Near Well-bore Condition (Skin)

Chapter 5 (Petroleum Production Systems by Economides)

Dr. Ajay Suri

Associate Professor
Dept. of Petroleum Engineering
IIT (ISM) Dhanbad
1
 Outline
• Introduction
• Skin Definition
• Causes
• Hawkins’ formula
• Components
– Skin from Partial completion and Slant
– Skin from Well Perforation
– Skin Around Horizontal Wells
• Identification
• Remedy
2
 Introduction
Steady State Pressure Profile Around a Vertical Producer

Since flow is getting Ln dependence

constricted near the means near
wellbore, the wellbore condition
pressure drop should has more impact
3
increase
 Skin Definition
• Qualitatively the near wellbore region with
altered perm is called as the skin.

• Quantitatively introduced by Van Everdingen

& Hurst (1949) as the additional steady-state
pressure drop (Dps) near the wellbore:
qm Skin factor
D ps = s (dimensionless)
2p kh
Note the pressure drop changes with the flow rate and the viscosity for
the same perm alteration (skin factor). k is the undamaged permeability. 4
 Skin Added to the Radial Flow Equation

• Skin or skin factor (s) is dimensionless and is

analogous to film coefficient in heat transfer
• Non dimensionalizing is done similar to PD
function done in well testing
• It can then be added to the radial flow
equation as shown below

= p - pwf ,ideal + pwf ,ideal - pwf = p - pwf ,ideal + D Ps 5

 Radial Flow Steady-State Equation with Skin in
Field Units
• In US oilfield units,

• pe, pressure at outer boundary, psi

• pwf, pressure at wellbore, psi
• q, flow rate at std. conditions, stb/day
• B, formation volume factor, RB/STB
• m = oil viscosity, cp
• k = reservoir permeability, md
• h = pay thickness, ft
• re = drainage radius, ft
• rw = wellbore radius, ft
• S = skin factor 6
 Positive Skin Causes

1. Plugging of pores by solids from drilling, completion,

stimulation, injection, workover
2. Mechanical crushing or disaggregation of porous
media, ex. fines plugging
3. Formation of emulsions
4. Wettability changes
5. Reduction of relative perm to oil due to increase of
water or gas saturation
6. Partial completion or inadequate perforations
7. Turbulence
8. Growth of bacteria in-situ 7
 Negative Skin Causes

1. Increased near wellbore permeability due to

a. Matrix stimulation
b. Hydraulic fracturing
2. Highly inclined wellbore or a horizontal
wellbore

8
Effective Wellbore Radius of Well with Skin

• With simple rearrangement of s to ln(es)

• Effective wellbore radius becomes

+ skin decreases the effective rw
- skin increases the effective rw
9
10
11
Near Wellbore Damaged Zone

12
Bottom-hole pressures (with and w/o skin)
Reduced perm zone Unaltered perm zone

Dps
D ps =pwf ,ideal - pwf ,real

13
 Hawkins’ (1956) Formula

• Calculates skin for a given depth of damaged

zone with reduced perm
• For pwf,ideal

• For pwf,real

14
 Hawkins’ (1956) Formula

• Difference pwf,ideal – pwf,real = Dps, which is equal

to

• Perm impairment (ks) has a more impact than

the depth of damage (rs as it ln) 15
16
 Conclusion from Example 5-1
• Permeability impairment has much larger
effect on skin than depth of damage
• Except for a phase change-dependent skin, 61
ft of damage depth is highly unlikely
• Skin derived from well tests (5-20) are likely
from permeability impairment near the well
• Important for design of matrix stimulation

17
 Plugging due to Solids

• Most common
• Sources
– Solids from the wellbore fluids (mostly during
drilling) and some could come during completion,
although completion fluids are typically solids
free)
– Dispersion of clays present in the rock
– Precipitation of minerals in solution
– Growth of bacteria aggregates

18
 SEM of a Fontainebleau sandstone rock sample. Institut
Francais du Petrole. Grain 200 mm, surface roughness 1 mm

19
20
Particle Entrapment &
Perm Reduction
(Schechter, 1992)

• Surface deposition of
particles
• Reduced porosity
• Increased surface area
• Increases tortuosity
• Internal Pore blockage
• External filter cake

21
 Capillary Model for Porous Medium
• Imagine bundle of capillaries of equal length
but different x-sectional area
• Probability of capillaries is the relative
abundance or no. of capillaries with area
between A & A+dA to the total no. of capillaries
• Probability of capillaries in unit volume (bulk)
having area between A and A+dA is hdA where
h is known as probability distribution function
or pore density function
22
Capillary Model for Porous Medium (cont.)
• If l is the pore length, lA is the pore volume of
a single capillary with area A
• Note the probability of pores with area exactly
equal to A is zero
• Area of pores with area between A and A+dA
in unit volume equals A*no. of pores = A*hdA
¥

f =l òAh dA
0
• For k, we know DP is same across all tubes
23
Capillary Model for Porous Medium (cont.)
• Velocity in a tube is proportional to it’s area
• Flow rate in a tube is proportional to it’s area
times velocity = vA
• No. of tubes in unit volume with area between
A & A+dA is hdA
• Flow rate from tubes with area between A &
A+dA = vAhdA = cA2hdA
• Total flow rate per unit volume and k will be
¥ ¥
proportional
q =c1 òA2h dA k =c2 òA2h dA
24
0 0
DP same in all capillaries
v a A in a capillary
Q = Av of all capillaries

25
26
Steady State Conservation Equation for Particle
Transport in Porous Media

u = Darcy velocity
c = Concentration of solids (solid vol. / fluid vol.)
 = Porosity
 = Fraction of deposited particles (vol. of deposited particles / bulk vol.)
D = Dispersion Coefficient

27
 Reasonable Approximations
• Incompressible flow (both fluids and solids)
• Dispersion is negligible
• Concentration of solids is assumed to be low
• Deposition follows an empirical relation as proposed by
Iwasaki (1937)
ds
=l uc
dt

• The final simplified equation

28
 Filtration Coefficient () Using Trajectory Analysis
(Rajagopalan and Tien, 1976)

• Happel’s sphere in-cell model for representing the porous media

• Forces considered on a particle are due to
• Convection
• Gravity
• Buoyancy
• Diffusion
• Favorable/attractive surface interactions
• Particle can be trapped due to interception, diffusion &
sedimentation
• Particle-Particle interaction is neglected

29
 Happel’s Sphere-in-cell Model (1958)
1.2
h =(1- f )2/3 AS N LO1/8 N R15/8 + 3.375 ´ 10- 3 (1- f)2/3 AS N G N R - 0.4 + 4 AS 1/3 N PE - 2/3
Flow
3(1- f ) Rajagopalan & Tien (1976)
l= h
2d g
(b,S)

Liquid
Shell (r,)
Grain

2rP 2 ( r P - r f )g dp
Pore
dg NG = NR =
throat
diameter b Limiting trajectory 9um dg
(dth)
H ud g
(ap+ac , ) N LO = N PE =
9pm rP 2u DBM

30
Filtration Coefficient Model (Compared to 106 Experiments)
13 Researchers

10000
S akthivadive l Ro que e t al
Iwas aki
(1966) Exp (1995)
(1937) Exp:92-93
Exp:24-25
Exp:1-10 RT Model
Elias s e n
1000 (1941 )
Exp:11 Fo x, Cle as by Grue s be c k & Kau e t al
(1966) Co llins (1995)
Mac krle
Exp:26-27 (1982) Exp:94-97
(1960)
Exp:12-13 Ive s Exp:88-91
100 (1967) Is o n
Maro udas (1967)
Filtratio n Co e ffic ie nt (1/m)

Exp:28-40
(1961) Exp:41-64
Exp:14-23 Fitzpatric k
(1973) Clo s e e t al
10 Exp:65-87 (2005)
Exp:98-106

0.1

0.01

0.001
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 31
Expe rime nt No .
Concentration of Suspended Particles in the
Formation (Linear Geometry)

fx
c(x,t) =0 t<
u
fx
c(x,t) =cin exp(- l x) t>
u

s (x,t) =l utcin exp(- l x) t  1 PV

 ( x , t )   0   ( x, t )

32
Example Particle Concentration & Permeability
Profile Around the Well

33
 Permeability Reduction Model
Pang and Sharma

Developed from Kozeny-Carman equation, Perm f3 1 1

k =K
Reduction is calculated from its 3 components
(1- f) 2 S gv 2 t

k / ko =kdp k ds kdt é ù
2

ê 1+ s / (1- f ) ú
æf 3 (1- fo )2 ö k ds =ê o ú æ 1 ö
kdp =ç 3 ê s ú kdt =ç
2÷ 1+ (d / d ) è 1+ bs ÷
f
è o (1- f ) ø ê (1- f ) g
ë o
p ú
û
ø
Perm reduction due to Perm reduction due to increase Perm reduction due to
porosity reduction in surface area increase in tortuosity

34
Formation of Internal & External Filter Cake
(A Multi-Component Filtration Model, Suri et al., SPEJ, March 2004)
Mud particles
h1, k1,dg1

h2, k2,dg2

Depthof
damage

Formation
grains

35
Simulator: UTDAMAGE (Suri et al.)
UTDAMAGE: Output Windows (Suri et al.)
 Fines Mobilization
• Due to change in chemical composition of water
(reduced salinity or ions between the formation
water and filtrate)
• Due to shear forces applied by moving fluid
• Sources of filtrate
– Drilling fluids
– Completion fluids
– Stimulation fluids
– Injection fluids
• Essential to check filtrate compatibility with the
formation 38
 Dispersion of Clay Particles
• Sudden decrease in salinity in sandstone may
cause dispersion of clay particles (called water
sensitivity)
• Depends on cation type, pH, rate of salinity
change

39
Critical Salt Concentrations in Filtrate for
Minimum Damage (Schechter)

40
 Prevent of Clay Dispersion
• A critical salt concentration is typically
recommended
• A minimal conc. of a monovalent ions for ex.
as given for Berea SS and a sufficient fraction
of divalent ions should be present
• A common criteria is to have 2 wt % of KCl and
at least 1/10th of salt is should be divalent
cations

41
 Chemical Precipitation
• Precipitation of solids from brine or crude can
cause severe plugging
• Triggers are change in temp., pressure, or
composition alteration of the phases
• Precipitates can be organic or inorganic
• Inorganic precipitates are usually divalent ions
such as Ca2+, Ba2+ combined with carbonate or
sulphate ions

42
 Inorganic Precipitation Example

• Initially the reaction is in equilibrium

• Any increase in the species in the left or any
decrease in the species in the right will form more
CaCO3 (solid/precipitate)
• Ex. injecting more CaCl2, or HCO3- or liberation of
CO2 due to pressure reduction (Prudhoe Bay has
HCO3- richness and this problem)
43
 Organic Precipitation Example
• Organic precipitation are waxes and
asphaltenes
• Wax (paraffins) precipitates when temp. is
reduced or when oil composition changes due
to gas liberation
• Asphaltenes (aromatic and napthenes) are
colloidally dispersed in the crude and are stable
due to presence of resins
• If resin conc. is reduced, asphaltenes can
flocculate causing damage 44
 Fluid Damage: Emulsions, Rel Perm,
Wettability
• Changes in the formation oil can cause
– Increase in apparent viscosity (emulsification)
– Decrease in effective perm (water block)
• Water-in-oil emulsions have
– Order of magnitude higher than oil viscosity
– Yield stress to be overcome to flow
– Typically caused by mechanical mixing dispersing
one phase into another but in formation
– Likely formed by surfactants or fines stabilizing
small droplets 45
 Water Damage

• Increase in water saturation around the

wellbore (also called as water block) results in
reduction in effective perm to oil

46
 Wettability Damage

• Certain chemicals can alter the wettability

from water-wet to oil-wet
• This would reduce the oil perm greatly

47
 Perforation Damage (Kruger, 1986)

• Damage near perforations is unavoidable

Lab testing of
perforating into
sandstone cores
showed
damaged zone to
be 1/4-1/2 inch
thick with perm
of 7-20% of
undamaged
perm
48
 Mechanical Damage

• Collapse of weak formation around wellbore

• In friable formations
• In formations weakened by acidizing

49
 Biological Damage

• Particularly water injection wells are

susceptible to bacteria (particularly anaerobic
that grows rapidly)
• Using these bacteria to plug the thief zones is
studied for EOR
• Bactericides should be used for prevention

50
 Damage during Well Operations

• Drilling Damage
• Completion Damage
• Production Damage
• Injection Damage

51
 Drilling Damage

• Invasion of drilling fluid particles and filtrate

• Particle damage is more severe typically
• Depth of invasion is typically an inch to a max
of 1 ft
• Correctly sized particles even less depth
• Perm recovery is around 70-80% for correctly
sized drilling fluids
• Rule of thumb, 5 vol% particles should have
diameter > 1/3rd of mean pore size
52
 Drilling Damage (cont.)

• Perforations or Acids typically overcome

drilling damage
• Common filtrate depths are 1-6 ft
• However in horizontal wells due to long mud
residence time, depths could be much more
• Filtrate can cause
– Fines mobilization
– Precipitation of solids
– Water blocking
53
 Drilling Damage (cont.)

• Filtrate damage can be reduced by tailoring

ionic composition compatible with formation
water
• If water blocking or clay swelling can be a
serious problem water-based muds have to
avoided

54
 Completion Damage

• Completion fluids
– Cements
– Perforating fluids
– Stimulation fluids
• Similar solids and filtrate invasion as drilling
fluid
• Typically solids should be < 2 ppm with size < 2
mm
• Cements have high Ca2+, so potential for
precipitation 55
Underbalance needed to minimize perforation damage in
gas zones based on its perm (King et al., 1985)

56
Underbalance needed to minimize perforation damage in oil
zones based on its perm (King et al., 1985)

57
 Stimulation Damage

• Stimulation fluids
• Similar solids and filtrate invasion as drilling
and completion fluids causing solids plugging
and precipitation

58
 Production Damage

• Fines are mobilized due to

– high velocity (critical velocity, Schechter, 1992)
– If they are water-wet and when water production
starts

59
 Production Damage

• Precipitation of solids
– high velocity (critical velocity, Schechter, 1992)
– If they are water-wet and when water production
starts

60
 Production Damage

• Precipitation of solids (similar to before)

– Inorganic minerals from brine
– Organic solids from crude
• Occasional stimulation can be done
– acids for carbonate precipitates
– solvents for waxes
• Chemicals can be squeezed for prevention

61
 Injection Damage

• Suspended solids in injection fluids

– Typically suspended solids size is kept < 2 mm
• Precipitation due to incompatibility issues
– Injection of sulfate or carbonate when Ca2+, Mg2+,
or Ba2+ is present
– Cation exchange with clays can release divalent
cations and cause precipitation even when
injection water is compatible
• Growth of bacteria
– Bactericide should be added 62
 Skin Components

• sd = damage skin
• sc+q = skin due to partial completion and slant
• sp = perforation skin
• spseudo = Rate dependent & phase skins

63
 Rate Dependent Skin
• Well tests done at different rates can isolate
non-rate dependent skin

At high rates
rate dependent
skin Dq can be
much larger
than s

64
 Phase Skin
• Producing below bubble point point leads to
gas evolution & reduction in effective perm to
oil
• Similarly gas retrograde condensate will lead
to liquid drop around the gas well causing
effective perm to gas to reduce

65
66
67
68
69
70
71