Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 27368
Temperature Sensitivity of Formation Damage in Petroleum
Reservoirs
Anuj Gupta and Faruk Civan, U. of Oklahoma
SPE Members
Copyright 1994, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE IntI. Symposium on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, 7-10 February 1994.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, ItS officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy IS restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper IS presented. Write librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 750833836, U.S.A. Telex, 163245 SPEUT.

ABSTRACT
Temperature is an important yet often ignored
variable in translating laboratory measurement of oil and
gas recovery related operations to reservoir cond~ions.
The present study addresses the variation of formation
damage potential of a reservoir w~h temperature. A
strategy for obtaining the temperature sens~iv~y of various
model parameters determining the formation damage
potential of a reservoir rock is presented.
INTRODUCTION
Rock-fluid interactions in petroleum reservoirs
frequently lead to the impairment of permeabil~y of the
porous medium, commonly referred to as the formation
damage problem. Such interactions effect the efficiency of
recovery in oil and gas production operations. AHhough
most reservoirs are at higher temperatures and most
recovery processes involve temperature shocks, formation
damage studies are usually performed at constant, ambient
temperatures in the laboratory. In a thermal recovery
process, a reservoir is subjected to a rapid temperature rise
as shown in Fig. 1, whereas, in a water flooding process, a
reservoir is subjected to a rapid temperature drop as shown
in Fig. 2. The temperature shock can cause formation
damage in a manner analogous to salin~y shock. Colloidal
processes such as fines release, migration and trapping
and related phenomena such as thin film stabil~y and

References and illustrations at end of paper

301

wettability are controlled by interaction between the

particles, fluids, and pore surface minerals. These
interactions depend on the reservoir temperature. For
instance, electrostatic forces are controlled by the ionic
activ~y of the brine, the charge dens~y and the electrical
potential of the surface of particles and pore walls, which
vary w~h temperature changes. Hydrodynamic forces
which often play a cr~ical role in determining the release,
migration, and retention rate of fines in reservoir rocks are
dependent on fluid viscosity, which is very sens~ive to
temperature.
In many cases, the oil and gas production from
reservoirs involves muHiple fluid phases in the reservoir.
One or more of these fluids may be mobile depending on
the reservoir characteristics. In such s~uations, the
mobilization of fines depends on their wettability and on the
mobility of the wetting phase. The particle wettability and
the relative mobility of the wetting and non-wetting phases
vary when temperature changes from ambient to reservoir
cond~ions. The overall formation damage potential of
reservoirs is then changed due to the aHeration of the
absolute reservoir permeability, and the relative
permeabilny and capillary pressure curves. For a given
combination of reservoir rock matrix, brine, and crude oil,
the formation damage potential of a reservoir is governed
by the parameters of various formation damage
mechanisms which are highly sens~ive to temperature.

2
TEMPERATURE SENSITIVITY OF FORMATION DAMAGE IN PETROLEUM RESERVOIRS
SPE27368
Thus, the laboratory measurement of fines release, aggregates of varying sizes. These asphaHic aggregates
migration and trapping potential and wettability at ambient cause formation damage by plugging and bridging of the
temperatures are not directly applicable at subsurface pore-channels on the downstream side.
reservoir temperatures.
In addnion, the absolute (c) During acidizing, the injected acids dissolve a part of the
permeabilijy, relative permeabilny and capillary pressure rock matrix, usually the cementing material in sandstones.
behavior at subsurface condnions may be qune different As these acids traverse deeper into the reservoir, their pH
from the laboratory measured values.
Therefore,
increases and at some point various saHs such as
knowledge of temperature dependence of these
barium/strontium suffate precipnate out of the solution and
parameters is a prerequisne for modeling of formation
iron and silica gel may be formed.
damage resuHing from the advancement of a temperature
(d) When an incompatible brine is injected into a reservoir
step front through the reservoir.
and contacts the reservoir brine during water flooding,
Development of efficient reservoir management some low solubilny minerals precipnate out of the solution
strategies for minimization or prevention of formation causing permeabilny reduction.
damage, and for the extrapolation of laboratory (e) In thermal recovery operations, high temperature steam
measurements requires an improved understanding of the or water dissolves clay type minerals from the reservoir
rock. These minerals are precipnated out of the solution as
sensnivny of various mechanisms of the overall formation
damage to temperature.
Frequently, the important they migrate further into the reservoir and the temperature
formation damage mechanisms incorporated in popular drops.
A comprehensive formation damage model
models involve various rate parameters and empirical
coefficients. In this study, a methodology for describing the typically involves the following parameters which
temperature dependence of the governing rate parameters characterize formation damage in hydrocarbon reservoirs:
and coefficients is developed. The variation of formation
1. Fines release rate constant.
damage potential of a reservoir wnh temperature using a 2. Fines migration potential.
physico-chemical predictive model is addressed. Concepts 3. Fines attachment/retention rate constant.
from the modified electrical double layer theory1 and 4. Electrolyte activijy parameters.
correlations for variation of important properties and 5. Interfacial tension between aqueous and non-aqueous
characteristics such as interfacial tension, viscosity, ions
fluid phases.
and surface sne dissociation constants are invoked to 6. Wettabilijy parameters of the particles and the pore wall
analyze the variation of the controlling lumped parameters
surfaces.
in formation damage models.
7. Relative permeabilny and capillary pressure
parameters.
BACKGROUND AND THEORY
8. Mineral Dissolution/Precipnation Rate Constants.
Formation damage in petroleum reservoirs is a 9. Coefficient of clay swelling.
manifestation of several complicated and coupled
phenomena acting together to reduce the permeabilny.
In thermal recovery processes, reservOIr IS
Some of the well known formation damage mechanisms subjected to steam at temperatures up to 300 degree
can be summarized as follows:
Celsius. The temperature gradients in the reservoir are
(a) Aggregates of pore lining or filling clays such as steep at the start of the injection and gradually level out with
kaolinne, smectne and iIIne swell and break off from the time. Heat transfer between the injected fluid and the
pore walls when contacted by fresher brines. These
reservoir rock and fluid causes the temperature front to
swelled up aggregates can cause pore-throat plugging or travel slower compared to the fluid frontS. Therefore, the
bridging downstream.
fluids injected later in me of the process will encounter a
(b) As oil flows towards a well-bore, the pressure drops. temperature gradient as they move through the reservoir.
Also the composnion may change during the displacements The ratio of temperature and fluid front velocnies is
wnh gaseous mixture. These changes may resuH in the
governed by the thermal conductivijy and heat capacny of
precipnation of the asphaHenes in the oil in the near well- the reservoir fluids and the rock as well as the fluid injection
bore region. The asphaHenes precipnated from the oil form
rate. In the following, physical phenomena governing
302

SPE 27368
ANUJ GUPTA AND FARUK CIVAN
3
various parameters in the formation damage models are
Fines Release and Capture Rate Constants
analyzed in order to describe their temperature
Rate constants for fines release from ~nd retention
dependence.
on the pore-walls depend upon the nature of the interfacial
interaction between particles and pore surfaces separated
Variation of Permeability Wnh Temperature
by a thin layer of carrier fluid. Various forces acting on a
The volume of the rock matrix changes wnh a typical particle are shown schematically in Figure 3. Such
change in temperature. This change will cause a change in
interactions are often expressed in the form of the variation
porosny of the media, when the bulk volume of the reservoir of interfacial energylforce wnh distance of separation
rock is confined. Consequently, the absolute permeabilijy between the particle and the pore wall. These interactions
of the reservoir rock changes because of the change in the consist of London-van der Waal's(Fvw), electrostatic (FEL),
pore channel sizes. Consider that the porosny-permeability hydration (FH), and Born repulsion (FBR) interactions. In
relationship for the reservoir rock can be represented by addHion, fluid flow field near the particle resutts in an
the Carman-Kozeny equation5 given as:
addHional hydrodynamic lift force (Fd. These component
forces can be added to obtain the resutting total normal
force on the particle, FN as:
(1)
where dp is the mean grain size and 't is the tortuosny for
the reservoir rock. Tortuosny is related to the mean porechannel length (Lp) of the reservoir and the sample length
(LREV) as:
't

= (Lp / LREy)2

(2)

Permeabilny change solely due to thermal changes

in mean particle diameter, grain matrix volume and effective
length of pore channels can be expressed as a ratio of the
permeabilny at temperature T to that at a reference
temperature, To as (see Appendix for derivation):

These interactions, especially the electrostatic and

hydration forces, have a strong temperature dependence 1.
For example, the electrostatic component of the
intermolecular interaction
energy
for
constant
charge/potential particle and pore-wall surfaces is given
as 13:
YEL =

EOE

ap

('I'

2'1'01'1'02 x
2
2
[ 'I' + 'I'
01
02

+ 'I' )x
01
02

,i
I + exp( - x: h)) In(1 - exp( - 2x: h)]
"ll - exp( - x: h)
(5)

where J3gv is the coefficient of volumetric thermal expansion

for the rock matrix and <i> is the mean porosijy over the
temperature range To to T. This relationship indicates that
the temperature sensnivny of permeabilny due to the
thermal expansion effect is dependent on rock porosny.
Therefore, the lower the porosijy, the greater will be the
temperature sensitivijy of permeabilny.

303

where, eo is the permHtivity of the free space, e is the

dielectric constant of fluid, ap is the particle radius, '1'01 and
'1'02 are the electrical potentials on particle and pore-wall
surfaces, respectively, h is the distance of separation and lC
is the inverse Debye length given by:

2e2no )112
lC = ( tot kT

(6)

where, e is the electron charge and no is the ionic

concentration of the fluid. WHh an increase in temperature,
Debye length (1/lC) increases. The potential at the particle

and pore-wall surfaces, '1'01 and '1'02 also change. The

hydration force, FH, is a function of the hydration energies
of various ions and surface, and the arrangement of various
ionic species near the surfaces, which vary with
temperature. As a result, inter particle and particle to wall
interactions are quHe sensHive to temperature as shown in
Figure 4. Particle release and attachment rate constants
are governed by a balance between the hydrodynamic drag
on the particle ('t) which tends to shear the attached
particles from the pore-wall and the intermolecular
interactions which can attract or repel the particles. This
tangential shear force can be obtained by using an
expression for the force on a spherical particle of radius ap
in contact wHh a plane surface similar to the relationship
proposed by O'Neill14 , and Jiao and Sharma15
(7)

where, Cg is a geometric shape factor, /l is the fluid

viscosHy and v is the interstHial fluid velocHy. When the net
intermolecular forces between particles and pore wall are
repulsive, such particles are susceptible to mobilization and
migration with the fluid stream. As a result, the particle
release rate in this sHuation will be very high and the
retention rate will be extremely low. However, when the
particle to pore-wall interactions are attractive, particles will
tend to adhere to the pore-wall and the shear resistance of
the particle ('tt) will be controlled by the product of the
adhesive force and the coefficient of friction between the
particle and the pore-wall. The friction force resisting the
mobilization of particles due to fluid hydrodynamic drag is
expressed as:
(8)

where f is the coefficient of friction between the particle and

the pore-wall surface. Associated wHh the particle release
process is the uncertainty regarding the value of the
particle shape factor and the coefficient of friction which
changes drastically depending upon whether the particle
slides or rolls. A simple rate equation for the release of
fines due to colloidal forces is given by3,13,16:
da
= -aea, and
dt

SPE 27368
where, a is the particle concentration (grnlbulk cm3) and
<Xc is the coefficient for the colloidal force release of
particles. Hydrodynamically induced rate of release of fines
can also be expressed by a simple first order process
as3,13,16:

TEMPERATURE SENSITIVITY OF FORMATION DAMAGE IN PETROLEUM RESERVOIRS

a=aO, att=O

(9)

304

da
dt

= ah ('t _ 'tc)As

(10)

where, ah is hydrodynamic release coeffiCient, As is pore

surface area/pore volume, 't is existing shear stress, and 'tc
is critical shear stress. When the hydrodynamic shear drag
on the particle exceeds a crHical particle shear resistance
('td the particle will be mobilized and released from the
surface and entrained by the fluid stream. This physical
description of particle release was mathematically
represented by Khilar and Fogler13,16. According to Khilar
& Fogler13,16 and Wojtanovicz et al. 17 colloidally and
hydrodynamically induced mobilization of in-situ fines in
sandstones can be satisfactorily represented by a firstorder decay equation:

(11)

afw = a fwo

for t = 0

(12)

When the condHions of the suspension of fines

flowing through porous media are maintained constant,
then, Eq. 11 can be separated as:
aofw = -[Kcrfw(csc-cs)
Ofw
+ Khrfw(Uw -Uwc )] dt

(13)

which, upon integration subject to Eq.12, yields:

Ofw

=0fwoexp[-(Kcrfw(csc -cs)

+ Khrfw(Uw -Uwc}}tJ

(14)

Since the hydrodynamic drag is directly

proportional to fluid viscosity, which, in tum is a strong
function of temperature, critical fines mobilization velocity
{Uwd should be a function of temperature. Further, since
particle adhesion force is sensitive to temperature, shear

SPE27368
ANUJ GUPTA
resistance is dependent on temperature as well. Combined
temperature sensHivHy of viscosHy and particle-wall
attraction suggests that the particle release and retention
rate constants are strong functions of temperature.
Therefore, the overall coefficient of release rate a
increases wHh increase in T. The only temperature
dependence of a formation damage parameter reported in
the IHerature is on the colloidally induced release
coefficient.
Based on the formation damage tests
conducted at three different temperature condHions (0, 30
and 60 C), Khilar and Fogler3,13,16 found a linear
relationship between 10g(aJ and vr implying an Arrhenius
type expression:
a e =A exp(-AF1kl)

(15)

Thus, the particle release rate for the particle on the pore
surface is given by, according to Eq.9:
rr =Acr1 exp(-AF1kl)

(16)

Particle retention or capture may occur eHher by

direct interception or by size exclusion. The probabilHy of
entrapment increases from zero to unHy over a range of
fines concentration. This implies that there is a crHical fines
concentration that can traverse through the porous media
wHhout entrapment. The rate of particle retention is defined
by the capture coefficient (P). It is independent of the
mechanism of the generation of fines and is given by the
following expression3,13,16:
(17)

where P is particle capture coefficient and, cr2 is

concentration of fines entrapped at pore constrictions
(gmtbulk VOlume), and C is the concentration of fines in
suspension.
Khilar and Fogler3,16 found p to be
independent of temperature and estimated Husing:

AND FARUK CIVAN

Fines Migration and Transport in Porous Media

The ability and efficiency of transport of fines in a
fluid media depends heavily on the fluid viscosity. Further,
particle-particle interactions influence the effective fluid
viscosHy of particle-fluid system and the maximum
concentration of fines that can be transported in a stable
manner in a fluid stream. For the particles to attach to the
pore-walls the fluid drag must be overcome and the
particles must approach the wall wHhin a crHical distance so
that the intermolecular attraction forces can pull the
particles to the pore walls. In this process, viscosity, and
hence temperature, play an important role.
Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the variation of
viscosHy of brines23 and of a typical crude oiI5,24,
respectively, wHh temperature. As these figures illustrate,
the viscosHy of all reservoir fluids decreases rapidly as the
temperature increases. Therefore, viscosHy effect is an
important factor on the hydrodynamic drag on the particle
when scaling from laboratory to sub-surface condHions.
Interfacial Transfer of Particles
Consider a system wHh predominantly water-wet
particles and water-wet pore walls as shown in Figure 7a.
In order to mobilize these particles, eHher the water must be
mobile (Sw > Swr) or the particles must be transferred to the
mobile oil phase. The migrating particles must traverse
through the film of aqueous wetting film and contact the
pore-wall surface in order to be entrapped by adhesion.
However, in order to cause physical plugging or bridging
across a pore constriction, the particle must eHher be larger
than the pore-constriction or the particle concentration must
be high enough for a log-jam effect to occur13,16. Except for
the particles retained by physical pluggin~bridging,
interfacial transfer of particles plays a very important role in
determining the particle mobilization and retention rates in
muHiphase flow. Ku and Henry11 proposed the following
expression for the transfer of water-wet particulate material
from the aqueous phase to the oil phase:
(19)

(18)
where, E is the retention efficiency, nc is the number of
collectors (pore throats) per volume, dp is the particle
diameter and v is the interstHial velocHy.
305

where, rw and rp are the radii of the water droplets and

particles, respectively, Xw is the particle concentration in
the water phase, <p is the water to oil volume ratio and , ~
is the induction time necessary for particles to move across

SPE27368
containing water wet particles (Figure 7a). In the preferred
scenario, oil will be the main flowing phase and the wetting
phase will have a very low mobiltty. If the particles are
water-wet, they will be expected to stay in the water phase
which occupies the smaller pores and exists as thin wetting
films in the oil occupied pores. As a resuH the particles will
be constrained to the smallest pore channels and the film
region in the reservoir rock. In such cases, particle
mobility will be very small and formation damage will be
signnicantly less compared to the case where particles are
oil wet and mobile along wtth the oil phase.
Another possibiltty is that the pore wall surface is
oil-wet but the particles are water wet. In this sttuation, any
mobile water saturation will be distributed in the largest
pores. In a preferred sttuation, there will be Imle mobile
water but tt will be expected to contain a signnicant
concentration of fine particles. During displacement, when
water globules are squeezed through the pore throats,
many particles try to go through the pore throats at the
same time and there is a strong possibiltty for the particles
to form bridges across such pore throats causing a
signnicant reduction in permeabiltty. This phenomenon is
usually referred to as the log jam effect. It is reasonable to
conclude that the formation damage due to fines will be
more severe in the case of oil wet reservoir when the
particles are water-wet. In a similar manner, for oil wet
particles, tt can be shown that the formation damage will be
more severe in the case of water wet reservoir rocks. To
summarize, the particle release potential and the
corresponding damage are minimized if the pore surface
and the particles have similar wettability characteristics.
When the wettability of particle and surface are significantly
dnterent, then favorable condttions exist for bridging at the
pore throats.
The case of intermediate wet particles is especially
interesting. Preferred location for such particles is at the
oiVwater interface as indicated by the micromodel studies of
particle migration in porous media by Muecke 12. During the
displacement, these particles move along the interface and
form bridges as the interface passes through pore throats.
The particle concentration at the interface will fluctuate as
the interface stretches and shrinks.
The particle
concentration will be highest for the interface moving
through the pore throat. Therefore, the formation damage
is expected to be most severe for such intermediate-wet
particles.

TEMPERATURE SENSITIVITY OF FORMATION DAMAGE IN PETROLEUM RESERVOIRS

the aqueous phase film to contact the oil phase to form true
contact angle. A similar relationship should apply for
transfer of oil wet particle to the water phase. In Eq. (19),
the induction time ~ is related to the thinning and rupture
of the intervening wetting phase film between the
bubble/drop and the particle. Such film thinning dynamics
is controlled by the film viscosity, interfacial tension and the
nature of interaction between the electrical double layers of
two film interfaces. As discussed earlier, viscostty of any
fluid decreases wtth temperature increase. Viscosity
decrease will lead to a reduction in the induction time
which, in tum, will lead to an increased rate of transfer of
particles from one phase to the other. Thus, an increase in
temperature promotes the transfer of water-wet particles,
which are held to the surface wtth the stationary residual
water phase, to the mobile oil phase.
Interfacial Tension Between Agueous and NonAgueous Fluid Phases
Consider Figure 8 illustrating the interaction
between particles attached to the pore wall and the
interface traversing through the pore. The Drag on the
particle due to interfacial forces is proportional to the
interfacial tension (1FT) between the two fluids. The
capillary forces, which are proportional to 1FT, tend to
mobilize the particles located at the pore walls and to
destabilize any particle bridges that might exist at pore
constrictions. As the temperature increases, the interfacial
tension decreases linearly and so does the fines
mobilization driven by the interfacial drag. In a similar
manner, the ability of the interfacial forces to destabilize the
particle bridges decreases as the temperature increases.
Wtth a decrease in interfacial tension, the formation
damage due to emulsion blocking should also decrease.
Wettability of the Particles and the Pore Wall
Surfaces
Since most reservoir rocks of interest will have a
minimum of two fluid phases (oil or gas and water)
occupying the pore space, any useful formation damage
modeling effort must address the formation damage
problem in muHiphase flow. In such flow sttuations, the
wettability of the formation fines and of the pore wall
surface plays a very important role. Figure 7 depicts some
of the possible combinations of particle and surface
wettability character. Most common and the easiest
sttuation to analyze is the water wet reservoir rock

306

SPE 27368

It can be inferred by the reported work in the

ltterature6,7,8,9,10. that the residual oil saturation decreases,
residual water saturation increases, relative permeabilny to
oil increases, and relative permeabilny to water decreases
as temperature increases. This implies that the reservoir
rocks tend to be more strongly water-wet as the
temperature increases. As a result, ff there are oil wet
particles in the formation, tt is feasible that wnh a
temperature increase the particle wettability will change
favorably to water-wet. However, during the transnion, the
particles pass through an intermediate wettability state.
Consider, an oil recovery process in which a hot fluid is
being injected into a reservoir to displace oil. Due to
dispersion, a gradually warmer fluid will contact the
formation fines. When the particles go through an
intermediate wetting state, they will tend to concentrate at
the interface. Similar transnion may occur when a cold fluid
is injected to displace oil and water in a relatively cold
reservoir. A fraction of the innially water-wet particles may
undergo a change to intermediate-wet or oil-wet states. As
a result, the advancement of a temperature step front
through a reservoir can lead to a severely damaged zone in
a reservoir.
Variation of Capillary Pressure
According to the Leverett J-function5, the capillary pressure
is given by
p
c

= crcos8 '(5)
~J

ANUJ GUPTA AND FARUK CIVAN

(20)

Eq. 20 indicates that capillary pressure is a function of the

interfacial tension, cr, the Leverett J(S)-function, the
permeability, k, the porosity, <1>, and the contact angle, 8,
which are dependent on temperature. Since the capillary
pressure determines the extent of interfacial forces and the
distribution of wetting and nonwetting fluids in porous
media, tt affects the migration of fine particles through
porous media. Therefore, any variation of temperature will
affect the rate of particle transport in an implicn manner as
expressed by Eq. 20.
Mineral Dissolution/Precipnation Rate Constants
Dissolution of the formation matrix minerals and
subsequent precipnation are frequently encountered during
acid stimulation of formation and during thermal recovery
processes. Precipnation of minerals such as barium
307

suHate, strontium suHate, iron hydroxide and silica gels is

often a serious problem during water flooding. The mixing
of incompatible formation brine and injected water at
reservoir pressure and temperature condnions usually
resuHs in an in-snu precipnation of some minerals. The rate
of precipnation increases wnh temperature 18 . In thermal
recovery operations, at the high temperatures existing near
the injection wells, some of the matrix minerals such as
feldspar and even some clays dissolve partially in the
injected brine. According to Gunter et al. 19 , kaolinne
transforms to smectne and analcime at high temperatures
expected in steam recovery. As the brine carrying the
dissolved minerals moves deeper into the reservoir, ns
temperature drops and some of the minerals start
precipnating in the reservoir to cause scale formation and
plugging of flow-channels.
Temperature effects on formation damage are
even more important in some of the enhanced oil recovery
operations including the surfactant and/or polymer floods.
In some systems, increased temperature can resuH in
increased dissolution of the mineral causing precipnation of
surfactant-metal complexes. The equilibrium adsorption
constants are given by Keq =k11k2 where k1 and k2 are the
adsorption and desorption rates, respectively.
With
temperature increase, both k1 and k2 increase according to
the Arrhenius equation. However, Keq decreases because
the desorbing rate increases more rapidly.
Variation of the Swelling Coefficient
Pore lining authigenic clay particles can swell by
absorbing water and increase in size. Since larger particles
are more susceptible to fluid shear, swollen clays can be
more effectively mobilized by hydrodynamic forces. 22 Civan
and Knapp4 and Civan, et af1 have shown that the porosity
of a formation containing swellable clays and minerals can
vary according to the following expression:

a<l>

AS
P1

-=--

at

(21)

where, <I> is porosity, t is time, PI is the densny of the liquid

(water) absorbed by the clay, S is the rate of liquid mass
absorbed per unn volume given by:
(22)

SPE 27368
In a typical scenario, formation damage tests in the
laboratory can be conducted at different temperatures. The
typical test temperatures will be 75F, 125F, 175F, 225
F, and 300F. This test range covers the temperatures
likely to be encountered in most reservoirs and in most
recovery processes except steam flooding and in-snu
combustion. The tests at higher temperatures will require
application of sufficient back pressure at core outflow end in
order to prevent steam formation wnhin the porous media
flow channels. Since a core sample is likely to be
irreversibly damaged in a formation damage test, ft is
necessary to use a new core sample in each test. To
ensure that the model parameters obtained for each core
sample are applicable to other samples, all the samples
~u~ be fro~ the same formation and must have very
Similar porosity and permeabilfty values.
The candidate model can be used to extract model
parameters representing formation damage due to various
active mechanisms at each test temperatures. Correlations
can then be developed to obtain the overall functional
dependence of each model parameter on the temperature.
Knowledge of temperature dependence of model
parameters is essential to predict formation damage at
reservoir temperature and pressure condnions. This
temperature dependence can finally be incorporated into
the predictor model in order that the formation damage
occurring in the presence of temperature shocks
encountered in water flooding and in steam flooding
operations can be accounted for correctly.

TEMPERATURE SENSITIVITY OF FORMATION DAMAGE IN PETROLEUM RESERVOIRS

where Co and c1 denote the innial and surface

concentrations of the liquid in clay, As is the clay-liquid
contact surface, D is the coefficient of diffusion of liquid in
clay. A. is the coefficient of volume expansion of the
swelling clays given by the following expression according
to Nayak and Christensen 28 :
(23)
where C denotes the swellable clay concentration, E is the
plasticny index, c1 is the moisture content of clay, and ~1
and ~2 are empirical constants.
As can be seen, there are many quantities in Eqs.
21-23 which are expected to vary wnh the temperature
variations which, in tum, affect the rates of the formation
damage processes.
METHODOLOGY
The preceding analysis demonstrates that various
phenomena leading to formation damage such as fines
release, migration, bridging; clay swelling; mineral
dissolution/precipnation; and relative permeabilny aHeration
are controlled by temperature dependent characteristics of
the porous medium, minerals and associated fluids.
Explicn temperature dependence of formation damage
mechanisms can be obtained only for simpler systems 13,16.
For fluid flow in actual reservoirs, all damage mechanisms
may be operative simuHaneously and coupled interactively.
Determination of temperature dependence of all the model
parameters analytically is impractical. An aHemate strategy
described here will allow experimental determination of
various lumped formation damage parameters.
The strategy outlined here is valid for any
appropriate formation damage model. However, for
illustration purposes, the formation damage model recently
presented by Liu and Civan20,21 will be considered in the
following. This is a predictive model to describe formation
damage resuHing from particulate processes in muHiphase
flow in reservoir rocks. The model represents the release
of in-snu fines, retention of fines, and interfacial transfer of
fines by the empirical rate expressions. The values of the
model parameters are determined by history matching of
the laboratory core fluid measurements using the
Levenberg-Marquardt optimization algornhm as applied by
Ohen and Civan22 .
308

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Volumetric thermal expansion data presented by
Prats25 were used to obtain the coefficient of volumetric
thermal expansion for quartz and calcne matrix. Interpreted
coefficients (presented in Table I) were used along wnh Eq.
3 to obtain permeabilny reduction for sandstone and
carbonate reservoir rocks, presented as the ratio of
permeabilny at temperature T to the permeabilny at
reference temperature (To). ResuHs of these calculations
are presented in Figure 9 and 10, respectively. Each curve
corresponds to a mean porosfty value identHied in the
legends. The resuHs indicate that the permeabilfty of
reservoir rocks is sensnive to thermal expansion effects.
The effect of thermal expansion on permeabilny is more
pronounced for lower porosny reservoir rocks.
The markers in Figure 9 represent some of the
formation damage measurement resuHs reported by Okoye

SPE 27368
ANUJ GUPTA
et al.26 The solid squares correspond to the formation
damage (permeabilHy ratio) observed at various
temperature values when saturating brine (40,000 ppm) is
the displacing phase. The hollow squares represent the
permeabilHy reduction obtained when saturating brine
containing 2% caustic is the displacing phase. The ratio is
further normalized wHh respect to the formation damage
(permeabilHy ratio at 75 F) in order to compare tt wHh our
predictions. Such normalizing allows analysis of addHional
permeabilHy reduction obtained, over and above the
reduction obtained at 75 F, when the displacement is
conducted at a higher temperature. The agreement
between the normalized experimental permeabilHy ratios
and our predictions (for 15% porosHy reservoir rock) is
remarkably good. Thus, Happears that addHional formation
damage at higher temperatures, in displacements with
40,000 ppm brine can be explained satisfactorily by the
thermal expansion of the grain matrix. However, addHional
formation damage mechanisms are active in displacements
wHh the brine containing 2% caustic as suggested by the
data at 200 F(93.3C) and 300F (-148.9C). This is to be
expected because the latter fluid reacts wHh formation
matrix and fines, causing damage which is superimposed
on thermal expansion effects.
The preliminary resuHs indicate that temperature
shock can cause formation damage in a manner similar to
the salinHy shock. In addHion, tt is found that for a given
combination of reservoir rock matrix, brine and crude oil,
the formation damage potential of the reservoir is sensttive
to temperature. Therefore, the laboratory measurement of
fines release, migration and trapping potential and
wettability at ambient temperatures are not directly
applicable at subsurface reservoir temperatures. As a
result, absolute permeabilHy, relative permeabilHy and
capillary pressure behavior at subsurface condHions may
be quHe different from laboratory measured behavior.
Translation of laboratory resuHs to sub-surface temperature
is quHe complicated and loaded wHh uncertainties. Such
methodology needs to be carefully validated using
laboratory measurements.
CONCLUSIONS
A very important result, highlighted by the
permeability reduction resuHs presented in Figure 9 and 10,
and their good agreement wHh the experimental resuHs, is
that the formation damage in the reservoir will be different
from that measured at the surface temperature. Equation 3

9
provides a simple way of translating the laboratory
measurements of formation damage to the reservoir
condHions.
The product of the ambient condHion
damaged'undamaged permeabilHy ratio and the resuH of
Eq. 3 provides a measure of the formation
damaged'undamaged permeabilHy ratio at reservoir
condHions. This method gives reasonably good agreement
wHh the experimental data available in the IHerature.
However, Eq. 3 addresses just one of the many means of
permeability reduction.
Narrower damage zones wHh severe damage are
expected at higher temperatures. WHh temperature
increase, ability of the fluids to transport fines decreases.
As a result, there will be increased potential for physical
bridging and colloidal trapping of particles. For particles
and surfaces of similar wettabilHy, the particle release
potential is minimized. However, for the particles and
surfaces of opposHe wettabilHy, condHions are favorable for
bridging. Particles of intermediate wettability tend to
concentrate at the interface, move along wHh tt and,
therefore, are relatively easy to mobilize. WettabilHy
aHerations are possible wHh temperature shocks and
greater formation damage should be expected as the
system passes through an intermediate wettabilHy state.

AND FARUK CIVAN

1.

2.

3.
4.

5.
6.

309

REFERENCES
Gupta, A. and Sharma, M.M.: "StabilHy of Thin Aqueous
Films on Solid Surfaces-II. A Model For Aqueous Films
Bounded by Dissimilar Charge Regulating Surfaces," J.
of Colloid and Interface Science, V149, p407-424,
March, 1992.
Gruesbeck, C. and Collins, A.E.: "Entrainment and
DeposHion of Fine Particles in Porous Media," paper
SPE 8430 presented at the 1979 Annual Technical
Conference and ExhibHion, Las Vegas, Sept. 23-26.
Khilar, K.C. and Fogler, H.S.: "Water SensHivHy of
Sandstones," SPEJ (Feb. 1983) 55-64.
Civan, F. and Knapp, A.M. : "Effect of Clay Swelling
and Fines Migration on Formation PermeabilHy, paper
SPE 16235 presented at the 1987 SPE Production
Operations Symposium, Oklahoma CHy, March 8-10.
Lake, L.W.: Enhanced Oil Recovery, Prentice Hall, New
Jersey (1989).
Nakomthap, K. and Evans, A.D.: "Temperature
Dependent Relative PermeabilHy and Its Effect Upon
Oil Displacement by Thermal Methods, SPE 11217

10

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.
13.

14.

15.

16.
17.

TEMPERATURE SENSITIVITY OF FORMATION DAMAGE IN PETROLEUM RESERVOIRS

presented at the 1982 Annual Technical Conference &

Exhibnion, New Orleans, Sept. 22-26.
Kumar, S. Torabzedeh, S.J. and Handy, L.L.: "Relative
Permeabilny Functions for High and Low Tension
Systems at Elevated Temperatures", SPE 13870
presented at the 1985 SPE Califomia Regional
Meeting, Bakersfield, p. 27-29.
Okoye, C.U., Oungpasuk, P. and Hayatdavoudi, A:
"Elevated Temperature MuHiphase Rock-Fluid
Properties for High and Low Tension Systems", SPE
17619 presented at the 1988 SPE Intemational Meeting
on Petroleum Engineering, Tianjin, Nov. 1-4.
Poston, S.W., Ysrael, S.C., Hossain, A.K.M.S.,
Montgomery, E.F., Ramey, H.J., Jr.: "The Effect of
Temperature on Irreducible Water Saturation and
Relative Permeabilny of Unconsolidated Sands," Soc.
Pet. Eng. J. (June 1970), Trans. AIME, v249, p 171180.
Sinnokrot, A.A., Ramey, H.J., Jr., and Marsden, S.S.
Jr.: "Effect of Temperature Level Upon Capillary
Pressure Curves," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (March 1971), p
13-22.
Ku, C.A. and Henry, Jr., J. D.,: "Mechanisms of Particle
Transfer from a Continuous Oil to a Dispersed Water
Phase", J. Colloid and Interface Science, Vol. 116, No.
2, pp. 414-422 (1987).
Muecke, T.W.: "Formation Fines and Factors
Controlling Their Movement in Porous Media", J. Pet.
Technology, pp. 144-150 (Feb. 1979).
Khilar, K.C. and Fogler, H.S.: "CollOidally Induced Fines
Migration in Porous Media", Reviews in Chemical
Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 142, pp. 41-108 (1987).
O'Neill, M.E.: "A Sphere in Contact wnh a Plane Wall in
a Slow Linear Sheer Flow", Chem. Eng. ScL, Vol. 23, p.
1293 (1968).
Jiao, D. and Sharma, M.M.: "Investigation of Dynamic
Mud Cake Formation: The Concept of Minimum
Overbalance Pressure", SPE 26323 presented at the
68th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibnion of
the SPE, Houston, TX, Oct. 3-6, 1993.
Khilar, K.C. and Fogler, H.S.: "Water Sensnivny of
Sandstones", Society of Petroleum Engineering
Joumal, pp. 55-64 (Feb. 1983).
Wojtanowicz, AK., Krilov, Z. and Langliniais, J.P.:
"Study of the Effect of Pore Blocking Mechanisms on
Formation Damage", SPE 16233 presented at the

18.

19.

20.

21

22.
23.
24.

25
26.

27.

28.

310

SPE27368
Symposium,

SOCiety of Petroleum Engineering

Oklahoma Cny, March 8-10,1987.
Todd, AC. and Yuan, M.D.: "Barium and Strontium
SuHate Solid Solution Scale Formation at Elevated
Temperatures", SPE 19762 presented at the 1989 SPE
Annual Technical Conference & Exhibnion, San
Antonio, Oct. 8-11.
Gunter, W.D., Zhou, Z., and Perkins, E.H.: "Modeling
Formation Damage Caused by Kaolinne From 25 to
300 Centigrade in the Oil Sand Reservoirs of Alberta,"
SPE 23786 presented at SPE Inti. Symposium on
Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette,
Louisiana, Feb. 26-27, 1992.
Liu, X., and Civan, F.: "A MuHiphase Mud Fluid
InfiHration and Fitter Cake Formation Model," SPE
25215 presented at the SPE IntI. Symposium on OiHield
Chemistry, New Orleans, March 2-5, 1993.
liu, X., and Civan, F.: "Characterization and Prediction
of Formation Damage in Two-Phase Flow Systems,
SPE 25429 presented at the SPE Production
Operations Symposium, Oklahoma Cny, 1993.
Ohen, H. and Civan, F.: "Simulation of Formation
Damage in Petroleum Reservoirs," SPE Advanced
Technology Series, Vol. 1, No.1, 1993.
Mathews, C.S. and Russell, D.G.: "Pressure Buildup
and Flow Tests in Wells, Monograph Series, SPE,
Dallas (1967).
Farouq Ali, S.M. : Steam Injection, in Secondary and
Tertiary Oil Recovery Processes, Oklahoma Cny:
Interstate Oil Compact Commission, 1974.
Prats, M. : in Thermal Recovery, Henry L. Doherty
Monograph Series, Vol. 7, SPE, Dallas (1982)
Okoye, C.U., Onuba, N.L., Ghalambor, A., and
Hayatdavoudi, A.: "Characterization of Formation
Damage in Heavy Oil Formation During Steam
Injection", SPE 19417 presented at the 1990 SPE
Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette,
Louisiana, Feb. 22-23, 1990.
Civan, F., Knapp, A.M., and Ohen, H.A.: "AHeration of
Permeabilny by Fine Particle Processes," Joumal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering, Vol. 3, nos. 1&2,
p6S-79,1989.
Nayak, N.V. and Christensen, A.W.: "Swelling
Characteristics of Compacted, Expansive Soils," Clays
and Clays Mineral, Vol. 19, no. 4, p251-261, 1970.

SPE27368

11

ANUJ GUPTA AND FARUK CIVAN

APPENDIX
Permeability-Porosity-Temperature Relationship

(A-8)

Let the coefficient of volumetric expansion for the grain

matrix be given by:
A

Pgv

=~(dVg)
Vg d T '

and the fractional grain volume at the temperature T is

given by:
(A-9)

(A-l)

Finally, subst~uting Eq. A-3, A-4, A-8 and A-9 into Eq. 1
leads to the following expression for the dependence of
permeabil~y on temperature:

where, Vg is the grain volume. Then, the coefficient of

linear expansion for the grain-matrix is given by:
(A-2)

1391 = I3gv 13

Mean particle diameter (grain size) at temperature T is

related to the particle diameter at reference temperature To
according to:

where, $ is the average poros~y over the interval To to T

given by:

(dpJr = (dpJro exp [l3 gl (T - To)),

(A-3)
and, similarly, the average length of a pore channel in a
representative elemental volume is given by:

f<I> dT
$_...,..T....::.o_....,-

(A-ll )

- (T -To)

TABLE I
Coefficients of Volumetric Thermal Expansion for Rock
Matrix Materials25

The temperature coefficient of poros~y is:

1

(d<ll )

(A-S)

~~=-~ d T '

Assuming that the bulk volume of the reservoir rock stays

constant, change in the pore volume is same as the
change in the matrix volume, i.e.,
d<\>= -d(1- <\
(A-6)

T(C)

20
100
200
300

Subst~ution of Eq. A-6 in Eq. A-S and algebraic

manipulations resu~s in the following expression for the
temperature coefficient of poros~y:

(A-7)
As a result, the dependence of
given by:

poros~y

on temperature is

311

Quartz
%
Expansio
n
0
0.0036
0.0078
0.0187

Calc~e

130'1

%
Expansion

130'1

4.49E-OS
4.32E-OS
6.62E-OS

0.0010S
0.0028S
0.0076S

1.31E-OS
1.S8E-OS
2.72E-OS

12

TEMPERATURE SENSITIVITY OF FORMATION DAMAGE IN PETROLEUM RESERVOIRS

SPE27368

.-----------------~

Hot Waterl
Steam(Ti)

Fluid Veloctty (.j ~

Pore Wall Surface

Tr
FIGURE 1: Temperature Distribution in Thennal Recovery
Processes

FIGURE 3: Forces Acting on a Particle Near the pore wall

surface

Cold

Injection "lids
(Til

h --.

Adhesive

FIGURE 2: Temperature Distribution in Water flooding

Process

312

FIGURE 4: Effect of Temperature on the Variation of the

Nonnal Component of Particle-Surtace Force With
Separation

 SPE 27368

13

ANUJ GUPTA AND FARUK CIVAN

w~

2.5 ~\---+--+---+--+---+--I

wr.%,NaOH
+-l~-+--+---t----t--i

..... --

W-WET SURFACE,
W-WET PARTICLES

-2
-4

1.5 4-~A+--+----t----t----l

(a)

-6

O-WET SURFACE,
W-WET PARTICLES
(b)

_ .. _.' 8
.---.-- 10
- - - - 12
----- 14

-16

0.5 +---+--+-~~~~~~-+--I

W-WET SURFACE,
O-WET PARTICLES
270

310

290

370

350

330

(c)

Temp(K)

FIGURE 5: Variation of Brine

and Salin~23,2s

Viscos~y w~h

Temperature

a-WET SURFACE,
O-WET PARTICLES
(d)

FIGURE 7: MuHiphase Transport of Fines

10000

\
1000

\
"-

..,

"-

..2-

"" ~

...~
u

:;:

100

~
E
c:

"

52

"""-

"-

"-

10

"-

"~
~

Temperalure(K)

FIGURE 6: Variation of Oil Viscos~y w~h TemperatureS,24

FIGURE 8: Interfacial Drag on Formation Fines

313

14

SPE27368

TEMPERATURE SENSITIVITY OF FORMATION DAMAGE IN PETROLEUM RESERVOIRS

1\- ~~ ~~ t3f'?:.
1\
-[e.

1\

0.9

1\

t'

1\

1\

0.8

1\

1\

1\

Porosity

0.7

"1\

-0.05

1\1\

- -0.1

-- ---

0.6

1\

0.15

1\

- - - 0.2

--'-0.25

1\

-0.3

0.5

t'
t't' t'r-

- -

1\

- 0.35

1\

Brine (26)

2% Caustic (26)

1\

04

1\
!\
0.3

50

100

150

200

250

300

Temperature(C)

FIGURE 9: Variation of Damaged/Undamaged Permeability

Ratio Wnh Temperature for Sandstone Matrix (Markers
represent experimental data26)

50

100

150

200

250

300

Temperature(C)

FIGURE 10: Variation of DamagedlUndamaged

Permeability Ratio Wnh Temperature for Carbonate Matrix

314