SPE 30127
Evaluating the Performance
Water Injection Wells
ShutongPang and Mukul M. Sharma
Universityof Texas at Austin
CapyI@l 1ss5, SCCiety of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for preeenlatlon at the Europ%an Formalwn
This paper was selected forpreeentstian by an SPE Program Committee following reviaw’ofinformation contained inan abstract submitted by the author(a). Contents of the paper, as presented,
have not baan reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subpcted to corractM by the author(s). The material, as preeentad, does not nsceeserify reflect any position of the
Sociity of Petroleum Enginaers, * offiirs, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to pubfiiation review by Editorial Commitfeea of the Bc-Sity of Petrolaum Engineers.
,o.-L.A.
-,, !,-.”,, .. .
.“ -Vj . .“
d ,-”.
~.,++~
!-.”” t.
.. .n“. . .c,hc+~,.r
. . ... . . ..f . ~Qt ~re ~han w ~r&. lllu~t<a~o”~ Mv ~t LW COO&I. TIW ~bstram Shodd Wntam conspicuous acknowledgment of where end by whom
the pap ia pmsentad. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 633s36, Richardson, TX 75063-3B&.
The performance, i.e. the half-life of water injectors, is
very important to the economics of water injection projects. A
~i~.u!amris pre~en!ed !o nredict -. &~!~n~ in ~niectivitvof
~.----- the ~--- ..-,
water injection wells. Equations are presented that allow us to
model open-holeand perforatedcompletionsas well as fractured
wells.The mechanismof injectivitydedine can be determinedby
comparingcore flow test data with one of four type curves. The
transition time is used to determine when external filtration
becomesdominant so that the appropriatemodelscan be used for
earlyand late time.
lle simulator can be used whetheror not core flow data
is available. Empirical equations are provided to estimate the
fiiimticmparameters h=COrefhl-wif3Si&ii k ilOi Wtibk. The
simulator is easy to use, has interactive input and output and is
availablefor PCs and Unix workstations.Examplesare provided
to show how the simulator can be used to predict the
performance of injectors in a variety of cases. The simulator
predictionsare compared with experimentaldata. The simulation
results are then used to suggest the optimum water quality that
wiii minimize ihe total cosi of WaierireXnEtii aid periodic ‘well
stimulation.
Water injection is a common practice for reservoir
pressure maintenance. The performance and half-life of water
injectorsare very important to the economics of water injection.
Suspended solids in the injection water tend to plug pores and
Refenmcesand illustrationsat end of paper.
of Open-Hole, Perforated and Fractured
Damage Conference held in The Hague, The Nethertends, 15-16 May 1995.
U.S.A. (Fecsimife 214-962-9435).
cause well impairment. To minimize well impahment, water
may need to be treated before injection. The cost of water
treatment must be balanced against the cost of periodic well
stimulation. Based on economic considerations, there are two
questionswe need to answer.First, for a given water quality and
reservoir properties, what is the injector’s half-life, i.e., the
potential stimulation costs? Second, what are the water quality
requirements for given reservoir if the injector’s half life is
specifieda priori? Proper filtration equipment selection is based
on specificationsfor water quality. Both questions are related to
the predictionof well half life or injectivitydecline.
In order to determine the loss in well injectivity, we
need to understand the impairment mechanisms and develop
modelsfor the predictionof the degree of well impairment.Pang
and Sharma(1)conducteda literaturereview of particleplugging
e~pirn.eni~. ~h~v, nninted
r------_ ~~t &_atthe operative plugging
mechanism depends on the characteristics of the particles, the
characteristics of the formation and the interactions between
them. Previously reported core experiments do not clearly
demonstrateconditions under which an external or internal falter
cakeis formed,but it has been found that larger particle/poresize
ratios tend to causerapid and shallow damage. Pang and Sharma
(!) provided2 Cti!kd KWi5W (M ~XiSiL~~ ‘.okk d ~i!lkd out
that each model has its own limitations.Barkmanand Davidson’s
model (2) and Eylander’smodel (3) need both the invasiondepth
and the permeabilityof the internal filter cake to be specified a
priori. The Vitthal et. al. (4) and van velzen’smodel (5) do not
account for external filter cake formation. Core flow test data is
requiredfor both Eylander’smodel and van velzen’smodel. All of
the above models consider internal and external filter cake
separately.Pang and Sharma(1) developeda model for predicting
injectivity decline in linear and radial geometry. It accounts for
both internal and external filtration using the concept of
489
 .

EvaluatingthePerformanceof SPE 30127

2 Open-Hole, Perforated and Fractured Water Injection Wells

transition time. The model can be used effectively if core flow perforation into several layers, it is possible to develop an
test data is available. equationfor the flowrate vs. pressure drop.
The objective of this work is to provide a reliable and
user friendly simulator for predicting injectivitydecline in water (8)
injection wells. The simulator considers both external and where R is the total flow resistance which can be computed as
internal faltercake formation for various well completions,such the summation of the flow resistance in each layer as shown in
as openhole, cased/perforat~ ad hy~ulic~ly ~ct~ we~s” Fig. 1.The resistancein one layer @i) can be written as
The model equations used in the simulator are formulated.
Methodsfor calculatingflltmtion parametersam developedwhen Ri = (ln~-ln~i+l+l) (9)
k(ri~t)Hi &i-1 ~i+l -1
core flow test data is not available. Examples are given to
illustmte how the simulator can be run to predict the injectivity -Wke gi ~ ~xp(.wl) [10)
decline. These results can be used in conjunction with a cost ~h wi = ri/Li (11)
analysiswhich is presentedin AppendixA. Hi= ri/sinh wi (12)
ri = rp + (i-l)Ar (13a)
Li = Lp + (i-l)& (13b)
All of the model equations used in the simulator are thus the total resistanceis
listed in Table 1. There are eight sets of equationsthat have been 1 ~ r.
derived for the various types of well completions and filtration R= $.Ri+_ (14)
mechanisms.Equations for linear geometry are usually used for i=] k(rp + nAr) Lp + nAr
parameter estimation using data from core flow experiments. wherethe numberof layersaccountedfor in the summation(n) is
Modelequationsfor internaland externalfaltercake formationare determinedsuch that the radius of the n-th layer does not exceed
given separately. They can be used separately to compute the half the distance between two adjacent perforations. The second
injectivity decline for each impairment mechanism. They can term on the RHS of the above equation is the flow resistance in
also be used together to calculate the overall decrease in the radial flow region which can be computed from the radial
injectivityby using the transition time concept (l). flowequations.
In all equations, a is well injectivity and t is injection For the same injectionpressure in both the damagedand
time.A derivationof the model equationsfor linear geometryand undamagedcases, the injectivity decline (a), definedas %1%, is
openhole wells can be found in Ref. (l). Derivations of model givenby
equations for perforated and hydraulically fractured wells are
providedbelow. 1 ~q[~P+ 1]
.=&lG@
Models for Perforated Wells (15)
A perforation can be considered to be one half of an whtxeR is defti byR~s.(14)and (9).
ellipse that is rotated about its primary axis, Fig. 1. shows this External Filtration. In the case of external
e~ipsoi~ geometrywhererp is the radius of entryholeand LP is fdtration, we can assume that the external filter cake just is like
r...l:~m...:~m
C.. ~mkhm. f&\ An flri.xr rnto in 9
\UJ, u- ----- w..- -c -=.:... A .-~ -m.=mk;l~tu k- l%llnwino Ffi (14).
h ~nehtioii (k@h i%)llUW1ll& OdbllLGL a ‘kyer ul pulurwy ~c -,U p....-u.-.J ~. - “----- ---e —-l., - .,.
perforation canbe expnxsed as, the flow resistances with and without external cake formation
27rkoHpAp g +1 ale,
@= ~ /M~l
gp-1 (1) 1 ln[~ + l].&llQJ +--hn[~l ~ +1
%=
W* ~p = exp(wp) (2) iW% k-l ~p-] 1 ~ ~P-l (16)
tanh wp = rp/Lp (3) g +1
R = ~n[~]
Hp = r@nh Wp (4) * &p-l (17)
We use 13q.(1) to derive the injectivity equations for Becausethe cake thicknessis very small, we can assume that the
both internaland externalfdtration in perforatedwells. cake is concentricwith the ellipsoidal perforation (H = I-Q. The
Internal Filtration. If we view the fluid flow in a injectivitydeclinecan be definedas R& thus
perforation as radial flow around the perforation axis, then the
permeabilitydistribution at a distance of r horn the axis can be ~ ln(~
derivedfrom the fdtrationequationsin radialgeometry(1), a= P-
k(r,t) = ~
1 + ~ n(r,t) (5)
(18)
n(r, t) = kC t exp(-kn(r2-$)Wqp) (6) h an approximationwhen ~ >>rp and ~ >>rc,
& ~p=r*p+l (19a)
‘P= NPh m ~=r~p+l (19b)
Having-assumed an ellipsoidal sham for the damaged If r~= rp - k, rearrangingEq. (18) yields,
zone and discretizing the permeability distribution around the

490
SPE 30127 Shutong Pang and Mukul M. Shanna 3

1 (29)
:=l+*(ln(l+*)/ln(l +y.l) (20) _=l+Mt
c c
k,(t)
Next, we need to derive a relationshipbetweeninjection M=6f (30)
time and the thickness of the external filter cake (hc). The 6= pvclxf (31)
cumulativeinjected solid volume (Vs) at injectiontime t is f= 1- exp(-kxf/V) (32)
External Damage on Rock Face. If the fracture
V%=C\qdt (21) ennAls~tivitv/9wti11re
““.1 -””.. . .. J,-y”- ---- ic
-“ relntivelv
------- --, !~rg~ ~n~ ~h~ fQrmatiOIl

permeability is relatively small, it is possible for particles to

On the other han~, the volume of solids in the externalfaltercake accumulateat the rcwkface around the fracture. In this case, tcm,
of thickness~ in each perforationis we can use the equations for linear geometry to calculate
Vps=(l-Oc) [~~Lp-~~(rp -hc)2(’Lp-hc)l(z) injectivitydecline,
u ~ <c rp, ~. (22) can be approximatedby ~=l+Mt (33)
A rn. a ~v
Vps=(l-$c) ;nrp Lp(2+-JJh M=~—— (34)
(23) kC l-$C L
Note that the followingmaterialbalanceequationholds, whereL=&, V=q/A, A=2h Lf.
V,= VPh NP (x) Internal Damage in Fracture. The flow rate in an
where Np is shot density. Combining Eqs. (22) to (24) results in undamagedfracturedwell(6)is
2rclq_)hAp/p
hC=&~qdt (25) ~=
Rf + ln(rJLf) (35)
P
Rf = ~(~)
with
rw/Lf + CR (36)
G=(l-t$c)$rp Lp(2+~) wkf
Lp (26) CR=—
zL& (37)
Models for Hydraulically Fractured Wells If the injected particles plug the proppant pack itself, the
When water cont&ting colloids is injected into a conductivity of the fracture (CR) will decrease. Therefore, the
hydraulically fractured well as shown in Fig. 2., four kinds of injectivitydeclinedue to *hue damagecan be expressedas
ftion mechanismsmay occur — internal fdtration in the mck ink)+ ~ h( l+ai )
aroundthe fracture,external ffitercake buildup on the formation
fwe of the fracture,internal filtrationin the fmture, and external
1.
a
L i= 1 ri.l/ri + CRi
l@) + ~(JALCL)
filtration around the wellbore. These mechanisms may wcur L rw/Lf + CR (38)
sequentially or simultaneously. Well injectivity decline is,
therefore, the result of a very complicated damage process. In CRi = *
most cases one or more of these mechanism may be dominant. 7cr& (39)
For almost all cases, external filtration around the wellbore is where kfi is the damaged fracture permeability. kfi can be
not important because the fracture permeability is so large that obtained by using the internal filtration equations for packed
the fluid is primarily directed into the fracttm In what follows, proppmt in a Iin= geomeby. kfi can also be experimentally
we will discuss three cases — internal damage in the rock, obtained b.y injecting particulate suspensions into a porous
externaldamage on the rock surface, and internal damagein the mediumformedby proppantand measuringthe pmsure dropas a
fracture.Finally, the model equations for the f~ and th-~ cases functionof injection time.
meliatedin Table 1.
Internal Damage in Rock. If the fracture
conductivity is infinite (>100), it is likely that particles will
flow from the fracture into the formation and damage the ‘he model presented here needs input data on the well
formation. In this case, it can be assumed that the injectivity geometry, the type of impairment, the external filter cake
decline
----- . is caused by near-fracture formation permeability tifiwrt;pc
yavyv. ..””
mA twn
mom.- . “ “
internal
. . ..”......
fihmtinn
. ..---=..
nnrameters
~.--...... -.w.
The We!!

reduction,so we can use equations for linear geome~ to predict geometry is commonly available, while other parameters must
injectivitydecline. be determinedexplicitlybeforecomputingthe injectivitydecline.
Following Appendix A in Ref. (l), if the flow area is
given by A = 2 h Lf and Lf = &, V = q/A, then the injectivity Type of Well Impairment and Transition Time
declinewill be The type of well impairment internal filtration vs
a(t) = r~~ + (re-xf)] externalfiltrationhas traditionallybeen done using the 1/3 to 1/7
(27) rule. This rule of thumb states that an external filter cake is
Xf=vt, formedif the averageparticle/ Pre size ratio is greater than 1/3
for Vt < re (28a) and an internal fflter cake is formed if the ratio is less than 1/7.
Xf= re * for Vt > re (28b) In general, however, it is likely that an internal filter cake will

491
A Evaluating the Performance of Open-Hole, Perforated and Fractured Water Injection Wells SPE 30127

be hnku.2 ill ally .:-a .

..---1 awf,an.ml filk=r r&e
.
,,,11=w
will
W,nlv
f@m at
..h.b .-Am
“ .. . . . . . ... -.
al, WA.U*’.CU ..’w.
obttinti from the literature(10). Additionalresearch is currently
large time. This transition from intemrd to external filtmtion is beingconductedto betterquan~y the dependenceof 1 on v. The
observed in flow experiments and has led to the concept of defaultvalue for f(v) is 1 (no velocityeffects).
TmnsitionTime (t*) (Ref, 1).Internal filtration modelsapply for The retained particles (n(x,t)) can be retained at pore
t < t* and external filtration models apply for t > P. t* can be throats or in pore bodies. To quantify the effect of the retained
determined experimentally when core flow test data is not particles on the permeability it is important to distinguish
available. t* can also be determined using Stokesian Dynamics betweenthese two retention mechanismssince particles retained
simulations (l). in pore throats have a much larger impact on permeability. We
define ~ to be the fraction of retained particles trapped at pore
External Filter Cake Properties throats. It is evident that as the injected particle size increases a
When an extemai fiiter cake is formed, die injectivity 1--.,.- ~..:,.. U1
w BGI UdWJI1
,.#9.,a+.+
~VWnw~n,-1ma+iebc
.1. .. . will
“- & !O@j @ rf)-re $h_~_@

decline is dependent on the cake properties (permeability and and will contribute to permeability impairment. Particles much
porosity). Experimental data on cake permeability and porosity smallerthan the pore throat size are likely to be retained in pore
for some types of particles are available in the literature. bodiesand therefore,contributeless to permeabilityimpairment.
Permeabilityand porosity data for latex and silica particleswere A typical shape of the function t is shown in Figure 4.
reportedby Eylartder(3) and me listed in Table 2. Thesedata can If we assume that the permeability reduction is caused
be used directlyif the exWrimentalconditionsare similar. by pore throat biocking, the correlation between permeability
Extemai fiiter cake propertiescan ah ‘w&aimd hxn -A... :Amanu
lcuudluu
.-A RUUIIWU
*&.& nmr&.ls
yu -..”
rvmrpn~tinn
.“..”...
P21) h? w~~en &$
- -“.. .- .,- ..
direct measurementor empirical correlations.The cake porosity 1 _ z n(x,t) + (1- z n(x, t))
(42)
can be obtained if the particle volume in the filter cake is k(x,t) kp kc)
gravimetricallymeasured.The cake permeabilitycan be obtained
from flow tests if the cake thickness is measured. Empirical where kp is the permeability of the plugged pore throats and is
co~!ations such ~ the Bla.ke-Cozenyequation can be used to relatedto the ptmneabilityof the retainedparticlesthat are packed
obtain a permeability-porosity correlation for packed beds of in the pore throats.
tmticles, RearrangingEq. (42), we obtain
dz 43 b
—=l+(k- 1)Tn(x,t) (43)
kp = &.- (40) k(x,t) kP
1501-$
-A. -o ;. n In - n m An*n&fig We can express the above equation as the following
UI lhu ~au=t%FaIuu1Q=Is U. v -–V.JW WP..
WI. - --.-:... J. - . ...+ ~~ ,.I
I IE PUIUMLY
equationwhere~ is caiieddamagefactor.
the type of particle, size distribution and applied pressure.
Example data derived from Eq. (40) are shown in Table 2. The &Jl=~
resultsam very close to the experimentaldata. b 1 + ~ n(x, t)
(44)
~= ‘c(ko/kP - 1) (45)
Internal Filtration Parameters
Two parameters, the filtration coefficient (k) and the If we apply the Blake-Cozenyequation (40) to both the rock and
damagefactor (fI),are introducedin the internalfiltrationmodel. the packedparticleswith the same porosity, we obtain,
They can be determined from either experimental data or $=~d~~ (46)
empirical correlations. When core flow test data is available, k where dp is the average particle size and dg is the average grain
and ~ can be obtained from history matching the pressure drop size of the rock. Inserting Eq. (46) into Eq. (45) gives us a
data. condation for $,
The filtration coefficient is a local and time dependent
parameter.Any factors affecting the particle deposition process ~= ~ (d~/d;-1) (47)
can affect it. It is believed that the following factors are where ~ is determined from Fig. 4. Eq. (47) can be used to
imptanti (1) Pore structure (posit y, pore thrw@ody size and estimate~ if no core flow data is available.
distribution).(2) Particle size and distribution.(3) Fluid velocity. If the injected particles are much smaller than the
(4) Interactions(variousforces)amongthe pmticle,fluidand pm formation grain size, ~ + Oand most particles will be retained
surface.Variousmodels were proposedby earlierinvestigatorsto in pore bodies. The permeability impairment can then be
simulatethe process and to obtain the filtrationcoefficient. computedusingEquation(40),
Payatakes at al. (7) obtained the values of filtration ~= $S(x,t) 1-+2
coefficient from trajectory analysis based on various flow (48)
models. These values along with some experimental data are k. l-#(x,t)T
shownin Table 4.3. Both Payatakesat al. (8) and Rajagopalanet where $(x,t)=@ - (1–~) n(x,t) (49)
al. (9) also reported some experimental data for filtration
coefficients which are shown in Table 4.4. These data are
replotted in Fig. 3. The following empirical conflation between
filtrationcoefficientand particle/grainsize mtio can be obtained, A simulatorhas been written to compute the injectivity
k= f(v)* 14.481[dP/dg]0.587 (41) decline in water injection wells. The model equations listed in
Table 1 are used in the simulator.
where f(v) is the coefficient accounting for the effect of fluid The simulator is available on PCs and Unix
velocity on the filtration coefficient. The form of f(v) can be workstations.It is windowbased and menu-drivenprogram.Help

492
SPE 30127 Shutong Pang and Mukul M. Shanna 5

informationfor each commandis provided.The input data canbe Example 1

read from the file or keyboard. All input data and parameter This example illustrates a case where external filtration
valuescan be modifiedby the user at any time. Defaultparameter dominates.The data for this example is taken from Ref. (11):
values are provided if there is no user input available. All of Averageinjectedparticlesize dp = 5 pm,
thesefeaturesmake the simulatoreasy-to-useand user-friendly. Particle concentrationC = 0.25 ppm,
Injectionrate q = 6 cc/rein.,
Input/output of the Simulator Core permeability~ = 501 md,
The input @ta forthe simu!ator are divided into two core porosity @= 0.22,
categories — required and optional. The following data is Core length L = 2.54 cm.
Experimentalobservationsshow that externalfilter cake
Formationpermeability~ (red) formation is the primary damaging mechanism. The simulator
Formation porosity $ (fraction) was run in a history matching mode to match the experimental
Formation height h (m) data.Good agreementis obtained for a value of ~ = 1.03md and
Wellboreradiusrw (m) $.= 0.18. These two parametersare then used in well injectivity
Drainageradiusre (m) calculationsfor open-holeand perforatedwells. All otherrequired
Water injectionrate q (m3/s) parametersare listed in Table 5. The final results are shown in
Avemgeinjectedparticlesize dP@m) Fig. 6. Half-livesof411 and 267 days are obtained for openhole,
Solids concentrationC (volumefraction) andperforatedwellsrespectively.
The m@red data also include some specificdata for each typeof
well
.. “.. cnmnle~inn ~-. ----—-.. cJensi[y and geometry for
~., rwrfnratinn
w.,...v.v ..,.. , Q.17 Example 2
perforated completions, and fracture length, width and This example data set is taken from van Oort et ai. (5).
conductivityfor hydraulicallyfracturedwells. Their lab experiments indicated that internal filtration is the
The optional input data for the simulator are: (1) The dominant mechanism. Data listed in Table 5 and the following
core-flow test data. This includes the pressure drop and/or the &tame lequired
effluent. ....
particle concentration. (2) External filter cake Formationpermeability& = 1260md,
permeatnnty and porosity. (3) Internai fiittatioii -.-—. piIriUIICLGI
.. . Forma~Qnpor@!y $ = ~.~~,
values. If values are not provided for the optional data, the Avemgeinjectedparticle size dp = 6.4 Vm,
simulator estimates these values based on the empirical Injectedsolids concentrationC = 0.25 ppm.
correlationsdiscussedearlier. Based on the above parameter values, internal filtration
parametersare determinedconsistently by the simulator (default
Results from Simulations values). A damage factor of417 and a filtration coefficient of
Fig. 5 is a flow chart showing the steps involved in 0.025 were obtained. The simulator was then run to give the
predictinginjectivitydecline used by the simulator.The required injectivitydeclinefor open-holeand perforatedwells. A half-life
data needed to be input depends on the type of completion.The of 136 days was obtained for an openhole completion. Using
optionatdata need not be input but values for parameterssuch as core flow data van Gort et. al. obtained a half-life of 175 days.
filtration coefficients and damage fac!or are best obtained from This indicates that our empirical correlations for the filtration
---- n-... a-.- m,. . . . m -.mtfih
cum lluw Uaki. 1UC Mluulialvl Cal ik UWAJLu lllmolyIllabw,,
.:-..l..*A. . ...4 en.m
Wulw
+- ~%%ei_~O~1 ~~~~hie. .A-~orddr & rna@d_e fiMter ddine k
hid S.S,

flow data to obtain these parameters. If no optional data is injectivitywas noted for perforated wells. This suggests that the
provided, reasonable estimates of these parameters can be effect of high fluid flow rates near the perforations needs to be
#.n-lm :*m ( ff.rh + 1 in
obtainedfromempiricaicorrelations, accoimkd for in tiie UU4UII GUG1llULG1lL
C. I-..,...
~ullvmkll
..,.,44%.:
~ .i., -. ...
--+

The output of the simulator will be the injectivity equation41). By setting f(v)= 0.1 for perforated completions a
decline,the skin factor, the depth and extent of solids invasionin Iudf-lifeof 68 days was obtained.
the near wellboreregion and the pressuredrop due to the external
filter cake. The simulator results provide not only the decline in Example 3
injectivity with time (hdf-iife of the injector) but also more This examplewas selectedto illustrate cases whereboth
detailed information about the location of the damage. This internaland externalfaltercake formationare important.The data
information is usefui in making stimulation decisions and is fromEyiander{Y):
A.a.%wh%m
uwl~llnl~
A ..1.3*JM
.dnula.wl.
tradmpntc
UWCA*... WO..O. =.. iniected
-AveraQe J particlesize dp = 12 pm,
The simulator can be used in a histo~ matching mode ParticleconcentrationC = 0.18 ppm,
to match injectivity decline for existing injection weIls.it can be Injectionrate q = 6 cc/rein.,
used to evaluate the impact of water treatment facilities on the Core permeability~ = 992 md,
economicsof a water injectionproject. Core porosity $ = 0.20,
Core length L = 5.08 cm.,
Corediameterd= 2.54 cm.
Basedon the grain size of the formationand the injected
In this section, we provide examples to show how the particle size, the transition time is calculated to be 33 minutes
simulator can be used to predict well injectivity decline for for the core experiments.The experimental data was matched to
vtious types of completions. obtain & =4.5 md, $= = 0.18, f3= 200, I = 0.035. These values
can be used to calculate the injectivity decline in open-hole and

493
 .

6 Evaluating the Performance of Open-Hole, Perforated and Fractured Water Injection Wells SPE 30127

perforatedwells. The final results are shown in Fig. 8 predicting kf = 6’actumpemability

a half-lifeof 630 and 280 days for openholeand perfomtedwells %= the permeabilityof the packedparticles
respectively. Lf = fracturelength
Lp . perforationlength
= the concentrationof particlestrapped in the formation
--– .,-. . - .L--- := injectionrate
I ne amve mree ex~pies show-injectivity decline fi3i re = dminageradius
open-holeand perforated wells. The injectivity for hydraulically rf, xfs the radial/lineardistanceof injectionfront
fractured wells in each example has been calculated and it was
found that (a) the injectivity decline in fractured weiis is -Y s entryradius
r-
primarily due to internal damage to the fracture, other damage rw = wellradius
t = injectiontime
mechanisms are minimal, (b) if the default values for filtration
parameters are used, the well injectivity decreases fast at first, t* = the transition time
then tends to stabilize (see Fig. 9), and (c) if smaller filtration v= fluidvelocity
parameter values are used, the injectivity will decreases slowly Wf = time width
(see Fig. 10). l%ese findings are reasonable due to the fact that the degreeof well impairment
the injectivityfor hydraulicallyfracturedwell decmses slowlyin ;, df: damagefactor
practiceand flow velocity in fractureis high. Ap = plwsuredrop
Our results show that the type and geometry of well o = porosity
completionshave a large effect on the well injectivity decline if +C = the cake porosity
other conditions remain the same. Our results also show that $m ‘ the porosity of the rock
internal fracturedamage is the primary reason for the injectivity a, fc = volumefiltrationcoeftlcient
decline in hydraulically fractured wells. This is consistent with v= fluid viscosity
the commonpractice. Np = shot density
In addition to predicting well injectivity decline, the T = vol. frac.of retainedparticles which contributeto
simulator we present here can also be used to conduct a cost the pore threat bloc~ng (permeabilityirnpainnent)
benefit analysis (water treatment vs. stimulation) and/or a
sensitivity analysis.

1. Pang, S. and Sharma, M. M.: “A Model for predicting

Equationsare presentedfor pm.dietinginjectivitydecline
and near wellboreformationdamagein waterinjectionwells.The
model is incorporated into a simulator that is easy-to-use and
user friendly. Both internal and external filter cakes are allowed
for in the simulator for various types of well completions. The
simulator can be used whether or not core flow test data is
available. All model parameters can be obtained either by
experimental core flow data or from empirical correlations.
Examplesare provided to illustrate the use of the simulator.
The authors wish to acknowledgethe financial support
providedby the companies sponsoring the Stimulation,Logging
and Formation Damage Research Program at the University of
Texas at Austin.
c = solids concentration
CR = fractureconductivity
% = themean grain sizeofthemck
$ = @tie -m
= formationheight
he = the thicknessof the external faltercake
k = permeability
= rock permeability
k Bed Filtration with the Sphere-incell Porous Media Model”,
kc = the permeabilityof the externalfiltercake
Injectivity Decline in Water Injection Wells”, SPE 28489,
presentedat the SPE 69th AnnurdTechnical Conference&
Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana September 25-
28, 1994.
2. Barkman, J. H, and Davidson, D. H., “Measuring Water
Quality and Predicting Well Impairment”, J. Pet. Tech.
(July 1972),865-873.
3. Eylander, J. G. R., “Suspended Solids Specifications for
Water Injection from Coreflooding Tests”, SPE Reservoir
Engineering@Jov.1988).
4. Vitthal, S., Sharma, M. M. and Sepehrnoori, K “A One
DimensionalFormation Damage Simulator for Damagedue
to Fines Migration”, Proceedings of SPE Symposium on
FormationDamageControl, Bakersfield,29-42 (1988).
5. van Oort, E., van Velzen, J.F.G., AND Leerlooijer, K.,
“Impairment by Suspended Solids Invasion: Testing and
Predictionn,SPE IYoduction.& Facilities (Aug. 1993) 178-
184.
6. Schechter, R, S.: Oil Well Stimulation, Prentice-Hall,
EnglewoodCliffs, NewJersey (1992).
7. Payatakes, A. C., Rajagopalan, R., and Tien, C.:
“Applicationof Porous Media Models to the Study of Deep
Bed Filtration’, Tine Canadian Joumai of Chemicai
Enaintwwina [Vnl 5’)1 TMr 1 Q7A
-..e.-.””=e=e 1 , “-. “-] ---- -~. .
8. Payatakes, A. C., Tien, C., and Turian, R. M.: “Trajectory
Calculation of Particle Deposition in Deep Bed Filtration”,
AIChEJournal (Vol. 20, No. 5) Sept. 1974
9. Rajagopalan,R. and Tien, C.: “TrajectoryAnalysis of Deep-
AIChEJournal (Vol. 22, No. 3) May. 1976

494
SPE 30127 Shutong Pang and Mukul M. Sharma 7

10, Gruesbeck, C. and Collins, R. E.: “Entrainment and
Deposition of Fine Particles in Porous Media”, SPEJ (Dec.
1982)847-856.
11. Todd. A. C. . et al., “Review of Permeability Damage
Studies and Related North Sea Water Injection”, (1979),
SPE 7883, SPE International Symposium on Oilfield and
GeothermalChemistry, Dallas, ~, Jaft. 22-% 1979.
In the design and selectionof water treatmentfacilities,
the two important parameters for water quality are the particle
size and solids concentration. Clean injection water (low solids
content and small particle size) tends to stabilize well injectivity
but requires additional water treatment costs. In the following
discussion, we present a method to systematicallycomparewell
treatment costs with water treatment costs anti obttn optiniai
wntt=r
.. —. -Wirntinnc
.=-.-..-”..”.
The water treatment cost depends on the water quality
requirements. If Cu is the water treatment cost per unit volume
of wa~r, c is the solids concentrationand, dp is the particle size
in the treated water, then after injection time t, the water
treatmentcost Ct will be
Ct = Q CU(C, dg) (A-1)
whereQ is the injected voiume and Cu is a functionof c and dg.
4 Clean water iniection
Unfilteredwaterinjection
1.0
> waterinjectionis related to the water treatmentcost for specified
.g
“a
.-8C
td tf
InjectionTime
Fig. Al. Schematicof water injectionscheme
As shown in Fig. Al, if tf is the time required for the
injectivity to math as for clean water injection, then the total
clean waterinjectioncost (Cf) will k
Cf=Ct+QCP+Cs (A-2)
where Cp is the water pumping cost Pr unit volume of water?
CSis the stimulation cost for recovering well injectivity.
For unfilteredwater injection, there is no cost for water
treatment. If td is the life time for injectivity being as then the
total injection cost (Cd) for injection time tf will be
Cd=Q~+tf/tdC~ (A-3)
Therefore,the cost ratio for clean and unfiltered water injection
cartbe ObtfdM!dh ~S. (A-1) to (A-3),
G=l+QcdC’@ -(tdu-l)c,
cd Q CP+ tdtd C, (AA)
If we have two different water quality requirements,the
cost ratio for these two types of water injection wiii ‘m
cf_l+Q(cu- cJ-otif-l)cs
6- QC. +QCP+ C, (A-5)
Eq. (A4) is a special case of Equation (A-5) where Cu
is equal to O(no water treatment). The net cost increase due to
the injection of cleaner water (ACf = Cf - Cf) can be derived
tiom Eq. (A-5),
AC. —
--, s= O
y (C..,
,.-” . Q - (~~~f~ . ~) ~a ()@
where the first term in the RHS is the water treatment cost
increasedue to the better water quality requirements, the second
term is the decrease in stimulation cost due to the longer
injectionlife time.
Eqs. (A-5) and (A-6) show us how the total cost of
water quality requirements, the pumping cost, the stimulation
cost and the life time of the injectionproject.
In many instancesthe decrease in injectivity is offsetby
increasingthe pumping pressure. Eventually pumping pressures
willexceedtiture gradientsand the injectorwill be fractured.In
such cases the injectivity will increase without any stimulation
cost associated with it. This may be desimble in many cases
(low cost) and very undesirable in other cases for reservoir
engineering reasons (neighboring water zones, well placement
etc. ) or for environmentalreasons.

Table 1, ModelEquations

Flow geometry Internalfdtmtionmodel Externalfdtration model

1
–=l+Mt ~=l+Mt
a a
LinearGeometry M=6f
6= pvt/L M=~~~
kc i-$C L
f= 1- exp(-1.IJV)

495
 .
SPE 30127
8 Evaluating the Performance of Open-Hole, Perforated and Fractured Water Injection Wells

Table 1. ModelEquations(continued)

1
_=l+Mt
k,(t)

M=8f

6= ~cq
2~~h$m 1$
Open hole well
f= exp(a)Ei(a) - Ei(arf/r#)l

n-1
~ .~(l~ -lnLi+l + 1) ~ln~n + 1 ln(l + a)
1 i=okr(riJ)Hi Li -1 Li+l-1 Hn ~rt-1 ~ rp - hc
—= a-l+~(
—- - 1)
a
-&& ln(l + ~
.
r -r

k(r,t) = 1
Perforatedwell 1 + ~ n(r,t) hC= ~~qdt
P

n(r, t)= LC t exp(-ln(r2-#)L@n/qP)

Clp=$ G=(l–~c)~rpLp(2 +rp/LP)

&= exp(wi)
tih wi = ri/Li
Hi= ri / sinh wi

l+CRi \
ln~)+ ~ ln(
i f i=l ri.l/ri + CRi’
1.
1 L+
—= (l-x:) a ~(!!) + ln( 1 + CR )
a ~xf) rw/Lf + CR
*–-
CR=~
Hydraulically Xf=vt for Vt C re xL~
CRi - wkfi
xf = re for Vt > re ~iko
!Yactunxl
well
~=~
1 1 + ~ n(x, t)
_=l+Mt
k,(t)
M=8f n(x, t) = O for x >Vt

8= ~VC/re n(x, t) = LC t exp(-kx/V) for x <Vt

f= 1- exp(-krfl) (FmetumDamage)

496
.,

SPE 30127 Shutong Pang and Mukul M. Shanna 9

Table 2. External Filter Cake Properties

Latex 12 0.18 5.8 6.2

Latex 12 0.31 32 38
Latex 12 0.12 1.7 1.7
Silica 5 0.2 0.95
Silica 5 0.15 ;:;8 0.45
Silica 5 0.13 0.37 0.26

Table 3. Filtration CoefficientsL (Ref. 7)

Fig. 1. Internalfiltration in perforations

alp@)= 3.5 9.5 21

Expt’1data 2.20 5.10 17.00

Compt’ddata (capillaricmodel) 0.46 3.41 17.06
Compt’ddata (Brinkmanmodel) 2.09 13.93 61.20

Note (1) data is given in L1O%V(cm-l)

(2) dg = 720 pm, $ = 0.39. V = 0.136 Cln/St!C

Table 4. Filtration Coefficients(Refs. 8 and 9) Fig. 2. Verticalhydraulicfracture

Run ExperimentalData 3) 1
%v
No. (w) (Cln/S) dp = 2.75 4.5 9.0

1 460 .159 6.0 2.4 2.4

2 .143 8.1 3.1 2.6
3 460 .127 11.0 4.1 2.7
4 .175 3.1 1.8 2.2
5 z .191 3.1 1.2 1.8
6 548 .159 4.5 2.1 1.5 n
7 658 .159 3.9 1.9 1.9 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03
8 777 .159 2.7 1.7 1.7 Particle/GrainSize Ratio
Fig. 3. Filtration coefficient vs. size ratio
Note: his given in ~l@/V (cm-l)> $ = 0.38.

1
Table 5. Data Set for Examples
0.8
Injectionrate (m3/day) 1360
Formation height (m) 0.6
Wellbore/Drainagemdius (m) %00
Shot density (shots/m) 0.4
Entryradius (m) ::3
Perforationlength (m) 0.2 0.2
FmctmePermeability(d) 12.6
Fracturewidth (m) 0.005 0
Fracturehalf-length(m) 66 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Particle/PoreSize Ratio
Fig. 4. Coefficient t vs. size ratio

497
 ..,.

10 Evaluating the Performance of Open-Hole, Perforated and Fractured Water Injection Wells SPE 30127

I Reauired
. Data ~ OptionalData I
I
I I

[ Core Flow Test Data? ~

Yes ~ NO
---
0 100 200 3m 400 500 600
InjectionTime (days)
Fig. 7. Injectivitydecline (Example2)
~,~=R:J(Fiy=..,
intemai - Extend open-hole
I
A
Filtration Modeling
A
I
“

Open hole ~orated Fractured

i :~.
0 200 400 600 800 1000
InjectionTime (days)
q!:’f ’
~ Results Analysis ~ Fig. 8. Injectivity Decline (Example 3)

I output
(Dataand Plots) I
T*-.,* A“*.. km avmnnlt= 9
Lllpub Uala. Lsuml Waum..p” -
.2

---
0.6
0 5 10 15 20
Fig. 5. Schematicof proceduresfor Injectiontime (days)
predictinginjectivitydecline Fig. 9. Injectivitydecline due to frachue damage

— df=400, fc==.m125

~ :~
—
-—”–
open-hole
peafomted
.g “

L ----””””’ df4000, fc=o.oo125

9.

~:s ----
___
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
Injectiontime (days)
InjectionTime (days)
Fig. 10. Effect of filtration parameterson
Fig. 6. Injectivity decline (Example 1) injectivity due to fracturedamage

498