See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254514154

Sand Control During Drilling, Perforation, Completion and Production

Article · June 2003

DOI: 10.2118/81492-MS

CITATION READS
1 587

3 authors, including:

Hazim Hussein Abass

Colorado School of Mines
74 PUBLICATIONS   533 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Hazim Hussein Abass on 14 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE 81492
Sand Control during Drilling, Perforation, Completion and Production
H.H. Abass, SPE, A.H. Habbtar, SPE, A. Shebatalhamd, SPE, Saudi Aramco
Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE 13 th Middle East Oil Show &
Conference to be held in Bahrain, 9-12 June 2003.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Sand control has been a challenge to the petroleum
industry since oil and gas was produced from weakly
cemented sandstone formations. Several techniques have been
applied; 1) restricted (critical) production rate, 2) screen
and/or gravel packing, 3) sand consolidation, 4) FracPacking,
5) oriented and/or selective perforation, and 6) combination of
any of the above.
Sand formations may fail in compression, tension, and
cohesion that trigger sand production. The compressive failure
occurs during drilling where the rock cannot withstand the
new stress field and/or the cementation materials have
deteriorated from mud filtrate exposure. The calculation of
mud weight to prevent compressive failure will be presented
in this paper. Additionally the failed zone is usually oriented
in the direction of minimum horizontal stress which can be
avoided during perforation by orienting the perforation tunnels
in the direction of maximum horizontal stress. During
completion the cementation materials should be protected
from completion fluids. During production a pressure
drawdown is established for a given production rate. This
pressure drawdown may cause rock failure in tension or
cohesion (erosion) leading to sand production. The near-
wellbore pressure is caused by skin damage due to reduced
permeability, stressed region, convergence flow, and partial
penetration. This paper presents a model to determine the
critical pressure drawdown based on relating the near-wellbore
pressure drawdown to the tensile and cohesive strengths of the
formation. Hydraulic fracturing, referred to as FracPack, may
be applied to alleviate the near-wellbore pressure drawdown
below the critical value that causes sand failure. Two fracture
parameters are designed to achieve this goal; fracture length
and fracture conductivity. This paper presents a design
criterion to determine these parameters to optimize a FracPack
design for sand control.
Examples from a field in Saudi Arabia will be used to
validate the application of controlling sand production using
screenless FracPack completion. In these wells a FracPack
treatment alone controls sand production. The multirate test
used in these wells and the FracPack design for fracturing
treatments will be presented.
Introduction
Sand production has historically been a problem
associated with soft or poorly consolidated formations. The
result is usually lost production due to formation sand and
fines plugging gravel packs, screens, perforations, tubular, and
surface flow lines or separators. In addition to damaging
pumps or other downhole equipment, erosion of casing and
surface facilities may also occur. Sanding problems may
actually cause loss or recompletion of a well due to casing
and/or hole collapse. The methods applied to minimize the
effect of sand production include critical production rate,
gravel packing, sand consolidation, FracPacking, oriented
and/or selective Perforation, expandable sand screen, or a
combination of these methods.
Completion methods are selected based on sand
characterization and failure mechanism. Laboratory testing
and mathematical models used for sand prediction are selected
based on sand characterization. FracPac completion has been
replacing gravel packing in many petroleum reservoirs.
However FracPack with a screen in hole, is also
widely applied.
This paper will discuss the process of sand control from the
time a given formation is exposed to man’s disturbance and
will sicuss sand control during drilling, completion,
and production.
Sand Control during Drilling
Sand formations are categorized into consolidated, poorly
consolidated, and unconsolidated, based on their elastic
properties, mechanical strength and cementation materials.
Sand formations can fail due to mechanical or chemical
effects. The mechanical properties relevant to sand production
are: Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS), cohesive strength,
and tensile strength. However, mechanical properties such as
Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio are also used to
characterize sand formations. A reasonable trend was obtained
for porosity vs. Young’s modulus for a given sandstone
formations in Saudi Arabia1. The following properties and
2 SPE 81492
tests are needed to evaluate the sanding tendency in a
given reservoir.
1. Uniaxial compressive strength
2. Cohesive strength
3. Tensile strength
4. Internal friction angle
5. Porosity and Permeability
6. XRD
7. SEM
The results from the above tests will be used to determine the
possible failure analyses applied to a given formation as it
will be discussed below.
Failure Mechanisms
Shear Failure
Shear strength consists of two components; the physical bonds
between adjoining grains or cohesion, and friction. Shear
failure may cause reduction in hole size due to plastic failure
near the perforation tunnel. Around any perforation tunnel
there is a stress concentration field established. The rock will
either respond elastically (strong formation) or yield (weak
formation), in which case a plastic zone is developed around a
perforation tunnel. Once shear failure occurs, large and small
size solids are generated and the formation starts deteriorating
at the failure plane. This shear failure can be predicted by
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. This criterion postulates that
failure occurs when the shear stress at a given plane within the
rock reaches a critical value given by:
τ = c + σ n tan φ (1)
Equation 1 shows two components; cohesion (c), and friction
(σn tan ø). Shear failure breaks the rock along shear planes;
however, cohesive failure will produce sand particles.
Equation (1) may be described in terms of the principal
stresses as follows:
1 + sin φ
σ1′ = σ ′ + Co (2)
1 − sin φ 3
The factors C and φ are coefficients for the linearization and
should be determined experimentally. A deviation from a
straight line is very common when attempting to interpret
failure mechanisms with this criterion, which is solely based
on shear failure. Therefore, this criterion should be applied
only to situations for which it is valid. The failure envelope is
determined from many Mohr circles. Each circle represents a
triaxial test where a sample is subjected to lateral confinement
(σ2 = σ3), and axial stress (σ1) is increased until failure. The
envelope of Mohr circles represents the basis of this failure
criterion. This criterion can be applied to determine whether
or not sand will fail during drilling. Two stresses are relevant
in a vertical wellbore; σ r and σ θ . If we use the concept of
effective stresses, these two components are given below,
σ r′ = p w − p r (3)
If we consider two cases where θ = 0 (σH, max) and θ = 90 (σH,
min), we get
σ , θ = 0 = 3σ ′H,min − σ ′H,max − p w + p r (4)
σ , θ = 90 = 3σ ′H,max − σ ′H,min − p w + p r (5)
The most critical stress of the above two locations is the one in
the direction of minimum horizontal stress. It is necessary to
provide enough confinement during drilling to prevent sand
failure. The wellbore pressure needed to provide enough
confinement before shear failure occurs, can be determined by
substituting the values of σ r' and σ θ' =90 from equations (3)
and (4) replacing σ 3 and σ 1 of eq. (2), respectively:
' '
3σ H,
′ max − σ H,
′ min − C o
Pw − Pr = (6)
1 + sin φ
1+
1 − sin φ
Example: Assume the gradients for maximum horizontal
stress, minimum horizontal stress, and reservoir pressure to be
0.8, 0.65, and 0.433 respectively, for a 10000 ft sandstone
formation. Additionally, assume ø = 30, anc Co=3000 psi.
What is the overbalanced pressure needed to prevent shear
failure during drilling?
Apply equation 6, we calculate that the overbalance needed is
1460 psi. This suggests that this sand will fail for normal
overbalance being used during drilling (usually <1000 psi). If
sand fails during drilling, a plastic zone will be created around
the wellbore, especially in the direction of minimum
horizontal stress.
The plastic zone will maintain a residual strength that needs to
be preserved during completion. And the above methods
should be considered to achieve this objective. If no sanding
control measure is undertaken, the pressure drawdown that
triggers sanding will be related to tensile and cohesive failure
rather than shear failure. However, the dilated zone will
progress into the reservoir due to progressive shear failure. It
is for that reason many of the models based on compressive
strength suffer from matching field data unless it is corrected
using a fudge factor. Therefore, it is necessary to follow the
failure modes that cause sand production. The shear failure is
most likely to happen during drilling leaving a dilated zone
with residual strength.
Tensile Failure
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. This type
of failure is described as follows:
SPE 81492
 a2 
a2
S r = S h 1 − 2  − (Pw − Pr ) 2 (7)
 r  r cohesive failures is 571 psi. This pressure drop should happen
At the perforation wall ( r = a ), and the radial stress
approaches the tensile strength, this equation reduces to:
S r = Pw − Pr (8)
The effective stress at the wellbore exceeds the tensile strength
of the formation and causes tensile failure if,
Pw = Pr + σ θ + T (9)
If breakout occurs and a plastic zone is created, the dilated
(plastic) area will reduce σ θ to zero and the nearby formation
will carry the earth stress. Therefore, if the drawdown in the
plastic zone exceeds the tensile strength of the dilated
formation, tensile failure will result and sand production is the
result from that zone:
Pw − Pr = −T (10)
The negative sign indicates tension for rock failure and
production wellbore loading. The tensile failure may occur at
the perforation tip or the perforation wall which is usually
penetrating within the plastic zone.
Cohesive Failure
This mechanism is especially important for the case of poorly
consolidated sand. The cohesive strength (c) is the controlling
factor of erosion which occurs at any free surface within the
formation which include; perforation tunnel, wellbore surface
for openhole completion, hydraulic fracture surface or surface
of induced shear planes, and other boundary surfaces.
Shear strength of a formation consists of two components:
1. Contact forces and friction between the grains.
2. Physical bonds between adjoining grains or cohesion.
Cohesion is due to two factors; (1) cementing material and (2)
capillary forces.
Sand production may also occur when the drag force due
to fluid velocity exceeds the cohesive strength of formation.
The shear stress at the perforation wall is given by:
D p dP dP
τ= = rp (9)
2 dl dl
Combining equations 1 and 9, and substituting zero for
σ n because of the non-confined condition at the perforation
wall, one obtains:
dP c
= (10)
dl rp
3
If a sand formation has cohesion of 200 psi and perforation
tunnel is 0.7 in diameter, the pressure drawdown that causes
in the perforation tunnel to trigger cohesive failure (erosion).
Obviously, this is a high pressure drop and cohesive failure
can occur only in formations with low cohesive strength. In
unconsolidated sandstone (oil sand), the cohesive strength is
close to zero; therefore cohesive failure is the main failure
mechanism for sand production in those formations.
Chemical Effect
Rock strength is derived from two components; the contact
forces between the grains (friction), and the physical bond
adjoining grains (cohesion). Depending on the cementation
materials, chemical interaction may cause weakening effect
due to deterioration of the cementation materials. The
softening factor, F, is defined as the ratio of compressive
strength of sample divided by the compressive strength of the
same sample after introducing the sample to a given fluid. The
fluid could be fresh water, brine, acid, etc. It is important to
observe the following when studying any formation for
sanding tendency:
1. If clay particles are part of the cementation
material, a given formation should be treated as
potentially water sensitive.
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
production2. Figure 1 shows a single calcite crystal cements a
large number of detrital clastic grains. It is obvious that few
carbonate grains are providing a fabric structure to the sand
grains. If these few cementing crystals are destroyed, a
massive failure will result leading to sand production. Figure
2 shows a qualitative evaluation of the effect of different
fluids on sand production. Equivalent pieces of sandstone
formations were saturated in different fluids; 15% Hcl, fresh
water, 7% Kcl, and mineral oil. The amount of loose sand
generated for the mineral-oil sample was the least. Figure 3
shows a quantitative effect of drilling fluids on the
compressive strength of poorly consolidated core samples.
Sand Control during Completion
Although many sandstone reservoirs in Saudi Arabia with
sanding tendency are still completed with screens and gravel
packs, a new screenless completion is being implemented3.
The completion strategy that is envisioned to all reservoirs
with sanding tendency in Saudi Arabia will be; applying
selective and oriented perforation followed by screenless
fracturing application. Figure 4 shows a schematic
representation of including the three technologies to establish
an execlusive method for sand control. The sand
characterization of all sanding-tendency formations does not
suggest any oil-sand type formations that require a screen in
hole. Therefore it is intended to provide sound research and
field support to implement the following:
4 SPE 81492
Oriented Perforation
Introducing a wellbore into a given formation will disturb the
in-situ stress field creating a higher stress concentration that
may cause failure (Breakout) in the direction of the minimum
horizontal stress. This zone is created due to shear failure and
the dilation accompanied the failure process. It is necessary to
evaluate whether or not the well underwent a breakout failure
mode during drilling. The following scenarios must be
evaluated for an efficient completion strategy for sand control:
1. If a breakout zone is distinguished a 180-degree
phasing oriented perforation in the direction of the
maximum horizontal stress is recommended4.
2. If a breakout is not distinguished, and the UCS is less
than 1000 psi, a 180-degree phasing may be
considered in any direction.
Selective Perforation
This technique consists of evaluating perforation of sand
intervals based on their potential for sand production. This
method is applied when hydraulic fracturing is being
considered as part of well completion. This technique is based
on the fact that not all the sand body is potentially sand
producing in these formations. Sand B in Figure 5 is a
sandstone reservoir with no sandstone production while sand
A exhibits sand production. The sonic velocity in sand A is
from 70-91 µsec/ft while it is about 60 µsec/ft for sand B.
Within sand A selective perforation can be be determined
based on sonic velocity to determine the selective interval for
fracture initiation.
Additional criterion for selecting a perforated interval is
to establish a correlation for the unconfined compressive
strength for a given formation. Figure 6 presents a correlation
between UCS and porosity and Figure 7 shows a correlation
for UCS vs Young’s modulus for a given sandstone
formation. The correlation presented in Figures 6 and 7
summarize a methodology for selective perforation as it will
be discussed further in the completion section.
FracPac Application
A high production rate from a permeable reservoir causes high
pressure drawdown across the formation proximate the
wellbore. This pressure drawdown places increased deviatoric
stress on the formation, and, if it exceeds the formation
strength for a given failure criterion, failure will occur leading
to sand production from the well. In addition to the energy
loss due to Darcian flow, the pressure drawdown must
overcome the following flow impairments.
1. Radial flow convergence, momentum effects, and
permeability damage due to near-wellbore
stress field.
2. Wellbore flow impairment, such as partial
penetration, perforation, and skin damage.
3. Damage existing away from the wellbore due to fluid
and fines invasion (i.e., damage from production).
All these factors cause additional pressure drawdown near the
wellbore that causes sand production. Creating a short
conductive fracture transforms the radial flow into linear flow
away from the wellbore and alleviates the fluid convergence
of radial flow, ultimately decreasing drawdown pressure for a
given flow rate. Two parameters control the production
increase of a hydraulically fractured well, specifically, fracture
conductivity ( K f W f ) and fracture half length ( L f ). The
design of a FracPac treatment should optimize these
parameters by maximizing the dimensionless fracture
conductivity in order to control sans production. The
dimensionless fracture conductivity, FCD , is given by:
K f Wf
FCD = (13)
Kr Lf
FCD should be at least 1, for the fracture to be efficient in
controlling sand production. The reservoir permeability is the
portion of rock that the fracture is in contact with; i.e. the
damaged zone. For example, if we have a reservoir with 300
md, and we created a 200 ft fracture of 5000 md-ft, the FCD
will be 0.08 which is far below 1 and the fracturing treatment
is inefficient in controlling sand. A different FracPack design
in which a 100 ft fracture with 10000 md-ft is placed in a near
wellbore permeability of 100 md, will yield an FCD of 1.
When designing a FracPac for sand control, the following
should be considered:
1. A fracture length should be considered for sand
control and not for stimulation. The maximum
fracture conductivity must be designed such that a
fracture length is determined to obtain FCD ≥ 1 .
2. In calculating fracture width it is important to
consider the non-linear characteristics of poorly
consolidated formations2.
3. The proppant permeability should be maximized by
using large size and concentration.
4. Resin coated proppant is necessary to prevent
proppant flowback.
Sand Control During Production
Experience has shown that there is a critical production rate
below which sand production is manageably decreased. The
critical production rate could possibly be at a non-economic
production level. Therefore it is worthwhile to determine what
this rate will be before designing a completion strategy for a
given formation. Figure 8 presents a field correlation between
the wellhead pressure and the amount of sand produced in one
of the reservoirs in Saudi Arabia5.
Several models using empirical or analytical solutions
have been presented in the literature. Many models used the
Mohr-Coulomb criterion to predict the critical drawdown
pressure based on shear failure and using the uniaxial
compressive strength (UCS). The value of UCS was calculated
using conventional samples and hollow cylinder samples.
SPE 81492
To predict sanding tendency during production, one must
answer two relavant questions:
1. What failure mechanism is responsible for
sand production.
2. Whar pressure drawdown is relavant to this
failure mechanism.
As it has been explained above, shear failure may occur near a
wellbore during drilling where a plastic zone is established.
During production, however, we will establish a sever
pressure drawdown near the wellborewhich will exert tensile
and cohesive forces within the plastic region. Therefore if the
pressure drawdown approaches tensile and/or cohesive
strength, sand pieces and/or sand partices will be generated.
Mobilization of these solids will depend on dragging force of
the produced hydrocarbon. Let’s examine the tensile failure
occurring in the damaged zone as the pressure drops abruptly.
The perforation wall separates the two pressures; Pw and Pr .
The abrupt change across the perforation wall can occur due to
physical or mechanical damage. This abrupt change in
pressure can be evaluated as a pressure loss due to skin. Skin
represents many factors related to physical, mechanical,
turbulent flow, partial penetration, etc. The skin factor is best
determined from pressure transient tests. The pressure
drawdown for oil well, near the wellbore and due to skin is
given by:
q sc × µ × B0
∆Ps = ( )s (11)
0.00708 × K × h
If this pressure drawdown approaches the tensile strength of
the formation, sand will fail and sand production is triggered.
The critical production rate can be calculated as follows:
0.00708 × K × h × T
q critical = , for ∆Ps ≥ T (12)
µ × Bo × s
For example, if K=200 md, h=100ft, T=150psi, µ =2.2cp,
Bo=1.1, s=7, Re=1489ft, Rw=0.5ft, Pav=1850psi,
Pw=1230psi. The potential production rate is determined from
the following equation:
_
0.00708 K h ( P − Pw )
q sc = = 2546 STB/d
 re  The well was put on-line in September, 2001 with an initial
µ Bo  ln − 0.75 + s 
 rw  producing for a year, neither of the well’s choke nor its
From Equation (11) ∆Ps is calculated as 303.35 psi, which is
higher than the tensile strength. Therefore we can use equation
(12) to determine the critical production rate to be 1253.8
STB/d. Therefore, for the given drawdown, the well
potentially produces 2546 STB/d; however, it must be
restricted to 1253.8 STB/d for sand control. If this is an
economical rate, no sand control measure is necessary,
5
otherwise an effective completion strategy should be
considered to bring the well production to its potential limit.
To prevent this type of failure, a conductive fracture
should be placed in the damaged area to reduce skin and bring
local pressure drawdown below the tensile strength of the
formation. Equation (12) must be used with care as it goes
through a singularity when s = 0 . It should only be used
when ∆Ps calculated from equation (11) is greater than or
equal to the tensile strength of the formation. A typical
FracPac treatment will yield a negative skin factor, which will
remove the restriction of creating tensile failure near the
wellbore for most formations.
Case Histories
Well A: A screenless completion was applied to control sand
production in this well, as it exhibited high sanding tendencies
during an open-hole DST. Wellbore breakouts indicated a
minimum stress orientation of N10°W. Oriented perforation
was used to place the perforations along the anticipated
fracture plane (N80°E) in a relatively competent interval
(14070’-14100’), using 2-7/8” guns @ 6 SPF.
The data frac treatment showed an efficiency of 31-39%, with
a bottom-hole closure pressure of 11600 psi, giving a 0.83
psi/ft fracture gradient. Time-laps temperature logs showed
fracture height extension above and below the perforation
interval. The treatment utilized fibers for Proppant flow-back
control, where the job was designed for 118000 lbs of
20/40ISP tailed-in by 283000 lb’s of 20/40 ISP/Fiber. Net
pressure calculations during the job were taken from surface
readout only. Based solely on the closure pressure of 11600
psi the treatment generated 2800 psi of net pressure with an
ISIP of 14385 psi. Tip screenout occurred at the 8 ppa stage,
and upon shut-down the well was force-closed by flowing
back till closure + 30 Bbls (Figure 9)
The well-bore was cleaned out with coiled tubing, and then the
well was flowed back through a Sand Management System
(SMS). The SMS uses a hydrocyclone to knock out produced
solids without flow interruption. The well produced a total of
4400 lbs of solids before cleaning up to 35 MMSCFD solids-
free rate (<0.03 lbs solids/MMSCFD.)
rate of 35 MMSCFD solid-free @ 4800 psi WHP. After
downstream sand probe showed any signs of sand production.
The flow rate has steadily declined to 22 MMSCFD @ 3300
psi due to reservoir depletion, confirmed by a recent PBU
showing 2000 psi of reservoir pressure decline. The well’s
performance shows the screenless pack holding after the onset
of multi-phase flow in the reservoir, and the increase in stress
caused by the pressure depletion.
6 SPE 81492

Well B 5. Screenless Fracturing completion with oriented and

This well showed very good reservoir development with two selective perforation can eliminate all failure modes in a
distinct porosity lobes separated by a 20’ barrier @ 13840’. given formations. A FracPack design must yield a
The decision was taken to stimulate the well in two stages due dimensionless fracture conductivity of at least 1 to be
to that barrier. efficient in controlling sand production.
Oriented perforating was used to perforate the bottom zone
along the same plane as Well A in a relatively competent zone Nomenclature
(13882’-13910’) using 3-3/8” guns @6 SPF guns.
Bo = Oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB
Gauges were run during the data frac/calibration treatment c = Cohesive strength (cohesion), psi
showing near-wellbore pressure losses in the order of 250 psi,
Cb = Bulk compressibility, psi-1
a closure pressure of 11780 psi with an efficiency of 39%, and
a fracture gradient of 0.84 psi/ft. To provide greater Proppant Co = Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), psi
flow-back control RCP with fiber was used. The main job FCD = Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity
was designed to place 118000 Ibs of 20/40 ISP, 84000 Ibs of G = Shear modulus, psi
20/40 ISP/Fiber, & 198000 Ibs 16/20 RCP/Fiber using 12000
gals of pad. A tip screenout occurred earlier than expected, at H = Pay-zone thickness, ft
the 8 ppa stage, with 115000 Ibs of 20/40 ISP in the Kr = Reservoir permeability, md
formation. At this point the treatment was accelerated to 10- Kf = Fracture permeability, md
12 PPA stage to get the 16/20 RCP/fiber (10% fiber by Lf = Fracture length, ft
volume) into the formation. 117000 Ibs of the RCP/ fiber
stage were placed into the formation before the maximum Pr = Reservoir pressure, psi
BHTP was reached (Figure 10). The final net pressure at the Pw = Wellbore pressure, psi
end of the job reached 4100 psi. qsc = Rate, STB/day
rp = Radius of perforation tunnel, ft
The wellbore was cleanedout with coiled tubing, after which
the well was flowed back through the SMS to a solid-free rate rw = Wellbore radius, ft
of 45 MMSCFD. The well produced only 2 kg’s of Proppant s = Skin
during the cleanup, higher flowrates were not attainable due to T = Tensile strength, psi
surface temperature limitations on the SMS. Wf = Fracture width, in
The well was put on-line in September, 2001 with the initial α = Poroelastic constant
rate of 45 MMSCFD @ 4800 psi. The well continues to ∆p = Drawdown pressure, psi
produce 40 MMSCFD solids-free @ 3100 psi. 1500 psi of ∆pcc = Critical Drawdown pressure, psi
reservoir depletion has been observed in a recent PBU, which
demonstrates the screenless packs integrity under multi-phase µ = Viscosity, cp
flow conditions and increased stress. ν = Poisson’s ratio
Conclusions σ′ = Effective stress, psi
1. Sand control should be considered from the time a given σ = Stress, psi
formation is being exposed to drilling fluids. Sand control
methods during drilling, completion, and production have σ H ,max = Maximum horizontal stress, psi
been presented. σn = Stress normal to a failure plane, psi
2. The chemical and mechanical effect must be considered
to design for fluids selection and completion methods σr = Radial stress, psi
tailored toward sand control. σθ = Effective tangential stress, with θ being the
3. The pressure drawdown relavent to sanding tendency is angle measured counterclockwise relative to
skin dominated and can be calculated from well testing. the maximum horizontal stress, psi
This will eliminate the need to assume that all the θ = Porosity, % or fraction
pressure drawdown from the drainage radius to the area
near the wellbore to be zero, hence conservative critical φ = Internal friction angle, degrees
production rate is determined. τ = Shear strength, psi
4. Models that calculate critical pressure drawdown based
on shear failure will not provide reasonable simulation of
in-situ conditions. The pressure drawdown is the
dragging force that causes sand production. This dragging Acknowledgements
force is best related to the tensile and cohesive failures. A The authors wish to acknowledge the Saudi Arabian Oil
critical production rate calculation is presented based on Company for granting permission to publish this paper.
skin damage and tensile strength/cohesive strength.
SPE 81492 7

References
1. Al-Qahtani, M. and Rahim, Z.:“A Mathematical Algorithm
for Modeling Geomechanical Rock Properties of the Khuff
and Pre-Khuff Reservoirs in Ghawar Field,” Paper SPE
68194 presented at the 2001 SPE Middle East
2. Abass, H.H., Wilson, J.M., Venditto, J.J., and Voss, R.E.:
“Stimulating Weak Formations Using New Hydraulic
Fracturing and Sand Control Approaches,” paper SPE
25494 presented at the Production Operations Symposium
held in Oklahoma City, OK, USA, March 21-23, 1993
3. Tixier, M.P., Loveless, G.W., and Anderson,
R.A.:”Estimation of Formation Strength From the
Mechanical Properties Log,” JPT (March 1975) 283-293.
4. Solares, J.R., Bartko, K.M., and Habbtar, A.H.:“Pushing
the Envelope: Successful Hydraulic Fracturing for Sand
Control Strategy in High Gas Rate Screenless Completion
in the Jauf Reservoir, Saudi Arabia,” Paper SPE 73724
presented at the SPE International Symposium on
Formation Damage Control held in Lafayatte, Louisiana, Figure 2: Effect of different fluids on sanding tendency.
Feb 20-21, 2002.
5. Bazanti, M.S. and Desai, S.: “Sand Production Model for Effect of Drilling Fluids on Compressive strength at 5
Safania Field,” paper SPE 19035, Unsolicited. Mpa Cnfining
6. Abass, H.H., Meadows, D.L., Bruumley, J.L., Hedayati, S.,
and Venditto, J.J.:”Oriented Perforation – A Rock 50
Mechanics View,” SPE paper 28555 presented at the 1994
S tren gth at 0.006

Annual Technical Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, 40

strain , M P a

September 25-28.Oil Show, Bahrain, 17-20 March. 30 1st loading

* 20 2nd loading
SI Metric Conversion Factors
in2 × 645.16 = mm2 10
°F (F – 32)1.8 = °C 0
ft × 3.048* E-01 = m Dry WB OB
psi × 6.894757 E+00 = kPa
in × 2.54* E+00 = cm
lbm × 4.535924 E-02 = kg Figure 3: Effect of drilling fluids on compressive strength.

*Conversion Factor is Exact

Breakout
Breakout Zone
Zone
FracPack
FracPack

Elastic
Elastic
Plastic Zone
Zone Zone

Perforation is not
in phase with
fracture plain

EC06W11

Figure 4: Selective-oriented Perf. and FracPack application.

Figure 1: A single calcite crystal cements a large number of
detrital clastic grains. Such fabrics are most common in clastic
sediments where a few carbonate grains may act as nuclei for
very large cement crystals.
8 SPE 81492

104 SAFANIYA FIELD SAND PRODUCTION

Sonic Log Velocity, (Ms / ft)

94 140

SAND PROD.(Ib/1000bbls)
Sand A
120
84 100

Sand B 80
74 60
40
64 20
0
54 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
FLOW RATE(bbI/day)
44
15000 15200 15400 15600 15800 16000
Figure 9: Field correlation between production rate and
Depth, (ft) amount of sand produced.
Figure 5: Sonic Log for selective perforation.
Net Press. (JobData) - psi Saudi Aramco

FracCADE* Net Press. (PropFRAC) - psi

Slurry Rate - bbl/min
Hawiyah 200
Frac_Revised_Schedule
15/12/00
Net Pressure Match
16000 Prop Conc - PPA
5000 50 14
14000
12000 12
UCS, psi

4000 40
-0.0629x
10000 y = 12213e 10
8000

S lu r r y R a t e - b b l/ m in

P ro p C o n c - P P A
N e t P re s s . - p s i
3000 30
6000 8

4000
6
2000 20
2000
0 4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 1000 10

Porosity, % 2

Figure 6: UCS vs Porosity Correlation. 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 0

Treatment Time - min

16000
*Mark of Schlumberger

14000
12000
Figure 11: Well A fracturing treatment
UCS, psi

10000

8000 Surface Pressure [psi] Calculated BHP [psi] Annulus Pressure [psi]
Injection Rate [bbl/min] Proppant_Conc [PPA] Prop_Conc_BH [PPA]
6000 20000 50

4000 18000 45

0.2828x
2000 y = 1409.7e 16000 40

Pump Rate [bpm], Prop Conc [ppa]

0 14000 35

0 2 4 6 8 10 12000 30
Pressure [psi]

Dynamic Young's Modulus, MM psi 10000 25

Figure 7: UCS vs. Young’s Modulus Correlation. 8000 20

6000 15

4000 10

2000 5

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Treatment Time [min]

Figure 12: Well B: Fracturing treatment.

View publication stats