SPE 143497

Bridging Particle Size Distribution in Drilling Fluid and Formation Damage

Wenwu He, SPE, M-I SWACO, and Mike Stephens, SPE, RockDocMike, LLC

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference held in Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 7–10 June 2011.

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 have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
It is commonly understood that a reservoir drilling fluid must be compatible with the reservoir rock, both chemically and
physically. One important aspect in optimizing drilling fluid is distribution of bridging particle sizes. Appropriate particle sizes
can limit fluid loss to the formation and minimize solid plugging into reservoir pores. Reservoir rocks have complicated fluid-
flow systems and it is important to understand pore characteristics of the rocks including pore type, size distribution and
connectivity; and, secondary changes such as dissolution and fracturing. If inter-particle pores are the dominant fluid-flow
channels for the sandstone and pore distribution is relatively homogeneous, a full range of particle-size distribution of bridging
material may effectively bridge all pore spaces. But for many types of sandstone, natural dissolution of feldspar, rock
fragments, or carbonate material has created oversized pores. Appropriately sized particles should be used to bridge them, and
smaller particles should be retained in fluids to bridge smaller pores and to improve filtercake quality. For carbonate rocks,
fracturing and/or dissolution may have created large pores or fluid-flow channels. They are usually inhomogeneous in space.
Their sizes vary greatly and could be up to centimeter scale. The bridging particle size distribution should be comparable to the
inhomogeneous pores or channels, if practical.
Differential pressure between wellbore and formation pore fluid is also a factor which influences bridging size selection.
At high differential pressure, relatively large particle sizes may help limit the solids plugging into pore spaces and decrease the
effect of filtercake compaction. However, a combination of pore size, fluid property, and filtercake quality considerations are
needed to achieve the most effective particle size distribution.

Introduction
One factor in maximizing production is the compatibility of specially designed reservoir drilling fluids with the reservoir rock,
both chemically and physically. Design of the particle size distribution is one key to engineering minimally damaging
reservoir drilling fluids.
Particle invasion control is necessary to prevent flow impairment in the pore system in the near wellbore region (Abrams,
1977; Smith et al., 1996; Vickers et al., 2006). Several guides have been given for design:
1. For drilling that is to be followed by perforation through the near wellbore damage zone, Abrams (1977) suggested
that fluids should contain at least 5% by volume of the solids. In addition, the particle size of the bridging material
should be at least equal to or greater than one-third of the medium pore sizes of the reservoir rocks. Testing by
Abrams used a simple sand pack to simulate sandstone and dolomite to represent carbonate rock.
2. Smith et al. (1996) found that the larger sized pores that carried most of the flow in quartz arenite sandstone were
susceptible to damage from drilling fluids that did not carry sufficiently sized particles to bridge these pores. In order
to insure bridging in field operations, control of the D90 of the particle size distribution rather than the median (D50)
was suggested. In addition, the particle size distribution using Ideal Packing Theory was recommended. That is, the
cumulative weight percentage of the bridging materials should be proportional to the square root of the bridging
particle size. Testing used both quartz arenite sandstone and artificial Aloxite porous material.
3. Vickers et al. (2006) suggested that matching the D90, D50, and D10 of the drilling fluid to the D90, D50, and D10 pore
throats calculated from the mercury injection pressure tests could minimize invasion and damage. Testing was carried
out using porous Aloxite discs and Berea sandstone.
Although each of these studies have provided important concepts for design of reservoir drilling fluids, more attention
needs to be paid to assessment of pore size in rock formations to apply these concepts to actual reservoir formations. The pore
systems in these reservoir formations are the result of the geological processes that formed and modified the rock and its pore
system. The processes of sedimentation, diagenesis, and deformation are important determinants of the pore system actually
present in sedimentary reservoir rock formations. Characterizing the pore system and understanding the methods of pore size
2 SPE 143497

measurement and their limitations are critical to proper assessment of the pore size values that are used to design particle size
distribution.
Characterization of the pore system in the specific rock formation is important before meaningful measurement of pore size
can be carried out. A default assumption in many engineering studies is that the pore system is a simple uniform space
between solid grains that is adequately modeled by sandpack or Aloxite disk proxies. This is very likely to be inadequate for
many, if not most, reservoir sandstones (Scholle, 1979; Boggs, 2003) and carbonate rocks (Choquette and Pray, 1970; Boggs,
2003; Scholle and Ulmer-Scholle, 2003).
This paper principally discusses the methods of characterization of pore systems of reservoir rocks with the purpose of
identifying some advantages and limitations of these methods. It also discusses the effects of pore features, rock properties,
and the pressure condition near wellbore on the selection of bridging particle size distribution of reservoir drilling fluids. The
goal is to improve the assessment of the pore systems and more importantly the design of bridging particle size distribution.

Methods of Characterization of Pore Systems

Fluid loss and solid invasion from drilling fluid to formation are closely related to the pore systems and other fluid-flow
channels of reservoir rocks. In order to optimize the bridging size distribution, it is essential to understand the types, sizes, and
distribution of fluid-flow channels in the reservoir interval. Selection of samples to analyze should include the most productive
intervals. If possible, whole or slabbed core should be examined to identify each facies or rock type in the interval. In addition,
fractures or other fluid-flow channels that may be overlooked in routine core testing programs should be identified and the size
measured or estimated. Samples of each facies of the reservoir that materially contributes to the flow of fluids to the wellbore
should be analyzed for pore size. Commonly-used methods of characterizing pore systems include thin-section analysis,
mercury injection, and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis. In addition, CT scanning techniques have also been
applied to determine porosity, internal structure, and pore size of cores.

Thin Sections
Thin section analysis is one of the most important methods for geologist to understand rocks (Scholle, 1979; Scholle and
Ulmer-Scholle, 2003). It is also widely used in drilling fluid design. For preparing thin sections, core samples are first
impregnated with epoxy to increase sample cohesion, maintain sample structures, and also to prevent material loss and
deformation during the grinding process. A blue dye is added to the epoxy to highlight the pore spaces and fractures. The
sample is mounted on a glass slide (usually 27 x 46 mm or 50 x 75 mm) then cut and grounded to a thickness of approximately
30 µm. Thin sections are typically examined using an optical microscope.
Optical microscopic observation of thin sections can directly characterize pore systems, including porosity, pore types,
shapes, pore-size distribution, and connectivity. Thin section analysis can also provide data on the grain size, sorting, and
rounding of sedimentary grains and information on the post-depositional alteration, which includes compaction, cementation,
dissolution, leaching, fracturing, etc. All of the information is important to the understanding of the features of pore systems
and fractures which are essential in designing the bridging particle sizes. For sandstone rock, the range of magnification
offered by laboratory-grade microscopes using thin sections permits observation and measurement of detail while also
allowing a significant amount of rock to be analyzed quickly. A reticule (eyepiece scale) calibrated to a micrometer slide is an
inexpensive and accurate method to obtain pore size of rock materials or calibrated photographs can be used. The typical
measurement of pore size for bridging may be the diameter of the largest circle that can be inscribed into a pore. Pores ranging
from 2 µm to about 5000 µm can be measured using thin sections with an optical microscope (note: sand grain sizes range
from 62.5 to 2000 µm).
Advantages of the thin section method to measure pore size for bridging particles are: direct measurement of pore size and
the method is inexpensive compared to other methods. Disadvantages of thin section method are: two-dimensional analysis of
three-dimensional pore system, and somewhat operator dependent (although this can be minimized with training).

Mercury Injection
Mercury injection is widely used to assess pore sizes in rock materials. Commercial core test laboratories provide mercury
injection service for pore size determination and these tests have been performed on many core samples in the past. In this
laboratory test, the volume of mercury injected into the rock is monitored as a function of pressure. The test produces a plot of
pressure vs volume injected.
The fundamental model underlying mercury injection is that the pore system consists of a series of small cylinders with
circular cross section. Although this model differs significantly from pore geometries observed in thin section of actual rock
materials, the simple capillary pressure equation that relates pressure to cylindrical capillary size is typically used to convert
the pressure axis of the plot into pore diameter using the equation:
.
pore diameter in µ (Eq. 1)
pressure in psi

There are a number of issues with using this equation to assess pore dimensions including non-cylindrical pores, grain
surface roughness, and variations in contact angle between mercury and pore surfaces that are discussed by Van Brakel et al.
SPE 143497 3

(1981). Perhaps the reason more complex equations are not used is that mathematics for describing actual rock pores has not
been sufficiently refined to make a practical algorithm. ASTM standards for pore size measurement by mercury injection
conclude that the method is applicable to apparent pore diameters between 0.0025 and 100 µm (ASTM D4404-84).
Pore sizes derived from mercury injection values are sometimes referred to as pore-throat sizes (Nelson, 2009). Van Brakel
et al. (1981) suggested that thinking of mercury injection results literally as pore throat dimensions may be misleading. Plots
of pore-throat size versus volume percent derived from mercury injection do not provide realistic statistics about actual pore
dimensions in rocks especially if some fraction of the pores are wedge shaped. Nevertheless, modeling of capillary effects
such as water saturation seems to have merit, but large scatter is observed in plots between measured permeability and
permeability calculated using pore-throat models (Pittman, 1992; Nelson, 2009). One possible reason for some of the large
scatter in these permeability plots is that mercury injection does not detect the largest pores present in some rock samples.
For the purpose of determining the sizes of bridging particles, diameter of the largest connected pore space is probably the
most useful parameter. In cases where mercury injection testing is performed, this corresponds to the threshold pressure where
mercury injection into the sample begins to occur (Pittman, 1992). Figure 1 shows the calculated pore diameter versus
saturation fraction (the amount of pore space saturated with mercury). The threshold diameter is 70 µm. This may be compared
to the median diameter of 15 µm. If the median pore size is selected as the parameter to protect with sized bridging agents,
then invasion of solids may occur in pores larger than 15 µm and the result could be substantial reduction in flow capacity in
the invaded zone. If the invaded zone is bypassed by hydraulic fractures or by deep penetrating perforations, the impact on
production may be minimal. But for openhole completions and for cases where perforations do not penetrate beyond the
solids-invaded zone, reduction in productivity will occur.
As mentioned above, one problem with mercury injection is that it may not detect the largest pores or pore throats present
in a formation. The low pressure part of the mercury injection test that measures the largest pores must be performed under
vacuum. Under the best operating conditions, the maximum pore size that could be measured is approximately 200 µm in
diameter corresponding to 1 psi pressure. Most existing mercury injection test data have higher minimum pressure. Table 1
compares the largest pores detected by mercury injection to the largest common pores measured in thin sections in a series of
sandstone samples from West Africa. Pores larger than 43 µm were not detected by mercury injection, even though much
larger pores were observed in thin sections. Because pressures less than 5 psi (or 7 psi in some samples) were not used in the
tests, the tests may have not detected pores larger than about 40 µm. It is prudent to carefully examine samples before
concluding that the mercury injection testing has detected the largest pore channels in the reservoir rock.
The principal advantage of the mercury injection method for obtaining pore size for bridging particles is that it is less
operator dependent than thin section analysis. The major disadvantage is that it may not detect the largest pores in many
reservoir formations and results in the selection of bridging particle sizes too small to adequately protect the formation.

175

150

125
Pore Diameter µ

Threshold Diameter = 70 microns
100

75

50 Median Diameter = 15 microns

25

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Saturation (Fraction)

Fig. 1- Mercury injection pore diameter from an onshore South Asia Sandstone sample
4 SPE 143497

Table 1: Comparison of Mercury Injection Analysis and Thin Section Observation of Offshore
West Africa Sandstone
Mercury Injection Mercury Injection Thin Section Maximum
Depth Minimum Pressure Maximum Pore Diameter Common Pore Diameter Thin Section Grain Size
Achieved (psi) (µm) (µm)
11294 5 43 200 Bimodal VC/F
11336 7 30.8 120 Bimodal C/F
11342 5 43 100 Bimodal C/F
11347 5 43 120 Bimodal C/M to F
11351 7 30.8 120 F
11360 5 43 120 M
11372 5 43 60 F
11375 5 30.8 50 F-VF
VC = very coarse
C = coarse
M = medium
F = fine
VF = very fine

SEM and Micro CT

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) provides the capability to measure very small pores and also permits limited observation
of three-dimensional pore structures. The operating range for SEM to measure pores is from less than 0.05 to 5000 µm. SEM
is an extremely practical method to find and characterize microporosity. The time and costs required to examine significant
amounts of inhomogeneous rock make SEM less practical for finding the largest pores that need to be bridged.
Micro CT holds promise for evaluating three-dimensional pore geometry and pore size statistics. Dong et al. (2008) have
evaluated several models for extracting pore geometry from Micro CT scans of limestone and sandstone. Although the various
models did not coincide with respect to pore size distribution, they did generally show the same range of pore sizes. Evaluating
a sufficient volume of sample to encompass the entire range of pore sizes in a heterogeneous reservoir rock may be difficult,
given current practical limitations on computing. In the future, Micro CT may provide practical means for evaluating pore size
and pore-size distributions.
The small sample sizes typical of SEM and Micro CT make investigation of the large amounts of rock needed to observe
variations present in typical reservoir rock impractical. Using thin section analysis as a practical screening method before
subjecting samples to SEM and Micro CT analysis makes sense, both from an economic and practical standpoint.

Bridging Particle Size Distribution

Features of pore systems and fluid-flow channels are the basis for determining the distribution of bridging particle sizes. The
most important features include: 1) the dominate flow channels in the rocks, and 2) dimension, distribution, and connectivity
of pores and fractures.
Appropriately sized bridging particles help limit fluid loss to the formation and minimize solid plugging into reservoir
pores. By optimizing the distribution of bridging particles based on the features of pore systems and fractures, it is possible to
effectively minimize the formation damage of drilling fluids.
Figures 2 and 3 show two different results related to bridging particle selection. The bridging particle size distributions in
Fig. 2 were optimized based on pore sizes and no significant solid invasion was observed. But for Fig. 3, solids in drilling fluid
were not optimized based on pore size distribution. Fine solids (dark or brown material) from drilling fluid invaded deeply into
the cores, even into the relatively small pore throats.
SPE 143497 5

     
Fig. 2 - Thin-section photomicrography of post-return permeability test core samples. The brown or dark material on
the right side of each photo is filter cake.
 

     
Fig. 3 - Thin-section photomicrography of post-return permeability test core samples. The dark or brown material is
solids from drilling fluid.

Four different cases which require different bridging-particle considerations are discussed below:

1. Sandstone with Relatively Uniform Structure and Pore System

For sandstone with relatively uniform structure and a pore system that exhibits relatively narrow pore size distribution,
interparticle pores are usually the dominant fluid-flow channels. In this type of rock, a full range of particle-size distribution of
bridging material, which covers all pore sizes, may effectively bridge pore spaces. Abrams’s rule (Abrams, 1977), ideal
packing modeling (Smith et al., 1996; Dick et al., 2000), or the proposal of Vickers et al. (2006) may well bridge the pore
spaces and minimize solid invasion.
Table 2 shows results of formation damage tests with three different fluids optimized according to ideal packing model
with D90 equal to the maximum pore size. The test core is sandstone with relatively uniform structure and limited pore-size
distribution (Fig. 4, left photo). The collected fluid loss (filtration) was low, which is ≤50% pore volume. Return permeability
is 91-95%, indicating no significant formation damage.
6 SPE 143497

     
Fig. 4 - Thin-section photomicrography of cores used for return permeability tests.

Table 2: Results of Return Permeability Tests with Bridging Particles in Drilling

Fluids for Sandstone with Uniform Pore Structure
Initial Volume of Return Flow Initiation
Test Fluid Permeability Filtration (mL) / Permeability (mD)/ Pressure
(mD) % Pore Volume % Return (psi)

1 230.4 5.7 / 48.9 212.4 / 92.2 6.9

2 250.5 7.0 / 50.4 237.3 / 94.7 9.7
3 258.0 5.8 / 43.3 236.6 / 91.7 6.0

For comparison, Table 3 shows three tests results using similar drilling fluid systems as those listed in Table 2 but without
bridging particles. The test rock is also sandstone with relatively uniform structure and pore distribution (Fig. 4, right photo).
These tests show significantly higher filtration, from 135 to 200% of pore volume. Significant formation damage was
observed, with return permeability of only 11-25%. These tests also indicate that even for uniform sandstone, adding bridging
particles help to minimize fluid loss and formation damage.

Table 3: Results of Return Permeability Test without Bridging Particles in

Drilling Fluids for Sandstone with Uniform Pore Structure
Initial Volume of Return Flow Initiation
Test Fluids Permeability Filtration (mL) / Permeability (mD)/ Pressure
(mD) % Pore Volume % Return (psi)

#1 43.2 16.8 / 160.0 4.07 / 12.6 92.7

#2 32.2 17.3 / 135.3 4.76 / 11.0 68.9
#3 93.4 22.7 / 200.0 23.65 / 25.3 23.5

2. Rocks with Strong Bi-Modal Pore Size Distribution or Oversized Pores

For many types of sandstone, natural dissolution of feldspar, rock fragments, or carbonate material has created oversized pores
(Fig. 5). These oversized pores may be connected and have a huge effect on permeability. Sandstones that exhibit low porosity
and high permeability are likely to have well-connected oversized pores. The smaller pores could be effectively bridged by the
smaller particles retained in drilling fluids and the fine cuttings produced during drilling and attrition of bridging materials. It
is, however, essential to protect the large pores by adding the appropriate bridging particles.
SPE 143497 7

     
Fig. 5 - Thin section photomicrography showing oversized pores.

Many limestone and dolomite formations also exhibit oversized pores that are the result of fabric selective dissolution.
Figure 6 is dolomite with pore sizes mainly 30 – 150 µm. Porosity is 15-20% and there are a significant number of oversized
pores approximately 200 µm in width. Table 4 lists the return permeability test result on this dolomite, which shows high fluid
loss (200% pore volume) and strong formation damage (34.1% return permeability). Insufficient bridging could be the
dominate cause for this result. D90 of the bridging particle sizes was around 130 µm. Obviously, it missed the larger pores.
This test indicates that if the largest pores are not bridged, fluid loss and formation damage could be high.

Fig. 6 - Thin section photomicrography of dolomite showing oversized pore spaces

Table 4: Results of Return Permeability Test on Dolomite with Oversized Pores

Flow Initiation
Initial Permeability Volume of Filtration Return Permeability % Return
Pressure
(mD) (mL) / % pore volume (mD) Permeability
(psi)
31 5.16 / 200.0 10.6 34.1 37.3

Our tests suggest that the formation with bi-modal pore-size distribution or oversized pores can be effectively bridged by
having the D90 of the bridging particles equal to common maximum pore sizes while adding fine particles for the small pores.
Figure 7 shows quartz sandstone core plugs used in formation damage tests. These sandstones have a significant number of
oversized pores (Figures 7 and 8). The drilling fluids were optimized by having the D90 of the bridging particle sizes equal to
the common maximum pore size which is 300 µm. Return permeability tests on these rocks show less than 10-24% of pore
volume of fluid loss. No significant formation damage was observed. Thin-section observations of post-test cores indicate that
solid invasion from drilling fluid into cores is weak and is limited within one grain depth (Fig. 9). No clear evidence of
fracture closure or blocking was observed.
8 SPE 143497

     
Fig. 7 - Quartz sandstone core plugs for return permeability tests. Note the oversized pores. 

     
Fig. 8 - Thin section photomicrography of quartz sandstone before return permeability test showing oversized pore
spaces and fractures. 

     
Fig. 9 - Thin section photomicrography of post-test samples showing clear pores and fractures in the views close to
filter cake.
 
SPE 143497 9

3. Carbonate Rocks with Well-Developed Factures or Other Large-Scale Openings

For carbonate rocks, fracturing and/or dissolution may have created large pores or fluid-flow channels (Fig. 10). They are
usually inhomogeneous in space. Their sizes vary greatly and could be up to centimeter scale. Bridging particle size
distribution should be comparable to the inhomogeneous pores or channels, if practical. For fractures, vugs, or channels with
width less than 500 µm, appropriate particle sizes could effectively bridge the fluid-flow paths. But when the width of these
features is larger, bridging particles alone may not able to seal the fluid-flow channels. Other methods such as underbalance
drilling can be applied to control fluid losses and formation damage.

Fig. 10 - Thin sections of silty dolomite. The blue color in the thin-section pictures represents the vugs,
channels, pores or other opening spaces.

4. Depleted formations with high differential pressure

Differential pressure between wellbore and formation pore fluid is also a factor which influences bridging size selection. Table
5 shows results of return permeability tests which were conducted on Berea sandstone. For same drilling fluids and same test
conditions except differential pressure, an increase in differential pressure from 1000 to 2000 psi significantly increases fluid
loss (filtration from 26.5 to 44.4%) and enhances formation damage (return permeability from 88 to 40%).

Table 5: Results of Return Permeability Test at High Differential Pressure

Volume of
Flow
Differential Initial filtration Return
Temperature Initiation
Pressure Permeability (mL) / Permeability % Return
(°F) Pressure
(psi) (mD) % Pore (mD)
(psi)
Volume
2000 330 48 2.2 / 44.4 19.1 40 8.1

1000 330 50 1.3 / 26.5 43.9 88 0.5

Table 6 shows test results which may indicate two formation damage mechanisms at high differential pressure. The tests
were conducted at 320°F and 2000 psi differential pressure. The fluid loss during drilling fluid exposure was excessive at 595
and 488% of pore volume, respectively. The return permeability was very poor at only 8.5 and 12.7%, respectively. Two other
permeability measurements were conducted at ambient temperature for each test with filtercake removal followed by trimming
the wellbore side of the core by ¼ inch. The increase in permeability after the trimming may indicate the plugging of solids
from drilling fluid. In addition, examination of post-test samples reveals that filter cakes are much tighter along the contact
with cores compared to those at low differential pressure, indicating some compaction under high differential pressure (Figure
11). A tight filter cake has low permeability and would make the flow back of hydrocarbons difficult. It is well known that
compaction rate is higher for small grain sizes of material (Dewers and Hajash, 1995; De Meer and Spiers, 1995). Adding
larger particles in drilling fluid could decrease the effect of compaction of filter cake. Larger particle sizes could also help limit
the solid invasion into the pore spaces of rocks. It is recommended that at least 5 lb/bbl of coarse particles (D50 ≈ 250 µm)
should be added to drilling fluid while very fine particles (D50 ≈ 2 µm) should be ≤ 5 lb/bbl. But high amount of large particles
may compromise fluid properties, filter cake quality, etc. A combination of pore size, fluid property, and filter cake quality
considerations is needed to achieve the most effective particle size distribution.
10 SPE 143497

Table 6 - Results of Return Permeability Test at High Differential Pressure

Permeability,
Permeability,
Initial Volume of Return Filter Cake
% Return Core Trimmed
Permeability Filtration (mL) / Permeability Removed
Permeability (mD) /
(mD) % Pore Volume (mD) (mD) /
% Return
% Return
12.2 41.1 / 594.5 1.04 8.5 2.06 / 16.9 5.56 / 45.5
21.8 34.7 / 488 2.77 12.7 3.43 / 15.7 8.85 / 40.6
 
 
1000 µ

 
Fig. 11 - Dense and well compacted filter cake. Most white materials are very fine-grained
bridging particles.

Conclusions
Design of the bridging particle size distribution for reservoir drilling fluids is important for minimizing formation damage
when the well is drilled. Characterization of the pore system of reservoir rock is the starting point of this design process.
Commonly used methods of characterizing pore systems include thin-section analysis, mercury injection, and SEM analysis.
Each method has advantages and disadvantages.
The thin-section method allows direct observation and characterization of pore systems, including porosity, pore types,
shapes, size distribution, and connectivity. In addition, thin sections enable practical measurement of the largest pores that may
be missed by other methods. But thin-section method is a two dimensional analysis of a three-dimensional pore system.
Mercury injection method provides pore-size-distribution statistics and detects small pores that may be missed with thin-
section analysis. The disadvantage of mercury injection is that it may not detect the largest pores or pore throats present in a
formation which could be most important in the design of bridging particles. The SEM method is capable of measuring a wide
range of pore sizes including the smallest, but the time and cost required to examine significant amounts of inhomogeneous
rock make SEM less practical.
If the structure and pore system of the reservoir rock is uniform with a relatively narrow pore-size distribution, a full range
of particle-size distribution of bridging material may effectively bridge all pore spaces. But for many types of sandstone,
natural dissolution of feldspar, rock fragments, or carbonate material has created oversized pores. It is essential to protect the
oversized pores by adding appropriate bridging particles. Smaller particles should be retained in fluids to bridge smaller pores
and to improve filtercake quality. For carbonate rocks, fracturing and/or dissolution may have created large pores or fluid-flow
channels. They are usually inhomogeneous in space. Their sizes vary greatly and could be up to centimeter scale. Bridging
particle size distribution should be comparable to the inhomogeneous pores or channels, if practical. Differential pressure
between wellbore and formation pore fluid is also a factor which influences bridging size selection. Adding coarser material in
drilling fluid may help to limit solid plugging into formation rocks and decrease the effect of compaction of filter cake under
high differential pressure.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank the management of M-I SWACO, A Schlumberger Company for permission to publish this paper. The
authors would specifically like to thank Russell Leonard, Stacy Franks, and Sandra Gomez for their contributions to laboratory
tests.
SPE 143497 11

References
Abrams, A., 1977. “Mud Design to Minimize Rock Impairment Due to Particle Invasion.” Journal of Petroleum Technology (May) 586-592.
ASTM D4404-84, 1984. “Standard Test Method for Determination of Pore Volume and Pore Volume Distribution of Soil and Rock by
Mercury Intrusion Porosity.”
Boggs, S., Jr., 2003. Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Cladwell, New Jersey: The Blackburn Press.
Choquette, P.W. and Pray, L.C., 1970. “Geologic Nomenclature and Classification of Porosity in Sedimentary Carbonates.” AAPG Bulletin,
v. 54, 207-250.
De Meer, S. and Spiers, C. J., 1995. “Creep of Wet Gypsum Aggregates under Hydrostatic Loading Conditions.” Tectonophysics, v. 245,
171-183.
Dewers, T. and Hajash, A., 1995. “Rate Laws for Water-Assisted Compaction and Stress-Induced Water-Rock Interaction in Sandstones.”
Journal of Geophysical Research, v.100, 13093-13112.
Dick, M. A., Heinz, T. J., Svoboda, C. F. and Aston, M., 2000. “Optimizing the Selection of Bridging Particles for Reservoir Drilling
Fluids.” SPE 58793, SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage, Lafayette, Louisiana, Feb 23-24.
Dong, H., Fjeldstad, S., Alberts, L., Roth, S., Bakke, S., and Øren, P. E., 2008. “Pore Network Modelling on Carbonate: A Comparative
Study of Different Micro-CT Network Extraction Methods.” SCA2008-31, International Symposium of the Society of Core Analysts,
Abu Dhabi, Oct 29 – Nov 2. Available from: http://www.scaweb.org/assets/papers/2008_papers/SCA2008-31.pdf
Nelson, P. H., 2009. “Pore-Throat Sizes in Sandstones, Tight Sandstones, and Shales.” AAPG Bulletin, v. 93, 329–340.
Pittman, E. D., 1992. “Relationship of Porosity and Permeability to Various Parameters Derived from Mercury Injection-Capillary Pressure
Curves for Sandstone.” AAPG Bulletin, v. 76, 191-198.
Scholle, P. A., 1979. A Color Illustrated Guide to Constituents, Textures, Cements, and Porosities of Sandstone and Associated Rocks.
AAPG Memoir 28.
Scholle, P. A. and Ulmer-Scholle, D. S., 2003. A Color Guide to the Petrography of Carbonate Rocks: Grains, Textures, Porosity,
Diagenesis. AAPG Memoir 77.
Smith P. S., Browne, S. V., Heinz, T. J. and Wise, W. V., 1996. “Drilling Fluid Design to Prevent Formation Damage in High Permeability
Quartz Arenite Sandstones.” SPE 36430, SPE Annual Technical Conference, Denver, Colorado, October 6-9.
Van Brakel, J., Modry, S. and Svata, M., 1981. “Mercury Porosimetry: State of the Art.” Powder Technology, v. 29, 1-12.
Vickers, S., Cowie, M., Jones, T., and Twynam, A. J., 2006. “A New Methodology that Surpasses Current Bridging Theories to Efficiently
Seal a Varied Pore Throat Distribution as Found in Natural Reservoir Formations.” AADE-06-DF-HO-16, AADE Fluids Conference,
Houston, April 11-12.