561–566.
Haldorsen, H. H., and L. W. Lake, 1984, A new approach to
shale management in field-scale models: SPE Journal,
v. 24, no. 4, p. 447 – 457.
Hamlin, H. S., S. P. Dutton, D. Seggie, and N. Tyler, 1996,
Depositional controls on reservoir properties in a braid
delta sandstone, Tirrawarra oilfield, South Australia: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 80, no. 2, p. 139– 156.
Haq, B. U., J. Hardenbol, P. R. Vail, 1987, Chronology of
fluctuating sea levels since the Triassic: Science, v. 235,
no. 4793, p. 1156– 1167, doi:10.1126/science.235.4793.1156.
He, X. H., 2008, Crosswell seismic (in Chinese): Beijing,
China, Petroleum Industry Press, 302 p.
Hearn, C. L., W. J. Ebanks, and R. S. Tye, 1984, Geological
factors influencing reservoir performance of the Hartzog
Draw field: Wyoming: Petroleum Technology, v. 36, p. 1335–
1344.
Hearn, C. L., J. P. Hobson, M. L. Fowler, 1986, Reservoir
 Reservoir Characterization and Modeling: A Look Back to See the Way Forward
characterization for simulation, Hartzog Draw field, Wyo-
ming: Orlando, Florida, Academic Press, p. 341 – 372.
Hewett, T. A., 1986, Fractal distributions of reservoir hetero-
geneity and their influence on fluid transport: Proceedings
of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
October 5 – 8, 1986, New Orleans, Louisiana, SPE paper
15386, 16 p.
Hewett, T. A., and R. A. Behrens, 1988, Conditional simu-
lation of reservoir heterogeneity with fractals: Proceed-
ings of the 63rd Annual Technical Conference of SPE,
Houston, Texas, 1988, p. 645 – 660.
Hird, K. B., and M. G. Kelkar, 1994, Conditional simulation
method for reservoir description using spatial and well-
performance constraints: SPE Reservoir Evaluation and
Engineering, v. 9, p. 145 – 152.
Hirsche, K., S. Boerner, C. Kalkomey, and C. Gastaldi, 1998,
Avoiding pitfalls in geostatistical reservoir characteriza-
tion: A survival guide: Leading Edge, v. 17, no. 4, p. 493–504.
Hodgson, R. A., 1961, Regional study of jointing in the Comb
Ridge-Navajo Mountain area, Arizona and Utah: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 45, no. 1, p. 1 –38.
Hördt, A. , P. Andrieux, F. M. Neubauer, H. Rüter, and K.
Vozoff, 2000, A first attempt at monitoring underground
gas storage by means of time-lapse multichannel transient
electromagnetics: Geophysical Prospecting, v. 48, p. 489–
509, doi:10.1046/j.1365-2478.2000.00192.x.
Hu, L. Y., 2000, Gradual deformation and iterative calibration
of Gaussian related stochastic models: Mathematical Geol-
ogy, v. 32, no. 1, p. 87–108, doi:10.1023/A:1007506918588.
Huang, X. L., and M. G. Kelkar, 1996, Integration of dynamic
data for reservoir characterization in the frequency do-
main: Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence and Exhibition, October 6 – 9, 1996, Denver, Colorado,
SPE paper 36513, 11 p.
Huang, X. L., R. Will, M. Khan, and L. Stanley, 2000, Integra-
tion of time-lapse seismic and production data in a Gulf
of Mexico gas field: Proceedings of 32d Annual Offshore
Technology Conference, May 1 –4, 2000, Houston, Texas,
p. 641– 649.
Hubbert, M. K., 1951, Mechanical basis for certain familiar
geological structures: Bulletin of the Geological Society of
America, v. 62, no. 4, p. 355 – 372, doi:10.1130/0016-7606
(1951)62[355:MBFCFG]2.0.CO;2.
Hudson, J. A., and P. R. La Pointe, 1980, Printed circuits
for studying rock mass permeability: International Jour-
nal of Rock Mechanics, Mining Science and Geome-
chanics Abstracts, v. 17, p. 297–301, doi:10.1016/0148-9062
(80)90812-8.
Hudson, J. A., and S. D. Priest, 1983, Discontinuity frequency
in rock masses: International Journal of Rock Mechanics,
Mining Science and Geomechanics Abstracts, v. 20, p. 73–
89, doi:10.1016/0148-9062(83)90329-7.
Idrobo, E. A., A. H. Malallah, A. Datta-Gupta, and J. O. Parra,
1999, Characterizing fluid saturation distribution using
cross-well seismic and well data: A geostatistical study:
Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, October 3 – 6, 1999, Houston, Texas, SPE paper
56515, 11 p.
307
Jack, I., 1998, Time-lapse seismic in reservoir management:
Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Distinguished In-
structor Short Course, 283 p.
Jahns, H. O., 1966, A rapid method for obtaining a two-
dimensional reservoir description from well pressure
response date: SPE Journal, v. 6, no. 4, p. 327 – 351.
Jervey, M. T., 1988, Quantitative geological modeling of
siliciclastic rock sequences and their seismic expression,
in C. K. Wilgus, B. S. Hasting, C. G. St. C. Kendall, H. W.
Posamentier, C. A. Ross, and J. C. Van Wagoner, eds.,
Sea-level changes: An integrated approach, SEPM Special
Publication 42, p. 47 – 69.
Jones, T. A., and Y. Z. Ma, 2001, Geologic characteristics of
hole-effect variograms calculated from lithology-indicator
variables: Mathematical Geology, v. 33, no. 5, p. 615–629,
doi:10.1023/A:1011048913041.
Journel, A. G., and F. G. Alabert, 1990, New method for
reservoir mapping: Journal of Petroleum Technology,
v. 42, p. 212 – 218.
Journel, A. G., and C. J. Huijbregts, 1978, Mining geostatis-
tics: New York, Academic Press, 600 p.
Kelkar, M., and G. Perez, 2002, Applied geostatistics for
reservoir characterization: Society of Petroleum Engi-
neers, 264 p.
King, R. E., ed., 1972, Stratigraphic oil and gas fields: Clas-
sification, exploration methods, and case histories: AAPG
Memoir 16, 687 p.
Kjonsberg, H., R. Hauge, O. Kolbjornsen, and A. Buland,
2010, Bayesian Monte Carlo method for seismic predrill
prospect assessment: Geophysics, v. 75, no. 2, p. O9 – O19,
doi:10.1190/1.3339678.
Krige, D. G., 1951, A statistical approach to some mine val-
uations and allied problems at the Witwatersrand: Jour-
nal of the Chemical Metallurgical & Mining Society of
South Africa, v. 52, no. 6, p. 119 – 139.
Lake, L. W., and H. B. Carroll, eds., 1986, Reservoir charac-
terization: Orlando, Florida, Academic Press, 659 p.
Lake, L. W., H. B. Carroll, and T. C. Wesson, eds., 1991, Reser-
voir characterization II: San Diego, California, Academic
Press, 726 p.
La Pointe, P. R., and J. A. Hudson, 1985, Characterization
and interpretation of rock mass joint patterns: Geological
Society of America, Special Paper 199, 37 p.
La Pointe, P. R., W. Dershowitz, and D.-H. Lim, 2009, Pre-
dicting and optimizing drainage volumes in gas shales
through discrete fracture network (DFN) modeling (abs.):
11th Annual Unconventional Gas Conference, Novem-
ber 18 – 20, Calgary, Canada, 1 p.
Larue, D. K., and Y. Yue, 2003, How stratigraphy influences
oil recovery: A comparative reservoir database study con-
centrating on deep-water reservoirs: The Leading Edge,
v. 22, p. 332 – 339, doi:10.1190/1.1572086.
Lee, D. S., and V. M. Stevenson, 1995, Time-lapse crosswell
seismic tomography to characterize flow structure in the
reservoir during the thermal stimulation: Geophysics,
v. 60, p. 660 – 666, doi:10.1190/1.1443805.
LeRoy, L. W., and H. M. Cram, eds., 1949, Subsurface geo-
logic methods: Colorado School of Mines, 826 p.
308 YU ET AL.
Lewis, C., 1997, Seismic attributes for reservoir monitoring:
A feasibility study using forward modeling: The Leading
Edge, v. 16, no. 5, p. 459 – 470, doi:10.1190/1.1437659.
Lia, O., H. Omre, H. Tjelmeland, L. Holden, and T. Egeland,
1997, Uncertainties in reservoir production forecasts: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 81, no. 5, p. 775–802.
Loucks, R. G., and J. F. Sarg, 1993, Carbonate sequence
stratigraphy: AAPG Memoir 57, 545 p.
Lumley, D., A. Nur, S. Strandenes, J. Dvorkin, and J.
Packwood, 1994, Seismic monitoring of oil production:
A feasibility study: Society of Exploration Geophysicists
Expanded Abstract 13, 10 p.
Ma, Y. Z., 2009a, Simpson’s paradox in natural resource eval-
uation: Mathematical Geosciences, v. 41, no. 2, p. 193 –213,
doi:10.1007/s11004-008-9187-z.
Ma, Y. Z., 2009b, Propensity and probability in depositional
facies analysis and modeling: Mathematical Geosciences,
v. 41, p. 737 – 760, doi:10.1007/s11004-009-9239-z.
Ma, Y. Z., 2010, Error types in reservoir characterization and
management: Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineer-
ing, v. 72, p. 290 – 301, doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2010.03.030.
Ma, Y. Z., 2011, Uncertainty analysis in reservoir character-
ization and management: How much should we know
about what we don’t know?, in Y. Z. Ma and P. R. La
Pointe, eds., Uncertainty analysis and reservoir model-
ing: AAPG Memoir 96, p. 1 – 15.
Ma, Y. Z., A. Seto, and E. Gomez, 2009, Depositional facies
analysis and modeling of Judy Creek reef complex of the
Late Devonian Swan Hills, Alberta, Canada: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 93, no. 9, p. 1235–1256, doi:10.1306/05220908103.
Ma, Y. Z., E. Gomez, B. Luneau, F. Iwere, T. J. Young, and D. L.
Cox, 2011, Integrated reservoir modeling of a Pinedale tight-
gas reservoir in the Greater Green River Basin, Wyoming, in
Y. Z. Ma and P. R. La Pointe, eds., Uncertainty analysis and
reservoir modeling: AAPG Memoir 96, p. 89–106.
Mackenzie, F. T., and O. P. Bricker, 1971, Cementation of sed-
iments by carbonate minerals, in O. P. Bricker, ed., Carbonate
cements: Baltimore, The John Hopkins Press, p. 239–246.
Martinsen, O. J., 2010, Sequence stratigraphy 25 years down
the road: AAPG Association Roundtable Discussions:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 94, no. 1, p. 119.
Massonnat, G. J., 1999, Breaking of a paradigm: Geology can
provide 3-D complex probability fields for stochastic facies
modeling: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-
tion, October 3 – 6, 1999, Houston, Texas, SPE paper 56652,
14 p.
Matheron, G., 1963, Principles of geostatistics: Economic Ge-
ology, v. 58, no. 1, p. 21 – 28.
Mathisen, M. E., 1995, Time-lapse cross well seismic tomo-
gram interpretation: Implications for heavy oil reservoir
characterization, thermal recovery process monitoring
and tomographic imaging technology: Geophysics, v. 60,
p. 631 – 650, doi:10.1190/1.1443803.
Mavko, G., T. Mukerji, and J. Dvorkin, 1998, The rock phys-
ics handbook: Tools for seismic analysis in porous media:
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 329 p.
McNaboe, G. J., 1991, Comparison of formation microscanner
images to cores in sandstone reservoirs, Saudi Arabia:
SPE 7th Middle East Oil Show Conference Proceedings,
p. 831 – 839.
Meshri, I. D., 1986, On the reactivity of carbonic and organic
acids and generation of secondary porosity: Roles of or-
ganic matter in sediment diagenesis, in D.L. Gautier, ed.,
Roles of organic matter in sediment diagenesis: SPEM
Special Publication 38, p. 123 – 128.
Mezghani, M., and F. Roggero, 2004, Combining gradual
deformation and upscaling techniques for direct condi-
tioning of fine-scale reservoir models to interference test
data: SPE Journal, v. 9, p. 79 – 87.
Miall, A. D., 1985, Architectural-element analysis: A new
method of facies analysis applied to fluvial deposits: Earth
Science Reviews, v. 22, p. 261–308, doi:10.1016/0012-8252
(85)90001-7.
Mirchink, M.Ô., 1946, Field geology (in Russian): Moscow,
Gos. nauch.-tekhn, 698 p.
Mitchum, R. M., and J. C. Van Wagoner, 1991, High-
frequency sequences and their stacking patterns: Sequence-
stratigraphic evidence of high-frequency eustatic cycles:
Sedimentary Geology, v. 70, p. 131 – 160, doi:10.1016/0037
-0738(91)90139-5.
Moore, W. R., Y. Z. Ma, J. Urdea, and T. Bratton, 2011, Un-
certainty analysis in well-log and petrophysical interpre-
tations, in Y. Z. Ma and P. R. La Pointe, eds., Uncer-
tainty analysis and reservoir modeling: AAPG Memoir 96,
p. 17– 28.
Mu, L., B. Xu, S. Zhang, and G. Han, 2008, Integrated 3-D
geologic modeling constrained by facies and horizontal
well data for Block M of the Orinoco heavy oil belt: Pro-
ceedings of the International Thermal Operations and
Heavy Oil Symposium, October 20 – 23, 2008, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, 13 p.
Partyka, G., J. Gridley, and J. Lopez, 1999, Interpretational
applications of spectral decomposition in reservoir char-
acterization: The Leading Edge, v. 22, no. 3, p. 353 – 360,
doi:10.1190/1.1438295.
Peterson, J. E., J. E. Hubbard, S. S. Williams, and K. H. Roberts,
1998, Moisture migration using high resolution time-lapse
radar tomography: Proceedings of the 68th Annual Meet-
ing of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists, p. 322 –
325.
Pettijohn, F. J., 1983, Sedimentary rocks, 3d ed.: New York,
HarperCollins, 628 p.
Pettijohn, F. J., P. E. Potter, and R. Siever, 1973, Sand and
sandstone: Berlin, Germany, Springer-Verlag, 618 p.
Popper, K., 1959, The propensity interpretation of probabil-
ity: British Journal for Philosophy of Science, v. 10, p. 25 –
42, doi:10.1093/bjps/X.37.25.
Posamentier, H. W., and P. Weimer, 1993, Siliciclastic se-
quence stratigraphy and petroleum geology: Where to
from here: AAPG Bulletin, v. 77, no. 5, p. 731 – 742.
Priest, S. D., and J. A. Hudson, 1981, Estimation of discon-
tinuity spacing and trace length using scanline surveys:
International Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mining Science
and Geomechanics Abstracts, v. 18, p. 183 – 198, doi:10
.1016/0148-9062(81)90973-6.
Qiu, Y. N., 1997, Collections of Qiu Yinan petroleum
 Reservoir Characterization and Modeling: A Look Back to See the Way Forward
development geology (in Chinese): Beijing, China, Petro-
leum Industry Press, 317 p.
Qiu, Y. N., 2000, Development of geological reservoir modeling
in past decade, Beijing (in Chinese): Acta Petrolei Sinica,
v. 12, no. 4, p. 55– 62.
Richardson, J. G., and H. L. Stone, 1973, A quarter century of
progress in application of reservoir engineering: Journal
of Petroleum Technology, v. 25, no. 12, p. 1371 – 1379.
Rivoirard, J., 1994, Introduction to disjunctive kriging and
non-linear geostatistics: New York, Oxford University
Press, 180 p.
Rodriguez, A., 1988, Facies modeling and the flow unit
concept as sedimentological tool in reservoir descrip-
tion: Proceedings of the 1988 SPE 63rd Annual Tech-
nical Conference and Exhibition, Richardson, Texas,
p. 465 – 472.
Schatzinger, R. A., and J. F. Jordan, eds., 1999, Reservoir char-
acterization: Recent advances: AAPG Memoir 71, 404 p.
Schlumberger, 1999, Log interpretation principles/appli-
cations, 8th print, Schlumberger Educational Services,
Sugarland, Texas, 200 p.
Schwab, A. M., S. Buckner, J. A. Bramald, and J. Cass, 2011,
Improving reservoir modeling through integration of seis-
mic data in Eocene turbidites for West Brae field, cen-
tral North Sea, United Kingdom, in Y. Z. Ma and P. R.
La Pointe, eds., Uncertainty analysis and reservoir mod-
eling: AAPG Memoir 96, p. 107 – 119.
Sengupta, M., and Bachrach, R., 2007, Uncertainty in seismic-
based pay volume estimation: Analysis using rock physics
and Bayesian statistics: The Leading Edge, v. 26, p. 184–
189, doi:10.1190/1.2542449.
Shanmugam, G., 1985, Significance of secondary porosity in
interpreting sandstone composition: AAPG Bulletin, v. 69,
no. 3, p. 379 – 380.
Shuey, R. T., 1985. A simplification of the Zoeppritz equa-
tions: Geophysics, v. 50, no. 4, p. 609 – 614, doi:10.1190
/1.1441936.
Srivastava, R. M., 1994, An overview of stochastic methods
for reservoir characterization, in J. Yarus and R. Chambers,
eds., Stochastic modeling and geostatistics: Principles,
methods, and case studies: AAPG Computer Applications
in Geology 3, p. 3 – 16.
Stearns, D. W., and M. Friedman, 1972, Reservoirs in frac-
tured rock, in R. E. King, ed., Stratigraphic oil and gas
fields: Classification, exploration methods, and case
histories: AAPG Memoir 16, p. 82 – 106.
Swanson, D. C., 1988, A new geological volume computer
modeling system for reservoir description: Proceedings
of the International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering,
November 1 – 4, 1988, Tianjin, China, p. 293 – 302.
Ti, G., D. O. Ogbe, and D. G. Hatzignatiou, 1995, Use of
flow units as a tool for reservoir description: A case study:
SPE Formation Evaluation, v. 10, no. 2, p. 122 – 128.
Tran, T. T., C. V. Deutsch, and Y. Xie, 2001, Direct geostatis-
tical simulation with multiscale well, seismic, and pro-
duction data: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Ex-
309
hibition, September 30 – October 3, 2001, New Orleans,
Louisiana, SPE paper 71323, 8 p.
Vail, P. R., and R. M. Mitchum, 1977, Seismic stratigraphy
and global changes of sea level, part 1. Overview, in C. E.
Clayton, ed., Seismic stratigraphy: Applications to hydro-
carbon exploration: AAPG Memoir 26, p. 51 – 52.
Vail, P. R., R. M. Mitchum, and S. Thompson, 1977, Seismic
stratigraphy and global changes of sea level, part 3: Rel-
ative changes of sea level from coastal onlap, in C. E.
Clayton, ed., Seismic stratigraphy: Applications to hydro-
carbon exploration: AAPG Memoir 26, p. 63 – 81.
Van Wagoner, J. C., R. M. Mitchum, K. M. Campion, and
V. D. Rahmanian, 1990, Siliciclastic sequence stratigra-
phy in well logs, cores, and outcrops: AAPG Methods in
Exploration Series 7, 55 p.
Walker, R. G., and N. P. James, eds., 1992, Facies models:
Response to sea level change: Geological Association of
Canada, 2d ed., 454 p.
Watts, G. F. T., D. Jizba, D. E. Gawith, and P. A. Gutteridge,
1996, Reservoir monitoring of the Magnus field through
4-D time-lapse seismic analysis: Petroleum Geoscience,
v. 2, p. 361 – 372.
Weber, K. J., 1982, Influence of common sedimentary struc-
ture on fluid flow in reservoir model: Journal of Petroleum
Technology , v. 3, p. 665– 672.
Weimer, P., and H. W. Posamentier, 1993, Siliciclastic se-
quence stratigraphy: AAPG Memoir 58, 492 p.
Wilkinson, W. M., 1953, Fracturing in the Sprayberry reservoir,
west Texas: AAPG Bulletin, v. 37, no. 2, p. 250 – 265.
Xu, W., T. T. Tran, R. M. Srivastava, and A. G. Journel, 1992,
Integrating seismic data in reservoir modeling: The col-
located cokriging approach: Proceedings of the SPE An-
nual Technical Conference and Exhibition, October 4 – 7,
1992, Washington, D.C., SPE paper 24742, 10 p.
Yamamoto, H., J. R. Fanchi, and T. L. Davis, 2004, Integration
of time-lapse seismic data into a flow model study of CO2
injection into the Weyburn field: Proceedings of the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, September
26 – 29, 2004, Houston, Texas, p. 3019 – 3028.
Yoon, S., A. H. Malallah, A. Datta-Gupta, D. W. Vasco, and
R. A. Behrens, 2001, A multiscale approach to production-
data integration using streamline models: SPE Journal,
v. 6, no. 2, p. 182 – 192.
Yu, X. H., 2008, Hydrocarbon reservoir sedimentology of
clastic sandstone, 2d ed. (in Chinese): Beijing, China, Pe-
troleum Industry Press, 551 p.
Zafari, M., and A. C. Reynolds, 2007, Assessing the uncer-
tainty in reservoir description and performance predic-
tions with the ensemble Kalman filter: SPE Journal, v. 12,
no. 3, p. 382 – 391.
Zeng, H., 2004, Seismic geomorphology-based facies classi-
fication: The Leading Edge, v. 23, p. 644 – 645, 688, doi:10
.1190/1.1776732.
Zoeppritz, K., 1919, Erdbebenwellen VIIIB, Ueber Reflexion
and Durchgang seismischer Wellen durch Unstetigkeits-
flaechen: Goettinger, Nachrichten, v. I, p. 66 – 84.
View publication stats