SPE Production & Operations
Volume 21, Number 1, February 2006, pp. 40-50

SPE-86544-PA

Benchmarking the Formation Damage of Drilling Fluids

View full textPDF ( 2,439 KB )

DOI  More information 10.2118/86544-PA http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/86544-PA

Citation

  • van der Zwaag, C.H. 2006. Benchmarking the Formation Damage of Drilling Fluids. SPE Prod & Oper21 (1): 40-50. SPE-86544-PA.

Discipline Categories

  • 1.5 Completion Planning, Design and Installation
  • 1.2.5 Materials Selection (Casing, Fluids, Cement)
  • 1.5 Completion Planning, Design and Installation
  • 5.5.4 Rock/Fluid Interactions

Summary

The unified test protocol for laboratory formation-damage assessments consists of functional procedures that attempt to standardize formation-damage service projects. Setting functional requirements was preferred above comprehensive equipment specifications and detailed instructions on laboratory work processes.

To assess the formation-damage potential of a fluid for drilling or well operations, three sections of the protocol need to be accomplished: Information, Simulation, and Analysis.

This paper presents the three sections and discusses the effect of the functional approach. Special emphasis is put on a distinction between well fluids that experience dynamic and static filtration regimes because these require different ways of simulating fluid applications to the rock sample. To provide engineering parameters relevant to field scale and to identify the full range of potential formation-damage mechanisms that may affect the reservoir, analyses on cm, mm, and µm scales are suggested.

Minimum requirements to scaleup formation-damage measurements to field scale are presented. Also, an option for full-scope diagnostic formation-damage assessments is demonstrated.

Applications of numerical models that have been suggested in earlier research yield return permeability, filtrate-invasion depth, laboratory skin, efficiency of flow, and loss of revenue as parameters to benchmark the formation damage of well fluids.

Introduction

Prevention of formation damage through fluids used for drilling and well operations provides one of the key elements for the economic success of oil- and gasfield developments. It affects not only commercial interests, but also the total quality of the production process. Hence, it comes along with increased up time and process reliability, and a reduction in total health-, safety-, and environment-related risks. The latter is related to reduced exposure of staff and environment because the need for stimulation/workover operations on damaged wells, or even the drilling of additional wells to exploit the full reservoir potential, is reduced.

The work reported in this paper was part of a research initiative supported by the European Union (E.U.) Commission within the fifth framework research and technical development program. This research initiative, Well Productivity 2002 (WP2002), aimed to deliver development strategies and new products to drill, complete, and maintain wellbores in such a manner that the optimum delivery potential of a hydrocarbon reservoir is protected.

As one task to approach the project objectives, a work package was defined to develop cost-effective laboratory and field diagnostic methods to characterize and quantify formation damage. The particular objectives of this work package were, among others, to do the following:

• Establish minimum equipment requirements for sim¬ple screening-type formation-damage assess-ments.

• Demonstrate a viable and unified set of labora-tory test protocols for screening- and diagnostic-type tests.

The test protocol presented below attempts to satisfy these objectives. This protocol is based on a functional approach. Suggestions are given to satisfy functional requirements in practice. The primary thought when developing the protocol was to structure the communication between user and supplier of the service project and to link field and laboratory closer together.

View full textPDF ( 2,439 KB )

History

  • Original manuscript received: 18 June 2004
  • Revised manuscript received: 8 May 2005
  • Manuscript approved: 2 June 2005
  • Version of record: 20 February 2006