See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254534574

Well Productivity Decline due to Fines

Migration and Production: (Analytical model
for the regime of strained particles
accumulation)

Article January 2011

DOI: 10.2118/144208-MS

CITATIONS READS

2 115

5 authors, including:

Abbas Zeinijahromi Sara Borazjani

University of Adelaide University of Adelaide
38 PUBLICATIONS 130 CITATIONS 9 PUBLICATIONS 20 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Sara Borazjani
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 07 August 2016
SPE 144208

Well Productivity Decline due to Fines Migration and Production:

(Analytical model for the Regime of strained particles accumulation)
Pavel Bedrikovetsky/The University of Adelaide, Alexandre Vaz/North Fluminense University UENF, Fernando
Machado/Petrobras, Abbas Zeinijahromi, Sara Borazjani/The University of Adelaide

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference held in Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 710 June 2011.

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

Well index decline has been widely observed for oil, gas and artesian wells producing the reservoir fines. It has often been
explained by the lifting, migration and subsequent plugging of pores by fine particles, which have been observed in numerous
core flood tests. In this work, the basic equations for the detachment of fine particles, their migration and size exclusion,
causing the rock permeability decline, have been derived. The analytical model, developed for the regime of steady state
production with gradual accumulation of strained particles, show the linear skin factor growth vs time and vs the amount of
produced reservoir fines.

Introduction

Well productivity decline under fines production is well known phenomenon in low consolidated and high clay contents
reservoirs, and also in heavy oil and high rate gas fields (Mungan, N. 1965, Bernard, 1967, Lever and Dawe, 1984, Tiab and
Donaldson, 1996, Civan, 2007). It is explained by detachment of the attached particles and clay fines by the drag and lifting
forces, exerting the fine particles from the moving fluid; the mobilised fines strain thin pores causing the permeability decline.
The reliable prediction of productivity index decline is based on the mathematical modelling.
Kinetics of particle capture by the rock from the flowing suspension is described by the filtration equation (Herzig et al., 1970)

= cU
t
where c and are the concentrations of suspension and retained particles, U is flow velocity and is the filtration coefficient.
Various mathematical models of the fines detachment present different expressions for the particle detachment rate that is
assumed to be proportional to the retained concentration and to the detaching factors like drag force, difference between the
equilibrium and current velocities, difference between the equilibrium and current suspension concentrations, etc. (Ju et al
2007, Tufenkij, 2007, Civan, 2010, Massoudieh and Ginn, 2010). The shortcoming of the models with kinetics of the particle
detachment is the asymptotical stabilisation of the retention concentration and permeability when time tends to infinity, while
the fines release due to abrupt pressure gradient increase or under salinity alternation happens almost instantly (Miranda and
Underdown, 1993, Khilar and Fogler, 1998). The corefloods with sharp rate increase show an immediate permeability
response (Ochi and Vernoux, 1998).
It was long recognised that the particle detachment happens if the mechanical equilibrium of a retained particle on the internal
filter cake does not take place (Schechter, 1992, Rahman et al., 1994, Bergendahl and Grasso, 2000, Civan, 2007, Bradford
and Torkzaban, 2008, 2009). The forces, acting on a particle, placed on the internal cake, are: electrostatic force, drag force,
lifting force and gravity. Some authors consider a force balance between the drag force, acting on the particle from the by-
passing fluid, and the friction force with an empirical Coulomb coefficient (Civan, 2007) while the others describe the partile
mechanical equilibrium as the moment balance of all forces (Jiao and Sharma, 1994, Freitas and Sharma, 2001); the two
approaches are mathematically equivalent. The mathematical models with the detachment kinetics do not reflect the particle
mechanical equilibrium; the detachment rate expression is not affected by the mechanical equilibrium of a single particle.
2 SPE 144208

The modified particle detachment model uses the maximum (critical) retention function instead of kinetics expression
describing the detachment rate: if the retention concentration does not exceed its maximum value, particle capture is going on
according to the classical model of deep bed filtration; otherwise, the maximum retention concentration value, which depends
on flow velocity and brine ionic strength, holds (Bedrikovetsky et al. 2011). The maximum retention concentration is
determined by the condition of mechanical equilibrium of the particle on the matrix or deposit surface, which is described by
the torque balance of electrostatic, drag, lifting and gravity forces.
In the present work, we discuss oil flow towards well with fines mobilisation and straining. The filtration equation is used to
describe the retention rate by size exclusion, and the maximum retention function is used for attached fines particles. Quasi
steady state solution captures long term production with stabilised pressure and fines suspended concentration near to well
along with deposit accumulation and skin growth proportionally to the amount of produced fines.
The structure of the paper is as follows. First, we briefly describe fines mobilisation and straining causing the permeability
decline. Then we derive system of governing equations for flow towards well with fines lifting, migration and size exclusion
by the rock. It follows by the analytical model that corresponds to the quasi steady state flow towards well. It allows for exact
formulae for productivity index and skin factor versus time. The paper is concluded by the analysis of the well productivity
predictions as obtained by the analytical model.

Formation damage due to fines migration

Equilibrium of fine particles in porous media is determined by torque balance of attaching (electrostatic and gravity) forces
and detaching (drag and lifting) forces (Fig. 1). The condition of torque balance for particles on grain or pore wall surface
results in maximum (critical) retention concentration which is determined by dimensionless ratio between detaching and
attaching forces (Bedrikovetsky 2011)

ld
Fd (U ) + Fl (U )
ln
a = cr ( ) , = (1)
Fe + Fg

where Fe, Fg, Fd and Fl are electrostatic, gravity, drag and lifting forces, ln and ld are the levers for normal and tangential forces,
respectively.
Since both drag and lifting forces are velocity dependent, the critical retention concentration also depends on flow velocity U

a = cr (U ) (2)

The critical retained concentration is a monotonically decreasing velocity function. For a single cylindrical capillary, function
(2) is a quadratic polynomial.
The mechanism of formation damage due to fines migration at high production rate is as follows. High production rate results
in high flow velocity, particularly in the wellbore vicinity. The initial concentration of retained fines 0 determines the critical
velocity U0: particle release occurs for U> U0 where

0 = cr (U 0 )

The released particles migrate in porous media by passing the larger pores. The fines can be captured by thin pores (straining
or size exclusion of fine particles), Fig. 2. The detached particles do not cause any significant permeability alternation, while
the particles captured in thin pores result in significant permeability decline (Valdya and Fogler 1992, Khilar and Fogler 1998,
Civan 2011). Finally, the fine particle detachment, migration and straining cause decline of permeability and of well
productivity index. In the next section, the basic equations, describing steady state oil production with fines, causing pore
plugging and consequent permeability damage, are derived.

Mathematical model of quasi steady state oil production with the accumulation of fines retention

Consider the constant rate oil production with flow and capture of fine particles near to wellbore.
Mass balance equation for suspended, strained and attached fine particles is

(1 swi ) c + a + s
r + ( cq ) = 0 (3)
t r
SPE 144208 3

Here we assume a low concentration particle suspension c. The fines deposit is formed by the particles, attached to grains and
pore walls, and by those strained in thin pores (Fig. 2). It is also assumed that low concentration retention =a+s does not
affect the porosity. The pore space is saturated by connate water, by attached and strained particles and by flowing particulate
oleic suspension.
The fine particles attach to grains and pore walls; the attachment rate is described by the linear kinetics equation until the
deposit reaches its maximum (critical) value

a
= a cU , a < cr (U ) (4)
t

where a is the filtration coefficient for attaching fines capture.

After reaching the critical value (2), the retained concentration remain constant unless the flow velocity changes.
The straining rate of fine particles is also described by the linear kinetics

s
= s cU (5)
t

where s is the filtration coefficient for size exclusion fines capture.

Oil flux under the presence of connate water obeys Darcys law accounting for permeability damage due to attached and
strained particles (Nabzar et al., 1996, Chauveteau et al, 1998, Mojarad and Settari 2007, Rousseau et al., 2008)

kkrowi p
U = (6)
(1 + a a + s s ) r

The above explanation of permeability damage as a result of sequential fines release and capture assumes that s>>a. Further
in the text, the permeability damage due to attachment is ignored.
Assume constant oil production

q = 2 rU (7)

So, velocity U does not vary with time and is radius-dependent only. From (6,7) it follows that

kkrowi p q
U = = (8)
(1 + a a + s s ) r 2 r

Flow velocity in each reservoir point increases from zero after switching the well on and tends to steady state value U(r).
Increase of velocity causes detachment of fines from grains and pore walls. So, it is assumed that attachment concentration
reaches the value cr(U(r)) and remains constant during the quasi steady state production. It is also assumed that suspended
concentration does not change with time. Two above assumptions simplify mass balance equation:

s c
r + q = 0, (9)
t r

System of equations (2,5,8 and 9) determines unknowns c, a, s and p. The quasi steady state production scenario includes
constant rate oil flow, propagation of pressure wave into the reservoir after switching well on, gradual increase of velocity in
each reservoir point until the critical velocity and further with fines release, migration of lifting fines in the formation damage
zone where the deposit affects the well index, continuous fines straining with gradual skin growth. The analytical model,
presented in the next section, describes the above process.

Analytical model for quasi-steady-state flow of fines migration

Substituting the straining rate expression (5) into (9) yields

4 SPE 144208

c
q = r s cU (10)
r
Accounting for flow rate expression (8) results in ordinary differential equation for suspended concentration

c c
= s (11)
r 2
Separation of variables in (11) leads to explicit formula for suspended concentration distribution

c ( r ) = cw exp s ( r rw ) (12)
2
assuming that the produced fines concentration is known:

c ( rw ) = cw

Suspension concentration in oil decreases as the suspension approached the well due to capture. For the steady state regime
(12), gradient of the suspension concentration c causes higher influx in each elementary volume dr if compared with the out
flux. The difference is compensated by gradual accumulation of strained particles.
Substituting expression for suspended concentration (12) into (5) and integrating both sides in t results in explicit formula for
strained concentration distribution

s qt ( r rw )
s ( r, t ) = cw exp s (13)
2 r 2
i.e. the strained particles accumulate proportional to time.
In the next section, based on solution (13), we calculate pressure distribution around the wellbore and derive formula for skin
factor growth.

Formula for skin factor

Pressure drawdown is

re r r
p d
p e
p
p = dr = dr + dr (14)
rw
r rw
r rd
r

where re is a drainage radius and rd is so called size of formation damage zone. Particle retention outside the damage zone r>rd
do not affect the well index.
Substituting the pressure gradient, as expressed from (8), into (14), and neglecting formation damage due to fines attachment
(a<<s), results in

q rd (1 + s s ) re
(1 + s s )dr = q r rd
p = dr + ln e + s s dr (15)
2 kkrowi rw r rd
r 2 kkrowi rw rw r

leading to the following expression for skin factor

rd
s ( r, t )
S = s dr (16)
rw
r
Pressure drop increase due to particle straining outside the damaged zone is negligible if compared with other terms in (15)
and is ignored.
Substituting strained concentration distribution (13) into (16) yields an expression for skin factor
SPE 144208 5

rd rd
s q dr
S = s dr = s s cwt exp s ( r rw ) 2 (17)
rw
r 2 r 2
w
r

Since the retained concentration grows proportionally to time in each reservoir point, skin grows proportionally to time also.
The proportionality coefficient m is called the skin growth coefficient

rd
s q dr
m ( s , s rw ) = s cw exp s ( r rw ) 2 , S = mt (18)
2 r w
2 r

The skin growth coefficient is proportional to production rate, to produced fines concentration and to formation damage
coefficient due to straining. It allows introducing the dimensionless ratio that depends on dimensionless straining filtration
coefficient only:

m ( s , s rw ) rw 2 ( s rw ) rd dr
M= = exp s ( r rw ) rw 2
s qcw 2 rw 2 r
rd (19)
( s rw ) rw
( r ) du
exp s w ( u 1) 2 ,
r
=
2 1 2 u
u=
rw

Prediction of skin factor and productivity decline

Let us evaluate skin factor growth with time. Fig. 3 shows the M dependence of dimensionless straining filtration coefficient
for different values of radius of damaged zone rd/rw. Usually filtration coefficient varies from 1 to 200 1/m, well radius
rw=0.1m, so the range of dimensionless filtration coefficient srw variation is [0.1, 20]. The chosen damaged zone sizes are
rd=0.3m, 1 m and 10 m. The higher is the filtration coefficient, the larger is the retained concentration and the higher is the
formation damage.
The larger is the formation damage zone, the higher is the skin green curve in Fig. 3a lies above the red curve. Yet, Fig. 3b
shows that further increase of the damaged zone size results in no increase of the skin growth ratio, since the remote deposit
does not contribute to the skin factor (Nunes et al., 2010). Nevertheless, the skin growth ratio M is almost independent of the
formation damage zone; the only important parameter in formula (19) is the dimensionless straining filtration coefficient srw.
Fig. 4 shows decline of normalised well productivity pi versus dimensionless amount of produced oil for different values of
straining formation damage coefficient and straining filtration coefficient. The productivity index is normalised by its initial
value. From (15) it follows that

re
ln
p ( t ) q ( t = 0 ) rw
pi ( t ) = = (20)
q ( t ) p ( t = 0 ) ln re + S t
()
rw

While defining pore volume, the contour size is re=500 m and porosity is =0.2:

qt
tD = (21)
re 2

Curves 1 and 2 correspond to s=10; curves 3 and 4 correspond to s=100. Curves 1 and 3 correspond to srw=0.1; curves 2
and 4 correspond to srw=20.

Summary and conclusions

The fine particles mobilisation by drag and lifting forces exerting the particles from the moving fluid, fines migration and
further size exclusion by thin pores causes significant permeability decline. Therefore, the well index declines during fines
production. The mathematical model, predicting well productivity decline, includes kinetics equations for migrating particles
6 SPE 144208

straining and the maximum retention function for the particle detachment. An analytical model describes flow towards the well
with steady state pressure and suspension concentration near to well. Due to the steady state suspension concentration, the
gradual accumulation of size excluded fines is going on proportionally to time. Skin factor grows linearly versus amount of
produced fines during the commingled production of oil (gas, water) and fines. The proportionality coefficient of the skin
growth is proportional to formation damage coefficient; it increases with filtration coefficient increase and is almost
independent of the radius of formation damage zone.

Nomenclature

Latin letters

c concentration of suspended particles

cw concentration of produced suspended particles at the well
Fd drag force, MLT-2, N
Fe electroestatic force, MLT-2, N
Fg gravitational force, MLT-2, N
Fl lifting force, MLT-2, N
k absolute permeability, L2, mD
krowi oil relative permeability at initial water
krwor water relative permeability at residual oil
ld lever for drag force, L, m
ln lever for normal force, L, m
p pressure, ML-1T-2, Pa
q flow rate, L3T-1, m3/s
r radius, L, m
rd damaged zone radius, L, m
re drainage radius, L, m
rw well radius, L, m
S skin factor
swi connate water saturation
t time, T, s
tD dimensionless time, PVI
U fluid velocity, LT-1, m/s
Uo critical velocity, LT-1, m/s

Greek letters
porosity
formation damage coefficient
a formation damage coefficient for attachment
s formation damage coefficient for straining
torque ratio
filtration coefficient, L-1, 1/m
a filtration coefficient for attachment, L-1, 1/m
s filtration coefficient for straining, L-1, 1/m
volumetric concentration of captured particles, L-3, 1/m3
a volumetric concentration of attached fines, L-3, 1/m3
cr critical concentration of captured particles, L-3, 1/m3
o initial concentration of attached fines, L-3, 1/m3
s volumetric concentration of strained fines, L-3, 1/m3

Abbreviations
pi productivity index
SPE 144208 7

References

Bedrikovetsky, P., Siqueira, F., Furtado, C., Souza, A. 2010. Modified Particle Detachment Model for Colloidal Transport in Porous Media.
J. Transport in Porous Media: 1-31. doi:10.1007/s11242-010-9626-4.
Bergendahl, J., Grasso, D. 2000. Prediction of Colloid Detachment in a Model Porous Media: Hydrodynamics. J. Chemical Engineering
Science 55 (9): 1523-1532. doi:10.1016/s0009-2509(99)00422-4.
Bernard, G.G. 1967. Effect of Floodwater Salinity on Recovery of Oil from Cores Containing Clays. Paper SPE 1725 presented at the SPE
California Regional Meeting, Los Angeles, California,USA, 26-27 October.
Bradford, S., Torkzaban, S. 2008. Colloid Transport and Retention in Unsaturated Porous Media: A Review of Interface-, Collector-, and
Pore-Scale Processes and Models. Vadose Zone Journal 7 (2): 667. doi:10.2136/vzj2007.0092.
Bradford, S., Kim, H., Haznedaroglu, B., Torkzaban, S., Walker, S. 2009. Coupled Factors Influencing Concentration-Dependent Colloid
Transport and Retention in Saturated Porous Media. J. Environ. Sci. Technol 43 (18): 6996-7002. doi:10.1021/es900840d.
Chauveteau, G., Nabzar, L., Coste, J. 1998. Physics and Modeling of Permeability Damage Induced by Particle Deposition. Paper SPE
39463 presented at the SPE Formation Damage Control Conference, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 18-19 February.
Civan, F., 2007. Reservoir Formation Damage: Fundamentals, Modeling, Assessment, and Mitigation. 2nd Ed.:Gulf Professional
Publishing.
Civan, F. 2010. Non-Isothermal Permeability Impairment by Fines Migration and Deposition in Porous Media Including Dispersive
Transport. J. Transport in Porous Media 85 (1): 233-258. doi:10.1007/s11242-010-9557-0.
Freitas, A., Sharma, M. 2001. Detachment of Particles from Surfaces: An Afm Study. J. of Colloid and Interface Science 233 (1): 73-82.
doi:10.1006/jcis.2000.7218.
Jiao, D., M.M. Sharma. 1994. Mechanism of Cake Build-up in Cross flow Filtration of Colloidal Suspensions. J. of Colloid and Interface
Science. 162: 454-462.
Ju, B., Fan, T., Wang, X., Qiu, X., 2007, A new simulation framework for predicting the onset and effects of fines mobilization, J Transport
in Porous Media. 68: 265-283.
Herzig, J.P., Leclerc, D.M., Le Goff, P. 1970. Flow of suspensions through porous media - application to deep filtration. J. Industrial and
Engineering Chemistry. 65(5): 8-35.
Khilar, K., Fogler, H., 1998. Migrations of Fines in Porous Media. Dordrecht/London/Boston:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lever, A., Dawe, R. 1984. Water-Sensitivity and Migration of Fines in the Hopeman Sandstone. Journal of Petroleum Geology 7 (1): 97-
107. doi:10.1111/j.1747-5457.1984.tb00165.x.
Massoudieh, A., Ginn, T.R. 2010. Colloid-Facilitated Contaminant Transport in Unsaturated Porous Media. In Modelling of Pollutants in
Complex Environmental Systems, ed. Hanrahan, G., Chap. 8, 263. Hertfordshire, Glensdale: ILM Publications.
Mojarad, R., Settari, A. 2007. Coupled Numerical Modelling of Reservoir Flow with Formation Plugging. J. of Canadian Petroleum
Technology 46 (3): 54-59. doi:10.2118/07-03-05.
Miranda, R.M., Underdown, D.R. 1993. Laboratory Measurement of Critical Rate: A Novel Approach for Quantifying Fines Migration
Problems. Paper SPE 25432 presented at the SPE Production Operations Symposium , Oklahoma City, OK, USA, 21-23 March.
Mungan, N. 1965. Permeability Reduction through Changes in Ph and Salinity. Journal of Petroleum Technology 17 (12): 1449-1453. SPE-
1283-PA. doi:10.2118/1283-PA.
Nabzar, L., Chauveteau, G., Roque, C. 1996. A New Model for Formation Damage by Particle Retention. Paper SPE1283 presented at the
SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana,USA, 14-15 February.
Nunes, M., Bedrikovetsky, P., Newbery, B., Furtado, C. A., Souza, A. L., 2010, Theoretical definition of formation damage zone with
applications to well stimulation. Journal of Energy Resources and Technology ,. 132 (3): 033101-1-033101-7. doi: 10.1115/1.4001800.
Ochi, J., Vernoux, J.-F. 1998. Permeability Decrease in Sandstone Reservoirs by Fluid Injection,Hydrodynamic and Chemical Effects. J. of
Hydrology 208 (3): 237-248. doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(98)00169-3.
Rahman, S., Arshad, A., Chen, H. 1994. Prediction of Critical Condition for Fines Migration in Petroleum Reservoirs. Paper SPE 28760
presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 7-10 November.
Rousseau, D., Hadi, L., Nabzar, L. 2008. Injectivity Decline from Produced Water Re-Injection : New Insight on In-Depth Particle-
Deposition Mechanisms, Journal of Society of Petroleum Engineers. 23 (4): 525-531. SPE 107666-PA. doi: 10.2118/107666-PA
Tiab and Donaldson, 1996. Petrophysics: theory and practice of measuring reservoir rock and fluid transport properties. 3rd ed. Houston,
Texas : Gulf Publishing Company.
Tufenkji, N. 2007. Colloid and Microbe Migration in Granular Environments: A Discussion of Modelling Methods. In Colloidal Transport
in Porous Media, eds. Frimmel, F.H., von der Kammer, F., Flemming, F.-C., Chap. 5, 119-142. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Valdya, R., Fogler, H. 1992. Fines Migration and Formation Damage: Influence of Ph and Ion Exchange. SPEPE 7 (4): 325-330. SPE-
19413-PA. doi:10.2118/19413-PA.
8 SPE 144208

Fig. 1- Forces acting on attached particle during flow in porous media (torque balance on a single particle)

a c
s
Fig. 2- Straining of detached particles in a single pore

0.7
rd/rw=2
rd/rw =3
0.6
rd/rw= 10

0.5

0.4
M

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
s rw
a)
SPE 144208 9

0.7
rd/rw=3
rd/rw =10
0.6
rd/rw= 100

0.5

0.4
M

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
s rw
b)

Fig. 3- The impedance growth ratio versus filtration coefficient for different sizes of formation damage zone: a) variation of formation
damage zone size rD from 0.2 m to 1 m; b) large damaged zone radius up to 10 m

1
1
2
3
4

0.85
pi

0.7

0.55
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
tD,PVI

Fig. 4- Productivity index decline with time for different values of filtration and formation damage coefficients