SPE 102741

Relative Permeability of Gas-Condensate Fluids: A General Correlation

V. Bang, SPE, and V. Kumar, SPE, U. of Texas at Austin; P.S. Ayyalasomayajula, SPE, Chevron; and
G.A. Pope, SPE, and M.M. Sharma, SPE, U. of Texas at Austin

Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers

gas flow towards the wellbore, but condensate continues to
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Annual Technical Conference and accumulate until a steady-state saturation is reached that is
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A., 24–27 September 2006.
somewhat higher than the critical condensate saturation.
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, as
Condensate banking can reduce the well productivity
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to significantly, in several instances by a factor of 2 to 4. Afidick
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at et al.,1 Barnum et al.,2 Engineer3 and Ayyalasomayajula et al.4
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
have reported field data that show significant productivity loss
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is due to condensate accumulation.
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous Several investigators4-13 measured the effect of capillary
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
number on gas-condensate relative permeabilities. However,
most of the laboratory data are at low capillary numbers.
Abstract Much less data are available at high capillary numbers
Predicting production from gas-condensate wells requires an corresponding to the condensate banks near the production
accurate relative permeability model when a condensate bank wells. In this paper, we present gas-condensate relative
forms. At high flow rates typical of many gas-condensate permeability data over a wide range of capillary numbers
wells, the relative permeability is rate dependent. Such rate measured on both sandstone and limestone rocks.
dependence can be modeled using a capillary number to
calculate the decrease in residual saturations and the Capillary Number Dependent Relative Permeability
corresponding increase in relative permeability as viscous Model
forces become dominant over the interfacial forces. New Pope et.al.14 presented a relative permeability model for gas
steady-state relative permeability data have been measured and condensate relative permeabilities as a function of
over a wide range of capillary numbers including very high capillary number. The relative permeability krl of each phase l
values corresponding to the near-well region. These is calculated by interpolating between the measured value at
measurements have been made on several reservoir rocks as low capillary number and a straight line corresponding to a
well as outcrop rocks and over a range of temperature, very high capillary number:
pressure, connate water saturation and hydrocarbon low
composition typical of gas-condensate reservoirs. PVT data of ⎛k ⎞
log ⎜ rl ⎟ + logSl
gas-condensate fluids can be used to predict the ratio of the ⎜ ko ⎟
gas to the condensate relative permeability and this simplifies log k rl = log korl + logSl + ⎝ rl ⎠ (1)
the measurements and modeling since only data corresponding 1 + Tl (NTl )τ1
to the pressures near wells are needed. A relative permeability
model developed at the University of Texas was tested using where
both new data and data from the literature. With only one
S −S
parameter set, essentially all of the data for all rocks and Sl = l lr (2)
conditions was fit within experimental uncertainty. np
1 − ∑ Slr
Introduction l=1
In gas condensate reservoirs, when the bottomhole pressure in
The residual saturation of each phase l is modeled as a
flowing wells falls below the dew point pressure of the fluid, a
function of trapping number as shown below:
liquid hydrocarbon phase called condensate is formed and
trapped by capillary forces. The liquid condensate continues ⎛ low − Shigh ⎞
high S
to accumulate, occupying portions of the rock pores that S1r = min ⎜ S1 ,S1r + 1r 1r ⎟ (3)
otherwise would be available for gas flow, and thus impeding ⎜ 1 + T τ1 ⎟
⎝ l Tl )
(N ⎠
gas flow, until a critical liquid saturation is reached that is
similar to the value for residual oil saturation that would form For linear core floods where buoyancy forces are small
in the same rock under the same flow conditions. Once the compared to viscous forces, the trapping number simplifies to
critical liquid saturation is exceeded, both the condensate and
2 SPE 102741
the following equation for capillary number15 used in this
work:
kΔP
Nc =
σL
The pressure drop is the only variable in Eq. 4 for two-phase,
steady state flow of gas and oil at connate water saturation at
fixed temperature and pressure. There is no advantage to
expressing the capillary number in terms of velocity since the
pressure drop is measured. The endpoint relative permeability
of each phase is calculated as a function of the residual phase
saturations (and thus indirectly the capillary number) as
follows:
(k )
low − S
S1'r
o low l'r o high o low
k orl = k rl + rl − k rl
low − Shigh
S1'r 1'r
Experimental Apparatus and Procedure
Coreflood Apparatus. A laboratory was setup for steady state
gas-condensate relative permeability measurements at
reservoir conditions. Figure 1 shows a schematic of the
experimental setup. A positive displacement Ruska pump was
used to inject fluid at a constant rate. Multiple pressure ports
were used to measure the pressure drop and see condensate
buildup along the length of the core. Two back-pressure
regulators were used to control the flowing pressure upstream
(BPR-1) and downstream (BPR-2) of the core. The flow is
downward through a vertical core. A high-pressure Phoenix
core holder, Temco back-pressure regulators and high-
pressure Temco accumulators are placed inside a temperature
controlled oven.
Synthetic Gas-Condensate Mixtures. Five different fluid
mixtures were used to perform coreflood experiments. The
compositions of the gas mixtures are given in Table 1. The
fluid PVT properties were calculated using the Peng-Robinson
equation of state with Peneloux volume corrections. Figure 2
and Table 2 give key fluid property data for fluids 1, 2 and 3.
Fluids 3, 4 and 5 were used for reservoir cores C, A and B,
respectively.
Rocks. Berea sandstone and reservoir sandstone plugs from
three different gas-condensate fields and Texas cream
limestone were used in the coreflood experiments. Table 3
gives the rock properties for the new core flood experiments
as well as those from the literature. The cores were wrapped
with a layer of Teflon tape followed by aluminum foil and
Teflon heat shrink tube. The Teflon tape was used to prevent
contact of brine with the aluminum foil. Aluminum foil and
Teflon heat shrink tube prevent diffusion of gasses and
interaction of fluids with the Viton rubber sleeve.
Coreflood Procedure. The single-phase gas permeability for
each dry core was first measured using methane or nitrogen.
Initial water saturation was then established and gas relative
permeability at initial water saturation was measured. A
dynamic flashing method (also called pseudo-steady state
method in the literature) was used to measure the steady-state
gas and condensate relative permeabilities. The upstream
back-pressure regulator was set at a pressure above the dew
point pressure of the fluid and the downstream back-pressure
(4) regulator was set at a pressure below the dew point pressure
corresponding to the bottom hole flowing well pressure.
Therefore, the single-phase gas mixture flashes into two
phases (gas and condensate) as it flows past the upstream
back-pressure regulator. This dynamic flashing method is
similar to the condensate accumulation process around
production wells. The mixture is injected until steady state is
reached at a given flow rate and the pressure drop measured.
The flow rate is then increased and the measurements repeated
at each flow rate to determine the dependence of the relative
permeability on capillary number.
(5) Results and Discussion
The steady state gas and condensate (oil) relative
permeabilities have been correlated as a function of the krg/kro
ratio and the capillary number. The steady state krg/kro ratio
can be calculated directly from the PVT properties of the fluid
and for a particular fluid is dependent only on the pressure and
temperature. Chopra et al.16 showed that the krg/kro ratio can be
calculated using only PVT data using the following equation:
k rg Vg μg
= (6)
k ro Vo μo
where, Vg and Vo are the volumes of gas and liquid obtained
from constant composition expansion measurements expressed
as a fraction of the total hydrocarbon volume. Fevanq and
Whitson17 used an equivalent equation as the basis for their
pseudo steady state method of calculating the flow rates from
wells with a condensate bank. At steady state the volume
fractions correspond to the fractional flow of each phase so
Eq. 6 can also be written as follows:18
k rg f g μg
= (7)
k ro fo μo
where, fg and fo represent the steady state fractional flow of
gas and liquid respectively.
Whitson et al.,13 Mott et al.,12 Cable et al.,7
Ayyalasomayajula et al.4 and Kumar et al.11 have all shown
that steady state gas and condensate relative permeability data
can be correlated with the ratio given in Eq. 6. The data
presented in this paper confirm and extend this correlation to a
wider range of conditions and higher capillary numbers.
Results for Sandstones. Figures 3 through 12 show gas and
oil relative permeability data as a function of capillary number
for different krg/kro ratios. The new data presented in this paper
extend the range of the capillary numbers to the high values
representative of flow near high-rate wells.
Figures 3 and 4 show the measured gas and oil relative
permeability data for a krg/kro ratio of 2.1 for capillary
numbers up to 10-3. Under some conditions non-Darcy flow
can complicate the measurement of relative permeability at
such high capillary numbers. Non-Darcy flow was avoided in
these experiments by lowering the IFT between the gas and oil
to 0.049 dyne/cm. With this low IFT, the flow rates required
SPE 102741
to give the desired capillary numbers are not high enough to
cause non-Darcy flow.
The data show that the gas and oil relative permeabilities
do not increase significantly up to a capillary number of about
10-4, but for capillary numbers greater than 10-4 there is a
significant increase in both gas and oil relative permeabilities.
Similar results are observed for other krg/kro ratios. Figures 5
and 6 show the measured gas and oil relative permeability data
as well as the data from the literature as a function of capillary
number for a krg/kro ratio of 1. This set of data shows a similar
trend i.e. low and almost constant values of gas and oil relative
permeabilities for capillary numbers up to 10-4 and a steep
increase in both the gas and oil relative permeability values for
capillary numbers greater than 10-4, which corresponds to the
critical capillary number and is typical for a non-wetting phase
in sandstones.14 The data of Cable and Mott7 using reservoir
gas-condensate fluids and the data of Kumar et al.11 using
synthetic gas-condensate fluids are in good agreement. This is
an important observation since almost all of the data in the
literature are for synthetic fluids.
Figures 7 and 8 show the dependence of gas and oil
relative permeability on capillary number for reservoir
sandstone with a krg/kro ratio of 3 to 5. Figures 9 and 10 show
the measured relative permeability data for lean gas-
condensate fluids corresponding to a krg/kro ratio in the range
of 8 to 12. Relative permeability data for even leaner fluids
corresponding to a krg/kro ratio in the range of 20 to 60 are
shown in Figs. 11 and 12. The data for krg/kro ratios of 8 to 12
and 20 to 60 were measured on two different reservoir
sandstone cores (Reservoir A and Reservoir B). The low
values of gas relative permeability show that for even for such
lean fluids (high krg/kro ratios) condensate blocking can be a
serious problem.
The new sandstone data and the sandstone data reported in
the literature for both reservoir and synthetic fluids was used
to tune the UT relative permeability model.14 An attempt was
made to fit all of the gas and oil relative permeability using
only one set of model parameters for all rocks and fluids over
the entire range of capillary numbers. Table 3 gives the model
parameters obtained after tuning the model to fit all of the
data.
Figures 3 to 12 show the comparison of the measured gas
and oil relative permeability data with the model curves. The
comparison shows that the model curves fit the data over
krg/kro ratios ranging from 1 to 60 and capillary numbers
ranging from 10-7 to 10-3 reasonably well within experimental
uncertainty. The model predicts low and almost constant gas
and oil relative permeabilities for capillary numbers less than
10-4 as observed from the data. The match is equally good for
low and high krg/kro ratios. The most significant observation of
this work is that the model is able to capture the sharply
increasing relative permeability in the capillary number range
of 10-4 to 10-3, which represents the capillary numbers
expected near high-rate gas-condensate wells.
Results for Limestone. The steady state relative permeability
measurements for Texas Cream Limestone were done using
fluid 1 at 145 °F. The experiments were done at 1200 psig and
2600 psig corresponding to krg/kro ratios of 1.6 and 2.1.
Figures 13 and 14 show the measured gas and oil relative
3
permeability data as a function of capillary number. The data
for a krg/kro ratio of 1.6 are for capillary numbers on the order
of 10-5. The data at a ratio of 2.1 was measured over a
capillary number range of 10-4 to 10-3 and show a significant
increase in both gas and oil relative permeabilities with
capillary number. This is the first set of limestone data
reported for such high capillary numbers. Figures 13 and 14
also compare the new data with some of the data reported in
literature, which show a similar behavior.
The gas and oil relative permeabilities are higher for this
limestone than for the sandstones at low capillary numbers.
However, gas and oil relative permeabilites are almost the
same at high capillary numbers. The data for capillary
numbers in the range of 10-5 to 10-3 were compared with the
model curves using the same set of parameters used for
sandstones (Table 3). Figures 13 and 14 show that the model
curve is close to the data at high capillary numbers, but is
somewhat lower than most of the data at low capillary
numbers.
Illustration of Relative Permeability Model. Figure 15
shows gas relative permeability model curves as a function of
capillary number for different krg/kro ratios. Figure 16 shows
the model curves as a function of krg/kro for different capillary
numbers. Figure 17 shows gas relative permeability model
curves as a function of oil saturation for different capillary
numbers. Figure 18 shows that the oil saturation predicted by
the model varies over a very narrow range of about 0.35 to
0.40 when the krg/kro ratio is 1, which corresponds to a liquid
drop out from a constant composition expansion on the order
of 10%. All curves were calculated using the same set of
parameters given in Table 3. These curves can be used to get a
quick first estimate of the steady state gas and oil relative
permeability values in a condensate bank using nothing but
PVT data to calculate the krg/kro ratio and the capillary
number. The well productivity index can then be estimated
from one of several simple models.13,18 The UT relative
permeability model can also be used to fit experimental data
following chemical treatment of the rock to increase the gas
and oil relative permeabilities.11 The increase in the gas and
oil flow rates can then be estimated from numerical simulation
or in special cases from an analytical well model.19
Conclusions
1. Steady state gas and oil relative permeabilities have been
measured at high capillary numbers corresponding to the
near well region of high-rate gas-condensate wells.
2. Gas and oil relative permeabilities show strong dependence
on capillary numbers at high capillary number for both
sandstones and limestones.
3. The UT relative permeability model was used to fit the gas
and oil relative permeability data for sandstones and
limestones over a wide range of capillary numbers, krg/kro
ratios, rock type, fluids, temperatures, permeability and
initial water saturation using just one set of parameters for
all the data.
4. The model captures the gas and oil relative permeability
dependence on capillary numbers for both limestones and
sandstones.
4 SPE 102741
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank John Rohan for his help with these
experiments and Tony Bermudez, Glen Baum and Bob
Savicki for their help with the experimental apparatus. We
would also like to thank the sponsors of the gas-condensate
research project in the Center for Petroleum and Geosystems
Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin: Chevron,
Saudi Aramco, BP, Shell, PDO, 3M and Petrobras.
Nomenclature
krl = relative permeability of phase l
korl = endpoint relative permeability of phase l
f = Fractional flow
L = Length
Nc = capillary number
NT = Trapping number
np = number of phases
no = Corey exponent for oil phase
ng = Corey exponent for gas phase
P = Pressure
Sj = saturation of phase j
Sjr = residual saturation of phase j
Tl = Trapping parameter for phase l
V = Volume Fraction (Volume/Total volume)
Greek Symbols
Δ = difference
σ = interfacial tension (dynes/cm)
φ = porosity
μ = viscosity (cp)
Subscripts
l = displaced phase
l' = displacing phase
r = residual
g = gas
o = oil
Superscripts
high = High trapping number
low = Low trapping number
o = End point
References
1 Afidick, D., Kaczorowski, N.J. and Bette, S.: "Production
Performance of Retrograde Gas Reservoir: A Case Study of the
Arun Field," SPE 28749 presented at the 1994 SPE Asia Pacific
Oil and Gas Conference, Melbourne, Australia, Nov. 7-10.
2 Barnum, R.S., Brinkman, F.P., Richardson, T.W. and Spillette,
A.G.: “Gas Condensate Reservoir Behavior: Productivity and
Recovery Reduction Due to Condensation,” paper SPE 30767
presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, TX, October 22-25.
3 Engineer, R.: "Cal Canal Field, California: Case History of a
Tight and Abnormally Pressured Gas Condensate Reservoir,"
paper SPE 13650 presented at the 1985 SPE California Regional
Meeting, Bakersfield, CA, March 27-29.
4 Ayyalasomayajula P., Silpngarmlers N., Berroteran J., Sheffield
J. and Kamath J.: “Condensate Relative Permeability Data For
Well Deliverability Predictions For A Deep Marine Sandstone
Reservoir,” paper SCA 2003-33.
5 Al-Anazi, H. A., Pope, G. A., and Sharma, M. M.: “Laboratory
Measurement of Condensate Blocking and Treatment for Both
Low and High Permeability Rocks”, SPE 77546, presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, TX, 29 September-2 October 2002.
6 Al-Anazi, Hamoud: "Experimental Measurements of
Condensate Blocking and Treatments in Low and High
Permeability Cores", Ph.D. dissertation, The University Of
Texas At Austin (2003).
7 Cable A., Mott, R. and Spearing, M.: “X-Ray in-situ saturation
in gas condensate relative permeability studies”, SCA 2003.
8 Du, L., Walker, J.G., Pope, G.A., Sharma, M.M., and Wang, P.:
“Use of Solvents to Improve the Productivity of Gas Condensate
Wells,” SPE 62935 presented at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, October 1-4.
9 Henderson, G.D., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D. H., Al-Shaidi, S.,
Peden, J.M.: “Measurement and Correlation of Gas Condensate
Relative Permeability by the Steady-State Method” SPE 30770,
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference &
Exhibition, Dallas, TX, U.S.A., 22-25 October, 1995.
10 Henderson, G. D., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D. H., and Al-Kharusi,
B: “The Relative Significance of Positive Coupling and Inertial
Effects on Gas Condensate Relative Permeabilites at High
Velocity”, SPE 62933 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, October 1-4, 2000.
11 Kumar, V., Pope, G.A. and Sharma, M.M.:"Improving the Gas
and Condensate Relative Permeability Using Chemical
Treatments", SPE 100529 presented at the 2006 SPE Gas
Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, May 15-17.
12 Mott, R., Cable, A., and Spearing, M.: “Measurements and
Simulation of Inertial and High Capillary Number Flow
Phenomena in Gas-Condensate Relative Permeability,” SPE
62932 presented at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, October 1-4.
13 Whitson, C.H., Fevang, Ø, and Saevareid, A., Gas Condensate
Relative Permeability for Well Calculations, SPE 56476,
presented at the SPE ATCE in Houston, TX, 1999.
14 Pope, G. A., Wu, W., Narayanaswamy, G., Delshad, M.,
Sharma, M.M., and Wang, P.: "Modeling Relative Permeability
Effects in Gas-Condensate Reservoirs With a New Trapping
Model," SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, April 2000,
171-178.
15 Brownell L. E. and Katz, D.L.: “Flow of Fluids through Porous
Media-Part II”, Chem. Eng. Pros., 43 11, 601-612 (1947).
16 Chopra, A.K. and Carter, R.D.: “Proof of the two phase steady
state theory for flow through porous media,” SPE Formation
Evaluation, December 1986.
17 Fevang, Ø. and Whitson, C.H.: “Modeling Gas-Condensate
Well Deliverability,” SPERE (Nov. 1996).
18 Chowdhury N.S, Sharma, R., Pope, G.A. and Sepehrnoori, K.:
“A Semi-Analytical Method to Predict Well Deliverability in
Gas Condensate Reservoirs,” paper SPE 90320, presented at
SPE Annual Technical Conference, Houston, TX, September
26-29, 2004.
19 Kumar, V., Bang, V., Pope, G.A., Sharma, M.M.,
Ayyalasomayajula, P.S., Kamath, J., SPE 102669, "Chemical
Stimulation of Gas-Condensate Reservoirs", to be presented at
the SPE ATCE, San Antonio, September, 2006.
20 Narayanswamy, G., Pope, G. A., and Sharma, M. M.:
"Predicting Gas Condensate Well Productivity Using Capillary
Number and Non-Darcy Effects," SPE 51910 Proceedings of the
SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, TX, February
14-17 1999.
SPE 102741 5

Table 1—Fluid Composition of Synthetic Gas Mixtures Table 2—Properties of Synthetic Gas Mixtures 1, 2 and 3
Fluid Component Mole % Fluid Temperature, Dew-Point Core Krg/kro
°F Pressure, Pressure,
Fluid 1 Methane 80
psi psi
n-Butane 15
n-Heptane 3.8 Fluid 1 145 2792 1200 1.6
n-Decane 1.2 Fluid 1 145 2792 2600 2.1
Fluid 2 Methane 83 Fluid 2 250 3850 1500 0.9
n-Butane 4 Fluid 3 275 4153 1500 2.9
n-Heptane 7.2
n-Decane 4
n-Dodecane 1.8
Fluid 3 Methane 93
n-Butane 4
n-Decane 2
n-Pentadecane 1
Fluid 4 Methane 94.5
n-Decane 5.95
n-C20 0.05
Fluid 5 Methane 98.7
n-Decane 0.98
n-C20 0.32

Table 3—Sources of Relative Permeability Data

Source Rock Type k, md φ Swi % Nc Range
-6 -3
This work Berea Sandstone 130-230 20 0-50 6x10 - 1.2x10
-6 -4
" Texas Cream Limestone 8-20 20 0 4x10 - 9x10
-7 -5
" Reservoir A (Sandstone) 5-23 14-16 20-22 4x10 - 3x10
-7 -5
" Reservoir B (Sandstone) 3-51 10-13 8-20 5x10 - 3x10
-5 -5
” Reservoir C (Sandstone) 40-50 16 26-50 1x10 - 2x10
-8 -5
Al-Anazi et al. (SPE-77546) Texas Cream Limestone 2-6 20 0-20 4x10 - 5x10
-8 -6
Ayyalasomayajula et al. (SCA-2003-33) Reservoir Sandstone 4-60 17 26-33 4x10 - 2x10
-6 -4
Cable et al. (SCA-2003) Outcrop Sandstone 12 20 5.3 6x10 - 2x10
-5 -5
Henderson et al. (SPE-30770) Berea Sandstone 92 19.8 26.4 2x10 - 9x10
-6 -4
Kumar et al. (SPE-100529) Berea Sandstone and Reservoir Sandstone 14-500 16-20 0-40 4x10 - 6x10
-5 -4
Mott et al. (SPE- 62932) North Sea Sandstone 102.4 25.4 11.8 6x10 - 6x10

Table 4—Model Parameters

Model Parameter Sandstone
Swr 0.25
Sor 0.3
Sgr 0.25
o
kro 0.3
o
krg 0.45
no 2
ng 3
Tw 100
To 10,000,000
Tg 3,000,000
τw 1.1
τo 2
τg 2
6 SPE 102741

Temp erature-Controlled Oven 0.5

Henderson et.al.
BPR-1 Cable et al.

Oil Relative Permeability

0.4 Reservoir B
Pressure Transducers

Ayyalasomayajula et al.
Cap illary Kumar et al.
Viscom eter 0.3 Berea
krg/kro=2
Core BPR-2
Holder 0.2

RUSKA
Pump 0.1

Effluent
0.0 -7
Fig. 1—A schematic of experimental setup for coreflood 10 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2
1E-7 1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 1E-2
experiments.
Capillary Number
35 Fig. 4—Comparison of measured oil relative permeability for
krg/kro=2 with the relative permability model.
30 Fluid 2
250°F 1.0
Liquid Dropout, %

25
Henderson et al.

Gas Relative Permeability

20 0.8 Mott et al.
Reservoir A
Kumar et al.
15 Fluid 1
0.6 krg/kro=1
145°F
10
Fluid 3 0.4
5 275°F

0 0.2
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Pressure, psig
0.0 -7
Fig. 2—Liquid dropout of the fluid mixtures for constant 10 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2
1E-7 1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 1E-2
composition expansion.
Capillary Number
1.0 Fig. 5—Comparison of measured gas relative permeability for
Henderson et al. krg/kro=1 with the relative permability model.
Cable et al.
Gas Relative Permeability

0.8 Reservoir B 1.0

Reservoir C Henderson et al.
Kumar et al. Mott et al.
Oil Relative Permeability

0.6 Berea 0.8

krg/kro=2 Reservoir A
Kumar et al.
0.4 0.6 krg/kro=1

0.2 0.4

0.0 -7 0.2
10 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2
Capillary Number
0.0 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2
Fig. 3—Comparison of measured gas relative permeability for 10 10 10 10 10 10
1E-7 1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 1E-2
krg/kro=2 with the relative permability model.
Capillary Number
Fig. 6—Comparison of measured oil relative permeability for
krg/kro=1 with the relative permability model.
SPE 102741 7

0.7 0.10
Henderson et al.
Reservoir A Cable et al.
0.6
Gas Relative Permeability

Reservoir B

Oil Relative Permeability

0.08 Reservoir A
0.5 Reservoir C
Reservoir B
Mott et al.
Reservoir C
0.4 krg/kro=3 0.06
This work
4
krg/kro=5
krg/kro=10
0.3
0.04
0.2

0.1 0.02

0.0 -7
10 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3
1E-7 1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 0.00 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3
Capillary Number 10 10 10 10 10
Capillary Number
Fig. 7—Comparison of measured gas relative permeability for
krg/kro=3 and 4 with the relative permability model. Fig. 10—Comparison of measured oil relative permeability for
krg/kro=8 to 12 with the relative permability model.
0.20
1.0
Reservoir A
Reservoir B Reservoir B
Oil Relative Permeability

0.16 Reservoir C Ayyalasomayajula et al.

krg/kro=3 Gas Relative Permeability 0.8
Cable et al.
krg/kro=4 krg/kro=60
0.12
0.6 krg/kro=40
krg/kro=20
0.08
0.4

0.04
0.2

0.00 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3
10 10 10 10 10 0.0 -7
1E-7 1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 10 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3
Capillary Number 1E-7 1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3
Capillary Number
Fig. 8—Comparison of measured oil relative permeability for
krg/kro=3 and 4 with the relative permability model. Fig. 11—Comparison of measured gas relative permeability for
krg/kro=20 to 60 with the relative permability model.
1.0
Henderson et al. 0.10
Cable et al. Reservoir B
Gas Relative Permeability

0.8 Ayyalasomayajula et al. Ayyalasomayajula et al.

Oil Relative Permeability

Reservoir A 0.08 krg/kro=60

Reservoir B krg/kro=40
0.6 This work krg/kro=20
krg/kro=10 0.06

0.4
0.04

0.2
0.02

0.0 -7
10 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 0.00 -7
1E-7 1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 -6 -5 -4 -3
Capillary Number 10 10 10 10 10
1E-7 1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3
Capillary Number
Fig. 9—Comparison of measured gas relative permeability for
krg/kro=8 to 12 with the relative permability model. Fig. 12—Comparison of measured oil relative permeability for
krg/kro=20 to 60 with the relative permability model.
8 SPE 102741

0.5 1.0
Capillary Number
Al-Anazi et al.
Du et al. 1.00E-03

Gas Relative Permeabilty

Gas Relative Permeability

0.4 krg/kro=1
0.8 3.00E-04
krg/kro=1.6 2.00E-04
krg/kro=2 1.00E-04
0.3 krg/kro=2.1 0.6
1.00E-05
1.00E-06
0.2 0.4 1.00E-07

0.1 0.2

0.0 -7 0.0
10 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
1E-7 1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3
Capillary Number Ratio of Gas to Oil Relative Permeability
Fig. 13—Comparison of gas relative permeability measured on Fig. 16—Gas relative permeability as a function of krg/kro ratio.
limestone for krg/kro=1 and 2 with the relative permability model.
1
0.5
Al-Anazi et al.

Gas Relative Permeability

Du et al.
Oil Relative Permeability

0.4 krg/kro=1
krg/kro=1.6 0.1
krg/kro=2 Caillary
0.3 krg/kro=2.1 Number
1.00E-02
1.00E-03
0.2 0.01 3.00E-04
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
0.1 1.00E-07

0.001
0.0 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
10 10 10 10 10 Oil Saturation
1E-7 1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3
Capillary Number
Fig. 17—Gas relative permeability as a function of oil saturation
Fig. 14—Comparison of oil relative permeability measured on and capillary number.
limestone for krg/kro=1 and 2 with the relative permability model.
Ratio of Gas to Oil Relative Permeability

100
1.0
Caillary
krg/kro=100 Number
krg/kro=10 1.00E-02
Gas Relative Permeability

0.8 10
krg/kro=5 1.00E-03
krg/kro=2 3.00E-04
krg/kro=1.0 1.00E-04
0.6 krg/kro=0.1 1 1.00E-05
1.00E-07

0.4
0.1

0.2
0.01
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3
10 10 10 10 10 Oil Saturation
Capillary Number Fig. 18—Oil saturation as a function of krg/kro ratio and capillary
Fig. 15—Gas relative permeability as a function of capillary number.
number.