Anda di halaman 1dari 11

DC168184 DOI: 10.

2118/168184-PA Date: 30-December-14

Stage:

Page: 1

Total Pages: 11

A New Approach To Estimate Invasion


Radius of Water-Based-Drilling-Fluid Filtrate
To Evaluate Formation Damage Caused
by Overbalanced Drilling
Kegang Ling, University of North Dakota; He Zhang, SPE; Zheng Shen, Weatherford; Ali Ghalambor, Oil Center
Research International; Guoqing Han, China University of Petroleum; and Jun He and Peng Pei,
University of North Dakota

Summary
Formation damage caused by overbalanced drilling with waterbased mud (WBM) is inevitable as a result of mud filtrate invading the near-wellbore formation. The invasion radius is critical to
the multiphase flow when the well is put on production. It contributes to the total skin that hinders the hydrocarbon production. Furthermore, the response of the logging tools may be affected as a
result of such invasion, rendering many inaccurate calculations in
formation evaluation. To evaluate the skin caused by mud-filtrate
invasion, it is important to determine the radius of invasion. A
thorough literature review indicated that no practical and reliable
method with solid theoretical basis to quantify formation damage
is available. Former studies assumed that single-phase drilling
fluid displaces reservoir fluid during the invasion. The neglecting
of residual reservoir fluid in the invaded zone will introduce error
to invasion-radius estimation. This work takes the residual reservoir fluid into account; thus, the estimation of invasion radius is
more accurate.
This work proposes a practical model to determine the depth
of mud-filtrate invasion near the wellbore drilled by WBM. The
distribution of mud-filtrate saturation in the near-wellbore region
is also calculated by using drilling-operation parameters, mud-filtration-test data, relative permeability, and drilling time. With the
accurately determined invasion radius and known wellbore radius,
reservoir permeability, and damaged-reservoir permeability, one
can evaluate skin factor more accurately. With the knowledge of
invasion volume and radius, one can design the wellbore-cleanup
procedure appropriately. The proposed model allows engineers to
predict the well performance and to diagnose wellbore problems
by checking any deviation from the predicted production. This
study also can assist with the correction of parameters inferred
from log measurements, thereby reducing the over- and/or underestimation of log-derived parameters used in various formationevaluation calculations.
Introduction
Skin is a dimensionless term to be used in diagnosing well performance. A positive skin often indicates the decrease of well performance caused by factors such as formation damage, limited
entry, and choked effect. It could also be a negative skin of
increasing the well performance, which usually is attributed to
well stimulations of acidizing and hydraulic fracturing. For our
purposes, the skin of formation damage resulting from overbalanced drilling (OBD) is studied. Hawkins (1956) equation for
damage skin is

C 2015 Society of Petroleum Engineers


Copyright V

This paper (SPE 168184) was accepted for presentation at the 2014 SPE International
Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 2628
February, and revised for publication. Original manuscript received for review 14 November
2013. Revised manuscript received for review 18 September 2014. Paper peer approved 1
December 2014.


s


k
rs
 1 ln ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
ks
rw

where k reservoir permeability, ks damaged reservoir permeability, rs radius of damaged zone, rw wellbore radius, and
s skin factor.
As shown in Eq. 2, well productivity depends on a number of
rock and fluid properties. A positive damage skin impairs the oil
production. Without sufficiently evaluating the magnitude of-well
skin, one cannot analyze oil production properly:
qo

kkro hDp

 ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1 re
141:2lo Bo ln s
2 rw

where Bo oil formation volume factor, h pay thickness,


kro relative permeability to oil, qo oil flow rate, re radius of
reservoir outer boundary, lo oil viscosity, and Dp pressure
drop.
OBD is often applied to balance the pore pressure and avoid
well kicks when developing normal and overpressured reservoirs.
It causes the mud filtrate to invade the formation and alters the
near-wellbore formation. This alteration impairs the formation
permeability and reduces the well productivity. The invasion radius is critical to the multiphase flow when the well is put on
production. It contributes to the damage skin that hinders hydrocarbon production. To evaluate the skin caused by mud-filtrate
invasion, it is of interest to determine the radius of invasion.
Numerous investigations have been conducted to determine the
level of damage and invasion radius. The following are some significant studies.
Shen (1979) used a pressure-drawdown test to determine formation damage. Brownson and Peden (1980) evaluated the
permeability impairment caused by drilling fluids through a systematic method. Doty (1986) studied the penetration rates, formation damage, and wellbore stability with full-scale drilling
tests. Marx and Rahman (1987) investigated the formation damage of depleted reservoirs by drilling fluids. Francis et al. (1995)
conducted coreflood testing to visualize the formation-damage
mechanism. Longeron et al. (1995) performed experiments to
assess the formation damage by drilling and completion fluids.
Ghofrani et al. (1996) used damage ratio to evaluate formation
damage in a laboratory. Hodge et al. (1997) evaluated different
drilling fluids to minimize formation damage. Byrne et al. (2000)
used a cryogenic scanning electron microscope to study overbalanced formation damage by laboratory investigations. Amanullah
(2003) assessed the formation damage caused by the spurt and
filtrate of drill-in fluids. Watson and Nelson (2003) developed a
laboratory-testing procedure for selecting drilling fluids to minimize formation damage. Altunbay et al. (2003) combined nuclear magnetic resonance and resistivity-log data to assess
formation damage. Ding et al. (2004) modeled formation damage
caused by water-based muds (WBMs) and cleanup of horizontal
wells. Sanchez et al. (2004) studied the influence of drilling-fluid

2015 SPE Drilling & Completion


ID: jaganm Time: 14:25 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140041/APPFile/SA-DC##140041

DC168184 DOI: 10.2118/168184-PA Date: 30-December-14

Page: 2

Total Pages: 11

tion distribution in the flushed and transition zones, formationdamage skin is calculated accordingly. Then, one can plan the
well stimulation accordingly and appropriately, if it is necessary
to remove or alleviate formation damage. This model also can
estimate the cleanup period at the onset of production. It allows
engineers to predict the well performance and to diagnose wellbore problems by checking any deviation from the predicted production. In this regard, one can consider the effect of invasion on
the response of the logging tools, to avoid or minimize the overor underestimation of reservoir parameters such as water
saturation.

Drilling Fluid

pm

Stage:

k
h
rw

pe

re

Fig. 1A cylindrical reservoir with a well in the center.

composition on formation damage. Dalmazzone et al. (2006)


used laboratory data to minimize formation damage through
optimizing filtrate design. Kelessidis et al. (2007) assessed formation damage caused by drill-in fluid in high-temperature fields
with laboratory tests. Prasad et al. (2008) assessed dynamic filtration formation damage for drilling in Alaska. Jin (2009) quantified formation damage with dynamic and static drilling-fluidfiltration-test data. Al-Anazi et al. (2009) investigated formation
damage induced by formate drilling fluids through laboratory
and field studies. Nunes et al. (2009) estimated the radius of the
damage zone in well stimulation by a transcendental equation.
Wang et al. (2010) proposed a linear model to quantify the invasion particles and filtrate in OBD. Waldmann et al. (2011) presented a radial model to predict the filtrate-invasion profile in a
multilayer reservoir with a linear resistance concept. Kome et al.
(2012) applied well-test analysis to evaluate near-wellbore formation damage for gas reservoir. Green et al. (2013) used microcomputed-tomography scanning to visualize the formation damage in the laboratory tests. Literature review indicated that no
study has proposed a practical, comprehensive, and reliable
method with a solid theoretical basis to quantify this aspect of
formation damage caused by OBD with WBM. The present
work seeks to fill this gap.
In this paper, we developed a model to determine the depth of
filtrate invasion in the near-wellbore region of the well drilled by
WBM. The distribution of mud-filtrate saturation is also calculated. With the calculated invasion radius and mud-filtrate satura-

Derivation of Filtrate-Invasion Model for


Overbalanced Drilling (OBD) With Water-Based
Mud (WBM)
Fig. 1 shows a circular reservoir with a well in the center. The filtration occurs when OBD with WBM is applied to drill a well.
Fig. 1 can represent the invasion process as well. One can view
the fractional flow as a filtrate, displacing oil away from a well.
Fig. 2 illustrates the flowline and pressure distribution in the reservoir. To make the analysis simple, the following assumptions
are made:
A homogeneous oil reservoir with constant height exists.
The dip angle of the formation is zero.
Filtrate of WBM invades the reservoir.
Compressibilities of oil and filtrate are negligible.
Constant reservoir temperature, fluid densities, and viscosities exist.
The labels/variables in Figs. 1 and 2 are defined as follows:
pe reservoir outer boundary pressure, pm drilling-fluid pressure, r radius from wellbore.
One can calculate filtrate- and oil-flow rates as
qo
and
qf

re

pm

kkrf @Apf
; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
@r
lf

where A flow area, krf relative permeability to filtrate, po oil


pressure, pf filtrate pressure, qf filtrate-flow rate, and lf
filtrate viscosity.
Introducing the concept of capillary pressure, we have
Pc po  pf ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
where Pc capillary pressure.
Replacing filtrate pressure by oil and capillary pressure, Eq. 4
becomes

Filtrate

pe

kkro @Apo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
lo @r

pm

rw

rw
pe

k
r

re

Fig. 2Radial reservoir system: (a) plan view, (b) lateral view.
2

2015 SPE Drilling & Completion


ID: jaganm Time: 14:25 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140041/APPFile/SA-DC##140041

DC168184 DOI: 10.2118/168184-PA Date: 30-December-14

Drilling Fluid

qt = qo+qf | r+r

qt = qo+qf | r

pm
pe

h
rw
k

r
r

re

Fig. 3A control volume in a circular reservoir with a well in


the center.

qf

kkrf @Apo  Pc 
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
@r
lf

In terms of pressure gradient, one can express Eqs. 3 and 5 as


@Apo
l
o qo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
@r
kkro
and
lf
@Apo @APc


qf : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
@r
@r
kkrf
Subtracting Eq. 8 from 7, we obtain


lf
@APc 1 lo

qo  qf : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
@r
k kro
krf
To simplify the analysis, we introduce the concepts of the total
filtrate-invasion rate and fractional flow, which are defined as
qt qo qf

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Stage:

qf qf r  qf qf rDr Dt

phr Dr2  r 2 /Sf qf tDt  Sf qf t ; . . . . . . 16


qf
; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
qt

where qt total filtrate-invasion rate from WBM and ff filtrate


fraction.
Substituting Eqs. 10 and 11 into Eq. 9 yields
@APc kkro
@r qt lo
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
kro lf
1
krf lo

1
ff

Flow area is defined as


A 2prh: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Substituting Eq. 13 into Eq. 12, we have
2phkkro r@Pc
1

Pc
qt lo
@r
ff
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
kro lf
1
krf lo
If capillary pressure is negligible, Eq. 14 collapses to
ff

Total Pages: 11

One should note that the capillary pressure plays an important


role in affecting the damage filtrate radius. Capillary pressures in
reservoirs are affected by variations in permeability, pore-size distribution, saturation history, contact angle, and interfacial tension.
The concept of capillary number, which is defined as the ratio of
viscous forces to capillary forces, is used to evaluate the competition between viscous forces and capillary forces in a displacement
process (Willhite 1986). In this case, it is the filtrate-displacing
reservoir fluid. A large capillary number means that viscous
forces dominate the displacement process, corresponding to displacement in high-permeability reservoirs. A small capillary number indicates that capillary forces dominate the displacement
process, corresponding to displacement in low-permeability reservoirs. The effect of the capillary pressure is minor in high-permeability reservoirs. Under this condition, the estimated invasion
from Eq. 15 contains small errors and is acceptable. If the error is
not acceptable, one should apply Eq. 14. For low-permeability
shale/tight reservoirs, the capillary pressure can be significant and
cannot be neglected. Therefore, one should apply Eq. 14, and
implement the calculation through a numerical method, considering the variation of capillary pressure with saturation and permeability. The inclusion or exclusion of capillary pressure will
depend on the reservoir properties, the requirement of accuracy of
invasion study, and the time required for the study. Excluding
capillary pressure will require less study time but will introduce
large errors and should only be used for high-permeability reservoirs. Including capillary pressure will require more study time
but will introduce only small errors and can be applied for any
reservoirs.
To understand the filtrate distribution in the near-wellbore
region during drilling and completion, it is necessary to build a filtrate-invasion model in a radial reservoir system. Considering the
filtrate-displacing oil under OBD, one can see that the material
balance provides the mass change in a control volume for a period, shown as the shaded area in Fig. 3. For convenience, we
define the wellbore radius as the starting point, where r rw, and
the deep reservoir is the outer boundary, where r re. The material balance gives

and
ff

Page: 3

1
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
kro lf
1
krf lo

where Sf filtrate saturation, qf filtrate density, Dt time interval, t time, Dr radius increment, and / porosity.
Simplifying Eq. 16, we have
qf qf r  qf qf rDr Dt

ph2rDr Dr2 /Sf qf tDt  Sf qf t : . . . . . . . 17


As Dr ! 0 and Dt ! 0, we have
2rDr Dr2  2rDr: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Eq. 17 becomes a partial-differential equation:


@qf qf
@Sf qf
2prh/
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
@r
@t

Assuming a constant density, we have




@qf
@Sf
2rph/
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
@r
@t

Substituting Eq. 11 into Eq. 20 gives




@ f f qt
@Sf
2rph/
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
@r
@t

Although the filtrate-invasion rate changes during drilling and


completion, the final invasion radius is more important to the
issue of formation damage. If we use an average filtrate-invasion

2015 SPE Drilling & Completion


ID: jaganm Time: 14:25 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140041/APPFile/SA-DC##140041

DC168184 DOI: 10.2118/168184-PA Date: 30-December-14

Stage:

Page: 4

Total Pages: 11

Spurt loss

Qf

Qsp

0.5

Fig. 4Example filter-press data, after Bourgoyne et al. (1986).

rate, qf-av, to represent the filtrate-invasion process, we can simplify Eq. 21 to





dff
from core relative permeabildSf Sf
ity and fluid properties. In case the core relative permeability is
not available, one can use the Corey (1954) relative permeability
model. The total filtrate-invasion volume, Qf tqf-av, is discussed
in the next section. The invasion time t is the period between the
initial penetration of the formation and the setting of cement in
the cased hole.
The total filtrate-invasion volume can be influenced severely
by total invasion time, pressure differential, filtrate viscosities and
reservoir fluid, reservoir permeability and thickness, permeability
and thickness of mudcake, and magnitude of formation damage.
The invasion volume consists of the spurt loss, the invasion upon
the mudcake formation (we call this Stage 1), and the invasion at
constant mudcake thickness (we call this Stage 2). The static and/
or dynamic filtration tests are used to estimate the filtration rate.
The flow of mud filtrate through a mudcake is given by Bourgoyne et al. (1986):
analysis. One can calculate

@ff 2rph/ @Sf

; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
qf -av @t
@r

where
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

dQf 0:0011268kmc ADpmc


; . . . . . . . . . . . 30

dt
lf hmc

and qf-av average filtrate-invasion rate and Qf total filtrateinvasion volume.


Because filtrate fraction is a function of filtrate saturation,
ff Sf , applying the chain rule to Eq. 22 results in

where kmc mudcake permeability, Dpmc pressure drop through


mudcake, hmc mudcake thickness, and qf-invasion filtrate-invasion rate.
One can calculate the filtrate volume by

dff @Sf 2rph/ @Sf

: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
qf -av @t
dSf @r

s


p
kmc Dpmc fsc
 1 A t; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Qf 2
lf
fsm

Qf
qf -av
t

qf -invasion

Because filtrate saturation is function of time t and position r,


we can express
@Sf
@Sf
dt
dr: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
dSf
@t
@r
At the invasion front, the filtrate saturation is constant, and it
provides us with a boundary condition:
dSf

@Sf
@Sf
dt
dr 0
@t
@r


fsc
 1 hmc : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Qf A
fsm

or
@Sf
@Sf dt
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

@r
@t dr
Substituting Eq. 26 into Eq. 24 yields
dff
2rph/
dt
dr: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
qf -av
dSf
Integrating Eq. 27 yields an equation for filtrate-front position
rf as
s
 
tqf -av dff
; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
rf
ph/ dSf f
where rf filtrate-front position in a radial reservoir system.
For any filtrate saturation Sf, one can calculate the position by
s
 
tqf -av dff
rSf
; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
ph/ dSf Sf
where rSf position of any filtrate saturation in a radial reservoir
system.
Eq. 28 dictates the deepest filtrate invasion, or the outerboundary of the damaged zone. Eq. 29 gives the filtrate-saturation
distribution from wellbore to the outer boundary of the damaged
zone. It is noted that the damaged radius is rarely beyond 10 ft
(Nunes et al. 2009), considering the limited filtrate volume that
invades into the formation.
Now, we can discuss the parameters required for the calculation in Eq. 29. One can obtain porosity from well logs or core
4

where fsc the volume fraction of solid in the mudcake and


fsm the volume fraction of solid in the mud.
Fig. 4 shows the plot of filtrate volume vs. time in the static filtration test. The filtrate volume includes a spurt loss and the loss
after the spurt.
One can also calculate the filtrate-invasion volume from mudcake thickness:

Combining Eqs. 29 and 30 yields


v
u 2k Dp
u
mc
mc p

t: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
hmc u
t fsc
 1 lf
fsm
Eqs. 31, 32, and 33 are applied during the formation of mudcake. During drilling, the mudcake thickness remains constant after a given period of time. The filtrate volume at constantthickness mudcake is calculated by Eq. 30.
During the drilling, the invasion of filtrate through mudcake to
the formation can be treated as transient flow and calculated by
qf invasion

khDpformation
;
k
162:6lf logt log

3:23

0:87s
/lf ct rw2
                   34

where ct total compressibility and Dpformation pressure drop


through the formation.
One should note that skin factor caused by formation damage
(or variation of formation properties caused by filtration) in Eq.
34 changes as invasion radius changes. Thus, it needs to be
updated at different invasion times. The pressure drop is the sum
of pressure drops through the mudcake and formation. It is equal
to the pressure difference between mud pressure and pore pressure. Therefore, by combining Eqs. 30, 33, and 34, we have the
filtrate-invasion rate at Stage 1:
2015 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 14:25 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140041/APPFile/SA-DC##140041

DC168184 DOI: 10.2118/168184-PA Date: 30-December-14

Stage:

Page: 5

Total Pages: 11

The sum of Eqs. 39, 37, and 38 gives the total filtrate volume
invading the formation:
t1
t2
2prw hQsp-lab
Qf
qf -invasion1 dt qf -invasion2 dt;
Alab
t1

                   40
where t1 time to establish constant mudcake thickness, or time
period of Stage 1, and t2 total invasion time.
One can use Eq. 31 to calculate the time to establish constant
mudcake thickness. One can calculate the filtrate-invasion volume
in Eq. 31 from Eq. 32. The mudcake thickness in Eq. 32 is the difference between bit size and wellbore radius, which is measured
from the caliper log. One should note that the parameters used for
calculation should be measured under downhole conditions, if
possible.

Table 1The input data for filtrate invasion in a radial system.

pm  pp Dpmc Dpformation
162:6qf -invasion1 lf logt log

v
u 2k Dp
mc
mc p

t
qf -invasion1 lf u
u
t fsc
 1 lf
fsm
0:0011268kmc A
k
 3:23 0:87s
/lf ct rw2

kh
                   35

where pp formation pore pressure and qf-invasion1 filtrate-invasion rate at Stage 1, and
A 2prw h: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Calculation Procedure
The calculation procedure is as follows:
1. Calculate spurt loss in wellbore with Eq. 39.
2. Divide the invasion period into several time intervals; the
overbalanced pressure should be constant in each interval.
3. Choose Time Interval 1; assume skin factor 0; calculate
invasion rate by Eq. 37 if mudcake thickness is less than
constant mudcake thickness or by Eq. 38 if mudcake thickness is equal to or greater than constant mudcake thickness.
4. Calculate mudcake thickness by Eq. 33.
5. Repeat Steps 3 and 4 until the calculated mudcake thickness
converges.
6. Calculate invasion volume by Eq. 40; calculate invasion radius by Eq. 28; calculate a new skin factor by Eq. 1.
7. Choose Time Interval 2, with the new skin factor obtained
from Step 6; repeat Steps 3 through 6 until finishing all
time intervals.
8. With the invasion volume obtained in Step 7, calculate the
filtrate-front position and any filtrate-saturation position
through Eqs. 28 and 29.

Solving Eq. 35 for filtrate-invasion rate at Stage 1, we have

Case Study
A synthetic case was used to illustrate filtrate invasion in drilpm  pp
ling. The input data are shown in Table 1. Table 2 is the relative
v
:
u 2k Dp
permeabilities and calculated parameters vs. filtrate saturation.
mc
mc p
u
!

t
lf u
One can obtain drilling-fluid and filtrate properties from drillingk
t fsc
162:6lf logt log
 3:23 0:87s
 1 lf
fluid laboratory measurements. One can measure reservoir-rock
/lf ct rw2
fsm
properties, fluid properties, and relative permeability through a

0:0011268kmc A
kh
pressure/volume/temperature test and core analysis. Reservoir
                   37 pay thickness, wellbore radius, and constant mudcake thickness
are estimated by well-logging interpretation. Overbalanced presSimilarly, combining Eq. 30 with Eq. 33, we have the filtrate- sure and total invasion time are from drilling operations. In case
invasion rate at Stage 2:
of a gas reservoir, one should change the inputs accordingly.
One should replace oil properties with gas properties. One
qf -invasion2
should use gas relative permeability instead of oil relative perpm  pp
; meability. One should use gas pseudopressure to replace presk
162:6lf logt log
 3:23 0:87s sure. Considering that gas properties are functions of pressure
/lf ct rw2
lf hmc
and temperature, one can use average gas properties as an

approximation.
kh
0:0011268kmc A
The spurt loss in the wellbore is 0.055 bbl. The time to estab                   38
lish constant mudcake thickness is approximately 11.5 minutes, or
690 seconds. The cumulative-invasion volume at the time the
where qf-invasion2 filtrate-invasion rate at Stage 2.
Because the permeability of mudcake tends to decrease with mudcake thickness reaches a constant value is 0.04 bbl. The total
increasing pressure, or kmcDpmc a constant (Bourgoyne et al. filtrate-invasion volume is 18.9 bbl at a total invasion time of 100
1986), the spurt loss in the wellbore can be approximately calcu- hours. Therefore, the filtrate-invasion volume at Stage 2 is more
significant than those of spurt loss and Stage 1, as shown in Figs.
lated from static and/or dynamic filtration-test data, which is
5 and 6. The plots of filtrate-invasion rate and mudcake thickness
vs. time are shown in Fig. 5. Fig. 6 shows the cumulative filtrateQsp-lab Qsp-well

; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 invasion volume vs. time. The filtrate-saturation distribution along


Alab
2prw h
the radius is shown in Fig. 7. It indicates that the filtrate does not
where Qsp-lab spurt loss in filter-press test, Qsp-well spurt loss completely displace original reservoir fluid away from the nearin wellbore, and Alab filter-press area in filter-press test.
wellbore region. Therefore, the invasions are deeper than those
qf -invasion1

2015 SPE Drilling & Completion


ID: jaganm Time: 14:25 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140041/APPFile/SA-DC##140041

Stage:

Page: 6

Total Pages: 11

0.007

Filtrate Invasion Rate (bbl/day)

1000
Stage 1

0.006

Stage 2

0.005

100

0.004
Filtrate invasion rate (bbl/day)
Mudcake thickness (ft)

0.003

10
0.002

Mudcake Thickness (ft)

DC168184 DOI: 10.2118/168184-PA Date: 30-December-14

0.001
1
0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

0
100

10

Time (hours)

100

Filtrate Invasion Rate (bbl/day)

1000
Filtrate invasion rate (bbl/day)

10

Cumulative invasion volume (bbl)

100

0.1

0.01

10

Stage 1
1
0.0001

0.001

Stage 2

0.0001
0.001

0.01

0.1

10

Cumulative Filtrate Invasion Volume (bbl)

Fig. 5The plots of filtrate-invasion rate and mudcake thickness vs. time.

100

Time (hours)

Fig. 6The plots of filtrate-invasion rate and cumulative filtrate-invasion volume vs. time.
1

Filtrate Saturation (fraction)

0.9

Filtrate-Saturation Distribution at Different Invasion Times

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

Time = 0.1 hours


Time = 1 hours
Time = 10 hours
Time = 100 hours

0.2
0.1
0
0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

10

Distance From Wellbore (ft)

Fig. 7Filtrate-saturation distribution along the radius at different invasion times.

calculated from the complete-displacement assumption. For


example, our model calculated an invasion radius of 2.4 ft at an
invasion time of 100 hours, whereas piston-like displacement
resulted in an invasion radius of 1.9 ft.

Table 2The relative permeabilities and calculated parameters vs.


filtrate saturation.

Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity analysis is conducted to better understand the effects
of crucial parameters on filtrate-penetration radius. Only the controllable parameters are discussed for practical-application
purposes.

2015 SPE Drilling & Completion


ID: jaganm Time: 14:25 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140041/APPFile/SA-DC##140041

DC168184 DOI: 10.2118/168184-PA Date: 30-December-14

0.9

0.8

0.9

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4

Mudake permeability = 0.1 md


Mudake permeability = 0.005 md

0.3

Mudake permeability = 0.001 md

0.2
0.1
0
0.0001

0.001

0.1

0.01

Page: 7

Total Pages: 11

Filtrate-Saturation Distribution at Invasion Time of 10 Hours

Filtrate-Saturation Distribution at Invasion Time of 10 Hours

Filtrate Saturation (fraction)

Filtrate Saturation (fraction)

Stage:

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
Pressure difference = 100 psi

0.4

Pressure difference = 300 psi


Pressure difference = 600 psi

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.0001

10

0.001

0.1

0.01

10

Distance From Wellbore (ft)

Distance From Wellbore (ft)

Fig. 8Filtrate-saturation distribution at invasion time of 10


hours for different mudcake permeabilities.

Fig. 9Filtrate-saturation distribution at invasion time of 10


hours for different pressure differences.

Sensitivity of Invasion Time. Fig. 7 indicates that the invasion


radius increases as invasion time increases. This agrees with the
observations in the field. Therefore, major effort should focus on
limiting invasion time.

38, in which a larger skin factor results in a lower invasion rate.


To quantify the difference in the invasion radius with/without the
damaged-zone protection, we compare three different scenarios:
the first scenario does not consider the effect of formation damage
on the filtrate invasion; the second scenario takes the effect of the
formation damage on the filtrate invasion into account, and the
permeability of the damaged formation is 20% of the original permeability; the third scenario also takes the effect of the formation
damage on the filtrate invasion into account, and the permeability
of the damaged formation is 5% of the original permeability. The
original permeability is 5 md. The invasion radii with/without the
damaged-zone protection at different invasion times are shown in
Fig. 10. One could see that the invasion radii of the severe-damage scenario (the permeability of damaged formation is 5% of the
original permeability) are shorter than those of the light-damage
scenario (the permeability of damaged formation is 20% of the
original permeability). It is also clear that the invasion radii of
second and third scenarios are shorter than those of the first scenario. Therefore, from the formation-damage-control point of
view, this self-protection mechanism does protect the formation
from extremely severe damage.

Sensitivity of Mudcake Permeability. To evaluate the effect of


the mudcake permeability on the filtrate-penetration radius, three
different mudcake permeabilities are used. All other input data
are the same for three cases. Fig. 8 shows the invasions at the
time of 10 hours.
It is obvious that high mudcake permeability results in deep
invasion. Therefore, creating a tight mudcake is essential to
reduce formation damage.
Sensitivity of Pressure Difference. During overbalanced drilling, the pressure difference affects invasion depth. Three pressure
differences are analyzed, and the corresponding invasions are
evaluated. Fig. 9 shows that the invasion radius increases as the
pressure difference increases.
Again, it is clear that low pressure difference benefits damage
control. During drilling operations, one should apply low pressure
difference; but one should note that low mud weight may cause
well-kick and well-stability problems. One should exercise caution to avoid such problems.
Effect of Damaged Zone on Invasion Radius. We notice that
the reduction of formation permeability caused by invasion
reduces the filtrate-invasion rate, or in other words, the formation
damage caused by the invasion will alleviate further damage
through reducing invasion rates. This is reflected in Eqs. 37 and
1

Discussion of Filtrate Invasion After Running


Well Logging
One should note that mudcake thickness changes while tripping
out, making logging runs, and running casing. The mudcake will
build up under static states. But these static states are not totally
static because of the upward movement of the drillpipe and bottomhole assembly and the downward movement of drilling fluid
to fill the volume opened by the withdrawn drillpipe, running

Filtrate-Saturation Distribution at Different Invasion Time

0.9

Filtrate Saturation (fraction)

0.8
0.7
0.6

Time = 0.1 hour_With damage effect on invasion_ks = 0.05 k

0.5

Time = 1 hour_With damage effect on invasion_ks = 0.05 k


Time = 10 hours_With damage effect on invasion_ks = 0.05 k
Time = 100 hours_With damage effect on invasion_ks = 0.05 k

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.0001

Time = 0.1 hour_No damage effect on invasion


Time = 1 hour_No damage effect on invasion
Time = 10 hours_No damage effect on invasion
Time = 100 hours_No damage effect on invasion
Time = 0.1 hour_With damage effect on invasion_ks = 0.2 k
Time = 1 hour_With damage effect on invasion_ks = 0.2 k
Time = 10 hours_With damage effect on invasion_ks = 0.2 k
Time = 100 hours_With damage effect on invasion_ks = 0.2 k

0.001

0.01

0.1

10

Distance From Wellbore (ft)

Fig. 10Filtrate-saturation distribution along the radius with/without damaged-zone protection.


2015 SPE Drilling & Completion
ID: jaganm Time: 14:25 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140041/APPFile/SA-DC##140041

DC168184 DOI: 10.2118/168184-PA Date: 30-December-14

Stage:

Page: 8

Total Pages: 11

Invasion Volume and Mudcake Thickness at Different Invasion Times


100

0.009

Invasion volume_No additional mudcake buildup after well logging


Invasion volume_Additional mudcake buildup after well logging

80

0.008

Mudcake thickness_No additional mudcake buildup after well logging


Mudcake thickness_Additional mudcake buildup after well logging

0.007

70

0.006

60
0.005
50
0.004
40

Mudcake Thickness (ft)

Invasion Volume (bbl)

90

0.003
30
0.002

20

0.001

10
0
0.001

0
0.01

0.1

10

100

Invasion Time (hours)

Fig. 11Plots of filtrate-invasion volume and mudcake thickness vs. time for two scenarios (no additional mudcake buildup and
additional mudcake buildup after running well logging).

logging tools into and out of the hole, and running casing into the
hole. The buildup of mudcake will be offset partially or significantly. In many cases, drillers use (1) a higher mud-circulation
rate with two or more circulations before tripping out and (2)
short tripping in and out to avoid the sticking of the drillpipe and
to prepare a gauge hole for running well-logging tools and/or casing. Under these conditions, the additional mudcake buildup will
be small. Furthermore, the mudcake thickness is obtained from bit
size and well logging, which measures wellbore diameter during
tripping out of the hole. Therefore, the difference is mainly in running casing. Mudcake buildup is depressed while running casing
because of the scratch effects of the casing, casing shoe, and the
stabilizers installed outside of the casing and the movement of the
drilling/completion fluid. It is also very difficult, if not impossible,
to gain mudcake thickness while running casing. Fig. 11 shows
plots of filtration and mudcake thickness vs. time for two scenarios: additional mudcake buildup and no additional mudcake
buildup after running well logging. The difference in total invasion volume is 2.1 bbl, or 3.1% (68.9 bbl for constant mudcake
thickness, 66.8 bbl for mudcake buildup after running well logging), even with a 25% increment in mudcake thickness.
Validation of the Proposed Model With Field Data
The mud and mudcake properties, reservoir-rock and fluid properties, wellbore geometry, and drilling parameters of a well drilled

in the South China Sea were used to validate the model. Waterbased mud was used to drill the well. Overbalanced pressure
ranged from 425 to 481 psi during the penetration of the reservoir
and cementing. The total exposure time of the formation to drilling
fluid was 59 hours. After running the casing, well tests were conducted to test the well productivity, estimate the permeability and
skin factor, obtain the reservoir pressure, and detect the reservoir
boundary. Table 3 shows the inputs for the calculations. Fig. 12
shows the relative permeabilities of oil and filtrate. Drilling-fluid
and filtrate properties were obtained from drilling-fluid analysis at
the wellsite. Reservoir-rock properties, fluid properties, and the
relative permeability were measured through pressure/volume/
temperature analyses of fluid samples taken from well tests and
conventional and special core analyses. Reservoir pay thickness,
wellbore radius, and constant mudcake thickness were estimated
by well-logging interpretation. Overbalanced pressure and total
invasion time were from records in drilling and completion
operations.
The proposed model calculated a filtrate-invasion depth of 4.2
ft (or an invasion radius of 4.2 0.328 4.528 ft). Well-test analysis gave a skin factor of 18.8 and a reservoir permeability of 16
md. Applying the Hawkins (1956) skin-factor formula, we can
calculate the invasion radius, which was 4.8 ft. The absolute error
is 0.272 ft, and the relative error is 5.6%. The difference can
result from reservoir heterogeneity, inaccurate pressure drop during the invasion, inaccurate relative permeabilities, variation of
mud properties along the wellbore, inaccurate mudcake thickness,
and any deviation from the aforementioned assumptions. Therefore, the proposed model gives reasonable results. Fig. 13 shows
overbalanced pressure and the calculated filtrate-invasion depth at
different invasion times.
Relative Permeabilites vs. Filtrate Saturation

Relative Permeability (fraction)

1
0.9

0.9
krf
kro

0.8
0.7

0.8
0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1
0

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Filtrate Saturation (fraction)

Table 3The input data for filtrate invasion in a well drilled in the
South China Sea.
8

Fig. 12Relative permeabilities of reservoir oil and filtrate.


2015 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 14:25 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140041/APPFile/SA-DC##140041

Overbalanced Pressure and Filtrate-Invasion Depth at Different Invasion Times


4.5
500
480

460

3.5

440

420
400
380

2.5
Overbalanced pressure vs. Invasion time
Filtrate-invasion depth vs. Invasion time

2
1.5

360
340

320

0.5

300
0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

10

Filtrate-Invasion Depth (ft)

Overbalanced Pressure (psi)

DC168184 DOI: 10.2118/168184-PA Date: 30-December-14

0
100

Invasion Time (hours)

Fig. 13Overbalanced pressure and the calculated filtrate-invasion depth vs. invasion time.

Conclusions
The following conclusions have resulted from this work:
The model developed in this study estimates the filtration distribution along the radius from the wellbore wall to the outerboundary of the invasion zone.
The filtrate does not completely displace the original reservoir
fluid away from near-wellbore regions. In other words, the displacement is not a piston-like process. The calculated invasion
is deeper than that of a 100% displacement process.
The filtrate-invasion volume after mudcake thickness become
constant is more significant than those of spurt loss and mudcake buildup. Therefore, major effort should focus on reducing
invasion at constant mudcake thickness.
The reduction of formation permeability caused by invasion
reduces the filtrate-invasion rate. Impairment as a result of damage can limit damage and may even be desirable in the nearwellbore region.
The proposed model cannot be applied to a heterogeneous reservoir. In the case of low-permeability reservoirs, one should
take into account capillary pressure, as in Eq. 14. Ignoring it
may lead to unacceptable results.
Future Work
The capillary pressure plays an important role in affecting
filtrate invasion, especially in shale/tight reservoirs. Future
work should focus on quantification of filtrate invasion with
capillary pressure effects.
We should conduct experiments and develop guidelines to
calibrate the proposed model to each specific well.
Nomenclature
A flow area
Alab filter-press area in filter-press test
Bo oil formation volume factor
ct total compressibility
ff filtrate fraction
fsc the volume fraction of solid in the mudcake
fsm the volume fraction of solid in the mud
h pay thickness
hmc mudcake thickness
k reservoir permeability
kmc mudcake permeability
kro relative permeability to oil
krf relative permeability to filtrate
ks damaged-reservoir permeability
Pc capillary pressure
pe reservoir outer-boundary pressure
pf filtrate pressure
pm drilling-fluid pressure
po oil pressure
pp formation pore pressure

Stage:

qf-invasion
qf-invasion1
qf-invasion2
qo
qt
r
re
rf
rs
rSf

rw
s
Sf
t
t1

t2
lf
lo
Dp

Qf
Qsp-lab
Qsp-well
qf
qf-av

Dpformation
Dpmc
Dt
Dr
qf
/

Page: 9

Total Pages: 11

total filtrate-invasion volume


spurt loss in filter-press test
spurt loss in wellbore
filtrate-flow rate
average filtrate-invasion rate
filtrate-invasion rate
filtrate-invasion rate at Stage 1
filtrate-invasion rate at Stage 2
oil-flow rate
total filtrate-invasion rate from water-based mud
radius from wellbore
radius of reservoir outer boundary
filtrate-front position in a radial reservoir system
radius of damaged zone
position of any filtrate saturation in a radial reservoir system
wellbore radius
skin factor
filtrate saturation
time
time to establish constant mudcake thickness, or
time period of Stage 1
total invasion time
filtrate viscosity
oil viscosity
pressure drop
pressure drop through formation
pressure drop through mudcake
time interval
radius increment
filtrate density
porosity

Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the Petroleum Engineering Department
at the University of North Dakota. This research is supported in
part by the US Department of Energy under award number DEFC26-08NT0005643 and the North Dakota Experimental Program
to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) Program under
award number EPS-0814442.
References
Al-Anazi, H.A., Bataweel, M.A., and Al-Ansari, A.A. 2009. Formation
Damage Induced by Formate Drilling Fluids in Gas-Bearing Reservoirs: Lab and Field Studies. Presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1719 March,
SPE-119445-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/119445-MS.
Altunbay, M., Sy, R., and Martain, R. 2003. Formation Damage Assessment and Remedial Economics From Integration of NMR and Resistivity Log Data. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 58 October. SPE-84384-MS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/84384-MS.
Amanullah, M. 2003. A Novel Method of Assessment of Spurt and Filtrate
Related Formation Damage Potential of Drilling and Drilling-in Fluids. Presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, 911 September. SPE-80484-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/80484-MS.
Bourgoyne, T.A., Chenevert, E.M., Millheim, K.K. et al. 1986. Applied
Drilling Engineering, Vol. 2. Richardson, Texas: SPE Textbook
Series.
Brownson, G.W. and Peden, J.M. 1980. A Systematic Approach to Assessing Permeability Impairment Due to Drilling Fluids. SPE-9727-MS.
Byrne, M.T., Spark, I.S.C., Patey, I.T.M. et al. 2000. A Laboratory Drilling Mud Overbalance Formation Damage Study Utilising Cryogenic
SEM Techniques. Presented at the SPE International Symposium on
Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 2324 February.
SPE-58738-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/58738-MS.
Corey A.T. 1954. The Interrelation Between Gas and Oil Relative Permeabilities. Prod. Monthly 19 (1): 3841.

2015 SPE Drilling & Completion


ID: jaganm Time: 14:25 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140041/APPFile/SA-DC##140041

DC168184 DOI: 10.2118/168184-PA Date: 30-December-14

Dalmazzone, C., Audibert, A., Quintero, L. et al. 2006. Optimizing Filtrate


Design To Minimize In-Situ and Wellbore Damage to Water-Wet Reservoirs During Drill-In. SPE Prod & Oper 21 (1): 6673. SPE-86498PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/86498-PA.
Ding, Y., Longeron, D., Renard, G. et al. 2004. Modeling of Both NearWellbore Damage and Natural Cleanup of Horizontal Wells Drilled
With Water-Based Drilling Fluids. SPE J. 9 (3): 252264. SPE-88807PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/88807-PA.
Doty, P.A. 1986. Clear Brine Drilling Fluids: A Study of Penetration
Rates, Formation Damage, and Wellbore Stability in Full-Scale Drilling Tests. SPE Drill Eng 1 (1): 1730. SPE-13441-PA. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/13441-PA.
Francis, P.A., Eigner, M.R.P., Patey, I.T.M. et al. 1995. Visualisation of
Drilling-Induced Formation Damage Mechanisms Using Reservoir
Conditions Core Flood Testing. Presented at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, 1516 May.
SPE-30088-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/30088-MS.
Ghofrani, R., Zhang, Y., and Bosch, V. 1996. New Method in Evaluating
the Formation Damage in Laboratorial Investigations. Presented at the
SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana,
1415 February. SPE-35151-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/35151-MS.
Green, J., Cameron, R., Patey, I. et al. 2013. Use of Micro-CT Scanning
Visualisations to Improve Interpretation of Formation Damage Laboratory Tests Including a Case Study From the South Morecambe Field.
Presented at the 10th SPE International Conference and Exhibition on
European Formation Damage, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 57 June.
SPE-165110-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/165110-MS.
Hawkins, M.F., Jr. 1956. A Note on the Skin Effect. Trans. AIME 207:
356357.
Hodge, R.M., Augustine, B.G., Burton, R.C. et al. 1997. Evaluation and
Selection of Drill-In-Fluid Candidates To Minimize Formation Damage. SPE Drill & Compl 12 (3): 174179. SPE-31082-PA. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/31082-PA.
Jin, L. 2009. Quantitative Formation Damage Evaluation Using Dynamic/
Static Drill-in Fluid Filtration Tests Data. Presented at the SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
1719 March. SPE-118659-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/118659-MS.
Kelessidis, V.C., Marinakis, D., and Tsamantaki, C. 2007. Laboratory
Assessment of Drilling Fluid Formation Damage in Sandstone Cores
and Mitigation With Lignite Additives for High-Temperature Fields.
Presented at the European Formation Damage Conference, Scheveningen, The Netherlands, 30 May1 June. SPE-107762-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/107762-MS.
Kome, M., Amro, M.M., and Hossain, M.M. 2012. A New Practical
Approach To Evaluate Near Wellbore Formation Damage Parameters
Based on Well Test Analysis for Gas Reservoir. Presented at the SPE
Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium and Exhibition, Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia, 811 April. SPE-160867-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/160867-MS.
Longeron, D., Argillier, J-F., and Audibert, A. 1995. An Integrated Experimental Approach for Evaluating Formation Damage Due to Drilling
and Completion Fluids. Presented at the SPE European Formation
Damage Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, 1516 May. SPE30089-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/30089-MS.
Marx, C. and Rahman, S.S. 1987. Evaluation of Formation Damage
Caused by Drilling Fluids, Specifically in Pressure-Reduced Formations. J Pet Technol 39 (11): 14491452. SPE-12494-PA. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/12494-PA.
Nunes, M., Bedrikovetsky, P., Newbery, B. et al. 2009. Formation Damage Zone Radius and Its Applications to Well Stimulation. Presented
at the 8th European Formation Damage Conference, Scheveningen,
The Netherlands, 2729 May. SPE-122843-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/122843-MS.
Prasad, B.K., Shirish, L.P., Godwin, A.C. et al. 2008. Assessment of
Dynamic Filtration Formation Damage for Alaskan North Slope Drilling Fluids. Presented at the SPE Western Regional and Pacific Section
AAPG Joint Meeting, Bakersfield, California, 29 March2 April. SPE114142-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/114142-MS.
Sanchez, E., Audibert-Hayet, A., and Rousseau, L. 2004. Influence of
Drill-in Fluids Composition on Formation Damage. SPE J. 9 (4):
403410. SPE-82274-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/82274-PA.
10

Stage:

Page: 10

Total Pages: 11

Shen, T.Y. 1979. Determination of Formation Damage From Pressure


Drawdown Test. SPE-8727-MS.
Waldmann, A.T.A., Martins, A.L., and Dannenhauer, C. 2011. Understanding Drill in Fluid Invasion Into Multi Layer Reservoirs Saturated
by Compressible Fluids. Presented at the SPE European Formation
Damage Conference, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 710 June. SPE144156-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/144156-MS.
Wang, J., Sun, J., Feng, J. et al. 2010. The Novel Model for the Invasion
of Particles and the Filtrate of Drilling Fluids. Presented at the International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China, Beijing,
China, 810 June. SPE-131912-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/131912MS.
Watson, R.B. and Nelson, A.C. 2003. Representative Laboratory Testing
Procedures for Selecting Drilling Fluids. Presented at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands,
1314 May. SPE-82300-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/82300-MS.
Willhite, G.P. 1986. Waterflooding, Vol. 1, 3637. Richardson, Texas:
SPE Textbook Series.
Kegang Ling is an assistant professor in petroleum engineering
at the University of North Dakota. His research interests are in
the area of production optimization. Ling holds a BS degree in
geology from the China University of Petroleum and an MS
degree from University of Louisiana at Lafayette and a PhD
degree from Texas A&M University, both in petroleum
engineering.
He Zhang previously worked for Schlumberger. Zhang has
more than 10 years of research and working experience. He
has published more than 30 technical papers, and he also
serves as an associate editor and reviewer for multiple journals. Zhang holds BS degrees in chemistry and computer application from University of Science and Technology of China,
and a PhD degree in petroleum engineering from Texas A&M
University.
Zheng Shen is a petroleum engineer at Weatherford. His
research interests are production optimization and wellbore
modeling. Shen has published more than 18 research papers.
He serves as a technical editor for multiple Journals. Shen
received 2013 outstanding technical editor recognition for
Journal of Unconventional Oil and Gas Resources and 2014
outstanding technical-editor recognition for SPE Production &
Operations. He holds a PhD degree from Texas A&M University
in petroleum engineering.
Ali Ghalambor is the Technical Adviser at the Oil Center
Research International. He earned BS and MS degrees in petroleum engineering from University of Southwestern Louisiana
and a PhD degree from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University. Ghalambor has more than 35 years of industrial and academic experience. He held engineering and supervisory positions at Tenneco Oil Company, Amerada Hess
Corporation, and Occidental Research Corporation, and is a
retired American Petroleum Institute Endowed Professor and
Head of the Department of Petroleum Engineering at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. Ghalambor has authored or
coauthored 13 books and manuals and more than 170 technical articles published in various journals and conference proceedings. He is an SPE Distinguished Member and the
recipient of many of its national and international awards,
including the Production and Operations Award. Ghalambor
served on the SPE International Board as its Director for Central
& Southeastern North America Region, chairperson of the SPE
International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, associate editor of SPE Production & Operations,
and chair or member of many SPE committees and conferences. He is a registered Professional Engineer in the State of
Texas.
Guoqing Han is an associate professor at China University of
Petroleum, Beijing. He has expertise in several fields, including
artificial-lift design, flow assurance, and reservoir simulation, in
which he has extensive experience in teaching and research.
Han has published more than 20 technical papers. He holds
BSc and MSc degrees in process automation and production
engineering, respectively, from China University of Petroleum,
Shandong. Han also holds a PhD degree in petroleum engineering from China University of Petroleum, Beijing.
2015 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 14:25 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140041/APPFile/SA-DC##140041

DC168184 DOI: 10.2118/168184-PA Date: 30-December-14

Jun He is a graduate student at the University of North


Dakota. His research interests are in the area of reserves evaluation and reservoir characterization. He holds a BS degree
in geology from Southwest Petroleum University, an MS
degree in petroleum engineering from China University of Petroleum, and an MS degree in geology from the University of
North Dakota.

Stage:

Page: 11

Total Pages: 11

Peng Pei is a research engineer at the Institute of Energy Studies, University of North Dakota. He holds a PhD degree in geological engineering and an MS degree in mechanical
engineering, both from the University of North Dakota. Pei also
holds a BS degree in mechanical engineering from North
China Electrical Power University. His research area focuses on
energy-related rock mechanics.

2015 SPE Drilling & Completion


ID: jaganm Time: 14:25 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140041/APPFile/SA-DC##140041

11