Effects of the Workover Fluid

on Wellbore Permeability
Workover fluids used to kill oil wells for many subsurface production operations can cause
many damaging problems to the formation near the wellbore. The damage is the result of the
contact of the foreign workover fluid with the native formation fluids. If these two fluids are
not compatible, chemical reactions occur and scale deposits precipitate depending on the
composition of each fluid and on the pressure in the wellbore. These precipitations reduce the
permeability near the wellbore and creating what so-called skin effect. This skin if not removed
by workover remedial jobs such as acidizing or hydraulic fracturing, it will reduce the productivity of the well and hence decrease the overall oil recovery from the well. It is therefore,
important to properly select the best suitable workover fluid for any remedial job in order
to avoid the previous problems. The objective of this study, carried out in the laboratory by
selecting different core samples representing the Farrud oil productive formation in the field,
and water flooding technique using different injection water mixtures and salinities was implemented on these cores, is to select the suitable non damaging workover fluid to be used for
the oil wells in Farrud formation in Sirte basin Libya.

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
Well
Control

he material of which a petroleum reservoir

rock may be composed of can range from very
loose and unconsolidated sand to a very hard
and dense sandstone, limestone, or dolomite.
The grains may be bonded together with a number
of materials, the most common of which are silica,
calcite, or clay. Knowledge of the physical properties
of the rock and the existing interaction between the
hydrocarbon system and the formation is essential
in understanding and evaluating the performance
of a given reservoir. Rock properties are determined
by performing laboratory analyses on cores from the
reservoir to be evaluated. The cores are removed
from the reservoir environment, with subsequent
changes in the core bulk volume, pore volume,
reservoir fluid saturations, and, sometimes, formation wettability. The effect of these changes on rock
properties may range from negligible to substantial,
depending on characteristics of the formation and
property of interest, and should be evaluated in the
testing program.
Formation damage is a generic terminology referring to the impairment of the permeability of

50

september/october 2013

petroleum-bearing formations by various adverse

processes. Formation damage is an undesirable
operational and economic problem that can occur
during various phases of hydrocarbon recovery from
subsurface reservoirs including production, drilling,
hydraulic fracturing, and work-over operations.
As expressed by Amaefule et al. (1988) Formation
damage is an expensive headache to the oil and gas
industry. Formation damage is caused by physicochemical, chemical, biological, hydrodynamic, and
thermal interactions of porous formation, particles,
and fluids and mechanical deformation of formation under stress and fluid shear. These processes
are triggered during the drilling, production, work
over, and hydraulic fracturing operations.
Formation damage indicators include permeability
impairment, skin damage, and decrease of well performance. Therefore, it is better to avoid formation
damage than to try to restore it. A verified formation damage model and carefully planned laboratory and field tests can provide scientific guidance
and help develop strategies to avoid or minimize
formation damage. Properly designed experimental
Visit our website at www.safan.com

and analytical techniques, and the modeling and

simulation approaches can help understanding,
diagnosis, evaluation, prevention, remediation,
and controlling of formation damage in oil and gas
reservoirs. The consequences of formation damage
are the reduction of the oil and gas productivity of
reservoirs and noneconomic operation. Therefore, it
is essential to develop experimental and analytical
methods for under-standing and preventing and/
or controlling formation damage in oil and gas
bearing formations.
Laboratory experiments are important steps in
understanding the physical basis of formation
damage phenomena. These efforts are necessary to
develop and verify accurate mathematical models
and computer simulators that can be used for predicting and determining strategies to avoid and/or
mitigate formation damage in petroleum reservoirs.
Once a model has been validated, it can be used for
accurate simulation of the reservoir formation damage. Current techniques for reservoir characterization
by history matching do not consider the alteration
of the characteristics of reservoir formation during
petroleum production. In reality, formation characteristics vary and a formation damage model can
help to incorporate this variation into the history
matching process for accurate characterization of
reservoir systems and, hence, an accurate prediction
of future performance.
Formation damage is an exciting, challenging, and
evolving field of research. Eventually, the research efforts will lead to better understanding and simulation
tools that can be used for model-assisted analysis of
rock, fluid, and particle interactions and the processes
caused by rock deformation and scientific guidance
for development of production strategies for formation damage control in petroleum reservoirs.

Factors Affecting Formation Damage

1. Invasion of foreign fluids, such as water and

chemicals used for improved recovery, drilling
mud invasion, and work over fluids.
2. Invasion of foreign particles and mobilization of
indigenous particles, such as sand, mud fines,
bacteria, and debris.
3. Operation conditions such as well flow rates
and wellbore pressures and temperatures.

Well
Control

52

september/october 2013

4. Properties of the formation fluids and porous matrix.

Formation Damage Mechanism

Formation damage mechanisms are described

as follows:
1. Fluid-fluid incompatibilities, for example
emulsions generated between invading oil
based mud filtrate and formation water.
2. Rock-fluid incompatibilities, for example contact of potentially swelling smectite clay or deflocculatable kaolinite clay by non-equilibrium
water based fluids with the potential to severely
reduce near wellbore permeability.
3. Solids invasion, for example the invasion of
weighting agents or drilled solids.
4. Phase trapping/blocking, for example the
invasion and entrapment of water based fluids
in the near wellbore region of a gas well.
5. Chemical adsorption/wettability alteration,
for example emulsifier adsorption changing
the wettability and fluid flow characteristics
of a formation.
6. Fines migration, for example the internal
movement of fine particulates within a rock's
pore structure resulting in the bridging and
plugging of pore throats.
7. Biological activity, for example the introduction of bacterial agents into the formation
during drilling and the subsequent generation of polysaccharide polymer slimes which
reduce permeability.
It is commonly accepted that formation damage is
due to either or both liquid and solid penetration. This
type of damage commonly occurs during the drilling
of new wells and work over operations. The invasion
of drilling mud and other solids into the formation
creates a cylinder of reduced permeability around
the wellbore and reduces the flow rate of liquid and
gas into the borehole. Tough impermeable filter
cake forms on the face of the borehole, consisting
mainly of the solid particles of the drilling fluids,
some of these particles may even penetrate into the
formation, plugging the pores and fractures of the
system. The depth of penetration is difficult to determine though it is generally agreed that the solids
penetrate no more than a few inches.
Visit our website at www.safan.com

Results and
Discussion

The chemical
compositions for
the Farrud formation water and the
Augila injection
water are tabulated
in tables 1 and 2
respectively. These
chemical compositions are prepared
in the laboratory
according to the Table 1: Farrud Formation Water Composition
chemical analysis
received form the
company. The properties of Farrud,
Aguila and the mixture of (50%) waters
are also given in table 3. The properties
of the core samples
re p re s e n t i n g t h e
Farrud formation
a re p re s e n t e d i n
table 4.
The core samples
used in this study
numbers 12, 21, 27
and 30 were saturated with 100 %
Augila, 100 % Farrud and 50 % mixture respectively
as shown in table
7. The porosity and
the permeability
of the cores were
calculated, and the
re s u l t s a f t e r t h e
saturation process
are given in table 4.
The core samples
Table 4: Sample Cores Physical Properties
were damaged using the three different waters; Farrud, Augila porosity values for the three damaged cores are
and the 50 % mixture of the two waters and the tabulated in table 5.

Well
Control

54

september/october 2013

Visit our website at www.safan.com

By comparing the
original core porosity
for all the core samples
(table 4) with the cores
porosity after saturating
with three waters (table
5), it can be noted that Table 5: Porosity Calculation After Damaging the Core Samples with Different
Augila water produced Water Sources
less decrease in porosity
(i.e. less damaging) than
the Farrud water and the
mixture (50%) Farrud
and 50 % Augila, this
is due to the less salinity value of the Augila
water. The comparison
results are shown in
table 6.
After cleaning and
drying the received
cores, both air and liquid permeability were
measured and calculated gas permeability
values were corrected
for the Klikenberg effect.
The values for the core
samples (21, 21, 27 and
30) are listed in table 7.
The cores 12, 21 and
30 were saturated with
100% Augila, 100% Farrud and 50% mixture.
After the saturation
process, the cores were
dried and finally the
permeability of the cores
was measured and calculated using the same
above mentioned pro- Table 9: Final Results of Permeability
cedure. The properties
used in the calculation
and the final permeability values are listed
in table 8.
By comparing the permeability values before
september/october 2013

55

and after saturation, it can

be noted that Augila water
gives less damaging than
the Farrud and the Mixture
(50%) waters, because it
has less salinity which is
the same effect on the
porosity. The initial permeability values and the
final one after saturation
are listed in table 9.
Table 10 illustrates the
actual core displacement
data for core samples 12,
21 and 21c.
Table 11 shows the
relative permeabilities
values for core sample 21
saturated with the Farrud formation water and
displaced with Augila
injection water. Figure 1
illustrates that the Augila
water could not be used
for the displacement of
oil, because of its low
mobility value which is somewhat far from the
mobility value of the saturated oil.
Table 12 shows the relative permeabilities values for core sample 21 saturated with the Farrud
formation water and displaced with Farrud injection water. Figure 2 illustrates that The Farrud
water could be used for the displacement of oil
and giving higher values of recovery, because

Well
Control

56

september/october 2013

the mobility value of Farrud water reaches the

mobility value of oil.
Table 13 shows the relative permeabilities values for core sample 21c saturated with the Farrud
formation water and displaced with 50 % Farrud
injection water and 50 % Augila injection water.
Figure 3 illustrates that The mixture when is used
as the injection fluid gives low oil permeabilities

Visit our website at www.safan.com

values compared to
the two injection water
therefore the mixture
could not be used as
the injection fluid for
the field.
From table 14 which
represent the comparison between the recoverable oil from the
different core samples

by injection of different
waters as illustrated
in table 14. It can be
noticed that the Farrud
water gives the highest
oil recovery compared
to the Augila injection
water and also toot
the 50 % mixture and
therefore it is recommended to be the water used for the injection
for workover practices.

Conclusions

The experimental results indicate that the

porosity of all studied cores decrease when
saturated with Farrud water compared to
those saturated with Augila and the mixture
water, whereas the cores saturated with
Augila water produce the lowest porosity
decrease, because Augila water has less
salinity compared with Farrud and the
mixture waters.

The experimental results also indicate that

the permeability of all studied cores decrease when saturated with Farrud water
compared to those saturated with Augila
and the mixture waters, whereas the cores
saturated with Augila water produce the
lowest permeability decrease, because
Augila water has less salinity compared
with Farrud and the mixture waters.
The experimental results indicate that the recoverable oil using a mixture of Farrud water
with Augila water with a ratio of 50 percent
is lower than that obtained from either inject-

ing Augila water only or Farrud water only.

The experimental results indicate that the
recoverable oil with Farrud water as the
displacing fluid is the highest, because the
mobility value of Farrud water more reaches
the mobility value of oil compared to that
of Augila and the mixture waters.
The experimental results indicate that Farrud and Augila waters are not computable,
because it gives the least recovery.

Recommendations

It is recommended that Augila water should

september/october 2013

57

be used as the workover fluid for this reservoir because of its low damaging effect.
It is also recommended that the mixture of
both Augila and Farrud water should not be
used as a displacing fluid for this reservoir
because of its low observed recovery factor.
It is also recommended that Farrud water
alone cannot be used either as a workover
fluid or a displacing fluid in this reservoir because of its great damaging effect.
Otherwise a chemical treatment should be
conducted.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Libyan

Petroleum Institute for providing the necessary materials and technical support used for
conducting this study. The appreciation is also
extended to Harouge Oil Operations for providing the data used in this study. The Petroleum
Engineering Department of Al Fateh University
is highly appreciated for providing the laboratory time and equipments used during the
course of conducting this study.

References

1. Tarek Ahmed Reservoir Engineering

Handbook, Second Edition 2001.
2. Zoltn E. Heinemann Fluid Flow in Porous Media, Volume 1, Leoben, October
2005.
3. F. Civan "Reservoir Formation Damage:
Fundamentals, Modeling, Assessment,
and Mitigation", Library of Congress
Cataloging-in-Publication Data, Copyright 2000 by Gulf Publishing Company,
Houston, Texas.
4. V. Tantayakom, S. Chavadej "Study of
Scale Inhibitor Reactions in Precipitation
Squeeze Treatments", paper SPE 92771,
presented for presentation at 2005 SPE
international symposium on oil field chemistry, Texas, 2-4 February.
5. J. R. Ursin and A. B. Zolotukhin Reservoir
Engineering, Stavanger, 1997.
6. Mehdi H., Leonard K. and Herbert H. Relative Permeability of Petroleum Reservoirs

Well
Control

58

september/october 2013

7. Gawish A. and Al-Homadhi Relative Permeability Curves for High Pressure, High
Temperature Reservoir Conditions, 2008.
8. Mike Crabtree, David Eslinger, Phil
Fletcher, Ashley Johnson and George King
"Fighting Scale-Removal and Prevention",
PET
Autumn 1999.

This publication thanks the following authors for providing this article.
Prof. Mohamed S Nasr, Professor of Petroleum Engineering /Department of Petroleum
Engineering /Al Fateh University Tripoli
Libya, Professor of Petroleum Engineering at
the Francias Institute de Petrole/ Paris/ France
and Professor of Petroleum Engineering at
the Clausthal Technical University Germany.
Prof Nuri K. Ben Hmeda, Professor of
Petroleum Engineering /Department of Petroleum Engineering /Al Fateh University
Tripoli, Libya.
AP Amer M. Aborig, Assistant Professor
of Petroleum Engineering /Department of
Petroleum Engineering /Al Fateh University
Tripoli, Libya.
09/10-02

ENQUIRY NUMBER:

Have you read

our other magazine?

see us on the web at

http://www.safan.com

Visit our website at www.safan.com