SPE 81021
Three-Phase Relative Permeability of Petroleum Reservoirs
Dragan Pejic and Brij B. Maini/University of Calgary
Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference held in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, West Indies, 27–30 April 2003.
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
This paper presents a critical review of recent
experimental and theoretical developments in the area of
three-phase relative permeability along with a comparative
evaluation of several models for estimating the oil relative
permeability under three-phase flow conditions.
Reported experimental data on three-phase relative
permeability were screened for reliability and completeness
and three representative data sets were selected for use in
evaluation of the prediction techniques. Eight different
prediction models were selected for evaluation. Each model
was tested with the three selected data sets for its ability to
match the experimentally determined oil relative permeability
under three-phase flow conditions.
It was found that none of the models predicted all of the
tested data sets with high accuracy. However, there are
models that give significantly more reliable predictions of
three-phase oil relative permeability compared to the
other models.
Introduction
When studying a production from an oil reservoir, an
investigator can sometimes successfully limit the scope of his
research on one or two flowing phases. However, there are
many situations where the flow of all three phases - oil, gas
and water must be considered. The water drive, steam drive,
underground combustion, solution gas drive and gas cap drive
often involve simultaneous flow of all three phases.
Application of enhanced oil recovery techniques that utilize
injection of gas or light hydrocarbon are frequently
accompanied with three-phase flow. Analyzing relative
permeabilities and hysteresis effects in a flowing oil-water-gas
system, numerous investigators have pointed out that gas
always behaves as a non-wetting phase and oil and water
could be wetting or intermediate wetting. It was also noted
(Leverett 1941, Corey 1956, Saraf 1966) that the relative
permeability of the wetting and non-wetting phase is primarily
a function of its own saturation and relative permeability of
the intermediate-wetting phase is strongly affected by the
saturation history and the saturations of other two phases.
Conducting three-phase flow experiments is a tedious task
and only a limited number of such experiments dealing with
three-phase relative permeability measurements have been
reported. Most of the reservoir engineering calculations for
processes involving three-phase flow are based on predictive
models that attempt to estimate the three-phase relative
permeability from more easily obtained two-phase oil-water,
oil-gas and/or water-gas relative permeability measurements.
Review of recent experimental data
This review focusses on the data reported in the ninties
and later. Oak (1990) presented several sets of steady-state
experimental data for both two-phase and three-phase relative
permeabilities of water-wet Berea sandstone. Three different
cores having 200 md, 800 md and 1000 md permeability were
tested. X-ray absorption method was used for measurement of
liquid saturations; gas saturation was calculated as
complement. Eight cases of saturation history were
considered. The agreement between the experimental data and
the Stone's models I and II was not good. Oak suggested that
the difficulty was in using the two-phase saturation history to
model the much more complex three-phase one. He also
pointed out that displacement of trapped oil by gas can not be
neglected in a water-wet medium. The critical oil saturation
needed to initiate oil flow was not always the same for the
two-phase and three-phase data. He observed that the three-
phase relative permeability to water was dependant only on its
own saturation and the relative permeability to gas was a
function of gas saturation and the saturation history. Oil
relative permeability was dependent on saturation of all phases
as well as on the saturation history.
Maini et al. (1990) reported measurements of 3-phase
relative permeability at elevated temperature. They used
steady-state and unsteady-state measurement techniques with
Ottawa sand. It was observed that water and gas relative
permeability were function of its own saturation, and oil
relative permeability was function of saturations of all phases.
Hysteresis was obvious in the case of gas, not significant for
the oil and absent in the case of water. There were significant
differences in values of oil relative permeability between the
2 SPE 81021
steady-state and unsteady-state techniques. The characteristics
of the sand-pack used in this work are presented in the Table
1. The oil isoperms were concave toward the oil apex when
plotted on a ternary diagram. Figure 1. shows the oil isoperms
for the DDI history (water decreasing, oil decreasing, gas
increasing) using steady-state technique.
Oak (1991) conducted an investigation on intermediate-
wet Berea sandstone. He used the steady-state measurement
technique for the oil relative permeabilities keeping ratio of
water and oil flow rate constant during the experiments. The
core properties are presented in the Table 2. Water, dodecane
(oil phase) and nitrogen were used as fluids and the X-ray
absorption method was used to measure liquid saturations. The
wettability of the core was altered by treating it with bis-
dimethylamino-dimethylsilane. Both DDI and IID type tests
were conducted. The oil relative permeabilities are shown in
the Figure 2.
Contrary to the earlier results on a water-wet Berea
sandstone (Oak, 1990) he found that gas injection did not
reduce the residual oil saturation after water flood. The Stone
Model I was found to overpredict the actual oil relative
permeability and the Stone Model II had both over- and
underpredicted regions with significant deviations.
Skauge and Larsen (1994) conducted unsteady state
WAG (water alternating gas) experiments on sandstones and
compared them to gas injection and waterflooding
experiments. They used cores of three different wettability:
water-wet, oil-wet and intermediate-wet. To change
wettability of a core, they treated it with the solution of
dimethyldichlorsilane in hexane. For the water-wet cores,
relative permeability to water was only function of its own
saturation with practically insignificant hysteresis. The oil
isoperms were concave when plotted on a ternary diagram and
no conclusion could be made about the hysteresis in oil
relative permeability, because all of the displacements were
toward reducing oil saturation. Gas relative permeability were
strongly influenced by the saturation path and showed
tendency toward depending on saturation of other phases. In
oil-wet cores, relative permeability to water displayed
hysteresis and the oil relative permeability was primarily a
function of its own saturation in the first few displacements.
However, due to the problems with maintaining the altered
wettability, it was difficult to make more certain conclusions.
Dependence of trapped gas saturation on core wettability was
not observed, however, an increase in the initial gas saturation
led to increase in trapped gas saturation. Compared to the two-
phase experiments, the three-phase flow experiments resulted
in lower residual oil saturation. Simulation of oil production in
the WAG displacement based on Stone's models was in
reasonable agreement with the experimental results.
Eleri et al. (1995) used X-ray computed tomography, a
non-destructive imaging technique for determination of fluid
distribution in Berea and Clashach sandstone cores. The
objective was to study the hysteresis effects and the influence
of initial water saturation on the relative permeability. They
observed hysteresis for the water phase relative permeability
in both steady-state and unsteady-state measurements,
however, it was more pronounced in the unsteady-state tests.
After a series of steady-state tests, it was noticed that the core
had become less oil-wet, which was attributed to stripping of
crude oil polar compounds during the flow of the refined oil.
Initial water saturation did not affect endpoint water relative
permeability. The authors were unable to draw conclusions on
hysteresis in case of the three-phase relative permeabilities.
Baker (1995) presented a large collection of three-phase
relative permeability data for oil-wet, water-wet and
intermediate-wet sandstones; the latter two also included the
work of Oak (1990 and 1991). The oil wet cores were
naturally oil-wet, and had absolute permeabilities between 126
and 208 md. X-ray absorption method was used to measure
saturations of the brine and dodecane; gas saturation was
calculated as complement. Baker's study mainly confirmed
observations by previous investigators regarding dependence
of oil relative permeability on saturations of the other phases.
Three-phase relative permeability of the wetting phase was
seen to be a function of its own saturation and its hysteresis
was negligible. The relative permeability of the non-wetting
phase was dependant on both the saturation of that phase and
the saturation history. The relative permeability of the
intermediate-wetting phase -- oil in water-wet case and water
in oil-wet case -- was dependent on more than one saturation
and the hysteresis was more pronounced. The shape of oil
isoperms in water-wet tests was concave and the oil isoperm
curvature decreased with increasing oil-wetness. He also
observed that the Stone Model I was more suitable than
saturation weighted interpolation for the water-wet cores and
vice verse for the intermediate- and oil-wet cores.
Kalaydjian et al. (1997) studied effect of oil spreading on
water in presence of gas. The oil-spreading coefficient (S) is
function of water/gas, water/oil and oil/gas
interfacial tensions:
S = γ WG − ( γ WO + γ OG ) (1)
If this coefficient has a positive value then oil spreads on
water, which contributes to continuity of the oil phase and
could lead to lower residual oil saturations. Two different oils
were used to introduce both positive (Isopar M) and negative
(Soltrol 170) spreading coefficients. It was seen that for oil
injection, the oil relative permeability was lower in case of
positive spreading coefficient compared to the tests where it
was negative. In the case of gas injection, positive spreading
coefficient lead to higher oil recoveries. Although consistent
with unsteady-state trends, the steady-state technique
produced higher oil relative permeability values. Kalaydjian et
al. tested their data with a theoretical model based on fractal
theory of pore structure, details of which are given by Moulu
et al. (1997). For spreading conditions, they reported their data
to be in good agreement with the model.
Review of three-phase oil relative
permeability correlations
Corey (1956) presented first empirical correlation for
prediction of oil relative permeability in a three-phase system:
SPE 81021 3

(S L − S w ) 3 Later, Stone (1973) developed another model (known as

k ro = (S w + S L − 2S Lr ) (2) Stone II Model) for prediction of three-phase oil relative
(1 − S Lr ) 4 permeability that made use of all four two-phase relative
permeability relationships form the oil/gas and oil/water
where Sw is water saturation, SL represents sum of oil and system. He defined σw and σg as probabilities of contributions
water saturation and SLr is residual liquid saturation. to flow in the two-phase systems:
Stone (1970) introduced a model based on the channel
σw = krow + krwo (9)
flow theory which treats the porous medium as an assemblage
of flow channels and assumes that in any flow channel there is σg = krog + krgo (10)
mostly only one mobile fluid. Wettability determines the
occupancy of different sized channels. The intermediate where krwo and krgo are relative permeability to water and
wetting phase separates the wetting phase in smallest channels relative permeability to gas, respectively, when oil is the
from the non-wetting phase in the largest. As a consequence, second phase. Under three-phase flow conditions:
having the same saturation history and the saturation of the kro + krgo + krw = σw⋅σg (11)
wetting phase (water), it will occupy the same flow channels
in a three-phase system as in a two-phase system. It also and solving for kro, one gets:
means that water relative permeability will be a function of its kro = ( krow + krwo )⋅( krog + krgo ) - ( krwo + krgo ) (12)
own saturation and it will be the same in a two-phase system
as in a three-phase system. Similarly, for the same saturation Hirasaki (Dietrich and Bondor, 1976) defined the
history, the relative permeability of the non-wetting phase reduction in oil relative permeability due to the presence of a
(gas) will not change in a three-phase system compared to the third phase as:
two-phase one. The relative permeability of the intermediate
wetting phase would depend on which intermediate channels it
∆ = (k row max − k row ) + (k row max − k rog ) − (S w + S o ) ⋅
occupied, which in turn would depend on the saturations of (k row max − k row )(k row max − k rog )
water and gas. He developed the following relationship for oil ⋅
relative permeability: k row max

k ro = S onor ⋅ β w ⋅ β g (3) (13)

S o − S om
S onor = (4)
1 − S wc − S om
where Som is three-phase residual oil saturation and Swc the
connate water saturation. Function βw depends only on water
saturation and βg is function only of gas saturation:
where krowmax is two-phase oil relative permeability measured
at connate water saturation. The first and second term account
for the blockage of oil due to presence of water and gas, and
the third term is an adjustment for the interaction between
water and gas blockage mechanism. The resulting expression
for the oil relative permeability becomes:

k row (k row max − k row )(k row max − k rog

βw = (5) k ro = k row + k rog − k row max + (S w + So )
k row max
1 − S wnor
(14)
k rog
βg = (6) Aziz and Settari (1979) modified both Stone's models to
1 − S gnor overcome their limitation in that the original models would
reduce to the two-phase data only if end-point relative
S w − S wc permeabilities were equal to one. The modified Stone I
S wnor = (7) model is:
1 − S wc − S om
Sg
S gnor = (8) kro = krowmax⋅Sonor⋅βw⋅βg (15)
1 − S wc − S om
k row
In the above expressions, krow and krog represent the βw = (16)
relative permeability to oil in oil-water system and the relative
k row max (1 − S w nor )
permeability to oil in oil-gas system, respectively. Stone
pointed out that Som can be a function of saturation but could k rog
βg = (17)
be taken to be constant as an approximation. Som can also be k row max (1 − S gnor )
used as an adjustable parameter to minimize the deviations
between experimental and calculated values of the oil
relative permeability.
4 SPE 81021

Stone's second model was modified as: where Sgro is residual gas saturation in the oil/gas two-phase
system. The assumption in deriving this relationship is that the
 k  k rog   (18)
k ro = k row max   row + k rwo  + k rgo  − (k rwo + k rgo ) end points of the two-phase data are the same as in the three-
 k row 
 max  k row max   phase system. The weighting parameter (Sw-Swc) could also be
so chosen to match permeabilities at some other
Fayers and Matthews (1984) proposed a correlation for weighting point.
finding Som, the free parameter in the Stone I model:
Pope (Delshad and Pope, 1989) proposed a three-phase
Som = α⋅Sorw + (1 - α)⋅Sorg (19) model in which the two-phase relative permeability do not
Sg appear explicitly:
α = 1− (20)
1 − S wc − S org k ro =
1
2
[
k rowmax (Sonor )eog ⋅ (1 − Swnor )eow − eog + (Sonor )eow ⋅ (1 − Sgnor )eog − eow ]
It has been observed that the above correlation leads to (28)
significant over-prediction of residual oil saturations in The exponents eow and eog are found by fitting
presence of trapped gas. For that particular situation, Fayers two-phase data:
and Matthews proposed following relationship:
Som = Sorw - 0.5⋅Sg (21)
krow = krowmax⋅(Sownor)eow (29)
In their analysis of the three-phase relative permeability eog
models, they concluded that the Stone I model is superior to krog = krogmax⋅(Sognor) (30)
the Stone II.
Sow − Sorw
Aleman and Slattery (1988) developed the following Sownor = (31)
1 − Swc − Sorw
model for the evaluation of oil relative permeability:
Sog − Sorg
k (1 − k rgos )(k rows − k rwos ) − k rwos (1 − k rows )(k rgos − k rgos ) Sognor = (32)
k ro = k row max ⋅ Sonor ⋅ rogs
(1 − k rgos )(k rows − k rwos ) − (1 − k rows )(k rgos − k rogs )
1 − Swrog − Sorg − Sgro
(22) where Swrog is the residual water saturation at which the oil/gas
two-phase experiment has been conducted. The three-phase oil
residual saturation Som (included in Sonor) could be estimated
where the normalization of two-phase functions has been done using Fayers and Matthews relationship or it could be used as
according to free, adjustable parameter. If history data matching is primary
goal then exponents in the equation as well as the constant
k row / k row max (1/2) can be also replaced by free parameters.
k rows = (23)
S o nor Kokal and Maini (1989) addressed two limitations of
Stone's first model as modified by Aziz and Settari: 1) the
k rog / k rog max measurements of two-phase oil/gas relative permeability are
k rogs = (24) not always done at connate water saturation, and 2) often the
S o nor
measured values of krowmax and krogmax are not equal. They
modified Stone's first model according to:
k rwo / k rwo max
k rwos = (25)
k rog
S w nor k row
k ro = Sonor ⋅ ⋅
k row max (1 − Swnor ) k rog max (1 − Sgnor )
k rgo / k rgo max
k rgos = (26)
S g nor
k rog max Sgnor + k row max Swnor
Testing the model on data of Saraf and Fatt (1967), Corey ⋅ (33)
1 − Sonor
et al. (1970) and Dalton et al. (Stone, 1970), the authors
observed a marginal difference compared to Stone model I as Hustad and Hansen (1995) presented a model that
modified by Aziz and Settari (1979). includes all six residual values from three two-phase
Baker (1988) used saturation-weighted interpolation experiments. They used the following interpolation scheme for
between oil-water and oil-gas data to obtain three-phase oil oil isoperm:
relative permeability: Sg
Sw
k ro (Somnx x ) = ⋅ k row (Somnx ) + ⋅ k rog (Somnx )
(Sw − Swc )k row + (Sg − Sgro )k rog S w + Sg S w + Sg
k ro = (27)
(Sw − Swc ) + (Sg − Sgro ) (34)
SPE 81021 5

Oil saturation is normalized between the values Somn and Somx: − DL

R 
N k ∝  k  (45)
 Ro 
So − Somn
Somnx = (35) Having capillary pressure equal to
Somx − Somn
2γ
S w ⋅ Sorw + Sg ⋅ Sorg + Sorg ⋅ Sorw (So − 1) pc = (46)
Somn = (36) Rk
Sg (1 − Sorw ) + S w (1 − Sorg )
and saturation of the wetting phase (water) given as
Sw ⋅ Sgro + Sg ⋅ Swro + Sgro ⋅ S wro (So − 1) 2− D L
Somx = (37) R 
Sg ⋅ Swro + S w ⋅ Sgro S w =  k  (47)
 Ro 
Goodyear and Townsley (Balbinski et al., 1997) proposed
following relationship: the fractal dimension is found from the slope of the capillary
pressure - water saturation curve in log-log coordinate system
k ro (So ) = k rog (Sogn ) f ( α ) ⋅ k row (Sown )1−f ( α ) (38)
1
p c ∝ (Sw )DL −2 (48)
defining values of α as

Sg Finally, applying Poiseuille's law to each capillary, Moulu

α= (39) et al. came to the following three-phase oil relative
Sg + Sw − Swc permeability relationship:

k ro = k row  (So + Sw − Sorg )2−DL − (Sw + Sorw )2−DL 

and arguments of the two-phase oil relative permeability  4− D L 4−D L

functions as functions of the normalized saturations  
Sogn = Sorg + Sonor (1 − SLrg ) (40) (49)

Sown = Sorw + Sonor (1 − S wc − Sorw ) (41) The authors extended the model to oil-wet and
intermediate-wet conditions (Moulu et al., 1999) making use
The function f(α) could be chosen arbitrarily but must of the wettability index WI (equals one for water-wet and -1
satisfy the conditions that f(0)=0 and f(1)=1. The form f(α)=α for oil-wet medium):
also satisfies these conditions.
 4− D L 4− D L

Moulu et al. (1997) extended the work from Vizika k ro = (1 − m) So 2−DL − Soi 2−DL  +
(1993) proposing a theoretical model that treats rock porous
 
structure as a set of fractal pores. The model is applicable for
+ m ⋅ k row  (So + Sw − Sorg )2−DL − (S w + Sorw )2−DL 
4− D L 4− DL
strongly water wet medium and for oil spreading coefficient
greater than zero. The porous medium is considered as bundle  
of parallel capillary tubes with a fractal cross-section. An
iterative procedure is required for constructing such cross (50)
section - a half perimeter of a circle is divided into η parts and where m is defined as
then each part is replaced by half a perimeter of another
smaller circle. Starting with some tube radius Ro, at some step WI + 1 (51)
m=
k there are Nk new groves with radius Rk and cross section 2
area Ak: Blunt (1999) introduced a three-phase oil relative
permeability model based on saturation-weighted interpolation
π k
Rk = ( ) ⋅ Ro (42) that uses "flowing saturations" as arguments in two-phase
2η permeability functions. The model claims to account for oil
trapping and film drainage effect. The film drainage model
k
2 π 
1 2 treats oil saturation as composed from bulk oil (Sob) and oil in
A k = πR o   (43) the films (Sol):
2  4η 
So = Sob + Sol (52)
Nk = ηk (44) The oil films can exist only between the gas phase in the
At the same time, number of grooves is related to the so called pore center and the water phase wetting the solid surface, and
fractal dimension DL in following way: its saturation is given by
6 SPE 81021

 Sg ⋅ Sodrain  saturation is given by:

Sol = min , So  (53)
 S  Sofb = min ( So-Sol, max ( Shf-Sgf-Sol, 0 ) ) (63)
 gdrain 
The subscript "drain" indicates situation when the oil exists
only in layers; Sodrain would be equal to the minimum oil Finally, the three-phase oil relative permeability is
obtained by:
saturation reached in the experiment. The oil relative
permeability in the film flow is proportional to the relative (S w − S wc ) ⋅ (a o ⋅ k row (Sofb ) + b o ⋅ k rgw (Sofb ))
permeability to gas: k ro (So ) = α ⋅ +
(S w − S wc ) + (Sg − Sgr )
k rg ⋅ k rogdrain 2
k ol = 2
⋅ Sol (54)
k rgodrain ⋅ Sodrain (Sg − Sgr ) ⋅ (a o ⋅ k ob (Sofb ) + b o ⋅ k rgo (Sofb ))
+α⋅ +
The bulk oil relative permeability is given by following (S w − S wc ) + (Sg − Sgr )
difference:

So
kob(Sob) = krog(So) - kol(Sol) (55) + α ⋅ k ol (Sol ) + β ⋅ (a o ⋅ k row (S hf ) + b o ⋅ k rgw (Shf ))
So + Sg
Trapping is considered by introducing flowing and
trapped fractions of the saturation (64)

S = Sf + St (56) The α, β, ao and bo are functions of interfacial tension and

fluid density that take into account compositional consistency
and for the water-wet rock, flowing gas saturation is equal i.e. variation in fluid properties due to change in pressure and
to: composition. If this effect is not significant, the functions are
assigned values: 1, 0, 1, 0, respectively. Blunt tested his model
1  4 
Sgf = (Sg − Sgr ) + (Sg − Sgr ) 2 + (Sg − Sgr )  on data from Oak(1990) and observed improvement compared
2  Cg 

to the model from Baker (1995) that uses saturation-based
interpolation only.
(57) Data and Models Selected for Testing
Residual gas saturation is found from In order to be able to test the correlations of interest in
this work, one needs not only the three-phase data itself but
Sg max also at least four relative permeability curves from the two-
Sgr = (58)
1 + C g ⋅ Sg max phase oil/water and oil/gas displacements: krow, krwo, krog
and krgo. Only a limited number of published experimental
studies provide this information. In this work, the
experimental results reported by Maini et al. (1990), Oak
and the trapping constant is equal to (1991), and Donaldson and Dean (1966) were used for testing
1 various correlations. The first two have been mentioned
Cg = − Sg max (59) previously; Donaldson and Dean conducted gas-displacement
Sgrw tests of oil and water on Berea sandstone using distilled water,
a paraffinic oil and air as the fluids. The core had 41.6 %
Similarly, the flowing hydrocarbon saturation is porosity, 200 md absolute permeability and connate water
saturation of 31 %. After each test, the core was cleaned with
1  4 
 isopropyl alcohol, dried to its original weight, and saturated
Shf = (S − S ) + (S − S ) 2
+ (S − S )
2  
h hr h hr h hr with water for the next run. The terminal saturation that
Ch  authors referred to, represents saturation at the end of the core
(60) not the average one. The relative permeabilities were
evaluated by extension of Welge's (1952) two-phase
with residual hydrocarbon saturation unsteady-state method to three-phase flow.
Sh max In selecting the models for testing there were certain
Shr = (61) conditions to be fulfilled. One of them is, of course, to be have
1 + C h ⋅ Sh max
all data required by a particular model from the published
and the hydrocarbon trapping constant experimental work on three-phase oil relative permeability.
For the models tested by others on different data sets, it was
Ch = min ( Co, Cg ) (62) necessary that the model gave reasonable predictions
The Shmax, maximum hydrocarbon saturation, is a free compared to other models for that particular data set.
parameter to be optimized. Now, the bulk oil flowing
SPE 81021
The original versions of Stone I and Stone II Models,
although they represent fundamental work and had inspired
many other authors, were not tested because it has been shown
in the past that their modified versions posses better
prediction capabilities.
Results
Hirasaki (1976) Model
The oil relative permeability prediction of this model is
illustrated in Figures 3, 4 and 5. The prediction is not very
good for any of the three data sets. The largest errors are in the
range of low oil saturations (which is actually the biggest
challenge for every model). Data from Donaldson&Dean and
Oak are both over- and underpredicted depending on the
saturation range; Maini et al. data are consistently
overpredicted. No free parameters are contained in this model
to improve the fit with experimental data.
Aziz and Settari (1979) Modification of Stone’s Model I
The predictions from this model are illustrated in Figures
6, 7 and 8. The model did well for the Maini et al. experiment
and especially for the most difficult part - low oil saturations.
The results for Donaldson and Dean experiment are very
reasonable except the overprediction at the water saturations
close to connate. Recalling the fact that this model was
developed for water-wet medium, it is not surprising that the
prediction of Oak's data (intermediate-wet core) is poor.
Aziz and Settari (1979) Modification of Stone’s Model II
The effectiveness of this model is shown in Figures 9, 10
and 11 and it appears to be less satisfactory than the previous
model in matching these data sets. The model over-predicts
oil relative permeability compared to the experimental results
of Maini et al. This over-prediction is more pronounced when
water and gas saturations are comparable and is worse at low
oil saturations. With the other two data sets, both over- and
under-prediction of the oil relative permeability is seen. The
model predictions become less reliable in the more important
zone of low oil saturations.
Baker (1988) Model
The predictions of this model for the experimental data
sets tested are given in Figures 12, 13 and 14. The calculated
values of oil relative permeability appear to be very
reasonable. The model is remarkable for its simplicity and
although the deviation between calculated and experimental
values are not negligible and vary depending on a saturation
region, overall, the model did better than many other much
more complicated models. In the original version (equation
27.) krow and krog are regarded as functions of single
saturations Sw and Sg, respectively. In this study, normalized
saturations have been used and residual oil saturation Sor had
entered the equation as a part of the argument of the two-phase
functions. Treating Som as free parameter and finding its
optimum value which would minimize the squared differences
between experimental and calculated values of three-phase
relative permeabilities, increased the accuracy of the model to
some extent.
7
Pope (1989) Model
The Figures 15., 16. and 17. show predictions of Pope's
model. The residual oil saturation (Som) for this model was a
free parameter and found by minimizing squared difference
between experimental and calculated values of oil relative
permeability. This model matched Donaldson's data good even
at very low oil saturations. However, the model had much
difficulties in predicting other two data sets.
Kokal and Maini (1989) Model
The oil relative permeabilities calculated using Kokal and
Maini Model are shown in Figures 18., 19. and 20. The match
between calculated and experimental values for the Maini et
al. data set is good including the most challenging part - low
oil saturation range. In the case of Donaldson's data, the model
predictions are better at higher oil saturations than at lower
ones. This model, being modification of Stone I Model that is
developed for water-wet medium, did not do well in the case
of Oak's data most probably due to the intermediate wet
rock property.
Goodyear and Townsley (1999) Model
The prediction capability of the model of Goodyear and
Townsley is illustrated in Figures 21., 22. and 23. When
neither water nor gas is close to its residual value, the oil
relative permeabilities calculated by this model match data of
Maini et al. relatively good. In the case of intermediate core
(Oak), the predictions are better close to the residual values of
water or gas than otherwise. Matching of data for the
Donaldson's experiment is considered as absence of prediction
capability completely; the model was not able to predict the
two highest isoperms and the remaining isoperms (with one
exception) were not reasonable.
Blunt (1999) Model
The prediction ability of the Blunt's model for the three
data sets is illustrated in Figures 24., 25. and 26. The
maximum hydrocarbon saturation in three-phase flow (Shf)
was treated as free parameter and optimized in order to
minimize sum of squared differences between the
experimental and calculated values of oil relative
permeability. That worked well for the Oak's data, however, in
the Donaldson's case, the lower oil relative permeability, the
more difficulties by predicting it with this model. Moreover,
the model was not capable in predicting the lowest three oil
isoperms in Maini et al. case.
6. Models Comparison
In an attempt to quantify the effectiveness of each model
for a particular experimental data sets, the sum of squared
deviations between the experimental and calculated values of
three-phase relative permeabilities has been used
n
ΣDEV = ∑ (kro exp,i − kro calc,i ) 2 (65)
i=1
8 SPE 81021

where the constant n represents the total number of Sw – water saturation

experimental data points for a given experimental data set. So Swc – connate water saturation
defined, ΣDEV should be used to compare the models only WI – wettability index
within the same data set. Values of ΣDEV are given in the
Table 3., and the graphical illustration of it is in the Figure 27. Greek Letters
∆ - difference
It is obvious that none of the models was the best choice
α - defined by eqn. 20.
for all three data sets. One can only look for models that more
γ - interfacial tension
frequently performed better than others. Choosing only three
models per data set that performed better than others, one can βw - defined by equation 5.
see that following models would be chosen twice: Baker's (for βg - defined by equation 6.
Donaldson and Oak data), Kokal and Maini ( for Donaldson σ - proability funcion defined by eqn. 9. or 10.
and Maini et al. data) and Goodyear & Townsley model (for ΣDEV – sum of deviations defined by eqn. 65.
Maini et al. and Oak data). The disadvantage of the last
mentioned model is its inability to predict all the isoperms of Subscripts
the remaining third data set. On the other side of the coin, the g - gas
models that appeared to have least success in predicting oil L - liquid
relative permeability of the selected data sets were the Lr - residual liquid
Hirasaki model and the Aziz & Setttari II (modification of max – maximum
Stone II model). It is possible that these models will work n – normazlization according to eqns. 40. and 41.
quite well with other data sets. It is also apparent that models nor – normalized saturation
that work well with water-wet systems perform poorly with o - oil
intermediate wettability. OG – oil/gas system
s – normalized relative permeability according to eqns. 23.-26.
Conclusions t - trapped
• The accuracy of current three-phase oil relative w - water
permeability models is strongly influenced by the WG – water/gas system
wettability of the medium being considered. WO – water/oil system

• No single three-phase model was capable of satisfactorily References

matching the three selected data sets.
• There is a need for a more robust three-phase relative
permeability model that would be applicable for various
wettabilities.
Nomenclature
C – Land trapping constant
DL – fractal dimension
eow – fitting parameter in oil/water system
eog – fitting parameter in oil/gas system
kro – three-phase relative permeability to oil
kro,exp – experimental value of oil relative permeability
kro,calc – oil relative permeability as predicted by a model
krow – two-phase relative permeabilty to oil in
oil/water system
krog – two-phase relative pernmeability to oil in
oil/gas system
krwo – two-phase relative permeabilty to water in
oil/water system
krgo - two-phase relative pernmeability to gas n oil/gas system
m – defined by eqn. 51
p - pressure
S - saturation, spreading coefficient
Sh – hydrocarbon saturation
Shr – residual hydrocarbon saturation
Sob – bulk oil saturation
Sol – oil saturation in layers
Som – three-phase residual oil saturation
Sorw – two-phase residual oil saturation in oil/water system
Sorg – two-phase residual oil saturation in oil/gas system
Aleman, M.A., Slattery, J.C., 1988. Estimation of three-phase relative
permeabilities. Transport in Porous Media, 3: 111.
Aziz, K., Settari, A., 1979. Petroleum Reservoir Simulation. Applied
Science Publishers, London.
Baker, L.E., 1988. Three-phase relative permeability correlations.
SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Apr. 17-20
Baker, L.E., 1999. Three-Phase Relative Permeability of Water-Wet,
Intermediate-Wet, and Oil-Wet Sandstone. New Developments in
Improved OIl Recovery. Geol. Soc. London Special Publication
No. 84, 51
Balbinski, E.F., Fishlock, T.P., Goodyear, S.G., Jones, P.I.R., 1999.
Key characteristics of three-phase oil relative permeability
formulations for improved oil recovery predictions. Petroleum
Geoscience, 5, 4: 339.
Blunt, M.J., 1999. An Empirical Model for Three-Phase Relative
Permeability. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, Oct. 3-6.
Corey, A.T., 1954. The interrelation between gas and oil relative
permeabilities. Producers Monthly, Nov., 38.
Corey, A.T., Rathjens, C.H, Henderson, J.H., Wyllie, M.R.J., 1956.
Three-phase relative permeability. Petroleum Transactions,
207: 349.
Delshad, M., Pope, G.A., 1989. Comparison of the three-phase oil
relative permeability models. Transport in Porous Media, 4: 59.
Dicarlo, D. A., Sahni, A., Blunt, M.J., 2000. The Effect of
Wettability on Three-Phase Relative Permeability. Transport in
Porous Media, 39, 3: 347.
Dietrich, J.K., Bondor, P.L., 1976. Three-phase oil relative
permeability models. 51st Annual Fall Tecnical Conference and
Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, New
Orleans, Oct. 3-6.
SPE 81021
Donaldson, E.C., 1966. Two- and three-phase relative permeability
studies. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Report 6826.
Donaldson, E.C., Kayser, M.B., 1981. Three-phase fluid flow in
porous media. U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/BETC/IC-80/4.
Eleri, O.O., Graue, A., Skauge, A., 1995. Steady-State and Unsteady-
State Two-Phase Relative Permeability Hysteresis and
Measurements of Three-Phase Relative Permeabilities Using
Imaging Techniques. SPE Annual Technical Conference &
Exhibition, Dallas, Oct. 22-25.
Eleri, O.O., Graue, A., Skauge, A., Larsen, J.A., 1995. Calculation of
Three-Phase Relative Permeabilities from Displacement
Experiments with Measurements of In-Situ Saturation. Soc. Core
Anal. Int. Symp., San Francisco.
Fayers, F.J., Matthews, J.D., 1984. Evaluation of normalized Stone's
methods for estimating three-phase relative permeabilities. Society
of Petroleum Engineers Journal, April.
Fayers, F.J., 1987. Extension of Stone's method I and conditions for
real characteristics in three-phase flow. 62nd Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Dallas, Sept. 27-30.
Hui, M.H., Blunt.M.J., 2000. Effects of Wettability on Three-Phase
Flow in Porous Media. J. Phys. Chem. B, 104, 116: 3833.
Hustad, O.S., Hansen A.G., 1995. A consistent correlation for three
phase relative permeabilities and phase pressures based on three
sets of two phase data. 8th EAPG Impr. Oil Recovery European
Symp., Vienna, 1: 289.
Jerauld, G.R., 1997. General Three-Phase Relative Permeability
Model for Prudhoe Bay. SPE Reservoir Engineering - Society of
Petroleum Engineers, 12, 4: 255.
Kalaydjian, F.J-M, Moulu, J-C., Vizika, O., Munkerud, P.K., 1997.
Three-phase flow in water-wet porous media: Gas/oil relative
permeabilities for various spreading conditions. Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering, 17, 3: 275.
Kokal, S., Maini, B., 1989. An improved model for estimating three-
phase oil-water-gas relative permeabilities from two-phase oil-
water and oil-gas phase. 40th Annu. Cim. Petrol. Soc. Tech. Mtg.,
Banff, 2: 56-1.
Land, C.S., 1968. Calculation of imbibition relative permeability for
two- and three-phase flow from rock properties. Society of
Petroleum Engineers Journal, June, 149.
Land, C.S., 1971. Comparison of calculated with experimental
imbibition relative permeability. Society of Petroleum Engineers
Journal, Sept., 419.
Larsen, J.A., Skauge, A., 1995. Comparing Hysteresis Models for
Relative Permeability in WAG (Water Alternating Gas) Studies.
Soc. Core Anal. Int. Symp., San Francisco.
Leverett, M.C., Lewis, W.B., 1940. Steady flow of gas-oil-water
mixtures through unconsolidated sands. Petroleum Technology,
May, 107.
Table 1. Core Data in Maini et al. Experiment
sand
core length
area
pore volume
absolute permeability
pore pressure
9
Maini, B.B., Kokal, S.L., Nicola, F., 1988. Measurements of Three-
Phase Relative Permeability at Elevated Temperatures and
Pressures. PRI Research Report 1988-15, Calgary, Canada.
Maini, B.B., Kokal, S., Jha, K., 1989.Measurements and correlations
of three-phase relative permeability at elevated temperatures and
pressures. 63rd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of
the Society of Petroleum Engineers,
San Antonio, Oct. 8-11.
Maini, B.B., Nicola, F., Goldman, J., Sarma, H.K., 1990.
Measurements and Estimation of Three-Phase Relative
Permeability. Petroleum Recovery Institute, Calgary,
Canada, October.
Moulu, J.C., Vizika, O., Kalaydjian, F., Duquerroix, J.P., 1998. A
New Model to Calculate Three-Phase Relative Permeabilities:
Application and Validation for Sandstone. Revue de l'Institut
Francais du Petrole, 53, 4: 395.
Moulu, J-C., Vizika, O., Kalaydjian, F., Duquerroix, J-P., 1997. A
New Model for Three-Phase Relative Permeabilities Based on a
Fractal Representation of the Porous Medium. SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 5-8.
Moulu, J-C., Vizika, O., Egermann, P., Kalaydjian, F., 1999. A New
Three-Phase Relative Permeability Model For Various Wettability
Conditions. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, Oct. 3-6.
Naar, J., Wygal, R.J., Henderson, J.H., 1962. Imbibition Relative
Permeability in Unconsolidated Porous Media. Society of
Petroleum Engineers Journal, March.
Oak, M.J., Baker, L.E., Thomas, D.C., 1988. Three-phase relative
permeability of Berea sandstone. SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil
Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Apr. 17-20.
Oak, M.J., 1990. Three-Phase Relative Permeability of Water-Wet
Berea. SPE/DOE Seventh Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery,
Tulsa, Apr. 22-25.
Oak, M.J., 1991. Three-phase relative permeability of intermediate-
wet Berea sandstone. 66th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Dallas, Oct. 6-9.
Parker, J.C., Lenhard, R.J., Kuppusamy, T., 1987. A Parametric
Model for Constitutive Properties Governing Multiphase Fluid
Conducting in Porous Media. Water Resources Research, 23: 618.
Robinson, R.L., Slattery, J.C., 1994. Estimation of Three-Phase
Relative Permeabilities. Transport in Porous Media, 16, 3: 263.
Sahni, A., Guzman, R., Blunt, M., 1996. Theoretical Analysis of
Three Phase Flow Experiments in Porous Media. SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Oct. 6-9.
Saraf, D.N., Batycky, J.P, Jackson, C.H., Fisher, D.B., 1982. An
experimental investigation of three-phase flow of water-oil-gas
mixtures through water wet sandstones. California Regional
Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, San Francisco,
March 24-26.
140 - 200 mesh
46.7 cm
25 cm2
409 ml
3.6 Darcy
3.45 MPa
10 SPE 81021

Table 2. Core Data in Oak Experiment

Core length 7.6 cm
Diameter 5 cm
Absolute permeability 1010 md
Wettability altering agent organosilane

Table 3. Values of ΣDEV of the oil relative permeability models

Experimental Data Set

Donaldson&Dean Maini et al. Oak

1966 1990 1991
Hirasaki
0.09344 0.45020 0.09574
1976
Aziz&Settari-I
0.05305 0.04196 0.08359
1979
Aziz&Settari-II
0.09168 0.46770 0.09816
1979
M o d e l

Baker
0.03863 0.40546 0.06198
1988
Pope
0.03536 0.67184 0.06503
1989
Kokal&Maini
0.03820 0.02773 0.09491
1989
Goodyear and
1.05187 0.39000 0.06179
Townsley, 1999
Blunt
0.07519 0.43240 0.02080
1999
SPE 81021 11

Gas Gas

0
0 100
100 kro,exp=0.001
kro,exp=0.01
kro,exp=0.1
kro,exp=0.01
kro,exp=0.2 kro,exp=0.05
kro,exp=0.4
20 kro,exp=0.6 20
80 80

40 40
60 60

60 60
40 40

80 80
20 20

100 100
0 0
Water 0 20 40 60 80 100 Oil Water 0 20 40 60 80 100 Oil

Figure 1. Oil isoperms of the experiment of Maini et al. Figure 2. Oil isoperms of the experiment of Oak

Gas Gas

0 0
100 100
kro,exp=0.01 kro,exp=0.01
kro,exp=0.08 kro,exp=0.1
kro,exp=0.2 kro,exp=0.2
kro,exp=0.4 kro,exp=0.4
kro,exp=0.65 20 kro,exp=0.6
20 80 kro,calc
80 kro,calc

40 40
60 60

60 60
40 40

80 80
20 20

100 100
0 0
Water 0 20 40 60 80 100 Oil Water 0 20 40 60 80 100 Oil

Figure 3. Hirasaki's model prediction of Donaldson and Dean Figure 4. Hirasaki's model prediction of Maini et al. experiment
experiment

Gas Gas

0
0 100
100 kro,exp=0.01
kro,exp=0.001 kro,exp=0.08
kro,exp=0.01 kro,exp=0.2
kro,exp=0.05 kro,exp=0.4
kro,calc kro,exp=0.65
20
20 80 kro,calc
80

40
40 60
60

60
40
60
40

80
20
80
20

100
0
100 Water 0 20 40 60 80 100 Oil
0
Water 0 20 40 60 80 100 Oil

Figure 5. Hirasaki's model prediction of Oak experiment Figure 6. Aziz and Settari I Model prediction of Donaldson and
Dean experiment
12 SPE 81021

Gas
Gas
0
100 0
kro,exp=0.01 100
kro,exp=0.1 kro,exp=0.001
kro,exp=0.2 kro,exp=0.01
kro,exp=0.4 kro,exp=0.05
kro,exp=0.6 kro,calc
20
80 kro,calc 20
80

40
60 40
60

60 60
40 40

80 80
20 20

100 100
0 0
Water 0 20 40 60 80 100 Oil Water 0 20 40 60 80 100 Oil

Figure 7. Aziz and Settari I Model prediction of Maini et al. Figure 8. Aziz and Settari I Model prediction of Oak exper
experiment
Gas Gas

0 0
100 100
kro,exp=0.01 kro,exp=0.01
kro,exp=0.08 kro,exp=0.1
kro,exp=0.2 kro,exp=0.2
kro,exp=0.4 kro,exp=0.4
20 kro,exp=0.65 kro,exp=0.6
80 20
kro,calc 80 kro,calc

40 40
60 60

60 60
40 40

80 80
20 20

100 100
0 0
Water 0 20 40 60 80 100 Oil Water 0 20 40 60 80 100 Oil

Figure 9. Aziz and Settari II Model prediction of Donaldson & Figure 10. Aziz and Settari II Model prediction of Maini et al.
Dean expe experiment
Gas
Gas

0
100 0
kro,exp=0.001 100
kro,exp=0.01
kro,exp=0.01
kro,exp=0.08
kro,exp=0.05 kro,exp=0.2
kro,calc kro,exp=0.4
20 20 kro,exp=0.65
80 80 kro,calc

40 40
60 60

60 60
40 40

80 80
20 20

100 100
0 0
Water 0 20 40 60 80 100 Oil Water 0 20 40 60 80 100 Oil

Figure 11. Aziz and Settari II Model prediction of Oak Figure 12. Baker's Model prediction of Donaldson & Dean
experiment experiment
SPE 81021 13

Gas
Gas
0
100
0 kro,exp=0.001
100
kro,exp=0.01 kro,exp=0.01
kro,exp=0.1 kro,exp=0.05
kro,exp=0.2 kro,calc
kro,exp=0.4 20
20 kro,exp=0.6 80
80 kro,calc

40
40 60
60

60 60
40 40

80 80
20 20

100
0 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
0
Water Oil 0 20 40 60 80 100
Water Oil

Figure 13. Baker's Model prediction of Maini et al. experiment Figure 14. Baker's Model prediction of Oak experiment
Gas Gas

0 0
100 100
kro,exp=0.01 kro,exp=0.01
kro,exp=0.08 kro,exp=0.1
kro,exp=0.2 kro,exp=0.2
kro,exp=0.4 kro,exp=0.4
20 kro,exp=0.65 20 kro,exp=0.6
80 kro,calc 80 kro,calc

40 40
60 60

60 60
40 40

80 80
20 20

100 100
0 0
Water 0 20 40 60 80 100 Oil Water 0 20 40 60 80 100 Oil

Figure 15. Pope's Model prediction of Donaldson & Dean Figure 16. Pope's Model prediction of Maini et al. experiment
experiment
Gas Gas

0 0
100 100
kro,exp=0.001 kro,exp=0.01
kro,exp=0.01 kro,exp=0.08
kro,exp=0.05 kro,exp=0.2
kro,calc kro,exp=0.4
20 20 kro,exp=0.65
80 80 kro,calc

40 40
60 60

60 60
40 40

80 80
20 20

100 100
0 0
Water 0 20 40 60 80 100 Oil Water 0 20 40 60 80 100 Oil

Figure 17. Pope's Model prediction of Oak experiment Figure 18. Kokal & Maini Model prediction of Donaldson & Dean
experiment
14 SPE 81021

Gas
Gas

0
0 100
100 kro,exp=0.001
kro,exp=0.01 kro,exp=0.01
kro,exp=0.1 kro,exp=0.05
kro,exp=0.2 kro,calc
kro,exp=0.4
kro,exp=0.6 20
20 80
80 kro,calc

40
40 60
60

60
60 40
40

80
80 20
20

100 100
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 Water 0 20 40 60 80 100 Oil
Water Oil

Figure 19. Kokal & Maini Model prediction of Maini et al. Figure 20. Kokal & Maini Model prediction of Oak experiment
experiment

Gas Gas

0 0
100 100
kro,exp=0.01 kro,exp=0.01
kro,exp=0.08 kro,exp=0.1
kro,exp=0.2 kro,exp=0.2
kro,exp=0.4 kro,exp=0.4
kro,exp=0.65 20 kro,exp=0.6
20 80
80 kro,calc kro,calc

40 40
60 60

60 60
40 40

80 80
20 20

100 100
0 0
Water 0 20 40 60 80 100 Oil Water 0 20 40 60 80 100 Oil

Fig. 21. Goodyear & Townsley Model prediction of Donaldson & Fig. 22. Goodyear & Townsley Model prediction of Maini et al.
Dean experiment experiment
Gas Gas

0 0
100 100
kro,exp=0.001 kro,exp=0.01
kro,exp=0.01 kro,exp=0.08
kro,exp=0.05 kro,exp=0.2
kro,calc kro,exp=0.4
20 20 kro,exp=0.65
80 80 kro,calc

40 40
60 60

60 60
40 40

80 80
20 20

100 100
0 0
Water 0 20 40 60 80 100 Oil 0 20 40 60 80 100
Water Oil

Fig. 23. Goodyear & Townsley Model prediction of Oak Figure. 24. Blunt's Model prediction of Donaldson and Dean
experiment experiment
SPE 81021 15

Gas

0
100
kro,exp=0.01
kro,exp=0.1
kro,exp=0.2
kro,exp=0.4
20 kro,exp=0.6
80 kro,calc

40
60

60
40
0.4

80
0.6 20

100
0
Water 0 20 40 60 80 100 Oil

Figure 25. Blunt's Model prediction of Maini et al. experiment

Gas

0
100
kro,exp=0.001
kro,exp=0.01
kro,exp=0.05
kro,calc
20
80

40
60

60
40

80
20

100
0
Water 0 20 40 60 80 100 Oil

Figure 26. Blunt's Model prediction of Oak experiment

Hirasaki
1 Aziz&Settari I
Aziz&Settari II
Baker
0.8 Pope
Kokal&Maini
Goodyear&Townsley
0.6
DEV

Blunt

0.4

0.2

0
Donaldson&Dean data Maini et al. data Oak data

Figure 27. Models Comparison