SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS OF AIME

62OO North Central Expressway a-~ SPE 3707

Dallas, Texas 75206

Formation Damage from Workover and

Completion
, Fluids

By

Ben A. Eaton, Universal Drilling and Engineering Consultants,Inc., and

Mack %ithey, Texas Brine Corp., Members AIME
D c9pyright1971
American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for the @nd Annual California Regional Meeting of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers of AIME, to be held in Los Angeles, Calif., NOV. 4-5, 1971. permissionto coPY
is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrationsmay not be copied. The
abstract should contain conspicuousacknowledgmentof where snd by whom the paper is presented.
Publication elsewhere after publication in the JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY or the SOCIETY OF
PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL is ususlly granted upon request to the Editor of the appropriate journal
provided agreement to give proper credit is made.

Discussion of this paper is invited. Three copies of any discussion should’be sent to the
Society of Petroleum Engineers office. Such discussion may be presented at the above meeting and,
with the paper, may be considered for publication in one of the two SPE magazines.

ABSTRACT considerabledamage to a formation long after th{

formation was drilled, cemented and perforated.
Wellbore damage that occurs during initial The damage to producing fomations caused by
well completion or workover operations is the workover and completion fluids is the subject of
subject of this paper. The linear and radial this paper.
fluid flow equations are reviewed in relation to
this problem and in relation to the laborato~ Many forces tend to change the natural
procedures used to test for such damage. virgin permeability of producing formations
during initial completion and/or workover opera-
Return permeability testing methods are tions. The net result is ususlly a reduction in
discussed, as are the results of such tests. permeabilityin the vicinity of the wellbore or
Several commonly used completion and workover perforations,and a decreased ability of a well
fluid systems were compared and these compari- to produce.
sons are included.
Operations considered here to be completion
The merits of the relatively new and almost or workover functions include the following:
nondamaging systems are given. Several cases of (1) perforating casing, (2) under-reamingpay
their application are discussed in the form of zones for gravel-packing, (3) under-reaming
field case studies. injection zones for gravel-packingfor disposal
p~oses~ (4) gravel packing? (5) plasticsand
INTRODUCTION consolidating, (6) all workover operations in
which a producing zone must be killed, (7) all
A subject that has received a great deal of workover or completion operations in which well-
attention in recent years is that of formation bore fluids are lost to the formation and
or skin damage around a wellbore.1-13 Most of (8) [Link] apay zone after casing has
this attention has been directed to the problem been set on top of the zone.
of ~k~[Link]!rnagecaused by drilling snd cementing
productive zones. Such damage normally is of a During the performance of such operations,
shallow penetratingnature and good perforating, many conditions exist that can cause formation
stimulating and completionpractices overcome damage of one or more of the forms: (1) hydra-
much of the problem. However, poor completion tion and swelling of clay minerals, (2) movement
and workover fluids and practices may cause and plugging by clay-size particles in the
formations, (3) introduction of plugging
References and illustrationsat end of paper.
~ .17f)UMAf’PTnkT
“----- T)AMA~.
A“.. M---- f! ATTQ711 RV
“-W”- w. WW?Kf3V!7U
,. ”.-.. .-. ANn fl([Link](_Nil
--- . . . . —. -... FTJITl_I.S
- ----- ~m. ~?o’

materials (includtigfilter cakes) from the of the core in series and the total of the pres-
wellbore fluids that do not cleanup during flow sure drops in each segment set equal to P2 -plt
periods, (4) emulsion and water blocks due to the following equation may be derived:
lost wellbore fluid, (5) relative permeability
L
effects, (6) precipitationof scales, (7) k avg. = . . . . . . 6* (2)
bacteriai effects and (8) plugged perforations % + ~2
due to improper perforating conditions. kl k2
---
Allof the damage conditionsiisted above or
have the same general effect. The average
permeability in the vicinity of the wellbore
is reduced below that of the surroundingrock.
This fact leads to the basic testing procedures
for such damage. It permits one to evaluate
various fluids, additives,perforating charges, The term L2 / k2 represents the reduced
etc., on a relative damage basis. permeabilityterm in the damaged portion of the
core.
In order to appreciatemore fully the
significanceof the laboratory testing methods The significanceof this is that, if a core
that follow, it is imperative that the simple of total length, L, is damage free, fluid will
equations of fluid flow in porous media be flow through according to Eq. 1. However, if
reviewed.14 some portion of its length, L2, is damaged by
solids or some other means, then the average
LINEAR FLUID FLOW THROUGH ROCKS permeability,k avg, is altered as shown by Eq.
2, and this k avg will be less than the original
Imagine that a piece of rock is cut in the undamaged k. Therefore, the flow rate through
shape of a long round cylinder, as shown in the core will be reduced when damage exists
Fig. 1. Fluid is forced into the end on the over some portion of its length, L2, when the
right, flows through towafi the left, and out same total pressure drop etists across the whole
the left end through a cross-sectionalend Area core. Eq. 3 is very similar to that derived for
A. The force, or ener~ that causes the fluid the radial flow case which more nearly simulates
to pass through the core is the difference wellbore conditions.
between the inlet pressure and the outlet pres-
sure (p~pl). Resistance to flow is caused by RADIAL FLUID FLOW THROUGH ROCKS
friction &d the viscosity, p, of the flowing
fluid. When a real wellbore penetrates a layer of
rock, any flow of fluid from the wellbore to the
The equation that describes this type of rock strata, or from the rock strata to the
linear fluid flow is known as Darcy’s law and, wellbore, is in a radial pattern. This means
for incompressibleliquid flow, is that the system has a pattern much like an old-
-fashionedwagon wheel. Fluid flows out from the
(P2 -PI ) hub (wellbore)along lines parallel to the wagon
qja = 1.127 klp f. \ wheel spokes. The reverse is true if flow is
v= f into the wellbore. Fig. 2 shows the radial flow
L case.

where v = velocity of flow, ft sec. If the wellbore has a radius, rw, and the
quantity of flow, B/D rock radius under considerationis re and the
cross-sectionalarea, sq ft thickness of the rock is h, then the flow situa-
permeability,md tion is described by the following form of
viscosity, cp Darcy’s law:
inlet pressure, psi
outlet pressure, psi v= A=*= l“lzlk Al? .(4)
a IJ dr
length of core, ft
Integration of Eq. 4 between the limits of pw,
rock core as shown in Fig. 1 has one rw and per re gives the following result.
end damaged by some means for a given length,
L, and the original permeability is reduced in 7.08 kh (pe - pv )
tfe damaged length to K2, the flow rate will be ~ = . ● (5)
reduced for the same pressure differential,p~ ‘ln(re/rw)””**O
PI This same total pressure drop will equai-
●
where a = area of flow around wellbore
the sum of the pressure drop in the damaged
q = flow rate, B/D
length plus the pressure drop in the undamaged
k = permeability,md
length. If Eq. 1 is evaluated for each segment h= rock thiclmess, ft
SPE 3707 BEN A. EATON and MACK SMITHEY 3

p = viscosity, cp .OSS of fluid can cause damage in the form of

pe = pressure at outer radius, psi lay swelling, emulsions or water blocks, and
Pw = pressure at wellbore, psi lecreasedpermeability to oil or gas.
re = A,.
+av VSr+-illc
WUUG. .----..1f~
wellbore radius, ft Such loss of clean completion fluids may
‘w = ]e prevented by use of selected solids that will
In = natural logarithm
;eal off the perforations and/or formation face.
Eq. 5 may be solved for (pe - ~), which re- solidsused in the completion fluids must be of
sults in ~ character that will not oniy stop the ioss of
:ompletionfluid to the formation, but will alsc
q P In (refrw) ?eadilyclean up and leave none or very little
Pe-Pw= ● .0..0 (6) kmage when the well is put on production.
7.08 kh
Solids of this character must either auto-
Now, if a permeabilitydamage zone exists from naticsllycome apart and flow back when the
the wellbore out to a radius, q, as shown in iell is producing or they must be soluble in
Fig. 2, its effect is shown by the pressure dro~ ?roducedfluids or acid. Acid-soluble solids
across both the damaged and undamaged zones: me advantageousin a sense? because there seem
Lo be no other solids that will completely clear
(Pe-P”) = (Pe-P~) + (P~-Pw) ● “ “ ● “ (7) Jp and leave IQ percent damage-free perfora-
tions. However, some fluid-loss additives clear
Substitutingthe correspondingquantities from up very well without acid and at the same time
Eq. 6 into Eq. 7 results in are acid soluble or degradable. Such fluids aIIC
q IJln(relrw) q~ in (rwlrl) additives have been evaluated with laboratory
. testing.
7.08 k avg. h 7.08 kh TEST PROCEDURES
q~ In (rllrw) Normally one is not concerned with the
+ ● . . (8) exact amount of damage a fluid or material will
7.08 kh impart to a core. The important aspect is to
test fluids, materials and procedures that
Eq. 8 reduces to result in the least amount of damage, as
compared with other materials and techniques.
In (refrw) In (reirl) in (rllrw)
. + (9) ●
In this light, permeabilitydamage tests
k avg. k ‘1 were conducted on Berea sandstone cores using
various completion and workover fluids that
The latter tem represents the permeabili~ currently are available. The idea was to estab
change in the damaged zone near a wellbore. lish, by fluid flow through the cores, the
One can readily recognize the similaritybetwee] absolute permeability at 103 percent saturation
Eq. 9 and Eq. 30 This is the reason why a of a given fluid. Then, each core was sealed
permeabilitydamage test on a linear core in off in the reverse flow direction and pressure
the laboratory is related to the actual con- held on the seal for several minutes. Next, th
ditions in a wellbore. All terms are really original fluid was passed through the core in
flow length divided by permeabilityterms that the original direction under the same original
represent resistance to fluid flow. Most well- pressure drop. Flow rates at various pore
bore fluids create such a zone of damage. volumes of throughput were recorded. These
data provided the numbers required to evaluate
COMPLETION AND WORKOVER FLUIDS Darcy’s linear flow equation for the original
m..-.Lz_- udmd~c
~--.-,.+1..+-n.,,-...rh41c, nn-
permeability and the return permeabilities ....,
ruI-mdbLvll ul~au u~bw- -J.~J-’= *-~JJ—
during several pore voiumes of throughput. wt.
?let@ or working over a well can be prevented +haca
v..”.” wsll~nc
“--w., ~~e pe~cen~ ~~~ILF. p~~.eahility
for the most part by using the proper completio was determined as follows.
fl~ds and additives. A completion fluid such
as a sodium, calcium or calcium-zincc~oride % return K =
brine should always Fe used where formation
pressures will pemit. Of course, thehydro- K at any point of return flow
static head of the fluid must overbalancethe x 100.
formation pressure. Severe overbalance should K original
never occur, but an overbalance of around 0.5
ppg equivalent is not too harmful in most cases PERMEABILITYD AMAGE TESTING EWI-
However, if the fluid is clean and any over-
balance exists, some fluid will be lost to the Permeabilitydeterminationsare made using
producing formation after perforating. This
 FORMATION DAMAGE CAUSED BY WORKOVER AND COMPLETION FLUIDS SPE 3707

a modified Hassler sleeve arrangement (Fig. 3). backflowing. The curve also shows that the cake
The sleeve is designed to accommodate 1 in.- was not removed by flowing acid past it. This
diameter cores up to 4 in. in length. All is expected since the clay is inert to hydr-
permeabilitymeasurements are made in a right chloric acid.
to left direction. Fluid flowing in this
direction passes through an in-ltie 7’-micron Fig. 6 illustrates the type of results that
filter before entertig the core. Fluids to be are obtained with the newer nondamaging-type
tested for fluid-loss control or damaging products. In this test, a 5 lb/bbl concentra-
characteristicsenter the core on the left end. tion of a complex lignosulfonateand sized
These fluids do not pass through the in-line calcium carbonate fluid loss additive was used.
filter in order to prevent removsl of plugging Fluid loss was held to a minimum with very
materials. The design of the core holder allows little solids penetration into the core. Back-
wellbore flow directions to be simulated without flushing removed,the seal and return to near the
removal of the core. initial permeabilitywas rapid. Since the
materials used here were acid soluble, flow of
Nitrogen pressure is used to force fluid acid by the face of the core removed some
through the cores. The nitrogen is applied residual cake and improved the return penm-
directly to the fluid in the reservoir. No ability.
[Link]
problems hlavebeerlSmXul-ltlered
as long as the reservoir is kept over one- The product used for the test shown in
fourth full. Fig. ‘7was a slurry recommended for more severe
fluid-loss problems. The compositionwas
The separate port for the outlet on the similar to that in the preceding test, but the
left end of the core holder assembly allows carbonate particles were larger and a polymer
flushing the face of the core without pene- was incorporatedto improve suspending
trating the core’s entire length. This feature characteristics. The product is used at a
is utilized by flowing acid past the core face concentrationof 50 lb/bbl. Backflushing after
to determine the ease of removal of acid-soluble sealoff gave a rapid return of permeability.
filter cakes. Results of the acid wash show that all the
filter cake was removed by the backflush.
TEST RESULTS Remaining damage was caused by solids penetra-
tion. Fig. 8 shows that this damage cak be
Return permeability tests were run using completely removed by flowing acid through the
two conventionalfluid-loss control systems and core.
two of the new “nondamaging”type products. The
curve in Fig. 4 shows the results of a return The advantages of using acid-soluble
permeabilitytest using a natural gum polymer. fluid-loss additives in completion or workover
For many years, the notion was popular that fluids are illustratedin Fig. 9. In this test,
fluid-loss control properties could be imparted a high permeability core was treated with a
simply by “gelling-up”a fluid. Although the product intended for low, seepage loss appl_i-
standard API fluid-loss test does show that cations. The high degree of damage was
-—-—
fhid ioss can be retarded by gelled systems, completely removed by T1O-w@g 5 PV Gf Is percerli
the gel does not prevent the loss of whole hydrochloric acid through the core.
fluid to the formation. As is shown in the
figure, hydrated polymers forced into the In order to have the widest possible
formation pore spaces are not easily removed by application,a fluid-loss additive should be
fluid flushes at the pressures encountereduncler effective when mixed in fluids ranging from
normal drawdown conditions. Most of these fresh water to saturated brines. Many times
polymers will “break” or lose their viscosity fresh water is the most readily available fluid;
after a period of time either from aging, however, in some areas, fresh water cannot be
temperature effects, bacterial attack, or built- used without being treated with a salt to
in enzyme breakers. After breaking, the polymer prevent hydration of migration or formation
solutions may be more easily removed; however, clays. The nondamaging-typesystems discussed
with insoluble residues of from 7 to 30 percent here impart sufficientprotection to the
remaining, permanent damage can still result. filtrate to eliminate the necessity of adding
additional salts. The curve in Fig. 10 illus-
Fig. 5 shows the results of a return perme- trates the exbnt of plugging caused by
ability test using attapulgite clay as the migrating clays when Berea sandstone cores are
fluid-loss control product. A solution such as treated with fresh water. No clay migration
this will behave as a gelled system containing occurs while the cores are saturated with sodium
solids. Fluid-loss tests show that filtration chloride brine, but migration and pl~-in begin
control is obtained by buildup of a thick as soon as the sodium chloride is displaced by
filter cake. The curve in Fig. 5 shows that distilki (fresh) water. In Fig. 11, a Berea
the filter cake was not easily removed by sandstone core was saturated with 6 percent
SPE 3707 BEN A. EATON and MACK SMITHEY 5

sodium chloride solution, then displaced by a was a clean fluid and the upper sand had a
filtrate from a complex lignosulfonateand pressure equal to a 9.0 ppg fluid head, fluid
calcium carbonate workover system. The [Link] was lost to the upper sand. Such a situation
was prepared by mixing 5 lb/bbl of’the workover is very dangerous because the fluid level in
product in fresh water snd filtetig the the well could drop to the point that the lower
solution repeatedly until all fluid-loss control zone would blow out. This problem did not occur
particles were removed. Results of this test in this case because the rig supervisorswere
show that the filtrate from the workover system fully aware of the potential problem. However,
affords a protection that is not removed by a the lost fluid in the upper sand did damage
fresh water flush. Only after flushing the the formation to the point that it was abandoned
core with 6 percent sodium chloride followed by in some cases. The problem was thought to be
distilled water were the effects of the water blocldng around the wellbore.
inhibited filtrate removed and the clays startec
L- —.. ---A- SIlu
--A Gduae
-------l..,.A..- m-.— —--l_.
-— -------l---s
L--LL_ _JAiL:-- -s
bu IUgrabe pA~AU~. Inls proDAem was SUIVSU uy une auuLIAun UL

/3 lb/bbl of nondamaging fluid-loss additive to

FIELD CASE HISTORJES the completion fluid system. The lost fluid
problem was eliminatd, snd the formations
Since laborato~ data must be verified by cleaned up rapidly after they had been plastic
field results, the following examples are of treated for sand control and the tubing and
interest. packers had been run.

Case A Case C

An offshore operator had completed approxi. One of the most common types of workover
mately 20 gas wells in the Eugene Island area operations in the Gulf Coast area is that of
of offshore Louisiana. Wells on two platforms removing the tubing from a well to replace a
had been drilled and completed, with the com- blast joint (or a tubing joint) between the dual
pletion fluid being a 9-plus lb/gal sodium and single packers. Sand production from the
chloride brine. Seversl of the wells produced upper zone blasts holes in the long string.
completion fluid in large quantities on test This is a common reason for working over a well.
for several hours after the packers and tubing
had been run. This long final cleanup period Such was the problem an operator in Cameron
was very expensive in rig time, and the lost Parish, La., encountered. The dual well had
completion fluid added more wasted dollars to perforations at the 11,100- and 11,300-ft
the operation. There is no real measure of the levels. Both zones were partially depleted.
decreased flow capacity of the wells due to All indicationswere that there was a hole in
completion fluid lost in the producing gas sand the blast joint opposite the upper perforations.

The wells on the third, or “E” platform Workover operations were started by killing
were drilled snd then each well was completed. the well with 10 ppg brine. However, the tubing
After two wells were tested and produced com- strings would not stand full. Fluid was being
pletion fluid on test after the plastic treat- lost to the formation. A 20-bbl pill containing
ment, it was decided to add 5 lb/bbl of non- 50 lb/bbl of nondamaging lost circulation slum
damaging fluid-loss additive to the completion was bullheaded down each string until it reachei
fluid system. No completion fluid was produced the perforations. Fluid loss was stopped, the
after the plastic treatments that followed, tubing pulled snd the blast joint was replaced.
.-,-s
-,.,—S.
--L-— AI--J. ---- ____ I--J. ~- l.t.- .“,
wrucn mulcaues uILeib nune wdti Luau IA LAG ~lTer the workovert tineformations cieaned up
formation. The drilling foreman working on to normal production rapidly.
these completions reported that the prduct
stopped all loss of fluid to the formation, and Case D
after plastic treatment the wells cleaned up in
record time. Money was saved in both saved Another typicsl application of such fluids
completion fluid and saved rig time during the is illustrated in this examle. An o~erator in
well cleanup period.15 the Main Pass area of Louis~sna drill-d a dis-
posal well to 2,000 ft with a 15-in. bit snd set
Case B 10 3/[Link]. The drilling mud was then
displaced with 9.1 ppg brine centaining 5 lb/bbl
Several offshore wells in the Vermilion nondamaging fluid loss-additivesnd 2 lb/bbl
area of South Louisiana have been duslly com- viscosifier. A 9 7/8-in. hole was drilled to
pleted with the upper sand having a much lower 3,420 ft and then underresmed to 15 in. The
pressure than the deeper producing formation. hole wall was covered with the film of fluid
Calcium chloride brine weighing 11.3 ppg was loss additive which was acid soluble. After the
used as the completion fluid. This weight was hole was underreamedt a slotted liner was
required to control the lower zone. Since this gravel packed in the underresmedportion of the
6 FORMATIONDAMAGE CAUSED BY WORKOVER AND COMPLETION FLUIDS SPE 370
hole. The brine fluid system was used to gravel 4* Featherston,A. B., Mihram, R. G. and
pack. Waters, A. B.: ‘WI inimization of Scale
Deposits in Oil Wells by Placement of
After the well was completed, acid was used Phosphates in Producing Zones”, J. Pet.
to initiate injection. The acid dissolved the Tech. (March, 1959)29-32.
fluid loss additive and excellent injectivity 5. van Poolen,H. K.: WparticleTilting-
was established. A Physical Form of Well-Bore Damage”,
Mines Magazine (Dec., 1959). -
CONCLUSIONS 6. Nisle, R. G.: ‘~ffect of Partial Penetra-
tion on Pressure Build-Up in Oil Wells”,
The results of our laboratow work, the Trsns., AIME (1958) ~, 85-90.
field applications of carbonate-the additives 7. =, F. and Marttig, V. E.: “The Effect
to water completion and workover fluid systems, of Restricted Fluid Entry on Well Produc-
and the current energy situation in the U.S. tivity”, J. Pet. Tech. (Feb., 1961) l?2-
1.-..2-
Acaua
.LA&L-
I#v
S.-.11,-...+
CIILG LuAAuwALA~
.. GWJLG*UAUALD.
mA-..l..-<,s-- 1?71
~14..

8. Muskat, M.: Physicsl Principles of Oil

1. The return permeabilitytests show that Production,McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.,
systems containing the relatively nondamaging ~1949) 211.
carbonate additives are superior to other 9. Muskat, M.: Physical Principles of Oil
commonly used materials. Higher return perme- Production,McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.,
ability is obtained when a core is sealed off New York (1949) 215-219.
with the carbonate [Link] then back- 10. McDowell,“J.M; and Muskat, M.: “The
flushed. Effect on Well Productivity of Formation
Penetration Beyond Perforated Casing”,
m-r.-/4n.n\ .fia -Afi..-
Trans , ANIJiI (lY>U)
● LOQ/, >UY-JAL*
11= Howard; R. A. and Watson$ M. S.; Jr.:
!lRelativeproductivity of perforated
3. In a time of so-called energycrisis Casing - II”, Trans., AIME (1950) 18Q,
when offshore wells in federal waters are to be 323-324. —
producd at their MER without proration, it is 12. Bush, R. E.: ~?Fractures Affecting pep
imperative that wells be completed and worked forated Completions”,Pet. Eng. (Nov.,
over with fluids that will impart the least 1953) B-59*
amount of damage to the wellbore. 13 Muskat, M.: Physical Principles of Oil
●

Production,McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.,

REFERENCES ~1949) %4-266.
14. Craft, B. C. and Hawkins, M. F.: Applied
1. Hewitt, C. H.: ~~~~fiica Techniques for Petroleum Reservoir En@neerinK, Prentice-
RecognizingWater-SensitiveReservoir Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J. (1959)
Rocks”, J. Pet. Tech. (Aug., 1963) 813-818. 259.
2. Hatch, G. B. and Rice, O.: “Surface-Active 15. Eaton, B. A., Mosley, M. K. and Beakley,
Properties of Hexametaphosphate”,Ind. and Bill: ‘!Efficient Development Drilling
~g: (jh&m=(,Tan lWQ) ?1. 51=
\._.:; -~~~.Gr — a 111...
lw.”.-
Xl-uIll en.. [Link]
LWGAVC-W=4-L
n-l ..+#a-lt
LAauLvLU1 , I%q2er WE

3* Rice, O.: “Plant Results with Threshold 3018 presented at &5th Annual SPEFall
Treatment”, Second Annual Water Conference, Meeting, Houston, Oct. 4-7, 1970.
Pittsburgh, NOV, 3-4, 1941.
 N
11
.
.5’
L%

11

q o
11
>

—
a-
& -
—,

r-
ml

II

Ulo
II
1
>
 o
g

o
p

o
g

~fi

K)m % 9 HIIM HSfI ldx) Va

:5
Id
.C& ~

.R E
z
mid hlo; M 13H ‘/091 MA 1 O?
‘6
o>
In
10 DN ‘k 9 HUM HSfi ldY3 vO
. ok!
*O
\ . n
— . — — — — — ‘o
-mmi’3r — — — — — — m
o
I ml
!~n?~ w
m“Q Ull
, ,*,, u,, n*,
11 111s tfaml
,,” . 4.. w.. U3A Uclln.“ Wlca
,!”. .-” -
1 g

— 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u
—
0 U) al r- @ U-J * m N
—

Alll18V3Wt13d 3NIW lVIIINI dO ‘A

I
FfL

H
II
 % OF INITIAL BRINE PERMEABILITY
Ki N w * 0) -J a a 5
P’
0 E o 0 0 : 0 0 0 0 0
m 0

6
ESTABLISH PERMEA BILITY W ITH 6?0 NaCl
N
o
@l SEAL-OFF
Q
m
o
p ‘ I I I
\ BACKFLUSH WITH 6 ‘Yo NaCl
(n
<0
0
d
m
co
l-g!
c+ c
z
ma
m
‘m 1 FLOW 15% HCI BY CORE FACE
2°
i%8 ‘
o
-i=
l-no
o
= BACKFLUSH WITH 6’% NaCl
o

RI
o
G
o
s
o

‘A OF INITIAL BRINE PERMEABILITY

N 04 & m m CD 6
o 6 o o 0 : 0 2 0 0 0
0

E
ESTABLISH PER MEA BILI TY WITH 6T. NaCl
N
o
W
o ‘
b SEAL-OFF
~o . . . — — ~ — — — — ~
m
(n
<0
0
rg
c
ga
CQ
a
o
z
L
mg
2– ,
m:
0 FLOW 15% HCI BY CORE FACE
z

m
o
BACKFLUSH WITH 60/0 NaCl
G
o
5
0
 ——...-
7. OF INITIAL BRINE l%~M~~~iLi~~

04 * W + m a E
o 6
NJ
0 0 0 0 ~ o 0 0 0
0

5
ESTABLISH PERMEABILITY W ITH 6?0 NaCl
Iv
o

&
o
SEAL-OFF
u! : A - . _ _ _ — —
o \

!3
~A~KF ~U~H WITH 6% NaCl
-4
0

m.
0
UJ
o

E F+OW 15% tjCl BY C,OREl FA~E

o

G
m
o
BACKFLUSH WITH 6?0 NaCl
g

5
0

Vo OF INITIAL BRINE PERMEABILITY

N w (n -J al ?5
0 t o 8 0 0 ~ o
o E o
0 I I I I I I I I I
ESTABLISH PERMEABILITY WITH 6?0 NaCl
c I I
Iv SEAL-OFF — . — w
o
\ \
04 I
o \
T BACKFLUSH WITH 69’o NaCl
Og
m
m
m
<0 \ . _
0 FLO W5 Pv I 5% HCI THRU co RE
r~ ~ —
c
~~ .
#m ~A~KFLUSH WITH 6% NaCl

gg
-l–
mg
u
=
0 ‘

IG-
0
G
0
s
0
 — — —
400

— — — —

— — — —
300

— — — —
,-
U
E
,-

> — —
— —
~ 200
-1
G
a
w
z — — — —
c
Id
a

— — — —
Ioc

1
— — — —

—
5 10 15 )25 i- j 40 45 50 55 r 70

PORE VOLUMES (Cummulativell

Fig. 9 - Return permeability test using 5 lb/bb:Lcoqlex Fig. 10 - Plugging damage caused by migrating clays in a Berea
sandstone core exposed to sodium chloride brine
lignosulfonate-carbonatefluid loss additive facidized
followed by fresh water.
by flc)wingacid through the core.
 —

— I

Hi
— — — — —

— — — — —

G
o
z
$

l--if
a — — — —
—

\
— — — —

P
—

— — — — —

$
— — — —

— — — — —

20 40
L
60 80 100 120 140 160 . T
— — —
D 240 260 280

PORE VOLUMES (Cumulative)

Fig. 11 - Stabilizing effect on migrating clays in a Berea sandstone

core by filtrate from a complex lignosulfonate fluid loss additive.