Special core analysis laboratory data

SCAL-data evaluation begins with a comparison of the same type of data from different
laboratories and whether data from each laboratory are internally consistent. SCAL data are
much more difficult to measure, and the procedures often differ from laboratory to laboratory.
The challenge is to determine which of these data are more correct and should be used to make
various petrophysical-parameter calculations. With SCAL data, the best approach is to have those
individuals who are expert in taking and evaluating these types of data review the procedures of
the various laboratories and the reported data and provide an opinion about which of these data
should be used and which should be discarded. Capillary pressure (Pc/Sw) data can be
susceptible to not being taken to fully equilibrated conditions because it occasionally takes
longer for equilibrium to occur than typical laboratory procedures require. This is because the
relative permeability of the wetting phase becomes so low that equilibrium is very slowly
reached. Additionally, the porous-plate method is susceptible to loss of capillary contact
between the core plug and the porous plate. In both situations at higher capillary pressure, Pc,
reported Sw values will be too high. [7]

For the rock electrical-property laboratory measurements and how they are reported, the raw
laboratory data should be reviewed very carefully to ensure that the data are of high quality and
are properly reported for later Sw calculations. These measurements, as a function of brine
saturation, again have the potential problem of nonequilibrium saturation distributions.
Sometimes the saturation exponent, n, is a function of brine saturation, but this nonlinear
behavior is typically not reported as such by the reporting laboratory. Restoration of the in-situ
brine-saturation distribution is absolutely required for making laboratory rock-electrical-property
and Pc measurements that lead to accurate reservoir S w calculations, so it is best if any
restored-state core-plug measurements agree with similar measurements made on native-state
core plugs. Finally, the resistivity index (IR) vs. Sw data should be taken over a range of Sw values
equivalent to those found in the particular reservoir. Sometimes these data are taken only down
to 30% pore volume (PV) Sw, yet some of the in-situ Sw values may be in the 5 to 20% PV
saturation range. If this is the case, laboratory electrical-property measurements may not lead to
accurate in-situ Sw calculations from resistivity logs for the low Sw values.

Internal consistency in a laboratorys reported results is a very good "first test" to determine if
some of the data are immediately suspect. For example, if the measurements of the reduction in
porosity from surface to reservoir stress vary from one set of measurements to another for a
particular laboratory, then those measurements must be discarded or used very carefully. As
another example, with respect to Pc/ saturation measurements, there is an immediate concern if
the air/water and air/oil Pc/ saturation measurements do not reasonably overlay after
accounting for the interfacial-tension (IFT) and contact angle difference between these fluid pairs.
There would be a similar concern when mercury-injection Pc data are available. Again, experts in
taking and using these types of data should evaluate the quality of the various sets of laboratory
measurements.

http://petrowiki.org/Petrophysical_data_sources#Special_core_analysis_laboratory_data