IPA, 2006 - 16th Annual Convention Proceedings, 1987

IPA 87 - 21/04

PROCEEDINGS INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION

Sixteenth Annual Convention, October 1987
ARUN CORE ANALYSIS: SPECIAL PROCEDURES
FOR VUGGY CARBONATES
Eve S. Sprunt *

ABSTRACT
Vuggy carbonates, such as the reef facies of the Arun
limestone, require modification of standard core analysis procedures. The best procedures for vuggy carbonates
may nqt be the methods of choice for other types of rocks.
When large, well-connected vugs are present, virtually any
material can and does enter the pore spaces. Core analysis problems arise because whole drilling mud enters the
pore spaces during coring. Jacketing materials and mercury
also enter the pore spaces. For example, whole drilling
mud has invaded the Arun limestone so deeply that, in
some cases, vugs in the center of 3.5-inch diameter cores
are filled with mud solids. Standard core cleaning techniques are designed to remove hydrocarbons and brine from
the core, but not solids. Mud invasion and efficiency of
cleaning techniques can be monitored with X-ray CAT
scanning. Bulk volume of these core samples cannot be determined with normal procedures because mercury enters
large vugs. Bulk volume should, therefore, be determined
by direct measurement of the sample dimension with calipers instead of techniques that require immersion. To calculate porosity, pore volume can be obtained from the difference between the bulk volume and grain volume. To
measure pore compressibility, change in pore volume with
pressure must be determined. Measured changes in pore
volume are erroneously large, however, due to jacket intrusion, and may be misinterpreted as sample crushing. New
techniques have consequently been developed at Mobil
to measure pore compressibility. Capillary pressure measurements on vuggy core samples are also difficult. Mercury
injection measurements on full-diameter samples are preferred. All core analysis procedures should be carefully
evaluated before application t o vuggy formation. Many
assumptions fail when vugs are present.
INTRODUCTION
Standard core analysis techniques do not work well with
vuggy carbonates. Problems have been encountered in
obtaining high-accuracy core analysis on vuggy portions of
the Arun gas condensate field in northern Sumatra, Indonesia. The Arun reservoir is extremely heterogenous. Some

_-__________*) Mobil Research and Development Corporation, Dallas-USA.

facies present no unusual core analysis problems. At the

other extreme are vuggy facies which cause severe difficulty.
The problems increase with the size and number of the
vugs. This paper describes the nature of the problems
encountered and special procedures used for the vuggy
carbonate rocks.
For engineering purposes, the Arun limestone was divided into lagoonal and reef facies. Near-reef facies were
lumped with the reef facies for core analysis purposes. The
lagoonal sediments are typically fine-grained rocks with
virtually all of the porosity in the form of microporosity.
Such samples are very well-suited to conventional core
analysis techniques. The lagoonal sediments may contain
moldic porosity, which are often small pores in the ordei
of a few millimeters in diameter. Moldic porosity can
cause some problems in core analysis. Major difficulties
occur in vuggy cores which are usually from the reef
facies. For core analysis purposes, vugs include any large
pores that create core analysis problems. Examples of such
porosity are solution enlarged fractures (channel porosity)
or large growth-framework pores in certain types of corals.
There is a wide spectrum of vug sizes.
Full-core analysis is usually recommended for vuggy.
heterogeneous carbonates. The problems that are high.
lighted here are caused by intrusion of almost any materid
into large, well-connected porosity. During the drilling
process large amounts of whole mud can contaminate
vuggy core. Mercury enters large vugs during displacement
measurements, and jacketing material intrudes into pore
spaces with pressure.
Mud solids contamination is a serious problem foi
several reasons. The mud solids occupy pore volume that
in the reservoir is occupied by reservoir fluids. Also, the
mud solids reduce permeability. In a fomiation that i:
naturally free of clay minerals, water binding by clay
minerals in the mud solids can distort measurements suck
as capillary pressure and relative permeability.
Mercury intrusion at very low pressures means that
standard porosity measurement techniques cannot be
used. Also, special precautions must be taken in mercuq
injection tests because of mercury injection that occur:
during the filling of the test chamber before the test starts.
Intrusion of jacketing material into pore spaces witl-

12

pressure creates problems in many core analysis measurements. Vuggy surface porosity is not measured in pore
volume measurements of sleeved samples. Intrusion of
jackets with pressure means that measurements dependent
on knowing pore Volume or cha-ge in pore volume are
inaccurate. Such measurements include pore compressibility.

WHOLE DRILLING MUD INVASION

and the lower left mud-free. Mud solids enter the bestconnected porosity.
The mud can be seen by eye when the core is cut. HOWever, the non uniform distribution of the mud means that
the degree of contamination of a core cannot be determined from its ends. X-ray CAT scanning allows non-destructive screening of cores and plugs for mud solids contamination. The scanner can also be used to monitor the effectiveness of various core cleaning techniques.

Drilling mud is designed to build a cake on the surface

of the well bore. If large, well-connected vugs are present,
whole' drilling mud will enter the rock. Invasion of core
samples occurs ahead of the drill bit. How far the drilling
mud solids will enter the core samples and rock surrounding
the well bore depends on the pore network. The Arun
reef facies are severely invaded with whole mud solids.
Examination of the cores taken in the Arun field shows
that whole mud invasion has affected the vuggy facies of
all the cores. Whole mud invasion has occurred with both
water- and oil based muds. Figure 1 shows dried mud solids
near the center of a 3.5-inch core. Intermingled with the
mud solids are limestone shards that may be limestone cuttings.
Mud invasion appears in two basic modes. One mode
is invasion of the microporosity adjacent to the outside of
the core. Invasion of the microporosity can occur in many
types of rock including the lagoonal facies of the Arun
limestone. Such invasion can cause a skin of reduced
permeability. The adverse effects of the skin can be minimized by sandblasting the cores. Sandblasting of fulldiameter cores is a standard core analysis procedure. The
more serious problem is mud invasion of the larger pores
to the center of the cores.

One of the problems with mud solids contamination is

that the composition of the mud solids is not well known.
The precise composition of the whole drilling mud at any
moment during drilling and coring is not well known either.
The principal components of mud solids are barite, rock
cuttings, clay minerals, and organic mud additives. Once
the invasion problem is identified, samples of returned mud
can be saved during coring for later reference.

X-ray CAT scanning enables us to view both types

of mud invasion nondestructively. X-ray CAT scanning
is based on difference in density. The barium sulfate
weighting agent in the drilling mud is much denser than
normal rock-forming minerals. As such, the drilling mud
shows up as high density anomalies. Figure 2A shows a
sample that had invasion of the core to the center and
invasion of a solutionenlarged fracture at the top of the
core. A one-inch plug sample was taken from the core
piece. Figure 2B shows a digital X-ray of that core when
the two pieces are placed back together. The plug hole is
visible. This image is equivalent to a conventional X-ray
of the core where all the information is projected onto a
single plane. Figure 2C shows an X-ray CAT scan through
the core at the dotted line in Figure 2B. The approximately
one-third slabbing cut can be seen across the core. The
drilling mud appears as the white areas, macroporosity
as dark gray areas, and limestone as medium gray. The
microporosity is smaller than the resolution of the CAT
scanner. The mud solids contamination is not uniformly
distributed; the lower right quadrant is badly affected

A wide assortment of core cleaning techniques were

tried with varying success. COz/toluene extraction did not
remove the solids. Solvent flooding did not remove a significant amount of mud solids from the interior of core
samples. Ultrasonic cleaning loosened some of the nearsurface mud, but not even all of that was removed. Water
jet cleaning (as with a Water Pik) did a very good job of
cleaning the pear-surface, but did not clean the interior
of the rock. No method was found for removing all mud
solids from the core.

CORE CLEANING
Core cleaning techniques involving hot or cold solvent
extraction are designed to remove liquid, organic, or salt
contaminants from cores. Barite is chosen as a weighting
agent in drilling mud because, among other reasons, it is
non reactive with other mud chemicals. Thus, the rock
will dissolve before the barite. A physical, rather than a
chemical, process is required to remove the barite from
the core. The clay component of the drilling mud may be
removed from the cores with caustic solutions if no silica
minerals are naturally present. Since clay minerals bind
water, removing the clay component of the drilling mud,
even if the barite is not removed, may improve the accuracy of saturation-dependent core analysis measurements.

Figure 3A shows a CAT scan of a 3.5-inch diameter

core that has been cleaned with COZ /toluene extraction,
sandblasting, solvent flooding, and a Water Pik. The surface
and near-surface macropores are now free of solids. However, large amounts of mud solids (white areas) remain in
the larger pores. Use of the CAT scanner to monitor core
cleaning can be seen in comparison between Figures 3A and
3B. The CAT scan image in Figure 3B, was taken following a caustic/pressure treatment. Chunks of mud solid were
mobilized but not removed from the core. These chunks
can be seen in the tubular vug near the top of the core.

13

The Arun limestone is virtually free of naturally-occuring clay minerals. Some horizons are dolomitized, but
these are quite limited. To try to quantify the extent of the
mud invasion, samples of the limestone were dissolved
in acid. The idea was that the weight of the acid-insoluble
residue would be proportional to the mud solids contamination. The heterogeneity in the mud solids distribution
required rather large sample sizes to represent the core
appropriately. Thus, large quantities of acid were needed.
Accuracy was lost due to the large volume of acid and
water used in washing the acid-insoluble residues. Also,
several of the impurities commonly associated with barite
are saluble in hydrochloric acid. Examples of such acidsoluble impurities are siderite, hematite, magnetite, magnesite, gypsum, and witherite. The elemental composition
of the acid-insoluble residue was determined with an X-ray
fluorescence technique, which indicated that the main
constituent was barium. Good qualitative agreement was
obtained between the weight percent acid-insoluble residue
and the amount of mud solids observed with the CAT
scanner.
CORE CONDITION
For hetergeneous formations full-diameter, routine core
analysis is standardly recommended. Special core analysis
is most often performed on plug samples, even for heterogeneous formations. The same reasons that indicate fulldiameter analysis for routine core analysis apply to special
core analysis. Also, many special core analysis tests are
more accurate if the test sample has as large a pore volume
as possible.
An exception to the full-diameter core analysis recommendation is made if the core is badly broken. In that
case, it may be impossible to represent the entire core
properly with full-diameter samples for routine analysis.
If this is true, foot-by-foot plug analysis may give a more
meaningful representation of the core than full-diameter,
routine core analysis with many feet not represented. We
encountered this situation with one of the Arun cores.
If the core has sustained severe whole mud invasion, the
full-core analysis may not be representative. Care must be
taken to remove the damaged skin by sandblasting or subcoring. The full cores will better sample the large vugs
than plug samples, but they will, in general, be more
severely invaded. The plugs from badly invaded core are
not free from drilling mud solids contamination.
POROSITY
Porosity is calculated from the measured bulk volume
and the measured or calculated pore volume.

9 = vP/vb = (vb - vg!Ivb

(1)

where 9 = porosity; V = pore volume; v b = bulk volume;

P
and V = grain volume.
g

Measurement of bulk volume using mercury requires

the assumption that the mercury is displaced by the rock
and does not enter it. The assumptian fails for core samples with large pore throats, such as vuggy carbonates.
The radius (R) of the pore throat that allows mercury
to enter depends on the depth (P) the pore is below the
surface of the mercury.

R = (20 cos

qlw,

(2)

where u = the surface tension of the mercury; 8 = the

contact angle (assume to be 140'); and K = a unit conversion constant (1.33 x

so,
R (microns) = 561/P (cm Hg).

(3)

The severity of the mercury immersion problem depends

on the pore size and the pore throat distribution within
the sample. If a 3-inch-long plug is barely submerged in
mercury vertically, mercury will enter a 78-micron radius
pore. If a 1-inch diameter plug is submerged horizontally,
mercury can enter a 221-micron radius pore. Vugs do not
have to be big enough to admit a human finger for the
problem to be significant. The American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice for Core Analysis
Procedures warns against immersing vuggy or high permeability samples in mercury.
If the grain volume, rather than the pore volume, is
measured directly, the porosity is underestimated when the
bulk volume is undermeasured. If the bulk volume is
undermeasured by an amount E due to mercury immersion, the porosity is:

9 = ([vb

'

1 - vg)/(vb

'

&

)Y

(4)

where E = error in bulk volume and v b = bulk volume

measured by immersion in mercury.
For vuggy carbonates, the error in bulk volume measurement can result in large porosity errors. Figure 4 shows
comparison, for one-inch diameter Arun plugs, between
the porosity measured by a caliper method and that measured by mercury immersion. The dots would fall on the
diagonal if both methods gave the same answer. This
good fortune hippened for only two samples of Arun
core.
Full cores are usually not immersed in mercury, but
rather water. If a supposedlyliquid-saturated core is immersed in water, the displacement should give the bulk volume.
However, the surface vugs of saturated cores drain almost
instantaneously. Thus, when a partially drained full core
is immersed in water, the bulk volume is underestimated
because the water re-enters the vugs.
For vuggy rocks, the preferred method of determining
bulk volume is by direct measurement of the length and
diameter with calipers. For non-vuggy samples this is not
the preferred method, because core samples are usually

14

not right cylinders. The caliper bulk volume is, in general, higher than the true bulk volume. The error in the bulk
volume should be estimated by measuring non-vuggy samples of comparable length and diameter by both caliper and
mercury immerson.

The volume measurement is needed for several special

core analysis tests including capillary pressure, pore compressibility, and the electrical resistivity exponents. Mismeasurement of the pore volume can have adverse effects
on these other core analysis measurements.

Sometimes the pore volume is measured directly rather

than being obtained by measuring the grain volume directly
and subtracting that from the bulk volume. The grain volume is measured by helium gas expansion when the sample is placed in a known volume chamber. The pore volume is measured by helium gas expansion.when the sample
is jacketed and gas is expanded into the pore space. Normally, a minimal amount of overburden.pressure (a few
hundred psi) is used t o seal the jacket against the sample.
For a sample containing only microporosity, the direct
measurement of the pore volume is often more accurate.
For a sample with surface vugs, it is not. The overburden
pressure, however small, forces the jacketing material into
the surface porosity. Thus, the measured pore volume is
too small and the calculated porosity is too low. The magnitude of the error increases with the surface-to-volume ratio. Thus, the problem is more severe with plug samples
than with full-core samples. The direct measurement of
pore volume may, however, be more common with fulldiameter samples. Figure 5 shows the comparison for
some full-diameter Arun cores between porosity determined with a directly measured pore volume on sleeved
samples and with a pore volume determined from the calipered bulk volume and grain volume. As in Figure 4, the
dots fall on the diagonal if both techniques give the same
answer.

PERMEABILITY

For vuggy samples, we recommend caliper determination of bulk volume and direct measurement of the grain
volume by gas expansion in a cell of known volume. The
overestimation of porosity due to calipering should be calibrated on similar non-vuggy samples. This procedure applies to both plug and full-diameter samples.
Measurement of grain density can be used to get some
indication of the accuracy of the grain volume measurement. If the grain volume is measured directly, the grain
densities can be correct while the porosities are drastically in error due to mismeasurement of the bulk volume.
Pg = WlVg
where pg = grain density, W
lume .

(5)
=

weight, and V = grain

g

VO-

The error in grain density is usually in the grain volume

measurement rather than in the sample weight. If the measured grain volume is too high, the calculated pore volume
and porosity is too low. Since the Arun formation is almost
always limestone, this has been a very useful test of accuracy of porosity measurements. However, this test did not detect the porosity errors due to mercury immersion.

wggy cores, permeability varies drastically with^ direction. Thus, it is difficult to do careful quality control
measurements. Whole drilling mud invasion reduces the permeability. Anything that can be done to minimize the mud
damage aids in obtaining more accuratemeasurements. Such
steps include sandblasting, subcoring, and special cleaning.

CAPILLARY PRESSURE
Standard methods for determining capillary pressure include porous membrane, centrifuge, and mercury injection.
For vuggy samples, we recommend mercury injection on
large-diameter samples. Centrifuge measurements are not
suitable for vuggy samples because they are not appropriately represented by the small plugs used in the centrifuge
test, and because large surface pores can drain during Sample transfer t o the centrifuge. Porous membrane tests are
not recommended because: 1) they require very long periods of time, 2) contact between a vuggy sample and the
porous membrane is difficult to maintain, and 3) high pressures are difficult to attain.
For mercury injection measurements, the pore volume
of vuggy samples should be determined using a mercury
immersion bulk volume and a measured grain volume. This
pore volume should be used because mercury enters some
of the pores just from the weight of the column of mercury
required to cover the samples. The mercury that enters the
sample before pressure is applied is not included in the
mercury injection test. The pore volume determined in
this way should be used only for mercury injection measurements and not to calculate the samples porosity. Failure to use a mercury immersion pore volume results in
an erroneously high water saturation at any given pressure.

PORE COMPRESSIBILITY
Accurate measurement of the pore compressibility of
vuggy limestone is extremely difficult. The problem is jacketing the samples so that the jacketing does not intrude
into the sample as a function of pressure. If this happens,
the sleeve occupies space that was counted as part of the
initial pore volume. The reduction of pore volume due to
jacket intrusion is combined with the reduction in pore
volume due to the rock response to pressure. Standard
experimental procedures cannot distinguish between reduced pore volume due to pore compression and reduced
pore volume due to sleeve intrusion. In experiments in
which jacket intrusion occurs, erroneously high pore compressibilities are measured.

If the sleeve material intrudes into the sample, there are

two options: 1) alter the sleeve design to present sleeve intrusion, or 2) measure the amount of sleeve intrusion. Both
approaches were tried. Efforts to prevent sleeve intrusion
were unsuccessful. Three methods were tried to prevent
jacket intrusion in vuggy plugs and full cores: 1) epoxy-filling of surface vugs, 2) wrapping with .OlO-inch hardened
stainless steel shim stock, and 3) wrapping in .050-inch
stainless steel pipe.
In the fxst method, epoxy-filling of surface vugs prevents sleeve intrusion into some vugs, but does not eliminate the problem. Some large vugs may be separated
from the core surface by a thin wall of rock. It is not possible to fill these pores with epoxy without impregnating
the whole rock. A large change in pore volume occurs when
the thin wall fails and the sleeve occupies the pore. Such
a change may be falsely interpreted as crushing of the rock.

In the second method, the core was wrapped with 010inch hardened stainless steel shim stock before placement
in the rubber sleeve. The shim stock reduced the amount
of sleeve intrusion, but did not eliminate it. The intrusion
was a function of pressure, so compressibility values were
too large at all pressures.
Since a .010-inch thick layer of stainless steel inside the
sleeve decreased but did not eliininate the sleeve intrusion,
the third attempt used a .05(rinch layer of stainless steel.
Stainless steel pipe with an inside diameter slightly smaller
than the external diameter of the core was placed around
the core. The pipe was split lengthwise so that the pressure
could be transmitted to the core. There was deformation
of even this thickness of steel. A further complication was
that fluid was trapped between the edge of the steel pipe
and the rubber sleeve. The fluid was squeezed out with
pressure and led to falsely large values of pore compressibility.
Effort 'was then focused on quantifying the amount of
sleeve intrusion using observation with X-ray CAT scanner.
Two approaches were used: 1) observation of the core
under pressure inside the pressure vessel, and 2) observation
of the core outside the pressure vessel after the completion
of each cycle of a series of pressure cycles with increasing
maximum pressures.
The X-ray CAT scanner allows us to image a core sample
inside a pressure vessel under pressure if sufficient X-rays
can penetrate the vessel. Usually pressure vessels are made
of some kind of steel. Steel has a density of 7.86 gm/cc
and absorbs more X-rays than lower density materials such
as aluminum (density 2.75 gmlcc). Aluminum or other
strong, low-density materials are preferred for construction
of pressure vessels which are to be used in conjunction with
the X-ray CAT scanner.
The design of the aluminum pressure vessel must consider maximum working pressure, core sample diameter,

and desired X-ray CAT scan image quality. A large-dimeter core is preferred to minimize surface effects such as
sleeve intrusion. However, experiments with large-diameter
core samples require pressure vessels with large inner diameters and thick walls. The thickness of the pressure vessel
walls also increase with the maximum working pressure of
the pressure vessel. The X-rays used to generate the image
are transmitted through the pressure vessel, so each incre
ment in wall thickness means double that increment of
vesseI wall in the X-ray path. The large diameter core Samples also absorb more X-rays. The larger the core and the.
thicker the pressure vessel walls, the poorer the quality of
the X-ray CAT scan image.
To simulate the pressures that will be reached in the
Arun field at depletion, we constructed a pressure vessel
that could sustain pressures of 10,000 psi. Considering the
pressure vessel wall thickness required to contain this pressure, X-ray CAT scan resolution constraints limited us to a
2-inch diameter core sample.
The X-ray CAT scanner was then used to monitor changes in such a 2-inch diameter sample of Arun core during a
test that measured change in pore volume with pressure.
The test was run as a single increasing pressure. At each
pressure point, the sample was allowed to equilibrate.
Then the sample was scanned at 5 mm intervals, and the
pore volume change was recorded. A final series of scans
were taken in the pressure vessel after the pressure had
been dropped to ambient. The compressibility values obtained were higher by a factor of two or more than those
measured in experiments in which an attempt was made to
eliminate jacket intrusion. This was expected, the objective was to measure the volume displaced by jacket intrusion from the X-ray CAT scans. The volume occupied by the
jacketing material would be subtracted from the nleasured
change in pore volume. The quantification was not attempted when the X-ray CAT scans showed that the experiment
was dominated by collapse of the core surface by wedgelike jacket intrusion. The conclusion was that samples with
large surface-to-volume ratios would be needed to assure
adequate intact rock for meaningful experiments.
Much of the damage to the core sample from the sleeve
wedging was not observed until the confining pressure was
dropped to ambient pressure. At elevated pressures, thin
cracks were pressed shut and were difficult to observe. The
final scans at imbient pressure showed considerable breakage; all the damage was adjacent to the core surface. The
rubber jacket intruded into surface vugs and tended to wedge the core apart. The damage had not been visible in the
scans taken at 10,000 psi. It was not possibIe to determine
conclusively whether the breakage was indicative of sample
crushing that could be expected to occur in the reservoir
during pressure drawdown or merely experimental artifacts related to the surface-to-volumeratio. A two-inch diameter sample was inadequate for proper modeling of the

16

pore compressibility of samples of the Arun limestone in

which large vugs are present.
Interpretation of the above experiment using the X-ray
CAT scanner to follow deformation step by step through
the pressure cscle has guided us to the necessary conditions for a new experiment. First, full-diameter samples
should be used to minimize surface effects. Second, cracks
are closed under pressure, so cracks formed at a given pressure are difficult to observe if the core is scanned under
pressure. If it is assumed that *fracturingis primarily due to
the magnitude of the applied pressure and not due to fatigue from pressure cycling, the core.dhould be scanned at
ambient pressure after each new maximum pressure point.
Cracks crea'ted in the last pressure cycle will be easier to see
at ambient pressure. Third, the sample should be imaged in
the jacketing material but outside the pressure vessel. Removal of ~e jacketing material would tehd to destroy the
sample, because the jacket becomes embedded in the sample. Full-diameter samples (3.5 or 4 inches in diameter)
cannot be scanned in the pressure vessel at appropriate
pressures because of the pressure vessel design constraints.
' Even with the two-inch diameter sample, the pressure vessel degrades resolution, making detection of fine fractures
difficult. Fourth, the jacket intrusion does not cease at
any given pressure. The jacket continues to wedge its way
into the core. If most of the jacket intrusion occurs in
the first pressure cycle, measurement of pore compressibility in subsequent pressure cycles, as long as the jacket has
not been removed and the core has not been subjected to a
higher pressure, should give a good indication of the true
pore compressibility.
Figure 6 shows the pore volume change in the different
cycles normalized so that the pore changes are taken from
1000 psi. Note the overlapping values as the same pressure
points are occupied in cycles subsequent to the cycle in
which a given pressure is first reached. The pore volume
changes in the new portion of each curve are markedly
highef than in subsequent cycles. Pore compressibility is
calculated from the pore volume changes. The value of pore
compressibility obtained the second time the sample was
cycled to a given pressure is selected as the most nearly
correct value. These values are considerably lower than the
values obtained for the samples in which attempts were
made to prevent jacket intrusion.
The Xdray CAT scans confirm that jacket intrusion continues as new maximum pressures are reached. Figure 7
shows a series of X-ray CAT scans of one slice of the core
after it has been subjected to different maximum pressures.
The slice location may very slightly because the core sample was removed from the X-ray CAT scanner in between
slices. The core perimeter is highlighted in white by a dense
layer of thin copper foil. In the slice shown in Figure 7, the
thin wdll separating a pore from the sample surface has collapsed at 6000 psi. (The pore is located at the six to seven
o'clock position). The resulting jacket intrusion is to a

depth of around 0.5 inch..,The collapse of the pore wall

and subsequent rapid reduction in pore volume is also
observed as a sharp increase in pore pressure. More gradual,
but also volumetrically significant, jacket intrusion occurs
in the two o'dock position of the,same slice. The biggest
increment in intrusion in that position is at 8000 psi, but
intrusion continues at higher pressures. Predictions of
which near-surface pores would fail based on X-ray CAT
scan images have not been successful.
With standard procedures, the sharp reduction in pore
volume due to jacket breakthrough into near-surface pores
would be interpreted as formation crushing. In this experiment, no crushing is observed except at the sample-perimeter. That observation, combined with the reproducibility
of changes in pore volume in subsequent runs, leads to the
conclusion that the observed crushing is an experimental
artifact.
CONCLUSIONS

In vuggy carbonate rocks, all core analysis measuremeants are subject to substantial errors. The problems increase with increasing vugginess. Non-destructive X-ray
scanning can be used to screen for whole drilling mud invasion and the effectiveness of cleaning methods. Special
techniques, not recommended for rocks with only microporosity, should be used on vuggy rocks such as those from
Arun reef facies. Care must be taken that the appropriate
pore volume is used in special core analysis tests.
A new set of guidelines has been developed for measuring the pore compressibility of vuggy core samples. They
ate as follows:
1. Full-diameter core samples must be used to minimize
laboratory artifacts due to jacket intrusion and associated core breakage.

2. The samples should be subjected to a series of pressure

cycles with increasing maximum pressures.
3. The compressibility value measured, the second time
the core is cycled through a given pressure, should be
used to represent the compressibility of the sample. at
that pressure.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was funded by Mobil Oil Indonesia in support of the ArUn reservoir reserve determination. E.L.
Muegge performed all of the X-ray CAT Scan imaging, A.C.
Hall and E.F. Schultz developed core cleaning techniques.
W.C. Callaway conducted X-ray fluorescence analyses. L.D.
Smallwood performed many core compressibility test.
D.P. Yale collaborated on the pressure cycling technique
for determining pore compressibility. S.H. Collins and J.M.
Rodriguez assisted in many aspects of this project.
REFERENCES
American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice For
Core Analysis Procedures . API RP40, August 1960,55.

17

18

IN. CM.

FIGURE 2 A

FIGURE 2B

FIGURE 2C

19

20

\*

21

ARUN A-53 POROSITY COMPARISON

25

20

15

10
10

15

20

CALIPER
FIGURE 5

25

22

0
0

/
X

0
0
v)

r-

0
0
0
u)

0
0
u)

23

X-RAY CAT SCANS AS A FUNCTION OF PRESSURE

FIGURE 7

'