Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 28 Ž2000.

1–12
www.elsevier.nlrlocaterjpetscieng

Determination of formation damage in limestone reservoirs

and its effect on production
S. Bagci, M.V. Kok ) , U. Turksoy
Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering, Middle East Technical UniÕersity, Inonu BlÕ., 06531 Ankara, Turkey

Received 14 July 1999; accepted 10 April 2000

Abstract

Reduction of injectivity of wells by formation damage can be of considerable magnitude during waterflooding of oil
reservoirs. Variation of pH of the flowing fluid is an indicator of chemical activity occurring in the formation. High pH
promotes formation damage by particle deposition within the porous media and consequently particle bridging at the pore
throats. Permeability reduction is used as quantitative measure of formation damage. In this paper, the results of core flow
experiments in limestone formations are presented. Effluent pH and Cl concentrations are measured at the outlet of the
porous medium. Brines are prepared with sodium, calcium and potassium salts ŽNaCl, CaCl 2 , KCl.. In limestone formations,
formation water, which is used in injection, and artificially prepared brine in various concentrations, caused the permeability
reduction. High pH values in produced water caused the permeability reduction and consequently the pores are plugged and
formation damage is observed. In alkaline flooding experiments, permeability reduction is observed as a result of high pH
alkaline fluids. The permeability reduction is minimized using brines of NaCl, CaCl 2 and KCl mixtures and high oil
recoveries are obtained. Suspended solid particles are released and moved with injection water when salt concentration drops
below the critical salt concentration, causing the permeability reduction and formation damage. Experiments below the
critical salt concentrations, resulted in a reduction in permeability values in consolidatedrunconsolidated limestone samples,
whereas, high pH value solutions caused a reduction in permeability values, plugged the pores and resulted in formation
damage. q 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: formation damage; waterflooding; limestone reservoir; permeability reduction

1. Introduction composition and the quality of the injected water.

Movement of particles in reservoirs has long been
Formation damage is a well-known phenomenon recognized to cause formation damage. These fine
in many waterflooding operations. This damage de- particles could have been incorporated in the for-
pends on many factors, such as rock mineralogical mation during geological deposition or can be
introduced into the formation during drilling and
)
Corresponding author. Tel.: q90-312-210-4891; fax: q90-
production operations. Investigations and diagnosis
312-210-1271. of specific problems indicate that the reasons are
E-mail address: [email protected] ŽM.V. Kok.. usually associated with either the physical movement

0920-4105r00r$ - see front matter q 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 0 - 4 1 0 5 Ž 0 0 . 0 0 0 5 7 - 7
2 S. Bagci et al.r Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 28 (2000) 1–12

of fine particles, chemical reactions, or a combina- permeability of preserved core, typically between 1
tion of both. In addition, formation damage may and 3 darcy, was not significantly affected when
occur from the fine particles introduced with the brine ŽNaCl or CaCl 2 . alternating with distilled wa-
injection water. ter was injected. Re-packed tar sands core, however,
were found to have initially much lower absolute
1.1. PreÕious studies permeabilities and were subject to severe permea-
bility damage, resulting in total plugging, when
The results of laboratory experiments have been exposed to distilled water. Todd et al. Ž1990. inves-
conducted to study the effect of formation damage tigated the influence of core-plug preparation of
on oil recovery by waterflooding, are summarised. particle invasion, the effects of particle penetration,
Mungan Ž1965. conducted the experimental study to flow rate and particle concentration on formation
examine the role of pH and salinity changes in core damage and depth of invasion characteristics rather
damage. He concluded that the primary cause of than overall permeability variation. Results are pre-
permeability reduction was blocking of the pore sented for broken-faced cores, with permeabilities of
passages by dispersed particles. Permeability reduc- 250 to 1000 md, that were injected with 1–15 ppm
tion due to salinity changes occurred regardless of water suspensions of 0–3 mm particles at flow rates
the type of clay. Cores that were essentially free of representative of North Sea injection wells. The re-
clays were damaged by flow of acidic or alkaline sults indicated that in-depth invasion occurred in the
solutions. Gruesbeck and Collins Ž1982. conducted broken faced core plugs, and that permeability was
an experimental study to determine entrainment and seriously impaired even in low concentration sys-
re-deposition of naturally occurring fine particles in tems. Dahab et al. Ž1992. experimentally investi-
porous media. They have shown that fines entrain- gated the relative permeability reduction due to the
ment and re-deposition are mechanisms that can difference in salinity between connate and injected
cause abnormal productivity decline and are phe- brines in cores having different lithology. The effect
nomena restricted to the near-wellbore region. of temperature and pressure on relative permeability
Gabriel and Inamdar Ž1983. conducted an experi- was also investigated. Formation damage, due to
mental study to comprehensively analyze both the incompatibility between formation and injected wa-
chemical and mechanical interactions. In linear core ter–water salinities, decreased oil and brine relative
tests, the flow of a chemically compatible, wetting permeabilities, increased residual saturation’s and
fluid resulted in severe permeability loss when the decreased oil recovery. Shock effects of sudden wa-
fluid velocity exceeded a critical value. The flow of ter injection resulted in an increase in formation
chemically incompatible, wetting fluid resulted in a damage. Rising temperature decreased the degree of
total loss of permeability, which exhibited no depen- permeability reduction, while pressure had a slight
dency on fluid velocity or volumetric throughput. effect on formation damage. Eleri and Ursin Ž1992.
Baghdiklan and Handy Ž1989. investigated the tran- conducted an experimental study of more than 17
sient behaviour of particulate plugging of porous core plugs involving 25 linear runs. Their purpose
media. Experiments included injection of clay sus- was to study the different physical and mechanical
pensions under different conditions into sandpacks, aspects of the processes leading to formation damage
measurement of pore size distribution, and monitor- caused by movement and entrapment of suspended
ing of permeability and effluent particle concentra- particles. Particle movement through porous media
tion. Permeability reduction occurred more rapidly as was not just a function of pore and particle size but
the pH decreased and the ionic strength increased. In depended also upon the initial flow rate and the
addition, for bentonite, permeability reduction in- linear velocities attained within the porous medium.
creased as the clay concentration increased. Kwan et The results of their study have indicated that signifi-
al. Ž1989. investigated permeability impairment due cant permeability impairment can be caused by sus-
to the fines migrating in extracted core material from pended particles in the injection water, even in very
the Clearwater formation of Cold Lake, Alberta. The dilute solutions. Bennion et al. Ž1996. discussed the
results of these experiments indicate that the absolute various types of formation damage common to hori-
 S. Bagci et al.r Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 28 (2000) 1–12 3

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of experimental set-up.

zontal wells, such as fluid–fluid and fluid–rock in- with NaOH and NaSiO4 high pH values are
compatibilities, solid invasion, effect of overbalance observed which caused a formation damage.
pressure, aqueous phase trapping, chemical adsorp-
tion, wettability alteration, microbiological activity
and fines migration. Laboratory testing of fluids and 2. Experimental apparatus and procedure
representative core samples was highlighted as a
potential diagnostic tool to select the optimum fluids The laboratory model and experimental procedure
for drilling, completion, stimulation and work-over used in determination of formation damage in lime-
treatments. stone are described below.

1.2. Present study 2.1. Laboratory model and samples

Much work has been carried out to study the A laboratory set-up was constructed consisting of
formation damage in sandstones, but very limited an ISCO pump, one-dimensional core model, liquid
data is available on the formation damage studies in injection system, data gathering system, pressure
limestone reservoirs. This research is conducted gauges and transducers, thermocouples, temperature
which presents the unique formation damage prob- controllers, and air bath ŽFig. 1.. A one-dimensional
lems encountered in limestone reservoirs. In Turkey,
limestone reservoirs occupy more than 80% of all
the reservoirs and formation damage is one of the
problems to encounter during the operations. There-
fore, this experimental research is conducted for
Garzan Ž268API. oil field with different brines pre-
pared with sodium, calcium and potassium salts.
Experiments below the critical salt concentrations,
resulted in a reduction in permeability values in
consolidatedrunconsolidated limestone samples. It
was observed that high pH value solutions caused a
reduction in permeability values, plugged the pores
and resulted in formation damage. In experiments Fig. 2. Viscosity of the oil sample.
4 S. Bagci et al.r Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 28 (2000) 1–12

Table 1 Table 3
Properties of crude oil and packing data Experimental conditions for alkali flood
Oil properties Run no. Injection Injection Alkali Alkali
Crude oil Garzan water salinity rate concentration
Žppm. Žmlrh. Žwt.%.
API gravity Ž8API. 26.0
Density Žat 258C., Žgrcm3 . 0.8984 WF1UC 40 000 200 – –
Viscosity Žat 508C., Žcp. 46.5 WF2UC 40 000 200 NaOH 0.6
Asphaltene Ž%. 12 WF3UC 20 000 200 NaOH 0.4
Paraffin Ž%. 41 WF4UC distilled water 200 NaOH 0.4
Naphtane Ž%. 20 WF5UC 40 000 200 NaSiO4 0.5
Aromatics Ž%. 26 WF6UC 20 000 200 NaSiO4 1.0
WF7UC distilled water 200 NaSiO4 5.0
Packing data WF8UC 20 000 200 NaSiO4 1.0
Lithology Limestone
Porosity Ž%. 38
Permeability Ždarcy. 10
Pore volume Žcm3 . 555 2.2. Experimental procedure
Rock density Žgrcm3 . 2.65
Weight of the rock Žg. 2350 The pre-mixing method was used in preparing the
unconsolidated limestone pack mixtures for the ex-
periments. The water and clean crushed limestone
was mixed initially to meet the conditions of a
core model was constructed of steel pipe having a
water-wet system. Then the oil was mixed homoge-
diameter of 6.1 cm and length of 50 cm, and tested
neously with them to yield the desired fluid satura-
under 1000 kPa working pressure ŽFig. 1.. The model
tion and carefully packed into the model. Specifi-
was packed with limestone. Air bath and temperature
cally, oil and water saturation were chosen as 80%
controller was used to raise the model temperature to
and 20%, respectively, and kept the same for all
desired reservoir temperature model. A thermocouple
experiments. The limestone pack with pore volume
was placed in the air bath to enable the display of the
of 555 cm3 yielded 38% porosity and absolute liquid
model temperature as digital temperature readout. An
permeability of 10 darcies. After packing, the model
insulating material Žglass wool. was wrapped over
was placed horizontally inside the air bath, the set-up
the inside of the air bath. Pressure gauges were used
was then prepared for the test and the model was
at the inlet and outlet of the model to determine
heated approximately to 508C, which was the desired
differential pressure. A backpressure regulator was
reservoir temperature. During the experiments, pro-
used to adjust the pressure inside the core and the
duced water and crude oil were collected and, total
produced flow rate. In fluid injection system, brine
crude oil and water productions were measured. At
was injected into the model by using an in ISCO LC
5000 injection pump.

Table 2
Minimum surface tension values
Crude oil– Salt Minimum
alkali fluid concentration surface tension
combination Žppm. Ždynrcm.
Garzan–NaOH distilled water 17.0
Garzan–NaOH 20 000 13.3
Garzan–NaOH 40 000 11.3
Garzan–NaSiO4 distilled water 6.7
Garzan–NaSiO4 20 000 8.4
Garzan–NaSiO4 40 000 15.0 Fig. 3. Oil recovery as a function of injected pore volume
ŽNaOH..
 S. Bagci et al.r Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 28 (2000) 1–12 5

Fig. 4. Produced water pH as a function of injected pore volume Fig. 6. Oil recovery as a function of injected pore volume
ŽNaOH.. ŽNaSiO4 ..

the same time, injection and production pressures are performed at the interfaces of Garzan crude oil
and pressure difference across the model was mea- and NaOH–NaSiO4 , prepared with different salt
sured. Porosity, permeability, salinity, pH, properties concentrations. Combinations of Garzan crude oilr
of salt water, viscosity and density measurements alkali fluids, salt concentration and minimum surface
was performed before and after experiments. Garzan tension values are given in Table 2. It was observed
crude oil Ž268API. from southeastern Turkey was that as the salt concentration increased, minimum
used. The viscosity of the sample upon heating is surface tension values were decreased at Garzan
illustrated in Fig. 2. Properties of crude oil and crude oilrNaOH interfaces. In contrast, as the salt
packing data are given in Table 1. concentration increased, minimum surface tension
values increased at Garzan crude oilrNaSiO4 inter-
faces.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Alkali flood experiments
In the course of this research, three sets of experi-
ments were performed: Ža. flood experiments with Eight experiments were performed in order to
alkali fluids ŽNaOH and NaSiO4 ., Žb. flood experi- determine the effects of NaOH and NaSiO4 alkali
ments with salt water Žon consolidated and unconsol- fluids on crude oil ŽGarzan. production and to ob-
idated cores. and Žc. flood experiments at different serve formation damage during injection. Experimen-
salt concentrations. Surface tension measurements tal conditions for this group of experiments were

Fig. 5. OHy1 concentration ŽCrC o . as a function of injected pore Fig. 7. Produced water pH as a function of injected pore volume
volume. ŽNaSiO4 ..
6 S. Bagci et al.r Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 28 (2000) 1–12

Fig. 10. Permeability reduction as a function of injected pore

Fig. 8. OHy1 concentration ŽCrC o . as a function of injected pore volume ŽNaSiO4 ..
volume ŽNaSiO4 ..

obtained during flood experiments with injection wa-

given in Table 3. Fig. 3 presents the crude oil
ter of those prepared with different NaSiO4 concen-
production obtained during flood experiments with
trations. Figs. 7 and 8 show the changes in the pH
injection water prepared with different NaOH con-
and OHy1 concentrations Ždimensionless CrC o . of
centrations. Figs. 4 and 5 present changes in the pH
the produced water vs. injected pore volume. A
and OHy1 concentrations Ždimensionless CrC o . of
sudden change in pH value is observed in experi-
the produced water vs. injected pore volume. Changes
ments with 5.0 wt.% NaSiO4 alkali fluids prepared
in pH values of the produced water, is an indication
with distilled water. In this experiment, an observed
of the chemical activities in the formation. High pH
Žalkali medium. causes formation damage with pre- increase in SiO4 concentration is measured at pro-
duction end, which is an indication that precipitation
cipitation of suspended particles in porous medium.
caused a decrease in crude oil production. Similar
A sudden increase in pH value is observed after 0.5
behaviour is also observed in the experiment per-
pore volume injection, which may indicate the dam-
formed with NaSiO4 alkali fluid prepared with 40 000
age of unconsolidated core. It was also observed that
ppm salinity water. Figs. 9 and 10 show the changes
an increase in crude oil production is ceased after 0.5
in permeability reduction with injected volume of
pore volume injection. It can be concluded from Fig.
NaOH and NaSiO4 . In experiments with NaOH, a
5 that NaOH crystals may have precipitated and
continuous permeability reduction in the initial stages
plugged the pores. A decrease in OHy1 concentra-
of the experiments has been observed. In experi-
tions, measured at the production end with high
ments with NaSiO4 , permeability reduction is ob-
salinity injection water, is an indication of the plug-
served at the initial stages of the experiments; but
ging process. Fig. 6 presents the crude oil production

Table 4
Experimental conditions
Run no. Injection Injection Flood
water salinity rate water salinity
Žppm. Žmlrh. Žppm.
1UC 5000 200 distilled water
2UC 10 000 200 distilled water
3UC 20 000 200 distilled water
4UC 30 000 200 distilled water
5UC 40 000 200 distilled water
1C 20 000 15 10 000
2C distilled water 15 20 000
Fig. 9. Permeability reduction as a function of injected pore 3C 10 000 15 5000
volume ŽNaOH..
 S. Bagci et al.r Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 28 (2000) 1–12 7

given in Fig. 11. As can be seen at the entrance of

the core sample with different NaCl concentrations,
increase in pressure is observed at the initial stage of
the experiments. Salt crystals precipitate in pore
spaces, plug the pores and cause formation damage,
as indicated by the pressure increase.

3.2.2. Experiments with crude oil

Thirteen experiments were performed with differ-
ent NaCl, CaCl 2 and KCl concentrations. Experi-
Fig. 11. Differential pressure change as a function of injected pore mental conditions and results were given in Table 5.
volume.
Experiments with different NaCl concentrations were
performed and cumulative oil recovery, differential
pressure, Cl concentration and pH value vs. injected
later, an increase in crude oil production has been pore volume curves were obtained as shown in Fig.
observed as compared with NaOH experiments. This 12a, b, c and d. At the entrance of the core sample
concludes that using NaSiO4 in injection water causes with different NaCl concentrations, increase in pres-
less formation damage and more oil production. sure at the initial stage of the experiment, then a
decrease in pressure and finally a limit pressure
3.2. Salt water flood experiments value is observed. Salt crystals precipitate in pore
spaces, plug the pores and cause formation damage.
3.2.1. Experiments without crude oil This is the reason for the pressure increase. After 0.5
Eight experiments were performed on consoli- pore volume of salt-water injection, an increase is
dated and unconsolidated core samples with salt observed in pH values, which is an indication of
water prepared at different concentrations. The con- precipitation in pores. Maximum crude oil produc-
ditions of these experiments were given in Table 4. tion is obtained in experiments with 20 000 ppm salt
Differential pressure measurements on consolidated water. The oil recoveries increased with a decrease
core samples with different NaCl concentrations were in salinity of the injected brine, but there was little

Table 5
Experimental conditions and results for NaCl, CaCl 2 and KCl flood experiments
Run no. Injected water Injection rate Salt water concentration Oil recovery at 2 PV
salinity Žppm. Žmlrh. Žwt.%. Ž% OOIP.
BFUC1 10 000 200 1 wt.% NaCl 23.8
BFUC2 20 000 200 2 wt.% NaCl 29.6
BFUC3 30 000 200 3 wt.% NaCl 23.4
BFUC4 40 000 200 4 wt.% NaCl 18.3
UCA1 – 200 2 wt.% CaCl 2 26.1
UCA2 – 200 5 wt.% CaCl 2 28.4
UCA3 – 200 10 wt.% CaCl 2 26.3
UCK1 – 200 2 wt.% KCl 35.5
UCK2 – 200 5 wt.% KCl 22.1
UCK3 – 200 10 wt.% KCl plugged
UCWF – 200 – 29.0
UCMX1 – 200 2 wt.% CaCl 2 q 2 wt.% KCl 31.5
UCMX2 – 200 5 wt.% CaCl 2 q 2 wt.% NaCl 31.8
UCMX3 – 200 2 wt.% KCl q 2 wt.% NaCl 16.1
8 S. Bagci et al.r Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 28 (2000) 1–12

Fig. 12. Injected volume vs. oil recovery Ža. differential pressure Žb. Cly1 concentration Žc. pH Žd. curves at different concentrations.

difference in breakthrough recoveries. The difference ppm salt water. Increase in salt-water concentration
in ultimate recovery as a result of the injection of caused plugging in pores and therefore formation
reservoir brine and the most dilute was less than damage.
10%. Fig. 13 presents permeability reduction vs. Experiments with different weight percent CaCl 2
injected salt-water volume. Minimum permeability solutions were performed and cumulative oil recov-
reduction was obtained in experiments with 20 000 ery, differential pressure, Cl concentration and pH
value vs. injected pore volume curves were measured
as shown in Fig. 14a, b, c and d. Experiment with 5
wt.% CaCl 2 solution indicated 11.7% higher recov-
ery than distilled water run. This was considered the
optimum weight percent because it yielded the high-
est recovery. It was observed that the differential
pressure values stabilized after reaching a peak value
with different weight percent CaCl 2 solutions stud-
ied. A slight increase in permeability for 2 wt.%
CaCl 2 concentration was detected. This is probably
due to a small amount of clay volume shrinkage in
the CaCl 2 solution with increasing pressure. The
Cly1 concentration of the injected 5 wt.% CaCl 2
Fig. 13. Permeability reduction as a function of injected pore solution decreased to 32 500 ppm after 0.5 injected
volume ŽNaCl.. pore volume. Significant changes in pH values were
 S. Bagci et al.r Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 28 (2000) 1–12 9

Fig. 14. Injected volume vs. oil recovery Ža. differential pressure Žb. Cly1 concentration Žc. pH Žd. curves at different CaCl 2 concentrations.

observed for different CaCl 2 concentrations. After ery than distilled water run. The KCl concentration
0.5 pore volume CaCl 2 solution injection, pH values of the injected 2 wt.% KCl solution decreased to
were increased to 7.2 for 2 wt.% CaCl 2 and 7.45 for 16 000 ppm after 0.5 injected pore volume. pH of
5 wt.% CaCl 2 injection experiments. pH values for effluent water slightly increased with injected pore
both cases were reduced to 7 and 7.1, respectively, volume for 2 wt.% KCl injection. There was a
after 1.0 pore volume of injection. On the other
hand, pH values were gradually reduced to 6.65 and
stabilized at 6.8 after 0.5 pore volume of injection of
10 wt.% CaCl 2 solution. Fig. 15 presents permeabil-
ity reduction vs. injected salt-water volume in CaCl 2
flood experiments. In all experiments with CaCl 2 ,
permeability reductions were observed.
Experiments with different wt.% KCl solutions
were performed and cumulative oil recovery, differ-
ential pressure, Cl concentration and pH value vs.
injected pore volume curves were measured as shown
in Fig. 16a, b, c and d. The model was plugged with
the injection of 10 wt.% KCl solution. There was no
oil production for this case. Experiment with 2 wt.% Fig. 15. Permeability reduction as a function of injected pore
KCl solution indicated 18.4% higher ultimate recov- volume ŽCaCl 2 ..
10 S. Bagci et al.r Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 28 (2000) 1–12

Fig. 16. Injected volume vs. oil recovery Ža. differential pressure Žb. Cly1 concentration Žc. pH Žd. curves at different KCl concentrations.

change in pH values for 5 wt.% KCl injection; it Based on the results of previous experiments, the
dropped to 6.7 after 0.5 pore volume injection and brine mixture experiments were performed with the
then sharply increased to 7.3. The beneficial effect of optimum values as 5 wt.% CaCl 2 q 20 000 ppm
KCl was associated with a decrease of the pH. Fig. NaCl, 5 wt.% CaCl 2 q 2 wt.% KCl and 20 000 ppm
17 shows the permeability reduction as a function of NaCl q 2 wt.% KCl. Comparison of the ultimate
pore volume injected of KCl experiments. The per- cumulative oil recovery, differential pressure, Cl
meability reduction is observed for KCl. concentration and pH value vs. injected pore volume
curves were also obtained as shown in Fig. 18a, b, c
and d. Experiment with 2 wt.% KCl q 20 000 ppm
NaCl solution indicated 18.9% higher ultimate re-
covery than distilled water run. It was observed that
the differential pressure values stabilize after reach-
ing a peak value with different mixed brine concen-
trations studied. Maximum differential pressure was
observed at 0.5 pore volume of 5 wt.% CaCl 2 q 2
wt.% NaCl injection. pH values were slightly
increased with injected pore volume for 2 wt.%
KCl q 2 wt.% NaCl solution. pH values were sharply
reduced to approximately 6.6 for 5 wt.% CaCl 2 q 2
Fig. 17. Permeability reduction as a function of injected pore wt.% KCl and 5 wt.% CaCl 2 q 2 wt.% NaCl solu-
volume ŽKCl.. tions. Injection of higher initial concentrations of
 S. Bagci et al.r Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 28 (2000) 1–12 11

Fig. 18. Injected volume vs. oil recovery Ža. differential pressure Žb. Cly1 concentration Žc. pH Žd. curves at different NaCl concentrations.

KCl and CaCl 2 on two adjacent samples stabilized 3. In alkali flood experiments, reduction in perme-
clays. An unusual increase in permeability to treated ability values is observed at the interface of high
injection fluids was again noted for both CaCl 2 and pH solutions with formation. In experiments with
KCl. Subsequent stepwise reduction of the KCl and NaOH and NaSiO4 , high pH values that were
CaCl 2 concentrations resulted in a stabilized injec- observed caused a formation damage.
tion brine permeability greater than that attained with 4. In experiments with the mixture of NaCl, KCl
the CaCl 2 . The experiments indicate that CaCl 2 has and CaCl 2 high crude oil productions are ob-
a reducing effect on formation damage. served with limited permeability reduction.
5. In experiments with consolidated core samples,
increase in NaCl concentration caused an increase
4. Conclusions in differential pressure.

The following conclusions can be drawn from the

research conducted:

1. Experiments below the critical salt concentrations Acknowledgements

resulted in a reduction in permeability values in
consolidatedrunconsolidated limestone samples. The authors gratefully express their apprecia-
2. High pH value solutions caused a reduction in tion of the financial support of the Scientific and
permeability values, plugged the pores and re- Technical Research Council of Turkey-TUBITAK-
sulted in formation damage. YDABCAG-507.
12 S. Bagci et al.r Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 28 (2000) 1–12

References Gabriel, G.A., Inamdar, G.R., 1983. An experimental investiga-

tion of fines migration in porous media. SPE 58th Annual
Baghdiklan, S.Y., Handy, L.L., 1989. Flow of clay suspensions Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, CA,
through porous media. SPE Reservoir Engineering, 213–220, October 5–8, 1983. SPE Paper No. 12168.
May. Gruesbeck, C., Collins, R.E., 1982. Entrainment and deposition of
Bennion, D.B., Thomas, F.B., Bennion, D.W., Bietz, R.F., 1996. fine particles in porous media. Society of Petroleum Engineers
Fluid design to minimize invasive damage in horizontal wells. Journal, 847–856, December.
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 35 Ž9., 45–52, Kwan, M.Y., Cullen, M.P., Jamieson, P.R., Fortier, R.A., 1989. A
November. laboratory study of permeability damage to cold lake tar sands
Dahab, A.S., Omar, A.E., El-Gassier, M.M., Kariem, H.A., 1992. cores. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 28 Ž1.,
Formation damage effect due to salinity, temperature and 56–62, January–February.
pressure in sandstone reservoirs as indicated by relative per- Mungan, N., 1965. Permeability reduction through changes in pH
meability measurements. Journal of Petroleum Science and and salinity. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1449–1453,
Engineering 6, 403–412. December.
Eleri, O.O., Ursin, J.R., 1992. Physical aspects of formation Todd, A.C., Kumar, T., Mohammadi, S., 1990. The value and
damage in linear flooding experiments. SPE Intl. Symposium analysis of core-based water-quality experiments as related to
on Formation Damage Control, Lousiana. February 26–27, water injection schemes. SPE Formation Evaluation, 185–191,
1992. pp. 179–193, SPE Paper No. 23784. June.