SPE 106642
Relative Permeability and Wettability of Rocks Obtained From Their Capillary Pressure
and Electrical Resistivity Measurements
A.M. Attia, SPE, Suez Canal U., Egypt
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Production and Operations
Symposium held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, U.S.A., 31 March3 April 2007.
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, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Relative permeability and Capillary pressure characteristics of
reservoir rocks are usually determined using core analysis. In the
absence of representative core sample, resistivity log-derived water
saturation in the transition zone may be used to depict capillary
pressure curve and, in turn to determine relative permeability
characteristics from petrophysical correlations. Most of reported
research works have investigated the relative permeability from a
steady state and unsteady-state techniques. The technique of
measuring relative permeability using resistivity measurements
almost absent from the reported works. Hence, the main objective of
this work is to determine the relative permeability from the resistivity
measurements and compare it with those obtained from capillary
pressure data using the same cores. Also, it is intended to find out
which models could be used for calculating the relative permeability
from capillary pressure realizing a best fit matches with the relative
permeability obtained from resistivity measurements. In addition, to
determine the types of wettability from resistivity measurements.
Results and analysis indicate that the capillary pressure and resistivity
measurements result in significant different irreducible water
saturation values. This, in turn, results in substantially different
relative permeability characteristic curve. Also by analogy, a semi
analytical method was to be developed to infer relative permeability
from resistivity index and free water saturation . In most cases, the
Brook-Corey and Corey models, may be the best fit match to the
relative permeabilities of wetting and nonwetting phases respectively
obtained from resistivity measurements. Therefore, wettability was
determined using the values of water saturation exponents, water
saturation at crossover point. The results indicate that, the wettability
of Berea cores was neutral-mixed wet . However the wettability of
the synthetic cores compacted at 3000 psi, was strongly water wet.
Introduction
There are two common techniques being used for determining
relative permeability. These techniques are steady state1 and
unsteady-state 1 , 2 methods (dynamic displacement). In steady state
method, both immiscible fluids are simultaneous injected into the
core at constant flow rate or pressure, for extended durations to reach
equilibrium. Pressure gradient, flow rate and saturation are measured.
Effective Permabilities for each phase are obtained by using Darcy
law. Conventionally, changing the ratio of the injection rates and
repeating the measurements as equilibrium is attained , hence, the
relative permeability saturation curves would be obtained. The
disadvantage of this method is, in fact, time consuming, because the
equilibrium attainment may require several hours or days to reach
saturation level.
The mechanism of unsteady-state technique is one of the fluids will
displace another one at constant rate. The equilibrium saturation at
this technique is also not realized. The production data are
investigated and a set of relative permeability curves is achieved
using different mathematical method. The disadvantages of this
method are capillary end effect, viscous, fingering and scaling
effects. Several techniques have been proposed to reduce or eliminate
end effect (Hassleres technique, similar approach used in Penn state
method, Haflord and dispersed feed). Recently many techniques 2 are
used for determining multiphase relative permeability from unsteady-
state method. Improvement and empirical relationships for
calculations of multiphase relative permeability have been published.
The high-speed centrifuge for relative permeability measurements is
also a relative new development. Centrifuge method is faster than
steady state technique. There are several papers which are related to
techniques for the calculation of relative permeabilities from capillary
pressure. Most of them calculate relative permeability from
centrifuge method under reservoir condition35. Heavlside Jehn and
Black, C.J.J. 6 have reported that the function of relative permeability
would be influenced by numerous factors such as; rock composition,
fluid ptoperties, wettability and saturation history (Drainage and
imbibitions processes). Okasha, T.M.et al have 7 reported how to
obtain the relative permeability and they discussed its importance.
They have also mentioned that the relative permeability is a rock
characteristic which describes quantitatively the simultaneously flow
of two or more immiscible fluid through porous media. This property
is very important for predicting fluid movement in a reservoir during
various recovery processes. The relative permeability can also be
obtained from the following: i) reservoir production data; ii)
published data on general rock types; and iii) laboratory
displacement tests using representative rock and fluid.
There are also several papers which were published 3,4 on techniques
which could estimate directly the relative permeability from capillary
pressure. Purcell 8 modified a method to determine the permeability
from pore size distribution resulting from mercury-injection capillary
pressure curves. This relationship was extended to multiphase flow
through porous media. Then it was used to calculate the relative
permeabilities as reported by Gates and Leits 9. Burdine 10 has
established a tortuosity factor in the model. Corey11 and Brook and
Corey12 evaluated the previous work of Purcell, Burdine and Gates
and Leits , and have created a new method by representing capillary
pressure curves as a power law function of wetting phase saturation
(Sw). All these pervious models will discussed below a mathematical
background . Kewen Li, and Roland, N. 13 have studied and
compared the relative permeability obtained from the experimental
2 SPE 106642

1
work. Most of the models were used to calculate the relative
permeability from capillary pressure too . They concluded that the dSw /( Pc ) 2 [5]
Purcell model is the most excellent one to fit the experimental data of K rnw = ( rnw ) 2 sw
1

wetting phase relative permeability for both drainage and imbibitions

0
dSw /( Pc ) 2
processes. However, it gives lower accuracy for nonwetting phase.
is the tortuosity ratio of the non wetting phase, which is
Therefore, by using Brook-Corey model they have suggested to rnw

calculate the nonwetting phase relative permeability. For nonwetting defined as follows:
phase relative permeability, all models are used except Purcell model n w (1.0) 1 S w S m
for drainage case. The given results are almost the same and very rnw = = [6]
close to the experimental values. But, those for imbibitions cases n w ( S w ) 1 S m Se
were different from the measured data. These previous constructed Where Sm, minimum non wetting phase saturation from capillary
pressure curve w ( 1 . 0 )
models could not determine, however, the relative permeability from
and Sw are the tortuosity of the
the resistivity measurements.
wetting phase when the wetting phase saturation is equal to 100 %
In the present paper we are seeking an improvements that could
and Sw respectively
enhance our ability to estimate the relative permeability of a small
cores samples using the resistivity measurements. We try also to a
void the disadvantage of different methods used to measure the C-Corey Model 11
capillary pressure in order to estimate a significant irreducible water It is expressed as:
saturation which will be, in turn, used for the relative permeability Krw = (Sw*)4 [7]
calculations . Kmw = (1-Sw*)2[1-(Sw*)2] [8]
Where Sw* is the normalized wetting phase saturation, which could
Mathematical background be expressed as follows for drainage process.
Relative permeability is defined as the ability of one phase to stream
S w S wr
through a porous media in the existence of another phase . S * = [9]
1 S wr
w
Consequently , the accurate determination of end-point saturation ,
such as initial wetting phase saturation and residual non wetting Swr is the residual saturation of wetting phase .
phase saturation, is a must. The ratio of the effective permeability to For imbibitions processes:
the absolute permeability is a function of the fluid saturation only.
S wr
S
All models use water saturation and lithology factor obtained from S * = w
[10]
1 S wr S
w
capillary pressure except Corey which assumes lithologhy factor
nwr
index is equal to 2. In this section Purcell, Burdine, Corey , Brook-
Snwr the residual saturation of nonwetting phase saturation
Corey and Resistivity models are demonstrated.
A-Purcell model 8 D-Brooks-Corey Model 12
Purcell model was given as: It was given for both conditions ( wetting and nonwetting phases) as:
(i) The relative permeability for the wetting phase can be calculated 2+ 3

as follows: K = ( Sw *) [11]
Sw rw
dSw /( Pc ) 2
K rw = 0
1 2+
dSw /( Pc ) 2 K mw = (1 Sw *) 2 [1 ( Sw *)] [12]
0 [1]
(ii)Similarly,the relative permeability for the nonwetting phase can Where is the pore size distribution index ( Equals 2 for Corey
be calculated as follows: Model).
1
[2] Inspection of all previous equations, it is clear that for all models

2
dSw /( Pc )
K = sw used to estimate the relative permeability from capillary pressure, it
rnw 1
will be dependant on two variables; the first, is the water saturation

2
dSw /( Pc )
0 and the second is the lithology factor index (i.e., inverse of
Where Krw, relative permeability of wetting phase, Sw Saturation of tortuosity). Also from most of these models; it can be seen that the
wetting phase; PC Capillary pressure as a function of saturation and sum of wetting and nonwetting phases relative permeabilites at
Krnw relative permeability of the nonwetting phase certain saturation is equal to one for instance, Purcell model. This
may not be accurate in most of porous media. Burdine has developed
B-Burdine Model 10 Purcell equations by introducing tortuosity as a function of wetting
It is given as: and nonwetting phases saturations. Corey has then built-up his model
Sw
which depends on Burdine and Purcell models, where relative
dSw /( Pc ) 2 [3] permabilities can be obtained if capillary pressure curves can be
K = ( rw ) 2 0
rw 1 represented by a simple numerical function using linear relation
dSw
0
/( Pc ) 2 between reciprocal square of capillary pressure versus normalized
water saturation. which is this latter is a function of irreducible water
Where rw is the tortuosity ratio of the wetting phase. Which saturation. Brooks-Corey have modified the illustration of capillary
is defined as follows: pressure function to more general with introducing pore size
w (1 .0 ) S w S m distribution index. Obtaining relative permeability from resistivity
rw = = [4]
w (Sw ) 1 Sm measurements using the following equations , from resistivity data
will depend on water saturation Sw, true resistivity (Rt) and
formation resistivity factor when fully saturated with water (Ro).
Therefore , relative permeability determination from these
SPE 106642 3

measurements would be more accurate than that obtained from

F
capillary pressure. I eh = he w
[23]
F h
Calculation of Relative permeability from Electrical
(ii) For the nonwetting phase
Resistivity Measurements:
According to the assumption of similarity between the fluid and the F
electric flow, the relative permeability can be determined by the
I eh = he nw [24]
F h
following equations 14 . By analogy with formation resistivity factor,
hydraulic formation factor may be written as: By definition, the analogy of the relative permeability to wetting
phase will be as follows:
K ( R 2 ) P / LX 10 8
Fh = F hew
R 4P [13] K = I = [25]
rw eh
8L F h
And for the nonwetting phase will be as:
Then F henw
8 K 8
K = Ie = [26]
=
rnw hnw
F h X 10 Fh
R 2 [14]
The relative permeability of the wetting phase can be then calculated
as follows:
2 ( S w S wr ) nt 3
Where R is the radius of tested core. K rw = X [27]
The movable water volume through the n capillaries is then newt ew
3
2 (1 S wr ) 2
considered as: where new and is the number of capillaries occupied by the
wetting phase and tew is their tortuosity .
R 2 (1 S wr ) L = n ( r ' 2 ) L [15] Equation (27) may be written as follows:
n t 3
= (
Equation (15) can be expressed as: 2
K rw )( ) S wf [28]
R 2
(1 S ) n ew te
r ' 2
= wr
[16]
nt And, Similarly, for non wetting phase.
But n t
8 Kt 2 K rnw = ( )( ) 3 (1 S wf ) 2 [29]
8
r '2 = X 10 [17] n nw t nw
(1 S wr ) where nnw and is the number of capillaries occupied by the
Equating Equations (16 and 17) and solve for Fh gives: non wetting phase and tnw is their tortuosity.
From the concept of effective tortuosity te takes in another
R 2 (1 S wr ) 8 Kt 2 aspect when partial brine saturation.
=[ ] X 10 8 [18]
(1 S wr ) = F e ( S S
nt 2
.te w wr ) [30]
2 (1 S wr ) 2 8K 8
= X 10 = Fh [19] Where te is the effective tortuosity at partial saturation with
nt 3 R2 wetting phase.
From which
t 2
= F (1 S ) [31]
2
(1 S ) 2 wr
F h = wr
[20] Where t is the tortuosity at fully saturated with wetting
nt 3 phase.
1 Sw
Where n is the total No. of capillaries occupied with wetting phase
t 2 F
only and t is the tortuosity factor. So, in partial saturation the
( ) = ( ) [32]
hydraulic formation factor for wetting and non wetting phases will be
expressed as follows;
te F e S w S wr
2
(S S wr ) 2 At partial saturation ,the following relationship can be written
F he = w
3
[21] :
n ew t ew
F Ro Rt Ro 1
And, Similarly, for non wetting phase. = / = = [33]
2
(1 S ) 2 Fe Rw Rw Rt Ir
F = w
[22]
= F e ( S S
henw 3 2
n nw t nw te w wr ) [34]

= F (1 S
Effective hydraulic index for wetting ( Ieh ) and nonwetting phases 2
(Iehnw )are : t wr ) [35]
t 2
1 1 S wr [36]
= ( )
(i) For the Wetting Phase te
2
I r S w S wr
4 SPE 106642

Where Swf is defined as the free water saturation as follows: saturation . This equation at water saturation of 100 % where Rt= Ro
Sw Swr (i.e. Ir = 1) and Swf at 100 % = 1, So the values of wetting phase
S = ( ) [37] relative permeability obtained by this equation would be equal to 1,
1 Swr
wf
which is true.
Substituting for Swf from Equation (36) yields: At residual water saturation (Ir) is very high since Rt is high, too,
t 2
1 where as the increases in nonwetting phase ( insulator ) and Swf are
1
2
= S wf
[38] equal to zero. Hence the values of wetting relative permeabilities
te I r being calculated by this equation would be equal to zero as well.
0 .5 Equation (44) would be used to calculate the nonwetting phase
S [39]
= relative permeabilities which corresponding to the physical concept
wf
K rw 1 .5
I r
of nonwetting phase relative permeapilities. Where at 100 % water
Also, the relative permeability of nonwetting phase can be then saturation , it is known that resistivity index = 1, since Rt =Ro, and
calculated as follows: the free water saturation Swf = 1. hence the values of nonwetting
The total pore space volume not occupied irreducible water is phase relative permeability krnw which are calculated from this
reciporical of the reciporical of the specific surface area of the equation would be equal to zero, which is true.
porous media with irreducible wetting phase present and is the sum At residual water saturation Swf equals 0 and very high Ir , the value
of the two preceding volumes. of relative permeability of non wetting phase from this equation is
But specific surface area is defined as S= 2/r hence the mean pore equal to 1, which is true, too.
radius In the next section, the results of the relative permabilities are
rwi = rw' +rnw' calculated from capillary pressure using the previous models and
Where rw' and rnw' are the mean capillary radii of the wetting and visual basic program are compared with those obtained from
nonwetting phase respectively. resistivity measurements.
Dividing both sides by rwi results in : Comparison between relative permeabilities
r 'w r ' nw obtained from electrical resistivity measurements
1 = + [40] and those obtained from capillary pressure
r ' wi r wi In the drainage process , relative permeabilities determined from the
The mean pore radius is expressed as: capillary pressure data and comparison to those obtained from
electrical resistivity measurements at the same condition are shown
r 'w = 8 K ewt 2 ew / (Sw S wr ) X 10 4 [41] in Figs. 1 to 8. These figures show the experimental data of the
relative permeabilities obtained from capillary pressure data using
r 'nw = 8 K nw t 2 nw / (1 S wr ) X 10 4 [42] different models and those obtained from experimental electrical
resistivity measurements using the same cores and conditions. The
r ' wi = 8 K t 2 / (1 S wr ) X 10 4 [43] resistivity measurements data were represented in all calculations by
equations (39 and 44). These calculated results were compared with
Substituting Equations (41,42 and 43) into Equation ( 40) yields: these relative permeabilities were calculated from capillary pressure
models. For all these figures , it is apparent that the wetting and non
1/4 wetting phases relative permeabilities being calculated from the
S
= (1 ) 2 ( 1 s wf )
wf resistivity measurements are to be found between those of Brook-
K rnw
[44]
1/4
Ir Corey and of Corey models.
In wetting phase relative permeabilities, Brook- Corey model are of
Results and discussion high-quality estimation to those obtain from resistivity
Both the experimental data of resistivity measurements and of measurements. However, in nonwetting phase relative permeabilities
capillary pressure were used in this paper15. Different models used to of Corey models are the nearest one is to the relative permeabilities
estimate the relative permeability from capillary pressure and from obtained from resistivity measurements.
resistivity are presented and discussed in order to compare between The calculated results of relative permeabilities from capillary
their validity. The petrophysical properties of eight Berea sandstone pressure data are compared with the relative permeabilities from the
and twelve fine grained sandstone cores aretabulated in Table 1 and resistivity measurements and shown as plottes in Figs. 1 to 8. The
2. The data of both capillary pressure and resistivity measurements greatest fit to the wetting phase relative permeabilities is also seem
during drainage process were used to calculate the matching relative to be from the Brook- Corey model. The relative permeabilities
permeability obtained from capillary pressure with relative obtained using other models are not markedly different from each
permeability from resistivity measurements . Using capillary pressure other but all gave much less values than the relative permeabilities
data relative permeabilities were represented using Purcell, Burdine, from resistivity measurements data. For non wetting phase , all the
Corey and Brook-Corey models. The calculated results were models except Corey model are far from the relative permeabilities
compared with the results obtained from resistivity measurements obtained from resistivity measurements. However, in this case, the
using Equations (39 and 44). relative permeability obtained using the other models are not
In all methods, porous plate and an impedance analyzer Hewlett markedly different from each other but are much greater than the
Packard 4279A LCZ meter were used to measure capillary pressure relative permeability obtained from resistivity measurements. This
and resistivity. The water saturation in the core sample was first behavior is different than that shown by Kewen 14. Because , Kewen
decreased from 100% to the residual water saturation to represent the has used equation (12 ) for capillary pressure data. While Core
drainage process 15. model is closer to that obtained for nonwetting phase relative
permeability from the resistivity measurements.
Validation of relative permeability from electrical In this study also, all models used to calculate relative permeabilities
resistivity measurements from capillary pressure have the assumption that they have a
Equation (39) being used for the calculations of wetting phase lithology factor and taken irreducible water saturation obtained from
relative permeabilities equation from resistivity index and free water capillary pressure saturation curves with porous plate method.
SPE 106642
However, there are no assumptions used to calculate relative
permeabilities from resistivity measurements. So, lithology factor
and irreducible water saturation were determined from resistivity
data. It could be seen from the all previous demonstrated results in
all Figures that the water relative permeabilities calculated using
Brook- Corey model and Corey model for non wetting are
approximately nearly those obtained from resistivity measurements.
It may need to correct the calculated wetting and nonwetting phase
relative permeabilities by introducing the concept of lithology factor
and an accurate values for irreducible water saturation.
The calculation in this present research showed for practical use that
the Brook- Corey and Corey models are most appropriate which
were the best fit to wetting and nonwetting relative permeability.
This seems surprising because the concept of tortuosity factor , by
Corey assumed lithology factor equals 2.Also , Corey has built -up
his model on the basis of Burdine and Purcell models. Brook-Corey,
for wetting and nonwetting relative permeability however, used
lithology factor which is calculated from tortuosity. This result
indicates that it may not be necessary to adjust the determination of
the wetting phase relative permeabilities from capillary pressure..
The wetting phase relative permeabilities determined by all the other
methods ( Purden , Corey , Purcell) are less than those relative
permeabilities obtained from the electrical resistivity measurements .
Also, in all Figures it is shown that, the non wetting phase relative
permeabilities determined by Corey model are close to those
obtained from resistivity measurements.
This suggested method was compared to the recent calculations of
relative permeability in the literature which are partially
accomplished by graphical methods. It is appear that the relative
permeability obtained from resistivity measurements gives accurate
value. Therefore, irreducible water saturation obtained from
capillary pressure is different from one method to another This may
due to the pressure is not sufficient for displacing wetting phase
using nonwetting phase. So the relative permeability obtained from
capillary pressure using different models such as; Purcell, Burdine,
Corey and Brook-Corey models may will not give accurate values .
Since, these models strongly affected by the irreducible water
saturation and assumption lithology factor index . While, relative
permeability from electrical resistivity is more accurate than relative
permeability obtained from capillary pressure, because the resistivity
indicates the electrolyte concentrations. This is of causes logic
because the resistivity is a function of salt in formation water and
rock properties . It can be seen from the analysis that the irreducible
water saturation from resistivity measurements would behave
differently as irreducible water saturation from capillary pressure .
Relative permeability correlation from resistivity
measurements
An empirical correlation to illustrate relative permeability is actually
useful in the absence of laboratory data, or when a general
representative fluid flow is needed. To predict a correlation which
would represent the relation between the relative permeabilities and
water saturation, the laboratory measurements of the electrical
resistivity for Berea and synthetic core samples are used by using the
best fit method, the best fit correlations between relative
permeabilities for wetting and nonwetting phases versus normalized
water saturation could be obtained as follows:
i) For Synthetic core samples.
Krw = 2E-06 S3wf - 8E-05 S2wf + 0.00 15 Swf - 0.0043 [45]
With correlation coefficient, R2 = 0.9915
Krnw =-1 E-07 S3wf + 9E-05 S2wf - 0.018 Swf + 0.9857
[46]
5
With correlation coefficient, R2 = 0.9986
ii) For Berea core samples
Krw = -2E-07 S3wf + 0.0002 S2wf - 0.0039 Swf + 0.0126
[47]
2
With correlation coefficient, R = 0.9892
Krnw = -2E-06 S3wf + 0.0005 S2wf - 0.0387 Swf+ 0.917
[48]
With correlation coefficient, R2 = 0.9801
Also, Figs. 9 and 10 show the correlations between relative
permeabilities and normalized water saturation for Berea and
synthetic core samples, respectively.
Wettability and relative permeability saturation
curves from resistivity measurements
Wettability is defined as the preference of a solid material to be
wetted by one fluid over another one. The wettability of a material
would control the distribution of fluid in the pore space with in this
material ; therefore, it could influence several petrochemical
parameters of rocks . In water -wet porous systems, the water
occupies the small pores and forms a continuous film on the grain
surface throughout the de-saturation process. In contrast , in oil wet
porous systems, water tends to be located in the center of the large
pores, with an oil film contacting the grain surface. For these reasons,
wettability is a major factor controlling the location , flow and
distribution of fluids in the pore spaces. It would affect almost all
types of rock properties and electrical properties such as capillary
pressure relative permeability, water saturation exponent and
electrical resistivity measurements.
There are different methods employed to measure wettability such as;
contact angle and contact angle under reservoir condition, Amott cell
method, USBM method, relative permeability saturation relationship,
capillary pressure curves for drainage and imbibitions process.
In the present study, the effect of wettability on relative permeability
is typically discussed qualitatively . The location of the crossover
point and the value of the end point relative permeability for the
wetting and nonwetting are function of wettability.
The results of the relative permeability and saturation at Crossover
point for each core tested are listed in Tables 3 and 4, for Berea and
synthetic cores, respectively . For a strongly wetted rock, the
crossover point of the relative permeability curves will occur at a
wetting phase saturation greeter than 0.5. For a neutral or mixed wet
rocks, the endpoint relative permeabilities are approximately equal
and the crossover point will therefore be at a saturation around 0.5.
Tables 3 and 4 show some information obtained from relative
permeability saturation curves using Berea and Synthetic cores.
These information's are relative permeabilities and saturation at the
crossover point. It is clear from these tables that, the wettability of
Berea sandstone cores at the experimental conditions are neutral or
mixed wet. While the wettability for Synthetic cores, especially cores
compacted at 3000 psi is very strong water wet.
Tables 5 and 6 show the results of the calculated area under each of
the wetting and nonwetting phases relative permeability- saturation
curves, Aw and Anw, respectively, using the visual basic program.
6 SPE 106642
The calculated ratio Aw to Anw for each tested core is obtained from
the resistivity and capillary pressure measurements.
Also, Tables 7 and 8 contain the values of water saturation exponent ,
a and b. where a is the intercept of the straight line in the relation
between the relative permeability ratio with water saturation and b is
the slope of this straight line. It is clear from these tables that the
relation between water saturation and b is not a factor with great
precision, therefore, it does need to study this point using larger
number of samples to establishing a strong relationship between the
water saturation exponent and the value of b.
In addition, this study points out that, the grain size and consolidation
pressures have a significant impact on the wettability. This influence
can be seen through the values of water saturation measured at the
point when they are equal in both relative permeability (crossover
point ) see Figs. 11 to 17. Also, it could be seen that a clear change in
the location of the crossover point and the value of the end point
relative permeability for the wetting and nonwetting phases. This is
because of the impact of particle size from 40 % to 100 % fine-
grained as well as the consolidation pressure from 3000 psi to 5000
psi.
Calculation of capillary pressure from electrical
resistivity measurements
Attia 16 determined tortuosity factor from electrical resistivity
measurements which can be used to predict the lithology factor index
. In a few cases , relative permeability data are available from
resistivity measurements or waterflooding but capillary pressure data
are not. A new method to calculate capillary pressure was
established using relative permeability that was obtained from the
resistivity measurements. It is suggested that ,the Brook-Corey model
may be the best fit to the relative permeability of wetting phase
obtained from resistivity measurements. By substituting capillary
pressure in the following equation;
Pc = Pe ( Sw*) 1 / (Brook-Corey model) [49]
According to this equation the corresponding Pc function can
be determined once the value of the lithology factor index is
available. The entry pressure may be measured ready or can
evaluated using other methods.
Conclusions
1. It could be obtained from both capillary pressure and resistivity
measurements significant different irreducible water saturation
values. This in turn results in substantially different relative
permeability characteristic curves.
2. Brook- Corey Model was tested among of few other Models
however, it was found that it is the most excellent to fit the
experimental data from electrical resistivity of wetting phase relative
permeabilities for drainage process. While the model given by Corey
alone is proposed to calculate nonwetting phase relative
permeabilities.
3. According to the resistivity data, the wettability of Berea Neutral-
Mixed wet. While the wettability of the Synthetic cores which are
compacted at 3000 psi would be strongly water wet.
4. To confirm and reproduce, these interesting finding warrant
additional measurements on different rock types.
5. High correlation coefficient values could be obtained from best fit
correlation between relative permeability and normalized water
saturation.
6. From resistivity measurement, the Capillary pressure of a rock
could be easily determined.
Acknowledgments
The author acknowledges the support of the Department of
Petroleum Engineering at the Louisiana State University and A&M
College. Also, I would like to thanks Dr.Amen AbdElraheem for
useful discussions.
References
1. Civan, F. and Donaldson, E.C. , Relative Permeability from
Unsteady State Displacements: An Analytical Interpretation,
Proceedings of SPE Production Operations Symposium, SPE 16200,
Oklahoma City, OK, March (1987), pp. 139-155.
2. Janos,T., Tibor, B., Peter, S.and Faruk, C.," Direct determination
of relative permeability from non steady-state constant pressure":
SPE 67318, presented at 2001 SPE Production and Operation
Symposium held ,24-27 March (2001).
3. Kewen, Li. And Roland, N.H., " Numerical simulation with input
consistency between capillary pressure and relative permeability"
SPE 79716 , presented at the SPE Reservoir Simulation, Symposium
held in Houston, Texas USA, 3-5 February (2003).
4. Papatzacos, P., and Skjaevland, S.M.," Relative permeability from
capillary pressure " SPE 77540 , presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonion,Texas,29
September 2 October, (2002).
5. Meara, D.J., and Grump, J.G., "Measuring capillary pressure and
relative permeability in a single centrifuge experiments" SPE 14419
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Vegas , NV September 22-23, (1985).
6. Heaviside, J., Black, C.J.J. and Berry, J.F, "Fundamental of
Relative permeability: Experimental and theoretical considerations,
"SPE 12173 , paper presented at the 58th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco,CA,October,5-8,(1983).
7. Okasha, T.M., Funk, J.J., and Al Enezi, S.M., "Wettability and
relative permeability of lower cretaceous carbonate rock reservoir,
Saudi Arabia: SPE 81484, (2003).
8. Purcell, W.R., "Capillary pressure their measurements using
mercury and the Calculation of permeability", Trans. AIME,
(1949),186,39.
9. Gates, J.I. and Leitz, W.J. " Relative permeabilities of California
cores by the capillary pressure methods" paper presented at the API
meeting Los Angeles,California,May11, (1950),286.
10. Burdine, N.I. " relative permeability calculations from pore size
distribution data ", Trans, AIME, (1953),198,71.
11. Corey, A.T.," The interrelation between gas and oil relative
permeabilities" , Prod. Mon., (1954),19,38.
12. Brook, R.H., and Corey, A.T., " Properties of porous media
affecting fluid flow" J. Irrig.-Drain. Div., (1966),6,61.
13. Kewen, Li. And Roland, N.H., "Experimental verification of
methods to calculate relative permeability using capillary pressure
data" SPE 76757 ,presented at the SPE Western Region Meeting
AAPG Pacific Section Joint Meeting held in Anchorage Alaska,
May 20-22, (2002).
14. Person's,1958, Oil reservoir engineering : Mc Grow-Hill Book
company New York.
15. Attia M.A., and ZAki B., "Irreducible water saturation from
capillary pressure and electrical resistivity measurements using
Berea sandstone ,Quartz and Limestone core specimens: the 6th
Syrian-Egyptian Conference & Petroleum Engineering and
Exhibition , Syria, November, (2005).
16. Attia M.A., "Effects of petrophysical rock properties on
tortuosity factor: Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering,
V, 48, p, 185-198, (2005).
SPE 106642 7
8 SPE 106642
SPE 106642 9
10 SPE 106642
SPE 106642 11
12 SPE 106642
SPE 106642 13