SPE 84184

Prediction of Oil Production by Gravity Drainage

Kewen Li, SPE, and Roland N. Horne, SPE, Stanford University

Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., 5 8 October 2003.
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
acknowledgment 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
Mathematical models to predict oil production accurately by
gravity drainage have been few. To this end, an analytical
model was developed to determine the ultimate oil recovery
by free-fall gravity drainage. An empirical oil recovery model
was proposed accordingly to match and predict oil production.
The model was tested against experimental, numerical, and
field data of oil production by free-fall gravity drainage. The
results demonstrated that the oil recovery model could work
satisfactorily in the oil-gas cases studied. Initial oil production
rate, entry capillary pressure, and average residual oil
saturation can be estimated using the oil recovery model. An
approach was also developed to infer capillary pressure curves
from the oil production data by free-fall gravity drainage.
Introduction
The gravity drainage mechanism is important in the
development of many oil reservoirs with large dip angles.
Experimentally it has been found that unexpectedly high oil
recoveries can be obtained by gravity drainage. For example,
Dumor and Schols1 reported an extremely low residual oil
saturation of 5% in high permeability sandstone cores after
gravity drainage. Hagoort2 also found experimentally that
gravity drainage could be a very effective oil recovery process
in water-wet reservoirs. On the other hand, there have also
been oil field production data that showed high oil recoveries
for reservoirs under gravity drainage. Dykstra3 presented a
good example of oil production by strictly free-fall gravity
drainage in the Lakeview Pool, Midway Sunset oilfield. The
oil recovery in the field after 40 years of production was about
64%. In a field study, King and Stiles4 demonstrated a very
high displacement efficiency of 87% by gravity drainage in
the East Texas Hawkins reservoir. Evidence shows that
gravity drainage is one of the most effective mechanisms of
developing an oil field. Although the gravity drainage

mechanism is important, characterizing and modeling the

process are still a great challenge.
There have been many reports5-17 on the study of gravity
drainage. Several gravity drainage models have been
developed in literature. In these models, capillary pressure is
usually either neglected or considered inappropriately.
However capillary pressure plays an important role in many
cases.
Almost all the gravity drainage models are complicated.
Some of the models do not have analytical solutions and have
to be solved numerically. Schechter and Guo15 conducted a
review on the papers in the field. There are four main models
as summarized by Schechter and Guo15. These include the
Cardwell-Parsons-Dykstra (CPD) model3, 7, Nenniger-Storrow
(NS) model9, Pavone-Bruzzi-Verre (PBV) model13, and Luan
model14. After comparing to experimental data, Schechter and
Guo15 concluded that the accuracy of these models to predict
the oil production by gravity drainage is poor. Schechter and
Guo15 also developed a gravity drainage model which did not
improve the accuracy significantly.
Because the analytical models do not work well, an
empirical model developed to characterize spontaneous
imbibition was proposed to model the gravity drainage
process. The model was suggested originally by Aronofsky et
al.18 to match oil production in naturally-fractured reservoirs
developed by water flooding. Many applications have been
conducted since then. Schechter and Guo19 used a similar
equation to fit the experimental data of spontaneous water
imbibition in oil-saturated rocks by substituting production
time with the dimensionless time. Baker et al.20 inferred the
fracture spacing by matching production data from the
Spraberry Trend naturally-fractured reservoir using the model
with dimensionless time. Li and Horne21 also applied the
imbibition model proposed by Aronofsky et al.18 to evaluate
water injection in geothermal reservoirs.
To test the model, both experimental (at core scale) and
numerical simulation (at reservoir scale) data were used. The
results demonstrated satisfactory consistency between the
model and the experimental data from gravity drainage as well
as the numerical simulation data. Using the model, capillary
pressure curves may be inferred from the experimental data of
gas-oil gravity drainage.
We would like to clarify that our study and discussions in
this article are limited to free-fall gravity drainage of gas-oil
systems rather than forced gravity drainage.

SPE 84184

Mathematics
Since free-fall gravity drainage is a gravity-dominated process
and the only resistance is the capillary pressure force, the oil
production depends significantly on the properties of the
porous media, fluids, and their interactions. These include
permeability and relative permeability of the porous media,
pore structure, matrix sizes, fluid viscosities, initial water
saturation, the wettability of the rock-fluid systems, and the
interfacial tension. It is difficult to include all these important
parameters in an analytical model. This may be why the
existing analytical models do not work well in characterizing
and modeling the gravity drainage process, as described
previously.
The empirical model suggested by Aronofsky et al.18 was
used in this study to match the oil production by gravity
drainage. The model is expressed as follows:

= 1 e t

(1)

where is the recovery in terms of recoverable oil, is a

constant governing the rate of convergence, and t is the
production time.
In Eq. 1, is the recoverable recovery. It is necessary to
obtain the value of the residual oil saturation in order to
calculate . But the residual oil saturation may not be
available in many cases. Aronofsky et al.18 considered that the
variation in residual oil saturation was sufficiently small to be
ignored. This may bring about great error in many cases. To
solve the problem, residual oil saturation is included in Eq. 1
explicitly and may be inferred from the match to oil
production data. In this case, Eq. 1 is expressed as follows:

Pc = pe ( So* ) 1 /

where pe is the entry capillary pressure. So* is the normalized

oil saturation. The normalized oil saturation is calculated as
follows:

So* =

1 S wi Sor
(1 e t )
1 S wi

So Sor
1 S wi Sor

(4)

where So is the oil saturation and Sor is the residual oil

saturation determined from the capillary pressure curve. Sor is
less than Sor . It was assumed that the initial gas saturation is
zero in this study.
When the equilibrium between gravity and capillary
pressure forces is reached after gravity drainage, gravity is
equal to capillary pressure at any position of z. The ultimate
oil produced by free-fall gravity drainage can be calculated
using the following equation:
N po = V p (1 S wi Sor )(1

zc +

1
zc )
1

(5)

where Npo is the ultimate oil produced by free-fall gravity

drainage, Vp is the pore volume (=AL). A and L are the crosssection area and the length of the core sample, is the
porosity, is the pore size distribution index. zc is expressed
as follows:

zc =
R=

(3)

L ze
L

(6)

(2)

where R is the oil recovery in the units of oil originally in

place (OOIP). Swi and Sor are the initial water saturation and
the average residual oil saturation in the core sample or in the
reservoir. and Sor can be obtained simultaneously using a
regression analysis technique with the experimental data from
gravity drainage.
The values of residual oil saturation in the core sample or
in the reservoir are different at different depth and may not be
equal to the residual oil saturation determined from the
capillary pressure curves or the relative permeability curves.
The average residual oil saturation Sor in a core sample
positioned vertically can be calculated theoretically based on
the equilibrium between gravity and capillary pressure forces
after gravity drainage process is completed. This is discussed
as follows.
The Brooks-Corey model22 is used frequently to represent
drainage capillary pressure curves and is expressed as follows:

where ze is the depth corresponding to the entry capillary

pressure, pe.
The mathematical derivation of Eq. 5 is presented in
Appendix A.
The average residual oil saturation Sor in a core sample
can then be calculated:

Sor = Sor + (1 S wi Sor )(

1
z
z )
1 c 1 c

(7)

It is often assumed2-3 that the oil saturation at z=0 is equal to

Sor, which may not be true in many cases. This assumption
was removed to derive Eq. 7 (see Appendix A). Instead, the
oil saturation at z=0 was calculated according to the BrooksCorey model22 (see Eq. 3).
According to Eq. 7, Sor approaches to Sor when zc
approaches to zero (this implies that capillary pressure
approaches to zero), which is reasonable.
The ultimate oil recovery in the units of OOIP can be
calculated easily based on Eq. 7 (see Appendix A).

SPE 84184

Eq. 5 can be reduced in the case of approaching to

infinity as follows:
N po = V p (1 S wi Sor )(1 zc )

(8)

Similarly the calculation of the average residual oil saturation

(Eq. 7) can also be reduced:
Sor = Sor + (1 Swi Sor ) zc

(9)

Eq. 2 can be arranged as:

N po = V p (1 S wi Sor )(1 e t )

(10)

Therefore the oil production rate, qo (=dNpo/dt), can be

calculated as follows:
qo = qoi e t

(11a)

here qoi is the initial oil production rate at t=0 and is expressed
as follows:
qoi = V p (1 Swi Sor )

(11b)

The values of average residual oil saturation Sor and can be

obtained by a history match technique once the oil production
data are available. The initial oil production rate, qoi, can then
be calculated according to Eq. 11b. The entry capillary
pressure, pe, can be inferred from the initial oil production rate
according to the following equation16:

qoi =

*
Akk ro
g

(1

pe
)
gL

where k is the rock permeability and

(12)

k ro* is the oil phase

relative permeability at Swi. is the density difference

between oil and gas phases, o is the viscosity of the oil phase.
Note that it is assumed in Eq. 12 that the oil production
position is located at the bottom of the core sample.
The value of zc can be calculated once the value of pe is
available based on Eq. 6. Then the value of the pore size
distribution index, , can be inferred according to Eq. 7 if the
values of Swi and Sor are known or can be determined from
other measurements. These include relative permeability
experiments and well logging. According to the Brooks-Corey
model22 (see Eq. 3), capillary pressure curves can be inferred
once the values of and pe are obtained from the oil
production data.

Results
The oil recovery model (Eq. 2) was tested against different
type of production data by free-fall gravity drainage. The data
used in this study include experimental, numerical, and field
data from different sources. The results are discussed in this
section.
Pedrera et al.17 conducted gravity drainage experiments in
the gas-oil-water-rock systems with different wettability. The
1m long core sample used by Pedrera et al.17 was positioned
vertically and had a permeability of 7000 md and a porosity of
41%. The water phase was immobile. The case used in this
study was the strongly water-wet system with a wettability
index of 1.0 and an initial water saturation of 21%. Fig. 1
shows the experimental data of oil recovery, in the units of
OOIP, by gravity drainage. Also shown in Fig. 1 are the model
results (solid line) of the oil recovery calculated using Eq. 2.
One can see the excellent consistency between the
experimental data and the model data. Fig. 1 demonstrates that
the empirical model (see Eq. 2) can match the experimental
data of oil recovery by free-fall gravity drainage suitably.
The values of Sor and obtained from the match to the
experimental data of oil recovery were 0.393 and 0.000811
(minute-1). With these values, the initial oil production rate at
t=0 was calculated using Eq. 11b and was about 0.259
ml/minute. The entry capillary pressure, pe, inferred from the
value of the initial oil production rate using Eq. 12 was about
0.022 atm, very close to the experimental value of 0.026 atm
measured by Pedrera et al.17. The computation shows that the
entry capillary pressure, as an important parameter to estimate
capillary pressure curves, may be inferred accurately from the
oil production data by gravity drainage using the models and
approaches developed in this work.
Note that usually the initial oil production rate in gravity
drainage tests was estimated by observing the plot of the oil
production rate versus time visually. There is an abrupt change
in oil production rate when the gas-oil surface touches the top
of the core sample because of the effect of the entry capillary
pressure (see Eq. 12). This approach to estimate initial oil
production rate is not convenient and not accurate.
The experimental data of capillary pressure measured by
Pedrera et al.17 were shown in Fig. 2. The value of Sor was
about 0.108 and the value of obtained from the model match
using Eq. 3 was about 6.23. The value of Sor calculated using

Eq. 7 was about 0.319. Note that the value of Sor from the
match to the experimental data of oil recovery using Eq. 2 was
0.393.
Fig. 3 shows the comparison of the model results to the
experimental data of the recoverable oil recovery calculated
using the value of Sor instead of Sor . One can see that the
model (Eq. 1) could not match the experimental data. This is
because the actual residual oil saturation Sor by free-fall
gravity drainage is greater than the residual oil saturation
determined from capillary pressure curve (Sor).
Li and Firoozabadi23 conducted oil-gas gravity drainage
tests in a Berea sandstone core at different wettability. To
further test the oil recovery model (Eq. 2), the experimental

data reported by Li and Firoozabadi23 were used and are

depicted in Fig. 4. The Berea core sample used by Li and
Firoozabadi23 was positioned vertically and had a porosity of
21.3% and a permeability of 975 md. The wettability of the
gas-oil-rock system was altered from strong oil-wetness to
preferential neutral gas-wetness by chemical treatment. The
oil recovery by gravity drainage after the chemical treatment
was greater than that before the chemical treatment because of
the wettability alteration from strong oil-wetness to
preferential neutral gas-wetness (see Fig. 4).
The model (Eq. 2) was used to match the experimental
data of oil recovery by Li and Firoozabadi23 and the results are
shown in Fig. 4. The solid lines represent the model results.
Fig. 4 shows that the model matches the experimental data of
oil recovery remarkably well in the rock both with and without
chemical treatment. In the case without chemical treatment,
the values of Sor and obtained from the model match were
0.867 and 0.02053 (minute-1). The high value of Sor might be
because of the short length (18.9 cm) of the core sample. The
pore volume of the core sample used by Li and Firoozabadi23
was 22.03 ml. The initial oil production rate calculated using
Eq. 11b was 0.06 ml/minute.
In the case with chemical treatment, the values of Sor and

obtained from the model match were 0.532 and 0.022934

(minute-1). The initial oil production rate calculated using Eq.

11b was 0.236 ml/minute.
The results demonstrated that S or decreased and the initial
oil production rate increased significantly after the wettability
of the gas-oil-rock system was altered from strong oil-wetness
to preferential neutral gas-wetness. Note that S or may not be
estimated accurately if the gravity drainage time is not long
enough.
The previous description shows that the oil recovery model
provides a way to estimate the effect of wettability or other
parameters on oil production quantitatively. More discussions
will be made later.
Using numerical simulations, Li and Horne24 studied the
effect of pore size distribution index on oil production for the
same core used by Pedrera et al.17 The results are depicted in
Fig. 5. Also shown in Fig. 5 are the results obtained from the
match using the oil recovery model (Eq. 2) for different values
of pore size distribution index. One can see that the model
could match all the oil recovery data satisfactorily.
The values of the average residual oil saturation
determined from the model match to the oil recovery data for
different pore size distribution index are shown in Fig. 6. The
results demonstrated that the average residual oil saturation
increases with the decrease in pore size distribution index,
which is reasonable. Pore size distribution index is a
representation of rock heterogeneity. The greater the pore size
distribution index, the more homogeneous the rock. Therefore
the oil recovery by gravity drainage may increase with the
pore size distribution index.
Fig. 7 shows the oil recovery data for different values of
entry capillary pressure reported by Li and Horne24 using
numerical simulations. The value of the pore size distribution

SPE 84184

index was equal to 7. The model fits to the oil recovery are
good for all the values of pore size distribution index.
The effect of entry capillary pressure on the average
residual oil saturation determined from the model match is
shown in Fig. 8. The average residual oil saturation increases
with the entry capillary pressure as expected. Fig. 8
demonstrates that the relationship between the average
residual oil saturation and the entry capillary pressure is
almost linear for a pore size distribution index of 7.
All the data of oil recovery discussed previously were
obtained at core scale. The validity of the oil recovery model
(Eq. 2) to match oil production at reservoir scale will be
discussed in the next section. We will first discuss the
numerical simulation results and then discuss the oil
production data from a real reservoir.
Fig. 9 shows the oil recovery for different values of entry
capillary pressure at reservoir scale reported by Li and Horne24
using numerical simulations. The reservoir was created based
on the parameters of the core reported by Pedrera et al.17. The
reservoir had a porosity of 41% and a permeability of 70 md.
The reservoir height was 20 m and the radius was 100 m. The
initial water saturation was 21%. The oil recovery model (Eq.
2) was used to match the oil production from the reservoir for
three different values of entry capillary pressure and the
results are also shown in Fig. 9. It can be seen that the oil
recovery model (Eq. 2) can match the oil production at
reservoir scale adequately.
Fig. 10 presents the match of the oil recovery model (Eq.
2) to the oil production from the Lakeview Pool, Midway
Sunset oilfield reported by Dykstra3. The oil was produced by
strictly free-fall gravity drainage. One can see from Fig. 10
that the model can match the oil production from the real
reservoir very well. The values of Sor and obtained from the
model match were 0.285 and 0.11463 (year-1) for the reservoir.
Note that the value of Sor is greater than the estimated value
of Sor (0.10) from Dykstra3.
The results discussed in this paper showed that the oil
recovery model (Eq. 2) works satisfactorily for all the
examples presented at both core scale and field scale.
Discussions
The results presented previously demonstrate that the oil
recovery model (Eq. 2) can be used in both spontaneous
imbibition and free-fall gravity drainage. This may be
reasonable because the only two forces involved in the two
cases are the same: gravity and capillary pressure. The
difference is that gravity force is a positive force in free-fall
gravity drainage but a negative force in spontaneous
imbibition while capillary pressure is a negative force in freefall gravity drainage but a positive force in spontaneous
imbibition.
Although similarity exists between spontaneous imbibition
and free-fall gravity drainage, there are many differences in
the development of analytical solutions to oil recovery.
Several analytical oil recovery models25-28 function accurately
to predict the recovery by spontaneous imbibition in different
cases. However few analytical gravity drainage models work
satisfactorily.

SPE 84184

Swi =
t=
Vp =
z=
zc =
ze =

The empirical model expressed in Eq. 2 can match the oil

production remarkably well in the cases studied. But it would
be helpful to find an accurate analytical gravity drainage
model. More research effort is required in the area.
Conclusions
Based on the present study, the following conclusions may be
drawn:
1. A modified model was proposed to match and predict the
oil production by free-fall gravity drainage. The initial oil
production rate and the average residual oil saturation can
be estimated using the model.
2. The model can match the experimental and numerical
simulation data of oil recovery as well as the oil
production data from the Lakeview Pool, Midway Sunset
field.
3. An analytical model was developed to determine the
average residual oil saturation by free-fall gravity
drainage.
4. The average residual oil saturation increases with the
entry capillary pressure but decreases with the increase in
pore size distribution index as expected. The relationship
between the average residual oil saturation and the entry
capillary pressure is almost linear for a pore size
distribution index of 7.
5. An approach was developed to infer capillary pressure
curves from the oil production data by free-fall gravity
drainage. The entry capillary pressure can be inferred
from the initial oil production rate and the pore size
distribution index can be determined from the average
residual oil saturation.
Acknowledgements
This research was conducted with financial support from the
US Department of Energy under grant DE-FG07-02ID14418,
the contribution of which is gratefully acknowledged.

o =
=
=
=
=
=

References
1.

2.
3.
4.

5.
6.
7.
8.

9.

10.

Nomenclature
A = cross-section area of the core or reservoir, L2
g = gravity constant, L/t2
k = absolute permeability, L2

11.

k ro* = relative permeability of oil phase at initial oil

12.

L=
Npo =
Pc =
pe =
qo =
qoi =
R=
R =
So =
So* =
Sor =
Sor =

saturation
core length, L
ultimate oil produced by free-fall gravity drainage,
L3
capillary pressure, m/Lt2
entry capillary pressure, m/Lt2
oil production rate, L3/t
initial oil production rate, L3/t
oil recovery in the units of OOIP
ultimate oil recovery in the units of OOIP
oil saturation
normalized oil saturation
residual oil saturation determined from a capillary
pressure curve
average residual oil saturation

initial water saturation

production time, t
pore volume, L3
depth, L
dimensionless length defined in Eq. 6
depth corresponding to the entry capillary pressure,
L
viscosity of oil phase, m/Lt
porosity
recoverable oil recovery
constant giving the rate of convergence in Eq. 1
pore size distribution index
density difference between oil and gas phases, m/L3

13.

14.

15.

16.

Dumor, J.M. and Schols, R.S.: Drainage Capillary Pressure

Function and the Influence of Connate Water, SPEJ (October
1974), 437.
Hagoort, J.: Oil Recovery by Gravity Drainage, SPEJ (June
1980), 139-150.
Dykstra, H.: The Prediction of Oil Recovery by Gravity
Drainage, JPT (May 1978), 818-830.
King, R.L. and Stiles, J.H.: A Reservoir Study of the Hawkins
Woodbine Field, SPE 2972, presented at the SPE 45th Annual
Fall Meeting, Houston, Texas, October 4-7, 1970.
Leverett, M.C.: Capillary Behavior in Porous Solids, Trans.,
AIME (1941), 142, 152.
Katz, D.L.: Possibilities of Secondary Recovery for the
Oklahoma City Wilcox Sand, Trans., AIME (1942), 146, 28.
Cardwell, W.T. and Parsons, R.L.: Gravity Drainage Theory,
Trans., AIME (1949), 179, 199.
Terwilliger, P.L., Wilsey, L.E., Hall, H.N., Bridges, P.M., and
Morse, R.A.: An Experimental and Theoretical Investigation of
Gravity Drainage Performance, Trans., AIME (1951), 192,
285-296.
Nenniger, E. and Storrow, J A.: Drainage of Packed Beads in
Gravitational and Centrifugal-force Fields, AIChE (1958), 4(3),
305.
Matthews, C.S. and Lefkovits, H.C.: Gravity Drainage
Performance of Depletion-Type Reservoirs in the Stripper
Stage, Trans., AIME, 207 (1956), 265-274.
Lefkovits, H.C. and Matthews, C.S.: Application of Decline
Curves to Gravity-Drainage Reservoirs in the Stripper Stage,
Trans., AIME, 213 (1958), 275-280.
Hamon, G.: Oil/Water Gravity Drainage in Oil-Wet Fractured
Reservoirs, paper SPE 18366, presented at the SPE European
Petroleum Conference, held in London, UK, October 16-19,
1988.
Pavone, D., Bruzzi, P. and Verre, R.: Gravity Drainage at Low
Interfacial Tension, paper presented at the 5th European
Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, held in Budapest,
October 27-29, 1989, 165.
Luan, Z.: Some Theoretical Aspects of Gravity Drainage in
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, paper SPE 28641, presented at
the 69th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of SPE,
held in New Orleans, Louisiana, September 25-28, 1994.
Schechter, D.S. and Guo, B.: Mathematical Modeling of
Gravity Drainage after Gas Injection into Fractured Reservoirs,
SPE/DOE 35170, presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil
Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 2224,
1996.
Corra, A.C.F. and Firoozabadi, A.: Concept of Gravity
Drainage in Layered Porous Media, SPEJ (March 1996), 101111.

17. Pedrera, B., Betin, H., Hamon, G., and Augustin, A.:
"Wettability Effect on Oil Relative Permeability during a
Gravity Drainage," SPE 77542, presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, USA,
September 29 to October 02, 2002.
18. Aronofsky, J.S., Masse, L., and Natanson, S.G.: A Model for
the Mechanism of Oil Recovery from the Porous Matrix Due to
Water Invasion in Fractured Reservoirs, Trans., AIME (1958)
213, 17-19.
19. Schechter, D.S. and Guo, B.: An Integrated Investigation for
Design of a CO2 Pilot in the Naturally Fractured Spraberry
Trend Area, West Texas, paper SPE 39881, presented at the
1998 SPE International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition
held in Villahermosa, Mexico, March 3-5, 1998.
20. Baker, R.O., Spenceley, N.K., Guo, B., and Schechter, D.S.:
Using an Analytical Decline Model to Characterize Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs, SPE 39623, presented at the 1998
SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, April 19-22, 1998.
21. Li, K. and Horne, R.N.: An Experimental Method for
Evaluating Water Injection into Geothermal Reservoirs,
presented at the GRC 2000 Annual Meeting, September 24-27,
2000, San Francisco, USA; GRC Trans. 24 (2000).
22. Brooks, R. H. and Corey, A. T.: "Properties of Porous Media
Affecting Fluid Flow," J. Irrig. Drain. Div., (1966), 6, 61.
23. Li, K. and Firoozabadi, A.: Experimental Study of Wettability
Alteration to Preferential Gas-Wetness in Porous Media and its
Effect, SPEREE (April 2000), 139-149.
24. Li, K. and Horne, R.N.: Numerical Simulation without
Specifying Relative Permeability Functions, SPE 79716,
Proceedings of the 2003 SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium
held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 35 February 2003.
25. Li, K. and Horne, R.N.: Characterization of Spontaneous Water
Imbibition into Gas-Saturated Rocks, SPEJ (December 2001),
6(4), 375-384.
26. Li, K. and Horne, R.N.: A General Scaling Method for
Spontaneous Imbibition, SPE 77544, presented at the 2002 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX,
USA, September 29 to October 02, 2002.
27. Handy, L.L.: Determination of Effective Capillary Pressures
for Porous Media from Imbibition Data, Trans., AIME, 219,
1960, 75-80.
28. Rangel-Germn, E.R.: Water Infiltration in Fractured Porous
Media: In-Situ Imaging, Analytical Model, And Numerical
Study, PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA,
2002.

Appendix A: Derivation of Ultimate Oil Recovery by

Free-fall Gravity Drainage
An analytical ultimate oil recovery model for free-fall gravity
drainage is derived in this section. It is not assumed in the
derivation that the oil saturation at the top of the core sample,
So(z=0), is equal to Sor. The main mechanism is the balance
between the gravity and the capillary pressure forces.
The gravity force is equal to the capillary pressure force at
any position in the core after the free-fall gravity drainage is
completed. Assuming that the capillary pressure curve could
be represented using the Brooks-Corey model (Eq. 3), the
following equation applies in this case for a cylinder-shape
core sample positioned vertically:

SPE 84184

L z = (L

*
z e )(S o )

(A-1)

where z is the distance from the top of the core sample and ze
is the position corresponding to the entry capillary pressure.
The ultimate cumulative oil production after the
equilibrium between the gravity and capillary pressure forces
is reached can be calculated as follows:

N po = A SS o, z = z e zdSo

(A-2)

o, z = 0

The following equation can be obtained based on Eq. 4:

dSo = (1 S wi Sor )dSo*

(A-3)

Substituting Eq. A-3 into Eq. A-2:

*

N po = A (1 S wi Sor ) S*o, z = z e zdSo*

S o, z = 0

(A-4)

According to Eq. A-1, z can be expressed as:

z = L ( L z e )( S o* )

(A-5)

and
S o*, z =0 = (

L ze
)
L

S o*, z = ze = 1

(A-6a)
(A-6b)

Eq. 5 can be obtained by substituting Eq. A-5 into Eq. A-4

and rearranging with Eqs. A-6a and A-6b.
The average residual oil saturation after gravity drainage
can be computed as follows:
S or =

V p (1 S wi ) N po
Vp

(A-7)

Eq. 7 can be obtained by substituting Eq. 5 into Eq. A-7

and rearranging.
The ultimate oil recovery in the units of OOIP is expressed
as follows:
R =

N po
V p (1 S wi )

(A-8)

where R is the ultimate oil recovery.

Substituting Eq. 5 into Eq. A-8, the ultimate oil recovery
by free-fall gravity drainage can be calculated as follows:
R =

1 S wi S or

1
(1
zc +
zc )
1
1
1 S wi

(A-9)

According to Eq. A-9, the ultimate oil recovery by free-fall

gravity drainage depends on the residual oil saturation (Sor),
the pore size distribution index, and the entry capillary
pressure.

SPE 84184

1.0

Experimental
Model

0.8

Oil Recovery, OOIP

Oil Recovery, OOIP

1.0

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
5000

10000
15000
Time, minute

20000

0.6
0.4
0.2

25000

Fig. 1: Comparison of the oil recovery calculated by the modified

model to experimental data17.

1.0

0.08

Oil Recovery, OOIP

Brooks-Corey model
Experimental

0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00

400
600
Time, minute

800

=1, Simulation
=2, Simulation
=3, Simulation
=7, Simulation
Model

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

20

40
60
Oil Saturation (%)

80

100

Fig. 2: Experimental data of capillary pressure and the fitting by

the Brooks-Corey model24.

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4

Experimental
Model

0.2
0.0
5000

10000
15000
Time, minute

20000

25000

Fig. 3: Comparison of the oil recovery calculated by the existing

model to experimental data.

5000

10000
Time, minute

15000

20000

Fig. 5: Model fit to the numerical simulation results of oil recovery

in core samples at different values of 24.

Residual Oil Saturation, fraction

200

Fig. 4: Comparison of the calculated oil recovery at different

wettability to experimental data23.

0.10
Capillary Pressure (at)

0.8

0.0

Recoverable Oil Recovery

With Chemical, Experimental

With Chemical, Model
Without Chemical, Experimental
Without Chemical, Model

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0

2
4
6
Pore Size Distribution Index

Fig. 6: Effect of the pore size distribution index on the average

residual oil saturation in core samples.

SPE 84184

pe = 0.1*pem
pe = 0.5*pem

0.8

1.0

pe = 1.0*pem
pe = 2.0*pem

Oil Recovery, OOIP

Oil Recovery, OOIP

1.0

0.6
0.4
0.2

0.6
0.4

pe = 0.1*pec
pe = 1.0*pec
pe = 2.0*pec

0.2
0.0

0.0
0

5000

10000
Time, minute

15000

20000

10000

15000

Fig. 9: Model fit to the numerical results of oil recovery at

reservoir scale for different pe (pec=0.259 atm, k=70 md).

1.0
Oil Recovery, OOIP

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.00

5000
Time, day

Fig. 7: Model fit to the numerical results of oil recovery in core

samples at different pe (pem=0.0259 atm).

Residual Oil Saturation, fraction

0.8

Field
Model

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

0.01

0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
Entry Capillary Pressure, atm

0.06

Fig. 8: Effect of the entry capillary pressure on the average

residual oil saturation in core samples.

10

20
30
Production Time, year

40

50

Fig. 10: Model fit to the oil production data from the Lakeview
Pool, Midway Sunset field.