SPE 143744

Productivity Impairment Due to Fines Migration: Steady State Production

Regime
P. Bedrikovetsky, The University of Adelaide; A. Vaz, North Fluminense University UENF; F. Machado, Petrobras;
A. Zeinijahromi, S. Borazjani, The University of Adelaide

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Brasil Offshore Conference and Exhibition held in Macaé, Brazil, 14–17 June 2011.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract

Permeability decline during corefloods with high rates has been widely reported in the literature. It has often been explained
by the lifting, migration and subsequent plugging of pores by fine particles, which has been observed in numerous core flood
tests. The phenomena have been connected to well productivity impairment during fines production that also has been widely
observed in oilfields. The present paper derives formula for skin factor based on the modified particle detachment model with
maximum retention function. The fines migration induced skin is shown to increase with increase of rate and initial attached
fines concentration.

Introduction

Fines migration, and subsequent reduction in permeability, has been observed to occur during core flood experiments as a
result of increased flow velocity, decreased water salinity and altered water pH or temperature (Mungan, 1965; Bernard, 1967;
Lever and Dawe, 1984; Valdya and Fogler, 1992; Khilar and Fogler, 1998; Civan, 2007, 2010). It has often been explained by
the lifting, migration and subsequent plugging of pores by fine particles. Permeability decline due to fines migration causes
well productivity impairment. Prediction of associated formation damage and fines production is based on mathematical
modelling.

The classical filtration model assumes simultaneous first-order kinetics of particle capture and detachment (Schijven and
Hassanizadeh 2000, Bradford et al. 2003, 2008, 2009, Tufenkji 2007, Lin et al. 2009, Civan 2007, 2010, Massoudieh and Ginn
2010, Gitis et al. 2010). The detailed theory for dependency of the capture kinetics (filtration) coefficient on the pore scale
parameters for particle attachment was developed (Nabzar et al. 1996, Chauveteau at al., 1998, Rousseau et al. 2008, see also
references in Tufenkji and Elimelech 2004), while the detachment kinetics coefficient is an empirical constant usually
determined by its tuning with the breakthrough concentration (Tufenkji 2007).
Another shortcoming of the advective-diffusive attachment-detachment model with the kinetics of particle detachment is the
asymptotical stabilisation of the retention concentration and permeability when time tends to infinity, while the fines release
due to abrupt pressure gradient increase or under salinity alternation happens almost instantly (Khilar and Fogler 1998,
Miranda and Underdown 1993). The corefloods with sharp rate increase show an immediate abrupt permeability response
(Ochi and Vernoux 1998) while the quasi linear classical filtration model predicts a smooth asymptotic response with delay.
A particle detachment is governed by mechanical equilibrium of a retained particle on the internal filter cake or matrix surface
(Rahman et al. 1994, Bergendahl and Grasso 2000, Bradford and Torkzaban 2008). The mechanical equilibrium is determined
by the moment balance of electrostatic force, drag force, lifting force and gravity, acting on a single particle sitting on the
grain or internal cake surface (Freitas and Sharma 2001, Civan 2007). Yet, the advective-diffusion equation with kinetic
detachment term does not reflect the particle mechanical equilibrium; the detachment term is not affected by the mechanical
equilibrium of a single particle.

Recently developed deep bed filtration model with migrating layer of attached particles (Li et al. 2006, Yuan and Shapiro
2010b) also do not consider forces exerted on the retained particles.
Since the forces depend on the particle and pore sizes, which are stochastically distributed in natural rocks, the detailed
2 SPE 143744

modelling studies on micro (pore) scale have been carried out (Payatakes et al. 1973, 1974). It includes population balance
models (Sharma and Yortsos 1987a,b,c), random walk equations (Cortis et al. 2006, Shapiro and Bedrikovetsky 2008, Lin et
al. 2009, Yuan and Shapiro 2010a) and direct pore scale simulation (Bradford et al. 2009). The population balance and random
walk models, as well as the large scale phenomenological models, use the kinetic detachment rate term with an empirical
coefficient and do not reflect forces, exerting on a single particle.

The modified particle detachment model uses the maximum (critical) retention function instead of kinetics expression
describing the detachment rate: if the retention concentration does not exceed its maximum value, particle capture is going on
according to the classical model of deep bed filtration; otherwise, the maximum retention concentration value, which depends
on flow velocity and brine ionic strength, holds (Bedrikovetsky et al. 2010). The maximum retention concentration is
determined by the condition of mechanical equilibrium of the particle on the matrix or deposit surface, which is described by
the torque balance of electrostatic, drag, lifting and gravity forces. The model was validated by comparison with suspension
coreflood data under constant and alternated rates.

In the current work, the modified particle detachment model with the critical (maximum) retention function was used to
investigate well productivity impairment by straining of fine particles, lifted by drag force under high production rate. The
explicit formula for skin factor shows monotonic increase of formation damage with increase of the production rate and the
initial concentration of attached fines.

Formation damage due to fines migration

Let us describe the process of fines migration and the consequent permeability damage. Consider fine particles attached to
grains and pore walls or compacted in clay leaflets. The particle equilibrium on the grain or pore wall surface is a result of
torque equilibrium of drag, lifting, electrostatic and gravity forces (Fig. 1). The drag and lifting forces increase as the flow
velocity increases. Velocity increase causes the increase of torques of the detaching (drag and lifting) forces while the torques
of the attaching (electrostatic and gravity) forces remain the same. Each velocity increase causes the release of the attached
particles fraction. Therefore, the “equilibrium” concentration of remaining attached particles is a velocity function (so called
maximum retention function) (Bedrikovetsky et al., 2010). For a simplified porous media with parallel capillary of the same
radius, the maximum retention function is

⎧ ⎛ ⎛ U ⎞2 ⎞
⎪⎪σ ⎜1 − ⎜ ⎟ ⎟, U < Um
σ a (U ) = ⎨ 0 ⎜ ⎝ U m ⎠ ⎟ (1)
⎝ ⎠
⎪
⎪⎩ 0, U > Um

The released particles flow in porous space unless being captured by size exclusion in thinner pores (Fig. 2). The release of
attached particles yields some permeability increase, while the permeability decline due to pore plugging by strained fines is
significantly higher. Therefore, the overall effect of fine particle release, deep bed filtration and straining is the permeability
decline.

Mathematical model for constant rate oil production under fines migration

We assume the shape (1) for the maximum retention function of the rock, where the maximum attached value σ0 and the
maximum release velocity Um are the reference rock parameters. The shape of dependency (1) is shown in Fig. 3 by dashed
curve. Table 1 shows values of two parameters as obtained from four different laboratory studies.

Typical fine particle size is assumed to be the same order of magnitude as the rock pore throat. So, the reference free run
length during deep bed filtration of fine particles has an order of magnitude of several pore lengths and is significantly lower
than the well drainage radius. Therefore, the released fines are instantly strained at the reservoir length scale, i.e.

σ s ( r ) = σ a 0 − σ a (U ) (2)

Here σa0 is the initial concentration of attached particles.

Oil is assumed to be incompressible inside the well drainage area
SPE 143744 3

q
U= (3)
2π r
Darcy’s law for oil holds accounting for permeability damage caused by strained particles; the permeability variation due to
attached particles is ignored

kkrowi dp
U =− (4)
μ (1 + β sσ s ) dr

Let us find the profile of strained particle deposit in the well drainage area from the mathematical model (1-4). The maximum
release velocity Um, as it follows from (3), is reached at the distance

q
rm = (5)
2π U m

Let us calculate so called critical velocity U0 (Miranda and Underdown, 1993), i.e. minimum velocity where the initially
attached particles are released. Substituting values σa=σa0 and U= U0 in (1) yields

⎛ ⎛ U ⎞2 ⎞ σ a0
2
⎛ U0 ⎞ U0 σ
σ a (U ) = σ 0 ⎜1 − ⎜ ⎟ ⎟ , σ a (U 0 ) = σ a 0 , = 1− ⎜ ⎟ , = 1 − a0
⎜ ⎝ Um ⎠ ⎟ σ0 ⎝ Um ⎠ Um σ0
⎝ ⎠ (6)
σ a0
U0 = Um 1−
σ0

The critical velocity (6) is reached at the distance

q
r0 = (7)
σ
2π U m 1 − a0
σ0

The strained concentration near to the wellbore for r<rm, as it follows from (2), is equal to initial attached concentration. Oil at
high velocities U>Um mobilises all attached fines that further are strained in the rock (Figs. 3,4).

Far away from the wellbore for r>r0, as it follows from (2), strained concentration is equal zero. At low velocities U<U0, oil
does not lift the attached fines (Figs. 3,4). So, r0 is the size of the zone where the drag force lifts the attached fines.
In the intermediate zone rm<r<r0, the strained particle profile is determined by the condition of the total torque balance.
Substituting (1) and (3) into (2), we obtain the strained particle profile

2
⎛ rm ⎞
σ s ( r ) = σ a0 − σ 0 + σ 0 ⎜ ⎟ (8)
⎝ r ⎠

Finally, the strained fine profile is given by the following expression

⎧ σ a0
⎪ 2 U > Um, rw < r < rm
⎪ ⎛ rm ⎞ (9)
σ s = ⎨σ a 0 − σ 0 + σ 0 ⎜ ⎟ , U 0 < U < U m , rm < r < r0
⎪ ⎝r ⎠
U < U0 , r0 < r < re
⎪ 0
⎩

Plots of the strained concentration versus velocity and radius are shown in Figs. 3 and 4. Fig. 5 shows different damaged zones
inside the drainage area.
4 SPE 143744

Skin factor calculations

The pressure drop between the well and the drainage contour is

re
dp
Δp = ∫ − dr (10)
rw
dr

Substituting pressure drop as expressed from the rate (3) and the Darcy’s law (4), into (10) yields

qμ ⎛ r re
σ ⎞
Δp = ⎜ ln e + β s ∫ s dr ⎟ (11)
2π kkrowi ⎜ rw r ⎟
⎝ rw ⎠

allowing for skin factor formula

re
σs
S = βs ∫ dr (12)
rw
r

Let us separate skin factors in two damaged zones (Fig. 5)

re
σs ⎛ rm σ r0
σ ⎞
S = βs ∫ dr = β s ⎜ ∫ s dr + ∫ s dr ⎟ (13)
r ⎜r r r ⎟
rw ⎝w rm ⎠

The first integral in (13), as it follows from (9), is

rm
σs rm
βs ∫ dr = β sσ a 0 ln (14)
rw
r rw

Substituting strained profile (8) into (13) yields the following expression for the second integral

r0
σs ⎡ r σ ⎛ r 2 ⎞⎤
βs ∫ dr = β s ⎢(σ a 0 − σ 0 ) ln 0 + 0 ⎜1 − m2 ⎟ ⎥ (15)
rm
r ⎣ rm 2 ⎝ r0 ⎠ ⎦

Finally, the formula for skin factor is

⎡σ r r 1⎛ r 2 ⎞⎤
S = β sσ 0 ⎢ a 0 ln 0 − ln 0 + ⎜ 1 − m2 ⎟⎥ (16)
⎣ σ0 rw rm 2 ⎝ r0 ⎠⎦

Substituting (5) and ((7) into (16) yields

⎡σ q 1⎛ σ ⎞ ⎛ σ ⎞ σ ⎤
S = β sσ 0 ⎢ a 0 ln + ⎜1 − a 0 ⎟ ln ⎜1 − a 0 ⎟ + a 0 ⎥ (17)
⎣ σ 0 2π U m rw 2 ⎝ σ 0 ⎠ ⎝ σ 0 ⎠ 2σ 0 ⎦

Results of calculations

Fig.6 shows plots of the ratio s between the skin factor and the product of formation damage coefficient and maximum value
of retention concentration σ0

σ a0
S q 1⎛ σ ⎞ ⎛ σ ⎞ σ
s= ln = + ⎜1 − a 0 ⎟ ln ⎜1 − a 0 ⎟ + a 0 (18)
β sσ 0 σ 0 2π U m rw 2 ⎝ σ 0 ⎠ ⎝ σ 0 ⎠ 2σ 0
versus dimensionless initial attached fines concentration for different values of dimensionless rate
SPE 143744 5

q
Q= .
2π U m rw

Fig. 7 shows the plot of the skin ratio s versus dimensionless rate Q for three values of dimensionless
initial attached fines concentration σa0/σ0= 0.25, 0.50 and 0.75. The higher is the rate the higher is the
skin. Yet, the curves stabilise, since at high rate the particle detachment and size exclusion occur far away
from the well, where it does not affect the skin factor.

Discussion

Consider opening the production well and propagation of the pressure wave in the reservoir away from
the wellbore. The velocity increases from zero in each reservoir point. When time tends to infinity the
velocity increases up to some stabilised value.

The maximum concentration of attached particles decreases as the velocity increases (Fig. 3). We assume
that in each reservoir point are some particles attached. As the pressure wave propagates into the
reservoir and velocity increases in each point, the torques of detaching forces exceed the torques of
attaching forces and the “excess” of attached particles is mobilised, then it migrates and strains thin
pores, resulting in permeability decline. It is assumed that the free run of fines after the detachment is
significantly smaller than the drainage zone radius, i.e. the detached particles are immediately strained in
porous media. After the pressure wave passes the drainage area, all vacant attached particles are
transferred to the strained state, and formation damage stabilises. Oil production becomes steady state
and continues under the formation damage by strained fines.

The stabilised skin value is calculated from steady state solution of equations of oil flow with fines
migration. The higher is the rate and the higher is the initial attached fines concentration, the large is the
skin factor.

Summary

Lifting of the reservoir fines by drag force under high production rate with subsequent well productivity
impairment is described using the modified particle detachment model with maximum retention function.
For steady state production, well index and skin factor can be expressed by explicit formulae. The ratio
between the skin factor and the product of filtration coefficient and maximum retention value is a
monotonically increasing function of dimensionless well rate and normalised initial concentration of
attached fines.

Nomenclature

Latin letters

p pressure,ML-1T-2,Pa
Q dimensionless rate
q rate, L3T-1,m3/s
r radius, L, m
re drainage radius, L, m
rm radius of zone with maximum strained concentration, L, m
ro damaged zone radius, L, m
rw well radius, L, m
S skin factor
U fluid velocity, LT-1, m/s
Um maximum release velocity, LT-1, m/s
6 SPE 143744

Uo critical velocity, LT-1, m/s

Greek letters
βs formation damage coefficient for straining
σa volumetric concentration of attached fines, L-3, 1/m3
σo maximum concentration of attached fines, L-3, 1/m3
σao initial concentration of attached fines, L-3, 1/m3
σs volumetric concentration of strained fines, L-3, 1/m3

References

Bedrikovetsky, P., Siqueira, F., Furtado, C., Souza, A. 2010. Modified Particle Detachment Model for Colloidal Transport in Porous Media.
J. Transport in Porous Media: 1-31. doi:10.1007/s11242-010-9626-4.
Bergendahl, J., Grasso, D. 2000. Prediction of Colloid Detachment in a Model Porous Media: Hydrodynamics. J. Chemical Engineering
Science 55 (9): 1523-1532. doi:10.1016/s0009-2509(99)00422-4.
Bernard, G.G. 1967. Effect of Floodwater Salinity on Recovery of Oil from Cores Containing Clays. Paper SPE 1725 presented at the SPE
California Regional Meeting, Los Angeles, California,USA, 26-27 October.
Bradford, S., Simunek, J., Bettahar, M., van Genuchten, M., Yates, S. 2003. Modeling Colloid Attachment, Straining, and Exclusion in
Saturated Porous Media. J. Environ. Sci. Technol 37 (10): 2242-2250. doi:10.1021/es025899u.
Bradford, S., Torkzaban, S. 2008. Colloid Transport and Retention in Unsaturated Porous Media: A Review of Interface-, Collector-, and
Pore-Scale Processes and Models. Vadose Zone Journal 7 (2): 667. doi:10.2136/vzj2007.0092.
Bradford, S., Kim, H., Haznedaroglu, B., Torkzaban, S., Walker, S. 2009. Coupled Factors Influencing Concentration-Dependent Colloid
Transport and Retention in Saturated Porous Media. J. Environ. Sci. Technol 43 (18): 6996-7002. doi:10.1021/es900840d.
Chauveteau, G., Nabzar, L., Coste, J. 1998. Physics and Modeling of Permeability Damage Induced by Particle Deposition. Paper SPE
39463 presented at the SPE Formation Damage Control Conference, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 18-19 February.
Civan, F., 2007. Reservoir Formation Damage: Fundamentals, Modeling, Assessment, and Mitigation. 2nd Ed.:Gulf Professional
Publishing.
Civan, F. 2010. Non-Isothermal Permeability Impairment by Fines Migration and Deposition in Porous Media Including Dispersive
Transport. J. Transport in Porous Media 85 (1): 233-258. doi:10.1007/s11242-010-9557-0.
Cortis, A., Harter, T., Hou, L., Atwill, E.R., Packman, A.I., Green, P.G. 2006. Transport of Cryptosporidium Parvum in Porous Media:
Long-Term Elution Experiments and Continuous Time Random Walk Filtration Modeling. J. Water Resources Research 42 (12).
doi:10.1029/2006WR004897.
Freitas, A., Sharma, M. 2001. Detachment of Particles from Surfaces: An Afm Study. J. of Colloid and Interface Science 233 (1): 73-82.
doi:10.1006/jcis.2000.7218.
Gitis, V., Rubinstein, I., Livshits, M., Ziskind, G. 2010. Deep-Bed Filtration Model with Multistage Deposition Kinetics. Chemical
Engineering Journal 163 (1-2): 78-85. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2010.07.044.
Gruesbeck, C., Collins, R.E. 1982. Entrainment and Deposition of Fine Particles in Porous Media. 22 (6). SPE-8430-PA. doi:10.2118/8430-
pa.
Khilar, K., Fogler, H., 1998. Migrations of Fines in Porous Media. Dordrecht/London/Boston:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lever, A., Dawe, R. 1984. Water-Sensitivity and Migration of Fines in the Hopeman Sandstone. Journal of Petroleum Geology 7 (1): 97-
107. doi:10.1111/j.1747-5457.1984.tb00165.x.
Li, X., Lin, C.-L., Miller, J.D., Johnson, W.P. 2006. Role of Grain-to-Grain Contacts on Profiles of Retained Colloids in Porous Media in the
Presence of an Energy Barrier to Deposition. J. Environmental Science & Technology 40 (12): 3769-3774. doi:10.1021/es052501w.
Lin, H.-K., Pryadko, L.P., Walker, S., Zandi, R. 2009. Attachment and Detachment Rate Distributions in Deep-Bed Filtration. Physical
Review E 79 (4): 046321. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.79.046321.
Massoudieh, A., Ginn, T.R. 2010. Colloid-Facilitated Contaminant Transport in Unsaturated Porous Media. In Modelling of Pollutants in
Complex Environmental Systems, ed. Hanrahan, G., Chap. 8, 263. Hertfordshire, Glensdale: ILM Publications.
Mojarad, R., Settari, A. 2007. Coupled Numerical Modelling of Reservoir Flow with Formation Plugging. J. of Canadian Petroleum
Technology 46 (3): 54-59. doi:10.2118/07-03-05.
Mungan, N. 1965. Permeability Reduction through Changes in Ph and Salinity. Journal of Petroleum Technology 17 (12): 1449-1453. SPE-
1283-PA. doi:10.2118/1283-PA.
Nabzar, L., Chauveteau, G., Roque, C. 1996. A New Model for Formation Damage by Particle Retention. Paper SPE1283 presented at the
SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana,USA, 14-15 February.
Ochi, J., Vernoux, J.-F. 1998. Permeability Decrease in Sandstone Reservoirs by Fluid Injection,Hydrodynamic and Chemical Effects. J. of
Hydrology 208 (3): 237-248. doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(98)00169-3.
Payatakes, A.C., Tien, C., Turian, R.M. 1973. A New Model for Granular Porous Media: Part I. Model Formulation. AIChE Journal 19 (1):
58-67. doi:10.1002/aic.690190110.
Payatakes, A., Rajagopalan, R., Tien, C. 1974. Application of Porous Media Models to the Study of Deep Bed Filtration. The Canadian
Journal of Chemical Engineering 52 (6): 722-731. doi:10.1002/cjce.5450520605.
SPE 143744 7

Rahman, S., Arshad, A., Chen, H. 1994. Prediction of Critical Condition for Fines Migration in Petroleum Reservoirs. Paper SPE 28760
presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 7-10 November.
Rousseau, D., Latifa, H., Nabzar, L. 2008. Injectivity Decline from Produced-Water Reinjection: New Insights on in-Depth Particle-
Deposition Mechanisms. SPE Prod & Oper 23 (4): 525-531. SPE-107666-PA.
Schijven, J., Hassanizadeh, S. 2000. Removal of Viruses by Soil Passage: Overview of Modeling, Processes, and Parameters. Critical
Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 30 (1): 49-127.
Shapiro, A.A., Bedrikovetsky, P.G. 2008. Elliptic Random-Walk Equation for Suspension and Tracer Transport in Porous Media. Physica A:
Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 387 (24): 5963-5978. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2008.07.013.
Sharma, M.M., Yortsos, Y.C. 1987a. Transport of Particulate Suspensions in Porous Media: Model Formulation. AIChE Journal 33 (10):
1636-1643. doi:10.1002/aic.690331007.
Sharma, M.M., Yortsos, Y.C. 1987b. A Network Model for Deep Bed Filtration Processes. AIChE Journal 33 (10): 1644-1653.
doi:10.1002/aic.690331008.
Sharma, M.M., Yortsos, Y.C. 1987c. Fines Migration in Porous Media. AIChE Journal 33 (10): 1654-1662. doi:10.1002/aic.690331009.
Tufenkji, N., Elimelech, M. 2004. Correlation Equation for Predicting Single-Collector Efficiency in Physicochemical Filtration in Saturated
Porous Media. J. of Environ. Sci. Technol 38 (2): 529-536. doi:10.1021/es034049r.
Tufenkji, N. 2007. Colloid and Microbe Migration in Granular Environments: A Discussion of Modelling Methods. In Colloidal Transport
in Porous Media, eds. Frimmel, F.H., von der Kammer, F., Flemming, F.-C., Chap. 5, 119-142. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Valdya, R., Fogler, H. 1992. Fines Migration and Formation Damage: Influence of Ph and Ion Exchange. SPEPE 7 (4): 325-330. SPE-
19413-PA. doi:10.2118/19413-PA.
Yuan, H., Shapiro, A. 2010. Modeling Non-Fickian Transport and Hyperexponential Deposition for Deep Bed Filtration. Chemical
Engineering J. 162 (3): 974-988. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2010.07.003.
Yuan, H., Shapiro, A. 2011. A Mathematical Model for Non-Monotonic Deposition Profiles in Deep Bed Filtration Systems. Chemical
Engineering J. 166 (1): 105-115.

Table 1. Parameters of maximum retention function for different rocks

σ0 Um, m/s Comments

Gruesbeck, 0.051 0.0169 Suspension injection under
Collins, 1982 constant salinity
Lever and Dawe, 0.073 0.07 Gradual decrease of injected water
1984 salinity results in permeability
decline
Mungan, 1965 0.12 0.0168 Permeability decline during the
salinity decrease with coreflooding
Bedrikovetsky et 0.18 0.00158 Suspension injection under
al., 2010 constant salinity until permeability
stabilisation
8 SPE 143744

σa
Fig. 1-Forces acting on attached particle during flow in porous media (torque balance on a single particle)

c
σs
Fig. 2-Straining of detached particles in a single pore

Fig. 3- Form of the maximum retention function and the strained concentration versus velocity
SPE 143744 9

Fig. 4- Profile of strained deposit near the wellbore

Undamaged zone

σs=0 σs= σao re

ro
rm
rw

Zone with max

damage

Fig. 5- Structure of the formation damage zone near to well

10 SPE 143744

3.5
Q =21.4
Q = 14.3
3
Q = 7.2
Q =1.4
2.5

S 2
β sσ 0
1.5

0.5

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

σa0/σ0

Fig. 6- Skin ratio versus normalised initial concentration of attached fines for different well rates

3
1
2
2.5 3

2
S
β Sσ 0
1.5

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Q

Fig. 7- Rate dependency of skin ratio for different normalised initial concentration of attached fines (curves 1, 2 and 3
correspond to σa0/σ0= 0.25, 0.50 and 0.75, respectively)