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.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition
on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, U.S.A., 18–20 February 2004.
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
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
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
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-
mercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohib-
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
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.
Abstract
The “Unified test protocol for laboratory formation damage
assessments” consists of functional procedures that attempt to
standardise formation damage service projects. Setting
functional requirements was preferred above detailed
instructions with respect to laboratory work processes and the
handling of laboratory equipment.
In order to assess the formation damage potential of a fluid
for drilling or well operations, three sections of the protocol
need to be accomplished. These are respectively:
“Information”, “Simulation” and “Analysis”.
This paper presents the three sections of the unified
protocol and discusses the effect of the functional approach.
Special emphasis is put on a distinction between well fluids
that experience dynamic and static filtration regimes, as these
require different ways of simulating fluid applications to the
rock sample. To provide engineering parameters relevant at
field scale and to identify the full range of potential formation
damage mechanisms that may affect the reservoir, analyses on
“centimeter”, “millimeter” and “micrometer” scale
are suggested.
Minimum requirements to upscale formation damage
measurements to field scale are presented. We also present an
option for full scope “diagnostic” formation
damage assessments.
Applications of numerical models that have been
suggested in earlier research yield “return permeability”,
“filtrate invasion depth”, “lab skin”, “efficiency of flow” and
“loss of revenue” as parameters to benchmark the formation
damage of well fluids.
1 permeability have shown poor lab-to-lab repeatability. A
Work performed at Reservoir Laboratories (-April 2000) and at SINTEF
(May 2000 – September 2002), the author is now employed at the Norwegian
Petroleum Directorate.
Introduction
Prevention of formation damage through fluids used for
drilling and well operations provides one of the key elements
for the economic success of oil- and gasfield developments. It
affects not only commercial interests, but also the total quality
of the production process. Hence, it comes along with
increased up-time and process reliability, as well as a
reduction in total HES-related risks. The latter is related to
reduced exposure of staff and environment because the need
for stimulation/workover operations on damaged wells or even
the drilling of additional wells to exploit the full reservoir
potential is reduced.
The work reported in this paper is part of a research
initiative supported by the EU-commission within the 5th
framework research and technical development programme.
This research initiative, termed “Well Productivity 2002”,
short “WP2002”, aims to deliver development strategies and
new products to drill, complete and maintain wellbores in such
a manner that the optimum delivery potential of a hydrocarbon
reservoir is protected.
As one task to approach the project objectives, a work
package was defined to develop cost-effective laboratory and
field diagnostic methods to characterise and quantify
formation damage. The particular objectives of this work
package were among other to:
1. Establish minimum equipment requirements for simple
“screening-type” formation damage assessments.
2. Demonstrate a viable and unified set of laboratory test pro-
tocols for “screening” and “diagnostic”-type tests.
We present below a test protocol that attempts to satisfy
these objectives. This protocol is based on a functional
approach rather than detailed requirements. Suggestions to
satisfy functional requirements in practice are given. The
primary thought when developing the protocol was to
structure the communication between user and supplier of the
service project and to link field and laboratory closer together.
Unified Protocol
Background. To select an optimum fluid for drilling or well
operations in a reservoir section, one of the most prominent
criteria is potential formation damage. Using representative
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
recent comparative study1,2 involving 10 laboratories
demonstrated that detailed, step-by-step instructions for
2 SPE 86544
permeability damage measurements yield results with large
variations. The authors conclude among other, “the study
illustrates the difficulty in developing a procedure which is
suitable for the wide variety of equipment specifications …”.
A requirement for standardised test equipment, as set forward
in this study, may be difficult to defend globally as service
laboratories use individual technical approaches and work
under different economical constraints.
Summary of the unified protocol. On this background we
propose that any protocol for laboratory-based formation
damage assessments that aims on general acceptance should
use a functional, “goal oriented” approach, rather than detailed
requirements for lab-equipment and instructions. Reviewing
earlier work we are able to isolate 3 major, individual tasks
and their functions within a formation damage assessment.
These are:
1. “Information”: This is a systematic planning process.
It comprises an assessment of field conditions, a
discussion of parameters relevant for the transition
from field to laboratory, a schedule for experiments and
analyses, and methods for up-scaling laboratory
observations. The overall plan should achieve cost-
effectiveness and agreements on acceptance criteria.
2. “Simulation”: In this experimental section, candidate
fluids for drilling or well operations are applied to
prepared rock samples. Afterwards, the production
from a well is simulated. These activities are performed
on core plug samples under experimental conditions
that are close to reservoir conditions in terms of
temperature, pressure and well fluid filtration regime.
The right selection of rock samples, fluid samples and
preparation methods is relevant for simulations.
3. “Analysis”: Measurements performed during
simulations as well as dedicated analytical methods that
characterize rock and fluids before and after
simulations create the basis for quantitative and
qualitative evaluations. Results are translated to
wellbore scale to assess the effect and geometrical
extent of formation damage.
Limitations. This work is limited to formation damage
through fluids used in drilling and well operations. It is with
minor modifications applicable to other well fluid and fluid
engineering issues, for example injection waters, however, it is
limited to the aspects of rock-fluid interactions and fluid-to-
fluid compatibility. Formation damage related to unconsoli-
dated sands, sand production, through the explosives in perfo-
ration guns or through well testing operations is not within the
scope of this work.
Section 1 “Information”. The exchange of information be-
tween field team and laboratory team aims on securing that all
essential variables related to the impact of formation damage
on well productivity of the field case are taken into account
and properly addressed through simulations and analyses.
Mainly, the following information should be exchanged:
1. Information from field team to laboratory (see Tab.
1) concerning field parameters and operational
objectives and constraints.
2. Information from laboratory to field team (see
Tab. 2) on the experimental and analytical plan to
address the field case.
3. Agreement on project plan and quality
acceptance criteria.
In general acceptance criteria may be related to the objectives
of the field operations, to the quality of the tested fluid
systems, to the project design or to the performance of
laboratory activities compared to the plan.
Section 2 “Simulation”. The second part of the unified proto-
col concerns the application of the candidate fluids to rock
samples under conditions representative for the reservoir,
drilling or well operations and production from the well. As
part of a formation damage simulation a prepared core plug
sample is exposed to a sample of the drilling or, in general, the
well fluid under controlled pressure and temperature condi-
tions and under dynamic and/or static filtration conditions. To
simulate hydrocarbon production before and after drilling fluid
exposure, representative formation fluids are flooded through
the core under controlled pressure and temperature conditions
and flow rates. This is performed in a formation to wellbore
direction1,2, as is the case in a producing well. The flow of
activities in the “Simulation” section is presented in detail in
the center column of Fig. 1.
A review of research performed over the last 50 years3-20
shows that filtration conditions in formation damage tests are
simulated by:
1. Static filtration3,6
2. Semi-dynamic filtration, including flow heads4,8,9 and
stirring devices5,19
3. Scaled dynamic filtration, including slot-type
designs10,11,13,14,16,23,24, hollow cylinder7,20, cone-and-
plane18 and cylindrical rotors12.
Another category, large scale borehole simulators, is found
irrelevant for formation damage service studies as this option
is related to dedicated research studies and budgets on a
different scale. The well fluid must, if relevant (see Tab. 3), be
applied dynamically and parallel to the face of the core. In
case of drilling fluids, engineers have been aware that mud
filtration while circulating the fluid past the formation face
under dynamic conditions differs21 “radically and in no readily
predictable manner” from the static case. Also, “semi-dynamic
approaches” may build up under-sheared and over-sheared
filter cakes in the same application. This may affect filtrate
distribution and ultimately the measured damage.
Section 3 “Analysis”. To structure the many different meth-
ods that are available to analyse core plugs and fluids, we util-
ise an approach that distinguishes three different geometrical
scales. These are:
- Core plug scale or centimetre (cm)-scale
- Intermediate scale or millimetre (mm)-scale
- Pore scale or micrometer (µm)-scale
Tab.4 summarizes measurements and observations and
allocates the categories that are considered as most relevant.
Some overlap between categories may occur. Filter cake
characterisation, for example, is mostly performed on a µm-
scale to assess filter cake texture (e.g. particle size sorting,
degree of particle flocculation). Filter cake thickness or
SPE 86544
thickness distributions are on the other hand parameters that
would be more associated with a mm- or even cm- scale.
“Screening” and “Diagnostic” studies. Depending on the
objectives of the formation damage assessment one may dis-
tinguish “screening” and “diagnostic” studies. “Screening”
studies compare the formation damage of two or several op-
tions that may be candidates for a field case. Options may be
related to well fluid alternatives, different reservoir formations
or critical operational parameters (e.g. pump rates, overbal-
ance, fluid contaminations etc.). “Screening” only needs to
identify the cases with a significant damage potential. It may
therefore be restricted to a few analytical parameters that al-
low delimiting the primary impact of the cases on well pro-
ductivity. The transition between “screening study” and “di-
agnostic study” is not well defined. However, the following
is recommended:
1. As a minimum requirement to upscale formation damage
measurements to field scale, analyses on “centimetre”
scale including measurements of fluid filtration
parameters and return permeability should be performed.
A limited range of subsidiary measurements (porosity,
initial pore fluid saturations, viscosity and density of
pore fluids, well fluid rheology) is necessary for
experimental design and numerical evaluations.
2. A complete formation damage analysis is performed on
the higher-risk cases found by screening. Diagnostic
studies can be used to clarify the cause of damage so that
suitable action can be taken, e.g. reformulation or system
re-design. Diagnostic studies include core and fluid
analysis methods as well as advanced rock characterisa-
tion methods.
The distinguishing feature between both types of studies is
the effort put into the analysis of damage; see Fig. 1 comments
at the bottom of the flow chart. In the “simulation” section,
efforts should be made to represent the downhole situation as
accurately as possible in terms of temperature, pressure and
filtration conditions, as well as composition of pore fluids and
fluid saturations of the rock samples, independent of the
choice between “screening” and “diagnostic” type of study.
Alternatives presented in Tab. 3 may be used for decisions.
Up-Scaling. The analysis of formation damage simulations
should always keep in mind to translate the results from
laboratory to the scale of drilling and well operations. This
should be done by a systematic up-scaling process. The up-
scaling process may include the following steps:
- Up-scaling of the effect and extent of formation
damage to the near-wellbore geometry.
- Potential impact on production volumes and economic
implications of the selected alternative.
- Relevance of observed formation damage mechanisms
on field scale and selection of potential solutions for
formation damage reduction.
Sensitivity of methods
A subset of the unified test protocol developed above was
tested and used to demonstrate important aspects of
“screening” and “diagnostic” type of laboratory scale
formation damage assessments.
3
Simulations. Repeated simulations were performed on
Blaxters Sandstone a UK carboniferous sandstone that had
been used in several previous studies1,2,22,23. A water-based,
sized carbonate mud with clarified Xanthan (XCD) as the
primary viscosifier was used as a standard drilling fluid. The
rock samples were first saturated with simulated reservoir
brine and then brought to irreducible water saturation Swi by
flooding low viscosity laboratory oil (Clairsol). Drilling fluid
applications were performed under static filtration conditions
and under scaled dynamic filtration conditions followed by a
static filtration period. For static applications a hydrostatic
core holder was equipped with a 10-mm deep spacer ring
having a wall thickness of 4 mm. This was placed at the
wellbore end of the core plug sample. For fully dynamic mud
application a generic wellbore situation was scaled to produce
shear rates at the core plug endface, equivalent to shear rates
at the wellbore wall23. The given setup produced a shear rate
of 320 s-1. After a 24 hrs dynamic application mud circulation
was stopped and the system was kept at rest to establish a
static filtration regime.
Note that the core holder design allows core plug exposure
over the full endface. Experimental techniques, including
explanations to “tandem” set-ups with filtrate receiving core
holders behind the core holder used for drilling fluid
application, are presented in an earlier paper23. Test conditions
for both static and dynamic tests are presented in Tab. 5.
Analysis. Accumulated filtrate production over time and per-
meabilities before and after fluid application were assessed.
Return permeability was measured after a constant rate back
flood (rate 2 ml/min). In addition, porosity, initial pore fluid
saturations, viscosity and density of pore fluids and well fluid
rheology parameters were measured. To observe local changes
in the fluid distributions, NMR-Imaging was performed on
core plugs under ambient conditions after drilling fluid appli-
cation and well production simulation. In one case, a static
drilling fluid application was stopped after 15 minutes expo-
sure. No backflood was performed in this case.
NMR-Imaging was used as a formation damage
identification tool as presented in ref. 20. Instead of 10 MHz
proton resonance frequency an NMR spectrometer operating
at 100 MHz proton resonance frequency was used. Two other
post test analysis methods that were used to identify formation
damage mechanisms on µm- scale are presented in earlier
work23. These comprised Conventional Dry SEM analysis to
determine solid alteration to the pore architecture and
cryogenic SEM analysis to observe changes in fluid
distribution on a pore scale level.
Results. Static and dynamic filtration coefficients are calcu-
lated according to the methods presented by Roodhart24. Re-
turn permeability is expressed as the permeability ratio of the
post-exposure to the baseline permeability measurement.
Filtration. The static filtrate loss coefficient, m, measured
for the water based drilling fluid under static filtration alone
shows good repeatability for 3 repetitions. The mean
coefficient is 3.75 ± 0.70 l/(m2h0.5). Dynamic filtration
simulations show a substantial dynamic leak-off component,
B, when fitting the filtration curve of the dynamic phase
according to the model suggested by Roodhart24. The dynamic
4 SPE 86544
leakoff parameter B is 1.31 ± 0.19 l/(m2h) with 95%
confidence limits. The static leak-off coefficient, A, used in
the dynamic filtration model is calculated to
5.26 ± 0.91 l/(m2h0.5). When turning off circulation and
keeping the system at rest, a static filtration regime is
established. Fig. 2 shows that filtration rates decreased in the
static regime. This observation is quantified by calculations
using a static filtration model24. The static leakoff component
m is now measured to 0.38 ± 0.21 l/(m2h0.5) with 95%
confidence limits.
Note the different measurement units for static and
dynamic filtration parameters. Note also that the coefficients
are scaled to filtration area and exposure time. Both
observations are important for later up-scaling.
The coefficients and observations (Fig. 2) confirm that
drilling fluid filtration rates show strong sensitivity towards
the filtration regime (static or dynamic) that is used. Also,
static filtration after dynamic filtration is significantly
different from static filtration alone, when comparing the
filtration coefficients for both cases.
Return Permeability. Results show that there was little
alteration in return permeability (see Tab. 6 and Tab. 7). The
mean values observed for dynamic and static filtration tests
are equal within the limits of 95% confidence. Core plugs run
in the dynamic set up had a return permeability of 39.5 ±
8.1%, while plugs run under static filtration returned with on
average 43.4 ± 11.0%. Two samples that were run in a tandem
core holder and that received the filtrate from samples run
under dynamic exposure conditions only, returned both with
56% (see Tab. 8). This is significantly different from the cases
with direct mud application. It also indicates that the invasion
of water-based filtrate contributes substantially to the overall
permeability damage.
Saturation Distributions. NMR-Images represent analyses
on millimeter scale. The images were useful for highlighting
artefacts when using a spacer ring at the wellbore end of the
core plug. Within this study, the method achieved not only the
assessment of formation damage mechanisms, but was also
used as a quality assessment tool. Fig. 3 shows an NMR-
Image of a Blaxters sandstone sample, which was briefly
(15 min) exposed to a water-based drilling mud using Xanthan
as the primary viscosifier. The mud components were in this
case not back-produced by a production simulation. The image
shows light zones (yellow, orange) behind the spacer ring that
created the annular space ahead of the wellbore end of the core
plug. Zones are marked with white circles and reflect higher
oil saturations than observed in the other parts of the rock
sample. These other parts are largely filled with polymer
containing filtrate that causes darker (green, blue) colour
codes in the image.
Fig. 4 shows the image of a Blaxters sandstone sample that
experienced a complete formation damage simulation with
static filtration. While the previous image showed
inhomogeneous saturation distributions as “shadow” zones
behind the spacer ring, the image in Fig. 4 seems to show oil
“flow channels” along the flanks of the core plug. The plug
appears otherwise predominately filtrate saturated. The NMR-
response indicates that these channels reflect zones with
higher oil saturations, i.e. smaller filtrate saturations, than the
rest of the plug. The reason for this is probably an effect of
damage distribution anomalies caused by the spacer ring. As
the backflooding oil is choosing flow paths with least
resistance, flow channels concentrate on the flanks of the core
plug that are less saturated with viscous filtrate than the center
of the plug. It is also observed that the mud exposure zone
may be more oil saturated than the rest of the sample. This
may indicate that mud components were flushed out of the
immediate exposure zone by the backflooding oil.
The return permeabilities measured on this plug (b2) may
be related to flow along the damaged rock matrix, rather than
flow through the damaged matrix.
Fig. 5 finally, shows the image of a Blaxters sandstone
plug, which was exposed to the same water based drilling
fluid, yet, under dynamic filtration conditions and without a
spacer ring at the wellbore end of the plug. The NMR image
shows more homogeneous fluid phase distributions compared
to the previous two cases. This observation may also imply
that the return permeability measurement on this core plug is
more trustworthy.
On this background, it is also asked whether the return
permeabilities measured in core holders with a reduced
exposure area at the core plug endface actually reflect
formation damage or rather the undamaged permeability of a
smaller part of the rock sample.
Up-scaling and benchmarking
Combining fluid loss and return permeability measurements,
and only in combination, it is ultimately possible to up-scale
laboratory formation damage studies to field scale. The
approach suggested in this work yields “return permeability”,
“filtrate invasion depth”, “lab-skin”, “efficiency of flow” and
“loss of revenue” as parameters to translate laboratory test
results to field scale. Numerical models presented below have
been suggested in earlier research.
Filtrate invasion depth. The determination of the radius of
the skin zone is based on the accurate measurements of
dynamic and static filter loss volumes. To calculate invasion
depth, di, Breitmeier et al.21 suggest the following equation.
0 .5
⎧⎪ ⎛ 2r ⎞ ⎫⎪
d i = ⎨rw2 + ⎜⎜ w ⎟⎟ ∫ C m dt ⎬ − rw ..........................................(1.)
⎪⎩ ϕS
⎝ i⎠ ⎪⎭
where:
rw: Hole diameter/bit diameter (m)
ϕ: porosity (frac.)
Si: Average saturation of the invading filtrate in the zone
of invasion (frac.)
Cm: Filtrate flux (in 10-3 m3/(m2 s))
-3 3 2
∫ Cm dt : accumulated filtrate volume (in 10 m /m )
The accumulated filtrate volume is computed for a
specified measured depth of the borehole as a function of open
hole time, t, and the filtration coefficients calculated for either
static or dynamic filtration.
The model of Breitmeier et al.21 is qualified by the authors
as a “fairly good approximation”. It is based on the
assumption of a uniform, plug type displacement of the mobile
pore fluids through the invading filtrate. Other authors, for
SPE 86544
example Phelps25 and Ding et al30., suggest more detailed one
dimensional and two dimensional numerical models in order
to model filtrate invasion.
“Lab-skin”. Skin as discussed in this work belongs to the
category of mechanical skin factors as defined by Yildiz26. To
account for changes in pressure or flow behaviour of a well
depending on the combination of permeability damage and the
geometrical extent of damage Hawkins27 expressed the skin
factor as:
⎛k ⎞ r
s = ⎜⎜ − 1⎟⎟ ln s ............................................................ ( 2.)
⎝ k s ⎠ rw
Obviously, the radius of the damaged zone, or skin zone,
rs, is expressed as the sum of the wellbore radius, rw, and the
damage invasion depth, di.
rs = rw + d i ..................................................................... (3.)
Flow efficiency and economic implications. For example, for
pseudo-steady state flow (reservoir with no-flow boundaries
and declining reservoir pressure due to production) Golan and
Whitson28 derive a flow efficency factor EF according to:
ln(re rw ) − 0.75 ................................................ (4.)
EF =
ln(re rw ) − 0.75 + S
For other drainage situations different definitions of EF
apply28. A damage ratio, DR, is defined according to:
DR = 1 − E F .................................................................... (5.)
Amaeful et al.29 present a formula for the economic
implication, FD$L, of formation damage by the annual
revenue loss per well according to:
FD$ L = 365q 0 p DR ....................................................... (6.)
where:
q0 – undamaged flow rate in barrel oil equivalents per day
p – given oil price e.g. in USD per barrel.
“Generic” Field Case. As this study was not related to a
specific field case, we suggest the generic field parameters
presented in Tab. 9 to demonstrate the principles of the up-
scaling process. At a given depth level in the reservoir
formation a total open hole time of 200 hours was experienced
during drilling. 50% of the open hole time was used for
drilling and circulating the drilling fluid, while the other 50%
were spent on tripping and logging, or in general situations
where the drilling fluid was kept at rest. Relevant formation
parameters for displacement and invasion calculations
(porosity and initial formation saturation Swi) were derived
from measurements on the Blaxters sandstone. The
assumption of a well drainage radius of 500 m is appreciable
for a well with the given hole size, production rate and
formation petrophysical properties. A “no-flow” boundary as
expressed in eqn. 4 is used as an example. Reservoirs with
strong aquifer support may require different calculations.
The presented case shows a potential for improvement in
view to drilling mud selection or the optimisation of mud
5
filtration properties. The “lab-skin”-value is positive and
potential flow from the well is reduced by between 15 to 25%,
see Tab. 10. Most striking is the substantial difference
between filtrate invasion depth calculated for dynamic mud
applications and static applications. While the dynamically
filtered fluid filtrate invades by more than half a meter into the
rock formation, the prediction for static invasion is just half of
the dynamic value. Information such as the depth of filtrate
invasion is not only important for formation damage
assessments, but also for formation evaluation.
Due to the smaller return permeability and the larger radius
of filtrate invasion, the predictions based on the “dynamic”
case would have provoked more stringent measures to combat
damage, while formation damage tests with static filtration
may have underestimated the given situation.
Measurements on the “tandem” plugs show that the filtrate
alone causes significantly smaller formation damage than
estimated from plugs exposed to the complete drilling mud.
Conclusions
The document proposes a unified test protocol for laboratory
formation damage testing. The approach is functional, rather
than defining standard situations and giving detailed
instructions concerning the use of lab-equipment. The
systematic behind the protocol may translate into advantages
as the formation damage assessment becomes more
transparent and field oriented.
The approach allows adapting either quick “screening”
type assessments for the investigation of several options or
comprehensive “diagnostic” type assessments for
critical cases.
A subset of the unified test protocols was tested to
demonstrate important aspects of laboratory formation damage
assessments. Important observations were:
1. Measurements emphasise that under comparable
conditions filtrate volumes generated in a dynamic
filtration regime are significantly larger than static
filtration volumes. The differences in the dynamic and
static filtration coefficients contribute to significant
differences in the up-scaled filtrate invasion depth at
field scale.
2. Invasion of water-based filtrate contributes
substantially to the overall permeability damage.
3. NMR images show that coreholders that use a reduced
annular space at the wellbore end of a core plug may
affect drilling mud filtrate distributions and cause
nonrepresentative flow patterns when backflooding.
The approach suggested in this work yields “filtrate
invasion depth”, “lab-skin”, “efficiency of flow” and “loss of
revenue” as “benchmarkers” for drilling and well fluid
formation damage predictions for field operations.
Recommendations
To use the results of formation damage tests efficiently,
laboratories should attempt to scale fluid applications to
downhole conditions also in terms of the prevailing filtration
regimes. So far, this approach has not been field proven. The
protocol and models suggested in this work aim on linking
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
measurements (Drill Stem Tests, Resistivity Logs, Pressure
Transient Well Test Analyses, Production Logging). Reports
or solid experience on such correlations appear to be rare, if
non-existent.
References
1. Marshall D.S. et al. (1997) “Development of a Recommended
Practice for Formation Damage Testing”, paper SPE 38154 pres. at
the 1999 SPE EFDC, The Hague, June 2-3.
2. Marshall D.S. et al. (1999) “Return Permeability: A Detailed
Comparative Study”, paper SPE 54763 pres. at the 1999 SPE
EFDC, The Hague, 31 May – 1 June.
3. Bailey, L. (1998), “Filtercake Integrity and Reservoir Damage”,
paper SPE 39429 presented at the SPE International Symposium
on Formation Damage, Lafayette, 18-19 February
4. Beatty T., et al. (1993), “Core Tests Help Prevent Formation
Damage in Horizontal Wells”, Oil and Gas Journal, Aug. 2,
p.64-70
5. Chesser, B.G. et al. (1994), “Dynamic and Static Filtrate-loss
Techniques for Monitoring Filter-cake Quality Improves Drilling
Fluid Performance”, SPE Drilling and Completion, September,
p. 189-192
6. Cobianco, S. et al. (2001), “New Solids-Free Drill-in Fluid for
Low Permeability Reservoirs”, paper SPE 64979 presented at the
SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Housto, 13-
16 February.
7. Fisk, J.V. and Jamison, D.E. (1989), “Physical Properties of
Drilling Fluids at High Temperature and Pressures”, SPE Drilling
Engineering, December, 341-346.
8. Francis, P.A. et al. (1995), “Visualisation of Drilling Induced
Formation Damage Mechanisms using Reservoir Conditions
Coreflood Testing”, Paper 30088, European Formation Damage
Control Conference (May 1995).
9. Gruber and Adair (1995), “New Laboratory Procedures for
Evaluation of Drilling Induced Formation Damage and Horizontal
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
and Dynamic Filtration of Water-Based Muds," paper SPE 23823
presented at the International Symposium on Formation Damage
Control, Lafayette, 26-27 February.
11. Krueger, R.F. (1963), “Evaluation of Drilling Fluid Filter Loss
Additives Under Dynamic Conditions”, Journal of Petroleum
Technology, January, p.90 98
12. Leerlooijer, K. et al. (1996) “Filtration Control, Mud Design and
Well Productivity”, paper SPE 31079 presented at the SPE
Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette,
14-15 February.
13. Longeron, D. et al. (1995), "An Integrated Experimental Approach
for Evaluating Formation Damage Due to Drilling and Completion
Fluids" paper SPE 30089 presented at the European Formation
Damage Control Conference Hague, the Netherlands, 15-16 May
14. Marx, C. and Rahman, S.S. (1987), “Evaluation of Formation
Damage by Drilling Fluids, Specifically in Pressure Reduced
Formations”, Journal of Petroleum Technology, November,
1449-1452
15. Outmans, (1963): “Mechanics of Static and Dynamic Filtration in
the Borehole”, Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal,
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
AADE 01-NC-HO-53 National Drilling Conference Houston,
(March 2001).
20. van der Zwaag, C.H. et al. (1997), “New Methodology to
Investigate Formation Damage Using Non-Destructive Analytical
Tools”, SPE paper 38161 pres. At the SPE EFDC, The Hague,
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
Analysts Logging Symposium, 30th, Denver, Col., Transactions,
p. S1-S22.
22. van der Zwaag, C.H. et al. (2001) ”The Effect of Current and
Future Drilling Fluid Systems on Core Analysis”, Oil Gas
European Magazine, Vol. 27, 4, 16-22
23. Watson, R.B. and Nelson A.C. (2003), ”Representativ Laboratory
Testing Procedures for Selecting Drilling Fluids“ paper SPE 82300
presented at the European Formation Damage Conference, The
Hague, 13-14 May.
24. Roodhart, L.P. (1985), “Fracturing Fluids: Fluid-Loss
Measurements under Dynamic Conditions”, paper SPE 11900,
SPE Journal, p.629.
25. Phelps, G.D. (1995) “Computation of Mud Filtrate Invasion
Profiles”, The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 34, No.
1, p. 18-27.
26. Yildiz, T. (2003), “Assessment of Total Skin Factor in Perforated
Wells”, paper SPE 82249 presented at the SPE European
Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, 13-14 May.
27. Hawkins, M.F. (1956), “A Note on the Skin Effect”, Petroleum
Transactions AIME, Tech.Note 389, Vol. 207, p.356-357
28. Golan, M. and Whitson, C.H. (1991), Well Performance, PTR
Prentice Hall Inc.
29. Amaeful, J.O. et al. (1988), “Advances in Formation Damage
Assessment and Control Strategies”, paper no. 88-39-65 presented
at the 39th Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society of
CIM, Clagary, June 12-16.
30. Ding, Y. et al. (2002):, “Modelling of Both Near-Wellbore
Damage and Natural Cleanup of Horizontal Wells Drilled with a
Water –Based Mud” Paper SPE 73733 International Symposium
on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, 20 – 21 February.
Acknowledgements
The EU-project “Well Productivity 2002 (WP 2002)” was
planned in 1997 and 1998 together with Jan Erik Hanssen,
then at Rogaland Research. Without his inspiration and
patience the project never would have taken off. Late 1999 the
project finally was realized thanks to the support of the EU-
Commission as well as 5 dedicated oil companies: BP, Norsk
Hydro, Norske Shell, ChevronTexaco and Eni. The support
and the permission to publish this work are
gratefully acknowledged.
We also would like to thank our collegues at Rogaland
Research, EniTecnologi, MI Drilling Fluids, Rhodia, ResLab
and SINTEF. A special thanks goes to Arne Stavland, Liqun
Han, Ingebret Fjelde, Arild Lohne, Sandra Cobianco,
Guiseppe Maddinelli, Russell Watson, Wulve Vatslag, Ingrid
Gribbestad, Tore Skjetne, Trond Erling Singstad and Emil
Veliyulin for their contributions.
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
(24 hrs) to water based drilling fluid (primary viscosifier Xanthan)
and production simulation. Static filtration. Core holder equipped
with spacer ring at wellbore end of core plug (upper end
of image).
Fig. 5. NMR Image of Blaxters sandstone sample after exposure
(48 hrs) to water based drilling fluid (primary viscosifier Xanthan)
and production simulation. Dynamic filtration. Core holder with
unrestricted exposure at wellbore end of core plug (upper end
of image).