Formation Damage Abatement: A Quarter-Century Perspective Ali Ghalambor, SPE, U. of Louisiana at Lafayette, and M.J. Economides, SPE, U. of Houston
Summary Petroleum well production impairment has long been associated with formation damage. Concepts such as the skin effect and its various manifestations have been introduced to account for the effects of damage. The origins of damage and the types of damage also have been the subjects of intense scrutiny. Abatement has included preventive measures such as the use of nondamaging fluids, presumably more benign processes, and improved drilling and well construction procedures and techniques. Once in place, the removal of damage has spawned an entire industry, that of matrix stimulation. This involves the use of appropriate remediation fluids, complete with the understanding of the often contrasting interaction among these fluids, the fluids and the damage, and, very importantly, the side effects that can damage the well more than its prestimulation state. Again, appropriate hardware was necessary. Owing to the fact that damage removal is often either incomplete or unsuccessful, methods of bypassing the damage, such as high-permeability fracturing, have been developed. Finally, brute force approaches are common, including the drilling of more vertical and/or horizontal wells regardless of the damage in order to get enough production. This paper is a critical review of both the evolution of the technologies and the thought processes that have permeated the industry over the past quarter century. Particular emphasis is given to the resolution of controversial subjects and their impact on the field. These include issues such as matrix stimulation vs. fracturing, sand production control vs. sand deconsolidation management, underbalance vs. extreme overbalance, and perforating and drilling fluids and practices. Introduction A routine procedure of early-day operators to keep many wells in production was “clean out, shoot, clean out again.” Therefore, the idea of formation damage abatement has not been an esoteric phenomenon to the industry. Engineers have long yearned to prevent, diagnose, and remediate formation damage. The disagreement has been over how to accomplish it. These concerns continue to permeate the literature and various technical gatherings. Finally, SPE approved the formation of a formal symposium. The first Symposium on Formation Damage Control was held in 1974 in New Orleans. This was followed by symposia in Houston (1976), Lafayette, Louisiana (1978), and Bakersfield, California (1980). The location of the symposium alternated between Lafayette and Bakersfield until 1990, when Lafayette became the sole host of the symposium (Table 1). In 1992, the SPE Board approved the international designation for the symposium. The 2000 Symposium was the silver anniversary of the event. During its 25 years, the symposium has grown from a regional event to today’s major international symposium, attracting more than 800 participants from more than 30 countries representing 6 continents. The success of the symposium prompted the initiation of the sister conference during the off years in The Hague, The Netherlands, beginning in 1995. The International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control (ISEFDC) has contributed nearly 600 technical papers to the literature (Tables 1 and 2).
Copyright © 2002 Society of Petroleum Engineers This paper (SPE 77304) was revised for publication from paper SPE 58744, first presented at the 2000 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 23–24 February. Original manuscript received for review 15 September 2000. Revised manuscript received 13 July 2001. Manuscript peer approved 26 July 2001.
4
We have selected what we consider some of the most important topics in damage, damage characterization, prevention, and abatement. While this paper by no means exhausts the subject, it is a reasonably comprehensive description of the evolution of both the technology and, especially, the thought process over the last 25 years. Other meetings and journals may have additional relevant material. Wherever absolutely necessary, we have included important references from these sources. However, because of our intimate and lengthy involvement with the organization and nurturing of the International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, particular emphasis was given to the works that appeared at these events. This is not limiting, because the Symposium has evolved over time into the premier international meeting on the subject. Aspects of Drilling Damage A successful completion must begin with the drilling of the well. All decisions thereafter concerning the well should be made only after careful consideration of their effect upon the ultimate flow performance of the well. Industry practitioners have long recognized that the various facets of drilling operations can induce production impairment. Unfortunately, this was not apparently a sufficient incentive for drilling personnel to become more actively involved in the formation damage debate. The only exception to this observation is perhaps in the drilling fluids industry, in which sales motivations could have played a major role in the development of new and improved products. To its credit, the industry has made great strides to introduce nondamaging fluids.1–6 Recently, drill-in fluids that minimize particle invasion have sparked many studies for designing muds to reduce rock impairment. Regarding drill-in fluids, one should be aware of the current technological weaknesses, such as long-term scale inhibition for high density brines, iron solubility control, and wellbore preparation and cleaning methods. Washouts in the producing zones have been found to greatly reduce the chances of obtaining a satisfactory cementation. Furthermore, in such cases, mud filtrate reduces reservoir permeability by dispersed clays. Therefore, slower drilling in the objective interval must be accepted, even though it may not be the cheapest way. The problem of formation damage and annular blowouts or pressures owing to migration through cemented annulus was recognized in the mid-1960s and resulted in new cementing procedures.7,8 Cementing (primary and remedial) continues to be one of the toughest (if not the toughest) challenges in drilling, completing, and producing a well. The industry emphasis seems to have been in introducing better cements and spacer fluids rather than in more effective placement. Casing deformation in, or adjacent to, the producing intervals has been encountered in one of four wells entered for recompletion or repairs. Initially, it was thought that the casing was collapsed. Using instruments developed for this purpose, such as the kinkmeter and casing caliper, it was determined that the deformation was caused by buckling. Pressure decline, causing compaction and axial loads, and sand production, causing loss of lateral support, were recognized as the reason for buckling. For minor casing damage, the use of undersized, inflatable packers or squeeze tools, flexible wire-wrapped screens, and knuckle joints were found useful. For more severe damage, milling operations have been recommended.9 Other studies described the mechanisms of drilling and production-induced damage.10,11 Filter cake removal in openhole completions where formation impairment cannot be bypassed by perforation remains a chalMarch 2002 SPE Journal
TABLE 1—NUMBER OF TECHNICAL PAPERS PRESENTED AT THE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM AND EXHIBITION ON FORMATION DAMAGE CONTROL Date
Location
Number of Papers5
7–8 February 1974
New Orleans
26
29–30 January 1976
Houston
21
15–16 February 1978
Lafayette, Louisiana
15
28–29 January 1980
Bakersfield
14
24–25 March 1982
Lafayette
22
13–14 February 1984
Bakersfield
29
26–27 February 1986
Lafayette
23
8–9 February 1988
Bakersfield
25
22–23 February 1990
1
Lafayette
35
26–27 February 1992
2
Lafayette
63
19–20 February 1994
3
Lafayette
66
14–15 February 1996
Lafayette
77
18–19 February 1998
Lafayette
74
Lafayette
94
23–24 February 2000
4
Total Number of Papers – 583 1 Lafayette became the sole host of the Symposium on Formation Damage Control. 2 SPE Board adopted the name “International Symposium on Formation Damage Control.” 3 In 1995, a sister conference, the European Formation Damage Conference, was held for the first time in The Hague (and later in 1997, 1999); 50, 55, and 51 papers presented, respectively. 4 SPE Board adopted the name “International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control.” 5 Actual number of papers submitted (initial number of accepted presentations was greater).
lenge. Flow initiation pressure has been used as a measure for filter cake removal during drawdown.12 Role of Formation Characteristics in Well Completion Clay problems have long been recognized and continue to plague all aspects of petroleum production from initial drilling to completion (stimulation) and final well abandonment. What has been learned simply boils down to the fact that all treatments should be the type that leave all silicate surfaces in the clay water-wet. An oil-wet formation can trap water in the pores to greatly reduce the flow of oil or gas.13 In addition, an oil-wet rock or propped fracture will not flow as much oil as a water-wet rock in which minimal water is present. This aspect was also examined in the formation fines and factors controlling their movement in porous media.14,15 It was demonstrated that the clay content of a reservoir is not a good guide to predict the concentrations of required clay control additives. Determination of cation exchange capacity of the reservoir samples is a better method for prediction.16 Activity Theory was utilized to design chemically balanced polymer drill-
ing fluids in a water sensitive shale environment.17 The role of geochemical coding in dealing with the damage caused by nondamaging clays (such as kaolinite) was studied.18 As once perceived, the nondamaging aspects of these clays are a myth.19,20 Water/rock interaction modeling has been used to optimize well treatment and water injection operations.21 Formation damage modeling is obviously complex. Some attempts have been made to evaluate and compare the various models.22,23 The physics of colloidal particle retention in porous media and its consequences on permeability have been introduced by modeling.24 Completion and Workover Fluids Heavy-solids free completion and workover brines of greater than 15.0 ppg were developed in the early 1970s.2,25 During this period, completion and workover fluids were divided into two categories: solids-free “clean” fluids, and systems with calcium carbonate particles for fluid loss control. These systems posed their own limitations. Filtration in the former and higher viscosity in the latter were major challenges in the use of these fluids. New filtra-
TABLE 2—TOPICAL COVERAGE IN THE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON FORMATION DAMAGE CONTROL BY NUMBER OF PAPERS Year
Fluids
Damage Mechanisms
Perforating
Sand Control
1974
8
2
3
7
1976
5
7
3
1
1978
4
2
2
5
Fracturing
Organic/Scale Depositions
Completion Techniques
2
—
—
4
3
—
1
1
1
—
—
1 1
Acidizing
1980
3
3
1
4
2
—
—
1982
8
6
1
4
6
—
—
1
1984
5
11
—
8
1
3
—
1
1986
3
3
1
8
4
—
2
2
1988
4
8
1
6
4
1
—
1
1990
9
8
1
6
7
1
1
2
1992
8
19
1
15
8
4
8
13
1994
8
15
1
10
8
6
9
9
1996
7
32
—
9
10
12
7
—
1998
13
16
7
8
9
12
6
3
2000
12
21
5
21
11
10
5
9
March 2002 SPE Journal
5
tion units and procedures were introduced and advocated standards other than maximum particle size.26 Procedures to evaluate completion fluids were introduced to study the effect of various parameters by modified instruments such as the well publicized return permeability measurement.27–29 Bacterial damage is a difficult subject to study properly owing both to the time and to the sensitivity of the experiments that need to be carried out. Remedial methods and insight into bacterial damage were presented in separate studies.30–33 The various aspects of drilling damage and its associated completion operations were presented in a comprehensive study.34 It was pointed out that the destruction of shale membrane in the handling of cores would pose a serious problem in many analyses, leading to unrealistic vertical permeabilities. Furthermore, it revealed the fallacy of holding a small amount of light fluid slug below a higher density mud to perforate. The role of core and core analysis in formation damage work has long been recognized,35 but the controversy of reliable and representative core samples remains to be resolved by the practitioners. Equally, the digenesis of sandstones brings a different perspective to the study of reservoir stimulation.36 Many studies have investigated the perforated performances for various formations and conditions.37 The result of these investigations has been the identification of several significant and insignificant parameters, but the topic continues to be the subject of debate. A novel technique of using capillary pressure data for rapid evaluation of formation damage or stimulation fluids was developed.38 The uses of sidewall cores for gravel-pack design have been demonstrated.39 Image analysis of pore systems and computed tomography have partially resolved problems related to reservoir quality40,41 and reservoir compaction. Subsidence studies have proved to be significant in evaluation of casing buckling problems, permeability, or pore volume changes during production, surface subsidence, and sand production problems.42 A reservoir disturbance index (RDI) was developed to describe the mechanisms of solids production in unconsolidated reservoirs.43 Sand Control State-of-the-art gravel packing remained essentially unchanged until the early 1970s, when serious concerns regarding the flow performance of producing wells developed. The act of performing a sand control completion could no longer be viewed as an isolated engineering activity unrelated to drilling, evaluating, and casing the well. The concern for using rig time efficiently prompted the development of a one-trip gravel-packing system in the early 1970s.44 Lately, coiled tubing has been used to perform gravel packing.45 Recent design is capable of single-trip perforating and gravel packing.46 The appropriate gravel size for gravel packing has been the subject of controversy. A study in 1974 revealed the detrimental effect of mixing sand and gravel on production capacities.47 Earlier studies have found that a gravel-to-sand size ratio of less than 6, and preferably 4, gives a stable pack.48 Angular gravel and a uniform formation sand promote the pack stability. Particle transport in perforations in gravel prepacking also were studied.49 However, other studies showed effective sand control with a 16:1 ratio.50 The quality of sand in gravel packing was studied through the years. The use of thin-sections shed new light on characterizing gravel-pack sands.51,52 The resin-coated gravel slurry treatment was found to be an effective sand control method in unconsolidated formation having high silt and clay content.53–56 The application of the materials for sand control was intended without the use of a screen. Another study compared conventional and ceramic gravel packs.57 Various papers have contributed to the better design, planning, and execution of gravel packs.58–60 The gravel-packing procedure has gone through some evolution. Several techniques were introduced to accommodate wells with limited space between producing zones, and employing liner vibration technique.61,62 Gravel-pack carrier fluids have required dual viscosity. As a result, industry breakback data generally disagrees because of the 6
variety of instruments and shear rates used to measure viscosity. Viscosity breakback criteria for gravel-packing carrier fluids have been described.63 Furthermore, the deviated wells posed their own problems, which led to the development of special carrier fluids and procedures.64–67 Gravel placement with viscous fluids is best suited for relatively short completion intervals in well deviations that do not exceed about 45°.68 Initially, gravel was circulated down the annulus to the bottom of the well, where it was kept in place by a wire-wrapped screen. This caused severe contamination of the pack, and the perforation tunnels were not filled with gravel. Crossover tools were introduced to minimize this problem by pumping down a supposedly clean workstring. Perforation filled with low effective permeability materials brought about the use of high-rate squeeze packing and carrying gravel in high concentrations as a slurry in viscous oil or gelled water with a built-up breaker. Investigators have experienced that water packing is a general purpose gravel-pack technique that can be effectively applied to any well with simple pumping schedules.9 Improvements in the design were extensively discussed by other investigators.64,69,70 The industry also presented the merit of underreamed gravel-pack completions vs. perforated liner gravel packing.71 The quantitative approach to gravelpack evaluation has also resulted in the development of logging instruments.72 Improved models attempted to evaluate gravel packs.73,74 Furthermore, industry conducted comprehensive case studies to provide recommendations as to when to gravel pack and how to evaluate a gravel pack.75–80 Sand production prediction continues to pose a challenge for the industry. Various models have been developed throughout the years. The effect of production of free water was carried in a detailed study revealing the onset of sand production.81,82 This study heavily relied on formation strength information obtained from mechanical logs. This aspect was further investigated to address the accuracy of several formation strength models.83,84 Sand control techniques in the industry vary and can be controversial.85,86 Attempts have been made to select screen slot width to prevent plugging and sand production.87 Sorting criteria have been introduced for selection of gravel and screens.88 Sand consolidation systems such as nonaqueous overflush furan resin and internally catalyzed epoxy resin systems were applied with various rates of success.89 Lately, new chemistry and improved placement practices have been introduced to enhance resin consolidation.90 Perforating The early standard completion procedure called for cementing casing at total depth and for perforating the productive zone with jet charges. This was followed by installation of sand control, either in-situ consolidation or mechanical sand retention. Production impairment and sand control problems were attributed to this sequence of operations because of the exclusion of the important step of first cleaning the perforation. In naturally consolidated formations, the debris and pulverized materials from jet perforations can be removed by producing the well with sufficient drawdown and/ or by stimulation. However, in unconsolidated sands (such as the ones prevalent in the Gulf Coast), one cannot produce wells without sand control. Damage from gun perforating has long been recognized. Studies dating from as early as 1932, when the first well was perforated, have shown that to maximize well productivity, perforations must penetrate substantially beyond the zone of drilling damage.91 A few deep perforations are more effective than many shallow ones, and perforation quality is more important than either shot density or penetration. The industry tried many techniques to remove jet charge-induced impairment. Backsurging, perforation washing, and underbalance perforating were developed to enhance perforation cleaning.9 All of these methods have their limitations and are not intended for general application.92,93 Investigators analyzed underbalanced and extreme overbalanced perforating and developed perforating requirements for stimulation.94–99 The practice of jet perforating has been slow owing to lack of depth control and stabilization of the jet device during the jetting action. It appears, however, that jet perforating has advanMarch 2002 SPE Journal
tages over conventional perforating, because of the minimization of the physical damage to the formation in the form of crushing and compaction.100 The flow behavior (productivity) of nongravel-packed perforations by rule-of-thumb concepts were proved inadequate and invalid. New models were developed to predict economic effects of perforating conditions and number and size of perforations.101 Furthermore, the decline in injectivity in water injection wells because of nonuniform perforation properties has been modeled.102 A combination of scanning electron microscopy and a 3D single-phase reservoir simulation provided new information on the reduction of productivity caused by the crushed zone surrounding a jet perforation tunnel.103 The Evolution of Matrix Stimulation Early on, matrix stimulation of sandstone reservoirs focused primarily on the use of mud acid (usually, 3% HF and 12% HCl by weight solution) to remove drilling-induced and native damage. The authors in one study104 presented a large number of field case studies in the U.S. Gulf Coast, which indicated optimum volumes of 125 to 200 gal/ft. Interestingly and significantly, they concluded that “formation permeability and porosity had little influence on the success of the stimulation treatment.”104 This should have been a direct indicator that the penetration of stimulation was not deep, perhaps on the order of a few inches. The use of mutual solvents was recommended in all treatments, suggesting the composite nature of damage, and the obvious conclusion was that mud acid alone cannot stimulate wells in many sandstone formations. Similar results using the same acid/mutual solvent formulation were observed in another study.105 Other investigators106 understood two important issues. The first of these was that the penetration of typical injection volumes of HF/HCl in a clay-containing sandstone, after the acid is spent, is on the order of less than 6 in., and, thus, retardation is necessary. One ingenious method suggested by the authors is the generation of HF in situ, by first injecting HCl, causing ion exchange with the clays, and then injecting a neutral or slightly basic fluoride ion, which would cause the generation of HF on the clay particle. The author of another study36 understood the second critical issue: the impact of lithological heterogeneities in sandstones and their potential for reaction side effects. He posed the rhetorical question: “We hope that fluid+rock enhanced permeability, but how often does fluid+rock decrease permeability?” He then particularly identified “unstable-nondurable grains” cemented by calcite as problematic. The potentially destructive influence of HF/HCl solutions on destabilizing the formation and the need for more acid penetration, which would require strong HF/HCl solution (entering a vicious cycle of further destabilization) were also addressed by other investigators.107 They recommended the use of fluoboric acid (HBF4), which provides deep hydrofluoric acid penetration while the treatment not only fails to destabilize fines but, instead, fuses them together. In one series of publications, the investigators108 examined the permeability loss commonly observed in the acidizing of sandstone reservoirs using HF/HCl formulations. They attributed this not only to the precipitation of colloidal silica but to other precipitates as well. They also found that even minute quantities of carbonate minerals would cause a major alteration in the indicated acid formulation. An eloquent analysis of the problems associated with HF/HCl solutions was presented in one study.109 The authors also suggested the use of phosphoric acid (H3PO4) in blends with HCl or HF. These acid formulations show unique selectivity for siliceous materials such as clays, feldspars, and silica in the presence of carbonate minerals. Thus, highly undesirable precipitates are minimized. Further, the rate of reaction is retarded, leading to far deeper penetration than that seen in conventional sandstone acid systems. Buffering the HF/HCl solution with phosphoric acid to reduce undesirable precipitation is a recurring theme with important ramifications, as seen in another study110 in which the authors recommended the outright use of 12% H3PO4, 3% HF solutions. March 2002 SPE Journal
The problem of cleaning gravel packs in the immediate vicinity around the wellbore with conventional acid formulations was brought forth by other researchers.111 Gravel packing was at the time the preferred completion of choice in high-permeability, loosely consolidated formations. Drilling mud, embedded into the gravel pack, was difficult to remove without the use of a complexing-dispersing system. Mud acid treatments would not be successful without using such a system and would leave a very damaged gravel pack with severe production impairment. A significant concern in all types of acidizing is the potential precipitation of gelatinous ferric hydroxide, which can be exceptionally damaging. Acid dissolves iron scale from well tubulars and also reacts readily with iron-bearing native minerals. This can lead to the formation of ferric hydroxide. The author of one study112 presented a comprehensive evaluation of additives intended to prevent such undesirable precipitation. He tested citric acid, EDTA, NTA, and erythorbic acid. He concluded that erythorbic acid is the most efficient of all, stabilizing as much as nine times more iron than citric acid. This is done not by complexation, the means by which the other acids work, but by reducing ferric (Fe III) to ferrous (Fe II) ion. The late 1980s brought about a maturing of the sandstone acidizing process, complete with fine-tuning of the operation, taking into account reservoir idiosyncracies. Tailoring the injected fluids, their additives, and the need for quality control became essential components of the treatment. At the same time, real-time evaluation techniques were introduced to provide the stimulation job effectiveness and the ratification of the design. In yet another important publication, the author,113 using hundreds of field cases, provided guidelines for recommended acid volumes for gas- (where he saw a considerable impact of the reservoir pressure), oil-, and water-injection wells. He also found a substantial effect on the type of afterflush, the displacing fluid following the main treatment, and the ratio of its volume to the main treatment volume. One of the most comprehensive, fine-tuned, site-specific designs for the matrix stimulation of sandstones was presented by Brannon et al.114 They included the use of hydrocarbon liquidbase diverters for appropriate fluid placement, and they recommended the use of reduced-strength HF/HCl solutions and the use of xylene preflush for paraffin/asphaltene removal and also as a postflush (Gidley’s afterflush) to break the diverter. They also offered important guidelines for on-site quality control, such as filtering the fluids and titrating the acids to be injected. Pickling the tubing (i.e., circulating a weak acid to remove iron scale before the main treatment) was also suggested. Finally, they made provisions for data acquisition during the treatment, such as pressure, an important element in evaluating the operation. The fundamental behavior of acid/rock interaction in sandstone treatments has been the subject of extended studies at the U. of Texas, and several works have been published. This research led to the description of the controlling mechanisms of the process, including surface reaction and mass transfer. Publications addressed the optimization of sandstone acidizing.115,116 Work from others added to this understanding, such as the effort to classify the chemistry of acidizing.117,118 Acid diversion and fluid placement strategies have always been important issues in matrix stimulation. Recent work has suggested foams as diverters both because of their ability to selectively block off aqueous zones and because of their propensity to remain stable in cleaned-up pores while disintegrating in damaged pores. In the 1990s, there were several contributions in this area,119–122 and two publications in the 1998 Formation Damage Control Symposium presented field results and the validation of foam as a very effective diverter.123,124 Although a sizeable portion of all petroleum reservoirs are in carbonate formations, acidizing has not been emphasized, perhaps because many of these formations are naturally fractured and are prolific in spite of damage or, rather, because acidizing of these formations is considered (mistakenly) as easy. One important distinction between carbonate and sandstone reservoirs is that in the latter, the purpose is to remove near-well 7
damage, thereby restoring the reservoir permeability. In contrast, in carbonate reservoirs, removal of damage is not as important, but, instead, what is expected is the development of new permeability, in the form of wormholes. Clearly, the vast majority of acid/carbonate rock interaction is mass-transfer limited, and, thus, very different kinetics are in effect, compared to the surfacereaction-limited situation in acid/sandstone interactions. Although some important publications on the subject have appeared in other petroleum literature,125–127 precious few have been presented at the Formation Damage Control Symposium. There are controversies surrounding the degree of importance within masstransfer phenomena, such as diffusion and convection, whether the reaction rate is appreciably finite and, consequently, the optimum manner of wormhole creation, the optimum injection rate, etc. This is an area that still requires work both at the mathematical description128 and experimental work129,130 levels (although laboratory experiments are cumbersome and time-consuming). Horizontal wells emerged as a major new means for reservoir exploitation in the mid- to late 1980s and accelerated in the 1990s. Some important issues arose immediately. First, there was no reason to assume that horizontal wells would be less damaged than vertical wells. In fact, on the contrary, longer time exposure to drilling fluids would likely result in deeper penetration and more severe damage, while the shape of damage would not be evenly distributed along the well but, instead, would form a cone with the larger base near the vertical section of the well. Second, because even damaged horizontal wells are likely to outperform vertical wells (although by no means at their full potential131), operators have been psychologically reluctant to stimulate them. The amount of stimulation fluids needed to provide acid coverage similar to that of vertical wells would have been prohibitive. To circumvent this problem, two papers addressed the partial stimulation of horizontal wells. The first132 suggested the use of coiled tubing and recommended either the creation of a stimulated zone inside the cone of damage or the deliberate undercompletion of a well with interspersed segments where, of course, only the open segments would be stimulated. A similar scheme was also suggested later by other investigators.133 Real-Time Evaluation of Matrix Stimulation Treatments Two influential papers on the real-time evaluation of matrix treatments appeared back-to-back in the 1988 Formation Damage Control Symposium.134,135 Both papers suggested the use of measurements of pressure and injection rate obtained during the treatment and the estimation of the evolving skin effect. Paccaloni et al. used an approximation of steady-state injection, suggesting a size of an “acid bank,” whereas Prouvost and Economides used a more rigorous transient injection mode for treatment evaluation. This type of technique is still in use today by most practitioners. In later times, other papers have added both case studies and modifications to the technique.136,137 Hydraulic Fracturing to Bypass Formation Damage Until the 1990s, reservoir stimulation was considered to have two distinct manifestations: matrix stimulation to remove near-well damage, and hydraulic fracturing to offset low well productivity or injectivity index because of small reservoir permeability. Oil reservoirs with a few-millidarcy permeability and higher, and gas reservoirs with as little as one-tenth that permeability, were not considered as candidates for hydraulic fracturing.138 Instead, only matrix stimulation was supposed to be applied. Matrix stimulation always had associated problems: • Difficulty to identify the type of damage. • Multiple damages with competing remedies. • Detrimental byproducts of stimulation. • Frequently ineffective or partially effective treatments. In the case of loosely consolidated or unconsolidated formations, a common characteristic of high-permeability reservoirs, sand production control techniques, such as gravel packing and screens, 8
while successful in their primary purpose of holding sand back, often would result in highly unacceptable large induced skin effects. The early concept of damage associated with hydraulic fracturing was not the abatement of damage but, instead, the avoidance of new types (i.e., fracture face damage resulting from the leakoff of fracturing fluids into the reservoir, or the residual damage to the proppant pack resulting from inadequately broken polymer in the fracturing fluid). Neither of these damages is actually fatal. First, fracture face damage in the long fractures that are designed and resulting in low-permeability formations (very low leakoff) has little impact on well performance. Although workers in the field expended considerable time to prevent this damage by developing less damaging fluids more compatible with the formation, this exercise is of limited benefit.139 It was not until 1982, eight years after the first Formation Damage Control Symposium, that two papers appeared to discuss damage related to fracturing. The first paper addressed the “reduction in both formation permeability and fracture flow capacity caused by the residue remaining after water based fracturing fluids are broken.” The author suggested that this was “very important” in the selection of fracturing fluids. His work dealt with the laboratory study of gelling agents. The second paper141 advocated an immiscible hydrocarbon-phase as fluid loss additive to minimize formation damage and at the same time not to impair core permeability, in contrast to particulate fluid loss agent. Laboratory core experiments, fashionable at the time, were used for this work. While both of the above papers were sound, they addressed rather perfunctory issues. A simple modeling with an analysis139 would readily reveal that for the typical reservoir candidates of the day, neither damage was so serious. In essence, the vast majority of low-permeability reservoirs could be fractured with little differentiation in their performance affected by either polymer residue or leakoff (within reason, of course, but a with a very wide spectrum of tolerance). Two years later, in 1984, papers still appeared to tackle issues of fracturing fluids. High-temperature applications became important142,143 because deep reservoirs with low permeability are often also of higher temperature. Thermal degradation of polymers and the modeling of fluid temperature profile during fracturing were studied. Again, other studies on polymer break mechanisms and leakoff modeling were presented.144,145 For the subsequent three Symposia, there were virtually no papers on fracturing. But an important single paper appeared in the 1990 Symposium.146 The author wrote of a process of “placing a small frac job prior to placing an inner casing gravel pack . . . ” which became the preferred completion method for a field in Cook Inlet, Alaska. He labeled this type of stimulation a “skin frac.” He went on to add that these “completions have the most merit in terms of mitigating problems posed by the formation” (emphasis ours.) Of course this work was by no means the first dealing with moderate- to high-permeability fracturing. Both stimulation147 and sand production control148,149 had already been addressed in the literature. In particular, the necessary technique of “tip screenout” was applied already.149 It was the use of fracturing only to mitigate formation damage that was emerging as a new interest. Another symposium passed with relatively little interest, and then an explosion of sorts began with the 1994 Symposium. Almost 25 papers dealt with the subject in the 1994, 1996, and 1998 Symposia. The discussion in 1994 started with a paper titled “Hydraulic Fracturing of High-Permeability Formations To Overcome Formation Damage.”150 At the same meeting, there were strong indications of the understanding that in high-permeability formations, there is a necessity of clean proppant packs that maintain their integrity.151–154 New proppant stabilization methods were suggested, one involving fibers,155 and, in another, resins.156 One study157 described the indicated fracture morphology, suggesting short and wide fractures, and they advocated the fracturing of horizontal wells, which, for high-permeability reservoirs, should be fractured in the longitudinal direction. They also showed that much smaller (and, thus, narrower) treatments in horizontal wells can outperform very wide fractures in vertical wells. March 2002 SPE Journal
The near-well fracture geometry and the connectivity between fracture and well were then studied, and the conclusion has been strong. Tortuosity must be reduced, 180° perforating and good perforations are indicated, and reduction in the well deviation is recommended. The fracture-to-well contact should be as effortless as possible.98,158,159 Fluid leakoff damage is now critical, but formation damage present before the treatment, no matter how severe, is still bypassed, and its impact is eliminated.160 To reduce posttreatment fracture face damage, both appropriate filter cakes and leakoff additives are employed.161,162 Finally, design optimization is indicated in sizing these treatments.163 Concluding Remarks Viewed from a modern perspective, the cleaning out of producing wells—made necessary by the caving of shaly material above the producing strata, the sanding up of wells, and the deposition of paraffinic, asphaltic, and carbonaceous materials on the face of the producing formation—may seem so conventional an operation that it loses its significance from the viewpoint of petroleum engineering. However, at least a few of the pioneers were applying principles that continue as the basis of present-day cleanout methods. Carll reported production techniques being practiced in Pennsylvania in the late 1870s and early 1880s, such as the flushing action of benzene, the use of a wire brush to clean the face of the sand, and a chemical action set off by an electric spark, which he termed the “volcano.”164 The concept of damage has evolved variably during the last quarter-century. Initially, formation damage was considered as production reduction owing to alternations in reservoir characteristics. Later, it became apparent that the transient behavior of reservoir fluids and its rock frame is also a major contributing factor to the production impairment. Therefore, the concept of pseudodamage permeated into the petroleum industry’s vocabulary. Regardless of the semantics, formation damage for many years has remained an integration of reservoir mechanics from drilling to abandonment. The International Symposium on Formation Damage Control has been a focused event that has greatly promoted intramural completion technology. Such events will continue preventing or counteracting the natural tendency to inbreed technology and practices. The subject of formation damage encompasses many competing factors that will eventually determine the degree of success of production and individual stimulation operations. The synergistic and antagonistic manner in which the wellbore/reservoir parameters react will continue to ignite the scientific and engineering passions of the practitioners for as long as the industry continues to produce petroleum. References 1. Fischer, P.W. et al.: “An Organic ‘Clay Substitute’ for Nondamaging Water-Based Drilling and Completion Fluids,” paper SPE 4651 presented at the 1973 AIME Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, 30 September–3 October. 2. Wendorff, C.L.: “New Solids-Free, High Density Brines Solve Many Workover and Completion Problems,” paper SPE 4788 presented at the 1973 AIME Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, 30 September–3 October. 3. Tuttle, R.N. and Barkman, J.H.: “New Nondamaging and Acid-Degradable Drilling and Completion Fluids,” JPT (November 1974) 1221. 4. Bensten, N.W. and Veny, J.N.: “Preformed Stable Foam Performance in Drilling and Evaluating Shallow Gas Wells in Northeastern Alberta,” JPT (October 1976) 1237. 5. Ilfrey, W.T.: “Recommended Procedures for Utilizing High Cost, Nondamaging Fluids,” paper SPE 8794 presented at the 1978 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 15– 16 February. 6. Ezzat, A.M.: “Completion Fluids Design Criteria and Current Technology Weaknesses,” paper SPE 19434 presented at the 1990 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, 22– 23 February. 7. Stone, W.H. and Christian, W.W.: “The Inability of Unset Cement to Control Formation Pressure,” paper SPE 4783 presented at the 1974 March 2002 SPE Journal
SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, New Orleans, 7– 8 February. 8. Garcia, J.A. and Clark, C.R.: “An Investigation of Annular Gas Flow Following Cementing Operations,” paper SPE 5701 presented at the 1976 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Houston, 29– 30 January. 9. Bruist, E.H.: “Better Performance of Gulf Coast Wells,” paper SPE 4777 presented at the 1974 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, New Orleans, 7–8 February. 10. Dusseault, M.B. and Grey, K.E.: “Mechanisms of Stress-Induced Wellbore Damage,” paper SPE 23825 presented at the 1992 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 26–27 February. 11. Records, L.R.: “Drilling Practices That Affect Formation Damage,” paper SPE 5714 presented at the 1976 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Houston, 29–30 January. 12. Bailey, L. et al.: “Filter Cake Integrity and Reservoir Damage,” paper SPE 39429 presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18–19 February. 13. Hower, W.F.: “Influence of Clays on the Production of Hydrocarbons,” paper SPE 4785 presented at the 1974 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, New Orleans, 7–8 February. 14. Muecke, T.W.: “Formation Fines and Factors Controlling Their Movement in Porous Media,” JPT (February 1979) 144. 15. Zaitoun, A. and Berton, N.: “Stabilization of Montmorillonite Clay in Porous Media by Polyacrylamides,” paper SPE 31109 presented at the 1996 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 14–15 February. 16. Hill, D.G.: “Clay Stabilization–Criteria for Best Performance,” paper SPE 10656 presented at the 1982 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, 24–25 March. 17. Griffin, J.M., Hayatdavoudi, A., and Ghalambor, A.: “Design of Chemically Balanced Polymer Drilling Fluid Leads to a Reduction in Clay Destabilization,” SPEDE (January 1986) 31. 18. Gunter, W.D., Zhou, Z., and Perkins, E.H.: “Modeling Formation Damage Caused by Kaolinite from 25 to 300E Centigrade in the Oil Sand Reservoirs of Alberta, paper SPE 23786 presented at the 1992 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 2627 February. 19. Hayatdavoudi, A. and Ghalambor, A.: “Controlling Formation Damage Caused by Kaolinite Clay Minerals Part I,” paper SPE 31118 presented at the 1996 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 14–15 February. 20. Hayatdavoudi, A. and Ghalambor, A.: “Controlling Formation Damage Caused by Kaolinite Clay Minerals: Part II,” paper SPE 39464 presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18–19 February. 21. Bazin B., Souto, E., and Le Thiez, P.: “Control of Formation Damage by Modeling Water/Rock Interaction,” paper SPE 27363 presented at the 1994 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 7–10 February. 22. Civan, F.: “Evaluation and Comparison of the Formation Damage Models,” paper SPE 23787 presented at the 1992 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 26– 27 February. 23. Civan, F.: “A Multi-Purpose Formation Damage Model,” paper SPE 31101 presented at the 1996 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 14–15 February. 24. Chauveteau, G., Nabzar, L., and Coste, J.P.: “Physics and Modeling of Permeability Damage Induced by Particle Deposition,” paper SPE 39463 presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18–19 February. 25. Chesser, B.G. and Nelson, G.F.: “Applications of Weighted Acid Soluble Workover Fluids,” paper SPE 7008 presented at the 1978 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 15– 16 February. 26. Barron, W.C., Young, J.A., and Munson, R.E.: “New Concept–High Density Brine Filtration Utilizing a Diatomaceous Earth Filtration System,” paper SPE 10648 presented at the 1982 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, 24–25 March. 27. Allen, F.L. et al.: “Initial Study of Temperature and Pressure Effects on Formation Damage by Completion Fluids,” paper SPE 12488 pre9
sented at the 1984 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Bakersfield, California, 13–14 February. 28. Hayatdavoudi, A. and Ghalambor, A.: “Correcting a Serious Procedural Flaw in Laboratory Studies of HEC Gel Return Permeability in Connection with Formation Damage: Part II,” paper SPE 27367 presented at the 1994 SPE International Symposium on Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 9–10 February. 29. Hossaini, M. and Gabrysch, A.: “Effect of Formation Minerals on HEC Gel Return Permeability and Techniques to Overcome Potential Damage,” paper SPE 31107 presented at the 1996 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 14– 15 February. 30. Ghalambor, A. et al.: “Remedial Methods for Bacterial Formation Damage by Application of Oxidizers,” paper SPE 14821 presented at the 1986 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 26–27 February. 31. Ghalambor, A., Hayatdavaoudi, A., and Shahidi-Asil, M.: “A Study of Formation Damage of Selective Mineralogy Due to Bacterial Plugging,” SPE paper 27006 presented at the 1994 SPE Third Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, 26–29 April. 32. Lappan, R.E. and Fogler, H.S.: “Effect of Bacterial Polysaccharide Production on Formation Damage,” SPEPE (May 1992) 167. 33. Rosnes, J.T., Graue, A., and Lien, T.: “Activity of Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria Under Simulated Reservoir Conditions,” SPEPE (May 1991) 217. 34. Maly, G.P.: “Close Attention to the Smallest Job Details Vital for Minimizing Formation Damage,” paper SPE 5702 presented at the 1976 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Houston, 29– 30 January. 35. Keelan, D.K. and Koepf, E.H.: “The Role of Cores and Core Analysis in Evaluation of Formation Damage,” JPT (May 1977) 241. 36. Davies, D.K.: “Reservoir Stimulation of Dirty Sandstones,” paper SPE 8795 presented at the 1980 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Bakersfield, California, 28–29 January. 37. Saucier, R.J. and Lands, J.F. Jr.: “A Laboratory Study of Perforations in Stressed Formation Rocks,” JPT (September 1978) 1347, Trans., AIME, 265. 38. Amaefule, J.O. and Masuo, S.T.: “The Use of Capillary Pressure Data for Rapid Evaluation of Formation Damage or Stimulation,” SPEPE (March 1986) 131. 39. Himes, R.E. and Ruiz Jr., S.J.: “New Sidewall Core Analysis Techniques Improve Gravel Pack Design,” paper SPE 14813 presented at the 1986 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 26–27 February. 40. Davies, D.K.: “Image Analysis of Reservoir Pore Systems: State of the Art in Solving Problems Related to Reservoir Quality,” paper SPE 19407 presented at the 1990 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, 22–23 February. 41. Gilliland, R.E. and Coles, M.E.: “Use of CT Scanning in the Investigation of Damage to Unconsolidated Cores,” paper SPE 19408 presented at the 1990 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, 22–23 February. 42. Morita, N. et al.: “A Quick Method To Determine Subsidence, Reservoir Compaction, and In-Situ Stress Induced by Reservoir Depletion,” JPT (January 1989) 71. 43. Chalaturnyk, R.J., Wagg, B.T., and Dusseault, M.B.: “The Mechanisms of Solids Production in Unconsolidated Heavy-Oil Reservoirs,” paper SPE 23780 presented at the 1992 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 26–27 February. 44. Bercegeay, E.P. and Richard, C.A.: “A One-Trip Gravel Packing System,” paper SPE 4771 presented at the 1974 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, New Orleans, 7–8 February. 45. Sehnal, Z. et al.: “Planning Execution and Verification of a CoiledTubing Gravel Pack Operation in the Statfjord Field,” paper SPE 31141 presented at the 1996 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 14–15 February. 46. Jones, R.H. and Bolin, T.D.: “New Single Trip Perforating and Gravel Pack Procedure With Advanced Stimulation Design Reduces Formation Damage in High-Permeability Sandstone Reservoirs: Case Histories,” paper SPE 39434 presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18– 19 February. 10
47. Sparlin, D.D.: “Sand and Gravel–A Study of Their Permeabilities,” paper SPE 4772 presented at the 1974 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, New Orleans, 7–8 February. 48. Gulati, M.S. and Maly, G.P.: “Thin-Section and Permeability Studies Call for Smaller Gravels in Gravel Packing,” JPT (January 1975) 107. 49. Gruesbeck, C. and Collings, R.E.: “Particle Transport Through Perforations,” paper SPE 7006 presented at the 1978 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 15–16 February. 50. Chan, A.F. and Parmley, J.P.: “Gravel Sizing Criteria for Sand Control and Productivity Optimization: Part II: Evaluation of the LongTermed Stability,” paper SPE 23767 presented at the 1992 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 26–27 February. 51. Boulet, D.P.: “Gravel for Sand Control: A Study of Quality Control,” paper SPE 7002 presented at the 1978 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 15–16 February. 52. Zwolle, S. and Davies, D.R.: “Gravel Packing Sand Quality–A Quantitative Study,” JPT (June 1983) 1042. 53. Miles, L.H. and DeShazer, W.A.: “An Evaluation of Plastic Sand Control Methods Used in the South Louisiana Area,” paper SPE 4780 presented at the 1974 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, New Orleans, 7–8 February. 54. Constien, V.G. and Mayer, M.H.: “What! No Screen? Gravel Packing With Water-Carried Resin-Coated Gravel,” paper SPE 7003 presented at the 1978 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 15–16 February. 55. Sinclair, A.R. and Graham, J.W.: “An Effective Method of Sand Control,” paper SPE 7004 presented at the 1978 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 15–16 February. 56. Nieuwland, J.F.B., Van Batenburg, D.W., and Sandy, J.M.: “Screening Considerations for Curable Resin-Coated Proppants,” paper SPE 31097 presented at the 1996 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 14–15 February. 57. Alcocer, C.F. et al.: “The Effect of Temperature on the Size Stability of Conventional and Ceramic Gravel Packs,” paper SPE 19405 presented at the 1990 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, 22–23 February. 58. Gurley, D.G., Copeland, C.T., and Hendrick Jr., J.O.: “Design, Plan, and Execution of Gravel-Pack Operations for Maximum Productivity,” JPT (October 1977) 1051. 59. Prachner, W.: “Evaluation of Completion Damage to High Permeability Nonconsolidated Formations,” paper SPE 5711 presented at the 1976 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Houston, 29–30 January. 60. Maly, G.P. and Vozenilek, J.: “Visual Model Study Shows When and When Not To Pressure Wash Openhole Gravel Packs,” paper SPE 7001 presented at the 1978 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 15–16 February. 61. Sokoll, R.E. and Rogers, A.K.: “Short Interval Gravel Packing Technique,” paper SPE 10668 presented at the 1982 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, 24–25 March. 62. Solum, J.R.: “A New Technique in Sand Control Using Liner Vibration With Gravel Packing,” paper SPE 12479 presented at the 1984 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Bakersfield, California, 13–14 February. 63. Scheuerman, R.F.: “A New Look at Gravel Pack Carrier Fluid Properties,” SPEPE (January 1986) 9. 64. Ledlow, L.B., Sauer, C.W., and Till, M.V.: “Recent Design, Placement, and Evaluation Techniques Lead to Improved Gravel Pack Performance,” paper SPE 14162 presented at the 1985 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, 22–25 September. 65. Gurley, D.G. and Hudson, T.E.: “Factors Affecting Gravel Placement in Long Deviated Intervals,” paper SPE 19400 presented at the 1990 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, 22–23 February. 66. Bruner, S.D. et al.: “Long-Zone, High-Angle Squeeze Gravel Packs in Geopressured Reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico,” paper SPE 31092 presented at the 1996 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 14–15 February. 67. Penberthy, W.L. et al.: “Gravel Placement in Horizontal Wells,” paper SPE 31147 presented at the 1996 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 14–15 February. March 2002 SPE Journal
68. Penberthy Jr., W.L. and Echols, E.E.: “Gravel Placement in Wells,” paper SPE 22793 presented at the 1991 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 6–9 October. 69. Houchi, L.R., Dunlap, D.D., and Hutchinson, J.E.: “Formation Damage During Gravel-Pack Completions,” paper SPE 17166 presented at the 1988 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Bakersfield, California, 8–9 February. 70. Bryant, D.W. and Jones, L.G.: “Completion and Production Results From Alternate Path Gravel Packed Wells,” paper SPE 27359 presented at the 1994 SPE International Symposium on Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 7–10 February. 71. Blanton, R.J.: “Formation Damage Control During Underreaming and Gravel Packing in an Overpressured Reservoir,” paper SPE 23804 presented at the 1992 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 26–27 February. 72. Neal, M.R. and Carroll, J.F.: “A Quantitative Approach to Gravel Pack Evaluation,” JPT (October 1985) 1033. 73. McLeod Jr., H.O.: “The Application of Spherical Flow Equations to Gravel-Pack Evaluation,” presented at the 1992 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 26– 27 February. 74. Allen, E.: “Revised Guidelines for Proppant and Gravel Placement,” paper SPE 31068 presented at the 1996 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 14–15 February. 75. Chuah, B.-S. et al.: “Formation Damage in Gravel-Packed and Nongravel-Packed Completions: A Comprehensive Case Study,” paper SPE 27360 presented at the 1994 SPE International Symposium on Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 7–10 February. 76. McLeod Jr., H.O.: “Monitoring and Analysis of Gravel-Packing Procedures To Explain Well Performance,” paper SPE 27356 presented at the 1994 SPE International Symposium on Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 7–10 February. 77. McLeod Jr., H.O. and Pashen, M.A.: “Well Completions Audit to Evaluate Gravel Packing Procedures,” paper SPE 31088 presented at the 1996 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 14–15 February. 78. Myers, L.G. et al.: “Case History in Achieving High Rate Producers in Subsea Gravel-Packed Completions,” paper SPE 39433 presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18–19 February. 79. Burton, R.C.: “Use of Perforation Tunnel Permeability as a Means of Assessing Cased Hole Gravel Pack Performance,” paper SPE 39455 presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18–19 February. 80. Okoye, C.U. et al.: “Analysis and Performance of Gravel-Packed Completions in Oil and Gas Wells,” paper SPE 23827 presented at the 1992 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 26–27 February. 81. Ghalambor, A. et al.: “Predicting Sand Production in U.S. Gulf Coast Gas Wells With Producing Free Water,” JPT (December 1989) 1336. 82. Ghalambor, A., Hayatdavoudi, A., and Koliba, R.J.: “A Study of Sensitivity of Relevant Parameters to Predict Sand Production,” paper SPE 27011 presented at the 1994 SPE Third Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, 26–29 April. 83. Morita, N.: “Field and Laboratory Verifications of Sand Production Prediction Models,” paper SPE 27341 presented at the 1994 SPE International Symposium on Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 7–10 February. 84. Morita, N., Davis, E., and Whitebay, L.: “Guidelines for Solving Sand Problems in Water Injection Wells,” paper SPE 39436 presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18–19 February. 85. Sahel, R.A. and Brannon, J.W.: “A Comparison of Deepwater Sand Control Practices in the Gulf of Mexico,” paper SPE 23777 presented at the 1992 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 26–27 February. 86. Mullen, M.E., Normal, W.D., and Granger, J.H.: “Productivity Comparison of Sand Control Techniques Used for Completions in the Vermillion 311 Field,” paper SPE 27361 presented at the 1994 SPE International Symposium on Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 7–10 February. March 2002 SPE Journal
87. Markestad, P. et al.: “Selection of Screen Slot Width to Prevent Plugging and Sand Production,” paper SPE 31087 presented at the 1996 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 14–15 February. 88. Tiffin, D.L. et al.: “New Criteria for Gravel and Screen Selection for Sand Control,” paper SPE 39437 presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18–19 February. 89. Rensvold, R.F.: “Sand Consolidation Resins–Their Stability in Hot Brine,” paper SPE 10653 presented at the 1982 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, 24–25 March. 90. Parlar, M. et al.: “New Chemistry and Improved Placement Practices Enhance Resin Consolidation: Case Histories From the Gulf of Mexico,” paper SPE 39435 presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18– 19 February. 91. Klotz, J.A., Krueger, R.F., and Pye, D.S.: “Maximum Well Productivity in Damaged Formations Requires Deep, Clean Perforations,” paper SPE 4792 presented at the 1974 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, New Orleans, 7–8 February. 92. Salz, L.B.: “Experience With Perforating Efficiency in Underbalanced Completions of Geopressured Reservoirs,” paper SPE 4793 presented at the 1974 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, New Orleans, 7–8 February. 93. Weeks, S.G.: “Formation Damage or Limited Perforating Penetration? Test-Well Shooting May Give a Clue,” paper SPE 4794 presented at the 1974 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, New Orleans, 7–8 February. 94. Seanard, K.C.: “Underbalanced Perforating in a Closed System,” paper SPE 14828 presented at the 1986 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 26–27 February. 95. Behrmann, L.A. and McDonald, B.: “Underbalance or Extreme Overbalance?,” paper SPE 31083 presented at the 1996 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 14– 15 February. 96. Asadi, M., Ghalambor, A., and Shirazi, M.K.: “Assessment of Jet Perforated Rock Damage by Finite Element Method,” paper SPE 38140 presented at the 1997 SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, 2–3 June. 97. Ghalambor, A., Asadi, M., and Azari, M.: “Performance Evaluation of Extreme Overbalanced Perforating,” paper SPE 39459 presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18–19 February. 98. Behrmann, L.A. and Nolte, K.G.: “Perforating Requirements for Fracture Stimulations,” paper SPE 39453 presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18–19 February. 99. Brooks, J.E., Yang, W., and Behrman, L.A.: “Effect of Sand-Grain Size on Perforator Performance,” paper SPE 39457 presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18–19 February. 100. Cobbett, J.S.: “Sand Jet Perforating Revisited,” paper SPE 39597 presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18–19 February. 101. McLeod Jr., H.O.: “The Effect of Perforating Conditions on Well Performance,” JPT (January 1983) 21. 102. Hofsaess, T. and Kleintz, W.: “Injectivity Decline in Wells with Nonuniform Perforation Properties,” paper SPE 39586 presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18–19 February. 103. Asadi, M. et al.: “Effect of the Perforation Damage on Well Productivity,” paper SPE 27384 presented at the 1994 SPE International Symposium on Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 7–10 February. 104. Gidley, J.L., Ryan, J.C., and Mayhill, T.D.: “Study of the Field Applications of Sandstone Acidizing,” JPT (September 1976) 1289. 105. Rogers, E.B.: “Successful Well Stimulation Program Has Revitalized a California Oil Field,” JPT (November 1976) 1420. 106. Hall, B.E. and Anderson, B.W.: “Field Results for a New Retarded Sandstone Acidizing System,” paper SPE 6871 presented at the 1977 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 9–12 October. 107. McBride, J.R., Rathbone, M.J., and Thomas, R.L.: “Evaluation of Fluoboric Acid Treatment in the Grand Isle Offshore Area Using 11
Multiple Rate Flow Test,” paper SPE 8399 presented at the 1979 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, 23–26 September. 108. Walsh, M.P., Lake, L.W., and Schechter, R.S.: “A Description of Chemical Precipitation Mechanisms and Their Role in Formation Damage During Stimulation of Hydrofluoric Acid,” JPT (December 1991) 2097. 109. Clark, G.J., Wong, T.C.T., and Mungan, N.: “New Acid Systems for Sandstone Stimulation,” paper SPE 10662 presented at the 1982 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, 24– 25 March. 110. Smith, M.J. et al.: “Acidization of Dirty Sandstones with Buffered HF Acid Systems,” paper SPE 14826 presented at the 1986 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 26–27 February. 111. Crawford, D.L., Coulter, A.W. Jr., and Osborn, F.E. III: “Removal of Wellbore Damage From Highly Permeable Formations and Naturally Fractured Reservoirs,” paper SPE 8796 presented at the 1980 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Bakersfield, California, 28–29 January. 112. Crowe, C.: “Evaluation of Agents for Preventing Precipitation of Ferric Hydroxide From Spent Treating Acid,” paper SPE 12497 JPT (May 1985) 691. 113. Gidley, J.L.: “Acidizing Sandstone Formations: A Detailed Examination of Recent Experience,” paper SPE 14164 presented at the 1985 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, 22–25 September. 114. Brannon, D.H., Netters, C.K., and Grimmer, P.J.: “Matrix Acidizing Design and Quality-Control Techniques Prove Successful in Main Pass Area Sandstone,” JPT (September 1987) 931. 115. Schechter, R.S., da Motta, E.P., and Plavnik, B.: “Optimizing Sandstone Acidization,” SPERE (February 1992) 149. 116. da Motta, E.P. et al.: “The Relationship Between Reservoir Mineralogy and Optimum Sandstone Acid Treatment,” SPEPF (November 1992) 323. 117. Gdanski, R.D.: “Fluosilicate Solubilities Impact HF Acid Compositions,” SPEPF (November 1994) 297. 118. Li, Y.H., Fambrough, J.D., and Montgomery, C.T.: “Mathematical Modeling of Secondary Precipitation From Sandstone Acidizing,” paper SPE 39420 presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18–19 February. 119. Zerhboub, M. et al.: “Matrix Acidizing: A Novel Approach to Foam Diversion,” paper SPE 22854 presented at the 1991 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 6–9 October. 120. Zeilinger, S.C. et al.: “Improved Prediction of Foam Diversion in Matrix Acidization,” paper SPE 29529 presented at the 1995 SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, 2–4 April. 121. Robert, J.A. and Mack, M.G.: “Foam Diversion Modeling and Simulation,” paper SPE 29676 presented at the 1995 SPE Western Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, California, 8–10 March. 122. Rossen, W.R. and Wang, M.W.: “Modeling Foams for Acid Diversion,” paper SPE 38200 presented at the 1997 SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, 2–3 June. 123. Thomas, R.L. et al.: “Field Validation of a Foam Diversion Model: A Matrix Stimulation Case Study,” paper SPE 39422 presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18–19 February. 124. Morphy, P.H., Greenwald, K.G., and Herries, P.E.: “Operational Experience with Foam-Diverted Acid Jobs in the Gulf of Mexico,” paper SPE 39423 presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18–19 February. 125. Hoefner, M.L. and Fogler, H.S.: “Pore Evolution and Channel Formation During Flow and Reaction in Porous Media,” AIChE J. (1988) 34, 45. 126. Daccord, G., Touboul, E., and Lenormand, R.: “Carbonate Acidizing: Toward a Quantitative Model of the Wormholing Phenomenon,” SPEPE (February 1989) 63, Trans., AIME, 287. 127. Hung, K.M., Hill, A.D., and Sepehrnoori, K.: “A Mechanistic Model of Wormhole Growth in Carbonate Matrix Acidizing and Acid Fracturing,” JPT (January 1989) 59, Trans., AIME, 287. 128. Kurmayr, M., Frick, T.P., and Economides, M.J.: “An Improved Modeling of Fractal Patterns in Matrix Acidizing and Their Impact on Well Performance,” paper SPE 23789 presented at the 1992 SPE 12
International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 26–27 February. 129. Frick, T.P., Mostofizadeh, B., and Economides, M.J.: “Analysis of Radial Core Experiments for Hydrochloric Acid Interaction With Limestones,” paper SPE 27402 presented at the 1994 SPE International Symposium on Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 7–10 February. 130. Fredd, C.N. and Fogler, H.S.: “Alternative Stimulation Fluids and Their Impact on Carbonate Acidizing,” paper SPE 31074 presented at the 1996 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 14–15 February. 131. Frick, T.P. and Economides, M.J.: “Horizontal Well Damage Characterization and Removal,” paper SPE 21795 prepared for presentation at the 1991 Western Regional Meeting, Long Beach, California, 20–22 March. 132. Frick, T.P. and Economides, M.J.: “A Case Study for the Matrix Stimulation of a Horizontal Well,” paper SPE 23806 presented at the 1992 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 26–27 February. 133. da Motta, E.P., Hill, A.D., and Sepehrnoori, K.: “Selective Matrix Acidizing of Horizontal Wells,” paper SPE 27399 presented at the 1994 SPE International Symposium on Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 7–10 February. 134. Paccaloni, G., Tambini, M., and Galoppini, M.: “Key Factors for Enhanced Results of Matrix Stimulation Treatments,” paper SPE 17154 presented at the 1988 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Bakersfield, California, 8–9 February. 135. Prouvost, L.P. and Economides, M.J.: “Applications of Real-Time Matrix-Acidizing Evaluation Method,” SPEPE (November 1989) 401. 136. Behenna, F.R.: “Interpretation of Matrix Acidizing Treatments Using a Continuously Monitored Skin Factor,” paper SPE 27401 presented at the 1994 SPE International Symposium on Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 7–10 February. 137. Zhu, D., Hill, A.D., and da Motta, E.P.: “On-Site Evaluation of Acidizing Treatment of a Gas Reservoir,” paper SPE 39421 presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18–19 February. 138. Economides, M.J. and Nolte, K.G.: Reservoir Stimulation, second edition, Prentice Hall, Engelwood Cliffs, N.J. (1989). 139. Cinco-Ley, H. and Samaniego-V., F.: “Transient Pressure Analysis: Finite Conductivity Fracture vs. Damaged Fracture Case,” paper SPE 10179 presented at the 1981 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 5–7 October. 140. Almond, S.: “Factors Affecting Gelling Agent Residue Under Low Temperature Conditions,” paper SPE 10658 presented at the 1982 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, 24–25 March. 141. Penny, G.S.: “Nondamaging Fluid Loss Additives for Use in Hydraulic Fracturing of Gas Wells,” paper SPE 10659 presented at the 1982 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, 24–25 March. 142. Poulsen, D.K. and Lee, W.S.: “Fracture Design with Time- and Temperature-Dependent Fluid Properties,” paper SPE 12483 presented at the 1984 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Bakersfield, California, 13–14 February. 143. Harms, S.D., Goss, M.L., and Payne, K.L.: “New Generation Fracturing Fluid for Ultrahigh-Temperature Applications,” paper SPE 12484 presented at the 1984 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Bakersfield, California, 13–14 February. 144. Almond, S.W. and Bland, W.E.: “The Effect of Break Mechanism on Gelling Agent Residue and Flow Impairment in 20/40 Mesh Sand,” paper SPE 12485 presented at the 1983 SPE Production Technology Symposium, Lubbock, Texas, 13–15 November. 145. Penny, G.S., Conway, M.W., and Lee, W.S.: “The Control and Modeling of Fluid Leakoff During Hydraulic Fracturing,” JPT (June 1985) 1071. 146. Grubert, D.M.: “Evolution of a Hybrid Fracture Gravel-Pack Completion: Monopod Platform, Trading Bay Field, Cook Inlet, Alaska,” SPEPE (November 1991) 395. 147. Britt, L.K.: “Optimized Oilwell Fracturing of Moderate-Permeability Reservoirs,” paper SPE 14371 presented at the 1985 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, 22– 25 September. March 2002 SPE Journal
148. Lambert, S.A., Dolan, R.T., and Gallus, J.P.: “Fracturing Poorly Consolidated Sandstone Formations,” SPE 1983 Southwestern Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock, Texas, 4–5 April. 149. Smith, M.B., Miller, W.K., and Haga, J.: “Tip Screenout Fracturing: A Technique for Soft, Unstable Formations,” SPEPE (May 1987) 95, Trans., AIME, 283. 150. Parker, M.A. et al.: “Hydraulic Fracturing of High-Permeability Formations to Overcome Damage,” paper SPE 27378 presented at the 1994 SPE International Symposium on Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 7–10 February. 151. Frederick, J.M., Hudson, H.G., and Bilden, D.M.: “The Effect of Fracture and Formation Flow Variables on Proppant Pack Cleanup: An In-Depth Study,” paper SPE 27381 presented at the 1994 SPE International Symposium on Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 7–10 February. 152. Vreeburg, R.J. et al.: “Proppant Backproduction During Hydraulic Fracturing: A New Failure Mechanism for Resin-Coated Proppants,” paper SPE 27382 presented at the 1994 SPE International Symposium on Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 7–10 February. 153. Pope, D.S. et al.: “Field Study of Guar Removal From Hydraulic Fractures,” paper SPE 31094 presented at the 1996 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 14– 15 February. 154. Penny, G.S. and Jin, L.: “The Use of Inertial Force and Low Shear Viscosity to Predict Cleanup of Fracturing Fluids Within Proppant Packs,” paper SPE 31096 presented at the 1996 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 14– 15 February. 155. Romero, J. and Feraud, J.P.: “Stability of Proppant Pack Reinforced With Fiber for Proppant Flowback Control,” paper SPE 31093 presented at the 1996 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 14–15 February. 156. Nieuwland, J.F.B., van Batenburg, D.W., and Sandy, J.M.: “Screening Considerations for Curable Resin-Coated Proppants,” paper SPE 31097 presented at the 1996 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 14–15 February. 157. Valko, P. and Economides, M.J.: “Performance of Fractured Horizontal Wells in High-Permeability Reservoirs,” paper SPE 31149 presented at the 1996 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 14–15 February. 158. Chen, Z. and Economides, M.J.: “The Effect of Near-Wellbore Fracture Geometry on Fracture Execution and Post-Treatment Production of Deviated and Horizontal Wells,” paper SPE 39425 presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18–19 February. 159. Wolfgang, F.J.D.: “The Effect of Frac-Fluid Density on Hydraulic Fracture Growth Direction and Width,” SPE 39427 presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18–19 February. 160. Mathur, A.K. et al.: “Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation of Highly Permeable Formations: The Effect of Critical Fracture Parameters on
March 2002 SPE Journal
Oilwell Production and Pressure,” paper SPE 30652 presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Conference and Technical Exhibition, Dallas, 22– 25 October. 161. Bailey, L. et al.: “Filter Cake Integrity and Reservoir Damage,” paper SPE 39429 presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18–19 February. 162. Cikes, M., Cubric, S., and Moylashov, M.R.: “Formation Damage Prevention by Using an Oil-Based Fracturing Fluid in Partially Depleted Oil Reservoirs of Western Siberia,” paper SPE 39430 presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18–19 February. 163. Aggour, T.M. and Economides, M.J.: “Optimization of the Performance of High-Permeability Fractured Wells,” paper SPE 39474 presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18–19 February. 164. Beecher, C.E. and Fowler, H.C.: “History of Petroleum Engineering,” Production Techniques and Control, American Petroleum Inst., New York (1961) Ch. 11, 745–810.
Ali Ghalambor is the American Petroleum Inst. Endowed Professor and Head of the Dept. of Petroleum Engineering at the U. of Louisiana at Lafayette. e-mail:
[email protected]. Ghalambor holds BS and MS degrees in petroleum engineering from the U. of Southwestern Louisiana, as well as a PhD degree in environmental sciences and engineering from the Virginia Polytechnic Inst. and State U. in Blacksburg, Virginia. His many SPE activities include service as Cochairman of the SPE Technical Interest Group on Formation Damage; Technical Program chairman of SPE International Symposium on Formation Damages Control; member of the 2001 SPE Forum Series in North America Steering Committee on “The Big Crew Change”; member of the SPE Editorial Review Committee; and program evaluator of the Engineering Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology. Ghalambor also has held several offices, including chairman, in the SPE Evangeline Section. For his involvement with the section, Ghalambor received the SPE Section Service Award and the SPE Regional Service Award for the Central and Southeastern North America Region. He is the recipient of the 2001 SPE Distinguished Achievement Award for Petroleum Engineering Faculty. Michael J. Economides is University Professor of Chemical Engineering at the U. of Houston. e-mail:
[email protected]. He previously was the Samuel R. Noble Professor of Petroleum Engineering at Texas A&M U. and served as Chief Scientist of the Global Petroleum Research Inst. Previously, he was Director of the Inst. of Drilling and Production at the Leoben Mining Inst., Austria. He has served on the Technical Program Committee of the SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control. Economides holds BS and MS degrees in chemical engineering and a PhD degree in petroleum engineering from Stanford U. The holder of the 1997 SPE Production Engineering Award, he has served on numerous SPE committees.
13
