Formation Damage – Effects and Overview

• Where is the damage?

• How does it affect production?

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 1
GEKEngineering.com
 Impact of Damage on Production
• Look at Effect of Damage
• Type of Damage
• Severity of Plugging
• Depth of Damage
• Ability to Prevent/Remove/By-Pass

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 2
GEKEngineering.com
 George E. King Engineering
3/14/2009 3
GEKEngineering.com
 Horizontal Well Formation Damage
Theories
Zone of Invasion - Homogeneous Case

Is damage evenly spread out along the well path or does it go down the
highest permeability streaks?

50423009 George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 4
GEKEngineering.com
 Horizontal Well Formation Damage Theories
Zone of Invasion - Heterogeneous Case

50423010 George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 5
GEKEngineering.com
 Observations on Damage
1. Shallow damage is the most common and
makes the biggest impact on production.
2. It may take significant damage to create
large drops in production
3. The problem, however, is that the highest
permeability zones are the easiest to
damage, and that can have a major impact
on productivity.

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 6
GEKEngineering.com
 Pressure Distribution Around a 200 md Oil Well

2800
2700
2600
Pressure, psi

2500
2400 The pressure drop around an unfractured wellbore
shows the importance of the near wellbore on inflow. If
2300 this area is significant damaged, the effect is
immediately noticeable.
2200
2100
2000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Radial Distance, ft World Oil, Modern Sandface
George E. King Engineering Completion Practices, 2003
3/14/2009 7
GEKEngineering.com
1. The most noticeable damage impacts the the well in the first 30 cm or 12 inches of the
formation.

Effect of Depth and Extent of Damage on

Production

100
90
80
% of original Flow

70
60 80% Damage
50 90% Damage
40 95% Damage

30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3
Georgeof
Radial Extent E. Damage,
King Engineering
m
3/14/2009 8
GEKEngineering.com
2. The effect of the damage thickness compared with the amount of
damage (as a percent of initial permeability). Only the most severe
damage has a significant effect in a thin layer. (Darcy law beds-in-series
calculation)

Effect of Damage Layer Thickness

Productivity

1
Ratio

0.1
0.01" thick
0.01
0.05" thick
0.001 0.1" thick
0.01 0.1 1 10 1" thick
Damaged Perm, % of initial
George E. King Engineering
3/14/2009 9
GEKEngineering.com
2. (continued) As the damage layer thickens and becomes more severe, the impact on
production builds quickly.

Productivity Loss From Formation Damage

1
0.95
0.9
Productivity as a Fraction of

0.85
0.8
Undamaged Prod.

0.75 Kd/Ki = 0.5

0.7 Kd/Ki = 0.2
0.65
Kd/Ki = 0.1
0.6
0.55 Kd/Ki = 0.05
0.5 Kd/Ki = 0.02
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth of Damaged Zone, inches World Oil, Modern
George E. King Engineering
3/14/2009 Sandface Completion 10
GEKEngineering.com
 3. Highest permeability zones are easiest to damage:
Pore Size vs. Permeability
350
SDA-01 Balakhany X (SP2) Hg permeability mD
SDA-01 Fasila B (SP3) Hg permeability mD
SDA-02 Balakhany VIIIC Hg permeability mD
SDA-02 Fasila D (SP4) Hg permeability mD
300
K mD
Power (K mD)
y = 1.3661x 2.4865
R2 = 0.982
250
Large connected pores and natural
fractures dominate the permeability of
permeability (m

200
a formation.

150
The size of particles that can
cause damage in these larger
pores is larger than 1/3rd and
100 smaller than 1/7th. For a 8
micron pore, the small size
would be 1 micron and less.
50

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
mean hydraulic radius (µm)
George E. King Engineering
3/14/2009 11
GEKEngineering.com
MI for BP SD field
 The Effect of Damage on
Production
Rate = (∆P x k x h) / (141.2 µo βo s)

Where:
∆P = differential pressure (drawdown due to skin)
k = reservoir permeability, md
h = height of zone, ft
µo = viscosity, cp
βo = reservoir vol factor
s = skin factor

What are the variables that can be improved, modified or impacted in a positive way?
George E. King Engineering
3/14/2009 12
GEKEngineering.com
 Productivity and Skin Factor
Just an estimation, but not too far off between skin
• Q1/Qo = 7/(7+s) numbers of zero and about 15.

Where:
Q1 = productivity of zone w/ skin, bpd
Qo = initial productivity of zone, bpd
s = skin factor, dimensionless

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 13
GEKEngineering.com
A better presentation of the damage from increasing skin
factor. Skin only has an impact if the well can really produce
the higher rate and the facilities can process it.
Productivity Ratio vs. Skin Factor

250
Productivity Factor, %

200
Range of Skin Factors
Associated with Frac Pack
150
Range of Skin Factors Associated with
100 Cased Hole Gravel Pack Completions

50

0
-5 5 15 25 35 45 55
3/14/2009 Skin Factor
George E. King Engineering
14
GEKEngineering.com
 Example
• Productivity for skins of -1, 5, 10 and 50 in a
well with a undamaged (s=0) production
capacity of 1000 bpd
• s = -1, Q1 = 1166 bpd
• s = 5, Q1 = 583 bpd
• s = 10, Q1 = 412 bpd

• The best stimulation results are usually for

damage removal and damage by-pass.
George E. King Engineering
3/14/2009 15
GEKEngineering.com
Another way of stating damage - Damage in a horizontal well – increasing skin makes
the well behave like the drilled lateral was much shorter.

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 16
GEKEngineering.com
 Damage Causes
• Obstructions in the natural flow path in the
reservoir.
• “Pseudo” damage such as turbulence - very
real effect, but no visible obstructions
• “Structural” damage from depletion – matrix
compression, etc.

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 17
GEKEngineering.com
 Flow Path Obstructions
• Scale, paraffin, asphaltenes, salt, etc.,
• Perforations – 12 spf w/ 0.75” / 1.9 cm holes only
opens 2% of the casing wall.
• Tubing too small - too much friction
• Any fluid column in the well, even a flowing fluid
column holds a backpressure on the well:
– Salt water = 0.46 psi/ft
– Dead oil = 0.36 psi/ft
– Gas lifted oil = 0.26 psi/ft
– Gas = 0.1 psi/ft (highly variable with pressure)

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 18
GEKEngineering.com
 “Pseudo” Damage
• Turbulence
– high rate wells
– gas zones most affected
• Affected areas:
– perfs (too few, too small)
– Near wellbore (tortuosity)
– fracture (conductivity too low)
– tubing (tubing too small, too rough)
– surface (debottle necking needed)
George E. King Engineering
3/14/2009 19
GEKEngineering.com
 “Structural” Damage
• Tubular Deposits
– scale
– paraffin
– asphaltenes
– salt
– solids (fill)
– corrosion products

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 20
GEKEngineering.com
 Perforation Damage
• debris from perforating
• sand in perf tunnel - mixing?
• mud particles
• particles in injected fluids
• pressure drop induced deposits
– scales
– asphaltenes
– paraffins

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 21
GEKEngineering.com
 Near Well Damage
• in-depth plugging by injected particles
• migrating fines
• water swellable clays
• water blocks, water sat. re-establishment
• polymer damage
• wetting by surfactants
• relative permeability problems
• matrix structure collapse

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 22
GEKEngineering.com
 Deeper Damage
• water blocks
• formation matrix structure collapse
• natural fracture closing

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 23
GEKEngineering.com
 Other Common Damages
• fines migration (increasing skin)
• water blocks
• scale
• emulsions
• paraffin and asphaltenes
• turbulence – rate dependent skin
• perf debris
• Initial damage from mud and DIF’s
George E. King Engineering
3/14/2009 24
GEKEngineering.com
 Skin Components and Determination

• Total Skins (s’) = So + Stp + D Q

Where:
So = laminar skin
Stp = 2-phase skin
D = rate dependent skin
Q = rate

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 25
GEKEngineering.com
 Skin Components and Determination

• Multi-rate tests => So, Stp, D

• B/U Test => total skin, k
• 2 B/U Tests => So, D, k

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 26
GEKEngineering.com
 Cleaning Damage
• Most damage is removed by simple clean-up
flow.
• How much drawdown?
• How long to flow it?
• How soon to flow it?
• To do it?

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 27
GEKEngineering.com
 Root Causes of Residual Damage
After Clean-up Flow….
• High perm formations less affected?
– Major damage removers:
• Flow Rate per unit area,
• Flow Volume per unit area,
• Pressure pulse?
• Drawdown per unit area – a control?

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 28
GEKEngineering.com
 First Problem
We don’t understand cleanup by
flow…

It’s a matter of flow rate and volume

through a given area.

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 29
GEKEngineering.com
Clean-up flow is For the same pay
“diluted” by the thickness, a horizontal
length of interval well or a fractured well
open at once for may contact 100’s of
cleanout. times more pay zone area
than a vertical well.
A 10 ft pay in a A 1000 ft pay in a
vertical well w/ 6” horizontal well w/ 6”
diameter yields diam. yields contact
contact area of 16 ft2 area of 1600 ft2

Now, think about the set drawdown – say

500 psi - per unit area, the velocity
George E. King Engineering
3/14/2009
generated, and the total volume per area.
GEKEngineering.com
30
Which has the potential of cleaning
up faster and more completely?
5000 bpd

Horiz. Well – assume 5x more than vertical

1000 bpd flow (typical) – would generate 5000 bpd,
but spread over 1600 ft2 – and release a
clean-up flow of only 3 gal per hour per ft.
Vertical well - 500 psi dd and
an inflow of 100 bbl/day/ft
spread out over just 16 ft2 will
generate a clean-up flow of
110 gal per hour per ft.
George E. King Engineering
3/14/2009 31
GEKEngineering.com
 Second Problem
• We don’t understand damage.
– How it got there
– How it is removed.
– How to prevent it.
– What operations put the well’s productivity at
risk.

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 32
GEKEngineering.com
 Some examples of GOM skins versus md-ft
Note the increasing skin in higher conductivity wells – why? It should be easier to remove
damage in higher perm formations. The key here is that turbulent (non-darcy or non
mechanical) skins are nearly always higher in high capacity wells – especially gas.

Industry Frac Pack Oil & Gas Well Performance

(permeability-thickness vs. skin)

40
Heidrun Gp
There are many
Harding Appraisal GP
35
damage
MC109 Frac-Enzyme - Oil
30 mechanisms,
Pompano - Oil
but few are
Mars FP - Oil
25
permanent
Mars HRWP
if DD FF EE

20 we learn how
Marathon Data
to remove
Skin

Oryx HRWF- HI 379 - Oil & Gas

them.
15
Elf Hylia X/L + HEC Tail - Oil
10
Ew ing Bank FP- Oil

-5
100 1,000
George E. 10,000
King Engineering 100,000 1,000,000
3/14/2009 33
GEKEngineering.com
Permeability Thickness (md-ft)
Cleanup examples from Alaska wells – high losses into high PI wells,
but…….
Fluid Loss Rate from Pre Workover PI - Alaska

2500

2000
Daily Loss, bbls

1500

1000

500

0
0 2 4 6 8 10

3/14/2009
PI, bbls/day/psi
George E. King Engineering
SPE 26042 34
GEKEngineering.com
…there was actually little correlation with amount lost.

% change in PI

60
% change in PI on Workover

40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

3/14/2009
Total Fluid
George E. King Loss, bbls
Engineering
35
GEKEngineering.com
Of higher importance was whether the perfs were protected or not.

PI Change, Perfs Not Protected

40 PI of Wells
0.3 0.5 1.1 2.1 3.1 6 18.9
20
% Change in PI

0
1

11

13

15
-20 Short Term PI Change
Long Term PI Change
-40

-60

-80
George E. King Engineering
-100
3/14/2009
GEKEngineering.com
SPE 26042 36
When perfs were protected, that was little risk of long term damage.

PI Change After Workover - Perfs Protected

50
PI of wells
40
0.3 1.2 3.1 4.6 8.4
30
% Change in PI

20
10 Short Term PI Change
0 Long Term PI Change

-10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

-20
-30
SPE 26042
-40
3/14/2009
George E. King Engineering
37
GEKEngineering.com
When the perfs were not protected, the well was damaged.

Damage in Fractured Wells with Unprotected

Perforations
0
-10 1 2 3 4 5
-20
PIi = 7.55
% Damage

-30 PIi = 6.21

-40 PIi = 1.92
PIi = 7.55
-50
-60
-70
PIi = 18.1
-80

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 38
GEKEngineering.com
One very detrimental action was running a scraper prior to packer
setting. The scraping and surging drives debris into unprotected
perfs.

Effect of Scraping or Milling Adjacent to Open

Perforations

20 Perfs not protected by

10 LCM prior to scraping
0
% Change in PI

1 Perfs protected
2 by
-10
LCM
-20
-30
Short Term PI Change
-40
Long Term PI Change
-50
-60 SPE 26042
George E. King Engineering
3/14/2009 39
GEKEngineering.com
Sized particulates, particularly those that can be removed, are much less
damaging than most polymers, even the so-called clean polymers.

Kill Pills: Summary of Overall Effectiveness in

Non Fractured Wells
Sized Borate Salts
(4)
10
Cellulose
5 Fibers (3) HEC Pills No Pills
% Change in PI

0
Sized Sodium No Near Perf
-5 1 2 3
Chloride (12)
4 5 6
Milling (8)
7

-10 No Near Perf Milling

(6)
-15
Near Perf Milling or
-20 Scraping (3)
Near Perf Milling
-25 or Scraping (10)
SPE 26042

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 40
GEKEngineering.com
 Third Problem
• We don’t know enough about timing of damage
removal.
– Variety of causes
• Polymer dehydration
• Decomposition of materials
• Adsorption, absorption and capillary effects

• Field data from Troika (100,000 md-ft) show initial

flow improves PI, but later flow does not.

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 41
GEKEngineering.com
 Deepwater Well Cleanup Lessons
• On initial cleanup, PI erratically increased as choke
opened. Typical response was a decrease, as if well
/ flow path were loading up, then sharp PI
increase, seemingly when the obstruction was
unloaded.
• Little partly broken polymer recovered, but early
load water recovery matched PI incr.
• Lower skins were linked to both sand flow before
completion (sand surge removed damage),
increased cleanup flow volumes (and drawdown)
on initial cleanup, and more effective frac
stimulations. George E. King Engineering
3/14/2009 42
GEKEngineering.com
 Deepwater Cleanup Lessons
• Wells cleaned up with increasing drawdown
immediately following backflow start. Cleanup was
increasing, measured by increasing PI, at the end of
the first short cleanup periods prior to shut-in of
the well.
• After initiation of production operations - after first
cleanup flow, no further cleanup of damage was
seen, regardless of drawdown. The reason is not
known, but may be due to polymer adhering or
cooking out?

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 43
GEKEngineering.com
 Fourth Problem
• We don’t understand how damage impacts
economic return.

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 44
GEKEngineering.com
 Example Economics - Skin Sensitivity

170 40

160 35
150
PV-10, $ mm

30
140
PV10
25
130 ROR
20
120

110 15

100 10
0 5 10 15 20 25

3/14/2009
Skin
George E. King Engineering
45
GEKEngineering.com
 An example of a completion method
that minimizes damage.
• Perforating, but with enough underbalance to
create the flow necessary to clean the
perforations.

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 46
GEKEngineering.com
Look at some of the most common damage mechanisms. In some formations, a
specific damage is very detrimental, while in another formation, the damage is
insignificant.

Type of Most Impact on Surge Flow Vol. Removal Alternate

Damage Probable Productivity Pressure Or Time Hampered by Methods of
Location if not Needed for Needed for Limits on Removal or
Removed Removal? Removal? Cleanup Vol? Prevention
Mud Cake Formation Moderate to Yes Spurt Yes Acids, Soaps,
in Pay Zone Face Severe Volume Enzymes
Mud Filt. <12” Minor - mod. No No
Whole Mud Fractures Severe Possible, Depend on Yes, flow Few successful
Loss and large Can help in Cond. few combined with whole mud
vugs few cases. cases solvent removals when
similar treatment vol. > 200 bbls.
Cement <12” into Only if clay No No
Filtrate pay damage
Perforation ½” around Moderate to Yes 4 to 12 Yes Surge small
Crush Zone perf Severe gal/perf zones into
chamber, acids,
pulses, fracs
Formation perf Most severe Cleanup Depends on Develop good
sand in tunnels and reperf initial &later perf and
perfs actions prepack actions
George E. King Engineering
3/14/2009 47
GEKEngineering.com
When looking at the range of skins, it is useful to know that some
wells have high skins but are really restricted by other factors such as
tubing flow limits, facility limits, etc., and are not really limited by the
skins.

Type of Damage Skin range Comments

Mud Cake in Pay +5 to +300, Mud skin is usually shallow and has more impact when
Zone +15 is typical turbulence and non-darcy skin problems are most severe. Mud
cake is usually by-passed by perforating.
Mud Filtrate +3 to +30 Filtrate usually recovered by steady flow and time. Related to
relative perm effects. This is usually a short lived problem (1 to
3 weeks)
Whole Mud Loss (in >+50 Options depend on mud volume lost. Enzymes, solvents and
pay zone) acids for small volumes (<10 bbls). Sidetrack if over 1000 bbls.
Low solids mud can be removed by concentrating on viscosifier
destruction or dispersment.
Cement Filtrate +10 to +20 Very shallow clay problems. Perforate with deep penetrating
charges to get beyond. Use leakoff control on cement.
Perforation Crush +10 to +20 Perf small intervals underbalanced. Isolation packer breaksown,
Zone explosive sleeve breakdown (very simple) - must be
accomplished prior to gravel packing.
Formation sand in >+50 Most severe typical damage - cleanout and recompletion
perfs3/14/2009 George E. King Engineering
required 48
GEKEngineering.com
 Table 3: Completion Efficiency Factors (Stracke, SPE 16212) Shown as a percent of wells
in each bracketed completion efficiency range.
Factor 100-75% 75-50% 50-25% 25-0%
Underbalance perf w/ surge chamber 26 26 26 23
Perforate and wash perfs 25 40 19 15
Underbalance perf w/ surge chamber + wash perfs 71 14 14 0
Surge Vol < 4 gal/ft 23 19 35 23
Surge Vol > 4 gal/ft 43 29 14 14
Surge differential < 1000 psi 27 24 24 24
Surge differential >1000 psi 19 27 31 23
Drilling overbalance <300 psi 15 48 19 19
Drilling overbalance >300 psi 31 31 23 16
Drilling overbalance >1000 psi 27 31 23 19
Completion overbalance <300 psi 25 39 25 12
Completion overbalance >300 psi < 600 psi 21 36 21 21
Completion overbalance >600 psi 47 21 5 26
This data is difficult to understand unless the attention is focused at those factors which deliver
the most wells in the 100% to 75% efficiency range, e.g., underbalance perf w/surge chamber
and wash perfs.
George E. King Engineering
3/14/2009 49
GEKEngineering.com
Notice that underbalance perforating at high underbalance (which causes flow) delivers a
perforation that is from 40% to nearly 300% larger than the other methods of perforating.

Table 4: Perforation Tunnel Volume Following Perforating at Different Conditions

(Regalbuto and Riggs, SPE PE, Feb 1988)

Pressure Differential Hole Volume, perforated Hole Volume, perforated/surged

Overbalanced, 18 cc
500 psi, no surge
Balanced perforated, no surge 31 cc
Underbalanced perforated, 500 20 cc 42 cc
psi
Balanced perforated, delayed 31 cc 48 cc
1000 psi surge
Underbalanced perforated, 1000 50 cc 75 cc
psi

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 50
GEKEngineering.com
 Back to over-all damage –
What is it?
• Divide the well into three parts:
– Inflow: area from reservoir to the wellbore
– Completion potential: flow to surface
– Surface restrictions: chokes, lines, separators.

• Basically, anything that causes a restriction in

the flow path decreases the rate and acts as
“damage.”

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 51
GEKEngineering.com
Differential pressure, ∆P, is actually a pressure balance
100 psi
10 psi
25 psi 15 psi
1000 psi
Column Densities:
Gas = 1.9 lb/gal = 0.1 psi/ft = 1000
1900 psi in a 10,000 ft well
Dead oil = 7 lb/gal = 0.364 psi/ft = 3640 psi in a 10,000 ft well
Fresh water = 8.33 lb/gal = 0.433 psi/ft = 4330 psi in a 10,000 ft well
Press.
Drop Salt water = 10 lb/gal = 0.52 psi/ft = 5200 psi in a 10,000 ft well
Gas cut flowing oil = 5 lb/gal = 0.26 psi/ft = 2600 psi in a 10,000 ft well
4600 psi reservoir pressure
-2600 psi flowing gradient for oil
Where does - 150 psi press drop

the ∆P come
- 100 psi through the choke
- 25 psi through the flow line
- 10 psi through the separator
from? - 15 psi through downstream flow line
10,000 ft -1000 psi sales line entry pressure
----------------------
3/14/2009
4600 psi George E. King Engineering
52
GEKEngineering.com
∆P = 700 psi drawdown pressure
 The first step…..
• For the purposes of this work, consider the
flow connection between the reservoir and
the wellbore as the primary but not the only
area of damage.
• Now, is it “formation damage” or something
else that causes the restriction?

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 53
GEKEngineering.com
 Some sources of the “damage” in the
reservoir-wellbore “connection”
• Wetting phases (from injected or “lost” fluids)
• Debris plugging the pores of the rock
• Polymer waste from frac and drilling fluids
• Compacted particles from perforating
• Limited entry (too few perforations)
• Converging radial flow – wellbore too small
• Reservoir clay interactions with injected fluids
• Precipitation deposits (scale, paraffins, asphaltenes, salt,
etc)
Note that not all are really formation damage – How do you
identify the difference?

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 54
GEKEngineering.com
And some restrictions – in very high perm wells – is the casing and the
very limited amount of open area that perforations create.
Data comparing cased and perforated skin with skins from open hole
completed wells from Algeria.
ALGERIAN GAS WELL COMPLETION EFFICIENCIES
20
Turbulent Skin
Cased Hole - Vertical - 5" Tbg
18
Mechanical Skin
Open Hole - Vertical - 7" Tbg
16

14
Open Hole - Slanted - 7" Tbg

12
15-20 degree
Total Skin

10
65-75 degree
50-65 degree
8

60-70 degree
6
65-80 degree Turbulent Skins
Norm alized to
4
65-75 degree Rates of 100
m m scfd
2

0
Tg 308 Tg 312bis Tg 315bis Teg 15y tg 307ter Tg 305bisz Teg 14z Teg 11z Teg 12z Teg 10z
George E. King Engineering
3/14/2009 55
2001 GEKEngineering.com
2002
 Identification of Damage.
• How good are you at deductive reasoning?
– Identifying the cause and source of damage is
detective work.
• Look at the well performance before the problem
• Look at the flow path for potential restrictions
• Look to the players:
– Flow path ways
– Fluids
– Pressures
– Flow rate

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 56
GEKEngineering.com
 What is Completion Efficiency?
• A measure of the effectiveness of a
completion as measured against an ideal
completion with no pressure drops.
• Pressure drops? – these are the restrictions,
“damage”, heads, back-pressures, etc. that
restrict the well’s production.

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 57
GEKEngineering.com
 Look again - The Effect of Damage on
Production
Rate = (∆P x k x h) / (141.2 µo βo s)

Where:
∆P = differential pressure (drawdown due to skin)
k = reservoir permeability, md
h = height of zone, ft
µo = viscosity, cp
βo = reservoir vol factor
s = skin factor

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 58
GEKEngineering.com
 What changeable factors control
production rate?
• Pressure drop – need maximum drawdown
and minimum backpressures.
• Permeability - enhance or restore k? - yes
• Viscosity – can it be changed? – yes
• Skin – can it be made negative?

• These factors are where we start our

stimulation design.

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 59
GEKEngineering.com
 Formation Damage
• Impact
• Causes
• Diagnosis
• Removal/Prevention?

• Basically, the severity of damage on production

depends on the location, extent and type of the
damage. A well can have significant deposits, fill
and other problems that do not affect production.

George E. King Engineering

3/14/2009 60
GEKEngineering.com
 Conclusions
• Damage is usually shallow.
• Remove it or by-pass damage if it really causes
a problem.
• Not every “damage” is in the formation.
• Not every drop in production is caused by
damage.
• First, remove the pressure drops, everything
else will take care of itself.
George E. King Engineering
3/14/2009 61
GEKEngineering.com