formation damage

89
Formation Damage Examples Scale Emulsions Paraffin 8/25/2015 1 George E. King Engineering GEKEngineering.com

Upload: kevin-steinbach

Post on 25-Jan-2016

18 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

N/A

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Formation Damage

Formation Damage

• Examples

– Scale

– Emulsions

– Paraffin

8/25/2015 1 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 2: Formation Damage

Damage – What is it?

• Divide the well into three parts: – Inflow: area from reservoir to the wellbore

– Completion potential: flow to surface

– Surface restrictions: chokes, lines, separators.

• Basically, anything that causes a restriction in the flow path decreases the rate and acts as “damage.”

8/25/2015 2 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 3: Formation Damage

The first step…..

• For the purposes of this work, consider the flow connection between the reservoir and the wellbore as the primary but not the only area of damage.

• Now, is it “formation damage” or something else that causes the restriction?

8/25/2015 3 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 4: Formation Damage

Some sources of the “damage” in the reservoir-wellbore “connection”

• Wetting phases (from injected or “lost” fluids)

• Debris plugging the pores of the rock

• Polymer waste from frac and drilling fluids

• Compacted particles from perforating

• Limited entry (too few perforations)

• Converging radial flow – wellbore too small

• Reservoir clay interactions with injected fluids

• Precipitation deposits (scale, paraffins, asphaltenes, salt, etc)

Note that not all are really formation damage – How do you identify the difference?

8/25/2015 4 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 5: Formation Damage

Identification of Damage.

• How good are you at deductive reasoning? – Identifying the cause and source of damage is

detective work. • Look at the well performance before the problem

• Look at the flow path for potential restrictions

• Look to the players: – Flow path ways

– Fluids

– Pressures

– Flow rate

8/25/2015 5 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 6: Formation Damage

Completion Efficiency

• What is it? – a measure of the effectiveness of a completion as measured against an ideal completion with no pressure drops.

• Pressure drops? – these are the restrictions, “damage”, heads, back-pressures, etc. that restrict the well’s production.

8/25/2015 6 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 7: Formation Damage

The Effect of Damage on Production

Rate = (DP x k x h) / (141.2 mo bo s)

Where:

DP = differential pressure (drawdown due to skin)

k = reservoir permeability, md

h = height of zone, ft

mo = viscosity, cp

bo = reservoir vol factor

s = skin factor

8/25/2015 7 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 8: Formation Damage

What changeable factors control production rate?

• Pressure drop – need maximum drawdown and minimum backpressures.

• Permeability - enhance or restore k? - yes

• Viscosity – can it be changed? – yes

• Skin – can it be made negative?

• These factors are where we start our stimulation design.

8/25/2015 8 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 9: Formation Damage

Formation Damage

• Impact

• Causes

• Diagnosis

• Removal/Prevention?

• Basically, the severity of damage on production depends on the location, extent and type of the damage. A well can have significant deposits, fill and other problems that do not affect production.

8/25/2015 9 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 10: Formation Damage

Impact of Damage on Production

• Look at Effect of Damage

• Type of Damage

• Severity of Plugging

• Depth of Damage

• Ability to Prevent/Remove/By-Pass

8/25/2015 10 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 11: Formation Damage

Observations on Damage

• Shallow damage is the most common and makes the biggest impact on production.

• It takes a lot of damage to create large drops in production

8/25/2015 11 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 12: Formation Damage

Effect of Depth and Extent of Damage on

Production

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 3

Radial Extent of Damage, m

% o

f o

rig

ina

l F

low

80% Damage

90% Damage

95% Damage

8/25/2015 12 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 13: Formation Damage

Productivity and Skin Factor

• Q1/Qo = 7/(7+s)

Where:

Q1 = productivity of zone w/ skin, bpd

Qo = initial productivity of zone, bpd

s = skin factor, dimensionless

8/25/2015 13 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 14: Formation Damage

Example

• Productivity for skins of -1, 5, 10 and 50 in a well with a undamaged (s=0) production capacity of 1000 bpd

• s = -1, Q1 = 1166 bpd

• s = 5, Q1 = 583 bpd

• s = 10, Q1 = 412 bpd

• s = 50, Q1 = 123 bpd

8/25/2015 14 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 15: Formation Damage

Improvements

• For s = -1 (1166), -2 (1400), -3 (1750), and -4 (2333) …..

• Why have we seen better results in field?

– Fracturing past damage!

8/25/2015 15 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 16: Formation Damage

Damage By-Pass

• For 1 well producing 1500 bpd with a skin of 50, what would frac with s=-2 yield?

• Qo = 12,214 bpd to get to s = 0

• Qimproved = 17,100 bpd at s = -2

8/25/2015 16 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 17: Formation Damage

Causes

• “Pseudo” damage - very real effect, but no visible obstructions

• “Structural” damage

8/25/2015 17 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 18: Formation Damage

“Pseudo” Damage

• Turbulence – high rate wells

– gas zones most affected

• Affected areas: – perfs (too few, too small)

– fracture (conductivity too low)

– tubing (tubing too small, too rough)

– surface (debottle necking needed)

8/25/2015 18 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 19: Formation Damage

“Structural” Damage

• Tubular Deposits

– scale

– paraffin

– asphaltenes

– salt

– solids (fill)

– corrosion products

8/25/2015 19 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 20: Formation Damage

Perforation Damage

• debris from perforating

• sand in perf tunnel - mixing?

• mud particles

• particles in injected fluids

• pressure drop induced deposits – scales

– asphaltenes

– paraffins

8/25/2015 20 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 21: Formation Damage

Near Well Damage

• in-depth plugging by injected particles

• migrating fines

• water swellable clays

• water blocks, water sat. re-establishment

• polymer damage

• wetting by surfactants

• relative permeability problems

• matrix structure collapse

8/25/2015 21 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 22: Formation Damage

Deeper Damage

• water blocks

• formation matrix structure collapse

• natural fracture closing

8/25/2015 22 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 23: Formation Damage

Horizontal Well Formation Damage Theories

Zone of Invasion - Homogeneous Case

50423009 8/25/2015 23

George E. King Engineering GEKEngineering.com

Page 24: Formation Damage

8/25/2015 24 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 25: Formation Damage

Horizontal Well Formation Damage Theories

Zone of Invasion - Heterogeneous Case

50423010 8/25/2015 25

George E. King Engineering GEKEngineering.com

Page 26: Formation Damage

8/25/2015 26 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Clay like smectite may have a major effect on damage in some cases, none in others.

Page 27: Formation Damage

Narrow (<0.1” wide) natural fracture in dolomite formation

8/25/2015 27 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Natural fractures, like this one from a downhole camera, dominate the permeability and ability to produce fluids from a formation.

Page 28: Formation Damage

8/25/2015 28 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Wide, often cavernous fractures are present in some rocks, particularly limestones. These types of fractures can take whole mud, making cleanout and effective restoration of permeability nearly impossible. Air drilling is often the only practical approach to prevent excessive damage.

Page 29: Formation Damage

Mud Damage

• Common problems

– fines in the mud - physical plugging

– wetting of formation by mud surfactants

– Emulsions from formation fluids and both oil based mud (OBM) and water based mud (WBM)

– reactions with the formation fluids

– reaction with the formation clays

8/25/2015 29 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 30: Formation Damage

8/25/2015 30 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

One common and severe problem is the creation of a rigid sludge (extremely viscous emulsion) from mixing the heavier ranges of oil based muds (typically over 12 lb/gal) with some brines and most acids and/or spent acids. The emulsion is stabilized and its viscosity significantly increased by the cuttings in the oil based mud. The result is a nearly solid sludge when the oil based mud emulsifiers react with the low pH acid or high chloride brines. Testing with laboratory samples of OBM and acid will not predict this problem – it usually only occurs with field samples of the OBM (containing the cuttings) and the field samples of acid and spent acid, which contain iron. To prevent the problem, overflush OBM in the well with xylene or a suitable safe substitute and backflow before acidizing. Jetting the solvent assists in OBM removal. Apply the solvent before acidizing and use a mutual solvent in the acid To clean up a sludge, a strong OBM solvent (xylene is usually the best) is soaked for several hours before flowing back and then acidizing with acid and a suitable mutual solvent. Test on field samples.

Page 31: Formation Damage

8/25/2015 31 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

50/50 mixtures of a field sample of 14.5 lb/gal OBM and acid produced this solid sludge. The sample was stable for months. The well it was from was expected to come in a 12 mmscf/d but the flow was too small to measure after the well was perforated and acidized with straight 12%/3% HCl/HF. The well was treated with high quality xylene (soaked for 12 hours), before circulating the solvent and mud out of the well. After acidizing with HCL and a mutual solvent, the rate increased to 12 mmscf/d within 24 hours.

Page 32: Formation Damage

8/25/2015 32 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Another sample of OBM that was treated with acid. In the sample on the left, a field sample of OBM was mixed directly with acid. The sample was stable for three months until discarded. In the sample in the left, the OBM was mixed with xylene and allowed to soak. The water in the OBM is the darker brown and the cuttings that have dropped out are at the bottom of the cylinder.

Page 33: Formation Damage

Deposits

• Paraffin - precipitated by: – loss of temperature in the tubing

– loss of light ends of the liquids such as ethanes, propanees and butanes by venting (pressure reduction)

– mixing with cool fluids (acids, frac, kill, etc) that reduce the oil temperature below the cloud point.

– flood front breakthrough that cool the oil (water or CO2 expansion) or by dry gas stripping that removes the light ends.

8/25/2015 33 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 34: Formation Damage

Paraffin Location

• Deposit first appears at or near the surface

• Location moves downhole as field is produced and pressure drops reduce the light end concentrations)

8/25/2015 34 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 35: Formation Damage

Paraffin Composition

• C18 to C60+ straight chain hydrocarbons

– C18 82F melting point

– C23 122F melting point

– C32 158F melting point

– C42 181F melting point

– C60 211F melting point

Paraffin deposits are never pure (pure paraffin is white).

8/25/2015 35 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 36: Formation Damage

8/25/2015 36 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 37: Formation Damage

Deposition Location

• Top 5 joints of tubing

• Downstream of pressure drop

• Sea floor flow lines, wellheads, risers

• Gas breakout points

• On old paraffin deposits

8/25/2015 37 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 38: Formation Damage

Paraffin Removal Methods • Hot Oiling – better for surface lines and the very top tubing joints.

Don’t expect to get heat deep in a well by circulating hot fluids – it’s a shell-and-tube heat exchanger.

• Solvents – good but need heat at the reaction site to be about 130oF (54oC) and add jetting or agitation to speed the removal process.

• Dispersants – water based with additives designed to disperse paraffin and hold it in suspension – works only where lab and field testing are coordinated to develop the best product and approach.

• Scraping – a short term fix - turns loose a lot of debris and leaves paraffin on the tubing, which serves as a growth site for more paraffin.

• Heating cables – good but often expensive to install and operate.

• Plastic rod guides – can be effective in rod pumped wells, if area of contact overlaps other guides.

8/25/2015

George E. King Engineering GEKEngineering.com

38

Page 39: Formation Damage

Paraffin Prevention Methods

• Crystal modifiers that prevent wax deposition. Need by careful selection and a consistent method of application.

• Heating cables – expensive?

8/25/2015 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com 39

Page 40: Formation Damage

Asphaltene Sources

• Dispersions - kept suspended by micelles

• Soluble in oil (very limited)

• Additives to muds (gilsonites)

8/25/2015 40 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 41: Formation Damage

World Wide Crude Oil Chemical Compositions (SARA)Hydroc arbon Numbe r

Field Asphaltene Re s in Aro matic Saturated Total of

(Wt %) (Wt %) (Wt %) (Wt %) (Wt %) Sample s

Athabas ca 23.3 28.6 32.1 15.9 48.1 15

Wabas ca 21.6 30.6 32.1 15.6 47.7 7

Peac e Rive r 48.7 23.2 20.5 7.6 28.1 3

Cold Lake 20.6 28 30.5 20.9 51.4 7

E. Ve ne zue la 12.6 32.4 36.4 18.6 55 5

Average on 22.9 30.6 30.4 16.1 46.5 46

46 Heavy Oils

PB HOT (EOA) 14.13 13.37 28.1 44.4 72.5

PB HOT (WOA) 10.38 20.42 28.23 40.97 69.2

W. Ven. (ne ar 13.2 12.9 38 35.9 73.9

HOT)

Co nve ntio nal 14.2 28.6 57.2 85.8 517

Normal Oils

PBU Normal 16.52 1.9 31.93 49.67 81.6

Oil 18.42

Schrader Bluff 4.9 29.0 24.7 41.5 66.2 158/25/2015 41

George E. King Engineering GEKEngineering.com

Page 42: Formation Damage

Asphaltenes

• precipitated by:

– CO2

– acid

– pH

– turbulence

– chemical shift that upsets micelle

8/25/2015 42 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 43: Formation Damage

Asphaltene Stability

• Maltenes and resins form the micelle

• Asphaltene is the small platelet (35A) held in the middle of the micelle

• Dispersed platelets are not usually a problem although the oil may have a high viscosity

• When micelles are upset and broken, the platelets coagulate and form a mass.

8/25/2015 43 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 44: Formation Damage

Scales

• calcium carbonate - upset driven

• calcium sulfate - mixing waters, upset, CO2

• barium sulfate - mixing waters, upset

• iron scales - corrosion, H2S, low pH, O2

• rarer scales - heavy brines

8/25/2015 44 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 45: Formation Damage

8/25/2015 45 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Calcium carbonate scale, note the layers.

Page 46: Formation Damage

8/25/2015 46 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

An unusual form of calcite scale in the form of 1 to 2 mm diameter pellets where the calcite layers formed around a grain of silt and grew until the were too heavy to be suspended in a well with very strong water drive (E. Texas – circa 1975).

Page 47: Formation Damage

Scale Location

• at pressure drops - perfs, profiles

• water mixing points - leaks, flood breakthru

• outgassing points - hydrostatic sensitive

• shear points - pumps, perfs, chokes,

• gravel pack - formation interface

8/25/2015 47 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 48: Formation Damage

8/25/2015 48 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

In one case, scale was forming at the interface of a gravel pack and formation sand in an extremely fine and poorly sorted sand. The formation water was high in bicarbonate ion and calcium.

Page 49: Formation Damage

Scale Prediction

• Chemical models - require water analysis and well conditions

• Predictions are usually a “worst case” - this is where the “upset” factor comes in.

– added shear - increased drawdown, choke changes, etc.

– acidizing

– venting pressure

8/25/2015 49 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 50: Formation Damage

Polymer Damage

• From: muds, pills, frac, carriers

• Stable? - for years

• location - depends on form polymer was in

– dispersed properly - surface to deep in formation

– in pills and mass - right in perfs

8/25/2015 50 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 51: Formation Damage

8/25/2015 51 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Using dry polymer mixed into cold water, a crust of un-hydrated polymer formed and separated to the top of the tank. If this layer were drawn into the pump as the tank level dropped, the polymer mass could be displaced into the perfs and would be a significant barrier to production for years. Acid has little effect on this type of deposit.

Page 52: Formation Damage

8/25/2015 52 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Even pre-mixed polymer has un-hydrated gels or “fish-eyes” after mixing with water. Shearing and filtering the gel through a six to eight gauge screen is the fastest way to remove the plugging debris. Incidentally – the sales representative said this would never happen with their product.

BP

Page 53: Formation Damage

Particles in the Fluid

• Solids from tanks, lines and fluids

• Severe problem, but often ignored

8/25/2015 53 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 54: Formation Damage

8/25/2015 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com 54

Much of the debris that is pumped down a well comes from debris left in the water and mix tanks. If you think tank cleaning is too time consuming, you will live with the production decrease in your well.

Page 55: Formation Damage

8/25/2015 55 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Will the same truck be used to haul mix water to your next job?

Page 56: Formation Damage

8/25/2015 56 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Cartridge filters before use.

Page 57: Formation Damage

8/25/2015 57 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Afterwards

Page 58: Formation Damage

8/25/2015 58 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 59: Formation Damage

8/25/2015 59 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Downhole camera picture of a perforation completely filled with debris after displacing a few loads of dirty fluids. What is the cost in production?

Page 60: Formation Damage

Migrating Fines

• Sources

– kaolinite - not really that likely!

– Smectite - very likely, but clay is rare

– zeolites - common in younger sands, GOM area

– weathered feldspar - older sands

– micas, silts, drilling additives

8/25/2015 60 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 61: Formation Damage

Area of Clays

Sand Grain 0.000015 m2/g

Kaolinite 22

Smectite 82

Illite 113

Chlorite 60

The areas for clay are highly variable and depends on deposit configuration.

8/25/2015 61 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 62: Formation Damage

8/25/2015 62 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Many chemical reactions are surface area dependant. The more area, the faster the reaction.

Page 63: Formation Damage

8/25/2015 63 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 64: Formation Damage

8/25/2015 64 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

The surface area of clay compared to the volume of reactive fluid in contact drives the reaction.

Page 65: Formation Damage

8/25/2015 65 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Fibrous or spider web Illite is actually low reactivity in most cases but serves as a trap for migrating fines.

Page 66: Formation Damage

Migrating Clay Catalysts

• water salinity changes

• surfactants and mutual solvents

• overburden increases

• wettability changes

8/25/2015 66 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 67: Formation Damage

Other “Migrators”

• The following are dwarfs compared to the problems with smectite.

– Zeolites - (common in young marine sands) - clintoptolite

– “Weathered” or altered feldspars

– one very rare form of chlorite

– a few loosely attached kaolinite bundles

– broken illites (and mixed layers)

– silt and other grains (<5 microns)

8/25/2015 67 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 68: Formation Damage

Is Clay a Problem?

• Usually not.

• Very few formations are water sensitive to a degree that will affect production.

• Clay is a problem when it is in contact with a reactive fluid and the effects or the reaction significantly lower permeability (30% or more?).

8/25/2015 68 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 69: Formation Damage

Microporosity

• Refers to the very small (non flowable?) volume between clay platelets that can trap and hold water.

• May explain non recovery or slow recovery of load fluids

• May explain errors in log calculations involving high Sw prediction and subsequent dry hydrocarbon flows.

8/25/2015 69 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 70: Formation Damage

8/25/2015 70 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

In some forms, particularly the weathered and loosely attached forms, kaolinite has been known to migrate, but very little reactivity has been seen in most instances that have been investigated by flow.

Chlorite is usually strongly attached and most forms of the mineral are non reactive with water. It does contain ferrous iron, but tests have shown only slow reactivity with the concentrations and volumes of acid that are likely to come in contact with Chlorite in the pores of a rock. Rare examples are known of free standing chlorite rims – these are unstable and can break during flow.

Kaolinite (left) and Chlorite (right) are two common clays found in pore throats. Reactivity is low, but some caution is needed.

Page 71: Formation Damage

Migrating???

• Because fines are there means nothing

• What turns the fines loose? – Velocity - unlikely

– salinity change in fluids - very common

– wetting change

– cleaning agents

– solvents (and mutual solvents)

– shock loads (perforating for example)

8/25/2015 71 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 72: Formation Damage

Damage from clays?

• The potential for clay damage depends on clay type, form, location and presence of reactive fluids.

• In hundreds of sensitivity tests, most cores containing clays are not highly sensitive (>30% permeability reduction) to changes in fluid salinity.

• The question is how representative the clays in the core being tested are to the higher permeability sections of the reservoir.

8/25/2015 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com 72

Page 73: Formation Damage

Preventing Clay Damage

• Unless the clays in the higher permeability sections of the rock are sensitive to the fluids that will actually contact them, any type of clay control treatment will likely be unnecessary and potentially damaging.

• When clay damage is possible, test for the best fluid and monitor performance in the field.

• In practice, fluids with 2% to 3% KCl are common. These may be effective, unnecessary or ineffective – depending on the clay.

8/25/2015

George E. King Engineering GEKEngineering.com

73

Page 74: Formation Damage

Removing Clay Damage

• Shallow – (to a depth of about 6 inches or 15 cm), 1%HF and 9%HF may be effective in some cases.

• Deeper damage usually requires fracturing to bypass the damage.

8/25/2015 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com 74

Page 75: Formation Damage

Emulsions

• Multiple phases that do not separate quickly.

• Creating an emulsion generally requires an energy source.

• If oil and water do not separate quickly, then look for the stabilizing mechanism – Surfactant – either added or natural

– Silt from the formation or from drilling

– Viscosity – high viscosity emulsions often require thinning to break.

– Charge – even weak electric charges can be stabilizers but are more common in water-in-gas emulsions (clouds).

8/25/2015 75 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 76: Formation Damage

8/25/2015 76 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 77: Formation Damage

Increasing internal fraction of the “emulsion”

52% 74% 96%

Viscosity

Widely Dispersed Contact

Deformation

Inverted

Changes in Fluid Viscosity with Change in Internal Phase of Dispersed or Emulsified Flow

8/25/2015 77 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 78: Formation Damage

Energy Sources

• lift system

• gas breakout

• shear at any point in the well

• choke

• gas expansion

8/25/2015 78 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 79: Formation Damage

8/25/2015 79 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 80: Formation Damage

Common Stabilizers in Oil Production

• surfactant (film stiffeners)

• solids (silt, rust, wax, scale, cuttings)

• emulsion or component viscosity (prevents particle or droplet contact)

8/25/2015 80 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 81: Formation Damage

Iron Problems

• Precipitates - usually with acid spending - not typically a problem

• Sludges - more of a problem than we realize - can be controlled with iron reducer and anti-sludge

• Solid particles - multiple problems

8/25/2015 81 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 82: Formation Damage

8/25/2015 82 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 83: Formation Damage

8/25/2015 83 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 84: Formation Damage

Bacterial Problems

• Aerobic - lives only w/ oxygen

• Anerobic - lives w/o oxygen

• Facultative - w/ or w/o, but better one way

• Problems Caused – eats polymer

– causes formation damage and corrosion

– SRBs may sour reservoir

8/25/2015 84 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 85: Formation Damage

Bacterial Populations

• Free Floating - easy to kill, not that plentiful

• Sessile (attached colonies)

– 100,000 x free floating populations,

– very difficult to kill,

– live in densly matter layers

– protected by slime layer

– highly accelerated corrosion underneath

8/25/2015 85 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 86: Formation Damage

Bacterial Sources

• Some small populations dormant in reservoir? Probably.

• drinking water < 1000 cells/ml

• sea water - high populations of SRBs

• brackish waters - very high populations

• river/pond - moderate to high populations

• concentrated brines - very low concentrations

• acids - very low to almost none

8/25/2015 86 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 87: Formation Damage

Bacterial Control

• Acids - kills free floating, little effect on sessile colonies

• Bactericides - (same as acid) kills free floating, little effect on sessile colonies

• Bleaches and Chlorine - (3% to 8%) strips slime layer, dissolves cell wall, can’t remove biomass. Watch corrosion!

• Bleach, followed by acid - good removal history.

8/25/2015 87 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com

Page 88: Formation Damage

Relative Permeability Damage Mechanisms

• Wetting – surface wetting

• Water blocks – trapping water – some effects of capillary pressure in small pores in wells with low differential pressures.

• Condensate banking and retrograde condensate – a phase drop-out that decreases perm to a single fluid.

8/25/2015

George E. King Engineering GEKEngineering.com

88

Page 89: Formation Damage

Controlling Relative Permeability Mechanisms

• Water blocks – reduce the interfacial and surface tension of the intruding fluid and re-establish the connate fluid saturation.

• Wetting – can modify by cleaning, but the natural surfactants ultimately will define the wetting of the rock.

• Condensate drop-out – increase the flow area by fracturing to negate the effects of lowing the permeability of the formation.

8/25/2015 George E. King Engineering

GEKEngineering.com 89