A New Slogan for Drilling Fluids Engineers

Zero damagegood; permeability reductionbad, long a motto of drilling engineers, is accurate for most vertical wells. Horizontal wells, however, with more exposure to producing formations, are different. Laboratory work and reservoir simulation are helping write a more equivocal phrase: Zero damagepreferable; permeability reductionbetter to avoid, but often allowable.

Otto Houwen Hemant Ladva Gerry Meeten Paul Reid Cambridge, England Don Williamson Montrouge, France

One of the golden rules for vertical wells is that formation damage caused by drilling should, if possible, be eliminated in the reservoir. Generally, this concept has also been extrapolated to horizontal wells and has led to the adoption of aggressive techniques to clean up formation damage. However, in some cases these complicated treatments increase rather than decrease risk to the wellbore. Quantifying the effects of mud systems and available cleanup techniques makes possible an informed choice, specific to the reservoir and well being drilled.
For help in preparation of this article, we would like to thank Sarah Browne, Michael Burnham and Dan Ryan, BP Exploration Operating Company Limited, Aberdeen, Scotland; Lindsay Fraser, Dowell, Houston, Texas, USA; and Paul Way, Schlumberger Cambridge Research, Cambridge, England. VISPLEX is a mark of Schlumberger.

The clear objective for any well is that it should perform to the full potential of the formation it penetrates and remain stable throughout its lifetime. This goal is best achieved by avoiding formation damage in the first place, but in most cases this is not possible. However, if damage is unavoidable, a correlation can be drawn by looking at fracturing treatments in vertical wells. During fracturing jobs, wells may sustain near-wellbore damage similar to drilling-induced damage. But this damage may be largely ignored because induced fractures extend thousands of feet into the formation, exposing more of the reservoir to a conductive flow path and significantly improving productivity. Horizontal wells penetrate up to 6000 ft [2000 m]even more than most induced f racturesinto a reservo i r, exposing the wellbore to an area of producing formation at least an order of magnitude greater than would be achieved with a vertical well. This opens up two opposing factors that drive horizontal well productivity. Because of their huge flow area, horizontal wells can withstand higher levels of damage than vertical wells and still deliver higher production rates. Conversely, drilling times for horizontal sections are generally much longer than for vertical wells in the same formation, giving drilling mud more time to enter the formation and potentially causing more severe formation damage. Also, lower drawdown pressures in horizontal wells may reduce cleanup efficiency.1

Therefore, some reduction in permeability may be permissible in horizontal wells, as long as the wellbore extends far enough into the formation to ensure sufficient flow area. At the same time, other aspects of the drilling fluid, like its effect on well drillability, may be brought to the fore. The trick is knowing which drilling fluids to select to maximize drilling rate while minimizing risk to the formation. For too long, decisions about drilling fluids h ave been made in isolation. Now, the industry is developing a strategy that brings together the domains of the reservo i r, petroleum and drilling engineer with that of the fluids engineer. At the heart of this work is the development of a real understanding of how drilling fluid damage affects productivity, with the goal of developing a reservoir engineering tool for drilling fluid design.
1. Renard G and Dupuy JG: Influence of Formation Damage on the Flow Efficiency of Horizontal Wells, paper SPE 19414, presented at the 9th SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, February 22-23, 1990. Browne SV and Smith PS: Mudcake Cleanup to Enhance Productivity of High Angle Wells, paper SPE 27350, presented at the SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, February 7-10, 1994. Beatty T, Hebner B, Hiscock R and Bennion DB: Core Tests Help Prevent Formation Damage in Horizontal Wells, Oil & Gas Journal 91, no. 31 (August 2, 1993): 64-70.

Spring 1997

Formation DamageInvasion of the Production Snatcher

From a mud standpoint, a well may be divided into two sections. In the firstfrom the surface to top of the reservoirthe two key drivers are health, safety and environmental (HSE) constraints, and drilling cost. In the second sectionthe reservoirHSE concerns remain of central importance, but the cost factor is usually overshadowed by a need to minimize formation damage. Of course, a prerequisite in both sections is that the well be drillable with the mud of choice. Formation damage is considered to be anything that impairs the permeability of reservoir formations, reducing injectivity or hydrocarbon production. Damage can occur during all stages of well construction, during remedial treatments and during production.2 This article concentrates on the relationship between drilling fluids and formation damage. In reality, all reservoirs are damaged to some extent by drilling fluid. The important issue is whether this damage significantly affects well productivity. One way of quantifying formation damage is to use the damage skin factor (right). Typically, a poorly constructed damaged well will have a positive skin of 20 to 500; a good unstimulated well will have a skin of plus five to minus unity; and a well that has been fracture stimulated will have a large negative skin. Today, most vertical wells are completed using a cemented liner that is then perforated. This is not the case for horizontal wells that are most often completed barefootthat is open holeor using prepacked sand control screens, slotted liners or predrilled liners where drilling mud may have a greater impact on the productivity of a well. There are at least two reasons for this effect. First, oil and gas must be produced through the filter cake and mud filtra t e induced formation damage because there are no perforations that reach beyond the damaged zone. Second, sand control completions such as prepacked screens may also be plugged by the mud (see How Drilling Fluid Reduces Producibility in an Openhole Horizontal Well, page 6).

sDamage skin surrounding a wellbore. The skin factor may be represented as a dimensionless pressure drop. The magnitude of this factor depends on the ratio of the undamaged and damaged permeabilities in the formation, and on the depth of damage, which is related both to the depth of invasion and fluid loss.

Drilling fluid selection for reservoir drilling in horizontal and high-angle wells is a complex process. Obviously, the choice of mud should ensure that the well is drillable, and a wide range of well and formation factors influence this selection. The effect of drilling fluid systems on factors such as hole cleaning, torque and drag, wellbore stability, and stuck pipe is central to success or failure (see Stickance Tester: Predicting a Muds Performance, page 10). The next and increasingly important factor influencing selection is the HSE aspect of a drilling fluid. Some fluids may not be usable in certain situations because of company or regulatory policy. Then come the cost and impact of the drilling fluid on productivity. This article focuses on the interplay of these final two factors.

Understanding the Real Effects of a Drilling Fluid

While there appears to be a broad consensus on the mechanisms of formation damage, there is growing divergence over how it may be combated or avoided. The need to cost effectively eliminate or at least minimize formation damage, so that productivity is maximized, has spawned a specialized area of fluid design for reservoir drilling and ushered in a host of what are called drill-in fluids. Most drilling fluid companies have developed drill-in fluids to allow effective cleanup following reservoir drilling. One development has been the introduction of mud systems with a solid phase, which makes up the filter cake, that may subsequently be removed by washes or breaker fluids circulated into the well before completion to dissolve or partially break the filter cake. Theoretically, these treatments reduce the pressure required by formation fluid to break through the filter cake once a well is put on production, ensuring an even flow across the productive part of the horizontal interval. In practice, their action is never uniform across the wellbore and such treatments substantially increase drilling costs and complicate field operations.

Oilfield Review

sMinimizing particulate invasion. VISPLEX filter cake (A) on the external surface of a core (top). Between rock grains (B), unblocked poreson the order of 30 microns () widemay be seen immediately below filter cake (C). At higher magnification, a filmlike bridge of bentonite and mixed-metal hydroxide (D) over the pore throat is highlighted (center). After exposure to KCl-polymer mud, internal filter cake (E) is apparent between the rock grains (bottom). The unusual behavior of the VISPLEX fluid may explain the low level of permeability impairment seen in laboratory and field evaluations of this system.

above treatments. For example, sized-salt systems incorporate magnesium peroxide that when exposed to acid releases hydrogen peroxide, which degrades polymers. A variety of solvent and surfactant fluids is available to treat oil-base mud (OBM) filter cakes, breaking down the oil-wetting character of the cake and allowing it to disperse in the aqueous, or mixed-phase wash fluid. As with polymer breakers, this treatment m ay also be used in combination with additives that dissolve the cake. These treatments are not without problems. Washes may cause significant losses of treatment fluid to the formation. These invading fluids, and the resulting filter-cake residues, may cause significant additional formation damagethe opposite of what is intended. If the losses are severe, it will be necessary to use expensive and time-consuming lost-circulation treatments that may themselve s cause damage. Also, severe losses could eventually lead to well-control incidents. Treatment of some OBM filter cakes produces viscous sludges that cause formation damage. Polymer sludges may also result from treatment of WBM filter cakes. Acid breakers may cause corrosion problems. An alternative is to do away with washes and breakers altogether and back-produce the drilling fluid through the completion hardware (see Bringing in Wells Without a Cleanup, page 16). Another approach is to minimize particulate invasion of the formation in the first place by creating a filter cake that may be more easily lifted by formation fluid during flowback. An example of such a system is a bentonite/mixed-metalhydroxide (MMH)/sized-carbonate system. MMH fluids are highly thixotropic, and labo ratory tests show that they have a low potential for formation damage, lay i n g down a predominantly external filter cake and thereby avoiding the need for deeppenetrating washes (above left).3
(continued on page 8)

Saturated salt muds with salt crystals sized to bridge across the formation and form a significant part of the filter cake are a typical example. After drilling, this cake is washed with an undersaturated brine that dissolves the salt, promoting filter-cake cleanup. Alternatively, calcium carbonate may be used as the weighting and bridging agent in both water-base and oil-base muds. In this case, the filter cake may then be treated with a mild acid to dissolve the carbonate. Also, cel-

lulosic products that are frequently used for fluid-loss control or as bridging agents may be dissolvedalthough often only partially using dilute acids or oxidizing agents such as sodium hypochlorite. Enzyme breakers have been developed for some wa t e r-base muds (WBM). Th e s e enzymes are designed to attack polymers and may be used alone or with one of the

2. Krueger RF: An Overview of Formation Damage and Well Productivity in Oilfield Operations, Journal of Petroleum Technology 39, no. 2 (February 1986): 131-152. 3. Fraser LJ, Williamson D, Enriquez F Jr and Reid P: Mechanistic Investigation of the Formation Damaging Characteristics of Mixed Metal Hydroxide Drill-In Fluids and Comparison With Polymer-Base Fluids, paper SPE 30501, presented at the 70th SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, October 22-25, 1995.

Spring 1997

How Drilling Fluid Reduces Producibility in an Openhole Horizontal Well

There are at least four dif ferent mechanisms for drilling fluid to damage horizontal well pr oducibil ity both inside the formation and in the wellbor e. Mud-solids invasion and internal filter cake Drilling fluid solids will invade a short distance into the formationon the order of a few millimetersbridging across or plugging pore thr oats (next page, top left). 1 An internal cake will r estrict flow unless it is removed by treatment or flushed out during production. The damage potential of mud solids depends on the size of particles r ela tive to the size of the pore throats in the for mation being drilled. Shape, flexibility and degree of dispersion of particles are also important. Possible exceptions are highly flexible particles like bentonitic clays that can deform suf ficiently , allowing them to penetrate pores smaller than the diameter of the clay sheets. As a guideline, par ticles between one-sixth and one-third of the diameter of a pore throat may invade a significant distance into the rock before bridging pore throats; par ticles less than one-sixth of the por e-throat diameter generally do not bridge. Mud-filtrate invasionMud filtrate may interact chemically and physically with the for mation causing significant damagefor example, mobilizing formation fines or changing formation wettability due to adsorption of mud surfactants onto the par ticles. Formation-fines mobilizationWhen waterbase mud invades a rock containing oil, fines mobilization following filtrate invasion may be triggered by a salinity change, by a chemical deflocculant in the filtrate, or by high fluid-flow velocities in the pore space. Migrating fines may cause extensive damage by blocking pore thr oats. In most formations, mobile particles ranging fr om

1 to 100 microns () are believed to be most damaging, since particles smaller than 1 micron are normally strongly held to the surfaces of lar ger mineral grains by Van der Waals forces and are difficult to dislodge. Particles above 100 micr ons are larger than most por e-throat diameters and so cannot migrate any great distance. It is usually difficult to carry out successful remedial tr eatments to remove damage caused by formation fines. Sometimes even these treatments can cause fines to become mobilizedby dissolving inter granular cementsor can leave reaction products that are themselves damaging (next page, top center). Changes in wettabilityWhen oil-base mud filtrate invades a water-wet formation, surfactants or certain types of polymer in mud filtrate may change the wettability of the rock. Displaced for mation water forms droplets in the pore spaces and thus affects hydrocarbon production. In fact, oil-wetting agents are specifically designed to make weighting agents and drilled solids particles hydrophobic, so it is inevitable that, if free surfactant enters the rock in the mud filtrate, the rock is also likely to become oil-wet. Permeability damage caused by wettability change is generally assumed to be permanent. However, because of the low fluid-loss rates of oil muds, the depth of damage will often be small. Wettability change generally has a gr eater influence on production in tight rocks that contain small-diameter pores (next page, top right). Undisplaced whole drilling fluidLarge-scale flow loop tests have shown that when screens are uncentralized, mudcake and debris are left on the low side of the hole even after aggressive cleanup. Whole fluid left behind in the annulus can pack off on the completion har dware during pr oduction. Also, for wells with low drawdown, the high gel strength of drilling mud could prevent or r estrict flow from part of the horizontal section (next page, bottom right).

Drilling fluid damage to completion hardware As sand control completion har dware is run into the well, it fills with the fluid in the well. Mud will flow or filter through the screen as a result of surge pressures created while running into the well. During this process, solids in the mud may partially or completely plug the screen. Susceptibility to mud damage will vary widely, depending on completion typeprepacked screens are particularly vulnerable due to internal plugging page, bottom left). Damage profile from a polymer mudA polymer mud may damage formation permeability in several ways. For example, mud solids may invade and create an internal filter cake; fines can be mobilized and block pores inside the formation; and cer tain polymers carried inside the rock may adsorb onto the rock and change the wettability, while lar ger polymers can also block pore spaces. Each of these processes invades to a dif ferent depth, cr eating more or less damage. A damage profile is more useful than a simple average because it helps explain the consequences and mechanisms of invasion (next page, bottom center). In this case, the damage profile decreases in severity away from the wellbor e. If a formation is not susceptible to fines damage, then this graph will be dif ferent.
1. Francis PA, Eigner MRP, Patey ITM and Spark ISC: Visualisation of Drilling-Induced Formation Damage Mechanisms Using Reservoir Conditions Core Flood Testing, paper SPE 30088, presented at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, May 15-16, 1995.

(next

Oilfield Review

Spring 1997

sThe effects of washes on breakthrough pressure. Data collected by a joint industry study reveal a wide variation between the effectiveness of different mud systems when washes are used to remove or destabilize a filter cake. However, contrary to expectations, more breakers were found to increase breakthrough pressure than reduce it.

sThe effects of washes on permeability damage. A joint industry study showed that, in some cases, washes significantly reduce damage levels; in others, washes increase damage.

The continuing debate on the pros and cons of washing versus back-production of filter cake in openhole completions has, at least in part, been driven by the philosophies of individual companies. However, new studies into cake properties and damage mechanisms are now providing better information for decisions. For example, a joint industry study of mud cleanup in horizontal wells fully examined the role of common washes and breakers.4 Small-scale core experiments tested six mud systems and various breakers. Surprisingly, more of the breakers increased the backflow pressure required to break through the filter cake than reduced it (top). In no case was

all filter cake removed. In displacement flow tests, effectiveness of washes on the low side of horizontal wellbores also proved to be limited because of the presence of stagnant whole mud, and large amounts of residual mudcake and debris. Another role of breakers is to remove mud-induced damage from the near-wellbore region. In this case, performance varied for different mud systemssignificantly reducing near-wellbore damage for some muds and increasing damage in others (above). For some mud systems there was a

correlation between treatments that induce high losses and high levels of damage with the wash fluids carrying damaging material such as fines or partially degraded polymer deep into the formation. The high cost of specialized drill-in fluids means that attempts to drill a well with zero skin may take up a significant proportion of well budgets. However, any savings in the mud cost have to be weighed against the risk of reducing productivity rather than preserving it. There is much to be gained by defining the optimum amount of formation damage that may be tolerated for a given well in a given situation. But what is the optimum skin factor for a well? The answer is not simple. In some settings a considerable skin factor may have little effect on flow. The joint-industry study referred to above confirms that some horizontal wells can tolerate a significant level of mud damage before productivity is significantly impaired. In others, only low skin factors may be tolerated, but these conditions cannot be ach i e ved economically using available mud systems. Reservo i r ch a racteristics, well profile, completion design and economics all dictate the optimum skin factor. A further determinant is the future role of the well. In an exploration well, where the o b j e c t ive is to find rather than produce hydrocarbons, a moderate skin may be acceptable. However, in a marginal development with a limited number of wells and tight margins, low skin may be of paramount importance. Many high-angle wells are targeted to intersect multiple sand bodies. For these wells, the main objective is ensuring that all potentially productive sections of the well may flow so that reserves access is maximized. Other wells are drilled truly horizontal to maintain a constant standoff with gas or wa t e r. Th e main driver in these wells is an even drawdown to minimize coning. Therefore, distribution of the damage is also important. As part of an extensive study, BP confirmed that the percentage of the i n t e r val flowing, and distribution of the flowing intervals over the length of a horizontal well may have a larger impact on

Oilfield Review

sHow distribution of flow affects flow efficiency. The first well schematic (top) illustrates 50% of the formation flowing from a single interval in the heel of the well. The second well schematic (middle), also shows only 50% of the well flowing. However, this time, flow is divided into six evenly spaced flow intervals across the length of the well. The graph (bottom), based on data gathered by BP, shows how increasing the number of flowing intervals increases the flow efficiency of a well even though the total percentage of the well contributing to the flow remains constant.

sThe impact of near-wellbore permeability reduction on flow efficiency. A small reduction in the near-wellbore permeabilityin this case up to about 30%has little effect on flow efficiency and the differences in depth of damage are not significant. However, when permeability reduction reaches 60% and up to about 80%, the effect on flow efficiency becomes profound and the differences in depth of damage become more marked.

productivity than the reduction in permeability around the well (left).5 This work, carried out in Sunbury, England, produced three key findings: If a given percentage of filter cake is removed to allow a well to flow, it is better for this percentage to be distributed over a large number of smaller intervals, instead of having all the flow concentrated in a single, large interval. The cleanup need not be complete. Rather than remove the filter cake, increasing its permeability to at least 0.1 md is sufficientfilter-cake permeabilities are typically 10-2 to 10-6 md, depending on fluid type, differential pressure and solids content.6 Damage by deep invasion of filtrate on the order of feetcauses only a small reduction in productivity as long as the reduction in permeability is not too great (below left). Studies such as this one by BP illustrate a central truth. There is no single best t e chnique for the cleanup of uncemented horizontal wells. The completions engineer has a range of options that must be assessed for each field and each well strategy. The only way of knowing which is best is to understand the drilling fluid and its interaction with the formation and completion hardware. Practical options will vary depending on issues such as environmental legislation, operational risk or logisticsfor example, a complicated wash strategy may not be possible if there is insufficient storage capacity on the rig. There is also, quite clearly, no guarantee of success. Thus, although the objective of any drilling fluid design should be to deliver a well with no formation damage, drilling and production pra c t i c e s inevitably lead to some damage that may not be removable. But if the well still produces to its full potential, this damage could be termed affordable. As yet, this concept of affordability is not widely reflected in industry practices.
(continued on page 11) 4. Ryan DF, Browne SV and Burnham MP: Mud Cleanup in Horizontal Wells: A Major Joint Industry Study, paper SPE 30528, presented at the 70th SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, October 22-25, 1995. The work was undertaken as a joint industry project by Amoco, BP, Chevron, Norsk Hydro, Saga, Shell, Statoil and TBC Brinadd. 5. Early work in this field is reported in: Goode PA and Wilkinson DJ: Inflow Performance of Partially Open Horizontal Wells, paper SPE 19341, presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA, October 24-27, 1989. 6. For example, in a typical wellbore, a cake of 0.1-md permeability and thickness of 3 mm gives a skin of 5; a cake of 0.01 md gives a skin of 56.

Spring 1997

Stickance Tester: Predicting a Muds Performance

Stuck pipe during drilling operations is a major nonproductive cost to the industry. 1 Stuck-pipe incidents are generally divided into two main categories: mechanical and dif ferential sticking. Which of these problems is more dominant depends on where drilling is taking place. In the North Sea, mechanical sticking is the main problem; in the Gulf of Mexico, it is dif ferential sticking. Mechanical sticking includes a large number of mechanisms, including hole collapse and key seating. Dif ferential sticking is the most common single mechanism and occurs when part of the drillstring becomes embedded in the mud filter cake and is then held there by hydrostatic pr essure, which exceeds the formation pr essure. As such, it can occur only where a filter cake has been establishedacross permeable for mations. The pipe usually becomes stuck when it is stationary adjacent to a permeable zone and there is a significant mud overbalance. The likelihood of differential sticking increases with the length of permeable section being drilledmaking extendedreach and horizontal wells particularly vulnerable. When it comes to preventing dif ferential sticking, the nature of the rock cannot be changed. High overbalance pr essures may also be needed to maintain well control or wellbore stability. However, it is possible to modify mud composition and pr operties. Recently , a better understanding of dif ferential sticking led to the development of a new laboratory test tool to help design mud systems that avoid dif ferential sticking. Work carried out by resear chers at Schlumberger Cambridge Resear ch, Cambridge, England has concentrated on the nature of mud filter cakein par ticular thickness, lubricity and str ength. 2 A true measure of filter-cake pr operties is not currently included in the suite of standard American Petroleum Institute (API) measurements r outinely carried out on drilling fluids. Although additional tests do exist, SCR r esear chers have developed a new technique to measure filter-cake pr operties that can be related to a fluids propensity to encourage dif ferential sticking. The technique is designed as a low-cost, simple test that may be carried out at wellsites. A high-temperature, high-pr essure (HTHP) filtration cell was converted to create a stickance tester (above). In this test, a filter cake is built up around a polished steel ball inside the cell. The force needed to rotate the ball is used to quantify the nature of a filter cake.
sStickance tester. The body of the device is a double-ended, high-temperature, high-pressure (HTHP) mud filtration cell. The top end cap has been modified to allow the entry of a spring-steel wire through an o-ring seal set in the center of the cap. A new entry port has been drilled to allow the cell to be pressurized. Inside the cell, the steel wire is connected to a 1.5-in. [3.8-cm] polished steel ball that rests on the filter medium at the bottom of the cell. The end of the wire protruding from the cell is attached to an electronic torque gauge.

10

Oilfield Review

Quantifying Affordable Damage

sTypical plot in which the stickance is given by the slope. Good reproducibility has been achieved as long as consistent operating practices are employed.

A test is carried out by placing the filter medium representing a permeable formation in the cell. The filter medium is usually filter paper, although cores, sand packs and simulated fractured for mations may also be used in future versions of the device. The cell is filled with drilling fluid, the top end cap is installed and the ball and torque gauge are set in position. The cell is then placed in a standard HTHP heating jacket. The mud is heated to the desired temperature and then pressurized as if a normal HTHP fluid-loss measurement were being madetypically a dif ferential pr essure of 500 psi [3445 kPa] is used. As filtration proceeds, a filter cake is built up on the filter medium and around the steel ball. At precisely noted intervalsabout every 5 minutes the torque gauge is rotated and the force needed to free the ball from the filter cake is measured. This measur es both adhesion of the ball to the cake and the force needed to break this bond. T orque data are plotted as a function of the thr ee-quar ter power

of time (t 34) to account for the buildup of filter cake around a spherical object. This plot usually gives a straight line, the slope of which is the dif ferential sticking tendencystickance (above). Using this apparatus, SCR r esear chers have established mud formulation and engineering guidelines to reduce the risk of dif ferential sticking. Fur ther, treatment options for field muds have been investigated to help avoid sticking. The stickance tester is now being pr epared for deployment in field laboratories so that these services may become generally available.
1. Bailey L, Jones T, Belaskie J, Orban J, Sheppard M, Houwen O, Jardine S and McCann D: Stuck Pipe: Causes, Detection and Prevention, Oilfield Review 3, no. 4 (October 1991): 13-26. 2. Reid PI, Meeten GH, Way PW, Clark P, Chambers BD and Gilmour A: Mechanisms of Differential Sticking and a Simple Well Site Test for Monitoring and Optimizing Drilling Mud Properties, paper IADC/SPE 35100, presented at the 1996 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, March 12-15, 1996.

To make sense of the notion of affordability, it is necessary to understand the consequences of damage. Although new production logging techniques are being developed, it is still difficult to extract from horizontal well tests all the information needed to make the required judgements.7 Therefore, the productivity effects of formation damage caused by drilling fluid invasionor indeed the magnitude of the damage itselfare usually unquantified. The need to close this knowledge gap has been addressed in work carried out by r e s e a rchers at Schlumberger Cambridge Research (SCR), Cambridge, England. Using core-flood experiments, they are determining the formation-damage effects of drilling fluid invasion. Data from these experiments are then used in accurate reservoir simulations that model the effects of this damage on productivity (see How Core-Flood Tests Are Carried Out, next page). New analytical expressions have been developed that relate damage to the production potential of the formation. From the mud, all information on filtration, invasion and cleanup is channelled into the calculations through the skin factor. Fo r m a t i o n damage expresses itself through large positive skin values and hence lower productivity index (PI) values and lower flow efficienciesthat also take account of well geometry, formation thickness, permeability anisotropy, reservoir location, length of the wellbore and proximity of other wells.8 To help determine the return, in terms of PI, from an incremental improvement in the performance of a mud, numerical simulations using data generated by these analytical expressions model the effects of damage on well producibility. These simulations assess the implication of damage on reservoir producibility, the implications of incomplete penetration of the damage if a well is to be perforated (having assessed the depth of damage from cores), and effects of incomplete filter cake removal if a well is not perforated.
(continued on page 14) 7. Bamforth S, Besson C, Stephenson K, Whittaker C, Brown G, Catala G, Rouault G, Thron B, Conort G, Lenn C and Roscoe B: Revitalizing Production Logging, Oilfield Review 8, no. 4 (Winter 1996): 44-61. 8. Flow efficiency is defined as the flow rate with skin divided by the flow rate without skin, at the same drawdown pressure.

Spring 1997

11

How Core-Flood Tests Are Carried Out

Over the years, various core-flood experiments have been per formed to assess formation damage by using equipment that measures per meability changes in rock cores before and after exposure to drilling fluid. Researchers at Schlumberger Cambridge Research (SCR), Cambridge, England have carried out extensive tests, building up a wide range of data. The experimental pr ocedure may be divided into three stages: Stage One: Sample Preparation and Initial Permeability Measurement. The equipment at SCR tests rock cores that are 25 mm in diameter and up to 32 mm long. Cores are placed under vacuum to remove entrapped air and then saturated in brine or simulated formation waterthis may be unnecessar y if well-pr eser ved reser voir core is used. Once prepar ed, the core sample is fir mly mounted in the sample holder so that there is a seal between the rubber sleeve and the core. The core holder is fitted into a standard high-temperature, high-pr essure (HTHP) fluid-loss cell body

sCore-flood equipment for initial permeability measurements. Detail of the core holder shows how the rock sample is locked into place.

12

Oilfield Review

that is then filled with the test fluid to be used for the permeability measur ementgenerally kerosene, crude oil or brine. Finally, a standard HTHP end cap is secured in place. The valve stem at the top of the cell is then connected to a 2.5-liter [0.7-gal] r eser voir of test fluid that may be pressurized. The fluid passing thr ough the rock is collected and its volume logged as a function of time (previous page). Permeability measurements are made by opening the valve stem at the top of the cell to pr essurize the fluid inside. The valve stem at the base is opened to start flow through the sample, and the data logging is star ted. Test fluid is allowed to flow through the sample at a fixed pr essure. The volume of fluid collected versus time is logged until a constant flow rate is reached, indicating that the core has r eached residual water saturation. Experience has shown that for most rocks this constant rate is r eached when approximately 100 pore volumes have passed through the core. At the end of the measurement, flow is stopped by opening up the regulator and locking off the valve stem at the base of the cell. After the fluid reser voir and cell are depressurized, the top end cap is removed and the cell is emptied of fluid in preparation for the mud-filtration phase. Data may now be combined with fluid viscosity and core size to calculate sample per meability: Permeability = flow rate x fluid viscosity x sample length cross-sectional area x pressure .

Stage Two: Core Exposure to Test Fluid in a Static or Dynamic Filtration Environment. Filtra tionestablishing a filter cakemay be performed under either static or dynamic mud flow. The filtration phase may be set for a specified period of time or until a pr edeter mined volume of filtrate is collected and may be per formed at temperatur es up to 150C [302F] and pr essures to 550 psi [3790 kPa]. To perform filtration under static conditions, the cell is filled with 200 mL mud, the standard end cap is refitted and a pr edeter mined pr essure differential is applied from a gas source. As with the permeability measurement, the volume of fluid collected is logged as a function of time. Test conditions are varied to mimic r eser voir temperature and expected mud overbalance pr essure. To perform a dynamic filtration test, a paddle stirrer is installed in the cell a fixed height above the core after the mud has been poured into the cell. The cell is then made up and placed back into the HTHP heating jacket and the paddle is r otated. Finally , filtration is r estar ted. Once again, filtrate volume is r ecorded as a function of time (right). This stirrer generates a range of flow conditions from turbulent, where little or no external filter cake forms, to laminar, which leaves filter cakes similar to those formed under static conditions. At the end of the filtration phase, the cell is depr essurized before rotation of the paddle is stopped to ensure that no filtration occurs under dif ferent operating conditions.
sSchematic of equipment for initial permeability measurements with the stirrer installed for dynamic filtration tests.

Spring 1997

13

sSimulating produced fluids flowing through a damaged reservoir.

sFlow before and after filtration. Typically the initial flow (blue) quickly reaches a constant, while the return flow (red) may take a significant time to stabilize as damage caused by the drilling fluid may be cleaned up to some degree before a steady state is reached.

Stage Three: Return-Permeability Measurement. Following filtration, another measure of core permeability is made to determine the level of formation damage caused by the mud. The stirrer is removed and any remaining mud is pour ed away. The cell is then filled with test fluid, and the end cap is fitted and sealed with a valve stem. The cell is inverted and replaced in the stand, r evers -

ing the direction of test fluid flow through the corethe equivalent of producing the for mation (top). The same pr essure is used as in the initial permeability measurement, although there is often a significant time delay before a steady flow rate is reached (above). The change in per meability before and after filtration may then be calculated.

To understand how much damage is tolerable, the undamaged PI of a well must be k n own. Herein lies a major snag. Th e undamaged PI in horizontal wells is often unknown because it is difficult in horizontal well tests to acquire reliable data for the productive length of the well and the damage skin factor. This difficulty is due to wellbore storagewhere fluid compressibility masks pressure changesand the short d u ration of early-time radial flow from which skin is calculated (next page, top). Although a sensible baseline for well prod u c t ivity simulations should ideally be drawn using existing horizontal wells in the same field, the data uncertainty outlined above renders this sort of reference information unreliable. Therefore, since understanding the PI of vertical wells is more straightforward, SCR researchers use a vertical well in the same formation as a reference.9 Starting from the influence of formation thickness and anisotropy on the skin factor, researchers derived relationships that compare the flow efficiency of a horizontal well with that of a vertical well fully penetrating the same producing formation.10 A novel expression has been derived that calculates the length of horizontal section required to create a well with the same skin factor as the vertical reference well. The expression combines all the geometric, reservoir, and formation damage information necessary to assess effects on flow efficiency of the horizontal well. The degree to which an increase in skin affects productivity of a horizontal well depends on its drainage area, which introduces the concept of neutral skin. At neutral skin, production from both the horizontal well and its vertical reference is equally impaired. With a skin value below neutral, production from the vertical well is disproportionately reduced compared to its horizontal sister well. With skin greater than the neutral value, the horizontal well suffers a larger proportional production decrease. Altering the horizontal wellfor example making it longer or increasing the drainage radiusmay mitigate this effect, and advantages of a horizontal well over a vertical equivalent may be enhanced (next page, bottom). This knowledge helps establish the minimum length or drainage area required for a horizontal well. For a given geometry, sensitivity of a horizontal well to skin can be assessed and thus the level of affordable damage inferred.
9. Renard G and Dupuy JG, reference 1. 10. Even if a vertical well has not been drilled, an approximation of its PI may be estimated using available reservoir information.

14

Oilfield Review

sConsecutive flow regimes observed for horizontal wells.

Early-time radial flow is the first radial flow period (in the vertical plane), which ends when the effect of the top or bottom boundary is felt. For horizontal wells, this regime is short and difficult to identify because of wellbore storage effects. This is unfortunate as it is the only regime in which formation skin damage may be deduced directly from a well test.

Intermediate-time linear flow develops if the well is sufficiently long compared with reservoir thicknesswhere the spread of flow beyond the ends of the well is negligible compared to its length. If the well is not long, there will be a long transition between early-time radial flow and the next regime, bypassing this one.

Late-time radial flow is the second radial flow period (in the horizontal plane) that develops if the reservoir is sufficiently large and wide compared to the length of the well. The well behaves like a point source in the middle of the formation.

Late-time linear flowthe second linear flow periodbegins when the pressure transient has reached all lateral extremities.

sRatio of lost production from horizontal and vertical wells as a result of damage skin factors plotted for three similar wells with different drainage area radii: 1000, 2000 and 4000 ft. For a given well, the neutral skin value is found at the intersection of the curve describing (qH /qV)lost as a function of skin with the horizontal line (qH/qV)lost =1. Below this line, the incremental effect on flow rate of increasing skin will be greater for the vertical reference well than for the horizontal well. Above the line the opposite is true and increasing skin will have a more deleterious effect on the horizontal well than on the vertical well. This effect is mitigated by increasing the drainage radius of the well, as can be seen from the graph, where a well with drainage of 4000 ft remains below neutral for greater skin factors than do equivalent wells with smaller drainage radii. Therefore, placing many horizontal wells together in close spacingthus reducing the horizontal drainage ratioincreases the susceptibility of individual wells to formation damage.

Spring 1997

15

At the same time, the drilling fluid must not damage well productivity by either completely stopping flow from any reservoir section or significantly increasing near-wellbore pressure drop and thus reducing well PI. For this reason, the effects of mud filtrate on the formation and the back f l ow pressure required to break through the mud filtrate and establish production must also be tested. For BP, tests like these now form an integral part of developing the overall well completion plan. In essence there are three components in a design loop: mud system optimization to fit the reservoir; cleanup strategy to ensure selection of the simplest technique that leaves no significant mudrelated productivity impairment; and sand control screen specification to best accommodate anticipated downhole needs.
sReducing the impact of an oil-base mud. Core-flood testing, carried out by BP with reservoir core under downhole conditions, showed a 99% permeability impairment. Laboratory work revealed an incompatibility between the synthetic-base oil and the emulsifier that caused precipitation in the rock pore throats. Changing the emulsifier and then reducing its concentration cut permeability impairment to 70% and 36%, respectively. In fact, the field sample showed only a 12% reduction in permeability, which had a negligible effect on well productivity.

Completing the Picture

Bringing in Wells Without a Cleanup

Three possible options exist when dealing with the drilling fluid prior to completing a horizontal well with an uncemented liner or screen: displace mud with a low-solids or solidsfree, clear fluid displace mud with a breaker system design the mud already in the well to flow harmlessly through completion equipment and bring the well into production without cleanup. For its part, BP has begun to use completions programs that, where pra c t i c a l , employ the latter optionback-producing drilling fluid through prepacked screens.11 Integral to this strategy is a desire to eliminate the complications and expenses associated with the other two strategies, while avoiding any chance that a breaker might actually decrease rather than increase permeability. By opting for simplicity, the company reasons it is cutting risk.
11. Browne SV, Ryan DF, Chambers BD, Gilchrist JM and Bamforth SA: Simple Approach to the Cleanup of Horizontal Wells with Prepacked Screen Completions, paper SPE 30116, presented at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, May 15-16, 1995.

However, BP is reducing risk only if the drilling fluid system can effectively flow through the prepacked screens without leaving permanent damage. Also, the well must flow, lifting sufficient filter cake to enable full productivity. Critical to both of these objectives is quality control of the drilling fluid in the fieldensuring that it meets specifications established by laboratory work. From this, BP has drawn up a series of guidelines. For example, solids loading must be below a critical level to avoid any logjam effect that could occur as the fluid passes through the screen; particle size distribution must be carefully controlled as just a few percent of large particles bridging in the screen may allow the many smaller particles to form an impermeable cake; and particle cohesiveness must be limited as e ven fine particlessuch as weighting agentsmay agglomerate into much larger particles. The total volume of mud that will be flowing per unit area of screen should be calculated and an excess used in the laboratory tests; the field mud actually used to drill the horizontal section should also be tested on the screens (above).

Many of the steps described above are not novel. What is new is a much clearer acceptance that drilling fluid design is one part of a much bigger process. To understand how a reservoir will perform implies deep knowledge of the number and type of wells needed; their length, angle and completion type; and how they will performincluding anticipated pressure drawdown and water coning. Drilling fluid design is an integral part of all of these. There is a wide range of available fluids. To select the right one means that the mud and drilling engineers must talk to many other specialistsreservoir geologists, production chemists, drillers, completions engineers and logging engineersto establish their objectives. The task then is to choose a drilling fluid that, in addition to meeting HSE needs and achieving the primary objective of ensuring the well can be drilled, helps achieve these shared objectives. In the end, this means delivering a well that has sustained no more than an acceptable level of damage. The key is knowing what this acceptable level is and how a given mud will affect a given formation in a given drilling situation. This need for understanding has been driving research at BP Sunbury, SCR and elsewhere. The final piece needed to complete the picture is an assessment of actual results over the lifetime of wells. This process is only just beginning, but when complete, drilling engineers will know that although zero damage is preferable for horizontal wells, permeability reduction is sometimes allowable. CF

16

Oilfield Review