SPE 30001

I
fiiiBa
m
Se c k s $ ;0 ! Ps?m!H.rr! E@!m M
The Oii-Water Rekdhie i%r~ed)iiitjj Be!wiw of .4 LOWper.~e~bie Reservoir
Li Kevin, Jian Ykong, Dai Zhijian and Hong Ying, RIPED of CNPC, P. O. Box 910, Beijing
8 100083, P.R. hina
CopytigM 1SS5, sociity of Petmfsum Engineers, Iw.
This paper wss prepared for presentation at the Inkmstioaal Meeting on petroleum Engineering held in Ssljing, PR Chine, 14-17 Ncwember 1SS5.
This pspsr was esfeoted for pmsentsfion by sn SPE Program Committesfolfowing review of infonneth contsined in an ebetred eubmittedbyfhs author(s). Contents of fhspsper, sspmesntsd.
hsve not been mviswad by the society of Petmlsum Engineers and are subjected to correction by the eufhor(s). l?w metsrisl, es presented, doss rmt
nswessrity reflscl any poeifii of ftw
Q of PSWOkIMII EI@IMOm, its offksra, or members. PsPsrs presentmf at SPE meetings ans subject to pubficeth review by Editmiaf Commlftees of the Society of Petrofeum Engineers.
Pennieeh to COPYis restricted to an abstract of not more than 200 wcsda. Illuefmtiis msy not be copied. l%s abstract should oonfem mqkuous acknowledgment of where andbywlwm
thepsw is pmsenfad. Wttte Librsrien, SPE, P.O. Sox S2SS26, Rii . TX 750s2-3s2S, U.S.A. (Fecsimifs 214-9524435).
Much attention is now paid to the development of
low permeable reservoirs. However, there is ahnost a
dearth of literature on the study of reiative
permeabilities in rock samples with low permeability.
Group J2S of QL Reservoir is characteristics of low
porosity, low permeab~ and low crude oil viscosity.
Oil-water relative permeabilities of QL Reservoir have
been measured at two different oil/water viscosity
ratinc
. . . . . ..- by Uting unsteady-state method. The
experimentalresults showed that the oil-water relative
permeabilities change with the changing of oil/water
viscosity ratio. It is explained that the oil-water
relative permeabilities measured at oil/water viscosity
ratio close to the oil/water viscosity ratio under
reservoir condition coincide with the practical
situation of QL Reservoir by comparing the injection-
production ratio calculated Horn laboratory water
flooding data with the practical one.
The irreducible water saturations m QL Reservoir
rocks range from 27.7/0 to 35. 8Aand its average
value is 31. 5!!40.The water flooding residual oil
saturations range from 11.6A to 21.7% and its
average value is 14.8Y0.Most of the water relative
permeabilities at residual oil saturations range from
0.23 to 0.50 and its average value is about 0.388. Oil-
water 2-phase flowing limit ranges born 47. 8% to
59.01% and its average value is about 53.7?40.
Moreover, the end water relative permeabilities are
cmelated with the air permeabilities of rock samples.
Tht is, the bigger th- ~ ~hiliti~c n f t h e rock u all p.. -..--- -. . ---
samples, the higher the end water relative
permeabilities.
ODUCT ION
The development of a reservoir by water injection
usually includes an oil-water 2-phase or an oil-gas-
water 3-phase flowing in porous media(reservoir
rock). The efficiency of development by water
injection is closeiy reiated to the muiti-phase flow-in
porous media which is dependent on rock
permeability,pore structure, nettability, capillary
pressure, interfhcial tension, viscosity of fluid and
relative permeability of each phase.
The basic idea of relative permeability is simple.
However, the fiwtorsto ai%ct relative permeability are
very complex. Many literatures about relative
permeability published now explain that it is very
diflicult to obtain really representative and true relative
permeability data.
Data from Jennings[l], Donaldson et al[21and other
research~314] proved that the effect of resexvoir rock
Reference and illustration at end of paper
497
.
.
2 THE O&WATER RELATIVE PERMEABILITY BENHAVIOUR OF SPE 30001
A LOW PERMEABLE RESERVOIR
nettability on oil-water relative permeabilities was
very large. Hence, it is necessary to restore the
nettability of reservoir rock rnto the originai state
when the nettability is altered or there are no fiesh-
state core sample+51G][7K8]. A&r core samples are
selected, the rock nettability may be the most
important factor to affect behaviour of oil-water
relative permeability. Just because of this reason,
reservoir engineers often evaluate the preferred
nettability of reservoir rocks according to the
behaviour of oil-water relative permeability curve.
There are two types ofviewpornts about the effects of
oi.1.lwater viscosity ratio on oil-water relative
permeabilities. Some researchers, for example,
Leverett[91,Richardson[lO],considered that there were
little effects of oil/water viscosity ratio on oil-water
relative permeability. But Otheri$iixiz]considered that
oil-water relative permeabilities were obviously
tiected by the ratio of oil/water viscosity and
increased with the increase of the ratio. What said
above is experimental result. One of the problems is
-1.--.2 :-r-r 8WT%,1+ +#-i m a nth- fn~tnrc m m c t ~~
Lu i u lLU vGly Uu Lt wwb %. en . u r w -. * .. . . . +. -. .
when the effect of oil/water viscosity ratio on oil-
water relative permeabilitiesis studied. The theoretical
bvestigation by Kevin Li[13]showed that the effect of
oil/water viscosity ratio on relative permeabilities of
non-wet phase is large.
There are alao dif%rent opinions concerning the effect
of temperature on relative permeab~. The published
data are contradictory. For example, Data from
Edmonson[14] indicate a strong temperature effect.
However, results of Miller et al[151suggest no
temperature effects. Aga@ data obtained by steady-
s~ate ~d ~<Leady-#Latemet.hd~ &-ecuu~ .u-,..o.J,
amv*Ai&~
with some studies showing significant diffkrence(for
example, Amaefhh?c], Maini[171and Kevin Li[sl)
between two methods while other studies show
agreement (for example, Johnson et al) between two
methods.
QL Resexvoirwhich was dismvered recently is a large
scale reservoir with very good quality of crude oil.
Group J2S is the main oil group. Its average
permeability is less than 50 md. This is a low
permeable reservoir with the average clay content of
10.7%. h order to assist in numerical simulation and
reservoir performance prediction, some core samples
.
..:1.. r 4-**almtk,n
are sekcteci iiom QILReservoir and UM- Wab=l~Wm.v.
permeabilities of these core samples are measured by
using ageing technique to restore rock nettability
because there are no fresh-state core samples. The
major methods for measuring oil-water relative
permeabilities in laboratory are unsteady-statd19],
steady-statd91m], combination of unsteady-state and
steady-statd21],centrifuge methods[22].Unsteady-state
method has been used in this paper to measure oil-
water relative permeabilities at ambient condition.
Two methods for the calculation of oil-water relative
permeabilities from data obtained by unsteady-state
method can be used. One is JBN rnethod[i9! or its
improved methotinlx]. The other is automatic history
matching niethocl=~~. The method fm cakw.latingoil-
water relative permeabilities is the same as that m
literature 23].
The diagram of the experimental equipment for
measuring oil and water relative permeabilities by
using unsteady-state method is shown m Fig. 1. The oil
and water outputs at the outend of a core sample are
measured by an oil-water separator during test with
0.025 ml errors of volume measurement. Differential
pressure transducers are used to measure the
differential pressure between two ends of a core
sample with 0.4% F. S.error.
PorQd:es and permeabilities of core samples are
measured tier drilling, cutting, cleaning and dried at
first. Then the core samples are saturated with the
formation briue at high pressure of 12 Mpa after
normal vacuum saturating. The core samples have
been aged for one month m crude oil at reservoir
temperature and pressure after the irreducible water
saturations are set up by using oil displacement m
order to restore the nettability of the crude oil-rock-
brine system. Results of Cuiec[5] showed that
nettability equilib- can sometimes be established at
a shorter period. But Hielmeland et al[]demonstrated
498
,
SPE 30001 LI KEVIN, JIANG YIRONG, DAI ZHtJIAN AND HONG YING 3
that it need longer period of time to establish
nettability equilibrium. It is determined to age one
month for the restoration of wettab@ to be
SuOiCient.
In order to study the effect of oil/water viscosity ratio
on oil and water relative permeabilities, 17 core
samples are selected from QL Reservoir and their oil-
water relative permeabilities are measured with
oil/water viscosity ratio 1.8 and 17.0 respectively.
Water floodingvelocities during the oil-water relative
permeab* tests with two diRient oillwater viscosity
ratio are the same and its LpV is large than 1.0.
Porosities and permeabilities of QL Reservoir rocks
are very low and range widely. For example,
permeabilitiesof the east block rauge mainly from 2.15
to 50.0 md and the average permeability is about 20.6
md while permeabilities of the west block range from
6.4 to 411.8 md and the average permeability is about
257.7 md. The heterogeneity of QL Reservoir is
characteristic of small Merence between formations
and large difference m formations. Therefore, the
resewch behaw~our said above is considered when
selecting core samples. 17 core samples are selected
from the same group (JZS) of ~erent wells m QL
Resewoir and their porosities, permeabilities are listed
mTable 1. Porosities of these core samples range from
10.3% to 20.7%0and the average porosity is 14. l3i0.
Permeabilities of these core samples range from
2. 10md to 216.0 md and the average permeability is
43.0 rnd. It can be seen from what said above that the
porosities and permeabilities of these core samples can
r~re~t the pra~ticd sititiati~ii&& ~~se~vok to
some extent.
Among the 17 core Sampleq 12 core samples are
selected as parallel experimental samples which are
dividedrnto sixgroups. There are two core samples m
each group. In Table 1, the core samples with symbol
LV will be tested at the low oil/water viscosity
ratio( 1.8) and those with symbol HV will be tested
at the high oil/water viscosity ratio( 17.0).
Conqxuisons of porosities and permeabilities of core
samples which are divided into six groups in Table 1
tested at low and high oillwater viscosity ratio
respectively are shown in Fig.2 and Fig.3. It can be
seen mFig.2 and Fig.3 that most of the data points are
located m the diagonal line, which shows that the
porosities and pexmeabilities of parallel samples are
almost the same.
The oil and water relative permeabilities of other five
core samples m Table 1 are measured at low oil/water
viscosity ratio( 1.8).
The irreducible water saturations, residual oil
saturations and the water end relative permeabilities(or
water relative penneabilities at residual oil saturations)
are listed m Table 2. Base permeability m the idea of
relative permeability is defined as the effective
permeability of oil phase at irreducible water
saturation m this paper.
It can be seen m Table 2 that the irreducible water
saturations in rocks of the group JZSm QL Reservoir
range from 27.7A to 35.9% and the average
irreducible water saturation is 32.7?40. Three typical
kinds of oil-water capillary pressure curves m QL
Reservoir are shown in Fig.4. The irreducible water
saturations m the three typical kinds of rocks are
25.2%, 35.0% and 43.2%0respectively and their
average value is about 34.5Y0,which shows that the
imxlucible water saturations in Table 2 are consistent
with the property of imeduciblewater saturation in oil-
water @l!ary pressure system.
Fig. 5 shows that the comparison of irreducible water
saturations of six groups of parallel core samples.
Most of the data pornts are located m or near the
diagonal line, which shows that the irreducible water
saturations of core samples tested at low oillwater
viscosity ratio are the same as those tested at high
oil/water viscosity ratio.
Comparison of the water flooding residual oil
499
.
4 THE OIL-WATER REI.ATIVE PERMEABILITY BENHAVIOUR OF SPE 30001
AI fiW PIV@fFNILE RESERV()~
Aus . ..-. .
saturations at dMerent oil/water viscosity ratio is
shown m Fig.6. It can be seen m Fig.6 that the effect
of oil/water viscosity ratio on water flooding residual
oil saturations is not significant. Water flooding
efficiency m laboratory can be calculated as follows
1 -Sw-sw
qR=
1-Swc
(1)
Because Fig. 5 suggests that the irreducible water
saturations of six groups of core samples are almost
the same and @n Fig.!i shows that the residual oil
saturations at two different oi.llwater viscosity ratios
are almost the same, it is knowmf?om equation one
that the eflkct of oiI/water viscosity ratio on the water
flooding efficiency is also not significant.
Fig. 7 shows the comparison of typical oil-water
relative permeability curves measured from two
W&rent oil/water viscosity ratios. it is found that the
eilixt of oilhvater viscosity ratio on the oil and water
relative permeabilities m low permeable core samples
is significant. The higher the oillwater viscosity ratio,
the lower &e oii and .watel , ~u.lv. ~e=u...-..
. .~l~+k,nm rmeahiliii~~o
Comparison of water end relative penneabilities of all
six groups of parallel core samples at di&rent
oi.Uwater viscosity ratio is shown m Fig.8. It can be
sem mFig.8 that the water end relative permeabilities
at high oil/water viscosity ratio are less than those at
low oil/water viscosity ratio.
From what said above, oil and water relative
permeabilities are dependent on oil/water viscosity
ratio m sandstone core samples with low
permeabilities. It will be discussed m which oiUwater
viscosity ratio oil and water relative permeabilities
measured are more reasonable.
Injection-production ratio duxing oiliield development
bywaterin.ectkmPa be eva!uated fiorn oil and water
relative permeabilities measured m laboratory water
flooding while the practical value of rnjection-
production ratio can be calculated from the practical
information of water rnjection. Comparison of the two
values of rnjection-production ratio may be used to
analyse the liability and representability of oii and
water relative permeabilities measured m laboratory.
The development of QL Reservoir by water rnjection
is not implemented yet. So it is impossible to evaluate
the oil and water relative permeability data by using
the practical information of water rnjection. However,
group J# of SS reservoir near QL Reservoir, only
separated by a &uIt, was developed by water rnjection
m 1991. Its sedimental and other reservoir properties
are the same as those of QL Reservoir. SS and QL are
actually two similar reservoirs m one oilfield.
1herefbre, it is reasonable to evaluate and analyse the
oil and water relative permeabilities of QL Reservoir
rocks by using practical information of water rnjection
m SS reservoir.
There are 64 layers m 14 wells of group J2S of SS
reservoir which have been perforated and the total
perforated depth is about 502.68m. The perforated
layers per well range from two to nine and the
perforated depth per well ranges from 14.40 to
m . ..+nA ~y~~ ~~ &@ in a wide
64.35m. l~e perSul@tWU
A. T* t ah ilit v
ia iige hiwe gGO_ ~ep. . w-. . . =.
The average water injectivity rndex per meter
calculated with the well test information born 14 wells
of group J# m SS resewoir is:
JW=0.0808-0.0940 m3/d.Mpa.m, (2)
And its average oil productivity index per meter is:
J~=O.125m3/d.Mpa.~ (3)
Iheaverage injection-production ratio is calculated as:
J#J~=O.6464-417250, (4)
The method for calculated rnjection-production ratio
from oil and water relative permeabilities is as follows
J w KW(SJ IL.
. .
(5)
J . K.(SJ I L
500
.
SPE 30001 LI KEVIN, JIANG YIRONG, DAI ZHIJTANAND HONG YING 5
Values of rnjection-productionratio calculated with oil
and water relative permeabilities data by using
equation (5) are listed m Table 3. The rnjection-
production ratio with oiUwater viscosity ratio of 1.8
and sample amount of six m Table 3 is the value of six
parallel core samples. It can be seen m Table 3 that the
injection-production ratio calculated from oil and
water relative permeabilities measured at oiUwater
v-iiasity ratio(l=8) close to that m resewoir condition
is much closer to the practical value of rnjection-
production ratio of SS reservoir developed by water
injection. However, the rnjection-production ratio
calculated from oil and water relative permeabilities
measured at high oillwater viscosity ratio is much
higher than the practical value of SS reservoir, which
shows that the oil and water relative permeabilities
measured at simulatedoillwater viscosity ratio is IIIOlc
. .
representative and practical.
In the project designin~] of QL Reservoir
Am,.1 n*
Ugv.lOYUPM$*he injectiomprodlu@lcmratio has been
decided as 0.5802+.7015. For convenient, the value
has been decided as 0.65 at last which is used to
calculatethe rnjectabilityof QL Reservoir. This shows
that the resewoir engineers to design development
program of QL Resewoir have made use of the oil and
water relative permeabilities measured at simulated
oil/water viscosity ratio at reservoir condition.
The oil-water relative permeability behaviour of QL
Resemoir with lowpenneability will be discussed with
data measured at the simulated oil/water viscosity
ratio.
It is found m Table 2 that the irreducible water
saturations of rocks m QL Resew~Group J$) range
from 27.7% to 35.8% and its average value is about
31.5%. The residual oil saturations by water flooding
range from 11.6% to 21.7/0and its average value is
about 14.8Y0. Most of the water end relative
permeabilitiesrange from 0.23 to 0.50 and its average
value is about 0.388. The oil-water 2-phase flowing
limits range from 47.8% to 59.0% and its average
value is about 53.70A. It may be deten.uined
approximatelyfiomthe oil-water relative permeability
behaviour described above that the rock nettability of
QL Reservoir is weakly water- wet/water-wet.
Experimental results measured by Amott method[27]
also showed that the rock nettability of QL Reservoir
is weakly water- wet/water-wet. This demonstrated
again that the oil and water relative permeabilities
measured at the simulated oil/water viscosity ratio in
resexvoirtemperature and pressure are more practical
m the aspect of nettability.
From what described above, although the porosities
and permeabilities of QL Reservoir are very low, the
water flooding residual oil saturations are not high and
the oil-water 2-phase flowing limits are not narrow.
This is because of two reasons as follows. One reason
~ &~t+the~n~~~y, of ~d~ ~1~at re.wok condition
is very low and the oiVwater viscosity ratio is close to
1.0. This type of viscosity property is helpfid to the
decreasing of residual oil saturations. Another reason
is that the rock nettability of QL Reservoir is weakly
water-wet/water-wet which is also heJpfhl to the
decreasing ofresidual oil saturations by water flooding
and the increasing of oil-water 2- phase limits.
Fig.9 shows the relationship between water end
relative permeabilities of QL Reservoir and air
permeabilities of rock samples. The higher the air
permeability, the larger the water end relative
permeabilityof QL Reservoir. This demonstrated that
water end relative permeabilities of QL Reservoir is
affixted significantly by rock permeabilities.
It is explained as follows that there is good
relationshipbetween water end relative permeabilities
and air permeabilities. In gener~ the higher the rock
permeability, the weaker the water nettability m one
reservoir. And the weaker the water nettability, the
larger the water end relative permeability obviously. It
can be derived easily that the higher the rock
permeability, the larger the water end relative
permeability m one reservoir.
CONCLwIONfl
This work leads to the following conclusions which
are considered relevant for experimental study on this
5 0 1
.
6 THE OILWATER RELATIVE PERMEABILITY BENHAVIOUR OF
SPE 30001
A LOW PERMEABLE RESERVOIR
type of rock samples with low porosities and
permeabilities m QL Reservoir:
1. The oil and water relative permeabilities measured
at the simulated oil/water viscosity ratio m reservoir
temperature and pressure are more reliable and
practical. Hence, oil and water relative penneabilities
should be measured at the simulated oiVwater
viscosity ratio m reservoir temperature and pressure
for rock samples with low permeabilities.
2. The residual oil satumtions by water flooding m QL
Reservoir are lower relatively and its average value is
only 14.8%The oil-water Z-phase flowing limits are
larger audits average value is about 53.7%. The water
end relative permeabilities are not low and its average
value is about 0.388. It may be predicted that the
injectability of QL Reservoir with low permeability
would not be low.
3. There is a good relationship between water end
relative permeabilities and air permeabilities for rock
samples of this reservoir. The higher the air
permeability, the larger the water end relative
permeability.
4. The oil and water relative permeabilities measured
at high oil/water viscosity ratio are smaller than those
measured at low oil/water viscosity ratio for rock
samples with low permeabilities m QL rservoir.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
m au t aor s t h an k Zhubo Zhang, Yikuan Ren and
Huirong Wang very much for conducting a large part
work of the experimental work.
NoMENcLA-
~~= Final Water Flooding Efficiency
~ = Irreducible Water Saturation
SO,=Residual Oil Saturation
JW=Adso~tion Water Inde&
Jw=Oil Production lkde~
~Sw)=Water Relative Permeability at Residual Oil
Saturation
l&O(SW)=OilRelative Permeability at Irreducible
Water Saturation
~O=Viscosityof ~ mpa.s
#W=Viscosityof Water, mPa.s
I. Jennings, H.H.:Surfkce Properties of Natural and
SyntheticPorous Media, Prod.Mon., 21(5), 20,1957.
2. Donaldso~ E. C., and Thomas, RD.:Microscopic
Observations of Oil Displacement m Water-Wet and
Oil-Wet Formations, Paper SPE 3555, Presented at
the 4&h SPE Amwa.1Fall Meeting, New Odians,
Ott.3-6,1971.
3. Owens,W.W., and Archer, D.L. :The Effect of
Rock Nettability on Oil-Water Relative Permeability
Relationships, JPT, 873-78, July 1971.
4. Labastie, A., Guy, M., Delclaud, J.P., and Iflly,
R:Eflkct of Flow Rate and Nettability on Water-Oil
Relative Permeabilities and Capillary Pressure, Paper
SPE 9236, Presented at the Fall Technical Conference,
Da&M, September 21-24, 1980.
5.Cuiec, L.E.:Restoration of the Natural State of
Core Samples, Paper SPE 5634, Presented at the
50th Annual Fall Meeting of the SPE, Dallas,
September 28-October 1, 1975.
6. Cuiec, L.E.:Study of Problems Related to the
Restoration of the Natural State of Core Samples,
JCPT, 16(4), 64, October-December 1977.
7.Hjehnelan&0. S., and La.mondo,L.E.:ExperimentaI
Investigation of the Effects of Temperature, Pressure,
and Crude CMComposition on Intdacial Properties,
SPERE, 321-328, July 1986.
8.Hawkius, J.T. :Comparison of Three Methods of
Relative Permeability Measurement, PaperNo.8804,
presented at 1988 SCA Conference.
9. Leverett, M.C. :Flow of Oil-Water Mixtures
through Unconsolidated Sands, Trans. AIME., 132,
149, 1939.
10. Richardsmq J.G.: Cakuiattcm of Water Fkoi!
Recovery ilom Steady-State Relative Permeability
Data, Trans.AIME. ,210,373,1957.
11. Morse, RA., Terwilliger,P.K, and Yuster,
CT R-l~tive Pe~eab&ity Measurements on Small
.* -------- ..-
Core Samples, Oil Gas J., 46, 109, 1957.
12.0de14A.S.:Effect of Viscosity Ratio on Relative
5 0 2
,
SPE 30001 LI KEVIN, JTANGYIRONG, DAI ZHJJIAN AND HONG YING
7
Permeability, Trans. AIME., 216,346,1959.
13. L\ K. : Theoretical Study of Calculating Oil-
Water Relative Permeability by Use of Effective
Medium Theory(E~), J. of Jiighan Petroleum
Institute, 10,3,55-65, 1988.
14. Edmonsou T.A.:Effectof Temperature on Water
Flooding, JCPT, 111, 236-242, October-December
1965.
15. Miller, M.A., and Ramey Jr., J.J.:Effect of
Temperature on Oil/Water Relative Permeability of
Unconsolidated Sands, SPEJ, December 1985.
16. Amaefide, J.O., and Handy, L.L.:The Effect of
Interflcial Tensions on Relative Permeabilities of
Consolidated Porous Media, SPEJ, 22(3), 371-381,
June 1982.
17.IW@ B.B., and Jha, K:A Comparison of Steady-
State and Unsteady-State Relative Permeabilities of
a..a..lll D.- - N1~QO_
ViscousOil and Water in Otta-wa~MU , ~U~el 1Xu...-
4-26, Presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of the
Petroleum Society of CIM, May 28-32,1989.
18.~ K, D@ Z.J., and Jiang, Y.R:The Comparison
of Unsteady-State and Steady-State Methods for
Measuring Oil-Water Relative Permeabilities, J. of
Petroleum Exploration and Development, V.22, No. 1,
47-51, 1995.
19. Johnson, E.F., Bossier, D.P., and Naumann,
V.O. :fCalculation of Relative Permeability from
Displacement Experiments, Trans.AIME., 370,216,
1959.
20. LA K, Qing, T.L., and Sheng, P.P.: A New
Steady-State Method for Measuring Oil-Water
Relative Permeabilities, J.of Petroleum Exploration&
Development, 16,4,41-46, 1989.
21. Shafer, J.L., Braun, E. M., Wood III, A. C., and
Wooten, J.M. :Obtaining Relative Permeability Data
Using a Combination of Steady-State and Unsteady-
State Corefloods, Paper No.9009, Resented at the
1990 SCA Conference.
22. Munkvold, F.R, Torsaeter, O.:Relative
Permeability from Centfige and Unsteady-State
Experiments, Paper SPE 21103, Resented at 1990
SPE Latrn American Petroleum Engineering
Conference.
23.L~ K, Luo,M.L., and Wang, J.X.:Improvements
of JBN Method and the Software for Calculating Oil-
Water Relative Permeabilities, J. of Petroleum
Exploration & Development, 21,3, 99-104, 1994.
24. Jones, S.C., Roszelle, W. O.:Graphical
Technique for Determiningg Relative Permeability
from Displacement Experiments, JPT,807-817, May
1978.
25. Sigmund, P.M., and McCafFery, F.G. :An
Improved Unsteady-State Rocedure for Determining
the Relative Permeability Characteristics of
Heterogeneous Porous Media, SPEJ, 15-28, Februay
1979.
26.~K:An Optimistic Method for Calculating Oil-
Water Relative Permeabilities from Dynamic
Displacement Data, J. of Ji.anghan Petroleum
Institute, 11,3,45-54, 1989.
27.Jia, W.Y., and Wang, Z.L.:Designing of
Development Project for QL Reservoir, Report of
THPEP.,APRIL 1993.
503
-,
THE OILWATER RELATIVE PERMEABILIH BENHAVIO~ OF
SPE 30001
A LOW PERMEABLE RESERVOIR
Table 1. Baaic Data of Core Samples
Group No.
Sample No.
Porosity(%)
Air Perm,(md)
Description
1 L7-1(1)-A 12.5 25.7 LV
1 L7-1(1)-B 12.3 32.0 Hv
2 L26-247( 1) 15.0 69.8 LV
2 L7-1(2) 14.0 70.0
3 L26-275(H) 15.6 46.5 LV
3 L7-1(3) 12.7 44.0 Hv
4 L7-5-44/68 11.5 4.54 LV
4 L22-3 10.3 2.10 Hv
5 L23-9-3/30 13.9 17.0 LV
5 L23-5 14.0 8.9 Hv
6 L23-7-A 13.4 9.45 LV
6 L23-7-B 13.3 8.30 H-V
7 L4-R1 18.6 117.0 LV
8 L4-R4 20.7 216.0 LV
9 L23-9-8/30 12.8 12.5 LV
10 L26-302 14.3 25.1 LV
11 L26-391(2) 13.8 21.7 LV
5 0 4
e.
SPE 30001 LI KEVIN, JIANG YIRONG, DAI
zHIJIAN AND HONG YING
9
Table 2, Water Flooding Experimental Results
Group No. Sample No. Sw(%) SW(YO) &JsJ Description
1 L7-1(1)-A 29.2 11.8 0.28 LV
1 L7-1(1)-B 34,0 8.5 0.12 Hv
2 L26-247(1)
~~.~
12.5 0.41 LV
2 L7-1(2) 33.8 12.4 0.35
3 L26-275(H) 34.0 12.2 0.62 LV
3 L7-1(3) 35.3 11.7 0.18 Hv
4 L7-5-44168 32.8 12.6 0.27 LV
4 L22-3 34.8 17.0 0.18 Hv
5 L23-9-3/30
21 <
al. >
~~.~
Q.43
LV
5 L23-5 35.9 11.4 0.11 Hv
6 L23-7-A
!
30.5
!
21.70 0.23
~
LV
I I
16 I L23-7-B I 34.9 I 17.7 I 0.12
IHV
I
7 L4-R1 28.1 20.0 0.49 LV
8 L4-R4 32.8 17.5 0.50 LV
9 L23-9-8130 27.7 16.7 0.30 LV
10 L26-302 33.0 12.7 0.29 LV
ii LM-39i(2 j 35.8 ii.6
() 46
~~
Pchv
1.8 1.8 17 Practical Value
J#J@ 0.669 0.7017 2.9891 0.6464-0.7520
Sample No. 6 11 6
505