SPE 140623

Estimating Irreducible Water Saturation and Relative Permeability From Logs

Chukwuma Uguru, SPE, Abasiubong Udofia, and Olanrewaju Oladiran, Shell Petroleum Dev. Co.
Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 34th Annual SPE International Conference and Exhibition held in Tinapa – Calabar, Nigeria, 31 July–7 August 2010.

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 reservoir simulation. Two such results are presented in

Through the years there has been the problem of this paper.
characterising reservoirs properly with insufficient
data. This is because such data were either not
acquired due to operational difficulties, cut budgets or Introduction
needs not anticipated or where acquired were not of the Relative permeability estimation has direct impacts
right quality and thus not useful in building reservoir on the forecasted reservoir performance and ultimate
models that could be used to predict reservoir recoveries because it determines the way in which two
performance. One such key shortage is relative or three phases flow relative to each other in a pore
permeability data from SCAL. The impact of this space. In all the existing models in the industry for
shortage is being felt as the Niger Delta reservoirs estimating relative permeability, ranging from Corey
increasingly move to the “brown” category over time correlation (Corey 1954), the relationship proposed by
and the need for reliable reservoir models increases. Park Jones (1945), to the most recent flexible 3
parameters analytical correlation as proposed by Frode
A dependable reservoir model requires a robust Lomeland et al in 2005, irreducible water saturation
definition of the relative permeability. To address this, (Swi) remains the key variable in these models.
a new opportunity that recycles an old technique is
being proposed as an effective means of obtaining Conducting primary drainage capillary pressure
dependable and representative relative permeability experiments to measure Swi, which is the industry-
data. The method leans on the abundance of log data established methodology, usually takes time to
for saturation evaluation, permeability estimation using complete and hence only a limited number of
techniques already proven and published. representative core plugs are typically analysed, often
leading to data gaps for some facies within the reservoir
These techniques provide a platform for deriving of interest.
water saturation and permeability as continuous curves
with the result that irreducible water saturation and In the past the irreducible water saturation had
consequently relative permeability for water and been approximated as the water saturation at the
hydrocarbons respectively can be derived as curves topmost part of the reservoir, with this value of
across reservoir intervals using expressions earlier irreducible water being used as a constant in the
published by Park Jones (1944/45). The resulting Rel- reservoir models in most cases. In other cases,
Perm versus Water saturation plots agree well with approaches that do not capture the effect of the
good data from SCAL showing that the technique can variation in lithofacies or genetic units encountered in a
be deployed reliably where SCAL data is non existent reservoir are used. The attendant drawback of these is
or judged to be of poor quality. The technique also that a constant value for the irreducible water saturation
ensures that Rel-Perms are derived from data from tends to indicate that the reservoir is homogeneous.
subject reservoirs.
To solve the issue of paucity of Swi information,
This method has been applied successfully in reservoirs Swi as a continuous function of depth has been
studies with the impact that it facilitated improvements obtained by assuming equivalence of permeability
in turn-around times and quality of history matching in models derived by Morris and Biggs with that Kozeny-
2 Lawal A.K. and Adenuga, A. SPE 140623

Carman. The former is a function of irreducible water
saturation (Swi) while the latter is a does not depend on
Swi explicitly.
Permeability Models and Swir
Quite often, irreducible water saturation is
presented as one of the independent variables used for
estimating rock permeability, the other independent
variable being (usually) porosity. These are the so-
called Wyllie and Rose type of permeability
expressions. Some of the models for permeability as a
function of porosity and irreducible water are presented
as follows:
Amaefule expressions to derive permeability values for
Niger Delta reservoirs using genetic unit averages for
the FZIs and additionally used neural networks to
generate FZIs and subsequently model permeability
using equation 4. The advantage of the above is that a
continuous permeability log can be generated over
target reservoir intervals.
Irreducible water saturation (Swi) Model
From the Morris and Biggs model the irreducible
water saturation can be expressed as follows:
φ3
S wi = 80 2
κ1 / 2 (5)

(i) Morris and Biggs: For Morris and Biggs Where the permeability is from one of the Kozeny-
equation, the permeability is given by the expression Carman models based on FZIs. Applying same method
following: for other correlations we have the following
CΦ
3
(1) transformation equations for Timur:
=
1/2
k
Sw i φ3
= 250
2
S wi (6)
where, C = 250 for reservoir zones with gases,
κ 1/ 2
From the Coates-Dumanoir
while C = 80 for reservoir zones with oil. The porosity expression for
and the irreducible water saturation are measured in permeability the irreducible water saturation can be
decimal fractions. This is also known as the Tixier expressed as:
S wi = ⎢⎡3004 φ* ⎤
w
model.
1/ 2 ⎥ 1/ w
(7)
(ii) Timur model :The expression for the Timur
equation is: ⎣W κ ⎦
φ 2 . 25 The equations (5), (6) and (7) are all independent
K 1 / 2
= 100 (2) models for irreducible water saturation as a function of
S wi porosity and permeability. With permeability available
as a continuous depth log it thus possible to obtain a
(iii) Coates-Dumanoir: For Coates-Dumanoir continuous curve of irreducible water across any
equation, the permeability is given by the expression subject reservoir interval. These Swi curves are
1
following: generated easily in TECHLOG (See figure 1)
300 φ w
K 1 / 2
= 4 w
(3) Application
W S wi Derived Swi curves were used in deriving relative
Where w is a common exponent, representing both permeabilities for reservoir fluids in the respective
the saturation exponent, n, and cementation exponent, reservoirs of interest from the Park Jones (1944/45)
m. equation as given in the expressions following:
⎛ S − S wi ⎞⎟ 3
Krw = ⎜ w
Permeability Models without Swir (Kozeny and (8) and
Carman models) ⎝ 1− Swi ⎠
Amaefule et al (1993) modified the Kozeny-
Carman model for permeability to the expression
((1−
1−SSw ))2
2.1
following:
Φ
3 Kro = wi (9)
2
k = 1014 ( FZI )
(1 − Φ )
2
(4) where: Sw = total water saturation, fraction of
porosity; Kro and Krw = relative permeability to
According to Amaefule et al, the FZI is a unique reservoir liquid and to water. Figures 2 and 3 are
parameter that incorporates the attributes of texture and example for the SK D7000X reservoir and BY
mineralogy in the discrimination of distinct pore M1000X.
geometries and facies. Uguru et al (1998) used the 1
Propriety software
SPE 140623 Pseudo-components for Nigerian Heavy Oil and Bitumen
Model Comparison and Application in Reserves
Estimation
Case A
Relative Permeability curves from from Park Jones
model using log derived Swi was compared with
Relative Permeability curves from Corey correlation
and in extension with the several mutations based on
the Corey model.
The Corey correlations of the relative permeability
of oil and water are given as:
No
Kro = Koro (1 - Swn) (10)
and
Nw
Krw = Korw Swn (11)
Where
Sw − Swi
Swn = ( 12)
1 − Swi − Sorw
Swn is the normalized water saturation value.
The empirical parameters No and Nw can be
obtained from measured data either by optimizing to
analytical interpretation of measured data, or by
optimizing using core flow numerical simulator to
match the experiment (often called history matching).
No = 2, Nw = 4 was estimated by Corey. The physical
property Korw is called the end point of the water
relative permeability, and it is obtained either before or
together with the optimizing of No and Nw.
Figure 4 and 5 shows comparison for two
reservoirs in AL Field, the S2000X from AL-33 well
and H3000X reservoir from AL-6. From the two
comparisons above, it was observed that the curves
from the Park Jones model, when used for Material
Balance history matching, gave a better match than the
curves from the Corey correlation. Need result data as a
back up to this assumption.
Case B
An attempt was also made to compare the results
from the two models with the results from core analysis
for cores from the same reservoir section (Figure 6).
The observation from this comparison is that the
results from the three method yield wide variations.
The only way to identify the most accurate model in
this case was to take them all into the dynamic realm
and find out which of them best provides a match for
water and hydrocarbon production.
3
Further application of derived relative permeability
and end points was in the aspect of sensitivity analysis
to determine the full range of Gas Recovery factors, for
reserves estimation from Material Balance. Relative
Permeability curves from Park Jones model, using
continuous, log derived Swi and Sw and that from
Corey correlation, assuming average reservoir Swi, Sw
and other Corey paramenters, were included in
sensitivity runs for BY M1000X. These expanded the
range of uncertainty in Recovery Factors of 66% – 80%
(Table -1) as against a narrower band of 66% – 70% if
only core data was used. This makes for better
uncertainties management.
Conclusion
Irreducible water saturation as a continuous curve has
been generated for target reservoirs by assuming
equivalence of different permeability models. This (Swi)
has been used as input for estimating relative
permeability, a technique here proposed for compensating
for data shortfalls and complementing available data for
better uncertainty management. The impact has been a
significant improvement in turn around time and quality
of history matching reservoir performance (note: the
history matching is not discussed in this paper). The
technique also provides the opportunity.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the management of
SPDC for permission to publish.
Our thanks also go out to our collegues in the
Reservoir Engineering discipline, Ekpah Innocent and
Ibitokun Nicholas for their contributions.
References
1. Corey, A.T., 1954, “The interrelation between
gas and oil relative permeabilities”, Producers
Monthly, vol. 19, no. 1, November, p. 38-41.
2. Jones, P. , 1945, Production Engineering and
Reservoir Mechanics (Oil, Condensate and
Nutural Gas), The Oil and gas Journal
3. Timur, A.: “An Investigation of Permeability,
Porosity, and Residual Water Saturation
Relationship for Sandstone Reservoirs,”The Log
Analyst, Vol. 9, No. 4, (July-August 1968), pp. 8.
4. Coats, G.R. and Dumanoir, J.L.: “A New
Approach to Improved Log-Derived Permeability,”
The Log Analyst, (January-February 1974), pp. 17.
5. Amaefule, J.O., Tiab, D “ Enhanced Resevoir
Description: Using core and log data to identify
Hydraulic (flow) units and predict permeability
in uncored intervals/wells, SPE 26436, presented
th
68 ATCE Houston, TX 1993.
6. Uguru, C.I., Onyeagoro, U.O.,
Lin, J.,
Okkerman, J., and Sikiru, I.O., SPDC Nigeria
Ltd “Permeability Prediction Using Genetic Unit
Averages of Flow Zone Indicators (FZIs) and
Neural Networks”. SPE 98828 (2005).
4 Lawal A.K. and Adenuga, A. SPE 140623

7. Appendix: Figures & Tables

SPE 140623 Pseudo-components for Nigerian Heavy Oil and Bitumen 5

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Krw_Coates Krg_Coates Krw_Tixier Krg_Tixier

Figure 2:Derived Kro Vs Sw and Krw Vs Sw illustrative Figure 3: BY M1000X reservoir Rel Perm
curves examples for GB D7000
1.000

0.900

0.800

0.700

0.600

0.500
1.000
0.400
0.900
0.300
0.800

0.200 0.700

0.100
0.600

0.500 0 1
RelPerm
RelPerm

0.400

0.300

0.200

0.100

0.000
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
0.000
Water Saturation
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Water Saturation
krw kro Krw_PD Krg_PD

krw kro Krw _PD Krg_PD

Krw/o – Relperm from logs Krw/o – Relperm from logs

Krw/o_PD – Relperm from Corey model Krw/o_PD – Relperm from Corey model
Krw/o_RJK – Relperm from Modified Corey model Krw/o_RJK – Relperm from Modified Corey model
Figure 4: AL 6 Rel Perm. Model Vs Corey Rel Perm model for Figure 5: AL 33 Rel Perm. Model Vs Corey Rel Perm model
H3000 reservoir. Krw/o – Relperm from logs; Krw/o_PD – Relperm for S2000 reservoir. Krw/o – Relperm from logs; Krw/o_PD –
from Corey model; Relperm from Corey model;

Figure 6: NC -50 Rel. Perm Vs Core data for E2000

p Krw/o –( Relperm from
)
logs; Krw/o_c –Relperm from core plug 1 Krw/o_cc – Relperm from core plug 2
0.91

0.81

0.71

0.61

0.51
RelPerm

0.41

0.31

0.21

0.11

0.01
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Water Saturation

Krw Kro Krw_PD Kro_PD Krw_RJK Kro_RJK

6 Lawal A.K. and Adenuga, A. SPE 140623

Values Results
S/N Combinations Sgrw Aquifer Sweep RF from MBAL UR
1 Sgrw H, Aq H, Es L, Relperm Cor. 0.3 H 80% 66.97% 1092.9
2 Sgrw H, Aq H, Es M, Relperm Cor. 0.3 H 85% 68.76% 1122.1
3 Sgrw H, Aq H, Es M, Relperm Log 0.3 H 85% 70.04% 1143.08
4 Sgrw H, Aq H, Es H, Relperm Cor. 0.3 H 90% 69.50% 1134.31
5 Sgrw M, Aq H, Es L, Relperm Log 0.25 H 80% 74.71% 1219.26
6 Sgrw M, Aq H, Es M, Relperm Log 0.25 H 85% 75.02% 1224.36
7 Sgrw L, Aq H, Es H, Relperm Log 0.2 H 90% 80.12% 1307.58

Table –1: Combination of Relative permeability from core data complemented with that from logs broadened the
uncertainty range in Gas Recovery Factors (see green column).