Pressure Matching for Hydrocarbon Reservoirs: A Case Study in the Use of Bayes Linear Strategies for Large Computer Experiments

  • Peter S. Craig
  • Michael Goldstein
  • Allan H. Seheult
  • James A. Smith
Part of the Lecture Notes in Statistics book series (LNS, volume 121)


In the oil industry, fluid flow models for reservoirs are usually too complex to be solved analytically and approximate numerical solutions must be obtained using a ‘reservoir simulator’, a complex computer pro­gram which takes as input descriptions of the reservoir geology. We describe a Bayes linear strategy for history matching; that is, seeking simulator in­puts for which the outputs match closely to historical production. This approach, which only requires specification of means, variances and covari­ances, formally combines reservoir engineers’ beliefs with data from fast approximations to the simulator. We present an account of our experiences in applying the strategy to match the pressure history of an active reservoir. The methodology is appropriate in a wide variety of applications involving inverse problems in computer experiments.


Active Variable Prior Belief History Match Hydrocarbon Reservoir Prior Specification 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Craig, P.S., Goldstein, M., Seheult, A.H. and Smith, J.A. (1996). Bayes linear strategies for matching hydrocarbon reservoir history. In Berger et al., editors, Bayesian Statistics 5. Oxford.Google Scholar
  2. Farrow, M. and Goldstein, M. (1993). Bayes linear methods for grouped multivariate repeated measurement studies with application to crossover trials. Biometrika, 80: 39–59.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Goldstein, M. (1996). Prior inferences for posterior judgements. In M.L.D. Chiara et al., editors, 10M International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Kluwer, to appear.Google Scholar
  4. Statistical Sciences Inc. S-PLUS Reference Manual, Version 3.2 StatSci, a division of MathSoft Inc., Seattle, 1993.Google Scholar
  5. McKay, M.D., Conover, W.J. and Beckham, R.J. (1979). A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output of computer code. Technometrics, 21: 239–245.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Mattax, C.C. and Dalton, R.L. (1990). Reservoir Simulation. Society of Petroleum Engineers.Google Scholar
  7. Pukelsheim, F. (1994). The three sigma rule. The American Statistician, 48: 88–91.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Sacks, J., Welch, W., Mitchell, T. and Wynn, H. (1989). Design and analysis of computer experiments. Statistical Science, 4: 409–435.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Farrow, M. and Goldstein, M. (1993). Bayes Linear Methods for Grouped Multivariate Repeated Measurement Studies with Application to Crossover Trials, Biometrika 80, 39–59.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goldstein, M. (1975). Approximate Bayes Solutions to Some Nonparametric Problems, Annals of Statistics 3, 512–517.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldstein, M. (1981). Revising Previsions: A Geometric Interpretation, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 43, 105–130.MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldstein, M. (1988). The Data Trajectory, in Bayesian Statistics 3, ed. Bernardo, J. M., et. al., Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Zellner, A. (1996). Bayesian Methods of Moments/Instrumental Variable (BMOM/IV) Analysis of Mean and Regression Models, in Prediction and Modeling: In Honor of Seymour Geisser, eds. Lee, J. C., A. Zenner, W. O. Johnson, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter S. Craig
  • Michael Goldstein
  • Allan H. Seheult
  • James A. Smith

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations