Formation Damage 2009

Curtin University of Technology Master of Petroleum / Petroleum Well Engineering
Department of Petroleum Engineering Remedial, Stimulation & Intervention Operations
Chapter 4 – Formation Damage

Table of Contents
4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................4-1
4.2 Consequences of Formation Damage ............................................4-1
4.3 Formation Damage Mechanisms ....................................................4-4

4.3.1 Formation Damage Resulting from a Reduction in Absolute
Permeability.....................................................................................4-4
4.3.1.1 Solids Blocking or Plugging .....................................................4-4
4.3.1.2 Clay Problems .......................................................................4-14
4.3.1.3 Fines Migration ......................................................................4-23
4.3.1.4 Inorganic scale deposition .....................................................4-26
4.3.1.5 Plugging due to organic deposits...........................................4-33
4.3.1.6 Bacterial Plugging..................................................................4-34
4.3.1.7 Destabilisation and subsequent compaction .........................4-36
4.3.2 Formation Damage Resulting from a Reduction in Relative
Permeability...................................................................................4-36
4.3.2.1 Effect of fluid saturation .........................................................4-37
4.3.2.2 Effect of rock wettability.........................................................4-38
4.3.3 Formation Damage due to Fluid Viscosity Increase ......................4-40
4.4 Formation Damage Occurrence, Prevention or Minimisation in

Well Operations..............................................................................4-42
4.4.1 Damage during casing and cementing operations.........................4-42
4.4.2 Formation Damage during Completion Operation .........................4-43
4.4.2.1 Selection of a completion fluid ...............................................4-44
4.4.2.2 Minimisation/prevention of formation damage .......................4-48
4.4.3 Perforating Operations ..................................................................4-49
4.4.3.1 Preferential use of underbalanced perforating.......................4-49
4.4.3.2 Perforation protection from fluid infiltration ............................4-52
4.4.3.3 Perforation clean up ..............................................................4-55
4.4.3.4 Summary of damage minimisation in perforated completions4-55
4.4.4 Formation Protection during Workovers ........................................4-57
4.4.5 Damage during Production Operations .........................................4-60
4.4.5.1 Inorganic scale ......................................................................4-60
4.4.5.2 Organic deposits....................................................................4-60
4.4.5.3 Fines migration ......................................................................4-62
4.4.5.4 Sand production/formation compaction or collapse ...............4-62
4.4.6 Formation Damage during Injection Operations ............................4-62
4.4.6.1 Water injection operations .....................................................4-62
4.4.6.2 Gas injection operations ........................................................4-63
4.4.7 Damage during Gravel Packing Operations ..................................4-64
4.4.7.1 Damage due to the carrier fluid .............................................4-64
4.4.7.2 Damage due to gravel pack impairment ................................4-64
4.4.8 Damage during Acidisation Operations .........................................4-65
CHAPTER 4
Formation Damage
4.4.8.1 Damage due to the acid reaction, acid additives or reaction by-
products.................................................................................4-65
4.4.8.2 Damage caused by the treatment operation..........................4-68
4.4.8.3 Minimisation of damage during acidisation............................4-68
4.4.9 Formation Damage during Fracturing Operations .........................4-69
4.4.9.1 Impairment of the propped fracture .......................................4-69
4.4.9.2 Permeability impairment of the formation at the fracture face4-70
4.4.9.3 Minimisation of damage during fracture treatments...............4-70
CHAPTER 4
Formation Damage
Chapter 4 – Formation Damage
4.1 Introduction
During the life of a well, a number of operations are conducted within it from
the initial drilling, through the production and workover phases to final
abandonment. The production capacity of the system is extremely vulnerable
to impairment due to a variety of causes. The viability of a well in economic
terms depends crucially on generating revenue and maximising the next
present value of production.
A reduction in the production or injection capacity of wells can reduce their

individual economic viability and may jeopardise the entire project by
necessitating that additional wells be drilled and completed.
4.2 Consequences of Formation Damage
Formation damage is usually considered to be a reduction in productivity or

injectivity, most frequently caused by a reduction in formation permeability. In
itself this perception is not totally wrong but it is a gross oversimplification of
what is actually an extremely complex phenomena. In reality it is only evident
from the observed productivity/injectivity of the well. Such an observation
implies that the transmissibility of the produced or injected fluids and the
reservoir rock defined as:
Ke • h  Kr • Ka • h 
 or 
µf  µf 
has been altered. This more general consideration of damage will be evident
when one or more of the following is altered:
(1) Absolute permeability of the reservoir rock
(2) The relative permeability of the rock to a specific fluid
(3) The viscosity of the mobile fluid
However, the quantification of the extent of alteration of any of the above

properties is insufficient to predict the impact on productivity. The productivity
or injectivity of a well involves the modelling of fluid flow in porous media and
hence assumptions of flow geometry. Accordingly for radial flow in a well, the
relationship between flowing pressure drop and the flowrate is a function not
only of fluid transmissibility but also of radial position and potentially time.
Thus it is not only necessary to quantify the degree of damage but also its
location and extent, before the impact on productivity/injectivity can be
assessed.
CHAPTER 4 Page 4 -1
Formation Damage
From radial flow theory, it is possible to consider the flow through a composite
reservoir with damage, as the combined flow through two reservoir sections in
series i.e.
i.e. ∆ PTOTAL = ∆ PSKINZONE + ∆ PUNDAMAGED RESERVOIR
i.e. (Pe - Pwf) = (Prd - Pwf) + (Pe - Prd)
where Pe, Prd and Pwf are respectively the pressures at the outer boundary of
the reservoir re, the outer boundary of the skin zone at radius rd and at the
wellbore rw.
Using this technique the theoretical impact on the productivity/injectivity can

be analysed. Two different forms of presenting the data are given in Figures 1
and 2. Both these graphs assume that the transmissibility of the fluids is
constant within the skin zone and further assumes a step change at the
boundary between the skin zone and the undamaged reservoir. This
simplification whilst useful mathematically, does not account for the fact that
the flow properties will vary across the skin zone from the wellbore to the skin
zone outer boundary. This variation arises because:
• The damage will be dependent on the total volume of fluid and damage
material injected or flowing into the reservoir damage zone.
• Some of the damage mechanisms will be dependent on the rate of flow

of the damaging fluid which in itself is a function of radial position.
However, the following conclusions can be stated from Figures 1 and 2:
(1) As a natural consequence of the flow in reservoirs with open hole

completions, damage has its greatest impact when located close to the
wellbore, e.g. even a 50% reduction in permeability in a 6" zone around
the wellbore can yield a 20% reduction in the well productivity. The
frequent use of perforating may circumvent shallow damage like this
and help to restore the productivity.
(2) Substantial depth of damage must be avoided at all costs as the effects
can be very serious and such damage is not easily alleviated, e.g.
perforating will not penetrate beyond say 2ft and hence the perforation
could remain within the damage zone.
(3) The severity of damage reduction substantially effects the production

rates.
(4) If the effects of permeability ratio on the productivity ratio is considered

for both the cases of permeability damage and improvement, it is clear
that for a damaged well, the use of stimulation to acidise or fracture a
damage zone could yield substantially improved permeabilities.
CHAPTER 4 Page 4 -2
Formation Damage
CHAPTER 4 Page 4 -3
Formation Damage
4.3 Formation Damage Mechanisms
Formation damage can generally be considered to be caused by a physical or

chemical interaction between the following:
Invading fluid liquid phase and the in situ reservoir fluids
Invading fluid liquid phase and the reservoir rock constituents
The solid constituents of the invading fluid and the reservoir rock
i.e. the damage results from an interaction between either
a fluid : fluid
or, a fluid: solid
or, a solid: solid
The effect of formation damage can be either:
A reduction in fluid relative permeability
A reduction in the absolute permeability of the formation
A decrease in the mobile fluid viscosity
i.e. formation damage results in a reduction in the desired mobility of the fluid
as depicted in Figure 3.
4.3.1 Formation Damage Resulting from a Reduction in Absolute Permeability
This class of mechanism is perhaps the most varied, but a number of the
mechanisms will be discussed in turn.
4.3.1.1 Solids Blocking or Plugging
The migration of solids either into or from within the porous media, can result
in the solids plugging either the pore throat or pore space. In the case of the
former, the flow area of the pore throat represents the minimum cross
sectional flow area and hence a major constriction to fluid flow. The
movement of solids within a fluid can lead to their arrival at a pore throat
through which they are unable to pass either because ofthe individual particle
size or shape alignment preventing its passage through the pore-single
particle bridging (Figure 4). Physical interaction between particles which
results in multiple particle bridging (Figure 4).
CHAPTER 4 Page 4 -4
Formation Damage
CHAPTER 4 Page 4 -5
Formation Damage
Single particle bridging is most likely to occur at the surface of the porous
media, whilst multiple particle bridging can occur both on the external surface
or within the pore space (Figure 5). Further, for a finite amount of particulates,
single particle bridging will obviously have a more serious impact on fluid
transmissibility than multiple particle bridging.
The complexity of the pore structure was highlighted by Maly who claimed that
in a 1 inch square sample of sandstone the number of pore exits was of the
order of 3000. He subsequently referred to the formation as “a most efficient
depth filter” for the entrapment of particulate material.
Basically there are 3 types of particles in solid liquid systems, namely;

solution, colloidal and suspended particle.
Solution consists of particles homogeneously distributed in an ionic state,
where the average particle diameter is 1A. Even so called clean fluids can
contain a substantial quantity of such particles.
Colloidal suspensions contain particles varying from .001 to 1 micron.
These particles have a very large ratio of surface area to volume and are to
some extent electrically charged. These particles therefore have a high
capacity to absorb ions on to their surface.
Suspensions consist of particles greater than 1 micron. They also possess
an electrical charge and adsorb ions on to their surface.
There are tow types of particles, namely; inorganic such as silica, silts, etc.,
and organic particles such as bacteria and fungi.
The source of particles in well operations varies from the drilling mud with a
relatively high solids content but a limited volume of fluid which enters the
formation, to injection water which contains a low concentration of fine
particulates but is injected in substantial quantities into the reservoir. Hence
consideration must be given to not only the size and shape of particulates,
and their concentration but also the cumulative solids injected into the pore
space.
The differential pressure provides the driving force or energy potential for the
flow of fluids into the reservoir from the wellbore.
The injection of a slurry or suspension into a porous media gives rise to solids
bridging and deposition both on the surface and within the pore space
(Figure 6). Particles which are larger than the pore throat size will be unable to
enter the pore space and will therefore bridge externally on the surface of the
porous media. Similarly particles of a certain size range although much
smaller than the pore throat size will bridge across the pore throat in
combination with other particles. (Figure 7) The deposition of particles in this
way will give rise to an external filter cake. For drilling fluids the permeability of
a filter cake deposited on a porous surface is of the order of 10-3 – 10-6 md
and is therefore several orders of magnitude lower than the permeability of the
porous media.
CHAPTER 4 Page 4 -6
Formation Damage
CHAPTER 4 Page 4 -7
Formation Damage
CHAPTER 4 Page 4 -8
Formation Damage
Smaller particles which can enter the pore space will migrate into the porous
media and subsequently plug an inside pore throat or deposit within the pore
space by sedimentation (Figure 8). The combination of these two inside
plugging mechanisms results in the formation of an internal filter cake. Since
the borehole is surrounded concentrically by the formation the velocity of the
fluid flowing through the pore space will be governed by radial flow and hence
be a function of the distance from the wellbore. Then the sedimentation forces
on particles will increase as the distance from the wellbore increases.
Tuttle and Barkmann investigated the injection of fluids containing low

concentrations of finer solids particularly with reference to completion fluids
and indicated that there was a direct correlation between permeability
reduction the concentration of solids, size of solids and the cumulative volume
of fluid injected (Figure 9). The level of impairment is indicated by a reduction
in the permeability. Several other authors also reported the investigation of
fine particulate invasion of the porous media.
Abrams who used radial section cores to study particulate invasion,

suggested that the depth of invasion was primarily limited to 3".
The size of particulates which can enter a pore space is dependent on the
size, shape and packing of the rock grains. If we can assume a homogeneous
rock system then if the grains are packed in a square fashion the diameter of
the pore between the grain is 35% of the grain diameter. If, however, the
grains are packed hexagonally the pore diameter is only 15.47% of the grain
size (Figure 10).
Further Coberly and Wagner, from work on gravel packing suggested that
assuming spherical particles and bridging at a round orifice, then for bridging,
the ratio should be:
dpart ≥ 0.5pore
However, these approaches are somewhat simple and theoretical since they
do not take account of heterogeneity in size, shape and packing nor do they
consider realistically interference bridging.
Abrams suggested a series of bridging rules, namely:
Particles with a diameter greater than or equal to 1/3rd of the mean pore throat
size will not pass through it and thus cause external bridging.
Particles with a diameter greater than or equal to 1/7th of the mean pore throat
size enter the porous media but may bridge internally.
Particles with a diameter equal to or less than 1/10th of the mean pore throat
will pass through the porous media unhindered.
CHAPTER 4 Page 4 -9
Formation Damage
CHAPTER 4 Page 4 -10

Formation Damage
Maly suggested that the 1/3rd rule does not hold at low flowrates. This
presumably suggests that at low rates the impact of sorting/deposition allows
individuals particle alignment/alignment to the pore throat.
These bridging rules are still widely used within the industry, normally in a
reverse manner, to design fluids which will create primarily an external filter
cake and hence limit the volume of invasion fluid.
The removal of these particulates from porous media by backflowing has been
studied. It has been recognised that lower flow rates does not favour the
removal of particles and that in fact optimum clean up is associated with an
intermediate flowrate.
Backflow at high flowrates may mobilise all the invading particles

simultaneously and the resultant high concentration of particle approaching
the pore throat will cause particle interference and pore throat bridging. At
very low flowrates, the fluid velocity is inadequate to suspend mobilised
particles and they accordingly settle out in the pore space. A compromise
between these two clean up scenarios represents the optimum condition.
However, despite these concepts of particle removal, it remains difficult to
remove, by backflow, invaded particulates and the best approach is to
(1) Minimise or reduce particle invasion by limiting the fluid volume which
enters this pore space,
and/or
(2) Use only particulates large enough to cause external bridging.
An alternative consideration of solids plugging is that which occurs in

perforation tunnels. Particle plugging associated with perforation tunnels
occurs in two places
• Particle deposition within the perforation tunnel
• Particle deposition within the pore space around the perforation tunnel
The productivity or injectivity of a perforated completion is crucially dependent

on the resistance to flow offered by the tunnel. This can be demonstrated by
the following examples.
(a) Surface Plugging

The surface area for flow into the porous media offered by a perforated
completion is much less than the equivalent open hole completion.
Interval thickness 100 ft
Open hole size 8½"
Perforation details shot density 4 shots/ft
Perforation length 12"
Perforation diameter ½"

Formation Damage
Surface area of open hole completion = 32028 sq in

Surface area of perforated completion = 7536 sq in
Thus for the perforated completion the number of pore throats available
for plugging are <25% of the comparable open hole completion and
hence the statistical possibility of damage and its resultant effect are
much greater in a perforated completion.
(b) Tunnel Plugging
The volume of a perforation tunnel of the same dimensions as

considered previously is 9.42 cu.ins. or 9.7 x 10-4 bbls. Simplistically
assuming that the particles plugging the tunnel have a void volume of
40%, then the solid volume of particles to plug the tunnel is 5.82 x 10-4
bbls. If it is assumed that the fluid has a solid concentration of 100
ppm, the volume of fluid required to plug the tunnel would be 5.8 bbls.
If a high solids concentration fluid were being used then the volume of
fluid required could be substantially less, e.g. for a typical drilling mud,
the volume would be .00582 bbls/perforation. This type of approach
was discussed by Rike. However, it under-estimates the solids quantity
as it does not consider inter particle bridging and premature deposition
in the tunnel.
In all cases the effective removal of particulates is very difficult to

achieve.
Another potentially significant source or particulate damage is during

cementing operations where a cement slurry is circulated into position
against an open formation. The pressures exerted on the formation
often exceed those overbalances encountered whilst drilling and
although the exposure time is short, the pressures and the limited
filtration control of the fluids can allow substantial invasion by
particulates (Figure 11).
In conclusion the severity of formation damage related to particulate

plugging will depend upon:
• differential pressure )
• base fluid viscosity ) control the invasion leak-off rate
• formation permeability )
• particle size
• particle size distribution
• particle shape
• particle concentration
• pore size
• pore shape
• pore size distribution
However, once particulate invasion has occurred it is difficult to
alleviate.

Formation Damage

Formation Damage
4.3.1.2 Clay Problems
Clay minerals are found in the majority of reservoir rocks particularly

sandstones, however, the composition and concentration is highly variable.
The clays can be present in the pore space as either agglomerate particles or
as smaller fines which coat the rock particle grains (Figure 12). Formation
damage associated with clay minerals can be described as being in two
categories:
• Static permeability reduction – whereby the clay structure changes thus
reducing the pore sizes. This occurs by swelling of the clay molecules.
• Dynamic permeability reduction – clays are chemically complex and
their behaviour is dictated by the ionic environment in which they are
located. In some cases either due to physical forces or electrochemical
changes, the clay particles can migrate with the flow and be transferred
within the pore space. In this condition the particles behave as fine
particulates capable of plugging pore throats.
The location of clay minerals depends to some extent on their molecular size.
Larger clay particles will project into the pore space but then the clay fines will
normally be confined within the connate liquid film surrounding the matrix
grain.
4.3.1.2.1 Clay Structure and Mineralogy
Although the majority of sandstones contain clays, they are normally referred
to as being clean where they contain say less than 5% clay in their
mineralogy. “Dirty sandstones” commonly contain more than 5% clays and
can on occasion contain more than 20%.
The distribution of the clays is primarily dependent upon the depositional

environment and the post depositional condition in terms of pressure,
temperature and ionic activity.
• Mineralogy and structure of clays
Clays are normally found as thin platelets which are characterised by their
atomic structure. All clays have as a result of their structure, a very high
surface area. This property influences the ionic activity and adsorption
characteristics of the clays, e.g. the surface area of most montmorillonites is
of the order of 750 sq.cm/gm. All clays comprise an arrangement of two basic
building blocks.
• Silica tetrahedral sheet – which comprises the four valent Si atom, with
oxygen atoms arranged around the central Si atom in a tetrahedral
shape (Figure 13).
• Aluminium octahedral sheet – which comprises central atoms of
aluminium, iron or magnesium within an octahedral arrangement of
hydroxyl atoms (Figure 14).
Both units can extend in both length and thickness by combining with other
units but individual units have dimensions between 7 and 20 A.
(7-20 x 10-7mm).

Formation Damage

Formation Damage
The combination of these units can result in several different forms of clay
structure each also having different mineralogical composition and
characteristics.
• Montmorillonite is perhaps the most widely recognised and

understood clay mineral. It is composed of a 3 layer lattice structure
which comprises a central aluminium octahedral sheet with a silica
tetrahedral sheet on each side – (Figure 15). The silica tetrahedral is so
arranged that their apexes project inwards to the octahedron such that
bonding exists between adjacent oxygen atoms.
The approximate chemical formula for montmorillonite is
Al1.67 Mg 0.33 Si4 O10 [OH ]2 Na 0.33
Elemental substitution can take place within the matrix in the form of
Fe++/Mg++ for Al+++ in the octahedral sheet and Al+++ for Si++++ in the
tetrahedral sheet. This substitution gives rise to a negative charge on
the structure to a value of –1 for 1.5 unit crystals. This negative charge
imbalance can be alleviated by the adsorption of cations such as H+,
K+. Na+.Ca+ or Mg++ on to the outer surface of the clay molecule. The
molecular bonding within the crystal is weak and can allow water
molecules to move into the space between clay crystals giving rise to
molecular separation and the resultant expansion. The basic width of
the unexpanded montmorillonite molecule is of the order of 8-10 A but
this can be more than doubled by water adsorption and molecular
expansion.
The obvious effects of montmorillonite expansion depend on the

physical location of the molecule but the expansion will result in a
reduction in the pore volume, the pore space width and may also affect
the pore throats.
• Illite is a lattice molecule comprising of two silica tetrahedral sheets

each on the side of a central octahedral sheet. Elemental substitution
for Si4+ by Al3+ in the tetrahedral sheet, for the Al3+ by Fe2+, Fe3+ and
Mg2+ in the octahedral sheet results in a charge imbalance. Although
the structure is similar to that of montmorillonite, illite has a larger
negative charge imbalance of 1 per unit. This imbalance is in the
natural state rectified by the adsorption of K+ ions. However, if the K+
can be removed by leaching or replaced, then water adsorption and
associated swelling can occur. If this occurs the degree of swelling is
much less than that associated with montmorillonite. Illite has a
different physical structure from the more amorphous montmorillonite,
being fine grained and can be fibrous (Figure 16) or leaf like (Figure 17)
in structure.
A general chemical formula for illite is:

[Al1.8 Fe0.1 Mg 0.1 ] Si2 O5 (OH )4 Ca0.05

Formation Damage

Formation Damage

Formation Damage
Kaolinite comprises of a silica tetrahedral and one alumina octahedral

sheet in a two layer 1:1 lattice (Figure 17). The crystals are held tightly
together by hydrogen bonds and prevent expansion if water is
absorbed into the structure.
• Mixed layer clays comprise conglomerates of more than one type of

clay mineral (Figures 18 and 19). They frequently contain
montmorillonite and as a result can exhibit substantial swelling and
may be weak. The most common type is the montmorillonite – illite
combination and the disruption of the molecule may lead to its
fragmentation.
4.3.1.2.2 Clay Swelling
It is clear that the charge imbalance on clay molecules gives rise to an ability
for cation exchange on the clay surface. Since montmorillonite has the highest
charge imbalance it has the greatest capacity to absorb cations. It is also the
clay which possesses the greatest capacity to expand volumetrically, if water
molecules are absorbed between the platelets. Other clays such as illite and
kaolinite can expand but only slightly.
If clay expands then, depending on the type of clay, the following may result:
• The increased size of the static molecule gives rise to a

reduction in the pore space.
• If the clay is located at or close to a pore throat, the effect may

be to block off the pore throat.
• The expansion of the clay may lead to its mobilisation within the
pore space whereupon it can migrate and plug the pore
space/throats.
• During expansion the clay molecules may physically become

weak and fragment.
• Depending on the cation exchange process, the molecules may

disperse after swelling, resulting in clay mobilisation.
4.3.1.2.3 Cation Exchange
The degree of swelling generated by cation exchange depends on the cation

adsorbed onto the molecule. If the cation is Ca++ then the clay will adsorb a
very small film of water only a few molecules thick and the clay molecule will
exhibit limited expansion. However, if Na+ is the adsorbed cation, the clay will
absorb a large amount of water resulting in a much thicker molecule.

Formation Damage

Formation Damage
Jones considered tests on clay swelling and concluded that the degree of
swelling depended not only on the type of cation but also the ionic
concentration. He suggested that if a weak salt solution is used, it forces its
way into the clay lattice in an attempt to dilute the atmosphere of cations
surrounding each platelet
Thus if a solution containing Na+ contacts a calcium montmorillonite, it may
disperse if the Ca++ concentration is too low. Therefore, it is recommended
that the invading solution should contain about 10% of its dissolved salts as
Ca++ or Mg++. If the Ca++ concentration is high enough then clay molecules
may flocculate but the permeability will be relatively unaffected. The type of
cation is most important. For example, contacting a sodium montmorillonite
with a solution containing Ca++ salts will allow the Ca++ salts to effectively
replace the Na+ because of the charge imbalance. However, Na+ salts will not
easily replace Ca++ ions and in fact K+ ions are more effective than the Na+.
In Figure 20 it can be seen that the Ca montmorillonite is particularly stable in
that if possesses 4 layers of water under a range of ionic conditions. However,
the sodium and potassium based clays are much more greatly affected.
The manner in which a salt solution contacts a clay may also affect the degree
of adsorption and swelling. Jones suggested that the more abrupt the change
in salinity between the indigenous water around the clay and the injected
water, the greater would be the extent of swelling and dispersion. It is
therefore clear that a shock change in salinity would be detrimental.
The pH of the invading fluid can also affect the degree of swelling. If the pH of
the fluid is increased, the degree of clay destabilisation increased resulting in
clay particle mobilisation. This was further highlighted by Veley who observed
that whilst rock may exhibit increased permeability to NaCl and KCl brines
compared to CaCl2, if the pH of all the solutions was adjusted to 7 before
injection, the permeability to all the solutions was similar. It should be noted
that CaCl2 has a much higher pH than NaCl/KCl. The effect of pH may be
particularly prevalent for cementing operations.
4.3.1.2.4 Clay Dispersion

Besides the actual swelling of the clay molecules, the actual release and
subsequent dispersion within the pore space of clay molecules can lead to
substantial damage.
An undisturbed clay platelet comprises several platelets, each with a net
negative charge. The negative charges are offset by the adjacent platelets
and the surrounding cations and the system is in equilibrium (Figure 21). If the
surrounding cations are divalent Ca, then the spacing between the molecules
is small since the ionic imbalance can be equalised by a small number of
cations. According to Van Olphen the difference of one positive charge per ion
with the calcium compared to the sodium can improve the flocculation
capability of the molecule several fold.

Formation Damage

Formation Damage
However, if the Ca based clay molecule is surrounded by monovalent cations

such as Na+, the Na+ would infiltrate the lattice and many of the calcium
cations would be replaced by sodium cations. This would reduce the attractive
force between the platelets (since the distance would be increased) and the
clay molecule will expand (Figure 22).
As the clay expands, it becomes more susceptible to other cations
encroaching into the lattice and the positive forces will be too sparse to offset
the negative charges, and platelet repulsion will take place. When this
condition exists, the particulates will disperse (Figure 23) and be released into
the flow stream within the pore space. They will then migrate into the pore
space and be capable of bridging off pore throats. This dispersion effect will
be promoted by dilute solutions of cations.
Damage due to fines migration shows different characteristics compared to
clay swelling in that with clay swelling, the particles are in general static and
the permeability reduction will not change substantially with continued
production on injection. Clay dispersion damage on the other hand will be
observed as a continuous often rapid decline in productivity/injectivity as the
dispersed fines are mobilised and transported to a pore throat where they
plug.
4.3.1.3 Fines Migration
A sandstone reservoir consists of a matrix of quartz particles enclosing an

interconnected pore space. The nature of the depositional environment can
lead to the presence of quartzitic or siliceous fines due to grain compaction
and crushing as well as fines deposition (Figure 24). These fines are generally
held within the connate film which surrounds the quartz grain. Under
equilibrium conditions these fines remain encapsulated within the connate
film. However, the connate film can be disturbed by either:
• A substantial increase in the wetting phase saturation within the
pore space which would mean that the connate film becomes
mobile and with it the fines. This effect may be prevalent in
situations where we have coning or water breakthrough.
• High flowrates through the pore space can destabilise the
connate film and the particles are then mobilised into the flow
stream.
Once the fines are mobilised they will be transported. In the earlier discussion
of particle migration within the pore space, it was suggested that the transport
of particles through the pore space at high rates would result in bridging at
pore throats and this has been confirmed by Muecke (Figures 25 and 26).
Once a particulate bridge has been generated it is very difficult to destabilise
and generally results in permanent permeability impairment. The use of
mutual solvents or surfactants can however destabilise and disperse fines
provided they can be injected (Figure 27). Fine particle bridges within the pore
space however, act as a check valve and these impair both production and
injection.

Formation Damage

Formation Damage

Formation Damage
Since the plugging is directly influenced by the flowrate, the generation of

particulate bridges can be reduced by avoiding high flowrates. The use of low
flowrates will generally allow the production of fines out of the pore space.
The influence of water saturation in the pore space is crucial to the majority of
fines mobilisation and plugging mechanisms. This has been clearly shown by
Muecke (Figures 28, 29).
Fines of mixed wettability are constrained to the oil/water interface if they are
mobile (Figure 30).
Not all fines are indigenous but they can be created by a number of
mechanisms associated with normal production or injection operations:
• Increasing the saturation of a mobile water phase flowing through

the pore space can lead to leaching or dissolution of calcite
cement which binds the sand grains together. The result can be
inorganic material in solution, the release of fines originally bound
in place by the cement as well as fragments/fines produced by the
weakening of the cement and its subsequent failure due to the
overburden stress. The occurrence of this in thermal recovery
wells (steam injection) has been reported.
• Alteration in the matrix loading near the wellbore due to the
drawdown can result in sand failure, a consequence of which
might be the release of fragments or fines.
• Cement filtrate being extremely alkaline can affect the silica matrix
and as a result of the dissolution, fines can be generated.
• Mica alteration has also been reported to yield fines. This
mechanism involves mica alteration by exchange of the interlayer
potassium with sodium or calcium ions. The removal of the
potassium causes the edges of the mica to expand, fray and
break up releasing migrant fines.
Formation damage due to fines migration is characterised by the rapidity by

which impairment is observed. As soon as the material becomes mobile the
reduction in productivity/injectivity is clearly evident provided sufficient
material exists.
4.3.1.4 Inorganic scale deposition
Inorganic salts are soluble in water to varying degrees and the level of
solubility depends not only on the ionic concentration but also on the pressure
and temperature. For a pure salt solution, the salt concentration can be
progressively increased and the material will go into solution until a solubility
limit is exceeded whereupon the solution becomes supersaturated and the
salt may exist as a crystalline phase. The solubility limit is affected by a large
number of factors including the salinity and concentration of other salts.

Formation Damage

Formation Damage

Formation Damage
Thus as inorganic salt may be deposited when the ionic balance of a solution
is disturbed either by decreasing pressure and temperature or by mixing with
a fluid with a different salt concentration.
Oilfield scales can therefore occur due to the following:

• Mixing of incompatible water based fluids to produce a fluid
whose salt concentration exceeds the solubility limit of a specific
salt.
• The fluid is allowed to flow to a location where the reduction in
pressure and/or temperature means that the solubility limit is
exceeded.
Inorganic scales can therefore be generated in a variety of locations:

• The reservoir matrix
• Perforations
• Wellbore
• Production tubing
• Surface flowlines/processing equipment
The deposition of such scales results in a plugging of the flow channels either
in the pore space or in the tubing. The extent of plugging can be substantial
and result in a severe loss in productivity/injectivity. However, this loss in
productivity is not easily traced back to scale formation unless:
• A theoretical assessment of salt solubility predicts its likely
occurrence.
• Physical blockage of the tubing or flowline can be related to
either increased pressure tubing loss, or by the inability to pass
wireline tools down the string, or samples of scale are retrieved
from the wellbore or processing system and analysed.
In general terms given the difficulty of removing scale which has formed in the
tubing, separators, or in the formation, the former predictive approach has its
merits.
Scale deposition can also occur in a range of operations where either fluid
mixing is generated or the flowing conditions promote supersaturation:
• Mixing of formation water with injected seawater
• Mixing of cement filtrate with connate water in the reservoir and
the associated changes in pH
• Dehydration of connate water and consequent salt concentration
in gas wells
• Alteration in salt concentration as a results of the by products of
reactions occurring in acid treatments.

Formation Damage
A large variety of salts can exist. The simplest salt system is NaCl which can
build up in the near wellbore area of the reservoir. However, the deposition is
readily dissolved by backwashing the reservoir with water. Of more
importance are the scales which deposit as a crystalline film and mainly
comprise the sulphate and carbonate salts of various minerals.
Calcium Carbonate CaCO3 is perhaps one of the most frequently
encountered scales but is readily soluble in HCl acid and thus can be
removed provided it is accessible.
Calcium Sulphate (CaSO4.nH2O) has various forms depending on the
number of water of crystallisation molecules which it possesses. Some of the
most common forms are gypsum, hemihydrate and anhydrite. CaSO4 is
removed by its chemical conversion to CaCO3 which can then be removed
with acid.
Barium Sulphate BaSO4 is characterised by its very low solubility and it
chemical resistance to conventional mineral acids. Mechanical removal of the
scale is the primary treatment, although chemical treatments are being
developed.
Strontium Sulphate SrSO4 has only recently been recognised but because of
its inherent radioactivity poses not only a severe form of formation damage
but also extreme difficulties in its removal and disposal. Its occurrent in the
North Sea was reported as early as 1981 when a Radium 226 scale build up
within production tubing was reported. Since that time, an increasing number
of cases have been reported. The source of the radioactive material is from
one of two sources:
• By cumulative buildup of trace radioactive minerals as a result of
continued water injection into the reservoir
• By the leaching of radioactive salts from geological strata
particularly those with a high degree of shaliness or clay.
The deposition of radioactive scales normally occurs as coprecipitation with
barium and calcium sulphates. The physical form of the scale is such that the
strontium scale is encapsulated within the barium and calcium sulphate.
The complexity of scale solubility and precipitation is clearly evident from
Table 1. The relative solubilities of the various salts can be seen from Figure
32. It is clear that the BaSO4 has very limited solubility along with both CaCO3
and SrSO4. the solubility of the CaSO4 scales is greatly reduced with
increasing temperature.
Iron Compounds can also cause scale precipitation. However, the
concentration of iron compounds in both seawater and connate water is very
low and unlikely to be a source of sufficient material to create sever plugging.
A potential source of iron is from the rust and other iron scales which can form
on the inside of production tubing and be injected into the formation during
acid stimulation treatments or other injection operations. Iron compounds
must on occasion be accounted for in the design of an acid treatment by the
inclusion of a sequestering agent.

Formation Damage

Formation Damage

Formation Damage
In conclusion, the potential for scale formation and consequent formation

damage is a very serious impediment to productivity especially in reservoirs
which employ seawater injection for pressure maintenance.
As with nearly all formation damage, prevention whenever possible is always

better than cure since the latter frequently involves substantial costs and
limited success. Prevention of scale deposition requires a detailed
consideration of the thermodynamic and chemical conditions in the producing
system.
4.3.1.5 Plugging due to organic deposits
Crude oils are extremely complex mixtures of hydro-carbons which can vary
from a paraffinic or a straight chain alkane base to cyclic or asphaltic based
compounds. The production of hydrocarbons also requires a lowering in fluid
pressure as it moves from the reservoir through the production system. In
some cases particularly for very light oils and gases, the reduction in pressure
and associated expansion also gives rise to a reduction in temperature
(Joule Thompson cooling effect).
The two compounds which account for the majority of organic deposits are:
• Wax - paraffinic base
• Asphaltene - asphaltic base
Both these materials can range from the solid through semi-solid to the
viscous liquid phase since they cannot be exactly defined chemically but in
reality refer to a range of compounds with varying composition. These
materials can be deposited by one of two possible mechanisms.
• Reduction in pressure and temperature leading to either reduced

solubility of the heavy hydrocarbon components or the
components acquiring an increasingly viscid state which leads to
their deposition. This can occur during normal production
operations.
• The extraction by component transfer of the light hydrocarbons

from a crude oil resulting in an oil residue of increasing
molecular weight and viscosity. Such phenomena can occur in
miscible EOR flooding treatments and association gas injection
operations.
Both were and asphaltene deposition can occur in the reservoir, wellbore or
production tubing. However, their formation in the reservoir is difficult to
identify. The most usual indications are:
• Wax - Tubing plugging/inability to conduct wireline

- premature actuation of storm chokes
• Asphaltene - Material adhering to wireline logging tools or

retrieved completion string equipment.

Formation Damage
In general is it felt that wax deposition is more closely associated with

temperature reductions which would account for its frequent observed
deposition in areas of the completion where maximum pressure drop/fluid
expansion occurs, e.g. downhole tubular restrictions and perforations.
Removal of wax from within the tubing can be accomplished with scraping
using conventional wireline or through flowline techniques. In some cases the
injection of hot oil can be used.
In the majority of cases mechanical removal of deposited wax is instituted, but

the use of inhibition for wax deposition is increasing and can now prolong the
productive life of a well between wax removal treatments (Figure 32).
Asphaltene precipitation is not well understood but frequently encountered.
• In the production of low API gravity oils
• Reservoirs which suffer substantial drawdown (low productivity)
• Gas injection operations
It is widely felt that the deposition of asphaltene is influenced by:
pressure
• Surface kinetics since the asphaltic particles are colloidal and

their precipitation is thus influenced by the surface chemistry
rather than solely phase equilibrium.
In the case of all organic deposits, the theoretical background to their

distribution is not well understood and accurate prediction, at present is not
feasible. In most cases their occurrence can only be confirmed by sampling
and utilising production history matching on similar wells. The effect on
production can, however, be quite significant (Figure 34).
4.3.1.6 Bacterial Plugging
Micro organisms can create formation damage in a number of ways

• Direct plugging due to deposition in the pore space/throats by
bacteria or larger organisms such as plankton thereby blocking
pore channels. The latter could be particularly prevalent with
seawater injection schemes.
• Certain bacteria can result in the oxidation or reduction (sulphate
reducing bacteria) of iron salts resulting in the precipitation of
insoluble salts such as Fe(OH)2 and FeS.

Formation Damage

Formation Damage
Micro organisms have an average size of 2-4 µ and can be of 3 principal

types:
• Spherical or coccus
• Straight rods or bacillus
• Curved rods or vibrio, e.g. the sulphate reducing bacteria which
are anaerobic
Certain types of bacteria are aerobic.
4.3.1.7 Destabilisation and subsequent compaction
Sandstone reservoirs depend to a large extent on the degree of intergrain

cementation between the quartz grains for their compressive strength. Some
sandstones are devoid of sufficient natural cementation and are classed as
unconsolidated or partially consolidated. Other reservoir sands have a limited
degree of intergrain cementation which can be reduced by:
• Physical rupture of the cement bond due to grain matrix loading

• Dissolution of the cement by mobile water
Weakening of the grain to grain cementation can lead to particle migration

from the following sources:
• When no cementation exists, individual grains can be

compacted resulting in a reduction in the poroperm
characteristics if the rock, or mobile grains can plug the reservoir
pore space/throats.
• Fragments of the cement and fractured grains become mobile
fines
• The products of cement dissolution can change both the pH and
the ionic concentration and influence both clay stability and
inorganic scale formation.
Another example of a reduction in productivity is that which can occur in a

friable sandstone when a well which demonstrates a continually declining
productivity is killed prior to workover and when it is placed back on
production, until the well stabilises and creates stable arches, sand will be
produced.
4.3.2 Formation Damage Resulting from a Reduction in Relative

Permeability
The conductivity of a pore system to a specific fluid is controlled by the
relative permeability to that fluid. The effective permeability to a specific fluid,
say oil, K0 is given by:

Formation Damage
K0 = Kro.K
where: K0 = the effective permeability to oil
Kro = the relative permeability to oil
K = absolute permeability of the rock system
The relative permeability of the rock to a fluid depends upon:
• the saturation of that fluid within the pore space
• whether the phase is wetting or non-wetting
4.3.2.1 Effect of fluid saturation
The relative permeability – saturation relationship for a two phase mixture, say
oil-water, has the form shown in Figure 34. Clearly the greater the saturation
of a particular phase, i.e. the greater the fraction of the pore space it fills, the
less is the resistance to fluid flow through the rock system.
Thus for example, if a water based mud filtrate or completion fluid is lost to the
reservoir and invades the pore space it would reduce the oil saturation and
hence Kro. However, the oil saturation cannot be reduced below the
irreducible water saturation and would still retain a finite value for Kro and
hence still be mobile albeit at an extremely low rate. On production, the
invading fluid being more mobile would be produced back and oil from the
reservoir would replace it, thus increasing So and Kro. i.e. the production rate of
oil would gradually increase until the water saturation declined to the
irreducible water saturation.
The damage associated with the invasion of the pore space by a water based
fluid as described above is frequently referred to as:
• a water block
or
• the Jamin effect
The damage is temporary, provided no change in wettability or absolute

permeability has been created. However if the water phase contain thixotropic
polymer then the rate of clean up and flow would be impaired, and if
unsheared polymer exists it could give rise to more permanent plugging.
Frequently, the water based fluid lost to the formation, particularly if it is a mud
filtrate, may contain emulsifiers or surface active agents and these can affect
the wettability and cause more serious damage.

Formation Damage
The problem of gas reservoirs is interesting in that in the natural state both
connate water and gas fill the pore space. If an oil mud, particularly water in
oil dispersion, is used, then the invading fluid may be oil giving rise to a 3
phase relative permeability effect and even greater temporary impairment of
productivity.
Water blocking is most likely to occur when:
• Reservoir pressure is low
• The capillary size of the pores is small (and hence permeability)
• Interfacial tension is high
Numerous situations give rise to water blocking:
• Mud filtrate invasion
• Water coning upwards/downwards to perforations
• Fingering/channelling during water injection
• Cement filtrate invasion
• Invasion beyond the fracture face into the matrix during

hydraulic fracturing
• Well killing operations
Some examples of water blocks are shown in Figures 35, 36.
In addition a similar effect can occur due to an increase of gas saturation in

the pore space of an oil well.
• Rapid depletion around the wellbore of a solution gas drive

reservoir can produce a large gas saturation Sg.
4.3.2.2 Effect of rock wettability
The principles of fluid flow in porous media dictate that a fluid which is in
contact with the rock surface will experience frictional drag and this reduces
its capacity to flow. The majority of reservoir rocks are originally water wet as
a result of their natural depositional environment. Carbonate reservoirs can be
oil wet or exhibit mixed wettability. It is evident from Figure 34 that if the oil
and water phases transfer such that the rock becomes oil wet then the curves
are also transferred, i.e. Kro for the water wet system becomes Krw for the oil
wetting system and vice versa. The impact of a change from water to oil wet
could reduce Kro several fold.

Formation Damage

Formation Damage
The wettability is controlled and stabilised by finely divided solids and other
materials which act as surface active agents. A change in wettability is
unlikely to occur naturally but may be influenced by events such as
asphaltene precipitation which may convert the rock from strongly wetting to
intermediate wettability. Changes in the physical conditions such as
temperature, pressure and pH may also influence wettability.
However the main source of wettability alteration is due to surfactants, finely

divided solids or precipitates which enter the formation as a result of:
• Mud filtrate invasion
• Completion fluid invasion
• Cement filtrate
• By – products of acidisation
Wettability can be restored by surfactant treatment.
4.3.3 Formation Damage due to Fluid Viscosity Increase
The formation of an emulsion between an oil and water system normally

requires:
• Substantial mixing energy to generate the emulsion.
• Stabilisation by surface active agents or fine solids.
Thus in normal hydrocarbon production systems, emulsions are unlikely to
occur except in the near wellbore regions whether either turbulent or near
turbulent flow exist, or where chemical filtrate invasion may act to promote
and stabilise the emulsion. However, emulsion formation within the pore
space is feasible.
The emulsion consists of a continuous and discontinuous phase. In the case
where the oil is the dispersed phase it is discontinuous within the continuous
water phase and is referred to as an oil-in-water emulsion. The converse
system is a water in oil emulsion which usually exhibits much higher
viscosities than the oil in water system. Emulsions can possess very high
viscosities, e.g. greater than 2000 cp and from radial flow theory it is evident
that the effect on productivity could be considerable.
Some crudes particularly the heavier oils, have a much greater tendency to
generate an emulsion. The use of acids can also produce fines and other
surface active materials which will stabilise the emulsion. The effect on
productivity, is that the emulsion acts as a check valve in much the same way
as fines plugging and can therefore be identified by comparing production and
injection tests. Production history matching is another important way to
identify emulsion plugging suing data from adjacent wells (Figures 37 and 38).
Emulsions can be destabilised by surfactant injection but this requires
injectivity to allow contact between the two fluids.

Formation Damage

Formation Damage
4.4 Formation Damage Occurrence, Prevention or Minimisation in Well

Operations
Formation damage can occur at any time during the drilling, completion,
production or workover of an oil or gas well. In some situations damage
cannot be avoided if the operational activity has to be performed, e.g. drilling,
cementing and completion; however, steps can be taken in anticipation to
minimise damage. In other operations, such as stimulation where the activity
is intended to improve production, damage can result thus reducing or
negating entirely the benefits of the stimulation operation.
The ideal approach would be to eliminate damage altogether from operations
but this is frequently impossible and the optimum solution is to minimise either
the extent of damage or its impact on the well production or injection
performance. In all cases the following is required:
• An appreciation of the causes of formation damage and the factors
governing its severity and location.
• The analysis of well operations to assess the potential risk for damage
generation.
• The modification of operations to avoid or minimise damage.
• The evaluation and implementation of techniques to remove or bypass
the effects of damage.
In general however there is one important aspect regarding formation damage
and that is the location of its occurrence. Formation damage which occurs
close to the wellbore will have the greatest impact on well productivity since it
will effect the fluid flow in the region of highest velocity convergent flow for
radial production and divergent flow for radial injection. However, if formation
damage occurs close to the wellbore, it at least is accessible for removal, or
bypassing. Shallow damage although limited in extent is likely to be the most
severe. On the other hand damage which occurs deep inside the reservoir is
unlikely to be very severe since the effects of pressure drop, velocity and
concentration are not as high since the gradients are reduced. Further since
the in-situ velocity is lower, the impact of damage is reduced and can be
easily bypassed by the large number of alternative flow channels. The
removal of very deep damage is not feasible technically nor economically.
Hydraulic fracturing offers perhaps a partial solution to the problem.
As depicted in Figure 39, formation damage can occur at any stage in the life
of the well from the initial drill-in to the reservoir, until the final abandonment of
the well. It therefore seems sensible to discuss formation damage occurrence
and its prevention/minimisation with respect to each of the chronological
operations in the well’s history.
4.4.1 Damage during casing and cementing operations
Damage created during casing and cementing operations is much less well
understood. However it is extremely likely that substantial damage may be
incurred.

Formation Damage
• Ensure casing is run into the hole
• with minimum delay

• speedily but smoothly
• slowly when being run into the open hole section
• Avoid creating excessive surge pressures.
• Use a cement formulation with adequate fluid loss control.
• Check for any possible interaction between the cement filtrate and the
reservoir rock/ fluid system.
• Check for any possible interaction with the drilling mud.
• Do not excessively retard the cement slurry gelling capability.
• Condition the mud.
4.4.2 Formation Damage during Completion Operation
The completion operation is one which is most susceptible to damage. The

completion phase involves the preparation of the open hole or cased wellbore,
the installation of a completion string and the placement of completion and
packer fluids. It is important to differentiate between completions conducted
with existing wellbore – reservoir communication and those conducted prior to
perforating a casing or liner. The most important aspects of damage control is
frequently to prevent perforation plugging and/or the creation of formation
damage to the matrix around the perforations.
The principle causes for concern in terms of damage are:
• Fluid leak off and potential particle plugging.

• Fluid interaction with the reservoir rock and fluids.
In the case of the previously perforated well, the casing has perforation which
are the sole entry point for fluid to flow from the reservoir. This therefore is a
crucial area of concern for damage.
Formation damage in both these situations can arise as a result of fluid

invasion and any of the following reactions:
(1) Solids plugging

(2) Clay swelling
(3) Fines migration
(4) Wettability alteration
(5) Emulsions etc

Formation Damage
The possibility of the fluid used for the well completion, interacting with
previous filtrates cannot be overlooked.
(a) Completion with existing wellbore-reservoir communication
There are 3 situations where this may occur:
(1) Open hole completion
(2) Completion of a well which has been previously perforated
(3) Re-completion
In these situations the fluid must overbalance reservoir pressure.
(b) Completion without Reservoir Communication
In this case the procedure after casing cementation is to mechanically

complete the well prior to perforation. Provided the cement job is effective
there is no communication with the reservoir and hence damage possibilities
at this stage are minimal. However in this method of completion, the well will
normally be perforated underbalance and hence the fluid in the wellbore may
be replaced by a fluid which allows an underbalance to be created on the
reservoir. In such cases a solids free fluid could be used. Alternatively it may
be decided to retain the drilling fluid in the casing and provide an
underbalance later, just prior to perforating. This latter approach will be
undesirable and potentially cause damage if the fluid contacts the perforation
at a later stage perhaps if a number of perforation runs need to be employed.
To minimise damage, steps should be taken to:
• Minimise leak off or fluid loss.
• Avoid interactions with the reservoir rock/fluid and the prior invasion
fluids.
4.4.2.1 Selection of a completion fluid
Normally for open hole or perforated completion after casing has been set, the
drilling fluid will be displaced out of the well and replaced by a completion fluid
which will hopefully provide some degree of formation protection, Table 2. A
large range of fluids are available, Table 3.
• Use a solids free approach
This requires the use of a solids free fluid to reduce the possibility of
particle plugging. However to obtain adequate control of liquid leak-off,
the fluid will normally be viscosified if the exposure time is extended.

Formation Damage

Formation Damage
The solids free approach must apply to the wellbore and surface facilities and
hence the “system” should be cleaned.
(1) Remove all mud from the well.
(2) Clean up the inside wall of the casing using scrapers.
(3) Clean all tanks and linework at surface which will hold the
completion fluid.
(4) Utilise filtration for all injected/circulated fluids.
The completion fluid would normally be viscosified to reduce the leak off rate
and hence invasion volume/radius. In addition to supplement fluid loss control,
it may be desirable to add bridging material to the fluid placed across the
productive zone. The bridging material will form an external filter cake. The
choice of material is normally:
• CaCO3 which is available in different sizes and is acid soluble.
• Oil soluble resins which are also available in different grades
and are produced back on oil flow.
• Saturated salt solution.
The specification of the solids is primarily defined by the bridging principles
discussed in Chapter 3. For a spotting fluid, the low fluid loss pill might
comprise 5-15 ppb of each of 2 or 3 grades of CaCO3. The use of these solids
in combination with a “solids free” fluid represents not a truly solids free
approach but a controlled solids fluid.
• Use a solids laden fluid
Frequently muds are still used for placement across formations during
well completion. Normally the same fluid as the drilling mud is used
thus offering economic advantages. Particularly in open hole
completions, the mum filter cake will prevent excessive leak off once it
is established. However the filter cake can be very permanent and not
easily removed, Figure 40.
In an open hole formation the retention of the drilling fluid in the

wellbore during completion is probably not too detrimental as long as
the previously established filtercake is not disrupted. For a perforation
completion, if a fluid comes into contact with it, the effective invasion of
and the damage around the perforation tunnel can be considerable,
Figure 41. The use of solid laden fluid such as a mud is not
recommended for perforation completions.
The clear fluids approach is particularly recommended for perforated

completion due to the crucial importance of the perforations. Rike has
shown that 50 bbls of completion fluid with .05% solids would contain
sufficient solids to plug approximately 1200 perforations.

Formation Damage

Formation Damage
The importance of fluid filtration to ensure controlled solids content was also
reported. A 1979 survey indicated that for one operator the productivities of
wells where the completion fluid was filtered to 10 µ m was 45% greater than
for wells where the fluid was only filtered to 25 µ m.
The second major concern is protection of clays in the formation. Most solids
free fluids are brines (see Table 3) and the presence of Na, K, Ca ions will
inhibit swelling. If NaCl or seawater is being used it is frequently desirable to
add some K ions by the addition of, for example, 2% KCl to the fluid. Most
brines will assist in clay protection. However this may not be true of other
fluids used for completions.
4.4.2.2 Minimisation/prevention of formation damage
Open hole completions benefit from the following advantages over cased and
perforated completions:
• Reduced completion time – hence reduced exposure time to well fluids.
• Damage associated with running casing is eliminated.
• No cement filtrate damage.
They are however highly dependent for the productivity on avoiding damage
during the drilling phase.
Overbalance perforated completions are most susceptible to damage of the

perforations and surrounding reservoir zone.
Completions which will be perforated after mechanical completion i.e.

underbalance are less susceptible to damage during this phase as there is no
communication with the reservoir.
• Damage can be minimised during the completion phase by –
• Minimise solids contact from the fluid except for bridging particles if
required.
• Minimise contact time.
• Use minimum overbalance where appropriate.
• Check for possible interaction between the completion fluid and the
reservoir rock fluids. (Scaleformation, wettability alteration or emulsions
may be important).

Formation Damage
4.4.3 Perforating Operations
Perforations are the key factor in cased well productivity. The productivity of a
perforated completion depends upon:
(1) Formation permeability.
(2) The depth and permeability of the damage zone created during drilling
by subsequent fluid exposure to the perforations.
(3) Perforation length and diameter.
(4) Shot density.
(5) Shot phasing.
(6) Alteration of rock matrix adjacent to the perforation.
(7) Potential plugging of the perforation by solids from the fluid in the
wellbore.
Damage to perforation can be minimised in the following ways.
4.4.3.1 Preferential use of underbalanced perforating
A large number of authors have stressed the importance in terms of improved

productivity/reduced damage, of using underbalanced pressure conditions. In
field results, the benefits of underbalanced perforating have also been proven.
Figure 42 shows the effect of pressure conditions and gun size on the
productivity of some wells in Alaska.
King et al conducted a series of controlled field trials to identify the importance

of underbalance to well productivity during the perforating of oil and gas wells.
These results shown in Figures 43 and 44 indicate a sharp increase in
differential pressure as a function of reducing formation permeability.
In general, prior to the work of King et al the following guidelines existed.
For gas wells - optimum drawdown 1000 - 3500 psi

For oil wells - optimum drawdown 500 - 2000 psi
It should be realised that if an excessive drawdown is used, then it can create

damage due to one of the following:
• Mobilise fines.
• Disrupt the connate liquid film.
• Promote failure of grain to grain cementation.

Formation Damage

Formation Damage

Formation Damage
4.4.3.1.1 Use of solids free fluids
The use of solids free fluids to protect perforated intervals is very important in
the following situations:
• Perforating with overbalanced conditions.

• Perforating underbalanced where more than one perforating run
is required.
Damage to perforations can results from the following:
• Solids plugging of the tunnel and surrounding matrix.

• Gel damage to the surrounding matrix.
Contamination of a solids free completion zone can also occur due to:
• Paint from downhole tools

• Rust, scale from tubulars
• Residue from drilling fluids
• Pipe dope
• Ineffectively sheared polymers or viscosifiers, - fisheyes
McLeod also analysed the use of various types of fluids and pressure
conditions and verified the optimum approach as being the combination of
drawdown conditions and clear fluids (Table 4).
4.4.3.2 Perforation protection from fluid infiltration
Perforations which will be exposed to well fluids for any extended period of
time should be protected by fluid loss control either by solid/granular additives
of CaCO3 or oil soluble resin and/or viscosifiers which should also be non
damaging e.g. HEC not guar.
When designing a fluid for bridging purposes using materials such as CaCO3,
it needs to be based on the following principles:
(1) Particle sizes are required to promote external bridging on the

tunnel surface i.e. use a bridging rule such as that of Abrams to
specify particle sizes. (⅓ of mean pore size)
(2) In addition, to ensure external bridging, use some smaller sized

material to ensure a low permeability filter cake is build upon the
larger bridging particles.
(3) Use an adequate concentration to ensure that bridging is

effective and quick.

Formation Damage

Formation Damage

Formation Damage
4.4.3.3 Perforation clean up
Optimum performance is obtained by minimising initial damage. Bonomo and

Young proved in field studies that underbalanced perforating yielded higher
productivities than overbalanced perforating with subsequent clean up. A
number of clean up techniques are available including:
(1) Backflow
A perforation in a productive well are normally cleaned up to some
extent by the normal process of bringing the well onstream. Injection
wells, however, would not necessarily be cleaned up in the way. If the
perforations on an injection well have been protected by a fluid loss
control material either during completion or a workover, there are
benefits in backflowing the well prior to initiating injection. The question
arises as to what rate should be used to backflow perforations.
Normally a moderately high rate will be required to remove material
from the walls of perforations and the tunnel itself. In Figures 45 and
46, the effect of backflow rate on the clean up of material from the walls
of the perforation tunnel is evident. The flowrate used in Figure 45 was
five times that in Figure 46. A high magnification of Figures 45 and 46
are shown in Figures 47 and 48 respectively.
(2) Back surging

In this technique a chamber of atmospheric pressure is lowered
downhole and placed adjacent to a perforated interval. Figure 49. The
perforations can then be exposed to an instantaneous large drawdown.
The chamber size is normally sized to be 42 gas/foot of perforated
interval.
(3) Perforating washing

In this technique, fluid is pumped into a perforation to flush out
damage. The technique requires clean fluids (Figure 50). It is however,
time consuming and most effective in high permeability or
unconsolidated formations. It is infinitely preferable to minimise
damage than to attempt its subsequent removal.
4.4.3.4 Summary of damage minimisation in perforated completions
The following steps provide optimum productivity by minimising damage:

(1) Use underbalanced perforatory conditions wherever possible,
employing an adequate differential pressure.
(2) Avoid excessive underbalance pressure.
(3) Use clean fluids preferably in all perforated wells with
underbalanced and overbalanced conditions. Ensure the
wellbore and surface facilities are also clean.
(4) If perforations are to be exposed to wellbore fluids for any period
of time, use fluid loss control preferably by viscosity control.

Formation Damage

Formation Damage
(5) Minimise fluid invasion prior to perforating and ensure that shot
penetration is selected to exceed the depth of the zone of drilling
damage.
4.4.4 Formation Protection during Workovers
Workovers are generally characterised by:

(1) The need to re-establish the overbalance of wellbore fluid pressure
over reservoir pressure.
(2) Cessation of production for a period of time involving fluid contact with
the formation.
Most damage during workovers is largely generated by:

(1) Plugging of perforations by solids from the wellbore.
(2) Damage to the matrix around the perforation tunnels due to one or
more of the following:
• Solids plugging
• Clay swelling of fines acquisition
• Alterations in wettability
• Changes in fluid saturation (not normally permanent)
Similar concepts apply to workover fluids selection as to completion fluid

selection. The fluid to be used should be re-checked for its compatability with
the reservoir.
However, workovers can be complicated by the fact that they occasionally

need to be undertaken in older reservoirs where:
• Reservoir pressure has dropped substantially.
• Reservoirs may have been stimulated and hence may demonstrate
high leak off from the wellbore.
To protect the formation during workovers the following steps may be of value.
(1) Use a minimal safe overbalance. The detrimental effects of high
differential overbalance pressures is evident from the S.E.M. pictures in
Figures 51 and 52 of tunnel walls plugged at 100 and 800 psi
respectively with a CaCO3 slurry.
(2) Use a clean preferably filtered fluid which is compatible with the
reservoir fluid.
(3) Use adequate fluid loss control either bridging solids or non-damaging
viscosifiers.
(4) Provide protection to clays in water sensitive formations use a brine or
a clay stabilising agent.

Formation Damage

Formation Damage

Formation Damage
(5) Consider placing a high viscosity pill across the perforated interval
(100-200 cp viscosity, for example). Once this pill is in position avoid
disturbing it.
(6) Minimise exposure time.
(7) If the workover is conducted in a friable or partially consolidated sand,

consider the impact of fluid leak off on sand stability.
4.4.5 Damage during Production Operations
The principal causes of formation damage associated with oil and gas
production would be:
(1) Formation of an inorganic scale.
(2) Deposition of wax or asphaltenes.
(3) Production of fines towards the wellbore due to excessive rates and
water cut.
(4) Sand collapse/production and reservoir compaction near the wellbore.
4.4.5.1 Inorganic scale
Scales are formed by the mixing of incompatible waters and a change in the
physical conditions for the mixture i.e. changes in :
• Salt concentration
• Declining pressure
• Declining temperature
The deposition of a scale in the pore space can result in serious plugging
(Figure 53). The potential for scale precipitation must be assessed by
compatibility at reservoir and production conditions. Prediction based on
thermodynamics will also be of assistance. Given the complexity logistically of
scale dissolution and the associated costs, scale deposition should be
prevented. An effective inhibition treatment should be considered. In practice
it is difficult to perform inhibitor squeezes into the formation due to reservoir
heterogeneities. The possibility of damage generated by the inhibitor cannot
be overlooked particularly with respect to emulsion formation and alteration of
wettability.
4.4.5.2 Organic deposits
The deposition of wax or asphaltene will depend particularly on the production

conditions. It may not be possible to modify the drawdown profile to avoid
asphaltene deposition in the formation. However the effect can be lessened
by increasing perforation shot density, phasing and penetration.

Formation Damage

Formation Damage
4.4.5.3 Fines migration
The release and migration of fines is promoted by

• Increased water cut
• Excessive drawdown
Excessive water cut may be acceptable from a standpoint of production
processing. Water coning may also aggravate fines production but this may
not necessarily be an impediment to production, if the fines provide blocking
they could naturally restrict water coning or flow.
Excessive drawdown (above that required for the (target) production rate) is to
be avoided.
4.4.5.4 Sand production/formation compaction or collapse
The consequences of drawdown and reduced reservoir pressure due to

production might be:
• Production of sand with the produced fluids with the attendant
consequences for sand erosion and disposal
• Collapse of the matrix and particle migration leading to a
modified permeability – compaction and migration/retention
would yield a lower permeability.
If this is expected then consideration should be given to defining a maximum

flowrate per perforation for sand free production. This may require any of the
following measures:
• Restrict production rate.
• Increase shot density and phasing.
• Obtain larger diameter perforations.
• Quickly respond to reduce increasing water cuts.
• Consider sand control/exclusion techniques.
4.4.6 Formation Damage during Injection Operations
Principally we are concerned with:

• Water injection
• Gas injection
4.4.6.1 Water injection operations
The principal causes of formation damage during water injection are:
• Solids or particle plugging – Figures 54 and 55 illustrate the

results of an experiment in which 3-5 µ m particles have been
injected into a core.

Formation Damage
• Bacterial plugging
• Inorganic scale deposition
• Clay swelling/fines migration
To alleviate these problems the following measures should be considered.
Solids Plugging
(1) Filter seawater prior to injection to a specified level e.g. 2-10 µ m.
(2) Ensure no rust, scale or mud in the wellbore during initial completion.
(3) De-aerate and if necessary use O2 scavengers to prevent corrosion

and the subsequent plugging by rust and scales.
Bacterial plugging
The importance of bacterial plugging in water injections is not well understood

but it is safer to prevent bacterial growth using a bactericide.
Scale deposition
The presence of salts in the injected water is a major cause of scale forming
material. The scale will normally be produced not at the injection but at the
production well on water breakthrough.
Clay swelling/fines migration
Normally seawater or brine injected into the reservoir will possess sufficient
ions to control the extent of clay swelling. In severe cases or where fresh low
salinity water is being used it may be necessary to use a Hydroxy-aluminium
treatment around the injection wellbore. Coppel etc at discussed field results
with this chemical for clay stabilisation.
4.4.6.2 Gas injection operations
Gas injectors are also prone to solids plugging of the perforations. In fact due
to the high gas velocities in the tubing, hydraulic erosion can release rust and
scale from tubing. In view of the comments by Rike, these deposits can
severely plug and reduce perforation injectivity. Tubing for gas injections
should be thoroughly cleaned prior to use to remove all scale and rust.Another
aspect of potential importance is the possibility of injection gas contamination
from other sources, e.g. compressor lubricants.

Formation Damage
4.4.7 Damage during Gravel Packing Operations
Gravel packs in which the well is not under-reamed will reduce the natural
productivity of the well.
Damage during gravel packing can occur in a number of ways and can result
in:
• Damage to the formation as a result of carrier fluid infiltration into the

formation.
• Impairment of the gravel pack permeability as a result of incorrect
gravel sizing, or improper selection and preparation of the carrier fluid.
4.4.7.1 Damage due to the carrier fluid
The carrier fluid will transport the gravel into the wellbore and place it in
position between the screen and the formation or casing. The fluid therefore
can create damage due its leak off as follows:
(1) Interaction with the reservoir fluids or previous filtrates –
emulsions or scale deposits may result.
(2) Interaction with the reservoir rock constituents leading to clay

swelling or fines migration.
(3) Plugging by solids contained in the carrier fluid.
(4) Plugging by gel residue from the polymers in the carrier fluid.
(5) Creation of a water block.
To minimise or prevent damage the following general steps should be taken:

(1) Use a clean filtered brine of the required density.
(2) Ensure all tanks and pipework are thoroughly cleaned.
(3) Use low residue or non damaging polymers which are

adequately sheared to eliminate fish eyes.
(4) Check compatibility with reservoir rock – add KCl or a clay

stabilising agent if necessary.
(5) Minimise treatment volumes, placement times and bottom hole

overbalance pressure during gravel placement.
4.4.7.2 Damage due to gravel pack impairment
Gravel sizing is normally based upon the mean sand size and a bridging size
factor.

Formation Damage
The normal ratio is
d50 gravel = 5 – 6 d50 sand
With this ratio formation sand of the d50 size will bridge externally on the
gravel pack and not invade the pack.
Gulati and Maly investigated the effects of gravel pack invasion. Figure 56
illustrates effective gravel sizing with the formation sand being restricted on
the outside of the gravel pack i.e. no sand invades the pack. If too large a ratio
is used i.e. greater than 6, the pore throat sizes between the gravel particles is
large enough to allow gravel pack invasion by the sand. The result is a pack of
greatly reduced permeability as shown in Figure 57. The slight reduction in
pack permeability caused by using too small a gravel size is minimal
compared with the detrimental effects on permeability, of pack invasion. It is
important to ensure that no solids can invade the pack from various sources:
• Mud particles which have filled perforations.

• Particles in the carrier fluid.
• Mud debris and filter cake material.
The effect of mud particles and invasion material entering the pack is shown
in Figure 58.
To minimise damage by pack impairment –
• Use clean filtered fluids and clean equipment.

• Ensure the wellbore is clean.
• Ensure perforations (if applicable) are clean by the use of
backflow, backsurge or washing.
4.4.8 Damage during Acidisation Operations
The use of acidisation in wells is faced with considerable difficulties and there
are numerous ways in which impairment can occur either due to the reaction
itself or the operational procedures.
4.4.8.1 Damage due to the acid reaction, acid additives or reaction by-
products
There are a number of general mechanisms by which damage occurs in

acidisation namely:
• The generation of by-products and other precipitates which will
plug the pore space.
• The partial dissolution of material or the release of indigenous
fines which are then mobile to produce plugging.
• Formation of emulsions due to reduced interfacial tension and
wettability alteration.

Formation Damage

Formation Damage
(a) Reaction by-products
In the reaction of HF with a sandstone, hydrofluoric acid may yield

precipitates, some of which have very poor solubility. An intermediate reaction
of silica with HF yields fluosilicic acid (H2S1F6). This will react with salts
present in the pore space either from the connate or injected fluids to produce
silica hexafluoride salts e.g. (K2S1F6).
Some of these have very poor solubility e.g. K, Ba salts.
(b) Precipitation of iron salts
Despite the use of corrosion inhibitors there will always exist some
concentration of iron compounds in the fluid. The dissolved iron salts will
remain in solution provided the solution is acidic. However as the acid
becomes diluted and/or spends, the pH will rise and the iron compounds
particularly ferrous and ferric chloride will precipitate.
(c) Generation of fines
Fines may also be released after acidising due by a number of mechanisms.
(1) Partial dissolution of materials.
(2) Release of fines from the connate film disrupted upon

acid injection.
(3) Release of insolubles originally bound to acid soluble

materials e.g. in carbonate rocks.
(d) Wettability Alteration
The frequent use of surfactants to promote clean up can result in a lowering of

the interfacial tension between fluids and lead to a rock surface assuming
intermediate or oil wet characteristics.
(e) Emulsions
Again due to the reduced interfacial tension, emulsions can be generated and
these may be stabilised by the fines released during the treatment.
(f) Asphaltic sludges
In the treatment of reservoirs containing heavy asphaltic crudes it is possible

to generate an asphaltic sludge which not only plugs the pore space but also
can influence the wettability.

Formation Damage
(g) Additive reactions
The complex nature of chemical additives and the large variety of components
can lead to side reactions resulting in formation damage:
• Interaction between additives.

• Reaction of the acid with the reservoir rock or fluids.
4.4.8.2 Damage caused by the treatment operation
Damage in this category is that which is associated with any injection

operation namely:
• Water blocking
• Formation and perforation plugging due to the presence of solids
It is important to realise that if a perforation becomes plugged by inert solids

contained in the mud which is injected, then acid placement may be impaired.
Clean flowlines and storage tanks are a priority.
4.4.8.3 Minimisation of damage during acidisation
Action to prevent or minimise damage falls largely into two categories:
(1) Pre-planning
(2) Treatment execution
Preplanning
Routine laboratory evaluation should be undertaken to evaluate:
• Acid response of the core

• Acid reaction with crude oil
• Effect (if any) of acid additives on the crude oil
• Need for pre-flush fluids and post flush or clean up additives
(It is also worth evaluating the possible interaction of the acid with other fluids
which might occupy the pore space next to the wellbore e.g. gravel packing
fluids, completion fluids and drilling fluids.)
Treatment execution
• Ensure all tanks and pipework are clean.
• Ensure tubing to be used for acid placement is clean.
• Ensure the capability exists to flow back the well quickly.

Formation Damage
Specific precautions depend upon the exact design of the treatment but the
following points apply.
• With HF acid use
(1) A pre-flush of HCE to flush the pore space

(2) A post flush of a mutual solvent
• Consider using a sequestering agent.
• Use a minimum required concentration of each additive and a

minimum number of additives.
4.4.9 Formation Damage during Fracturing Operations
The productivity of a hydraulically fractured well is controlled by 2 factors both

of which can suffer from impairment namely:
• Conductivity of the propped fracture

• The permeability of the fracture face
4.4.9.1 Impairment of the propped fracture
The conductivity of the propped fracture normally depends on the proppant

size and fracture width. Of primary concern with respect to impairment is the
possibility that material will plug the void space between the proppant
particles. The source of this plugging material may be:
(1) Particulates introduced with the fracturing fluid and originating at

surface or from the wellbore.
(2) The residue of the carrier gel.
(3) Un-solubilised polymer or gel.
• Elimination of particulates requires the use:
• clean filtered fluid

• clean surface flowlines and tanks
• clean work string or tubing
• removal of dirty fluids from the wellbore
• ensure the gelling agent is well mixed – no lumps
The amount of residue generated from the fracturing fluid gel will
depend upon the gelling agent. If hydroxy ethyl cellulose H.E.C. is
used, the residue volume is reportedly small but if a guar gum is used it
will result in a residue of as much as 5%.

Formation Damage
A second consideration in the reduction of propped fracture conductivity is

that the proppant itself will not be able to withstand the closure stress and
consequently could result in a lower permeability. It is important to select a
proppant with adequate resistance to withstand the closure stress.
4.4.9.2 Permeability impairment of the formation at the fracture face
Impairment of the matrix permeability at the fracture face is of much less

importance than if the same damage occurs around a radial wellbore. The
reason for this is due to the flow area of the fracture face being several orders
of magnitude higher than the cross sectional area of the wellbore.
However impairment of the matrix permeability can result due to:
• Injected solids/fines within the frac fluid.

• The gel and subsequent reside of the frac fluid.
• Swelling of clays and release of clay fines.
The amount of impairment by the gel reside can be substantial. The control of
clays may be enhanced by the addition of KCl or a clay stabiliser to the frac
fluid.
4.4.9.3 Minimisation of damage during fracture treatments
In line with all other processes involving fluid injection into the reservoir, the
following should be observed:
• Use clean filtered fluids.
• Clean all surface tanks and flowlines.
• Ensure thorough mixing of gelling agents.
• Use agents to control fluid leak off.
• Use clay stabilisers or fines.
• Ensure fracture is adequately propped.
• Use proppant with high resistance to projected closure stress.

Formation Damage

Formation Damage 2009

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Formation Damage 2009

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Curtin University of Technology Master of Petroleum / Petroleum Well Engineering

Department of Petroleum Engineering Remedial, Stimulation & Intervention Operations

Chapter 4 – Formation Damage

4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................4-1

4.2 Consequences of Formation Damage ............................................4-1

4.3 Formation Damage Mechanisms ....................................................4-4

4.4 Formation Damage Occurrence, Prevention or Minimisation in

Chapter 4 – Formation Damage

A reduction in the production or injection capacity of wells can reduce their

4.2 Consequences of Formation Damage

Formation damage is usually considered to be a reduction in productivity or

(1) Absolute permeability of the reservoir rock

(2) The relative permeability of the rock to a specific fluid

(3) The viscosity of the mobile fluid

However, the quantification of the extent of alteration of any of the above

i.e. ∆ PTOTAL = ∆ PSKINZONE + ∆ PUNDAMAGED RESERVOIR

i.e. (Pe - Pwf) = (Prd - Pwf) + (Pe - Prd)

Using this technique the theoretical impact on the productivity/injectivity can

• Some of the damage mechanisms will be dependent on the rate of flow

However, the following conclusions can be stated from Figures 1 and 2:

(1) As a natural consequence of the flow in reservoirs with open hole

(3) The severity of damage reduction substantially effects the production

(4) If the effects of permeability ratio on the productivity ratio is considered

4.3 Formation Damage Mechanisms

Formation damage can generally be considered to be caused by a physical or

Invading fluid liquid phase and the in situ reservoir fluids

Invading fluid liquid phase and the reservoir rock constituents

i.e. the damage results from an interaction between either

The effect of formation damage can be either:

A reduction in fluid relative permeability

A reduction in the absolute permeability of the formation

A decrease in the mobile fluid viscosity

4.3.1 Formation Damage Resulting from a Reduction in Absolute Permeability

4.3.1.1 Solids Blocking or Plugging

Basically there are 3 types of particles in solid liquid systems, namely;

Tuttle and Barkmann investigated the injection of fluids containing low

Abrams who used radial section cores to study particulate invasion,

Abrams suggested a series of bridging rules, namely:

CHAPTER 4 Page 4 -10

Backflow at high flowrates may mobilise all the invading particles

(2) Use only particulates large enough to cause external bridging.

An alternative consideration of solids plugging is that which occurs in

• Particle deposition within the perforation tunnel

The productivity or injectivity of a perforated completion is crucially dependent

(a) Surface Plugging

CHAPTER 4 Page 4 -11

Surface area of open hole completion = 32028 sq in

(b) Tunnel Plugging

The volume of a perforation tunnel of the same dimensions as

In all cases the effective removal of particulates is very difficult to

Another potentially significant source or particulate damage is during

In conclusion the severity of formation damage related to particulate

CHAPTER 4 Page 4 -12

CHAPTER 4 Page 4 -13

4.3.1.2 Clay Problems

Clay minerals are found in the majority of reservoir rocks particularly

4.3.1.2.1 Clay Structure and Mineralogy

The distribution of the clays is primarily dependent upon the depositional

CHAPTER 4 Page 4 -14

CHAPTER 4 Page 4 -15

• Montmorillonite is perhaps the most widely recognised and

The approximate chemical formula for montmorillonite is

Al1.67 Mg 0.33 Si4 O10 [OH ]2 Na 0.33