A History of Sand Control in the Teak Field
D. J. Likwartz, SPE-AIME, Amoco International Oil Co.
Introduction
Amoco Trinidad Oil Co. discovered the Teak field, lo-
cated 25 miles off the east coast of Trinidad (see Fig.
1); in Sept. 1968, and production began from four wells
on the Teak A platform ip Jan. 1972. As of March 1 ,
197 5, 34 wells had beeri drilled from three platforms to
develop the field. Some type of sand control had been
installed in 28 of these wells. Amoco Trinidad has two
other oil fields on production - Samaan and Poui
- but neither has experienced any significant sand
problems.
The Teak field is a highly faulted anticlinal structure
containing 40 productive fault blocks. The sands and
shales in this north-south trending anticline were de-
posited by the Orinoco River in Venezuela .. The Teak
field contains 14 oil-productive horizons of Pliocene
and Miocene age found at depths ranging from 4,200 to
12,200 ft. The shallowest eight horizons are unconsoli-
dated sands requiring sand control. Starting with the
shallowest horizon, these sands are named T, T -1 , U,
MM-0/1, MM-0/2, MM-1/2, MM-2, and MM-4; the
first three of these have the most severe sarid problems.
The sands are among the finest grained discovered
anywhere and are often appropriately compared with
talCum powder. As seen in Fig. 2, 10 to 29 percent of
the fiiles will pass through a 0.0017-in. screen opening,
which is the smallest screeri size used in a standard
sieve analysis. Composite sand samples obtained from
rubber sleeve cores were used in these sieve analyses.
Since rubber sleeve cores can be recovered in a rela-
tively undisturbed state, these samples are considered to
be the best for distribution analysis.
In the Teak field, extensive testing over a 3 Vz-year period has resulted in techniques that keep
sand production to a trace while allowing the wells to be produced at rates exceeding 5,000
BOPD; As of March 1975, these sand-control methods have enabled production of 44 million
bbl of oil from eight unconsolidated sand horizons.
972
The sand distributions obtained by sieve analysis
were then used to determine the proper size screens and
gravel to be used. Based on the sand distributions
shown in Fig. 2, initial recommendations calied for the
use of three sand-control systems. These were an un-
packed 0.008- to 0.015- to 0.025-in. triple-wrap screen,
a 0.016-in. single-wrap screen packed with 0.017- to
0.033-in. gravel, and a 0.020-in. single-wrap screen
packed with 0. 040-' to 0. 060-in. gravel.
Other methods tested included several additional
single-wrap screen and gravel combinations as well as
both unpacked and packed triple-wrap screens. The cur-
rent techniques involve packing 0.020-in. single-wrap
screens with 0.040- to 0.060-in. angular gravel in both
open-hole ahd cased-hole completions.
Initial Triple-Wrap Screen Compietions
Two types of sand control were initially used in
Trinidad from late 1971 until mid-1972. One type was
an unpacked 0.008- to 0.015- to 0.025-in. triple-wrap
screen (see Fig. 3) developed by Amoco Production Re-
search Co .1 and the other was a single-wrap screen with
a gravel pack. The theory behind the triple-wrap screen
was that the formation would "self-pack" around the
screens as" the well was produced. The multiple wraps
of different gauge openings were expected to bridge the
largest sand grains at the outer screen, intermediate size
grains at the middle screen, and the smallest grains at
the innermost screen. Thus, the 3 or 4 days of expen-
sive rig time required for a conventional gravel pack
would be eliminated.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
 Triple-wrap screens were run in 8 of the first 13 wells
completed in the Teak field (Table 1). Since the wells
had been completed with 9%-in. production casing, the
triple-wrap screens were wrapped on 4V2-in. tubing.
This provided a 2-in. annular space to be packed with
formation sand.
At first, a number of the triple-wrap screens appeared
to be working satisfactorily as 4,000 to 6,000 BOPD
were being produced with only a trace of sand from
Teak A Nos. 3, 10, 11, and 12 in the MM-0/1 horizon
and Nos. 8 and 9 in the MM-1/2 and MM-2 horizons.
However, during the next 9 months, triple-wrap screens
were retrieved from three of the MM-0/1 wells when it
became necessary to pull the tubing strings to replace
the subsurface safety-valve equipment. A fourth well,
Teak A No. 8, was worked over during the same period
to exclude water production.
Inspection of the triple- wrap screens as they were
pulled from the wells indicated that the annular space
between the triple-wrap screens and the casing had not
been completely packed with formation sand as desired.
As seen in Table 1 , 5 to 10 holes were found in each set
of triple-wrap screens from these four wells and several
had only a 0.25-in.-thick sheath of tightly packed for-
mation sand around them.
Identical 0.008- to 0.015- to 0.025-in. triple-wrap
screens were rerun in the three MM-0/1 wells since they
had each produced in excess of 1,000,000 bbl of oil
with only trace amounts of sand being detected in sur-
Fig. 1 -Amoco Trinidad operations.
Cumulative Weight Percent
100 100
90 MM-1/2Sand 0 90
80 ~----~U~S_a_n_d~0----~~-----4
MM-01 Sand b.
70
60 ~----------------+;----..:'------4
50
40 ~--------------~~~-----4
30
20 ~--------------*-~-------4
10
~ :Z ~s; ~~ i ~~N~
a <:! <:!a aa q aaaa
Screening Opening, Inches
Fig. 2 - Sieve analysis for Trinidad sand.
SEPTEMBER, 1976
face samples. As of March 1 , 197 5, each of these three
wells had produced an additional 2.7 to 2.9 million bbl
of oil without significant sand problems.
The triple-wrap screens in Teak A No. 11 were pulled
when the well sanded up after producing 2,126,000 bbl
of oil over an 18-month period. Six holes were found
in the triple-wrap screens. Since Teak A No. 11 had a
similar production history to the other three MM-0/1
wells, a second set of triple-wrap screens were also run
into this well. However, by this time research had con-
cluded that a smaller-gauge screen should be used be-
cause of the large amount of fines in the formations. In
an effort to control these fines better, the new triple-
wrap screens had smaller openings with spacings of
0.006- to 0.012- to 0.020-in. As of March 1, 1975,
Teak A No. 11 has produced 1,111,000 bbl of oil since
the workover.
In contrast to the experience in the MM -0/1 and
deeper horizons, the performance of the 0.008- to
0.015- to 0.025-in. triple-wrap screens in Teak A Nos.
5 and 6 in the shallower T-1 and U horizons was com-
pletely unsatisfactory. In fact, the triple-wrap screen in
Teak A No. 6 failed after only 21 days of production.
This is probably because of the lower clay content of
the T-1 and U horizons compared with the MM-0/1.
The MM-0/1 horizon is also more consolidated because
it is deeper and is composed of interbedded sands and
shales, while the T -1 and U horizons are massive clean
sands.
Fig. 4 is a picture of one of these screens taken im-
mediately after it was pulled from the well. The holes in
the screen correspond to the spacing and phasing of the
perforations. The triple-wrap screens pulled from Teak
A Nos. 5 and 6 contained 48 and 13 holes, respectively.
In addition, these two wells produced substantial quan-
tities of sand that eroded numerous choke assemblies
and several flowlines and helped fill up the separators
and 16-in. pipeline to shore.
Initial Gravel-Pack Completions
The other type of sand control used initially consisted
of gravel packing the annulus between a single-wrap
screen and the production casing. As seen in Table 2,
various combinations of screen and gravel size were
tried in the five wells. None of these combinations
prove-d satisfactory. Teak A No. 2 sanded up four times
80
70
60 Gauge Spacing Lugs
50
40
Outer Wrap
30
Middle Wrap
20
Inner Wrap
10
Fig. 3- Sketch of triple-wrap screen.
973
 TABLE 1 -INITIAL TRIPLE-WRAP SCREEN COMPLETIONS
Producing Cumulative Screen
Life Production Average Perforations Gauge
Well
----
Horizon (months) (thousand bbl) (BOPD) (ft) ~ Comments
Teak A-3 MM-0/1 9 1,166 4,320 60 0.008 Ten holes in screens.
Teak A-3 MM-0/1 28V2· 2,928 3,385 60 0.008 Still producing.
Teak A-5 T-1 17 671 (oil) 1,340 98 0.008 One sand cleanout and a
184i(water) workover. 48 holes in screens.
Teak A-6 u 4V2 32 400 69 0.008 Shut in 4 months - sanded
up twice; 13 holes in screens.
Teak A-8 MM-1/2 6 480 (oil) 2,630 78 0.008 Two sand cleanouts and a
40 (water)l workover. Five holes in
screens.
Teak A-9 MM-1/2 and 2 36 3,390 3,120 68 0.008 Still producing.
Teak A-10 MM-0/1 8V2· 1,025 4,020 85 0.008 Nine holes in screens.
Teak A-10 MM-0/1 28 2,715 3,185 85 0.008 Still producing.
Teak A-11 MM-0/1 18 2,126 3,940 66 0.008 One sand cleanout. Six holes
in screens.
Teak A-11 MM-0/1 17 1'111 2,150 66 0.006 Still producing.
Teak A-12 MM-0/1 8V2· 1,018 3,990 75 0.008 Five holes in screens.
Teak A-12 MM-0/1 26 2,760 3,500 75 0.008 Still producing.

and Teak A No. 6 sanded up once, while Teak A No. 4 telltale joint, a retrievable gravel-pack packer, and a
and Teak B No. 5 had low flow rates and low flowing crossover assembly. The gravel-pack assemblies were
tubing pressures. Teak A Nos. 2 and 6 also periodically run on well cleaned tubing or drillpipe using a min-
produced substantial amounts of sand that created imum amount of pipe dope to prevent plugging of
numerous problems with surface facilities. the screens .
During this initial period we also observed, as others 2 The crossover technique was used with a 2¥s-in.
had previously, that water production tended to aggra- wash string run inside the single-wrap screen to within a
vate or create sand problems in the wells. A good few feet of the bull plug. Upon screenout, the running
example of this was Teak A No. 7, which had been string was pulled up far enough to allow excess gravel
completed without sand control and produced little sand to be reversed out of the hole. After waiting 1 hour, the
until water production began, whereupon the well im- running string was restung into the packer and the
mediately sanded up and died. A workover to shut off gravel pack was pressure tested again. If the test was
water and gravel pack the well was only partially suc- satisfactory, the running string was retrieved and the
cessful, so Teak A No. 7 was subsequently recompleted 41h-in. completion string was run. On the other hand,
to the MM-1/2 horizon. if fluid could be pumped into the well at pressures
Another example of the phenomenon was observed in significantly lower than the screenout pressure, addi-
Teak A No. 1, which had been completed in the MM-2
horizon, also without sand control. This well produced
624,000 bbl of oil over a period of 11 months with no
problems. However, once water cut increased to 30
percent, Teak A No. 1 started to produce sand. A suc-
cessful water shut-off was performed in Sept. 1973,
after the well had produced 936,000 bbl of oil.
Since the horizons are fresh-water sensitive, filtered
sea water containing 10-percent calcium chloride was
used to carry the gravel in all the wells except Teak B
No. 5, where SF-100 was used. SF-100 is a blown as- ·
phalt oil-base fluid containing emulsifiers, viscosifiers,
and filtration control materials. SF-100 was tried be-
cause it has a higher viscosity and, thus, better carrying
capacity than the filtered sea water; and because its fil-
trate loss is diesel, it does not cause clay swelling.
Five-micron elements were used in the filter units and
these elements were inspected after every gravel-pack
operation.
While gravel packing Teak A No. 2, we added lost
circulation material (asbestos) to control high fluid loss ..
It subsequently took 3 months to get the well to flow.
This experience lends support to the theory advanced by
others 3- 5 that any fluid used in gravel packing must be
completely solids-free to prevent plugging at the forma-
tion gravel-pack interface.
The gravel-pack assemblies consisted of a bull plug
on bottom, ribbed single-wrap screen wrapped on Fig. 4-:- Triple-wrap screen recovered from Teak A-6,
41h-in,. tubing, one or two blank joints of tubing, a April1972.

974 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

tiona! gravel was placed until a satisfactory pack was
obtained.
Research Project
The failure of the first two sand-control methods to
control formation sand satisfactorily while allowinR
maximum well productivity prompted a re-evaluation of
the entire problem. Because of the high cost of comple-
tion and workover operations using the platform drilling
rigs and the even more costly loss of production in the
event of a sand-control failure, we decided to try to de-
termine optimum sand-control techniques in the lab-
oratory rather than in the field. As a result, Amoco
Trinidad funded a 2lh-year research project to be con-
ducted by Amoco Production Research and assigned
engineering personnel to work on it continuously, start-
ing in June 1972.
Since this research project was reviewed in a separate
technical paper, 6 none of the details will be discussed
here. However, reference will be made to the project.
Perforation· Washing
At the same time that the research project was getting
under way, three improvements were made to the
sand-control procedures. Starting with Teak A No.
13 in Aug. 1972, all wells have had the perforations
washed 7•8 to ensure that all were open. A home-made
tool with a 5-ft spacing between two sets of Guiber-
son cups was used until a Halliburton SIP tool with
1-ft spacing could be obtained. The perforations were
washed a minimum of 5 min/ft starting with the bot-
tom perforation and progres!)ing upward. SF-100 was
used to wash perforations in the first seven wells, but
filtered sea water has been used exclusively since the
beginning of 1973. The use of SF-100 was discontinued
to eliminate any possibility of creating an emulsion
with the formation fluids, although no evidence of this
had been found.
Prepacking
In conjunction with perforation washing, prepacking
with gravel behind the casing was instituted to prevent
formation sand from intruding into the annular gravel
pack. Hill 9 and others 10• 11 had found that this intermix-
ing of sand of different sizes reduces permeability sub-
stantially and can cause plugging of the perforations.
The total well production must then flow through suc-
cessively fewer perforations at ever-increasing ve-
locities, eventually cutting out the screens. Amoco
Trinidad's experience indicated large pressure draw-
downs with the initial gravel packs supporting these
conclusions. ·
The initial prepack was placed in concentrations of Vz.
to ¥1. lb of gravel per gallon using SF-100 as the carry-
ing fluid. However, to minimize permeability reduction
caused by the prepack gravel mixing with formation
sand, the slurry prepack technique or a modification of
it has been used on all wells since July 1973.
The slurry pack technique 12 involves suspending high
concentrations of gravel (up to 15 lb per gallon of fluid)
in a viscous fluid (200 to 1,000 cp) and pumping the
resulting slurry through the perforations at slow rates
(0.5 to 1.0 bbl/min). The slow injection rate yields plug
flow that reduces formation disturbance and minimizes
gravel and formation sand intermingling. A tackifying
agent such as Sanfix is used to provide enough adhe-
siveness between gravel particles to allow pumping the
mixture as a continuous slurry. Eight wells have been
slurry-prepacked using a high-viscosity (2,800 Saybolt
universal seconds), refined oil product called Texol K
as the carrying fluid.
In the modified slurry pack technique, a 250-cp vis-
cosity crude oil produced from the Guapo field in
Trinidad was used to place the gravel. The Guapo crude
was tested for compatibility with the formation crude
and for solids content before it was used in the field.
Gravel concentrations of 1 to 3 lb/ gal have been
pumped at 0.25 to 1.0 bbl/min. So far, no difference in
productivity has been detected for either prepack
technique.
In both methods the bottom 5 to 15 ft of perforations
were packed first using open-ended tubing or drillpipe;
then gravel· was dumped inside the casing to cover these
perforations. Prepacking thus progressed upward in 10-
to 40-sack stages over similar intervals in an attempt to
insure that all the perforations had been packed. All
prepacking was done below the fracture pressure of the
formations.

TABLE 2 - INITIAL SINGLE-WRAP SCREEN COMPLETIONS

Producing Cumulative Perfo- Screen
Life Production Average rations Gravel Pack Gauge
_W_e_l_l_ Horizon (months) (thousand bbl) (BOPD) __l!!L Sacks s·ize (in.) ~ Comments
Teak A-2 U 30 1,811 1,985 60 81 0.040 to 0.060 0.012 Four sand cleanouts
and a workover.
Eight holes in
screens.
Teak A-4 MM-0/2 7 122 590 54 63 0.017 to 0.033 0.016 Shut in 1 month -
low flowing tubing
pressure. No holes
in screens.
Teak A-6 U 64 2,120 70 64 0.040 to 0.060 0.020 One sand cleanout
and shut in 6V2·
months. Three holes
in screens.
Teak A-7 MM-4 127 (oil) 980 20 38 0.040 to 0.060 0.020 Recompleted to
76 (water) MM-1 /2. Eight holes
in screen.
Teak B-5 T 180 (oil) 440 25 47 0.017 to 0.033 0.012 Shut in 4 months-
18 (water) low flowing tubing
pressure.

SEPTEMBER, 1976 975

 The prepacks were designed to place a minimum of
one sack of gravel per foot of perforations; however, as
seen in Table 3, this was only achieved about one-third
of the time.
Initially, a 0.012-in. single-wrap screen with a 0.017-
to 0.033-in. prepack and gravel pack was used in the
shallow U horizon (Teak A Nos. 6 and 8) and a 0.020-
in. single-wrap screen with a 0.017- to 0.033-in. pre-
pack and 0.040- to 0.060-in. gravel pack in the MM-0/1
and the deeper horizons (Teak A Nos. 4 and 14). How-
ever, the research project confirmed that the highest
flow capacity and lowest sand production were obtained
with prepacks using the larger gravel. Therefore, the
current combination used is a 0. 020-in. single-wrap
C\IOC\100 00000 00 000
screen and 0.040- to 0.060-in. prepack and gravel ,..-C\1,..-C\JC\1
00000
C\IC\IC\IC\IC\1
00000
C\IC\1
00
C\IC\IC\1
000
pack for all horizons. Nine wells were completed in cicicicici ociooo oo coo
this manner.
0 MOMOO 00000 00 000
coco coco co coco coco co
~ MCOMCOCO
00000 00000 00 000
Screen Centralization ci ooocio ooooo 00 coo
.8 .8.8.8.8.8 .8.8.8.8.8 .8.8 .8.8.8
The third improvement involved centralizing all screens 0
-.:1'
,...._0,.....00
,..--.:j',..--.:j'-.:1'
00000
-.:1'-.:t-.:t-.:t-.:t
00
-.:t-.:1'
000
-.:t-.:1'-.:t
(single-wrap or triple-wrap), blank joints, and telltale 0
ci
00000 00000 00
co coo
000
en 00000 00000
joints on both ends to obtain a more uniform ·pack z
0
around the entire gravel-pack assembly. This was coo MMO

deemed necessary because all the wells except Teak A ~

..J
LOCO MMM

ll.
No. 1 were directional wells with an average deviation :E
0 0 0
of 23° from vertical. The centralizers provided a clear- · 0 a. a. a.
0 al al al
ance of 0. 1 in. less than the drift diameter of the 9%-in. c :::1
CJ
:::1 :::1
CJCJ
casing. In addition, the newest screens contained a third w
~
set of centralizers in the middle of each joint to provide 0 0
co MMMMM OOOOM OM 000
MMMMM COCOCOCOM COM coco co
added stiffness and, thus, standoff. ~ 0
0
00000
00000
00000 000
ocicioo co ocici
00
..J
A comparison of Tables 2 and 3 shows the marked .8 .8.8.8.8.8 .8.8.8.8.8 .8.8 .8.8.8
improvement in producing rates and the reduction in ~
a:
~
0
,...._,...._,...._,...._,...._

00000
0000,...._
-.:t-.:t-.:t-.:t,..-
00000
0,...._
-.:j',..-
00
000
-.:1'-.:t-.:t
000
sand problems resulting from the introduction of the 0 ooooo ociooo 00 coo
three improvements into the operations. In particular, "cz
<( ~~co,..._ co C:OC:OC\1010 C\10
this marked the first time that a well completed in the U u C\IC:O C\1 OLOLO C\1 MC\1
horizon had produced at rates exceeding 2,000 BOPD c &1.l -.:1' M
w
~
for any length of time without sanding up. In addition, 0 en
c:
sand cut out fewer chokes and flowlines and the ~ 0
~-oC\1
separators required cleaning out about half as often as w (5:S co,..._
0 C\I,...._OLOC\1
coco coco,..._
00
L0-.:1'
00-.:1'
a: C\1 COC\1-.:1'
ll.
before.
The recent Teak C No. 2 recompletion appears to be I ~
C")
an exception to the good performance experienced with w 0 1000010 100000 00
..J 0 CO LOCOCO-.:!' C:OC:OOLOO mc:o
o,..-
the 0.020-in. single-wrap screens and 0.040- to 0.060- m C\1 ,...._ocomo
C\1-,....-C\f,....-,....-
,..-10,..-M,...._
C\1 C\1~~ C\1~
<(
in. angular gravel. However, because of the extremely 1-
rapid sandups of 600 to 1,200 ft of 41h-in. tubing, we
believe that failure of the gravel-pack assembly itself
has occurred. This assembly will be replaced as soon as
a workover rig is available on the platform.
Additional Triple-Wrap Screen
Completions c:
Ol -en "'
"() a.>..c: ~
In addition to the original 0.008- to 0.015- to 0.025-in. :::1:!::: 'E C\1 C\1 O>LO
"'C...JO
triple-wrap screens run in 1972, four more wells on the e E
a.. -
Teak C platform were completed with unpacked 0.006-
to 0.012- to 0.020-in. triple-wrap screens in early 1973. c:l ::>~
0
N -0C\1
Teak C No. 1 sanded up after producing only 3 months ·;::
and was worked over. The triple-wrap screens were ~ ::;;:
found to be plugged with sand and had 20 holes eroded
o,..--.:t
in them. Teak C No. 3 has sanded up twice and Teak C M-.:1'
coc:oc:o,..-,..- ~LO,..-C\1,...._ ,.....,.....,.....
<i:<i:<i:<i:<i: <(a)c.)c.)c.) c.) c.) c.)
No. 2 once. Teak C Nos. 1 and 2 were subsequently .::t:..::t:..::t:..::t:..::t:. .::t:..::t:..::t:..::t:..::t:. .::t:..::t:..::t:.

recompleted early this year when both zones had been alalalalal alalalalal alalal
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~
depleted.
Next, based on the field experience discussed above
and early results obtained in the research project, we
976 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
concluded that the triple-wrap screens would have to be
packed to work satisfactorily. This type of completion
still offered a savings of about 1 to 1% -days of rig time,
since a prepack was not used. Therefore, six wells were
completed in this manner including Teak A No. 7,
which was packed twice with 0.030- to 0.050;:in. glass
beads. (See Table 4.)
Four holes were found in the first triple-wrap screen
pulled from Teak A No. 7 and, although the well
sanded up 2 months after the second glass-bead pack
was made, it had proquced 1,522,000 bbl of oil and
209,000 bbl of water as of March 1, 197 5. In fact,
every one of the wells completed in this manner sanded
up at least once and Teak A No. 1 and Teak C No. 1
were also stimulateq with acid to improve productivity.
Finally, it was proved conclusively in the laboratory
that an annulus pack by itself was not satisfactory for
use in Trinidad because of the high pressure drop
through perforation~ filled with a mixture of formation
sand and gravel. Since triple-wrap screen costs about
four times as much as sip.gle-wrap screen, now triple-
wrap screens are run only in wells where the bottom-hole
pressure is too low to allow gravel packing. Two exam-
ples of this were Teak A Nos. 4 and 8 shown in Table 4.
Large-Diameter Perforating
In a further attempt to red~ce fluid velocity into the
well bore, 13,14 large-diameter jets to perforate all wells to
be completed with sand-control equipment came into
use in mid-1973. We also felt that larger-diameter holes
would make it easier to wash the perforations and pre-
pack the wells. Before that time, the wells had been
perforated with either 4-ln.-deep penetrating jets with
120° phasing or 5-in.-deep penetrating jets with 90°
phasing. Both of these hollow carrier guns carried four
0.5-in. jet shots per foot (JSPF).
One of the new guns consisted of a 5-in.-diameter
hollow carrier with extended aluminum ports to achieve
minimum standoff. The theory of the extended port at-
tachment was that it would provide a chamber of ~ir
rather than a column of liquid through which to fire the
jet that would provide deeper penetration into the for-
mation. The jets were phased 180° and yielded 0.75-
in.-diameter hole-S. Eleven wells have been perforated
with 4 JSPF using this gun. Eight of these were in
9%-in. casing and three in 7-in. liners. A 12th well was
perforated with 8 JSPF to insure adequate penetration
through 13%-in. casing.
The other gun used was a 2 1/16-in. big-hole link jet
perforator. This capsule-type gun was phased 1800 and
also yielded 0.75-in.-diameter holes. Three wells have
been perforated with 4 JSPF and one well with 8 JSPF,
all in 9%-in. casing.
Before using these guns in Trinidad, both were
evaluated to determine hole size, depth of penetration,
and possible casing damage. Their performance has
been completely satisfactory and no evidence of casing
damage has been found.
Open-Hole Completions
The most significant improvement made was the intro-
duction of open-hole gravel packing with the comple-
tion of Teak C No. 12 in July 1974. This technique had
not been used before that time for a n].lmber of reasons.
The primary one was that the large number of faults in
the Teak field made it extremely difficult to predict for-
mation· tops accurately. Another important factor was
that almost all the sands were underlain ·by water and
there was a high risk of coning water that would be dif-
ficult to shut off. This has indeed been a problem in
several wells. A third reason was that the producing
mechanism of the reservoirs was unknown and solution
gas drive reservoirs would result in high-GOR wells
that would be difficult to work over. Finally, most wells

TABLE 4 - ADDITIONAL TRIPLE-WRAP SCREEN COMPLETIONS

Producing Cumulative Perfo- Screen
Life Production Average rations Gravel Pack Gauge
Well Horizon (months) (thousand bbl) (BOPD) _l!!L Sacks Size (in.) ~ Comments
Teak A-1 MM-2 17 394 670 10 38 0.040 to 0.060 0.006 One sand cleanout,
two acid
stimulations.
Teak A-4 MM-0/2 9 284 1,050 54 None 0.006 Now on gas lift.
Teak A-5 T-1 5 115 (oil) 720 20 48 0.017 to 0.033 0.006 Two sand cleanouts
30< (water) and· a workover. Two
holes in screen.
Teak A-7 MM-1/2 6 664 3,690 45 38 0.030 to 0.050 0.008 One sand cleanout
and a workover. Four
holes in screens.
Teak A-7 MM-1/2 20 1,522 (oil) 2,500 20 50 0.030 to 0.050 0.006 One sand cleanout.
209 (water)
Teak A-8 MM-1/2 46 (oil) 1,535 36 None 0.00€? One sand cleanout
19 (water) and recompletion.
One hole in screens.
Teak C-1 MM-1 /2 3 267 2,960 30 None 0.006 Sanded up and a
workover. Twenty
holes in screens.
T~ak C-1 MM-1/2 14 566 1,330 30 55 0.040 to 0.060 0.006 Two sand cleanouts
and recompletion.
Five holes in screens.
Teak C-2 MM-0/1 20 1,066 1,780 50 None 0.006 One sand cleanout
and recompletion.
One hole in screens.
Teak C-3 u 21 1,981 3,100 50 None 0.006 Two sand cleanouts.
Teak C-4 MM-1/2 20 1,356 2,230 54 None 0.006 Still producing.
Teak C-6 MM-0/1 171!2 1,725 1,405 55 73 0.040 to 0.060 0.006 One sand c~eanout.

SEPTEMBER, 1976 977

 TABLE 5- OPEN-HOLE COMPLETIONS
Producing Cumulative Interval
Life Production Average Open
Well Horizon (months) (thousand bbl) BOPD ____®___ ·sacks
Teak C-5 u 1 64 2,280 67
Teak C-12 T TY2 996 4,400 53
Teak C-13 u 6 762 4,175 118
have several productive horizons and many of them had
not been completed in the deepest horizon.
Teak C No. 12 was drilled about ~0 ft into the pro-
ducing horizon; then, sand was dumped into the hole
to protect the pay while 9%-in. casing was set and
cemented at the top of the producing horizon. After drill-
ing out the shoe, the drilling mud was displaced with
filtered sea water containing 10-percent calcium chlo-
ride that was used to clean out the sand and underream
the hole to a diameter of 14 in. A 0.020-in. single-
wrap screen, two blank joints of tubing, and telltale
joi11t were run with the gravel-pack packer set in the
casing above the completion interval. The well was
then packed with 0;040- to 0.060-in. angular gravel car-
ried in filtered sea water.
As seen in Table 5, two additional wells have been
completed in this manner. In the case of Teak C No. 5,
this also involved milling a window in 13 3/s-in. casing
previously set in a noncommercial well and side-
tracking the well to a productive fault block. The suc-
cess of the three open-hole completions in the shallow T
and U horizons becol?es apparent when they are com-
pared with previous sand-control techniques used in
these highly unconsolidated formations.
Earlier wells had produced from the T horizon at sus-
tained oil rates of less than 1,500 BOPD accompani~d
by high pressure drops as determined by BHP surveys.
The wells were also characterized by low flowing tub-
ing pressures and considerable sand problems.
In contrast, Teak C No. 12 has averaged 4,400
BOPD for more than 71/z ·months and is currently pro-
ducing 5,100 BOPD with a drawdown of only 48 psi.
Likewise, Teak C No. 13, which is an open-hole com-
pletion in the U horizon, has averaged 4,175 BOPD for
6 months and is currently producing 4,300 BOPD. Teak
C No. 5 is a new completion in the U horizon that is
now producing 5,000 BOPD. The drawdo.wns measured
in these open-hole completions were 10 to 15 percent of
those measured in other wells completed in these hori-
zons with other types of sand controL These wells have
produced only trace amounts of sand.
Sum~fry and Conclusions
The performance of 50 sand-control operations carried
out in 28 wells in the Teak field over a period of 31fz ·
years has been reviewed. During this time, a number of
improvements were made that resulted in a substantial
increase in oil productivity accompanied by a marked
reduction in sand problems. Based on this experience,
the following q:mclusions can be drawn:
1. Open-hole gravel packs yielded· the highest pro-
ductivity and least sand production of any method used.
2. In a cased-hole gravel pack, the well has to be
prepacked to prevent formation sand from plugging the
perforations and invading the annular gravel pack.
3. A 0.020-in. single;.wrap screen packed with 0.040-
to 0.060-in. angular gravel was found to be ·the op-
978
Screen
Gravel Pack Gauge
Size (in.) ___Q!!l_ Comments
90 0.040 to 0.060 0.020
70 0.040 to 0.060 0.020 48 psi drawdown.
160 0.040 to 0.060 0.020 165 psi drawdown.
timum combination for gravel packing all the horizons
in the Teak field.
4. Unpacked triple-wrap screens did not perform
satisfactorily in Trinidad wells.
5. Fluids used in sand-control operations must be
completely solids-free and must be compatible with
both the formation fluids and reservoir rock.
6. Perforations must be washed to insure that all of
them are open.
7. Water production created or aggravated sand prob-
lems in the wells.
Acknowledgment
The author thanks the management of Amoco Interna-
tional Oil Co. for permission to publish the results of
the various sand-control operations conducted in the
Teak field.
References
1. Spurlock, J. W. and Demski, D. B.: "A New Approach to the
Sand Control Problem - A Multilayer, Wire-Wrapped Sand
Screen," paper SPE 4014 presented at the SPE-AIME 47th An-
nual Fall Meeting, San Antonio, Oct. 8-11, 1972.
2. Rogers, E. B., Jr.: "Sand Control in Oil and Gas Wells," Oil
and Gas J. (Nov. 1971) 54-60.
3. Cirigliano, J. and Leiback, R. E.: "Gravel Packing in Ven-
ezuela," Proc., Seventh World Pet. Cong., Mexico City (1967)
Sec. III, 407-418.
4. Schwartz, D. H.: "Successful Sand Control Design for High-
Rate Oil and Water Wells," J. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1968) 1193-
1198.
5. Aubert, C. F., Jr., and Bercegeay, E. P.: "Field Tested Methods
Improve Sand Control," World Oil (Jan. 1971) 58-61.
6. Holman, G. B.: "Evaluation of Control Techniques for Uncon-
solidated Silty Sands," J. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1976) 979-984.
7. Suman, G. 0., Jr.: "Perforations- A Prime Source of Well
Performance Problems," J. Pet. Tech. (April 1972) 399-411.
8. Bruist, E. H.: "Better Performance of Gulf Coast Wells," paper
SPE 4777 presented at the SPE-AIME Symposium on Formation
Damage Control, New Orleans, Jan. 30-Feb. 1, 1974.
9. Hill, K. E.: "Factors Affecting the Use of Gravel in Oil Wells,"
Drilling and Prod. Prac., API (1941) 134-143.
10. Sohn, H. Y. and Moreland, C.: "The Effect of Particle Size Dis-
tribution on Packing Density," Cdn. J. Chern. Eng. (June 1968)
45.
11. Sparlin, D. D.: "Sand and Gravel- A Study of Their Per-
meabilities," paper SPE 4772 presented at the SPE-AIME Sym-
posium on Formation Damage Control, New Orleans, Jan. 30-
Feb. 1, 1974.
12. Sparlin, D. D. and Copeland, T.: "Pressure Packing With Con-
centrated Gravel Slurry," paper SPE 4033 presented at the
SPE-AIME 47th Annual Fall Meeting, San Antonio, Oct. 8-11,
1972.
13. Williams, B. B., Elliott, L. S., and Weaver, R. H.: "Productiv-
ity of Inside Casing Gravel-Pack Completions," J. Pet. Tech.
(April 1972) 419-425.
14. Saucier, R. J.: "Considerations in Gravel Pack Design," J. Pet.
Tech. (Feb. 1974) 205-212; Trans., AIME, 257. JPT
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office July 28,
1975. Paper accepted for publication Jan. 6, 1976. Revised manuscript received
May 24, 1976. Paper (SPE 5657) was first presented at the SPE-AIME 50th An-
nual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, held in Dallas, Sept. 28-0ct. 1,
1975. © Copyright 1976 American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petro-
leum Engineers, Inc.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY