See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/248804025

Relative permeability to wetting-phase water in oil reservoirs

Article  in  Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · December 2006

DOI: 10.1029/2005JB003804

CITATIONS READS
20 744

7 authors, including:

Gunn M. G. Teige Christian Hermanrud

Statoil ASA Equinor
28 PUBLICATIONS   471 CITATIONS    79 PUBLICATIONS   1,556 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Paal-Eric Oeren Hege M. Nordgård Bolås

Petricore Statoil ASA
69 PUBLICATIONS   3,748 CITATIONS    36 PUBLICATIONS   723 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Extended abstract for the794th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Paris, France, June 2017, Th C3 04. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paal-Eric Oeren on 19 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 111, B12204, doi:10.1029/2005JB003804, 2006
Click
Here
for
Full
Article

Relative permeability to wetting-phase water

in oil reservoirs
Gunn M. G. Teige,1 Wibeke L. H. Thomas,2 Christian Hermanrud,1 Pål-Eric Øren,1
Lars Rennan,1 Ove Bjørn Wilson,3 and Hege M. Nordgård Bolås1
Received 27 April 2005; revised 28 April 2006; accepted 2 June 2006; published 14 December 2006.

[1] Laboratory experiments were performed to investigate if water can leak through the
pore network of a water wet seal while oil stays in the reservoir below. The experimental
setup consisted of a low-permeability membrane disk attached to the outlet side of a
cylindrical sandstone core plug. The core plug and the seal were water wet, and the core
plug was saturated with oil to irreducible water saturation (Swi). Water was injected at the
inlet side of the core, and the fluid flow through the core and the membrane was
monitored. The experimental results from three samples with permeabilities ranging from
0.06 to 1900 mD and with capillary pressure ranging from 1.5 to 10 bars confirmed that
water at ‘‘irreducible’’ water saturation moved through the core samples, while the
membrane retained the oil by capillary sealing. The experiments demonstrated that the
relative permeability
p to the residual water could be approximated by log krw @ Swi =

1.75 log(Pc (k/f))
1.95, where krw @ Swi is the calculated relative wetting-phase
water permeability, k is total reservoir permeability (mD), f is total reservoir porosity (in
fraction), and Pc is capillary pressure (bar). Application of this formula to subsurface
conditions suggests that the residual water permeability is generally sufficiently small to
result in overpressure gradients in the residual water across the hydrocarbon columns. The
magnitudes of these overpressures are typically below 5 bars for oil columns of 200 m or
less, but may exceed 50 bars in low porosity and permeability reservoirs with large oil
columns. Such overpressures are not large enough to result in capillary leakage through
good caprocks but may significantly reduce the sealing capacity of marginal seals.
Citation: Teige, G. M. G., W. L. H. Thomas, C. Hermanrud, P.-E. Øren, L. Rennan, O. B. Wilson, and H. M. Nordgård Bolås (2006),
Relative permeability to wetting-phase water in oil reservoirs, J. Geophys. Res., 111, B12204, doi:10.1029/2005JB003804.

1. Introduction ized mathematical formulations for multiphase flow, valid

[2] The general physics of fluid flow in porous media is
well known [Darcy, 1856, 1983]. By introducing the
relative permeability to describe multiphase flow, Darcy’s
law takes the form
kkri DP
Vi ¼

mi DZ
where Vi denotes the Darcy flux of phase i (oil, gas or
water), k is the permeability of the rock, kri denotes the
relative permeability to phase i, m is the viscosity of the
fluid, and DP is the pressure difference across the height,
DZ, where the flow rate is to be calculated.
[3] Rigorous physical description of groundwater motion
in the subsurface [Hubbert, 1940] added further to the
knowledge of fluid flow. Hubbert [1953] derived general-
1
2
Statoil ASA, Trondheim, Norway.
Statoil ASA, Stavanger, Norway.
3
Reslab, Forus, Norway.
Copyright 2006 by the American Geophysical Union.
0148-0227/06/2005JB003804$09.00
both for hydrostatic and hydrodynamic conditions, but
without including capillarity.
[4] The role of capillary pressure in trapping of oil was
apparently first addressed by Berg [1975]. His calculations
demonstrated that a moderate change in grain size can form
an effective barrier to oil migration and, furthermore, that a
ð1Þ barrier may be porous and permeable and yet trap significant
oil columns. Hydrocarbon migration through the pore net-
work of a water wet seal cannot take place unless the capillary
pressure (Pc), which is approximately equal to the hydrocar-
bon buoyancy, exceeds the capillary entry pressure (Pce):
Pc ¼ Po
Pw ffi Drgh ð2Þ
2g cos q
Pce ¼ ð3Þ
rt
Here, Dr is the density contrast between water and oil, g is
the acceleration of gravity, h is the hydrocarbon column
height, g is the interfacial tension between hydrocarbon and
water, q is the contact angle between the fluid boundary and
the solid surface, as measured through the more dense fluid,
and rt is the radii of pore throats in the caprock. When
breakthrough of oil occurs (Pc  Pce), the angle between the

B12204 1 of 20
B12204 TEIGE ET AL.: WETTING-PHASE WATER PERMEABILITY
Figure 1. Pressure behavior for a situation where the
permeability of the caprock and the wetting-phase water
permeability in the reservoir are of comparable magnitudes,
as are caprock thickness and oil column height (modified
from Rodgers [1999], used by permission of the Geological
Society of London). DP and DP0 are the pressure drops in
the water phase that lead to reduced sealing capacity,
according to Rodgers [1999] and England et al. [1987].
‘‘Water pressure’’ refers to the pressure in the water phase,
both in the oil zone (pressure in the irreducible water), in the
aquifer, and in the caprock.
surface of the grain and the oil is zero (i.e., cos q = 1). The
seal capacity (the hydrocarbon column just before break-
through) can be calculated from combination of equations
(2) and (3). Note that the seal thickness is unimportant for
the seal capacity before breakthrough.
[5] Berg [1975] also included the influence of hydrody-
namics in his work. His results were made popular by
Schowalter [1979], who constructed nomographs to esti-
mate the effects of hydrodynamics on seal capacity. These
results were based on the assumption that the capillary
pressure difference within the oil stringer could be
neglected. We note that this assumption is not consistent
with hydraulic communication in the oil phase under
hydrodynamic conditions.
[6] England et al. [1987] suggested that the differences
between the aquifer pressure in the reservoir and the fluid
pressure in the caprock should be subtracted from the
capillary entry pressure of the caprock, a suggestion which
was later adopted by Clayton and Hay [1994] and Corcoran
and Doré [2002]. Their suggestion implies that the capillary
sealing capacity should be calculated as:


1 2g 0 claimed that the magnitude of the DP term is so small that it
h¼
DP ð4Þ
Drg rt
where DP0 is the difference between the overpressure in the
water leg below the hydrocarbon contact and that of an
unspecified position in the caprock. The concept behind this
2 of 20
B12204
model is shown in Figure 1. Application of this formula can
lead to significantly reduced estimates of the hydrocarbon
column heights. None of these authors who advocated the
application of equation (4) appeared to be concerned with
the role of the wetting-phase water, nor did they specify
how the pressure transition across the reservoir/caprock
boundary is envisioned.
[7] Laboratory experiments performed by Dullien et al.
[1986] demonstrated that the wetting-phase (water) in oil-
filled sandstones both maintains hydraulic continuity and is
mobile. These results were further supported by Melrose
[1990], who demonstrated that the volume of wetting-phase
water continuously decreased as the pressure in the oil
phase increased. On the basis of these results, the authors
suggested that the concept of irreducible water saturation is
not valid. For simplicity, the low and stable water saturation
at a given capillary pressures is nevertheless called Swi in
the forthcoming discussions in this paper.
[8] Bjørkum et al. [1998] suggested that the wetting-
phase water in water wet and oil-saturated reservoirs is
sufficiently mobile to transfer fluid overpressures from the
aquifer below the hydrocarbon contact to the reservoir/seal
interface. Consequently, overpressures in aquifers below the
reservoired hydrocarbons do not act to significantly reduce
the membrane seal capacity.
[9] Both Clayton [1999] and Rodgers [1999] replied to
Bjørkum et al. [1998]: Clayton [1999] disagreed with
Bjørkum et al. [1998] and argued that water wet, oil-
saturated reservoirs have noncontinuous water phases.
Bjørkum et al. [1999a] maintained their previous view,
and argued that the electrical resistivity of oil reservoirs
would have been much higher than what is observed if the
wetting-phase water was not continuous. Rodgers [1999]
argued that the permeability to water, for both the seal rock
and part of the oil column where the water saturation is near
irreducible level, will be very small, but finite. He further
argued that whether the dynamic pressure drop in the water
phase at the top of the oil column is significant or not,
depends on many factors, in particular: (1) the contrast in the
water permeabilities of the seal rock and the reservoir rock
above the free water level, (2) the distribution of water
saturation versus height in the reservoir, and the thickness
of the irreducible water saturation region of the reservoir,
(3) the thickness of the seal rock, and (4) the pressure regime
above the seal rock. In this argument, DP was referred to as
the overpressure drop in the wetting-phase water across the
hydrocarbon column, which is different from the DP0 term
of England et al. [1987], see Figure 1.
[10] Rodgers [1999] also suggested that where there is
overpressure, inclusion or exclusion of a DP term defines
only limiting values for the maximum hydrocarbon height.
Which of the two extremes is more applicable depends on
the setting, and the magnitude of parameters such as the
water permeabilities, often not readily quantifiable. In their
reply to this discussion, Bjørkum et al. [1999b] agreed to the
principle arguments put forward by Rodgers [1999], but
can safely be disregarded.
[11] The arguments of Rodgers [1999] were further
addressed by Teige et al. [2005], whose laboratory experi-
ments demonstrated that water could move through an oil-
saturated, water wet sandstone and further through a water
B12204 TEIGE ET AL.: WETTING-PHASE WATER PERMEABILITY B12204

Figure 2. Experimental setup. A water wet sandstone core plug that was saturated to Swi was mounted
in a core holder, with a porous ceramic membrane at the outlet. Next, water was flushed through the core
sample, and was collected in the graduated separator. Oil did not penetrate the porous membrane during
the water flow.

wet membrane seal whereas the oil remained in the sand-
stone. These results suggest that wetting-phase water can leak
through a highly permeable oil reservoir and further through
a water wet seal whereas hydrocarbons are kept in the
reservoir by capillary pressures. Their results thus qualita-
tively confirmed the suggestions put forward by Bjørkum et
al. [1998].
[12] However, the experiments reported by Teige et al.
[2005] were only conducted on one highly permeable
( 1,990 mD) sandstone plug. The relevance of their results
to less permeable rocks thus remained uncertain. Also, these
authors did not address the influence of varying capillary
pressures, and so the hydrocarbon column heights, on the
permeability to the wetting-phase water. Rodgers’ [1999]
general concern about the permeability to the wetting-phase
water, the magnitude of the DP term, and accordingly the
significance of reservoir overpressures to hydrocarbon ex-
ploration, was therefore not fully addressed by the Teige et
al. [2005] investigation.
[13] The main purpose of the study reported here was to
establish a relationship between the relative permeability to
wetting-phase water and other parameters in water wet
reservoirs, and thereby addressing the concerns of Rodgers
[1999] more thoroughly. By doing so, we also define the
circumstances under which a differential overpressure
develops in the water phase across an oil column. Labora-
tory experiments on sandstone plugs with permeabilities
ranging from 0.06 mD to 1900 mD, and with capillary
pressures (Po
Pw) ranging from 1.5 to 10 bars, were
performed in order to provide data for this purpose.
2. Experimental Setup and Procedure
[14] The experimental setup was identical to that de-
scribed by Thomas et al. [2004] and Teige et al. [2005],
and consisted of a core holder, including one end piece with
two inlets and another end piece with one outlet, a low-
permeability (2 mD) porous membrane, an oil tank with
refined paraffinic oil (Isopar LTM, viscosity at 25°C =
1.3cP), a water tank, and a graduated separator where fluid
discharge was collected (Figure 2). The interfacial tension
between the oil and the water was 35 mNm
1.
[15] The main difference from a standard setup for
ambient conditions is the porous membrane, which is
stratified with a ‘thick’ (4.8 mm) homogenous and highly
permeable part, and a thin (0.2 mm) and low-permeability
part. The permeable part of this plate has only a supporting
function, whereas the low-permeability part (mounted
against the plug end) prevents breakthrough of oil. As a
consequence, water flux through this membrane is approx-
imately 15– 150 times faster than through standard ceramic
porous plates. The average measured pore size of the low-
permeability part of the membrane is 50– 100 nm [Wilson et
al., 2001]. Each test consisted of four stages, as shown in
Figure 3. Only the fourth stage involved flow of wetting-
phase water, and the results from this stage were the basis
for the permeability calculations. To ensure complete water
saturation within the sample pore spaces (i.e., to avoid air
bubbles) a backpressure of 2.5 bars at reservoir temperature
(60°C) was applied.
[16] The first two stages of the experiment were per-
formed in an upside-down position (oil entering the side of
the sandstone plug that was not mounted with the mem-
brane) to ensure that the water phase in the plug was in
contact with the water phase in the membrane. In the first
stage (Figure 3a), the water-saturated plug, which was
mounted above the semipermeable porous membrane, was
installed in a core holder, and oil was injected at the inlet
(facing upwards). In the second stage (Figure 3b), the oil
pressure was increased to a predefined capillary pressure

3 of 20
B12204 TEIGE ET AL.: WETTING-PHASE WATER PERMEABILITY
Figure 3. The four stages of the experimental procedures:
(1) starting up the oil saturation of the water saturated, water
wet core sample, (2) Swi establishment, (3) rotation of the
core plug and cleaning of the end piece, and (4) flow of
wetting-phase water through the core plug.
(Pc), and the sandstone plug was left stagnant until a low
and stable water saturation was reached. This wetting-phase
water saturation was determined from Hg injection tests that
were performed prior to initiation of the wetting-phase
permeability tests. (The Hg injection test was performed
on a truncated piece of the plug – not on the plug itself.) In
the third stage (Figure 3c), the core holder was rotated by
180° to simulate an oil reservoir with an overlying caprock,
4 of 20
B12204
and the excess oil pressure was removed. Thereafter, the
lower end piece (i.e., the inlet side) was cleaned for oil to
ensure that only water would be supplied to the sandstone
plug in the final stage. In the fourth stage (Figure 3d), the
predefined capillary pressure was reapplied, this time by
increasing the water pressure at the inlet location. This
procedure ensured that the oil was equally pressurized
across the plug, with the same pressure as the water phase
at the inlet location. The difference between pressure in the
oil phase and the water phase increased across the plug and
reached the predefined capillary pressure at the outlet of the
sandstone plug. The pressure gradient in the water phase
resulted from fluid flow through the plug/membrane cou-
pling. The fluid production out of the upper inlet was
logged in the graduated separator. Documentation of stable
water saturations (stage 2) and stable flow rates (stage 4) are
included in Appendix A.
[17] Three different sandstone plugs were selected for the
experiment. These were one Bentheimer plug, one Berea
plug, and one low-permeability Morvin plug, with perme-
abilities of 1990, 22.6 and 0.06 mD, respectively. The
porosities were 22.4%, 15.6%, and 7.3%. The core plugs
were 5.25 –6 cm long, with diameters of 3.75 cm. In total,
nine water flow experiments were performed in this study.
In addition, we have included the result from the Ben-
theimer plug investigated by Teige et al. [2005] in our
figures and discussions.
[18] Both the Bentheimer and the Berea sandstones are
frequently used in drainage tests, and many authors have
reported the properties of these. The Morvin plug was
included for the purpose of testing wetting-phase water
flow in low-permeability rocks. This plug was taken from
a Jurassic reservoir section of the Morvin field discovery at
Haltenbanken offshore mid-Norway. The plug, which was
heavily cemented by quartz, was retrieved from a burial
depth of almost 5 km. The most important core sample
characteristics are listed in Table 1. Further details of the
core plugs and measurement uncertainties are included in
Appendix A.
3. Pore Flow Characteristics
[19] When one fluid completely wets the solid (as the
case is for water in our experiments), capillary pressures
dictate that the wetting-phase may either (a) completely
saturate smaller pores with entry pressures higher than the
imposed capillary pressure, and/or (b) exist as wetting films
in corners and crevices of pores occupied by the non-
wetting-phase [Øren and Pinczewski, 1995]. Only a small
fraction of the wetting-phase water will be present as
surface wetting films [Mohanty, 1981; Holmes and Packer,
2002]. These films are so thin, and the water is so strongly
attached to the grain surfaces, that movement of this water
can be neglected (Appendix B).
[20] Wettability changes in the rocks were prevented by
the application of refined paraffinic oil, as the components
that otherwise could have changed the wettability of the
samples had been removed from the oil. The samples
therefore remained water wet throughout the experiments.
[21] One of the flow experiments performed on the
Bentheimer plug was repeated inside a CT scanner to get
visual impressions of the flow of wetting-phase water
B12204 TEIGE ET AL.: WETTING-PHASE WATER PERMEABILITY B12204

Table 1. Core Plug Characteristicsa

Core Plug Samples Pc, bar Lb, cm Swi, fraction PV @ NCPc, ml f, fraction kw @ NCPd, mD
Bentheimer [Teige et al., 2005] 5 6.00 0.135 13.60 0.224 1990
Bentheimer (reproduced) 5 6.00 0.135 13.60 0.224 1990
Bentheimer, CTe 5 6.00 0.113* 13.60 0.224 1990
Bentheimer, CTe 10 6.00 0.113* 13.60 0.224 1990
Berea 1.5 5.40 0.625 8.49 0.156 22.6
Berea 5 5.40 0.286 8.49 0.156 22.6
Berea 10 5.40 0.232 8.49 0.156 22.6
Morvin 2.5 5.25 0.762 3.92 0.073 0.062
Morvin 5 5.25 0.665 3.92 0.073 0.062
Morvin 10 5.25 0.470 3.92 0.073 0.062
a
The experimental parameters. All plugs have diameters of 3.75 cm, and the membrane thickness is 0.5 cm. Water permeability (kw) and total pore
volume (PV) are given at normal confining pressure (NCP) conditions. The wetting-phase water fraction is the ratio between wetting-phase water volume
(from Hg injection determinations of Swi) and pore volume. * = Wetting-phase water fraction based on wetting-phase water volumes calculated from CT
measurements.
b
Core plug length.
c
Pore volume at normal confining pressure.
d
Permeability to water at normal confining pressure.
e
Sample used for CT analysis at Statoil.

through the sandstone plug (horizontally placed). As a CT
scanner responds to density contrasts in the scanned mate-
rial, it is well suited to determine oil saturation variations
across a core plug. It can also be applied to visualize
displacement of wetting-phase water in a core plug, pro-
vided that the displacing water has a different density from
that of the wetting-phase water prior to the flow period.
[22] For this reason, the core plug was saturated with 6%
NaI- and 1.5% NaCl-water (i.e., doped brine) prior to the
start of the experiment. The water that was injected in
stage 4 did not contain NaI, only 1.5% NaCl (i.e., brine),
which made this water less dense than the original water.
The CT scanner could therefore visualize how the flow of
wetting-phase water progressed through the core plug.
[23] As is clear from Figure 4, the wetting-phase water
10
3 and 0.02
10
3 mD,
must mainly have flowed in preferred pathways through the
core plug, and the replacement of doped brine with brine
water took place along the whole core plug at an early stage.
Subsequent substitution of water along the whole core plug
took place as the wetting-phase water invaded more and
more pores. An elastic material between the core holder and
the plug was subjected to 20 bars confining pressure to
completely enclose the plug. CT images displayed along the
core plug also demonstrate that the wetting-phase water
flow is scattered, and that it is not concentrated along the
edges of the core plug (Figures 4 and 5). These last two
figures, which show the displacement of wetting-phase
water approximately 5.5 and 9.5 days after the flow of
wetting-phase water was initiated, also visualize the low
flow rate within the core plug. The scattered flow patterns
are believed to reflect the natural heterogeneity of the core
plug.
4. Permeability Variations of Wetting-Phase
Water
[24] All of the experiments resulted in production of
water through the membrane, while the oil stayed in the
core plug. The experimental results and calculated perme-
abilities to the wetting-phase water (water permeability at
Swi conditions, termed kw @ Swi in the forthcoming) are
summarized in Table 2. These wetting-phase water perme-
abilities vary between 1.1
which is significantly higher than the permeabilities of shaly
caprocks (10
6 to 10
9 mD according to Schlömer and
Krooss [1997]). We here proceed to inspect the relationships
between the calculated wetting-phase water permeabilities
and the parameters reservoir permeability, wetting-phase
water volume and capillary pressure.
4.1. Influence of Reservoir Permeability
[25] Teige et al. [2005] observed that the permeability to
the wetting-phase water (at Swi saturation) in the Bentheimer
sandstone was approximately 10
7 times that of the reser-
voir permeability. If this ratio holds also for low-permeability
reservoir rocks, then the permeability to the wetting-phase
water in such rocks would be sufficiently low to set up

Figure 4. Experimental water flooding on a single core plug with repeated CT scans taken along the length of the core.
(a) Replacement of wetting-phase water (6% NaI and 1.5% NaCl), with less dense brine (no NaI and 1.5% NaCl), along the
length of the core plug as a function of time (T1
T11) and increasing capillary pressure (pressure increases between T5
and T6 and between T9 and T10); (b) Core plug illustration; and (c) CT scans along the core plug at T4 (128 hours after the
injection of NaCl water) and T10 (238 hours after the injection of NaCl water). CT scans show that injected NaCl water
increasingly replaces the wetting-phase water of the core through time. The brighter the colors, the higher are the volumes
of injected NaCl rich water. Scans show that water moved along the inside of the core plug itself, and not along the sides of
the core holder. As the pressure gradient due to density differences between the original water and the replacement water is
small compared to the imposed pressure gradient across the core plug, gravitational separation between the two water types
does not occur. Apparent gravitational separation on the images of some vertical slices (Figure 4c, bottom two images) is
probably a result of noneven injection of water, despite the fact that the inlet has been designed with distribution channels
and grooves to ensure even water injection.

5 of 20
B12204 TEIGE ET AL.: WETTING-PHASE WATER PERMEABILITY B12204

noticeable overpressure gradients in this water for most
subsiding rocks [Bethke, 1985].
[26] However, wetting-phase water permeability varies
much less than the reservoir permeability. The calculated
wetting-phase water permeability is plotted versus bulk
reservoir permeability (k) for a range of capillary pressure
values in Figure 6. As is seen from this figure, the calculated
wetting-phase water permeabilities are only reduced by a
factor of 50, although the reservoir permeabilities are
reduced by a factor of 30,000. The reservoir permeability
nevertheless exerts an important influence on the wetting-
phase water permeability. The relationship between reser-

Figure 4

6 of 20
B12204 TEIGE ET AL.: WETTING-PHASE WATER PERMEABILITY B12204

Figure 5. CT scans through cross sections of the core, from the inlet (lower right corner) to the outlet
(upper left corner). Green and reddish colors represent reduced densities and reflect the substitution of
doped brine (6% NaI and 1.5% NaCl water; black color) with less dense brine (1.5% NaCl water); (a) 128
hours after the injection started (T4), and (b) 238 hours after the injection started (T10). The numbers 5,
20, 25, and 37 are the slice numbers (see X axis of Figure 4).

7 of 20
B12204 TEIGE ET AL.: WETTING-PHASE WATER PERMEABILITY B12204

Table 2. Experimental Details and Resultsa

Qf, kw @ Swig, krw @ Swig,
Core Plug Samples Pc, bar t2b, days Vwc, ml Swid, ml t4e, days Qf, ml/d 10
6 ml/s 10
4 mD 10
6
Bentheimer [Teige et al., 2005] 5 7 15.55 3.33 11 0.56 6.43 7.00 0.35
Bentheimer (reproduced) 5 10 15.55 1.29 4 0.59 6.83 7.43 0.37
Bentheimer, CT 5 4 17.01 0.90 6 0.23 2.67 2.90 0.14
Bentheimer, CT 10 -h 17.01 0.62 4 0.24 2.75 1.50 0.075
Berea 1.5 16 8.60 0.48 9 0.28 3.26 10.6 47.1
Berea 5 39 2.80 0.32 7 0.11 1.29 1.26 5.58
Berea 10 16 2.50 0.63 13 0.09 1.10 0.53 2.38
Morvin 2.5 19 5.20 0.18 7 0.08 0.87 1.66 2670
Morvin 5 39 2.50 0.35 17 0.05 0.62 0.59 966
Morvin 10 16 1.05 0.25 13 0.04 0.40 0.19 313
a
The experimental results. Vw is the cumulative water (ml) that was drained out of the plug during the stage of establishing a low and stable water
saturation (stage 2). The duration of this stage (and stage four) are reported in the Time column, where ‘‘days’’ refers to 24 hour periods. The permeability to
the wetting-phase water (kw @ Swi) was calculated on the basis of the total length of the plug and the membrane, the flow rate (Q, ml/s), the viscosity (m,
1.002 cP), the pressure drop across the water phase in stage four (dP, bar), and the cross-section area of the plug (11.04 cm2). The volume of drained water
in stage 2 equals the amount of injected oil during this stage.
b
Duration of stage 2.
c
Water volume drained in stage 2.
d
Volume of irreducible water.
e
Duration of stage 4.
f
Flow rate in stage 4.
g
Calculated values.
h
Flow continued directly after the 5 bar experiment.

voir permeability and wetting-phase water permeability may umes (fSwi) at Figure 7. This figure demonstrates that the
partly reflect a higher tortuosity in the low-permeability volumes of wetting-phase water is not in general elevated in
rocks. the high-permeability samples, and that the high wetting-
phase water permeability in these samples (Figure 6) is not a
4.2. Influence of Wetting-Phase Water Volume result of large water volumes.
[27] One could speculate that the enhanced permeability [29] As is also seen from Figure 7, the volume of wetting-
to wetting-phase water in high-permeability rocks may phase water that is required to sustain a certain wetting-
reflect that these rocks have higher porosity (f), and that phase water permeability is larger for low-permeability
more water is therefore available for flow. High porosities
do however not necessarily imply large volumes of irreduc-
ible wetting-phase water, as low-permeability rocks have
higher residual water saturation than high-permeability
rocks [Rueslåtten et al., 1994].
[28] The calculated wetting-phase water permeabilities
(kw @ Swi) are displayed versus wetting-phase water vol-

Figure 7. Relationships between volumes of wetting-phase

Figure 6. Relationships between wetting-phase water water (in % of the bulk rock volume) and wetting-phase
permeability (kw @ Swi) and reservoir permeability (k) for water permeabilities (kw @ Swi). Volumes of wetting-
different capillary pressures for the Bentheimer, Berea, and phase water are fSwi. This volume reduces with increasing
Morvin core plugs. Pc, as Swi reduces when the capillary pressure increases.

8 of 20
B12204 TEIGE ET AL.: WETTING-PHASE WATER PERMEABILITY B12204

Figure 8. Increased capillary pressure reduces the diameter of the wetting-phase water flow path in the
acute corners of the pore space and thus leads to reduced permeability to the wetting-phase water.

rocks than for high-permeability rocks: at kw @ Swi of 0.15

the wetting-phase water permeability at Swi from capillary
10
3 mD, the volume of wetting-phase water is twice as pressure and rock properties such as permeability. As further
high in the Morvin sample as in the Bentheimer sample. discussed in Appendix B, we explored for such relationships
This observation probably reflects that a larger portion of by considering the distribution of the interconnected wetting-
the wetting-phase water in low-permeability rocks is con- phase water on pore scale.
fined to isolated pores or bound to clay particles than what [33] The relative permeability to the wetting-phase water
is the case for high-permeability rocks. that is distributed in (1) smaller pores with entry pressures
4.3. Influence of Capillary Pressure
[30] Large oil columns will result in large capillary pres-
sures (Po
Pw) at the top of the reservoir (equation (2)), and
render less space available for the wetting-phase water here
(Figure 8). Thus increased oil columns will be expected to
result in reduced wetting-phase water permeability.
[31] The calculated wetting-phase water permeabilities
(kw @ Swi) are displayed versus capillary pressures (Pc) at
the outlet of the core plug in Figure 9. This figure demon-
strates that a capillary pressure increase does indeed lead to
a reduction in wetting-phase water permeability. We note
that the change in wetting-phase water permeability for the
Berea sandstone sample is more pronounced as the capillary
pressure is changed from 1.5 to 5 bars than when it is
changed from 5 to 10 bars. This observation probably
reflects that the capillary pressure increase from 1.5 to
5 bars results in a larger reduction of that part of the wetting-
phase water that is available for flow than the volume
reduction that occurs as the capillary pressure is further
increased. The figure nevertheless demonstrates that capil-
lary pressure exerts an important control on the wetting-
phase water permeability.

5. Prediction of Wetting-Phase Water

Permeability
Figure 9. Relationship between capillary pressure (Pc) at
[32] Extension of the results from the laboratory experi- the outlet location and the wetting-phase water permeability
ments to more general cases hinges on our ability to predict (kw @ Swi).

9 of 20
B12204 TEIGE ET AL.: WETTING-PHASE WATER PERMEABILITY
Figure 10. Relationship between relative permeability to
the wetting-phase
p water (krwp@ Swi) and other parameters.
(a) Pc (k/f); (b) 105Pcg
1 (k/f). Relative permeability
to wetting-phase water krw @ Swi = kw @ Swi/kw, where k is
the reservoir permeability for water.
higher than the imposed capillary pressure, and also that
which is distributed as (2) wetting films in corners and
crevices of pores occupied by the nonwetting phase, can be
predicted from power law relationships with normalized
capillary pressures. By introducing the Leverett J function,
we derived an expressionp between wetting-phase water
permeability and Pc (k/f) which was raised to an
10 of 20
B12204
unknown exponent. This exponent was determined
from experimental
p results as the slope of the log krw
versus Pc (k/f) relationship.
[34] The calculated relative wetting-phase
p water perme-
abilities (krw @ Swi) versus Pc (k/f) are displayed at
Figure 10a. Each data point represents a separate fluid flow
test, with the most fine-grained sandstone samples (i.e.,
those with the least total permeability and porosity) having
the highest relative wetting-phase water permeabilities (up-
per and left part of the plot).
[35] A correlation emerges between theprelative wetting-
phase water permeability and the Pc (k/f) term (the
straight line has a correlation coefficient of 0.99). Hence it
follows that the relative permeability to the wetting-phase
water (krw @ Swi) can be expressed by the equation
p
log krw @ Swi ¼
1:75 logð Pc ðk=fÞÞ
1:95 ð5Þ
where k is total reservoir permeability (mD), f is total
reservoir porosity (in fraction), and Pc is capillary pressure
(bar).
6. Application to Reservoir Conditions
[36] As Pc in bars (= 105 Pa) can be approximated by
Drgh10
5 in hydrocarbon reservoirs (where Dr is given in
kg/m3, g is given in m/s2, and h is given in m), and as Dr
and h (but not g) are desirable input parameters in an
equation which is designed to describe the relative perme-
ability to the wetting-phase water at reservoir conditions, we
also display the relativeppermeability to the wetting-phase
water versus 105Pcg
1 (k/f) (Figure 10b):
 p 
log krw @ Swi ¼
1:75 log 105 Pc g
1 ðk=fÞ þ 5:05 ð6Þ
To the extent that our laboratory experiments are applicable
to reservoir conditions (see below), we suggest that the
equation
p
log krw @ Swi ¼
1:75 logðDrh ðk=fÞÞ þ 5:05 ð7Þ
can be used to estimate the relative permeability to wetting-
phase water in water wet hydrocarbon reservoirs. Combining
equations (1) and (7) gives
p
DP ¼
ðVw hm=k Þ=10
1:75 logðDrh ðk=fÞÞþ5:05
ð8Þ
where the parameters k, f, Dr and h are given in units as
described above, and h and Vw (velocity of the wetting-phase
water) substitutes the DZ and Vi terms in equation (1).
[37] Equation (8) describes the overpressure drop in the
water phase across oil columns of homogeneous sandstones
with constant porosity and constant and isotropic perme-
ability. A better representation of a reservoir sequence is
achieved by dividing it in a number of homogeneous
intervals with different properties, each with an overpres-
sure gradient of
p
DPi =hi ¼
ðVw m=ki Þ=10
1:75 logðDrh ðki =fi ÞÞþ5:05
ð9Þ
B12204 TEIGE ET AL.: WETTING-PHASE WATER PERMEABILITY
Table 3. Input Parameters and Calculated Results for the Sensitivity Analysesa
k, mD f, Fraction V, m/My m, cP
Case 1 1000 0.35 40 1 75
Case 2 10 0.17 15 0.3
a
Input parameters for cases 1 and 2, which form the basis for sensitivity analyses of equation (8). The parameters of case 1 were selected to produce small
DP values, and are representative of a shallow North Sea oil accumulation. The parameters of case 2 were selected to produce large DP values, and are
representative of a deeply buried Gulf of Mexico reservoir.
b
From equation (7).
c
From equation (1).
The overpressure drop across the reservoir is in this case
(integrated from z = 0 to Z = h)
Z p
DP ¼
ðVw m=k Þ=10
1:75 logðDrz ðk=fÞÞþ5:05
dz
This calculated DP value should substitute DP0 in
equation (4) when this term is of sufficient magnitude to
be of practical significance.
[38] Several differences between the conditions of our
laboratory experiments and in situ reservoir conditions will
introduce uncertainties to the application of equation (7).
First, while the pressure differences (capillary pressures)
across the core plugs are comparable to the DP values of
hydrocarbon reservoirs, the length of the core plug is three
to four orders of magnitude less than a typical hydrocarbon
column. Second, the laboratory experiments were per-
formed with dead oil (i.e., no dissolved gas) as a nonwetting
fluid at surface temperatures, whereas reservoir oil always
contain dissolved gas and is heated well above the temper-
atures of our experiments. Different interfacial tensions and
contact angles between laboratory and reservoir conditions
may therefore introduce errors in calculations of wetting-
phase water permeability at reservoir conditions. In addi-
tion, applications to reservoirs of mixed wettability should
be performed with caution. Wettability changes in reservoirs
may possibly influence the Swi saturations and the water
volume available for wetting-phase flow, which could result
in alterations of the wetting-phase water permeability.
7. Sensitivity Analysis
[39] Large DP values are negative for sealing of hydro-
carbons, as they imply that the capillary pressure at the seal/
reservoir interface is large, and that small pore throats in the
caprock are required to establish membrane seals (equation
(3)). The magnitude of the DP term depends not only on
(1) the permeability of the reservoir rock, but also on (2) the
porosity, (3) the water flow velocity, (4) the hydrocarbon
column height, (5) the density contrast between oil and
water, and (6) the water viscosity (see equation (8)).
[40] As the basis for sensitivity analysis of the influence
of these six parameters, we consider two base cases: case 1
where the parameters favor small DP values and case 2
where large DP values are favored.
[41] According to Darcy’s law, small pressure gradients
result from combinations of low fluid velocities and high
wetting-phase water permeabilities, the latter mainly result-
ing from high reservoir permeabilities, high hydrocarbon
densities and small hydrocarbon column heights. As an
example of conditions that favor small DP values, we select
a 75 m oil column at 1 km burial depth in a basin with a
burial history close to that of the North Sea.
B12204
h, m rhc, g/cm3 Dr, kg/m3 log krwb Krw, 10
6 DP,c 105 Pa
0.8 200
5.28 5.22 18.2
250 0.6 400
5.25 5.64 6.33
[42] As an example of conditions that favor comparatively
large DP values, we select deeply buried light oil accumu-
lations in basins with rapid burial and heating rates. We
ð10Þ therefore explore the wetting-phase water pressure gradient
in a 250 m moderately overpressured oil accumulation at
approximately 5 km burial depth in a basin with a burial
history similar to that of the Gulf of Mexico. Water
viscosities and velocities for both these cases were taken
from Nordgård Bolås et al. [2005], except for the water
velocity of the North Sea case, which was doubled to
investigate the consequences of a larger variation in the
velocity data. The parameters for these cases are listed in
Table 3.
[43] The sensitivity analysis was based on an idealized
geological setting where the water flow is vertical through
the reservoir and the overlying caprock, irrespective of the
permeability to the wetting-phase water in the reservoir. In
reality, this is not always correct, as reduced permeability in
the wetting-phase water may lead to a deflection of the
water flow around the oil zone. This will happen if the
permeability to the wetting-phase water is comparable to
that of the caprock, if the resistance to fluid flow in the
wetting-phase water accounts for a significant part of the
total resistance to fluid flow from the reservoir to the top of
the caprock, and if the geometry of the seal makes the fluid
flow directions sensitive to the permeability to the wetting-
phase water (Figure 11).
[44] The simplified fluid flow model applied here may
result in too low seal capacity estimates for situations that
favor deflection of the water flow. Such deflection will not
be expected for reservoirs that are capped by good seals
(such as typical shaly caprocks, see later), but may be an
important factor in reservoirs that are overlain by silty and/
or unconsolidated caprocks.
[45] Figure 12 shows the sensitivity of the calculated
pressure drop (DP) to variations of the input parameters
in equation (8) relative to those of case 1 and 2. The
parameter ranges that are displayed cover the ranges that
are relevant for hydrocarbon exploration. As is clear from
these figures, the calculated pressure drops are in nine of
twelve cases in the 0 – 20 bar range.
[46] The calculated pressure drop is most sensitive to
changes in the hydrocarbon column height (Figure 12a). This
is evidenced by the observation that the calculated pressure
differences vary little between cases 1 and 2, when the oil
column heights are the same. Note that the other five param-
eters (i.e., permeability, porosity, water flow velocity, density
contrast, and water viscosity) differ between these two base
cases (Table 3). However, the calculated pressure differences
vary significantly between cases 1 and 2 when these five
parameters are varied (Figures 12b–12f), whereas the oil
column heights are kept at 75 m and 250 m, respectively.
11 of 20
B12204 TEIGE ET AL.: WETTING-PHASE WATER PERMEABILITY
Figure 11. Influence of reservoir and seal geometry on
deflection of water flow due to low permeability to the
wetting-phase water in the reservoir. (a) Water flows
through the reservoir even if the permeability to the
wetting-phase water is as low as that of the caprock,
because the caprock is thinnest above the crest of the
reservoir. (b) Water flow is partly deflected around the oil
zone if the permeability to the wetting-phase water is of
comparable magnitude to (or lower than) the caprock
permeability. Solid arrows symbolize preferred flow paths,
dotted arrow symbolizes reduced flow velocity.
[47] The calculated pressure differences are also sensitive
to fluid velocities where these are comparatively large, such
as in basins that are subject to rapid porosity reduction (i.e.,
rapid subsidence and heating) (Figure 12d; see also Nordgård
Bolås et al. [2005]). However, basins that are not presently at
their maximum temperature and depth can have close to zero
vertical water velocities. Under such conditions, overpres-
sure differences between free water below oil accumulations
and irreducible water at the base of the caprocks should not be
expected to influence the sealing potential, regardless of the
other parameters in equation (8).
8. Consequences for Hydrocarbon Sealing in
Overpressured Reservoirs
[48] The sensitivity analyses demonstrated the conse-
quences of parameter variations in equation (8). These
12 of 20
B12204
analyses were based on a one-dimensional experiment where
a pressure gradient was imposed on an oil column in a
homogeneous core plug. In reality, a reservoir sequence is
inhomogeneous, and fluid flow will be focused locally.
Furthermore, the timing of oil migration and overpressure
development may lead to fluid flow and pressure distribu-
tions different from those which were the basis for the
sensitivity analyses. These items should be considered in
practical applications, and the consequences of variations
between the idealized conditions that were the basis for the
sensitivity analyses and those of the prospect under investi-
gation should be evaluated. Still, inspection of the conse-
quences for capillary sealing of residual water flow in an
idealized setting gives useful information for the understand-
ing of subsurface sealing of hydrocarbons.
[49] To address the importance of these calculated over-
pressure drops to capillary sealing in overpressured reser-
voirs, we rearrange equation (4) and substitute DP0 (the
difference between the overpressure in the water leg below
the hydrocarbon contact and that of an unspecified position in
the caprock) with DP (the overpressure drop in the wetting-
phase water across the hydrocarbon column):
2g
rtc ¼ ð11Þ
Drgh þ DP
This relationship describes the maximum hydrocarbon
column that a membrane (capillary) seal can preserve. This
column is limited by the critical pore throat radius (rtc),
which is the smallest pore throat radius the hydrocarbons
must penetrate in order to escape through the caprock.
Figure 13 displays the influence of different DP values on
the calculated critical pore throat radius for cases 1 and 2.
As an example, a DP value of 20 bars implies a large
reduction in the critical pore throat radius from the base case
value of 381 nm to 26 nm for a 75 m oil column (case 1),
whereas the same DP value implies a small reduction in the
critical pore throat radius from the base case value of 81 nm
to 26 nm for a 250 m oil column (case 2).
[50] The relationships of Figure 13 display the conse-
quences of DP variations for cases 1 and 2 that are
independent of the oil column height. However, large
calculated DP values only occur in cases with large
hydrocarbon columns, unless extremely large fluid veloci-
ties are involved. In Figure 14, we therefore display how the
calculated critical pore throat radius is influenced by calcu-
lated column height – dependent DP values. To account
for this relationship, we extracted the DP values from
Figure 12a. Again, the calculated critical pore throat radii that
are required to seal the hydrocarbons will be reduced when
the DP values are included. The relative influences of the
overpressure drops in the wetting-phase water are, however,
small for oil columns less than about 100 m.
[51] These calculated overpressure drops are only impor-
tant to the analysis of capillary sealing of hydrocarbon
columns if they result in a significant reduction of the
calculated critical pore throat radii. Reductions of these
calculated radii to values less than the critical pore throat
radii of typical caprocks are significant in this context. It is
therefore of interest to compare the calculated pore throat
radii from equation (11) with those of typical caprocks.
B12204 TEIGE ET AL.: WETTING-PHASE WATER PERMEABILITY B12204

Figure 12. Sensitivity of the calculated pressure differences in the wetting-phase water across an oil
column to variations in (a) oil column height, (b) reservoir permeability, (c) porosity, (d) vertical fluid
(Darcy) velocity, (e) oil density, and (f) water viscosity. Squares denote the parameter combination of
base case 1, and circles denote those of base case 2.

13 of 20
B12204 TEIGE ET AL.: WETTING-PHASE WATER PERMEABILITY B12204

[52] Schlömer and Krooss [1997] measured Hg displace-

ment pressures for a number of shaly caprock samples.
These values were converted to pore throat diameters by
Nordgård Bolås et al. [2005], on the basis of the contact
angles and interfacial tensions of mercury/water systems
given by Schowalter [1979]. With the exception of a few
outliers, the caprock radii from these measurements were
calculate to be in the 5 – 20 nm range. These values are

Figure 14. Influence on seal capacity of pressure

differences as functions of the hydrocarbon column heights.
Curves are based on the input parameters of base cases 1
and 2, and the pressure differences added to the two base
case curves are those of Figure 12a.

consistent with the findings of Katsube et al. [1998], who

reported measurements of pore throat radii in the range of
1.5– 30 nm, but who claimed that a significant population of
pore throat radii existed between 0.15 nm and the lower-
detection limit of 1.5 nm. These observations are also
consistent with the observations of Krushin [1997], who
reported displacement pore throat sizes less than 15 nm for
low-porosity, nonorganic shales that have calcareous or
dolomitic cement, or are clay rich (excellent capillary
shales). Krushin [1997] further measured pore throats in
the 30 – 40 nm range for nonorganic sandy mudstones
(marginal caprocks).

Figure 13. Influence on seal capacity, expressed by the

critical pore throat radius, of pressure differences in the
wetting-phase water across oil columns (a) based on the input
parameters of base case 1 that favors small DP values (high
porosity and permeability, low oil column height) and
(b) based on the input parameters of base case 2 that favors
large DP values (low porosity and permeability, large
column height of light oil). Parameters for the base cases are
given in Table 3. Permeability range marked as ‘‘K et al.’’ is
the range of pore throat radii measured by Katsube et al.
[1998] and converted to critical pore throat radii by
Nordgård Bolås et al. [2005]; permeability range marked
as ‘‘S&K’’ is the typical range of pore throat radii reported
by Nordgård Bolås et al. [2005] on the basis of data from
Schlömer and Krooss [1997]; and the permeability range
marked as ‘‘K’’ is the range of pore throat radii measured by
Krushin [1997].

14 of 20
B12204 TEIGE ET AL.: WETTING-PHASE WATER PERMEABILITY
[53] The critical pore throat in a caprock is the smallest
pore throat that the oil must penetrate in order to escape
through the caprock. This critical pore throat is expected to
be in the lower end of a pore throat population within a
caprock sequence. If the values of the measurements per-
formed by Schlömer and Krooss [1997], Katsube et al.
[1998], and Krushin [1997] are representative for the critical
pore throats, then the pore throat radius of a good shaly
caprock is sufficiently small to preserve large hydrocarbon
columns, even at large DP values (Figures 13 and 14).
[54] However, the overpressure drop in the water phase at
the top of the oil column could be detrimental for marginal
caprocks with larger pore throat radius than shaly caprocks.
Typical marginal caprocks are silty, shallow buried and/or
wedge-outs of sealing sediments. In such geological set-
tings, the overpressure drop in the water phase will likely
reduce the sealing capacity of the caprock.
9. Summary and Conclusions
[55] Multiple laboratory experiments, performed on oil-
saturated, water wet sandstones have demonstrated that water
can flow through sandstone plugs and further through a
ceramic membrane, whereas the oil is retained in the core
plug by capillary forces. The experiments were performed on
rock samples with permeabilities ranging from 0.06 mD to
1900 mD, and with capillary pressures ranging from 1.5 to
10 bars. The water flow likely took place in acute corners
and crevices of the pore network that was inaccessible to the
nonwetting oil phase.
[56] The relative wetting-phase water permeabilities of
the core plugs were demonstrated to relate to the porosity
and permeability of the core plugs, and the capillary
pressure at the outlet end of the core plug, through
p grains, 19.0% quartz cement and 1.7% potassium feldspar,
log krw @ Swi ¼
1:75 logðPc ðk=fÞÞ
1:95
This relationship, which was derived at laboratory condi-
tions, may also be applied to compute the relative wetting-
phase water permeability in water wet oil reservoirs,
although the extrapolation to subsurface conditions is likely
to introduce uncertainties. The computed permeabilities
turned out to be sufficiently low to result in calculated
overpressure drops of typically 20 bars or less across the
wetting-phase water column in an oil reservoir. Larger
pressure drops were calculated for hydrocarbon columns in
excess of 400 m and in rapidly compacting basins.
[57] The calculated overpressure drops in the water
phase of oil reservoirs are generally insufficient to influ-
ence the capacity of good caprocks. However, the column
height of hydrocarbon traps overlain by seals of inferior
quality (e.g., poorly consolidated seals and pinch out seals)
may be significantly reduced in the presence of reservoir
overpressure.
Appendix A: Core Plug Characteristics, Water
Saturations, Flow Rates, Measurement
Uncertainties, and Reproducibility
[58] The three core plugs represent significant differences
in porosity, permeability, grain texture, and quartz cemen-
tation. The Bentheimer sample comes from a clean, high-
15 of 20
B12204
porosity sandstone. The Berea sample has more clay min-
erals in the pore spaces, which reduces its permeability and
probably also influences the flow characteristics of the
residual water. The Morvin sample has a low permeability
(0.06 mD), largely as a result of intense quartz cementation.
[59] Unfortunately, the Bentheimer and Berea core plugs
were used for other purposes before thin section could be
made. The thin sections that are displayed in Figures A1a
and A1b are from stocks of Bentheimer and Berea sand-
stones, which share the main characteristics, but are not
identical, to the core plugs that were used in the flow
experiments. The thin section of the Morvin sample
(Figure A1c) was made from the core plug that was used in
the experiments.
[60] The sample with highest porosity and permeability
(Bentheimer) consists of well sorted, fine to medium
( 0.25 mm) quartz arenite. The grains are mostly rounded
to subrounded. Point counting gives 65.0% quartz grains,
7.7% quartz cement, 2.0% potassium feldspar, 24% poros-
ity, and minor (1.3%) amounts of other constituents (chert,
potassium feldspar cement).
[61] The Berea sample consists of well sorted, fine
(0.15 mm) quartz arenite, with rounded to subrounded
grains. The sample differs most from the Bentheimer
sample in that it, in addition to quartz grains (62.3%),
quartz cement (5.0%) and potassium feldspar (2.7%), is
relatively rich in other constituents, such as clay clasts/
matrix (5.0%), heavy minerals (2.3%), kaolinite (1.3%),
muscovite (1.3%) and plagioclase (0.3%). The thin section
sample has a point-counted porosity of 21%, which is
somewhat higher than the porosity of the core plug that
was used in the flow experiments (15.6%).
[62] The Morvin sample consists mainly of coarse, poorly
sorted quartz arenite (0.5 – 0.6 mm), with 66.7% quartz
in addition to 1.0% chert, 0.7% plagioclase, 2.0% heavy
minerals, and traces of glauconite, chlorite, ooids, clay
matrix, kaolinite/illite, calcite, pyrite, and possibly some
hydrocarbon staining. The point-counted porosity of the
sample is 5.0%.
[63] Figure A2a shows the establishment of stable water
saturations during stage 2 of the experiments. The water
drainage curves (volume of drained water (ml) versus time
(days)) show that relatively low water saturation was met
and stabilized after fairly short time, and that this applies to
all the tests.
[64] Figure A2b shows a close-up of the water drainage
curves (from day six) for the four sandstone plugs that did
not achieve completely stable water saturations. The alter-
ations are insignificant when it comes to influencing the
experiments: Even for the Berea plug (5 bar), which has
the most unstable wetting-phase water saturation, an addi-
tional 0.5 ml drained water from day 6 to day 40 will only
result in a 3% estimate error in the wetting-phase water
calculation.
[65] The flow of wetting-phase water through the core
plugs was monitored during stage 4 of the experiments and
presented in Figure A3. This figure demonstrates that the
most permeable sample (the Bentheimer plug) has the most
rapid flow of wetting-phase water, and therefore the steepest
water production curves versus time. The figure also dem-
onstrates that the water production was stable over time, and
B12204 TEIGE ET AL.: WETTING-PHASE WATER PERMEABILITY B12204

Figure A1. Thin section images (crossed polarized lights) of rock samples from (a) Bentheimer,
(b) Berea, and (c) the Morvin core plug used for flow experiments. For detailed description, see text.

therefore that the wetting-phase water permeability
remained constant during the experiments.
[66] The uncertainty of the input parameters is generally
small. The porosity is measured with a standard deviation of
0.02% – 0.04% of the rock volume (0.1% – 0.6% of the water
volume). The permeability is generally measured with
standard deviations of 2.5% for rocks in the 10 –
100 mD range according to the API Recommend Practice
40 measurement standards. Above and below this range, the
margin of error may be as large of 15% (one standard
deviation) where the permeability is less than 0.1 mD. The
irreducible water saturations are calculated with standard
deviations of 3% of the Swi (Hg injection, Reslab), and 1%
(inversion of CT density contrasts within the oil-saturated
core, Statoil). The comparatively large difference between
the calculated Swi for the Bentheimer sample (0.135 at
Reslab vs. 0.113 at Statoil) is largely due to the fact that
the pressure increase at Statoil was significantly slower than
what is standard procedure, thus allowing for more water
flux out of the sample before the Swi analysis. At Reslab, the
core sample was cleaned after the Hg injection and later
saturated with oil to Swi, whereas the Statoil measurements
were performed on the oil-saturated core plug before the
flow experiment started. The differences between the satu-
rations of the Bentheimer sandstone thus largely reflect
different experimental conditions and not the accuracy of
the Swi determinations. The pore pressures are accurate to
within 0.03 bar, which gives an uncertainty of 1%. The
drained water volumes were measured cumulatively, with a
measurement error of the produced water volume of 0.1 ml
at Statoil (visual monitoring of water level rise in the
graduated separator). The water volumes from the Reslab
experiments were derived from monitoring the fluid pres-
sure data during stage 2.

16 of 20
B12204 TEIGE ET AL.: WETTING-PHASE WATER PERMEABILITY B12204

Figure A2. Water drainage during the establishment of low and stable water saturations (Swi) (stage 2):
(a) water drainage curves for all the sandstone plugs, and (b) close-up of the water drainage curves (from
day six) for the four sandstone plugs that did not achieve completely stable water saturation. The
Bentheimer (1) and Bentheimer (repeated) tests were performed at 5 bars capillary pressure.

[67] On the basis of the above information, it would be
possible to attach error bars to Figures 6, 7, 9, 10, A2, and
A3. We have decided not to do so, because these error bars
could be misinterpreted as a stronger support for the
robustness of the relationships displayed in Figure 10 than
we think is justified. As more samples are tested, we expect
10
3 mD (almost identical to the value reported
to see data that falls outside the errors indicated by the error
bars, a. o. because of variations in clay distribution and pore
first test was performed at the same laboratory as Teige et al.
[2005] used (Reslab in Stavanger, Norway). The second test
was performed at a different laboratory (Statoil Research
Centre in Trondheim, Norway). The results of the first test
gave a calculated permeability to the wetting-phase water of
0.74
by Teige et al. [2005]). The results of the second test gave
a calculated wetting-phase water permeability of 0.29

network tortuosity among the various samples. 10
3 mD. This relatively small difference is largely attributed
[68] We tested the reproducibility of the experiment to different techniques of measuring the wetting-phase
reported by Teige et al. [2005] by performing two new tests water saturations in the two tests (13.5% and 11.3% in
with 5 bar pressure difference across the same plug: The Reslab and Statoil respectively). As is seen from all the

17 of 20
B12204 TEIGE ET AL.: WETTING-PHASE WATER PERMEABILITY B12204

Figure A3. Volumes of wetting-phase water through the core plugs (stage 4). Note (1) that the most
permeable rock (Bentheimer) has the highest production of wetting-phase water and (2) that increased
capillary pressures reduce the flow velocity. All these tests were performed at the same laboratory (Reslab
in Stavanger, Norway). Tests labeled Bentheimer (1) and Bentheimer (repeated) were performed at 5 bars
capillary pressure.

plots, this difference has little impact on the quantitative
relationships that are derived.
Appendix B: Relationship Between Water
Permeability and Capillary Pressure From
Pore-Scale Physics
[69] We consider a porous medium that is saturated with
two immiscible fluids, one of which perfectly wets the solid.
At sufficiently large saturations, the wetting-phase may be
interconnected by (1) thin wetting films that everywhere
cover the solid surface, (2) pendular structures in corners
and edges of nonwetting-phase occupied pores, and
(3) wetting-phase filled surface roughness and small pores
with higher entry pressures than the imposed capillary
pressure. For a strongly wetted system, the wetting-phase
is continuous over the entire pore network and maintains
electrical and hydraulic conductivity.
[70] The wetting films that cover the solid surface are
typically a few nanometres thick and contribute very little to
the wetting-phase saturation. In a recent experimental in-
vestigation, Holmes and Packer [2002] found that for

18 of 20
B12204 TEIGE ET AL.: WETTING-PHASE WATER PERMEABILITY B12204

Fontainebleau sandstone approximately 0.6% of the wet- surfaces with Ds in the range 2.55 to 2.96 depending on
ting-phase saturation is present as surface wetting films. the type of rock investigated. They identified clay as the
This is in agreement with the theoretical findings of origin of such structures. In other studies, values of Ds
Mohanty [1981] that concluded that the wetting fluid in ranging from 2.27 to 2.89 have been measured for a
thin surface films amounts to only 1% of the pore space. variety of sedimentary rocks such as sandstones, shales,
The surface wetting films have negligible conductance and and carbonates.
do not contribute to the hydraulic conductance of the [72] By combining equations (B5) and (B6), the func-
wetting-phase. tional relationship between krw and Pc is given by
[71] Expressions for the conductance of wetting-phase
present in corners and edges of a nonwetting-phase occu- DL
4
krw / PcN ðB7Þ
pied pore (gw) is given by [Ranshoff and Radke, 1987; Øren
et al., 1998; Patzek and Kristensen, 2001] Both equations (B4) and (B7) predict a power law
relationship between the wetting-phase relative permeability
Aw r 2 and capillary pressure at low wetting-phase saturations. By
gw ¼ ðB1Þ
mw Rw replacing PcN with the Leverett J function
sffiffiffi
where Aw is the area of the wetting-phase in the corner, r = Pc k
g/Pc is the radius of curvature, g is the interfacial tension, Pc J ðSw Þ ¼ ðB8Þ
g f
is the capillary pressure, mw is the viscosity and Rw is a
dimensionless resistance factor that depends on the corner
half angle b, the contact angle q, and the boundary we arrive at the following expression for the functional
condition at the nonwetting/wetting-phase interface relationship for the wetting-phase relative permeability at
[Ranshoff and Radke, 1987; Patzek and Kristensen, 2001]. ‘‘wetting-phase’’ water saturation
Aw is given by sffiffiffi!h
Pc k
krw / ðB9Þ
Aw ¼ r2 ½sin aðcos a þ sin a cot bÞ
a ðB2Þ g f

where a = p/2
q
b. If the pore is completely filled with The value of the exponent h cannot be determined a priori
the wetting-phase, the conductance (gt) is approximately since it depends on the microstructure of the rock and on the
[Øren et al., 1998] mechanism(s) contributing to the wetting-phase conduc-
2
tance. However, the above analysis suggests that the value
3rin A of h should be approximately
2. The interfacial tension, g,
gt ¼ ðB3Þ
20mw is not included in equation (5) as this parameter was not a
variable in our experiments.
where rin is the inscribed radius of the pore and A is the area of
the pore. The wetting-phase relative permeability krw = gw/gt. [73] Acknowledgments. The authors are grateful to Statoil ASA for
If we define a normalized capillary pressure, PcN = Pc/Pce granting permission to publish this study. Per Arne Bjørkum, Håkon
where the entry capillary pressure Pce = 2g/rin, and the water Rueslåtten, and Alton Brown are thanked for their helpful discussions
and constructive comments. We also appreciate the graphic support by
saturation is Sw, the functional relationship for the wetting- L. Reistad and E. Storsten.
phase relative permeability can be expressed as
References
Aw
2
2 Berg, R. R. (1975), Capillary pressures in stratigraphic traps, AAPG Bull.,
krw / P / Sw PcN ðB4Þ 59(6), 939 – 956.
A cN
Bethke, C. (1985), Inverse hydrologic analysis of the distribution and origin
of Gulf Coast-type geopressured zones, J. Geophys. Res., 91(B6), 6535 –
Lenormand and Vizika [1991] developed a model for 6545.
describing wetting-phase flow in surface roughness by Bjørkum, P. A., O. Walderhaug, and P. Nadeau (1998), Physical constraints
assuming the internal surface of a pore to be fractal. The on hydrocarbon leakage and trapping revisited, Pet. Geosci., 4, 237 – 239.
Bjørkum, P. A., O. Walderhaug, and P. Nadeau (1999a), Reply to discussion
model predicts krw
Sw and Pc
Sw power law relationships of the paper ‘‘Physical constraints on hydrocarbon leakage and trapping
that are in good agreement with literature data and revisited by P. A. Bjørkum et al.’’ by C. J. Clayton, Pet. Geosci., 5, 99 –
experimental results from two-phase gravity drainage 101.
Bjørkum, P. A., O. Walderhaug, and P. Nadeau (1999b), Reply to discus-
experiments. The functional relationships are given by sion of the paper ‘‘Physical constraints on hydrocarbon leakage and
trapping revisited by P.A Bjørkum et al.: Further aspects,’’ by S. Rodgers,
Pc 1
D
2
Pet. Geosci., 5, 421 – 423.
¼ SwL ðB5Þ Clayton, C. J. (1999), Discussion of the paper ‘‘Physical constraints on
Pce hydrocarbon leakage and trapping revisited by P. A. Bjørkum et al.’’,
Pet. Geosci., 5, 99 – 101.
Clayton, C. J., and S. Hay (1994), Gas migration mechanisms from accu-
4
DL mulation to surface, Bull. Geol. Soc. Den., 41, 12 – 23.
krw ¼ Sw2
DL ðB6Þ Corcoran, D. V., and A. G. Doré (2002), Top seal assessment in exhumed
basin settings: Some insights from Atlantic margin and borderland ba-
sins, in Hydrocarbon Seal Quantification, edited by A. G. Koestler and
where the fractal dimension DL = Ds
1. Wong et al. [1985] R. Hunsdale, Spec. Publ., 11, pp. 89 – 107, Elsevier, New York.
found that sandstones and shale have fractal internal Darcy, H. (1856), Les fontaines publiques de la ville de Dijon, pp. 590 –
594, Dalmont, Paris.

19 of 20
B12204 TEIGE ET AL.: WETTING-PHASE WATER PERMEABILITY
Darcy, H. (1983), Determination of the laws of the flow of water through
sand, in Benchmark Papers in Geology, vol. 72, edited by R. W. Fairbridge,
R. A. Freeze, and W. Back, pp. 14 – 20, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
(note: Excerpted from Dalment, V. (1856), Les fontaines publiques de la
ville de Dijon, pp. 590 – 594, Dalmont, Paris).
Dullien, F. A. L., S. Y. L. Francis, and I. F. Macdonald (1986), Hydraulic
continuity of wetting phase in porous media, J. Colloid Interface Sci.,
109(1), 201 – 217.
England, W. A., A. S. Mackenzie, D. M. Mann, and T. M. Quigley (1987),
The movement and entrapment of petroleum fluids in the subsurface,
J. Geol. Soc. London, 144(2), 327 – 347.
Holmes, W. M., and K. J. Packer (2002), Investigation of thin surface
wetting films in two-phase saturated porous media, Magn. Resonance
Chem., 40, 20 – 28.
Hubbert, M. K. (1940), The theory of ground water motion, J. Geol., 48(8),
785 – 944.
Hubbert, M. K. (1953), Entrapment of petroleum under hydrodynamic
conditions, Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull., 37(8), 1954 – 2026.
Katsube, T. J., D. R. Issler, and W. C. Cox (1998), Shale permeability and
its relation to pore-size distribution, in Current Research 1998-D, pp.
51 – 57, Geol. Surv. of Canada, Ottawa, Ont.
Krushin, J. T. (1997), Seal capacity of nonsmectite shale, in Seals, Traps,
and Petroleum System edited by R. C. Surdam, AAPG Mem., 67, 31 – 47.
Lenormand, R., and O. Vizika (1991), Flow by film of the wetting phase in
a porous medium and its role on the gravity drainage process, paper
presented at the 12th International Workshop and Symposium of the
IEA Collaborative Project on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Int. Energy
Agency, Bath, UK, 28– 30 Oct.
Melrose, J. C. (1990), Valid capillary pressure data at low wetting-phase
saturations, SPE Reservoir Eng., 5(1), 95 – 99.
Mohanty, K. K. (1981), Fluids in porous media: Two-phase distribution and
flow, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Nordgård Bolås, H. M., C. Hermanrud, and G. M. G. Teige (2005), Seal
capacity estimation from subsurface pore pressures, Basin Res., 17, 583 –
599.
Øren, P. E., and W. V. Pinczewski (1995), Fluid distribution and pore-scale
displacement mechanisms in drainage dominated three-phase flow,
Transp. Porous Media, 20, 105 – 133.
Øren, P. E., S. Bakke, and O. J. Arntzen (1998), Extending predictive
capabilities to network models, SPE J., 3(4), 324 – 336.
20 of 20
B12204
Patzek, T. W., and J. D. Kristensen (2001), Shape factor and hydraulic
conductance in noncircular capillaries: II. Two-phase creeping flow,
J. Colloid Interface Sci., 236, 305 – 317.
Ranshoff, T. C., and C. J. Radke (1987), Laminar flow of wetting liquid
along the corners of a predominately gas-occupied noncircular pore,
J. Colloid Interface Sci., 121(2), 392 – 401.
Rodgers, S. (1999), Discussion of the paper ‘‘Physical constraints on hy-
drocarbon leakage and trapping revisited’’ by P. A. Bjørkum et al.:
Further aspects, Pet. Geosci., 5, 421 – 423.
Rueslåtten, H. G., O. Hjelmeland, and O. M. Selle (1994), Wettability of
reservoir rocks and the influence of organo-metallic compounds, N. Sea
Oil Gas Reservoirs, 3, 317 – 324.
Schlömer, S., and B. M. Krooss (1997), Experimental characterization of
the hydrocarbon sealing efficiency of cap rocks, Mar. Pet. Geol., 14(5),
565 – 580.
Schowalter, T. T. (1979), Mechanics of secondary hydrocarbon migration
and entrapment, AAPG Bull., 63, 723 – 760.
Teige, G. M. G., C. Hermanrud, W. L. H. Thomas, O. B. Wilson, and H. M.
Nordgård Bolås (2005), Capillary resistance and trapping of hydrocar-
bons: A laboratory experiment, Pet. Geosci., 11, 125 – 129.
Thomas, W. L. H., G. M. G. Teige, C. Hermanrud, O. B. Wilson,
L. Rennan, and J. K. Ringen (2004), Permeability to wetting phase water
saturation in oil saturated plugs, paper presented at International Sympo-
sium of the Society of Core Analysts, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 5– 9 Oct.
Wilson, O. B., B. G. Tjetland, and A. Skauge (2001), Porous plates influ-
ence on effective drainage rates in capillary pressure experiments, paper
SCA 2001-30 presented at the Society of Core Analysts International
Symposium, Edinburgh, 17– 19 Sept.
Wong, P. Z., J. Howard, and J. S. Lin (1985), Surface roughening and the
fractal nature of rocks, Phys. Rev. Lett., 57(5), 637 – 640.























C. Hermanrud, H. M. Nordgård Bolås, P.-E. Øren, L. Rennan, and G. M.
G. Teige, Statoil ASA, Arkitekt Ebbells vei 10, Rotvoll, 7005 Trondheim,
Norway. (hnb@statoil.com; che@statoil.com; peoe@statoil.com; larsre@
statoil.com; gmgt@statoil.com)
W. L. H. Thomas, Statoil ASA, 4035 Stavanger, Norway. (wiha@
statoil.com)
O. B. Wilson, Reslab, 4033 Forus, Norway. (ove@reslab.no)