SPE Distinguished Lecturer Program

Primary funding is provided by

The SPE Foundation through member donations

and a contribution from Offshore Europe

The Society is grateful to those companies that allow their

professionals to serve as lecturers

Additional support provided by AIME

Society of Petroleum Engineers
Distinguished Lecturer Program
www.spe.org/dl 1
 Core Analysis: A Guide to
Maximising Added Value

Colin McPhee
Senergy (GB) Limited

Society of Petroleum Engineers

Distinguished Lecturer Program
www.spe.org/dl
Why core matters…
Bob Harrison, JPT Technology Focus, August 2009
• Core….
– “confirms lithology and mineralogy
– calibrates estimates of fundamental rock properties
– shows how fluids occupy and flow in pore space
– supplies mechanical properties for faster & safer
drilling and better completions”
• “Logs cannot characterize a reservoir if
knowledge of the rock is absent”
• “a struggle to convince management that the
project benefits from the knowledge gained”
3
 Why core analysis matters - volumetrics

OIP  GRV     1  Sw 

N 1
G B0

Geophysicist Geologist Petrophysicist Reservoir Engineer

Oil initially in place OIP

Gross rock volume GRV
Net to Gross N/G Logs, welltests, CORE
Porosity  Logs, CORE
Water saturation Sw Logs, CORE
Formation volume factor Bo PVT 4
Why core analysis matters – reserves

RESERVES  OIP * RF
• Recovery factor depends on technical and
economic factors
• Recovery factor is partly defined by
formation’s relative permeability
– from CORE
1
fw 
k ro  w
1 .
k rw  o
Welge fractional flow equation
5
Core data – do we get value?
• The “ground truth” for formation evaluation
• But….
• Lab
– variable lab data quality and method sensitivity
– poor lab reporting standards
• End user
– inadequate planning and inappropriate design
• Have undermined value from core analysis

6
Core data – do we get value?
• Review of > 20,000 SCAL measurements
• 70% of legacy data is unfit for purpose
• ~ $10,000,000 data redundancy cost
• Examples of unreported lab artifacts
– porosity, Sw, and capillary pressure
• Impact on hydrocarbons in place

7
Example - Archie water saturation, Sw
formation water resistivity
tortuosity constant
a=1 unless core says otherwise

1 saturation exponent
 a Rw  n from core

Sw   m 
 Rt 
true formation resistivity
porosity
from logs
Logs – calibrated by core
porosity exponent
from core
8
Porosity error – excess brine

• Correct for excess brine in annulus

between core and coreholder test sleeve

• Otherwise … porosity too low 9

Porosity errors - impact

Lab B: -7% error in log 

10
Excess brine – resistivity tests

• Ambient ‘m’ and ‘n’

– core must be fully saturated
– excess brine on plug surface
– Formation factor (F):
• resistivity (R0) too low
R0 1
– ‘m’ too low F F
Rw m
– Resistivity index (I)
• Rt unaffected
Rt 1
– ‘n’ too high I I n
R0 Sw
11
 Correcting for excess brine
• Formation factor (F) tests at stress on tight sand

mean - 30% error in ambient ‘m’

R0 true 1
F  m
Rw 

12
 Correcting for excess brine
• Resistivity index (I) tests at ambient

Rt
I true 
R0true

log( Rt )
n +15% error in ambient ‘n’
log( R0true )

13
Grain loss– material balance
Before test After test

Grain loss

- =
14
Grain loss correction
100
100

-20 saturation
Grain unitrequired
loss correction error in Sw
Resistivity Index
Resistivity Index (Ratio)

Corrected
10
Uncorrected

Porosity: 16%
Water Density: 1.05 g/cc
Initial Dry Weight: 140.6 g
Total Grain Loss: 2.7 g (2%)

1 1
0.01
0.01 0.1
0.1
11
Water Water
saturation (v/v)
Saturation (Fraction)

15
Impact of errors on OIP Effect of 20% Errors in input
Parameters to Archie Equation on
Model STOIIP of 100 MMBBL

• Uncertainty analysis -30 -20 -10

MMBBL
0 10 20 30

– North Sea reservoir

phi

– 20%  and 20% Sw

– 100 MMbbl OIP m

– +20% error in input data

n

• Largest impact
– , m and n (core) Rw

1
 a Rw  n Rt

Sw   m 
  Rt 
16
Pc curve distortion
• Mercury injection capillary pressure (MICP)
• Pre-1994: tests on 50 – 80 ml plugs
• Now: most tests on < 10 ml “chips”/end trims
• Pc curve (Sw versus Pc) problems
– Use Hg-filled pore volume (> 20,000 psi)
– clay destruction in small pores
– distorted Pc curves

17