Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
DOI 10.1007/s10596-010-9194-2
REVIEW PAPER
Recent progress on reservoir history matching: a review
Dean S. Oliver Yan Chen
Received: 18 February 2010 / Accepted: 11 June 2010 / Published online: 20 July 2010
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010
Abstract History matching is a type of inverse problem
in which observed reservoir behavior is used to estimate
reservoir model variables that caused the behavior. Ob-
taining even a single history-matched reservoir model
requires a substantial amount of effort, but the past
decade has seen remarkable progress in the ability to
generate reservoir simulation models that match large
amounts of production data. Progress can be partially
attributed to an increase in computational power, but
the widespread adoption of geostatistics and Monte
Carlo methods has also contributed indirectly. In this
review paper, we will summarize key developments in
history matching and then review many of the accom-
plishments of the past decade, including developments
in reparameterization of the model variables, meth-
ods for computation of the sensitivity coefficients, and
methods for quantifying uncertainty. An attempt has
been made to compare representative procedures and
to identify possible limitations of each.
Submitted for publication in Computational Geosciences,
February 2010.
D. S. Oliver
Center for Integrated Petroleum Research,
University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
Y. Chen (B)
Chevron Energy Technology Co., Houston, TX, USA
e-mail: yan.chen@chevron.com
Keywords History matching Review
Ensemble Kalman filter Parameterization
Objective function Sensitivity
Uncertainty quantification
1 Introduction
Although the problem of predicting future reservoir
performance is an important aspect of history matching,
the term history matching typically implies far more
than extrapolation. It almost always implies that there
is a mathematical model of the reservoir with para-
meters that have some physical interpretation. One
explicit goal of history matching is to assign values to
the parameters such that the mathematical model of
the reservoir reproduces the observed behavior dur-
ing the prediction period. The true usefulness of the
model, however, is a result of its ability to predict future
behavior with increased confidence, and to perform
computer experiments on methods of managing the
reservoir. With a reliable model, one could perhaps
explore different locations for infill wells, the potential
benefits of smart wells, or optimize the management of
a reservoir.
History matching is a type of inverse problem. In-
stead of using a set of reservoir model variables to
predict reservoir performance (the forward problem),
history matching uses observed reservoir behavior to
estimate reservoir model variables that caused the be-
havior. History matching problems are almost always
ill-posed in the sense that many possible combinations
186
of reservoir parameters result in equally good matches
to the historical observations. As a result, a single
history-matched model may be useful, but it is unlikely
to be sufficient for planning as it does not allow the
estimation of risk. The complete solution to a history
matching problem should always include an assessment
of uncertainty in reservoir properties and in reservoir
predictions.
Methods of history matching for groundwater and
petroleum reservoir models have been reviewed a
number of times. Yeh [186] reviewed parameter iden-
tification procedures in groundwater hydrology, classi-
fying the techniques as either direct or indirect. In- Although the early developments in this field occurred
direct methods are ones in which a norm of the distance
between observed and calculated reservoir outputs is
minimized by iteratively adjusting parameters of the
reservoir model. In direct methods, one attempts to
minimize the difference between observed pressures
and saturations and model pressures and saturations
in each gridblock of the simulation model. In practice,
however, the pressures and saturations are known only
at a few points so the observed values are actually
interpolated from the values at well locations. While
the direct method is no longer common, Yehs review
of the indirect method is quite thorough and useful. In
a more recent review, McLaughlin and Townley [116]
showed how the methods of functional analysis could
be used to address the groundwater model calibration
problem. While the functional approach may not be
practical since all reservoir models must ultimately be
discretized for solution, an understanding of the func-
tional analysis approach helps distinguish aspects of
the inverse problem that are inherent due to natural
variability of properties and ill-posedness, from aspects
arising from discretization.
In the petroleum literature, Ewing et al. [49] and
Watson et al. [176] have reviewed techniques for
solving the output least-squares problem focusing on
gradient- and sensitivity-based methods with discussion
of parameterization to eliminate the ill-posedness of
the problem. Oliver et al. [130] discussed aspects of the
history matching problem that make it more challeng-
ing than many other geoscience inverse problems. They
argued that nonlinearity of the relationship between
model variables and data requires that methods for
incorporation of production data must necessarily be
different than the methods used for incorporation of
other types of data such as measurements of porosity
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
and permeability and the cost of evaluating the perfor-
mance function (obtained from a reservoir simulator)
is so great, methods that works well in some other
fields, such as Markov chain Monte Carlo (McMC)
and genetic algorithms, are typically inappropriate for
any practical reservoir history matching problem. The
recent book by Oliver et al. [131] collects much of the
information for gradient-based history matching with a
Bayesian flavor.
It is probably fair to state that the development of
geostatistics revolutionized the way that people thought
about geologic models of the reservoir and uncertainty.
more than 40 years ago [115], the popularization of the
approach in the petroleum industry probably began in
the mid-1980s and early 1990s, pushed strongly by the
development of a library of algorithms for estimation
and simulation of earth models [43]. A two-day confer-
ence on geostatistical simulation in Fontainebleau [12]
provides clear evidence of the maturity of the subject.
Instead of a single best estimate, geologists began to
create possible realizations of reservoir model that have
much more heterogeneity than previously thought nec-
essary or desirable.
With the popularity of the geostatistical modeling
and the increase in computing power, reservoir simula-
tion is now used to quantify the effect of heterogeneity
on reservoir flow behavior. It has become common to
use simulation models with hundreds of thousands grid-
blocks, each of which has a different value of horizontal
permeability, vertical permeability, porosity, and net-
to-gross ratio. In addition, there may be several rock
regions, each of which requires a unique set of relative
permeability curves and capillary pressure curves. Sev-
eral fluid contact levels may need to be assigned and
possibly several sets of fluid properties or compositions.
The number of distinct values is typically on the order
of 106 to 108 .
The advances in geological modeling and reservoir
simulation changed many aspects of history matching
practice and also induced a dramatic increase in the
research effort on history matching (Fig. 1). The large
number of model parameters significantly increases the
dimensionality of the inverse problem, but is often
necessary for characterization of the reservoir and for
matching well production history. Because the number
of model parameters commonly exceeds the number of
independent data, the solution of the inverse problem is
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221 187

In the early 1990s, the state-of-the-art in automatic

Fig. 1 Number of papers on history matching prepared each year
for SPE conferences and journals
usually constrained using regularization based on prior
geostatistical knowledge of the reservoir. An efficient
optimization algorithm is necessary to search for plau-
sible reservoir models that minimize data mismatches
for large scale problems. The ultimate goal of history
matching has changed from finding a single correct set
of model variables to finding multiple history matched
models that can be used for uncertainty quantification
of future reservoir performance.
history matching was probably best typified by the work
of Makhlouf et al. [114] who demonstrated a method-
ology capable of history matching synthetic data from
two- and three-phase reservoirs (simulation grid and
well locations are shown in Fig. 2a). In Makhlouf et al.
[114], the permeability distribution is modeled by bicu-
bic spline function, an adjoint system was used to com-
pute the gradient, and a conjugate gradient method was
used to adjust the coefficient of the spline function of
each simulation gridblock (450 parameters in total) for
minimization of the data mismatch. In the key example,
the squared data mismatch function for 10 years of sim-
ulated history, including 1,413 pressure data, 785 water
cut and rate data, was reduced by a factor of 200 in
approximately 200 iterations, requiring 11 cpu-hours on
a Cray XMP-48 with four CPU. Prospects for automatic
history matching of realistic reservoirs seemed poor at
the time because of the computational demands for
reservoir simulation and solving the inverse problem.
Figure 2b shows an example of the current state-of-
the-art history matching practice, where production
observations at 84 wells plus time-lapse seismic are used
to estimate approximately 270,000 variables including
horizontal and vertical permeabilities, porosities and

(a) State-of-the-art history matching seven-
teen years ago (Makhlouf et al., 1993).
(b) State-of-the-art history matching in 2009. Observations include produc-
tion data at 84 wells plus time-lapse seismic data. Approximately 270,000
variables are estimated including horizontal and vertical permeability, poros-
ity and NTG of each gridblock, fluid contacts, fault transmissibility, and rel-
ative permeability parameters.

Fig. 2 Comparison of the history matching capability in 1993 and in 2009

188
net-to-gross ratio of each gridblock, fluid contacts, fault
transmissibility and relative permeability parameters.
Multiple history matched models were generated as ap-
proximate samples of the posterior probability density
function for uncertainty assessment.
In this review paper, we will provide a brief his-
tory of the key developments in history matching with
emphasis on the significant accomplishments of the past
decade. In its most basic form, the history matching
equation can be framed as finding a vector of reservoir
model variables m that is the solution of g(m) = dobs ,
where dobs is a vector of observed behavior (data), and
g() is the forward model that predicts reservoir be-
havior. The parameters that are needed by a reservoir
simulator to simulate reservoir states and production
data are determined by the grid and the complexity
of the physics, but the choice of model parameters for
history matching varies and often involves judgment
and an understanding of reservoir processes. Various
parameterization techniques that have been used to re-
duce the number of model variables and to model com-
plex geological features are discussed in Section 2. The
types of data that must be matched impacts the choice
of parameterization and the choice of history matching
method. In general, the data dobs are internally incon-
sistent so that no vector m will provide exact match.
Instead, we seek a vector of model variables that ap-
proximately matches the data, usually in a least-squares
sense. The form of objective function that defines the
minimization target and the characteristics of typical
objective functions in history matching problem are
summarized in Section 3. Although the objective func-
tions for different history matching problems are gener-
ally of similar form, the methods used for minimization
vary greatly. Section 4 summarizes different methods
that have been used. We also note that although there
are usually no model variables that actually match the
data, there are usually many vectors of model variables
that are equally good at approximately matching the
data. Methods for quantifying uncertainty in the solu-
tion are discussed in Section 5. Much of the most recent
developments in history matching are associated with
the application of the ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF)
whose development is previously reviewed by Aanon-
sen et al. [3]. EnKF provides a way to simultaneously
generate multiple history matched models that approx-
imately characterize the uncertainty. In Section 6, we
highlight the recent development of EnKF.
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
2 Parameterization
Parameters in a numerical reservoir simulator that must
be specified in order to forecast future production in-
clude porosity and horizontal and vertical permeability
in every gridblock, net-to-gross ratios, density of frac-
tures and permeability of fractures, initial depths of
oil-water and gas-oil fluid contacts, drainage and im-
bibition relative permeability curves, capillary pressure
curves, fluid composition, aquifer strength and size, and
fault transmissibility. Other reservoir properties are not
necessarily required as inputs to the simulator, but may
assist in the estimation of reasonable distributions of
properties. These include the locations of shale barri-
ers, the presence or absence of tar mats, the location of
highly permeable channels or other types of reservoir
rock, all of which are potentially uncertain. In some
cases, even the depths of the top and bottom reservoir
surfaces may be unknown.
As the number of gridblocks in reservoir simulation
models can be quite large, the number of variables
that must be estimated in order to run the simula-
tor is often several orders of magnitude greater than
the number of independent data that are available.
In manual history matching, it has been common to
only adjust a few of the global parameters such as
pore volume, aquifer strength, or the ratio of vertical
to horizontal permeability to match field performance,
and then to adjust a few local parameters describing
average properties near wells to improve the match to
well observations. For automatic history matching, it is
computationally feasible to adjust much larger numbers
of variables, but the number of variables that can or
should be included in the history match depends both
on the method used for adjusting the variables and the
ultimate use that will be made of the history-matched
model.
Because the number of variables in a simulation
model is typically very large, it is sometimes advanta-
geous to reparameterize the problem in such a way that
adjustments to the model variables are made in a much
lower dimensional space. Generally, reparameteriza-
tion is applied to problems in which the parameters
are functions of spatial coordinates or are defined on
a grid, such as gridblock permeability and porosity
values. If every parameter in the model is allowed to
vary independently, the space of possible adjustments
is quite large and potentially capable of matching many
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
types of data. We term this a full parameterization. The
basic idea is to reduce the dimension of the space in
which changes are made to the model variables. If the
change to the model variables is m, one might write
m as a linear combination of a relatively few basis
vectors.
m = Aq, (1)
where A is the matrix whose columns are the basis
vectors and q = [q1 , q2 , . . . , q Nb ]T is a column vector
that consists of coefficients for each basis vector. The
dimension of the matrix A is Nm Nb , where Nm is
the number of model parameters in m and Nb is the
number of basis vectors (Nm is usually much greater
than Nb ). The basis vectors q will generally span a
lower-dimensional space than that spanned by a full pa-
rameterization. If the basis vectors are carefully chosen
and a sufficient number of basis vectors are included,
the direction of change in the model estimate will be
very similar to the change that would have been com-
puted with a full parameterization. The basis vectors
could vary with iteration, for example in multiscale ap-
proaches and in approaches where basis vectors depend
on sensitivity, which changes with iteration.
The information content in most sets of production
data is fairly low because of the limited number of
observation locations and because of the diffusive na-
ture of the flow. As a result, the number of reservoir
parameters that can be determined from production
data in history matching problems is usually quite small.
For problems in which the initial uncertainty can be
adequately modeled as Gaussian with covariance CM ,
observation error can be modeled as Gaussian with
covariance CD , and the relationship between the data
and model variables can be linearized as d Gm, the
resolution of the model variables after assimilation of
data is given by
 1
R = CM GT GCM GT + CD G.
The model resolution can be thought of as an in-
dicator of the importance of the data in reducing the
covariance of model variables. The trace of R is equal
to the number of model parameters that are resolved
by the data; the remaining model parameters are re-
solved by the prior information [162, page 201]. For
a one-dimensional single-phase history matching ex-
ample with noisy data, Oliver [124] showed that only
three of 80 model parameters were determined by the
189
pressure data, and the remaining variables were deter-
mined by prior information. Oliver et al. [130] describe
a similar history matching problem with multiple wells,
in which approximately eight variables per well could
be determined by the data. In a single-phase example
with perfect data at five well locations, van Doren
et al. [168] determined that 17 of 441 parameters were
identifiable to machine precision. Although the number
of parameters that can be determined from the data
alone is small, these parameters are not known a priori
without the knowledge of data sensitivity, and they are
not physical model parameters, but rather projections
on the basis vectors in A in Eq. 1. If a reduced set of ba-
sis vectors based on sensitivities cannot be determined,
it is preferred to include enough model variables with
appropriate consideration of the prior information.
This section focuses on techniques that have been
used to reduce the number of basis vectors with an
illustrative example showing various types of basis vec-
tors and the estimate obtained using them. These tech-
niques are generally applied for gridblock-based prop-
erties. Other types of parameters, as mentioned at the
beginning of the section, have also been estimated in
history matching, but the number of those parameters
are typically relatively small. Parameterization meth-
ods that have been used to model complex geological
features are also briefly discussed.
2.1 Zonation
The most basic form of reduced parameterization is
zonation, in which a basis function is constant over a
domain that is larger than a single simulator gridblock
and zero everywhere else. The term is usually reserved
for approaches in which the boundaries of zones are de-
termined before the assimilation of production data so
that only the values of the reservoir properties in each
zone are considered to be uncertain. This approach
(2)
has a long history in petroleum engineering, beginning
with the history-matching investigations of Jacquard
and Jain [84] and Jahns [87]. Gavalas et al. [60] and
Shah et al. [153] also investigated the use of zona-
tion for history matching, but concluded that Bayesian
history matching was more accurate and converged
more rapidly. Like most methods of parameterization,
it is often possible to achieve rapid initial reduction in
the data misfit, but the final data misfit with zonation
is typically larger than desired because of the small
190
number of degrees of freedom and the non-optimal
choice of domain boundaries. Also any coarse zonation
method results in discontinuous reservoir properties at
zonation boundaries which is an undesirable feature in
a reservoir model that is intended to approximate the
geology of the reservoir.
2.2 Reparameterization based on prior knowledge
In zonation, the basis vectors (A in Eq. 1) are piecewise
constant functions. For the pilot point method the ith
basis vector is CM (x xi ) where xi is the location of
the ith pilot point and CM (x xi ) is the covariance of
model parameters at x with model parameters at xi .
Other types of basis vectors A that have been used
for history matching include spline function, wavelet
function, leading eigenvectors of the covariance matrix
of model variables CM and discrete cosine transform.
For the pilot point method, the values of the rock
property fields at the pilot points are the parameters
to be determined through history matching. Values of
the properties at other locations are found by krig-
ing interpolation. One key issue for implementation
of the pilot point method is the determination of the
proper number of pilot points and the optimal loca-
tions. In the first application to groundwater hydrology,
de Marsily et al. [41] located the pilot points more-
or-less uniformly but also attempted to follow zones
of large transmissivity contrasts. LaVenue and Pickens
[93] located pilot points in regions of highest sensitivity.
One or two pilot points were added at each itera-
tion, the transmissivity was adjusted, and then if the
residual was still large, more pilot points were added.
Transmissivity at the pilot points were constrained to
lie within prescribed bounds. Wen et al. [177] located
the pilot points at randomly selected locations in such
a way that there was approximately one pilot point
per correlation length. This was done iteratively, and
the locations were changed at each iteration. Bissell
et al. [21] used sensitivity information computed using
the direct method to compute optimal locations for
placement of pilot points. In a more recent publication,
Wen et al. [178] used a genetic algorithm to search for
optimal pilot point locations, as well as the associated
optimal permeability perturbations at the pilot loca-
tions. Because the basis vectors are rows of the prior co-
variance matrix, it has been argued that regularization
is not necessary with the pilot points method [184], but
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
McLaughlin and Townley [116] point out that the lack
of a regularization term could result in instability. The
practical advantage of a Tykhonov-type regularization
on constraining pilot point calibration was illustrated by
Fienen et al. [53]. Liu and Oliver [107] showed that pilot
point methods tend to result in anomalous distributions
of extreme values in history matching problems, but
that the problem is reduced when regularization is used.
Spline bases have also been used in history matching
to represent either the property field to be estimated
or the change to the property field [44, 114]. Lee et al.
[97] used bicubic splines to parameterize estimates of
permeability and porosity distributions from well pres-
sure data in a single-phase, two-dimensional reservoir.
Lee and Seinfeld [99] extended the methodology to
the problem of estimation of permeability in a two-
phase, two-dimensional reservoir from well pressure
data. The bicubic spline representation of the change
to the parameter field is less likely to result in visual
artifacts that are sometimes seen in pilot point and
zonation parameterizations [see 116, Fig. 3] or [see 131,
Fig. 9.2]. On the other hand, the spline parameteriza-
tion is flexible enough to be used for piecewise smooth
representation of reservoir properties [37].
For random fields with a known covariance, a ba-
sis formed from the spectral (eigenvalue/eigenvector)
decomposition of the prior model covariance can be
efficient for history matching. Reynolds et al. [138]
showed that use of the KarhunenLoeve reparame-
terization significantly decreased the computational
effort required to generate realizations of the reservoir
model conditioned to multiwell pressure data. Similar
approaches to reparameterization have been used by
Sarma et al. [147] and Zhang et al. [190]. Romary
[141] discussed a method for determining the number
of terms to be kept in a truncated KarhunenLoeve
expansion. The discrete cosine transform has been used
as a parameterization by Jafarpour and McLaughlin
[86] and Jafarpour et al. [85].
Instead of using gridblock values of permeability
and porosity, Lu and Horne [113] use the wavelet
coefficients of permeability and porosity as the model
parameters in their history matching method. In
Grimstad et al. [68], the 2D Haar wavelet basis was used
to selectively introduce new parameters at each level
in a hierarchical parameterization of the permeability
field according to their potential to reduce the data
misfit. Sahni and Horne [144] proposed a method in
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
which some wavelet coefficients are used to parame-
terize the permeability field for history matching and
the remaining wavelet coefficients are used to match
the variogram.
2.3 Reparameterization based on data sensitivity
At the beginning of this section, we discussed the num-
ber of parameters that are determined by the data and
the number that are determined by the prior informa-
tion. Determination of the optimal parameterization
(the one that uses the number of parameters that can be
determined by the data) generally requires the compu-
tation of the sensitivity of data to model variables and
then a decomposition of the sensitivity matrix or some
related quantity.
Shah et al. [153] suggested that the eigenvectors
of GT G could be used for parametrization where G
is the sensitivity matrix defined in terms of partial
derivatives of predicted data to model variables (see
Eq. 13). Bissell [20] used the eigenvectors associated
with the largest eigenvalues of the matrix GT C1 D G to
compute regions that are most important for reduc-
ing error in the objective function. Instead of using
the eigenvectors themselves, Bissell used regions com-
puted from the eigenvectors. Rodrigues [140] suggested
1/2 1/2
that the right singular vectors of CD GCM can be
used as basis vectors in an optimal reparameterization.
Rodrigues discusses how the Lanczos method can be
used to compute the largest singular values and cor-
responding singular vectors without forming the sensi-
1/2 1/2
tivity matrix G or CD GCM that can be thought of
as the dimensionless sensitivity matrix for the inverse
problem [192]. In Vogel and Wade [173], two sepa-
rate approaches, one based on subspace iteration and
the other based on the Lanczos method, were consid-
ered for the efficient iterative computation of partial
singular value decompositions of either the sensitivity
1/2
matrix G or the regularized sensitivity matrix GCM .
Although the Lanczos method was more efficient in
their examples, they speculate that it might not be
the case for distributed parameter problems. For both
methods, the application of the regularization operator
resulted in more rapid convergence. Zandvliet et al.
[189] discussed an optimal parameterization based on
decompositions of the Gramians for observability and
controllability. They applied the method to a synthetic
191
problem of identifying the logarithm of permeability
from pressure data at 5 wells in a two-dimensional
single-phase reservoir model with 21 21 gridblocks.
Using only 6 basis functions, it was possible to reduce
the minimum of a normalized cost function by five
orders of magnitude.
Oldenburg et al. [120] noted that the primary ad-
vantage of subspace techniques over traditional Gauss
Newton algorithms for inverse problems with large
amounts of data lies in the need to invert only a ma-
trix equal to the dimension of the subspace. It was
possible to achieve substantial improvement in con-
vergence rates compared to steepest descent by using
basis vectors associated with gradients of segmented
objective function. Abacioglu et al. [4] applied a sub-
space method based on segmentation of the objective
function and showed that it was possible to reduce the
cost of a Newton iteration, without degrading the final
estimate of model parameters or the rate of conver-
gence from GaussNewton method with a full para-
meterization. Although there was a gain in efficiency
resulting from a reduction in the size of the matrix
system that must be solved in a Newton iteration, the
largest gain in efficiency, was a result of the reduction
in the number of sensitivity coefficients that must be
computed. Cominelli et al. [39] proposed a practical
implementation of a multiscale method utilizing gradi-
ents of objective-function to define a sequence of finer
parameterizations.
The term multiscale estimation is generally reserved
for history matching methods that begin with a coarse
parameterization of the property fields, and gradually
refine the scale until there is no further improvement
in the data mismatch [187]. Adaptive multiscale estima-
tion (AME) can be thought of as an improved zonation
parameterization. The parameterization of AME is not
selected prior to the estimation of parameters, instead,
at each stage of the history match, a refined parameteri-
zation is chosen followed by an estimation of the values
of the adaptive parameters [69]. Grimstad et al. [67]
extended AME to corner-point grids in nonrectangular
2D oil reservoirs. Aanonsen and Eydinov [2] developed
a multiscale method for reservoir history matching in
which coarse models are tuned to match the solution
of the fine model. In their method, history matching
of dynamic data is done on the coarse model and bias
in predicted data due to upscaling errors is taken into
account [1].
192 Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221

1.0
1.0
0.20
0.8 0.8
0.10
0.15
0.6 0.6 0.05
0.10
0.4 0.4
20 40 60 80 100
0.2 0.2 0.05 0.05

0.10
0 20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100
1/ 2
(a) Zonation (b) Pilot point (c) KL expansion (d) Singular vectors of GC M

Fig. 3 Basis vectors for various parameterization methods

2.4 Illustration of parameterization methods
We use a simple 1D example with 100 gridblocks to
illustrate how changes to gridblock properties might
be parameterized. The property field is modeled as
a Gaussian random field with exponential covariance
function with range of 30 gridblocks. There are two
nonlocal data: one is the average of the first 50 grid-
block values and the other is the average of the last
30 gridblock values. In a zonation approach, the zones
might be distributed somewhat uniformly. Figure 3a
shows a zonation parameterization where the entire
domain is divided evenly into two regions. The zones
might be selected so that they correspond to regions
of high sensitivity. The sensitivity in reservoir flow
problems, however, is far more complex than can be
adequately represented by a simple geometry with
uniform weight. In a pilot point approach, the values
of the property field at a few selected locations are
adjusted. Corrections to values at other locations are
computed by kriging. In Fig. 3b, we show basis vectors
corresponding to two pilot points located fairly uni-
formly over the domain (gridblock 25 and 75). In some
approaches, the locations of pilot points are adjusted
to correspond to regions of high sensitivity. The basis
vectors of KarhunenLoeve expansion are eigenvectors
of the prior model covariance matrix. Figure 3c shows
the first two eigenvectors. This method of parameter-
ization does not depend on the observation locations
nor on the sensitivity. Figure 3d shows basis vectors
based on the sensitivity of the predicted data to the
model variables. The basis vectors are right singular
1/2
vectors of GCM . Note that the basis vectors are highly
localized to regions that are sensitive to data. While
this type of parameterization is useful for describing
the required adjustment efficiently, the work required
to compute the basis vectors is significant.
We assume the prior mean for this random field
is 45 and the standard deviation is 15. The measured
averages over the first 50 gridblocks and the last 30
gridblocks are 18 and 85, respectively. The gray curve
in Fig. 4a to c shows one realization from the prior
distribution. The dashed curve in Fig. 4a to c shows the
realization conditioned to the two observations using
basis vectors in Fig. 3d. This realization is identical to
what could be obtained using Randomized Maximum

150 150 150

100 100 100

50 50 50

20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100

50 50 50

(a) Zonation (b) Pilot point (c) KL expansion

Fig. 4 Estimates using various parameterization methods. The
gray curve in all the subplots shows one realization from the
prior distribution. The dashed curve in all the subplots shows
the estimate of the corresponding conditional realization using
the basis vectors in Fig. 3d, which in this case is the same as could
be obtained using a full parameterization. The black solid curve in
each subplot shows the estimate using different parameterization
methods with the shading highlighting the difference from the full
parameterization result
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
Likelihood method (RML, details in Section 5.3) that
has been shown to sample the posterior pdf correctly
for linear problems. This is also what we should obtain
with a full parameterization. The black solid curve in
Fig. 4a to c shows the estimate using different pa-
rameterization methods with the shading highlighting
the difference from RML. The estimate from zonation
parameterization shows a clear discontinuity at the
boundary of the two zones. An unnecessary update
appears over gridblocks 51 to 70 due to the zonation pa-
rameterization. The pilot point parameterization tends
to produce extreme values in the estimation. The ex-
treme values occur at the location of the pilot points.
The estimation using basis vectors from the Karhunen
Loeve expansion is similar to that from the RML. If
one more eigenvector is included in the basis vector, the
estimate would be almost identical to that from RML.
2.5 Reparameterization for complex geology
Most history matching methods are based on mini-
mization of a squared data misfit and a regulariza-
tion term that is also usually in the form of a least-
squares difference. This approach works well for model
variables that are approximately Gaussian or that can
be transformed to be approximately Gaussian. It has
become more common to focus on the generation and
history matching of geologically realistic earth models.
The stochastic earth models may honor multiple point
statistics, or transitions for facies, or repetitive shapes.
In some cases, such as when a geology facies distrib-
ution is described by a truncated plurigaussian model
[56], or by a marked point process [61], it is possible to
use the least-squares framework for history matching
by reparameterizing the problem.
Instead of considering the sensitivity of gridblock
values of permeability, Rahon et al. [136] discussed
the computation of the sensitivity of the location of
the boundary of a region of distinct properties from
production data. The problem of conditioning a two-
dimensional channel to pressure data, was considered
by Landa and Horne [92] but the channel in their
problem was described by a small enough number of
variables so that it was possible to use the direct method
for computation of sensitivities. Bi et al. [18] used an
adjoint method to compute the gradient of dimensions
and locations of 3D stochastic channels so that the
reservoir model could be conditioned to pressure data.
193
In this model, the number of parameters describing the
channel was quite large so that the adjoint method was
necessary to make the minimization feasible. Methods
for improving the efficiency were discussed by Zhang
et al. [194] and Zhang et al. [193]. The complexity
of the problem increases substantially when there are
multiple intersecting channels to condition.
The problem of history matching geologic facies
locations that could be modeled using the truncated
gaussian or plurigaussian was discussed by Liu and
Oliver [108] who showed that discrete facies history
matching could be solved using a continuous parame-
terization for which standard gradient-based methods
could be used. Truncated plurigaussian models have
also been used with gradual deformation [96] and with
the ensemble Kalman filter to condition reservoir prop-
erty fields to production data [8, 110, 111, 199].
Facies have also been modeled using level set meth-
ods [46, 106]. In this approach, a level-set function
, defined over the entire reservoir region, is used to
determine the boundaries between facies. The perme-
ability fields inside and outside of each facies region are
described by functions Ki (x) and Ke (x). Although the
number of variables in the level set method and in the
truncated plurigaussian method are both fairly large,
the variables are generally smooth functions which can
be history matched in a straightforward way. Nielsen
et al. [118] applied an alternative formulation in which
the level-set function (x) is binary, taking the value 1
inside the facies body and +1 outside the body. Piece-
wise continuous property fields such as permeability,
can then be written in terms of the level-set function:
k(x) = 0.5 [c1 ( (x) + 1) c2 ( (x) 1)].
2.6 Discussion: why use many parameters for history
matching?
It is clearly not possible to estimate all the variables in
a realistic simulation model from the data, so retaining
large numbers of variables means that the results will
depend strongly on the prior assumptions. The same
situation occurs in earth modeling and geostatistics, so
it may be useful to retain a large number of variables in
history matching for consistency of models. A large pa-
rameterization provides the ability to modify the value
of a variable at some location required by data without
inappropriately forcing a change at other locations and
the use of large numbers of variables, even when not
194
required for a match can be beneficial in retaining plau-
sible values of other parameters when an appropriate
form of regularization is used. In the history match of
Chen and Oliver [30], the authors found that by adding
more variables such as oil-water contact, and relative
permeability parameters, the spatial variability in per-
meability and porosity decreased to a more reasonable
level. Conversely, when the number of parameters is
kept small in history matching, a significant amount of
modeling error can be introduced because the subspace
spanned by the basis vectors is insufficient to provide a
good approximation of the true update [89]. We have
noted that while reduced parameterizations are some-
times necessary for efficiency, it is sometimes possible
to history match in infinite dimensional spaces if the
number of data is small [27, 116, 122].
Several studies have suggested that problems can
result from a parameterization that is too small or
inappropriate. While investigating the problem of esti-
mating flow in the earths core from observations of the
radial magnetic induction field at the surface, Celaya
and Wahr [25] noted that if the inversion is underpara-
meterized in space or time, the estimate is likely to be a
poor representation of the truth. In general, using small
numbers of variables underestimates the uncertainty in
true variables and uncertainty in predictions. Lemmon
and Moriarty [100] provide an example from studies of
the evolutionary development and history of species,
where it was determined that parameter estimates were
often biased and uncertainty was too small when the
models were underparameterized. In an example that
may surprise petroleum engineers, Oliver et al. [131,
pp. 2021], showed that well test data in a single-
phase reservoir could be matched by either adjusting a
spatially varying porosity with a uniform permeability,
or by adjusting a spatially varying permeability with a
uniform porosity. The match to data is equally good
in either scenario, but the assumptions on uncertainty
are quite different. From a more general perspective,
Parker [133] notes that unknown property fields are
sometimes described using a small number of parame-
ters for reasons of convenience, rather than for any con-
vincing geological reason. This type of simplification
results in overconfidence in results because the true
uncertainty has not been represented.
Another problem that can occur from underpara-
meterization is the occurrence of extreme values and
overshoot in the parameter field. Some instances of
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
overshoot in history matching are the result of step
length and can be fixed by damping of step length
or by adding constraints to values [58]. On the other
hand, some history matching problems clearly intro-
duce overshoot as a result of the parameterization, e.g.
examples in Fig. 4a, b using the zonation and pilot point
parameterization.
Finally, we note that Hunt et al. [83] compared
two approaches to groundwater model calibration
one in which a small number of homogeneous zones
are selected by a modeler, and a second approach
in which inversion with large numbers of variables is
regularized. They concluded that regularized inversion
with a large number of parameters led to better fits and
produced parameter distributions that are consistent
with field data. These findings are consistent with those
of Gavalas et al. [60].
3 Production data and the objective function
History matching refers to the adjustment of model
variables in a numerical simulator so that the model is
calibrated to field observations, for example production
data, pressure data (from well test, RFT and MTD),
time-lapse seismic data, tracer observations, etc. Core
and well log measurements reflect reservoir properties
at the vicinity of the wellbore. They are usually referred
to as hard data and are commonly used to condition
reservoir models prior to matching dynamic data. Pro-
duction data are the most widely used data for history
matching. They are a time series of measurements of
flow rate, pressure, or ratios of flow rates, made in
producing or injecting wells. There are several key
features of the production data that differentiate the
history matching problem from many other distributed
parameter inverse problems. First, the production ob-
servations are made at well locations, which are usually
quite limited in number. Second, although the mea-
surements are typically repeated frequently and the
amount of production data for a field can be quite large,
the information content is often relatively low. Third,
the relationships between what is observed (the data)
and what must be estimated (the model variables) is
generally non-local and nonlinear.
In this section, we will discuss characteristics of the
sensitivity of several types of production data, then dis-
cuss the objective function that is typically minimized
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
and its relation to the probability density function (pdf)
of the model variables. Finally, we will investigate the
shape of the objective function that must be mini-
mized as the shape has a large impact on the types of
minimization algorithms that can be used or that might
be efficient.
3.1 Sensitivity of production data
The gradient of the data with respect to reservoir pa-
rameters reflects the change in production responses
that could result from a change of the parameters, and
sometimes it is referred to as sensitivity of data. Ex-
cept for the gradient-based methods, data sensitivities
are not directly used in the history matching process
(Section 4). Sensitivity of data, however, provides in-
formation of the relationship between data and model
variables, which is critical for all history matching prac-
tices. Production data at wells are generally functions of
reservoir properties over a large area and the sensitivity
of typical production data to model parameters are
quite complex. Sensitivity of production data depends
on well constraints, for example total flow rate con-
straint or bottom-hole pressure constraint, and on the
particular realization of reservoir properties. Sensitivi-
ties of production data also generally change with time
as flow regimes and flow paths change.
Methods for computing sensitivity are discussed in
Section 4.5. Here, we will focus on the information
content. Some data, such as producing water cut, often
depend on the properties along relatively stationary
streamlines. Decreasing porosity along a streamline,
for example, will usually result in faster advance of
water. The producing water cut, however, depends on
the flow along many paths, some of which may be
producing water while others may still be producing oil.
The change in the water cut, then, is most sensitive to
properties along the streamline that is currently break-
ing through to the producer. The location of the most
sensitive streamlines typically grows away from the
direct path as time increases [127, 171, 183]. In single-
phase reservoirs, when the reservoir production rate is
fixed, the bottom hole pressure is most highly sensitive
to the properties in the immediate neighborhood of
the well. Sensitivity decreases approximately as inverse
distance, until the radius of investigation is reached.
Beyond that point, the sensitivity decreases much more
rapidly [36, 121]. When multiple phases with different
195
mobilities are flowing, the sensitivity is more complex
and the sensitivity extends to a large region between
the injector and producer due to the change in mobility
at the time of water breakthrough [183]. The bottom-
hole pressure at an observation well is sensitive not
only to the properties between the producer and the
observer, but also to properties beyond both wells in
a rather complex way [123]. The size of the region of
significant sensitivity increases and gradually becomes
more circular with time for nearly homogeneous reser-
voirs. Other types of sensitivities, such as gas-oil ratio to
permeability, are generally too complex to allow simple
interpretations, but examples can be found in Li et al.
[104] or Oliver et al. [131, pp. 113117].
Some history matching methods use the cross-
covariance of data to model variables instead of the
sensitivity for computation of the downhill direction.
Let us use Cd and Ckd to denote the cross-covariance
between data, d, and porosity and permeability k,
C , Ckk and Ck to denote the covariance of porosity,
permeability and cross-covariance of permeability and
porosity and Gd and Gdk to denote sensitivity of data
to porosity and permeability. The cross-covariance of
data to permeability and porosity is related to data
sensitivity through the relationship
    
Cd C Ck GTd
= . (3)
Ckd Ck Ckk GTdk
In traditional history matching, only model para-
meters (e.g. permeability and porosity) are estimated.
There have been extensive studies on the sensitivity of
data to model variables, but little attention has been
paid to covariance of data to state variables (e.g. satu-
ration and pressure). In some sequential data assimila-
tion methods, for example the ensemble Kalman filter
(Section 6), both model and state variables are es-
timated, so the relationship between data and state
variables is also required for the estimation. The cross-
covariance of data to saturation and pressure, C Sd and
C Pd , are related to covariances and sensitivities through
     
C Pd G P G Pk C Ck GTd
= , (4)
C Sd G S G Sk Ck Ckk GTdk
where the sensitivity matrix that characterizes the re-
lationship between state and model variables is multi-
plied to the cross-covariance of data to model variables
to obtain cross-covariance of data to state variables.
196
Chen and Oliver [29] investigated the cross-covariance
between typical production data and model and
state variables for several two-dimensional two-phase
reservoir examples with five-spot and repeated five-
spot patterns using estimates from a large ensemble.
Because cross-covariance is a product of sensitivi-
ties and covariances (shown in Eqs. 3 and 4), cross-
covariances are generally smoother than sensitivities
and show a relatively global relationship between data
and model and state variables. Figure 5 shows cross-
covariances of typical production data to model and
state variables for a two-dimensional two-phase wa-
terflood problem. The producers are under constant
bottom-hole pressure constraint and the injector is con-
trolled by constant injection rate.
The data are not only sensitive to spatial variables,
for example Lee and Seinfeld [98], Reynolds et al.
[139], Eydinov et al. [51] also computed sensitivities of
production data to parameters that characterize rela-
tive permeability curves. Cross-covariance of produc-
tion data to fault transmissibility, relative permeability
parameters and water-oil contact were used in Seiler
et al. [151], Valestrand et al. [166], Chen and Oliver
[30] to condition the estimate of these parameters. The
relationship between cross-covariances and sensitivities
in Eqs. 3 and 4 still holds for these non spatial model
variables but the covariance matrices reduce to diago-
nal matrix, if the parameters are not correlated.
For history matching algorithms in which number
of parameters is required to be small, for example
manual history matching and stochastic search algo-
rithms (Section 4), it is typical that global or regional
multipliers of permeability and porosity are used as
model parameters. The sensitivity of production data
to these multipliers represents an average effect of the
(a) BHP of I1 to permeability (b) oil rate of P1 to water saturation
Fig. 5 Cross-covariances of typical production data to model and state variables from Chen and Oliver [29]
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
gridblock-based sensitivity, and the direction of the
impact, positive or negative correlation, is often fairly
intuitive. For example, the average reservoir pressure
is clearly sensitive to the total pore volume in a closed
reservoir. Another type of sensitivity study is generally
performed to rank the relative importance of the model
parameters to matching the data, typically through the
Tornado diagram or Pareto chart, and only the most
influential parameters are retained and modified to
improve the match to data.
3.2 Specific form of the objective function
The goal of history matching is to find some admissible
model variables m that minimize the squared norm of
the data mismatch
1
J(m) = g(m) dobs 2D , (5)
2
where g(m) is the output of the model (i.e. the sim-
ulated data) and dobs is the vector of observed data.
Although it would be possible to use a norm that simply
sums the squared data mismatches, the usefulness of
such a norm would be limited as the value of the
objective function (and the relative weighting of the
terms) would depend on the units used for measure-
ment. Manual history matching generally uses Eq. 5
to quantify history matching quality and it is common
that the data mismatch is normalized to reduce the
effect of drastically different magnitude of different
data types and the squared data mismatch is weighted
by importance. A common choice in many automatic
history matching methods is to use the inverse of noise
variance to weigh the squared data mismatch in Eq. 5.
(c) water rate of P1 to permeability
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
An objective function that contains only a quantita-
tive measure of data mismatch as in Eq. 5 is typically
used in methods where the number of variables is small
(much less than the number of data) or no geostatis-
tical constraints are required to constrain the solution
[52, 143, 150]. Schulze-Riegert et al. [150] and Rotondi
et al. [143] employed the evolutionary strategy and
neighborhood algorithm method, respectively, to esti-
mate less than 40 model parameters, including multi-
pliers, relative permeability end points, compressibility,
etc. In Feraille et al. [52], only eight model parameters,
including the horizontal permeability, kh , and the ratio
of vertical permeability, kv , and kh of different facies,
and nine deformation parameters that determine the
linear combination of different realizations, are esti-
mated using the gradual deformation method.
The problem with using Eq. 5 as objective functions
for general history matching problems is that the prob-
lem of minimization is ill-posed when the number of
model parameter is large (greater than the number of
independent data). Other constraints are then needed
to obtain geological plausible solutions of the inverse
problem. Typically the objective function in Eq. 5
is modified by adding another term to penalize the
roughness of the model (Tykhonov regularization) or
to penalize deviations from the initial guess. Lee et al.
[97], Makhlouf et al. [114], Cheng et al. [32] and others
used Tykhonov regularization in addition to the data
mismatch in the objective function while Gonzlez-
Rodrguez et al. [64] used a related method that re-
stricted updates to a new parameter space defined by
a weighted norm that measures the smoothness of a
function.
If the deviation from the prior model with respect
to model covariance CM is used as regularization, the
objective function becomes Eq. 6 [60, 104, 129, 183],
1 T  
J(m) = g(m) dobs C1
D g(m) dobs
2 been applied with some success by Nielsen et al. [118] to
1 T  
+ m mpr C1
M m mpr . (6)
2 Objective functions are used in history matching for
The first term on the right hand side of Eq. 6 is the data
mismatch weighed by the inverse of the covariance of
noise in data C1
D . The second term is the model mis-
match to penalize the deviation from the prior model,
and the deviation is measured by the covariance of the
model parameters CM . An example of the CM with
gridblock permeability and porosity and two relative
197
permeability parameters (e.g. end points) as model
parameters is
C Ck 0
CM = Ck Ckk 0 , (7)
0 0 Ckr
where C , Ckk and Ck are matrices of covariance
of the gridblock properties. Ckr is a 2 2 diagonal
matrix. Porosity and permeability are assumed here to
be uncorrelated with the relative permeability para-
meters and the two relative permeability parameters
are assumed to be uncorrelated. The inversion of the
matrix CM is prohibitive when the number of model
parameters is large. In gradient-based approaches that
use GaussNewton or quasi-Newton methods for min-
imization, matrix inversion lemmas can be used to
avoid inversion of CM . The use of the covariance CM
in Eq. 6 does not limit the estimation to reservoir
properties that are Gaussian. Estimation of geological
features that are clearly non Gaussian can also use
Eq. 6 as the objective function through appropriate
parameterization as discussed in Section 2.5. Both Bi
et al. [18] and Liu and Oliver [109] used quasi-Newton
methods to minimize objective functions of the form
in Eq. 6. Bi et al. [18] used four Gaussian random
fields to model the geometry of a 3D channel and four
Gaussian random variables to model the permeability
and porosity of the channel and non-channel facies and
Liu and Oliver [109] used two Gaussian random fields
to model boundaries of three facies.
For some reservoirs, the desired permeability field is
expected to be blocky, with relatively uniform prop-
erties inside each geologic body but large differences
between the bodies. In this case, the use of total vari-
ation regularization [5] for permeability and porosity
might be more appropriate than the form of regular-
ization used in Eq. 6. Total variation regularization has
the problem of permeability estimation in a two-phase
flow history matching problem.
three different purposes: 1) minimization of mismatch
to the observed data, 2) computation of the maximum
a posteriori (MAP) solution, or 3) obtaining samples
from the posterior pdf of the model parameters given
data. If the goal is only to minimize data mismatch,
all the above mentioned objective functions are appro-
priate. The popularity of objective function in form of
198
Eq. 6 is its Bayesian interpretation. Assume the pdf of
the prior model parameters and the measurement error
are Gaussian, the posterior pdf of model parameters m
given data dobs is
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
In another example with a highly irregular objec-
tive function, Tavassoli et al. [163] investigated a two-
dimensional cross-sectional layered reservoir that was
characterized by three parameters: fault throw, perme-
ability of the good and the poor sands. The objective

1 function was analyzed for cases in which two of the
f (m|dobs ) = a exp (g(m)dobs )T C1
D (g(m)dobs )
2 three variables were fixed, while the other was varied.
1 T 1   In all the cases the objective function had multiple
m mpr CM m mpr
2
= a exp (J(m)) , (8)
where a is a normalization constant. Eq. 8 shows that
to maximize the posterior pdf of model parameters is
to minimize objective function in Eq. 6. If the objective
function in Eq. 6 is modified slightly, it can be used to
sample the posterior pdf using the randomized likeli-
hood method (RML) as discussed in Section 5.3.
3.3 Shape of the objective function
Although the noise in the data is typically assumed to
be Gaussian and the regularization term is typically
quadratic, the objective function is almost certainly not
quadratic. Because the dimensions of the model space
are often exceedingly high, it is difficult or impossible to
say much about the shape of the objective function with
confidence, but several observations about its general
shape have been made.
Zhang et al. [193] showed that the objective function
in a problem of estimating the location and geometry of
a stochastic channel using single-phase transient pres-
sure data has multiple minima and is nondifferentiable
at certain locations [193, Figs. 4 and 5]. They further
investigated the objective function by only varying one
parameter and showed that the local minima and the
sudden jump of the objective function were induced by
the finite discretization of the simulation grid, where
permeability needs to be averaged at gridblocks that
are intersected by the channel boundary [193, Figs. 7
and 8]. Despite the presence of the local minima, Zhang
et al. [193] showed that the LevenbergMarquardt
method does not necessarily get stuck. Because at each
iteration the objective function is approximated by a
quadratic function and a finite step is taken in the
downhill direction, if the local minimum is at a narrow
valley [193, Fig. 7], it will often be passed in the mini-
mization process.
minima.
When the number of model variables is very large,
as in gridblock-based history-matching problems, the
dimension of the model space is far too large to attempt
to visualize the shape of the objective function in its
entirety. It is possible, however, to examine the shape in
projections onto lower dimensional spaces. Consider a
two-dimensional, single-phase, 11 11 reservoir model
with a constant rate production well at the center and
four observation wells near the corners [131, page 258].
The objective function was evaluated for 210 history-
matched models, that were then associated with 13
possible clusters to see if there were multiple minima.
Models from two separate clusters both had equally
low values of the objective function, and seemed to
be in separate minima (Fig. 6a). Further investigation,
however, showed that the two history-matched models
were connected in model space by a continuous curved
path of equally small values of the objective function
(Fig. 6b).
The complexity of the inverse problem is usually
related to the nonlinearity, not only the nonlinearity
of the dynamics but also the nonlinearity induced by
the relationship between data and model and state
variables. Grimstad and Mannseth [66] presented evi-
dence for a relationship between scale, sensitivity, and
linearity for integrated models such as solutions of
differential equations. They suggest that parameters
associated with small-scale oscillations are generally
more nonlinearly related to state variables (and conse-
quently to data) than parameters that are characterized
by larger-scale variation. One might conclude that the
objective function is likely to be more nearly quadratic
if the scale of the parameters to be estimated is large.
In their study, the authors used the measure of non-
linearity suggested by Bates and Watts [17], which is a
measure of the curvature,
m (m g(m))T 
= , (9)
m g(m)2
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
(a) Values of the objective function along a line in model space
connecting two history-matched models.
Fig. 6 Investigation of shape of objective function for a single-phase flow problem with 121 model parameters
where m is a vector of model parameters, g() is the
function relationship between data and model para-
meters and m g(m) and m (m g(m))T is the first and
second order derivative of g() with respect to m. The
nonlinearity measure in Eq. 9 was also used in Cheng
et al. [32] for a problem of estimating permeability
using tracer observations to compare the nonlinearity
of using travel time, generalized travel time and am-
plitude as data. Through several synthetic and field
examples they concluded that the nonlinearity is much
lower using the travel time and generalized travel time
inversion.
On the other hand, Zhang et al. [196] introduced
a measure of nonlinearity for the relationship of data
to model variables that emphasizes the magnitude of
(a) Values of the objective function in a search direction
Fig. 7 Simple three-layer system with unknown permeability of each layer. A gradient-based method was used to sample the posterior
pdf of the three-dimensional model space
199
(b) Contours of the objective function in a plane through
model space connecting the same two history matched models
as in (a).
the change in the predicted data corresponding to a
plausible change in model variables
m
2
= (g(m + m) (g(m) + Gm))T C1
D
(g(m + m) (g(m) + Gm)) , (10)
where G is the linear approximation of g() at m and
CD is the covariance of the noise in observations.  is
a measure of the quality of the linear approximation
of g() at m. For many practical problems, if   1 the
problem can be considered to be approximately linear
on the interval m to m + m. Zhang et al. [196] evalu-
ated  for a two-dimensional two-phase flow problem
(b) Six global minima
200
(a) The main part of the frequency distribution of values of the
objective function after conditioning.
Fig. 8 Final values of objective function for history matching of the three-layer problem with random initial models using a Levenberg
Marquardt method
near the time of water breakthrough at a producing
well. For this problem the nonlinearity measure for wa-
ter rate at one of the wells varied from approximately
0 to a high of 66,300, indicating that this particular type
of data can introduce highly nonlinear behavior.
To illustrate the performance of the gradient-based
method in minimizing the objective function with a
complex shape and multiple global minima we consider
a simple three layer system (no vertical communica-
tion) with piston-like displacement of oil by water at
constant pressure with only three model parameters,
the permeability of each layer. The data are observa-
tions of water cut and total flow rate at the outlet at
seven times, so there are 14 observations in total. For
this problem with very small number of parameters,
other type of methods might be more appropriate,
but the purpose of this example is to investigate if
the gradient-based method can correctly identify all
the minima. Since there is no differentiation of the
sequence of the three layers, there are six global min-
ima. Figure 7a shows an example of the objective
function in the search direction for a random initial
set of model variables. Despite the complexity of the
objective function, it is straightforward to explore the
uncertainty in this problem using a gradient-based
method (LevenbergMarquardt) with random initial
models and realizations of data (the RML method in
Section 5.3). Figure 7b shows a cross plot of permeabil-
ity of Layer 1 and 2 of the final samples, where the six
minima are correctly identified.
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
(b) The entire frequency distribution of values of the objective
function after conditioning. The large values are unacceptable
realizations.
Despite the apparent complexity of the objective
function in the three-layer example, approximately
50% of all history matched models converged to an
acceptable level of the objective function (Fig. 8a)
when the LevenbergMarquardt method was used for
minimization. Although the other 50% converged to
a local minimum that with an unacceptably high data
mismatch, it would be clear that they should be re-
jected in this case (Fig. 8b). The overall efficiency is
reasonably high in this case, and the sampling of prop-
erties is clearly nearly correct, partly because many of
the apparent local minima are actually connected in a
higher dimensional space, and partly because the rapid
convergence to a minimum compensates for the fact
that some solutions must be discarded.
4 Algorithms for history matching
Although the objectives of history matching are rela-
tively consistent (minimization of the square data mis-
match with regularization), the methods used for the
minimization and for assessing uncertainty vary widely.
Part of the reason for the differences is clearly that
some methods are easier to implement than others, but
it is also clear that different history matching problems
may require different optimization algorithms. One
consequence of the no free lunch theorem for search
and optimization [180] is that a general-purpose uni-
versal optimization strategy is theoretically impossible,
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
and the only way one strategy can outperform another
is if it is specialized to the specific problem under
consideration [77]. One of the reasons that knowledge
of the shape of the objective function is important
is that it can assist in choosing algorithms that will
perform well on particular types of history matching
problems. In this section, we briefly summarize most of
the algorithms that have been used for history matching
and comment on the types of problems for which they
may be suitable. Typical field cases are included for
each algorithm to show the applicability to complex real
problems.
4.1 Manual history matching
Before automatic history matching of realistic reser-
voir models was feasible, reservoir models were history
matched manually using good engineering judgment
and a work flow that had been developed through years
of experience. One structured approach to manual his-
tory matching is described by Williams et al. [179]. The
approach begins with an attempt to match pressures at
the large (field) scale through adjustments of a few key
parameters: aquifer pore volume factors, aquifer trans-
missibility, permeability multipliers, rock compressibil-
ity, and the ratio of vertical to horizontal permeability.
When the pressure has been matched adequately at the
field level, the properties of individual flow units or
layers are adjusted, followed by the adjustment of well
properties or properties of cells near wells.
Once the pressure matching is complete, other vari-
ables are adjusted in an attempt to match water arrival
times and water cut behavior. Williams et al. [179]
suggest that modification of the relative permeability
curves is frequently useful for saturation matching be-
cause its effect on the pressure match may be relatively
small. In some cases, it may be necessary to locally
increase or decrease vertical transmissibility to change
the flow of water from the lower layers to the upper
layers in the reservoir.
A manual history matching approach was applied
by Agarwal et al. [7] for a complex fractured chalk
reservoir in the Norwegian North Sea, with 76 devi-
ated and horizontal production wells, 13 gas injectors
and 37 water injectors. Fault sealing factors, vertical
permeability, pseudo relative permeability curves, bub-
ble point pressure correlations, local permeability, and
rock compressibility were key parameters in the history
201
match. Although they did not mentioned if a staged
work flow as in Williams et al. [179] was used, they
stated that it took one year of intensive work to match
25 years worth of production and performance data.
The final result was a good match to WCT, GOR and
static pressure. An experienced reservoir engineer can
often obtain an acceptable match to field performance,
and even to production of key wells using manual
history matching methods, but it is very difficult to
obtain acceptable matches on the well or completion
basis. Moreover, regional multipliers are often used in
manual history matching, and the attempt at a detailed
history match typically results in a loss of geological
realism and thus very limited prediction power.
Recently, the necessity of quantifying uncertainty
has being recognized in the industry. Instead of a single
prediction, a range of predictions are usually generated
to better capture the range of possible outcomes, typ-
ically in form of the 10th, 50th and 90th percentiles.
The most common practice is to generate a group of
predictions using multiple history matched models with
a calibrated range for static and dynamic parameters,
but the reliability of this approach to uncertainty assess-
ment is questionable.
4.2 Evolutionary algorithms
Many engineers prefer to work with relatively small
numbers of variables, even if the history matching is an
automated process. Evolutionary algorithms are often
the standard approach for assisted history matching
when the number of variables is small, at least partially
because of the availability of commercial software for
this approach. The algorithms are population-based op-
timization algorithms inspired by process occurring in
biological evolution. A typical evolutionary algorithm
applied to history matching might use mutations and
recombinations of individual reservoir models to gener-
ate new models and a fitness function based primarily
on data mismatch might be used to determine which
models survive and which are eliminated from a pool
of candidate reservoir models.
The two most common types of evolutionary al-
gorithms for history matching are genetic algorithms
and evolutionary strategies. Genetic algorithms typi-
cally use random uniform sampling for mutation of
parameters and use recombination of variables for re-
production. The selection of offspring is random with
202
the probability of survival based on a normalized fitness
value. Evolutionary strategies are similar to genetic
algorithms except that they allow for co-evolution of
evolutionary parameters such as mutation step size. In
this way, the algorithm can be made to converge in the
neighborhood of a minimum in the objective function.
General background material can be found in the book
by Bck [14]. A recent review of the status of evolu-
tionary algorithms for history matching is provided by
Schulze-Riegert and Ghedan [148].
Romero and Carter [142] applied a genetic algorithm
to the problem of history-matching a complex syn-
thetic ten-layer reservoir model. Pilot point values at 63
points in each layer for three property fields, variogram
model parameters, fault transmissibilities, and well skin
factors were optimized using a genetic algorithm. The
results from the genetic algorithm were said to be bet-
ter than those obtained using simulated annealing and
approximately equivalent to those obtained by manual
history matching.
The slow rate of convergence has generally been a
disadvantage for the use of evolutionary algorithms in
petroleum reservoir history matching. Schulze-Riegert
et al. [149] and Schulze-Riegert et al. [150] describe
approaches to improving the convergence rate through
a reduction in the dimension of the search space. They
accomplish this by combining correlated model pa-
rameters, eliminating less important parameters, and
identifying regions that can be modified by trend pa-
rameters. A gradient-based search method was used to
increase the rate of local convergence. The methods
were tested on two field examples [150] where less than
40 model parameters are optimized for each of the field
cases, including permeability multipliers for different
regions, fault transmissibility, pore volume multipliers
and critical gas saturation values.
4.3 Gradual deformation
In its most basic formulation, the gradual deformation
algorithm uses an optimal linear combination of two
Gaussian reservoir models, m1 and m2 with mean m
and identical covariances to produce a new model, m3 ,
that has the same mean and covariance as the original
models but matches the data better [80, 95]
m3 () = m + (m1 m) cos + (m2 m) sin . (11) realizations.
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
The history matching problem in this case reduces to
the one-dimensional minimization problem of deter-
mining the best value of . If the model m3 , evaluated
at the best , does not satisfactorily match the data,
then a new model realization is proposed and the best
combination with m3 is computed. When only one di-
rection is used at each iteration, the rate of convergence
is usually very slow after the first few iterations. In that
case, it is possible to use a multidimensional gradual
deformation,

N
m3 (1 , . . . , N ) = m + i (mi m). (12)
i=1
The convergence rate is also increased if the reser-
voir is broken up into subregions for the minimization
[80]. The method has been extended to the problem
of history matching reservoir models that result from
sequential simulation algorithms [81], truncated pluri-
gaussian models [82], object-based stochastic models,
and multipoint statistics [23]. Le Ravalec and Ntinger
[95] noted that generating multiple conditional realiza-
tions using the standard gradual deformation method
with only data mismatch as objective function does
not provide correct sampling of the posterior pdf, a
prior constraint needs to be included in the objective
function. The sampling properties of the gradual defor-
mation method have been compared to other methods
by Le Ravalec et al. [94] and by Liu and Oliver [109].
Feraille et al. [52] applied gradual deformation
method to history match the PBR field that has 34 oil
producers and 13 water injection wells and 15 years of
history. Eight influential parameters (permeability of
different facies) and nine gradual deformation parame-
ters were optimized. They showed improved water cut
match at some of the wells but the match at a few other
wells were degraded. The history matching process was
repeated five times to generate five history matched
model for uncertainty quantification of the prediction.
Caers and Hoffman [24] describe a probability per-
turbation method in which probability used in se-
quential simulation is modified to generate realizations
that improves data match. Hoffman and Caers [78]
applied the probability perturbation method to a North
Sea reservoir with 14 producers and eight injectors.
Only calcite body locations and its regional propor-
tion are used as model parameters in generating the
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221 203

4.4 Neighborhood algorithm where Nm is the number of model variables in m. There

are at least three standard methods for computing the
The neighborhood algorithm approximates the poste- entries of the G matrix: the finite-difference method,
rior pdf by partitioning the model parameter space the forward method, and the adjoint method. In the
into regions of roughly uniform probability density finite-difference method, one computes
[145]. The algorithm generates approximately history
g j
matched models by first randomly generating an ini-
mk
tial set of models, then identifying the models with
g j(m1,. . .,mk+
mk ,. . .,mNm )g j(m1,. . .,mk ,. . .,mNm )
the smallest data mismatch. Finally, new models are

mk
generated by uniform random walk in the Voronoi cell
of each of the best matched models. The algorithm (14)
repeats these steps several times. Subbey et al. [158]
for k = 1, 2, . . . , Nm . This requires Nm function evalua-
and Christie et al. [34] have used the neighborhood
tions. When a small number of model variables are used
algorithm with resampling to quantify uncertainty af-
for the history matching problem, this may not be a bad
ter history matching, although applications seem to be
choice. In particular, computation of the product of the
limited to small numbers of parameters. The neighbor-
sensitivity matrix G with a vector v could be done at the
hood algorithm was also used by Suzuki et al. [160] in
cost of two function evaluations,
conjunction with a Haussdorf measure of the distance
between models. g(m + v) = g(m) + Gv + O( 2 ) (15)
Rotondi et al. [143] applied the neighborhood algo-
rithm to a field case with seven wells and six years pro- so
duction history. They selected the 37 most influential 1
Gv (g(m + v) g(m)) . (16)
model parameters from the initial set of 91 parameters 
through sensitivity analysis. The parameters include
4.5.1 The sensitivity equation approach
permeability multiplier, initial water saturation multi-
plier, gas-water contacts, rock compressibility, aquifer
The model variables m (e.g. permeability and porosity)
permeability multiplier, etc. Multiple models that have
and state variables s (e.g. pressure and saturation) sat-
low data mismatch were retained for quantifying uncer-
isfy equations of the form
tainty of the production forecast.
f(m, s) = 0. (17)
4.5 Computation of gradients and sensitivities
The data d (e.g. oil and water production rates and
In many efficient methods of minimization, it is nec- bottom-hole pressure) are related to model and state
essary to compute derivatives of the objective func- variables through d = g(m, s). In the previous sections,
tion with respect to model variables (e.g. for conjugate we only expressed data as a function of model variables,
gradient or quasi-Newton methods), or the derivative d = g(m), due to the implicit relationship between
of individual terms in the data mismatch to model model and state variables in Eq. 17. An equation for
variables (e.g. for Newton-like methods). If not done the sensitivity of state variables to a model parameter
efficiently, the expense of the computation of the gra- mk can be obtained by differentiating Eq. 17,
dients can negate the advantage of faster convergence.  T s  T m
Let g(m) = [g1 (m), g2 (m), . . . , g Nd (m)]T represent the s fT + m fT = 0. (18)
mk mk
functional relationship between the model variables
Subsequently, the sensitivity of data to the model vari-
and the simulated data, where Nd is the number of data.
able mk , is obtained from
The sensitivity coefficient matrix for the data is
g1 s
g1
dg
m = (s g)T , (19)
m1 dmk mk
 T . ..
Nm

G = m g T =
.. . , (13) where s/mk is determined by solving Eq. 18. As-
g Nd g Nd
m1
m N suming that Eq. 17 has already been solved for s,
m
204
the coefficients are fixed and the system of equations
is linear. To obtain the entire matrix of sensitivity
coefficients, a nonlinear equation must be solved once
to obtain s and the linear system (Eq. 18) must be
solved Nm times. The cost of computing the sensitivity
to another model variable is relatively small, especially
if methods that account for the need to solve the system
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
time along trajectories that include only the properties
that contribute to the observation [119, 137].
Several key features of the computation of sensitiv-
ities from the adjoint method are well illustrated by
consideration of a simple tracer example. The system
of equations governing the transport of an ideal tracer
in a single-phase fluid of small compressibility is [159].
of equations multiple times with different right-hand 

p k
sides are taken into account [88]. ct p + Q = 0 (20)
t
Anterion et al. [11] first applied the sensitivity equa-
tion (or gradient simulator) method to the computation
of sensitivity coefficients for reservoir simulation and c
+ (vc) + M = 0 (21)
history matching. The sensitivity equation method was t
used by Bissell [20] to compute sensitivities and related where p is the pressure, c is the tracer concentration, v
gradzones for parameterization in history matching. is the velocity, is the porosity, k is the permeability,
The sensitivity equation method has been implemented is the fluid viscosity, ct is the total compressibility,
into the history matching package of a commercial and Q and M are source terms. Suppose that the initial
reservoir simulator, which has then been used to select conditions for this problem are p = p0 and c = 0 when
a reduced parameterization [39]. Thorough discussions t = 0, and that the pressure at the producing well is
of the sensitivity equation method, applied to the reser- fixed at p1 . The injection rate, and also the flux of tracer
voir simulation equations, can be found in Rodrigues into the reservoir are controlled. The adjoint variables
[140] and in Oliver et al. [131]. 1 (x, t) and 2 (x, t) satisfy the system
In some minimization algorithms, it is necessary to 


compute products of the sensitivity matrix G (Eq. 13) 1 k k f
ct 1 c2 + =0
with a vector v of length Nm . Eq. 16 showed that the t p
product could be computed at the cost of one additional (22)
function evaluation. Abacioglu et al. [4] and Rodrigues 2 f
v 2 + = 0. (23)
[140] describe how the sensitivity equation method (or t c
the forward method) can be used to compute products
The initial conditions for the adjoint equations are 1 =
of the form Gv at the cost of solving one linear system
0 and 2 = 0 when t = tobs , and boundary conditions are
per time step. This can be substantially faster than the
1 = 2 = 0 at the producer, and
use of Eq. 16.



k k
1 n c2 n = 0 (24)
4.5.2 Adjoint system

at the injector. Then the variation of

For practical history-matching problems with large
 tobs 
numbers of model parameters, the most efficient
J( p, c, k, ) = f ( p, c, k, ; x, y, t) d
dt
method for accurately computing the gradient of a t0 (
)
function of the state variables with respect to model
for some particular choice of production measure such
variables is through the use of the adjoint state method.
as concentration at the producer at a particular time, is
While the forward system of equations may be nonlin-
 tobs   
ear, the adjoint state variables are solutions of a linear 1 c f
J = p 1 + p 2 + k d
dt
system of equations. The adjoint state variables can t0 (
) k
be interpreted as measures of importance of variables  tobs   
p c f
describing the reservoir. The adjoint state variables are + ct 1 + 2 + d
dt. (25)
t0 (
) t t
solutions of systems of equations in which mass is
injected at the location and time of an observation. Jacquard and Jain [84] first used the adjoint method for
The adjoint variables are then propagated backwards in history matching data from a two-dimensional, single-
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
phase, transient flow reservoir model. Because they
computed sensitivities of well mismatches to reservoir
model parameters, it required Nw + 1 equivalent sim-
ulation runs to obtain all the derivatives, where Nw
is the number of wells. The history-matching problem
that the authors solved had 150 blocks and four wells
but, because of zonation, there were only 14 unknown
parameters in the problem. Although the methodology
of Jacquard and Jain [84] was equivalent to an adjoint
method, the authors described their approach in terms
of resistances and capacitances, which inhibited acces-
sibility.
Both Chen et al. [28] and Chavent et al. [27] for-
mulated the single-phase history matching problem as
an optimal control problem with gradients computed
using the adjoint system. The adjoint system is linear
so the solution is typically several times faster than
the nonlinear equations of flow and transport. Unlike
earlier authors who described the computation of gra-
dients of the objective function (e.g. Eq. 6) for history
matching, Li et al. [104] described the use of the ad-
joint state method for computation of the sensitivity
of each measurement (e.g. wellbore pressure, water-
oil ratio, and gas-oil ratio) to changes in gridblock
permeability and porosity in three-phase flow history
matching. Eydinov et al. [50] developed a procedure
for using the adjoint system to computing the gradient
of an objective function for a compositional simulator.
The adjoint system they developed was independent of
the time scheme used in the forward simulation. They
demonstrated consistency with both fully implicit and
IMPSAT models.
In general, one equivalent simulation run is required
to compute the gradient of the objective function to the
model variables and Nd equivalent simulation runs are
required to compute the full sensitivity matrix G, where
Nd is the number of data. Li et al. [103] noted that
while the development of adjoint equations for three-
phase flow can be rather tedious, the coefficient matrix
required for the adjoint-state variables can be extracted
from the last Newton iteration at each time step in
a fully-implicit reservoir simulator. Either the states
histories throughout the entire domain must be stored
and used to compute coefficients of the adjoint equa-
tions, or the coefficients themselves must be stored.
Gunzburger [72] discusses several storage saving
schemes for time-dependent adjoint calculations, but
points out that there is a tradeoff of savings in storage
205
for additional computational cost. The checkpointing
method [65] requires that the simulator be run over the
entire history and that restart files be written at several
times. The saturations and pressures are saved only
for some relatively short period at the end of the run.
These are used to solve the adjoint system backwards
in time from the final time to the previous restart time.
Then, these saturations and pressures can be removed
from storage. The simulator is rerun from the previous
time to obtain another interval of coefficients for the
adjoint system and the adjoint equations are solved
over a second interval, and so on. In the checkpointing
method, forward simulation is required twice instead of
once, but the maximum storage requirement is reduced.
In the standard implementation, there is a second level
of restart files to further reduce storage, but the com-
putational cost is again higher. We are not aware of the
use of checkpointing in the petroleum industry. Instead,
one operational solution is to use a small number of
stored states to approximate the coefficients in the
adjoint system.
In summary, the massive storage requirement can
be reduced while still maintaining accurate gradients,
but there is a tradeoff with computational cost. In
application for ocean data assimilation, the saving in
memory comes at a cost of a required three full forward
integrations of the model (one for each checkpointing
level). If that same situation were true for petroleum
models, we might assume that the number of simulation
runs will triple when the adjoint system is used for
history matching of models for which storage of the
states is impractical.
Finally, we note that the adjoint system can be used
to efficiently compute products of the form GT u where
u is a vector of dimension Nd [140].
4.5.3 Streamline-based analytical sensitivities
The earliest use of a streamline simulator for history
matching was a result of the speed of the simulation,
which allowed many more simulations to be run in
conjunction with simulated annealing [169]. The popu-
larity and usefulness of streamline methods for history
matching is now primarily due to the ability to com-
pute sensitivities to certain types of data from a single
forward simulation, instead of requiring the solution
of multiple adjoint solutions. Oliver [127] showed how
the sensitivity of an ideal tracer concentration at a
206
producing well to nonuniform permeability and poros-
ity could be computed analytically from the concentra-
tion solutions along individual streamlines. Vasco and
Datta-Gupta [170] and Vasco et al. [171] formulated
parameter sensitivities in terms of one-dimensional in-
tegrals of analytic functions along stationary stream-
lines. The efficiency of the method is clearly related to
the simplicity of the adjoint system for an ideal tracer.
Note, for example, that Eq. 23 for the second adjoint
variable 2 is identical to the equation for propagation
of tracer when the system is incompressible. When the
velocity field does not change with time, the trajectories
for 2 are identical to the trajectories for concentra-
tion (the streamlines) and the integral for sensitivity
(Eq. 25) can be evaluated easily.
The use of streamline methods to compute approx-
imate sensitivities has been extended by Kulkarni and
Datta-Gupta [91] to the sensitivity of producing water
cut with respect to relative permeability parameters for
parameterizations based on power functions and also
on B-splines. Datta-Gupta et al. [40] generalized the
streamline approach to compressible flow and intro-
duced the concept of a diffusive streamline time-of-
flight for transient pressure calculations. In general, the
use of the streamline methods to compute sensitivities
has relied on the assumption that the streamlines do
not change with time, but He et al. [75] showed that
for small changes in field conditions, the effect on
computation of data sensitivities might not be impor-
tant. Cheng et al. [33] use a generalized streamline
model to account for compressible flow by introduc-
ing an effective density of total fluids along stream-
lines.
Vasco et al. [171] showed that the sensitivities com-
puted in a streamline approach could be used in a two-
step iterative inversion that involved first matching the
breakthrough times at the producing wells and then
matching the production history. A major advantage
of this approach is that the breakthrough time is more
nearly linear in its relationship to permeability and
porosity than the water rate. Wang and Kovscek [174]
applied a streamline approach for inferring field-scale
effective permeability distributions based on dynamic
production data including producer water-cut curve,
well pressures, and rates. By adjusting the effective per-
meability along streamlines, the breakthrough time of
each streamline that reproduces the reference producer
fractional-flow curve was found and the permeabil-
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
ity modifications were mapped to the simulation grid.
They did not impose prior constraints or variogram
information, but they did point out some limitations
to the streamline method, including no changes to the
streamlines and no new wells. Milliken et al. [117] used
3D streamline paths to assist manual history match-
ing of three reservoir simulation studies. The example
models range in size from 105 to 106 gridblocks and
contain as many as several hundred wells. Agarwal and
Blunt [6] used streamline simulation for a problem with
compressible three-phase flow and gravity segregation
to compute sensitivities of water flow rate at produc-
tion wells to changes in permeability. Although the
computation of the sensitivities was approximate, they
showed that the method could provide a reasonable
history match to data from a North Sea field. Stenerud
et al. [157] combined a multi scale-streamline method
with generalized travel-time inversion (GTTI) [182]
to history match a highly detailed three-dimensional
simulation model. Oyerinde et al. [132] applied a trans-
formation to the water cut and producing gas-oil ratio
profiles to make them more amenable to GTTI. Flow-
ing bottom-hole pressure were also incorporated with
sensitivity computed using a low frequency asymptotic
approach. The method was applied to a west African
reservoir with three producers and more than 30 years
of history. Bottom-hole pressure, water cut and gas-
oil ratio at the three producers are matched by adjust-
ing gridblock permeability for a model of size 182
51 12.
4.5.4 SPSA for gradient approximation
In some cases, it may be sufficient to compute an ap-
proximation of the gradient either because an accurate
gradient is unnecessary when one is far from the min-
imum, or possibly because the expense of computing
an accurate gradient makes it impractical. Spall [155]
introduced the simultaneous perturbation stochastic
approximation (SPSA) for optimization problems in
which it is difficult to directly obtain a gradient of
the objective function with respect to the parameters
being optimized. The SPSA gradient approximation is
based on only two evaluations of the objective function,
regardless of the dimension of the model space [156].
In this method, the gradient of the objective function,
J(m), is estimated based on a simultaneous perturba-
tion of all components of the model vector at the th
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221 207

iteration m such that the approximation of the kth m = m m , we expand the objective function J(m)
component of the estimate of the gradient is in a second order Taylor series about m ,
J(m + c
 ) J(m c
 )
gk (m ) = (26)      T 1
2c
k J m +m = J m +m J m m+ mT H m+ ,
2
where the elements of the random perturbation vec- (27)
tor,
 = (
1 , . . . ,
 Nm )T , are usually sampled from
a symmetric Bernoulli 1 distribution [156]. The where H is the Hessian evaluated at m . Assuming that
sequence c is chosen to decrease slowly with iteration H is positive definite, a quadratic approximation to the
index . minimizer of J(m) with respect to m can be obtained
The simultaneous perturbation stochastic approxi- by solving
mation has been applied to the history matching a  
H m = m J m . (28)
small number of times. Banchs et al. [15] used SPSA to
compute an approximation of the gradient of the data The Hessian at m is obtained by computing the
mismatch for a highly upscaled reservoir model with 20 gradient of the objective function twice,
gridblocks. Using steepest descent, the algorithm con-   T 
H  = m m J m 
verged to a minimum in approximately 2000 iterations
 T
(each of which requires 2 simulation runs to compute = C1 T 1
M + G CD G + m G (g(m) dobs ) . (29)
the direction). Gao et al. [57] investigated the perfor-
In the GaussNewton method, the third term on the
mance of a standard SPSA algorithm and a modified
right side of Eq. 29 is neglected because it is impractical
SPSA algorithm in which an approximate Hessian was
to compute, and because it is small when the data
computed using the inverse of the prior model covari-
mismatch is small or when g(m) is approximately linear
ance matrix. The modified SPSA algorithm performed
over the range m to m + m.
almost as well as steepest descent when applied to the
The GaussNewton method for minimization of ob-
PUNQ-S3 test problem, but was much slower than a
jection function J(m) in Eq. 6 requires the solution of
limited memory BroydenFletcherGoldfarbShanno
 1   1   
(BFGS) algorithm. CM + GT C1 D G m = CM m mpr
   
+ GT C1
D g m dobs .
4.6 Gradient (downhill) methods
(30)
When the objective function to be minimized is
When written in this form, the system of equations
sufficiently smooth, the most efficient methods for
to be solved is Nm Nm where Nm is the number
finding a local minimum almost always use derivatives
of model parameters. If Nm is small, this formulation
of the function to compute optimal local directions to
could be practical, but in general Nm is large. The
change the model parameters. Real history matching
GaussNewton updating equation can be rewritten us-
problems vary greatly, however, in the smoothness of
ing the ShermanMorrisonWoodbury matrix inver-
the objective function (compare Fig. 6b to Fig. 7a), in
sion formula [63] such that the update only requires
the number of local minima, in the number of data to be
solution of an Nd Nd system where Nd is the number
matched, and in the number of model parameters to be
of data in the mismatch function:
estimated. One thing that almost all history matching
   1
problems have in common is that a single function eval- m = m mpr CM GT CD + G CM GT
uation is expensive, so the number of function evalua-     
g m dobs G m mpr . (31)
tions should be minimized. A second common feature
is that sensitivity coefficients (derivatives of data with The GaussNewton method has been used by Tan
respect to model parameters) are usually expensive to and Kalogerakis [161] for a problem with zonation
compute accurately. (to reduce the number of sensitivities that must be
Consider an iterative method in which the approx- computed). Reynolds et al. [138] also applied Gauss
imation of the model parameters that minimizes the Newton with a reduced parameterization, but not zona-
objective function at the th iteration is m . Defining tion. Chu et al. [36] and He et al. [74] applied the
208
method to history matching of single-phase reservoirs.
Wu [181] extended the application to history matching
of two-phase reservoirs and Li et al. [103] to three-
phase reservoirs. Although the rate on convergence of
the GaussNewton method can be very rapid (often
only 810 iterations are required), the cost of each
iteration is substantial because of the need to compute
the sensitivities or the product of sensitivities with vec-
tors [35].
The LevenbergMarquardt method can be consid-
ered as a version of GaussNewton with a modification
to the Hessian to improve convergence and avoid the
need for estimating the step length. Zhang et al. [194]
used the LevenbergMarquardt method to estimate
variables describing a stochastic channel and Vefring
et al. [172] used it to estimate reservoir parameters
that minimized the difference between pressure mea-
surements obtained during the drilling process and the
corresponding model states in a simulator.
Conjugate gradient or quasi-Newton methods only
require the gradient of the objective function and tend
to converge much more slowly than GaussNewton
methods, but are frequently more efficient in total com-
putation time for large history matching problems. In
the conjugate gradient method the search directions are
conjugate to each other and next search direction is a
linear combination of the current residue and all previ-
ous search directions [54]. Conjugate gradient methods
almost always converge faster than steepest descent at
little additional cost. Lee et al. [97] used Nazareths
conjugate gradient method to estimate permeability
and porosity in a single-phase two-dimensional areal
reservoir from well pressure data. Lee and Seinfeld
[99] also used the conjugate gradient method for two-
phase flow history matching. In this and the previous
example, the permeability fields were reparameterized
using bi-cubic splines. Makhlouf et al. [114] applied
a conjugate gradient method to estimate permeability
in a small three-phase, three-layer reservoir. Approx-
imately 200 iterations were required to history match
the 450-gridblock model. An iterative sparse matrix
solver (LSQR) was also used for history matching in
Cheng et al. [32] and Oyerinde et al. [132].
Of all of the gradient-based methods, quasi-Newton
approaches seem to have been most successful on his-
tory matching problems with large numbers of model
variables and large amounts of data [191]. Quasi-
Newton methods start with a crude initial approxima-
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
tion to the inverse Hessian, often based on the prior
covariance matrix for model variables or a diagonal
matrix of variances, then successively improve the esti-
mate of the inverse Hessian at each iteration. Although
the Hessian for realistic problems is generally very
large, it is never generated or stored, except perhaps
for the sparse initial estimate. The efficiency has been
greatly improved by the introduction of an improved
line search and scaling, and the application of damping
factors to the data [58]. In general, the limited-memory
formulation of BFGS is used because the memory
requirements are less and because the convergence is
often better for highly nonlinear problems. A thorough
discussion of quasi-Newton methods in general and the
BFGS method in particular can be found in Oliver et al.
[131, pp. 180192].
Yang and Watson [185] applied several variants
of quasi-Newton methods, including BFGS to a the
problem of history matching data from a waterflood
reservoir. They noted that the quasi-Newton methods
were much more efficient than steepest descent for
their problem. Deschamps et al. [42] evaluated six
different minimization algorithms on a three-phase,
three-dimensional history matching problem with a
reduced parameterization. The quasi-Newton meth-
ods performed poorly compared to the GaussNewton
methods but the results appear to be at least partly due
to the parameterization and the lack of scaling. Zhang
and Reynolds [191] compared the performance of sev-
eral gradient-based minimization algorithms including
LevenbergMarquardt, preconditioned conjugate gra-
dient, BFGS and limited memory BFGS on several his-
tory matching problems of various degrees of complex-
ity. They concluded that scaling had a significant effect
on the convergence performance of BFGS and limited-
memory BFGS. The scaled limited memory BFGS al-
gorithm was several times faster than GaussNewton
or the modified LevenbergMarquardt Algorithm for
their large history matching problems.
Because of its efficiency, quasi-Newton methods
have been used relatively frequently for problems with
large numbers of model parameters and large amounts
of data. Liu and Oliver [108] used a quasi-Newton
method to adjust geologic facies boundaries to match
pressure data. Dong and Oliver [45] applied a quasi-
Newton method to history matching of 4D seismic (p-
wave impedance) data. Because of the large amount
of data, this problem would be nearly impossible with
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
GaussNewton. Zhang et al. [195] evaluated the
method on the Tengiz field example, where 104 buildup
pressures from 40 wells were matched by adjusting
gridblock permeability on a 59 49 9 simulation
grid. The limited-memory BFGS method was used by
Eydinov et al. [51] to simultaneously match absolute
permeabilities and relative permeability.
5 Quantifying uncertainty
The computation of a single history matched reservoir
model is usually insufficient to address questions of
risk and uncertainty in reservoir management. Methods
of quantifying uncertainty can generally be separated
into methods in which multiple samples are drawn
from the conditional distribution, and methods that
compute a single best model but use the covariance or
the null space of the sensitivity matrix to characterize
uncertainty. The fact that it is often difficult to obtain
a single history matched model suggests that the task
of characterizing uncertainty must be more difficult,
and approximations must usually be made. It is not
sufficient simply to generate a small number of models,
without taking care to ensure that they are sampled
correctly.
It is of course, hopeless to attempt to characterize
the posteriori uncertainty accurately if the assessment
of prior uncertainty was inadequate. Lia et al. [105]
investigated the problem of quantifying prior uncer-
tainties due to incomplete knowledge of the initial
reservoir characteristics, emphasizing the difference
between heterogeneity modeling and assessment of un-
certainty. Their results showed that inclusion of uncer-
tainty in stochastic model parameters was important for
assessment of overall uncertainty.
Floris et al. [55] presented a comparative study of
methods used to quantify uncertainty on production
forecasts for reservoir models conditioned to both static
and dynamic well data. Participants in the study re-
ceived well porosity/permeability data and historic
production data from a synthetic example (PUNQ-
S3) based on a real field case. Partners were asked
to condition their reservoir models to these data and
to estimate the probability distribution for cumulative
oil production at the end of the forecast period. The
authors concluded that the choice of parameterization
had a large influence on the prediction range. While
209
several of the methods provided ranges of forecasts that
included the truth, it was not clear how well the un-
certainty was characterized. Results from the PUNQ-
S3 study were updated by Barker et al. [16] who added
results from importance sampling and revised the his-
tory matching results obtained using a pilot-point ap-
proach, and Markov chain Monte Carlo (McMC). They
concluded that the adaptive formulation of McMC [79]
gives rigorous results that are only several times more
expensive than the results of other methods. Gu and
Oliver [70] and Gao et al. [59] both used the PUNQ-S3
test case to evaluate the ability to quantify uncertainty
using the ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF). Gao et al.
[59] included an evaluation of randomized maximum
likelihood (RML) in their study. EnKF and RML both
gave reasonable estimates of uncertainty.
Liu and Oliver [107] also compared the ability of sev-
eral methods to assessing uncertainty in history match-
ing. They chose a small transient single-phase problem
to ensure that a large enough number of samples could
be generated to draw valid conclusions about the pos-
terior pdf. One conclusion of their study was that the
quality of the estimates of the marginal distributions
depended strongly on the variable being estimated.
Methods based on linearization around the best model
provided good estimates of the uncertainty in average
porosity, but very poor estimates of the uncertainty in
data mismatch. Pilot point methods were poor at esti-
mating uncertainty in extreme values. In general, the
method of randomized maximum likelihood performed
well in all cases and came close to results from McMC
at a much lower cost.
5.1 MAP plus square root of covariance
When the relationships between data and model
variables are linear, and the prior distributions are
Gaussian, the posterior distribution for model variables
will also be Gaussian. In this case, it is possible to
characterize uncertainty completely from the mean and
the covariance. When a Newton-like method is used
for minimization, the Hessian provides an estimate of
the inverse of the posterior covariance. For large prob-
lems it may not be practical to compute the Hessian
and for highly nonlinear problems, the Gaussian ap-
proximation may be of limited usefulness. Shah et al.
[153] suggested that the eigenvalues and eigenvectors
of GT G are relatively insensitive to the linearization
210
so that they could be useful for uncertainty analysis in
history matching and Oliver [125] showed that it was
possible to efficiently generate multiple models that
were conditioned to well test data when the variability
in the property fields was small. Finally, Lpine et al.
[101] used sensitivity information from the final history
match iteration to compute the Hessian, which was
used to estimate uncertainty in future production. In
order to compute sensitivities and the Hessian, they
used a reduced parameterization of only 29 variables.
Despite the apparent usefulness of the results that
have been generated using this method, when Liu
and Oliver [107] attempted to use samples from the
Gaussian approximation to the posterior as proposals
for an acceptance/rejection method, they found that
less than 0.1% of the samples were accepted. Clearly, in
many realistic cases, realizations from the Gaussian ap-
proximation cannot be considered to be samples from
the actual posterior distribution.
5.2 Markov chain Monte Carlo
If the history matching problem is framed in the context
of a prior distribution for model variables and a likeli-
hood function for the model variables given the data,
then Markov chain Monte Carlo (McMC) methods are
well-suited to generating samples from the posterior (or
conditional) probability density without the need for
knowledge of the normalization constant. In the McMC
method, one starts with a reservoir model, typically
sampled from the prior distribution. At each iteration,
a new reservoir model is proposed and a test (usually
Metropolis-Hastings) is applied to decide whether to
accept the proposed model or to retain the old model.
Under fairly easily satisfied conditions on the prob-
ability distribution for new models, it can be shown
that after a large number of iterations, models from
the chain can be used as samples from the desired
conditional distribution [62]. In the Gibbs sampler, the
conditional distribution is used to propose new models,
in which case every proposal is accepted.
McMC was first applied to the problem of generating
realizations from a specified probability density func-
tion in reservoir characterization by Hegstad et al. [76].
In their application, simulated annealing was used for
simulation, with the assumption that the constraints in
the problem should be satisfied exactly. Oliver et al.
[128] applied the Markov chain Monte Carlo method
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
to history matching of noisy transient pressure data
and considered several methods for proposing new
reservoir models in the chain, including methods that
made use of the linearized sensitivity of data to model
variables. They concluded that the rate of generation of
uncorrelated realizations was too low for McMC meth-
ods to be of practical application in history matching.
Bonet-Cunha et al. [22] applied hybrid McMC methods
that combine a stochastic step with a deterministic step
to generate new proposed models with a high degree of
acceptance. Although the method was able to sample
the posterior pdf better than other methods, the com-
putational cost was too high to be practical.
The problem of efficiently obtaining multiple inde-
pendent samples from a multimodal distribution in a
high-dimensional space was addressed by Tjelmeland
and Eidsvik [164] who generalized the mode jumping
scheme of Tjelmeland and Hegstad [165] to allow the
probability distribution for forward and backward ker-
nels to depend on the current state. In their method,
mode jumping proposals include local optimizations.
Efendiev et al. [47] propose a method of improving
the acceptance rate of proposed changes to a fine-
scale Markov chain Monte Carlo sequence by precon-
ditioning the proposals using a coarse-scale model. The
coarse-scale models were only used as a part of the pro-
cedure for determining the necessity of evaluating the
fine-scale model. Finally, Romary [141] proposed use of
a truncated KarhunenLoeve expansion to reduce the
dimension of the model, and using several interacting
chains operating at different temperatures (or vari-
ances) to improve the mixing.
5.3 Randomized maximum likelihood
In an attempt to improve mixing for the Markov chain
Monte Carlo algorithm, Oliver et al. [129] described a
two-step proposal in which (1) model and data variables
were jointly sampled from the prior distribution and
(2) the sampled model variables were calibrated to the
sampled data variables. The Metropolis-Hastings test
was used to determine if the resulting calibrated model
variables would be accepted as an element of the chain.
Although the method was highly efficient, evaluation
of the probability of proposing a calibrated model
was difficult, even for a single-variable problem. Be-
cause the acceptance rate is 100% for Gaussian-linear
problems [126] and seemed to be very high (above
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
90%) in nonlinear test problems, the authors proposed
that, one might accept all realizations that obtained
an acceptable level of data mismatch. For nonlinear
relationships this algorithm is only an approximation,
although it has generally been shown to sample well
for problems of practical interest in high dimensions
[59, 107].
The randomized maximum likelihood algorithm
(RML) is easily applied when the prior distribution
for the model variables m is gaussian such that m
 
N M , CM and the observations d are related to model
 
variables through d = g(m) +  where  N 0, CD
with a likelihood
211
ibration of state variables, e.g. saturation and pressure,
as well as more traditional model variables. A recent
review paper on EnKF [3] summarized most of the
development of EnKF in reservoir engineering since
2001 up to early 2008, so while we intend to provide
a summary of key developments in the application of
EnKF to history matching, this section focuses mainly
on the studies completed after the preparation of that
review paper.
Both model variables (e.g. permeability and poros-
ity) and state variables (e.g. phase saturation and pres-
sure) are updated in EnKF, and all the variables are
collected in a vector, usually referred to as the state

vector. There are two main steps in the EnKF method,
1
p(dobs |m) exp (g(m) dobs )T C1D (g(m) d obs ) . the forecast step and the analysis step. At the fore-
2
cast step of EnKF, an ensemble of state vectors y is
In this case, the method as described in Oliver et al.
integrated using the dynamic equations, typically by a
[131, pp. 319334] proceeds as follows:
reservoir simulator. At the analysis step of EnKF, the
 
1. Sample m from N M , CM state vectors are updated using
 
2. Sample dobs from N dobs , CD
3. Compute  
  yaj = yfj + C yd (Cdd + CD )1 dobs, j dfj ,
1
mrml = argmax exp (m m )T C1 M (m m )
m 2
 where j is the index for each realization, superscript
1
(g(m) dobs )T C1
D (g(m) d
obs )
2
(32)
The conditional realization, mrml , is generally close
to the unconditional realization, m , unless the like-
lihood requires a correction to the model variables.
This procedure is repeated with independent uncondi-
tional realizations of m and dobs to generate additional
conditional realizations. The challenge is generally to
perform the minimization in Eq. 32. The algorithm is
indifferent to the method of minimization, so almost
any of the previously mentioned minimization methods
could be used.
6 Ensemble Kalman filter
The ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF) is a sequential
data assimilation method that is able to estimate a large
number of model variables, assimilate different types
of data, and combine readily with any reservoir simu-
lator. EnKF differs from traditional history matching
methods in the sequential updating scheme, providing
multiple simultaneous history matched models, and cal-
(33)
a and f represent analysis and forecast, CD
is the covariance of measurement error, df and dobs
are simulated and predicted data and C yd and Cdd are
covariance between data and model and state variables
and covariance of data. The forecast and analysis step
of EnKF are repeated so that data are assimilated in a
sequential Bayesian manner. At each data assimilation
time the estimate is a combination of information pro-
vided by the most current data (through the likelihood),
and all the information prior to the current data time
(through the prior). It is the sequential feature of EnKF
that requires state variables to be updated at each data
assimilation time, so that the next forecast step will
continue on without the necessity of re-simulating the
past history.
Cross-covariance between data and model and state
variables C yd and covariance between data Cdd are
estimated from the ensemble so the computational cost
of EnKF is nearly independent of the number of model
variables and the number of data. The quality of the
covariance estimates, however, depends highly on the
size of the ensemble. The analysis step of EnKF is the
same as that of Kalman filter and is only optimal for
Gaussian prior with linear data.
212 Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221

To connect EnKF with the traditional gradient- and the update is only consistent to the model variable
based history matching methods, we rewrite Eq. 33 as update when the relationship between model and state
 a  f   variables is linear [71].
mj mj CM GT Zafari and Reynolds [188] showed that EnKF was
= +
f (m j) f (m j) FCM GT not able to correctly sample the posterior of a nonlin-
ear toy problem that has two modes, while the RML
 1   
GCM GT + CD dobs, j g m j , method obtained almost perfect sampling. EnKF per-
formed similarly to or better than, however, the RML
(34)
method at realistic reservoir problems [59, 110, 188].
where state variables and simulated data are written as Peters et al. [134] summarized a recent benchmark
functions of model variables m through the relationship study on closed-loop optimization, where different
f () and g() and F and G are linearized relationship history matching (many of these were discussed in
of f () and g(). The top row of Eq. 34 has identical Section 4) and optimization methods were tested on
form as the GaussNewton method for the estimation the Brugge field with the objective of maximizing net
of model variables m. Since different realizations of present value. The top three results on history matching
data dobs, j are used to update each realization of model were all obtained by groups using EnKF for data assim-
variables, EnKF is equivalent to the RML method ilation. Field case studies using EnKF available in the
(Section 5.3) at each analysis step for the estimation literature are summarized in Table 1. Several types of
of model variables, except that the sensitivity for the data with different sources were assimilated, and a large
estimation is approximated through the ensemble [188]. variety and number of parameters were estimated. Al-
The second row of Eq. 34 updates the state variables though not included in Table 1, pressure, phase satu-

Table 1 Field case studies using EnKF

Model size Wells Data type Model parameters
29580 5 producers WCT, GOR (12 years) Permeability (29580)
(14 layers) 2 water injectors 4D seismic Porosity (29580) [154]
1 gas injector
45000 4 producers BHP, OPR, Permeability (45000)
(26 layers) 2 gas injectors WCT, GOR (5 years) Porosity (45000) [73]
25669 2 producers BHP, OPR, Permeability (25669)
(10 layers) WCT, GOR (3 years) Porosity (25669) [19]
30740 9 producers WCT (11 years) Permeability (30740) [13]
(10 layers)
95379 6 producers WCT, GOR, Permeability (95379)
(5 layers) 2 water injectors FPR, BHP (6 years) Porosity (95379)
Trend coefficient (15) [197]
60000 4 producers OPR, WCT, Permeability (60000)
(40 layers) 1 water injector GOR (6 years) Porosity (60000), WOC (5), GOC (5)
Fault trans (42), vertical trans (24)
Relative permeability (9) [48, 151]
416240 3 producers OPR, WPR (3 years) Permeability (416240)
(44 layers) 1 water injector Static pressure Porosity (416240) [38]
44550 54 producer and OPR, WPR, Horizontal permeability (44550)
(9 layers) 30 water injector BHP (20 years) Vertical permeability (44550)
completions 4D seismic Porosity (44550)
Net-to-gross ratio (29700)
Relative permeability (3), WOC (1) [30]

The number of active cells in the entire model and the number of layers are shown in the first column. The numbers in the parentheses
in the last column show the number of variables estimated for each type of model parameters. The bottom row shows a field-like
synthetic case, the Brugge field, as the true model that provided data are not known to the authors and are much finer than the
model used for history matching
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
ration, solution gas-oil ratio or bubble point pressure
of every gridblock are also updated at each analysis
step. The ensemble size used for these field cases ranges
from 40 to 100. Haugen et al. [73], Cominelli et al. [38],
Zhang and Oliver [197] also compared the estimation
and data match quality of EnKF with results from
manual history matching and concluded that EnKF
outperformed the manual history matching on complex
reservoir problems.
Due to limited ensemble size and the Gaussian and
linear assumption of the analysis step some problems
remain: the excessive reduction in ensemble variability;
limited ability of assimilating large amounts of inde-
pendent data; overshooting in the estimated parameter
fields and the unphysical updates of the state variables;
loss of geological realism in case of complex geology.
Many of these problems become prominent when the
number of data is large, in which case more advanced
techniques are necessary to obtain satisfactory results
using EnKF. Most of the field cases in Table 1 have
relatively small number of wells and short production
history, and the standard EnKF was shown to work
well. Arroyo-Negrete et al. [13], Zhang and Oliver [197]
applied covariance localization in assimilation of pro-
duction data and Skjervheim et al. [154] used subspace
inversion to assimilate the 4D seismic data. Chen and
Oliver [30] in Table 1 is based on the synthetic Brugge
field model, where production data are taken at 84
well completions. They showed that localization of the
updates from production data is critical for obtaining
reasonable model estimates and data matches. They
also used distance-based localization to assimilate the
inverted 4D seismic data.
In the following sections, we summarize some of
the recent developments to EnKF for history matching
after 2008. For earlier studies please refer to Aanonsen
et al. [3].
6.1 Covariance regularization
The application of EnKF with small ensemble size faces
two critical problems. Firstly, the ensemble estimate of
the cross-covariance tends to be corrupted by spurious
correlation and the spurious correlation induces un-
necessary updates and collapse of ensemble variability.
Secondly, the number of degree of freedom is only as
large as the size of the ensemble and it is impossible
for EnKF to assimilate a large amount of independent,
213
precise data. In distance-based localization, the local-
ization function is applied element-wise to the ensem-
ble estimate of the error covariance matrices using the
Schur product. The localization function could be based
on the region of sensitivity [13], a correlation function
with specified range [26, 197], or other functions whose
value decreases with distance [30].
Chen and Oliver [29] gave a detailed study on
distance-based localization. They pointed out that since
localization is applied to the cross-covariance, it cannot
be determined from the region of sensitivity alone; the
contribution of the prior covariance must be consid-
ered. Because the covariance changes with assimilation
of data, the optimal localization depends on the history
of previous data assimilation, so the same measurement
with the same sensitivity may require a different local-
ization at a later time. Although the goal is to choose
localization functions that are large enough to include
the true region of non-zero cross-covariance, for EnKF
applications, the choice of localization function needs
to balance the harm done by spurious covariance re-
sulting from small ensembles against the harm done by
excluding real correlations.
Distance-based localization usually works well when
the localization function is appropriately chosen. The
selection of the localization function could become
quite complicated as different localization functions
might be needed for different types of data, different
model and state variables and different data assimila-
tion times [29]. Vlles and Nvdal [167] revisited the
Brugge field" study and used the hierarchical EnKF
proposed by Anderson [10], where a group of ensem-
bles is used to compute a damping factor for each
component of the Kalman gain. The damping factor
seeks to minimize the variance of the estimate of the
Kalman gain from different ensembles. The Kalman
gain of each ensemble is then pre-multiplied by these
damping factors (one for each component) using the
Schur product to regularize the update to the state
vector. Recommendations were made in Vlles and
Nvdal [167] on the number of ensembles and the size
of each individual ensemble, the product of which is the
number of simulation runs required for the hierarchical
EnKF. This limits the size of the group in practical im-
plementation. Zhang and Oliver [198] used the similar
idea for damping the spurious correlations but used
bootstrap sampling to obtain multiple estimates of the
Kalman gain matrix with almost no additional com-
214
putational cost. In Anderson [10], Vlles and Nvdal
[167] the negative damping factor is truncated to zero to
avoid the change of the sign in Kalman gain. Zhang and
Oliver [198] derived an alternative formulation using
a different form of the objective function to insure
positive screen factors (damping factor). Both of these
methods are more general than distance-based localiza-
tion and have the advantage to regularize updates to
parameters where the concept of distance does not ap-
ply, for example the shape of the relative permeability
curve and the depth of the fluid contacts.
Covariance inflation is used frequently to maintain
the ensemble variability in weather and oceanography
applications, but the use in petroleum engineering is
rare. Chen and Oliver [30] showed preliminary results
on covariance inflation and the combined use with
covariance localization. It was proposed that the re-
gion for covariance inflation at a particular assimila-
tion time should be chosen as the union of all of the
localization regions for that time, with the magnitude
of the inflation factor determined by the sum of the
localization functions. As a consequence, the actual
inflation applied varies spatially at a data assimilation
time and varies by data time. Generally, areas that have
greater reduction in variability should be inflated more
heavily.
6.2 Larger variety of model parameters
Another trend in the EnKF applications is the sig-
nificant increase in the type of parameters estimated.
Staring from only updating gridblock permeability and
porosity, more types of parameters, such as net-to-gross
ratio, fluid contacts, fault transmissibility, vertical trans-
missibility, relative permeability and geological trend
coefficients are updated using EnKF (Seiler et al. [151],
Zhang and Oliver [197], Chen and Oliver [30] in Table 1
and Valestrand et al. [166]).
Including additional uncertain parameters in the up-
dating can reduce the correction to other parameters,
and thus alleviate overshooting. Both Chen and Oliver
[30], Wang et al. [175] pointed out that if fluid contacts
are updated in EnKF it appears that better results
are obtained by rerunning the simulation after the
analysis step, at least periodically, since the updates to
the contacts are not correctly reflected in the updated
phase saturation at the analysis, while Seiler et al. [151]
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
showed satisfactory results with the standard sequential
scheme.
Seiler et al. [152] introduced structural uncertainty
to the standard EnKF workflow, where depth of the
top and bottom surface of the reservoir is estimated
through the assimilation of production data. All the
other reservoir property are assumed known. An elastic
grid approach is used to deform the simulation grid with
the change of the depth of the top and bottom surface
so the total number of cells stays the same. Promising
results were obtained in their example.
6.3 Others
The analysis step of EnKF could result in updates that
violate physical constraints, for example porosity and
saturation being lower than zero or greater than one.
Using localization and/or including additional parame-
ters in the update can alleviate the problem to some
extent, but nonphysical updates could still occur. Itera-
tive EnKF methods [71, 90, 102] and various reparame-
terization techniques [31] can resolve the problem, but
the computational cost is generally much higher than
the standard EnKF. Phale and Oliver [135] proposed a
constrained EnKF in which the linear inequality con-
straints are incorporated in the analysis step through
the use of either Lagrange multipliers or augmented
data. The constrained EnKF requires small additional
computation at the analysis step, but no additional
simulation runs are needed.
Ensemble square root filters are frequently advo-
cated for their reduction in sampling error in the
weather and oceanography community, but the meth-
ods have been rarely applied in petroleum engineering.
Zhang et al. [196] presented EnKF with perturbed
observations as a square root filter in an enlarged
state space by imposing second-order-exact sampling of
the observation errors and independence constraints to
eliminate the cross-covariance with predicted observa-
tion perturbations. They showed that for linear prob-
lems EnKF with second-order-exact sampling and in-
dependence constraints and the ensemble square-root
filter gave similar results, and both were better than the
standard EnKF. For nonlinear problems, however, all
the ensemble filters performed similarly.
Due to the Gaussian assumption, updating reservoir
models with geobodies of distinct properties, such as
channels and facies, are difficult. Different parameter-
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
izations method, for example truncated pluri-Gaussian
and level set, and Gaussian mixture model have been
used with EnKF to obtain plausible updates of non-
Gaussian models (see summary in Aanonsen et al. [3]).
More recently, Agbalaka and Oliver [9] developed a
truncated Gaussian method with EnKF to estimate
facies boundary and petrophysical properties of each
facies type and considered nonstationary facies pro-
portion. Sarma and Chen [146] combined EnKF with
kernel methods where standard EnKF is applied in
the feature space and the updated non-Gaussian field
is retrieved by solving pre-image problem. Lorentzen
et al. [112] used the level method with EnKF to update
channel fields. They proposed a technique to avoid
spurious boundary effects and investigated the benefit
to the updates from additional hard data on the charac-
teristic of channels.
7 Discussion and future work
Great progress has been made in the past 15 years
in the development of history matching technology.
In particular, it has become possible to history match
large reservoir models with hundreds of thousands of
uncertain parameters. The types of parameters that can
be included in the history match has become more
varied, and the amount of data that can be matched
is much greater than previously possible. Despite the
rapid progress in capability, however, it seems that
no single best method has emerged, rather the best
method for history matching depends on the para-
meters of the problem and the data that need to be
Table 2 Comparison of advantages and disadvantages of four history matching methods
Advantages
Manual Great flexibility for parameters and data
Evolutionary Suitable for discrete parameters. Suitable
for highly nongaussian distributions
Easily adaptable to various simulators
EnKF Highly parallelizable. Suitable for large
numbers of variables. Uncertainty assessment
is a byproduct of assimilation. Easily
adaptable to different simulators and variables
Adjoint Rapid convergence near minimum.
Relatively efficient for a single history match
215
matched. While gradient-based methods are often the
most efficient when the objective function to be mini-
mized is sufficiently smooth, they may be inappropriate
for problems in which the properties to be adjusted are
not continuous or take only discrete values. In this case,
an evolutionary algorithm may be the only feasible
approach. Gradient-based methods tend to have fairly
rapid rates of convergence, especially near the mini-
mum of the objective function. Although Newton-like
methods tend to converge faster, it seems that quasi-
Newton methods, which only require computation of
a single gradient, are generally more efficient. For
some problems in which sensitivities can be calculated
inexpensively by streamline methods (e.g. producing
water-cut to porosity and permeability) Newton-like
methods may still be the optimal approach. The en-
semble Kalman filter and variants have proven to be
very successful at history matching large and fairly com-
plex problems, and like the evolutionary algorithms,
the EnKF method is easily adapted to additional data
types and model variables. Of all of the methods,
EnKF currently comes closest to being a history match-
ing solution for realistic problems. Table 2 summa-
rizes advantage and disadvantages of the most popular
methods.
Although the progress has been great, numerous
challenges remain to be solved before history matching
can be considered truly practical. It is clear that some
major sources of uncertainty, still cannot be handled
adequately. Most important is the need for history
matching reservoirs with complex geology. Current
methods are either overly simplistic in the representa-
tion of spatial relationships of facies, or lack the ability
Disadvantages
Poor assessment of uncertainty. Large manpower
requirement. Not suitable for large numbers
of variables. Cannot get detailed matches
Slow convergence. Not suitable for large numbers
of variables. Poor assessment of uncertainty
Generally underestimates uncertainty. Requires
additional parameterization to adapt to discrete
variables. Not well suited for variables with
multimodal distributions unless transformations are possible
Uncertainty assessment requires multiple history matches
Difficult to adapt to different simulators or variables
216
to update the properties consistently. Initial steps have
been made towards including uncertainty in the geom-
etry of the bounding reservoir surfaces, but complex
faulting patterns are beyond current capability. Time
variation of near-well damage is generally not included
in the history matching procedure although it is an
important source of uncertainty. The total computa-
tional effort required for history matching and un-
certainty quantification is still excessive. Some of the
barriers are simply educational, however. From the
time when geostatistics was first introduced as a tool for
uncertainty, to the time when it became part of the stan-
dard work process for earth scientists, was at least 10
years. A similar evolution in history matching will need
to occur. The first steps have already occurred with
the development of useful (although not completely
general) history matching algorithms. These methods
will have to be put into commercial products that can
be easily used, and then the next stage of dissemination
will occur naturally.
References
1. Aanonsen, S.I.: Efficient history matching using a multiscale
technique. SPE Reserv. Evalu. Eng. 11(1), 154164 (2008)
2. Aanonsen, S.I., Eydinov, D.: A multiscale method for dis-
tributed parameter estimation with application to reservoir
history matching. Comput. Geosci. 10(1), 97117 (2006)
3. Aanonsen, S.I., Nvdal, G., Oliver, D.S., Reynolds,
A.C., Valls, B.: Ensemble Kalman filter in reservoir
engineering a review. SPE J. 14(3), 393412 (2009)
4. Abacioglu, Y., Oliver, D.S., Reynolds, A.C.: Efficient reser-
voir history matching using subspace vectors. Comput.
Geosci. 5(2), 151172 (2001)
5. Acar, R., Vogel, C.R.: Analysis of bounded variation
penalty methods for ill-posed problems. Inverse Probl. 10,
12171229 (1994)
6. Agarwal, B., Blunt, M.J.: Streamline-based method with
full-physics forward simulation for history-matching perfor-
mance data of a North Sea field. SPE J. 8(2), 171180 (2003)
7. Agarwal, B., Hermansen, H., Sylte, J.E., Thomas, L.K.:
Reservoir characterization of Ekofisk field: a giant, frac-
tured chalk reservoir in the Norwegian North sea history
match. SPE Reserv. Evalu. Eng. 3(6), 534543 (2000)
8. Agbalaka, C.C., Oliver, D.S.: Application of the EnKF and
localization to automatic history matching of facies distri-
bution and production data. Math. Geosci. 40(4), 353374
(2008)
9. Agbalaka, C.C., Oliver, D.S.: Joint updating of facies multi-
modal properties and discrete facies variables from assim-
ilating production data using EnKF. SPE Reserv. Evalu.
Eng. (2010, accepted)
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
10. Anderson, J.L.: Exploring the need for localization in en-
semble data assimilation using a hierarchical ensemble
filter. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 230(12), 99111
(2007)
11. Anterion, F., Karcher, B., Eymard, R.: Use of parame-
ter gradients for reservoir history matching, SPE-18433.
In: Proc. of the SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation,
pp. 339354. Houston, Texas, 68 February 1989
12. Armstrong, M., Dowd, P.A. (eds.): Geostatistical Simula-
tions, vol. 7. Quant. Geol. Geostat. Kluwer Academic Pub-
lishers, Dordrecht (1994)
13. Arroyo-Negrete, E., Devegowda, D., Datta-Gupta, A.,
Choe, J.: Streamline-assisted ensemble Kalman filter for
rapid and continuous reservoir model updating. SPE Re-
serv. Evalu. Eng. 11(6), 10461060 (2008)
14. Bck, T.: Evolutionary algorithms in theory and prac-
tice: evolution strategies, evolutionary programming, ge-
netic algorithms. Oxford University Press, New York
(1996)
15. Banchs, R.E., Klie, H., Rodriguez, A., Thomas, S.G.,
Wheeler, M.F.: A neural stochastic optimization framework
for oil parameter estimation. In: Corchado, E., Yin, H.,
Botti, V., Fyfe, C. (eds.), Intelligent Data Engineering and
Automated Learning, Proceedings. Lect. Notes Comput.
Sci. vol. 4224, pp. 147154 (2006)
16. Barker, J.W., Cuypers, M., Holden, L.: Quantifying uncer-
tainty in production forecasts: another look at the PUNQ-S3
problem. SPE J. 6(4), 433441 (2001)
17. Bates, D.M., Watts, D.G.: Relative curvature measures of
nonlinearity. J. R. Stat. Soc. B. 42(1), 125 (1980)
18. Bi, Z., Oliver, D.S., Reynolds, A.C.: Conditioning 3D sto-
chastic channels to pressure data. SPE J. 5(4), 474484
(2000)
19. Bianco, A., Cominelli, A., Dovera, L., Nvdal, G., Valls,
B.: History matching and production forecast uncertainty by
means of the ensemble Kalman filter: a real field application
(SPE-107161). In: SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference
and Exhibition. Soc. Pet. Eng. London, UK (2007)
20. Bissell, R.: Calculating optimal parameters for history
matching. In: 4th European Conference on the Mathematics
of Oil Recovery (1994)
21. Bissell, R., Dubrule, O., Lamy, P., Swaby, P., Lepine, O.:
Combining goestatistical modelling with gradient informa-
tion for history matching: the pilot point method, SPE
38730. In: Proc. of the SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence and Exhibition, pp. 139154. San Antonio, Texas, 58
October 1997
22. Bonet-Cunha, L., Oliver, D.S., Rednar, R.A., Reynolds,
A.C.: A hybrid Markov chain Monte Carlo method for gen-
erating permeability fields conditioned to multiwell pres-
sure data and prior information. SPE J. 3(3), 261271
(1998)
23. Caers, J.: Efficient gradual deformation using a streamline-
based proxy method. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 39(12), 5783
(2003)
24. Caers, J., Hoffman, T.: The probability perturbation
method: a new look at Bayesian inverse modeling. Math.
Geol. 38(1), 81100 (2006)
25. Celaya, M., Wahr, J.: Aliasing and noise in core-surface flow
inversions. Geophys. J. Int. 126(2), 447469 (1996)
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
26. Chang, H., Chen, Y., Zhang, D.: Data assimilation of
coupled fluid flow and geomechanics using the ensemble
Kalman filter. SPE J. 15(2), 382394 (2010)
27. Chavent, G.M., Dupuy, M., Lemonnier, P.: History match-
ing by use of optimal control theory. SPE J. 15(1), 7486
(1975)
28. Chen, W.H., Gavalas, G.R., Seinfeld, J.H., Wasserman,
M.L.: A new algorithm for automatic history matching. SPE
J. 14(6), 593608 (1974)
29. Chen, Y., Oliver, D.S.: Cross-covariances and localization
for EnKF in multiphase flow data assimilation. Comput.
Geosci. (2009, online first)
30. Chen, Y., Oliver, D.S.: Ensemble-based closed-loop op-
timization applied to Brugge Field (SPE 118926). SPE
Reserv. Evalu. Eng. 13(1), 5671 (2010)
31. Chen, Y., Oliver, D.S., Zhang, D.: Data assimilation for
nonlinear problems by ensemble Kalman filter with repa-
rameterization. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 66, 114 (2009)
32. Cheng, H., Datta-Gupta, A., He, Z.: A comparison of travel-
time and amplitude matching for field-scale production-data
integration: sensitivity, nonlinearity, and practical implica-
tions. SPE J. 10(1), 7590 (2005)
33. Cheng, H., Oyerinde, D., Datta-Gupta, A., Milliken, W.:
Compressible streamlines and three-phase history matching.
SPE J. 12(4), 475485 (2007)
34. Christie, M., Demyanov, V., Erbas, D.: Uncertainty quan-
tification for porous media flows. J. Comput. Phys. 217(1),
143158 (2006)
35. Chu, L., Komara, M., Schatzinger, R.A.: An efficient tech-
nique for inversion of reservoir properties using iteration
method. SPE J. 5(1), 7181 (2000)
36. Chu, L., Reynolds, A.C., Oliver, D.S.: Computation of sen-
sitivity coefficients for conditioning the permeability field to
well-test data. In Situ 19(2), 179223 (1995)
37. Chung, C.B., Kravaris, C.: Identification of spatially discon-
tinuous parameters in 2nd-order parabolic-systems by piece-
wise regularisation. Inverse Probl. 4(4), 973994 (1988)
38. Cominelli, A., Dovera, L., Vimercati, S., Nvdal, G.: Bench-
mark study of ensemble Kalman filter methodology: history
matching and uncertainty quantification for a deep-water oil
reservoir (IPTC 13748). In: International Petroleum Tech-
nology Conference, Doha, Qatar 79 December 2009
39. Cominelli, A., Ferdinandi, F., de Montleau, P.C., Rossi,
R.: Using gradients to refine parameterization in field-case
history-matching projects. SPE Reserv. Evalu. Eng. 10(3),
233240 (2007)
40. Datta-Gupta, A., Kulkarni, K.N., Yoon, S., Vasco, D.W.:
Streamlines, ray tracing and production tomography: gen-
eralization to compressible flow. Pet. Geosci. 7(Sp. Iss. SI),
S75S86 (2001)
41. de Marsily, G., Lavedan, G., Boucher, M., Fasanino, G.:
Interpretation of interference tests in a well field using geo-
statistical techniques to fit the permeability distribution in
a reservoir model. In: Geostatistics for Natural Resources
Characterization, Part 2, pp. 831849, D. Reidel (1984)
42. Deschamps, T., Grussaute, T., Mayers, D., Bissell, R.: The
results of testing six different gradient optimisers on two
history matching problems. In: Proceedings of the 6th Eu-
ropean Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery,
pp. B24 (1998)
217
43. Deutsch, C.V.: Annealing techniques applied to reservoir
modeling and the integration of geological and engineering
(well test) data. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, Stanford,
California (1992)
44. Distefano, N., Rath, A.: An identification approach to sub-
surface hydrological systems. Water Resour. Res. 11(6),
10051012 (1975)
45. Dong, Y., Oliver, D.S.: Quantitative use of 4D seis-
mic data for reservoir description. SPE J. 10(1), 9199
(2005)
46. Dorn, O., Villegas, R.: History matching of petroleum reser-
voirs using a level set technique. Inverse Probl. 24(3), 035015
(2008)
47. Efendiev, Y., Hou, T., Luo, W.: Preconditioning Markov
chain Monte Carlo simulations using coarse-scale models.
SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 28(2), 776803 (2006)
48. Evensen, G., Hove, J., Meisingset, H.C., Reiso, E., Seim,
K.S., Espelid, .: Using the EnKF for assisted history
matching of a North Sea reservoir model (SPE 106184). In:
Proceedings of the 2007 SPE Reservoir Simulation Sympo-
sium (2007)
49. Ewing, R.E., Pilant, M.S., Wade, G.J., Watson, A.T.: Esti-
mating parameters in scientific computation. IEEE Comput.
Sci. Eng. 1(3), 1931 (1994)
50. Eydinov, D., Aanonsen, S.I., Haukas, J., Aavatsmark, I.:
A method for automatic history matching of a composi-
tional reservoir simulator with multipoint flux approxima-
tion. Comput. Geosci. 12(2), 209225 (2008)
51. Eydinov, D., Gao, G., Li, G., Reynolds, A.C.: Simul-
taneous estimation of relative permeability and poros-
ity/permeability fields by history matching production data.
J. Can. Pet. Technol. 48(12), 1325 (2009)
52. Feraille, M., Roggero, F., Manceau, E., Hu, L.Y., Zabalza-
Mezghani, I., Reis, L.C.: Application of advanced his-
tory matching techniques to an integrated field case study
(SPE 84463). In: Proc. of the SPE Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 58 October
2003
53. Fienen, M.N., Muffels, C.T., Hunt, R.J.: On constraining
pilot point calibration with regularization in PEST. Ground
Water 47(6), 835844 (2009)
54. Fletcher, R.: Practical Methods of Optimization, 2nd edn.
Wiley, New York (1987)
55. Floris, F.J.T., Bush, M.D., Cuypers, M., Roggero, F.,
Syversveen, A.-R.: Methods for quantifying the uncertainty
of production forecasts: a comparative study. Pet. Geosci.
7(SUPP), 8796 (2001)
56. Galli, A., Beucher, H., Le Loch, G., Doligez, B., Group, H.:
The pros and cons of the truncated Gaussian method. In:
Geostatistical Simulations, pp. 217233. Kluwer Academic,
Dordrecht (1994)
57. Gao, G., Li, G., Reynolds, A.C.: A stochastic optimization
algorithm for automatic history matching. SPE J. 12(2), 196
208 (2007)
58. Gao, G., Reynolds, A.C.: An improved implementation of
the LBFGS algorithm for automatic history matching. SPE
J. 11(1), 517 (2006)
59. Gao, G., Zafari, M., Reynolds, A.C.: Quantifying uncer-
tainty for the PUNQ-S3 problem in a Bayesian setting with
RML and EnKF. SPE J. 11(4), 506515 (2006)
218
60. Gavalas, G.R., Shah, P.C., Seinfeld, J.H.: Reservoir history
matching by Bayesian estimation. SPE J. 16(6), 337350
(1976)
61. Georgsen, F., Egeland, T., Knarud, R., Omre, H.: Condi-
tional simulation of facies architecture in fluvial reservoirs.
In: Armstrong, M., Dowd, P.A. (eds.) Geostatistical Simula-
tions, pp. 235250. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (1994)
62. Gilks, W.R., Richardson, S., Spiegelhalter, D.J. (eds.):
Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice. Chapman & Hall,
New York (1996)
63. Golub, G.H., van Loan, C.F.: Matrix Computations, 2nd
edn. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1989)
64. Gonzlez-Rodrguez, P., Kindelan, M., Moscoso, M., Dorn,
O.: History matching problem in reservoir engineering using
the propagation-backpropagation method. Inverse Probl.
21, 565590 (2005)
65. Griewank, A.: Achieving logarithmic growth of temporal
and spatial complexity in reverse automatic differentiation.
Optim. Methods Softw. 1(1), 3554 (1992)
66. Grimstad, A.-A., Mannseth, T.: Nonlinearity, scale, and sen-
sitivity for parameter estimation problems. SIAM J. Sci.
Comput. 21(6), 20962113 (2000)
67. Grimstad, A.-A., Mannseth, T., Aanonsen, S., Aavatsmark,
I., Cominelli, A., Mantica, S.: Identification of unknown per-
meability trends from history matching of production data.
SPE J. 9(4), 419428 (2004)
68. Grimstad, A.A., Mannseth, T., Nvdal, G., Urkedal, H.:
Scale splitting approach to reservoir characterization. In:
SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, Texas, 11
14 February 2001
69. Grimstad, A.A., Mannseth, T., Nvdal, G., Urkedal,
H.: Adaptive multiscale permeability estimation. Comput.
Geosci. 7(1), 125 (2003)
70. Gu, Y., Oliver, D.S.: History matching of the PUNQ-S3
reservoir model using the ensemble Kalman filter. SPE J.
10(2), 5165 (2005)
71. Gu, Y., Oliver, D.S.: An iterative ensemble Kalman filter for
multiphase fluid flow data assimilation. SPE J. 12(4), 438
446 (2007)
72. Gunzburger, M.D.: Perspectives in Flow Control and Op-
timization, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
(2003)
73. Haugen, V., Naevdal, G., Natvik, L.-J., Evensen, G., Berg,
A.M., Flornes, K.M.: History matching using the ensemble
Kalman filter on a North Sea field case. SPE J. 13(4), 382
391 (2008)
74. He, N., Reynolds, A.C., Oliver, D.S.: Three-dimensional
reservoir description from multiwell pressure data and prior
information. SPE J. 2(3), 312327 (1997)
75. He, Z., Yoon, S., Datta-Gupta, A.: Streamline-based pro-
duction data integration with gravity and changing field con-
ditions. SPE J. 7(4), 423436 (2002)
76. Hegstad, B.K., Omre, H., Tjelmeland, H., Tyler, K.: Stochas-
tic simulation and conditioning by annealing in reservoir
description. In: Armstrong, M., Dowd, P.A. (eds.) Geosta-
tistical Simulation, pp. 4355. Kluwer Acad. (1994)
77. Ho, Y.C., Pepyne, D.L.: Simple explanation of the no-free-
lunch theorem and its implications. J. Optim. Theory Appl.
115(3), 549570 (2002)
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
78. Hoffman, B.T., Caers, J.: History matching under geological
control: application to a north sea reservoir. In: Geostatistics
Banff 2004, pp. 10671076. Springer (2005)
79. Holden, L.: Adaptive chains, Tech. rep., Norwegian Com-
puting Center. Oslo, Norway (2000)
80. Hu, L.Y.: Gradual deformation and iterative calibration of
gaussian-related stochastic models. Math. Geol. 32(1), 87
108 (2000)
81. Hu, L.Y., Blanc, G., Noetinger, B.: Gradual deformaton
and iterative calibration of sequential stochastic simulations.
Math. Geol. 33(4), 475489 (2001)
82. Hu, L.Y., Ravalec, M.L., Blanc, G.: Gradual deformation
and iterative calibration of truncated Gaussian simulations.
Pet. Geosci. 7, 2530 (2001)
83. Hunt, R.J., Doherty, J., Tonkin, M.J.: Are models too sim-
ple? Arguments for increased parameterization. Ground
Water 45(3), 254262 (2007)
84. Jacquard, P., Jain, C.: Permeability distribution from field
pressure data. SPE J. 5(4), 281294 (1965)
85. Jafarpour, B., Goyal, V.K., McLaughlin, D.B., Freeman,
W.T.: Compressed history matching: exploiting transform-
domain sparsity for regularization of nonlinear dynamic
data integration problems. Math. Geosci. 42(1), 127 (2010)
86. Jafarpour, B., McLaughlin, D.B.: History matching with an
ensemble Kalman filter and discrete cosine parameteriza-
tion. Comput. Geosci. 12(2), 227244 (2008)
87. Jahns, H.O.: A rapid method for obtaining a two-
dimensional reservoir description from well pressure re-
sponse data. SPE J. 6(12), 315327 (1966)
88. Killough, J.E., Sharma, Y., Dupuy, A., Bissell, R., Wallis, J.:
A multiple right hand side iterative solver for history match-
ing SPE 29119. In: Proceedings of the 13th SPE Symposium
on Reservoir Simulation, pp. 249255 (1995)
89. Kravaris, C., Seinfeld, J.H.: Identification of parameters in
distributed parameter-systems by regularization. SIAM J.
Control Optim. 23(2), 217241 (1985)
90. Krymskaya, M.V., Hanea, R.G., Verlaan, M.: An iterative
ensemble Kalman filter for reservoir engineering applica-
tions. Comput. Geosci. 13(2), 235244 (2009)
91. Kulkarni, K.N., Datta-Gupta, A.: Estimating relative per-
meability from production data: a streamline approach. SPE
J. 5(4), 402411 (2000)
92. Landa, J.L., Horne, R.N.: A procedure to integrate well test
data, reservoir performance history and 4-D seismic infor-
mation into a reservoir description (SPE-38653). In: 1997
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (1997)
93. LaVenue, A.M., Pickens, J.F.: Application of a coupled ad-
joint sensitivity and kriging approach to calibrate a ground-
water flow model. Water Resour. Res. 28(6), 15431569
(1992)
94. Le Ravalec, M., Hu, L.Y., Ntinger, B.: Sampling the con-
ditional realization space using the gradual deformation
method. Geostatistics 2000 Cape Town 1, 176186 (2000)
95. Le Ravalec, M., Ntinger B.: Optimization with the gradual
deformation method. Math. Geol. 34(2), 125142 (2002)
96. Le Ravalec-Dupin, M., Hu, L.Y.: Gradual deformation
of Boolean simulations. In: Leuangthong, O., Deutsch,
C. (eds.) Geostatistics Banff 2004, pp. 939948. Springer,
Netherlands (2005)
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
97. Lee, T.-Y., Kravaris, C., Seinfeld, J.H.: History match-
ing by spline approximation and regularization in single-
phase areal reservoirs. SPE Reserv. Eng. 1(5), 521534
(1986)
98. Lee, T.-Y., Seinfeld, J.H.: Estimation of absolute and rel-
ative permeabilities in petroleum reservoirs. Inverse Probl.
3(4), 711728 (1987)
99. Lee, T.Y., Seinfeld, J.H.: Estimation of two-phase petro-
leum reservoir properties by regularization. J. Comput.
Phys. 69, 397419 (1987)
100. Lemmon, A.R., Moriarty, E.C.: The importance of proper
model assumption in Bayesian phylogenetics. Syst. Biol.
53(2), 265277 (2004)
101. Lpine, O.J., Bissell, R.C., Aanonsen, S.I., Pallister, I.C.,
Barker, J.W.: Uncertainty analysis in predictive reservoir
simulation using gradient information. SPE J. 4(3), 251259
(1999)
102. Li, G., Reynolds, A.C.: Iterative ensemble Kalman filters for
data assimilation. SPE J. 14(3), 496505 (2009)
103. Li, R., Reynolds, A.C., Oliver, D.S.: History matching of
three-phase flow production data. SPE J. 8(4), 328340
(2003)
104. Li, R., Reynolds, A.C., Oliver, D.S.: Sensitivity coefficients
for three-phase flow history matching. J. Can. Pet. Technol.
42(4), 7077 (2003)
105. Lia, O., Omre, H., Tjelmeland, H., Holden, L., Egeland, T.:
Uncertainties in reservoir production forecasts. AAPG Bull.
81(5), 775802 (1997)
106. Lien, M., Berre, I., Mannseth, T.: Combined adaptive multi-
scale and level-set parameter estimation. Multiscale Model.
Simul. 4(4), 13491372 (2005)
107. Liu, N., Oliver, D.S.: Evaluation of Monte Carlo methods
for assessing uncertainty. SPE J. 8(2), 188195 (2003)
108. Liu, N., Oliver, D.S.: Automatic history matching of geo-
logic facies. SPE J. 9(4), 188195 (2004)
109. Liu, N., Oliver, D.S.: Experimental assessment of
gradual deformation method. Math. Geol. 36(1), 6577
(2004)
110. Liu, N., Oliver, D.S.: Critical evaluation of the ensemble
Kalman filter on history matching of geologic facies. SPE
Reserv. Evalu. Eng. 8(6), 470477 (2005)
111. Liu, N., Oliver, D.S.: Ensemble Kalman filter for automatic
history matching of geologic facies. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 47(34),
147161 (2005)
112. Lorentzen, R.J., Flornes, K.M., Nvdal, G.: History
matching channelized reservoirs using the ensemble
Kalman filter (IPTC 14020). In: International Petroleum
Technology Conference, Doha, Qatar, 79 December
2009
113. Lu, P., Horne, R.: A multiresolution approach to reservoir
parameter estimation using wavelet analysis. In: SPE An-
nual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas,
1-4 October 2000
114. Makhlouf, E.M., Chen, W.H., Wasserman, M.L., Seinfeld,
J.H.: A general history matching algorithm for three-phase,
three-dimensional petroleum reservoirs. SPE Adv. Technol.
Ser. 1(2), 8391 (1993)
115. Matheron, G.: Principles of geostatistics. Econ. Geol. 58(8),
12461266 (1963)
219
116. McLaughlin, D., Townley, L.R.: A reassessment of the
groundwater inverse problem. Water Resour. Res. 32(5),
11311161 (1996)
117. Milliken, W.J., Emanuel, A.S., Chakravarty, A.: Applica-
tions of 3D streamline simulation to assist history matching.
SPE Reserv. Evalu. Eng. 4(6), 502508 (2001)
118. Nielsen, L., Li, H., Tai, X., Aanonsen, S., Espedal, M.:
Reservoir description using a binary level set model. Com-
put. Vis. Sci 13, 4158 (2010)
119. Oblow, E.M.: Sensitivity theory for eactor thermal-
hydraulics problems. Nucl. Sci. Eng. 68, 322337 (1978)
120. Oldenburg, D.W., McGillivray, P.R., Ellis, R.G.: Gener-
alized subspace methods for large-scale inverse problems.
Geophys. J. Int. 114(1), 1220 (1993)
121. Oliver, D.S.: The averaging process in permeability esti-
mation from well-test data. SPE Form. Eval. 5(3), 319324
(1990)
122. Oliver, D.S.: Estimation of radial permeability distribu-
tion from well test data. SPE Form. Eval. 7(4), 290296
(1992)
123. Oliver, D.S.: The influence of nonuniform transmissivity and
storativity on drawdown. Water Resour. Res. 29(1), 169178
(1993)
124. Oliver, D.S.: Incorporation of transient pressure data into
reservoir characterization. In Situ 18(3), 243275 (1994)
125. Oliver, D.S.: Multiple realizations of the permeability field
from well-test data. SPE J. 1(2), 145154 (1996)
126. Oliver, D.S.: On conditional simulation to inaccurate data.
Math. Geol. 28(6), 811817 (1996)
127. Oliver, D.S.: The sensitivity of tracer concentration to
nonuniform permeability and porosity. Transp. Porous
Media 30(2), 155175 (1998)
128. Oliver, D.S., Cunha, L.B., Reynolds, A.C.: Markov chain
Monte Carlo methods for conditioning a permeability field
to pressure data. Math. Geol. 29(1), 6191 (1997)
129. Oliver, D.S., He, N., Reynolds, A.C.: Conditioning perme-
ability fields to pressure data. In: European Conference for
the Mathematics of Oil Recovery, V, pp. 111 (1996)
130. Oliver, D.S., Reynolds, A.C., Bi, Z., Abacioglu, Y.: Integra-
tion of production data into reservoir models. Pet. Geosci.
7(Sp. Iss. SI), S65S73 (2001)
131. Oliver, D.S., Reynolds, A.C., Liu, N.: Inverse Theory for
Petroleum Reservoir Characterization and History Match-
ing, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
(2008)
132. Oyerinde, A., Datta-Gupta, A., Milliken, W.: Experi-
ences with streamline-based three-phase history matching
(SPE 109964). SPE Reserv. Evalu. Eng. 12(4), 528541
(2009)
133. Parker, R.L.: Understanding inverse theory. Ann. Rev.
Earth Planet. Sci. 5, 3564 (1977)
134. Peters, L., Arts, R.J., Brouwer, G.K., Geel, C.R., Cullick, S.,
Lorentzen, R.J., Chen, Y., Dunlop, K.N.B., Vossepoel, F.C.,
Xu, R., Sarma, P., Alhutali, A.H., Reynolds, A.C.: Results of
the Brugge benchmark study for flooding optimization and
history matching. SPE Reserv. Evalu. Eng. 13(3), 391405
(2010)
135. Phale, H.A., Oliver, D.S.: Data assimilation using the con-
strained ensemble Kalman filter. SPE J. (2010, accepted)
220
136. Rahon, D., Edoa, P.F., Masmoudi, M.: Inversion of geo-
logical shapes in reservoir engineering using well-tests and
history matching of production data. In: 1997 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition SPE 38656, pp. 141
150 (1997)
137. RamaRao, B.S., Mishra, S.: Adjoint sensitivity analysis
for mathematical models of coupled nonlinear physical
processes. In: Calibration and Reliability in Groundwater
Modelling (Proceedings of the ModelCARE 96 Conference
held at Golden, Colorado, September 1996), pp. 483490
(1996)
138. Reynolds, A.C., He, N., Chu, L., Oliver, D.S.: Reparame-
terization techniques for generating reservoir descriptions
conditioned to variograms and well-test pressure data. SPE
J. 1(4), 413426 (1996)
139. Reynolds, A.C., Li, R., Oliver, D.S.: Simultaneous estima-
tion of absolute and relative permeability by automatic his-
tory matching of three-phase flow production data. J. Can.
Pet. Technol. 43(3), 3746 (2004)
140. Rodrigues, J.R.P.: Calculating derivatives for automatic
history matching. Comput. Geosci. 10(1), 119136
(2006)
141. Romary, T.: Integrating production data under uncertainty
by parallel interacting Markov chains on a reduced dimen-
sional space. Comput. Geosci. 13(1), 103122 (2009)
142. Romero, C.E., Carter, J.N.: Using genetic algorithms for
reservoir characterisation. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 31(24), 113123
(2001)
143. Rotondi, M., Nicotra, G., Godi, A., Contento, F.M., Blunt,
M., Christie, M.: Hydrocarbon production forecast and un-
certainty quantification: a field application (SPE-102135).
In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, Texas, USA, 24-27 September 2006
144. Sahni, I., Horne, R.: Multiresolution wavelet analysis for
improved reservoir description. SPE Reserv. Evalu. Eng.
8(1), 5369 (2005)
145. Sambridge, M.: Geophysical inversion with a neighbour-
hood algorithmII. Appraising The Ensemble. Geophys. J.
Int. 138, 727746 (1999)
146. Sarma, P., Chen, W.: Generalization of the ensemble
Kalman filter using kernels for non-gaussian random fields,
SPE-119177. In: SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, The
Woodlands, Texas, USA, 24 February 2009
147. Sarma, P., Durlofsky, L.J., Aziz, K., Chen, W.H.: Efficient
real-time reservoir management using adjoint-based opti-
mal control and model updating. Comput. Geosci. 10(1),
336 (2006)
148. Schulze-Riegert, R., Ghedan, S.: Modern techniques for his-
tory matching. In: 9th International Forum on Reservoir
Simulation (2007)
149. Schulze-Riegert, R.W., Axmann, J.K., Haase, O., Rian,
D.T., You, Y.L.: Evolutionary algorithms applied to history
matching of complex reservoirs. SPE Reserv. Evalu. Eng.
5(2), 163173 (2002)
150. Schulze-Riegert, R.W., Haase, O., Nekrassov, A.: Com-
bined global and local optimization techniques applied to
history matching. In: SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium
(2003)
151. Seiler, A., Evensen, G., Skjervheim, J.A., Hove, J., Vabo,
J.G.: Advanced reservoir management workflow using
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
an EnKF based assisted history matching method, (SPE
118906). In: SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, The
Woodlands, Texas, USA, 24 February 2009
152. Seiler, A., Rivens, J., Aanonsen, S., Evensen, G.: Struc-
tural uncertainty modelling and updating by production data
integration, (SPE 125352). In: SPE/EAGE Reservoir Char-
acterization and Simulation Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE,
1921 October 2009
153. Shah, P.C., Gavalas, G.R., Seinfeld, J.H.: Error analysis in
history matching: the optimum level of parameterization.
SPE J. 18(6), 219228 (1978)
154. Skjervheim, J.-A., Evensen, G., Aanonsen, S.I., Ruud, B.O.,
Johansen, T.A.: Incorporating 4D seismic data in reservoir
simulation models using ensemble Kalman filter. SPE J.
12(3), 282292 (2007)
155. Spall, J.C.: Multivariate stochastic approximation using a
simultaneous perturbation gradient approximation. IEEE
Trans. Automat. Contr. 37(3), 332341 (1992)
156. Spall, J.C.: Implementation of the simultaneous perturba-
tion algorithm for stochastic optimization. IEEE Trans.
Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 34(3), 817823 (1998)
157. Stenerud, V.R., Kippe, V., Lie, K.A., Datta-Gupta, A.:
Adaptive multiscale streamline simulation and inversion
for high-resolution geomodels. SPE J. 13(1), 99111
(2008)
158. Subbey, S., Christie, M., Sambridge, M.: Prediction under
uncertainty in reservoir modeling. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 44(12),
143153 (2004)
159. Sun, N.-Z., Yeh, W.W.G.: Coupled inverse problems in
groundwater modeling; 1. Sensitivity analysis and parame-
ter identification. Water Resour. Res. 26(10), 25072525
(1990)
160. Suzuki, S., Caumon, G., Caers, J.: Dynamic data integration
for structural modeling: model screening approach using
a distance-based model parameterization. Comput. Geosci.
12(1), 105119 (2008)
161. Tan, T.B., Kalogerakis, N.: A three-dimensional three-phase
automatic history matching model: reliability of parameter
estimates. J. Can. Pet. Technol. 31(3), 3441 (1992)
162. Tarantola, A.: Inverse problem Theory: Methods for Data
Fitting and Model Parameter Estimation. Elsevier, Amster-
dam, The Netherlands (1987)
163. Tavassoli, Z., Carter, J.N., King, P.R.: An analysis of history
matching errors. Comput. Geosci. 9(2), 99123 (2005)
164. Tjelmeland, H., Eidsvik, J.: On the use of local optimizations
within Metropolis-Hastings updates. J. R. Stat. Soc., Ser. B
Stat. Methodol. 66(Part 2), 411427 (2004)
165. Tjelmeland, H., Hegstad, B.K.: Mode jumping proposals in
MCMC, Tech. Rep. Statistics No. 1/1999. Norwegian Uni-
versity of Science and Technology, Trondheim (1999)
166. Valestrand, R., Sagen, J., Nvdal, G., Huseby, O.: The effect
of including tracer data in the ensemble-Kalman-filter ap-
proach. SPE J. 15(2), 454470 (2010)
167. Vlles, B., Nvdal, G.: Revisiting Brugge case study using a
hierarchical ensemble Kalman filter (IPTC 14074). In: Inter-
national Petroleum Technology Conference, Doha, Qatar,
79 December 2009
168. van Doren, J.F.M., van den Hof, P.M.J., Jansen, J.D.,
Bosgra, H.: Determining identifiable parameterizations for
large-scale physical models in reservoir engineering. In:
Comput Geosci (2011) 15:185221
Proceedings of the 17th Int. Fed. Autom. Control (IFAC)
World Congress, Seoul, Korea, 611 July 2008
169. Vasco, D.W., Datta-Gupta, A.: Integrating multiphase pro-
duction history in stochastic reservoir characterization. SPE
Form. Eval. 12(3), 149156 (1997)
170. Vasco, D.W., Datta-Gupta, A.: Asymptotic solutions for
solute transport: a formalism for tracer tomography. Water
Resour. Res. 35(1), 116 (1999)
171. Vasco, D.W., Yoon, S., Datta-Gupta, A.: Integrating dy-
namic data into high-resolution reservoir models using
streamline-based analytic sensitivity coefficients. SPE J.
4(4), 389399 (1999)
172. Vefring, E.H., Nygaard, G., Lorentzen, R.J., Nvdal, G.,
Fjelde, K.K.: Reservoir characterization during underbal-
anced drilling (UBD): methodology and active tests. SPE J.
11(2), 181192 (2006)
173. Vogel, C.R., Wade, J.G.: Iterative svd-based methods for
ill-posed problems. SIAM J. Sci. Comput 15(3), 736754
(1994)
174. Wang, Y., Kovscek, A.R.: Streamline approach for history
matching production data. SPE J. 5(4), 353362 (2000)
175. Wang, Y., Li, G., Reynolds, A.C.: Estimation of depths of
fluid contacts by history matching using iterative ensemble
Kalman smoothers. SPE J. 15(2), 509525 (2010)
176. Watson, A.T., Wade, J.G., Ewing, R.E.: Parameter and sys-
tem identification for fluid flow in underground reservoirs.
In: Proceedings of the Conference, Inverse Problems and
Optimal Design in Industry, Philadelphia, PA (1994)
177. Wen, X.-H., Deutsch, C.V., Cullick, A.S.: High resolution
reservoir models integrating multiple-well production data,
SPE-52231. SPE J. 3(4), 344355 (1998)
178. Wen, X.-H., Lee, S., Yu, T.: Simultaneous integration of
pressure, water cut, 1 and 4-D seismic data in geostatistical
reservoir modeling. Math Geol. 38(3), 301325 (2006)
179. Williams, M.A., Keating, J.F., Barghouty, M.F.: The strati-
graphic method: a structured approach to history-matching
complex simulation models. SPE Reserv. Evalu. Eng. 1(2),
169176 (1998)
180. Wolpert, D.H., Macready, W.G.: No free lunch theorems for
optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 1(1), 6782 (1997)
181. Wu, Z.: Conditioning geostatistical models to two-phase
flow production data. Ph.D. thesis, University of Tulsa
(1999)
182. Wu, Z., Datta-Gupta, A.: Rapid history matching using a
generalized travel-time inversion method. SPE J. 7(2), 113
122 (2002)
183. Wu, Z., Reynolds, A.C., Oliver, D.S.: Conditioning geosta-
tistical models to two-phase production data. SPE J. 4(2),
142155 (1999)
184. Xue, G., Datta-Gupta, A.: Structure preserving inversion:
an efficient approach to conditioning stochastic reservoir
models to dynamic data, SPE-38727. In: 1997 SPE Annual
Technical Conference (1997)
221
185. Yang, P.-H., Watson, A.T.: Automatic history matching with
variable-metric methods. SPE Reser. Eng. 3(3), 9951001
(1988)
186. Yeh, W.W.-G.: Review of parameter identification in
groundwater hydrology: the inverse problem. Water Re-
sour. Res. 22(2), 95108 (1986)
187. Yoon, S., Malallah, A.H., Datta-Gupta, A., Vasco, D.W.,
Behrens, R.A.: A multiscale approach to production-data
integration using streamline models. SPE J. 6(2), 182192
(2001)
188. Zafari, M., Reynolds, A.C.: Assessing the uncertainty in
reservoir description and performance predictions with the
ensemble Kalman filter. SPE J. 12(3), 382391 (2007)
189. Zandvliet, M.J., Van Doren, J.F.M., Bosgra, O.H., Jansen,
J.D., Van den Hof, P.M.J.: Controllability, observability and
identifiability in single-phase porous media flow. Comput.
Geosci. 12(4), 605622 (2008)
190. Zhang, D., Lu, Z., Chen, Y.: Dynamic reservoir data assim-
ilation with an efficient, dimension-reduced Kalman filter.
SPE J. 12(1), 108117 (2007)
191. Zhang, F., Reynolds, A.C.: Optimization algorithms for au-
tomatic history matching of production data. In: Proceed-
ings of 8th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil
Recovery (2002)
192. Zhang, F., Reynolds, A.C., Oliver, D.S.: Evaluation of the
reduction in uncertainty obtained by conditioning a 3D
stochastic channel to multiwell pressure data. Math. Geol.
34(6), 715742 (2002)
193. Zhang, F., Reynolds, A.C., Oliver, D.S.: The impact of up-
scaling errors on conditioning a stochastic channel to pres-
sure data. SPE J. 8(1), 1321 (2003)
194. Zhang, F., Reynolds, A.C., Oliver, D.S.: An initial guess
for the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm for conditioning a
stochastic channel to pressure data. Math. Geol. 35(1), 67
88 (2003)
195. Zhang, F.J., Skjervheim, J.A., Reynolds, A.C., Oliver, D.S.:
Automatic history matching in a Bayesian framework, ex-
ample applications. SPE Reserv. Evalu. Eng. 8(3), 214223
(2005)
196. Zhang, Y., Liu, N., Oliver, D.S.: Ensemble filter methods
with perturbed observations applied to nonlinear problems.
Comput. Geosci. 14(2), 249261 (2010)
197. Zhang, Y., Oliver, D.S.: History matching using a multiscale
stochastic model with the ensemble Kalman filter: a field
case study, SPE-118879. SPE J. (2010, accepted)
198. Zhang, Y., Oliver, D.S.: Improving the ensemble estimate
of the Kalman gain by bootstrap sampling. Mathematical
Geosci. 42(3), 327345 (2010)
199. Zhao, Y., Reynolds, A.C., Li, G.: Generating facies maps
by assimilating production data and seismic data with the
ensemble Kalman filter, SPE-113990. In: Proceedings of
the 2008 SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, 2123 April 2008