SPE 77686
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/02ATCE/All-02ATCE/SPE-77686-MS/2919090/spe-77686-ms.pdf by University of Baghdad, Dhifaf Sadeq on 21 November 2023
Sand Control: Sand Characterization, Failure Mechanisms, and Completion Methods
H.H. Abass, SPE, H.A. Nasr-El-Din, SPE, M.H. BaTaweel, SPE, Saudi Arabian Oil Comapny
Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, 29 September–2 October 2002.
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 production has historically been a problem associated
with some consolidated, poorly consolidated, and
unconsolidated sand 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.
Completion methods applied to minimize sand production
include: gravel packing, sand consolidation, critical
production rate, oriented/selective perforation, FracPacking, or
any combination of these methods. These techniques are used
in consolidated, poorly consolidated, and unconsolidated sand
formations. However, there are no guidelines available in the
literature on how these methods are selected.
Mechanisms for sand failure include: tensile, shear,
cohesive, and pore collapse. Additionally, failure due to
chemical effects can occur when the cementation materials are
weakened due to chemical interactions. Many mathematical
models have been presented in the literature to predict sand
failure, and consequently determine sand production. These
models are based on different failure mechanisms and include:
pressure drawdown/compressive strength, failure based on a
given failure criterion such as Mohr Coulomb, cohesive
strength failure, elastoplastic failure around a perforation,
viscoplastic modeling, and empirical correlations. However,
there are no guidelines on how these models are applied based
on the characteristics of the sand formation.
Experimental studies have been presented in the literature
to model sand failure. These studies include sand arching,
hollow cylinder strength, triaxial and hydrostatic, and large
scale testing. Laboratory testing are designed to study a given
failure mechanism, and thus to predict sand production.
The objective of this paper is to categorize sand
formations that potentially exhibit sand failure and sand
production. Based on this characterization, an appropriate
laboratory testing and mathematical modeling are
recommended, and a completion method is suggested.
Examples from standstone reservoirs in Saudi Arabia will be
used to demonstrate certain methods used for sand control.
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. Conventional treatments applied to
minimize the effect of sand production, include:
1. Critical Production Rate
2. Gravel Packing
3. Sand Consolidation
4. FracPacking
5. Oriented and/or Selective Perforation
6. Combination of the above techniques
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, FracPacking with a screen in hole is also widely
applied. This paper provides guidelines to determine the
appropriate completion methods for sand formations that are
potentially candidates for sand production. The objectives of
this paper are to:
1. Characterize sand formations that potentially
produce sand.
2 H.H. ABASS, H.A. NASR-EL-DIN AND M.H. BATAWEEL
2. Select a completion technique for sand control based
on sand characterization and sand failure mechanism.
3. Select a mathematical model and laboratory
procedure for sand prediction.
Sand Characterization
Sandstone 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
between porosity and Young’s modulus for sandstone
formations in Saudi Arabia.1
Table 1 shows five formations that have exhibited
sanding tendency.2 It is obvious that sand production occur in
formations that have low mechanical properties. However, in
sand C, the UCS is relatively high (8,000 psi), yet sand
production was an inherent problem.
To understand how these properties play a role in sand control,
five sandstone reservoirs in Saudi Arabia were studied where
two of them exhibit sand production. Figure 1 presents a
correlation between UCS and porosity for these reservoirs.
The two reservoirs with sand have UCS < 6,000 psi, and
φ >13 vol %. However, within these sand formations, there
were soft sections with much less UCS that are probably
responsible for sand production. These sections are to be
avoided by selective perforation. Figure 2 shows this concept
where sanding is related to UCS < 3,500 psi and φ > 20
vol %. It is important to characterize a given formation for
sanding tendency to design an effective completion for sand
control. For example, selective perforation is used for sand
control; however, it requires a mechanical property to use for
such application. The correlation presented in Fig. 2
summarizes a methodology for selective perforation, as will be
discussed later in the completion section.
It has been observed from retrieved cores in sand
producing reservoirs that not all the producing zones are
potentially sand producing. Figure 3 presents a pay zone
interval with one section that is weak sand, while the other
section is fairly consolidated. When selective perforation is
applied to this formation, the weak section is avoided to be
covered through hydraulic fracturing as will be discussed in
the completion section.
It is necessary to determine the following properties in
order to design a completion strategy for a given
sandstone formation:
1. Uniaxial compressive strength
2. Cohesive strength
3. Tensile strength
4. Internal friction angle
5. Porosity and permeability
SPE 75501
6. Mineralogy
7. Clay distribution
Failure Mechanisms
Shear Failure
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/02ATCE/All-02ATCE/SPE-77686-MS/2919090/spe-77686-ms.pdf by University of Baghdad, Dhifaf Sadeq on 21 November 2023
Shear strength consists of two components: cohesion (the
physical bonds between adjoining grains), and friction. Shear
failure may cause reduction in hole size due to plastic failure
near the perforation tunnel. There is a stress field established
around any perforation tunnel. The rock will either respond
elastically (strong formation) or yield (weak formation), where
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
shear stress given by:
τ = c + σ n tan φ (1)
This equation is represented in Fig. 4, which shows the two
stress components of equation 1: cohesion and friction. 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
σ 1′ = σ 3′ + Co (2)
1 − sin φ
The factors Co and φ are coefficients of the linearization and
should be determined experimentally. A deviation from a
straight line is very common when attempting to interpret
failure mechanisms using 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 the 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 in equation 3.
σ r′ = p w − p r (3)
SPE 77686 SAND CONTROL: SAND CHARACTERIZATION, FAILURE MECHANISMS, AND COMPLETION METHODS
If we consider two cases where θ = 0 (σH, max) and θ = 90 (σH,
min),
we obtain:
σ , θ = 0 = 3σ ′H,min − σ ′H,max − p w + p r
σ , θ = 90 = 3σ ′H,max − σ ′H,min − p w + p r
The most critical stress of the above two locations is the one in
the direction of the minimum horizontal stress. It is necessary
to provide enough confinement during drilling to prevent sand
production. 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:
'
′ max − σ H,
3σ H, ′ min − C o
Pw − Pr =
1 + sin φ
1+
1 − sin φ
If we assume the gradients for the maximum horizontal stress,
minimum horizontal stress, and reservoir pressure to be 0.8,
0.65, and 0.433, respectively, the overbalanced pressure
needed to prevent shear failure during drilling is given in
Table 2. This suggests that all sands 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 the minimum
horizontal stress, as shown in Fig. 5. The wellbore will then
require one of the following remedies:
1. Sand consolidation
2. FracPacking to provided compaction
3. Oriented perforation in the direction of maximum
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 a residual strength.
Tensile Failure
Tensile failure mechanism occurs around a perforation tunnel
where the radial stress is controlled by the wellbore pressure
3
and reservoir pressure. The abrupt change in pressure can
exceed the tensile strength of formation, causing sand
production and perforation-tunnel enlargement. This type of
(4) failure is described as follows:
(5)  a2  a2
S r = S h 1 − 2  − (Pw − Pr ) 2 (7)
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/02ATCE/All-02ATCE/SPE-77686-MS/2919090/spe-77686-ms.pdf by University of Baghdad, Dhifaf Sadeq on 21 November 2023
 r  r
At the perforation wall ( r = a ), and the radial stress
approaches the tensile strength, equation 7 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)
(6)
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 in poorly consolidated
sands. The cohesive strength (c) is the controlling factor of
erosion, which occurs at any free surface within the formation.
This includes; 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. These effects are presented in the Mohr-
Coulomb failure criterion shown in Fig. 4. Sand production
may also occur when the drag force due to fluid velocity
exceeds the cohesive strength of the formation. The shear
stress at the perforation wall is given by:
D p dP dP
τ= = rp (9)
2 dl dl
4 H.H. ABASS, H.A. NASR-EL-DIN AND M.H. BATAWEEL
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
If a sand formation has cohesion of 200 psi and the perforation
tunnel is 0.7 in diameter, the pressure drawdown that causes
cohesive failures is 571 psi. This pressure drop should happen
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 (oilsand), the cohesive strength is
close to zero; therefore cohesive failure is the main failure
mechanism for sand production in these formations.
Chemical Effects
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 fluid
can be fresh water, brine, or acid. It is important to observe
the following when studying any formation for
sanding tendency:
1. If clay particles are part of the cementation material,
the 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 production.3 Figure 6 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 removed by acid,
a massive failure will result, leading to
sand production.
Critical Production Rate
Experience has shown that there is a critical production rate
below which sand production is manageably decreased. The
critical production rate can possibly be at a non-economic
production level. Therefore, it is worthwhile to determine this
rate before designing a completion strategy for a given
formation. Figure 7 presents a field correlation between the
wellhead pressure and the amount of sand produced in one of
the sandstone reservoirs in Saudi Arabia4
Several models using empirical or analytical solutions have
been presented in the literature. Early sand prediction
techniques were based on dynamic mechanical properties.5
SPE 75501
For example, the sanding tendency exists for a given
formation if:
G
= 0.8 × 1012 , in psi 2 (11)
Cb
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/02ATCE/All-02ATCE/SPE-77686-MS/2919090/spe-77686-ms.pdf by University of Baghdad, Dhifaf Sadeq on 21 November 2023
Other methods used the uniaxial compressive strength to
determine the critical drawdown pressure such as:
∆Pdd = 0.5 × C o (12)
The factor 0.5 is field calibrated and can be determined for a
given formation.
Many models use 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 is
calculated using conventional samples and hollow cylinder
samples. If we follow the failure mechanism presented in this
work, we would calculate the pressure drawdown based on
tensile or cohesive failure whichever is smaller.
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. The pressure drawdown that will cause
tensile failure for the selected reservoirs is equal to the tensile
strength given in Table 1. This abrupt change in pressure can
be treated as 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:
qsc × µ × B0
∆Ps = ( )s (11)
0.00708 × K × h
If ∆Ps 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=1489 ft, Rw=0.5 ft, Pav=1850 psi,
Pw=1230psi. The potential production rate is determined from
the following equation:
SPE 77686 SAND CONTROL: SAND CHARACTERIZATION, FAILURE MECHANISMS, AND COMPLETION METHODS
_ 2.
0.00708 K h ( P − Pw )
q sc = = 2546 STB/d
 re 
µ Bo  ln − 0.75 + s 
 rw  Selective Perforation
From Equation 11, ∆Ps is calculated as 303.35 psi, which is
higher than the tensile strength. Therefore, equation 12 can be
used to determine the critical production rate to be 1253.8
STB/d. Therefore, for a 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, 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.
Completion Strategy
Although many sandstone reservoirs in Saudi Arabia with
sanding tendency are still completed with screens and gravel
packs, a new screenless completion is being implemented.6
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
FracPac application. Figure 8 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:
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 rcommended.7
5
If a breakout is not distinguished, and the UCS is less
than 1,000 psi, a 180-degree phasing may be
considered in any direction.
This technique consists of evaluating perforation of sand
intervals based on their potential for sand production. This
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/02ATCE/All-02ATCE/SPE-77686-MS/2919090/spe-77686-ms.pdf by University of Baghdad, Dhifaf Sadeq on 21 November 2023
method is applied when hydraulic fracturing is considered as
part of well completion. This technique is based on the
following considerations:
1. It is based on the fact that not all the sand body is
potentially sand producing. Fig. 3 shows five trays of
cores from sand producing reservoir.
2. Selecting a perforated interval from openhole logs is
based on having correlations of UCS from laboratory
vs. logging derived UCS. Also a correlation between
UCS vs. porosity can be used as an additional support
for selective perforation, as shown in Fig. 2.
3. The fracture should be initiated from consolidated
intervals and all intervals will be covered by the
created fracture.
FracPac Application
A high production rate from a permeable reservoir causes high
pressure drawdown across the formation near 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
Darion 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, skin damage, etc.
3. Damage existing away from the wellbore due to fluid
and fines invasion (i.e., damage from production).
We showed that all of these factors cause additional
pressure drawdown near the wellbore that causes sand failure.
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, the 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 sand production. The
dimensionless fracture conductivity, FCD , is given by:
6 H.H. ABASS, H.A. NASR-EL-DIN AND M.H. BATAWEEL SPE 75501

K f Wf Nomenclature
FCD = (13) Bo = Oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB
Kr Lf
c = Cohesive strength (cohesion), psi
The volue of FCD should be at least unity, for the fracture to Cb = Bulk compressibility, psi-1
be efficient in controlling sand production. The reservoir Co = Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), psi
permeability is the portion of rock that the fracture is in FCD

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/02ATCE/All-02ATCE/SPE-77686-MS/2919090/spe-77686-ms.pdf by University of Baghdad, Dhifaf Sadeq on 21 November 2023

= Dimensionless fracture conductivity
contact with; i.e. the damaged zone. For example, if we have a
G = Shear modulus, psi
reservoir with 300 md, and we created a 200 ft fracture of
H = Pay-zone thickness, ft
5000 md-ft, the FCD will be 0.08 which is far below unity
Kr = Reservoir permeability, md
and the fracturing treatment is inefficient in controlling sand.
A different FracPack design in which a 100 ft fracture with Kf = Fracture permeability, md
10000 md-ft is placed in a near wellbore permeability of 100 Lf = Fracture length, ft
md, will yield a FCD of 1. When designing a FracPac for sand Pr = Reservoir pressure, psi
control, the following should be considered: Pw = Wellbore pressure, psi
1. A fracture length should be considered for sand qsc = Rate, STB/day
control and not for stimulation. The maximum rp = Radius of perforation tunnel, ft
fracture conductivity must be designed for, the rw = Wellbore radius, ft
fracture length is determined to obtain FCD ≥ 1 . s = Skin
2. In calculating the fracture width, it is important to T = Tensile strength, psi
consider the non-linear characteristics of poorly
Wf = Fracture width, in
consolidated formation.2
3. The proppant permeability should be maximized by
using large size and concentration. Greek Symbols
4. Resin coated proppant is necessary to prevent
proppant flowback. α = Poroelastic constant
∆p = Drawdown pressure, psi
Conclusions
1. Sand failure due to chemical effects must be evaluated by ∆pcc = Critical Drawdown pressure, psi
closely examining the cementation materials. Selecting µ = Viscosity, cp
compatible completion fluids that do not deteriorate the
cementation materials is a critical factor for sand control. ν = Poisson’s ratio
2. Sand failure due to mechanical failure starts with shear σ′ = Effective stress, psi
failure (during drilling), and tensile and cohesive failure σ = Stress, psi
during production. Progressive failure during production
results from increasing the effective vertical stress due to σ H ,max = Maximum horizontal stress, psi
decrease in the pore pressure and water encroachment,
σn = Stress normal to a failure plane, psi
which reduces the capillary pressure. This will trigger
shear failure and sand production by tensile and σr = Radial stress, psi
cohesive failures. σθ = Effective tangential stress, with θ being the
3. Models that calculate critical pressure drawdown based angle measured counterclockwise relative to
on shear failure will not provide reasonable simulation of the maximum horizontal stress, psi
in-situ conditions. The pressure drawdown is the drag
force that causes sand production. This force is best θ = Porosity, % or fraction
related to the tensile and cohesive failures. A critical φ = Internal friction angle, degrees
production rate calculation is presented based on skin τ = Shear strength, psi
damage and tensile strength.
4. Screenless FracPac completion with oriented and
selective perforation can eliminate all failure modes in Acknowledgement
reservoirs in Saudi Arabia, and therefore lead to sand-free The authors wish to acknowledge the Saudi Arabian Oil
production. If the formation is unconsolidated, oriented Company (Saudi Aramco) for granting permission to publish
perforation can be performed at any direction. this paper.
5. A FracPack design must yield a dimensionless fracture
conductivity of at least unity, to be efficient in controlling
sand production.
SPE 77686 SAND CONTROL: SAND CHARACTERIZATION, FAILURE MECHANISMS, AND COMPLETION METHODS 7

References
1. Al-Qahtani, M. and Rahim, Z.:“A Mathematical Formation Depth,
Algorithm for Modeling Geomechanical Rock Properties
σ H max , σ H min , Pr , Pw -
ft psi Pr ,
of the Khuff and Pre-Khuff Reservoirs in Ghawar Field,” psi psi psi
Paper SPE 68194 presented at the 2001 SPE Middle East
Oil Show, Bahrain, 17-20 March.
Sand A 4675 3740 3039 2024 1457
2. FRACPAC Completion Services, Halliburton Energy

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/02ATCE/All-02ATCE/SPE-77686-MS/2919090/spe-77686-ms.pdf by University of Baghdad, Dhifaf Sadeq on 21 November 2023

Services, Houston, F3351.
Sand B 6412 5130 4168 2776 1966
3. Abass, H.H., Wilson, J.M., Venditto, J.J., and Voss, R.E.:
“Stimulating Weak Formations Using New Hydraulic Sand C 17000 13600 11050 7361 1498
Fracturing and Sand Control Approaches,” paper SPE
25494 presented at the 1993 Production Operations Sand D 5580 4464 3627 2416 1060
Symposium held in Oklahoma City, OK, March 21-23.
4. Bazanti, M.S. and Desai, S.: “Sand Production Model for Table 2: Overbalance pressure to prevent shear failure during drilling.
Safania Field,” paper SPE 19035, Unsolicited.
5. Tixier, M.P., Loveless, G.W., and Anderson,
R.A.:”Estimation of Formation Strength From the Figure 1: Sanding tendency is characterized from UCS- φ
Mechanical Properties Log,” JPT (March 1975) 283-293. correlation on five reservoirs in Saudi Arabia
6. Solares, J.R., Bartko, K.M., and Habbtar, A.H.:“Pushing
the Envelope: Successful Hydraulic Fracturing for Sand 30,000.00
Control Strategy in High Gas Rate Screenless Completion
25,000.00
in the Jauf Reservoir, Saudi Arabia,” Paper SPE 73724
presented at the SPE International Symposium on 2002 20,000.00 No Sand Production
Formation Damage Control held in Lafayatte, LA, Feb UCS, psi
15,000.00
20-21.
7. Abass, H.H., Meadows, D.L., Bruumley, J.L., Hedayati, S., 10,000.00
and Venditto, J.J.:”Oriented Perforation – A Rock
Mechanics View,” SPE paper 28555 presented at the 1994 5,000.00
Sand production
Annual Technical Meeting, New Orleans, LA, September 0.00
25-28. 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
*
SI Metric Conversion Factors Porosity, fraction
in2 × 645.16 = mm2
°F (F – 32)1.8 = °C
ft × 3.048* E-01 = m
psi × 6.894757 E+00 = kPa
in × 2.54* E+00 = cm
lbm × 4.535924 E-02 = kg
1200
0
*Conversion Factor is Exact
1000
0
Table 1: Mechanical properties of five formations that exhibit
sanding tendency. 800
Formation Depth, E, ν Co, T, c θ, UCS, 0

ft 106p psi psi psi

si deg 600
0

400
0
Sand A 4675 0.27 0.5 1780 130 210 33 N
200
0 Perforation
o
Sand B 6412 0.07 0.5 215 190 165 40 s
0
0 5 1 1 2 2 3 3
Outcrop 0 0.38 0.5 1030 200 230 30 0 5 0 5 0 5
Porosity,
Sand C 17000 4.35 0.3 8000 950 980 35 y %

Sand D 5580 0.8 0.2 1050 500 400 27

Figure 2: Selective Perforation based on UCS- θ correlation
established for one reservoir in Saudi Arabia.
8 H.H. ABASS, H.A. NASR-EL-DIN AND M.H. BATAWEEL SPE 75501

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/02ATCE/All-02ATCE/SPE-77686-MS/2919090/spe-77686-ms.pdf by University of Baghdad, Dhifaf Sadeq on 21 November 2023

Figure 3: A pay zone where weak sandstone section that is potentially Figure 6: A single calcite crystal cements a large number of
sand producing (one of sand producing reservoirs in Saudi Arabia). 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.

SAFANIYA FIELD SAND PRODUCTION

S h e a r S tre ss,
τ

φ 140

SAND PROD.(Ib/1000bbls)
φ

120
F rictio n
100

c
80

C o h e sio n 60
σr σt 40
N o rm a l S tre ss,σ n 20
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
FLOW RATE(bbI/day)
Figure 4: Mohr-Coulomb Failure Envelop with the two effects;
Friction and Cohesion. Figure 7: Field correlation between production rate and
amount of sand produced.

σ H , m ax
Breakout
Breakout Zone
Zone
B reako u t Z o n e
FracPack
FracPack
(C o m p ressive F ailu re )
Elastic
Elastic
Plastic Zone
Zone Zone
σ H , m in σθ σ H , m in

T en sile F ailu re
Perforation is not
in phase with
σ H , m ax fracture plain

P erfo ratio n O rien tatio n EC06W11

(D irectio n o f In d u ced F ractu re ) E C 0 6W 1 5

Figure 5: Oriented Perforation for sand Control where a Figure 8: Selective-Oriented Perforation and
Breakout region is left undisturbed. Shear failure occur in the FracPack Application.
direction of σ H , max