TECHNICAL NOTE 389

A NOTE on the SKIN EFFECT

MURRAY F. HAWKINS, JR. LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

MEMBER AIME BATON ROUGE, LA.

(0:;;~v )+ .809]
Horner' and van Everdingen' have shown that the
pressure drop within the wellbore, as a result of hav- .6.p, = 4:th[ In
ing produced the well at a constant rate q for time {,
where t is sufficiently large, is: q/L [ke - ka )]
+ 27rh kek. In (ralrw
t
.6.pe = 47rkq/L h [ In ( /Lefr:
e
ke ) + .809 ] (1)

van Everdingen observed that better agreement between

.6.p, = 4::eh [ In ( 0";;r: ) + .809
theory and well performance can be obtained if, instead + 2 (kelk. - 1) In (r,./r w) ] (4)
of assuming the permeability is ke everywhere about
the well, it is assumed the permeability near the well- Comparing Eq. 4 with Eq. 2 it is seen that the skin
bore is substantially reduced as a result of drilling, com- effect may be defined by:
pletion andlor production practices. In order to account
for the additional pressure drop he introduced the S= (~: -1)ln(ralr w ). (5)
dimensionless quantity S, the skin effect factor, so that
Eq. 1 becomes: The skin effect of S and the external permeability ke can
be determined from pressure build-up tests""""·""" .
.6.p, = 4::eh [ In ( /L~;~: ) + .809 + 2 s] . (2)
The average permeability k av ., including the altered
and external permeabilities, can be determined from
Eq. 2 might have also been obtained as follows. As- PI tests, and may be defined approximately on the
sume a zone of altered permeability k. exists about basis of steady-state flow, as was done by Thomas' in
the well out to a radius r,,, and beyond that the unal- defining the damage factor, by:
tered, external permeability k e • The additional pressure k = kakel n (r"lrw)
(6)
drop required to overcome this skin of reduced per- "g ku In (r,';r,,) + k" In (ralrw) .
meability may be calculated with sufficient accuracy The productivity ratio is the ratio of the average to
using the incompressible flow equation; for Browns- the external permeability, kRy.1 k,., or
combe and Collins' have shown almost no difference
between compressible and incompressible steady-state PR _ kRln (relrw)
(7)
flow, in the vicinity of the wellbore, and the small . . kRln (relra) + k" In (r.lr,,) .
volume of fluid in the vicinity of the wellbore makes Substituting ke In(ralrw) = k. [S + In (ralrw)] from Eq.
unsteady-state mechanics unnecessary. Then, 5 in Eq. 7:
q/Lln(r.lr w) q0 In (r,./rw)
.6.p, = ?_7i k h 11
- 2 7r k e h (8)

q/L [ ke - k. ] This equation shows that the productivity ratio and the
.6.P. = 27rh keka In (ralrw) . (3)
The sign of this skin pressure drop will be positive or
negative depending upon whether the altered per-
meability ka is smaller or larger, respectively, than the
external permeability k,.. Adding the pressure drop of
Eq. 3 to Eq. 1 to find the total pressure drop:
4References given at end of paper.
Origina'i manuscript received in Petroleum Branch office on May
25, 1956. Revised manuscript received July 23, 1956.
SPE 732-G
DECEMBER, 1956
skin effect are not uniquely related, because of the un-
certainty in the drainage radius, and also, in many in-
stances, the wellbore radius. Fortunately, they enter
in the logarithm.
The curves of Fig. 1 are plots of Eq. 8 for rjrw
values from 100 to 50,000. The points represent the
skin effects and corresponding productivity ratios from
a large number of well tests, taken from Fig. 15 of
Ref. 5 or Fig. 13 of Ref. 9. While some of the data
65
 100 +40

RE/Rw=IOO
500 +30
1.000
2.000
+20
5.000
15.000
50.000 ~+IO
w
"-
"-
w 0
>-
I- z
~ :;:: -2
<f)
I-
U
::> -4
0 I.
0 o 000

0::
Q.
..
0.1 ~ ______ ~ ________ ________ ______
~ ~ ~
-10 -5 0 +5 +10
SKIN EFFECT
FIG. I-PLOTS OF EQ. 8 FOR r,jr", VALUES FROM 100
TO 50,000.
spread is due to inaccuracies in the various data used
to compute the skin effect and productivity ratio, the
agreement between the theoretical curves, using rpir",
as a parameter, and the observed well data appears to
support the definition of the skin effect by Eq. 5, and
also the validity of Eq. 8 relating productivity ratio
and skin effect, in which the value of rplrw is impor-
tant. Only approximate agreement is expected because
Eq. 8 applies to steady-state conditions whereas the
plotted points of Fig. 1 involve a combination of both
steady-state and unsteady-state conditions, for which
the r"lr", values assumed are not reported. The fair:y
large number of points with negative skin effects lying
below the curves might be interpreted as the effect of
extremely large drainage radii, while those with nega-
tive skin effects lying above the curves may be wells
with severely restricted drainage radii.
Fig. 2 is a plot of Eq. 5, the skin effect vs the ratio
of the altered zone radius to the wellbore radius, r,.ir""
at several values of the parameter kj k". The change
of the scale for the negative skin effects should be
noted. The curves indicate that well improvements de-
noted by skin effects more negative than - 6 are ob-
tainable only by extreme permeability improvement ex-
tending out beyond 200 times the wellbore radius. The
scarcity of skin effects more negative than - 6, as
shown in Fig. 1, supports this prediction, and indirectly
the definition of the skin effect. All wells with skin
effects more negative than - 6, reported in Ref. 5, had
apparently received about average fracturing or acidiz-
ing treatment, the success being due apparently to the
fortuitous nature of the permeability about the well; for
some wells which received excessive treatment did not
respond as well, and two untreated sand wells (M-4
and M-6) had skin effects near - 5. An indication of
the extent of fracture extension might be inferred from
these considerations.
Fig. 3 is a plot of Eq. 7 which is based on the steady-
state radial flow equation, using r" = 660 ft and r",
= 0.35 ft. It is included to complete the viewpoint of
well stimulation and well damage in terms of the
radial extent of the zone of altered permeability, and
of the degree of alteration, kelk •.
66
-6
0 40 200
R./Rw
FIG. 2-PLOT OF EQ. 5 AT SEVERAL VALUES OF PARA-
METER kolk".
2.5,----------.-----.-----.----,-----.
R.= 660 FT.
o R.=0.35 FT.
o
I- 2.0r---.---1-----t~~~
«0::
2
4
10
0~~==±=====~=====C=====f1=0=0==~====~
o 4 8 12 16 20 24
RADIUS OF AF FECTED ZONE. FEET
FIG. 3-PLOT OF EQ. 7.
REFERENCES
1. Arps, J. J.: "How Well Completion Damage Can
Be Determined Graphically", World Oil (April,
1955), 225.
, Brownscombe, E. R., and Collins, Francis: "Pres-
sure Distribution in Unsaturated Oil Reservoirs",
Trans. AIME (1950), 189, 371.
3. Gladfelter, R. E., Tracy, G. W., and Wilsey, L. E.:
"Selecting Wells Which Will Respond To Produc-
tion Stimulation Treatments", Oil & Gas JOllr. (May
23, 1955), 126.
4. Horner, D. R.: "Pressure Build-up in Wells", Proc.
Third World Pet. Cong., 'The Hague (1951), Sec.
II, Drilling and Production.
5. Mid-Continent District Study Committee on Com-
pletion Practices, "API Bul D6: Selection and
Evaluation of Well Completion Methods", American
Petroleum Institute (1955), Dallas, Tex.
6. Miller, E. C., Dyes, A. B., and Hutchinson, C. A..
Jr.: "The Estimation of Permeability and Reservoir
Pressure from Bottom Hole Pressure Build-Up
Characteristics", Trans. AIME (1950), 189, 91.
7. Thomas, G. B.: "Analysis of Pressure Build-up
Data", Trans. AIME, (1953), 198, 125.
8. van Everdingen, A. F.: "The Skin Effect and Its
Influence on the Productive Capacity of Wells",
Trans. AIME (1953), 198,71.
9. Wilson, C. L., Smith, R. V., Hendrickson, G. E.,
and Stafford, J. D.: "How Good is that Well Com-
pletion?" Oil & Gas Jour. (June 27. 1955). 100.
***
JOt:RNAL OF PETROLEt:'11. TECHNOLOGY