SPE 82231
30 Years of Predicting Injectivity after Barkman & Davidson:
Where are we today?
T. Hofsaess, SPE, Corepep, Consulting in Reservoir and Petroleum Physics; W. Kleinitz, SPE, Preussag Energie GmbH
Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE European Formation Damage Confer-
ence to be held in The Hague, The Netherlands 13-14 May 2003.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any posi-
tion 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. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for com-
mercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohib-
ited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words;
illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of
where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836,
Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The reinjection of produced water is an important prerequisite
for maintaining pressure and for flooding reservoirs. Thirty
years ago Barkman and Davidson introduced the first compre-
hensive theory for predicting the behaviour of injection wells.
This theory was employed and tested for many years in actual
injection projects at 'Preussag-Energie', including the develop-
ment of a special-purpose instrument. In the present article, a
survey of operational experience is given, and necessary ex-
tensions of the model are delineated. Furthermore, the article
highlights some important aspects which should be considered
in laboratory investigations.
Introduction
Water is injected into porous layers for pressure maintenance
in oil reservoirs, in geothermal projects and more recently for
the disposal of brine from the salt caven leaching process.
This may lead to several severe problems. One particular
source of danger are the solids which are suspended in the
water. If they are deposited above the sandface (cake filtra-
tion) or within the formation (deep bed filtration), the injectiv-
ity may be reduced dramatically. This leads to increasing in-
jection pressures and consequently to costly stimulations or
even to irreversible wellbore damage.
The first comprehensive and apparently most often quoted
publication which deals with the requirements for the quality
of injection water and which presents models to predict injec-
tivity, was presented by Barkman and Davidson some 30 years
ago [1]. Although many articles have been published on this
topic since then, the present state of its predictive power is
rather poor. It is a frequent experience that predicted lifetimes
or half-lives of injection wells are orders of magnitude below
the actually observed values [2, 3]. The authors' recommenda-
tion to determine the model parameters by membrane filtra-
tions has often been considered to be the cause of these false
predictions [4]. An alternative strategy would be to employ
core samples for measuring and predicting injectivity behav-
iour. Because of the lack of documented success with this ap-
proach, the validity and accuracy of the proposed models is
not ascertained. Some reviews on models and experiences can
be found in Vetter et al. [4] and Todd et al. [5].
For many years, the models and methods of Barkman and
Davidson have been applied systematically at 'Preussag Ener-
gie' to the planning and interpretation of reinjection projects.
In view of the aforementioned problems and the authors’ own
experiences, the theory of Barkman and Davidson was criti-
cally analysed and advanced. For this purpose we adopted a
pragmatic approach analysed the behaviour of individual in-
jections in detail and compared them to model predictions.
The present article summarizes these developments, provides
hints for application and indicates unresolved problems. Other
approaches to the further development of injection predictabil-
ity and the model of Barkman and Davidson may be found e.g.
in [6] and [7].
Barkman and Davidson: A short review
Barkman and Davidson [1] assume that solids suspended in
the water will be deposited as a filter cake above the sandface
or other filter media. They consider this process, known as
'cake filtration', at constant injection pressure (p = const).
Then, the temporal development of injectivity is given by the
deterioration of the injection rate Q(t). The authors normalize
this development by the initial rate Q0 and introduce the di-
mensionless decline parameter:
Q(t )
α(t ) = ................................................................. (1)
Q0
As a simple indicator for the injection behaviour they intro-
duce the half-life t½, at which the rate Q has declined to one-
half of its initial value Q0: α(t½) = ½. Figure 1 shows an exam-
ple for the decline curve α(t) and the half-life.
For injections, four different scenarios are considered:
Wellbore narrowing: The filter cake is deposited above the
sandface of an open hole and thus reduces the effective
wellbore radius.
Perforation plugging: The filter cake is deposited at the tip
of perforations and thus reduces their effective lengths.
Invasion: The filter cake builds up inside the formation at
an unpredictable 'radius of invasion' and grows towards
the sandface.
2 SPE 82231
Wellbore fill-up: Solids suspended in the water undergo a
gravity separation and thus reduce the thickness open
for flow.
These scenarios – in particular perforation plugging and inva-
sion – are discussed further in section 5.
For each of these modes of deposition, the authors supply
solutions for the injectivity decline α(t). For illustrational pur-
poses, this function is reproduced in table 1a for the case of
wellbore narrowing. The result is rather complicated, mainly
because a closed-form solution can only be provided implic-
itly as t(α).
The development of injectivity is determined essentially by
two parameters: The half-life increases along with the perme-
ability contrast kc/kf between filter cake and formation. The
other essential parameter is given by the water quality ratio
(WQR). Barkman and Davidson define it as:
w sure only. Real injections are usually rate-controlled, however,
: Water Quality Ratio, WQR .....................................(2a)
kc
Here w is the weight/weight concentration of suspended sol-
ids, and kc is the permeability of the filter cake. As a rule, not
all suspended solids are separated by filtration; hence, one
should rather refer to w as the concentration of total filterable
solids (TFS) [8].
Applying the models of Barkman and Davidson, we found
a slightly different definition of the water quality ratio to be
more advantageous (see the remarks below eqns. 3 and 6b):
w ρW
Ω= : Water Quality Ratio, WQR .......................(2b)
k c ρc
ρW is the density of water, and ρc is the "bulk density" of the
cake, that is, weight/volume of solids plus water within
the cake.
The values of w/kc and Ω are usually expressed in units of
ppm/mD. Decreasing values of w/kc and Ω signal increasing
injectivity prospects. For the operational design of injections,
it is still common to rely on the solids concentration w alone.
This may, however, be misleading: As w/kc and Ω represent
the ratio of the filterable solids concentration w to the perme-
ability of the filter cake kc, the latter quantity may be just as
important. As an example, the deposition (precipitation) of
ferrous hydroxide will lead to a gel-like cake with extremely
low permeability. This may easily lead to water quality ratios
> 500 ppm/mD even for only slightly charged water [2]. For
such WQR values extreme injectivity problems ought to
be expected.
To determine the WQR of water, Barkman und Davidson
suggest laboratory measurements employing membrane filtra-
tions. As cake filtration proceeds, the filtration volume V will
grow linearly with √t. Plotting V-√t in a diagram (s. fig. 2a),
the slope S may be used to calculate the WQR as:
w 1 2ρ c A 2 ∆p 1 2A 2 ∆p
= ; Ω= .......................(3)
k c S2 ρ W µ S2 µ If one injects at constant pressure, the function α nicely
(A: area of membrane, ∆p: pressure across the membrane, µ:
viscosity). The corresponding equation of Barkman and
Davidson [1] is misprinted with ρc und ρW misplaced. Defin-
ing the WQR in terms of Ω in the second equation is advanta-
geous, because the density ratio ρc/ρW need not be known.
To conduct measurements of WQRs, the special-purpose
instrument "Hydroguard" was developed by 'Preussag Energie'
[9]. Hydroguard filters water through cellulose-acetate mem-
branes at constant pressure. The system is equipped with a
microcontroller which allows checking of the WQR at freely
chosen intervals of time.
As already mentioned above, the model of Barkman and
Davidson often underestimates the half-lives of injection wells
by several orders of magnitude. In the pertinent literature this
is often claimed to be due to the determination of the WQR
through membrane tests. This overall reasoning certainly
makes sense in view of the vastly different pore widths and
pore structures of membranes and formations. Among other
things, this topic will be discussed further in the sections
to follow.
Course of injections for arbitrary process control
The results of Barkman and Davidson hold for constant pres-
running at constant or piecewise constant rate. The models of
Barkman and Davidson have been generalized to arbitrary
process control in [10]. (The free variability of pressure and
rate refer to the derivation of the model equations. A possible
dependence of water and cake parameters on these conditions
has not been considered.)
In order to obtain uniform solutions for arbitrary variations
of pressure and rate, it is necessary to represent the injectivity
decline in terms of the accumulated injection volume. Then
the injectivity development of equation 1 may be
generalized to:
(p F Q )V=0
α= .............................................................. (4)
(p F Q)V
ρF is the flowing pressure, which is responsible for the trans-
port of water (see eq. 5 below). As an illustration, the solution
for wellbore narrowing is provided in table 1b.
This representation has the further advantage that the solu-
tions of Barkman and Davidson at constant pressure assume a
simpler mathematical form as well. This is due to the fact that
the injection volume is a "natural" parameter for cake filtra-
tion, the amount of deposited cake being proportional to this
volume (the concentration of filterable solids being the pro-
portionality constant). Correspondingly, the curves α und 1/α
plotted against the injection volume are independent of the
process control. However, the associated time scale in figure 1
holds for constant pressure only. (At constant rate, the time
scale is of course simply proportional to the volume
scale: t = V/Q.)
In analogy to the half-life, the injection volume V½ =
V(α=½) may be called the half-volume. Both half-life and
half-volume refer to the same point of the process. For the
special cases of constant flowing pressure pF or constant rate
Q, the rate Q has been halved or the pressure has doubled at
the half-volume (see fig. 1).
shows the course of injection, as it depicts the decline of the
normalized rate. For an injection at constant rate, however, 1/α
is more useful, as it shows the increase of normalized pressure
(see fig. 1).
To normalize these functions or the half-life or -volume,
the pressure law at the start of injection (see eqns. 1, 4) has to
supplied. A simple form is:
SPE 82231
 pF  µ   re  
  = ln   + S0  (5)
 Q  V =0 2πh w k f   rw  
Barkman and Davidson [1] always assume a vanishing initial
skin S0 (see table 1). For perforated or predamaged wells this
may underestimate the half-life by far. To avoid normalization
errors, it may be appropriate to consider the course of absolute
pressures or rates, instead of the normalized (relative) course.
There is another convincing reason for considering abso-
lute values: As may be inferred from the results given in table
1, the half-life and -volume (t½ and V½ at α = ½) are strongly
influenced by the permeability contrast kc/kf between cake and
formation. The smaller the permeability contrast, the smaller
are half-life and -volume as well. It is interesting to consider
this for a constant permeability of the filter cake: If the perme-
ability of the formation increases, the half-values decrease!
This behaviour appears to be counterintuitive. However, the
reason for this observation is simple: Half-life and -volume
refer to the point of the process at which the pressure drop
across the filter cake is just as large as the pressure drop
within the entire formation (up to the external boundary radius
re in eq. 5). The higher the permeability of the formation is, the
earlier will this stage be reached.
This demonstrates that half-lives and -volumes need not be
significant for the course of an injection. Injections are often
pressure-limited. This may be dictated by plant facilities or by
a maximal downhole pressure (e.g. to avoid fractures). For a
high permeability of the formation, the pressure build-up at
the half-volume may still be so small that it does not imply
any significant restriction for the injection.
In absolute values, the course of injection may be charac-
terized by the pressure drop pc across the filter cake. For the
example of wellbore narrowing given in table 1a, one obtains:
pc µ  βV  ρW
=− ln 1 − ;β = w ; Vw = πrw2 h w ..(6a)
Q 4πh w k c  VW  ρc
A simple calculation reveals that βV is the cake volume (sol-
ids plus pores). Hence βV/VW is the fraction of the wellbore
volume that is filled by cake. The logarithm in equation 6a
implies that the pressure pc will grow without limit as the
borehole is filled completely with filter cake.
Because of the low permeabilities of filter cake, injections
become unfeasible even for relatively thin filter cakes. Then
βV/VW << 1 holds, and equation 6a may be replaced by its
linear approximation:
pc µβV µΩV
= = (for βV/Vw << 1)............... (6b)
Q 4πh w k c Vw A 2w
(Aw = 2πrwhw is the open-hole sandface area.) For the last
equality in equation 6b, β/kc = (w/kc)(ρW/ρc) = Ω was used
(see eqns. 6a and 2b).
The example presented in figure 1 shows a noticeable de-
viation from the (normalized) linear behaviour of equation 6b
for injection volumes V > 15000 m³. At this stage, the filling
of the injection cavity starts to show up.
Four properties of the linear approximation in equation 6b
should be noted carefully:
The absolute course of injection is independent of the per-
meability contrast kc/kf. This is also true for the nonlinear
version in equation 6a.
3
The density ratio ρW/ρc does not appear if the WQR is
specified by Ω (eq. 2b). The evaluation of the WQR by
means of membrane filtrations is independent of ρW/ρc as
well (see eq. 2b).
The increase of pc/Q shows a linear dependence not just on
the volume, but on the WQR Ω as well.
The linear approximation (volume of cake << cavity of
injection) in equation 6b holds universally for all injection
geometries (see section 5).
Figure 3 shows the evolution of the pressure during injection
at two different values of the WQR [11]. After the injection of
70·103 m³ the maximal wellhead pressure of 100 bar is
reached. Subsequently the borehole was stimulated with the
use of a special solvent. After the second stimulation, the wa-
ter quality was improved by employing a flotation tank (IAF)
and by decreasing the pH value of the water to 5. This resulted
in a significant reduction of the solids content and of the re-
sidual oil content in the injected water. The consecutive injec-
tion of another 70·103 m³ raised the wellhead pressure by 28
bar only.
The pressure increase per unit of injection volume amounts
to (∆p/∆V)1 ~ 10-3 bar/m³ for the two cases without additional
water treatment. With the additional treatment one has
(∆p/∆V)2 ~ 10-4 bar/m³. In accordance with equation 6b, the
WQR values should differ by a factor of 10 as well: Ω1/Ω2 =
10. Filtrations with 1.2 µm membranes resulted in WQR val-
ues of Ω1 = 650 ppm/mD and Ω2 = 6 ppm/mD respectively.
Hence, the ratio of these WQR values amounts to approxi-
mately 100 instead of 10 as observed in the injection. Possible
causes for these discrepancies will be discussed further below.
Build-up of cake during membrane filtration
Cake filtration represents a well defined special case of solids
separation: The solids are separated above the filter medium
and thus generate a second porous medium (the cake). Hence,
the filter cake itself becomes the true separating medium for
further particle deposition. The mass of the cake grows in pro-
portion with the filterable solids that reach the medium. The
porosity and permeability of the cake are constant as long as
no (de-)compression occurs as a result of changes in pressure.
In membrane filtration with only slightly charged water,
the build-up of a cake occurs only after the filtration of a cer-
tain amount of water. In the early stages other mechanisms,
such as the narrowing of pores or the partial covering of the
membrane surface, dominate. These mechanisms have been
studied in the context of industrial filtration [13]. A survey
was given in [12].
The volume at which cake filtration commences depends
on the type of water and the membrane, and it must be deter-
mined empirically. For the examples provided by Barkman
and Davidson (membrane diameter: 47 mm) it starts after the
filtration of some 100 ml of water. The water employed for
their investigation had solids contents of approximately 1 %
[1]. For injection water, however, the solids content usually
lies in the range from 10 to 100 ppm and is thus lower by
some 2 to 3 orders of magnitude. With all other conditions
remaining unchanged, the onset of cake filtration should occur
only after the filtration of some 10 to 100 litres.
Quite often, the filtration of such large volumes will not be
feasible, simply because of the required time. This is true par-
4 SPE 82231
ticularly for filtration at constant pressure and for the surveil-
lance of injection water or of water treatment units at regular
intervals (see below).
For checking the occurrence of cake filtration, the method
of looking for a straight line in a V-√t plot (fig.2a), as pro-
posed by Barkman and Davidson, is not particularly well
suited. In such a plot one may easily obtain a straight line with
reasonable statistical precision, even if no cake filtration oc-
curs. A much more sensitive test is obtained from a plot of p/Q
versus the volume V. As equation 6b holds for a membrane as
well (with Aw replaced by the membrane area), cake filtration
will also produce a straight line in this plot. The slope S' of
this line depends on the WQR through:
A2
Ω = S' ........................................................................(7)
µ
Figure 2 shows an example for these two plots with straight
lines fitted to V ≥ 1500 ml. The V-√t plot (fig. 2a) is almost
linear in this range and thus suggests that cake filtration holds.
The more sensitive 1/Q-V plot (fig. 2b) casts some doubt on
this conclusion. Moreover, the two diagrams lead to signifi-
cantly different values of WQR: 56 ppm/mD in figure 2a and
Ω = 111 ppm/mD in figure 2b.
Hence, to forecast injection behaviour with the aid of
membrane filtrations, it is important to ensure that cake filtra-
tion is observed. Further problems concerning the applicability
of membrane filtration to formations are discussed in
section 6.
Apart from injection planning, membrane filtrations offer
another important range of applications: They may be em-
ployed to check the quality of injection water, in particular for
the surveillance of water treatment units or for estimating the
effect of oilfield chemicals on water quality [9, 12]. Opera-
tional experience has proven that the results are significant
even if cake filtration has not yet set in. Although the resulting
values of Ω do not represent the WQR of Barkman and David-
son, they still are a quantitative measure for changes in water
quality. In figure 4, this is illustrated for the surveillance of a
back-flushable filter. The inflowing water shows an almost
constant WQR, whereas the effluent values differ signifi-
cantly. In this case, membrane measurements may be used to
optimise the back-flushing times.
Build-up of cake during injection
Cake filtration. Of the four modes considered by Barkman
and Davidson (see section 2), the cases of wellbore narrowing
and perforation plugging deal with cake filtration. A further
important mode is the build-up of a filter cake in fracs. The
geometry of the growing cake influences the way in which the
injection pressure increases. This shape is nontrivial for perfo-
rations and fracs, because it depends on the distribution of
flow at the sandface, which changes as the injection proceeds.
Barkman and Davidson proposed that perforation plugging
starts at the tip of perforations and grows inward, thus shorten-
ing the effective perforation length. However, this scenario is
valid only for a very early state of cake build-up. For a clean
perforation a large fraction of flow enters the formation
through the tip, leading to an early cake which resembles the
form envisaged by Barkman and Davidson. As the resistance
to flow increases at the tip, the flow will redistribute and in-
creasing portions of water will flow enter the formation
through the perforation mantle, generating a filter cake here as
well. A realistic model for the growth of the cake has to ac-
count for this changing distribution of flow at the sandface.
A first estimation for perforations suggests that in the long
term the cake will cover the sandface with a uniform thickness
[10]. Later on, the build-up of filter cake was modelled in a
mathematical framework which amounts to a skin-
approximation of the cake [14]. This approximation assumes
that the permeabilities of cake kc and formation kf obey kc <<
kf. This condition will almost always hold for water
injections [2].
Fig. 5 shows the development of pressure per rate for a flat
cylindrical frac of fixed length, which was calculated in [14].
Its qualitative features also hold for elliptical fracs and for
perforations. Another form of cake formation was investigated
in [15]. This work considers boreholes with a heterogeneous
distribution of flow resistances at the sandface. This may be
due to a layered reservoir or result from variations of perfora-
tion properties. Again, the development of the injection has
the same characteristic features as in figure 5.
At the beginning of an injection, the filter cake grows pri-
marily in the regions with the least flow resistance. As a rule
this covers only a small fraction of the injection area. Accord-
ingly, the cake grows rapidly here and causes a disproportion-
ately fast increase of pressure (fig. 5). As the injection pro-
ceeds, the flow is distributed more uniformly over the com-
plete injection area and is accompanied by correspondingly
uniform growth of the filter cake. Thus the development of
injectivity becomes independent of the injection geometry and
then depends solely on the total injection area. At this stage
the pressure per unit rate increases linearly with the injection
volume and is universally given as in equation 6b:
p c µΩV
= ..................................................................... (8)
Q A2
Along with the transition to linear development of injectivity,
the flow in the formation is redistributed as well. After initial
peaking at the tips of perforations and fracs, it evolves into a
uniform flow across the sandface. This redistribution changes
the total flow resistance and thus leads to the constant portion
∆pc/Q in figure 5.
If the injection can be continued until a substantial part of
the injection cavity (borehole, frac, perforation, hairline
fracs,...) is filled with filter cake, the injection pressure again
starts to rise faster (not shown in fig. 5). For the case of well-
bore narrowing, this late nonlinear behaviour is described by
the logarithmic term in equation 6a.
The quadratic dependence on the injection area in equation
8 is remarkable. Its origin is easily explained: At fixed cake
thickness one has pc/Q ~ 1/A. As water is injected, the thick-
ness of the cake grows in proportion with Vc/A. This explains
the second factor of 1/A in equation 8. The quadratic depend-
ence on the area has important consequences for the planning
and forecasting of injections:
If the value of WQR is known, and one wants to use equa-
tion 8 to forecast the injection performance, one needs to
know the injection area A. As a rule, this area is only known
rather imprecisely. For perforated holes, for instance, one has
to rely on estimates of the number of flowing perforations,
SPE 82231 5

their lengths and radii, as well as of cemented, crushed, and However, the abundance of published results on core dam-
predamaged zones. The true injection area may easily be mis- age by solids invasion could rather easily be interpreted within
judged by a factor of 2 or 3. The use of equation 8 then leads the concept of Barkman and Davidson's WQR. Results of core
to errors in the rate of pressure increase as large as a factor of measurements are regularly reported by plotting the reduced
4 to 9. As a second illustration for the importance of the 1/A2 permeability k/ki against the injection volume (often in multi-
term, figure 6 shows a chart for the planning of an injection. ples of the pore volume). With the use of the equation for the
For injection into a reservoir of 10 m thickness, a pressure pressure across cores, one may easily show that k/ki is indeed
increase of up to 10 bar per year is considered acceptable. The identical with α (eqns. 1 and 4). Indeed, the shape of α in fig-
figure shows the interdependence between the required WQR ure 1 is similar to typical plots of k/ki. For obtaining WQR,
and the injection area for various rates of injection [14]. however, the reciprocal 1/α is better suited: If one plots the
The nonlinear behaviour in the early stage of an injection reciprocal ki/k = 1/α, a straight line then identifies a mecha-
has to be considered if one wants to check the feasibility of an nism of deposition which corresponds to a unique value of
injection by a short-term injection test. The fast build-up of WQR. The slope S" of this line yields the value Ω of WQR as:
pressure may easily lead to an underestimation of injectivity AL
by orders of magnitude. For an assessment of this mechanism Ω = S" ....................................................................... (9)
ki
one has to estimate the duration of this early stage. Indications
(AL: core volume, ki: permeability of the undamaged core).
for this purpose have been provided in [14, 15].
How much of this damage is caused by cake filtration or by
In the calculations for injections into fracs in [14], fracs of
DBF is not primarily important. The essential point is the fact
fixed length are assumed. For constant-rate injections, this
that this value of Ω may again be used in equation 8 to fore-
length will increase. A first estimate of the resulting evolution
cast the course of injection (assuming that flow velocity and
indicates that the injection pressure will be approximately
pressure do not change the WQR, see section 6).
constant in this case [14]. Other approaches to injection into
The reason why equation 8 may again be involved has
growing fracs have been detailed in [16, 17].
been sketched in [18]: As core measurements show, the depth
filtration of solids occurs in a layer with a thickness of a few
Depth filtration. Solids suspended in injection water are not
cm. For such a thin layer of reduced permeability the mecha-
necessarily separated as a cake by surface filtration. They may
nism described in section 5a leads again to a uniform growth
enter the formation and be deposited in the pores. In industrial
of deposits and hence to the linear behaviour of equation 8.
filtration this mechanism is called deep bed filtration (DBF).
As far as we know, core measurements have never been in-
Of the modes considered by Barkman and Davidson [1],
terpreted in this way. However, this approach could constitute
the "invasion" process (see section 2) shows some similarity
the most reliable method of forecasting the fate of injections.
with DBF. The two mechanisms are different, however, as
Moreover, it could be an important supplement for better judg-
DBF proceeds from the injection face and progresses into the
ing the validity of the simpler membrane filtration tests (see
pore space, whereas Barkman and Davidson assume that the
the next section).
deposition starts at some 'radius of invasion' within the forma-
tion, which is not specified further, and then grows towards
Laboratory investigations versus field data
the injection face.
Three problems in forecasting the course of injections have
Of course, the behaviour proposed by the authors might
already been addressed in the preceding sections. These con-
occur if the pore widths decrease at a certain radius within the
cern the knowledge of the injection area of a well (section 5a),
formation. To the best of our knowledge, however, this
the question of whether surface or depth filtration occurs (sec-
mechanism has not been reported in the literature for homoge-
tion 5b), and whether measured values of WQR really repre-
neous pore spaces. As the model does not specify the radius of
sent cake filtration (section 4) or - if depth filtration in cores is
invasion, it has no predictive power, and there is a danger of
involved - whether they are measured in a region of linear
fitting any course of injection by simply assuming a suitable
dependence of p/Q on V (section 5b).
radius of invasion.
Another important question is whether values of WQR
Two models known from industrial DBF have been inves-
measured in the laboratory still hold under injection condi-
tigated in [18] for radial flow (injection into an open hole). If
tions. In particular, one has to check whether the WQR is in-
the filtration probability grows sufficiently fast for decreasing
dependent of the pore widths of membranes and the real pore
flow velocity, then a maximal deposition may indeed occur
space. This independence was tacitly assumed by Barkman
within the formation. In contrast to the approach of Barkman
and Davidson in [1]. Experience with industrial filtration tells
and Davidson, the deposition still proceeds into the formation,
a different story: The permeability of the filter cake depends
and the radius of maximal deposition may be calculated from
on the pore width of the membrane as well as on the initial
the model parameters.
conditions (pressure, rate) of the filtration [20].
The interpretation of deep bed filtration for the prognosis
To gain initial insight into this question, the values of
of injection has hitherto been hampered by two factors: On the
WQR were measured with the use of cellulose acetate mem-
one hand, the literature on DBF offers a wide range of models
branes with pore widths (diameters) between 0.45 µm and 1.2
from basic research to industrially oriented phenomenological
µm [9]. The results depicted in figure 7 show that the WQR
approaches ([19] and literature in [18]). On the other hand,
varies by a factor of 4 within this range of pore widths. There-
there is no established quantitative method to relate results
fore, the assignment of WQR makes sense only if the pore
from core measurements to injection behaviour.
width of the membrane is specified as well.
6 SPE 82231
The linear slope of the doubly logarithmic plot in figure 7
corresponds to power law behaviour: Ω ~ d-1,2. For an injec-
tion, this law may be extrapolated to the pore width of the
formation. For this purpose one may use the hydraulic diame-
ter as a simple representative average pore width. However,
one should be aware of the fact that the dependence in figure 7
was obtained experimentally, and there is no reason to guaran-
tee (not even to expect) that the observed dependence may be
extrapolated to (significantly) larger pore widths.
To also measure the WQR for larger pore widths, which
may be more representative of formations, one may also use
commercially available cartridge or bag filters (or cores, of
course). Figure 8 shows the pressure build-up for cartridge
filters which may also be employed for water treatment [12].
The nominal pore widths of the two filters are 10 and 20 µm.
As shown in figure 8, different volumes of water have to pass
through these filters before cake filtration sets in. The build-up
of a filter cake is signalised by the linear increase in pressure.
The value Ω of the WQR may again be determined from equa-
tion 7 if the area A of the cartridge filter is known. For this
water, the slopes and hence the WQRs are almost identical for
both pore widths.
In figure 9, the WQRs measured on membrane and bag fil-
ters are plotted for various pore widths. For both filters linear
behaviour is observed in the doubly logarithmic plot. The
slopes are approximately equal and again correspond to a
power law (this time with Ω ~ d-0.85). However, the two
straight lines are mutually shifted. At fixed pore width, this
shift corresponds to a factor of 30 in WQR. Such factors of 30
(and larger) may well be considered as typical for the underes-
timation of injectivity which may result from a direct applica-
tion of the Barkman and Davidson models.
How can the difference between membrane and bag filters
that is apparent in figure 9 be explained? As the ranges of pore
widths do not overlap, it is conceivable that the filtration of
solids decreases dramatically for pore widths between 3 µm
and 5 µm. This would require a correspondingly sharp size
distribution for the suspended solids. The different types of
filtration processes employed in the measurements lead to
another plausible explanation: The membrane filtration was
conducted at constant pressure, whereas the bag filtration took
place at constant rate. For these two processes, the shear
forces acting on the deposited particles are different. The
higher shear stress which occurs at constant rate may squeeze
retained particles through the filter (bleeding). In figure 10,
this behaviour is demonstrated for a bag filter with a pore
width of 5 µm. Measurement of the WQR for the influent and
effluent streams with membrane filters (1.2 µm) clearly shows
that the bag filter becomes inefficient after a throughput of
approximately 70 m³, and that suspended solids then pass
through the filter without hindrance.
Similar behaviour can be expected for injections at con-
stant rate. Solids which are squeezed through the cake will
enter the formation. Gel-like deposits, such as those which
may originate from ferrous hydroxide, may block the flow if
they are injected at constant pressure. During injection at con-
stant rate, the increasing pressure will easily squeeze these
substances into the formation. The situation is different for
corrosion products and ferrous sulphide in produced water.
Because of their lipophilic nature, they may be covered with
residual oil. This leads to filter cakes of extremely low perme-
ability [2, 12]. They may be squeezed only partially into the
formation, even at rising pressures, and will cause severe
damage there.
This suggests that filtrations at constant pressure yield too
pessimistic results, because no sufficient shear forces build up
to squeeze solids through the cake. On the other hand, filtra-
tions at constant rate may also yield too pessimistic results:
The material which is squeezed through a thin filter medium
(membrane, bag filter,...) at constant rate will not be included
in the value of WQR. As a rule, however, a portion of this
material will be deposited in the formation by depth filtration.
This results in a mixture of surface and depth filtration [15,
18], and both components affect the course of injection.
These considerations do not allow conclusions concerning
which type of filtration tests (const. pressure or const. rate)
yields more reliable values for the WQR. As sketched in sec-
tion 5b, investigations of core damage may be helpful in this
respect. Another approach is to analyse real injections in order
to derive the true observed WQR, which may be compared
with laboratory measurements. This procedure is outlined in
the following example:
Source water and treated water from production were in-
jected into a formation at a rate of Q = 10 m³/h each. The in-
crease in injection pressure was approximately proportional to
the injected volume (∆p/∆V = 1.1·10-2 bar/m³ for the source
water, ∆p/∆V = 7.2·10-2 bar/m³ for the produced water). These
values may be inserted into equation 8. If the viscosity µ and
the injection area A are specified, one may calculate the true
WQRs for the injections:
A 2 ∆p
Ω= .................................................................... (10)
µQ ∆V
To illustrate the important role of the injection area A, the
WQR-results are shown in table 2 for several scenarios with
different injection areas A. The following data were assumed
for the well: thickness hw = 20 m, wellbore diameter dw = 5½",
shot density Np = 5/ft = 16.4/m perforated along the full 20 m,
perforation length Lp = 0.15 m, perforation radius rp = 0.01m.
The modes considered are: wellbore narrowing (A1 = 2πrwhw =
8.8 m²), perforation plugging of the Barkman and Davidson
type (linear flow through the tip) (A2 = Npπrp2 = 0.1 m2), and
perforation plugging with flow through the whole mantle (ra-
dial flow, see section 5a) (A3 = 2πrpLpNp = 3.1 m²). With these
values and a viscosity of µ = 1 mPas, equation 9 yields the
WQRs given in table 2. The values obtained by membrane
filtration with a pore width of 1.2 µm are also listed in
the table.
The WQR calculated from equation 9 is proportional to the
square of the injection area. Therefore, the ratios of WQR val-
ues for the different modes are the same as the ratios of the
corresponding squared areas (see table 2). As is obvious from
table 2, the WQRs for each water type vary over a range of
almost 4 orders of magnitude.
For the injections considered here, perforation plugging
during radial flow should be the relevant mode. Hence, the
source water was injected with a WQR of Ω = 3.7 ppm/mD,
whereas Ω = 12 ppm/mD was measured during the membrane
filtration. To a large extent this deviation can be explained by
the dependence of WQR on the pore width. Figure 9 shows
SPE 82231
the WQR of the source water from membrane filtrations
(p=const.) with pore widths of 1.2 µm and 3 µm. The WQR
which was recalculated from the injection is indicated as well;
a hydraulic diameter of 1.92 µm, which corresponds to the
formation permeability of 23 mD, was employed for the calcu-
lation. If one interpolates the two values from membrane fil-
trations with a straight line in figure 9, the WQR of the injec-
tion is predicted to be about 5 ppm/mD. The remaining dis-
crepancy corresponds to a ratio of 5/3.7 = 1.35. Hence, the
prediction from membrane filtration is too pessimistic, since it
underestimates the observed behaviour by 35 per cent.
Of course, the concept of hydraulic radius is only a rough
approximation to the true pore widths of the formation, and it
disregards structural differences between membrane and for-
mation. Bearing this in mind, one may conclude that labora-
tory prediction and observed behaviour agree fairly well. One
should, however, keep other sources of possible errors
in mind:
The stage of cake filtration might not yet have been
reached (see section 4). In this respect it is interesting to
compare the throughput volumes per unit area. For mem-
brane filtrations one typically uses a few litres. With an
area of 15 cm², the throughput of 1000 ml corresponds to a
water column of about 0.7 m. For an injection area of 3.1
m² (see table 2) this amounts to an injected volume of
about 2 m³. Hence, the membrane filtration covers only a
minute injection volume, and if the cake has not yet
reached its final structure, the laboratory predictions will
be erroneous.
The true injection area is never exactly known. The factor
of 1.35 between the WQR from membrane tests and injec-
tion, which was derived above, corresponds to an underes-
timation of the injection area by a factor of √1.35 = 1.16
(see eq. 9); this leads to A3= 3.6 m² instead of A3 = 3.1 m²
in table 2.
As discussed above, the different operational conditions (p
= const. for membrane filtration and Q = const. for the in-
jection) may have an impact on the WQR as well. How-
ever, as figure 9 shows, the bag filtration with Q = const.
would lead to a value of the WQR which is much too op-
timistic. The question of whether this is due to the extrapo-
lation of pore widths from 5 µm to 1.9 µm, or to the
aforementioned fact that solids are squeezed through the
bag filter, remains unclear. In the latter case, the solids
squeezed through the filter are lost for the determination of
the laboratory WQR value, whereas they may have an im-
pact on depth filtration in the formation.
For the produced water the difference between the WQRs
from injection (25 ppm/mD in table 2) and from membrane
filtration (1120 ppm/mD) is much larger than for the source
water. No membrane tests were performed at larger pore
widths for the produced water; hence, we cannot extrapolate
the WQR from 1.2 µm to the hydraulic diameter of 1.92 µm.
For the source water, this extrapolation leads to a correction of
the WQR from 12 ppm/mD to 5.5 ppm/mD. If a correction of
similar magnitude is assumed for the produced water as well,
one may expect that the laboratory value of 1120 ppm/mD
should be reduced by a factor of 2 to 3, with a resulting value
of 300 to 500 ppm/mD. This value is still higher than the
7
WQR of 25 ppm/mD, which was observed in the injection, by
an order of magnitude.
This pronounced discrepancy can be attributed to a general
problem which occurs during membrane filtrations of water
with residual oil. During constant pressure filtrations, the
membrane often becomes impermeable after a throughput of
only a few 100 ml, long before cake filtration sets in. There-
fore, no reliable measurement of the WQR is possible in
this case.
Investigations of these membranes with a scanning elec-
tron microscope reveal that the membrane surface is covered
almost completely by an oil film [12] (see fig. 11). An expla-
nation for this effect was given in [21]. If the surface pores of
the membrane are constricted by deposited particles, capillary
forces may prevent oil from entering the pores. During injec-
tion at a constant rate into a formation, the capillary forces are
easily surmounted. For thin filter media (membrane, bag fil-
ters,...) the situation is dramatically different, in particular for
filtrations at constant pressure: As the pores get constricted, a
state in which oil drops are retained on the surface will be
reached, if their diameter is not larger than the membrane
thickness. As soon as this happens, oil films can grow indefi-
nitely on the surface and thus shut off the flow almost com-
pletely. Values of the WQR which are measured under these
circumstances will underestimate the injectivity by orders
of magnitude.
As a way out, one may consider membrane filtrations at
constant rate. However, it is an open question whether realistic
predictions of WQR can be obtained in this way. The results
in [21] suggest that the combination of capillary forces and
thin filter media may still lead to effects which are absent for
injections. If this turns out to be true, one would have to take
recourse to core measurements for determining the WQR of
produced water.
Conclusions
Even after 30 years the model of Barkman and Davidson [1]
still presents the best known framework for forecasting water
injections. Its most important feature is the concept of the wa-
ter quality ratio, which paves the way for
quantitative assessments.
However, the indiscriminate application of the model may
easily underestimate the true injection behaviour by several
orders of magnitude for both half-lives and decline in rate.
For the case in which the permeability of the damaged
formation (by surface or depth filtration) is much lower than
the permeability of the undamaged formation, which almost
always holds for injections, wide ranges of injection are gov-
erned by a universal law of pressure/rate change (eq. 8). Fore-
casting the course of an injection not only requires a reliable
value of the WQR; a good estimate of the injection area and
its range of uncertainty is needed as well, because the changes
in injection pressure depend quadratically on this area.
Injections into perforated wells, into fracs, and into forma-
tions with heterogeneous permeability distributions may show
an initial pressure increase per unit of injection volume which
is much larger than that which occurs during long-term behav-
iour. If one wants to judge injectivity prospects by test injec-
tions, it may be essential to account for this effect.
8 SPE 82231
Several aspects are important for a proper measurement of
the WQR:
1) Cake filtration starts only after the throughput of a certain
amount of water. A meaningful value of the WQR can be
obtained only after cake filtration has set in.
2) The WQR depends on the pore width. To account for this
dependence, the WQR has to be measured for several pore
widths and has to be extrapolated to the average pore width
of the formation.
3) This extrapolation should not be extended to pore widths
which differ significantly from those employed in the labo-
ratory investigations. Besides cores, commercially avail-
able filters (bag filters, cartridge filters,...) may be of use
for selecting pore widths which are close to those of
the formation.
4) WQRs measured in filter tests may depend strongly on the
operational mode. Tests conducted at constant pressure
tend to be too pessimistic, those conducted at constant rate
tend to be too optimistic.
Even if these rules are observed, several further uncertainties
remain. For example, it is not known whether and to which
extent measured WQRs depend not only on the pore width,
but also on details of the pore space. The measurement of the
WQR for produced water containing residual oil presents a
major problem. Employing thin filter media at constant pres-
sure may yield values which are too pessimistic by orders of
magnitude. The coverage of the filter surface by an oil film,
which causes this problem, may be identified as almost com-
plete blocking of flow before cake filtration has set in. The
question of whether filtrations at constant rate can remedy this
problem is still uncertain.
Successful measurements of the WQR by means of core
tests have not yet been documented. Such investigations are
important for eliminating the remaining uncertainties, in par-
ticular for oil-contaminated water. Apart from their direct use
for forecasting injection behaviour, they may also be helpful
for allowing a better evaluation of the simpler membrane tests.
For this purpose, core tests would have to be analysed within
the context of the WQR (as sketched in section 5b) and com-
pared with parallel membrane filtration tests.
Measuring WQRs by membrane tests as proposed by
Barkman and Davidson is an excellent means of monitoring
injection water as well as the effectiveness of water treatment
plants (see section 4 and fig. 4). The restrictions outlined
above in 1) - 4) do not apply here. To obtain comparable re-
sults, one simply has to keep the pore width and filtration vol-
ume constant.
Notation:
A = area
d = diameter
DBF = deep bed filtration
h = thickness
k = permeability
L = length
N = perforation shot density
p = pressure
Q = volumetric flow rate
r = radius
S = slope in the V-√t-diagram; skin in eq. 5
S' = slope in the p/Q-V- diagram, eq. 7
S" = slope in the k/ki-V- diagram, eq. 9
t = time
V = volume
w = concentration of total filterable solid, w/w
WQR = water quality ratio, eqns. 2a, 2b
α = normalized injection decline, eqns. 1 and 2b
β = wρw/ρc (eq. 6a)
µ = viscosity
ρ = density
Ω = water quality ratio (WQR), eq. 6b
Indices:
c = filter cake
e = external boundary radius
i = initial value
p = perforation
W = water
w = wellbore
½ = half-value
References:
[1] Barkman, J.; Davidson, D.: "Measuring Water Quality
and Predicting Well Impairment", JPT July (1972)
865-873.
[2] Dietzel, H.; Kleinitz, W.: "Required Quality of Water for
Injection in Secondary Projects", OIL GAS European
Magazine 3/1989, 24-27.
[3] Mitchell, R.; Finch, E.: "Water Quality Aspects of North
Sea Injection Water", JPT June (1981) 1141-1152.
[4] Vetter, O.; Kandarpa, V.; Stratton, M.; Veith, E.: "Parti-
cle Invasion into Porous Medium and Related Injectivity
Problems", SPE 16255, SPE Int. Symposium on Oilfield
Chemistry , San Antonio, Texas, Feb. 1987.
[5] Todd, A.; Kumar, T.; Mohammadi, S.: "The Value and
Analysis of Core-Based Water-Quality Experiments as
Related to Water Injection Schemes", SPE Formation
Evaluation, June (1990) 185-191.
[6] Pang, S.: "Colloid Retention and Flow in Porous Media",
Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Aug. 1996.
Sharma, M., Pang, S.; Wennberg, K., Morgenthaler, L.:
"Injectivity Decline in Water Injection Wells: An Off-
shore Gulf of Mexico Case Study" SPE 38180, presented
at the 1997 SPE European Formation Damage Confer-
ence, Den Haag, 2-3 June 1997, 341-351.
Pang, S.; Sharma, M.: "Evaluating the Performance of
Open-Hole, Perforated and Fractured Water Injection
Wells" SPE 30127, presented at the SPE European For-
mation Damage Conference, Den Haag, 15-16 May
1995, 489-498.
Pang, S.; Sharma, M.: "A Model for Predicting Injectiv-
ity Decline in Water Injection Wells" Paper SPE 28489
presented at the 69th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition in New Orleans, 25-28 Sept. 1994, 275-284.
Wennberg, K.; Sharma, M.: "Determination of the Dy-
namic Filtration Coefficient and the Transition Time for
Water Injection" SPE 38181, presented at the SPE Euro-
pean Formation Damage Conference, Den Haag, 2-3
June 1997, 353-364.
SPE 82231 9

[7] Roque, C.; Chauveteau, G.; Renard, M.; Thiebault, G.; [17] Gadde, P.; Sharma, M.: "Growing Injection Well Frac-
Boutéca, M.; Rochon, J.: "Mechanism of Formation tures and Their Impact on Waterflood Performance",
Damage by Retention of Particles Suspended in Injection SPE 71614, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Ex-
Water" SPE 30110, presented at the European Formation hibition, New Orleans, LA, 30 Sept. – 3 Oct. 2001.
Damage Conference, Den Haag, 15-16 May, 1995, [18] Hofsaess, T.; Kleinitz, W.: "Infiltration von Feststoffen
329-343. in Wasserinjektionsträger – Infiltration of Solids into
Nazbar, L.; Chauveteau, G.: "Permeability Damage by Water Injection Reservoirs", Erdöl Erdgas Kohle
Deposition of Colloidal Particles" presented at the Euro- (September 1995), 363-370.
pean Formation Damage Conference, Den Haag, 2-3 [19] Sahimi, M.; Gavalas, G.; Tsotsis, T.: "Statistical and
June, 1997, 161-171. Continuum Models of Fluid-Solid Reactions in Porous
Nazbar, L.; Chauveteau, G.; Roque, C.: "A New Model Media", Chem. Eng. Sci. 45 (1990), 1443-1502.
for Formation Damage by Particle Deposition" presented [20] Wakeman, R.; Tarleton, E.: "Solid/Liquid Separation
at the 1996 Formation Damage Symposium, Lafayette, Equipment Simulation & Design – An Expert Systems
14-15 February, 1996. Approach", Filtration & Separation July/Aug. 1991,
[8] Coleman, J.; McLelland, W.: "Produced water reinjec- 268-274.
tion: How clean is clean?", SPE 27394, 1994. [21] Hofsaess, T.; Kleinitz, W.: "Kapillare Eintrittseffekte bei
Paige, R.; Murray, L.; Martins, J.; Marsh, S.: "Optimis- der Injektion von ölhaltigen Wässern", DGMK-Früh-
ing water injection performance", SPE 29774, 1995. jahrstagung 2001, p. 331-344.
[9] Kleinitz, W.: "Kontrolle von Injektionswässern in
Erdölaufbereitungsbetrieben – Controlling the Quality of Tables
Injection Water in Oil Fields", Erdöl Erdgas Kohle (June
1988), 256-262. Tab. 1-Solutions of the injectivity development for
[10] Hofsaess, T.; Kleinitz, W.: "Modelle der wellbore narrowing
Filterkuchenbildung bei Wasserinjektionsbohrungen - On 1a)
the Growth of Filter Cakes during Water Injections", Q
Erdöl Erdgas Kohle (September 1994), 359-364. α= V (α ) = F ⋅ Q0 ⋅ H(α ) t (α) = F ⋅ G(α)
Q0
[11] Flixeder; F.; Kleinitz, W.: "Veränderung der
πh w rw2
Injektionswasserqualität in einem Erdölfeld – Auswir- F=
β Q0
kungen auf Injektionsstrategie und Bohrlochbehandlung
– Variation of the Injection Water Quality in an Oil Field G(α ) = 1 +
1 1
− +
1  2(1−1 α )
⋅Θ
– Consequence on Injection Strategy and Well Treat- 2 ln Θ  α 2 ln Θ 

ment", Erdöl Erdgas Kohle (February 1986), 67-74. H(α ) = 1 − Θ2(1−1 α )

[12] Kleinitz, W.: "Zur Bestimmung der Wasserqualität in
kc kf
Aufbereitungsanlagen für Injektionswässer", Disser- β=w
ρW r
Θ =  e


ρc  rw
tation, TU Clausthal, 1998. 

[13] Hermans, P.; Bredée, H.: "Principles of the mathematical

treatment of constant pressure filtration"; Journal of the
1b)
Society of Chemical Industry, Transactions and Commu-
nications, Jan. 1936, S.1T. 
ln 1 −
βV 

Hermans, P.; Bredée, H.: "Zur Kenntnis der Filtrations- (p Q)V = 0 1 k Vw 
α(V ) = = 1+ f ⋅ 
(p Q)V α(V ) 2k c r 
gesetze"; Receuil des traveaux chimique des Pays-Bas; ln e 
 rw 
54 (1935), 680.
Gonsalves, V.: "A critical investigation on the viscose β=w
ρW
Vw = πrw2 h w
ρc
filtration process"; Receuil des traveaux chimique des
Pays-Bas; 69 (1950), 873.
[14] Hofsaess, T.; Kleinitz, W.: "Zum Wachstum von
Filterkuchen in Perforationen und Fracs – On the Growth
1a) t(α) at p=const. by Barkman und Davidson. From [1]
of Filter Cakes in Perforations and Fracs", Erdöl Erdgas
with corrections from [10]. (Because of a misprint, t(α) is
Kohle (April 2001), 201-206.
displayed as tα [10].)
[15] Hofsaess, T.; Kleinitz, W.: "Injectivity Decline in Wells
1b) α(V) at arbitrary p,Q. From [10].
with Nonuniform Perforation Properties", SPE 39586,
1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Dam-
age Control, Lafayette, LA, 18-19 February 1998, p.
631-640.
[16] Longuemare, P., Détienne; J.; Lemonnier, P.; Boutéca,
M., Onaisi, A.: "Numerical Modelling of Fracture Propa-
gation Induced by Water Injection/Re-Injection", SPE
68974, SPE European Formation Damage Conference,
The Hague, 21-22 May 2001.
10 SPE 82231

Tab. 2-Comparison of WQRs for two types of

pressure / rate of filtration, bar∗s/ml

injection water 0,4

Measured data

Injection area A Observed WQR 0,3

Fit for V ≥ 1500 ml
A A2 source water produced water

m2 m4 ppm/mD ppm/mD
0,2

A1: open hole 8.8 77.4 29.5 201

0,1
A2: perforations
0.1 0.01 0.004 0.03
(lin. flow)

A3: perforations
3.1 9.6 3.7 25 0
(rad. flow)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

membrane filtration filtration volume, ml

12 1120
(1,2 µm)

Fig. 2b-Pressure / rate versus filtration volume for the membrane

The values were calculated from the injection data for an open filtration of fig. 2a). The WQR may be calculated from the slope of
the line (linear fit for V ≥ 1500 ml) in accordance with eq. 7.
hole and for two types of perforation plugging. The bottom (From [12]).
row shows the values obtained by membrane filtrations. (See
section 6, near eq. 10.) 120

Wellhead pressure pf, bar

Injection days
680 ppm/mD (1,2 µm)
0 100 200 300 400 500 100
1 5 6 ppm/mD (1,2 µm)
t1/2 = 97 d
80
0,8

Stimulation

Stimulation
Inverse decline parameter 1/ α

4
Decline parameter α

60
0,6

3
40
0,4

20
2
0,2

0
3
V1/2 = 15700 m 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0 1
Injektion volume, 10³ m³
0 10000 20000 30000 40000
Injection volume, m3

Fig. 1-Evolution functions α and 1/α plotted against injection vol- Fig. 3-Pressure build-up for an injection at constant rate. After the
ume. For Injections at constant rate, the time scale is shown on second stimulation the water treatment was improved.
the upper abscissa. The volume scale is independent of the proc- (From [11]).
ess control. Half-life and -volume represent the same point of the
process at which α = ½ and 1/α=2 holds. The curves represent 2000

wellbore narrowing for a wellbore volume Vw = 0.3 m³, re/rw = 5000,

kc/kf = 0.01, Q0 = 10 m³/h, and wρw/ρc = 3 ppm. 1000
Water quality ratio, ppm/mD (0,8 µm)

Influent
500
Effluent
2000
300
200
filtration volume, ml

1500
100

50
1000

20
Measured data 2 6 10 14 18 22 2 6 10 14 18 22
500 Time, h
7h 6h 7h 8h 6h 7h 7h
Fit for V ≥ 1400 ml

Back-flushing intervals
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Fig. 4-WQR data for a back-flushable filter (From [12]).
total time of filtration, t/s

Fig. 2a-Filtration volume versus square root of time for a mem-

brane filtration. The WQR may be calculated from the slope of the
line (linear fit for V ≥ 1400 ml) in accordance with eq. 3.
(From [12]).
SPE 82231 11

3,5

Differential pressure, bar

0,08 10 µm
pD / QD

3,0
20 µm
2,5

0,06
2,0

1,5
0,04
1,0

0,5
long-time behaviour
0,02
numerical solution 0
∆ 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Filtration volume, m3
0
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 Ω V 1 Fig. 8-Pressure build-up for cartridge filters of 10 µm und 20 µm
D D
pore widths. (From [12]).

Fig. 5-Evolution of pressure/rate for the injection into a flat cylin- 100

drical frac. ΩDVD and pD/QD: dimensionless volume and pres-

dhydr Reservoir
sure/rate. The exact numerical solution and the behaviour for

Water quality ratio, ppm/mD

large injection volumes are shown. (From [14]). 10

1000 p = const
ppm/mD
Parameter of water quality ratio Ω

3
Q, m /d:
1 mem
brane
100 filter
Bag
100 300 filter
500 0,1
1000 Q = const
10000

10
0,01
1 1,2 3 5 10 25 50 100
Pore width, µm

Fig. 9-WQR from membrane filtrations at constant pressure and

1
from bag filtrations at constant rate. (From [12]).
1 open 10 100 1000 10000
hole sandface area A, m2 1 000
H = 10 m :
Water quality ratio, ppm/mD (1,2 µm)

perforations fracs

Fig. 6-Interdependence between required WQR and injection area

for a maximal pressure increase of 10 bar per year. (From [14]).

40

pconst = 1 bar
Water qualitäty ratio, ppm/mD

Influent
20
Effluent

100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

10 Filtrate volume, m³

Fig. 10-Ageing (bleeding) of a bag filter for filtration at constant

5
rate. The WQRs measured by membrane filtrations (1.2 µm) for
the influent and effluent streams show that the bag filter becomes
ineffective after the throughput of about 70 m³ of water and then
3 lets the suspended solids pass through. (From [12]).
0,2 0,5 0,8 1 2
Pore size of the membrane filter, µm

Fig. 7-Dependence of the WQR on the pore width in membrane

filtrations at p = 1 bar. (From [9]).
12 SPE 82231

a) b)

Fig. 11-Membrane filtration (nominal pore width 1.2 µm).

a) Source water with deposits on the surface; b) Treated pro-
duced water with surface flooded by oil and some open pore
channels. (From [12]).