SPE 120814

Best Practices in Conventional Core Analysis - A Laboratory Investigation

Ahmed S. Al-Muthana, SPE, S.M. Ma, SPE, Taha Okasha, SPE, Saudi Aramco

Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE Saudi Arabia Section Technical
Symposium held in Alkhobar, Saudi Arabia, 10-12 May 2008.
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
Conventional core analysis procedures were investigated to
validate data quality and accuracy. In this paper, 23 core
samples from wells Q (14 carbonate samples) and N (9
sandstone samples) were tested in the laboratory.
The tests include grain density, porosity, and air and brine
permeabilities.
Factors investigated in this study are:
o Effect of equipment calibration on grain density and
porosity measurements,
o Effect of drying time on grain density and porosity
measurements,
o Effect of sleeve confining pressure on gas permeability
measurement, and
o Comparison between gas and liquid permeabilities.

are the foundations for geological modeling, reservoir

description, reservoir simulation and management.
In this study, 23 plug samples were studied, 14 samples from
Well Q (carbonate reservoir) and 9 samples from Well N
(sandstone reservoir). Basic rock properties were measured
(Tables 1 and 2). Data in Tables 1 and 2 indicate that four
samples have very low permeability of less than one md and
six have very high permeability of more than one Darcy. Such
rock samples with extreme permeabilities require extra care in
laboratory measurements.
Table 1. Basic Rock Properties for Carbonate Samples from Well Q

ID

LxD
(In) x (In)

Dry
Weight
(gm)

Matrix
Density
(g/cc)

Porosity
(%)

Air
Permeability
(md)

4
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
19
20
74
82
92

2.79 x 1.48
2.78 x 1.48
2.65 x 1.48
2.89 x 1.48
2.83 x 1.48
2.70 x 1.48
2.69 x 1.48
2.91 x 1.48
2.83 x 1.48
2.81 x 1.48
2.91 x 1.48
2.73 x 1.48
2.62 x 1.48
2.67 x 1.48

174.93
183.81
163.28
170.93
169.58
183.31
160.57
197.32
188.19
155.51
173.65
149.89
149.27
161.45

2.861
2.862
2.870
2.862
2.871
2.865
2.723
2.722
2.710
2.713
2.721
2.71
2.723
2.72

22.20
17.70
23.70
27.00
25.70
15.80
27.20
11.60
12.70
27.70
22.20
28.30
26.40
20.00

67
72
186
270
312
8.8
1,350
0.53
1.64
87
40
1,234
1,280
842

Table 2. Basic Rock Properties for Clastic Samples from Well N

Understanding data acquisition procedures and limitations is

very important in core analysis. Therefore, data accuracy in
laboratory measurements must be considered. Based on this
study, best practices of performing conventional core analysis
are recommended.
Introduction
Laboratory measurement procedures and conditions affect
core analysis data quality and accuracy1. The objective of this
paper is to establish best practices based on the analysis of the
factors that may affect conventional core analysis
measurements, e.g., grain density, porosity and permeability.
Accuracy of these rock properties is very important since they

ID

LxD
(In) x (In)

Dry
Weight
(gm)

Matrix
Density
(g/cc)

Porosity
(%)

Air
Permeability
(md)

18
19
22
25
26
27
178
179
180

2.85 x 1.51
2.85 x 1.51
2.92 x 1.51
2.9 x 1.51
2.93 x 1.51
2.9 x 1.51
2.89 x 1.51
2.9 x 1.51
2.88 x 1.51

182.89
184.07
199.24
213.20
209.45
206.48
188.08
186.57
183.83

2.652
2.651
2.651
2.664
2.672
2.673
2.643
2.641
2.640

14.37
13.95
9.23
1.27
4.74
3.44
13.65
14.17
14.58

346
749
178
0.27
0.14
0.13
1,322
1,051
1,699

SPE 120814

Best Practices in Conventional Core Analysis A Laboratory Investigation

Sample Screening for Core Analysis

Grain Density and Porosity Measurements
Core analysis data is very important in petroleum engineering
since it is often considered as hard data and data from other
sources, such as logs and well tests are often calibrated to the
core data. Accuracy of core analysis data is obviously
critical2.
On the other hand, laboratory core analysis is also an
expensive and time consuming operation. Therefore, before
performing any core analysis, core samples need to be
screened using nondestructive techniques such as CT scan in
order to select suitable samples for laboratory core analysis.
In this study, all 23 samples were CT scanned to exam the
sample interior features and photographed to check the
exterior integrity of the samples. Details are reported in the
Appendix.
Carbonate Rock Samples
Due to geological digenesis, carbonate rocks tend to be
heterogeneous. These internal rock features can be seen
through CT scans, as an example, Fig. A1a shows a CT scan
image of a nonuniform sample. This rock nonuniformity is
hardly seen from outside with the core photo, Fig. A1b.
Figure A2 shows a sample with big vugs; both within the
sample (Fig. A2a) and on the rock surface (Fig. A2b). The
vugs on the rock surface can be viewed visually; see the dark
spots on the sample photo, (Fig. A1b). The internal vugs can
only be viewed with a CT scan, Fig. A2a.
Both nonuniform (Fig. A1) and vuggy (Fig. A2) samples are
not good candidates for core analysis studies, especially
special core analysis which involves multiphase fluids. Special
core analysis is usually performed on uniform samples, as
seen in Fig. A3.
Sandstone Rock Samples

Measurement Method
Grain density (grain) and porosity () are defined as follows:
W
(1)
grain = dry
V grain

Vp

V B V grain

=1

V grain

(2)
VB
VB
VB
Where Wdry is the sample dry weight (g), Vgrain grain volume
(cc), Vp pore volume (cc), and VB bulk volume (cc). Both Vp
and Vgrain can be determined by using the Matrix Cup of the
UltraPore 300 system, based on the Boyles Law.
p1 v1 p2 v2
(3)
=
T1
T2
Where p1 is the initial system pressure (psig), v1 initial gas
volume (cc), T1 initial absolute temperature (C), p2 pressure
after expansion (psig), v2 gas volume after expansion (cc), T2
absolute temperature after expansion (C). It is noted that
while performing this type of measurement, no confining
pressure can be applied. To measure porosity at stress
conditions, a core holder has to be used where a sleeve
pressure is applied to mimic overburden pressure.
The schematic of UltraPore300 system used in measuring
grain density and porosity of core samples is shown in Fig. 1.
During the measurement, the reference cells are pressurized up
to 200 (p1) psig. The incorporation of variable reference cells
enables the system to be connected to a wide range of sample
holders, ranging from 1 in. plug to 6 in. whole core samples..
The equation used for the calculation of Vgrain is derived from
the basic Boyles law as follows; with constant temperature:

P1 VRe f = P2 VRe f +V B V grain

(4)

VRe f = V Re f 1 + V Re f 2

(5)

Due to geological depositional environments, sandstone rocks

tend to be layered3. Thinly layered rocks can be visible on CT
scans, (Fig. A4). Due to uneven formation stress development,
fractures may be developed in sandstone rocks. Macrofractures often affect the integrity of core plugs, if they can be
cored at all. Thus, they usually cannot be examined with core
plugs. Micro-fractures are small enough to be captured with
core plugs and examined with imaging techniques such as CT
scan. Figure A5 shows a sample with an internal microfracture (Fig. A5a) even its exterior surface looks normal (Fig.
A5b).

P1
(6)
VRe f
P2
p
(7)
V grain = c1 + c2 + V MC 1 (c1 + c2 )
p2
By calibrating with a series of known volume standards, the
relationship between grain volume and the ratio P1/P2 can be
defined. Similarly, the equations used for the calculation of Vp
are:

During flow tests, both layered and micro-fractured samples

may cause fluid channeling which can result in uneven fluid
distributions. For special core analysis, uniform samples, as
shown in Fig. A6, are preferred.

P1
.VRe f V Dead
(9)
P2
Measured Vgrain or Vp can be used in conjunction with VB and
Wdry measurements to calculate and grain.

V grain =(V B + VRe f )

P1 VRe f = P2 (V Dead + V p )

Vp =

(8)

SPE 120814

Best Practices in Conventional Core Analysis- A Laboratory Investigation

Matrix Cup

2) Effect of drying time on porosity and permeability.

3) Effect of confining pressure on permeability
measurement.
4) Effect of fluid on rock permeability.

Sample
Valve

Reference Cells

Effect of Calibration on Grain Density Measurement

Pressure
Transducer
C2

Well Q plug samples were tested before and after applying

standards calibration to confirm sample grain density, thus
porosity in this study. For dolomite samples, grain density is
reduced by about 0.005 g/cc after calibration (Fig. 2); and this
will have an effect on porosity. Without applying data
calibration to plug samples, incorrect grain densities will be
reflected in petrophysical analysis and modeling.

C1
V1

Outlet
Valve

V2
Inlet
Valve

Helium Supply

Equipment Calibration
Frequent and careful calibration of temperature and pressure
are required to make accurate measurements. Standard
samples with known Vp, weights, and grain should be used for
quality control purposes. Samples used for Vp determination
must be cylindrical, and have parallel square end faces.
Samples with different geometries will give erroneously high
Vp values. Calibration of the system using steel standard
samples should be completed twice a day, but preferred every
five samples.
Permeability Measurement
Permeability is a dynamic rock property. Based on rock
samples, accurate measurement of rock permeability can be
difficult since it may be affected by flow regimes (such as gas
slippage) or rock-fluid interactions (fines migration may affect
liquid permeability and clay swelling may affect water
permeability).
In general, rock permeability is often determined in the
laboratory based on the Darcys law:
245QL
(10)
K =
AP
Where K is absolute permeability (md), Q flow rate (cc/min),
L sample length (In), A cross-section area (cm), fluid
viscosity (cp), and P differential pressure across the sample
(psi).
Results and Discussions
Laboratory measurements are often dependent on
measurement procedures and conditions. To better use core
analysis data, these effects need to be understood by the data
users. In this study, the following effects are investigated:
1) Effect of calibration on grain density measurement.

Frequent and careful calibration of temperature and barometric

pressure are recommended to make accurate measurements.
Standard samples with known pore volumes, weights, and
grain densities should be used for quality control purposes. In
order to confirm data acquisition procedure, equipment
calibration is required every five samples.
2.95

Grain Density after Calibration

Fig. 1. Schematic of UltraPore300 for Grain and Pore Volumes.

2.9

For dolomite samples, grain density is

reduced by 0.005 g/cc after calibration

2.85

2.8

2.75

Data are ok for

limestone rock
samples

2.7

y = 0.9736x + 0.0707
R2 = 0.9978

2.65
2.65

2.7

2.75

2.8

2.85

2.9

2.95

Grain Density before Calibration

Fig. 2. Effect of calibration on grain density, Well Q samples.

Effect of Drying Time on Porosity and Permeability

The drying procedure is critical for samples containing
minerals which retain interstitial water. To dry these samples,
the mineralogically-bound water must be removed with no
mineral alteration4. Several drying techniques are available
and the method of choice is dependent on the study objectives
and rock types. Some of these techniques are:
Convection oven5.
This is the most common technique for drying. Temperatures
ranging from 180 F to 240 F are used on samples free of
sensitive minerals.
Humidity oven drying5.
This method is recommended when samples contain
hydratable minerals (such as smectite). This technique is used
to minimize sample alteration. Rocks containing gypsum,
clay-bearing rocks, and shale are best dried at approximately

SPE 120814

Best Practices in Conventional Core Analysis A Laboratory Investigation

54

40% relative humidity from 150 F to 170 F.

18.00

450.00

17.50

430.00

17.00

410.00

16.50

390.00

16.00

370.00

15.50

350.00

15.00

330.00

14.50

310.00

14.00

290.00

Permeability (md)

Porosity (%)

The conventional oven drying technique was applied to Well

N plug samples. The results showed that porosity increased
with drying time, Fig. 3. The rate of the increase was dramatic
within the first 10 hours. After that, it gradually leveled off.
This is related to that the rate of the sample releasing water
with drying time at constant temperature.

Table 3. Permeability of Well N plug samples

Pressure > 200 psig

Sample
ID

Dry
Weight
(gm)
182.20
183.59
198.89
211.75
208.24
205.25
187.44
186.37
183.60

18
19
22
25
26
27
178
179
180

Permeability at confining pressure > 200

psi (md)

Critical point drying (CPD)6.

This method is recommended when minerals sensitive to fluid
phase changes are present (such as illite). Samples can be
dried without collapsing or deforming clay minerals. Scanning
electron microscopy (SEM) is generally used in conjunction
with CPD to investigate drying effects. Certain minerals
become damaged by normal drying as the liquid-gas interface
travels through the rock. In this case, minerals completely
collapse. The CPD method avoids these effects by never
allowing a liquid-gas interface to develop; in this way the
minerals are not exposed to surface tension forces capable of
causing sample damage.

Perm, Sample 18, Well-N

13.50

13.00

270.00

367
771
179
0.16
0.09
0.09
1,329
1,060
1,714

Dry
Weight
(gm)
182.33
183.70
198.97
211.75
208.21
205.21
188.00
186.46
183.69

Permeability
(md)
581
985
258
0.79
0.86
0.84
1,476
1,201
1,915

1,000

10

y = 0.1396x1.2544
R2 = 0.9978
0
0

Por, Sample 18, Well-N

Permeability
(md)

Pressure < 200 psig

10

1,000

Permeability at confining pressure < 200 psi (md)

Fig. 4. Effect of confining pressure on Permeability.

250.00
Primary test

12

24

48

96

192

Drying Time, hrs

Fig. 3. Effect of drying time on porosity and permeability, Well N

samples.

Effect of Confining Pressure on Permeability

By specification, cylinder delivery pressure, used to apply
proper confining pressure to the sleeve, should be greater than
200 psig. Operating the system at pressure less than 200 psig
will not provide the necessary seal around the plug. That may
cause the pressure drop to the abnormally low, consequently,
resulting in a higher calculated permeability.
Well N samples were tested with two pressure sources; P <
200 psig and P > 200 psig. Calculated permeability values
(Table 3) increased by 70-80% when pressure was less than
200 psig, Fig. 4. Inferred permeability is directly related to the
measured pressure drop, which can be misleading because of
the bypassed air across the samples. This effect is especially
significant for low permeability samples.

Effect of Fluid on Rock Permeability

Single phase permeability is the most fundamental rock
dynamic property and a measurement of any conventional
core analysis, using Eq. 10. Although, it is often reported
either as air or brine permeability. The difference, if any,
between air and brine permeabilities is often neglected by field
engineers. In this study, both air (Kg) and brine (Kb)
permeabilities were measured on the Well Q carbonate
samples and Well N sandstone sample. It is noted that both Kg
and Kb are named absolute (Kabs) permeability in the industry.
The brines used in this study are shown in Table 4 for Well Q
samples and Table 5 for Well N samples. Brine permeability
tests for all plug samples were carried out after air
permeability tests.
Gas vs. brine permeabilities for the Well Q carbonate samples
are shown in Fig. 5. From Fig. 5, it is seen that the regression
is almost parallel to the 1:1 line with a slope of 1.018. The
ratio between the brine permeability and air permeability
ranges from 55% at 1 md to 62% at 1,000 md. This difference
is believed to be caused mainly by gas slippage in air

SPE 120814

Best Practices in Conventional Core Analysis- A Laboratory Investigation

permeability measurement since the samples are clean

carbonate.

10,000
1.0252

y = 0 .3 3 8 1 x
2
R = 0 .9 9 3 6

Table 4. Brine Used For Well Q Carbonate Samples

Amount (g/2L)
33.4
7.24
2.56

Table 5. Brine Used for Well N Sandstone Samples

1,000
Liquid Perm ( md)

Salt
NaCl
CaCl2
MgCl2

100

W e ll- N Plu gs

10

1 :1
Brine
Power (Brine)

Salt
NaCl
CaCl2
MgCl2. 6H2O
NaHCO3
Na2SO4

Amount (g/2L)
7.02
3.6
1.26
0.68
4.44

0
0

10

100

1,000

10,000

Air Pe rm ( m d)

Fig. 6. Gas vs. brine permeabilities, Well N sandstone samples.

Summary
10,000

Based on this study, we recommend the following best

practices for conventional core analysis:

1.018

y = 0.54 38x
2
R = 0.9 951

1,000

Liquid Perm ( m d)

W e ll- Q Plu g s

100

10
1:1
Brine

Brine/ Vuggy Cores

Oil/ Vuggy Cores

Power (Brine)

0
0

1
10
100
Air Pe r m ( m d)

1,000

10,000

Fig. 5. Gas vs. brine permeabilities, Well Q carbonates samples.

For Well N sandstone samples, the gas vs. brine permeability

is plotted in Fig. 6. Again, the regression is almost parallel to
the 1:1 line, but in this case, the ratio between brine and air
permeability ranges from 34% at 1 md to 41% at 1,000 md,
much lower than the carbonate samples as shown in Fig. 5.
This is due to the additional effect of clays which reduced
brine permeability7. In summary, it is very important to
differentiate gas permeability from brine permeability in
reservoir engineering.
To compare gas and liquid permeabilities, gas permeability
should be corrected for the pore pressure effect to give the
Klinkenberg permeability. Due to gas slippage and the effect
of clays and fines on brine permeability, the measured gas
permeability is typically higher than liquid permeability.

Before any core analysis tests, samples need to be

screened using a nondestructive technique such as a CT
scan to exam whether the samples are suitable for core
analysis. This is particularly important for special core
analysis.
For the grain density and porosity measurements,
calibration should be conducted at least twice a day.
Insufficient calibration could affect measurements of
grain volume, and consequently grain density and
porosity.
Since drying time affects measurement of pore volume,
thus, grain density and porosity. Measurements can
only be started when samples are dry. The only way to
know that samples are dry is to monitor the change in
samples weight with time.
For gas permeability measurement, the minimum
applied pressure should be greater than 200 psig to
ensure proper sealing of the core plug. Insufficient
pressure may cause leaking of gas between the sleeve
and the core sample. Therefore, the calculated
permeability will be abnormally high.
Due to gas slippage and effect of clays and fines on
brine permeability, the measured gas permeability is
typically higher than liquid permeability. To compare
gas and liquid permeabilities, gas permeability should
be corrected for the pore pressure effect to give the
Klinkenberg permeability.

SPE 120814

Best Practices in Conventional Core Analysis A Laboratory Investigation

Acknowledgments
The authors will like to thank Saudi Arabian Oil Company
(Saudi Aramco) management for the permission to publish
this paper. We wish to thank all laboratory staff of
conventional core analysis, special core analysis, and
computerized tomography groups for their help in laboratory
measurements and fruitful discussions.
Nomenclature
L
D
CTScan
Vgrain
Vpore
CPD
K
P
Q

Sample Length, In
Sample Diameter, In
Computed Tomography Scan
Grain Volume
Pore Volume
Critical Point Drying
Absolute Permeability
Differential Pressure
Flow Rate, cc/min
Fluid Viscosity, cp

References
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Ma, S. M., Al-Muthana, A.S. and Dennis, R.N.: Use of

Core Data in Log Lithology Calibration: Arab-D
Reservoir, Abqaiq and Ghawar Fields, SPE 77778.
Ma, S.M., Al-Hajari, A.A., Kersey, D.G. and Funk, J.J.:
Fit-for-Purpose Laboratory Core Analyses and Their
Impact on Log Processing, SPE 105301.
Al-Ruwaili, S.B. and Al-Waheed, H.: Petrophysical
Models and Techniques for Shaly-Sand Formation
Evaulation, SPE 88686.
Morrow, N.R., Cather, M.E., Bukley, J.S. and Dandge,
V.: Effects of Drying on Absolute and Relative
Permeabilities of Low-Permeabilities Gas Sands, SPE
21880.
API (1998), Recommended Practices for Core Analysis,
Recommended Practice 40, 2nd edition, February,
American Petroleum Institute.
Pallatt, N., Wilson, J. and McHardy, B.: The
Relationship between Permeability and the Morphology
of Diagenetic Illite in Reservoir Rocks, SPE 12798.
Nasr-El-Din, H.A., Al-Mulhem, A. and Lynn, J.D.:
Evaluation of Clay Stabilizers for a Sandstone Field in
Central Saudi Aarabia, SPE 57393.

Appendix
CT scan images and photos of core samples

SPE 120814

Best Practices in Conventional Core Analysis- A Laboratory Investigation

Fig. A1a. CT Scan of sample 9 Well Q.

Fig. A1b. Plug photo of sample 9 Well Q.

Fig. A2a. CT Scan of sample 92 Well Q.

Fig. A2b. Plug photo of sample 92 Well Q.

Fig. A3a. CT Scan of sample 19 Well Q.

Fig. A3b. Plug photo of sample 19 Well Q.

SPE 120814

Best Practices in Conventional Core Analysis A Laboratory Investigation

Fig. A4a. CT Scan of sample 18 Well N.

Fig. A4b. Plug photo of sample 18 Well N.

Fig. A5a. CT Scan of sample 25 Well N.

Fig. A5b. Plug photo of sample 25 Well N.

Fig. A6a. CT Scan of sample 179 Well N.

Fig. A6b. Plug photo of sample 179 Well N.