SPE 29531

A Comprehensive Approach to Formation Damage Diagnosis and Corresponding

Stimulation Type And Fluid Selection
Hongjie Xiong* and Stephen A. Holditch*, S. A. Holditch & Associates, Inc.
*SPE Members

Different types of formation damage require ditTerenttypes of

stimulation treatments to repair the damage and increase
productivity. However.diagnosing formation damage is not a
simple task. Diagnosingdamage requires an adequate data set.
carefulanalysis and experience. Multiple damage mechanisms
may coexist,which makes the problem even more complicated.

ABSTRACT

This paper describes a comprehensive approach to

formation damage diagnosis. Once the cause of formation
damage and the location of the damage is known. then one can
select the optimum fluid and design the best treatment to
remove the damage. Our approach combines the domain
knowledge -with the best available expertise, then uses new
technologies, which include fuzzy logic and an expert system.
Our approach first diagnoses the formation &mage
mechanism, then we determine the treatment method, and
finally we select the optimal fluids for the treatment.

Many investigations-have been conducted to learn

how to diagnose formation damage. Numerous fluid systems
and methods to remove formation damage have been
developed.8-2 However, diagnosing the formation damage
mechanism, then removing the damage ffom the formation or
wellbore is a difficult problem. The problem becomes more
ditllcuh when adequatedata are not available to properly define
the problem. Two papers34have been published that discuss
how expert systems and rules can be used to assist in the
analysesof formationdamage problcmx however, no complete
approach to the proiiern of diagnosis, iiicii Mliincili has ken
written. In this paper, wc describe a complctc approach to the
problem.

INTRODUCTION
The selection of treatment fluids for matrix
stimulation is more complicated than for hydraulic fracturing.
In matrix acidizing, we first have to determine (he damage
mechanism and the location of the damage: then, we can
choose the proper treatment fluid based upon the damage type,
lithology, bottomhole temperature.and formationpermeability.

Applyingan expert system and fuzzylogic techniques.

wc have develop a comprehensive approach and a computer
model, that can be used to diagnose formation damage types.
We also choosethe optimal stimulation method and an optimal
treatmentfluid system to remove the damage. Our methods arc
especially usefi.d when very little data are available and/or
multiple damagemechanismsmay coexist. The approach helps
an engineerdesign the optimum matrix stimulation treatment.

Near wellbore formation damage can be caused by

chemical or mechanical processes that occur in the formation
ve~ near the borehole. Formation damage resulting from
drilling. completion, production. or stimulation treatments can
substantially reduce the p-roductivityor injectivity of a well.

Referenecsat end of paper.

044

VII

.
A MUDDCUENCIVE7

A DDDn

n LUIV1l nbllLITQI

A flU

v k AL 1 L\wnb& 1

Tn

lWIDM

1 w

A lTnN

1 Uauvln

a a,.

ilA

Afl.fi

n,.-

A~.NnQIC

nl
,-W.

.V.

ANll

. . ..-

SPE 29531

CORRESPONDINGSTIMULATIONTYPEAND FLUIDSELECTION

2
METHODOLOGY

Formation damage can occur during drilling,

completion or workover operations. Damage can also occur
during routine production or injection, and during stimulation
treatments. Fresh water invasion. solids plugging, organic
material deposition, scale precipitation. fines migration, and
clay swelling are common causes of low productivity. Twelve
types of formation damage have been identified and listed in
Table 1. One or more type(s)of damage may exist or coexist in
the wcllbom and formation. Di!Terent types of formation
damage may result from one or two different types of
opxations, such as drilling, completion. or weU stimulation
operations (See Table 2). The location of the damage is also
vexyimportant. Damage can occur in the formation,plugging
natural fracturesor the rock matrix (see Table 3). Damagecan
also occur in the tubing, the perforationsor in a gravel pack.

To design the optimal treatment, the stimulation

engineer must properly diagnose the type and the location of
the damage. Many different fluid systems (See Table 4) are
available to remove formation damage. Each system has
advantages and disadvantages depending upon the type and
locationof the damage.
We have developeda comprehensiveapproach to help
engineerscorrectlydiagnose formationdamage, choose the beat
stimulation method, and select the optimal treatment fluid
system. Fig. 1 presents the steps we follow in our analyses.

Table 1- Different Types of Formation Damage

Main Types
I
Asphaltene participation
~
Emulsion blocks
Iron ion participation

SubTypes

I
1(1) Fe+, (2) Fe+

plugging

Paraflln participation
kaic precipitation

.-

Sludgeblocks
Solid plugging

-,. -

Water
block
Nettability

->-

(i jCaCOJ.(Z) Lhloridc, (3) FeLUJ

(4) FeS. (5) Fe203, (6) Hydroxide,
(7) Silica. (8) Sulfate
(1) Fe++,(2) Fe-.

HCL soluble

I(4) Silt and clays

Waterblocks
I
Rock wettabilitvchan~e
Table 2- Cauaea of Formation Darnape
Acid
Completion Drilling Fracture
Treatments Operations opera
tions Treatment Injection
Asphaltene participation
Bacteria plugging
~ia., nwG1l
n..,all:..m
111
Emulsionblocks
Iron ion participation
Lubricant plugging
Paraffin mulicination

d
d

.+

Workover
Operations

Production
4

4
q

4
1!

4
d

s
SIuog(
Idldldldl
Solid plugging.
,
1
Water
blocks
Idldldldl
.. -.-----m
Rock nettability change I
;1

812

ill

dldldl
,

414141

HONGJIEXIONGand STEPHENA. HOLDITCH

SPE29531

Table 4- Common Fluid Systems Used For Matrix Treatments

Notes
Carbonatesand sandstones
only
~~ndg~~nes
Sandstonesrequireddeep acid penetration

Fluid Systems
Hydrochloricacid
u

AhInA.

UEUWUUI

mm+

sw SUN

hvt-lrnflnwwir
..= SS...=.

srid
.W -...

!n.situ generated hydrochloricand

hydrofluoricacid
Acid wlAlcohol
Organic and hydrofluoricacid
Solvent
A mixture of solvents, dispersant and
surfactants

Sandstonesonly
High temperature sandstones
Fotmation damages from organics
Formationdamages from organics

Step 2: Identt@poswble formationdamage

..........
ruep
a..UG,nl.,
puOOw.
....-.

I c.

a.

IA-..*:%

-..;hle

In,-skmm

diem

the

formationdamage may occur

Step 9: Select pretluahesand athtluabes

for every base fluid

Step 4: Rankthe identified formationdamage

types
4
Stap S Choose a propermatrixtreatment
method

Fig. 1- The methodology for selecting matrix treatment fluids.

FORMATION

DAMAGE

To determine how severe the formation damage is for

any specific situation, the data available has to b-judged
qualitatively using a fimzy logic approach. For example, to
diagnose the possible formation damage resulted from an
acidizing treatment, one of queries is Were tubularsclean?.
The answer to that question may be (1) vew clean, (2) clean,
(3)OK, (4) not clean, or (5) dirty.

DIAGNOSIS

In most cases, some formation damage occurs during

drilling antior workoveroperations. For example, as ghownin
Fig. 2, damage due to solids plugging or filtrate invasion can
Damage can also occur during
occur during drilling.
production, injection or stimulation treatments. Fig. 3
illustrates potential problems that can occur during an acid
treatment.
Therefore, we start diagnosing formation damage
based on the operations that have been performed on the weU,
as shown in Fig, 4. For each operation performedon the well,
we followa flow chart to query information and determine the
possible type of formation damage. For example, if one of the
recent operations is an acid treatment, we use Fig. 3 to try to
determine the formation damage mechanisms. We have buiit
flow charts similar to Figs. 2 and 3 for each well operation.
~~~

We also must be concerned with the accuracy of the

information we have at our disposal. Therefore, a confkience
coefficientis used to express the accuracy of the information
provided by the user. A value of one (1) is used for the
cotiidence coefficient if we feel the value of a data item is
accurate. A zero (0) cofildence coefficient is used if the
engineer knows the value of a data item is not accurate. If one
is not sure, then a value between zero (0) and one (i j must be
chosen.

A COMPREHENSIVEAPPROACHTO FORMATIONDAMAGEDIAGNOSISAND
CORRESPONDINGSTIMULATIONTYPEAND FLUIDSELECTION

Our first step is to determine all possible damage

types, and possible severity. based upon the operations
conductedon the well. We next considerpossible combinations
of damage types. For example, it is possible to have both scale
and an emulsion causing damage in a single situation. Such
combinations must be treated differently than when only a
single type of damageexists.

SPE 29531

damageexists, (6) the damage removai mechanism, and {7) the

damage removalmethods.
MATFUX TREATMENT

METHODS

If the formation damage requires a matrix treatment,

several different methods must be evaluated, such as matrix
acidizing, solvent dissolution, or thermal stimulation. We can
only select the optimal matrix treatment method after we know
the formation damage type and (he sources of tine material
,-law.~t~ m im
mr
. . . a
pal al~ 111Uwpumuo..
causing the dtrrlilge. Fili exSff@, 11;Cma9.nW.*
near the wellbore is the damage mechanism. solvents or hot oil
can be injected into the wellbore or formation to remove the
damage. A matrix acid treatment can be used if there are acid
soluble scales in and around the wellbore. The basic flow chart
shown in Fig. 5 can be used to select the optimal matrix
treatmentme~hod.

We rank the identified types of formation damage

based upon our estimates of severity and possibility. At the
same time, we try to verify the types of formation damage by
backward-chaining. For example. if one of the identified types
Offormation damage is water-blocking,we use knowledgesuch
as shown in Table 5 to confirm our diagnosis. We have built
similar tables for each formation damage type. Those tables,
which we call damage confirmation tables, include the
following items: (1) th= location where the damage occurs, (2)
the damage mechanism, (3) the operation that caused the
damage, (4) the damage source(s), (5) the indications that

DRILLING
OPERATIONS

titling generdiy ceueesfonrrationdenragehy tihtateeod mudfxtides. -er,

if oneof
following situationsexist.the @rage will be rnotueeverw(1) high formetionpermeability (2) high
overbelanc.epreesureduringdrilliog (3) lostcimuleticrwor (4) drilliog wilb highfluid lam.

SoIi& plugging
[

jfltmte domage

Wearabilitychangeifrock
exfmeedtorlrudtooloog

Emulsionwith highwater
aarumtion
Emulsionif it is artoil zone

Ftmoetioopemteebility
reductionbecaueeof fresh
water invaaitm

Weter MZ
-

Werer block ifit u a low

penncabilitygasZonewirb bigb
-w

No

Fig.

Sale deposition

2- Possible formation damages resulted from drilling.

814

HONGJIEXIONGand STEPHENA. HOLDITCH

SPE29531

Imn ion
precipitation
No
Solids plugging

sludge
11

==5:Y

Yes
*

Solid fws
lelcasc

No
?
[

Fig. 3- Possible formation damages result from an acidizing treatment.

815

A COMPREHENSIVEAPPROACHTO FORMATIONDAMAGEDIAGNOSISAND
CORRESPONDING STIMULATION TYPEAND FLUIDSELECTION

Well Operations

SPE 29531

I
I

i~

Drilling

t
- DenregeT~e
- Posuiblily
- severity
. Localion

Production

Completion

){

- DemageType
- Possibility
- SeVelity
- Location
J
L

Fracturing

)
- DernegeType
- Possibility
- severity
- Locetion

- DenwgeType
- Poe8iblity
- severity
- Location

I
\

f
-

- DamegeType
- Potibti(y
- severity
- Locetion

IL

workover

Acidizing

<

DemageType
Podbtity
severity
kation

t
Combinetbe demaga~
their
Possibilk endcordidmceUMticences
~
[

Coldhrl tbedemegetypes

Rankfineldunege typesinterms
of poseibiii(yandseverity

Fig. 4- Identifying all formation damage types from different sources.

-.-

. . .

-u...

..-..

-.

. . ----

e.w....--

Item
Knowledge
Whae
Formation
Damage Mechanism An increase in water saturationnear wellboredecreasesthe relativepermeabilityto hydrocarbon.
When
DriUing,Completion,Workover,Production,Stimulation
source
1. Filtrates from water-baaed fluids during Drilling,Completion, or Stimulation.
2. Water fingeringor coningof formationwater during production
FavoredCondition
1. The presenceof pore-liningclays such as illite,
2. Small pore throats causing high capillarypressure.
Diagnosis
1. For a production well, the water cut will incnxtse rapidly if water is being coned in fmm an
underlying aquifer or if waterbreaks throughfkoman injectionwell in a waterflood.
2. For a new completion, check if the water-based drilling fluid leaked off sign~lcantly. Also,
determine if the water saturationof pay zone is very high.
3. For a stimulatedkcnnpletedworkoverwell, check if water-baaed fluid leaked off too much.
!~~~*@~
u~g~ w~~~ $~!.-------- nf
-- tntat
hactic
Imac
---- flow.
.-_.., esnecisllv
--r-- ..- low
. gas rate. Water kills fluid in low
pressure dry gas zone,
Removal
By tiucing the surfacetensionbetweenwater and oil/gas (using surfkctantsor alcohols, or Nz in
Mechanism
gas reservoirs)
Removal Method
1. For gas well, Using nonaqueousacids (such as alcoholicacid system. ) because they also promote
the vaporizationof water in the producedgas.
2. For oil well, if temperature>250 F, using nonaqueousacetic aci~ if temperature<= 250 F,
using acid + solvent system, or acid+ surfhctantsystem,

816

HONGJIEXIONGand STEPHENA. HOLDITCH

SPE 2953

Matrir Tmattaent Methods

Damage Tes

Damage Sources

Nettabilitychange
SolventDissolution
Filtratesfromdrilling,
completion,workover,
andstimulation

MatrixAcidizing
Inorganicstates

MeehanicaiRemoval
Inhibitors

Production

MatrixAcidizing

Waterblock
I

Finesmigration

W5&5J--ti

Parafliiaaphaltenes
participation
Solidsfromdrilling,
completion,workover,
andstimulation

SolventDissolution

SolventDissolution
ThermalRemoval
MechanicalRemoval

Solidsplugging

Fig. 5- Flow chart for selecting a matrix treatment method.

We have developed rules to help select additives.

Fluid additives, such as mutual solvents and aromatic .aolventa.
can be used to improve the suceesaof a stimulation treatment.
Typical additives for matrix acidizing treatment fluids are
diverting agenta, iron sequestering agents. mutual solvents,
surfactants, and corrosion inhibitors. Diverting agents are
important for matrix acidizing. Diverting agents are designed
to bridge high permeabilityzones so that the treating fluids can
be pumped into the low productivity layers to remove the
damage and improve production. Chemicals used for matrix
diversion include finely-ground inert organic resina, solid
organic aeida, deformable solids, acid-swellable polymers,
silica flour, rock salts, oil-soluble resins. and ball sealers.
Studies have shown that (1) mixtures of hard and soil particles
can be effectivediverting agents, (2) acid-swellablepolymers
can be effectivediverting agenta, but it is necessary to prevent
excessive use, (3) agents aolublc in acid are generally
ineffective.because they are quickly dissolved by acid in the
stage following the diverting plug, and (4) hard inert solids
alone usually are not effectivediverting agents.

FLUID SELECTION

We have developed a strategy to select fluids. For

multiple damage mechanisms,we choosefluids that removethe
principle damage first. When damage oeeurs in multiple
loeationa,we choose the fluids so we remove damage in order
of location as (1) tubulars. (2) perforationsor gravel packs, (3)
fracturesor vuga, and (4) matrix.
We have programmed roles into our system to prevent
fluid incompatibility problems. For example, the w of HF
acid in carbonateswill not be recommendednor allowed.
We also have rules to help select the correet fluids
based upon the situation. HC1is not reactivewith silica or clay
minerals. As such, matrix acidizing treatments in sandstone
fomtationa normally w a mixture of hydrochloric and
hydrofluoric acid. To improve acid penetration in hightemperature reaervoim and to control fines migration, other
acid systems have been developed, such as in-situ generated
HCI + HF acid, alcohol + HC1+ HF acid, and organicacid +
HF acid sys!arEL when ptraa!l%tor asphaltene deposition
causes damage, we must use a mixture of solvents, dispemants
and aurfactantato remove the damage.

Mutual solvents are mainly used in matrix acid

treatments to remove oil films from the materials being
dissolved and to leave the formation water wet. Mutual
solventa are materials that have appreciable volubility in both
817

~.- .- -----

. -----

-- . . . .-.-.,

. ..... .

R,

Afl.lncl

Ic+

A ~OM~R~H~NSIVE
A1tKUALH 1U FUKMA 11(-JN IJAMACIE IJ1AUNUO1O
CORRESPONDINGSTIMULATIONTYPEAND FLUIDSELECTION

oil and water. The most commonly used mutual solvents are
EGM13E. ASOITM. and MUSOL-A. The recommended
conccntration is usual]y from 5~0 to It)% by volume.
After we have identified all formation damage types.
wc then determine the fluids (Table 6) that are suitable for each
~damage mechanism. if multiple damages exist (Fig. 1). AS
shown in Fig. 6. wc determine the coefficient. the efficiency
Based on these
coefficient. and the risk cocflicient.
cocflicients. wc .sclcct2-3 fluid choices that are expected to
remove all existing damage. Third. we dccidc if we are going
to usc a staged treatment.
Next, wc determine a preflush and
an aftertlush for each main fluid. Finally, we must specifythe
numnin~
~ _-.. =..-.= schedule
, -..-.

and injection

SPE 29531

experts, (2) reviewing technical documents, (3) collecting

experimentaldata. and (4) reviewing case histories. Using the
domain knowledge,we have developed an expert system with
fi,uzy logic to help manage the problem.
All of the domain
.
knowledgehas been documented.
I

performing a matrix stimulation treatment.

there are risk factors that must be considered in the fluid
selection. The risk factors includes (1) fluid compatibilitywith
the formation and the formation fluid, (2) reaction by-product
precipitation. and (3) tines migration or clay swelling that may
be cau.scdby the treatment fluid or injection rate. These risk
factors are taken into account in our design.
When

on the methodology described this paper, a

computer model has been developed5 to diagnose damage and
design a damage removal treatment. To build the model, we
have acquired domain knowledge by (1) interviewing domain

F==l
I The severe degree

method.

Compatibility
Efflciencv

Neeessarity Risk

Deleterepeated

fluids

Estimatethe risk coefficient

Ranking the fluids

::+

=-i++

Based

~le

Axln

ANU

Fig. 6- Selecting optimal fluids for matrix treatments.

6- Fluids Used in Matrix Treatments

Fluid

Specific

HC1
Acetic acid

Acids

Formic acid
HF
In-situ generated HF acid

Mutual solvent
Solvents

Aromatic solvent

Water

EDTA
Hot water

Scale, solid plugging. water

block
Scale. solid plugging. water
Iblock
IScale, solid plugging, water
block
Clays, scales. solid plugging.
waterblock
Clays, scales, solid plugging,
waterblock
Waterblock, emulsion,
nettability change
Asphaltene,paraffin,sludge.
lubricant plugging
Sulfatescale
Paraflin

818

Used in carbonatesand sandstoneswith 20% or more

calcite.or preflush for HF acid treatment
Same as HCI and in high temperature
I
lSame as HC1and in high temperature
Sandstones(with HC1or organic acids). Used to cleanup
drilling mud damage
Possiblydeep penetration.Sandstonesonly
Usedwith other additivessuch as surfactant to improve
hydrocarbonrelativepermeability
Used with a suspendingagent or remove asphalt deposit
with dispersant(s)for sludge
Used withs

HONGJIEXIONGand STEPHENA. HOLDITCH

SPE29531

AN EXAMPLE

Well No. 1 is a carbonateformation. The zone is 50 ft

thick with a permeability of 50 md. Fig. 7 shows one of the
data-input screens to the program. Other data are summarized
in Table 7. The possible damage types are diagnosed as (1)
Emulsion, (2) Paraffndeposition, (3) Solid plugging. and (4)
Clay swelling and fines migration (See Table 8). The
recommended treatment type is matrix acidizing. The
recommendedfluid is 15?40HCL+ mutual solvent + dispersant
agent + suspending agent. The program recommendsthe use of
1-3%KC1for the preflush and the afterflush.

(-)lJcp?

Formation fluid type

Well type
Well age (years)
Was there workoverrcccntly?
Was there any stimulationjob
recently?
Formation capillarypressure
Total amount of clay compositionin
the formation(%)
Is them paraffin in oil ?
Productivitydecremes

0.83

F
Parafh
De sition
Solid
Plugging

0.5
1

a little
normally

1
1

There is a little paraftln

in the oil.
(1) Mud lost during
drilling.
(2) Permeabilityis high
and mud pressurewas
high during drilling
/1i
, . , .Fnnnatinn
u . . -------Swelling pcnncability reduction
and Fines becauseof fresh water
Migration invasion during drilling
(2) Fines or silts
mobilizationreduces
permeabilitybecause
formationconsolidation

L-

j Answer 1Confidcnc
1
oil
1
production
1
1
1
no
no
1
medium
10

waterbase mud caused

emulsion in oil zone

.-,

Yourcsn6&Ee absmtthe datm~1

[............................................

Md .vmbhce

pzmsum:

Yourcoddsnce absmt* &*

~rL
~~

(c@+****)~*

*A?

YourConmemcsahsattlmFhnlsiisnpszYueMity(miB
You

saturaht (frac>

Ysur csnfidenee abut ths &*

Fig.

0.1

.Sil

~(
SSM

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .

a..l

pEiir--

.l

]1

01

QII

i ............................................

7- A information query session.

819

0.36

0.88

................li%l

esniusmx
ahsmth &*

Fonmthwabr

0.42

01

l . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Waatkm SnsugllJidslltha

0.51

A COMPREHENSIVEAPPROACHTO FORMATIONDAMAGEDIAGNOSISAND
CORRESPONDINGSTIMULATIONTYPE AND FLUIDSELECTION

10
CONCLUSIONS

1. By interviewing experta and reviewing the literature, rules

and fi-mzylogic systems can be developed to assist the
engineer in diagnosing formation damage sources and
iocations.

SPE 29531

8. Bell, W. T.: Perforating Underbalanced - Evolving

Techniques: J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1984) 1653-1662.
9. Gidley, J.L.: Stimulation of Sandstone Formations with
the Acid-Mutual Solvent Method J. Pet, Tech. (May
55!-558.
i~?i)

2. Once the type and location of the damage is estimated, one

can devcbp rules to choose the best stimulation methods,
fl,iid~and
....-.. ~di!ivcs:

10. Thomas, R.L. and Crowe, C.W.: Matrix Treatment

EmploysNew Acid System for Stimulation and Control of
Fin= !@ya!icm in
J. Pef. Tech.
(Aug. 1981) 1491-1499.
S~~dsi~n~

I k_ &p@~n! upon !he

-111
3. TiieSutXt%SGf ik design ..J1
amount of data available and the accuracyof the data. The
expert system can help the engineer evaluate the
possibilities using a realistic approachto the problem.

FQrmQtions,

11. Economies,

M, J. and Nolte, K. G.: Reservoir

Sfimuhdion, SchlumbcrgerEducational Services, 1987, pp
12-01.

REFERENCES

1. Krueger. R. F.: An Overviewof Formation Damage and

Well Productivity in Oilfield Operations, J. Pel. Tech.
(Feb. 1986) 131-152.
2.

Raleigh. J.T. and Flock, D.L.: A Study of Formation

Plugging With Bacteriav J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1965) 201206.

5. Nowak, T.J. and Krueger. R.F.: The Effect of Mud

Filtrates and Mud Particles Upon the Permeability of
Cores, Drill. and Prod Prac., API (1951) 164-181.
6.

13. Alegrc, L. and Dougherty, U,: Applicability of Expert

Systems to Diagnose Formation Damage Problems A
ProgressReport; paper SPE 17460presented ai SPE i$%ll
Computer Conferenceheld in San Antonio, TX (June. 249&\
&,.

Mungan. N.: PermeabilityReductionThrough Vhanges in

pH and Salinity. J. Pef. Tech.. (Dec. 1965) 1149-1153.

3. Walsh, M.P,. Lake, L. W.. and Schechter, R.S.: A

Description of Chemical Precipitation Mechanisms and
Their Role in Formation Damage During Stimulation by
HydrofluoricAcid., J. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1982) 2097-2112.
4.

12. Williams. B. B., Gidley. J. L., and Schechter, R. S.:

Acidizing Fundamentals, SPE Monograph6.1979.

Klotz, J. A. and Krueger, R.F.: Effect of Perforation

Damage on Well Productivity,J. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1974)
1303-1314.

14. Vitthal S., Gupta, A. and Sharma. M. M.: A Rule-Based

System for Estimating Clay Distribution. MoWhology.and
Formation Damage in ReservoirRocks; paper SPE 16870
presented at SPE 1987 Formation Damage Control
Conferenceheld in Lafayette,LA. (Feb. 22 -24).
15. Xiong, H., Sherry, K. A., and Lancaster, D. E.: Intelligent
Interfaces for Fracturing Simulators - Part 11: System
Implementation and Applicationsfl paper SPE 28521
pmcnted at SPE 69th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in New Orleans. LA (Sept. 25-28).
16. STIAA5XNofebook, S. A. Holditch & Associates. College
Station, TX, 1994.

7. Leontaritis, K. J.. Amaefule,J. O., and Charles, R. E.: A

------1. ~Lol- t,,~
L- D1rewiim en
o r-lTr.watmemt
Syskinatic
APPKXWII
. .~~....-... of
Formation Damage Caused by Asphaltene Deposition.
paper SPE 23810 Presented at SPE 1992 Formation
Damage Control Conference held in Lafayette.LA, (Feb.
26-27, 1992).

820