.

SP-E

-ml@~m#=-

SPE 19484
The Effect of Nettability on Estimationof Reserves
P.J, Cockcroft, D.R. (3uhe, and I.D. Waworuntu, Aeamera Oil
SPE Metnbem

-1-,
SOCWofP8trcWmEnghwc inc.
@ thoSPE Ads.PociScConferoncohobdin Sydnw
Th4papuwas
pfapmdbfpmanmbn
Thlrw&mfwu nloamdfor PmonMbnbYmllaPE
a8 PlkItuL hcw !wboon~
bYuNaoctBIY%RzR%2%3a%%&b
~.~-,w~.-~@=~-~@~-@Ew~d-ud~
PamalOntOOnpylBmdfkaaltO
m~ofnOtfnolotlwlw10
~En@n5ah
dwtwOmllby whems?owu lBpra5nM. wfs8M4cBtbm -OKP.O

Aumlk,

13-15 Sommbor WOO.

MonMIbnantdnoQ lnMa@rwt wbmsIodbytho wthqc). cm!5nmo!thom,

cumUbnbytho@lihOr(a).ThDmauld,8m pmmuod, doanotnoonmsy rQlIOol
OmmShosdSwSndUy
ahmemOmmaynatmx@rl.Thoab51ma9haMwntahml@w0uB~
wm5.
RWwdmn,TX~TdSX,
-SPEOAL
Mrtas@as,

f%ewembilityofaflukhcksyater

-f-#~M&$Y&~

W@t!Fw%cond$
stmebdt&rfmsewes
bc&mthbtA&
.
cwnates
hawha?n&v&s&
mmthatd Cbreqfthe
odmates~efw
rwurms*th&pa?tMa&in
J&wrwsh
-~~dF-?f4iK=~
titmisbnpxantatqMtqeint
hepdudion*ktin
ub-~

amlpentoftbedhributiand~
mervdr.

niaaaimgral
of~inthe

A)MH~,

l-=.+=-h-w~$$$-w

Pmdudwn-canbevesy
qlhswwmlmbetimr

wettat3itye#i?ct canman#est it$#inthejbml

oflm%
O&Wtorntiw!dorjkdanal
WettaMy. PetWp&ddata
b Ofp?imqy impCmn& to the ~ti~
reserves,andanemhtion
d=wy=~
.,
andconrmsidts isun&takm
satumtion crponeti cmentdon caponent and f-n
until the nWvoirprv&tion
fcommo*oWio&ed
krnatum C@pil@pmsure andrdativepmeab
i@can
bechangcdquite Su&anMy with dl&ent Wettingphmes,
with subsequent infhtences on transitwn zone he@ti,
hydmcdon-water contacts, p?UdUCibd@and ?t3i&d 0~
satwtim7hesechangm

Q=-4Y**8-~of-m-

tabilitytbatoontahaatleaattwoimmiale
qosieof
tbesecallbeamskked asthewettingfhlid. Inoilbearing
reserve* thetwohnmisciible fluids areusuallyoiland
water.
IIIw in a static syateq or one that is in equilibrium
thewettingfluidwillcompletelyoccupythe smallestpores
~d~ti~n~titiamjori~ofti~a,
if
saturationis sufficientlyhigh. The nou-wettingfluidwill
tend to occupythe ceuters of the larger Per% and could
formglobulesor blobsthat extend over severalpores 2
(Figure 1).
Many engineers and geologists still believe that all
hydrocarbon-bearingrese~oirs are strongly water-wet
and most basic reservesestimations arc based upon this
misconception

ans&wssetiwMcwnpkrjhwn

estimtbn is alro undkttaken

by &c&e curve analyis, material balance, and at times,
lhe q&cts of diffenmt wettabildieson
mservoirsimukWm
and
thaWmethodr ofn?serves 4natW narecramkd
plesenki

&fferent nservoirs. Resenm

Resewoirs that exhibit some oil-wet characteristics

have been described in the literature for over 50
YW%4,6.
For example, Treiber, Archer and Owens in l%
examined samples from Cana& ~
Colorado, New
Mexico,North tkkO@ okkiho~
Twyo~
and
Utabiand depnined that 66 percentof the reservoirs
were oil-wet . The authors have seen manyexamplesof
oil-wetcharacteristicsin variousparts of the worl~ especiallyin carbonatq although not exclusively.

Ir)rt
Nettability is defined w
Vhetendemyofone jluidtospreadon oradhemtoa
SoWsu?facein theprmenceof other bnmircWjlui&. 1

Referencesand fkures at end of Paper,

la

----

--

.---

-----

--- ----

However as Anderson states in his excellent

-*2A9WL12
on nettability
thefa?gcpcmentqeqfnwvoirzjbundtofx oii-%ek
it?ss+#icant thanlJle gand~w@
d
nwrvoim arewatcr-wec
a?atfthat
the mwrvoirWet&ability

vaA?SWide&
.2

Historically,manydifferentmethods havebeen used

to determineandmeasurenettability. Thesemethodscan
be roughlysubdivided into two: laboratory and in-situ.
(seeTable 1)

-----

..

---

...

.-

where:
SW =brinesaturatkmi lttheporousmedium
R = dstivityoftheporousmedium
Rw = ~~ty
of ~ 1~ ~~~~
fom
tion
n
= Archiesaturation exponent(commonlyn = 2)
- porosity
P
m = amentation (porosity)exponent
a
= constant (commonlya = 1)
With F=~,
modi&ingthe Archie quatioq in a
P
water-wetreservoir,

in the non-invadedzone
Rt=Fx

A fidl description of laberatety methods is outside

the scopeof~discussioubut isundertakeninthe series
byAnderson.

RW

~n

. .. .. .. .. .. .. .@
..

and in the flushedzone

IMitusoetkodeare morequalitativ qandareoften

site-specik Very few Compa&m between laboratory
andin-aitumethods have bean~aadshouklbe
uwkrtabinapartictdarrwervokifthereisadkepark
cyinobacrved behavior thatctmbeattriited
towettability.

~=

F)(~

. . . . . . . . . . . ...@
%0

Itisasaumedthat the fhtidsconmkedintheinvadad

Soneare mud filtrate Saturadon (Slld),interstitial Wuter
(=L d residualOil&).
Ifweannpare the fokwiogtwowumt
ionprotueq
the first assumbg a water-wet system and the second
oil-wet(withn= 2).

uaoof Pormwon PraaauraData

The appkNion of verticalpressure profileswith th&
use of high resolution wirelineformation testing tools to
determine nettability in both oil and qas resmmirs has
been describedby Desbrahdeset al. q 4

YUQMYQl
Desbrandes claims that the shape of a pressure
gradientcurve,with sufficientvertical resolution can indicate qualitativelythe wettabiIityof a particular rescrvoir,If the verticaldistance between the free water level
and the movablefluid level, permeability,porosity, and
fluidinterracialtensionare know Desbrandesstatesthat
an averagenettability can be determined for both oil and
gasreservoirs,

Sor
%=
smf

=
=

Rxo(ww)= w

lo%
40%
50%

so,
Swir=
Snlf
I&@)

=
=
.

40%
10%
50%
U&f
.

Use of Wireline Log Data

Thus in this case,

A proposed in-situ method that has not received

muchexposureisutilizingthe dtierence betweenflushedzoneand non-invadedresistivities.

RXO(OW)
= 81/36Rm(vw)= 2.2SE&m@w)

The fundamental equation for evaluation of

hydrocarbon saturation is the empirically derived Archieti equation:
&.

In a zone with higher residual oil saturation (as is

expected in most oil-wet reservoirs) resistivfty of the
flushed zone should be significantly higher than the
quick-looktransform of Rxo= F x Rti . If the fcwmadon fiwtor,F, can be calculated from log andysia in the
non-invadedzcw then %0 and an approximateresidual
oil saturationcan be estimated.

ax%
%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(1)
.

pm X Rt
[1
184

AIeo@tiUu#lempiridmethoddeadbedbymrsonand Fraser, iftbe&value

iadteckedwhhanF
fz.torderivedwithaknownporoaity,anditisbigherthan
expec@ then a high residualsaturation maybe preseng
andpossiblyan oil-wetcomponent.

Anumberofimat@om
havedwumemdthetF
feet of nettability on the Act&l
properties of fluid
sammted*
Mostofthese studieein&atedthat
the
saturation exponent increases as the syatern becomes
more oil-wet

Other quick-lookmethods that the authors have

uaedtoadvantagearw
calculationof verylowwater saturation (10%)
from loganalysis
. presence of showsover a long interval (100
feet). (e.g.the authors haveseen overa 500fcet
interval that had extensive cuttings shows,
whichafter comprehensivetestingproved to be
water-bear@ and later core analysisindicated
neutral to oil-wet)

fbe relative electrical resistivityof any rock is dependenton the cross-sectionalarea and the lengthsof any
conductivepaths through the enclosedfluids.A rock that
containsaQuidofapardudar resistivityishigher thanaa
equal volume of that fluid This is because the non-conductiverock decreases the cross-sectionalare&whichis
availablefor current flow,as well as increasingthe length
of the conductingpaths.

hydrocmbons-h-pla= and reserves are estimated by a number of different metho@ depending

upon the amount and type of data available. These
methodscan be dividedinto two major categories: static
anddynamic

Static methods are basically vohunetrica, while

ZyAti&y=ti
declinecurve
.

Inaloo%wster-wetaystematloo%*tbebrineia
locatedontherocksur&eaaawenainallpOre&Atite
oilaatmtha
areincmae@ tbeoilkiocsted
intbe
middle ofthalar@w pore&Ev!enattha ndnimumbrine
Umumion (swk)the brine hatinamthaum
andcalt
conductcurrent Thustheoniy variatiolJainreaiatMtyie
duetothe difference intheaw+adod
areathatis
availablefor the conduction rather than the inaasea in
path lengthor discontinuousbrine saturatio~

The basic equation for volumetric estimations of

hydrocarbons-in-placeis

~lp=Cx

AxhxpxSo
FVF

This overall conductivity is even fbrther reduced

whenhydrocarbons(whichw-enon-conductive)are part
uf the fluid enclosed by the rock. The diatriition and
locationof the different conductiveand non-conductive
fluidsalso affectthe total rerdstivityof the rock-fluidsystent.Notonlydoeswettabilityaffectthis&dddistribu~
tmtsaturadonhiatoryishpommt.(~e.by c+illmyeffects
as well as reduction of hydrocarbon aaturathm *
pduction)+
.-

In an oii-wet r+
the oil is distributed both in the
poresand on the rocksufaces.At 100% produciblewater
(i.e. at% saturation), the conductivepath is continuous
withn approximately2.

. . . . . . . . .(4)
.

However, as the oil saturation incr~

the brine
becomesmore discontinuow+until itsabilityto contribute
to electricalconductivityis impaired.Both the cross-sectional area as well as the conductivepaths are affec@
withthe Archicsaturationexponen$~ increasingto 10or
more.Lewis17suggeststhat the effectofwc bilityon the
cementationexponent is negligibl%whils ,e saturation
exponentcan be significantlydifferent for differentwettabilities.Ifsome of the rockiswater-wetand some other
sectionsare oil-wet(i.e. mixednettability), this changein
saturationexponentdoes not seem to be quite as large W
(Figure2).

where:
OOIP= originaloil in place, STB(S.T.m3)
C
= conversionconstant, 7758,bbl/acre (10~
A
= area of reservoir, acres (km2)
h
= thicknessof net pay, ft (m)
= porosity, the decimalfractionofvoid spacein
P
the reservoir
so = oil saturation (fraction) = 1- %
*
= initialwater saturaion (fraction)
~
= fo~~on~l~e
fa~or, R* Bbl/ ~ (Res
m3/ S.T.m~

Little workhas been pubWon

the effectsof wettability on resistivity in the resmroir (Le. outside the
laboratory).Pirson andFraser 16discuwedresendrsthat
were believedto intermediate or oil-wetj wherean nof
about 3 wasthought to be reasonable.

The variables that are most affected by nettability

differenceaare oil saturation (SO)and net Udekness(h).
Oil maturationis usuallydetermined bypetrophysiad
methods(log and/or core analysis).
196

Anotherfeaturethatiaimpomntiathathya-dad

thesaturation
exponentfalarge(w%)fwv-f-w
rocks between dreina@ Uldimbiition cyda&*reas
tbishysteresisia notasprombntiltoil-wetl%eseandotherstudiea haveshownthatninoil-wet
rockscanbe significantlyhigherthan the commonlyused
2 Lewisfounda mean of 4.47for oil-wetBerea cores.
Graham used areverse-wettingagenttochangethe
wettsbility of water wet rodL He found an increase of
resistivityof 100% to 200 % in the cores with reversed
nettability.He alsoconfirmedthisresiativityincreasewith
fieldtests,
lle formation factor, F, has not been shown to be
greatlyinfluencedby changes in nettability, nor has tie
cementationexponen$m.
Thus large errors in water saturation could occur if
the effectsof nettability are not taken into accounLFor
examplefor a pdcular casewhe~

9
=
RI=
=
a
=
:W =

~%
20 ohm-m
1
2
0.1ohm-m

Ifllmaubsdtute htothedumetrk
finmtda@qttationl-4}anoolPof lalmiuionbarrelawaaWerm&md
ifasatudonesponent
(n~of2were u@ad0dy&4
ndlliorlbarrelsifrl =4(Le. htanoil-wet~).Tlsu&
aS8%errorcould reaadt
!llt* conventionallog amdysfsis diffiad~ and very
importantin rocksthat are other than la)%water-weg as
the Archie equation an give non-unique redadvitieaat
the samesaturation ,aswell as makingsfgnMcantchanges to the saturation qronen$ m
Nat thtckness (sometimes called net pay) is also eatimsted by core andlor log arud@sand amstraints made
to liminate non-produce intervals.These constraints
are commonly porosity, water saturation and resenmir
quality.Aga@ the effectofwettability on the calculation
~fwatersaturatkmcmdd be important inthe choiceofnet
payconstraintsor cut-offs.
V

R~

E@-

lkedynaudc methoda im4udematerial balane&

dedineauveam@sia andnumedaIeimuhtb
wettabM& ~
ahoUMnotdrasdU@ @i5ct
reauhsftomder3fDee ume~althou@itfethe
authorseqdencetbatmmu-wetreaemdrfamore~
.
teexldbitbypddie~
TIterapfddevelopment and fnduswymqtanceof
nmaedcal Sfmdatfa has resulted in aimtdatolsbecom-

the%

ingavesywidelyusedreservoiret@nedngtooLInmany
SW

0.3s

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

0.50
0.59
0.66
0.71
0.74
0.77
0.79
0.81

For a hypotheticalfield where:

A=
h
P
Rt
a=
m=
Rw
~

=
=
=

=
*

1000acres
10feet
20 ohm-m
1
2
0.1ohm-m
1.0

wthe~tiofatitinstidymti~thefor booking remvea. TM practice yields satMkUq

reserve estimates if auffident rodt datq ibid data and
productiondata are availatdeto achievea rediatic history
match. However,in many cases the preliminmy_
are carried out very early in the life of the reservoir, In
these case+it isoften necemaryforthe resenfoirengineer
touse~oWtoo~erWwbtien&ti~ti*t
datafor the aimulatiomThe characteristicsof the relative
permeabilitycurvesused in the reservoir simulationcan
have a significant effect on the calculated ultimate
recovery.
Aoillustrate this situatiok two simulation studfea
were performed on a 5-spotpattern waterflood with
LUlifOMt
rockend fluid p~ti~
ihefhdd propeftke
were taken from the Second CQntpara~ solution
FrojectofsFE2?Theporod& andpermettbWtywerethe
sameaslayer fourinthe test case. fliere18dve permeabilitycurve

so faprd

water-wetrockend a

prefentialiy oil-wet rock we

u8ed for tbe Wo cam
T
These relative permeabuity m
which were derived
fiomCraiglareilluatrated in Figurea3anu4.

..-

..

. . . . ----

. ----

-----

Illeoil-wet curvabas typialch-tdda

of low
imdudbbwatersaturdq higbreddualoilsaturadons
and8veryhighterndnalKrw.nseauveehMemmatless
than a SO% watersaturation.Cmversely,the water-wet
relative permcabilhy curve has characteristics of a
modemte irreducible water saturati~ low residual oil
ssturationandalow terminal b,andhaveacumcmssoverpoint greater than SO%.All of these chemcteristics
mustbe reviewedwhen attemptingto identifythe wetting
phase in the reservoim Relative permeability curvesof
differentwettabilidesare showninF~e 5.llwse curves
show how the residual oil saturation increases as nettabilitychangesfrom water-wet to oil wet. Further, this
figure also showsthat relative permeability to water increases while relative permeability to oil decreases as
nettability changesto more oil-wet.

. . . . . ..-.--

.-

MaIyvolumetric reservoirscontdlsbottomwater
whichbasareddualoilmsration.lldsoilamamtribute
to the systemsenergyasitcontainssolutiongaswhichwiil
evolve as the reservoir pressure decreases. This oil is
immobile and thus cannot be produced in these drcumstanceq but the shrinhge assodated with the gas
coming out of solution could accelerate the pressure
declineof the reservoir.
The major effects of nettability on ultimate oil
recoveryof a gas cap drive reservoir normally occur in
combinationwith a water drivq or a waterflood.In this
case,oil maybe displacedinto the originalgascap thereby
creating a residual oil saturation. This could result in
s@ificant loss in ultimate recovery.?his loss in resenfes
is at a maximumin an oil-wet rock becauseof the higher
t
residualoiIsaturation

It isacommonbelief that highresidualoil saturations

are onlyfoundin Iowquelityreservoirsor withviscouslow
gravitycrudes Hywver,theauthors have seen several
examplesof C@SSC
oil-wet relative permeability cures
andproductionbehaviorin higbqua&esemhd
low
--

The five spot waterflooddimssed previouslyin this

report can also be used to illustrate the e!lect that wettabilityhason the performanceofanaturalwaterdrive. A
water drive inawaterwetresemok
will ~*
nificantlymoraof theoilinpkethanwillasissdbrwater
drive inenoil-wet reserv&.flte lower racoveqhan
oil-wet resWOir istheresldt of thehi$l re4dualoii
ssturadosssand tllefactthat oikwetreSedrs norsrWy
exhibitisighwatercutsveryeariyintheir-iifk

nlerendts oftbes-spot aualydsarepresented in

Figure6ad7,
aidslmwthat a@erenceinuhimate
~of~~oftiwtibpktia
98%watercutvdUbecak@aWf @chsn@g*reIative
~ty~---~to==
vespmeated byowesssand Ardser .Therehmoed
authosscsrrkdoutc&uMfms onaXacre S-spotwater
flood using areal sweegeilidendes and inje#vities
developedby Crai&etal and Caudleaud Witt .

fbaeffect ofhighwater astscanhave asi@kaat

effectontheoperadq eammdcsofandlfieldif thereb
ahighcostassodm
dwiithedfapoe doftbpmduced
water.IMseaumanif@stitseIffortherif thepemeab@
of thereselVoiristoo lowtoallowtheinstaMiono fhi@S
volumeartificiallifteqdpment suchas electricalsubmersiilepumpsorgas lift. hshighproductivity resewohthe
effkctof hi@ water cuts can often be overcome by significantlyincmas@ the daily fluid production from the
reservoir. However, this option does not exist in less
prolificpools.

These differentultimate recoveriesomddhave a significantimpacton the economicsof a waterfloodpro#ct

and illustratethe importance ofnettability on tie results
of a simulationstudy.

RY P~CTION

The magnitude of the effect nettability has on

primary recovery is related to the dominant recovery
mechdsm in the reservoir.The impact of nettability on
ultimate recoveryis minimal in the case of a solution gas
drive reservoir sad increases to a maximumfor a water
drivereservoir.

P~

fle effect of nettability on waterfloodperformance

is well known and was reinforced by the simulation
analysis.The water-wetreservoir recoversmore oil in a
shorter period of time than does an oil-wet resesvoir.
~ese facts become very important when attempting to
determine the remaining produdng life of a mature
waterflood. This is a significant parameter when an
operator is attapting to justify further produced water
handlingfacilitiesin a waterflood

The recovesyefficiencyof a ralution gas drive reservoirinresewoir containing alowshrhkage crude oiiis
relativelyinsensitiveto the wettabili&of the rock Howmr,*bMttiafira~_eoLha~id
oil-wetmemoir, the reddual oilsaturation canbe greater
thsn30percenL11ds hasan Impactontherecoveryeffidencybecaus eittakesmorestoc ktankbarrelsofoi lto
createthereddudoilsaturationinanoil-wetrockthanin
a water-wetrock It is not uncommonforthesefactorsto
be overlookedwhen estimatingresewes for solution gas
driveSeservoir&
m

. --

--

.--.

. . .

.----

-.

------

-----

.-.

isavauableformcovery
byadacibkpr0m8
wiudkta*
tbesueceasoriMlureof aprojeet. It&imperative thatthe
reservoiren@neeruse all the availableresourcesto identifythe tbeendpoints andahape oftberelativepermeabilitycurves.Roekcharacteristieawhichresulted inan
extremely profitable waterflood eotdd produce a disastroustertiaryrecoveryproject.

9 Nettability ean have a dramaticeffecton the

8.A.tdersoI$,W.G.:Nettability IAmtureSumy= l%rt~

Nettability Measurement JPT (Ott 1986), pp.
1246-62.

estimation of reservesfrom initialvolumetriesto

more detailed productionperformance
predictions.Usingeornmonparameters for a
water-wetreservoirin an oil-wetreservoircould
lead to an over-estimationof oil-in-placeand
resenmsof up to 50 Yo.

9.Andersou W.G.:WettabifityLiteraturesurvey- Part 3

me Effeetaof Nettability on EleetricafProperties
of Porous Med@IPT (Dee 1986)pp. 1371-78.

If an oil-wetreservoiris suspected !tis

recommendedthat earetid laboratoryanalysisis
undertak with nativestate ewes and suitable
time period&

11.Anderso~ W.G.:Nettability Literature Smvey- Fart

5 The Effects of Wettabili~ on Relative Permeabili~, MY?#l@23, G@ 19S6.

~ Wcttabifi~
should be eonsideredwhen designing
dupgradingprodudmfaeilities

12 Andarm&w.a&wettaM@ I&ramra$@rvay-paft
6111e EffeuadwattabMy
oaw~
WE # 16471,Pa Iw.

1. Crt@ F.F. : 171eRes?wk? EJ@dng Aqx?ctsof

Waterflooding , Monograph Series, SPE,
Richardaq TX(1971)3.
2. Andersoq W.G.: Nettability Literature !huwy - Part
1: Rock/Oil/BrineInteractions and the I ~ffectsof
Core Handliig on Nettability, JPT (Oct. 1986),
pp. 112s-44.
3. Nutt@ P.G.: some Physicaland ChemicalProperties
of Reservoir RoekaBearing on the Aecurmdation
and Dischargeof OiJ Problemsof Petmkum GeoL
ogy, W.E.Wrather and F.H. Lahee (eds.),AAPG,
fhlrta(1934),pp. 82S-32.
4. Andrese~ KH.: Dissuasionof Nature and Importance
of Surface Forces in Reduction of Petroleq
M umdM PMGAPL New York (1939),PP.
442-8.

7. Ildber, L& Archer, DL andOwaWW.W. : A

LaboratoryEvaluation of the Wettabifityof Fifty
Oil Rodueing Reservo& SP!! (Tk 1972),pp.
5314 Trans. AIME!253.

10.Anderso~ W.G.:Nettability literature Survey-Fart

411wEffectsof WettabilityonC@lary _
SPE #lS271, Dec 198S.

14.y

RandBaedo@Zk&?tu WMemudonittGtzskrmuirs~
No.1903&
SPE(3asTeclmol~ Symposi~ Dal@l& June
7-9,1989.

15.Arehie,G& TheEleetriad ReaistivityLog as an Aid

in Determining Some Reamoir Cbaraeteristics,
7kuw,AIME (1942),146,pp. S4-67.
16.PiraorzSJ. and Fraser, CID.: @a@tatklktepuutiOnqfEktrk LqJrinaf-wtt &lckS:P@xue!d
hcedureand-Ap*,
Papers~
pp. 1562-6presented at the 1960 SPE Annual

Meet@ Denver, OcL2-5.

17.h~

M.G.,Sbarm&hLM.,Dun@, H.F.: W@trabWy

andstms E&3sonsa
tudonandcmen@on
SFWI.AN@ Ninth M
bge,
WIB$mpdWUJIUWS-&M81XPaperK

5. Katq D.L Possibilitiesof SecondaryRecoveryfor the

Oklahoma City Wilcox Sand, Trans., AIME
(1942),146,pp. 28-43.

18.Mor#q Wm. andFirxor@J. :Tbc~ofFraetionalWettabilityontbeArcMeSaturadortEqmneng

-.,
SPWLA, Fifth Annual Logging Sym@w
MMTX0fW13-ls,1964)
8e&R

6. Marsde%S.S.and Nil@ P& Ibe Nettability of the

BradfordSan&hducersMonthfy (May1%2),26,
No$ pp. 2-S.

19. GJ.W. : Reverse-Wetting Log@& ?hvu,

AIME (19S8)213,pp.304-9.

.
%.

.:

SPB 10484

$..

?g?

P.J.

coOkCSOft.

D.It. Guise.

I.Zt. ~aworuntu

2QMungaq N.and M~13L:CerWn

WettabOity
EfkctsonEku
dcalRedstivityiIIPof otuMed@
L (3%.P& T&iL (3au - March-1968)7,No. 1,pp.
2$25.

23.Cm@ RF. JrwGdfeQ T.IU and MS

RA: Oil
or Water
Recovety Perf&mnce of Pattern*
Injection Opedons from Model Tes~ -,
AfMl$v. 201 (19s5).

21. Weinate@H.G. Chappelear, JE. and Nole%J.S. :

Second Comparative Solution Project: AThreephaaeCo@Study, ~, March 1986,pp.345-53.

24.Caudl%B.II. and Whitle,M.D.: ProductionPotential

ChangeaDuring Sweepoutin a Five-SpotSysteu
Tm.,AIME, V. 216 (19S9).

22. ~e~
W.W.and Archer, D.L: The effect of Rock
Nettability on Oil-wet Relative Permeability
Relationship,PT (July 1971),pp. 873-8.

25.R-

S.H.,Teiber,LE. and Archer,D.L: Nettability

of Reservoir Rocks and Its Evaluation Rwducem
Monthly32, No. 4, April 1968.

.. -----

Table 1 Wettebillty Measurement Methuds

contact
Angle

Quantltathm dmbMdon8ndforoed

P w-o

US Bureauof Mlnea (USBM)

Laboratory

Imblbltion rate8

rotation

Glaaa slide method

Qualitative . R.lativ~ perm.ability curves

Capillary Preeaurocutwes

QDye abeorptlon
. Displacement

oaplllary pressure

. Nuclear magnedcresonance
. Formationpreeaures

hdtu

wireline loggl~
. ProductIonperformance

la
.

.-

011Wot

Fig.

: 1

FLUID

FLOW

( After

S
A

: Rd.

IN WATER - WET

AND

OIL - WET

ROCK

2S )

30

u
R
A
T
I
0
N
E
x
P
0
N
E
N
T

26

20

1s

10

s,

o~
o

100

F;ACTIONA~OIL

WE;;ABILITY

atlon e~onent

vs

wett~lllty

y%)

;:.

.+.=
%

,,-.-,

0
Q
c)

0
..

...
..

..

..

..
..

...
...
..

..

..

..

..\
...
..

..

o
~..
...

..

u)

co

z
i=
>

,
,
,
,
,
.
.
\

\\

\\

\.

\ \

., .
.,
\

\\
\

\\

\
\,
..

co

co

172

0-