Averaging Absolute Permeabilities

• The most difficult reservoir properties to determine usually

are the level and distribution of the absolute permeability
throughout the reservoir.
• They are more variable than porosity and more difficult to
measure.
• It is rare to encounter a homogeneous reservoir in actual
practice.
• In many cases, the reservoir contains distinct layers, blocks,
or concentric rings of varying permeability.
• The proper way of averaging the permeability data depends
on how permeabilities were distributed as the rock was
deposited.
There are three simple permeability-averaging techniques that
are commonly used to determine an appropriate average
permeability to represent an equivalent homogeneous system.
These are:
• Weighted-average permeability
• Harmonic-average permeability
• Geometric-average permeability
Weighted-Average Permeability
• This averaging method is used to determine the average
permeability of layered-parallel beds with different
permeabilities.
• Consider the case where the flow system is comprised of three
parallel layers that are separated from one another by thin
impermeable barriers, i.e., no cross flow, as shown in Figure 1.
• All the layers have the same width w with a cross-sectional
area of A.
The flow from each layer can be calculated by applying Darcy’s
equation in a linear form as expressed by Equation 1, to give:
Figure 1. Linear flow through layered beds
Eq.(1)
The average absolute permeability for a parallel-layered system
can be expressed in the following form:

Eq. (2)

Equation (2) is commonly used to determine the average

permeability of a reservoir from core analysis data.
Figure 2 shows a similar layered system with variable layers width.
Assuming no cross-flow between the layers, the average
permeability can be approximated in a manner similar to the
above derivation to give:

Eq.(3)

with
Figure 2. Linear flow through layered beds with variable area
Example 1
Given the following permeability data from a core analysis
report, calculate the average permeability of the reservoir.

h, ft Permeability, md
04 200
02 130
02 170
02 180
02 140
 Solution

h, ft K, md hxK
4 200 800
2 130 260
2 170 340
2 180 360
2 140 280
ht = 12

𝒉1 𝑲1 + 𝒉2 𝑲2 + 𝒉3 𝑲3 + 𝒉4 𝑲4 + 𝒉5 𝑲5
𝑲𝒂𝒗𝒈 =
𝒉𝒕
Harmonic-Average Permeability
Permeability variations can occur laterally in a reservoir as well
as in the vicinity of a well bore.
• Consider Figure 3, which shows an illustration of fluid flow
through a series combination of beds with different
permeabilities.
• For a steady-state flow, the flow rate is constant and the
total pressure drop Δp is equal to the sum of the pressure
drops across each bed, or

Substituting for the pressure drop by applying Darcy’s equation,

i.e., Equation (1), gives:
Figure 3. Linear flow through series beds
Canceling the identical terms and simplifying gives:

The above equation can be expressed in a more generalized

form to give:

Eq.(4)
 In the radial system shown in Figure 4, the above averaging
methodology can be applied to produce the following
generalized expression:

Figure 4. Flow through series beds

 𝐫
𝐥𝐧 (𝐫𝐞
𝐰
OR 𝐊 𝐚𝐯𝐠 =
𝐥𝐧 (𝐫𝐣 𝐫𝐰 Eq.(5)
Ʃ[ 𝐊 ]
𝐣

The relationship in Equation (5) can be used as a basis for

estimating a number of useful quantities in production work.

For example, the effects of mud invasion, acidizing, or well

shooting can be estimated from it.
Example 2
A hydrocarbon reservoir is characterized by five distinct
formation segments that are connected in series. Each segment
has the same formation thickness. The length and permeability
of each section of the five bed reservoir are given below:

Length, ft Permeability, md
150 80
200 50
300 30
500 20
200 10
Calculate the average permeability of the reservoir by assuming:
a. Linear flow system
b. Radial flow system, assuming a wellbore radius of 0.25 ft &
drainage radius of 150ft, 350ft, 650ft, 1150ft, 1350ft.
Solution
For a linear system:

Using Equation (4) gives:

For a radial system:
The solution of the radial system can be conveniently
expressed in the following tabulated form. The solution is
based on Equation (5), rw=0.25ft.
Segment Drainage 𝐫𝐣 (K), md 𝐥𝐧 (𝐫𝐣 /𝐫𝐰 )
𝐥𝐧 ( )
Radius (r), ft 𝐫𝐰 𝐊𝐣
1 150 6.397 80 0.080
2 350 0.847 50 0.017
3 650 0.619 30 10.021
4 1150 0.571 20 0.029
5 1350 0.160 10 0.016
Ʃ 0.163
From Equation (5),
𝐫
𝐥𝐧 (𝐫𝐞
𝐰
𝐊 𝐚𝐯𝐠 =
𝐥𝐧 (𝐫𝐣 𝐫𝐰
Ʃ[ 𝐊 ]
𝐣
Geometric-Average Permeability
Warren and Price (1961) illustrated experimentally that the most
probable behavior of a heterogeneous formation approaches
that of a uniform system having a permeability that is equal to
the geometric average.
The geometric average is defined mathematically by the
following relationship:

Eq.(6)
If the thicknesses (hi) of all core samples are the same,
Equation (6) can be simplified as follows:

Eq.(7)
Example 3
Given the following core data, calculate the geometric average
permeability:
Solution
Absolute Permeability Correlations
The Timur Equation
Timur (1968) proposed the following expression for estimating
the permeability from connate water saturation and porosity:

Eq.(8)
The Morris-Biggs Equation
Morris and Biggs (1967) presented the following two expressions
for estimating the permeability if oil and gas reservoirs:
For an oil reservoir:

Eq.(9)

For a gas reservoir:

Eq.(10)
Example 4
Estimate the absolute permeability of an oil zone with a connate-
water saturation 25% and average porosity of 19%, respectively.
Use the Timur equation & the Morris-Biggs Equation
Solution
Applying the Timur equation:
Using Eq. (8)

From the Morris and Biggs correlation:

Using Eq. (9)
Initial Saturation Distribution in a Reservoir
Figure 5 shows a plot of the water saturation distribution as a
function of distance from the free-water level in an oil-water
system.
It is essential at this point to introduce and define four important
concepts:
• Transition zone
• Water-oil contact (WOC)
• Gas-oil contact (GOC)
• Free water level (FWL)
 Figure 5 serves as a definition of what is meant by gas-oil and
water-oil contacts.
 The WOC is defined as the “uppermost depth in the reservoir
where a 100% water saturation exists.”
 The GOC is defined as the “minimum depth at which a 100%
liquid, i.e., oil + water, saturation exists in the reservoir.”
Figure 5. Water saturation profile
Figure 6 illustrates an idealized gas, oil, and water distribution in
a reservoir. The figure indicates that the saturations are gradually
charging from 100% water in the water zone to irreducible water
saturation some vertical distance above the water zone.
• This vertical area is referred to as the transition zone, which
must exist in any reservoir where there is a bottom water
table.
• The transition zone is then defined as the vertical thickness
over which the water saturation ranges from 100% saturation
to irreducible water saturation Swc.
• The important concept to be gained from Figure 6 is that there
is no abrupt change from 100% water to maximum oil
saturation. The creation of the oil-water transition zone is one
of the major effects of capillary forces in a petroleum reservoir.
• Similarly, the total liquid saturation (i.e., oil and water) is
smoothly changing from 100% in the oil zone to the connate
water saturation in the gas cap zone.
• A similar transition exists between the oil and gas zone.

Figure 6. Initial saturation profile in a combination-drive reservoir.

The Klinkenberg Effect
 Klinkenberg (1941) discovered that permeability
measurements made with air as the flowing fluid showed
different results from permeability measurements made with a
liquid as the flowing fluid.
 The permeability of a core sample measured by flowing air is
always greater than the permeability obtained when a liquid is
the flowing fluid.
 Klinkenberg postulated, on the basis of his laboratory
experiments, that liquids had a zero velocity at the sand grain
surface, while gases exhibited some finite velocity at the sand
grain surface.
 In other words, the gases exhibited slippage at the sand grain
surface. This slippage resulted in a higher flow rate for the gas
at a given pressure differential.
 Klinkenberg also found that for a given porous medium as the
mean pressure increased the calculated permeability
decreased.
 Mean pressure is defined as upstream flowing plus downstream
flowing pressure divided by two, [Pm = (P1 + P2)/2].
 If a plot of measured permeability versus 1/Pm were extrapolated to the
point where 1/Pm = 0, in other words, where Pm = infinity, this
permeability would be approximately equal to the liquid permeability.
 The magnitude of the Klinkenberg effect varies with the core permeability
and the type of the gas used in the experiment as shown in Figures 7 and
8.
 The resulting straight-line relationship can be expressed as

Eq. (11)
Klinkenberg expressed the slope (c) by the following relationship:

Eq. (12)

Combining Equation 12 with 11 gives:

Eq. (13)
Figure 7. Effect of permeability on the magnitude of the Klinkenberg effect.
(After Cole, F., 1969.)
Figure 8. Effect of gas pressure on measured permeability for various gases.
(After Calhoun, J., 1976.)
RELATIVE PERMEABILITY CONCEPTS

 The absolute permeability is a property of the porous medium and

is a measure of the capacity of the medium to transmit fluids.
 When two or more fluids flow at the same time, the relative
permeability of each phase at a specific saturation is the ratio of
the effective permeability of the phase to the absolute
permeability, or:
It should be pointed out that when three phases are present the sum of the
relative permeabilities (kro + krg + krw) is both variable and always less than or
equal to unity.
An appreciation of this observation and of its physical causes is a prerequisite to
a more detailed discussion of twoand three-phase relative permeability
relationships.

Two-phase Relative Permeability Correlations

1. Wyllie and Gardner Correlation
Wyllie and Gardner have also suggested the following two expressions
that can be used when one relative permeability is available:

Oil-water system Gas-oil system

2. Torcaso and Wyllie Correlation

 Torcaso and Wyllie (1958) developed a simple expression to

determine the relative permeability of the oil phase in a gas-
oil system.
 The expression permits the calculation of kro from the
measurements of krg. The equation has the following form:
Other correlations for two phase relative permeability
calculation are:
3. Pirson’s Correlation
4. Corey’s Method
5. Relative Permeability from Capillary Pressure Data
6. Relative Permeability from Analytical Equations
RELATIVE PERMEABILITY RATIO

 Another useful relationship that derives from the relative

permeability concept is the relative (or effective)
permeability ratio.
 The relative permeability ratio expresses the ability of a
reservoir to permit flow of one fluid as related to its ability
to permit flow of another fluid under the same
circumstances.
 The two most useful permeability ratios are krg/kro the
relative permeability to gas with respect to that to oil and
krw/kro the relative permeability to water with respect to
that to oil, it being understood that both quantities in the
ratio are determined simultaneously on a given system.
 The relative permeability ratio may vary in magnitude from
zero to infinity.
 THREE-PHASE RELATIVE PERMEABILITY

o In a three-phase system of this type, it is found that the

relative permeability to water depends only upon the water
saturation.
o Since the water can flow only through the smallest
interconnect pores that are present in the rock and able to
accommodate its volume, it is hardly surprising that the flow
of water does not depend upon the nature of the fluids
occupying the other pores.
o Similarly, the gas relative permeability depends only upon the
gas saturation.
o This fluid, like water, is restricted to a particular range of pore
sizes and its flow is not influenced by the nature of the fluid
or fluids that fill the remaining pores.
 The pores available for flow of oil are those that, in size, are
larger than pores passing only water, and smaller than pores
passing only gas.
 The number of pores occupied by oil depends upon the
particular size distribution of the pores in the rock in which
the three phases coexist and upon the oil saturation itself.
 In general, the relative permeability of each phase, i.e.,
water, gas, and oil, in a three-phase system is essentially
related to the existing saturation by the following functions:
Several practical approaches are proposed and based on
estimating the three-phase relative permeability from two sets
of two-phase data:

Set 1: Oil-Water System Set 2: Oil-Gas System

where krow and krog are defined as the relative

permeability to oil in the water-oil two-phase system
and similarly krog is the relative permeability of oil in
the gas-oil system.
Three-Phase Relative Permeability Correlations
There are several practical and more accurate correlations that have
developed over the years, including:
• Wyllie’s Correlations
• Stone’s Model I
• Stone’s Model II

Wyllie’s Correlations
Wyllie (1961) proposed the following equations for three-phase relative
permeabilities in a water-wet system:
In a cemented sandstone, Vugular rock, or oolitic limestone:
Stone’s Model I
 Stone (1970) developed a probability model to estimate
three-phase relative permeability data from the
laboratory-measured two-phase data.
 The model combines the channel flow theory in porous
media with probability concepts to obtain a simple result
for determining the relative permeability to oil in the
presence of water and gas flow.
 The model accounts for hysteresis effects when water and
gas saturations are changing in the same direction of the
two sets of data.
Stone suggested that a nonzero residual oil saturation, called minimum oil
saturation, Som exists when oil is displaced simultaneously by water and
gas.
It should be noted that this minimum oil saturation Som is different than
the critical oil saturation in the oil-water system (i.e., Sorw) and the residual
oil saturation in the gas-oil system, i.e., Sorg. Stone introduced the following
normalized saturations:
The difficulty in using Stone’s first model is selecting the
minimum oil saturation Som.
Fayers and Mathews (1984) suggested an expression for
determining Som.
The oil-relative permeability in a three-phase system is then
defined as:

Where
Aziz and Sattari (1979) pointed out that Stone’s correlation
could give kro values greater than unity.
The authors suggested the following normalized form of
Stone’s model:

Where (kro)Swc is the value of the relative permeability of the oil at

the connate water saturation as determined from the oil-water
relative permeability system.
It should be noted that it is usually assumed that krg and krog
curves are measured in the presence of connate water.
Stone’s Model II
It was the difficulties in choosing Som that led to the development of
Stone’s Model II.
Stone (1973) proposed the following normalized expression:

This model gives a reasonable approximation to the three-phase relative

permeability.
Example
Two-phase relative permeability tests were conducted on core sample to
generate the permeability data for oil-water and oil-gas systems. The
following information is obtained from the test:

Estimate the three-phase relative permeability at the existing saturations by

using:
a. Stone’s Model I
b. Stone’s Model II
Solution
a. Stone’s Model I

Step 1. Calculate Som

Step 2. Calculate the normalized saturations

 Step 3. Estimate kro

b. Stone’s Model II
Apply Equation
 RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITY
 The heterogeneity of reservoirs is, for the most part, dependent
upon the depositional environments and subsequent events.
 It is important to recognize that there are no homogeneous
reservoirs, only varying degrees of heterogeneity.
 The reservoir heterogeneity is then defined as a variation in
reservoir properties as a function of space.
 Ideally, if the reservoir is homogeneous, measuring a reservoir
property at any location will allow us to fully describe the
reservoir.
 The task of reservoir description is very simple for
homogeneous reservoirs. On the other hand, if the reservoir is
heterogeneous, the reservoir properties vary as a function of a
spatial location.
 These properties may include permeability, porosity, thickness,
saturation, faults and fractures, rock facies, and rock
characteristics.
 For a proper reservoir description, we need to predict the
variation in these reservoir properties as a function of spatial
locations.
There are essentially two types of heterogeneity:
1. Vertical heterogeneity
2. Areal heterogeneity
 Geostatistical methods are used extensively in the petroleum
industry to quantitatively describe the two types of the
reservoir heterogeneity.
 It is obvious that the reservoir may be nonuniform in all
intensive properties such as permeability, porosity, wettability,
and connate water saturation.
Vertical Heterogeneity
 One of the first problems encountered by the reservoir
engineer in predicting or interpreting fluid displacement
behavior during secondary recovery and enhanced oil
recovery processes is that of organizing and using the large
amount of data available from core analysis.
 Permeabilities pose particular problems in organization
because they usually vary by more than an order of magnitude
between different strata.
 The engineer must be able then to:
• Describe the degree of the vertical heterogeneity in
mathematical terms, and
• Describe and define the proper permeability stratification of
the payzone. This task is commonly called the zoning or layering
problem.
AREAL HETEROGENEITY
 Since the early stages of oil production, engineers have
recognized that most reservoirs vary in permeability and
other rock properties in the lateral direction.
 To understand and predict the behavior of an underground
reservoir, one must have as accurate and detailed knowledge
as possible of the subsurface.
 Indeed, water and gas displacement is conditioned by the
storage geometry (structural shape, thickness of strata) and
the local values of the physical parameters (variable from one
point to another) characteristic of the porous rock.
 Hence, prediction accuracy is closely related to the detail in
which the reservoir is described.
Infinite-Acting Reservoir
 When a well is put on production at a constant flow rate after a
shut-in period, the pressure in the wellbore begins to drop and
causes a pressure disturbance to spread in the reservoir.
 The influence of the reservoir boundaries or the shape of the
drainage area does not affect the rate at which the pressure
disturbance spreads in the formation. That is why the transient
state flow is also called the infinite acting state.
 During the infinite acting period, the declining rate of wellbore
pressure and the manner by which the pressure disturbance
spreads through the reservoir are determined by reservoir and
fluid characteristics such as:
• Porosity, φ
• Permeability, k
• Total compressibility, Ct
• Viscosity, μ
Transient flow, is flow where the flow velocity and pressure are changing with time.
Finite-Radial Reservoir
 The arrival of the pressure disturbance at the well drainage
boundary marks the end of the transient flow period and the
beginning of the semi (pseudo)-steady state.
 During this flow state, the reservoir boundaries and the shape
of the drainage area influence the wellbore pressure response
as well as the behavior of the pressure distribution throughout
the reservoir.
 Most likely, one should not expect the change from the
transient to the semi-steady state in this bounded (finite)
system to occur directly.
 There is a short period of time that separates the transient
state from the semi-steady state that is called late-transient
state.
 Due to its complexity and short duration, the late transient
flow is not used in practical well test analysis.