Lab Session Permeability Measurements

PET176
Reservoir Rock Properties

Prepared by
Dr. Turhan Yildiz and Dr. Erdal Ozkan
Module 7
Lab session: Permeability measurements
Module Outline
7.1 Measurements of absolute permeability
7.2 Estimation of relative permeability
4
Learning Objectives
• Measure porosity of actual core samples
• Use Dean-Stark distillation to estimate fluid saturations
• Measure contact angle of oil and water on reservoir rock sample
• Measure capillary pressure between oil and water
5
7.1 Measurements of absolute permeability
Methods for Measuring Permeability
 Steady state method using liquids

 Steady state method using gases
 Pulse decay tests using liquids
 Pulse decay tests using gases
7
Main Reference for Permeability Measurement
 A must have reference

 American Petroleum Institute (API)
 Recommended Practice RP 40
 Recommendation Practices for Core Analysis, Second Edition, API
Publishing Services, Washington DC, 1998
8
Steady State Method Using Liquids
 The most common liquids to measure permeability under steady state

flow conditions are listed below
 Synthetic brines
 Degassed reservoir oils
 Synthetic oils with low viscosity
 Many commercial instruments to measure permeability

 The specific details of measurement procedure vary for each
commercial instrument
 Generic description of steady state liquid permeability measurement
9
Steady State Method Using Liquids
 Components of apparatus for steady state liquid permeameter

 A cylindrical core plug
 A constant rate liquid pump
 A core holder
 A rubber sleeve
 Two end caps with flow distributers
 A differential pressure transducer
 Pressure gauges
 Back pressure regulator (BPR)
 Flow lines
10
Steady State Liquid Permeability Measurement
Pressure transducer
Dp
Confining fluid BPR
Core
V1 V1
Constant Core holder

rate pump
11
Steady State Liquid Permeameter, Vinci Technologies
12
 Core sample is cleaned, dried, and saturated with the test liquid
 Cylindrical core plugs are inserted into rubber sleeve
 Two end caps are pressed against the core sample at the axial ends
 End caps are designed with flow distributors
 A flow distributor receives the fluid from flowline and distributes it
uniformly at the face of core plug
 Flow distributor ensures that flow across core is one dimensional
 Rubber sleeve and end caps protect core plug from external fluids
13
 Annular space between core holder and rubber sleeve and end caps is
filled with a confining liquid
 Annular liquid is pressurized
 It is of utmost importance that there is no fluid leakage from the core
and there is not any external fluid entry into the core sample
 Constant rate pump injects test liquid into core sample
 Liquid injection pumps can inject fluid at several different rates
 Liquid injection pumps are equipped with a gear box to set the rate
14
 A differential pressure transducer directly measures the pressure drop

 In some cases, a back pressure regulator may be installed on the outlet
flow line
 A back pressure regulator maintains a set pressure upstream of itself
 A back pressure regulator keeps a constant pressure at the outlet
 A constant flow rate is chosen on the liquid pump
 Liquid pump is turned on
 Test liquid is injected into core plug
15
 Initially, pressure drop across the core sample increases and varies with
time
 After some time transients die out, pressure drop stabilizes and
becomes constant
 Permeability is estimated from Darcy’s equation
 𝑘 = 𝑞𝜇𝐿/𝐴∆𝑝
 Main disadvantage; liquid permeameter is impractical to measure low

permeability values
16
Steady State Liquid Permeameter – Example 9
 Reconsider Test # 1 in Example 1

 d = 2.54 cm, L = 15.24 cm, q = 0.1 cc/s, m = 1 cp, Dp = 4.76 atm
 Estimate permeability using Darcy’s equation
 𝐴 = 𝜋𝑑 2 /4 = 3.1415926 × 2.542 /4 = 5.067 cm2

 𝑘 = 𝑞𝜇𝐿/𝐴∆𝑝 = 0.1 × 1 × 15.24/5.067 × 4.76 = 0.0632 d = 63.2 md
17
Steady State Gas Permeameter
 The most common gases used to measure permeability are listed below.
 Air
 Helium
 Nitrogen
 Other gases; hydrogen, argon, carbon dioxide, and methane
 Gases are clean, nonreactive, and do not alter the pore structure
 Experimental apparatus is simpler
 Experiments using gases are much faster
 Gas permeameters can measure very low permeabilities (md and hd)
18
 Gas permeability measurements conducted at low or high pressures

 The main disadvantages are listed below
 Klinkenberg slip effect at low pressures
 Forchheimer flow at high fluid velocities
 Multiple repeated tests
 Gas permeameters designed to operate at low pressures are simple and

cheap
 Gas flow rate is measured using an instrument called gas mass flow meter
 A commercial gas permeameter from Vinci Technologies in next figure
19
20
Steady State Gas Permeameter – High Pressures
 Apparatus for gas permeameters designed to operate at high pressures are

similar to steady state liquid permeameters
 The main differences are as follows
 Gas injection is supplied by a high pressure gas tank
 Gas tank is such that it provides a nearly constant upstream pressure
 A gas mass flow meter, which measures the gas injection rate, is installed at
either the upstream or the downstream of the core holder
21
Steady State Gas Permeameter – High Pressures
Pressure transducer
Dp
Confining fluid BPR

High
pressure Core
gas tank V1 V1
Mass flow
meter
Core holder
22
 In case of gas permeameters, flow measurements are conducted at several

mean pressures, typically four different tests
 Apparent gas permeability and mean pressure for each test are calculated
using the equations below
෥ 𝑝𝑠𝑐 𝐿
2 𝑞𝑠𝑐 𝜇
 𝑘𝑎𝑔 =
𝐴 𝑝12 −𝑝22
 𝑝෤ = 𝑝1 + 𝑝2 /2
23
Steady State Gas Permeameter – Klinkenberg Plot
 Klinkenberg plot is constructed

 A straight line is drawn through the test data
 The slope and intercept of the straight line are computed
 Permeability and Klinkenberg slip coefficient are calculated as follows
 𝑘𝐿 = 𝑦0𝐾
 𝑏𝐾 = 𝑚𝐾 /𝑘𝐿 = 𝑚𝐾 /𝑦0𝐾
24
Steady State Gas Permeameter – Example 10
 A gas permeameter using nitrogen, m = 0.0175 cp

 L = 0.907 cm, A = 1.79 cm2
 A total of six tests are run on the plug
 The measured inlet and outlet pressures and flow rates in Table 11
 Estimate apparent gas permeability and average pressure for each test
 Construct the Klinkenberg plot
 Compute the liquid (intrinsic) permeability and Klinkenberg slip coefficient
25
Table 11 – Pressure and rate data from a gas permeameter at low pressures –
Example 9
Test # p1 p2 qsc p~ 1/p~ kag
(1/atm
() (atm) (atm) (cm3/s) (atm) (d)
)
1 1.401 0.982 1.54E-05 1.192 0.839 2.68E-07
2 2.151 0.975 4.48E-05 1.563 0.640 2.11E-07
3 2.605 0.975 6.24E-05 1.790 0.559 1.85E-07
4 3.010 0.975 7.88E-05 1.993 0.502 1.68E-07
5 3.356 0.974 9.26E-05 2.165 0.462 1.55E-07
6 3.750 0.980 1.09E-04 2.365 0.423 1.45E-07
26
 Calculations for Test #1 presented below

 𝑝෤ = 𝑝1 + 𝑝2 /2 = 1.401 + 0.982 /2 = 1.192 atm
 1/𝑝෤ = 1/1.192 = 0.839 1/atm
෥ 𝑝𝑠𝑐 𝐿
2 𝑞𝑠𝑐 𝜇 2×1.54×10−5 ×0.0175×0.982×0.907
 𝑘𝑎𝑔 = = = 2.68 × 10−7 d
𝐴 𝑝12 −𝑝22 1.79× 1.4012 −0.9822
 The calculated results for all 6 tests are tabulated in Table 11
 Apparent gas permeabilities vary from 1.45×10-7 d to 2.68×10-7 d
 Construct the Klinkenberg plot
27
28
 A straight line is fit to the test data

 Using a spreadsheet program, the equation of the straight line is
 𝑘𝑎𝑔 = 𝑦0𝐾 + 𝑚𝐾 1/𝑝෤ = 1.788 × 10−8 + 2.991 × 10−7 1/𝑝෤
 𝑘𝐿 = 𝑦0𝐾 = 1.788 × 10−8 d
 𝑏𝐾 = 𝑚𝐾 /𝑘𝐿 = 2.991 × 10−7 /1.788 × 10−8 = 16.7 atm
29
7.2 Estimation of Relative Permeability
Relative Permeability Measurement
 Many methods to measure relative permeabilities on core samples

 Available methods may be classified as listed below
 Steady state methods
 Unsteady state methods
 Capillary pressure methods
 Centrifuge methods
 Here, we will review steady and unsteady state methods
31
Steady State Methods
 In steady state methods, a fixed ratio of two fluid phases is forced

through core sample
 Fluid injection is continued until both saturation and pressure equilibria
are reached
 A uniform saturation distribution has to be established throughout core
 Saturation gradient across core sample has to be eliminated
 Once a uniform saturation distribution is obtained and pressure drop
across core sample is stabilized then pressure drop is recorded
32
 Darcy’s equation is used to compute effective permeabilities

 There are numerous steady state techniques
 A short list of steady state relative permeability measurement methods
is given below
 Penn-State method
 Single-sample dynamic method
 Stationary fluid method
 Hassler method
 Hafford method
33
 In general, steady state methods are more accurate and reliable

 These methods are also quite expensive
 Additionally, it takes extraordinarily long time to reach saturation and
pressure equilibria across core sample
 Generally, steady state methods are not preferred
34
Steady State Methods – Test Procedure
 Assume water-wet rock and imbibition relative permeability

measurement
 Test is initiated with fluid saturations of Sw = Swc and So = 1-Swc
 Two different injection pumps are used
 One pump injects oil while the other injects water
 Oil and water are allowed to mix at inlet face before entering core
 Oil and water are simultaneously injected at a fixed rate ratio of qoI/qwI
until steady state is achieved
35
 Steady state is achieved when

 pressure drop across core sample becomes constant
 injection rate ratio of qoI/qwI is the same as production rate ratio of qop/qwp
 During test, pressure drop, oil injection rate, water injection rate, oil
production rate, and water production rate must be measured
 Additionally, fluid saturations in each step of steady state method are
measured
 Fluid saturations in core are measured by removing core from test
apparatus and weighting core at the end of each step
36
 After weight measurement, a mass balance calculation is performed to

predict water saturation in core
 Using conservation of mass, total core weight of fluid saturated core is
formulated as follows
 𝑊𝑤𝑐 = 𝑊𝐷𝑐 + 𝑆𝑤 𝑉𝑝 𝜌𝑤 + 1 − 𝑆𝑤 𝑉𝑝 𝜌𝑜 (24)
 Rearranging Eq. 24 for water saturation,
 𝑆𝑤 = 𝑊𝑤𝑐 − 𝑊𝐷𝑐 − 𝑉𝑝 𝜌𝑜 /𝑉𝑝 𝜌𝑤 − 𝜌𝑜 (25)
37
 Wwc = weight of fluid saturated wet core, g

 WDc = weight of dry core (grain/solid/matrix weight), g
 Vp = pore volume, cc
 rw = density of water, g/cc
 ro = density of oil, g/cc
 Effective permeabilities to oil and water phases are formulated using
two-phase flow version of Darcy’s equation
38
 𝑘𝑜 𝑆𝑤 = 𝑞𝑜 𝜇𝑜 𝐿/𝐴∆𝑝𝑜 (26)
 𝑘𝑤 𝑆𝑤 = 𝑞𝑤 𝜇𝑤 𝐿/𝐴∆𝑝𝑤 (27)
 Note that, in Eqs. 26 and 27, pressure drops in oil and water phases are
different
 When oil and water flow inside porous rock, there is a pressure
difference between oil and water phases due to capillary pressure pc
 Since saturation distribution inside porous rock is uniform so is capillary
pressure
 Capillary pressure does not change along core length
39
 Inlet and outlet pressures are measured in bulk fluids at just outside
both ends of core sample not inside porous rock
 There should not be any capillary pressure in bulk fluid phases
 Pressure drops in both oil and water phases should be the same
 It is reasonable to assume that
 ∆𝑝𝑜 = ∆𝑝𝑤 = ∆𝑝 (28)
 Dp = pressure drop across core
 Using Eq. 28 in Eqs. 26 and 27,
40
 𝑘𝑜 𝑆𝑤 = 𝑞𝑜 𝜇𝑜 𝐿/𝐴∆𝑝 (29)
 𝑘𝑤 𝑆𝑤 = 𝑞𝑤 𝜇𝑤 𝐿/𝐴∆𝑝 (30)
 After computing ko and kw, relative permeabilities are calculated using
either Eqs. 20 and 21 or Eqs. 22 and 23
 𝐾𝑟𝑜 𝑆𝑤 = 𝑘𝑜 𝑆𝑤 /𝑘1𝜙 (20)
 𝐾𝑟𝑤 𝑆𝑤 = 𝑘𝑤 𝑆𝑤 /𝑘1𝜙 (21)
 𝑘𝑟𝑜 𝑆𝑤 = 𝑘𝑜 𝑆𝑤 /𝑘𝑜𝑆𝑤𝑐 (22)
 𝑘𝑟𝑤 𝑆𝑤 = 𝑘𝑤 𝑆𝑤 /𝑘𝑜𝑆𝑤𝑐 (23)
41
Steady State Method – Example 1
 A steady state relative permeability experiment on a sandstone core

sample is reported by Peters
 Test is performed under a constant pressure drop
 Saturations are estimated by weighting core sample
 All relevant data are tabulated in Tables 1 and 2
 Analyze test data and estimate oil and water relative permeabilities
42
Table 1 – Basic rock and fluid data, Table 2 – Oil and water rates and wet core
Example 1 weight data for steady state relative
Parameter Value permeability experiment
L, cm = 5.0
d, cm = 3.0 Index qo qw Wwc
f, fraction = 0.15 () (cm3/s) (cm3/s) (g)
mo, cp = 10.0 1 0.05556 0.00000 84.9679
mw, cp = 1.0
2 0.04547 0.00434 85.0209
k, d = 0.15
ro, g/cm3 = 0.85 3 0.03608 0.01736 85.0739
rw, g/cm3 = 1.05 4 0.02745 0.03906 85.1270
Dp, atm = 3.275 5 0.01964 0.06944 85.1800
A, cm =2 7.0686
3
6 0.01276 0.10851 85.2330
Vb, cm = 35.3429
7 0.00694 0.15625 85.2860
Vp, cm3 = 5.3014
Vm, cm3 = 30.0415 8 0.00246 0.21268 85.3390
WDc, g = 80.0906 9 0.00000 0.27778 85.3920
43
 We present calculations for fifth measured data point

 Using Eq. 25, we predict water saturation
𝑊𝑤𝑐 −𝑊𝐷𝑐 −𝑉𝑝 𝜌𝑜 85.18−80.0906−5.3014×0.85
 𝑆𝑤 = = = 0.55
𝑉𝑝 𝜌𝑤 −𝜌𝑜 5.3014× 1.05−0.85
 Using Eqs. 29 and 30,

𝑞𝑜 𝜇𝑜 𝐿 0.01964×10×5
 𝑘𝑜 𝑆𝑤 = = = 0.0424 d
𝐴∆𝑝 7.0686×3.275
𝑞𝑤 𝜇𝑤 𝐿 0.06944×1×5
 𝑘𝑤 𝑆𝑤 = = = 0.015 d
𝐴∆𝑝 7.0686×3.275
44
 Now, we compute relative permeabilities

 𝑘𝑟𝑜 𝑆𝑤 = 𝑘𝑜 𝑆𝑤 /𝑘 = 0.0424/0.15 = 0.2828
 𝑘𝑟𝑤 𝑆𝑤 = 𝑘𝑤 𝑆𝑤 /𝑘 = 0.015/0.15 = 0.1
 Notice that we use absolute single phase permeability to normalize
relative permeabilities
 All calculated results for experiment are tabulated in Table 3
 Relative permeabilities are plotted as functions of water saturation as
shown in Figure 6
45
Table 3 –Relative permeabilities estimated from steady state experiment,

Example 1
Index Sw ko kw kro krw
() (fraction) (d) (d) (fraction) (fraction)
1 0.350 0.1200 0.0000 0.7999 0.0000
2 0.400 0.0982 0.0009 0.6548 0.0063
3 0.450 0.0779 0.0037 0.5196 0.0250
4 0.500 0.0593 0.0084 0.3953 0.0562
5 0.550 0.0424 0.0150 0.2828 0.1000
6 0.600 0.0276 0.0234 0.1837 0.1562
7 0.650 0.0150 0.0337 0.1000 0.2250
8 0.700 0.0053 0.0459 0.0354 0.3062
9 0.750 0.0000 0.0600 0.0000 0.4000
46
Steady State Method – Example 1 – Figure 6
47
Unsteady State Methods to Measure Relative Permeabilities
 Steady state measurement of relative permeability is relatively simple

 Analysis of data from steady state experiments is straightforward
 Steady state method has a major drawback; it is too slow
 It may take several weeks or even months to complete steady state
experiments
 An alternative to steady state relative permeability experiments is to
run an unsteady (transient) state flow experiment
 Unsteady state flow experiment is a much faster technique
48
Unsteady State Methods to Measure Relative Permeabilities
 Unsteady state experiment is based on a dynamic multiphase

displacement test run under transient flow conditions
 Unsteady state method is much faster and cheaper
 Two main disadvantage/limitation of unsteady state method
 Disadvantage of unsteady state methods is that test may be negatively
affected by so-called viscous fingering effect
 Another limitation is that relative permeabilities at low water
saturations just above connate water saturation cannot be measured
49
Unsteady State Methods – Test Procedure
 Consider measurement of oil and water relative permeabilities

 Assume water-wet core and an imbibition process
 Prior to running an unsteady state experiment, core sample must be
prepared for such a test
 After cleaning and drying, core plug is completely saturated with water
 Next, in a coreflooding apparatus, we inject oil and displace all
moveable water out of core
 Water saturation in core is decreased to connate water saturation
50
 core is ready for unsteady state experiment when water and oil
saturations in te core are Sw = Swc and So = 1-Swc
 At the end of core preparation stage, effective oil permeability at
connate water saturation, koSwc, is measured
 Test is started by injecting water at inlet face of core sample
 Water injection rate is kept constant; qwI = constant
 Injected water displaces movable oil under dynamic (time-dependent)
flow conditions
 During test, pressure drop across core varies with time
51
 Pressure drop across core plug is measured as a function of time

 Additionally, cumulative oil and water production at outlet end of core
are recorded at discrete points in time
 A schematic of coreflooding apparatus used in unsteady state
experiment is depicted in Figure 7
 Typical data recorded during an unsteady state test are illustrated in
Figures 8 and 9
 Figure 8 shows fluid production and injection rates
 Figure 9 displays pressure drop across core as a function of time
52
Apparatus for Unsteady State Experiments – Figure 7
Pressure transducer
Dp
Confining fluid BPR

qwI, WI
Core Np, Wp
V1 V2
Constant
rate pump
Core holder
53
Unsteady State Methods – Test Procedure – Figure 8
54
Unsteady State Methods – Test Procedure – Figure 9
55
 To interpret data from an unsteady state experiment, we need to have a

good understanding of multiphase flow under transient flow conditions
 Mathematics of transient multiphase flow in porous media is somewhat
complicated and tedious
 First, we need to derive partial differential equations (PDE) governing
physics of multiphase flow through core sample
 Then, we must solve PDE under existing boundary and initial conditions
56
 Interpretation of the unsteady state experiments is based on

 Continuity equations for oil and water phases (mass conservation)
 Fractional flow concept
 Buckley-Leverett solution for immiscible oil-water displacement
 Welge graphical interpretation of test data
 Derivation and presentation of mathematics for multiphase flow are

lengthy
 Derivations can be found in reservoir engineering textbooks
57
Unsteady State Methods – JBN Method
 There are several interpretation techniques to predict relative

permeabilities from unsteady state experiments
 Here, we will introduce method proposed by Johnson, Bossle, and
Neumann
 Johnson-Bossle-Neumann method is referred to as JBN method
 JBN method uses cumulative oil production and pressure drop data
 Since test is run under constant water injection rate, cumulative water
injection can easily be computed by multiplying injection rate by time
 We skip mathematical details and present final equations
58
 Equations used in JBN method are given below

 First, given cumulative water injection, cumulative oil production, and
pore volume of the core sample, we calculate dimensionless cumulative
water injection and dimensionless cumulative oil production
 𝑊𝐼𝐷 = 𝑊𝐼 /𝑉𝑝 (31)
 𝑁𝑝𝐷 = 𝑁𝑝 /𝑉𝑝 (32)
 WID = dimensionless cumulative water injection, unitless
 NpD = dimensionless cumulative oil production, unitless
 WI = cumulative water injection, cc
59
 Np = cumulative oil production, cc

 Vp = pore volume of core sample, cc
 Now, we compute relative injectivity ratio, which is defined below
 𝐼𝑟 = 𝑞𝑤𝐼 𝜇𝑜 𝐿/𝑘𝐴∆𝑝 (33)
 Ir = relative injectivity ratio, unitless
 qwI = water injection rate, cc/s
 mo = oil viscosity, cp
 L = core length, cm
60
 k = absolute permeability to single phase flow, d

 A = cross-sectional area, cm2
 Dp = pressure drop across core, atm
 Then, we calculate fractional oil flow at core outlet
 Fractional oil flow at core outlet is defined as below
𝑞𝑜𝐿 𝑞𝑜𝐿
 𝑓𝑜𝐿 = = (34)
𝑞𝑜𝐿 +𝑞𝑤𝐿 𝑞𝑊𝐼
 Subscript L refers to core outlet, where x = L
61
 foL = fractional oil flow at core outlet, fraction

 qoL = oil flow rate at the core outlet, cc/s
 qwL = water flow rate at the core outlet, cc/s
 qwI = constant water injection rate, cc/s
 Unfortunately, oil and water flow rates at outlet are not directly
measured
 We compute fractional oil flow at core outlet from dimensionless
cumulative oil production
62
 It can be shown that foL is the derivative of NpD with respect to WID
 𝑓𝑜𝐿 = 𝑑𝑁𝑝𝐷 /𝑑𝑊𝐼𝐷 (35)
 Next, we compute water saturation at core outlet
 Using a mass balance, it can be shown that water saturation at core
outlet can be expressed as below
 𝑆𝑤𝐿 = 𝑆𝑤𝑐 + 𝑁𝑝𝐷 − 𝑓𝑜𝐿 𝑊𝐼𝐷 (36)
 Now, we compute a derivative that is somewhat complicated and used
in calculation of oil relative permeability
63
 Derivative group is given below

 𝑦 = 𝑑 1/𝑊𝐼𝐷 𝐼𝑟 /𝑑 1/𝑊𝐼𝐷 (37)
 JBN have shown that kro is equal to foL divided by derivative group given
in Eq. 37
𝑓𝑜𝐿 𝑓𝑜𝐿
 𝑘𝑟𝑜 𝑆𝑤𝐿 = = (38)
𝑦 𝑑 1/𝑊𝐼𝐷 𝐼𝑟 /𝑑 1/𝑊𝐼𝐷
 krw is calculated using eq. given below
 𝑘𝑟𝑤 𝑆𝑤𝐿 = 𝜇𝑤 1/𝑓𝑜𝐿 − 1 𝑘𝑟𝑜 /𝜇𝑜 (39)
64
 Derivatives appearing in Eqs. 35 and 38 are computed using numerical

methods
 Experimentally measured data are always prone to measurement errors
 Measured data are not precise but prone to noise
 Due to measurement errors, numerical computation of derivatives is
cumbersome and sometimes unreliable
 Finite difference methods for calculation derivatives from noisy data do
not give accurate results
 Variables used in Eqs. 31 through 39 are all in cgs (Darcy) unit system
65
Computation of Derivatives in JBN Method
 Peters and Khataniar suggested fitting polynomial curves to measured

data
 After curve fitting, derivatives appearing in JBN method are computed
analytically
 Curve fitting smoothes measured data and suppress noise due to
measurement errors
 Peters and Khataniar proposed the following equations
 𝑁𝑝𝐷 = 𝑎𝑜 + 𝑎1 ln 𝑊𝐼𝐷 + 𝑎2 ln 𝑊𝐼𝐷 2 (40)
 a0, a1, and a2 are constant coefficient of polynomial fit
66
Computation of Derivatives in JBN Method
 After curve fitting and determination of coefficients, derivative

dNpD/dWID is computed using analytical equation below
 𝑁𝑝𝐷 = 𝑎𝑜 + 𝑎1 ln 𝑊𝐼𝐷 + 𝑎2 ln 𝑊𝐼𝐷 2 (41)
 𝑑𝑁𝑝𝐷 /𝑑𝑊𝐼𝐷 = 𝑎1 + 2𝑎2 ln 𝑊𝐼𝐷 /𝑊𝐼𝐷 (42)
 Similarly, for computation of derivative d(1/WIDIr)/d(1/WID) in Eq. 38,
Peters and Khataniar recommended following equations
 𝑧 = ln 1/𝑊𝐼𝐷 𝐼𝑟 = 𝑏𝑜 + 𝑏1 ln 1/𝑊𝐼𝐷 + 𝑏2 ln 1/𝑊𝐼𝐷 2 (43)
𝑑 1/𝑊𝐼𝐷 𝐼𝑟
 𝑦= = 𝑊𝐼𝐷 𝑏1 + 2𝑏2 ln 1/𝑊𝐼𝐷 exp 𝑧 (44)
𝑑 1/𝑊𝐼𝐷
67
Algorithm for JBN Method
 A stepwise procedure for computing relative permeabilities from JBN

method is presented below
 Step 1; given WI, Np, and Vp, use Eqs. 31 and 32 and predict WID and NpD
 Additionally, using Eq. 33, predict Ir
 Step 2; compute ln(WID), ln(1/WID), 1/WIDIr,and ln(1/WIDIr)
 Step 3; construct a Cartesian plot of NpD versus ln(WID)
 Using EXCEL spreadsheet, fit a second degree polynomial to
experimental NpD versus ln(WID) data
 Determine constant coefficients a0, a1, and a2 of polynomial fit
68
 Step 4; make a Cartesian plot of ln(1/WIDIr) versus ln(1/WID)

experimental ln(1/WIDIr) versus ln(1/WID) data
 Determine constant coefficients b0, b1, and b2 of polynomial fit
 Step 5; using Eq. 42, calculate derivative dNpD/dWID
 Calculated derivative is equal to foL, thus, foL is determined
 Step 6; by means of Eq. 43, compute variable z
 Then, using Eq. 44, predict derivative y = d(1/WIDIr)/d(1/WID)
69
 Step 7; use Eq. 36 and estimate SwL

 Step 8; now, we are ready to compute relative permeabilities
 Use Eq. 38 and predict kro at outlet water saturation of SwL
 Step 9; from Eq. 39, calculate krw
 Step 10; repeat calculations above for all measured data points
 Plot kro and krw as a function of SwL
70
Estimating Relative Permeabilities - JBN Method – Example 2
 Test data used in this example is given by Peters

 Unsteady state experiment is run on an artificial sandpack
 Sandpack contains highly viscous synthetic oil
 During experiment, oil is displaced by injecting water at a constant
injection rate of 100 cc/h
 Basic relevant data are reported in Table 4
 Some of data reported by Peters were in different units
 Data in Table 4 are all in cgs (Darcy) units
71
 WI, Np, and Dp sandpack recorded at discrete times are all tabulated in
Table 5
 Np and WI are plotted in Figure 10
 Figure 11 display Dp as a function of time
 Using JBN method, analyze unsteady state experimental data
 Estimate SwL, kro, and krw at core outlet
72
Table 4 – Basic data for the unsteady
state experiment, Example 2
Parameter Value
L, cm = 54.7
d, cm = 4.8
f, fraction = 0.306
mo, cp = 108.4
mw, cp = 1.0
k, d = 3.42
qwI, cc/s = 0.0278
Swc, fraction = 0.119
koSwc, d = 3.16
A, cm2 = 18.0956
Vb, cm3 = 989.83
Vp, cm3 = 302.69
Vm, cm3 = 687.14
73
Table 5 – Test data recorded during unsteady Table 5 – Test data recorded during unsteady
state water-oil displacement experiment state water-oil displacement experiment
t WI Np Dp t WI Np Dp
(h) (cc) (cc) (atm) (h) (cc) (cc) (atm)
0.000 0.0 0.0 0.0000 7.943 794.3 133.5 0.1647
1.026 102.6 102.0 0.6138 9.762 976.2 135.3 0.1565
1.062 106.2 103.5 0.5648 13.155 1,315.5 138.0 0.1449
1.196 119.6 106.8 0.4702 17.311 1,731.1 140.4 0.1354
1.329 132.9 109.0 0.4130 21.467 2,146.7 142.0 0.1293
1.520 152.0 111.7 0.3688 25.620 2,562.0 143.2 0.1245
1.777 177.7 114.4 0.3314 31.831 3,183.1 144.4 0.1218
2.028 202.8 116.8 0.3096 33.910 3,391.0 145.0 0.1191
2.543 254.3 120.2 0.2722 38.072 3,807.2 145.6 0.1184
3.442 344.2 124.1 0.2259 40.170 4,017.0 145.9 0.1157
4.855 485.5 128.0 0.1892 44.326 4,432.6 146.2 0.1157
6.142 614.2 130.5 0.1715 48.479 4,847.9 146.5 0.1157
74
Estimating Relative Permeabilities - Example 2 – Figure 10
75
76
 To analyze test data, we implement algorithm given previously

 We present detailed calculation for first data point
 Step 1; using Eqs. 31, 32, and 33, we compute WID, NpD, and Ir
 𝑊𝐼𝐷 = 𝑊𝐼 /𝑉𝑝 = 102.6/302.69 = 0.339
 𝑁𝑝𝐷 = 𝑁𝑝 /𝑉𝑝 = 102/302.69 = 0.337
𝑞𝑤𝐼 𝜇𝑜 𝐿 0.0278×108.4×54.7
 𝐼𝑟 = = = 4.335
𝑘𝐴∆𝑝 0.6138×3.42×18.0956
77
 Step 2; we calculate ln(WID), ln(1/WID), 1/WIDIr, and ln(1/WIDIr)

 ln 𝑊𝐼𝐷 = ln 0.339 = −1.0818
 ln 1/𝑊𝐼𝐷 = ln 1/0.339 = +1.0818
 1/𝑊𝐼𝐷 𝐼𝑟 = 1/ 0.339 × 4.335 = 0.6805
 ln 1/𝑊𝐼𝐷 𝐼𝑟 = ln 0.6805 = −0.385
 Calculated results for all data points are tabulated in Table 6
78
Estimating Relative Permeabilities - Example 2
Table 6 – Calculations for the interpretation of the unsteady state water-oil displacement experiment, Example 2
WID NpD Dp Ir ln(WID) ln(1/WID) 1/WIDIr ln(1/WIDIr) foL SwL y kro krw
() () (atm) () () () () () () (fraction) () (fraction) (fraction)
0.1190 0.9240 0.0000
0.339 0.337 0.6138 4.3350 -1.0818 1.0818 0.6805 -0.3850 0.1830 0.3940 0.3681 0.4971 0.0207
0.351 0.342 0.5648 4.7110 -1.0470 1.0470 0.6048 -0.5029 0.1754 0.3994 0.3562 0.4924 0.0216
0.395 0.353 0.4702 5.6587 -0.9289 0.9289 0.4474 -0.8043 0.1519 0.4120 0.3192 0.4758 0.0248
0.439 0.360 0.4130 6.4418 -0.8233 0.8233 0.3536 -1.0395 0.1334 0.4204 0.2901 0.4599 0.0278
0.502 0.369 0.3688 7.2143 -0.6892 0.6892 0.2761 -1.2869 0.1131 0.4312 0.2578 0.4388 0.0321
0.587 0.378 0.3314 8.0291 -0.5327 0.5327 0.2122 -1.5503 0.0932 0.4423 0.2258 0.4128 0.0374
0.670 0.386 0.3096 8.5938 -0.4005 0.4005 0.1737 -1.7506 0.0790 0.4521 0.2026 0.3901 0.0424
0.840 0.397 0.2722 9.7754 -0.1744 0.1744 0.1218 -2.1055 0.0594 0.4661 0.1697 0.3502 0.0516
1.137 0.410 0.2259 11.7776 0.1284 -0.1284 0.0747 -2.5946 0.0404 0.4831 0.1362 0.2964 0.0657
1.604 0.423 0.1892 14.0653 0.4725 -0.4725 0.0443 -3.1162 0.0257 0.5007 0.1085 0.2374 0.0837
2.029 0.431 0.1715 15.5165 0.7075 -0.7075 0.0318 -3.4494 0.0188 0.5118 0.0941 0.1998 0.0971
2.624 0.441 0.1647 16.1577 0.9647 -0.9647 0.0236 -3.7471 0.0132 0.5253 0.0816 0.1621 0.1126
3.225 0.447 0.1565 17.0007 1.1709 -1.1709 0.0182 -4.0042 0.0099 0.5340 0.0735 0.1348 0.1255
4.346 0.456 0.1449 18.3576 1.4693 -1.4693 0.0125 -4.3793 0.0064 0.5470 0.0641 0.1004 0.1444
5.719 0.464 0.1354 19.6490 1.7438 -1.7438 0.0089 -4.7218 0.0043 0.5587 0.0574 0.0741 0.1616
7.092 0.469 0.1293 20.5798 1.9590 -1.9590 0.0069 -4.9833 0.0030 0.5665 0.0532 0.0569 0.1747
8.464 0.473 0.1245 21.3670 2.1358 -2.1358 0.0055 -5.1977 0.0023 0.5729 0.0503 0.0449 0.1850
10.516 0.477 0.1218 21.8445 2.3529 -2.3529 0.0044 -5.4368 0.0015 0.5798 0.0473 0.0326 0.1968
11.203 0.479 0.1191 22.3438 2.4162 -2.4162 0.0040 -5.5227 0.0014 0.5826 0.0465 0.0295 0.2001
12.578 0.481 0.1184 22.4722 2.5319 -2.5319 0.0035 -5.6442 0.0011 0.5862 0.0452 0.0243 0.2059
13.271 0.482 0.1157 23.0009 2.5856 -2.5856 0.0033 -5.7211 0.0010 0.5879 0.0447 0.0221 0.2084
14.644 0.483 0.1157 23.0009 2.6840 -2.6840 0.0030 -5.8196 0.0008 0.5902 0.0437 0.0184 0.2129
16.016 0.484 0.1157 23.0009 2.7736 -2.7736 0.0027 -5.9091 0.0007 0.5924 0.0430 0.0154 0.2167
79
 Step 3; we construct a Cartesian plot of NpD versus ln(WID)

 Plot of NpD versus ln(WID) is given in Figure 12
 Using EXCEL spreadsheet, we fit a second degree polynomial to
experimental NpD versus ln(WID) data
 Constant coefficients of polynomial fit are determined as follows
 a0 = 0.4024
 a1 = 0.0476
 a2 = -0.00667
80
81
 Step 4; we plot a Cartesian plot ln(1/WIDIr) versus ln(1/WID)

experimental ln(1/WIDIr) versus ln(1/WID) data
 Figure 13 displays ln(1/WIDIr) versus ln(1/WID) data and polynomial fit
 Constant coefficients of polynomial fit are determined as below
 b0 = -2.36
 b1 = 1.57984
 b2 = 0.11298
82
83
 Step 5; using Eq. 42, we estimate derivative dNpD/dWID

 For first data point, derivative dNpD/dWID is computed as follows
 𝑑𝑁𝑝𝐷 /𝑑𝑊𝐼𝐷 = 𝑎1 + 2𝑎2 ln 𝑊𝐼𝐷 /𝑊𝐼𝐷
 𝑑𝑁𝑝𝐷 /𝑑𝑊𝐼𝐷 = 0.0476 − 2 × 0.00667 × ln 0.339 /0.339 = 0.183
 Calculated derivative is equal to fractional oil flow at outlet, foL
 foL is determined as follows
 𝑓𝑜𝐿 = 𝑑𝑁𝑝𝐷 /𝑑𝑊𝐼𝐷 = 0.183
84
 Step 6; we use Eq. 43, compute variable z

 𝑧 = 𝑏𝑜 + 𝑏1 ln 1/𝑊𝐼𝐷 + 𝑏2 ln 1/𝑊𝐼𝐷 2
 𝑧 = −2.36 + 1.57984 × 1.0818 + 0.11298 × 1.08182 = −0.5188
 Now, we predict derivative y = d(1/WIDIr)/d(1/WID)
𝑑 1/𝑊𝐼𝐷 𝐼𝑟
 𝑦= = 𝑊𝐼𝐷 𝑏1 + 2𝑏2 ln 1/𝑊𝐼𝐷 exp 𝑧
𝑑 1/𝑊𝐼𝐷
 𝑦 = 0.339 × 1.57984 + 2 × 0.11298 × 1.0818 × exp −0.5188 = 0.3681
85
 Step 7; we use Eq. 36 and estimate SwL

 𝑆𝑤𝐿 = 𝑆𝑤𝑐 + 𝑁𝑝𝐷 − 𝑓𝑜𝐿 𝑊𝐼𝐷 = 0.119 + 0.337 − 0.183 × 0.339 = 0.394
 Step 8; using Eq. 38, we determine oil relative permeability
𝑓𝑜𝐿 0.183
 𝑘𝑟𝑜 𝑆𝑤𝐿 = = = 0.4971
𝑑 1/𝑊𝐼𝐷 𝐼𝑟 /𝑑 1/𝑊𝐼𝐷 0.3681
 Step 9; we use Eq. 39 and predict water relative permeability.
 𝑘𝑟𝑤 𝑆𝑤𝐿 = 𝜇𝑤 1/𝑓𝑜𝐿 − 1 𝑘𝑟𝑜 /𝜇𝑜
 𝑘𝑟𝑤 𝑆𝑤𝐿 = 1 × 1/0.183 − 1 × 0.4971/108.4 = 0.0207
86
 Step 10; we repeat calculation algorithm for all recorded data points
 All calculations are presented in Table 6
 Finally we plot kro and krw as a function of SwL
 Figure 14 displays kro and krw estimated from unsteady state water-oil
displacement experiment
 Note that, in unsteady state method, we cannot estimate kro and krw in
water saturation range of Swc = 0.119 < Sw < 0.394
 In Swc = 0.119 < Sw < 0.394 interval, we simply do a linear interpolation
87
Estimating Relative Permeabilities - Example 2
Table 6 – Calculations for the interpretation of the unsteady state water-oil displacement experiment, Example 2
WID NpD Dp Ir ln(WID) ln(1/WID) 1/WIDIr ln(1/WIDIr) foL SwL y kro krw
() () (atm) () () () () () () (fraction) () (fraction) (fraction)
0.1190 0.9240 0.0000
0.339 0.337 0.6138 4.3350 -1.0818 1.0818 0.6805 -0.3850 0.1830 0.3940 0.3681 0.4971 0.0207
0.351 0.342 0.5648 4.7110 -1.0470 1.0470 0.6048 -0.5029 0.1754 0.3994 0.3562 0.4924 0.0216
0.395 0.353 0.4702 5.6587 -0.9289 0.9289 0.4474 -0.8043 0.1519 0.4120 0.3192 0.4758 0.0248
0.439 0.360 0.4130 6.4418 -0.8233 0.8233 0.3536 -1.0395 0.1334 0.4204 0.2901 0.4599 0.0278
0.502 0.369 0.3688 7.2143 -0.6892 0.6892 0.2761 -1.2869 0.1131 0.4312 0.2578 0.4388 0.0321
0.587 0.378 0.3314 8.0291 -0.5327 0.5327 0.2122 -1.5503 0.0932 0.4423 0.2258 0.4128 0.0374
0.670 0.386 0.3096 8.5938 -0.4005 0.4005 0.1737 -1.7506 0.0790 0.4521 0.2026 0.3901 0.0424
0.840 0.397 0.2722 9.7754 -0.1744 0.1744 0.1218 -2.1055 0.0594 0.4661 0.1697 0.3502 0.0516
1.137 0.410 0.2259 11.7776 0.1284 -0.1284 0.0747 -2.5946 0.0404 0.4831 0.1362 0.2964 0.0657
1.604 0.423 0.1892 14.0653 0.4725 -0.4725 0.0443 -3.1162 0.0257 0.5007 0.1085 0.2374 0.0837
2.029 0.431 0.1715 15.5165 0.7075 -0.7075 0.0318 -3.4494 0.0188 0.5118 0.0941 0.1998 0.0971
2.624 0.441 0.1647 16.1577 0.9647 -0.9647 0.0236 -3.7471 0.0132 0.5253 0.0816 0.1621 0.1126
3.225 0.447 0.1565 17.0007 1.1709 -1.1709 0.0182 -4.0042 0.0099 0.5340 0.0735 0.1348 0.1255
4.346 0.456 0.1449 18.3576 1.4693 -1.4693 0.0125 -4.3793 0.0064 0.5470 0.0641 0.1004 0.1444
5.719 0.464 0.1354 19.6490 1.7438 -1.7438 0.0089 -4.7218 0.0043 0.5587 0.0574 0.0741 0.1616
7.092 0.469 0.1293 20.5798 1.9590 -1.9590 0.0069 -4.9833 0.0030 0.5665 0.0532 0.0569 0.1747
8.464 0.473 0.1245 21.3670 2.1358 -2.1358 0.0055 -5.1977 0.0023 0.5729 0.0503 0.0449 0.1850
10.516 0.477 0.1218 21.8445 2.3529 -2.3529 0.0044 -5.4368 0.0015 0.5798 0.0473 0.0326 0.1968
11.203 0.479 0.1191 22.3438 2.4162 -2.4162 0.0040 -5.5227 0.0014 0.5826 0.0465 0.0295 0.2001
12.578 0.481 0.1184 22.4722 2.5319 -2.5319 0.0035 -5.6442 0.0011 0.5862 0.0452 0.0243 0.2059
13.271 0.482 0.1157 23.0009 2.5856 -2.5856 0.0033 -5.7211 0.0010 0.5879 0.0447 0.0221 0.2084
14.644 0.483 0.1157 23.0009 2.6840 -2.6840 0.0030 -5.8196 0.0008 0.5902 0.0437 0.0184 0.2129
16.016 0.484 0.1157 23.0009 2.7736 -2.7736 0.0027 -5.9091 0.0007 0.5924 0.0430 0.0154 0.2167
88
89
Empirical Methods for Two-Phase Relative Permeabilities
 Several investigators developed empirical relative permeability models

based on large set of experimental data
 Honarpour et al. presented several empirical model for different
combinations of
 rock type
 wetness
 multiple fluid systems
90
 Sandstone-conglomerate, water-wet, and oil-water system

 Empirical model is as follows
𝑆𝑤 −𝑆𝑤𝑐 𝑆𝑤 −𝑆𝑜𝑟𝑤 2.9
 𝑘𝑟𝑤 = 𝑎1 − 𝑎2 3.6 𝑆 − 𝑆
+ 𝑎3 𝑆𝑤 (45)
1−𝑆𝑤𝑐 −𝑆𝑜𝑟𝑤 1−𝑆𝑤𝑐 −𝑆𝑜𝑟𝑤 𝑤 𝑤𝑐
 a1 = 0.035388, a2 = 0.010874 , a3 = 0.56556

𝑆𝑜 / 1−𝑆𝑤𝑐 −𝑆𝑜𝑟𝑤 1.8 𝑆𝑜 −𝑆𝑜𝑟𝑤 2
 𝑘𝑟𝑜 = 𝑏1
1−𝑆𝑜𝑟𝑤 1−𝑆𝑤𝑐 −𝑆𝑜𝑟𝑤
+ 𝑏3 𝜙 1 − 𝑆𝑜𝑟𝑤 𝑆𝑜 − 𝑆𝑜𝑟𝑤 (46)
 b1 = 0.76067, b2 = 2.6318
91
 Sandstone-conglomerate, oil-wet and mixed wettability, and water-oil

systems
𝑆𝑤 −𝑆𝑤𝑐 1.91 𝑆𝑤 −𝑆𝑜𝑟𝑤
 𝑘𝑟𝑤 = 𝑐1
1−𝑆𝑤𝑐
− 𝑐2
1−𝑆𝑤𝑐 −𝑆𝑜𝑟𝑤
+ 𝑐3 𝜙 1 − 𝑆𝑤𝑐 𝑆𝑤 − 𝑆𝑤𝑐 (47)
 c1 = 1.5814, c2 = 0.58617, c3 = 1.2484
 Eq. 46 given previously also apply for this case to predict kro
92
 For sandstone-conglomerate rocks containing oil-gas systems,

4 2
𝑆𝑜 𝑆𝑜 −𝑆𝑜𝑟𝑔
 𝑘𝑟𝑜 = 0.98372 (48)
1−𝑆𝑤𝑐 1−𝑆𝑤𝑐 −𝑆𝑜𝑟𝑔
𝑆𝑔 −𝑆𝑔𝑐 𝑆𝑔 −𝑆𝑔𝑐
 𝑘𝑟𝑔 = 𝑘𝑟𝑔𝑆𝑜𝑟𝑔 1.1072 + 2.7794 𝑆𝑜𝑟𝑔 (49)
1−𝑆𝑤𝑐 1−𝑆𝑤𝑐
 Variables appearing in empirical Honarpour et al. model are defined

below
93
 kro = relative permeability to oil, fraction

 krg = relative permeability to gas, fraction
 krw = relative permeability to water, fraction
 So = oil saturation, fraction
 Sorg = residual oil saturation to gas flooding, fraction
 Sorw = residual oil saturation to water flooding, fraction
 Sw = water saturation, fraction
 Swc = connate water saturation, fraction
94
 Sg = gas saturation, fraction

 Sgc = critical gas saturation, fraction
 krgSorg = end point relative permeability to gas at So = Sorg, fraction
 In the absence of experiment data, we rely on empirical relative

permeability models
 Empirical relative permeability models are also useful for designing
relative permeability experiments
95
References
 Ahmed, T.: Reservoir Engineering Handbook, Fourth Edition, Gulf

Professional Publishing, 2010
 Dandekar, A.Y.: Petroleum Reservoir Rock and Fluid Properties, Taylor
and Francis Group, LLC, Boca Raton, 2006
 Honarpour, M. et al.: Relative Permeability of Petroleum Reservoir, CRC
Press, Inc, Boca Raton, Florida, 1987
 McPhee, C., Reed, J., and Zubizarreta, I.: Core Analysis: A Best Practice
Guide, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2015
96
References
 Monicard, R.P.: Properties of Reservoir Rocks: Core Analysis, Gulf

Publishing Company, Houston, 1980
 Peters, E.J: Advanced Petrophysics: Volume 2: Dispersion, Interfacial
Phenomena/Wettability, Capillarity/Capillary Pressure, Relative
Permeability, Live Oak Book Company, Austin, Texas, 2012
 Tiab, D. and Donaldson, E.C.: Petrophysics, Second Edition, Gulf
Professional Publishing, 2004
97
Useful Links
 http://petrowiki.org/Relative_permeability
 http://petrowiki.org/PEH:Relative_Permeability_and_Capillary_Pressur
e
 http://wiki.aapg.org/Relative_permeability
 http://wiki.aapg.org/Relative_permeability_and_pore_type
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_permeability
 http://perminc.com/resources/fundamentals-of-fluid-flow-in-porous-
media/chapter-2-the-porous-medium/relative-permeability/relative-
permeability-curves/
98
Useful Links
 http://homepages.see.leeds.ac.uk/~earpwjg/PG_EN/CD%20Contents/F
ormation%20Evaluation%20English/Chapter%2010.PDF
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKEw0e1QwHg
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgO1G3JUHFY
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIORNcSUbD4
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs9cgR8oK2Q
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3lAbwLz5-4
99

Lab Session Permeability Measurements

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Lab Session Permeability Measurements

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PET176

Reservoir Rock Properties

 Steady state method using liquids

 A must have reference

 The most common liquids to measure permeability under steady state

 Synthetic oils with low viscosity

 Many commercial instruments to measure permeability

 Components of apparatus for steady state liquid permeameter

 Two end caps with flow distributers

 A differential pressure transducer

 Back pressure regulator (BPR)

Confining fluid BPR

Constant Core holder

 A differential pressure transducer directly measures the pressure drop

 Main disadvantage; liquid permeameter is impractical to measure low

 Reconsider Test # 1 in Example 1

 𝐴 = 𝜋𝑑 2 /4 = 3.1415926 × 2.542 /4 = 5.067 cm2

 Other gases; hydrogen, argon, carbon dioxide, and methane

 Gas permeability measurements conducted at low or high pressures

 Multiple repeated tests

 Gas permeameters designed to operate at low pressures are simple and

 Apparatus for gas permeameters designed to operate at high pressures are

Confining fluid BPR

 In case of gas permeameters, flow measurements are conducted at several

 Klinkenberg plot is constructed

 A gas permeameter using nitrogen, m = 0.0175 cp

 Calculations for Test #1 presented below

 A straight line is fit to the test data

 Many methods to measure relative permeabilities on core samples

 Capillary pressure methods

 Here, we will review steady and unsteady state methods

 In steady state methods, a fixed ratio of two fluid phases is forced

 Darcy’s equation is used to compute effective permeabilities

 Stationary fluid method

 In general, steady state methods are more accurate and reliable

 Assume water-wet rock and imbibition relative permeability

 Steady state is achieved when

 After weight measurement, a mass balance calculation is performed to

 Wwc = weight of fluid saturated wet core, g

 A steady state relative permeability experiment on a sandstone core

 We present calculations for fifth measured data point

 Using Eqs. 29 and 30,

 Now, we compute relative permeabilities

Table 3 –Relative permeabilities estimated from steady state experiment,

 Steady state measurement of relative permeability is relatively simple

 Unsteady state experiment is based on a dynamic multiphase

 Consider measurement of oil and water relative permeabilities

 Pressure drop across core plug is measured as a function of time

Confining fluid BPR

 To interpret data from an unsteady state experiment, we need to have a

 Interpretation of the unsteady state experiments is based on

 Buckley-Leverett solution for immiscible oil-water displacement

 Welge graphical interpretation of test data

 Derivation and presentation of mathematics for multiphase flow are

 There are several interpretation techniques to predict relative

 Equations used in JBN method are given below

 Np = cumulative oil production, cc

 k = absolute permeability to single phase flow, d

 foL = fractional oil flow at core outlet, fraction

 Derivative group is given below

 Derivatives appearing in Eqs. 35 and 38 are computed using numerical

 Peters and Khataniar suggested fitting polynomial curves to measured