Research Papers: Petroleum Engineering

Flow Rate-Dependent Skin in Water Disposal Injection Well

[+] Author and Article Information
Ibrahim M. Mohamed

Head of Subsurface Engineering Team
Advantek Waste Management Services,
Houston, TX 77042
e-mail: imohamed@advantekwms.com

Gareth I. Block

Chief Operating Officer
Advantek Waste Management Services,
Houston, TX 77042
e-mail: Gareth@advantekwms.com

Omar A. Abou-Sayed

Chief Executive Officer
Advantek Waste Management Services,
Houston, TX 77042
e-mail: Omar@advantekwms.com

Salaheldin M. Elkatatny

Advantek International,
Houston, TX 77042
e-mail: elkatatny@kfupm.edu.sa

Ahmed S. Abou-Sayed

Advantek Waste Management Services,
Houston, TX 77042
e-mail: ASA@advantekwms.com

1Present address: Petroleum Engineering Department, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt.

2Present address: Assistant Professor, Department of Petroleum Engineering, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia; Petroleum Engineering Department, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt.

Contributed by the Petroleum Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received May 28, 2015; final manuscript received April 5, 2016; published online May 5, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Gunnar Tamm.

J. Energy Resour. Technol 138(5), 052906 (May 05, 2016) (8 pages) Paper No: JERT-15-1198; doi: 10.1115/1.4033400 History: Received May 28, 2015; Revised April 05, 2016

Reinjection is one of the most important methods to dispose fluid associated with oil and natural gas production. Disposed fluids include produced water, hydraulic fracture flow back fluids, and drilling mud fluids. Several formation damage mechanisms are associated with the injection including damage due to filter cake formed at the formation face, bacteria activity, fluid incompatibility, free gas content, and clay activation. Fractured injection is typically preferred over matrix injection because a hydraulic fracture will enhance the well injectivity and extend the well life. In a given formation, the fracture dimensions change with different injection flow rates due to the change in injection pressures. Also, for a given flow rate, the skin factor varies with time due to the fracture propagation. In this study, well test and injection history data of a class II disposal well in south Texas were used to develop an equation that correlates the skin factor to the injection flow rate and injection time. The results show that the skin factor decreases with time logarithmically as the fracture propagates. At higher injection flow rates, the skin factor achieved is lower due to the larger fracture dimensions that are developed at higher injection flow rates. The equations developed in this study can be applied for any water injector after calibrating the required coefficients using injection step rate test (SRT) data.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

The disposal well has four perforation intervals through Escondido formation (60 ft net perforations)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Stress analysis of the Escondido formation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Inflow and well performance curves

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Well performance during the well acidizing

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Pressure and rate data for the SRT and PFOT

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Pressure–rate plot (SRT analysis). MHS is the formation minimum horizontal stress.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Log–log diagnostic plot for the water disposal well

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

G-function analysis of the pressure fall-off data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

The relationship between the skin factor and injection flow rate

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

The relationship between the skin factor and injection time

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

The calculations of the C, D, E, and F constants

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Hydraulic fracture dimensions calculated by @FRAC3D

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

A good match between the actual and calculated BHP was obtained for the PFOT

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Skin factor calculated using Eq. (13)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Comparison between the injection pressures calculated using the skin-dependent flow rate model and constant skin values




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