SPE 56474
An Empirical Model for Three-Phase Relative Permeability
Martin J. Blunt, Imperial College
Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 3–6 October 1999.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
We present an empirical model for three-phase relative
permeability that overcomes the limitations of current
formulations, such as Stone’s methods.1,2 We provide a self-
consistent treatment of wettability, changes in hydrocarbon
composition, different saturation paths, and the trapping of oil,
water and gas. The theoretical development is motivated by a
review of recent three-phase experiments. The model is based
on saturation-weighted interpolation between the two-phase
values.3 To account for the effects of wettability we apply
saturation-weighting to all three phases. By writing the
relative permeabilities as unique functions of a flowing
saturation, the model predicts the behavior for any sequence of
saturation changes and accounts for trapping. Layer drainage,
which allows oil relative permeabilities to be extrapolated to
low saturation, is included for water-wet media. The model
ensures smooth changes in relative permeability with changes
in hydrocarbon composition and tends to the appropriate limits
as the gas and oil become miscible. The model is tested
against the data of Oak and co-workers.4,5 We show that it is
necessary to include layer drainage and oil trapping to predict
three-phase oil relative permeability at low oil saturation
accurately.
Introduction
The flow of three-phases — oil, water and gas — occurs in a
variety of circumstances in oil and gas reservoirs, and during
non-aqueous phase migration and clean-up in the unsaturated
zone. To understand the fluid movement estimates of three-
phase relative permeabilities are needed. While two-phase
relative permeabilities (oil/water, gas/oil and gas/water) are
often time-consuming to obtain, there are only two principal
displacement paths: the saturation of one phase may either
increase or decrease.6 In contrast, the measurement of three-
phase relative permeability poses a particular challenge. In
addition to the measurement of saturations, pressure drops and
fluxes in three flowing phases, there are an infinite number of
different displacement paths. This is because any three-phase
displacement involves the variation of two independent
saturations. Thus it is impractical to measure relative
permeability for all possible three-phase displacements that
may occur in a reservoir — including, for instance, solution
gas drive, gas injection and waterflooding with different initial
oil and gas saturations. The almost universal practice in the
oil industry is to use three-phase relative permeabilities
estimated from two-phase data. While this approach is not an
acceptable alternative to direct measurement, it is necessary
when three-phase data are lacking.
Stone1,2 proposed two empirical models of three-phase
relative permeability that are widely used in the oil industry.
These models have become a benchmark against which
experimental measurements are compared. However, several
reviews of the literature have shown that Stone’s models fail
to predict three-phase relative permeability accurately.3,7,8
In recent years our fundamental physical understanding of
three-phase flow at the pore level has increased significantly.
Micromodel experiments and theoretical analysis have
elucidated the microscopic three-phase displacement
mechanisms.9-14 These studies have been used to develop pore
network models that predict macroscopic parameters, such as
relative permeability, directly from a knowledge of the pore
structure and the displacement physics.15-18 This work offers
an alternative approach to empirical models. A network could
be constructed with parameters tuned to match two-phase data,
or other more easily obtained information, such as the results
of thin section analysis or mercury injection capillary pressure.
The model could then predict three-phase relative
permeabilities for any type of displacement. Two-phase
relative permeability has been successfully predicted for
sandstones19,20 and three-phase network models have been able
to match the generic features of experimental measurements.16
However, no first-principles predictions of three-phase relative
permeabilities have yet been made. Moreover, it is possible
that for geologically complex media of non-uniform
wettability, uncertainties in the characterization of the system
would lead to large errors in predicted properties. Hence,
despite the huge promise of a more physical methodology on
the horizon, empirical models are still likely to be used where
2 M.J. BLUNT
an accurate description of the pore geometry and fluid
properties is not possible.
Stone’s empirical models, and others developed before
recent studies of three-phase flow, suffer from three major
limitations. First, they were developed for water-wet media
but are applied to reservoir rocks, which are rarely water-wet.
Although Stone1,2 discussed extensions to oil-wet media we
will show that some of the assumptions made in this analysis
were wrong. Second, the models fail to account for the
trapping of oil and gas for any displacement sequence. Larsen
and Skauge21 extended Stone’s model I to allow for gas
trapping during repeated WAG cycles. Jerauld22 presented a
model for Prudhoe Bay relative permeability that accounted
for oil and gas trapping. We will use a modification of these
approaches. Third, the functional form of the relative
permeability at low oil saturation, often the regime of greatest
interest for enhanced oil recovery projects and contaminant
clean-up, disagrees with recent experimental results.
We will develop a model that overcomes the limitations
listed above. It is based on saturation-weighted averages of
the two-phase relative permeabilities, which was first
suggested by Baker3 and shown by him in a thorough review
of the literature to be superior to Stone’s models. Saturation-
weighted interpolation is applied to all three phases, as
suggested by Hustad and Hansen.23 We will include gas and
oil trapping based on the work of Land24 and Carlson,25 which
enables three-phase relative permeability to be estimated for
any saturation path. We will also introduce a model for oil
layer drainage that allows the oil relative permeability to be
extrapolated to low saturation. The model is extended to
ensure smooth changes in relative permeability with changing
oil and gas composition, and to give the correct limits to the
oil and gas relative permeabilities for miscible flow. The
model is then successfully tested against the extensive three-
phase data of Oak et al.4,5
To motivate this work, we first discuss pore occupancy to
demonstrate the difficulty of predicting three-phase relative
permeability, introduce Stone’s models and saturation-
weighted interpolation, and then review the recent
experimental literature on three-phase flow. An analysis of
these experiments leads us to develop an extension of
saturation-weighted interpolation that accounts for different
wettabilities, oil and gas trapping, and layer flow.
Pore Occupancy in Three-Phase Flow
Fig. 1 is a schematic histogram of pore occupancy in a water-
wet medium. Fig. 1(a) shows the pore occupancy for a two-
phase oil/water displacement. This may be a primary
drainage, imbibition or secondary drainage experiment. Fig.
1(b) is for a gas/oil displacement. This is usually primary
drainage of gas into oil and initial (irreducible) water Swi.
The water, being the most wetting phase, occupies the
smallest pores, regardless of whether oil and/or gas is present.
Hence it is assumed that the water relative permeability is a
SPE 56474
function of the water saturation only. The water relative
permeability for displacements where the water saturation is
increasing may be different from cases where the water
saturation is decreasing. Experimentally it has been found that
that the water relative permeability is a function of its own
saturation, but the effect of hysteresis, or the direction of
saturation change, is small.3,7
The gas is the most non-wetting phase and occupies the
largest pores. Again we could assume that the gas relative
permeability is a function of gas saturation only. Although the
experimental evidence is not so clear, the consensus is that this
approximation is valid, although several experiments have
shown large differences between the relative permeabilities for
the gas saturation increasing and for the gas saturation
decreasing.4,7
In three-phase flow, oil being intermediate-wet, occupies
the intermediate sized pores. Empirical models predict the
three-phase relative permeability, kro, as a function the oil
relative permeability in the presence of water only, kro(w), and
the oil relative permeability in the presence of gas (and
normally irreducible or connate water), kro(g). Unfortunately,
however, there is no two-phase experiment that reproduces the
pore occupancy of the three-phase case — for oil/water
displacements the oil is in the largest pores, whereas for
gas/oil displacements, the oil is in the smaller pores.
Considering more realistic distributions of pore occupancy
controlled by different wettabilities does not alter this
conclusion — there is no definitive way to estimate three-
phase relative permeability from two-phase data. Thus any
empirical model, without exception, will be making at best an
estimate of relative permeability, and can never replace direct
measurement, or a more physical approach using network
modeling.
Stone’s Models I and II
Stone1,2 proposed two empirical three-phase relative
permeability models. He assumed that the porous medium
was water-wet and that the water and gas relative
permeabilities are functions only of their own saturations.
The Stone I model1 assumes that the water and gas block
the flow of the oil phase, and that the degree of blocking is
computed from the two-phase relative permeabilities. The
version of the Stone I model normally used in simulators was
proposed by Aziz and Settari26 and includes a normalization to
ensure that the model reduces smoothly to the two-phase data
when Sg = 0, or Sw = Swi:
S oe k ro ( w) k ro ( g )
k ro =
(
k ro( wi ) (1 − S we ) 1 − S ge ) …………..………………(1)
where:
S o − S om
S oe = ………………………………….…(2)
1 − S wi − S om
SPE 56474 AN EMPIRICAL MODEL FOR THREE-PHASE RELATIVE PERMEABILITY 3

(a) (b)

Number Number
of pores of pores
Oil Oil Gas
Water
Pore size Pore size

(c)

Number
of pores
Oil
Water Gas
Pore size

Fig. 1• A schematic of the pore occupancy for a water-wet medium. (a) For two-phase oil/water displacements, the water resides in the
smallest pores, while oil is in the largest pores. (b) For two-phase gas/oil displacements (even with irreducible water present, which is not
indicated for clarity), oil occupies the smaller pores and gas the largest pores. (c) In three-phase flow, water is still in the small pores, and
gas in the large pores. This indicates that the water and gas relative permeabilities are functions of only their own saturation. The oil
occupies the intermediate-sized pores, indicating that the oil relative permeability is a function of two saturations and that no empirical model
based on two-phase data can exactly predict the oil relative permeability for three-phase flow.

When Eq. (7) predicts kro < 0, the relative permeability is set to
S w − S wi
S we = ……………………………………(3) zero. The oil relative permeabilities are measured at the oil
1 − S wi − S om saturations given for model I.
Fayers and Matthews7 studied seven three-phase
Sg experiments and showed that overall Stone’s I model with Som
S ge = …………………………………....(4) given by Eq. (5) was superior to Stone II. Later Fayers27
1 − S wi − S om
proposed other equations for Som to improve the match
kro(wi) is the oil relative permeability measured at irreducible between Stone’s model I and experiment.
water saturation with no gas present. kro(w) is computed at So =
1 - Sw, and kro(g) is computed at So = 1 - Sg - Swi — at different Saturation-Weighted Interpolation
oil saturations than in the three-phase situation being Baker3 used saturation-weighted interpolation between the
predicted. two-phase values to find the three-phase oil relative
Som is the three-phase residual oil saturation. Fayers and permeability:
(S w − S wi )k ro( w) + (S g − S gr )k ro( g )
Matthews7 suggested the form:
S om = λS orw + (1 − λ )S org ……………………….……...(5) k ro =
(S w − S wi ) + (S g − S gr )
……………..(8)

where:
where Sgr is the residual gas saturation in the two-phase
Sg oil/water experiment (normally zero since the oil/water
λ =1− …………………………………..(6) displacement is performed without any gas present). In Eq.
1 − S wi − S org
(8) the two-phase relative permeabilities are computed at the
Sorw is the residual oil saturation in the presence of water and three-phase oil saturation.
Sorg is the residual oil saturation in the presence of gas and In Stone’s models it is assumed that krw = krw(o) and krg =
irreducible water. krg(o). However, we could test this assumption by measuring
The Stone II model2 is based on an assumption of the two-phase gas/water relative permeabilities, krw(g) and krg(w)
segregated flow and does not require a residual oil saturation (in the presence of an initial oil saturation Soi, which is
to be defined: normally zero since the gas/water displacement is performed
( )(
k ro = k ro ( w) + k ro( wi ) k rw( o ) k ro ( g ) + k ro ( wi ) k rg ( o ) ) with no oil present). There is no guarantee that krw(g) = krw(o),
and krg(o) = krg(w). Indeed, as we show later, this will not be
(
− k ro( wi ) k rw( o ) + k rg ( o ) ) ….…(7)
4 M.J. BLUNT
true for oil-wet media. To account for this, a simple extension
of Eq. (8) gives:
(S o − S oi )k rw(o) + (S g − S gr )k rw( g )
k rw =
(S o − S oi ) + (S g − S gr )
…………......(9)
(S w − S wi )k rg ( w) + (S o − S oi )k rg (o)
k rg = …………….(10)
(S w − S wi ) + (S o − S oi )
Stone vs. Saturation-Weighted Relative
Permeabilities
An exhaustive literature review by Baker3 compared the
prediction of three-phase relative permeability for eight sets of
data on water-wet media using 12 different empirical
correlations. He concluded that the Stone models performed
poorly, while saturation-weighted interpolation gave the best
agreement. Further work by the same group at Amoco5,28 also
demonstrated inaccuracies in Stone’s models. Delshad and
Pope8 compared seven empirical three-phase relative
permeability models against three experiments. Again they
showed that saturation-weighted interpolation was superior to
Stone’s models. They obtained even better agreement by
using a model due to Pope that had a free parameter to match
the data in the three-phase region. However, this model did
not so well in the (usual) case where the three-phase data are
not used in the predictions.
In summary Baker,3 and Delshad and Pope8 have provided
excellent and definitive reviews of the literature which reach a
clear conclusion — Stone’s models sometimes give poor
predictions, while saturation-weighted interpolation is the best
model presently available. It makes sense therefore to use
saturation-weighted interpolation as the basis of our empirical
model.
Review of Recent Three-Phase Data
We will now review the experimental literature published after
Baker’s study. These data sets will form the basis of later
discussion of layer drainage and oil trapping. Table 1
summarizes the results presented here.
Work from the Institut Français du Pétrole. Kalaydjian et
al.29 measured steady-state and unsteady-state three-phase
relative permeabilities. They studied the effect of the oil
spreading coefficient, defined as:
C so = γ gw − γ ow − γ go ………………………………...(11)
where γgw is the gas/water interfacial tension, γow is the
oil/water interfacial tension, and γgo is the gas/oil interfacial
tension. They showed that a system with Cso > 0 had a lower
irreducible oil saturation and higher oil relative permeability
than a system with Cso < 0. They found relative permeabilities
for unsteady-state measurements by history matching the
production curves. This is, however, a non-unique process if
the capillary pressures are not known. Vizika and Lombard30
SPE 56474
used the same method to study the effects of spreading
coefficient and wettability. It is difficult to use these two
papers to assess the accuracy of three-phase relative
permeability models since the two-phase gas/oil relative
permeabilities are not compared with three-phase data.
However, their results could be predicted from a fractal model
of the pore space, using information obtained from capillary
pressure measurements.31
Norwegian Studies. Skauge et al.32 and Eleri et al.33 used
gamma-ray emission from tracers to image saturation
distributions during three-phase displacements in water-wet
sandstones. They studied the impact of initial water saturation
on oil recovery and the effects of hysteresis. Their work was
the inspiration for Larsen and Skauge21 who proposed a new
empirical model for gas relative permeability to account for
gas trapping and hysteresis.
Nordvedt et al.34 used X-ray scanning to image three-
phases during gas injection into chalk samples. Relative
permeabilities were obtained by using an optimization method
to match the measured saturations to those obtained from a
reservoir simulator. Again it is not clear if this process is
unique. While there was considerable scatter in their data, the
oil relative permeability was, to within experimental error, the
same as the two-phase oil/water curve. Stone’s model I gave
poor predictions of recovery.
Grader and O’Meara. Grader and O’Meara35 studied gas
injection into different initial oil saturations in a bead pack
using analogue fluids with low interfacial tensions to minimize
end effects. They used a modified JBN analysis to calculate
the relative permeabilities. To within experimental error the
three-phase oil relative permeability for these drainage
displacements was a function of only the oil saturation. This
implies that a single two-phase gas/oil displacement with
irreducible water could be used to predict three-phase data for
gas injection.
Winfrith Group. Naylor et al.36 used a radioactive tracer
technique to measure in-situ saturation distributions in water-
wet Clashach sandstone during a three-phase displacement.
Relative permeabilities were calculated from these saturations,
assuming that the capillary pressure was negligible. They
concluded that asymptotically the oil relative permeability
tends to zero at zero irreducible oil saturation, and that for
their experiments, the oil relative permeability appeared to be
a function of only oil saturation. Similar results were obtained
by Goodyear and Jones,37 who noted that at low oil saturation
the relative permeability appeared to be fit by kro ∝So2.
Amoco Group. Oak et al.4 and Oak5 performed a series of
steady-state experiments on water-wet Berea sandstone and
presented two-phase gas/oil, oil/water and gas/water data.
They showed that Stone’s models I and II did not reproduce
their data accurately. Fig. 2 shows the three-phase oil relative
permeability from Oak et al.4
SPE 56474 AN EMPIRICAL MODEL FOR THREE-PHASE RELATIVE PERMEABILITY 5

Oak28 measured three-phase relative permeabilities in a
core treated with silanes to alter its wettability. Interpretation
is difficult because the three-phase oil relative permeability
lies below the two-phase data near the end points, even though
the displacement began at the end of a two-phase experiment.
Baker38 reviewed all the Amoco data, totaling around
3,000 measurements, including results from two oil-wet field
cores. The water relative permeability was a function of water
saturation only for water-wet media, and showed little
hysteresis. In intermediate-wet and oil-wet systems, the water
relative permeability showed some hysteresis and was a
function of two saturations, but could be successfully
predicted using saturation-weighed interpolation. For the oil
phase, saturation-weighted interpolation also gave accurate
predictions. Stone’s models, in contrast, did poorly for oil-wet
and intermediate-wet media. The oil relative permeability was
a function of two saturations and was a function of saturation
path. The gas relative permeability was a function only of gas
saturation, but displayed strong hysteresis and appeared to be
insensitive to wettability changes. However, there was some
evidence that in oil-wet media, the gas relative permeability
did depend on two saturations.
Stanford Group. Sahni et al.39 used a CT scanner to image
three-phase saturation distributions during gravity drainage in
water-wet media. The relative permeabilities for oil and water
were obtained directly from the saturations, assuming that the
pressure gradient in the gas (air) was negligible and using
capillary pressures measured in analogue experiments. For a
given fluid system, the oil relative permeability was a function
of its own saturation only and independent of initial condition.
For spreading oils (Cso close to zero), the oil saturation
dropped to 1% or lower after several weeks of drainage and
kro ∝ So2. For non-spreading oils (Cso < 0), there was trapping
of oil. They did not measure the two-phase oil/water relative
permeabilities.
DiCarlo et al.40 extended this work to study the effect of
wettability by using sand packs with different amounts of oil-
wet and water-wet grains mixed together. For a fully oil-wet
system, the oil phase relative permeability (here the most
wetting phase) resembled the water relative permeability for a
water-wet system. However, the behavior of the intermediate-
wet fluid was very different. Water does not spread on oil,
and so the water relative permeability in an oil-wet system
resembled non-spreading oil in a water-wet medium. Gas
relative permeabilities were measured in analogue
experiments. The gas relative permeability was higher for
water-wet packs than oil-wet packs at the same gas saturation.
In an oil-wet medium, gas was not necessarily the most non-
wetting phase. Gas/water contact angles of over 100o were
measured, indicating that water was more non-wetting than
gas. They also showed that for oil-wet media, the gas relative
permeability was a function of both its own saturation and the
amount of oil and water present.

Reference Materials Type of displacement Irreducible oil kro ∝ So2? kro function
saturation of:
Kalaydjian et al (1993)29 Water-wet sandstone Steady and unsteady 0.1 – 0.31 No
state
Vizika and Lombard Sandpacks, various Gravity drainage 0.11 - 0.23 No
(1996)30 wettabilities
Skauge et al (1994)32 Water-wet sandstone Gravity drainage 0.16-0.4
Eleri et al (1995)33 Water-wet sandstone Steady and unsteady 0.12 - 0.20
state
Nordvedt et al (1996)34 Water-wet chalk Unsteady state
Grader and O’Meara Water-wet bead pack Unsteady state Tending to zero Yes So only
(1988)35
Naylor et al (1995)36 Water-wet sandstone Unsteady state Tending to zero Yes So only
Goodyear and Jones Water-wet sandstone Unsteady state Tending to zero Yes
(1995)37
Oak et al (1990)4 Water-wet sandstone Steady state Tending to zero Yes So and Sw
Oak (1990)5 Water-wet sandstone Steady state Tending to zero Yes if oil not So and Sw
trapped
Oak (1991)28 Intermediate-wet Steady state No So and Sw
sandstone
Baker (1993)38 Sandstones, various Steady state Tending to zero Yes if oil not So and Sw
wettabilities trapped
Jerauld (1996)22,41 Mixed-wet sandstone Various 0 – 0.35 No So and Sw
Sahni et al (1998)39 Water-wet sandpacks Gravity drainage 0.1 – 0.01 Yes So only
and sandstone Tending to zero
DiCarlo et al (1998)40 Sandpacks, various Gravity drainage 0.1 – 0.01 Yes if water-wet So only
wettabilities Tending to zero

Table 1• Summary of three-phase flow experiments published in 1988 or later. Blanks in the table indicate that the information cannot be
obtained from the papers.
6 M.J. BLUNT
1 We see two exceptions to quadratic oil relative
Oil relative permeability
0.1
0.01
kro =0.025 So
2 correct functional form of the relative permeability at low
0.001
0.0001
0.1
Oil saturation
Fig. 2.• Oil relative permeabilities for a water-wet sandstone from
Oak et al.4 The points represent three-phase data at various
gas/water injection ratios. The solid line is the two-phase
oil/water data, while the dashed line is for gas injection into oil
and connate water. The line showing a quadratic fit to the data at
low saturation indicates a possible oil layer drainage regime.
Arco Studies. Jerauld22,41 presented an detailed study of
three-phase relative permeability for Prudhoe Bay, a mixed-
wet sandstone reservoir. An empirical model that accounted
for wettability, compositional effects, different saturation
paths and the trapping of oil and gas was developed that
successfully matched the extensive data collected. This model
will be discussed in more detail later.
Overview. There are a number of features of these
experiments that are not captured in current empirical models.
For water-wet media, the oil relative permeability
extrapolates to zero irreducible oil saturation for most of the
experiments analyzed. This has been confirmed by other
experiments that have found remaining oil saturations as low
as 0.1% in water-wet media.42,43 For oil saturations below
approximately So = Sorw we see kro ∝ So2. This quadratic
behavior is illustrated in Fig. 2 for the Oak et al.4 data.
Several other more convincing examples are provided in the
papers listed in Table 1, and the results are summarized in
Fenwick and Blunt.16 The theoretical explanation16,39 is that
oil resides in crevices in the pore space, between water next to
the solid surface and gas in the center of the pores. The oil
saturation is proportional to the area occupied by this oil layer.
The hydrodynamic conductance, and hence relative
permeability, is proportional to the oil area squared, leading to
kro ∝ So2. This suggests a simple way to extrapolate the oil
relative permeability to saturations lower than achieved in an
SPE 56474
experiment, without resorting to an artificial cut-off in oil
saturation.
permeability in water-wet media. The first is when low gas
saturations are injected into waterflood residual oil.5 In this
case gas does not contact all the trapped oil. We show later
how to account for this. The other exception is for non-
spreading oil, when oil layers are not present throughout the
system and oil can be trapped.16
Stone’s I model allows for a residual oil saturation that is
normally taken to be the lowest oil saturation measured during
an experiment. We have suggested here that this may be ill
advised and that a zero residual is more appropriate for gas
injection. Furthermore, an empirical model should capture the
saturation. Unfortunately, the Stone model does not do this.
Balbinski et al.44 showed that Eq. (1) gives kro ∝ So-Som near
Som. Thus Stone I will tend to overestimate the oil relative
permeability at low oil saturations away from Som as noted by
previous authors.3,7 In contrast, Stone’s model II can give
residual oil saturations that are larger than Sorw or Sorg, which
1 means that the values lie outside a monotonic extrapolation of
the two-phase values (see, for instance Fig. 1 of Ref. 27). This
tends to underestimate the oil relative permeability at low oil
saturation.
For modeling gas injection processes where low oil
saturations may be reached, or for contaminant clean-up and
transport applications, the correct modeling of the oil relative
permeability at low saturations is particularly important. Both
of Stone’s models make systematic errors.
Stone extended his model to oil-wet media by making
three assumptions:1 (1) the oil relative permeability is the same
as the water relative permeability in a water-wet system; (2)
the water relative permeability is the same as the oil relative
permeability for a water-wet medium; and (3) gas remains the
most non-wetting phase and is unaffected by wettability
changes. DiCarlo et al.40 showed that only assumption (1) is
correct. Water in oil-wet media does not show a layer
drainage regime and there considerable water trapping. The
gas relative permeability is a function of both gas and oil
saturations.
In some of the experiments reviewed here35-37,40,41 the oil
relative permeability was a function only of its own saturation,
was independent of initial condition, and was similar to the
relative permeability measured for gas/oil displacements with
connate water present. This implies that in the absence of any
oil/water data, a simple idea is to use the gas/oil data for the
whole three-phase region.
Model Development
We will now develop an empirical model for three-phase
relative permeability. We will do this in stages, which allows
different amounts of experimental data to be incorporated.
The steps are as follows: (1) the base model (saturation-
weighted interpolation); (2) layer drainage; (3) trapping and
different saturation paths; and (4) capillary number
dependence and compositional consistency.
SPE 56474 AN EMPIRICAL MODEL FOR THREE-PHASE RELATIVE PERMEABILITY
Base Model. Eqs. (8), (9) and (10) are used to find the three-
phase relative permeabilities for oil, water and gas. To do this
six relative permeabilities from three experiments need to be
measured: krw(o) and kro(w) from an oil/water displacement at a
remaining gas saturation Sgr (usually Sgr = 0); kro(g) and krg(o)
from a gas/oil displacement at an irreducible water saturation
Swi; and krg(w) and krw(g) from a gas/water displacement at an
irreducible oil saturation Soi (usually Soi = 0). If the full curves
are missing, empirical fits to, for instance, a power-law or
Corey-type form can be made.8 If some of the data are
missing, then for a water-wet medium, it can be assumed that
krw(g) = krw(o) and krg(w) = krg(o). For an oil-wet medium, kro(w) =
kro(g). If there is no oil/water data, it may be possible to take
kro(w) = kro(g). However, it is not safe to assume that the gas is
always the most non-wetting phase and krg(w) = krg(o) unless the
system is water-wet.
Hustad and Hansen23 also applied saturation-weighted
interpolation to all three phases. They normalized the
saturations to allow irreducible saturations that varied linearly
between their two-phase values. We do not do this, but
instead account for trapping separately.
Layer Drainage. While the literature review above suggested
that at low saturation the oil relative permeability had a
characteristic quadratic form for water-wet media and
spreading oils, many laboratory experiments never reach these
low oil saturations, because of the time or capillary pressure
required. However, lower saturations may be reached in the
reservoir during gas injection. A possible approach to this
problem is to extrapolate the measured oil relative
permeability to low saturation assuming layer drainage.
In the layer drainage model, the oil saturation is written as
a sum of two components: bulk oil Sob and oil in layers, Sol:
S o = S ob + S ol ………………………………………...(12)
Fig. 3 shows a schematic of the oil relative permeability
measured for a gas/oil displacement, kro(g). So* marks the
beginning of the layer drainage regime and kro(g)* is the
corresponding oil relative permeability. However, the
experimental data may not indicate layer drainage, since
sufficiently low oil saturations have not been reached. In this
case So* may be assumed to be the lowest oil saturation
reached in the experiment. Alternatively So* can be taken to
be Sorw (the waterflood residual oil saturation) which is
theoretically the point at which layer drainage becomes
significant.39
Oil layers reside between water nearest the solid surface
and gas in the centers of the pore space.16 No oil layers are
present in regions of the pore space containing just oil and
water. The higher the gas saturation, the greater the amount of
oil in layers. Thus we find Sol as follows:
 S g S o* 
S ol = Min  * , S o  …...…………………………...(13)
 S g 
where Sg* is the gas saturation when So = So*, at which point it
is assumed all the oil resides in layers.
7
The contribution to the relative permeability from layers
should vary as Sol2. We assume that it is also proportional to
the gas relative permeability, since, if all the gas is trapped,
then the oil layers are not connected either and cannot flow.
Hence we find:
*
k rg k ro (g)
k ol = * *2
S ol2 …………………………………...(14)
k rg (o ) S ol
krg(o)* is the gas relative permeability when Sg = Sg*.
The difference between the measured oil relative
permeability and kol from Eq. (14) is the contribution to the oil
relative permeability due to bulk oil that fills the centers of the
pore space, kob:
k ob ( S o − S ol ) = k ro ( g ) ( S o ) − k ol ( S ol ) …………………(15)
Using the measured data, kro(g)(So), Eqs. (12)-(15) are used
to tabulate kob(Sob). This is shown schematically in Fig. 3.
Note that for So > So*, Sol = Sg So* / Sg*, and decreases with
increasing oil saturation, and thus kol also decreases.
Most reservoir rocks are not strongly water-wet, and the
spreading coefficient of the oil is rarely known with any
certainty. Our suggestion is to allow a layer drainage regime
for a rock that spontaneously imbibes some water, meaning
that the Amott wettability index45 for water Aw is greater than
zero and to assume, unless there is evidence to the contrary,
that the reservoir oil is spreading.
Measured data
Log(kro(g))
kro(g)(So)
Contribution
from layer
drainage
kro(g)* kob(Sob)
kol(Sol)
So* Log(So)
Fig. 3.• Schematic of the oil relative permeability for gas injection
into oil and irreducible water. kro is extrapolated to low oil
saturation assuming a layer drainage regime. The difference
between the layer relative permeability kol and the measured oil
relative permeability kro(g) is the contribution from bulk oil kob.
8 M.J. BLUNT
Trapping and Different Saturation Paths. The two-phase
relative permeabilities used in a three-phase model are
normally measured for just a single displacement: generally
primary drainage of gas for krg(o) and kro(g), and secondary
water injection for kro(w) and krw(o). However, many three-
phase displacements involve saturation changes that were not
explored in the two-phase measurements. In theory two-phase
data for all possible initial conditions could be performed, as
suggested by Stone,1 and the appropriate two-phase relative
permeabilities used in the three-phase model. In reality this is
rarely, if ever, done. Furthermore, Oak5 showed that such an
approach is not reliable, because three-phase displacements
explore saturation paths that cannot be described in terms of
their two-phase limits alone. Instead a simpler, more robust
method is required that uses relative permeabilities for only
one gas/oil, oil/water, and gas/water displacement.
To accommodate any saturation history the relative
permeabilities are written as functions of a flowing saturation
Sf, where it is assumed that using this functionality gives
relative permeabilities that are independent of saturation
path.25 The overall saturation is the sum of flowing and
trapped fractions: S = Sf + St.
First consider a water-wet medium. Gas is trapped by both
oil and water. Land24 proposed that the amount of gas that can
be trapped is related to the maximum gas saturation reached
during the displacement.
S gmax
S gr = ……………………………………..(16)
1 + C g S gmax
where Sgr is the amount of gas that can be trapped, Sgmax is the
maximum gas saturation, and Cg is the Land trapping constant.
Cg is normally found from the residual gas saturation to
waterflooding, Sgrw. At the beginning of waterflooding the gas
saturation is some high value, Sgmax and from Eq. (16) we find:
Cg =
1
−
1
……………………………………(17)
S grw S gmax
The flowing gas saturation is:24
1
S gf =
2
(
 S g − S gr + ) (S g − S gr )2 + C4 (S g − S gr ) (18)
 g
During primary drainage the gas saturation is the same as
the flowing saturation, and thus we can find krg(w)(Sgf) from gas
injection into water and krg(o)(Sgf) for gas invasion into oil (and
irreducible water). However, for displacements where the
water and/or oil saturations are increasing, gas may be trapped
and Eqs. (16) and (18) can be used to find the flowing gas
saturation, against which the relative permeabilities are
tabulated.
To predict relative permeability in a three-phase
displacement, the largest gas saturation saturation, Sgmax ever
reached is recorded. Eq. (16) is used to find Sgr, and Eq. (18)
gives the flowing gas saturation, and hence the relative
permeabilities can be found. If a new maximum gas saturation
is reached, then Eq. (16) is used to recompute Sgr.
SPE 56474
The advantage of this approach is that from two-phase
measurements and a single waterflood residual value to find
Cg, the gas relative permeability for any displacement path in
three-phase flow can be found. The disadvantage is that this
empirical method may not give accurate results. For instance,
Jerauld22 showed that the Land24 model gave poor predictions
for gas trapping in Prudhoe Bay cores. Instead, he proposed a
generalized form of the Land model that more accurately
matched the data. Furthermore, our model assumes that the
same amount of gas is trapped by water, as by oil. If the
system is not water-wet this may not be true, and extensions to
the model may need to be considered.
In a water-wet system we assume that oil is trapped by
water, but not by gas. We can account for this by considering
the trapping of hydrocarbon (oil+gas) by water using a Land
model. The amount of oil trapped is the difference between
the trapped hydrocarbon saturation, and the trapped gas
saturation. The residual hydrocarbon saturation Shr is found
from:
S hmax
S hr = ……………………………………..(19)
1 + C h S hmax
where Shmax is the largest hydrocarbon saturation reached
during the displacement – Shmax = Max(So + Sg). Ch, the Land
trapping constant = Min(Co, Cg), where Co is the trapping
constant for oil. For strongly water-wet media, you can
assume that Ch = Cg = Co.
The flowing hydrocarbon saturation is:
1 
(S h − S hr ) + (S h − S hr )2 + (S h − S hr ) .(20)
4
S hf =
2  Ch 
The flowing oil saturation is Shf minus the flowing gas
saturation, and the contribution due to oil layers. This is the
bulk flowing oil:
( ( ))
S ofb = Min S o − S ol , Max S hf − S gf − S ol ,0 …...……(21)
where Sgf is found from Eq. (18) and Sol from Eq. (13).
kro(w) and kro(g) are recorded as functions of Sofb. If kro(w)(So)
is measured for primary drainage, then for this experiment Sofb

= So. For a secondary displacement, Eqs (19)-(21) with Sol =
 Sgf = 0 are used to find Sof. This model assumes that gas does
not trap oil, and thus if kro(g)(So) is measured for gas invasion
into oil and irreducible water, Sofb = So - Sol.
Conceptually the oil saturation has three components. The
first is trapped oil that does not flow. The second is oil in
layers. Its contribution to the relative permeability is given by
Eq. (14). At low oil saturations, all the oil is flowing in layers
(we call this the layer drainage regime). At higher saturations,
the amount of oil in layers is some fraction of the gas
saturation, Eq. (13). The third component is flowing, bulk oil
that occupies the centers of the pore space. The three-phase
kro is found from saturation-weighted interpolation between
kro(w)(Sofb) and kro(g)(Sofb), Eq. (8), and then kol is added to the
result.
This model predicts that the sum of trapped oil and gas
saturations is constant, and depends only on the maximum
SPE 56474 AN EMPIRICAL MODEL FOR THREE-PHASE RELATIVE PERMEABILITY 9

oil+gas saturation reached during the displacement. However, permeability is the same for gas/water and oil/water
for systems that are not strongly water-wet, this may not be the displacements.
case. Jerauld22 found that the residual oil saturation was However, Eqs. (22)-(26) do not ensure that the oil and gas
approximately independent of trapped gas, and that the sum of relative permeabilities have the correct form as miscibility is
trapped oil and gas increased linearly with Sorw. In such cases, approached. At miscibility, the oil and gas flow as a single
oil trapping could be treated independently from gas, using a phase, with no trapping, and the hydrocarbon relative
Land-type treatment (Eqs. (16)-(18) with the subscript ‘g’ permeabilities are:22
replaced by ‘o’), or a generalization that matches the data.22
Si
Water trapping, in oil-wet systems, could also be treated k ri = k rh( w) ( S hf ) ………………….……………...(27)
using the methodology here. The water relative permeabiliites Sh
could be recorded as functions of the flowing water saturation.
Shf is the flowing hydrocarbon (oil+gas) saturation (given by
If it is assumed that both gas and oil can trap water, then a
Eq. (20) for a water-wet system). krh is a hydrocarbon/water
Land treatment for water could be attempted, using Eqs. (16)-
relative permeability that is the same whether oil or gas is
(18) with the subscript ‘g’ replaced by ‘w’ for water.
being considered. Eq. (27) is only valid in a small region near
the critical point – typically for capillary numbers higher than
Capillary Number Dependence and Compositional
approximately 10-4, or gas/oil interfacial tensions around 10-5 –
Consistency. The properties of the oil and gas phases can
10-4 N/m.4,20
vary continually as the pressure and composition of the
A possible formulation for near-miscible flow that obeys
hydrocarbon varies in the reservoir. The relative
Eq. (27) as the gas/oil interfacial tension tends to zero is:
permeabilities should also vary smoothly from oil-like to gas-
like with composition. To ensure this, hydrocarbon relative Si c
permeabilities are computed as a compositionally weighted k rim( w) = αk ric ( w) ( S i ) + β k ri ( w) ( S h ) ………..…….…(28)
Sh
average of the oil and gas values. Jerauld22 suggested using a
parachor weighted molar density to interpolate hydrocarbon
Si c
properties. We propose here a simpler approach that uses k rim( j ) = αk ric ( j ) ( S i ) + β k ri ( w) ( S h ) ………………...(29)
phase densities. Sh
Define ρo0 as the oil density at some reference pressure, The subscript m implies both compositional consistency and a
temperature and composition (for instance the values when the
two-phase relative permeability measurements were taken). correction for near-miscible flow. k ric ( w) and k ric ( j ) are found
ρg0 is the reference gas density and ∆ρ0 is the reference density from Eqs. (24) and (26) respectively. The weighting factors α
difference between oil and gas. In a compositional simulation and β are:
imagine that we have a hydrocarbon phase of density ρi, where
  γ go  
i labels either an oil or a gas phase. We define the less dense 
phase as gas, and the denser phase as oil. The degree of “oil- α = Max Min  crit ,1,0 …………………………….(30)
  γ go  
ness” of the phase is defined as: 
  ρi − ρ g0  
a i = Max Min  ,1,0 ……………………....(22)   γ go
crit
− γ go  

  ∆ρ 0   β = Max Min  ,1,0 ………………….….(31)
  γ go crit
 

while the “gas-ness” is:
An appropriate critical gas/oil interfacial tension, γgocrit is
  ρ − ρi   typically around 10-5 to 10-4 N/m.
bi = Max Min  o 0 ,1,0 ……...…………….….(23)
  ∆ρ 0   k rim( w) and k rim( j ) are used in saturation-weighted
The hydrocarbon and water relative permeabilities are: interpolation – Eqs. (8) and (10) – to find the three-phase
c
relative permeabilities for oil and gas. k rw (i ) in Eq. (25) is
k ric ( w) = a i k ro ( w) + bi k rg ( w) ………..…………...…...….(24)
used in Eq. (9) to find the three-phase water relative
permeability.
(i ) = a i k rw (o ) + bi k rw( g ) ……………………….....…(25)
c
k rw In compositional simulations near the critical point, the oil
and gas saturations can change rapidly due to mass transfer
k ric ( j ) = a i k ro ( g ) + bi k rg ( o ) ………………………......…(26) between phases. The predicted amount of oil and gas trapping
is based on saturation changes due to displacement. As a
The superscript c implies compositional consistency, while j consequence, the estimated amounts of oil and gas trapped
labels the other hydrocarbon phase. This formulation ensures may be inaccurate.
that the relative permeabilities vary smoothly with Before showing the final forms of the equations for three-
composition. At miscibility (ρi = ρg = ρo), the oil and gas phase relative permeability, we will review the procedure.
relative permeabilities are the same, and the water relative
10 M.J. BLUNT SPE 56474

Recap of the Procedure [

(S w − S wi ) a g k ro ( w) ( S gf ) + b g k rg ( w) ( S gf )  ]
To recap and clarify, the procedure is as follows.
1. Obtain six relative permeabilities from three two-phase

[ ]
+ (S o − S oi ) a g k ob ( S gf ) + b g k rg ( o ) ( S gf ) 

k rg =α
experiments: krw(o) and kro(w) from an oil/water (S w − S wi ) + (S o − S oi )
displacement; kro(g) and krg(o) from a gas/oil displacement at
irreducible water saturation Swi; and krg(w) and krw(g) from a +β
Sg
So + S g
(a g k ro( w) (S hf ) + b g k rg ( w) ( S hf )) .(34)
gas/water displacement.
2. If the medium is water-wet (the Amott water index Aw > 0)
and oil is spreading, then consider layer drainage. If not,
skip this step. Obtain a bulk oil relative permeability kob ao and ag are found from Eq. (22), bo and bg from Eq. (23),
from Eqs. (14) and (15). Sob = So – Sol and Sol is given by α from Eq. (30) and β from Eq. (31).
Eq. (13), using relative permeabilities and saturations
measured at the end of the two-phase gas/oil displacement. The three-phase relative permeabilities are weighted sums
3. Include trapping by recording the two-phase relative of two-phase values: saturation-weighting is used between the
permeabilities as functions of the flowing saturation. A two-phase end points, while an interpolation between oil and
Land-type model for water-wet media was proposed for gas properties is used to ensure compositional consistency.
gas and oil trapping – Eqs. (16)-(21). Alternatively The different parameters used to develop this model are given
modified Land equations could be used, or the trapping of in Table 2.
gas, oil and water can be treated separately. At this stage it
is possible to compute the six two-phase relative Parameter Meaning How measured
permeabilities as functions of appropriate flowing kro(w) Oil relative permeability Core tests.
saturations for any displacement path: krw(o)(Swf) and for an oil/water
displacement.
krw(g)(Swf) (Sw = Swf if water trapping is ignored); kro(w)(Sofb), kro(g) Oil relative permeability Core tests.
kob(Sofb) and kol(Sol) (if layer drainage is ignored, Sofb = Sof for gas invasion into oil
and Sol = kol = 0); and krg(o)(Sgf) and krg(w)(Sgf). and irreducible water.
4. Weighting factors are used to ensure smooth changes in krw(o) Water relative Core tests.
relative permeability with composition and to give permeability for an
oil/water displacement.
appropriate limits to the relative permeabilities at krw(g) Water relative Core tests.
miscibility. Combined with saturation-weighted permeability for a
interpolation, this leads to the following equations for the gas/water displacement.
three-phase relative permeabilities: krg(w) Gas relative permeability Core tests.
for a gas/water
displacement.
[ ( )]
 a o (S o − S oi ) + a g S g − S gr k rw( o ) ( S wf )  krg(o) Gas relative permeability Core tests.

[ )]
for gas invasion into oil

(
+ bo (S o − S oi ) + b g S g − S gr k rw( g ) ( S wf )
 and irreducible water.
=
( )
k rw ...(32) So* Oil saturation for layer From gas/oil displacement.
(S o − S oi ) + S g − S gr drainage regime.
Sg* Gas saturation when So From gas/oil displacement.
= So*.
kro(g)* Oil relative permeability From gas/oil displacement.
when So = So*.

[ ]
krg(o)* Gas relative permeability From gas/oil displacement.
(S w − S wi ) a o k ro ( w) ( S ofb ) + bo k rg ( w) ( S ofb )  when Sg = Sg*.

( )[
+ S g − S gr a o k ob ( S ofb ) + bo k rg ( o ) ( S ofb ) 

] Cg Land trapping constant Waterflood residual gas.

=α 
for gas.
k ro
(S w − S wi ) + S g − S gr( ) Ch Land trapping constant
for hydrocarbon.
Waterflood residual oil or
gas.
+ αk ol ( S ol ) (33) γgocrit Critical gas/oil interfacial Estimated from capillary
tension for near-miscible desaturation experiments.

+β
So
So + S g
(
a o k ro ( w) ( S hf ) + bo k rg ( w) ( S hf ) ) ρo0
flow.
Reference oil density. From phase behavior
calculations or core
measurements.
ρg0 Reference gas density. From phase behavior
calculations or core
measurements.

Table 2• Parameters used in the three-phase relative permeability

model.
SPE 56474 AN EMPIRICAL MODEL FOR THREE-PHASE RELATIVE PERMEABILITY
All the features of the model do not always have to be
used. For instance, for a black-oil simulation of an oil-wet
system, layer drainage may be ignored, and compositional
effects neglected, so that in Eqs. (32)-(34) α = 1, β = 0, ao = bg
= 1, ag = bo = 0 and kol = 0.
Test Problem
We will now test the model against the three-phase data from
Oak and co-workers.4,5 They performed a series of
experiments on three water-wet Berea cores. We will predict
the three-phase oil relative permeability. Using the procedure
in the previous section, the steps are:
1. kro(w) is found from a primary drainage displacement of
water by oil – Fig. 4 of Ref. 5. kro(g) comes from a gas/oil
primary drainage displacement at connate water saturation
Swi = 0.2, also plotted in Fig. 4 of Ref. 5.
2. To assess the effect of including layer drainage, we make
predictions both including and ignoring layers. If we
account for layers, Fig. 2 indicates So* = 0.2, where Sg* =
0.6, krg* = 0.6 and kro* = 0.01. From Eq. (13) we find Sol =
Min (So, Sg/3) and from Eq. (14) kol = krg(Sg) Sol2 / 24.
3. In one series of experiments an initial saturation of oil and
water was established by primary drainage and then gas
was injected. Neither oil nor gas were trapped: Sgf = Sg and
Sofb = So – Sol. In other experiments, the initial oil and
water saturations were established by waterflooding
(imbibition) and then gas was injected. Again gas is not
trapped, but some oil is trapped at the beginning of gas
injection and becomes reconnected as the gas saturation
increases. To predict the amount of oil trapping we use
our Land-type model. The measured waterflood residual
oil and gas saturations of 0.37 with Shmax = 0.8 are used to
find Ch = Cg = 1.453 from Eq. (17). In the three-phase
displacements Shmax = 0.8 also (the oil saturation at the end
of two-phase primary drainage of oil into water, before
waterflooding and gas injection) and so from Eq. (19) Shr =
0.37 regardless of gas saturation. Eqs. (20) and (21) are
then used to find Sofb. From the two-phase data we tabulate
kro(w) as a function of Sofb ( = So for two-phase oil/water
primary drainage). kob is also tabulated as a function of
Sofb. If we ignore layers, Sol = 0 and kob(Sofb) = kro(g)(So)
where So = Sofb for gas/oil primary drainage. If we include
layers, then for the two-phase gas/oil displacement, Sol =
Min (So, Sg/3) = Min (So, (0.8 - So)/3). Then Sofb = So - Sol =
Max (0, 4/3 (So – 0.2)) and kob(Sofb) = kro(g)(So) - krg(o)(Sg)
× Sol2 / 24. If Sofb = 0, kob = 0.
4. Compositional effects are ignored and so Eq. (33) with α =
1, β = 0, ao = 1, and bo = 0 is used to find kro for three-
phase displacements.
Fig. 4 shows the predicted and measured results for
primary gas injection where no oil or gas is trapped.
Predictions are made for oil and gas saturations that span the
range probed experimentally. For a given oil saturation kro
decreases with increasing gas saturation. Unfortunately, from
information in Refs. 4 and 5 it is not possible to compare
predictions and data on a point-by-point basis.
11
The predictions ignoring layers are the same as saturation-
weighted interpolation, Eq. (8), with no corrections and lie
between the two-phase curves kro(w) and kro(g). kro(w) is 2 to 200
times larger than kro(g) at the same oil saturation. This means
that unless Sw is very close to Swi, saturation-weighted
interpolation will tend to predict kro close to kro(w), since kro(w)
dominates the weighted sum of the relative permeabilities. In
contrast, the experimental points, albeit with considerable
scatter, seem lie around the kro(g), and some points, at low oil
saturations, lie below kro(g). Thus saturation-weighted
interpolation alone systematically over-estimates kro. Stone’s
models I and II make even poorer predictions for this data.5
1
Oil relative permeability
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Oil saturation
Fig. 4.• Three-phase oil relative permeabilities for primary gas
injection from Oak.5 The points are experimental measurements.
The crosses are predictions using saturation-weighted
interpolation. The circles use saturation-weighted interpolation
including layer drainage. The solid line is the two-phase oil/water
data, while the dashed line is for gas injection into oil and connate
water.
Allowing for oil layers gives better predictions by
estimating lower values of kro at low So than saturation-
weighted interpolation alone. At moderate gas saturations, the
amount of oil in layers, Sg/3, is significant. The contribution
to kro from layers is, however, negligible (around 10-5 to 10-4).
It is as though the oil in layers do not contribute to flow. kro(w)
used in saturation-weighting is taken at a lower oil saturation
than So, as the contribution of layers is removed. Since kro(w)
can dominate kro, this effect is significant. The consequence is
that the predicted values of kro tend to cluster closer to kro(g),
and for So • 0.2, where Sofb is close to or equal to zero, very
low values of kro can be predicted – indeed some values may
lie below kro(g), as seen in Fig. 4.
12 M.J. BLUNT SPE 56474

While layer drainage does indeed allow oil to drain to zero and layer drainage improved the predictions over using
saturation, the corresponding relative permeabilities are very saturation-weighted interpolation alone.
small. In fact, the most significant effect of layers is to take
saturation away from the bulk oil, and thus reduce the
predicted kro at low to moderate oil saturations. While the 1
experimental data appears to support the layer model, there are
some problems. First, the model does not capture the full
range of the experimental points. Second, the huge scatter in
the data makes definitive conclusions difficult. Third, the

Oil relative permeability

choice of So* is somewhat arbitrary. We took a value from 0.1
Fig. 2, which shows the results from one of just three cores,
while Fig. 4 shows all the measurements. Careful inspection
of Figs. 2 and 4 reveal some significant discrepancies in the
reported two and three-phase data. Predictions were made 0.01
using other values of So* in the range 0.1 (the lowest oil
saturation recorded) – 0.2 (higher values are not justified by
the data). The predicted values of kro lie between those shown
in Fig. 4 and saturation-weighted interpolation alone. The
conclusion here is to suggest that including layer drainage 0.001
with plausible values for So* will improve the predictions of
kro at low to moderate oil saturations.
Fig. 5 compares experimental results and predictions for
gas injection into water and oil saturations established after 0.0001
waterflooding. Here oil is trapped, and this effect is clearly 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
seen with the experimental values of kro below kro(g) for low oil
saturation and kro tending to zero for So around 0.2. Once Oil saturation
again ignoring layers (but allowing trapping) over-estimates
kro. Our model with layers does a reasonable job, but also Fig. 5.• Three-phase oil relative permeabilities for gas injection
tends to over-estimate kro. We may under-estimate the amount after waterflooding from Oak.5 The points are experimental
measurements. The crosses are predictions using saturation-
of oil that is trapped in the presence of water and gas. weighted interpolation accounting for oil trapping. The circles
Oak in his analysis was unable to reconcile the differences use saturation-weighted interpolation including layer drainage
between Figs. 4 and 5. The predictions of this model, and oil trapping. The solid line is the two-phase oil/water data,
including trapping and layer drainage give good results, and while the dashed line is for gas injection into oil and connate
water.
are able to explain the differences between primary and
secondary displacements.
Nomenclature
While this test of the model was promising, further work is
Aw = Amott wettability index for water.
needed to test all the features thoroughly. Some aspects of the
a= degree of oil-ness, Eq. (23).
model have not been explored, namely the effects of
b= degree of gas-ness, Eq. (24).
wettability, gas trapping and compositional consistency. The
Cg = Land trapping constant for gas.
inclusion of capillary pressure will be the subject of further
Ch = Land trapping constant for hydrocarbon.
research.
Co = Land trapping constant for oil.
Cso = oil spreading coefficient, F/L, N/m.
Conclusions
kob = bulk oil relative permeability.
We have presented a new empirical model for three-phase
kol = oil relative permeability from layers.
relative permeability. Previous reviews of the literature have
kr = relative permeability.
shown that a model based on saturation-weighted interpolation
krg = three-phase gas relative permeability.
of two-phase relative permeabilities, first suggested by Baker,3
kro = three-phase oil relative permeability.
was superior to other methods, such as Stone’s models I and
krw = three-phase water relative permeability.
II.1,2 We extended saturation-weighted interpolation to
krg(o) = two-phase gas relative permeability for gas
account for trapping of oil and gas and to allow oil layer
injection into oil (and irreducible water).
drainage. We also introduced compositional consistency to
krg(o)* = krg(o) when layer drainage regime starts.
account for miscible and near-miscible flows. From a single
kro(g) = two-phase oil relative permeability for gas injection
set of two-phase oil/water, gas/water and gas/oil
into oil (and irreducible water).
measurements we can predict three-phase relative
kro(g)* = kro(g) when layer drainage regime starts.
permeabilities for any saturation path, reservoir wettability and
krw(g) = two-phase water relative permeability for gas
hydrocarbon composition.
injection into water.
We tested the model against three-phase data on water-wet
Berea cores4,5 and showed that the inclusion of oil trapping
SPE 56474 AN EMPIRICAL MODEL FOR THREE-PHASE RELATIVE PERMEABILITY 13

krg(w) = two-phase gas relative permeability for gas and the Department of Trade and Industry) for financial
injection into water. support.
kro(w) = two-phase oil relative permeability for oil/water
displacement. References
krw(o) = two-phase water relative permeability for oil/water 1. Stone, H. L.: “Probability Model for Estimating Three-Phase
displacement. Relative Permeability,” Journal of Petroleum Technology, 214-
S = saturation. 218, February 1970.
Sg = gas saturation. 2. Stone, H. L., “Estimation of Three-Phase Relative Permeability
Sgf = flowing gas saturation. and Residual Oil Data,” Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Sgr = residual or initial gas saturation. Technology, 53-61, 1973.
Sg* = gas saturation when layer drainage regime starts. 3. Baker, L. E.: “Three-Phase Relative Permeability Correlations,”
So = oil saturation. SPE 17369 proceedings of the SPE/DOE Symposium on
Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK April 17-20, 1988.
Sof = flowing oil saturation. 4. Oak, M. J., Baker, L. E., and Thomas, D. C.: “Three-phase
Sob = bulk oil saturation. Relative Permeability of Berea Sandstone,” Journal of
Sol = oil saturation in layers. Petroleum Technology, 42:1057-1061, August 1990.
Sofb = flowing bulk oil saturation. 5. Oak, M. J.: “Three-Phase Relative Permeability of Water-Wet
Som= residual oil saturation in three-phase flow (Stone I). Berea Sandstone,” SPE 20183 proceedings of the SPE/DOE
Soi = initial oil saturation. Seventh Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa OK,
Sor = residual oil saturation. April 22-25, 1990.
So* = oil saturation when layer drainage regime starts. 6. Dullien, F. A. L.: “Porous Media: Fluid Transport and Pore
Sw = water saturation. Structure,” Academic Press, San Diego, Second Edition, 1992.
7. Fayers, F. J., and Matthews, J. D.,: “Evaluation of Normalized
Swf = flowing water saturation. Stone’s Methods for Estimating Three-phase Relative
Swi = initial water saturation. Permeabilities,” SPE Journal, 20:224-232, 1984.
α = miscibility weighting factor, Eq. (30). 8. Delshad, M., and Pope, G. A.: “Comparison of the Three-phase
β = miscibility weighting factor, Eq. (31). Oil Relative Permeability Models,” Transport in Porous Media,
λ = weighting factor for residual oil, Eq. (6). 4:59-83, 1989.
γ = interfacial tension, F/L, N/m. 9. Øren, P.-E., Billiote, J., and Pinczewski, W. V.: “Mobilization
of Waterflood Residual Oil by Gas Injection for Water-Wet
ρ = density, M/L3, kg/m3. Conditions,” SPE Formation Evaluation, 7:70-78, March 1992.
∆ρ0 = reference density difference, M/L3, kg/m3. 10. Øren, P.-E., and Pinczewski, W. V.: “Fluid Distribution and
Subscripts Pore Scale Displacement Mechanisms in Drainage Dominated
b = bulk Three-phase Flow,” Transport in Porous Media, 20:105-133,
e = effective. 1995.
f = flowing. 11. Soll, W. E., Celia, M. A., and Wilson, J. L., “Micromodel
g = gas. Studies of Three-Fluid Porous Media Systems: Pore-Scale
(g) = in the presence of gas. processes Relating to Capillary Pressure - Saturation
Relationships,” Water Resources Research, 29(9):2963-2974,
h = hydrocarbon (oil+gas).
1993.
i = oil or gas. 12. Kantzas, A., Chatzis, I., and Dullien, F. A. L.: “Enhanced Oil
j = oil or gas. Recovery by Inert Gas Injection,” SPE 13264 proceedings of the
o = oil. Sixth SPE/DOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa,
(o) = in the presence of oil. OK, April 1988.
w = water. 13. Dong, M., Dullien, F. A. L., and Chatzis, I.: “Imbibition of Oil
(w) = in the presence of water. in Film Form Over Water Present in Edges of Capillaries with
0 = reference. an Angular Cross-section,” J. Colloid & Interface Science,
172:278-288, December 1995.
Superscripts
14. Keller, A. A., Blunt, M. J., and Roberts, P. V.: “Micromodel
c = compositionally consistent.
Observation of the Role of Oil Layers in Three-phase Flow,”
crit = critical. Transport in Porous Media, 20:105-133, 1997.
e = effective. 15. Heiba, A. A., Davis, H. T., and Scriven, L. E.: “Statistical
m = corrected for miscible flow. Network Theory of Three-Phase Relative Permeabilities,” SPE
max = maximum. 12690 proceedings of the SPE/DOE Symposium on Enhanced
Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK, April 15-18, 1984.
Acknowledgments 16. Fenwick, D. H., and Blunt, M. J.: “Network Modeling of Three-
The author is grateful to Gary Jerauld, John Fayers and Pål- Phase Flow in Porous Media,” SPE Journal, 3:86-97, 1998a.
Eric Øren for many helpful suggestions. He thanks the 17. Fenwick, D. H., and Blunt, M. J.: “Three-Dimensional
Modeling of Three-phase Imbibition and Drainage,” Advances
members of the Stanford University Gas Injection Affiliates
in Water Resources, 25(2):121-143, 1998b.
Group (SUPRI-C) and the members of the Heriot- 18. Mani, V., and Mohanty, K. K.: “Pore-Level Network Modeling
Watt/Stanford consortium on pore scale modeling (BP Amoco, of Three-Phase Capillary Pressure and Relative Permeability
Arco, Statoil, Elf, Enterprise Oil, Exxon, JNOC, British Gas Curves,” SPE Journal, 3:238-248, September 1998.
14 M.J. BLUNT
19. Bryant, S., and Blunt, M. J.: “Prediction of Relative
Permeability in Simple Porous Media,: Physical Review A,
46:2004-2011, August 1992.
20. Øren, P.-E., Bakke, S., and Arntzen, O.J.: “Extending Predictive
Capabilities to Network Models,” SPE Journal, 3:324-336,
December 1998.
21. Larsen, J. A. And Skauge, A.: “Methodology for Numerical
Simulation with Cycle-Dependent Relative Permeabilities,” SPE
Journal, 3:163-173, June 1998.
22. Jerauld, G. R.: “General Three-Phase Relative Permeability
Model for Prudhoe Bay,” SPE 36178 proceedings of the 7th
ADIPEC, Abu Dubai, 13-16 October (1996).
23. Hustad, O. S. and Hansen, A. G.: “A Consistent Correlation for
Three-phase Relative Permeabilities and Phase Pressures Based
on Three Sets of Two-phase Data,” proceedings of the Eight
European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Vienna, May
15-17 (1995).
24. Land, C. S.: “Calculation of Imbibition Relative Permeability
for Two- and Three-Phase Flow From Rock Properties,” SPE
Journal, 5:149-156, 1968.
25. Carlson, F. M.: “Simulation of Relative Permeability Hysteresis
to the Nonwetting Phase,” SPE 10157 proceedings of the
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers, San Antonio, TX, October 5-7, 1981.
26. Aziz, K. And Settari, T.: “Petroleum Reservoir Simulation,”
Applied Science Publishers, London, 30-38, 1979.
27. Fayers, F. J.: “Extension of Stone’s Method 1 and Conditions
for Real Characteristics in Three-Phase Flow,” SPE Reservoir
Engineering, 4:437-445, November 1989.
28. Oak, M. J.: “Three-Phase Relative Permeability of Intermediate-
Wet Berea Sandstone,” SPE 22599 proceedings of the Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Dallas, TX, October 6-9, 1991.
29. Kalaydjian, F. J.-M., Moulu, J.-C., and Vizika, O.: “Three-phase
Flow in Water-Wet Porous Media: Determination of Gas/Oil
Relative Permeabilities Under Various Spreading Conditions,”
SPE 26671 proceedings of the Annual Technical Meeting and
Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Houston, TX,
October 3-6, 1993.
30. Vizika, O. and Lombard, J.-M.: “Wettability and Spreading:
Two Key Parameters in Oil Recovery With Three-Phase Gravity
Drainage,” SPE Reservoir Engineering, 11:54-60, 1996.
31. Moulu, J.-C., Vizika, O., Kalaydjian, F., and Duquerroix, J.-P.:
“A New Model for Three-Phase Relative Permeabilities Based
on a Fractal Representation of the Porous Medium,” SPE 38891
proceedings of the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, San Antonio, TX,
October 5-8, 1997.
32. Skauge, A., Eleri, O. O., Graue, A. And Monstad, P., “Influence
of Connate Water on Oil Recovery by Gravity Drainage,” SPE
27817 proceedings of the SPE/DOE Ninth Symposium on
Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK April 17-20, 1994.
SPE 56474
33. Eleri, O. O., Graue, A., and Skauge, A.: “Steady-State and
Unsteady-State Two-Phase Relative Permeability Hysteresis and
Measurements of Three-phase Relative Permeabilities Using
Imaging Techniques,” SPE 30764 proceedings of the Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Dallas, TX, 22-25 October, 1995.
34. Nordtvedt, J. E., Ebeltoft, E., Iversen, J. E., Sylte, A, Urkedal,
H., and Vatne, R. F.: “Determination of Three-Phase Relative
Permeabilities From Displacement Experiments,” SPE 36683
proceedings of the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Denver, CO, October 6-
9, 1996.
35. Grader, A. S., and O’Meara, D. J. Jr.: “Dynamic Displacement
Measurements of Three-Phase Relative Permeabilities Using
Three Immiscible Liquids,” SPE 18293 proceedings of the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Houston, TX, October 2-5, 1988.
36. Naylor, P., Sargent, N. C., Crosbie, A. J., Tilsed, A. P., and
Goodyear, S. G.: “Gravity Drainage during Gas Injection,”
proceedings of the Eighth European IOR Symposium, Vienna,
May 15-17, 1995.
37. Goodyear, S. G., and Jones, P. I. R.: “Relative Permeabilities for
Gravity Stabilized Gas Injection,” proceedings of the Eighth
European IOR Symposium, Vienna, May 15-17, 1995.
38. Baker, L. E.: “Three-Phase Relative Permeability of Water-Wet,
Intermediate-Wet and Oil-Wet Sandstone,” proceedings of the
7th European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Moscow,
October 1993.
39. Sahni, A., Burger, J. E., and Blunt, M. J.: “Measurement of
Three-phase Relative Permeability during Gravity Drainage
Using CT Scanning,” SPE 39655 proceedings of the SPE/DOE
11th Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK, April
1998.
40. DiCarlo, D. A., Sahni, A., and Blunt, M. J.: “Effect of
Wettability on Three-phase Relative Permeability,” SPE 40567
proceedings of the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, New Orleans, September
1998.
41. Jerauld, G. R.: “Prudhoe Bay Gas/Oil Relative Permeability,”
SPE Reservoir Engineering, 12:66-73, 1997.
42. Blunt, M. J., Zhou, D., and Fenwick, D. H.: “Three-phase Flow
and Gravity Drainage in Porous Media,” Transport in Porous
Media, 20:77-103, 1995.
43. Zhou, D. and Blunt, M. J., “Effect of Spreading Coefficient on
the Distribution of Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid in the
Subsurface,” Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 25:1-19, 1997.
44. Balbinski, E. F., Fishlock, T. P., Goodyear, S. G., and Jones, P.
I. R.: “Key Characteristics of Three-Phase Oil Relative
Permeability Formulations for Improved Oil Recovery
Predictions,” proceedings of the 9th European Symposium on
Improved Oil Recovery, The Hague, October 1997.
45. Amott, A.: “Observations Relating to the Wettability of Porous
Rock,” Trans AIME, 216:156-162 (1959).