Horiz Well Damage Profile and STM Design

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 todays 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, 2324 February. Original manuscript received for review 15 September 2000. Revised manuscript received 13 July 2001. Manuscript peer approved 26 July 2001.
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.16 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 1NUMBER OF TECHNICAL PAPERS PRESENTED AT THE INTERNATIONAL

SYMPOSIUM AND EXHIBITION ON FORMATION DAMAGE CONTROL
Date
Location
Number of Papers5
78 February 1974
New Orleans
26
2930 January 1976
Houston
21
1516 February 1978
Lafayette, Louisiana
15
2829 January 1980
Bakersfield
14
2425 March 1982
Lafayette
22
1314 February 1984
Bakersfield
29
2627 February 1986
Lafayette
23
89 February 1988
Bakersfield
25
2223 February 1990
Lafayette
35
2627 February 1992
Lafayette
63
1920 February 1994
Lafayette
66
1415 February 1996
Lafayette
77
1819 February 1998
Lafayette
74
Lafayette
94
2324 February 2000
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 2TOPICAL COVERAGE IN THE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON FORMATION DAMAGE CONTROL

BY NUMBER OF PAPERS
Year
Fluids
Damage
Mechanisms
Perforating
Sand
Control
1974
1976
1978
Fracturing
Organic/Scale
Depositions
Completion
Techniques
1
1
Acidizing
1980
1982
1984
11
1986
1988
1990
1992
19
15
13
1994
15
10
1996
32
10
12
1998
13
16
12
2000
12
21
21
11
10
March 2002 SPE Journal
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.2729
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.3033
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.5356 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.5860
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.6467 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.7580
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.9499 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.
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 (Gidleys 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,119122 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,125127 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.151154 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.
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
wellsmade 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 formationmay 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 industrys 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 September3 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 September3 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
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, 78 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, 2627 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, 2930 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, 1819 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, 78 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, 1415 February.
16. Hill, D.G.: Clay StabilizationCriteria for Best Performance, paper
SPE 10656 presented at the 1982 SPE Formation Damage Control
Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, 2425 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, 1415 February.
20. Hayatdavoudi, A. and Ghalambor, A.: Controlling Formation Damage Caused by Kaolinite Clay Minerals: Part II, paper SPE 39464
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, 710 February.
22. Civan, F.: Evaluation and Comparison of the Formation Damage
Models, paper SPE 23787 presented at the 1992 SPE International
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, 1415 February.
24. Chauveteau, G., Nabzar, L., and Coste, J.P.: Physics and Modeling of
Permeability Damage Induced by Particle Deposition, paper SPE
25. Chesser, B.G. and Nelson, G.F.: Applications of Weighted Acid
Soluble Workover Fluids, paper SPE 7008 presented at the 1978 SPE
16 February.
26. Barron, W.C., Young, J.A., and Munson, R.E.: New ConceptHigh
Density Brine Filtration Utilizing a Diatomaceous Earth Filtration
System, paper SPE 10648 presented at the 1982 SPE Formation
Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, 2425 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, 1314 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,
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
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,
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, 2629 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, 2829 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,
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, 2223 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,
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, 2627 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, 78 February.
45. Sehnal, Z. et al.: Planning Execution and Verification of a CoiledTubing Gravel Pack Operation in the Statfjord Field, paper SPE
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
19 February.
10
47. Sparlin, D.D.: Sand and GravelA Study of Their Permeabilities,

Damage Control, New Orleans, 78 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
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,
51. Boulet, D.P.: Gravel for Sand Control: A Study of Quality Control,
52. Zwolle, S. and Davies, D.R.: Gravel Packing Sand QualityA 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, 78 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, 1516 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
56. Nieuwland, J.F.B., Van Batenburg, D.W., and Sandy, J.M.: Screening Considerations for Curable Resin-Coated Proppants, paper SPE
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,
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,
2930 January.
60. Maly, G.P. and Vozenilek, J.: Visual Model Study Shows When and
When Not To Pressure Wash Openhole Gravel Packs, paper SPE
Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1516 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, 2425 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, 1314 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, 2225 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,
2223 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
67. Penberthy, W.L. et al.: Gravel Placement in Horizontal Wells, paper SPE 31147 presented at the 1996 SPE International Symposium
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, 69 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, 89 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,
71. Blanton, R.J.: Formation Damage Control During Underreaming and
Gravel Packing in an Overpressured Reservoir, paper SPE 23804
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
27 February.
74. Allen, E.: Revised Guidelines for Proppant and Gravel Placement,
75. Chuah, B.-S. et al.: Formation Damage in Gravel-Packed and Nongravel-Packed Completions: A Comprehensive Case Study, paper
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, 710 February.
77. McLeod Jr., H.O. and Pashen, M.A.: Well Completions Audit to
Evaluate Gravel Packing Procedures, paper SPE 31088 presented at
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
79. Burton, R.C.: Use of Perforation Tunnel Permeability as a Means of
Assessing Cased Hole Gravel Pack Performance, paper SPE 39455
80. Okoye, C.U. et al.: Analysis and Performance of Gravel-Packed
Completions in Oil and Gas Wells, paper SPE 23827 presented at the
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, 2629 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,
710 February.
84. Morita, N., Davis, E., and Whitebay, L.: Guidelines for Solving Sand
Problems in Water Injection Wells, paper SPE 39436 presented at the
85. Sahel, R.A. and Brannon, J.W.: A Comparison of Deepwater Sand
Control Practices in the Gulf of Mexico, paper SPE 23777 presented
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
710 February.
87. Markestad, P. et al.: Selection of Screen Slot Width to Prevent

Plugging and Sand Production, paper SPE 31087 presented at the
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, 1819 February.
89. Rensvold, R.F.: Sand Consolidation ResinsTheir Stability in Hot
Brine, paper SPE 10653 presented at the 1982 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, 2425 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
19 February.
91. Klotz, J.A., Krueger, R.F., and Pye, D.S.: Maximum Well Productivity in Damaged Formations Requires Deep, Clean Perforations,
Damage Control, New Orleans, 78 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, 78 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, 78 February.
94. Seanard, K.C.: Underbalanced Perforating in a Closed System, paper SPE 14828 presented at the 1986 SPE Symposium on Formation
95. Behrmann, L.A. and McDonald, B.: Underbalance or Extreme Overbalance?, paper SPE 31083 presented at the 1996 SPE International
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, 23 June.
97. Ghalambor, A., Asadi, M., and Azari, M.: Performance Evaluation of
Extreme Overbalanced Perforating, paper SPE 39459 presented at
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,
99. Brooks, J.E., Yang, W., and Behrman, L.A.: Effect of Sand-Grain
Size on Perforator Performance, paper SPE 39457 presented at the
100. Cobbett, J.S.: Sand Jet Perforating Revisited, paper SPE 39597
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
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, 710 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, 912 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,
2326 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
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,
2829 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, 2225 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
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, 69 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, 24 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, 810 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, 23 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
124. Morphy, P.H., Greenwald, K.G., and Herries, P.E.: Operational Experience with Foam-Diverted Acid Jobs in the Gulf of Mexico, paper
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,

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, 710 February.
130. Fredd, C.N. and Fogler, H.S.: Alternative Stimulation Fluids and
Their Impact on Carbonate Acidizing, paper SPE 31074 presented at
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,
2022 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
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,
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, 89 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, 710 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
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, 57 October.
140. Almond, S.: Factors Affecting Gelling Agent Residue Under Low
Temperature Conditions, paper SPE 10658 presented at the 1982
2425 March.
141. Penny, G.S.: Nondamaging Fluid Loss Additives for Use in Hydraulic Fracturing of Gas Wells, paper SPE 10659 presented at the 1982
2425 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, 1314 February.
143. Harms, S.D., Goss, M.L., and Payne, K.L.: New Generation Fracturing Fluid for Ultrahigh-Temperature Applications, paper SPE
Control, Bakersfield, California, 1314 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, 1315 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.
148. Lambert, S.A., Dolan, R.T., and Gallus, J.P.: Fracturing Poorly Consolidated Sandstone Formations, SPE 1983 Southwestern Petroleum
Short Course, Lubbock, Texas, 45 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,
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
710 February.
152. Vreeburg, R.J. et al.: Proppant Backproduction During Hydraulic
Fracturing: A New Failure Mechanism for Resin-Coated Proppants,
on Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 710 February.
153. Pope, D.S. et al.: Field Study of Guar Removal From Hydraulic
Fractures, paper SPE 31094 presented at the 1996 SPE International
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
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, 1415 February.
156. Nieuwland, J.F.B., van Batenburg, D.W., and Sandy, J.M.: Screening
Considerations for Curable Resin-Coated Proppants, paper SPE
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, 1415 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
159. Wolfgang, F.J.D.: The Effect of Frac-Fluid Density on Hydraulic
Fracture Growth Direction and Width, SPE 39427 presented at the
160. Mathur, A.K. et al.: Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation of Highly Permeable Formations: The Effect of Critical Fracture Parameters on
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
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
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, 1819 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, 745810.
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: alig@louisiana.edu. 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:
mje@uh.edu. 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

Horiz Well Damage Profile and STM Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Horiz Well Damage Profile and STM Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Formation Damage Abatement:

Copyright 2002 Society of Petroleum Engineers

We have selected what we consider some of the most important

TABLE 1NUMBER OF TECHNICAL PAPERS PRESENTED AT THE INTERNATIONAL

2930 January 1976

1516 February 1978

2829 January 1980

2425 March 1982

1314 February 1984

2627 February 1986

2223 February 1990

2627 February 1992

1920 February 1994

1415 February 1996

1819 February 1998

2324 February 2000

Total Number of Papers 583

ing fluids in a water sensitive shale environment.17 The role of

TABLE 2TOPICAL COVERAGE IN THE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON FORMATION DAMAGE CONTROL

March 2002 SPE Journal

tion units and procedures were introduced and advocated standards

variety of instruments and shear rates used to measure viscosity.

tages over conventional perforating, because of the minimization

The problem of cleaning gravel packs in the immediate vicinity

damage, thereby restoring the reservoir permeability. In contrast,

while successful in their primary purpose of holding sand back,

The near-well fracture geometry and the connectivity between

SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, New Orleans, 7

sented at the 1984 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control,

47. Sparlin, D.D.: Sand and GravelA Study of Their Permeabilities,

87. Markestad, P. et al.: Selection of Screen Slot Width to Prevent

International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,

March 2002 SPE Journal

Oilwell Production and Pressure, paper SPE 30652 presented at the

You might also like