You are on page 1of 12

SPE 37138

Formation

Damage and Horizontal Wells

- A Productivity

Killer?

D. Brant Bennion, F. Brent Thomas,Ronald F. Bietz, Hycal Energy Research Laboratories Ltd.

Copyriabl 1996, Sociay of Peln>lIIDEAsI-s, nil p8p - ~ ia Caipy, A.-, This p8pW

Inc. GO ~ Well T och8OiosY held

_Iai-' in.. ...

for IX88IIIIioIIllthe InI8DMiona\Conr CaaI.. Nov 11-20, 1996

IeIeC8dfor pn8ell18lioD by 1ft SPE PIOI.- c-iu..

IUbIIIiaed by die ~I).


&sI-

of... p8p, . ~1Id. ~ - ~


EnIi-. *
1110

mIIowi8IlWYiew of ~

_iewod by theSoci8yof ~

I8IIOrioI. . PI88IIId. doa - ~y

IdIOCIIDJ p.-iIiDD of... Sociay of

IIId ... 8Ibj8:lOd m CXInodio8 by tho~I).

officers. or memboa...plelaltodII SP8IOOIiDp .. Mlbjoct -. ~ I8Viow ~ E4imrioI Commi- of dieSoa.y of PeIIOI.IIa~. '-illkID -. copyiI .-iCIOd kI . IbIII8CI of thin 300~. MiO8 m ~ 001be (piod. 1110 -~ ..-in -.p~ **OOwlod.-tof~-bywlMl8l"', PI88t8Il. WrileL*-il8, SPI!,'.O.a.1J31J6, RidwdIOn.TX 7501),)136, U.S.A.,Fa 01-214-952-9435.

maximizing reservoir exposure, targeting multiple zones,reducing drawdowns to minimize premature water or gas coning problems, exploit thin pay zones and, more recently, in such processes as steam-assistedgravity drainage and as injectors and producers in secondary and tertiary enhanced oil recovery processes. Underbalanceddrilling using horizontal well technology has also increased as a means of attempting to increase productivity from horizontal wells by reducing formation damage, improve ROP and reduce drilling and stuck pipe problems in severe lost circulation zones.

Abstract
The use of horizontal drilling is gaining widespread frequency throughoutthe world. Productionresultsfrom many horizontal wells have beendisappointing,and it is believedthat when this hasoccurredin situationswhereviable reservoirquality hasbeen present,near wellbore fonnation damageeffects have been a major contributorto the marginal flow performance.Due to the fact that most horizontal wells are completedin an open hole fashion, even relatively shallow invasivenear-wellboredamage (that would be penetrated by conventionalperforationpractices in casedand cementedvertical completions)may substantially impede flow. Drilling induced damage may include fines mobilization, invasion of mud solids, mechanical glazing, phase trapping or chemicalreactivity betweeninvading fluids and the fonnationmatrix or in-situ fluids. Calculations illustratehow the penneability of horizontal wells can be reduceddramaticallyby high nearwellboreskins andhow this damage effect is attenuated as horizontal to vertical penneability ratio is increased (such as in highly laminated sands). They also illuStratehow damage effects are reducedin situations of high vertical penneability, suchasformationscontainingnaturalvertical fractures which are penetratedby the horizontal well. Underbalanced drilling is discussed asa solution to somehorizontalwell fonnation damage problems, and the importance of maintaining a continuous underbalancepressure condition during the entire drilling operationto obtain optimum results is emphasised. A list of reservoir parameterswhich should be evaluatedto design an effectivedrilling program is presented, and a brief discussion of specialcore analytical techniques usedto optimize drilling fluid and drilling processdesign is presented.

The use of conventional technology to drill and complete horizontal wells has resulted in disappointingresults in many applications,due to what is believed to be formation damage effects. This paper reviews near wellbore skin damagefrom a mechanistic view in horizontal versus vertical completions, highlights reasons why formation damageeffects may be more significant in horizontal versus vertical well applications and reviews current technology levels which are being utilized to attempt to reduceformation damageeffects in horizontal well applications.

Mechanism of Formation Damage During Drilling of Horizontal Wells


Mechanismsof fonnation damagewhich may be operative in reducingthe productjvity of horizontalwells havebeendiscussed in the literature by various authors1,2. Thesedamagemechanisms can be grouped into severalmajor categories, thesebeing: FinesMigration. Finesmigration is the motion of naturallypreexisting particulate matter in the pore system. This may be inducedduring the drilling process by high fluid leakoff ratesof water or oil-based mud filtrate into the near wellbore region caused by elevated hydrostatic overbalance pressures or excessively high underbalance pressures3. External Drilling/Mud Solids Invasion. The invasion of artificial mud solids (weighting agents, fluid loss agents or bridging agents), or naturally generated mud solids producedby bit-rock interactionsand not removed by surfacesolids control equipment into the fonnation during overbalanceddrilling
conditions2.

Introduction
Horizontal wells are being utilized throughout the world in an ever increasing fashionto attemptto increase productionratesby

FORMAllON DAMAGE AND HOIUZONT AL WELLS - A PRODucnVITY ~?

SPE37138

Phase Trapping. The loss of both water or oil baseddrilling mud filtrate to the fonnation in the near wellbore region due to leakoff during overbalanceddrilling operations, or due to spontaneous imbibition in somesituationsduring underbalanced drilling operations4, can result in pennanent entrapmentof a portion or all of the invading fluid resulting in adverse relative permeabilityeffectswhich can reduceoil or gaspermeabilityin the near wellbore region'. Chemical IncompatibUity of Invading Fluids with the In-situ Rock Mat'~ Many fonIlations contain potentially reactive material in-situ in the matrix, including reactiveswelling clays such as smectite or mixed layer clays, or deflocculatable materials such as kaolinite or other loosely attached fines. Expansionor motion of thesematerialswithin the pore system, which may be inducedby the invasionof non-equilibriumwater basedmud filtrates into the near wellbore region, can cause considerable reductionsin penIleabili~.7.'.9.
Fluid-Fluid Incompatibility Effects Between Invading Fluids and In-Situ Fluids. Oil or water based mud filtrates invading into the near wellbore region during overbalanced drilling processescan react adversely with in-situ hydrocarbons or waters present in the matrix with detrimental results which may reduce permeability. Problems would include the fonnation of insoluble precipitates or scales between incompatible waters, de-asphalting of the in-situ crude or hydrocarbon based drilling fluid caused by blending of incompatible oils, or the fonnation of highly viscous stable water in oil emulsions due to turbulent blending of invaded filtrates with either in-situ water or oil. Near Wellbore Wettabllity Alteration and Surface Adsorption Effects. Many drilling fluid additives used for mud rheology, stability, emulsion control, corrosion inhibition, torque reduction or lubricity contain polar surfactants or compounds which can be preferentially adsorbed on the surface of the rock. The physical adsorption of these compounds can cause reductions in penneability by the physical occlusion of the pore system, in the case of high molecular weight long chain polymers, particularly in low penneability porous media where the small pore throats may be easily bridged by long chain polymer molecules. Polar compound adsorption may alter the wetting characteristics of the matrix in the near wellbore region, generally in most cases to a preferentially more oil-wet state. This causes a potentially significant increase in water phase relative penneability in this region, which may adversely elevate producing water oil ratio for the well if the completion is in a zone where a mobile water saturation is present. Mechanical Near WeUbore Damage Effecu. Mechanical action of the bit, combined with tine cuttings, poor hole cleaning and a poorly centralized drill string may result in the formation of a thin "glaze" of low permeability surrounding the wellbore. This problem is believed to be aggravated by straight gas drilling operations, where a large amount of heat is generated at the rockbit interface due to the poor heat transfer capacity of the gas based drilling fluid system in comparison to a conventional drilling fluid. Open hole completions in low permeability clastic

forDlationstend to be the most probablecandidates for this type of damage.Glazingwjll not generallyoccludelargepenneability features,such as fractures or vugs, and the glaze is usually readily removable in carbonate based fonnationswith a light acid wash due to its highly soluble nature. Factors Which Will Tend to Increasethe Severity of Near Wellbore Damage The overriding factor which will increasethe severity of near weUboredamagewill be the extent of incursion of fluids and solids into the reservoirand how thesematerialswill react with the formation oncethey come into contactwith the rock matrix.
Factors which will tend to increase the fluid/solid loss performance of a drilling mud in a horizontal drilling application may include: Overbalance PresslUe. The greater the density of die hydrostatic fluid column and resulting downhole pressure generated in comparison to the net effective reservoir pore pressure, the greater the tendency for losses of both fluids and mud solids to the formation. Highly weighted mud systems (due to either deliberate high concentrations of weighting agents for well control or poor surface solids control resulting in a undesirable build-up of a high concentration of dense natural silicate or carbonate based formation drill solids in the fluid system), high backpressures or drilling operations in significantly pressure depleted formations (particularly in deep zones) may all contribute to high overbalance pressures. Overbalance pressures in excess of about 7000 kPa (1000 psi) are generally considered to be severe and may cause serious losses to the formation, particulary in zones of high reservoir quality.

High Solids ContenL A high concentrationof artificial or naturalsolids in the mud system,which are inappropriatelysized to form a low permeability filter cake,can either invadeinto the rock matrix (if the solids are too small, that is, less than approximately300/0 of the medianpore throat aperture),or may screen off on the formation face forming porous, high permeability, thick filter cakeswhich may result in 10ng-tefDl filtrate seepage and stuck pipe problems if the solids are too large. For an openhole completionscenario,an appropriate size distribution of particulate matter in the mud is essential to eStablish a sealing, low pefDleability filter cake rapidly on the face of the formation. This will minimize solids invasion to directly at the wellbore-formation interface where it can hopefully be readily removed either by direct mechanical backflow or sometype of very localizedchemicalor mechanical stimulation treabnent. Poor Fluid Rheology. The use of high API fluid loss, low viscosity fluids win generaUyincreasethe potential for filtrate losses to the formation. Considerationis often given to the use of so called "clear" fluids with no addedsolids in the hopesthat if the basefluid is compatiblewith the fonnation no damage will occur, even if significant fluid lossesoccur during the drilling process.Unfortunately,the presence of naturally generated drill

SPE37131

D.B. BENNION, F.B. mOMAS, R.F.8IE'JZ

solids in clear fluid systems often results in near wellbore mechanicaldamageas large volumes of the basefluid. along with the often inappropriately sized naturally generatedfines from the drilling process, arecarriedoff into the forDlation. The use of appropriate viscosifiers/polymers can assist in the reductionof uncontrolledfluid lossesto the formation in some cases, and should be evaluatedfor eachspecific situation under consideration.
Poor

the wellbore during the drilling process. Although shallow in some cases,the penneability of this affected zone may be extremelylow, creatinga very high zone of what is referredto as "skin" damageabout the wellbore. Thus, even relatively shallow invasivedamage, which may be insignificant in a cased and perforatedcompletion, can be very substantialin an open hole scenario. Other reasons contributing to increased severity of damagein horizontal versusvertical weUscould include:

BaseFluId CompatIbilIty. Even in the bestdesigned GreaterDepth of Invasion. Drilling times for horizontal wells
are usually greater than conventional vertical wells. Fluid exposure time at the heel of the well may be significant if poor mud rheology is presentin an overbalanced condition, or if the mud filter cakeis continuouslydisturbedby a poorly centralized drill string or multiple tripping operations,invasion depth of damagingmud filtrate and solids into the near wellbore region may be substantiallygreaterthan in a conventionalvertical well application. Selective CleanupIDanulge. The large exposed length of a horizontalwell often resultsin zonesof highly variablereservoir quality being peneb"ated. High penneability streaks may preferentially clean up upon drawdown resulting in minimal drawdownpressure being appliedto more heavily damaged and invaded portions of the well, making it difficult to obtain an effectual cleanup. Production logs on horizontal wells often indicatethe majority of the producedfluid is being sourcedfrom only a very small sectionof the total length of the well. Difficulty of Stimulation. Damaged vertical wells may often be effectivelystimulatedeconomicallyusing a variety of penetrative techniquessuch as hydraulic or acid fracturing, acid or other typesof chemicalsqueezes, heattreatments, etc. Thesetypes of processes arenot readily economicallyappliedto horizontalwells due to cost and technical considerations associated with attemptingto stimulate a section hundredsof meters in length (insteadof only a few metersin length as often is the casein a vertical well). Therefore, most horizontal well stimulation treatments tend to be relatively non-invasivein nature, such as acid washes,and may only be effective in penetratingshallow nearwellbore damage. Anisotropic Flow- The flow patternsinto a horizontal well are completely different than a vertical well, this is schematically illustrated as Figure 1. It can be seenthat a vertical well in a uniform strataof crossbeddedplaneswhich it penetrates in an orthogonalfashion will drain the reservoir in a uniform planar radial fashion. Conversely,a horizontalwell sources fluids from both the vertical and horizontal planar direction and henceis much more radically affected by variations in the vertical permeabilityof the reservoir. This shall be describedin greater detail in the following sectionsof the paper.

overbalanced drilling operation, and often in many so called "underbalanced" drilling operations,someunavoidablelossesof mud filtrate to the fonnation occur. Shallow invasion may not be significant for cased/perforated completions,but may be quite problematicfor open hole situations. This being the case,it is usually prudent to design the base mud filtrate with full compatibility with the formation matrix in mind. This would include anticipating problemswith reactiveclays, in-situ fluids (emulsionpotential and precipitationability) and phase trapping (possibility of including 1FT reducingagentssuchas surfactants or alcoholsto lessenthe impact of phasetrapping if fluid losses do occur). Presenceof Zones of Extreme Pemaeability. Fluid lossesand potential damagewill generallybe more significant in zonesof high penneability, such as high penn intercrystalline streaks, fractures or interconnectedvugular porosity which may be penetrated by the horizontal well. Conversely,if invasiondepth is not too significant,thesezonesmay be the most forgiving and easy to clean up in some respectsdue to more favourable capillary pressure relations and larger pore sizes. Why Is Damage More of a Concern In Horizontal Versus Vertical Wells? Therearea numberof reasons why horizontalwells appear to be more susceptibleto formation damagethan their vertical well counterparts. One of the major reasons is related to the completionpracticesusedfor most horizontalwells. The fact is that the majority of horizontal wells are completedin either a direct open hole fashion. or with some type of slotted or prepacked liner, which, as far as producedfluids are concerned, is equivalentto an openhole completion. This is in comparison to vertical wells wheremost of the wells arecased, cemented and perforated. One can thus seethat a degreeof relatively small invasiveformation damage, severalcentimetres in depthabouta vertical wellbore may be insignificant, as a normal perforation charge will penetrate beyond the damagedzone and access undamaged reservoir matrix to facilitate reasonable production rates if a permeable formation is present. Many types of damage,such as solids invasion, do, in fact, tend to be very localized about the well bore in this limited type of radius, particularly in the absenceof zones of extreme penneability (suchhas highly fracturedor wgular porosity systems).

In a similar fashion,invasion occurring during an overbalanced drilling operationis governedby directionalpermeabilitywhich It can be observed in an open hole horizontalcompletion, exists in the reservoir. This is illustrated for a vertical and however,that the producedreservoirfluids must passcompletely horizontalwell as Figure 2. It can be seenthat invasivedamage throughthe zoneof damage which may havebeencreatedabout about a vertical well in a situation of uniform non directional

FORMAl1ON

DAMAGE

AND HORIZONTAL WELLS - A PRODucnvnY

Kn.LER?

SPE37138

horizontalpermeabilitywill be in a cylindrical pattern,with the depth of invasion in an unimpededfluid loss situation being governed by the variable permeability of the strata under consideration. In a horizontal well, due to the frequent anisotropy of horizontal versus vertical penneability in many reservoirsystems, the invasionpatternwill be elliptical in nature, with the direction of the primary axis of the invasion ellipsoid being oriented in the direction of highestpermeability.

(4)

where

L x

Length of horizontal section(m) Distanceto horizontal no flow boundary(m)

Flow Into Horizontal and Vertical Wellbores


Uniform flow into a vertical well of constantand non directional horizontal permeabilitycan be describedby the Equation1o: Q To incorporate the effect of skin damage in a horizontalwell, the skin factor, asdescribed in Equation3, canbe substitutedfor the well radiusas given in Equation4. To accountfor the common situation of asymmetrichorizontal and vertical penneabilities, which exist in many formations,the terms h and Rw in Equation4 can be further modified as follows:

= 21T kb{Po-

P..)

~ [1n(Re/R.)]

(I)

lJOC ~ where
Q k h p.

(5)

. .

p. .
PRe R.

. -

low rate of reservoirfluid (m3/s) Averagehorizontal penneability (m2) Pay zone height (m) Reservoir pressure at effective drainage radius (Pa) Wellbore pressure (pa) Viscosity (Pa"s) Effective drainageradius (m) Wellbore radius (m)

R; = 0.5R. (1 +v'IJ1J
where:

(6)

~ = Horizontal pel1Jleability (m2) kv=- Vertical pel1Jleability (m~

The effect of near wellbore damage can be included in Equation I dtrough the use of a resistancefactor commonly calledthe "skin" factor. This conceptwas introducedin 1953by van Everdingen":

The resulting final forDlulation for inflow production rate to a horizontal well with disparate horizontal versus vertical perDleabilitycan be expressed as follows:

(7)

AP..

.~~]

(2)

Thus, for a constant flow to the wellbore, the skin, induced by a combination of the invasive damage mechanisms which have been discussed previously, adds a constant pressure drop to the total drawdown (or, in other terms, a portion of the available drawdown is dissipated in overcoming the fluid resistanceto flow through the zone of impaired permeability created about the

wellbore). A wellbore with normal radius of

Rw therefore,with

a skin effect present, behaves as if the well were a "clean" well with a reduced wellbore radius given by:

R..iI'. R.e-.

(3)

where Rw,oIf is the reducedwellbore radius which is substituted into Equation 1. For a horizontal well of unifonn drainageand penneability,the flow equationis given by 1:

Table 1 providesa list of the test parameters which wereusedfor the comparativecalculations. All results from the calculations are representedon the basis of "nonnalized flow", The nonnalized flow represents the actual flow rate for the given horizontal or vertical well situation at the effective "skin" condition, divided by the flow rate at the sameconditions in an undamaged zero skin condition. Therefore,all curves at zero skin havean effectivevalue of one. The purposeof this fonn of analysisis not to illustrate the increasein absoluteproduction rate observed when moving from a vertical to a horizontal well application, as this is a rather strong function of effective fonnation permeability,pay andwell geometry,but to illustrate, on a comparative basis,the effect of skin and the productivity of the wells asdamage increases. This allows comprehension of the effect and magnitudeof penneability reductionsto be expected in the caseof a severe near wellbore formation damage problem in an openhole horizontal well.

SPE37138

DB. BENNION, F.B. mOMAS, R.F. BIETZ

Comparison of Skin Damage in Horizontal Versus Vertical Wells in an Isotropic Permeability Condition
Table 2 provides the results of the calculations on horizontal and vertical well geometries using identical reservoir parameters (as detailed in Table 1). This data is based on isotropic (equal) horizontal and directional permeabilities. Figure 3 illustrates the horizontal and vertical well normalized productivity in a low skin factor (S = 0-10) regime, and Figure 4 at the range of skin factors up to 500. The data illustrates that preferentially the horizontal well, due to greater length and reservoir exposure (in this geometry) suffers less relative productivity reduction than the equivalent vertical well. However, it should be noted at extreme skin factors (which may occur in a badly damaged overbalanced open hole completion) that the horizontal well productivity is reduced to only 13.98/0 of the original value (in comparison to the vertical well whose productivity is reduced to 1.49% of the initial value).

fonnation damageis radically increased as formation kJk. ratio becomes more and more adverse. A large numberof horizontal wells aredrilled in formationsexhibiting kjkh ratios of lessthan 0.1, so the impact of even a relatively small amount of near wellbore skin on ultimate well productivity is apparent. It is interesting to note at very adverse kJk. ratios the horizontalwell productivity ratio is actually affectedmore significantly thanthe vertical well value, a possibleexplanationas to why somevery badly damagedhorizontal wells actually perform more poorly than offsetting vertical well counterparts. Table 4 and Figures 7 and 8 also illustrate dte effect of the oppositesituation, high vertical permeability in comparisonto horizontalpermeability. This situationmight occur in a reservoir where the horizontal well is orthogonally intersectingvertical fracture planes as commonly occurs with horizontal well applicationsin areassuchas the Austin Chalk in Texas. In this case,the reversesituation holds true that, the higher the ~ ratio becomes, the less sensitiveto skin damagethe production rate. At a kv to ~ of 1000,which would not be uncommonfor a tight matrix highly fracturedformation, it can be seenthat the productionrate is virtually insensitiveto skin, evenat very high skin values. This is somewhatof an oversimplification, as we are assumingin these calculationsthat the entire wellbore is contributing to flow, rather than a few isolated fractures. Therefore,massivefluid losses to a vertical fracturesystemmay still result in productivity reductions. Well resultsin areassuch as the Austin Chalk, where highly damagingdrilling practices such as mud cap drilling are routinely utilized and highly productivehorizontal wells are still obtained,suggest, however, that the general trend predicted here is correct for vertically fracturedformations.

Comparison of Horizontal to Vertical Well Performance In Zones of Isotropic Permeability But Variable Pay
Table 3 summarizesthe results of the calculationsconducted using vertical and horizontal well geometriesfor pay zones thicknesses of 2, 10 and 50 metersrespectivelyin an isotropic penneability situation. The data has been plotted for low skin factors as Figure 5 and for high skin and damagevalues as Figure 6. Sincethe data is presented on a nonnalizedbasisthe profiles for the vertical well are identical for all three pay situations(asthe flow rate increase is a simple linear multiple of pay zone thicknessin this situation). It can be seenthat on a nonnalizedbasishorizontalwell openhole perfonnance becomes more sensitiveto nearwellbore formation damage effectsas net pay increases (eventhoughon an non-normalized basistotal flow rate will likely increase). This can be explainedby the greater contribution to flow from the over/underlying sectionsof the fonnation in a thick pay zone. Boundary effects causedby damage in sucha situationresult in preferentialreductionsin the ability of the well to effectively accessthe entire drainage volume and energyof the overlying formation zones.

UnderbalancedDrilling
The previous analysis has illustrated that near wellbore skin damage in a horizontalwell cansignificantly reduceproductivity to the point where,in somesituations,the wells areuneconomic. Much of this damageis associated with invasion of fluids and solids during the conventional overbalanceddrilling process. Underbalanced drilling hasbeenusedin recentyearsas a means to attemptto reduceinvasiveformation damage and improve the productivity of wells in high damage/high fluid loss prone scenarios. Success with underbalanced drilling operationshas beenmixed, primarily dueto misapplicationof the technologyin many situations and a failure to maintain a continuously underbalanced conditionat all times during the drilling operation. Since no protective filter cake is formed during a properly executed underbalanced operation,due to a net outflow of fluids from the formation, even relatively short periods of periodic overbalance pressure can result in significant invasion of fluids and solids into the formation and severedamage,sometimes of greatermagnitudethan would have occurredif a well designed and conceivedoverbalanced systemwith good fluid loss control had been used in the same situation. In certain conditions damagemay occur due to countercurrentimbibition, gravity drainage, mechanicalglazing or drawdown effects, even if a continuouslyunderbalanced condition is maintainedduring the

Comparison of Horizontal to Vertical Well Performance in Reservoir Zones of Anisotropic Permeability


Table4 summarizes dIe resultsof thesecalculationsanddIe data havebeenplotted for low skin factorsasFigure 7 and high skins as Figure 8. Thesesituationsmimic the more commonreal life reservoircasewherevertical and horizontal permeabilityarenot equal. Low vertical permeabilities, creatingadverse permeability ratios, are common in many sands,particularly if a high degree of interlamination is presentin the system. Calculationshave beenconductedfor vertical to horizontal permeabilityratios of 0.1, 0.01 and 0.001 respectively. Absolute productivity of horizontalwells, in general,is significantly reduced widI adverse kA ratios and in many caseshorizontal wells may not be capableof economic production rates at extreme kA ratios, even in the total absence of any nearwellboreformation damage effects. Examination of the data indicatesthat the severity of

FORMAllON DAMAGE AND HORIZONTAL WB.LS . A PRODUCDVnY KIUER.?

SPE37138

drilling operation. A detaileddiscussion of problemsassociated with many underbalanceddrilling operations and suggested screeningcriteria for the proper design of an underbalanced drilling program is containedin the literature4.12.13.

from the face of the fonnation, re-initiate flow and track fonnation cleanupas a function of drawdownpressure up to the maximum expected drawdown pressure level which can be realistically appliedin the field to obtain a realistic evaluationof b'ue fluid perfonnance. For heterogenous pore systems, variationsof the technologycan beappliedusingnaturallyor syntheticaUy fracturedandshimmed cores(Figure 14)or new full diameterradial corefloodformation damagetechnology which precisely mimics the radialleakoff patternseenin the reservoir(Figure 15). Figure 16 illustratesa modified coreflood apparatus to evaluate underbalanceddrilling. These experiments are defined in additionaldetail in the literature.. The objectiveof thesetestsis to detennineif problemssuchasspontaneous imbibition may be apparent during a true underbalanced drilling operation,andalso the degree of damage and invasion to be expected if the underbalance pressurecondition is lost and low viscosity fluid and solids abruptly invade into the fonnation. In this fashion, the amount of damage can be compared to a conventional overbalancedfluid system in the same situation, and a risk analysisconducted to ascertain if the extra expense and potential problemsassociated with an underbalanceddrillingoperationare justified.

Fluid Design Criteria to Optimize a Drilling Program to Minimize Near Wellbore Damage In Horizontal Completions
Technologythat has proven viable and reliable for successful vertical well applicationsin a given field often doesnot provide similar resultsfor horizontal wells. This frequentlyresultsin the needto re-designthe drilling programfrom a grassroots basisto obtain a successful horizontal well. The use of the maximum amount of reservoir data, special core analysis techniquesto screenand evaluatevarious fluid systemsand practices,and an experienced designteamareall integralcomponents in obtaining the greatestchanceof success for a horizontal well application. A good understanding of the following reservoir parameters is required: current pressure variations in lithology permeabilityandporosity distribution in the targetzone and the presenceof macroporous features such as fracturesor vugs composition of the matrix and presence of potentially reactive clays (such as swelling smectitic clays), or mobile or deflocculatable clays (such as kaolinite) initial fluid saturations,wettability of the matrix and relative permeability characteristics to obtain an indication of potential severityof problemswith phase trapping and retention pore throat size distribution and fracture aperturesize (if present)to quantify size distribution of particulates required to createa stablenon-invasivefilter cake on the face of the formation to reducedamage effects chemicalcompatibility between mud filtrate andin-situ formation fluids (emulsion, scale and precipitation potential) Specialcore analysistestsare often conductedon representative samplesof reservoir core to verify the perfonnanceof a given fluid systemonce preliminary designhas beenconducted. or to comparethe perfonnanceof severalpotential fluid systemsto select the least damaging alternative for use in the field. Figure 9 providesa schematic illustration of the regionattempted to be simulatedin the nearwellbore regime using a specialcore analysistest. Figure 10 provides a detailed schematicof the coreflow head,which is modified suchthat whole field drilling mud containinga high concenb"ation of solids can be circulated pastthe faceof the sampleto mimic dynamic annularflow and a filter cake is allowed to fonD while fluid lossesand cake stability are monitoredduring a typical dynamiccirculationtest. Figure II illustratesa typical test apparatus and Figures 12 and 13 detail typical fluid loss profiles for various fluid systemsas well a variable drawdown rate return penneability test profile. Thesevariable pressurereturn penneability tests are conducted to quantify the degree of drawdownrequiredto lift the filter cake

Conclusions
Fonnation damage in horizontal wells can be a significant impedimentto economicproductionof oil or gas. Nearwellbore fonnation damage mechanisms,which can occur during the drilling process, centreaboutfluid andsolids losses to the matrix and fracture/vug system adjacent to the wellbore during overbalanced operationsas well as possiblemechanicaldamage in somesituations. Shallow damage is more significant in open hole horizontal wells due to the need to be able to produce through the zone of impaired permeability during ultimate production,in comparisonto a casedcompletion where shallow invasivedamage is normally penetrated by a typical perforation charge. Flow calculationsindicatethat the severityof damage in horizontalwells is significantly increased as the ratio of vertical to horizontalpermeabilitydegrades and also to a lesserextentas fonnation thicknessincreases.Underbalanced drilling may be a partial solution to many invasive fonnation damage problemsin open hole horizontal wells, but only if properly executedand if a continuousunderbalance pressure condition is maintained A list of reservoir parameters to evaluateprior to designing a drilling program for an open hole horizontal well has been presented andvariousspecialcore analysistestsdescribed which areusedas a tool to evaluatedrilling fluids and programdesign prior to the cost and risk of actualimplementationin the field to obtain optimum performance have beenpresented.

SPE37138

D.B. BefNlON, F.B. nIOMAs, R.F. BIE'IZ

Acknowledgements
The authorsexpress appreciation to Vivian Whiting and Maggie Irwin for their assistance in the preparation of the manuscript and the figures. and to Hycal Energy Research Laboratoriesfor the funding of this work and permissionto presentthe data. References

13. Bennion, D.B., et ai, "ForDlation and Fluid Criteria for the Screeningof Underbalanced Drilling Processes", Presented at the Annual Conference of the PetroleumSocietyof CIM, Calgary,Canada. June, 1996.

1 Porter, K.E., "An Overview of Formation Damage",JPT, pp


780-786, August, 1986.
2.

Bennion, D.B., F. Brent Thomas, Bennion, D.W., Bietz, R.F., "Fluid Design to Minimize Invasive Damage in Horizontal Wells", Paper HWC 94-71 presentedat the CanadianSPFlCIM/CANMET InternationalConference on RecentAdvancesin Horizontal Well Applications,Calgary, Canada.Mar. 20-23, 1994.

3.

Eng, J.E., et ai, "Velocity Profiles in Perforated Completions", JCPT,August.1993.


Bennion,D.B., et aI, "Underbalanced Drilling of Horizontal Wells, Doesit Really Eliminate FormationDamage?",JCPT, November, 1995. Bennion, D.B., et ai, "Aqueous and Hydrocarbon Phase Trapping in Porous Media, Diagnosis, Prevention and Treatment", presentedat the 1995 CIM Annual Technical Conference, Banff, Alberta, Canada.

4.

.s,

6. Bennion,D.B., et ai, "Injection WaterQuality, A Key Factor to Successful Waterflooding", PaperCIM-AOSTRA 94-60, presentedat the 1994 Annual Technical Meeting of the PetroleumSociety of CIM.
Fogler.
8.

S. et aI. "Rock-Clay Interactions".JPT. 1989.

Scheunnan, R., et ai, "Injection Water Salinity, Formation Pre-Treatment and Well Operations Fluid Selection Guidelines",JPT, July, 1990,836. Bazin.B. et al. "Control of ForDlationDamage by Modelling Rock-Water Interactions",PaperSPE27363.presented at the SPESymposiumon ForDlationDamage. Lafayette.LA, Feb. 7-10. 1994.

9.

10. Butler, R.M., "Horizontal Wells for the Recovery of Oil, Gas and Bitumen", Petroleum Society of CIM Monograph 2, Topline Printing, Calgary, Canada,1994. II. van Everdingen, A.F., "The Skin Effect and It's Impediment on Fluid Flow in a Wellbore", PetroleumEngineering,25, B-6, Oct 1953.
12. Bennion, D.B., et aI, "Underbalanced Drilling

- Praises and

Perils", SPE 35242 presented at the SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas, March, 1996.

TABLE 2: Normalized Production Rate vs Skin Vertical and Horizontal Wells Vertical and Horizontal Permeabilties Equal

SkiD Facto.

Q-Norm (Vertical Well)


I.(XM) 0.&84 0.792 0.603 0.432 0.275 0.132 0.071 0.037 0.015

Q-Norm (HorizontalWell:
1.000 0.988 0.976 0.942 0.890 0.802 0.619 0.448 0.288 /).140

0
2 S 10 20 SO 100 200 SOO

TABLE 3: Normalized Production Rate vs Skin Vertical and Horizontal Wells, Kv=Kh Effect of Pay Thickness
Skill ,,'.ctor Q-Norm Vertical Well h-2m Q-Norm lIorizontl. Well h-2m

Q-norm
Vertical WelL h = 10 m 1.(xx) 0.8M 0.792 0.603 0.432 O.27S 0.132 0.071 0.037 1).01S

Q-norm Horizontal Well b = 10 m 1.(xx) 0.985 0.970 0.929 0.868 0.766 0.567 0.396 0.247 1).116

Q-norm Verde.1 Well b=50m


I.CXM>

Q-norm
Horizontal Well b=SOm
I. (XX) 0.919 0.850 0.694 0.532 0.362 0.185 0.102 0.054 0.022

II
:1 ~ 10 20 50 100 1.00 ~OO

1.~ 0.884 0.792 0.603 0.43'0.27S 0.132 0.071 0.037 nms

l.cm
0.997 0.994 0.984 0.969 0.940 0.863 0.759 0.612 n,187

0.884 0.792 0.603 0.432 0.27~ 0.132 0.071 0.037 Q.OI~

TABLE 4: Normalized Production Rate Vs Skin Vertical and Horizontal Wells Variable kJk.
Skin Factor Vertical WeD
1.CXX) 0.884 0.792 0.S3

Horizontal

kJk. - 0.1
I.(XM)

WeD

Horizontal

kJk.-

Well

Horizontal

0.01

kJk. -

Well

Horizontal

Wen

Horizontal kjk.-1OOO

Well

0.001

kJk. - 10

U 1 2 .5 10 20 SO 100 200 -m

0.432
o.27S 0.132 0.071 0.037 Q,I)\'

0.965 0.933 0.&48 O.73S 0.S82 US7 0.218 0.122 o.os3

LUI 0.917 0.846 0.687 0.524 o.35S 0.110 0,<PJ9 o.OS2 0.022

1."" 0.8S1 0.740 0.532 0.363 0.221 0.102 O.0S4 0.028 0.011

1.~
0.996 0.992 0.0.%2 0.926 0.833 0.714 0.5S6 0.333

I.(xx) I.(xx) 0.999 0.998 0.996 0.992 0.980 0.961 0.925 0.832

i
i~ Ii I ,

il~
ill i~ II

i ~ i

i
~
~
J ~

~~

jl ~~ i

Ii ill
~
l'

I ~

~I I

I .

,~

81811 ~

5 ~

~~~t.:

j '"

I '/ ~ 1'1/, ~

.G) J [7]
=

~ 'I
c~:

~J~

e:
-III;
i

(I

; ~~

., ;

Ii,. 2 }-

T ~

1:

I! I
I

I ! I 1 d fif JIJ It I ~~~

it )11

t
~' J

~.

I
w

I
c ~
.1
Ii i

I
I ~

i
~
Q 3 ...

~~ i~ i ~ I !

I-

II I I ~
I ~i S~ ~~

i
i
',ffi
,

it
1&.1
~
,

ra

Iif
IU

il
"
so'

-~
I
~~~--

ff t fll 'f'il

I I

fl!:I
;.~

You might also like