3 - Downhole Potential Problems & Corresponding Cures (Synthesis)

3
Downhole potential problems

& corresponding cures
(synthesis)
© 2009 - IFP Training
3 - Downhole potential problems & corresponding cures (synthesis) 1
& corresponding cures SUMMARY
– PROBLEMS ARE DUE TO INTERACTIONS
BETWEEN...
– POTENTIAL ROOTS OF PROBLEMS
– MAIN CONSEQUENCES
– DIAGNOSTIC "TOOLS"
– DAMAGE EFFECT ON PRODUCTIVITY INDEX
– MAIN CURES

de
k sli
an
Bl
de
k sli
an
Bl

BETWEEN...
– MAIN CURES
PROBLEMS ARE DUE TO INTERACTIONS
BETWEEN...
– THE ROCKS ITSELF AND ITS COMPONENTS:
• Carbonate + clay, ...
• Sandstone + sand and silt, clay, carbonate, ...
– THE FLUIDS INITIALLY PRESENT IN THE RESERVOIR:
• Water
• Oil
• Gas
– THE FLUIDS AND SOLIDS FORCED INTO THE
RESERVOIR:
• Drilling mud, completion or workover fluid
• Cement slurry
• Treatment fluids
• Injected water for water flood

– FLOW RATE:
• In the reservoir
• In the well
BETWEEN...
– MAIN CURES
POTENTIAL ROOTS OF PROBLEMS (1/5)
A) EXISTING ORIGINALLY
• Low absolute permeability
• Poor consolidation (sandstone)
• Mineralogy: clay, impurities
• Fluid nature: viscosity, paraffin, asphaltene
• Fluids contact
• Etc.

Potential roots of problems (2/5)
B) DURING DRILLING OPERATIONS
• Mud filtrate (water or oil)
• Solids in drilling mud
• Losses
• Lost circulation material
• Solids coming from the rock itself (during drilling, coring)
• Overpressure:
– static
– dynamic (when circulation, when tripping)
• Cement slurry
• Dope (grease), rust, ...

• Etc.
C) DURING WELL-COMPLETION OR WORKOVER
• Cement remedial job
• Cement squeeze
• Completion or workover fluid
• Perforation
• "Temporary" plugging agents, diverting agents
• Secondary reactions with treatment fluids
• Sand control
• Dope (grease), rust, ...
• Etc.

D) DURING PRODUCTION (1/2)
– PRODUCTION WELL:
• Fine migration
• Flow rate
• Increase of the WOR
• Producing below bubble point
• Reservoir pressure decrease
• Deposits (carbonate, salt, paraffin, asphaltene, ...)
• Corrosion
• Fluid contact change

• Equipment damage or failure
• Etc.
D) During production (2/2)
– INJECTION WELL:
• Solid content of the injected water
• Water incompatibility
• Bacteria
• Corrosion
• Pump or compressor lubricant
• Etc.

BETWEEN...
– MAIN CURES
MAIN CONSEQUENCES (1/8)
A) MAIN CONSEQUENCES
– DECREASE OF PRODUCTIVITY INDEX or FLOW
EFFICIENCY:
• Absolute permeability decrease: ………………………… A
• Relative permeability decrease: ………………………….. B
• Fluid viscosity Increase: …………………………………… C
• Partial penetration effect and/or pressure losses due to
perforations themselves: ….………………………………. D
– INCREASE OF PBH:
• PH tbg increase: …………………………………………….… E
• ∆Ptbg increase: ………………………………………….…… F
– PRODUCTION OF NON DESIRABLE FLUIDS ….. G

– OTHERS ….…………............................................................ H
Note: refer to the following tables for more details
Main consequences (2/8)
B) CONSEQUENCES DUE TO … (1/6)
– "SOLIDS" INVASION:
⇒ pore obstruction ……………………………………………… ⇒A
– WATER INVASION (out of "injection well"):
"Fresh water": ⇒ clay swelling and/or dispersion ……….
⇒ Intergranular cement dissolution
so loosening of particles ……………… ⇒ A
⇒salinity shock ⇒ loosening of particles ………………….
⇒ precipitate deposition ……………………………………….
⇒ water saturation increase …………………………………… ⇒B
⇒ emulsion, foam ……….………………………………………. ⇒C
Note: Quantity depending on drilling parameters
B) Consequences due to … (2/6)
– PERFORATION:
• Perforation:
. non solid-free mud
. overpressure ⇒ solid and/or fluid invasion ⇒ A +B + C
⇒ Sp ……………………………………..………………… ⇒B
⇒ Spp ………………………………………………………. ⇒C

Note: Importance of having a good cement bond (good seal)
– ACIDIZING JOB:
• Acid:
. attack of intergranular cement ⇒ loosening of particles .. ⇒ A
. if opening of a communication with an undesirable zone ⇒ G
• Spent acid: ⇒ secondary reactions ………..…………. ⇒ A + C
⇒ water ……………………...……………. ⇒ A + B + C
• Surfactants: ⇒ clay dispersion ………………………….. ⇒ A
⇒ inversion of wettability,
increase of superficial tensions …….… ⇒ B
⇒ emulsion ……….……………….………... ⇒ C
• Reversal of flow direction ⇒ loosening of particles …. ⇒ A
– FRACTURING JOB:
• Filtration ⇒ water ………………………………………. ⇒A+B+C
• If opening of a communication with an undesirable zone ... ⇒ G
– SAND CONTROL:
• Sand control method, sizing ………………………………….
• Implementation, cleanliness (carrying fluid, equipment, …) …….... ⇒ A

• Rate to increase the production (when starting up the well) …..
– PRODUCTION:
• Flowrate and its changes ⇒ wrenching force
so loosening of particles …………………… ⇒ A
• Passing below bubble point: ⇒ Sg ↑ and So ↓ ………….. ⇒ B
⇒ deposits … ⇒A+C+F
⇒ water vaporization ⇒ deposits ……………. .. ⇒ A + F
• Decrease of reservoir pressure:
⇒ passing the bubble pressure
in the formation ………………..……… ⇒ A + B +C + F
⇒ increased forces on intergranular links
so loosening of particles …………………….. ⇒ A
• Sand production:
a) if no filter ⇒ bottom hole fill-up ……………………….. ⇒D
⇒ abrasion, deposit in surface equipment ⇒ H
b) if filter ⇒ filter plugging ……………………………….... ⇒ A + D

• Water influx ⇒ intergranular cement dissolving
so . loosening of particles ……………….. ⇒ A
. filter plugging ………………………… ⇒ A + D
Note: Due to the temperature decrease, increase of the risk of deposits in the tubing
– INJECTION (water):
• Water and "solids" invasion
+ reversal of flow direction (see previously) ……..… ⇒ A + B + C
• Temperature decrease ⇒ precipitate, emulsion or foam ⇒A+C
• Lubricants ⇒ emulsion or foam …………………………... ⇒ C

C) TO CONCLUDE
– To avoid or limit bad effects, NECESSITY OF:
• Knowing the initial characteristics
• Applying an extreme care for all the operations done on the
well and this as early as drilling step
• Being very attentive to cleanliness and quality of:
– fluids, additives
– equipment to do the job
de
k sli
an
Bl

BETWEEN...
– MAIN CURES
DIAGNOSTIC "TOOLS" (1/2)
Before trying to treat a problem it is
fundamental to know its causes
– ROCK KNOWLEDGE:
• Petrophysic characteristics
• Mineralogic characteristics
• Sensibility to different fluids
– FLUIDS KNOWLEDGE:
• PVT study (bulle pressure, etc.)
• Other laboratory studies (emulsion, deposits, etc.)
– WELL TESTING:
• Reservoir fluids samples

• Natural permeability, skin factor
• Initial reservoir pressure & its change
Diagnostic "tools" (2/2)
– WELL HISTORY:
• Drilling, completion
• Treatment already done
• Production conditions
• Workover (if any)
– OTHER TOOLS:
• Production loging
• Laboratory studies wity the treatment fluids anticipated
In practice these tools are to be used before
having the problem to be able to take preventive
measures

de
k sli
an
Bl

BETWEEN...
– MAIN CURES
DAMAGE EFFECT ON PRODUCTIVITY INDEX (1/2)
Borehole diameter: 8 " 1/2
Drainage radius: 500 m (≈≈ 1700 ft)
Tn : Thickness of "plugged" zone
from the borehole (8"1/2 drilling)
ko : Natural permeability of the
formation
kp : Permeability of "plugged"
zone
PIo : Theoretical productivity
index (without "plugged" zone)
PI : Actual productivity index
(taking into account "plugged" zone)

Damage effect on productivity index (2/2)
• A damage permeability equal to .1
of the original permeability on a 10
cm depth around the well leads to
a productivity equal to 50% of the
theoretical productivity (productivity
with no damage)
• Restoring the permeability of this
0,5 damage zone (kp/ko =0.1 ; Tn = 10 cm)
to the original permeability,
brings back the productivity to the
theoretical productivity, that is it
doubles the value
• From the original permeability,
improving the permeability around
the well up to 20% over the
original permeability brings very

little supplementary improvement
de
k sli
an
Bl

BETWEEN...
– MAIN CURES
MAIN CURES (1/3)
RECOMMANDED
PROBLEM TREATMENT
Damage due to: Matrix treatment:
• mud pluging or • acid treatment
clay swelling and dispersion
• mineral deposits • appropriate solvents
(if they exist)
• sludges, asphaltenes or • aromatic solvant
paraffin
• inversion of wettability • mutual solvent or surfactants
Low permeability Deep treatment:
• hydraulic frac

Main cures (2/3)
RECOMMANDED
PROBLEM TREATMENT
Sand Sand control
Very high viscosity Thermal methods:
• steam
• …
Others treatments:
• acid washing
• reperforating
• back surging
• …

Main cures (3/3)
– KEEP IN MIND:
• Operations on a well = potential source of damaging
productivity
• Remedial sometime difficult, not always possible,
always expansive
⇒ Always prefer prevention :
• Drilling, completion & production stage
• Preparation, implementation, later follow-up
• A simple negligence in this chain can compromise the result

Note: Refer to the exercise "Formation damage causes" here after for
illustration **
Exercise (1/2)
Formation damage causes &
selection of the appropriate treatment
A vertical exploration well uses for all its needs the filtrated water coming from a nearby
and shallow well drilled for that purpose. After cementing the 9"5/8 casing at the top of the
objective, it has been drilled in 8"1/2 with a bentonitic mud. The mud specific gravity was
1.15 (corresponding to a density of 1.15 kg/l [9.597 lb/gal or 71.79 lb/cu.ft]), it had a rather high filtrate
and contained a cationic surfactant.
This objective shows itself to be a continuous sandstone reservoir, well consolidated, with
roughly 5 % of shale, a few traces of calcite and 3 % of siderite. Its natural matrix
permeability is 200 mD and its thickness is 20 m [65 ft].
This reservoir contains an asphaltic oil with a 31°API density, quite undersaturated and with
a rather low viscosity. The bottom of the reservoir is at 2000 m [6562 ft] and no fluid
interface was encountered. At this reference depth, the pressure is 180.4 bar [2616 psi] and
the temperature is a normal one at this depth.
Drilling went on to look for another possible oil reservoir. Several small deepenings and
well testings have been done without any result.
Finally the well was stopped at 2100 m [6890 ft], logged, cased to the bottom with a 7"
casing, well cemented and the reservoir zone was perforated on all its height at 4 SPF (≅≅ 13
shots/m) with a 5" gun using electrical cable. Then, after a circulation of a clean brine, the
zone has been completely tested. This test has shown a very high total skin effect, S.
Exercise (2/2)
Questions:
– According to these data, what preliminary remark can be made concerning this total
skin S ? Is there an actual formation plugging?
– What are the unquestionable causes of formation damage?
– What are the possible causes of formation damage?
– What is your opinion about the advisability to undertake one or some of the following
treatments?
a) Perforate again all the reservoir with charges providing bigger entry hole diameter but smaller
penetration contrary to what was done
b) Perform an inside gravel pack
c) Perform an hydraulic fracturation with a relatively great extension
d) Perform a matrix treatment with concentrated HCl
– What would you precisely propose? Why?
– For the second well to be drilled on the structure, first appraisal well, what would you
propose as far as drilling/completion programme is concerned?

Answer (1/8)
1. Preliminary remark concerning the total skin
– Here, the total skin is due to the damage skin as:
• the well is vertical (no inclination skin),
• the pay zone has been perforated on all its height (no partial penetration skin) with a big gun, so with
a good penetration and a sufficient density of shot (very low or even negative perforation skin).
• We deduce from that that the formation damage is very high.
Answer (2/8)
2. Unquestionable causes of formation damage
– Too big overpressure on the formation, due to the mud:
PH – PR = (2000 x 1.15 / 10.2) - 180.4 = 45 bar
[PH – PR = (0.433 x 1.15 x 6562) – 2616 = 652 psi].
– A certain time used to try to find an other reservoir without having protected the one
already found. Despite the fact there is no specific information about that in the wording of
the exercise, we can easily imagine that the corresponding duration has been at least in the
range of 10 to 15 days (several deepenings and well testings). Although the filtration law is only
function of the square root of the time, the time factor is not negligible at all.
– Perforations have been implemented with overpressure and in the mud which is at the
same time too heavy and loaded with bentonite. This will cause a filling of the perforation
tunnel with dehydrated clay, in addition to the other effects linked to this perforation
technique, mainly the presence of a crushed and compacted zone all around the perforation
hole.
– Presence of a cationic surfactant in the mud. This has several very bad effects in
sandstones :
• it assists oil wettability of the clay and it increases in a notable way the size of their particles and so
the gravity of the blocking;
• it decreases the relative permeability to the oil, by keeping it preferentially at the rock surface (this
phenomenon can be very important by itself);

• it assists a membrane effect between oil and water, which resistance is greatly increased by the
presence of asphaltenes.
Answer (3/8)
3. Possible causes of formation damage
– Sensitivity of the reservoir clays to the chemical composition of the water with is used; we
have no information about that apart the fact that the water comes from a nearby well and is
filtrated.
– The incidence of the rather high filtrate. This, associated to the excessive overpressure
exerted by the mud on the formation during quite a long time, had two consequences:
• it increases the water saturation all around the wellbore, which can assist to creating a waterblock
(worsened by the oil wettability);
• a great radial penetration of the filtrate, allowing to contact more clays and provoquing their swelling
(this last point is not known at the present state).
– Subject to a laboratory check (which is possible as oil has been recovered during the well testing),
possibility of a tendency to emulsion of the type water in oil, assisted by the presence of a
cationic surfactant and a high water filtrate.
Answer (4/8)
4. Analysis of the four treatments suggested to solve the problem
Perforate again all the reservoir with charges providing bigger entry holes
To reperforate, provided that it is done underbalance, is in itself a favourable point.
However, big holes are not at all adapted to the present case (consolidated sandstone, relatively
deep damage) and have no chance to participate to the resorption of the damage to which we
are confronted. So we won’t select this idea.
Perform an inside gravel pack
This suggestion is totally inadequate to the problem. In no way, it is a problem connected to
sand production. On the contrary, the reservoir is well consolidated. So this solution has to
be rejected.
Perform an hydraulic fracturation with a relatively great extension
A priori, the reservoir permeability (200 mD) does not correspond to an application case of
hydraulic fracturing and even less of a fracturation with a relatively great extension.
Moreover, the cost of such a job is high and is not in favour to select it. Only a mini-frac
could be considered, at a last resort, if more classical and less onerous means do not
succeed to solve the problem. So the answer is no.
Perform a matrix treatment with concentrated HCl
The hydrochloric acid, in a sandstone, can dissolve only carbonates and here there are only

3 % (siderite). A treatment with HCl only, even highly concentrated, will provide only very
little as for the matrix and nothing at all as for the damage. Moreover, it could have a very
bad effect as it may precipitate the asphaltenes. So we won’t select this idea.
Answer (5/8)
5. Approach of a suitable solution (1/3)
– The analysis of the damage has shown the combined actions of a plugging of the pores and
the perforations by:
• solid particles which have been brought there (bentonite),
• shaly particles already present in the rock (action of the wettability to the oil which has increased
their size).
– So it comes to one’s mind to act on these two main causes. An acidizing to eliminate the
shale and a restoration of the wettability of the rock to water has to be considered.
– From the reservoir and fluids characteristics, two particular points emerge and must be
taken into account for the treatment design: asphaltic oil and notable presence of iron (3 %
of siderite). Furthermore the quality of the cementing, the absence of fluid contact in the
reservoir (no risk) and the number of perforations (260) will allow the use of ball sealers to
spread the treatment.
– Proposed treatment:
matrix treatment: mud acid acidizing
Answer (6/8)
– Treatment (1/2):
• Preflush made up of solvent as xylene (practically no calcite but very harmfull presence of
asphaltenes which has to be dispersed).
• Regular mud acid (12 % HCl - 3 % HF) or a little less concentrated; we can also imagine an organic
mud acid.
• Overflush with HCl (5 %) and mutual solvent (EGMBE = EthyleneGlycolMono-ButylEther) in
appreciable quantity after advice of the laboratory.
• Total volume of about 20 to 25 m3 (1 to 1.25 m3/m) [5200 to 6500 gal (80 to 100 gal/ft)] taking into
account the greatness of the damage and the absence of risk for the well. The main part will be for
the mud acid, let say 75%, the remaining volume being allocated among the preflush and the
overflush.
• Displacement with a light fluid (gas oil) to facilitate the clean-out.
• Advisable additives:
– corrosion inhibitor,
– iron sequestering agent,
– 7/8" ball sealers,
– anti-emulsion, depending on laboratory advice,
– EGMBE (mutual solvent).

Answer (7/8)
– Treatment (2/2):
• Specific points:
– To favour a good spreading of the treatment, we can envisage to carry it out in two or three
successive stages of smaller volume, separated by the injection of a package of balls (for
example 80 to 90 balls for three stages, each of 8 m3 [2200 gal]).
– A priori, plan a help for the cleaning out as it won’t be possible by itself for the three following
reasons:
• oil quite heavy: 31°API corresponds to a specific gravity equal to:
SG = 141.5 / (°API + 131.5) = 141.5 / (31 + 131.5) = 0.871
• quite undersaturated oil, so containing a small quantity of gas
• sub hydrostatic reservoir; the specific gravity corresponding to reservoir pressure is:
SG = 180.4 x 10.2 / 2000 = 0.92
[SG = 2616 / (0.433 x 6562) = 0.92]
The absence of this precaution will lead to a replugging of the reservoir due to irreversible
precipitates resulting from secondary reactions of the mud acid.
– A long clean-up will be perhaps necessary as the resorption of the increasing of the water
saturation around the wellbore (high filtrate, overpressure, duration) will likely be quite long, all
the more the reservoir pressure is not very high.
– A well testing, of course, will have to be done to evaluate the result of the treatment.

Answer (8/8)
6. Propositions / modifications for the second well
– Coring on all the height of the reservoir (not done on the first well):
• This will allow different necessary studies which are lacking: sensitivity of the rock to the diverse
fluids, consolidation / hardness of the rock, solubility to acids, … essential at least for formation
treatment.
– Reduction of the specific gravity and filtrate of the fluid to drill the pay-zone:
• An overpressure of a 10 to 15 bar magnitude [145 to 220 psi] gives a specific gravity from 0.97 to
1.00. If the laboratory tests show that the formation is quite sensitive to water, we can think to an oil
based mud for the next wells. This aspect of things is to be seen depending on the presence of a
casing previously set and cemented at the top of the reservoir.
– Elimination of the cationic surfactant taking into account the various negative effects on the
reservoir and the difficulty to resorb them.
– Casing and cementing of the reservoir as soon as it has been drilled in order to eliminate,
as far as it is possible, the time factor on the damage.
– Perforating to be done underbalanced and in a clean fluid, free of solid.


3 - Downhole Potential Problems & Corresponding Cures (Synthesis)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 - Downhole Potential Problems & Corresponding Cures (Synthesis)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3

Downhole potential problems

© 2009 - IFP Training

© 2009 - IFP Training

© 2009 - IFP Training

© 2009 - IFP Training

© 2009 - IFP Training

© 2009 - IFP Training

© 2009 - IFP Training

© 2009 - IFP Training

© 2009 - IFP Training

© 2009 - IFP Training

© 2009 - IFP Training

© 2009 - IFP Training

© 2009 - IFP Training

© 2009 - IFP Training

© 2009 - IFP Training

© 2009 - IFP Training

© 2009 - IFP Training

© 2009 - IFP Training

© 2009 - IFP Training

© 2009 - IFP Training

© 2009 - IFP Training

© 2009 - IFP Training

© 2009 - IFP Training

© 2009 - IFP Training

© 2009 - IFP Training

© 2009 - IFP Training

© 2009 - IFP Training

© 2009 - IFP Training

© 2009 - IFP Training

You might also like