Design of reservoir drilling fluids (RDF) is often based on the return permeability coefficients received by filtration core analyses. Such approach is only partly justified as has there are several essential restrictions. In this article, there are considered some important factors influencing obtaining more reliable results from filtration core analyses.
Results of such researches on model Bandera Grey and Buff Berea sandstones have shown obvious dependence relative permeability coefficients from types of wettability of a core and types of RDF. The best results are noted for the samples which were tested with invert emulsion oil base mud, and the worst – with direct emulsion water base mud, intermediate results are recorded when using usual biopolymer water base mud. Also, certain features in core preparation are obtained for water saturation of a core which depends on primary wettability. The practical examples reflecting correctness of the received conclusions are given in this article.
Owing to a special role of filtration researches in design of RDF, variety of techniques, types of RF, interdependent, and versatile factors, authors call scientific community for consolidation of efforts in development of the uniform standard in the core filtration researches for oil and gas industry.
References
1. Marsshall D.S., Gray R., Byrne M.T., Development of a recommended practice for formation damage testing, SPE 38154-MS, 1997.
2. Marsshall D.S., Gray R., Byrne M.T., Return permeability: A detailed comparative study, SPE 54763-MS, 1999.
3. Han L., Lohne A., Stevenson B., Stavland A., Making sense of return permeability data measured in the laboratory, SPE 94715-MS, 2005.
4. Byrne M., McPhee C., Rojas E., Improving return permeability test data through representative drawdown simulation, SPE 143967-MS, 2011.
5. Byrne M., Patey I., Formation damage laboratory testing – A discussion of key parameters, pitfalls and potential, SPE 82250-MS, 2007.
6. Scott H.E., Patey l.T.M., Byrne M.T., Return permeability measurements – proceed with caution, SPE 107812-MS, 2007.
7. Van der Zwaag C.H., Olsen H., Lohne A., Significance of selected set-up parameters in return permeability measurements used for formation damage quantification, SPE 127994-MS, 2010.
8. Offenbacher M., Luyster M., Gray L. et al., Return permeability: When a single number can lead you astray in fluid selection, SPE 165106-MS, 2013.
9. Lutfullin A., Arslanbekov A.R., Mosin V.A. et al., Drilling in oil-wet reservoirs with oil based mud systems (In Russ.), Burenie i neft', 2014, no. 9, pp. 57–61.
10. Andriadi S., Dontsov E., Sergeev S., Sibagatullin R., Using an oil-based drilling fluid for initial penetration of Jurassic sediments in the Van-Yoganskoye field (In Russ.), Novator, 2012, no. 6, pp. 24–28.
11. Ballard T.J. Dawe R.A., Wettability alteration induced by oil-based drilling fluid, SPE 17160-MS, 1988.
12. Anderson W.G., Wettability literature survey, Part 1: Rock, oil, brine interactions and the effects of core handling on wettability, Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1986, October, pp. 1125–1144.
