SPE

SPE 17459

An Overview of Formation Damage and Well Productivity in

Oilfield Operations: An Update
by R.F. Krueger, KGK Petroleum Consultants
SPE Member

Copyright 1988, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE California Regional Meeting held in Long Beach, California, March 23-25, 1988.

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 01 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 SPEOAL.

ABSTRACT taking advantage of EOR. In EOR, if the conduc-

Almost every field operation is a potential source
of damage to well productivity. This paper provides
a broad overview of the nature of formation damage
problems, how they occur during various oilfield
operations, and their effects on well productivity.
Diagnosis of numerous formation damage problems has
led to the conclusion that formation damage is
usually associated with either the movement and
bridging of fine solids or chemical reactions and
thermodynamic considerations. The fine solids may
be introduced from we11bore fluids or generated in
situ by the interaction of invading fluids with rock
minerals or formation fluids.
Control of formation damage requires proper design
of treating fluids for chemical compatibility and
strict quality control of fluid physical and chemical
properties during treatment. The use of treating
fluid filtration, clean work strings (pipe), and
inhibited fluids has been shown to be important in
the control of formation damage during well treat-
ment.
INTRODUCTION
Laboratory and field studies indicate that almost
every operation in the field - drilling, completion,
workover, production, and stimulation - is a poten-
tial source of damage to well productivity. During
the many years when the cost of oil was extremely
low, however, productivity damage was largely
ignored and emphasis was placed on minimizing costs
rather than maximizing productivity. Since the
advent of the energy crisis and the Arab embargo,
prevention of formation damage and maximization of
well productivity has taken on added importance, not
only for conventional well operations but also for
References and ,11ustrat,ons at end of paper.
tivity of injection and producing wells is damaged,
sweep efficiencies and recovery factors will be
adversely affected. The success or failure of an
EOR project may depend on the ability to produce
oil at adequate rates.
Because repair of formation damage is usually
difficult and costly, the basic approach should be
to prevent damage. To achieve this goal, the
entire process of drilling, completion, and
production needs to be viewed as a whole, inclUding
extensive pre-planning, execution, and follow-up.
Failure to control treatment or operating proce-
dures and chemicals properly at any stage may
negate the effectiveness of all other well-designed
and -executed operations. Severely damaged
productivity may result from a single misstep in
the path of well development.
A broad knowledge of how formation damage occurs
is the first step in prevention of well damage.
Each operation must then be studied in detail.
This paper takes the first step by reviewing how
formation damage occurs and showing how it affects
well productivity in various operations.
RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FORMATION DAMAGE
First, let us look briefly at the relative impor-
tance of the formation condition near the we11bore.
Although the drainage radius may be several
hundreds of feet, the effective permeability close
to the we11bore has a disproportionate effect on
well productivity. This problem is illustrated in
Fig. 1 for a well located in an inner concentric
zone of different permeability from the surrounding
formation. In this illustration, the normalized
well productivity is plotted vs •. the normalized
permeability in a radial system. The normalized
values represent the value of the variable in the
inner concentric zone divided by the value of the
same variable in the main surrounding formation.

535
 AN OVERVIEW OF FORMATION DAMAGE AND WELL PRODUCTIVITY
2 IN OILFIELD OPERATIONS: AN UPDATE
When the inner zone is the same condition as the
main formation, the normalized value is 1.0. Fig. 1
shows that a zone of reduced permeability near the
wellbore ranging from a few' inches to a few feet can
reduce well productivity to only a fraction of its
potential value. The damaged zone is commonly
referred to as a "skin" in formation damage calcula-
tions.
Fig. 1 also shows why removal of permeability damage
in the vicinity of the wellbore or bypassing it -
for example, by fracturing through it - may show
spectacular results compared with matrix stimulation
of an undamaged well. For example, if permeability
of the formation rock near the wellbore has been
damaged to 20% of its original value by some opera-
tion to a depth of 2 ft [0.6 m] (the radius of the
inner concentric damaged zone for this example), a
well treatment that restores the original perme-
ability (normalized permeability increases by 0.8)
will increase well productivity by about 100%.
On the other hand, if the inner zone has the same
permeability as the surrounding formation, a well
treatment that increases the normalized permeability
of this undamaged zone by 0.8 will have only a minor
effect (about 10%) on the well productivity.
Therefore, matrix treatments, such as matrix acid
stimulation, will be most effective in damaged
wells. As a corollary, stimulation of wells in
zones with no or little damage will require a deeply
penetrating treatment, such as hydraulic fracturing,
to provide substantial stimulation.
NATURE OF THE PROBLEM
Although the manner in which well productivity may
be damaged varies from operation to operation,
investigation and diagnosis of specific problems
indicates that the reasons are usually associated
with either the transport of fine solids, chemical
reactions, or a combination. To prevent permeability
damage or to stimulate a well effectively, it is
vital that we accurately diagnose what the damage
mechanism is. Too often, trial-and-error treatments
have been substituted for factual diagnosis.
To help our diagnosis, we should first understand
the nature of the systems with which we are working.
Let us first take a microscale look at the formation
and the path that the formation fluids or treating
fluids must take. Figs. 2 through 6, prepared from
scanning electron microscope (SEM) photographs of
sandstone cores, show the inside of formation pores
at high magnification. It is apparent that the
fluids moving through the pores encounter some very
critical conditions - tortuous paths; rough pore
walls with large surface area; and a variety of
reactive minerals such as clays, feldspars, micas,
and iron compounds. These pore conditions provide
an ideal medium for both physical entrapment of
solids and chemical reactions between invading
fluids and the clays or other minerals lining the
pores.
Along with the physical nature of the path, trre
mineralogical composition cannot be overemphasized.
For many years, permeability damage from freshwater
invasion was assumed to be associated with swelling
of montmorillonite by freshwater. Now, it is well
established that low- or non-swelling minerals can
536
SPE 17459
also cause formation damage, and freshwater
contact is not a necessary condition. Salinity
changes and shear by moving pore water may trigger
the release of weakly bonded clays, mica,
feldspar, and other minerals from pore walls. The
released particles will then flow with the water,
brid~ing at pore constrictions. For example,
Reed has shown that when mica in the formation
pores is not in equilibrium with invading water,
the mica may break up when ion exchange occurs.
Some of the first indications of particle movement
observed in the laboratory were (1) abrupt changes
in permeability values when flow through a core
was reversed ("check valve plugging"), (2) the
discharge of micron-sized fines when freshwater
was injected into a clay-containing core, and (3)
lower permeabilities to water in single-phase flow
than permeabilities to oil in restored-state flow
in water-sensitive cores. For many years, the
significance of these observations was not widely
recognized. However, continuing research on
formation damage during drilling led to an unex-
pected observation that emphasized the importance
of particle movement: better recovery of perme-
ability to oil was obtained during backflow of oil'
in a mud-damaged core at low pressure drop - and
there~ore at low rate - than at high pressure
drop.
This observation runs contrary to the usual
inclination to bring a well on production at
maximum drawdown. Applications of this procedure
are difficult to quantify in newly completed
wells; however, redrilled wells in depleted
water-sensitive zones have been observed to come
on production at higher-than-expected rates when
low-drawdown cleanup methods were used. On the
other hand, more quantitative results have been
obtained in stimulati2n treatments in both labora-
tory and field tests. In a low-producing well in
which productivity damage was diagnosed as silt-
blocking, backflushing the migrated fines away
from the wellbore and then applying the principles
of low-rate cleanup and restricted production
resulted in higher sustained production than
cleanup at higher rates.
Other laboratory studies 3 have shown that the
migration of water-wet fines is triggered by
invasion of water that mobilizes them from the
water envelope at the pore walls. Pores in the
restored state (pores containing a continuous oil
phase and an interstitial water phase at the pore
walls) have the fines trapped in the immobile
water. Simultaneous flow of oil and water causes
fines to migrate substantial distances because the
moving water mobilizes the water-wet fines and the
multiphase flow causes localized disturbances that
reduce the likelihood of bridging.
Low-rate cleanup of pores containing mobilized
fines appe~to be effective because it alleviates
interference effects of moving particles at pore
constrictions. At low rates, dispersed fines can
gradually align themselves to work their way one
by one through the constrictions or can become
immobilized in the interstitial water envelope at
the pore walls. At high rates, the randomly
distributed fines in rapid motion interfere with
each other and bridge in a "brush heap" effect.
SPE 17459 R. F. KRUEGER
These bridging and non-bridging conditions are
illustrated in Fig. 7.
Recognition of the role of migrating fines in
formation damage has resulted in broad application
of low-rate cleanup techniques after well-stimulation
treatments.
"Salinity shock" is also a source of fines release
in water-sensitive formations when there is a large
difference in salinity between the invading w~t~r
and the formation water. Laboratory studies, ,
however, have shown that permeability damage from
salinity shock can be minimized by a gradual change
in the salinity of the invading water.
Stabilization of clay fines has also been attacked
chemically by flushing of the sensitive formation
with chemical solution" such as hydroxy aluWinum,6
zirconium oxychlogide, potassium hydroxide, and
organic polymers. The use of oil-wetting surfactant
has be!B reported to be successful in injection
well s.
In addition to formation damage from migrating fines
generated in the formation, wellbore plugging may
occur from fine solids carried by wellbore fluids
during treatment. Problems caused by both sources
of plugging fines will be discussed.
DRILLING-IN
From the time the drill bit enters the pay zone
until the well is put on production, the zone is
exposed to a series of fluids and operations that
will strongly affect the productive capacity of the
well. When drilling through the zone, the quality
of the drilling-in fluid and the pressure differen-
tial are critical. Formation damage and its effect
on well productivity may result from drilling and
mud filtrate interaction with formation minerals and
from invasion of drilling fluid solids. Penetration
of filtrate damage depends on the effectiveness of
fluid-loss control and may range from a few inches
to several feet. The degree of damage can be
estimated from Fig. 1.
Damage by Filtrates
Early core studies indicated that filtrate damage
could be controlled most effectively with oil-based
muds or with wat~+-based ~~ds that contained divalent
ions, such as Ca and Mg . Damage factors (perme-
ability after damage divided by the original undam-
aged permeability) for permeability to oil usually
range from 0.3 to 1.0, depending on the type of
filtrate and type of core material. Fundamental
studies of clay chemistry, core flow studies, and
drilling stability studies, however, have shown that
clays, shales, and clayey rocks are more stable when
exposed to potassium ions.
Permeability of cores flooded with potassium-based
filtrate are less subject to damage by freshwater,
and many shales drilled with high-concentration
potassium brine fluids are more stable and are not
washed out duriny the drilling operation. As a
result, potassium-based aqueous drilling muds and
workover fluids are now widely used. When water
sensitivity is extremely critical, however, oil-based
537
3
muds are the best fluid. Fig. 8 gives a compari-
son of well productivities for wells completed in
an Alaskan field with two types of water-based
muds (lignosulfonate and polymer) and with invert-
emulsion mud. In this area, oi!-based completions
averaged about 1,500 BID [240 mid] higher than
water-based completions.
Damage by Dri 11 ing Mu(.!'~!.!:_i_c_l~_s
Penetration of drilling mud solids into formation
pores is usually shallower than filtrate penetra-
tion and, therefore, may have less effect on well
productivity. Damage from mud solids is strongly
dependent on pore size distribution of the forma-
tion, particle size distribution in the drilling
fluid, and wellbore overpressures. Laboratory
tests have shown that particles from drilling
fluids may penetrate several centimeters into
sandstone and the invaded zone permeability may be
damaged to a fraction of its undamaged value. In
simulated beneath-the-bit tests with field muds,
permeability damage values of 5 to 35% have been
observed, depending on ty~! of mud. Using a clay
slurry, Glenn and Slusser observed damage values
as high as 70 to 95%. From these results, it is
estimated that damage to well productivity from
particle invasion during drilling may range from
less than 1 to about 10%, depending upon depth of
invasion.
In field practice, penetration of mud particles
may be substantially deeper than indicated in
published laboratory tests because of either very
porous zones or "mi crofracturing" during dri 11 ing
pressure surges.
Preferably, the wellbore fluid (completion fluid,
gravel-packing fluid, workover fluid) should be
designed so that the solids bridge on the surface
of the formation rock rather than inside the
pores. Photographs cited in the discussion of
productivity damage during gravel packing illus-
trate this principle. In practice, however,
perfect "bridge-on" properties are not achieved
with drilling fluids, and there always seems to be
enough invasion into the interstices of the rock
by particles from the mud to form an "internal
mudcake". Even if the surface mudcake is removed,
either mechanically or hydraulically, this internal
mudcake restricts fluid entry to only a small
fraction of the rate for undamaged rock. This
condition tells us that in openhole or uncemented
liner completions, an injection well should be
produced for a while before it is converted to
injection. This condition also tells us that in
cemented and perforated completions, the internal
mudcake will limit the cement filtrate loss to a
fraction of that indicated in API filter paper
tests with cement slurry alone.
For various reasons, the completion zone is
sometimes drilled with crude oil or brine. In
most formations, this practice aggravates formation
damage because the fluids lack bridging agents.
In effect, the drilling is done with dirty low-
solids fluids, and the solids may penetrate and
plug deeply within the formation. Similar consid-
erations are discussed later in connection with
workover fluids.
 AN OVERVIEW OF FORMATION DAMAGE AND WELL PRODUCTIVITY
4 IN OILFIELD OPERATIONS: AN UPDATE
Time in a Sensitive Zone May Be Critical
When unstable sensitive zones are drilled, time in
the zone is often a critical factor. If the hole is
drilled and cased in a given number of days, the
well may be completed without incident. If longer
drilling time is required, the hole starts to slough
and stuck pipe may result. The critical times are
usually associated with the type of drilling fluids
used.
In laboratory studies with water-based and oil-based
field muds, similar effects of exposure time on
formation damage were observed. If damage factor is
plotted against cumulative fluid loss, permeability
damage increases steadily as total fluid l~~s
increases regardless of the type of fluid. These
results .emphasize the importance of maintaining a
good-quality mud with low fluid-loss properties and
of minimizing exposure time.
High We1lbore Overpressure
Increases Drilling Damage
As might be expected, formation damage from solids
and filtrate invasion may be minimized by drilling
or treating the well in a near-balanced condition
(wel1bore pressure close to formation pressure).
High-pressure zones upho1e or natural pressure
depletion, however, sometimes force the use of mud
weights that result in high we11bore overpressures
on deeper producing zones. The potential severity
of this problem is also illustrated in Fig. 8. In
this field, the productivity of wells drilled with
less than 1,500 psi [19.34 MPaJ overpressure averaged
about 2,000 BID [320 mid] higher than wells drilled
with more than 1,500 psi [10.34 MPa] overpressure.
Non-Damaging Drilling Fluids
Attempts to mitigate damage during drilling and
completion are being made through control of both
filtrate and filter cake properties. We touched on
the importance of filtrate chemistry earlier. A
recent trend, parti~u1ar1y in depleted zones, is to
formulate the fluid with a non-damaging filter cake
as well as an inhibited filtrate. One approach has
been to use acid-soluble inorganic solids (calcium
carbonate) for filter-loss control. Upon completion
of an operation, residual filter cake may be treated
with acid. Unfortunately, this procedure may
require additional rig time and is sometimes ineffec-
tive because of incomplete contact of the entire
damaged zone by acid. An alternative approach is to
use organic oil-soluble particulates as filter-loss
control agents so that well cleanu~3can be completely
accomplished with produced fluids.
CEMENTING
Little work has been published on formation damage
by cement filtrates, and the limited results have
been somewhat controversial. It has been postulated
that cement filtrate may damage formation permeabil-
ity in two possible ways: (1) hydration of cement
to supersaturation with lime followed by recrystal-
lization (deposition in pore spaces), and (2)
reaction of lime in the filtrate with silica in the
formation to form calcium silicate hydrate, a
cementitious compound. Invasion of the formation by
cement solids is another potential source of damage.
538
SPE 17459
In tests with water-saturated cores exposed to
cement filtrate at high pressure and temperature,
conflicting results were obtained in two different
laboratories. One investigator concluded there
was 1iil1e permeability damage from cement fil-
trate,. while another investigator conc1u~~d that
there was substantial permeability damage. In
our own laboratory, tests with a Berea core in the
restored state at low temperature and pressure
found no appreciable permeability changes from
exposure to the cement filtrate. Fig. 9 shows the
results of these tests. An SEM photograph (~ig.
10) of a core invaded by cement filtrate, however,
shows growth of a large calcium carbonate crystal
in a pore opening and additional loose fines on
the pore wall, indicating a potential pore-plugging
problem under the right conditions. Invasion of
cement solids did not seem to be an important
factor with the particular test cores used.
High fluid losses observed in API filtration tests
with cement are often used as arguments for using
filter-loss-control agents in cementing operations
to reduce filtrate invasion and formation damage.
As we have shown earlier, however, the mud filter
cake provides an important fluid-loss control.
Even if the external mudcake of a water-based mud
is entirely removed, the internal filter cake
within the formation pores will limit filtration
to low values (from 0.01 to 1% of the flow rate in
most natural formation rock). Cement filter-loss
additives, however, do provide additional control
and, in some instances, may be vital when a
particular mudcake does not invade the formation
sand. For example, water washing of an invert
mudcake can rapidly destroy filtration control and
may result in formation plugging when the oil-
external emulsion reverts to water-external
emulsion. In addition, filter-loss additives do
provide additional insurance against dehydration
and "flash setting," a costly problem sometimes
experienced in field operations.
We must conclude that formation damage problems in
cementing are not well-defined and more definitive
studies are needed. Since there is little control
over the nature of the cement filtrate, adequate
control of total filtrate loss should be provided.
PERFORATING
Although gun perforating became widely accepted as
a practical completion method many years ago,
engineers long suspected that well productivities
should be better than those observed. Experimental
and field studies ranging over more than a 20-year
period exposed deficiencies in perforator design
and perforating procedures that accounted for
reduced productivities and in~~ci;vities. Early
studies of perforation damage ' demonstrated
that the productivity of a gun-perforated hole in
sandstone was adversely affected if the shot was
made in a fluid containing solids (for example, in
the commonly used drilling muds) or with the
wellbore pressure higher than formation pressure.
As a result of these studies, substantial improve-
ments were made in hole penetration and in allevi-
ating perforation plugging; yet field results
still indicate that perforated completions are
generally less effective than they should be.
SPE 17459 R. F. KRUEGER
Perforation Damage
Fig. 11 illustrates part of the problem. This
figure is a photograph of a 4-in. [10.2-cm]-diameter
core perforated at high temperature and pressure
under drilling mud. In this figure, the dark area
inside the perforation is a hard compacted plug of
dehydrated solids; the light area outside of the
perforation is a zone of pulverized rock with
reduced permeability.
Again we find that we are faced with the problem of
flow obstruction by solids, partly introduced by the
perforating fluid (mud), partly created by the
perforating process, and partly associated with
drilling damage in the formation outside of the
perforation. Therefore, if we are not careful about
drilling-in procedures and fluids, the perforating
process creates a hole of low conductivity in
already damaged formation.
Perforating damage appears to be an inherent result
of the conventional perforating process. Even under
the best of conditions, immediately after perfora-
tion, pulverized and compacted rock and charge
debris blocks the natural pore spaces in the forma-
tion. Fig. 12 is a schematic diagram of the damaged
zone after perforating. With common perforating
devices, the residual damaged zone surrounding the
perforations is usually 1/4 to 1/2 in. lO.64 to 1.27
cm] thick and the permeability is only 7 to 20% of
the original undamaged value.
Perforating Injection Wells
Because of the crushed zone, attempts to inject into
perforations immediately after perforating are
usually unsatisfactory. Injectivity of a perforation
without prior backflow is only a fraction of the
productivity after cleanup; therefore, it is impor-
tant in completing perforated injection wells first
to clean up the perforations selectively and then to
produce the well. In both injection wells and
producing wells, selective cleanup of individual
perforations (for example, with suction washers or
surge tools) is necessary to ensure adequate conduc-
tivity of all perforations.
Underbalance Perforating Removes
Perforation Damage
As the study of injection into perforations has
demonstrated, removal of the crushed zone and other
perforating debris from the perforation is necessary
to maximize the flow capacity of the hole. Histori-
cally, common procedures for doing this have been
perforation washing or acidizing. In recent years,
underbalance perforating with high-performance guns
has become more widely accepted as an effective
perforation cleanup method.
Field tests reported by Bonomo and Young 18 have
shown that underbalance perforating with tubing-
conveyed perforators provides better completion
efficiency than overbalance perforating followed by
underbalanced surge cleanup or overbalance~9perforat­
ing followed by perforation washing. Bell gives
an excellent review of the evolution of underbalance
perforating technology.
539
5
A major uncertainty in underbalance perforating
has been what level of underbalance to use. A
threshold underbalance pressuf§ is necessary to
maximize perforation cleanup, but excessive
underbalance may cause collapsed casing, disaggre-
gation of the formation, or permeabilil~ damage by
fines movement. Recently, King et al. provided
some practical, quantitative help on this problem
with controlled field tests of underbalance
perforating in sandstone formations Their data
(Figs. 13 and 14) show useful correlations between
formation permeability and minimum underbalance
pressure needed for perforation cleanup in both
oil and gas wells. The criterion for clean
perforations was the lack of production improvement
after acidizing. In the figures, the minimum
underbalance pressure for different permeabilities
can be obtained from the line separating the clean
and unclean perforations. The minimum underbalance
increases rapidly as the permeability declines,
and it reaches levels of 2,000 psi [13.8 MPa] or
more at permeabilities under 4 md. The high
minimum underbalance required at low permeabilities
along with underpowered guns may account for the
sometimes spotty success with underbalance per-
forating. For gas wells, the break in the line at
low permeabilities may be associated with insuffi-
cient flow for cleanup, irrespective of the
pressure differential.
Cl ean Perforati.~l.9. Fl ui_d_s_ ~!~__E~_s~_n.:tJ~J
A high level of quality control is necessary to
provide the clean, solids-free perforating fluids
neces~iry to achieve high perforatlon flow capaci-
ties. Contamination of the fluid with well site
debris, pipe dope, dirt, and polymer "fish eyes"
can all lead to perforation damage. Well-prepared
fluids, well-maintained filtration equipment,
clean storage tanks, and clean tubulars are all
necessary to ensure that non-damaging fluid is
placed at the pay zone. "Spotting" of clean
perforating fluid may easily fail because of
density swapping and fluid mixing; and, therefore,
the procedure must be carefully planned and
monitored.
Effect of Penetration and Shot
Density in ap~.!"~.9~_d_ .F!'.r.!"~_tjE.!!
Analog and analytical studies 22 ,23 show that in an
undamaged formation it is more important to have
several perforations with shallow penetrat~~n than
a single deep perforation. Later analyses with
a finite-element computer model showed that, in a
formation with drilling damage extending some
distance from the wellbore, deep penetration, even
at low shot density, substantially beyond the
damaged zone is more important than several
shallow shots inside the damaged zone. Fig. 15
shows the effect of penetration and shot density
of damaged perforations in a formation having a
damaged zone 8 in. [20.3 cmJ deep. For example,
for 6-in. [15.24-cm]-deep perforations inside the
damaged zone, doubling the shot density from 4 to
8 shots/ft increases the productivity ratio from
0.52 to 0.68; but at 4 holes/ft, doubling the
penetration from 6 in. [15.24 cm] to 12 in. [30.5
cm], thereby penetrating through the damaged zone,
 AN OVERVIEW OF FORMATION DAMAGE AND WELL PRODUCTIVITY
6 IN OILFIELD OPERATIONS: AN UPDATE
increases the productivity ratio from 0.52 to 0.88.
Increasing the penetration to 18 in. [45.72 cm] at 4
holes/ft brings the productivity ratio to 1.0, which
is equivalent to openhole productivity.
The importance of controlled pressure drawdown
(underbalance) and adequate penetration are illus-
trated in Fig. 16 with results from a field in
Alaska. Productivity after perforating with pressure
drawdo~n into the wellbore averaged almost 2,000 BID
[320 mid] higher than perforating with wellbore
overpressure. Perforation with larger perforators,
thus providing d~eper penetration, resulted in about
1,500 BID [240 mid] more production.
Other Considerations
The above factors are most critical in sandstone
formations. In carbonate rock, when acidizing is
used as a part of the completion process, errors of
omission are less critical. Unfortunately, it
appears that the API test procedures for evaluating
perforators have lulled us into a false sense of
security. Shot under ideal conditions with clean
fluids in the wellbore, most commercial perforators
generally show reasonably good penetration and flow
characteristics in the API tests. In actual field
operations, however, perforations must often be made
under less-than-ideal conditions. Particularly in
deep high-pressure wells, adverse perforating
conditions, such as high wellbore overpressures and
perforation under weighted drilling fluids, are
still frequently used. Also, penetration in unusu-
ally hard formations that are commonly present in
deep wells will be substantially less than indicated
in the API test. 2§ecent perforating tests by
Saucier and Lands under high overburden pressures
suggest that penetration and hole conductivity under
actual well conditions may be substantially less
than indicated by the results of tests made under
the low overburden pressure in API RP43. These
problems are currently being investigated by an API
subcommittee.
Other factors that may contribute to the reduced
completion effectiveness inferred from field ~8serva­
tions are turbulent flow at the perforations,
angular phasing, and quality control problems with
perforation charges.
Tariq's finite element analysis 27 provides useful
insight into the effects of angular phasing and
turbulence on the productivity of high-rate oil and
gas wells. His results indicate that annular
phasing is much more important than generally
recognized. Approximately 20% increase in produc-
tivity can be expected by perforating with an
angular phasing of 90° rather than 0° for perfora-
tions of the same depth. In addition, the produc-
tivity increases gained by increasing shot density
or perforation length are greater at 90° phasing.
Turbulence in the wellbore region of high rate wells
can cause severe reductions in productivity ranging
up to 75%, depending upon angular phasing, perfora-
tion depth and formation permeability. The most
effective way to minimize the effect of turbulence
is to complete with deep perforations and some
angular phasing between adjoining perforations.
540
SPE 17459
Field Evidence Indicates Perforated
Completions are Damaged
Despite the advances in perforating over the past
25 years, field results indicate that well produc-
tivities often do not achieve the theoretical un-
damaged values. Field comparisons of different
completion methods have shown perforated comple-
tions to have a lower completion effectiveness
than liner completions or gravel-packed comple-
tions. A comparison from a field in California is
shown in Fig. 17.
The field evidence below points to a large percent-
age of plugged perforations as one reason for the
low completion effectiveness of perforated comple-
tions.
1. Blast joints and screens pUlled from
producing wells typically show evidence
of production from only one or two
holes.
2. Productivity and injectivity profiles
in perforated completions commonly show
that the majority of the fluid was
producing from or entering a small
fraction of the total interval.
3. Pulsed neutron logs run in cased holes
often indicate unproduced hydrocarbons
in perforated sections of watered-out
depleted zones.
The large proportions of plugged perforations
probably results from incomplete cleanup of the
remaining perforations after only one or a few
perforations start producing, thus reducing the
pressure drop available for cleanup across the
remaining plugged perforations. In addition,
small-diameter perforations formed as a result of
off-center nonaligned perforators may not clean
up; penetrations in hard rock are probably lower
than expected; and in soft rock, hole collapse can
result in zero effective penetration.
Perforated Completions in
Heterogeneous Formations
Another factor that leads to lower completion
effectiveness--and may mistakenly be attributed to
perforation damage--is failure of the perforating
program to take into account formation heterogenei-
ties such as anisotropy, shale laminations, and
nat~8al fractures. A model study by Tariq et
al. has provided us with some valuable insight
into the effect of perforating parameters on the
productivity of wells completed in such nonhomo-
geneous formations.
When the formation contains significant permeabil-
ity anisotropy or shale laminations, the commonly
used shot density of 4 holes/ft [13 holes/m]
results in substantially reduced well productivity,
even with hole penetrations of 12 to 15 in. [30 to
38 cm]. In fractured formations, the productivity
of perforated completions may range from severely
impaired to better than openhole, depending on
type and density of fractures and the perforating
program.
SPE 17459 R. F. KRUEGER 7
Tariq's study offers some useful guidelines for interval and orientation, join sets, and fluid
maximizing productivity of heterogeneous formations. properties. To achieve this requires information
from engineers, geologists, well log analysts,
1. Both penetration and shot density are core analysts, and others.
important parameters for offsetting the
productivity loss from anisotropy. Optimizing Productivity of
Although productivity ratios (PR) increase Perforated Completions
significantly with perforation length as'
anisotropy increases, the benefits of In summary, to maximize the productivity of
increasing penetration are limited by perforated completions, the folloWing procedures
current gun capabilities; and, therefore, should be u~ed: (1) minimize drilling-in damage;
it is necessary to compensate by using control fluld loss to prevent deep penetration of
high shot densities (e.g., 12 shots/ft the.damage; (2) use clean, filtered perforating
[39 shots/m] with 12-in. [30-cm] penetra- flulds; (3) use pressure underbalance in the
tion) to achieve openhole productivity. wellbore during perforating; (4) penetrate substan-
For example, with 12-in. [30-cm] perfora- tially through the zone of permeability damage;
tions in a formation with an anisotropy (5) use adequate shot density to compensate for
ratio (kh/k ) of 100, the productivity formation heterogeneities and, if necessary, for
ratio is O.Y for a shot density of 4 deep skin damage; and (6) use clean tubulars to
holes/ft. If the penetration could be avoid recontaminating the perforating fluid.
increased to 18 in. [46 cm], the produc-
tivity ratio would increase to 0.8. If Obviously, under practical field conditions,
the shot density with 12-in. [30-cmJ hole compromises may have to be made for particular
depth is increased to 12 holes/ft [39 situations, but the above principles should be the
holes/mJ, however, the productivity ratio ultimate goal.
becomes 0.98, esse~tially equivalent to
openhole. HUNG, UNCEMENTED SLOTTED-LINER COMPLETIONS
2. In laminated formations, productivity can In some areas, slotted liners are hung through
be increased very substantially (in some thick, multibedded zones. Conventional liner
cases by more than 100%) by increasing design uses slot patterns that open only 3 to 4%
shot density from 4 to 12 shots/ft [13 to of the total liner surface area, but this amount
39 shots/mJ. In such formations, produc- of open area is sufficient to produce up to 95% of
tivity is quite insensitive to perforation t~e openhole production with minor pressure drop.
length (this does not take into account Llners are commonly exposed to conditions, however,
formation skin effects). that my plug the slots and cause symptoms very
similar to formation skin damage. When a liner is
3. An accurate determination of the distribu- run into rough hole with a thick mudcake and
tion of shale laminations from openhole loosely consolidated walls, a large percentage of
log and thin-bed analysis is necessary to the slots may be plugged. During production, flow
design a perforating program to tap of sand grains, clays, asphalts, resins, and waxes
properly all the producible sands. often gradually builds up encrustations in the
liner slots and well productiVity gradually
4. In general, in fractured formations, declines. The plugging problem is aggravated by
penetration is the dominant parameter in burred slots and improper slot design for formation
maximizing productivity of perforated grain sizes, both of which facilitate entrapment
completions; shot density is relatively of sand grains inside the slots. The answer is
unimportant if vertical fractures provide better quality control and closer supervision.
good hydraulic communications. Jet washing the slots is sometimes effective for
removing this type of damage. Success ratios up
5. If fractures are oriented in a preferred to 77% have been reported.
direction, perforations should be shot
perpendicular to the fracture plane to One problem frequently noticed with openhole liner
optimize productivity. completions is a time-dependent skewing of the
vertical distribution of fluid production or
Tariq's analysis does not take into account the injection rate as a function of depth. Wellbore
effect of formation skin damage from drilling or surveys made over a period of time often show an
other wellbore operations. Therefore, it is impor- increasing percentage of the total fluid being
tant to superimpose on his general conclusions the injected into or produced from the upper zones.
results discussed earlier for perforating in damaged The problem is usually most noticeable in injection
formations. Thus even where the analysis indicates wells and in wells with a number of interbedded
an insensitivity to penetration, we may infer that shales. This condition seems to be associated
penetration through the damaged zone is an important with gradual sloughing of upper-lying shale zones.
factor. The sloughed shale drops to the bottom and forms a
barrier outside the liner.
Tariq's results also illustrate the importance of a
multidisciplinary approach to well completion SAND CONTROL
operation. An effective perforating program requires
information on gun properties, wellbore conditions, In many weakly consolidated formations, the need
formation permeability anisotropy, formation mineral- for special sand-control measures often may be
ogy, distribution of shale laminations, fracture avoided by taking precautions to avoid or minimize

541
 AN OVERVIEW OF FORMATION DAMAGE AND WELL PRODUCTIVITY
8 IN OILFIELD OPERATIONS: AN UPDATE
formation damage during all well operations from
drilling and completion to production to workover.
An undamaged wellbore minimizes the pressure differen-
tial and fluid velocity at the wellbore, thereby
reducing the tendency of the formation to disinte-
grate.
Sand production and reduction in prOductivity,
however, are often triggered by water fingering into
the producing zone. These3results are explained by
the flow studies of Muecke as the destabilization
effects of water flow in media containing immobilized
. water-wet fi nes.
The challenges in sand-control technology are
primarily problems of applications. Again we are
faced with control of moving solids, and we must
consider some of the same principles mentioned
earl ier.
Openhole Gravel Packs
In gravel packing, plugging of the pack may occur
both from the formation and from the wellbore.
Although theoretical pack permeabilities are very
high--on the order of 100 to 1,000 darcies or
more--actual pack conductivity may be only fractions
of these values a~9a30esult of invasion by externally
generated solids.' If the gravel pack gradually
fills with formation sand and mud solids deposited
by the underreaming fluid, the pack permeability may
eventually be less than the natijral formation
permeability, and the pack will then act like a
damaged skin. Use of nondamaging underreaming and
gravel-packing fluids is important for ultimate
success of the job. Both filtrate and bridging
agents must be taken into account, as explained in
the section on drilling in.
In a many-layered formation, it is critical that the
gravel size be based on stabilizing the finest sand
grains present throughout the interva1 3!nd proper
sampling is critical for this purpose. If the
smallest formation grains are not controlled, the
pack may be expected to plug eventually.
Over the years, recommended gravel/sand size ratios
have been reduced from as high as 12:1 t02~:1 or
even 4:1 currently. Experimental studies show
that at ratios larger than about 5:1, permeability
of the gravel pack drops drastically, Recommended
gravel/screen openin§2ratios have also been reduced.
Recent model studies have resulted in recommenda-
tions to use screen opening smaller than the gravel
to prevent plugging of the screen slots.
Figs. 18 and 19, from Gulati and Maly,29 demonstrate
the critical importance of gravel/sand ratios. In
Fig. 18, bridging on the surface and maximum pack
permeability is achieved with a proper gravel/sand
ratio (F) of 5:1. At a higher ratio (F=7.9:1) in
Fig. 19, formation sand has invaded the gravel, and
permeability is greatly reduced.
Poor-quality gravel and dirty packing fluids are
common sources of plugging in all types of gravel
packing. Contamination of gravel by cement and clay
solids from reused tanks is often a problem. Gels
and polymers that are used to make gravel-packing
fluids must be carefully selected and designed to
542
SPE 17459
avoid injecting colloids and residues that may
severely restrict flow.
In full-bore gravel packing, underreaming with a
solids-laden fluid deposits a filter-cake membrane
between the formation and the gravel pack. This
filter cake is another source of plugging solids
to seal or invade the formation and pack. In one
instance, samples of gravel retrieved from a
freshly packed well that had been underreamed with
a clay-based drilling mud and pressure-washed
after gravel placement had permeabili!&es as low
as a few millidarcies after backflow. Fig. 20
is a photomicrograph of a gravel-pack sample
invaded by drilling mud, dirt, and formation sand.
The dark area in the formation sand is mud trapped
behind the pack.
Pressure washing of gravel packs if indiscrimi-
nately applied can cause early pack failur§Oas
well as considerable loss of productivity.
Improved packing without pressure washt~g can ~~
achieved with the multielement Unipack tool.
Through-Perforation Packing
Field results have shown that completions with
openhole gravel packs had several-fold better
productivity than cased completions with inside
gravel packs or through-perforation packs. In
through-perforation gravel packs, large pressure
drop in long, small-diameter perforations can
substantially restrict production. Since flow
resistance in the sand-filled perforation tunnel
is usually the major restriction in such comple-
tions, invasion of this region by fines critically
affects well productivity. Perforating debris and
mud solids may not only impair flow in the sand-
filled tunnels, but may also block perforations
sufficiently to prevent uniform placement of
sand-control materials. Therefore, thorough
cleaning of individual perforations is necessary
before the sand-control job is performed.
Williams et al. 34 have shown that perforation, or
reperforation on workover, at higher shot densities
has been used effectively to increase the produc-
tivity of wells that have been damaged durin§5
through-p§gforation gravel packing. Saucier and
Penberthy showed experimentally that pressure
packing through perforations reduces pressure drop
substantially and improves well productivity.
Maintenance of a high level of productivity with
this process requires placement of a substantial
volume of tightly packed, clean gravel outside the
perforation. Commonly, large-diameter perforations
and increased shot density (8 to 10 shots/ft [2.4
to 3.1 shots/m]) are used to minimize pressure
drop. Low-rate placement of gravel with a viscous
carrying fluid can minimize mixing the gravel and
formation sand.
Saucier also showed that sand (gravel) bridges are
stable only in steady uniform flow and that under
realistic well conditions disturbed flow is a
major factor in reducing the productivity of
high-rate cased-hole gravel packs. Flow disturb-
ances caused by rate changes, surging, and gas
evolution were observed to have a more significant
effect on pack behavior than the magnitude of the

SPE 17459 R. F. KRUEGER
flow rate. Multiphase flow causes localized disturb-
ances that can result in excessive fines migration,
sand production, and plugglng of perforations.
Pressure placement of gravel in openhole with
partial or complete loss of returns is sometimes
used to help provide additional drainage channels by
formation parting and reduced flow velocity. With
adequate gravel placement, pack plugging and screen
erosion are minimized.
Quality Control
Strict quality control during gravel packing is most
important. Nondamaging completion fluids, uncon-
taminated well-sorted gravel, and clean solids-free
packing fluids are now recognized as essential for
maintaining maximum productivity of gravel-pack
completions. Fines from insufficiently sorted
gravel or attrition during mixing; contaminants from
drilling muds, cement, or other dirt left in mixing
tanks or pipes; and improperly mixed or unbroken
gelling agents are sources of pack d3~age and
liner-slot plugging. Shryock et al. have shown
that as little at 0.5% fines in the gravel pumped
downhole can lead to plugging of the screen and
improper placement of the gravel or shutdown of the
job. Successful pack placement was achieved when
fines were reduced to 0.2%.
Despite more emphasis on quality control in gravel-
packing operations, less than theoretical well
productivities and short pack lives indicate that
substantial and rapid pack plugging is still occur-
ring. In heavy (viscous) dirty oils, we often
observe that small-grain gravel packs, as dictated
by formation sand size, tend to produce at lower
rates than expected because it is difficult to keep
the gravel pack clean, and retaining screens are
more easily plugged. With such oils, quality
control and mixing of formation sand and gravel
become particularly critical. A single error in
quality control may negate the effects of an other-
wise well-executed job.
Use of filters to clean the gravel-packing fluids is
expanding rapidly. But how do we ensure that fluids
that pass through a filter on the surface are indeed
clean when they carry the gravel in place downhole?
To answer this need, scrupulous cleaning of the
treating string of pipe is starting to gain accept-
ance and the use of downhole filters is being
investigated. Damage to the formation and the
gravel pack from the underreaming operation is being
attacked by use of solids-free fluids with nondamag-
ing filtrates and filter cakes that are soluble in
the produced fluids or that can be easily removed
with chemical washes.
Screens and Pre-packed Liners
Wire-wrapped screens and pre-packed liners are
sometimes used for sand control without gravel
packs. They must be used with caution, however,
because the small openings required are very suscep-
tible to severe plugging with mud solids, formation
fines, and organic deposits from produced oil. When
run in open hole, slumping of the formation can lead
to reductions in productivity. To minimize this
problem, the screen should be sized to minimize
clearance to the borehole wall.
543
. q
Plastic Consolidation
Plastic consolidation for sand control surged in
popularity during the late 1960's; however, the
trend now seems away from this method. Inherently,
plastic consolidation has a built-in damage factor
from the plastic film that bonds the grains
together. An added disadvantage is the strong
risk of locking in place the permeability damage
caused by invaded solids. Another major problem
is related to the quality of the perforations.
Many consolidation failures may be traced to
perforations that are only poorly conductive
during the consolidation treatment, thus preventing
proper placement of preflush fluids and consolida-
tion agents. Subsequent unplugging of perfora-
tions during continuous production allows the
untreated sand to flow. Larger volume treatments
sometimes help to reduce this problem. Applica-
tions also tend to be limited by the adverse
effects of high clay content on strength of many
cured plastics.
Rather drastic improvements in quality control and
reliability of perforation cleanup seem necessary
to make plastic consolidation a consistently
effective method of sand control.
Warm Air Coking
A novel consolidation method done in situ without
plastic eliminates some of the gisadvantages of .
plastic-consolidation methods. 3 In unconsolidated
formations containing reservoir oils with cokable
residues, injection of warm air results in the
deposition of an insoluble coke or resin that
cements the sand grains in place.
Stabilization With Hydroxy Aluminum
In recent years, hydroxy aluminum treatments have
been used with encouraging results to stabilize
dirty formations tha 39 have only moderate sand
production problems. The same mechanism that
stabilizes clays to control formation damage
during workover or stimulation treatments helps
stabilize the formation fabric. Where clay
minerals are the principal cementing agents for
formation sand and silt grains, stabilization and
prevention of dispersion of the clay helps prevent
loosening and dislodging of the formation sands.
In addition, stabilization of clays with hydroxy
aluminum alleviates the problem of potential
breakdown of weak formations that are subject to
the greater pressure differential at the wellbore
associated with formation damage from flowing
fines. In one field in California, stabilization
of a weak formation with hydroxy aluminum during
workovers resulted in an increase in average pump
life from 279 days before treatment to 478 days
after treatment.
Although hydroxy aluminum treatments have been
effective on many jobs, successful applications,
as in other well treatments, depend on attention
to details, advance planning, and use of proper
application procedures. Certain produced waters,
if used for diluting the concentrate or as an
afterflush, will cause precipitates to form. In
addition, most polymers that might be used as
thickeners are incompatible with hydroxy aluminum
 AN OVERVIEW OF FORMATION DAMAGE AND WELL PRODUCTIVITY
10 IN OILFIELD OPERATIONS: AN UPDATE
and precipitate. Therefore, compatibility tests
should be made during the planning stages. Improper
overf1ushing also can result in a plugged formption.
Sand Control During Steaming Operations
Gravel packing is frequently required to control
sand in viscous oil reserv~&rs stimulated by steam
injection. Recent studies have shown that both
gravel-pack sands and formation sandstones are
rapidly dissolved by steam generator effluents at
high pH. These results indicate that sand control
will be lost and substantial amounts of rock near
the we11bore will be removed. In addition, repre-
cipitation of the dissolved sand and other minerals
was observed to damage sandstone core permeability.
As a result of this work, the seriousness of forma-
tion plugging by rock solution and reprecipitation
in field operations is being investigated.
The most effective way of reducing both gravel and
formation dissolution is to control the pH of the
steam generator eff1uents.41Techniqu~~ a2c1ude the
addition of ammonium salts or acid ' 48 the
feed water and removal of bicarbonate ions from
the feed water.
PRODUCTION
Although production rates normally decline with the
natural depletion of a field, accelerated decline
from formation plugging is a common problem during
production operations that must be dealt with to
maintain an adequate return on investment. Detection
and diagnosis, critical factors in remedying a
well-plugging problem, often are not simple.
Historical comparison of decline curves, pressure
buildup tests, and comparison with offset wells are
common methods for detecting formation damage in
production wells.
Diagnosis of the cause of declining productivity is
the critical problem in designing an effective well
treatment. Some of the common sources of well
plugging during production are formation fines,
waxes, asphalts, and inorganic scales. Diagnosis
usually involves considerable detective work and
accumulation of useful clues during production and
workover operations. Analysis of produced fluids,
bai1ings, and deposits on downhole hardware and
surface equipment can provide important clues.
Inorganic Scale Plugging
Restriction of well productivity from scale may
occur either within the formation pores or inside
the wel1bore. Inorganic scale deposition, such as
calcium carbonate, calcium sulfate, barium sulfate,
and iron carbonate, may be one of the most common
and yet least often recognized well-plugging condi-
tions. Only when it occurs within the tubing string
is it soon recognized because it interferes with
well operations. Theoretical analyses, however,
show that scale deposits can also form in the
formation outside the we11bore. Treatment of this
condition is more difficult than treatment of tubing
deposits and, for poorly soluble materials like
calcium sulfate and barium sulfate, almost impossible
by practical chemical methods. In many cases (for
example, with barium sulfate scale), the common
field practice of waiting until a scale sample is
544
SPE 17459
recovered and analyzed often results in getting
the information too late to restore the original
productivity of the well unless the damaged zone
can be bypassed by hydraulic fracturing.
It is far better to anticipate a potential scaling
problem by making a detailed chemical and thermo-
dynamic study early in the life of the well. By
doing so, it is likely that an effective inhibitor
program can be designed to prevent deposition.
Information from water analyses and pressure and
temperature analyses is required for such a study.
Hydrodynamic and kinetic conditions also play an
important role and must be considered. For
example, the change in hydrodynamic conditions
from the liner in a gas-producing zone to the
tubing string often leads to a rapid buildup of
scale at the entrance to the tubing. In gas
wells, formation plugging may result from salt
deposition caused by dehydration during gas
production. In such cases, a simple water wash
may provide effective stimulation.
Scale-inhibition programs are commonly used when
scale deposition has been diagnosed. Application
may involve both we11bore treatment and formation-
squeeze techniques. Literally, hundreds of sca~e
inhibitors are marketed by oilfield service
companies. From an operator's viewpoint, some
inhibitors are more effective than others and most
are specific to particular applications. Since
different inhibitor evaluation test procedures
used by various suppliers may yield different
results, it is usually worthwhile to have an
in-house or controlled test program to compare the
available inhibitors for specific conditions.
A cautious approach to inhibitor use is important.
For example, certain phosphonate inhibitors yield
a pseudo-scale when injected into a ca1cium-
containing water. In one instance, such an
application resulted in induced scaling in a
downhole motor-driven pump and eventual burnout of
the motor.
Organic-Scale Plugging
Crude oil, a complex mixture of hydrocarbons, is a
source of plugging materials during production.
As with the inorganic scales, organic components,
broadly called "paraffins", may precipitate as
organic scales either in the formation near the
we11bore face or inside the we11bore. By defini-
tion, paraffin deposits in the field are usually
considered to be those that are insoluble in crude
oil at producing conditions. They consist of
complex mixtures ranging from straight-chain
hydrocarbons, the primary constituent of paraffin
waxes, to nonparaffinic asphaltic structures, such
as aspha1tenes. The nature of the precipitated
materials accounts for many of the variations in
physical properties of crude oils. Few studies
have been made of the thermodynamic and kinetic
processes involved in organic scale deposition.
As a result, prediction is usually based solely on
empirical and historical evidence.
Plugging of producing strings is probably the most
commonly noticed evidence of wax deposition, but
skin damage from wax deposition near the we11bore
face is an allied problem that is less easily
SPE 17459 R. F. KRUEGER
diagnosed. For many years, hot-oiling procedures
and mechanical removal have been used economically
to remove wax from tubing. Cleanup of near-wellbore
deposits has been successful with downhole heaters,
hot oil injection, and solvents. In many instances,
however, severe well damage has occurred when hot
oil containing large quantities of redissolved wax
has been pumped into a cold formation where the wax
reprecipitated.
Until recently, attempts to use chemical inhibitors
for prevention of wax deposition have met with only
mediocre success. With proper selection of inhibi-
tor, analysis of the oil to be treated, and design
of the application system, however, a preventive
inhibitor program can now be a~3effective tool for
maintaining well productivity.
Although the primary purpose of the inhibitor
program is to reduce maintenance, in some cases
production increases ranging from a few barrels per
day to a few hundred barrels per day are also
obtained. The results in one field in California
are shown in Fig. 21. The increases are attributed
to more uniform unrestricted production and cleanup
of valves and openings in liners.
Substantial quantities of asphaltic well-plugging
agents are usually found in low-gravity-oil reser-
voirs, and wells producing asphaltic oils often show
rapid declines in production rates. Work done over
40 years ago showed that precipitation of asphaltenes
from crude oil was related more to surface or
colloid chemistry than to phase equilibria. The
streaming potential of crude oil flowing through
porous media was s~~wn to cause precipitation of
bitumen particles. More ecent field tests by
Jeffries-Harris and Coppel 4S confirmed that plugging
of the formation, perforations, and liner slots is
associated with precipitated asphaltenes and emul-
sions. The analyses of crude oil in a field produc-
ing low-gravity oil showed a decrease in asphaltene
content as the cumulative production increased,
indicating that the asphaltenes were precipitating
in the formation. Subsequent well treatment with
solvents effectively stimulated production. More
direct evidence of asphaltene precipitation is seen
in pre-packed liners and portions of gravel packs
retrieved from wells producing asphaltic oils.
These formerly porous gravels often resemble asphalt
pavement.
Stimulation of formations containing low-gravity,
asphaltic crude oils has been achieved with both
steam injection and solvent washing, but thermal
methods have been the most effective. Although
viscosity reduction is a major factor in steam
stimulation, optimum response often is associate~6
with removal of wellbore deposits and emulsions.
Analysis of produced oil samples is a helpful tool
for diagnosing potential wax and asphalt-plugging
problems. Produced oil samples, although biased by
deposition of some organics downhole, usually
contain both dissolved and suspended wax. Knowledge
of the properties of these components is often
useful in diagnosing downhole plugging tendencies
and the need for, and potential effectiveness of,
various inhibiting and removal treatments. Reason-
ably successful use of this information at the
present time, however, requires a large amount of
545
11
experience and effective intuition. More effective
use of the data could be made if workable predic-
tive methods were available that are based on
fundamental studies of phase behavior and kinetic
effects.
Silt Plugging
Until recently, movement of silts and clays in
dirty formations was recognized only infrequently
as a cause of production decline. If silt plugging
is not recognized in its early stages, the likeli-
hood of successfully remedying the problem remains
low. Backflushing has been used with some success
in some areas. Matrix acidizing with hydrofluoric
acid is also used with variable success. The
problem is that most stimulation treatments are
treating symptoms rather than the underlying
cause. Therefore, the duration of any improvement
is limited by the time it takes for these inorganic
solids to move again into pore-blocking positions.
Methods of controlling pore blocking by fines
include restricting production rates and treating
the formation with special clay-stabilizing
materials, such as hydroxy aluminum or certain
organic polymers.
Optimizing well productivity during routine
production hinges on attention to operational
details from the time the well is first put on
production followed by early diagnosis of well
conditions and fluid properties. The key to
maintaining good productivity is prevention of
permeability damage. Reliance on well stimulation
after damage occurs is not only costly but also
risky because, in many formations, the chances of
success are only mediocre or low.
INJECTION WELL PLUGGING
Suspended Silts, Clays,
Scale, Oil, and Bacteria
In injection programs, suspended solids in the
water may impair injectivity. Therefore, it is
important to know the quality and composition of
injection waters and formation waters. Mixing of
different source waters to use for injection
should be done with caution because chemical
reactions between incompatible waters form precipi-
tates that may plug an injection well. For
example, mixing of a sulfate-containing source
water with a barium-containing formation water
will result in a barium sulfate precipitate that
can plug the injection well; or injection of
seawater, which contains sulfate, into a formation
containing barium ions in the formation water can
result in in-situ plugging away from the wellbore
or at the producing well when injection water
breaks through.
On the other hand, produced water used alone may
also cause injection well plugging from suspended
materials. Produced water may contain clays and
other fines as well as trace amounts of oil. Fine
solids not only are plugging materials but also
tend to stabilize trace amounts of oil in water-
external emulsions. Bacterial decomposition
products may also cause injection well plugging,
and treatment with bactericide may become neces-
sary. If bacterial biofilms do form before
 AN OVERVIEW OF FORMATION DAMAGE AND WELL PRODUCTIVITY
12 IN OILFIELD OPERATIONS: AN UPDATE
bactericides are applied, the well can usually be
effectively cleaned with sodium hypochlorite
(bleach). In some cases, a follow-up with acid may
be necessary.
To avoid plugging the injection well, the produced
water should be carefully analyzed and treated.
Treatment of the water with filters, flocculating
chemicals, demu1sifiers, and flotation devices are
commonly required to provide suitable water quality.
Each water, however, usually has unique character-
istics and the particular treatment is determined by
laboratory and on-site tests.
Plugging Corrosion Products
Iron corrosion products in a typical injection water
system can also plug formation rock. The severity
of the plugging will depend on the amount and nature
of the corrosion products and depth of penetration
into the pores. The particular products formed
depend on the corrosion process and the characteris-
tics of the liquid environment. Dissolved oxygen in
the absence of hydrogen sulfide generates products
such as iron hydroxide and iron oxyhydrate. In a
sour (H S) water, iron sulfide corrosion products
precipitate when the pH approaches 7. Still another
plugging corrosion prOduct, iron carbonate, forms
when CO 2 is present in the water.
In a sour brine containing dissolved oxygen, corro-
sion damage not only increases greatly, but the
large increase in corrosion products and secondary
reaction products can also disastrously increase
clogging of injection wells. Two reaction products,
iron sulfides and elemental sulfur, are particularly
damaging to well productivity. In waters containing
hydrogen sulfide, reactions with dissolved oxygen
precipitate finely divided sulfur. In field opera-
tions, the sulfur precipitate is usually first
noticed when the sour brine is exposed to air in
surface facilities.
Generally, iron sulfides are acid soluble immediately
after they are formed; but if allowed to age for a
while, they change to acid-insoluble modifications,
particularly in the presence of traces of oxygen.
Even newly formed iron sulfides may not be soluble
in acid because they may be covered with protective
coatings of oil or elemental sulfur. Therefore,
cleanup of plugged we11bores with acid is uncertain
at best. The only sure way to avoid injection
problems with sour waters is to keep all traces of
oxygen out of the system.
In some situations, oxygen scavengers are added to
brines to remove oxygen. This practice must be
investigated carefully, however, to avoid potential
problems, most of which are not within the scope of
this paper. One potential problem in a water
containing barium ions is the creation of a severe
barium sulfate scaling problem with sulfite or S02
scavengers. Generally, oxygen scavengers are .
ineffective in sour brines; but if one is used, it
can promote the precipitation of elemental sulfur,
and the associated catalyst can form an insoluble
metal sulfide precipitate. . the formation. Excess pipe dope used during pipe
Some of these injection wellbore-plugging problems,
properly diagnosed, can be remedied by stimulation
treatments, such as acidizing. For the most part,
546
SPF 174l:iq
however, early application of a preventive program
is desirable and necessary.
Measuring Water Quality
Water quality is often defined by empirical
measurements of solids content and filtration
rates through filter membranes or cores. The
empirical data, however, cannot be directly
related to injection well impairment.
Barkman and Davidson 47 have proposed a more
quantitative method of measuring the rate of
impairment of an injection well based on a "water-
quality ratio ll , defined as the concentration of
suspended solids to permeability of the filter
cake formed during a filtration test. With this
method, injection well impairment from suspended
solids can be determined for any of four different
impairment mechanisms: (1) perforation plugging;
(2) we11bore fill-up from gravity settling, thus
decreasing net zone height; (3) wel1bore narrowing
from filter-cake formation on the face of the
we1lbore; and (4) solids invasion, thus forming an
in-depth internal filter cake.
Plugging During Gas Injection
In pressure maintenance programs with gas, compres-
sor lubricants, if not removed before entering the
wellhead, may plug the formation face. Analysis
of components entrained in the gas stream can
provide a basis for diagnosing the problem. In
one instance, analysis demonstrated water solubil-
ity of the lubricant, and a water wash of the
wellbore restored injectivity.
WORKOVER AND WELL TREATMENTS
Historically, workover jobs have been done with
conveniently handy f1uids--1ease brine, lease oil,
manufactured brines, mixtures of waters, or
refined oils. Unfortunately, the quality of such
fluids is extremely variable and may critically
affect the effectiveness of the treatment. Fine
solids, emulsified oil, chemical additives,
precipitated organic and inorganic materials, and
water that is incompatible with the formation rock
are all sources of damage to formation permeabil-
ity. Frequently, clean fluids have been trans-
ported from one lease or field to another with
vacuum trucks fresh from mud service or waste
disposal with only cursory cleaning. The results
of using such fluids can be disastrous. Postwork-
over production rates have ranged from fractions
of the pre-job rate to little or no damage.
Other sources of formation damage are oxidized
lease crudes that may contain finely divided
asphalt, resins, and wax; refined diesel oil that
may contain chemicals for improving engine opera-
tion; and brines made with commercial-grade salts
that contain contaminants from the mining operation
or from additives to make it free flowing. High
density concentrated brine fluids containing
calcium salts may form plugging precipitates in
makeup and dirt, rust and oil inside the tubing
will be carried downhole and into perforations
with "kill fluid ll or injection water.
SPE 17459 R. F. KRUEGER
Some corrosion inhibitors used in workover or
completion fluids to protect tubing and other metal
equipment have a propensity to produce emulsions;
others that contain sulfur compounds may react under
downhole conditions to form sulfide precipitate with
ferric iron (Fe (III»4sresent in the formation or
in the treating fluid. Since both products are
potential sources of productivity impairment, the
user should check his specific inhibited treating
system under downhole conditions for formation of
emulsions with produced fluids and for incompatibil-
ity with the producing formation.
Fluid quality is particularly critical in treating
perforated completions. We must keep in mind that
deeply penetrating workover damage will create a
condition similar to perforating with insufficient
penetration into a previously damaged zone. Well
productivity can easily drop to a small fraction of
the undamaged productivity.
A particular point to remember about well treatments
through perforations is that the perforations have a
very small total surface area to accept fluid, and
their small cross-sectional area hinders c1eanout.
A 0.3-in. [0.76-cm]-diameter perforation, 12 in.
[30.5 cm] deePl has a filter area of only about 11.3
sq. in. [73 cm]. If the hole fills with debris so
that it is equivalent to a flush perforation, the
fi~ter area may be as little as 0.07 sq in. [0.45
cm ], and the injectivity will only be a fraction of
the fully penetrating perforation. Compar! this
area with more than 200 sq in./ft [3933 cm /m] for
an open hole 6 in. [15.24 cm] in diameter. Consider- The plugging aspects of acidizing sand4~0§~ with
ing that during a well treatment hundreds of barrels
of fluid may be injected through a few perforations,
obviously, we should treat the perforations care-
fully.
The effect of solids concentration on formation
plugging is illustrated in Fig. 22. In a laboratory
test, permeability damage was measured after a 3-in.
[7.62-cm] -long Berea sandstone core was exposed to
various fluids containing 3% potassium chloride.
Permeability damage is minor with filtered brine and
with a. KC1-brine-based drilling fluid with adequate
solids content to bridge on the surface of the core.
With brines containing small concentrations of
micron-sized solids, essentially dirty water,
permeability damage was very substantial. The
increase in damage with decreasing solids content
is indicative of deeper penetration of the solids.
Under actual well conditions, the degree of produc-
tivity damage will depend on particle size, pore-size controllable method is to flush the treating
vs. particle-size distribution, fluid velocity,
well-completion geometry, and other factors.
How to Minimize Damage
From Workover Fluids
Depending on the treatment objectives and the type
of treating fluid used, well productivity damage
during treatment or workover can be minimized by (1)
using chemically compatible fluids; (2) cleaning the
fluids by filtration on the surface; (3) providing
adequate fluid-loss control with agents that bridge
on the surface of the formation and that easily
dislodge or dissolve when the well is put on produc-
tion; (4) minimizing fluid loss by establishing a
small pressure differential between the we11bore and
547
13
the formation; (5) cleaning the injection string
of pipe with acid/solvent mixtures and mechanical
scrapers; and (6) using bottomho1e filter, if
necessary, in conjunction with surface filters.
FORMATION DAMAGE DURING WELL STIMULATION
Although the objective of well stimulation is to
improve existing well productivity, in practice it
consists of two competing mechanisms: The stimula-
tion effect of the particular treatment and the
productivity' damage associated with various
quality-control problems.
If the well problem is accurately diagnosed and
the treatment is well-designed and executed, the
net effect will be improved productivity and
satisfactory economic payout. If the damage
aspects dominate, however, the treatment may
result in no change in productivity or even a
decline, or an apparently successful treatment may
be followed by a rapid decline in productivity so
that the treatment is uneconomical. For example,
if movable fines trapped at the we11bore are
backf1ushed into the formation, the production
rate may again decline quickly because the symptoms
are being treated rather than the cause.
DAMAGE DURING ACIDIZING
Reaction Products of
Hydrofluoric Acid May Precipitate
hydrofluoric acid are well documented. '
Ca1cjum-bearing minerals and sodium clays in the
formation react with the acid to form insoluble
precipitates. Also, with time, dissolved si5ac~1
tends to reprecipitate. Independent studies '
with Berea cores report damage from silica ~pre­
cipitation ranging from none to 20%. Crowe
concludes that secondary HF reactions stabilize
clays for considerable distance beyond the zone of
permeability improvement.
In field treatments precipitation problems are
minimized by using a hydrochloric acid pref1ush to
remove calcium and other salts that are soluble in
acid and also a similar acid flush at the end of
the treatment to maintain a low-pH environment to
prevent reprecipitation. Putting the well back on
production soon after acidizing has also been
recommended as a way of min~~izing fOrmation
plugging by reprecipitation ; however, a more
fluids deeply into the formation where the effects
of precipitates will be minimal.
Loose Solids are Generated During Acidizing
An attendant problem is the potential release of
fine solids and collapse of the formation. Rapid
decline of stimulated production in acidized
sandstone, such as that frequently experienced in
the Gulf Coast area of the United States, often
appears to be associated with flow of the loosened
fines back toward the we11bore.
Release of formation fines during acidizing is a
source of two potential formation-damage mechanisms:
(1) movement and bridging of fine solids, as
 AN OVERVIEW OF FORMATION DAMAGE AND WELL PRODUCTIVITY
14 IN OILFIELD OPERATIONS: AN UPDATE
mentioned earlier, and (2) stabilization of crude-oil
emulsions. A mutual (oil/water) solvent is often
used in ~2 afterflush to minimize both of these
effects. Success ratios of hydrofluoric-acidizing
treatments have been reported to be substantially
better when the flush is done with ethylene gylcol
monobutyl ether (EGMBE) mutual solvent than with
clean hydrocarbon fluid alone. When calcium is
present or when treating temperature is above 400°F
[204°CJ, however, EGMBE breaks down and is no longer
effective. The breakdown products are potential
plugging agents.
The clay stabilization agents mentioned earlier may
also be used after an acidizing treatment to help
control return flow of the clay fines released. The
materials are generally not effective with nonclay
fines. Fluoboric acid used in conjunction with
hydrofluoric acid has been reported to bond fine
solids, including non clay fines, released during
the acidizing process ag~at the same time provide
deeper acid penetration"; however, some contsodic-
tory experimental results have been reported.
Organic Coatings Interfere
With Acid Reactions
A common problem in acidizing is treatment failure
caused by inability of the acid to penetrate organic
coatings on rock or scale surfaces. In fields with
asphaltic oils, carbonate scale samples retrieved
from downhole will often be unreactive when immersed
in hydrochloric acids unless the organic coating is
first removed with solvent. In such fields, a
preflush or treatment with solvent or acid/solvent
combinations is often effective. In some difficult
cases, solvent may be circulated for several days
before the acid treatment is performed. As in hot
oiling, care must be taken not to reinject the
dissolved organic precipitate into the formation
where it may reprecipitate and reduce formation
productivity. Filtration of the recirculating fluid
at the surface is necessary to remove suspended
solids.
Damage From Dirty Tubulars
Field treatments have also demonstrated that dirty
tubing strings can be a source of damaging materials
during acidizing. In one instance, circulation of
acid down the tubing and out the casing annulus
brought out more than a ton of sludg~land solids
that had been removed from the pipe. With common
acid-treating procedures, this sludge/solids mixture
would have been injected into the formation ahead of
the acid. Similarly, serious sludging in the
formation can result when acidizing is done after
invert-oil based mud has been lost into formation
fractures.
Fines Release from Carbonate Rocks
Even in carbonate formations, acidizing with hydro-
chloric acid may also be followed by rapid decline
from the release of inert solids during the treat-
ment. By definition, any rock that contains more
than 50% carbonate is called carbonate rock. When
such carbonates contain a high percentage of fine
acid insoluble solids, dissolution of the carbonate
with acid will release a large amount of fines that
can flow back toward the wellbore where they may
bridge.
548
SPE 17459
Precipitation of Iron Reaction Products
We have emphasized here the potential for formation
plugging from reaction products in hydrofluoric
acid treatments. Regardless of the type of acid
treatment used, however, special attention should
be paid to the reaction products in the particular
formation treated. In some cases, formation
minerals or metals, such as iron from rust, in the
well hardware can dissolve in acid solution but
the reaction products may reprecipitate in the
formation as the acid spends and the pH again
increases toward the normally neutral or alkaline
value. Of particular concern is iron in the Fe
(III) oxidation state which can precipitate as
gelatinous iron hydroxide. If the pH is kept
below 5, precipitation of dissolved iron will be
avoided. Sequestering and reducing agents may
prevent precipitates from occurring, depending on
the nature of the dissolved iron and the chemical
agent. Careful job analysis by a competent
chemist is necessary to design a proper treatment
program.
Acidizing of sour wells presents different, but
equally important, problems when iron compounds
are present. The hydrogen sulfide present wiJl
reduce Fe (III) iron to Fe (II) and precipitate
elemental sulfur. In addition, the Fe (II) formed
will also precipitate as ferrous sulfide upon
spending of the acid. Both these problems are
controllable with combinations of iron stabilizing
agents.
Plugging by Colloidal Sludges
Another source of formation plugging during
acidizing is precipitation of colloidal materials
from asphaltic crude oils. These sludges, which
form when pH of the crude oil is reduced by acid
contact, consist mainly of asphaltenes, resins,
paraffin waxes, and other high-molecular-weight
hydrocarbons, After acid treatments in wells
containing such asphaltic oils, cleanup is usually
slow and the returning fluid often contains large
amounts of the viscous sludges. The problem is
often not recognized and is probably more wide-
spread than thought. First diagnosed in California,
the sludging problem has been observed in many
fields throughout the U.S. and Canada. It has
been estimated that 30% or more of U.S. crude oils
form precipitates with acid. The asphaltene
sludges are difficult to dissolve and, once formed
in the fluid, are extremely difficult to remove.
As with most other formation-damage problems, the
best solution is prevention. Antisludging agents
in acid treatments have been used e ectively both
in the laboratory and in the field. S4
In some areas, however, iron-contaminated acid
causes sludge formation in oils that do not
normally form sludges, and common anti-sludging
agents become ineffective when ferrous and ferric
ions are present. A newly developed iron control
additive is reported to maintain the eSsectiveness
of the agents in the presence of iron.
Fluid Block in Deep, Hot Wells
In deep, hot wells, present-day acidizing technol-
ogy is at the borderline of inadequacy both in
SPE 17459 R. F. KRUEGER
stimulation effectiveness and in corrosion inhibi-
tion. When treating carbonates, hydrochloric acid
spends extremely rapidly near the wellbore and the
needed deep penetration of highly conductive flow
channels is difficult to achieve. Application of
very larg~ acid volumes--100,000 to 300,000 gal [380
to 1100 m ]--is sometimes used to compensate for the
large acid consumption at the wellbore, or cooling
preflushes are used to reduce reaction rates. Both
methods have their disadvantages, however, and in
some cases, the volumes used may be so large that
the productivity loss from relative permeability
effects may not be easily regained. Foamed and
retarded acids are being used to overcome some of
the problems.
In addition to the stimulation problems in hot
wells, control of acid corrosion in downhole equip-
ment at high temperature is borderline with organic
corrosion inhibitors, because they deteriorate
rapidly at high temperature. An associated problem
is that large volumes of inhibitor filtered out at
the formation face may form a damaging skin.
Organic acids, such as formic and acetic, are often
considered to provide a solution to high-temperature
acidizing. Caution must be used with these acids
also because calcium reaction products can precipi-
tate when the pH increases during acid spending to
form formation-plugging agents Above 400°F [204°C],
corrosion control usually again starts to become a
problem. Limited spending and higher costs are
additional disadvantages.
DAMAGE FROM CHEMICAL INCOMPATIBILITY
Knowledge of the chemical compatibility of additives
is also an important consideration in well treat-
ments. Acidizing treatments and many other modern
chemical treatments typically use several additive
chemicals to impart desired properties to the fluid.
Corrosion inhibitors, friction reducers, retarders,
and other agents may all be present at the same
time. In deep, hot wells, it is particularly
important for the stimulation engineer to be aware
of temperature instabilities and potential incom-
patibilities of the chemicals in a given fluid and
also in fluids that are used in different successive
treatments.
Precipitates caused by chemical incompatibilities
are a potential source of formation damage. They
also are indicative of loss of a particular property
designed into the treatment. As an example, in one
acidizing treatment, a service company proposed the
addition of a cationic corrosion inhibitor, an
anionic retarder, and a cationic friction reducer.
As part of the pretreatment evaluation, the proposed
additive combination was tested in the hydrochloric-
acid stimulation fluid. The formation of a gummy
precipitate and loss of the friction-reducing
properties indicated reaction of the additive
components. An infrared analysis indicated that the
residue bore no resemblance to the original addi-
tives. In separate tests, the friction reducer and
the inhibitor were determined to be compatible, but
the retarder formed precipitates with both the
friction reducer and the inhibitor. The precipitates
were potential formation-plugging agents. They are
also indicative of the loss of corrosion protection,
549
15
a potentially disastrous consequence. As a result
of these tests, the treatment was modified to
avoid the compatibility problems.
This example illustrates a problem that is encoun-
tered in some laboratories: the effectiveness of
a given additive is commonly tested alone under
idealized conditions. The additive under these
conditions may provide the desired results;
however, under field conditions and in mixed
systems unexpected compatibility problems may
yield completely different results. To avoid such
problems, the particular combinations of additive
chemicals should be tested under conditions that
approach wellbore conditions as closely as pos-
sible.
FRACTURING
The theory of hydraulic fracturing is well-
developed and provides a basis for predicting
potential production increases from !ge process.
The basic work of McGuire and Sikora related
well productivity increases to fracture length and
conductivity. On the basis of their work, well-
designed, deeply penetrating fracture treatments
are predicted to be capable of achieving produc-
tivity increases of ten-fold or more in undamaged
formations. But the ability to achieve such
results is strongly dependent on providing highly
conductive fractures.
Plugging in Fracture Proppant is Critical
In field practice, hydraulically fractured wells
often show lower productivity increases than
expected or inconsistent response from well to
well. We often neglect to consider the effects of
fracturing fluid quality because fracturing theory
says shallow damage to the fracture walls is not a
critical factor. Analog and theoretical studies
show that permeability reductions of more than 95%
can be tolerated with li 1e effect on the stimu-
S7
lated well productivity. In practice, however,
quality of the treating fluids can have an impor-
tant effect on treatment results because of the
effect on fracture conductivity. Lumps in gelled
fracture fluids, viscosified fluids that do not
break, residue from broken residue from broken
gels, crushed proppant, and trapped filter-loss
agents may all damage the conductivity of the
propped fracture to the point that the major
effects of deep fracture penetration are negated.
For water-based fracturing fluids, the flow of gel
residues, fluid-loss agents, and formation fines
in the proppant may be as much of a problem as the
flow of fines in the softer sandstone formations.
This factor may account for the poorer results
reported in some areas from the use of high-residue
water-based fluids containing guar gum and filter-
loss additives compared with low-residue fluids.
Inhibited Fluids Necessary
in Some Formations
Despite the theory on fracture wall plugging,
experience in some areas has shown that formation
permeability damage from fracturing fluids can
sometimes be a serious problem, possibly because
 AN OVERVIEW OF FORMATION DAMAGE AND WELL PRODUCTIVITY
Hi IN OILFIELD OPERATIONS: AN UPDATE
of deep penetration of the damage during prolonged
pumping. In these cases, inhibitive fluids, such as
potassium chloride, or refined oils have been used
successfully.
Productivity Loss From Fracture Closure
Effectiveness of a fracturing treatment may also be
strongly affected by treatment mechanics and design,
particularly in deep wells. Studies of stresses in
hydraulically fractured wells show that if a fracture
is left unpropped for only a short distance (gener-
ally less than 3% of the length) from the wellbore,
the mouth of the fracture will c~§se and most of the
stimul~gion effect will be lost. Raymond and
Binder show that if as little as 1 ft [0.3m] of
fracture is left unpropped, the stimulation ratio
may be reduced by 50%. In their example, if more
than 4.7 ft [1.4m] is unpropped, the fracture mouth
will be totally closed, and the stimulation ratio
may be as little as 20% of the ratio for the fully
propped fracture. This is a high price to pay for
overflushing a treatment.
Problems of rock hardness and proppant strength
become particularly important in deep wells.
Conductivity declines for two reasons: (1) the
fracture closes because of proppant embedment or
crushing, and (2) the remaining conductivity may be
further reduced by the flow of the fine solids
formed. In some cases, the effect of a well-designed
and -executed treatment in a deep well may be
completely lost during subsequent production by
application of maximum drawdown so that excessive
fracture-closure pressures seal the fracture.
Overall, many hydraulic fracturing treatments ought
to be better than actual field results indicate.
The answer seems to lie in finding ways to avoid the
pitfalls noted. Obviously, part of the answer lies
in quality control, close attention to detail, and
training of everyone associated with a job. Further
research is needed, however, on ways of more effec-
tively treating deep wells, controlling fracture
geometry, and maintaining high fracture conductivity.
CONCLUSIONS
To obtain maximum well productivity from the initial
completion and to maintain it during the subsequent
routine production operations requires a fundamental
knowledge of the causes of formation damage and how
to minimize the damage, the ability to anticipate
problems in advance and diagnose them correctly if
they occur, advance planning, and effective super-
vision. I have attempted to provide a broad basis
for understanding the causes of formation damage.
Each well problem must be investigated intensively,
however, often with multidisciplinary teams involving
engineers, geologists, chemists, and others, to
provide the best diagnosis and best treatment.
Formation damage may occur during almost any field
operation that involves the producing formation. In
essentially all instances, well-plugging problems
can be traced to the movement and entrapment of fine
solids or to chemical reactions and thermodynamic
considerations. Fine solids may be either introduced
from wellbore fluids or generated in situ by the
interaction of filtrates with formation rock or
fluid.
550
SPE 17459
Control of these problems requires emphasis on
quality control of chemicals, fluids, and treating
and operating conditions. The use of filters,
clean treating pipes, and compatible fluid design
to provide clean nondamaging treating fluids has
been shown to be essential to improve treatment
results.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I acknowledge the contributions of the engineers
and scientists in Unocal Corporation and throughout
the oil industry who have contributed to the
awareness of the importance of formation damage
effects on well productivity. I particularly
thank G. P. Maly and S. Pye for the SEM photographs
of formation pores. I appreciate, also, the
valuable assistance from Unocal and especially
Rosanne Turczynskyj in preparing the final manu-
script.
REFERENCES
1. Reed, M. G.: IIFormation Permeability Damage
by Mica Alteration and Carbonate Dissolution,1I
J. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1977) 1056-60.
2. Krueger, R. F., Vogel, L. C,. and Fischer, P.
W.: IIEffect of Pressure Drawdown on Clean-Up
of Clay- or Silt-Blocked Sandstone, II J. Pet.
Tech. (March 1967) 397-403.
3. Muecke, T. W.: "Formation Fines and Factors
Controlling Their Movement in Porous Media,"
J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1979) 144-50.
4. Mungan, N.: IIPermeabil ity Reduction Through
Changes in pH and Salinity,1I J. Pet. Tech.
(Dec. 1965) 1449-53.
5. Jones, F. O. Jr.: "Influence of Chemical
Composition of Water on Clay Blocking of
Permeability," J. Pet. Tech (Apr. 1964)
441-46.
6. Reed, M. G.: IIStabilization of Formation
Clays with Hydroxy-Aluminum Solutions," J.
Pet. Tech. (July 1972) 860-64.
7. Veley, C. D.: "How Hydrolyzable Metal Ions
React with Clays to Control Formation Water
Sensitivity,1I J. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1969)
1111-18.
8. Sydansk, R. D.: IIStabil izing Clays With
Potassium Hydroxide,1I J. Pet. Tech. (Aug.
1984) 1366-74.
9. McLaughlin, H. E. et al.: IIAqueous Polymers
for Treating Clay in Oil and Gas Producing
Formations," paper SPE 6008 presented at the
1976 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, Oct. 3-6.
10. Barkman, J. H. et ale: IIAn Oil-Coating
Process to Stabilize Clays in Fresh Water
Flooding Operation,1I J. Pet. Tech. (Sept.
1975) 1053-58.
SPE 17459 R. F. KRUEGER
11. Glenn, E. E. and Slusser, M. L.: "Factors
Affecting Well Productivity--II. Drilling Fluid
Particle Invasion into Porous Media," J. Pet.
Tech. (May 1957) 132-39; Trans., AIME, 210.
12. Krueger, R. F. and Vogel, L. C.: "Damage to
Sandstone Cores by Particles from Drilling
Fluids," Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1954)
158.
13. Fischer, P. W. et al.: "An Organic Clay Substi-
tute for Non-Damaging Drilling and Competion
Fluids," paper SPE 4651 presented at the 1973
SPE Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, Sept.
30-0ct.3.
14. Cunningham, W. C. and Smith, D. K.: "Effect of
Sa1t Cement Fil trate on Subsurface Formati on. "
J. Pet. Tech. (March 1968) 259-64.
15. Smith, C. S., Ross, W. M. and Hendrickson, A.
R.: "Hydrofluoric Acid Stimulation--Development
for Field Applications," paper SPE 1284 pre-
sented at the 1965 Annual Fall Meeting, Denver,
Oct. 3-6.
16. Allen. 1. O. and Worzel, C. H.: "Productivity
Method of Evaluating Gun Perforating," Drill.
and Prod. Prac., API (1956) 112.
17. Krueger, R. F.: "Joi nt Bull et and Jet Perfora-
tion Tests, Progess Report," Drill. and Prod.
Prac., API (1956) 126.
18. Bonomo, J. M., and Young, W. S.: "Analysis and
Evaluation of Perforating and Perforation
Cleanup Methods," J. Pet. Tech. (March 1985)
505-10.
19. Bell, W. 1.: "Perforating Underbalanced--
Evolving Techniques," J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1984)
1653-62.
20. King. G. E•• Anderson, A. and Bingham. M.: "A
Field Study of Underbalance Pressures Necessary
to Obtain Clean Perforations Using Tubing-
Conveyed Peforating," J. Pet. Tech. (June 1986)
662-64.
21. Maly, G. P.: "Close Attention to the Smallest
Job Details Vital for Minimizing Formation
Damage," paper SPE 5702, Proc. 1976 SPE Sympo-
sium on Formation Damage Control, Houston, Jan.
29-30.
22. McDowell, J. M. and Muskat, M.: "The Effect of
Well Productivity of Formation Penetration
Beyond Perforated Casing," Trans .• AIME (l950)
189, 309-12.
23. Harris, M. H.: "The Effect of Perforating on
Well ProductiVity," J. Pet. Tech. (Apr. 1966)
518-28; Trans., AIME, 237.
24. Klotz. J. A., Krueger, R. F. and Pye, D. S.:
"Effect of Perforation Damage on Well Produc-
tivity," J. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1974) 1303-14.
25. Saucier, R. J. and Lands, J. F.: "A Laboratory
Study of Perforations in Stressed Formation
Rocks," Trans., AIME (l978) 265, 1347.
551
17
26. McLeod, H. O. Jr.: "The Effect of Perforating
Conditions on Well Performance," J. Pet.
Tech. (Jan. 1983) 31-39.
27. Tariq, Syed M.: "Evaluation of Flow Character-
istics of Perforations Including Nonlinear
Effects with the Finite Element Method," SPE
Production Engineering (May 1967) 104-112.
28. Tariq, S. M., Ichara, M. J. and Ayestaran,
L.: "Performance of Perforated Completions in
the Presence of Common Heterogeneities:
Anistropy, Laminations, or Natural Fractures,"
paper SPE 14320 presented at the 1985 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25.
29. Gulati, M. S. and Maly, G. P.: "Thin Section
and Permeability Studies Call for Smaller
Gravel s in Gravel Packing," paper SPE 4773,
Proc. 1974 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage
Control. New Orleans, Feb. 7-8.
30. Maly, G. P. and Vozenilek, J.,: "Visual Model
Study Shows When and When Not to Wash Open
Hole Gravel Packs," paper SPE 7001, Proc.
1978 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium,
Lafayette, Feb. 15-16.
31. Ma ly, G. P. and Krueger, R. F.: "Improper
Formation Sampling Leads to Improper Selection
of Gravel Size." J. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1971)
1403-08.
32. Shryock, S. G. and Millhone, R. S.: "Gravel-
Packing Studies in a FUll-Scale, Vertical
Model Wellbore - Progress Report," J. Pet.
Tech. (July 1980) 1137-43.
33. Maly. G. P., Robinson, J. P. and Laurie, A.
M.: "New Unipack Tool Improves Gravel Pack
Placement," J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1974) 19-24.
34. Williams, B. B., Elliott. L. S. and Weaver,
R. H.: "Productivity of Inside Casing Gravel-
Pack Completions," J. Pet. Tech. (April 1972)
419-25.
35. Saucier, R. J.: "Considerations in Gravel
Pack Design," J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1974)
205-12.
36. Penberthy, V. L. Jr. and Cope, B. J.: "Design
and ProductiVity of Gravel Packed Perfora-
tions," J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1980) 1679-86.
37. Shryock. S. G., Dunlap, R. G. and Millhone,
R. S.: "Preliminary Results from Full Scale
Gravel Packing StUdies." J. Pet. Tech. (June
1979) 669-75.
38. Terwilliger, P. L., Smith. F. M. and Goodwin,
R. J.: "Warm-Air Coking-A New Completion
Method for Unconsolidated Sands," J. Pet.
Tech. (April 1964) 367-71.
39. Coppel, C. P., Jennings, H. Y. Jr. and Reed.
M. G.: "Field Results from Wells Treated with
Hydroxy-Aluminum," J. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1973)
1108-12.
 AN OVERVIEW OF FORMATION DAMAGE AND WELL PRODUCTIVITY
18 IN OILFIELD OPERATIONS: AN UPDATE SPE 17459
40. Reed, M. G.: "Gravel Pack and Formation Sand- 55. Jacobs, I. C. and Thorne, M. A.: "Asphaltene
stone Dissolution During Steam Injection," J. Precipitation During Acid Stimulation Treat-
Pet. Tech. (June 1980) 941-49. ments," paper SPE 14823, Proc. Seventh SPE
Formation Damage Control Symposium in
41. Watkins, D. R., Kalfayan, L. J., Watanabe, D. Lafayette, Feb. 26-27, 1986.
J. and Holm, J. A.: "Reducing Gravel Pack and
Formation Dissolution During Steam Injection," 56. McGuire, W. J. and Sikora, V. J.: "The Effect
SPE Production Engineering (Nov. 1986) 471-77. of Vertical Fractures on Well Productivity,"
Trans., AIME (1960) 219, 401.
42. Amaefule, J. O. et al.: "Steam Condensate:
Formation Damage and Chemical Treatments for 57. Van Poollen, H. K.: "Do Fracture Fluids
Injectivity Improvement," paper SPE 10077, Damage Productivity?," API, Drill. and Prod.
Proc. Sixth SPE Formation Damage Control Prac. (1957) 103.
Symposium in Bakersfield, Feb. 13-14, 1984.
58. Wood, D. B. and Dunkin, G. II: "Stresses and
43. Fischer, P. W., Ellis, M. M. and Bond, L. L.: Displacement Around Hydraulically Fractured
"New Wax Inhibitor Shows Promise," Oil and Gas Well s," paper SPE 3030 presented at the 1970
J. (May 28, 1973) 62-64. SPE Annual Meeting, Houston, Oct. 4-7.
44. Preckshot, G. W. et al.: "Asphaltic Substances 59. Raymond, L. R. and Binder, G. G. Jr.,:
in Crude Oils," Trans., AIME (1943) 151, "Productivity of Wells in Vertically Fractured
188-205. Damaged Formations," J. Pet. Tech. (Jan.
1967) 121.
45. Jeffries-Harris, M. J. and Coppel, C. P.:
"Sol vent Stimul ation of Low Gravi ty Reservoi rs,"
J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1969) 167-75.
46. Dietrick, W. K. and Willhite, G. P.: "Steam
Soak Results, Cat Canyon Field, California,"
Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1966) 14.
47. Barkman, J. H. and Davidson, D. H.: "Measuring
Water Quality and Predicting Well Impairment,"
J. Pet. Tech. (July 1972) 865-73.
48. Potter, G. F.: "Formation Damage of Brine
Corrosion Inhibitors," paper SPE 12495, Proc.
Sixth SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium in
Bakersfield, Feb. 13-14, 1984.
49. Smith, C. F. and Hendrickson, A. R.: "Hydro-
fluoric Acid Stimulation of Sandstone Reser-
voirs," J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1965) 215-22.
50. Shaughnessy, C. M. and Kunze, R. K.: "Under-
standing Sandstone Acidizing Leads to Improved
Field Practices," J. Pet. Tech. (July 1981)
1196-1202.
51. Crowe, C. W.: "Precipitation of Hydrated Silica
From Spent Hydrofluoric Acid: How Much of a
Problem Is It?," J. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1986)
1234-40.
52. Gidley, J. L.: "Stimulation of Sandstone
Formations with the Acid-Mutual Solvent Method,"
J. Pet. Tech. (May 1971) 551-58.
53. Thomas, R. L. and Crowe, C. W.: "Matrix Treat-
ment Employs New Acid System for Stimulation
and Control of Fines Migration in Sandstone
Formations," J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1981) 1491-99.
54. Moore, E. W., Crowe, C. W. and Hendrickson, A.
R.: "Formation, Effect and Prevention of
Asphaltene Sludges During Stimulation Treat-
ments," J. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1965) 1023-28.

552
 1000 1000

o 100
::2:
A~
\
STUCK PACKER
o 100
::2:
ot ~
~
::J \ J ~
::J
0 ~~t>
"~
t>
t>

iii
10I
\ t> iii
10I
0
LiS \. :

l
LiS 0 o Ot>"-..

~
::2: 0 ::2: 0 ~
ffi a:
UJ
0. CASING COLLAPSE 0.
Z -" ........... Z
o 0 0 Q
~ 0
0
0 .~ !;(
::2: ::2:
a: a: 0
o Legend o
u. 0.1 b-- u. 0.1
t> Acid Did Not Improve Production Legend
o Acid Did Improve Production l:!. Acid Did Not Improve Production
o Problems o Acid Did Improve Production
0.01 I
0.0 '100
100 1000 10000 1000 10000
TOTAL UNDERBALANCE PSI TOTAL UNDERBALANCE PSI
Fig. 14-Underbalance used on tublng-conveyed perforating In all Zon88 In sandstone.
Fig. 13-Underbalance used on tubing-conveyed perforating In gas zones til sandstone.

iii

, Shots per
5000
1.2 8 inch deep drilling I foot

II
_8
damage~\
-- ---
___ ---4 r--
1.0 c 4500
0 a.
~
Il:l

a: .8
' ~,// / /
//
__.. 2
~
~
.;;: ,/' .... , > 4000
:;:;
u
::l .6 .---,,-"
jI' . /. . . . .
i=
L.l
:::)
C
"'C .-- .' C
0... -" -- II:
a. 3500
a.
.4
/,// j'/'
....
///<--_...-//---"! perforation damage
<l:
E
i! 3000 I- I I---
I---
.2
~",
.... I ~=O.2
Ko

0 2500
-AP +AP 3" - 4" 2"
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
DIFFERENTIAL GUN SIZE
Perforation Depth, inches PRESSURE
Fig. 15-Effect of perforation depth and shot density on wei'! productivity ratlo In a formation with drilling damage. Fig. 16-Effect of perforating conditions on well productivity. Alaska field.