American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2021

American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER)

e-ISSN: 2320-0847 p-ISSN : 2320-0936
Volume-10, Issue-05, pp: 337-355
www.ajer.org
Research Paper Open Access

Effect of Capillary Pressure on Estimation of Relative

Permeability Using JBN Method
Abdulhadi Elsounousi Khalifa1 , ∗, Salah Khalifa1
1
Department of Petroleum Engineering,College of EngineeringTechnolgy,Janzour,Tripoli Libya

ABSTRCT: The following investigation focuses on the impact of capillary pressure on estimation of two phases
relative permeability curves. Accurate relative permeability is a crucial parameter for evaluating reservoir
performance. The unsteady state core flooding tests, which is considered in this study, is mostly used to measure
oil-water relative permeabilities.
The Johnson, Bossler and Neumann (JBN) method is the conventional method for estimating relative
permeabilities from field core. The limitations in the JBN method create an error in relative permeability curves
and make it unrepresentative of a typical core flooding test results. There are always capillary pressure effects
taking place during core flood tests. Ignoring of capillary pressure by JBN method will influence the calculation
of relative permeability curves and final saturation levels.
One dimensional numerical model with uniform initial saturation has been implemented in this study using
Eclipse 100 software to understand the relationship between relative permeability and capillary pressure.
Pressure drop and recovery data obtained from 1-D numerical simulations are used to estimate the relative
permeabilities by JBN method. Many scenarios have been studied by running the simulation at constant
injection rate and varying the input capillary pressure.
The results obtained have shown the influence of capillary pressure on estimating relative permeability curves.
It is shown that increase in capillary pressure increases the water relative permeability. Furthermore, the
results demonstrate that the water flooding curves differ greatly in shape and position according to the
corresponding values of capillary pressure.
Comparisons of relative permeability curves have shown that the capillary pressure dominates the displacement
process. Capillary pressure gradient will increase the fractional flow of water and this increase in fractional
flow of water results in lower frontal water saturation, higher frontal velocity and subsequently leading to a
decrease in oil recovery.
Key words: Relative permeability, JBN method, Eclipse 100 model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Submission: 16-05-2021 Date of acceptance: 31-05-2021
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. INTRODUCTION
Reservoir engineering studies generally require some indispensable parameters such as reservoir fluid
flow and rock properties. Maximizing recovery and development strategy success depend on understanding the
type of fluid and rock characteristics.
Relative permeability is a dominant factor controlling the movement of two immiscible fluid phases in
porous media. Availability of accurate and representative relative permeability data is of significant concern to
reservoir engineers as dearth of these data indicates poor forecasting of production, ultimate recovery and
difficulties in reservoir management. The most important parameters required for reservoir engineering studies
include the absolute permeability, capillary pressure and relative permeability to the fluids [1].
Relative permeability and capillary pressure of porous media are crucial properties for evaluating
accurate reservoir performance. In reservoir simulation studies, relative permeability and capillary pressure lab
data are required as input parameters for reservoir simulator to predict reservoir performance. Relative
permeability data are incorporated in oil recovery forecasts and feasibility study of enhanced oil recovery
methods [2].
Capillary pressure is the pressure difference existing across the curved interface of two immiscible
fluids at equilibrium. Capillary pressure is used for determining the hydrocarbon distribution through the
porous media. Surface forces of capillary pressure can either support or resist the displacement process in the

www.ajer.org Page 337

www.ajer.org
American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2021
pores of porous medium. Inexpensive computer power which has allowed millions of multicomponent phase
equilibrium and physical property calculations to be performed within seconds using a state equation as the
thermodynamic basis. [3]

II. OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this study are:
a. To develop a core flood model for unsteady state core flood test to estimate relative permeability.
b. To investigate the problems associated with estimation of relative permeability by analyzing the core
flooding “unsteady state” by using JOHNSON, BOSSLER and NAUMANN method (JBN) which does not
consider the capillary pressure. This limitation in analyzing the core flood data come up with the end capillary
effect.
c. To demonstrate the important aspect of the error caused due to ignoring the capillary pressure and the
effect of the injection rate on the feasibility of using the JBN to calculate the relative permeability curve.

III. JBN METHOD

The Buckley and Leverett theory (1941) was modified by Welge in 1952 to facilitate estimation of
relative permeability in laboratory core flooding displacement tests. The work of Welge was extended by
Johnson-Bossler-Naumann (JBN) 1958 for estimation of the relative permeability from unsteady state core flood
test data which is consider in this study [4].

There are three important assumptions for JBN method [4]:

 Total flow velocity is the same throughout the cross section of linear porous body.
 Flow velocity is high enough to achieve Buckley and Leverett displacement.
 Capillary effect is negligible at high injection rates.

To overcome the capillary end effect the experiment should be done at high enough displacement rate.
At higher rate the flow will be unstable in the experiments and the concept of relative permeability will not hold.
Cumulative recoveries of oil and water versus time are measured at the outlet face of the core during the JBN
method to estimate the relative permeability curve. Some of the mathematical relations which have been
developed by Welge are required for calculation of two phase relative permeability by JBN method as follow
[4]:.

= …………………………………………………....................Eq 1

= = ………………………………………………………………Eq 2

………………………………………………………………...…Eq 3

………………………………………………………….Eq 4

………………………………………………………………Eq 5

………...…………………………………………………….…Eq 6

The pressure drop across the core which has length L is shown as the integral

……………………………………………………..………Eq 7

Substituting from Eq5 will give,

…………………………………………………………..Eq 7a
By rearranging and substituting equations 6 and 7a, the following equation is obtained:

www.ajer.org Page 338

www.ajer.org
American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2021

= = …………………………….….Eq7b
Where Ir is the relative injectivity which is the ratio of the intake capacity at any given flood stage to the intake
capacity of the system at the start of the flood. From measurements of flow rate and pressure drop in a water
flood susceptibility test, relative injectivity function for a given type of reservoir rock can be determined [4].
Ordinary differentiation is used for equation 7b with respect to since is the only independent variable [4],

…………………………………………………………………….Eq 8
When is equal to the reciprocal of the cumulative volume injection, the equation 19 will be written as [4],

…………………………………………………………Eq 8a

From the equation 19a individual relative permeability of oil can be calculated. The outlet face saturation is
obtained by rearranging equation4 [4]:

………………………………………………..Eq 4a

The relative permeability of the water at is calculated by solving equation2 [17]:

……………………………………………….....Eq 9
Jones and Roszelle in 1978 extended the JBN method for estimating relative permeabilities by
presenting a graphical technique to perform the essential differentiation of the production data and the late time
data analysis by their method. They figured out that the fractional flow of displacing phase concave downward
when it is plotted against saturation. Jones and Roszell method could also be used for experiments conducted at
constant pressure drop across the core, constant rate or changeable pressure drop and flow rate [5].
In 1984 Tao and Watson developed a Monte Carlo error analysis for JBN. The two sources of error in
relative permeability are estimation error which related to the error included in the process of measured data to
estimate relative permeability and modeling error which is attributed to the degree where the mathematical
model fails to exhibit the physical experiment. They postulated that the use of various viscosity ratios did not
affect very much the accuracy of relative permeability and the injection rate as well. The error will increase only
when oil production or pressure drop are reduced. They also developed the algorithms for computer
implementation for JBN method. They pointed out that the relative permeability can be estimated fairly
accurately by using linear regression or optimal spline algorithm [6].
In 1986 Kerig and Watson included high flexible cubic splines for estimating relative permeability
from unsteady state experiment. The error in estimating relative permeability was greatly reduced by using
cubic splines and very accurate result can be obtained [7].
In 1988 Watson et al. introduced B-spline for use as functional representations of relative permeability
curves. They indicated that serious error may be detected when relative permeability curves are performed with
function having too few parameters. They used both hypothetical and real experiments data for core flood test
and also pointed out that without acceptable number of parameters; large errors estimation can occur [8].

IV. METHODOLOGY
The study starts with the introduction of the relative permeability and the methods of measuring the
relative permeability from core flooding tests. A literature review of the estimation of relative permeability from
core flooding tests and influence of capillary pressure on the accuracy of the estimated relative permeability is
presented.
One dimensional numerical simulation model of imbibitions unsteady state test will be performed using
input relative permeability and capillary pressure data. After running the simulation, the data will be collected to
estimate the relative permeability by JBN method. The data required from the simulation model to calculate the
relative permeability curves are cumulative recovery of oil, , pressure drop across the core, ,and total water
injected .
The following equations are used for the calculation:
…………….………………………………………………..….Eq 10

…..……………………………………………………………Eq 11

www.ajer.org Page 339

www.ajer.org
American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2021
Water saturation at the outlet face of the core is calculated based on Welge method

………………………………………………….………..Eq 2

Relative injectivity is calculated from total flow rate and pressure drop to estimate individual relative
permeability by:

…………………………………………………….………Eq 13

Where is at initial condition.

The oil relative permeability is given by:

……………………………………………………………...Eq 14

The water relative permeability is calculated by:

…………………………………………………Eq 15

The water saturation during the simulation process will be observed to see the influence of capillary
end effect on the breakthrough. The result from the simulation will be compared with input relative permeability
data to check the error between the input relative permeability and the one that will be measured by the JBN
method. Number of grid cells, injection flow rate and input capillary pressure will be varied until satisfactory
results is obtained.

V. NUMERICAL SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 ECLIPSE 100
Numerical simulation is performed in this study using a commercial black oil simulator “Schlumberger
ECLIPSE 100”.The recovery and pressure drop data from input relative permeability and capillary pressure
were obtained by the Eclipse simulator. Four scenarios have been studied to investigate the effect of capillary
pressure on estimation relative permeability curves.

5.2 SIMULATION OF CORE FLOODING TO DETERIMINE OIL-WATER RELATIVE

PERMEABILITIES
Core flooding tests is used to evaluate and determine relative permeabilities which are required for
simulation studies. Linear core was used to determine oil and water relative permeability with unsteady state
method by reducing it to irreducible oil saturation.
Flow is uni-directional and the core is homogeneous and isotropic. Properties of the core are tabulated
in the Table 1. The relative permeability data used in the model are shown in Figure 1 and the values are
tabulated in Table 2.

Table 1: Core properties.

Parameter Unit Value
K md 124
µo cp 8
µw cp 0.51
Q cc/min 5
Injection pressure atm 40
% 0.303
% 0.28
L cm 25
A cm2 25

Table 2: Oil/water relative permeability

SW Krw Kro
0.303 0 0.722
0.342 0.022 0.485

www.ajer.org Page 340

www.ajer.org
American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2021
0.381 0.036 0.325
0.426 0.057 0.193
0.463 0.079 0.128
0.492 0.104 0.088
0.522 0.132 0.056
0.556 0.167 0.035
0.586 0.209 0.021
0.621 0.262 0.012
0.653 0.314 0.0065
0.685 0.369 0.0035
0.707 0.409 0.0017
0.738 0.469 0.0017

Figure 1: Relative permeability versus water saturation

Capillary pressure for all the scenarios are illustrated in Figure 2 and values are tabulated in Table 3

Table 1: Capillary pressures

SW PC1 PC2 PC3
0.303 2.274282 4.548563 1.137141
0.342 1.595325 3.190649 0.797662
0.381 1.326606 2.653211 0.663303
0.426 1.181933 2.363865 0.590966
0.463 1.082878 2.165755 0.541439
0.492 1.006928 2.013856 0.503464
0.522 0.944602 1.889203 0.472301
0.556 0.891019 1.782038 0.44551
0.586 0.843318 1.686635 0.421659
0.621 0.799638 1.599275 0.399819
0.653 0.758656 1.517312 0.379328
0.685 0.719339 1.438678 0.35967
0.707 0.680785 1.361569 0.340392
0.738 0.642096 1.284192 0.321048

www.ajer.org Page 341

www.ajer.org
American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2021

Figure 2: Capillary pressures versus saturation

The core sample modelled has 100 cells in X direction, 1 cell in Y direction and 1 cell in Z direction.
One production well and one injection well will be integrated in the model. One dimensional Cartesian grid will
be used in this model as shown in the Figure 3. The model has length of 25 cm and area of 25 cm2.

Figure 3: One Dimensional Cartesian Grid

Recovery and pressure drop at given time are used to calculate the relative permeabilities by JBN
method which gives the relative permeability curves as a function of saturation at the outlet face of the core
sample after the beginning of the displacement. The relative permeability curves are generated by following
steps:
 Collect the data from the simulator for constant water injection rate water, and then injected water
volumes and oil recovery are converted into the pore volume injected.
 Given the initial water saturation, average water saturation as a function of pore volume is calculated
from equation 10.
 The fractional flow of oil is measured at the outlet of the core by plotting the average water saturation
versus total water injected at each time step using equation 11 “i.e., the slope of the curve”.
 Water saturation at the outlet face of the core at each time step is calculated based on Welge method
using equation 12.
 Initial Pressure drop across the core is calculated using Darcy law by the following equation :

www.ajer.org Page 342

www.ajer.org
American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2021

…………………………………….……….Eq 16

 Final pressure drop at each time steps is calculated from taking the difference of pressure at the
injection well and production well.
 The reciprocal of the relative injectivity is calculated by the following equation :

…………………………………………………………..…Eq 17

Since the flow rate is constant during displacement, equation 17 becomes:

…………………………………………………………….Eq 18

Substituting equation 16 in equation 18 gives:

…………………………………………………………Eq 19

 From simulation results, slope of the as a function of is calculated and individual relative
permeability of oil is obtained using equation 14.
 Water relative permeability at each time steps is calculated using equation 15.

To obtain the data for estimating representative relative permeability core flood simulation is carried out for four
scenarios. After doing the sensitivity study for the number of core cells I decided to use 100 cells in 1D model.

All simulation scenarios that are considered in this chapter were design to study the effect of capillary pressure
on measuring relative permeability curves. Results have been obtained by simulation for estimation relative
permeability curves by JBN method. Different results were acquired according to different capillary pressure.

5.2.1 Case 1
The first scenario is to measure relative permeabilities by JBN method based on the measurement of pressure
drop across and the cumulative production of oil and water

The core model is flooded with water at constant flow rate of 0.0833cc/sec and variation of pressure drop during
the displacement is measured. Since the rate is constant equation 19 becomes:

= 0.186 (atm)

Results from the JBN method are compared with values that used to generate the simulation recovery and
pressure drop data. The graphs of total water injection per pore volume versus total oil recovery per pore
volume and average saturation versus the total water injection are show in the Figure 4& Figure 5 respectively.

www.ajer.org Page 343

www.ajer.org
American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2021

Figure 4: Water injected versus oil recovery

Figure 5: Average saturation versus total water injected

Initial water saturation is assumed to be immobile; hence oil will be produced at the same rate of water
injected for an incompressible system. Water saturation gradient exist form inlet to the end of the system when
the water breakthrough occurs.

www.ajer.org Page 344

www.ajer.org
American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2021
Figure 4& Figure 5 shows that the slope of curve is equal 1 before breakthrough time, hence the
fraction flow of oil is equal the slope of curve at any given injection the oil fractional flow calculated. After
breakthrough, water saturation continuously increases as water move through the core. From the graph, slope is
decreasing after the breakthrough. This means that fractional flow of oil is decreasing and fractional flow of
water is increasing as the water started producing from the outlet face of the core.
Pressure drop across the core during the displacement test is increasing from initial pressure drop until
the point where the breakthrough happened and water started producing after that is decreasing as shown in
Figure 6.

Figure 6: Pressure drop versus time

The error introduced by the assumption of JBN method is easy to evaluate as the simulation was run by
known relative permeabilities. The input relative permeabilities and the calculated relative permeabilities from 5
cc/min imbibitions simulation are compared as shown in the Figure 7.

Figure 7: Relative permeability curves from JBN and input relative permeability curves

www.ajer.org Page 345

www.ajer.org
American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2021
At the start of the displacement process water saturation is low, and because of this, there will be an
error in the estimated relative permeability which is due to capillary pressure effect. The errors decrease when
the water saturation increase and capillary pressure effect is reduced. The oil relative permeability calculated by
JBN was small at the beginning of displacement compared with input data in the model.
The saturation at the outlet face of the core is unchanged during the displacement until water
breakthrough. Also the water saturation at the outlet is always less than the average saturation. The saturation
profile from the core model is shown for different time steps in Figure 8.
Water arrives at the outlet of the core and accumulates until water phase pressure exceeds the oil phase
pressure. Finally accumulation of water at the end of the core leads to sufficient water phase pressure for flow.
Increase in water saturation decreases the oil phase permeability. Error is created when accumulation of water at
the outlet of core delays water breakthrough. This end effect results in large value of relative injectivity and give
error for oil relative permeability. Due to end effect of capillary pressure, water saturation is changing in non-
uniform manner and also effects the JBN assumption.

Figure 8: Water saturation versus distance

5.2.2 Case 2
JBN method requires the capillary pressure to be vanished or minimized In this case the input capillary
pressure for the simulation model is neglected (Pc=0). The cumulative water injection versus cumulative oil
recovery is compared with the first cases as illustrated in Figure 9. The graph shows that oil recovery is
enhanced as the capillary pressure is neglected.

Figure 9: Water injection versus oil recovery

www.ajer.org Page 346

www.ajer.org
American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2021
The average water saturation is compared with first case as illustrated in Figure 10. The slope of average water
saturation versus cumulative water injected pore volume provides an estimate of oil fractional flow.

From the graph the slope is increasing when capillary pressure is neglected comparing to the first case and oil
fractional flow is increasing. Ideally, oil fractional flow will decrease from one to zero monotonically.

Figure 10: Water injection versus average saturation

Pressure drop across the core versus time for both cases are compared as illustrated in the Figure 11.The graph
shows the pressure drop is greater when neglecting capillary pressure and the water breakthrough time is
delayed.

Figure 11: Pressure drop versus time

www.ajer.org Page 347

www.ajer.org
American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2021
The input relative permeability curves are compared for both cases as shown in Figure 12.Water relative
permeability is smaller when capillary pressure is neglected which leads to improve oil recovery.

Figure12: Relative permeability curves from JBN & input relative permeability curves for Case 2

Water saturation versus distance is compared for different time steps, the shock front happened early when
neglecting capillary pressure and gave stable displacement and better recovery as shown in Figure 13.

Figure 13: Water saturation versus distance

5.2.3 Case 3
The third scenario is when capillary pressure is twice of the first case (PC2) as shown in the Table 3.
This is done to investigate the effect of increasing the capillary pressure on the data collected from the model.
Higher capillary pressure gives higher water cut and decrease the fractional flow of oil. This phenomenon can be
seen clearly as illustrated in Figure 14for average water saturation versus cumulative water injection and from

www.ajer.org Page 348

www.ajer.org
American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2021
plotting cumulative oil recovery against the cumulative water injection as shown in Figure 15 comparing with
the other scenarios.

Figure 2: Water injection versus average saturation

Figure 15: Water injection versus oil recovery

When water is injected to the core, capillary pressure acts on the water phase and hence, early
breakthrough. However when capillary pressure is zero in the core flood simulator, a sharp decrease in water
saturation occur and water will move in piston-like displacement and improve oil recovery. Pressure drop across
the core for the three cases is illustrated in Figure 16.

www.ajer.org Page 349

www.ajer.org
American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2021

Figure 16: Pressure drop versus time

Relative permeability curves calculated by JBN method for the three scenarios compared with the input
relative permeability curves are illustrated in Figure 17. Fractional flow of water is increased due to the presence
of capillary pressure gradient. Water relative permeability increases with decrease in oil relative permeability.
Water saturations profiles are illustrated Figure 18.

Figure 17: Relative permeabilities from JBN & input relative permeabilities for case3

www.ajer.org Page 350

www.ajer.org
American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2021

Figure 18: Water saturation versus distance

5.2.4 Case 4
Case 4 is when capillary pressure is half of the case PC3 as shown in the Table 3. It can be observed
that water flooding curves differ greatly in shape and position according to the corresponding values of capillary
pressure as illustrated in the Figure 19, Figure 20 and Figure 21. All the flooding curves have the tendency to
shift upward with the decreasing values of the capillary pressure and consequently increasing the slope and oil
fractional flow increased. Result of this behavior in core flooding tests demonstrates qualitatively
interchangeable capillary pressure on estimation relative permeability from core flooding tests.

Figure 19: Water injection versus oil recovery

www.ajer.org Page 351

www.ajer.org
American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2021

Figure 30: Water injection versus average saturation

Figure 41: Pressure drop versus time

Relative permeability curves for all cases calculated by JBN method versus input relative permeability
curves and water saturation profile are illustrated in Figure 22 & Figure 23. The shape of relative permeability
curves are influenced by capillary pressure, subsequently impacting the average saturation and oil recovery. A
decrease in capillary pressure, results in a decrease in water relative permeability and a corresponding increase
in oil relative permeability.

www.ajer.org Page 352

www.ajer.org
American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2021

Figure 22 Relative permeabilities from JBN & input relative permeabilities for case4

Figure 23: Water saturation versus distance

VI. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1. Conclusions
In this study, numerical simulation has been used to investigate the effect of capillary pressure on
estimation relative permeability by a conventional method (JBN) from unsteady state displacement tests which

www.ajer.org Page 353

www.ajer.org
American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2021
are accepted to be the closest to the flow mechanism in the reservoirs. Influences of capillary pressure in
computation of relative permeability and saturation on core flooding displacement tests have been addressed.
The effect of capillary pressure on fluid flow in one dimensional cause errors in the analysis of displacement
data by conventional methods for estimation of relative permeability curves.

All four study cases were investigated at various capillary pressures and their calculated relative permeability
curves by JBN method were plotted along with the input relative permeability curves for comparison purposes.
Main conclusions based on the simulation results are:

1. Capillary pressure plays a dominate role in displacement processes and it is responsible for trapping a
large portion of oil within the pore structure of the reservoir rocks.
2. Relative permeability calculated by JBN method is not accurate due to capillary pressure effect.
Relative permeability of oil is decreases due to this effect.
3. Fractional oil flow is decreasing as capillary pressure increases and fractional flow of water increases.
This increase in water fractional flow results in a lower frontal water saturation and a higher frontal velocity.

4. The inclusion of capillary pressure also decreases water flood oil recovery and affects displacement
performance.

6.2. Recommendations
For future study, it is recommended to carry out core flooding experiment in the laboratory and
calculate the relative permeability from the data collect in the lab. In the lab, distribution grooves at both ends of
the core are used to distribute the fluid evenly over the core face. Also the saturation distribution as a function of
time can be measured accurately by scanning the core during displacement process.
In order to reflect experimental cores used in lab, it is recommended to represent cores in simulation
using radial grids. An evenly distributed groove for distribution of fluid should also be represented when
carrying out simulation. This can be done by introducing a layer of high permeability grid blocks, with zero
capillary pressure at the inlet and outlet of the core model. The simulator should be properly model at inlet and
outlet end plugs with end effect and non-linear nature of the flow near the ends.

Nomenclature
porosity
Capillary pressure
Capillary pressure of non wetting phase
Capillary pressure of wetting phase
σ Surface tension
r Radius of the pore
Ɵ Contact angle
V Fluid velocity
K Permeability
µ Viscosity of the fluid
Flow rate through the porous medium
A Cross-sectional area across which flow occurs
Effective permeability
Absolute permeability
Oil relative permeability
Effective permeability of oil
Water relative permeability
Effective permeability of water
Gas relative permeability
Effective permeability of gas
Initial water saturation
Irreducible oil saturation
Pressure drop
Total flow rate
ƒw Fractional flow of water
Average water saturation
µo Viscosity of oil

www.ajer.org Page 354

www.ajer.org
American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2021
µw Viscosity of water
Reservoir dip angle
g Gravitational constant
Connate water saturation
Water saturation
Water saturation at the Buckley-Leverett front
Fractional of displacing phase in flowing stream
Fractional of displaced phase in flowing stream
Cumulative injection in pore volume
Average velocity
Length
Relative injectivity
Cumulative oil recovery

REFERENCES
[1]. Bennion D.B. and Thomas F.B., “Recent Improvements in Experimental and Analytical Technique for the Determination of
Relative Permeability from Unsteady State Flow Experiments". Socity of Petroleum Enginneer,In.SPE 10th Technical Conference
June 1991 .
[2]. Nordtvedt J.E, Urkedal H, Watson A.T, Ebeltoft E, Kolltveit K,Langaas K, and Oxnevad I.E.I.,"Estimation of Relative
Permeability and Capillary Pressure Functions using Transient and Equilibrium Data from Steady –State Experiments" SCA-9418 .
[3]. hmed, T. “Reservoir Engineering Handbook” Fifth Edition, Gulf Professional Publishing is an imprint of Elsevier,2019.
[4]. Johnson, E.F., Bossler, D.P., and Naumann, V.O., Calculated of Relative Permeabilityfrom Displacement Experiments,
Trans.AIME(1959), 216. pages 370-372, .
[5]. Jones, S.C., Roszelle, W.O.,”Graphical Techniques for Determining Relative Permeability from Displacement Experiments”, JPT,
May 1978, 807- 817.
[6]. A.M. Tao, and A.T. Watson "Accuracy of JBN estimates of relative permeability: part 2-algorithms". SPEJ, pp 215-222, April
1984.
[7]. Kerig, P.D., Watson, A.T.: “Relative Permeability Estimation from Displacement Experiments: An Error Analysis,” SPE Reservoir
Eng., Vol. 1,(1986), p.175–182.
[8]. Watson, A.T., Richmond, P.C., Kerig, D.P., Tao, T.M.: “A Regression- Based Methodfor Estimating Relative Permeabilities from
Displacement Experiments,” SPE ReservoirEng. Vol.3, (1988), 953–958. .

www.ajer.org Page 355

www.ajer.org