D I S T I N G U I S H E D

A U T H O R

S E R I E S

ENGINEERING CORE ANALYSIS

Servet Unalmiser, SPE, and James J. Funk, SPE, Saudi Aramco
INTRODUCTION

Core analysis has come a long way from the days when reservoir
productivity was determined by blowing through a piece of cabletool-produced core. Our tools and methods for drilling and core
analysis have changed, but our interests have not. The reservoirrock properties that determine hydrocarbon production, the variation in these properties, and how these properties affect ultimate
recovery are still of primary concern. Properly engineered core
analysis provides a direct measurement of these reservoir-rock properties and is an essential step in formation-evaluation, reservoir, and
production engineering. Fundamental core-analysis measurements
are unchanged, but advances provide the ability to test at reservoir
conditions and to acquire simultaneous measurements of reservoirdependent properties. Core analysis today uses X-ray computerized
tomography (CT) to determine two- and three-dimensional (2D
and 3D, respectively) porosity distributions, while continuing to
apply Boyles law and Archimedes principle to determine porosity.
Mercury injection is used routinely to describe pore-throat distributions, but nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) is becoming a popular method to delineate relationships between pore radii and permeability. This review addresses some recurrent concerns of core
analysis as well as some new approaches and insights that are part
of the physical reservoir model determined by core analysis. Refs. 1
through 6 provide more information on the subject.
CORING AND FIELD OPERATION

Reservoir studies seeking to interpret and define both geological

and engineering parameters dictate the core-analysis program.
Core analyses must integrate with field and production data and
eliminate reservoir uncertainties that cannot be addressed with log,
well-test, or seismic data. These requirements define the coring
objectives that, in turn, control coring fluid, tools, and core handling. In most cases, these objectives cannot be obtained with core
retrieved in a single well. Coring is thus an integral part of the
reservoir-life-cycle process, with cored wells selected to verify or
provide maximum information for the current geological, engineering, or production model of the reservoir.
Coring Fluids. Modern drilling fluids are used during most coring
operations. However, if determination of endpoint saturations is
one of the objectives, a coring fluid is designed to maintain the
immobile-phase saturation. If a core is to be used to define fluidsaturation-dependent parameters, such as relative permeability,
capillary pressure, or electrical properties, the drilling fluid should
be formulated to maintain core-wettability characteristics as they
were in the reservoir. Core-handling and -preservation procedures
are designed to maintain the physical integrity and reservoir wettaCopyright 1998 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This is paper SPE 36780. Distinguished Author Series articles are general, descriptive representations that summarize the state of the art in an area of technology by describing recent
developments for readers who are not specialists in the topics discussed. Written by individuals
recognized as experts in the area, these articles provide key references to more definitive work
and present specific details only to illustrate the technology. Purpose: to inform the general
readership of recent advances in various areas of petroleum engineering. A softbound anthology, SPE Distinguished Author Series: December 1981December 1983 is available from SPEs
Customer Service Dept.

106

bility until planned tests are completed. The ideal coring program
considers rock type, degree of consolidation, and fluid type. It minimizes physical and chemical alteration of the rock and can include
specialized pressure, sponge, or gel coring systems.
Coring Tools. Current coring assemblies represent the best of
recent drilling developments. Noninvasive, low-profile coring bits
combined with full-closure core catchers or retrievable systems
improve recovery in soft formations and reduce rig time. Fig. 1 is
an example of a full-closure core catcher. Table 1 gives other specific applications and coring conditions.
Core Preservation. When core is recovered, it must be laid out,
measured, described, and prepared for shipping and preservation.
Core-handling procedures should be designed on the basis of core
material and coring technique. Core preservation should prevent
any physical damage and minimize wettability alteration. Fluid loss
and exposure to oxygen are the main factors in wettability alteration. For each core, preservation and packaging should be
designed for the special core analyses and type of rock (composition, degree of consolidation, and other such factors). Basan et al.8
provide details of preservation techniques and caveats.
BA SIC PETROPHYSIC AL PROPERTIES

Basic core analyses can be performed on conventional cores with

minimal preservation. However, the swelling clay content and physical dilatancy of the samples should always be considered. Following
core gamma ray measurements, core photographs, and CT scans,
full-diameter or plug samples can be selected for basic parameter
measurements. Fluid saturations, porosity, and absolute permeability are determined. These are an essential part of an overall reservoir
evaluation and provide direct reservoir properties and allow calibration of vital reservoir evaluation tools, such as well logs.
Fluid Saturations. Fluid saturations, once exclusively measured
by Dean-Stark extraction and retort techniques, are now frequently replaced with displaced-miscible-fluid analyses that are less
damaging to clays. Native-state fluid saturations combined with
specialized coring, fluid tracer studies, or geochemical or imaging
techniques can provide significant information on oil saturation
and oil/water contacts.
Porosity. Conventional core analyses provide effective porosity,
determined from the interconnected pore volume in the rock. Logs
usually measure total porosity with no regard for connectivity.
Although the techniques behind porosity measurements are essentially those of 50 years ago, the instrumentation is changed. Today,
automated equipment capable of sequential, repetitive, and simultaneous measurements of porosity and permeability is common.
Concern still exists about the definition of bulk volume. Surface
pore effects in large-grain sandstones introduce sleeve-conformance systematic errors that must be addressed.9 When core
porosity is correlated with log porosity, a correction for overburden
pressure should be applied. Measurement of porosity at overburden pressure is highly recommended because overburden-pressure
APRIL 1998

Permeability. In routine core analysis, permeability is determined

primarily by flowing nitrogen, air, or helium through the sample.
Measured gas permeability can be quite different from the liquid
permeability in a variety of samples, especially those with shales and
clays. Although gas-permeability measurements are significantly
faster and less expensive, the industry is still debating the validity
and utility of gas-permeability data for liquid-producing reservoirs.
The effect of overburden on the permeability measurement is
also important. This effect is more pronounced in unconsolidated,
low-permeability, and fractured samples; well-cemented samples
are less affected by overburden pressure. Consolidated-sample
ambient-pressure permeabilities can be corrected for the effect of
overburden by applying a correction factor determined by measuring a few samples at both overburden and ambient conditions.
Current techniques for measurement of permeability and porosity recognize the need to reproduce in-situ conditions and provide
maximum information. Hence, standard routine measurements are
currently done at reservoir net-overburden-pressure conditions.
High-production gas wells have demonstrated the need for extended core analyses that provide not only permeability but also nonDarcy flow and Klinkenberg correction parameters. Today, the
Forcheimer inertial coefficient, , and the Klinkenberg slip factor, b,
are commonly reported along with gas-permeability measurements.
In interbedded formations, plug-sample measurements can be
augmented with fine-scale probe measurements of porosity and
permeability. In the laboratory, the probes are positioned and operated automatically. They provide a closely spaced 2D map of porosity and permeability, usually on slabbed core. In the field, portable
probe instruments evaluate lateral and vertical variations in permeability on outcrop sections. These measurements are the first
step in defining geostatistical permeability variations.

Outer Core Barrel

Full-Closure Core
Catcher

Coring Bit

ADVANCED MODELING PROPERTIES

Fig. 1Full-closure core catcher (after Ref. 7).

effect may be enormous for unconsolidated samples. The effect of

overburden pressure on well-cemented consolidated samples is relatively low; therefore, porosity measurements on a few samples at
both ambient and overburden pressure provide a correction factor
for porosity.
Grain volume of test samples is measured directly or calculated
as part of the porosity measurement. Grain densities are calculated
simply by the dividing weight of clean, dry rock sample by the
grain volume. These densities are used as part of the quality check
of the routine data and as a logging calculation.

Special core-analysis data are a vital tool in evaluating reservoir performance and assessing various production scenarios. Realistic and
robust numerical simulations require direct physical measurements. Numerical-model sensitivity is an inefficient and insensitive
substitute for measured material response parameters. However,
true reservoir architecture is reflected only in physical parameters
that are selected, handled, and scaled properly. Special core analyses determine the pore structure, fluid mechanics, and electrical
and mechanical properties of the reservoir but are still subject to
physical/chemical interactions associated with wettability, pressure,
and temperature. Current approaches eliminate several variables
from reservoir-condition measurements and incorporate the results
in a geostatistical framework.
Wettability. Wettability is an important factor affecting special core
analyses. It is a combination of interactions between rock, fluid

TABLE 1CORING TYPES AND APPLICATIONS

Horizontal coring
Continuous coring
Sponge coring

Gel coring
Sidewall coring
Unconsolidated and
friable cores
Oriented core

108

Conventional cores up to 90 ft in length can be cut in horizontal wells with downhole motors.
Interchangeable and retrievable core barrels and drill plugs allow either coring or drilling without a trip of the drillstring.
Redesigned continuous-coring tools use antiwobble drill bits with offset polycrystalline diamond compacts.
Economical method for assessing residual oil saturation and less expensive than pressures coring. After retrieval, both
core and sponge are sampled for oil to determine a corrected residual oil saturation; provides native-state core
material for subsequent special core analyses.
Displaceable formation-specific gel in the core barrel minimizes flushing during coring; fluid migration during retrieval
and fluid loss at the surface. Also provides mechanical support for the core.
Provides formation samples from the specific locations of the logged well after hole has been drilled. Rotary tool avoids
shattering of hard formations experienced with percussion sidewall coring.
Combination of noninvasive bits, full-closure core catchers, and sleeved inner barrels has improved core recovery from
recovery from unconsolidated formations and currently has replaced most rubber-sleeved cores.
Provides orientation of core to determine direction and degree of formation dip, tilt of formation fractures, and
directional permeability.

APRIL 1998

RELATIVE PERMEABILITY TO WATER

RELATIVE PERMEABILITY TO OIL

Fig. 3APEX terminology; rheon=sudden drop in capillary

pressure; rison=increasing capillary pressure to previously unattained levels; subison=increasing capillary pressure to previously attained levels; subison pore system=sequence of only rheons
and subisons.
Fig. 2Oil and water relative permeabilities of sandstone core
for different wetting affinity (after Ref. 11).

interfaces, and pore shape3 and a measure of the preferential tendency of either water or oil to spread on the rock surface. It may
demonstrate homogenous or heterogeneous wetting affinity to
water or oil. Homogenous wettability is classified as strongly water
wet, oil wet, or intermediate wet (a condition of equal wetting by
both water and oil). Fractional and mixed wettabilities are heterogeneous. In fractional wettability, scattered areas throughout the
rock have a wetting affinity to oil while the rest of the area is strongly water wet. If the oil- and water-wet surfaces are continuous
rather than scattered, the term mixed wettability is used.
The importance of wettability lies not in its quantitative assessment but in its influence on oil recovery and special core analyses.
These analyses include capillary pressure, relative permeability,
electrical properties, irreducible water saturation, and residual oil
saturations. Rock minerals exposed to fluids and the chemical
compositions of the fluids in the pore affect the wetting affinity of
rock/fluid systems. Because of acid/base interactions between rock
surface and crude oils, brine pH determines whether the surface is
positively or negatively charged. Wettability is also affected by saturation history. Several authors have investigated the impact of
wettability on recovery; Cuiec10 summarizes their approaches and
points out that, besides higher residual oil saturation for oil-wet
samples, heterogeneous wettability has a higher oil-displacement
efficiency than homogeneous wettability. Fig. 2 shows an example
of the effect of wettability on relative permeability.
Physical and chemical effects can alter core wettability. These
effects stem from coring fluids, changes in temperature and pressure,
and exposure of the core to oxygen. Some core analysts recommend
establishing a reference wettability because changes may occur
between coring and laboratory testing. The reference is established
by a qualitative or quantitative wettability test performed immediately after the core is removed from the formation.12 Others prefer to
eliminate uncertain wettabilities by working with restored-state samples, which are obtained by aging a cleaned sample that has been saturated to initial conditions with native oil and synthetic brine.
110

No technique is available to measure fractional wettability of a

porous medium where some percentage of the rock surface has a
wetting affinity to oil and the remaining percentage is water wet.
Standard wettability measurements, U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM),
Amott, and contact-angle methods provide semiquantitative numerical scales to determine wettability characteristics of the porous
medium. In a study by Longeron et al.,13 spontaneous imbibition
and drainage processes are combined in the USBM index. The new
index may be able to distinguish fractional and mixed wettability.
Wettability should be evaluated under conditions similar to those in
the reservoir on the basis of Cuiecs14 study. Studies are being done
to evaluate in-situ-wettability measurements that use electricalresistivity-index and formation-pressure data.15 However, these
techniques are not at the point of practical application.
Capillary Pressure and Pore Size. The pressure difference
between two immiscible fluids in mechanical equilibrium at a
curved interface is referred to as capillary pressure. Curvature of
the interface is the result of preferential wetting of the capillary
walls. Capillary pressure is widely used in reservoir engineering to
define initial fluid distribution in the reservoir and pore-size distribution for formation evaluation. Laboratory techniques that determine capillary pressure are porous plate, centrifuge, mercury injection, and water-vapor desorption. Longeron et al.13 introduced a
modification of the porous-plate method that reduces experimental time by a factor of 10 by use of thin oil and water-wet micropore membranes.
In mercury injection, mercury is the nonwetting fluid in the
porous medium. Wettability variation in water/oil/rock systems
cannot be duplicated with a mercury/rock system. Therefore, the
capillary behavior obtained with this technique may not reflect that
of the reservoir. However, the technique has been used to characterize pore-size distribution since Purcell16 introduced it in 1949.
An improvement of the technique by Yuan and Swanson17 keeps
the mercury injection at a low constant rate. Their technique,
referred to as apparatus for pore examination (APEX), determines
the distribution of both pore bodies and pore throats. Fig. 3, which
APRIL 1998

t2c

Spectral Amplitude

Spectral Amplitude

ff

t2

0.1
time, milliseconds

t2, milliseconds

Fig. 4NMR relaxation and distribution.

shows the key aspect of the experiment, indicates the sudden

decrease in injection pressure as a mercury meniscus passes from
a pore throat into a wider pore body.
NMR. NMR, applied to petrophysics as early as 1953, is an important modern core-analysis method. Historically. these measurements
have been used to predict pore size and wettability. While this is still
the main aspect of petrophysical NMR, the technique is now applied
to estimation of permeability through its pore-size dependence and
NMR measurements are also processed to provide residual and irreducible fluid saturations.
The technique uses the radio-frequency resonance of protons in
a magnetic field to determine spin-lattice relaxation time, t1, and
spin-spin relaxation time, t2. The NMR relaxation is attributed to
the hydrogen-relaxation signal originating from fluids within different regimes of the pore network. These regimes are reflected in
the surface to volume ratio of the sample. Because there is a surface
to volume ratio distribution, there are also t1 and t2 distributions.
The declining exponential signal in Fig. 4 is inverted to a distribution of exponentials with a characteristic relaxation time (t2).
NMR-determined t2 distributions are correlated with a standard
pore-size measurement, such as mercury injection or image analyses. Subsequent NMR measurements are used to evaluate irreducible water saturation, permeability, and residual oil saturation.
Relative Permeability. Wettability considerations aside, relative
permeability relationships are the most significant and controversial
parameters describing multiphase flow. Absolute permeability to
single-phase-fluid flow cannot completely describe multiphase flow.
Hence, measurement of effective permeability and the concept of
relative permeability came into the picture. These saturation-dependent parameters are used to describe flow behavior. Effective permeability is a function of saturation and, because of interfacial viscosity between the different fluids, is nearly always less than the
absolute permeability. Relative permeability is the ratio of effective
permeability to a base permeability. Absolute-air, absolute-liquid,
and effective-oil permeabilities at irreducible water saturation are
the most common base permeabilities used in the industry. The
three major factors affecting relative permeability are pore structure,
saturation history, and wettability. Consequently, relative permeability tests should be performed on samples from representative facies
that mimic reservoir saturation history and wettability. Issues on relative permeability include selection of representative samples, porelevel effects, measurement techniques and conditions, and scaling
up from core to reservoir scale. Recent studies and technology applications have addressed some of these questions.
APRIL 1998

Core-imaging techniques are widely used for screening and sample selection. X-radiographs, X-ray CT, and magnetic-resonance
and acoustic images all elucidate internal core structures. Porelevel characteristics and sample pore types are addressed through
thin-section image analyses and reservoir-quality typing.
Relative permeability measurements are performed by either
steady- or unsteady-state displacement. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages. Steady-state displacement is a straightforward technique involving a few uncertainties. Basically, it involves
simultaneous injection of two or three fluids at a constant rate or
pressure to acquire effective permeability to each phase at equilibrium saturation by use of Darcys law. Then, relative permeability is
calculated at that saturation by dividing effective permeability by
base permeability, which is generally oil permeability at irreducible
water saturation. The relative permeability curve is obtained by
changing the ratio of injection rates and measuring effective permeability when rock/fluid saturation reaches equilibrium.
The unsteady-state technique is displacement of in-situ fluid
(i.e., oil) by a driving fluid (i.e., water) at a constant rate or pressure. In contrast to the steady-state technique, saturation continuously changes and saturation equilibrium is not reached. Pressure
drop and produced fluids are monitored with respect to time, and
various mathematical approaches (e.g., Welge, Johnson-BosslerNaumann, and Jones-Roszelle) are used to obtain a set of relative
permeability curves. The Buckley-Leverett equation for linear displacement of immiscible and incompressible fluids is the basis for
all analyses. Centrifuge methods use the unsteady-state technique
and involve spinning the saturated core sample under a known
centrifugal force and monitoring the volume of the produced fluid
with respect to time. Then, relative permeability to displaced phase
is calculated by a mathematical approach. The method does not
provide relative permeability data for the displacing phase.
According to a Soc. of Core Analysts (SCA) survey on relative
permeability methods,18 it is generally accepted that no single
method is sufficient. Responses from 26 participants indicated that
the centrifuge technique was the least preferred and that steady- and
unsteady-state-flow methods were preferred equally. Almost 80% of
the participants preferred tests run under simulated reservoir conditions, and choice of preserved vs. restored samples was equal.
Following the methods survey, an experimental survey* was conducted to address the questions of endpoint saturations, endpoint
permeabilities, and the number of data points required to delineate
the shape of relative permeability curves. While conclusive statements could not be made because of the low number of participants,
*Workshop on Relative Permeability, 1995 SCA Intl. Symposium, San Francisco, 1214 September.

111

Fig. 5Axial stress/strain curve.

preliminary results showed that in multilaboratory, multimethod

tests, relative permeabilities exhibit a precision of 9% in the measurement of overall saturation change. Other recent studies have
concentrated on the simultaneous measurement of relative permeability and other special-core-analysis parameters.19 These
approaches smoothly integrate other special core analyses with relative permeability.
Electrical Properties. Determination of water saturation from resistivity logs depends on correct assignment of rock electrical parameters in the Archie equation.20 These parameters are empirically
derived from electrical-property measurements on core samples. The
structural parameter, a, is a tortuosity factor and has been attributed
to the interstitial structure of the rock; it usually ranges from 0.5 to
1.5. Cementation factor, m, is associated with the degree of cementation of the grains in the rock and usually ranges from 1.5 to 2.5. To
determine a and m, extracted core plug is saturated with brine of a
known resistivity. Then, fully saturated rock resistivity is measured.
A log-log plot is then constructed of formation resistivity factor (ratio
of fully saturated rock resistivity to water resistivity) vs. porosity.
From this exponential relationship, a and m are determined as the
intercept and slope of the line. In this relationship, it is assumed that
rock matrix does not contain any conductive minerals. Rock resistivity is a function of not only tortuosity and resistivity of brine, but
also of saturation level. The third parameter, saturation exponent n,
is the slope of the exponential relationship between resistivity index
(ratio of partially to fully saturated resistivity of the sample) and fractional rock saturation. n is determined in the laboratory by measuring resistivity of a sample at various brine saturations and creating a
log-log plot of resistivity index vs. brine saturation; the slope of this
plot is the n value. It usually ranges from 1.5 to 2.5 and increases progressively in oil-wet systems.
These parameters are important in reserve estimation, commercial evaluation, and prediction of oil production. The Archie equation assumes exponential relationships between formation factor
and porosity and between resistivity index and water saturation.
The linearity of these relationships is questioned on the basis of
results from low-resistivity pay zones. Givens21 developed a phenomenological model composed of a conductive pore network and
conductive rock. In contrast to the assumed linear trend, this
model predicts a curvature caused by the water-saturation exponent and the relative conductance of the matrix.
For many years, the Archie parameters were considered to be
independent of temperature, pressure, reservoir-fluid, and solidsurface properties. Several authors have questioned these assumptions. Their studies showed that m and formation factor are functions of overburden pressure and tend to increase with increasing
pressure. Studies of the effect of pressure on n showed that changes
in both were based on rock type; however, the effect is negligible if
112

saturation is corrected for porosity compaction.22 The effect of

temperature on the m generally depends on clay content. For n, the
temperature effects depends more on whether the displacement
process is drainage or imbibition.
Because fluid distribution is controlled by wettability characteristics of the rock, n changes with wetting affinity. Where n2 for
water wet rocks, it can exceed 10 for uniformly oil-wet cores at low
brine saturation. Anderson23 suggests that simulated-reservoircondition tests provide the most reliable parameters if the reservoir
is not strongly water wet. Presence of conductive clays and their
effect on measured electrical properties is still a concern. New techniques may provide better results. Sandor24 describes an interesting
technique that uses thermal membrane potential of the core sample to measure excess shale conductivity at reservoir conditions.
Before the relative permeability study, SCA conducted an interlaboratory survey to determine the reproducibility, agreement, and
suitability of different methods for obtaining electrical parameters
FR, m, and n.25 In the study, 25 participating laboratories measured
electrical properties on Berea sandstone and Bedford limestone at
ambient temperature. The end product of the study was guidelines
issued by SCA in four parts (Refs. 26 through 29).
Rock-Mechanics Measurements. Rock mechanical properties are
frequent concerns in wellbore design, drilling, and completion.
Direct measurements on core samples provide the essential engineering parameters of compressive strength and static and dynamic mechanical moduli and ratios. Combined with oriented core,
such rock-mechanics tests as anelastic-strain recovery, differentialstrain-curve analysis, and ultrasonic-velocity analysis can provide
information on the direction of reservoir stresses.30 As Fig. 5
shows, measurements of linear stress/strain curves on core samples
can be used to determine the Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria. The
maximum axial stress at several confining stresses determines the
size of the Mohr circle. Rock failure occurs at stress conditions
above a line tangent to the circle.
With deeper wells and horizontal drilling, measurements of both
dynamic (acoustic) and static mechanical properties of reservoir
rocks are made more frequently. These measurements provide correlations for seismic data and input for wellbore stability models.
The essential measurements and controls include strain, directional stress, pore pressure, acoustic velocity, and temperature. Current
systems provide these measurements under stress conditions set by
the reservoir. Today both static and dynamic measurements can be
made at moderate reservoir temperatures and pressures. New
experimental equipment has been developed to extend the experimental range of the measurements and to reproduce true triaxial
stress conditions, incorporating horizontal-stress anisotropy.31 Rockmechanics measurements are currently done at temperatures and
pressures that match those of the reservoir.
Core Imaging. Use and application of X-ray CT in core analysis has
expanded since its introduction by Vinegar.32 As Fig. 6 shows, CT
scans provide a noninvasive digital image of core samples. The
technique is a prerequisite for sample selection and is frequently
used as a saturation-monitoring tool. If accurately calibrated, CT
axial-slice or longitudinal-scout images provide digital data that
can identify fracture orientation and density, pore-volume connectivity, porosity, and net-to-gross ratios.
Other imaging techniques are also being applied. These include
NMR,33 micro-CT,34 and acoustic and electrical resistivity.35
Although X-ray CT is preferred for imaging fluids at elevated
temperatures, the sensitivity and resolution of NMR imaging
make it the method of choice for ambient-temperature studies.
NMR images are based on the same nuclear principles used with
NMR logging tools and pulsed-NMR measurements on plug samAPRIL 1998

REFERENCES

Fig. 6Axial slice and CT number distribution.

ples. With the application of a pulsed-magnetic-field gradient, 2D

and 3D images can be reconstructed that can distinguish fine
bedding in sandstones, fluid-filled fractures, and effective secondary porosity.
Core imaging provides a direct method for determining the spatial variation of petrophysical properties. The data from the images
can be used directly for geostatistical and multiphase-flow upscaling studies.
Reporting. SCA surveys on electrical properties, capillary pressures,
and relative permeability have shown the importance of a reporting
standard. This need has also been addressed in the revised American
Petroleum Inst. (API) RP 40.36 Incorporation of core data in digital
format is now common. Core photographs, X-ray CT scans, and routine- and special-core-analysis numerical results and plots are now
combined on compact disks for viewing and reproduction.
NOMENCL ATURE

FR = formation resistivity factor

S = shear strength, m/Lt2, MPa
Swi = initial water saturation, fraction
t1 = spin-lattice relaxation time, t, milliseconds
t2 = spin-spin relaxation time, t, milliseconds
f = porosity
f cb = capillary-bound porosity determined by NMR
f ff = free-fluid porosity determined by NMR
fNMR = porosity determined by NMR
ft = total porosity
s = normal stress, m/Lt2, MPa
t= shear stress, m/Lt2, MPa
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral

Resources and Saudi Aramco for permission to publish this paper.
We also thank the management of the Saudi Aramco Laboratory
R&D Center for their support.
APRIL 1998

1. Petrophysics, SPE Reprint Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas (1994) 39.

2. Skopec, R.A.: Recent Advances in Rock Characterization, Log Analyst
(MayJune 1992) 33, No. 3, 270.
3. Interfacial Phenomena in Petroleum Recovery, N.R. Morrow (ed.),
Surfactant Science Series, Marcel Dekker Inc., New York City (1991) 36.
4. Monicard, R.P.: Properties of Reservoir Rocks: Core Analysis, Gulf
Publishing Co., Houston (1980).
5. Amyx, J.W., Bass, D., and Whiting, R.L.: Petroleum Reservoir Engineering:
Physical Properties, McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., New York City (1960).
6. Tiab, D. and Donaldson, E.C.: Petrophysics: Theory and Practice of
Measuring Reservoir Rock and Fluid Transport Properties, Gulf Publishing
Co., Houston (1996).
7. Whitebay, E.L.: Improved Coring and Core-Handling Procedures for
the Unconsolidated Sands of the Green Canyon Area, Gulf of Mexico,
paper SPE 15385 presented at the 1986 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 58 October.
8. Basan, P. et.al.: Measuring Porosity, Saturation and Permeability from
Cores: An Appreciation of the Difficulties, Petrophysics, SPE Reprint
Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas (1994) 39, 190.
9. Unalmiser, S. and Stewart, R.W.: Boundary Effects on Porosity
Measurement and Its Resolution by Method and Mathematical Means,
Log Analyst (MarchApril 1989) 30, No. 2, 85.
10. Cuiec, L.E.: Evaluation of Reservoir Wettability and Its Effect on Oil
Recovery, Interfacial Phenomena in Petroleum Recovery, N.R. Morrow
(ed.), Surfactant Science Series, Marcel Dekker Inc., New York City
(1991) 36, 319.
11. Donaldson, E.C. and Thomas, R.D.: Microscopic Observations of Oil
Displacement in Water-Wet and Oil-Wet Systems, paper
SPE 3555 presented at the 1971 SPE Annual Fall Meeting, New Orleans,
36 October.
12. Funk, J.: Wettability Development Geology Reference Manual, D.
Morton-Thompson and A.M. Woods (eds.), AAPG Methods in
Exploration Series, AAPG, Tulsa, Oklahoma (1992) 10.
13. Longeron, D., Hammervold, W.L., and Skjoeveland, S.M.: Water-Oil
Capillary Pressure and Wettability Measurements Using Micropore
Membrane Technique, paper SCA-9426 presented at the 1994 SCA
Intl. Symposium, Stavanger, 1214 September.
14. Cuiec, L.: Wettability Laboratory Evaluation Under Reservoir
Conditions: A New Apparatus, paper SCA-9529 presented at the 1995
SCA Intl. Symposium, San Francisco, 1214 September.
15. Causin, E. and Bona, N.: In-Situ Wettability Determination: Field Data
Analysis, paper SPE 28825 presented at the 1994 European Petroleum
Conference, London, 2527 October.
16. Purcell, W.R.: Capillary PressuresTheir Measurement Using Mercury
and Calculation of Permeability Therefrom, Trans., AIME, (1949) 186,
39.
17. Yuan, H.H. and Swanson, B.F.: Resolving Pore-Space Characteristics by
Rate-Controlled Porosimetry, SPEFE (March 1989) 17; Trans., AIME,
287.
18. Bouchard, A: Technology News, SCANews, SCA (September 1994) 8,
No. 2, 1.
19. Honapour, M.M., Huang, D.D., and Dogru, A.H.: Simultaneous
Measurements of Relative Permeability, Capillary Pressure, and
Electrical Resistivity With Microwave System for Saturation
Monitoring, paper SPE 30540 presented at the 1995 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 2225 October.
20. Archie, G.E.: The Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid in Determining
Some Reservoir Characteristics, Trans., AIME (1942) 146, 54.
21. Givens, W.W.: A Conductive Rock Matrix Model (CRMM) for the
Analysis of Low-Contrast Resistivity Formations, Log Analyst
(MarchApril 1987) 28, No. 2, 138.
22. Mahmood, S.M., Maerefat, N.L., and Chang, M-M.: Laboratory
Measurements of Electrical Resistivity at Reservoir Conditions, SPEFE
(September 1991) 291.
113

23. Anderson, W.G.: Wettability Literature Survey Part III : The Effects of
Wettability on the Electrical Properties of Porous Media, JPT
(December 1986) 1371.
24. Sandor, R.K.J. et al.: Shaly Sand Analysis with Thermal Membrane
Potentials, paper SCA-9520 presented at the 1995 SCA Intl.
Symposium, San Francisco, 1214 September.
25. Sprunt, E.S. et al.: Compilation of Electrical Resistivity Measurements
Performed by Twenty-five Laboratories, Log Analyst (January
February 1988) 29, No. 5, 138.
26. Worthington, A.E. et al.: SCA Guidelines for Sample Preparation and
Porosity Measurement of Electrical Resistivity SamplesPart I, Log
Analyst (JanuaryFebruary 1990) 31, No. 1, 20.
27. Lerner, D.B. et.al.: SCA Guidelines for Sample Preparation and Porosity
Measurement of Electrical Resistivity SamplesPart II, Log Analyst
(MarchApril 1990) 31, No. 2, 57.
28. Worthington, P.F. et al.: SCA Guidelines for Sample Preparation and
Porosity Measurement of Electrical Resistivity SamplesPart III, Log
Analyst (MarchApril 1990) 31, No. 2, 64.
29. Maerefat, N.L. et al.: SCA Guidelines for Sample Preparation and
Porosity Measurement of Electrical Resistivity SamplesPart IV, Log
Analyst (MarchApril 1990) 31, No. 2, 68.
30. Skopec, R.A.: In-Situ Stress Evaluation in Core Analysis, paper SCA9103 presented at the 1991 SCA Technical Conference, Houston, 2122
August.
31. Smart, B.G.D. and Crawford, B.R.: An Innovative New Cell for Testing
Rock Core Under True Triaxial Stress States, paper SCA 9320 presented at the 1993 SCA Technical Conference, Houston, 911 August.
32. Vinegar, H.J.: X-Ray CT and NMR Imaging of Rocks, JPT (March
1986) 257; Trans., AIME, 281.
33. Chen, S.C. et al.: Quantitative NMR Imaging of Multiphase Flow in
Porous Media, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (1992) 10, No. 5, 815.

114

34. Coles, M.E. et al.: Computed Microtomography of Reservoir Core

Samples, paper SCA-9401 presented at the 1994 SCA Intl. Symposium,
Stavanger, 1214 September.
35. Jackson. P. et al.:Electrical resistivity core imaging: towards a 3-dimensional solution, paper JJ presented at the 1994 Soc. of Professional Well
Log Analysts Annual Logging Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1922 June.
36. RP 40, Recommended Practice for Core-Analysis Procedure, first edition,
APE, Dallas (1960).
SI METRIC CONVERSION FACTOR
psi x 6.894 757
E01=MPa

Servet Unalmiser is a senior scientist and technology coordinator with Saudi Aramco Laboratory R&D Research Center in
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. Before
joining Saudi Aramco in 1980,
he worked at the Mineral and
Research Inst. and at Turkish
Funk
Unalmiser
Petroleum Corp. in Turkey.
Unalmiser holds BS and MS degrees in petroleum engineering from Middle East Technical U. in Anakara, Turkey. He is
a member of and API committee revising RP 40. He has
served as a member of the Editorial Review Committee since
1993. James J. Funk is a senior scientist with Saudi Aramco
Laboratory R&D Research Center in Dhahran. His current
research interests include NMR, CT, and rock-mechanics
applications to reservoir engineering. Previously, he was an
advanced research engineer in Texacos Exploration and
Technology Dept. in Houston. Funk holds a BA degree in
chemistry from the U. of Houston and an ME degree in
chemical engineering from the U. of Florida. He served as a
member of the API committee revising RP 40.

APRIL 1998