SPE 63147
Comparison of Reservoir Simulation Hysteresis Options
C. A. Kossack, Schlumberger Holditch-Reservoir Technologies
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, 1–4 October 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program 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 Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
An understanding of drainage and imbibition processes, three
phase flow models, hysteresis in relative permeabilities and
capillary pressure, and scanning curves is vital to the proper
use of modern reservoir simulators. Several choices are
available to the engineer for the three-phase model, for the
hysteresis model, and for the treatment of the wetting phase
during hysteresis. The combinations of parameters/models
generated by these choices give the engineer a puzzling array
of options. Unless one has studied hysteresis and simulated
the various cases, it is difficult to know which combination is
appropriate for their reservoir.
This paper discusses the models available for hysteresis in
water-wet systems and the interaction of these models with the
standard three phase relative permeability and capillary
pressure models. Simulations are run with various
combinations of models and the resulting scanning curves are
plotted along with the drainage and imbibition bounding
curves. One can see the differences between model
combinations. A WAG injection into a linear reservoir is
simulated for each combination of options. The oil, gas, and
water production rates and oil recovery are compared.
Requirements to obtain proper scanning curves are provided.
Experiments are recommended to help the engineer choose the
appropriate combination of models for his/her reservoir.
Introduction
Numerical simulation of secondary and tertiary recovery
processes is a key to the prediction of incremental oil
recovery. To simulate such displacements, hysteresis in the
relative permeability and the capillary pressure should be
properly used in the simulator. The correct usage and
understanding of drainage and imbibition curves, scanning
curves and the options available to the reservoir simulation
engineer are not compiled previously in published literature.
When hysteresis occurs in a porous media, the relative
permeability and capillary pressure values in the rock are the
drainage, imbibition or intermediate values. A mathematical
model as described by Killough1, Carlson2 or Skauge3 must
calculate the latter. In general the hysteresis model is applied
to the non-wetting phase. A choice exists for the wetting
phase: one can use the drainage curves or imbibition curves, or
apply hysteresis. Each of the three models, combined with the
choice in the treatment of the wetting curve, gives different
relative permeabilities and capillary at given phase saturations.
The laboratory measurement of drainage and imbibition
relative permeability and capillary pressure curves sometimes
gives results that are not consistent, that is, do not have the
proper orientation and end points that will allow the proper
calculation of scanning curves by the three mathematical
models. If these curves are used in simulators with hysteresis
models (Killough1, Carlson2, or Land4 and Carlson2) the
resulting calculated relative permeabilities and/or capillary
pressures will most likely be in error. Thus, one must process
these curves before they are used in a numerical simulation.
In a displacement with three phases present, the choice of
three-phase model (Stone I5, Stone II6 or Cheshire7) combined
with the choice of the hysteresis model give different relative
permeabilities for the same values of phase saturations. This
is especially evident in a WAG (Water Altering Gas)
displacement.
This paper gives an up to date analysis of numerical
simulation of hysteresis phenomenon. Properly oriented
bounding drainage and imbibition relative permeability and
capillary pressure curves for water-wet systems are provided
as a guide to process improperly oriented curves. The
scanning curves from various displacement situations using
many combinations of hysteresis model and three phase
models are shown.
2 C. A. KOSSACK
A WAG displacement is simulated with several combinations
of hysteresis models and wetting phase options for water-wet
systems. A comparison of the results from the WAG
displacements shows a factor of two difference in the oil
recovery in the water-wet system.
Recommendations are given of how to properly use the
options and choices in a hysteresis simulation. Laboratory
experiments are suggested in order to determine the correct
hysteresis option for the reservoir of interest.
Hysteresis in oil-wet systems will be discussed in a later
publication.
Hysteresis Models
In a simple displacement where fluid saturations start at their
connate saturation and saturation always increases, the relative
permeability and capillary pressure values of the fluid are
found on the drainage or imbibition bounding curves.
Hysteresis models were developed for the cases when the
initial fluid saturation is not an end point value or when a
phase saturation increases and then decreases, or vise versa.
Killough1 and Carlson2 published mathematical techniques for
calculating the scanning curves. Both techniques are
extensively used in the industry.
Carlson’s method produces a scanning curve that is parallel to
the imbibition curve. One can simply shift the imbibition
curve horizontally until it cuts the drainage curve at the
saturation Shy, see Figure 1. The imbibition curve must be
steeper than the drainage curve at all values of kr. Failure to
do this can result in a scanning curve that will cross to the
right of the drainage curve and may produce a negative value
of Sncrt.
Killough’s method does not have a simple geometric
interpretation. The equations show that Sncrt will always lie
between Sncrd and Sncri.
Occasionally users use the same curve for both the primary
imbibition and primary drainage curve. One should be aware
that with Killough’s method, in this situation, the scanning
curves will not necessarily follow this coincidental curve,
except at its end points. Thus, the relative permeabilities may
not be what one would expect.
Jargon8 (Marathon) has introduced a modification to
Killough’s method that overcomes the inconsistent scanning
curves.
In the case of a WAG (Water Alternating Gas) injection,
Larsen and Skauge3 have developed a three phase hysteresis
model that calculates a relative permeability of a phase that is
dependent on the history of the third phase in addition to its
(the phase’s) saturation and history. This theory follows the
observation that the gas relative permeability is higher when
displacing pure oil that when displacing a water-oil mixture
SPE 63147
following a water flood. The non-wetting phase hysteresis
model is based on the theory developed by Land4 and
Carlson2. This method is often called the WAG Hysteresis
Model. The net effects of this model is that the relative
permeability of the non-wetting gas phase and of the wetting
water phase, decrease with each cycle of the WAG injection
process.
Additional description and the mathematical details of these
hysteresis models are available in the original publications or
the ECLIPSE E100 and E300 Technical Descriptions.7, 8
The Killough, Carlson, and WAG Hysteresis models will be
discussed in the remainder of this paper.
Laboratory experiments show that the hysteresis model should
be applied to the non-wetting phase(s). This situation leaves a
choice of which curves (imbibition or drainage) to be used for
the relative permeabilities of the wetting phase (water in a
water-wet system). Or hysteresis could be also applied to the
wetting phase. Thus, after choosing to use the Killough or
Carlson hysteresis model, one then must decide how to handle
the wetting phase.
This situation yields five options, called “type”, as specified in
Table 1.
Table 1 Model and Wetting Phase Choices: Water-Wet
Systems
Type Model Curve used for the
wetting (water) phase
0 Carlson drainage curve
1 Carlson imbibition curve
2 Killough drainage curve
3 Killough imbibition curve
4 Killough hysteresis
The effects of the choice of these types on scanning curves
and oil recoveries from a WAG displacement will be seen in
following sections.
Two additional type possibilities exist: (1) no hysteresis and
(2) equilibrate with the drainage curve and simulated with the
imbibition curve. This last case we shall label “type” = -1.
Three Phase Oil Relative Permeability Models
To calculate the oil relative permeability in the presence of gas
and water phases requires the choice of a three-phase model.
The industry standard for this calculation are Stone’s5 first
model, Stone’s6 second model, or the Cheshire7 model, which
is the default in Eclipse7. Each of these models gives different
scanning curves as saturations change. Examples will follow
in a later section.
SPE 63147 COMPARISON OF RESERVOIR SIMULATION HYSTERESIS OPTIONS
Imbibition and Drainage Bounding Curves
To use the Killough, Carlson, or WAG Hysteresis models, one
initially needs properly defined imbibition and drainage
curves. That is, the end points of the curves must be
consistent and the orientation of the curves with respect to
each other must be correct. If the end points or the orientation
of the curve are not correct, then the calculated scanning
curves most likely will be incorrect and the simulator will
assign incorrect relative permeabilities to the phases. An
example of incorrect scanning curves will be shown in a
following section.
Figures 2 through 5 give examples of valid relative
permeabilities and capillary pressures for a water-wet rock.
The drainage and imbibition curves and the saturation change
direction where the curve is employed are noted on the
figures. The difference between the drainage and imbibition
curves is accentuated to aid the observations of the scanning
curves.
Two key features of the bounding imbibition and drainage
curves will assure that the scanning curves are correctly
calculated. One, the relative orientation of the curves must
follow the curves provided. For example, in Figure 2, the
drainage krowd curve must be above the imbibition krowi curve
(at a given saturation the drainage krowd value must be higher
than the imbibition krowi value.) Also one observes that the
krwi imbibition curve is above than the krwd drainage curve.
Two, the end points of the curves must coincide. For
example, in Figure 2, at the saturation Sw = 0.2 the imbibition
and drainage krow end points must meet. The same applies for
the krwi and krwd curves and at the Sw = 1.0 end point. A
guideline that will assure good scanning curves is that the
envelope formed by the imbibition and drainage curves should
be closed (a closed loop).
Description of the Simulation Models Used to Create
Scanning Curves
To create scanning curves for the various models a linear,
horizontal reservoir with 13 grid blocks was chosen, see
Figure 6. Fluids were injected in the right hand side grid
block and produced from the left-hand side grid block. When
the capillary pressure or phase relative permeability in a grid
block is plotted vs. the phase saturation in that block during
the displacement, the resulting curve reproduces one of the
bounding curves or shows a scanning curve.
For the three-phase water-wet system, it was necessary to
simulate the injection of water, oil, and gas (separately) into
reservoirs with different initial conditions to display all of the
scanning curves with the various hysteresis options. The two
initial reservoir conditions are as follows:
CASE 1: No initial gas saturation, water saturation
varying from 0.2 to 0.8, oil saturation varying from
0.8 to 0.2. See Figure 6.
3
CASE 2: Initial water saturation = 0.2, oil saturation
varying from 0.2 to 0.8, gas saturation varying from
0.6 to 0.0. See Figure 7.
Given the initial saturation distribution and the three injection
fluids (water, oil, and gas), on some occasions several of the
grid blocks initially experienced an imbibition process, and
then drainage or vise versa. This created scanning curves that
go up then down or loop. A detailed analysis of the
displacements is required to fully understand the figures
provided in later sections.
The combination of: (1) 2 cases; (2) water injection, oil
injection, and gas injection; (3) the hysteresis options: no
hysteresis, “type” = -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4; and (4) the 5 plots for
each case (Pcow, Pcgo, krw, krg, kro) created a large number of
figures. In some cases the STONE 1 and STONE 2 three
phase models were used to see their effect on the scanning
curves. In the discussions that follow, only a few key figures
will be presented.
Since one of the main uses of the hysteresis options is for
WAG injection, the scanning curves are of interest during a
WAG injection. To observe the scanning curves a four grid
block reservoir was created with an initial connate water
saturation (Sw = 0.2) and So = 0.8. Five WAG cycles of
injection starting with water injection were simulated. All
“type” parameters were investigated and the WAG Hysteresis
model was also used. Also in some cases the STONE 1 and
STONE 2 three phase models were used to see their effect on
the scanning curves. In all cases the initial oil saturation was
calculated by So = 1 - Sw - Sg.
Reference 9 gives a detailed description of all of the results of
the analysis of hysteresis options in both a water-wet and an
oil-wet system and the Eclipse data sets to generate the
scanning curves.
Scanning Curves in a Water-Wet System
Many cases were simulated in the study. The following are
examples of some of the scanning curves created.
• Figure 8, Pcow, Case 1 reservoir with water injection –
Carlson hysteresis (“type” = 0). Note the Pc curves start
at various points along the drainage curve and form
scanning curves (or the two bounding curves) as the water
saturation increases (imbibition).
• Figure 9, krw, Case 1 with water injection – Killough
hysteresis (“type” = 4). Note the krw curves are created
similarly to the Pc curves of Figure 8.
• Figure 10, krg, Case 2 with water injection – Carlson
hysteresis (“type” = 0). Note the krg curves are created
similarly to the Pc curves of Figure 8.
• Figure 11, kro, Case 1 with oil injection – Killough
hysteresis (“type” = 4), Eclipse default three phase model.
Viewing the oil relative permeability is more complicated
4 C. A. KOSSACK
since two sets of bounding curves are involved – krog and
krow (imbibition and drainage). Two plots are given in
Figure 11. The left hand plot shows the kro scanning
curves plotted with the krog bounding curves vs. the
saturation of oil. The right hand plot gives a mirror image
of the same scanning curves (see line of symmetry
between the plots) and the bounding curves for krow vs.
the inverted saturation of oil. For the scanning curves to
be correct they must be inside of either the envelope
created by the krog bounding curves or the envelope
created by the krow bounding curves. The case presented
contains valid scanning curves.
Observing the difference in the scanning curves generated by
Killough or Carlson models is difficult with these plots. The
differences between the Killough and Carlson hysteresis
models are most easily observed from a WAG displacement
and will be shown in a later section.
Invalid Scanning Curves Example
Figure 12 show an example of incorrect scanning curves and
what can happen if the bounding curves do not follow the
rules stated above. As one can observe, some calculated kro
values are much too high and outside both envelopes. These
scanning curves were created from a situation where the
bounding curve end points did not coincide. The krg
imbibition table ended at a Sg value of 0.42 while the krg
drainage table ended at a Sg of 0.0. Thus, the krg loop was not
closed. When one adds one additional point to the krg
imbibition table of krg = 0 at Sg = 0 the resulting scanning
curves are shown in Figure 13. These curves are correct.
Comparison of Scanning Curves for Different Three
Phase Models
The choice of the three-phase model makes a significant
difference in the kro scanning curves. Figures 14, 15 and 16
show this difference. The reservoir is Case 1 with gas
injection using Killough (“type” = 4) hysteresis. When gas is
injected into this reservoir where initially Sg = 0, the oil
saturation in the grid blocks initially decreases. Some of the
grid blocks away from the injector experience an increase in
the oil saturation as an oil bank passes by. Then the oil
saturation decreases to its residual value. This process creates
the interesting loop shape in the scanning curves.
Figure 14 gives the result from the Cheshire7 model (default
Eclipse). Figures 15 and 16 gives the results when Stone I5
and Stone II6 models is used, respectively. A comparison
shows that the Stone models calculate a much lower oil
relative permeability. Also some of the scanning curves for
low oil saturations are outside of the bounding curve’s
envelope for both Stone I and II. These kro values are not
correct. One must consider these results when choosing a
three-phase model.
SPE 63147
WAG Hysteresis Model Results
Test of the WAG Hysteresis model demonstrate the
differences in the scanning curves generated with the WAG
Hysteresis model and the standard Killough or Carlson
hysteresis model.
A Case 1 reservoir was subjected to gas injection with the
WAG Hysteresis model activated using input values of the
Land’s parameter = 2.0 and the secondary drainage reduction
factor7 α = 1.0. The krg reduction factor (for each cycle in the
WAG) is given by:
α
S 
 wconnate 
 S start 
 w 
An example of the resulting scanning curves is shown in
Figure 17. Here the krg values are lower than the initial
drainage curve and independent of any input imbibition curve
as described Larsen and Skauge.3
Since the WAG Hysteresis model is designed for Water-
Alternating-Gas injections a 4 grid block linear, horizontal
reservoir was created and initialized with Sw = 0.2 and So =
0.8. Five WAG injection cycles (starting with water) were
simulated with the WAG Hysteresis model and Killough
hysteresis (“type” = 4) for the oil phase.
The interesting comparison is the krg scanning calculated with
the Killough or Carlson model and with the WAG Hysteresis
model. Figure 18 shows the krg values in 3 of the four grid
blocks (the black curve is from the grid block closest to the
injector, green next, and red furthest) as the WAG injection is
simulated. With the standard hysteresis model the krg does not
decrease. Figure 19 shows the krg values when the WAG
hysteresis model is used. Here the krg values are substantially
lower as the WAG cycles are simulated. In this process the
gas mobility is much lower. Many additional results are
available in the full report.9
Results From a WAG Injection in a Linear Reservoir
To show the effect of the various hysteresis options, a WAG
injection was simulated into the 13 grid block linear,
horizontal reservoir with the initial Sw = 0.2 and So = 0.8 in all
grid blocks. Five WAG cycles were simulated starting with
30 days of water injection followed by 30 days of gas
injection. A total of 0.70 pore volumes were injected in the
five cycles. Eight cases were simulated with the only change
being the hysteresis option:
1. Hysteresis OFF (drainage curves is used for all)
2. Type = -1 (Equilibrate drainage, Sim. with imbibition)
3. Type = 0 (Carlson, wetting phase uses drainage)
4. Type = 1 (Carlson, wetting phase uses imbibition)
SPE 63147 COMPARISON OF RESERVOIR SIMULATION HYSTERESIS OPTIONS
5. Type = 2 (Killough, wetting phase uses drainage)
6. Type = 3 (Killough, wetting phase uses imbibition)
7. Type = 4 (Killough, all phases hysteresis)
8. WAG Hysteresis (oil phase type = 4)
The oil production rates, Figure 20, show a large variation
from effect of the hysteresis models. The cumulative oil
produced, Figure 21, shows nearly a factor of 2 in the oil
recovery. It is interesting to note that hysteresis “OFF”
recovers the most oil in the 500-day simulation. The two
Carlson cases (types 0 and 1) recover the smallest amount of
oil. Type = -1 has a low initial oil rate and recovers more oil
at the end of the simulation. Type = -1 is not a normal way to
simulate since the relative permeabilities and capillary
pressures have discontinuous changes in the transition zone as
the simulation starts and no hysteresis is used.
Figure 22 gives the gas production rate from the reservoir for
the eight cases. The Carlson hysteresis cases (type = 0 and 1)
breakthrough gas first at about 125 days. The Killough
hysteresis cases (type = 2, 3, and 4) breakthrough later at
about 200 days. With type = 2 the gas production stops at
about 350 days and the breaks through again at 450 days. The
WAG Hysteresis case breaks through gas last (except for type
= -1). This was expected since the WAG Hysteresis model
reduces the gas relative permeability with each cycle of the
WAG injection.
Figure 23 gives the water production rate from the reservoir.
There is a difference in breakthrough times of 250 days out of
500 days between these cases. The key is what relative
permeability curve is assigned to the water phase. Hysteresis
types 1, 3, and 4 use the krw imbibition curve for the water
phase. In these cases breakthrough occurs first since the
imbibition krw values are much higher that the drainage ones.
Hysteresis types 0 and 2 and the OFF case have a water
breakthrough that is late since they use the drainage krw
values, which are low.
Recommendations: How to Choose the Correct
Hysteresis Option
The large variation in the results between the different cases in
the WAG injection highlights the effect of the various
hysteresis models and options on displacements. As a
simulation/reservoir engineer, one would hope to use the
model that most closely represents the rock-fluid interaction in
the field of interest. This information is not easy to obtain
since standard special core analysis does not provide this. The
following recommendation will help engineers determine
which “type” parameter should be used in simulations of their
field:
1. When history matching a WAG displacement the
sensitivity of the results to the “type” of hysteresis model
should be made when no information is available to
specify choice of the hysteresis model. As seen in the
WAG simulation in the linear reservoir, the choice of
“type” has a significant effect on oil production and water
5
and/or gas breakthrough times. A sensitivity study to the
“type” parameter would show which model would
provide the best match of the history.
2. For prediction simulations of WAG displacements in the
absence of experimental results to define the hysteresis
model, sensitivity simulations should be run varying the
“type” parameter so that the effect can be quantified.
3. To determine the proper hysteresis model for the reservoir
being evaluated, long core displacements using WAG
injections should be run in the laboratory. Approximately
one pore volume should be injected in 5 or 6 cycles. The
experiment should then be simulated and history matched
to determine the appropriate hysteresis model.
Conclusions
1. Properly oriented imbibition and drainage curves for
water-wet systems are provided as a guide for simulation
engineers.
2. A technique for showing scanning curves for the various
hysteresis models is given. Example scanning curves are
calculated and plotted for various hysteresis models and
various three-phase models.
3. The scanning curves for the WAG Hysteresis model3 are
shown.
4. The results of a WAG displacement are compared for all
the water-wet hysteresis options. Substantial differences
in the results are observed and explained.
5. Recommendations to aid the simulation engineer’s choice
of hysteresis options are given.
6. A complete discussion of this topic and the Eclipse data
sets to generate the scanning curves are available from the
author.9
References
1. Killough, J. E.: ”Reservoir Simulation with History-
Dependent Saturation Functions,” Trans. AIME 261,
Page 37-48, 1976.
2. Carlson, F. M.: “Simulation of Relative Permeability
Hysteresis to the Non-Wetting Phase,” SPE 10157, San
Antonio, 1981.
3. Larsen, J. A. and Skauge, A.: “Methodology for
Numerical simulation with Cycle-dependent Relative
Permeabilities,” submitted to SPEJ.
4. Land, C. E.: “Calculation of Imbibition Relative
Permeability for Two- and Three-Phase Flow from Rock
Properties,” Soc. Pet. Eng. J., page 149-156, June 1968.
5. Stone, H.: Trans AIME, 249, page 214-218, 1970.
6. Stone, H.: Can Pet. Tech., 12, page 53-61, 1973.
7. ECLIPSE 100 Technical Description, Schlumberger
GeoQuest, 1999.
8. ECLIPSE 300 Technical Description, Schlumberger
GeoQuest, 1999.
9. Kossack, C. A.: “ECLIPSE Users How to Guide for
Hysteresis: The Effect of Hysteresis Options in Eclipse”,
Schlumberger Holditch-Reservoir Technologies
Publication, Denver, 1999.
6 C. A. KOSSACK SPE 63147

Acknowledgement
The author thanks Schlumberger Holditch-Reservoir
Technologies for permission to participate in preparation and
publication of the paper.

Nomenclature Shy saturation where scanning curve cuts drainage curve

α secondary drainage reduction factor Sncri imbibition end point saturation non-wetting phase
krg gas relative permeability Sncrd drainage end point saturation non-wetting phase
kro oil relative permeability Sncrt scanning curve end point saturation non-wetting
krow oil in water relative permeability phase
krowd drainage oil in water relative permeability Sg gas saturation
krowi imbibition oil in water relative permeability So oil saturation
krw water relative permeability Sw water saturation
krwd drainage water relative permeability Swconnate connate water saturation
krwi imbibition water relative permeability Swstart initial water saturation in WAG process
Pcow oil-water capillary pressure
Pcgo gas-oil capillary pressure

Figure 1. Drainage Curve, Imbibition Curve, Scanning Curve

and End Points

Figure 2. Water-Wet Drainage and Imbibition Water Relative

Permeability and Oil in Water Relative Permeability Curves
SPE 63147 COMPARISON OF RESERVOIR SIMULATION HYSTERESIS OPTIONS 7

Figure 3. Water-Wet Drainage and Imbibition Water-Oil

Capillary Pressure Curves

Figure 4. Water-Wet Drainage and Imbibition Gas Relative

Permeability and Oil in Gas Relative Permeability Curves

Figure 5. Water-Wet Drainage and Imbibition Gas-Oil

Capillary Pressure Curves
8 C. A. KOSSACK SPE 63147

Figure 6. Case 1 Numerical Grid for Creating Scanning

Curves

Figure 7. Case 2 Numerical Grid for Creating Scanning Figure 10. Reservoir Case 2 with Water Injection, Carlson
Curves Hysteresis (“type”=0) Scanning Curves for Gas Relative
Permeability

Figure 8. Reservoir Case 1 with Water Injection, Capillary

Pressure Hysteresis Scanning Curves Figure 11. Reservoir Case 1 with Oil Injection, Killough
Hysteresis Model (“type”=4) Scanning Curves for Oil Relative
Permeability

Figure 9. Reservoir Case 1 with Water Injection, Killough

Hysteresis Model (“type”=4) Scanning Curves for Water
Relative Permeability
Figure 12. Bad Scanning Curves Caused by End Point
Inconsistency
SPE 63147 COMPARISON OF RESERVOIR SIMULATION HYSTERESIS OPTIONS 9

Figure 13. Corrected Scanning Curves by the Addition of One Figure 16. Reservoir Case 1 with Gas Injection, Killough
Point to Tables to Create a Loop with the Bounding Curves Hysteresis Model (“type”=4) kro Scanning Curves with Stone
II Three Phase Model

Figure 14. Reservoir Case 1 with Gas Injection, Killough

Hysteresis Model (“type”=4) kro Scanning Curves with Figure 17. Reservoir Case 1 with Gas Injection, WAG
Cheshire Three Phase Model Hysteresis Model Scanning Curves for Gas Relative
Permeability

Figure 15. Reservoir Case 1 with Gas Injection, Killough

Hysteresis Model (“type”=4) kro Scanning Curves with Stone I
Three Phase Model Figure 18. Four Grid Block Reservoir with 5 Cycle WAG
Injection, Killough Hysteresis Model (“type”=4) Scanning
Curves for Gas Relative Permeability
10 C. A. KOSSACK SPE 63147

Figure 19. Four Grid Block Reservoir with 5 Cycle WAG Figure 22. Gas Production Rate from Eight Simulation Cases
Injection, WAG Hysteresis Model Scanning Curves for Gas Using Different Hysteresis Models – 13 Grid Block Linear
Relative Permeability Reservoir with WAG Injection

Figure 20. Oil Production Rate from Eight Simulation Cases Figure 23. Water Production Rate from Eight Simulation
Using Different Hysteresis Models – 13 Grid Block Linear Cases Using Different Hysteresis Models – 13 Grid Block
Reservoir with WAG Injection Linear Reservoir with WAG Injection

Figure 21. Oil Production Totals from Eight Simulation Cases

Using Different Hysteresis Models – 13 Grid Block Linear
Reservoir with WAG Injection