You are on page 1of 5

SPE 151807

The Extinction of Skin


M.T. Byrne, C.A. McPhee, Senergy

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 1517 February 2012.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
The concept of skin has been with us for a long time. Numerous different definitions exist but normally a skin is considered
a dimensionless factor calculated to determine or explain deviation from a wells ideal (or theoretical) behaviour. Skin is
often considered to include the impact of formation damage or reduced near wellbore permeability and provides a
convenient catch-all for any number of different phenomena that affect well performance. This concept, which avoids
attempting to fully capture and understand system performance, would not be tolerated in other engineering industries. It is
time to reconsider our use and abuse of skin and move to a more systematic and physically rigourous description of well
performance and formation damage.
When a well is drilled there are multiple factors that influence the well performance or the ability of fluid to flow in to or out
of the well. The key factors are the reservoir properties and the geometry of the wellbore and how this geometry interacts
with the reservoir. Rather than relating varied and diverse well geometries such as perforations, hydraulic fractures,
chemically-induced fractures or channels, to a simple cylindrical base case well and calling the difference in well
performance skin we can, and should, detail the well geometry. Too often the good or excellent well performance from
stimulated wells is mis-attributed to a negative skin and no formation damage when the principal stimulation has been a
significant change in the wellbore geometry. If the well geometry can be defined then we can evaluate how the well
performance compares with expectation for that geometry without invoking skin.
Using examples of real well performance and formation damage, a procedure is presented which demonstrates the advantages
gained from understanding real wellbore geometry and the advances that extinction of skin factors brings to well planning
and performance.
Skin is an outdated and misleading concept and an expedient tool for justifying drilling and completion design and well
performance. The challenges in modeling such a complex system should never be underestimated but it is clear that better
well planning and better understanding of well productivity and formation damage will be possible if we include the well
geometry in our assessment and eliminate skin.

Introduction
Skin can be defined as the additional pressure drop in the near wellbore area that results from the drilling, completion and
production practices used (Van Everdingen, 1953). Formation Damage can be defined as any near wellbore alteration that
affects permeability due to well operations (Byrne et al, 2007). Skin and formation damage are often used to describe the
same phenomena or at least the impact of these phenomena but it is important to understand they are quite different
parameters. A high positive skin does not necessarily mean that there is a lot of formation damage and conversely a low or
negative skin does not mean that there is no formation damage.
Confusing skin and formation damage can lead to costly oversights or missed opportunities. For example, McPhee et al
(2011) cite an example from the UK North Sea where the original well test analysis in an appraisal well interpreted a
formation permeability of around 5 mD with a slightly negative skin factor (-1). These results proved decisive in the original
operators decision to relinquish the field license. Forensic re-evaluation of core, log and well test data indicated that the low
oil rates on test were more likely to be the consequence of formation damage rather than poor formation permeability, and
challenged the negative skin factor in the original interpretation. Recognition of formation damage and the opportunity to
drill a new well specifically to mitigate formation damage persuaded the new operator of hidden potential in a reservoir that
had been condemned to be non-viable.
2 SPE 151807

A search of relevant SPE and related technical publications reveals almost 10,000 papers that refer to skin and over 28,000
references to formation damage of which more than 5000 also refer to skin. It is clearly impossible to review all of these and
it is not our intention to challenge their veracity. In one of the seminal papers on the skin effect, Van Everdingen states: The
pressure drop in a well per unit rate of flow is controlled by the resistance of the formation, the viscosity of the fluid and the
additional resistance concentrated around the well bore resulting from the drilling and completion technique employed and,
perhaps, from the production practices used. The pressure drop caused by this additional resistance is defined in this paper as
the skin effect, denoted by the symbol S.
Of course, Van Everdingens skin concept has been developed and expanded to deal with departures from radial geometry
caused by limited entry into the wellbore and flow convergence into the perforations, and breakdown of Darcys law due to
fluid velocity or compositional effects, but ultimately the skin effect is defined as some dimensionless factor (Pucknell and
Clifford, 1991) that attempts to resolve the difference between ideal theoretical well performance, and the reality. Skin can be
a very convenient way of evaluating and ranking well performance and we do not doubt the contribution of the concept of
skin in progressing our understanding of reservoir and well performance.
Formation damage is, or should be, a directly measureable parameter but in situ measurement or observation of damage is
very difficult. Of course, sophisticated formation damage evaluation techniques and processes continue to evolve but we are
still unsure about the actual impact of formation damage on well behaviour. One practical solution to this uncertainty over
the skin effect and formation damage is to try and design wells with low or negative skin and low formation damage. In many
cases this is effective and we do not necessarily need to resolve this apparent conflict between formation damage and skin in
order to optimize well performance. Yet the challenge we still face is to bring more rigour to the physics of well performance
and to understand the role of formation damage in well productivity.
It is useful to consider whether the concept of skin to explain actually versus ideal system performance would be acceptable
in other industries in the early 21st century. Consider the aeronautical industry which has a similar lifespan to the oil and gas
industry. When the first planes flew there was little clear understanding of the lift design required or the optimum wing and
aircraft shape, size and weight. But planes still flew just as the early oil and gas wells were drilled and produced without a
clear understanding of the reservoir and well system. Today, aeronautical design engineers do not have a skin value in their
calculations and models just because aeroplanes are complicated. They have clear understanding of every contributing
physical parameter and process. Of course they may be working in a more understood and directly measureable system than
ours but this should not prevent us from aspiring to complete physical models of the well and reservoir systems based entirely
on the physics of fluid flow through restrictive media.

The Trouble with Skin


In a very simple well and reservoir geometry and where the impact of completion geometry, non Darcy flow and other non
formation damage flow restrictions are negligible, formation damage and skin effect can be similar. If formation damage is
induced during drilling then this formation damage can be directly related to a positive skin and the permeability reduction is
directly related to the well performance. However in more complex wells, formation damage and skin effects diverge. The
concept of negative skin where the well performance is better than its theoretical capability, presents some difficulty. If the
negative skin is as a result of an increase in near wellbore permeability then it can be argued that there is negative formation
damage. For example, if acid removes part of the rock matrix or fines movement does something similar, opening up pore
throats and flow paths then the drilling, completion and/or other operations have increased reservoir permeability and thus
induced a negative skin. But many wells and well tests report negative skin without any increase in near wellbore
permeability. If the reservoir and fluid properties are well understood and this is not simply an error of reservoir description
then how can a negative skin exist? The answer is that in an effort to understand well behaviour, we simplify our well
concept and do not consider the true system geometry.
Perhaps the best illustration of this is in hydraulic fracturing. In this process, fractures create high permeability conduits from
the original wellbore in to the reservoir (Daneshy, 2011) and very often results in significantly improved well productivity or
injectivity. Numerous papers record negative skins for hydraulically fractured wells, but has the near wellbore reservoir
permeability been increased? We suggest that the main reason for the improved well performance is that the well has
changed. There may be significant formation damage in the near wellbore vicinity but the well geometry is so fundamentally
different from the original well that there is a negative skin effect.
Consider a simple vertical well with perforations. The geometry of the well is that of a cylinder connected at all of the
effective perforation points to a series of spikes or perforations extending into the reservoir as illustrated in Fig 1.
SPE 151807 3

Fig. 1 Geometry of a perforated well

If we now take a similar well but perforate a specific interval and hydraulically fracture, the new fracture shape connects to
the original wellbore through a limited number of perforations. In a successful fracture high permeability conduits are
opened deep into the reservoir with significant surface area creating a different and much more complex geometry from the
cased and perforated well.

Fig. 2 Geometry of a fractured well


4 SPE 151807

Now the well shape is dominated by the wings (as shown in Fig 2) of the fracture and it is perhaps not surprising that this
new geometry often delivers much better flow performance than more conventional geometries. But, we still compare the
fractured well performance to equivalent non-fractured well or geometry. Hence, a negative skin is often reported. As the
fracture is being formed, losses of fracturing fluid in to the reservoir are likely and this fluid may cause permeability
impairment or formation damage that remains around the new wellbore fracture faces for the life of the well. And yet we still
interpret a negative skin.
In order to properly evaluate the performance of different completion geometries we need to capture the geometry in our
inflow performance concept. If we can understand all of the physical properties of the entire well and reservoir systems, then
there is no need to consider a skin factor. Formation damage has an impact, but a dimensionless parameter such as skin
becomes extinct if we can capture and model all of the physical parameters.
The complexities in modeling such an exigent system should not be underestimated. Over-simplifying the problem just
because it is difficult and then applying correction factors is convenient but less than rigorous. Yet, in a simple open hole
completion the geometry can be reasonably well understood and predicted. With the introduction of more complex
geometries such as perforations or hydraulic fractures then the task becomes more difficult but not intractable. Some
reservoirs are relatively simple and consistent in their properties and geometry, but in others the reservoir rock properties
may be extremely variable, there may be natural fractures and in many cases we do not fully understand the in situ reservoir
rock properties. A well drilled into a fractured reservoir presents particular modeling challenges. Where the fractures are wide
enough the well shape will include part of the natural fracture system in much the same way as a hydraulically fractured well
geometry includes the fracture. If we capture the real reservoir and well geometry then we have a much better opportunity to
understand real well potential and thus design wells that have predictable, understandable and optimized performance.

Well Performance with No Skin


If we want to understand and design for optimum well performance then we can model the reservoir properties, the fluid
properties and any well geometries and properties. Instead of designing a well to deliver low skin zero skin or negative
skin we should design a well to give the best possible performance. This may or may not include minimization of formation
damage, but if all other parameters are described as accurately as possible then we can understand the impact of formation
damage.
The reservoir properties may be well understood or not, but if we work with the best information available we can
characterize the physical properties of the reservoir rock and fluids. We should not assume that this is beyond our capability
and over simplify. In the well design phase any conceivable geometry could be examined but normally we have some
concept of the viable options and can at least produce theoretical size and shape of reservoir to well contacts. Additional
flow restrictions such as limited entry, non Darcy flow, formation damage, can be included. The ambition should be to
capture all flow restrictions and the system geometry in order to predict well performance. The ability to predict well
performance and analyze system performance does not rely on software or hardware but in reality the increasing power and
availability of complex numerical modeling systems makes this process easier.
If all of the reservoir parameters and the geometry and other flow restrictions can be captured there should be no limit to our
ability to understand and predict well performance without any fudge factors or dimensionless parameters. Skin therefore
becomes an extinct concept. We become able to plan and deliver optimum well performance in every reservoir and for every
well type. The reservoir model can predict the well geometry for optimum productivity or injectivity and can thus reveal
sensitivity to formation damage. Different hydraulic fracture designs and configurations or other completion types can be
compared and ranked. The critical parameters to well delivery can be determined and the completion delivery challenged to
match the concept developed rather than to constrain the completion geometry and predict its performance. We should not
use the predicted well performance for specific well parameters to determine the completion with lowest skin. Instead, we
should describe the potential well performance in terms of the deliverability of the well, the productivity index or other
measure of flow potential. The modeling process can evaluate the impact of formation damage without reference to skin and
without the need for speculation on the difference between skin and formation damage.

Practical Application of the Theory


An example of application of the concept relates to two paired wells completed in a formation with identical reservoir
properties. Well A drilled more than 20 years ago was completed with a hydraulic fracture. For various reasons, the original
well operator believed the fracture operations to be flawed and assumed that the fracture did not contribute to the well
performance. A more recent sister well (well B), completed with perforations, delivered at much lower rates than well A and
was assigned a high positive skin which the new well operator assumed to be related to formation damage. Ignoring this
interpretation and applying the skin extinction theory, a simple model of both wells was constructed to try to better
understand the wells behaviour.
SPE 151807 5

The model clearly demonstrated that well B had potential to deliver approximately 1,000 barrels per day (Fig 3) but in fact
delivered less than 50 barrels per day initially. This was due to severe formation damage during completion but this was not
the only reason for its poor performance relative to well A.
Well A had produced 3,000 barrels per day over a twenty year period. The only way that well A could have delivered this
performance is if the original hydraulic fracture was actually successful. The model showed that this sustained productivity
could not have been possible from a conventional cased and perforated well completion, given the reservoir and fluid
parameters. Therefore not only must well B have experienced severe damage, but that it could never have reached the
potential of well A without some different well geometry such as a hydraulic fracture.

6000

5000
Oil Flow Rate (Bbl/d)

4000

Well A average production rate


3000

2000

1000

0
C&P (Crushed Zone Damage) C&P (No Damage) Fracture (40 M length) Fracture (160 M Length)

Fig. 3Predicted production for different completion geometries - well A and B.

Conclusions
The concept of skin should not be used as it is a dimensionless correction factor that can be very misleading and does not
encourage fundamental physical properties to be accurately evaluated and predicted. Formation damage is a valid concept
and can be predicted, often very accurately and in wells where it is critical to well performance, should be minimized. The
difficulties and challenges associated with understanding and predicting fluid flow resrictions and wells should not preclude
an attempt to include all physical properties and system geometries in our well flow predictions. Computing hardware and
software advances enable faster resolution of more complex models and our industry should keep pace with these
opportunities. Our industry should not tolerate over-simplification and should aspire to understand the undoubted complexity
of the physical systems in which we contruct wells and should eliminate correction, geometric, fudge and skin factors when
ever we can. We propose the extinction of skin.

Acknowledgements
The authors are indebted to current and former colleagues who have contributed to and challenged our ideas and to SPE for
enabling publication of a paper that challenges some entrenched beliefs and concepts.

References
Byrne et al, SPE 107557-MS, A New Tool for Exploration and Appraisal Formation Damage Evaluation, European Formation Damage
Conference, 30 May-1 June 2007, Scheveningen, The Netherlands
Daneshy, A.A., SPE 140134, Hydraulic Fracturing of Horizontal Wells: Issues and Insights, SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology
conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, Jan 24-26, 2011
Pucknell J.K., Clifford, P.J., SPE 23100-MS, Calculation of Total Skin Factors, Offshore Europe, 3-6 September 1991, Aberdeen, United
Kingdom
McPhee, C., Byrne, M. and G. Daniels, SPE 143988, The Role of Forensic Petrophysics in Formation Damage Evaluation, European
Formation Damage Conference, 30 May-1 June 2007, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 710 June 2011.
Van Everdingen, A.F. The Skin Effect and its Influence on the Productive Capacity of a Well, Petroleum Transactions Vol. 198, 1953

You might also like