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

SummaryPetroleum well production impairment has long been associatedwith formation damage. Concepts such as the skin effect and itsvarious manifestations have been introduced to account for theeffects of damage. The origins of damage and the types of damagealso have been the subjects of intense scrutiny. Abatement hasincluded preventive measures such as the use of nondamagingfluids, presumably more benign processes, and improved drillingand well construction procedures and techniques. Once in place,the removal of damage has spawned an entire industry, that ofmatrix stimulation. This involves the use of appropriate remedia-tion fluids, complete with the understanding of the often contrast-ing interaction among these fluids, the fluids and the damage, and,very importantly, the side effects that can damage the well morethan its prestimulation state. Again, appropriate hardware was nec-essary. Owing to the fact that damage removal is often eitherincomplete or unsuccessful, methods of bypassing the damage,such as high-permeability fracturing, have been developed. Fi-nally, brute force approaches are common, including the drilling ofmore vertical and/or horizontal wells regardless of the damage inorder to get enough production. This paper is a critical review ofboth the evolution of the technologies and the thought processesthat have permeated the industry over the past quarter century.Particular emphasis is given to the resolution of controversial sub-jects and their impact on the field. These include issues such asmatrix stimulation vs. fracturing, sand production control vs. sanddeconsolidation management, underbalance vs. extreme overbal-ance, and perforating and drilling fluids and practices.

IntroductionA routine procedure of early-day operators to keep many wells inproduction was clean out, shoot, clean out again. Therefore, theidea of formation damage abatement has not been an esotericphenomenon to the industry. Engineers have long yearned to pre-vent, diagnose, and remediate formation damage. The disagree-ment has been over how to accomplish it. These concerns continueto permeate the literature and various technical gatherings. Finally,SPE approved the formation of a formal symposium. The firstSymposium on Formation Damage Control was held in 1974 inNew Orleans. This was followed by symposia in Houston (1976),Lafayette, Louisiana (1978), and Bakersfield, California (1980).The location of the symposium alternated between Lafayette andBakersfield until 1990, when Lafayette became the sole host of thesymposium (Table 1). In 1992, the SPE Board approved the in-ternational designation for the symposium. The 2000 Symposiumwas the silver anniversary of the event. During its 25 years, thesymposium has grown from a regional event to todays majorinternational symposium, attracting more than 800 participantsfrom more than 30 countries representing 6 continents. The suc-cess of the symposium prompted the initiation of the sister con-ference during the off years in The Hague, The Netherlands, be-ginning in 1995. The International Symposium and Exhibition onFormation Damage Control (ISEFDC) has contributed nearly 600technical papers to the literature (Tables 1 and 2).

We have selected what we consider some of the most importanttopics in damage, damage characterization, prevention, and abate-ment. While this paper by no means exhausts the subject, it is areasonably comprehensive description of the evolution of both thetechnology and, especially, the thought process over the last 25 years.

Other meetings and journals may have additional relevant ma-terial. Wherever absolutely necessary, we have included importantreferences from these sources. However, because of our intimateand lengthy involvement with the organization and nurturing of theInternational Symposium on Formation Damage Control, particu-lar emphasis was given to the works that appeared at these events.This is not limiting, because the Symposium has evolved over timeinto 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 onlyafter careful consideration of their effect upon the ultimate flowperformance of the well. Industry practitioners have long recog-nized that the various facets of drilling operations can induce pro-duction impairment. Unfortunately, this was not apparently a suf-ficient incentive for drilling personnel to become more activelyinvolved in the formation damage debate. The only exception tothis observation is perhaps in the drilling fluids industry, in whichsales motivations could have played a major role in the develop-ment of new and improved products. To its credit, the industry hasmade great strides to introduce nondamaging fluids.16 Recently,drill-in fluids that minimize particle invasion have sparked manystudies for designing muds to reduce rock impairment. Regardingdrill-in fluids, one should be aware of the current technologicalweaknesses, such as long-term scale inhibition for high densitybrines, iron solubility control, and wellbore preparation and clean-ing methods.

Washouts in the producing zones have been found to greatlyreduce the chances of obtaining a satisfactory cementation. Fur-thermore, in such cases, mud filtrate reduces reservoir permeabil-ity by dispersed clays. Therefore, slower drilling in the objectiveinterval must be accepted, even though it may not be the cheapestway. The problem of formation damage and annular blowouts orpressures owing to migration through cemented annulus was rec-ognized in the mid-1960s and resulted in new cementing proce-dures.7,8 Cementing (primary and remedial) continues to be one ofthe toughest (if not the toughest) challenges in drilling, complet-ing, and producing a well. The industry emphasis seems to havebeen in introducing better cements and spacer fluids rather than inmore effective placement.

Casing deformation in, or adjacent to, the producing intervalshas been encountered in one of four wells entered for recompletionor repairs. Initially, it was thought that the casing was collapsed.Using instruments developed for this purpose, such as the kink-meter and casing caliper, it was determined that the deformationwas caused by buckling. Pressure decline, causing compaction andaxial loads, and sand production, causing loss of lateral support,were recognized as the reason for buckling. For minor casingdamage, the use of undersized, inflatable packers or squeeze tools,flexible wire-wrapped screens, and knuckle joints were found use-ful. For more severe damage, milling operations have been rec-ommended.9 Other studies described the mechanisms of drillingand production-induced damage.10,11

Filter cake removal in openhole completions where formationimpairment cannot be bypassed by perforation remains a chal-

Copyright 2002 Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper (SPE 77304) was revised for publication from paper SPE 58744, first presentedat the 2000 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Loui-siana, 2324 February. Original manuscript received for review 15 September 2000. Re-vised manuscript received 13 July 2001. Manuscript peer approved 26 July 2001.

4 March 2002 SPE Journal

lenge. Flow initiation pressure has been used as a measure for filtercake removal during drawdown.12

Role of Formation Characteristics inWell CompletionClay problems have long been recognized and continue to plagueall aspects of petroleum production from initial drilling to comple-tion (stimulation) and final well abandonment. What has beenlearned simply boils down to the fact that all treatments should bethe type that leave all silicate surfaces in the clay water-wet. Anoil-wet formation can trap water in the pores to greatly reduce theflow of oil or gas.13 In addition, an oil-wet rock or propped frac-ture will not flow as much oil as a water-wet rock in which mini-mal water is present. This aspect was also examined in the forma-tion fines and factors controlling their movement in porous me-dia.14,15 It was demonstrated that the clay content of a reservoir isnot a good guide to predict the concentrations of required claycontrol additives. Determination of cation exchange capacity of thereservoir samples is a better method for prediction.16 ActivityTheory was utilized to design chemically balanced polymer drill-

ing fluids in a water sensitive shale environment.17 The role ofgeochemical coding in dealing with the damage caused by non-damaging clays (such as kaolinite) was studied.18 As once per-ceived, the nondamaging aspects of these clays are a myth.19,20Water/rock interaction modeling has been used to optimize welltreatment and water injection operations.21

Formation damage modeling is obviously complex. Someattempts have been made to evaluate and compare the variousmodels.22,23 The physics of colloidal particle retention in porousmedia and its consequences on permeability have been introducedby modeling.24

Completion and Workover FluidsHeavy-solids free completion and workover brines of greater than15.0 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 carbonateparticles for fluid loss control. These systems posed their ownlimitations. Filtration in the former and higher viscosity in thelatter were major challenges in the use of these fluids. New filtra-

TABLE 1NUMBER OF TECHNICAL PAPERS PRESENTED AT THE INTERNATIONALSYMPOSIUM 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






2324 February 20004 Lafayette 94Total Number of Papers 5831Lafayette became the sole host of the Symposium on Formation Damage Control.2SPE Board adopted the name International Symposium on Formation Damage Control.3In 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.4SPE Board adopted the name International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control.5Actual number of papers submitted (initial number of accepted presentations was greater).

TABLE 2TOPICAL COVERAGE IN THE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON FORMATION DAMAGE CONTROL BY NUMBER OF PAPERS

Year FluidsDamage

Mechanisms PerforatingSand

Control Acidizing FracturingOrganic/ScaleDepositions

CompletionTechniques

1974 8 2 3 7 2 4

1976 5 7 3 1 3 1 1

1978 4 2 2 5 1 1

1980 3 3 1 4 2 1

1982 8 6 1 4 6 1

1984 5 11 8 1 3 1

1986 3 3 1 8 4 2 2

1988 4 8 1 6 4 1 1

1990 9 8 1 6 7 1 1 2

1992 8 19 1 15 8 4 8 13

1994 8 15 1 10 8 6 9 9

1996 7 32 9 10 12 7

1998 13 16 7 8 9 12 6 3

2000 12 21 5 21 11 10 5 9

5March 2002 SPE Journal

tion units and procedures were introduced and advocated standardsother than maximum particle size.26 Procedures to evaluatecompletion fluids were introduced to study the effect of variousparameters by modified instruments such as the well publicizedreturn permeability measurement.2729

Bacterial damage is a difficult subject to study properly owingboth to the time and to the sensitivity of the experiments that needto be carried out. Remedial methods and insight into bacterialdamage were presented in separate studies.3033

The various aspects of drilling damage and its associatedcompletion operations were presented in a comprehensive study.34It was pointed out that the destruction of shale membrane in thehandling of cores would pose a serious problem in many analyses,leading to unrealistic vertical permeabilities. Furthermore, it re-vealed the fallacy of holding a small amount of light fluid slugbelow a higher density mud to perforate.

The role of core and core analysis in formation damage workhas long been recognized,35 but the controversy of reliable andrepresentative core samples remains to be resolved by the practi-tioners. Equally, the digenesis of sandstones brings a differentperspective to the study of reservoir stimulation.36 Many studieshave investigated the perforated performances for various forma-tions and conditions.37 The result of these investigations has beenthe identification of several significant and insignificant param-eters, but the topic continues to be the subject of debate. A noveltechnique of using capillary pressure data for rapid evaluation offormation damage or stimulation fluids was developed.38 The usesof sidewall cores for gravel-pack design have been demon-strated.39 Image analysis of pore systems and computed tomogra-phy have partially resolved problems related to reservoir qual-ity40,41 and reservoir compaction. Subsidence studies have provedto be significant in evaluation of casing buckling problems, per-meability, or pore volume changes during production, surface sub-sidence, and sand production problems.42 A reservoir disturbanceindex (RDI) was developed to describe the mechanisms of solidsproduction in unconsolidated reservoirs.43

Sand ControlState-of-the-art gravel packing remained essentially unchangeduntil the early 1970s, when serious concerns regarding the flowperformance of producing wells developed. The act of performinga sand control completion could no longer be viewed as an isolatedengineering activity unrelated to drilling, evaluating, and casingthe well. The concern for using rig time efficiently prompted thedevelopment of a one-trip gravel-packing system in the early1970s.44 Lately, coiled tubing has been used to perform gravelpacking.45 Recent design is capable of single-trip perforating andgravel packing.46

The appropriate gravel size for gravel packing has been thesubject of controversy. A study in 1974 revealed the detrimentaleffect of mixing sand and gravel on production capacities.47 Ear-lier studies have found that a gravel-to-sand size ratio of less than6, and preferably 4, gives a stable pack.48 Angular gravel and auniform formation sand promote the pack stability. Particle trans-port in perforations in gravel prepacking also were studied.49 How-ever, other studies showed effective sand control with a 16:1 ra-tio.50 The quality of sand in gravel packing was studied throughthe years. The use of thin-sections shed new light on characterizinggravel-pack sands.51,52

The resin-coated gravel slurry treatment was found to be aneffective sand control method in unconsolidated formation havinghigh silt and clay content.5356 The application of the materials forsand control was intended without the use of a screen. Anotherstudy compared conventional and ceramic gravel packs.57 Variouspapers have contributed to the better design, planning, and execu-tion of gravel packs.5860

The gravel-packing procedure has gone through some evolu-tion. Several techniques were introduced to accommodate wellswith limited space between producing zones, and employing linervibration technique.61,62

Gravel-pack carrier fluids have required dual viscosity. As aresult, industry breakback data generally disagrees because of the

variety of instruments and shear rates used to measure viscosity.Viscosity breakback criteria for gravel-packing carrier fluids havebeen described.63 Furthermore, the deviated wells posed their ownproblems, which led to the development of special carrier fluidsand procedures.6467 Gravel placement with viscous fluids is bestsuited for relatively short completion intervals in well deviationsthat do not exceed about 45.68

Initially, gravel was circulated down the annulus to the bottomof the well, where it was kept in place by a wire-wrapped screen.This caused severe contamination of the pack, and the perforationtunnels were not filled with gravel. Crossover tools were intro-duced to minimize this problem by pumping down a supposedlyclean workstring. Perforation filled with low effective permeabilitymaterials brought about the use of high-rate squeeze packing andcarrying gravel in high concentrations as a slurry in viscous oil orgelled water with a built-up breaker. Investigators have experi-enced that water packing is a general purpose gravel-pack tech-nique that can be effectively applied to any well with simplepumping schedules.9 Improvements in the design were extensivelydiscussed by other investigators.64,69,70 The industry also pre-sented the merit of underreamed gravel-pack completions vs. per-forated liner gravel packing.71 The quantitative approach to gravel-pack evaluation has also resulted in the development of logginginstruments.72 Improved models attempted to evaluate gravelpacks.73,74 Furthermore, industry conducted comprehensive casestudies to provide recommendations as to when to gravel pack andhow to evaluate a gravel pack.7580

Sand production prediction continues to pose a challenge forthe industry. Various models have been developed throughout theyears. The effect of production of free water was carried in adetailed study revealing the onset of sand production.81,82 Thisstudy heavily relied on formation strength information obtainedfrom mechanical logs. This aspect was further investigated to ad-dress the accuracy of several formation strength models.83,84

Sand control techniques in the industry vary and can be con-troversial.85,86 Attempts have been made to select screen slotwidth to prevent plugging and sand production.87 Sorting criteriahave been introduced for selection of gravel and screens.88

Sand consolidation systems such as nonaqueous overflush fu-ran resin and internally catalyzed epoxy resin systems were ap-plied with various rates of success.89 Lately, new chemistry andimproved placement practices have been introduced to enhanceresin consolidation.90

PerforatingThe early standard completion procedure called for cementing cas-ing at total depth and for perforating the productive zone with jetcharges. This was followed by installation of sand control, eitherin-situ consolidation or mechanical sand retention. Production im-pairment and sand control problems were attributed to this se-quence of operations because of the exclusion of the important stepof first cleaning the perforation. In naturally consolidated forma-tions, the debris and pulverized materials from jet perforations canbe removed by producing the well with sufficient drawdown and/or by stimulation. However, in unconsolidated sands (such as theones prevalent in the Gulf Coast), one cannot produce wells with-out sand control. Damage from gun perforating has long beenrecognized. Studies dating from as early as 1932, when the firstwell was perforated, have shown that to maximize well produc-tivity, perforations must penetrate substantially beyond the zone ofdrilling damage.91 A few deep perforations are more effective thanmany shallow ones, and perforation quality is more important thaneither shot density or penetration. The industry tried many tech-niques to remove jet charge-induced impairment. Backsurging,perforation washing, and underbalance perforating were developedto enhance perforation cleaning.9 All of these methods have theirlimitations and are not intended for general application.92,93 In-vestigators analyzed underbalanced and extreme overbalanced per-forating and developed perforating requirements for stimula-tion.9499 The practice of jet perforating has been slow owing tolack of depth control and stabilization of the jet device during thejetting action. It appears, however, that jet perforating has advan-


tages over conventional perforating, because of the minimizationof the physical damage to the formation in the form of crushingand compaction.100

The flow behavior (productivity) of nongravel-packed perfora-tions by rule-of-thumb concepts were proved inadequate and in-valid. New models were developed to predict economic effects ofperforating conditions and number and size of perforations.101Furthermore, the decline in injectivity in water injection wellsbecause of nonuniform perforation properties has been mod-eled.102 A combination of scanning electron microscopy and a 3Dsingle-phase reservoir simulation provided new information on thereduction of productivity caused by the crushed zone surroundinga jet perforation tunnel.103

The Evolution of Matrix StimulationEarly on, matrix stimulation of sandstone reservoirs focused pri-marily on the use of mud acid (usually, 3% HF and 12% HCl byweight solution) to remove drilling-induced and native damage.The authors in one study104 presented a large number of field casestudies in the U.S. Gulf Coast, which indicated optimum volumesof 125 to 200 gal/ft. Interestingly and significantly, they concludedthat formation permeability and porosity had little influence onthe success of the stimulation treatment.104 This should have beena direct indicator that the penetration of stimulation was not deep,perhaps on the order of a few inches. The use of mutual solventswas recommended in all treatments, suggesting the composite na-ture of damage, and the obvious conclusion was that mud acidalone cannot stimulate wells in many sandstone formations. Simi-lar results using the same acid/mutual solvent formulation wereobserved in another study.105

Other investigators106 understood two important issues. Thefirst of these was that the penetration of typical injection volumesof 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 generationof HF in situ, by first injecting HCl, causing ion exchange with theclays, 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 criticalissue: the impact of lithological heterogeneities in sandstones andtheir potential for reaction side effects. He posed the rhetoricalquestion: We hope that fluid+rock enhanced permeability, buthow often does fluid+rock decrease permeability? He then par-ticularly identified unstable-nondurable grains cemented by cal-cite as problematic.

The potentially destructive influence of HF/HCl solutions ondestabilizing the formation and the need for more acid penetration,which would require strong HF/HCl solution (entering a viciouscycle of further destabilization) were also addressed by other in-vestigators.107 They recommended the use of fluoboric acid(HBF4), which provides deep hydrofluoric acid penetration whilethe treatment not only fails to destabilize fines but, instead, fusesthem together.

In one series of publications, the investigators108 examined thepermeability loss commonly observed in the acidizing of sand-stone reservoirs using HF/HCl formulations. They attributed thisnot only to the precipitation of colloidal silica but to other pre-cipitates as well. They also found that even minute quantities ofcarbonate minerals would cause a major alteration in the indicatedacid formulation.

An eloquent analysis of the problems associated with HF/HClsolutions was presented in one study.109 The authors also sug-gested the use of phosphoric acid (H3PO4) in blends with HCl orHF. These acid formulations show unique selectivity for siliceousmaterials such as clays, feldspars, and silica in the presence ofcarbonate minerals. Thus, highly undesirable precipitates are mini-mized. Further, the rate of reaction is retarded, leading to fardeeper penetration than that seen in conventional sandstone acidsystems. Buffering the HF/HCl solution with phosphoric acid toreduce undesirable precipitation is a recurring theme with impor-tant ramifications, as seen in another study110 in which the authorsrecommended the outright use of 12% H3PO4, 3% HF solutions.

The problem of cleaning gravel packs in the immediate vicinityaround the wellbore with conventional acid formulations wasbrought forth by other researchers.111 Gravel packing was at thetime the preferred completion of choice in high-permeability,loosely consolidated formations. Drilling mud, embedded into thegravel pack, was difficult to remove without the use of a complex-ing-dispersing system. Mud acid treatments would not be success-ful without using such a system and would leave a very damagedgravel pack with severe production impairment.

A significant concern in all types of acidizing is the potentialprecipitation of gelatinous ferric hydroxide, which can be excep-tionally damaging. Acid dissolves iron scale from well tubularsand also reacts readily with iron-bearing native minerals. This canlead to the formation of ferric hydroxide. The author of onestudy112 presented a comprehensive evaluation of additives in-tended to prevent such undesirable precipitation. He tested citricacid, EDTA, NTA, and erythorbic acid. He concluded that ery-thorbic acid is the most efficient of all, stabilizing as much as ninetimes 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 sandstoneacidizing process, complete with fine-tuning of the operation, tak-ing into account reservoir idiosyncracies. Tailoring the injectedfluids, their additives, and the need for quality control becameessential components of the treatment. At the same time, real-timeevaluation techniques were introduced to provide the stimulationjob effectiveness and the ratification of the design.

In yet another important publication, the author,113 using hun-dreds of field cases, provided guidelines for recommended acidvolumes for gas- (where he saw a considerable impact of thereservoir pressure), oil-, and water-injection wells. He also founda substantial effect on the type of afterflush, the displacing fluidfollowing the main treatment, and the ratio of its volume to themain treatment volume.

One of the most comprehensive, fine-tuned, site-specific de-signs for the matrix stimulation of sandstones was presented byBrannon et al.114 They included the use of hydrocarbon liquid-base diverters for appropriate fluid placement, and they recom-mended the use of reduced-strength HF/HCl solutions and the useof xylene preflush for paraffin/asphaltene removal and also as apostflush (Gidleys afterflush) to break the diverter. They alsooffered important guidelines for on-site quality control, such asfiltering the fluids and titrating the acids to be injected. Picklingthe tubing (i.e., circulating a weak acid to remove iron scale beforethe main treatment) was also suggested. Finally, they made pro-visions for data acquisition during the treatment, such as pressure,an important element in evaluating the operation.

The fundamental behavior of acid/rock interaction in sandstonetreatments has been the subject of extended studies at the U. ofTexas, and several works have been published. This research led tothe description of the controlling mechanisms of the process, in-cluding surface reaction and mass transfer. Publications addressedthe optimization of sandstone acidizing.115,116 Work from othersadded to this understanding, such as the effort to classify thechemistry of acidizing.117,118

Acid diversion and fluid placement strategies have always beenimportant issues in matrix stimulation. Recent work has suggestedfoams as diverters both because of their ability to selectively blockoff aqueous zones and because of their propensity to remain stablein cleaned-up pores while disintegrating in damaged pores. In the1990s, there were several contributions in this area,119122 and twopublications in the 1998 Formation Damage Control Symposiumpresented field results and the validation of foam as a very effec-tive diverter.123,124

Although a sizeable portion of all petroleum reservoirs are incarbonate formations, acidizing has not been emphasized, perhapsbecause many of these formations are naturally fractured and areprolific in spite of damage or, rather, because acidizing of theseformations is considered (mistakenly) as easy.

One important distinction between carbonate and sandstonereservoirs is that in the latter, the purpose is to remove near-well


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 perme-ability, in the form of wormholes. Clearly, the vast majority ofacid/carbonate rock interaction is mass-transfer limited, and, thus,very different kinetics are in effect, compared to the surface-reaction-limited situation in acid/sandstone interactions.

Although some important publications on the subject have ap-peared in other petroleum literature,125127 precious few have beenpresented at the Formation Damage Control Symposium. There arecontroversies surrounding the degree of importance within mass-transfer phenomena, such as diffusion and convection, whether thereaction rate is appreciably finite and, consequently, the optimummanner of wormhole creation, the optimum injection rate, etc.

This is an area that still requires work both at the mathematicaldescription128 and experimental work129,130 levels (although labo-ratory experiments are cumbersome and time-consuming).

Horizontal wells emerged as a major new means for reservoirexploitation in the mid- to late 1980s and accelerated in the 1990s.Some important issues arose immediately. First, there was no rea-son to assume that horizontal wells would be less damaged thanvertical wells. In fact, on the contrary, longer time exposure todrilling fluids would likely result in deeper penetration and moresevere damage, while the shape of damage would not be evenlydistributed along the well but, instead, would form a cone with thelarger base near the vertical section of the well. Second, becauseeven damaged horizontal wells are likely to outperform verticalwells (although by no means at their full potential131), operatorshave been psychologically reluctant to stimulate them. The amountof stimulation fluids needed to provide acid coverage similar tothat of vertical wells would have been prohibitive.

To circumvent this problem, two papers addressed the partialstimulation of horizontal wells. The first132 suggested the use ofcoiled tubing and recommended either the creation of a stimulatedzone inside the cone of damage or the deliberate undercompletionof a well with interspersed segments where, of course, only theopen segments would be stimulated. A similar scheme was alsosuggested later by other investigators.133

Real-Time Evaluation of MatrixStimulation TreatmentsTwo influential papers on the real-time evaluation of matrix treat-ments appeared back-to-back in the 1988 Formation Damage Con-trol Symposium.134,135 Both papers suggested the use of measure-ments of pressure and injection rate obtained during the treatmentand the estimation of the evolving skin effect. Paccaloni et al. usedan approximation of steady-state injection, suggesting a size of anacid bank, whereas Prouvost and Economides used a more rig-orous transient injection mode for treatment evaluation. This typeof technique is still in use today by most practitioners. In latertimes, other papers have added both case studies and modificationsto the technique.136,137

Hydraulic Fracturing to BypassFormation DamageUntil the 1990s, reservoir stimulation was considered to have twodistinct manifestations: matrix stimulation to remove near-welldamage, and hydraulic fracturing to offset low well productivity orinjectivity index because of small reservoir permeability. Oil res-ervoirs with a few-millidarcy permeability and higher, and gasreservoirs with as little as one-tenth that permeability, were notconsidered as candidates for hydraulic fracturing.138 Instead, onlymatrix 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 pro-duction control techniques, such as gravel packing and screens,

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 frac-turing was not the abatement of damage but, instead, the avoidanceof new types (i.e., fracture face damage resulting from the leakoffof fracturing fluids into the reservoir, or the residual damage to theproppant pack resulting from inadequately broken polymer in thefracturing fluid).

Neither of these damages is actually fatal. First, fracture facedamage in the long fractures that are designed and resulting inlow-permeability formations (very low leakoff) has little impact onwell performance. Although workers in the field expended con-siderable time to prevent this damage by developing less damagingfluids more compatible with the formation, this exercise is oflimited benefit.139

It was not until 1982, eight years after the first FormationDamage Control Symposium, that two papers appeared to discussdamage related to fracturing. The first paper addressed the reduc-tion in both formation permeability and fracture flow capacitycaused by the residue remaining after water based fracturing fluidsare broken. The author suggested that this was very importantin the selection of fracturing fluids. His work dealt with the labo-ratory study of gelling agents. The second paper141 advocated animmiscible hydrocarbon-phase as fluid loss additive to minimizeformation damage and at the same time not to impair core perme-ability, in contrast to particulate fluid loss agent. Laboratory coreexperiments, fashionable at the time, were used for this work.

While both of the above papers were sound, they addressedrather perfunctory issues. A simple modeling with an analysis139would readily reveal that for the typical reservoir candidates of theday, neither damage was so serious. In essence, the vast majorityof low-permeability reservoirs could be fractured with little dif-ferentiation in their performance affected by either polymer resi-due or leakoff (within reason, of course, but a with a very widespectrum of tolerance).

Two years later, in 1984, papers still appeared to tackle issuesof fracturing fluids. High-temperature applications became impor-tant142,143 because deep reservoirs with low permeability are oftenalso of higher temperature. Thermal degradation of polymers andthe modeling of fluid temperature profile during fracturing werestudied. Again, other studies on polymer break mechanisms andleakoff modeling were presented.144,145

For the subsequent three Symposia, there were virtually nopapers on fracturing. But an important single paper appeared in the1990 Symposium.146 The author wrote of a process of placing asmall frac job prior to placing an inner casing gravel pack . . . which became the preferred completion method for a field in CookInlet, Alaska. He labeled this type of stimulation a skin frac. Hewent on to add that these completions have the most merit in termsof mitigating problems posed by the formation (emphasis ours.)

Of course this work was by no means the first dealing withmoderate- to high-permeability fracturing. Both stimulation147 andsand production control148,149 had already been addressed in theliterature. In particular, the necessary technique of tip screenoutwas applied already.149 It was the use of fracturing only to mitigateformation damage that was emerging as a new interest.

Another symposium passed with relatively little interest, andthen an explosion of sorts began with the 1994 Symposium. Al-most 25 papers dealt with the subject in the 1994, 1996, and 1998Symposia. The discussion in 1994 started with a paper titled Hy-draulic Fracturing of High-Permeability Formations To OvercomeFormation Damage.150 At the same meeting, there were strongindications of the understanding that in high-permeability forma-tions, there is a necessity of clean proppant packs that maintaintheir integrity.151154 New proppant stabilization methods weresuggested, one involving fibers,155 and, in another, resins.156 Onestudy157 described the indicated fracture morphology, suggestingshort and wide fractures, and they advocated the fracturing ofhorizontal wells, which, for high-permeability reservoirs, shouldbe fractured in the longitudinal direction. They also showed thatmuch smaller (and, thus, narrower) treatments in horizontal wellscan outperform very wide fractures in vertical wells.


The near-well fracture geometry and the connectivity betweenfracture and well were then studied, and the conclusion has beenstrong. Tortuosity must be reduced, 180 perforating and goodperforations are indicated, and reduction in the well deviation isrecommended. The fracture-to-well contact should be as effortlessas possible.98,158,159 Fluid leakoff damage is now critical, but for-mation damage present before the treatment, no matter how severe,is still bypassed, and its impact is eliminated.160 To reduce post-treatment fracture face damage, both appropriate filter cakes andleakoff additives are employed.161,162 Finally, design optimizationis indicated in sizing these treatments.163

Concluding RemarksViewed from a modern perspective, the cleaning out of producingwellsmade necessary by the caving of shaly material above theproducing strata, the sanding up of wells, and the deposition ofparaffinic, asphaltic, and carbonaceous materials on the face of theproducing formationmay seem so conventional an operation thatit loses its significance from the viewpoint of petroleum engineer-ing. However, at least a few of the pioneers were applying prin-ciples that continue as the basis of present-day cleanout methods.Carll reported production techniques being practiced in Pennsyl-vania in the late 1870s and early 1880s, such as the flushing actionof 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 termedthe volcano.164

The concept of damage has evolved variably during the lastquarter-century. Initially, formation damage was considered asproduction reduction owing to alternations in reservoir character-istics. Later, it became apparent that the transient behavior ofreservoir fluids and its rock frame is also a major contributingfactor to the production impairment. Therefore, the concept ofpseudodamage permeated into the petroleum industrys vocabu-lary. Regardless of the semantics, formation damage for manyyears has remained an integration of reservoir mechanics fromdrilling to abandonment. The International Symposium on Forma-tion Damage Control has been a focused event that has greatlypromoted intramural completion technology. Such events will con-tinue preventing or counteracting the natural tendency to inbreedtechnology and practices.

The subject of formation damage encompasses many compet-ing factors that will eventually determine the degree of success ofproduction and individual stimulation operations. The synergisticand antagonistic manner in which the wellbore/reservoir param-eters react will continue to ignite the scientific and engineeringpassions of the practitioners for as long as the industry continuesto produce petroleum.

References1. Fischer, P.W. et al.: An Organic Clay Substitute for Nondamaging

Water-Based Drilling and Completion Fluids, paper SPE 4651 pre-sented at the 1973 AIME Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, 30 Septem-ber3 October.

2. Wendorff, C.L.: New Solids-Free, High Density Brines Solve ManyWorkover and Completion Problems, paper SPE 4788 presented atthe 1973 AIME Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, 30 September3 October.

3. Tuttle, R.N. and Barkman, J.H.: New Nondamaging and Acid-De-gradable Drilling and Completion Fluids, JPT (November 1974) 1221.

4. Bensten, N.W. and Veny, J.N.: Preformed Stable Foam Performancein Drilling and Evaluating Shallow Gas Wells in Northeastern Al-berta, JPT (October 1976) 1237.

5. Ilfrey, W.T.: Recommended Procedures for Utilizing High Cost,Nondamaging Fluids, paper SPE 8794 presented at the 1978 SPESymposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1516 February.

6. Ezzat, A.M.: Completion Fluids Design Criteria and Current Tech-nology Weaknesses, paper SPE 19434 presented at the 1990 SPEFormation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, 2223 February.

7. Stone, W.H. and Christian, W.W.: The Inability of Unset Cement toControl Formation Pressure, paper SPE 4783 presented at the 1974

SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, New Orleans, 78 February.

8. Garcia, J.A. and Clark, C.R.: An Investigation of Annular Gas FlowFollowing Cementing Operations, paper SPE 5701 presented at the1976 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Houston, 2930 January.

9. Bruist, E.H.: Better Performance of Gulf Coast Wells, paper SPE4777 presented at the 1974 SPE Symposium on Formation DamageControl, New Orleans, 78 February.

10. Dusseault, M.B. and Grey, K.E.: Mechanisms of Stress-InducedWellbore Damage, paper SPE 23825 presented at the 1992 SPEInternational 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 FormationDamage Control, Houston, 2930 January.

12. Bailey, L. et al.: Filter Cake Integrity and Reservoir Damage, paperSPE 39429 presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium onFormation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1819 February.

13. Hower, W.F.: Influence of Clays on the Production of Hydrocar-bons, paper SPE 4785 presented at the 1974 SPE Symposium onFormation Damage Control, New Orleans, 78 February.

14. Muecke, T.W.: Formation Fines and Factors Controlling TheirMovement in Porous Media, JPT (February 1979) 144.

15. Zaitoun, A. and Berton, N.: Stabilization of Montmorillonite Clay inPorous Media by Polyacrylamides, paper SPE 31109 presented at the1996 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control,Lafayette, Louisiana, 1415 February.

16. Hill, D.G.: Clay StabilizationCriteria for Best Performance, paperSPE 10656 presented at the 1982 SPE Formation Damage ControlSymposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, 2425 March.

17. Griffin, J.M., Hayatdavoudi, A., and Ghalambor, A.: Design ofChemically Balanced Polymer Drilling Fluid Leads to a Reduction inClay Destabilization, SPEDE (January 1986) 31.

18. Gunter, W.D., Zhou, Z., and Perkins, E.H.: Modeling FormationDamage Caused by Kaolinite from 25 to 300E Centigrade in the OilSand Reservoirs of Alberta, paper SPE 23786 presented at the 1992SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafay-ette, Louisiana, 2627 February.

19. Hayatdavoudi, A. and Ghalambor, A.: Controlling Formation Dam-age Caused by Kaolinite Clay Minerals Part I, paper SPE 31118presented at the 1996 SPE International Symposium on FormationDamage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1415 February.

20. Hayatdavoudi, A. and Ghalambor, A.: Controlling Formation Dam-age Caused by Kaolinite Clay Minerals: Part II, paper SPE 39464presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on FormationDamage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1819 February.

21. Bazin B., Souto, E., and Le Thiez, P.: Control of Formation Damageby Modeling Water/Rock Interaction, paper SPE 27363 presented atthe 1994 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Con-trol, Lafayette, Louisiana, 710 February.

22. Civan, F.: Evaluation and Comparison of the Formation DamageModels, paper SPE 23787 presented at the 1992 SPE InternationalSymposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 2627 February.

23. Civan, F.: A Multi-Purpose Formation Damage Model, paper SPE31101 presented at the 1996 SPE International Symposium on For-mation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1415 February.

24. Chauveteau, G., Nabzar, L., and Coste, J.P.: Physics and Modeling ofPermeability Damage Induced by Particle Deposition, paper SPE39463 presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on For-mation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1819 February.

25. Chesser, B.G. and Nelson, G.F.: Applications of Weighted AcidSoluble Workover Fluids, paper SPE 7008 presented at the 1978 SPESymposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1516 February.

26. Barron, W.C., Young, J.A., and Munson, R.E.: New ConceptHighDensity Brine Filtration Utilizing a Diatomaceous Earth FiltrationSystem, paper SPE 10648 presented at the 1982 SPE FormationDamage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, 2425 March.

27. Allen, F.L. et al.: Initial Study of Temperature and Pressure Effectson Formation Damage by Completion Fluids, paper SPE 12488 pre-


sented at the 1984 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control,Bakersfield, California, 1314 February.

28. Hayatdavoudi, A. and Ghalambor, A.: Correcting a Serious Proce-dural Flaw in Laboratory Studies of HEC Gel Return Permeability inConnection with Formation Damage: Part II, paper SPE 27367 pre-sented at the 1994 SPE International Symposium on Damage Control,Lafayette, Louisiana, 910 February.

29. Hossaini, M. and Gabrysch, A.: Effect of Formation Minerals onHEC Gel Return Permeability and Techniques to Overcome PotentialDamage, paper SPE 31107 presented at the 1996 SPE InternationalSymposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1415 February.

30. Ghalambor, A. et al.: Remedial Methods for Bacterial FormationDamage by Application of Oxidizers, paper SPE 14821 presented atthe 1986 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,Louisiana, 2627 February.

31. Ghalambor, A., Hayatdavaoudi, A., and Shahidi-Asil, M.: A Study ofFormation Damage of Selective Mineralogy Due to Bacterial Plug-ging, SPE paper 27006 presented at the 1994 SPE Third LatinAmerican and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, BuenosAires, 2629 April.

32. Lappan, R.E. and Fogler, H.S.: Effect of Bacterial PolysaccharideProduction on Formation Damage, SPEPE (May 1992) 167.

33. Rosnes, J.T., Graue, A., and Lien, T.: Activity of Sulfate-ReducingBacteria Under Simulated Reservoir Conditions, SPEPE (May 1991) 217.

34. Maly, G.P.: Close Attention to the Smallest Job Details Vital forMinimizing Formation Damage, paper SPE 5702 presented at the1976 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Houston, 2930 January.

35. Keelan, D.K. and Koepf, E.H.: The Role of Cores and Core Analysisin Evaluation of Formation Damage, JPT (May 1977) 241.

36. Davies, D.K.: Reservoir Stimulation of Dirty Sandstones, paperSPE 8795 presented at the 1980 SPE Symposium on Formation Dam-age Control, Bakersfield, California, 2829 January.

37. Saucier, R.J. and Lands, J.F. Jr.: A Laboratory Study of Perforationsin Stressed Formation Rocks, JPT (September 1978) 1347, Trans.,AIME, 265.

38. Amaefule, J.O. and Masuo, S.T.: The Use of Capillary Pressure Datafor Rapid Evaluation of Formation Damage or Stimulation, SPEPE(March 1986) 131.

39. Himes, R.E. and Ruiz Jr., S.J.: New Sidewall Core Analysis Tech-niques Improve Gravel Pack Design, paper SPE 14813 presented atthe 1986 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,Louisiana, 2627 February.

40. Davies, D.K.: Image Analysis of Reservoir Pore Systems: State ofthe Art in Solving Problems Related to Reservoir Quality, paper SPE19407 presented at the 1990 SPE Formation Damage Control Sym-posium, Lafayette, Louisiana, 2223 February.

41. Gilliland, R.E. and Coles, M.E.: Use of CT Scanning in the Inves-tigation of Damage to Unconsolidated Cores, paper SPE 19408 pre-sented at the 1990 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium,Lafayette, Louisiana, 2223 February.

42. Morita, N. et al.: A Quick Method To Determine Subsidence, Res-ervoir Compaction, and In-Situ Stress Induced by Reservoir Deple-tion, JPT (January 1989) 71.

43. Chalaturnyk, R.J., Wagg, B.T., and Dusseault, M.B.: The Mecha-nisms of Solids Production in Unconsolidated Heavy-Oil Reservoirs,paper SPE 23780 presented at the 1992 SPE International Symposiumon Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 2627 February.

44. Bercegeay, E.P. and Richard, C.A.: A One-Trip Gravel Packing Sys-tem, paper SPE 4771 presented at the 1974 SPE Symposium onFormation Damage Control, New Orleans, 78 February.

45. Sehnal, Z. et al.: Planning Execution and Verification of a Coiled-Tubing Gravel Pack Operation in the Statfjord Field, paper SPE31141 presented at the 1996 SPE International Symposium on For-mation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1415 February.

46. Jones, R.H. and Bolin, T.D.: New Single Trip Perforating and GravelPack Procedure With Advanced Stimulation Design Reduces Forma-tion Damage in High-Permeability Sandstone Reservoirs: Case His-tories, paper SPE 39434 presented at the 1998 SPE InternationalSymposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1819 February.

47. Sparlin, D.D.: Sand and GravelA Study of Their Permeabilities,paper SPE 4772 presented at the 1974 SPE Symposium on FormationDamage Control, New Orleans, 78 February.

48. Gulati, M.S. and Maly, G.P.: Thin-Section and Permeability StudiesCall for Smaller Gravels in Gravel Packing, JPT (January 1975) 107.

49. Gruesbeck, C. and Collings, R.E.: Particle Transport Through Per-forations, paper SPE 7006 presented at the 1978 SPE Symposium onFormation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1516 February.

50. Chan, A.F. and Parmley, J.P.: Gravel Sizing Criteria for Sand Con-trol and Productivity Optimization: Part II: Evaluation of the Long-Termed Stability, paper SPE 23767 presented at the 1992 SPE In-ternational Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,Louisiana, 2627 February.

51. Boulet, D.P.: Gravel for Sand Control: A Study of Quality Control,paper SPE 7002 presented at the 1978 SPE Symposium on FormationDamage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1516 February.

52. Zwolle, S. and Davies, D.R.: Gravel Packing Sand QualityA Quan-titative Study, JPT (June 1983) 1042.

53. Miles, L.H. and DeShazer, W.A.: An Evaluation of Plastic SandControl Methods Used in the South Louisiana Area, paper SPE 4780presented at the 1974 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Con-trol, New Orleans, 78 February.

54. Constien, V.G. and Mayer, M.H.: What! No Screen? Gravel PackingWith Water-Carried Resin-Coated Gravel, paper SPE 7003 presentedat the 1978 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafay-ette, Louisiana, 1516 February.

55. Sinclair, A.R. and Graham, J.W.: An Effective Method of SandControl, paper SPE 7004 presented at the 1978 SPE Symposium onFormation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1516 February.

56. Nieuwland, J.F.B., Van Batenburg, D.W., and Sandy, J.M.: Screen-ing Considerations for Curable Resin-Coated Proppants, paper SPE31097 presented at the 1996 SPE International Symposium on For-mation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1415 February.

57. Alcocer, C.F. et al.: The Effect of Temperature on the Size Stabilityof Conventional and Ceramic Gravel Packs, paper SPE 19405 pre-sented at the 1990 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium,Lafayette, Louisiana, 2223 February.

58. Gurley, D.G., Copeland, C.T., and Hendrick Jr., J.O.: Design, Plan,and Execution of Gravel-Pack Operations for Maximum Productiv-ity, JPT (October 1977) 1051.

59. Prachner, W.: Evaluation of Completion Damage to High Perme-ability Nonconsolidated Formations, paper SPE 5711 presented atthe 1976 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Houston,2930 January.

60. Maly, G.P. and Vozenilek, J.: Visual Model Study Shows When andWhen Not To Pressure Wash Openhole Gravel Packs, paper SPE7001 presented at the 1978 SPE Symposium on Formation DamageControl, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1516 February.

61. Sokoll, R.E. and Rogers, A.K.: Short Interval Gravel Packing Tech-nique, paper SPE 10668 presented at the 1982 SPE Formation Dam-age Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, 2425 March.

62. Solum, J.R.: A New Technique in Sand Control Using Liner Vibra-tion With Gravel Packing, paper SPE 12479 presented at the 1984SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Bakersfield, Cali-fornia, 1314 February.

63. Scheuerman, R.F.: A New Look at Gravel Pack Carrier Fluid Prop-erties, SPEPE (January 1986) 9.

64. Ledlow, L.B., Sauer, C.W., and Till, M.V.: Recent Design, Place-ment, and Evaluation Techniques Lead to Improved Gravel Pack Per-formance, paper SPE 14162 presented at the 1985 SPE Annual Tech-nical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, 2225 September.

65. Gurley, D.G. and Hudson, T.E.: Factors Affecting Gravel Placementin Long Deviated Intervals, paper SPE 19400 presented at the 1990SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana,2223 February.

66. Bruner, S.D. et al.: Long-Zone, High-Angle Squeeze Gravel Packs inGeopressured Reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico, paper SPE 31092presented at the 1996 SPE International Symposium on FormationDamage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1415 February.

67. Penberthy, W.L. et al.: Gravel Placement in Horizontal Wells, pa-per SPE 31147 presented at the 1996 SPE International Symposiumon Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1415 February.


68. Penberthy Jr., W.L. and Echols, E.E.: Gravel Placement in Wells,paper SPE 22793 presented at the 1991 SPE Annual Technical Con-ference and Exhibition, Dallas, 69 October.

69. Houchi, L.R., Dunlap, D.D., and Hutchinson, J.E.: Formation Dam-age During Gravel-Pack Completions, paper SPE 17166 presented atthe 1988 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Bakersfield,California, 89 February.

70. Bryant, D.W. and Jones, L.G.: Completion and Production ResultsFrom Alternate Path Gravel Packed Wells, paper SPE 27359 pre-sented at the 1994 SPE International Symposium on Damage Control,Lafayette, Louisiana, 710 February.

71. Blanton, R.J.: Formation Damage Control During Underreaming andGravel Packing in an Overpressured Reservoir, paper SPE 23804presented at the 1992 SPE International Symposium on FormationDamage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 2627 February.

72. Neal, M.R. and Carroll, J.F.: A Quantitative Approach to GravelPack Evaluation, JPT (October 1985) 1033.

73. McLeod Jr., H.O.: The Application of Spherical Flow Equations toGravel-Pack Evaluation, presented at the 1992 SPE InternationalSymposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 2627 February.

74. Allen, E.: Revised Guidelines for Proppant and Gravel Placement,paper SPE 31068 presented at the 1996 SPE International Symposiumon Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1415 February.

75. Chuah, B.-S. et al.: Formation Damage in Gravel-Packed and Non-gravel-Packed Completions: A Comprehensive Case Study, paperSPE 27360 presented at the 1994 SPE International Symposium onDamage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 710 February.

76. McLeod Jr., H.O.: Monitoring and Analysis of Gravel-Packing Pro-cedures To Explain Well Performance, paper SPE 27356 presented atthe 1994 SPE International Symposium on Damage Control, Lafay-ette, Louisiana, 710 February.

77. McLeod Jr., H.O. and Pashen, M.A.: Well Completions Audit toEvaluate Gravel Packing Procedures, paper SPE 31088 presented atthe 1996 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Con-trol, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1415 February.

78. Myers, L.G. et al.: Case History in Achieving High Rate Producersin Subsea Gravel-Packed Completions, paper SPE 39433 presentedat the 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation DamageControl, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1819 February.

79. Burton, R.C.: Use of Perforation Tunnel Permeability as a Means ofAssessing Cased Hole Gravel Pack Performance, paper SPE 39455presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on FormationDamage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1819 February.

80. Okoye, C.U. et al.: Analysis and Performance of Gravel-PackedCompletions in Oil and Gas Wells, paper SPE 23827 presented at the1992 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control,Lafayette, Louisiana, 2627 February.

81. Ghalambor, A. et al.: Predicting Sand Production in U.S. Gulf CoastGas Wells With Producing Free Water, JPT (December 1989) 1336.

82. Ghalambor, A., Hayatdavoudi, A., and Koliba, R.J.: A Study ofSensitivity of Relevant Parameters to Predict Sand Production, paperSPE 27011 presented at the 1994 SPE Third Latin American and Carib-bean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, 2629 April.

83. Morita, N.: Field and Laboratory Verifications of Sand ProductionPrediction Models, paper SPE 27341 presented at the 1994 SPEInternational Symposium on Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana,710 February.

84. Morita, N., Davis, E., and Whitebay, L.: Guidelines for Solving SandProblems in Water Injection Wells, paper SPE 39436 presented at the1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control,Lafayette, Louisiana, 1819 February.

85. Sahel, R.A. and Brannon, J.W.: A Comparison of Deepwater SandControl Practices in the Gulf of Mexico, paper SPE 23777 presentedat the 1992 SPE International Symposium on Formation DamageControl, Lafayette, Louisiana, 2627 February.

86. Mullen, M.E., Normal, W.D., and Granger, J.H.: Productivity Com-parison of Sand Control Techniques Used for Completions in theVermillion 311 Field, paper SPE 27361 presented at the 1994 SPEInternational Symposium on Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana,710 February.

87. Markestad, P. et al.: Selection of Screen Slot Width to PreventPlugging and Sand Production, paper SPE 31087 presented at the1996 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control,Lafayette, Louisiana, 1415 February.

88. Tiffin, D.L. et al.: New Criteria for Gravel and Screen Selection forSand Control, paper SPE 39437 presented at the 1998 SPE Interna-tional Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisi-ana, 1819 February.

89. Rensvold, R.F.: Sand Consolidation ResinsTheir Stability in HotBrine, paper SPE 10653 presented at the 1982 SPE Formation Dam-age Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, 2425 March.

90. Parlar, M. et al.: New Chemistry and Improved Placement PracticesEnhance Resin Consolidation: Case Histories From the Gulf ofMexico, paper SPE 39435 presented at the 1998 SPE InternationalSymposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1819 February.

91. Klotz, J.A., Krueger, R.F., and Pye, D.S.: Maximum Well Produc-tivity in Damaged Formations Requires Deep, Clean Perforations,paper SPE 4792 presented at the 1974 SPE Symposium on FormationDamage Control, New Orleans, 78 February.

92. Salz, L.B.: Experience With Perforating Efficiency in UnderbalancedCompletions of Geopressured Reservoirs, paper SPE 4793 presentedat the 1974 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, NewOrleans, 78 February.

93. Weeks, S.G.: Formation Damage or Limited Perforating Penetration?Test-Well Shooting May Give a Clue, paper SPE 4794 presented atthe 1974 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, New Or-leans, 78 February.

94. Seanard, K.C.: Underbalanced Perforating in a Closed System, pa-per SPE 14828 presented at the 1986 SPE Symposium on FormationDamage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 2627 February.

95. Behrmann, L.A. and McDonald, B.: Underbalance or Extreme Over-balance?, paper SPE 31083 presented at the 1996 SPE InternationalSymposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1415 February.

96. Asadi, M., Ghalambor, A., and Shirazi, M.K.: Assessment of JetPerforated Rock Damage by Finite Element Method, paper SPE38140 presented at the 1997 SPE European Formation Damage Con-ference, The Hague, The Netherlands, 23 June.

97. Ghalambor, A., Asadi, M., and Azari, M.: Performance Evaluation ofExtreme Overbalanced Perforating, paper SPE 39459 presented atthe 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Con-trol, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1819 February.

98. Behrmann, L.A. and Nolte, K.G.: Perforating Requirements for Frac-ture Stimulations, paper SPE 39453 presented at the 1998 SPE In-ternational Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,Louisiana, 1819 February.

99. Brooks, J.E., Yang, W., and Behrman, L.A.: Effect of Sand-GrainSize on Perforator Performance, paper SPE 39457 presented at the1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control,Lafayette, Louisiana, 1819 February.

100. Cobbett, J.S.: Sand Jet Perforating Revisited, paper SPE 39597presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on FormationDamage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1819 February.

101. McLeod Jr., H.O.: The Effect of Perforating Conditions on WellPerformance, JPT (January 1983) 21.

102. Hofsaess, T. and Kleintz, W.: Injectivity Decline in Wells with Non-uniform Perforation Properties, paper SPE 39586 presented at the1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control,Lafayette, Louisiana, 1819 February.

103. Asadi, M. et al.: Effect of the Perforation Damage on Well Produc-tivity, paper SPE 27384 presented at the 1994 SPE InternationalSymposium on Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 710 February.

104. Gidley, J.L., Ryan, J.C., and Mayhill, T.D.: Study of the Field Ap-plications of Sandstone Acidizing, JPT (September 1976) 1289.

105. Rogers, E.B.: Successful Well Stimulation Program Has Revitalizeda California Oil Field, JPT (November 1976) 1420.

106. Hall, B.E. and Anderson, B.W.: Field Results for a New Retarded Sand-stone Acidizing System, paper SPE 6871 presented at the 1977 SPEAnnual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 912 October.

107. McBride, J.R., Rathbone, M.J., and Thomas, R.L.: Evaluation ofFluoboric Acid Treatment in the Grand Isle Offshore Area Using


Multiple Rate Flow Test, paper SPE 8399 presented at the 1979 SPEAnnual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada,2326 September.

108. Walsh, M.P., Lake, L.W., and Schechter, R.S.: A Description ofChemical Precipitation Mechanisms and Their Role in FormationDamage During Stimulation of Hydrofluoric Acid, JPT (December1991) 2097.

109. Clark, G.J., Wong, T.C.T., and Mungan, N.: New Acid Systems forSandstone Stimulation, paper SPE 10662 presented at the 1982 SPEFormation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, 2425 March.

110. Smith, M.J. et al.: Acidization of Dirty Sandstones with Buffered HFAcid Systems, paper SPE 14826 presented at the 1986 SPE Symposiumon Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 2627 February.

111. Crawford, D.L., Coulter, A.W. Jr., and Osborn, F.E. III: Removal ofWellbore Damage From Highly Permeable Formations and NaturallyFractured Reservoirs, paper SPE 8796 presented at the 1980 SPESymposium on Formation Damage Control, Bakersfield, California,2829 January.

112. Crowe, C.: Evaluation of Agents for Preventing Precipitation of Fer-ric Hydroxide From Spent Treating Acid, paper SPE 12497 JPT(May 1985) 691.

113. Gidley, J.L.: Acidizing Sandstone Formations: A Detailed Examina-tion of Recent Experience, paper SPE 14164 presented at the 1985SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Ne-vada, 2225 September.

114. Brannon, D.H., Netters, C.K., and Grimmer, P.J.: Matrix AcidizingDesign and Quality-Control Techniques Prove Successful in MainPass Area Sandstone, JPT (September 1987) 931.

115. Schechter, R.S., da Motta, E.P., and Plavnik, B.: Optimizing Sand-stone Acidization, SPERE (February 1992) 149.

116. da Motta, E.P. et al.: The Relationship Between Reservoir Mineral-ogy and Optimum Sandstone Acid Treatment, SPEPF (November1992) 323.

117. Gdanski, R.D.: Fluosilicate Solubilities Impact HF Acid Composi-tions, SPEPF (November 1994) 297.

118. Li, Y.H., Fambrough, J.D., and Montgomery, C.T.: MathematicalModeling of Secondary Precipitation From Sandstone Acidizing, pa-per SPE 39420 presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposiumon Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1819 February.

119. Zerhboub, M. et al.: Matrix Acidizing: A Novel Approach to FoamDiversion, paper SPE 22854 presented at the 1991 SPE AnnualTechnical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 69 October.

120. Zeilinger, S.C. et al.: Improved Prediction of Foam Diversion inMatrix Acidization, paper SPE 29529 presented at the 1995 SPEProduction Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, 24 April.

121. Robert, J.A. and Mack, M.G.: Foam Diversion Modeling and Simu-lation, paper SPE 29676 presented at the 1995 SPE Western Re-gional Meeting, Bakersfield, California, 810 March.

122. Rossen, W.R. and Wang, M.W.: Modeling Foams for Acid Diver-sion, paper SPE 38200 presented at the 1997 SPE European Forma-tion Damage Conference, The Hague, 23 June.

123. Thomas, R.L. et al.: Field Validation of a Foam Diversion Model: AMatrix Stimulation Case Study, paper SPE 39422 presented at the1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control,Lafayette, Louisiana, 1819 February.

124. Morphy, P.H., Greenwald, K.G., and Herries, P.E.: Operational Ex-perience with Foam-Diverted Acid Jobs in the Gulf of Mexico, paperSPE 39423 presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium onFormation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1819 February.

125. Hoefner, M.L. and Fogler, H.S.: Pore Evolution and Channel For-mation 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 Modelof Wormhole Growth in Carbonate Matrix Acidizing and Acid Frac-turing, JPT (January 1989) 59, Trans., AIME, 287.

128. Kurmayr, M., Frick, T.P., and Economides, M.J.: An Improved Mod-eling of Fractal Patterns in Matrix Acidizing and Their Impact onWell Performance, paper SPE 23789 presented at the 1992 SPE

International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,Louisiana, 2627 February.

129. Frick, T.P., Mostofizadeh, B., and Economides, M.J.: Analysis ofRadial Core Experiments for Hydrochloric Acid Interaction WithLimestones, paper SPE 27402 presented at the 1994 SPE InternationalSymposium on Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 710 February.

130. Fredd, C.N. and Fogler, H.S.: Alternative Stimulation Fluids andTheir Impact on Carbonate Acidizing, paper SPE 31074 presented atthe 1996 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Con-trol, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1415 February.

131. Frick, T.P. and Economides, M.J.: Horizontal Well Damage Char-acterization and Removal, paper SPE 21795 prepared for presenta-tion at the 1991 Western Regional Meeting, Long Beach, California,2022 March.

132. Frick, T.P. and Economides, M.J.: A Case Study for the MatrixStimulation of a Horizontal Well, paper SPE 23806 presented at the1992 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control,Lafayette, Louisiana, 2627 February.

133. da Motta, E.P., Hill, A.D., and Sepehrnoori, K.: Selective MatrixAcidizing of Horizontal Wells, paper SPE 27399 presented at the1994 SPE International Symposium on Damage Control, Lafayette,Louisiana, 710 February.

134. Paccaloni, G., Tambini, M., and Galoppini, M.: Key Factors forEnhanced Results of Matrix Stimulation Treatments, paper SPE17154 presented at the 1988 SPE Formation Damage Control Sym-posium, Bakersfield, California, 89 February.

135. Prouvost, L.P. and Economides, M.J.: Applications of Real-TimeMatrix-Acidizing Evaluation Method, SPEPE (November 1989) 401.

136. Behenna, F.R.: Interpretation of Matrix Acidizing Treatments Usinga Continuously Monitored Skin Factor, paper SPE 27401 presentedat the 1994 SPE International Symposium on Damage Control, Lafay-ette, Louisiana, 710 February.

137. Zhu, D., Hill, A.D., and da Motta, E.P.: On-Site Evaluation ofAcidizing Treatment of a Gas Reservoir, paper SPE 39421 presentedat the 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation DamageControl, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1819 February.

138. Economides, M.J. and Nolte, K.G.: Reservoir Stimulation, secondedition, 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 SPE10179 presented at the 1981 SPE Annual Technical Conference andExhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 57 October.

140. Almond, S.: Factors Affecting Gelling Agent Residue Under LowTemperature Conditions, paper SPE 10658 presented at the 1982SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana,2425 March.

141. Penny, G.S.: Nondamaging Fluid Loss Additives for Use in Hydrau-lic Fracturing of Gas Wells, paper SPE 10659 presented at the 1982SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana,2425 March.

142. Poulsen, D.K. and Lee, W.S.: Fracture Design with Time- and Tem-perature-Dependent Fluid Properties, paper SPE 12483 presented atthe 1984 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Bakers-field, California, 1314 February.

143. Harms, S.D., Goss, M.L., and Payne, K.L.: New Generation Frac-turing Fluid for Ultrahigh-Temperature Applications, paper SPE12484 presented at the 1984 SPE Symposium on Formation DamageControl, Bakersfield, California, 1314 February.

144. Almond, S.W. and Bland, W.E.: The Effect of Break Mechanism onGelling Agent Residue and Flow Impairment in 20/40 Mesh Sand,paper SPE 12485 presented at the 1983 SPE Production TechnologySymposium, Lubbock, Texas, 1315 November.

145. Penny, G.S., Conway, M.W., and Lee, W.S.: The Control and Modelingof Fluid Leakoff During Hydraulic Fracturing, JPT (June 1985) 1071.

146. Grubert, D.M.: Evolution of a Hybrid Fracture Gravel-Pack Comple-tion: Monopod Platform, Trading Bay Field, Cook Inlet, Alaska,SPEPE (November 1991) 395.

147. Britt, L.K.: Optimized Oilwell Fracturing of Moderate-PermeabilityReservoirs, paper SPE 14371 presented at the 1985 SPE AnnualTechnical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, 2225 September.


148. Lambert, S.A., Dolan, R.T., and Gallus, J.P.: Fracturing Poorly Con-solidated Sandstone Formations, SPE 1983 Southwestern PetroleumShort 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 For-mations to Overcome Damage, paper SPE 27378 presented at the1994 SPE International Symposium on Damage Control, Lafayette,Louisiana, 710 February.

151. Frederick, J.M., Hudson, H.G., and Bilden, D.M.: The Effect ofFracture and Formation Flow Variables on Proppant Pack Cleanup:An In-Depth Study, paper SPE 27381 presented at the 1994 SPEInternational Symposium on Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana,710 February.

152. Vreeburg, R.J. et al.: Proppant Backproduction During HydraulicFracturing: A New Failure Mechanism for Resin-Coated Proppants,paper SPE 27382 presented at the 1994 SPE International Symposiumon Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 710 February.

153. Pope, D.S. et al.: Field Study of Guar Removal From HydraulicFractures, paper SPE 31094 presented at the 1996 SPE InternationalSymposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1415 February.

154. Penny, G.S. and Jin, L.: The Use of Inertial Force and Low ShearViscosity to Predict Cleanup of Fracturing Fluids Within ProppantPacks, paper SPE 31096 presented at the 1996 SPE InternationalSymposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1415 February.

155. Romero, J. and Feraud, J.P.: Stability of Proppant Pack ReinforcedWith Fiber for Proppant Flowback Control, paper SPE 31093 pre-sented at the 1996 SPE International Symposium on Formation Dam-age Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1415 February.

156. Nieuwland, J.F.B., van Batenburg, D.W., and Sandy, J.M.: ScreeningConsiderations for Curable Resin-Coated Proppants, paper SPE31097 presented at the 1996 SPE International Symposium on For-mation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1415 February.

157. Valko, P. and Economides, M.J.: Performance of Fractured Horizon-tal Wells in High-Permeability Reservoirs, paper SPE 31149 pre-sented at the 1996 SPE International Symposium on Formation Dam-age Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1415 February.

158. Chen, Z. and Economides, M.J.: The Effect of Near-Wellbore Frac-ture Geometry on Fracture Execution and Post-Treatment Productionof Deviated and Horizontal Wells, paper SPE 39425 presented at the1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control,Lafayette, Louisiana, 1819 February.

159. Wolfgang, F.J.D.: The Effect of Frac-Fluid Density on HydraulicFracture Growth Direction and Width, SPE 39427 presented at the1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control,Lafayette, Louisiana, 1819 February.

160. Mathur, A.K. et al.: Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation of Highly Per-meable Formations: The Effect of Critical Fracture Parameters on

Oilwell Production and Pressure, paper SPE 30652 presented at the1995 SPE Annual Conference and Technical Exhibition, Dallas, 2225 October.

161. Bailey, L. et al.: Filter Cake Integrity and Reservoir Damage, paperSPE 39429 presented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium onFormation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1819 February.

162. Cikes, M., Cubric, S., and Moylashov, M.R.: Formation DamagePrevention by Using an Oil-Based Fracturing Fluid in Partially De-pleted Oil Reservoirs of Western Siberia, paper SPE 39430 presentedat the 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation DamageControl, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1819 February.

163. Aggour, T.M. and Economides, M.J.: Optimization of the Perfor-mance of High-Permeability Fractured Wells, paper SPE 39474 pre-sented at the 1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Dam-age Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1819 February.

164. Beecher, C.E. and Fowler, H.C.: History of Petroleum Engineering,Production Techniques and Control, American Petroleum Inst., NewYork (1961) Ch. 11, 745810.

Ali Ghalambor is the American Petroleum Inst. Endowed Pro-fessor and Head of the Dept. of Petroleum Engineering at theU. of Louisiana at Lafayette. e-mail: [email protected]. Gha-lambor holds BS and MS degrees in petroleum engineeringfrom the U. of Southwestern Louisiana, as well as a PhD degreein environmental sciences and engineering from the VirginiaPolytechnic Inst. and State U. in Blacksburg, Virginia. His manySPE activities include service as Cochairman of the SPE Tech-nical Interest Group on Formation Damage; Technical Pro-gram chairman of SPE International Symposium on FormationDamages Control; member of the 2001 SPE Forum Series inNorth America Steering Committee on The Big CrewChange; member of the SPE Editorial Review Committee; andprogram evaluator of the Engineering Accreditation Commis-sion of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technol-ogy. Ghalambor also has held several offices, including chair-man, in the SPE Evangeline Section. For his involvement withthe section, Ghalambor received the SPE Section ServiceAward and the SPE Regional Service Award for the Centraland Southeastern North America Region. He is the recipient ofthe 2001 SPE Distinguished Achievement Award for PetroleumEngineering Faculty. Michael J. Economides is University Pro-fessor of Chemical Engineering at the U. of Houston. e-mail:[email protected]. He previously was the Samuel R. Noble Professorof Petroleum Engineering at Texas A&M U. and served as ChiefScientist of the Global Petroleum Research Inst. Previously, hewas Director of the Inst. of Drilling and Production at theLeoben Mining Inst., Austria. He has served on the TechnicalProgram Committee of the SPE International Symposium onFormation Damage Control. Economides holds BS and MSdegrees in chemical engineering and a PhD degree in petro-leum engineering from Stanford U. The holder of the 1997 SPEProduction Engineering Award, he has served on numerousSPE committees.


Documents

Horiz Well Damage Profile and STM Design