Formation Damage

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
[Link] Formation Damage Mechanisms During
Drilling
[Link] Fluid Loss
[Link].1 Clay Chemistry
[Link] Filter-Cake Formation
[Link] Invasion Profile
4.5.2
Formation Damage During Cementing
4.5.3
Formation Damage During Perforating
4.5.4
Formation Damage During Production
[Link] Sources of Formation Damage - Fines
Movement
[Link] Sources of Formation Damage Completion and Workover Fluids
[Link] Sources of Formation Damage - Scale
[Link].1 Inorganic Scales
[Link].2 Organic Scale
[Link] Sources of Formation Damage - Bacteria
[Link] Sources of Formation Damage - Pressure
Reduction
[Link] Sources of Formation Damage Stimulation
[Link] 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.

Formation Damage

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, stimulation, etc. These effects will all be discussed in greater detail later. However, first we
need to quantify the skin concept referred to earlier and to evaluate its impact on well inflow.
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

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.

Formation Damage

(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
Zone

Wellbore
Centreline

Reservoir

kd

Pr

Ideal Pressure Profile

(Undamaged)

P2
Actual Pressure Profile
(Damaged) (kd < k)

Pd

Figure 1
The effect of skin on well
inflow pressure profiles

P3
rw

rd

Pd - Extra pressure drop due to Formation Damage

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

re

1
Gas
Pwellhead

Pseparator
GAS

Choke

Skin
(Zone of
damaged
permeability)

Oil to Tank

Flowing bottom hole pressure

P1 = -ve Skin
P2 = Zero Skin
P3 = +ve Skin

Well Boundary

re
Reservoir

Reservoir

P1
P2
P3

Kd

Permeability
(K)

Pr
Figure 2
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

Average Well Skin

> 30

> 50

20

10

0
1

Field

WBM

Figure 3
Average well skin values
for some North Sea fields

OBM

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:
S damage =
6

k
r
Pd2kh
=
-1 ln d
q
rw
kd

(1)

Formation Damage

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

k/k d =

Skin (S damage)

50

20

40

30

k/k d = 1 0
Wellbore

20

k/k d = 5
10

Figure 4
Skin factor increases with a
larger damage radius and
damage ratio k/kd

k /k d = 2
0
0

0.15

0.30

0.45

0.60

0.75

0.90

1.05

1.20

1.35

1.50

rd, Radius of Damage (Meters)

1000

Production Rate, bbl/day

100

kd = 50md
kd = 10md

10

kd = 1md
1
Permeability of undamaged resrervoir = 100 md
Formation thickness 10ft.
Wellbore radius 0.25ft.
Drainage radius 500ft.
Oil viscosity 0.5 cp
Drawdown 536 psi

0.1

0.01

Figure 5
Effect of formation damage
on well production

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Radius of Damaged Zone Beyond Wellbore, ft

Effect of Formation Damage 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.

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

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).
F E(%) =

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

=
qideal
{ln(re/rw) + S total}

(2)

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

Flow Efficiency (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1

10

15

20

25

30

50

100

1000

Skin (S damage)

Figure 6
Flow efficiency decreases
with increasing formation
damage skin

Deferred production and

reduced project value result
from formation damage

Well Production

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.

Undamaged Well

Damaged Well

Project Net
Present Value

Time

Positive

Undamaged Well
Damaged Well

Negative

Time

Figure 7
Formation damage:
Production and profitability

Formation Damage

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.

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

High

OBM

Cost

KCI/Polymer WBM

Seawater/Polymer WBM

Fresh Water/Gel WBM

Low
Low

High

Risk of Damage

WBM - Water Based Mud

OBM - Oil Based Mud

Figure 8
Typical relationships
between mud type, cost and
risk of formation damage
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
Permeability (mD)

Invasion Rate (bbls/ft/hr)

10

tro

0.1

ke

0.01

0.001

n
Co

Formation Permeability Control

a
rC

lte
Fi

10000
1000
100
10
1
0.1

0.0001
0.00001
1E-06

1E-05

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

10

100

Filter Cake Permeability (mD)

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

Figure 9
Formation damage filter
cake control

Formation Damage

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

% Formation damage

Invasion Front for

Figure 10
Effect of mud type on the
invasion depth and the
formation damage profile

80

Mud B
Mud A

60

40

(Thin, highly
impermeable,
mud cake,
e.g. oil base mud)

20

(Thicker, but
more permeable mud
cake,
e.g. water base mud)

Perforation Depth
0
Wellbore

Depth of Invasion

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.

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

11

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 [Link] 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

Fluid loss rate (log scale)

1 Spurt loss
at bit face
as fresh
formation
exposed

2 3

3 Fluid loss
opposite
stabilizers

2 Near bit
turbulent flow
fluid loss

4 Fluid loss while drilling

opposite drill pipe

Fluid loss volume

5 Static filtration while

tripping drill pipe

Figure 11
Fluid loss during the
drilling process

30 sec

6 min

1 hr

1day

3 days

20 days

Time

Depth of
Invasion (r)

3cm

15cm

Table 1
Leak Off Volume and
Depth of Invasion

150cm

300cm

600cm

Leak Off Volume (m3)

Porosity (,%)
10
14
18
22
24

30cm

0.04
0.05
0.06
0.08
0.09

0.27
0.37
0.48
0.54
0.63

0.76
1.06
1.37
1.59
1.75

13
18
23
28
31

47
66
85
105
114

184
257
331
405
442

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

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

(3)

[Link] Formation Damage Mechanisms During Drilling

[Link] 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.

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

13

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
yyy
yyy
,,,
,,,
,,,yyy
yyy
,,,yyy
yyy
,,,
,,,
,,,yyy
yyy
,,, yyy
,,,yyy
,,,
,,,yyy
yyy
,,,
,,,
yyy
,,,
yyy
,y
,,,
,,,
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
,,,
,,,
,,,
,,,
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
,,,
,,,
,,,,,,
,,,,,,
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
,,,yyy
yyy
,,, yyy
,,,yyy
,,,
,,,
yyy
,,,
yyy
,,,
yyy
,,,
yyy
,,,,yyyy
yyy
,,, yyy
,,,yyy
,,,
Before Damage

After Damage

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
Continuous Oil

Connate Water

yyy
,,,
,,,
yyy
,,,
yyy

Clay Particles

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
Oil

Invaded Filtrate

Quartz Cement

Sand Grains

Oil Droplet

Before Damage

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Connate Water

Easy Flow of Gas

yyy
,,,
,,,
yyy
,,,
yyy

Clay Particles

Sand Grains

After Damage

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Connate Water

Quartz Cement

Oil Droplet From

Oil Based Mud

Gas Flow Impeded

Oil Droplet

Gas

(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

Figure 12
Formation impairment due
to water block

Figure 13
Addition of third phase
reduces gas flow

Formation Damage

Before Damage

After Damage

Continuous Oil

Viscous Oil - In Water Emulsion

Connate Water

Figure 14
Formation impairment due
to water-in-oil emulsion

Clay Particles

Sand Grains

Invaded Filtrate

Quartz Cement

Oil Droplet

(iv) the connate water and the mud filtrate or injection fluid may be incompatible,
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
to flow (figure 15).

yyyyy
,,,,,
,,,,,
yyyyy
,,,,,
yyyyy,,,,,
,,,,,
yyyyy
yyyyy
,,,,,yyyyy
yyyyy
,,,,,
,,,,,
yyyyy
,,,,,,
yyyyyy
,,,,,
yyyyy
,,,,,,
yyyyyy
,,,,,
yyyyy
,,,,,,
yyyyyy
,,,,,yyyyyy
yyyyy
,,,,,,
Before Damage

Figure 15
Formation impairment due
to polymer absorption

After Damage

(Large) Polymer Molecule

[Link].1 Clay Chemistry

(i)

the filtrate may react with the minerals which make up the formation rock. This
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).
Before Damage

Figure 16
Formation impairment due
to fines migration

Flow

After Damage

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.

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

15

1
Before Damage

After Damage

Swollen Clay Particles

Continuous Oil

Oil

Connate Water

Invaded Filtrate

Figure 17
Formation impairment due
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
,,,,,, yyy
yyyyyy
,,,
,,,
yyy
,,,,,
yyyyy
,,,
yyy
,,,
yyy
,,,,,,
yyyyyy
,,,
,,,
yyy
,,,,,, yyy
yyyyyy
illite forms fragile wispy filaments which line pore walls and bridge the pores
themselves (Figure 19)

smectite has a honeycomb structure (Figure 20)

chlorite is an iron containing clay which lines the pore wall (Figure 21)

16

Figure 18 (left)
Discrete booklets
(Kaolinite)

Figure 19 (right)
Pore bridging (Illite)

Formation Damage

yyyyyy
,,,,,,
yyyyyy
,,,,,,
,,,,,
yyyyy
yyyyyy
,,,,,,
,,,,,
yyyyy

Figure 20 (left)
Grain coating (Smectite)

Figure 21 (right)
Pore lining (Chlorite)

For most formations, drilling and completion fluids formulated from 3% wt potassium
chloride (KCl) are effective in minimising formation/fluid interactions.

[Link] 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.

Pore

Good
Formation
(a) External or surface filter cake (large particles)

Pore
Formation
(b) Adherence to pore surface

Pore
Bad

Figure 22
Filter cake formation

Formation
(c) Pore plugging or internal filter cake (smaller particles)

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

17

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

Cumulative Frequency (%)

Micro

Meso

Macro

High
Permeability
Rock

Low
Permeability
Rock

50

0
0.3

0.5

1.5

10

30

Pore Throat Radius (microns)

Figure 23
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
Process

Removal
Note

d>0.33dpt

0.33 dpt >d> 0.1 dpt

d<0.1 dpt

Form filter cake at

formation surface

Form internal filter cake at

depth in the formation

Flow through pore

throats without
causing formation
damage

Removal by (acid)
wash

Not necessary no damage

High particle concentrations (>1%) reduces the above values

dpt = diameter pore throat

18

Difficult to remove

d = diameter particle

Table 3
Filter Cake formation
process depends on particle
size / pore throat size ratio

Formation Damage

US Mesh Sizes

325
Mesh

170
Mesh

80
Mesh

Silica Flour

Clay Particles

Cement Particle
H

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Micron Scale

Figure 24
Formation damage size
relationships

(1.0 inch = 25,400 Microns)

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.

[Link] 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,
whole mud loss into
formation,* deep invasion

Solids + Filtrate
Very High
Solids

Partial filter cake control,

invasion depth reduced by
high porosity

Filtrate
High

Good filter cake formation,

controls fluid loss

Filtrate
Medium

Good filter cake formation.

High depth of invasion due to
low formation porosity

Filtrate
Low
Solids

Filtrate

Uninvaded rock

Figure 25
Invasion profile summary

* Whole mud can be lost in

formations with k > 1D,
depending on mud / pore
throat size distribution

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.

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

19

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
sheath (and formation damage?)

Ineffective Perforation;
(Does not penetrate
to the formation)

On-Guage Hole
Drill bit diameter

Formation

Cement

Steel Liner

Enlarged 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

Figure 26
Inefficient perforating in a
cemented completion due to
an overgauge hole

Formation Damage

4.5.3 Formation Damage During Perforating

The perforating process results in an open perforation enclosed within a low permeability zone of fractured grains and remnants of the perforating charge (figure 27).
This damaged area results in a reduced inflow into the perforation. However, 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
perforation process

Casing / Cement

Reduced Permeability Rock

Grain Fracturing
(Low Permeability)

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
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

21

1
All these mechanisms will now be discussed in greater detail.

[Link] Sources of Formation Damage - Fines Movement

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

Core Permeabilty

Oil Flow Only - Permeability Remains Constant

Oil / water flow

Crtical rate which

triggers fines movement
for combined oil / water flow

Flow Velocity

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

Figure 28
Effect of flow velocity on
permeability

Formation Damage

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
Oil

Figure 29b
Water wet fines become
mobile with water
production, leading to pore
throat blockage.

Sand Grain
Immobile,
Water Wet Fines
Flowing oil

Flowing Water

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

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

23

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!

[Link] 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 [Link]).
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)

Prmeability, mD

2% NH4CI
5% NaCI

(b)

2% NaCI
Fresh Water

(c)
(d)

(e)

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Pore Volume Flowed

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

Figure 30
Typical permeability
degradation of a smectite
core when flowing various
brines

Formation Damage

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

Clay Swelling
(Layers of Water)

25

Figure 31
Swelling due to water
absorption is controlled by
clay type and brine
composition

Potassium Smectite
Calcium Smectite

20
15
10
5
0
Distilled Water

0.4% NaCI

8.5% NaCI

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.

[Link] 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.

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

25

Production
Tubing

Scale

Limited Area
remaining Open
to Flow

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).

[Link].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

Figure 32
Blocking of tubular flow
area due to scale control
precipitation

Formation Damage

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.

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

27

1
[Link].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

28

hot crude oil (cheap, readily available)

solvents (more expensive, but can of dissolve higher
wax concentration. May be hydrocarbon or water based.)

Formation Damage

(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).

[Link] 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
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

29

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.

[Link] 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

(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

[Link] 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
[Link] 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
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

31

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.

[Link] 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

(Average) Permeability Measured Core (%)

(iii) Use of an even finer filter, 2, decreases this even further

100

75
A - Water D, Filtered to 2
B - Water D, Filtered to 5

50

C - Produced Water Untreated

D - Untreated Surface Water

25

0
0

7.5

15

22.5

Volume Injected (Litre/perf)

32

30

37.5

Figure 33
Example core test results to
rank injection water quality

Formation Damage

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, deoxygenation 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.

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

33

Production Rate (BOPD)

700
600
460 bpd

500

Trend
400
300

310 bpd

Well Killed With Mud

200
100
0

100

200

300

400

Figure 34
Production history shows
formation damage created
by well killing

500

Producing Time (Days)

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 respectively are available to minimise this created formation damage.

Mill on Packer

Daily Workover Fluid

Losses (m3)

Mill Fish

Perforations Still Open ?

10

Days
Milling Fish Damages Perforations

34

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Figure 35
Workover history shows
when formation damage
occurred

Formation Damage

Daily Losses (bbls)

Drill Cement

Figure 36
Workover history identifies
causes of formation
damage

Scrape Casing
Near Perforations
Perforations
Still Open ?

Days

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.

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

35

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
circulation material
or sand plug
in casing

When working above the packer

stop fluids being injected into
the formation by placing plug in
tubing tail pipe

(i)

Open circulation value to

kill well avoid bullheading
fluid into the perforations

Use clean / non-damaging

kill pills. Design for complete
removal after workover finished

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

Figure 37
Techniques for avoiding
formation damage during
workovers

Formation Damage

(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.

Figure 38
Production log (e.g. spinner
or video) identifies zones
exhibiting pssible
formation damage

Pay Zone

Flow

Pay Zone

Flow

Pay Zone

No Flow

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.
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

37

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

4.8 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
hydrates (ice)

migrating fines

swelling clay

water bl ocks

poor load fluid rec.

fill i n perfs

fill i n casing

particle damage

fracture plugging

Diagnostic Clues
gas well, intermittent flow, near total
shutoff, followed by return to flow in a
few minutes; produces a small amount of
water
oil well, usually only fo rms near mud line
in arctic regions; may also form in drilling
mud
kaolinite or fibrous ill ite clay or some
feldspars (non clays); brine salinity
changes may trigger fines movement;
sporadic reductions in flow rate, variable
production rate tests; fines in prod,
emulsions rare but possible
smectite clay, sometimes il lite and
smectite interbedded clay; permeability is
sensitive to change in water salinity or
brine type
usually gas well, small pore throats,
untreated water, low pressure formation; if
very low pressure (< about 0.2 psi/ft), pore
throat size doesnt matter
usually
formation dependent;
may
decrease production rate in severe cases or
cause long cleanup time. Most common in
formations with small pores and
microporous clays
high skin, can inject into well at very low
rates; reperforating may show sharp
increases
high skin, difficult or i mpossible t o inject
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
skin on buildup test, difficult to inject;
sometimes shows emulsions in oi l wells;
poor mud conditioning before cement;
frequently encountered in open hole
completions and horizontal wells
may also be encountered following acid or
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 backflow shows particles and oi l carryover return
large whole mud losses in na turally
fractured
formations;
intermittent
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

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

Remedial
glycol or alcohol injection below hydrate
formation point. Insulated risers or tubing.

insulated risers

clay control for preventi on, retarded acid

for removal; may need to limit rate in
extreme case

acidize with HCI/HF if damage is shallow

Hydraulic Fracture if damage is deeper
than 12"
matrix treat with alcohol or surface tension
lowering surfactant; inject gas in gas
reservoir to distance of 10 ft
Preventi on - avoid or m i nimize water
contact and lower surface tension of water.
Removal - alcohols and some surfactants

cleanout of reperforate

reverse circulation or regular circulation

HCI or HCI/HF acid in matrix acid job

solvent wash follow with acid in wells
with oil base mud; foam or jetti ng
cleanups are often useful
filter treatment fluids - use clean tanks

better cleaning of water

acid useful if damage is shallow; frac if

deep; to prevent, improve solids recovery

39

1
coning of water

commingled water production

waterflood breakthrough through

permeability zone
micro porosity
emulsion

stabilized emulsi on

oil base mud emulsion damage

surfactant stabili zed emuls ion

sludge

paraffin / wax

40

high

onset of water production after extended

production; formation has no vertical
permeability barriers and sufficient
vertical perm to allow water to move
toward drawdown
initi al production of water with oil in
primary, with breakthrough in flood; water
cut increases in flood
examine produced water analysis and
compare with flood water
caused by some forms of clay; may bind
water and make high Sw readings on log
unstable emulsions, breaks on s tanding;
created in tubing at pressure drop points in
piping system from pumps to choke
very stable emulsion, partially wetted fines
at interface; common after drilling mud
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
very common in wells drilled with oil base
mud; if treated with acid or brine before
the sulfonate emulsifiers are washed off
the cuttings by production or solvent
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
stable to very stable emuls ion; common to
severe after acid treatment; may be able to
see the st abilized skin at the drop interface
sludge is an emulsion that is nearly solid;
it may be triggered by acid, oil based mud,
asphaltenes, or iron compounds; disperse
the sludge in xylene and analyze for
components, particularly iron
Forms in tubing near surface as oi l cools
and cloud point is reached; may become
increasingly a problem as field ages; most
paraffin deposit s melt at < 150F. Often
form at pressure restriction in tubulars;
soft to hard mass found at press drops;
color reddish brown to black; even white
or gray possible;

limit r ate, some

treatments
may
temporarily be useful; most water control
products are not useful without natural
reservoir barriers
no treatment or temporary at best

high permeability zones should be plugged

deep (d > 100') from producer and injector
when oil recovery from zone is complete
no treatment necessary
no down hole treatment suggested; treat on
surface if string redesign is impractical
treat with mutual solvent and acid; remove
downhole source of soli ds if possible

wash with aromatic solvent followed by

mutual solvent and acid; may require
several treatments; cuttings removal is
important

treat on sur face if temporary; use mutual

solvent or surfactant to prevent emulsion
with next acid job
prevention is best cure; use non sludging
acid systems, test with iron content
expected in well

scraping, cutting for mechanical removal;

hot oil useful if deposit i s < 100 ft from
surface; s olvent soaks on deeper deposits;
some inhibitors available for pipelines and
few problem wells; some wells require
continuous downhole treatment through
macaroni st ring; special bacteria are als o
used to prevent precipitation

Formation Damage

paraffin in formation

paraffin after stimulation

paraffin in flow lines

asphaltenes

tar

calcium carbonate scale

calcium sulfate scale

seen as skin on test, may or may not

disappear if well is shutin for several days;
cloud point of oil is near the reservoir
temperature; pressure drop may trigger
paraffin drop out
injection of a cool stimulation fluid may
precipitate paraffin in reservoir on contact;
well may be clean up slowly (1 to 4
weeks) after stimulation even though load
fluid is recovered more quickly; may see a
decreasing skin i f multiple buildup tests
are run
soft to hard deposits (not scale) in surface
flow li nes and equipment; paraffin will
melt when exposed to enough heat
(usually, about 150F is sufficient)
soft to hard black mass that may occur as
flakes , sludge, marble-size balls and as a
stick buildup often occurs with paraffin;
precipitation is triggered by destabilization
of maltene resins caused by acid contact,
outgassing, shear in pumps, electrically
charged metal surface, temperature
reduction and CO 2; asphaltenes soften
with increasing temperature (t > 150F)
but do not melt
flows very slowly into perforations during
production of oil; usually associated with
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
may form at any pressure drop, either in
the formation or in the tubulars; may form
very fast and can sharply limit production
especially at gravel pack interfaces or near
perforations in wells with high draw down
across the perforations; may occur more
frequently in earlier stages in some fields
when pressure drop is more severe.
Usually amorphous, non-crystalline form
usually forms at pr essure drop where
induced by turbulence; more frequent
where high sulfate waters contact high
calcium waters and in CO 2 floods; scale is
not acid soluble; may be found on outside
of pumps and at intakes and gas expulsion
ports and valves in downhole; crystals are
characteristic for this scale

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

treat with downhole heat generating

processes if well is good producer; solvent
soaks also used; some inhibitors available
to be used wit h a h ydraulic fracture
treatment
allow the well to clean up on it s own; use
xylene preflush ahead of acid when the
problem is known to occur

mechanical or solvent removal or pigging;

inhibitors can be used

treatment with aromatic (cyclic ring)

solvents such as x ylene or to luene; some
surfactants are also useful for dispersion of
asphaltic mass; use anti-sludge additive or
xylene with acid in reservoirs with more
than 0.5% asphalt to prevent sludges

solvent soak as needed; test solvent wit h

sample of tar before job; heat often helps

HCI to remove and inhibitor to prevent;

inhibitor may be squeezed int o the
formation for longer lived protection;
some HCI jobs may trigger calcium
carbonate scale in rare cases; inhibit acid
or treat with EDTA if this is a problem

chemical converter or dissolver followed

by acid; (do not contact converter or
dissolver with acid); acid is not useful by
itself; inhibitors placed by squeeze
treatments are useful to prevent

41

1
barium sulfate scale

wettability problems

relative perm problem

retrograde condensate

tubing problem

salt

42

non reactive scale that forms at pressure

drawdowns or where outgassing occurs;
no readily apparent crystal pattern in m any
deposits; may occur as radioactive NORM
scale in some areas where radioactive
isotopes form in the lattice. NORM scales
are detectable with gamma ray logging
tools
frequently occurs after an acid job where
the corrosion inhibitor was not mixed in
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
may occur when oil is injected into a gas
zone or gas is injected into an oil zone that
is above the bubble poi nt
a special case of relative permeabil ity
effect; a condensate (liquid phase) that
forms from a rich gas; if the condensate
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
well refuses to flow although pressure is
sufficient with the expected assi stance
from diss olved gas; well may head and die
or liquid slugs may be produced if string is
too large; rate is restricted by friction back
pressure if tubing is too small
salt precipitates as a w hite mass in the
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

scraping, water blasting or o t her

mechanical removal; chemical treatment is
usually not possible i f scale occurs as
nearly pure (> 90%) deposit or as thick (>
1/4", 6mm) deposit s in pipes. Can be
prevented by inhibitors

treat with mutual solvent wash over the

pay, displace and soak

treat with high API gravit y solvent such as

condensate or xylene (low flash point);
squeeze and produce back
control
drawdowns a nd
repressure
reservoir; redesign of tubing may be
required

redesign string; a velocity string that will

fit insi de existing tubing may help if
tubing is too large

fresh water or weak brine wash

Formation Damage

bacteri al infestation

poor perforations

unstable formation

collapsed pipe

leaks

a difficult problem to p redict; it is more

common in injection wells where surface
or produced water is injected, if the colony
is establi shed in the water handling
system, it can occur with injection of any
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
shows up as damage on a build up test but
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
may occur in any formation t hat is poorly
consolidated or that will fail under
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
may show up as re duced rate or
destruction of li ft equipment. Check with
a gauge ring on wireline or tubing. Has a
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
sudden changes i n GOR, WOR, pressure,
or chemical analysis of water

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

treat with bleach followed by HCI (do not

allow contact of bleach and HCI); more
than one treatment may be necessary;
alternative treatments are chlorine dioxide
and bactericide slugs

reperforate

gravel packing, plastic consolidation, or

rate li mits

If caused by earth shift forces, use heavier

pipe or multiple strings. Liners, cement,
and patches used for repair

repair; consider corrosion control program

43

1
FORMATION DAMAGE TUTORIAL
Question 1.
The Hawkins formula may be used to calculate the skin due to formation damage:

r
Sd = o 1 ln d
rw
kd
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
Permeability in damaged zone (mD)
Depth of invasion (ft)

A
100
1.6

B
20
0.8

C
300
2.0

D
200
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

r
S = o 1 ln d
rw
kd

and using Mud A parameters, i.e. Kd = 100 mD and rd = 1.6

500
1.6
1 * ln
S=
0.328
100
S = 6.34
and the Productivity Ratio will be:

44

Formation Damage

r
ln e r
Jo
w
=
re
Ji
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
A
B
C
D

S
6.34
21.40
1.21
2.92

Jo/Ji
0.55
0.27
0.87
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).

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

45

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