SPE 67234
Modeling Well Performance Under Nonequilibrium Deposition Conditions
Faruk Civan, SPE, University of Oklahoma
Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Production and Operations Symposium
held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 24–27 March 2001.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any posi-
tion of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE
meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for com-
mercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohib-
ited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words;
illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of
where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836,
Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
A nonequilibrium well productivity decline model is devel-
oped and solved analytically under the same simplifying con-
ditions of the previous equilibrium models. The solution is
compared with the analytical solutions of the equilibrium
models. It is demonstrated that deposition for nonequilibrium
flow conditions is less compared to equilibrium flow condi-
tions. Charts are developed and presented for the productivity
index and skin factor in terms of relevant dimensionless pa-
rameters. In addition, the formulae for estimation of the radius
of the plugging region (skin radius), and the producing time
required for partial plugging of the formation at various per-
centages of the initial porosity and the time for complete plug-
ging of the formation are derived. Numerical examples are
presented, illustrating the applications of the formulations, and
the predictability of the productivity decline of wells. The new
improved model alleviates the limitations of the previous
equilibrium models and more accurately predicts the produc-
tivity decline. This model can be used for determination of the
rate of productivity decline by scale formation, the skin radius,
and hence the well inflow performance and for scheduling of
the treatments necessary for effective well stimulation.
Introduction
Civan1 presents a comprehensive review of the various mod-
eling efforts for predicting near-wellbore damage and its effect
on well performance. Approximate simplified models, such as
the leaky-tank reservoir model given by Civan2 and the pre-
cipitation-induced well performance model given here, are
frequently resorted in reservoir analysis, because they can be
solved analytically, and they can provide insight into the pre-
vailing trends and convenience in the analysis and under-
standing of the key parameters of the governing mechanisms.
There have been a number of reported efforts for simpli-
fied modeling of deposition in the near-wellbore region, in-
cluding by Muskat3 for liquid-condensate dropout in conden-
sate reservoirs, Roberts4 for sulfur deposition from sour gas,
Leontaritis5 for asphaltene deposition from crude oil, and Sat-
man et al. 6 for calcite deposition in geothermal wells.
The factors affecting the flow performance of wells by
deposition include (Roberts4):
1. Transport of the precipitate-forming substance by the
flowing reservoir fluid to the region having favorable condi-
tion for separation and deposition of the substance.
2. Dropout of deposits proportional with the pressure gra-
dient due to the reduced solubility of the precipitating sub-
stance by the pressure drop.
3. Reduction of the effective pore volume available for
deposition, inversely affecting the impairment, and
4. Reduction of the effective permeability of the flowing
fluid by deposition.
Roberts4 and Satman et al. 6 carried out formulations for
predicting solid deposition and its effects in the near-wellbore
region, assuming equilibrium deposition conditions. Here,
their formulations are extended for nonequilibrium deposition
conditions and compared with the equilibrium deposition
model.
This paper presents an improved simplified analytical
model and its validation for prediction of the productivity de-
cline due to deposition of organic and inorganic scales under
the non-equilibrium conditions of rapidly converging flow and
solid phase deposition in the near-wellbore formation. Rapid
flow conditions do not allow for sufficient time to attain phase
equilibrium. Consequently, there is less scaling and formation
damage, and slower productivity decline than predicted by the
equilibrium models. The equilibrium models may over predict
the productivity decline, because the equilibrium assumption
allows for more precipitation than it can actually occur under
nonequilibrium.
Formulation
A semi-steady state, isothermal, horizontal, and radial flow of
a single-phase fluid saturated by a precipitate-forming sub-
stance at a constant flow rate towards a wellbore is considered.
The flow is assumed to obey Darcy’s law
2 FARUK CIVAN
qB K dp
u= = .......................................................... (1)
2π hr µ dr
written in a manner to consider a flow direction opposite to the
direction of the radial distance. In Eq. 1, u is the volumetric
flux, q is the volumetric flow, B is the formation volume fac-
tor, h is the formation thickness, r is the radial distance from
the well center, π = 3.14 …, K is the absolute permeability,
and µ and p are the viscosity and pressure of the fluid.
Let C denote the volume of the precipitate-forming sub-
stance dissolved per unit volume of solution; for example,
sulfur in sour gas, calcite in brine, asphaltene and paraffin in
crude oil, or a condensable fraction of a condensate gas. The
rate of separation of this substance by pressure reduction is
given by
dV  dC 
= q  dp .......................................................... (2)
dt  dp T
The fractional bulk volume, ε, occupied by the precipitate
separated from the saturated solution within a differential ele-
ment of the bulk volume is given by:
dV
dε = .................................................................. (3)
2π rhdr
If φo and φ denote the initial and instantaneous effective (or
conductive) porosities of the formation before and during the
deposition, then the fractional bulk volume occupied by the
deposits is given by:
ε = φo − φ ....................................................................... (4)
4
Roberts points out that permeability impairment may oc-
cur more severely by pore throat plugging deposition than
pore surface lining deposition. The porous media permeability
reduction can be expressed by an exponential decay function
of the effective fractional bulk volume occupied by the depos-
its as:
K K o = exp ( −aε% ) .......................................................... (5)
where a is an empirical fitting coefficient, and Ko and K de-
note the initial and instantaneous effective permeabilities of
the formation before and during the deposition. The term “ef-
fective” refers to the permeability measured under steady state
or equilibrium conditions. Note that the empirical determina-
tion of the coefficient a in Eq. 5 is accomplished by linear
regression of the measurements of permeability versus amount
of solid deposit on a semi-logarithmic scale. These measure-
ments are usually obtained by interrupting the core flow tests
at certain time intervals. Therefore, such data are considered
as effective values. Eq. 5 is an alternative convenient approach
to Roberts’4 formulation. In Eq. 5, ε% denotes the effective or
equilibrium deposit fraction, which is greater than the actual
or nonequilibrium fraction ε of the precipitate separating from
the saturated solution when pressure is reduced. In an equilib-
rium process, it is assumed that the precipitate formed in the
SPE 67234
saturated pore fluid instantly deposits in the pore space. How-
ever, in a realistic case, the precipitate deposition is somewhat
delayed. Therefore, similar to the treatment of Barenblatt et
al.7 and Khasanov and Bulgakova8 for nonequilibrium or ap-
parent saturation distribution in porous media, consider a rela-
tionship between ε and ε% as, obtained by a first-order trun-
cated Taylor series expansion:
dε
ε% = ε + τ ................................................................... (6)
dt
in which τ denotes a delay, relaxation, or redistribution time.
Combining Eqs. 1–5 and defining a lump parameter as
B µ ( dC dp )T
b= .......................................................... (7)
4π 2 h 2 K o
lead to a differential equation, given by:
dε
dt
( )
= bq 2 r 2 exp ( aε% ) ................................................. (8)
Eqs. 6 and 8 can be solved subject to the initial condition that
there are no initial deposits present
ε = ε% = 0 , t = 0 ............................................................ (9)
Eqs. 1, 5, 6, 8 and 9 can be solved simultaneously using an
appropriate numerical method when the parameters signifi-
cantly vary with the fluid pressure. However, an analytical
solution can be derived as follows if a and b are taken constant
average values. Invoking Eq. 8 into Eq. 6 yields:
( )
ε = ε% − τ bq 2 r 2 exp ( aε% ) .......................................... (10)
Then, differentiating Eq. 10 and substituting Eq. 8 results in
the differential equation
d ε% 1
= ................................. (11)
dt exp ( −aε% )  r 2 bq 2  − τ a
  ( )
Thus, integrating Eq. 11 and applying the initial condition
given by Eq. 9 lead to the analytical solution
t = 1 − exp ( −aε% )  r 2
 (abq ) − τ aε% ......................... (12)
2
Eqs. 10 and 12 allow for the explicit calculation of the values
of ε and t for prescribed values of ε% . The calculations can be
carried out until complete plugging of the wellbore sandface
where complete plugging first occurs. The producing time for
complete plugging, tcp, is calculated by Eq. 12 when
φ = 0 , ε = φo , r = r%w ............................................... (13)
The effect of the skin factor s can be considered using the ap-
parent wellbore radius given by
r%w = rw exp ( − s ) ............................................................ (14)
where rw is the actual wellbore radius. Then, invoking Eqs. 13
and 14 into Eq. 10 yields:
SPE 67234 MODELING WELL PERFORMANCE UNDER NON-EQUILIBRIUM DEPOSITION CONDITIONS 3

where p = pe , r = re . The producing time until complete

 τ bq 2  plugging of the sandface is given by combining Eqs. 15 and
φo = ε% −  2  exp ( aε% ) …………………… (15)
 rw exp(−2 s )  16 for τ = 0 as:

( )
tcp = 1 − exp ( −aφo ) rw2 exp ( −2 s ) abq 2 ................. (23)
 r 2 exp(−2 s )  The production stops once the complete plugging occurs.
tcp = 1 − exp ( −aε% )  w  − τ aε% ………… (16)
abq 2 The radial distance to onset of precipitation is determined
 
by Eq. 22 as, after substituting p = ps = p pf :

Eqs. 5 and 12 yield:  2π K o h 

rs = rw exp  ( ps − pw ) − s  ............................... (24)
 qB µ 
K abq 2
= 1 − 2 (t + aτε% ) ................................................ (17)
Ko r
Dimensionless Equations
Substituting Eq. 17 into Eq. 1 and then integrating over the The dimensionless radius is defined as:
reservoir region undergoing deposition yields an inflow per-
formance equation, given by: rD = r / rw (25)

 4π K o h  p − pw The dimensionless time is defined as:

q=  ........ (18)
 Bµ  r 2
( )
d r2
t D = t / tcp
∫  r − abq 2 (t + aτε% )
2
(26)
r%w = rw exp (−2 s )  
2 2

where p = pe , r = re . The subscript “e” denotes the values at in which tcp is the equilibrium deposition time for complete
the external reservoir radius. The integral in Eq. 18 can be plugging of the sand face, given by Eq. 23. Invoking Eqs. 23,
evaluated numerically using an appropriate procedure. The 25, and 26 into Eqs. 12, 10, 17, 18, and 22, respectively,
radial distance rs to onset of precipitation is determined nu- yields:
merically by Eq. 18 for the fluid saturation pressure
p = ps = p fp below which precipitation occurs. 1 − exp ( − aε% ) rD 2
tD = − τ D aε% ........................ (27)
When the deposition is assumed to occur instantaneously, 1 − exp ( − aφo ) exp(−2s )
then τ = 0 and Eqs. 10 and 12 yield ε% = ε and

( )
t = 1 − exp ( −aε ) r 2 abq 2 ....................................... (19) which can be rearranged as:

or
1 − exp ( − aφo ) exp(−2 s)
1  1  rD 2 =  (t D + τ D aε% ) ............... (28)
ε = ln  2 2
............................................... (20) 1 − exp ( −aε% )
a  1 − abq t r 

Eq. 17 simplifies as:

1 − exp (− aφo ) exp(−2s ) exp ( aε% )τ D
K
= 1 − abq 2 t r 2 ........................................................ (21) ε = ε% −  ............. (29)
Ko arD2

Eq. 18 yields an inflow performance equation as, when b is

approximately constant:
K 1 − exp ( − aφo ) exp(−2s )
 4π K o h  p − pw = 1−  (t D + τ D aε% ) .......... (30)
q=  ..................... (22) Ko rD 2
 Bµ   r 2 − abq 2 t 
ln  2 
 rw exp ( −2s ) − abq t 
2
For equilibrium, substitute τ D = 0 in Eqs. 28-30.
4 FARUK CIVAN SPE 67234

Eq. 18 gives the nonequilibrium inflow performance equa- α neq =

tion by:
2(ln rDe + s )

 4π K o h 
rDe
2
( )
d rD 2 (36)

 B µ  ( pe − pw ) ∫
q=   rDw = exp ( −2 s )
2 {r
D
2
}
− 1 − exp ( −aφo ) exp(−2s )(t D + τ D aε%)
rDe
2
( )
d rD 2

∫
rDw = exp ( −2 s )
2 {r
D
2
− 1 − exp ( −aφo ) exp(−2s )(t D + τ D aε% ) } α eq =
2(ln rDe + s ) ................. (37)
 rDe 2 exp(2 s) − 1 − exp ( − aφo ) tD 
ln   

 1 − 1 − exp ( − aφo ) tD 
....................................................................................... (31)

Applying τ D = 0 to Eq. 30 leads to the equilibrium inflow

Applications
performance equation given by:
For demonstration of the application of the above-derived
equations, consider the gas reservoir data given in Table 1.
 4π K o h  Fig. 1 shows the comparison of the equilibrium and nonequi-
 B µ  ( pe − pw ) librium deposit volume fractions vs. the radial distance at
q=   ................. (32) various times. As can be seen, the nonequilibrium and equilib-
 rDe 2 exp(2s ) − 1 − exp ( − aφo ) t D  rium solutions differ more initially and the differences vanish
ln   
 at later times. As indicated by Fig. 1, the equilibrium deposit

1 − 
1 − exp ( − aφ ) t
o  D  fractions are always greater than the nonequilibrium deposit
fractions. Fig. 2 shows the effect of the skin factor on the de-
Applying the initial condition given by Eq. 9 to Eqs. 31 cline of the productivity index ratio by deposition.
and 32 yields the following inflow performance equation for
both the equilibrium and nonequilibrium cases: Conclusions
A non-equilibrium well productivity decline model has been
developed and solved analytically under the same simplifying
 4π K o h  conditions of the previous equilibrium models. As expected,
 B µ  ( pe − pw ) the deposition at the nonequilibrium flow conditions has been
qo =   ............................................ (33) found to be less compared to the equilibrium flow conditions.
2 (ln rDe + s )
The charts developed for the productivity index and skin fac-
tor indicate the effect of the relevant dimensionless parame-
The productivity index is defined by: ters. The new improved model alleviates the limitations of the
previous equilibrium models and more accurately predicts the
productivity decline. This model can be used for determination
q of the rate of productivity decline by scale formation, the skin
PI = ............................................................... (34)
pe − pw radius, and hence the well inflow performance under nonequi-
librium flow conditions and for scheduling of the treatments
necessary for effective well stimulation.
The productivity index ratio is defined by:
Nomenclature
PI a = constant, dimensionless
α= ....................................................................... (35) B = formation volume factor, L3/standard L3
PI o
b = lumped parameter, L2/T
C = solubility of precipitate-forming substance,
Therefore, the productivity index ratio for nonequilibrium substance L3/solution L3
and equilibrium cases are given, respectively, by: h = formation thickness, L
K = permeability, L2
p = pressure, M/L-T2
q = volumetric flow rate, L3/s
r = radial distance, L
s = skin factor, dimensionless
t = time, T
SPE 67234 MODELING WELL PERFORMANCE UNDER NON-EQUILIBRIUM DEPOSITION CONDITIONS 5

T = temperature, θ
u = volumetric flux, L3/L2·s
V = volume of precipitate, L3
TABLE 1- GAS RESERVOIR DATA.
Greek
ε = volume of precipitate per unit bulk volume, Parameter Value
precipitate L3/bulk L3
T 85 oC
φ = porosity, pore L3/bulk L3
φo 0.05 fraction
τ = delay, relaxation, or redistribution time, T
µ = viscosity, M/L-T Ko 1.0 md=1.x10-15 m2

Mathematical rw 0.15 m
D = dimensionless 1,500 m
e = external reservoir boundary
re
fp = saturation condition h 25 m
o = initial s 0.0, -2.0, -4.0, dimensionless
s = damaged region or saturation condition q 5.79 m3/s
w = wellbore pw 1.5x107 Pa
˜ = equilibrium or effective value
pe = pi 4.x107 Pa
References B 0.005 m3/standard m3
1. Civan, F.: Reservoir Formation Damage- Fundamentals, Mod- µ 2.0x10-5 Pa.s
eling, Assessment, and Mitigation,” Gulf Publ. Co., Houston
(2000) 742.
( dC / dp )T 5.0 x10−15 m3 / m3 − Pa
2. Civan, F., “Leaky-Tank Reservoir Model Including the Non- a 8.0
Darcy Effect”, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering,
Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 87-93, November 2000. τD 0.05
3. Muskat, M., “Retrograde Condensation About Well Bores,” Oil &
Gas J. (February 1950) 53.
4. Roberts, B.E., “The Effect of Sulfur Deposition on Gaswell In-
flow Performance,” SPE Reservoir Engineering (May 1997) 118-
123.
5. Leontaritis, K.J., “Asphaltene Near-Wellbore Formation Damage
Modeling,” SPE 39446 paper, Proceedings of the 1998 SPE For-
mation Damage Control Conference, Lafayette, Louisiana, (Feb-
ruary 18-19, 1998) 277-288.
6. Satman, A., Ugur, Z., & Onur, M., “The Effect of Calcite Deposi-
tion on Geothermal Well Inflow Performance,” Geothermics
(1999) 28, No. 3, 425-444.
7. Barenblatt, G.I., Garcia-Azorero, J., de Pablo, A., and Vazquez,
J.L.: “The Mathematical Model for Two Phase Non-Equilibrium
Flows in Porous Media,” pp. 59-74, in Mathematical Modeling
of Flow Through Porous Media, A.P. Bourgeat et al. (eds.),
World Scientific, New Jersey (1995) 515.
8. Khasanov, M.M. and Bulgakova, G.T.: “Mathematical Model-
ing of Non-Equilibrium and Non-Linear Effects in Two-Phase
Fluid Filtration,” Paper C-07, Extended Abstracts Book of the
6th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery,
Peebles, Scotland, European Association of Geoscientists & En-
gineers, Houten, the Netherlands (8-11 September 1998) 8.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

ft × 3.048* E–01 = m
ft2 × 9.290 304* E–02 = m2
psi × 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa
darcy × 9.869 233 E–01 = µm2 = 10–12m2
cp × 1.0* E–03 = Pa.s
6 FARUK CIVAN SPE 67234

0.05
Precipitate Volume Fraction, ε

tD=0.1-eq
tD=0.1-neq
0.04
tD=0.3-eq
tD=0.3-neq
0.03 tD=0.5-eq
tD=0.5-neq
tD=0.7-eq
0.02
tD=0.7-neq
tD=1-eq
0.01 tD=1-neq

0.00
0 1 2 3
Dimensionless Radial Distance,
lnrD

Fig. 1- Equilibrium and nonequilibrium

precipitation vs. dimensionless radial
distance at various dimensionless times.

1
α, Productivity Index Ratio

0.99

0.98

s=0
s=-2
0.97
s=-4

0.96
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
tD, Dimensionless time

Fig. 2- Productivity index ratio at

equilibrium deposition conditions for
different skin factors.