Return Permeability: A Detailed Comparative Study

Marshall, David S.; Gray, R.K.; Byrne, Michael

doi:10.2118/54763-ms

Cited by 34 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is no standard manufacturer for this type of testing apparatus (Marshall et al 1999) so it is highly unlikely that any two laboratories employ the same exact equipment. It is interesting to note the development of the return permeability method and associated equipment as early publications document.…”

Section: Basic Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, Marshall et al (1997 concludes that return permeability measurement is one of the most common evaluation tools used for selecting an RDF system. Attempts to standardize, establish repeatability or reproducibility, and improve return permeability testing are also well documented (Marshall et al 1997;Marshall et al 1999;Byrne et al 2011). Han et al (2005) presents a means to bridge the gap between the laboratory-measured data and field skin factors while focusing on laboratory-measured fluid loss.…”

Section: Basic Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are two methods documented in the literature to flow back through the core after filtercake deposition (Marshall 1997(Marshall , 1999. The first method advocates using constant flow rate and there are disadvantages with this method although it is simplistic and readily performed by most return permeability apparatus.…”

Section: Recommended Test Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the realm of return permeability testing, RDF A and RDF B are statistically identical in terms of retained permeability (Marshall et al 1999), but the information provided from these tests is not limited to the final result. The testing process will also provide insight into damage mechanisms and possible mitigating techniques which will aid in optimizing the completion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Return Permeability: When A Single Number Can Lead You Astray In Fluid Selection

Offenbacher

Luyster

Gray

et al. 2013

SPE European Formation Damage Conference &Amp; Exhibition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Historically, return permeability testing has become a standard to establish minimally damaging fluid properties. This single number is typically focused upon for its simplicity, however the testing procedure and intermediate data provide much more than just this value. The process provides insight into formation damage mechanisms and their overall impact on potential well performance.The variable nature of procedures and apparatus as well as interpretation of data is regularly limited to the percent return permeabilitya potentially misleading value in fluid selection. A thorough review of existing literature and experience on recent projects details the recognized potential for variability as well as misperceptions in interpreting results. Examples of test data are reviewed to capture damage mechanisms where fluid formulations require further optimization. In many cases conclusions are drawn and fail to identify why differences in the percent return permeability yields a particular result. Prior published work assessing formation damage tends to focus upon formation characteristics. This paper details the results and data typically provided with these analyses. These data include: fluid loss, initial return permeability, and techniques used to determine the damage mechanism. Test results are reviewed to illustrate where the risk of unwarranted conclusions occurs. Recommendations for appropriate analysis of both final return permeability and intermediate data are provided for optimized fluid design. Through the techniques discussed, testing procedures have the potential to provide the maximum insight into fluid-formation interactions on the core material available.

show abstract

Section: Basic Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Basic Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Recommended Test Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Return Permeability: When A Single Number Can Lead You Astray In Fluid Selection

Offenbacher

Luyster

Gray

et al. 2013

SPE European Formation Damage Conference &Amp; Exhibition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But generally these studies were conducted on small pieces of core samples (2 to 5 cm), on metallic porous disks or sometimes on filter papers initially saturated with brine only and under operating conditions quite far from those prevailing in wells (pressure, temperature, shear rate, etc.). More recently a comparative study was performed in order to establish a standardized methodology for formation damage testing 8 . The results, obtained on short cores on which a large dispersion of fluid losses (spurt and filtration rates) was observed, showed that a good level of repeatability and/or reproducibility has not been achieved.…”

Section: Development Of Enhanced Laboratory Testing Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental and Numerical Approach for the Productivity Study of Open Hole Completed Horizontal Wells

Ding

Longeron

Renard

et al. 2001

Canadian International Petroleum Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Formation damage in horizontal wells, often open hole completed, is a critical point for oil fields developed in deep offshore where acceptable development costs are based upon a limited number of highly productive wells. This paper describes a simplified numerical approach to model filter cakes removal by natural cleanup when the well is put under a drawdown pressure difference. A flow simulator taking into account the near well permeability variation has been developed using cylindrical grid with very small gridblocks around the well. Laboratory data obtained on sandstones damaged with an oil-based mud have been used as input data to model filter cakes removal by natural cleanup. The purpose of this modelling is to optimize the applied drawdown pressure to study the variation of well productivities as a function of the pressure drawdown to get the best possible well performance preventing sand production problems in poorly consolidated formations.

show abstract

Evaluation of Horizontal Well Performance After Drilling-Induced Formation Damage

Ding

Renard

2005

Journal of Energy Resources Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well recognized that near-wellbore formation damage can dramatically reduce well productivities, especially for open hole completed horizontal wells. The economic impact of poor productivity of these wells has pushed toward significant efforts in recent years to study laboratory testing techniques and numerical modeling methods for predicting and controlling drilling-induced formation damage. This paper presents an integrated approach, combining a near-wellbore modeling with laboratory experiments for data acquisition as input for the model, to evaluate the performance of oil and gas wells after drilling-induced formation damage.

show abstract

Return Permeability: A Detailed Comparative Study

Abstract: This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE European Formation Damage Conference held in The Hague, The Netherlands, 31 May–1 June 1999.

Cited by 34 publications

References 0 publications

Return Permeability: When A Single Number Can Lead You Astray In Fluid Selection

Return Permeability: When A Single Number Can Lead You Astray In Fluid Selection

Experimental and Numerical Approach for the Productivity Study of Open Hole Completed Horizontal Wells

Evaluation of Horizontal Well Performance After Drilling-Induced Formation Damage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About