SPE 165324-MS

Novel Three-Phase Compositional Relative Permeability and Three-Phase

Hysteresis Models
Mohammad R. Beygi, Mojdeh Delshad, Venkateswaran S. Pudugramam, Gary A. Pope, and Mary F. Wheeler,
SPE, The University of Texas at Austin
Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Western Regional & AAPG Pacific Section Meeting, 2013 Joint Technical Conference held in Monterey, California, USA, 1925 April 2013.

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
Mobility control methods have the potential to improve coupled enhanced oil recovery and CO
2
storage technique
(CO
2
-EOR). There is a need for improved three-phase relative permeability models with hysteresis including especially the
effects of cycle dependency so that more accurate predictions of these methods can be made. We propose new three-phase
relative permeability and three-phase hysteresis models applicable to different fluid configurations in porous medium under
different wettability conditions. The relative permeability model also includes compositional effects. Three-phase parameters
are estimated based on saturation-weighted interpolation of two-phase parameters. The hysteresis model is an extension of
the Land trapping model but with a dynamic Land coefficient introduced. The trapping model estimates a constantly
increasing trapped saturation for intermediate- and non-wetting phases. The model overcomes some of the limitations of
existing three-phase hysteresis models for non-water wet rocks and mitigates the complexity associated with commonly
applied models in numerical simulators. The model is validated using multi-cyclic three-phase water-alternating-gas
experimental data for non-water wet rocks. Numerical simulations of a carbonate reservoir with and without hysteresis were
used to assess the impact of the saturation direction and saturation path on gas entrapment and oil recovery.

Background and Literature Review
Unlike water-wet rocks, mixed-wet reservoirs show a continuous oil phase in three-phase flow resulting in small, yet non-
zero, values of the oil relative permeability (Salathiel, 1973). The dependence of phase isoperms on one or two phase
saturation in the saturation space is complex and difficult to predict a priori by empirical models (van Dijke et al., 2001). The
contact angle plays a crucial role in fluid configurations in porous media. Moreover, by studying three-phase displacement
processes and pore-scale mechanisms in etched micromodels, it was revealed that fluid configurations can be categorized
based on the phase spreading coefficient (C
s
) defined as a balance of interfacial tensions (Adamson, 1960):

( )
1 3 2 1 2 2 3 S
C o o o = + (1)
The necessary condition for a spreading oil layer (phase 2) between water and gas phases (phase 1 and phase 3,
respectively) is the non-negative

; otherwise, a three-phase contact line exists. In the non-spreading case, oil is wetting
relative to gas and either water or gas could be the wetting phase depending on the gas-water contact angle. The difference
between oil-water and gas-oil interfacial tension identifies the intermediate-wetting phase in non-water-wet rocks. This
complex fluid configuration and flow in porous media delineates regions in saturation space where commonly used relative
permeability models fail to replicate the physical behavior. There are commonly used correlations based on an assumed fluid
configuration that are not easy to generalize to other fluid configurations.
Three-Phase Relative Permeability Models
Based on an extension of Marles (1981) description, there are numerous parameters that impact relative permeability:
saturations, wettability, pore shape and size, trapping number (interaction of viscous, gravitational, and capillary forces (Pope
et al., 2000), saturation direction and saturation path, and composition. In three-phase flow, except for certain special
conditions, relative permeability measurements are incomplete. More precisely, for a specified phase with a fixed saturation,
there are an infinite number of combinations of the saturations for three-phase flow. A conventional approach is to estimate
2 SPE 165324-MS
three-phase flow relative permeability based on measured two-phase relative permeabilities. Table 1 provides a
chronological list of some of the three-phase relative permeability models. It implies that saturation-averaged interpolation
method is a common choice in more recent models in lieu of other mathematical models, viz. capillary models, statistical
models, and network models. Several investigators (Fayers and Matthews (1984); Baker (1988); Delshad and Pope (1989);
Oak ( (1990) and (1991)); Skjveland and Kleppe (1992); Hustad and Holt (1992); Balbinski et al. (1999); Pejic and Maini
(2003); Spiteri et al. (2006); Ahmadloo et al. (2009)) have identified various limitations of classical three-phase relative
permeability models such as Stone I and Stone II, especially for non-water wet conditions and/or at low oil saturation.

Three-Phase Residual Saturation and Its Impact on Three-Phase Relative Permeability
Two- and three-phase residual saturations are not unique and depend on wettability and saturation history, i.e. saturation
direction and saturation path. Some of the published three-phase residual saturation models are summarized in Table 2.
One of the shortcomings of widely used three-phase relative permeability models to predict the actual behavior in three-
phase flow initiates from the residual saturation prediction. Balbinski et al. (1999) investigated the impact of residual oil
saturation in Stone I and the implied residual oil saturation by Stone II model and realized that there is a problem of
consistency in choice of residual oil saturation for Stone I; besides, the Stone II formulation results in mathematically
singular residual oil saturation values near the two-phase axis that are much larger than two-phase values.
In extreme wettability conditions, the wetting fluid, i.e. water or oil, shows minimal trapping and hysteretic behavior.
The advancing and receding wetting films formed by saturation increasing and decreasing processes are stable leading to a
hydraulically continuous wetting phase even at very low saturations (Dullien et al., 1989). Non-wetting phase trapping
causes the wetting phase to flow in larger pores than it would otherwise have done in the absence of trapping. The wetting
and non-wetting phase relative permeability depends only on the wetting and non-wetting phase saturation, respectively. The
non-wetting phase relative permeability is saturation-history dependent. The intermediate-wetting phase relative permeability
depends on the saturation of two phases and is impacted by the presence of an immobile wetting phase. In an extensive study
of Prudhoe Bay intermediate-wet sandstone, Jerauld (1997) observed the direct impact of initial water saturation on oil
relative permeability. Kalaydjian et al. (1995) reported experiments on water-wet samples showing that relative permeability
is affected by the spreading coefficient and by the presence of connate water.
For oil-wet Tensleep sandstone and Grayburg carbonate samples, Schneider and Owens (1970) recognized that in the
absence of a water film the water relative permeability decreased by increasing gas entrapment. The water relative
permeability decreased during secondary drainage compared to that of a waterflood at a given water saturation. Even low
residual oil saturations following a miscible flood drastically decreased the water relative permeability. Baker (1993) reported
gas flood experiments on oil-wet samples from the Tensleep formation showing a correlation between residual and initial
water saturations. DiCarlo et al. (2000) aged water-wet sand to measure three-phase gravity drainage on oil-wet sand and
showed that water relative permeability for oil-wet sand is similar to oil relative permeability for water-wet sand.
For the intermediate-wet state, water, oil and gas may all show hysteresis. The initial-trapped saturation dependency may
exist for all phases. Jerauld (1997) found systematic differences between water relative permeability during waterfloods and
miscible water alternating gas (WAG) floods in Prudhoe Bay intermediate-wet sandstone. Oak (1991) treated water-wet
Berea sandstone to make it intermediate wet and found a slight dependency of water relative permeability on the saturations
of the other two phases implying water entrapment in non-water wet rocks.
Based on results of capillary bundle model by van Dijke et al. (2001), gas is always non-wetting to oil calling for a
hysteretic behavior leading to gas entrapment during oil floods. For both spreading and non-spreading systems, gas-water
displacement occurs through a double displacement mechanism. In an oil-wet pore, gas and water are not in direct contact,
but gas is not necessarily the non-wetting phase. If the oil-water IFT is larger than the gas-oil IFT, then gas and water behave
as intermediate- and non-wetting phases, respectively. Vizika and Lombard (1996) showed that within three-phase gas
drainage in oil-wet sands, the gas relative permeability does not change both for spreading and non-spreading oil. DiCarlo et
al. (2000) showed that gas relative permeability in an oil-wet sand is smaller than in a water-wet sand and concluded that gas
is not necessarily the non-wetting phase.

Initial-Trapped Saturation
Phase trapping depends on porosity, microposity, and the maximum phase saturation attained in the increasing process.
Several empirical models describe the initial-trapped saturation relationship. Table 3 summarizes different models used to
estimate the trapped saturation. Following the pioneering work of Land [(1968) and (1971)] to estimate the trapped non-
wetting saturation and to introduce the definition for flowing saturation, different adaptations of his approach have been
widely used. Ma and Youngren (1994) generalized the Land correlation to account for sharp level-off of the trapped
saturation at high initial saturations:

( )

1
m a x
t
j
j
m
j d
a x
S
S
a S
=
+
(2)
where and are empirically derived constants.

SPE 165324-MS 3
Table 3 implies that except for the parabola shape of the Spiteri et al. (2008) correlation, the trapped saturation
monotonically increases by higher initial saturation attained in the saturation increasing process. Some investigators stated
that the hyperbolic laws, i.e. Land or its modified formulations, cannot represent the trapping behavior within their
experiments. Two-phase pore-network model results showed that the Land equation does not capture the trend of initial-
trapped saturation for high initial saturation in non-water-wet rocks (Spiteri et al., 2008). Pentland et al. (2010) measured oil
trapping as a function of its initial saturation in unconsolidated sandpacks. Their results were in agreement with the Aissaoui
(1983) and the Spiteri et al. (2008) trapping models. Suzanne et al. (2003) exaimined the two-phase initial-trapped gas
saturation for a large set of sandstone samples and concluded that the piecewise linear model, i.e. Aissaoui (1983), represents
the initial-trapped gas saturation relationship in shaly sandstone rock. They described that the constant trapped gas saturation
plateau corresponding to the high initial gas saturation is due to the microporosity in which gas dos not trap.

Hysteresis Models
There are numerous empirical models to capture saturation direction and path dependency in relative permeability and/or in
capillary pressure. Table 4 lists some of the available two- and three- phase hysteresis models. A common feature proposed
by two-phase hysteresis models is the assumption of reversibility of the relative permeability curves where the primary
saturation decreasing curve is representative of any subsequent saturation increasing processes. However, this assumption is
not validated with experimental results for multi-cycle processes.
The three-phase hysteresis models, however, predict cycle-dependent relative permeability curves where each cycle has
the scanning curves for the saturation increasing and decreasing processes. These models predict an irreversible hysteresis
behavior imposed by saturation path dependency. It is observed that the both gas and water relative permeabilities decrease in
each WAG cycles at the same saturation resulting in lowering the well injectivity. Larsen and Skauge (1998) published an
empirical model based on their immiscible- and miscible- WAG experiments. Their model relaxes the assumption of the
scanning curves reversibility resulting in a cycle-dependent relative permeability model for the gas phase. They also
proposed a three-phase water relative permeability model for water-wet media based on saturation-averaged interpolation
between primary and secondary waterflood relative permeabilities. For oil-wet media, the water entrapment by gas is only
considered in the Egermann three-phase hysteresis model (Egermann et al., 2000). Oil relative permeability in subsequent
WAG cycles increases because trapped oil saturation decreases with a higher likelihood of simultaneous water and gas
trapping.
A major deficiency of the existing models is the limitation in accounting for hysteresis when one phase
disappears/appears because of mass transfer between the phases. Moreover, the currently available three-phase hysteresis
models, by their nature, add complexity to compositional simulations.

Proposed Relative Permeability Model (UTKR3P)
A three-phase relative permeability model should capture the essential physical behavior and be as simple as possible to be
useful in compositional reservoir simulators. Equations with a minimum of parameters have advantages over tables.
Therefore, we generalized the approach that Jerauld (1997) used for the gas phase to all of the phases. For phase flowing
with phases and , the relative permeability is given by:


( ) ( )
( )
1
1
2
2
2
0
1
1
1
1
j
j
j
C
C
C
r
j j
j j
j j
r
S
k k
S
C
C
| |
+ |
|
\ .
+
=
+
j= phase 1, 2, or 3 (3)
where normalized saturation is defined as:

( )

3
3

1
mi n ,
1
j j j t
j
P
i r
i
S S S
S
S
=

j= phase 1, 2, or 3 (4)
Three-phase parameters, i.e. endpoint relative permeability (

) and curvatures (

and

), are estimated using a linear

saturation-weighted interpolation between the two-phase parameters as follows:

( ) ( )

1
m m m c c
c
l l l
c
j
j
l m
j
j
S S F S S F
F
S S S
+
=

(5)
where

and

are two-phase parameters (

, or

where i=m or l).

This relative permeability formulation is inherently saturation-path dependent and multiple relative permeability curves
can be generated for each phase based on the current three-phase residual saturation values. The trapped saturation (

) in the
normalized saturation (Eq. 4) is defined based on the implemented hysteresis model and

]. To calculate the
normalized saturation for each phase, three sets of three-phase residual saturations (

) are needed. The

is modeled
4 SPE 165324-MS
using a modified correlation proposed by Yuan and Pope (2012). We have modified the definition of saturation from original
model to an effective saturation. For phase , the three-phase residual saturation defined as:

{ }
2 3
, , (1 ( )( ))
P
r l l j c c c
P
m j m j j r j
min S max S S b S S S S S m l j ( = = =

(6)
The two-phase residual saturation

assumed either as the minimum of two-phase residual saturations corrected for
the effect of compositional changes using Eq. 8 (

and

) or estimated by a saturation-weighted interpolation between

and

(use Eq. 5 for linear interpolation). If the optional compositional consistency method (Eq. 11) is not used,
the latter method can mitigate discontinuities associated with the appearance or disappearance of a phase during
compositional simulations, as noted by Fayers (1989) and Balbinski et al. (1999).
The fitting parameter depends on the rock wettability and phase composition and directly impacts the relative
permeabilities. For example, by allocating phase indices 1, 2, and 3 for water, oil, and gas phases, respectively, Fig. 1 depicts
the impact of

on the curvature of the oil-isoperms. Large positive values of

result in convex oil-isoperms while

negative values of result in concave oil-isoperms. The effect of b is more pronounced in the higher oil-isoperm values.
Many other models do not have this essential flexibility.
Eq. 3 results in an S-shape curve which can be transformed to an exponential Corey-type model based on the exponents

and

. At small phase saturations, the model approaches Corey-type behavior leading to good agreement with
experimental results. The existence of a continuous oil layer, for example, in intermediate-wet rocks can be modeled
effectively using the proposed approach. At high saturations, however, the second term in the denominator of Eq. 3
dominates and dampens the sharp increase in relative permeability. The power exponent of the second term in the
denominator of Eq. 3 is chosen to be the maximum acceptable value resulting in a non-negative slope of the relative
permeability curve.

Compositional effects
Relative permeability is in general a function of phase compositions as well as phase saturations. Furthermore, the relative
permeability model should be continuous as phases appear or disappear both for physical realism and to prevent numerical
instabilities and other problems in numerical reservoir simulators. We incorporate these features in two ways: the trapping
number effect (Pope et al., 2000) and by direct and continuous compositional dependency following Yuan and Pope (2012).
Some previous models have used density to identify phases but this is not a general solution to the problem. Jerauld
(1997) proposed a gas-like parameter based on the parachor-weighted molar density of immiscible oil, gas, and the current
condition. Hustad (2002) related the endpoint saturation to the ratio of IFT under the current state to an immiscible state and
also scaled the two-phase relative permeabilities. Yuan and Pope (2012) stated that to avoid any discontinuities in the relative
permeability it should be a function of intensive thermodynamic properties that are continuous at local thermodynamic
equilibrium. They proposed the molar Gibbs Free Energy (GFE) of each phase available from flash calculations in
compositional simulations, and used a GFE-averaged interpolation scheme between the reference and current states for each
phase. This method calls for relative permeability equations that can be interchangeably used for all of the phases. It
alleviates labeling the phases as water/oil/gas, resolves the phase-flipping issue due to incorrect phase labeling, and results in
a continuous relative permeability values.

a) Trapping number effect
Two-phase parameters, denoted as

in Eq. 7 represent any of the parameters of

, or

and are modeled

using the capillary-desaturation results:

( ) ( ) 1
j j j
L H L
i i i i i j
Q Q Q Q u = + i= phase or (7)
Two-phase residual saturations are correlated using the following equation:

*
( )
H L H
r i r i r i r i j j j j j
S S S S u = + i= phase or (8)
where and denote high and low trapping number conditions, and

is the trapping coefficient and a function of the
trapping number (

). Note that two different trapping coefficients are used in estimation of the two-phase residual
saturation compared to the other two-phase parameters (Eqs. 7 and 8).

1
j
j
j Tj
T N
t
u =
+
(9)

( ) ( )
T
.
N
j
j
i
i
j
i i
k g D
o
V u + V
= i= phase or (10)
SPE 165324-MS 5
In Eq. 9,

and

are obtained by fitting the residual saturation data for phase displaced by phase . Trapping
number effect can be considered as an additional option for the three-phase relative permeability model.

b) Compositional consistency
The initial value of

for the different phases are calculated at the initial pressure, temperature and composition and sorted as
[minimum GFE

, intermediate GFE

, and maximum GFE

and are input parameters to the model. Linear
interpolation, then, is used to calculate relative permeability parameters based on

for new values of pressure, temperature,

and composition.

( )
( )

mi n

m i n
m i n i n t m i n i n t
R R R i n t
i n t
i n t m a x i n t i n t
R R R
j
j
j
j
j m a x i n t
G G
F F F i f G G
G G
F
G G
F F F i f G G
G G

+ <

+ >

(11)
where refers to any of the two-phase flow relative permeability parameters (

, or

).

, and

are relative permeability parameters associated with aforementioned reference GFE values, respectively.
Compositional consistency can be considered as an additional option for the three-phase relative permeability model.

Proposed Three-Phase Hysteresis Model (UTHYST)
The proposed model offers a simple approach to calculate irreversible hysteresis behavior for any phase. The hysteretic
relative permeability uses the following equation in multi-cycle processes where the impact of saturation direction and/or
saturation path is considered.

( )

,
j j j r r t
n
j
k k S S
(
=
(

j= phase 1, 2, or 3 (12)

This method is applicable to any relative permeability model that includes the trapped saturation. The monotonically
increasing trapped saturation for different phases is preserved even in miscible multi-cycle processes as follows:

( ) ( )


, 1
j
j
c
t t t I
n
m
n E
j
m
j
S
S S S
S
o

| |
= + A
|
\ .
(13)
where the (

is the trapped saturation corresponding to the end of previous cycle,

is the trapped saturation for

the current cycle, and set of parantheses introduces the effect of conjugate phase saturation at the start of the current cycle on
phase entrapment. Water, oil, and gas are defined as the conjugate phase for the gas, water, and oil phase, respectively.
We adopt a modified Jeraulds model (Jerauld, 1997) to estimate phase trapping for the non-wetting phases:

1

m a x ( , )
,
1 m a x ( , )
j
j
j j j
j j
j j j
m a x
c m a x
t c
m a
j
x
j j
L
c
S S S
S S L S
L S S S
|
+

( = +

( +

(14)
The trapped saturation in different cycles is calculated as follows:


( )

, 1 , 1
,
j j j
m a x
t t
E n
j
E n
S S S L

( =

(15)

( ) ( )

, 1

,
j j j j
m a x
t t
n E n
j
S S S S L

(
A =
(

(16)
The trapping behavior during multi-cycle WAG processes may not be reproduced using constant Lands coefficient.
Element et al. (2003) used in-situ saturation monitoring to mitigate laboratory artifacts within their experiments on multi-
cycle water-alternate-CO
2
floods in the aged Berea sandstone. They showed that Lands coefficient varies during different
hysteresis cycles and that none of available hysteresis models can accurately predicts the observed three-phase hysteresis.
Spiteri and Juanes (2006) analyzed the two-phase samples of Oak data (1991) with a wide range of permeability and found
that generally Lands coefficient depends on rock permeability and the pair of fluids used. They attributed this behavior to the
difference in advancing contact angle for different fluids. Shahverdi et al. (2011) carried out miscible WAG floods using
water- and mixed-wet cores and stated that using two-phase Lands coefficient to calculate trapped gas saturation results in
poor agreement with the measured data. The proposed model, thereby, addresses a cycle-dependent Land coefficient in a
multi-cycle process.
6 SPE 165324-MS

3 *
1
1 1
1
j
j j r c
i c
i
L
S S
S
=
=

(17)
where

is the multiphase residual saturation corrected for compositional changes at high trapping number in which the
trapped saturation decreases due to mass transfer between the trapped and the displacing fluids (refer to Eq. 8). The
denominator of the second part of Eq. 17 refers to the maximum phase saturation based on the minimum attainable saturation
of the other two phases flowing with phase (

and

).

Testing the Models
We first show the proposed UTKR3P model captures the trends in two- and three-phase measured data. Then, we present
compositional simulation studies.

Experimental three-phase data
We tested the proposed model using the relative permeability data of Donaldson (1966), Oak (1990), Oak (1991), Maini et al.
(1990) and Baker (1993). In general, the UTKR3P model captures the relative permeability trends for water- and oil- wet
rocks even in saturation range where phase relative permeability is a function of its own saturation. It is due to applying an
interpolation scheme between the two-phase relative permeability parameters. We present the results of the predicted and
measured relative permeability data of intermediate samples (Oak, 1991) where all relative permeabilities were functions of
two saturations. Fig. 2 shows six measured two-phase relative permeabilities. The two-phase data provided six sets of
endpoints, curvature, and residual saturations. The ternary diagram shows only the measured three-phase gas isoperms in the
decreasing water saturation, decreasing oil saturation and increasing gas saturation (DDI) direction.
To quantify the effectiveness of the UTKR3P model compared to measured three-phase data, we used the standard error
of estimate (SEE) as

( )
j
2

S E E
ca l c e
j
xp r
r
j
rj
k k
N

= (18)
where the superscripts and denote calculated and measured relative permeability and N is number of
experimental data points for each phase. Fig. 3 shows the trend of measured and calculated relative permeability for different
phases. There is a good agreement between the measured and calculated relative permeability values considering only one
parameter (

) is used and a very narrow range of saturations was experienced in the experiment. Matching parameters
and the SEEs are given for each phase in Fig. 3.
While this test provide promising results, further examination of different aspects of the proposed model at different
wettability conditions is indispensable.

Numerical simulation Results and Discussion
In this section we discuss the simulation results for a synthetic, two-dimensional reservoir. The effect of relative permeability
and hysteresis on oil recovery was simulated for a homogenous reservoir. The simulations have been performed using an
IMPEC compositional gas flooding simulator. We consider a 2D homogenous reservoir and replicate the high-perm,
intermediate-wet sample (Sample 15) of Oak (1991). Eight-components were used to represent light oil with Peng-Robinson
Equation-of-State. The simulation model has two wells, an injector and a producer, which are located at the opposite ends of
the reservoir model. A water-alternating-gas injection scheme is employed with 3 cycles of 15 days of CO
2
injection followed
by 15 days of water injection. The cumulative injection after 90 days is around 1.0 HCPV. Both the injection and the
production wells are pressure constrained and the reservoir pressure is maintained at the initial pressure throughout the
simulation. A summary of the reservoir properties are given in Table 5a.
To study the impact of the parameters in the UTKR3P model, the values of some of the parameters were varied. The
values of the parameters for the base case are given in Table 5a. For the sensitivity cases, only the varied parameters are
summarized. In all the analyses below, since the UTKR3P model is phase independent, the phases have been numbered 1,
2, and 3. For these simulations, however, they represent water, oil and gas, respectively. The relative permeabilities for
the grid cell closest to the injector have been plotted in all the figures. The impact of the saturation path dependency on the
relative permeability has been incorporated by a couple of parameter sets in the UTKR3P model. One is the parameter set of
C1, C2, and

for each of the two-phase combinations denoted as 12, 13, 21, 23, 31, and 32. The second is the b
parameter for each phase (b
1
, b
2
, b
3
), which relates the two-phase residual saturations to the three-phase values. The impact of
each set of parameters is studied independently.

Sensitivity to parameter set (C1, C2,

): To simplify the analysis, only the two phase end point relative permeability has
been assumed to be different to show the impact of saturation path dependency on three phase relative permeabilities. Two
models, Case 2A1 and Case 2A2, as described in Table 5a and 5b are constructed for this purpose. Fig. 4a from Case 2A1
shows the saturation-averaged three phase relative permeability values for the hysteretic phase and discretized by time for the
SPE 165324-MS 7
first WAG cycle (30 days). Also plotted in Fig. 4a are the corresponding two phase curves. Tracking the gas saturation close
to the wellbore shows that from the start of gas injection, three phase flow occurs and the gas saturation in the gridlock
increases and reaches a maximum within the first 2 days. The water saturation decreases and reaches the connate water
saturation as shown by the gas relative permeability following the two-phase gas oil curve and producing most of the oil
during 2-15 days. Thereafter, as water is injected, the gas saturation starts to decrease and follows the two phase gas-water
curve until the gas saturation goes to zero at 30 days. This analysis shows how a simple difference in end point permeability
in the two phase dataset can manifest the saturation path dependency. The capability of the model to switch seamlessly from
two phases to three-phase and back to two-phase prediction is depicted by the simulation run. The above analyses are for
showing the saturation path dependency by varying the end-point values. Once the other parameters (C
1
, C
2
) are included in
the analysis, the impact becomes more pronounced.

Sensitivity to parameter b: Fig. 4b shows the results from the base case (Case 1A) and Case 2B. The only difference in the
models is the b parameter, which is non-zero in Case 2B for one of the phases. The b parameter impacts the three phase
residual saturations which in-turn modifies the three phase relative permeability. The first cycle overlaps for both the cases
and the relative permeability shifts slightly in the next cycles as the saturation direction is reversed.

Sensitivity to trapped gas: Trapped gas is one of the major contributors of hysteretic behavior in WAG injection. In this
model (Case 3), we have switched on the hysteretic model (UTHYST). The difference between this model (Case 3) and the
base case (Case 1A) is the trapped gas which is taken into account in Case 3. By following the red vertical line in Fig. 4c, one
can see that by going through the increasing and decreasing phase saturation cycles, the relative permeability decreases
because of the phase trapping. Fig. 4e shows the phase saturation and the trapped saturation as a function of time. The
trapped saturation increases during the decreasing saturation cycle due to capillary trapping at the pore level. The trapped
saturation remains constant during the increasing saturation cycle. This hysteretic behavior is also one of the major causes for
the reduced water injectivity seen in field cases of WAG injection.

Impact on oil recovery: Hysteresis may improve oil recovery by reducing the gas mobility and also freeing more oil in
exchange for the trapped gas. Fig. 4d shows the recovery factor for the Case 1A, Case 2B, and Case 3. The impact of
saturation path dependency alone has not resulted in a change in the oil recovery. Quantifying the effect of saturation path
alone is not straight-forward and depends on the direction and magnitude of saturation changes of each phase. In Case 3, the
oil recovery is higher as expected due to the additional oil mobilized from the pores where gas is trapped. The magnitude of
this could be much higher depending on the values for the hysteresis parameters

, and

.

Testing the hysteresis model (UTHYST)
We further tested the UTHYST model by simulating a three-cycle WAG flood in sandstone sample with an initial oil
saturation of 75%. The maximum gas saturation in drainage processes constantly increases in this study. Figs. 5a and 5b
show the saturation path in a ternary diagram and the experienced gas saturation, respectively. Figs. 6a and 6b describe the
reversibility and irreversibility behavior of hysteretic phase in a saturation history dependent process using both Carlson and
UTHYST models incorporated in the UTKR3P model, respectively. The cycle-dependent relative permeability within
different WAG cycles constantly decreases gas relative permeability.

Summary and conclusions
A new three-phase relative permeability model (UTKR3P) incorporating hysteresis and compositional dependency has been
developed, tested against experimental data for different wettability conditions, and implemented into a compositional
reservoir simulator. The new model is significantly more complete and flexible than previously published models.
The new hysteresis model is an extension of the Land trapping model but with a dynamic Land coefficient. The model
overcomes some of the limitations of published three-phase hysteresis models for non-water wet rocks and mitigates some of
the complexity and difficulties associated with commonly applied models in numerical reservoir simulators. The model is
validated using multi-cyclic three-phase water-alternating-gas experimental data for non-water wet rocks. Numerical
simulations of a carbonate reservoir with and without hysteresis were used to assess the impact of the saturation direction and
saturation path on gas entrapment and oil recovery. The hysteresis models of Carlson (1981) for intermediate and non-
wetting phases, Fayers and Matthews (1984) for the oil phase, and Larsen and Skauge (1998) for water and gas in water-wet
rock were also incorporated in UTKR3P, implemented into a compositional reservoir simulator, and successfully tested.

Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the DOE-NETL under contract number
DE-FE0005952.


8 SPE 165324-MS
Nomenclature
= Constant in general initial-trapped saturation formulation (Eq. 2)

= A wettability-dependent constant (Table 2)

= Parameter for relating three-phase to two-phase residual saturation (Eq. 6)

and

= Relative permeability curvature parameters (Eq. 3)

= Spreading coefficient,

= Constant in general initial-trapped saturation formulation (Eq. 2)
= Depth,

= Dimensionless oil-like parameters based on parachor-weighted molar density (Table 1)

= Gravitational constant,

= Molar Gibbs free energy, GFE/RT

= Gibbs free energy,

= Permeability tensor,

= End-point relative permeability

= Phase relative permeability

= Land coefficient

= Constant parameter impacts oil-isoperm curvature (Table 1)

= Trapping number

= Capillary pressure,

= Mean hydraulic radius of the pores occupied by a specific phase, (Table 1)

= Saturation,

= Reduced saturation (Table 1) ,

= Normalized saturation

= Residual saturation corrected for compositional changes (Eq. 8),

= Trapping model parameter (Eq. 9)

= Trapped saturation in current cycle,

= Permeability reduction factor (Eq. 13)
= Constant in trapped saturation equation (Eq. 14)

and

= Fitting parameters of zero-oil-isoperm curvature (Table 2)

and

= Contact angle dependent coefficient (Table 3)

= Constant to change the curvature of ROS (Table 2)

= Pore size distribution factor in Lands imbibition relative permeability equation (Table 4)
= Trapping coefficient (Eq. 9)
= Empirical constant in the Killoughs parametric interpolation method (Table 4)
= Density,

= Interfacial tension (IFT),

= Trapping model parameter (Eq. 9)
= Phase potential,

= Fractal dimension of the porous medium

Subscripts and superscripts:
= Two-phase
= Three-phase
= Connate water, Critical oil, or Critical gas saturation (minimum attainable saturation in multi-phase flow)
cr = Critical non-wetting saturation corresponding to the point where maximum trapped saturation is first reached (Table 3)
= Decreasing saturation process
= End of cycle
= Flowing saturation
= Initial
= Increasing saturation process
= Intermediate
= Total liquid
= Cycle number
= Value to oil at connate water saturation (Table 1)
= Primary decreasing
= Primary increasing
= Residual
= Phase residual saturation to phase
= Trapped
= Value at irreducible water saturation (Table 1)
= Water-hydrocarbon (Table 1)
SPE 165324-MS 9
References
Adamson, A. (1960). Physical Chemistry of Surfaces. New York: Interscience Publishers Inc.
Ahmadloo, F., Asghari, K., & Yadali Jamaloei, B. (2009, October 4-7). Experimental and Theoretical Studies of Three-Phase
Relative Permeability. Paper SPE 124538 presented at the SPE Annual Technical and Exhibition. New Orleans, LA.
Aissaoui, A. (1983). Etude thorique et exprimentale de lhystrsis des pressions capillaries et des permabilitis relatives
en vue du stockage. PhD Thesis. Paris: Ecole des Mines de Paris.
Alema, M. (1986). Personal communication with Baker, L.E. as noted in Paper SPE/DOE 17369.
Alema, M., & Slattery, J. (1988). Estimation of Three-Phase Relative Permeabilities. Transport in Porous Media, 3, 111-
132.
Aziz, K., & Settari, A. (1979). Petroleum Reservoir Simulation. London: Applied Science Publisher.
Baker, L. (1987). Review of Three-Phase Relative Permeability Literature: Data and Correlation Methods. Tulsa, OK:
AMOCO Production Company.
Baker, L. (1988, April 17-20). Three-Phase Relative Permeability Correlations. Paper SPE/DOE 17369, presented at
SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery. Tulsa, OK.
Baker, L. E. (1993). Three-Phase Relative Permeability of Water-Wet, Intermediate-Wet and Oil-Wet Sandstone.
Balbinski, E., Fishlock, T., Goodyear, S., & Jones, P. (1999). Key Characteristics of Three-Phase Oil Relative Permeability
Formulations for Improved Oil Recovery Predictions. Journal of Petroleum Geoscience, 5, 339-346.
Beattie, C., Boberg, T., & McNab, G. (1991). Reservoir Simulation of Cyclic Steam Stimulation in the Cold Lake Oil Sands.
SPE Res Eng, 6(2), 200-206.
Blunt, M. J. (2000). An Empirical Model for Three-Phase Relative Permeability. SPE J., 5(4), 435-445.
Bradford, S., Abriola, L., & Leij, F. (1997). Wettability Effects on Two- and Three- Fluid Relative Permeabilities. J. of
Contaminant Hydrology, 28, 171-191.
Bradford, S., Abriola, L., & Leij, F. (1997). Wettability Effects on Two- and Three- Fluid Relative Permeabilities. J. Contam.
Hydrol, 28, 171-91.
Brooks, R., & Corey, A. (1966). Properties of Porous Media Affecting Fluid Flow. J. Irrigation and Drainage, No. IR-2, 61-
88.
Burdine, N. (1953). Relative Permeability Calculations from Pore-Size Distribution Data. Petroleum Transactions, AIME,
71-78.
Carlson, F. M. (1981, October 5-7). Simulation of Relative Permeability Hysteresis to the Non-Wetting Phase. Paper SPE
10157 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. San Antonio, TX.
Corey, A., Rathjens, C., Henderson, J., & Wyllie, M. (1956). Three-Phase Relative Permeability. J. Pet Tech, 8(11), 63-65.
Delshad, M., & Pope, G. (1989). Comparison of Three-Phase Oil Relative Permeability Models. Transport in Porous Media,
4(1), 59-83.
Delshad, M., Delshad, M., Pope, G., & Lake, L. (1987). Two- and Three-Phase Relative Permeabilities of Micellar Fluids.
SPE Form Eval, 9, pp. 327-337.
Delshad, M., Lenhard, R., Oostrom, M., & Pope, G. (2003). A Mixed-Wet Hysteretic Relative Permeability and Capillary
Pressure Model for Reservoir Simulations. SPE Res Eng, 329-334.
DiCarlo, D., Sahni, A., & Blunt, M. (2000). Three-Phase Relative Permeability of Water-Wet, Oil-Wet, and Mixed-Wet
Sandpacks. SPE J., 5(1), 82-91.
Dietricht, J., & Bonder, P. (1976, October 3-6). Three-Phase Oil Relative Permeability Models. SPE Annual Fall Technical
Conference and Exhibition. New Orleans, LA.
Donaldson, E. (1966). Two- and Three- Phase Relative Permeability Studies. U.S. Dept of Interior, Bureau of Mines, Report
6826.
Dria, D., Pope, G., & Sepehrnoori, K. (1993). Three-Phase Gas/Oil/Brine Relative Permeabilities Measured under CO2
Flooding Conditions. SPE Res Eng, 8(2), 143-150.
Dullien, F., Zarcone, C., Macdonald, I., Collins, A., & Bochard, D. (1989). The Effects of Surface Roughness on the
Capillary Pressure Curves and the Heights of Capillary Rise in Glass Bead Packs. J. Coll. Int. Sci., 127(2), 362-373.
Egermann, P., Vizika, O., Kallet, L., Requin, C., & Sonier, F. (2000, September 20-22). Hysteresis in Three-Phase Flow:
Experiments, Modelling and Reservoir Simulations. Paper presented at the IEA Workshop and Symposium on
Enhanced Oil Recovery. Edinburgh, Scotland.
Element, D., Masters, J., Sargent, N., Jayasekera, A., & Goodyear, S. (2003, October 19-21). Assessment of Three-Phase
Relative Permeability Models Using Laboratory Hysteresis Data. Paper SPE 84903 presented at the SPE
International Improved Oil Recovery Conference in Asia Pacific. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Fayers, F. (1989). Extension of Stone's Method 1 and Conditions for Real Characteristics in Three-Phase Flow. SPE Res Eng,
4(4), 437-445.
Fayers, F., & Matthews, J. (1984). Evaluation of Normalized Stones Methods for Estimating Three Phase Relative
Permeabilities. SPE J., 242(2), 224-232.
Fayers, F., Foakes, A., Lin, C., & Puckett, D. (2000, April 2-5). An Improved Three-Phase Flow Model Incorporating
Compositional Variance. Paper SPE 59313 presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium. Tulsa,
OK.
10 SPE 165324-MS
Hustad, O. (2002). A Fully Coupled Three-Phase Model for Capillary Pressure and Relative Permeability for Implicit
Compositional Reservoir Simulation. SPE J., 7(1), 59-69.
Hustad, O., & Browning, D. (2010, Dec). A Fully Coupled Three-Phase Model for Capillary Pressure and Relative
Permeability for Implicit Compositional Reservoir Simulation. SPE J., 1009-1025.
Hustad, O., & Hansen, A.-G. (1996). A Consistent Formulation for Three-Phase Relative Permeability and Phase Pressure
Based on Three Sets of Two-Phase Data. Paper in book RUTH, A Norwegian Research Program on Improved Oil
Recovery, Program Summary, Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, (pp. 183-194). Stavanger.
Hustad, O., & Holt, T. (1992, Apr 22-24). Gravity Stable Displacement of Oil by Hydrocarbon after Waterflooding. Paper
SPE 24116 presented at the SPE/DOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery. Tulsa, OK.
Iglauer, S., Wulling, W., Pentland, C., Al-Mansoori, S., & Blunt, M. (2011). Capillary-Trapping Capacity of Sandstones and
Sandpacks. SPE J., 12, 778-783.
Jerauld, G. (1997). General Three-Phase Relative Permeability Model for Prudhoe Bay. SPE Res Eng, 12(4), 255-263.
Kalaydjian, F., Vizika, O., Moulu, J.-C., & Munkerud, P. (1995). The Role of Wettability and Spreading in Gas Injection
Processes under Secondary Conditioins. pp. 63-71.
Killough, J. (1976). Reservoir Simulation with History-Dependent Saturation Functions. SPE J., 16(1), 37-48.
Kleppe, J., Delaplace, P., Lenormand, R., Hamon, G., & Chaput, E. (1997, October 5-8). Representation of Capillary
PRessure Hysteresis in Reservoir Simulation. Paper SPE 38899 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition. San Antonio, TX.
Kokal, S., & Maini, B. (1990). An Improved Model for Estimating Three-Phase Oil-Water-Gas Relative Permeabilities from
Two-Phase Oil-Water and Oil-Gas Phase. JCPT, 29(2), 105-113.
Land, C. (1968). Calculation of Imbibition Relative Permeability for Two- and Three- Phase Flow from Rock Properties.
SPE J., 8(2), 149-156.
Land, C. (1971). Comparison of Calculated with Experimental Imbibition Relative Permeability. SPE J., 11(4), 419-425.
Larsen, J., & Skauge, A. (1998). Methodology for Numerical Simulation with Cycle-Dependent Relative Permeabilities. SPE
J., 163-173.
Ma, T., & Youngren, G. (1994). Performance of Immiscible Water-Alternate-Gas (WAG) Injection at Kuparuk River Unit,
North Slope, Alaska. Pa.
Maini, B., Nicola, F., Goldman, J., & Sarma, H. (1990, October). Measurement and Estimation of Three-Phase Relative
Permeability. Petroleum Recovery Institute.
Marle, C. M. (1981). Multiphase Flow in Porous Media. Gulf Publishing Co.
Moulu, J.-C., Vizika, O., Egermann, P., & Kalaydjian, F. (1999, October 3-6). A New Three-Phase Relative Permeability
Model for Various Wettability Conditions. Paper SPE 56477 presented at the Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition. Houston, TX.
Moulu, J.-C., Vizika, O., Kalaydjian, F., & Duquerroix, J.-P. (1997, October 5-8). A New Model for Three-Phase Relative
Permeabilities Baaed on a Fractal Representation of the Porous Medium. Paper SPE 38891 presented at Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition. San Antonio, TX.
Mualem, Y. (1976). A New Model of Predicting the Hydraulic Conductivity of Unsaturated Porous Medium. Water
Resources Reseach, 12(3), 513-522.
Naar, J., & Wygal, R. (1961). Threre-Phase Imbibition Relative Permeability. SPE J., 12, 254-258.
Oak, M. (1990, April 22-25). Three-Phase Relative Permeability of Water-Wet Berea Sandstone. Tulsa, Ok.
Oak, M. (1991, October 6-9). Three-Phase Relative Permeability of Intermediate-Wet Berea Sandstone. Paper SPE 22599
presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Dallas, TX.
Oostrom, M., & Lenhard, R. (1998). Comparison of Relative Permeability-Saturation-Pressure Parametric Models for
Infiltration and Redistribution of a Light Nonaqueous-Phase Liquid in Sandy Porous Media. Advances in Water
Resources, 21(2), 145-157.
Parker, J., & Lenhard, R. (1987). A Model for Hysteretic Constitutive Relations Governing Multiphase Flow `Saturation-
Pressure Relations. Water Resource Research, 23(12).
Pejic, D., & Maini, B. (2003, Apr 27-30). Three-Phase Relative Permeability of Petroleum Reservoirs. Paper SPE 81021
presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference. Port-of-Spain, Trinidad,
West Indies.
Pentland, C., Itsekiri, E., Al-Mansoori, S., Iglauer, S. B., & Blunt, M. (2010). Measurement of Nonwetting-Phase Trapping in
Sandpacks. SPE J., 15(2), 274-281.
Pope, G., Wu, W., Narayanaswamy, G., Delshad, M., Sharma, M., & Wang, P. (2000). Modeling Relative Permeability
Effects in Gas-Condensate Reservoirs. SPE Res Eng, 3(2), 171-178.
Robinson, R., & Slattery, J. (1994). Estimation of Three-Phase Relative Permeability. Transport in Porous Media, 16, 263-
287.
Salathiel, R. (1973, October). Oil Recovery by Surface Film Drainage in Mixed-Wettability Rocks. JPT, 1216.
Schneider, F., & Owens, W. (1970). Sandstone and Carbonate Two- and Three- Phase Relative Permeability Characteristics.
SPE J., 3, 75-84.
Shahverdi, H., & Sohrabi, M. (2012, April 14-18). Three-Phase Relative Permeability and Hysteresis Model for Simulation
SPE 165324-MS 11
of Water Alternate Gas (WAG) Injection.
Shahverdi, H., Sohrabi, M., Fatemi, M., Jamiolahmady, M., Irelan, S., & Robertson, G. (2011, May 23-26). Evaluation of
Three-Phase Relative Permeabitlity Models for WAG Injection Using Water-Wet and Mixed-Wet Core Flood
Experiments. Paper SPE 143030 presented at the SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition.
Vienna, Austria.
Skjveland, S., & Kleppe, J. (1992). Recent Advances in Improved Oil Recovery Methods for North Sea Sandstone
Reservoirs. Stavanger: SPOR Monograph Series, Norwegian Petroleum Directorate.
Spiteri, E., & Juanes, R. (2006). Impact of Relative Permeability Hysteresis on the Numerical Simulation of WAG Injection.
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 50(2), 115-139.
Spiteri, E., Juanes, R., Blunt, M., & Orr, F. J. (2008). A New Model of Trapping and Relative Permeability Hysteresis for All
Wettability Characteristics. SPE J., 13(3), 277-288.
Stone, H. (1970). Probability Model for Estimating Three-Phase Relative Permeability. JPT, 22(2), 218-241.
Stone, H. (1973). Estimation of Three-Phase Relative Permeability and Residual Oil Data. Journal of Canadian Pet. Tech.,
12(4), 53-61.
Suzanne, K., Hamon, G., Billiotte, J., & Trocme, V. (2003, October 5-8). Experimental Relationships between Residual Gas
Saturation and Initial Gas Saturation in Heterogeneous Sandstone Reservoirs. Paper SPE 84038 presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Denver, Colorado.
Temeng, K. (1991). Three-Phase Relative Permeability Model for Arbitrary Wettability Systems. Proceedings of the Sixth
European IOR-Symposium. Stavanger.
van Dijke, M., McDougall, S., & Sorbie, K. (2001). Three-Phase Capillary Pressure and Relative Permeability Relationships
in Mixed-Wet Systems. Transport in Porous Media, 44, 1-32.
Vizika, O. (1993, March 28- Apr 2). Effect of the Spreading Coefficient on the Efficiency of Oil Recovery with Gravity
Drainage. Symposium of Oil Recovery, 205th National Meeting of ACS. Denvor, CO.
Vizika, O., & Lombard, J.-M. (1996). Wettability and Spreading: Two Key Parameters in Oil Recovery with Three-Phase
Gravity Drainage. SPE Res Eng, 11, 54-60.
Wyllie, M., & Gardner, G. (1958). The Generalized Kozeny-Carman Equation. Its Application to Problems of Multi-Phase
Flow in Porous Media. World Oil, 146, 121.
Yuan, C., & Pope, G. (2012). A New Method to Model Relative Permeability in Compositional Simulators to Avoid
Discontinuous Changes Caused by Phase Identification Problems. SPE J., 12, 1221-1230.


12 SPE 165324-MS
Table 1: Chronological list of some of three-phase relative permeability models
Model
B
a
s
i
s

o
f


I
n
t
e
r
p
o
l
a
t
i
o
n

W
e
t
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

P
h
a
s
e


A
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

Composition
Dependency
Main Feature
Nc or
NT
Comp.
Consis
Corey et al. (1956) C.P+B W 3P NO NO
Requires

at specified

to reproduce all of the

and

;
Fluid flow in separate channel with no fluid-fluid interaction
Wyllie and Gardner (1958) P.S.D W oil & gas NO NO Water as part of the rock matrix
Naar and Wygal (1961) C.P+R W 3P NO NO
3-phase imbibition assuming

where =constant; Adding trapping gas

mechanism;

is the only models adjusting parameter

Land (1968) C.P+B W 3P NO NO
Imbibition 2- and 3- phase KR based on Corey model (1956) and modified Naar
and Wygal model (1961); Defining free saturation
Stone I (1970) and
Stone II (1973)
C.F W 3P NO NO
Oil blockage by water and gas;

and

depend on their sat

Stone I:

; Stone II:

does not appear

explicitly;

(assumption: segregated flow);

Stone II requires four 2P KR as opposed to only 2 for stone I
Modified Stone I (Hirasaki)
and Modified Stone II
Dietricht and Bondor (1976)
C.F W 3P NO NO
Hirasaki: Representing all model 2-phase permeabilities relative to

Dietricht and Bondor: Renormalizing Stone II model to represent

and

based on combination of KR to oil at

and absolute permeability.

Modified Stone I and Stone II
(Aziz & Settari, 1979)
C.F W oil NO NO Smooth reduction to 2-phase data due to added normalized sat.
Parker et al. (1987)
C.P +
Pc-S
W oil NO NO
Based on van Genuchtens Pc-S model and Mualems hydraulic conductivity
model (Mualem, 1976); Does not require 2-Phase KR data;

Alema and Slattery (1988) C.F W oil NO NO
Using a statistical structure model in local volume-averaged method; requires four
2P KR and reducing to Stone I if

or

is linear function of sat.

Baker 1 (1987) and
Baker 2 (1988)
S.A W oil NO NO
1: True linear interpolation by straight lines between equal KR on ternary diagram;
2: Interpolation between 2-phase KR values to find 3-phase oil KR
Delshad and Pope (1989) S.A W oil NO NO 2-phase KR does not appear explicitly
Modified Stone I
(Kokal & Maini, 1990)
C.F W oil NO NO
Improved modified Stone I (Aziz & Settari, 1979) by adding one more
normalizing factor
Modified Stone I
(Hustad & Holt, 1992)
C.F W oil NO NO

where ,

, 0 1;
Dria et al. (1993) C.P+B W 4P NO NO Extension of Coreys et al. model (1956) for 4P flow based on residual sat.
Robinson and Slattery (1994) C.F W oil NO NO Adding hysteresis and

to Alema and Slattery (1988) model

Bradford et al. (1997) C.P+B FW W & oil NO NO Adding the influence of wettability to Brudine model; gas is non-wetting phase
Jerauld (1997) P.L int. 3P YES Par
Inherent hysteresis;

S.A of

and

which in turn are

based on S.A of oil and gas phase parameters using

and

are general form of Stone I

Moulu (1997)
Moulu (1999)
F.R ALL 3P NO NO
Extension of Vizika et al. model (1993); 3P in each fractal pore; each phase sat.
calculated as the relative area occupied; KR calculated by Poiseuille-type flow

Goodyear and Townsley
(Balbinski et al. , 1999)
Pc-S W oil NO NO
Extension of Brooks-Corey method (1966);

and reduces to Corey form

DiCarlo et al. (2000) L.D W, int. oil NO NO

at

; Does not require 2-Phase KR data

Modified Baker (Blunt (2000)) S.A ALL 3P YES Den General Baker (1988) model based on layer drainage model; Inherent hysteresis
Modified Baker (Fayers
(2000))
S.A ALL 3P YES Den Introducing sat. rescaling:

Hustad & Hansen (1996);
Hustad (2002);
Hustad & Browning (2010)
S.A ALL 3P YES NO
2-Phase process-dependent normalized sat. to look up 2-phase KR values and
estimate three-phase KR based on S.A between 2-phase residual sat.;
Inherent hysteresis
Shahverdi and
Sohrabi (2012)
S.A ALL 3P NO NO
Independent impact of 2-phase KR on 3-phase KR; each phase in contact with 2
other phases in 3-phase fluid distribution
Yuan and Pope (2012) T.H ALL 3P YES GFE Adding compositional consistency to any 3-phase KR model
UTKR3P
(Developed model, 2013)
S.A ALL 3P YES GFE

(: KR parameters); Inherent hysteresis (sat. path dependence)

but other hysteresis method can be added
*Abbreviations: 3P: Water/oil/gas; 4P: Water/oil/gas/2nd hydrocarbon (CO2-oil mixing at low temperature and reservoir pressures); ALL: Water-wet,
intermediate-wet, and oil-wet; B: Burdine pore-size distribution model based on tortuous bundle of parallel capillary tubes (Burdine, 1953); C.A: Capillary tubes;
C.F: channel flow theory(=probability-based model) considering at most one mobile fluid in any flow channel; Comp. Consis: Compositional consistency
(Property, if applicable); Den: Density; F.R: Fractal pore; FW: Fractional wet; I nt.: Intermediate-wet; KR: Relative permeability; NAPL: Light-non-aqueous-phase
liquid; Par: Parachor-weighted molar density; Nc or NT: Capillary or Trapping number; Pc-S: Capillary pressure-saturation; P.L: Pore-level mechanisms
interpretation; R: Random interconnection of straight capillaries; ROS: Residual oil saturation; S.A: Saturation average; sat.: Saturation; T.H: Intensive
thermodynamic properties, e.g. molar Gibbs free energy (GFE); W: Water


SPE 165324-MS 13
Table 2: Three-phase residual saturation correlations
Model
Rock
Wettability
Phase
Applicability
Residual Saturation Correlation
Fayers and Matthews (1984) water oil

where

Alema (1986) ALL oil

where

Fayers (1989) ALL oil

Fayers et al. (2000) mixed oil

where

Yuan and Pope (2012) ALL water/oil/gas

)] where =1, 2, and 3 and

Table 3: Trapping-initial saturation models
Model Fluid and Rock System Trapping Formulation
Land (1968) gas/oil in consolidated sandstone
In Eq. 2:

,
Carlson (1981)
Conceptual extension of Lands eq.
assuming parallel scanning curves

is shift in scanning waterflood curves

Jerauld (1997)
gas/oil and gas/water in consolidated
intermediate-wet sandstone
In Eq. 2:

and

Aissaoui (1983) and
modified Kleppe et al. (1997)
gas/water in
consolidated sandstone

Spiteri et al. (2008) pore-network model

Table 4: Chronological list of some of hysteresis models
Hysteresis Models
Applicable to
Wettability Main Feature
Water Oil Gas
Two-Phase Hysteresis (Saturation direction dependent):
Land (1971) NO NO YES Water

),

;
Calls to be used in Corey-type equation to calculate imbibition KR
Killough (1976) NO NO YES Water
Calls for bounding drainage and imbibition curves; needs parameter to
calculate imbibition KR;

);
Carlson (1981) YES YES YES Water
Needs a bounding drainage curve and a one point on an imbibition curve to
produce imbibition curves; Parallel imbibition scanning curves
Fayers and Matthews (1984) NO YES NO ALL Oleic phase hysteresis when hysteresis is also applied to gaseous phase
Beattie et al. (1991) YES YES NO Water
Defining

, and

; Assuming a
specified saturation dependent form:

and
estimating scanning curves for oil and water relative permeability
Delshad et al. (2003) YES YES N.A. Mixed
Main drainage Pc and relative permeability, Brooks-Corey function
scanning curve Pc, modified van Genuchten function, relative permeability
prediction by integrating a pore-distribution model.
Three-Phase Hysteresis (Saturation history dependent: saturation direction and path cycle dependent):
Parker and Lenhard
(1987)
YES YES YES ALL
Applying a KR-saturation-Pc model using 1) 2P wetting-fluid saturation-
capillary head pair for primary increasing and decreasing processes and 2)
three-parameters to define saturation paths
Larsen and Skauge
(1998)
YES NO YES Water
Water: gas-saturation-interpolation-scheme between 2P (water-oil) and
3P (water-oil-trapped gas) water relative permeability;
Gas: (

],

)
Egermann et al.
(2000)
YES YES YES ALL
Application of fractal theory, Land formulation, and defining trapping and
untrapping coefficients; Different Land constant at different cycles
UTHYST
(Developmed model, 2013)
YES YES YES ALL
Monotonically increasing trapped saturation but including capillary-
desaturation effect at high trapping numbers; Dynamic Land coefficient
*Abbreviations: ALL: Water/Mixed/Oil; KR: Relative permeability; Pc: Capillary pressure
14 SPE 165324-MS
Table 5a: Reservoir and fluid properties Table 5b: Base case 2D simulation
used in 2D simulation cases parameters (without hysteresis)
Initial Pore Volume= 1.18 MMSTB

0.20

0.02
Horizontal Permeability=1010 md and kv/kh=0.2

0.23

2.82

=220F and

=1500 psia

0.33

3.90

=0.45

0.95

3.16
Initial Oil Composition:

0.82

0.00
CO
2
=%1.14; C
1
-N
2
=%14.54; C
2
-C
3
=%17.51; C
4
-C
6
=%12.5;

0.56

0.00
C
7
+=%12.61; C
10
+=%13.98; C
14
+=%12.37; C
20
+= %15.36

0.10

0.00
Light Oil (API=30.I and
o
=1.9 cp; P
b
=1091 psia)

0.00

0.00
Minimum Miscibility Pressure= 2850 psia

: Sat-weighted interpolation between

and

Table 5c: Summary of 2D simulations
Physical process Case description Case no. Property varied
Path dependency
Base case +

;
saturation weighted 3P Kr03
Case2A1

0.56;

0.8;
IHYST0 ;

0
Base case +

;
explicitly specified

Case2A2

0.56;

0.8;

0.68
Base case +

0 Case2B

5.0;

0.0;

0.0
Trapped gas effect
Base case + IHYSTPH3=4
(UTHYST model)
Case3

1.05;

1.0





Figure 1: Effect of parameter 'b
2
' on the curvature of phase 2 isoperms




SPE 165324-MS 15

Figure 2: Measured 2- and 3-phase relative permeability in intermediate-wet sandstone (sample 15, Oak, (1991)). Blue triangle, red
circle, and green diamond show 2-phase relative permeabilities for phase 1 (water), phase 2 (oil), and phase 3 (gas), respectively.
Three sides of the triangle show six pairs of measured 2-phase relative permeabilities and the measured 2-phase residual saturation
are noted at the sides. Inside the triangle shows the measured 3-phase gas isoperms for the DDI process

Figure 3: Calculated three-phase relative permeability using proposed model vs. measured data (Sample 15, Oak, 1991)
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Water (1)
Oil (2)
Gas (3)

(Constant)

Phase-3 relative permeability in DDI process (inside the ternary diagram):

b
1
= 4.4
SEE
1
=0.088
b
2
=15
SEE
2
=0.028
b
3
=5.5
SEE
3
=0.005
Gas
Flood
k
r31
k
r13
k
r12
k
r21
k
r32
k
r23

(Constant)

16 SPE 165324-MS

Figure 4a: UTKR3P model-Path dependency (Kr031 Kr032) Figure 4b:UTKR3P model - Path dependency (bj0)


Figure 4c: UTKR3P model with UTHYST Trapped phase 3 only Figure 4d: Oil recovery comparison among simulation cases


Figure 4e: Phase 3 saturation and trapped saturation in three WAG cycles (G: CO
2
inj., W: Water inj.)


0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
P
h
a
s
e
-
3

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y


Phase-3 saturation
2P Kr32
3P Kr3: 0-2days
3P Kr3: 2-15days
3P Kr3: 15-15.5days
3P Kr3:15.5-30days
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
P
h
a
s
e
-
3


r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y


Phase-3 saturation
Base case - No hysteresis (bj=0)
Path dependency (b1=5.0; b2=0.0; b3=0.0)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
P
h
a
s
e
-
3


r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y


Phase-3 saturation
0-15days
15-30days
30-45days
45-60days
60-75days
75-90days
63.0%
65.9%
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
O
i
l

r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

Time (Days)
Base case (No hysteresis)
Path dependency (bj0)
Trapped gas modeling (UTHYST)
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
P
h
a
s
e
-
3

T
r
a
p
p
e
d

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

P
h
a
s
e
-
3

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

Time (days)
G1 G2 G3 W1 W2 W3
SPE 165324-MS 17




Figure 5a: Ternary diagram for 3-cycle WAG Figure 5b: Saturation history in a 3-cycle WAG






Figure 6a: Calculated phase 3 relative permeability Figure 6b: Calculated phase 3 relative permeability
using Carlsons model using UTHYST model
Phase 2
Phase 3
Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3
Cycles
1,2, and 3
Cycle 1
Cycle 2
Cycle 3
S
1
S
2

S
3

Time (days)
P
h
a
s
e

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

P
h
a
s
e
-
3

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

P
h
a
s
e
-
3

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

Phase-3 saturation
Phase-3 saturation