Upload
jorge-forero
View
253
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
1/85
Sand Control Methods
Open Hole and Cavities
Cased and Perforated
Stand Alone Screen
Slotted Liner
Expandable Screen
Resin Consolidation
Cased Hole Gravel Pack
Open Hole Gravel Pack
High Rate Water Pack
Fracturing
Tip Screen Out Fracture
3/14/2009 1George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
2/85
Mechanical Behavior of Rock
Intrinsic Properties
Composition
Grain size
Porosity Permeability
DepositionalEnvironment
Initial Discontinuities
Production Factors
Depletion induced stress
Phase changes
Pore fluid chemistry Pore pressure
Temperature (a variable)
3/14/2009 2George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
3/85
Which completion method?
Low complexityLow cost
SlottedLiner
S
tandaloneScree
n
with
Instru
mentat
ion
StandaloneS
c
reen
(Shrin
kFit)
StandaloneS
cre
en
(Pre
mium)
StandaloneScreen
(Jacket)
StandaloneScreen
(Pre-Pack)
SandControl?
High complexityHigh cost
Shunt+Frac &Pack
Shun
t+Gr
avelP
ack
Scre
en+Frac
&Pa
ck
Screen
+Grave
lPack
Sa
nd
Consoli
dati
on
(R
esin)
Fluid
Pump
ing!
Exp
andableScreen
Low complexityLow cost
SlottedLiner
S
tandaloneScree
n
with
Instru
mentat
ion
StandaloneS
c
reen
(Shrin
kFit)
StandaloneS
cre
en
(Pre
mium)
StandaloneScreen
(Jacket)
StandaloneScreen
(Pre-Pack)
SlottedLiner
S
tandaloneScree
n
with
Instru
mentat
ion
StandaloneS
c
reen
(Shrin
kFit)
StandaloneS
cre
en
(Pre
mium)
StandaloneScreen
(Jacket)
StandaloneScreen
(Pre-Pack)
SandControl?
High complexityHigh cost
Shunt+Frac &Pack
Shun
t+Gr
avelP
ack
Scre
en+Frac
&Pa
ck
Screen
+Grave
lPack
Sa
nd
Consoli
dati
on
(R
esin)
Fluid
Pump
ing!
Shunt+Frac &Pack
Shun
t+Gr
avelP
ack
Scre
en+Frac
&Pa
ck
Screen
+Grave
lPack
Sa
nd
Consoli
dati
on
(R
esin)
Fluid
Pump
ing!
Exp
andableScreen
DesignComplexity
InstallationComplexity
MechanicalRobustness
SandingRisk
PluggingRisk
ErosionRisk
WellProductivity
TotalCost
When selecting completion method, one have to consider:
Reslink3/14/2009 3George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
4/85
Barefoot Screen only CCP* OH GP CCP GP
- effective stress*
pressure - p
k - apparentpermeability
Distance from well bore
- effective stress*
pressure - p
k - apparentpermeability
Distance from well bore
- effective stress*
pressure - p
k - apparentpermeability
Distance from well bore
- effective stress*
pressure - p
k - apparentpermeability
Distance from well bore
- effective stress*
pressure - p
k - apparent
permeability
Distance from well bore
PI
Time
PI
Time
PI
Time
PI
Time
PI
Time
Completion type and well performance
SPE 71673: J .Tronvoll, M.B. Dusseault, F. Sanfilippo, and F.J . SantarelliSPE 56813: J .P. Davies, SPE, Chevron USA Inc., and D.K. Davies, SPE, David K. Davies & Associates, Inc.SPE 36419: A.P, Kooijman, P.J . van den Hoek, Ph. de Bree, C.J . Kenter, Shell, Z. Zheng, and M. Khodaverdian, TerraTek Inc. SPE 27360
Depletion > Compaction > Crushing > Stress > K *Effective stress = Weight of overburden pore pressure
*CCP= Cased, Cemented and Perforated
Self cleansand relaxes
Self cleansPartly relaxation
Self cleansand relaxes
No self cleaningNo relaxation
No self cleaningNo relaxation
Depends on type of screen
Improved PIwith time
Improved PIwith time
Improved PIwith time
Declining PIwith time
Declining PIwith time
What are the advantages and drawbacks of the completion typefor the specific application?
Reslink
3/14/2009 4George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
5/85
Compressive Strength vs. Pressure Drop at
Failure
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Pressure Drop At Failure, psi
Core
Compressiv
eStrength
Penberthy, SPE3/14/2009 5George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
6/85
If formation sand is mixed with the
gravel, the permeability drops
sharply. This one problem may
result in skins as high as 300 in
high rate wells.
The more clean gravel that is
outside the casing, the better the
flow path.
Efforts to clean the crushed sand
in the perforations before packing
are a good investment.
3/14/2009 6George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
7/85
Formation Strength and Sand
Movement Rocks below 1000 psi may need sand control
Rock fails when the drawdown is about 1.7 times thecompressive formation strength.
Brinnell hardness related to strength, hard to use.
Sonic
90 msec is weak formation >120 msec is near unconsolidated formation
Porosity 30% - unconsolidated
3/14/2009 7George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
8/85
Open Hole CompletionArea open to flow = 100 to
500%
Skin = -2 to 2
Advantages
lowest cost
simplest completion
least resistance
Disadvantages
no zone/water
control,
sand restrained onlyby choke
low reliability
possible loss of hole
3/14/2009 8George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
9/85
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0 0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100
100-120
120-140
140-160
160-180
180-200
Percentage Increase
TotalNumberof47wells Increased Max Sand-Free Rate
Well test schedules
Guide for data back-analysis
Rate Increase through Sand Management
Sand Management: Allow controlled sand production.
North Sea Field: Three platforms, Mean increase 36%
Reslink3/14/2009 9George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
10/85
Cavity creation by producing sand from the formation face in a formation that will support a cavity. If the
UCS (unconfined compressive strength) is low (`
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
11/85
Cavity Size and Shape
Cavity size will depend on formation strength,differential pressure, mechanical assistance(under-reaming or explosives), effect of fluid
movement, etc. Average sizes measured by soniccaliper runs indicated cavity radii from ~6 to ~6.
Cavity shape by sonic caliper and downholecameras indicate selective cavity enlargement in
what appears to be brittle layers and weakerformation layers. Stress direction undoubtedlyhas a significant impact.
3/14/2009 George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
11
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
12/85
Failure (Yield) of Rock
Boreholepressure
= pw = MW z
HMAX
hmin
Axial borehole fractures develop
during drilling when MW is higherthan (surges, yield)
Swelling or other geochemical filtrateeffects lead to rock yield (strengthdeterioration, cohesion loss)
High shear stresses cause shearyield, destroying cohesion
(cementation), weakening the rockLow
High
Reslink3/14/2009 12George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
13/85
Lab testing: Shear failure
Shear failure causes cracks around the bore hole (or perforation tunnel). Known as dilation. Rock dilationleads to volume expansion. When (if) the failed material is produced out of the well, the near wellbore porosityand permeability increase. When increase from 30% to 40%, K increase 3 fold. If the failed material istrapped (eg. by a depth filter screen), plugging (increased skin) and reduced productivity may be the result.
High perm area
Picture:
A clean bore hole (perf. tunnel)subject to shear failure
Does the completion type allow selfcleaning, formation de-stressing & relaxation?
Reslink3/14/2009 13George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
14/85
Lab testing: Shear failure
Reslink3/14/2009 14George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
15/85
What are the long term effects of sand
production? Is it just a surface problem or are
there down hole problems too? Will higher
permeability flow paths collapse?
Formation strength may decrease sharply
when water moves into the pores of a gas or
oil saturated formation. The combination of
relative permeability effects from an extra
phase and added lubrication between thegrains that alters oil cementing forces will
lower strength in a weak rock.
On the positive side will production increase
as sand is produced? Cavities and flow paths
may open.
3/14/2009 15George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
Hi h ll f h i d l d d d l i N
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
16/85
High rate well performance showing sand volumes produced and cleanup over time. Note
production increased with sand flowed.
3/14/2009 16George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
17/85
Cased and Perforated Area open to flow = 6% to 8% for12 spf, 0.75 EH (assumes all perfsopen),
4% open area in base pipe
Skin = -1 to 5
Advantages
lower cost than full sand control
routine completion
zone and water control
Disadvantages
sand restrained only by choke
low reliability in many cases
low inflow area
Cased, cemented and perforated
3/14/2009 17George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
18/85
Bridging Lab Experiments
6D
perfhole
casing
Numbers are from experiments performed on uniform, rounded quartz sand
3/14/2009 18George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
Narrow openings relative to the size of the particles are easier to bridge and more stable.
The arches formed are only stable so long as a steady pressure from flow is
exerted. Then the differential pressure from flow is stopped, the arches collapse
Slide source unknown
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
19/85
Pressure at Onset of Sand Production vs.
Degrees Away From Maximum Horizontal
Stress
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0 20 40 60 80 100
Degrees Between Perfs and Max
Stress Direction
CriticalDrawD
own,bar
No Depletion
200 Bar (2940 psi)
400 Bar (5880 psi)
600 Bar (8820 psi)
Tronvoll, et. al.,
1993, Rock Mech.
5800 psi
4450 psi
2900 psi
1450 psi
3/14/2009 19George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
20/85
Stand Alone Screen
Area open to flow =4% to 10%+ (base pipeopen area = 9%)
Skin = 2 to >10
Advantages
moderate cost (lower than G.P.)
some solids control
Disadvantages
screen running problems
subject to erosion
easy to plug
low reliability with high rate/fines
Cased, cemented and perforated
3/14/2009 20George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
21/85
Screen Types
Wire Wrapped
Pre-Packed
Woven screens Special Designs
Which? Depends on the well needs?
3/14/2009 21George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
22/85
Stand Alone Wire Wrap Screen Behavior in OH
Formation (1) consist of: Load bearing (UCS) and non load bearing
structure Load bearing structure is:
Sand grains + cementing material (Feldspar,Calcite ++)
Non-load bearing structure: Fines (2) = (Silt and clay), 0-60 micron
When properly engineered, fines are allowedto be produced through the wire wrap screen
Plugging is prevented (SPE 38187, 38638)
Screen construction & slot sizing must ensurethat fines can be produced unhinderedthrough the screens
Remaining, non-produced sand (3) bridge onthe screen surface, and creates a natural sandpack (zero UCS) with higher porosity and permthan formation (1)
Formation relaxation/de-stressing: * Depletion leads to increased formation stress
which can result in significant permeability
reduction. Barefoot and SAS com letions ALLOW
13
FormationScreen
2
* (SPE 56813, 36419. 71673)
3/14/2009 22George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
23/85
Wire Wrapped Screen
Simplest and cheapest
Most difficult to plug
Cannot withstand erosion Best in the lower part of a vertical well
Easily damaged in running operations
3/14/2009 23George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
24/85
Pre-Packed Screen
Moderately expensive
Easiest to plug
Can withstand some erosion Best in the upper part of a vertical well and in
horizontal wells
Easily damaged in running operations
3/14/2009 24George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
25/85
Woven Screen
Expensive
Relatively easy to plug
Can withstand some erosion Best in the upper part of a vertical well, in
horizontal wells,and in bare screen
completions
Easily damaged in running operations
3/14/2009 25George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
26/85
Slotted LinerArea open to flow =2% to 4%
Skin = 4 to >10
Advantagesmoderate cost
ease of installation
good for well sorted sands
Disadvantages
low rotational strength
low inflow area
subject to erosionlow reliability
easily plugged
3/14/2009 26George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
27/85
Expandable ScreenArea open to flow =6% to >10%
Skin = 0 to >5Advantages
largest screen possible
little or no annulus
potential isolation capacity
Disadvantages
higher cost
new, unproven reliability
subject to erosion in cased hole
compliant expansion not proved yet
3/14/2009 27George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
28/85
Resin ConsolidationArea open to flow =3% to 6%
Skin = 10 to >50Advantages
leaves wellbore open
relatively low cost
Disadvantages
limited zone height (6 to 10)
longevity limited: months - few years
temperature sensitive (t
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
29/85
Cased Hole Gravel PackArea open to flow =6% to >10%
Skin = 10+Advantages
known/trusted method
moderate reliability
Disadvantages
higher cost
low inflow area
subject to erosion
low reliability
moderately easily plugged
3/14/2009 29George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
The heart of a gravel pack is the sizing of the gravel to stop the formation sand. If the sand
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
30/85
The heart of a gravel pack is the sizing of the gravel to stop the formation sand. If the sand
invades the pack, the 100 to 400 darcy permeability level of the gravel pack drops to 50 to 500
md and skins of 300 are possible.
gravel Formation sand
flow
3/14/2009 30George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
31/85
Thin Sections of Case A with Different Gravels
3/14/2009 31George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
Similar size particles versus a range of particles
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
32/85
Similar size particles versus a range of particles
Which is likely to flow more?
3/14/2009 32George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
33/85
3/14/2009 33George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
34/85
3/14/2009 34George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
35/85
Gravel Permeabilities
Gravel Size typical, unstressed perm
-12+20 mesh 450 darcies
-20+40 120
-25+30 140 to 160-40+60 65
-50+70 45
100 mesh (-70+140) 0.6
Narrower ranges of gravel sizes can have much higherpermeability than wider ranges of sizes.
3/14/2009 35George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
36/85
US Mesh Range
Permeability
(Darcy)
Permeability
(Darcy)
Permeability
(Darcy)
6/10 27038/12 1969
10/20 652 500
12/20 668
16/30 250 41520/40 171 119 225
40/60 69 40 69
50/70 45
Sparlin Gurley Cocales
Permeabilities of Gravel Pack Sands
3/14/2009 36George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
Accupack Typical Mean % Retained on Individual Screens
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
37/85
Accupack Typical Mean % Retained on Individual Screens
US Sieve
Mesh (ASTME-11) 12/20 16/30 20/30 20/40 30/40 40/60
12
16 22.7
18 59.4 6.9
20 17.1 54.4 0.4 0.4
25 0.8 36.7 72.1 14.1
30 1.8 26.7 29.3 0.5
35 0.1 0.8 47.3 74
40 8.1 24.7 0.6
45 0.8 0.8 40.9
50 48.3
60 9.3
70 0.9
Pan3/14/2009 37George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
The pore size flow area presented by a pack of either gravel or formation sand. The gravel used
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
38/85
US Mesh Size Perm. Porosity Pore Throat Fines retained Fines produced
darcy % microns microns microns10/20 325 32 225 90 < 90
10/30 191 33 174 70 < 70
20/40 121 35 139 46 < 46
40/60 45 32 86 34 < 34
Formation 10 32 40 16 < 16
Formation 2 32 18 7 < 7
(1)"Estimating Pore Throat Size in Sandstones from Routine Core-AnalysisData by Edward D. Pittman
in traditional gravel packing presents a pore throat from about 80 microns to about 180 microns.
The formation sand can bridge on this pore usually using the 1/3th rule.
Log r apex = - 0.117 + 0.475 Log K - 0.099 Log K md, is in % [ref. (1)]
3/14/2009 38George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
39/85
Gravel Size Ranges
Gravel sizes were initially and arbitrarily setbased on availability of sand in the mineddeposit.
Typical selection is 12/20, 16/30, 20/40 meshetc., but any range can be blended.
What would be the best gravel size? Specialblends of gravel with narrow ranges canmaximize permeability.
3/14/2009 39George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
40/85
Gravel Types
Sand: $0.10 to $0.15/lb., roundness = 0.8 average size is typically in finer end of range handling produces fines
Man made: $0.25/lb. and up. roundness = 0.9+ larger average size in any range
higher perm than sand stronger, less fines.
For narrow range gravel about double price.
3/14/2009 40George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
Use correctly sized clean round well sorted
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
41/85
Use correctly sized, clean, round, well sorted
gravel
The gravel is selected and placed to stop theformation sand.
Correct size? About 6 times the d50 of the
formation sand in most cases, but there are somecases where larger gravel is acceptable and moreproductive.
Fracs and open hole completions in formationsthat are well sorted with minimum mobile finesmight utilize larger sands if drawdown iscontrolled.
3/14/2009 41George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
42/85
Gravel Sizing
Conventional (Sauciers method)
Sorting and fines as influences
Ordering special gravels?
3/14/2009 42George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
First: determine the gravel size necessary for the completion
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
43/85
Particle Size Distribution, Well PJS-9D-1, Chaco, Prof: 1771-1775MTS
0
10
20
30
4050
60
70
80
90
100
1101001000
Sieve Opening, microns
Percent
Retained
Step one: plot the formation size distribution
Step two: determine the 50% intercept grain size
Intercept is 95
microns
Step three: gravel size
for gravel pack: 6 x 95 micron = 570 micron = 32 mesh. Use 20/40
for frac pack: 8 x 95 micron = 760 micron = 24 mesh. Use 16/303/14/2009 43George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
44/85
What size gravel?
95 microns is the 50% intercept
Sauciers method
6 x 50% intercept gives gravel that will not allow invasion
of grains into pack. The 6 x is an experience factor but it is also describes the
maximum pore opening between a pack of similar sized
grains.
Sorting influence can use 8x in frac pack or caseswhere sorting is good and fines are limited.
3/14/2009 44George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
45/85
3/14/2009 45George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
46/85
Sorting and Grain Size Distribution
Sand screens are numbered by wires per inch sothe opening size decreases with increasing screen
number. The size of the opening compared to the
cumulative amount of sand retained the D:number is useful for describing the sorting.
To get sand sorting on a D10/D95 basis, go to the
curve of cumulative retained and read theopening size. Divide the D10 opening by the D95
opening to get the sorting number.
3/14/2009 George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com 46
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
47/85
Sorting?
Sorting is a measurement of how similar thegrain sizes are between largest and smallest.
A sand with a D10 of 0.0075 and a D95 of0.0025 would have a D10/D95 = 3 (well
sorted) A sand with a D10 of 0.006 and a D95 of
0.00008 would have a D10/D95=75 (very
poorly sorted)
3/14/2009 47George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
Well Sorted
similar size grains
with large pores
Poorly Sorted
wide range of
grains with very
small pores
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
48/85
Sorting Now What?
For the D10/D95 = 3 formation, the completion maybe a screen only or a gravel pack.
For the D10/D95 = 75 formation, the assortment of
particles resembles a fluid loss additive thisformation requires a completion that will maximize
formation exposure since flow rates will likely be very
low.
3/14/2009 48George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
49/85
Conventional Screen Sizing
slot size stops gravel (inches or gauge)
gravel in range, pick the smallest
-20+40 mesh
40 mesh is 0.0165
pick the slot at 50% to 75% of this small size
0.0165 x 0.75 = 0.012 or 12 gauge
3/14/2009 49George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
Prepacked Screen minimum thickness prepack
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
50/85
Prepacked Screen minimum thickness prepack
3/14/2009 50George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
Prepacked liner with center screen very durable but plugs
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
51/85
p y p g
easily with fines.
3/14/2009 51George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
52/85
3/14/2009 52George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
53/85
The EXCLUDERTM Screen
Vector Shroud Vector WeaveMembrane
BAKERWELD
Inner J acket
Base Pipe
A leading layered mesh or weave screen
3/14/2009 53George E. King EngineeringGEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
54/85
g13.tif
Purolator
3/14/2009 54George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
55/85
gk14.ppt
3/14/2009 55George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
56/85
Gravel and Screen Combos
Gravel Screen
-8+12 30 gauge
-12+20 24 gauge
-16+30 18 gauge
-20+40 12 gauge
-40+60 6 to 8 gauge (6 gauge for natural 40/60)-50+70 6 gauge
3/14/2009 56George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Typical Screen Picks
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
57/85
yp
32 gauge
24 gauge
12 gauge
8 gauge for ceramic
6 gauge for sand
4 gauge
18 gauge
3/14/2009 57George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Gravel Packing Design and
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
58/85
Gravel Packing Design and
Operations
Some experience
Some opinions
3/14/2009 58George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
59/85
3/14/2009 59George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
60/85
3/14/2009 60George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
61/85
3/14/2009 61George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
62/85
3/14/2009 62George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
63/85
3/14/2009 63George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
64/85
Amount of Gravel?
length of perforated or open hole interval
annular dimensions
volume of perfs
target for gravel outside the perfs
excess
3/14/2009 64George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
What is size and shape of the hole?
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
65/85
3/14/2009 65George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
66/85
3/14/2009 66George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Multi position gravel packpacker with large crossover
Slurry flow path pickled toremove dope, mill scale, mud
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
67/85
Top of screen 1 to 2 joints
above top perfs or top of pay
in open hole
p g
port for higher rates (120% of
tubing area).
90 to 120 ft of blank pipe above
the screen serves as a gravelreserve (along with the screen
above the top perf)
Annular clearance 1 to 3
between screen and casing oropen hole.
Sump packer 5 to 10 ft from
bottom perfs
Gravel
displacement
outside perfs at
least 45 lb/ft
more can bebetter.
Washpipe inside screen 80%
of screen ID
Perfs 12 to 27 spf, DP or bighole and CLEAN!
Clean, low debris proppant sized
for formation sand retention and
max permeability
p , ,
and rust.
Minimum blanks in screen
mean minimum voids in pack.
Undamaged Screen placed in
correct position centralized.
3/14/2009 67George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Understand how much mobile fines are
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
68/85
Understand how much mobile fines are
present
What is the effect of fines?
Stopped by the gravel? No! Stopping requires asmall, probably restrictive gravel to stop the fines.
If the fines can invade the gravel, the gravelpermeability or the screen conductivity may be
reduced.
Solutions? What causes the movement?
3/14/2009 68George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Why are fines a problem? Even 1% (one gram in a 100 grams of formation) of mobile fines
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
69/85
Screen Particle Particle individual individual Number of particles
mesh size size grain grain in one gram or opening microns inch vol. cc wt grams one weight percent
20 841 0.0331 0.000311 0.000824156 1213
100 149 0.00587 1.7346E-06 4.59663E-06 217,551
325 44 0.00173 4.4404E-08 1.17669E-07 8,498,382
625 22 0.00087 5.6473E-09 1.49652E-08 66,821,5921.9 0.00007 2.9415E-12 7.79506E-12 128,286,352,864
contributes millions of particles. If the fines can move, then the potential for plugging rises
sharply.
3/14/2009 69George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Avoid perforating shale
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
70/85
Avoid perforating shale
Why? Exposed shale bleeds fines and debristhat can plug screens or packs.
Can shale be identified from logs? Is a shaley
pay really a source of production.
Can you non perforate a section of the welland still have a good producer with better
completion longevity?
3/14/2009 70George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Open Hole Gravel Pack
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
71/85
Open Hole Gravel PackScreen area open to flow =6% to >10%
Skin = 0 to 5
Advantages
maximum unfractured contact
high flow in big kh formations
Disadvantages
more difficult to design/place
limited application experience
problems with high perm streaks?
limited zone/water control
formation wall is close to screen
3/14/2009 71George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
OH Gravel Pack
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
72/85
OH Gravel PackScreen FormationGP sand
2
GP sand is (by design) 5-6 times
larger than formation sand d50.GPing does not alterscreenbehavior.
GPing wil l arrest annular flow,i.e. transport of moveablematerial.
GP screen must allow productionof fines, otherwise completion willplug.
Pore throat of most GP sands willrestrict production of fines.
GPing will arrest/trap formationfilter cake on the formation
surface.
GPing will not allow formation torelax/de-stress.
Particle sizeof producedfines: 7 u
Particle sizeof produced
fines: 30-60 u
Particle sizeof produced
fines: 80-100 u
Reslink3/14/2009 72
George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
73/85
Formation particle size
relationship
US Mesh 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 60 70 80 100 120 140 170 200 230 270 325
Micron 840 710 589 500 420 351 297 250 210 177 149 124 104 88 74 62 53 44
Inch 0.033 0.028 0.023 0.02 0.017 0.014 0.012 0.01 0.008 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.002
2000 1000 500 250 124 44
53
62
74
88
104
Sand CC M F VFVCSilt
149
177
210297
351
420589
710
8401190
1410
1680
20-40 40-60
US sieve classification
US Sieve
Micron ()
Gravel Sand Silt ClayC M F VFBoulder Cobble Pepple Granule C M F VFVC
2000 62.5 3.9Micron ()
1000 500 250 125 31.3 15.6 7.8
Wentworth particle size classification
0
US sieve classification
Mud solids PSD
3/14/2009 73
George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
74/85
3/14/2009 74
George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
75/85
3/14/2009 75
George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Pressure Drop Through the Sand
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
76/85
Pressure Drop Through the Sand
Control Completion
Press drop based on:
DP = 19.03 [(qomomo) / (khkh)]SDP = press drop due to sand control
qo = test rate in m3 per daymo = viscosity in cpkh = permeability in mD
kh
= height of perfs in meters
S = formation and sand control skin.
SPE 737223/14/2009 76
George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
77/85
Total Skin from formation tests
St = [S/b] + Sp
Sp = skin due to partial perforation
b = hp/h
hp = perforated pay height
h = total pay height
3/14/2009 77
George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Calculated Pressure Drop Through Frac Pack
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
78/85
in Campos Basin
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Wells
Drawdown
,psi
SPE 737223/14/2009 78George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
High Rate Water Pack
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
79/85
High Rate Water PackScreen area open to flow =6% to >10%
Perf area open 6 to 10%
Skin = -1 to 10
Advantages
pressured packing of perfs
easier design/apply than frac pack
Good flow in mod. kh formations
Disadvantages
lower flow capacity than frac
limited zone/water control
Unequal packing of gravel per foot
Injection rate rule
of thumb: 1
bpm/10 ft of perfs
3/14/2009 79
George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Fracture placement of Gravel (no TSO)
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
80/85
Fracture placement of Gravel (no TSO)Screen area open to flow =6% to >10%
Perf area open 6 to 10%
Skin = -1 to 10
Advantages
links across layers and low vertical k
easier design/apply than TSO
Good flow in very low kh formations
Disadvantages
very low conductivity
frac capacity vs. perm contrast critical
height growth uncertainty?
proppant stability problem at > depth
Narrow frac width
3/14/2009 80
George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Tip Screen Out (TSO) Fracturing
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
81/85
Tip Screen Out (TSO) FracturingScreen area open to flow =6% to >10%
Perf area open 6 to 10%
Skin = -3 to 10Advantages
stimulation
links across layers and low vertical k
highest reliability sand control method
good flow in moderate to higher kh
Disadvantages
usually most expensive
harder to design and apply
frac capacity vs. perm contrast criticalheight growth uncertainty?
some proppant stability problem at depth
3/14/2009 81
George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Observations DW Frac Pack
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
82/85
Observations DW Frac Pack
Frac Pack process very similar on every well
Hard to evaluate job quality from DIMS as data notreported
Average sand placed is 84% of sand pumped
Without 2 lowest jobs average is 89%
Frac Screenout reported on 9 wells
Annular Pack Processes Variable
6 wells with 8 BPM final rate
4 wells with less than 2 BPM final rate 1 well reported 0.5 BPM to get annular pack
Loss rate Post-Frac pack on 7 wells reported at lessthan 25 BPH losses (13 reported losses, 7 did not) Dan
Gibson3/14/2009 82George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
83/85
Productivity Ratio vs. Skin Factor
0
50
100
150
200
250
-5 5 15 25 35 45 55
Skin Factor
Productivity
Factor,%
Range of Skin Factors
Associated with Frac Pack
Range of Skin Factors Associated with
Cased Hole Gravel Pack Completions
3/14/2009 83
George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Depletion, Compaction, Perm Loss
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
84/85
Depletion, Compaction, Perm LossWhat has depletion to do with Well Productivity *
(1)Initial Reservoir pressureMaximum energy to drive productionMaximum permeabilitySingle phase productionNo depletion, No compaction, Min.formation stressMinimum production cost
1
100 80 60 40 20
Permeability (% of initial K)
Reserv
oirpressure
TimeRp ini
2
RpAL
Pressure maintenance = Increase Well Productivity Increase Recoverable Reserves Minimize Permeability Loss Minimize Compaction
RpAban
3
(2)Artificial lift required (gas lift, ESP, etc)Sharp increase in production costMulti phase production > reducedsaturation, loss of capilary pressureLoss of cohesive forces
(3)
Abandonment pressureMinimum energy to drive productionMaximum depletion, compaction,formation stressMinimum remaining permeability
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
Improved Oil Recovery60
40
50
30
20
Recovery(%
)
* (SPE 56813, 36419. 71673)
Reslink3/14/2009 84George E. King Engineering
GEKEngineering.com
Formation Sand Production Handling
7/22/2019 Sand Control George King
85/85
Well Type Effect of Sand
Gas Wells Unacceptable in mostHPHT Unacceptable
Subsea Unacceptable in most
DW Spar UnacceptableHoriz Wells Depends on application
Oil Wells May be beneficial
Inj. Wells Depends on completionHeavy Oil Usually beneficial
Damaged Wells Usually beneficial