Formation Damage and Filter Cake

Buildup in Laboratory Core Tests:

Modeling and ModelAssisted Analysis
Xinghui Liu, SPE, Indiana U., and Faruk Civan, SPE, U. of Oklahoma

Summary
A mathematical model for the analysis of formation damage in laboratory core tests is presented. The model considers filter cake buildup
on sand face, invasion of external particles, release of formation fines,
migration and retention of external particles and formation fines, interphase transfer of particles, and alteration of porosity and permeability. The effects of wettabilities of fine particles and pore surfaces,
relative permeabilities and capillary pressure on formation damage in
two-phase flow conditions are also included. Simulation results from
the model are in good agreement with experimental results from core
tests. This model can be used for the analysis of formation damage
due to particulate processes in laboratory core tests.
Introduction
Formation damage is a very common problem encountered in almost every phase of reservoir development from drilling to production. Fine particles are always present in the petroleum-bearing
formation and they contribute a great deal to formation damage.
During drilling and completion, fluids containing particulate suspensions enter the formation. Chemical reactions can also generate
particles within the formation. Sedimentary rocks usually contain
fines loosely attached to pore surfaces. When injection fluids are incompatible with these minerals, they can be released from the pore
surfaces. These particles migrate through the porous media, deposit
on the pore surfaces, and become trapped at pore constrictions to reduce the rock porosity and permeability.
Most of the previous studies of formation damage focused primarily on single-phase flow of injection fluids or filtrates. Several models1
are available in the literature that describe formation damage due to
particulate processes in single-phase flow. Although multiphase flow
is more commonly encountered in petroleum reservoirs, the information2,3 about formation damage in multiphase flow is rather limited.
The equipment and experimental setup required to study formation
damage in multiphase flow are more expensive and time consuming.
However, simulation studies can provide a practical and less expensive alternative for this problem. In this study, a simplified model
based on mass conservation and rate equations representing particle
release and retention is first developed to describe formation damage
in single- and two-phase flow. The model is then verified and calibrated using published laboratory core data.
Model Development
The mathematical model developed here is based on the following
assumptions: (1) the system consists of an external filter cake and
a permeable formation; (2) flow through the system is one-dimensional; (3) gravity effects on filter cake buildup and transport of
fluids and particles are neglected; (4) single-phase flow of mud filtrate in the filter cake and two-phase flow of oil and water in the
formation are considered; (5) Darcy flow is valid in both the filter
cake and the formation; (6) average porosity and permeability of the
filter cake are constant; (7) variations of relative permeabilities and
capillary pressure during formation damage are neglected; and (8)
formation damage due to chemical precipitation and organic deposition is not considered.
In this study, the model is designed to investigate formation damage in laboratory, linear-flow core tests. However, the model has
Copyright 1996 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review April 16, 1993. Revised manuscript received
Jan. 3, 1996. Paper peer approved Jan. 4, 1996. Paper (SPE 25215) first presented at the
1993 SPE Intl. Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry held in New Orleans, March 25.

26

been extended to simulate and predict formation damage and skin

factor in field operations.4,5 Processes accounted for by the model
include filter cake buildup on sand face, invasion of external particles, release of formation fines, migration and retention of external
particles and formation fines, interphase transfer of particles, and alteration of porosity and permeability. In the following, the model
equations are briefly presented. Detailed discussion of the model
formulation is presented elsewhere.6,7
Fluid and Species Transport. For two-phase flow in porous media,
the mass conservation equation is given by
(u ) ) (fs ) + 0 , l + w, o. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
l l
x l l
t
By definition, the saturations add up to one:
s w ) s o + 1.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)

The two-phase flow Darcy equation given below is used for momentum conservation:
u l + * (kk rl m l) p l x, l + w, o. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
The capillary pressure between the two phases is given by
pc + po * pw .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)

Neglecting the effect of dispersion, the mass conservation equation

of particle species i in fluid phase l is written as
(u C ) ) (fs C ) ) s i,l ) s i,l ) s i,l + 0. . . . . . (5)
l i,l
t
t
t
x l i,l
t
*

In this study, the particle species of interest include formation fines,

and externally introduced water-wet, oil-wet and intermediately wet
particles. The mass balance equation for dissolved mineral salts in
the water phase is given by

(u C ) fs K C s ) (fs wC s) + 0. . . . . . . . . . . (6)
w
t
x
x w s x
Filter Cake Buildup on Sand Face. When a drilling fluid enters a
formation, a filter cake may form on the formation face, depending
on the size distribution of the particles and pore openings. Particles
larger than the formation pores are either retained on the formation
face initiating the buildup of an external filter cake or entrained in the
mud by mud circulation. The rate of cake buildup is the difference between the rate of mud particle deposition by filtration and the rate of
particle erosion by the circulating mud. The particle deposition rate
is the mass flux of particles carried toward the sand face by infiltration. The erosion rate of particles from the filter cake is assumed proportional to the shear stress exerted by the drilling fluid flowing over
the cake surface.8 For a unit cross-sectional area of the core inlet face,
the rate equation for cake buildup is thus expressed as5
(1 * f c) cL ct + u inC m * k tt.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)

Eq. 7 also applies for static mud filtration. When the mud does not circulate, the fluid shear stress on the cake surface, t, becomes zero and the
second term on the right hand side of the equation disappears. In this
case, the cake thickness keeps increasing as static filtration continues.
Release of Formation Fines From Pore Bodies. Clay and other fine
particles are held on the pore surfaces of sandstone formations by various forces. These particles can be released when the forces acting on
the particles can no longer keep them on the pore surfaces. Khilar and
SPE Formation Evaluation, March 1996

Fogler9 determined the existence of a critical salt concentration in

aqueous solutions, below which the release of fines takes place due to
colloidal phenomena. Gabriel and Inamdar10 reported that formation
fines can also be released due to hydrodynamic effects if the fluid velocity exceeds a critical value. A theoretical analysis of force balance
on the particles is complicated. Therefore, fines release is usually described by empirical rate equations. Khilar and Fogler9 showed that
fines release due to colloidal effects can be satisfactorily represented by
a first-order decay equation. A new rate equation for formation fines
release due to colloidal and hydrodynamical effects is proposed as
s i,lt + * k cr,i,l s i,l (C sc * C s) * k hr,i,l s i,l u l * u lc,
k cr,i,l + 0 for C s w C sc and k hr,i,l + 0 for u l v u lc . . . . . . . (8)
Formation fines are predominately water-wet and they can be released into the water phase only. Therefore, Eq. 8 applies for the situation that i+fp and l+w.
Retention of Particles in Pore Bodies. Particles can be captured in
pore bodies and pore throats. The particles retained at pore throats
cause more permeability reduction than those retained in pore bodies. Gruesbeck and Collins11 reported that for surface deposition
(mainly over pore bodies) there exists a critical velocity, below
which only particle retention takes place and above which retention
and entrainment of particles occur simultaneously. A modification
of the Gruesbeck and Collins11 model for pore body retention in
two-phase flow is proposed as follows:
s i,lt + k d,i,lu lC i,l * k e,i,l s i,lu l * u lc,
k e,i,l + 0, if u l v u lc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
Water-wet particles existing in water phase are likely to contact water-wet rock surfaces. Similarly, oil-wet particles existing in oil phase
are likely to contact oil-wet rock surfaces. Eq. 9 is thus valid for the
case that i+wp and l+w as well as the case that i+op and l+o.
Retention of Particles at Pore Throats. Particle retention at pore
throats is a complicated process that is determined by the structure
and size of pore throats and particles, as well as the flowing velocity
and particle concentration. The rate of particles captured at pore
throats is assumed proportional to the particle mass flux5:
s *i,lt + k pt,i,lu lC i,l ,
k pt,i,l + 0 if f + f min.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10)

Interphase Transfer of Particles. In two phase flow, fine particles

may also transfer from one fluid phase to another depending on their
wettability2. For the interphase transfer of externally introduced
particles, three situations exist: (1) water-wet particles in oil phase
transferring to water phase, (2) oil-wet particles in water phase
transferring to oil phase, and (3) intermediately wet particles in oil
and water phases transferring to the water-oil interface. Ku and
Henry12 studied the transfer of particles from oil phase to water
phase and found that the rate of particles leaving one fluid phase is
proportional to the concentration of particles in that phase. The
transfer of particles between fluid phases in porous media is assumed to obey a similar relationship. The rate of transfer of particle
species i from fluid phase l is expressed as
s ti,lt

f+1*

s *i,o ) s *i,w,

np,i

f min v f v 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)
Certain pores may never be plugged due to the fact that either pore
sizes are too large, particle sizes are too small, or the particle concentration is too low. In Eq. 13, fmin represents the fraction of pores that cannot be plugged. In Eq. 12, kp is a dimensionless parameter used to describe the flow capacity in plugged pores. This parameter is difficult to
measure directly, but can be determined by matching the experimental
results. The porosity during formation damage is determined by
f + f o ) s fp0 * s fp,w fp *

s
l

i,l

) s *i,l i .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14)
Analysis of Laboratory Core Data
In this section, the application of the model to the analysis of formation damage in a variety of core tests is demonstrated. The model
was validated and model parameters were determined using the data
of core tests.
Damage by Formation Fines Migration. Sarkar and Sharma3 examined fines migration in two Berea core samples, one of them containing residual oil (ROS). Data for the two core tests are given in Table
1. The core samples were first saturated with 3% NaCl brine. Formation damage due to fines migration took place upon fresh water injection. Values of some model parameters were gathered from the literature9 while the others were obtained by matching the model responses
to the measured data, as summarized in Table 2. Fig. 1 shows that the
simulation results represent favorably the experimental data for the two
core tests. The simulation study also confirms that formation damage
in the presence of oil is less pronounced. As can be seen in Table 2, the
amount of formation fines which can be released from the pore surface,
sfp0, is 20% less and the rate constant for fines release due to colloidal
effects, kcr,fp,w, is 35% lower in the presence of residual oil.
Sarkar13 conducted a laboratory test using a Berea core of 8.27
cm in length to investigate fines migration in two-phase flow. The
core porosity and permeability initially were 0.21 and 0.122 darcy,
respectively. The core saturated with crude oil was displaced with 3%
NaCl brine. Berea sandstones generally do not suffer from permeability
reduction during a brine flood. Neglecting the effects of capillary pressure, the model was used to simulate the two-phase flow test. Relative
permeability data were obtained by matching the simulated results with
TABLE 1CORE TEST DATA FOR FINES MIGRATION3
Data

Core w/o ROS

Core diameter (cm)

Core length (cm)
Initial porosity
Initial permeability (darcy)
Residual oil saturation
End-point relative permeability
Injection velocity (cm/s)
Water viscosity (cp)

Core with ROS

2.54
8.30
0.21
0.0654
0.0
1.0

2.54
8.30
0.21
0.0825
0.367
0.038

4.31 104
1.0

4.31 104
1.0

+ k t,i,l C i,l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)

TABLE 2MODEL PARAMETERS FOR FINES MIGRATION

Permeability Alteration. Formation damage is usually characterized in terms of permeability alteration. Modifying the Kozeny-Carman equation and taking into account the permeability alteration in
both plugged and non-plugged flow paths, the following expression
is proposed to evaluate the permeability alteration factor:
3

kk o + (1 * f)k p ) fff o .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (12)

As a measure of the fraction of the pore throats that are not

plugged, the non-plugging factor is estimated by the following empirical equation5:
SPE Formation Evaluation, March 1996

Parameter
sfpo (gm/cm3)
Csc (mole/liter)
kcr,fp,w (s@liter/mole)
khr,fp,w (cm1)
kpt,fp,w (cm1)
kfe,fp (cm3/gm)
fmin
kp

Core w/o ROS

Core with ROS

0.025

0.02

7.0 103
0.435
0.0
5.25
35.4
0.0
0.0

7.0 103
0.28
0.0
5.25
35.4
0.0
0.0
27

Fig. 1Permeability alteration due to formation fines migration

in single-phase flow.

Fig. 2Pressure drop across undamaged core during twophase flow.

Fig. 3Pressure drop across damaged core during two-phase

flow.

Fig. 4Predicted permeability alteration due to formation fines

migration in two-phase flow.

the measured pressure drop across the core as shown in Fig. 2. An oil
flood was then carried out to reestablish the connate water saturation.
The core was finally displaced with fresh water and formation damage
took place due to fines migration in two-phase flow. Using the relative
permeabilities obtained from the two-phase flow test without formation
damage, simulation was carried out to match measured pressure drop
as shown in Fig. 3. Alteration in the rock permeability predicted in Fig.
4 indicates that formation damage due to fines migration in two-phase
flow of oil and fresh water is similar to that of single-phase flow of fresh
water in the presence of residual oil. Detailed information on core data
and model parameters in this case is presented elsewhere.5

Damage by Mud Filtration. Rahman and Marx15 studied formation damage by mud filtration. A core sample was contaminated by
circulating a drilling fluid over the surface of core inlet under a
constant differential pressure of 34.54 atm across the core. Before
mud filtration, the core was saturated with 1.5% KCl water to prevent formation fines migration. Permeability alteration along the
core was measured after one hour of mud contamination. Data for
the core test and values of model parameters for simulation are presented elsewhere by Liu and Civan.7 Experimental and simulated results for drilling fluid loss versus time and permeability alteration
versus core distance after one hour of mud contamination are illus-

Damage by Particle Invasion. Experimental data of two similar core

samples conducted by Eleri and Ursin14 were used to analyze formation damage due to particle invasion. The two samples were labeled
as Core #26 and Core #27 in the Eleri and Ursin14 study. Prior to flow
tests, the core samples were treated to eliminate formation fines
migration. Latex particles of less than 3 microns in size suspended in
water were injected into Core #26 at the concentration of 0.5 104
gm/cm3 and into Core #27 at the concentration of 2.0 104 gm/cm3.
Simulations were performed to examine the two tests. Permeability
alteration versus cumulative volume of injected fluid is illustrated in
Fig. 5 including a comparison between experimental and simulated
results. Detailed information on core data and model parameters in
this case is presented by Liu and Civan.7 All model parameters for the
two core tests are the same except that fmin +0.58 for Core #26 and
fmin +0.41 for Core #27. The difference reveals that higher particle
concentration causes more pores being plugged. Both experimental
and simulation results indicate that particle concentration is a major
factor for formation damage caused by particle invasion.
28

Fig. 5Permeability alteration due to particle invasion.

SPE Formation Evaluation, March 1996

Fig. 6Fluid loss during one hour mud filtration.

trated in Figs. 6 and 7. Simulation results indicate that the model can
favorably represent the process of mud filtration.
Another laboratory test involving dynamic mud filtration was
conducted by Jiao and Sharma.16 A fresh water-based mud was circulated over the surface of core inlet and infiltrated into a Berea core
under an average differential pressure of 6.29 atm across the system.
This Berea core sample was previously saturated with 3% NaCl
brine. Formation damage in this test is caused by external solid invasion and formation fines migration. Pressure taps were placed at different locations along the core of 20.34 cm in length to measure
permeability change during the test. Experimental and simulated
mud filtration volumes are in good agreement, as presented in Fig.
8. As shown in Fig. 9, experimental results of permeability alteration in the core section between 6.35 cm and 11.43 cm from core
inlet compare quite well with simulation results. Further discussion
on the simulation of this test is presented elsewhere.7
Prediction of formation damage due to dynamic mud filtration in
two-phase flow was also carried out to demonstrate the capacity and
application of the model and to provide a comparison with single
phase flow results. If the core studied by Jiao and Sharma16 was saturated by oil prior to mud filtration, the invasion of the water-based
mud would lead to two-phase flow of oil and water in the rock. The
same model parameters determined above for mud filtration in
single-phase flow were used. Additional data necessary for simulation including connate water saturation, residual oil saturation and
relative permeabilities are adapted from the case of fines migration
in two-phase flow that was also simulated above. The predicted mud
filtration volume and permeability alteration in two-phase flow are
also plotted in Figs. 8 and 9, as denoted by the dashed lines. These
results indicate that filtration volume and formation damage are sig-

Fig. 8Filtration volume versus time during dynamic mud filtration.

SPE Formation Evaluation, March 1996

Fig. 7Permeability alteration profile after one hour mud filtration.

nificantly less when a water based mud invades an oil-bearing

formation. This is because the total mobility for simultaneous two
phase flow of water and oil is usually less than that of single phase
of water in formations, especially in Berea sandstones which are
generally strongly water-wet and have a very low permeability for
water phase with the presence of oil in the formations.
Conclusions
A practical model to simulate formation damage caused by various
particulate processes in single- and two-phase flow has been developed. This model can be used as a predictive tool for quantitative
analysis of formation damage involving fluid injection and mud
filtration. The model was validated by a variety of experimental
data. Comparisons with experimental data show that the model can
represent formation damage due to particulate processes. It has been
confirmed that formation damage due to formation fines migration
is less pronounced in the presence of oil in water-sensitive sandstones. Particle concentration is a major factor for formation damage caused by particle invasion. Formation damage due to mud
filtration is less severe in two-phase flow.
Nomenclature
Ci,l + concentration of particle species i in fluid l, m/L3,
gm/cm3
Cm + particle concentration in mud fluid, m/L3, gm/cm3
Cs + salt concentration, m/L3, mole/liter
Csc + critical salt concentration, m/L3, mole/liter
f+ non-plugging factor of porous media
fmin + minimum non-plugging factor of porous media

Fig. 9Permeability alteration during dynamic mud filtration.

29

K+
k+
ko +
krl +
kcr,i,l +
khr,i,l +
kd,i,l +
ke,i,l +
kpt,i,l +
kt,i,l +
knp,i +
kp +
kt +
Lc +
pl +
pc +
sl +
t+
ul +
ulc +
uin +
x+
f+
fo +
fc +
ml +
c+
i+
l+
s i,l +
si *,l +
s ti,l +
sfp0+
t+
Subscripts
fp+
ip+
o+
op+
w+
wp+

dispersion coefficient, L2/t, cm2/s

permeability, L2, darcy
initial permeability, L2, darcy
relative permeability to fluid phase l
rate constant for the release of particle species i into
fluid phase l due to colloidal effects, t@L3/m,
s@liter/mole
rate constant for the release of particle species i into
fluid phase l due to hydrodynamic effects, t1, cm1
rate constant for the deposition of particle species i in
pore bodies from fluid phase l, t1, cm1
rate constant for the entrainment of particle species i
into fluid phase l from pore bodies, t1, cm1
rate constant for the retention of particle species i at
pore throats from fluid phase l, t1, cm1
rate constant for the transfer of particle species i from
fluid phase l, t1, cm1
parameter of particle species i for the calculation of
the non-plugging factor, L3/m, cm3/gm
dimensionless flow capacity in plugged pores
filter cake erosion constant, t/L, s/cm
filter cake thickness, L, cm
pressure of fluid phase l, m/L/t2, atm
capillary pressure, m/L/t2, atm
saturation of fluid phase l
time, t, s
superficial velocity of fluid l, L/t, cm/s
critical velocity for particle release into fluid l, L/t, cm/s
infiltration velocity of mud fluid, L/t, cm/s
distance from core inlet, L, cm
porosity
initial porosity
filter cake porosity
viscosity of fluid l, m/L, cp
filter cake density, m/L3, gm/cm3
density of particle species i, m/L3, gm/cm3
density of fluid l, m/L3, gm/cm3
particle species i from fluid phase l retained in pore
bodies per unit bulk volume of rock, m/L3, gm/cm3
particle species i from fluid phase l retained at pore
throats per unit bulk volume of rock, m/L3, gm/cm3
particle species i transferred from fluid phase l per
unit bulk volume of rock, m/L3, gm/cm3
the initial amount of formation fines to be released
per unit bulk volume of rock, m/L3, gm/cm3
shear stress of circulating mud, m/L/t2, dyne/cm2
formation fine particles
intermediately wet particles
oil phase
oil-wet particles
water phase
water-wet particles

Acknowledgment
The authors gratefully acknowledge the U.S. Dept. of Energy for
support of this work under the contract no. DE-AC22-90BC14658.
References
1. Civan, F.: Evaluation and Comparison of the Formation Damage Models, paper SPE 23787 presented at the SPE Intl. Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, LA, Feb. 2627, 1992.
2. Muecke, T.W.: Formation Fines and Factors Controlling Their Movement in Porous Media, J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1979), 144150.
3. Sarkar, A.K. and Sharma, M.M.: Fines Migration in Two-Phase Flow,
J. Pet. Tech. (May 1990), 646152.
4. Liu, X. and Civan, F.: Formation Damage and Skin Factor Due to Filter
Cake Formation and Fines Migration in the Near-Wellbore Region, paper SPE 27364 presented at the SPE Intl. Symposium on Formation
Damage Control, Lafayette, LA, Feb. 910, 1994.
30

5. Liu, X. and Civan, F.: Formation Damage by Fines Migration Including Effects of Filter Cake, Pore Compressibility, and Non-Darcy
FlowA Modeling Approach to Scaling from Core to Field, paper
SPE 28980 presented at the SPE Intl. Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry,
San Antonio, Texas, Feb. 1417, 1995.
6. Liu, X. and Civan, F.: A Multiphase Mud Fluid Infiltration and Filter
Cake Formation Model, paper SPE 25215 presented at the SPE Intl.
Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, New Orleans, LA, Mar. 25, 1993.
7. Liu, X. and Civan, F.: Characterization and Prediction of Formation
Damage in Two-Phase Flow Systems, paper SPE 25429 presented at
the SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, Mar.
2123, 1993.
8. Peng, S.J. and Peden, J.M.: Prediction of Filtration Under Dynamic
Conditions, paper SPE 23824 presented at the SPE Intl. Symposium on
Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, LA, Feb. 2627, 1992.
9. Khilar, K.C. and Fogler, H.S.: Water Sensitivity of Sandstones, SPEJ
(Feb. 1983), 5564.
10. Gabriel, G.A. and Inamdar, G.R.: An Experimental Investigation of
Fines Migration in Porous Media, paper SPE 12168, presented at 58th
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, CA,
Oct. 58, 1983.
11. Gruesbeck, C. and Collins, R.E.: Entrainment and Deposition of Fines
Particles in Porous Media, SPEJ (Dec. 1982), 847856.
12. Ku, C-A and Henry, Jr., J.D.: Mechanisms of Particle Transfer from a
Continuous Oil to a Dispersed Water Phase, J. Coll. Interf. Sci., 116(2),
414422, 1987.
13. Sarkar, A.K.: An Experimental Investigation of Fines Migration in Two
Phase Flow, M.S. Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 1988.
14. Eleri, O.O. and Ursin, J-R.: Physical Aspects of Formation Damage in
Linear Flooding Experiments, paper SPE 23784 presented at the SPE
Intl. Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, LA, Feb.
2627, 1992.
15. Rahman, S.S. and Marx, C.: Laboratory Evaluation of Formation Damage Caused by Drilling Fluids and Cement Slurry, J. Can. Pet. Tech.
(Nov.Dec. 1991), 4046.
16. Jiao, D. and Sharma, M.M.: Formation Damage Due to Static and Dynamic Filtration of Water-Based Muds, paper SPE 23823 presented at
the SPE Intl. Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, LA,
Feb. 2627, 1992.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

atm 1.013 250* E)05 +Pa
in. 2.54*
E)00 +cm
cp 1.0*
E*03 +Pa@s
darcy 9.869 233
E*01 +mm2
SPEFE

*Conversion factor is exact.

Xinghui Liu is a postdoctoral researcher in the Laboratory for

Computational Geochemistry at Indiana U. Previously, he
worked as an engineer in well services and production at the
Daqing Oilfield, China for 6 years. His interests include reservoir
simulation, geochemical modeling, formation damage, acid
stimulation, welltest analysis, and hazardous waste disposal by
deep well injection. He holds BS, MS, and PhD degrees in petro
leum engineering from Daqing Petroleum Inst., Montana Tech,
and the U. of Oklahoma, respectively. Faruk Civan is a professor
of the School of Petroleum and Geological Engineering at the
U. of Oklahoma. His principal research interests include forma
tion damage and stimulation in oil and gas reservoirs, insitu pro
cessing of minerals and fossil fuel, phenomenological and ther
modynamic analysis of porous media processes, mathematical
modeling, and efficient numerical solution methods. He holds
an Advanced Engineering degree from the Technical U. of Is
tanbul, Turkey, an MS degree from the U. of Texas at Austin, and
a PhD degree from the U. of Oklahoma, all in chemical engi
neering. He serves as a Technical Editor for the SPE Reservoir En
gineering journal. He is presently a member of the SPE Fluid Me
chanics and Oil Recovery Processes Technical Committee and
the SPE Gas Technology Symposium Program Committee.

Liu

Civan

SPE Formation Evaluation, March 1996