V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-4-CS-177)

MODELING OF THREE-PHASE FLOW IN EOR OF COMPLEX RESERVOIRS BY WAG

INJECTION

Claudia P. Soto-Tavera, Héctor H. Pérez-Vega ─ Ecopetrol S.A; Uriel E. Guerrero-

Aconcha, Julián D. Ortiz-Arango ─ Buttservices E&O Ltd.

Abstract
In recent years water-alternating-gas injection (WAG) process has became more common in enhanced oil
recovery (EOR) projects. However, this method has not strongly been therefore considered in complex
reservoirs, i.e. naturally fractured compositional reservoirs, for fear of losing ultimate recovery. In addition,
the physical processes underlying the complex three-phase flow in WAG have not been well understood
to allow reliable reservoir performance predictions to be made before undertaking the relatively large
investment for WAG. Furthermore, WAG injection involves drainage and imbibition processes taking
place sequentially, making the three-phase relative permeability and capillary pressure functions very
complex. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to simulate the process using conventional reservoir
simulators.

Although the importance of two-phase flow in porous media has long been recognized, the need for
quantitative predictions involving flow of three phases is more recent. However, there is currently little
doubt that a good description of three-phase flow is essential in enhanced oil recovery not only by WAG
injection, but also by gas injection, surfactant flooding and thermal recovery. Thus, despite its common
occurrence, the ability to reliably model three-phase flow using numerical simulation is questionable.

Likewise, relative permeabilities are the most important, but least understood parameters of three-phase
flow equations. Direct three-phase relative permeability measurements remain relatively unexplored due
to experimental difficulties, and empirical models are used instead. Several models and correlations have
been proposed for prediction of three-phase relative permeabilities from two-phase data or from empirical
saturation-capillary pressure relationships. Among these it can be highlighted the models of Stone, Corey
et al., Naar & Wygal, Land, Parker et al., and the interpolation methods. This paper shows a comparison
of the predictions of these models using published three-phase experimental relative permeability data,
remarking the uncertainties in the predictions of oil and gas recovery due to the three-phase relative
permeability model.

The results and analysis showed in this paper highlight the need for a new three-phase relative
permeability model that incorporates a realistic level of the pore-scale physics, but simultaneously, should
be sufficiently simple that the constitutive relations, i.e. relative permeabilities and capillary pressures, can
be explicitly calculated. A new three-phase relative permeability model is suggested in this paper, which
would be applicable to WAG injection.

Introduction
Waterflooding, gas injection and WAG injection are well-established enhanced oil recovery methods.
There are many reservoirs in which waterflooding has been implemented, a number of them are now
approaching the end of their waterflood life and the operators will soon have to decide what to do. At the
end of waterflood often some 40% to 60% of the original oil-in-place is left behind [1]. Under favorable
conditions, gas injection has better displacement efficiency than waterflooding, but it usually has worse
sweep efficiency and is very expensive. WAG injection has shown to be more efficient than injection of
either gas or water alone, but the physical processes underlying the complex flow in WAG has not been
well understood. Gas can occupy part of the pore space that otherwise would be occupied by oil, thereby
mobilizing the remaining oil. Water, injected subsequently, will displace some of the remaining oil and
gas, further reducing the residual oil saturation.

The WAG injection process has not been hitherto seriously considered as an enhanced oil recovery
method in complex reservoirs. The reason seems to be the fear of losing ultimate production, and as a
consequence the ultimate recovery. Jones et al. [2] presented reservoir simulation results for WAG
injection into a naturally fractured gas condensate reservoir. For the base case study presented by them,
WAG is shown to improve sweep efficiency and ultimate recovery by 86% at one pore volume injection
over that of dry gas injection alone into a prototype gas condensate reservoir containing a single, high
permeability thief zone.

To plan the reservoir development for implementation of WAG, the operator needs reliable performance
and oil and gas recovery predictions before undertaking the relatively large investment for WAG. To
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-4-CS-177) 2

achieve this, it is needed to count on good numerical simulation incorporating proper reservoir fluids and
rock descriptions. This requires accurate sets of three-phase relative permeability and capillary pressure
functions. The WAG process also involves a further complexity. Drainage and imbibition processes take
place sequentially. Therefore, the hysteresis effects have to be accounted for, also. But not only is it
impractical, there are also great experimental difficulties, to measure these functions and their hysteresis
effects for all the different rock types and fluids present in a reservoir.

Several models and correlations have been proposed to tackle the problem. Some of these predict three-
phase relative permeabilities from two-phase data or from saturation-capillary pressure relationships.
However, it seems that the models have been proposed with the aim of fitting the observed experimental
relative permeability data only. At present the simplest models are the most widely used. The reason is
clear, thirty to forty years ago there were limited experimental data to justify the use of a more complex
model. Nevertheless, there are currently sophisticated devices to measure reliably three-phase relative
permeabilities, so the development of more complex models is justified.

Commercial petroleum reservoir numerical simulators are capable of solving the three-phase flow
equations. These simulators have been used for many years to predict oil recovery in processes that
involve three-phase flow. Despite the common use of these flow models, a theory of three-phase flow in
porous media has not been well established [3]. The latter become worse if it is considered the fact that
the models for three-phase relative permeability used in simulations do not clearly match the data
available from laboratory measurements.

One of the possible reasons for the lack of knowledge described above, may be the myth that
simultaneous flow of three phases, in problems involving gas, is seldom present in real reservoirs owing
to gravity segregation. Guzmán et al. [3] performed three dimensional simulations of gas and WAG
displacements at typical reservoir conditions, and found that 20% to 80% of the reservoir volume
experienced three-phase flow, even for conditions that simulated strong gravity segregation. The results
of Guzmán et al. imply that three-phase flow additional study is well justified.

Most commercial simulators use either Stone’s I or II models for three-phase relative permeabilities with
the implicit assumption that these models are correct. This paper shows a sensitivity analysis on the
uncertainty of oil recovery due to the three-phase relative permeability model.

Motivation
The importance of two-phase flow in porous media has long been recognized in petroleum engineering
(Buckley & Leverett [4], Muskat & Meres [5]). Although investigated since several decades ago (Leverett
& Lewis [6], Muskat [7]), the need for quantitative predictions involving three-phase flow is more recent.
However, there is currently little doubt that a good description of three-phase flow is essential in
enhanced oil recovery [8], including gas injection into hydrocarbon reservoirs [7], waterflooding in the
presence of free gas [9, 10, 11], WAG injection [3, 12, 13], steamfloods [14, 15, 16, 17], and immiscible
CO2 floods [18, 19]. This wide range of applications makes three-phase flow in porous media a relevant
research topic.

In the macroscopic simulation of three-phase flow, the three-phase relative permeabilities and capillary
pressures as functions of saturation are the main constitutive relations in the transport equations. The
mathematical form of these relations is determined by the details of the underlying pore-level physics of
the process, although this is not often explicitly acknowledged in empirical relative permeability models
[20]. Therefore, it is clear that the great motivation of this paper is to improve our understanding of three-
phase processes, particularly in WAG injection, by developing a new model to determine the three-phase
relative permeabilities. The model should incorporate a realistic description of the micro- and macro-scale
physics, but, simultaneously, should be mathematically simple that the constitutive relations can be
explicitly calculated.

Background to Wag Injection

The WAG injection process, patented by Parrish [21] in 1966, was initially proposed as a method to
increase the sweep efficiency during gas injection. Oil recovery by WAG injection has been attributed to
contact of unswept zones, especially recovery of attic oil by exploiting the segregation of gas to the top or
the accumulating of water toward the bottom. Besides the residual oil after gasflooding is usually lower
than the residual oil after waterflooding, three-phase flow regions may obtain lower remaining oil
saturation, which makes WAG injection to have the potential for increased microscopic displacement
efficiency. Thus, WAG injection can lead to enhanced oil recovery by combining better mobility control
and contacting unswept zones, and by leading to improved microscopic displacement [12].
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-4-CS-177) 3

Christensen et al. [12] showed a review of the WAG field experience from the first reported WAG injection
in 1957 in Canada to the new experience from the North Sea. For the fields reviewed, a common trend
for the successful injections is an increased oil recovery in the range of 5% to 10% of the oil initially in
place (OIIP).

Use of WAG to improve sweep efficiency in highly stratified or naturally fractured gas condensate
reservoirs had not been reported until the simulation studies by Jones et al. [2, 22]. The increase in
sweep efficiency occurs primarily because water tends to block the thief zone (fractures), thus forcing
following injection gas to invade the reservoir matrix. But, why to consider WAG injection and not either
gas injection or water injection alone. The reasons are:
• Gas injected to maintain pressure in complex gas condensate reservoirs can lead to early gas
breakthrough, low sweep efficiency, disappointing condensate yield, and high compression costs
because of gas channeling in fractures. Jones et al. [22] showed by simulation studies that WAG
process improves gas sweep and ultimate recovery.
• Water injected could increase the possibilities of losing reserves due to trapped gas condensate, killing
wells by water invasion, and reducing injectivity.

In contrast to a waterflood, in a WAG process, water increases recovery by acting as a diverting agent by
preferentially entering high-permeability channels (fractures) and diverting injected dry gas to lower-
permeability channels (matrix). Additional recovery by water injection followed by gas is due to water’s
favorable mobility and because of water sweeps gas condensate out of the matrix, trapping dry gas, not
gas condensate.

- Classification of the WAG process

WAG processes can be grouped in several ways. The most common is to distinguish between
miscible and immiscible displacements.

• Miscible WAG injection. It is difficult to distinguish between miscible and immiscible WAG
injection because of the difficulty to bring the reservoir pressure above the minimum miscibility
pressure of the fluids. Real field cases may oscillate between miscible and immiscible gas during
the life of the oil production. However, miscible WAG injection does not offer the great challenge
to model the complex pore-scale physics associated to three-phase flow that is found in
immiscible WAG injection. Therefore, hereafter the studies, comparisons, theoretical approaches
and results in this work will correspond to immiscible WAG injection.
• Immiscible WAG injection. This type of WAG process has been applied with the aim of
improving frontal stability or contacting unswept zones. In addition to sweep, the microscopic
displacement efficiency may be improved. Residual oil saturations are generally lower for WAG
injection than for a waterflood and sometimes even lower than a gasflood.

Modeling of Three-Phase relative Permeabilities in Wag Injection

WAG injection involves a complex saturation pattern because two saturations (gas and water) increase
and decrease alternately. This gives a special challenge for the description of the three-phase relative
permeabilities. It has been shown in the literature [23, 24] that the classical empirical models and
correlations to calculate three-phase relative permeabilities do not apply to WAG injection. Recently,
Larsen & Skauge [25] proposed an approach for modeling WAG injection using cycle-dependent relative
permeabilities.

Whereas two-phase relative permeability curves are routinely measured in laboratories, measurements of
three-phase relative permeability curves are limited because of the extreme experimental difficulties. It is
therefore common to use models or correlations for estimation of these curves. The most well known
correlations are the Stone I and II methods. However, a special care arises in the simulation of WAG
process where the saturation is oscillating. In this case trapping of the gas phase may occur by the effect
of water invasion into zones already swept by gas. This phenomena leads to hysteresis in relative
permeability curves, since the pore space available for liquid movement decreases owing to the presence
of trapped gas. In such cases not only the three-phase relative permeabilities, but also the hysteresis
must be modeled.

- Revision of the three-phase flow mathematical description

Mathematical modeling of three-phase flow in porous media is, to a large extent, still an open issue
[26]. The problem lies in its inherent multiscale character. Juanes [27] states that three-phase flow
must be regarded not only as a multiscale problem, where the parameters and the variables of
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-4-CS-177) 4

interest are scale-dependent, but also a multiphysics problem, that is, different processes dominate at
different scales. The micro-scale is controlled by capillary forces, whereas viscous and gravity forces
usually dominate at the macro-scale. This complex behavior is not taken into account in the
development of simplistic three-phase relative permeability models, which are extensions of models
proven successfully for two-phase flow. The use of these simplistic models has been favored by two
factors [27]: first, the limited understanding of the physics of three-phase flow in a porous medium;
and second, the challenge of posing the mathematical problem in a tractable form that allows the
development of predictive tools.

On the other hand, the key ingredients of the classical macroscopic descriptions of multiphase flow
are mass conservation equations, and a direct multiphase extension of Darcy’s equation [7]. Darcy’s
equation for single-phase flow is an appropriate form of the fluid momentum balance in creeping flow
through porous media [27]. Underlying the extension of the motion equation of a single fluid to the
simultaneous flow of two or more fluids is the concept of relative permeability [7, 28]. Relative
permeabilities account for the reduction in the flow of each phase due to the interaction of the
different flowing phases. Applicability of the traditional formulation of multiphase flow relies strongly
on the validity of Darcy’s equation and its extension to multiphase flow, and on the proper model for
the relative permeabilities [27].

Darcy’s law is an empirical relation that replaces at the macroscopic level the equations of
momentum conservation [27]. A major assumption was introduced by Muskat [7, chap. 7]. In the
expression deduced by Muskat, the driving force is a combination of viscous, capillary and gravity
forces, and the relative permeability is assumed to be independent of what process or processes
dominate [27]. Juanes [27] showed that the multiphase extension of Darcy’s equation may be
described as a quasi-linear relation, because the fluid flux depends linearly on the “driving force”,
which includes viscous, capillary and gravity forces, and all the non-linearity is agglutinated in the
relative permeabilities.

However, while Darcy’s law for single-phase flow has demonstrated to be physically correct [29], its
extension to multiphase systems is limited because of the lack of physical thoroughness [30]. The
physical limitations of Darcy’s law can be understood from the multiscale/multiphysics character of
multiphase flow through porous media [31]. The displacement of one fluid by another is a
consequence of the pore-scale mechanisms that take place in the porous media. The actual
behavior of the multiphase flow depends on the wettability properties of the fluids, the fluid viscosity
ratios, the displacement process (drainage or imbibition), and the saturation history that determines
the pore-scale configurations of the fluids [32, 33].

According to what was established above, Darcy’s law does not reflect many of the multiscale
considerations. Therefore, only by improving the relative permeability models, the actual three-phase
flow behavior can be correctly described by Darcy’s law because these are the only “degrees of
freedom” of the formulation [27].

- Revision of three-phase relative permeability models

It is very difficult to measure relative permeabilities and capillary pressures for the full range of
possible three-phase saturations and saturation histories [34]. Therefore, most numerical models of
three-phase flow rely on empirical relationships between capillary pressure, saturation, and relative
permeability.

Delshad & Pope [35], and Oak [36], compared empirical models to published experimental data.
Delshad & Pope found that some models performed well for a few experiments, but none were
consistently accurate over the full range of saturations. Oak et al. performed very extensive
experiments and compared the results to the popular models by Stone [37, 38]. The comparison
clearly indicated limitations with the Stone models in predicting three-phase relative permeabilities.
Nordtvedt et al. [39] found that the Stone I model could not suitably predict their experimental data.

Therefore, it is clear that empirical models fail because they do not fully account for the physics of
flow. Most three-phase models, including the popular models of Stone, assume that the three-phase
relative permeabilities can be modeled from two sets of two-phase relative permeabilities. This
assumption ignores critical interactions that occur when three phases are in the pore space. In
addition, all three-phase models assume that the capillary pressures and relative permeabilities are
unique functions of saturation and independent of fluid properties. Obviously, this is not the actual
case and such assumptions cause large errors, particularly for flow at low oil saturations, which is the
case of greatest practical interest [40].
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-4-CS-177) 5

According to this, it is obvious that the models were proposed with the only aim of fitting the observed
experimental relative permeability data. Hereafter, it is shown the main features, assumptions,
advantages, and disadvantages of the most commonly used three-phase relative permeability
models.

o Corey et al.
Corey et al. [41] published the first model of relative permeabilities in three-phase flow. The
model is based on the concept of approximating the flow paths through a rock by the equivalent
hydraulic radius of a bundle of capillary tubes. A tortuosity correction (developed by Burdine [42])
was included to account for the differences in path length of tubes of different sizes. Corey’s
model assumed the wetting and non-wetting phase relative permeabilities to be independent of
the saturations of the other phases. This assumption is used in most of the models developed
subsequently.

According to Corey et al., the intermediate-wetting phase occupies the flow channels which are
intermediate in size between those occupied by the wetting and the non-wetting phases. Its flow
may be interfered with by both the wetting and non-wetting fluids. Relative permeability to the
intermediate-wetting phase is proportional to the area of the pores occupied by this phase and to
the relative saturation of the phase.

o Naar & Wygal

Naar & Wygal’s model [43] is also based on the concept of flow in straight capillaries, but with the
added complication of random interconnections of pores and of storage capacity which makes
possible blocking (trapping) of the non-wetting phase by the invading wetting fluid. Relative
permeabilities to the wetting and non-wetting phases are considered to depend on their own
saturations only, while the intermediate-wetting phase relative permeability depends on all three-
phase saturations.

o Land
Land [44] developed an improved model for imbibition relative permeability which takes the effect
of initial saturations into account. This model assumes, based on published experimental data,
the maximum residual hydrocarbon saturation is constant, whether the hydrocarbon is gas or oil,
and that the residual hydrocarbon is related to the initial hydrocarbon saturation through a simple
mathematical expression.

Land’s model is similar to the model of Naar & Wygal [43]. However, Land pointed out that Naar
& Wygal erroneously placed the trapped gas saturation in the largest pores rather than the
smallest pores.

Land presented the model as a set of integral equations giving the dependence of relative
permeabilities on saturations, saturation histories and the relations between saturations and
capillary pressures.

Owing to it considers the fluids saturation histories, at least in approximating the trapping of the
intermediate- and non-wetting phases, Land’s model offers one of the best approaches to date to
modeling three-phase relative permeabilities with the bundle of capillaries assumption.

o Parker et al.
Parker et al. [45] proposed a model for intermediate-wetting phase relative permeability based on
a model for two-phase relative permeability developed by Mualem [46]. In Parker’s model a
square-root saturation function takes the place of Burdine’s tortuosity correction. The permeability
to a particular phase in this model is assumed to be proportional to the square of the mean
hydraulic radius of the pores occupied by that phase. This contrasts to the Corey’s model, in
which the phase relative permeability was assumed proportional to the mean hydraulic area, or
the mean square hydraulic radius.

o Stone
The methods most commonly used for prediction of three-phase relative permeabilities are those
proposed by Stone (Method I [37] and Method II [38]). Both are probability models, and both
assume the relative permeabilities of the wetting and non-wetting phases depend only on the
saturation of the wetting and non-wetting phases respectively. Thus, the model applies only to the
intermediate-wetting phase.
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-4-CS-177) 6

For the intermediate-wetting phase, Stone’s Method I assumes that the flow of this phase is
impeded by the presence of the wetting and non-wetting phases, and that the effects of both
phases are mutually independent. Intermediate-wetting phase relative permeability is treated as a
linear function of its normalized saturation, modified by two empirical functions which depend on
the wetting and non-wetting saturations, independently. To maintain consistency at the limits of
two-phase saturation, Stone suggested the empirical functions to be chosen proportional to the
relative permeability to intermediate-wetting phase in the corresponding two-phase system
(intermediate-wetting phase / wetting phase or intermediate-wetting phase / non-wetting phase).

On the other hand, Stone’s Method II assumes the total relative permeability (sum of
intermediate-wetting, non-wetting and wetting phases relative permeabilities) is the product of the
total wetting / intermediate-wetting phases relative permeability measured at zero non-wetting
phase saturation and the total non-wetting / intermediate-wetting phases relative permeability
measured at irreducible wetting phase saturation. Non-wetting and wetting phases relative
permeabilities are assumed to be the same in two-phase and three-phase flow, and can be
determined from the two-phase data.

Because Stone’s Method II usually predicts too-low intermediate-wetting phase relative

permeabilities and Method I (unadjusted) usually predicts too-high intermediate-wetting phase
relative permeabilities, Aziz & Settari [47] introduced another empirical parameter to Stone’s
models in order to adjust the predicted relative permeabilities between these ranges.

o Interpolation methods
The most commonly interpolation methods are the saturation-weighted interpolation and the
linear interpolation. These methods seem to provide good fits to the available three-phase data,
and do not require adjustment.

The interpolation methods arise because most of the available experimental data before 1990
indicate the wetting and non-wetting phase relative permeabilities depend primarily on their own
saturations. Evidence for dependence of the intermediate-wetting phase relative permeability on
saturations is mixed. However, in light of the uncertainties in the experimental data, Baker [48]
established that it may be reasonable to use a linear or near-linear interpolation between the two-
phase data sets.

An advantage, but without physical meaning, of these interpolation methods is that they do not
assume (as the most of the models) that the wetting and non-wetting phase relative
permeabilities are totally independent of the saturations of the other phases.

- Comparison of the three-phase relative permeability models

Baker [48] compared kro predictions of several models with predictions of interpolation methods. The
comparison was made using all the published three-phase experimental relative permeability data
before 1990. For the purposes of this work, the models of Stone I, Stone II, Corey et al., Naar &
Wygal, Land, Parker et al., and the methods of linear interpolation and saturation-weighted
interpolation were used in the comparison.

Figure 1 compares the goodness-of-fit of the chosen models with eight data sets which, according to
Baker [48], were complete enough for model application. Baker [48] used a coefficient of
determination, R2, as a statistical parameter of comparison. A value of R2=1 implies a perfect
correlation between measured and predicted values, while R2=0 implies a total lack of correlation.

It is important to notice that figure 1 shows a logarithmic R2 comparison, where the low-permeability
values dominate. According to Baker [48], most of the prediction methods fit the data sets equally
well on the basis of the linear R2 comparison. This shows that each of the models is capable of
representing with certain degree of accuracy three-phase relative permeabilities in the high oil relative
permeability region. Therefore, the linear R2 comparison is not tabulated here since there were no
very significant differences within data sets.

In figure 1 the length of each horizontal cylinder denotes the goodness-of-fit of one of the models for
one data set. Baker [48] observed that the differences in the level of fit between data sets (especially
the Snell and Guckert data sets) are more representative of differences in data scatter than of a
failure of the models. Figure 2 shows a comparison between the arithmetic means of the coefficient of
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-4-CS-177) 7

determination for each model using all the experimental data and excepting Snell and Guckert data,
respectively.

Comparing the bar lengths within data sets, Stone’s Method I fit better than Stone’s Method II for
most cases (figure 1). But, among the empirical correlations, the saturation-weighted interpolation
method provides the best fit, followed very closer by the linear interpolation method (figure 2).
Likewise, Parker’s model provides the best fit among the mechanistic (physical-meaning) models. Of
the remaining models, Corey’s is generally equal to Land’s. Naar & Wygal’s model provide the worst
fit. In general, Parker’s provide the best fit among all the models compared between. However, from
Baker’s results [48], linear interpolation and saturation-weighted interpolation seem to be among the
top three models for each of the data sets. These results could be biased nevertheless.

Apart from the comparison above, one question raises about whether the models are equally suited
to prediction of three-phase relative permeabilities for the saturation histories represented in the
experimental data sets used. Since water saturation was held nearly constant in all the core tests
carried out by Leverett & Lewis, Reid, Hosain, Snell, Corey, Saraf, Guckert, and Saraf et al., used as
experimental data, the Naar & Wygal imbibition model would seem ill-suited [48]. This does not imply
the model is unsuitable for use in other cases where the model assumptions are applicable.

Effect of Three-Phase Relative Permeability Model on Reservoir Simulation

The purpose of this section is to highlight the uncertainty on recovery and GOR, often not well
recognized, associated with the three-phase relative permeability model, specially for kro. Sato & Aziz [49]
performed a sensitivity analysis on kro models for steam injection recoveries. Their studies recognized the
need for an accurate three-phase relative permeability model.

Figure 3 depicts the simulation results published by Guzmán et al. [3], in which it is shown the additional
oil recovery after water breakthrough for calculations using Stone’s Method I and II and with WAG
injection starting from the beginning of the simulations. Guzmán et al. [3] showed a simulation with water
injection with the only aim of comparing its efficiency with WAG’s. Figure 3 shows that the additional
recovery due to WAG compared to water injection alone, can be multiplied by 1.8 if Stone’s Method I is
used to predict kro. Moreover, predictions of additional recovery by WAG injection using Stone’s Method II
can be multiplied by 1.3 using Stone’s Method I. Therefore, important economic decisions based on total
oil recovery can be strongly affected by the three-phase relative permeability model.

Figure 4 shows the GOR’s behavior for this same case. According to this, prediction of GOR’s behavior is
very different depending on the kro model used. This aspect of selecting a three-phase relative
permeability model is often not well recognized [3]. Figure 4 also demonstrates that a decision of closing
a well due to excessive water or gas production can be highly dependent on the three-phase relative
permeability model [3]. This fact and the oil recovery uncertainty points out the need for a better three-
phase relative permeability model.

New Three-Phase Relative Permeability Model

A model represents a useful simplification of complex reality. As the detailed structure of porous media is
too complicated to describe mathematically, for years it has been represented using simplified
hypothetical models which can be analytically treated. Actually, any modeling of flow and transport
phenomena in a porous media has to include a realistic model of the medium itself. There have been
efforts to describe pore-scale transport through spatially periodic porous media, network models, fractal
porous media, and reconstructed porous media. The most famous approaches have been the conduit
flow models and the capillary models.

Conduit flow models does not account for the fact that different pores are interconnected with each other,
so conduit flow models are inherently one-dimensional models. Among them, the Kozeny-Carman model
is generally more popular than the rest. The Kozeny-Carman approach is also called the “hydraulic radius
theory” and was developed for creeping flow. In the Kozeny-Carman theory, the porous media is
assumed to be equivalent to a conduit, the cross section of which may have a complicated shape but, on
an average, a constant area. A Hagen-Poiseuille type equation is assumed to give the average seepage
velocity in the flow channels. One of the most relevant contributions of the Kozeny-Carman model is the
overwhelming importance of pore size in determining the permeability of a porous media.
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-4-CS-177) 8

Although Scheidegger [50] has strong criticism of the Kozeny-Carman model, it has been the base for the
most common capillary models modified for calculation of three-phase relative permeabilities, e.g. Corey
et al., Naar & Wygal, Land, and Parker et al.

However, although these models consider the simultaneous flow of three immiscible phases, the
corresponding mathematical formulations seem not to take the actual transport phenomena into account.
All the models cited above assume a rigorous flow condition, which has been called as “The Channel
Flow Theory” by Stone [38]. This “theory” states that in any flow channel there is at most only one mobile
fluid. The most remarkable, thus controversial, consequence of Stone’s theory is that the wetting phase
is located primarily in the small pore spaces and the non-wetting phase in the large ones, and the
intermediate phase spatially separates them. Therefore, another important question raises about where
the interaction is between the three flowing phases.

So, in order to overcome the theoretical limitations of the previous three-phase relative permeability
models, a new model is proposed.

- Physical abstraction for development of the model

In recent years, several advances have been made in the construction of realistic representations of
porous media. Oren & Bakke [51] have developed random network models based on the pore space
geometry of the rock of interest. Many other authors have also developed techniques to derive pore
structures from a variety of measurements [52, 53, 54]. Based on these techniques, new pore-scale
networks designed to predict three-phase relative permeabilities determine an equivalent network
structure that attempts to mimic the properties of the real pore space.

In cross-section, individual pores are often modeled as triangles and high-order polygons [55, 56]. As
well as triangular cross-section elements, authors have used geometries with circular [57], square
[58], star-shape [59, 60], and lenticular [61] cross-sections.

Figure 5 shows the schematic abstraction from the actual porous media to simplified model. The
model can be regarded as a capillary model. Each capillary has an equivalent radius and a prismatic-
shape. s shape allows wetting phase to occupy the corners when the non-wetting phase fills the
center. In addition, within each capillary the three flowing phases interact with each other according to
the configuration depicted in figure 6.

Retaking “The Channel Flow Theory” one can demonstrate why the traditional models assume that
relative permeabilities depend only on saturations. Under steady conditions, in which the fractional
volume of the void space occupied by each of the phases (saturation) does not change with location,
each fluid is assumed to have its own channels of flow. Also, for a given direction of saturation
change, the channels are presumed unique for each saturation [28]. Therefore, Darcy’s law is
extended to the steady flow of three fluids with a saturation-dependent relative permeability for each
phase.

Although the concept of saturation-dependent relative permeability dates back to Buckingham [62],
there is still no consensus between the numerous authors who have contributed to the development
of the concepts as well as the laboratory measurements of the relative permeabilities. In all of the
above work and in most of what is practiced today, relative permeabilities are assumed to be
functions of saturation alone as long as the velocity of the fluids are sufficiently small, the change of
saturation is monotonic, and if the medium is ideal, that is, it is isotropic, uniform and homogenous
[59]. Since all the three-phase relative permeability models rely on the assumption that Darcy’s law
applies to each of the fluids, they require that each fluid be bounded only by the solid or that the fluid-
fluid drag at interfaces is negligibly small [59]. Although this may be true if pores have no corners or
roughness and if the contact angle is finite, it is not necessarily true in general. Thus, the new model
suggest to take the influence of shear induced momentum transport across interfaces into account.
Bourbiaux & Kalaydjian [63] calculated relative permeabilities from co-current and counter-current
flow experiments which differed substantially.

Rose [64] conjectured a correction to the two-phase Darcy equation using a cross-term mobility
including the wetting and non-wetting phase viscosities. However, the definition of the correction term
is somewhat arbitrary. Rose [64] as well as subsequent authors (deGennes [65]) who proposed such
corrections presumed that the relative permeabilities were functions only of saturation; no
dependency on viscosities was discussed. Yuster [66], in contrast, attempted to correct Darcy’s two-
phase equations for the presence of drag at fluid-fluid interfaces by including a viscosity ratio
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-4-CS-177) 9

dependence on relative permeabilities. Indeed, non-wetting phase relative permeabilities exceeding

single-phase values have been measured (Odeh [67]), indicating two important facts: firstly,
“lubrication” by a thin wetting phase film surrounding the pore walls [59]; and secondly, “The Channel
Flow Theory” has little physical meaning.

- Assumptions for development of the model

• Creeping flow, thus Darcy’s law can be applicable with somewhat physical meaning.
• The simultaneous three-phase flow does not depend on the time, that is, steady-state flow.
• The three fluids are considered as newtonian, in consequence shear induced momentum tensor
is proportional to velocity gradient, and the fluid viscosity is the constant of proportionality.
• There is no slippage in the capillary walls.
• The three fluids densities are constant, even for gas phase which is considered incompressible in
view of the capillary size and the creeping flow.
• In the solid-fluid interface (capillary wall) the fluid velocity is negligible, that is, it is assumed that
the fluid is adhered to the solid surface.
• In the fluid-fluid interfaces (liquid-liquid and liquid-gas), the momentum and the velocities are
continuous through the interfaces.
• The gravitational effects are negligible in view of the capillary size.

- Mathematical development of the model

The mathematical development begins with a momentum balance for each fluid, from which the
“effective” velocity profiles are determined. Then, these are compared to Darcy’s law in order to find
an analogous form to the effective permeability for each fluid. Subsequently, a mathematical
expression for the absolute permeability is determined. Thus, by dividing the effective permeabilities
by the absolute permeability, the relative permeabilities for each fluid can be found. It has to be
noticed that the differential equations are solved using the boundary conditions given by assumptions
6) and 7) mentioned above. Thereby, equations 1-3 correspond to wetting, intermediate-wetting, and
non-wetting phase relative permeabilities, respectively.

f (r )wp
(k r )wp = S wp (1)
f (r )

⎛ μ iwp ⎞ f (r )iwp
(k r )iwp = ⎜⎜ S iwp + S wp ⎟ (2)
⎝ μ wp ⎟⎠ f (r )

⎛ μ nwp μ nwp ⎞ f (r )nwp

(k r )nwp = ⎜⎜ S nwp + S iwp + S wp ⎟ (3)
⎝ μ iwp μ wp ⎟⎠ f (r )

where f(r) is the pore-size distribution function (PSD) of the porous media. Note that the PSD
function is different for each fluid (see the subscript) because each fluid has different saturation
histories. Likewise, the PSD function is different for the case in which the porous media is saturated
for one phase only. Therefore, the task is how to represent mathematically the PSD’s functions.

For this model the PSD function is defined arbitrarily, but with physical meaning. This PSD function is
similar to that proposed by Donaldson et al. [68]. Equation 4 is the PSD function defined, which
depends on the variation of the pore volume respect to the radius of the capillaries.

f (r ) = R
dV
(4)
dR
Differentiating the capillary pressure formulation (equation 6) and defining dV as,

dV = (PV )dS (5)

V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-4-CS-177) 10

R
dR = − dPc (6)
Pc
Therefore, the definitive PSD function is,

f (r ) = −(PV )Pc
dS
(7)
dPc
This PSD function depends on parameters familiar to model user, which are capillary pressure and
saturation. However, it is necessary to design an analytical expression to relate these two variables.

Trying to obtain a practical solution, the three-phase capillary pressure – saturation behavior is
estimated from two-phase measurements. The extension of two-phase Pc vs. S to three-phases is
carried out by assuming a total liquid saturation, which is function of the interfacial curvature at the
non-wetting – liquid phase interface, independent of the number of proportions of liquids contained in
the porous media, as was proposed by Leverett [69]. Taking these assumptions into account, the
empirical mathematical function presented by van Genuchten [70] to relate capillary pressure to
saturation in two-phase systems was used. Therefore, equations 8-10 represent the Pc vs. S functions
for each fluid,

niw
[
S w = 1 + (α iw Pciw ) ]
n −m
(8)

Si
niw
[
= 1 + (α ni Pcni )
n −m
] − [1 + (α iw Pciw )
n −m
] (9)

niw
[
S n = 1 − 1 + (α ni Pc ni ) ]
n −m
(10)

where α, m, n are empirical parameters obtained from two-phase data.

These functions are derived analytically in order to let PSD functions to depend only on saturations
and then include them in the relative permeabilities formulations. Therefore, the integral boundaries
corresponding to each phase’s saturation history are designed taking the effects of trapped gas
saturation and relative permeability hysteresis to the non-wetting phase into account, as was
developed by Land [44].

Conclusions
From the review of three-phase relative permeability data and models available in the literature, it is clear
that there are still many problems to be solved. The problems range from experimental to theoretical
standpoints. It is imperative to develop methodologies to obtain experimentally good quality relative
permeability and saturation history data. On the other hand, and perhaps the most important, it is the
need to develop a new three-phase relative permeability model incorporating pore-level physics such as
interactions of interfacial tension, fluid saturation and distribution, the influence of shear induced
momentum transport, saturation history dependence, and realistic pore geometry.

Until such a realistic model has been developed, other approximate approaches must be used. Some
mechanistic models such as Corey’s, Naar & Wygal’s, Land’s and Parker’s model were analyzed in this
work. Likewise, the most famous empirical models were compared between. These were Stone’s Method
I and II, and the interpolation methods. The results suggested that the best fit is provided by Parker’s
model. In addition, the interpolation methods seem to be among the top three models for each of the data
sets. However, the results from the empirical methods could be biased. For the most commonly used
models, i.e. Stone’s Method I and II, it was observed that Stone’s I provides a better fit than Stone’s II.
Although, both provide in general poor fit.

Moreover, the simulation results carried out by Guzmán et al. and showed in this paper, pointed out that
there is a significant uncertainty associated with the selection of the three-phase relative permeability
model for field scale simulations of WAG injections. This uncertainty is translated into error in predicting
additional oil recovery, and even larger errors in the predicted build-up of GOR.
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-4-CS-177) 11

Therefore, in order to overcome these problems in modeling of three-phase flow in porous media, a new
three-phase relative permeability model was proposed. Even though this model was developed with the
principal aim of describing the behavior of the three-phase relative permeabilities during a WAG injection,
including typical effects of trapped gas saturation and relative permeabilities hysteresis, it would be also
very useful in any three-phase flow condition in porous media.

Finally, it is necessary for future research to validate the model experimentally in order to identify in detail
its advantages and disadvantages, and, apart from this, to study thoroughly the compositional effects and
the three-phase flow through fractures in determining relative permeabilities.

Technical and Economical Contributions

• Better understanding of the physical processes underlying the complex three-phase flow in WAG.
• Development of an accurate quantitative three-phase relative permeability model for complex
reservoirs. This rigorous and reliable model will allow petroleum industry to save money by avoiding
unnecessary experimental data acquisition.
• A reliable reservoir performance prediction by using a realistic three-phase relative permeability
model in numerical simulation, will allow managers to take right decisions before undertaking the
relatively large investment for WAG.

List of Symbols
kr Relative permeability
S Saturation
f(r) Pore-size distribution function
μ Viscosity
R Capillary radius
V, PV Pore volume
Pc Capillary pressure
α, n, m Empirical parameters

Subscripts
w, wp Wetting phase
i, iwp Intermediate-wetting phase
n, nwp Non-wetting phase
iw Two-phase system (intermediate-wetting / wetting phases)
ni Two-phase system (non-wetting / intermediate-wetting phases)

Superscripts
niw Three-phase system (non-wetting / intermediate-wetting / wetting phases)

References
[1] Sohrabi, M.; Henderson, G.D.; Tehrani, D.H.; van Dijke, M.I.J.; McDougall, S.R.; Sorbie, K.S.;
Danesh, A.; Smart, B.G.D. “Oil recovery from waterflooded reservoirs by injecting gas, alternately
with water”, Presented to the 20th Annual International Energy Agency Workshop and Symposium,
Collaborative Projects on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Enghien-les-Bains, France, (Sept. 1999).
[2] Jones, L.G.; Cullick, A.S.; Cohen, M.F. “WAG process promises improved recovery in cycling gas
condensate reservoirs: Part 1 – Prototype reservoir simulation studies”, SPE 19113, (1989).
[3] Guzmán, R.E.; Giordano, D.; Fayers, F.J.; Aziz, K.; Godi, A. “Three-phase flow in field-scale
simulations of gas and wag injections”, SPE 28897, (Oct. 1994).
[4] Buckley, S.E. & Leverett, M.C. “Mechanism of fluid displacement in sands”, Petrol. Trans. AIME,
146, 107-116, (1942).
[5] Muskat, M. & Meres, M.W. “The flow of heterogeneous fluids through porous media”, Physics, 7,
346-363, (1936).
[6] Leverett, M.C. & Lewis, W.B. “Steady flow of gas-oil-water mixtures through unconsolidated
sands”, Petrol. Trans. AIME, 142, 107-116, (1941).
[7] Muskat, M. “Physical principles of oil production”, McGraw-Hill, (1949).
[8] Lake, L.W. “Enhanced oil recovery”, Prentice-Hall, (1989).
[9] Holmgren, C.R. & Morse, R.A. “Effect of free gas saturation on oil recovery by waterflooding”,
Petrol. Trans. AIME, 192, 135-140, (1951).
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-4-CS-177) 12

[10] Kyte, J.R.; Stanclift Jr., R.J.; Stephan Jr., S.C.; Rapoport, L.A. “Mechanism of waterflooding in the
presence of free gas”, Petrol. Trans. AIME, 207, 215-221, (1956).
[11] Willhite, G.P. “Waterflooding”, Vol. 3 of SPE Textbook Series, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
(1986).
[12] Christensen, J.R.; Stenby, E.H.; Skauge, A. “Review of WAG field experience”, SPE Reserv. Eng.,
4 (2), 97-106, (2001).
[13] Larsen, J.A. & Skauge, A. “Simulation of the immiscible WAG process using cycle-dependent
three-phase relative permeabilities”, SPE 56475, (1999).
[14] Falta, R.W.; Pruess, K.; Javandel, I.; Witherspoon, P.A. “Numerical modeling of steam injection for
the removal of nonaqueous phase liquids from the subsurface, 1. Numerical formulation”, Water
Resour. Res., 28 (2), 433-449, (1992).
[15] Hunt, J.R.; Sitar, N.; Udell, K.S. “Nonaqueous phase liquid transport and cleanup, 1. Analysis of
mechanisms”, Water Resour. Res., 24 (8), 1247-1258, (1988).
[16] Mandl, G. & Volek, C.W. “Heat and mass transport in steam-drive processes”, Soc. Pet. Eng. J., 9
(1), 59-79, (1969).
[17] Shutler, N.D. “Numerical three-phase simulation of the linear steamflood process”, Soc. Pet. Eng.
J., 9 (2), 232-246, (1969).
[18] Holm, L.W. “Status of CO2 and hydrocarbon miscible oil recovery methods”, J. Pet. Technol., 28
(1), 76-84, (1976).
[19] Pope, G.A. “The application of fractional flow theory to enhanced oil recovery”, Soc. Pet. Eng. J.,
20 (3), 191-205, (1980).
[20] van Dijke, M.I.J. & Sorbie, K.S. “An analysis of three-phase pore occupancies and relative
permeabilities in porous media with variable wettability”, Transport in Porous Media, 48 (2), 159-
185, (2002).
[21] Parrish, D. “US patent No. 3,244,228”, (1966).
[22] Cullick, A.S.; Lu, H.S.; Jones, L.G.; Cohen, M.F.; Watson, J.P. “WAG may improve gas-
condensate recovery”, SPE 19114, (1993).
[23] DiCarlo, D.A.; Sahni, A.; Blunt, M. “The effect of wettability on three-phase relative permeability”,
SPE 49317, (1998).
[24] Fenwick, D.H. & Blunt, M. “Network modeling of three-phase flow in porous media”, SPE Journal,
86-97, (Mar. 1998).
[25] Larsen, J.A. & Skauge, A. “Methodology for numerical simulation with cycle-dependent relative
permeabilities”, SPEJ, 163, (Jun. 1998).
[26] Miller, C.T.; Christakos, G. ; Imhoff, P.T. ; McBride, J.F.; Pedit, J.A.; Trangenstein, J.A. “Multiphase
flow and transport modeling in heterogeneous porous media: challenges and approaches”, Adv.
Water Resour., 21 (2), 77-120, (1998).
[27] Juanes, R. “Displacement theory and multiscale numerical modeling of three-phase flow in porous
media”, Ph.D. Dissertation, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley,
(2003).
[28] Bear, J. “Dynamics of fluids in porous media”, Environmental Science Series, Elsevier, (1972).
[29] Hassanizadeh, S.M. “Derivation of basic equations of mass transport in porous media. Part 2,
Generalized Darcy’s and Fick’s laws”, Adv. Water Resour., 9, 207-222, (1986).
[30] Hassanizadeh, S.M. & Gray, W.G. “Toward an improved description of the physics of two-phase
flow”, Adv. Water Resour., 16 (1), 53-67, (1993).
[31] Juanes, R. & Patzek, T.W. “Relative permeabilities for strictly hyperbolic models of three-phase
flow in porous media”, Report LBNL-51442, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, (2002).
[32] Avraam, D.G. & Payatakes, A.C. “Flow regimes and relative permeabilities during steady-state 2-
phase flow in porous media”, J. Fluid Mech., 293, 207-236, (1995).
[33] Lenormand, R. “Pattern growth and fluid displacements through porous media”, Physica A, 140,
114-123, (1986).
[34] Oak, M.J.; Baker, L.E.; Thomas, D.C. “Three-phase relative permeability of Berea Sandstone”, J.
Pet. Technol., 42, 1057-1061, (Aug. 1990).
[35] Delshad, M. & Pope, G.A. “Comparison of the three-phase oil relative permeability models”,
Transp. in Porous Media, 4, 59-83, (1989).
[36] Oak, M.J. “Three-phase relative permeability of water-wet Berea”, SPE 20183, (1990).
[37] Stone, H.L. “Probability model for estimating three-phase relative permeability”, J. Pet. Technol.,
20, 214-218, (Feb. 1970).
[38] Stone, H.L. “Estimation of three-phase relative permeability and residual data”, J. Can. Pet.
Technol., 12, 53-61, (1973).
[39] Nordtvedt, J.E.; Ebeltoft, E.; Iversen, J.E.; Sylte, A.; Urkedal, H.; Vatne, K.O.; Watson, A.T.
“Determination of three-phase relative permeabilities from displacement experiments”, SPE 36683,
(1996).
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-4-CS-177) 13

[40] Fenwick, D.H. “Pore scale modeling of three-phase flow”, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of
Petroleum Engineering, Stanford University, (1997).
[41] Corey, A.T.; Rathjens, C.H.; Henderson, J.H.; Wyllie, M.R.J. “Three-phase relative permeability”, J.
Pet. Technol., 8, 63-65, (Nov. 1956).
[42] Burdine, N.T. “Relative permeability calculations from pore size distribution data”, Trans. AIME,
198, 71-78, (1953).
[43] Naar, J. & Wygal, R.J. “Three-phase imbibition relative permeability”, Soc. Pet. Eng. J., 1, 254-258,
(Dec. 1961).
[44] Land, C.S. “Calculation of imbibition relative permeability for two- and three-phase flow from rock
properties”, Soc. Pet. Eng. J., 8, 149-156, (Jun. 1968).
[45] Parker, J.C.; Lenhard, R.J.; Kuppusamy, T. “A parametric model for constitutive properties
governing multiphase flow in porous media”, Water Resour. Res., 23, 618-624, (1987).
[46] Mualem, Y. “A new model for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated porous media”,
Water Resour. Res., 12, 513-522, (1976).
[47] Aziz, K. & Settari, T. “Petroleum reservoir simulation”, Applied Science Publishers, 30-38, (1979).
[48] Baker, L.E. “Three-phase relative permeability correlations”, SPE 17369, (1988).
[49] Sato, K. & Aziz, K. “Sensitivity of steam displacement predictions to three-phase relative
permeability models”, SPE 16733, (1987).
[50] Scheidegger, A.E. “The physics of flow through porous media”, University of Toronto Press.,
(1974).
[51] Oren, P.E. & Bakke, S. “Process based reconstruction of sandstones and prediction of transport
properties”, Transp. in Porous Media, 46 (2-3), 311-343, (2002).
[52] Yeong, C.L. & Torquato, S. “Reconstructing random media II. Three-dimensional media from two-
dimensional cuts”, Physical Review E, 58 (1), 224-233, (1998).
[53] Bryant, S. & Blunt, M. “Prediction of relative permeability in simple porous media”, Physical Review
A, 46 (4), 2004-2011, (1992).
[54] Bryant, S.; Mellor, D.W.; Cade, C.A. “Physically representative network models of transport in
porous media”, AIChE Journal, 39 (3), 387-396, (1993).
[55] Ehrlich, R. & Davies, D.K. “Image analysis of pore geometry: relationship to reservoir engineering
and modeling”, SPE 19054, (1989).
[56] Mason, G. & Morrow, N.R. “Capillary behavior of a perfectly wetting liquid in irregular triangular
tubes”, J. Colloid and Interface Science, 141 (1), 262-274, (1991).
[57] van Dijke, M.I.J. & Sorbie, K.S. “Pore-scale network model for three-phase flow in mixed-wet
porous media”, Physical Review E, 66, 046302.1-046302.14, (2002).
[58] Fenwick, D.H. & Blunt, M.J. “Three-dimensional modeling of three phase imbibition and drainage”,
Adv. in Water Resour., 21 (2), 121-143, (1998).
[59] Goode, P.A. & Ramakrishnan, T.S. “Momentum transfer across fluid-fluid interfaces in porous
media: a network model”, AIChE Journal, 39 (7), 1124-1134, (1993).
[60] Man, H.N. & Jing, X.D. “Network modeling of wettability and pore geometry effects on electrical
resistivity and capillary pressure”, J. Pet. Sci. Eng., 24 (2-4), 255-267, (1999).
[61] Pereira, G.G. “Numerical pore-scale modeling of three-phase fluid flow: comparison between
simulation and experiment”, Physical Review E, 59 (4), 4229-4242, (1999).
[62] Buckingham, E. “Studies on the movement of soil moisture”, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Bureau of
Soils-Bull., 38, 1, (1907).
[63] Bourbiaux, B.J. & Kalaydjian, F.J. “Experimental study of co-current and countercurrent flows in
natural porous media”, SPE 18283, (1990).
[64] Rose, W.D. “Fundamentals of transport phenomena in porous media”, IAHR, Elsevier Publishing,
p. 229, (1972).
[65] deGennes, P.G. “Theory of slow biphasic flows in porous media”, Phys. Chem. Hydrody., 4, 175,
(1983).
[66] Yuster, S.T. “Theoretical considerations of multiphase flow in idealized capillary systems”, World
Petroleum Cong. Proc., Section II. Drilling and Production, (1951).
[67] Odeh, A.S. “Effect of viscosity ratio on relative permeability”, J. Pet. Technol., 11, 346, (1959).
[68] Donaldson, E.C.; Ewall, N.; Singh, B. “Characteristics of capillary pressure curves”, J. Pet. Sci.
Eng., 6, 249-261, (1991).
[69] Leverett, M.C. “Capillary behavior in porous solids”, Trans. Soc. Pet. Eng. AIME, 142, 152-169,
(1941).
[70] van Genuchten, M.T. “A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of
unsaturated soils”, Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J., 44, 892-898, (1980).
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-4-CS-177) 14

Figures

Fig. 1 - Comparison of three-phase relative permeability model fits of experimental data

Fig. 2 - Comparison of the arithmetic means of the coefficient of determination for each
model using all the experimental data and excepting Snell and Guckert data,
respectively.

Fig. 3 – Sensitivity of aditional oil recovery after Fig. 4 - Sensitivity of GOR’s behavior for WAG
water breakthrough by WAG injection injection using different three-phase
using different three-phase relative relative permeability model (after Guzmán
permeability model (after Guzmán et al [3] et al. [3])
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-4-CS-177) 15

WP

requiv IWP

NWP
rnwp
z
r

riwp

D D

Fig.5 - Schematic abstraction from the actual Fig. 6 - Idealized three-phase configuration
porous media to simplified new three- within the capillary.
phase relative permeability model.