Anda di halaman 1dari 116

Module 8:

Relative Permeability
Synopsis
What is water-oil relative permeability and why does it matter?
endpoints and curves, fractional flow, what curve shapes mean

Understand the jargon (and impress reservoir engineers)
Wettability
water-wet, oil-wet and intermediate

How do we measure it (in the lab)?
How do we quality control and refine data?
Page 2
Applications
To predict movement of fluid in the reservoir
e.g velocity of water and oil fronts

To predict and bound ultimate recovery factor
Application depends on reservoir type
gas-oil
water-oil
gas-water
Page 3
Definitions
Absolute Permeability
permeability at 100% saturation of single fluid
e.g. brine permeability, gas permeability

Effective Permeability
permeability to one phase when 2 or more phases present
e.g. ko(eff) at Swi

Relative Permeability
ratio of effective permeability to a base (often absolute)
permeability
e.g. ko/ka or ko/ko at Swi
Page 4
Requirements
Gas-Oil Relative Permeability (kg-ko)
solution gas drive
gas cap drive

Water-Oil Relative Permeability(kw-ko)
water injection

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

Gas-Water Relative Permeability (kg-kw)
gas storage (gas re-injection into gas reservoir)
Page 5
Jargon Buster!
Relative permeability curves are known as rel perms
Endpoints are the (4) points at the ends of the curves
The displacing phase is always first, i.e.:
kw-ko is water(w) displacing oil (o)
kg-ko is gas (g) displacing oil (o)
kg-kw is gas displacing water
Page 6
Why shape is important
Measure air permeability
Saturate core in water (brine)
Desaturate to Swir
Centrifuge or porous plate
ka = 100 mD
Swir = 0.20 (20%
Measure oil permeability ko @ Swir endpoint

Ko = 80 mD

Waterflood collect water volume Sro = 0.25

Swr = 1-0.25 = 0.75

Measure water permeability kw @Sro endpoint
So = 1-Swir
Swirr
Oil = Sro
Kw = 24 mD
Page 7
Sw = 1-Sro
Endpoints
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

(
-
)

Endpoint - water
krw = kw/ko @ Swir

= 24/80

= 0.30

0.4 0.5 0.6

Water Saturation (-)
Page 8
Swir = 0.20
Sro = 0.25
Endpoint- oil

kro = ko/ko @ Swir

= 80/80

= 1
Endpoints
0.4


0.3


0.2


0.1


0.0
0.5
1.0


0.9


0.8


0.7


0.6
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Water Saturation (-)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

(
-
)

Swir = 0.20
Sro = 0.25
Page 9
Curves - 1
0.4


0.3


0.2


0.1


0.0
0.5
1.0


0.9


0.8


0.7


0.6
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Water Saturation (-)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

(
-
)

Swir = 0.20
Sro = 0.25
Page 10
Curves - 2
0.4


0.3


0.2


0.1


0.0
0.5
1.0


0.9


0.8


0.7


0.6
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Water Saturation (-)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

(
-
)

Swir = 0.20
Sro = 0.25
Page 11
Curves - 3
0.4


0.3


0.2


0.1


0.0
0.5
1.0


0.9


0.8


0.7


0.6
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Water Saturation (-)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

(
-
)

Swir = 0.20
Sro = 0.25
Page 12
Relative Permeability
Non-linear function of Swet
Competing forces
gravity forces
minimised in lab tests

e.g. water injected from bottom to top
viscous forces

Darcys Law

capillary forces
low flood rates
0
Page 13
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Water Saturation (-)
0.8 1
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

(
-
)

kro
krw
Relative Permeability Curves Key Features
Water-Oil Curves
irreducible water saturation (Swir) endpoint

kro = 1.0 krw = 0.0

residual oil saturation (Sro) endpoint

kro = 0.0 krw = maximum

relative permeability curve shape
Page 14
Unsteady-state

Steady-state

Corey exponents:
Buckley-Leverett, Welge, JBN
Darcy

No and Nw
Waterflood Interpretation
Welge
o
k
rw

1-S
or
S
wc
S
w
Average Saturation
behind flood front

f
w

Sw at BT
ro
.
w
f
w
=
k

1 +
1
f
w
only after BT
f
w
=1 Sw
S , f |
wf w S
wf
Page 15
Relative Permeability Interpretation
Welge/Buckley-Leverett fraction flow
gives ratio: kro/krw
Decouple kro and krw from kro/krw
JBN, Jones and Roszelle, etc

w
M =
k
rw
.

o
k
ro
o
Page 16
ro
.
w
k
rw
f
w
=
k


1 +
1
M< 1: piston-like
M > 1: unstable
JBN Method Outline
Johnson, Bossler, Nauman (JBN)
Based on Buckley-Leverett/Welge
W = PV water injected
Swa = average (plug) Sw
fw
2
= 1-fo
2
o
ro
.
w
k
rw
f
w
=
k


1 +
1
o 2
wa
= f
dW
dS
k
ro 2
f
o 2
d (
1
)
)
1
d (
r
W
WI
=
t = i
Page 17
=
p
t = 0
r
p
I
Injectivity Ratio
Waterflood rate, q
Buckley Leverett Assumptions
Fluids are immiscible
Fluids are incompressible
Flow is linear (1 Dimensional)
Flow is uni-directional
Porous medium is homogeneous
Capillary effects are negligible
Most are not met in most core floods
Page 18
Capillary End Effect
If viscous force large (high rate)
Pc effects negligible

If viscous force small (low rate)
Pc effects dominate flood behaviour

Leverett
capillary boundary effects on short cores
boundary effects negligible in reservoir
Page 19
End Effect
Pressure Trace for Flood
zero p (no injection)
start of injection
water nears exit
p increases abruptly until
Sw(exit) = 1-Sro and Pc
nears zero
suppresses krw
BT

Sw(exit) = 1-Sro, Pc ~0
After BT
rate of p increase reduces as
krw increases
Page 20
Scaling Coefficient
Breakthrough Recovery
(Rappaport & Leas)
Affected by Pc end effects
At lengths > 25 cm
Little effect on BT recovery
(LV
w
> 1)

Hence composite samples

or high rates
Page 21
Capillary End Effects
Rapaport and Leas Scaling Coefficient
LV
w
> 1(cm
2
/min.cp) : minimal end effect


Overcome by:
flooding at high rate
300 ml/hour +
using longer cores
difficult for reservoir core (limited by core geometry)
butt several cores together
using capillary mixing sections
end-point saturations only in USS tests (weigh sample)
Page 22
Composite Core Plug
Capillary end effects adsorbed by Cores 1 and 4
Page 23
Corey Exponents Water/Oil Systems
Define relative permeability curve shapes
Based on normalised saturations
No guarantee that real rock curves obey Corey
k
ro
= S
on
No
k = k (S
rw rw wn
)
Nw
k
rw
= end-point k
rw
S
wn
wi ro
=
1 S
w
S
ro
on
1 S S
S
= 1
S
w
S
wi
wn
1 S S
wi ro
Page 24
S =
Normalisation
0.1


0
0.2
0.5


0.4

0.3
0.6
1


0.9

0.8


0.7
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Water Saturation (-)
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

(
-
)

krw at Sro
krwn = 1
Swn = 1
krwn = 1
Page 25
Sample 1
Sample 2
Corey Exponents
Depend on wettability
Page 26
Uses:
interpolate & extrapolate data
lab data quality control
Wettability N
o
(k
ro
) Nw (k
rw
)
Water-Wet 2 to 4 5 to 8
Intermediate Wet 3 to 6 3 to 5
Oil-Wet 6 to 8 2 to 3
Gas-Oil Relative Permeability
Test performed at Swir

Gas is non wetting
takes easiest flow path
kro drops rapidly as
Sg increases

krg higher than krw
Srog > Srow in lab tests

end effects

Srog < Srow in field

Sgc ~ 2% - 6%
Pore-Scale Saturation Distribution
Page 27
Typical Gas-Oil Curves: Linear
0.3


0.2


0.1


0.0
0.4
0.5
0.6
1.0


0.9


0.8


0.7
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Gas Saturation (fractional)
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

(
-
)

kro
krg
1-(Srog+Swi)
Sgc
Page 28
Labs plot kr vs liquid saturation (So+Swi)
Typical Gas-Oil Curves: Semi-Log
0.001
0.01
0.1

1-(Srog+Swi)

kro
krg
1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Gas Saturation (fractional)
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

(
-
)

Page 29
Gas-Oil Curves
Most lab data are artefacts
due to capillary end effects

Tests should be carried out on long cores

insufficient flood period

Real gas-oil curves
Sgc ~ 3%
Srog is low and approaches zero

Due to thin film and gravity drainage

krg = 1 at Srog = 0
well defined Corey exponents
Page 30
Gas-Oil Curves Corey Method
kro = Son
No
Oil relative permeability
normalised oil saturation
Gas relative permeability
normalised gas saturation
Sgc: critical gas saturation
1 Swir Srog
Son =
1 Sg Swir Srog
1 Swir Srog Sgc
Page 31
Sg Sgc
Sgn =
krg = Sgn
Ng
Corey Exponent Values
No 4 to 7
Ng 1.3 to 3.0
Corey Gas-Oil Curves
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Gas Saturation (-)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

(
-
)

0.01
Kro No = 4
krg Ng = 1.3
kro No = 7
krg Ng = 3.0
0.1
1
0.0
Sgc = 0.03
Page 32
Swir 0.15
kro 1.00
krg' 1.00
Srog 0.0000
Sgc 0.0300
Typical Lab Data - krg
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Swi+Sg (fraction)
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

k
r
g

Ng = 2.3; Swir = 0.15
Ng = 2.3; Swir = 0.20
11a-5 # 4
11a-5 # 31
11a-5 # 34
11a-5 #39
11a-7 BEA5
11a-7 BEA7
11a-7 BEB5
11a-7 BEC5
Composite Gas-Oil Curves
Ng : 2.3
No : 4.0
Sgc: 0.03
Srog: 0.10
krg' : 1.0
Krg too low
Srog too high
Page 33
Laboratory Methods
Core Selection
all significant reservoir flow units
often constrained by preserved core availability
core CT scanning to select plugs

Core Size
at least 25 cm long to overcome end effects
butt samples (but several end effects?)
flood at high rate to overcome end effects?
Page 34
Test States
Fresh or Preserved State
tested as is (no cleaning)
probably too oil wet (e.g OBM, long term storage)
Native state term also used (defines bland mud)
Some labs fresh state is other labs restored state
Cleaned State
Cleaned (soxhlet or miscible flush)
water-wet by definition (but could be oil-wet!!!!!!)
Restored State (reservoir-appropriate wettability)
saturate in crude oil (live or dead)
age in oil at P & T to restore native wettability
Page 35
Test State
Fresh-State Tests
too oil wet
Cleaned-State Tests
too water wet (or oil-wet)
Restored-State Tests
native wettability restored
Page 36
data unreliable
data unreliable
data reliable (?)
if GOR low can use dead crude ageing (cheaper)
if GOR high must use live crude ageing (expensive)
if wettability restored - use synthetic fluids at ambient
ensure cores water-wet prior to restoration
Compare methods - are there differences?
Irreducible Water Saturation (Swir)
Swir essential for reliable waterflood data
Dynamic displacement
flood with viscous oil then test oil
rapid and can get primary drainage rel perms
Swir too high and can be non-uniform

Centrifuge
faster than others
Swir can be non-uniform

Porous Plate
slow, grain loss, loss of capillary contact
Page 37

Swir uniform
Lab Variation in Swir (SPE28826)
Lab A Lab B Lab C Lab D
0
5
???

10
15
20
25
30
S
w
i

(
%
)

Dynamic Displacement
Porous Plate
180 psi
200 psi
Page 38
Centrifuge Tests
Displaced phase relative permeability only
oil-displacing-brine : krw drainage
brine-displacing-oil : kro imbibition
assume no hysteresis for krw imbibition
oil-wet or neutral wet rocks?
Good for low kro data (near Sro)
e.g. for gravity drainage
Computer simulation used
Problems
uncontrolled imbibition at Swirr
mobilisation of trapped oil
sample fracturing
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Water Saturation (-)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
(
-
)

Page 39
Dynamic Displacement Tests
Test Methods
Waterflood (End-Points: ko at Swi, kw at Srow)
Unsteady-State (relative permeability curves)
Steady-State (relative permeability curves)

Test Conditions
fresh state
cleaned state
restored state
ambient or reservoir conditions
Page 40
Unsteady-State Waterflood
Saturate in brine
Desaturate to Swirr
Oil permeability at Swirr (Darcy analysis)
Waterflood (matched viscosity)
Total Oil Recovery
lab
w
o
res
w
o




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

o

o

lab

w

res

>>

Page 42
Unsteady-State Procedures
Water Oil
Only oil produced
Measure oil volume
Just After Breakthrough
Measure oil + water volumes
Increasing Water Collected
Continue until 99.x% water
Page 43
Unsteady-State
Rel perm calculations require
fractional flow data at core outlet (JBN)
pressure data versus water injected
Labs use high oil/water viscosity ratio
promote viscous fingering
provide fractional flow data after BT
allow calculation of rel perms
Waterflood (matched viscosity ratio)
little or no oil after BT
little or no fractional flow (no rel perms)
end points only
Page 44
Effect of Adverse Viscosity Ratio
0.2


0.1


0.0
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Water Saturation (-)
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

F
l
o
w
,

f
w

o
/
w
= 30:1
Unstable flood front
Early BT
Prolonged 2 phase flow
Oil recovery lower

o
/
w
= 3:1
Stable flood front
BT delayed
Suppressed 2 phase flow
Oil recovery higher
Page 45
Unsteady-State Tests
Only post BT data are used for rel perm calculations
Sw range restricted if matched viscosities

Advantages
appropriate Buckley-Leverett shock-front
reservoir flow rates possible
fast and low throughput (fines)

Disadvantages
inlet and outlet boundary effects at lower rates
complex interpretation
Page 46
Steady-State Tests
Intermediate relative permeability curves
Saturate in brine
Desaturate to Swir
Oil permeability at Swir (Darcy analysis)
Inject oil and water simultaneously in steps
Determine So and Sw at steady state conditions
kw at Srow (Darcy analysis)
Relative Permeability (Darcy Analysis)
Page 47
Steady-State Test Equipment
Oil and water out
p
Coreholder
Oil in
Water in
Mixing Sections
Page 48
Steady-State Procedures
Summary

k
o
at S
wirr

k
o
& k
w
at S
w
(1)

k
o
& k
w
at S
w
(2)
Page 49
100% Oil:
Ratio 1:
Ratio 2:

.
.
Ratio n:

100% Water:
k
o
& k
w
at S
w
(n)
k
w
at S
ro
Steady-State versus Unsteady-State
Constant rate (SS) vs constant pressure (USS)
fluids usually re-circulated
Generally high flood rates (SS)
end effects minimised, possible fines damage
Easier analysis
Darcy vs JBN
Slower
days versus hours
Endpoints may not be representative
Saturation Measurement
gravimetric (volumetric often not reliable)
NISM
Page 50
Laboratory Tests
You can choose from:
matched or high oil-water viscosity ratio
cleaned state, fresh state, restored-state tests
ambient or reservoir condition
high rate or low rate
USS versus SS

Laboratory variation expected
McPhee and Arthur (SPE 28826)
Compared 4 labs using identical test methods
Page 51
Oil Recovery
Lab A Lab B Lab C Lab D
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
O
i
l

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

(
%

O
I
I
P
)

Fixed - 120 ml/hour
Preferred
120
Bump
360
120
Page 52
Gas-Oil and Gas-Water Relative Permeability
Unsteady-State
adverse mobility ratio (
g
<<
o
or
w
)

prolonged two phase flow data after breakthrough
drainage tests reliable
imbibition tests difficult

Steady-State
kg-ko, kg-kw and kw-kg
saturation determination difficult
much slower

Gas humidified to prevent mass transfer
Page 53
Drainage Gas-Water Curves (steady-state)
Steady-state test example

Log-linear scale (very low krw)

Krg > krw

Gas saturation increases

Krg increases to 1

Krw reduces to close to zero
Page 54
Water-Gas Relative Permeability
Aquifer influx (imbibition)
Drainage gas-water curves can be used but
hysteresis expected for non-wetting phase (krg) curve
no hysteresis for wetting phase (krw) curve

drainage krw curve same shape as imbibition krw curve

Imbibition tests require
low rate imbibition waterflood kw-kg test

capillary forces dominate

CCI tests for residual gas saturation
Hybrid test
Page 55
Imbibition Tests
Waterflood
low rate waterflood from Swi to Sgr
obtain krg and krw on imbibition
Sgr too low (viscous force dominates)

Counter-Current Imbibition Test
Sgr dominated by capillary forces
immerse sample in wetting phase (from Sgi)
monitor sample weight during imbibition
Determine Sgr from crossplot
129.90 g
Page 56
CCI: Experimental Data
Air-Tolue ne CCI: Plug 10706: Sgi = 88.8%


70

65

60

55

50
30

Square Root Time (sec s)
G
a
s

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
%
)

40

35

30
45
0 10 20 40 50 60
Sgr = 33.5%
Page 57
Trapped or Residual Gas Saturation
Page 58
Repeatability of CCI tests
Sgr vs Sgi North Sea
Low rate waterflood
Imbibition Kw-Kg
Drainage
Imbibition
Swi
krw
k
r

1
0
krg
1-Sgr
krw@Sgr
0
1
Sw
Page 59
Relative Permeability Controls
Wettability
Saturation History
Rock Texture (pore size)
Viscosity Ratio
Flow Rate
Page 60
Wettability
Page 61
Wettability
Page 62
Wettability
Waterflood of Water-Wet Rock
front moves at uniform rate
oil displaced into larger pores and produced
water moves along pore walls
oil trapped at centre of large pores - snap-off
BT delayed
oil production essentially complete at BT
Waterflood of Oil-Wet Rock
water invades smaller pores
earlier BT
oil remains continuous
oil produced at low rate after BT
krw higher - fewer water channels blocked by oil
Page 63
Effects of Wettability
Water-Wet
better kro
lower krw
krw = kro > 50%
better flood performance
Oil-Wet
poorer kro
higher krw
kro = krw < 50%
poorer flood performance
Page 64
Wettability Effects: Brent Field
Preserved Core
Neutral to oil-wet
low k
ro
- high k
rw
Extracted Core
Water wet

high k
ro
- low k
rw
Page 65
Importance of Wettability - Example
Water Wet
No = 2 Nw = 8 Swir = 0.20
Sro = 0.30, krw = 0.25, ultimate recovery = 0.625 OIIP

Intermediate Wet
No = 4 Nw = 4 Swir = 0.15
Sro = 0.25, krw = 0.5, ultimate recovery = 0.706 OIIP

Oil Wet
No = 8 Nw = 2 Swir = 0.10
Sro = 0.20, krw = 0.75, ultimate recovery = 0.778 OIIP

o
/
w
= 3:1
Page 66
Relative Permeability Curves
0.4


0.3


0.2


0.1


0.0
0.5
1.0


0.9


0.8


0.7


0.6
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Water Saturation (-)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

(
-
)

WW kro
WW krw
Page 67
Relative Permeability Curves
1.0


0.9


0.8


0.7


0.6


0.5


0.4


0.3


0.2


0.1


0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Water Saturation (-)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

(
-
)

Page 68
WW kro
WW krw
IW kro
IW krw
Relative Permeability Curves
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Water Saturation (-)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

(
-
)

WW kro
WW krw
IW kro
IW krw
OW kro
OW krw
Page 69
Fractional Flow Curves
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Water Saturation (-)
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

F
l
o
w
,

f
w

(
-
)

WW fw
Water Wet
SOR = 0.33
Recovery = 0.59
Page 70
Fractional Flow Curves
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Water Saturation (-)
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

F
l
o
w
,

f
w

(
-
)

WW fw
IW fw
IW
SOR = 0.44
Recovery = 0.482
Page 71
Fractional Flow Curves
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Water Saturation (-)
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

F
l
o
w
,

f
w

(
-
)

WW fw
IW fw
OW fw
Oil Wet
SOR = 0.63
Recovery = 0.300
Page 72
Costs of Wettability Uncertainty
PV
Oil Price
Page 73
120 MMbbls
30 US$/bbls
It is really, really important to get wettability right!!!
Parameter Water-Wet IW Oil wet
Swi 0.200 0.150 0.100
Ultimate Sro 0.300 0.250 0.200
Ultimate Recovery Factor 0.625 0.706 0.778
SOR 0.330 0.440 0.630
Actual Recovery Factor 0.588 0.482 0.300
STOIIP (MMbbls) 96 102 108
Ultimate Recovery (bbls) 60 72 84
Actual Recovery (bbls) 56 49 32
"Loss" (MM US$) 108 684 1548
Rock Texture
Page 74
Viscosity Ratio
k
rw
and k
ro
- no effect ?
End-Points - viscosity dependent
Hence:
use high viscosity ratio for curves
use matched for end-points




Not valid for neutral-wet rocks (?)
Page 75
Saturation History
Primary Drainage Primary Imbibition 100 %
0 %
k
r
0 %
100 % S
w
0 %
k
r
0 %
100 % S
w
Swi
Sro
NW
W
No hysteresis in wetting
phase
NW
Page 76
W
Flow Rate
Reservoir Frontal Advance Rate
about 1 ft/day

Typical Laboratory Rates
about 1500 ft/day for 1.5 core samples

Why not use reservoir rates ?
slow and time consuming
capillary end effects
capillary forces become significant c.f. viscous forces
Buckley-Leverett (and JBN) invalidated
Page 77
Flow Parameters
Nc
k
vL
end
o

Nc =



Rate
(ml/h)
4
120
360
400
Reservoir
Page 78
Relative Permeabilities are Rate-Dependent
v
w
Rate
(ml/h)
4
120
360
400
Reservoir
N
cend
2.3
0.07
0.02
0.02
0
Nc
1.2 x10
-7
3.6 x
10-6
1.
x
10-5
2.
x
10-5
10
-7
For reservoir-appropriate data Nc
lab
~ Nc
reservoir
If Nc
end
> 0.1 k
ro
and k
rw
decrease as Nc
end
increases
End Effect Capillary Number Flood Capillary Number
Bump Flood
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Water Saturation (-)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

(
-
)

Low Rate krw'
1.0


0.9


0.8


0.7


0.6


0.5
High Rate krw ???
0.4
Bump Flood krw'
Page 79
Flow Rate Considerations
Imbibition (waterflood of water-wet rock)
Sro function of Soi: Sro is rate dependent
oil production essentially complete at BT
krw suppressed by Pcend and rate dependent
bump flood does not produce much oil but removes Pc
end
and
krw increases significantly
high rates acceptable but only if rock is homogeneous at pore
level
Considerations
ensure Swi is representative
low rate floods for Sro: bump for krw
steady-state tests
Page 80
Flow Rate Considerations
Drainage (Waterflood of Oil-Wet Rock)
end effects present at low rate
Sro, krw dependent on capillary/viscous force ratio
high rate: significant production after BT
reduced recovery at BT compared with water-wet
Considerations
high rate floods (minimum Dp = 50 psid) to minimise end effects
steady-state tests with ISSM
low rates with ISSM and simulation
Page 81
Flow Rate Considerations
Neutral/Intermediate
Sro and kro & krw are rate dependent
bump flood produces oil from throughout sample, not just from
ends

ISSM necessary to distinguish between end effects and sweep

Recommendations
data acquired at representative rates
(e.g. near wellbore, grid block rates)
Page 82
JBN Validity
High Viscosity Ratio
viscous fingering invalidates 1D flow assumption

Low Rate
end effects invalidate JBN

Most USS tests viewed with caution
if Nc
end
significant
if Nc not representative
if JBN method used

Use coreflood simulation
Page 83
Test Recommendations
Wettability Conditioning
flood rate selected on basis of wettability
Amott and USBM tests required
Wettability pre-study

reservoir wettability?

fresh-state, cleaned-state, restored-state wettabilities

beware fresh-state tests (often waste of time)
reservoir condition tests most representative

but expensive and difficult
Page 84
Wettability Restoration
Hot soxhlet does not make cores
water wet!


Restored-state cores too oil wet

Lose 10% OIIP potential recovery
lugs
d


-1.0
0.0
1.0
-1.0 0.0
Amott
1.0
U
S
B
M

Page 85
STRONGLY
WATER-WET
STRONGLY
OIL-WET
Original SCAL
p Hot Sox
Cleane Flush
Cleaned
Key Steps in Test Design
Establishing Swi
must be representative
use capillary desaturation if at all possible

remember many labs cant do this correctly

fresh-state Swirr is fixed

Viscosity Ratio
matched viscosity ratio for end-points
investigate viscosity dependency for rel perms
normalise then denormalise to matched end-points
Page 86
Key Steps In Test Design
Flood Rate
depends on wettability
determine rate-appropriate end-points
steady-state or Corey exponents for rel perm curves

Saturation Determination
conventional

grain loss, flow processes unknown

NISM

can reveal heterogeneity, end effects, etc
Page 87
Use of NISM
Examples from North Sea
Core Laboratories SMAX System
low rate waterflood followed by bump flood
X-ray scanning along length of core
end-points
some plugs scanned during waterflood

Fresh-State Tests
core drilled with oil-based mud
Page 88
X-Ray Scanner
Sw(NaI)
X
-
r
a
y

a
d
s
o
r
p
t
i
o
n

0
%
100%
X-rays emitted X-rays detected
Scanning Bed
Coreholder
(invisible to X-
rays)
X-ray Emitter
(Detector
Behind)
Page 89
NISM Flood Scans
SMAX Example 1
uniform Swirr
oil-wet(?) end effect
bump flood removes end effect
some oil removed from body of plug

neutral-slightly oil-wet
Page 90
NISM Flood Scans
SMAX Example 2
short sample
end effect extends through
entire sample length

significant oil produced from
body of core on bump flood

moderate-strongly oil-wet
data wholly unreliable due to
pre-dominant end effect.
Need coreflood simulation
Page 91
NISM Flood Scans
SMAX Example 3
scanned during flood
minimal end effect
stable flood front until BT

vertical profile
bump flood produces oil from
body of core

neutral wet
data reliable
Page 92
NISM Flood Scans
SMAX Example 4
Sample 175 (fresh-state)
scanned during waterflood
unstable flood front

oil wetting effects

oil-wet end effect
bump produces incremental oil
from body of core but does not
remove end effect

neutral to oil-wet
data unreliable Page 93
NISM Flood Scans
SMAX Example 5
Sample 175 re-run after
cleaning

increase in Swirr compared
to fresh-state test

no/minimal end effects
moderate-strongly water-
wet
Page 94
NISM Flood Scans
SMAX Example 6
heterogeneous coarse sand
variation in Swirr
Sro variation parallels Swirr
end effect masked by
heterogeneity (?)
very low recovery at low rate
(thiefzones in plug?)
bump flood produces
significant oil from body of
core
neutral-wet
Page 95
Key Steps in Test Design
Relative Permeability Interpretation
key Buckley-Leverett assumptions invalidated by most short
corefloods

Interpretation Model must allow for:
capillarity
viscous instability
wettability

Simulation required
e.g. SENDRA, SCORES
Page 96
Simulation Data Input
Flood data (continuous)
injection rates and volumes
production rates
differential pressure

Fluid properties
viscosity, IFT, density

Imbibition Pc curve (option)
ISSM or NISM Scans (option)
Beware several non-unique solutions possible
Page 97
History Matching
Pressure and production
1.66 cc/min
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0,1 1,0 10,0 100,0 1000,0 10000,0
Time (min)
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
k
P
a
)

0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
6,0
O
i
l

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
c
c
)

Measured differential pressure
Simulated differential pressure
Measured oil production
Simulated oil production
Page 98
History Matching
Saturation profiles
0.8



0.7


0.6



0.5



0.4


0.3


0.2
Normalized Core Length Page 99
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
W
a
t
e
r

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

Simulation Example JBN Curves
Relative Permeabilty Curves
Pre-Simulation
1


0.9


0.8


0.7
0.3


0.2


0.1


0
0.4
0.5
0.6
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

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


0.9


0.8


0.7
0.3


0.2


0.1


0
0.4
0.5
0.6
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

Krw
Kro
low rate end point
high rate end point
Krw Simulation
Kro Simulation
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Water saturation
Page 101
Quality Control
Most abused measurement in core analysis
Wide and unacceptable laboratory variation
Quality Control essential
test design
detailed test specifications and milestones
contractor supervision
modify test programme if required
Benefits
better data
more cost effective
Page 102
Water-Oil Relative Permeability Refining
Key Steps
curve shapes
Sro determination and refinement
refine krw
determine Corey exponents
refine measured curves
normalise and average

Uses Corey approach
rock curves may not obey Corey behaviour
Page 103
Curve Shapes
Water-Oil Rel. Perms.
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sw
K
r

Kro
Krw
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sw
K
r

Kro
Krw
Page 104
Cartesian

Good data convex upwards
Semi-log

Good data concave down
Sro Determination
Compute Son

high, medium and low Sro
low rate, bump, centrifuge Sro
Plot Son vs kro (log-log)

Sro too low

curves down

Sro too high

curves up

Sro just right

straight line
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
0.010 0.100
Son = (1-Sw-Sor)/(1-Swi-Sor)
1.000
K
r
o

Sor = 0.40
Sor = 0.20
Sor = 0.35
Page 105
Refine krw
Refined krw
Use refined Sro

Plot krw versus Swn

Fit line to last few points
Determine refined krw
0.01
0.1
1
0.1 1
Swn = 1-Son
K
r
w

Page 106
Determine Best Fit Coreys
Use refined Sro and krw

Determine instantaneous Coreys
Nw* =
log(krw' ) log(krw)
log(1.0) log(S
wn
)


No* =
log(kro)
log(S
on
)

Plot vs Sw

Take No and Nw from flat sections

Least influenced by end effects
1

0.5

0
1.5
3.5

3

2.5

2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sw
N
o
'

&

N
w
'

No
Nw
Page 107
Refine Measured Data
Endpoints
Refined krw and Sro

Corey Exponents

No and Nw (stable)

Corey Curves
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Sw
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

Refined Kro
Refined Krw
Original Kro
Original Krw
Page 108
No
kro
( refined )
= Son
Nw
krw
( refined )
= krw' Swn
Normalisation Equations
Water-Oil Data
Gas - Oil Data
rwend
k
rw
rwn
k
k =
ro
end
k
ro
ro n
k
k =
row wi
S
w
S
wi
S
w
n
=
1 S S
wi rog gc
S
g
S
gc
gn
1S S S
S =
k
ro end
k
ro
ro n
k =
rg
end
Page 109
k
rg
k
rgn
=
k
Example - kro Normalisation
Swn = 0
0


0.3


0.2

0.1


0
.5

.4
0
1


0.9

0.8


0.7


0.6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Water Saturation (-)
O
i
l

R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

(
-
)

Sample 1
Sample 2 Swirr
Sw = 1-Sro
Swn = 1
Page 110
Example - krw Normalisation
0.5


0.4

0.3


0.2

0.1


0
0.6
1


0.9

0.8


0.7
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Water Saturation (-)
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

(
-
)

krw at Sro
krwn = 1
Page 111
Sample 1
Sample 2
Normalise and Compare Data - kron
0.1


0.0
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
1.0


0.9
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Normalised Water Saturation (-)
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
s
e
d

O
i
l

R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

(
-
)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Different Rock Types ?
Different Wettabilities?
Steady State
Page 112
Normalise and Compare Data - krwn
0.2


0.1


0.0
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1.0


0.9


0.8
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Normalised Water Saturation (-)
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
s
e
d

W
a
t
e
r

R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

(
-
)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
Page 113
Denormalisation
Group data by zone, HU, lithology etc
Determine Swir (e.g. logs, saturation-height model)
Determine ultimate Sro
e.g. from centrifuge core tests

Determine krw at ultimate Sro
e.g. from centrifuge core tests
Denormalise to these end-points
Truncate denormalised curves at ROS
depends on location in reservoir
Page 114
Denormalisation Equations
Water Oil

S
w
dn

k
rodn
Page 115
Gas-Oil
S
Denormalised Endpoints
Water-Oil

S
wi

k
ro
(@S
wi
)

k
rw
(@1-S
row
)

From correlations & average
data
rwn rw
end
rwdn
= S
wn
(1 S
wi
S
ro
) + S
wi

= k
ro end
.k
ron
k = k .k
k
rodn
= k
oend
.k
ron

k
rgdn
= k
rg
end
.k
rgn
gc gc rog
= S
gn
(1 S
wi
S
g
dn
S ) + S
Summary Getting the Best Rel Perms
Ensure samples are representative of poro-perm distribution
Ensure Swir representative (e.g. porous plate, centrifuge)
Ensure representative wettability (restored-state?)
Use ISSM (at least for a few tests)
Ensure matched viscosity ratio
Low rate then bump flood
Centrifuge ultimate Sro and maximum krw
Tail ok kro curve if gravity drainage significant

Use coreflood simulation or Coreys for intermediate kr
Page 116