The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Tenth SPE Comparative Solution Project: A Comparison of Upscaling Techniques
Abstract
Summary: This paper presents the results of the 10th SPE Comparative Solution Project on Upscaling. Two problems were chosen. The first problem was a small 2D gas-injection problem, chosen so that the fine grid could be computed easily and both upscaling and pseudoization methods could be used. The second problem was a waterflood of a large geostatistical model, chosen so that it was hard (though not impossible) to compute the true fine-grid solution. Nine participants provided results for one or both problems.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A critical review of the use of pseudorelative permeabilities for upscaling
Barker, J. W., & Thibeau, S. (1997) · SPE Reservoir Engineering · doi:10.2118/35491-pa · Cited by 279
Cited by
CO2wettability of seal and reservoir rocks and the implications for carbon geo-sequestration
Iglauer, S., Pentland, C. H., & Busch, A. (2015) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1002/2014wr015553 · Cited by 639
Metadata
- Authors
- Christie, M. A., & Blunt, M. J.
- Venue
- SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
- Publisher
- Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)
- Published
- 2001-08-01
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 04
- Pages
- 308-317
- ISSN
- 1094-6470 (ISSN-L)
- 1930-0212
- OpenAlex
- W1983139887
- Cited by
- 736
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 25.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Tenth SPE Comparative Solution Project: A Comparison of Upscaling Techniques. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2118/72469-pa
- The paper
- Christie, M. A., & Blunt, M. J. (2001). Tenth SPE Comparative Solution Project: A Comparison of Upscaling Techniques. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering. https://doi.org/10.2118/72469-pa
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
