IPTC-18132-MS

Oil -Water Relative Permeability Data for Reservoir Simulation Input, Part-I:
Systematic Quality Assessment and Consistency Evaluation
Ammar Agnia and Hossein Ali Algdamsi, Schlumberger; Mohamed Idrees Al Mossawy, Universiti Teknologi
PETRONAS

Copyright 2014, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 10 –12 December 2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s).
Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers
presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted
to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper
was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax ⫹1-972-952-9435

Abstract
The relative permeability concept has been used extensively in reservoir engineering. As numerical
reservoir simulation has become more popular as a tool for reservoir development, the role of relative
permeability data became even more evident and important. Its key use is to control the advancement and
mobility of different fluids simultaneously coexisting in the porous media, and hence controlling the
recovery of the fluids. However, deriving a reliable relative permeability data set remained a major
challenge. In reservoir engineering, this challenge has been present for many decades and might be so in
the foreseeable future. Another challenge is to have a data set which is internally consistent and does not
hinder the simulation performance. Optimistically, with the significant literature accumulated over the
years in deriving and using relative permeability, some techniques can be extracted for data quality check,
control and assurance. This paper covers the limitations of the conventional methods used for calculating
relative permeability from displacement experiments. It also compiles all contemporary techniques in a
systematic workflow for quality assessment and consistency evaluation. The workflow has been demon-
strated with different synthetic and field examples. This paper will provide a reference for reservoir
engineers who have an interest in investigating, checking the quality, and preparing relative permeability
data set usable for reservoir simulation process.
Introduction
Special core analysis (SCAL) is the hub of the evaluation and management of hydrocarbon reservoirs.
Relative permeability is one the main constituent of the SCAL which importance is widely recognized for
the prediction of oil recovery during displacement by water. As any other piece of data, high quality and
reliable relative permeability data set can reduce uncertainty in dynamic reservoir modelling and provide
a sound foundation for reservoir engineering studies. Conversely, ppoor quality data can result in lost time
due to rework and additional studies, inadequate development plans, and inefficient investment.
Relative permeability curves can be generated from different sources such as mathematical models and
experimental methods. However, experimental methods are more desirable for two reasons. First, they
produce specific relative permeability relationships for specific reservoirs. Second, it is best available
2 IPTC-18132-MS

approach to resemble the flooding process in the field provided that the experiments performed on
representative core samples and fluids from the reservoir under study. Therefore, our discussion will be
restricted to relative permeability data are derived from laboratory experiments.
The main challenge in the derivation process is how to obtain a reliable relative permeability data set.
The term reliable will often be used in referring to relative permeability data set with is a good probability
that the defined relationships are representative of the reservoir and inherently repeatable. Judgment
regarding reliability will be made according to analysis of results that are judged to have been obtained
using valid laboratory procedures. When the term valid is used in referring to laboratory measurements
it will mean that none of the procedures used during the test are inconsistent with obtaining reliable results
for the sample tested. For instance, the use of an extracted core plug with altered wettability other than
the reservoir one would generally mean that the results are invalid. The source of unreliability may be
attributed to the following reasons:
● The derived relative permeability data set are usually prone to excremental artefacts.
● The state of the experiment does not fit the model’s assumptions used to derive the relative
permeability data sets. In another word, the methods of calculating relative permeabilities from
data obtained from displacement experiments don’t describe all physical effects encountered in the
experiment.
● The dependence of relative permeability on wide range of variables and conditions (Fluid
saturations, Saturation history, initial saturations values, wettability, pore geometry, overburden
stress, clay and fines content, temperature, interfacial tension and viscosity, and displacement rate)
(Dandekar 2013).
● The uncertainty involved in all stages of deriving the relative permeability (Grimstad et al. 1997).

The validation process can be portrayed as a systematic correction of the inherent errors of the
experiments and the derivation techniques, in a way that the true characteristics of the relative permea-
bility are preserved. An example is the systematic approach in assessing the validity of extracted relative
permeability profile from experimental result and assuring the reliable and representative portion of the
data was utilized to produce the relative permeability characteristics and guarantee the consistency and
quality of revealed end -point.
There are many techniques disseminated in the literature for checking the quality of relative perme-
ability. Those techniques are compiled to enable the reader of performing data quality assessment and
consistency evaluation. The quality check scheme followed within this paper starts with preliminary check
for the quality of the experiment, relative permeability, and data sets provided to simulators. Before
starting it will be good to start the discussion with a brief review of the relative permeability concept and
the methods used to measure it in the laboratory.

Overview
Water Oil Relative Permeability
The relative permeability is a macroscopic property that is defined through extensions of Darcy’s law to
multiphase flow (Grimstad et al. 1997). It is defined as the ratio of the effective permeability of a specific
fluid to reference permeability. The reference permeability can be any of the following (Qadeer, Brigham,
and Castanier 2002):
1. Absolute permeability to one of the phases.
2. Klinkenberg corrected gas permeability.
3. Non-wetting phase effective permeability at irreducible wetting phase saturation.
4. Wetting phase effective permeability at irreducible non-wetting phase saturation.
IPTC-18132-MS 3

The choice of the reference permeability is not critical in itself. However, it is very important to that
it is stated and consistently applied (Qadeer, Brigham, and Castanier 2002, Glover 2002).
Relative permeability data should be obtained by experiments that best model the type of displacement
that is thought to dominate reservoir flow performance (Fanchi 2006). A number of laboratory measure-
ment techniques for deriving the relative permeability are described in the literature. Generally, three
methods exist to measure relative permeability: steady-state (Osoba et al. 1951), unsteady displacement
(Johnson, Bossler, and Naumann 1959), and centrifuge (Hagoort 1980). In the steady-state method,
relative permeability is measured directly; whereas it is indirect measurement in the unsteady-state and
centrifuge methods (Mohanty and Miller 1991). The steady-state method has an advantage of simple
calculations, and disadvantage of tedious long procedure. The unsteady-state method takes less time but
requires more complicated calculations (Al-Mossawy and Demiral 2011). The centrifuge method is fairly
quick but gives the relative permeability of the displaced phase only (Mohanty and Miller 1991). Each of
these methods will be discussed briefly in the following sections.
Steady-state Coreflood
Steady-state experiment is run with simultaneous flow of two phases, both wetting and non-wetting, at
different flow rates. The flow rate of one phase is increased while the other is decreased gradually. At each
rate change, the pressure drop and the saturations are closely monitored. Equilibrium, i.e. steady-state
condition, is established within the system once the pressure drop across the core and the saturations are
not changing with time. At that point, effective and relative permeabilities for individual phases are
computed using the pressure drop, flow rates, length and cross sectional area of the core, and viscosities
of fluids into Darcy’s law (Bennion and Thomas 1991). The saturations of the phases are varied by
changing the ratio of the flow rates of the fluids. Thus the relative permeability curves can be determined
over a representative range of saturations (Qadeer, Brigham, and Castanier 2002). In general, between five
and ten stages are usually needed to establish relative permeability curves. The test does not necessarily
depict reservoir fluid displacement mechanism where one fluid displaces the other, since the test is not
truly a displacement test but rather an equilibrium flow test. However, its virtue is that rate effects
associated with viscous instabilities are eliminated. Capillary pressure forces are usually ignored but the
experiment can be designed in such way the end effects are eliminated (Bennion and Thomas 1991). The
data obtained by steady-state method is at least as believable as the plausible model on which they are
based (Darcy’s law), especially if convincing measures are taken to minimize the capillary end effects.
A major difficulty is the determination of saturation at each stage. There are different methods that are
used for in-situ determination of fluid saturation in cores such as measurement of electric capacitance,
nuclear magnetic resonance, neutron scattering, X-ray absorption, gamma-ray absorption, volumetric
balance, and weighing the sample techniques (Honarpour, Koederitz, and Herbert 1986). However, the
problem is the identification of a single value to represent average saturation over the whole core plug at
each equilibrium stage. There is also uncertainty as to whether the fluid distributions are representative
of the displacement process. Saturations measurements such as weighing the sample will interrupt flow
and can cause problems of capillary contact with the sample end pieces (Heaviside and Black 1983). An
important advantage of the method is that it is possible to define relative permeability across a border
saturation range, even for systems having favourable mobility ratios. Although the technique allows
flooding with hundreds of pore volumes of water, relative permeability still may not be measured at low
oil saturations in high permeability and intermediate wettability rocks. The steady-state method has also
an advantage of simple calculations, but a disadvantage of tedious long procedure where days or weeks
are often required to achieve equilibrium for each saturation point (Bennion and Thomas 1991).
The main advantages of the steady-state technique are:
1. Relative permeability data are calculated over the full saturation range.
2. Simple calculations.
4 IPTC-18132-MS

The disadvantages are:

1. There is also uncertainty as to whether the fluid distributions are representative of the displacement
process (Heaviside and Black, 1983).
2. It does not necessarily depict reservoir fluid displacement mechanism where one fluid displaces
the other.
3. The experiments are time consuming and thus expensive.
Unsteady-state Coreflood
In unsteady-state method, only one of the phases is injected into the core to displace the other. The theory
is based on Buckley-Leverett Equation (Buckley and Leverett 1942) as a process model. The idea is to
monitor the pressure differential across the core and production history of controlled multiphase displace-
ment experiment, and then to back-calculate the relative permeability values with analytical methods.
Different approaches have been developed to determine relative permeability data from the unsteady-state
displacement (Johnson, Bossler, and Naumann 1959, Jones and Roszelle 1978, Mitlin et al. 1998, Toth et
al. 1998, 2001, Li, Shen, and Qing 1994). However, those approaches neglect the capillary pressure
effects. The cumulative production data also are processed to provide a basis for calculating average
saturation levels to be associated with the relative permeability values. The method is preferred to the
steady-state for its rapidness and, to some extent, it can depict reservoir fluid displacement mechanism
where one fluid displaces the other. However, it is more susceptible to end effects, rate-dependent
instability effects, and potential non-equilibrium between displacing and displaced fluids (Bennion and
Thomas 1991). Nevertheless, the unsteady-state methods, comparatively speaking, supply the wanted data
quickly with reduced expense.
Other models also have been presented based on the initial and final stages of the flow process (Corey
1954, Torcaso and Wyllie 1958, Pirson 1958, Wyllie and Gardner 1958, Honarpour, Koederitz, and
Harvey 1982, Al-Mossawy and Demiral 2011, Ahmed 2001, Ibrahim and Koederitz 2000, Behrenbruch
and Goda 2008).
The main advantages of the unsteady-state method are:
1. Appropriate “shock-front” development
2. Ability to flow at appropriate reservoir flow rates.
3. Relatively fast (and therefore relatively inexpensive)
4. Relatively low throughput (less prone to fines migration)
The main disadvantages are:
1. Inlet and outlet boundary effects, especially at low rates which invalidate Buckley-Leverett theory
2. Relatively complex interpretation.
Centrifuge Oil Relative Permeability Tests
The method is based on the concept of rotating a core at various angular velocities to initiate forced
drainage or imbibition process. For every rotational speed, the fluid production is collected in a pipette and
measured at equilibrium. The average saturation derived from the effluent production volume. With the
driving force remaining constant, the relative permeability of the displaced phase is directly proportional
to the oil production rate. The production is measured as function of the drainage time then relative
permeability is produced by differentiation of the data according to the algorithm devised by (Hagoort
1980). The model interpret the centrifuge experiment as a gravity drainage process based on the following
major assumptions: capillary effects are negligible, the invading fluid mobility is much larger than the
displaced fluid mobility, and the acceleration along the sample is uniform. There are several types of
centrifuge experiments: single-speed, multi-speed, constantly-accelerating and constant flow rate centri-
fuge techniques (Bauget et al. 2012).
IPTC-18132-MS 5

A major advantage of the test is that large pressure differentials can be created across the core plug
without creating an unstable displacement. The higher pressure differentials imposed by centrifuge results
in relative permeability data over an extended saturation range, i.e. to lower oil saturations. The design of
experiments requires a balance between the Brownell-Katz (or Bond) number criteria and retention due
to a capillary end effect (Hirasaki, Rohan, and Dudley 1995). Hagoort’s analytical calculation from a
single-speed experiment underestimates the relative permeability maximum due to the time needed by the
centrifuge to reach the selected speed (Bauget et al. 2012). It also overestimates the final liquid saturation
since capillary end effects are not taken into account (Bauget et al. 2012). Notable limitations of the
technique are; values of water relative permeability cannot be defined from a single-speed displacement
of oil by water, disability of using live oil, and fines migration in cores with high content of illite. For a
multi-speed experiment, the relative permeability determination requires history matching with a numer-
ical simulator (Bauget et al. 2012).
Which technique?
The choice of measuring technique for relative permeability can be a challenging task. For example, each
of the above mentioned techniques is claimed to yield residual oil saturation and relative permeability.
Experimental artefacts and neglected physical phenomena could invalidate the classical interpretation
theory and often make the interpretation of special core analysis experiment highly unreliable. For
instance, the capillary end effect is present during the laboratory water flood which cannot be squeezed
away, except at extremely high rates or after excessively long flooding times, resulting in artificially high
residual oil saturations. Thus, the capillary pressure is interfering with a relative permeability measure-
ment in the steady-state or unsteady-state apparatus. Conversely, it’s possible to say that relative
permeability effects interfere with a capillary pressure measurement in the centrifuge. The centrifuge does,
on the other hand, yield the true value of residual oil saturation. The choice of test method should be made
with due regard for reservoir saturation history, rock and fluid properties (Glover 2002). In addition,
laboratory measurements of relative permeability should be representative of flow behavior in the
reservoir. For example, centrifuge experiments are often used in studies where gravity drainage is
identified as the dominant recovery mechanism (Edwards et al. 1998). The unsteady-state method is more
often used because it is substantially quicker. In some cases the steady-state method is needed to fully
define the curves ranges. However, this can lead to difficulties if data from the different methods is not
in agreement (Heaviside and Black 1983). Integrating the results from different types of tests can be of
great help in recognizing which parts of each data set are reliable and which are invalid. The unsteady state
test provides reliable results within the mid saturation range and the experiment artefacts start to show up
at high saturation range. Therefore the centrifuge results will be used as supplementary of the unsteady
state results. Numerical simulations of laboratory experiments should be an essential element to reconcile
the experimental results. Numerical simulations can be also used in the experimental design stage, and for
quality control on contractor interpretation of experimental data. In summary, thorough understanding of
procedures and conditions used to obtain the results and the strengths and weaknesses of each test the
experimental results can be reconciled.

Quality check of experiment

Laboratory measurements are prone to experimental and physical erroneous effects that can propagate to
the derivation of relative permeability, hence making it unreliable. Therefore, flooding experiments should
be designed in such way such that eliminate or minimize these effects on measurements. For example, end
effects are generally reduced by using high viscous pressure gradients and equilibration times are chosen
sufficiently long to reduce “after-flow” effects due to low relative permeability (Kokkedee et al. 1996,
Masalmeh 2012). On the other hand, high rate flooding experiments may cause the displacement to
become unstable and trigger fines migration. A combination of proper experimental design such as
6 IPTC-18132-MS

Figure 1—Relation between oil recovery at breakthrough and scaling coefficient (Rapoport and Leas 1953)

flooding at high rate, using longer cores (composite core), using capillary mixing sections numerical
simulation of the experimental data is required. The use of numerical simulation to aid proper interpre-
tation of laboratory experiments proved to be an efficient tool to minimize the impact of the experimental
artefacts on the results and conclusions of the study. Reducing the experimental artefacts is not
straightforward. Therefore, the laboratory tests should be conducted ideally under conditions where the
laboratory values for the key flow parameters match the field values (Mohanty and Miller 1991). A simple
way of presenting the flow phenomena that depend on these parameters in a very complex manner is the
scaling group concept in which key flow parameters interrelated and can be expressed by a different set
of dimensionless numbers that defines the critical ranges of these parameters. Relative permeability in turn
depends on the pore structure, wettability and flooding conditions, which can be represented by a set of
dimensionless groups (Mohanty 2002). Following this procedure, one could resolve inconsistencies
observed between different experimental techniques and procedures. The flooding condition can be
represented by a set of dimensionless groups including capillary number, bond number and heterogeneity
index(Mohanty and Miller 1991).
Flow rate
Rapoport and Leas scaling group (Rapoport and Leas 1953) has often been used to select the rate of water
flood required for stabilized flow. The term “stabilized flow” refers to flow where the shape of the front
does not change with time. The effect of capillary pressure in core floods is to spread the front, but at the
same time there is a wave sharpening effect because of the convex-upward shape of the fractional flow
curve. These two effects tend to balance and make the wave approach an asymptotic limit or stabilized
flow. It is not obvious that a stabilized flow region exists in all the different wettability situations. As an
example, if the objective is to find rate-independent residual oil saturation, a stabilized flow region may
be one of the rate selection criteria (Haugen 1990, Chen and Wood 2001, Skauge, Thorsen, and Sylte
2001, Rapoport 1955). The Rapoport and Leas scaling group is defined as:
Eq.1

Where: L core length, v the interstitial velocity and ␮w water viscosity.

Experimentally, a critical value could be found beyond which a flood is stabilized. This is done in
practice by plotting oil recovery at breakthrough versus Lv␮w as in Fig.1. The value at which recovery
becomes independent of the scaling coefficient gives the critical value. (Kyte and Rapoport 1958) reported
that Lv␮w⬎1 (cm2/min.cp) resulted in a minimal end effect. However, questions can raises that whether:
1. Conducting the flooding experiments at field rate is more representative, and
2. Conducting the experiments at higher rate would lead to de-saturation of Sorw?
IPTC-18132-MS 7

It is important when designing displacement ex- Table 1—Summary of critical ranges for capillary numbers (Mohanty
and Miller 1991)
periments for measurements of relative permeability
Nc Nc end
to consider the following points:
Water Wet 10-5 ⬎0.1
1. A high pressure gradient will be required to Mixed wet 10-8 ⬎1.0
minimize capillary pressure end effects Field Range 10-6 ⬍0.01
Lv␮w ⬎1. Laboratory Range 10-8 to 10-5 0.01 to 10
2. The pressure gradient, however, should be
small compared to the total operating pres-
sure so that the incompressible fluid assumption is valid.
3. the core should be homogeneous;
4. The driving force and fluid properties are held constant.
Capillary number
The key flow parameter that controls the final fluid saturation is the capillary number Nc which defined
as a ratio of viscous to capillary (interfacial tension) forces (Fulcher, Ertekin, and Stahl 1985) and
generally have the form (Masalmeh 2012) of:
Eq.2

Where: u is Darcy’s velocity, ␮ is the viscosity of the displacing phase, ␴ is the interfacial tension, ␪
is the contact angle and ␸ is the porosity in fraction.
In general, the actual flow within the reservoir is driven by viscous or gravitational forces. However,
capillary forces are usually present and may dominate. Within pore scale the flow paths are determined
by the capillary forces (Chandler et al. 1982). If viscous forces are increased, they may become
comparable to the capillary forces at the pore scale which may alter the flow paths and thus the relative
permeability (Maas 2011). This change in flow dynamics can be reflected as a capillary number
dependence of the relative permeability. This dependence can play an important role in flow processes
which may not applicable to the field situation, and therefore should be avoided in laboratory experiments,
if proper and reliable basic reservoir data are to be obtained (Boom et al. 1995, Masalmeh 2012, Maas
2011).
The capillary end effect can be represented by a dimensionless flow parameter, Nc end which is the ratio
of a characteristic capillary pressure to the viscous pressure drop across the core, and can be approximated
(Mohanty and Miller 1991) by:
Eq.3

Where: ␴ is the interfacial tension, ␮o is oil viscosity, L core length, ␸ is the porosity in fraction, and
K is the absolute permeability.
This parameter has a critical value range in which it affects the relative permeability derived by
analytical techniques. For example, in water-wet for Nc end⬎0.1, both oil and water permeability decrease
as Nc end increases however, when Nc end ⬍ 0.1 it does not affect relative permeability (Mohanty and Miller
1991). Table-1 summarizes the critical ranges of these parameters for strongly water-wet and weakly
mixed-wet media and their typical ranges in the field and in the laboratory.
Bond number
The Bond number measures the relative strength of gravity to capillary forces as described below
(Masalmeh 2012):
Eq.4
8 IPTC-18132-MS

Figure 2—In situ saturation profiles at rate 2 ft/day (Chen and Wood 2001)

Where: ⌬␳ is the density difference between the displacing and displaced phase, g is the Acceleration
due to gravity and K is the absolute permeability.
If the driving force for displacement is gravity (as in centrifuge experiments) its dominance can be
checked with the Bond number. De-saturation effects can cause changes in capillary pressure and relative
permeability at high flow rate and/or low interfacial tension that (usually) do not occur under normal field
conditions. To avoid these effects, the critical Bond number (ratio between gravitational and capillary
forces) should be checked. (Skauge, Thorsen, and Aarra 1997) concluded with experiments that centrifuge
experiments can be clearly influenced by Bond number variations. Furthermore, oil relative permeability
increases with centrifugal speed for all classes of permeability they tested. They showed that the
remaining oil saturation vary with Bond number. Critical Bond number values at which a speed insensitive
relative permeability can be obtained is in the order of 10-5. This Bond number requirement implies an
upper limit for the centrifugal acceleration.
Instability number
One of the conditions for the onset of instability during two phase immiscible displacement is that the
mobility ratio is higher than 1 (M⫽ krw ␮o/kro ␮w⬎1). An unstable displacement leads to premature
breakthrough and a longer period of two-phase flow at the outlet (Mohanty and Miller 1991). At present,
no techniques are available, which allow the interpretation of unstable data (Maas 2011). Therefore, in
laboratory experiments, this situation is undesirable. In one dimensional laboratory experiments, espe-
cially for light oil, there is less potential for fingers to grow. In case that there is a potential for front
instability, the experiment can be designed such that the rates are increased in steps where the high rate
is only applied at the end if capillary end effect is still present. The effects of fingering and capillarity
cannot be suppressed simultaneously. At low rates, fingering is small, but the capillary end effect is high.
On the other hand, at high rates, fingering is large, but the capillary end effect is low (McPhee and Arthur
1994). For the critical ranges of instability number the reader is referred to (Mohanty and Miller 1991).
Saturation Profile
In-situ saturation monitoring of fluids inside the core during the experiments provide an insight of the flow
processes and which will greatly assist in the interpretation of the data. Some systems are Equipped with
an x-ray scanner, which can determine the average in-situ fluid saturation at any location along the core
during an experiment revealing the presence of experimental artifacts, such as rate and end effects or
capillary discontinuities at plug junctions as shown in Fig.2 and Fig.3. The technique can also identify
instability in the flood front due to rock heterogeneities or viscous fingering. Since water saturation
measurement is made in-situ, it is inherently less prone to the errors suffered by traditional volumetric
IPTC-18132-MS 9

Figure 3—In situ saturation profiles at rate 39 ft/day (Chen and Wood 2001)

techniques (Trewin and Morrison 1993). In-situ saturation profiles can also be used as observed data to
validate the process of numerical simulation.
Experiment’s report
The main entrance to any successful quality check is a coherent and transparent experiment’s report
highlighting any experimental difficulties encountered and indicates the most reliable data. Engineers
should ensure that provision of this information is part of the contract.

Relative permeability result quality checks

Identifying reliable special core analysis results
The first challenge is to differentiate those laboratory results which are considered reliable representative
of the reservoir from those which are clearly invalid or highly questionable. SCAL flow parameters, like
capillary pressure, relative permeability and residual oil saturation depend strongly on the wetting state of
the rock material being investigated. Therefore, for the determination of a set of representative SCAL data,
the wettability state of the core sample in the laboratory should approach as close as possible the
wettability state of the reservoir. Water-oil results are more likely to be unreliable due to factors associated
with wettability. Wettability can be altered as the result of:
1. The drilling mud used during the coring operation,
2. When and how the core was preserved and
3. The procedures and conditions used in making measurements in the laboratory.
Understanding the history of the core material used in the special core analysis program, including
coring fluid, preservation techniques and laboratory procedures used. SCAL data obtained on plug which
is taken with such care from the reservoir, that ideally all the properties including wettability are
conserved at the surface should be representative. Key considerations for include
1. the drilling mud used to obtain the core material,
2. the timing and method of core preservation,
3. the laboratory handling of the core, i.e. cleaning, drying, etc.,
4. the type of test conducted, steady or unsteady state, waterflood, centrifuge, etc.,
5. The fluids used and fluid properties, test conditions, i.e. pressure, temperature, pressure differen-
tial, flooding rate, etc.
10 IPTC-18132-MS

Extraction of valid water-oil relative permeability data

Conventionally, SCAL laboratory data are interpreted analytically. In the interpretation, the effect of
capillary pressure in a relative permeability experiment might be fully ignored. In reality, both capillary
pressure and relative permeability affect flow behaviour in any laboratory experiment accordingly
laboratory data invariably needs to be refined prior to use in a reservoir simulation model or in hand
calculations due to the following:
1. First, it is sometimes necessary to disregard one portion of curves due to a particular weakness of
the measurement technique. An example of this is the unreliability of the high water saturation
portion of unsteady state relative permeability results conducted at low rates on some samples.
2. Second, it is often necessary to extend the laboratory results beyond the saturation range covered
in the test
The review should summarize the amount of valid data of the various types for the field in question
consequently it is often appropriate to classify the results of the review and divided into groups such as:
● Data considered to be valid for further use
● Data of questionable validity, but which may be required if there is inadequate clearly valid data,
● Data which is clearly invalid or highly questionable.
Integrating the results from different types of tests and recognizing which parts of each data set are
reliable and which are invalid. Thorough understanding of procedures and conditions used to obtain the
results and the strengths and weaknesses of each special core analysis data set. As it’s known that the
unsteady state test provides reliable results within the mid saturation range and the experiment artefacts
start to show up at high saturation range. Therefore the centrifuge results will be used as supplementary
of the unsteady state results. Residual oil saturation Sor is very important characteristic in defining the
relative permeability curves. Centrifuge experiment may not achieve the true value of Sor, in this case Sor
from post imbibition capillary pressure curve may be utilized which is not the subject of this paper
Numerical simulations of laboratory experiments should be key element in. Especially the use of
different experimental techniques in combination with numerical simulations, aimed to history-match the
different experimental data sets with a single set of capillary pressure and relative permeability curves,
allows us to effectively combine the strengths of the various techniques, whilst at the same time
consistently taking account of all artefacts. Moreover, numerical simulations can be used in the experi-
mental design stage, and for quality control on contractor interpretation of experimental data.

Water Oil relative permeability consistency check

Below are the consistency checks that can be applied to the crude relative permeability (Stiles 2013,
McPhee 2007, Glover 2002):
1. There should be agreement between kro values at intermediate water saturations from valid
waterflood tests and centrifuge oil relative permeability tests. Results from the waterflood should
generally be given greater weighting over intermediate water saturations where they do not agree
with results from the centrifuge kro test.
2. Values of residual oil saturation at the end of the various tests (on the same rock type) should be
ordered as follows, with the residual oil saturation decreasing from top to bottom:
● Reservoir conditions waterflood,
● Centrifuge kro test,
● Centrifuge Pc test.

3. The krw end-point value at the end of an unsteady-state waterflood should be less than the krw end-point
IPTC-18132-MS 11

measured at the conclusion of a centrifuge Table 2—Relative permeability characteristics vs. wettability (Stiles
2013)
test.
Wettability No Nw krw end-point
4. The resulted relative permeability curve
from an unsteady-state waterflood, when Strongly Water-Wet 2 to 3 4 to 6 0.1 to 0.4
plotted on a logarithmic scale, should be Mixed Wettability 3 to 5 2 to 4 0.5 to 0.9

concave downward. A curve which is con-

cave upward may be the result of
● Invalid (high) values of krw at low water saturations due to lack of capillary Equilibrium at the
start of the waterflood.
● Excessive flattening of the krw curve at high water saturations may be due to plugging by
mobile fines.

5. Corey exponents (No and Nw) determined from the final curves (determined by plotting kro and krw
versus normalized water saturation on a log-log scale) should be consistent with wettability
measurements. Guidelines on Corey exponents for various wettability’s are shown in Table-2
(Stiles 2013):
6. Low krw end-point values may be the result of progressive plugging of the core by mobile fines
during the flood. (A krw curve which decreases at high water saturation may be the result of
plugging at the end of the flood.)
7. Endpoint value approaching or exceeding 1 may be the result of the wettability of the core having
been altered to oil-wet by an inappropriate coring fluid, i.e. oil-base mud.
8. Very high krw end-point can also be the result of not desaturation samples adequately prior to
flooding (High krw end-point values are more acceptable where they are measured at low residual oil
saturations).
General characteristics of water-oil relative permeability curves
The general characteristics expected in relative permeability are as follows (Stiles 2013, McPhee 2007,
Glover 2002):
1. As the water saturation is increased in the core two curves are defined; an oil relative permeability
curve (kro) and a water relative permeability curve (krw). For homogeneous plugs the curves are
smooth and monotonic. (The kro curve is ever decreasing and the krw is ever increasing). The final
oil saturation at the end of the test is referred to as the residual oil saturation Sor.
2. krw at Sor which is referred to as the “krw end-point”. This value is often used as an indication of the
wettability of the rock/fluid system. As with residual oil saturation, care must be exercised in using
krw end-point, as its value can be severely understated if the flooding of the sample did not proceed
as far as it might due to laboratory considerations. Should the value of Sor be too high due to
premature ending of the flood, the krw end-point will be too low.
3. Another important characteristic of the results is the saturation at which values of krw and kro are
Equal, i.e. the saturation at which they cross. This saturation can be used in comparing sets of
curves. It can also be used in conjunction with the krw end-point and the connate water saturation as
a measure of wettability.
4. Relative permeability should be plotted on a logarithmic scale such a plot is useful in constructing
a smooth kro curve at low water saturations where little data are often available from laboratory
measurements due to efficient displacement in the core. Such a curve is also very useful in judging
the validity of the data assessing the values of kro at low oil saturations and judging whether or not
the kro curve should be extended to even lower oil saturations
5. Valid relative permeability data often produce a straight line on a log–log plot when the relative
12 IPTC-18132-MS

permeability data are plotted versus normalized saturations. It is a valuable tool, not only in
interpolating and extrapolating relative permeability curves, but also in assessing the validity of
laboratory data.
6. Display the results with values of kro and krw plotted on both a linear and a logarithmic scale. Both
curves should be smooth and concave upward when plotted on the linear scale and smooth and
concave downward on the logarithmic scale. Where portions of the curves do not conform to these
shapes it is a sign that distortion has taken place.

Assessing the validity of relative permeability data

1. Review laboratory procedures to identify any potential shortcoming which could have produced
distortions in the reported results which should consider answering the following question:
● Were special efforts made to preserve natural wettability?
● Was the test conducted on individual or composite cores?
● Was reservoir oil or refined oil used?
● Was the test conducted at room or reservoir conditions?
● What test procedure was used: steady-state, unsteady-state or centrifuge?
● At what rate was the core flooded?
● What was the pressure differential at the end of the flood?
● Was special attention given to “scaling” the waterflood?
● Was the flooding rate increased (“bumped”) at the end of the flood?
● If so what was the effect on Sor and on krw?
● Is there any evidence of “plugging” during the flood?
Valid relative permeability data often produce a straight line on a log-log plot when the relative
permeability data are plotted versus normalized saturation for and oil oil-water system, deviation
from linearity could be due to measurement artefact such as:
● Flood front Instability:
y Problem only with unsteady-state method.
y Relative permeability to water too high during early portion of flood.
y Problem with mixed-wet rocks mitigated by reducing flooding rate and use of composite core.
● Distortion of oil relative permeability curve by “Tail” of capillary pressure curve:
y Early termination of waterflood leads to Sor is too high.
y Need to revise relative permeability to oil upward and extend.
y Mitigate by flooding at higher rate and use composite core
● Capillary End Effect:
y Relative permeability to oil and water too low if capillary effects not minimised
y problem with water-wet and mixed-wet steady state and unsteady state
y Mitigate by flooding at higher rate” laboratory result scaling”.

Odeh’s technique for reducing the rate effect on oil and water relative permeabilities
(Odeh and Dotson 1985) suggested a correction method to eliminate end effect on the calculated oil
relative permeability values which causes distortions in the dynamic displacement measurements, as
shown Fig.4. They observed that, at high oil saturations, the relative permeability curves measured at high
flow rates are more or less independent of the flow rate. They also observed that a plot of the ratio of
relative permeability to oil and the oil flow rate versus the average water saturation forms a straight line
IPTC-18132-MS 13

Figure 4 —Calculated kro at different rates (Odeh and Dotson 1985)

at high oil saturations. They assumed that, in this region, the oil relative permeabilities are not affected
by the capillary end effect (Qadeer, Brigham, and Castanier 2002). The steps are as follows:
1. Calculate the relative permeability’s to oil and water by the relative by analytical methods from
dynamic displacement data obtained from coreflood experiment.
2. Plot and versus. The average water saturation, .
3. The plots and versus. The average water saturation, normally show straight-line segments
at low water saturation ranges for relatively high flow rates as shown in Fig.5. Determine if a
straight line segment exists in areas of the plot corresponding to high average oil saturations, and
if it does, extend the straight line segment to the end of the plotted data, otherwise draw a tangent
to the smooth curve from a beginning point of the plot as shown in Fig.6. This may present a
difficulty because the contruction of a tangent is subject to personal judgment. This is a drawback
of the method.
4. Calculate the corrected relative permeability values by:
Eq.5

Eq.6

Where and calculated by analytical methods from dynamic displacement data and
and are the values read on the straight-line or their extension at the corresponding
saturation value.
The (Kro)cor values represent relative permeability with effect of displacement rate essentially
removed.
5. Plot (kro)cor, values vs. water saturation at the effluent end Sw2 as shown in Fig. 7.
14 IPTC-18132-MS

Figure 5—Correction procedure of kro (Odeh and Dotson 1985)

Figure 6 —Correction procedure of kro (Odeh and Dotson 1985)

Jess Stiles’ technique

(Stiles 2013) utilized Corey correlation in its interpretative form to quality check the relative permeability
obtained from analytical methods after experiments. The approach can be summarised as follows:
1. Identify the reliable portions of the reported results.
2. Define relative permeability characteristics from analysis of those results.
3. Refine unreliable results using these characteristics.
The analysis method is based on the assumption that oil and water relative permeability relationships
can generally be defined using the following Equations:
IPTC-18132-MS 15

Figure 7—Corrected kro (Odeh and Dotson 1985)

Eq.7

Eq.8

Eq.9

Eq.10

Where:
Son : normalized oil saturation, fraction
Swn : normalized water saturation, fraction
Swi : initial or connate water saturation, fraction
Sor : the true residual oil saturation, fraction
No : Corey exponent for the oil curve, dimensionless
Nw : Corey exponent for the water curve, dimensionless
krw end-point ⫽ krw at true residual oil saturation which will sometimes be denoted with krw=, fraction
kro at Swi ⫽ 1.0.
All relative permeability values are expressed as a fraction of the base permeability which, for these
discussions, is the effective oil permeability measured at connate water saturation at the start of the
laboratory test.
The above Equations are valuable diagnostic tool, not only in interpolating and extrapolating relative
permeability curves, but also in assessing the validity of laboratory data. It is to be emphasised that
changes in Corey exponents are accompanied by changes in other relative permeability characteristics, i.e.
initial water saturation, residual oil saturation and krw end-point. A qualitative and quantitative evaluation of
water-oil relative permeability could help on establishing krw end-point, Sor, Nw and No. The “characteris-
tics” defined above are be used together in the following way to define oil and water relative permeability.
The following steps demonstrate the application of this method on data from the North Sea:
16 IPTC-18132-MS

Figure 8 —Visual check of relative permeability curves on linear scale

Figure 9 —Visual check of relative permeability curves on logarithmic scale

1. Display the results with values of kro and krw plotted on both a linear and a logarithmic scale. Both
curves should be smooth and concave upward when plotted on the linear scale and smooth and
concave downward on the logarithmic scale. Where portions of the curves do not conform to these
shapes it is a sign that distortion has taken place. Fig.8 and Fig.9 below this indicate that there are
some distortions in the reported results.
2. The first step in Stiles’ technique is to estimate the true residual oil saturation iteratively from
analysis of the kro curve versus normalized oil saturation the saturation range using different
assumed values of true residual oil saturation as shown in Fig.10. The various relationships
between kro and Son are plotted on a log-log plot, and the assumed value that produces the best
straight line through reliable data is used as an approximation of true residual oil saturation.
3. Using the estimated value of true residual oil saturation an estimate krw end-point is made from
analysis of the krw data versus normalized water saturation Swn on a log-log plot and extending the
trend through the more reliable data to the point where Swn Equals unity, i.e. where So Equals true
IPTC-18132-MS 17

Figure 10 —Iterative estimation Sor

Figure 11—krw end-point estimation

residual oil saturation as shown in Fig.11.

4. Calculate Corey exponents for individual data points for both the oil and water curves. For the kro
curve this involves constructing a straight line on the log-log plot of kro vs. Son from this starting
point (kro ⫽ 1 at Son ⫽ 1) through each individual data point and determining the slope of the line.
The following Equation is used to calculate the slope of the straight line through each data point:
Eq.11

This calculation is made for each data point and the resulting values of No= are plotted versus
saturation. Similarly, is the calculation of Nw=, as shown in Fig.12, but the line is constructed from
each individual data point to the ending point, i.e. where Swn ⫽ 1. The krw end-point is less than unity
and a somewhat modified equation is used as follows:
18 IPTC-18132-MS

Figure 12—No= and Nw= profile

Eq.12

5. Values are selected for No and Nw from analysis of the plot of No= and Nw= vs. saturation based on
points judged to be unaffected. Where all reported results are reliable this plot will show relatively
constant values of No= and Nw= over the full saturation range. Where this is not the case the chart
can be used, with knowledge of where unreliable kro and krw results are most likely to be produced,
to define reliable values No and Nw.
6. Compare Corey exponents defined from the analysis with general experience. Values for No and
Nw that lie outside certain ranges generally indicate that wettability has been severely altered at
some point and/or that the results have been badly distorted by laboratory effects.
7. Calculate values for kro and krw over the full saturation range, i.e. from So⫽1-Swi to So⫽Sor, using
the characteristics defined from the previous steps, i.e. krw end-point, Sor, Nw and No. This is done
using the Eq.7 and Eq.8.

8. The “refined” kro and krw, as calculated above, are next compared to reported laboratory data as
in Fig.13. This is an important step to ensure that the refined relationships are in agreement with
the portions of the laboratory data that are considered to be most reliable.
Wayne Beeks’ technique
Wayne Beeks technique has not seen the light in the modern reservoir engineering book except
(Timmerman 1982). Wayne Beeks has suggested a graphical technique based on the selection of the best
IPTC-18132-MS 19

Figure 13—Refined kro and krw, compared to reported laboratory data

value for Sor using trial and error procedures with the data from relative permeability tests. Inconsistent
data should be studied for possible cause and may be discarded. The basic Equation used follows:
Eq.13

Eq.14

Eq.15

Eq.16

Eq.17

Eq.18

Eq.19

Eq.20

Eq.21

Where:
⫽ value at kro ⫽ 0 does not Equal laboratory Sor
The above parameters shoulf satisfy the limits given as per Table-3
The method is used as per the following steps:
20 IPTC-18132-MS

Table 3—Wayne Beeks’ technique parameters limits

1. Plot the laboratory values raised to an
exponent of 0.25 versus laboratory Sw as Parameter at Swi at

shown in Fig.14. An analysis of the resulting 0 1

plot will normally indicate either of the fol- 1.0 0
lowing two possibilities: Kro A 0
0 1
● Data plot in a good straight line. This 0 B
indicates that the exponent n in equation Krw 0 C

is equal to 4.0. Extrapolation of

line to 0 gives the theoretical
end point value.
● Data plot exhibits a curved relationship. This is expected result since an exponent n value of
4 was derived under ideal and theoretical conditions. Extrapolate the curved line to a value of
equal to 0. The estimated theoretical end point Sor value equal to (1-Sw) when
Equals 0.

2. Calculate value of using values determined in Step 1 and laboratory Sw values. Plot
values versus on log-log scale as shown in Fig.15. Analysis of this plot has the
following two possibilities:
● Data plot in a good straight line. This indicates that the value used to determine is
correct. Determine the slope of the line which Equals to n.
● Data plot exhibits a curved relationship; if the curve is concave upward, the value used to
determine must be reduced.

3. Estimate a new value of and recalculate . Return to step 2 and repeat as many times as
necessary to obtain a good straight line on the log-log plot of versus . Intermeadiate data
points should be given the most weight since values at low (Sw - Swi) and high Sw values might
be questionable. Change the value of 0.25 if necessary.
4. With the theoretical end-point value obtained determine the slope n and plot ( )1/n versus
Sw as shown in Fig.16. This step is an essentially check and data should be in a good straight line.
5. Plot Kro versus on log-log scale as shown in Fig.17 and determine the intercept A.
6. Plot value versus the final determined in step 3 on log-log scale as shown in Fig.18.
Analysis of the plot has two possibilities:
● Data plot on straight line. This is the expected result. Intermediate data points should again
be given the most weight.
● Data do not plot in a good straight line; if satisfied that there is no problem with the data
and good result was obtained, force a straight line through the data point. This failure to
obtain a good straight line can be considered to be caused by laboratory errors in most cases.
Determine the slope m and extrapolate the line to a value of ⫽ 1.0, the intercept value is
Equal to the following:
Eq.22

7. Plot Krw value versus the final on log-log and determine the intercept C as shown in Fig.19.
8. Final check is the C coefficient should equal A ⫻ B.
9. Calculate values for kro and krw over the full saturation range, i.e. from So⫽1-Swi to So⫽Sor, using
the characteristics defined from the previous steps.
IPTC-18132-MS 21

Figure 14 —kro raised to an exponent of 0.25 versus laboratory Sw

Figure 15—Estimation of the slope n

22 IPTC-18132-MS

Figure 16 —Check of the slope n

Figure 17—Estimation of the intercept A

History matching of displacement experiment

Classical analytical techniques, such as JBN, cannot adequately describe fluids displacement occurring
during the unsteady-state experiment. Most of those techniques are based on (Buckley and Leverett 1942)
model and its modification by (Welge 1952). The model neglects both capillary pressure and gravitational
effects and assumes perfectly dispersed flow with no core heterogeneities in its basic derivation. This
means that the classical analytical techniques, cannot account for end effect phenomena and the dispersing
effect of capillary pressure on saturation shock fronts within porous media (Bennion and Thomas 1991).
IPTC-18132-MS 23

Figure 18 —Estimation of the slope m and the intercept B

Figure 19 —Estimation of the intercept C

The crude assumption of neglecting capillary pressure is always wrong, since the range of saturation
obtained during a displacement is always the result of capillary and viscous forces (Lenormand 2006).
(Kokkedee et al. 1996) state “Recent state-of-the-art SCAL measurements at representative wettability
conditions and taking account of both relative permeability and capillary pressure artefacts in the
interpretation, systematically point to lower residual oil saturations for a growing number of reservoirs
all over the world. The reduction in residual oil saturation typically amounts to 10-15 saturation percent
24 IPTC-18132-MS

as compared to old estimates. Crucial is the use of a combination of experimental techniques and the use
of a numerical simulator for history matching the obtained laboratory data”.
Furthermore, the analysis theory is based on fractional flow data which can only predict relative
permeability data after water breakthrough. In strongly water wet rocks, a water displacement results in
an almost piston like flow of water through the core resulting in a very steep and localized region of
fractional flow. This, therefore, results in only a very small cluster of relative permeability data points
being obtained at saturations near the maximum level (Bennion and Thomas 1991). Thus the relative
permeability data at intermediate saturation levels is not defined unless significant extrapolation effort is
considered. (Sigmund and McCaffery 1979) pointed out that those techniques can produce some
anomalies and abnormal shape in relative permeabilities curves due to microscopic heterogeneities within
core samples. (Bennion and Thomas 1991) explained this issue as a result of non-monotonicity in the
resultant fractional flow data, which can often occur in heterogeneous core samples, and since these
techniques are based on the evaluation of derivatives of the fractional flow curves severe deviations in the
computed relative permeability data can occur.
Valid relative permeability data can only be acquired if the interpretational model allows for capil-
larity, viscous instability, wettability dependence, and permeability heterogeneity to be considered.
Displacements yet are often inconsiderately applied. The only way to account for the above mentioned
phenomena is to use numerical simulation.
Numerical simulation of experimental fluid displacement is always referred to as history matching. It
was first proposed by (Archer and Wong 1973). The procedure requires the relative permeability data to
be fitted with representative function and controlled by end points and curvature parameters. The results
of the analytical calculation are used as a first guess. The simulated effluent production and pressure
difference are compared to the experimental values and the difference is quantified by calculating an
objective function. The controlling parameters of relative permeability function are adjusted in order to
minimize the objective function. The adjustment can be made manually or using an automatic optimi-
zation program. The performed history could either use:
1. Relaxed Approach: Simultaneous tuning of parameters that define both functions of relative
permeability input and capillary pressure to match laboratory experiments measurements.
2. Restricted Approach: Tuning of relative permeability function parameters with fixed input capil-
lary pressure.
Based on the quality of the match the best fit curves are obtained for both relative permeability and
capillary pressure. The heterogeneity can be accounted for by adding the absolute permeability distribu-
tion to the history matching variables. The absolute permeability can be populated geostatically and
distribution can be either stochastically or guided by a CT scan for the core.
Below, from Fig.20 to Fig.24, are the results for the history matching process of the unsteady-state
experiment which its relative permeability used previously.
Optimum history matching process requires the following tools:
1. Flexible functional representation of relative permeability.
2. Flexible functional representation of capillary pressure.
3. 1-D flow simulator.
4. Rich objective function estimator for the best fit.
5. Optimization tool with its auxiliaries.
6. Geostatical tool for stochastic property distribution or, more preferably, guided by a CT scan
images.
Although this process looks appealing to account for most of the physical phenomena that can appear
during the displacement, yet it is not without limitations. As any other inverse problem this method will
IPTC-18132-MS 25

Figure 20 —Relative permeability curves from Lab, Refinements, and Simulation

Figure 21—History matching of displacement experiment raw output

suffer from the non-uniqueness. Another drawback is the choice of the functional representation of
relative permeability which limits the possibility of novel shapes for the relative permeability curve-
s(Hussain, Cinar, and Bedrikovetsky 2010).
QC for simulation use
Those who are involved in numerical reservoir simulation can realize the impact of good relative
permeability data on the simulator performance. In many cases, poor simulation convergence may be
26 IPTC-18132-MS

Figure 22—Range of relative permeability curves used for history matching process

Figure 23—Simulation of displacement experiment

caused by relative permeability data issues. In reservoir simulation relative permeabilities are used to
calculate fluid mobility to solve the flow Equations between cells and from cell to well Eq.23. The primary
solution variables in reservoir simulation are pressure and saturations Eq.24. The solution scheme is
formulated in terms of errors associated with each phase in each cell of the reservoir model which is
commonly referred to as residual Eq.23 and Eq.25. The nonlinear system of the residual Equations Eq.24
is solved iteratively with Newton-Raphson method. The solver nonlinear iterations utilize derivatives
(Jacobian Eq.26) to solve for the solution variables (pressure and saturations). Therefore, KINKS, drastic
and/or erratic changes in relative permeability data can greatly affect the derivative of relative perme-
abilities with saturation and disturbed the solution.
IPTC-18132-MS 27

Figure 24 —Saturation profile revealed by simulation of displacement experiment

Figure 25—Water relative permeability

Eq.23

Eq.24

Eq.25

Eq.26

Eq.27
28 IPTC-18132-MS

Figure 26 —Water relative permeability derivative

Figure 27—Residual of water and oil phases o worst converging cell

Figure 28 —Number of non-linear iterations needed for every timestep

Although such issues may not stop the simulation completely, however, they can severely slow down
the simulation performance by shortening the timesteps required for the solution which results in many
solver iterations. In some cases, the solution can be directed to saturation where the iteration will circle
within a residual cycle. In another word, the first iteration has a positive residual value, then negative
residual value, and so on. In this case the simulator may try to alter the saturation changes and chop the
timestep to suppress possible oscillations. Any saturation change alteration made will consequently
increase material balance errors for the subsequent non-linear iteration and therefore reduces the chances
of convergence. In Appendix-A shows a simple mathematical example illustrates the performance of
Newton-Raphson method within a steep slope region.
A synthetic example of oil with water is demonstrated below (Fig.25 and Fig.26) that shows the effect
of relative permeability data on the simulator performance. Although the plot of the water relative
permeability curve may appear reasonably fine, the derivative one is severely disturbed at saturation
values (0.285) and (0.565) respectively.
IPTC-18132-MS 29

Figure 29 —Number of linear iterations needed for every timestep

Figure 30 —Cumulative CPU time consumed throughout the full simulation

When this relative permeability data was in a simulation model, the simulation performance has been
drastically hindered by and the timesteps was chopped more frequently to adapt with those drastic
saturation changes. Fig.27 shows the water and oil residuals for one of the worst converging cells are
shown in. Both residuals are oscillating within the same a residual cycles.
Adjusting relative permeability curves slightly can solve the problem in many cases. The adjustment
should be minimal and in such a way that ensure the slope of the data monotonically increases with
increasing saturations and without sudden sharp changes.
Once the relative permeability data was adjusted to have smooth and monotonic derivative the
simulation performance increased 79% in the CPU time and total number of non-linear iteration dropped
from 1268 to 106 iterations. Fig.28, Fig.29 and Fig.30 show the performance of the simulation model in
terms of non-linear iterations, linear iterations, and cumulative CPU time.
There is another process in reservoir simulation which can insidiously produce steep and a drastic
derivative changes in relative permeability data is the End-Points-Scaling. In some cases, especially when
30 IPTC-18132-MS

it is applied without limits, End-Points-Scaling can squeeze the area between the residual oil saturation
and the maximum water saturation in the table resulting in a very steep and almost near vertical line which
can cause convergence problems. Accordingly, it is recommended to check the output of the End-Points-
Scaling process and confine it with limits if needed.
The intention from this section is to draw the attention of the reservoir engineer to the impact of the
relative permeability data quality on the simulation performance. In summary, KINKS, drastic and/or
erratic changes, and discontinuities should be avoided as much as it is possible in relative permeability
data and their derivatives and should have smooth and monotonic derivatives. Those checks should also
be done for End-Point-Scaling output especially if the process is applied without limits.
Conclusions
Compilation of all contemporary techniques for relative permeability quality check and validation was
presented to provide a reference for reservoir engineers who have an interest in investigating, checking
the quality, and preparing relative permeability data set usable for reservoir simulation process. This part
was made to facilitate the road for the subsequent parts of this topic.

References
Ahmed, Tarek H. 2001. Reservoir engineering handbook. Boston, Gulf Professional Pub. (Reprint).
http://www.knovel.com/knovel2/Toc.jsp?BookID⫽797.
Al-Mossawy, Mohammed Idrees, Birol Demiral. 2011. An Improved Relative Permeability Model to
Match Displacement Experiments (in International Journal of Applied 1(2).
Archer, John S., S.W. Wong. 1973. Use of a Reservoir Simulator To Interpret Laboratory Waterflood
Data (in English). Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal 13(6): 343–347. http://www.onepetro-
.org/mslib/app/Preview.do?paperNumber⫽00003551&societyCode⫽SPE.
Bauget, F, S Gautier, R Lenormand et alet al. 2012. GAS-LIQUID RELATIVE PERMEABILITIES
FROM ONE-STEP AND MULTI-STEP CENTRIFUGE EXPERIMENTS (in.
Behrenbruch, Peter, Hussam Mohammed Goda. 2008. Two-Phase Relative Permeability Prediction:
A Comparison of the Modified Brooks-Corey Methodology with a New Carman-Kozeny Based
Flow Formulation. Proc.
Bennion, D. B., F. B. Thomas. 1991. Recent Improvements in Experimental and Analytical Tech-
niques for the Determination of Relative Permeability Data from Unsteady State Flow Experi-
ments. Proc., Annual Technical Meeting, Port of Spain, Trinidad.
Boom, W., K. Wit, A. M. Schulte et alet al. 1995. Experimental Evidence for Improved Condensate
Mobility at Near-wellbore Flow Conditions. Proc.
Buckley, S. E., M. C. Leverett. 1942. Mechanism of Fluid Displacement in Sands (in English).
http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/app/Preview.do?paperNumber⫽SPE-942107-G&societyCode⫽
SPE.
Chandler, Richard, Joel Koplik, Kenneth Lerman et alet al. 1982. Capillary displacement and
percolation in porous media (in Journal of Fluid Mechanics 119: 249 –267. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1017/S0022112082001335.
Chen, AL, AC Wood. Rate effects on water-oil relative permeability. Vol. 19, 1–12.
Corey, Arthur T. 1954. The interrelation between gas and oil relative permeabilities (in Producers
monthly 19(1): 38 –41.
Dandekar, Abhijit Y. 2013. Petroleum reservoir rock and fluid properties, CRC press (Reprint).
Edwards, JT, MM Honarpour, RD Hazlett et alet al. Validation of gravity-dominated relative
permeability and residual oil saturation in a giant oil reservoir.
Fanchi, John R. 2006. Principles of applied reservoir simulation. Amsterdam, Gulf Professional Pub.
(Reprint). http://www.knovel.com/knovel2/Toc.jsp?BookID⫽2078.
IPTC-18132-MS 31

Fulcher, R. A., Jr., Turgay Ertekin, C. D. Stahl. 1985. Effect of Capillary Number and Its Constituents
on Two-Phase Relative Permeability Curves (in.
Glover, Paul WJ. 2002. Formation evaluation, Université Laval: Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
(Reprint).
Grimstad, AA, K Kolltveit, JE Nordtvedt et alet al. The uniqueness and accuracy of porous media
multiphase properties estimated from displacement experiments. Vol. 9709.
Hagoort, J. 1980. Oil Recovery by Gravity Drainage (in.
Haugen, Jack. Scaling criterion for relative permeability experiments on samples with intermediate
wettability.
Heaviside, John, C.J.J. Black. 1983. Fundamentals of Relative Permeability: Experimental and
Theoretical Considerations. Proc., SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Fran-
cisco, California.
Hirasaki, GJ, JA Rohan, JW Dudley. 1995. Interpretation of oil/water relative permeabilities from
centrifuge displacement (in SPE Advanced Technology Series 3(01): 66 –75.
Honarpour, Mehdi, L. F. Koederitz, A. Herbert Harvey. 1982. Empirical Equations for Estimating
Two-Phase Relative Permeability in Consolidated Rock (in.
Honarpour, MM, F Koederitz, A Herbert. 1986. Relative permeability of petroleum reservoirs (in.
Hussain, Furqan, Yildiray Cinar, Pavel G. Bedrikovetsky. 2010. Comparison of Methods for Drainage
Relative Permeability Estimation From Displacement Tests. Proc.
Ibrahim, M. N. Mohamad, L. F. Koederitz. 2000. Two-Phase Relative Permeability Prediction Using
a Linear Regression Model.
Johnson, E.F., D.P. Bossler, V.O. Naumann. 1959. Calculation of Relative Permeability from
Displacement Experiments. Proc.
Jones, S.C., W.O. Roszelle. 1978. Graphical Techniques for Determining Relative Permeability From
Displacement Experiments (in English). Journal of Petroleum Technology 30(5): 807–817. http://
www.onepetro.org/mslib/app/Preview.do?paperNumber⫽00006045&societyCode⫽SPE.
Kokkedee, JA, W Boom, AM Frens et alet al. Improved special core analysis: scope for a reduced
residual oil saturation. Vol. 9601, 1–13.
Kyte, J. R., L. A. Rapoport. 1958. Linear Waterflood Behavior and End Effects in Water-Wet Porous
Media (in.
Lenormand, R. 2006. Conventional and Special Core Analysis, Application to Reservoir Modeling (in
IFP Institute Français du Pétrole.
Li, K, P Shen, T Qing. 1994. A New Method for Calculating Oil-Water Relative Permeabilities with
Consideration of Capillary Pressure (in.
Maas, Jos. Maas Special Core Analysis Simulation http://www.jgmaas.com/scores/.
Masalmeh, SK. Impact of capillary forces on residual oil saturation and flooding experiments for
mixed to oil-wet carbonate reservoirs. 27–30.
McPhee, C. A., K. G. Arthur. 1994. Relative Permeability Measurements: An Inter-Laboratory
Comparison. Proc.
McPhee, Colin. 2007. Core Analysis Training Course, Senergy Ltd (Reprint).
Mitlin, V. S., B. D. Lawton, J. D. McLennan et alet al. 1998. Improved Estimation of Relative
Permeability from Displacement Experiments. Proc.
Mohanty, K.K., A.E. Miller. 1991. Factors Influencing Unsteady Relative Permeability of a Mixed-
Wet Reservoir Rock (in English). SPE Formation Evaluation 6(3): 349 –358. http://www.
onepetro.org/mslib/app/Preview.do?paperNumber⫽00018292&societyCode⫽SPE.
Mohanty, Kishore K. 2002. IMPACT OF CAPILLARY AND BOND NUMBERS ON RELATIVE
PERMEABILITY. Other Information: PBD: 30 Sep 2002.
32 IPTC-18132-MS

Odeh, A.S., B.J. Dotson. 1985. A Method for Reducing the Rate Effect on Oil and Water Relative
Permeabilities Calculated From Dynamic Displacement Data (in English). Journal of Petroleum
Technology 37(11): 2051–2058. http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/app/Preview.do?paperNumber⫽
00014417&societyCode⫽SPE.
Osoba, J. S., J. G. Richardson, J. K. Kerver et alet al. 1951. Laboratory Measurements of Relative
Permeability (in.
Pirson, SJ. 1958. Petrophysics: Oil Reservoir Engineering. (2nd ed). New York, USA: McGraw-Hill
Book Co., Inc (Reprint).
Qadeer, Suhail, William E. Brigham, Louis M. Castanier. 2002. Techniques to Handle Limitations in
Dynamic Relative Permeability Measurements. SUPRI TR, Stanford University. Dept. of Petro-
leum Engineering.
Rapoport, L. A. 1955. Scaling Laws for Use in Design and Operation of Water-Oil Flow Models,
Society of Petroleum Engineers (Reprint).
Rapoport, L.A., W.J. Leas. 1953. Properties of Linear Waterfloods (in English). Journal of Petroleum
Technology 5: 139 –148.
Sigmund, P.M., F.G. McCaffery. 1979. An Improved Unsteady-State Procedure for Determining the
Relative-Permeability Characteristics of Heterogeneous Porous Media (includes associated papers
8028 and 8777) (in English). Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal 19(1): 15–28. http://
www.onepetro.org/mslib/app/Preview.do?paperNumber⫽00006720&societyCode⫽SPE.
Skauge, A, T Thorsen, MG Aarra. 1997. Accuracy of gas-oil relative permeability from two-phase
flow experiments (in.
Skauge, Arne, Trond Thorsen, Andre Sylte. Rate selection for waterflooding of intermediate wet
cores. 17–19.
Stiles, Jess. 2013. Using Special Core Analysis in Reservoir Engineering. Imperial College London,
Imperial College London (Reprint).
Timmerman, EH. 1982. Practical reservoir engineering, PennWell Corporation (Reprint).
Torcaso, Michael A., M. R. J. Wyllie. 1958. A Comparison of Calculated krg/kro Ratios With a
Correlation of Field Data (in.
Toth, Janos, Tibor Bodi, Peter Szucs et alet al. 1998. Practical Method for Analysis of Immiscible
Displacement in Laboratory Core Tests (in English). Transport in Porous Media 31(3): 347–363.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A%3A1006570117639.
Toth, Janos, Tibor Bodi, Peter Szucs et alet al. 2001. Direct Determination of Relative Permeability
from Nonsteady-State Constant Pressure and Rate Displacements. Proc.
Trewin, B, S Morrison. 1993. Reconciliation of core and log residual oil saturation through
application of in situ saturation monitoring (in.
Welge, H. J. 1952. A Simplified Method for Computing Oil Recovery by Gas or Water Drive (in
English). http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/app/Preview.do?paperNumber⫽SPE-000124-
G&societyCode⫽SPE.
Wyllie, M.R.J., G.H.F. Gardner. 1958. The Generalized Kozeny-Carmen Equation-Its Application to
Problems of Multi-Phase Flow in Porous Media (in World Oil 146 (121).
IPTC-18132-MS 33

Appendix-A
A simple mathematical example which clearly demonstrates the performance of Newton-Raphson method is the Error
Function. If the error function is solved with Newton-Raphson method to find the solution that makes (y⫽0) starting with initial
condition of (xo⫽ 0.996) and convergence tolerance of (0.001) the run will fail after five iterations Fig.31. In the first four
iterations will be cycling around the solution (y⫽0) but cannot get it due to the sharp slope at that region.

Figure 31—Newton-Raphson method performance with the Error Function