Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 77 (2011) 200–208

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / p e t r o l

Constraining uncertainty in volumetric estimation: A case study from Namorado

Field, Brazil
Juliana Finoto Bueno a,⁎, Rodrigo Duarte Drummond a,1, Alexandre Campane Vidal a,1, Sérgio Sacani Sancevero b,2
a
Institute of Geosciences, P.O.Box 6152, University of Campinas, UNICAMP, 13083–870, Campinas, SP, Brazil
b
Roxar do Brasil Ltda, Rua Assembleia 10, Sala 2412 CEP 20011–910, Centro Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper describes the reservoir-modeling case of Namorado, an oil field located in offshore Brazil, the
Received 13 August 2010 workflow, tolls and benefits of a 3D integrated study with uncertainties. A geological uncertainty study was
Accepted 28 March 2011 initiated to identify and quantify the input parameters of greatest impact in the reservoir model. In order to
Available online 6 April 2011
rank reservoir uncertainties, a series of static models was built and a method to quantify the uncertainty
associated with geological parameters was tested. The proposed workflow was developed in the Irap-RMS
Keywords:
Uncertainty analysis
software and comprised the following steps: construction of the structural model; construction of the
3D geological modeling geological model; population of the geological model with petrophysical parameters, and uncertainty
Volumetric estimation analysis. To construct the static reservoir model, the low, base and high cases of each uncertainty parameter
Namorado Field were defined and used, and all combinations of these parameters were tested. The uncertainties related to the
Case study choice of parameters such as the variogram characteristics (type, range, and sill) involved in each
geostatistical iteration were included into the workflow. The highest ranked contributors to uncertainty in
Stock Tank Oil Initially in Place (STOIIP) were oil–water contacts, range of variogram used to calculate
porosity in possible-reservoir facies, and 3D water saturation. The uncertainties related to the main
parameters that affect the volumetric calculation were incorporated into the proposed workflow. The
hydrocarbon probabilistic volume established for the Namorado Field varies from 92.07 to 134.04 × 106 m3.
© 2011 Published by Elsevier B.V.

1. Introduction provide a measure of uncertainty by means of multiple realizations

The available data for oil and gas fields are in general not enough to
minimize the uncertainties related to the construction of reservoir
models. The understanding of uncertainties involved in reservoir
modeling is an essential tool to support decisions in the petroleum
industry. The knowledge of uncertainty management related to
prediction of hydrocarbon volumes has increased in the last decades,
as a result of reliable 3D geological models made available by
improvements in computer processing. A successful geological model
should represent the ‘real’ situation as accurate as possible. However,
the ‘real’ geological situation is often unknown, and the model
represents an interpretation based on limited assumptions of what is
likely to occur between data points (Lelliott et al., 2009).
When soft and hard data are not enough to define the distribution of
parameters between data points, stochastic algorithms can be used to
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 55 19 3521 4659; fax: + 55 19 3289 1562.
E-mail addresses: juliana.bueno@ige.unicamp.br (J.F. Bueno),
rdrummond@ige.unicamp.br (R.D. Drummond), vidal@ige.unicamp.br (A.C. Vidal),
sergio.sancevero@roxar.com (S.S. Sancevero).
1
Tel.: + 55 19 3521 4659; fax: + 55 19 3289 1562.
2
Tel./fax: + 55 21 2222 1941.
involving lithofacies and petrophysical parameters. Despite the advan-
tages of using deterministic methods to calculate hydrocarbon reservoir
volumes in simple and understandable ways, the uncertainties inherent
to each input data set used to build 3D static reservoir models cannot be
expressed in a single deterministic realization.
According to Zabalza-Mezghani et al. (2004) the sources of
uncertainties, in reservoir engineering, can be classified as anywhere
within the reservoir modeling workflow. Such uncertainties are
associated with: the static model, upscaling, fluid flow modeling,
production data integration, production scheme development, and
economic evaluation. These authors classified the different uncer-
tainty behaviors as deterministic, discrete and stochastic uncer-
tainties. Lelliott et al. (2009) grouped the sources of uncertainties
related to geological modeling into: data density (the density of
boreholes used to construct the model); data quality (quality of the
data used to construct the model, including borehole elevation,
sample type, drilling method and logging quality); geological
complexity (geological variability throughout the site); and modeling
softwares. Mann (1993) suggested four main categories of uncertain-
ty in geology: (1) variability: the inherent natural variability that
exists in geological objects; (2) measurement: uncertainty caused by
imperfections in the measurement procedure; (3) sampling: uncer-
tainty that arises from the process of making a measurement at a

0920-4105/$ – see front matter © 2011 Published by Elsevier B.V.

doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2011.03.003
 J.F. Bueno et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 77 (2011) 200–208
specific spatial location; and (4) modeling: uncertainty associated
with processing of data to create the model.
This work focuses on the uncertainties associated with stochastic
static reservoir modeling of the Namorado Field, offshore Brazil.
According to Beucher et al. (2008) large uncertainties in gross volume
estimation, and consequently in volumetric estimation, derive not
only from measurement errors, but also from the way the static
reservoir model is constructed.
The Namorado Field was the first giant offshore Brazil oil field and
has been productive since 1979 (Winter et al., 2007). The estimated
in-place oil volume is 669 million bbl or 106 × 106 m3 (Guardado et al.,
1989). Although the deterministic volumetric estimate of the field has
been known, the static reservoir probabilistic model and its associated
uncertainties have not been well established in the literature. Despite
the importance of reservoir uncertainties to predict the recovery of
petroleum volumes and flow performance, the results of uncertainty
analyses carried out in some Brazilian oil fields are not always made
available by the oil companies, because these data are taken as con-
fidential. According to Keogh et al. (2008), uncertainty studies con-
cerning the analysis of all input parameters used to build a static
geological model are not often performed.
This study focuses on the identification and quantification of un-
certainties associated with the geological parameters used to model
the Namorado Field static reservoir, the incorporation of these un-
certainties into the proposed workflow, and the constraint of the
probabilistic oil volume estimation.
2. Field description
2.1. Geological setting
The Namorado Field is located in the Brazilian continental plat-
form, in the central part of Campos Basin (Fig. 1). The area of Campos
Basin is approximately 100,000 km2. More than 1600 wells have been
drilled for over three decades of oil and gas exploration. Campos is an
important offshore basin, encompassing more than 90% of the
Brazilian reserves for oil and gas (Winter et al., 2007). The Namorado
Field was discovered by Petrobrás in 1975, and has become the first
Fig. 1. A. Location map of the Namorado Field (offshore Brazil); B. Zoom of Fig. A showing the Namorado Field; C. Zoom of Fig. B showing the Namorado Field and the location of wells
(black circles).
201
giant offshore Brazilian oil field with reserves of more than 250
million bbl (Mendonça et al., 2004).
The Campos Basin is a passive continental margin-type basin
formed during the breakup of the Gondwana supercontinent,
resulting in the separation of South America and Africa (Guardado
et al., 1989). According to geological and strategic criteria of oil
production, this basin can be divided into three compartments:
proximal, intermediate, and distal, with depths varying from 100 to
3000 m (Schlumberger, 1998). The Campos Basin is composed of
several hydrocarbon producing fields of Oligo-Miocene ages. Sedi-
ment starvation occurred in the basin from the Cenomanian to the
Maestrichtian as a consequence of tectonic subsidence, eustatic sea-
level rise, and a relatively low influx of terrigenous sediments
(Guardado et al., 1989).
Ponte and Asmus (1976) proposed the division of the Campos
Basin into three sedimentary megasequences from base to top: (1) a
continental megasequence related to the rift phase, (2) a transitional
megasequence related to the initial drift, and (3) a marine mega-
sequence related to the late drift phase. Each sequence corresponds
to a distinct depositional environment and crustal rifting phase
(Guardado et al., 1989).
The Campos Basin stratigraphic sequence includes the Campos,
Macaé, and Lagoa Feia Formations (Guardado et al., 1989, 2000). The
installation of the marine environment started with carbonate
deposition in shallow-water conditions, followed by the siliciclastics
of the Macaé Formation. The Campos Basin encompasses dozens of
oil-producing fields, and Namorado is a major field in this basin.
The reservoir of the Namorado Field occurs at depths between
− 2900 m and − 3400 m, and is composed of the Namorado
sandstone (Meneses and Adams, 1990). The Namorado sandstone is
composed of turbidite sands deposited during the Cenomanian/
Turonian and is intercalated with shale and carbonates. The axis of the
depositional paleochannel strikes NW–SE. The Namorado field is a
faulted structure separated into five blocks by normal faults. The main
hydrocarbon producing block is at the center of the field. Hydrocarbon
accumulation is controlled by turbidite sandstone pinchout, and
structural features. The reservoir seals are marbles and shales of the
hemipelagic sequence (Guardado et al., 1989). The turbidite sand-
stones are up to 115 m thick, and usually massive, medium-grained,
202 J.F. Bueno et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 77 (2011) 200–208

arkosic, and locally conglomeratic (Guardado et al., 1989; Meneses

and Adams, 1990; Barboza, 2005). The porosity of the sandstones lies
between 20 and 30%, and the permeability is higher than 1 darcy
(Guardado et al., 1989; Meneses and Adams, 1990).

2.2. Database

The Namorado Field is covered by a 3D seismic survey, from which

structural and sedimentological information was derived for reservoir
evaluation. A total of 55 wells drilled and logged between 1975 and
1986 were used in this study. The well logs presented in the dataset
are: density (RHOB), gamma-ray (GR), resistivity (ILD), neutron po-
rosity (NPHI), and sonic (DT). Eight wells were cored and qualitative
petrographic description is available. The dataset is currently available
by the Brazilian National Agency of Petroleum (ANP).

3. Workflow

This study was conducted in the Roxar Irap-RMS geostatistical

framework, using stochastic modeling techniques to build the
geological model based on geometrical, geological, and petrophysical
properties of the reservoir. The workflow set up is a scenario-based
workflow where high and low cases around the base case are defined
to each of the parameters under investigation. For each parameter the
high and low cases were relative to the mean value of the variable
distribution, the multiple stochastic realizations were run.
In Irap-RMS, the workflow consists of a series of IPL (Internal
Programming Language) scripts that execute a routine of modeling
jobs. The parameter under investigation is varied, while the other
parameters are kept to the high-, base- and low-case scenarios (Keogh
et al., 2008). This kind of investigation is known as a ‘three levels full
factorial’ experimental set-up. Each IPL workflow job involves the
building of a full model, from structural modeling, to grid building, to
facies modeling, to petrophysical modeling, and finally to volume
calculations, in order to give the response variable for that particular
scenario.
The workflow (Fig. 2) comprises the following steps: (1) con-
struction of the structural model; (2) construction of the geological
model; (3) population of the geological model with petrophysical
parameters, and (4) uncertainty analysis. The workflow used to model
the Namorado Field consisted of three phases, each progressively
more complex. The initial phase comprised steps 1, 2 and 3 so that the
high, base and low-cases of the static model were defined. The second
iteration was carried out to address the uncertainty of the parameters
used to construct the static model. In the third iteration, the highest-
ranked contributors to uncertainty were used to constrain the oil field
volume.
3.1. Stage 1: construction of the structural model
Fig. 2. Workflow diagram used in the uncertainty study.
approach (de Boor, 1978; Soleimani et al., 2008). The sum of these
functions defines a function in (x, y) that approaches the input data.
These surfaces were used as input for the horizon simulation in the
second step. In the second step, the horizon simulation around the
deterministic ones was used in order to introduce laterally varying
uncertainties into the simulation. This allows performing realistic
uncertainty analysis since depth uncertainty is often a function of the
well density. The algorithm used for horizon simulation was ordinary
kriging.
The eight faults mapped in the reservoir area were used to build
the structural model (Fig. 3A). The fault model created was used to
construct the structural model for the high-, base- and low-case
scenarios. Fault F3 divides the Namorado field into two smaller blocks:
the high-block (left of Fig. 3B) and the low-block (right of Fig. 3B).
The fault model was not incorporated in the structural simulation,
because correctly honoring varying fault locations in RMS is not easily
automated.

The data consist of a set of depth markers measured along the
wells, which give the true vertical depth at the intersections of the
well with the sedimentary units, and seismic horizons recorded at
time units. Three depositional sequences labeled 3, 2 and 1 were
found in the 3D seismic data. The reservoir top and bottom were
defined in OpenDtect software. These depositional sequences had
already been identified in previous works such as Johann (1997) and
Souza (1997) as a succession of sandstones and shales. After con-
version of the seismic horizons picks into depth units, the reservoir
top was used as the reference surface for the reservoir organization.
All interpreted surfaces are approximately parallel to this reference
surface.
The construction of horizon surfaces was divided into two steps. In
the first step the deterministic horizon surfaces were built using the
Local B-spline algorithm. This algorithm calculates the amplitude to a
family of bell-shaped functions (B-splines) using a local heuristic
3.2. Stage 2: construction of the geological model
The facies were defined by means of the weighed k-nearest
neighbors (wk-NN) algorithm, which is a method for classifying
objects based on closest training examples in the feature space. The
wk-NN is a type of instance-based learning or lazy learning, where the
function is only approximated locally and all computation is deferred
until classification is concluded (Hechenbichler and Schliep, 2004). In
the wk-NN classification the class determination of each point not
only takes into account the classes of k nearest neighbors among the
points from the training set, but also the distance of each of these
neighbors to the point in question.
Twenty-nine lithofacies were identified from the core samples,
from clean to shaly sandstones, shales, conglomerates, diamictites and
carbonates. They were grouped into three major lithotypes according
to their overall character, and petrophysical properties: coarse- to
 J.F. Bueno et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 77 (2011) 200–208
Fig. 3. A. Structural model for the Namorado field; B. Structural division of the field into high and low blocks.
medium-grained sand (reservoir), shale and mixed lithotypes (non-
reservoir), and shaly sands (possible-reservoir). These three new
groups were used as training examples in the wk-NN classification,
and the validation showed that 92.8% of the core samples were
classified correctly by the wk-NN triangular weight function.
In order to capture the reservoir heterogeneities, a grid cell re-
solution of 50 × 50 × 1 m was defined. The facies log defined in wells
with the wk-NN algorithm was scaled and discretized to this grid
resolution without any loss of heterogeneity.
A deterministic grid model can be described in terms of pro-
portions by building the global vertical proportion curve (VPC). The
VPC gives the proportion of each lithotype per level in the flattened
space, integrated laterally over the whole field. It reflects the vertical
variations of the lithotype proportions and confirms the depositional
process that governed the facies distribution (Ravenne et al., 2002).
For each horizontal layer of the grid, the probability of occurrence of a
facies can be extracted from the VPC and transferred as a 2D vectorial
property. When these 2D vectorial properties are stacked vertically, a
(one dimension) proportion curve representing the vertical evolution
of facies proportions is obtained, i.e. facies evolution with depth
(Fig. 4A) (Labourdette et al., 2008). This deterministic grid model can
also be described vertically. Each single column of the model can be
defined by the proportion of each facies it contains (Fig. 4B). Fig. 4B
shows a higher content of the reservoir facies in the NW–SE direction,
which represents the direction of the paleodepositional channel, and a
decrease of the reservoir facies in the eastern portion of the Namorado
field. According to stratigraphic division of the field, the zone below
sequence 3 shows a higher content of the reservoir facies (Fig. 4A).
The facies model (Fig. 5A) was built using the Sequential Indicator
Simulation (SIS), the vertical trends being obtained with vertical
proportion curves (Fig. 4A). SIS is an algorithm used to generate a
discrete 3D facies parameter for the current realization. To each cell in
the parameter a facies code is assigned, defining the facies (reservoir,
possible-reservoir and non-reservoir) present in that cell, based on
probabilities calculated from well data and user-defined input
(Srivastava, 1994; Seifert and Jensen, 1999). Although SIS does not
define geological bodies, the elongation direction can be imposed
through use of the variogram model (Martin, 2008). The indicator
variograms were calculated for parallel, normal and vertical directions
in relation to the NW–SE direction of the paleochannel in the
Namorado field (Fig. 4C), and for all facies (i.e. possible-reservoir,
reservoir and non-reservoir) in the reservoir. For all reservoir layers,
the percentage of each facies within the low, base and high cases
(Fig. 5B) honored the field mean percentage of that facies preserved in
wells (Fig. 5C).
203
3.3. Stage 3: population of the geological model with petrophysical
parameters
Water saturation was defined for all 55 wells using the Archie
method for the reservoir facies, and the Simandoux method for the
possible-reservoir facies.
Two oil–water contacts (OWC) were defined according to the
main fault (F3) that divides the Namorado Field into high and low
blocks. For each block OWC was defined at the depth where water
saturation first reaches, or is close to, 100% in the reservoir facies,
which corresponds to the free water level (FWL) (Fig. 3B). According
to this criterion OWC were defined at a − 3100 m depth in the high
block (Fig. 6A), and at a − 3155 m depth in the low block (Fig. 6B).
Porosity and water saturation curves calculated from well data
were used to model the properties of the reservoir and the possible-
reservoir facies of the Namorado field. Porosity and water saturation
data were scaled up to grid resolution without loss of heterogeneity
and checked for trends related to depth. Variograms were developed
in all direction for each facies from blocked well data. Sequential
Gaussian Simulation (SGS) was then used to populate grid cells. SGS is
a kriging-based method in which unsampled locations are sequen-
tially visited in a random order until all unsampled points are visited
(Deutsch and Journel, 1992; Kelkar and Perez, 2002). The spatial
correlation of the porosity, after transformation into the Gaussian
scale, is fitted in the sedimentary system where the simulations are
performed. The results are then back-transformed to the initial
structural system before volume calculations. Porosity (Fig. 7A) and
water saturation are then simulated, reproducing per-facies distribu-
tion as derived from the blocked well data.
An interval average porosity cut-off N20% was used to calculate the
net-to-gross (NTG) ratio of each interval. This number was obtained
from percentile 10% of porosity distribution in the reservoir facies
after simulation (Fig. 7B, C). NTG was then calculated for the
geological models in each of the three reservoir layers from blocked
well data.
3.4. Stage 4: uncertainty analysis
One-hundred realizations for the complete model were generated
by varying seed number only. In this first iteration, parameters were
ranked by STOIIP (Fig. 8A) and P90, P50, and P10 cases (Fig. 8B) were
picked as low-, base- and high-case scenarios for structural, grid,
facies, porosity, water saturation and net-to-gross models.
In the second iteration, uncertainties associated with parameters
were addressed in iteration 1. The Bo factor was not included in the
204 J.F. Bueno et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 77 (2011) 200–208

Fig. 4. A. Global vertical proportion curve representing the vertical distribution of facies. B. Well data distributed along columns defined by the proportion of each facies they contain.
C. Indicator variograms along the wells per lithotype. Experimental variograms are represented by dotted lines and the models by thick lines.

uncertainty analysis, because a previous PVT study had reported a
base-case Bo factor around 1% uncertainty. In this step, the parameters
that are actually influential on the production were identified. Low-,
base- and high-case models were used to address uncertainties
associated with 3D porosity, water saturation, and net-to-gross
parameters. To address uncertainties associated with variographic
parameters like range, azimuth and direction, a normal (Gaussian)
distribution was adopted. Using this option for each realization, the
value of the uncertainty is sampled to the defined normal distribution.
This type of distribution was used in this stage, because it consumes
less time than the low, base and high cases, and theoretically and
empirically a normal distribution best represents the uncertainty
associated with any new sample of a geological parameter (Quirk and
Ruthrauff, 2008).
For the second iteration, 243 realizations of the workflow were
run. The three levels full factorial algorithm was used in this iteration.
By using this algorithm, all combinations of high, base and low values
for each sensitivity were tested (Montgomery, 2001). In addition, the
combination with all sensitivities at base value was tested. Latin
Hypercube was used as sampling method, which prescribes a
subdivision of the distribution into N equiprobable intervals. Then, a
number is randomly selected from each of the N intervals, in order to
achieve a better representation of the underlying distribution (McKay
et al., 1979; Xu et al., 2005; Maschio et al., 2010). Tornado style plot
was used for ranking each parameter in terms of its contribution to
the total uncertainty range in STOIIP (Fig. 9A). The highest-ranked
contributors to uncertainty were (Fig. 9B): (1) oil–water contact in
the high block, (2) oil–water contact in the low block, (3) range of
 J.F. Bueno et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 77 (2011) 200–208 205

Fig. 5. A. Base-case scenario for the Namorado field 3D reservoir model showing facies distribution. B. Facies distribution using the Sequential Indicator Simulation (SIS). C. Facies
distribution per well.

variogram used for porosity simulation in parallel direction in the
possible-reservoir facies, and (4) 3D water saturation in the oil zone.
In the third iteration, the four highest ranked parameters
determined in iteration 2 (Fig. 9B) were used for addressing
uncertainty in the high-, base- and low-case models. The low/base/
high algorithm is typically used in sensitivity studies, where the aim is
to investigate the effect of the different uncertainties/sensitivities
related to each other, or alternatively, the effect on the total un-
certainty. The purpose of the third iteration was to address the
uncertainty associated with the main parameters ranked in the
second iteration into the proposed workflow and consequently to
constrain the hydrocarbon volume of the Namorado field. In this
iteration the three levels full factorial algorithm was used and 81
realizations of this workflow were run, combining all low-, base- and
high-case parameters.
4. Results
The STOIIP obtained after the third iteration was: 92.07 × 106 m3
for P90, 109.11 × 106 m3 for P50 and 134.04 × 106 m3 for P10 scenarios
(Fig. 10A, B). The P50 volume is close to that shown by Guardado et al.
(1989) of 106 × 106 m3.
The two highest ranked contributors to uncertainty were oil–water
contacts in high and low blocks (Fig. 9B). Oil–water contacts were
defined based on water saturation, and two OWC were found according
to structural model of the field, one at a −3100 m depth in the high
block, and another at a −3155 m depth in the low block (Fig. 7A). These
values are close to those found by Meneses and Adams (1990) around
−3200 m to −3100 m. In the proposed workflow it was defined that
OWC correspond to FWL, but this relation could be in reality quite
different. Probably the oil–water contact in the high and low blocks is
not flat in the field. As a single value for this contact was adopted for each
block, this caused a large impact in the uncertainty analysis.
The third major contributor to uncertainty was the range of
variogram used to simulate porosity in the parallel direction to the
field paleo-channel in the possible-reservoir facies (Fig. 9B). The
variogram model describes the spatial correlation between the pa-
rameter of interest as a function of distance. The possible-reservoir
facies and its petrophysical properties can have an erratic distribution
along the wells in the Namorado field causing its impact in the
uncertainty analysis.
The fourth main parameter that affected the volumetric calculation
was the 3D water saturation, and this may have been caused by
several factors, such as the choice of algorithm used to simulate the
water saturation in the whole field or the method used to calculate

Fig. 6. Water saturation vs. depth diagrams showing oil–water contacts (OWC) for the Namorado Field: A. high block; B. low block.
206 J.F. Bueno et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 77 (2011) 200–208

Fig. 7. A. Base-case scenario for Namorado field 3D reservoir model showing porosity simulation and division of the field in high and low blocks. Porosity distribution per facies:
B. reservoir facies, and C. possible-reservoir facies.

water saturation. The lack of certain petrophysical parameters, such as
capillary pressure, may be another factor that could have generated
this impact of water saturation in the calculation of uncertainties. If
capillary pressure data were available, other methods could be
applied to calculate the water saturation, such as the J-function, in
which cell permeability is a proxy for capillarity (Beucher et al., 2008).
5. Conclusions
The workflow used in this study successfully integrated all the
geological uncertainty scenarios, and produced significant results. A
modeling workflow has been established to handle both multiple
scenarios, and multiple realizations of a given scenario. The sources of
uncertainties related to the inaccuracy of the measurements were not
taken into account.
The combination of different parameters: depositional facies,
porosity and water saturation, net-to-gross ratio and oil–water
contact uncertainties, resulted in 243 hydrocarbon volume estima-
tions, and in the ranking of the impact of these parameters in volume
estimation. The ‘top 4’ contributors to the total uncertainty range in
STOIIP were identified and the corresponding uncertainties were used
to build the low, base and high-case scenarios to the Namorado Field.
The major contributors to uncertainty were oil–water contacts in
both high and low blocks, followed by range of variogram used to
calculate porosity in the parallel direction in the possible-reservoir
facies, and 3D water saturation.
After 81 realizations of all combinations of low-, base- and high-
case scenarios and ‘top 4’ parameters, the hydrocarbon volume of the
Namorado Field was established as varying from 92.07 to 134.04 ×
106 m3. The value obtained for STOIIP at P50 was 109.11 × 106 m3,
which is very close to the deterministic value of 106 × 106 m3
presented by Guardado et al. (1989).
The limitation of the proposed workflow is that structural
modeling is restricted because the fault model was not incorporated
into the simulation. In the Irap-RMS, fault modeling was not
automated, limiting the rebuilding of grids where fault patterns have
changed due to interpretation. As this study focuses on static modeling
uncertainties, this limitation is not significant, as has been shown by
Keogh et al. (2008) who conducted a static modeling of the Glitne Field
(North Sea). The impact on the calculation of gross rock volume was

Fig. 8. A. Histogram showing the total uncertainty range in STOIIP; B. Statistics for STOIIP before uncertainty analysis of the P90, P50 and P10 cases.
 J.F. Bueno et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 77 (2011) 200–208 207

Fig. 9. A. Tornado-style plot ranking each parameter in terms of its contribution to the total uncertainty range in STOIIP. The most significant parameter at the top and the least
significant parameter at the bottom; B. List of the ‘top 4’ contributors to the uncertainty range in STOIIP as identified in the Tornado plot.

less than 1% between the grids constructed with not-faulted and
faulted grids. Fault modeling does not represent a serious problem in
static modeling; on the other hand, should dynamic analysis be
employed, the uncertainty in fault modeling must be accounted for.
Despite the limitation described above, in the proposed workflow
all the sources of uncertainties were considered to quantify the
variability linked to the construction of a reservoir in the static model.
Not only all the steps from geometry to flow parameters were
followed, but also the variability linked to the choice of the parameter.
The uncertainties in the choice of parameters such as the variogram
characteristics (type, range and sill) involved in each geostatistical
process were also considered.
The main focus of this work was to identify, quantify, and
incorporate all uncertainties involved in the construction of a static
model for the Namorado field, and this purpose has been successfully
reached. A step forward is necessary, with focus on the understanding
of the behavior of the highest-ranked contributors to uncertainty in
STOIIP, so as to minimize their impact on the geological model.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Petrobras for the financial support, and
Roxar for providing the Irap-RMS reservoir modeling software. Moacir
Cornetti is greatly acknowledged for his useful suggestions. We
benefited from the positive comments of two referees.
References
Barboza, E.G., 2005. Análise estratigráfica do Campo de Namorado (Bacia de Campos)
com base na interpretação sísmica tridimensional. Tese de Doutorado da
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, 230p.
Beucher, H., Renard, Doligez, B., Pontiggia, M., Bellentani, G., 2008. The effect of
methodology on volumetric uncertainty estimation in static reservoir model. AAPG
Bulletin 92, 1359–1371.
De Boor, C., 1978. A Pratical Guide to Splines. Springer-Verlag.
Deutsch, C.V., Journel, A.G., 1992. GSLIB: Geostatistical Software Library and Users
Guide. Oxford University Press.
Guardado, L.R., Gamboa, L.A.P., Lucchesi, C.F., 1989. Petroleum geology of
the Campos basin, Brazil: a model for a producing atlantic-type basin. In:

Fig. 10. A. Histogram showing the total uncertainty range in STOIIP; B. statistics for STOIIP after uncertainty analysis of the P90, P50 and P10 cases.
208 J.F. Bueno et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 77 (2011) 200–208
Edwards, J.D., Santogrossi, P.A. (Eds.), Divergent/Passive Margin Basins: AAPG
Memoir, 48, pp. 3–80.
Guardado, L.R., Spadini, A.R., Brandão, J.S.L., Mello, M.R., 2000. Petroleum system of the
Campos Basin. 2000 In: Mello, M.R., Katz, M.B. (Eds.), Petroleum Systems of South
Atlantic Margins: AAPG Memoir, 73, pp. 317–324.
Hechenbichler, K., Schliep, K., 2004. Weighted k-Nearest-Neighbor techniques and
ordinal classification: Collaborative Research Center 386. discussion paper, 399.
University of Munich, p. 16.
Johann, P.R.S., 1997. Inversion sismostratigraphique et simulations stochastiques en
3D: reservoir turbidítique, offshore du Brésil. Ph.D. Thèse Université Pierre et Marie
Curie, 352p.
Kelkar, M., Perez, G., 2002. Applied Geostatistics for Reservoir Characterization. Society
of Petroleum Engineers. 264 pp.
Keogh, K.J., Berg, F.K., Petek, G., 2008. A method for quantifying geological uncertainties
in assessing remaining oil targets: a case study from Glitne Field, North Sea. In:
Robinson, A., Griffiths, P., Price, S., Hegre, J., Muggeridge, A. (Eds.), The Future of
Geological Modelling in Hydrocarbon Development. : Special Publication, 309. The
Geological Society, London, pp. 193–203.
Labourdette, R., Hegre, J., Imbert, P., Insalaco, E., 2008. Reservoir-scale 3D sedimentary
modelling: approaches to integrate sedimentology into a reservoir characterization
workflow. In: Robinson, A., Griffiths, P., Price, S., Hegre, J., Muggeridge, A. (Eds.), The
Future of Geological Modelling in Hydrocarbon Development. : Special Publication,
309. The Geological Society, London, pp. 75–85.
Lelliott, M.R., Cave, M.R., Wealthall, G.P., 2009. A structured approach to the
measurement of uncertainty in 3D geological models. Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydroge.
42, 95–105.
Mann, C.J., 1993. Uncertainty in geology. In: Davis, J.C., Herzfeld, U.C. (Eds.), Computers
in Geology — 25 Years of Progress. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 241–254.
Maschio, C., Carvalho, C.P.V., Schiozer, D.J., 2010. A new methodology to reduce
uncertainties in reservoir simulation models using observed data and sampling
techniques. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 72, 110–119.
McKay, M.D., Beckman, R.J., Conover, W.J., 1979. A comparison of three methods for
selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code.
Technometrics 21, 239–245.
Martin, C.A.L., 2008. Adressing uncertainty and remaining potential in a mature field. A
case study from the Tertiary of Lake Maracaibo, Venezuela. In: Robinson, A.,
Griffiths, P., Price, S., Hegre, J., Muggeridge, A. (Eds.), The Future of Geological
Modelling in Hydrocarbon Development. : Special Publication, 309. The Geological
Society, London, pp. 181–192.
Mendonça, P.M.M., Spadini, A.R., Milani, E.J., 2004. Exploração na Petrobras: 50 anos de
sucesso. Bol. Geocienc. Petrobras 12, 9–58.
Meneses, S.X., Adams, T., 1990. Ocorrência de resistividades anômalas no Campo de
Namorado, Bacia de Campos. Bol. Geocienc. Petrobras 4, 183–188.
Montgomery, D.C., 2001. Design and Analysis of Experiments, 5th Edition. John Wiley &
Sons.
Ponte, F.C., Asmus, H.E., 1976. The brazilian marginal basins-current state of knowledge.
An. Acad. Bras. Cienc. 48, 215–239.
Quirk, D.G., Ruthrauff, R.G., 2008. Toward consistency in petroleum exploration: a
systematic way of constraining uncertainty in prospect volumetrics. AAPG Bulletin
92, 1263–1291.
Ravenne, C., Galli, A., Doligez, B., Beucher, H., Eschard, R., 2002. Quantification of facies
relationships via proportion curves. In: Armstrong, M., Bettini, C., Champigny, N.,
Galli, A., Remacre, A. (Eds.), Geostatistics Rio 2000: Proceedings of the Geostatistics
Sessions of the 31st International Geological Congress, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, August
6–17, 2000. Kluwer, pp. 19–39.
Schlumberger, 1998. Searching for Oil and Gas in the Land of Giants. Schlumberger,
Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Seifert, D., Jensen, J.L., 1999. Using sequential indicator simulation as a tool in reservoir
description: issues and uncertainties. Math. Geol. 31, 527–550.
Srivastava, R.M., 1994. An overview of stochastic methods for reservoir characteriza-
tion. In: Yarus, J.M., Chambers, R.L. (Eds.), AAPG Computer Applications in Geology
No. 3, Stochastic Modeling and Geostatistics: Principles, Methods and Case Studies.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK.
Soleimani, B., Nazari, K., Bakhtiar, H.A., Haghparast, G., Zandkarimi, G., 2008. Three-
dimensional geostatistical modeling of oil reservoir: a case study from the Ramin
Oil Field in Iran. J. Appl. Sci. 8, 4523–4532.
Souza Jr., O.G. 1997. Stratigraphie Séquentielle et Modélisation Probabiliste des
Reservoirs d'un Cône Sous-Marin Profond (Champ de Namorado, Brésil).
Integration des Données Géologiques et Géophysiques. Ph.D. Thèse, Université
Pierre et Marie Curie, 215p.
Winter, W.R., Jahnert, R.J., França, A.B., 2007. Bacia de Campos. Bol. Geocienc. Petrobras
15, 511–529.
Xu, C., He, H.S., Hu, Y., Chang, Y., Li, X., Bu, R., 2005. Latin hypercube sampling and
geostatistical modeling of spatial uncertainty in a spatially explicit forest landscape
model simulation. Ecol. Model. 185, 255–269.
Zebalza-Mezghani, I., Manceau, E., Feraille, M., Jourdan, A., 2004. Uncertainty
management: from geological scenarios to production scheme optimization.
J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 44, 11–25.