SPE 65631
Two-Phase Relative Permeability Prediction Using a Linear Regression Model
M. N. Mohamad Ibrahim, SPE, University Science of Malaysia
L. F. Koederitz, SPE, University of Missouri-Rolla
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in
Morgantown, West Virginia, 17-19 October 2000..
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, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position
of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE
meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for
commercial purposes 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 acknowledgement
of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P. O. Box 833836,
Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
In the absence of laboratory measured data or in the case when
a more general representation of fluid flow in a reservoir is
needed, empirical relative permeability correlations become
useful. These correlations will also apply to simulation studies
which require adjustments to the relative permeability values to
account for grid effects. A linear regression model approach is
employed to develop prediction equations for water-oil, gas-oil,
gas-water, and gas-condensate relative permeability from
experimental data. Use of the SPE CD-ROM has allowed a
rapid and thorough data retrieval for this study; 416 sets of
relative permeability data were obtained from published
literature and various industry sources. Improved equations
were developed for water-oil and gas-oil systems based on
formation type and wettability. Additionally, general equations
for gas-condensate and gas-water systems were formulated.
Craig’s rule for determining the rock wettability has been
modified to cover a wider range of relative permeability data
currently available. Available data has increased significantly
since the last published work in this area. The prediction
equations are compared with previously published correlations
where possible.
Introduction
Relative permeability, a dimensionless quantity, is the ratio of
effective permeability to a base permeability. The effective
permeability is a measure of the ability of a single fluid to flow
through a rock when the pore spaces of the rock are not
completely filled or saturated with the fluid. The base
permeability can be absolute air permeability, absolute liquid
permeability or effective oil permeability at irreducible water
saturation. Relative permeability measurements and concepts
become important due to the fact that nearly all hydrocarbon
reservoirs contain more than one phase of homogeneous fluid.
Relative permeability is a function of pore structure, saturation
history and wettability1,2.
Laboratory methods for measuring relative
permeability were probably introduced to the petroleum industry
back in 1944 by Hassler3. Since then various methods of
measuring relative permeability have been developed. Some of
the more commonly used laboratory methods are Penn-State,
Single-Sample Dynamic, Stationary Fluid, Hassler, Hafford,
JBN, Capillary Pressure and Centrifuge2. In general, these
methods can be categorized into two major groups which
consist of steady-state and unsteady-state methods.
Laboratory measurement of relative permeability using
either steady-state or unsteady-state methods can be expensive
and time consuming. Laboratory measurement is considered a
micro process because a single measurement is insufficient to
represent the entire reservoir. Therefore several core samples
from representative facies in the reservoir must be taken and
tested. Since results of the relative permeability tests performed
on several samples often vary, it is necessary to average the data
before a scaling up from core to reservoir scale is performed.
An accurate numerical procedure for determining
relative permeability values provides an alternative technique,
and at the same time it can overcome the previous shortcomings.
In contrast to laboratory measurement, this is a macro process
2 M. N. MOHAMAD IBRAHIM, L. F. KOEDERITZ
which provides a better statistical representation of relative
permeability values for the reservoir as a whole.
Objectives
Realizing that an ample amount of published relative
permeability data could be extracted from the Society of
Petroleum Engineers' literature (published from 1950 through
1998) plus unpublished data from various oil and gas companies
and individuals, an improvement to previously published
prediction equations4 for relative permeability is presented and
new equations are developed for other systems. Furthermore,
the larger amount of data available today will give a better
representation of prediction equations since they cover a wider
range of domain.
In order to create predicting models that represent
producing reservoirs, certain criteria in selecting data (relative
permeability curves and other pertinent information) were
imposed. The data selection criteria used in this study were:
1. The relative permeability curves are generated from
either steady-state or unsteady-state experiments. In other
words, relative permeability curves obtained from correlations
or data obtained from hypothetical simulation studies are
excluded in this study;
2. The core used in the experiment must be a naturally
formed rock sample. Data obtained from synthetic or man-made
cores such as Alundum cores is not considered;
3. Only imbibition data are used for oil-water and gas-
water systems whereas for gas-oil and gas-condensate systems,
only drainage data are used in the analysis; and
4. Only the primary data is selected when multiple
imbibition or drainage processes are presented.
The prediction equations for relative permeability of
oil-water systems for both sandstones and carbonates, which
include limestones and dolomites, are presented for four
different types of rock wettability, i.e., strongly water-wet,
water-wet, intermediate (or mixed-wet) and oil-wet based on
Craig’s rule5; however, many oil-water curves did not strictly
follow Craig’s rule. This is not unexpected because Craig’s rule
was not based on detailed experimental studies but simply a
heuristic rule dating prior to 1971; therefore it will not be true
for all cases. Some adjustments to the rule were made by
introducing tolerances into it without changing its basic
principle in order to categorize data which slightly violated the
original rule. Table 1 summarizes the modified Craig’s rule that
was used in determining the wettability in this study. While
many datasets had no additional wettability indicators, data
having an Amott's Index or Modified U.S.B.M. Wettability Test
was in agreement with the modified Craig's rule.
Additionally, relative permeability equations for gas-oil
systems for sandstones and carbonates are also improved. The
scope of this study also includes developing predictive relative
permeability equations for gas-water and gas-condensate
systems.
SPE 65631
Data Normalization
The relative permeability curves used in this study did not
originally have the same format, i.e., some of the curves were
presented in the classical form while the rest were in
normalized form. Even worse are gas-water systems, where the
normalization process was not consistent. Some of the curves
defined the absolute permeability as the effective permeability
of gas at Swc (krgw = 1.0 at Swc where krgw is the relative
permeability of gas with respect to water), while others defined
the absolute permeability as the 100 percent water saturation
permeability (krw = 1.0 at Sg = 0).
It is necessary to convert these curves into the same
format (either the classical or the normalized) before the
regression analysis is performed in order to be consistent. Since
less than half of the data collected were in the classical form,
the normalized form was chosen to be the standard form
throughout this study. Moreover, it is easier to convert the
classical data into the normalized form than converting the
normalized data into the classical form. This is due to the
difficulties in locating the classical relative permeability end-
point absolute permeability values (which most authors did not
supply) in the articles reviewed. The classical data form was
usually found in much older data, which is another justification
to convert all of the data into the more current normalized form.
In the case of the gas-water system, the first definition of
absolute permeability (krgw = 1.0 at Swc) was chosen to be the
standard form since most of the data obtained from the literature
were presented in this manner. For the gas-condensate systems,
the same normalization procedure as in the gas-oil systems is
employed where the effective permeability of liquid
(condensate) at Sg = 0 is defined as the absolute permeability.
Since the collected curves did not have the same range
of saturation values (as far as the abscissa is concerned) due to
the fact that some of the curves were longer than others owing
to differences in the critical wetting and non-wetting phase
saturations, this inconsistency would contribute to high
variation in the response (ordinate). Thus, there is a need to
find a way to plot each curve in its class on the same horizontal
scale in order to reduce this variation so that a better prediction
model can be achieved. This can be accomplished by
normalizing either the wetting phase saturation or the non-
wetting phase saturation which results in the horizontal axis
always ranging from zero to one.
For oil-water systems, the normalized water saturation
is defined as6:
S w − S wi
Sw* = (1)
1 − S wi − S orw
Except for the oil-water system, the rest of the systems
have the relative permeability to liquid with respect to gas (krlg)
curves which are almost always longer than the relative
permeability to gas (krg) curves due to the presence of the critical
SPE 65631 TWO-PHASE RELATIVE PERMEABILITY PREDICTION USING A LINEAR REGRESSION MODEL
gas saturations (Sgc). Therefore, separate saturation
normalization equations must be used for each curve as follows:
S g − S gc
Sg* = (2)
1 − ( S gc+ Slc )
 Sg 
Sl * = 1 −   (3)
 1 − Slc 
Regression Analysis
In this study, a forward stepwise multiple linear regression
technique was employed in developing relative permeability
prediction equations. This technique is based on an automatic
search procedure concept which develops the best subset of
independent variables sequentially, at each regression step
adding or deleting one independent variable at a time in an
attempt to get the highest possible coefficient of multiple
determination, R2 value. The R2 is interpreted as the proportion
of observed values of Yi that can be explained by the regression
model and is used to measure how well the model fits the data.
The higher the value of R2, the more successful the model is in
explaining the variation of Y. A value of one indicates that all
points lie along the true regression line, whereas a value of zero
indicates the absence of a linear relationship between variables.
In the latter case, the modeler has to search for an alternative
model such as a nonlinear model. Since observational data
(data obtained after the experiments were completed) were used
in this analysis, an R2 value slightly higher than 60% was
considered highly satisfactory6. One criticism of using the R2
criteria as the only indication of goodness of fit is that the R2
value will keep increasing if more independent variables are
introduced into the model. To balance the use of more
parameters against the gain in R2, many statisticians use the
adjusted R2 value (R2adj)7. Very simply, the R2adj value
approaching R2 indicates that excessive terms were not included
in the model.
Discussion and Comparisons
The prediction equations developed in this study are listed in
Appendix A and defined in Table 2 which summarizes the
characteristics of the equations developed for all four fluid
systems. All R2 values well exceed 60% and all R2adj values are
within 1.5% of R2 thus indicating a reasonable fit without
excessive terms. Figures 1 and 2 graphically illustrate
normalized oil-water and gas-oil relative permeability values for
both sandstone and carbonate formations. Tables 3 and 4 list the
ranges of rock properties and fluid saturations used in
developing prediction equations for oil-water and gas-liquid
systems, respectively.
3
The relative permeability equations developed were
compared with correlations of Honarpour et al4, Rose8 and Narr
et al9. These works either did not employ wettability preferences,
or did not distinguish between oil-wet and intermediate (mixed)
wettability, and between water-wet and strongly water-wet
systems. Additionally, Rose's and Narr's equations are so general
that they do not specify the type of rock. The curves are in
close agreement with each other in terms of normalized relative
permeability of oil with respect to water as shown in Figure 3 for
a water-wet sandstone. The same is also true for a carbonate
formation. Figure 4 shows normalized water relative
permeability values calculated using the various correlations.
The equation developed falls between Honarpour's and Rose's
curves. Rose’s plot seems to give unrealistic prediction values
for a water-wet system because the endpoint of the krw* curve
(krw* at Sw = 1-Sorw) is much higher than expected for a water-
wet case. A criticism of Honarpour’s model is that the water
relative permeability values appeared low resulting in optimistic
recoveries. This criticism lead the present study to separate the
strongly water-wet curves from the regular water-wet curves.
Figure 5 clearly illustrates this point. For gas-oil systems, the
equations presented have eliminated the requirement of an
endpoint value for krg.
Conclusions
Twenty four, two phase relative permeability prediction
equations have been developed through extensive trial and error
model building processes using linear regression analysis for
four different systems which commonly exist in the petroleum
industry. In oil-water systems, prediction equations for three
types of rock wettability were formed in addition to
classification of the equations on the basis of rock type, i.e.,
sandstone and carbonate. Additionally, completely new
correlations for strongly water-wet system for both sandstone
and carbonate were developed. As in the oil-water systems,
prediction equations according to rock type were successfully
developed for gas-oil systems. Completely new correlations
based on a linear regression analysis were developed for gas-
water and gas-condensate systems. Based on an extensive
review of existing data, modifications to wettability
determination were developed.
Nomenclature
Capital Letters
R2 = coefficient of multiple
determination
R2adj = adjusted coefficient of
multiple determination
Sg = gas saturation, fraction
Sgc = critical gas saturation
4 M. N. MOHAMAD IBRAHIM, L. F. KOEDERITZ SPE 65631

Sl = liquid saturation, fraction References

Slc = total of critical liquid 1. Unalmiser, S. and Funk, J. J : “Engineering Core Analysis”,
saturations present in the Journal of Petroleum Technology, April, (1998).
system, fraction
2. Honarpour, M., Koederitz, L. and Harvey, A. H. : Relative
Sorg = residual oil saturation in oil-
Permeability of Petroleum Reservoirs, CRC Press. Inc., Florida, (1986).
gas system, fraction
Sorw = residual oil saturation in oil- 3. Hassler, G. L., U.S. Patent 2,345,935, (1944).
water system, fraction
Sw = water saturation, fraction 4. Honarpour, M., Koederitz, L. F. and Harvey, A. H.: "Empirical
Swc = critical (connate) water Equations for Estimating Two Phase Relative Permeability in
saturation, fraction Consolidated Rock," Trans. AIME, vol. 273, (1982), pp. 2905 ff.
Swi = initial water saturation,
5. Craig, F. F., Jr. : The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of
fraction
Waterflooding Monograph, Vol. 3, Society of Petroleum Engineers
WW = water-wet of AIME, Henry L. Doherty Series, Dallas, Texas, (1993), p. 20.
Yi = ith observed value where
i =1,2,3,.....n 6. Koederitz, L. F., Harvey A. H. and Honarpour M. : Introduction to
Petroleum Reservoir Analysis, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston,
Lowercase Letters Texas, (1989).

ka = absolute permeability, md 7. Devore, J. L. : Probability and Statistics for Engineering and the
Sciences, Duxbury Press., California, (1995), pp. 474 ff.
krcg = relative permeability of
condensate with respect to 8. Rose, W. : “Theoretical Generalizations Leading to the Evaluation
gas, fraction of Relative Permeability”, Trans. AIME, vol. 186, (1949), pp. 111 ff.
krg = relative permeability of
gas, fraction 9. Naar, J. and Henderson, J. H. : “An Imbibition Model, its
krgw = relative permeability of gas Applications to Flow Behavior and the Prediction of Oil
with respect to water, fraction Recovery”, Trans. AIME, Part II, vol. 222, (1961), p. 61.
krlg = relative permeability of liquid
with respect to gas, fraction General Reference
krog = relative permeability of oil Mohamad Ibrahim, M. N. :"Two-Phase Relative Permeability Prediction
Using A Linear Regression Model", Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
with respect to gas, fraction
Missouri, Rolla, (1999)
krow = relative permeability of oil
with respect to water, fraction
krw = relative permeability of
water, fraction

Greek Symbol

N = porosity, fraction

Superscript

* = normalized value
SPE 65631 TWO-PHASE RELATIVE PERMEABILITY PREDICTION USING A LINEAR REGRESSION MODEL 5

Appendix A

2 3 4
krow * = 1 − 21529
. S w * + 0.6389135 S w * + 14345325
. S w * −0.919704 S w * ( A1)

krw * = 0.09101641 S w *1.5 −01841405

. φ 0.5 S w *1.4 −0.0001629 S w * ka S wc 2.6
S orw 5 S w *2.5
− 11810931
. S orw S w * +0.64933067
3 1.5
+ 212270704
. φ 6Sw *
φ
+ 0.01375097 (ln ka )S w * ( A2 )

krow * = 1 − 0.7233267 S w * −17720584

. S w *2 + 150407908
. S w *3 ( A3)

krw * = 0.28483482 S orw S w * − 0.0324527 S w * +0.07113168 S w *1.5

− 2.2461759 S wc Sorw1.7 S w *2 ( A4)

krow * = 1 − 3090996
. S w * +2.8670229 S w *1.6 − 0.768952 S w *2 ( A5)

S w *3
krw * = 0.22120304 S w *1.6 +0.24933592 S orw 2 + 21370925
. S w *2 S orw 5
φ
+ 83.491972 φ 4 S w *5 S orw1.5 − 0.4562939 S wc 3S w *4 +116107198
. (φ 2 S wc S orw S w *) 2
− 8.7866012 S orw 3S w *2.3 +0.00000578 S w *3 ( S wc ln ka )10 (1 − S orw )0.4
− 12.841061 S w *2 ((ln ka )S wc )3 φ 6 ( A6 )

krow * = 1 − 2.65253 S w * +2.4720911 S w *2 − 0.814367 S w *3 ( A7)

krw * = 01163954
. S w *4 +2.66958338 S w *0.8 ( S wc S orw )2 + 0.47536676 S w *( S wc ln ka )2
− 0.3912824 S w *( S wc ln ka )3 + 752.014909 ( S wc S w *)2 φ 3 − 398.40214 φ 2.5 S wc 2 S w *2.2
− 152.43629 (φ S orw )3 S w *2.7 +0.22964285 S orw 0.5 S w * ( A8 )

krow * = 1 − 2.985766 S w * + 31548084

. S w *2 − 1171486
. S w *3 ( A9)

krw * = 0.2441795 S w * − 0.355058 S w *2 + 0.5117625 S w *3 ( A10)

krow * = 1 − 4.985409 Sw * + 21322192

. Sw *2 − 29.04644 Sw *2.5 + 11723526
. Sw *3 ( A11)
6 M. N. MOHAMAD IBRAHIM, L. F. KOEDERITZ SPE 65631

krw * = 0.46689293 (ln ka )S wc S w * −0.0589939 S w * −01938748

. S w * φ 1.5 ( S orw ln ka )2
+ 0.24253563 S w *3 −0195414
. S w *0.9 ( S wc ln ka )2 + 66.6228413 φ S orw S w * S wc 2
− 11126159
. φ 1.5 ( S wc S w *)2.5 + 125.291504 S w * S orw 2.5φ 3 ( A12 )

krow * = 1 − 3254725
. S w * +38176666
. S w *2 − 1563216
. S w *3 ( A13)

krw * = 0.3643225 S w * − 0.7458182 S w *2 +106090802

. S w *3 ( A14)

krow * = 1 − 8.6102768 S w * +87.9417721 S w *2 − 207.03656 S w *2.5 +187.099163 S w *3

− 60.388661 S w *3.5 ( A15)

krw * = 0.2178721 S w *0.4 +0.00536612 (ln ka )2 S w *0.5 − 9.7494266 S w *0.7 ( S orw S wc )2

− 51295364
. S w * φ S orw 2 − 4.5717726 φ S w *0.5 S wc 2 + 0.57604803 S w *1.5 ( A16)

krog * = 01599039
. S l * − 1045545
. Sl *2 +4.0843698 S l *3 −5.414161 S l *4
+ 3.2103149 Sl *5 ( A17)

krg * = 0.9396949 S g *2 −0.774167 S org S g *2 − 1216298

. S wc S g *2 +11628119
. φ S g *2
− 1248192
. S gc S g *2 ( A18)

krog * = 4.465936 S l *2 − 0.252752 Sl * −22.93637 S l *3 + 53000956

. S l *4 −5519912
. S l *5
+ 21917911
. Sl *6 ( A19)

krg * = 0.3296593 S g *2 −0.001723 ka S g *2 +2.0568057 S wc S g * +12314265

. φS g *2 ( A20 )

krgw * = 13046802
. S g * −8159598
. S g *2 + 2550978
. S g *3 −3153754
. S g *4
+ 13883828
. S g *5 ( A21)

krw * = 0.94555376 S l * − 12967293

. Sl *1.7 + 169592185
. S l *3 −0.0424518 S gc (ln ka )3 S l *5
− 14583028
. S wc1.5 (φ S l *)2 + 0.02764389 S wcφ ( ka S gc )2 Sl *4 ( A22)
SPE 65631 TWO-PHASE RELATIVE PERMEABILITY PREDICTION USING A LINEAR REGRESSION MODEL 7

krcg * = 01194373
. S l * −0.089246 S l *2 +0.9606793 S l *3 ( A23)

krg * = 333929676
. S g *1.2 + 6.75670631 S g *0.9 S lc1.2 − 20.926791 S g * Slc 2 S gc
+ 101654474
. S g * S gc 4 − 7.3835856 Slc 0.5 S g * ( A24)

Table 1. Modified Craig's rule

Rock Swc Sw at which krw * krw* at Sw = 100-Sorw

Wettability and krow* are equal (fraction)

Strongly
Water-Wet: ≥ 15% ≥ 45% ≤ 0.07

Water-Wet: ≥ 10% ≥ 45% 0.07 < krw* ≤ 0.3

Oil-Wet: ≤ 15% ≤ 55% ≥ 0.5

Intermediate: ≥ 10% 45% ≤ Sw ≤ 55% > 0.3

(Mixed-Wet) OR
≤ 15% 45% ≤ Sw ≤ 55% < 0.5
8 M. N. MOHAMAD IBRAHIM, L. F. KOEDERITZ SPE 65631

Table 2. Summary of characteristics of equations developed in this study

System Wettability Lithology Equation Number of Number of R2 R2adj

Data Sets Data Points

Sandstone A1 16 127 87 86

Strongly A2 16 127 82 81
Water-Wet
Carbonate A3 6 49 99 99

A4 6 49 89 88

Sandstone A5 102 870 93 93

Water-Wet A6 102 870 75 75

Carbonate A7 28 317 94 94
Oil-Water A8 28 317 80 80

Sandstone A9 43 396 93 93
Intermediate
Wettability A10 43 396 90 90
(Mixed-Wet)
Carbonate A11 29 278 93 93

A12 29 278 85 85

Sandstone A13 31 245 95 95

Oil-Wet A14 31 245 89 88

Carbonate A15 19 184 86 86

A16 19 184 86 85

Sandstone A17 98 962 95 95

Gas-Oil A18 92 799 90 90

Carbonate A19 14 133 94 94

A20 14 119 89 89

Gas-Water All A21 19 144 89 89

A22 19 166 88 87

Gas-Condensate All A23 17 123 95 95

A24 17 115 85 85
SPE 65631 TWO-PHASE RELATIVE PERMEABILITY PREDICTION USING A LINEAR REGRESSION MODEL 9

Table 3. Ranges of rock properties and fluid saturations used in developing oil-water relative permeability equations

Equations N (%) ka (md) Swc (%) Sorw (%)

A1 & A2 9.9 - 63.2 2.23 - 3,070 15.3 - 50.0 15.0 - 51.1

A3 & A4 11.7 - 18.0 0.84 - 7.2 30.0 - 46.2 7.0 - 32.2

A5 & A6 8.4 - 37.1 0.52 - 8,440 3.6 - 67.5 6.6 - 47.3

A7 & A8 6.2 - 33.0 0.27 - 3,100 6.0 - 43.5 13.0 - 50.6

A9 & A10 8.0 - 32.6 3.4 - 10,500 5.0 - 38.9 11.09 - 44.4

A11 & A12 5.9 - 38.3 1.08 - 4,018.7 7.0 - 41.0 13.9 - 50.0

A13 & A14 9.1 - 33.0 1 - 5,010 4.7 - 44.0 7.67 - 55.0

A15 & A16 9.8 - 35.0 1.3 - 1,420 8.0 - 53.6 9.8 - 57.0

Table 4. Ranges of rock properties and fluid saturations used in developing relative permeability equations for gas-liquid systems

Equation N (%) ka (md) Sgc (%) Swc (%) Sorg (%)

A17 6.3 - 39.0 1.48 - 5580 0.6 - 25.0 3.28 - 50.0 3.5 - 48.0

A18 6.3 - 39.0 1.48 - 3650 0.6 - 25.0 3.28 - 50.0 5.0 - 48.0

A19 & A20 9.0 - 34.9 4.3 - 731 0.01 - 13.52 6.0 - 51.1 5.0 - 38.6

A21 & A22 5.0 - 25.0 0.1 - 345 3.0 - 47.9 10.0 - 61.2 Not Applicable

A23 & A24 6.0 - 26.6 Not Available 2.0 - 30.0 9.0 - 60.0
10 M. N. MOHAMAD IBRAHIM, L. F. KOEDERITZ SPE 65631

Figure 1 Figure 2
Oil-Water Relative Permeability Gas-Oil Relative Permeability
Water-Wet Rocks Sandstone & Carbonate
1
1
φ = 15%
ka = 100
0.8 Sandstone
0.8 md
Sandstone
Swc = 15%
Carbonate
Sorg =15%
0.6 0.6
Carbonate
kr *

φ = 15%

kr *
0.4 ka =100 md
Swc =20%
0.4
Sorw =20%

0.2

0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sw (fraction) 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Sg (fraction)

Figure 3 Figure 4
Water-wet Sandstone Water-Wet Sandstone
Oil Relative Permeability to Water Water Relative Permeability
1

0.8
Equation A6
0.8
φ = 15%
ka = 100 md
Honarpour's Equation A5 Swc = 20%
0.6
0.6 Sorw = 20%
krow *

φ = 15% Honarpour's
ka = 100 md Rose's
krw *

0.4 Swc = 20% 0.4

Sorw = 20% Rose's
Narr's

0.2 Narr's
0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0
Sw (fraction) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sw (fraction)
SPE 65631 TWO-PHASE RELATIVE PERMEABILITY PREDICTION USING A LINEAR REGRESSION MODEL 11

Figure 5
Water-Wet System
Carbonate
0.6

0.5 WW
φ = 10%
ka = 100 md
Swc = 20% Strongly WW
0.4
Sorw=20%
kr *

0.3 Honarpour's WW

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sw (fraction)