JPT Forum that doos not rqure pubcaton a8 a full Ubters to the edtor are published as Figo ec tes fr sty and eaten. "Tri Forum aricerare infeato /S00 worse reusing P50 pe ane ot tgue) cra manu ol wo pages, Forum articles ‘ray present prebinary rests ar conclusions ‘rom cansnungsvosigations ot ay pat goreraltoctriea information sh paper Forum artelos are subject to approval by an eal commie jog and may cover tecnneal of nontechnesl topes. SPE reserves he Empirical Equations for Estimating Two-Phase Relative Permeability in Consolidated Rock ‘Mehdi Honarpour, SPE, Montana C. of Mineral Science & Technology L.F. Koederitz, SPE, U. of Mssour Rola A. Herbert Harvey, SPE, U.of Missour-Roll Introduction ‘The permeability of a porous rock to a saturating Mid is determined by the geometry of the rock pore system and not by the physical properties of the fluid. This general Statement assumes (1) the absence of a chemical reaction betvicen the rock and fluid and (2) a single homogeneous ‘uid phase. If more than one fluid is present, permeabili- ty to any fluid depends not only on the geometry of the rock pore system but also on the fraction and distribution ‘of each fluid phase, the interfacial tensions, the satura- tion history, and possibly other factors. ‘Although direct prediction of relative permeability from theoretical considerations is a worthwhile objec- tive, the most sucessful techniques for making these predictions are essentially empirical. "> Rather than at- tempting a theoretical solution to the problem, we have used an entirely empirical approach. In our study a rather extensive set of relative permeability data was compiled, and conventional stepwise linear regression analysis, techniques were used to develop prediction equations from the laboratory data.” This procedure is designed to produce a satisfactory fit ofthe data with a minimum of terms inthe equation; it is not intended to provide the best possible data fit Development of Empirical Equat ‘The data used as a basis for the study were derived from oil and gas fields in the continental U.S., Alaska, Canada, Libya, Iran, Argentina, and the United Arab Republic. All the laboratory tests were made at room temperature and atmospheric pressure. We made no at- tempt to group the data according to laboratory tech- niques used in measuring relative permeability since this information was not available for many of the data sets Each set of relative permeability data was classified as DECEMBER 1982 cither carbonate or noncarbonate, but the available infor- mation was insufficient for more detailed lithologic characterization, Tn addition to identifying data sets as carbonate or non- carbonate, rough wettability classifications were made according to three arbitrary criteria 1. The rock was considered water-wet if k,» at high oil saturations in an oiliwater system greatly exceeded Kin 1 gasioil system at the same ol saturations, provided that yp i a gas/oil system greatly exceeded ky in an oil/water system at or near residual oil saturation after waterflooding. 2. The rock was considered oil-wet when k,, in the oil/water system was approximately equal t0 kr) in the gasioil system, provided that Ky, in the gas/oil system ‘was approximately equal 10k in the oil/water system. 3. The rock was considered of intermediate wettability when it did not meet clearly either the water-wet or the oil-wet classification criteria, ‘After the data sets had been classified according to lithology and wettability, stepwise linear regression analysis was used to develop equations that would ap- proximate the measured relative permeabilities from such factors as fluid saturations, permeability, and porosity. The equations developed in this study are presented in Appendix A. ‘The “goodness of fit”” of each equation was deter- mined according to the statistical concept of R? (the coefficient of multiple determination), which indicates the amount of variation about the mean that the model accounts for, A low value of R? indicates an inadequate data fit and suggests that additional variables, higher- ‘onder terms, oF cross-products of the independent variables are needed, An F test® was employed 10 eliminate insignificant variables from the regression equations, 2905‘TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF DATA USED FOR RELATIVE PERMEABILITY EQUATIONS. Relative Permeability Fluids in Number of Number of Eq. Predicted’ _System Data Sets Data Points __Lthology Wottabilty At waterand ol 64 ‘961 Sandstone and water conglomerate Ae water and oil 101 478 sandsione and. oll and conglomerate intermediate As water andoll 185 4,000 sandstone and any conglomerate ry ollandgas 133 822 sandstone and any conglomerate As ollandgas 133, 768 sandstone and any ‘conglomerate As water and oi 8 57 limestone and water dolomite Ar water andoil 26 197 fimestone and oll and ‘dolomite Ae in waterandoil 54 593 fimesione and ‘dolomite ag oll and gas 20 273 limestone and any dolomite aso cll and gas 30 227 limestone and any ‘dolomite ‘TABLE 2—RANGES OF ROCK PROPERTIES AND FLUID SATURATIONS. USED IN DEVELOPING EQUATIONS FOR WATERJOIL SYSTEMS, Porosity Air Permeabilty Water Saturation __ Residual Ci ‘lange Range Range Saturation Range Ea __ 0) (od) (26) (26) At 9910903 41 102600 6710700 18410544 A2 9110371 02 104,000 3610 640 7310 500, AQ 9.110971 02 104000 3610700 7310560 AS 10110157 005% 800 18510432 10.010 36.4 AT 8010291 0.0410 490 85 10405 12710460 AB 6510311 00510 7134 8610 43.2 10010837 ‘TABLE RANGES OF ROCK PROPERTIES AND FLUID SATURATIONS ‘USED IN DEVELOPING EQUATIONS FOR OILIGAS SYSTEMS Porosity Air Permeabiliy Water Saturation __Critcal Gas Residual Oi Range. ange Saturation Range Saturation Rango Eq (6) (md) ff (26) A4 9.010450 02 10 4,000 “0.0001 10 94 40 t0 66 AS 9010450 05210 4.000 (0.0001 to 34 401066 A8 6710281 02 102,000 10 1040 5.010 56 AN0 8710291 02 102,000 10 1040 5.01056 ‘Table 1 describes the conditions for which each equa- was derived, and Tables 2 and 3 summarize the range of data used to develop the equations for water/oil and oil/gas systems, respectively. The calculated R? values are presented in Table 4. Al water/oil system equations refer to displacement of oil by water imbibition, and the oil/gas system equations refer to drainage processes. All experimental data were ‘measured in consolidated rocks. ‘The equations developed in this study have not been extensively tested yet. However, most of the tests made indicated that the equations presented in Appendix A are in closer agreement with laboratory data than are the predictions of published correlations used as a basis for 2906 comparison.” One such comparison of Eq. A-3 with relative permeabilities predicted by three other correla tions is presented by Fig. 1. (The equations of Wyllie, Naar, and Pirson plotted on Fig. 1 are presented in Ap- pendix B.) For this set of data, Eq. A-3 is in good agree- ‘ment with the laboratory measurements throughout the investigated range of water saturation. Fig. 2 was plotted to investigate the effect of lithology on relative permeability in a water-wel system. For the limited number of cases examined, the effect on ky, was small. The effect of lithology was also small on King ex= ccept at very high water saturations, where substantially lower kyy Values were predicted for carbonates than for ‘noncarbonates. JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY& 2 & ° o ° & OIL RELATIVE PERMEABILITY, FRACTION 2 & 2 of 0 02 04 O6 OB 10 OIL SATURATION, FRACTION Fig. 1—Comparison of measured cil relative permeability with relative permeabilties predicted by Eq. A and by published correlations. Nomenclature air permeability, md oil permeability, md oil permeability at irreducible water saturation, md gas relative permeability, fraction {gas relative permeability at residual oil saturation, fraction oil relative permeability, fraction water relative permeability, fraction ‘gas saturation, fraction critical gas saturation, fraction oil saturation, fraction residual oil saturation to gas, fraction residual oil saturation to water, fraction water saturation, fraction imeducible water saturation, fraction porosity, fraction Superseripts 0g = oil and gas system wo = water and oil system Acknowledgment We are indebted to Amoco Production Co., Atlantic Richfield Co,, Shell Canada Resources Lid., and Texas Pacific Oil Co, Inc. for providing the relative ‘permeability data that were used asa basis for ths study. References 1. Rapoport, L.A. and Leas, W..: “Relative Permeability 10 Ligud in Liguid-Gas Systems," Trans. AIME (1951) 192, 83-95, 2, Wollie, MR: “"Inerelationship Between Wetting and Nonwet ting Phase Relative Pemeaility,” Trans, AIME (1950) 192, 381-2 3, Naar, J. and Wyeal, RL: “Three-Phase Imbibition Relative Permeability," Soe. Pet. Eng. J. (Dec. 1961) 254-88; Trans AIME, 222, DECEMBER 1982 ae Seno, PacTON| Fig. 2—Comparison of predicted relative permeabilities fora carbonate and fora noncarbonate. ‘TABLE 4—COEFFICIENT OF MULTIPLE DETERMINATION Re Eq. (9%) at a2 a3 a re As a7 re a9 Ao 888888288 4, Naar, J. and Henderson, J.H.: “An Imbibiton Models Ap- plication to Flow Behavior andthe Predition of Oil Recovery, Soc. Pet. Eng. J. ue 1961) 61-10; Trans, AIME, 22, 5. Pison, S.J." ll Reserwoir Engineering, McGraw-Hill Book Co Tnc., New York City (1958), 6. Gillew, BLE: Introduction to Operations Research: A Computer Oriented Algoritmic Approach, MeGras-Hill Book Co. Ine, New York City (1976) 171. Honarpour, ML “°A Development of Regression Models for Predicting ‘Two Phase Relaive Permeability in Consolidated Rock," PAD dissertation, U. of Misour- Rolla (1980), avvesoa Equations for the Prediction of Relative Permeability (Sw—Sorw) 29 pate] +0.56556(S)9° (1S Sore) (Sw — Swi) (AD) 2907Js Sw) 2 (A8) =1.248461-5,)15 Su) «a Se ) 1" aSem L(A k 13=0.76067] S}=Sw Cy 1Sorw S_—SeNS gr. 3655 SSE), 48.0053 So~Som _\?% (Sui) ™ (<= 1)" 42.€21860-8.n) Sere 5,-5,85 -Se=SeSoa” _o,025890(8,-5,.) a) (So~Sora)- (a) ( Su-SaxSee)* S._\4/ 80-8, 1-5 expos (Se) (Su) Su) \TSa—Se (ad) (a0) Se-Sye)? ke ssor( ~ es ) Kal Sq) 2.7794 APPENDIX B Equations of Wyllie, Pirson, and Naar (A-5) The equations plotted in Fig. 1 for comparison with the predictions of iq, A-3 ae as follows. Pb Wyllie. ¥2=0.0020525 52-5” - : we ons kp =0-S' PUP}, where 0.051371 -50) (1 LA) We 8O(T)9 gas. Pirson exp =0.29086( ky =A-SI=(S VMS 12? Naar. Sw-Sone_\? -0. soi( “Sm (Sw Sui) Key =(1 28°)? [2-1 -28")!?] er (AT) See nar en ag as Revend mart ees Oe 2 0.413259) 2908 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY