Module 8 Relative Permeability

Module 8:
Relative Permeability
Synopsis
What is water-oil relative permeability and why does it matter?
endpoints and curves, fractional flow, what curve shapes mean
Understand the jargon (and impress reservoir engineers)

Wettability
water-wet, oil-wet and intermediate
How do we measure it (in the lab)?

How do we quality control and refine data?
Page 2
Applications
To predict movement of fluid in the reservoir
e.g velocity of water and oil fronts
To predict and bound ultimate recovery factor

Application depends on reservoir type
gas-oil
water-oil
gas-water
Page 3
Definitions
Absolute Permeability
permeability at 100% saturation of single fluid
e.g. brine permeability, gas permeability
Effective Permeability
permeability to one phase when 2 or more phases present
e.g. ko(eff) at Swi
ratio of effective permeability to a base (often absolute)
permeability
e.g. ko/ka or ko/ko at Swi
Page 4
Requirements
Gas-Oil Relative Permeability (kg-ko)
solution gas drive
gas cap drive
Water-Oil Relative Permeability(kw-ko)

water injection
Water - Gas Relative Permeability (kw-kg)

aquifer influx into gas reservoir
Gas-Water Relative Permeability (kg-kw)

gas storage (gas re-injection into gas reservoir)
Page 5
Jargon Buster!
Relative permeability curves are known as rel perms
Endpoints are the (4) points at the ends of the curves
The displacing phase is always first, i.e.:
kw-ko is water(w) displacing oil (o)
kg-ko is gas (g) displacing oil (o)
kg-kw is gas displacing water
Page 6
Why shape is important

Measure air permeability
ka = 100 mD
Saturate core in water (brine)

Desaturate to Swir
Swir = 0.20 (20%
Swirr
Centrifuge or porous plate

Measure oil permeability ko @ Swir endpoint
Ko = 80 mD
Waterflood collect water volume
Sro = 0.25
Measure water permeability kw @Sro endpoint

Kw = 24 mD
Oil = Sro
Sw = 1-Sro
Swr = 1-0.25 = 0.75
Page 7
So = 1-Swir
Endpoints
Relative Permeability (-)
1.0
0.9
Endpoint- oil
0.8
kro = ko/ko @ Swir
0.7
= 80/80
0.6
=1
Swir = 0.20
Sro = 0.25
0.5
0.4
Endpoint - water
0.3
krw = kw/ko @ Swir
0.2
= 24/80
0.1
= 0.30
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Water Saturation (-)
Page 8
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Endpoints
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Swir = 0.20
Sro = 0.25
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Page 9
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Curves - 1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Swir = 0.20
Sro = 0.25
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Page 10
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Curves - 2
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Swir = 0.20
Sro = 0.25
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Page 11
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Curves - 3
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Swir = 0.20
Sro = 0.25
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Page 12
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1
Non-linear function of Swet
0.9
Competing forces
0.8
0.7
minimised in lab tests

e.g. water injected from bottom to top
viscous forces
Darcys Law
gravity forces
0.6
kro
0.5
krw
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
capillary forces
0
0
low flood rates

Page 13
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Relative Permeability Curves Key Features

Water-Oil Curves
irreducible water saturation (Swir) endpoint
kro = 1.0
krw = 0.0
residual oil saturation (Sro) endpoint

kro = 0.0
krw = maximum
relative permeability curve shape
Page 14
Unsteady-state
Buckley-Leverett, Welge, JBN
Steady-state
Darcy
Corey exponents:
No and Nw
Waterflood Interpretation
fw=1
Welge
fw only after BT
Average Saturation
behind flood front
Swf , fw | S
wf
fw
Sw at BT
fw =
Page 15
1 +
k ro
.
k rw
w
o
Swc
Sw
1-Sor
Relative Permeability Interpretation

Welge/Buckley-Leverett fraction flow
gives ratio: kro/krw
fw =
k ro
1 +
.
k rw
k rw o
.
M=
k ro w
w
o
M< 1: piston-like
M > 1: unstable
Decouple kro and krw from kro/krw

JBN, Jones and Roszelle, etc
Page 16
JBN Method Outline

Johnson, Bossler, Nauman (JBN)
Based on Buckley-Leverett/Welge
fw =
k ro w
1+
.
k rw o
W = PV water injected
Swa = average (plug) Sw
fw2 = 1-fo2
pt =0
Ir =
pt =i
Page 17
dS wa
= fo2
dW
1
)
f
WI r
= o2
1
k ro 2
d(
)
W
d(
Injectivity Ratio
Waterflood rate, q
Buckley Leverett Assumptions

Fluids are immiscible
Fluids are incompressible
Flow is linear (1 Dimensional)
Flow is uni-directional
Porous medium is homogeneous
Capillary effects are negligible
Most are not met in most core floods
Page 18
Capillary End Effect

If viscous force large (high rate)
Pc effects negligible
If viscous force small (low rate)

Pc effects dominate flood behaviour
Leverett
capillary boundary effects on short cores
boundary effects negligible in reservoir
Page 19
End Effect
Pressure Trace for Flood

zero p (no injection)
start of injection
water nears exit
p increases abruptly until

Sw(exit) = 1-Sro and Pc nears
zero
suppresses krw
BT
Sw(exit) = 1-Sro, Pc ~0
After BT
Page 20
rate of p increase reduces

as krw increases
Scaling Coefficient
Breakthrough Recovery
(Rappaport & Leas)
Affected by Pc end effects
At lengths > 25 cm
Little effect on BT recovery
(LVw > 1)
Hence composite samples
or high rates
Page 21
Capillary End Effects

Rapaport and Leas Scaling Coefficient
LVw > 1(cm2/min.cp) : minimal end effect
Overcome by:
flooding at high rate
300 ml/hour +
using longer cores

difficult for reservoir core (limited by core geometry)
butt several cores together
using capillary mixing sections

end-point saturations only in USS tests (weigh sample)
Page 22
Composite Core Plug
Capillary end effects adsorbed by Cores 1 and 4
Page 23
Corey Exponents Water/Oil Systems

Define relative permeability curve shapes
Based on normalised saturations
No guarantee that real rock curves obey Corey
krw = krw(Swn)Nw
kro = SonNo
krw = end-point krw
1 S w Sro
Son =
= 1 S wn
1 S wi Sro
S wn
Page 24
S w S wi
=
1 S wi S ro
Normalisation
Swn = 1
1
0.9
Water Relative Permeability (-)
0.8
0.7
krw at Sro
krwn = 1
0.6
Sample 1
0.5
Sample 2
0.4
0.3
krwn = 1
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Page 25
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Corey Exponents
Depend on wettability
Wettability
No (kro)
Nw (krw)
Water-Wet
2 to 4
5 to 8
Intermediate Wet
3 to 6
3 to 5
Oil-Wet
6 to 8
2 to 3
Uses:
interpolate & extrapolate data
lab data quality control
Page 26
Gas-Oil Relative Permeability

Pore-Scale Saturation Distribution
Test performed at Swir
Gas is non wetting

takes easiest flow path
kro drops rapidly as Sg
increases
krg higher than krw
Srog > Srow in lab tests
end effects
Srog < Srow in field

Page 27
Sgc ~ 2% - 6%
Typical Gas-Oil Curves: Linear

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
1-(Srog+Swi)
0.6
kro
krg
0.5
Sgc
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Gas Saturation (fractional)
Page 28
Labs plot kr vs liquid saturation (So+Swi)
0.9
1.0
Typical Gas-Oil Curves: Semi-Log
0.1
1-(Srog+Swi)
kro
krg
0.01
0.001
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Gas Saturation (fractional)
Page 29
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Gas-Oil Curves
Most lab data are artefacts
due to capillary end effects
Tests should be carried out on long cores
insufficient flood period
Real gas-oil curves

Sgc ~ 3%
Srog is low and approaches zero
Due to thin film and gravity drainage
krg = 1 at Srog = 0
well defined Corey exponents
Page 30
Gas-Oil Curves Corey Method

kro = Son No
Oil relative permeability
1 Sg Swir Srog
Son =
1 Swir Srog
normalised oil saturation
krg = Sgn Ng
Gas relative permeability
Sgn =
normalised gas saturation

Sgc:
Page 31
critical gas saturation

Corey Exponent
Values
No
4 to 7
Ng
1.3 to 3.0
Sg Sgc
1 Swir Srog Sgc
Corey Gas-Oil Curves

1
Swir
kro
krg'
Srog
Sgc
0.1
0.01
Kro No = 4
krg Ng = 1.3
kro No = 7
krg Ng = 3.0
0.001
Sgc = 0.03
0.0001
0.00001
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Gas Saturation (-)
Page 32
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.15
1.00
1.00
0.0000
0.0300
Typical Lab Data - krg

Krg too low
1
Srog too high
Relative Permeability, krg
0.1
Ng = 2.3; Swir = 0.15

Ng = 2.3; Swir = 0.20
11a-5 # 4
11a-5 # 31
11a-5 # 34
11a-5 #39
11a-7 BEA5
11a-7 BEA7
11a-7 BEB5
11a-7 BEC5
0.01
0.001
Composite Gas-Oil Curves
Ng :
No :
Sgc:
Srog:
krg' :
0.0001
2.3
4.0
0.03
0.10
1.0
0.00001
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Swi+Sg (fraction)
Page 33
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Laboratory Methods
Core Selection
all significant reservoir flow units
often constrained by preserved core availability
core CT scanning to select plugs
Core Size
at least 25 cm long to overcome end effects
butt samples (but several end effects?)
flood at high rate to overcome end effects?
Page 34
Test States
Fresh or Preserved State
tested as is (no cleaning)

probably too oil wet (e.g OBM, long term storage)
Native state term also used (defines bland mud)
Some labs fresh state is other labs restored state
Cleaned State
Cleaned (soxhlet or miscible flush)
water-wet by definition (but could be oil-wet!!!!!!)
Restored State (reservoir-appropriate wettability)

saturate in crude oil (live or dead)
age in oil at P & T to restore native wettability
Page 35
Test State
Fresh-State Tests
too oil wet
data unreliable
Cleaned-State Tests
too water wet (or oil-wet)
data unreliable
Restored-State Tests
native wettability restored

data reliable (?)
if GOR low can use dead crude ageing (cheaper)
if GOR high must use live crude ageing (expensive)
if wettability restored - use synthetic fluids at ambient
ensure cores water-wet prior to restoration
Compare methods - are there differences?

Page 36
Irreducible Water Saturation (Swir)

Swir essential for reliable waterflood data
Dynamic displacement
flood with viscous oil then test oil
rapid and can get primary drainage rel perms
Swir too high and can be non-uniform
Centrifuge
faster than others
Swir can be non-uniform
Porous Plate
slow, grain loss, loss of capillary contact
Page 37
Swir uniform
Lab Variation in Swir (SPE28826)

30
Dynamic Displacement
Porous Plate
25
Swi (%)
20
180 psi
15
???
10
200 psi
0
Lab A
Page 38
Lab B
Lab C
Lab D
Centrifuge Tests
Displaced phase relative permeability only
oil-displacing-brine : krw drainage
brine-displacing-oil : kro imbibition
assume no hysteresis for krw imbibition
oil-wet or neutral wet rocks?
1.0
Good for low kro data (near Sro)

Computer simulation used
Problems
uncontrolled imbibition at Swirr
mobilisation of trapped oil
sample fracturing
Page 39
0.8
e.g. for gravity drainage
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Dynamic Displacement Tests

Test Methods
Waterflood (End-Points: ko at Swi, kw at Srow)
Unsteady-State (relative permeability curves)
Steady-State (relative permeability curves)
Test Conditions
fresh state
cleaned state
restored state
ambient or reservoir conditions
Page 40
Unsteady-State Waterflood
Saturate in brine
Desaturate to Swirr
Oil permeability at Swirr (Darcy analysis)
Waterflood (matched viscosity)
o
= o
w
res
lab
Total Oil Recovery

kw at Srow (Darcy analysis)
Page 41
Unsteady-State Relative Permeability
Saturate in brine
Desaturate to Swirr
Oil permeability at Swirr (Darcy analysis)
Waterflood (adverse viscosity)
o
o
>>
w lab
w res
Incremental oil recovery measured

Relative permeability (JBN Analysis)
Page 42
Unsteady-State Procedures
Water
Oil
Only oil produced
Measure oil volume
Just After Breakthrough

Measure oil + water volumes
Increasing Water Collected

Continue until 99.x% water
Page 43
Unsteady-State
Rel perm calculations require
fractional flow data at core outlet (JBN)
pressure data versus water injected
Labs use high oil/water viscosity ratio

promote viscous fingering
provide fractional flow data after BT
allow calculation of rel perms
Waterflood (matched viscosity ratio)

little or no oil after BT
little or no fractional flow (no rel perms)
end points only
Page 44
Effect of Adverse Viscosity Ratio

1.0
0.9
o/w = 30:1
0.8
Unstable flood front

Early BT
Fractional Flow, fw
0.7
Prolonged 2 phase flow

0.6
o/w = 3:1
Oil recovery lower
Stable flood front
0.5
BT delayed
0.4
Suppressed 2 phase flow

0.3
Oil recovery higher

0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Page 45
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Unsteady-State Tests
Only post BT data are used for rel perm calculations
Sw range restricted if matched viscosities
Advantages
appropriate Buckley-Leverett shock-front
reservoir flow rates possible
fast and low throughput (fines)
Disadvantages
inlet and outlet boundary effects at lower rates
complex interpretation
Page 46
Steady-State Tests
Intermediate relative permeability curves
Saturate in brine
Desaturate to Swir
Oil permeability at Swir (Darcy analysis)
Inject oil and water simultaneously in steps
Determine So and Sw at steady state conditions
Relative Permeability (Darcy Analysis)
Page 47
Steady-State Test Equipment

p
Oil in
Water in
Mixing Sections
Page 48
Coreholder
Oil and water out
Steady-State Procedures
Summary
100% Oil:
ko at Swirr
Ratio 1:
ko & kw at Sw(1)
Ratio 2:
ko & kw at Sw(2)
.
.
Ratio n:
ko & kw at Sw(n)
100% Water: kw at Sro
Page 49
Steady-State versus Unsteady-State

Constant rate (SS) vs constant pressure (USS)
fluids usually re-circulated
Generally high flood rates (SS)

end effects minimised, possible fines damage
Easier analysis
Darcy vs JBN
Slower
days versus hours
Endpoints may not be representative

Saturation Measurement
gravimetric (volumetric often not reliable)
NISM
Page 50
Laboratory Tests
You can choose from:
matched or high oil-water viscosity ratio
cleaned state, fresh state, restored-state tests
ambient or reservoir condition
high rate or low rate
USS versus SS
Laboratory variation expected

McPhee and Arthur (SPE 28826)
Compared 4 labs using identical test methods
Page 51
Oil Recovery
70
Fixed - 120 ml/hour
Oil Recovery (% OIIP)
60
Preferred
360
50
120
40
30
120
20
Bump
10
Lab A
Page 52
Lab B
Lab C
Lab D
Gas-Oil and Gas-Water Relative Permeability

Unsteady-State
adverse mobility ratio (g<<o or w)
prolonged two phase flow data after breakthrough
drainage tests reliable
imbibition tests difficult
Steady-State
kg-ko, kg-kw and kw-kg
saturation determination difficult
much slower
Gas humidified to prevent mass transfer

Page 53
Drainage Gas-Water Curves (steady-state)
Page 54
Steady-state test example
Log-linear scale (very low krw)
Krg > krw
Gas saturation increases
Krg increases to 1
Krw reduces to close to zero
Water-Gas Relative Permeability

Aquifer influx (imbibition)
Drainage gas-water curves can be used but
hysteresis expected for non-wetting phase (krg) curve
no hysteresis for wetting phase (krw) curve
drainage krw curve same shape as imbibition krw curve
Imbibition tests require

low rate imbibition waterflood kw-kg test
capillary forces dominate
CCI tests for residual gas saturation

Hybrid test
Page 55
Imbibition Tests
Waterflood
low rate waterflood from Swi to Sgr
obtain krg and krw on imbibition
Sgr too low (viscous force dominates)
Counter-Current Imbibition Test
Page 56
Sgr dominated by capillary forces

immerse sample in wetting phase (from Sgi)
monitor sample weight during imbibition
Determine Sgr from crossplot
129.90 g
CCI: Experimental Data

Air-Toluene CCI: Plug 10706: Sgi = 88.8%
70
65
Gas Saturation (%)
60
55
50
Sgr = 33.5%
45
40
35
30
0
10
20
30
Square Root Time (se c s)
Page 57
40
50
60
Trapped or Residual Gas Saturation
Sgr vs Sgi North Sea
Low rate waterflood
Page 58
Repeatability of CCI tests
Imbibition Kw-Kg
1
krw@Sgr
Drainage
krg
kr
1-Sgr
Imbibition
Swi
krw
0
Page 59
Sw
Relative Permeability Controls

Wettability
Saturation History
Rock Texture (pore size)
Viscosity Ratio
Flow Rate
Page 60
Wettability
Page 61
Wettability
Page 62
Wettability
Waterflood of Water-Wet Rock
front moves at uniform rate

oil displaced into larger pores and produced
water moves along pore walls
oil trapped at centre of large pores - snap-off
BT delayed
oil production essentially complete at BT
Waterflood of Oil-Wet Rock
Page 63
water invades smaller pores

earlier BT
oil remains continuous
oil produced at low rate after BT
krw higher - fewer water channels blocked by oil
Effects of Wettability
Water-Wet
better kro
lower krw
krw = kro > 50%
better flood performance
Oil-Wet
Page 64
poorer kro
higher krw
kro = krw < 50%
poorer flood performance
Wettability Effects: Brent Field
Preserved Core
Neutral to oil-wet
low kro - high krw
Extracted Core
Water wet
high kro - low krw
Page 65
Importance of Wettability - Example

Water Wet
No = 2
Nw = 8
Swir = 0.20
Sro = 0.30, krw = 0.25, ultimate recovery = 0.625 OIIP
Intermediate Wet
No = 4
Nw = 4
Swir = 0.15
Oil Wet
No = 8
Nw = 2
Swir = 0.10

Page 66
o/w = 3:1
Relative Permeability Curves

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
WW kro
WW krw
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Page 67
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
WW kro
WW krw
IW kro
IW krw
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Page 68
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
WW kro
WW krw
IW kro
IW krw
OW kro
OW krw
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Page 69
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Fractional Flow Curves

1.0
0.9
0.8
Water Wet
SOR = 0.33
Recovery = 0.59
Fractional Flow, fw (-)
0.7
0.6
0.5
WW fw
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Page 70
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
IW
SOR = 0.44
Recovery = 0.482
0.5
WW fw
IW fw
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Page 71
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0

1.0
0.9
0.8
Oil Wet
SOR = 0.63
Recovery = 0.300
0.7
0.6
WW fw
IW fw
OW fw
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Page 72
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Costs of Wettability Uncertainty

PV
Oil Price
Parameter
Swi
Ultimate Sro
Ultimate Recovery Factor
SOR
Actual Recovery Factor
STOIIP (MMbbls)
Ultimate Recovery (bbls)
Actual Recovery (bbls)
"Loss" (MM US$)
Water-Wet
0.200
0.300
0.625
0.330
0.588
96
60
56
108
120 MMbbls
30 US$/bbls
IW
0.150
0.250
0.706
0.440
0.482
102
72
49
684
Oil wet
0.100
0.200
0.778
0.630
0.300
108
84
32
1548
It is really, really important to get wettability right!!!

Page 73
Rock Texture
Page 74
Viscosity Ratio
krw and kro - no effect ?
End-Points - viscosity dependent
Hence:
use high viscosity ratio for curves
use matched for end-points
Not valid for neutral-wet rocks (?)
Page 75
Saturation History
Primary Drainage
100 %
Primary Imbibition
No hysteresis in wetting
phase
NW
NW
kr
kr
Sro
Swi
W
0%
0%
0%
Page 76
Sw
100 %
0%
Sw
100 %
Flow Rate
Reservoir Frontal Advance Rate
about 1 ft/day
Typical Laboratory Rates

about 1500 ft/day for 1.5 core samples
Why not use reservoir rates ?

slow and time consuming
capillary end effects
capillary forces become significant c.f. viscous forces
Buckley-Leverett (and JBN) invalidated
Page 77
Flow Parameters
End Effect Capillary Number
Nc end
o vL
Rate
(ml/h)
4
120
360
400
Reservoir
Ncend
2.3
0.07
0.02
0.02
0
Flood Capillary Number
Nc =
Rate
(ml/h)
4
120
360
400
Reservoir
Nc
1.2 x10-7
10-6
3.6 x 1010-5
1.1 x 1010-5
1.2 x 1010-7
For reservoir-appropriate data Nclab ~ Ncreservoir

If Ncend > 0.1 kro and krw decrease as Ncend increases
Page 78
Relative Permeabilities are Rate-Dependent
Bump Flood
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
High Rate krw ???
0.4
0.3
Bump Flood krw'
0.2
Low Rate krw'
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Page 79
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Flow Rate Considerations

Imbibition (waterflood of water-wet rock)
Sro function of Soi: Sro is rate dependent

oil production essentially complete at BT
krw suppressed by Pcend and rate dependent
bump flood does not produce much oil but removes Pcend and
krw increases significantly
high rates acceptable but only if rock is homogeneous at pore
level
Considerations
ensure Swi is representative
low rate floods for Sro: bump for krw
steady-state tests
Page 80

Drainage (Waterflood of Oil-Wet Rock)
end effects present at low rate

Sro, krw dependent on capillary/viscous force ratio
high rate: significant production after BT
reduced recovery at BT compared with water-wet
Considerations
high rate floods (minimum Dp = 50 psid) to minimise end effects
steady-state tests with ISSM
low rates with ISSM and simulation
Page 81

Neutral/Intermediate
Sro and kro & krw are rate dependent
bump flood produces oil from throughout sample, not just from
ends
ISSM necessary to distinguish between end effects and sweep
Recommendations
data acquired at representative rates
(e.g. near wellbore, grid block rates)
Page 82
JBN Validity
High Viscosity Ratio
viscous fingering invalidates 1D flow assumption
Low Rate
end effects invalidate JBN
Most USS tests viewed with caution

if Ncend significant
if Nc not representative
if JBN method used
Use coreflood simulation

Page 83
Test Recommendations
Wettability Conditioning
flood rate selected on basis of wettability
Amott and USBM tests required
Wettability pre-study
reservoir wettability?
fresh-state, cleaned-state, restored-state wettabilities
beware fresh-state tests (often waste of time)

reservoir condition tests most representative
but expensive and difficult
Page 84
Wettability Restoration
Hot soxhlet does not make cores

water wet!
Restored-state cores too oil wet
Lose 10% OIIP potential recovery
STRONGLY
WATER-WET
USBM
1.0
0.0
Original SCAL plugs

Hot Sox Cleaned
Flush Cleaned
STRONGLY
OIL-WET
-1.0
-1.0
0.0
Amott
Page 85
1.0
Key Steps in Test Design

Establishing Swi
must be representative
use capillary desaturation if at all possible
remember many labs cant do this correctly
fresh-state Swirr is fixed
Viscosity Ratio
matched viscosity ratio for end-points
investigate viscosity dependency for rel perms
normalise then denormalise to matched end-points
Page 86
Key Steps In Test Design

Flood Rate
depends on wettability
determine rate-appropriate end-points
steady-state or Corey exponents for rel perm curves
Saturation Determination
conventional
grain loss, flow processes unknown
NISM
can reveal heterogeneity, end effects, etc
Page 87
Use of NISM
Examples from North Sea
Core Laboratories SMAX System
low rate waterflood followed by bump flood
X-ray scanning along length of core
end-points
some plugs scanned during waterflood
Fresh-State Tests
core drilled with oil-based mud
Page 88
X-Ray Scanner
Coreholder
X-rays detected
X-rays emitted
Scanning Bed
X-ray adsorption
(invisible to Xrays)
X-ray Emitter
(Detector
Behind)
Page 89
0
%
Sw(NaI)
100%
NISM Flood Scans

SMAX Example 1
uniform Swirr
oil-wet(?) end effect
bump flood removes end effect
some oil removed from body of plug
neutral-slightly oil-wet
Page 90
NISM Flood Scans

SMAX Example 2
short sample
end effect extends through
entire sample length
significant oil produced from
body of core on bump flood
moderate-strongly oil-wet
data wholly unreliable due to
pre-dominant end effect.
Need coreflood simulation
Page 91
NISM Flood Scans

SMAX Example 3
scanned during flood
minimal end effect
stable flood front until BT
vertical profile
bump flood produces oil from

body of core
neutral wet
data reliable
Page 92
NISM Flood Scans

SMAX Example 4
Sample 175 (fresh-state)
scanned during waterflood
unstable flood front
oil wetting effects
oil-wet end effect

bump produces incremental oil
from body of core but does not
remove end effect
neutral to oil-wet
Page 93
data unreliable
NISM Flood Scans

SMAX Example 5
Sample 175 re-run after
cleaning
increase in Swirr compared
to fresh-state test
no/minimal end effects
moderate-strongly waterwet
Page 94
NISM Flood Scans

SMAX Example 6
heterogeneous coarse sand

variation in Swirr
Sro variation parallels Swirr
end effect masked by
heterogeneity (?)
very low recovery at low rate
(thiefzones in plug?)
bump flood produces
significant oil from body of
core
neutral-wet
Page 95
Key Steps in Test Design

Relative Permeability Interpretation
key Buckley-Leverett assumptions invalidated by most short
corefloods
Interpretation Model must allow for:

capillarity
viscous instability
wettability
Simulation required
e.g. SENDRA, SCORES
Page 96
Simulation Data Input

Flood data (continuous)
injection rates and volumes
production rates
differential pressure
Fluid properties
viscosity, IFT, density
Imbibition Pc curve (option)

ISSM or NISM Scans (option)
Beware several non-unique solutions possible
Page 97
History Matching
Pressure and production
1.66 cc/min
6,0
700
5,0
600
4,0
500
400
Measured differential pressure

Simulated differential pressure
300
2,0
Measured oil production

200
Simulated oil production

1,0
100
0
0,0
0,1
Page 98
3,0
1,0
10,0
100,0
Time (min)
1000,0
10000,0
Oil Production (cc)
Differential Pressure (kPa)
800
History Matching
Saturation profiles
0.8
Water Saturation
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.0
Page 99
0.2
0.4
0.6
Normalized Core Length
0.8
1.0
Simulation Example JBN Curves

Relative Permeabilty Curves
Pre-Simulation
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Krw
Kro
low rate end point
high rate end point
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Water saturation
Page 100
0.7
0.8
0.9
Simulation Example Simulated Curves

Relative Permeabilty Curves
Post Simulation
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Krw
Kro
low rate end point
high rate end point
Krw Simulation
Kro Simulation
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Water saturation
Page 101
0.7
0.8
0.9
Quality Control
Most abused measurement in core analysis
Wide and unacceptable laboratory variation
Quality Control essential
test design
detailed test specifications and milestones
contractor supervision
modify test programme if required
Benefits
better data
more cost effective
Page 102
Water-Oil Relative Permeability Refining

Key Steps
curve shapes
Sro determination and refinement
refine krw
determine Corey exponents
refine measured curves
normalise and average
Uses Corey approach

rock curves may not obey Corey behaviour
Page 103
Curve Shapes
1
0.9
Semi-log
0.8
0.7
Good data concave down
Kr
0.6
0.5
0.4
Kro
Krw
0.3
Water-Oil Rel. Perms.

0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.1
Cartesian
Good data convex upwards
Kr
Sw
Kro
0.01
Krw
0.001
0.0001
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Sw
Page 104
0.8
Sro Determination
Compute Son
high, medium and low Sro
1
low rate, bump, centrifuge Sro

0.1
Plot Son vs kro (log-log)

0.01
Sro too low

0.001
curves down
Sro too high
1.000
0.100
Son = (1-Sw-Sor)/(1-Swi-Sor)
curves up
Sro just right

straight line
Page 105
0.0001
0.010
Kro
Sor = 0.40
Sor = 0.20
Sor = 0.35
Refine krw
Refined krw
Use refined Sro
Plot krw versus Swn
Fit line to last few points

least affected by end effects
Krw
0.1
Determine refined krw

0.01
0.1
1
Swn = 1-Son
Page 106
Determine Best Fit Coreys

Use refined Sro and krw
Determine instantaneous Coreys

log(krw' ) log(krw)
Nw* =
log(1.0) log(S wn )
log(kro )
No* =
log(Son )
3.5
3
2.5
No' & Nw'
No
Nw
1.5
1
0.5
0
Plot vs Sw
Take No and Nw from flat sections

Least influenced by end effects
Page 107
0.2
0.4
0.6
Sw
0.8
Refine Measured Data
Endpoints
Refined krw and Sro
1.0
0.9
Corey Exponents
0.8
No and Nw (stable)
Corey Curves
kro( refined ) = Son
No
0.7
0.6
Refined Kro
Refined Krw
0.5
Original Kro
Original Krw
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
krw( refined ) = krw' Swn Nw

Page 108
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Sw
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Normalisation Equations
Water-Oil Data
Sw Swi
Swn =
1 Swi Srow
k ro n =
k ro
k ro end
krw
krwn =
krwend
Gas - Oil Data

Sgn =
Page 109
Sg Sgc
1Swi SrogSgc
k ro n =
k ro
k ro end
krgn =
krg
krgend
Example - kro Normalisation
1
0.9
Oil Relative Permeability (-)
0.8
0.7
0.6
Sw = 1-Sro
Swn = 1
0.5 Swirr
Swn = 0
0.4
Sample 1
Sample 2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Page 110
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Example - krw Normalisation
1
0.9
Water Relative Permeability (-)
0.8
0.7
krw at Sro
krwn = 1
0.6
Sample 1
0.5
Sample 2
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Page 111
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Normalise and Compare Data - kron

1.0
Normalised Oil Relative Permeability (-)
0.9
0.8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
0.7
0.6
0.5
Different Rock Types ?

Different Wettabilities?
0.4
0.3
Steady State
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Normalised Water Saturation (-)
Page 112
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Normalise and Compare Data - krwn

1.0
Normalised Water Relative Permeability (-)
0.9
0.8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Normalised Water Saturation (-)
Page 113
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Denormalisation
Group data by zone, HU, lithology etc
Determine Swir (e.g. logs, saturation-height model)
Determine ultimate Sro
e.g. from centrifuge core tests
Determine krw at ultimate Sro

e.g. from centrifuge core tests
Denormalise to these end-points

Truncate denormalised curves at ROS
depends on location in reservoir
Page 114
Denormalisation Equations
Water Oil
S w dn = S wn (1 S wi S ro ) + S wi
Denormalised Endpoints
k rodn = k ro end .k ron

k rwdn = k rw end .k rwn
Water-Oil
Swi
kro (@Swi)
krw (@1-Srow)
Gas-Oil S = S (1 S S S ) + S
g dn
gn
wi
rog
gc
gc
k rodn = koend .k ron

k rgdn = k rg end .k rgn
Page 115
From correlations & average

data
Summary Getting the Best Rel Perms

Ensure samples are representative of poro-perm distribution
Ensure Swir representative (e.g. porous plate, centrifuge)
Ensure representative wettability (restored-state?)
Use ISSM (at least for a few tests)
Ensure matched viscosity ratio
Low rate then bump flood
Centrifuge ultimate Sro and maximum krw
Tail ok kro curve if gravity drainage significant
Use coreflood simulation or Coreys for intermediate kr

Page 116

Module 8 Relative Permeability

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 8 Relative Permeability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 8:

Understand the jargon (and impress reservoir engineers)

How do we measure it (in the lab)?

To predict and bound ultimate recovery factor

Water-Oil Relative Permeability(kw-ko)

Water - Gas Relative Permeability (kw-kg)

Gas-Water Relative Permeability (kg-kw)

Why shape is important

Saturate core in water (brine)

Swir = 0.20 (20%

Centrifuge or porous plate

Waterflood collect water volume

Measure water permeability kw @Sro endpoint

Swr = 1-0.25 = 0.75

Relative Permeability (-)

kro = ko/ko @ Swir

krw = kw/ko @ Swir

Relative Permeability (-)

Relative Permeability (-)

Relative Permeability (-)

Relative Permeability (-)

Non-linear function of Swet

minimised in lab tests

Relative Permeability (-)

low flood rates

Water Saturation (-)

Relative Permeability Curves Key Features

residual oil saturation (Sro) endpoint

relative permeability curve shape

Buckley-Leverett, Welge, JBN

Relative Permeability Interpretation

Decouple kro and krw from kro/krw

JBN Method Outline

Buckley Leverett Assumptions

Capillary End Effect

If viscous force small (low rate)

Pressure Trace for Flood

p increases abruptly until

rate of p increase reduces

Capillary End Effects

using longer cores

using capillary mixing sections

Composite Core Plug

Capillary end effects adsorbed by Cores 1 and 4

Corey Exponents Water/Oil Systems

krw = end-point krw

Water Relative Permeability (-)

Gas-Oil Relative Permeability

Test performed at Swir

Gas is non wetting

Srog < Srow in field

Typical Gas-Oil Curves: Linear

Relative Permeability (-)

Gas Saturation (fractional)

Labs plot kr vs liquid saturation (So+Swi)

Typical Gas-Oil Curves: Semi-Log

Relative Permeability (-)

Gas Saturation (fractional)

insufficient flood period

Real gas-oil curves

Gas-Oil Curves Corey Method

Oil relative permeability

normalised oil saturation

Gas relative permeability