1988 SCA Conference Paper Number 8804

COMPARISON OF THREE METHODS OF RELATIVE PERMEABILITY MEASUREMENT by Jeffrey T. Hawkins Production Research and Development, Conoco Inc. Ponca City, Oklahoma ABSTRACT Relative permeability curve shapes of granular carbonate cores from a Middle Eastern reservoir were comparable regardless of the conditions and methods of measurement. However, variations among the tests in flow rate, viscosity ratio and pore volumes of water injected did affect residual oil saturation. Thus, this research confirms the importance of reservoir condition relative permeability measurement because of the significant impact of test conditions on residual oil saturation. The three types of measurements were: ambient condition unsteady-state, ambient condition steady-state, and reservoir condition unsteady-state. This study provided a unique opportunity to compare relative permeabilities from these different methods on the same core. All data were from first cycle waterfloods on restored-state core. The rock/fluid interaction was oil-wetting in character. Although the residual oil saturation varied, the shape of the relative permeability curves from the three methods were similar. In addition, a new equation was developed for normalizing relative permeability curves, which accounts for the different residual oil saturations of the various samples. INTRODUCTION To assist in simulation studies, i.e. history matching and performance forecasting, relative permeabilities were measured on core from this Middle Eastern reservoir. No freshly cut core was available for this study. Thus, it was necessary to restore older, unpreserved core to its original "nativewettability" (Wendel, et al., 1985; Gant and Anderson, 1986; Cuiec, 1975; Cuiec, 1977). This was accomplished by cleaning the core to a water-wet state, saturating the sample with a synthetic formation brine, flushing the sample with dead reservoir crude, and aging the sample at reservoir temperature for 1000 hours. In many cases, restored-state analysis is the only way to get representative data. There are three major reasons why it is often necessary to measure relative permeabilities on "restored-state" rather than "native-state" core. 1. 2. 3. The only available core was not properly preserved. The core's wettability was altered due fluids. to interaction with drilling

The core is on the wrong flood cycle (due to waterflooding or flushing during coring) and the results are affected by hysteresis.

Old, Unpreserved Core Often times the only core that is available for analysis is old core that was not properly preserved. Because of the expense or time involved, it may not

1988 SCA Conference Paper Number 8804

be possible to obtain a fresh, carefully preserved core. In such cases, an old, unpreserved core may be available as a substitute. Unfortunately, because of loss of light ends or deposition and oxidation of heavy ends, the wettability of the core may be altered (Treiber, et al., 1972; Richardson, et al., 1955). Thus, this core would be unsuitable for "native-state" measurement, and would have to be measured "restored-state." Core With Altered Wettability Research by Sharma and coworkers (1987; 1988) has shown that most drilling fluid components alter rock/fluid wettability, even those that have traditionally been regarded as bland components. They have found this to be true both for oil-based and water-based mud. That leaves us with lease crude as the potential drilling fluid of choice. Safety concerns aside, however, even crude oil as a drilling fluid would probably be exposed to air, possibly altering the oil's wetting characteristics. Even with a bland drilling mud, hysteresis in relative permeability measurements often makes "native-state" analysis inappropriate. Core on the Wrong Flooding Cycle Because of hysteresis in relative permeability measurements it may be desirable to conduct restored-state analysis even on fresh core. Numerous studies in the literature have identified the phenomenon of relative permeability hysteresis (Josendal, et al., 1952; Levine, 1954), and Patel and coworkers (1985) have shown evidence that it exists in the reservoir. Hysteresis in relative permeabilities can take two forms, flooding phase dependence and cycle dependence. Flooding phase dependence means, results are different when relative permeabilities are measured during an oilflood than when measured during a waterflood. Cycle dependence means, results are different when initially relative permeabilities are measured on a waterflood cycle, then the sample is oilflooded back to irreducible water saturation (S . ) , and then relative permeabilities are measured again on a second cycle waterflood. The second cycle waterflood results are different than the first cycle waterflood results. Because of relative permeability hysteresis, only data from a first cycle waterflood accurately represents the reservoir waterflood. Obtaining core that has not already been through the first cycle waterflood is difficult. The reservoir may be under active water drive or waterflood, or if a waterbased mud is used in drilling, the core will have been flushed with water during coring. In either case, the core when it reaches the laboratory will already have gone through a first cycle waterflood, thus "native-state" analysis would be on the wrong cycle. During coring, the core is usually flushed by mud filtrate. Normally, when "fresh-state" core plugs are taken at the laboratory they are then flushed with brine to remove mud filtrate (Continuing the first cycle waterflood). The core plugs are then flushed back to S . with oil, and the relative permeability measurements are then made on a second cycle! So, no matter to what lengths we've gone to preserve "native-wettability," the measurements are made on the wrong cycle and are affected by hysteresis. Our experience shows that these hysteresis effects are more significant than minor alterations in wettability, especially for the non-wetting phase. The wettability restoration

1988 SCA Conference Paper Number 8804 process, on the other hand, simulates the initial oil migration into the reservoir, and subsequent relative permeabilities are measured on a first cycle waterflood. Cycle dependent relative permeabilities are why we recommend "restored-state" analysis, even for fresh core, in most instances. We recommend using a bland mud for coring, because the absence of wettability altering compounds will leave the core easier to clean. We also carefully preserve the core, again, because the core will be easier to clean if it is not exposed to oxygen or allowed to dry out. Much work has been published in the literature concerning the effect of temperature on relative permeability (Honarpour, et al, 1986). However, the published data are contradictory. For example, some studies indicate a strong temperature effect (Edmonson, 1965), while other studies indicate no temperature effect (Miller and Ramey, 1985). Likewise, there have been some studies published comparing the steady-state and unsteady-state methods of relative permeability measurement. Again, these data are contradictory, with some studies showing significant differences (Amaefule and Handy, 1982) between the two methods while other studies show agreement (Johnson, et al., 1959) between the two methods. In light of the historical controversy concerning measurement methods, for this study relative permeabilities were measured three different ways on restored-state core. The three different methods were: 1) unsteady-state at ambient conditions, 2) steady-state at ambient conditions, and 3) unsteadystate at reservoir conditions. Since each test was run on a separate sample, we have a comparison of the methods on geologically similar plugs, rather than identical plugs. ROCK AND FLUID PROPERTIES The relative permeability measurements were made on core plugs from a granular limestone from an oil field in the Middle East. Table 1 summarizes the pertinent rock and fluid properties. Table 1. Rock and Fluid Properties

Porosity Permeability Irreducible Water Saturation Rock Type Fluid Gravity Reservoir Temperature Reservoir Pressure Gas Oil Ratio

20 - 26% 9 - 26 md 5 - 10% Granular Limestone 32 API 230 F 3000 psia 400 scf/stb

A porosity-permeability crossplot for the core plugs is shown in Figure 1. In general the core plugs possessed similar properties. Procedures for restoration to native wettability and for the three different measurement methods are described in the following sections.

1988 SCA Conference Paper Number 8804 100 * RC USS O AC SS A AC USS

TJ

10
i

DQ < LxJ

()

IE
Qd UJ Q_

.05

.1

.15

.2

.25

.3

.35

.4

POROSITY
Figure 1. Air permeability versus porosity.

PROCEDURES Restoration of Native Wettability To restore native wettability, the plugs were first cleaned by cycles of carbon dioxide saturated methanol, followed by carbon dioxide saturated toluene. Subsequent USBM wettability tests (Donaldson, 1981) confirmed that the core was clean and water-wet. After the plugs were cleaned, they were placed in a Hassler-type core holder, confined at approximate reservoir overburden pressure, evacuated, then saturated with a synthetic, filtered formation brine. The cores were then flushed with filtered (0.22 micron) and degassed crude oil from the reservoir. Note: Care was taken in obtaining the crude oil sample to insure that nothing was added to the crude (demulsifiers, etc.), and that the crude oil's exposure to air was minimized.

Approximately ten pore volumes of crude oil were flushed through the sample, driving the core plug to S .. The plugs were then submerged in crude oil in a pressure vessel with a 100 psig cap of methane. The vessel was then placed in an oven at the reservoir temperature of 230F and allowed to age in the crude oil for 1000 hours. While some researchers have shown that wettability equilibrium can sometimes be established in a shorter period of time (Cuiec, et al. , 1979), based on other research (Hjelmeland and Larrondo, 1986) we have determined 1000 hours of restoration to be sufficient. After restoration, relative permeabilities were measured by three different methods.

1988 SCA Conference Paper Number 8804

Unsteady-State Ambient Condition Measurement The unsteady-state ambient condition relative permeability measurements were made at Conoco's Production R&D facility in Ponca City, Oklahoma. After restoration, the plugs were placed in a Hassler-type core holder with 2500 psi confining pressure. Additional water was displaced from the plugs by flushing them with approximately 10 pore volumes of Blandol"? a refined mineral oil with a viscosity of 25 centipoises. This was done so that low values of S ., comparable to field values, could be established. The Blandol was then miscibly displaced with 0.8 centipoise decane. Oil permeability at irreducible water saturation (K @ S .) was then measured with decane. o wi The plugs were then waterflooded at a constant injection rate of 10 ml/minute. During the flood, the pressure drop across the core and the volume of decane produced were automatically measured. The data, consisting of water injected, pressure drop, and decane produced, were then analyzed using a modification of the technique of Johnson, Bossier and Naumann (1959). Steady-State Ambient Condition Measurement The steady-state ambient condition relative permeability measurements were made at the Tulsa, Oklahoma facility of Core Laboratories Inc. After restoration, each sample was loaded into a hydrostatic core holder and flushed down to S . with a 20 centipoise refined mineral oil. The sample was then flushed with Isopar-L, which has a viscosity at room temperature of 1.5 centipoise. The Isopar-L was then miscibly displaced by a mixture of Isopar-L and iododecane. The iododecane is used to attenuate X-rays during the flow tests so that saturations can be calculated. Using the Isopar-L/iododecane mixture, K @ S . was measured, o wi Each sample was then loaded into an aluminum Hassler-type core holder, between two Berea Sandstone mixing headers, which had previously been flushed to S . with the Isopar-L/iododecane mixture. A mixture of oil and synthetic formation brine was then flowed through the core at various ratios (water flow rate increasing, oil flow rate decreasing) until finally only water was flowing through the core. Flow was continued at each ratio until equilibrium was attained as determined by a constant pressure drop and X-ray scan profile. X-ray attenuation scans were made at each equilibrium point so that saturations could ultimately be determined. Effective permeabilities were calculated from Darcy's law, using the flow rates, fluid viscosities, plug dimensions and the measured pressure drops. Corresponding fluid saturations were determined from the X-ray measurements. Unsteady-State Reservoir Condition Measurements After restoration, a sample was loaded into a hydrostatic core holder with a 3400 psi overburden. With a back pressure of 300 psi, degassed crude oil was injected into the sample. The system temperature was then raised to 230F, and three pore volumes of recombined reservoir fluid were injected to displace the dead crude. The sample was allowed to equilibrate overnight, then an additional two pore volumes of reservoir fluid were injected and K @ S . was o wi measured. Synthetic reservoir brine was injected until a 99.9 percent water-cut was observed. Water relative permeability at residual oil saturation (K @ S )

1988 SCA Conference Paper Number 8804 was then measured. During the test, water production, gas production, oil production, and pressure drop were monitored and unsteady-state relative permeabilities were calculated using the technique of Johnson, Bossier and Naumann (1959). RESULTS Table 2 summarizes the relative permeability results from the three methods. Table 2. Summary of Waterflood Relative Permeabilities Oil Displaced Z OOIP

Sample Swi Ko @ Swi Sor Krw @ Sor No. Z PV md % PV Ambient Condition Unsteady-State (AC USS)
11

2 eragess

6.3 4.9 5.6

8.3 6.0 7.2

2.5 11.2 6.9

1.16 0.80 0.98

97.3 87.5 92.4

Ambient Condition Steady-State (AC SS) 3 4 5 Averages 6.8 7.2 6.9 7.0 9.7 7.1 6.3 7.7 19.4 21.6 14.3 18.4 0.43 0.46 0.49 0.46 79.2 76.7 84.6 80.2

Reservoir Condition Unsteady-State (RC USS) 6 7 8 9 Averages 10.0 9.0 10.0 8.0 9.3 8.3 8.5 9.6 4.8 7.8 24.9 21.0 24.2 29.2 24.8 0.37 0.48 0.53 0.52 0.48 72.3 76.9 73.1 68.3 72.7

Relative Permeabilities at Low Water Saturations In unsteady-state relative permeability measurements no data are available between S . and the breakthrough saturation. Likewise, in steady-state relative permeability measurements no data are available between S . and the average saturation established for the first injection ratio of water and oil. Table 3 contains the average saturation at the first measurement point available for each of the three methods. Table 3Average Water Saturations for First Data Point Method Ambient Condition Unsteady-State Ambient Condition Steady-State Reservoir Condition Unsteady-State Average Water Saturation For First Data Point 57% 29% 40%

1988 S C A Conference Paper Number 8804

The relative permeability curves for each of the methods are drawn in over the entire saturation range. However, Table 3 shows that the relative permeability values are unknown at the lower saturation ranges. As a matter of practicality the curves are "eyeballed" in between S . and the first data point. Thus, comparisons of the curves at the lower saturation ranges are dependent on the subjective way in which we choose to draw the curves. Before comparing all of the results, we will first examine the individual results from the three different methods. Ambient Condition Unsteady-State Figure 2 shows the relative permeability curves for the two ambient condition unsteady-state samples. The curves are relative to K @ S ., as are all of the relative permeability curves presented in this paper. The relative permeability curves display an oil-wet character. Using Craig's rules of thumb (1971): the curves have very low values of S ., the crossover point (where the oil and water relative permeabilities are equal) occurs at a water saturation less than 50%, and the curves show a high value of K @ S In fact, one of the curves is actually off the graph and goes to a value of 1.16 for K @S . rw or

ll

1%

.9 .8
>H_J

11 1 1 1 1 %

1
1

f 1

\
I

1 I 1

%
\
i \\ % i 1 % \ %
1
%

L % I %

i % \

UJ

m <

.7

2 on UJ
Q_ UJ

6
.5 .4 .3

/
\\ \\ \

11
t

1
i

\ \\ \

/ / , ** **

>
1

i \ \ \ \

<
UJ

\\
\
i

a:

% \\ \

.2 .1
0
^ <"'** ^^^

\
*

' // **

^V 7

'*^-^

.1

.2

.3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 WATER SATURATION

.9

BASIS

Ko @ Swi

Figure 2. Ambient condition unsteady-state relative permeabilities.

1988 S C A Conference Paper Number 8804

Ambient Condition Steady-State Figure 3 shows Again, there is oil-wet. Note, values are not ments. the ambient condition steady-state relative permeabilities. some scatter in the data, and the curves for the most part are however, that the S values are not as low, and the K @ S as high as for the ambient condition unsteady-state measuri-

m
<
on
Ld Q_ Ld >

Ld
Od

0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9
WATER SATURATION BASIS = Ko @ Swi
Figure 3. Ambient condition steady-state relative permeability. Reservoir Condition Unsteady-State The reservoir condition unsteady-state relative permeabilities are shown in Figure 4. There is some scatter in the data and, again, the curves appear oil-wet in nature. Note, that like the ambient condition steady-state measurements, the reservoir condition data have higher S values, and lower K @ S values than the ambient condition unsteady-state curves. rw or

1988 SCA Conference Paper Number 8804 1 .9 .8

>H;

,l 1

m < en
UJ

.7

I
1

>
i

5
LiJ

,
.O

* n * V* V\ 11\ * Y\

1 1 1

% y\

VI

Q:

*\ %k\

f.y

*J *f

.2 .1 0

V**

^.v
>s*v?> -"i***

*5 * ' * * K ^

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 WATER SATURATION

BASIS = Ko @ Swi
Figure 4. Reservoir condition unsteady-state relative permeabilities. COMPARISON OF ALL THREE METHODS The wettability of the rock/fluid pairs, as estimated from the relative permeability curves, is the same for all three methods. This indicates that the mineral oils used in the ambient condition tests (Blandol and Isopar) did not alter the wettability of the restored-state core. Results from all three methods will now be compared. Since there are so many curves, the oil and water curves will be compared separately. Oil Relative Permeability Curves Figure 5 shows all of the oil relative permeability curves for all three methods. While there is some spread among the curves, they generally have the same shape, with different values of S At this point, remember that these are not repeat tests on the same exact? piece of rock, but rather, rocks from the same formation that are mineralogically similar. Therefore, the major differences among the curves can probably be attributed to differences in rock characteristics. Also, the differences in S^ correlate well with differences in test conditions, as will be explained later.

1988 SCA Conference Paper Number 8804

1
AC USS

.9
I _l

tt
'll*.

AC SS RC USS

>-

.8 .7 .6 .b 4
M l ". M l *. M1 *

UJ

m <

"41 *

2
Od UJ

\
i 1

a.
UJ

% \ *. \
u B * %

'

>
i _i UJ

<

cc .6
_l

.2 .1 0 0

^ > V

vVx

vVx'.

\\-. \*. *. _ * *^ ^. *

SgsS r"t..

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 WATER SATURATION
Ko @ Swi

BASIS =

Figure 5. Oil relative permeabilities. Water Relative Permeability Curves All of the water relative permeability curves for all three methods are shown in Figure 6. Again, there is some spread in the data. The ambient condition unsteady-state results generally give a slightly higher value of water relative permeability at a given saturation. The results from the other two methods essentially overlap.

1988 SCA Conference Paper Number 8804

AL>

KC*

1 IOC
\J^>~J
1

9 .8
m <
ui

AU bb

RC USS
/

.7
i

!
$$
i /

.6 .5 .4 ,3 .2 .1
** _^>
'

cm
IxJ CL
UJ

>
UJ

'/ / j 1//A /
/j * 1 * f * ^JL f/L

cc
'.'

'

Mi

y^.

AV
/

.Of
~

.1

.2 .3 A .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 WATER SATURATION

BASIS = Ko @ Swi
Figure 6. Water relative permeabilities.

Generally the curve shapes are similar for the three methods of measurement with the main differences being in S , and K @ S Differences in experimental conditions, as discussed below, have lSd toEhe different S values. or FACTORS AFFECTING RESIDUAL OIL SATURATION The factors affecting S have been investigated and reported in the literature (Abrams, 1975). These factors include fluid viscosities, flow rate and interfacial tension (IFT). The effect these factors have are: 1) The higher the flow rate the lower the S . 2) The larger the viscosity ratio (uw/yo) the lower the S . 3) The higher the water viscosity, the lower the S . 4) The lower the IFT, the lower the S . Table A summarizes the differences in experimental conditions for the three methods. Table 4. Differences In Experimental Conditions Test
AC USS AC SS RC USS

Viscosities, cp Oil Water

0.8 2.0 0.725 1.0 1.0 0.27

Viscosity Ratio(uw/uo)
1.25 0.50 0.37

Flow Rate, ml/min

Oil

10.0 3.3 2.0

Decane Isopar/Iododecane Reservoir Crude

1988 S C A Conference Paper Number 8804

The flow rate for the steady-state test is the final flow rate when only water was being injected at the end of the test. The higher flow rate, larger viscosity ratio, and higher water viscosity of the ambient condition unsteadystate test explains their lower S values. The lower water viscosity, and lower flow rate of the reservoir condition unsteady-state tests are consistent with their higher S values. Therefore, the differing values of S are due or or to the different experimental conditions. Abrams (1975) published a paper where he correlated an expanded capillary number with S . The higher the Abrams' number, the lower the S for a given rock. Table 5 contains Abrams' expanded capillary number for the various methods. Table 5. Values of Abrams* Number Average Sor, ZPV 6.9 18.4 24.8

Method Ambient Condition Unsteady-State Ambient Condition Steady-State Reservoir Condition Unsteady-State

Abrams' Number 250 x 10~ 47 x 10 7 x 10

These numbers correlate with the general trend in the S values from the three methods. The ambient condition unsteady-state tests have the largest Abrams' number, and the lowest average S . Correspondingly the reservoir condition unsteady-state tests have the smallest Abrams' number, and the highest average S Based on Abrams' work we would expect only a 5-10 saturation % difference in S for this range of Abrams' number. In addition to differences in Abrams' number, different volumes of throughput probably help explain the rather large differences in S . Particularly for an oil-wet rock like this, the final oil saturation achieved during a flood is largely dependent on how much water has flowed through the core. Table 6 shows the approximate pore volumes of water injected during each of the three different tests. Table 6. Approximate Pore Volumes Injected Average Sor, ZPV 6.9 18.4 24.8

Method Ambient Condition Unsteady-State Ambient Condition Steady-State Reservoir Condition Unsteady-State

Pore Volumes Injected 120 40 18

There were significant differences in the number of pore volumes injected for the three different methods. The combination of the differences in Abrams' numbers (ratio of capillary to viscous forces) along with differences in pore

1988 S C A Conference Paper Number 8804

volumes injected caused the differences in S . While the values of S vary, in general, the curve shapes are very similar over most of the saturation range. Labastie and coworkers (1980) found a similar phenomenon while varying flow rate in relative permeability experiments. They found that while S changed with flow rate, in general, curve shape remained the same. SELECTION OF APPROPRIATE RESIDUAL OIL SATURATION The reservoir condition tests were selected as the best model for field performance. These tests most closely approximate the field conditions both in terms of flow rate and viscosity ratio and, also, the number of pore volumes injected. Averaging the reservoir condition results we come up with an S of 24.8%. r NORMALIZING OF THE RELATIVE PERMEABILITY CURVES If core plugs are of similar wettability, similar lithology and similar pore structure, and they have similar S . values, it is reasonable to expect that they would have similar relative permeability curves. To compare the relative permeability curves on an equivalent basis, the curves need to be normalized. The standard method of normalizing relative permeability curves uses the following equation (Schneider, 1987):
s*_ W _ (S

w
S

wi

wi> S

<X

or>

This method starts and ends all the curves at normalized saturations of 0.0% and 100.0%, respectively. Figure 7 shows two sets of data from each of the three measurement methods, normalized with the standard method. Comparing Figure 7 with Figure 6 we see that this normalization technique actually spreads the water relative permeability curves further apart. By making all of the curves start at 0% normalized saturation we are making the assumption that they all have similar S . values. Examining Table 2, we see that this is a fairly reasonable assumption in that all the plugs had similar S . values. However, forcing all the curves to end at a normalized saturation or 100% is making the assumption that they all have the same S value. Examining Table 2, again, we see that this assumption is not valid. Because of differences in test conditions and differences in pore volumes injected, the different methods gave substantially different S values. To take into account varying S values, a new equation was developed for normalizing relative permeability curves. The new equation starts all the curves at a normalized saturation of 0.0%, and extends them to a final saturation of (1 - S ) : or'
(STI

- s .)(i - s )
wi 7 v - S . wi or S > or

* _
W

w (1

1988 SCA Conference Paper Number 8804 AC USS

Af Av. Pf Kl

.8 m < ac
LU CL

TS

V* i*s

: ss : uss
I $ ; > 0 * 0 0
z

I***.
l*>
!<*.

V*-

1
i*'. a**.
*t

> .4
LU OC

k
IV

J/
/ ,

.-^**

**

.2 .4 .6 .8 1 NORMALIZED WATER SATURATION Curves normalized by t h e s t a n d a r d method. AC USS

I

J
\
% \

J ./A^
itV'

^v^ss?^
i^^^uoMi

Figure 7 1

/ / ; / t ; , ! !

.8 m <
LU OC LU Q_ C

AP AL/ np KU

SS USS
; i

\\ * ! l> V i ft>>.

ffii

/
i 1

i
>

, >

\vV-

s. -
> .4
t LU

1
^-*'*~

1
0 9 0 0 0 0 /

/
/ //
, *
* * w \ %S- * *
\ . jfc^*
f f

/ if
/

** * f t

\*
\*a> \

/ / / '

a: .2

/ /
/
y /

* * * * * *C ^**' X >*r ^J<

-*,*l!L-;

*"rf"*"^*

^^4*

^M.

.2

.4

.6

.8

NORMALIZED WATER SATURATION Figure 8 . Curves normalized by t h e new method.

1988 S C A Conference Paper Number 8804

Figure 8 shows the curves normalized with the new method. Comparing Figure 7 and Figure 8, we see that overall the new method gives considerably less scatter among the curves. For cases where there is significant variation in S , we have found the new method a superior way of normalizing relative permeability curves, resulting in less scatter. CONCLUSIONS 1. The shapes of the relative permeability curves were comparable for the three measurement methods. 2. Because of variations in test conditions the three methods gave different values of S and K @ S , demonstrating the importance of measuring r ^, or _ rw or ,. ^. these parameters at reservoir conditions.

3. A new method of normalizing relative permeability curves has been introduced that takes into account the different S values that are obtained under varying test conditions. 4. The mineral oils used in the experiments did not alter the wettability of the restored-state core.

This study was not a detailed parametric study conducted on many combinations of rock and fluid, thus, the conclusions of this study are not universally applicable. However, the conclusions are probably applicable for reservoirs with similar properties. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to Ken Weissenburger, Jeff Meyers, and Andre Bouchard for their review of the manuscript. I also thank the management of Conoco Inc., for permission to publish the paper. SELECTED REFERENCES Abrams, A., 1975, The Influence of Fluid Viscosity, Interfacial Tension, and Flow Velocity on Residual Oil Saturation Left by Waterflood: Soc. Pet. Eng. J., October. Amaefule, J. 0., and L. L. Handy, 1982, The Effect of Interfacial Tensions on Relative Oil/Water Permeabilities of Consolidated Porous Media: Soc. Pet. Eng. J., 22(3), p. 371-381, June. Craig, F. F., 1971, The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Waterflooding: Society of Petroleum Engineers Monograph Series, No. 3, Dallas, Texas. Cuiec, L. E., 1975, Restoration of the Natural State of Core Samples: SPE 5634, presented at the 50th Annual Fall Meeting of the SPE, Dallas, Texas, September 28-0ctober 1. Cuiec, L. E., 1977, Study of Problems related to the Restoration of the Natural State of Core Samples: J. Cdn. Pet. Tech., 16(4), p. 68-80, OctoberDecember. Cuiec, L. E., Longeron, D. and Pacsirzky, J., 1979, On the Necessity of Respecting Reservoir Conditions in Laboratory Displacement Studies: SPE 7785 presented at the SPE Middle East Oil Technical Conference, Bahrain, March 25-29.

1988 SCA Conference Paper Number 8804

Donaldson, E. C., 1981, Oil-Water-Rock Wettability Measurement: Proc. American Chemical Society, Division of Petroleum Chemistry, 26, No. 1, p. 110- 122, March 29-April 3. Edmonson, T. A., 1965, Effect of Temperature on Waterflooding: J. Canadian Petroleum Technology, No. Ill, p.236-242, October-December. Gant P. L., and Anderson W. G., 1986, Core Cleaning for Restoration of Native Wettability: SPE 14875, presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Billings, Montana, May 18-21. Honarpour, M., Koederitz, L. and Harvey, A. H., 1986, How Temperature Affects Relative Permeability: World Oil , No. Ill, p. 116-126, May. Hjelmeland, 0. S. and Larrondo, L. E., 1986, Experimental Investigation of the Effects of Temperature, Pressure, and Crude Oil Composition on Interfacial Properties: SPERE, p. 321-328, July. Johnson, E. F., Bossier, D. P., and Naumann, V. 0., 1959, Calculation of Relative Permeability from Displacement Experiments: Trans. AIME, p. 216, 370. Josendal, V. A., Sandford, B. B., and Wilson, J. W., 1952, Improved Multiphase Flow Studies Employing Radioactive Tracers: Trans. AIME, 65, p. 195. Labastie, A., Guy, M., Delclaud, J. P., and Iffly, R., 1980, Effect of Flow Rate and Wettability on Water-Oil Relative Permeabilities and Capillary Pressure: SPE 9236 presented at the Fall Technical Conference, Dallas, September 21-24. Levine, J. S., 1954, Displacement Experiments in a Consolidated Porous System: Trans. AIME, 57, p. 201. Miller, M. A., and Ramey Jr., J. J., 1985, Effect of Temperature on Oil/Water Relative Permeabilities of Unconsolidated Sands: SPEJ, AIME p. 279, December. Patel, P. D., Christman, P. G. and Gardner, J. W., 1985, An Investigation of Unexpectedly Low Field-Observed Fluid Mobilities During some C0_ Tertiary Floods: SPE 14308, presented at the SPE 60th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE, Las Vegas, Nevada, September 22-25. Richardson, J. G., Perkins, F. M., and Osoba, J. S., 1955, Differences in the Behavior of Fresh and Aged East Texas Woodbine Cores: JPT, p. 86-91, Trans., AIME, June. Schneider, F. N., 1987, Three Procedures Enhance Relative Permeability Data: Oil and Gas Journal, May 4. Sharma, M. M., and Wunderlich, R. W., 1987, The Alteration of Rock Properties Due to Interactions with Drilling-Fluid Components: Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, No. 1, p. 127-143. Treiber, L. E., Archer, D. L., and Owens, W. W., 1972, A Laboratory Evaluation of the Wettability of Fifty Oil Producing Reservoirs: SPEJ, p. 531-540; Trans., AIME, p. 253, December. Wendel, D. J.; Anderson, W. G.; and Meyers, J. D., 1985, Restored-State Core Analysis for the Hutton Reservoir: SPE 14298, presented at the 60th Annual Technical Conference of the SPE, Las Vegas, Nevada, September 22-25. Yan, J. N., Menezes, J. L., and Sharma, M. M., 1988, Wettability Alteration Due to Interaction with Oil-Based Mud Components: SPE 18162, presented at the 63rd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Houston, Texas, October 2-5.