Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 27395

Formation Injectivity Damage Due to Produced Water Reinjection

C.D. Hsi* and D.S. Dudzik, * BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.; R.H. Lane, * ARCO Alaska Inc.;
and J.W. Buettner* and R.D. Neira, IITRI
·SPE Members

Copyright 1994, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE IntI. Symposium on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, 7-10 February 1994.

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 position 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. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A. Telex, 163245 SPEUT.

ABSTRACT Once damage had occurred, addition of biocide did not

restore permeability.
On-site coreflood experiments were conducted at
Prudhoe Bay field, Alaska using side streams of INTRODUCTION
produced water taken directly from produced water
injection (PWI) lines. The objectives were to determine Produced water handling has become a major effort of
how rapidly the formation injection face is plugged by all waterflood operations. With increasing environ-
produced water re-injection, the location and mechanism mental regulations, more and more produced water is
of damage, and the impacts of bacterial growth on the being re-injected. Injectivity decline in PWI wells is a
extent and rate of damage. major concern; many studies are ongoing to try to
understand the damage mechanisms.
In core tests where produced water was not filtered prior
to injection, 90% permeability damage occurred within Prudhoe Bay (PB) produced water contains a large
24 hours of injection startup. This is inconsistent with number of suspended solid and oil droplets and was
field observations where injection well decline is found to be more difficult to re-inject than filtered sea
observed to occur over weeks or months, when seen at waterl .
all. Field observations are consistent with previously-
described (growing) thermal fractures that dominate Bacterial growth in PB PWI systems was suspected to
injection performance, thereby minimizing deleterious cause further problems. Bacteria can produce
effects of sand face plugging. exopolysaccarides which coalesce to form a confluent
biofilm2. Oil and solid particles entrained in the PWI
In core tests where produced water was filtered, little water can also be trapped by the developing bacterial
damage was observed; this demonstrates that removable biofilm to significantly accelerate water injectivity
components in produced water are responsible for face decline rates3. Furthermore, biofilm growth in surface
damage. However, when cores were first inoculated facilities can interfere with separator and gas flotation
with bacteria-laden water and then flooded for several cell performance, resulting in increased oil-in-water
days with filtered produced water, deep damage carryovers. The SRB growth in biofilm can also generate
(inches) was seen. This suggests PWI wells can suffer H2S gas which reacts with dissolved iron to precipitate
injectivity damage over time due to bacterial growth. iron sulfide, increasing solid particle loading in the
injection water.
References and illustrations at end of paper

505
2 Formation Injectivity Damage due to Produced Water Reinjection
Laboratory core flood tests have been conducted in the
past to demonstrate that bacterial growth can cause
greater than 99% damage to core permeabilities within 2
to 4 weeks4. However, laboratory core flood test data is
not easily translated to field conditions due to the
difficulty in preparing synthetic brines that have all the
characteristics of field injection waters. Properties such
as total nutrient concentration, dissolved oxygen
concentration, oil concentration, temperature, and
residual well treating chemicals (e.g., corrosion inhibitor,
demulsifier, surfactant, etc.) can all affect bacterial
growth rates.
A series of on-site core flow tests was conducted at PB
Field using specially designed portable core flow rigs
and reservoir core plugs (1.5" OD and 3" in length) at
reservoir conditions.
The objective was to evaluate permeability damage
potential of suspended solids, oil droplets, and bacteria
entrained in the Prudhoe Bay (PB) produced water; the
effectiveness of biocide treatments in reducing
permeability damage rates was also evaluated.
EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
Test Equipment
Two portable core flow stations were set up at the
wellhead manifolds of produced water injection (PWI)
wells. A side stream of the produced water being
injected was allowed to flow through two reservoir core
plugs kept in high temperature, high pressure core
holders (Figure 1). Core permeability damage rates due
to filtered and raw (non-filtered) produced water
injection were measured and compared. The core
holders are equipped with two internal pressure taps
allowing identification of core permeability damage due
to face plugging versus in depth damage.
Two high pressure in-line filters (1 J.Ull and 0.22 /J.m)
were switched in and out of the flow stream to modify
produced water qualities. A high pressure metering
pump was used to inject additional biocide solution to
ensure a total kill of bacteria dUring the initial part of on-
site core flow tests.
To eliminate the poSSibility of shearing up oil droplets
and sOlid conglomerates, no metering valves or pressure
redUcing regulators were installed upstream of the test
core plug. The full injection line pressure (-2,400 psig)
was applied directly at the core face; an automatic
electrical back pressure regulator installed downstream
of the core plug was used to provide a constant
506
SPE 27395
differential pressure of approximately 20-50 psi across
the entire length of the test core plug.
On-Site Core Flow Test Procedures
Two different test procedures were followed. Core tests
were always conducted in parallel with two core flow
stations set up side by side sharing the same injection
water coming from the injection flow line. Test were
conducted at 165 OF and a pore pressure of 2,370 psi.
A. Conventional Test Procedure
In the conventional test procedure, the core plug was
vacuum saturated, flooded with 10-20 PV fine filtered
produced water in the injection direction, and brine
permeability measured. The core plug was subsequently
flooded with 100 ml (-5 PV) filtered PB dead crude oil in
the opposite (production) direction and effective oil
permeabilities were measured at residual water
saturation.
The oil containing core plug was then flooded in the
injection direction with several hundred pore volumes of
filtered (l J.Ull and 0.22J.Ull) produced water and effective
brine permeabilities were measured at residual oil
saturation. During this stage, an additional 300 ppm
glutaraldehyde solution was continuously injected in the
produced water stream to ensure a total kill of any
bacteria passing through the filters. This is designated
as the (FILTER ON / BIOCIDE ON) stage and represents
base line permeability.
Once a stable base line brine permeability was reached,
the in-line filters were removed and biocide injection
was kept on to evaluate the effect of unfiltered raw
produced water on core permeability damage. This is
designated as the (FILTER OFF / BIOCIDE ON) stage.
Core permeability normally declined rapidly due to
plugging by solids, oil droplets, organic debris, and dead
bacteria cells. When the core permeabilities had
declined to less than 30% of the original value, biocide
injection was terminated to evaluate the combined effect
of plugging and bacterial growth. This is designated as
the (FILTER OFF / BIOCIDE OFF) stage.
B. Modified Test Procedure
A modified test procedure was also employed to better
evaluate the impact of bacterial growth on core
permeability damage rates.
The core plug was saturated with brine and flooded with
dead crude oil as in the conventional method. However,
after the FILTER ON / BIOCIDE ON stage, biocide
injection was stopped but the filters were kept on for a
SPE27395 C.D. Hsi, D.S. Dudzik, R.H. Lane, J.W. Buettner, and R.D. Neira
short period to allow at least 100 rnl of filtered produced
water to flow through the core plug to displace any
residual biocide. After this FILTER ON / BIOCIDE OFF
stage, the in-line filters were removed; 3 to 5 PV (-60 rnI)
unfiltered raw produced water were flowed through the
core plug to introduce live bacteria. After this
inoculation period, filters were put back on preventing
plugging solids from reaching the core face and allowing
bacteria to grow in the core plug. This stage, designated
as FILTER ON / BIOCIDE OFF, usually lasted for at
least 1 to 2 days until significant permeability damage
was observed. At this stage, in-line filters were
removed, allowing further permeability damage by
solids, oil droplets, and bacteria. In a few selected tests,
a 5.3% sodium hypochlorite solution was injected at the
end of the test to determine the effectiveness of a strong
oxidizing agent in restoring damaged permeabilities.
Characterization of Produced Water Injected
To ensure that produced water qualities at the test sites
were representative of the average PB produced water,
water samples were collected frequently and analyzed
during the on-site core flow study. The analyses
include:
Oil-in-water content,
Suspended solid concentrations,
Particle size distritutions,
Sulfate reducing bacteria (SRB) counts,
General aerobic bacteria (GAB) counts,
Chemical compositions.
Chemical compositions and other parameters measured
at four test sites were within the typical range of
produced water compositions observed in the field.
ON-SITE CORE FLOW TEST RESULTS
A Results of Conventional Core Flow Tests
Eight core flow tests were conducted following the
conventional test procedures. A typical example is
plotted in Figure 2.
In general, when the in-line filters were removed from
the produced water injection line, a rapid decline in core
permeability was observed, as shown during the FILTER
OFF/BIOCIDE ON stage in Figure 2. The permeability
damage rate was generally very fast and all cores
showed more than 90% loss in effective water
permeability within 2 to 14 hours following 10 to 280 PV
of raw (unfiltered) produced water injection. This
suggests that the combined effect of suspended solids,
507
3
oil droplets, organic debris, and dead bacterial cells
causes severe plugging in cores.
No apparent change in core permeability damage rate
was observed after termination of the biocide injection
during the FILTER OFF/BIOCIDE OFF stage in Figure 2.
This suggests that either the effect of live bacterial
growth on core permeability damage rate was not
significant or the test time was too short to show any
significant changes. The latter is considered more likely
as demonstrated later by the results of the modified test
procedures.
Testing demonstrated that core permeability damage
due to raw (unfiltered) produced water injection is
generally limited to the core injection face. Figure 3
shows the effective water permeabilities of the entire
core plug (O-2.91t ), the first one inch from the injection
face (O-1 1t ), and the second portion of the core plug (11t_
2.9 1t ), plotted as the percentage of the original
permeability. Only the front end of the test core plug (0-
1It) suffered significant permeability damage. The
second portion of the test core plug was not damaged
following 140 PV of raw produced water injection over a
period 33 hours.
Limited data show that core permeability damage rates
do not seem to correlate directly with original core
permeability, oil-in water content, PW particle size
distribution, or suspended solid concentrations.
However, a strong correlation was found between the
permeability damage rate and the measured Barkman
and Davidson (1972)5 slopes ( a method for measuring
injection water quality based on membrance filtration
tests).
B. Results of Modified Core Flow Tests
Ten core flow tests were conducted following modified
test precedures. A typical example is plotted in Figure 4.
Following base line effective permeability measurement
and inoculation with live bacteria, the core was flooded
with many pore volumes of filtered produced water
containing no biocide (FILTER ON/BIOCIDE OFF
stage). Any permeability damage observed during this
stage was attributed to bacterial growth in the core plug.
The core permeability damage rate was slow initially
and became more rapid with time. As shown in Figure
4, the core permeability declined rapidly following 400
PV of filtered produced water injection. This trend is
commonly observed for core permeability plugging by
microbial activities.
4 Formation Injectivity Damage due to Produced Water Reinjection
The penneabilities of the second portion of the core plug
(l" -2.95" from the injection face) remained more or less
constant, suggesting most of the plugging occurred
within first one inch of the injection face.
At the end of the test, a 5.2% sodium hypochlorite
solution was injected into the core plug. As shown in
Figure 4, the core permeability increased initially,
suggesting that sodium hypochlorite solution was able
to dissolve part of the biomass generated by the bacteria.
No apparent correlation was found between observed
core permeability damage rates and the initial core
penneabilities.
During the course of the on-site core flood study, a
weekly high dosage formaldehyde slug treatment
program was evaluated in the EOA produced water
treating facility.
Six core flood tests were conducted prior to the startup
of fonnaldehyde slug field trials. Most of these tests
show significant permeability damage following
inoculation of live bacteria in the core (FILTER
ON/BIOCIDE OFF stage).
Four of the core flood tests were conducted after the
startup of formaldehyde injection tests. Similar damage
was not observed even after 3,000 to 5,000 PV of filtered
produced water injection over a period of 3 to 5 days.
This suggests that high dosage fonnaldehyde slug
treatments in the facility can temporarily inhibit bacterial
growth in the core for at least 3 to 5 days.
ENVIRONMENTAL SEM ANALYSIS OF CORE
PLUGS
At the end of each on-site core flood test, the core plug
was sealed in its original rubber sleeve and sent to the
laboratory for environmental scanning electron
microscope (ESEM) analysis. Unlike conventional
scanning electron microscopes, the ESEM can analyze
unprepared, wet samples. This is particularly useful for
analyzing bacterial samples in cores because of the
minimal disturbance and disruption to cell bodies and
biofilm (exopolysaccharides) produced by the bacteria6
Analysis results confinned that most of the biomass
occurs adjacent (less than 1 to 2 inches) to the injection
face.
WATER LEAK-QFF RATES FROM CORES
508
SPE27395
Penneability damage rates measured from on-site core
flood tests are caused by combined plugging effects of
solids, oil droplets, organic debris, and bacteria
entrained in the produced water. Particles which are too
big to enter pore throats will be filtered out at the
formation face and fonn an external filter cake. Smaller
particles can enter pore throats and form an internal
filter cake at pore restriction. Additionally, bacteria
growth may produce exopolysaccaride biofilm which
can trap particles that are otherwise too small to cause
plugging.
If core penneability damage is caused solely by internal
and external filter cake buildups without the interference
of bacterial growth or filter cake erosion, penneability
damage rates should be directly proportional to the
amount of fluid passing through the core plug. Core
permeabilities will become lower as more water is
allowed to flow through the core. A plot of the injection
water throughput versus the square root of time should
yield a straight line similar to those commonly observed
in the static fracturing fluid leak-off tests. However, if
the penneability damage is exasperated by additional
damage mechanisms (e.g., bacterial growth and biofilm
buildup in the core), cumulative fluid throughput will
become slower with time and the plotted curve will
deviate toward the time axis. On the other hand, if the
filter cakes are being eroded, the cumulative fluid
throughput curve will depart from the linear
relationship and deviate toward the fluid throughput
axis.
Fluid throughput data were plotted as a function of the
square root of time. Several data plots show linear
relationships in the initial portion of the data. This
suggests the observed permeability damage rate is
directly proportional to fluid throughput; this is
probably due to external and internal filter cake
buildups. However, when the biocide injection was
terminated, several data plots show a clear deviation
from the linear relationship (Figure 5). This suggests
that additional damage mechanisms are contributing to
total penneability damage. One possible explanation is
that microbial growth in cores generates biofilms and
accelerates the internal filter cake buildup rates.
EXTRAPOLATION OF TEST RESULTS TO FIELD
CONDmONS
It is desirable to extrapolate the on-site core flood test
results to predict injectivity decline rates in the field.
Numerous mathematical equations and models have
been proposed to predict the injectivity impairment by
SPE27395 C.D. Hsi, D.S. Dudzik, R.H. Lane, J.W. Buettner, and R.D. Neira 5
suspended solids. The most popular models include = g . exp(g) . Ei(g),
those by Barkman and Davidson (1972)5, Rege and
Fogler (1987)7, Todd et al. (1984)8, and Sharma and prw2 hl v
and g= (4)
Yortsos (1987)9. Unfortunately, some of the models qo
(e.g., Barkman and Davidson) require knowledge of
particle invasion depth and internal filter cake
permeability data which can not be easily measured. df = damage factor
Other models (e.g., Rege and Fogler) require extensive I = exponential integral
computation time and are beyond the scope of this jc = fractional cake porosity
study. ki = permeability of zone affected by
particle deposition
van Velzen and Leerlooijer's Model km = permeability of porous media,
m2
In this study, a semi-empirical model proposed by van
Iv = filter coefficient
Velzen and Leerlooijer (1992)10 was tested. According
qo = initial rate of injection, m 3IS
to the model, the time or injection volume (Va) that it
takes to reduce the water injectivity to a fraction a of the
Ei(g) = exponential integral of g
initial value can be expressed as
The damage factor (df) and filter coefficient (Iv) in
equations (3) and (4) can be estimated by matching
(l-a) 2prw 2 h jm In[relrw]
Va (1) permeability damage data measured from on-site, multi-
a CoNR port, linear core flood tests to equation (5), which is a
linear-flow analog to equation (1). All other variables in
where equations (1)-(5) can be measured or estimated.
a = fractional injectivity index
Co = Volume fraction of solids in
suspension at injection surface 1 Iv AL
h = height of injected zone, m (- -1)' L
a
= [1-exp( )]. V (5)
qo
jm = fractional porosity of porous
medium
NR = dimensionless number for rate where
of impairment
re = drainage radius, m L = core plug length, m
rw = wellbore radius, m cumulative injected volume, m 3
cumulative injected volume to
V =
Va = core plug area, m 2.
A =
reduce injectivity to a, m 3
p = pressure, Pa

Based on the results of on-site core flow test 2A, the

The dimensionless number for rate of impairment (NR) damage factor (df) and filter coefficient (Iv) values were
is further defined as the product of damage factor (df) estimated to be 30460 and 0.0034 sec- 1 respectively.
and exponential integral (l). Using these two parameters and by assuming that a
typical PB Zone 4 PWI injection well has an injection
height of 200 ft, injection rate of 10,000 bblslday,
df . 1 (2) plugging suspended particle concentration of 1 ppm,
wellbore radius of 8 inches, and drainage radius of 660
where ft, the model predicts that the injection well will lose
more than 90% of its injectivity in one day. This is much
km 1 more severe than what is normally observed in the field,
df = (ki - 1)' (l-jc) (3) thus suggesting that either the model is flawed or a
much larger surface area (e.g., a fracture or a thief zone)
than the wellbore exists in the PWI injection wells to take
the water.

509
6 Formation Injectivity Damage due to Produced Water Reinjection
Howard and Fast's Model
If fractures are indeed present around PB injection
wells, it is desirable to estimate their sizes. According to
Howard and Fast (1957)11, the area extent of a fracture
around an injection well can be calculated by the
following equation
SPE27395
and the viscosity controlled fluid loss coefficient of the
invaded zone (CO.
In this study, the cumulative water throughputs
measured during the on-site core flow tests after the in-
line filters were removed are plotted as a function of the
square root of time. The CTL is estimated from the slope
of the straight line portion of the leak-off curve. This is
accomplished by the substitution of the proper values
into the following equation:

QiW 2 2 M
A = 4 pC2 (eX . erfc (X) + - X - 1) (6) CTL = 0.0164 A (7)
{p
where
where CTL = overall fluid loss coefficient for
the laboratory, ftl...) min
2C {fit
X = W M = slope of the straight line portion
of the fluid loss versus ...} min
A = total area of one face of the
plot, ml/...}min
fracture at any time during
water injection.
Qi = the constant injection rate A = cross section areas of the core, c
during injection, ft3 I min m2
t = total pumping time, min
Based on the average fluid leak off data, the typical
W = constant fracture clearance, ft CTL value is estimated to be 0.05 ftl...} min .

C = fluid loss coefficient, which is a
measure of the resistance of the
fluid leaking off into formation
during water injection
erfc = error function.
The injected water will also compress reservoir fluid.
McDaniel et. al. (1981) defined the reservoir
compressibility controlled fluid loss coefficient Cn as:

Cn =
It is apparent that the fracture extension depends largely
on the fluid leak-off properties (C) of the rock. The fluid where
leak-off behavior around an injection well is similar to
that observed during the hydraulic fracturing process. = permeability of reservoir rock to
Suspended solids, oil droplets, and bacteria entrained in reservoir fluid, md
the injection water can all be filtered out at formation
face and form external and internal filter cakes. The
various fluid loss coefficients can be estimated using the
= Isothermal total reservoir
following procedures. compressibility, psi-1

DPT = Total differential pressure

According to McDaniel et al. (1981)12, the fluid leak-off
rates measured from linear core flow tests can be used to between injection water and
calculate the overall fluid loss coefficient, CTL , under reservoir pressure, psi
laboratory test conditions. This fluid loss coefficient,
CTL , represents the combined resistance to fluid leak-
The total reservoir fluid loss coefficient, CTF, which is a
off due to the wall building fluid loss coefficient (Cm)
measure of the total resistance to injection water, can be

510
SPE27395 CD. Hsi, D.S. Dudzik, RH. Lane, J.W. Buettner, and RD. Neira
calculated by combining CTL and Cn using the
following equation
CTL2
CTF = 2Cn (-1 + (9)
The fracture area extension was estimated by assuming
the typical PB Zone 4 injection well bottomhole injection
pressure of 6,000 psi, reservoir pressure of 3,800 psi,
injection zone height of 200 ft, reservoir permeability of
100 md, and reservoir compressibility of 10 x 10-6 psi-1.
The model predicts that in order for the injection well to
accommodate 10,000 bbls water per day under the
current permeability plugging rate the fracture will grow
to over 100 ft long after 30 days of injection.
This calculation is, of course, oversimplified and
probably overestimates the size of the fractures. The
model assumes that the fluid loss coefficients remain
constant and the leak-off rate will continue to decline as
more dirty water passes through the formation face. In
reality, there probably exists a finite equilibrium leak-off
rate where the filter cake thickness ceases to grow due to
filter cake erosion. The effects of water leak-off on
reservoir compressibility, permeability and in-situ stress
modifications were not considered. Nevertheless, the
model does show the possibility of the presence of
fractures or high permeability thief zones around the
injector wellbore which are controlling the water intakes.
Because of this, a slower injectivity decline rate than
those predicted by the on-site core flow test data is
observed; continued injection of produced water into the
reservoir is possible through further extension of the
fractures. The impacts of dirty water injection on
injection profile deterioration, waterflood sweeping
efficiency, and the rate of fracture propagation and
possibility of fracture propagating out of the zones are
important, but beyond the scope of this study.
CONCLUSIONS
1. PB produced water contains a significant
amount of suspended solids, oil droplets,
organic debris, and bacteria tha t can all
contribute to the plugging of formation
permeability and reduce water injectivity.
2. Injectivity losses in produced water injectors at
Prudhoe Bay, when observed at all, occur over
periods of weeks to months, inconsistent with
511
7
results of the core flood study. Field
observations are consistent with growing
thermal fractures that dominate injectivity.
3. It is generally difficult to quantify the
contribution of different damage mechanisms to
the total water injectivity loss since all these
damage mechanisms are intermingled.
4. As compared to other damage mechanisms,
permeability damage due to bacterial growth in
a core seems to be slower initially. However,
significant permeability damage can still occur
within 1 to 3 days if microbial activities in the
core are not inhibited.
5. Based on multi-port core flow test results, core
permeability damage is normally limited to less
than one inch from the injection face following
several thousand pore volumes (PV) of
untreated produced water injection over a
period of 3 to 7 days.
6. High dosage biocide injection can temporarily
inhibit microbial activities within a core plug but
does not restore lost core permeabilities.
7. Strong oxidizers such as sodium hypochlorite
solution can dissolve damaging and temporarily
restore core permeabilities.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to thank BP Exploration(Alaska) Inc.
and Arco Alaska Inc., and Prudhoe Bay Unit Water
Issues Team for their support and permission to publish
this paper. The techniques and/or conclusions are
those of the authors and may not be shared by other
Prudhoe Bay Unit working interest owners.
REFERENCES
1. Hsi, C. D., Strassner, J. E., Tucker, H.E., and
Townsend, M.A.: "Prudhoe Bay Field, Alaska,
Waterflood Injection Water Quality and
Remedial Treatment Study," SPE paper 20689
presented in the 65th SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition in New Orleans, La.,
September, 1990.
2. Cusack, F, Lappin-Scott, H. M., and Costerton, J.
W.: "Bacteria can Plug Waterflood Injection
8 Formation Injectivity Damage due to Produced Water Reinjection
Wells," Oil and Gas Journal, November, 1987, p.
59-64.
3. Geesey, G.G., Mittelman, M. W., and Lieu, V. T.:
"Evaluation of Slime-Producing Bacteria in Oil
Field Core Flood Experiments," Applied and
Environmental Microbiology, Feb. 1987, p. 278-
283.
4. Shaw, J. c., Bramhill, B., Wardlaw, N. c., and
Costerton, J. W.: "Bacterial Fouling in a Model
Core System," Applied and Environmental
Microbiology, March 1985, p. 693-701.
5. Barkman, J. H. and Davidson, D. H.:"Measuring
Water Quality and Predicting Well ImpailWlent,"
JPT (July 1972) 865-873.
SPE 27395
8. Todd, A. c., Somerville, J. E. and Scott, H.: "The
Application of Depth of Formation Damage
Measurements in Predicting Water
InjectivityDecline," paper SPE 12498 presented
at the Formation Damage Control Symposium,
Bakersfield, CA, Feb. 13-14,1989.
9. Sharma, M.M. and Yortsos, Y. C.:"Transport of
Particulate Suspensions in Porous Media:Model
Formulation," AICHHE J. (1987) 33, No. 10.
10. van Velzen J.F.G. and K. Leerlooijier:
"Impairment of a Water Injection Well by
Suspended Solids: Testing and Prediction,"
paper SPE 23822 presented at the Formation
Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, LA.,
Feb. 26-27, 1992.

6. Wagner, P. A., Little, B. J., and Ray, R. I.:
"Investigations of Microbiologically Influenced
Corrosion Using Environmental Scanning
Electron Microscopy," NACE Corrosion92
Annual Conference and Corrosion Show Paper
No. 185, 1992.
7. Rege, S. D. and Fogler, H. S.:"Network Model for
Straining Dominated Particle Entrapment in
Porous Media," Chern. Eng. Sci. (1987) $2, No.7.
11. Howard, G. E. and Fast C. R.: "Hydraulic
Fracturing", Monograph Series, Society of
Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas (1970) 2.
12. McDaniel, R. D., Deysarkar, A. K., and Callanan,
M. J.:"An Improved Method for Measuring Fluid
Loss at Simulated Fracture Conditions," SPE
paper 10259, presented at the SPE 56th Annual
Conference, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 5-7,1981.
T-165F
Bel
Vallie P-2400psi

Produced Water
Injection Une

In-Line

Mixer

Vallie

Biocide
Injection
Pump

w FLlERS Back Pressure

Regulator

To
Back Pressure Waste
Regular Sump

Fraction

Collector

Core Holder &

FIGURE 1. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THE PORTABLE CORE FLOW STATION

512
SPE27395 C.D. Hsi, D.S. Dudzik, RH. Lane, }.W. Buettner, and RD. Neira 9

TEST 2A, PB ZONE 4 CORE (R-01, 9067.55', 81 md) Y-18 WELL

14

-
'a 12
FILTER ON
BIOCIDE ON
FILTER OFF
BIOCIDE ON
FILTER OFF
BIOCIDE OFF
-
>
E

t-
10
8
-
::::i
m
C 6
w
:IE 4
a:
w
Do 2
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
PORE VOLUMES INJECTED

FIGURE 2. TYPICAL RESULT FOR CONVENTIONAL CORE FLOW TESTS

TEST 2A, PB ZONE 4 CORE (R-01, 9067.55', 81 MD) Y-18 WELL

> 180 ?"""-----------------"""T""-------,---------...,

t- FILTER ON FILTER OFF , " FILTER OFF
::::i 160
iii BIOCIDE ON BIOCIDE ON : BIOCIDE OFF
C 140 I
w
:IE 120
a:
w
...
Do
C
100

Z 80
C;
ii: 60 Total
o Core
40
u.
o
'#.

o 50 100 150 200 250 300

PORE VOLUMES INJECTED

FIGURE 3. PERMEABILITY DAMAGE DEPTH IN THE CORE

513
10 Formation Injectivity Damage due to Produced Water Reinjection SPE27395

TEST 3A, BP ZONE 4 CORE (R-Q1,9149.6', 203 md) Y·18 Well

14
FILTER 0" FILTER ON

-....
'a
E
12 BIOCIDE oN ,,
,,
BIOCIDE OFF

10
,,
,,
Clorox Injection
>-
I- 8
-I
III
4( 6 ""
w
::E "
a: 4 ""
w FILTER ~ "~ FILTER OFF
a.
2 BIOCIDE OFF:: BIOCIDE OFF
,, "
""
0
,
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
PORE VOLUMES INJECTED

FIGURE 4. TYPICAL RESULT FOR MODIFIED CORE FLOW TESTS

CUMULATIVE FLUID LOSS CURVE FROM CORE TEST 2A

5000
E
4500
u)
en 4000
0
-I

e
3500
Filter Off ...... --
.. .- ."
::::» 3000 • • • •• - •• 11 •• ••
-I
II. 2500 BIocide Off .. ---
--- II .
,I. II.'..••
II • - - ••••••• •••• r-'I_
••_. --,
w
> 2000
.,_- :." • • 11l!!!.!.: •

" .. : ....
• __ ;:;-••l.' R-01, 9067.55'
i= 1500
4( :I......... - Zone 4 Core
\ ..... ~
-I
::::» 1000 81 md
::E rI"
::::» 500
0 . .....
...-:
~- Y-18 Well

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time, (mln}**O.5

FIGURE 5. RESPONSE AFTER TERMINATION OF BIOCIDE INJECTION

514