Page 145 - Formation Damage during Improved Oil Recovery Fundamentals and Applications
P. 145

124                                                 Thomas Russell et al.


          Table 3.7 Tuning the fines-migration parameters (drift delay factor α, concentration
          of released particles Δσ, filtration coefficient λ, and formation damage coefficient β)
          from the coreflood data
          Test    γ J         A       Δσ (ppm)    λ (1/m)    β         R 2
          1       0.035 M     0.11    78.6         46.04     6696      0.96
                  DI          0.05    598.5       180.23     290670    0.98
          2       0.035 M     0.08    101.6        28.60     70663     0.97
                  DI          0.05    2600        109.07     76852     0.96
          3       0.035 M     0.2     9.8          70.47     205050    0.97
                  0.018 M     0.06    5.9          61.34     12281     0.98
                  DI          0.03    15.3         56.96     191230    0.98


          Table 3.7 belong to common intervals reported in the literature (Oliveira
          et al., 2014; Vaz et al., 2017; Yuan and Shapiro, 2011; Zeinijahromi et al.,
          2013).


          3.5.3 Well injectivity decline during low-salinity water
          injection
          Injectivity impairment is one of the main challenges of waterflooding
          projects (Civan, 2014). Injectivity decline is commonly associated with
          the capture of injected foreign particles and natural reservoir fines, and
          also due to the formation of an external filter cake (Kalantariasl and
          Bedrikovetsky, 2013; Pang and Sharma, 1997). The reliable prediction of
          well injectivity highly affects planning and design of waterflooding opera-
          tions. Usually, reliable well behavior prediction involves laboratory-based
          mathematical modeling. This section presents a mathematical model for
          injectivity decline due to fines migration during low-salinity waterflood-
          ing. The assumptions of the model are the same as those formulated in
          Section 3.5.1.
             The governing system consists of a mass balance for suspended,
          attached, and strained particles, kinetics rate for straining, expression for
          maximum retention function, mass balance for salt, and Darcy’s law for
          axisymmetric flow, accounting for permeability damage due to fines
          straining. Assuming incompressibility of the carrier fluid, the velocity pro-
          file at any distance from the well follows:
                                             q
                                     UrðÞ 5    ;                     (3.113)
                                            2πr
          where r is the radial coordinate, and q is the injection rate per unit of
          formation thickness.
   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150