Applications of 3D Streamline Simulation
To Assist History Matching
W.J. Milliken, Chevron Petroleum Technology Co.; A.S. Emanuel, Consultant;
and A. Chakravarty, Chevron Petroleum Technology Co.
Summary
The use of 3D streamline methodologies as an alternative to finite-
difference (FD) simulation has become more common in the oil
industry during the past few years. When the assumptions for its
application are satisfied, results from streamline simulation com-
pare very well with those from FD and typically require less than
10% of the central processing unit (CPU) resources. The speed of
3D streamline simulation (3DSM) lends itself not just to simula-
tion, but also to other components of the reservoir simulation work
process. This characteristic is particularly true of history matching.
History matching is frequently the most tedious and time-
consuming part of a reservoir simulation study. In this paper, we
describe a novel method that uses 3D streamline paths to assist in
history matching either 3D streamline or FD models. We designated
this technique Assisted History Matching (AHM) to distinguish it
from automated history-matching techniques. In this manuscript,
we describe this technique and its application to three reservoir sim-
ulation studies. The example models range in size from 105 to 106
gridblocks and contain as many as several hundred wells. These
applications have led to refinements of the AHM methodology, the
incorporation of several new algorithms, and some insights into the
processes typically employed in history matching.
Introduction
The advent of powerful geostatistical modeling techniques has
led to the development of very large (>107 cells) geocellular
reservoir models. These models capture, in greater detail than
before, the heterogeneity in porosity, permeability, and lithology
that is critical to accurate simulation of reservoir performance.
Three-dimensional streamline simulation has received consider-
able attention over the past several years because of its potential
as an alternative to traditional FD methods for the simulation of
these very large models.
While 3DSM is a powerful simulation tool, it also has a num-
ber of other uses. The speed of 3DSM is ideal for such applications
as geologic/geostatistical model screening,1 reservoir scoping, and
history matching (the focus of this paper). In this manuscript, we
describe the technique and present three example reservoir appli-
cations that demonstrate its utility.
The AHM Technique
The models used in reservoir simulation today contain details of
structure and heterogeneity that are orders of magnitude greater
than those used just 10 years ago. However, there is still (and prob-
ably always will be) a large degree of uncertainty in the property
descriptions. Geologic data are typically scattered and imprecise.
Laboratory measurements of core properties, for example, often
show an order of magnitude variation in permeability for any given
porosity and several orders of magnitude variation over the data
set. Upscaling replaces geologic detail with estimates of effective
properties for aggregated data, placing another level of approxima-
tion on the resulting model. It is unlikely that any geologic model
will match the observed reservoir performance perfectly, and his-
tory matching continues to be the technique by which the adjust-
ments are made to the geologic model to achieve a match between
Copyright © 2001 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 74712) was revised for publication from paper SPE 63155, first presented
at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 1–4 October. Original
manuscript received for review 27 November 2000. Revised manuscript received 5 July
2001. Paper peer approved 1 October 2001.
502
model and historical reservoir performance. Ref. 2 provides a good
presentation of traditional history-matching techniques.
History matching by definition is an ill-posed problem: there
are more unknowns than there are constraints to the problem.
Indeed, any reservoir simulation engineer knows that there is
always more than one way to history match a given reservoir
model. It is the responsibility of the simulation engineer to make
only those changes that are consistent with the reservoir geology.
AHM was designed to facilitate these changes.
As defined here, AHM is different from automated history
matching and traditional history-matching techniques. Generically,
traditional history matching involves five key steps:
1. Simulation and identification of the difference between
model predictions and observed performance.
2. Determination of the gridblocks in the model that require change.
3. Designation of the property(ies) that requires change and
what those changes are.
4. Implementation of the changes in the simulation input data.
5. Iteration on the above steps until a satisfactory match is achieved.
The two principal uncertainties in this process lie in Steps 2 and
3, both of which are empirical and tedious and frequently involve
ad hoc decisions that have an unknown impact on the ultimate
results. AHM is designed to simplify this process and uses 3DSM
to facilitate Steps 2 and 3 and thus minimize the ad hoc nature of
the process. AHM uses an underlying 3DSM model to determine
the streamline paths in the reservoir. These streamlines describe the
principal flow paths in the model and represent the paths along
which the fluids in the model flow from source (injector or aquifer)
to sink (producer). By tracing all the streamlines from a given well,
the gridblocks through which the fluids flow to that well are identi-
fied. This process, in essence, replaces Step 2 with a process that is
rooted in the fluid-flow calculation. Once these gridblocks are iden-
tified, changes can be performed according to any (geologically rea-
sonable) algorithm desired. Here, a simple program that largely
replaces Step 4 carries this out. Fig. 1 illustrates the concept.
The AHM process is based on the assumption that history
matching is achieved by altering the geologic properties along the
flow paths connecting a producing well to its flow source. The
source may be a water injector, gas injector, aquifer, or gas cap;
however, the drive mechanism must be a displacement along a
definable path. Because the technique relies upon identification of
the flow paths, it is assumed that the grid is sufficiently detailed to
resolve the flow paths. In very coarse grids, a single gridblock may
intersect the flow to several wells, and satisfactory history match-
ing in this case may not be possible with AHM.
For streamline-simulation models, the calculation model pro-
vides the path directly. For FD simulation, a streamline model
incorporating the same structure and geologic parameters as the
simulation model is used to calculate the streamlines defining the
flow paths.
Adjusting the Geologic Model. The streamline simulator is used
to determine the flow paths and to assign to each producer the grid-
blocks in the model that principally affect the well. Once those
gridblocks are identified, it still remains necessary to determine
and implement the changes to achieve the desired history match.
The program described here implements changes to the model
specified by the simulation engineer. The changes are, in principle,
no different from those frequently made in the traditional history-
matching process. As stated previously, there are many possible
changes that can be made to a model in the course of history match-
December 2001 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 Fig. 1—Identify associated gridblocks from streamlines.
ing. Indeed, there is no correct procedure to follow. In developing the
AHM process, we have attempted to combine typical changes into a
few generic algorithms. These algorithms serve to simplify the
process of updating the model and to facilitate the history-matching
process. In the next section, we describe the algorithms and pro-
vide guidance as to their applicability.
History-Matching Algorithms. Permeability. The gridblock per-
meability is probably the parameter most frequently changed dur-
ing history matching. This is logical because permeability
generally has the strongest effect on fluid flow and is least well
known. It must be interpreted generally because in most studies,
there is no direct in-situ measurement. Conventional multipliers for
horizontal permeability and vertical permeability are implemented
in the program. The horizontal and vertical permeability multipli-
ers may be different; consequently, the effective kV/kH ratio can be
assigned on a well-by-well basis.
Heterogeneity. In addition to simple multipliers for the perme-
ability, the program incorporates systematic changes to the hetero-
geneity of the permeability distribution. Building on the 2D
approach of Emanuel and Milliken,3 the program uses a Dykstra-
Parsons (DP) parameter4 as a measure of heterogeneity. For each
vertical column along the well flow path, the gridblocks connected
to the well are analyzed and a characteristic DP coefficient is deter-
mined. Based on input for the model well, this coefficient is either
reset to a specified value or to a multiple of its current value. The
permeabilities are then adjusted to match the new DP coefficient.
The relative order of the permeabilities is not changed, and maxi-
mum and minimum values of the permeability can be honored.
This heterogeneity renormalization is illustrated in Fig. 2.
Fig. 3—Shifting the permeability/porosity transform.
December 2001 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Fig. 2—Reset the vertical column DP coefficient.
Transform. In place of multiplying the permeability by a spe-
cific factor, the permeability also can be altered by rederiving the
porosity/permeability transform. Specifically, the program tabu-
lates the permeability/porosity distribution from the input data and
allows the user to reconstruct the input permeability distribution
with a different (higher or lower) estimate of the
permeability/porosity transform. Essentially, this is similar to the
use of a cloud transform biased to higher or lower permeabilities.
The technique minimizes the danger, inherent in applying a simple
multiplication factor, of generating permeabilities that are incon-
sistent with the reservoir porosity. Fig. 3 illustrates a range of
transforms that can be assigned to a particular well (the straight
lines in Fig. 3).
Porosity. The program also has been designed to make changes
to the porosity or pore volume of the model. Multipliers are assigned
on a well-by-well basis to increase or decrease the porosity (or,
equivalently from a simulation standpoint, the pore volume). In one
option, a renormalization is done. In this case, the pore volume is
increased along streamlines connected to certain producers, but the
overall pore volume is preserved by renormalization. This is analo-
gous to incorporating a production-based net-to-gross distribution.
In practice, the AHM changes can be processed from a spread-
sheet, as illustrated by Table 1. This spreadsheet then becomes the
document for the matching parameters for each match iteration,
providing a simple method for entering and recording the changes.
The spreadsheet format replaces the usual change set, which is
typically an extensive set of gridblock modifiers appended to the
data input.
The time period selected for generating the streamlines can be
an average over the project history. That is, all wells in the model
are represented with a voidage rate averaged over the history
period. For reservoirs with a significant change in the project well
alignment, matching can be done sequentially, with one set of
streamlines used for matching the initial alignment and another set
for a later alignment.
TABLE 1—EXAMPLE OF SPREADSHEET FORMAT
Well DP kH Multiplier PV Multiplier kV Multiplier
W1 0.8 0.6 1.3 1.2
W2 0.7 0.2 1.0 0.6
503
 Fig. 4—Porosity distribution for Example 1.
Examples
The AHM technique has been used successfully in a number of proj-
ects. We present here three examples: (1) a streamline model, (2) an
FD model, and (3) a reservoir study using both FD and 3DSM.
Reservoir Example 1. The first example is a large sandstone reser-
voir containing over 1.5 billion STB of oil. The reservoir is char-
acterized by three principal depositional settings: incised channel
fill, regional marine shale, and tidal delta complex. The reservoir
has an average porosity of 20%, with an average permeability of
2,500 md. The field has been produced for approximately 50 years
by primary depletion and phased waterflooding. Recovery to date
is approximately 35% original oil in place (OOIP) from 150 wells,
and the current water cut is approximately 93%. The oil is a 36°API
gravity oil with a viscosity of 0.3 cp at reservoir conditions.
A geostatistical model of this reservoir was developed based on
the depositional model, available well logs, core, and markers. The
resulting geocellular model, shown in Fig. 4, contains approxi-
mately 2 million gridblocks. Although it is possible to simulate
models of this size with 3D streamline methods, the simulation
time requirements for this model, with its extended production his-
tory, are prohibitive (the run time is approximately 36 hours).
Instead, the geocellular model was scaled up from 2 million cells
to 0.5 million cells for the purposes of simulation.5
Initial simulations made with the geologic model showed early
water breakthrough for most of the wells and insufficient total pro-
ductivity. On a fieldwide basis, the overall water production was
overpredicted by a significant margin, especially during the early
Fig. 6—Horizontal permeability distribution before (top) and
after history matching. Note that this is a logarithm of perme-
ability, and the ordinates are different.
504
Fig. 5—Fieldwide water-cut performance for Model 1. White is
history, orange is the final history-matched model, and red rep-
resents the initial model results.
life of the reservoir. Fig. 5 shows a plot of fieldwide water cut for
the reservoir.
AHM was used to history match this model. Changes were
made to the permeability, porosity, and heterogeneity of the model.
Increases to the horizontal permeability were made to increase well
productivity. Changes were made to the vertical permeability both
to increase model stratification and promote updip water channel-
ing (decreases in kV) and to stabilize influx and match delayed
water breakthrough (increases in kV). Both increases and decreases
were made to the pore volume associated with some wells to bet-
ter capture breakthrough. Finally, changes were made to the per-
meability heterogeneity in the model through a DP
renormalization. Increases in the heterogeneity result in earlier
breakthrough of the displacing phase and a more dispersed frac-
tional flow curve.
A very satisfactory history match was obtained for this reser-
voir, as shown in Fig. 5. This match was achieved by changing the
DP coefficient for all of the wells to some degree, by changing the
pore volume of roughly half the wells, and applying kH or kV mul-
tipliers to approximately 20% of the wells. Most of the changes
were relatively modest (~20%), but some were considerably
greater owing to substantial mismatch between the historical and
model well performance. Fig. 6 compares the permeability distri-
bution before and after history matching. The histogram shows an
obvious change in the distribution and a shift toward higher per-
meability values. The permeability for a cross section of the model
before and after history matching is shown in Fig. 7.
The figures show the placement of shales and that the shales are
more continuous in the final model. However, the changes are not
extreme. Subsequent development of this reservoir has shown this
to be an accurate description of the stratigraphy.
Example 2: An FD Model. Our second example of the use of
AHM comes from a mature offshore field that has been under pri-
mary production for 30 years. The reservoir is a mixed carbonate-
clastic environment, and the top of the structure is depicted in Fig. 8.
Reservoir pressure has dropped from an initial value of 720 psi to
between 200 and 300 psi currently. The bubblepoint of the oil is
approximately 550 psi; consequently, a significant amount of gas
has been evolved, and a secondary gas cap currently exists in the
reservoir, requiring the use of an FD simulator. The oil is moder-
December 2001 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 Fig. 8—Porosity and structure for Example 2.

production data. As mentioned previously, this process reflects the

distribution of net-to-gross in the reservoir.
The two models were history matched sequentially, and it was
found that the AHM method for this reservoir appears to scale with
model size. That is, the set of history-matching parameters used to
history match the 25,000-gridblock model were identical to those
for most of the wells for the 114,000-gridblock model
Scalability of history-matching changes is not unprece-
dented, but the AHM technique generally provides this benefit
on a consistent basis.
Fig. 9 shows the final history match obtained by AHM for the
larger model. For each of the two model sizes, an excellent match
was obtained after approximately a dozen iterations and was com-
pleted in approximately 2 weeks. Although a direct comparison to
traditional methods is not possible, this is much faster than would be
expected typically. A comparison of the history match of three indi-
vidual wells is shown in Fig. 10. Excellent agreement is observed.

Fig. 7—The horizontal permeability in the model before (top) Example 3: The Saladin Reservoir. Our third example comes
and after history matching for a cross section through the from the Saladin reservoir, an elongated semianticlinal structure
model. The changes are evident—there is much less low per- bounded by two southwest/northeast-trending parallel faults and an
meability in the history-matched model. However, the overall underlying aquifer that extends out to the northeast and southwest
structure of the permeability remains. Note that the scale in the (Fig. 11). A geostatistical reservoir model was constructed using a
figures is logarithmic. Sequential Gaussian Simulation (SGS) technique and data from five
(out of seven) wells. The model used a 50´50-m areal grid and a
ately heavy (27 cp at original reservoir conditions) and produces 0.2-m (average) vertical grid and has a total of 3,036,000 cells.
under limited aquifer support. Recovery in the reservoir to date is
14% OOIP, and there is a total of 71 wells in the field. The field Scaleup and Initial Simulation Runs. Scaleup of this model was
was under consideration for waterflooding, and reservoir simula- done principally in the vertical direction, with some coarsening of
tion was used as part of the evaluation process. A full-field model cells areally around the edges of the model. The scaled-up model
of the reservoir was developed with proprietary geostatistical soft- consisted of 282,080 cells (164´40 areal cells and 43 layers). A
ware. The detailed model was scaled up to two sizes: 25,000 and permeability cross section through the length of the reservoir is
114,000 blocks. The 25,000-block model was matched first for shown in Fig. 12.
scoping purposes.
Before history matching, water production in the model was
considerably less than that observed in the field. Simple increases
in the size of the surrounding aquifer were inadequate to match the
observed water production and caused a discrepancy between
model and field pressure decline, especially at late times. The
AHM process was implemented to improve the match. Well-by-
well analysis of the field led to changes to three principal variables:
the horizontal permeability, the kV/kH ratio, and the local pore vol-
ume. The kV/kH ratio is assumed in the fine-scale model to be 0.7,
which is typical of that found in core and plug samples for the
reservoir. However, a significant number of thin-shale regions exist
in the reservoir that limit the vertical connectivity of the field.
Lowering the kV/kH ratio of the gridblocks is consistent with this
aspect of the reservoir geology. As described earlier, decreasing the
kV/kH ratio (i.e., decreasing the vertical permeability preferentially)
leads to greater horizontal encroachment of the water (a less grav-
ity-stable displacement). A renormalization of the pore volume was
also made. This process did not change the overall reservoir vol-
ume, but it redistributed some of the volume, as indicated by the Fig. 9—Overall field match for Example 2.

December 2001 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 505

 Fig. 10—Individual well matches for Example 2.
An FD simulation model was constructed with this scaled-up
model, and initial history-match results were satisfactory.
However, the run times were typically 10 to 15 hours. In an attempt
to reduce run times, it was decided to coarsen the model further. A
coarsened model was created by scaling up to 15 layers, keeping
the areal scaleup unchanged. The resulting 98,400-cell model
(164´40 areal cells and 15 layers) was again run with FD. The run
times were now reduced to 5 to 7 hours, but history-match results
were significantly different and unsatisfactory. In scaling up to 15
layers, the bioturbated zones or effective shales were significantly
diffused, resulting in an unrepresentative geologic and flow model.
The scale up to 15 layers was clearly too coarse.
Fig. 12—Permeability cross section highlighting (in green and red)
the bioturbated zones (shales) in the 43-layer scaled-up model.
Fig. 13—Three-dimensional streamline simulation grid showing
1990 initial conditions, oil (dark blue), and water (light blue).
506
Fig. 11—Saladin top structure showing existing wells and
oil/water contact.
As a further attempt to reduce the run time while retaining the
fine scale, a 3DSM model was designed based on the fine-grid FD
model. The 3DSM model was easily constructed, and run times
were typically around 2 hours. The initial history-match results
compared very favorably between the FD and 3DSM simulators.
The 3DSM approach was then adopted, in preference, for history
matching and predictions in this study.
History Matching and Results. History matching was conducted
with the 3DSM model. The simulation grid showing initial satura-
tion conditions is shown in Fig. 11.
As mapped geologically, the aquifer extends further to the
northeast than in the southwest (Fig. 13). Pore-volume multipliers
at both the northwest and southeast ends and at the bottom layer of
the model were applied to account for the full extent and support
of the aquifer. Also, the transmissibilities at the faces of the aquifer
multiplier cells were reduced to diffuse the flow of aquifer into the
model. Although an overall field pressure and fluid match could be
achieved easily, sizing of the aquifer to the northeast and southwest
was crucial to the matching of individual wells. The 3DSM tech-
nique, with its streamline display, was immensely helpful in under-
standing the effect of the aquifer on the drainage areas and well
patterns. The simulator was then run to predict the yearly oil rates.
Results showed that changing the aquifer size to the northeast
and southwest changed the drainage pattern of the wells signifi-
cantly, especially the centrally located ones. With the help of
streamline displays (Figs. 14 and 15), this effect could be visual-
ized and understood easily.
Using conventional history-matching parameters (such as kV/kH
ratios, Sorw, krw, and aquifer size) assisted by the streamline dis-
plays, most of the wells were matched. However, two wells,
Fig. 14—Streamline display showing individual wells and their
drainage areas.
December 2001 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 Fig. 15—Streamline display showing water saturation.
Saladin 4 and Saladin 6, could not be matched satisfactorily.
Saladin 4 was drilled very close to the crestal fault, and Saladin 6
was not used as a well control (owing to data quality) in the con-
struction of the geostatistical model. It was therefore suspected that
the unsatisfactory well matches could perhaps be attributed to local
geostatistical misinterpretations. Owing to the complex nature of
flow in the reservoir, ad hoc assignments to history match the prob-
lem wells were not attempted.
Fig. 17—Saladin 1 history match.
Fig. 18—Saladin 2 history match.
December 2001 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Fig. 16—Saladin reservoir-field history match.
To overcome these well-matching problems, the matching
process was continued with AHM. For this continuation, a stream-
line pattern representative of the general flow in the reservoir was
chosen (see Fig. 15). To improve a particular well match, the prop-
erties of the cells through which the associated streamlines pass
were modified by changes to the DP coefficient and the pore vol-
ume. In this way, the heterogeneity around a well could be modi-
fied to improve the well match. One had to be careful that the good
matches were not being adversely affected. Several iterations of
this process were required to improve the matches of the problem
wells while maintaining the good matches of the other wells.
The field history match is shown in Fig. 16. The historical oil
rate, water cut, and cumulative production are shown in red, yel-
low, and blue, respectively. Field gas/oil ratio (GOR) (not dis-
played) is constant at 440 Mscf/STB because the field pressures
are well above the bubblepoint.
Some of the well matches are shown in Figs. 17 through 19.
The historical oil rate and water cuts are shown in red and green,
respectively. It can be seen that the wells have generally good
matches. Saladin 6, one of the problem wells (Fig. 19), has been
reasonably matched.
Recommendations and Action. The history-match results from this
3DSM model clearly indicated potential for future recovery from the
Saladin 4 crestal area and from the lower sands beneath the biotur-
bated zones around Saladin 2. From visual inspection of the satura-
tion maps, the rest of the field was found to be fairly well swept.
Based on these findings, a horizontal well (Saladin 24) was
drilled in mid-1999 in the crestal location, and bypassed oil was
Fig. 19—Saladin 6 history match.
507
found. The well came on at 4,400 STB/D, declining to approxi-
mately 1,400 STB/D in about 1 month. The well was forecast to
stabilize at approximately 1,000 STB/D and recover around 1.5
million STB in 5 years. Owing to wellbore complications, recom-
pletion of Saladin 2 below the bioturbated zone was not possible.
Other alternatives are being evaluated.
Conclusions
The development of the 3DSM technology over the course of the
past 5 years has opened a large number of reservoirs to simulations
that previously were prohibitively large in size. However, the
speed of this technology lends itself to potential applications other
than reservoir simulation. In this manuscript, we have described
one such application: AHM.
AHM uses the unique information contained in streamlines to
assist the traditional methods of history matching. In this paper, we
have presented three applications of AHM. We have shown the util-
ity of this technique in examples covering a wide range of geologi-
cal conditions and spanning production histories from mature to
recent. In each case, a good history match was obtained in a fraction
of the time that might be expected for traditional history matching.
In particular, the first example shows the utility of a heterogene-
ity renormalization technique coupled with the streamlines to affect
a well-by-well history match. In the second example, we show how
changes to the kV/kH ratio, a common history-matching parameter,
can be quickly applied to achieve the desired result. Finally, the last
example presents a rather unusual history-matching problem, using
both FD and streamlines for the same reservoir model.
All history-matching problems are, in some sense, reduced to
the application of property changes along flow paths. The speed of
streamline simulation and the character of the streamlines provide
this information in an accessible format. Any history-matching
action that can be codified can then be implemented easily.
In all three examples, the changes made to the model were
within the general uncertainty of the initial data. Indeed, this is one
of the key advantages that we are realizing in the application of
AHM: relatively modest changes are required to obtain a history
match from a well-constructed geologic model. It is believed that
this results from the decoupling of the history-matching problem.
In most cases, changes made to improve the match of a particular
well do not influence other wells significantly, provided that the
simulation grid is sufficiently detailed to define individual well
flow paths within the model. This decoupling minimizes changes
and simplifies history matching.
Property changes using AHM are made along the flow paths set
by the initial assignment of geologic properties. We find that these
flow paths are largely invariant during the field history until there
is a major change in the pattern alignment; at that point, a new
streamline set can be used to address the new alignment.
508
Traditional methods often rely on the introduction of channels,
faults, barriers with holes, and other features that create artificial
flow paths more easily controlled by the simulation engineer.
Three-dimensional streamlines allow the engineer a similar
degree of control, directed along the complex flow path of the
geologic model.
Nomenclature
kH = horizontal permeability
krw = water relative permeability
kV = vertical permeability
Sorw = residual oil saturation
References
1. Saad, N., Maroongroge, V., and Kalkomey, C.T.: “Ranking
Geostatistical Models Using Tracer Production Data,” paper SPE
35494 presented at the 1996 European 3-D Reservoir Modelling
Conference, Stavanger, 16–17 April.
2. Williams, M.A., Keating, J.F., and Barghouty, M.F.: “The Stratigraphic
Method: A Structured Approach to History-Matching Complex
Simulation Models,” SPEREE (April 1998) 169.
3. Emanuel, A.S. and Milliken, W.J.: “Application of Streamtube
Techniques to Full-Field Waterflood Simulation,” SPERE (August
1997) 211.
4. Dykstra, H. and Parsons, R.L.: “Prediction of Oil Recovery by
Waterflood,” Secondary Recovery of Oil in the United States, second
edition, API, New York City (1950) 160–174.
5. Durlofsky, L.J., Jones, R.C., and Milliken, W.J.: “A Nonuniform
Coarsening Approach for the Scaleup of Displacement Processes in
Heterogeneous Porous Media,” Adv. Water Res. (1997) 20, 335.
A.S. Emanuel is currently a consultant in reservoir simulation.
e-mail: asema@aol.com. He retired from Chevron in 1996
after 34 years of service in reservoir engineering and EOR lab-
oratory positions. Emanuel holds BS and MS degrees from the
California Inst. of Technology and a PhD degree from the U.
of California, all in chemical engineering. W.J. Milliken is a
staff research scientist for ChevronTexaco Exploration and
Production Technology Co., where he has worked for the past
10 years in reservoir engineering- and simulation-related
areas. He holds a BS degree from Washington U., St. Louis, and
MS and PhD degrees from the U. of California, Davis, all in
chemical engineering. A. Chakravarty is a reservoir engineer-
ing advisor for ChevronTexaco Exploration and Production
Technology Co., where he has been working with the
Reservoir Simulation Consulting Team for the past 6 years. He
also has held various positions in the RE & NOJV groups at
Chevron UK. Chakravarty holds BS and PhD degrees in
mechanical engineering from Imperial College of Science &
Technology, London.
December 2001 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering