SPE

Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 16233
Study on the Effect of Pore Blocking Mechanisms on Formation
Damage
by A.K. Wojtanowicz, Louisiana State U.; Z. Krilov, INA Naftaplin; and J.P. Langlinais,
Louisiana State U.
SPE Members

Copyright 1987, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Production Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, March 8-10, 1987.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the
author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the
author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers
presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of
where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT

The process of formation permeability damage due to

solids movement and capture was quantitatively modeled
by using principles of deep bed filtration and chemical reactions kinetics.
The developed theory describes the pore blocking mechanism caused by particles
from completion fluids (foreign particles invasion) as
well as the mechanism of release and capture of rock
fines (in-situ mobilization).
For practical applications, this theory was used in
the context of pattern recognition, ie, to examine the
experimental data on rock permeability change vs time
from the laboratory flow experiments.
Thus,
a
straight line section of data plotted in a certain
system of coordinates indicates the type of formation
damage occurring.
The verification study was performed in two series
of laboratory experiments.
In the first, a drilling
mud, consisting of a contaminated completion fluid,
was pumped through the simulated synthetic rock.
In
the second,
four typical, solids-free completion
brines were pumped through actual samples of water
sensitive,
unconsolidated
sandstones taken
from
Adriatic Sea gas fields.
The experiments revealed the applicability of the
theory and the method of diagnostic plots to describe
and analyze formation permeability damage.
INTRODUCTION

Traditionally, permeability damage has been classified as chemical or mechanical, the latter being broken into two categories:
foreign particles invasion
and in-situ mobilization of formation fines.
Most
conventional studies on mechanical permeability damage
allowed
for
qualitative statements regarding
a
bridging mechanism and a cake invasion zone [1],
critical size of the damaging particles [2], qualitative relationships between permeability vs time and
suspended solids [3], and non-harmful size of mobile
solids [4]. Recent developments include x-ray analysis
of formation fines [5] showing that mobile particles
are not only clay minerals, but fine particles are
present in all formations in sufficient quantities to
cause formation damage. The mechanism of water sensitivity of sandstones containing clay has been quantitatively analyzed [7] revealing an existence of a
critical salt concentration below which the permeability varies with salt concentration as well as the
dynamic effects of the rate of salinity change on
permeability reduction.
A fully quantitative description of permeability
damage due to solids movement was attempted previously
[6], by developing a phenomenological model of the
rock where a system of plugging and non-plugging
pathways is postulated.
In this research, an intuitive guess is made on rock permeability as a function
of the mobile solids concentration.
A mathematical
predictive model was developed previously [8], to
describe water sensitivity in Berea sandstone.
This
model, based on an exponential model of clay release
and capture, was used to find correlations between the
release/capture coefficients as well as the effects of
temperature and flowrate. A sophisticated statistical
model of the interactions between particles size distribution and formation pore size distribution was
recently presented [9]. This model was used for simulation studies only without experimental verification.
The approach applied in this work was to derive a
mathematical theory concerning all types of mechanisms
of permeability damage and then analyze experimental
data on permeability damage.
A similar analysis was
attempted for foreign particle capture alone [10].
The concept used here is based on a systems analysis

The last two decades have seen significant progress

made in understanding the mechanisms of formation
damage. In summary:
- all sandstones are water sensitive to some degree
- permeability
damage
is
associated
with
particles movement and clay swelling effects
- there is a strong correlation between
fluid
salinity and permeability impairment
449

SPE 1 6 2 3 3
of complex phenomena in which the empirical record of
permeability response vs flowing time is used to infer
quantitative values of factors involved in the fluidrock interaction.
This concept is similar to that
used in transient well testing or well logging.
There are basically two sources of particles migrating into the reservoir rock: foreign particles from
completion fluids and particles generated inside the
formation rock.
The latter might be caused by incompatibility of a completion fluid with the formation
rock or with formation waters. Foreign clay particles
are generated outside the formation as a result of
completion fluid contamination with drilling mud [16]
and the foreign iron colloids are produced due to
corrosion and ozidation of steel casing, pumps, drill
string and surface equipment [11].
Foreign particles
concentration in the completion fluid invading a
formation is approximately constant and their migration in the rock has been often modeled as a constant
rate filtation process.
Formation fines can be
mobilized as a result of chemical (precipation) or
physical-chemical (electrokinetic forces, Zeta potential on ionic strength) reactions.
In any case, the
phenomenological model of solids release should reflect a decrease with time in the amount of available
rock solids.
Such a model can be based on the firstorder decay process [8] or on the general form of the
first-order chemical kinetics equation [12].
Therefore it can be assumed that the concentration of the
mobilized rock particles exponentially decreases with
time during the constant-rate filtration process.
The mechanics of particle transport across the
streamlines
include
sedimentation,
adsorption,
diffusion and hydrodynamics [10]. Ultimate capture of
particles that have come into direct contact with a
grain
surface is determined by friction,
fluid
pressure, gravity, electrokinetic interactions, molecular forces and surface tension [13], [14].
Three
basic mechanisms of blocking formation pores were
analyzed with regard to foreign particles migration
[10]:
gradual pore blocking, single pore blocking
[screening], and cake forming [straining].
In the
case of rock particles mobilization,
all
three
mechanisms can be effectively modeled with that of
pore seepage.
The generalized, modulation model of the porous
medium is presented in fig.
1.
The fundamental
assumption is that the pressure drop occurs at the
pore throats; thus the recorded permeability of a core
is controlled by the throat area rather than the pore
area.
Tortuosity here might include effects of pore
throat length and curvilinearity of the flowpaths.
The pore areas are a source of in-situ mobilized
particles, and also the location of solids capture.
Mathematical
analysis of
complex
statistical
interactions between populations of particles and
populations of pores, as attempted in [9], is here
replaced with the simple systems analysis approach to
the pattern recognition problem.
In the core flow
test, a known signal (flow volume and rate) is applied
to an unknown system (the rock) and the response of
that system (permeability change) is measured during
the test. Usually, the response implies various concurrent mechanisms of solids-rock interactions which
precludes any sound analysis.
At certain times, however, only one single mechanism of permeability damage
is
dominant,
thus providing data for effective
analysis.
The theory presented below provides a
practical tool for identification of the prevailing
mechanism of permeability impairment in the linear
flow systems (laboratory flow tests).
The general
assumptions are as follows:

constant rate filtation

low solids concentration, so volume reduction
due to particles capture can be ignored
linear geometry of flow
homogeneous formation
cake incompressibility
laminar flow
regular pore geometry
The last assumption was thoroughly discussed in [10],
together with resulting geometrical simplifications.
ANALYSIS OF FOREIGN SOLIDS INVASION AND CAPTURE
Practical aspects of foreign solids invasion into a
formation are associated with completion fluid cleanliness. Traditionally, it was suggested that there is
a "critical" size of solids below which there is no
permeability impairment.
Recent research, howeve:,
shows that completion fluid fines an order of magn1tude smaller than a given pore size can cause considerable damage [15],[6].
Analysis of pore blocking
mechanisms based on a deep bed filtration theory [10]
indicated that the differential pressure response to
foreign solids loading during flow tests will be manifested in one of three functional relationships with
time: linear, hyperbolic,or quadratic.

1.

Gradual Pore Blocking

This mechanism is associated with a continuous

capture of fines at the rock walls due to retention
forces.
It was reported as a "surface-type deposition" [6], for which the rate of capture is directly
proportional to the solids concentration in the flowstream. A similar function was offered by another
investigator [8] by considering particles deposition
on spherical collectors.
Using a first-order particles capturing model the
permeability response to the gradual blocking is

K=

r-

(1)

and the relative permeability function is

JK/Ki

= 1 -

C4t

(2)

which defines a straight-line diagnostic plot of

vs t.

2.

Single Pore Blocking (Screening)

The
single pore blocking occurs when
single
particles of size close to the pore size (critical
size) instantly blocks an individual pore, thus eliminating it from the flow system.
The permeability
response to this mechanism is

(3)

and the relative permeability function is

450

(4)

SPE 1 6 2 33
thus indicating a diagnostic
(klki) vs time.

3.

straight-line

of

plot

Cake Forming (Straining)

The straining mechanism is associated with building

up a filtration cake at or close to the formation
face.
Though it can basically be initiated by
particles greater than pore size, high solids concentraton was also reported to cause cake building by
solids smaller than pore size [17] [14]:
The permeability response to straining is

assuming the initial mass of mobile solids at the

throats is negligible when compared to the mobile
solids on the pore walls. In this case, the ultimate,
equilibrium permeability reached after long flowing
time will be equal to the initial permeability.
The
permeability response is
(9)

and the minimum permeability is reached at time

(10)
The diagnostic straight-line plot is
ln( (1 - ./KIKi) It) vs time.

(5)

2.
and the relative permeability function is

Gradual Pore Blocking

The gradual pore blocking mechanism can also be

analyzed separately in the case when following stages
are more complex than that presented above.
Hence,
the permeability response is

(6)

indicating straight line of the (kilk) vs time plot.

jKIKi
ANALYSIS OF FORMATION SOLIDS MOBILIZATION AND CAPTURE
--------Clean,
incompatible completion fluids
release
formation fines at the pore areas and deposit them in
the throat areas.
This happens in practically all
granular rocks which contain some concentration of
mobile fines [5].
As it is shown in fig. 2, there is
some potentially mobile mass of solids on the pore
surface, M~i and on the throat surface, Mti This
may
be e1ther diagenetic clay minerals such as
kaolinite and illite, or non-clay minerals such as
quartz, as well as amorphous materials [5].
Mobile
solids can also be generated as precipitates from
chemical reaction between completion fluid and formation waters. Assuming an exponential behavior for the
solids mobilization, which stems from its analogy to
the decay equation and chemical reaction kinetics,
then the pore throat blocking mechanisms can be mathematically modeled similarly to that used for the
foreign particles invasion.

1.

Concurrent Gradual Blocking and Sweeping.

When the size of mobilized particles is significantly smaller than the pore throat size, a simultaneous deposition and sweepage occurs.
The instantaneous size of the pore throat results from a dynamic
balance between rate of release and rate of capture.
The permeability response to this mechanism is

= 1 -

1 - exp(-frt)

Cg

(11)

and the diagnostic straight-line plot is

ln((C- 1 +,fiflifi)l C) vs time, while constant Cis
calculated as

(12)

+ y2 - 2Y3

yl
where

and the function Y(t) is defined as

Y(t) = 1 -

3.

JKIKi

(13)

Single Pore Blocking

This mechanism occurs when the mobilized particles

resulting from formation interaction with a completion
fluid are within the range of the pore throat size and
the elimination of pore channels takes place.
The
permeability response is
KIKi = 1 - C10 [ 1 - exp(-frt) ]

(14)

and the diagnostic straight line plot is

ln ((C -1 + KIKi) I C) vs time. The constant, C, is
defined by eq. (12) and Y(t) is
Y(t)

1 -

KIKi

(15)

(7)

4.
and the relative permeability change is

JKIKi

= 1

+ C7 - (Cat + C7) exp(-frt)

(8)

It can be proven that function (8) has a distinctive

minimum indicating a transition from the initial stage
when gradual capture prevails to the final stage when
pore sweepage plays a dominant role.
Though no simple diagnostic plot can be made for
function (8), a simplified model can be derived by
451

Cake Forming (Plugging)

When the size of mobilized particles in the pore

areas is significantly greater than the pore throat
size, they accumulate in the form of permeable cake
(plug). A constant-rate filtration takes place with a
steady increase of the plug thickness.
The rock
permeability response to plugging is
KIKi =

ell [ 1 - exp(-frt) ]

(16)

and the diagnostic straight-line plot is

ln((l + C - KIKi) I C) vs time.
Here, function Y(t)

SPE 1 6 2 33
is defined as
Y(t)

(K/Ki) - 1

(17)

and constant Cas eq. (12).

5.

Pore Sweeping

The mechanism of pore sweeping is associated with

permeability recovery due to the release of solids
from the pore throats.
This mechanism may occur at
the late stage of flow as a result of breaking a
solids bridge at the pore throat or when rock solids
supplied from the pore areas is small.
The permeability resonse is
JK/Ki

1 + C12 [ 1 - exp(-frt) ]

tests are shown in Table II.

The mineral composition
of the Adriatic rock samples is presented in Table
III. The formation rock is known for its water sensitivity and high suseptability to permeability damage
[ 16].
The interpretation method used in the experiments
was based on processing the experimental records of
relative permeability change with flowing time.
The
computer aided diagnostic plots were made in which the
straight line segments were sought using
linear
regression analysis.
The linearity of a diagnostic
plot over certain time periods was considered an indication of a pore blocking mechanism prevailing at that
time.

FOREIGN SOLIDS INVASION EXPERIMENTS

(18)

and the diagnostic straight-line plot is

ln((1 + C - JK/Ki) / C) vs time, with constant C
defined by equation(12) and function Y(t) defined as
Y(t)

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Verification of the mathematical models of permeability damage was performed as part of an experimental
project directed toward identifying new completion
fluids for use in the unconsolidated gas bearing sands
of the Adriatic Sea area [17].
The laboratory setup for injecting completion fluid
through the hand-made compacted cores is shown in fig.
2.
A similar setup was used for measuring absolute
permeability using Nitrogen gas.
Before each flow
test, the core was vacuum-saturated with the completion fluid and was then transferred to the Hassler
cell.
Confining pressures of 7 atm were applied to
prevent bypassing.
A volume of 1000 ml of completion
fluid was then pumped through the core sample by a
metered pump at the rate of 10 ml/min.
The elapsed
time and pressure differential were recorded at intervals during the test.
Influent and effluent samples
were characterized by measuring pH, particle size
distribution (laser beam analyzer, range 0.7 - 300
microns), total suspended solids, capillary suction
time and turbidity. All experiments were performed at
room temperature. Exit pressure of the cell was maintained at atmospheric.
Two series of experiments were performed; foreign
solids invasion tests and rock solids mobilization
tests. Synthetic rock, hand packed cores, and Sodium
Chloride brine completion fluid comtaminated with
drilling mud were used for the foreign solids invasion
experiments.
A detailed description of these tests
was presented in a previous work [10].
The synthetic
rock samples were made of quartz grains and glass
beads to simulate the grain distribution of the original rock.
The comparison of reservoir rock and
synthetic rock properties is shown in Table I.
At
similar grain size distributions, the permeability of
the synthetic rock was significantly higher than that
for the actual rock.
The effect of various levels of
total mass contamination and the effect of solids size
on permeability damage were evaluated as well in these
experiments.
The rock solids mobilization tests were performed
by flowing solids-free completion fluids
through
actual rock samples.
Completion fluids used in these
452

In this case, experiments were conducted by flowing

completion fluids with various levels of mud comtamination through the synthetic rock cores. The permeability recorded is shown in fig. 3.
The plots show
some fundamental qualitative change in permeability
damage associated with contamination change from 1% to
2% . The diagnostic plots presented in fig.
4 and 5
indicate gradual pore blocking followed by single pore
blocking damage for mud contaminations of 0.2%, 0.5%,
and 1.0%
In the case of 2% and 3% mud contamination, the cake forming mechanism occurred, shown in
fig. 6.
Another experiment performed was with a completion
fluid with a mud contamination of 3% where the fluid
was filtered through various size filters prior to
flow through the cores.
Properties of prefiltered
completion fluids are presented in Table IV. Relative
premeabilities recorded in these experiments is shown
in fig.
7.
The diagnostic plots (fig. 8) indicated
gradual pore blocking and single pore blocking mechanisms.
Pore blocking time (duration of a gradual
pore blocking phase) was clearly dependent on solid
sizes and concentrations.
Solids capture phenomena were further analyzed in
view of their relationship to passing particle size.
The median size of passing particles versus flowing
time was superimposed on the dignostic plots (fig. 9).
A
rapid,
linear decrease in particle size
is
associated with a gradual pore blocking.
An onset of
the screening phase is indicated by the sharp stabilization of particle size which precisely coincides with
the diagnostic plot behavior. Screening and straining
are represented by the constant size of passing particles, though their diagnostic plots are different.
An effort was made to relate pore blocking time to
solids concentration and solids size.
Data from all
experiments were used to make the pore blocking time
plots presented in fig.
10.
The strong effect of
particle concentration on pore blocking time is evident. Much less significant is the effect of particle
size.
All the blocking time curves indicate asymptotic behavior.
For suspended solids concentrations
approaching the value of about 350 mg/1 the onset of
particle screening occurs after a very long time.
It
can also be noticed that for the particle sizes below
22 microns, the pore blocking time is the same as that
for unfiltered completion fluids (solids size up to
125 microns).
It makes sense if we consider the fact
that the pore size of the rock samples is within the
range of 16.6 - 22 microns.
Apparently, particles
larger than the pore size do not contribute to gradual
pore blocking.

SP'E 1 6 2 33
The above observations can be summarized from a
practical viewpoint by considering the rate of reservoir permeability damage (skin effect) and the depth
of particles invasion (the radius of the damage zone).
Cake filtration and straining mechanisms of particle
capture is associated with a sharp, hyperbolic-type
permeability reduction, the shallow invasion of particles into formation rock, and with the small size of
particles passing through the damaged zone into the
original formation.
In actual field operations, this
type of particle capture is detrimental due to the
difficulty of cake removal.
Particle retention by
screening is associated with the steep, linear reduction in permeability, the deep invasion of solids into
the rock, and the small size of passing particles. It
may produce permanent permeability damage with no
remedial options.
The gradual blocking mechanism is
always present to some extent since a solids-free
completion fluid is virtually impossible. This mechanism is indicated by slow, parabolic-type permeability reduction, deep particles invasion and a steady
decrease in the size of passing solids.
The duration
of this stage is dependent upon the size and concentration of completion fluid particles and it can be
tolerated within practically acceptable limits.
IN-SITU MOBILIZED PARTICLES EXPERIMENTS
The permeability change recorded in the flow tests
with four completion fluids and the actual rock
samples are shown in fig.
11 and 13. The superiority
of the low pH completion fluids is qualitatively evident.
The graphical analysis based on diagnostic
plots (fig 12) shows that the calcium chloride brine
interaction with the formation rock instantaneously
triggered the pore plugging mechanism of formation
damage.
The sodium chloride brine record, on the
other hand, shows nearly linear permeability change
with flowing time.
This can be explained by a single
pore blocking mechanism described by equations (3) and
(15)
.
For early times, exponential reduction of
solids released from the rock might by overshadowed by
other effects, thus indicating a constant-concentration response.
The diagnostic plots for the low-pH completion
fluids in fig.
14 and 15 indicate gradual pore
blocking followed by pore sweeping.
In addition, the
diagnostic
plot for combined effects of gradual
blockage and sweepage revealed straight line response
at two flowrates of 3 cc/min and 10 cc/min.
The
latter might be associated with the effect of flowrate
on the release coefficient. The five fold increase of
the release coefficient in response to the three fold
increase of the flowrate shows that the effect might
be stronger than linear [8].
Additional verification
of the model was made by comparing values of the
release coefficient recorded and calculated from equation (10).
The calculated value was approximately
0.006 /min , which roughly corresponds to the experimental values of 0.004 and 0.005 /min.
The properties of effluents from the flow tests,
containing in-situ mobilized rock solids, are shown in
Table V and fig.
17.
An interesting observation was
that the total amount of mobilized rock solids was the
same for various completion fluids and various degrees
of permeability damage.
Moreover, the particle size
distribution in combined effluents were also similar.
However, the various mechanisms of solids capture were
clearly indicated by analyzing the size of moving
solids with respect to flowing time as shown in fig.
18. Here, the permeability improvement resulting from
the pore sweepage favorably correlated with the increase of passing particles.
453

CONCLUSIONS

The permeability damage of an oil or gas reservoir

is a time dependent function, controlled by mobile
solids supply and capture mechanisms.
1.

The theory of particle movement and capture and

the method of diagnostic plots proved applicable
for analyzing empirical data on permeability
damage.
The resolution of the relative permeability data, however, is not as good as that for
the raw measurement of pressure differential
[10].
Thus, a continuous record of pressure
differential should be analyzed in further applications.

2.

For the formation damage caused by foreign particles invasion, there are two limits controlling
damage: total solids concentration to avoid cake
filtration (here at 2000 mg/1), and the assymptotic limit of solids concentration below which
the gradual pore blocking time is long enough to
finish a well completion before the single pore
blocking occurs.

3.

For the formation damage caused by mobile rock

particles, it seemed the amount of s.olids available for mobilization is the same for a particular formation and not dependent on the type of
completion fluid used.
The mechanism by which
particles were mobilized and captured, however,
varied with the type of completion fluid.
Thus,
the completion fluid compatibility with a formation can be quantified by values of the release
and capture coefficients.
The size of the
mobilized solids can be indirectly inferred from
the type of formation damage.

4.

Further developments in this work may include

velocity and temperature effects as well as conversion of the linear model into a radial geometry, utilizing a constant pressure filtration
rather than a constant rate of flow as used in
these experiments.

NOMENCLATURE

area of single pore, sq em

area of cake, sq em
area of flow, sq em
rock area, sq em
process constants
cake-to-filter ratio, dimensionless
pore size (diameter of the inscribed
circle), em
critical size of particles, em
equivalent diameter, em
permeability, cp
average length of the flowpath, em
average length of the pore throats, em
actual length of the rock, em
mass of mobile solids on the rock surface,
gm
number of flowpaths, dimensionless
perimeter of a single pore, em
pore volume, cc
flow rate, cc/min
cake resistance to filtration, 1/cm
rock resistance to filtration, 1/cm

SPE 1 6 2 33
S0
T
Ts

oC=
AP =

JU=

specific surface
tortuosity, dimensionless
solids concentration in the flow stream,
gm/cc
average flow resistance, cm/gm
differential pressure, atm
porosity, dimensionless
viscosity, cp
mobile solids density, gm/cc

subscripts
c = capture
i
initial value (time
0)
p
pore
r
release
t
throat
1
onset of pore sweeping

9.

Sharma, M. M. and Yartsos, Y. C., "Permeability

Impairment due to Fines Migration in Sandstones,"
SPE paper 14819, presented at the seventh SPE
Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,
LA, (Feb, 1986).

10.

Wojtanowicz, A. K., Krilov, Z., and Langlinais,

J.
P.,
"Oilwell
Completion
Fluid
Solids
Interaction
with
an
Unconsolidated
Oil
Reservoir," paper presented at the seventeenth
Annual Meeting of the Fine Particle Society, San
Francisco, CA, (Aug, 1986).

11.

Patte, J. M., and Dibble, W. E., Jr., "Formation

Damage due to Colloid Plugging," SPE paper 11801,
presented at the International Symposium
on
Oilfield and Geothermal Chemistry, Denver, CO,
(June, 1983).

12.

Smith, J. M., Chemical

McGraw-Hill Inc, 1970.

13.

Ives, K. J., "Deep Bed Filtration," Solid Liquid

Separation by L. Svarovsky, Butterworths, London,

AKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors wish to thank Baker Sand Control for

their cooperation and use of their laboratory facilities for some of the experiments conducted.
Also,
appreciation is extended to Mr. Mark Kristoff of Baker
Sand Control for his efforts.

(1981).
14.

Glenn,
E. E. and Slusser, M. L.' "Factors
Affecting Well Productivity. II. Drilling Fluid
Particle Invasion into Porous Media," Petroleum
Transactions, AIME, Vol 210, (1957).

2.

Abrams,
A.,
"Mud Design to Minimize
Rock
Impairment Due to Particle Invasion," Jour Pet
Tech, (May, 1977), pp 586-92.

3.

Tuttle,
R.
N.
and Bankman, Y. H., "New
Nondamaging and Acid Degradable Drilling and
(Nov, 1974),
Completion Fluids," Jour Pet Tech,
pp 1221-26.
.

4.

Selmeezi, Y. G., "Capture Mechanism in Deep Bed

Filtration," Indurstrial Water Eng,
(June/July,

1971).

REFERENCES

1.

Engineering Kinetics,

15.

Hashemi,
R., Ershagi, I., and Ammerer, N.,
"Proper Filtration Minimizes Formation Damage,"
Oil and Gas Jour, (Aug 13, 1984).

16.

Krilov, Z., "A Compatibility Study on Completion

Fluids
with Unconsolidated Adriatic Sea Gas
Bearing Formations--An Experimental Approach," MS
Thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge,
LA, (1986).

17.

Cheremisinoff, N. P., and Azbel, D. S., Liquid

Filtration, Ann Arbor Science, Woburn, Mass.,

(1983).
18.

Meyer, R. L., and Vargas, R. H., "Process of

Selecting Completion and Workover Fluids Requires
Series of Tradeoffs," Oil and Gas Jour,
(Jan 30,

Tiller, F. M., "Deposition of Fine Particles in

Porous Beds," University of Houston, Texas, short
course, (Nov. 1984), not published.

1984).
APPENDIX

5.

Muecke, T. W., "Formation Fines and Factors

controlling Their Movement in Porous Media," Jour
Pet Tech, (Feb, 1979), pp 144-50.

6.

Gruesbeck, C., and Collins, R. E., "Entrainment

and Deposition of Fine Particles in
Porous
Media," Soc Pet Eng Jour, (Dec, 1982), pp 847-56.

7.

Khilar, K. C., Fogler, H. S. and Ahluwalia, Y.

S., "Sandstone Water Sensivity: Existance of a
Critical Rate of Salinity Decrease for Particles
Capture," Chern Eng Science, Vol 38, No. 5,
(1983), pp 789-800.

MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF PERMEABILITY DAMAGE

The physical basis for this analysis includes
following equations:
Darcy Law equation:
p..QLr
p

8.

Khilar,
K.
C.
and Fogler, H.
Sensitivity of Sandstones," Soc Pet
(Feb, 1983), pp 55-64.

s.'

Eng

"Water
Jour,

---

the

(A1)

Hagen-Poiseuille equation:
Q}"'L
p

32

(A2)

Filtration equation:
.AP Ac

454

(A3)

SPE 1 6 2 33
Solids release equation:
dM

or, considering eq (All)

(A4)

(Al6)

dt

Eq. (Al6) is identical to eqs. (1) and (2).

Note that the physical meaning of the capture coefficient, fc, is analogous to the cake-to-filter ratio,
used in filtration t~eory. Their relationship is

Solids capture equation (d D):

dM
(AS)
dt

(PV) Ts

and the material balance equation

dM

(dM)

--:;- =

CFR

(dM _)

(A6)

-;Jc - -;;Jr

The equivalent diameter in eq.

media flow geometry [18] is:

(A2)

for

A =

P = C1D

The concentration of particles of critical size, d,

is fd and these particles cause an instantaneous
blockage of individual pores.
Thus, the flow area
equation is

(A7)

It was discussed and proved in [10] that

regular pore geometry the following holds:

c2 n2

for

the

(Al8)

(A8)

dt

Thus eq. 2 becomes

c2 N_f-t

Q
p

and after integration and substitution from eq.

we obtain

32

(Al7)

2. Single Pore Blocking

porous

de= 4(/so) (1/(1 -~))

de = D

(All),

(A9)

Af2

7fc 3 2

Comparison of eqs. (Al) and (A2) gives

d3 ~

cs

(Al9)

which is identical to eqs. (3) and (4).

Af2
(AlO)

32

c2

N Ar T

3. Cake Forming (straining)

Note that for the linear flow through the core at

constant flowrate, eq. (AlO) can be written as

For a constant rate of flow and constant

concentration eq. (A3) becomes

solids

(All)

(A20)

Invasion and Capture of Foreign Particles

or, considering eq.

(Al)

Eq. (A6) becomes

Rm (1 + o( Ar

(Al2)
dt

T s Q t)

Eq. (A21) is identical to eqs. (S) and (6).

and
solids concentration in the
flowstream
is
constant,
Ts
constant.
Three mechanisms of
permeability damage (pore blocking) can be considered;
gradual
pore
blocking,
single
pore
blocking
(screening), and cake forming (straining).
1. Gradual Pore Blocking

Flow area is
dAf
dt

(A21)

dM

Le

c: )c

Mobilization and Capture of Rock Particles

Mobilization of formation fines takes place in the
pore area and their capture in the pore throats (fig.
1).
There are four mechanisms of solids transport in
the pore throat that affects formation permeability:
gradual blockage, single blockage, cake forming and
sweepage.

(Al3)

1. Mobilization equation
Eq. (A4) controls solids mobilization as
dMP

or, considering eq (AS)

dAf
Fe Ts

(A22)
dt

(Al4)
dt
Integration of eq (Al4) within the limits
and Af(t) gives

Afi(t=O)

and after integration within limits Mpi(t=O),

we obtain
Mpi exp(-fr t )

(AlS)

455

(A23)

SP'E 1 6 2 3 3
Thus solids concentration in the flowstream is

This solution to eq.

gives

(-1)

(A24)

exp(-fr t)

eq.

(All)

6 fd A2 Mpi

(A33) combined with

[ 1 - exp(-fr t)]

(A34)

1(c 3 2 d3 ~
2. Concurrent Pore Blockage and Sweepage

which is identical to eq. (14).

The material balance eq. (A6) written for the pore

throat area becomes

4.

Filtration resistance of the solids cake formed at

the pore throat increases in time as

(A25)
dt

Pore Cake Forming

(A35)

and its solution is

Mt =

(Mti

+ (fc fr Mpi t)/Q) exp(-fr t)

The relationship between the mass of solids

at the throat and the area of flow is
Mt =

f Lt

(Afi + (Mti/ fLt)

Integrating eq.
gives

(A26)
retained

Af)

QJ-"Rm
[ 1 - exp(-fr t)] + ----Ac

(A27)

f Lt JN (fKj_ - JK)

(A28)

Ar Rm
[ 1 - exp(-fr t)] + - - Ac Lr

1/K

(Mti + (fc fr Mpi t)/Q ) exp(-frt) - Mti

Eq. (A28) is identical to eqs. (7) and (8).
The
flowing time at which formation permeability reaches
its minimum is

For the case when Mti Mpi eq (A28) simplifies to

exp(-fr t)
=JKiC3

Lt

which is identical to the eq.

becomes equal to eq. (10).

5.

and

Pore Sweeping

(A30)
Q
(9)

(A37)

which is identical to eq. (16).

fc fr Mpi t

JN'

(A36)

Since the pore sweeping begins at a certain time t1

0, the initial mass of solids at the pore throa~ is
Mt = Mt(tl) = Mtl .
Using eq. (A23), the mass of
solids swept from the throat is

(A29)

VK

(A3)

or, considering eq. (A2), we obtain

Substituting (A27) and (All) into (A26) yields

C3

(A35) and substituting into eq.

(A38)

M = Mtl [ 1 - exp(-fr t)]

and the corresponding flow area increase is

eq.

(A29)

- exp(-fr t)]

(A39)

Substituting for Af from eq. (All) gives

3. Gradual Pore Blocking
The flow area equation is derived from
and (A27) as

eqs.

jK -[Ki

(A25)

Mtl
=

CJ

1 - exp(-fr t)]

JN fLt

Eq. (A40) is identical to eq. (18).

exp(-fr t)

(A31)

dt
and its solution, combined with eq. (All) is

.JK

JKi-

(A32)

Eq. (A32) is equivalent to eq. (11).

4. Single Pore Blocking
Substituting Ts from eq. (A24) into eq. (AlB) gives
dAf
exp(-fr t)

(A33)

dt
456

(A40)

SPE 1 6 2 33
TABLE II

TABLE I

COMPLETION FLUIDS TESTED

CUMULATIVE EFFLUENTS WITH
IN-SITU MOBILIZED ROCK PARTICLES
FLUID
PROPERTY

ACTUAL
ROCK*

SYNTHETIC
ROCK*

16.5

18.2

25.1

Nitrogen

527

884

Klinkenberg

372

672

ASTM Sieve
Test

93

107

METHOD

Average Pore
Size (micron)

Grimshair
Olivier Rule

Permeability
(millidarcy)
Median Grain
Size (micron)

TSS
(ppm)

Calcium
Chloride

CST
(sec)

SALT CONC.
(g/1)

DENSITY
(ppg)

VISCOSITY
(cp)

190

-----g:s-

1.5

8.6

1-:-o ----g:-J

Sodium
Chloride

0.0

8.9

215

9.5

1.9

8.1

Ammonium
Nitrate

0.2

9.8

260

9.5

1.7

3.2

Ammonium
Nitrate +
20%
Methanol

0.3

10.0

320

9.5

1.9

3.1

*Average of 10 samples
*Filtered through 0.4 micron filter

TABLE
- III
-

TABLE
IV
--

MINERAL COMPOSITION OF
THE RESERVOIR ROCK SAMPLES

SODIUM CHLORIDE BRINE CONTAMINATED

WITH DRILLING MUD

Mineral

56-68

Fled spar

11-23

Calcite

5-8

Dolomite

4-11

Illite/Mica

3-7

Chlorite

Contamination
(vol %)

Concentration
% wt/wt

quartz

TSS

CST

(ppm)

(sec)

Turbidity
(NTU)

Viscosity
(cp)

0.0

-----s:9

--0-

-----y:-g

0.2

405

19.1

90

1.9

0.5

976

36.3

165

2.0

1.0

1990

113.7

270

2.1

2.0

3843

310.7

385

2.5

3.0

5790

769.9

690

3.0

3-5

TABLE V
CUMULATIVE EFFLUENTS WITH
IN-SITU MOBILIZED ROCK PARTICLES

FLUID

Total
suspended
solids
(ppm)

pH

Particle size
(microns)

CST

-------------

(sec)

D50

MV

Turbi
dity
(NTU)

NaCl

470

9.7

39.08

41.49

10.8

cac1 2

494

10.2

35.90

39.38

15.8

NH4N03

429

10.1

26.89

37.01

10.9

NH4N03

506

10.4

40.42

42.88

8.8

+ MeOH

457

SPE 1 6 2 33

Fig. 1-Hypothetical model of a porous rock.

I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

CONTAINER WITH DISTILLED WATER

LIQUID METERED PUMP {0- 10 m/min.)
FLUID ACCUMULATOR WITH PISTON {1000 m ; 270otm)
PRESSURE TRANSDUCER {0-6 otm)
INLET FOR CONFINING PRESSURE SET
{NITROGEN; 7 otm)
HAND PACKED CORE IN LEAD SLEEVE {PV = 18.3 m.f)
RUBBER SLEEVE
ANNULUS
SAMPLE BOTTLE {60 m.t')

Fig. 2-Laboratory setup with Hassler cell for flow tests.

Completion Fluid NoCI (9.5 ppg)

Contominont Drilling Mud
Synthetic Core Type 5
Kt = 670 md
P.V.= 18.3cc
q = 10 cc/min

o 0.2% Cont., S-4

o 0.5% Cont., S- I

>- -

t:
_. :.......:.: :

1.0% Cont., S-3

2.0% Cont., S-5
3.0% Cont., S-2

0.8

07

-:::.:::

IIl ..... 0.6

<(

IJ.J IJ.J

n TSS = 976 mg/.

(SLOPE=-5.69xlo- 4 11min
INTERCEPT= 9.83)

:::2: ~ 0.4

a::
IJ.J

a.

<(

5 0.2
0

TSS = 405 mg/

(SLOPE= -4.38 x 10- 4 1/min
INTERCEPT= 0.956)

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

CUMULATIVE INJECTION (Pore Volume P.V.)

TSS = 1990 mg/

4
( SLOPE=- 30.5 x 10- Itmin
INTERCEPT= 1.01)

0.4 OL__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____J50---------~IOO

Fig. a-Manifestation of three particle capture mechanisms on permeability

damage plots.

TIME(Min)
Fig. 4-Diagnostic plot: foreign particles invasion, gradual pore blockage.

458

SP'E 1 6 2 3 3

1.0

35~--------------------------------~~-.

6.0

0
6.

0
6.

6.

30

TSS= 3843 mg/

(SLOPE= 0.389 ltmin
INTERCEPT= -5.36 l

o TSS = 5790 mg/

(SLOPE=0.13961fmin
INTERCEPT= -3.09)

..:z

...... 0.6
~

TSS = 405 mg/

( No Single Pore Blockage l

D.

TSS = 976 mg/,

2
(SLOPE= -1.273 x 10- l!min)

TSS = 1990 mg/

(SLOPE= -1.337 x 10- 2 1/min)

10

100

50

50

TIME(Min)

TIME(Min)
Fig. 5-Diagnostic plot: foreign particles invasion, gradual pore blockage.

IJ)
IJ)

Q)

Fig. 6-Diagnostic plot: foreign particles invasion, cake forming.

1.0

c:

::::>

......
~

..

>-

0.9

!:::
.....1

CD

<t

LLJ
~

0:::
LLJ 0.8

FLUID: NoCI

a..

CONTAMINANT:LSU MUD
LLJ

DIOO

6.

D100 = 5 J-Lffi

= 2 J-Lffi

D D1oo = 10 J-Lffi
D100 = 22 J-Lffi

FLOW RATE: IOcc/min

>

I-

<t

.....1
LLJ

0::: 0.7

10

15

20

CUMULATIVE

25

30

35

40

45

INJECTION ( P.V.)

Fig. 7-Experimental plots of the effect of foreign particle size on permeability

damage.

459

50

100

SPE 1 6 2 33

1.0
.25

''

.20

0 100%= 2p.m, TSS = 360 mgl/

0100% = 5p. m, TSS = 935mg/.i

~15

.9

''

.8
.7

D1oo% = IOp.m, TSS = 1250 mg/.l

0100% = 22p.m, TSS = 1600mg/.l

.6
.ll::

.......
.ll::

.5

.4

.10

.3
/

.05

.2

0//

_e

.I

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

100

90

TIME (Min.)
Fig. a-Effect of solids size on permeability damage: transition from gradual pore blockage to single pore
blockage (foreign particles invasion).

55

en 6

en
Q)

c:

Sl NGLE PORE BLOCKING

CAKE BUILDING

eu
::!:

--

GRADUAL PORE BLOCKING

t:.

t:.

\\\\

50

:::1

~
Q)

& 45

LIJ

!::::!

LIJ

.::!:

.....

LIJ

,,v

\\\

40

35

CD

ti:2

LIJ

<[

a..

a::
0
a..

(.!)

2 p.m

\
\

'

'1:\~D

<

5p.m

>=-

LIJ
...J

<

'' ' '

,,,,

(.!)

::!:
~
U)

,n,
\\\
\\
\\

\\\

U)

z
<[
0

\,~

.......

......

D < IOp.m

--

30

U)
U)

<[

a..

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

25

100

Tl ME (Min)
Fig. 9-Relation between pore blocking mechanism and size of passing foreign
particles.

20~------~------~-------L------~--------

500

1000

1500

2000

TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/L)

Fig. 10-Effect of size and concentration of completion fluid particles on gradual pore
blockage duration.

460

SPE 1 6 2 3 3

Q)

c: 1.2

e FLUID: CoCI2
k = IIOmd
P.V. = 15.9cc

FLUID: NoCI
k = 130 md
P.V.=I8.6cc

ki = 110 md
0.8

1.0

'

FLOW RATE cc/min

..:.::

>-

FLUID: CoCI 2

::::>
..:.::

~---------------------------------------,--~
/

1.0

1.4
Ill
Ill

10

0.6

0.8

..i.:l..:.::

1-

.....J

CD 0.6

<t

UJ

0.4

:i:

a:: 0.4
UJ

SLOPE =-.0347 1/min

INTERCEPT=. 0268

a.

0.2

UJ

>

i=

0.2

<t

.....J

UJ
a:: 0.0

0.0
0

10

15

25

20

30

35

40

45

50

~----..L.---~---L---...JI......---..L.---....J

10

PORE VOLUMES ( P. V.)

Fig. 11-Experimental plots of permeability damage by in-situ mobilized particles.

14

FLOW RATE cc/min

10

Q)

12

c:

::::>

..iZ 10

'

..:.::

~ 8
:J
CD

<t 6
UJ

:i:

a::
~ 4

UJ

>

1-

<t

20

25

30

Fig. 12-Diagnostic plot for calcium chloride based completion fluid: cake forming.

Ill
Ill

+-

15

Tl ME (Min)

FLUID: NH 4 N03
ki = 25 md
P.V. = 18.6 cc

FLUID: NH 4 N03 +MeOH

ki = 98 md
P.V. = 16.0 cc

.....J

UJ

a:: O 01-..---L5_ _.J.IO_ _...JI5_ _ _

20L---25~.._.__3L0--3--L5--4.J.0_ _4_.5_ _~50
PORE VOLUMES (P.V.)
Fig. 13-Experimental plots of permeability damage by in-situ mobilized particles.

461

SPE 1 6 2 3 3

1.0.------------------------.
o
t:.

0.5.-----------------------~

NH4N0 3 (fr=3.2S.xlo- 3 1/min)

NH4N03+MeOH (fr=4.3xlo- 3 1/minl
0.0

-0.5

- 1.0
c:

o NH4N03(fr =3.46xlo- 2 1/min)

-1.5

t:.

25

50

75

100

NH4N03+ MeOH ( fr = 3.51 x 10- 2 1/min)

Q = IOcc/min

-2.0 ~----L-----~----~----~
150
175
200
225
250

125

TIME (Min)

TIME (Min)

Fig. 15-Diagnostic plot for the ammonium nitrate/alcohol-based completion fluids:

pore sweeping.

Fig. 14-Diagnostic plot for the ammonium nitrate/alcohol-based completion fluids:

gradual pore blocking.

.,.

-6.0~~-----------------=------------.

Q=IOcc/min

,..........

-6.5

,,.......... -.....

.... ~

...........
\

o NH4N03

...I

.....

fr1 = 3.76xlo- 3 ltmin

fr 2 = 20.6 x 10- 3 1/min

-7.0
t:.

NH4N03tMeOH
fr 1 = 5.35 x lo- 3 1/min
fr = 30.0 x I0-3 11m in
2

-7.5

\
\
\

I..

Q=3cc/min

150

100

200

250

TIME (Min)
Fig. 16-Verification of the combined effects of gradual pore blockage and pore
sweeping.

462

SP'E 1 6 2 33

25
6---

o----

--D---

20

NH4N0 3 + MeOH
NH4N03
NaCI
CaCI2

0~

15
6

>-

(.)

z
LLJ

::>

0
LLJ

10

a::
IJ.

10

PARTICLE SIZE (Microns)

Fig. 17-Ciean fluid tests effluents particle size distributions .

....... 100
(/)
c::

eu

90

80

- - CaCI 2
o - - NaCI

o----

6-

NH4N03
N H4 N03+ MeOH

(/)

LLJ
..J

70

(.)
~

a::
a.

60

<[
(.!)

50

(i) 40
(/)

<[

a.

IJ.

30

0
LLJ

20

(/)

10

LLJ
~

<[

10

20

30

40

50

CUMULATIVE INJECTION ( P. V.)

Fig. 18-Relation between pore blocking mechanism and size of passing rock particles.

463