ARMA 14-7758

Flow Rate Dependent Skin in Water Disposal Injection

Well: Case Study
Mohamed, I.M., Block, G.I., Abou-Sayed, O.A., Elkatatny, S.M* and Abou-Sayed, A.S.
Advantek International, Houston, Texas, USA
*also on faculty at Cairo University, Giza, Egypt

Copyright 2014 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

th
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 48 US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium held in Minneapolis, MN, USA, 1-4 June
2014.
This paper was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical and critical review of
the paper by a minimum of two technical reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of ARMA, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of ARMA
is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 200 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: Re-Injection is one of the most important methods to dispose fluid associated with oil and natural gas production.
Disposed fluids include produced water, hydraulic fracture flow back fluids, and drilling mud fluids. Several formation damage
mechanisms are associated with the injection including damage due to filter cake formed at the formation face, bacteria activity,
fluid incompatibility, free gas content, and clay activation.
Fractured injection is typically preferred over matrix injection because a hydraulic fracture will enhance the well injectivity and
extend the well life. In a given formation, the fracture dimensions change with different injection flow rates due to the change in
injection pressures. Also, for a given flow rate, the skin factor varies with time due to the fracture propagation.
In this study, well test and injection history data of a Class II disposal well in south Texas were used to develop an equation that
correlates the skin factor to the injection flow rate and injection time. The results show that with time, the skin factor decreases
until such a point at which the fracture dimensions are sufficient without further propagation to handle the injected water volume
(stationary fracture). A constant skin factor is noted after this point. At higher injection flow rates, the constant skin factor achieved
is lower because of the larger fracture dimensions developed at higher injection flow rates.

disposal, beneficial reuse, and other management

1. INTRODUCTION
methods. While more than 91% of the water produced
Produced water a byproduct of oil and gas production. from the offshore wells is discharged to the ocean, most
Produced water can include formation water, injected of the remaining volume is injected for enhanced oil
water, condensed water, and trace amounts of treatment
recovery (EOR) purposes [4].
chemicals [1-2]. Produced water is the largest volume
by-product or waste stream associated with oil and gas Underground water injection and disposal are performed
exploration and production, estimated at 21 billion through Class II wells. Class II wells are the wells that
barrels per year (57.4 million bbl/day) in the United inject fluids for enhanced oil recovery, dispose of fluids
States in 2007 [3]. The estimated water oil ratio (WOR) associated with oil and gas production and inject liquid
worldwide is 2:1 to 3:1. In the USA this ratio reached as hydrocarbon for storage. (Of approximately 144,000
high as 8:1. because many U.S. fields were mature and Class II wells in the U.S., salt water disposal represent
past their peak production. The ratio may be even
20%.) [5]
higher, as many older U.S. wells have ratios > 50:1 [4].
Beside produced water, oil field waste waters are a
In the USA, 98% of the water produced from onshore
mixture of many different streams including: cooling
wells is injected into underground formations. Fifty nine
tower blowdown, boiler water blowdown, ion exchange
percent is used in waterflooding to support the oil
bed regeneration stream, filter backwash, cleaning
reservoir pressure and increase oil production, and 40%
solutions (acids, caustic, detergents), and corrosion
is disposed into nonproducing formations. The
inhibitors and biocides.
remaining 2% was managed through surface disposal
including: evaporation ponds, offsite commercial

1
1.1. Formation Damage During Water Injection Hawkins presented the following model to calculate the
Water quality is the most important factor that affects skin factor using the permeability and radius of the skin
the formation during water injection. Water quality zone [18];
refers to the chemical, physical and biological
characteristics of water [7]. Five components in water k  r 
s    1 ln s  (1)
detrimental to water injection include: Microorganisms,  ks   rw 
dispersed oil, Suspended solids, dissolved gases, and
Where;
dissolved solids [6].
A formation can be subjected to several mechanisms by k = Native formation permeability, mD
the injection of low quality water which cause damage ks = Skin zone permeability, mD
(i.e., reduction of the formation permeability) including:
rs = Skin zone radius, ft
mechanical damage due to injection of solids or fines
migration [8]; Interaction between the formation rw = Wellbore radius, ft
minerals and injected water that might cause clay s = Skin factor
activation (swelling and/ or deflocculation) [9],
formation dissolution, chemical adsorption and Injection of low quality water will damage the near
wettability alternation, relative permeability alterations wellbore region reducing it is permeability and creating
due to multiphase flow, biological damage due to the a positive skin factor. Hydraulic fracturing will enhance
presence of bacteria [10]; and interaction between the well injectivity/productivity and will result in a
formation brine and incompatible injected water that can negative skin factor.
produce insoluble scales, emulsions, wax and asphaltene The skin factor due to the presence of a hydraulic
deposition [11]. fracture can be calculated using the following equation
[19]:
Based on field observation, it was concluded that a
continuous loss of injectivity is obtained with matrix    
produced water reinjection [12], and successful PWRI is  rw   2 

 C fD
likely to require fracturing [13]. It is a commonly held s  ln   
 (2)
belief within petroleum engineering that most successful xf
 
water-injection wells have been fractured. When dealing  
with low permeability formations or with injection water  
of poor quality, fractures are usually induced For a hydraulic fracture with infinite conductivity Eq.
intentionally in order to obtain a higher injectivity. (2) will take the following form:
Unintentional fracturing can also occur, for instance
when cold water is injected into a relatively hot  2r 
s  ln  w  (3)
reservoir. The cooling of the reservoir rock can reduce  x f 
the rock stress to the point where the injection pressure
exceeded the tensile strength of the rock and fracturing Eq. (2) neglects the damage formed on the fracture faces.
occurs [14-15]. Mather, et al. (1995) [20] developed a model to calculate
the fracture skin taking in consideration the damage
1.2. Skin Factor
around the wellbore and fracture faces:
Skin factor is a numerical factor that is used to measure
formation damage and to model the additional pressure
k  rs k s k sd x f  rs kk d  1

drop created due to skin [16]. A positive skin factor is s   

obtained when the near wellbore region has permeability
2  rs  d k sd  dk s rs  d k d  dk s 
(4)
lower than the native formation permeability (formation rs

damage), while negative skin factor means the 2x f
permeability of the near wellbore region has been
increased (stimulation) [17]. Where;
CfD = Dimensionless fracture conductivity

2
d = Depth of the fracture face damage, ft The objective of this paper is to use injection test data to
develop an equation to estimate the skin factor as a
k = Native formation permeability, mD
function of time and injection flow rate for a water
kd = Fracture face damage permeability, mD injector well. A general form of the relationship is
ks = Near wellbore skin zone permeability, mD presented as well as a specific equation for a well in the
Eagle Ford shale basin in Texas, USA.
ksd = Permeability in the region with nearwellbore
damage and fracture face damage, mD 2. WELL DETAILS
rs = Near wellbore skin zone radius, ft Data from a salt water disposal well located in Texas and
rw = Wellbore radius, ft used to dispose of produced water, flow back water, and
drilling fluid water was analyzed in order to develop the
s = Skin factor targeted equation. The well is perforated through
xf = Fracture half length, ft Escondido Sands formation (Fig. 1).

1.3. Rate Dependent Skin

The term rate dependent skin was originally used in
association with high rate gas producing wells to
describe the increase in skin factor at higher flow rates
due to turbulent flow [21]:

s '  s  Dq g (5)

Where;
D = the non-Darcy coefficient, (MSCF/d)-1

s’ = Flow rate dependent skin

s = Skin factor
qg = Gas flow rate, MSCF/d
In water injection wells when injection is conducted
through an unpropped hydraulic fracture, the fracture
dimensions are different at different injection flow rates.
A larger fracture will be developed at a higher flow rate
to handle the lager water volume injected, and smaller
fracture will be formed at lower injection flow rates.
Based on Eqs. (3) & (4); the skin factor decreases with
an increasing injection flow rate because of the longer
fracture formed at higher injection rates. Fig. 1. the disposal well has four perforation intervals through
Escondido formation (60 ft net perforations)
Beside the injection flow rate effect, the fracture
dimensions are function of time as well. At a constant The permeability of this formation was estimated to be
injection flow rate, the fracture propagation continues very low (around 5 mD). Also, from the geomechanical
with time until reaching a point where the fracture leak analysis run using Advantek’s @log software, the
off volume equals to the injection flow rate. After this formation fracture pressure ranges between 2,100 and
point the fracture will not propagate further unless the 2,450 psi (Fig. 2). Based on the permeability and
injected water damages the fracture faces which reduces fracture pressure value, successful injection requires the
leak off and causes the fracture to propagate to can presence of a hydraulic fracture in this tight formation.
handle the injected volumes. The maximum allowable surface injection pressure
(MASIP) for this well is between 1500-1600 psi.

3
Fig. 3 shows the inflow and well performance curves.
The curves show that under matrix injection and
assuming no damage around the wellbore (skin = 0), the
maximum injection rate that could be achieved at
MASIP is less than 0.5 bpm. To achieve injection flow
rate higher than 4 bpm at MASIP, the formation should
have a skin factor less than -6.5. From Eq. 3, the
formation should have a hydraulic fracture with half
length more than 460 ft.
The well was treated using 120 bbls of 20% HCl at
injection flow rate ranges from 2 bpm to 8 bpm. The
well performance during the acid job is shown in Fig. 4.
This figure shows the rate dependent skin phenomenon
due to the hydraulic fracture propagation: the skin factor Fig. 3. Inflow and well performance curves.
at injection rate of 2 bpm was around -4, and at 8 bpm
was less than -6.8. This reduction in the skin factor
conforms to the interpretation of the development of
increasing fracture length at higher injection flow rates.

Fig. 4. Well performance during the well acidizing.

3. WELL TESTING
Two injection tests (a Step Rate Test (SRT) and
Pressure Fall Off Test (PFOT)) were conducted to
evaluate the well performance and the fracture
geometry. Fig. 5 shows the pressure and rate data
for the injection tests, while the injection schedule
is given in Table 1.

Fig. 2. Stress analysis of the Escondido formation.

4
 Pressure fall off data were analyzed to calculate the
formation permeability and fracture dimensions.
From the log-log diagnostic plot (Fig. 7) the
different flow regimes were clearly identified: the
early unity slope region identifies the wellbore
storage interval; the fracture linear flow was
identified by the half slope line; the 3/2 slope line
identifies the fracture closure; and finally, the
pseudo-radial flow region was identified by the 0
slope line [22].

Fig. 5. Pressure and rate data for the SRT and PFOT.

Table 1. Injection Tests Schedule.

Injection Injection Flow Volume
Test
Duration (min) Rate (BPM) Injected (bbl)
20 1.8 36
15 3.8 57 SRT
15 5 75
106 0 0
100 3.8 380 Fig. 7. Log-log diagnostic plot for the water disposal well.
PFOT
500 0 0
From the plot of G-function vs. bottomhole pressure
Cumulative Volume (bbl) 548 and G-function vs. its derivative (Fig. 8), the
Analyzing the SRT showed that for the three fracture closure pressure was identified to be 2,480
injection rates used in the test, the injection was psi. This value agrees with the value of minimum
always conducted under a hydraulic fracture flow horizontal stress calculated from the well log using
regime. The three points on the pressure-rate plot Advantek’s @Log software, which was 2,450 psi.
lay on the same straight-line (no change in the This result was expected as the closure pressure is
slope) and the pressure was always higher than the equivalent to the minimum horizontal stress [23].
minimum horizontal stress (Fig. 6). Summary of the fall off test analysis is given in
Table 2.

Fig. 6. Pressure-rate plot (SRT analysis).

5
Fig. 8. G-function analysis of the pressure fall off data flow rate (Fig. 9). The following equation governs
the change in the skin factor at different flow rates:
Table 2. Fall off test analysis results.
Parameter Value
s  0.2908q  4.3724 (8)
Permeability (k), mD 8.4 This equation can be generalized to be:
Transmissibility (kh/μ), mD.ft/cP 508 s  aq  b (9)
Closure Pressure (Pc), psi 2,480 Where a and b are constants which depend on the
Closure Time (tc), hr 3.6 well and fluid properties, s is the skin factor, and q
is the injection flow rate in BPM.
4. DEVELOPMENT OF THE RATE
The time factor is not considered in Eq. 9. This
DEPENDENT SKIN EQUATION
equation assumes that the fracture is developed to
The SRT data were used to develop the new its maximum length at the time we start injecting
equation assuming that pseudo-radial flow has been and it does not propagate after that. However, we
established. The skin factor for each flow rate was know that the hydraulic fracture is propagating with
calculated using the following equation [24]: time due to damage induced by the injection.
 70.6QB     948ct rw   In order to include the injection time effect in the
2
BHP  Pi    Ei   2s  (6)
 kh   
developed equation, the skin factor was calculated
kt   every 5 minutes of injection for each flow rate.
Solving Eq. 6 for skin factor yields Eq. 7: Different skin development trends were noted for
each flow rate as shown in Fig. 10. In general, a
logarithmic relationship between the skin factor and
  injection time was captured and covered by the
  following equation:
1  BHP  Pi   948ct rw2 
s  Ei 
 (7)
2   70.6qB   kt  s   A ln(t )  B (10)
 
  kh   In the above, A & B were controlled by the
Where; injection flow rate (Fig. 11) and can be calculated
using the following equations:
B = Formation volume factor
A  Ce Dq (11)
BHP = Bottomhole pressure, psi
B  E e Fq (12)
ct = Total compressibility, psi-1
where C, D, E, and F are constants that depend on
Q = Injection flow rate, BPD
the well and fluid properties. The value of these
h = Formation thickness, ft constant for the current case are listed in Table 3.
k = Formation permeability, mD Table 3. Summary of the developed equation constants

Pi = Formation pressure, psi Constant C D E F

Value 0.1417 0.3725 4.3047 -0.072
rw = Wellbore radius, ft
t = Injection time, hr
s = Skin Factor
φ = Formation porosity
μ = Fluid viscosity, cP
The skin factor was calculated at the end of each
injection step and the results obtained showed that
the skin value decreased with increasing injection

6
Fig. 9. The relationship between the skin factor and injection Fig. 10. The relationship between the skin factor and injection
flow rate. time.

The general rate dependent skin equation for an

unpropped hydraulicly fractured injection well is as
follows:
s  Ce Dq ln(t )  Ee Fq (13)
where:
C,D,E, = Constants
and F
q = Injection flow rate, BPM
s = Skin factor
t = Injection time, min
4.1. Validation and Case Study Fig. 11. The calculations of the C, D, E, and F constants.
The PFOT data were used to check the validity of
Eq. 13. The PFOT was conducted by injecting water The skin factor was calculated at several time steps,
at 3.8 bpm for 100 min. A 3D fracture simulation and using Eq. 6 the BHP was also calculated, A
was conducted using Advantek’s @FRAC3D good match between the calculated and actual BHP
simulator to monitor the fracture propagation. The during the PFOT was obtained as shown in Fig. 13.
simulator estimated fracture length of 239 ft at the
end of the PFOT (Fig. 12). Using Eq. 3, the skin For the ongoing injection operations, the injection
factor equivalent to this simulated fracture length is time before the pressure reaches the MASIP at each
-5.82. The skin factor calculated from the field data injection flow rate is shown in Table 4. The actual
at the end of the PFOT using the rate dependent injection operation was conducted at 5 bpm, and the
skin equation Eq. 13 is -5.9 which agrees very injection lasted for 87 min before the MASIP was
closely to the skin calculated from fracture reached, while the calculations showed that 89 min
simulator results. of injection would be accommodated at rate of 5
bpm before reaching the MASIP. This difference
between the calculated time to reach MASIP and
the actual time to reach MASIP of less than 2
minutes represents an error of less than 3%.

7
 USA. Based on the results of this study the
following conclusions can be drawn:
1- For water injection in an unpropped fracture
the skin factor depends on two factors: the
injection flow rate and injection time.
2- The skin factor development rate is higher at
higher injection rates (due to fracture
propagation)
3- A good match was obtained between the
field data and the results obtained from the
developed correlation.
4- The constants shown in this paper are only
valid to the injector well shown in this
paper. To apply Eq. 13 generally, an
injection test should be conducted first to
Fig. 12. Hydraulic fracture dimensions calculated by
calculate the constants E, C, D, and F as
@FRAC3D
shown in this paper.

REFERENCES
1. Roach, R.W., Carr, R.S., and Howard C.L. 1993. An
Assessment of Produced Water Impacts at Two Sites in
the Galveston Bay System. Paper GBNEP 23 published
at the Second State of the Bay Symposium.
2. Ali, M. A., Currie, P. K., Salman, M. J. 2007.
Permeability Damage Due to Water Injection
Containing Oil Droplets and Solid Particles at Residual
Oil Saturation. Paper SPE 104608 was presented at the
15th SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show Conference
held in Bahrain International Exhibition Center,
Bahrain, 11-14 March.
3. NPC North America Resource Development Study.
Fig. 13. A good match between the actual and calculated BHP 2011. Management of Produced Water from Oil and
was obtained for the PFOT. Gas Wells. Paper #2-17 prepared by the Technology
Subgroup of the Operations & Environment Task
Group.
Table 4. Injection Time and Volume to Reach MASIP
4. Clark, C.E., and J.A. Veil, 2009, Produced Water
Injection Flow Injection Duration to Volume to be
Volumes and Management Practices in the United
Rate (BPM) Reach MASIP (min) Injected (bbl)
States. ANL/EVS/R-09/1, prepared by the
1 554 554 Environmental Science Division, Argonne National
Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy, Office
2 116 232 of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology
4 95 380 Laboratory.

5 89 445 5. McCurdy, R. 2011. Underground Injection Wells for

Produced Water Disposal. EPA 600/R-11/048
6 86 518 Proceedings of the Technical Workshops for the
Hydraulic Fracturing Study: Water Resources
Management.

5. CONCLUSIONS 6. Patton, C.C. 1995. Applied Water Technology. 2nd ed.

Campbell Petroleum Series.
In this paper a flow rate dependent skin correlation
7. Diersing, Nancy (2009). "Water Quality: Frequently
was developed based on the data of and injection Asked Questions." Florida Brooks National Marine
test from a water injection well located in Texas, Sanctuary, Key West, FL.

8
8. Pang, S., Sharma, M. M., 1997. A Model for Predicting 2011. Evaluation of After-Closure Analysis Techniques
Injectivity Decline in Water-Injection Wells. SPE for Tight and Shale Gas Formations. SPE paper 140136
Formation Evaluation Journal. 12(3): 194-201 prepared for presentation at the SPE Hydraulic
Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition held
9. Bennion, D.B., Thomas, F.B., and Sheppard, D. A.
in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 24–26 January.
1992.Formation Damage Due to Mineral Alteration and
Wettability Changes during Hot Water and Steam 23. Department of Energy. 2004. Hydraulic Fracturing
Injection in Clay Bearing Sandstone Reservoirs. Paper White Paper. EPA 816-R-04-003.
SPE 23783 was presented at the SPE Symposium on
24. Matthews, C.S. and Russell, D.G. 1967.Pressure
Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 26-
Buildup and Flow Tests in Wells. Monograph Series,
27 February.
Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas (1967)
10. Dennis, M. and Turner, J. 1998. Hydraulic 1, 21
Conductivity of Compacted Soil Treated with Biofilm.
J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
124(2): 120–127.
11. Bennion, D.B., Bennion, D.W., Thomas, F.B., and
Bietz, R.F. 1998. Injection Water Quality-A key Factor
to Successful Waterflooding. JPCT 37:6, 53-62
12. Detienne, J. L., and Po, V. 2005. PWRI Design for Soft
Sand Formations. SPE ATW Produced Water Re-
Injection, Biarritz, France, 20-24 Jun.
13. Van den Hoek, P. J., and Bjoerndal, H. P. 2005. Design
of PWRI. SPE ATW Produced Water Re-Injection,
Biarritz, France, 20-24 Jun.
14. Perkins, T.K. and Gonzales, J.A. 1985. The Effect of
Thermoelastic Stress on Injection Well Fracturing. SPE
Journal 25(1): 78‐88.
15. Koning, E.J.L., and Niko, H. 1985. Fractured Water-
Injection Wells: A Pressure Falloff Test for
Determining Fracture Dimensions. Paper SPE 14458
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition.
16. Economides, M.J., Hill A.D., and Ehlig-Economides,
C. 1994. Petroleum Production Systems. Prentice Hall
PTR.
17. Ahmed, T. and McKinney P.D. 2005. Advanced
Reservoir Engineering. Elsevier Inc.
18. Hawkins, M.F., Jr. 1956. A Note on the Skin Effect.
Trans. AIME 207:356-357.
19. Economides, M.J., Hill A.D., Ehlig-Economides, C.,
and Zhu, D. 2012. Petroleum Production Systems. 2nd
ed. Prentice Hall PTR.
20. Mathur, A.K., Ning, X., Marcinew, R.B., Ehlig
Economides, C.A., and Economides, M.J. 1995.
Hydraulic fracture Stimulation of Highly Permeability
Formations: The Effect of Critical Fracture Parameters
on Oilwell Production and Pressure. Paper SPE 30652
presented at the Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition in Dallas, TX, October 1995.
21. Cringarten A.C., Ogunrewo, O., and Uxukbayev, G.
2012. Assessment of Individual Skin Factors in Gas
Condensate and Volatile Oil Wells. Paper SPE 143592
presented at the SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual
Conference and Exhibition
22. Mohamed, I.M., Nasralla, R.A., Sayed, M.A.,
Marongiu-Porcu M., and Ehlig-Economides, C.A.