Formation Damage vs. Solid Particles Deposition Profile during Laboratory Simulated PWRI
- Firas A.H. Al-Abduwani (Delft U. of Technology) | Ahmad Shirzadi (Delft U. of Technology) | W.M.G.T. van den Brock (Delft U. of Technology) | Peter K. Currie (Delft U. of Technology)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Journal
- Publication Date
- June 2005
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 138 - 151
- 2005. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 6.5.3 Waste Management, 5.3.3 Particle Transportation, 1.6.9 Coring, Fishing, 4.3.4 Scale, 3.2.6 Produced Water Management, 4.1.2 Separation and Treating, 1.8 Formation Damage, 5.3.1 Flow in Porous Media, 4.1.5 Processing Equipment, 2.4.3 Sand/Solids Control, 5.6.5 Tracers, 6.5.2 Water use, produced water discharge and disposal, 5.4.1 Waterflooding
- 2 in the last 30 days
- 765 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 12.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 35.00|
The importance of produced water reinjection (PWRI) is unquestionable. It isin many cases the cheapest and most environmentally friendly solution forwastewater disposal. It is also a feasible method for enhanced oil recovery(EOR) as a waterflooding mechanism.
PWRI, however, suffers from a major limitation, which is the currentinability in accurately predicting the lifespan and performance of itsinjection wells. This is because of the multitude of parameters that affect it.Current models1,2 that incorporate the thermal effects3 of PWRI leading tofracture growth exist. However, the leakoff pattern of this injection differsfrom that of clean water (seawater) injection because of the damage caused bythe produced water to the formation, especially to the fracture faces. Thus,static filtration experiments with refined post-mortem analysis have beenconducted to obtain quantitative deposition profiles along the core. Thisallows for the testing and verification of existing models.4-8
The postmortem analysis introduced in this paper will be used for futuredynamic filtration experiments as well as experiments specifically devised tosimulate the fracture tip area. A unified model that will accurately reproducethe permeability decline and deposition profile for all three sets ofexperiments will follow, thus advancing the predictability of injectivitydecline associated with PWRI.
The purpose of this paper is to provide a detailed description of thepost-mortem analysis, while rigorous testing of the existing heuristic models(for instance, Wennberg and Sharma6 and Bedrikovedski et al.7) will bepublished in the near future.9
PWRI, when first introduced, was seen as a breakthrough solution for waterdisposal. It is both environmentally friendly and economically among thecheapest options. Thus, it garnered much interest. However, the associatedinjectivity decline remains a major issue.
In order to simulate and predict the extent of formation damage(permeability decline) inflicted by PWRI, it is necessary to have a model ofthe damage as a function of injection flow rate and particle concentrationamong other parameters. Typically, such a model is achieved by coupling afiltration model with a formation damage model. 4,8,10 The classical deep-bedfiltration model was introduced by Iwasaki in 1937 11 and contained aphenomenological function---the filtration function GREEKlambda ---whichdescribes the deposition intensity of the suspended particles and depends onprevious deposition GREELsigma only. Variations of the filtration functionGREEKlambda ( GREEKsigma ) were proposed by subsequent researchers; see Herziget. al. 4 and Bai and Tien. 12
Forward-solution simulations were conducted by researchers to generateeffluent profile predictions and compare them to experimental measurements. 12Consequently, inverse-solution simulators emerged in which the experimentallyquantified effluent concentration profiles were used to extract the filtrationfunction. 13,14 Furthermore, alternative models were proposed in which thepermeability decline over the core, characterized by 3 or more pressure points,was used to extract an approximation for the filtration coefficient. 9,15 Itshould be noted that inverse solutions based on the effluent profile areill-posed, while the three-point pressure method incorporates a simplifiedformation model, which itself needs to be verified. In any case, the successfulextraction of a filtration function does not verify the model until predictionsof other variables such as the deposition profile or the suspensionconcentration profile along the core have been compared to the experimentalvalues.
Measurement of the suspension concentration profile has been conducted byKau and Lawler 16 in sand columns. No attempts have been made to measure thedeposition profile along a core prior to this work, as far as the authors areaware. This article presents a novel experimental technique for thequantification of the deposition profile along a sandstone core post-mortem,and is the foundation of further work 17 in which multiple online measurementsof the deposition profile can be obtained. Such data, along with the effluentconcentration profile and pressure measurements along the core can be used toverify and test the different models in a far more rigorous manner than hasbeen done previously. The experiments conducted can also be used to drawanalogies with field cases. However, care should be taken, because theseexperiments are simplified cases in which the true complexity of the real PWRIprocesses is not captured.
Six static filtration experiments (Exp. 1 through Exp. 6) were conductedusing a five-port sleeve, to obtain six pressure-drop data channels over a5.0-in. Bentheim sandstone core of 1 in. diameter. Bentheim sandstone ishomogeneous, with a porosity of 22%, permeability of approximately 1.4 D andpore throat diameter of 10 to 15 GREEKmum. Distilled water containing 0.1 to 5GREEKmum hematite (Fe 2 O 3 ) particles (65% of which were less than 1 GREEKmumin diameter) was injected at different concentrations (20, 40, and 80 mg/l) andflow rates (5.4 l/hr [ approximately 2.9E-3 m/s] and 10 l/hr \[approximately5.4E-3 m/s]) into the core---each experiment having only one injectionconcentration and one injection flow rate. The concentration of the effluentsolution of the experiment was either measured online using a laser diffractionunit (Exp. 6 illustrated in Fig. 1) or by collecting samples and quantifyingthe concentration at a later stage using chemical analysis (Exp. 1 to Exp. 5,of which an example is given in Fig. 2). The data gathered used the guidelinesuggested by Wennberg 18 as a compliance criterion.
Synthetic produced water consisting of distilled water and hematiteparticles was utilized for these experiments for the following reasons: (1)hematite is a common component of real produced water, being present in thetubing of the injection wells; (2) hematite is an ideal tracer for theseexperiments because it is chemically stable, not present in Bentheim sandstone,and easily detectable chemically and visually; and (3) hematite has been usedpreviously by researchers for filtration experiments. 19
|File Size||2 MB||Number of Pages||14|
1. van den Hoek, P.J. et al.: "Simulation of Produced WaterReinjection Under Fracturing Conditions," SPEPF (August 1999) 166.
2. Gadde, P.B. and Sharma, M.M.: "Growing Injection Well Fractures andTheir Impact on Waterflood Performance," paper SPE 71614 presented at the2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 30September-3 October.
3. Perkins, T.K. and Gonzalez, J.A.: "The Effect of Thermoelastic Stresseson Injection Well Fracturing," SPEJ (February 1985) 78.
4. Herzig, J.P., Leclerc, D.M., and Le Goff, P.: "Flow of suspensionsthrough porous media—application to deep filtration," Industrial andEngineering Chemistry (1970) 65, No. 5, 8.
5. Pang, S. and Sharma, M.M.: "A Model for Predicting InjectivityDecline in Water Injection Wells," SPEFE (September 1997) 194.
6. Wennberg, K.E. and Sharma, M.M.: "Determination of the FiltrationCoefficient and the Transition Time for Water Injection Wells," paper SPE38181 presented at the 1997 SPE European Formation Damage Conference, TheHague, 2-3 June.
7. Bedrikovedsky, P. et al.: "Damage Characterization of Deep BedFiltration From Pressure Measurements," paper SPE 73788 presented at the2002 SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control,Lafayette, Louisiana, 20-21 February.
8. Saripalli, K.P., Sharma, M.M., andBryani, S.L.: "Modeling injectionwell performance during deep-well injection of liquid wastes," Journal ofHydrology (2000) 227, 41.
9. Al-Abduwani, F.A.H. et al.: "Utilising Static Filtration Experiments toTest Existing Filtration Theories for Conformance," paper presented at the 2004Produced Water Workshop, Aberdeen, 21-22 April,Aberdeen.
10. McDowell-Boyer, L.M., Hunt, J.R., and Sitar, N.: "Particle transportthrough porous media," Water Resources Research (1986) 22, No. 13, 1901.
11. Iwasaki, T.: "Some notes on sand filtration," Journal of the AmericanWater Works Association (1937) 29, 1591.
12. Bai, R. and Tien, C.: "Effect of Deposition in Deep-Bed Filtration:Determination and Search of Rate Parameters," Journal of Colloid and InterfaceScience (2000) 231, 299.
13. Bedrikovetsky, P. et al.: "Porous Media Deposition Damage from Injectionof Water with Particles," paper presented at the 2002 European Conference onthe Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Freiberg, Germany, 3-6 September.
14. Bedrikovetsky, P., et al.: "Inverse Problems for Treatment ofLaboratory Data on Injectivity Impairment," paper SPE 86523 presented atthe 2004 SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation DamageControl, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18-20 February.
15. Bedrikovetsky, P. et al.: "Characterisation ofDeep-Bed Filtration System from Laboratory Pressure Drop Measurements,"Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering (2001) 64, No. 3, 167.
16. Kau, S. andLawler, F.D.: "Dynamics of Deep-Bed Filtration:Velocity, Depth and Media," Journal of Environmental Engineering (1995) 121,No. 12, 850.
17. Al-Abduwani, F.A.H. et al.: "Filtration of Micron-Sized Particles inGranular Media Revealed by X-ray Computed Tomopraphy," Delft U. of Technology,Delft (2004).
18. Wennberg, K.E.: "Particle retention in porous media," PhD dissertation,Norwegian U. of Science and Technology, Trondheim (1998) 177.
19. Kuhnen, F., et al.: "Transport of Iron Oxide Colloids in Packed QuartzSand Media: Monolayer and Multilayer Deposition," Journal of Colloid andInterface Science (2000) 231, No. 1, 32.
20. Sympatec GmbH—Systems for Particle Technology, Germany(www.sympatec.com).
21. Syncroscopy—Digital Microscopy, Cambridge, U.K.(www.syncroscopy.co.uk).
22. Civan, F.: Reservoir Formation Damage, Fundamentals, Modeling,Assessment, and Mitigation, Gulf Professional Publishing, Elsevier (2000)752.
23. Pittman, E.D.: "Relationship of Porosity and Permeability to VariousParameters Derived From Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure Curve forSandstones," AAPG Bulletin (1992) 76, No. 2, 191.
24. Roque, C. et al.: "Mechanisms of Formation Damage byRetention of Particles Suspended in Injection Water," paper SPE 30110presented at the 1995 SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague,15-16 May.
25. Wojtanowicz, A.K., Krilov, Z., and Langlinais, J.P.: "Study on the Effect of Pore BlockingMechanisms on Formation Damage," paper SPE 16233 presented at the 1987Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 8-10 March.