SPE 65631

Two-Phase Relative Permeability Prediction Using a Linear Regression Model

M. N. Mohamad Ibrahim, SPE, University Science of Malaysia
L. F. Koederitz, SPE, University of Missouri-Rolla
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in
Morgantown, West Virginia, 17-19 October 2000..
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position
of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE
meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for
commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement
of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P. O. Box 833836,
Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
In the absence of laboratory measured data or in the case when
a more general representation of fluid flow in a reservoir is
needed, empirical relative permeability correlations become
useful. These correlations will also apply to simulation studies
which require adjustments to the relative permeability values to
account for grid effects. A linear regression model approach is
employed to develop prediction equations for water-oil, gas-oil,
gas-water, and gas-condensate relative permeability from
experimental data. Use of the SPE CD-ROM has allowed a
rapid and thorough data retrieval for this study; 416 sets of
relative permeability data were obtained from published
literature and various industry sources. Improved equations
were developed for water-oil and gas-oil systems based on
formation type and wettability. Additionally, general equations
for gas-condensate and gas-water systems were formulated.
Craigs rule for determining the rock wettability has been
modified to cover a wider range of relative permeability data
currently available. Available data has increased significantly
since the last published work in this area. The prediction
equations are compared with previously published correlations
where possible.

Introduction
Relative permeability, a dimensionless quantity, is the ratio of
effective permeability to a base permeability. The effective
permeability is a measure of the ability of a single fluid to flow
through a rock when the pore spaces of the rock are not
completely filled or saturated with the fluid. The base
permeability can be absolute air permeability, absolute liquid
permeability or effective oil permeability at irreducible water
saturation. Relative permeability measurements and concepts
become important due to the fact that nearly all hydrocarbon
reservoirs contain more than one phase of homogeneous fluid.
Relative permeability is a function of pore structure, saturation
history and wettability1,2.
Laboratory methods for measuring relative
permeability were probably introduced to the petroleum industry
back in 1944 by Hassler3. Since then various methods of
measuring relative permeability have been developed. Some of
the more commonly used laboratory methods are Penn-State,
Single-Sample Dynamic, Stationary Fluid, Hassler, Hafford,
JBN, Capillary Pressure and Centrifuge2. In general, these
methods can be categorized into two major groups which
consist of steady-state and unsteady-state methods.
Laboratory measurement of relative permeability using
either steady-state or unsteady-state methods can be expensive
and time consuming. Laboratory measurement is considered a
micro process because a single measurement is insufficient to
represent the entire reservoir. Therefore several core samples
from representative facies in the reservoir must be taken and
tested. Since results of the relative permeability tests performed
on several samples often vary, it is necessary to average the data
before a scaling up from core to reservoir scale is performed.
An accurate numerical procedure for determining
relative permeability values provides an alternative technique,
and at the same time it can overcome the previous shortcomings.
In contrast to laboratory measurement, this is a macro process

M. N. MOHAMAD IBRAHIM, L. F. KOEDERITZ

which provides a better statistical representation of relative

permeability values for the reservoir as a whole.
Objectives
Realizing that an ample amount of published relative
permeability data could be extracted from the Society of
Petroleum Engineers' literature (published from 1950 through
1998) plus unpublished data from various oil and gas companies
and individuals, an improvement to previously published
prediction equations4 for relative permeability is presented and
new equations are developed for other systems. Furthermore,
the larger amount of data available today will give a better
representation of prediction equations since they cover a wider
range of domain.
In order to create predicting models that represent
producing reservoirs, certain criteria in selecting data (relative
permeability curves and other pertinent information) were
imposed. The data selection criteria used in this study were:
1. The relative permeability curves are generated from
either steady-state or unsteady-state experiments. In other
words, relative permeability curves obtained from correlations
or data obtained from hypothetical simulation studies are
excluded in this study;
2. The core used in the experiment must be a naturally
formed rock sample. Data obtained from synthetic or man-made
cores such as Alundum cores is not considered;
3. Only imbibition data are used for oil-water and gaswater systems whereas for gas-oil and gas-condensate systems,
only drainage data are used in the analysis; and
4. Only the primary data is selected when multiple
imbibition or drainage processes are presented.
The prediction equations for relative permeability of
oil-water systems for both sandstones and carbonates, which
include limestones and dolomites, are presented for four
different types of rock wettability, i.e., strongly water-wet,
water-wet, intermediate (or mixed-wet) and oil-wet based on
Craigs rule5; however, many oil-water curves did not strictly
follow Craigs rule. This is not unexpected because Craigs rule
was not based on detailed experimental studies but simply a
heuristic rule dating prior to 1971; therefore it will not be true
for all cases. Some adjustments to the rule were made by
introducing tolerances into it without changing its basic
principle in order to categorize data which slightly violated the
original rule. Table 1 summarizes the modified Craigs rule that
was used in determining the wettability in this study. While
many datasets had no additional wettability indicators, data
having an Amott's Index or Modified U.S.B.M. Wettability Test
was in agreement with the modified Craig's rule.
Additionally, relative permeability equations for gas-oil
systems for sandstones and carbonates are also improved. The
scope of this study also includes developing predictive relative
permeability equations for gas-water and gas-condensate
systems.

SPE 65631

Data Normalization
The relative permeability curves used in this study did not
originally have the same format, i.e., some of the curves were
presented in the classical form while the rest were in
normalized form. Even worse are gas-water systems, where the
normalization process was not consistent. Some of the curves
defined the absolute permeability as the effective permeability
of gas at Swc (krgw = 1.0 at Swc where krgw is the relative
permeability of gas with respect to water), while others defined
the absolute permeability as the 100 percent water saturation
permeability (krw = 1.0 at Sg = 0).
It is necessary to convert these curves into the same
format (either the classical or the normalized) before the
regression analysis is performed in order to be consistent. Since
less than half of the data collected were in the classical form,
the normalized form was chosen to be the standard form
throughout this study. Moreover, it is easier to convert the
classical data into the normalized form than converting the
normalized data into the classical form. This is due to the
difficulties in locating the classical relative permeability endpoint absolute permeability values (which most authors did not
supply) in the articles reviewed. The classical data form was
usually found in much older data, which is another justification
to convert all of the data into the more current normalized form.
In the case of the gas-water system, the first definition of
absolute permeability (krgw = 1.0 at Swc) was chosen to be the
standard form since most of the data obtained from the literature
were presented in this manner. For the gas-condensate systems,
the same normalization procedure as in the gas-oil systems is
employed where the effective permeability of liquid
(condensate) at Sg = 0 is defined as the absolute permeability.
Since the collected curves did not have the same range
of saturation values (as far as the abscissa is concerned) due to
the fact that some of the curves were longer than others owing
to differences in the critical wetting and non-wetting phase
saturations, this inconsistency would contribute to high
variation in the response (ordinate). Thus, there is a need to
find a way to plot each curve in its class on the same horizontal
scale in order to reduce this variation so that a better prediction
model can be achieved. This can be accomplished by
normalizing either the wetting phase saturation or the nonwetting phase saturation which results in the horizontal axis
always ranging from zero to one.
For oil-water systems, the normalized water saturation
is defined as6:

Sw* =

S w S wi
1 S wi S orw

(1)

Except for the oil-water system, the rest of the systems

have the relative permeability to liquid with respect to gas (krlg)
curves which are almost always longer than the relative
permeability to gas (krg) curves due to the presence of the critical

SPE 65631

TWO-PHASE RELATIVE PERMEABILITY PREDICTION USING A LINEAR REGRESSION MODEL

gas saturations (Sgc). Therefore, separate saturation

normalization equations must be used for each curve as follows:

Sg* =

S g S gc
1 ( S gc+ Slc )

Sg
Sl * = 1

1 Slc

(2)

(3)

Regression Analysis
In this study, a forward stepwise multiple linear regression
technique was employed in developing relative permeability
prediction equations. This technique is based on an automatic
search procedure concept which develops the best subset of
independent variables sequentially, at each regression step
adding or deleting one independent variable at a time in an
attempt to get the highest possible coefficient of multiple
determination, R2 value. The R2 is interpreted as the proportion
of observed values of Yi that can be explained by the regression
model and is used to measure how well the model fits the data.
The higher the value of R2, the more successful the model is in
explaining the variation of Y. A value of one indicates that all
points lie along the true regression line, whereas a value of zero
indicates the absence of a linear relationship between variables.
In the latter case, the modeler has to search for an alternative
model such as a nonlinear model. Since observational data
(data obtained after the experiments were completed) were used
in this analysis, an R2 value slightly higher than 60% was
considered highly satisfactory6. One criticism of using the R2
criteria as the only indication of goodness of fit is that the R2
value will keep increasing if more independent variables are
introduced into the model. To balance the use of more
parameters against the gain in R2, many statisticians use the
adjusted R2 value (R2adj)7. Very simply, the R2adj value
approaching R2 indicates that excessive terms were not included
in the model.
Discussion and Comparisons
The prediction equations developed in this study are listed in
Appendix A and defined in Table 2 which summarizes the
characteristics of the equations developed for all four fluid
systems. All R2 values well exceed 60% and all R2adj values are
within 1.5% of R2 thus indicating a reasonable fit without
excessive terms. Figures 1 and 2 graphically illustrate
normalized oil-water and gas-oil relative permeability values for
both sandstone and carbonate formations. Tables 3 and 4 list the
ranges of rock properties and fluid saturations used in
developing prediction equations for oil-water and gas-liquid
systems, respectively.

The relative permeability equations developed were

compared with correlations of Honarpour et al4, Rose8 and Narr
et al9. These works either did not employ wettability preferences,
or did not distinguish between oil-wet and intermediate (mixed)
wettability, and between water-wet and strongly water-wet
systems. Additionally, Rose's and Narr's equations are so general
that they do not specify the type of rock. The curves are in
close agreement with each other in terms of normalized relative
permeability of oil with respect to water as shown in Figure 3 for
a water-wet sandstone. The same is also true for a carbonate
formation. Figure 4 shows normalized water
relative
permeability values calculated using the various correlations.
The equation developed falls between Honarpour's and Rose's
curves. Roses plot seems to give unrealistic prediction values
for a water-wet system because the endpoint of the krw* curve
(krw* at Sw = 1-Sorw) is much higher than expected for a waterwet case. A criticism of Honarpours model is that the water
relative permeability values appeared low resulting in optimistic
recoveries. This criticism lead the present study to separate the
strongly water-wet curves from the regular water-wet curves.
Figure 5 clearly illustrates this point. For gas-oil systems, the
equations presented have eliminated the requirement of an
endpoint value for krg.
Conclusions
Twenty four, two phase relative permeability prediction
equations have been developed through extensive trial and error
model building processes using linear regression analysis for
four different systems which commonly exist in the petroleum
industry. In oil-water systems, prediction equations for three
types of rock wettability were formed in addition to
classification of the equations on the basis of rock type, i.e.,
sandstone and carbonate. Additionally, completely new
correlations for strongly water-wet system for both sandstone
and carbonate were developed. As in the oil-water systems,
prediction equations according to rock type were successfully
developed for gas-oil systems. Completely new correlations
based on a linear regression analysis were developed for gaswater and gas-condensate systems. Based on an extensive
review of existing
data, modifications to wettability
determination were developed.
Nomenclature
Capital Letters
R2

R2adj

Sg
Sgc

=
=

coefficient of multiple
determination
adjusted coefficient of
multiple determination
gas saturation, fraction
critical gas saturation

M. N. MOHAMAD IBRAHIM, L. F. KOEDERITZ

Sl
Slc

=
=

Sorg

Sorw

Sw
Swc

=
=

Swi

WW
Yi

=
=

liquid saturation, fraction

total of critical liquid
saturations present in the
system, fraction
residual oil saturation in oilgas system, fraction
residual oil saturation in oilwater system, fraction
water saturation, fraction
critical (connate) water
saturation, fraction
initial water saturation,
fraction
water-wet
ith observed value where
i =1,2,3,.....n

Lowercase Letters
ka
krcg

=
=

krg

krgw

krlg

krog

krow

krw

absolute permeability, md
relative permeability of
condensate with respect to
gas, fraction
relative permeability of
gas, fraction
relative permeability of gas
with respect to water, fraction
relative permeability of liquid
with respect to gas, fraction
relative permeability of oil
with respect to gas, fraction
relative permeability of oil
with respect to water, fraction
relative permeability of
water, fraction

Greek Symbol
N

porosity, fraction

normalized value

Superscript
*

SPE 65631

References
1. Unalmiser, S. and Funk, J. J : Engineering Core Analysis,
Journal of Petroleum Technology, April, (1998).
2. Honarpour, M., Koederitz, L. and Harvey, A. H. : Relative
Permeability of Petroleum Reservoirs, CRC Press. Inc., Florida, (1986).
3. Hassler, G. L., U.S. Patent 2,345,935, (1944).
4. Honarpour, M., Koederitz, L. F. and Harvey, A. H.: "Empirical
Equations for Estimating Two Phase Relative Permeability in
Consolidated Rock," Trans. AIME, vol. 273, (1982), pp. 2905 ff.
5. Craig, F. F., Jr. : The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of
Waterflooding Monograph, Vol. 3, Society of Petroleum Engineers
of AIME, Henry L. Doherty Series, Dallas, Texas, (1993), p. 20.
6. Koederitz, L. F., Harvey A. H. and Honarpour M. : Introduction to
Petroleum Reservoir Analysis, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston,
Texas, (1989).
7. Devore, J. L. : Probability and Statistics for Engineering and the
Sciences, Duxbury Press., California, (1995), pp. 474 ff.
8. Rose, W. : Theoretical Generalizations Leading to the Evaluation
of Relative Permeability, Trans. AIME, vol. 186, (1949), pp. 111 ff.
9. Naar, J. and Henderson, J. H. : An Imbibition Model, its
Applications to Flow Behavior and the Prediction of Oil
Recovery, Trans. AIME, Part II, vol. 222, (1961), p. 61.

General Reference
Mohamad Ibrahim, M. N. :"Two-Phase Relative Permeability Prediction
Using A Linear Regression Model", Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Missouri, Rolla, (1999)

SPE 65631

TWO-PHASE RELATIVE PERMEABILITY PREDICTION USING A LINEAR REGRESSION MODEL

Appendix A
2

krow * = 1 21529
.
S w * + 0.6389135 S w * + 14345325
.
S w * 0.919704 S w *

( A1)

.
krw * = 0.09101641 S w *1.5 01841405
0.5 S w *1.4 0.0001629 S w * ka S wc 2.6
S orw 5 S w *2.5
.
.
11810931
S orw S w * +0.64933067
+ 212270704
6Sw *

+ 0.01375097 (ln ka )S w *
3

1.5

( A2 )

krow * = 1 0.7233267 S w * 17720584

.
S w *2 + 150407908
.
S w *3

( A3)

krw * = 0.28483482 S orw S w * 0.0324527 S w * +0.07113168 S w *1.5

2.2461759 S wc Sorw1.7 S w *2

( A4)

krow * = 1 3090996
.
S w * +2.8670229 S w *1.6 0.768952 S w *2

krw * = 0.22120304 S w *1.6 +0.24933592 S orw 2

( A5)

S w *3
.
+ 21370925
S w *2 S orw 5

.
( 2 S wc S orw S w *) 2
+ 83.491972 4 S w *5 S orw1.5 0.4562939 S wc 3S w *4 +116107198
8.7866012 S orw 3S w *2.3 +0.00000578 S w *3 ( S wc ln ka )10 (1 S orw )0.4
12.841061 S w *2 ((ln ka )S wc )3 6
krow * = 1 2.65253 S w * +2.4720911 S w *2 0.814367 S w *3

( A6 )
( A7)

krw * = 01163954
S w *4 +2.66958338 S w *0.8 ( S wc S orw )2 + 0.47536676 S w *( S wc ln ka )2
.
0.3912824 S w *( S wc ln ka )3 + 752.014909 ( S wc S w *)2 3 398.40214 2.5 S wc 2 S w *2.2
152.43629 ( S orw )3 S w *2.7 +0.22964285 S orw 0.5 S w *

( A8 )

krow * = 1 2.985766 S w * + 31548084

.
S w *2 1171486
.
S w *3

( A9)

krw * = 0.2441795 S w * 0.355058 S w *2 + 0.5117625 S w *3

( A10)

krow * = 1 4.985409 Sw * + 21322192

.
Sw *2 29.04644 Sw *2.5 + 11723526
.
Sw *3 ( A11)

M. N. MOHAMAD IBRAHIM, L. F. KOEDERITZ

SPE 65631

krw * = 0.46689293 (ln ka )S wc S w * 0.0589939 S w * 01938748

.
S w * 1.5 ( S orw ln ka )2
+ 0.24253563 S w *3 0195414
.
S w *0.9 ( S wc ln ka )2 + 66.6228413 S orw S w * S wc 2
11126159
1.5 ( S wc S w *)2.5 + 125.291504 S w * S orw 2.5 3
.

( A12 )

krow * = 1 3254725
.
S w * +38176666
.
S w *2 1563216
.
S w *3

( A13)

krw * = 0.3643225 S w * 0.7458182 S w *2 +106090802

.
S w *3

( A14)

krow * = 1 8.6102768 S w * +87.9417721 S w *2 207.03656 S w *2.5 +187.099163 S w *3

60.388661 S w *3.5

( A15)

krw * = 0.2178721 S w *0.4 +0.00536612 (ln ka )2 S w *0.5 9.7494266 S w *0.7 ( S orw S wc )2

51295364
.
S w * S orw 2 4.5717726 S w *0.5 S wc 2 + 0.57604803 S w *1.5

( A16)

krog * = 01599039
.
S l * 1045545
.
Sl *2 +4.0843698 S l *3 5.414161 S l *4
+ 3.2103149 Sl *5

( A17)

krg * = 0.9396949 S g *2 0.774167 S org S g *2 1216298

.
S wc S g *2 +11628119
.
S g *2
1248192
.
S gc S g *2

( A18)

krog * = 4.465936 S l *2 0.252752 Sl * 22.93637 S l *3 + 53000956

.
S l *4 5519912
.
S l *5
+ 21917911
.
Sl *6

( A19)

krg * = 0.3296593 S g *2 0.001723 ka S g *2 +2.0568057 S wc S g * +12314265

.
S g *2 ( A20 )

krgw * = 13046802
.
S g * 8159598
.
S g *2 + 2550978
.
S g *3 3153754
.
S g *4
+ 13883828
.
S g *5

( A21)

krw * = 0.94555376 S l * 12967293

.
Sl *1.7 + 169592185
.
S l *3 0.0424518 S gc (ln ka )3 S l *5
14583028
.
S wc1.5 ( S l *)2 + 0.02764389 S wc ( ka S gc )2 Sl *4

( A22)

SPE 65631

TWO-PHASE RELATIVE PERMEABILITY PREDICTION USING A LINEAR REGRESSION MODEL

krcg * = 01194373
.
S l * 0.089246 S l *2 +0.9606793 S l *3

( A23)

krg * = 333929676
.
S g *1.2 + 6.75670631 S g *0.9 S lc1.2 20.926791 S g * Slc 2 S gc
+ 101654474
.
S g * S gc 4 7.3835856 Slc 0.5 S g *

( A24)

Table 1. Modified Craig's rule

Swc

Rock
Wettability
Strongly

Sw at which krw *
and krow* are equal

Water-Wet:

15%

45%

Water-Wet:

10%

45%

Oil-Wet:

15%

55%

10%

Intermediate:
(Mixed-Wet)

15%

45%

Sw

krw* at Sw = 100-Sorw
(fraction)

0.07

0.07 < krw*

0.3

0.5

55%

> 0.3

55%

< 0.5

OR

45%

Sw

M. N. MOHAMAD IBRAHIM, L. F. KOEDERITZ

SPE 65631

Table 2. Summary of characteristics of equations developed in this study

System

Wettability

Strongly
Water-Wet

Lithology

Equation

Number of
Data Sets

Number of
Data Points

R2

R2adj

Sandstone

A1

16

127

87

86

A2

16

127

82

81

A3

49

99

99

A4

49

89

88

A5

102

870

93

93

A6

102

870

75

75

A7

28

317

94

94

A8

28

317

80

80

A9

43

396

93

93

A10

43

396

90

90

A11

29

278

93

93

A12

29

278

85

85

A13

31

245

95

95

A14

31

245

89

88

A15

19

184

86

86

A16

19

184

86

85

A17

98

962

95

95

A18

92

799

90

90

A19

14

133

94

94

A20

14

119

89

89

A21

19

144

89

89

A22

19

166

88

87

A23

17

123

95

95

A24

17

115

85

85

Carbonate

Sandstone
Water-Wet
Carbonate
Oil-Water
Sandstone
Intermediate
Wettability
(Mixed-Wet)

Carbonate

Sandstone
Oil-Wet
Carbonate

Sandstone
Gas-Oil
Carbonate

Gas-Water

Gas-Condensate

All

All

SPE 65631

TWO-PHASE RELATIVE PERMEABILITY PREDICTION USING A LINEAR REGRESSION MODEL

Table 3. Ranges of rock properties and fluid saturations used in developing oil-water relative permeability equations
Equations

N (%)

ka (md)

Swc (%)

Sorw (%)

A1 & A2

9.9 - 63.2

2.23 - 3,070

15.3 - 50.0

15.0 - 51.1

A3 & A4

11.7 - 18.0

0.84 - 7.2

30.0 - 46.2

7.0 - 32.2

A5 & A6

8.4 - 37.1

0.52 - 8,440

3.6 - 67.5

6.6 - 47.3

A7 & A8

6.2 - 33.0

0.27 - 3,100

6.0 - 43.5

13.0 - 50.6

A9 & A10

8.0 - 32.6

3.4 - 10,500

5.0 - 38.9

11.09 - 44.4

A11 & A12

5.9 - 38.3

1.08 - 4,018.7

7.0 - 41.0

13.9 - 50.0

A13 & A14

9.1 - 33.0

1 - 5,010

4.7 - 44.0

7.67 - 55.0

A15 & A16

9.8 - 35.0

1.3 - 1,420

8.0 - 53.6

9.8 - 57.0

Table 4. Ranges of rock properties and fluid saturations used in developing relative permeability equations for gas-liquid systems

Equation

N (%)

ka (md)

Sgc (%)

Swc (%)

Sorg (%)

A17

6.3 - 39.0

1.48 - 5580

0.6 - 25.0

3.28 - 50.0

3.5 - 48.0

A18

6.3 - 39.0

1.48 - 3650

0.6 - 25.0

3.28 - 50.0

5.0 - 48.0

A19 & A20

9.0 - 34.9

4.3 - 731

0.01 - 13.52

6.0 - 51.1

5.0 - 38.6

A21 & A22

5.0 - 25.0

0.1 - 345

3.0 - 47.9

10.0 - 61.2

Not Applicable

A23 & A24

6.0 - 26.6

Not Available

2.0 - 30.0

9.0 - 60.0

10

M. N. MOHAMAD IBRAHIM, L. F. KOEDERITZ

SPE 65631

Figure 1

Figure 2

Oil-Water Relative Permeability

Gas-Oil Relative Permeability

Water-Wet Rocks

Sandstone & Carbonate

= 15%
ka = 100
0.8

0.8

Sandstone

md
Sandstone

Swc = 15%

0.6

Carbonate

Sorg =15%

0.6

kr *

Carbonate

kr *

= 15%
ka =100 md
Swc =20%
Sorw =20%

0.4

0.4

0.2
0.2

0
0

0.2

0.4
0.6
Sw (fraction)

0.8

1
0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Sg (fraction)

Figure 3

Figure 4

Water-wet Sandstone

Water-Wet Sandstone

Oil Relative Permeability to Water

Water Relative Permeability

1
0.8
Equation A6

0.8

Honarpour's

0.6

0.4

= 15%
ka = 100 md
Swc = 20%
Sorw = 20%

Honarpour's

Rose's

krw *

krow *

0.6
= 15%
ka = 100 md
Swc = 20%
Sorw = 20%

Equation A5

0.4
Rose's

Narr's

0.2

Narr's

0.2

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Sw (fraction)

0.8

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Sw (fraction)

0.8

TWO-PHASE RELATIVE PERMEABILITY PREDICTION USING A LINEAR REGRESSION MODEL

Figure 5

Water-Wet System
Carbonate
0.6

0.5

= 10%
ka = 100 md
Swc = 20%
Sorw=20%

0.4

kr *

SPE 65631

0.3

WW

Strongly WW

Honarpour's WW

0.2

0.1

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Sw (fraction)

0.8

11