It’s already a standard practice to include uncertainty analysis in every step of the static modeling workflow. In many cases each discipline evaluates its uncertainty individually (in the petrophysical model, the structural model, static model and simulation model). However, the assessment of the global impact of uncertainties in each step of the modeling workflow requires an integrated and multidisciplinary approach. When dealing with sparse data (few wells, 2D seismic or very low-quality 3D), it is important to evaluate the trapś structural uncertainty towards the dynamic simulation. In this workflow a probabilistic static model was built for each structural scenario. The mean case for each was used to build the dynamic model and to determine the development plan (number, location and well types as well as optimum treatment capacity). To evaluate dynamic uncertainty, an optimization and smart analysis tool integrated dynamic variables to obtain P90, P50 and P10 resources profiles for the P50 static model scenario. In order to validate final trajectories, the proposed development plan was subjected to a blind test simulation on different equiprobable static realizations to assess the impact on recovery. The result showed that as we optimize the well placement and trajectories for a specific scenario, the others may present a worst response even with the same parameters and OOIP. The initial sensitivity analysis made us focus on structure, which was the parameter with the greatest impact on volume. In addition, the blind test showed that the porosity and permeability simulations impacted on production and the need to run different realizations for the same structure and petrophysical parameters. The proposed workflow allows to asses uncertainties that are usually not considered. In this example, concerning a heavy oil field with a strong water drive, it was a key parameter to well placement.