∑ = − = Nobs i obs i sim i i d m d w m O 1 2 ) ( ) ( TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. AbstractOne of the challenges when making a history match study is to find an adequate parameterization for the reservoir model. The main assumptions of the geological characterization should be respect and the influence of parameters on the fluid flow simulation results should be taken into account. On the other hand, the number of parameters should be kept within reasonable bounds in order to make the process viable. In this work, three examples of novel ways to parameterize the history match problem will be shown. Two of them are real field cases and one is a synthetic case based on outcrop data. Common to all examples is the choice of parameters that are related to the geological model building process, such as the variogram in a geostatiscal modeling or correlations between petrophysical properties (permeability x porosity, for instance). In this context, the use of a versatile history matching tool was essential, allowing for a quantitative evaluation for the quality of the match and for managing a larger number of parameters, when comparing to the traditional trial and error procedure. These examples show how the combination of a suitable parameterization with a versatile assisted history matching tool can improve both the quality and the efficiency of the history matching process.