FORMATION DAMAGE & THE COMPONENTS OF

SKIN

EPL 400: PETROLEUM PRODUCTION

ENGINEERING II

Engr. (Dr.) Sunday S. Ikiensikimama

Professor of Petroleum and Gas Engineering

Adjunct Professor: Department of Gas and Petroleum

Engineering
Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya

1
REFERENCES

 Clegg, J. D.: “Production Operations Engineering,” Petroleum

Engineering Handbook, Vol. IV, SPE, 2007.
 Economides, M. J., Hill, A. D., and Ehlig-Economides, C.:
“Petroleum Production Systems,” Prentice Hall, PTR, 1994.
 Bellarby, J.: “Well Completion Design,” 1st Ed., Elsevier B.V.,
2009.
 James A. Craig “Lecture Slides”
 Petrowiki.org/Formation damage

2
OUTLINES
 Overview
 Damage Mechanisms
 Quantifying formation damage
 Skin Effects
 Concept of skin
 Positive Skin
 Negative Skin
 Effective Wellbore Radius
 Skin Factor
 Flow Efficiency
 Skin Components
 Skin due to deviation

3
OVERVIEW
 Formation damage refers to the decrease in permeability
that can occur in the near wellbore region of a reservoir.
 In a different context, formation damage is defined as the
impairment to reservoir (reduced production) caused by
wellbore fluids used during drilling/completion and
workover operations.
 It is a zone of reduced permeability within the vicinity of
the wellbore (skin) as a result of foreign-fluid invasion into
the reservoir rock.
 This represents a positive skin effect.

4
OVERVIEW
 Typically, any unintended impedance to the flow of fluids into
or out of a wellbore is referred to as formation damage.
 This broad definition includes flow restrictions caused by a
reduction in permeability in the near-wellbore region,
changes in relative permeability to the hydrocarbon phase,
and unintended flow restrictions in the completion itself.
 Flow restrictions in the tubing or those imposed by the well
partially penetrating a reservoir or other aspects of the
completion geometry are not included in this definition
because, although they may impede flow, they either have
been put in place by design to serve a specific purpose or do
not show up in typical measures of formation damage such
as skin.
5
OVERVIEW

 Understanding and preventing Formation Damage should

be the responsibility of every Oilfield professional because
it is the main reason many Oil and Gas wells produce at
rates that fall far-short of their theoretical capabilities.
(Sub-optimal Oil production)
 This phenomenon also impairs injection and disposal
wells, thereby limiting the efficiency of pressure
maintenance schemes and increasing operating costs.

6
OVERVIEW
Table 1: Effects of formation damage at a glance

Swelling of clays The swelling of clays reduces permeability

Mud filtrates and formation fluids Formation of emulsions which reduces

permeability

Invasion Drill solids invade into the formation matrix

thereby causing skin effect and reducing
porosity.

Well performance(reduction) Reduction in flow efficiency in the near well

bore formation during the various phase of oil
and gas production

7
CAUSES OF DAMAGE

8
DAMAGE MECHANISMS
 Solids plugging: This is the plugging of the reservoir-rock
pore spaces caused by the fine solids in the mud filtrate or
solids dislodged by the filtrate within the rock matrix. To
minimize this form of damage, minimize the amount of
fine solids in the mud system and fluid loss.

9
DAMAGE MECHANISMS
 Clay-particle swelling or dispersion: This is an inherent problem
in sandstone that contains water-sensitive clays. When a fresh-
water filtrate invades the reservoir rock, it will cause the clay to
swell and thus reduce or totally block the throat areas.
 Saturation changes: Production is predicated on the amount of
saturation within the reservoir rock. When a mud-system filtrate
enters the reservoir, it will cause some change in water
saturation and, therefore, potential reduction in production.
 Emulsion blockage: Inherent in an oil-based system is the use
of excess surfactants. These surfactants enter the rock and
can form an emulsion within the pore spaces, which hinders
production through emulsion blockage.

10
DAMAGE MECHANISMS
 Wettability reversal: Reservoir rocks are water-wet in
nature. It has been demonstrated that while drilling with
oil-based mud systems, excess surfactants in the mud
filtrate that enter the rock can cause wettability reversal.
It has been reported from field experience and
demonstrated in laboratory tests that as much as 90% in
production loss can be caused by this mechanism.
Therefore, to guard against this problem, the amount of
excess surfactants used in oil-based mud systems should
be kept at a minimum.

11
DAMAGE MECHANISMS
 Aqueous-filtrate blockage: While drilling with water-based
mud, the aqueous filtrate that enters the reservoir can
cause some blockage that will reduce the production
potential of the reservoir.
 Mutual precipitation of soluble salts in wellbore-fluid
filtrate and formation water: Any precipitation of soluble
salts, whether from the use of salt mud systems or from
formation water or both, can cause solids blockage and
hinder production.
 Fines migration: Buildup of fine particles, particularly in
sandstone reservoirs, can significantly reduce well
productivity.
12
DAMAGE MECHANISMS

 Deposition of paraffins or asphaltenes: Paraffins and

asphaltenes can deposit both in tubing and in the pores
of the reservoir rock, significantly limiting well
productivity.
 Condensate banking: A buildup of condensate around
the wellbore can impede gas flow by reducing
permeability.
 Other causes: These can include bacterial plugging and
gas breakout.

13
QUANTIFYING FORMATION DAMAGE
 A commonly used measure of well productivity is the
productivity index, J, in barrels per pounds per square inch:
qo kh
J  
p R  p wf   re   ………………….(1)
141 . 2 B o   ln    s 
  rw  

 The most commonly used measure of formation damage in

a well is the skin factor, S. The skin factor is a
dimensionless pressure drop caused by a flow restriction in
the near-wellbore region. It is defined as follows (in field
units):  kh 
S     p skin ………………(2)
141 .2 q  B
 
14
QUANTIFYING FORMATION DAMAGE
 The figure below shows how flow restrictions in the near-
wellbore region can increase the pressure gradient,
resulting in an additional pressure drop caused by
formation damage (Δpskin).

15
QUANTIFYING FORMATION DAMAGE
 In 1970, Standing introduced the important concept of well
flow efficiency, F, which he defined as:


actual drawdown
PR  Pwf  p skin ………………..(3)
F 

PR  Pwf ideal drawdown

Clearly, a flow efficiency of 1 indicates an undamaged well with

Δpskin = 0, a flow efficiency > 1 indicates a stimulated well
(perhaps because of a hydraulic fracture), and a flow efficiency
< 1 indicates a damaged well.
Note: to determine flow efficiency, we must know the average
reservoir pressure,, and skin factor, S.
16
SKIN EFFECTS

17
 CONCEPT OF SKIN

 Skin has no physical dimension.

 It is analogous to the film coefficient in heat transfer.

 Skin can be zero (no effect), positive or negative.

18
POSITIVE SKIN
 A restriction to flow.
 A distortion of the flow lines from the perfectly normal
to the well direction.
 May result from:
 Partial completion (perforation height less than
formation thickness)
 Inadequate number of perforations
 Phase changes
 Turbulence (high-velocity flow)
 Damage to the natural reservoir permeability 19
 NEGATIVE SKIN

 Flow enhancement
 May result from:
 Matrix stimulation (near-wellbore permeability exceeds
the natural value)
 Hydraulic fracturing
 Highly inclined wellbore

20
EFFECTIVE WELLBORE RADIUS

21
22
EFFECTIVE WELLBORE RADIUS
 s'
r  rw e
'
w
r’w = effective wellbore radius, ft
rw = wellbore radius, ft
S’ = S/(K/ks – 1)
 k   r 
S    1  ln  s 
 kS   rw 

 Positive skin has the effect of reducing wellbore radius.

 Negative skin has the effect of increasing wellbore radius.
23
SKIN FACTOR
 Pressure drop (psia) due to skin is:
141 . 2 q o  o B o
ps  S
kh

qo = oil flow rate, STB/D

μo = oil viscosity, cp
Bo = oil FVF, bbls/STB
k = reservoir permeability, mD
h = reservoir thickness, ft
S = skin factor
24
SKIN FACTOR

Undamaged zone
Damaged zone

25
SKIN FACTOR

No damage – no skin (ks = k)

 Ideal drawdown:

141 . 2 q o  o B o  rs 
Ps  Pwf , ideal  In  
kh  rw 

Damage (ks < k)

 Real drawdown:

141 . 2 q o  o B o  rs 
Ps  Pwf , real  In  
ksh  rw 
26
SKIN FACTOR
 Pressure drop due to skin  Pwf ,real  Pwf ,ideal
 Therefore:

27
SKIN FACTOR

S  1 1   rs 
    ln  
k  kS k   rw 

 k   rs 
S    1 ln  
 kS   rw 
28
FLOW EFFICIENCY

Ideal drawdown
F
Real drawdown

F
 P P
S wf ,ideal k
s

P  P
S wf , real  k

 F < 1: Damaged well (skin is positive)

 F = 1: No change (skin is zero)
 F > 1: Stimulated well (skin is negative)

29
SKIN COMPONENTS

S  Sd  Sc  S  S p   S pseudo

S = total skin effect of a well

Sd = skin due to damage
Sc = skin due to partial penetration completion
Sθ = skin due to deviation
Sp = skin due to perforation
Spseudo = skin due to rate-dependent & phase-dependent
effects

30
SKIN COMPONENTS
 Rate-dependent skin can be obtained from a well test.
 Phase-dependent skin effects are associated with phase
changes because of the near-wellbore pressure gradient.
If Pwf < Pb: a reduction in the effective permeability to oil in
the case of oil wells.
If Pwf < Pd: a reduction in the effective permeability to gas
in the case of gas wells.

31
SKIN DUE TO DEVIATION

Skin Due To Deviation

32
SKIN DUE TO DEVIATION
  
2.06
   1.865  h kh 
S         log   
 41   56   100rw kv  

 kv 
   tan  tan  
1

 kh 

Sθ = skin due to deviation

θ = angle between the well & the vertical
kh = horizontal permeability
kv = vertical permeability
33
SKIN DUE TO PARTIAL PENETRATION

Skin Due To Completion (Partial Penetration)

34
SKIN DUE TO PARTIAL PENETRATION
0.825
h    k    k   
Sc  1.35  1 ln  h h  7  1.95  ln rwc  0.49  0.1ln  h h  
 hp    kv  k 
     v  

  zm 
rwc  rw exp  0.2126   2.753  
  h 
zm = distance between the top sand & the middle of the
open interval.
rwc = rw for an interval either starting at the top of the
reservoir or finishing at the base.

35
SKIN DUE TO PARTIAL PENETRATION

36
QUANTIFYING FORMATION DAMAGE (CALCULATION)
 Example 1: Assume that a well in the reservoir is described by
the following properties: kH = 8.2md, kV = 0.9md, h =53ft, pr =
5651psi, pb = 1323psi, co = 1.4x10-5psi-1, cw = 3x10-6psi-1, cf =
2.8x10-6psi-1, ct = 1.29x10-5psi-1, μ = 1.7cp, Bo = 1.1 resbbl/STB,
Rs = 150 Scf/STB, φ =0.19, Sw = 0.34, APIo = 28, rw = 0.328ft (7
7/8well). The well also has a drainage area of 640 acres (re =
2980ft) and is producing at a steady state with an outer boundary
(constant) pressure of 5651psi. Calculate the following:

 1. The steady-state production rate if the flowing bottomhole

pressure is equal to 4500 psi. Use a skin effect equal to +10.

 2. Describe two mechanisms to increase the flow rate by 50%.

Show calculations.

37
QUANTIFYING FORMATION DAMAGE (CALCULATION)
 Solution:
1. Using the productivity index J equation,
qo kh
J  
p R  p wf   re  
141 . 2 B o   ln    s
  rw  
Therefore: rearranging the equation:
kh ( p R  p wf )
qo 
  re  
141 . 2 B o   ln    s 
  rw  

38
 QUANTIFYING FORMATION DAMAGE (CALCULATION)
 Solution:
The steady-state production rate is:
( 8 . 2 )( 53 )( 5651  4500 )
qo   100 STB / d
  2980  
(141 . 2 )( 1 . 1)( 1 . 7 )  ln    10 
  0 . 328  
2. To increase the production rate by 50%, one possibility is to
increase the drawdown, pe – pwf, by 50%. Using the flow
efficiency equation:

actual drawdown
PR  Pwf  p skin
F 

PR  Pwf ideal drawdown

39
QUANTIFYING FORMATION DAMAGE (CALCULATION)
 Solution:
2. Therefore rearranging the flow efficiency equation:

 
F ( PR  Pwf )1  ( PR  Pwf )2
Substituting data into the equation,

1 . 5 ( 5651  4500 )1  ( 5651  Pwf ) 2

 p wf  3925 psi

40
 QUANTIFYING FORMATION DAMAGE (CALCULATION)
 Solution:
2. The second possibility is to reduce the skin effect. In terms of
skin reduction, q2/q1 = F = 1.5
In this case,
k h ( p R  p wf ) k h ( p R  p wf )
q2   1.5q1  1.5
  re     re  
141.2 B o  ln   s2  141.2 B o  ln   s1 
  rw     rw  

 re   re 
  ln  s 2    ln  s1  / 1 . 5
 rw   rw 

41
QUANTIFYING FORMATION DAMAGE (CALCULATION)
 Solution:
2. Substituting into the equation:

 2980   2980 
  ln  s 2    ln  10  / 1 . 5
 0 . 328   0 . 328 

leading to s = +3.6

42
PERMEABILITY IMPAIRMENT VS DAMAGE
PENETRATION CALCULATION
 Example 2: Assume that a well in the reservoir has a radius of
rw = 0.328ft and a penetration of damage 3 ft beyond the well
(i.e., rs = 3.328ft). What would be the skin effect if the
permeability impairment results in k/ks equal to 5 and 10,
respectively. What would be the required penetration of damage
to provide the same skin effect as the latter case but with
k/ks = 5?

 Solution: using the equation

 k   rs 
S    1 ln  
 kS   rw 
43
PERMEABILITY IMPAIRMENT VS DAMAGE
PENETRATION CALCULATION

 For k/ks = 5

 k   rs 
S    1 ln  
 kS   rw 

3.328
s  (5 1) ln  9.3
0.328
 For k/ks = 10 and rs =3.328 then, s = 20.9

44
PERMEABILITY IMPAIRMENT VS DAMAGE
PENETRATION CALCULATION
 For the required penetration of damage to provide the same skin
effect as the latter case but with k/ks = 5?
However, if s = 20.9 and k/ks = 5, then

'
rs  rw e s

rs  0.328 e 20 .9 / 4
 61 ft

45