RockMechanicsas a Multidisciplinary

Sclence,Roegiers(ed.)
¸ 1991 Balkema, Rotterdam ISBN906191 194X

Corequalitycontrolin petroleum
engineering
E J.S antarelli
Elf Aquitaine,Pau,France
M. B. Dusseault
Universityof Waterloo,Ont.,Canada

ABSTRACT : Core damage is a more serious issue in petroleum engi-

neering than in conventional rock mechanics because empirical on site
design optimisation using direct observation is not possible. Thus,
coring is a critical source of information, but it is not easy to
obtain high quality specimens from core samples. This paper iden-
tifies, quantifies, and illustrates core property deterioration, and
will propose means of quantifying damage in a systematic manner and
controlling it.

1 INTRODUCTION

In the petroleum industry, decisions to core are made on economical

and technical grounds. The economical stakes are clear ; coring
interrupts drilling activity, and carries a penalty of about one full
day of rig time for deep operations. To reduce costs, the industry is
taking longer cores ; 18, 27, 36 and even 55 m cores are now being
taken and even continuous coring is occasionally carried out.
Technical reasons for coring are twofold. Conventionally, coring
provides qualitative geological and reservoir engineering evaluation.
However, quantitative information may be vital, particularly in
marginal fields where long appraisal phases with full-scale, long-term
well tests are not possible. The second technical reason is therefore
quantitative core measurements, such as permeability data under stress
to assess Ak arising from compression, and so on. Good results cannot
be achieved with poor core, yet major economic decisions may ride on
the outcome of the core tests, affecting decisions as crucial as field
development.
In geomechanics, one cannot assume that samples are representative
of downhole material ; issues of possible core damage during coring
and transportation become important. We discuss various issues such as
discing, jamming, and core fracturing. We identify and illustrate
several damage mechanisms and propose several means of quantifying
core damage, or at least of systematically establishing some quality
control measures. Physico-chemical issues such as wettability or satu-
ration changes are deliberately ignored in this paper ; we limit our
discussion to rock mechanics issues, and damage is understood to
consist of irreversible changes in mechanical properties because of
microcrack formation, rupture of cohesive bonding, and disruption of
fabric even to the point of total disturbance.

111
2 TECHNOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

Mechanisms at the Coring Front

It has been recognized and proven experimentally (Obert and

Stephanson, 1965) that stress concentrations near the coring front,
including underneath the advancing core bit, are peculiar and can lead
to a type of failure known as core discing. Discing particularly
affects brittle rocks such as strong carbonates or basalts that are
more prone to rupture in tensile parting than in shear. Interest
exists in using discing geometry and frequency as method to determine
in situ stresses (Panet, 1969 Perreau et al., 1989). Recent important
contributions have been made in modelling the phenomenon for both
vertical (Venet et al., 1989) and inclined boreholes (Dyke, 1989).

As a direct evidence of rock failure at the coring front discing can

take several forms (Figure 1). To study the process, the front created
by two bits often recommended for soft formation coring were analyzed
for an 8.5" well (Figure 2). A Finite Element (FEM) code named
PETRO-CESAR, initially developed for civil engineering applications
(Humbert, 1989) and subsequently adapted to the oil environment
(Humbert et al., 1991a and 1991b), was used. For both cases, the well
is vertical, depth is 1 000 m in a normally pressurized area, the
effective vertical stress (a') is ', equal to 10 MPa, and effective
horizontal stressesare isotropic, • = Koa
•.
Isotropic linear elasticity was used for the rock and using such a
simple behavioral model has two practical advantages :
i. If a core is damaged, it is difficult to access theological
properties.
ii. Calculations show that stress concentration magnitudes are
almost independent of Poisson's ratio and Young's modulus when
• = •, in the caseof a linear elastic material
Stressconcentrations
werecomputed
(Figure•) in thecasewhere
K = 1 and where the mud pressure just equilibrates the formation
p•essure, P_d - Pfor•• P' - 0, so thathydrodynamicandtransient
effects can•e neg•ec•ea.Tw•majorstressedareasoccurß
i. One corresponds to tensile stress and is situated around the
external surface of the core just above the bit.
ii. The other corresponds to high compressive stresses ; Figure 3
shows
wherethis inplanecompressive
stress exceeds• at the wall of
the borehole, 20 MPa in this case.
The locus of maximum stress concentration is farther from the core
in the case of bit A, but when K increases, it tends to move towards
the core. The tensile stress areaøis the mostlikely to cause discing,
both because of its location and because of the low rock tensile
strength. This corroborates observations made on disced cores in rocks
with high compressive strength, and showing feather features.
The influence of K on the maximum tensile stress in the core has
beenstudiedfor the øtwobits (Figure4). It confirmsthe results by
Venet (1991) and shows that damage potential is a maximumfor large
natural al ' %3' either in compressive
or extensionalstress regimes.
This point is empirically verified in that regions with highly
compresslye (Maury and Sauzay, 1987, SW France gas fields) or highly
extensional (Turner, 1990, South African gold mines) tectonic regimes

112
 CORINGBIT # A CORINGBIT # B

"' Figure 2 : Wellbore front created

.•.. •}/"*'•'-•"'•i'!'
bytwobits
commonly
used
tocore
unconsolidated formations.

Figure 1 : Failure in uniaxial

compression tests and in cores for
two weak rocks

I I

E• TENSILE
STRESS

I(•'V
=O'h
p=O'H
Pmud.•
m'=10
!ot, MPI I• H1GH
M!
COMPRESSIVE
STRES•
L•U5 OFMAXIMUM•ILE STRESS
MC L•US OF MAXIMUMCOMP•IVE

Figure 3 : Stress concentrations

around the front created by two
bites used to core unconsolidated
formations.

1-" :i'=",
.440 $.aO 1.40 LeO
i1'1•s• •NlIOTIIO4'V nATIO

Figure 4 : Influence of the in Figure 5 : Influence of overba-

situ stress anisotropy ratio on the lance pressure on the maximum ten-
maximum tensile stress in the core sile stress in the core for two
for two bits. bits.

113
produce much disced cores. Figure 4 also shows that bit A always
produces lower tensile stresses, particularly for high horizontal
stresses.

The case of an isotropic stress field has been studied and Figure 6
shows how drilling mud overpressure (P'm) can reduce and even
eliminate tensile stress in the core. Figure 5 calls for several
remarks :
i. Analyses were performed with a perfect cake, i.e. Ap
dissipates completely in the cake, and thus entirely supports the
formation.
ii. Mud cake does not form instantaneously ; thus, to have some
sort of short-term mud support at the front through an internal cake,
controlled rates of penetration may be required in sensitive strata.
iii. The reduced annulus between the barrel and the wellbore wall
fayours differential pressure sticking against a permeable formation,
reducing the possibility of using mud pressure increases.
Thus, the advantage of carefully choosing bit type based on stress
analysis is quantified on Figure 5. The mud pressure reducing tensile
stresses to a token level of - 0.25 MPa in the core is 2.6 MPa for bit
A and 3.2 MPa for bit B ; this difference of 0.6 MPa may be enough to
allow safe coring free from differential sticking.

Core Jamming in the Barrel

Free core entry to the inner barrel may become impaired for one of a
number of reasons (Basovich et al., 1984). Penetration rate falls, and
generally the weight on bit (WOB) is increased, subjecting the core to
a stress state similar to that in standard triaxial compressive tests
(Figure 6). The result can be complete failure of the material already
in the core barrel, or a mechanism of axial microcrack generation
(parallel to the core axis). The best operational way to reduce such
damage is to keep WOBbelow a critical value using a criterion such
as :

WOBcrit< (Rc + UP P m)A

where Rc is the estimated rock uniaxial compressive strength, U_ the
estimated failure criterion slope, P'm the mudoverbalance pressure,
and A the core area. When coring can no longer be performed without
increasing WOB above this value, from a geomechanics view, the job
should be terminated in so far as it is wiser to recover 3 m of intact
core than 9 m of rubble.

Core Drainage and Cooling

When pulling out a core, issues of drainage and cooling arise. Only
core drainage will be considered here, for two reasons.
i. It is felt that failure due to retarded cooling can be
significant only for deep wells, and is due to different crystal
orientations and thermal expansion coefficients.
ii. The mathematical formulation of the thermal problem is simpler
and follows that of the drainage problem when poroelastic effects are
neglected.

114
Liquid-Saturated Core

Pulling the drillstring occurs as follows : 27 m of pipe are pulled in

about 30 s ; pulling out stops for 40-60 s to allow pipe unscrewing
and racking ; another27 m 9re pulled, etc... Whenthe hole contains a
fluid of density 1.0 g/cm , such a sequence results in the pore
pressure and total stress decrease presented on Figure 7.
Poro-elastic effects during core pulling at 1 000 m depth have also
been modelled using PETRO-CESAR for an 8.5" borehole and a 100 mm core.
The modelled rock is weak with a drained deformation modulus of
700 MPa, a drained Poisson's ratio of 0.3, and a Biot coefficient of
1.0. For all calculations, a . in the
_, mln.
core is almost equal to the pore
pressure drop, thus only nnzs latter term will be used. Initial pore
pressure and stress distributions in the core are assumed uniform and
equilibrated to in situ conditions.
In the first case, the saturatinõ fluid is oil with the same
compressibility as water. Figure 8 shows APp in the core after
90 seconds,i.e. jus•3beforepulling out again. It showsthat for fluid
mobilities k/• 10- s.i., the rock is entirely drained. Thus, if
fluid viscosity is equivalent to water (• m 1.0 cP), k must be below
0.1 mD for pore pressures to build up in the core. Such low mobility
values never correspond to economical oil reservoirs. As a consequence,
pore pressure damage can only occur with rocks such as shales. The only
exception could be oil sands, but in these cases the rock
compressibility is high, counteracting the effects of fluid
compressibility. -16
A typical case of cap rock with a fluid mobility of 10 s.i. is
also presented in Figure 8. Here, the core remains undrained near its
centre, but poroelastic decompression contributes to a decrease in pore
pressure, mitigating part of the destressing effects. In low k rocks
such as shales, fluid mobility is so low that some pore pressure build
up will occur near the core centre, leading to local axial tensile
failure which ceases when the created cavity volume is large enough to
reduce the pore pressure.

Gas in Gore Fluids

Pore fluids often contains dissolved gas which starts to exsolve at

some pressure. Gas. compressibility B is much larger than that of
oil, i.e. B - 10 bar . for a perfec• gas at 10 MPa,versus 5 x 10
bar-1 for o•1. Therefore B of an oil and gas mixture is close to
Bg (Dusseault,1979)event•o•gh the mixturepermeabilityandviscosity
may remain close to that of the oil because S is low.
A case of gas exsolution in core h•s been modelled using
PETRO-CESAR and the mixture theory outlined above. AP distributions
after 90 s are presentedon Figure9. Twomajorobservationsshould be
made :
-12
i. The mixture mobility must be equal to at least 10 s.i to
allow complete core drainage ' implying k re , = 10 mD' which could

correspond
classical to rocks
reservoir with
ka•i
rocks. • effect
100mD, weil
is within
due theimpact
to the range
of
of
compressibility(Bf) on the characteristic drainagetime :
tchar
= •BfI2/krel

115
 DEERI• ELOCKING

01•PLACEMENT

P'm •. o,54

Figure 7 : Pressure and total

stress applied to the core boundary
during a typical sequence of pulling
out.

//

P'm: MUOOVERBALANCE
WOB: WEIGHT ON BIT
A : CORE AREA

Figure 6 : Schematic of a core

jamming situation.
DISTANCE FROM CORE AXIS, (cm) DISTANCEFROM CORE AXIS, (cm)

• . •Is• I- k/p=10

Q.
uJ .o212

k/p=10
'13
-0,275
•
Figure 8 : Pore pressure drop Figure 9 : Pore pressure drop
distribution in a core after distributions in a core around the
90 seconds when the pore fluid is a point of oil ebullition using a
liquid. poro-elastic approach and a mixture
theory.

where I is the characteristic length of the problem.

ii. The beneficial poroelastic effect from pore volume expansion is
negligible becauseof increasedBf.
Figure 10 shows a reservoir siltstone which has been completely
deteriorated because of gas exsolution during pulling out. Note that
the rubber sleeve core barrel used during the operation has certainly
contributed to the damage by hindering gas expulsion from the core.
It is worthwhile pointing out that as gas comes out of solution, the
bubbles tend to be retained in the pores, reducing K . to the mobile
phase,until S reachesperhaps12-60 % (of the pore •ume), when the
gasbecomesag continuousphase with a reasonablek , permitting
drainageandpressurerelease. g

116
 Figure 10 : Typical core damage
due to gas ebullition and expansion
•uring pulling out.

Recommendationsfor reducing gas expansion damage include implementing

means of physical core restraint during pulling, drainage holes in the
inner sleeve, slow pulling, some special bit and core barrel designs,
and some special treatments on surface (Dusseault, 19XX).

3 CORE HANDLING AND STORAGE

Once the core is out of the well, further damage can still occur
either on the rig floor, during transportation or even during storage.
Rather than exhaustively cover the issue here, we recommend that the
reader access the new recommendations for core handling being
developed by the API (Skopec, 1991). In addition, there are other API
Working Groups on coring practice, specimen preparation, and laboratory
procedures.
The risk on the rig floor is buckling or bending when the core is
brought down from the mast. Freezing is never recommended for
consolidated cores, and extremes of humidity or temperature are to be
avoided. Shale cores should be immediately wiped surface dry or
otherwise protected from any source of moinsture to reduce suction,
swelling, ionic alteration, or oxidation of disseminated pyrite (Maury,
1991), slow processes which go on for years in shales. Coal,
unconsolidated sandstones, and other materials may require particular
handling procedures (Skopec, 1991).
To reduce tendencies for microcrack propagation or expansion, we
recommend that steps be taken to place rock mechanics test material in
plastic cylinders of the right diameter so that a mild compressive
retaining stress is applied. Finally, we note that even cemented
sandstone and limestone reservoir cores often contain chemically active
minerals such as clays or even pyrites which may dehydrate, undergoing
chemical transformations and thus creating damage.

APPROACHES
TO COREQUALITY CONTROL

Core Quality Control (CQC) approaches depend on the nature of the

117
material being cored and the measurements to be performed. Four
different methods of CQC will be presented, each to be used on cores
of different quality. The measures are intended to give an estimation
of damage, rather than an absolute measure, because the definition of
damage depends on the laboratory measures desired.

Recovery Index (RI)

Traditionally, core quality is assessed by the recovery index which is

defined as the ratio of the length recovered to the length cored

RI = = Lcore/ Ldrille d
Reasons for a low RI are numerous, and often involve direct damage ß

i. Too rapid mud flow rate can wash out core before it enters the
core barrel. This is more likely if the formation has already been
damaged by the stress concentration around the bit.
ii. Misplacement of bit nozzles can reduce RI ; as nozzle mud
velocity is high, wash-outs can be increased when the nozzle position
is poor, another reason for checking the basic bit designs available.
iii. A deficient core catcher leads to poor recovery. When the
barrel is pulled, core is retained inside the inner barrel by the core
catcher. If the rock at the bottom of the core is loose sand (because
of its nature, or because of previous damage), it is likely to pass
through the catcher, leading to core loss.
As a consequence, low RI is likely to indicate damage, but may
simply indicate technological defects in the core catcher, poor coring
practive, or poor bit design. In cases of unconsolidated sands with
heavy oil, gas exsolution pressures may cause core to be forcibly
extruded past the core catchers during pulling. Furthermore, in some
instances, RI values greater than 100 % have been reported in these
materials, indicate high material dilatancy, expansion, and therefore
extensive core damage (Dusseault, 1980).

Indexof Disturbance(ID)
Another method for CQC, applicable to poorly consolidated materials
whichtend to expandon coring, is the Index of Disturbance,•D
(Dusseault and Van Domselaar, 1982). The in situ porosity
calculated using saturation data and phase specific densities, assuming
no free gas existed in the pores at depth. Alternatively, for a quick
estimate, the •amma-gamma
density log can be used, assuming reasonable
phase specific densities and a saturation estimate from the electrical
resistivity logs. The laboratoryporosity •I can alwaysbe determined
because weights, volumes, and phase properties are systematically
measured during rock mechanics testing. Then, I_ in percent is defined
as : ID = 100(•T - •T)/•' For example,
I n valuesof 10% correspond
to an increase •in •ore • volume of 30 % -to 33 %, which would be
considered a reasonable level of disturbance for poorly consolidated,
heavy oil sands. Because ID is based on in situ porosity estimates and
is normalised to the initial porosity, it can be used to compare damage
in a semi-quantitative manner.

Acoustic Damage Estimate (ADE)

Another CQC method is based on acoustic velocity measurements (CQI)

118
(Santarelli et al., 1989). CQI is based on the assumption that the rock
in situ is isotropic in terms of texture, so that dynamic elastic
properties are also isotropic. Because damage mechanisms affecting
rock during coring are likely to generate oriented microcracks,
acoustic isotropy of the material is likeley to be reduced by core
damage. By measuring P-wave velocity along and across the core, the
core quality index is computed as : CQJ = Vpax/Vprad a number which
should equal 1.0 if damage is negligible and the hypotheses are
correct. Many empirical tests have confirmed the general usefulness of
such an approach, even though the theoretical justification of an
assumption of isotropy may be weak. Tentative values to relate the CQI
to the state of the core are proposed (Santarelli et al., 1989).

Fourmaintraux's Microcracking Index

Another method to access to the degree of microfracturing of a solid

was described by Fourmaintraux et al (1983). It consists of measuring
the P and S wave velocities on saturated rocks and by an homogenisation
technique to relate it to the amount of microcracks the material
contains.

5 CONCLUSION

We have tried to identify damage mechanisms and assess core quality of

rock being cored in the oil industry. In summary :

i. Stress concentrations around the core bit were studied by FEM

analysis. Tensile stress zones have been identified and related to
field observations of discingo The influences of in situ stresses, mud
weight, mud type, coring rate, and bit type on discing mechanisms have
been emphasized.
ii. Core jamming leading to rock damage has been described ; a way
of detecting this and reducing it by WOBcontrol has been suggested.
iii. Poroelastic effects during core pulling have been modelled
using FEM analysis. The contribution of both drainage and poroelastic
response have been identified and separated, and little damage can be
expected if the core saturants are purely liquids. Dissolved gas, if
present, will dominate behaviour, and this is associated with
compressibility effects, permeability blockage, and lack of rock
resistance to internal pressures.
iv. Core handling procedures have been briefly discussed (note the
work of the API committee which is rewriting API RP27/40 for
recommended procedures).
v. Finally, four different means of implementing quality control
and damage estimation have been discussed. They are applicable to
different rock types, but some of them may be complementary.
Finally, even though all the issues involved in the damage of core
are not yet clear, the need for planning is crucial when measurements
from the rock will have large economical consequences.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Basovich, V.S., Bergstein, O.Y., Vugin, R.B., Kuzin, B.V., Kochergin,

V.Q. and Fetko, Y.A. 1984. Major trends in variation of drilling
indices with depth. In the Superdeep Well of The Kola Peninsula
(Y.A. Kolovsky, ed.), Springer Verlag, Berlin.
Dusseault, M.B. 1979. Undrained volume and stress change behaviour of

119
 unsaturated very dense sands. Can. Geot. J., 16, 4.
Dusseault, M.B. (1980). Sampling distrubance in Athabasca Oil Sands.
J. of Can. Pet. Tech. , vol.19, pp 85-92.
Dusseault, M.B. and Van Domselaar, H.R. 1982. Unconsolidated sand
sampling in Canadian and Venezuelan oil sands. Proc. 2nd UNITAR Conf.,
pp 336-348.
Dyke, C.G. 1989. Core discing ; its potential as an indicator of
principal in situ stress directions. In Rock at Great Depth, Proc.
ISRM/SPE Symp., (V. Maury & D. Fourmaintraux, eds) Vol. 2, Balkema,
Rotterdam.
Fourmaintraux, D.,
Y. Sifre and R. Bedaux 1983. Terrassement du
rocher : le
sautage A l'explosif. Res. Gen. des Routes et
A•rodromes, n ø 593, pp 24-50.
Humbert, P. 1989. CESAR-LCPC, Logiciel de calcul par elements finis
adapt• aux probl•mes de g•nie civil. Bull. Liais. Lab. Ponts et
Chauss•es, No. 160.
Humbert, P., Mestat, P. and Santarelli, F.J. 1991a. The adaptation of
a 3D FEM code to the oil environment - the rock rheology. In Proc.
7th Conf. IACMAG, 6 pp. (in press).
Humbert, P., J.M. Piau and Santarelli, F.J. 1991b. The adaptation of a
3D FEM code to the oil environment - pore pressure diffusion. In
Proc. 7th Conf. IACMAG, 6 pp. (in press).
Maury, V., 1991. Failure mechanisms around underground excavations. In
Comprehensive Rock Mechanics (J.A. Hudson et al. eds), (in press).
Maury, V. and Sauzay, J.M. 1987. Borehole instability : case history,
rock mechanics approach and results. Paper SPE/IADC 16051.
Obert, L. and Stephanson, D.E. 1965. Stress conditions under which
core discing occurs. Amer. Soc. Min. Engrs., Transactions, Vol. 232.
Panet, M. 1969. Quelques probl•mes de m•canique des roches pos•s par
le tunnel du Mont Blanc. An. Inst. Bat. Tray. Publ., Nr. 264.
Perreau, P.J., Heugas, O. and Santarelli, F.J. 1989. Tests of ASR,
DSCA, and core discing analyses to evaluate in situ stresses. Paper
SPE 17960, 12 pp.
Santarelli, F.J., Detienne, J.L. and Zundel, J.P. 1989. Determination
of the mechanical properties of deep reservoir sandstones to assess
the likelihood of sand production. Rock at Great Depth, Proc.
ISRM/SPE Symp. (V. Maury & D. Fourmaintraux, eds.) Vol. 2, Balkema,
Rotterdam.

Skopec, R.A. 1991. Revised core handling recommendations, API RP27/40,

API Working Group draft report. 45 pages.
Turner, A., 1990. (Personal communication).
Venet, V. 1991. Th•se de Doctorat, Universit• de Lille, In preparation.
Venet, V., Henry, J.P., Santarelli, F.J. and Maury, V. 1989.
Mod•lisation du discage pour l'estimation des contraintes A grande
profondeur. Rock at Great Depth, Proc. ISRM/SPE Symp., (V. Maury &
D. Fourmaintraux, eds.), Vol. 3, Balkema, Rotterdam.

120