0 Suka0 Tidak suka

64 tayangan11 halamanOverbalance Drilling

Oct 13, 2016

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd

Overbalance Drilling

© All Rights Reserved

64 tayangan

Overbalance Drilling

© All Rights Reserved

- Permeability from Production logs - Method and Application
- Well Testing
- COMPETENCIAS_DRAFT.xlsx
- DST Analysis Zikri Baru
- Introduction to Reservoir Engineering
- zqa2.txt
- PETSOC-2004-113 Well Deliverability Loss Analysis in the Gas
- PETSOC-2004-113 Well deliverability loss analysis in the gas.pdf
- Clase de Balcarse Ingenieria Geologica
- drilling, completion technology.pdf
- Horizontal Well Basics
- PETSOC-00-07-01
- C01_Intro_Fracture Modeling_2010.pdf
- Methane Fact Sheet
- Sylvester Okotie, Bibobra Ikporo - Reservoir Engineering-Springer International Publishing (2019).pdf
- BHT
- The Effect of Anisotropy in Formation Permeability on the Efficiency of Cyclic Water Flooding
- Petroleum Engineering Manual
- M3-Schlumberger.world’s First Level 6 Intelligent Completion Drilled
- 00066536

Anda di halaman 1dari 11

Stage:

Page: 1

Total Pages: 11

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

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

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

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

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

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-

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

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

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

Drilling Fluid

qt = qo+qf | r+r

qt = qo+qf | r

pm

pe

h

rw

k

r

r

re

the center.

qf

kkrf @Apo Pc

: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

@r

lf

@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

qf

; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

qt

fraction.

Substituting Eqs. 10 and 11 into Eq. 9 yields

@APc kkro

@r qt lo

: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

kro lf

1

krf lo

1

ff

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

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

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

@qf

@Sf

2rph/

: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

@r

@t

@ f f qt

@Sf

2rph/

: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

@r

@t

completion, the final invasion radius is more important to the

issue of formation damage. If we use an average filtrate-invasion

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

Stage:

Page: 4

Total Pages: 11

Spurt loss

Qf

Qsp

0.5

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

; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

qf -av @t

@r

where

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

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

dt

lf hmc

Because filtrate fraction is a function of filtrate saturation,

ff Sf , applying the chain rule to Eq. 22 results in

mudcake, hmc mudcake thickness, and qf-invasion filtrate-invasion rate.

One can calculate the filtrate volume by

: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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

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

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:

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

Stage:

Page: 6

Total Pages: 11

0.007

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

0.001

1

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

0

100

10

Time (hours)

100

1000

Filtrate invasion rate (bbl/day)

10

100

0.1

0.01

10

Stage 1

1

0.0001

0.001

Stage 2

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

10

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

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

Time = 1 hours

Time = 10 hours

Time = 100 hours

0.2

0.1

0

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

10

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.

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.

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

0.9

0.8

0.9

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

Mudake permeability = 0.005 md

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0.0001

0.001

0.1

0.01

Page: 7

Total Pages: 11

Stage:

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

Pressure difference = 100 psi

0.4

Pressure difference = 600 psi

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0.0001

10

0.001

0.1

0.01

10

hours for different mudcake permeabilities.

hours for different pressure differences.

radius increases as invasion time increases. This agrees with the

observations in the field. Therefore, major effort should focus on

limiting invasion time.

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.

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

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

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

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 = 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

2015 SPE Drilling & Completion

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

Stage:

Page: 8

Total Pages: 11

100

0.009

Invasion volume_Additional mudcake buildup after well logging

80

0.008

Mudcake thickness_Additional mudcake buildup after well logging

0.007

70

0.006

60

0.005

50

0.004

40

90

0.003

30

0.002

20

0.001

10

0

0.001

0

0.01

0.1

10

100

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

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

Table 3The input data for filtrate invasion in a well drilled in the

South China Sea.

8

2015 SPE Drilling & Completion

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

0

100

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

11

- Permeability from Production logs - Method and ApplicationDiunggah olehTwirX
- Well TestingDiunggah olehSonu Patel
- COMPETENCIAS_DRAFT.xlsxDiunggah olehEdison Fernando Ramirez
- DST Analysis Zikri BaruDiunggah olehAmad Zikri
- Introduction to Reservoir EngineeringDiunggah olehChijioke Zion Okabie
- zqa2.txtDiunggah olehharde2lah
- PETSOC-2004-113 Well Deliverability Loss Analysis in the GasDiunggah olehMiguel Angel Gonzales
- PETSOC-2004-113 Well deliverability loss analysis in the gas.pdfDiunggah olehMiguel Angel Gonzales
- Clase de Balcarse Ingenieria GeologicaDiunggah olehBrunoZalazar
- drilling, completion technology.pdfDiunggah olehEdy Para Ti
- Horizontal Well BasicsDiunggah olehismaruki
- PETSOC-00-07-01Diunggah olehJessica King
- C01_Intro_Fracture Modeling_2010.pdfDiunggah olehZoher Kana'an
- Methane Fact SheetDiunggah olehNOLINKNEWS
- Sylvester Okotie, Bibobra Ikporo - Reservoir Engineering-Springer International Publishing (2019).pdfDiunggah olehFrza
- BHTDiunggah olehumashankar c b
- The Effect of Anisotropy in Formation Permeability on the Efficiency of Cyclic Water FloodingDiunggah olehSilmi Kaffah
- Petroleum Engineering ManualDiunggah olehAdonis Saidler
- M3-Schlumberger.world’s First Level 6 Intelligent Completion DrilledDiunggah olehzouke2002
- 00066536Diunggah olehRONALDO JEREMY
- Some Wells Are Tested With Deliverability TestsDiunggah olehAde Pratama
- Training_v1.pdfDiunggah olehwasayraza
- Tight gas sandstone reservoir evaluation using NMRDiunggah olehpahlawankemaleman
- Pages From FX584-Dake (Eds.) - The Practice of Reservoir Engineering (2001, Elsevier Science)-4Diunggah olehindri lestari
- Disposal water wellsDiunggah olehRichi SB
- KGS_OF_2012-13Diunggah olehRatih HSAI
- SCA2004-56Diunggah olehRosa K Chang H
- MBAL CompleteDiunggah olehndlr81
- Well Control Principles & Practices_Pt 01- ShellDiunggah olehGilles Gitta
- Asphaltene Deposition During Miscible Gas InjectionDiunggah olehOguamahIfeanyi

- Hydraulic Ram Pump instalationDiunggah olehGreen Action Sustainable Technology Group
- Psgv 2008_11 Kvt CatalogDiunggah olehbkchoi5690
- Case_study_batch_reaction_Lesson_4.pdfDiunggah olehdaimon_p
- Wind Turbine Wake AerodynamicsDiunggah olehCarlos Américo
- Dr. Sultan Al-SalemDiunggah olehPrateikMenon
- Heat Diffusion in CylindersDiunggah olehRehman Ullah
- _Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)Diunggah olehSuta Vijaya
- Solenoid ValveDiunggah olehSaravanapriya Karthik
- Non Woven HydrophilicDiunggah olehdarkroomzc
- Coiled Tubing Loads and ForcesDiunggah olehKevin Steinbach
- Dictionar Tehnic Compl ForajDiunggah olehSorin Sorin
- Produced Water TreatmentDiunggah olehMahathir Che Ap
- Etanorm Curva 60hzDiunggah olehAmandha Carvalho
- Pilots DorotDiunggah olehvhfdz1175
- Barci2000 Simulation of Heat Balance -Low Voltage SG@@@Diunggah olehLTE002
- Kevin Moore- Combustion Behaviors of Bimodal Aluminum Size Distributions in ThermitesDiunggah olehGhoree23456
- Burner ManualDiunggah olehSaibabu Sai
- pneumatic System ComponentDiunggah olehbhadresh
- TR-017.pdfDiunggah olehAzar Deen
- OJT Accomplishment ReportDiunggah olehJZ
- HW#3Diunggah olehnaikin_1031
- jamunaDiunggah olehmymunamagi
- Toyo Gate Valve PricelistDiunggah olehLaurence Arcon Banal
- Isolated Foundation Design XLSDiunggah olehlokesh.lucky.nit7228
- SccDiunggah olehTousif Mahmood
- Industrial Waste and Waste Water Management Rr420103Diunggah olehNizam Institute of Engineering and Technology Library
- PGPL_US_2010Diunggah oleh_srobert_
- Viscosity HoepplerDiunggah olehBut Alex
- Ltj Pgas Gtlt en Ds 010 PvDiunggah olehsswahyudi
- Fluids Past Papers.pdfDiunggah olehAnushaBheenuck

## Lebih dari sekadar dokumen.

Temukan segala yang ditawarkan Scribd, termasuk buku dan buku audio dari penerbit-penerbit terkemuka.

Batalkan kapan saja.