Chapter 2: Formation Damage

 
Chapter Contents
 Chapter Overview and Objectives
 The Importance of Minimizing Formation Damage Effects
 Quantifying Formation Damage
 Formation Damage vs. Pseudo Damage
 Drilling-Induced Formation Damage
 Damage Related to Completions and Perforating
 Damage in Injection Wells
 Damage Due to Production and Changes in Relative Permeability
 References
 
Chapter Overview and Objectives
Formation damage occurs in both the drilling of a well and any routine well activity,
such as perforating, completing, or performing certain well intervention activities.
The well engineer must accept that damage is likely to occur, and to know enough
about both the formation and the intended well activity to control and minimize the
damage. How a well formation may become damaged is a broad topic, and the
degree and type of damage incurred can have significant influence on a well’s
production (or injection) capabilities. Formation damage is broadly defined as any
unintended impedance to the flow of fluids into, or out of, a wellbore. Formation
damage includes flow restrictions due to a reduction in permeability in the near-
wellbore region, changes in relative permeability of the hydrocarbon phase, and
unintended flow restrictions in the completion itself (e.g., due to the  perforation
completion design). Flow restrictions in the tubing, or those imposed by well
completions, such as the well partially penetrating a reservoir, are not included in
this definition because, while they may impede flow, they are usually put in place
by design, to serve a specific purpose. In some completions, these restrictions also
have to be taken into account when assessing the “true formation damage.”
 
 
The objectives of this chapter are to:
 
 Illustrate how formation damage is quantified
 Illustrate how “true formation damage” is identified
 Explain other production restraints that are not classified as “true formation
damage”
 Describe formation damage caused by routine perforating and completing
activities
 Define the potential damaging effects of formation clays and fines
 Illustrate formation damage in production and injection wells
 Explain the importance of identifying rock wettability and relative permeability
alteration
 Present examples describing the effect of organic scales upon oilfield formations
 Illustrate formation damage caused by bacteria
 Define the damaging effects of wellbore emulsions and sludge
 Define the term “pseudo skin” and present its effects upon producing formations
 Present initial concepts related to both managing formation damage and remedial
actions
 Examine how drilling-induced formation damage affects well performance
 Introduce underbalance concepts used when attempting to control and minimize
formation damage
 Present the factors that mandate proper selection of workover and completion
fluids

The Importance of Minimizing Formation Damage Effects

Formation damage issues are important to well production for two primary reasons:
 
1. The ability to recover fluids from the reservoir is very strongly related to the
hydrocarbon permeability in the near-wellbore region.
 
2. Although reservoir rock properties and fluid properties are fixed as encountered,
well engineers have some degree of control concerning drilling, completion, and
production operations. Operational changes may be intentionally designed or
altered to minimize the extent of formation damage induced in and around the
wellbore, which can have a substantial impact on hydrocarbon production.
 
 
Awareness of formation damage that may be caused by various drilling,
completion, and production operations can help in substantially reducing formation
damage and enhancing the ability of the well to produce fluids.
 
In this chapter, methods to measure and quantify the extent of formation damage
are discussed, as are characteristics of various types of formation damage. Well
engineers must strive to improve their understanding of formation damage in order
to recommend and design the correct remedial action and/or make changes to
drilling completion and production operations that minimize damage in the future.
 
It is generally true that, whenever possible, it is better to prevent formation
damage from occurring than it is to attempt to remove the damage after it has
occurred. However, since pre-existing formation damage must be dealt with initially
when working with a new or existing well, potential remedial treatments are
suggested for several different wellbore conditions.

Quantifying Formation Damage

The impact of formation damage on well productivity can be illustrated using a
wellbore and its surrounding drainage areas, as shown in Figure 2-1.
 
Figure 2-1   Wellbore Schematic Showing Important Inflow Parameters.
 
From the formation properties shown in Figure 2-1, calculations can be made to
describe the well productivity in terms of flow rate, Productivity Index, and
formation damage, using the skin factor (S).
 
 
The production rate (q) can be calculated using Darcy’s Law of Radial Flow, in
terms of bbls/day, using the following relationship:

 
      Equation 2-1
     
Where:     
          q     =    flow rate, bbl/day
          k     =    avg. formation perm., md
          h     =    net formation height, ft
          Pr      =    average reservoir pressure, psi
        Pwf      =    flowing wellbore pressure, psi
          µ     =    reservoir fluid viscosity, cp
         Bo      =    formation volume factor, res bbls/STB
         rw      =    wellbore radius, ft
          re      =    drainage radius, ft
          S     =    Skin Factor
 
 
 
A commonly used measure of well productivity is the Productivity Index
(bbl/day/psi): 
 

         
 
  
 
The Productivity Index is a useful relationship that describes the capability of a well
to produce under various flow and reservoir conditions. It can also provide an
indication of the influence of formation damage on well performance over time.
 
The most commonly used measure of formation damage in a well is the skin factor
(S). The skin factor is a dimensionless pressure drop caused by a flow restriction in
the near-wellbore region, as shown in the shaded region of Figure 2-1. Skin may be
defined in field units by the equation: 
 

               Equation 2-2

 
Figure 2-1 shows how flow restrictions in the near wellbore region can increase the
pressure gradient, resulting in an additional pressure drop due to formation
damage (Pskin). The skin factor provides an indication of the degree of formation
damage (or flow restrictions) present in a well. When formation damage is present,
and if there are no additional flow restrictions through the perforations (Sperf=0),
the normal practice is to stimulate the well with an acid treatment. If the well is
effectively stimulated, then the skin factor (S>0 before the stimulation) is reduced
or may actually be quantitatively evaluated on a well test as a negative value
(S<0). The influence of the skin factor (S) on well productivity is shown in Figure 2-
2 (Oil) and Figure 2-3 (Gas).
 

 
Figure 2-2   Oil Flow Rate vs. Skin Factor.
Figure 2-3   Gas Flow Rate vs. Skin Factor.

 
   
To quantify formation damage, and to assess its impact on hydrocarbon production,
one must have reasonable estimates of the flow efficiency or the skin factor.
Several methods may be used to evaluate these quantities for oil and gas wells.
The most common methods are: 
 
1. Transient well tests (pressure buildup analysis and pressure fall-off tests) 
2. Multi-rate tests
3. Isochronal gas well tests
 
Pressure Build-up Analysis
The most common method for determining skin is a pressure build-up test, as discussed
in Volume 1, Chapter 2 “Reservoir Engineering & Well Testing.”  In this test, a well that
has been producing at a stabilized flow rate (q) for a time (tp) is shut-in for time t. The
pressure buildup is then recorded as a function of time. By constructing a Horner plot (as
shown in Figure 2-4), the skin (S) may be computed as the product of the permeability
and formation thickness (kh) of the reservoir.  
 

S=
 

kh =
 
 
Here, m is the slope of the straight line portion of the Horner plot, and Pws,1hr  is the
extrapolated shut-in pressure at a shut-in time of 1 hour.   
 
Formation damage, therefore, can be quantified by measurements made on oil and gas
wells. Such measurements are essential to determining the extent and magnitude of the
formation damage and its impact on hydrocarbon production. These measures show the
impact of formation damage on well productivity but do not provide clues concerning the
reasons for the formation damage. In subsequent sections in this chapter, the reasons
and mechanisms for formation damage are identified, and, strategies to minimize the
impact of drilling, completions, and production operations on well productivity are
presented. 
 
Pressure fall-off tests are another type of transient pressure test that can be analyzed to
provide an indication of kh and degree of formation damage (S). These tests can be
performed on water injection wells and can be also conducted in those wells with low
reservoir pressure (i.e., reservoir pressures too low to provide a stabilized flow rate [q]
for a pressure build-up test).
 
 

Figure 2-4   A Horner Plot of a Pressure Buildup Test.

 
Multi-Rate Flow Tests
Flow tests using multiple flow rates (called Multi-Rate Tests) can be conducted on
flowing oil and gas wells. In these tests, several stabilized flow rates (qi) are achieved at
corresponding stabilized flowing bottom hole pressures (Pwf). The simplest analysis
considers two different stabilized rates and pressures. The inflow performance relation
(IPR) can be written as:
 
 

                Equation 2-3

 
Where:
             F = flow coefficient
 Y1 and Y2 = pressures corresponding to q1 and q2 
             x = flow time at which q1 and q2 are measured
 
When simplifying and solving for the flow efficiency (F.E.), the following expression
results:
 
 
             Equation 2-4
 
The above equation shows that it is possible to obtain flow efficiency in a rather simple
manner with two stabilized bottom-hole pressures and two stabilized flow rates. A similar
analysis can be performed to obtain an expression for a linear IPR (x=0).
 

 
Figure 2-5   Multiple Rate Flow Test in a High Flow Rate Gas Well.
 
 
Darcy’s law for high rate gas wells can be written as:

                   Equation 2-5

 
Where:
    µg = gas viscosity
     Z = gas deviation factor
 Dqsc = non-Darcy flow correction
 
Here,

                   Equation 2-6

 
 
This equation can be rearranged to obtain, 
 
               

                  Equation 2-7

 
 
Here, Aqsc represents the laminar pressure drop portion andrepresents the turbulent
flow or inertial (non-Darcy) flow effects. The coefficient A contains the physical skin (S),
and B is directly proportional to the non-Darcy coefficient (D). By plotting multi-rate test
data as a plot of  
 

                
  
A and B are obtained as an intercept and slope, respectively. The magnitude of the
pressure drop due to physical skin (S) can then be compared with that due to inertial
effects (Dqsc).  
 
The information obtained from the multi-rate flow test is beneficial in the selection of a
well stimulation approach to help overcome the flow limitations (true skin and
turbulence) observed with the test. A matrix acidizing treatment, for example, may be
beneficial in removing true skin and in improving (or restoring) radial flow. However, if
flow is limited due to formation damage and turbulence, an appropriate hydraulic
fracturing may be required to increase the inflow area and reduce inertial effects.
 
Isochronal Test in Gas Wells
In lower permeability (<1.0 md) and lower flow rate gas wells, it may take considerable
time to achieve stabilized rates. In these cases, wells are shut-in and produced for a
fixed time interval (t) at several different rates. These "isochronal" tests are then
interpreted by the following “deliverability” relation for gas wells as discussed in Volume
1, Chapter 2, “Reservoir Engineering & Well Testing”:  
 

                 Equation 2-8
 
 
with 0.5 <  n < 1. An exponent closer to 0.5 indicates that non-Darcy effects are
important, while an exponent close to 1 indicates that they are not.
 
 

Figure 2-6   Modified-Isochronal Flow Test.

Formation Damage vs. Pseudo Damage
Formation damage mechanisms can be considered as belonging to one of the
following broad categories:
  
 Near-wellbore permeability reduction
 Near-wellbore relative permeability changes.
 
These changes may occur during drilling, completion, and production operations.
The following sections deal with different ways in which the permeability and
relative permeability in the near wellbore region can be altered, and thus have a
marked influence on the production performance of oil and gas wells.
 
Prior to our discussion on formation damage mechanisms, it is important to first
consider that certain well completion techniques and well flow conditions may
contribute to “pseudo skin” effects. These conditions may not involve permeability
damage, but nevertheless reduce production.
 
Partial completions – When perforations are limited over a net pay thickness
because of proximity to high water saturation (e.g., in the bottom of a water-drive
reservoir) or proximity to a gas cap in the top of an oil well producing with a gas
cap expansion drive, this is called a partial completion. When the perforations are
limited to the top (or bottom) of the pay interval, flow entering the wellbore must
converge into the near-wellbore region, where the perforations are, and a back
pressure is induced. Even though the formation permeability is not reduced, the
reduced flow area causes a “pseudo skin.”
 
Non-Darcy flow (turbulence) – As previously discussed, high flow rates of oil
and gas can create turbulence in radial flow, resulting in a pseudo skin. This can
lead to an additional turbulent pressure drop that needs to be clearly distinguished
from the pressure drop induced by a reduction in permeability.
 
When pseudo skin exists, reduction in flow due to true permeability damage will
compound the influence of pseudo skin, especially in the case of partial
completions. When stimulation is applied in partially completed wells, careful
attention must be paid to the strategic placement of stimulation fluids used to
remove permeability damage, without annihilating the designed purpose of the
partial completion.
 
Finally, flow restrictions in the wellbore itself (downhole chokes, scale buildup, wax
or asphaltene deposits) often result in tubing pressure drops that are substantially
larger than anticipated. This reduction in well productivity is not commonly referred
to as formation damage. Other types of production impairment caused within the
tubing are:
 
 Collapsed tubing or flow restrictions caused by mechanical restrictions, such as
corrosion products, etc.
 Poor cement jobs, resulting in co-mingling of produced fluids from different
zones.
 Insufficient tubing diameter or improperly designed artificial lift systems. 
 
True Formation Damage
Actual permeability reduction (and, correspondingly a reduction in well
productivity) may be due to one or more of the following which can be
treated/controlled:
 
 Drilling Induced Formation Damage
 – Water-based muds

– Oil-based muds

– Minimum underbalanced drilling

– Mud-induced damage in naturally-fractured formations

– horizontal and multilateral well damage

 Damage During Cementing and Perforating
 Completion and Workover Fluids
 Fines Migration

– Swelling clays

– Migrating clays
 Damage to Injection Wells
 Paraffins and Asphaltenes Related Damage

– Paraffin deposition

– Asphaltene deposition
 Emulsion and Sludge Formation Damage
 Relative Permeability Wettability Damage
 Bacteria Related Damage

Drilling-Induced Formation Damage

Drilling fluids serve to balance formation pressures while drilling and to ensure
wellbore stability. In addition, they carry cuttings to the surface and cool the bit.
The drilling engineer designs drilling fluids with two primary goals in mind:
 
1. Ensure safe, stable boreholes. This is accomplished by operating within an
acceptable mud weight window.
 
2. Achieve high rates of penetration, so that rig time and well cost can be
minimized.
 
 
It is interesting to note that these primary drilling objectives do not address
concerns related to well productivity. However, there is a growing recognition in the
industry of the importance of drilling-induced formation damage. This has led
operators to mesh the objectives of the drilling engineer with those of the
production and reservoir engineers, through coordinated efforts involving drilling
and well completions.
 
The use of drill-in fluids (fluids used to drill through the pay zone) that minimize
formation damage has become more widespread, especially with the broadening
applications of horizontal and multilateral well completions.
 
To meet well productivity objectives and to minimize formation damage, the drill-in
fluid must meet the following additional objectives:
 
1. Minimize the extent of solids invasion into the formation by bridging across the
pores and forming a thin, low-permeability filter cake.
 
2. Minimize the extent of filtrate and polymer invasion into the formation, through
the formation of an external filter cake.
 
3. Ensure ease of removal of the external filter cake during flowback to maximize
the inflow area during production, and, to avoid plugging (especially when gravel
pack completions are involved).
 
 
With the variety of formations and reservoir conditions encountered during drilling
operations, special considerations are necessary in order to meet the above goals.  
 
Traditional water-based muds, oil-based muds, and some special formulations of
drill-in fluids that are used when drilling naturally fractured formations or
unconsolidated sands are each reviewed next. Special considerations related to
formation damage due to drilling in deviated and horizontal wells and the use of
drill-in fluids for such application are also discussed. 

Water-Based Muds
 
A vast majority of the drilling fluids currently used consist of water plus bentonite,
or, bentonite mixed with polymer, in order to manage the rheology of the mud,
that is, the viscosity properties and cuttings carrying capacity of the fluid. Water-
based muds also contain other additives to influence its properties as a drilling fluid
(e.g. - starches to control fluid loss, dissolved salts such as potassium or sodium
chloride to add fluid density, and, perhaps a pH buffer to maintain the pH of the
mud at a desired level). The references provided for this section (at the end of this
chapter) refer to several pertinent papers and articles concerning the progress
made in the use of water-based drilling fluids.
 
 
The following factors influence the type and degree of damage that may be caused
by water-based muds and mud filtrate invasion into the near-wellbore region:
 
 State of dispersion of solids in the mud
 Size and concentration of solids and polymers in the mud
 Pore throat size or permeability of the formation
 Salinity and pH of the filtrate
 Water sensitivity of the formation
 
In most instances, the invasion of solids into a formation is limited to two or three
inches from the wellbore wall. This implies that the productivity of perforated wells
with relatively shallow depth of damage will not be significantly impacted. Figure 2-
7 shows the well productivity, as measured by its Flow Efficiency, for different
depths of damage when assuming an 8 in. deep perforation penetration. It is
evident that, as long as the depth of damage is smaller than the perforation
penetration, the well PI is not significantly impacted. Wells that are completed
open-hole without stimulation are particularly susceptible to this kind of damage.
 
Figure 2-7   Effect of Damage by Mud on Well Productivity
 
 
In some instances, deep penetration of drilling solids can occur in high-permeability
formations. In over-treated muds (containing too much thinner or dispersant),
dispersed bentonite particles can penetrate through more than 8 inches of rock and
cause severe and irreversible damage. Alternatively, flocculated muds (too little
thinner or too much salt) will limit solids invasion but will result in thick, high-
permeability filter cakes. This can result in problems such as stuck pipe and large
filtrate volume loss. The use of salts and thinners is, therefore, a critical part in the
design of drilling fluids for a given application. Appropriately conditioned muds
must be used to eliminate the possibility of solids invasion and to minimize filtrate
invasion. As discussed later, the use of sized bridging solids (e.g. acid soluble
calcium carbonate) is a powerful tool for reducing solids and polymer invasion.
 
 
Mud filtrate invasion can also lead to substantial formation damage and to greater
depths of penetration, in some instances. It has been shown that the use of
freshwater muds can result in filtrates that can be damaging to water-sensitive
sandstones. In such instances, the simple process of increasing the salinity of the
filtrate can prevent fines migration and minimize clay swelling induced by filtrate
leakoff. Aqueous filtrates may also reduce the relative permeability to hydrocarbon.
Such relative permeability effects may contribute to water-blocks and are discussed
later in this chapter.
 
 
 
The use of polymers in drilling muds is widespread but can lead to formation
damage. Using improper mixing procedures when dissolving polymers into brines
can result in the formation of “fisheyes” or unhydrated aggregates of polymer that
may be several microns in diameter. These particulate gels act as plugging agents
and can lead to irreversible damage if not broken up and completely hydrated in
the mud.

Oil-Based Muds
 
 Oil-based muds consist of water droplets dispersed in a continuous oil phase. The
water droplets are stabilized by emulsifiers and organophilic clays. Oil-based muds
are often used as "drill-in" fluids in the drilling of horizontal and multilateral
wellbores because of the additional hole stability afforded by the oil-based mud,
especially in water-sensitive formations. Oil-based muds, however, introduce
special concerns related to formation damage that need to be considered when the
well is completed:
 
 
 Relative permeability effects caused by oil-based mud filtrate
 Strong emulsifier contained in the oil-based mud
 
 
Many disappointments with well stimulation by acidizing have occurred in wells
drilled with oil-based muds. If the presence of the oil-based mud filtrate and mud
cake is ignored before acidizing, adverse reactions can occur when acid contacts
the oil-based mud components.  This typically results in more wellbore damage
than existed prior to acidizing. Field experience indicates that a preflush with
aromatic solvent prior to acidizing can be very effective in diluting and largely
removing the external oil-phase present from the oil based mud usage; in addition,
it minimizes the residual effects of the oil-based mud emulsifier used. 
 
In applications where hole stability and drilling mud loss is a big concern, calcium
carbonate can be an effective leakoff control agent for the mud. After the well has
been completed, a solvent preflush with the proper surfactant to retain the water
wettability of the rock can be an effective method of well cleanup and stimulation of
production resulting from an acid treatment.
 
Minimum Underbalance Pressure Concept
The formation of an external mud cake is important in protecting the formation
from solids and filtrate invasion. There are at least two situations in which an
external filter cake does not form across of the face of the formation.
 
 Lost circulation
 Drilling overbalanced, below the minimum overbalance pressure.
 
When drilling through very high permeability rocks or fractured formations, solids
present in the drilling fluid may not be able to bridge across the face of the pores or
fractures, thus resulting in leak-off of whole mud into the formation. This
occurrence can result in very severe damage that is difficult to remedy. In these
cases, therefore, bridging solids are often added to the drilling fluid to bridge across
or block fluid loss into the pores or the fractures.
 
The second situation wherein filter cake does not form is less intuitively obvious.
Since total fluid leakoff is proportional to the pressures achieved by the fluid
relative to formation pressure, that is, the effective over-balance pressure
generated, smaller over-balance pressures will lead to smaller leakoff rates and
thinner external filter cakes. Use of lighter weight fluids result in minimum over-
balance pressures below which no external filter cake is formed at all. Alternatively
stated, there is a minimum permeability for a fixed over-balance pressure, below
which no external filter cake will form. This suggests that to avoid damage,  drilling
practices and operations must be conducted either under-balance or above the
minimum over-balance pressure to ensure that an external cake is formed and
available to protect the formation when drilling through the productive pay zone.
Mud Induced Damage in Fractured Reservoirs
When drilling through fractured formations, large quantities of whole mud can be lost to
the fracture network, resulting in fracture plugging. Since frac-tures contribute almost all
the productivity of such wells, it is important to keep these fractures open as great an
extent as possible. In such cases, under-balanced drilling is recommended and
frequently used. If underbalanced drilling is not possible due to safety or regulatory
restraints, bridging additives need to be added to the mud system to ensure that large
enough particles are available to bridge across the face of the fracture. Commonly used
bridging additives are calcium carbonate and fibrous additives such as cellulosic fibers
and acid-soluble fibers.

Formation Damage in Horizontal Wells

Horizontal wells are more susceptible to formation damage than vertical wells, for
the following reasons:
 
 Longer contact of the pay zone with the drilling fluid (days vs. hours)
 Most horizontal wells are completed open hole
 Lower flow velocity and lower pressure drop along the lateral results in less
efficient cleanup along the wellbore when the well is placed on production
 
 Effective damage removal by acidizing in a horizontal wellbore is expensive, and,
acid treatment placement and diverting of the treatment acid is essential to success
 
 
Many studies conducted on a simulated horizontal wellbore indicate that the well
“heel” section is generally more damaged than the “toe” section, and, that the
upper part of the well is less damaged than the bottom of the wellbore where the
drill pipe rests. The damage zone around the horizontal wellbore can be considered
as an eccentric cone around the wellbore with a significantly larger depth of
penetration at the heel and a shallower depth of penetration at the toe.
 
Since the drilling fluid is in contact with the horizontal section producing pay-zone
for an extended period of time, drill-in fluids have been developed to minimize
potential formation damage. Sized calcium carbonate and sized salt fluids are the
most often used drill-in fluids in such applications. As earlier referenced, oil-based
muds have also been used for this purpose.

Damage Related to Completions and Perforating

Completion and Workover Fluids
Damage During Perforating and Cementing
Fines Migration
Formation Clays

Completion and Workover Fluids

When conducting completion or workover operations, it is extremely important that the
fluids used be carefully selected to minimize formation damage. During a work-over
operation, the producing interval may be exposed to the workover/kill fluid for an
extended period of time. Completion engineers have long realized that the use of drilling
fluids during completions was inappropriate because it often caused severe damage to
the productive pay zone. A wide variety of fluids are now available to us for use as
completion or workover fluids.
 
Water-based completion fluids usually consist primarily of clear brines. Clear brines,
however, can be easily contaminated with corrosion products, bacteria, and debris from
the wellbore and surface tanks. When used for workover fluids, the density of the brine
is maintained so that the bottom hole pressure (due to the hydrostatic column of the
completion fluid) exceeds the reservoir pressure by a safe margin (typically 200 to 600
psi). Under these overbalanced conditions, substantial amounts of solids can be pushed
into the formation, thus resulting in a loss of permeability in the near wellbore region.
Figure 2-8 shows the effects that a loss in permeability can have on well productivity,
following well workover operations. These results have regularly been repeated and 
verified in the laboratory using representative formation core samples and various
completion fluids. Therefore, it is frequently necessary to conduct a post completion
stimulation treatment in order to restore permeability in the near-wellbore region
impacted by the workover fluid used.
 

Figure 2-8   Effects of Formation Damage on Well Productivity Following Workover.

 
Most of the high-density brines that are used in high bottom hole pressure completions
can be quite expensive. Thus, large volumes of fluid loss can add substantially to the
cost of a completion operation. Unlike drilling fluids, completion and workover fluids do
not contain drilling solids. Therefore, there is no effective bridging material in the base
fluid to reduce fluid leakoff.
 
In cases where the fluid leakoff rate is very high, leakoff control additives may be used
to minimize the leakoff and potential resultant formation damage. The use of acid
soluble granular additives such as calcium carbonate is the most common strategy.
Viscosifying polymers are sometimes used in the form of "viscous gel pills" to reduce the
amount of fluid loss. Their effectiveness and cleanup properties can be enhanced
considerably by using acid soluble carbonate solids in the pill. Hydroxyethyl cellulose
(HEC) is commonly used as it creates a "clear" polymer solution when used in brines.
However, if HEC is used, it should be sheared and filtered prior to pumping. Caution
should also be used with HEC because of its temperature limitations (250oF) and
potential difficulties in providing viscosity in certain high-density brines.
 
Oil-based fluids such as diesel oil, crude oil, and invert emulsion muds may sometimes
be used as completion fluids. Issues such as paraffin and asphaltene content,
compatibility of the crude used with the formation crude, and flammability are prime
considerations that must be addressed prior to circulating crude oil into a wellbore.

Damage during Perforating and Cementing

During a well’s primary cementing operation, when cement is bullheaded into the
annulus to displace the mud, the differential pressure between the cement and the
formation fluid can lead to a significant loss of cement filtrate to the formation. If
large volumes of cement filtrate invade the rock, formation damage may occur.
 
The major constituents of cement filtrate are calcium silicates, calcium aluminates,
calcium sulfates, calcium carbonates/bicarbonates, and alkali sulfates. Depending
upon the specific composition of the cement and its pH, a cementing filtrate may be
supersaturated with calcium carbonate and calcium sulfate. As the cement filtrate
invades the formation and reacts with the formation minerals, it has a relatively
high pH (12 or so). If the high pH is quickly lowered to a value closer to 7 as the
cement filtrate comingles with the formation brine, inorganic precipitates such
calcium carbonate and calcium sulfate may precipitate.
 
If the depth of invasion of the cement filtrate can be restricted to about 4 inches,
cement filtrate induced damage should not be a major concern since the
perforation tunnels established in a conventional per design program will bypass
the damage. However, in situations where large volumes of cement filtrate may be
lost, the use of fluid loss control additives and polymers in the cement slurry should
be considered.
 
After a well’s casing has been satisfactorily cemented, care must then be taken
with the perforation process. In a cased well, perforating is critical to the
productivity of a well, since this is the only channel of communication between the
wellbore and the formation. Wells are usually perforated under one of the following
conditions, using jet perforation charges:
 
 Underbalanced condition
 Balanced condition
 Extreme overbalance condition
 
 
The jet perforating process involves the generation of a high burst of energy in the
wellbore that propagates through the pipe, the cement sheath, and a distance into
the producing formation (usually 8 to 18 inches). A schematic of a jet perforation is
shown in Figure 2-9.
 
 
Figure 2-9   Schematic of a Jet Perforation with Crushed Zone Surrounding
Perforation.
 
 
A comparison of the strengths and limitations of the wellbore conditions (i.e.
underbalanced, balanced, and extreme overbalanced) are shown in Table 2-1.
 
 
Table 2-1      
Wellbore
Conditions for Jet
Perforating
 
Type Description Strengths Limitations

Underbalanced Wellbore pressure is less than  Cleans 

the static reservoir pressure perforation Underbalance may
tunnels be insufficient w/
 Well ready low K
to flow  Caution w/
high Pres & wireline
guns

Balanced Wellbore pressure is  Safety/well  No cleaning

approximately equal to the control of perf tunnels w/
static reservoir pressure
 Similar ΔP
conditions for  May have to
repeated runs lift well to begin
flow
 Extreme Overbalanced Wellbore pressure is   More
considerably higher than frac Communication expensive
gradient when guns are fired with formation  Completions
(low Skin) exposed to high
 All Pressure
perforations
"broken down"
 
Fines Migration
Fines migration is a recognized source of formation damage in some production wells,
particularly in high-permeability, loosely consolidated sandstones. Problems with
formation fines can be aggravated by formation clays, which tend to be present in most
formations susceptible to fines movement. Fines migration may cause a significant
decline in well production, and fines may regularly appear in the separator and in the
wellbore. 
 
The proper approach to fines migration problems depends on the extent and nature of
the problem. Since fines movement is a function of flow velocity through the formation
matrix, restricting production rates may help with control of fines, if this is economically
feasible.
 
In many loosely consolidated formations, it will be necessary to use sand control
methods or frac packing as part of the well completion in order to optimize well
productivity and to control the movement of formation sand and fines. 
 
In certain applications, sandstone acid (HCl/HF) systems may be useful in helping
remove near-wellbore formation fines and clays in order to restore well productivity.
Sandstone acid can be especially beneficial in cleaning up gravel packs. Because of the
high reactivity of HF acid with silicates, only near-wellbore damage will be effectively
removed with sandstone acidizing. 
Formation Clays
The type, concentration, and distribution of clays in the formation matrix are dependent
upon the depositional history of the formation. Formation clays create problems in wells
due to migration and/or hydration. 
 
The clays most susceptible to migration are kaolinite, illite, and chlorite. Their
characteristic mineral structure is illustrated in Figure 2-10.
 

Figure 2-10   Scanning Electron Micrographs of Migratable Clays

 
 
If kaolinite, illite, or chlorite are deposited near pore throats and flow spaces in the
formation matrix, any movement of the clays can result in substantial reduction in
effective formation permeability.
 
 
The clay that causes problems with swelling in the presence of aqueous fluids is smectite
and a form of smectite called mixed-layer clay which usually consists of smectite and
illite clay. Smectite clay is shown in Figure 2-11.
 

Figure 2-11   Scanning Electron Micrograph of a Swelling Clay

 
Smectite clays are usually found in deltaic deposits consisting of sediments of younger
geological age that have not been exposed to the time, temperature, and stresses of
deeper formations. Bentonite clay (used in water-based drilling muds) is an excellent
example of a smectite clay. Often, when smectite is present, it is frequently deposited
with one or more of the migratable clays. These clays require particular attention when
designing completion, workover, and stimulation fluids in order to minimize damage to
the formation permeability.
 
The possibility of formation damage due to clay swelling and migration should always be
considered when dealing with sandstone formations. If a recent X-ray diffraction analysis
is not available on formation core or cuttings, then field geological reports should be
reviewed to obtain an idea of the types and relative amounts of formation clays that are
present.
 
Clays are silicates and therefore have ionic (negative) charges along the clay mineral
boundaries. This unbalanced charge provides an attraction for molecules of water which
are bi-polar or for positively charged cations. If the treating water contains a salt such as
potassium chloride or ammonium chloride, then the cations (potassium, ammonium,
etc.) are attracted to the clay sites; they help protect the clays and render them less
reactive in the presence of water. It may be necessary to conduct laboratory flow tests
to determine the most effective concentration (e.g., 2 to 8% KCl) for formation clay
control.
 
Other methods of clay control include cationic organic polymers and quaternary
ammonium salts specifically designed to help stabilize formation clays. When total clay
content approaches 20%, it may be necessary to use both an inorganic salt (e.g. KCl)
and an organic clay stabilizer. Some formations contain more than 20% clays and are so
water-sensitive that oil-based fluids are required for workover and well stimulation.

Damage in Injection Wells

Water is commonly injected into formations for pressure maintenance, water
flooding, or water disposal. In most cases, the well’s injectivity capacity is a crucial
 factor in determining the cost of water injection. Maintaining high injectivities over
long periods of time is extremely important for all water injection projects.
 
Historically, a great deal of expense and effort has been expended in treating water
to ensure very high quality water is being injected so that the injectivity of the well
can be maintained over a long period of time.
 
There are two main properties of injection water that determine the degree of
formation damage or the capacity to achieve high injectivities in water injection
wells:
 
 Total dissolved solids in the water
 Total suspended solids (solids and oil droplets) in the water 
 
Since the injection well formation face matrix  represents an ideal filtering
mechanism for injected fluids, it is usually only a matter of time until injection
pressures begin to increase and the injectivity rate begins to decrease in water
injection wells. Periodic acid cleanout treatments or hydraulic fracture stimulation
may be beneficial in improving water well injectivity. However, prior to fracturing
injection wells in a waterflood or in wells used for pressure maintenance, the
azimuth of the created fracture (perpendicular to the least principal stress
direction) should be investigated.
 
In water-sensitive formations, if fresh water is being injected from a nearby lake or
river, caution must be exercised to ensure that formation fines and clay particle
destabilization and migration resulting from the fresh water injected will not be a 
major factor in causing damage. In some instances, where the reservoir contains
large proportions of clays and fines, severe injectivity losses may be experienced
when injecting fresh water.
 
 
 
Damage caused by the precipitation of inorganic scale is also a major concern when
injecting brines with a high concentration of divalent ions. Should the injection
water analysis indicate large concentrations of calcium, magnesium, iron, or
barium, a water treatment facility to treat the water before it is injected may be
necessary. This can also be an issue when injecting seawater into formations that
contain brines with high salinity. Checking for compatibly and ensuring that
inorganic scale precipitation does not occur at reservoir temperature and pressure
conditions is important in planning any water injection program.
 
 
 
The presence of solids and oil droplets in the injection fluid can result in severe and
rapid declines of injectivity. Field experience in many parts of the world suggests
that matrix injection of brines containing 3-5 ppm of suspended solids results in
injection well half-lives (time when injectivity declines to half its original value) of 3
to 6 months. Costly stimulation and workover operations may be required in these
types of wells in order to maintain injectivity at satisfactory levels.

Damage Due to Production and Changes in Relative

Permeability
Formation Damage Due to Paraffins and Asphaltenes
Paraffin Deposition Formation Damage
Asphaltene Deposition Formation Damage
Emulsion and Sludge Formation Damage
Formation Damage Due to Changes in Relative Permeability and Wettability
Water Blocks
Wettability Alteration
Bacteria Plugging

Formation Damage due to Paraffins and Asphaltenes

The most common formation damage problem reported in the major mature oil
producing regions of the world are caused by organic deposits forming both in and
around the wellbore. These organic deposits are usually paraffin and asphaltenes.  
 
Crude oils contain three main groups of hydrocarbon compounds: paraffins, aromatics,
and asphaltenes. Fortunately, most crude oils contain substantial proportions of
saturated and aromatic hydrocarbons with relatively small percentages of resins and
asphaltenes. Effectively producing hydrocarbons containing paraffin and asphaltenes
requires a good understanding of the similarities and differences when encountering 
paraffin and/or asphaltenes.   

Paraffin Deposition Formation Damage

Paraffins are high molecular weight alkanes (C20+) that can build up deposits in the
wellbore and in surface lines and facilities.  These organic deposits that can build up
deposits in the wellbore and in surface lines and facilities. These organic deposits can act
as chokes within the wellbore, resulting in a gradual decrease in production with time, as
the deposits increase in thickness. Repeated remedial action is necessary to maintain
production. Deposits may vary in consistency from soft accumulations to hard brittle
deposits, depending upon the molecular weight of the paraffin. Often, paraffin and
asphaltene deposition occurs together. The primary cause of wax or paraffin deposition
is simply a loss in solubility in the crude oil. This is usually due to a reduction in
temperature caused by gradual temperature changes along the flow stream, or with gas
expansion, as gas and oil enters and flows up the wellbore. When paraffin begins to
precipitate, aggregates of paraffin crystals form clusters resulting in a marked change in
the viscosity of the crude oil containing the paraffin. The aggregates then begin to build
deposits along the production tubing, in pumps, on rods in rod-pumped wells, and so
on. 

Emulsion and Sludge Formation Damage

The mixing of two immiscible fluids at high shear rate in the formation will often result in
the formation of emulsions. Such emulsions usually have a higher viscosity than either of
the constituent fluids and can result in significant decreases in the ability of the
hydrocarbon phase to flow, thus causing  a type of formation damage.   
 
Oil-field emulsions occur with the mixing of two phases: oil and water. Depending upon
the source of the emulsion (surfactants from workovers or acidizing or natural
surfactants contained in some crude oils), the emulsion may be considered water-
external or oil-external. Since both of these emulsions contain crude oil and water, both
will often be dark brown or black in color. The schematic in Figure 2-12 illustrates the
difference between water-external and oil-external emulsions.
 
 
 

Figure 2-12   Schematic of Water-External and Oil-External Emulsions.

 
Emulsions can be stabilized by clays, formation fines, and other small solids that help stabilize the
internal phase of the emulsion. With oil external emulsions, the water droplets are locked inside
(water-in-oil) and oil is the continuous phase; these are the most common oilfield emulsions. With
water external emulsions, the oil droplets are locked inside (oil-in-water) and water is the
continuous phase.
 
Once emulsions have formed, they are often difficult to treat to remove. Effective remedial
treatment of emulsions depends upon effective contact of the emulsion with the treating fluid.
 
A type of surfactant (called non-emulsifying or an NE Agent) is used with the carrying fluid to
break the emulsion into its aqueous and oil phases. The type of treating fluid used is dependent
upon the type of emulsion, i.e., oil external or water external.  For example, diesel with an NE
Agent would be used to treat an oil-external emulsion and a 6% KCl water with an effective NE
Agent would be used to treat a water-external emulsion. The type of treatment fluid and the most
effective NE Agent should be determined by service company laboratory tests using representative
samples of formation oil and treating fluid.
 
In the field, a simple test can be conducted to determine whether an emulsion sample is water-
external or oil-external. For this test, a sample of clean water and a sample of diesel are required.
A drop of the emulsion sample is then placed into the water and a drop is placed into the diesel. A
dilution and dispersion of the emulsion should be observed in the fluid that represents the external
phase.  That is, dispersion into the water with an oil sheen on top will occur for the water-external
emulsion and a dispersion of the oil into the diesel with the release of the denser, immiscible water
to the bottom of the container will occur for the oil-external emulsion.

 
Formation Damage Due to Changes in Relative
Permeability and Wettability
Changes in fluid saturations and formation wettability can create formation damage
in the form of substantial impairment to effective formation permeability which
results in significant reduction in hydrocarbon production. The following damage
mechanisms related to effects of changes in rock relative permeability and
wettability are common and are analyzed below:
 
 Condensate banking 
 Water blocks
 Wettability alteration
 Bacteria plugging
 
 
Condensate Banking – Gas condensate reservoirs are defined as reservoirs that
contain hydrocarbon mixtures of gas and gas condensate which are typically in
equilibrium; the condensate is in solution in the gas under reservoir’s initial
conditions of pressure and temperature. For a gas-condensate reservoir at
reservoir temperature, there is a dew point pressure at which the condensate starts
"condensing", that is, coming out of the gas, when the pressure of the condensate-
rich gas drops below the dew point pressure.  
 
With the resultant pressure drawdown associated with production in gas wells, the
largest drawdown occurs near the wellbore, so this is the system location where the
gas and gas-condensate first experiences pressure less than the dew point
pressure. In this environment, the gas-condensate starts accumulating in the
formation porosity and flow channels. In this area, the increase in liquid saturation
in the flow area begins to drastically reduce the relative permeability to gas; as an
initial observance, both gas and gas-condensate production decline dramatically in
a relatively short period of time. A schematic description of condensate banking is
shown in Figure 2-13.
 
 

Figure 2-13   Gas-Condensate Reservoir Showing Effects of Condensate Banking.

 
 
Well stimulation with hydraulic fracturing can provide effective production
improvement in gas-condensate wells producing below the dew point pressure. The
lateral flow from the reservoir through the high permeability fracture allows the
well to produce without the significant pressure drawdown encountered with radial
flow. Also, if the condensate drops out of solution in the gas and separates to the
bottom of the fracture due to density effects, gas flow velocity through the fracture
helps sweep the condensate into the wellbore, where it can be lifted to the surface
by the flowing gas, as depicted in the schematic in  Figure 2-14.
 
 

Figure 2-14   High Permeability Hydraulic Fracture in Gas Condensate Reservoir.

 
Water Blocks
Water saturation is common in most reservoirs producing hydrocarbons. In a
producing well, once the flow of oil or gas has been established, a relative
permeability to gas or oil is established in the presence of residual water
saturation, referred to as irreducible water saturation. The ability of the well to
produce hydrocarbons is directly related to this stabilized relative permeability. 
 
When wells are worked over or stimulated with an aqueous-based fluid, the water
saturation in the pore spaces of the formation contacted by the workover fluid or
stimulation fluid (especially with hydraulic pressure associated with hydraulic
fracturing) is altered considerably. With the increase in water saturation, it usually
takes the well time to recover and to re-establish relative permeability to oil or gas
in the affected area. The ability of the well to re-establish the relative permeability
is related to the effective formation permeability and the available reservoir energy.
 
Wells exposed to workover fluids and well stimulation normally will "clean up" and
release treatment fluids a  few days after exposure to these aqueous base fluids.
Careful records are usually kept concerning the amount of load fluid recovered; this
information provides an indication of the efficiency of the well cleanup and
recovery.
 
In some formations, especially in low-permeability (<0.1 md) dry gas reservoirs
with less than "normal" reservoir pressure (i.e., 0.433 psi/ft in field units),
production may be greatly hampered by a water “block”. In these cases, water is
retained  in the reservoir by capillary forces and imbibition.  In such cases, relative
permeability to gas is reduced below economic levels. In many cases, the well will
not be able to achieve and sustain gas rate.
 
Fortunately, most wells suffering from water blocks can be aided considerably with
appropriate remedial action. To be effective, a remedial treatment must address
the issues that contributed to the formation and retention of the water block
condition, namely capillary pressure effects and imbibition.
 
 
Pressure in a capillary can be described by the following equation: 

 
   Equation 2-9
 
Where:
      σ   =  surface tension of fluid, dynes/cm
      θ   =  contact angle of saturating fluid to capillary
     rt    =  radius of capillary, cm
 
 
Imbibition is the movement of fluid into the capillary under the influence of
capillary pressure. When formation permeability and porosity is low, capillary
pressure and imbibition effects become more conducive to water block, because of
the high capillary pressures involved.
 
Remedial treatments using methanol-KCl water mixtures have been effective in
helping remove water blocks and in re-establishing gas flow. The objective of the
treatment is to affect (reduce) the surface tension that is retaining the fluids in the
pore space throats of the rock. 
 
For these applications, a mixture of 50% methanol and 50% 6% KCl water is
suggested for consideration. The reason for the mixture of methanol and water is
 to provide a fluid with low surface tension that is much less flammable than 100%
methanol. (It is suggested the alcohol-water mix be prepared at the service
company location, not on location). An example "generic" recommendation for
water-block removal would consist of the following steps:
1. Pump an amount (5,000 gallons example) of 50% methanol / 50% 6% KCl water
into the producing interval at matrix rates (i.e. below fracturing rates and
pressures).
 
2. Shut the well in and allow the alcohol-water mix to "soak" for 4-6 hours. Because
the well is shut in, the methanol in the mixture will be blending into the fluid that is
forming the water block, and reducing the surface tension of the fluid.
 
3. Open the well to flow.  Following the shut-in time, the wellbore should have re-
pressurized to some extent (especially with the dissipation of the injected remedial
treatment). The well may or may not flow much gas with the well opening but
some indication of improvement in flow should be seen if production was being
hindered by a water block.
 
4. Repeat step 1. It is suggested at this point that available nitrogen (or CO2) be
injected with the alcohol/water mix to help force the remedial fluid farther into the
fracture (or the formation) and to help provide some gas for lift assist when the
well is opened.
 
5. Shut the well in for 2-4 hours to allow the second injection of alcohol-water mix
to mix with any retained fluid.
6. Open the well to flow. In many cases, the well will begin making gas at this point,
and well clean up can continue using field-developed guidelines. However, patience
is required, especially for extreme cases, and steps 4 and 5 may need to be
repeated.
 
Note: It is suggested the actual remedial treatment be developed using service
company lab facilities and local knowledge experience and that all materials,
surfactants, chemicals etc., be tested for compatibility and included with the
alcohol-water mix to help enhance its properties.
 
Wettability Alteration
Because of their depositional history and depositional environments, most producing
formations are considered to be initially water wet. As such, relative permeability to
hydrocarbon is established in producing wells based on this initial condition.
 
Accidentally or intentionally converting rock from its initial water wet state to an oil wet
state results in a substantial reduction in the relative permeability to the hydrocarbon
phase and an increase in relative permeability to the water. Wettability alteration to the
native formation water-wet conditions is, therefore, clearly undesirable.  Changes in the
initial and preferred water wet wettability state can be induced in the near-wellbore
region due to the loss of surfactants in drilling and completion fluids, corrosion inhibitors,
and certain surfactants and additives in stimulation fluids. Care must be exercised when
using oil wetting surfactants and corrosion inhibitors, so that these fluids are not lost to
the productive pay zone.
 
The alteration of wettability in a region around the wellbore will result in a reduction in
hydrocarbon permeability. This additional pressure drop or skin is hard to distinguish
from formation skin pressure drop caused by physical plugging of pore throats.  
 
The use of solvents and water-wetting surfactants in combination is recommended as
preflushes and as remedial treatments in cases where large vol-umes of oil-wetting
surfactants such as oil-based muds have been lost to the formation. 

Bacteria Plugging
 
Anaerobic bacteria are ubiquitously present in and around oil and gas wells. Under most
producing conditions, their growth is not stimulated due to the high temperature and
pressure conditions. However, in some instances, the injection of water-based fluids can
induce the growth of microbial populations and can result in significant declines in
productivity or injectivity.
 
 
The growth of sulfur-reducing bacteria can also result in the generation of hydrogen
sulfide gas and the fouling of flow lines and facilities. Occasionally in water-injection
wells, bacterial plugging may be sufficient to justify a service-company-designed
remedial treatment (usually using hypochlorite or other oxidizing agents) to remove the
bacteria. Additional stimulation to improve matrix permeability may also be justified at
that time, following removal of the bacteria.