SPE 86544

Benchmarking the Formation Damage of Drilling Fluids

C.H. van der Zwaag1, SPE, Reservoir Laboratories/SINTEF

Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

Introduction
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition Prevention of formation damage through fluids used for
on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, U.S.A., 18–20 February 2004.
drilling and well operations provides one of the key elements
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
for the economic success of oil- and gasfield developments. It
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to affects not only commercial interests, but also the total quality
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 of the production process. Hence, it comes along with
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-
increased up-time and process reliability, as well as a
mercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohib- reduction in total HES-related risks. The latter is related to
ited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300 words;
illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of reduced exposure of staff and environment because the need
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.
for stimulation/workover operations on damaged wells or even
the drilling of additional wells to exploit the full reservoir
potential is reduced.
Abstract The work reported in this paper is part of a research
The “Unified test protocol for laboratory formation damage initiative supported by the EU-commission within the 5th
assessments” consists of functional procedures that attempt to framework research and technical development programme.
standardise formation damage service projects. Setting This research initiative, termed “Well Productivity 2002”,
functional requirements was preferred above detailed short “WP2002”, aims to deliver development strategies and
instructions with respect to laboratory work processes and the new products to drill, complete and maintain wellbores in such
handling of laboratory equipment. a manner that the optimum delivery potential of a hydrocarbon
In order to assess the formation damage potential of a fluid reservoir is protected.
for drilling or well operations, three sections of the protocol As one task to approach the project objectives, a work
need to be accomplished. These are respectively: package was defined to develop cost-effective laboratory and
“Information”, “Simulation” and “Analysis”. field diagnostic methods to characterise and quantify
This paper presents the three sections of the unified formation damage. The particular objectives of this work
protocol and discusses the effect of the functional approach. package were among other to:
Special emphasis is put on a distinction between well fluids 1. Establish minimum equipment requirements for simple
that experience dynamic and static filtration regimes, as these “screening-type” formation damage assessments.
require different ways of simulating fluid applications to the 2. Demonstrate a viable and unified set of laboratory test pro-
rock sample. To provide engineering parameters relevant at tocols for “screening” and “diagnostic”-type tests.
field scale and to identify the full range of potential formation We present below a test protocol that attempts to satisfy
damage mechanisms that may affect the reservoir, analyses on these objectives. This protocol is based on a functional
“centimeter”, “millimeter” and “micrometer” scale approach rather than detailed requirements. Suggestions to
are suggested. satisfy functional requirements in practice are given. The
Minimum requirements to upscale formation damage primary thought when developing the protocol was to
measurements to field scale are presented. We also present an structure the communication between user and supplier of the
option for full scope “diagnostic” formation service project and to link field and laboratory closer together.
damage assessments.
Applications of numerical models that have been Unified Protocol
suggested in earlier research yield “return permeability”, Background. To select an optimum fluid for drilling or well
“filtrate invasion depth”, “lab skin”, “efficiency of flow” and operations in a reservoir section, one of the most prominent
“loss of revenue” as parameters to benchmark the formation criteria is potential formation damage. Using representative
damage of well fluids. formation cores, service laboratories conventionally measure
the permeability impairment caused by candidate fluids to
benchmark formation damage potential. However, previously
suggested recommended practices to assess return
1 permeability have shown poor lab-to-lab repeatability. A
Work performed at Reservoir Laboratories (-April 2000) and at SINTEF
recent comparative study1,2 involving 10 laboratories
(May 2000 – September 2002), the author is now employed at the Norwegian
Petroleum Directorate. demonstrated that detailed, step-by-step instructions for
2 SPE 86544

permeability damage measurements yield results with large 2. Information from laboratory to field team (see
variations. The authors conclude among other, “the study Tab. 2) on the experimental and analytical plan to
illustrates the difficulty in developing a procedure which is address the field case.
suitable for the wide variety of equipment specifications …”. 3. Agreement on project plan and quality
A requirement for standardised test equipment, as set forward acceptance criteria.
in this study, may be difficult to defend globally as service In general acceptance criteria may be related to the objectives
laboratories use individual technical approaches and work of the field operations, to the quality of the tested fluid
under different economical constraints. systems, to the project design or to the performance of
laboratory activities compared to the plan.
Summary of the unified protocol. On this background we
propose that any protocol for laboratory-based formation Section 2 “Simulation”. The second part of the unified proto-
damage assessments that aims on general acceptance should col concerns the application of the candidate fluids to rock
use a functional, “goal oriented” approach, rather than detailed samples under conditions representative for the reservoir,
requirements for lab-equipment and instructions. Reviewing drilling or well operations and production from the well. As
earlier work we are able to isolate 3 major, individual tasks part of a formation damage simulation a prepared core plug
and their functions within a formation damage assessment. sample is exposed to a sample of the drilling or, in general, the
These are: well fluid under controlled pressure and temperature condi-
1. “Information”: This is a systematic planning process. tions and under dynamic and/or static filtration conditions. To
It comprises an assessment of field conditions, a simulate hydrocarbon production before and after drilling fluid
discussion of parameters relevant for the transition exposure, representative formation fluids are flooded through
from field to laboratory, a schedule for experiments and the core under controlled pressure and temperature conditions
analyses, and methods for up-scaling laboratory and flow rates. This is performed in a formation to wellbore
observations. The overall plan should achieve cost- direction1,2, as is the case in a producing well. The flow of
effectiveness and agreements on acceptance criteria. activities in the “Simulation” section is presented in detail in
2. “Simulation”: In this experimental section, candidate the center column of Fig. 1.
fluids for drilling or well operations are applied to A review of research performed over the last 50 years3-20
prepared rock samples. Afterwards, the production shows that filtration conditions in formation damage tests are
from a well is simulated. These activities are performed simulated by:
on core plug samples under experimental conditions 1. Static filtration3,6
that are close to reservoir conditions in terms of 2. Semi-dynamic filtration, including flow heads4,8,9 and
temperature, pressure and well fluid filtration regime. stirring devices5,19
The right selection of rock samples, fluid samples and 3. Scaled dynamic filtration, including slot-type
preparation methods is relevant for simulations. designs10,11,13,14,16,23,24, hollow cylinder7,20, cone-and-
3. “Analysis”: Measurements performed during plane18 and cylindrical rotors12.
simulations as well as dedicated analytical methods that Another category, large scale borehole simulators, is found
characterize rock and fluids before and after irrelevant for formation damage service studies as this option
simulations create the basis for quantitative and is related to dedicated research studies and budgets on a
qualitative evaluations. Results are translated to different scale. The well fluid must, if relevant (see Tab. 3), be
wellbore scale to assess the effect and geometrical applied dynamically and parallel to the face of the core. In
extent of formation damage. case of drilling fluids, engineers have been aware that mud
filtration while circulating the fluid past the formation face
Limitations. This work is limited to formation damage under dynamic conditions differs21 “radically and in no readily
through fluids used in drilling and well operations. It is with predictable manner” from the static case. Also, “semi-dynamic
minor modifications applicable to other well fluid and fluid approaches” may build up under-sheared and over-sheared
engineering issues, for example injection waters, however, it is filter cakes in the same application. This may affect filtrate
limited to the aspects of rock-fluid interactions and fluid-to- distribution and ultimately the measured damage.
fluid compatibility. Formation damage related to unconsoli-
dated sands, sand production, through the explosives in perfo- Section 3 “Analysis”. To structure the many different meth-
ration guns or through well testing operations is not within the ods that are available to analyse core plugs and fluids, we util-
scope of this work. ise an approach that distinguishes three different geometrical
scales. These are:
Section 1 “Information”. The exchange of information be- - Core plug scale or centimetre (cm)-scale
tween field team and laboratory team aims on securing that all - Intermediate scale or millimetre (mm)-scale
essential variables related to the impact of formation damage - Pore scale or micrometer (µm)-scale
on well productivity of the field case are taken into account Tab.4 summarizes measurements and observations and
and properly addressed through simulations and analyses. allocates the categories that are considered as most relevant.
Mainly, the following information should be exchanged: Some overlap between categories may occur. Filter cake
1. Information from field team to laboratory (see Tab. characterisation, for example, is mostly performed on a µm-
1) concerning field parameters and operational scale to assess filter cake texture (e.g. particle size sorting,
objectives and constraints. degree of particle flocculation). Filter cake thickness or
SPE 86544 3

thickness distributions are on the other hand parameters that Simulations. Repeated simulations were performed on
would be more associated with a mm- or even cm- scale. Blaxters Sandstone a UK carboniferous sandstone that had
been used in several previous studies1,2,22,23. A water-based,
“Screening” and “Diagnostic” studies. Depending on the sized carbonate mud with clarified Xanthan (XCD) as the
objectives of the formation damage assessment one may dis- primary viscosifier was used as a standard drilling fluid. The
tinguish “screening” and “diagnostic” studies. “Screening” rock samples were first saturated with simulated reservoir
studies compare the formation damage of two or several op- brine and then brought to irreducible water saturation Swi by
tions that may be candidates for a field case. Options may be flooding low viscosity laboratory oil (Clairsol). Drilling fluid
related to well fluid alternatives, different reservoir formations applications were performed under static filtration conditions
or critical operational parameters (e.g. pump rates, overbal- and under scaled dynamic filtration conditions followed by a
ance, fluid contaminations etc.). “Screening” only needs to static filtration period. For static applications a hydrostatic
identify the cases with a significant damage potential. It may core holder was equipped with a 10-mm deep spacer ring
therefore be restricted to a few analytical parameters that al- having a wall thickness of 4 mm. This was placed at the
low delimiting the primary impact of the cases on well pro- wellbore end of the core plug sample. For fully dynamic mud
ductivity. The transition between “screening study” and “di- application a generic wellbore situation was scaled to produce
agnostic study” is not well defined. However, the following shear rates at the core plug endface, equivalent to shear rates
is recommended: at the wellbore wall23. The given setup produced a shear rate
1. As a minimum requirement to upscale formation damage of 320 s-1. After a 24 hrs dynamic application mud circulation
measurements to field scale, analyses on “centimetre” was stopped and the system was kept at rest to establish a
scale including measurements of fluid filtration static filtration regime.
parameters and return permeability should be performed. Note that the core holder design allows core plug exposure
A limited range of subsidiary measurements (porosity, over the full endface. Experimental techniques, including
initial pore fluid saturations, viscosity and density of explanations to “tandem” set-ups with filtrate receiving core
pore fluids, well fluid rheology) is necessary for holders behind the core holder used for drilling fluid
experimental design and numerical evaluations. application, are presented in an earlier paper23. Test conditions
2. A complete formation damage analysis is performed on for both static and dynamic tests are presented in Tab. 5.
the higher-risk cases found by screening. Diagnostic
studies can be used to clarify the cause of damage so that Analysis. Accumulated filtrate production over time and per-
suitable action can be taken, e.g. reformulation or system meabilities before and after fluid application were assessed.
re-design. Diagnostic studies include core and fluid Return permeability was measured after a constant rate back
analysis methods as well as advanced rock characterisa- flood (rate 2 ml/min). In addition, porosity, initial pore fluid
tion methods. saturations, viscosity and density of pore fluids and well fluid
The distinguishing feature between both types of studies is rheology parameters were measured. To observe local changes
the effort put into the analysis of damage; see Fig. 1 comments in the fluid distributions, NMR-Imaging was performed on
at the bottom of the flow chart. In the “simulation” section, core plugs under ambient conditions after drilling fluid appli-
efforts should be made to represent the downhole situation as cation and well production simulation. In one case, a static
accurately as possible in terms of temperature, pressure and drilling fluid application was stopped after 15 minutes expo-
filtration conditions, as well as composition of pore fluids and sure. No backflood was performed in this case.
fluid saturations of the rock samples, independent of the NMR-Imaging was used as a formation damage
choice between “screening” and “diagnostic” type of study. identification tool as presented in ref. 20. Instead of 10 MHz
Alternatives presented in Tab. 3 may be used for decisions. proton resonance frequency an NMR spectrometer operating
at 100 MHz proton resonance frequency was used. Two other
Up-Scaling. The analysis of formation damage simulations post test analysis methods that were used to identify formation
should always keep in mind to translate the results from damage mechanisms on µm- scale are presented in earlier
laboratory to the scale of drilling and well operations. This work23. These comprised Conventional Dry SEM analysis to
should be done by a systematic up-scaling process. The up- determine solid alteration to the pore architecture and
scaling process may include the following steps: cryogenic SEM analysis to observe changes in fluid
- Up-scaling of the effect and extent of formation distribution on a pore scale level.
damage to the near-wellbore geometry.
- Potential impact on production volumes and economic Results. Static and dynamic filtration coefficients are calcu-
implications of the selected alternative. lated according to the methods presented by Roodhart24. Re-
- Relevance of observed formation damage mechanisms turn permeability is expressed as the permeability ratio of the
on field scale and selection of potential solutions for post-exposure to the baseline permeability measurement.
formation damage reduction. Filtration. The static filtrate loss coefficient, m, measured
for the water based drilling fluid under static filtration alone
Sensitivity of methods shows good repeatability for 3 repetitions. The mean
A subset of the unified test protocol developed above was coefficient is 3.75 ± 0.70 l/(m2h0.5). Dynamic filtration
tested and used to demonstrate important aspects of simulations show a substantial dynamic leak-off component,
“screening” and “diagnostic” type of laboratory scale B, when fitting the filtration curve of the dynamic phase
formation damage assessments. according to the model suggested by Roodhart24. The dynamic
4 SPE 86544

leakoff parameter B is 1.31 ± 0.19 l/(m2h) with 95% damage distribution anomalies caused by the spacer ring. As
confidence limits. The static leak-off coefficient, A, used in the backflooding oil is choosing flow paths with least
the dynamic filtration model is calculated to resistance, flow channels concentrate on the flanks of the core
5.26 ± 0.91 l/(m2h0.5). When turning off circulation and plug that are less saturated with viscous filtrate than the center
keeping the system at rest, a static filtration regime is of the plug. It is also observed that the mud exposure zone
established. Fig. 2 shows that filtration rates decreased in the may be more oil saturated than the rest of the sample. This
static regime. This observation is quantified by calculations may indicate that mud components were flushed out of the
using a static filtration model24. The static leakoff component immediate exposure zone by the backflooding oil.
m is now measured to 0.38 ± 0.21 l/(m2h0.5) with 95% The return permeabilities measured on this plug (b2) may
confidence limits. be related to flow along the damaged rock matrix, rather than
Note the different measurement units for static and flow through the damaged matrix.
dynamic filtration parameters. Note also that the coefficients Fig. 5 finally, shows the image of a Blaxters sandstone
are scaled to filtration area and exposure time. Both plug, which was exposed to the same water based drilling
observations are important for later up-scaling. fluid, yet, under dynamic filtration conditions and without a
The coefficients and observations (Fig. 2) confirm that spacer ring at the wellbore end of the plug. The NMR image
drilling fluid filtration rates show strong sensitivity towards shows more homogeneous fluid phase distributions compared
the filtration regime (static or dynamic) that is used. Also, to the previous two cases. This observation may also imply
static filtration after dynamic filtration is significantly that the return permeability measurement on this core plug is
different from static filtration alone, when comparing the more trustworthy.
filtration coefficients for both cases. On this background, it is also asked whether the return
Return Permeability. Results show that there was little permeabilities measured in core holders with a reduced
alteration in return permeability (see Tab. 6 and Tab. 7). The exposure area at the core plug endface actually reflect
mean values observed for dynamic and static filtration tests formation damage or rather the undamaged permeability of a
are equal within the limits of 95% confidence. Core plugs run smaller part of the rock sample.
in the dynamic set up had a return permeability of 39.5 ±
8.1%, while plugs run under static filtration returned with on Up-scaling and benchmarking
average 43.4 ± 11.0%. Two samples that were run in a tandem Combining fluid loss and return permeability measurements,
core holder and that received the filtrate from samples run and only in combination, it is ultimately possible to up-scale
under dynamic exposure conditions only, returned both with laboratory formation damage studies to field scale. The
56% (see Tab. 8). This is significantly different from the cases approach suggested in this work yields “return permeability”,
with direct mud application. It also indicates that the invasion “filtrate invasion depth”, “lab-skin”, “efficiency of flow” and
of water-based filtrate contributes substantially to the overall “loss of revenue” as parameters to translate laboratory test
permeability damage. results to field scale. Numerical models presented below have
Saturation Distributions. NMR-Images represent analyses been suggested in earlier research.
on millimeter scale. The images were useful for highlighting
artefacts when using a spacer ring at the wellbore end of the Filtrate invasion depth. The determination of the radius of
core plug. Within this study, the method achieved not only the the skin zone is based on the accurate measurements of
assessment of formation damage mechanisms, but was also dynamic and static filter loss volumes. To calculate invasion
used as a quality assessment tool. Fig. 3 shows an NMR- depth, di, Breitmeier et al.21 suggest the following equation.
Image of a Blaxters sandstone sample, which was briefly
(15 min) exposed to a water-based drilling mud using Xanthan 0 .5
⎧⎪ ⎛ 2r ⎞ ⎫⎪
as the primary viscosifier. The mud components were in this d i = ⎨rw2 + ⎜⎜ w ⎟⎟ ∫ C m dt ⎬ − rw ..........................................(1.)
case not back-produced by a production simulation. The image ⎪⎩ ϕS
⎝ i⎠ ⎪⎭
shows light zones (yellow, orange) behind the spacer ring that
created the annular space ahead of the wellbore end of the core where:
plug. Zones are marked with white circles and reflect higher rw: Hole diameter/bit diameter (m)
oil saturations than observed in the other parts of the rock ϕ: porosity (frac.)
sample. These other parts are largely filled with polymer Si: Average saturation of the invading filtrate in the zone
containing filtrate that causes darker (green, blue) colour of invasion (frac.)
codes in the image. Cm: Filtrate flux (in 10-3 m3/(m2 s))
-3 3 2
Fig. 4 shows the image of a Blaxters sandstone sample that ∫ Cm dt : accumulated filtrate volume (in 10 m /m )
experienced a complete formation damage simulation with The accumulated filtrate volume is computed for a
static filtration. While the previous image showed specified measured depth of the borehole as a function of open
inhomogeneous saturation distributions as “shadow” zones hole time, t, and the filtration coefficients calculated for either
behind the spacer ring, the image in Fig. 4 seems to show oil static or dynamic filtration.
“flow channels” along the flanks of the core plug. The plug The model of Breitmeier et al.21 is qualified by the authors
appears otherwise predominately filtrate saturated. The NMR- as a “fairly good approximation”. It is based on the
response indicates that these channels reflect zones with assumption of a uniform, plug type displacement of the mobile
higher oil saturations, i.e. smaller filtrate saturations, than the pore fluids through the invading filtrate. Other authors, for
rest of the plug. The reason for this is probably an effect of
SPE 86544 5

example Phelps25 and Ding et al30., suggest more detailed one filtration properties. The “lab-skin”-value is positive and
dimensional and two dimensional numerical models in order potential flow from the well is reduced by between 15 to 25%,
to model filtrate invasion. see Tab. 10. Most striking is the substantial difference
between filtrate invasion depth calculated for dynamic mud
“Lab-skin”. Skin as discussed in this work belongs to the applications and static applications. While the dynamically
category of mechanical skin factors as defined by Yildiz26. To filtered fluid filtrate invades by more than half a meter into the
account for changes in pressure or flow behaviour of a well rock formation, the prediction for static invasion is just half of
depending on the combination of permeability damage and the the dynamic value. Information such as the depth of filtrate
geometrical extent of damage Hawkins27 expressed the skin invasion is not only important for formation damage
factor as: assessments, but also for formation evaluation.
Due to the smaller return permeability and the larger radius
⎛k ⎞ r
s = ⎜⎜ − 1⎟⎟ ln s ............................................................ ( 2.) of filtrate invasion, the predictions based on the “dynamic”
⎝ k s ⎠ rw case would have provoked more stringent measures to combat
damage, while formation damage tests with static filtration
Obviously, the radius of the damaged zone, or skin zone,
may have underestimated the given situation.
rs, is expressed as the sum of the wellbore radius, rw, and the
Measurements on the “tandem” plugs show that the filtrate
damage invasion depth, di.
alone causes significantly smaller formation damage than
rs = rw + d i ..................................................................... (3.) estimated from plugs exposed to the complete drilling mud.

Conclusions
Flow efficiency and economic implications. For example, for The document proposes a unified test protocol for laboratory
pseudo-steady state flow (reservoir with no-flow boundaries formation damage testing. The approach is functional, rather
and declining reservoir pressure due to production) Golan and than defining standard situations and giving detailed
Whitson28 derive a flow efficency factor EF according to: instructions concerning the use of lab-equipment. The
ln(re rw ) − 0.75 ................................................ (4.) systematic behind the protocol may translate into advantages
EF = as the formation damage assessment becomes more
ln(re rw ) − 0.75 + S
transparent and field oriented.
For other drainage situations different definitions of EF The approach allows adapting either quick “screening”
apply28. A damage ratio, DR, is defined according to: type assessments for the investigation of several options or
comprehensive “diagnostic” type assessments for
DR = 1 − E F .................................................................... (5.) critical cases.
Amaeful et al.29 present a formula for the economic A subset of the unified test protocols was tested to
implication, FD$L, of formation damage by the annual demonstrate important aspects of laboratory formation damage
revenue loss per well according to: assessments. Important observations were:
1. Measurements emphasise that under comparable
FD$ L = 365q 0 p DR ....................................................... (6.) conditions filtrate volumes generated in a dynamic
where: filtration regime are significantly larger than static
q0 – undamaged flow rate in barrel oil equivalents per day filtration volumes. The differences in the dynamic and
p – given oil price e.g. in USD per barrel. static filtration coefficients contribute to significant
differences in the up-scaled filtrate invasion depth at
“Generic” Field Case. As this study was not related to a field scale.
specific field case, we suggest the generic field parameters 2. Invasion of water-based filtrate contributes
presented in Tab. 9 to demonstrate the principles of the up- substantially to the overall permeability damage.
scaling process. At a given depth level in the reservoir 3. NMR images show that coreholders that use a reduced
formation a total open hole time of 200 hours was experienced annular space at the wellbore end of a core plug may
during drilling. 50% of the open hole time was used for affect drilling mud filtrate distributions and cause
drilling and circulating the drilling fluid, while the other 50% nonrepresentative flow patterns when backflooding.
were spent on tripping and logging, or in general situations The approach suggested in this work yields “filtrate
where the drilling fluid was kept at rest. Relevant formation invasion depth”, “lab-skin”, “efficiency of flow” and “loss of
parameters for displacement and invasion calculations revenue” as “benchmarkers” for drilling and well fluid
(porosity and initial formation saturation Swi) were derived formation damage predictions for field operations.
from measurements on the Blaxters sandstone. The
assumption of a well drainage radius of 500 m is appreciable Recommendations
for a well with the given hole size, production rate and To use the results of formation damage tests efficiently,
formation petrophysical properties. A “no-flow” boundary as laboratories should attempt to scale fluid applications to
expressed in eqn. 4 is used as an example. Reservoirs with downhole conditions also in terms of the prevailing filtration
strong aquifer support may require different calculations. regimes. So far, this approach has not been field proven. The
The presented case shows a potential for improvement in protocol and models suggested in this work aim on linking
view to drilling mud selection or the optimisation of mud laboratory and field scale stronger together. In this respect,
this study expresses a hope for an initiative that establishes
6 SPE 86544

correlations between laboratory and field formation damage AADE 01-NC-HO-53 National Drilling Conference Houston,
(March 2001).
measurements (Drill Stem Tests, Resistivity Logs, Pressure 20. van der Zwaag, C.H. et al. (1997), “New Methodology to
Transient Well Test Analyses, Production Logging). Reports Investigate Formation Damage Using Non-Destructive Analytical
or solid experience on such correlations appear to be rare, if Tools”, SPE paper 38161 pres. At the SPE EFDC, The Hague,
non-existent. June 2-3
21. Breitmeier, J.M.et al. (1989), “Investigation of Radial Invasion of
Mud Filtrate in Porous Media”, Society of Professional Well Log
References Analysts Logging Symposium, 30th, Denver, Col., Transactions,
1. Marshall D.S. et al. (1997) “Development of a Recommended p. S1-S22.
Practice for Formation Damage Testing”, paper SPE 38154 pres. at 22. van der Zwaag, C.H. et al. (2001) ”The Effect of Current and
the 1999 SPE EFDC, The Hague, June 2-3. Future Drilling Fluid Systems on Core Analysis”, Oil Gas
2. Marshall D.S. et al. (1999) “Return Permeability: A Detailed European Magazine, Vol. 27, 4, 16-22
Comparative Study”, paper SPE 54763 pres. at the 1999 SPE 23. Watson, R.B. and Nelson A.C. (2003), ”Representativ Laboratory
EFDC, The Hague, 31 May – 1 June. Testing Procedures for Selecting Drilling Fluids“ paper SPE 82300
3. Bailey, L. (1998), “Filtercake Integrity and Reservoir Damage”, presented at the European Formation Damage Conference, The
paper SPE 39429 presented at the SPE International Symposium Hague, 13-14 May.
on Formation Damage, Lafayette, 18-19 February 24. Roodhart, L.P. (1985), “Fracturing Fluids: Fluid-Loss
4. Beatty T., et al. (1993), “Core Tests Help Prevent Formation Measurements under Dynamic Conditions”, paper SPE 11900,
Damage in Horizontal Wells”, Oil and Gas Journal, Aug. 2, SPE Journal, p.629.
p.64-70 25. Phelps, G.D. (1995) “Computation of Mud Filtrate Invasion
5. Chesser, B.G. et al. (1994), “Dynamic and Static Filtrate-loss Profiles”, The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 34, No.
Techniques for Monitoring Filter-cake Quality Improves Drilling 1, p. 18-27.
Fluid Performance”, SPE Drilling and Completion, September, 26. Yildiz, T. (2003), “Assessment of Total Skin Factor in Perforated
p. 189-192 Wells”, paper SPE 82249 presented at the SPE European
6. Cobianco, S. et al. (2001), “New Solids-Free Drill-in Fluid for Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, 13-14 May.
Low Permeability Reservoirs”, paper SPE 64979 presented at the 27. Hawkins, M.F. (1956), “A Note on the Skin Effect”, Petroleum
SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Housto, 13- Transactions AIME, Tech.Note 389, Vol. 207, p.356-357
16 February. 28. Golan, M. and Whitson, C.H. (1991), Well Performance, PTR
7. Fisk, J.V. and Jamison, D.E. (1989), “Physical Properties of Prentice Hall Inc.
Drilling Fluids at High Temperature and Pressures”, SPE Drilling 29. Amaeful, J.O. et al. (1988), “Advances in Formation Damage
Engineering, December, 341-346. Assessment and Control Strategies”, paper no. 88-39-65 presented
8. Francis, P.A. et al. (1995), “Visualisation of Drilling Induced at the 39th Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society of
Formation Damage Mechanisms using Reservoir Conditions CIM, Clagary, June 12-16.
Coreflood Testing”, Paper 30088, European Formation Damage 30. Ding, Y. et al. (2002):, “Modelling of Both Near-Wellbore
Control Conference (May 1995). Damage and Natural Cleanup of Horizontal Wells Drilled with a
9. Gruber and Adair (1995), “New Laboratory Procedures for Water –Based Mud” Paper SPE 73733 International Symposium
Evaluation of Drilling Induced Formation Damage and Horizontal on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, 20 – 21 February.
Well Perofrmance”, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology,
34, no. 5, May, 27-32
10. Jiao, D. and Sharma, M. (1992), "Formation Damage Due to Static
Acknowledgements
and Dynamic Filtration of Water-Based Muds," paper SPE 23823 The EU-project “Well Productivity 2002 (WP 2002)” was
presented at the International Symposium on Formation Damage planned in 1997 and 1998 together with Jan Erik Hanssen,
Control, Lafayette, 26-27 February. then at Rogaland Research. Without his inspiration and
11. Krueger, R.F. (1963), “Evaluation of Drilling Fluid Filter Loss
Additives Under Dynamic Conditions”, Journal of Petroleum
patience the project never would have taken off. Late 1999 the
Technology, January, p.90 98 project finally was realized thanks to the support of the EU-
12. Leerlooijer, K. et al. (1996) “Filtration Control, Mud Design and Commission as well as 5 dedicated oil companies: BP, Norsk
Well Productivity”, paper SPE 31079 presented at the SPE Hydro, Norske Shell, ChevronTexaco and Eni. The support
Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette,
14-15 February.
and the permission to publish this work are
13. Longeron, D. et al. (1995), "An Integrated Experimental Approach gratefully acknowledged.
for Evaluating Formation Damage Due to Drilling and Completion We also would like to thank our collegues at Rogaland
Fluids" paper SPE 30089 presented at the European Formation Research, EniTecnologi, MI Drilling Fluids, Rhodia, ResLab
Damage Control Conference Hague, the Netherlands, 15-16 May
14. Marx, C. and Rahman, S.S. (1987), “Evaluation of Formation
and SINTEF. A special thanks goes to Arne Stavland, Liqun
Damage by Drilling Fluids, Specifically in Pressure Reduced Han, Ingebret Fjelde, Arild Lohne, Sandra Cobianco,
Formations”, Journal of Petroleum Technology, November, Guiseppe Maddinelli, Russell Watson, Wulve Vatslag, Ingrid
1449-1452 Gribbestad, Tore Skjetne, Trond Erling Singstad and Emil
15. Outmans, (1963): “Mechanics of Static and Dynamic Filtration in
the Borehole”, Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal,
Veliyulin for their contributions.
September, 236-244.
16. Peden J.M. et al. (1982), “The Analysis of the Dynamic Filtration
and Permeability Impairment Characteristics of Inhibited Water
Based Muds”, paper SPE 10655 presented at the SPE Formation
Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, 24-25 March.
17. Roodhart, L.P. (1985) “Fracturing Fluids: Fluid Loss
Measurements under Dynamic Conditions”, Society of Petroleum
Engineers Journal, October, 629-636
18. Vaussard A. et al. (1986), “An Experimental Study of Drilling
Fluids Dynamic Filtration“, paper SPE 15412 presented at the 61st
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE, New
Orleans, October 5-8.
19. Zeilinger S. et al. (2001; “The Effect of Shear Rate on the Static
and Dynamic Fluid-loss Behaviour of Drilling Fluids”, paper
SPE 86544 7

Appendix

Tab. 1. Tables for exchange of information from field team to Tab. 2. Tables for exchange of information from laboratory to field
laboratory team
TABLE 5 - CHARACTERISTICS OF CORE TABLE 6 - WELL FLUID - TO - RESERVOIR
TABLE 1 - GENERAL INFORMATION TABLE 2 - WELL FLUID INFORMATION
MATERIAL AND RESTORATION METHODS SAMPLE EXPOSURE CONDITIONS
1. Client 8. Type of FD-problem 21. Preliminary Characterisation 26. Core holder design
Contact Single well fluid CT-Scan of reservoir core (y/n) axial/linear flow geometry
2. Field under investigation Fluid compatibility, several well fluids well preserved radial flow geometry
Well(s) 9. Type of test fluids dried out, mechanically damaged short core (D:L<1:3)
Formation(s) Drilling in reservoir homogeneous, inhomogeneous long core (D:L > 1:3)
3. Origin of core material Cased and perforated hole consolidated, unconsolidated multiple pressure ports
Coring depth Open hole 22. Cutting of plugs tandem set-up
Storage time and conditions Sand screens Cutting method and lubricants other design features
4. Type of core material (coring method) Gravel pack Cutting direction in relation to bedding planes 27. Test conditions
Conventional Other Trimming and endface preparations Core temperature
Plastic/aluminum liner Completion fluids 23. Preparations Static well fluid temperature
Gel Cement ”Native State" Well fluid temperature during circulation
"Sponge" Soaps "Fresh" Confinement pressure
Other Displacement brine Cleaned and restored Pore pressure
5. Type of coring fluid Kill fluid 24. Cleaning and restoration Well fluid pressure and overbalance
Base fluid Others Soxhlet-solvent extraction Injection rate (clear fluids only)
Weight material Frac fluid Solvent flood (Hot flush) 28. Filtration conditions
Viscosifier Stimulation fluids Solvent flood (Cold flush) Dynamic filtration conditions
Fluid loss reducers HCl Mineral oil flood (Hot flush) Circulation rate
Emulsifiers HF Mineral oil flood (Hot and viscous) Calculated shear rate
Other chemicals Others 25. Restoration to S wi Static filtration conditions
6. Origin of fluid samples 10. Composition and properties of well fluids by flooding Exposure time
Formation water Fluid composition by centrifuge 1. dynamic
Oil and gas Rheology by porous plate method 2. static
Well fluids API/HTHP filter loss properties with mineral oil as function of throughput
7. Type of FD-assessment Filtrate composition with high viscosity mineral oil 29. Production simulation
Pre-analyses Filtrate rheology with reservoir oil (dead) Constant rate
Post (damage) analysis with reservoir oil (live) Constant ∆p (drawdown)
TABLE 3 - AVAILABLE ROCK AND RESERVOIR TABLE 4 - DOWNHOLE OPERATIONS with humidified nitrogen
FLUID INFORMATION CONDITIONS with reservoir gas
11. Lithology 18. Temperature and pressure conditions aging
Consolidated SS Reservoir temperature
Poorly consolidated SS Dynamic downhole temperature TABLE 7 - FLUIDS ANALYSIS TABLE 8 - CORE ANALYSIS
Unconsolidated SS Overburden pressure 30. Pore fluids 34. Conventional core analysis measurements
Carbonate Reservoir pore pressure Viscosity of pore fluids at p, T Porosity
Chalk 19. Well geometry, time aspects and pump rate Density of pore fluids at p, T Air permeability
12. Appr. Permeability Hole diameter 31. Laboratory well fluids Brine permeability
13. Mineralogy and Petrophysics Length of reservoir section Fluid composition 35. Baseline and return permeability
XRD BHA dimensions Rheology in formation damage core holder
SEM Drill pipe dimensions API/HTHP filter loss properties at reservoir temperature
Thin sections ROP Filtrate composition at room temperature
Pore size distributions Interruptions (e.g. Logging, WOW) Filtrate rheology in separate core holder
Other Total open hole time Solid particle size distribution after aging
14. Sensitive clays Pump rate Other information from fluid supplier 36. Saturation determination
15. Reservoir zone 20. Production data 32. Filtration monitoring Dean Stark Extraction
Gaszone Production drawdown pressure Total filtration volume/mass Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (BVI/FFI)
Oilzone Production rate Filtration volume/mass vs. Time 37. Petrophysics
Waterzone Drainage radius Calc. static filtration coefficients Nuclear Magnetic Resonance T1 or T2
Transition zone Flow boundaries Calc. dynamic filtration coefficients NMR-Imaging (M0, T1, T2)
16. Formation water composition 33. Effluent analysis Computed Tomography Scanning
Calcium Composition others
Barium Density/viscosity 38. Petrographical methods
Strontium Particle size distribution Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)
Metals Particle composition analysis Cryogenic SEM
Sulphate Bacteria Thin sections analysis
Carbonate Oil in water Backscattered Electron Microscopy
17. Oil, gas, condensate composition others
Wax/Paraffin content 39. Mineralogy/Chemistry
Bitumen/Pyrobitumen X-Ray Diffraction
Asphaltenes X-Ray Fluorescence
others

Tab. 3. Principle well fluid exposure methods.

Type of Well Fluid Filtration Regime Core Holder Features Scope Not recommended for
Clear brines or filter cake building fluids,
which are placed in the well
Long term testing
Hydrostatic core holder
Verification of formation damage
Well productivity
Static filtration Well end of the core plug mechanisms related to static filtration and
estimates for fluids
Well fluids operated is provided with a spacer filtrate penetration
outside the fluid type
under static filtration ring
specifications
conditions (e.g. Testing brittle, ductile or unconsolidated
stimulation fluids, kill rock materials.
pills, workover fluids) Hydrostatic core holder
As in static filtration Well productivity
Semi-dynamic Well end of the core plug estimates for fluids
filtration is provided with a spacer Tests where agitation of fluids is required outside the fluid type
ring and a flow head or for extended testing duration specifications
stirrer.
Core holder with open Extended fluid stability testing
core plug end (well end)
Well fluids operated Dynamic leak off measurements
under dynamic filtration Open well end is Mechanically weak rock
Dynamic filtration
conditions (e.g. drilling connected to a flow Well productivity estimates materials
fluids, fracturing fluids) channel with defined
geometry and a fluid Well fluid compatibility studies including
circulation system. drilling or fracturing fluids
8 SPE 86544

Tab. 4. Formation damage measurement parameters on different scales.

Core plug scale or - Filtration parameters.
Centimetre (cm)-scale: - Flow energy parameters (permeability).
- Fluid phase saturations and wettability.
Intermediate scale or - Solid particle distributions
Millimetre (mm)-scale: - Pore fluid saturation distribution
- Filtrate distribution
Pore scale or - Pore size or particle size distributions.
Micrometer (µm)-scale: - Products of rock/fluid interaction,
- Products of fluid/fluid interaction,
- Filter cake texture,
- Identification of well fluid additives and
their location in the core plug after
exposure.

Tab. 5. Pressures and temperatures used during testing.

Parameter Value
Temperature 90°C
Consolidation pressure 50 bar
Mud application pressure 40 bar
Pore Pressure. 10 bar
Mud overbalance. 30 bar

Tab. 6. Permeability and lift off data for the dynamic filtration tests.
Sample Fluid Temp. Application k0 k k/k0
(mD) (mD) (%)
b3 Xanthan WBM 90 dyn 171 72 42
b11 Xanthan WBM 90 dyn 193 71 37
b18 Xanthan WBM 90 dyn 168 67 40
mean 177.5 70.0 39.5
stdev 13.6 2.5 2.7
95% conf. Limits +/- 41.2 7.5 8.1

Tab. 7. Permeability and lift off data for the static filtration tests.
Sample Fluid Temp. Application k0 k k/k0
(mD) (mD) (%)
b2 Xanthan WBM 90 stat 123 58 47
b5 Xanthan WBM 90 stat 118 49 42
b17 Xanthan WBM 90 stat 155 63 41
mean 132.0 56.7 43.2
stdev 20.0 6.8 3.6
95% conf. Limits +/- 61.0 20.7 11.0

Tab. 8. Permeability and lift off data for the dynamic filtration tests.
Sample Fluid Temp. Application k0 k k/k0
(°C) (mD) (mD) (%)
B7 XCD WBM filtrate 90 tan 130 72 56
B6 XCD WBM filtrate 90 tan 159 89 56
SPE 86544 9

Tab. 9. Input data to generic field case

Parameter Index Value Unit

Hole/bit diameter (8.5") rw 0.2159 m

Open hole time at observation depth
total 200 h
drilling/circulating t1 100 h
static/roundtrips/logging t2 100 h
Formation parameters
Porosity ϕ 0.20
Initial water saturation Swi 0.22
Drainage radius re 500 m
ln(re/rw)-0.75 7.0

Production q0 5000 bbl/d

Oil price p 27.5 USD/bbl

Tab. 10. Results of formation damage assessment summarising return permeability, filtrate invasion depth, laboratory skin factor, flow effi-
cience and revenue loss.
Dynamic Static
Sample ID Application Temp. k/k0 Filtration Model Filtration Model Inv. Depth "Lab" Skin EF Annual
Revenue loss
(°C) (%) A B m V di (m) S (MUSD)
B3 dyn/stat 90 42 5.0 1.4 0.4 0.55 1.7 80 % 10.0
B11 dyn/stat 90 37 5.6 1.3 0.3 0.53 2.2 76 % 11.9
B18 dyn/stat 90 40 5.2 1.3 0.4 0.53 1.9 79 % 10.7
mean 39.5 5.26 1.31 0.38 0.536 1.9 78.4 % 10.9
stdev 2.7 0.30 0.06 0.07 0.008 0.2 1.9 % 1.0
95% confidence 8.1 0.91 0.19 0.21 0.025 0.7 5.8 % 2.9

B2 stat 90 47 3.8 1.7 0.23 1.4 83 % 8.4

B5 stat 90 42 3.9 1.4 0.24 1.8 80 % 10.1
B17 stat 90 41 3.5 2.4 0.22 1.9 79 % 10.5
mean 43.2 3.75 1.82 0.229 1.7 80.8 % 9.6
stdev 3.6 0.23 0.55 0.008 0.2 2.2 % 1.1
95% confidence 11.0 0.70 1.66 0.026 0.7 6.8 % 3.4

B6 dyn/stat Tandem 90 56 5.6 1.3 0.3 0.53 1.0 88 % 6.2

B7 dyn/stat Tandem 90 56 5.0 1.4 0.4 0.55 1.0 87 % 6.3
10 SPE 86544

Fig. 1. Flow scheme for formation damage testing (Simulation and Analysis section).
SPE 86544 11

80
Static filtration, sample b17
Dynamic and static filtration, sample b3
Accumulated Production [ml]

70

60 dynamic
static
50

40

30

20

10

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time (min)

Fig. 2. Comparison between dynamic and static filtrate loss.

low M0 high M0
Fig. 3. NMR Image of Blaxters sandstone sample after short expo-
sure (15 min.) to water based drilling fluid (primary viscosifier
Xanthan). Static filtration. Core holder equipped with spacer ring
at wellbore end of core plug (upper end of image). No back-
flood/production simulation.

low M0 high M0 low M0 high M0

Fig. 4. NMR Image of Blaxters sandstone sample after exposure Fig. 5. NMR Image of Blaxters sandstone sample after exposure
(24 hrs) to water based drilling fluid (primary viscosifier Xanthan) (48 hrs) to water based drilling fluid (primary viscosifier Xanthan)
and production simulation. Static filtration. Core holder equipped and production simulation. Dynamic filtration. Core holder with
with spacer ring at wellbore end of core plug (upper end unrestricted exposure at wellbore end of core plug (upper end
of image). of image).