Formation Damage

3
Other Artificial Lift Types
Formation Damage
4
Matrix Acidising
5
CONTENTS
1. Introduction
Well Performance
1
6
2. Overview
3. Skin Hydraulic Fracturing
3.1. Well Geometry (Sgeometry)
3.2. Completion Skin (Scomp)
3.3. Production Skins (Sproduction)
4. The Formation Damage Skin Unstable Formations and San
5. Sources of Formation Damage
5.1. Formation Damage: Drilling

Operations
5.1.1. Formation Damage Mechanisms
During Drilling
Oil and Gas Processing
8
9
5.1.2 Fluid Loss
5.1.2.1 Clay Chemistry Water Handling
5.1.3 Filter-Cake Formation
5.1.4 Invasion Profile
1
5.2 Formation Damage During Cementing
5.3. Formation Damage During Oil and Gas Field Operations
Perforating
5.4. Formation Damage During Production
5.4.1. Sources of Formation Damage - Fines
Movement
5.4.2. Sources of Formation Damage -
Completion and Workover Fluids
5.4.3. Sources of Formation Damage - Scale
5.4.3.1. Inorganic Scales
5.4.3.2. Organic Scale
5.4.4. Sources of Formation Damage-
Bacteria
5.4.5. Sources of Formation Damage-
Pressure Reduction
5.4.6. Sources of Formation Damage -
Stimulation
5.4.7. Sources of Formation Damage - Water
Injection
6. Formation Damage during
Workover Operations
6.1. Workover Fluid Quality Guidelines to
Minimise Formation Damage
6.2. Workover Techniques to Minimise
Formation Damage
6.3. Recognition of the Pressure of
Formation Damage
7. Further Reading
8. Appendix A
LEARNING OBJECTIVES:
Having worked through this chapter the student will be able to:
• Explain when and how formation damage contributes to poor well performance.
• Identify the crucial near wellbore area susceptible to formation damage.
• Calculate the cost of formation damage (in terms of lost production).
• Identify the major sources of formation damage.
• Select appropriate remedial treatments.
• Calculate the impact of drilling and completion formation damage (depth and
extent of impairment).
• Discuss the causes of production related formation damage.
• Identify the types of scale encountered in well operations and the variables
which effect the severity of the problem.
• Explain how scale inhibitors are used.
• State the scope, underlying cause and remedial action required to deal with a wax
deposition problem.
• State the scope, underlying cause and remedial action required to deal with
an asphaltene deposition problem.
• State the scope, underlying cause and remedial action required to deal with
perforating damage.
• Provide guidelines for minimising formation damage during workover

operations.
• Indicate how the pressure of formation damage can be identified in a production

or injection well.

3
Formation Damage
4
Matrix Acidising
5
1
1. Introduction
Well Performance
The Reservoir Engineering module discussed how the highest pressure drops are
experienced in the near wellbore regions due to the semi-logarithmic nature of the
pressure-distance relationships of the fluid inflow equations. The critical parameter
Hydraulic
determining well productivity is thus the condition Fracturing
of the near wellbore region. Any
changes from the original formation permeability are characterised by the “skin”
value, introduced by Van Everdingen and Hurst (see Reservoir Inflow Module), a
6
dimensionless number mathematically analogous to the film transfer coefficient in
heat transfer.
Unstable Formations and Sa
8
Formation Damage concerns the formation of a volume of rock with a reduced
Oil andreduction
permeability in the near wellbore zone. This permeability Gas Processing
can be due to a
multitude of causes - but in all cases it will reduce the “natural” productivity due to the
imposition of an extra pressure drop as the fluid flows to the wellbore. This chapter
damage. It will continue with a more detailed Water Handling

examination
9
will begin with a discussion of the sources, extent and the modelling of formation
of the mechanisms
leading to Drilling and Production induced formation damage; followed by a review
of techniques which can lead to its avoidance.
Oil and Gas Field Operations
The following modules will discuss well stimulation treatments. Stimulation treatments
are designed to increase the well productivity, either by:
(i) Reducing or completely removing the formation damage by a chemical

matrix treatment (e.g. acidising) or
(ii) Bypassing the formation damage by creation of a high permeability channel

by a hydraulic fracturing treatment or deep penetration perforation guns.
2. Overview
The potential for the permeability of the near wellbore formation being reduced
(damaged) exists from the moment that the drillbit enters the formation until the
well is finally abandoned. Processes which lead to formation damage typically act
through a restriction of flow (on a pore throat scale) due to either:
(i) Physical blockage or reduction in size of the pore throat
(ii) Reduction in the relative (oil) permeability e.g. due to (adverse) formation
wettability changes, phase changes in the producing fluids.
(iii) The above effects can be accentuated at high flow rate when turbulent flows
may occur - leading to much greater pressure losses than occurred for the same
flow rate before the formation damage took place.
Formation damage can result from many different sources - drilling, cementing,
perforating, completion/gravel packing, production, injection, workover, stimulation,
etc. These effects will all be discussed in greater detail later. However, first we need
to quantify the skin concept referred to earlier and to evaluate its impact on well inflow.
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

3. Skin
The value of the Total Well skin (Stotal) measured during a production test has many
sources other than formation damage. It is very important to be able to identify the
formation damage component (Sd), since this can be reduced by better operational
practices or, possibly, be removed or bypassed by a stimulation treatment.
The total well skin is a composite parameter:

Stotal = Sdamage + Sgeometry + Scompletion + Sproduction
Typical sources of the latter three skin components are described below. They all have
a common cause – a disturbance of the fluid flow streamlines normal to the well.
3.1. Well Geometry (Sgeometry)

The well geometry skin reflects geometrical considerations which alter the skin value
form due to the well design. These include:
i) Limited entry - well not perforated across the complete reservoir height and/
or well not fully penetrating the reservoir;
ii) Well not placed in the centre of the drainage boundary
The above factors always lead to a positive skin - reduced well productivity.
iii) The well is slanted through the formation - deviated wells with their longer
exposure to the producing formation show an increasing well productivity
(negative skin) as the well deviation increases.
3.2 Completion Skin (Scomp)
(i) The perforations may be insufficient (e.g. low perforation density, too
short or too narrow shape, incorrect phasing leading to flow convergence or
deviation from the normal flow lines etc.) and impede flow from reservoir
into well. Further, the perforating process results in a crushed (lower permeability)
zone around the perforation which, if not removed, results in a reduced flow rate.
The inflow into a perforated completion is normally less than the (theoretical)
inflow to the (unimpaired) open hole originally drilled, i.e. there is a positive
skin. However, a high density of long/wide perforations can result in a sufficient
increase in the inflow that a negative skin results. The interaction between
the various skin components is also important e.g. the perforation design, i.e.
the depth of the perforations compared to the depth of any (near wellbore)
formation damage will determine if the formation damage will effect well
productivity. This will be discussed in greater detail later in this chapter.
(ii) Gravel Packing - in which the perforation and part of the wellbore is packed
with a high permeability gravel, frequently leads to positive well skins.

3
Formation Damage
4
Matrix Acidising
5
1
(iii) Fractures - either naturally occurring or (artificially) created propped
hydraulic fractures - will lead to increasedWell Performance
inflow and negative skins by placing
a high permeability pathway from deep in the formation to the wellbore.
Gravel packing and fracturing can be combined in the “Frac and Pack” process to
yield completions with effective sand control and near zero skins.
3.3 Production Skins (Sproduction)

Hydraulic Fracturing
6
Two examples of production skins are:
(i) A rate dependent skin is often observed in high rate gas wells (and very high
rate oil wells). This is due to non-Darcy or turbulent flow. Its presence can
8
be a useful indication that the well is a potential stimulation candidate.
(ii) Producing an oil well with:

(a) A flowing bottom hole pressure below the bubble point (presence of gas) or;
Water Handling
(b) A retrograde condensate fluid so that there is two phase region at the
perforations. These can both lead to pressure dependent, relative
9
permeability effects (an apparent increase in skin or a lower

than expected increase in production as the drawdown is increased).
The presence of the extra phase reduces the effective permeability to the
major phase. This would normally be interpreted as positive skin.
4. The Formation Damage Skin
Most forms of formation damage reduce the rock permeability to a certain depth
away from the well. Figure 1 illustrates the resulting producing pressure profile
and compares it with the equivalent pressure profile for an undamaged well. The
resulting extra pressure drop (∆Pd) has to be compensated for either by a reduced
pressure drop across the choke or by a smaller production rate. Figure 2. shows that
the pressure drop of the near wellbore zone is only one component of the reservoir-
to-stock tank flow system.
Damaged
Wellbore Zone Reservoir
Centreline
kd k Pr
Ideal Pressure Profile
(Undamaged)
P2
Actual Pressure Profile
(Damaged) (kd < k)
∆Pd
P3
Figure 1
The effect of skin on well rw rd re
∆Pd - Extra pressure drop due to Formation Damage
inflow pressure profiles
Fig 8.1

Gas
Pwellhead Pseparator
GAS
Choke Oil to Tank
Skin
(Zone of
damaged
Flowing bottom hole pressure
permeability)
P1 = -ve Skin Well Boundary
P2 = Zero Skin re
P3 = +ve Skin
Reservoir Pr
Reservoir
Permeability Kd P1 Figure 2
P2
(K) The natural flow producing
P3
system
The need to understand the processes that lead to formation damage, and the other
components that make up the total, is illustrated in figure 3 which compares the
average well skin from several North Sea fields. They were all drilled at around theFig 8.2
same time and some wells in each field were drilled with oil based mud (OBM) and
others with water based mud (WBM) drilling muds. It is clear that the field average
well skin value is variable between fields. Further, it is consistently lower when oil
based mud is used as a drilling fluid in preference to water based mud. However, it
is unclear whether the above values for oil based mud are optimum or whether they
could be further reduced.
30
> 30 > 50
20
Average Well Skin
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Field
4
Figure 3
WBM OBM Average well skin values for
some North Sea fields
Fig 8.3
This need to determine whether the optimum skin value has been achieved is addressed
by the Hawkins Equation, this calculates the formation damage skin (Sdamage) resulting
from a cylinder of reduced permeability around the wellbore:
∆Pd2πkh k r
S damage = = -1 ln d (1)
qµ kd rw

3
Formation Damage
4
Matrix Acidising
5
1
The parameters are defined in figures 1 and 2 and in addition:
Well Performance
h = formation height
q = fluid flow rate
µ = fluid viscosity
Equation [1] shows that the formation damage skin increases as the permeability
damage ratio (k/kd) increases or the radius of damage (rd) increases. This is illustrated
6
in figure 4. Thus if the formation permeability is reduced to 10% of its original value
Unstable
(k/kd = 10) out to a radius of 30 cm, then the formation Formations
damage skin (Sd) is equal to 10.and Sa
60
50
Oil and
= 20
Gas Processing
k/k d 8
9
40
Water Handling
Skin (S damage)
30
k/k d = 1 0
Wellbore
20
k/k d = 5
Figure 4 10 Oil and Gas Field Operations
k /k = 2 d
Skin factor increases with
0
a larger damage radius and 0 0.15 0.30 0.45 0.60 0.75 0.90 1.05 1.20 1.35 1.50
rd, Radius of Damage (Meters)
damage ratio k/kd
1000 Fig 8.4
100
kd = 50md
Production Rate, bbl/day
10 kd = 10md
kd = 1md
1
Permeability of undamaged resrervoir = 100 md
Formation thickness 10ft.
0.1 Wellbore radius 0.25ft.
Drainage radius 500ft.
Oil viscosity 0.5 cp
Drawdown 536 psi
0.01
Figure 5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Radius of Damaged Zone Beyond Wellbore, ft
Effect of formation damage
Effect of Formation Damage on Well Production
on well production

Fig F
The results of Radial inflow calculations using the above typical, permeability damage
ratios are found in figure 5. Well production is rapidly reduced as formation damage
increases, with the damage in the very near wellbore region (first few feet) being
the most important.

The impact of this formation damage skin is most conveniently expressed, from the
production point of view, in terms of the Flow Efficiency (FE).
100{ln(re/rw) + S ideal} 100qdamage

F E(%) = = (2)
{ln(re/rw) + S total} qideal
where Sideal = Stotal - Sdamage. i.e. Sideal contains all skin contributions apart from formation
damage and {qideal and qdamage} are the corresponding production rates.
This relationship between flow efficiency and skin is pictured as figure 6. The impact
on the well production of the damage skin of 10, calculated in the example discussed
earlier, reduces production to only 40% from what it would have been in the case the
formation damage was absent.
90
80
70
Flow Efficiency (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10 Figure 6
0
1 5 10 15 20 25 30 50 100 1000
Flow efficiency decreases
Skin (S damage) with increasing formation
damage skin
Such reductions in flow efficiency will reduce the well’s production - delaying project
payback as well as reducing Net Present Value profitability (figure 7). Further,Fig 8.5
the
extra pressure losses in the near wellbore area (Figure 2) mean that artificial lift will
have to be installed earlier in order to keep the well on production. This will increase
the wells operating cost.
Well Production
Undamaged Well
Deferred production and
reduced project value result
from formation damage
Damaged Well
Time
Present Value
Positive
Project Net
Undamaged Well
Negative Damaged Well
Figure 7
Time Formation damage:
Production and profitability
Fig 8.6
3
Formation Damage
4
Matrix Acidising
5
5. Sources of Formation Damage
Well Performance
1
Formation damage can occur throughout the life of the well from the moment that
the drill bit first penetrates the formation. All well activities need to be evaluated
for their potential for causing formation damage. They include:
• Drilling
6
• Cementing Unstable Formations and Sa
• Perforating
• Completion/Gravel Packing
• Production
8
• Injection Water Handling
9
• Workover
• Stimulation
The aim of the Production Technologist is to achieve an initial flow efficiency of 100%
and to maintain it at this level during the life of the well this is achieved by ensuring
that proper operation practices and procedures are implemented during normal well
operations as well as during the drilling and workover campaigns. Some of these
sources of formation damage will be discussed in the following sections.
5.1. Formation Damage: Drilling Operations

(Most) drilling fluids are made up from particulate materials e.g. clays, weighting agents
etc., as well as containing drill cuttings. Unless the well is drilled in an underbalance
condition; the pressure (over) balance, required between the drilling fluid and the
reservoir pressure to keep the well under control, will result in these mud particulates
being forced into the formation. The pay zone will thus be progressively filled and a
filter cake will be formed on the surface of the wellbore. These particulate solids will
not easily flow back into the wellbore when the pressure gradient is reversed (i.e. the
or well is placed on production). Formation damage has thus been created.
Prior to entering the formation, the drilling fluid should be chosen so as to reduce
the total drilling cost (this normally implies fast drilling). Once the pay zone has
been penetrated, maximising the well productivity becomes the key criteria, even at
the expense of slower drilling. The solid particulates in the drilling mud should be
chosen to have a suitable size so as to form a filter cake on the borehole wall. Typical
relationships between drilling fluid type, cost and the risk of Formation Damage are
shown in figure 8.

High OBM
KCI/Polymer WBM
Seawater/Polymer WBM
Cost
Fresh Water/Gel WBM Figure 8

Low
Typical relationships
Low Risk of Damage High between mud type, cost and
WBM - Water Based Mud OBM - Oil Based Mud risk of formation damage
formation damage
The permeability of both this filter cake and the formation influence the rateFigat8.8
which
the drilling mud filtrate invades the formation. This rate of invasion may be calculated
from the radial flow equations with a low permeability zone(the mud cake) placed
next to the wellbore. The results are illustrated in figure 9.
100
Formation
10
Permeability (mD)
Invasion Rate (bbls/ft/hr)
1 10000
1000
l
0.1
ntro 100
Co 10
0.01
a ke Formation Permeability Control 1
rC 0.1
lte
0.001 Fi
0.0001
0.00001
1E-06 1E-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Figure 9
Filter Cake Permeability (mD) Formation damage filter
cake control
This figure shows two regions:

Fig 8.7
(i) When the filter cake has a much lower permeability than the formation. The
invasion rate is described as being under filter cake control.
(ii) The horizontal portion for each formation permeability indicates the zone
in which the formation permeability has become the dominant factor in control
ling the leak off rate. This occurs as the permeability of the filter cake increases
relative to that of the formation.
10
3
Formation Damage
4
Matrix Acidising
5
1
The properties (permeability and thickness) of the mudcake are dependent on the
type of drilling mud in use as well as on the drilling
Wellparameters and the quality of
Performance
the mud engineering e.g.
6
• Is the drill solids build up being controlled at a low value?
• Are the mud properties being re-adjusted to their correct values?
Typical effects of the mud properties on the invasion depth and formation damage
Unstable
profile are shown in figure 10. Mud A forms a thick, Formations
but more permeable, and
filter cake Sa
which allows fluid leak off, and any (small) solid drilling mud particles that pass
through the filter cake, to invade the formation to a considerable depth. The reduction
in permeability of the formation - or formationOil damage
and - due
Gasto mixture of drilling
Processing
mud filtrate is high and, more importantly, only decreases slowly with greater depth
of invasion. Mud B, by contrast, forms a thin, highly impermeable, filter cake. This
8
9
results in essentially total formation damage immediately adjacent to the wellbore,
Water
but this decreases rapidly to a low level as the depth Handling
of invasion increases.
100
Mud B Oil and Gas
Mud Field
A Operations
InvasionFront
80
Mud B
Mud A
60 (Thin,higly
imperabl,
mudcake,
40 e.goilbasmud) (Thicker ,but
morepablud
Figure 10 cake,
%Formationdge
e.gwatrbsmud)
Effect of mud type on the 20
invasion depth and the PerfoatinDepth

0
formation damage profile
DepthofInvasion
W elbor
Question: Which mud gives better production?

Fig8.9
The properties of the drilling mud and the drilling mud / formation interaction as
well as the completion type will control the well’s productivity after it has been
completed:
Answer:
(i) For a cased and perforated completion, Mud B is expected to give the higher
well productivity since the length of the perforation is sufficient to penetrate
completely through the impaired zone, connecting with formation still retaining
its original permeability.
ii) For an open hole completion the choice will depend on the extent to which
the mud cake and filtrate are removed from the wall of the wellbore once the
well is placed on production.
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 11

ii) For completions in carbonate formations, the cheapest drilling fluid is often
used since the formation damage can often be easily removed or bypassed
by pumping hydrochloric acid to stimulate the well.
N.B. this is only true when the acid is placed over the completion length, i.e. so
that the acid contacts all the perforations and removes the formation damage from
every perforation.
Many factors, apart from the properties of the drilling fluid, control the depth to which
formation damage can occur.
(i) Formation properties - an increased depth of drill fluid invasion is often

observed when a larger pore-size - or higher permeability - formation is being
drilled due to reduced efficiency of filter cake formation. In fact, highly
impairing losses of whole mud (i.e. no filter cake formation) can be observed
once the formation permeability is 1 Darcy or greater (depending on the
detailed pore geometry), unless special fluid loss control additives
(basically, larger particles to promote filter cake formation) are added to the
drilling fluid.
(ii) Open hole time - fluid loss is a continuous process - the longer the open hole
is exposed to the drilling mud, the greater the invasion depth. This implies that
there is a greater risk of impairment for that part of the formation drilled first
compared to the formations drilled later on. This is particularly important for
long horizontal wells where completion intervals greater than 1000 m are
not uncommon.
(iii) Overbalance - fluid loss/invasion depth increases as the difference in

pressure between the drilling mud and the reservoir pressure (overbalance)
increases. Under balance drilling and completion techniques now being
used to drill wells so as to avoid this type of formation damage.
(iv) Borehole Dynamics will have a large effect on the fluid loss
(a) Large (long and/or wide diameter) Bottom Hole Assemblies

e.g. stabilisers and the carrying out of many round trips e.g. to change
the drill bit or adjust the directional drilling assembly will result in
the frequent scraping of the mud cake. Extra fluid loss will result as
the mud cake is restored to its equilibrium thickness.
(b) High circulation rates will increase the dynamic overbalance while the
high fluid velocities will erode the mud cake.The thinner mud cake
and the greater overbalance will both result in increased fluid leak off.
The relative fluid loss rates associated with the various phases of the drilling process
are illustrated in figure 11. The corresponding, relative volumes for each phase are
also shown. The relationship between depth of invasion and fluid leak off volume
may be quantified by a simple volumetric calculation as shown in Table 1. The table
shows that large volumes of fluid have to be lost to achieve substantial depths of
invasion in reasonable porous formations.
12
3
Formation Damage
4
Matrix Acidising
5
1 Spurt loss
at bit face
Well Performance
5
1
2 3
1
6
as fresh
Fluid loss rate (log scale)

formation
exposed 4
3 Fluid loss
opposite
stabilizers
2 Near bit
turbulent flow
fluid loss 4 Fluid loss while drilling Fluid loss volume
opposite drill pipe
5 Static filtration while
8
tripping drill pipe

Figure 11
9
30 sec 6 min 1 hr 1day 3 days 20 days
Fluid loss during the Time Water Handling
drilling process

Fig 8.10
Depth of
Invasion (r) 3cm 15cm 30cm 150cm 300cm 600cm
Porosity (φ,%) Leak Off Volume (m3)
10 0.04 0.27 0.76 13 47 184
14 0.05 0.37 1.06 18 66 257
18 0.06 0.48 1.37 23 85 331
Table 1 22 0.08 0.54 1.59 28 105 405
Leak Off Volume and Depth 24 0.09 0.63 1.75 31 114 442
of Invasion
Wellbore radius (rw) = 10.8cm, Perforated interval (h) = 20.5m
Leak-off Volume = πφh {(rw + r)2 - rw2} (3)
5.1.1. Formation Damage Mechanisms During Drilling
5.1.2. Fluid Loss

The mechanisms by which the drilling mud filtrate that leaks off through the filter
cake into the formation include:
(i) Increasing the water saturation in the near wellbore area (reduces the relative
permeability to oil) (figure 12). This is particularly important for low permeability
rocks where the removal of the “extra” water saturation may take a long
time, i.e. well “clean up” may take many months. In fact, it may not prove
possible to initiate production in a reasonable time if the well drawdown is
not sufficient since the (relative) permeability of the hydrocarbon phase has
become so low.

(ii) In a gas reservoir the addition of a (third) oil phase to the already existing
gas/water phases will reduce the relative permeability to gas (figure 13).
Before Damage After Damage
Continuous Oil Oil
Connate Water Invaded Filtrate
Figure 12
Clay Particles Sand Grains Quartz or Oil Droplet Gas
Coat Sand Grain Other Cement
Formation impairment due
Consolidates Grains to water block
Connate Water Formation Impairment Due to Water Block Fig 8.C

Connate Water Oil Droplet From
Oil Based Mud
Easy Flow of Gas Gas Flow Impeded
Figure 13
Addition of third phase
Coat Sand Grain Other Cement
reduces gas flow
Consolidates Grains
(iii) Surfactants present in the drilling fluid may change the formation
wettabilities (oil relative permeability is lower in an oil wet formation than in
a water wet one). Further, extraction of the surfactants present in the mud
Addition of third phase reduces gas flow Fig 13.a
filtrate, e.g. from an invert oil emulsion mud; may cause the generation of a
viscous water - in - oil emulsion present in the formation (figure 14).
14
3
Formation Damage
4
Matrix Acidising
5
1
Well Performance
Continuous Oil
Viscous Oil - In Water Emulsion 6
Connate Water Unstable Formations
Invaded Filtrate and Sa
Clay Particles
Coat Sand Grain
Sand Grains Quartz or
Other Cement
Oil andOilGas
Consolidates Grains
Droplet Processing
Gas
8
(iv)

The connate water and the mud filtrate orWater
injection fluid may be incompatible,
Handling
resulting in precipitates being formed. Such precipitates will Fig 8.A
reduce
the permeability of the near wellbore formation. Similarly, polymers dissolved
9
in the mud filtrate may absorb on the formation surfaces, restricting the area
open to flow (figure 15). Oil and Gas Field Operations

Swollen Clay Particles
Continuous Oil Oil
Connate Water Invaded Filtrate
Figure 17
Formation impairment due
Coat Sand Grain Other Cement to clay swelling
Consolidates Grains
The magnitude of the permeability reduction from both types of formation/fluid

interaction will depend on the:
(i) Clay chemistry (there are many types of clay)

Formation Impairment Due to Water Block Fig 8.D
(ii) Clay morphology
(iii) Amount of clay and
(iv) Chemistry of the mud filtrate - pH and salinity are important here
The different types of clay can be recognised by their appearance. Figures 18 – 21

schematically represents the forms which different clay types are frequently found:
• Kaolinite forms booklets which bridge pore throats or fill pore walls (figure 18)
• Illite forms fragile wispy filaments which line pore walls and bridge the pores
themselves (Figure 19)
Discrete Booklets (Kaolinte) Pore Lining (Chlorite)
Figure 18 (left)
Discrete booklets
(Kaolinite)
Figure 19 (right)
Pore bridging (Illite)
Discrete Booklets (Kaolinte) Pore
Pore Lining Bridging (Illite)
(Chlorite) Grain Coating (Smectite)
• Smectite has a honeycomb structure (Figure 20)
• Chlorite is an iron containing clay which lines the pore wall (Figure 21)
16
Pore Bridging (Illite) Grain Coating (Smectite)
3
Formation Damage
4
Matrix Acidising
5
Well Performance
1
6

8
Water Handling
9

Figure 22 (b and c) illustrates what happens when an external filter cake is not formed
- the mud particles can now invade the pores themselves. They may either adhere to
the surface of the pore walls (figure 22b). This depends on the fluid velocity and the
surface properties of the particles and the pore walls. If the particles do not adhere to
the pore walls they can continue to an internal pore throat where blocking may now
occur (figure 22c). It can be easily imagined that regaining the original permeability
requires removal of such an internal filter cake, a difficult process.
Very small diameter particles will pass through the pore throats without blocking.
Which of the above processes occurs depends mainly on the (particle/formation) size
ratio and the particle concentration. Pore throats are often described as being micro,
meso or macro (see table 2 and figure 23) for dimensions:
Table 2
micro pore throats < 0.5 µ 0.5 µ < meso pore throats < 1.5µ macro pore throats > 1.5µ
Pore Size Dimensions
100
Micro Meso Macro
Cumulative Frequency (%)
High
Low Permeability
Permeability Rock
Rock
50
0
0.3 0.5 1 1.5 5 10 30
Figure 23
Pore Throat Radius (microns) Pore throat size of high and
low permeability rocks
Fig 12
The filter cake formation process which occurs depends, for a given formation, on the
properties of the drilling fluid. The standard industry approximation used to estimate
size of the particles to be added to the drilling fluid, due to Al Abrams, is summarised
in Table 3 - external filter cakes can be formed by particles equivalent to one third
of the pore throat diameter, provided they are present in sufficient concentration.
Very small particles (smaller that 10% of the pore throat diameter) can pass through
the restrictions presented by the pore throat. Intermediate sized particles will result
in an internal filter cake. Figure 23 gave some typical formation pore throat sizes
while figure 24 gives the corresponding figures for the particles added to drilling
fluids and cement.
Size Ratio d>0.33dpt 0.33 dpt >d> 0.1 dpt d<0.1 dpt
Process Forms filter cake at Forms internal filter cake at Flow through pore
formation surface depth in the formation throats without
causing formation
damage
Table 3
Removal Removal by (acid) Difficult to remove Not necessary - Filter Cake formation
wash no damage
process depends on particle
Note High particle concentrations (>1%) reduces the above values
size / pore throat size ratio
18
3
Formation Damage
4
Matrix Acidising
5
dpt = diameter pore throat d = diameter particle
Well Performance
US Mesh Sizes 1
325
Mesh
170
Mesh Hydraulic Fracturing
Mesh
80
6
Clay Particles Silica Flour
8
Cement Particle
H
Figure 24
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Formation damage size Micron Scale
relationships
(1.0 inch = 25,400 Microns)
Water Handling
NB. The “mesh” size referred to relates to the US standard sieve size, a frequently
9
Formation
used particle Damage
size measure Size
in the oilRelationships
industry e.g. for gravel pack sand.
5.1.4. Invasion Profile
The combined interaction between the many factors which effect the solids and
filtrate invasion profile into the formation are summarised in figure 25, which should Fig 13
be self explanatory.
Rock Porosity / Permeabilty Comment

No filter cake formation,
Solids + Filtrate whole mud loss into
formation,* deep invasion
Very High
Partial filter cake control,
Solids Filtrate invasion depth reduced by
high porosity
High
Good filter cake formation,
Filtrate controls fluid loss
Medium
Good filter cake formation.
Filtrate High depth of invasion due to
low formation porosity
Figure 25 Low * Whole mud can be lost in

formations with k > 1D,
Invasion profile summary Solids Filtrate Uninvaded rock depending on mud / pore
throat diameter distribution
5.2. Formation Damage During Cementing

The success of a casing or liner cementation is dependent, among other things, on the
Fig 8.14
removal of the mud cake. This is often achieved by pumping various washes and/or
spacers containing dispersant additives (surfactants). The removal of the mud cake
triggers increased fluid loss which may be up to a depth of several centimetres.

Filtrate lost from a cement slurry is highly reactive to any formation clays due to its
highly alkaline (high pH) nature. It also has a high concentration of calcium cations
which can lead to precipitation of calcium carbonate, calcium hydroxide (lime) or
calcium silicate. Further, cement slurries have a very high natural fluid loss unless
controlled by suitable additives. Proper fluid loss control is a necessity since excessive
dehydration of the slurry will lead to failure of the cement job; the slurry becoming
too viscous to pump stopping displacement of the cement with some of it remaining
in the casing itself. Thus, despite the damaging nature of the cement fluid loss, it is
not normally a problem since the filtrate volume (and depth of invasion) is limited
and can be bypassed by the perforations.
The effect of drilling an over gauge hole on the perforating efficiency is of much
greater concern. This is illustrated in figure 26 where the power of the perforating
gun was sufficient for the vertical perforations to penetrate the cement sheath. It was
insufficiently powerful to penetrate the cement sheath in the horizontal direction. Not
only has money been wasted to make these “perforations”: but more importantly the
well productivity will be reduced since the density of perforations will be only half
the design value. Further, the remaining perforations will contact less formation than
in the ideal case. On-gauge drilling of the pay zone can avoid this problem (figure 26).
Effective Perforation;
Penetrates the cement Ineffective Perforation;
sheath (and formation damage?) (Does not penetrate
to the formation)
On-Guage Hole
Drill bit diameter
Formation
Cement
Figure 26
Inefficient perforating in a
Steel Liner Enlarged Hole
cemented completion due to
an overgauge hole
A second form of formation damage occurs when cementing a formation which is

naturally fractured. The fluid loss control additive added to the cement slurry will be
ineffective in such wider diameter features – so cement will flow into the fractures,
potentially permanently blocking them. The perforated well productivity will now be
much lower than the equivalent value for an open hole completion, since connection
will have been lost with the fractures which have contributed the majority of the
well inflow.
Change of the completion design to open hole is the simplest way to avoid this
problem. The integrity of the hole may be protected by a slotted liner or screen.
This is normally possible since the formation must be strong enough to support open
fractures under the prevailing reservoir stress conditions.
20
3
Formation Damage
4
Matrix Acidising
5
5.3. Formation Damage During Perforating
The perforating process results in an open Well perforation enclosed within a low
Performance
permeability zone of fractured grains and remnants of the perforating charge (figure
27). This “damaged” area results in a reduced inflow into the perforation. However,
1
6
the measured well Productivity Index (i.e. fluid production per unit well drawdown)
Hydraulic
sometimes increases with time as the well is produced. Fracturing
This “cleaning up” process
is often ascribed to the removal of perforating debris (charge debris, rock fragments
and the low permeability crushed zone); all of which reduce the well inflow. This
removal increases the transmissibility between the well and the formation. Further,
some originally completely blocked perforations Unstable
may open Formations
to flow as the welland Sa
drawdown increases. This “clean up” process can be accelerated by specific well
8
treatments such as:
(i) Back flowing (production under high drawdown)
9
(ii) Acidising (to dissolve the impairing material)
Water Handling
(iii) Perforating with the well underbalance (the crushed and impaired permeability
rock as well as the charge debris are removed as soon as it is formed)
Compacted, Pulverized Zone

(Low Permeability) Perforation Charge Debris
Undamaged Rock
Figure 27 Open Perforation Tunnel
Schematic of damaged
region around perforation
formed during the
Grain Fracturing
perforation process Casing / Cement Reduced Permeability Rock (Low Permeability)
5.4. Formation Damage During Production

The last section discussed a case in which the well productivity index increased with
time during normal well production. Unfortunately, this favourable state of affairs
frequently does not occur - reductions in well productivity index often occur when
a well is on production. Typical production formation damage phenomena that lead
to such reductions in well productivity are:
1. Fines movement
2. Use of incompatible workover fluids
3. Inorganic and organic scale formation
4. Bacteria
5. Pressure reduction
6. Stimulation

All these mechanisms will now be discussed in greater detail.
4.5.4.1 Sources of Formation Damage - Fines Movement

The “fines” or small mineral particles (clays, feldspars etc) which are found on the
surface of the sand grains which make up the rock fabric have come into equilibrium
with the reservoir fluids during geological time. Sometimes, the conditions were such
that the fines remained as discrete particles rather than being cemented together and to
the sand grain rock fabric. The fluids in the pore spaces during these geological time
periods are either static or flow at very slow velocities. However, this equilibrium
state is disturbed once a well is drilled and placed on production - high fluid flow
velocities are experienced in the near wellbore region. It was observed in the field
that, particularly for wells located in young, unconsolidated sediments, a dramatic
reduction in well productivity could occur when the well production rate (or bean
up rate) was increased too quickly.
Oil Flow Only - Permeability Remains Constant

Core Permeabilty
Reduced effective permeability

Oil / water flow due to relative permeability effects.
Crtical rate which

triggers fines movement
for combined oil / water flow
Figure 28
Flow Velocity
Effect of flow velocity on
permeability
Experiments were carried out in the laboratory to try to reproduce this phenomenon.
A core sample from the reservoir was subjected to increasing oil and combined
Fig 8.17 oil/
water flow. It was observed that the permeability to oil flow remained constant, even
at reasonable flow velocities, while the permeability began to be reduced at a critical
flow velocity when the core was subjected to a combined oil/water flow regime (figure
28). Further experiments were performed in which the actual flow through the pore
spaces could be observed visually - figure 29a shows that the small, loose particles
present on the sand grain surface remain in place during oil flow. However, these
fines become mobile once the wetting phase (water, in this case) is flowing at a rate
greater than this critical value (figure 29b). Mobilisation of the fines allows them to
move to the pore throats where, if chance dictates that a number of these particles
are present at the same time, blockage can occur. This accounts for the permeability
and well Productivity Index reductions observed as production time increases in the
laboratory core tests and the field measurements.
22
3
Formation Damage
4
Matrix Acidising
5
1
Connate Water
(Immobile)
Well Performance
Oil
Flowing Oil
Figure 29a
Water wet fines are
Sand Grain
6
immobile during oil
production only Unstable Formations and Sa
Immobile Water - Wet Fines
Oil and
Fig 8.18a Gas Processing
Flowing Water
8
9
Flowing Sand Grain
Immobile,
Figure 29b
Water Handling
Oil
Water Wet Fines
Water wet fines become Flowing oil
mobile with water Flowing Water
production, leading to pore

throat blockage.
Mobile, Water Wet Fines (which subsequently leads to pore throat blocking)
Fines movement is controlled by: Fig 8.18b
(i) Concentration and nature of the fines present on the sand grain surfaces and
within the pores
(ii) Flow velocity of the fluid wetting phase
(iii) Wettability state of the “fines”
Remedial measures which have been found to be effective to reduce these effects
include:
(i) Controlled, slow bean up of the well. This is because similar experiments to
those described above have shown that a smaller change in flow velocity
reduces the number of particles that are mobilised at any one time, leading
to a lower chance of blockage at the pore throats. Small increases in
production allow the fines to be “cleaned out” of the formation at low
rates (and concentrations); so that the desired well production rate (and
drawdown) can be achieved while maintaining the near-wellbore rock
permeability by preventing pore throat bridging.
(ii) Fines control treatments based on consolidating the small particles to

the reservoir rock (with consequent reduction in formation permeability) or
the use of surfactants to change the formation wettability

However, experience shows that such treatments have a limited lifetime and, of
course, changing the formation wettability to oil wet can result in “fines” movement
due to the flow of oil!
5.4.2. Sources of Formation Damage - Completion and Workover Fluids

The fluids to which the formation is exposed during the original completion and
subsequent workover operation needs to be chosen carefully to ensure that they are
compatible i.e. do not react with the formation. (This compatibility concept was
introduced earlier - section 4.5.1.1).
Smectite clay is probably one of the most reactive chemical species found in reservoirs.
It shows the widest range of reactions with oilfield brines. This is illustrated in figure
30 where the permeability degradation of a smectite clay containing sandstone core,
due to passage of a series of brines is shown. The figure shows that:
(a) 2% wt ammonium chloride (NH4Cl) brine flow gives the highest permeability
measurement
(b) Changing to a 5% wt sodium chloride (NaCl) brine gives a reduced permeability
(c) This permeability reduction is accentuated when the sodium chloride

concentration is reduced to 2% wt NaCl
(d) Fresh (distilled) water flow gave the lowest permeability of all the above
(e) Flow of a final flush of 2% wt NH4Cl, the brine that gave the original, highest
permeability, is unable to recover this original (higher) permeability. The
formation damage due to the use of incompatible brines is often permanent
20
(a)
2% NH4CI
5% NaCI
Prmeability, mD
(b)
2% NaCI
Fresh Water
(c)
(d) (e)
Figure 30
Typical permeability
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 degradation of a smectite
Pore Volume Flowed core when flowing various
brines
This permeability reduction is caused by the absorption of layers of water between

the clay platelets. Clays are naturally negatively charged, this is countered by an
adsorbed cation (sodium, potassium or calcium in this case). The clay swellingFig 8.19
(number of layers of water absorbed) is controlled by the cation absorbed and the
composition of the brine. Figure 31 shows that sodium smectites swell more than
24
3
Formation Damage
4
Matrix Acidising
5
1
the calcium or potassium clays, while the swelling for all three clays is reduced at
the higher brine (NaCl) concentrations. Well Performance
NB. Swelling of the clays not only means that they (partially) block the pore space;
but they also allow the clay particles to break free at lower flow velocities; leading to
blockage at the pore throats. Both mechanismsHydraulic Fracturing
lead to reductions in permeability.
Figure 31 implies that keeping the clay in the potassium form is preferred compared to
6
the calcium or sodium (the worst) varieties. Many tests and studies of the underlying
physics have shown that 3% wt potassium chloride Unstable
(KCl) givesFormations and
the least swelling. It Sa
is thus the preferred brine composition for non-damaging workover and completion
8
fluids. This efficacy of KCl is due to the size of the potassium cation which allows it
to easily insert itself into the clay lattice. The ammonium
Oil andcationGasis Processing
of a similar size
- hence its ability to give the highest permeability measurement in figure 30.
35
30
Water Handling
9
Sodium Smectite
25 OilPotassium
andSmectite
Gas Field Operations
(Layers of Water)
Calcium Smectite
Clay Swelling
20
15
Figure 31 10
Swelling due to water 5

absorption is controlled
0
by clay type and brine Distilled Water 0.4% NaCI 8.5% NaCI
composition
Ammonium chloride is used as a non-damaging brine for special situations, such as

during acid stimulations, when its substitution by potassium chloride would lead Fig
to 8.20
the formation of damaging precipitates.
5.4.3. Sources of Formation Damage - Scale

Scale refers to the precipitation, in both the well itself or the near wellbore formation,
of organic or inorganic material. This scale may block the pores in the formation
or even the perforations (reducing well inflow) or block the tubing (reducing well
outflow) or impede the operation of well accessories e.g. prevent the operation of
the Surface Controlled Sub Surface Safety Valve (SCSSSV). In the latter case the
safe operation of the well would be compromised. Figure 32 shows a tubing which,
on recovery from the producing well, was found to have the area available to flow
reduced by 75% due to an inorganic scale.

Production
Tubing
Figure 32
Blocking of tubular flow
Limited Area area due to scale control
Scale remaining Open
to Flow precipitation
In all cases the precipitation is triggered by a chemical instability that has been created
by a change to the original equilibrium conditions achieved by the formation fluid
over geological times. This can be due to:
Fig 8.22
(i) A decrease in temperature during flow up the tubing
(ii) A decrease in pressure during the reservoir depletion or flow up in the tubing
(iii) Mixing with a chemically incompatible fluid e.g. connate water with injection
water or water from a separate reservoir
Two types of organic scales - wax and asphaltenes - are encountered while a multitude
of inorganic scales have been observed.
5.4.3.1. Sources of Formation Damage - Inorganic Scales

A wide range of inorganic scales have been encountered during world wide production
operations. These include:
(i) Precipitation of NaCl salt due to cooling of well fluids and/or evaporation of the
water into the gas phase during production of saturated brines to the surface.
NaCl (soln) → NaCl↓ (solid)
Calcium sulphate can be precipitated due to cooling. This is due to the fact that below
a critical temperature the less soluble isomorph, anhydrite, becomes the equilibrium
form that is precipitated.
Ca++ + SO4-- → CaSO4↓ (solid)
(ii) Precipitation of calcium carbonate due to pressure reduction; though once

the fluids are in the tubing they undergo a combined effect of pressure and
temperature reduction.
Ca(HCO3)2 → CaCO3↓ + CO2↑ + H2O
26
3
Formation Damage
4
Matrix Acidising
5
1
(iii) Unusual scales can be encountered e.g. sulphur precipitation from very sour
gas wells has been observed in several producing areas.
Well Performance
NB. Pressure triggered scale formation is self aggravating i.e. an extra pressure drop
is created at the onset of scale formation. This leads to a further drop in pressure as
Hydraulic
the well operator tries to maintain the target well
drop creates extra scaling problems.
Fracturing
production. This further pressure
6
(iv) Mixing of two reservoir brines (normally in the production tubing) or between
Unstable
a reservoir brine (e.g. rich in Barium) and Formations
an injected fluid and
(e.g. sea water) Sa
can lead to precipitation.
Ba++ (reservoir fluid) + SO4--(injected sea water) BaSOGas

Oil→and 4
↓ (solid)
Processing
Other insoluble materials e.g. SrSO4 are formed by a similar process. Such scales are
8
9
frequently found to be contaminated by low level radioactivity. This does not normally
Water
represent a health hazard unless a dry scale sample Handling
is drilled (unprotected breathing
of the dust is hazardous due to radioactive particles lodging in the lungs).
Well productivity can only be reestablished by removing the scale material. This is
achieved by: Oil and Gas Field Operations
(i) Dissolving the scale from its precipitation point (in the formation, well or
facilities) using a suitable solvent, e.g:
(a) NaCl salt can be dissolved by water
(b) Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3) can be dissolved by hydrochloric acid
(c) Barium Sulphate (BaSO4) is very difficult to dissolve. Commercially

available solvents tend to be expensive and can only dissolve a limited
amount of material.
(ii) Drilling out the “difficult to dissolve” scales coupled with, if necessary,
reperforating to bypass perforations blocked by scale; has been found to be effective.
(iii) The preferred technique is to inhibit the formation of the scale by circulation
(in the well) or injection into the formation of a scale inhibitor. In the latter
case the inhibitor absorbs onto the formation some distance from the wellbore
and is produced slowly with the produced fluids over a period of many months
- protecting the formation, well and facilities from damage by scale precipitation.
The inhibitor works by preventing the initially formed, small scale particles
(nuclei) from agglomerating and forming massive scale crystals i.e. the minute
particles of the scaling mineral are retained in suspension. It should be
emphasised that the inhibitor is slowing down the kinetics of scale agglomeration,
not the thermodynamics of scale formation.

5.4.3.2 Sources of Formation Damage - Organic Scale
(i) Wax
Many crude oils will form a solid precipitate when they are cooled. This solid, known
as wax, varies in form from a soft to a brittle solid. It is made up of long, linear,
saturated (aliphatic) hydrocarbon molecules with a chain length of 18 to 60 carbon
atoms. The (solid) wax is dissolved in the crude oil at reservoir temperatures and
forms a crystalline precipitate when the temperature reduces below the cloud point
(the temperature at which the first (micro) seed crystals appear). The temperature
difference between the reservoir temperature and the cloud point ranges from only a
few degrees centigrade to many tens of degrees. Pressure changes only have a minor
effect on the value of the cloud point temperature.
The amount of wax dissolved in the crude oil is also highly variable - from less than
1% wt to such high values (can be above, 50% wt) that the complete crude sample
turns into a semi-solid unpumpable mass.
The wax is normally kept in solution in the crude oil by ensuring that the temperature
is maintained above the cloud point at all times. This involves the insulation of
flow lines, tanks, etc as well as the use of heaters where appropriate. Heated crude
oil tankers are used for sea or road transport. The rate of agglomeration of the wax
crystals can also be reduced by the addition of an inhibitor - once again kinetics of the
precipitation process can be influenced; not the thermodynamics. Proper modelling
of the temperature distribution in the wells and facilities needs to be performed to
ensure that this minimum temperature is maintained at all times.
The maintenance of this minimum temperature is obviously easier while the wells
are flowing - since heat is being continually supplied to the system. (Long term) shut
downs represent a problem - especially for long flow lines or pipelines. The problem
is accentuated for subsea wells, since water is an effective medium for heat transfer.
The long flow lines and low water temperatures (<4˚C) associated with modern
satellite developments in deep waters, represent a challenge that is currently being
researched e.g. development of more effective insulation materials. In the meantime,
suitable operating procedures need to be developed to ensure that the line does not
become completely blocked and has to be abandoned (e.g. purge the line of crude oil
prior to shutdown). This type of pipeline blockage has already happened on more
than one occasion. Hardly any options exist once the pressure required to restart flow
are greater than the available pumps can generate or, more particularly, exceeds the
pipeline test pressure. Improved (pipe-in-pipe) insulation systems as well as the
heating of flow lines by a water jacket or electrical tracing are being developed. Wax
will typically start to form on the inner surface of the tubing or the flow line; since
this is the coldest point. Once formed, the wax can be removed by:
(i) Mechanical action (scraping)
(ii) Dissolving in - hot crude oil (cheap, readily available)

- solvents (more expensive, but can of dissolve higher
wax concentration. May be hydrocarbon or water based.)
28
3
Formation Damage
4
Matrix Acidising
5
(ii) Asphaltenes
The name “Asphaltenes” refers to an amorphous, bituminous,
Well Performance
precipitates from some crudes. It frequently contains a high multivalent metal1
solid material which
concentration, such as Vanadium. It is made up of a complex mixture of asphaltenes,
6
resins and maltenes which were originally present in the crude oil under original
Hydraulic
reservoir conditions as a metastable colloidal dispersion. Fracturing
The precipitation process is
triggered by pressure reductions - asphaltene precipitation is often first observed near
the bubble point i.e. the change in crude oil composition due to the removal of some
of the lower molecular weight species from the crude oil destabilises the colloidal
Unstable
dispersion that maintained the asphaltenic material Formations and
in suspension. Sa
Laboratory experiments in which the effect of pressure on the stability of an asphaltenic

crude was studied have shown that there are two regions of stability. One of these
is normally above the bubble point pressure (as discussed earlier) while there is a
second region of stability at low pressures. Asphaltenes are thus mainly precipitated
8
9
at intermediate pressures. The fact that there is a second area of “solubility” is of
limited practical use because asphaltenes do notWater Handling
easily “redissolve”. This is because
they were originally present in the crude oil as a colloidal dispersion, rather than in
solution (as is the case of wax).
Oil and
The following summarises operational field experience Gas
from Field
a number Operations
of fields:
(i) The severity of operational problems is not related to the crude oils asphaltene
content. Crude with relatively low asphaltene contents can give the most
intractable problems
(ii) Since asphaltene precipitation occurs at a specific pressure, it is only observed

in areas of the production system where this or a lower pressure is experienced
e.g. asphaltene precipitation may be initially observed in the facilities. As
the reservoir depletes, the lowest point of precipitation will move to the top of
the tubing and then down the well until asphaltene precipitation can also occur
in the reservoir
(iii) Despite this, field reports of formation damage due to asphaltene precipitation
in the reservoir are rare
(iv) Solid asphaltene is normally removed mechanically from the well and facilities
(v) Mechanical removal is necessary because asphaltenes are poorly soluble in

solvents
(vi) Large scale asphaltene precipitation occurs when the asphaltenic crude oil is
contacted by acid - both fresh (just pumped into the well) or spent acid
(after contact with the formation). This effect is particularly severe when the
acid contains ferric cations (Fe+++) e.g. from reaction of the acid with rust.
The impact of this on acid selection will be discussed later.
5.4.4. Sources of Formation Damage - Bacteria

The presence of bacterial colonies and, more importantly the residues they produce,
can lead to a number of intractable operational problems. Although they are most

frequently associated with injection wells and flowlines (see chapter 7, Water Handling).
They have been found in all types of wells and facilities - facilities are opened to the
atmosphere for inspection and both wells and facilities are at occasionally exposed
to fluids that are pumped from the surface. Such exposure can lead to contamination
and establishment of the bacterial colony. The following summarises some of the
most widely found problems:
(i) Bacterial Slime / cellular remnants etc will physically plug the formation
pores if injected into the well. The solution to prevent this is to ensure that
the bacterial colonies do not become established in the wells and facilities.
Any bacteria present in all the fluids pumped into the wells should be treated
with a sufficient concentration of a bactericide to achieve a high “kill” level.
However, it only requires one bacterial spore to be missed which can then
start a new colony!
(ii) Iron Bacteria are aerobic bacteria which can establish themselves under
an iron deposit that they form themselves. Their growth processes then result
in the establishment of an anaerobic bacterial colony e.g. of sulphate
reducing bacteria, leading to a pitting type corrosion. They are typically found
in injection flowlines where the fluid is not efficiently deoxygenated. They
are difficult to kill with bactericide since they are protected by the surface
iron deposit. Regular mechanical removal, e.g. by pigging the line, is the most
effective treatment.
(iii) Sulphate Reducing Bacteria are anaerobic bacteria which are capable of
producing large quantities of hydrogen sulphide (H2S) when both the
sulphate anion (usually from sea water) and a carbon source (crude oil) are
present in the absence of oxygen. H2S presents a major safety and corrosions
issue since:
(a) Exposure to H2S at a concentration of a few tens of ppm is fatal to human life
(b) Well and facility components made from conventional steel alloys will fail
when exposed to fluids with a low partial pressure of H2S.
Injection waters containing even low levels of the ferric cation (Fe+++) will precipitate
the extremely insoluble solid ferric sulphate (Fe2S3) when exposed to H2S. Ferric cations
are normally found in injection water (since it is processed in steel vessels and oxygen
has been present in the system etc). The solid Fe2S3 will plug the formation.
5.4.5. Sources of Formation Damage - Pressure Reduction

The reservoir pressure of the vast majority of hydrocarbon reservoirs will be reduced
during its producing lifetime. This can trigger a number of operational problems
which result in formation damage.
(i) The precipitation of inorganic and asphaltenic scales was discussed earlier.
(ii) The reduction in reservoir pressure increases the formation effective stress.
The impact of this increased stress can lead to formation failure resulting in:
30
3
Formation Damage
4
Matrix Acidising
5
(a) Sand production
Well Performance
1
(b) Compaction of the reservoir producing interval. This reservoir drive mechanism
is beneficial since it will lead to an increased recovery of the oil originally
6
in place in the reservoir; but it may also bring extra operational costs due to
surface subsidence and damage to the wellsHydraulic Fracturing
themselves {(casing/tubing being
squeezed into an oval shape rather than being round, or even(parting due to
shearing)}.
Unstable
(c) Fault creation or reactivation {i.e. (mini) Formations
earthquakes). and
Creation of extra Sa
faults may lead to improved inflow while fault reactivation may result in
previously sealing faults becoming “leaky.”
(d) Reduced formation permeability. This is normally minor, but catastrophic
pore collapse to zero permeability has been observed for some chalks when a
8
9
certain rock effective stress is exceeded.
Water Handling
(iii) Reservoir multiphase flow effects that may be falsely attributed to formation
damage. A sufficient reduction in pressure so that the reservoir fluid passes
the bubble or dew point results in the presence of an extra phase in the
reservoir which will reduce the (relative)Oil and Gas
permeability to oil Field Operations
or gas flow
5.4.6. Sources of Formation Damage - Stimulation

Well stimulation is probably the most frequent operation when fluids are pumped
into a well. The first three factors discussed below are only applicable to the
pumping of high reactivity fluids such as acid. However, the remaining effects can
be encountered with any fluid that is pumped into the well, unless proper thought is
given to its selection.
(i) Reaction products generated by the reaction between the injected acid and
the formation rock may precipitate, causing a reduced permeability (formation damage)
(ii) The acid may weaken (deconsolidate) the rock, by attacking the intergrain
cement so that (normally temporary) sand production is observed when the
well is returned to production inconsistent
(iii) The above deconsolidation process may generate “fines” which can migrate
and block pore throats. This process can occur for other fluids (see section
4.5.4.2 on fluid/rock compatibility)
(iv) Acid is often incompatible with crude oil leading to formation of a solid
“sludge” which can block pores (c.f. section described the precipitation of
asphaltenes by acid) or a viscous acid / oil emulsion formation.
(v) A further form of acid/crude oil incompatibility is the formation of a highly

viscous water/oil emulsion. This emulsion stability is often increased by the
fine particles described in (iii) above

(vi) The near wellbore formation wettability may be changed from oil to water
wet (or vice versa). This will alter the rock’s relative permeability to the
required hydrocarbon phase - either increasing or decreasing its flow rate
(vii) The increased water saturation in the near wellbore area resulting from the
injection of the treatment fluid
The relative permeability to the hydrocarbon phases will be reduced by this high
water saturation. Long “clean up times”, i.e. the time required to reduce the water
saturation to the pre-stimulation value, of months or even longer have been observed
for low permeability formations.
The key to avoiding all these problems is proper selection of the acid (or other fluid)
i.e. it should be formulated so formation damage does not occur.
5.4.7. Sources of Formation Damage - Water Injection

Large volumes of water are injected into oil reservoirs for pressure maintenance
(voidage replacement) and to improve the recovery factor by “sweeping” the oil
from the injectors to the producers. The capacity of an injection well in a given field
is normally 3 to 5 times that of a production well. These large well volumes imply,
even for very small contamination levels of the injected fluid, that rapid plugging of
the perforations can occur. This is exemplified in figure 33 where several injection
waters have been pumped through a core and the average permeability measured as
a function of the injection volume. These tests show that:
(i) The untreated surface water plugs the core almost immediately. This is not
surprising since the water was very turbid, being taken from an estuary
(ii) Filtration of this surface water with a 5µ nominal filter decreases this rate of
impairment
(iii) Use of an even finer filter, 2µ, decreases this even further
100
(Average) Permeability Measured Core (%)
75
A - Water D, Filtered to 2 µ
50 B - Water D, Filtered to 5 µ
C - Produced Water Untreated
25 D - Untreated Surface Water
0
0 7.5 15 22.5 30 37.5
Figure 33
Volume Injected (Litre/perf) Example core test results to
rank injection water quality
32
Fig 8.23
3
Formation Damage
4
Matrix Acidising
5
1
However, all the above volumes of water injected are small compared to those required
in actual injection projects. In practice: Well Performance
(i) The injection water is often much colder than the reservoir. This cooling of the
6
injection interval reduces the reservoir stress in the near wellbore area and
allows fracture creation at a much lower Hydraulic
pressure than Fracturing
would normally be
expected (thermal fracturing). This fracture essentially increases the formation
surface area open to the well, increasing the well injectivity and reducing its
sensitivity to formation damage
Needless to say, the filtration requirements depend on
(a) The quality of the available water sourceOil
(b) Whether thermal fracturing occurs and

and Gas Processing
8
(c) The quality of the formation Water Handling
9
It should be noted that the fine filtration equipment has been removed from the injection
water treatment train of most North Sea fields because of the good water quality and
the natural tendency for the target formations toOil formand Gas
thermal Field Operations
fractures.
(ii) The formation impairment due to solids present in the feed water (figure 33) of
real injection wells is supplemented by many extra sources of damaging
particles e.g. corrosion products, oil, bacterial residues and other solids (such
as scale precipitates) picked up during its passage through the facilities. The
level of corrosion products and bacterial contamination are reduced by the
injection of corrosion inhibitor, deoxygenation of the injection water and its
continuous treatment with bactericide.
Substituting produced water for fresh water brings a new range of problems due to
the presence of (low levels) of oil and small solid particles. The (relative) water
quality can be judged from line C in figure 33. Further, being hot, thermal fracturing
is unlikely to occur.
6. Formation Damage during Workover Operations
The previous sections of this chapter have discussed the general concept of formation
damage and has given several examples where it occurs. One of the areas where
formation damage frequently occurs during the life of a producing well is during
workover operations. This is due to impairment of the producing formation by solid
particles.
Any solids present in the workover fluid, will be injected into the reservoir during
well killing operations. This is shown in figure 34 where the well productivity was
reduced by nearly a third when the well was killed with drilling mud.

700
600
Production Rate (BOPD)
460 bpd
500
Trend
400
300
Well Killed With Mud 310 bpd
200
100
0 Figure 34
0 100 200 300 400 500
Production history shows
Producing Time (Days)
formation damage created
by well killing
These solid particles may also be generated by drilling cement, scraping casing,
Fig 8.24
milling etc. Figure 35 shows how workover fluid losses into the formation were
relatively constant for 7 days when a packer was being milled. Once the workover
operation progressed to milling on a fish that was lodged across the perforations; the
losses decreased by 50% for the next two days, dropping virtually to zero after day
13. It is very likely that the originally open perforations had become completely
blocked by the end of the operation. A reduced well production can be expected
when the well was returned to production.
A second example of damage generation is illustrated in figure 36 - the initial workover

fluid loss rate decreases by 75% when the cement is drilled and stops altogether when
the casing is scraped near the perforations.
Workover fluid quality guidelines and recommended operational techniques

respectively are available to minimise this created formation damage.
Mill on Packer
Mill Fish
Daily Workover Fluid
Losses (m3)
Perforations Still Open ?
Figure 35
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Days
Workover history shows
when formation damage
Milling Fish Damages Perforations
occurred
Fig 8.25
34
3
Formation Damage
4
Matrix Acidising
5
Drill Cement
Well Performance
1
6
Daily Losses (bbls)
Scrape Casing
Near Perforations
Perforations
Still Open ?
Figure 36
8
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Workover history identifies Days
causes of formation
damage
6.1. Workover Fluid Quality Guidelines Water

Damage
to Minimise Formation
Handling
Fig 8.26
9
These guidelines are an expression of the fundamentals of formation damage that
have been discussed earlier. Oil and Gas Field Operations
(i) Either use solids free, filtered brines or, if the resulting fluid loss rate is too
great, add a Lost Circulation Material (LCM) which is correctly sized to
form an external filter cake on the formation face or perforations. A soluble
LCM is the preferred choice e.g. wax, sodium chloride or calcium carbonate
particles (removal of all of these require a hydrochloric acid flush since the
solid particles become coated with a polymer used to viscosify them when
used as LCM). Due to its solubility a weighted brine is required when
using sodium chloride particles.

(ii) Minimise contamination of the filtered brine. Operational techniques
to achieve this include:
(a) Clean dirt (mill scale), cement and mud residue from the tanks,
lines, pumps, tubulars etc. prior to use
(b) Minimise use of pipe dope when running tubing
(c) Use dedicated tanks - particularly for gravel pack and acidising
operations where the fluid loss rates to the formation is high. Use of the same
equipment for cementing operations results in contamination that is
very difficult to remove
(iii) “Solids free” brine is normally defined as containing less than 200 ppm Total
Suspended Solids. 90% of these solids should be smaller than one tenth of
the average pore size.

(vi) Fluid loss rates are often reduced by viscosifying the workover fluid with a
polymer. This should also be filtered to remove (micro) gel residues. These
are polymer particles that have not dissolved or hydrated properly (often
due to inadequate mixing). A chemical breaker should also be added to the
viscous solution to ensure that the viscosity degrades properly, i.e. so that
production will not be impeded by a zone of viscous fluid left around the
wellbore at the end of the operation.
(v) Minimise the workover fluid loss rate by minimising the pressure difference
(overbalance) between the reservoir pressure and the hydrostatic head of the
workover fluid. A value of 200 psi has been found in practice to provide a
sufficient safety margin in most cases.
6.2. Workover Techniques to Minimise Formation Damage

It is clear from the above that most of the formation damage occurs when the well is
killed prior to the start of the workover. Proper workover planning can ensure that
many types of workovers can be carried out without having to kill the well. Some
options are presented in figure 37. They, and others, will now be discussed.
Protect perforations from

damage with lost Open circulation valve to
circulation material kill well avoid bullheading
or sand plug fluid into the perforations
in casing
Figure 37
Techniques for avoiding
When working above the packer Use clean / non-damaging formation damage during
stop fluids being injected into kill pills. Design for complete
the formation by placing plug in removal after workover finished workovers
tubing tail pipe
(i) Mechanically isolate the bottom of the tubing with a plug if the workover
concerns equipment placed above the packer.
Fig 8.27
(ii) Use wireline workover methods on a “live” well e.g.
(a) “Dump bailers” to place material which will isolate (protect) the
perforations. Gravel is often used. This has to be removed after the
workover has finished so that the well may be returned to production.
(b) Many well servicing operations such as perforating, placement of bridge

plugs etc. can be carried out by wireline.
(iii) Wireline operations are not the only type of operation which can be carried out
on a production well - coiled tubing and snubbing units can both operate with
a high wellhead pressure.
36
3
Formation Damage
4
Matrix Acidising
5
1
(iv) Pumping fluids from the surface to the perforations through tubing that has
been installed for a number of years creates
Well two Performance
problems:
(a) The tubing is cooled by the cold fluid and contracts. If a tubing anchor has been

used i.e. the completion does NOT contain any moving seals, this
Hydraulic
contraction of the tubing may unseat the downhole packer orFracturing
6
pull the tubing apart
(b) The pumped fluid will clean the inside of the old tubing and the resulting debris
will be injected to the perforations.
Use of a string of coiled tubing (or snubbing unit tubing) where the inside of the
8
tubing has been cleaned before use will avoid both problems. The latter problem
may be reduced by a proper pumping scheduleOil if the well Gas
and and pressure conditions
Processing
are appropriate. A dilute, inhibited acid is pumped into the tubing and displaced to
a safe distance above the perforations (so that none of the fluid comes into contact
9
with the perforations). It is then circulated back to the surface e.g. by opening a
Water
sliding side door installed in the tubing above the packer Handling
and reverse circulating by
pumping into the annulus.
A similar procedure (without the necessity to open sliding side doors) may be used
Oil
to clean the inside of the coiled tubing/snubbing unitand Gas
once it Field
has been Operations
inserted into
the well.
6.3. Recognition of the Presence of Formation Damage

A production log which measures the flow rate at any point in the well is one
method to determine if formation damage has taken place. Figure 38 schematically
relates the flow rate at various depths to the quality of the (potentially hydrocarbon
producing) sand, as measured by the gamma ray log. It is clear that the bottom sand
has (potentially) been impaired since it is not contributing to the production.
Pay Zone Flow
Pay Zone Flow
Figure 38
Production log (e.g. Pay Zone No Flow
spinner or video) identifies
zones exhibiting pssible
formation damage
Gamma Ray Measured Flow Rate
The word potentially is used here since there are other possible reasons, apart from
formation damage, that could also account for this lack of well production, e.g. the
bottom sand may have already been depleted and the reservoir pressure is too low
Fig 8.27a
to allow the zone to flow.

The removal (matrix acidising) or the bypassing (propped hydraulic fracturing) of
formation damage are discussed elsewhere. The bypassing of formation damage by a
hydraulic fracturing treatment is a mechanical process - hence it is only necessary to
know that formation damage is present when designing such a treatment. However,
the removal of formation damage by a (matrix) chemical treatment requires that the
TYPE (or CAUSE) and location of the formation damage may be identified before
its removal is attempted. This identification process often involves:
(i) Examining the well records to identify operations that might have resulted in
formation damage
(ii) Carrying out specific laboratory testing, such as a reservoir core flushing, to
determine if the identified operations did indeed lead to core damage for the
particular combination of the fluids in question and the reservoir formation
(iii) Examining the damaged core with sophisticated analytical techniques such
as the scanning electron microscope to confirm the damage type and the
damage location and hence develop ideas on how to remove it.
The many possible types of formation damage discussed in this chapter indicate why
formation change studies have to be carried out in a systematic manner. It will also
be seen that each source of formation damage has its own, specific cure.
38
3
Formation Damage
4
Matrix Acidising
5
1
8. Appendix A
Well Performance
Appendix A is a summary of common types of formation damage, diagnostic clues
and remediation techniques from "An introduction to the basis of well completions
stimulations and workovers (2nd. edition), courtesy of George King (Tulsa, 1996).
6
Appendix A
Common Damage Types
Condi tion or Type of Damage D iagnostic Cl ues R emedial
hydrates (ice) ga s well, intermitte nt flow , n ear total glycol or alcohol injection below hydrate
8
shutoff, followed by return to flow in a formation point. Insulated risers or tubing.
few minutes; produces a small amount of
water Oil and Gas Processing
oil well, usually only fo rms near mud line insulated risers
in arctic regions; may also form in drilling
9
mud
migrating fines kaol init e or f ibrous ill ite c lay or some clay control for preventi on, retarded acid
feldspars (non clays); brine salinity
changes may trigger fines movement;
Water Handling
for removal;
extreme case
may need to limit rate in
sporadic reductions in flow rate, variable

production rate tests; fines in prod,
emulsions rare but possible
swelling clay sme ctite clay, some time s il lite and
smectite interbedded clay; permeability is Oil acidize
andwithGas
Hydraulic Fracture ifField
damage isOperations
HCI/HF if damage is shallow
deeper
sensitive to change in water salinity or than 12"
brine type
water bl ocks usu all y gas well, sma ll por e throa ts, matrix treat with alcohol or surface tension
untreated water, low pressure formation; if lowering surfactant; inject gas in gas
very low pressure (< about 0.2 psi/ft), pore reservoir to distance of 10 ft
throat size doesn’t matter
poor l oad fl uid r ec. usu all y formation dependent; ma y Preventi on - avoid or m i nimize water
decrease production rate in severe cases or contact and lower surface tension of water.
cause long cleanup time. Most common in Removal - alcohols and some surfactants
formations with small pores and
microporous clays
fill i n pe rfs high skin, can inject into well at very low cleanout of reperforate
rates; reperforating may show sharp
increases
fill i n casing high skin, difficult or i mpossible t o inject reverse circulation or regular circulation
into well; partial fill will show skin on a
build up but injection possible at a reduced
rate; confirm with a sinker bar on wireline
particle damage skin on buildup t est, dif f icult to inject; HCI or HCI/HF acid in matrix acid job
sometimes shows emulsions in oi l wells; solvent wash follow with acid in wells
poor mud conditioning before cement; with oil base mud; foam or jetti ng
frequently encountered in open hole cleanups are often useful
completions and horizontal wells
may also be encountered following acid or filter treatment fluids - use clean tanks
frac stimulations or workover fluids where
a dirty water was used or the water was
hauled or stored in a dirty tank
can reduce injection in flood projects - better cleaning of water
backflow shows particles and oi l carry-
over return
fracture plugging la rge whole mud losses in na turally acid useful if damage is shallow; frac if
fractured formations; intermittent deep; to prevent, improve solids recovery
production at low and moderate rates;
infrequent recovery of whole mud and
mud fines. Some emulsions, especially
after acid treatments; may als o occur if
hole is poorly cleaned during drilling

coning of wat er ons et of water production after exte nded limit r ate, some treatments may
production; formation has no vertical temporarily be useful; most water control
permeability barriers and sufficient products are not useful without natural
vertical perm to allow water to move reservoir barriers
toward drawdown
commingled water production initi al production of water with oil in no treatment or temporary at best
primary, with breakthrough in flood; water
cut increases in flood
waterflood breakthrough through high examine produced water analysis and high permeability zones should be plugged
permeability zone compare with flood water deep (d > 100') from producer and injector
when oil recovery from zone is complete
micro poros ity c aused by some forms of c lay; ma y bind no treatment necessary
water and make high Sw readings on log
emulsion uns table emulsions, breaks on s tanding; no down hole treatment suggested; treat on
created in tubing at pressure drop points in surface if string redesign is impractical
piping system from pumps to choke
stabiliz ed emulsi on very sta ble emulsion, partiall y wetted fine s treat with mutual solvent and acid; remove
at interface; common after drilling mud downhole source of soli ds if possible
dispersal or cleanup of mud or cement
fines by acid; may also occur on polymer
cleanup; common in production form
unconsolidated formations, especially after
acid or gravel packing operations
oil base mud emulsion damage very common in wells drilled with oil base wash with aromatic solvent followed by
mud; if treated with acid or brine before mutual solvent and acid; may require
the sulfonate emulsifiers are washed off several treatments; cuttings removal is
the cuttings by production or solvent important
treatments, an emulsion from that can lock
up the well; the first one or two treatments
may be short lived as m ore mud and mud
filtrate moves back toward the wellbore,
this is of ten the case in naturally fractured
formations
surfactant stabili zed emuls ion stable to very stable emuls ion; common to treat on sur face if temporary; use mutual
severe after acid treatment; may be able to solvent or surfactant to prevent emulsion
see the st abilized skin at the drop interface with next acid job
sludge sludge is an emulsion that is nearly solid; prevention is best cure; use non sludging
it may be triggered by acid, oil based mud, acid systems, test with iron content
asphaltenes, or iron compounds; disperse expected in well
the sludge in xylene and analyze for
components, particularly iron
paraffin / wax F orms in t ubing near surface as oi l cools scraping, cutting for mechanical removal;
and cloud point is reached; may become hot oil useful if deposit i s < 100 ft from
increasingly a problem as field ages; most surface; s olvent soaks on deeper deposits;
paraffin deposit s melt at < 150˚F. Often some inhibitors available for pipelines and
form at pressure restriction in tubulars; few problem wells; some wells require
soft to hard mass found at press drops; continuous downhole treatment through
color reddish brown to black; even white macaroni st ring; special bacteria are als o
or gray possible; used to prevent precipitation
40
3
Formation Damage
4
Matrix Acidising
5
paraffin in for mation se en as skin on tes t, may or may not
disappear if well is shutin for several days;
cloud point of oil is near the reservoir
temperature; pressure drop may trigger
paraffin drop out
treat
Wellprocesses
with
Performance
downhole heat
1 generating
if well is good producer; solvent
soaks also used; some inhibitors available
to be used wit h a h ydraulic fracture
treatment
6
paraffin after stimulation injection of a cool stimulation fluid may allow the well to clean up on it s own; use
precipitate paraffin in reservoir on contact; xylene preflush ahead of acid when the
well may be clean up slowly (1 to 4 Hydraulic Fracturing
problem is known to occur
weeks) after stimulation even though load
fluid is recovered more quickly; may see a
decreasing skin i f multiple buildup tests
are run
paraffin in flow lines
flow li nes and equipment; paraffin will
mechanical or solvent removal or pigging;
sof t to ha rd deposits (not sca le) in surfa ce
inhibitors can be used
melt when exposed to enough heat
(usually, about 150˚F is sufficient)
8
asphaltenes sof t to har d black mass that ma y occ ur a s treatment with aromatic (cyclic ring)
flakes , sludge, marble-size balls and as a solvents such as x ylene or to luene; some
stick buildup often occurs with paraffin; Oil and Gas Processing
surfactants are also useful for dispersion of
precipitation is triggered by destabilization asphaltic mass; use anti-sludge additive or
of maltene resins caused by acid contact, xylene with acid in reservoirs with more
outgassing, shear in pumps, electrically than 0.5% asphalt to prevent sludges
9
charged metal surface, temperature
reduction and CO 2; asphaltenes soften
with increasing temperature (t > 150˚F) Water Handling
but do not melt
tar f lows very s lowly into perfor ations dur ing solvent soak as needed; test solvent wit h
production of oil; usually associated with sample of tar before job; heat often helps
the presence of a t ar deposit near pay,
frequently highly asphaltic; may contain
some water that is tied up as droplets or
“pockets” in the high viscosity mass
calcium carbonate scale may form at any pressure drop, either in HCI to remove and inhibitor to prevent;
the formation or in the tubulars; may form inhibitor may be squeezed int o the
very fast and can sharply limit production formation for longer lived protection;
especially at gravel pack interfaces or near some HCI jobs may trigger calcium
perforations in wells with high draw down carbonate scale in rare cases; inhibit acid
across the perforations; ma y occur more or treat with EDTA if this is a problem
frequently in earlier stages in some fields
when pressure drop is more severe.
Usually amorphous, non-crystalline form
calcium sulfate sca le usu all y f orms at pr e ssure drop whe re chemical converter or dissolver followed
induced by turbulence; more frequent by acid; (do not contact converter or
where high sulfate waters contact high dissolver with acid); acid is not useful by
calcium waters and in CO 2 floods; scale is itself; inhibitors placed by squeeze
not acid soluble; may be found on outside treatments are useful to prevent
of pumps and at intakes and gas expulsion
ports and valves in downhole; crystals are
characteristic for this scale

barium sulfate scale non reactive scale that forms at pressure scraping, water blasting or o t her
drawdowns or where outgassing occurs; mechanical removal; chemical treatment is
no readily apparent crystal pattern in m any usually not possible i f scale occurs as
deposits; may occur as radioactive NORM nearly pure (> 90%) deposit or as thick (>
scale in some areas where radioactive 1/4", 6mm) deposit s in pipes. Can be
isotopes form in the lattice. NORM scales prevented by inhibitors
are detectable with gamma ray logging
tools
wettabilit y pr oblems f requently occurs a ft er an a cid job whe re treat with mutual solvent wash over the
the corrosion inhibitor was not mixed in pay, displace and soak
the acid just before injection; emulsions
and reduced flow are common,
particularly after inhibitor l oss or oil base
mud contact; may be temporary or
permanent but most clean up slowly with
ti me and flow; attempts to reverse natural
wettability usually are short l ived; natural
wettability is determined by the natural
surfactants in the produced fields
relative perm problem ma y occur when oil is injected into a gas treat with high API gravit y solvent such as
zone or gas is injected into an oil zone that condensate or xylene (low flash point);
is above the bubble poi nt squeeze and produce back
retrograde condensate a special case of relative permeabil ity control drawdowns a nd re pressure
effect; a condensate (liquid phase) that reservoir; redesign of tubing may be
forms from a rich gas; if the condensate required
forms in the tubing or casing, heading may
occur; if condensate forms in the
formation - creation of another phase will
reduce permeabilit y to gas; usuall y occurs
near the wellbore where it manifests its elf
as an extra pressure drop
tubing pr oble m w ell refuses t o fl ow alt hough pr essur e is redesign string; a velocity string that will
sufficient with the expected assi stance fit insi de existing tubing may help if
from diss olved gas; well ma y head and die tubing is too large
or liquid slugs may be produced if string is
too large; rate is restricted by friction back
pressure if tubing is too small
salt sa lt precipitates as a w hite mass in the fresh water or weak brine wash
tubulars or in the formation; usually
associated wit h a cooling of super
saturated water but may also be triggered
by a pressure drop; may be seen early in
the lives of some wells and become less of
a problem as water cut increases; look for
problems in formations with produced
water salinity that is near saturation
42
3
Formation Damage
4
Matrix Acidising
5
1
bacteri al inf estat ion a diffi cult proble m to p redict; it is more treat with bleach followed by HCI (do not
common in injection wells where surface
Well Performance
or produced water is injected, if the colony
allow contact of bleach and HCI); more
than one treatment may be necessary;
is establi shed in the water handling alternative treatments are chlorine dioxide
system, it can occur with injection of any and bactericide slugs
6
waters; when tubing is pulled, brown to
black slimy mas ses or an H2S o dor are
indications; bacteria may cause slow
reductions in the injectivit y of a whole
field; complete removal of the bacteria is
rarely possible - treatment is usually on a
remedial basis; untreated water in
treatments; drilling fluid or injection water
can sour reservoirs with SRB bacteria Unstable Formations and Sa
poor perfora tions shows up as dama ge on a build up test but reperforate
cannot be cured wit h acid or mechanical
8
changes in the well; problems such as
screenouts of hydraulic fracture j obs, high
injection pressures, sand production,
downhole scale occurrence, unstable
emulsions, and downhole paraffin and
asphaltene deposits are common; problems
9
with a well that cannot be broken down or
even pumped into should always be
approached by reperforating the well Water Handling
unstable formati on ma y occur in any formation t hat is poorly gravel packing, plastic consolidation, or
consolidated or that will fail under rate li mits
pressure; may occur with onset of water
production or loss of p ressure from
depletion; problems include embedment of
proppant, closing of acidized channels inOil and Gas Field Operations
acid fractures, spalling of formation into
perfs or wellbore or production of solids
colla pse d pipe ma y show up as re duced rate or If caused by earth shift forces, use heavier
destruction of li ft equipment. Check with pipe or multiple strings. Liners, cement,
a gauge ring on wireline or tubing. Has a and patches used for repair
variet y of causes including severe
corrosion, malfunctioning perforating
guns, pipe flaws and wear of tu bulars from
drilling or l ift system. Most common
causes are eart h shift l oads caused by
subsidence of pr oducing formations with
fluid and sand withdrawals, active faults,
and fo rmation movements near salt zones
leaks sudden c hanges i n GOR, WOR, pressure, repair; consider corrosion control program
or chemical analysis of water

FORMATION DAMAGE TUTORIAL
Question 1.
The Hawkins formula may be used to calculate the skin due to formation damage:
k  r
Sd =  o − 1 ln d
 kd  rw
A well completed on a 500 mD formation with a well spacing of 40 acres (re = 745
ft). The wellbore diameter equals 7 7/8". It is planned to perforate the pay zone with
 ko  rd
S = tubing
a through  k − 1gun
 lnwhere the perforation charges have a depth of penetration of
14 in. IF it is decided
d r
 to case
w the hole.
The drilling mud used to drill the well controls the extent of permeability impairment
and the  500of−damaged
S =depth
1.6
1 * ln region extends beyond the wellbore. The following mud
types are available:
100   0.328 
S = 6.34
Mud A B C D
Permeability in damaged zone (mD) 100 20 300 200
Depth of invasion (ft) 1.6 0.8 2.0 2.3
r
Ji ln e r
= w
Which mud
Jo systemr do you recommend from a well productivity point of view for
ln e r + S
an openhole and a cased
w hole completion?
Answer 1.k  =rd745, ln r / r = 7.73

Sd rw= = 0o.328 − 1, rlne e w
 k
Applying Hawkins formula
d  rw
k  r
Sd =  Jio − 1 ln 7.73d
 kJo = r
kd o 7.73 +wr7d.1
S =  − 1 ln

Jik d= 0.46 rw
 k Jo  r
rSw ==7 7/8o /−(2x12)
1 ln =d 0.328ft and using Mud A parameters, i.e. Kd = 100 mD and
rd = 1.6 k+500
d 0.328 rw
 = 1.9328 1.6 
S= − 1 * ln
 100   0.328 
 500   1.9328 
S =500
S = 6.34 −1 x ln1.6  
S= 100− 1 * ln 0.328
 100   0.328 
S = 7.1
S = 6.34 r
Ji ln e r
and the Productivity
= wRatio (= Jimpaired/Joriginal) will be :
Jo re
lnr
Ji ln e rrw + S
= w
Jo re
ln
rw = 0.328,rwre+ =S 745, ln re / rw = 7.73
rw = 0Ji.328, r7e .73

= 745, ln re / rw = 7.73
=
Jo 7.73 + 7.1
Ji Ji 7.73
44 = = 0.46
Jo Jo 7.73 + 7.1
Ji
r
ln e r
3
4
Ji
= w
Jo r
ln e r + S Formation Damage
w
rw = 0.328, re = 745, ln re / rw = 7.73 Matrix Acidising

5
1
Ji 7.73
=
Jo 7.73 + 7.1 Well Performance
Ji
= 0.46
6
Jo
i.e. current Productivity Index is just 46% of the initial value. The following table
summarises results from the other Mud types.
Mud Type S Jo/Ji
A 7.1 0.46
B
C
D
29.6
1.3
3.1
0.21
0.86
0.71 8
Water Handling
9
From a Completion Productivity point of view, Drilling Mud type C is recommended
when planning an open hole completion, since it creates the minimum damage (S=1.3),
reducing the Productivity Index to 86% of the undamaged value.
Oil and
Mud type B is recommended if a cased hole completion Gas Mud
is planned. Field Operations
B produces
a highly impaired formation damage zone which has the highest skin and the lowest
productivity ratio of all the drilling muds. However, it is also the thinnest. The planned
perforating depth (14 in.) is 4.4 in greater than the formation damage (9.6 in.), hence
the perforations will be able to bypass the formation damage. A perforation plan
with sufficient perforating density and suitable phasing should be able to deliver an
undamaged completion (Ji/Jo = 1).

7. Further Reading
Useful books from which further information on the subject of Formation Damage
can be obtained include:
1. Allen, T. and Roberts, A., (1993). Production Operations, Volume 2 (4th Edition).
Published by OGCI. ISBN 0-930972-20-1.
2. Economides, M., Hill, A. D. and Ehlig-Economides C., (1993). Petroleum Production

Systems. Published by Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-658683-X.
3. Economides, M. and Nolte, K., (1989). Reservoir Stimulation. Published by
46

Formation Damage

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Formation Damage

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

3

Other Artificial Lift Types

• Identify the crucial near wellbore area susceptible to formation damage.

• Calculate the cost of formation damage (in terms of lost production).

• Identify the major sources of formation damage.

• Select appropriate remedial treatments.

• Discuss the causes of production related formation damage.

• Explain how scale inhibitors are used.

• Provide guidelines for minimising formation damage during workover

• Indicate how the pressure of formation damage can be identified in a production

damage. It will continue with a more detailed Water Handling

(i) Reducing or completely removing the formation damage by a chemical

(ii) Bypassing the formation damage by creation of a high permeability channel

(i) Physical blockage or reduction in size of the pore throat

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 

The total well skin is a composite parameter:

3.1. Well Geometry (Sgeometry)

ii) Well not placed in the centre of the drainage boundary

3.2 Completion Skin (Scomp)

3.3 Production Skins (Sproduction)

4. The Formation Damage Skin

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 

1000 Fig 8.4

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 

100{ln(re/rw) + S ideal} 100qdamage

Negative Damaged Well

5.1. Formation Damage: Drilling Operations

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 

Fresh Water/Gel WBM Figure 8

This figure shows two regions:

invasion depth and the PerfoatinDepth

Question: Which mud gives better production?

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 11

(i) Formation properties - an increased depth of drill fluid invasion is often

(iii) Overbalance - fluid loss/invasion depth increases as the difference in

(a) Large (long and/or wide diameter) Bottom Hole Assemblies

Fluid loss rate (log scale)

Oil and Gas Processing

Oil and Gas Field Operations

Wellbore radius (rw) = 10.8cm, Perforated interval (h) = 20.5m

Leak-off Volume = πφh {(rw + r)2 - rw2} (3)

5.1.1. Formation Damage Mechanisms During Drilling

5.1.2. Fluid Loss

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 13

Before Damage After Damage

Continuous Oil Oil

Connate Water Invaded Filtrate

Before Damage After Damage

Connate Water Formation Impairment Due to Water Block Fig 8.C

Easy Flow of Gas Gas Flow Impeded

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 15

Swollen Clay Particles

Continuous Oil Oil

Connate Water Invaded Filtrate

The magnitude of the permeability reduction from both types of formation/fluid

(i) Clay chemistry (there are many types of clay)

(iii) Amount of clay and

The different types of clay can be recognised by their appearance. Figures 18 – 21

• Smectite has a honeycomb structure (Figure 20)

Oil and Gas Processing

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 17

Rock Porosity / Permeabilty Comment

Figure 25 Low * Whole mud can be lost in

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University