Mehmet Parlar, SPE, and E.H.
Albino, SPE, Schlumberger
Introduction
Techniques used for sand control include restricted hydro-
carbon production, in-situ consolidation, gravel packing,
high-rate water packing, frac packing, fracturing without
screens, and drilling horizontal wells completed with
screens. Frac packing, high-rate water packing, and hori-
zontal completions have been the most widely used of these
techniques in recent years. Fracturing without screens, frac
packing, and horizontal drilling all aim at reducing draw-
down and/or increasing production rates by decreasing
velocities in the formation with a larger flow area. The
increased flow area also makes these methods more tolerant
to formation and completion damage.
Achieving long-term sand control without impairing well
productivity has been a challenging task from both a tech-
nical and an economic perspective for many years in almost
all major oil- and gas-producing regions of the world.
Because this article is a review of the challenges, accom-
plishments, and recent developments in gravel packing, we
limit our discussion to treatments below fracturing pressure
by assuming that exceeding the fracturing pressure is unde-
sirable for technical reasons. It is not our intent to suggest
that gravel packing is the preferred sand-control method.
All methods for sand control have their own applications
and value in the industry.
We first discuss recent developments and challenges in
gravel, screen, and carrier-fluid areas and follow this by a
discussion of gravel packing in cased holes, where major
accomplishments have been introduction of combined
processes that not only reduce completion costs but also
improve productivity. Next, we review openhole gravel
packing, primarily for highly deviated or horizontal wells
because this is where most openhole gravel-packing appli-
cations have been. Finally, we draw conclusions and high-
light the accomplishments and remaining challenges.
Ideal Gravel-Pack Completion
From a technical standpoint, an ideal gravel-pack comple-
tion accomplishes the following objectives.
Copyright 2000 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This is paper SPE 57474. Distinguished Author Series articles are general, descriptive
representations that summarize the state of the art in an area of technology by describing
recent developments for readers who are not specialists in the topics discussed. Written by
individuals recognized as experts in the area, these articles provide key references to more
definitive work and present specific details only to illustrate the technology. Purpose: to
inform the general readership of recent advances in various areas of petroleum engi-
neering. A softbound anthology, SPE Distinguished Author Series:December 1981–Decem -
ber 1983, is available from SPE’s Customer Service Dept.
50
• Complete packing, with a properly sized high-perme-
ability gravel, of all void spaces between the screen and
casing and perforations or between the screen and the
open hole.
• Clear interface between the formation sand and gravel,
with no mixing/invasion of formation material with/into the
gravel pack during placement and during production
throughout the life of the well.
• No invasion of the matrix with damaging material
(e.g., unfiltered or incompatible brines, polymers, crushed
gravel).
• No reduced-permeability section between the forma-
tion sand and the gravel pack (e.g., drilling-fluid filter cake
in open holes or crushed zone in cased and perforated
holes).
• No residuals from the carrier fluid and/or fluid-loss
pills (e.g., polymers and bridging agents in gravel pack).
Particular attention also must be given to prevention of
screen plugging while running the screens in hole (dis-
cussed later).
Obtaining a technically ideal gravel pack as described
has been a major challenge, and all objectives have not
been achieved under all circumstances. Furthermore,
achieving this type of completion may not always be nec-
essary, depending on cost/benefit analysis. For example,
openhole horizontal completions sometimes can tolerate
high levels of damage with little impact on productivity. In
such cases, incremental production resulting from a
cleanup treatment needs to be weighed vs. cost.
Regardless of the type of completion (open or cased), the
first potential source of formation damage is the drilling
fluid. In recent years, with the increased applications of
horizontal wells, substantial effort has been devoted to for-
mulating reservoir drilling fluids (RDF’s) that form a tight
filter cake with minimal particle and polymer invasion into
the matrix and that contain soluble (in acid, water, or oil)
bridging agents. Proper RDF selection typically is consid-
ered to be less of an issue in cased holes because the dam-
aged region is believed to be bypassed by the perforations;
however, this may not be true in unconsolidated sand for-
mations because perforation collapse is highly likely.
Gravel and Screen Selection
To date, Saucier’s1 criterion has been the most popular
method for sizing gravel. Because his criterion is based on
a single point in the sand-size distribution, it is applica-
ble primarily to uniform sands. As the sand-size distribu-
tion becomes more and more nonuniform, other points
JANUARY 2000
 on the distribution need to be considered. Schwartz’s2
uniformity coefficient (CU=d40/d90) and, more recently,
Tiffin et al.’s3 sorting coefficient (CS=d10/d95) are addi-
tional criteria that account for such nonuniformities. The
latter criterion is a measure of the fraction of finer parti-
cles in the formation sand. When CU>5, CS>20, and the
fraction of sub-44-µm particles is greater than 10%, more
damage-tolerant completion types should be considered.
These include fracturing, openhole horizontal com-
pletions, and underreaming.3
After the gravel has been selected, the next step is screen
selection. Traditionally, wire-wrapped screens (and in
some cases, prepacked screens) have been used in gravel
packing. In recent years, several new screen designs have
been introduced, primarily for applications in stand-alone
screen completions. These include Dutch twill, porous-
metal membrane/fiber, sintered metal, and improved wire-
wrap-screen technology.
In gravel-pack completions, the screen has been con-
ventionally sized to stop the gravel. A recent trend, partic-
ularly in long, openhole horizontal completions, has been
to size the screen to stop the formation sand. This
approach offers a contingency in case of a premature
screenout. The rules for sizing screens to stop formation
sand vary from operator to operator. The recommenda-
tions of the leading screen suppliers vary from matching
the screen opening to d50 of the formation sand up to d10.
As long as the screen openings are sized larger than d50,
any fine particles that flow through the gravel pack also
flow through the screens if the gravel is sized with Sauci-
er’s1 criterion. Note that Saucier’s rule essentially matches
formation sand size to gravel-pack pore size.
Carrier-Fluid Selection
Carrier fluids can be classified into two categories: low
viscosity and high viscosity. The former typically refers to
water packing, although it includes nonviscosified oil,
and the latter refers to viscous-gel packing, which can be
either water- or oil-based. Each carrier fluid has its own
advantages and disadvantages, and selection of the prop-
er carrier fluid for a particular application involves con-
sideration of many factors. These include type of comple-
tion (cased vs. openhole), well inclination, interval
length, formation permeability and its variation along the
length, temperature, pressure, reservoir-fluid viscosity,
hardware (conventional screens vs. shunt screens), cost,
and other such factors.
Selection of the proper carrier fluid requires an integrat-
ed approach that involves laboratory testing, gravel-place-
ment simulators, nodal analysis, and reservoir simulation.
Laboratory testing aims at ensuring compatibility and
gathering input data for the simulators (e.g., permeability
in injection direction, retained permeabilities for the for-
mation and completion components, depth of damage).
Gravel-placement simulators are used to predict whether
complete packing of the perforations and/or annulus can
be achieved with the candidate carrier fluids.4 Nodal
analysis is used for quick prediction of expected produc-
tion rates based on reservoir properties, completion type,
and laboratory data. Finally, reservoir simulators are used
for more detailed production predictions.
Most commonly used low-viscosity carrier fluids are
brines (water packing), as opposed to oil, primarily
JANUARY 2000
because of lower cost, wide range of densities for pressure
control, and more common use of water-based drilling
fluids in the pay zone. In addition to conventional brines
(chlorides and bromides), formate brines have been intro-
duced in recent years.5 Formate brines are solutions of
one or more alkali-metal salts of formic acid dissolved in
water. Three major types commercially available are sodi-
um, potassium, and cesium formate, with up to 11.1-,
13.1-, and 19.3-lbm/gal density, respectively. Their main
advantages are that they (1) provide high-density brines
that have a better health, safety, and environment profile
and are less corrosive, (2) are compatible with formation
waters containing sulfates and carbonates, (3) increase
shale stability, and (4) increase temperature stability of
certain biopolymers.5,6 Their application has been limited
to drilling and fluid-loss control in environmentally sen-
sitive, high-temperature/high-pressure (HTHP) wells
owing to higher cost. However, because these brines
increase temperature stability of certain biopolymers
[succinoglycan (SG), xanthan, scleroglucan], they can
provide viscous-fluid options in HTHP gravel-pack appli-
cations if necessary.
Hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC) has been the most popu-
lar viscous gravel-pack carrier fluid, primarily because of
its wide availability and low cost. A major concern with
HEC has been the formation of “fish-eyes,” which typical-
ly result from ineffective dispersion of powder HEC in
brine. The liquid form of HEC introduced in recent years
largely addressed this concern, although approximately 1-
hour of mixing usually is required for viscosity to reach its
equilibrium value at complete hydration. Retained perme-
ability for HEC without breakers is typically 35 to 45%7,8;
however, higher values can be obtained with certain inter-
nal breakers without compromising placement, depending
on temperature.9
SG biopolymer recently has been introduced and used as
gravel-pack carrier fluid.10 Perhaps the most important
characteristic of SG solutions is their transition tempera-
ture; up to this temperature, viscosity is almost indepen-
dent of temperature, and a sharp reduction in viscosity is
observed above it. Transition temperature can be con-
trolled to some extent by changing salt type and concen-
tration.11 This allows the use of temperature as a break
mechanism by formulating a fluid that is stable at circulat-
ing bottomhole temperature and unstable at reservoir tem-
perature. SG biopolymer is supplied as concentrated pre-
hydrated solution and mixed simply by a dilution process
that can yield the final solution viscosity in 10 to 15 min-
utes vs. 45 to 60 minutes with HEC. Under comparable
conditions, SG without shearing and filtering typically
yields higher retained permeabilities than sheared and fil-
tered HEC.9 Unless temperature can be used as a break
mechanism, SG polymer requires breakers.
Viscoelastic surfactant (VES) solutions offer a nonpoly-
meric approach to viscous carrier fluids. These fluids con-
tain a surfactant in brine, typically at a concentration of 1.5
to 6 vol%, depending on temperature, salt type, and con-
centration. Since introduction of the first VES fluid,12 sev-
eral new formulations have been developed that extend
their temperature limits and reduce cost.13,14 The most
unique characteristics of VES fluids are their continuous-
mix capability and their instability when exposed to small
amounts of liquid hydrocarbons, eliminating the require-
51
 ment for breakers. Furthermore, the different temperature
limits of the three VES formulations allow the use of tem-
perature as an additional break mechanism, much like SG
biopolymer; this allows viscosity to be maintained during
placement at circulating temperatures and to break once
the fluid heats up to reservoir temperature at static condi-
tions. The viscosity loss above the critical temperature is
the result of change in the structure of micelles from
worm-like to spherical; the diameter of the latter structure
is 0.006 to 0.01 µm (i.e., two to four orders of magnitude
smaller than typical pore diameters encountered in sand-
producing formations). Laboratory tests showed that
using temperature alone as a break mechanism for VES
consistently recovers more than 95% of the original per-
meability because these fluids contain no solids or
residues. These fluids also break through dilution with
brine and by methane dissolution in dry-gas wells. Break
with brine dilution is slower than with other break mech-
anisms. VES fluids can be made from cationic, anionic, or
nonionic surfactants. When the surfactant is cationic, its
positively charged hydrophilic head group forms an elec-
trical bond with the negatively charged silica surfaces of
sand grains. This exposes the hydrocarbon tail of the
adsorbed molecules to the next layer of surfactant adsorp-
tion through hydrophobic interaction between the hydro-
carbon chains, leaving the sand grains water-wet. This type
of bilayer adsorption is known as “cooperative adsorption”
and is well-documented.15 Experimental results on wetta-
bility of sand grains exposed to VES are in agreement with
theoretical predictions.12 VES solutions may have a ten-
dency to form emulsions with certain types of viscous
crude oils. Although this is a rare occurrence, it must be
checked to ensure compatibility. A preflush may be
required in case of any crude/VES incompatibilities.
Oil-based fluids have had limited applications as gravel-
pack carrier fluids, although crude oil or diesel has been
used for gravel packing in certain areas. The use of
ungelled oil as a carrier fluid is limited to either low-pres-
sure formations or squeeze treatments because oil cannot
provide pressure control in higher-pressure wells. Current
gelled-oil formulations have the same limitations. In areas
where synthetic-oil-based RDF’s are used to drill the reser-
voir section, a synthetic-oil-based carrier fluid is desirable
for gravel packing. The current practice of gravel packing
these wells involves costly displacement procedures and
introduces logistic difficulties.16 A major challenge for ser-
vice companies is to develop a synthetic-oil-based carrier
fluid that would provide pressure control in circulating
gravel packs, result in negligible completion damage, and
have favorable economics and minimal to no environmen-
tal impact.
To summarize, recent developments and accomplish-
ments in carrier fluids include introduction of SG biopoly-
mer that requires short mixing times and can use temper-
ature as a break mechanism; VES fluids that can be mixed
continuously and can break either through contact with
produced oil (by methane dissolution, by dilution with
brine) or through heating to reservoir temperature; and
formate brines for use in HTHP applications in environ-
mentally sensitive areas.
Both SG and VES fluids have been used successfully in
gravel-pack applications, but we are unaware of any use of
formate brines in either gelled or ungelled form as gravel-
52
pack carrier fluids. Current challenges are to increase salt
tolerance and temperature limits for VES formulations, to
develop alternative polymer-free viscous fluids, and to
reduce cost for all fluids.
Gravel Packing in Cased Holes
In cased holes, another potential source of damage is the
perforating process itself. Common practice has been to
perforate underbalanced and flow back a certain volume of
fluid to remove crushed (fine) sand particles. However,
recent data from experiments on weakly consolidated
sandstones show that neither the surge flow resulting from
underbalanced perforating nor the post-perforation pro-
duction flow removes sufficient debris from the perfora-
tion tunnel.17 Blok et al.17 further demonstrated that the
debris in perforation tunnels has a negligible effect on
injectivity after perforating; i.e., it does not affect gravel
placement (unless fluid-loss pills are used after perforating
and not removed efficiently). However, impact on produc-
tivity after gravel packing can be substantial owing to inva-
sion of crushed sand into the gravel pack. This can be part-
ly compensated for by use of large-diameter and high-shot-
density perforators.
In some cases, fluid loss may be excessive after perfo-
rating and the use of fluid-loss-control pills may be nec-
essary for well control while tripping out with the perfo-
rating string and tripping in with the gravel-packing
string. Conventionally, calcium carbonate (CaCO3)/ poly-
mer, sized-salt/polymer, crosslinked HEC, oil-soluble
resins, and linear polymers without any particles have
been used for this purpose.18 These pills can induce sig-
nificant damage, which must be removed before gravel
packing. Re-establishing injectivity to the same level as
that right after perforating can be extremely difficult.
Diversion techniques often are used for either cleanup
before prepacking or as part of prepacking (several acid
stages followed by slurry stages). It is unlikely that the
polymers used for diversion achieve the desired results in
these cases.
We checked this with the following test. Two 1-in.-diam-
eter, 11-in.-long Berea cores with permeabilities of 80 and
400 md were inserted into two parallel Hassler-cells.19 A
1-in. spacer was placed on the injection side of both cores
to simulate “perforation tunnels.” A CaCO3/HEC pill was
injected into the 400-md core at 500-psi constant overbal-
ance for 30 minutes, while the 80-md core was kept in a
100% brine-saturated state. Next, 80-lbm/1,000-gal HEC
solution was injected simultaneously into both cores at
500-psi overbalance. During this stage, all the HEC went
into and broke through the 80-md clean core—the desired
result. Then, 15% HCl was injected simultaneously into
both cores at 10 cm3/min for 20 minutes. As Fig. 1 shows,
all the acid again went into the 80-md core—the undesired
result. This has a simple explanation. The permeability of
the CaCO3/HEC filter cake on the face of the 400-md core
is approximately 0.001 md or less. This results in a per-
meability contrast of almost five orders of magnitude
between the filter cake and the 80-md core. Displacing the
viscous polymer solution with acid through the 80-md
core is much easier than displacing it through the filter
cake. Achieving diversion under these conditions is
extremely difficult, if not impossible. This is supported by
experimental evidence and suggests that pill placement
JANUARY 2000

Fig. 1—Volume leakoff into two cores during acid diver-
sion test; FLC=fluid-loss control.
into the perforations should be avoided until all perfora-
tions are packed. If use of pills is unavoidable, an integrat-
ed approach should be followed for selection and removal
of the pills from the perforations and for determination of
invasion depths, retained permeabilities, and prediction of
the impact of various alternative pills on productivity. In
addition, contact of breakers with pills is easy to ensure in
the laboratory with 1- to 2-in.-diameter cores, while in a
real well with long producing intervals, such contact can
be extremely difficult if the reaction between the pill/cake
and the breaker is fast.
Analysis of field results with cased-hole gravel packs
shows that the productivities achieved with this comple-
tion technique are far less than the efficiencies typical of
openhole gravel packs.20-22 It is easy to show through
nodal analysis that openhole gravel packs are much more
damage-tolerant than cased-hole gravel packs. Backcal-
culations of gravel-pack permeability in perforation tun-
nels from field production results indicate that this per-
meability is 0.1 to 7% of the undamaged gravel-pack per-
meability and, on the average, is approximately the same
as formation permeability.23 As Fig. 2 shows, for a 1,000-
md, 50-ft-thick formation, the expected oil production
rate in openhole gravel pack is almost independent of the
gravel permeability down to 1,000 md. Cased-hole grav-
el pack, with 12 shots/ft and 0.75-in.-diameter perfora-
tions in a 50-ft perforated interval, yields significantly
lower production, even with undamaged gravel. If the
gravel permeability in the perforations is taken to be the
same as formation permeability, the gravel permeability
must be decreased to approximately 10 md to have the
same production rate from an openhole gravel pack. This
corresponds to a retained permeability of 0.01% for the
gravel pack. Both theoretical calculations and field
results clearly indicate that, when possible, openhole
completions are the preferred technique for gravel pack-
ing because they are much more tolerant to damage.
Although several major developments significantly
increase well productivity in cased-hole gravel packs and
provide substantial cost savings, improving productivity
in cased-hole gravel packs to levels comparable with that
in openhole gravel packs is still an enormous challenge
to our industry.
JANUARY 2000
Fig. 2—Comparison of production rates from gravel-
packed openhole and cased-hole completions. Open
hole: 50-ft vertical interval, 1-darcy formation, 8.5-in.
hole; cased hole: 12 shots/ft, 0.75-in. collapsed perfo-
rations. IPR=inflow performance relationship, TIC=tub-
ing-intake curve, CH=cased hole, and GP=gravel pack.
In the last several years, one-trip perforating/gravel-
packing techniques have improved significantly and have
been used successfully in many applications.18,24 In this
method, perforating guns are attached to the bottom of the
sand-control assembly and run into the hole in a single
trip. The system has two packers: one between the screen
and the gun assemblies that acts as the perforating packer
during perforating and the other acts as the sump packer
during gravel packing. The system is run to the desired
depth to position the tubing-conveyed perforating (TCP)
guns, the perforating packer is set, and the guns are fired
and automatically dropped to the rathole immediately
after perforating. At this stage, any desired testing can be
conducted. The tool string can then be lowered to position
the screens across the desired interval. The only time loss
is while lowering the tool string after perforating; this
depends on well configuration and perforated-interval
length and can be as little as 30 minutes. On completion of
gravel packing, a mechanical fluid-loss-control device
(e.g., a flapper valve) is activated to control losses during
the trip out with the gravel-pack service tool and the trip
in with the production tubing. One-trip systems typically
save 1 to 2 days of rig time by combining perforating and
gravel-packing treatments into one trip. They also increase
well productivity and lower cost by eliminating fluid-loss-
control pills (both after perforating and after gravel pack-
ing) and associated cleanup treatments. Because the
method involves leaving the guns in the wellbore, it
requires a sufficient rathole and thus typically is limited to
the lowest zone in multizone completions. These systems
have been used up to 77° deviation. A one-trip perforat-
ing/gravel-packing technique recently used to gravel pack
two zones with a zonal-isolation device between the zones
bypassed through the shunt tubes saved four round trips
compared with conventional methods.25
Another recent development, a single-trip packing/ pro-
duction technique that is applicable to upper zones,
involves perforating with wireline or TCP guns and run-
ning in hole with the gravel-pack assembly on production
string.26 A modified production seal assembly is used to
allow use of the production string as the work string dur-
53

Fig. 3—Packing sequences for (a) water packing and (b)
shunt packing.
ing gravel packing. Because this tool was originally devel-
oped for frac-packing applications, it currently is limited
to squeeze position. The technique reduces cost by elimi-
nating one trip compared with conventional methods but
does not eliminate fluid-loss-control pills after perforating.
Thus, the one-trip perforating/packing technique is pre-
ferred over this method for a single zone. These two tech-
niques in combination (one-trip perforating/packing for
the lower zone and one-trip packing/production for the
upper zone) have recently been used for frac packing and
resulted in net savings of 30% in completion costs com-
pared with high-rate water packing and 50% compared
with conventional frac-packing methods.26
Gravel Packing in Open Holes
Most horizontal wells that require sand control are open-
hole completions for both productivity and economic rea-
sons. Although a large majority of these wells have been
stand-alone screen completions, openhole gravel packing
is gaining wider acceptance in various parts of the world
because of uncertainties in long-term sand-control integri-
ty (without sacrificing productivity) with this type of com-
pletion.16 Two techniques currently are available for grav-
el packing openhole horizontal wells: water packing and
viscous-fluid packing with alternative-path technology.
These techniques have completely different packing mech-
anisms (Fig. 3),27,28 and each method has its own advan-
tages and limitations, discussed later.
In openhole gravel-pack completions, plugging of com-
pletion components can occur during two critical states:
screen plugging while running in hole with the screen
assembly and gravel-pack (and potential screen) plugging
while producing. Considerable effort has been made to
understand and address the potential of these types of plug-
ging to impair productivity in horizontal wells.
In openhole completions, the filter cake formed by the
RDF provides fluid-loss control during screen installation
as well as during gravel packing. Typical practice to pre-
54
vent screen plugging while running in hole is to displace
the well to “clean” fluids before running in hole with the
screen assembly. The selection of fluids depends primari-
ly on density required to balance formation pressure,
compatibility issues, and experience in the particular area.
The two most commonly used practices are (1) displace-
ment of the open hole to a solids-free viscous fluid and
the cased hole to brine and (2) displacement of both the
open and cased holes to brine. The first option offers addi-
tional protection against potential losses at an incremen-
tal cost without plugging the screens. In some cases,
solids may be required for pressure control. In those cases,
the particles must be small enough to pass through the
screens. While several rules have been proposed in the lit-
erature, the most notable is Marken et al.’s29 proposal of
substituting the maximum particle diameter instead of d10
in the Coberly30 criterion to allow passage of the solids
with a certain size distribution through wire-wrapped
screens or slotted liners. Although this rule is clearly more
conservative, it ensures no plugging of screens because
bridging with any other particle combination is automat-
ically excluded if no bridging is available for the largest
particles. Because Marken et al.29 were investigating run-
ning screens into conditioned RDF in stand-alone
screen/slotted-liner completions to reduce completion
costs without the risk of screen plugging, they picked the
maximum particle size as the characteristic diameter. This
can be controlled through selection of the proper shaker-
screen openings when the required sand-control-screen
openings are relatively large, as typically encountered in
the North Sea. When particles are required for pressure
control, it is recommended that the maximum particle
size in the fluid be no larger than one-third, and prefer-
ably one-quarter, the size of the screen openings when
wire-wrapped screens are used. For prepacked or equiva-
lent screens, a similar rule based on experimental evi-
dence currently does not exist; therefore, a more conser-
vative criterion should be used.
Gravel-pack plugging during production is controlled
largely by the composition and properties of the filter
cake. Filter cakes of most widely used water-based RDF’s
contain a primary viscosifier (scleroglucan or xanthan
biopolymer), a fluid-loss-control additive (some type of a
starch or any other polymer), and bridging agents (sized
CaCO3 or salt) as well as drill solids. Laboratory experi-
ments in the absence of drill solids have shown that the
impact of the filter cake on productivity of gravel-packed
wells often is negligible when properly designed RDF’s are
used. However, filter cakes containing drill solids may
require very high drawdown pressures for flow initiation
(>200 psi) when the filter cake is trapped between the
gravel pack31 and the formation sand and the resulting
retained permeabilities can be extremely low (far less than
1%).32,33 These results suggest that some type of cleanup
treatment may be necessary in gravel-packed comple-
tions. The question becomes when, how, and with what to
clean up. In principle, the cake can be removed before,
during, or after gravel packing. To our knowledge, after
gravel packing has been practiced exclusively to date.
Conventional cleanup techniques in gravel-packed com-
pletions include single-step oxidizer, enzyme, or acid
treatments or an enzyme or oxidizer soak followed by an
acid treatment. In all cases, these treatments are done with
JANUARY 2000
 (a) (b)
Fig. 4—CaCO3/starch/polymer filter cakes at 180°F (a) before cleanup, (b) after HCl soak, and (c) after CAS soak.
coiled tubing after gravel packing and after installation of
the production string. Enzymes and oxidizers attack only
the polymeric components, and acids attack the CaCO3
component of the cake.
Recent developments in cake-removal chemicals
include use of a chelating-agent solution (CAS) combined
with an enzyme34 and a buffered, weak, organic-acid
solution combined with an enzyme35 to attack the starch
and CaCO3 components of the filter cake simultaneously.
These new cleanup-fluid systems offer several advantages
over conventional methods. Because they attack the two
most critical components of the cake simultaneously and
slowly (compared with conventional fluid systems),
more-uniform cake removal can be achieved. Fig. 4
shows pictures of filter cakes formed by a
CaCO3/starch/polymer RDF before any cleanup treatment
and after a soak with HCl or a CAS at 180°F. Note that
essentially there is a single dominant conductive path
after soaking with HCl in contrast to uniform cake
removal with the CAS, even in small-scale laboratory
experiments. Because the reaction rate of combined
Fig. 5—Filter-cake removal at time scales with CAS and
HCl at 140°F.
JANUARY 2000
(c)
CAS/enzyme solution with the filter cake can be on the
order of hours,34 placement of these solutions into long
horizontal wells can be achieved without creating any
thief zones. Experimental results indicate that the cake-
removal time scales (defined as the time at which a sharp
change in leakoff volume occurs during an overbalanced
soak with the CAS) are an order of magnitude lower com-
pared with that of HCl and that these rates can be largely
controlled by adding enzyme and/or a VES (Fig. 5). Fur-
thermore, solids invasion into the formation during treat-
ment [an inherent risk in conventional, two-stage
(enzyme or oxidizer soak followed by acid treatment
cleanup) treatments] can be minimized or potentially
eliminated through balanced soaks. In addition, these
fluid systems can eliminate sludging problems observed
with some crude oils when strong acids are used. Anoth-
er important consideration is corrosion of well screens if
these chemical soaks are to be used over long time peri-
ods. Testing with screen coupons exposed to HCl and
CAS’s over long time periods has shown that corrosion
rates with the chelating agent are one to two orders of
magnitude lower than those with HCl (Table 1). More
importantly and consistent with these rate measurements,
the screen openings do not change after prolonged expo-
sure to CAS, while screen-opening size increases from 150
to 250 µm with prolonged exposure to HCl.
A recent development in mechanical solutions is a mod-
ified gravel-packing service tool that allows circulation
through the wash pipe and back through the wash-
pipe/screen-base-pipe annulus up to the drillpipe/casing
annulus above the packer after gravel packing.34 This is a
TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF CORROSION RATES WITH
CAS AND HCl: 24-HR EXPOSURE AT 160°F
Corrosion Rate, lbm/ft2
7.5% HCl With 1% CAS With 0.2%
Material Inhibitor-A Inhibitor-B
J55 0.0110 0.0037
13Cr 0.0130 0.0001
316-L Screen 0.0580 0.0007
Screen Openings, µm
Before Exposure 150 150
After Exposure 250 150
55
 significant improvement over current practices because
such a tool allows spotting of the breaker solutions across
the horizontal interval and subsequent soaking and/or
injection or circulation and eliminates a subsequent
coiled-tubing trip after gravel packing with water or vis-
cous fluids. Another potential application of the tool is dis-
placement of acids to brine when acids are used in the car-
rier fluid to remove the filter cake during gravel packing,
discussed later.
Water packing uses a low concentration of gravel (0.5
to 2.0 lbm added/gal) in brine, and packing in horizontal
wells is in two stages. First, the lower section of the well
is packed (called the α wave) until either the toe is
reached or screenout occurs because of high leakoff. Then
the top section is packed (called the β wave). The α wave
is dominated by gravity forces; gravel settles until an equi-
librium height is reached. As a result of leakoff, equilibri-
um height can vary along the well because it is dictated by
local brine velocities. As long as the local velocity remains
above the critical velocity required to transport the parti-
cles, the α wave can reach the toe of the horizontal well.
Expressions for critical velocity based on experiments
suggest that critical velocity depends on gravel and carri-
er-fluid densities, gravel concentration, carrier-fluid vis-
cosity, and well deviation.36 Existence of a critical veloci-
ty implies that an equilibrium-pack thickness always
exists that allows particle transport. Reduced volumetric
flow rates downstream caused by any increase in leakoff
results in increased equilibrium height downstream. The-
oretically, this process can continue until the spacing
between the pack and the formation becomes small com-
pared with gravel sizes. This means that, unless a stepwise
change is imposed (e.g., stepwise increase of gravel con-
centration), the α wave can fail at the downstream end
through bridging. A possible exception to this would be
increased leakoff from filter-cake erosion in a given region
some time after the α wave passes that region.
Becker and Gardiner37 and Johnson et al.38 reported
external-filter-cake erosion during gravel packing,
although the critical velocities required for external-cake
erosion are not well-documented. These results may
explain some of the failures in water packing long hori-
zontal wells, particularly when properly designed RDF’s
are used to minimize or eliminate the internal cake. Note
that water packing can be, and has been, used success-
fully in many openhole horizontal completions. Howev-
er, its reliance on the presence of a tight filter cake (and
also on the presence of an internal filter cake should the
external cake erode) introduces uncertainties to success-
ful completion of the gravel-packing operation. Further-
more, because of the need for a tight filter-cake, cake
cleanup has to be done after gravel packing if cake
removal is necessary. These uncertainties can be com-
pensated for to some extent by sizing the screens to con-
trol formation sand to prevent sand production in case of
premature screenout. The risk of premature screenout
decreases as formation permeability and oil viscosity
increase and interval length decreases. Sensitivity analy-
sis with gravel-pack simulators4 can help to optimize the
treatment parameters and to quantify risk to some extent.
This includes generating representative experimental
data on internal-cake permeabilities to simulate cases
where external-cake erosion may occur and entering
56
these data into gravel-pack simulators. Work along these
lines and on identification of critical velocities for com-
plete external-cake erosion is currently being conducted
at several R&D centers.
Alternative-path technique uses viscous fluids with
high gravel concentrations (4 to 8 lbm/gal). This tech-
nique involves use of shunt tubes attached to the screen
that allow bypass of annular bridges that may form
because of high leakoff. It has been recently shown that
gravel packing with shunt tubes does not rely on the
existence of a tight filter cake. In fact, large-scale yard
tests under extreme leakoff conditions showed that com-
plete packing of 2,000-ft-long intervals can be achieved
with a single shunt tube.33 Recent field applications of
VES carrier fluids in conjunction with the alternative-
path technique in wells where oil-based RDF’s have been
used proved that complete packing of high-permeability,
long, openhole horizontal wells is possible with no
returns. Both yard testing and field evidence show that
the success of gravel packing with this technique is con-
trolled by the resistance to flow in packed shunt ports;
thus, complete packing is independent of both filter-
cake and formation properties. Packing with this tech-
nique proceeds from heel to toe, as opposed to an α
wave followed by a β wave in water packing (Fig. 3). In
cases where synthetic-oil-based RDF’s are used, low
flow-initiation pressures typically observed with these
fluids can result in cake liftoff with slight underbalances
that may occur during tool manipulations, causing high
leakoff and jeopardizing the completion of gravel-pack-
ing operations. 16 Field experience reported by Gilchrist
et al.16 also indicates that, even after spotting fluid-loss-
control pills, loss of returns can cause premature screen-
out with synthetic-oil-based RDF’s, possibly as a result
of external-cake erosion and absence of (or presence of
a thin) internal cake. However, three recent applications
of the shunt-packing technique in horizontal wells
drilled with a synthetic-oil-based RDF resulted in com-
plete packing despite complete loss of returns. Shunt
tubes also provide a path to bypass either annular isola-
tion packers that may be used to separate two sections of
the horizontal well or to isolate any collapsed/sloughed
shale sections. Field experience shows that water pack-
ing openhole horizontal wells with long shale sections
can be problematic.
Because the shunt technique is independent of the state
of the filter cake, it allows the use of breakers in the carri-
er fluid to gravel pack and clean up the filter cake simulta-
neously. Breakers used in such an operation can target spe-
cific components of the filter cake without affecting carri-
er-fluid rheology. Such a combined process can reduce
completion costs by eliminating a separate cake-cleanup
treatment with coiled tubing. Simultaneous cake-
cleanup/gravel-packing technique can also be used with
water as the carrier fluid with slow-reacting breakers, such
as enzymes. However, this increases the risk because of
uncertainties in cake (external and/or internal) thickness
and permeability and because complete packing with
water is strongly dependent on cake permeability. Adding
slow-reacting breakers during the predicted β-wave stage
can mitigate this risk to some extent.
A disadvantage of the shunt technique is the reduced
base-pipe internal diameter, which may increase friction
JANUARY 2000
 pressures in the base pipe and restrict production rates. This
should be checked through reservoir simulators that couple
flow in the horizontal section with flow in the formation,
accounting for friction pressures in the base pipe. Produc-
tion rates in excess of 12,000 B/D have been achieved in
1,000-ft openhole completions; and production in these
wells was tubing-limited, as it is in many high-productivity
horizontal wells.28 Another disadvantage of the shunt tech-
nique is that it requires viscous fluids. Although VES fluids
that do not require breakers can be used, these fluids are not
always applicable owing to temperature limitations and salt-
sensitivity issues. This necessitates use of polymer solutions
that require batch mixing and breakers (internal or exter-
nal), which can introduce additional complexity.
Conclusions
Major accomplishments in cased-hole gravel packing have
been development of much more reliable combined perfo-
rating/gravel-packing techniques.23,24 These techniques
not only reduce completion costs but also increase well
productivity by eliminating damaging fluid-loss-control
pills both before and after gravel packing and by improving
gravel placement in perforations by keeping the perfora-
tions free of fluid-loss-control materials. With fluctuating
oil prices, more-innovative combined processes, such as
one-trip gravel packing/production25 and one-trip perforat-
ing/gravel packing with zonal isolation,26 need to be devel-
oped to reduce completion costs and increase productivity.
A major challenge in cased holes is to bring completion effi-
ciency levels closer to those of openhole gravel packs
through better understanding of perforating processes and
damage mechanisms in unconsolidated sandstones.
Two techniques are available to the industry for gravel
packing long, openhole horizontal wells. Both water pack-
ing and viscous-fluid packing with shunt screens have been
field-proven. Choosing between these techniques requires
consideration of logistics, risks, and overall completion
costs for each well. A recently proposed simultaneous grav-
el-packing/cake-cleanup technique in conjunction with
shunt screens and tool developments that allow fluid circu-
lation is a further example of combined processes. Com-
bined gravel packing/cake cleanup can provide more-uni-
form cake removal during gravel packing and reduce an oth-
erwise two- or three-stage process to a single step. Tools that
allow fluid circulation immediately after gravel packing can
be used to spot breaker solutions immediately after gravel
packing with any of the gravel-packing techniques, elimi-
nating a coiled-tubing trip. These tools can also be used to
displace the well to neutral fluids after gravel packing with
gelled-acid carrier fluids, eliminating concerns about corro-
sion from prolonged exposure of well screens to acids.
Development of synthetic-oil-based gravel-packing flu-
ids for horizontal wells drilled with synthetic-oil-based
RDF’s is a major challenge for the industry because such
fluids need to provide pressure control for circulating grav-
el packs with negligible completion damage and favorable
economics. Also needed are high-temperature enzymes
that can attack starch (currently limited to 200°F39) and
enzymes that are effective on xanthan or scleroglucan
components of the filter cake under downhole conditions.
Finally, introduction of new gravel-pack carrier-fluid for-
mulations, such as SG biopolymer and polymer-free VES
solutions that can use temperature and/or produced fluids
JANUARY 2000
as breakers, is another step toward high-productivity grav-
el-pack completions.
Nomenclature
CS= sorting coefficient
CU= uniformity coefficient
d= diameter; the subscripts 10, 40, 50, 90,
and 95 indicate respective percentiles in
sieve-analysis plots
References
11. Saucier, R.J.: “Considerations in Gravel Pack Design,” JPT
(February 1974) 205; Trans., AIME, 257.
12.Schwartz, D.H.: “Successful Sand Control Design for High-
Rate Oil and Water Wells,” JPT (September 1969) 1193.
13. Tiffin, D.L. et al.: “New Criteria for Gravel and Screen Selec-
tion for Sand Control,” paper SPE 39437 presented at the
1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage
Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18–19 February.
14. Karlstad, S. et al.: “An Evaluation and Design Approach to
Gravel-Pack Treatments in the Gullfaks Field,” paper SPE
48987 prepared for the 1998 SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence and Exhibition, New Orleans, 28–30 September.
15. Downs, J.D.: “Formate Brines: Novel Drilling and Comple-
tion Fluids for Demanding Environments,” paper SPE 25177
presented at the 1993 SPE International Symposium on Oil-
field Chemistry, New Orleans, 2–5 March.
16. Hallman, J.H.: “Formates in Practice: Field Use and Reclama-
tion,” World Oil (October 1996).
17. Parlar, M. et al.: “An Experimental Study on Fluid-Loss
Behavior of Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage in
High-Permeability Porous Media,” paper SPE 30458 present-
ed at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhi-
bition, Dallas, 22–25 October.
18. McGowen, J.M. et al.: “Fluid Selection for Fracturing High-
Permeability Formations,” SPE 26559 presented at the 1993
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
3–6 October.
19. Cole, R.C. and Ali, S.A.: “A Comparative Study of Succino-
glycan Gravel Pack Gel Properties to Those of HEC,” paper
SPE 28533 presented at the 1994 SPE Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 25–28 September.
10. Sanz, G.P. et al.: “Use of Succinoglycan Biopolymer for Grav-
el Packing,” SPEDC (June 1994) 139.
11. Davies, D.R. et al.: “Development and Field Testing of a Novel
Fracturing Fluid,” paper SPE 23109 presented at the 1991
Offshore Europe Conference, Aberdeen, 3–6 September.
12. Nehmer, W.L.: “Viscoelastic Gravel-Pack Carrier Fluid,”
paper SPE 17168 presented at the 1988 SPE Formation Dam-
age Symposium, Bakersfield, California, 8–9 February.
13. Brown, J.E. et al.: “Use of a Viscoelastic Carrier Fluid in Frac-
Pack Applications,” paper SPE 31114 presented at the 1996
SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Con-
trol, Lafayette, Louisiana, 14–15 February.
14. Samuel, M. et al.: “Polymer-Free Fluid for Fracturing,”
SPEDC (December 1999) 240.
15. Rosen, M.J.: Surfactants and Interfacial Phenomena, second
edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York City (1989) 47–49.
16. Gilchrist, J.M., Sutton, L.W. Jr., and Elliott, F.J.: “Advancing
Horizontal Well Sand-Control Technology: An OHGP Using
Synthetic OBM,” paper SPE 48976 prepared for the 1998 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
27–30 September.
57
 17. Blok, R.H.J. et al.: “Experimental Investigation of the Influ-
ence of Perforating on Gravel-Pack Impairment,” paper SPE
36481 presented at the 1996 SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 6–9 October.
18.Parlar, M. et al.: “Guidelines for Selection of Fluid-Loss Con-
trol Methods Before and After Sand-Control Treatments To
Maximize Well Productivity and Cost-Effectiveness,” paper
SPE 39460 presented at the 1998 SPE International Sympo-
sium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana,
18–19 February.
19.Parlar, M. et al.: “An Experimental Study of Foam Flow
Through Berea Sandstone With Applications to Foam Diver-
sion in Matrix Acidizing,” paper SPE 29678 presented at the
1995 SPE Western Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, California,
8–10 March.
20. Welling, R.W.F.: “Improving Gravel Packing Techniques in
Brunei Darussalam Field Trial Results,” paper SPE 25363 pre-
sented at the 1993 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference,
Singapore, 8–10 February.
21. Liebach, R.E. and Cirigliano, J.: “Gravel Packing in
Venezuela,” Proc., Seventh Petroleum Conference, Mexico
City (1967) Sec. 3, 407.
22. Moricca, G. et al.: “Dual Openhole Gravel Pack in Shaly Fine
Sands,” SPEDC (December 1995) 226.
23. Burton, R.C.: “Use of Perforation Tunnel Permeability as a
Means of Assessing Cased-Hole Gravel-Pack Performance,”
SPEDC (December 1999) 235.
24. Jones, R.H. and Bolin, T.D.: “New Single-Trip Perforating and
Gravel Pack Procedure With Advanced Stimulation Design
Reduces Formation Damage in High-Permeability Sandstone
Reservoirs: Case Histories,” paper SPE 39434 presented at the
1998 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage
Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18–19 February.
25. Waters, F. et al.: “A Novel Technique for Single-Selective Sand
Control Completions Allows Perforating and Gravel Packing of
Two Zones with Zonal Isolation in One Trip: A Case History from
Trinidad,” paper SPE 56668 presented at the 1999 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 3–6 October.
26. Palthe, P.W. et al.: “A Novel Technique for Single-Selective
Sand Control Completions Cuts Completion Costs in Half:
Method Development and a Case History From the Gulf of
Mexico,” paper SPE 50650 presented at the 1998 SPE Euro-
pean Petroleum Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands,
20–22 October.
27. Penberthy, W.L. Jr. et al.: “Gravel Placement in Horizontal
Wells,” SPEDC (June 1997) 85.
28. Jones, L.G. et al.: “Gravel Packing Horizontal Wellbores With
Leakoff Using Shunts,” paper SPE 38640 presented at the
1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, Texas, 5–8 October.
29. Marken, C.D., Markestad, P., and Rørvik, O.H.: “Criteria for
Backproduction of Drilling Fluids Through Sand-Control
Screens,” SPEDC (December 1998) 250.
30.Coberly, C.J.: “Selection of Screen Openings for Unconsoli-
dated Sands,” Drill. & Prod. Prac.(1937) 189.
31. Hodge, R.M. et al.: “Evaluation and Selection of Drill-In Fluid
Candidates To Minimize Formation Damage,” SPEDC (Sep-
tember 1997) 174.
32. Burton, R.C. and Hodge, R.M.: “The Impact of Formation
Damage and Completion Impairment on Horizontal Well
Productivity,” paper SPE 49097 prepared for the 1998 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
27–30 September.
58
33. Price-Smith, C. et al.: “Openhole Horizontal Well Cleanup in
Sand-Control Completions: State of the Art in Field Practice
and Laboratory Development,” paper SPE 50673 presented at
the 1998 SPE European Petroleum Conference, The Hague,
The Netherlands, 20–22 October.
34. Parlar, M. et al.: “Laboratory Development of a Novel, Simul-
taneous Cake-Cleanup and Gravel-Packing System for Long,
Highly Deviated or Horizontal Openhole Completions,”
paper SPE 50651 presented at the 1999 SPE International
Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, 16–19 February.
35. Stanley, F.O., Rae, P., and Troncoso, J.C.: “Single-Step Enzyme
Treatment Enhances Production Capacity on Horizontal
Wells,” paper SPE 52818 presented at the 1999 SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 9–11 March.
3 6 .G ruesbeck, W.M.: “Design of Gravel Packs in Deviated Well-
bores,” JPT (January 1979) 109.
37. Becker, T.E. and Gardiner, N.H.: “Drill-In-Fluid Filter-Cake
Behavior During Gravel-Packing of Horizontal Intervals—A
Laboratory Simulation,” paper SPE 50715 presented at the
1999 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry,
Houston, 16–19 February.
38. Johnson, M.H., Ashton, J.P., and Nguyen, H.: “The Effects of
Erosion Velocity on Filter-Cake Stability During Gravel
Placement of Openhole Horizontal Gravel-Pack Comple-
tions,” paper SPE 23773 presented at the 1992 SPE Interna-
tional Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,
Louisiana, 26–27 February.
39. Hanssen, J.E. et al.: “New Enzyme Process for Downhole
Cleanup of Reservoir Drilling Fluid Filter Cake,” paper SPE
50709 presented at the 1999 SPE International Symposium
on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, 16–19 February.
SI Metric Conversion factors
bbl ×1.589 873 E−01= m3
ft ×3.048* E−01= m
ft2 ×9.290 304* E−02= m2
oF (oF−32)/1.8 = oC
gal ×3.785 412 E−03= m3
in. ×2.54* E+00= cm
lbm ×4.535 924 E−01= kg
md ×9.869 233 E−04= µm2
psi ×6.894 757 E−03= MPa
*Conversion factor is exact.
Mehmet Parlar currently is a technical coordinator
between Schlumberger Well Production Services and
M-I Drilling Fluids, based in Houston. He has been
with Schlumberger for 10 years, holding assignments
in R&D and sand-control field support. He has two
patent applications. Parlar holds a BS degree from
Istanbul Technical U. and MS and PhD degrees from
the U. of Southern California, all in petroleum
engineering. Eduardo H. Albino is Sand Control and
Development Manager for Schlumberger, based in
Rosharon, Texas, in charge of internal and external
schools and personnel development programs. He
joined Schlumberger in 1985 and, since 1989, has
been involved in the sand-control/completion
business, working in sand-control-project man-
agement in Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, and Italy.
Albino holds a BS degree in civil engineering from
Gama Filho U., Rio de Janeiro.
JANUARY 2000