SPE 95575
A Semianalytical Method To Calculate Relative Permeability From Resistivity Well Logs
K. Li, SPE, Stanford U.
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., 9 – 12 October 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
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
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
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
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.
Abstract
A semianalytical model was developed to infer relative
permeability from resistivity data. Although it would still be
necessary to conduct experimental measurements of
resistivity, these are easier than measuring capillary pressure.
On the other hand, resistivity data are commonly available
from routine well logging. The semianalytical model was
tested against experimental data. The results demonstrated that
the relative permeabilities calculated from resistivity data were
close to those calculated from capillary pressure data. The
model developed in this study may also provide an approach
to estimate permeability using both the resistivity well logging
and well testing.
Introduction
Relative permeability can be calculated from capillary
pressure. However this technique still requires measurement
of capillary pressure, which is difficult in many cases (for
example, if permeability is very low or there is significant
mass transfer and phase transformation as pressure changes).
It may be useful to evaluate permeability and relative
permeability from production tests. Routine well tests can
provide only the effective permeability of rock (permeability
at initial water saturation). Most of the approaches to
evaluating permeability from well logs are based on empirical
relationships between porosity and permeability. On the other
hand, it is expensive and difficult in many cases to measure
relative permeability. It would be helpful for engineers and
scientists to have a method to infer permeability and relative
permeability from resistivity data because they are easier to
measure and a great amount of resistivity data is available
from well logging. However such models have been few. In
this study, a semianalytical model was developed to infer
relative permeability from resistivity data. The basic idea was
the similarity between fluid flow in a porous medium and
electricity flow in a conductive body. The model was tested
against experimental data. The results demonstrated that the
relative permeability calculated using the model with
resistivity data was close to the experimental data and to those
calculated from capillary pressure. A well test can provide the
effective permeability of rock around the well bore at initial
water saturation. Therefore the absolute permeability of rock
may be calculated readily using the relative permeability
inferred from the well log and the effective permeability from
the well test.
One important parameter in geothermal reservoir
engineering is the steam-water relative permeability. Yet it is
difficult to measure steam-water relative permeability because
of mass transfer and phase transformation as pressure changes.
Previously, Li and Horne1,2 reported that steam-water relative
permeability could be calculated from capillary pressure data.
These models provide an easier and more economical
approach to obtain steam-water relative permeability,
compared to the experimental technique. The disadvantage is
the need to measure steam-water capillary pressure, which can
also be difficult and time consuming in many cases. It would
be helpful for engineers and scientists to have a method to
infer steam-water relative permeability from resistivity data
because resistivity is easier to measure in well logging. In this
study, a semianalytical model was developed to infer relative
permeability from resistivity data.
Mathematical Models
The relationship between relative permeability and resistivity
index is derived in this section. The main theory behind this is
the similarity between fluid flow in a porous medium and
electricity flow in a conductive body.
Calculation of the Wetting-Phase Relative Permeability
The conductance of a porous medium at a water saturation of
100% is:
Ga = 1 / Ro (1)
where Ro is the resistivity at a water saturation of 100%, Ga is
the conductance of a porous medium at a water saturation of
100%.
The conductance of a porous medium at a specific water
saturation of Sw is:
Gw = 1 / Rt (2)
2 SPE 95575

where Rt is the resistivity and Gw is the conductance at a
specific water saturation of Sw.
According to the similarity theory between fluid flow and
electrical flow, the relative permeability of the wetting phase
can be calculated using the following equation:
Relative permeability of the wetting phase can be calculated
using Eq. 6 from resistivity index data once the residual
saturation of the wetting phase is available. Note that the
residual saturation of the wetting phase can be obtained from
the experimental measurement of resistivity.

Calculation of the Nonwetting-phase Relative Permeability

Gw Ro 1
krw = = = According to Li and Horne1, the wetting-phase relative
Ga Rt I
(3) permeability can be calculated using the Purcell approach4 :

where I is the resistivity index, krw is the relative permeability 2+ λ

of the wetting phase. k rw = ( S ) *
w
λ
(8)
According to Archie’s equation3, the following equation
applies:
where λ is the pore size distribution index and can be
Rt calculated from capillary pressure data.
I= = (Sw )−n After the relative permeability curve of the wetting phase
Ro
(4) is obtained using Eq.6, the value of λ can be inferred using Eq.
8.
where n is the Archie’s saturation exponent. According to the Brooks-Corey model5 and the study by Li
At a water saturation of 100%, it is known that I=1, so the and Horne1, the relative permeability of the nonwetting phase
value of krw calculated using Eq. 3 would be equal to 1, which can be calculated once the value of λ is available. The
is true. At the residual water saturation, it is known that krw =0, equation is expressed as follows:
which implies that I approaches infinity according to Eq. 3.
But it is known that the value of I does not approach infinity at 2+λ
the residual water saturation. So the value of krw calculated k rnw = (1 − S w* ) 2 [1 − ( S w* ) λ ]
using Eq. 3 is greater than zero, which is not consistent with (9)
physical observation.
One can also expect that the relative permeability of the One can see that the entire relative permeability set (both
wetting phase calculated using Eq. 3 will be greater than the wetting and nonwetting phases) can be inferred from
true value. The reason is that the resistivity counts the average resistivity index data using Eqs. 6 and 9.
volumetric properties of the pore bodies in a porous medium
while permeability counts the properties of pore throats. This Results
is also why resistivity well logging can obtain porosity but not The experimental data of resistivity and capillary pressure
permeability. measured by Sanyal6 in rocks with different permeability were
Considering these problems, Eq. 3 is modified as follows: used to test the models (Eqs. 6 and 9) developed in this study.
First, the values of relative permeability were calculated using
Eqs. 6 and 9. Second, relative permeability data were
S w − S wr 1
k rw = calculated using capillary pressure data (Li and Horne1).
1 − S wr I According to the study by Li and Horne1, relative permeability
(5)
could be calculated accurately using the capillary pressure
technique. Finally the results of relative permeability inferred
where Swr is the residual saturation of the wetting phase. from resistivity index and capillary pressure data were
According to Eq. 5, krw =1 at Sw =100% and krw =0 at Sw = Swr, compared.
which is reasonable.
Eq. 5 can also be expressed as follows:
Berea Sandstone
The Berea sandstone sample used by Sanyal6 had a porosity of
1 20.4% and a permeability of 300 md. Fig. 1 shows the
k rw = S w* (6)
I relationship between resistivity index and water saturation in
Berea sandstone at a temperature of 175oF.
The values of the resistivity index at different water
S w* is the normalized saturation of the wetting phase and is saturation shown in Fig. 1 were measured in oil-water (water
expressed as follows: displaced by oil) systems. Fig. 1 also shows that the
relationship between resistivity index and water saturation in
Berea sandstone at a temperature of 175oF is linear on a log-
S w − S wr
S w* = log plot, which is consistent with Eq. 4.
1 − S wr
(7)
SPE 95575
Oil/water capillary pressure data were measured
simultaneously with resistivity in the same core sample. The
results are plotted in Fig. 2.
Oil/water relative permeability data were calculated from
resistivity index (using Eqs. 6 and 9) and capillary pressure
data (see Li and Horne1) respectively. The results are
compared and shown in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3 demonstrates that the relative permeability data
inferred from the resistivity index data are close to those
calculated using capillary pressure data. The oil relative
permeabilities inferred from resistivity index data are almost
equal to those calculated from capillary pressure data.
Sanyal6 also conducted experimental measurements of
resistivity index and capillary pressure at different
temperatures in the same core sample. The resistivity index
data at a temperature of 300oF are plotted in Fig. 4. One can
see from Fig. 4 that the resistivity index data also follow
Archie’s law (Eq. 4).
Fig. 5 shows the oil/water capillary pressure data measured
simultaneously with resistivity in the same Berea sandstone
core sample at a temperature of 300oF.
Fig. 6 demonstrates the relative permeability data
calculated from both the resistivity index data shown in Fig. 4
(using Eqs. 6 and 9) and the capillary pressure data in Fig. 5
(see Li and Horne1).
One can see in Fig. 6 that both the oil and water relative
permeabilities inferred from the resistivity index data are
almost equal to those calculated from the capillary pressure
data.
Boise Sandstone
The Boise sandstone core sample had a porosity of 32% and a
permeability of 960 md. The values of porosity and
permeability are greater than those of the Berea sandstone
used by Sanyal6. Figs. 7 and 8 show the resistivity index data
and capillary pressure vs. water saturation in Boise sandstone
at a temperature of 175oF.
The relative permeability data calculated from both the
resistivity index data shown in Fig. 7 (using Eqs. 6 and 9) and
the capillary pressure data in Fig. 8 are plotted in Fig. 9. Fig.
9 shows that the oil and water relative permeabilities
calculated from the resistivity index data are close to those
calculated from the capillary pressure data.
The results at a temperature of 300oF are demonstrated in
Figs. 10-12. Fig. 10 shows the resistivity data and Fig. 11
shows the capillary pressure data. Fig. 12 plots the relative
permeability calculated from the resistivity index shown in
Fig. 10 (using Eqs. 6 and 9) and the capillary pressure in Fig.
11 respectively. Fig. 12 shows that the oil relative
permeability values calculated from resistivity index are close
to those inferred from capillary pressure. However the water
relative permeability calculated from resistivity index data is
smaller than those inferred from capillary pressure.
Limestone
The limestone core sample had a porosity of 19% and a
permeability of 410 md.
3
The resistivity index and capillary pressure data at a
temperature of 300oF are shown in Figs. 13 and 14
respectively.
The results of relative permeability calculated from the
resistivity index and the capillary pressure data are seen in Fig.
15. One can see in Fig. 15 that the oil relative permeabilities
inferred from the resistivity index data are almost equal to
those calculated from the capillary pressure data in the
limestone core sample. The difference between the relative
permeability inferred from the resistivity index and those
calculated from capillary pressure is acceptable in terms of
reservoir engineering applications.
Conclusion
Based on the present study, the following conclusions may be
drawn in the cases studied:
1. A semianalytical model was developed to infer relative
permeability from resistivity index data.
2. The values of the nonwetting phase relative permeability
inferred from the resistivity index data are almost equal to
those calculated from capillary pressure data.
3. For the wetting-phase relative permeability, the values
inferred from the resistivity index are close to those
calculated from capillary pressure in most of the cases
studied.
Acknowledgments
This research was conducted with financial support to the
Stanford Geothermal Program from the US Department of
Energy under grant DE-FG07-02ID14418, the contribution of
which is gratefully acknowledged.
References
1. Li, K. and Horne, R.N.: “Experimental Verification of
Methods to Calculate Relative Permeability Using
Capillary Pressure Data,” SPE 76757, Proceedings of the
2002 SPE Western Region Meeting/AAPG Pacific
Section Joint Meeting held in Anchorage, Alaska, May
20-22, 2002.
2. Li, K.: “Generalized Capillary Pressure and Relative
Permeability Model Inferred from Fractal
Characterization of Porous Media,” SPE 89874, presented
at the 2004 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 27 – 29 September
2004.
3. Archie, G.E.: “The electrical resistivity log as an aid in
determining some reservoir characteristics,” AIME
Petroleum Tech. (1942), 1-8.
4. Purcell, W.R.: "Capillary Pressures-Their Measurement
Using Mercury and the Calculation of Permeability",
Trans. AIME, (1949), 186, 39.
5. Brooks, R.H. and Corey, A.T.: “Hydraulic Properties of
Porous Media,” Colorado State University, Hydro paper
No.5 (1964).
6. Sanyal, S.K.: The Effect of Temperature on Electrical
Resistivity and Capillary Pressure Behavior of Porous
Media, Ph.D. report, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.,
1972.
4 SPE 95575

1000 12

10
Resistivity Index

Capillary Pressure, psi

100 8

10 4

1 0
0.01 0.10 1.00 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Water Saturation, fraction Water Saturation, fraction

Figure 1: Relationship between resistivity index and water Figure 5: Capillary pressure data measured in Berea sandstone at
o 6 o 6
saturation in Berea sandstone at a temperature of 175 F (Sanyal ). a temperature of 300 F (Sanyal ).

1.0
20 krw from Resistivity
0.8

Relative Permeability
kro from Resistivity
krw from Pc
Capillary Pressure, psi

15 kro from Pc
0.6

10 0.4

0.2
5

0.0
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 Normalized Water Saturation, fraction
Water Saturation, fraction
Figure 6: Relative permeability calculated from resistivity and
Figure 2: Capillary pressure data measured in Berea sandstone at capillary pressure data in Berea sandstone at a temperature of
o 6 o
a temperature of 175 F (Sanyal ). 300 F.

1.0 1000

krw from Resistivity

0.8
Relative Permeability

kro from Resistivity

Resistivity Index

krw from Pc 100

0.6 kro from Pc

0.4
10

0.2

0.0 1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.01 0.10 1.00
Normalized Water Saturation, fraction Water Saturation, fraction

Figure 3: Relative permeability calculated from resistivity and Figure 7: Relationship between resistivity index and water
o 6
capillary pressure data in Berea sandstone at a temperature of saturation in Boise sandstone at a temperature of 175 F (Sanyal ).
o
175 F.
20
1000
Capillary Pressure, psi

15
Resistivity Index

100
10

10 5

0
1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.01 0.10 1.00 Water Saturation, fraction
Water Saturation, fraction
Figure 4: Relationship between resistivity index and water Figure 8: Capillary pressure data measured in Boise sandstone at
o 6 o 6
saturation in Berea sandstone at a temperature of 300 F (Sanyal ). a temperature of 175 F (Sanyal ).
SPE 95575 5

1.0 1000
krw from Resistivity
0.8
Relative Permeability

kro from Resistivity

Resistivity Index
krw from Pc 100
0.6 kro from Pc

0.4
10
0.2

0.0 1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.01 0.10 1.00
Normalized Water Saturation, fraction Water Saturation, fraction

Figure 9: Relative permeability calculated in Boise sandstone at a Figure 13: Resistivity index vs. water saturation in limestone at a
o o 6
temperature of 175 F. temperature of 300 F(Sanyal ).

1000 15

12

Capillary Pressure, psi

Resistivity Index

100
9

6
10
3

1 0
0.01 0.10 1.00 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Water Saturation, fraction Water Saturation, fraction

Figure 10: Resistivity index in Boise sandstone at a temperature Figure 14: Capillary pressure data measured in limestone at a
o 6 o 6
of 300 F (Sanyal ). temperature of 300 F (Sanyal ).

15 1.0
krw from Resistivity
12 0.8 kro from Resistivity
Relative Permeability
Capillary Pressure, psi

krw from Pc
kro from Pc
9 0.6

6 0.4

3 0.2

0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Water Saturation, fraction Normalized Water Saturation, fraction

Figure 11: Capillary pressure data measured in Boise sandstone Figure 15: Relative permeability calculated from resistivity and
o 6 o
at a temperature of 300 F (Sanyal ). capillary pressure data in limestone at a temperature of 300 F.

1.0
krw from Resistivity
0.8 kro from Resistivity
Relative Permeability

krw from Pc
kro from Pc
0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Normalized Water Saturation, fraction

Figure 12: Relative permeability calculated from resistivity and

o
capillary pressure in Boise sandstone at a temperature of 300 F.