SPE 156173

Optimization of Gravel Pack Techniques in Baram South Using a Statistical

Tool
Siti Aishah Mohd Hatta (PETRONAS), Maharon Jadid (PETRONAS), Ismail M Saaid (Universiti Teknologi
PETRONAS)
Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, USA, 8-10 October 2012.

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 have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract

Baram field is a mature oil field in Sarawak, Malaysia and it is the largest and most structurally complex field in the Baram
Delta Province. The reservoirs are thinly stacked and predominantly friable and unconsolidated requiring active sand control
by gravel packing techniques being the most reliable sand control method available. Sand production in Baram wells resulted
in several wells being shut-in, low oil production and costly surface maintenance to remove the sand. The drawbacks of gravel
packing techniques were its high wellbore skins due to gravel carrier fluids, intermixing of gravel and fine sands, and blockage
of gravel filter bed from fines migration over time resulting in lower well PIs and flow efficiencies through the gravel pack
(GP) completions.

This paper reviews the gravel packing techniques applied in 47 completions in Baram South with the aim of identifying the
most optimum method for gravel packing in future Baram South wells. A statistical tool called Taguchi Method for Design of
Experiment and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were employed to analyze impact of the well deviations, gravel packing
techniques and permeability variation on skin factor. It is a simple and reliable tool to analyze extensive amount of data and
introduces the signal-to-noise ratio as an indication of effect each variable has on the output (skin). The statistical study
concluded that the most suitable gravel packing technique for Baram South is High Rate Water Frac (HRWF). The GP
technique adopted appears to be the dominant factor contributing to the skin while the type of reservoir and the deviation of
the well have minimal effect.

INTRODUCTION

Sand control is defined as the limitation of sand production to an acceptable level (Ott and Woods, 2003; Bellarby, 2009). It
has become one of the critical parts of well completion as the impact of sand production during the well life can be detrimental
and costly to operators. For a matured field, a review of sand control method applied in the field should benefit in optimizing
new well completion design and cost. Lessons learnt from successes and failures of the methods applied would be an
important factor towards optimum selection and application of sand control methods. This paper will focus on reviewing the
sand control techniques applied in Baram South area of Baram Field and optimizing the application using Taguchi method.
SPE 156173 2

Based on this study, an optimum sand control method will be recommended for Baram South future completions.

Baram field is located 25 km northwest of Lutong, in the offshore area of Miri, Sarawak in East Malaysia. It is the largest and
most structurally complex field in the Baram Delta Province (Mohd Razib, 1995). The field is a matured oil field that has been
producing since 1967 with multiple stacked sandstone reservoirs in a shallow offshore environment. As seen from Figure 1,
the structure of Baram Field reservoir is an elongated, East-West trending anticline. It could be subdivided into major faulted
down-thrown blocks (‘A’ and ‘B’ Areas) and a simple low relief up-thrown block closed against the main Baram Growth Fault
(‘South’ Area).

 




!"#"$%'&

!"#"$%!&

!"#"$%()*+,&

Figure 1: Baram Field Reservoirs

STUDY BACKGROUND

Baram South was largely unappraised until 1990 when three appraisal wells were drilled (Mohd Razib, 1995). Baram South
has stack reservoirs from 2800 ft. to 7000 ft. TVDSS. Most of the sands are thin with limited vertical oil column (30 to 70 ft.).
Gas cap and water contact is present in several reservoirs. Thinly stacked reservoirs need careful application of sand control
method. Currently, it is developed with 16 wells with various sand control applications; Standalone Screen (SAS), High Rate
Water Frac (HRWF), High Rate Water Pack (HRWP) and Frac & Pack.

Throughout its field life, Baram South wells have been experiencing sand production, sand accumulation and erosion problems
at both surface (crude oil transfer pump (COTP), separator, flowlines, pipelines) and sub-surface. These resulted in several
wells being shut-in, low oil production and costly surface maintenance to remove the sand. Some of the factors that may cause
the failures of the sand control methods are design error (type of completion, screen size, gravel size, etc.), installation
problem, high angle well application, high production rate or reservoir pressure depletion. Table 1 listed all the sand control
methods and their number of failures in Baram South wells. The highest failure is recorded by SAS method followed by F&P.
HRWP has shown a good performance statistically. Here, the definition of failure used is the well is closed-in or bean down
due to sand production at surface or accumulation downhole.

Table 1: Summary of Sand Control Methods Applied in Baram South and Number of Failures

Method Installed No. of failure Failure %

F&P 6 3 50%
HRWP/F 37 3 8%
SPE 156173 3

TAGUCHI METHOD

Taguchi method is a statistical tool developed by Genichi Taguchi (Burgman, 1985; Iman and Connover, 1983) to improve the
quality of design and to optimize the conditions in order to achieve a robust sand control application. It is part of Design of
Experiment (DOE) method and in this methodology all factors affecting the process quality can be divided into two types:
control factors and noise factors. Control factors are the factors that can be adjusted and within the developers influence, for
example the size of sand screen, deviation angle of the well and the sand control method. Noise factors are outside the
developer’s control, for example the temperature and pressure of the reservoirs. Taguchi method is usually used in three
situations:

• Larger the better (for example: productivity index and recovery)

• Smaller the better (for example: sand count and skin factor)
• On-target with minimum variation (for example: screen size and drawdown pressure.)

In this study, the ‘smaller the better’ is chosen with the objective of minimizing the skin factor (Figure 2). Skin is the ratio of
actual production rate compared to the theoretical production from an undamaged condition. It is used to assess the near-
wellbore damage caused by fines migration, unbroken fracturing gel, proppant crushing. Zero skin indicates an undamaged
zone while negative value equates a stimulated formation. In this study, small skin factor will reflect the high productivity of
the well. An assumption that is used to allow meaningful comparison of sand control method is wells with sand control
problem may be indicated by high skin factor and low productivity index. However, as it is just an indication, the
determination of optimum method is relative and not absolute.

Figure 2: Example of Normal Distribution and Loss Function for 'Smaller the Better' Case (Sharma et al., 2007)

Fundamental Taguchi Concepts

Taguchi method uses a unique parameter called signal-to-noise (S/N) ratios and loss function. So as to apprehend the outcome
of Taguchi simulation, the parameters are described below together with other statistical data used in Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA).
SPE 156173 4

A) Loss Function and Signal/Noise (S/N) Ratio

Loss function is recommended by Taguchi to measure the deviation of the quality characteristics from the desired value. The
larger the deviation from target value, the larger the loss.

! ! ! !!!! ! !!! (1.1)

Where:
y = value of the quality characteristics
m = target value for y. In this case is 0.
c = constant that is a function of the financial importance of the quality characteristic

The value of the overall loss function is further transformed into a signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio. S/N ratio is used to determine
the effect each variable has on the output, regardless of the situation (larger the better or smaller the better), a larger S/N ratio
corresponds to a better quality characteristic. Therefore, the optimal level of the process parameters is the level with the
highest S/N ratio. In this case, we use the equation:

!! !!!
!!! ! ! !!" !"# !!! ! (1.2)
!

Where:
y = value of the quality characteristics
i = experiment number
u = trial number
Ni = Number of trials for experiment i
! ! !!
!
The parameter !!! ! is the variance indication. In ideal situation it is nearing zero.
!

B) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

A statistical analysis of variance (ANOVA) is performed to see which process parameters are statistically significant. The
assumptions used in ANOVA are:
• The sample drawn from a normally-distributed population
• The variance is homogeneous.

Refer Table 2 for the parameters definition.

SPE 156173 5

Table 2: ANOVA Summary of Equations

Equations Remarks
Degree of !!"#$% ! !!""#" ! ! !!"#$%&' (1.3) An important point to keep in mind is that
Freedom (f) !!"#$% ! ! ! ! (1.4) the Total degrees of freedom should be
!!""#" ! ! ! ! (1.5) one less than the total number of
!!"#$%& ! ! ! ! (1.6) observations making up the analysis.
Where:
N = total number of data points
M = number of factor levels
!
Sum of !! !!! !! ! ! !
(1.7) This tells how far the predicted value is
Squares (S) !!"#$% ! !!""#" ! ! !!"#$%& (1.8) from the average value.
Where:
!! = the ith data point
! = the estimate of the mean
Variance (V) !!
!
(1.9) The variance is used as a measure of how
!
far a set of numbers are spread out from
Where:
each other
S = Sum of squares
f = Degree of freedom
F – ratio (F) !!
!"#
(1.10) It tests the hypothesis of equality of means
!"#
for two or more groups.
Where:
MSR = Mean Square Regression,
MSE = Mean Square Error
P – value (%) It corresponds to the part of the area p-value is a measure of the strength of
under the curve of an F distribution evidence against the null hypothesis
with the appropriate degrees of
freedom.

ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION

Skin is defined as additional pressure drop across the sandface from the reservoir to the wellbore. It is an indication of the
wellbore damage and productivity impairment. Improper sand control application will contribute to the reduction of
productivity (positive skin) and stimulated zone may have high productivity (negative skin). In this analysis, we relate the
good sand control application with skin factor of the zone.

Formation Grain Size Analysis

Formation sand analysis for Baram is done with dry sieve and Laser Particle Sieve Analysis (LPSA) for core samples taken
from 4 wells. The reservoirs that are presented by these cores are I, K and O. These data were analyzed for the average size,
SPE 156173 6

Uniformity Coefficient (UC), Sorting Coefficient (SC) and fines content (sub mesh 325).

Figure 3: Baram I and O Sand Grain Size Distribution Chart

Figure 3 and Table 3 depict the reservoir I and O sand distribution from both sieve and LPSA. It is clear that the sand
distribution is large with average size D50 ranging from 51.1 to 236.7 !m, UC from highly uniform (1.76) to highly non-
uniform (22.78) and SC from well-sorted (9.73) to very poorly sorted (83.76). Gravel Pack (GP) is suggested in all samples
shown in Table 2. Stand-alone screen using Premium screen is suggested for the highly uniform, well-sorted and low fines
content formations in sample 3 and 4. However, the low fines content reading may be caused by dry sieve analysis limitation.
If the samples with very low fines contents (sample no. 4 and 5) are excluded, the average fines content for Baram cores is
about 22% which is considered very high. Therefore, the most suitable method for Baram formations is only GP. This is
supported by the fact that SAS has recorded 75% failure in this area.

Table 3: Formation Grain Analysis

No Layer Depth, ft D50, !m UC SC sub 325 Suggested Method

D40/D90 D10/D95 mesh
1 I 3827 90.8 7.55 27.25 18.2 GP
2 I 3833 94.8 6.10 25.42 14.3 GP
3 I 3839 228.1 1.76 9.73 5.6 SAS-Prm/GP
4 O 6520 236.7 2.06 13.34 6.0 SAS-Prm/GP
5 O 6529 171.2 22.78 83.76 23.6 GP
6 O 6538 159.8 14.88 56.13 19.3 GP
7 O 6547 88.5 10.31 30.83 19.5 GP
8 O 6554 86.8 9.52 24.11 17.5 GP
9 O 6562 69.8 9.30 28.35 26.4 GP
10 O 6571 51.1 9.18 32.34 43.4 GP
Note: SAS-Prm – Stand-alone with Premium Screen
SPE 156173 7

Hence the method appropriate for Baram South evaluation is GP and its extensions (HRWP/HRWF and Frac & Pack). For
!!
zones with mobility larger than 4000 mD.ft/cp, Frac & Pack should be applied and if the mobility is smaller than that,
!

HRWF is the best option. Frac & Pack and HRWF may not be a good option in zones near GOC or OWC. Hence HRWP is the
alternative option.

Factors

The factors and levels involved are tabulated in Table 4. The factors chosen to be analyzed are:
• The different sand control method of GP extensions namely HRWP and Frac & Pack. HRWP is further categorized
into HRWP (packing below fracture pressure of formation) and HRWF (packing at a little bit higher than fracture
pressure of formation) to fully grasp the benefit of fracturing the reservoir.
• Permeability. The different levels represent the different reservoir characteristics in Baram South. The smaller
permeability represents the deeper reservoirs while large permeability is usually found in shallow reservoirs.
• Well deviation which is categorized into low angle (less than 60º) and high angle (60 º to 90 º).

Table 4: Factors Considered in Optimization Study Using Taguchi Method

Factor Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Remarks

Method HRWP HRWF Frac & Pack Compare different method
of sand control.

Permeability (mD) < 300 300 – 700 > 700 To represent different
reservoir characteristics.

Deviation (°) < 60 60 – 90 To differentiate low angle

and high angle wells.

Experiment Configuration

The tool used in the Taguchi method is the orthogonal array (OA). OA is the matrix of numbers arranged in columns and rows.
Since there are 3 Factors with variation in levels (2 and 3 levels), L9 orthogonal array will be used. The data from Baram South
is generated into OA as Table 3 below. The results are the skin factor from zones that satisfies the factors in the first three
columns. Qualitek-4 software is utilized to generate the outcome of the analysis.

Table 5: L9 Orthogonal Array of Experiment Configuration

Exp Factor Factor Factor Method Permeability Deviation Result (Skin

1 2 3 Factor)
1 1 1 1 HRWP < 300 < 60 7 27
2 1 2 2 HRWP 300 – 700 60 – 90 11 25
3 1 3 1 HRWP > 700 < 60 17 45
4 2 1 1 HRWF < 300 < 60 -2 -2
5 2 2 1 HRWF 300 – 700 < 60 7 25
6 2 3 2 HRWF > 700 60 – 90 7 7
7 3 1 2 FP < 300 60 – 90 8 15
8 3 2 1 FP 300 – 700 < 60 20 45
9 3 3 1 FP > 700 < 60 3.5 20
SPE 156173 8

Signal/Noise (S/N) Ratio

Basically, the larger the S/N ratio, the better is the skin factor minimization. In Table 6, experiment 4 shows the highest S/N
Ratio. This is a clear ‘winner’ since the result of skin is negative. The second and third highest S/N ratio is recorded from
experiment 5 and 6. Interestingly, the top three is all with HRWF as the method.

Table 6: Summary of S/N Ratio Results

Exp Method Permeability Deviation Result (Skin Factor) S/N Ratio

1 HRWP < 300 < 60 7 27 – 25.900
2 HRWP 300 – 700 60 – 90 11 25 – 25.718
3 HRWP > 700 < 60 17 45 – 30.634
4 HRWF < 300 < 60 -2 -2 – 6.021
5 HRWF 300 – 700 < 60 7 25 – 15.683
6 HRWF > 700 60 – 90 7 7 – 16.902
7 FP < 300 60 – 90 8 15 – 21.599
8 FP 300 – 700 < 60 20 45 – 30.837
9 FP > 700 < 60 3.5 20 – 23.142

The different factors main effects are shown in Figure 5. The effect of Method in Figure 4 shows that different method will
give different impact on skin with HRWF gives the highest S/N ratio compared to HRWP and Frac & Pack. For permeability
and deviation, the difference is not significant. The substantial difference between the three methods indicates Method is the
main factor that will affect skin. Regardless the type of reservoir and the deviation of the well, the skin may be minimized
once the right method is applied.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4: Average Effect of Factors. (a) Method (b) Permeability and (c) Deviation.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

A better feel for the relative effect of the different factors on the skin factor was obtained by decomposition of variance, which
is called analysis of variance (ANOVA). The results of ANOVA for the skin factor are presented in Figure 5. Statistically, F-
test provides a decision at some confidence level as to whether these estimates are significantly different. Larger F-value or F-
SPE 156173 9

ratio indicates that the variation of the process parameter makes a big change on the performance. Referring to ANOVA
results, Method factor gave the highest F-ratio of 8.787 followed by Permeability and Deviation with 1.714 and 0.037
respectively. So, variation in Method will give the highest impact on skin factor minimization.

Figure 5: Snapshot of ANOVA Results

Percent contribution represents the relative power of a factor to reduce variation. For a factor with a high percent contribution,
a small variation will have a great influence on the performance. From Figure 5 and 6, Method has the highest percent
contribution (P (%)) and it shows that method has the highest influence in reducing variation of skin. Permeability and well
deviation has less impact on skin. Results from ANOVA closely matched the Taguchi method results.

Figure 6: Chart of Factors Influence According to ANOVA

Optimum Condition

The optimized condition for minimizing skin is HRWF for sand control method, permeability less than 300 mD and high angle
deviation as can be seen from Figure 7. Variation in sand control method gives the highest impact on skin. For this reason, in
order to obtain the highest productivity and low skin wells, HRWF is the favorable solution.
SPE 156173 10

Figure 7: Optimum Condition for Minimizing Skin

LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

The Taguchi method is basically a statistical tool and it does not take into account the technical limitation of the sand control
method application and limitation. For example, for reservoirs near OWC or GOC, HRWF may not be the preferred choice as
the fractures may propagate to the unwanted zones. Another example is if the permeability of the reservoir too small (i.e. less
than 50 mD), then, HRWP/F is unsuitable application and Frac & Pack is the optimum solution. In order to have a holistic
approach in achieving optimum method, Taguchi method has to be coupled with technical analysis.

The main disadvantage of the Taguchi method is that the results obtained are only relative. Also, since orthogonal arrays do
not test all variable combinations, this method should not be used with all relationships between all variables. Furthermore,
since the Taguchi methods deal with designing quality rather than correcting for poor quality, they are applied most effectively
at early stages of process development.

Larger data set is needed to further describe the skin of the wells with variation in factors studied. Baram South only has 47
number of completion with sand control. In order to satisfy the factors variation, some of the skin data was obtained in nearby
well in different area of Baram Field as there is no well in Baram South that encompasses the criteria given. For better analysis
and optimization, it is recommended that Taguchi method to be applied for the whole Baram Field, instead of limiting it to
Baram South area only.

CONCLUSION

HRWF is the optimum sand control method in minimizing skin for Baram South wells. Deeper reservoir with permeability
less than 300 mD and high angle well also contributed to the optimum condition for low skin sand control. If HRWF is
deemed unfeasible technically (zone with high mobility, near OWC/GOC, etc.), HRWP or Frac & Pack are the next options.
All selected method in future has to be properly designed and tested with Baram South core samples to achieve the best sand
control application.

Lastly, Taguchi method is proven to be a practical tool to optimize sand control method and can be applied in a larger scale in
Baram Field. However, it has to be coupled with technical assessment in order to produce a holistic and robust outcome.
SPE 156173 11

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors thank PETRONAS, PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd. (PCSB) and Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS (UTP) for
permission to publish this paper and cooperation in making the work a success.

REFERENCES

1. Bellarby, J., 2009, “Well Completion Design”, Vol. 56, Elsevier, Aberdeen, UK.
2. Burgman, P. M., 1985, “Design of Experiments the Taguchi Way”, Manufacturing Engineering, May 1985, pp. 44 –
46
3. Iman R. L. and Conover W.J., 1983, “A Modern Approach to Statistics”, John Wiley & Sons
4. Mohd Razib, A. R., 1995, “Horizontal Well Simulation in the Baram South Area, Offshore Sarawak, Malaysia”, SPE
29305
5. Ott, W. K. and Woods, J. D., 2003, “World Oil Modern Sandface Completion Practices Handbook”, World Oil
Magazine, Gulf Publishing Company, Texas, USA
6. Sharma, N. K., Cudney, E. A., Ragsdell, K. M., Paryani, K., 2007, “Quality Loss Function – A Common
Methodology for Three Cases,” Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering Vol. 1, Fall 2007 No. 3, pp. 218-234