SPE 138591

Estimation of Relative Permeability using the Lattice Boltzmann Method for

Fluid Flows in a Cretaceous Formation, Abu Dhabi
Avrami Grader, Ingrain; Yaoming Mu, Ingrain; Jonas Toelke, Ingrain; Chuck Baldwin, Ingrain; Qian Fang, SPE,
Ingrain; Gustavo Carpio, Ingrain; Bruno Stenger, ADCO; Taha Al Dayyani, ADCO; Zubair Kalam, ADCO

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 1–4 November 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract mus t contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
A set of Petrophysical properties including porosities, absolute permeabilities, resistivity indices, elastic properties and
Archie’s cementation exponent “m” were determined for a number of carbonate core plugs representing four common
reservoir rock types (RRTs) of the a Cretaceous Formation Abu Dhabi. The same core plugs were then used to estimate SCAL
properties including water-oil relative permeabilities using digital rock physics (DRP). DRP is referred to in this paper as the
combination of advanced 3D imaging techniques such as X-ray computed tomography (CT) scanning, and the use of the
Lattice Boltzmann Method (LBM) for fluid flow modeling.

The plugs were scanned, using X-ray Computed Tomography (CT), at several scales to establish the distribution of macro- and
micro-porosity fractions of the carbonate samples, and identify the primary flow units. Comparison of direct measurement
results with the LBM-based modeling was used as a validation of its practical ability to predict two-phase flow properties for
carbonates for carbonates. Results of this study indicated that the LBM-based method achieved a good to reasonable prediction
for several reservoir characterization properties such as residual fluid saturations. Some deviations were present and discussed.
Finally, an up-scaling process for determining water-oil relative permeabilities for a carbonate sample exhibiting a bimodal
porosity distribution was presented using one of the cores in the study as an example.

Introduction
DRP is a new technology to compute the physical and fluid flow properties of porous rocks. In this approach, high-resolution
images of the rock’s pores and mineral grains are obtained and processed, and the rock properties are evaluated by numerical
simulation of the physical processes of interest at the pore scale.

This paper describes a blind test sponsored by ADCO which included eight plugs spanning four rock types. Comparisons
between the rock properties obtained by DRP studies and those obtained by other means, especially laboratory tests, are
important to verify that this new technology can be used with confidence. In this paper we present a comparative study of
digital rock physics and laboratory evaluations of the relative permeability of carbonate cores.

Materials and Methods

Characterization of the Reservoir Core Samples
The study was conducted on eight 1½ʺ diameter cylindrical core plugs representing four Lower Cretaceous carbonate
reservoir rock types ("RRT"), according to a current Abu Dhabi Company for Onshore Operations (ADCO) RRT definition
(Grötsch, 1997).This ADCO definition is based mainly on the sample's porosity, permeability and mercury injection capillary
pressure measurements. This characterization had also been linked to a standardized ADCO lithofacies description, and
assumed environment of deposition (Strohmenger, 2006). These four RRTs are each described below.

RRT-2:
Samples S9 and S18 are examples of Coated-Grain, Algal, Skeletal Rudstone to Floatstone "CgASR" lithofacies. Sample
S9 was collected from a depth of 8237.5 ft (MD). The measured porosity for this plug was 32% and the permeability (water)
was 164 mD. Sample S18 was collected from a depth of 8447 ft (MD). The measured porosity for this plug was 30% and the
permeability (water) was 240 mD. The porosity and permeability values of these samples imply that they belong to “RRT 2”,
2 SPE 138591

according to the previously mentioned ADCO scheme. The “CgASR” lithofacies implies deposition in a shallow subtidal,
high-energy open platform above fair weather wave base, upper ramp, near shoal crest.

RRT-3:
Samples 14 and 21 are examples of Skeletal, Peloid Grainstone ("SPG") lithofacies. Sample 14 was collected from a depth
of 8004 ft (MD). The measured porosity for this plug was 27% and the permeability was 47 mD. Sample 21 was collected
from a depth of 8029.00 ft (MD). The measured porosity for this plug was 32.5%, and the permeability was 57 mD. The
porosity and permeability values of these samples imply that they belong to “RRT 3”. The SPG lithofacies implies deposition
in a shallow subtidal to intertidal, high-energy open platform above fair weather wave base, possibly upper ramp beach, near
shoal crest and near inner shoal.

RRT-4:
Samples 1V and 22 are examples of Skeletal, Peloid Packstone (SPP) lithofacies. Sample 1V was collected from a depth of
8064 ft (MD). The measured porosity for this plug was 34% and the permeability (water) was 10 mD. Sample 22 was collected
from a depth of 8029 ft (MD). The measured porosity for this plug was 30%, and the permeability (water) was 22 mD. The
porosity and permeability values of these samples imply that they belong to “RRT 4”. The SPP lithofacies implies deposition
in shallow subtidal to intertidal, moderate-energy restricted and open platform above fair weather wave base, possibly, inner
shoal and upper ramp.

RRT-6:
Samples 10V and 33 are examples of Orbitolinid, Skeletal Wackestone (OSW) lithofacies. Sample 10V was collected from
a depth of 8160 ft (MD). The measured porosity for this plug was 21% and the permeability (water) was 1 mD. Sample 33 was
collected from a depth of 8159 ft (MD). The measured porosity for this plug was 33%, and the permeability (water) was 0.8
mD. The porosity and permeability values of these samples imply that they belong to “RRT 6”. The OSW lithofacies implies
deposition in low-energy, open platform below fair weather wave base, possible middle ramp.

Figure 1 shows photographs of the cores in order of increasing rock type number from left to right. Below the photographs are
whole-plug CT vertical slices showing the different features in the samples including the absolute permeabilities of the various
flow units. When required, properties were up-scaled from individual flow units to whole plug values.

Figure 1: Photographs and CT slices of the samples described in this study. Rock type numbers increase from left to right.
The yellow marks point to features in the samples that were considered in the definition of flow units and plug up-scaling.
SPE 138591 3

Laboratory Tests
The laboratory test data used in this study were accumulated by ADCO in the course of several years. The tests were
performed on cores from the same rock type and formation, but not necessarily on the same cores used in this DRP study. A
number of commercial and research laboratories were involved in testing, and they used a variety of methods for SCAL:
centrifuge, porous plate, steady-state, unsteady-state, and others. Most of the lab-derived plots are curve-fitted.

Laboratory SCAL studies, especially those involving steady-state and porous plate methods, may take over two years to
complete.

Digital Rock Physics Methods

The core plugs used in this study were all part of physical experiments prior to being used in the DRP study. Flow units in
these cores were identified and sampled. For each flow unit digital rocks were created using X-ray computed tomography
(CT) and grid resolutions from 65 nano-meters to 40 micro-meters. The pore structure of each flow unit determined the
required imaging resolution. The segmented three-dimensional digital rocks were used as the base grid system for
computations of rock and fluid flow properties. In this paper we focus only on the estimation of relative permeabilities.

We used the lattice Boltzmann method (LBM) to simulate the laminar flow of single or multiple fluids through the digital
rock (Frisch, et al. 1987, Toelke, 2010). The 3-D pore structure defined by three-dimensional high-resolution CT imaging
forms the grid system for using the LB method to compute fluid transport properties: absolute permeabilities, relative
permeabilities, and capillary pressures. The computational parameters (including fluid viscosities, interfacial tensions, and
contact angles) were selected to match the experimental conditions in the laboratory tests. Experimental constraints such as
fluid flow velocities and aging were also considered in determining two-phase oil-water relative permeabilities.

The fluid flow properties and contact angle were provided by ADCO and were: Water viscosity 0.33 cp, oil viscosity 0.28
cp, water/oil IFT 23 dynes/cm, contact angle 135 degrees (except one case that was modeled at 110 degrees to match
wettability data), average velocities 1-10 ft/day. Relative permeabilities for specific flow units were computed using the LB
method as follows. The proper 3-D digital sample was segmented into pores and solids. The absolute permeability of the
digital sample was computed using a single-phase LBM compute module simulating liquid flow so that there is no issue with
Klinkenberg gas flow corrections. The residual water saturation and oil relative permeability for that saturation were
determined by an oil flood. Then, the rest of the relative permeability curves were computed by increasing water saturation
(imbibition process) to residual oil saturation. All the DRP Kr values were determined using the steady-state method. The
DRP data presented in this paper are not curve-fitted. Most of the lab-derived plots are curve-fitted.

Results
RRT2: Figure 2 (Cartesian) and 3 (Semilog) show a match between DRP data (open diamonds) and physical lab data
(solid diamonds). The lab data are for a three-plug composite sample and the relative permeabilities were determined using
the steady-state method. The contact angle for this case was 110 degrees, derived from wettability tests, and was assigned after
the blind test was completed. This is the only example in the paper where the contact angle differs from 135 degrees, the
assigned angle for the blind test.
1
1.0

DRP S9 Kro

0.8 DRP S9 Krw

Lab CC1 SS Kro

0.1
Lab CC1 SS Krw
0.6
Kr
Kr

0.4 DRP S9 Kro

DRP S9 Krw 0.01
Lab CC1 SS Kro
Lab CC1 SS Krw
0.2

0.0 0.001
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0
Sw Sw
Figure 2: RRT2 relative permeabilities (Cartesian). Figure 3: RRT2 relative permeabilities (Semilog).
Figures 4 and 5 show additional data to Figures 2 and 3. The open squares are DRP data calculated at 135 degrees, the
original DRP testing condition. There are two other lab data sets. The set denoted by solid circles was derived by a
combination of un-steady state Kr method and semi-dynamic centrifuge Pc data. The range of saturations for which relative
4 SPE 138591

permeabilities were computed for the unsteady-state method is represented by the horizontal bar above the figures. The Kr
curves for this test were judged unacceptable by the sponsor. The set denoted by triangles is steady-state lab data on another
sample. The water curve for the second lab data set, denoted by triangles, exhibits the results of bumping highlighted by the
dashed ellipse on Figure 4. The bumping procedure consists of increasing the water injection rate at the end of the experiment
to attempt to remove end effects and reach better residual oil saturation, Sor, and a Krw at Sor. A large change in Sw and Krw
during bumping indicates the presence of end effects and a suppressed water relative permeability curve. The DRP
calculations are free of end effects. The figures highlight the difficulty in interpreting and comparing lab data from different
sources and different methods. The DRP data that were computed with parameters closest to the actual lab test matched the
best with the composite core data (Figures 2 and 3). Figure 6 shows permeability ratio values for three lab data sets and the
DRP data and Figure 7 shows water fractional flow curves. The DRP data fit reasonably the steady-state (SS), composite
(solid diamonds) and single plug S5 (solid triangles). The unsteady-state lab data are very different than the rest of the data.
1.0 1

0.1
0.8
Lab 5 SS Krw
Lab 5 SS Krw
Lab 5 SS Kro
0.01 Lab 5 SS Kro
Lab USS Krw
Lab USS Krw
0.6
Lab USS Kro Lab USS Kro
DRP S9 Kro 110
Kr

0.001 DRP S9 Kro 110

Kr
DRP S9 Krw 110 DRP S9 Krw 110
0.4 Lab CC1 SS Kro Lab CC1 SS Kro
Lab CC1 SS Krw 0.0001 Lab CC1 SS Krw
DRP S9 Kro 135 DRP S9 Kro 135
DRP S9 Krw 135 DRP S9 Krw 110
0.2
0.00001

0.0 0.000001

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Sw Sw

Figure 4: RRT2 relative permeabilities (Cartesian). Figure 5: RRT2 relative permeabilities (Semilog).

1000 1

100
0.8

10
Krw/Kro

0.6 DRP S9 Fw
DRP S9
Fw

1 LAB S5 Fw
LAB S5
LAB_CC1_fw
LAB CC1 0.4
LAB_USS_fw
0.1
LAB_USS

0.2
0.01

0.001 0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Sw Sw
Figure 6: RRT2 permeability ratio, Krw/Kro. Figure 7: RRT2 water fractional flow.

RRT3: Figures 8 (Cartesian) and 9 (Semilog) show a match between DRP data (open diamonds and squares) and physical
lab data (solid squares and circles). Plug 21 is one of the cases where we have DRP and lab data on the same sample,
diamonds and squares respectively. The second lab data (solid circles) set was acquired using the unsteady-state method with
semi-dynamic PC data on a single plug not evaluated by DRP. The range of saturations for which relative permeabilities were
computed for the unsteady-state method is represented by the horizontal bar above the figures. As for RRT2, the first lab data
set for sample 21 was acquired in the steady-state method including bumping shown by the dashed ellipse around the two solid
black squares. The end points for this rock type are similar. The DRP relative permeabilities are much closer to the SS
experimental data than the USS experiments.
SPE 138591 5

1
1
DRP 21 Kro
0.9
0.1 DRP 21 Krw

0.8 LAB 21 SS Kro

LAB 21 SS Krw
0.7 0.01 LAP USS Kro
LAB USS Krw
0.6
DRP 14 Kro
DRP 21 Kro

Kr
0.001
Kr

0.5 DRP 14 Krw

DRP 21 Krw
LAB 21 SS Kro
0.4
LAB 21 SS Krw 0.0001
0.3 LAB USS Kro
LAB USS Krw
0.2 0.00001
DRP 14 Kro

0.1 DRP 14 Krw

0.000001
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Sw Sw
Figure 8: RRT3 relative permeabilities (Cartesian). Figure 9: RRT3 relative permeabilities (Semilog).

Figure 10 shows permeability ratio values for three lab data sets and the DRP data set, and Figure 11 shows water
fractional flow curves. The DRP data are to the left of the steady-state data but have similar end points. The DRP Fw curves
are possibly too optimistic, though there is only one lab curve to consider. The unsteady-state lab data are very different from
the rest of the data and have very different end points tending to the ends of the saturation range.

1000 1

100
0.8

10
Krw/Kro

0.6 DRP 14 Fw
1 DRP 14
Fw

DRP 21 DRP 21 Fw

0.1 LAB SS 21 LAB 21 Fw

LAB USS 0.4
LAB USS Fw

0.01

0.2
0.001

0.0001 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Sw Sw

Figure 10: RRT3 permeability ratio, Krw/Kro. Figure 11: RRT3 water fractional flow.

RRT4: Figures 12 (Cartesian) and 13 (Semilog) show a match between DRP data (open diamonds and squares) and
physical lab data (solid squares and circles). Plug 22 is one of the cases where we have DRP and lab data on the same sample,
diamonds and squares respectively. The second lab data (solid circles) set was acquired using the unsteady-state method with
semi-dynamic PC data on a single plug not evaluated by DRP. The range of saturations for which relative permeabilities were
computed for the unsteady-state method is represented by the horizontal bar above the figures. The first lab data set for sample
22 was acquired in the steady-state method. The DRP relative permeabilities match well the SS lab experiment. The USS
Krw data match well the group but the Kro data are significantly different. Figure 12 shows the bumping results for the SS
method experiment. In this case, there is a large jump in Krw for a small change in water saturation. This is similar to the
bumping process of the RRT2 case shown in Figure 4, and may indicate the possible presence of end effects in the core at the
end of the last water injection stage during the experiment. Figure 14 shows good agreement with the SS experimental data
and the same holds for the water fractional flow data shown in Figure 15. The unsteady-state method does not match any of
the other results and is predicting a low recovery for water flooding.
6 SPE 138591

1
1

0.9
DRP 22 Kro
0.1
0.8 DRP 22 Krw

0.7 LAB 22 SS Kro

0.01
LAB 22 SS Krw
0.6
LAB USS Kro

Kr
Kr

0.5 0.001
LAB USS Krw

0.4 DRP 22 Kro DRP 1V Kro

DRP 22 Krw 0.0001
DRP 1V Krw
0.3 LAB 22 SS Kro
LAB 22 SS Krw
0.2 LAB USS Kro
LAB USS Krw 0.00001
DRP 1V Kro
0.1
LAB 1V Krw

0 0.000001

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Sw Sw

Figure 12: RRT4 relative permeabilities (Cartesian). Figure 13: RRT4 relative permeabilities (Semilog).

1000 1

100
0.8

10
Krw/Kro

0.6 DRP 22 Fw
1
Fw

DRP 1V Fw
DRP 22
0.1
0.4
DRP 1V LAB 22 SS Fw

0.01 LAB 22 SS LAB USS Fw

LAB USS 0.2

0.001

0.0001 0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Sw Sw
Figure 14: RRT4 permeability ratio, Krw/Kro. Figure 15: RRT4 water fractional flow.

RRT6: Figures 16 (Cartesian) and 17 (Semilog) show DRP data (open diamonds and squares) for two tight cores. These
cores are mainly micritic and were imaged using nano-CT equipment with voxel resolution of 65 nano-meters. Core 33 is a
horizontal plug and core 10V is vertical. Both cores have a rather homogeneous matrix with large scale impermeable object
imbedded in them (Figure 1 on the bottom right). The DRP oil relative permeabilities are close to each other. The water
curves are very different. There is also a difference in the residual oil saturation between the two samples. Figures 18 and 19
show the comparison of DRP data (open symbols) with lab data (solid symbols). The water relative permeabilities are quite
close to each other. The DRP oil curves fall between the lab oil curves. The DRP water curve for sample 10V and the lab oil
curve for the same sample are different from the other curves. There is no clear explanation of this observation and more DRP
work is needed to sort out the anomaly. It is most likely related to the structure of the rock. Figure 20 shows the permeability
ratio and Figure 21 shows the water fractional flow curves for this rock type. On the average, the DRP Fw data (large open
squares) match quite well the Fw lab data (large grey-filled circles).
SPE 138591 7

1 1

0.9

0.8
DRP 10V Kro
0.7
0.1 DRP 10V Krw

0.6 DRP 33 Kro

Kr
DRP 10V Kro DRP 33 Krw
Kr

0.5
DRP 10V Krw

0.4 DRP 33 Kro

0.01
DRP 33 Krw
0.3

0.2

0.1
0.001
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sw Sw

Figure 16: RRT6 DRP relative permeabilities (Cartesian). Figure 17: RRT6 relative DRP permeabilities (Semilog).
1 1

0.9

0.8

0.7
0.1

0.6
Kr

Kr

0.5 DRP 10V Kro DRP 10V Kro

DRP 10V Krw DRP 10V Krw
0.4 DRP 33 Kro DRP 33 Kro
DRP 33 Krw 0.01 DRP 33 Krw
0.3
LAB 10V SS Kro LAB 10V SS Kro
LAB 10V SS Krw LAB 10V SS Krw
0.2
LAB 33 SS Kro LAB 33 SS Kro
LAB 33 SS Krw LAB 33 SS Krw
0.1

0 0.001

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Sw Sw
Figure 18: RRT6 relative permeabilities (Cartesian). Figure 19: RRT6 relative permeabilities (Semilog).

1
1000

100 0.8

10
0.6 DRP 10V Fw
Krw/Kro

DRP 33 Fw
Fw

1
DRP 33 LAB 10V Fw

0.4 LAB 33 Fw
0.1 DRP 10V
LAB AVE

LAB 33 DRP AVE

0.01
0.2
LAB 10V

0.001

0
0.0001 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sw
Sw

Figure 20: RRT6 permeability ratio, Krw/Kro. Figure 21: RRT6 water fractional flow.
8 SPE 138591

Summary
The paper presents a successful blind test where eight samples from four rock types were selected. The test included the
computations of porosities, permeabilities, elastic properties, formation factors, Archie’s cementation factors, relative
permeabilities, capillary pressures (D1, I1, D2), and Archie’s saturation exponent. The DRP study was performed without any
knowledge of the experimental results. The only variables provided for the study were fluid properties needed for multi-phase
computations. This paper focuses only on relative permeabilities. The results of the comparative study are satisfactory and
show that the DRP methodology presented in this paper can provide high quality SCAL results in a much shorter time (2-3
months) in comparison to most laboratory procedures. This paper focuses on the results of the study and not on sensitivity
analysis. One of the significant advantages of DRP is that various scenarios can be explored at little extra time. We show one
example where after the blind test was over, tighter adherence to successful lab procedures yielded better results. Sensitivity
studies using DRP can provide relative permeabilities for different reservoir conditions thus reducing uncertainties in reservoir
simulation results. Finally, DRP shows that standard plug sizes are not necessarily the proper sample size for determining
transport properties. Lab data can vary significantly between plugs as well as between lab methods on the same plugs or on
similar rock type plugs. The main driving consideration for determining SCAL properties should be the flow units, the base
computational environment of digital rock physics presented in this paper. Digital rock physics presents an alternate method to
deliver a reliable prediction of relative permeability properties of several carbonate reservoir rock types rapidly and efficiently.

Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the support of Ingrain, Inc and Abu Dhabi Company for Onshore Operations (ADCO) in
conducting this study. The authors acknowledge ADCO and ADNOC management for permission to publish the results of
this study.

Nomenclature
CT – Computed Tomography
D1 – primary drainage cycle of the capillary pressure measurement
D2 – secondary drainage cycle of the capillary pressure measurement
DRP – Digital Rock Physics
Fw – fraction water flow
I1 – secondary imbibition cycle of the capillary pressure measurement
IFT – interfacial tension
Kr – relative permeability
Kro – relative permeability to oil
Krw – relative permeability to water
LBM – Lattice Boltzmann Method
MD – measured depth
PC – capillary pressure
RRT – Reservoir Rock Type
SCAL – Special Core Analysis
SS – steady-state method
USS – unsteady-state method

References
Frisch, U., D. d’Humieres, B. Hasslacher, P. Lallemand, Y. Pomeau and J. P. Rivet, Lattice gas
hydrodynamics in two and three dimensions, Complex Syst., 1 (1987), 649-707.

Grader, A., Kalam, M. Z., Toelke, J., Mu, Y., Derzhi, N., Baldwin, C., Armbruster, M., Al Dayyani, T., Clark, A., Al
Yafei, G. B., and Stenger, B. “A Comparative study of DRP and laboratory SCAL evaluations of Carbonate cores”, SCA,
Halifax, Oct. 2010.

Grötsch, J. (June 1997): Reservoir Rock Type Scheme for the Upper Thamama Reservoirs: A Basis for the Integrated 3-D
Reservoir Characterization Study, Internal ADCO Report.

Strohmenger, C. J., L. J. Weber, A. Ghani, K. Al-Mehsin, O. Al-Jeelani, A. Al-Mansoori, T. Al-Dayyani, L. Vaughan, S.

A. Khan, and J. C. Mitchell. Giant Hydrocarbon Reservoirs of the World: From Rocks to Reservoir Characterization and
Modeling AAPG Special Publication Memoir 88 (2006), 139-171.

Toelke, J., C. Baldwin, Y. Mu, N. Derzhi, Q. Fang. A. Grader, J. Dvorkin “Computer simulations of fluid flow in sediment:
From images to permeability” The Leading Edge, (2010) 29, 68-74.