Society of FWoieum Engineers of AIME

6200 N. Central Expwy

Dallas, Tex. 75206

Three-Phase Oi I Relative Permeabi I ity Models

By
James K. Dfetrfchand Paul L. Bondor, MembersSPE-AIME,$hel1 Of1 Co.

THIS PAPER IS SLi8JECT TO CORRECTION

@Copyr!ght 1%76
American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and petroleum Engineers, inc.
Thispaperwasprepared Iorthe 51stAnnuai Fal/Tachnicai Conference and Exhibition of the Society ofiWoieum
Engineers of AiME, heldin New Orieans, Oct. 3-6,1976. FWmissiontocopyis restrictedtoan abstractofnotmore
than 300 words. Iiiustrations may not be copied. The abstract shouid contain conspicuous acknowledgment of
.where end by whom the paper is presented. Fubiic#ion eisewhere after publication in the JOURNAL OF
PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY or the SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGiNEERS JOURN#L is usuaiiygrantedupon
requssi tothe Editor of the appropriate journai, provided agreement to give proper credit is made. Discussion of
this paper is invited.

ABSTRACT reaiatante c$rcu%tsand either gazuaa-rayor

x-ray absorptiontechniquesare required to
Two variationsof an indirecttech- measure two of the three saturationsin a three-
nique for predictingthree-phaseoil relative phase system. Only nine experimentsconcerning
permeabilityare describadin this paper. three-phaserelativepermeabilityhave been
Relativepermeabilitiesand tha dependenceof found in the literature.1-9
waterfloodresidualoil eiaturation on trapped
gaa saturationspredictedby these two models
h %8;f!;:i:8&:~
are comparedwith the three-phaseexperimental. methods, Stone :gc:ore
data availablein the literature. eaaily meaaured two-phaeadata can be used to
predict relativepermeabilityto both the
Both models provide acceptableschemes wetting and nonwettingfluide in three-phase
for interpolatingin the three-p’fiaae
region, flow. Then an indirectapproachinvolvinga
and qualitativelymatch the curvaturaof techniquewhich uses two sets of two-phasedata-
isopermageneratedin the more carefully water/oiland gas/liquid-can be used to
conducted (and previouslypublished)three- predict the relativepermeabilityof the
phase experiments. intermediatenettabilityphase.

Limitation of each model are THE TWO RELATWE PERMEABILITYMODELS

describad,includingthe need for establishing
derivativeconstraintsto prevent calculation
of relativepermeabilities~reaterthan unity.
Guidelinesare also presentedfor determining
which model should be used in specificappli-
cations.
INTRODUCTION
Thoroughanalysisof a displacement
process in which three-phaseflow predominates
(viz. atf=- drive and alternategae/water)
requiresthree-phaserelativepermeabilitydata.
The effort involvedin determiningthese data
experimentallysuggeststhat indirect. mathode
should be investigated. The difficultyin
direct experimentalwork lice mainly in
determinationof saturationdistributions
along the length of the core. Electrical
Two variationsof the indirect
techniqueare deecribedhere. The fir8t la a
three-phaseoil relativepermeabilityexpression
developedby Hirasaki.12 This la a modification
of a model originallyproposedby Stone10 in
1970. The secondmodel was presentedin a
paper by Stonellduring 1973, as a revision
of his first technique,
Model I
It has been observedexperimentally
in water-wetsystemsthat the water relatfve
permeabilityis approximatelyonly a functionof
the water saturation,and that the gas relative
peruwabilityis approximatelyonly a functionof
the gas saturation. However, the oil relative
perrmabilitywill ba a functionof both tha

Referencesand”illustrationsat end of p~er.

9
THREE-PHASEOIL RELATIVEPERMEABILITYMODELS
water and Bas aaturationa. Hiraaakimakes use
of these observationsand assumes that both
water and gae may be flowingeimulteneouslyAn
the pore space with the oil. He derives a
three-phaseoil relativepermeabilityexpression
by consideringthe total reductionin oil
relatfve.permeability caused by the water and
aas ●
Reductionin oil relative
permeability=
[k;o-krow (Sw)]+ [k;o-kro8(sw+ so)]
-(:;W+ So) [k:. -krow(Sw)][k;o -k
ro#w+so)l
Ik;o . . . . . . . . (1) @ven in the Append%x. We correctedStone’s
●
where k“ ie the oil relativepermeabilityat
connater8aterend zero aaa saturation,end
k and k are the two-phasedata in a
w~?&/oil e$8!em and a gae/liquideyetemwith
connate!water, respectively. The first and
second terms in equation (1) reprasentthe
reductionin oil relativepermeabilitycaueed
by the presenceof water and aas, The third
term representsan adjust=nt to the reduction
causedby en interactionbetween the blockage
of oil by water and the blockageof oil by aas.
Hirasaki’sexpressionfor three-phaseoil
relativepermeabilityis obt~lnedby sub-
tractlngequation (1) from kro to yield
k = krow(SJ + krog (Sw + So) - k“
ro ro
+ (Sw+So)[k’) - krow(Sw)][kO - krog(sw+
ro ro
So)]/k:o . . . ●. ●. . . . (2)
Model II
Stone also makes use of the
experimentalobservat$onewhich indicatethat
water relativepermeabilityand aas relative
permeabilityare the cams functionsin the
three-phasesyetem as in the two-phase
water/oilend gas/liquidsystems. Stone~e
approachdiffers from Hirasaki’s$however, in
that he derives the oil relativepermeability
by Consideringthe effectswhich water and aas
have on total relativepermeability.
A motivationfor’Stone’s theory is
as follows. He defines~ es the sum of oil
and water relativepermea~ilities
= kW(Sw) + krow(sw) . . . . . (3) eaturatlonwas held constantdurina all sub-
aw ●
o-w en). h
endc as the sum of gas and oil relative
perme%bilitiee
($& -krg(Sg) +krog(Sw+ SO) ● ● . ● . (4)
●
We see that Lf we put
‘ro ‘kra+k~” CXw@k;o, ● . . . . . (s)
then equation (5) is en ident$ty for S = S
end for,S = O. Furthermore,it repre~entsw%n
acceptab16echeme for interpolatingin the three
phaee realm, as Stone demonstratedby ~
comparleonwith experimentaldata.
term in equation (5) was not a part %?S&e’s
formulation. It ie required for the reasons
calculatedk curves and noted significant
differences18 the case of Dalton’sodata,which
was the only case with a non-unitkro.
Eklminating~ and~ from equation
(5) and solving for krowy%eldsgthepredictive
equation
kr. - [krow(Sw)+ k#Sw) ][kro8(Sw+ So) +
kr8(S8)]/k:o - [km(SW) ~ krg(S8) ] . . s (6)
-~IEW OF THREE-PHASEEXPERIMENTALDATA ,
Reeults from availableexperimental
work are summarizedin Table 1 and Figure 1.
Note that Snell and Saraf eliminatedboth
end-effectand relativepermeability-saturation
hysteres%e,whereas other investigatorsIgnored
or only mlnimlzedthese effects,
Five sets of experimentallydetermined
three-phaserelativepermeabilitydata were used
to eval a e k values predictedby Models I
and 11~-$ H$$ever,only three sets of data
(Saraf,Donaldsonand Dean, and Holmgrenand
Morse) are describedin this paper to illustrate
the importantfeaturesand limitationsof the
models. LtNWett and Lewist -d Snell*s three-
phase data were not reportedin sufficient
detail to be of use in the evaluation.
Saraf
—
Saraf used Boise sandstonein his work
He reports that a number of different,but
similar,core sampleswere eaturatedwith water
end then part of the water watidisplacedby
oil. For each core, oil/waterequilibriumwas
attainedat a deeiredwater saturationend thie
sequentexperimsntayith that core. Different
 SPE 6044 JAMES K. DIETRICH
water saturat%onewere investigatedby use of
differentcore samples. Thus, the k in the
two-phi~se oil/watersystemwas dra$n&@ data.
The appropriatesete of two-phaee
data are presentedwith the experimentalvalues
in l?l&ures2 through6. These figureswere
taken directlyfrom Stone’swork, and k
values calculatedusing Models I and IIr~ere
super~mposedfor comparison.
The three-phaseoil ieopermaare
eiketchadcm ternarydiagramsand comparedwith
experimentaldata in Fi~res 7 and 8. The
experimentalpoints shown in these diagramsare
the same a$ the points in the previoue figures.
Donaldsofi
and Dean
Donaldsonand Dean calculatedthree-
phaee relatlvepermeabilitiesfrom
displacementdata on Berea sandstoneand
Arbucklelimestone,for saturationchangee in
the drainagedirection (decreasingwater
saturationand Increasinggas saturation). The
two-phasedata are shown in Figures 9 and 10,
and the three-phaseoil isopermaare eketched
on Cernarycliagramz and comparedwith
experimental,data in Figures 11 through 14.
Holmgrenand Morse
MctdelsI and 11 are not forced to a
specificremidualoil saturation(zero oil
isoperm).The approachused in these models
i8 capableof providingeethates of reeidual
oil data in the three-phaeeregion,wh~ch are
needed, for example, to determinethe effect
on oil recoveryof an Initialfree gas
saturationduring a waterflood.
Hol.~renand Morse13 report a series
of experimentsIn which Nellie Bly sandstone
was waterfloodedwith varying in%tial gae and
oil eaturar:ion.An attemptwas made to use a
static free gas saturationin each experiment.
They observedthat increasingthe initial free
gas saturationcaueed the restdualoil
saturation,to decreaseand the residualgas
~aturationto increase. Their reportedwater/
oil imb%b:Ltiondata for a Nellie Bly core is
reproducedas Fi8ure 15. As recognizedby
Stone, an oil bank built up in front of the
injectedwater and d%splacedthe gas in
Holmgrenand Moree’s experiment. Hence, k
data would correspondto the wettin8phaee X88
an imbibitiondisplacement. Therefore,km as
a functionof S (as given in Figure M) wae
assumed to be i~enticalwith k ae a function
of total liquid saturation. S~8~e Ho@ren and
Morse consideredonly a static free gas
saturation,k - 0.
rg
—
3
Figure 1 ehowa that the oil isoperma
are convex toward 100 percent oil saturationIn
the more carefulwork of Reid, Snell, and Saraf.
In all other casea,.theieopermsare concave
toward 100 percentoil saturation. In all of
our atcempte to match availableexperimental
data, the oil isopennageneratedby Models I
and 11 are 8enerallyconvex toward 100 percent
oil maturation(Figuree7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 and
16).
There is a tendancyfor Model I to
pred%ct permeabil%tieswhich are too low at less
than hi8h water saturations(<60 percent of pore
volume). This correspondsto predictionof too
h18h a residualoil saturationet watar satur-
ations below 60 percent (eee Figcres 4, 5, & 6).
The two sets of two-phasedata -
water/oiland 8ss/liquid- which are used as a
basis for predictingthe three-phaseoil
relativepermeability(withM&ds I and IT,)are
shown for Donaldsonand Dean’
9 and 10.O The low value of k~d~~~$’l!%~~e
eample (k = 0.07) shown in #~8urea 9 and 10
did not d~t a minimum conditionrequiredfor
Model 11 (referto equations8 and 10 below).
This led to calculationof relativepermeability
values which were 8reaEer than unity (F~8ure11)
Note in Fi~res 12, 13, and 14 that this problem
wae not encounteredwith the Berea data, nor
with the limetone data when Model I was used.
The zero oil.isoperm (whichis the
predictedresidualoil data). as calculatedby
Models I and 11, is compar” :0 the experimental
data of Holmgrenand Morr* - Fi8ure 16. Only
Model 11 providesa satie .orymatch.
LIMITATIONS
During our work with Donaldsonand
Dean’s data, we became aware
in Model II. We found that ~8f muet
a limitation
be greater
than or equal to a minimum vaf~e, which la a
functionof the ehape of the two-phaee
water/oiland gas/liquidcurves. To quantify
thie condition,we write
<
=0. , . ● ● ● ● . , , , , , (7)
 —.———--. .-— ---——- .—-. — -—-. —.-- .-—. ------ - QPR am%h
“.- ““-,7

ors 2) These models qualitativelymatch the

curvatureof the %sopermsdevelopedin the
more rellable (and previouslypublished)
[(~l{r=/~k~j +l][krog+kr8] . .(8) three-phaseflow experimsnte.
k;. ~
as” ~sw
3) Model I provides the best match on three-
phase oil relativepermeabilityfor a case
where the oil relativepermaahilltyat
Note that the expressiongivenby equation (8) co at water end zero gas ie extremelylow
(kW ~ O 1). In another cases studied
will hold for movementeverywherealong the line
. But notice that it may toraate,kbo was greater than 0.5, and
S=O~dS>S
dt hold forwm-ve&t along othmr lineeo such
Model II w&z superior.
aBS ES andS=S . Simtlarly,we can
4) Model 11 may yield Better results in all
writ~ a s@~ond co!!dit~~fi
using another applicat%onawith k ~0.3, when
derivativeconstraint,ao foll,ows: considerationie gi$%n to the constraints
describedby equation~7 through 10.
For lower values of kro, Model 1 may always
akro = [krow+k ][* +bf=l/ko be preferable.
~ rw ~Sg aSg ro
NCM8NCLATURE
-b~:o . . . . . . . . ..(g )k
= three-phab.;
oil relativepermeability
a S* ro

or, k;. = oil relativepermeabilityat connate

water and zero gaa

~ [k +k ,[l+(akro~, ~~)1 k = oil relativepermeabilitymeasuredin

k:. rog
row w &sg asg gas-liquidsystem at connate water

(lo ) ‘row = oil relatlvepermeabilitymeasured%n

..**** ● **S** ●
oil-watersystem

kk water and gas relativepermaabil-

As before,note that the expression xl?’ rg -
ities, respect%<e?.y
given by equat%on (10) holds everywherefor
movement along the line S ? S andSw=s . so, Sw, s = oil, water and gas saturations,
However, thie expression&Iy n~~ hold alongwc g respectively
other lines such as along Sg- O & Sw~ Swc.
s = connate water saturation
When the conditionsgiven by equations ‘c
(7), (8). (9), ~~ (10) are not satief~ed~oil Gg = probabilityfactor to allow for
relativepermeabilitieswhich axe greater than permeabilityblockageby gas
unity will be calculatedwith Model 11, The
derivatives = probabilityfactor to allow for
6W
permeabilityblockageby water
~Icro , and—
a ‘ro
~ d ‘8
ACICNOWLSDGBiENTS

I wish to ’thankGeorge J. Hirasaki

must be teetedwhen using Model 11 to see if
they monotonicallydecrease for inckeaslngS
and S . If this teet fails, the 011 relativ~
perme~illty must be set to zero.
CONCLUSIONS
1) Models I and II for oil relatlve
permeability(referto equations2 and 6)
appear to prov%de acceptableschemes for
interpolatingin the three-phaeeflow
region.
and John E. Chappelearof Shell Development
C!ampanyfor the%r suggestionsconcerning
.
evaluationof the relativepermeabilitymodels.
REFERENCES
1. Saraf, D. N.: ‘Measurementof Fluid
Saturatlonaby NuclearMagnetic Resonance
and Ite Applicationto Three-Phase
RelativePermeabilityStudies,” Ph.D.
Thesis, U. of California,Berkeley (1966).
 3PE 6044 JAMES K, )IETRICH 5

2. Donaldson,E. C,, and Dean, G. W,: 12. PersonalCouununication

with G. J. Hirasaki
“Two- and Three-PhaseRelative Shell DevelopmentCompany,Houston
PermeabilityStudies,
” RI 6826, USBM (1970and 1973).
(1966)*
L3. Holmgren,C. R., and Morse, R. A.: “Effect
3. Corey, A, T., Rathjens,C. H., Henderson, of Free Gas Saturationon Oil Recoveryby
J, H., and Wyllie,M. R. J.: “Three- Waterflooding,“ Trans. AIME 192, (1951)
Phase RelativePermeability,”Trans. AIME 135 ●

V. 207S (1956)349-351.
APPENDIX
4. Dalton, R. L., Nauman, V. D., and Kyte,
J. R.: Unpublishedwcrk on Three-Phase Equation (1) in Stone’spaper11 is
RelativePermeability,Describedby Stone
in Reference11 (1969). k
ro “ ‘krow + ‘rw) ‘krog + ‘rg)-(krw ‘krg).
Snell, R. W.: “Three-PhaseRelative ***.. ● **>*.* ● (A~l)
5.
Permeabilityin an UnconsolidatedSand,”
Inst. Petr. J., No. 84, (1962)80. At connatewater saturationand zero gas
saturation,equation (A-1) becomes
6. Reid, S.: “The Flow of Three Immiscible
Fluids in Porous Media,” Ph.D. Thesis, *4;” (krow)(krog). . . . . . (A-2)
U. of Birmingham(1956).
This exmaseion could only be valid if each of
7. Leverett,M. C,, and hwis, W. B.: the ind~pendent variables-happened to be unity.
“SteadyFlow of Gas-Oil-WaterMixtures We have adjustedStone’sequationby
ThroughUnconsolidatedSands, “Trsne. normalizingwith k~o to obtain the more general
AIME, V. 142 (1941)107. expression
= (krow-rkrw)(kro
8. Caudle,B. H., Slobod,R. L., and k - (k~+krg)
ro
Brownscombe.E. R,: (1941)“Further k*
ro
Development;In the LaboratoryDetermination
of RelativePermeability,” Trans. AIME, .**,*. .**.. f“ (A-3)
V. 192, (1951)145-150.
At connatewater saturationand zero gas
9* Saretn,A. M.: “Three-PhaseRelative saturationequation (A-3) reduces to
PermeabilityMeasurementsby Unsteady-
State Method,” Sot. Petr. Engr, J., k r. = (krow)(kro8)/k;o. . . . . . (A-4) ● ● ●

(Sept.1966) 199-205.
Since the three independent-variables are squal
no. Stone,H. L.: “ProbabilityModel for to each other under these saturation
EstimatingThree-PhaseRelative conditions,equation (A-4)becomes either
Permeability,“J. Petr. Tach. (1970),
214-218. k -?s (A-5)
ro row’ “ * “ ● ● * ‘ “ ● “ “ “* “
=1. ; “Estimationof Thras-Phase or,
RelativePermeabilityand ResidualOil .
Data,” J. Can. Petr. Tech., v. 12, No. 4,
(October,1973). I k
ro
-k
rog” “ ● “ “ “ ● “ ● “ ● “ ‘“* “
(A-6)

I
 .

&
SLJMMAW Of. TMFIEE.PHASERELATIVE PERMEASILITV lNVESTtGAILONS

IUWEO OmmmOotfmtn

m LA71VE $AWKAlurl rKEmnml mm-al JKnnm

?EKMAMLIN ~muEn7 DPIwsmamm WIUD
WvwnDAmaw OAlc COm NwmlAL M’nmo TmMwOUE Wwm Wwcl rAIA&Llmm

Levcnrfb mma mcoMoLloATEo Mmo lWDLE COW. m?LmEa SEOLEWEO w

ovmMlm M!nmo

+ swoMnmL mom nmwlcNLl Ennom

mm,LmK.w- mAmnE. mDDMLv IrmmKm ml
UEum LOW?LWI WTfS

wclwua#a Am nm comoLmAl10 SAKoBmw Lmmnm Pcra mKmfD IaoLrcna

alAT8NEfnm

amv. AAnuEIt4 Iumetfn’a mmnAEna ffmwn a

IaNoaAwK AKo w-rum cMLLAn7 -u mm nannww N
Som Mmnoo ummo mmnmn
Coml WmnwLA

mm

8KCLL MMD?CNK
STATE=?MOO aAIEn sAmKNmN DETER cvALmAno aE- UmnAno Elm
K.7W0- unwuwm~ Wma ~ WWCT Bv TAKIKa
8EUAV?OKO?AILUL -LV FKMY WMUJK-N7S MAY
O-m% cmma187Kmlo CAmlOnan on mnmmmwwm.
wmmcacv. nmzasmw
s#nmAnml
‘oAa AwmAnoK w K3mKv.
ImJtmK MmAKmmn

41L SAIUSA~ EV
LLWSRIAL MMWA

OoMLmmLAoEAfL m7tJmon w cALLuLAno L18mD mtnrmw NLmnlLzcoavw WI

WZLOCS2.?MW mLOt3 OERIVA~ 0$ IEoH w ma.
KAIEa
-mV.STAIE 7mMKAL amwmllom sAmKAnml ~ww
atmumm> CAL!WODV~L
wwcra -v MAW! Cwwo
mnonl nATw Asmmn w
As x Wmwt

.
lAnEm Cxlmww w CALWWRD WmD Exnmm nEoLwno Elmwwet n
wnoxa~. Wiom mmvAnml or
alma Llmmo 7EWMMAL SANAATIOWL

awAs ELNIJLW8D l!~lm m?wcl al

nvsnawla W. av ~Lm aAmAlmLl
rwrs9vLwm - ?KWWAW AWAV
mmamn conE moMcLTwammof
~s m
swLmAnDK WAS
W7MLWLED 7w$w,
mnm%s9EcoKF-

——
 .

ml REID ‘W

it,%
Mm
OONALOSON 6 DEAN
(BEREA)
W ml SARAF
w

FIG, 1- PUBLISHED THREE-PHASE OIL RELATIVE PERMEABILITY ISOPERMS,

~ 1.0 - 1
8
i) !
<0.8 “ 1
E ‘1
\ Ktw
E
-0.6 -
=
~Krow
\
3
s 0..4 “ Jv
& 3,
&
g O*2 -, ‘iO

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

WATER SATURATION (FRACTION)
—
Fig. 2 - Saraf ’s water-oil data.

~l.o-
CIRCLED POINTS CALCULATE FROP
0 Sw - 0.30 DATA
F
Q /
9
<0.8 = CURVES USED IN CALCULATING
f OTHER DATA
w
1
k 0.6 “ Krog +
~
/
:
g 0.4 -
w /

!0”2 - Y/;,
& ‘~
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
TOTAL LIQUID SATURATION (FRACTION}

Fig. 3 - Saraf’s gas-oil data.

sg 0.s
a r POINTS-EXPERIMENTAL
CURVES-CALCULATED

QAS SATURATION (FRACTION)

Fig. 4 - Saraf’s Boise, sandstone data.

 !2
00.5 - POINTS-EXPERIMENTAL
i=
o CURVES-CALCULATED
4
E 0.4 “

—MODEL II
i
m= MODEL ~

z
f 0,2
&

5 0 ‘*’ 0“2 0“3 0“4

GAS SATURATION( FRACTION)
Fig. 5 - Saraf ’s Boise sandstone data.
2
g 0.4
POINTS-EXPERIMENTAL
~ CURVES-CALCULATED
r
g

‘MODEL II
&
‘- MODEL I

s
&
w

8
GAS SATURATION (FRACTION)
Fig. 6 - Saraf’s Boise sandstone data.

POINTS-SARA* 3-PHASE I
EXPERIMENTAL 6ATA
Fig. 7 - Oil-phase isoperms calculated
~::: Model I using Saraf’s two-phase
.
 ‘ w
A
-o-BEREA SANDSTONE CORE
-A-ARBUCKLE LIMESTONE CORE
0.8 I I 1 I I I I

POINTS-SARAF’S L-PHASE
EXPERIMENTAL DATA

Fig. 8 - Oil-phase isoperms calculated

with Model I I using Saraf’s two-phase
data.

Fig. 9 - Donaldson and Dean’s oil-water

relative permeabi I ity curves.

0.8 [
—BEREA SANDSTONE CORE I
=== ARBLICKLE LIMESTONE CORE
0.7 -
\
*
i- \
i 0.6 - ,;~a
E
~ 0.5 - \
\
~ 0.4 - “\
Ill

~
lu0.2 -
a
0,1 -

60 70 80 00 100
TOTAL LIQUID SATURATION t%

Fig. 10 - Donaldson and Dean’s gas-liquid

relative permeabi I ity curves.
 /(

AREA WITH
Kro>I.o

1::#

188%
SGr //
SOLID LINES - DONALDSON a DEANb
3-PHASE EXPERIMENTAL DATA
DASHED LINES - CALCULATED ISOPERMS
Fig. 11 - Oil-phase isoperms calculated
with Model II usin g Donaldso n and Dean’s
two-phase data (Ar uckle limestone).

100%
WATER %
SOLID LINES-DONALDSON ADEAN$
3-PHASE EXPERIMENTAL DATA
DASHED LINES- CALCULATED ISOPERMS
Fig. 12 - Oil-phase isoperms calculated
with Mcdel I using Donaldson and Dean’s
l::f two-phase data (Arbuckle limestone).

100%
WATER SW
.
a
k’ ,01
,.06
.15

Swc
.06
.15
.30
.—

VIII

SOLID LINES -OONALDSON~DEA#S :

3-PHASE EXPERIMENTAL DATA
DASHED LINES-CALCULATED ISOPERMS
F~~. 13 - Oil-phase isoperms calculated
WI h Model II using Donaldson and Dean’s
two-phase data (Berea sandstone).
 100%
WATER ~or
SOLID LINES - DONALDSON & DEAN&
3-PHASE EXPERIMENTAL DATA
DASHED LINES - CALCULATED lSOPgRMS
Fig. 14 - Oil-phase isoperms calculated
with Model I using Donaldson and Dean’= .
two-phase data (Berea sandstone).

/
I

~Krow i
/
/
/
/
I

//
----
--- POINTS-EXPERIMENTAL

Fig.
WATER
. .. --—.- SATURATION
—

15 - HolmgretI and Morse’

(FRACTIONI
s water-oi I
A CURVES-CALCULATED

relative permeabi I I ty curves (Nellie BIY

—MODELII
sandstone) . --MODEL I

18M 1p
WRTER 1

Fig. 16 - Homgren and Morse’s residual

oil data (zero oil isoperm).