SPE 73766
Formate Brines: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Their Formation Damage Control
Properties Under Realistic Reservoir Conditions
Michael Byrne and Ian Patey Corex UK Ltd, Liz George Shell Expro UK, John Downs Hydro Chemicals, Jim Turner Cabot
Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition
on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, 20–21 February 2002.
This paper was selected for presenta tion 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 aut hor(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. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstr act of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-943 5.
Abstract
Monovalent formate brines were first introduced into the
oilfield environment in the early-1990’s, in response to the
industry demand for better drilling and completion fluids to
meet the increasingly complex technical challenges posed by
modern well construction practices.
After years of rigorous field-testing, in a variety of
demanding well construction operations, the formate brines
are now acknowledged to be probably the best foundation for
any modern high performance drilling and completion fluid.
The formate brines are currently having their greatest impact
as the primary components of HT/HP reservoir drilling and
completion fluid formulations.
A number of field and laboratory tests have indicated that
when formate-based formulations are used as reservoir
drilling-in and completion fluids they appear to cause less
formation damage than some other conventional fluid
formulations, and consequently they are often seen to have a
beneficial effect on well productivity. Up until now, however,
little of this important information has found its way into the
public domain.
It has been common practice for a number of the major
multinational oil companies to contract a specialist formation
damage prediction company to carry out laboratory-scale
formation damage tests with formate brines before using these
fluids in their well constructions operations. This paper draws
together the results of a significant number of these tests
carried out by the specialist laboratory using formate-based
fluids passed through real reservoir core materials for realistic
time periods and under realistic reservoir conditions.
As well as providing a unique insight into the interaction
between formate brines and a range of reservoir core materials
and reservoir fluid types under simulated downhole
conditions, this paper also outlines the methodology developed
to ensure that the formation damage tests carried out with
formate brines are not influenced by laboratory artefacts.
The conclusion of the paper is that a significant number of
laboratory results, obtained under test conditions closely
simulating reservoir conditions, tend to lend support to the
growing perception that formate brines have valuable
formation damage control properties that can be exploited to
improve we ll productivity prospects in even the most
demanding environments.
Introduction
Brines are used by the oil industry in a range of well
construction operations, most commonly to create dense low-
solids fluids for application in reservoir sections. A key driver
for using brines in these applications has been the need to
maintain well control while trying to minimise reservoir
formation damage from solids invasion.
Traditionally these oilfield brines have been based on
halide (chloride or bromide) salts. Unfortunately the halide-
based brines were never purpose-designed for oilfield
applications and they have a number of performance
deficiencies that become amplified as the brine density
requirement is raised. Nevertheless, in the unsophisticated
well construction environments that have existed in many
parts of the world until relatively recently it has been possible
for operators to somehow live with these deficiencies, albeit at
some present or future financial cost.
In recent years it has been clear that the traditional halide-
based brines could no longer hope to meet the technical
challenges of the increasingly complex and extreme well
constructions that were being attempted to reduce field
development costs and to increase production. In addition to
the technical challenges that the traditional halide brines have
been facing they have also been coming under pressure from
the Health, Safety and Environmental lobbies. The use of
halide-based brines in onshore environments has always been
a concern anyway, given the toxicity of halides to aquatic life
and all other non-marine organisms, and it can be expected
that the legislation controlling the onshore application of
halide brines will become more and more stringent.
2 M. BYRNE, I. PATEY, L. GEORGE, J. DOWNS, J. TURNER
Against a background of mounting concern in the oil
industry about the deficiencies of conventional well
construction brines, a new type of brine system based on
monovalent formate salts was developed in the early-1990’s 1-
3
. The formate brine systems are the first brines actually
purpose-designed for the challenges of modern well
construction operations and they are now the drilling and
completion fluids of first choice for many of the more extreme
wells being drilled and completed in the North Sea. They are
also being applied in other parts of the world including
Canada, Texas, Gulf of Mexico, Argentina, Ecuador,
Venezuela, Indonesia, Malaysia and Kazakhstan.
Of all the benefits of formate-based fluids one of the most
important is their apparent compatibility with reservoir fluids
and minerals under realistic reservoir conditions of pressure
and temperature, as amply demonstrated by the increases in
hydrocarbon productivity observed in the numerous wells
drilled and completed with formate brines since 1993. A
skilled formation-damage prediction company has now
confirmed the compatibility of formates with a range of
reservoir materials following a series of laboratory-scale
formation damage tests carried out under simulated reservoir
conditions with real reservoir core samples. This paper
describes the special methodology developed by the laboratory
to test formate brine compatibility with reservoir materials
under realistic conditions and examines the performance of the
formate brines in these tests when compared with some
conventional fluids.
Formate Brines
The formate salts of the alkali metals are very soluble in water
and form brines with a range of beneficial properties 4 that
make them ideally suited for use as drilling and completion
fluids. The three formate salts considered most useful to the
oil industry, in order of increasing solubility and density, are:
sodium formate, potassium formate and caesium formate.
The formate brines were originally identified as having the
ideal characteristics for use as the foundation of low-solids
drilling fluids for deep drilling and slim hole drilling.1 The
perceived advantages for formate brines in these extreme
applications were:
• Maintenance of solids carrying capabilities
at high temperatures
• Elimination of solids sag at high temperatures
• Minimal circulating pressure losses
• Low potential for differential sticking (very
thin filter cakes)
• Low ECDs in long/narrow boreholes
• Maximum power transmission to mud motors and bits
• Non-hazardous
• Compatible with reservoir minerals and liquid phases (i.e.
non-damaging)
• Compatible with completion hardware and elastomers
• Environmentally responsible and readily biodegradable
SPE 73766
Preliminary laboratory tests, showing that the formate
brines were extremely compatible with reservoir mineral and
liquid phases, suggested that they might have an important
future as reservoir drilling fluids and completion fluids. This
was confirmed in the first full field test of sodium formate
brine as a drilling-in and completion fluid base for several
offshore open-hole horizontal oil well constructions in the
North Sea during 1994 5 . These wells were flowed at initial
rates of 45,000 bbl oil/well/day and showed little sign of
formation damage. Subsequent applications of blended
sodium/potassium formate brines as reservoir drilling and
completion fluids in horizontal open-hole gas wells in The
Netherlands showed that “the minimal residual drilling-
induced damage increased production capacity 40% over that
expected, with a near-zero mechanical skin.”6-8 .
In 1995, after an operator had experienced problems using
conventional fluids, potassium formate brine was used for the
first time as a reservoir drilling fluid in a deep horizontal gas
well in Northern Germany 9,10 . The same operator had
previously obtained favorable results with potassium formate
brine as a completion and workover fluid earlier in the field
development campaign. The operator reported “zero
formation damage” among the many benefits gained from the
use of the formate-based reservoir drilling-in fluid. Since 1995
the operator has used potassium formate brine as
drilling/completion/workover fluids in more than fifteen wells
in the same high temperature Rotliegend formations. In these
subsequent wells it was observed that use of formate brines
resulted in “35% higher production rates than expected” 11 .
More recently some operators in the North Sea have begun
using blended potassium/caesium formate brines as drilling-in
and completion fluids in their HT/HP gas wells. The results
from these wells look very promising and will be published
elsewhere during the course of 2002.
The clear indication from the available published data on
their field applications to date is that where formate brines
have been used as drilling-in and completions fluids they have
generally had a positive effect on well productivities. What
has been lacking up until now is a body of reliable published
evidence from laboratory formation damage studies to support
the evidence gained from field use of formate brines. Shell
carried out some laboratory formation damage evaluation
work with sodium/potassium formate brine prior to drilling
their K1-FB102 well in The Netherlands, and have published
data showing a significant increase in return permeability
utilising the formate brine as compared to an oil-based drilling
fluid 6-8 . Elsewhere BP compared the formation damage
properties of a saturated halide brine compared with a
potassium formate brine, and found that the formate was
significantly less damaging than the halide in the reservoir
cores used 12 . The high -density chloride brine evidently
induced massive fines migration (the fines species included
smectite, kaolinite and quartz), resulting in a 60% reduction in
return permeability to oil. By contrast the formate brine of
identical density did not cause fines migration and only gave a
15% reduction in permeability. The researcher found that the
 FORMATE BRINES: A COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF THEIR FORMATION
SPE 73766 DAMAGE CONTROL PROPERTIES UNDER REALISTIC RESERVOIR CONDITIONS
small amount of permeability reduction caused by the formate
was apparently due to the absorption and retention of some
formate brine on the core surface.
The prime purpose of this paper is to add a significant
body of formation damage test data to the limited amount of
information so far published on formate brines.
Formation Damage Testing
One of the most important factors in design of laboratory
testing for formation damage is to view the test as a
simulation. Many of the test sequences are similar, however,
they should be adjusted to match planned operations in each
well or reservoir. Another critical factor in testing is that all
tests are conducted at reservoir conditions in suitable
equipment. All reservoir conditions wetted parts must be
composed of corrosion resistant materials such as Hastelloy
and Teflon. Testing in inferior quality equipment will be
prone to artefacts and will generate erroneous results.
Samples for testing must be carefully selected and
prepared in order to obtain results that are relevant for the
reservoir under investigation.
Laboratory testing, if performed carefully and with due
consideration to sample selection and test design, can
accurately measure potential reduction in permeability.
It is possible to predict, simulate and avoid many of the
most common Formation Damage mechanisms. The simple
principle of experimenting at low cost in the laboratory rather
than in the field has been adopted by many companies
attempting to minimise damage to their reservoirs. It is
important that the company conducting formation damage
tests has no commercial links or vested interests in any
chemical or oilfield equipment suppliers and can therefore
provide a truly independent test of fluids and procedures. The
philosophy is to perform laboratory simulations in order to
predict reservoir performance. This involves the use of
corrosion free testing apparatus capable of dealing with all
oilfield chemicals and fluids at reservoir conditions of
temperature and pressure. A full simulation in the laboratory
can assist in the selection of the least damaging drilling,
completion and injection fluids and procedures in order to
optimise productivity and injectivity. Tests can range from a
simple pre-screen of available drilling fluids to a full
simulation of drilling, completion and injection or production
procedures incorporating all of the likely temperatures,
underbalance and overbalance conditions.
One of the most important influences on Formation
Damage is the geology of the reservoir. In order to apply the
data produced from a laboratory test it is essential to
understand the relevance of the rock material tested. Samples
for laboratory testing must be selected to represent the major
production or injection intervals. If there are significant
differences in permeability or clay type, for example, these
differences must be adequately represented in the material for
testing. All available geological and relevant production data
should be used in order to select the most suitable core
material. Samples preserved with reservoir fluids in the pore
3
space are preferred but old, dried out core can be restored to
very close to the reservoir conditions using careful handling
techniques. Special cleaning and drying procedures need to be
employed to ensure that samples selected are prepared without
altering delicate structures in the pore space.
In order to properly evaluate potential Formation Damage
it is important to incorporate all reservoir and introduced
fluids. It is essential to eliminate artefacts such as corrosion
from the test as this may lead to erroneous results, conclusions
and recommendations. Traditional stainless steel testing
apparatus will corrode in the presence of reservoir fluids, not
to mention aggressive clean up or stimulation fluids at
reservoir conditions. Equipment which is contacted by fluids
at reservoir conditions should be composed entirely of
corrosion resistant materials such as Hastelloy and Teflon.
This eliminates any possibility of corrosion interfering with
the test results. The laboratory tests are designed to
incorporate all pressure changes in the near wellbore area, for
example, if the well under investigation is to be returned to
production by gradually decreasing the pressure in the
wellbore (drawdown), then this step should be incorporated in
the laboratory test.
As technological advances are made and environmental
concerns increase, new challenges confront those involved in
dealing with Formation Damage problems. New,
environmentally friendly drilling fluids may not be
particularly reservoir friendly and need to be carefully selected
for each application. Extended reach drilling can often lead to
increased Formation Damage problems that can be expensive
or impossible to remove. High temperature reservoirs may be
damaged by breakdown of normal fluids under the intense
conditions. H2 S production from microbial activity may cause
problems that need to be minimised with environmentally
friendly solutions. New sand control completion techniques
should be thoroughly assessed for their impact on
productivity. Old or marginal fields may benefit enormously
from a reassessment of historical Formation Damage that can
now be avoided. The list goes on but the key to resolving all
of these problems is thorough laboratory simulation combined
with full sample evaluation to identify problems and solutions.
Laboratory testing cannot recover all of these losses caused
by Formation Damage but it can go a long way towards
recovering significant amounts. By definition, properly
constructed tests increase our understanding of the
performance of each reservoir and can thus make a real
difference to production, injection and profit.
For production wells, gas and oil are the most common test
fluids. Convention is to use inert humidified nitrogen gas to
represent producing gas phase. The majority of damage
mechanisms are not dependent on the use of live gas in the
tests. For oil wells, convention is to use dead crude oil to
represent producing oil phase. Tests with live crude oil can be
conducted but are generally considered to be prohibitively
expensive. Experience with dead crude oil has led to the
development of special laboratory procedures which are
important to observe in order to avoid artefacts. The oil must
4 M. BYRNE, I. PATEY, L. GEORGE, J. DOWNS, J. TURNER
be completely dewatered and must be maintained at all times
above the wax appearance temperature. The oil must be
filtered at reservoir conditions to very fine specifications to
avoid introducing particles to the test. If insufficient crude oil
is available (approximately five litres for each test) or if the
crude oil is unstable (e.g. due to asphaltene deposition), inert
mineral oil of similar viscosity to the crude oil can
be substituted.
It is important to test any options available and to compare
like with like. Fluids provided by different vendors should be
designed for field use (not just laboratory test fluids) and
should meet any operational requirements such as rheology,
cost etc. Tests conducted in different laboratories are not
directly comparable 13 .
The tests presented in this paper are all reservoir specific
and so are each conducted under conditions designed to reflect
specific reservoirs or wells . This means that the the test
procedures for each data set presented will vary, however, the
basic procedures and principals of the test designs are
consistent and include the following key parameters:
• Reservoir temperature for each reservoir is reflected at all
times during the tests.
• Reservoir, overburden, overbalance and underbalance
pressures are simulated.
• Introduced Fluids are delivered in to a simulated annular
space at appropritate overbalance pressures. Dynamic and
static flow periods are included.
• Each test includes a simulated return to production or
drawdown. This vital part of the test is conducted at
expected near wellbore drawdown pressure. Fluids are
not pumped through the core samples, instead the pressure
in the annulus is decreased and flow occurs in the
formation to wellbore direction at rates dictated by sample
permeability, residual damage and fluid viscosity.
• Samples for the tests are prepared to irreducible formation
water saturation prior to the test using an ultracentrifuge.
After the test any external mud body is removed and the
sample is again prepared in an ultracentrifuge. The
ultracentrifuge is the most rapid, reliable, non-damaging
technique available for the sample preparation required.
Specific Procedures For Formate Testing
Temperature / pressure during sample handling
The objective of all of the tests presented is to study the
performance of fluids under reservoir conditions. Laboratory
procedures require the samples for testing to be loaded and
unloaded without pressure and at lower temperatures than
most reservoir temperatures. Formate fluids mixed with some
formation brines at lower temperatures can result in
precipitates such as Ca or Na formate forming. This process is
an artefact of laboratory testing but if it is not understood and
considered, can lead to erroneous results. For all of the
laboratory tests presented in this paper, due consideration was
given to the temperature and pressure of fluids and fluid
containing core samples throughout the testing sequences. In
SPE 73766
general the samples are removed from the testing apparatus at
temperatures higher than those usually employed with non-
formate testing. No evidence of artificial formate precipitation
was observed in any of the tests presented.
Fluid supplied by knowledgeable supplier
Formates, like all potential introduced fluids, should be
prepared carefully prior to use in a well or a laboratory test.
Experience has shown that without an appreciation for
appropriate volumes of formates and other components , the
final fluid presented can be unstable. This is not a formate
specific problem, but as with all “new” technologies the
awareness level within fluid supply companies must be
improved in order to see potential benefits in laboratory tests
and in the field.
Investigation of damage mechanisms
It is important not to guess at damage mechanisms. It may
be that the damage from an oil based mud is filtrate related but
equivalent magnitude of damage from a formate is mud solids
related. There is insufficient information and time to discuss
precise damage mechanisms for the test results presented but
the damage mechanism can significantly change the
interpretation and fluid selection process 14, 15 .
Consistent rock samples
The test results presented have been selected as they
demonstrate relative performance of different fluids tested
against equivalent rock samples. It is critical to compare like
with like. This is particularly true where different fluid types
and hence potentially very different damage mechanisms are
being compared.
Results
Reservoir 1 Results
The results presented are from an oil reservoir. High
permeability and low permeability samples were tested. The
high permeability samples were tested with mud followed by
drawdown and the low permeability samples were tested with
mud followed by clean-up fluids followed by drawdown.
Some key features of the results are:
• The filtrate losses recorded were highest for the
formate fluid and lowest for the Oil Based Mud. This
is a trend also observed for other reservoir types.
• Despite the fluid losses, the sample tested with
formate fluid showed the best return permeability for
the high permeability lithology.
• This reservoir is clearly susceptible to damage from all
fluids applied but the formate appears to be least
damaging to the higher permeability lithology.
• The lower permeability lithology appeared more
susceptible to damage. Even after chemical clean-up
all three samples show significant damage. It is
difficult to comment on the relative performance of
the mud/clean-up sequences as the clean-up fluids will
be different for each mud.
 FORMATE BRINES: A COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF THEIR FORMATION
SPE 73766 DAMAGE CONTROL PROPERTIES UNDER REALISTIC RESERVOIR CONDITIONS 5

OPTION 2: MUD/DRAWDOWN/REMEDIAL WORKOVER/DRAWDOWN

2nd Ko after rd Perm after Perm after mudcake

3 Ko after
Filtrate Base perm mud/ mud/ removed and plug
drawdown cake Filtrate Base perm spun down (mD)
Sample Fluid Loss Kg @ Swi removed (mD) drawdown
(mD) Sample Fluid Loss Kg @ Swi (% change on
(ml) (mD) (% change on (mD)
(% change (ml) (mD) base perm)
base perm) (% change on
on base perm) base perm) [filtrate
spun out, ml]
1A OBM 1.781 406 70.0 131 Formate 990
(-82.7%) (-67.8%) 1A 15.419 1416 881
Field (-30.8%)
(-37.8%)
Mud [0.19ml]

Caesium Formate 1.17

169 174 2B 11.719 2.88 0.982
2A Potassium 24.252 341 Field (-59.4%)
(-50.4%) (-49.1%) Mud (-65.9%) [0.083ml]
Formate
Optimised 1675
6A Formate 10.564 1978 1272 (-15.3%)
OBM + 1.78 (-35.7%)
1E 2.304 6.37 N/A DIF [0.30ml]
Clean -up (-72.1%)
Optimised 3.64
3B 8.388 7.47 2.27
Formate (-51.3%)
Caesium (-69.6%)
Potassium DIF [0.17ml]
2E 16.527 9.88 1.18 N/A
Formate (-88.1%)
+ Clean-up OPTION 2: MUD/DRAWDOWN/REMEDIAL WORKOVER/DRAWDOWN

Perm after
Table 1: Reservoir 1 Results mud/ Perm after mudcake
drawdown/ removed and plug
Filtrate Base perm remedial spun down (mD)
Reservoir 2 Results Sample Fluid Loss Kg @ Swi workover/ (% change on
base perm)
(ml) (mD) 2nd drawdown
The results presented are from a high pressure gas (mD)
(% change on
[filtrate spun
out, ml]
reservoir. High permeability and low permeability samples base perm)
Formate 2406
were tested. Both permeability ranges were tested with mud 7A Field 18.247 2198 2341
(+6.51%)
(+9.46%)
Mud [trace]
followed by drawdown and also with mud followed by Formate 3.81
3.56
drawdown followed by clean-up fluids followed by 6B Field
Mud
12.355 3.47
(+2.59%)
(+9.74%)
[0.05ml]
drawdown. All testing was conducted using formate fluids. Optimised 2027
8A Formate 12.484 1988 1982 (+1.96%)
Two different formulations were tested – Field mud (i.e. used DIF
(-0.30%)
[trace]
in real field operations) and optimised laboratory prepared Optimised
10.7
11.2
4B Formate 10.003 10.9 (+2.75%)
formate drill-in fluid. The drilling fluid was exposed to the DIF
(-1.83%)
[0.05ml]

rock for thirteen days with dynamic and static flow periods to
reflect real operations. Previous wells on this field had Table 2: Reservoir 2 Results
demonstrated that conventional Oil Based Mud and Water
Based Mud could not provide the stability required under the Reservoir 3 Results
extreme pressure conditions therefore these fluids were not The two results presented are from a gas reservoir. The
considered for laboratory testing. Some key features of the test show different exposure times for two different suspension
results are: fluids – Pseudo Oil Based Mud and a K Formate Gel. The
• Both fluids produced formation damage on both fluids were exposed to the rock samples at overbalance under
lithologies tested. This damage was more significant reservoir conditions of temperature and pressure. Some key
features of the results are:
for the lower permeability rock. The optimised fluid
had generally better results than the field fluid. For • The formate fluid was exposed to the reservoir sample
the high permeability samples the damage is not for a much longer duration (186 hours compared to 48
considered significant. hours for the oil based fluid) and showed much higher
• All four tests which included a remedial treatment filtrate loss.
(15% acetic acid blend) showed a return to just above • The damage from the formate was significantly lower
base permeability. The apparent damage was cleaned- than from the oil based fluid.
up by the chemical treatment applied. Filtrate Base perm 2nd Kg after mud/drawdown
• Field results have indicated that these laboratory test Sample Fluid Loss
(ml)
Kg @ Swi
(mD)
insitu perm (mD)
(% change on base perm)
results have been replicated in the first post laboratory
1A Live 1.902 38.0 26.2
test well. POBM (48 hours) (-31.1)

6A K Formate Gel 15.842 50.7 45.0

(186 hours) (-11.2)

Table 3: Reservoir 3 Results

6 M. BYRNE, I. PATEY, L. GEORGE, J. DOWNS, J. TURNER SPE 73766

Reservoir 4 Results • The formate fluids consistently match or outperform

The eight flood test results presented are from a gas the conventional oil based and water based fluids in
reservoir. A range of different lithogies or rock types were the results presented.
tested against different potential drilling fluid formulations. • As discussed in previous results, fluid losses are often
Sand exclusion screens were also included in the core flood higher with the formate fluids but measured damage or
tests to mimic well completion procedures. Formate fluid, oil permeability change is minimised.
based mud and in one case water based mud were tested. • The operator has subsequently selected formate fluids
Some key features of the results are: for use in this field and we anticipate that field results
• The water based mud showed the highest filtrate will be publis hed in the near future.
losses with formate next and the lowest from the oil
Perm after
based mud. Perm after
mudcake
Mud Perm after
• The formate fluids consistently showed the least Filtrate Base perm
application
and
Offload removed and
spun down
and mudbody
(mD)
damage to all lithogies tested. For example with the Sample Fluid Loss Kg @ Swi drawdown removed
(% change
(ml) (mD) (mD) (mD)
on base
highest permeability samples, the formate final return (% change (% change on
perm)
on base base perm)
(filtrate spun
permeability was less than 2% lower than the base perm)
out, ml)
permeability with the equivalent oil based mud result 4.058 0.010 0.016
0.020
1A OBM 0.026 (-23.1%)
showing more than 50% reduction in permeability. (96 hours) (-61.1%) (-38.6%)
[0.01ml]

• The operator has used formate fluids in this and Caesium

0.0079
1C Potassium 8.274 0.0073 0.0061 0.0069
related fields with great success replicating the Formate (96 hours) (-16.4%) (-5.48%)
(+8.22%)
[0.10ml]
Mud
successful laboratory results presented here.
Freshwater 0.019
1D 68.95 0.017 0.019 N/A
Packer (+11.8%)
(25PVs) (+11.8%)
Perm after Perm after Fluid [0.00ml]
Mud applied, mudcake
Screens and screens Potassium
Base perm Formate
Filtrate Base perm placed removed 0.022
Sample Fluid (plug + Sodium 68.63 0.020 (+0.00%)
Loss screens) (plug only) and (mD) 1E (25PVs) 0.022 (-9.09%) N/A
(ml) (mD) drawdown (% change on Citrate [0.02ml]
(mD) Packer
(mD) base perm)
Fluid
(% change on (filtrate spun
base perm) out, ml) Potassium
Caesium 0.018
1F 63.98 0.018 0.015 N/A (+0.00%)
Formate (25PVs) (-16.7%)
7A Na/ 12.736 49.3 49.3 39.0 48.4 [0.10ml]
KCOOH (-20.8%) (-1.75%) Kill Fluid

0.0060
1G Monopack 70.75 0.0091 0.0018 N/A (-41.8%)
Na/ 721 1131 Fluid (25PVs) (-80.2%) [0.05ml]
1B 13.868 1150 1150
KCOOH (-37.3%) (-1.59%)
0.017
1D OBM 3.029 0.019 0.013 0.016
(-10.5%)
Na/ 53.8 67.3 (test 2) (73 hours) (-31.6%) (-15.8%)
7C 12.875 70.3 70.3 [0.01ml]
KCOOH (-23.5%) (-4.27%)
Caesi um
Potassium 0.016
1F 4.890 0.018 0.014 0.015 (-11.1%)
(test 2) Formate (73 hours) (-22.2%) (-16.6%)
4D WBM 1 16.617 10.7 10.7 7.48 9.89 [0.01ml]
(-30.1%) (-7.57%) Fluid
Caesium
0.020
1E Potassium 9.296 0.022 0.016 0.018
Formate (-9.09%)
10.4 23.5 (test 2) (96 hours) (-27.3%) (-18.2%) [0.05ml]
8A OBM 1 2.790 42.3 42.3 Mud
(-75.4%) (-44.4%)

496 541
Table 5: Reservoir 5 Results
5B OBM 1 4.194 1284 1284
(-61.4%) (-57.9%)

Reservoir 6 Results
10.6 26.6
8C OBM 1 3.222 77.5 77.5
(-86.3%) (-65.6%) The eight flood test results presented are from a high
temperature, high pressure gas reservoir. A number of
3D OBM 1 3.760 6.90 6.90 2.15
(-68.8%)
4.04
(-41.4%)
different formate and non-formate water based fluids were
tested. The “used” fluids are actual returned field fluids (i.e.
Table 4: Reservoir 4 Results they have contacted the reservoir) and the “new” fluids are
laboratory formulated fluids. Sequence clean-ups were also
investigated. Some key features of the results are:
Reservoir 5 Results
The results presented are from a high temperature, high • The conventional water based muds consistently
pressure low permeability gas reservoir. Samples representing showed higher filtrate losses than the formate fluids.
very low permeability reservoir were tested. Various different • The formate fluids generally gave better return
formate and non-formate introduced wellbore fluids were permeability performance than the other fluids tested.
tested. These fluids included muds, kill fluids and packer The best result without any chemical clean-up was
fluids. Basically, any fluids likely to contact the reservoir with the “new” Na formate with a final decrease in
were examined. Some key features of the results are: permeability of 24.1%. This comp ares very
favourably with an equivalent conventional water
based mud which showed 55.3% reduction (Test 1).
 FORMATE BRINES: A COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF THEIR FORMATION
SPE 73766 DAMAGE CONTROL PROPERTIES UNDER REALISTIC RESERVOIR CONDITIONS 7

• When chemical clean-up was introduced (Tests 6 and 1A there is a significant stimulation. This is attributed
7) an improvement was noted for both formate and to carbonate dissolution.
non-formate. In fact the non-formate system showed
2nd Kg after
and increase in permeability from the base of more mud clean-up
3r d Kg
after mudcake 4th Kg after spin
Filtrate Base perm and dr awdown down (mD)
than 25%. This stimulation was observed to be the Sample Loss Kg @ Swi (mD)
removal (mD)
Fluid (ml) (mD) (#cake present) (% change on
result of mud clean-up and stimulation of the rock (% change on
(% change on
base perm)
base perm)
base perm)
through carbonate dissolution (10% HCl was used as
Formate #29.9 31.3 32.0
the clean-up phase). The formate clean-up was 15% 4A
mud / base
9.176 39.1
(-23.5) (-20.1) (-18.2)
brine
formic acid which clearly did not cause any matrix
Formate
dissolution and therefore did not have the same net 1B
mud / base
8.389 88.1 #55.8
(-36.6)
66.1
(-24.9)
66.1
(-24.9)
brine
benefit as the HCl. It is important to note, however 209
that the corrosive nature of HCl may limit its use and 1A Formate
mud / acid
8.059 37.9 (cake removed
by clean-up)
237
(+525)
237
(+525)
that the formate “damage” was largely removed by a (+453)
187
much less corrosive clean-up. 4B Formate
mud / acid
10.550 222 (mud remnants
only)
223
(+0.25)
224
(+1.05)
• These results are taken from reservoirs in Northern (-15.8)

Germany where formates have been employed very 3B WBM /

base brine
8.869 103 #61.7
(-40.0)
75.1
(-27.1)
76.2
(-26.0)
successfully in recent years 9,10.
Table 7: Reservoir 7 Results
2nd Kg after Final
mud Kg @ Swi
Filtrate Base perm clean-up and after
Sample Fluid Loss Kg @ Swi drawdown spindown (mD) Discussion
(ml) (mD) (mD) (% change
(% change on base More than forty core flood test results are presented from
on base perm) perm)
many different reservoir types worldwide. With the diversity
Test 1 34.3
127.564 28.6
300 WBM
new
(96 hours)
76.8
(-62.8%)
(-55.3%)
(fluid out = 0.05cc’s)
of rock types, fluid types and test parameters involved,
integrated interpretation of the full dataset is difficult,
Test 2 67.6
290 WBM
123.341 137 65.5
(-50.7%) however, some trends have emerged.
used (96 hours) (-52.2%) (fluid out = 0.00cc’s)
In these tests the formate formulations provided by the
240
Test 3
Na Formate
10.904 135 74.8
78.9
(-41.6%)
fluid service companies showed a tendency to exhibit higher
(96 hours) (-44.6%)
used (fluid out = 0.00cc’s) filtrate losses in laboratory flood tests than oil based muds of
Test 4
49.026 164
170 the same density. The higher filtrate loss from the formate-
80 K Formate 278 (-38.8)
used
(96 hours) (-41.0%)
(fluid out = 0.00cc’s) based fluids is only a problem from a damage point of view if
Test 5 129
the filtrate is damaging. Evidence from the data presented
33.235 118
340 Na Formate
new (96 hours)
170
(-30.6%)
(-24.1)
(fluid out = 0.00cc’s)
here and from other laboratory tests is that formate filtrate is
Test 6
certainly no more damaging than that from equivalent
99
320 WBM used
followed
135.798
(96 hours)
78.8 89.9
(+14.1%)
(+25.7) conventional oil and water based fluids.
(fluid out = 0.00cc’s)
by 10% HCl No evidence of formate-specific damage mechanisms have
Test 7
K Formate
7.052 194
200 been observed in these properly executed laboratory tests.
260 used followed 238 (-16.0)
(96 hours) (-16.8%)
by 15% (fluid out = 0.00cc’s) Some of the formation brines incorporated in these tests were
formic acid
Test 8 highly saline with salt saturations greater than 200,000 ppm.
K Formate 112
330 used
49.163
(96 hours)
234
106
(-54.7%)
(-52.1) At reservoir conditions there is no evidence of adverse formate
(higher (fluid out = 0.00cc’s)
overbalance) / formation brine reaction. Many of the results presented here
have been fully explored through detailed sample evaluation.
Table 6: Reservoir 6 Results These investigations are not presented in detail here as the
interpretation tends to be reservoir and sample specific and
Reservoir 7 Results often prevents general conclusions being made. We have not
Five core flood test results are presented. Four tests with included results of tests where the predominant damage
formate fluids and the fifth test with a conventional water mechanisms were “natural” processes such as fines migration
based fluid. Sequence clean-ups were also investigated. as these results can mask the introduced fluid damage
Some key features of the results are: mechanisms and lead to incorrect conclusions being drawn.
• The conventional water based mud and the formate For gas reservoir tests, the general trend is that formates
muds demonstrated very similar filtrate loss volumes. perform as well as, if not better than any equivalent
• The samples tested with mud followed by a base brine conventional oil or water based fluids. The evidence is not as
flush showed very similar results. There was no plentiful nor conclusive for oil reservoirs where some testing
significant difference between the formate and non- (not reported here) has indicated that formate and other water
formate results (samples 4A, 1B and 3B). based mud filter cakes/bodies may be more resistant to clean-
• Two samples tested with formate also had an acid up than oil based mud filter cakes/bodies during drawdown to
applied (samples 1A and 4B). In the case of sample crude oil.
8 M. BYRNE, I. PATEY, L. GEORGE, J. DOWNS, J. TURNER
Many of the laboratory tests conducted on formate fluids
are in high temperature, high pressure gas reservoirs. These
reservoirs are the most likely candidates for formates for a
number of practical and ecomomic reasons that will not be
discussed here. There is insufficient evidence from other
reservoir types to draw any conclusions at this stage. Field
experience has shown that lower pressure gas reservoirs and
oil reservoirs can benefit from formate fluids but considerable
laboratory testing is required to determine the potential
benefits for each and every reservoir.
Conclusions
In a large number of laboratory formation damage tests
designed to simulate well construction operations in gas
reservoirs, formate-based drilling and completion fluids have
demonstrated no unusual or significant formation damage
potential. This finding is in keeping with evidence fro m field
applications of formate brines where many oilfield operators
have reported well productivity improvements
The tests have clearly indicated that the formate-based
mud formulations provided so far by the fluid service
companies exhibit higher filtrate losses under simulated
reservoir conditions than oil-based muds, yet they seem to
induce similar or lower permeability reductions. It is not yet
clear if the higher filtrate losses observed with the formate
brine formulations are an inherent characteris tic of this type of
low-solids fluids or just a result of inadequate design by the
fluid formulators.
Formate fluids can, when mixed with some high salinity
formation brines, exhibit salt precipitation and apparent
damage mechanisms if mishandled in the laboratory at
ambient temperature. It should be noted that this is an artefact
of poor laboratory practice rather than poor fluid performance,
and this behaviour would not occur under reservoir conditions.
The results of any formation damage fluid performance
tests are reservoir specific and are heavily influenced by the
skill used in designing the well construction fluids. It is thus
critical to test representative core samples from each reservoir
and then make sure that the well construction fluid samples
are properly prepared by skillful fluid formulators . This is
particularly relevant for relatively new well construction fluids
such as formates that are not yet fully supported by the fluid
service companies.
Acknowledgements
The Authors would like to thank Shell, BP, Statoil and BEB
for permission to publish the data presented in this paper.
Without the support of these and other innovative oil
companies advances in formation damage reduction through
the use of innovative fluids and appropriate laboratory tests
would not be possible. The contributions from Corex
technical and administrative staff in the execution of
laboratory tests and compilation of this paper are very
much appreciated.
SPE 73766
References
1. Downs, J.D.: "Formate Brines: New Solutions to Deep Slim
Hole Drilling Fluid Design Problems,” SPE 24973 presented at
the 1992 European Petroleum Conference, Cannes, France, 16-
18 November 1992.
2. Downs, J.D.: "Formate Brines: Novel Drilling and Completion
Fluids for Demanding Environments,” SPE 25177 presented at
the 1993 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry,
New Orleans, Louisiana, 2-5 March 1993.
3. Downs, J.D., et al.: “Development of Environmentally Benign
Formate-Based Drilling and Completion Fluids,” SPE 27143
presented at the 2nd International Conference on Health, Safety
& Environment in Oil & Gas Exploration & Production,
Jakarta, Indonesia, 25-27 January 1994.
4. Howard, S.K.: "Formate Brines for Drilling and Completion:
State of the Art," SPE 30498 presented at the 1995 SPE Annual
Technical Conference, Dallas, 22-25 October 1995.
5. Brinkhorst, J.W.: “Optimisation of Drilling Fluid and Clean-Up
Operations in Rogan South, Draugen Field, Norway,” presented
at the Horizontal Well Technology Forum, Aberdeen, 24-25
January 1994.
6. Hands, N., et al.: “Drill-In Fluid Reduces Formation Damage,
Increases Production Rates,” Oil & Gas Journal
(13 July 1998) 65
7. Hands, N., et al.: “Optimising a Long Multi-Lateral Gas Well’s
Inflow Performance,” World Oil (April 1999) 73.
8. Hand, N. et al.: “Optimising Inflow Performance of a Long
Multi-Lateral Offshore Well in Low Permeability, Gas Bearing
Sandstone: K14-FB 102 Case Study,” SPE 50394 presented at
SPE International Conference of Horizontal Well Technology,
Calgary, 1-4 November 1998.
9. Abou-Sayed, I.S., Chambers, M.R. and Mueller, M.W.: “Mobil
Completes Deep, Tight, Horizontal Gas Well in Germany,”
Petroleum Engineer International (August 1996) 42.
10. Sundermann,R. and Bungert, D.: “Potassium-Formate-Based
Fluid Solves High Temperature Drill-In Problem,” Journal of
Petroleum Technology (November 1996) 1042.
11. Bungert, D., Maikranz, S., Sundermann, R., Downs, J.D.,
Benton, W. and Dick, M.A., “The Evolution and Application of
Formate Brines in High-temperature/High-Pressure
Operations”, SPE 59191 presented at 2000 IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, 23-25 February 2000.
12. Bishop, S.R., “The Experimental Investigation of Formation
Damage due to Induced Flocculation of Clays within a
Sandstone Pore Structure by a High Salinity Brine”, SPE 38156
presented at the 1997 SPE European Formation Damage
Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, 2-3 June 1997.
 FORMATE BRINES: A COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF THEIR FORMATION
SPE 73766 DAMAGE CONTROL PROPERTIES UNDER REALISTIC RESERVOIR CONDITIONS 9

13. David S. Marshall, et al.: “Return Permeability: A Detailed

Comparative Study”, SPE 54763 presented at the 1999 SPE
European Formation Damage Conference held in the Hague,
The Netherlands, 31 May-1June 1999.

14. R.B. Watson & I.T.M. Patey, “Optimising Gravel Pack

Performance in a High Rate Gas Development”, SPE 68969
presented at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference
held in the Hague, The Netherlands, 21-22 May 2001.

15. P.A. Francis, et al.: “Visualisation of Drilling-Induced

Formation Damage Mechanisms using Reservoir Conditions
Core Flood Testing” SPE 30088 presented at the European
Formation Damage Conference held in the Hague, The
Netherlands, 15-16 May 1995.