SPE 123097

Numerical and Experimental Modeling of Relative Permeability in Heavy Oil

Reservoirs
A.F. Castillo, E.R. Perez, J.A. Rojas, J.F. Zapata, Ecoopetrol

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Cartagena, Colombia, 31 May–3 June 2009.

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

Abstract

Understanding of high viscous fluid flow in porous media is very important in the accurate development plan for heavy oil
reservoirs. Viscous fingering and effects of unstable flow are phenomenon that must be considered during displacements of
heavy oil by water in reservoirs.

Experimental problems in rock tests with high viscous fluids (due to exaggerated increases in pressure differential, early
breakthrough times, large differences in mobility ratios) are some of the technical difficulties showed during the acquisition
of relative permeability curves by unsteady state in heavy oil reservoirs. At the same way, difficulties in conventional
interpretation (JBN interpretation is supposing uniform displacement) are challenges that numerical interpretations must be
try to solve for modeling accurately what is happening inside rock.

This paper presents a number of “best practices” for defining a reliable relative permeability curve in heavy oil reservoirs
related to numerical modeling and experimental modeling. Description of phenomenon in a Colombian heavy oil reservoir
field are shown for three petrophysical quality rocks (less than 500 mD, around 5000 mD and larger than 10000 mD).
Capillary pressure effects are included in the modeling and its importance in the displacement is analyzed.

Finally, results of sensibilities to different mobility ratios in crudes with different viscosities (5, 25, 100 and 1000 cp) are
presented in the same group of rocks mentioned previously. The results of this study help to understand the influence of
viscosity and its impact in total recovery.

Introduction

The ability of two or more immiscible fluids to flow through a reservoir depends on both the absolute permeability of the
formation and on the saturations of the fluids. The concept of absolute permeability is used to describe the flow of a single
fluid through rock. When two or more fluids are flowing through a rock, the concepts of effective permeability and relative
permeability are useful in describing the flow.

Relative permeability curves can be used to convert single phase equations into multiphase estimations at a given saturation.
Relative permeability curves can be used to perform reservoir waterfloods or gasflood displacement calculations. Since
multiphase-flow equations in reservoir simulators are directly dependent on relative permeability values, accurate
measurements are necessary to model and predict reservoir performance.

Difficulties in conventional interpretation during waterfloodings (JBN interpretation is supposing one dimensional flow with
no fingering and also suppose capillary pressure end effects as negligible) are challenges that numerical interpretations must
be try to solve for modeling accurately what is happening inside rock.

Use of more flexible capillary and relative permeability correlations for adjust the experimental data with mathematical
models, have been developed in the past few years for taking into account the effect of different phenomenon that happen in
the interaction rock-fluid.
2 SPE 123097

This paper presents a number of “best practices” for defining a reliable relative permeability curve in heavy oil reservoirs
related to numerical modeling and experimental modeling. A Colombian case study is shown and effects of grid size,
capillary modeling and iinfuence of viscosity are analyzed.

Overview

There are two main experimental methods for obtaining relative permeability curves in rock samples:

1. Steady state displacements (Flowing two phases simultaneously through a core sample at a fixed water/oil or
gas/liquid injection ratio). Injection continues until the saturations in the core and the pressure drop across the
sample is constant, indicating that the system is in steady-state.

However, steady state is subjected to end effects, and a saturation gradient can exist. In addition, small scale heterogeneities
can result in local saturation gradients (ref. 2). It is also necessary 5 to 6 points for each relative permeability curve, and it
implies more time in the development of the test.

2. Unsteady State displacements (saturations in the sample are always changing). The sample is initially saturated
with oil at connate water saturation, and then water is injected. Relative permeability and saturations can be calculated from
the volume of water injected, the volume of oil produced, and the pressure drop across the sample. Its main advantage is that
is a fast method and not so expensive compared to Steady state test.

Methodology

After many tests for Water-Oil Systems in unsteady tests in Colombian heavy oil reservoirs there are a series of best practices
recommended before and during experimental test in rocks and also in interpretation and numerical modeling that can be very
useful for designing an also checking the quality control of relative permeability curves in heavy oil reservoirs.

BEST PRACTICES IN EXPERIMENTAL MODELING IN HEAVY OIL ROCKS

BEST PRACTICE #1: SATURATION HISTORY

Because effective permeability is dependent on saturation, relative permeability is also a function of fluid saturation. Because
hysteresis is possible, relative permeability should be measured in the laboratory using the same saturation history as will
occur in the reservoir.

For oil zones, imbibitions tests are usually performed because they model the displacement of oil by water from an aquifer or
injector. Drainage tests are seldom performed except, for example, to model an oil bank displacing water during an enhanced
oil recovery process. (ref. 2)

BEST PRACTICE #2: CRUDE “DEHYDRATION”

In order to make the tests with crude without presence of water is really important working with dehydrated crude. For
achieving this objective there are many methods (centrifuge, ultrasonic techniques with heating), however, for Colombian
heavy oils the most efficient method used until now has been electrostatic dehydration (ref. 4). (See Figure 1)

BEST PRACTICE #3: ASSURE RESERVOIR WETTABILITY

Assume that prior to the water injection the reservoir is at connate (irreducible) water saturation. We define the oil’s
permeability at this water saturation as Kocw (permeability to oil at the connate water saturation), and we will use this as our
reference permeability.

Cause the wettability of the system can have a major impact on relative permeability (ref. 3), the laboratory test should mimic
as closely as possible the wettability of the reservoir. There are two options: Making tests with (1) native samples that has
been drilled with bland muds and had been preserved during all coring process or (2) using wettability restored samples that
had been aging with reservoir fluids for a long time (at reservoir conditions of pressure and temperature).
SPE 123097 3

BEST PRACTICE #4: CHOOSING THE ACCURATE RATE FOR DISPLACEMENTS

1. It´s recommendable for avoiding early breakthroughs and exaggerated increases in pressure differential in heavy oil
tests using rates setting below critical rate of flow. According the values of permeability in rocks, experience has
shown us than rocks less than 500 md rate must be 0.5 - 1 cc/min; for permeabilities around 500 – 1000 mD rates
must be 1 -1.5 cc/min, and rocks major than 1000 md rates must be around 1.5 – 2 cc/min.

2. Best rate during waterflooding is recommended to be selected according the values of pressure differential and rate
used during measurement of Kbase (K effective to oil at Swirr in our case). Rule of thumb establishes than Pressure
differential in waterflooding will be ~ 1/3 of the pressure differential in Kbase. This initial approach serves to select
an accurate rate for waterflooding.

3. An end effect due to discontinuity in the capillary properties at the end of a core could be developed during
laboratory tests. For avoiding it the pressure gradient must be large enough to minimize capillary pressure effects
(ref 1).

BEST PRACTICE #5: CHOOSING THE ACCURATE NET MEAN STRESS

It´s recommendable calculate a good estimate of net mean stress in function of overburden pressure and pore pressure. This
effect could be critical if values of rock compressibility in rocks are considerable and pore space is significantly affected by
overburden pressure. Heavy oil reservoirs in unconsolidated sands could be more sensitive to this phenomenon.

BEST PRACTICE #6: ASSURE GOOD MEASUREMENTS IN FLUIDS INTERFACE USING TWO-PHASE OR THREE-
PHASE SEPARATOR

The oil and water that exit from the rock flow into an acoustic separator. The amount of oil and water in the separator is
determined by reflecting an acoustic pulse off the oil-water interface in the separator.

Heavy Oil fluids cause noise in the readings of separator´s interface (See Figure 2). In our case, oil viscosity above 100 cp
has shown us interfaces oil-water not stabilized. It´s recommendable find the range and constrains of oil viscosity for your
measurements.

BEST PRACTICE #7: USE VARIOUS METHODS FOR OBTAINING Swirr, Sor and Recovery (Unsteady State
Techniques)

Material Balance Forward to Backward: The main objective is keeping track of the volumes of fluids injected and
produced. Vacuum distillation is a good practice in order to know the final amounts of fluids in the sample after
waterflooding. If you complement this data with the results of an additional dean stark procedure (after vacuum distillation),
the values of Sor and Swirr could be more accurate.

Material Balance Backward to Forward: Balance could be done in the rock knowing the initial amount of fluids (before
any displacement) and keeping track detailed of the injected and produced fluids during each step before and after
waterflooding.

Saturation control In-situ: Using X-ray or gamma-ray technology allows you identify the values of saturation inside the
rock during all displacements. It is an alternative that additionally let us see if the displacement is uniform inside the rock or
by else if fingering or channeling happens inside rock.

BEST PRACTICE #8: ACCURATE MEASUREMENTS OF CRUDE VISCOSITY AT RESERVOIR CONDITIONS

Values of viscosity behavior in the rock at reservoir conditions (pressure and temperature) are really important for
interpreting and modeling the results of relative permeability. There are many methods for acquire and correlate values of
viscosity:

• “Dynamic” viscosity: Displacements of crude in a standard rock (with petrophysical properties known previously
like permeability and pore volume) could be a good alternative. Results of these displacements are used for
calculating the viscosity by means of Darcy´s law.
4 SPE 123097

Advantage: Measurements at real conditions of reservoir pressure and temperature. Disadvantage: Tests could
take one week evaluating just one fluid.

• “Static” viscosity: It´s obtained over a wide range of pressures at reservoir temperature using capillary
viscosimeters. Frequently is a data reported by reology or PVT labs. (See Figure 3).
Advantage: Results are obtained quickly. Disadvantage: Measurements are done at ambient pressure and
temperature is frequently less than reservoir temperature due to equipment´s constrains.

BEST PRACTICE #9: KNOWING THE EXPERIMENTAL CONSTRAINS OF THE LAB EQUIPMENT

Because heavy oil is a fluid with very high values of viscosity (generally major than 500 cp), is feasible than trying of
injecting and producing this crude in rocks cause:

• Obstruction of injecting and producing lines with crude (See Figure 4).
• Increases in the pressure differential (above the range of pressure sensors) in samples of low permeability.

KEY FACTORS IN NUMERICAL MODELING OF RELATIVE PERMEABILITY IN HEAVY OIL RESERVOIRS AT

CORE SCALE

Numerical modeling for obtaining reliable relative permeability curves in heavy oil reservoir is used as an important tool in
order of describing the production and differential results of displacements of fluids inside the rocks (Ref 5, 7). Capillary
pressure effects are also possible being included in numerical modeling by means of correlations incorporated in them.

Matching Oil production and Pressure Drop

Rock is initially saturated with live crude oil and connate water, and the live formation water is injected, usually at constant
rate. Oil production is measured in a separator, and then pressure drop across the rock is recorded.

Figure 5 (ref 5) shows the typical curves for oil production and pressure diferential that must be matched using numerical
models for obtain reliable relative permeability curves.

Oil production initially matches the water injection because each volume of water injected pushes out the same volume of oil.
No water is produced initially. However, water reaches the outlet face of the rock, and breakthrough ocurrs.

From then on, the rate of oil production decreases, and the water cut increases. After various pore volume of water has been
injected, very little oil is being produced, and the laboratory waterflood stopped (usually after 100 pore volumes injected).

Pressure initially rises as the water begins to impede the oil flow, and after breakthrough, the pressure drop falls as the water
relative permeability rises. The behavior of the pressure drop depends on the mobility ratio, however, and in some cases the
pressure drop may be fairly constant or fall continually during the test.

NUMERICAL CORRELATIONS

Improvements in physical models (Figure 6) and advances in more flexible functions (Table 1) have been very helpful to
correlate experimental data with simulated results.

SIMULATION FILES Include information of Grid definition, Petrophysical and Fluid properties, Initial Conditions of
saturation, Welldata (Prod, injection), Correlations of RelPerm, Correlations of CapPres, Simulation parameters, Oil
Production and Diferential Pressure.
SPE 123097 5

CASE STUDY

A Colombian heavy oil reservoir in the llanos basin is studied at core scale for modeling relative permeability experimentally
and numerically. Effect of grid size, capillary effects and influence of oil viscosity are shown detailed in the interpretation
and development of relative permeability curves.

In the Colombian heavy oil reservoir modeled, fresh brine (less than 300 ppm NaCl) is the representative formation water.
Value of water viscosity is estimated in 0.343 cp at reservoir Temperature: 180 F. Oil viscosity is estimated in 25 cp at
reservoir Temperature: 180 F (using method of capillary viscosimeter) and this value is used in the modeling of case1, case 2
and case3.

Case 1. EFFECT OF GRID SIZE

A physical model is described using three different Number of grid blocks in x-direction with objective of seeing the effect of
grid size. Three approaches are used in the cells with values of Nx equal to 10, 100 and 150. See Figure 7

Number of grid blocks, Y-direction = 1

Number of grid blocks, X-direction = 10, 100 and 150

Results of matching in production and pressure differential are very similar using refined (Nx: 100, 150) and coarse number
of blocks in X-direction (Nx: 2, 10). See Figures 8a to Figures 8d.

Relative permeability and capillary pressure curves results are quite similar with different grid sizes.
However, graphs of saturation profile shows different behavior inside of the model at different times.
Nx: 2 and Nx: 10 show an early breakthrough.

Relative permeability curves using Nx: 2 and Nx: 10 shows an strongly water tendency. Increasing the X-grid numbers to
Nx: 100 and Nx: 150 shows relative permeability with trend to intermediate wettabilty, which is more agree with Amott-
harvey tests done in the same group of rocks.

Cause of this a reasonable number of cells are defined in 100 cells in X-direction for the specific relative permeability
modeling.

Case 2. VARYING ROCK TYPES

Description of phenomenon in a Colombian heavy oil reservoir field are shown for three petrophysical quality rocks (less
than 500 mD, around 5000 mD and larger than 10000 mD). Capillary pressure effects are included in the modeling and its
importance in the displacement is analyzed.

Table 2 shows petrophysical properties and recovery factors in three diferent rock types. Figure 9a to Figure 9c shows results
of simulations and numerical modeling of relative permeability.

Rock properties such as permeability, pore size, pore throat size, and the connectivity of the pores can all influence relative
permeability. The influences of rock properties are, however, very complex and so their effects cannot be generalized.
Consequently, relative permeability should be measured on samples from each of the major facies or lithologies within the
reservoir.

Generally, rocks with best petrophysical properties as permeability have large oil recoveries than rocks of less quality during
displacements of heavy oil by waterflooding.

Case 3. EFFECT OF CAPILLARY PRESSURE

Capillary pressure effects could be modeled by two main ways: 1) Introducing a representative pressure –saturation table. 2)
Using Capillary pressure mathematical correlations.

Pressure –saturation table are not always available and in a lot of occasions curves available presents some degree of
uncertainty. Heavy oils reservoirs are not the exception, cause of this, capillary pressure effects were modeled in this study
using mathematical correlations.
6 SPE 123097

Skjaeveland correlation (Ref 5) is used for modeling capillary effects. Best initial values of Parameters in Skjaeveland
correlation are shown in table 3. These initial values are continuously modified during numerical processing for getting a
better match of pressure and production.

For seeing the effect of introduce capillary pressure effects, some runs are done in the same rocks than Table 2 eliminating
the capillary pressure, i.e. “the Pc-values” were setting to zero for the entire saturation range.

The easiest way to do this is to use the Skjaeveland correlation setting both Co=0.0 and Cw=0.0, then Pc will be equal to 0.0
for the entire saturation range. The effect of introduce capillary pressure effects in numerical modeling of relative
permeability is shown in Figure 10a to Figure 10c..

Although matches in production is quite good with and without capillary pressure modeling, it´s clearly shown that this effect
is more important for matching pressure differential in the rock.

Including capillary pressure effects improves matching in pressure differential. Breakthrough times are very similar in
models including and not including capillary pressure correlations. However, differences in water saturation along the rock
are observed after breakthrough.

Saturation profile at final times of waterflooding shows high values of water saturation in the outlet face (Producing front of
the rock) when capillary pressure model is not included.

Case 4. VARYING OIL VISCOSITY

Finally, results of sensibilities to different mobility ratios in crudes with different viscosities (5, 25, 100 and 1000 cp) are
presented in one of rocks mentioned previously (See Table 4). Results of sensibilities in theorical models at different values
of oil viscosities are shown in Figures 11a to Figure 11c.

It is generally thought that oil viscosity does not directly affect relative permeability. Changes in fluid viscosities can,
however, be accompanied by changes in other factors, such as wettability and interfacial tension, which may influence
relative permeability.

Matches are not easy to obtain when oil viscosity is too high (1000 cp). When viscosity was modeled around 1000 cp,
matches in pressure and production were not possible to get. Higher values of viscosity increase substantially the value of
theorical pressure differential in the rock showing the difficult for the mobility of fluids. An oil production curve less sloped
at beginning times (before and immediately after breakthrough) is obtained when oil viscosity increases.

Saturations profiles show an early breakthrough and not efficiently displacement of heavy oil by water injection when oil
viscosity increases. Cause of this is due to unfavorable mobility ratio which produces viscous fingering and channeling in the
rock. The importance of these results of this study helps to understand the influence of viscosity and its impact in total
recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding the importance of an accurate experimental and numerical modeling of relative permeability curve in heavy
oil reservoirs is a key issue in the planning and reservoir performance program in this kind of reservoirs.

1. Experimental

Relative permeability is a function of saturation. Several other factors (rock properties, saturation history, wettability, and
others), can affect the relative permeability-saturation relationship. Rocks of good quality (major than 100 mD) could not be
enough to mobilize fluids when your oil viscosity is high (major than 100 cp).

A steady state technique is ideally the most accurate because the relative permeability calculations are a direct extension of
darcy´s law, so few assumptions are required. Also, data can be generated over a wide saturation range. However, steady
state tests are very expensive. Unsteady state technique in heavy oil rocks is a good chance to obtain reliable relative
permeability (less expensive and most widely used than the steady state technique) if a series of experimental and
interpretative best practices are assured.
SPE 123097 7

Best practices related to SATURATION HISTORY, CRUDE “DEHYDRATION”, RESERVOIR WETTABILITY,

ACCURATE RATE FOR DISPLACEMENTS, NET MEAN STRESS, CRUDE VISCOSITY AT RESERVOIR
CONDITIONS, EXPERIMENTAL CONSTRAINS OF THE LAB EQUIPMENT, MEASUREMENTS IN FLUIDS
INTERFACE and VARIOUS METHODS FOR OBTAINING Swirr, Sor and Recovery (Unsteady State Techniques) are
extremely important in order to defining reliable relive permeability curves in heavy oil reservoirs.

2. Numerical

Although relative permeabilities are commonly supposed to be independent of oil viscosity, recovery process (thermal or
chemical injection) is critical to develop heavy oil reservoirs with high viscosities.

Find theorical results more agree with waterflooding real data is a challenge that modern numerical tools are trying to solve.
More flexible correlations (Corey and LET for relative permeability and Skjaeveland for capillary pressure) are some of them
developed in the past few years. These correlations allows us obtain a good match in real and theorical data for modeling oil
production and pressure differential in Colombian heavy oil reservoirs.

Importance in the selection of optimal grid size and inclusion of capillary pressure models in interpretation must be
fundamental in the objective of modeling huge part of the phenomenon that happens inside rock.

Effects of fingering (due to unfavorable mobility ratios) could be very common in process of water displacing heavy oil. It
could be have large impact in aquifer-drive heavy oil reservoirs, in process of waterflooding in heavy oil reservoirs. Flow is
impeding when two phases are present and oil viscosity is too high compared to water viscosity. Channeling, fingering, early
breakthroughs occurs in rocks with different petrophysical qualities and this behavior has seen in Colombian heavy oil
reservoirs.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the management of Ecopetrol-ICP for permission to publish this paper. We thank E. Ebeltoft (Reslab-
Norway) for his insights.

Nomenclature

Kocw = Permeability to oil at the connate water saturation (mD)

Swirr = Irreducible water saturation (%)
Swc = Connate water saturation (%)
Sor = Residual Oil saturation (%)
8 SPE 123097

References

1. Hornapour, M., Koederitz, L., and Harvey, A.H.: Relative permeability of Petroleum Reservoirs, CRC Press, Boca
Raton, Florida, 1986

2. Coring and core Analysis, Exxon Production Research Company, 1991

3. Anderson, W.G.: “Wettability Literature survey – part 5: The effects of Wettability on relative Permeability”, JPT,
November 1987

4. Report: Crude Electrostatic Dehydration – Ecopetrol ICP --- 2001

5. Sendra Use Guide – Unix and Linux Operting Systems – November 2007

6. Kumar, M. , Hoang, V., Satik C., and Rojas, D.H. : “High Mobility Ratio Water Flood Performance Prediction:
challenges and New Insights”, paper SPE 97671 presented at the SPE International Improved Oil Recovery
Conference, Malaysia, December 2005

7. Lomeland F., Ebeltoft E., Hammervold T.,: “A New versatile Relative permeability Correlation”, paper presented at
International Symposium of the Society of Core analysts, Toronto, Canada, August 2005

8. Wang J., Dong M., Asghari K.: “Effect of Oil viscosity on Heavy-Oil/Water Relative Permeability Curves”, paper
presented at 2006 SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma USA, April 2006.

9. Peters E., Kathaniar S.: “ The Effect of Instability on relative Permeability curves Obtained by the Dynamic-
Displacement Method”, SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1987
SPE 123097 9

Tables

Correlations of Relative Permeability Correlations of Capillary Pressure

0 . Table representation, Sw-Krw-Kro 0. Table representation, Sw-Pc

1 . Burdine Correlation 1. Skjaeveland

2 . Corey Correlation 2. Burdine Correlation for Drainage

3 . Chierici Correlation for drainage 3. Bentsen & Anli Correlation for Drainage

4 . Chierici Correlation for imbibition 4. LET Primary drainage

5 . Sigmund & McCaffery Correlation 5. LET Imbibition

6 . B-Spline Correlation 6. LET Secondary drainage

7 . LET-correlation 7. B-Spline Correlation

8. B-Spline Correlation, Leverett J-scaled

Table 1. FLOW FUNCTIONS – RELATIVE PERMEABILITY AND CAPILLARY PRESSURE

ROCK OIL K
DEPTH PERMEABILITY VISCOSITY reference Swirr Sor %
(ft) (mD) (cp) (Kocw) (%) (%) Recovery
#1
485 mD 25 cp 306.29 16.43 30.7 52.9
7175
#2
6344 mD 25 cp 5333.92 13.5 20 65.7
7255
#3
20122 mD 25 cp 16708.94 12.8 9.6 77.6
7272
Table 2. PETROPHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND RECOVERY FACTORS

PARAMETER Suggested
Skjaeveland correlation Initial Setting Values
Cw 0.0,
Aw 1.359
Co 8.505
Ao 1.005
Table 3. SKJAEVELAND CORRELATION CAPILLARY PRESSURE

DEPTH ROCK OIL

(ft) PERMEABILITY VISCOSITY
(mD) (cp)
7175 485 mD 5 cp
7175 485 mD
25 cp
7175 485 mD 100 cp
7175 485 mD 1000 cp
Table 4. CASE 4 - VARYING OIL VISCOSITIES
10 SPE 123097

Figures

Figure 1. ELECTROSTATIC DEHYDRATION

Oil Interface volume

85

82

79
e 76
m
lu 73
o
v
e
c 70
fa
r 66
te
In 63
il
O
60

57

54
10 109 209 308 408 507 606 706 805 905 1004
Time (min)

NOISY INTERFACE NORMAL INTERFACE

Figure 2. HEAVY OIL-WATER INTERFACE IN ACOUSTIC SEPARATOR

OIL VISCOSITY , cp VIS, cp

400

350

300

cp
,  250
D
A
D
SI 200
O
C
IS 150
V
100

50

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

TEMPERATURA,  C

Figure 3. STATIC AND DYNAMIC VISCOSITY FOR HEAVY OIL

SPE 123097 11

Figure 4. SLUGGING OF PRODUCTION AND INJECTION TUBING WITH HEAVY OIL

Figure 5. WATERFLOODING – OIL PRODUCTION AND PRESSURE DIFERENTIAL

UNSTEADY STATE TECHNIQUE

1 DIMENSIONAL SIMULATION 2 DIMENSIONAL SIMULATION

Figure 6. PHYSICAL MODELS – SENDRA NUMERICAL SOFTWARE
12 SPE 123097

Figure 7. PHYSICAL MODEL IN CARTESIAN COORDINATES

Figure 8a. EFFECT OF GRID SIZE IN NUMERICAL MODELING OF RELATIVE PERMEABILITY Nx: 2

Figure 8b. EFFECT OF GRID SIZE IN NUMERICAL MODELING OF RELATIVE PERMEABILITY Nx: 10
SPE 123097 13

Figure 8c. EFFECT OF GRID SIZE IN NUMERICAL MODELING OF RELATIVE PERMEABILITY Nx: 100

Figure 8d. EFFECT OF GRID SIZE IN NUMERICAL MODELING OF RELATIVE PERMEABILITY Nx: 150
14 SPE 123097

Figure 9a. ROCK TYPES AND NUMERICAL MODELING OF RELATIVE PERMEABILITY #1 – 7175

Figure 9b. ROCK TYPES AND NUMERICAL MODELING OF RELATIVE PERMEABILITY #2- 7255
SPE 123097 15

Figure 9c. ROCK TYPES AND NUMERICAL MODELING OF RELATIVE PERMEABILITY #3 – 7272

Including Capillary Pressure Not including Capillary Pressure

Figure 10a. EFFECTS OF Including and Not including Capillary Pressure Correlations #1 – 7175
16 SPE 123097

Including Capillary Pressure Not including Capillary Pressure

Figure 10b. EFFECTS OF Including and Not including Capillary Pressure Correlations #2- 7255

Including Capillary Pressure Not including Capillary Pressure

Figure 10c. EFFECTS OF Including and Not including Capillary Pressure Correlations #3 – 7272
SPE 123097 17

Figure 11a. Oil viscosity: 5 cp

Figure 11b. Oil viscosity : 25 cp

18 SPE 123097

Figure 11c. Oil viscosity: 100 cp

Figure 11d. Oil viscosity: 1000 cp