SPE-213471-MS

Downhole Estimation of Relative Permeability using Dynamic Formation

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMEOS/proceedings-pdf/23MEOS/3-23MEOS/D031S115R005/3076776/spe-213471-ms.pdf by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 22 August 2024

Testers: A Novel Approach to Reduce the Uncertainty in Reservoir Modelling
Study

Saket Kumar, Parth Joshi, Prakash Bajpai, and Akshay Aggarwal, SLB

Copyright 2023, Society of Petroleum Engineers DOI 10.2118/213471-MS

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Middle East Oil, Gas and Geosciences Show held in Manama, Bahrain, 19 – 21 February 2023. The official proceedings
were published online on 7 March 2023.

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
The reservoir fluid flow is characterized by relative permeability data, whose measurements are
conventionally made in the laboratory on the cores acquired downhole of different rock types. The major
drawback of such conventional core (SCAL) studies is their inability to capture the native wettability and
in-situ reservoir fluid flow characteristics. Moreover, this lab based relative permeability data is sometimes
unavailable, which requires one to estimate the relative permeability curves based on understanding of the
reservoir or public literature and further tune the curves to match the actual pressure and production history
of the reservoir during dynamic modelling. This process also incurs additional cost and requires additional
time and efforts. Hence, an attempt has been made in this study to develop a novel workflow to estimate the
relative permeability curves downhole using formation testers. This new method for interpreting relative
permeability curves will complement the already existing conventional methods like SCAL and can also
be used directly in the absences of lab data.
In this approach, the Single Probe (PS), Pump Out (PO), and Fluid Analyzer (FA) modules of the Modular
Formation Dynamic Tester (MDT) tool were assembled and set at the desired depth. Subsequently, the PO
module was used to draw out the fluids from the formation and aid in recording the production and pressure
drawdown data. The relative permeability of both oil and water phases were estimated at endpoint saturation
using steady state approach, and the JBN method was applied after breakthrough and during transition phase
using the displacement data (production and pressure data). The advanced well logs were used to interpret
the other reservoir properties like porosity, permeability, and etc.

Introduction
Multiphase flow in a porous media is a complex process that basically depends on several parameters like
absolute permeability, flowing pressure, capillary pressure, phase viscosity, and the relative permeability of
each phase (Maini and Okazawa, 1987). Of those, the relative permeability is probably the most crucial one
for determining the reservoir performance (Esmaeili et al., 2019). The relative permeability describes the
ability of a porous medium to conduct a given fluid when one or more other immiscible fluids are present. In
2 SPE-213471-MS

other words, the resistance to the flow of a specific phase in a multiphase saturated porous medium primarily
depends on how this phase distributes itself within the porous system in the presence of another phase. The
distribution of multiple fluids in porous medium itself depend on several factors like pore structure, pore
size distribution, wettability, and saturation history. Because of the porous rocks’ complex geometry, it is
impossible to predict the fluid distribution and the resultant fluid conductivities from a knowledge of the
above-described factors. Therefore, it is necessary to use experimentally measured relative permeabilities

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMEOS/proceedings-pdf/23MEOS/3-23MEOS/D031S115R005/3076776/spe-213471-ms.pdf by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 22 August 2024

representing these parameters’ combined effect on the multiphase fluid distribution and flow in the reservoir
system.
Conventionally, the relative permeability is measured through Special Core Analysis (also known as
SCAL) conducted in laboratory (Honarpour and Mahmood, 1988). Such measurement is widely accepted in
industry; however, it has shortcomings (Richardson et al., 1954; Keelan, 1972; Mungan, 1972; Cuiec, 1975;
Anderson, 1987;, e et al., 1996). Transferring the core from reservoir conditions to surface losses the original
confining pressure and stresses. Despite this, cleaning and processing the core for laboratory analysis may
change the pore structure and wettability of the core. Moreover, the fluid used in the experimental analysis
is not identical to the reservoir fluid. Although the SCAL experts can mitigate such issues with special
cleaning and using reservoir fluids, still the core measurements might not be always representative of in-
situ reservoir relative permeability (Rose, 1951; 1980; 1987; Heaviside et al., 1983; Beal and Nunes, 1984;
Honarpour et al., 1986; Huang and Honarpour, 1996; Crotti and Rosbaco, 1998; Chen and Wood, 2001;
Nguyen et al., 2005). Apart from the above noteworthy issues, sometimes the relative permeability data is
not available during dynamic modelling study which requires the simulation engineers to make some initial
guess of relative permeability as a base case and further tune it to perform the reservoir engineering studies.
Considering all the above-described concerns related to lab based relative permeability measurement,
there is a need to estimate the relative permeability using undisturbed downhole measurements (Angeles
et al., 2010). Hence, in this study a new method is proposed where the modular formation dynamic tester
tool, which is generally used to measure the reservoir pressure and oil-water contact, can be also used to
determine the relative permeability downhole through using its Fluid analyzer and pumpout module which
allows the operator to record the displacement data (production and pressure data). Further, the JBN method
is used to translate the displacement data obtained during pumpout into relative permeability data that can
be easily used in reservoir engineering studies.

Methodology
Rock and Fluid Properties
Estimation of Porosity (Ø) from Well Logs. Porosity (Ø) was estimated using a combination of density
log, resistivity log and laboratory analysis. Equation (1) was used to calculate the Ø. The ρb was calculated
from density log and Rt was estimated through deep resistivity log readings (Figure 1). Rw was measured
in laboratory and reported in Table 1. The resultant porosity from Equation (1) developed by Tiab and
Donaldson (2015) and is described in Table 1 as well.

(1)

Whereas, the ρma is matrix or grain density (g/cc), ρb is bulk density (g/cc), Rw (ohm.m) is the formation
water resistivity and Rt (ohm.m) is true resistivity of the formation.
SPE-213471-MS 3

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMEOS/proceedings-pdf/23MEOS/3-23MEOS/D031S115R005/3076776/spe-213471-ms.pdf by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 22 August 2024

Figure 1—Well log data for the studied station (highlighted with red)

Table 1—Rock and fluid properties data at reservoir condition

Properties Value

Test temperature (°C) 105.73

Matrix density (g/cc) 2.65
Formation water resistivity, Rw (ohm.m) 0.04
Formation pressure (psi) 4044.78
Back pressure (psi) ∼3000
Porosity (%) 12.30
Absolute permeability (mD) 7.82
Oleic viscosity (cP) 3.40
Aqueous viscosity (cP) 2.34

Estimation of Permeability from well logs. Generally, estimation of absolute permeability is done using
core analysis as described in below section. However, to ensure the reliability of experimental measurement
4 SPE-213471-MS

of absolute permeability as discussed below in this paper. The well log derived permeability was estimated
using the below equation (2) developed by Shokir (2006), and the resulting permeability is reported in Table
1.
(2)
Whereas, k is permeability (mD), GR is gamma ray (API units) obtained from Figure 1, ∅ is porosity

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMEOS/proceedings-pdf/23MEOS/3-23MEOS/D031S115R005/3076776/spe-213471-ms.pdf by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 22 August 2024

(%) estimated from Equation (1), and CG is the correlation constant (Shokir, 2006).
Fluid Viscosity Measurement. The viscosity of water and oil was measured using the rheometer and the
detailed description of measurement procedure is described in our earlier paper by Kumar et al. (2020) and
Kumar et al. (2022). The measured viscosity of both the aqueous and oleic phase is reported in Table 1.

Working Mechanism of MDT Modules

A Modular Dynamic Tester (MDT), a modular logging tool can measure pressures, cleanup, collect samples
for PVT/lab analysis, and conduct well tests post drilling in openhole conditions as depicted in Figure 2
(Cig, 2016). The objective for employment of MDT modules in the logging strings completely depends on
the logging objective. For instance, a pretest module, a fluid analyzer module for fluid type identification
(FID), a pump out (PO) module and a sampling module was employed all together as MDT logging tool in
this study for conducting downhole flooding experiment in order to measure the relative permeability. The
detailed description of all the above-mentioned MDT module is described below.

Figure 2—A typical MDT string for the pressure measurement, cleanup and Sampling (Cig, 2016)

Pretest module. A pretest module is used for pressure measurement which in general requires a single-
probe inlet with its hydraulic unit. The probe of the pretest module initially set at speicified depth, and a
pressure measurement is generally taken. A variety of probe inlet types, such as a single probe (PS), a dual
packer (DP), a 3D radial probe is available commercially as described in Figure 3 (Dios et al., 2012, Cantini
et al., 2013). The inlet types of probes for pretest are chosen depending on the operational objectives, such as
formation pressure measurements, pressure drawdown limits during clean up and sampling. In our case, we
have used extra large diameter single probe (PS) module having area of 5.49 cm2, due to lower permeability
∼7.82 mD (described in Table 1) of the reservoir, where the higher area of the probe inlet allowed us to
attain the meaningful drawdown.
SPE-213471-MS 5

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMEOS/proceedings-pdf/23MEOS/3-23MEOS/D031S115R005/3076776/spe-213471-ms.pdf by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 22 August 2024

Figure 3—Dual packer inlet, 3D radial probe and XLD (extra large diameter) single probe (Cig, 2016)

Fluid analyzer and pumpout module. A fluid analyzer measurement is based mainly on the near-infrared
(NIR) spectroscopy and differentiates between water and hydrocarbon with the absorption spectra (optical
density vs. wavelength). The Fluid Analyzer (FA) module of MDT allows one to distinguish between the
oleic and aqueous phase based on optical density (OD) and wavelength measurement. For example, the
presence of water in the formation get confirms if the OD peak lies at 1444 and 1930 nm (Figure 4). On the
other side, the presence of hydrocarbon in formation is generally confirmed when the OD peak ranged at
∼1730 nm. In our study, the absorption spectra suggested the OD peak of the flowing fluid phase through the
MDT string falls at ∼1730 nm which suggest that the formation is of oil, as can be depicted from Figure 5.

Figure 4—Typical Optical density vs wave length curve for determining type of fluid phase (Cig, 2016)
6 SPE-213471-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMEOS/proceedings-pdf/23MEOS/3-23MEOS/D031S115R005/3076776/spe-213471-ms.pdf by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 22 August 2024

Figure 5—Observed optical density vs wave length curve for this study, suggests oil phase (highlighted with red)

The GOR and water-cut was also interpreted from the spectrometric analyses during the cleanup or while
pumping out the fluid with the help of fluid analyzer (Mullins et al., 2001; Dong et al., 2007). Figure 6
describes the measured GOR ∼950 ft3/bbl of the tested reservoir (in our study) which falls in the range
of black oil type. A cleanup procedure consists of a pump out module for creating a pressure drawdown
and drawing fluids from the reservoir through the MDT tool string into the wellbore and overcoming the
downstream pressure difference and an inlet for establishing a hydraulic communication with the formation
by isolating the borehole (Mullins, 2008). This module also helps us in conducting the flood experiment
assuming that formation is initially invaded with water (mud) and was later displaced by formation fluid
(i.e., oil in our case). The detailed description about how we have used this displacement process to interpret
the relative permeability is described in below section.

Designing of Formation Testing Tool to Measure the Relative Permeability Downhole

The initial assumption of designing this new method was to simulate the SCAL experiment downhole to
measure the relative permeability using Modular Formation Dynamic Tester (MDT) tool. To do this, the
following step was followed.
a. Generally, the relative permeability measurement is conducted on a feet (full length) core having
area ranging between 50-100 cm2. However, in this study we have taken the greater drainage area
(3549.20 cm2) but honoured the length as of typical core one, i.e., 30.48 cm on which the displacement
experiment was conducted downhole.
b. The pore volume was estimated by taking the product of porosity estimated from well logs (Table 1)
and assumed drainage areal volume (estimated using step a), i.e., 13306.106 cm3.
c. The absolute permeability (k) was again measured using the Darcy law as described below in Equation
2. The Fluid Analyzer (FA) module of MDT allows us to observe and estimate the fraction of fluid
phases and compositions. Thus, once the water fraction observed to be 1 (described in Figure 7)
in FA during initial time of flow through MDT string flowline, the flow rate of fluid phase (i.e.,
water initially) was varied using PO module, and corresponding pressure drop was recorded. Further,
these varied flow rate and measured pressure drop was plotted on the 2D cartesian coordinate system
and the interpreted slope was equated with to calculate the absolute permeability (k).
The measured absolute permeability was obtained as 8.12 mD using this procedure which is very
close to the estimated absolute permeability from well log data (Table 1). The difference between the
estimated permeability from well log data and measured permeability remained ∼3.64%, which is
SPE-213471-MS 7

under acceptable range and ensures the reliability of approach for estimating the permeability from
Equation (2).
(2)
where, q is the volumetric flow rate (cc/sec), A is the total cross-sectional area (cm2), μw is the water

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMEOS/proceedings-pdf/23MEOS/3-23MEOS/D031S115R005/3076776/spe-213471-ms.pdf by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 22 August 2024

phase viscosity (cP), is the pressure gradient (atm/cm), and k is the absolute permeability of the
sandpack (Darcy).
d. The displacement data was recorded during the clean up procedure described in section 3.2.2 when
the invaded water was being displaced with formation oil, as described in Figure 8.
e. Later, the recorded pressure drops, and fluid production recorded, when aqueous phase was being
displaced with oil (precisely clean up process), was translated to interpret the two-phase water/oil
relative permeability curves through JBN method (Johnson et al., 1959). Generally, there are two ways
to interpret the relative permeability curves, i.e., explicit (JBN, JR and Welge) and implit (history
matching) methods. However, the JBN method was opted over other methods to derive the relative
permeability due to the fortunate fact that it is faster and direct approach to employ. The detailed
reason for adopting the JBN method over other methods are illustrated in detail in our earlier study
by Kumar et al. (2022).
f. The following modified Equation (3-9) by Kumar et al. (2022) and Johnson et al. (1959) was used to
interpret the relative permeability curves using the JBN method.
(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)
(9)
Whereas, fo and fw is the fraction of oil and water flowing through the pump, wp is the cumulative
water production in pore volume, Oi is the oil injection volume in pore volume, Ir is injectivity ratio, Pi
is the measured initial formation pressure recorded with pretest, P(t) is the flowing pressure at time (t),
krw and kro is the water and oil relative permeability, So and Sw is the average oil and water saturation.
g. To ensure the reliability of JBN approach-based measurement, the relative permeability curve
characteristics parameters, i.e., endpoint relative permeability to both the fluid phase was measured
using extended darcy law as described by Equation (10).
(10)

Whereas, qi is the phase flow rate of ith phase, is the endpoint relative permeability ith phase and
μi is the ith phase viscosity.
8 SPE-213471-MS

h. Initially, when the first oil steak was observed in FID plot (as described in Figure 9), the flow rate of oil
varied and corresponding pressure drop was recorded. Equation (10) was further used to estimate the
endpoint relative permeability to water where the varied water flow rate (qw) and measured pressure
drop (dP) was plotted on the 2D cartesian coordinate system and the interpreted slope was equated

with to calculate the endpoint relative permeability to water (Kumar et al., 2022;

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMEOS/proceedings-pdf/23MEOS/3-23MEOS/D031S115R005/3076776/spe-213471-ms.pdf by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 22 August 2024

Esmaeili et al., 2019; Maini and Okazawa, 1987).
i. Similar as described in step (h), once the water fraction reaches to its minimum value, i.e., connate
water saturation (described in Figure 10), the endpoint oil relative permeability was measured by
bumping the flow at different rates in a step wise manner and recording the corresponding pressure.
Further, the similar Equation (10) was used to estimate the endpoint oil relative permeability where

the interpreted slope was equated with .

Figure 7—Fluid Identification (FID) plot when water (only) flowing through the flowline
SPE-213471-MS 9

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMEOS/proceedings-pdf/23MEOS/3-23MEOS/D031S115R005/3076776/spe-213471-ms.pdf by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 22 August 2024

Figure 8—Fluid Identification (FID) plot of overall displacement process

Figure 9—Fluid Identification (FID) plot when first oil steak is observed (highlighted with red)
10 SPE-213471-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMEOS/proceedings-pdf/23MEOS/3-23MEOS/D031S115R005/3076776/spe-213471-ms.pdf by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 22 August 2024

Figure 10—Fluid Identification (FID) plot when oil (only) flowing
through the flowline at connate water saturation (highlighted with red)

Results and Discussions

Displacement data analysis during pump out for relative permeability determination
Maini and Okazawa (1987) have suggested that a reliable interpretation of relative permeability from
displacement test requires one to derive the smooth production and pressure data in order to obtain the
meaningful relative permeability curves. Akhlaghinia et al. (2014) and Modaresghazani (2015) have used
the JBN technique for interpreting the relative permeability curves. However, as per the author's knowledge,
they have recorded the pressure and production data directly which could not allow them to interpret the
smooth relative permeability curves. Thus, we suggest using the below given useful points to obtain reliable
relative permeability curves from displacement data.
i. JBN method uses the cumulative water production and pressure data to calculate the relative
permeability curves (refer to Equation 3 to 9). Addition to that, inclusion of closer data points of
both the recorded cumulative water production and pressure can lead to scattered/reluctant value
of interpreted relative permeability data points/curves, as encountered in the study reported by
Akhlaghinia et al. (2014). Hence, a highly spaced data points should be utilized in order to derive
the meaningful relative permeability curve from JBN method.
ii. The cumulative water production (Wp) data points should be plotted against the injected oil volume
on the 2D Cartesian coordinate system.
iii. The recorded pressure data (P) at time (t) during oil flooding should also be plotted againt injected
oil volume (Oi) on 2D cartesian coordinate system as described in step (ii).
iv. Further, the recorded cumulative water production and pressure data should be utilized to fit a curve
on it as a function of oil injection volume (Oi) to ensure the smoother interpretation of relative
permeability.
SPE-213471-MS 11

Kumar et al. (2022) have used similar approach as described above in step (i to iv) to treat displacement
data for efficient implementation of the JBN method to interpret the meaningful relative permeability.
The measured cumulative water production (Wp) data points are plotted in Figure 11 as a function
of oil injection (Oi) for this study. Similarly, the recorded pressure (P) at time (t) as a function of oil
injection volume (Oi) is reported in Figure 12. Further, several combinations of exponential, power-law
and logarithmic function were tested in this study in order to develop the best fit analytical expressions for

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMEOS/proceedings-pdf/23MEOS/3-23MEOS/D031S115R005/3076776/spe-213471-ms.pdf by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 22 August 2024

Wp and P as a function of (Oi). Table 5 describes the correlation developed, for estimating the smoother
derivatives of Wp and P as a function of oil injection, for its employment in the JBN method as described in
Equation 3–9. The plotted measured data points were fitted to the proposed correlation (described in Table
2) for cumulaive water production and pressure data as a function of oil injection. A similar correlation for
cumulative production was reported by Miller and Ramey (1985) and Kumar et al. (2022). It can be seen
in the Figure 10 and Figure 11, that after 5.8 PV injection of oil the production curve became flat and as
well as the pressure curve which suggest that only oil was flooding through the flowline of MDT strings.
Precisely speaking, the connate water saturation reached after ∼5.8 PV of oil injection which makes the
production and pressure curve flat at the end of oil flooding (Kumar et al., 2022). Thereafter, the pumpout
module has been stopped after 5.8 PV of oil injection. Later, the recorded displacement data (production
and pressure data) was fitted to the developed correlation described in Table 2 and further used in Equation
(3-9) for interpreting the relative permeability.

Figure 11—Water production (in PV) produced during oil flooding

12 SPE-213471-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMEOS/proceedings-pdf/23MEOS/3-23MEOS/D031S115R005/3076776/spe-213471-ms.pdf by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 22 August 2024

Figure 12—Recorded pressure drop as a function of injected oil during oil flooding

Table 2—Proposed correlation to predict the cumulative water production, pressure at any time (t) during oil flooding

Cartesian Plot Proposed Correlation Notes

Cumulative water production vs. injected oil

k may vary from n = 1 to 3

Pressure at time (t) vs. injected oil

Relative Permeability Curve

The interpreted relative permeability curve using the JBN method, described by Equation (3-9), is shown in
Figure 13. Table 3 describes the estimated characteristics parameters of derived relative permeability curve.
The cross over of both relative permeability curve falls at the water saturation value ∼0.65 which suggest
that the tested formation have the strong water wetting characteristics as per Craig's rule of thumb.
SPE-213471-MS 13

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMEOS/proceedings-pdf/23MEOS/3-23MEOS/D031S115R005/3076776/spe-213471-ms.pdf by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 22 August 2024

Figure 13—Relative Permeability curve generated using JBN method

Table 3—Rock and fluid properties data at reservoir condition

Characteristics parameters Value

Endpoint relative permeability to water ( ) 0.138

Endpoint relative permeability to oil ( ) 0.861

Connate water saturation 0.110

Residual oil saturation 0.140

Conclusion
• A new workflow was developed to estimate relative permeability in downhole conditions. The
advantages of using this method are based on in-situ measurements that include the actual
reservoir fluids and are performed under reservoir conditions of formation stress, pore pressure,
and temperature.
• A new mathematical model is also developed in this study to derive the smooth production and
pressure curve, as a function of oil injection, using the measured displacement data obtain from
MDT operation in order to use these data sets for interpretation of relative permeability.
• JBN method, which is faster approach, used to translate the displacement data (obtained from the
MDT operation) in order to interpret the relative permeability curve.
14 SPE-213471-MS

• This method does not disturb the core to obtain the relative permeability curve. Issues, such as
maintaining core integrity, accidental microfracture formation during coring, using the exact fluids
present in the reservoir, and accidental wettability changes during core cleaning, are avoided using
this direct downhole relative permeability estimation.
• Another beneficial advantage of the downhole measurement is the sample size. The relative
permeability obtained by core analysis uses a small sample of the reservoir rock, while this in-situ

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMEOS/proceedings-pdf/23MEOS/3-23MEOS/D031S115R005/3076776/spe-213471-ms.pdf by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 22 August 2024

technique uses the larger drainage area of the reservoir contributing to the fluid flow.
• Finally, downhole relative permeability estimation can be achieved much faster than core-derived
values because rock and fluid conditioning are not necessary.

Acknowledgement
We would like to thank the Digital & Integration team of SLB, India for the motivation and providing us the
resources for the completion of this work. The first author would like to dedicate this work to his professors
Dr. Brij Maini (Retired Professor, University of Calgary) and Dr. Khalid Aziz (Emeritus Professor, Stanford
University) for their coaching and guidance on the topic of relative permeability.

References
Alkafeef, S., Hadibeik, H., Azari, M., and El-Daou, M., 2016, Effects of Pore Pressure and Two-Phase Flow on
Permeability Estimation of Reservoir Rock, Paper SPE-183136 presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum
Exhibition & Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 7-10 November. DOI: 10.2118/183136-MS.
Anderson, W., 1987, Wettability Literature Survey—Part 4: Effects of Wettability on Capillary Pressure, Paper SPE-15271,
Journal of Petroleum Technology, 39(10), 1283–1300, DOI: 10.2118/15271-PA.
Angeles, R., Torres-Verdín, C., Hadibeik, A., and Sepehrnoori, K., 2010, Estimation of Capillary Pressure and Relative
Permeability From FormationTester Measurements Using Design of Experiment and Data-Weighing Inversion:
Synthetic and Field Examples, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 75(1-2), 19–32. DOI: 10.1016/
j.petrol.2010.10.006.
Beal, B.A.Jr.,, and Nunes, C.S., 1984, Velocity and Gravity Effects In Relative Permeability Measurements, unpublished,
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California. https://pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/
research/geoth/ publications/techreports/SGP-TR-082.pdf. Accessed March 15, 2018.
Chen, A.L., and Wood, A.C.III,, 2001, Rate Effects on Water-Oil Relative Permeability, Paper SCA 2001-19 presented at
the SCA International Symposium, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 17-19 September.
Crotti, M.A., and Rosbaco, J.A., 1998, Relative Permeability Curves: The Infuence of Flow Direction and Heterogeneities;
Dependence of End Point Saturations on Displacement Mechanisms, Paper SPE-39657 presented at the SPE/DOE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 19-22 April. DOI: 10.2118/39657-MS.
Cuiec, L.E., 1975, Restoration of the Natural State of Core Samples, Paper SPE-5634 presented at the Fall Meeting of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas, Texas, USA, 28 September-1 October. DOI: 10.2118/5634-MS.
Galley, S.V., 2016, Pay Cutoff De¿nition Based on Dynamic Reservoir Parameters, Paper Y, Transactions, SPWLA 57th
Annual Logging Symposium, Reykjavik, Iceland, 25-29 June.
Gautam, S., Magzymov, D., Dindoruk, B., Fyfe, R., and Holmesm K. (2022). Quantification of the Impact of Pore Pressure
on Relative Permeability Curves Utilizing Automated Unit with Gamma Ray Scanning Capability. September 26, 2022.
https://eureka.slb.com:2083/10.2118/210297-MS.
Goda, H.M., and Behrenbruch, P., 2004, Using a Modifed Brooks-Corey Model to Study Oil-Water Relative Permeability
for Diverse Pore Structures, Paper SPE-88538 presented at the SPE Asia Paci¿c Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition, Perth, Australia, 18-20 October. DOI: 10.2118/88538-MS.
Heaviside, J., Black, C.J.J., and Berry, J.F., 1983, Fundamentals of Relative Permeability: Experimental and Theoretical
Considerations, Paper SPE-12173 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco,
California, USA, 5-8 October. DOI: 10.2118/12173-MS.
Hetherington, G.Jr., 1961, Relative Permeabilities and Capillary Pressure in the Burgan and Wara Sands, Paper SPE-81
presented at the SPE Middle East Regional Meeting, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 27-29 March. DOI: 10.2118/81-MS.
Honarpour, M., and Mahmood, S.M., 1988, RelativePermeability Measurements: An Overview, Paper SPE-18565,
Journal of Petroleum Technology, 40(8), 963–966. DOI: 10.2118/18565-PA.
Honarpour, M.M., Koederitz, L.F., and Harvey, A.H., 1986, Relative Permeabiliy of Petroleum Reservoirs, CRC Press.
ISBN: 978-0849357398.
SPE-213471-MS 15

Huang, D.D., and Honarpour, M.M., 1996, Capillary End Effects in Coreflood Calculations, Paper SCA-9634, presented
at the SCA International Symposium, Montpellier, France, 8-10 September.
Johnson, E. F., Bossler, D. P., & Naumann, B. (1959). Calculation of Relative Permeability from Displacement
Experiments. Trans, 370–372.
Keelan, D.K., 1972, A Critical Review of Core Analysis Techniques, Paper PETSOC-72-02-06, Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology, 11(2). DOI: 10.2118/72-02-06.
Kokkedee, J.A., Boom, W., Frens, A.M., and Maas, J.G., 1996, Improved Special Core Analysis: Scope for a Reduced

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMEOS/proceedings-pdf/23MEOS/3-23MEOS/D031S115R005/3076776/spe-213471-ms.pdf by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 22 August 2024

Residual Oil Saturation, Paper SCA-9601 presented at the SCA International Symposium,
Kumar, S., Esmaeili, S., Sarma, H., & Maini, B. (2020). Can Effects of Temperature on Two-Phase Gas/Oil-Relative
Permeabilities in Porous Media Be Ignored? A Critical Analysis. Energies, 1–26.
Kumar, S., Esmaeili, S., Sarma, H., and Maini, B. (2022). Effect of temperature on two-phase gas/oil relative
permeability in unconsolidated sands. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 211, 110200. https://
eureka.slb.com:2083/10.1016/j.petrol.2022.110200.
Kumar, S., Gautam, S., Varun, R., and Khan, M. A. (2022). A Robust Machine Learning Model to Predict the
Relative Permeability of an Oil Porous Medium at Elevated Temperatures. Day 3 Thu, April 28, 2022. https://
eureka.slb.com:2083/10.2118/209313-ms.
Kumar, S., Sarma, H., and Maini, B. (2022). Effect of Temperature on Gas/Oil Relative Permeability in Viscous Oil
Reservoirs. Day 1 Wed, March 16, 2022. https://eureka.slb.com:2083/10.2118/208897-ms.
Kumar, S., Tiwari, R., Husein, M., Kumar, N., & Yadav, U. (2020). Enhancing the Performance of HPAM Polymer
Flooding Using Nano CuO/Nanoclay Blend. Processes, 1–29.
Kumar, S., Torabzadeh, S. J., & Handy, L. L. (1985). Relative Permeability Functions for High- and Low-Tension Systems
at Elevated Temperatures. SPE California Regional Meeting. Bakersfield, California.
Likhachev, E. R. (2003). Dependence of water viscosity on temperature and pressure. Technical Physics, 514–515.
Lo, H. Y., & Mungan, N. (1973). Effect of Temperature on Water-Oil Relative Permeabilities in Oil-Wet and Water-Wet
Systems. Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME. Las Vegas, Nevada.
Maini, B. B., & Okazawa, T. (1987). Effects Of Temperature On Heavy Oil-Water Relative Permeability Of Sand. Journal
of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 26(3).
Montpellier, France, 8-10 September.
Mungan, N., 1972, Relative Permeability Measurements Using Reservoir Fluids, Paper SPE-3427, SPE Journal, 12(5),
398–402. DOI: 10.2118/3427-PA.
Nguyen, V.H., Sheppard, A.P., Knackstedt, M.A., and Pinczewski, W.V., 2005, The Effects of Displacement Rate and
Wettability on Imbibition Relative Permeabilities, Paper SCA2005-39 presented at the SCA International Symposium,
Toronto, Canada, 21-25 August.
Richardson, J.G., Perkins F.M.Jr., and Osoba, J.S., 1954, Differences in Behavior of Fresh and Aged East Texas Woodbine
Cores, Paper SPE-408-G presented at the Fall Meeting of the Petroleum Branch of AIME, San Antonio, Texas, USA,
17-20 October.
Rose, W., 1951, Some Problems of Relative Permeability Measurement, Paper WPC-4130 presented at the 3rd World
Petroleum Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, 28 May-6 June.
Rose, W., 1980, Some Problems in Applying the Hassler Relative Permeability Method, Paper SPE-8034, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, 32(7), 1161–1163, DOI: 10.2118/8034-PA.
Rose, W., 1987, Relative Permeability, Chapter 28, Paper SPE-1987-28-PEH, Bradley, H.B., Petroleum Engineering
Handbook, Society of Petroleum Engineers. ISBN: 1-55563-010-3
Sorkhabi, R., 2012, The Great Burgan Field, Kuwait, GeoExPro, 9(1), 42–46.
Shokir, E.M. El-M. 2006. A Novel Model for Permeability Prediction inUncored Wells. SPE Res Eval & Eng 9 (3):
266–273. SPE-87038-PA. doi: 10.2118/87038-PA.
Tiab, D., and Donaldson, E,C. 2015, Petropysics: Theory and Practice of Measuring Reservoir Rock and Fluid Transport
Properties, Fourth Edition, Elsevier.
Cig, K. 2016, In Situ Determination of Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure Curves Using Multiphase Flow Rates
and Pressures of Wireline Formation Testers, Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University.