SPE 168119

Deciphering Return Permeabilities

David Li, Russell Leonard, Wenwu He, M-I SWACO, a Schlumberger Co

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 2628 February 2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Return permeability (core flooding) laboratory tests are routinely performed in conjunction with the drilling fluid selection
process in order to assess the potential damage a fluid can cause to a formation.
A typical return permeability test is conducted at high-temperature, high-pressure (HTHP) conditions on either an actual
formation or on replacement cores. A quantitative value of the percentage of return permeability is often used to provide
insight on potential formation damage. While there have been various published articles focused on the value of the return
permeability and associated damage mechanisms, there is an apparent lack of subsidiary data itself. Such subsidiary data
include filtrate losses and flow initiation pressures. What do these values indicate and is there a correlation between these
values with respect to return permeability?
This paper will answer these questions by examining the data from 325 return permeability tests. These return
permeability tests were conducted over a wide array of permeabilities with cores ranging from less than 0.5 mD to more than
2 D, different pore structures and varying clay content. The temperature conditions ranged between 80 to 350F and
differential pressures between the wellbore and reservoir ranged from 150 to 1500 psi, which simulated a variety of wellbore
conditions including depleted wells. The objective of this study was to obtain the correlations between the rock
permeabilities, fluid loss, flow initiation pressure, return permeability figures and the length of time for the return
permeability to reach steady state.
Our study indicates that correlations between fluid loss filtration and return permeability are more evident in high-
permeability core plugs using oil as the production fluid while correlations between flow initiation pressure and return
permeability are more apparent in low-permeability core plugs using gas as the production fluid. The increase in filtration
may imply that a longer length of time is required to achieve return permeability steady state. Overbalance pressures of less
than or equal to 500 psi may be less damaging in comparison to overbalance pressures of more than 500 psi.

Introduction
Return permeability tests are designed to evaluate reservoir drilling fluids (RDF) by comparing the permeability before and
after RDF exposure to the core. Subsidiary data is typically gathered such as the flow-initiation pressure and filtration (leak-
off). While the dominant focus for most engineers is the single return permeability value, it is important to take into
consideration the supplementary data acquired in a return permeability test. The flow initiation pressure (FIP) is the pressure
required to flow back through the filter cake during production and the pressure required to overcome capillary forces in the
core plug. FIP is also known as the liftoff or breakthrough pressure and is typically measured in psi. Filtration data is
measured in milliliters (mL) or as a percentage of the core plugs pore volume.
The objective of this study is to observe and determine if any relationship involving return permeability is affected as a
function of filtration and FIP. These relationships will take into the account factors of low- and high-permeability cores, and
oil and gas tests. Return permeability and filtration was similarly examined as a function of the length of time required to
reach a steady state return. Differences in overbalance pressure were also analyzed to observe any trends with regard to return
permeability.
2 SPE 168119

Methods
The typical return permeability lab procedure involves core cleaning with solvent and acquiring routine gas properties. Cores
are then vacuum-saturated with either 10% NaCl or simulated formation water. The core is loaded vertically into a Hassler or
hydrostatic cell at temperature and pressures representing wellbore conditions (Figure 1). An initial baseline permeability is
then established by flowing either lab oil (LVT-200/Fisher mineral oil) or humidified nitrogen. Drilling fluid is subsequently
exposed to the wellbore face for a set duration and overbalance during which filtration is monitored. Gravel pack and breaker
systems may be used at this stage if required. A final return permeability measurement is then made and FIP is recorded. This
procedure is similar to those in Byrne and Patey (2003) and Marshall and Gray (1997).

Figure 1. Hassler and hydrostatic cell core holders.

The collection of data used in this study is from tests performed in the same laboratory which adhere to the basic
procedures mentioned above. Data used from the same laboratory provided consistency and minimized potential
discrepancies between differing laboratories (Marshal et al. 1999).
Using bivariate analysis (Batschelet 1981), correlation plots between return permeability, filtration, and FIP were made to
establish any discernible relationships. Standard ellipse overlays were used as a descriptive tool to visualize the variability of
the data points by using maximum likelihood estimators. The standard ellipses covered approximately 40% of the sample
variability. A prediction interval ellipse was also superimposed on to the plots and described the area in which a single new
observation can be expected to fall with an arbitrary probability of 85% given that the new observation is from a normal
bivariate distribution with the parameters (means, standard deviations, and covariance) as estimated from the observed data
points shown in the plots.
Pearsons (1895) correlation coefficient (r) was utilized as a mean to observe the strength of the linear association
between two variables. The value of r varies from 1 to +1 where 1 indicates a perfect negative correlation and +1
designates a perfect positive correlation. Given a set of observations, r can be calculated from the equation below:

(Eq. 1)
In the formula above, n is the total number of points in the data set. x is the mean of the all the x values while is the
mean of all y values. Sx is the sample standard deviation of the x values and Sy is the sample standard deviation for the y
values.
Scatterplots were created to compare return permeability with filtration and FIP. Each of the comparisons was further
split into the following characteristics: low permeability cores (<10 mD), high permeability cores (10 mD), oil tests, gas
tests. The length of time a return permeability took to reach steady state was also compared with the percent return
permeability and filtration achieved. Return permeability and filtration was also compared as a function of the length of time
to reach a steady state return permeability figure. Overbalance pressures (500 psi and >500 psi) was also evaluated to
observe the relationship between the supplementary data.
SPE 168119 3

A residual data plot was also generated for scatterplots presenting all data (Figure 3 and Figure 9). Residual plots display
the deviations of each data point from the fitted regression model represented by the imaginary line through the a-axis (major
axis or longest diameter of the ellipse) of the prediction interval ellipse. The purpose of a residual plot is to determine how
well the regression model fits the data. Ideally, a linear regression model will produce a residual plot with randomly
dispersed points around the horizontal axis.

Results

Filtration
The filtration data does not correlate directly or is not the only factor affecting return permeability. However, differences are
made between high- and low-permeability core plugs (Figs 4 and 5) and between oil and gas tests (Figs 6 and 7). High-
permeability core plugs and oil tests appear more sensitive to the effects of filtrations. However, ultra-low-permeability cores
(<2 mD) in gas tests (Fig 7) appears more prone to filtration in comparison to higher permeability cores (2 mD).
200
All Data
180

160

140
Return Permeability (%)

120

100

80

60

40

20
Standard Ellipse
Prediction Interval Ellipse
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Filtration (%)

Figure 2. Filtration vs. return permeability for entire data set. Figure 3. Residual plot for entire data set.
200 200
High Permeability Cores Low Permeability Cores

180 180

160 160

140 140
Return Permeability (%)

Return Permeability (%)

120 120

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Filtration (%) Filtration (%)

Figure 4. Filtration vs. return permeability for high-permeability Figure 5. Filtration vs. return permeability for low-permeability
cores. cores.
4 SPE 168119

200
200
Oil Tests
Gas Tests
180
180 140

120

160 160 100

80

Return Permeability (%)

140 140
60

40
Return Permeability (%)

20

Return Permebaility (%)

120 120
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Filtration (%)

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Filtration (%) Filtration (%)

Figure 6. Filtration vs. return permeability for oil tests. Figure 7. Filtration vs. return permeability for gas tests
superimposed plot depicts tight gas tests.

Flow Initiation Pressure

FIP data also shows similar results such that FIP data does not correlate directly or is not the only factor affecting return
permeability. The differences in the ellipses orientation are also observed between high- and low-permeability core plugs
(Figure 10 and Figure 11) and between oil and gas tests (Figure 12 and Figure 13). High-permeability cores and oil tests also
appears more susceptible to the effects of FIP.

200
All Data
180

160

140
Return Permeability (%)

120

100

80

60

40

20
Standard Ellipse
Prediction Interval Ellipse
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Flow Initiation Pressure (psi)

Figure 8. FIP vs. return permeability for entire data set. Figure 9. Residual plot for entire data set.
SPE 168119 5

200
200
High Permeability Cores Low Permeability Cores
180
180

160
160

140
140
Return Permeability (%)

Return Permeability (%)

120
120

100
100

80
80

60
60

40
40

20
20

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0
Flow Initiation Pressure (psi) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Flow Initiation Pressure (psi)

Figure 10. FIP vs. return permeability for high-permeability Figure 11. FIP vs. return permeability for low-permeability cores.
cores.
200 200
Oil Tests Gas Tests
180 180

160 160

140 140
Return Permeability (%)

Return Permeability (%)

120 120

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Flow Initiation Pressure (psi) Flow Initiation Pressure (psi)

Figure 12. FIP vs. return permeability for oil tests. Figure 13. FIP vs. return permeability for gas tests.

Steady State
Return permeability was also plotted as a function of the length of time to reach return permeability steady state (Figure 14).
While the mean of the steady state duration is low and the mean of the return permeability is relatively high, there is no
distinctive correlation between the two variables.
The length of time to reach return permeability steady state versus filtration is shown in Figure 15. This scatterplot depicts
low means for both the steady state duration and filtration. Statistically, the plot illustrates a weak but present positive
correlation between the two variables.
6 SPE 168119

200 600
Standard Ellipse
Prediction Interval Ellipse
180

500
160

140
400
Return Permeability (%)

120

Filtration (%)
100 300

80

200
60

40
100

20
Standard Ellipse
Prediction Interval Ellipse
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Length of Time to Reach Steady State on Return (mins) Length of Time to Reach Steady State on Return (mins)

Figure 14. Length of time to reach return permeability steady Figure 15. Length of time to reach return permeability steady
state vs. return permeability. state vs. filtration.

Overbalance
Figure 16 depicts the differences between 500 psi and >500 psi overbalance pressures when plotted as a function of return
permeability. The data is illustrated as histograms and shows that overbalance pressures of 500 psi may yield greater return
permeability results.

Return Permeability (OB 500 psi)

120

100

80
Frequency

60

40

20

0
1-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 101-120 121-140 141+
Return Permeability (%)

Return Permeability (OB > 500 psi)

20
18
16
14
12
Frequency

10
8
6
4
2
0
1-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 101-120 121-140 141+
Return Permeability (%)

Fig 16. Histograms of return permeability with overbalance of 500 psi and >500 psi.
SPE 168119 7

Discussion
The standard and prediction interval ellipses in most scatterplots congregate towards the upper left quadrants of the plots with
mostly negative correlation coefficients. This translates to having a low variable means and trends depicting weak inverse
relationships between the return permeability versus FIP, and, the return permeability versus filtration. In other words, lower
FIP and filtration values tend to correlate with higher return permeability figures in this data set. However, there are small
variations between each ellipse such that the orientation of the ellipses and the ellipses size (major and minor axis half
lengths) are slightly different. In the prediction interval ellipses, the orientation is determined by the sign of the linear
correlation between the two variables where the longer axis of the ellipse is superimposed on the regression line; hence
indicating the degree the two variables correlate one another. Strong correlation is signified by a long major axis and short
minor axis whereas the orientation of the ellipse is also dependent on the correlation coefficient.

Filtration Data
The data set representing all tests (Figure 2) depicts a moderately elongated prediction interval ellipse with an r of 0.137.
Although the correlation is weak, the negative r suggests a slight inverse correlation between filtration and return
permeability, signifying that a lower filtration value may lead to a higher return permeability. Albeit data points being
crowded in the upper left quadrant where filtration is <100%, the return permeability range extends from ~30% to over
120%. Plotting a residual plot (Fig 3) illustrates that the residuals do not carry similar widths throughout the range and are not
uniformly scattered. This suggests that the data set is of unequal variance. Despite this observation, it is important to note that
comparisons are being made between the different factors such as high-permeability cores versus low-permeability cores, and
oil tests versus gas tests. While there could be unequal variance between the filtration data and return permeability, the same
variance is being used to compare the different factors.
Differences between tests using high-permeability and low-permeability core plugs were examined (Figure 4 and Figure
5). Cores with high permeability yielded an r of 0.220 with a more rounded profile in comparison to the tests conducted
with low-permeability cores. The low-permeability cores generated an r of 0.106. This comparison suggests that return
permeability may be more susceptible to damage with increasing filtration in higher permeability cores.
Differences between tests using oil and gas as the production fluids are represented in Figure 6 and Figure 7. The
prediction interval ellipses show profiles resembling Figures 5 and 6. The oil test plot yielded an r of 0.120 while the gas
test plot attained an r of 0.010. This comparison suggests that return permeability may be more sensitive to damage in oil
tests and any association between filtration and return permeability in gas tests is negligible. Since most tests conducted on
low-permeability cores were tested with humidified nitrogen, it would be plausible to observe similar trends between the
plots. However, in ultra-low-permeability core plugs, r is calculated to be 0.226. This suggests that ultra-low-permeability
cores (<2 mD) are more vulnerable to damage when filtration increases. This observation coincides with Franks et al. (2011)
which describe the high sensitivity of gas permeability to water and how filtration is an important damage mechanism for
ultra-low-permeability (tight-gas) formations.

Flow Initiation Pressure Data

The data set representing all tests (Figure 8) shows an almost circular prediction interval ellipse with an r of 0.030. While
the correlation of coefficient is a negative value, the figure is too minor to suggest a correlation between FIP and return
permeability when data is viewed collectively. Data points are condensed near the y-axis where FIP is <50 psi while the
return permeability ranges between ~30% to more than 120%. With the major axis of the ellipse almost vertical, linear
correlation is undefined. Similar to the filtration data above, plotting a residual plot (Figure 9) illustrates that the residuals do
not carry similar widths throughout the range and are not uniformly scattered. The same interpretation can be said with the
FIP data.
Figure 10 and Figure 11 illustrates the data between high-permeability and low-permeability core plugs. Cores with high-
permeabilities yielded an r of 0.040 while cores with low permeabilities produced an r of 0.147. This suggests that cores
with low permeabilities are more susceptible to damage with increasing FIP than high-permeability cores.
Comparisons between tests using oil and gas as the production fluids are shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13. Similar to the
results found within the filtration data, the prediction interval ellipse in the oil tests share a resemblance with the ellipse in the
high-permeability cores while similarities are also found between gas tests and low-permeability cores. The oil test plot
yielded an r of 0.017 while the gas test plot yielded an r of 0.052. It can be argued that the larger r value in gas test could
infer a stronger correlation compared to oil tests, however, given the low r values of for both plots and the significantly less
data points available for the gas test plot, it is difficult to deduce any apparent correlations between oil and gas tests versus
return permeability.

Length of Time to Reach Steady State Return Permeability

A scatter plot was created to observe the data between the time it takes for the return permeability to reach steady state and
the percent of return permeability (Figure 14). The r value calculated is 0.052 and similar to the other plots, data points are
grouped near the upper y-axis of the plot. Although the majority of data is grouped together near the y-axis, there is no direct
correlation between the lengths of time for the return permeability to reach steady state and the percent of return
permeability. The clustered data merely denotes a low mean for the time variable.
8 SPE 168119

The time required to reach steady state return permeability was also plotted as a function of filtration (Figure 15). This
plot yielded an r value of 0.207 which suggests a weak positive correlation between the two variables. The average mean the
length of time to reach steady state return permeability and filtration are 193.4 min and 83.3% respectively. It can be inferred
that longer times are necessary to achieve steady state return permeabilities due to the higher volumes of filtrate in the core.

Effects of Overbalance Pressure

The overbalance data is presented in Figure 16. The histograms describe the probability distribution derived from the data set.
Comparisons were made between overbalance pressures of 500 psi and >500 psi. In both histograms, the distributions are
negatively skewed with peaks at 81-100% return permeability. The data presented suggests that overbalance pressures of
500 psi is slightly less skewed than the data with overbalance pressures >500 psi. This suggests that overbalance pressures
of 500 psi may yield higher return permeability values. The effects of higher overbalance may include more filtration and/or
deeper solids invasion which can ultimately damage the core or only fluids with a reasonable chance of giving good return
permeabilites were tested.

Conclusions
The data analyzed provides insights on how the relationship between return permeability is affected as a function of filtration
and FIP while taking into account factors of low- and high-permeability cores, and oil- and gas-driven tests. Relationships
between return permeability were also compared to the length of time required to reach steady state return and between
filtration and the length of time required to reach steady state return. Overbalance pressure differences among 500 psi and
>500 psi pressures were also compared. The majority of low fluid loss data tends to correspond with higher return
permeability values in high-permeability core plugs. Similar trends can also be said for oil test. However, ultra-low-
permeability cores appear to be also susceptible to higher filtration. In the FIP data set, return permeability appears more
sensitive in low-permeability cores performed with gas. The length of time to reach steady state for return permeabilities
shows little to no correlation to the percent of return permeability. Conversely, filtration as a function of the length of time to
reach steady state for return permeability does show a slight positive correlation. Overbalance of >500 psi appears to have a
more damaging effect on return permeability in comparison to overbalance pressure of 500 psi.

References
Batschelete, E. 1981. Circular Statistics in Biology. New York: Academic Press.
Byrne, M. and Patey, I. 2003. Formation Damage Laboratory Testing A Discussion of Key Parameters, Pitfalls and Potential. SPE
82250, SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, 13-14 May 2003. www.dx.doi.org/10.2118/82250-MS
Franks, S., Leonard, R., and He, W. 2011. Reservoir Drill-In Fluid and Formation Damage of Tight Gas Reservoirs. AADE-11-NTCE-
43, AADE National Technical Conference, Houston, 12-14 April.
Marshall, D. and Gray, R. 1997. Development of a Recommended Practice for Formation Damage Testing. SPE 38154, SPE European
Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, 2-3 June. www.dx.doi.org/10.2118/38154-MS
Pearson, K. 1895. Note on Regression and Inheritance in the Case of Two Parents. Proceedings of the Royal Society, 58, 280-242.