Assessment of Local and Global Uncertainty with Uncertain

Variogram Model: Application to Paleocene Clastics in Libya

Bora Oz (boz@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca) and Clayton V. Deutsch (cdeutsch@civil.ualberta.ca)

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta

Abstract
Heterogeneity characterization and uncertainty analysis are important steps in petroleum
engineering. Multiple realizations provide a measure of uncertainity in rock and uid properties. Fluid ow simulation yeild a range of possible reservoir performance predictions.
This paper addresses local and global uncertainty in presence of uncertainty in the variogram itself. An example, with thickness data from 39 wells located in Libya, is presented.
Uncertainity in the variogram contributes signicantly to the total thickness uncertainty.
KEY WORDS: Simulation, reservoir characterization, bootstrap, variogram

Introduction
Reservoir heterogeneity has an important aect on uid recovery and displacement processes. This has led to the use of detailed reservoir models as input to uid ow simulators.
Unfortunately, petrophysical and ow properties are only available at few well locations.
This lack of detailed knowledge of the reservoir properties leads to uncertainty.
Stochastic modeling techniques are used to introduce heterogeneities in reservoir modeling [2]. Multiple equally likely to be drawn gridded images (or realizations) of reservoir
attributes are generated on the basis of geological and petrophyscial data. Simulation does
not aim to produce a best or average image, but to produce a range of images consistent
with the data [6].
The goal of stochastic modeling is to convert uncertainities in the geological description
to uncertainty in production performance. Stochastic modeling is useful for heterogeneous
reservoirs with widely spaced wells. If the data are sparse, the general geological knowledge
is dominant and uncertainty is large. If more data are available, the data become more
dominant and uncertainty decreases [4].
Correct heterogeneity characterization directly aects the reservoir management decisions. During the initial evaluation of an oil reservoir, decisions are mainly based on
estimates of IOIP (initial-oil-in-place) with associated uncertainty. By generating several
realizations, via stochastic modeling, it is possible to identify the uncertainty in IOIP. In
some case studies, additional evaluations are performed in order to determine the inuence
of additional wells [4]. A good example for the prediction of IOIP can be found in Linjordet
et.al [5]. They studied heterogeneity modeling and uncertainty quantication of the IOIP
for Gulfaks Brent formation. It is important to note that one of the factors aecting the
1

calculation of IOIP is the correct estimation of uncertainty in the thickness data (or pay
zone thickness).
In this study, we model uncertainty due to widely spaced data together with uncertainty
in variogram model. Local and global uncertainty is quantied in presence of uncertainty
in the base-case variogram; then, uncertainty is quantied in presence of low-side and highside variograms. The example data are thickness measurements from 39 wells from a eld
in Libya [3].

Methodology
Obtain the average or expected normal score variogram (base case variogram).
For each lag distance there are data pairs that contribute to the calculation of the
corresponding variogram value. Using the pair values and the bootstrap technique
one can get the distribution of uncertainty in the variogram for each lag distance
accordingly.
The bootstrap is a statistical re-sampling technique that allows uncertainty in the data
to be assessed from the data themselves. The important thing in bootstrap procedure
is that sample values are treated as if they were the population and many new
bootstrapped samples are resampled with replacement. It assumes that data are
representative and all independent. It produces model of uncertainty for simple
statistics and it is good for quick assestment of uncertainty. The assumptions behind
the bootstrap technique are often acceptable when few data are available. Admittedly,
it is extreme to assume independence when inferring the variogram; however, we
note that the pairs themselves are scattered over a large area. Of course, the values
constituting a pair may show correlation.
Calculate the standard deviation of each uncertainty distribution achieved in the
previous step for each lag distance accordingly.
Establish upper and lower limit variograms by adding and subtracting those standard
deviations from the average variogram value corresponding to the each lag distance.
These upper and lower values correspond approximately to specic quantiles of the
variogram uncertainty.
Fit a theoretical model to these variograms (i.e. upper, lower and average).
Use each variogram model to generate many equiprobable realizations serving to characterize the uncertainty. The number of realizations should be enough to capture the
total uncertainty (generally at least 50 realizations).
The combined set of realizations may be used to quantify local or global uncertainty.

Application to Thickness of the Paleocene Clastic in Libya

The study area is a sandstone formation in Libya. There are 39 thickness data available in
the 30 km by 30 km study area. The location map of the eld is given in Figure 1. The
2

thickness values are lower in the central and north parts of the eld. There are, however,
less data in the Northern part of the eld.
The histogram of the data is presented in Figure 2. No weights are used in this histogram.
Most of the data fall into the range of 1700-3500 feet and the mean value is 2489.9 feet.
In Figure 3, the declustered mean versus cell size was plotted. This is the typical result
when low values are over sampled, (i.e. clustered in low valued areas). A Cell-size of 10 km
was chosen for declustering (where the declustered mean becomes stable). These weights
will be used in Sequential Gaussian Simulation.
A new histogram with the declustering weights is presented in Figure 4; the frequency
of high values is increased due to the declustering weights.

Uncertainty in the Experimental Variogram

The variogram model itself carries uncertainty; therefore, for each lag distance, upper and
lower variogram values will be used as one approach to characterize this uncertainty. The
upper, base and lower experimental variograms can be obtained by performing bootstrap
on all variogram pairs for each lag distance.
The procedure, that how we got the upper and lower case variograms for thickness data
in this study, was briey given below.
A modied GAMV program from GSLIB [1] is used to calculate the variogram values
for each lag distance. All pair values that go into each lag calculation are stored.
The bootstrap technique permits determination of the distribution of uncertainty in
the variogram value for each particular lag distance. The distributions, obtained after
bootstrap for each lag distance, are given in Figure 5.
By adding and subtracting one standard deviation, which are obtained from the bootstrap distributions for each lag distance (see Figure 5), from the average variogram
values, upper and lower limits of the experimental variogram can be obtained. For
example, for lag distance 1.883 km, average variogram value is 0.179, the upper limit
is 0.179 + 0.135 = 0.314 and the lower limit is 0.179 0.135 = 0.044. In this example,
the value of 0.135 is the standard deviation obtained for lag distance 1.883 km from
bootstrap(see Figure 5). The resultant variograms (i.e. upper and lower cases) along
with the base case average variogram are given in Figure 6.
The low values taken all together is not exactly a low variogram; it is quite unlikely;
however, it does serve as an extreme bound for uncertainty quantication. The same
could be said for the upper.
A variogram model is then tted to the upper, lower and base case variograms. These
tted models are shown in Figure 7.

Cross Validation and Simulation by SGSIM

To compare these three experimental variograms, cross validation was applied. Although
these three variogram models are all possible, it is clear from Figure 8 that the correlation
3

coecient for the lower case limiting variogram is higher than the other two. We may
conclude that the real semivariogram values might be nearer to the lower case variogram
model.
Two realizations, obtained by using the program SGSIM from GSLIB [1], for each case
are given in Figure 9. the heterogeneity changes consistently with the variogram model.

Local and Global Uncertainty Analysis

Two points were chosen to perform local uncertainty analysis; Point-1, with coordinates of
x=21 km, y=12 km, was chosen where there are more data and Point-2, with coordinates
of x=13 km, y=27 km, was chosen from north part of the study area, where there are less
data.
50 realizations with the base variogram model leads to local distributions of thickness.
Simulation with the upper and lower case variogramsleads to a total of 150 realizations,
see Figure 10. It is clear that uncertainty for the thickness at Point-1 is smaller than
the uncertainty for the thickness at Point-2. The range of uncertainty can be identied
by checking the standard deviation (or variance) of the distibution. Uncertainty increases
signicantly when we take into account upper and lower case variograms.
The square region shown in Figure 1 was divided into dierent volumes. First, 1 km by
1 km block averaging (100 blocks) was considered, see the top of Figure 11. Then, applying
the same procedure for dierent volumes, upscaling was performed by 5 km versus 5 km
and 10 km versus 10 km blocks. The resultant distributions for these two volumes are also
presented in Figure 11. It is clear that as the averaging volume increases, heterogeneity and
the variance decrease, however, for all cases the mean does not change.
For the global uncertainty analysis, logically similar study was performed as in case of
local uncertainty. Uncertainty for the whole eld was studied. Again using the data from
previous 150 realizations, 1km by 1km, 5km by 5km and 10km by 10km block averagings
were applied and upscaled. The results are presented in Figure 12. Again decrease in
variance is clear as the averaging volume increases.

Discussion and Conclusions

It is important to characterize the uncertainty in the thickness distribution of a reservoir for reserve estimation and decision making.
A sensitivity analysis on the experimental variogram has been performed by determining upper and lower limiting variograms. We assume that these lower and upper
variograms are the limiting variograms.
If there are few data available, it is reasonable to consider uncertainty in the experimental variogram. The average variogram may not inadequate to capture the full
uncertainty in the variable.
Uncertainty (i.e., the variance of the distribution) increased approximately 65 percent
for Point-1 and increased 40 percent for Point-2, when we consider uncertainty in

the variogram. This shows the necessity of considering the uncertainty of variogram
model itself.
Global uncertainty by using dierent averaging volumes are obtained and presented in
Figure 12. These distributions can be used to estimate IOIP and be useful in making
decisions on future development of the reservoir.

References
[1] C. V. Deutsch and A. G. Journel. GSLIB: Geostatistical Software Library and Users
Guide. Oxford University Press, New York, 1992.
[2] H. H. Haldorsen and E. Damsleth. Stochastic modeling. Journal of Petroleum Technology, pages 404412, April 1990.
[3] Michael Edward Hohn. Geostatistics and Petroleum Geology, Second Edition. West
Virginia Geological Survey.
[4] Holden Lars, Henning Omre, and Hakon Tjelmelond. Integrated reservoir description.
SPE European Petroleum Computer Conference, pages 15-23, Stavanger, Norway, 25-27
May 1992. Society of Petroleum Engineers. SPE paper # 24261.
[5] A. Linjordet, P. E. Nielsen, and E. Siring. Heterogeneities modeling and uncertainty
quantication of the gullfaks brent formation in-place hydrocarbon volumes. SPE/NPF
3-D Reservoir Modeling Conference, pages 167-173, Stavanger, Norway, 16-17 April
1996. Society of Petroleum Engineers. SPE paper # 35497.
[6] J. F. McCarthy. Reservoir characterication: Ecient random-walk methods for upscaling and image selection. SPE Asia Pacic Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, pages 159-171, Singapore, 8-10 February 1993. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
SPE paper # 25334.

Figure 1: Location map of the thickness of Paleocene clastics. thickness, feet.

Number of Data 39

Frequency

.120

mean 2489.9
std. dev. 586.6
coef. of var .24
maximum
upper quartile
median
lower quartile
minimum

.080

.040

.000
1400.

2400.

3400.

4400.

Thickness, ft

Figure 2: Histogram of the thickness of Paleocene clastic.

3941.0
2859.7
2436.0
2116.0
1439.0

Figure 3: Declustered Mean versus Cell Size, km

Number of Data 39
mean 2669.0
std. dev. 661.0
coef. of var .25

Frequency

.120

maximum
upper quartile
median
lower quartile
minimum

.080

weights used

.040

.000
1400.

2400.

3400.

4400.

Thickness, ft

Figure 4: Histogram of the thickness(weights used).

3941.0
3078.3
2572.3
2157.6
1439.0

Bootstrap Dist. for lag=1.883

Bootstrap Dist. for lag=4.709

Number of Data 1000

maximum
upper quartile
median
lower quartile
minimum

Frequency

.200

.6590
.3340
.1790
.0240
.0100

mean .6585
std. dev. .1013
coef. of var .1538
maximum
upper quartile
median
lower quartile
minimum

.080
Frequency

.250

Number of Data 1000

.120

mean .1799
std. dev. .1349
coef. of var .7499

.150

.100

1.0920
.7225
.6520
.5865
.3780

.040

.050

.000

.000
.00

.40

.80

1.20

.00

.40

Avg

.80

Bootstrap Dist. for lag=8.276

Bootstrap Dist. for lag=12.079

Number of Data 1000

Number of Data 1000

mean .9230
std. dev. .1240
coef. of var .1343

mean .7703
std. dev. .0834
coef. of var .1082

.300

1.3660
1.0065
.9180
.8370
.4970

Frequency

maximum
upper quartile
median
lower quartile
minimum

.120

.080

maximum
upper quartile
median
lower quartile
minimum

.200

.100

.040

.000

.000
.00

.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

.00

1.00

Avg

2.00

3.00

Avg

Bootstrap Dist. for lag=15.799

Number of Data 1000

.250

mean .9191
std. dev. .1078
coef. of var .1173
maximum
upper quartile
median
lower quartile
minimum

.200

Frequency

Frequency

1.20

Avg

1.3820
.9890
.9180
.8440
.6040

.150

.100

.050

.000
.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

Avg

Figure 5: Bootstrap results for the variogram value for the 5 lags used in variogram calculation.

1.0370
.8260
.7690
.7170
.5400

Figure 6: Uncertainty in Experimental Variogram: Upper Case Variogram, Base Case Variogram
(average), and Lower Case Variogram

Figure 7: Variogram modeling results: upper, base and lower case variograms.

10

4000. Cross Validation-upper case variogram

Number of data 39
Number plotted 39
X Variable: mean 2454.1
std. dev. 281.7

3000.

True

Y Variable: mean 2489.9

std. dev. 586.6
correlation .48
rank correlation .51

2000.

1000.

0.
0.

1000.

2000.

3000.

4000.

Estimate

4000. Cross Validation-base case variogram

Number of data 39
Number plotted 39
X Variable: mean 2462.8
std. dev. 327.0

3000.

True

Y Variable: mean 2489.9

std. dev. 586.6
correlation .46
rank correlation .51

2000.

1000.

0.
0.

1000.

2000.

3000.

4000.

Estimate

4000. Cross Validation-lower case variogram

Number of data 39
Number plotted 39
X Variable: mean 2450.4
std. dev. 386.8

3000.

True

Y Variable: mean 2489.9

std. dev. 586.6
correlation .53
rank correlation .56

2000.

1000.

0.
0.

1000.

2000.

3000.

4000.

Estimate

Figure 8: Cross validation results: upper,base and lower variograms.

11

Simulation Result-upper case

Simulation Result-upper case

30.0

4000

4000

3750

3750

3500

3500

3250

3250

3000

3000

North, km

North, km

30.0

2750
2500

2750
2500

2250

2250

2000

2000

1750

1750

1500

1500

1250

1250

0.0

0.0
0.0

East,km

30.0

0.0

Simulation Result-base case

East, km

30.0

Simulation Result-base case

30.0

4000

4000

3750

3750

3500

3500

3250

3250

3000

3000

North, km

North, km

30.0

2750
2500

2750
2500

2250

2250

2000

2000

1750

1750

1500

1500

1250

1250

0.0

0.0
0.0

East, km

30.0

0.0

Simulation Result-lower case

East, km

30.0

Simulation Result-lower case

30.0

4000

4000

3750

3750

3500

3500

3250

3250

3000

3000

North, km

North, km

30.0

2750
2500

2750
2500

2250

2250

2000

2000

1750

1750

1500

1500

1250

1250

0.0

0.0
0.0

East, km

30.0

0.0

East, km

Figure 9: Realizations by SGSIM: upper, base and lower case variograms.

12

30.0

Local Uncertainity Analysis (Point#1)

Local Uncertainity Analysis (Point#2)

Number of Data 50

.300

Number of Data 50

mean 2617.0
std. dev. 187.1
coef. of var .07

Frequency

.200

3075.0
2694.0
2565.5
2451.0
2404.0

maximum
upper quartile
median
lower quartile
minimum

.120
Frequency

maximum
upper quartile
median
lower quartile
minimum

mean 2037.2
std. dev. 374.1
coef. of var .18

.160

2780.0
2428.0
2093.0
1680.0
1407.0

.080

.100
.040

.000

.000

1250.

1750.

2250.

2750.

3250.

1250.

1750.

Thickness,ft

Local Uncert.Anal.all cases(point#1)

.160

Number of Data 150

3250.

Local Uncert.Anal.all cases(point#2)

Number of Data 150

mean 2698.5
std. dev. 265.3
coef. of var .10

mean 2077.3
std. dev. 491.0
coef. of var .22

3203.0
2898.0
2639.5
2508.0
2127.0

maximum
upper quartile
median
lower quartile
minimum

.120

Frequency

maximum
upper quartile
median
lower quartile
minimum

.150
Frequency

2750.

Thickness, ft

.200

.100

3250.0
2415.5
1953.5
1683.0
1262.0

.080

.040

.050

.000
1250.

2250.

.000
1750.

2250.

2750.

3250.

1250.

Thickness, ft

1750.

2250.

2750.

3250.

Thickness, ft

Figure 10: Uncertainty distributions for Point-1 and Point-2: top gures: base case variogram;
bottom gures: values are obtained by combining upper, base and lower case variograms.

13

Uncertainity in Thickness (1kmx1km)

Number of Data 15000
mean 2073.2
std. dev. 419.6
coef. of var .20

.160

maximum
upper quartile
median
lower quartile
minimum

Frequency

.120

3894.4
2385.2
1941.3
1721.6
1242.6

.080

.040

.000
1200.

2200.

3200.

4200.

thickness ,ft

.160

Uncertainity in thickness- 5kmx5km

Number of Data 600
mean 2073.2
std. dev. 306.1
coef. of var .15
maximum
upper quartile
median
lower quartile
minimum

Frequency

.120

3059.1
2275.2
2014.0
1900.3
1396.3

.080

.040

.000
1200.

2200.

3200.

4200.

thickness, ft

Uncertainity in thickness- 10kmx10km

Number of Data 150
mean 2073.2
std. dev. 139.0
coef. of var .07

Frequency

.300

maximum
upper quartile
median
lower quartile
minimum

.200

2426.0
2146.7
2025.1
1991.9
1800.6

.100

.000
1200.

2200.

3200.

4200.

thickness, ft

Figure 11: Uncertainty analysis for the region shown in Figure 1, for dierent volumes averaging.

14

Uncertainity in Thickness (1kmx1km)

Number of Data 135000
mean 2516.2
std. dev. 637.8
coef. of var .25

Frequency

.120

maximum
upper quartile
median
lower quartile
minimum

.080

4900.0
2843.4
2435.3
2116.8
1242.6

.040

.000
1200.

2200.

3200.

4200.

5200.

thickness, ft

Uncertainity in thickness- 5kmx5km

Number of Data 5400

.100

mean 2516.3
std. dev. 542.8
coef. of var .22
maximum
upper quartile
median
lower quartile
minimum

Frequency

.080

.060

4334.2
2837.7
2404.1
2106.3
1396.3

.040

.020

.000
1200.

2200.

3200.

4200.

5200.

thickness, ft

Uncertainity in thickness- 10kmx10km

Number of Data 1350
mean 2516.3
std. dev. 392.2
coef. of var .16

Frequency

.120

maximum
upper quartile
median
lower quartile
minimum

3590.0
2789.3
2427.5
2228.7
1800.6

.080

.040

.000
1200.

2200.

3200.

4200.

5200.

thickness, ft

Figure 12: Uncertainty Analysis for the whole eld, for dierent volume averaging volumes.

15