Petroleum & Coal

ISSN 1337-7027

Available online at www.vurup.sk/petroleum-coal

Petroleum & Coal 57(2) 169-184, 2015

THE CAUSES, EFFECTS AND MINIMIZATION OF FORMATION DAMAGE IN

HORIZONTAL WELLS

Chiedu L. Ezenweichu1, Oluwapelumi D. Laditan2

1
Department of Mining Engineering, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Ondo State
Nigeria. [email protected] , 2Department of Petroleum Engineering, Covenant
University, Ota, Ogun State, Nigeria

Received February 2, 2015, Revised May 15, 2015, Accepted May 20, 2015

Abstract
Horizontal wells are being utilized throughout the world in an ever increasing fashion to attempt to
increase production rates by maximizing reservoir exposure, targeting multiple zones, reducing draw-
downs to minimize premature water or gas coning problems and exploit thin pay zones, horizontal
drilling is gaining widespread frequency throughout the world. However in many cases where viable
reservoir quality has been present, production results from many horizontal wells have been disap-
pointing, and it is believed that, near wellbore formation damage effects have been a major contributor
to this disappointing marginal flow performance.
This research work examines the various causes of formation damage in horizontal wells , how the
damage affects the well productivity in well configurations whether long or short, with regard to
changing reservoir thickness and also with changing horizontal to vertical permeability ratios. It
aims to determine the best horizontal well to drill in order to attain maximum production rate in
these reservoir conditions. In this project, a developed model was used to aid the prediction of the
production rate and the productivity index of the horizontal wells drilled in the afore mentioned
reservoir parameters. An industry based software ‘PROSPER’ was also used to simulate the
production rate and ultimately used to confirm the analysis and conclusion gotten using the
developed model.
Keywords: formation damage; horizontal well; workover; payzone drawdown; reservoir; hydraulic fracturing;
diffferential sticking; permeability; simulation.

1. Introduction
Formation damage can be defined as the reduction of the original or natural permeability
of the reservoir rock near the well bore. It can also be defined as any type of a process
which leads to a reduction of the productivity of an oil, water or gas bearing formation.
Formation damage is an undesirable operational and economic problem that can occur
during the various phases of oil and gas recovery from subsurface reservoirs including
production, drilling, hydraulic fracturing, and work over operations. It has long been
recognized as a source of serious productivity reductions in many oil and gas reservoirs
and as a cause of water injectivity problems in many water flood projects.
Formation damage causes substantial reductions in oil and gas productivity in many
reservoirs. Damage can be caused by mechanical effects, chemical effects, and the action
of bacteria or extreme temperatures associated with thermal recovery processes.
Stimulation procedures required to remove formation damage in horizontal wells are
costly and are often unsuccessful or marginally successful.
Formation damage assessment, control, and remediation are among the most important
issues to be resolved for efficient exploitation of hydrocarbon reservoirs. Formation damage
indicators include;
 Permeability impairment,
 Skin damage, and
 Decrease in well performance.
 C. L. Ezenweichu, O. D. Laditan/Petroleum & Coal 57(2) 169-184, 2015 170

Formation damage can occur at any time during a well’s history from the initial drilling
and completion of a wellbore through depletion of a reservoir by production. Operations
such as drilling, completion, workovers and stimulations, which expose the formation to a
foreign fluid, may result in formation damage due to adverse wellbore fluid/formation fluid
or wellbore fluid/formation reactions.
1.1 Skin factor concept
Van Everdingen and Hurst introduced the concept of skin factor to the petroleum industry;
they noticed that for a given flow rate, the measured bottom hole pressure was less than
that calculated theoretically. This indicated that there was an additional pressure drop to
a small zone of changed or reduced permeability around the wellbore and called this “inva-
ded zone”, or damaged zone, a skin zone. They suspected that invaded zone is due to
reservoir contamination by mud and plugging of some pore spaces around the wellbore.
In general, the skin factor in wells can vary from +1 to +10, and even higher values are
possible.
𝑘ℎ(∆𝑝)𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑛
Mathematically skin pressure drop is presented by, 𝑠= 141.2𝑞µ˳𝛽˳

Figure 1 Pressure profile in the near-wellbore region for an ideal well and a well with
formation damage
The concept of thin skin in the above equation works well in damaged wells but because
of mathematical and physical difficulties when the well is stimulated i.e. negative skin, it
has to be generalized.
Hawkins modified the above equation by introducing the concept of thick skin. He defined
the skin factor for damaged zone of radius rs with permeability ks in a formation with per-
𝑘 𝑟
meability, k, and wellbore radius, rw 𝑠 = [(𝑘 ) − 1] 𝑙𝑛 (𝑟 𝑠 )
𝑠 𝑤

Figure 2. Damaged and Non-Damaged Region

1.2 Causes of formation damage
(i) Fluid/rock incompatibility;
(ii) fluid/fluid incompatibility;
(iii) departure from laminar, radial flow in an homogeneous, isotropic medium;
(iv) mechanical deformation around the borehole or perforation tunnels;
(v) reduction of fluid pressure during production.
 C. L. Ezenweichu, O. D. Laditan/Petroleum & Coal 57(2) 169-184, 2015 171

1.2.1Near-wellbore permeability reduction caused by fluid/fluid incompatibility

Not infrequently, serious well productivity problems can be attributed to incompatibility
of fluids. Incompatibility may arise between introduced fluids and reservoir pore-fluid
(e.g. emulsion blocks produced by mixing mud acid and some crude oils, scale) or between
fluids introduced into the well (e.g. between various additives in a chemical stimulation
package).
Incompatibility of introduced fluids can be avoided by careful treatment design and quality
control. Incompatibility of reservoir fluid and introduced fluid may be controlled by use of
preflush/afterflush techniques and limitation of residence time in the reservoir (but may
be rendered only partially effective by irregular distribution of fluids or reactive rock in
the near-wellbore region).
Introduced solids may also occasionally be chemically incompatible with reservoir fluids.

Figure 1 Damage incurred in laboratory lore test by flow of off-based mud filtrate
1.2.2 Departure from radial flow in an homogenous, isotropic medium
Skin factor, as originally derived, is related to the departure from radial flow in a homo-
geneous, isotropic medium. A positive skin may arise from a reduction of the area available
to flow and/or a departure from purely radial flow. This could be caused by anisotropy
(typically by bedding so that horizontal and vertical permeabilities differ) or heterogeneity.
1.2.3 Mechanical deformation around a borehole or perforation tunnel
Erosion of the wellbore during drilling leads to an excessively thick cement sheath in
the resulting out-of-gauge hole. This limits or precludes penetration of perforation tunnels
into the reservoir, and increases the volume of cement filtrate (which may be incompatible
with the reservoir rock). The development of out-of-gauge holes is a function of rock strength,
drill string behavior, mud characteristics, drilling time and in situ stress state.
Positive skins may also be generated by the creation of a crush zone around a perforation.
When a jet produced by a shaped charge perforator enters the reservoir rock, the rock is
displaced to one side of the jet. Crushing occurs in some rocks, forming a zone of low per-
meability around the perforation tunnel.
Both wellbore enlargement and perforation crush zone formation are purely or primarily
a mechanical form of formation damage. They are well known. There is, however, an addi-
 C. L. Ezenweichu, O. D. Laditan/Petroleum & Coal 57(2) 169-184, 2015 172

tional mechanical factor which does not appear to have been recognized previously as a
potential cause of formation damage. Around any opening, such as a wellbore or perforation
tunnel, the deviatoric stresses in a reservoir are concentrated so that local increases of
stress difference occur. This may result in failure, giving rise to wellbore breakouts or
sand production, in which case there exist some volumes of the material which have not
failed but where conditions are close to failure.
1.2.4 Near-wellbore permeability reduction associated with production
operations
A reduction of pressure (and also temperature) is associated with flow to a well. In the
reservoir, this occurs primarily within the near-wellbore region. Associated with this are
well-known adverse effects which can cause well productivity impairment, including the
formation of gas blocks or liquid blocks, waxing, scale deposition, deposition of asphaltenes
and fines migration. The pressure drop may not be entirely detrimental, however, as the
Mohr stress circle is displaced away from the rock failure envelope, the pore pressure around
openings is reduced during production.
1.3 Formation damage during well operations
Formation damage can occur whenever non-equilibrium or solid bearing fluid enters a
reservoir, or when equilibrium fluids are displaced at extreme velocities. Thus many processes
used to drill, complete or stimulate reservoirs have the potential to cause formation damage.
Some of these operations are:
1.3.1 Drilling
 Mud solids and particle invasion
 Pore throat plugging
 Particle movement
 Mud filtrate invasion
 Clay swelling, flocculation, dispersion and migration
 Fines movement and plugging of pore throats
 Adverse fluid-fluid interaction resulting in either emulsion/water block, or organic scaling.
 Alteration of pore structure near wellbore through drill bit action.
1.3.2 Casing and cementing
 Blockage of pore channels by cement or mud solids pushed ahead of cement.
 Adverse interaction between chemicals (spacers) pumped ahead of cement and reservoir
minerals fluid.
 Cement filtrate invasion with resulting scaling, clay slaking, fines migration and silica
dissolution.
1.3.3 Completion
 Excessive hydrostatic pressure can force both solids and fluids into the formation.
 Incompatibility between circulating fluids and the formation with resultant pore plugging.
 Invasion of perforating fluid solids and explosives debris into the formation with resultant
pore plugging.
 Crushing and compaction of near wellbore formation by explosives during perforation.
 Plugging of perforation of extraneous debris (mill scale, thread dope and dirt).
 Wettability alteration from completion fluid additives.
1.3.4 Well servicing
 Problems similar to those that can occur during completion.
 Formation plugging by solids in unfiltered fluids well killing.
 Adverse fluid-fluid and fluid-rock interaction between invading and kill fluid and reservoir
minerals.
 Damage to days from dumping of packer fluids.
 C. L. Ezenweichu, O. D. Laditan/Petroleum & Coal 57(2) 169-184, 2015 173

1.3.5 Well stimulation

 Potential plugging of perforations, formation pores and fractures from solids in the well
kill fluid.
 Invasion of circulation fluid filtrates into the formation with resultant adverse interaction.
 Precipitation of hydrofluoric acid reaction by-products during acidizing.
 Potential release of fines and collapse of formation during acidizing.
 Precipitation of iron reaction products.
 Plugging of pores and fractures by dirty fracture liquids.
 Inadequate breakers for high viscosity fracture fluids may cause blockage of propped
fracture.
 Fluid loss or adverting agents may cause plugging of perforation, formation pores, or
propped fracture.
 Crushed propants may behave like migratory fines to plug the fracture.
1.3.6 Production
 Initiation of fines movement during initial DST by using excessive drawdown pressures.
 Inorganic/organic scaling through abrupt shift in thermodynamic condition.
1.4 Formation Damage in Horizontal Wells
Horizontal wells are being utilized throughout the world in an ever increasing fashion
to attempt to increase production rates by maximizing reservoir exposure, targeting multi-
ple zones, reducing drawdowns to minimize premature water or gas coning problems, exploit
thin pay zones and, more recently, in such processes as steam-assisted gravity drainage
and as injectors and producers in secondary and tertiary enhanced oil recovery processes.
In the last few years, many horizontal wells have been drilled around the world. The
major purpose of a horizontal well is to enhance reservoir contact and thereby enhance
well productivity, which is highly desirable for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) applications.
In general, a horizontal well is drilled parallel to the reservoir bedding plane. Strictly
speaking, a vertical well is a well which intersects the reservoir bedding plane at 90°. In
other words, a vertical wells is drilled perpendicular to the bedding plane.
The use of horizontal drilling is gaining widespread frequency throughout the world.
Production results from many horizontal wells have been disappointing, and it is believed
that when this has occurred in situations where viable reservoir quality has been present,
near wellbore formation damage effects have been a major contributor to the marginal flow
performance. Due to the fact that most horizontal wells are completed in an open hole
fashion, even relatively shallow invasive near-wellbore damage (that would be penetrated
by conventional perforation practices in cased and cemented vertical completions) may
substantially impede flow.
In general, the drilling related damage in high permeability reservoir is smaller than
that in low permeability reservoir. For the skin damage value, the influence of damage on
horizontal well productivity is not as detrimental as in a vertical. Thus horizontal wells
can sustain more damage than vertical wells without a significant loss of well productivity.
However, due to additional drilling time incurred in horizontal wells, horizontal wells may
show much more near wellbore damage than a vertical well and a proper procedure must
be adopted to minimize this severe damage or to clean up this damage.
1.5 Mechanism of formation damage in horizontal wells
Mechanisms of formation damage which may be operative in reducing the productivity
of horizontal wells have been discussed in the literature by various authors.
These damage mechanisms can be grouped into several major categories these being:
Fines Migration: Fines migration is the movement of existing particulate matter already
in the pore system. This may be caused during the drilling process by high fluid leak off
rates of mud filtrate into the near wellbore region caused by high hydrostatic overbalance
pressures or too high underbalanced pressures.
External Drilling/Mud Solids Invasion: The invasion of artificial drilling agents (weigh-
ting agents, fluid loss agents or bridging agents), or mud solids naturally produced by inter-
 C. L. Ezenweichu, O. D. Laditan/Petroleum & Coal 57(2) 169-184, 2015 174

action between the drilling bit and rock and not removed by surface solids control equipment
into the formation during overbalanced drilling conditions.
Phase Trapping: This is the loss of both water or oil based drilling mud filtrate to the
formation in the region near the wellbore due to leakoff occurring as a result overbalanced
drilling operations, or due to spontaneous imbibition which can occur during underbalanced
drilling operations, can result in permanent trapping of a portion or all of the invading
fluid resulting in adverse relative permeability effects which can reduce oil or gas permeability
in the near wellbore region.
Chemical Incompatibility of Invading Fluids with the In-situ Rock Matrix: Many
formations contain very reactive material in-situ in the matrix, which include reactive
swelling clays such as smectite or mixed layer clays, or deflocculatable materials such as
kaolinite or other uncompacted fines.
Expansion or movement of these fines within the pore system, which are caused by
the invasion of non-equilibrium water based mud filtrates into the near wellbore region,
can cause substantial reductions in permeability.
Fluid-Fluid Incompatibility Effects between Invading Fluids and In-Situ Fluids:
Oil or water based mud filtrates which invade into the near wellbore region when drilling
in overbalanced conditions processes can react adversely with hydrocarbons or waters
present in the matrix to form substances which may reduce permeability. Problems would
include the formation of insoluble precipitates or scales between incompatible waters, de-
asphalting of the in-situ crude or hydrocarbon based drilling fluid caused by blending of
incompatible oils, or the formation of highly viscous stable water in oil emulsions due to
turbulent blending of invaded filtrates with either in-situ water or oil.
Wettability Alteration and Surface Adsorption Effects: Many additives in drilling
fluids used for mud rheology, corrosion inhibition, stability, emulsion control, torque
reduction or lubricity contain polar surfactants or compounds which can be adsorbed
preferentially on the surface of the rock. The physical adsorption of these compounds can
cause reductions in permeability by the physical blockage of the pore system, in the case
of high molecular weight long chain polymers, particularly in low permeability porous media
where the small pore throats may be easily bridged by long chain polymer molecules.
Polar compound adsorption may alter the wetting characteristics of the matrix in the near
wellbore region, generally in most cases to a preferentially more oil-wet state. This causes a
potentially significant increase in water phase relative permeability in this region, which
may adversely elevate producing water oil ratio for the well if the completion is in a zone
where a mobile water saturation is present.
1.6 Why is formation damage more of a concern in horizontal versus vertical
wells?
There are a many reasons why horizontal wells appear to be more susceptible to formation
damage than vertical wells. One of the major reasons is related to the completion practices
used for most horizontal wells. Most horizontal wells are completed in either a open hole
fashion or with a slotted or prepacked liner, which, as far as produced fluids are concerned,
is equivalent to an open hole completion. Compared to vertical wells where most of the
wells are cased, cemented and perforated. One can thus see that a degree of relatively
small invasive formation damage, several centimetres in depth about a vertical wellbore
may be insignificant, as a normal perforation charge will penetrate beyond the damaged
zone and access undamaged reservoir matrix to facilitate reasonable production rates if a
permeable formation is present. Many types of damage, such as solids invasion, do, in
fact, tend to be very localized about the well bore in this limited type of radius, particularly
in the absence of zones of extreme permeability such has highly fractured or vugular
porosity systems.
It can be observed in an open hole horizontal completion, t the produced reservoir
fluids must completely pass through the zone of damage which may have been created
about the wellbore during the drilling process. Although shallow in some cases, the
permeability of this damaged zone can be extremely low, creating a very high zone of
what is referred to as "skin" damage about the wellbore. Thus, even relatively shallow
invasive damage, which may be insignificant in a cased and perforated completion, can
 C. L. Ezenweichu, O. D. Laditan/Petroleum & Coal 57(2) 169-184, 2015 175

be very obvious in an open hole scenario. Other reasons contributing to increased severity
of damage in horizontal versus vertical wells could include:
Greater Depth of Invasion: The drilling periods for horizontal wells are usually greater
than that of conventional vertical wells. The time of exposure to the drilling fluid at the
heel of the well may be significant if poor mud rheology is present in an overbalanced
condition, or if the mud filter cake is continuously disturbed by a poorly centralized drill
string, depth of invasion of damaging mud filtrate and solids into the near wellbore region
may be substantially greater than in a conventional vertical well application.
Selective Cleanup/Damage: The large length of exposure of a horizontal well often
results in zones of highly variable reservoir quality being penetrated. High permeability
zones may preferentially clean up upon drawdown resulting in minimal drawdown pressure
being applied to more heavily damaged and invaded portions of the well, making it difficult
to obtain an effectual cleanup. Production logs on horizontal wells often indicate that majo-
rity of the produced fluid are drained from only a very small section of the total length of
the well.
Difficulty of Stimulation: Damaged vertical wells can be stimulated economically by
using a variety of techniques such as hydraulic or acid fracturing, acid or other types of
chemical squeezes, heat treatments e.tc. These processes are not readily economically
applied to horizontal wells due to cost and technical considerations associated with attempt-
ting to stimulate a section hundreds of meters in length (instead of only a few meters in
length as often is the case in a vertical well). Therefore, most horizontal well stimulation
treatments tend to be relatively non-invasive in nature, such as acid washes, and may only
be effective in penetrating shallow near wellbore damage.
Anisotropic Flow: The flow patterns into a horizontal well are completely different than
a vertical well. A vertical well in uniform strata of cross-bedded planes which it penetrates in
an orthogonal fashion will drain the reservoir in a uniform planar radial fashion. Conversely, a
horizontal well sources fluids from both the vertical and horizontal plane and hence is much
more affected by variations in the vertical permeability of the reservoir.
1.7 Types of horizontal drilling
1.7.1 Short radius horizontal wells
Short radius horizontal wells are commonly used when reentering existing vertical wells
in order to use the latter as the physical base for drilling of add-on arc and horizontal
hole sections. The steel casing (lining) of an old vertical well facilitates attainment of a
higher departure or “kick-off” angle than can be had in an uncased hole, so that a short
radius profile can more quickly attain horizontality, and thereby rapidly reach or remain
within a payzone. The small displacement required to reach a near-horizontal attitude
also favours the use of short-radius drilling in small lease blocks. A need to avoid extending
drilling in a difficult overlying formation also favors use of a short radius well that kicks
off near the bottom of, or below, the difficult formation. Short radius horizontal drilling
also has certain economic advantages. Build rates for short radius range from 1.5o to 3o
per foot (4.920o to 9.840o per meters). The dogleg severity is from 150 o to 300o/100 feet
(492.130o to 984.250o/328.080 per meters). These include a lower capital cost and the
fact that the suction head for down hole production pumps is smaller, and that use of an
MWD system is frequently not required if long horizontal sections are not to be drilled .
A current drawback to the use of a short radius horizontal well is that the target formation
should be suitable for an open hole or slotted liner completion, since adequate tools do
not yet exist to reliably do producing zone isolation, remedial, or simulation work in short
radius holes. Also, hole diameter can only range up to 6 inches, and the hole cannot be
logged since sufficiently small measurement tools are not yet available [23].
1.7.2 Medium horizontal wells
Medium horizontal wells allow the use of larger hole diameters, near conventional bottom
hole (production) assemblies, and more sophisticated and complex completion methods.
It is also possible to log the hole. Albeit that the drilling of medium-radius horizontal wells
does require the use of an MWD system, which increases drilling cost, 19 medium-radius
holes are perhaps the most popular current option.
 C. L. Ezenweichu, O. D. Laditan/Petroleum & Coal 57(2) 169-184, 2015 176

1.7.3 Long radius horizontal wells

Long radius horizontal wells can be drilled using either conventional drilling tools and
methods, or the newer steerable systems. Long radius wells, in the form of deviated wells
(not however deviated to the horizontal) have been around quite a while. They are not
suited to leases of less than 160 acres due to their low build rates.
1.8 Sources of information available for damage diagnosis
Drilling, completion and workover records: These represent the basic record of
engineering operations. They form a basis for the initial identification of possible problems
(e.g. drilling difficulties, use of loss agents, nature of perforation, dirty kill fluid). They
also provide the framework for designing laboratory tests to assess potential damage
(e.g. fluid/rock compatibility, fluid/fluid compatibility).
Well tests: Pressure transient analysis is the conventional oil industry method for iden-
tifying any impairment of well productivity, which is conventionally quantified in terms of
a skin factor. As such, well tests are the cornerstone of the information available not only
to detect formation damage, but to quantify the effect. In addition, the productivity index
of a well (or, alternatively, injectivity index), measured during a period of flow, is a clear
measure of well performance, and incorporates the skin factor.
Open hole or production logs: Wireline logs in the open hole can be used to indicate
such features as out-of-gauge wellbores and wellbore breakout, fluid invasion depth, strati-
graphy, and natural fractures.
Commonly available, they can be used to check for potential problems such as an oversize
cement sheath. Cased hole logs can be used to some extent to detect flow distribution
after a stimulation treatment, and other factors relating to well performance such as the
cement bond (poor cement jobs may give rise to positive skins because of cross flow behind
the casing).
Production records: Trends of production performance may give clues to progressive
changes associated with damaging processes such as waxing or scaling, or to the effects
of workovers.
Reservoir petrology: Petrological studies provide a basic description of the porous rock
morphology and mineral content. These must be related to the engineering performance
of the rock if the description is to adopt a more positive role than that of pertinent background
information.
While the factors governing the relationship between the type, content, morphology
and distribution of minerals in an argillaceous material and response of that porous medium
to fluid flow and changes of pore-fluid electrochemistry have not been defined, the potential
value of a petrological description is necessarily limited. Many authors have attempted to
classify formation damage potential on the basis of petrological descriptions (e.g., most
recently, [21]). We regard such proposals as speculative until supported by the results of
laboratory flow investigations.
Detailed reservoir structure: Whilst open fractures are known to assist well productivity,
and are associated with negative skin factors, it is less well known that filled fractures
can give rise to a positive skin [22]. This is sometimes termed a 'pseudoskin', which may
be mistaken for formation damage induced by another process.
Sedimentary features of the reservoir: A positive skin may result simply from the
layering associated with sedimentation. Either unequal bedding-parallel or bedding-normal
permeabilities, or the influence of low permeability layers on flow to the perforations,
may be responsible. Heterogeneities of the sedimentary sequence other than the latter
can also give rise to positive skin factors.
Mechanical tests of core samples: Rock mechanical tests can sometimes be of value,
such as to assess rock strength when wellbore enlargement is suspected, or strength
reduction after acidizing a core. A variety of mechanical property indexing methods are
available. Use of a hardness value has the merit of requiring only small test samples.
1.9 Effects of formation damage on well productivity
It is divided into two sections:
 C. L. Ezenweichu, O. D. Laditan/Petroleum & Coal 57(2) 169-184, 2015 177

 The use of Joshi equation to determine how the productivity of horizontal changes with
effect of skin in different horizontal well configurations such as variable pay thickness
and reservoir anisotropy.
 The use of industry based software to model vertical and horizontal wells, analyzing
the changes in their productivity with different skin values.
1.9.1 Effects of formation damage on the productivity of horizontal wells
As part of selectively analyzing the models, the various effects of the previously listed
reservoir parameters are going to be evaluated and analyzed, looking at the numerous
ways by which they affect productivity index.
Reservoir thickness (h): As previously stated, horizontal wells are more productive
in thin reservoirs, as a result of the larger contact area the well makes with the reservoir.
Hence higher reservoir thickness implies that the area contacted by the wellbore would
be appreciably lower, compared to thin reservoirs. However, lower contact are, implies
lower reservoir productivity.
Permeability (k): There are two types in every reservoir; they are the horizontal per-
meability and the vertical permeability. Permeability however, is the ability of a reservoir
rock to transmit fluids. They can be used to describe a reservoir in terms of isotropy and
anisotropy.
Isotropic reservoir is that in which the horizontal permeability (kh) is equal to the vertical
permeability (kv). Anisotropic reservoir is that in which the horizontal permeability is not
equal to the vertical permeability.
Length of the horizontal well: Research has shown that as the length of a horizontal
well increases, its contact area with the reservoir also increases, hence there is increase
in productivity index, but at the same time, the resistance to the flow in a well also increases
(friction and other pressure drops), which has a direct negative effect on the PI. This implies
that initially, increase in the well length of a well leads to increase in productivity index,
but it reaches a point in which, an additional increase in the length, would result in a produc-
tivity drop, due to the effect of numerous pressure drop. The overall performance of a
horizontal well depends on the balance of these two opposing factors.
This project aims to study the effect of formation damage on the productivity of horizontal
wells. To achieve this we have to look at the various methods for predicting the productivity
index of horizontal wells.
2. Productivity index (PI) prediction
In case of a “wildcat” well, some data on reservoir permeability (k) and thickness (h)
can be obtained from offset wells. Then the well spacing, well bore size and fluid type
and the estimated kh can be used in the radial flow equation to calculate the PI.
𝑞0 0.00708𝐿𝐾ℎ
𝑃𝐼 = 𝑃 = 𝑟 (1)
𝑤 −𝑃𝑤𝑓 µ𝑜 𝐵𝑜 𝑙𝑛( 𝑒 )
𝑟𝑤

With this, the inflow performance of the well can be predicted. A higher PI shows a
better inflow performance. PI of the well under zero skin condition is called ideal PI. When
skin occurs, there is a deviation from normal condition due to skin either caused by drilling
or by completion practices. In fact, it is difficult to obtain an ideal condition and, therefore,
PI ideal can only be calculated.
In many oil and gas wells, the observed flow rate is different from that calculated theo-
retically. The concept of skin was developed to account for deviation from the theoretical
rate. During pseudo steady state flow, the oil flow rate can be calculated as:
0.00708𝑘ℎ(𝑃𝑤 −𝑃𝑤𝑓 )
𝑞= 𝑟 3 … (2)
µ𝑜 𝐵𝑜 𝑙𝑛( 𝑒 )− +𝑆𝑇
𝑟𝑤 4

where ST is the total skin factor, which includes the effect of partial penetration, perforation
density’s well stimulation, mechanical skin damage due to drilling and completion, etc. A
positive value of ST would result in a reduction of flow rate while a negative value of ST
would result in flow enhancement.
 C. L. Ezenweichu, O. D. Laditan/Petroleum & Coal 57(2) 169-184, 2015 178

The mechanical skin factor (Sm) represents well drainage caused by drilling and completion
fluid. The change in well PI to these parameters is described by assigning an equivalent
skin factor called Pseudo skin factor.
For a partially penetrating well,
𝑆𝑚
𝑆𝑇 = + 𝑆𝑃 (3)
𝑏𝑡
where, Sm = mechanical skin factor; Sp = pseudo skin factor caused by partial penetration;
bt = penetration ratio.
For horizontal wells, performance prediction is less straightforward. The problem is
complicated by the effect of boundary conditions on the type of drainage that results from
the influx towards the well. Merkulov and later Borisov presented analytical expressions
for horizontal wells producing under ideal conditions of isotropic reservoirs with no formation
damage and no friction. Joshi studied the same problem extended to three dimensional
steady state flow with relatively short horizontal wells compared to the drainage area
which is assumed to be elliptical. Giger generalized the results to a rectangular area to
account for longer horizontal wells using the potential flow theory. Other investigators
like Economides and Renard and Dupuy did more work to take into account the anisotropy
ratio and contributed in developing the theoretical expression of the productivity index as
it is now accepted as reported by Economides. The steady state analytical solution is the
simplest solution to various horizontal well problems; the steady state solution requires
that the pressure at any point in the reservoir does not change with time. The flow rate
equation in a steady state condition is represented by
𝑄𝑜ℎ
𝐽= . (4)
∆𝑃
where: Qoh is the horizontal well flowrate, STB/day; ∆P is the pressure drop from
drainage boundary to wellbore, psi; J is the productivity index of the horizontal well,
STB/day/psi.
2.1 Borisov’s model
Borisov proposed the following expression for predicting the productivity index for a
horizontal well in an isotropic reservoir, i.e., kv=kh the physical properties of the reservoir
does not vary with direction.
0.00708ℎ𝐾ℎ
𝐽ℎ = 4𝑟𝑒ℎ
(5)
ℎ ℎ
µ𝑜 𝐵𝑜 (𝑙𝑛( )+( )𝑙𝑛( ))
𝐿 𝐿 2𝜋𝑟𝑤

where: H is the thickness, ft; Kh is the vertical permeability, md; Kv is the vertical permea-
bility, md; L is the length of the horizontal well, ft; Rw is the wellbore radius, ft; Reh is
the drainage radius of the horizontal well, ft; Jh is the productivity index, STB/day/psi.
2. 2 The Renard Dupuy model
For an isotropic reservoir, Renard and Dupuy proposed the following expressions:
0.00708ℎ𝐾ℎ
𝐽ℎ = (6)
2𝑎 ℎ ℎ
µ𝑜 𝐵𝑜 (𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ−1 ( )+( )𝑙𝑛( ))
𝐿 𝐿 2𝜋𝑟𝑤

where a is half the major axis of drainage ellipse and given by the equation
0.5
𝐿 2𝑟𝑒ℎ
𝑎 = (2) (0.5 + √0.25 + ( )) (7)
𝐿

For anisotropic reservoirs, the authors proposed the following relationship

0.00708ℎ𝐾ℎ
𝐽ℎ = (8)
2𝑎 𝐵ℎ ℎ
µ𝑜 𝐵𝑜 (𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ−1 ( )+( )𝑙𝑛( ))
𝐿 𝐿 2𝜋𝑟𝑤 ′

(1+𝐵)𝑟𝑤
where, 𝑟𝑤′ = … (9)
2𝐵
 C. L. Ezenweichu, O. D. Laditan/Petroleum & Coal 57(2) 169-184, 2015 179

2. 3 JOSHI’S model
0.00708ℎ𝐾ℎ
𝐽ℎ = … (10)
ℎ ℎ
µ𝑜 𝐵𝑜 (𝑙𝑛(𝑅)+( )𝑙𝑛( ))
𝐿 2𝑟𝑤

With
L 2
a+√a²−( )
2
𝑅= L (11)
( )
2
where a is half the major axis of drainage ellipse and given by the equation
0.5
𝐿 2𝑟𝑒ℎ
𝑎 = (2) (0.5 + √0.25 + ( )) (12)
𝐿

Joshi accounted for the influence of the reservoir anisotropy by introducing the equation
0.00708ℎ𝐾ℎ
𝐽ℎ = (13)
𝐵²ℎ ℎ
µ𝑜 𝐵𝑜 (𝑙𝑛(𝑅)+( )𝑙𝑛( ))
𝐿 2𝑟𝑤

where the parameters B and R are defined above.

2. 4 The Giger Reiss Jourdan model
The Giger model takes into consideration that for an isotropic reservoir where the
vertical permeability kv equals kh, Giger et al. proposed the following expression for
determining Jh
0.00708𝐿𝐾ℎ
𝐽ℎ = (14)
ℎ ℎ
µ𝑜 𝐵𝑜 (( )𝑙𝑛(𝑋)+𝑙𝑛( ))
𝐿 2𝑟𝑤

2
L
1+√1+( )
2reh
𝑋= L …… (15)
2reh

To account for the reservoir anisotropy, the authors of this model proposed the
following relationships:
0.00708𝐾ℎ
𝐽ℎ = (16)
1 𝐵2 ℎ
µ𝑜 𝐵𝑜 (( ) ln(𝑋)+( )𝑙𝑛( ))
ℎ 𝐿 2𝑟𝑤

The B parameter was defined as

𝐾
𝐵 = √ 𝐾ℎ (17)
𝑣

Where: Kv is the vertical permeability, md;L is the length of the horizontal section ft.
In this project the following equations are going to be used for calculations and
analysis:
For horizontal well with isotropic reservoirs
0.00708𝑘∆𝑝
𝑞ℎ = … (18)
L 2
a+√a²−( )
2 ℎ ℎ
µ𝑜 𝐵𝑜 𝑙𝑛 L +( )𝑙𝑛( )
( ) 𝐿 2𝑟𝑤 ′
2
( ( ) )
0.00708ℎ𝐾ℎ
𝐽ℎ = (19)
ℎ ℎ
µ𝑜 𝐵𝑜 (𝑙𝑛(𝑅)+( )𝑙𝑛( ))
𝐿 2𝑟𝑤

L 2
a+√a²−( )
2
𝑅= L (20)
( )
2
 C. L. Ezenweichu, O. D. Laditan/Petroleum & Coal 57(2) 169-184, 2015 180

0.5
𝐿 2𝑟𝑒ℎ
𝑎 = ( ) (0.5 + √0.25 + ( )) (21)
2 𝐿

For horizontal well accounting for the influence of anisotropy

0.00708ℎ𝐾ℎ
𝐽ℎ = … (22)
𝐵²ℎ ℎ
µ𝑜 𝐵𝑜 (𝑙𝑛(𝑅)+( )𝑙𝑛( ))
𝐿 2𝑟𝑤

To account for the presence of skin, the wellbore with normal radius of rw therefore,
with a skin effect present, has a reduced wellbore radius which is the effective wellbore
radius rw’ which is given by rw’=rw exp(-S).
This new wellbore radius due to skin can be incorporated into the formula to give
0.00708ℎ𝐾ℎ
𝐽ℎ = (23)
𝐵²ℎ ℎ
µ𝑜 𝐵𝑜 (𝑙𝑛(𝑅)+( )𝑙𝑛( ))
𝐿 2𝑟𝑤 ′

3. Data Analysis and Results

It can be seen that a vertical well in a uniform strata of cross bedded planes which it
penetrates in an orthogonal fashion will drain the reservoir in a uniform planar radial
fashion. Conversely, a horizontal well sources fluids from both the vertical and horizontal
planar direction and hence is much more radically affected by variations in the vertical
permeability of the reservoir. Calculations illustrate how the permeability of horizontal
wells can be reduced dramatically by high near wellbore skins and how this damage
effect is attenuated as vertical to horizontal permeability ratio is increased.
3.1 Effect of well length and permeability on productivity index
This result as shown in table 1 shows that PI increases with increasing lateral length.
Thus, longer horizontal well length enhances productivity. This is explained by the fact
that a large portion of the reservoir has been contacted and the pressure drop along the
well bore is reduced, thereby enhancing productivity. In the case of anisotropy it shows
that horizontal wells are more suitable for reservoirs with high vertical permeability (Kv)
as this increases horizontal well PI.
Table 1 Length vs productivity index with variation in anisotropy ratio
Productivity Index
Length
kv/kh=0.1 kv/kh=0.5 kv/kh=1
100 2.15 3.13 3.46
500 5.58 6.66 6.92
900 8.19 9.45 9.73
1300 10.94 12.39 12.68
1700 14.02 15.978 16.47
3.2 Effect of skin damage in horizontal versus vertical wells
This Table provides the results of the calculations on horizontal and vertical well
geometries using identical reservoir parameters (This data is based on isotropic (equal)
horizontal and directional permeabilities. Figure 4 illustrates the horizontal and vertical
well normalized productivity in a low skin factor (S = 0-10) regime, and Figure 5 at the
range of skin factors up to 500. This data shows that the horizontal well suffers less
relative productivity reduction than the equivalent vertical well, this due to greater length
and reservoir exposure (in this geometry)., it also shows that at extreme skin factors
(which may occur in a badly damaged overbalanced open hole completion) that the
horizontal well productivity is reduced to only 14% of the original value (in comparison to
the vertical well whose productivity is reduced to 1.5% of the initial value).
 C. L. Ezenweichu, O. D. Laditan/Petroleum & Coal 57(2) 169-184, 2015 181

Table 2 Skin factor vs normalised flowrate

skin factor Q-norm Q –norm skin factor Q-norm Q –norm
(vertical well) (horizontal well) (vertical well) (horizontal well)
0 1 1 20 0.275 0.802
1 0.884 0.988 50 0.132 0.619
2 0.792 0.976 100 0.071 0.448
5 0.603 0.942 200 0.037 0.288
10 0.432 0.89 500 0.015 0.14

Figure 4 Flowrate against skin factor (at low skin values)

Figure 5 Flowrate against skin factor (at extreme skin values)

3.3 Comparison of horizontal to vertical well performance in zones of isotropic
permeability but variable pay thickness
Table 3 summarizes the results of the calculations conducted using vertical and
horizontal well geometries for pay zones thicknesses of 2, 10 and 50 meters respectively
in an isotropic permeability situation. Since the data is presented on a normalized basis
the profiles for the vertical well are identical for all three pay situations (as the flow rate
increase is a simple linear multiple of pay zone thickness in this situation). It can be seen
that on a normalized basis horizontal well open hole performance becomes more
 C. L. Ezenweichu, O. D. Laditan/Petroleum & Coal 57(2) 169-184, 2015 182

sensitive to near wellbore formation damage effects as net pay increases(even though on
an non-normalized basis total flow rate will likely increase).
Table 3 Skin factor vs vertical and horizontal length

vertical well horizontal well vertical well horizontal well Vertical well Horizontal well
skin factor
h=2m h=2m h=10m h=10m h=50m h=50

0 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 0.884 0.997 0.884 0.985 0.884 0.919
2 0.792 0.994 0.792 0.97 0.792 0.85
5 0.603 0.984 0.603 0.929 0.603 0.694
10 0.432 0.969 0.432 0.868 0.432 0.532

3.4 Comparison of horizontal to vertical well performance in reservoir zones of

anisotropic permeability
These conditions are more common real life reservoir case where vertical and
horizontal permeability are not equal. Low vertical permeabilities, creating adverse
permeability ratios, are common in many sands, particularly if a high degree of
interlamination is present in the system. Calculations have been conducted for vertical to
horizontal permeability ratios of 0.1, 0.01 and 0.001 respectively. Absolute productivity
of horizontal wells, in general, is significantly reduced with adverse Kv/kh ratios.
Examination of the data indicates that the severity of formation damage is radically
increased as formation kv/kh. Ratio becomes more and more adverse. A large number of
horizontal wells are drilled in formations exhibiting K v/Kh ratios of less than 0.1, so the
impact of even a relatively small amount of near wellbore skin on ultimate well
productivity is apparent.
Table 4 Skin factor vs anisotropy ratio

skin factor vertical well kv/kh=0.1 Kv/kh=0.01 Kv/kh=0.001 kv/kh=10 kv/kh=1000

0 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 0.884 0.965 0.917 0.851 0.996 1
2 0.792 0.933 0.846 0.74 0.992 0.999
5 0.603 0.848 0.687 0.532 0.98 0.998
10 0.432 0.735 0.524 0.363 0.962 0.996
3.5 Use of industry based software ‘Prosper’
Prosper was used to simulate the change in the productivity of the well with different
skin values. Here is a summary of the result.
Table 5 Skin factor vs AOF (Stb/Day) using Prosper
Skin Values AOF(STB/day)
Vertical Well Horizontal Well
0 5535.9 7664
5 3213.3 6761.8
10 2263.6 6049.7
Results showed that:
 At the same values of skin, the horizontal well gives a higher productivity value than
the vertical well.
 As the skin increases the productivity of the well is reduced.
 For the skin damage value, the influence of damage on horizontal well productivity is
not as detrimental as in a vertical.
 C. L. Ezenweichu, O. D. Laditan/Petroleum & Coal 57(2) 169-184, 2015 183

4. Conclusion
1. Flow calculations indicate that the severity of damage in horizontal wells is significantly
increased as the ratio of vertical to horizontal permeability degrades and also to a lesser
extent as formation thickness increases.
2. This project also proves that horizontal wells can sustain more damage than vertical
wells without a significant loss of well productivity.
3. Underbalanced drilling may be a partial solution to many invasive formation damage
problems in open hole horizontal wells, but only if properly executed and if a continuous
underbalanced pressure condition is maintained.
Reference
[1] T. R. Harper And D. C. Buller Formation Damage And Remedial Stimulation BP
Research Centre, Chertsey Road, Sunbury-on-Thames, Middlesex TW16 7LN
(Received 2 December 1985; revised 18 January 1986).
[2] Bennion , D.B., Cimolai, M.P., Bietz, R.F. am Thomas. F.B.: "Reductions in the
productivity of Oil & Gas Reservoirs Due to Aqueous Phase Trapping," Presented at
the 44th Anual General Meeting of the Petroleum Society of CIM, May 9-12, 1993,
Calgary, Alberta. Canada.
[3] Cimolai, M.P., Gies, R.M., Bennion, D.B., and Myers, O.L: ‘Mitigating Horizontal Well
Formation Damage In a Low Permeability Conglomerate Gas Reservoir’,. presented
at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium held In Calgary, Alberta. Canada, June 28-
30, 1993.
[4] McCaffery, F.G.: "The Effect of Wettabllity, Relative Permeability and Imbibition in
Porous Media," Ph.D. Thesis, University of Calgary, September 1973.
[5] Bennion, D.B. et al.: “Underbalanced Drilling and Formation Damage—Is It a Total
Solution?” paper presented at the 1994 Annual Meeting of the Petroleum Society of
CIM, Calgary, June 12–15.
[6] Bennion, D.B. et al.: “Underbalanced Drilling: Praises and Perils,” SPEDC (1998) 13,
No. 4, 214.
[7] Charles Ibelegbu “Productivity index in horizontal wells” Department of Petroleum &
Gas Engineering, University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria Received 19 September 2003;
accepted o4 November 2004.
[8] Fadairo A. S. Adesina, Ako Churchill, Falode OIugbenga, “Modeling Productivity
Index for Long Horizontal Well” Energy and Environmental Research Group
Department of Petroleum Engineering, University of Ibadan. Nigeria.
[9] Coon, R. and Murray, D.:”Single Trip Completion Concept Replaces Multiple Packers
and Sliding Sleeves in Selective Multi-Zone Production and Stimulation Operations,”
paper SPE 29539 presented at the Production Operations Symposium held in
Oklahoma City, OK, April 2-4, 1995.
[10] Constantine, J.J.:”Selective Production of Horizontal Openhole Completions Using
ECP and Sliding Sleeve Technology,” paper SPE 55618 presented at the Rocky
Mountain Regional Meeting held in Gillette, WY, May 15-18, 1999.
[11] Norris, M.R., Berntsen, B.A., Myhre, P., and Winters, W.:”Multiple Proppant
Fracturing of a Horizontal Wellbore: An Integration of Two Technologies,” paper SPE
36899 presented at the European Petroleum Conference held in Milan, Italy,
October 22-24, 1996.
[12] Norris, M.R., Berntsen, B.A., Skartveit, L., and Teesdale, C.:” Multiple Proppant
Fracturing of Horizontal Wellbores in a Chalk Formation: Evolving the Process in the
Valhall Field,” paper SPE 50608 presented at the European Petroleum Conference
held in The Hague, Netherlands, October 20-22, 1998.
[13] Abou-Sayed, I. S., Schueler, S., Ehrl, E. and Hendricks, W., “Multiple Hydraulic Fracture
Stimulation in a Deep Horizontal Tight Gas Well,” SPE 30532, presented at the Annual
Technical Conference & Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, 22-25 October, 1995.
[14] Baumgartner, W., Shlyapobersky, J., Abou Sayed, I. and Jacquier, R., “Fracture
Stimulation of a Horizontal Well in a Deep, Tight Gas Reservoir: A Case History from
Offshore The Netherlands,” SPE 26795, presented at the Offshore European Conference,
Aberdeen, Scotland, UK, 7-10 September, 1993.
 C. L. Ezenweichu, O. D. Laditan/Petroleum & Coal 57(2) 169-184, 2015 184

[15] Yost, A., Overbey, W., Wilkins, D. and Locke, C.: “Hydraulic Fracturing of a Horizontal
Well in a Naturally Fractured Reservoir: Gas Study for Multiple Fracture Design,”
paper SPE 17759, presented at the Gas Technology Symposium, Dallas, Texas,
USA, 13-15 June, 1988.
[16] Soliman, M.Y., Pongratz, R., Rylance, M., and Prather, D.: “Fracture Treatment
Optimization for Horizontal Well Completion,” paper SPE 102616, presented at the
Russian Oil and Gas Technical Conference, Moscow, Russia, Oct. 3-6, 2006.
[17] Minner, W.A., Du, J., Ganong, B.L., Lackey, C.B., Demetrius, S.L., and Wright, C.A.:
“Rose Field:Surface Tilt Mapping Shows Complex Fracture Growth in 2500’ Laterals
Completed with Uncemented Liners,” paper SPE 83503, presented at the SPE
Western Regional/AAPG Pacific Section Joint Meeting held in Long Beach, California,
May 19-24, 2003.
[18] Frantz, J.H., Williamson, J.R., Sawyer, W.K., Johnston, d., Waters, G., Moore, L.P.,
Macdonald, R.J., Pearcy, M., Ganpule, S.V., and March, K.S.: “Evaluating Barnett
Shale Production Performance Using an Integrated Approach,” paper SPE 96917
presented at the Annual Technical Conference held in Dallas, Texas, USA, Oct. 9-12,
2005.
[19] Edgeman, J.R, Walser, D.W. “Comparison of Two Low-Permeability Horizontal
Devonian Projects in the Permian Basin with Competing completion Techniques,”
paper SPE 84391 presented at the Annual Technical Conference held in Denver, CO,
Oct. 5-8, 2003.
[20] Roudakov, V. and Rohwer, C.: “Successful Hydraulic Fracturing Techniques in
Horizontal Wells for Sandstone Formations in the Permian Basin,” paper SPE
102370 presented at the Russian Oil and Gas Technical Conference held in Moscow,
Russia, Oct. 3-6, 2006.