ArticleScientific reports2025
Formation damage assessment in carbonate reservoirs after removing hematite-water-based filter cake using HCl.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Effective removal of filter cakes is essential for restoring formation permeability and productivity, especially in open-hole completions. While hydrochloric acid (HCl) is commonly used to dissolve filter cakes, it may also introduce secondary formation damage, particularly through iron precipitation and pore plugging during fluid-rock interaction, in addition to the primary damage already caused by mud filtrate invasion and internal filter cake deposition during drilling. This study investigates the relative contributions of primary and secondary damage mechanisms associated with the removal of hematite-water-based filter cake in carbonate reservoirs using 10 wt% HCl under two operational strategies: squeeze and flowback. Core flooding experiments were conducted on Indiana limestone samples under downhole-representative conditions, and formation damage was evaluated through permeability, resistivity, CT imaging, and mechanical property measurements. Results indicated that primary damage alone caused up to 75% permeability reduction, while secondary damage developed during the removal stage, especially in the squeeze treatment where deeper acid invasion promoted iron precipitation in previously undisturbed zones, reducing far-zone permeability and increasing stiffness. In contrast, the flowback scenario improved permeability in the near-wellbore region and minimized secondary damage in the deeper zones, thereby preserving mechanical and petrophysical integrity. Resistivity decreased after both primary and secondary stages due to the intrusion of conductive hematite-rich filtrate and acid-induced by-products. Mechanical analysis confirmed that the squeeze scenario resulted in near-wellbore weakening and far-zone stiffening due to localized dissolution and precipitate deposition. This study is distinct in explicitly differentiating primary from secondary damage, demonstrating their relative impacts, and showing how operational strategy governs which mechanism dominates. Its focus on hematite-weighted filter cakes, direct comparison of squeeze and flowback strategies, and integration of mechanical property analysis alongside petrophysical evaluation provides a unique contribution toward understanding and mitigating formation damage in carbonate reservoirs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.