US 4,622,643 AGrant
Method for Determining Consistent Water Relative Permeability Values From Dynamic Displacement Data
Issue Date:1986-11-11
•7 Claims
•9 Drawing Sheets
Abstract
Corrected water relative permeability values for a core sample are determined from dynamic displacement measurements by the steps of plotting a ratio of water rate output (q.sub.w) to calculated water relative permeability values (k.sub.rw) vs. average water saturation (S.sub.w), determining if a straight line segment exists in areas of the plot corresponding to high average oil saturations, and if it does, extrapolating the straight line segment to the end of the plotted data, otherwise plotting a tangent to the plotted ratio from a beginning point of the plot, producing a line in parallel with the extrapolated straight line segment or the tangent line but shifted so as to pass through the irreducible water saturation point S.sub.iw, and correcting the calculated water relative permeability values k.sub.rw by multiplying the calculated values k.sub.rw by a ratio of a value on the q.sub.w /k.sub.rw plot to a value on the constructed straight line. The applied corrections eliminate distortions in the calculated water relative permeability values k.sub.rw due to an end effect at the core sample which causes distortions in the dynamic displacement measurements.
Metadata
Assignee
- Mobil Oil Corporation
Inventor
- Billy J. Dotson
Application Information
Application Number:US 5441765
Filing Date:1983-10-21
Priority Date:1983-10-21
Art Unit:234
Classifications
IPC:
G01N 1508
Field of Search:
36473166552;556;420;421;42238250;252
Patent Drawings (9 sheets)
Description
Cross-Reference to Related Application
The present invention is related to subject matter disclosed and claimed in U.S. application Ser. No. 544,175, filed on even date herewith and assigned to the same assignee as the present invention.
Background of the Invention
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to a method for determining consistent water relative permeability values (k.sub.rw) from dynamic displacement measurements conducted on a subsurface core sample.
2. Discussion of the Prior Art
Water and oil relative permeability values are used in a number of significant ways in many water and oil reservoir engineering calculations. However, it is different to measure water and oil relative permeabilities in the laboratory on a core sample. Two techniques are typically used by the oil industry to obtain water and oil relative permeability values. The first is the so-called steady state method, which is described in the article entitled "Relative Permeability Measurements on Small Core Samples" by Morris, R. H. et al, The Procedures Monthly, pp. 19-25, August, 1947. The other method is the dynamic displacement method, which is described in the following articles: "A Simplified Method for Computing Oil Recovery by Gas or Water Drive" by Wedge, H. J., Transactions, AIME, Vol. 195, pp. 91-98, 1952; "Calculation of Relative Permeability From Displacement Experiments" by Johnson, E. F. et al, Transactions, AIME, Vol. 216, pp. 370-372, 1959; "Graphical Techniques for Determining Relative Permeability From Displacement Experiments" by Jones, S. C. et al, Transactions, AIME, Vol. 265, PP. 807-817, 1978. This latter article discloses a graphical technique for determining relative oil (k.sub.ro) and water (k.sub.rw) permeability values from dynamic displacement measurements, which technique will be hereinafter referred to as the Jones and Roszelle technique.
A significant problem with using a steady state technique to determine water relative permeability values is that it is time consuming, as the steady state measurements required take considerable time for stabilization. Thus, a few days may be required for every data point of a plot of water relative permeability vs. core saturation (water (S.sub.w) or oil (S.sub.o)) which is calculated in the technique and thus weeks are required to obtain a complete water relative permeability curve.
In the dynamic displacement method of calculating water relative permeability values, a small core sample is flooded with water to saturation and then flooded with oil to its irreducible water saturation. This cycle is repeated while the pressure drop across the core, and the oil and water production fractions, as a function of total oil and water injected (injection rate x time), are recorded. This data, together with oil and water viscosity, the absolute permeability of the core, and the core pore volume, are used to calculate oil relative permeability values (k.sub.ro), as well as water relative permeability values (k.sub.rw), as a function of saturation (oil or water) at the effluent end of the core. A greater appreciation of this conventional technique can be had by review of those above-referenced articles which discuss the dynamic displacement method.
The theory upon which interpretation of the dynamic displacement data rests and upon which water relative permeability determinations are made assumes that the capillary pressure effects on the core saturation distribution are negligible. However, there is an observable pressure drop discontinuity near the effluent end of the core sample causd by capillary forces, which is known as the "end-effect". This resistance to effluent flow distorts the pressure drop data which are taken during a dynamic displacement test, causing consequent distortions in both relative oil and water permeability values determined from that data.
The so-called "end-effect" was perhaps first recognized by Richardson, et al and reported in the article entitled "Laboratory Determination of Relative Permeability", Richardson, J. G. et al, Transactions, AIME, Vol. 195, pp. 187-196; 1952. In this article, Richardson, et al report experimental results of a two-phase flow on a 30 centimeter long core sampler cut into 8 sections. The sections were arranged perpendicular to the axis of the core and were machined and clamped together in a flow apparatus. Two-phase flow experiments were run at various flow rates and the saturaton in each section was measured for each experiment. The results show that near the outflow or effluent end of a core sample, a zone exists where the wetting phase saturation increases rapidly and achieves a maximum value at the effluent face. Beyond this zone, towards the inflow end, the saturation is uniform. The width of the zone decreases with an increase in flow rate.
It appears from the results reported by Richardson, et al that a very high flow rate is required in the dynamic displacement tests to effectively remove the end zone and its effects on the dynamic displacement data used for determining relative water permeability values. However, physical limitations on the experimental equipment used in the dynamic displacement measurements typically do not permit the high rates of flow which would be required to eliminate measurement perturbations caused by the end-effect. Moreover, it is difficult to determine a critical minimum flow rate which is required to eliminate these perturbations.
Summary of the Invention
One object of the present invention is to provide a method for accurately determining water relative permeability values from dynamic displacement measurement data. In particular, the invention is directed to a method in which water relative permeability values are first calculated, using conventional techniques, such as, for example, the Jones and Roszelle graphical technique discussed above, fron dynamic displacement measurement data, and then corrected to eliminate core end-effect perturbations. Thus, with the method of the invention consistent water relative permeability values can be obtained from dynamic displacement core sample measurement data, even when lower fluid flow rates are used.
This object of the invention is achieved by first calculating water relative permeability values k.sub.rw from dynamic displacement measurement data, using, for example, the Jones and Roszelle technique discussed above. Thereafter a ratio q.sub.w /k.sub.rw is plotted against average water (S.sub.w) or oil (S.sub.o) saturation (S.sub.w =1-S.sub. o, where q.sub.w is the water flow rate at the output end, that is, q.sub.w =f.sub.w q.sub.t, where f.sub.w is the instantaneous water fraction in the effluent leaving the core (a value between 0 and 1) and q.sub.t is the rate of oil injection into the core during an oil flood. In plotting q.sub.w /k.sub.rw, an initial starting point is selected which is a calculation of k.sub.rw at the residual water saturation of the core, using Darcy's Law. For this point, f.sub.w approaches zero and the value q.sub.w /k.sub.rw approaches zero. The irreducible water saturation (S.sub.iw) of the core is also determined.
The plotted value q.sub.w /k.sub.w vs. average water (Shd w) or oil (S.sub.o) saturation is then examined. It normally exhibits a straight line segment in the range of high oil saturation. A straightline segment parallel to the exhibited straight line segment, but shifted so that it passes through the irreducible water saturation point (S.sub.iw) is drawn and extrapolated to the limit of the experimental data obtained from the dynamic displacement experiments. For very low displacement rates, the straight line segment may not exist, in which case a first tangent curve is drawn to the curve of q.sub.w /k.sub.rw vs. average saturation (water S.sub.w or oil S.sub.o), beginning at the lowest water saturation point. A straight line segment is then drawn from the irreducible water saturation value S.sub.iw and in parallel with a straight tangent line to the plotted ratio to the extent of the experimental data. Following this, corrected water relative permeability values are calculated in accordance with the expression k.sub.rwc =k.sub.rw (q.sub.w /k.sub.rw)/(q.sub.w /k.sub.rw)SL, where (q.sub. w /k.sub.rw) is the plotted q.sub.w /k.sub.rw value using the water relative permeability values k.sub.rw obtained from, e.g., the Jones and Roszelle technique, and (q.sub.w /k.sub.rw)SL is the plotted value read on the straight line for the same average saturation value.
The value k.sub.rwc is the corrected water relative permeability value, which is used in the place of the water relative permeability values k.sub.rw to obtain a curve of water relative permeability vs. saturation at the effluent end of the core sample.
The method of the invention, as well as the advantages thereof, will be more readily understood from the following detailed description which is provided in connection with the accompanying drawings.
Brief Description of the Drawings
FIG. 1 are plots of: (1) a ratio of q.sub.w /k.sub.rw vs. average water saturation (S.sub.w) for a first core sample and flow rate q.sub.t, produced using water relative permeability values k.sub.rw calculated in accordance with conventional techniques; and (2) a correction line produced in accordance with the method of the invention;
FIG. 2 are plots of: (1) (q.sub.w /k.sub.rw) vs. average water saturation (S.sub.w) for the first core sample at a second flow rate q.sub.t, produced using water relative permeability values k.sub.rw calculated in accordance with conventional techniques; and (2) a correction line produced in accordance with the method of the invention;
FIG. 3 are plots of: (1) (q.sub.w /k.sub.rw) vs. average water saturation (S.sub.w) for the first core sample at a third flow rate q.sub.t, produced using water relative permeability values k.sub.rw calculated in accordance with conventional techniques; and (2) a correction line produced in accordance with a method of the invention;
FIG. 4 are plots of water relative permeability values k.sub.rw, calculated using conventional techniques, vs. water saturation (S.sub.w) for different displacement rates (q.sub.t) for the first core sample;
FIG. 5 are plots similar to those of FIG. 4, but showing corrected water relative permeability values k.sub.rwc obtained in accordance with the method of the invention;
FIG. 6 are plots similar to those of FIG. 4, but for a second core sample;
FIG. 7 are plots of corrected k.sub.rwc values vs. water saturation S.sub.w similar to those of FIG. 5, but for the second core sample;
FIG. 8 are plots, similar to those of FIGS. 4 and 6, but for a third core sample;
FIG. 9 are plots of corrected k.sub.rwc values vs. water saturation S.sub.w similar to those of FIGS. 5 and 7, but for the third core sample;
FIG. 10 are plots similar to those of FIGS. 4, 6 and 8, but for a fourth core sample; and
FIG. 11 are plots of corrected k.sub.rwc values vs. water saturation S.sub.w similar to those of FIGS. 5, 7 and 9, but for the fourth core sample.
Detailed Description of the Invention
In taking dynamic displacement measurements and in subsequently calculating relative water permeability values (k.sub.rw) from the acquired data, it can be observed that water relative permeability values (k.sub.rw), calculated using conventional techniques, such as the Jones and Roszelle technique, are a strong function of the displacement rate (q.sub.t), i.e., fluid flow rate, used in obtaining the dynamic displacement data. Variations in the calculated water relative permeability values can be attributed to the so-called end-effect discussed above. Moreover, it can be observed that a critical fluid displacement rate (q.sub.t) required to eliminate the end-effect over a wide angle of saturation values is, for all practical purposes, unattainable.
During investigation of the end-effect on relative water permeability calculations, various dynamic displacement experiments using water-oil systems were performed on several core samples, designated as P.sub.7, P.sub.2, P.sub.9 and 4929B. Different displacement rates q.sub.t (e.g., 0.05, 0.10, 0.15, 0.20, 0.35, 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 cc/min) were used for different ones of the core samples, and relative permeabilities to water k.sub.rw were calculated using the Jones and Roszelle technique. Plots of water relative permeability vs. water saturation S.sub.w were then produced and are shown in FIG. 4 (for sample P.sub.7), FIG. 6 (for sample P.sub.2), FIG. 8 (for sample P.sub.9) and FIG. 10 (for sample 4929B).
Water relative permeability values were calculated for the four different core samples at differing oil injection rates q.sub.t, and water relative permeability k.sub.rw vs. water saturation (S.sub.w) curves were then produced. The calculations were performed using the conventional Jones and Roszelle technique discussed above. As shown by FIGS. 4, 6, 8 and 10, the calculated relative water permeability value k.sub.rw changes considerably when different displacement rates q.sub.t are used. The deviations in calculated water relative permeability values k.sub.rw are attributed to the end-effect discussed above, which causes an extra pressure drop and distorted effluent measurements at the effluent end of the core sample. The width of the end-effect zone increases with a decrease in flow rate, so that the additive pressure drop caused by it compared with the pressure drop due to the viscous forces will be relatively higher for low displacement rates. Since relative permeability, as calculated by the Jones and Roszelle technique, is basically inversely proportional to the pressure drop across the core, a low flow rate results in a calculated relative permeability value which is too low.
FIG. 1 shows a plot of the ratio of water output flow q.sub.w to calculated water relative permeability k.sub.rw vs. the average water saturation (S.sub.w) for the P.sub.7 core sample. An observation of this plot shows that a straight line segment is produced where the oil saturation is relatively high. Experimental results indicated that the range of oil saturation where the straight line persists increases with displacement rate. Thus, at very low flow rates, the straight line segment is extremely short or non-existent. The deviation of the remaining points of the q.sub.w /k.sub.rw vs. S.sub.w plot from the extrapolation of the straight line increases with a decrease in oil saturation or an increase in water saturation. For the same oil saturation, the deviation decreases with an increase in displacement rate. Since at relatively high oil saturation the end-effect is insignificant, which coincides with the observed linear relationship between q.sub.w /k.sub.rw vs. S.sub.w, the present invention is based on the theory that the straight line relationship should be the true relationship between the plot of q.sub.w /k.sub.rw vs. S.sub.w, for the total range of saturation values were it not for the perturbations caused by the end-effect. In other words, the difference between the experimentally determined ratio q.sub.w /k.sub.rw and the corresponding values read from the extrapolated straight line, reflects the perturbations introduced by the extra pressure drop caused by the end-effect. Moreover, if flow is obtained in a stabilized regime without the end-effect, the plotted results would terminate at the irreducible minimum water saturation value S.sub.iw. This is the lowest water saturation obtainable and is a point where the water flow q.sub.w =0.
In the method of the invention, the end-effect is corrected for by correcting the experimentally determined ratio q.sub.w /k.sub.rw to an extrapolated straight line, which is parallel to a straight line segment in the q.sub.w /k.sub.rw vs. S.sub.w plot for low water saturations (or a tangent line to the q.sub.w /k.sub.rw vs. S.sub.w plot) and which is shifted relative to the straight line segment or tangent line so as to pass through the irreducible minimum water saturation point S.sub.iw.
In the method of the invention, the first step is to conduct conventional dynamic displacement tests using an oil and water flood, and from the data obtained, to calculate the relative permeability to water k.sub.rw of the core under consideration by the Jones and Roszelle technique described above and in more detail in the Jones and Roszelle article referenced above.
Briefly, and by way of background, the method of calculating water relative permeability values using the Jones and Roszelle technique is as follows.
Relative oil (k.sub.ro) and water (k.sub.w) permeability values are defined by the equations:
and
where u.sub.o is the viscosity of the oil used in the dynamic displacement measurements, u.sub.w is the viscosity of water used in the dynamic displacement measurements, f.sub.o is the fraction of oil produced in the core effluent (0-100%); f.sub.o =1-f.sub.w), f.sub.w is the fraction of water produced in the core effluent (0-100%), and .lambda..sub.2 -1 is an effective viscosity. The values f.sub.o, f.sub.w and .lambda..sub.2 -1 are determined as functions of saturation.
The effective viscosity .lambda..sub.2.sup.-1 can be determined, as per the Jones and Roszelle technique, by taking a tangent to a curve of average effective viscosity .lambda..sup.-1 vs. total injected fluid (rate x time) for particular values of injected fluid Qi (dimensioned in terms of pore volume), and extending the tangent line to the average effective viscosity .lambda..sup.-1 axis. This extension yields an effective viscosity value .lambda..sub.2.sup.-1, which can be used to solve equations (1) and (2) above. Mathematically, the tangent line which yields the effective viscosity .lambda..sub.2.sup.-1 is defined by ##EQU1## where Qi represents injected fluid in terms of core pore volume.
The average effective viscosity .lambda..sup.-1 values are in turn defined by the following relationship: ##EQU2## where .DELTA.Pb is the pressure drop across the core during a water-only steady state flood of the core sample, q.sub.b is the injection rate of the water, u.sub.b is the water viscosity, .DELTA.P is the pressure drop across the core during a water flood measurement and q is the water injection rate. The average effective viscosity .lambda..sup.-1 obtained from equation (4) is plotted vs. the total amount of injected fluid Qi, given in terms of core pore volume, and the effective viscosity .lambda..sub.2.sup.-1 is then obtained, as described above, for any desired injected fluid amount Qi.
The other variables in equations (1) and (2) are f.sub.o and f.sub.w. These are determined as follows: ##EQU3## with the values .lambda..sub.2.sup.-1, f.sub.0 and f.sub.w, relative permeability values for oil (k.sub.ro) and water (k.sub.rw) can be determined from equations (1) and (2) above.
After water relative permeability values k.sub.w are calculated using, for example, the Jones and Roszelle technique, the ratio q.sub.w /k.sub.rw is plotted. In plotting q.sub.w /k.sub.rw an initial water relative permeability value k.sub.rwi for the plotted curve is first determined using Darcy's law, which is as follows: ##EQU4## where q.sub.w is the effluent rate, A is the cross-sectional area of the core sample, k is the specific permeability of the core (measured when only water or oil alone is present), k.sub.rwi is a relative permeability to water at residual water saturation, u.sub.w is the viscosity of water, .DELTA.P is the pressure drop across the core at residual water saturation, and L is the length of the core. All of the values in the above equation are fixed, except for k.sub.rwi, which can then be calculated. This provides an initial water relative permeability starting point k.sub.rwi for the plot q.sub.w /k.sub.rw. For this point, f.sub.w approaches zero and q.sub.w /k.sub.rw approaches zero.
After plotting the ratio q.sub.w /k.sub.rw vs. S.sub.w using the initial k.sub.rwi point calculated from Darcy's law, the plot is evaluated. It normally will show a straight line segment in the range of high oil saturations. This straight line segment is then drawn and extrapolated to the limit of the experimental data (the plotted q.sub.w /k.sub.rw vs. S.sub.w values). For very low displacement rates, the straight line segment may not exist. If this occurs, the initial starting point, i.e., q.sub.t /k.sub.rwi, is used and a tangent line is drawn to the q.sub.w /k.sub.rw vs. S.sub.w ratio plot.
The next step in the method of the invention involves constructing a line in parallel with the straight line segment, or in parallel with a tangent to the q.sub.w /k.sub.rw vs. S.sub.w plot if no straight line segment exists and through the first plotted point, and displaced from the straight line segment or tangent line so that it passes through the irreducible water saturation value S.sub.iw, where the flow rate q.sub.w =0. This additionally constructed line is illustrated in FIGS. 1, 2 and 3 for the same core sample with different flow rates q.sub.t.
Once the additional straight line is constructed, the corrected relative permeability values k.sub.rwc can then be calculated in accordance with the expression:
where the value (q.sub.w /k.sub.rw) is the plotted value on the q.sub.w /k.sub.rw vs. S.sub.w curve, calculated using the Jones and Roszelle technique discussed above, and (q.sub.w /k.sub.rw)SL is the plotted value read on the additionally constructed straight line, for the same average water saturation (S.sub.w) value.
The corrected values k.sub.rws for water relative permeability are then used in place of k.sub.rw values to produce a curve of water relative permeability vs. saturation (k.sub.rw vs. S.sub.w) at the effluent end of the core samples.
The method of the invention was used employed with several core samples to obtain corrected relative water permeability values k.sub.rw. Dynamic displacement measurement data were collected on four core samples designated P.sub.7, P.sub.2 and P.sub.9 and 4929B. The permeabilities of these samples were respectively 31, 156, 695 and 25 millidarcies. Several displacement experiments with variations in rates as high as ten-fold were run on each core sample. Water relative permeabilities were calculated using the conventional Jones and Roszelle technique, and plots of k.sub.rw vs. water saturation S.sub.w for different water injection rates q.sub.t are depicted for the respective four core samples in FIGS. 4, 6, 8 and 10. The effect of flow rate on the calculated water relative permeability values k.sub.rw is readily apparent from these figures. Thereafter, the method of the invention was employed, as graphically demonstrated in FIGS. 1 (straight line extrapolation) and 2 and 3 (tangent to curve extrapolation) for the P.sub.7 core samle, to correct the relative water permeability values and the corrected results for the four core samples are respectively shown in the k.sub.rw vs. S.sub.w plots depicted in FIGS. 5, 7, 9 and 11.
It should be readily apparent to those skilled in the art that all procedures of the above-described method of the invention can be implemented by a suitably programmed digital computer. In addition, other variations can be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. Accordingly, the invention is not limited by the foregoing description, but is only limited by the scope of the claims appended hereto.
Claims
I claim:
1. A method for determining correct relative water permeability values for a core sample, comprising the steps of: performing oil flood dynamic displacement measurements on said core sample; determining characteristics of said core sample; determining from data collected during said measurements, and from said characteristics of said characteristics of said core sample relative water permeability values (k.sub.rw) for said core, said determined relative water permeability values (k.sub.rw) being offset from correct relative water permeability values (k.sub.rwc) as a result of an end-effect which introduces an increased fluid pressure drop at an effluent end of said core sample; and correcting said determined relative water permeability (k.sub.rw) values toward said correct relative oil permeability values (k.sub.rwc) thereby minimizing the effects caused by said end effect on said determined relative oil permeability values (k.sub.rw), and wherein said correcting step comprises the steps of: initially plotting a ratio q.sub.w /k.sub.rw vs. average fluid saturation of said core sample, where q.sub.w is the rate of water produced at the effluent end of said core sample during said oil flood dynamic displacement measurement; determining an initial relative water permeability value k.sub.rwi at a residual water saturation of said core sample, said value k.sub.rwi being used to determine the first point of the plot of q.sub.w /k.sub.rw vs. average fluid saturation; determining if a straight line segment exists in said plotted ratio in areas thereof corresponding to high oil saturation and, if so, drawing and extrapolating said straight line segment to the limit of the plotted data, otherwise, constructing a tangent line to the plotted ratio beginning at the point corresponding to k.sub.rwi ; producing a straight line in parallel with said straight line segment or said tangent line, said produced straight line passing through an irreducible water saturation value S.sub.iw ; and determining corrected relative water permeability values k.sub.rwc, where ##EQU5## and (q.sub.w /k.sub.rw) is the initially plotted ratio and (q.sub.w /k.sub.rw)SL is the value appearing on the produced straight line for the same average fluid saturation value.
2. A method as in claim 1, wherein said average core saturation is an average water saturation (S.sub.w).
3. A method as in claim 1, wherein said average core saturation is an average oil saturation (S.sub.o).
4. A method as in claim 1, wherein said initial relative water permeability value k.sub.rwi is determined in accordance with Darcy's law.
5. A method for determining correct relative water permeability values for a core sample, comprising the steps of: performing oil flood dynamic displacement measurements on said core sample; determining characteristics of said core sample; determining from data collected during said measurements, and from said characteristics of said characteristics of said core sample, relative water permeability values (k.sub.rw) for said core, said determined relative water permeability values (k.sub.rw) being offset from correct relative water permeability values (k.sub.rwc) as a result of an end-effect which introduces an increased fluid pressure drop at an effluent end of said core sample; and correcting said determined relative water permeablity (k.sub.rw) values toward said correct relative oil permeability values (k.sub.rwc) thereby minimizing the effects caused by said end effect on said determined relative oil permeabiity values (k.sub.rw), and wherein said determined relative water permeability values k.sub.rw are determined in accordance with the relationship where u.sub.w is the viscosity of the water injected into said core sample during said water flood measurement, f.sub.w is the fractional flow of water from said core sample during said water flood measurements and .lambda..sub.2 -1 is the effective viscosity of the effluent at the outflow end of said core sample during said water flood measurements.
6. A method for determining corrected water relative permeability values for a core sample comprising the steps of: injecting a first fluid through said core sample at a predetermined displacement rate for a first predetermined period of time and measuring: (1) a pressure drop of said fluid .DELTA.Pb across said sample after a steady state flow is reached, and (2) a rate of injection of said fluid q.sub.b during said predetermined period of time; determining the total amount of fluid injected Qi in terms of core pore volume; injecting water through said core sample when said core sample is saturated with said fluid and during a second period of time while measuring a pressure drop .DELTA.P across said sample; determining a fractional water flow f.sub.w for said core sample during said water injection step; determining average effective viscosity values .lambda..sup.-1 for the measured values of .DELTA.P, in accordance with the relationship: ##EQU6## where u.sub.b is the first fluid viscosity and q is the oil injection rate; determining effective viscosity values .lambda..sub.2.sup.-1, where ##EQU7## and Qi is the total amount of injected fluid in terms of core pore volume; determining relative water permeability values k.sub.rw, where and u.sub.w is the viscosity of the water injected into the core and f.sub.w is the fraction of water produced at an effluent end of the core when oil is injected therein; plotting the ratio q.sub.w /k.sub.rw vs. average core saturation, where q.sub.w is the amount of water contained in the effluent discharging from said core sample during said oil injection; determining an initial relative water permeability value k.sub.rwi at the residual water saturation of the core sample, said value k.sub.rwi being used to determine the first point of the q.sub.w /k.sub.rw vs. average core saturation plot; determining if a straight line segment exists in said plotted ratio in areas of the plot corresponding to high oil saturation and, if so, extrapolating said straight line segment to the limit of the plotted data, otherwise, constructing a tangent line to the plotted ratio beginning at the point corresponding to k.sub.rwi ; producing a straight line in parallel with said straight line segment or said tangent line, said produced straight line passing through an irreducible water saturation value S.sub.iw ; and determining corrected relative permeability values k.sub.rwc, where ##EQU8## and (q.sub.w /k.sub.rw) is the initially plotted ratio and (q.sub.w /k.sub.rw)SL is the value appearing on the produced straight line for the same core saturation value.
7. A method as in claim 6, wherein said average core saturation comprises at least one of an average water (S.sub.w) saturation and an average oil (S.sub.o) saturation.
Patent Citations (4)
| Patent | Date | Inventor | Cited By |
|---|---|---|---|
| US2693104 | 1954-11-01 | Welge et al. | |
| US3140599 | 1964-07-01 | Rahme et al. | |
| US3420093 | 1969-01-01 | Collins | |
| US4253327 | 1981-03-01 | Wiley |
Non-Patent Literature (2)
- "Graphical Techniques for Determining Relative Permeability from Displacement Experiments", by Jones, S. C. et al., Transactions, AIME, vol. 265, pp. 807-817, 1978.
- "Laboratory Determination of Relative Permeability", Richardson, J. G. et al., Transactions, AIME, vol. 195, pp. 187-196, 1952.