Sand Control PDF
Sand Control PDF
Sand Control PDF
by
Navjeet Benipal
2004
SAND CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT - DEVELOPMENT OF A
by
Navjeet S Benipal, B.Tech.
Report
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
Approved by
Supervising Committee:
Dedication
inspiration.
Preface
Most of the hydrocarbon production in the present world comes from formations
with the potential to produce sand during well life. In the United States, sand producing
formations occur commonly in the Gulf of Mexico, California and Texas. Around the
world, sand production is common in West Africa, Canada, China, Venezuela, Trinidad,
Cameroon, Azerbaijan, Malaysia, Indonesia and parts of the North Sea and Nile Delta.
Sand production is on the rise as the existing fields are maturing (depletion and
water production); new fields are of poorer quality, high rate and high ultimate wells, and
sub-sea wells. The drilling of high rate and high ultimate wells and poor quality of the
reservoirs have put so much stress on the formation sand that the majority of wells
require either downhole sand control or management of the produced sand at the surface
based on the severity of the problem. In addition, a large number of developments
involve sub-sea wells where the consequences associated with unmanaged sand
production are even more severe.
Another reason for the management of the sand is more stringent environment and
safety regulation, which require the operators to minimize risks arising from sand
production by better control and disposal of the sand produced during operations.
This report “Sand Control and Management – Development of a Sand Control
Strategy” presents current industry practices for sand control, production problems
related to sand influx and existing sand prediction techniques with the objective of
documenting the best technology for existing sand control methods. The findings would
help the engineers and field supervisors to select, design, and apply the best sand control
techniques for a particular situation.
Chapters 1, 2, 3 and 4 give a detailed description of what is involved in sand
control and management. These chapters focus on fundamentals of sand production,
accurately predicting the reservoir potential for sand production, reducing sand
production to avoid damaged assets and decreased production rates, assessing the ability
of currently available sand control technologies to counter sand production and combine
v
sand control and sand management to effectively supervise sand production and sand
damage.
Chapter 5 presents the design of a sand control strategy. The chapter is intended
to help engineers identify, understand and implement sand control or management
strategy that will work best.
This report is intended for the use of completion, petroleum and drilling engineers
involved with well design and implementation, reservoir and surveillance engineers
putting together reservoir or well management and depletion plans, and facilities
engineers looking to design and manage surface and sub-sea production facilities in sand-
prone environments.
The scope of the report is very wide. However, special emphasis is put on detailed
presentation of the sand production concepts for deeper understanding.
vi
Acknowledgements
December 2004
vii
Abstract
Sand production is one of the major challenges faced by the petroleum industry
moving into the next century. The history of sand production dates back to the 1900’s
with the completion of water wells with sand control installations. A lot of work has been
done from that time to control and manage sand production. Several sand prediction
models have been developed to predict the onset of sand and the amount and rate of sand
production. More efficient and advanced sand control installations have been put into
wells to stop sand from moving into the wellbore. A deeper understanding of the failure
mechanisms (reservoir and rock parameters) governing the physical process of sand
production is achieved and applied towards the development of new technologies for
sand control. The production facilities are better designed using erosion resistant
materials. All these technical developments and the related work have been recorded in
the literature in form of research papers, professional journals and field experiences. This
report is a review of the efforts made by the industry to control sand production and
thereby help field engineers utilize the knowledge and experiences from global best
practices. Finally, a methodology is presented to develop a sand control strategy for sand
prone reservoirs.
viii
Table of Contents
ix
3.3.2 Non-impairing Completion Techniques ....................................36
3.3.3 Perforating ...............................................................................37
3.3.4 Screens.....................................................................................40
3.3.5 Gravel Packing.........................................................................48
3.3.6 Frac Pack .................................................................................50
3.3.7 Chemical Consolidation ...........................................................50
References .........................................................................................................93
Vita .....................................................................................................................100
xi
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Data considered in a complete evaluation for predicting sand production
Table 5.1 Sand Control Methods for Sand Management and Sand Exclusion
Techniques.....................................................................................84
xii
List of Figures
Figure 1.2 (a) Wire-wrapped screen damage cause by sand production (Penberthy
Figure 1.3 API recommended superficial velocity limits for erosion. ....................9
Figure 1.4 (a) Erosion-Corrosion damage to a pipe. (b) Severe pitting due to
Figure 2.1 Total drawdown versus transit time for intervals with and without sand
[6]..................................................................................................17
Figure 2.4 (a) S-wave predicted and measures Rock Strengths of Cement Sand
xiii
Figure 3.1 (a) Bridging of sand control screen opening with well-sorted sand
Figure 3.2 Shape and geometry of different types of slots in a slotted liner. ........43
Figure 3.4 Prepacked Screens. (a) Dual-Screen Prepack (b) Single-Screen Prepack
Figure 3.5 Premium screens. (a) Sintered Metal Screen (b) Stratapack Screen (c)
Figure 3.6 (a) Expandable Screen [50]. (b) Expandable Sand Screen Design
Figure 3.7 Gravel Pack (a) Cased-hole Gravel Pack (b) Open-hole Gravel Pack. 49
Figure 4.2 Sieve analyses for poorly sorted and well sorted sand. .......................55
Figure 4.3 Through Tubing Gravel pack – Vent Screen Method [54]..................60
Figure 4.5 Top-down circulating gravel pack (Source Baker Oil Tools)..............69
Figure 4.6 Top-down squeeze pack without washpipe (Source Baker Oil Tools).71
Figure 5.1 Sand failure due to high in-situ effective stress due to depletion. .......90
xiv
Chapter 1: Sand Control
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Oil and gas are produced in many areas of the world from unconsolidated or
poorly consolidated weak formations vulnerable to sand production. Sand may be
produced with the fluids either in surges or gradually over longer periods of time. The
production of sand is a result of the drag force created along the path of fluid flow.
Depending upon the degree of natural intergranular cementation, compaction,
intergranular friction and cohesion of formation particles, sand may be drawn into the
wellbore as the drag force exceeds these restraining forces. In general, high flow rates
result in larger quantities of sand production. Sand produced has no economic value. On
the contrary, sand production causes reduced productivity, loss of reserves and added cost
in combating equipment damage and sand accumulation problems. Every year industry
spends millions of dollars in combating sand related problems. Thus there’s a tremendous
incentive to study and develop optimal sand control and management methods to increase
profits.
There are some general rules of thumb, which have been used in identifying
excessive sand producers. For oil wells the limit is set between 5-10 lb sand/1000 bbl or
0.001-0.002 percent; for gas wells it is 1 lb/MMSCF. In higher GOR oil wells (> 10,000
SCF/bbl), the limit is sometimes as low as 5-lb/1000 bbl due to high wellhead velocities
achieved. In the past, industry has recommended that sand control methods be used
where sand production exceeds these levels. However, the limits vary with field
conditions. It is up to the engineers to decide the amount of sand production, which can
be tolerated in their respective fields, depending upon wellbore design and surface
equipment.
2
substantiated. However, fines production contributes to the compaction-induced
mechanical well damage as fines production from the near-wellbore area temporarily
increases near-wellbore porosity and thereby worsens compaction strains when load-
bearing grains compact. Also, the removal of the fines allows load-bearing grains to slip
past one another and reorient more easily. Fines production may be reduced by proper
completion fluid selection, stimulation design, pumping procedures, well unloading/flow
initiation procedures, completion drawdown, and flow rates. There are no proven
remedies for stopping fines production, and attempted remedies may worsen the
situation.
Not all wells that continually produce sand are sand production problems.
Obviously, some wells must employ sand control methods to be produced. However, low
levels of sand production may be tolerable in many situations. Sand production becomes
intolerable whenever costs (i.e., from erosion damage and failures) and risks (i.e.,
economic exposure and safety and environmental risks) become unacceptable.
The drag force from produced or injected fluids can shear the intergranular
cement bonds and destroy the natural arches of unconsolidated sands, which then leads to
sand production. There are other destabilizing actions, which can exceed or remove the
holding forces and lead to sand production. Cementing material can be dissolved or
eroded by produced fluids, stimulation fluids (e.g., acid treatments) and injectants (e.g.,
steam). The cementing bonds can be broken by changes in the principal stresses caused
by initial drilling and cementing operations, compaction due to pressure depletion,
excessive pressure drawdown during production, pressure surges due to facility upsets,
large choke changes, stimulation procedures, and sudden starts of artificial lift.
3
Sand Rate
Oil Sand
Rate
Tolerable Fines
There are other factors which affect the strength of these forces, such as the
degree of compaction, which is generally proportional to the overburden loading (or
depth) and inversely proportional to the reservoir pressure, porosity and permeability of
the formation.
The magnitude of this drag force is dependent upon the fluid flow rate. Figure 1.1
illustrates sand production during an increasing flowrate test. The test record indicates
that a new sand production peak occurs after each increase in oil rate. The peak is
followed by a decline to a minimum level, which is essentially sand free production. At
the highest oil rate, sand production continues indefinitely. This oil rate at which the sand
production becomes uncontrollable is called the critical sand free oil rate. It is
recommended that every operator establish this critical sand free oil rate for each field.
Other factors that play a role in the influx of sand are geology, natural
consolidation, time dependence (depletion and maturing of fields), multiphase flow and
thermal effects.
4
Sand production is a regular phenomenon in unconsolidated, shallow and
geologically young formations. These low strength (< 100 psi compressive strength)
formations produce sand from the first day of production or after the first shut-down.
Natural consolidation of the formation by means of intergranular bonds,
intergranular friction, gravity forces and capillary forces restrains sand particles from
being drawn into the wellbore by the drag force created due to fluid flow. The
intergranular force is best estimated by the compressive strength of the formation. It is
believed that the formations with a compressive strength greater than 1000 psi generally
remain sand-free.
In some cases, sand production starts after the well has produced for a
considerable period of time. It is because the reservoir pressure decreases with time and
thus the sand grains experience more overburden stress. Natural arches in unconsolidated
sands can also be destroyed by grain slippage resulting from pressure depletion, changes
in the principal stresses, excessive pressure drawdowns and pressure surges.
Multiphase flow (water or gas breakthrough) increases the probability of sand
production. The water dissolves the cementing materials and weakens the intergranular
bonds or reduces capillary pressure. In some wells, connate water provides intergranular
cohesion as oil and gas are produced. However, sand production begins at the onset of
water production due to connate water becoming mobile.
High temperature in the steam injection wells has initiated sand production when
there was no sand production before. This phenomenon has not been very well
understood but has been experienced in the field. For example, in high viscosity crude, it
is believed that the viscous crude provides formation stability. Sand production begins as
the oil decreases in viscosity and becomes more mobile due to steam injection. Also, the
injection of miscible fluids (e.g., as in a miscible CO2 flood) can lower the cohesive
forces by affecting the surface tension of wetting fluids. It is apparent from this
discussion that most sand problems will occur with young, poorly cemented rocks,
especially at shallow depths; in heavy, viscous oil wells; in highly overpressured and
geopressured zones as compaction begins to take place; in certain high rate producers;
and in reservoirs which are rapidly depleted. It should also be apparent that sand
5
production will often be rate-sensitive, since this determines the drawdown, drag forces,
and, in some cases, the water saturation. A maximum sand-free rate can often be
established by very slowly increasing the production rate until a trace of sand production
is noticed. Immediately reducing the production rate below this point should restore sand-
free production. However, this will change with the production conditions and with
reservoir depletion.
1.5 EROSION
Erosion is an important form of equipment failure caused by sand production. It is
a complex phenomenon and is affected by numerous factors and small or subtle changes
in operational conditions can significantly affect the damage it causes. Detection of
6
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 1.2 (a) Wire-wrapped screen damage cause by sand production (Penberthy and
Shaughnessy). (b) Casing buckling caused by sand production is evidenced
in this example from a South Pass area well offshore Louisiana. The 7-inch
casing was deflected 8 inches within a vertical distance of 5-10 feet (Suman,
1974). (c) Erosion of a wellbore due to sand production. (d) Accumulation
of sand in a wellbore. (e) Collapsed formation into a wellbore. (f) Fracture
of the well bore due to excessive pressure inside the wellbore.
7
erosion as it progresses is also difficult and plant operators rarely have a good measure of
the internal condition of the pipe. Erosion has been long recognized as a potential source
of problems in oil and gas production systems. The inherently variable nature of the
erosion process makes it very difficult to develop definitive best practice
recommendations that will apply to all equipment in hydrocarbon production systems.
Attempts have been made to correlate particle velocity or sand concentration in
the well to equipment damage caused by it. Figure 1.3 shows the superficial velocity
limits for liquids and gas in the petroleum system beyond which the erosion of the
equipment takes place, as recommended by American Petroleum Institute (API). These
are the maximum allowable velocities at which the well can produce without causing
erosion. The magnitude of erosion is controlled by the concentration of sand in the
system. The line moves further to the left depending upon the amount of sand production.
The graph shows how the conditions become severe at high sand concentrations. This
correlation is by no means true for all fields, as erosion by sand impingement is a
complex phenomenon dependent on numerous variables such as particle properties of
size, density, shape, hardness, concentration; material properties of hardness, strength,
composition; fluid properties of viscosity and density; and other factors such as angle of
impingement, flow velocity, flow regime, etc. Erosive wear is believed to be strongly
proportional to the kinetic energy of the impinging particles (some studies suggest
erosion is proportional to velocity cubed). Particle impact velocity can vary substantially
with flow velocity, especially in liquid flow streams where the impact velocity tends to
be much lower. Changes in gas flow are less likely to affect the inertia of sand particles
immediately prior to impact. Smaller particles have lower inertia and thus exhibit lower
collision efficiency. The velocity of smaller particles is more easily affected by the
sudden changes that occur as the flow stream is diverted through turns and elbows.
8
majority of damage done to hydrocarbon systems. The degree of erosion is different in
parts of the production system depending upon the design of the equipment, material
properties, and operational conditions. The most affected components are upstream of the
fluid separators, as they carry multiphase mixtures of gas, liquid and particulates.
100
Superficial Liquid Velocity, ft/s
10 Erosion
1.0
0.1
No Erosion
0.01
9
high fluid velocities as compared to oil wells (This should not be confused with the wells
producing more sand due to water breakthrough. Water breakthrough tends to increase
the amount of sand production but not the fluid velocity and erosion increase with
increased sand production). Slugging in particular can generate periodically high
velocities that may significantly enhance erosion rate.
The particle erosion rate is highly dependent on particle impact velocity which
will be close to the fluid velocity. It is generally accepted that the erosion rate is
proportional to the particle impact velocity raised to a power, n (typically n ranges
between 2 and 3 for steels).
Particle size is important as it determines the path of the particle inside the flow
system. Large particles tend to move slowly and settle out of the fluids whereas the
smaller particles hit the surface of the pipe and lead to erosion. The hardness and shape of
the particles are other important factors, as the harder and sharp particles tend to cause
more damage than lighter and spherical particles.
1.5.1.2 Erosion-Corrosion
Erosion-corrosion is the combined effect of particulate erosion and corrosion.
Depending upon which of these processes is predominant in the system, results will vary.
In a purely corrosive flow, without particulates in it, new pipework components
typically corrode very rapidly until a brittle scale develops on the surfaces exposed to the
fluid. After this scale has developed, it forms a barrier between the metal and the fluid
that substantially reduces penetration rate. This is also the case when very low-level
erosion is also taking place simultaneously with corrosion.
In highly erosive flows, in which corrosion is also occurring, the erosion process
predominates and scale is scoured from exposed surfaces before it can influence the
penetration rate. Corrosion therefore contributes little to material penetration. At
intermediate conditions, erosion and corrosion mechanisms can interact. In this case scale
can form and then be periodically removed by the erosive particles.
Erosion-corrosion mechanisms are potentially very complex. This makes
prediction of erosion-corrosion penetration rates for a particular field situation very
10
difficult. Erosion-corrosion can be avoided by ensuring that operating conditions do not
allow either erosion or corrosion. Figure 1.4 (a) shows damage dome to a pipe due to
erosion-corrosion.
(a) (b)
Figure 1.4 (a) Erosion-Corrosion damage to a pipe. (b) Severe pitting due to cavitation
(Venkatesh, 1986)
1.5.1.4 Cavitation
When liquid passes through restrictions low pressure areas can be generated, for
example downstream of a sudden step. If the pressure is reduced below the vapor
pressure of the liquid, bubbles are formed. These bubbles then collapse generating shock
waves. These shock waves can be of sufficient amplitude to damage pipework. Cavitation
is a very rare phenomenon in oil and gas production systems as the pressure never goes
11
below the vapor pressure of the liquid. Evidence for cavitation is sometimes found in
chokes, control valves and pump impellers, but is unlikely to occur in other components.
Figure 1.4 (b) is an example of cavitation.
12
Chapter 2: Sand Prediction
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Sand prediction model is a means to assess the risk of sand production in the life
of a well. Most of this work is essentially done in the initial appraisal stages of a field as
to get a better handle on reservoir management strategy, completion design, perforation
strategy, planning of the surface facilities, sand monitoring strategy and above all the
economics of the project.
Sand production significantly restricts production rates by putting constraints on
the reservoir and causes expensive well intervention in terms of costly completion
installations to prevent the sand from being carried into the wellbore. In addition, initial
downhole sand control is costly and lowers productivity of the well. Thus, sand
production prediction has become an integral part of reservoir management, completion
design and production optimization. The benefit of accurate sand failure prediction can
be tremendous in terms of revenue enhancement (i.e., wells without sand control are
more productive) and cost reduction (e.g., elimination of failures, workovers, and
unnecessary sand control installations).
Sand failure prediction is applied almost exclusively to reservoirs with friable to
consolidated and harder sandstone formations, since sand production is virtually always a
problem in unconsolidated to loosely consolidated formations. Sand prediction models
indicate the onset of sand production, the amount of sand produced and the rate at which
sand is produced. There are a variety of numerical and analytical sanding models
available in the literature, varying in complexity and approach towards the problem. A
brief description of the models with the different parameters involved and the failure
mechanisms leading to sand production are presented in this chapter. In addition, other
sand prediction techniques are discussed to cover the whole gamut of prediction methods.
This helps engineers look at the sand prediction problem from a wider perspective and
give a better understanding of the problem.
13
2.2 SAND PREDICTION METHODS
The present sand prediction methods are based on field observations and
experience of sand production, log analysis, laboratory sand production experiments and
theoretical modeling of sand production. However, no single method is capable of
predicting sand production on its own. Most of the time, a combination of these
techniques is employed to predict sand production in the field.
Parameters
Rock 1. Strength
2. Vertical and horizontal in-situ stresses (change during depletion.
3. Depth (influences strength, stresses and pressure)
15
In addition, the method was not able to estimate maximum sand free rate for a
sand producer. The criteria specifying critical depth, tc and G/cb are related. For
example, tc decreases as depth increases; thus, the tc criterion can be translated into a
depth criterion and visa versa. Also, G/cb = 0.8*1012 psi typically corresponds to tc
=115-120 µs/ft. The one-parameter approach is practical, though conservative, and
frequently used due to its ease of use.
The one-parameter models fail to account for the depletion of the reservoir
pressure and drawdown pressure. An important two parameter model is described by
Stein et al [7]. Stein developed the first significant method to estimate maximum sand
free production rate by relating shear strength of the formation to the well’s sand
production. The sonic and density logs of the sand producing wells were used to relate
them to new wells. The problem of pressure depletion and water production were not
addressed.
Veekan et al [6] plotted the total drawdown pressure, (Pr-Pwf), versus sonic transit
time, tc, for sand and no-sand producers in the same field. The plot is shown in figure
2.1. A risk region was established in which it is possible to produce sand. Sand free
production can be realistically expected to the left of the risk region. The position of the
risk zone is field dependent, sand production tests and regular monitoring can be used to
determine its position
Multi-parameter correlations can further improve the resolution between the sand
and no-sand producers. Figure 2.2 illustrates the use of the multiple discriminant analysis
technique for the data set of Figure 2.1. Sand production is correlated with a wide range
of parameters including depth, sonic transit time, production rate, drawdown pressure,
productivity index, shaliness and water cut. The sand and no-sand producers are well
separated. The parameter influencing sand production pressure most from Figure 2.2 is
water cut, sand and no-sand producers are characterized by an average water cut of 19%
and 2% respectively. The discriminant function describing the influence of various
factors is regionally dependent. In a similar analysis, Ghalambor et al [14] used
regression to correlate the critical drawdown pressure observed in water-producing gas
wells with seven parameters. The method used field data and existing correlations to
16
Risk
Safe
Figure 2.1 Total drawdown versus transit time for intervals with and without sand
problems. (Veekan et al [6])
Figure 2.2 Plot showing result of multiple discriminant analysis. (Veekan et al [6].
17
extend Mohr’s stress analysis method to include depletion and water production in gas
wells. The multi-parameter techniques, however successful, are not commonly used
because of extensive data requirements.
Field data correlated with log data has proved to be reasonably accurate in
predicting the onset of sand production. The method is field dependent and thus requires
data gathering and interpretation efforts in every field.
18
sediments which are assumed to be producing sand from the very beginning of
production.
(a)
(b)
20
(c)
(d)
Figure 2.4 (a) S-wave predicted and measures Rock Strengths of Cement Sand Cores. (b)
P-wave Predicted and measured Rock Strengths of Cement Sand Cores
(Chow, 1994). (c) S-wave predicted and measures Rock Strengths of
Silicone Resin Sand Cores. (d) P-wave Predicted and measured Rock
Strengths of Silicone Resin Sand Cores (Chow, 1994).
21
The effect of overburden or confining pressure on static mechanical and
acoustical properties of unconsolidated and weakly consolidated sand samples was
examined in a high pressure cell. The results from these experiments were combined with
the Cs-Vs and Cs-Vp correlations to give equations which used log data to predict the
stability of the formation rock, represented by an empirical sanding index (Sc), to failure
induced by fluid drag.
To establish a correlation between tensile failure and fluid drag, fluid flow
experiments were conducted by setting up a high pressure flow cell to simulate
production into a perforated cased wellbore. The experiments showed different modes of
sand production at different rates. The amount of sand produced increased with
increasing flow rate. A correlation was developed to relate the sanding index with fluid
drag force at failure.
22
Data Considered in a Complete Evaluation for Predicting Sand Production
Potential.
1. Field Data
2. Cyclic Loading
4. Quality of cementation
7. Well pressure
Table 2.1 Data considered in a complete evaluation for predicting sand production
potential (Moore, W. R).
23
effective in-situ stresses at that depth in the formation. Once the sand grains are loose, the
rate and amount of erosion of the matrix depends on factors such as the production rate,
the fluid velocity and the fluid viscosity. Sand failure mechanisms can be subdivided into
three types:
1. Compressive or Shear failure
2. Tensile failure as a result of drawdown (fluid drag) alone, and
3. Cohesive Failure or erosion failure as a result of the degeneration of cementation.
4. Chemical Effect induced Failure
24
2.2.3.2 Tensile Failure
Tensile failure refers to a tensile radial stress exceeding the tensile failure
envelope and is triggered exclusively by drawdown pressure. Tensile failure mechanism
occurs around a perforation tunnel where the radial stress is controlled by the wellbore
pressure and reservoir pressure. The abrupt change in pressure can exceed the tensile
strength of formation, therefore causing sand production and perforation-tunnel
enlargement. Tensile failure may occur at the perforation tip or the perforation wall
which is usually penetrating within the plastic zone. Tensile failure predominates in
consolidated sandstone.
25
2. Hydrochloric acid (HCl) used in completion fluids may adversely affect the
strength of the formation.
If the cementation material is carbonate and formation is exposed to acid, the rock
structure will collapse causing sand production.
Compressive and tensile failures are analyzed by continuum modeling (i.e., the
granular structure and grain-to-grain interactions of the sandstone are disregarded).
Erosion failure considers the dislodging of individual grains and thus accounts for
individual grain-to-grain interactions. Erosion failure is still under investigation and has
not been included explicitly in the models used so far.
Several models have been developed based on these failure mechanisms. Some of
the published work is listed. Morita et al [10] developed the numerical model to quantify
perforation cavity stability and thereby predict sand production. The model presented a
safe operating envelope defining the shear failure and tensile failure of the formation
around the perforation. This was the first model to handle both shear and tensile failure
taking into account fluid forces, boundary loads and residual stresses. Dimensional
analysis [11, 12] was performed to identify the variables critical to perforation cavity
stability. An engineering system to predict sand production was also presented
integrating rock mechanics, geology characterization, logging and reservoir management
information [13].
Ghalambor et al [14] provided an analytical method for predicting sand
production in gas wells making water.
Willson et al [17] developed an analytical model to predict the rate of continuous
(steady-state) sand production. The model uses non-dimensionalized concepts of loading
factor (near-wellbore formation stress normalized by strength) and Reynolds number (a
function of permeability, viscosity, density and flow viscosity).The model uses laboratory
sand production experiments to derive an empirical relationship between loading factor,
Reynolds number and the rate of sand production.
Yi and Valko [16] developed an analytical sanding onset prediction model based
on the theory of poroelastoplasticity, assuming shear failure or tensile stress induced
sanding. The model is simple as compared to existing analytical models, as it only
26
requires the following rock mechanics parameters: Biot’s Constant, Poisson’s Ratio,
Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS), and in-situ stresses.
Chin et al [38] presented a numerical model that couples rock deformation and
fluid flow in weak reservoirs.
27
Chapter 3: Sand Control Methods
3.1 INTRODUCTION
There are numerous sand control methods available in the industry. No one
practice, however, can control sand effectively under all circumstances. Based on
successful field experience, advantages and limitations, operators usually develop a
particular preference for a specific method. The different sand control methods used are:
1. Rate Control
2. Non-impairing Completion Techniques
3. Selective Perforating
4. Screens (without gravel packing)
a. Slotted Liner
b. Wire-wrapped Screens
c. Prepacked Screens
d. Premium Screens
e. Expandable Screens
5. Gravel Packs
6. Frac Packs
7. Chemical Consolidation
i. In Situ Formation Consolidation
ii. Consolidated Gravel
These methods are further classified into two groups: mechanical exclusion
methods and arch stabilization methods. Arch stabilization methods can be further
divided into natural arches and reinforced arches. Table 3.1 sums up proposed
classification of the above sand control methods.
Mechanical exclusion methods prevent sand production by either bridging type
retention or filter type retention. In bridging type retention, a certain amount of sand
production is tolerated until a bridge is formed against a filtration medium such as a
screen or sized gravel or combination, as in a gravel pack. Sudden production rate
changes easily disturb these bridges, resulting in additional sand production until new
28
bridges form. Additionally, a certain amount of plugging is more likely to occur, since
the filter medium is sized to allow smaller particles to flow through.
Filter type retention methods are designed to exclude all sand production. These
do not rely on bridging, and therefore are more stable. Filter type sand control is attained
simply by further reducing slot size of the screen and size of gravel, below that required
for bridging type retention. In theory and in practice, all of the mechanical exclusion
methods can provide bridging type retention. In practice, only prepacked screens alone
29
(without gravel packing) and gravel packing are used to provide filter type retention.
Mechanical methods listed in Table 3.1 are in order of increasing effectiveness and
reliability in providing filter type sand control.
Arch stabilization depends completely on formation of stable arches near the
wellbore to restrain sand production. Natural arch stabilization occurs by avoiding the
creation of destabilizing actions, which will cause sand production. Reinforced arches
utilize a chemical bonding agent, such as plastic resin or other material, to strengthen
existing bonding between touching particles and to create new bonds. Of the natural arch
methods, the effectiveness of rate control is the most easily observed. It is more difficult
to ascertain the sand control effectiveness of the other two; however, there is little doubt
that these can have a substantial impact on sand production potential. Sand control
methods are sometimes combined when the reliability of a single method is in question
and added assurance is desired. This can occur when well parameters exceed the design
applicability of a specific sand control method.
Sand detection techniques at surface are also successfully employed by operators
to know the onset of sand production. The prospects of successfully stopping sand
production and maximizing well productivity are enhanced when sand production is
detected early and is held to a minimum prior to application of sand control methods. A
brief discussion of the sand detection methods is presented before the actual sand control
methods.
30
results in oil fields. However, sand production rates are more difficult to determine in gas
wells and high gas liquid ratio (GLR) oil wells. Acoustic or erosional monitoring devices
[49] may be necessary where early warning for an increase in sand production is
required. High-pressure critical gas wells which produce sand may be more likely to
develop leaks quickly due to high erosional energy with little time to detect and react.
Likewise, high pressure, high rate oil wells could also fail quickly. Conversely, a low
amount of sand production in some low rate wells may be tolerable.
Generally, visual inspection techniques prevail as the detection methods for
monitoring wells for sand production. These include wellhead shakeouts, inspecting
choke internals for erosion, and inspecting sand traps and surface facilities for sand fill.
These methods are simple and add minimally to operational burden since they are
accomplished while performing other routine tasks. Other detection methods include
batch monitoring, erosional sand probes, acoustic sand detectors, and X-ray and
ultrasonic inspection of surface equipment. Erosional sand probes are used commonly in
gas wells (with and without sand control), especially in high pressure/high rate
completions. Probes are typically installed on each well in the flowline a short distance
from the last choke on the Christmas tree and are typically designed to shut in the well
when the probe erodes through. The remaining detection methods are used infrequently,
probably due to the apparent adequacy of the above methods and the various drawbacks
including high installation cost, added operational burden, varying reliability, and lack of
visual confirmation. Several papers [45, 46, 47, 48 and 49] have been written discussing
the methods and devices to detect sand in the flowlines. A brief discussion on each of
these methods follows.
31
3.2.2 Fluid Sampling
Fluid sampling can be the most precise means of determining sand production
rates, although some brands of acoustic and erosional sand probes boast a similar
accuracy. Fluid sampling is applied only to oil wells or high liquid to gas ratio (LGR) gas
wells. Sampling methods include wellhead shakeout, batch sampling, and continuous
sampling. In all of these, a specified volume of produced fluid is collected. Then an
analytical procedure is utilized to determine sand content. Concentration is usually
expressed in pounds of sand per thousand barrels of produced fluid (or grams per cubic
meter).
35
3.3 SAND CONTROL METHODS
36
failure in a marginal sand producer. It is fairly common to notice sand failures which
resulted from excessive drawdowns being attributed to an impaired formation. However,
the converse (i.e., knowing which wells would have produced sand if not for the use of
non-impairing completion techniques) is generally unknown, and therefore, the value of
this sand control method is likely underestimated. Wells which have produced sand
during drill stem tests and which were later completed have been known to produce sand-
free when formation impairment was removed using appropriate completion techniques.
The important completion considerations include the use of clean, filtered, nondamaging
completion fluids along with proper stimulation design and treatment. Acid jobs, which
are necessary to remove impairment prior to initiating production, can cause problems if
improperly designed. Similarly, a stimulation job can do more harm than good, especially
in acid-sensitive formations where a high percentage of the formation is acid soluble.
Excessive fines generation may create more damage than was initially present. While
after-stimulation sand influxes should be only temporary, the volumes involved can be
quite sufficient to cause a sand-up or a buildup of fill over the perforations.
Good techniques should be part of any completion. When passive sand control
methods, such as rate control, are the only methods to be used, an unimpaired completion
becomes even more essential in minimizing sand production.
3.3.3 Perforating
In cased-hole completions, well productivity is most heavily dependent on
perforation design. Perforating factors affecting well productivity include perforation
dimensions (diameter and penetration), shot density, and phasing. Generally, larger,
deeper perforations, higher shot density, and uniform phasing yield the highest
productivity. Actual perforation dimensions are determined by perforating gun/charge
design and quality, the position of the gun/charges in the wellbore when they are fired,
and well conditions such as temperature, pressure, well fluids, casing size and metallurgy,
and cement and formation properties.
Perforation damage impairs productivity. Damage is caused in a number of ways.
The act of perforating tends to crush and compact the formation surrounding each
37
perforation tunnel, thereby restricting inflow. Debris such as spent perforating charge and
gun debris as well as dirty completion fluid can also impair perforations. Perforation
cavities which subsequently collapse (most typical in unconsolidated formations) also
will be impaired if not properly cleaned. Perforation cleaning methods are used to remove
these types of impairment.
In completions where sand control may be required, it is important that
perforation impairment be minimized so that the productive stresses which tend to cause
sand production are minimized. In gravel packing, the objective is to have large diameter
perforations which have been thoroughly cleaned, leaving an open cavity where gravel
can be placed. The gravel, in many cases, is an order of magnitude more permeable than
the formation sand. Therefore, placement of highly permeable gravel out into the
perforation cavities serves to increase the effective wellbore radius, potentially increasing
productivity to that of an open-hole completion.
Perforation cleaning is necessary to remove perforation damage caused by
formation crushing and compaction, drilling mud, cement, dirty completion fluids
(resulting from dirty equipment, rust, pipe dope, etc., in addition to the other
contaminants listed) and perforating gun debris. Cleaning is accomplished in any of three
basic ways including: (1) surging or backflowing, (2) perforation washing, and (3)
treating. Surging or backflowing is the most commonly used method of cleaning the
perforations. This can be accomplished in any of a number of ways including
underbalanced perforating, conventional backsurging, and flowing the well (prior to
installing sand control).
Perforation washing involves pumping through each perforation with sufficient
pressure and rate to establish return flow communication with other perforations and flow
communication with the formation. The fluid used may be completion fluid or a solvent
(e.g., acid). In soft rock completions, once communication is established between two or
more perforations, debris is removed from the perforations by washing out a void behind
casing. In gravel packed completion, this void is subsequently packed with highly
permeable gravel. In hard rock completions, the objective is to establish communication
with the formation rather than with other perforations. Perforation washing is better
38
suited than surging or flowing methods for long intervals. Although surging and flowing
techniques have been used by other companies in conjunction with perforation washing
in gravel packed completions, this is likely unnecessary since both methods when used
alone give good results when properly performed.
Treating may involve the use of solvents to dissolve perforation damage and in
hard rock formations, may involve fracturing through the damage into the formation with
solvents or other fluids. It is common practice in completions to acidize the perforations
after other perforation cleaning techniques have been used (typically conventional
backsurging or underbalanced perforating), immediately prior to gravel packing.
Experience has shown that this is necessary to remove damage which is not removed by
the other cleaning processes.
3.3.4 Screens
The simplest and oldest sand control method employs only a screen to restrain
sand production. A screen is run into the open hole or into a cased hole after perforating.
This concept involves using a slot width sized to provide bridging type retention rather
than filter type retention. The desire is that sand bridges will form before excessive sand
production, screen plugging, or erosion occurs as shown in Figure 3.1 (a).
40
Screen
Fluid Flow
Well-Sorted
Sand Grains
(a)
Screen
Poorly Sorted
Sand Grains
(b)
Figure 3.1 (a) Bridging of sand control screen opening with well-sorted sand grains. (b)
Plugging of sand control screen opening with poorly sorted sand grains.
41
Coberly [40] presented a sizing criterion which states that the slot opening should
be smaller than the d10 of the formation (i.e. 10% of the sand particles are larger than the
slot size. The 10th percentile or d10 designation is equivalent to a sieve mesh which
would retain 10 weight percent of the formation sand and allow the remaining 90 percent
to pass through.
Filter theory and field experience have shown that particles with a median
diameter as low as one-third of the opening size will effectively form bridges due to grain
interference (Abrams [35], Coberly [40]).
The finer sands and silts will initially pass through the screen, but as a bridge
develops, they will be trapped by a combination of filtration and bridging on the pore
throats of the coarse material. Of course, bridges tend to be easily upset by sudden
production fluctuations which are common occurrences (e.g., due to pump-off controllers
or bringing a well on too hard or too quickly, etc.). Each time a bridge is upset, some
sand production will occur until the bridge is re-established. Slow, gradual increases in
production rates have been shown to give the best productivity and minimize the risks of
screen cutout, especially in formations that produce fines. Screen-alone applications
generally should be limited to the producers that meet the Coberly’s criterion and open-
hole completions, particularly horizontal wells or wells with extremely long completion
intervals. The two concerns in screen-alone applications are erosion failure and well
impairment due to the plugging of the screen as shown in Figure 3.1 (b). Screen alone
generally is not recommended for cased completions.
Screen alone is a relatively low installation cost sand control method and may be
reasonably successful in proper applications. The real cost, however, of using screen
alone must take into account other costs besides installation such as increased workovers
to clean out the well and remove bad screens, deterioration of downhole equipment,
pumps, and surface equipment due to sand erosion, sand removal and disposal costs, and
longer term problems such as inter-zonal communication problems and casing damage.
42
3.3.4.1 Slotted Liner
A slotted liner is a pipe with slots in it as shown in Figure 3.2, hung off from the
previous casing, in an open-hole section. It is slotted with a precision saw or mill.
Normally cut longitudinally (i.e. along the length of the liner). The smallest cut is equal
to 0.012 inches or 300 microns, which is much larger than most sand sizes. The
advantage of a slotted liner is that it is cheap. The biggest drawback of a slotted liner is
its susceptibility to plugging by filter cake.
Figure 3.2 Shape and geometry of different types of slots in a slotted liner.
44
costly than gravel packing (using regular screens) in longer intervals. Due to their
mechanical design, prepacked screens tend to impose the greatest ID restriction of all
sand control methods. This may be extremely important when ID limitations preclude the
capability to conduct routine through-tubing workover operations.
The consolidated sand or other media acts as a downhole filter. Since the pore
throats will be only about 15-25 percent of the sand grain size, it is possible to retain
much finer sand than can be retained with a slotted liner alone or a wire-wrapped screen
alone. Moreover, the consolidated sand provides a depth filter which is much less
susceptible to erosional failure. The larger flow area helps to increase erosional resistance
and to minimize the effects of plugging. The small pores, however, can be easily plugged
during handling and running procedures, and special precautions should be taken to
minimize this.
Figure 3.4 Prepacked Screens. (a) Dual-Screen Prepack (b) Single-Screen Prepack (c)
Slim-Pak (Source Baker Oil Tools)
Figure 3.5 Premium screens. (a) Sintered Metal Screen (b) Stratapack Screen (c)
Excluder Screen (Source Baker Oil Tools).
The Stratapack screen design consists of a 3-4 layers of porous metal membrane
between a drilled prebase and perforated outer shroud. This screen is an excellent sand
filter and very damage tolerant, but also very susceptible to plugging.
The Excluder screen has a base wrap, covered with stainless steel wire-wrapped
support and drainage layer for the overlaying Vector Weave filtration medium. A Vector
Shroud covers this. This screen is more tolerant of plugging with fine particles than the
other screens above.
46
3.3.4.5 Expandable Screens
An expandable sand screen is made up of a slotted tubular base pipe, covered with
a wire weave, which is protected with an outer shroud. A diagram of expandable screen
and its design is presented in Figure 3.6. It is expanded by pushing a cone through the
screen. It easily opens up forming a tight fit on the casing or hole. This is a big advantage
as compared with normal screens, because expandable screen holds the formation in
place, which stops the formation from collapsing and so minimizes sand grains coming
loose, which could plug the screen. The expandable is widely used in horizontal open
hole completions. The biggest drawback is that it is susceptible to collapse in squeezing
formations. It is also quite expensive.
(a)
47
Figure 3.6 (a) Expandable Screen [50]. (b) Expandable Sand Screen Design (Source
World Oil [44]).
(a) (b)
Figure 3.7 Gravel Pack (a) Cased-hole Gravel Pack (b) Open-hole Gravel Pack.
In both types, the gravel pack screen and blank liner are suspended from a packer
set in the casing, or the screen and liner weight may be supported from the bottom of the
well or a gravel pack base. In the OHGP, the casing is set above the top of the pay zone,
and the completion interval is then underreamed with a nondamaging fluid to remove
drilling damage and to enlarge the inflow area. Cased intervals can be completed with an
open-hole gravel pack by removing the casing from the completion interval with a mill
and then underreaming the completion zone. This type of open-hole completion is called
a milled casing underreamed gravel pack (MCUGP).
49
External gravel packs can result in higher productivity than internal gravel packs
due to their larger effective wellbore radius and pure radial flow (compared to convergent
and linear flow through perforations). In practice, they are often more difficult to install
effectively, particularly in thinly interbedded sand and shale sequences. Moreover,
improved techniques and perforation cleanout methods have greatly improved the success
of internal gravel packs since the early 1970s. Cased-hole or inside gravel packs now
prevail as an accepted industry practice since they offer flexibility, selectivity, and
effective zonal isolation and are usually easier to install. The elimination of perforating
and cost savings in casing and cementing make open-hole gravel packs less expensive
than inside gravel packs in shallow, vertical wells. External gravel packs are used
predominantly in viscous crude producers, water source wells, and disposal wells where
enhanced productivity is essential and economic production rates cannot be otherwise
achieved
50
cases, however, mechanical sand control methods have been used in combination with
chemical consolidation methods.
Chemical consolidation methods include two groups: in situ formation
consolidation and consolidated gravel.
52
Chapter 4: Gravel Pack – The Conventional Sand Control Method
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Gravel pack is the most efficient and trusted method of sand control. This chapter
discusses the different aspects of gravel pack technology such as gravel pack design,
gravel pack placement, gravel pack evaluation, gravel pack repair and gravel pack failure
mechanisms.
A plot of the ratio of final/initial permeability for a range of gravel pack sand (D50) to
formation sand (d50) ratios is presented in figure 4.1. From the graph, Saucier inferred
the following:
1. For a D50/d50 6, good sand control, no formation sand invasion of gravel pack
sand.
2. 6 < D50/d50 < 13, good sand control but restricted flow due to formation sand
invasion of gravel pack sand.
53
3. For D50/d50 > 13, no sand control as the formation sand passes through the
gravel pack sand.
Thus for optimum sand control, which maximizes productivity, Saucier
recommended that the gravel pack sand to formation sand ratio should be a factor of 6.
Gravel pack permeability is a function of the gravel pack sand diameter (D50)
which itself is a function of the formation sand diameter (d50). Thus it is important that
the formation grain size distribution is determined before the formation is being gravel
packed. In poorly sorted formations, some of the particles will pass all the way through
the gravel pack and other particles may get plugged in the gravel pack sand.
The first step in determining the formation sand size is to perform a sieve analysis
on qualified samples of formation material. Grain size is usually plotted as cumulative
weight percent of retained material on a linear vertical scale versus grain diameter on a
logarithmic horizontal scale as shown in Figure 4.2. The classification of sand according
to its size is given in the Table 4.1.
54
Past criteria consisted of sizing gravel to induce arching or bridging of the
formation sand against the outer surface of the gravel. While this allowed some sand
production and maximized initial permeability of the pack, the result was reduced pack
permeability due to penetration of the pack by formation sand. It has now been believed
that mixing sand and gravel rapidly reduces the pack permeability. Therefore, the trend
over the years has been to decrease the size ratio of the gravel pack sand to the formation
sand. Since Stokes’ law indicates that particle-settling rates are directly proportional to
the square of the particle diameter, it might be concluded that a smaller gravel size could
provide certain transport and placement advantages over larger gravel sizes in high angle
wells. This aspect, however, has not been explored due in part to the minimum slot size
limitations of screens and to gravel pack permeability considerations in using too small a
gravel size.
Figure 4.2 Sieve analyses for poorly sorted and well sorted sand.
Oftentimes, the gravel size and slot width for a specific formation are well
established from numerous completions within the zone. In this case, unless evidence
(e.g., variations in log responses) suggests the formation rock properties differ from those
55
Udden-Wentworth Scale
56
of the rest of the field, these values can probably be used reliably. Verification by sample
analysis, however, is always recommended, especially when size requirements are
uncertain.
57
4.2.5 Slot Sizing
Proper slot sizing is critical to the effectiveness of sand control. Slots that are too
large will leak sand, eventually resulting in the well sanding up or an erosion failure of
the screen or surface equipment. Slots that are too small may become severely plugged
during installation or subsequently during production.
58
Studies have indicated that dually produced completions are less profitable in offshore
operations due to increased mechanical complexity and an associated high failure rate.
59
packs. Workover costs can be dramatically reduced, since the equipment can be run with
a small work string or coiled tubing for short intervals by wireline. Figure 4.3 shows a
through tubing gravel pack completion. This is called vent screen method [54, 55].
Through-tubing completions are especially desirable for low rate wells or where
remaining reserves are low.
Figure 4.3 Through Tubing Gravel pack – Vent Screen Method [54]
60
4.4 GRAVEL PACK BASE
The gravel pack must have a stable base which will support the gravel column and
form an adequate seal between the screen and any rathole to prevent gravel from falling
below the completion zone. The gravel pack base also provides the reference depth from
which the remaining gravel pack design is determined. The gravel pack base should be no
more than about 5 ft and preferably only about 2 to 3 feet below the bottom of the
completion zone (a lowest perforation).
61
c. The subject zone is not intended to be selectively utilized (produced, injected, or
shut off).
Regular Applications
1. Slotted Liners
Special Applications
1. Selective Screen
2. Prepacked Screen
3. Protected Screen
5. Steel Wool
6. Combination Screen
62
With present technology, slots smaller than about 0.012 to 0.016 inch (depending
on pipe thickness) wide are not practical due to high saw blade breakage costs. In some
cases, slots are undercut (also called keystone cut or half keystone cut) so that the faces
of the slot sides are not parallel but form a “T”. This design has the narrowest width of
the slot at the outside of the pipe and widens towards the inside. Undercut slots are
intended to be self-cleaning and minimize slot plugging. However, field experience
suggests that undercut slots plug just as easily as the straight-cut slots, and since they are
more expensive, undercut slots are not frequently used. Undercut slots are also more
susceptible to erosion and corrosion attack. Slot widths vary in availability ranging from
0.012-0.500 inch for straight cut and 0.020-0.500 inch for undercut. The smallest
available slot widths may be too large for many formations, necessitating the use of wire-
wrapped screens.
Slotted liners are used primarily in shallow onshore wells and low cost operations
where minimizing cost requires some compromise in quality. They are also used in cases
where damage to wire-wrapped screens (either on surface due to handling or downhole
due to well damage) is likely. Slotted liners are often used in steam flood completions
because they are easier to clean after installing than pipe-based wire-wrapped screens.
The slots are accessible to hydraulic and mechanical tools which can be used for
cleaning. Also, placement of solvents directly on plugged slots is unobstructed as
compared to wire-wrapped screens. Steam flood completions have a tendency to plug due
to the precipitation of soluble formation materials and due to the precipitation of heavy
crude ends in the screen slots. Of course, the smaller flow area of the slots in slotted
liners, as compared to wire-wrapped screens, may worsen the plugging problem due to a
somewhat greater pressure drop during production.
A disadvantage in using slotted pipe is the smaller effective slot inlet area as
compared to an equivalent size all-welded wire-wrapped screen. Slots tend to plug easily
with gravel during gravel packing and with formation fines, corrosion products, and
precipitates during production, further reducing the inlet area. The pressure drop across a
plugged liner can become quite significant and continually worsen as plugging increases.
Conversely, wire-wrapped screens have 10 to 30 times the open area of slotted liners and,
63
therefore, are capable of tolerating substantially greater plugging with minimal impact on
inflow performance.
Figure 4.4 Cutaway view of an all-welded wire- wrapped screen (Source Variperm
Canada Limited).
64
4.5.2 Special Application Screens
Special applications include all designs other than the slotted liner or wire-
wrapped screen designs previously discussed. In this area, there has been a continuous
development of new types of screens for a variety of purposes and offering varying
benefits. Generally speaking, screen suppliers can design and build screens to any needs.
67
1. Top-Down Circulating Pack
2. Top-Down Circulating-Squeeze Pack
3. Top-Down Squeeze Pack
4. Bottom-Up Circulating Pack
5. Bidirectional Pack
6. Washdown Pack
7. Gravitate Pack
Circulating packs are considered to be the most capable of providing the highest
packing efficiencies under most conditions. Squeeze packs are often used in short zones
and vertical wells where placement problems are not expected. A bottom-up circulating
pack or a bidirectional pack may be better suited than a top-down circulating pack in
some instances, although these techniques have not been fully evaluated. Washdown
packs and gravitate packs should generally be avoided where possible because of their
greater likelihood of resulting in an impaired completion and/or ineffective sand control.
68
Figure 4.5 Top-down circulating gravel pack (Source Baker Oil Tools).
69
Since a circulation path is established over the zone, circulating packs offer potentially
improved annular packing efficiency over squeeze packs. In theory, a circulating pack
should provide enough return circulation to provide adequate gravel transport down the
annulus and provide adequate leak-off to pack perforations. Perforation packing
efficiency of a circulating pack is potentially less than that of a squeeze pack since less
leak-off occurs. An adequate leak-off rate into the formation must occur for the
perforations to be well packed with gravel. In practice, leak-off rates are not usually
measured (from return rates), tend to vary substantially depending on numerous factors,
and are probably high enough to provide reasonable perforation packing efficiencies
(based on good well productivities achieved).
70
inhibited. Therefore, squeeze packs are generally recommended only for short zones with
low deviation and only in longer zones that are nearly vertical wells.
Figure 4.6 Top-down squeeze pack without washpipe (Source Baker Oil Tools).
71
4.7.4 Bottom-Up Circulating Pack
The bottom-up circulating pack or more commonly a bottom-up pack (also called
a gravity-assisted gravel pack system), was developed by Completion Services, Inc. as a
method to improve gravel placement. In a bottom-up pack, slurry is transported down
through the inside of the screen through washpipe, entering the screen/casing annulus at
the bottom of the completion zone. Theoretically, after exiting the washpipe through a
discharge valve, slurry then travels up to the top of the interval in plug flow. When the
slurry reaches the top of the gravel pack annulus, a compacted gravel bank begins
forming, growing downward as the slurry dehydrates until it reaches the bottom of the
zone.
This design eliminates the need for lengthy blank liner sections above the screen
and therefore may be well suited for confined intervals. The bottom-up pack offers
improved gravel placement over top-down techniques where there is a high potential of
premature gravel bridging occurring at the top of the completion zone. The system
appears to be best suited when gravel pack slurry density is higher than that of the
displacement fluid. The pack placement efficiency which results when this criterion is not
met was not reported and may very well be unfavorable since fluids are more likely to
intermix. Obviously, as well deviation approaches horizontal, gravitational effects on the
bottom-up pack and top-down pack placement techniques are identical.
Completion Services bottom-up pack design allows the option of both
conventional top-down gravel placement and bottom-up placement on the same
installation. This is also known as a bidirectional placement. An additional trip and
additional equipment are required to perform a bidirectional placement. A bidirectional
placement capability has potential application in wells where bridges and voids are more
likely to form.
73
Generally, higher pump rates yield higher annular packing efficiencies in high angle
wells. A higher rate minimizes the chances for the formation of premature bridges.
74
Generally, there is little concern about exceeding formation fracture pressures
when pumping gravel packs. In most formations requiring sand control, formation
permeability is sufficiently high and gravel pack fluid volumes are sufficiently low that
fracturing is unlikely to occur unless a frac pack is intended.
In all gravel pack placement techniques except the washdown pack and the
gravitate pack, pumping continues until sandout occurs. Sandout is defined as the point
during placement when pump pressure rapidly increases to sustained level, usually
reaching 2000-3000 psi over static surface pressure (which is usually zero). After
sandout, pumping is stopped and the pressure bleed-off rate is monitored. The pack is
subsequently re-stressed once or twice after the pack has been allowed to settle, to
confirm a good sandout. Settling time will vary depending upon the slurry system used. If
the bleed-off rate is quick, this is usually an indication that insufficient gravel was
pumped. Additional slurry should be pumped until sandout is achieved to pack the zone
completely and to provide for adequate reserve gravel.
76
4.9.1 Failure Mechanisms
There are at least four possible gravel pack failure mechanisms: erosion failure,
sand leakage, mechanical failure, and corrosion failure. All but sand leakage pertains to
failure of the screen. Sand leakage is a result of a design deficiency. Conceivably, these
mechanisms can work alone and together. There are no statistics to determine which of
these is more prevalent. However, based on wellbore damage studies, gravel pack
modeling, observations of failed screens, and field experience, erosion is suspected as the
prevalent mechanism of gravel pack failure. Sand leakage is common to the extent that
most gravel packs leak sand at some point. Given that screen slot sizes used generally
have been incapable of excluding formation sand, it is probable that a good number of
failures resulted from sand leakage. Mechanical failures could become a bigger factor as
new fields experience more severe reservoir compaction and associated well damage.
Corrosion failure could be important, but where corrosion-resistant screen materials are
used, it is considered a less likely failure mechanism. However, in fields where carbon
steel slotted liners typically are used, corrosion failure is much more likely. All the failure
mechanisms are discusses briefly in the next section.
78
could be excessive. Periodic bridging may occur, resulting in sporadic sand production. If
flow velocities are low, the well may eventually fill up with sand, restricting production
as the ID of the lower screen is obstructed. Eventually, as flow is forced through the
upper portion of the screen and local velocities increase, erratic pressure fluctuations may
occur inside the screen as sand slugs are lifted and fall in an unstable manner. Erosion
failure eventually may occur if local flow velocities through the screen and sand leakage
rates become too high.
80
4.9.2.1 Prevent Erosion, Sand Leakage, Mechanical and Corrosion Failures
Achieving a gravel pack that has a tightly packed, void-free annulus and
perforation cavities are the most important remedy to prevent erosion, sand leakage, and
mechanical gravel pack failures. There are other remedies like best screen selection
described by Coberly [34], which can improve upon this and in some cases compensate
for failing to accomplish this. However, if good packing is not achieved, chances of
failure are substantially increased. The best way to achieve a tightly packed annulus is to
use a water pack or comparable low-viscosity slurry coupled with correct mechanical
design and slurry placement procedures.
Erosion failures can be minimized by reducing flow velocities entering the screen.
If velocities are too low, then sand particles may not be transported and cause erosion
damage. Reducing screen inflow velocities by reducing well flow rates is usually
undesirable. Preferably, wells should be designed with maximum inflow area to keep
velocities low. Inflow area can best be maximized by utilizing long, open-hole
completions. The elimination of perforations (by going open-hole) diffuses the flow and
drastically lowers flow velocities so that direct impingement erosion is unlikely to occur.
Also, flow is no longer focused on small areas of the screen, so that any erosion that did
occur would take longer to fail. Adding substantial length to the completion interval is
another way to increase area substantially. With long horizontal wells, the best of all
worlds is achievable, namely high-rate wells with low screen inflow velocities. Higher
completion efficiencies coupled with large diameter, high-density perforating should help
reduce erosion failures in cased completions. Low impairment and a large number of
large-diameter perforations will minimize perforation flow velocities. However, in
practice, internal gravel packs often have low completion efficiencies. The causes for this
are currently under study and the conditions under which this remedy can be counted on
are not well understood.
Mechanical failures are largely preventable by using screens that are both stronger
yet can absorb excessive strains in a desirable manner while still effectively excluding
sand and maintaining satisfactory production of reservoir fluids.
81
Corrosion failures are largely preventable by selecting proper metallurgy so that
no corrosion occurs. Every effort should be made to maximize gravel pack screen
corrosion resistance since, unlike other well equipment; minimal corrosion can lead to
failure.
4.9.3 Reservoir Compaction and Fault Movement Induced Gravel Pack Failures
Reservoir compaction occurs more so in less consolidated formations as reservoir
pressure declines. The compacting movement of the earth can damage wellbores, causing
gravel packs to fail. In many cases, the damage is so severe that the failed gravel packs
could not be retrieved, and the intervals had to be abandoned. Compaction failures
typically are first recognized when the gravel pack fails and the well sands up. Axial
loading (as compared to transverse crushing) causes buckling which presents the most
difficulty for completing the workover. Suman [1] reported severe buckling of a slotted
liner in a compacting reservoir that caused slots to open beyond tolerance. Good, uniform
lateral support around the casing is essential to minimize compaction-induced damage,
especially buckling. Failures also are known to occur in wells near or penetrating through
faults. As fault movement occurs, casing begins to collapse. Eventually, the wellbore may
be sheared in two. There is no remedy to compaction other than pressure maintenance
and in most cases it is not possible due to economic constraints.
82
Chapter 5: Development of a Sand Control Strategy
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Sand production is a major problem in almost all fields that produce from
unconsolidated reservoirs. However, there are other phenomenons, such as, reservoir
pressure depletion, water breakthrough and natural tectonic forces, which are causing
considerable amount of sand production from consolidated and friable reservoirs. The
difference is that sand production in consolidated and friable reservoirs commence late in
the life of the well. Thus, consolidated formations do not need sand control application at
the beginning of production as required by unconsolidated formations. The key to
selecting a sand control strategy is to fully understand the formation characteristics,
causes of sand production, risk involved and safe and optimum sand production limits.
The knowledge of formation and cause of sand production particularly helps to predict
the onset of sand production, amount of sand production and rate at which the sand will
be produced. Above information and the knowledge of sand tolerance limits of
production system, completes the list of parameters required to design an optimum sand
control strategy for the reservoir.
c. Formation Stabilization
d. Selective Perforation/ Oriented Perforation/ Overbalanced
perforation.
e. Sand Monitoring
g. Sand Disposal
i. Do-nothing Approach
a. Gravel Pack
d. Screen Alone
e. Frac Pack
d. Water-packs
Table 5.1 Sand Control Methods for Sand Management and Sand Exclusion Techniques.
84
5.2.1 Sand Exclusion methods
Most of the unconsolidated formations tend to produce sand from the beginning
of hydrocarbon production. Sand management techniques may not prove economical in
these unconsolidated formations, as it would be hard to manage the amount of sand
produced. In addition, remedial installations of conventional sand control would cost a lot
more than the initial investment. Thus it is recommended to use sand exclusion methods
such as gravel pack, frac ‘n’ pack, screens etc. for these wells as insurance to sand
production damage. The selection of a particular method depends upon the merits of the
method, wellbore and completion design, reservoir properties and overall economics of
the project. The conventional sand control is a complete sand prevention technology.
Gravel packs are supposed to be the most reliable means of controlling sand. However,
the major disadvantage of using these methods is the lower productivity of well. For
details about the sand exclusion methods, refer chapter 3 and 4.
a. Convention downhole sand control (gravel pack, frac pack, screen etc.)
86
exercise is also broadening. The models are designed to predict the amount of sand
production and the rate of sand production along with the onset of sand.
Sand prediction models, simple or complex, require some kind of formation data.
The formation data can be obtained from field measurements (log data, offset field data),
laboratory measurements (core samples) and core-log correlations. Formation strength
can be obtained from direct core strength measurements and core-log correlations. Core
strength measurements involve unconfined compressive strength (UCS) testing and
triaxial testing. The three principal stresses, vertical stress, minimum horizontal stress and
maximum horizontal stresses also need to be determined. The vertical stress is generally
approximated by assuming a gradient of 1 psi/ft. Minimum horizontal stresses are
evaluated from mini-frac tests and drilling data. The maximum horizontal stress can be
estimated from regional geological studies and field drilling data. Based on gathered data,
formation failure analysis is done to model failure mechanism. Formation failure analysis
can be comprised of laboratory testing, numerical modeling, field data analysis or a
combination. The model results are validated by history matching the model results to the
field data.
A major portion of sand production problems are seen in fields that have, (a)
unconsolidated formations, (b) high water breakthrough for weak to intermediate strength
formations, (c) pressure depletion in consolidated formations, (d) abnormally high lateral
tectonic force in young formations, and (e) sudden changes in the flow rate or high flow
rate.
89
Effective Stress =Overburden – Flowing
Catastrophic Final
Sand Production
Bottomhole Pressure (FBHP)
No Sand
Production Initial
Rock Strength
Figure 5.1 Sand failure due to high in-situ effective stress due to depletion.
The above examples suggest the need for some kind of formation data collection
and interpretation. Burton et al [26] presents a straightforward methodology to develop
sand control strategy integrating formation strength characterization, formation stress
characterization and formation failure analysis.
90
5.3.2.4 Reservoir Properties
Sand interval length, sand quality, reservoir temperature and reservoir pressure
are some factors that can influence the selection of a sand control method. For larger sand
interval lengths, gravel pack is recommended. Sand quality refers to grain size and
mineral impurities present in sand. A narrow grain size distribution means a more
effective gravel pack. Temperature and pressure does not influence the selection much
except in cases of extremely high temperatures and abnormal pressures.
5.3.2.6 Economics
Economic evaluation of a sand control method should be done by considering the
initial cost of the method, productivity losses, maintenance costs and remedial costs. The
conventional sand control methods have high initial costs and low productivities.
However, maintenance and remedial costs are minimum. In case of sand management
techniques, initial cost is low and productivity is high. The real threat is maintenance and
remedial costs. If the applied sand management technique is unsuccessful, the remedial
cost of sand control is very high and can completely jeopardize the profitability of
project.
91
5.3.2.7 Remedial Sand Control
Sand control installations tend to be more successful when installed before
significant sand production has occurred. Sand control methods installed within the same
wellbore after the well has begun producing sand are considered remedial installations.
Remedial gravel pack installations also are known to impair productivity substantially in
wells, which have had significant sand production. Post installation production rates are
typically much lower. This probably occurs as a result of the injected gravel pack slurry
disturbing formation cavities and mixing with formation fines and clays during the
placement process.
In wells where sand failure is expected to occur early in the life of the zone, it
probably is better to install sand control at initial completion as insurance against these
problems, and this is common practice. Conversely, some consolidated formations may
be produced indefinitely without sand control. In other cases, sand production problems
may not begin until after substantial pressure depletion or after a change in produced
fluids such as the start of water production or changes in GOR. In these cases, delaying
the installation of sand control until it is needed may be desirable, for several reasons. It
may be possible to deplete the well without sand control, making an initial installation a
wasted expenditure. If sand failure occurs late in the productive life, restricting
production rates may control sand production. Rates will probably be lower anyway due
to reservoir pressure depletion. On the other hand, if sand production is brought on by
water production or an increasing gas-oil ratio (GOR), production rates may have to be
restricted to minimize water influx or gas coning.
5.4 CONCLUSION
The sand control strategy is unique for every field and is dependent upon
numerous factors. However, through complete understanding of the formation by
extensive data collection and testing, development of prediction tools, evaluation of risks
involved and comparison of different sand control methods, a successful sand control
strategy can be designed to control or manage sand production.
92
References
1. Suman, G.O., Ellis, R.C., and Snyder, R.E.: “Sand Control Handbook,” second
edition, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston (1983).
2. Penberthy Jr., W.L. and Shaughnessy, C.M.: “Sand Control,” fourth edition, SPE
Series on Special Topics Volume 1 (1992).
3. Salama, M.M. and Venkatesh, E.S.: “Evaluation of API RP14E Erosional velocity
limitations for offshore gas wells,” OTC 4484, OTC Conference, Houston, May 2–5
1983, pp371 – 376, 1983.
4. Venkatesh, E.S.: “Erosion damage in oil and gas wells,” SPE 15183, presented at the
Rocky Mountain regional meeting of the society of Petroleum Engineers held in
Billings, MT, May 19-21, 1986.
5. Moore, W.R.: “Sand Production Prediction,” JPT (Nov.1994), 955.
6. Veekan, C.A.M. et al.: ‘Sand Production Prediction Review: Developing an
Integrated Approach,” SPE 22792, presented at the 1991 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Oct. 6-9.
7. Stein, N. and Hilchie, D.W.: “Estimating the maximum production rate possible from
friable sandstones without using sand control,” JPT (Sept.1972) 1157- 60; Trans.,
AIME, 253.
8. Tixier, M.P., Loveless, G.W., and Anderson, R.A.: “Estimation of formation strength
from the mechanical properties log,” JPT (March 1975) 283-93.
9. Coates, G.R. and Denoo, S.A.: “Mechanical properties program using borehole
analysis and Mohr’s circle,” Proc., SPWLA 22nd Annual Logging Symposium,
Mexico City, June 23-26, 1981.
10. Morita, N., Whitfill, D.L., Massie, I. and Knudsen, T.W.: “Realistic Sand Production
Prediction: Numerical Approach,” SPE 16989, presented at the 1987 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 27-30.
93
11. Morita, N., Whitfill, D.L., Fedde, O.P. and Lovik, T.H.: “Parametric Study of Sand
Production Prediction: Analytical Approach,” SPE 16990, presented at the 1987 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 27-30.
12. Morita, N., Whitfill, D.L., Fedde, O.P. and Lovik, T.H.: “Supplement to SPE 16990,
Parametric Study of Sand Production Prediction: Analytical Approach,” SPE 16990,
presented at the 1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, Sept. 27-30.
13. Weissenburger, K.W., Morita, N., Martin, A.J., and Whitfill, D.L.: “The engineering
approach to sand production prediction,” SPE 16892, presented at the 62nd Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Dallas,
TX, Sept. 27-30, 1987.
14. Ghalambor, A. et al: “Predicting Sand Production in U.S. Gulf Coast Wells producing
Free Water,” SPE 17147, JPT (Dec. 1989) 1336.
15. Morita, N. and Boyd, P.A.: “Typical Sand Production Problems – Case Studies and
Strategies for Sand Control,” SPE 22739, presented at the 66th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Dallas, TX,
October S-9, 1991.
16. Yi, X., Valko, P.P., and Russel, J.E.: “Predicting critical drawdown for the onset of
sand production,” SPE 86555, presented at the SPE International Symposium and
Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18-20 February
2004.
17. Willson, S.M., Moschovidis, Z.A., Cameron, J.R. and Palmer, I.D.: “New Model for
predicting the rate of sand production,” SPE/ ISRM 78168, presented at the
SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference, Irving, Texas, 20-23 October 2002.
18. Mcphee, C.A., Lemanczyk, Z.R,Helderle, P., Thatchaichawalit, D. and Gongsakdi,N.:
“Sand Management in Bongkot Field, Gulf of Thailand: An integrated Approach,”
SPE 64467, presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition
held in Brisbane, Australia, 16–18 October 2000.
19. Chow, C.V.: “New Method to Assess Sand Production Risk: Laboratory
Development and Field Test Results,” SPE 28284, 1994.
94
20. Neal, M.R.: “A Quantitative Approach to Gravel Pack Evaluation,” SPE 12477, June
1985.
21. Neal, M.R.: “Gravel Pack Evaluation,” SPE 11232, Sep 1983.
22. Peden, J.M., Russel, J. and Oyeneyin, M.B.: “Design of an effective Gravel Pack for
Sand Control – A numerical Approach,” SPE 13647, presented at the SPE 1985
California Regional Meeting, held in Bakersfield, California, March 27- 29,
1985.
23. Sanfilippo, F.,Brignoli, M., Giacca, D. and Santarelli, F.J.: “ Sand production: From
Prediction to Management,” SPE 38185, presented at the 1997 SPE European
Formation Damage Conference held in The Hague, The Netherlands, 2-3 June 1997.
24. Coulter, A. W. and Gurle, D. G.: “How to select the correct sand control system for
your well?” American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers,
Inc., SPE 3177, 1971.
25. Mathis, S.P.: “ Sand Management: A review of approaches and concerns,” SPE
82240, presented at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague,
The Netherlands, 13-14 May 2003.
26. Burton, R.C, Davis, E.R., Morita, N. and McLeod, H.O.: “Application of reservoir
strength characterization and formation failure modeling to analyze sand production
potential and formulate sand control strategies for a series of North Sea gas
reservoirs,” SPE 48979, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exposition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 27–30 September 1998.
27. Han, G., Dusseault, M.B. and Cook, J.: “Quantifying Rock Capillary strength
behavior in unconsolidated sandstones,” SPE/ISRM 78170, presented at the
SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference, Irving, Texas, 20-23 October 2002.
28. Augustin, J.R.: “An investigation of the economic benefit of inflow control devices
on horizontal well using a reservoir –wellbore coupled model,” SPE 78293, presented
at the 13th SPE European Petroleum Conference, Aberdeen, Scotland, 29 – 31
October 2002.
95
29. API Recommended Practice 58 (RP58) (1986), Recommended Practices for Testing
Sand Used in Gravel Packing Operations, 1st Edition, American Petroleum Institute,
Washington D.C.
30. Tronvoll, J.: “Experimental investigation of perforation cavity stability,” 33rd US
Symposium Rock Mechanics Proceedings, Balkerna, 1992.
31. Tronvoll, J., Fjaer, E.: “Experimental study of sand production from perforation
cavities,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mineral Science, Volume 31,
No. 5, pp. 393-410,1994.
32. Kooijman, A.P., Halleck, P.M., de bree, P., Veekan, C.A.M., Kenter, C.J.: “Large
scale laboratory sand production test,” SPE 24798, presented at the 67th SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, DC, 4-7 October, 1992.
33. Tronvoll, J., Morita, N., Santarelli, F.J.: “Perforation cavity stability: Comprehensive
laboratory experiments and numerical analysis,” SPE 24799, presented at the 67th
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, DC, 4-7 October,
1992.
34. Saucier, R. J.: “Considerations in gravel pack design,” SPE 4030, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, February 1974, pp. 205-212.
35. Abrams, A.: “Mud design to minimize rock impairment due to particle invasion,”
JPT, 1977, pp. 586-592.
36. Dickinson, W., Anderson, R.R. and Dykstra, H.: “Gravel packing horizontal wells,”
SPE 16931, presented at the 62nd Annual Technical Conference of Society of
Petroleum Engineers/ AIME, Dallas, TX, September 27-30.
37. Bratli, R.K., and Risnes, R.: “Stability and failure of sand arches,” SPEJ, April 1981,
pp. 236-248.
38. Chin, L.Y., and Ramos, G.G.: “Predicting volumetric sand production in weak
reservoirs,” SPE/ISRM 78169, presented at the 2002 SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics
Conference held in Irving, Texas, October 20-23.
39. Awal, M.R. and Osman, El-Sayed A.: “SandPro- A new application program for
predicting onset of sand production,” SPE 53140, presented at the 1999 SPE Middle
East Oil Show held in Bahrain, February 20-23.
96
40. Coberly, C.J.: “Selection of screen openings for unconsolidated sands, in drilling
and production practice, American Petroleum Institute, New York, NY, 1990.
41. Tronvoll, J., Eek, A., Larsen, I. and Sanfilippo, F.: “The effect of oriented
perforations as a sand control method: A field case study from the Varg field,
North Sea,” SPE 86470, presented at the 2004 SPE International Symposium and
Exhibition on formation damage control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, February
18-20.
42. Hillestad, E., Skillingstad, P., Folse, K., Hjorteland, O. and Hauge, J.: “Novel
perforating system used in North Sea results in improved perforation per sand
management strategy,” SPE 86540, presented at the 2004 SPE International
Symposium and Exhibition on formation damage control held in Lafayette,
Louisiana, February 18-20.
43. Sanfilippo, F., Eriksen, J.H., George, F., Kvamsdal, A.L. and Kleppa, E.:
“Orienting live well perforating technique provides innovative sand control
method in the North Sea,” SPE 73195, presented at 1999 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 3-6 October.
44. Snyder, R.E. and Fischer, P.A.: “Expandable technology growth is changing
drilling practices,” World Oil, Vol. 224 No. 7, July 2003.
45. Mullins, L.D., Baldwin, W.F. and Berry, P.M.: “Surface flowline sand detection,”
SPE 5152, prepared for the 49th Annual Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers of AIME, Houston, Texas, Oct. 6-9, 1974.
46. Foster, C.R. and Linvile, T.N.: “A method of monitoring sand production in a
flowing well stream,” SPE 8214, presented at the 54th Annual Fall Technical
Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Las
Vegas, Nevada, September 23-26, 1979.
47. Vriezen, P.B. and Wunnink, G.J.: “Sand detection in production lines,” SPE 4825,
The Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas, Texas, 1974.
48. Stuivenwold, P.A. and Mast, H.: “New instrumentation for managing sand-
problem prone fields,” SPE 9368, presented at the 55th Annual Fall Technical
97
Conference and Exhibition of The Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME,
Dallas, Texas, September 21-24, 1980.
49. Allahar, I.A.: “Acoustic signal analysis for sand detection in wells with changing
fluid profiles,” SPE 81002, prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American
and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, West
Indies, April 27-30, 2003.
50. Weekse, A., Grant, S. and Urselmann, R.: “Expandable sand screen: Three new
world records in the Brigantine field,” IADC/SPE 74549, presented at the
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas, 26-28 February, 2002.
51. Spurlock, J.W. and Demski, D.B.: “A New Approach to the Sand Control
Problem - A multi-layer, wire-wrapped sand screen,” SPE 4014, prepared for the
47th Annual Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, San
Antonio, Texas, Oct. 8-11, 1972.
52. Harrison, D.J., Johnson, M.H. and Richard, B.: “Comparative study of prepacked
screens,” SPE 20027, prepared for presentation at the 60th California Regional
Meeting held in Ventura, California, April 4-6, 1990.
53. Dees, J.M. and Handren, P.J.: “A new method of overbalance perforating and
surging of resin for Sand Control,” SPE 26545, prepared for presentation at the
68th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers held in Houston, Texas, 3-8 October, 1993.
54. Lee, C.C, Darby, M.C. and Popp, T.R.: “Effective thru tubing gravel pack
methods in Attaka Field,” SPE 72132, prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia
Pacific Improved Oil Recovery Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 8–9
October 2001.
55. Vickery, E.H.: “Through-tubing gravel pack with small clearance- The important
factors,” SPE 73773, prepared for presentation at the SPE International
Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette,
Louisiana, 20-21 February, 2002.
56. Torrest, R.S.: “Gravel packs – Their placement, impairment and effect on well
productivity,” SPE 4729.
98
57. Ledlow, L.B, Sauer, C.W. and Till, M.V.: “Recent design, placement, and
evaluation techniques lead to improved gravel pack performance,” SPE 14162,
prepared for presentation at the 60thAnnual Technical Conference and Exhibition
of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Las Vegas, NV, September 22-25,
1985.
58. Maly, G.P., Robinson, J.P. and Laurie, A.M.: “New gravel pack tool for
improving pack placement,” SPE 4032, Journal of Petroleum Technology, pp. 19,
Jan. 1974.
59. Winterfeld, P.H. and Shroeder Jr., D.E.: “Numerical simulation of gravel
packing,” SPE 19753, Society of Petroleum Engineers Production Engineering
1992.
60. Shroeder Jr., D.E.: “Gravel pack Studies in a full scale high pressure wellbore
model,” SPE 16890, prepared for the presentation at the 62nd Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Dallas,
Texas, September 27-30, 1987.
99
Vita
Navjeet Benipal was born in Chandigarh, India on August 16, 1978, the son of Sohan
Singh Benipal and Sukhwinder Kaur Benipal. After completing his work at DAV
College, Chandigarh, in 1997, he entered Punjab Technical University in Punjab, India.
He received the degree of Bachelor of Technology in chemical engineering from Punjab
Technical University in 2001. In January 2002, he entered the Graduate School at The
University of Texas at Austin.
Permanent address: 15200 Park Row Apt 623, Houston, Texas 77084.
100