0
RESEARCH PAPERS

Formation Damage Induced by Chemical Treatments: Case Histories

[+] Author and Article Information
Hisham A. Nasr-El-Din

 Saudi Aramco R&D, PO Box 62, Dhahran 31311, Saudi Arabia

J. Energy Resour. Technol 127(3), 214-224 (Mar 17, 2005) (11 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1924464 History: Received September 03, 2004; Revised March 17, 2005

This study discusses formation damage mechanisms that were caused by commonly used chemical treatments. The chemicals used in these treatments included a scale inhibitor, a biocide-corrosion inhibitor, an in situ gelled acid, a full-strength mud acid, and a mutual solvent. These treatments were designed to remove a known form of formation damage. However, they created new forms of formation damage, which resulted in a significant decline in the performance of the treated wells. Case histories that illustrate the initial and new formation damage mechanisms are explained in detail. Laboratory and field studies that were performed to identify these mechanisms are discussed. Moreover, this paper highlights the remedial actions and field application that resulted in restoring the performance of various wells without affecting the integrity of the formation (both carbonate and sandstone). Finally, recommendations are given to minimize formation damage due to various chemical treatments.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2005 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Precipitation in core effluent following injection of THPS-based biocide

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Crystalline precipitate (calcium sulfate) in core effluent following injection of THPS biocide

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Emulsions produced after scale squeeze treatment

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Emulsions stabilized by iron phosphonate

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

pH of the flow-back samples of well G

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

HCl concentration in the flow-back samples of well G

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Total iron concentration in the flow-back samples of well G

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Aluminum ion concentration in the flow-back samples of well G

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Compatibility of the new mutual solvent and EGMBE with reservoir fluids

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In