Formation Damage: Geometry Comp Production

Formation Damage
4
CONTENTS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 OVERVIEW
4.3 SKIN
4.3.1 Well Geometry (Sgeometry)
4.3.2 Completion Skin (Scomp)
4.3.3 Production Skins (Sproduction)
4.4 THE FORMATION DAMAGE SKIN
4.5 SOURCES OF FORMATION DAMAGE
4.5.1 Formation Damage: Drilling Operations
4.5.1.1 Formation Damage Mechanisms During
Drilling
4.5.1.2 Fluid Loss
4.5.1.2.1 Clay Chemistry
4.5.1.3 Filter-Cake Formation
4.5.1.4 Invasion Profile
4.5.2 Formation Damage During Cementing
4.5.3 Formation Damage During Perforating
4.5.4 Formation Damage During Production
4.5.4.1 Sources of Formation Damage - Fines
Movement
4.5.4.2 Sources of Formation Damage -
Completion and Workover Fluids
4.5.4.3 Sources of Formation Damage - Scale
4.5.4.3.1 Inorganic Scales
4.5.4.3.2 Organic Scale
4.5.4.4 Sources of Formation Damage - Bacteria
4.5.4.5 Sources of Formation Damage - Pressure
Reduction
4.5.4.6 Sources of Formation Damage -
Stimulation
4.5.4.7 Sources of Formation Damage - Water
Injection
4.6 FORMATION DAMAGE DURING
WORKOVER OPERATIONS
4.6.1 Workover Fluid Quality Guidelines to
Minimise Formation Damage
4.6.2 Workover Techniques to Minimise
Formation Damage
4.6.3 Recognition of the Pressure of Formation
Damage
4.7 FURTHER READING
4.8 APPENDIX A
1
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.
2
Formation Damage
4
4.1 INTRODUCTION
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
determining well productivity is thus the condition 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
dimensionless number mathematically analogous to the film transfer coefficient in
heat transfer.
Formation Damage concerns the formation of a volume of rock with a reduced

permeability in the near wellbore zone. This permeability reduction 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
will begin with a discussion of the sources, extent and the modelling of formation
damage. It will continue with a more detailed examination of the mechanisms leading
to Drilling and Production induced formation damage; followed by a review of
techniques which can lead to its avoidance.
Modules 5 and 6 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 (chapter 5) or
(ii) bypassing the formation damage by creation of a high permeability channel by

a hydraulic fracturing treatment (chapter 6) or deep penetration perforation
guns.
4.2 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, stimula-
tion, 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
1
4.3 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.
4.3.1 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.
4.3.2 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 (see
chapter 8.5.3). The inflow into a perforated completion is normally less that
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 (see
chapter 7) sand control.
4
Formation Damage
4
(iii) Fractures - either naturally occurring or (artificially) created propped hydraulic
fractures - will lead to increased 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.
4.3.3 Production Skins (Sproduction)

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 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;
(b) a retrograde condensate fluid so that there is two phase region at the
perforations. These can both lead to pressure dependent, relative
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.
4.4 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
inflow pressure profiles Pd - Extra pressure drop due to Formation Damage

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
P1
Permeability Kd P2
Figure 2
(K)
P3 The natural flow producing
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 the
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
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:
Pd2kh k r
S damage = = -1 ln d (1)
q kd rw
6
Formation Damage
4
The parameters are defined in figures 1 and 2 and in addition:
h =formation height
q =fluid flow rate
=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
in figure 4. Thus if the formation permeability is reduced to 10% of its original value
(k/kd = 10) out to a radius of 30 cm, then the formation damage skin (Sd) is equal to 10.
60
20
k/k d =
50
40
Skin (S damage)
30
k/k d = 1 0
Wellbore
20
k/k d = 5
10
Figure 4 k /k d = 2
Skin factor increases with a 0

0 0.15 0.30 0.45 0.60 0.75 0.90 1.05 1.20 1.35 1.50
larger damage radius and rd, Radius of Damage (Meters)
damage ratio k/kd
1000
100
kd = 50md
Production Rate, bbl/day
10 kd = 10md
kd = 1md
1
Permeability of undamaged resrervoir = 100 md
Formation thickness 10ft.
Wellbore radius 0.25ft.
0.1
Drainage radius 500ft.
Oil viscosity 0.5 cp
Drawdown 536 psi
0.01
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Figure 5
Radius of Damaged Zone Beyond Wellbore, ft
Effect of formation damage
Effect of Formation Damage on Well Production
on well production
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.

1
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 wells production - delaying project
payback as well as reducing Net Present Value profitability (figure 7). Further, 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
8
Formation Damage
4
4.5 SOURCES OF FORMATION DAMAGE
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
Cementing
Perforating
Completion/Gravel Packing
Production
Injection
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.
4.5.1 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.

1
High OBM
KCI/Polymer WBM
Cost
Seawater/Polymer WBM
Fresh Water/Gel WBM Figure 8

Low Typical relationships
between mud type, cost and
Low Risk of Damage High
risk of formation damage
WBM - Water Based Mud OBM - Oil Based Mud
formation damage
The permeability of both this filter cake and the formation influence the rate at 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:
(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
Formation Damage
4
The properties (permeability and thickness) of the mudcake are dependent on the type
of drilling mud in use as well as on the drilling parameters and the quality of the mud
engineering e.g.
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
profile are shown in figure 10. Mud A forms a thick, but more permeable, filter cake
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 formation damage - due to mixture of drilling
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
results in essentially total formation damage immediately adjacent to the wellbore, but
this decreases rapidly to a low level as the depth of invasion increases.
100
Mud B Mud A
Invasion Front for
80
% Formation damage
Mud B
Mud A
60 (Thin, highly
impermeable,
mud cake,
40 e.g. oil base mud) (Thicker, but
more permeable mud
cake,
e.g. water base mud)
Figure 10 20
Effect of mud type on the Perforation Depth

0
invasion depth and the Depth of Invasion
Wellbore
formation damage profile
Question: Which mud gives better production?
The properties of the drilling mud and the drilling mud / formation interaction as well
as the completion type will control the wells 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.

1
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 8.1. The table
shows that large volumes of fluid have to be lost to achieve substantial depths of
invasion in reasonable porous formations.
12
Formation Damage
4
2 3
1
1 Spurt loss
at bit face 5
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

tripping drill pipe
Figure 11
30 sec 6 min 1 hr 1day 3 days 20 days
Fluid loss during the Time
drilling process
Depth of
Invasion (r) 3cm 15cm 30cm 150cm 300cm 600cm
Porosity (,%) 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 24 0.09 0.63 1.75 31 114 442
Depth of Invasion
Wellbore radius (rw) = 10.8cm, Perforated interval (h) = 20.5m
Leak-off Volume = h {(rw + r)2 - rw2} (3)
4.5.1.1 Formation Damage Mechanisms During Drilling
4.5.1.2 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 perme
ability 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.

1
(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).
yyyyyy
,,, ,,, ,,,yyy
yyy,,,
,,,
yyy yyy
,,, ,,,
yyyyyy
,,,
Before Damage After Damage
,,,yyy
yyy ,,, ,,,yyy
yyy,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,yyy
yyy ,,, yyy
,,,yyy
,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Continuous Oil
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Oil
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,yyy
yyy ,,, ,,,
yyy,,,
yyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Connate Water ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Invaded Filtrate
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,y
Figure 12
yyy
,,,
,,,
yyy
Formation impairment due
,,,
yyy
Clay Particles Sand Grains Quartz Cement Oil Droplet
to water block
,,,
yyy
yyy
,,,
,,, ,,,
yyy
yyy
,,,
yyy
yyy
,,, ,,,
yyy
yyy
,,,
,,,,,,
yyy
yyy ,,,,,,
yyy
yyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Connate Water Connate Water Oil Droplet From
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy Oil Based Mud
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,yyy
yyy
,,, yyy,,,yyy
,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Easy Flow of Gas ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Gas Flow Impeded
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,
yyy
,,,
yyy ,,,
yyy
,,,
yyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,yyyy
yyy
,,, yyy,,,yyy
,,,
Figure 13
yyy
,,,
,,,
yyy Addition of third phase
,,,
yyy Clay Particles Sand Grains Quartz Cement Oil Droplet Gas
reduces gas flow
(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 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
Formation Damage
4
Continuous Oil
Viscous Oil - In Water Emulsion
Connate Water Invaded Filtrate
Figure 14
Formation impairment due Clay Particles Sand Grains Quartz Cement Oil Droplet
to water-in-oil emulsion
(iv) the connate water and the mud filtrate or injection fluid may be incompatible,
yyyyy
,,,,, ,,,,,
yyyyy
resulting in precipitates being formed. Such precipitates will reduce the
permeability of the near wellbore formation. Similarly, polymers dissolved in
the mud filtrate may absorb on the formation surfaces, restricting the area open
,,,,,
yyyyy,,,,,
yyyyy ,,,,,
yyyyy
to flow (figure 15).
,,,,,yyyyy
yyyyy ,,,,,
Figure 15
to polymer absorption
(Large) Polymer Molecule
4.5.1.2.1 Clay Chemistry

(i) the filtrate may react with the minerals which make up the formation rock. This
,,,,,
yyyyy ,,,,,,
yyyyyy
interaction may express itself in terms of (clay) particle migration (or mobili
sation). These mobilised clay particles can then block the pore throats, leading
to permeability reduction through internal filter cake formation (figure 16).
,,,,,
yyyyy ,,,,,,
yyyyyy
Figure 16
to fines migration ,,,,,
yyyyy ,,,,,,
yyyyyy
Flow
,,,,,yyyyyy
yyyyy ,,,,,,
Flow
Bridging and
Blocking of PoreThroats
(ii) A second form of interaction is clay swelling in which water is absorbed

between the clay particle layers (figure 17). This clay particle expansion leads
to a reduction in overall rock permeability. The magnitude of this permeability
reduction will depend on the clay morphology e.g. the effect will often be small
if the clay particles are situated on the walls of the pore bodies; but will be much
greater if they are present in the pore throats where small dimensional changes
can significantly effect the flow.
1
Swollen Clay Particles
Continuous Oil Oil
Connate Water Invaded Filtrate
Figure 17
to clay swelling
Clay Particles Sand Grains Cement Oil Droplet Filtrate
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)
(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)
yyyyyy
,,,,,, ,,,,,
yyyyy
illite forms fragile wispy filaments which line pore walls and bridge the pores
themselves (Figure 19)
,,,,,, yyy
yyyyyy
Figure 18 (left)
,,,
,,,
yyy
,,,,,
yyyyy
Discrete booklets
(Kaolinite)
,,,,,,
yyyyyy ,,,
yyy
,,,
yyy
,,,,,, yyy
yyyyyy ,,,
,,,
yyy
Figure 19 (right)
Pore bridging (Illite)
smectite has a honeycomb structure (Figure 20)
chlorite is an iron containing clay which lines the pore wall (Figure 21)
16
Formation Damage
4
yyyyyy
,,,,,,
yyyyyy
,,,,,,
Figure 20 (left)
,,,,,
yyyyy
Grain coating (Smectite)
Figure 21 (right)
Pore lining (Chlorite)
yyyyyy
,,,,,,
,,,,,
yyyyy
For most formations, drilling and completion fluids formulated from 3% wt potassium
chloride (KCl) are effective in minimising formation/fluid interactions.
4.5.1.3 Filter-Cake Formation

The ideal drilling mud will form a thin, impermeable mud-cake resulting in a limited
fluid leak-off. Hence, a well designed drilling fluid, on exposure of a fresh rock
surface during the drilling process, rapidly forms an external filter cake on the
wellbore surface. This is achieved by the larger particles being strained out from
the drilling mud at an exposed pore throat. This filter cake initially has a larger
permeability - since it is made up of the larger particles - which is subsequently
reduced as progressively smaller particles are retained. Experiments have shown that
the particles in the drilling mud can form such external filter cakes (figure 22a) when
the diameter of the pore throat to be bridged is not more than 3 times the typical drilling
mud particle diameter. Special arrangements are required when drilling larger
geological features, e.g. fractures, so as to promote filter cake formation and prevent
uncontrolled losses of large volumes of drilling mud.
Good Pore
Formation
(a) External or surface filter cake (large particles)
Pore
Formation
(b) Adherence to pore surface
Pore
Bad
Figure 22 Formation
Filter cake formation (c) Pore plugging or internal filter cake (smaller particles)

1
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.
Finaly very fine 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:
micro pore throats < 0.5 0.5 < meso pore throats < 1.5 macro pore throats > 1.5 Table 2
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
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 Form filter cake at Form internal filter cake at Flow through pore
formation surface depth in the formation throats without
causing formation
damage Table 3
Filter Cake formation
Removal Removal by (acid) Difficult to remove Not necessary -
wash no damage process depends on particle
Note High particle concentrations (>1%) reduces the above values size / pore throat size ratio
dpt = diameter pore throat d = diameter particle

18
Formation Damage
4
US Mesh Sizes
325 170 80
Mesh Mesh Mesh
Clay Particles Silica Flour
Cement Particle
H
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Micron Scale
Figure 24
(1.0 inch = 25,400 Microns)
Formation damage size
relationships
NB. The mesh size referred to relates to the US standard sieve size, a frequently used
particle size measure in the oil industry e.g. for gravel pack sand.
4.5.1.4 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 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
Low * Whole mud can be lost in

formations with k > 1D,
Solids Filtrate Uninvaded rock depending on mud / pore
throat size distribution
Figure 25
Invasion profile summary
4.5.2 Formation Damage During Cementing

The success of a casing or liner cementation is dependent, among other things, on the
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.

1
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
Formation Damage
4
4.5.3 Formation Damage During Perforating
The perforating process results in an open perforation enclosed within a low perme-
ability zone of fractured grains and remnants of the perforating charge (figure 27).
This damaged area results in a reduced inflow into the perforation. However, the
measured well Productivity Index (i.e. fluid production per unit well drawdown)
sometimes increases with time as the well is produced. 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 may open to flow as the well drawdown
increases. This clean up process can be accelerated by specific well treatments such as:
(i) back flowing (production under high drawdown)
(ii) acidising (to dissolve the impairing material)
(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
Open Perforation Tunnel

Figure 27
Schematic of damaged
region around perforation
formed during the Grain Fracturing
Casing / Cement Reduced Permeability Rock (Low Permeability)
perforation process
4.5.4 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

1
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 reduc-
tion 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
Oil / water flow 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 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
Formation Damage
4
Connate Water
(Immobile)
Oil
Flowing Oil
Sand Grain
Figure 29a
Water wet fines are
immobile during oil
production only Immobile Water - Wet Fines
Flowing Water
Flowing Sand Grain

Immobile,
Figure 29b Oil
Water Wet Fines
Flowing oil
Water wet fines become
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:
(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

1
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!
4.5.4.2 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
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Typical permeability
Pore Volume Flowed degradation of a smectite
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 swelling (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 the calcium or
24
Formation Damage
4
potassium clays, while the swelling for all three clays is reduced at the higher brine
(NaCl) concentrations.
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 mechanisms lead to reductions in permeability.
Figure 31 implies that keeping the clay in the potassium form is preferred compared
to the calcium or sodium (the worst) varieties. Many tests and studies of the underlying
physics have shown that 3% wt potassium chloride (KCl) gives the least swelling. It
is thus the preferred brine composition for non-damaging workover and completion
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 cation is of a similar size
- hence its ability to give the highest permeability measurement in figure 30.
35
30
Sodium Smectite
25 Potassium Smectite
(Layers of Water)
Calcium Smectite
Clay Swelling
20
15
10
5
Figure 31
Swelling due to water 0
Distilled Water 0.4% NaCI 8.5% NaCI
absorption is controlled by
clay type and brine
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 to the
formation of damaging precipitates.
4.5.4.3 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.

1
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:
(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. The inorganic scales and bacteria will also
be discussed in the Water Handling Module (chapter 9).
4.5.4.3.1 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 to the surface up the well.
NaCl (soln) NaCl (solid)
Calcium sulphate can be precipitated due to cooling and to the fact that the less soluble
isomorph anhydrite becomes the equilibrium form.
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.
26
Formation Damage
4
Ca(HCO3)2 CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O
(iii) Unusual scales can be encountered e.g. sulphur precipitation from very sour gas
wells has been observed in several producing areas.
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
the well operator tries to maintain the target well production. This further pressure
drop creates extra scaling problems.
(iv) Mixing of two reservoir brines (normally in the production tubing) or between
a reservoir brine (e.g. rich in Barium) and an injected fluid (e.g. sea water) can
lead to precipitation.
Ba++ (reservoir fluid) + SO4--(injected sea water) BaSO4 (solid)
Other insoluble materials e.g. SrSO4 are formed by a similar process. Such scales are
frequently found to be contaminated by low level radioactivity. This does not
normally represent a health hazard unless a dry scale sample 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:
(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.

1
4.5.4.3.2 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 (<4C) 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
Formation Damage
4
(ii) Asphaltenes
The name Asphaltenes refers to an amorphous, bituminous, solid material which
precipitates from some crudes. It frequently contains a high multivalent metal
concentration, such as Vanadium. It is made up of a complex mixture of asphaltenes,
resins and maltenes which were originally present in the crude oil under original
reservoir conditions as a metastable colloidal dispersion. 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 dispersion that maintained the asphaltenic material in suspension.
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 at intermediate pressures. The fact that there is a second area of
solubility is of limited practical use because asphaltenes do not 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).
The following summarises operational field experience from a number 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 is discussed in chapter 5 (matrix acidising).
4.5.4.4 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

1
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.
4.5.4.5 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
Formation Damage
4
(a) sand production (see chapter 7 of this module)
(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 in
place in the reservoir; but it may also bring extra operational costs due to surface
subsidence and damage to the wells themselves {(casing/tubing being squeezed
into an oval shape rather than being round, or even(parting due to shearing)}.
(c) fault creation or reactivation {i.e. (mini) earthquakes). Creation of extra 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 certain
rock effective stress is exceeded.
(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) permeability to oil or gas flow
4.5.4.6 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 rocks relative permeability to the required
hydrocarbon phase - either increasing or decreasing its flow rate

1
(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 they do not occur.
4.5.4.7 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 5 nominal filter decreases this rate of
impairment
(iii) Use of an even finer filter, 2, decreases this even further
100
(Average) Permeability Measured Core (%)
75
A - Water D, Filtered to 2
50 B - Water D, Filtered to 5
C - Produced Water Untreated
25 D - Untreated Surface Water
0 Figure 33
0 7.5 15 22.5 30 37.5
Volume Injected (Litre/perf)
Example core test results to
rank injection water quality
32
Formation Damage
4
However, all the above volumes of water injected are small compared to those
required in actual injection projects. In practice:
(i)The injection water is often much colder than the reservoir. This cooling of the
injection interval reduces the reservoir stress in the near wellbore area and allows
fracture creation at a much lower pressure than 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 source
(b) whether thermal fracturing occurs and
(c) the quality of the formation
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 to form thermal 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, deoxy-
genation of the injection water and its continuous treatment with bactericide (see
chapter 8 Oil and Gas Processing, also chapter 9 Water Handling).
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.
4.6 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.

1
700
600
Production Rate (BOPD)
460 bpd
500
Trend
400
300
Well Killed With Mud 310 bpd
200
100
Figure 34
0
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,
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 respec-

tively 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
34
Formation Damage
4
Drill Cement
Daily Losses (bbls)

Scrape Casing
Near Perforations
Perforations
Still Open ?
Figure 36
Workover history identifies 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
causes of formation Days
damage
4.6.1 Workover Fluid Quality Guidelines to Minimise Formation

Damage
These guidelines are an expression of the fundamentals of formation damage that

have been discussed earlier.
(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.

1
(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.
4.6.2 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 tpes 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 value 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
stop fluids being injected into kill pills. Design for complete formation damage during
the formation by placing plug in removal after workover finished
tubing tail pipe workovers
(i) Mechanically isolate the bottom of the tubing with a plug if the workover
concerns equipment placed above the packer.
(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
Formation Damage
4
(iv) Pumping fluids from the surface to the perforations through tubing that has
been installed for a number of years creates two 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 contraction
of the tubing may unseat the downhole packer or 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 tubing
has been cleaned before use will avoid both problems. The latter problem may be
reduced by a proper pumping schedule if the well and pressure conditions 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 with the
perforations). It is then circulated back to the surface e.g. by opening a sliding side
door installed in the tubing above the packer and reverse circulating by pumping into
the annulus.
A similar procedure (without the necessity to open sliding side doors) may be used to
clean the inside of the coiled tubing/snubbing unit once it has been inserted into the
well.
4.6.3 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
Pay Zone No Flow
Production log (e.g. 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 to
allow the zone to flow.

1
The removal (matrix acidising) or the bypassing (propped hydraulic fracturing) of

formation damage is the subject of Chapter 5. The bypassing of formation damage by
a hydraulic fracturing treatment (Chapter 6) 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
Formation Damage
4
4.8 APPENDIX A
Appendix A is a summary of common types of formation damage, diagnostic clues

and remediation techniques from "An introduvtion to the basis of well completions
stimulations and workovers (2nd. edition), courtesy of George King (Tulsa, 1996).
Appendix A
Common Damage Types
Condi tion or Type of Damage Diagnostic Clues Remedial

hydrates (ice) gas well, intermittent flow, near total glycol or alcohol injection below hydrate
shutoff, followed by return to flow in a formation point. Insulated risers or tubing.
few minutes; produces a small amount of
water
oil well, usually only fo rms near mud line insulated risers
in arctic regions; may also form in drilling
mud
migrating fines kaolinite or fibrous ill ite clay or some clay control for preventi on, retarded acid
feldspars (non clays); brine salinity for removal; may need to limit rate in
changes may trigger fines movement; extreme case
sporadic reductions in flow rate, variable
production rate tests; fines in prod,
emulsions rare but possible
swelling clay smectite clay, sometimes il lite and acidize with HCI/HF if damage is shallow
smectite interbedded clay; permeability is Hydraulic Fracture if damage is deeper
sensitive to change in water salinity or than 12"
brine type
water bl ocks usually gas well, small pore throats, 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 doesnt matter
poor load fluid rec. usually formation dependent; may 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 perfs 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 test, difficult 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 large 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

1
coning of water onset of water production after extended 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 porosity caused by some forms of clay; may bind no treatment necessary
water and make high Sw readings on log
emulsion unstable 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
stabilized emulsi on very stable emulsion, partially wetted fines 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 Forms in tubing 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 < 150F. 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
Formation Damage
4
paraffin in formation seen as skin on test, may or may not treat with downhole heat generating
disappear if well is shutin for several days; processes if well is good producer; solvent
cloud point of oil is near the reservoir soaks also used; some inhibitors available
temperature; pressure drop may trigger to be used wit h a h ydraulic fracture
paraffin drop out treatment
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 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 soft to hard deposits (not scale) in surface mechanical or solvent removal or pigging;
flow li nes and equipment; paraffin will inhibitors can be used
melt when exposed to enough heat
(usually, about 150F is sufficient)
asphaltenes soft to hard black mass that may occur as 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; 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
charged metal surface, temperature
reduction and CO 2; asphaltenes soften
with increasing temperature (t > 150F)
but do not melt
tar flows very slowly into perforations during 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; may 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 scale usually forms at pr essure drop where 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

1
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
wettability problems frequently occurs after an acid job where 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 may 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 repressure
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 permeability to gas; usually occurs
near the wellbore where it manifests its elf
as an extra pressure drop
tubing problem well refuses to flow although pressure 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 may 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 salt 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
Formation Damage
4
bacteri al infestation a difficult problem to p redict; it is more treat with bleach followed by HCI (do not
common in injection wells where surface allow contact of bleach and HCI); more
or produced water is injected, if the colony 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
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
poor perforations shows up as damage on a build up test but reperforate
cannot be cured wit h acid or mechanical
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
with a well that cannot be broken down or
even pumped into should always be
approached by reperforating the well
unstable formation may 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 pressure from
depletion; problems include embedment of
proppant, closing of acidized channels in
acid fractures, spalling of formation into
perfs or wellbore or production of solids
collapsed pipe may 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
variety 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 changes i n GOR, WOR, pressure, repair; consider corrosion control program
or chemical analysis of water

1
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 radius rw equals 0.328 ft. It is planned to perforate the pay zone with a
through tubing gun where the perforation charges have a depth of penetration of 12
in. IF it is decided to case the hole.
The drilling mud used to drill the well controls the extent of permeability impairment
and the depth of damaged region extends beyond the wellbore. The following mud
types are available:
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
Which mud system do you recommend from a well productivity point of view for an
openhole and a cased hole completion?
Answer 1.
Applying Hawkins formula
k r
S = o 1 ln d
kd rw
and using Mud A parameters, i.e. Kd = 100 mD and rd = 1.6
S=
500
1 * ln
1.6
100 0.328
S = 6.34
and the Productivity Ratio will be:
44
Formation Damage
4
r
Jo ln e r
= w
Ji re
ln r + S
w
rw = 0.328, re = 745 ln re / rw = 7.73
Jo 7.73
=
Ji 7.73 + 6.34
Jo
= 0.55
Ji
i.e. current Productivity Index is just 55% of the initial value. The following table
summarises results from the other Mud types.
Mud Type S Jo/Ji

A 6.34 0.55
B 21.40 0.27
C 1.21 0.87
D 2.92 0.73
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=1.21), reducing the Productivity Index to 87% of the undamaged value.
Mud type B is recommended if a cased hole completion is planned. Mud 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 (12in.) is 2.4in 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 (Jo/Ji = 1).

1
4.7 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

Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-774472-2.
46

Formation Damage: Geometry Comp Production

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Formation Damage: Geometry Comp Production

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Formation Damage: Geometry Comp Production

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Formation Damage

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 operations.

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

Formation Damage concerns the formation of a volume of rock with a reduced

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

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

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

The total well skin is a composite parameter:

4.3.1 Well Geometry (Sgeometry)

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

4.3.2 Completion Skin (Scomp)

4.3.3 Production Skins (Sproduction)

(ii) Producing an oil well with:

4.4 THE FORMATION DAMAGE SKIN

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 5

Skin factor increases with a 0

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 7

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

Negative Damaged Well

The aim of the Production Technologist is to achieve an initial flow efficiency of

4.5.1 Formation Damage: Drilling Operations

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 9

Fresh Water/Gel WBM Figure 8

This figure shows two regions:

is the drill solids build up being controlled at a low value?

are the mud properties being re-adjusted to their correct values?

Effect of mud type on the Perforation Depth

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 pressure

Fluid loss rate (log scale)

5 Static filtration while

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

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

4.5.1.1 Formation Damage Mechanisms During Drilling

4.5.1.2 Fluid Loss

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 13

Connate Water Invaded Filtrate

Before Damage After Damage

4.5.1.2.1 Clay Chemistry

(ii) A second form of interaction is clay swelling in which water is absorbed

Before Damage After Damage

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)

(ii) clay morphology

(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)

4.5.1.3 Filter-Cake Formation