Core Petrophysics

Section Six: Advanced Interpretation Methods for

Engineers
Exercises
Question 6.1: Interpreting relative permeability measurements
The objectives of this question are to
1. Understand the physics behind a steady-state experiment
2. Determine relative permeability curves from a steady state experiment
Assume that the capillary number for this experiment is small; this is equivalent to
assuming that P c = 0. A small capillary number would be observed in low permeability
plugs flooded at high rate.
Background
To show some of the specific features of a typical steady-state experiment, an example
experiment will be interpreted in detail. Before doing this, answer the following 'general'
questions about the technique. The answers will be of use in the remainder of the exercise.
6.1.1. Starting with Darcys Law for multiphase flow, write down an expression for the ratio
of oil/water flow rates (q o /q w ) as a function of k ro , k rw , o and w . The ratio (q o /q w ) is
known as the fractional flow.
6.1.2. Is the average oil saturation at steady-state during a 100% water flood the same as the
residual oil saturation (S or )?
The experiment
The rest of this exercise involves a typical steady-state imbibition experiment (S w increasing).
A core plug has been brought to an initial water saturation of S wirr = 0.2 by capillary
desaturation using the porous-plate method. Assume that this saturation is homogeneously
distributed over the core. The experimental results of the steady-state experiment, consisting
of 9 different fractional flow rates (step 1-9) are reported in table 6.1.1. This table resembles
the data sheet which a third party laboratory might use. Be aware, however, that these sheets
are usually not provided if not specifically asked for. The tabulated data have been circulated
in Excel format.
Analysis
6.1.3. Complete the table to report the relative permeability values for each flow rate.
Relative permeability here is reported relative to the oil permeability at the irreducible
saturation (K oil (S wirr )).
6.1.4 Plot the resulting relative permeability curves and label them.
6.1.5. What is the residual oil saturation in this experiment?

Table 6.1.1 (overleaf). Data from a steady-state relative permeability experiment.

Plug data

Fluid data at experimental temperature

orientation:
length:
diameter:
area

horizontal
8.5 cm
2.54 cm
2
5.07 cm

S wi

0.2

oil:
density:
viscosity:
IFT to brine:

decane
3
730 kg/m
1.0E-03 Pa.s
3.5E-02
N/m

brine:
density:
viscosity:

simul. formation brine

3
995 kg/m
1.0E-03 Pa.s

Test data
step

100:0

90:10

70:30

50:50

30:70

10:90

5:95

1:99

0:100

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

15

25

35

45

47.5

49.5

50

q o (cm /hr)

50

45

35

25

15

2.5

0.5

delta P (Pa)

15580

79940

109400

117930

111700

84700

69940

46855

32535

0.2

0.435

0.49

0.525

0.56

0.61

0.635

0.685

0.72

o:w ratio
flow rate
3
(cm /hr)
q w (cm /hr)

K w,eff (mD)
K o,eff (mD)
k rw (to K oil@Swi )
k ro (to K oil@Swi )
S w (avg.)

Question 6.2: Handling relative permeability data

The aim of this exercise is to give you some experience of handling relative permeability
data. Figures 6.2.1-6.2.8 show a suite of relative permeability curves obtained from a vertical
well in an oil-bearing sandstone reservoir. The data are presented in the form they are
typically reported by the measuring laboratory. The tabulated data have been circulated in
Excel format.
Section 1: Re-scaling reported relative permeability data for analysis and application
Measured permeability data for a given phase p (in this case oil and water) during a relative
permeability experiment are reported relative to the oil permeability at irreducible oil
saturation (denoted Oil permeability at SWI in the tables)
k

reported
rp

(S w ) =

k pmeasured (S w )

k omeasured (S wirr )

(6.2.1)

However, as given in notes, the correct definition of relative permeability for a given phase is
k rp (S w ) =

k pmeasured (S w )
k abs

(6.2.2)

Consequently, prior to analysis/interpretation, the reported relative permeability data must be

re-scaled so that it is relative to the absolute permeability of the plug, rather than the
permeability to oil at irreducible saturation.
6.2.1: Derive an expression to convert the reported data to the appropriate form
Use equations (6.2.1) and (6.2.2) above to deduce a new equation which will allow you to
express the relative permeability of a given phase p ( k rp ) in the correct form, in terms of the
reported relative permeability ( k rpreported ), the absolute permeability of the plug ( k abs ), and the

permeability to oil at irreducible saturation ( k omeasured (S wirr ) ).

6.2.2: Apply your expression and plot the correctly re-scaled data
Using your expression, re-scale the reported relative permeability curves for all plugs and
plot them on the graphs provided. Plot the original (reported) data on the same axis for
comparison. How much do the relative permeability curves changed when they are properly
scaled?
6.2.3: Identify the end-point values
Using your properly scaled curves, identify the values of the following parameters:
1. End-point relative permeability to oil (k roe )
2. End-point relative permeability to water (k rwe )
3. Irreducible water saturation (S wirr )
4. Residual oil saturation to waterflooding (S orw )

Section 2: Variation in relative permeability with rock quality

Handling relative permeability data is challenging. A large number of curves may be
reported, and it can be difficult to identify a sensible way of analyzing and distributing them
for reservoir characterization.
One approach which is commonly used is to break down the curves into their constituent
components of end-points and shape, and to investigate how these components vary with rock
quality. The rock quality is often expressed quantitatively in terms of the rock quality index
(RQI)
RQI =

(6.2.3)

6.2 4. Investigate variations in irreducible water saturation with RQI

Plot a graph of S wirr versus RQI for each plug in the dataset. Can you identify a trend? Can
you explain this trend in terms of the pore-scale distribution of oil and water?
6.2.5. Investigate variations in other end-point properties with RQI
Repeat task 6.2.4 for the other end-point values (k rwe , k roe , S orw ).
Can you identify any trends? Can you explain these trends in terms of the pore-scale
distribution of oil and water?
6.2.6 Building a relative permeability model
A typical model for relative permeability uses power-law functions of the normalised water
saturation, given by

S wn =

S w S wirr
1 S wirr S or

(1.6.3)

with the relative permeability to water and oil given by

e
p
k rw (S w ) = k rw
S wn

(1.6.4)

k ro (S w ) = k roe (1 S wn )

(1.6.5)

The relative permeability values can also be normalised by dividing by the end-point value,
yielding
p
e
k wn (S w ) = S wn
= k rw (S w ) k rw

(6.2.4)

k on (S w ) = (1 S wn ) = k ro (S w ) k roe

(6.2.5)

For each plug, plot the normalised relative permeability curves (so they scale between one
and zero on each axis). Can you fit a single normalised curve through all the data (i.e. can
you identify a single value of p and q for all plugs?

You have developed a simple relative permeability model here which allows curves to be
developed for any interval of rock for which the permeability and porosity values are known.
The regressions you have identified allow the end-points to be predicted, and the shape of the
curve is given by the values of p and q.

Water/oil
Relative permeability
Low
rate
Mildly cleaned sample
Oil permeability at
SWI

170.966

Well
Depth

Test 1
1550

Plug No.

10

mD

Sw
kro
0.32
1
0.369
0.6561
0.418
0.4096
0.467
0.2401
0.516
0.1296
0.565
0.0625
0.614
0.0256
0.663
0.0081
0.712
0.0016
0.761
1E-04
0.81
0

krw
0
0.000466
0.003726
0.012575
0.029808
0.058219
0.100603
0.159753
0.238466
0.339534
0.465753

Relative
Relative
permeability
permeability

1
0.9
1
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0
0.1 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.8

Water saturation

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Water saturation

Figure 6.2.1. Relative permeability data reported by contractor for plug 10

Water/oil
Relative permeability
Low rate
Mildly cleaned sample
Oil
permeability
at SWI
442.68

Well
Depth
Plug No.

Test 1
1552.5
15

mD
1

0
0.000893
0.005051
0.013919
0.028572
0.049913
0.078735
0.115754
0.161628
0.216969
0.282353

kro krw

0.9

0.8

Relative permeability

0.406
0.458
0.51
0.562
0.614
0.666
0.718
0.77

1
0.69159
0.457947
0.286974
0.167313
0.088388
0.040477
0.014789
0.003578
0.000316
0

0.9
0.8

Relative permeability

Sw
0.25
0.302
0.354

0.7
0.6
0.5

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

0.4

0.2

0.3

0.1

0.2

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Water saturation

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Water saturation

Figure 6.2.2. Relative permeability data reported by contractor for plug 15

0.8

Water/oil
Relative permeability
Low rate
Mildly cleaned sample
Oil
permeability
at SWI
232.8

Well
Depth
Plug No.

Test 1
1554.5
19

mD
1

0
0.000655
0.004562
0.014198
0.031774
0.059349
0.098884
0.152256
0.221285
0.307737
0.413333

kro krw

0.9

0.8

Relative permeability

0.416
0.468
0.52
0.572
0.624
0.676
0.728
0.78

1
0.713799
0.489652
0.319384
0.195022
0.108819
0.053283
0.021222
0.005798
0.000631
0

0.9
0.8

Relative permeability

Sw
0.26
0.312
0.364

0.7
0.6
0.5

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

0.4

0.2

0.3

0.1

0.2

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Water saturation

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Water saturation

Figure 6.2.3. Relative permeability data reported by contractor for plug 19

0.8

Water/oil
Relative permeability
Low
rate
Mildly cleaned sample

Well
Depth

Test 1
1556

Oil permeability at SWI

183.057 mD

Plug No.

22

0.22
0.268
0.316
0.364
0.412
0.46
0.508
0.556
0.604
0.652
0.7

kro

krw

1
0.784798
0.598559
0.440276
0.30885
0.203063
0.121545
0.062716
0.024681
0.005012
0

0
0.002533
0.010858
0.025441
0.046548
0.074372
0.109066
0.150758
0.199555
0.255554
0.318841

0.9
0.8

Relative permeability

Sw

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Water saturation

Figure 6.2.4. Relative permeability data reported by contractor for plug 22

0.8

Water/oil
Relative permeability
Low
rate
Mildly cleaned sample

Well
Depth

Test 1
1557.5

Plug No.

Oil permeability at SWI

25

62.452 mD
1

0.43
0.463
0.496
0.529
0.562
0.595
0.628
0.661
0.694
0.727
0.76

kro

krw

1
0.663049
0.418843
0.248818
0.136392
0.066986
0.028057
0.009136
0.001879
0.000126
0

0
0.012191
0.042453
0.08808
0.147831
0.220904
0.306711
0.404793
0.514776
0.636346
0.769231

0.9
0.8

Relative permeability

Sw

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Water saturation

Figure 6.2.5. Relative permeability data reported by contractor for plug 25

0.8

Water/oil
Relative permeability
Low
rate
Mildly cleaned sample

Well
Depth

Test 1
1559

Plug No.

Oil permeability at SWI

28

372.69 mD
1

0.19
0.248
0.306
0.364
0.422
0.48
0.538
0.596
0.654
0.712
0.77

kro

krw

1
0.69159
0.457947
0.286974
0.167313
0.088388
0.040477
0.014789
0.003578
0.000316
0

0
0.001234
0.006981
0.019237
0.03949
0.068986
0.108821
0.159986
0.223389
0.299876
0.390244

0.9
0.8

Relative permeability

Sw

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Water saturation

Figure 6.2.6. Relative permeability data reported by contractor for plug 28

0.8

Water/oil
Relative permeability
Low
rate
Mildly cleaned sample

Well
Depth

Test 1
1561

Oil permeability at SWI

260.224 mD

Plug No.

32

0.21
0.257
0.304
0.351
0.398
0.445
0.492
0.539
0.586
0.633
0.68

kro

krw

1
0.801511
0.625877
0.472831
0.342072
0.233258
0.145991
0.079791
0.034054
0.007943
0

0
0.00381
0.014219
0.030722
0.053067
0.081088
0.114657
0.153674
0.198055
0.247728
0.302632

0.9
0.8

Relative permeability

Sw

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Water saturation

Figure 6.2.7. Relative permeability data reported by contractor for plug 32

0.8

Water/oil
Relative permeability
Low
rate
Mildly cleaned sample

Well
Depth

Test 1
1562

Plug No.

Oil permeability at SWI

34

92.125 mD
1

0.38
0.417
0.454
0.491
0.528
0.565
0.602
0.639
0.676
0.713
0.75

kro

krw

1
0.635686
0.383078
0.215735
0.111186
0.050766
0.019447
0.005644
0.000987
5.01E-05
0

0
0.001882
0.009933
0.026285
0.052427
0.089565
0.138731
0.200838
0.276711
0.367107
0.472727

0.9
0.8

Relative permeability

Sw

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Water saturation

Figure 6.2.8. Relative permeability data reported by contractor for plug 34

0.8

Question 6.3 Integration of permeability from core and pressure transient test
The aim of this exercise is to compare permeability estimates from core and from an
interpretation of a pressure transient test. Data integration at this basic level is essential to
ensure consistency between different data sources and interpretation models.
Background
Table 6.3.1 reports values of porosity and horizontal permeability against depth. The data
were obtained from a vertical well in an oil bearing sandstone reservoir which contains some
shale. The gamma ray log is also shown. Figure 6.3.2 shows a relative permeability curve
measured over the same interval. A pressure transient test has also been obtained over the
interval 1551 1561m.
6.3.1: Calculate the average horizontal permeability of the tested interval
Use the expression for flow parallel to layering you derived yesterday. Be careful to note the
irregular data spacing. What limit of effective permeability does your average represent?
6.3.2: Calculate the average horizontal permeability of the tested interval to oil
To compare permeability estimates from core and test, it is important to remember that the
test measures the permeability of the reservoir to the flowing phase. In this case, the test
flowed oil in the presence of connate water.
Use the data shown in Figure 6.3.2 to convert your average reservoir permeability to an
average permeability to oil, so that it can be compared with the estimate from test.
6.3.3: Compare your average horizontal permeability value with that obtained from the
pressure-transient test interpretation.
Interpretation of a pressure-transient test over the same interval yield an estimate of
horizontal permeability of 363.4mD (you will learn more about interpretation methods next
week). How does this compare with your calculated average value? Can you explain why
they might be different?
6.3.4: Calculate the average vertical permeability of the tested interval
Use the expression for flow perpendicular to layering you derived yesterday. Be careful to
note the irregular data spacing. What limit of effective permeability does your average
represent? What assumption have you made about permeability at the plug scale? Is this
reasonable? What value of k v /k h ratio do you obtain?
6.3.5: Calculate the average vertical permeability of the tested interval to oil
6.3.6: Compare your average vertical permeability value (and k v /k h ratio) with that obtained
from the pressure-transient test interpretation.
Interpretation of a pressure-transient test over the same interval yields an estimate of vertical
permeability of 2.4mD. How does this compare with your calculated average value? What
value of k v /k h ratio does this yield, and how does this compare with your calculated value?
Can you explain why they might be different?

6.3.7: Investigate the impact of varying the end-point permeability to oil

So far, you have assumed that the end-point relative permeability to oil is constant and
independent of rock quality. However, yesterday you found that relative permeability endpoints can correlate to rock quality.
Use the information provided in Figure 6.3.3 (which shows end-point oil relative
permeability correlated to rock quality index) and Table 6.3.1 (also available in Excel) to
calculate an appropriate value of permeability to oil at each depth. You will need to calculate
the rock quality index (RQI) at each depth, and use Figure 6.3.3 to calculate the appropriate
end-point relative permeability to oil.
Repeat tasks 1-6 using these new values of oil-phase permeability at each depth. How does
your match to the test data change?
Plug
10
11
12
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
32
33
34

Depth (m)
1550
1550.5
1551
1552.5
1553
1553.5
1554
1554.5
1555
1555.5
1556
1557
1557.5
1558
1558.5
1559
1559.5
1561
1561.5
1562

Poro (%)
18.1
21.3
18.1
23.2
19.2
18.7
21.3
20.2
21.4
24.3
19.3
17.4
15.8
22.3
21.3
23.2
20.2
19.4
21.3
17.8

kh (mD)
234.2
843.2
310.2
520.8
89.5
201.4
345.3
310.4
523.2
1564.5
256.3
45.7
120.1
289.5
313.4
454.5
245.3
342.4
876.5
167.5

Table 6.3.1 Porosity and permeability data

GR (GAPI) and Porosity (%)

0

50

100

150

1548
1550

Depth (m)

1552
1554
1556
1558
1560
1562
1564

Figure 6.3.2. Gamma ray and porosity as a function of depth

1
0.9

Relative permeability

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Water saturation

Figure 6.3.3. Relative permeability curves, plotted with respect to K abs (not K o ). These are
the same curves you de-normalized in the previous question.

1
0.9
0.8

Endpoints

0.7

Kroe
y = 1.7245x + 0.0531

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

RQI

Figure 6.3.4. k roe versus RQI. The regression yields k roe = 1.7245RQI + 0.0531. These are
the same data that you plotted in the previous exercise.

Question 6.4
One approach to analysing multiple capillary pressure curves from a given rock type is to
convert them to a J-Function and fit a single curve through the dimensionless data. This
curve can then be rescaled to local values of k and within the rock type.
6.4.1 Convert the gas-brine capillary pressure data in table 6.4.1, obtained at laboratory
conditions, to a J-Function form, assuming the plug from which these data were
collected had a porosity of 0.21 and a permeability of 245 mD, and using appropriate
values of contact angle and IFT. It is recommended that you convert all parameters to
SI units before calculating the J-Function; this will make it easier to apply in later
analysis.
6.4.2 Plot the J-function data as a function of water saturation and try to fit a curve to the
data. Common curve fits include

J = A + B(S w S wirr )

(6.4.1)

log( J ) = D log(S w S wirr ) + E

(6.4.2)

where A, B, C, D, E and S wirr are adjustable parameters to fit the data. It is

recommended for this exercise to use equation 6.4.2. Try a match by eye; if you have
done this before, try calculating the R2 fit of your curve to the data. This latter step is
not obligatory.
6.4.3

Table 6.4.2 shows permeability and porosity data as a function of depth within the
reservoir. Use you J-Function curve, along with the fluid properties from question
4.4, and assuming capillary-gravity equilibrium, to predict and plot water saturation as
a function of height above the FWL, accounting for the variations in k and . This is
a common application of capillary pressure data. Note that capillary-gravity
equilibrium yields

J (S w ) =

Pc(S w ) k ( w o )gh k
=
co
co

(6.4.3)

The approach is to calculate J(S w ) for each height h using 6.4.3 and the corresponding
values of k and (Table 6.4.2), and then calculate S w for this value of J by rearranging your chosen curve fit.

Sw
0.23
0.27
0.31
0.35
0.38
0.42
0.46
0.50
0.54
0.58
0.62
0.65
0.69
0.73
0.77
0.81
0.85
0.88
0.92
0.96
1.00
1.00

P c (Pa)
13131
5848
2968
2062
1625
1369
1202
1085
998
932
879
836
801
772
746
725
706
690
675
662
650
0

Table 6.4.1. Air-brine capillary pressure data measured during drainage at laboratory
conditions using the porous-plate method

Depth (mTVDSS)
1393.1
1393.4
1393.7
1394
1394.3
1394.6
1394.9
1395.2
1395.5
1395.8
1396.1
1396.4
1396.7
1397
1397.3
1397.6
1397.9
1398.2
1398.5
1398.8
1399.1
1399.4
1399.7
1400

0.21
0.19
0.15
0.16
0.23
0.21
0.18
0.17
0.19
0.21
0.23
0.22
0.21
0.24
0.19
0.18
0.2
0.13
0.08
0.09
0.03
0.18
0.21
0.12

k (mD)
234
58
45
56
890
670
210
105
98
234
670
125
216
703
324
126
453
34
21
11
34
21
345
321

Table 6.4.2 Porosity and permeability as a function of depth

Question 6.5: Integration of data to calculate STOIIP

The equation below is used to calculate the Stock Tank Oil Initially In Place. Next to each
parameter, write down all data sources you can think of that contribute to calculating that
parameter. Then, think of as many links (i.e. possible integration routes) as you can between
each data source.

STOIIP = GRV ntgav av (1-Sw)av (1/Bo)av