SPE-178306-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/15NAIC/All-15NAIC/SPE-178306-MS/1462250/spe-178306-ms.pdf/1 by Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS user on 29 March 2021

Sand Consolidation Operations, Challenges and Remedy
S.A. Marfo, World Bank African Centre of Excellence in Oilfield Chemicals Research, IPS, Uniport; D. Appah,
Department of Petroleum and Gas Engineering, Uniport; O.F. Joel, Centre for Petroleum Research and Training,
IPS, Uniport; G. Ofori-Sarpong, Mineral Engineering, University of Mines and Technology, Tarkwa, Ghana

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Lagos, Nigeria, 4 – 6 August 2015.

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
Sand consolidation as a sand control method has been applied in the oil industry for nearly eight decades.
Chemical sand consolidation has evolved since its first application in the early 1940s. Despite the failures
recorded and its limitations in application in some oil and gas wells, this method has recorded some
remarkable successes both as a primary and a remedial method of sand control in the petroleum industry.
This paper presents the operation constraints in sand consolidation since its first use in the industry, the
selection criteria and remedy. It also considers the types of resins which have been used over the years:
highlights of sand consolidation methods in high clay content formations and the problem of long shut-in
time for sufficient consolidation strength in reservoirs with either relatively low or high bottom-hole
treatment temperatures. Moreover, recommendations on the way forward to manage these operational
problems are elucidated.

Introduction
The petroleum industry like other industries is affected with numerous challenges. These challenges
increase the cost of production and heighten the capital intensiveness of the industry. One of the major
challenges facing the petroleum industry is sand production. It is an old age challenge troubling the
petroleum industry for over a century now (Allen and Roberts, 1989). Sanding like other problems in the
oil industry is a worldwide issue, but the regions that are affected most include the West African Niger
Delta, Canada, US Gulf Coast, Venezuela and China among others (Abubakar et al. 2012). This is because
of either the partially consolidated or unconsolidated nature of the formation in these regions. Excessive
sand production can erode subsurface equipment, wear surface production facilities, increase production
cost, cause sudden choking of wells and create down-hole cavities leading to closure of an entire field
(Simon et al. 2002; Dong et al. 2008; Sullivan et al. 2011; Nguyen and Rickman, 2012; Tananykhin et al.
2014).
It is projected that 70 % of the total oil and gas reserves in the world are located in poorly consolidated
reservoirs (Nouri et al. 2006; Osisanya, 2010). Sand production is most common in unconsolidated
sandstone formation. Interestingly most oil and gas are produced through these structurally weak
formations, which may not be capable of inhibiting grain movement. Sandstone reservoirs that are most
2 SPE-178306-MS

prone to sand production are especially those with permeability between 0.5 to 8 Darcies. Geologically,
these rocks are usually young in age and unconsolidated because natural processes have not cemented the
rock grains together by mineral deposition (Abanum and Appah, 2013).
There are different theories that try to explain the possible causes of sanding, however Kuncoro et al.
(2001) and Tananykhin et al. (2014) attribute the possible causes of sand production to drag forces of
flowing fluid and reduction in formation strength, among others. Sand control can be achieved by three

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/15NAIC/All-15NAIC/SPE-178306-MS/1462250/spe-178306-ms.pdf/1 by Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS user on 29 March 2021

mechanisms; reducing drag force, bridging sand mechanically and increasing formation strength (Abanum
and Appah, 2013).
Resin consolidation as a sand control method has been in the industry since the early 1940s (Bhasker
et al. 2012; Abanum and Appah, 2013). The main purpose is to strengthen the formation in the immediate
area of the wellbore with a chemical that will bind together the partially consolidated or unconsolidated
grains at their point of contact. The process involves mixing a binding agent, pore retaining agent and
curing (catalyst) agent in a uniformly specific ratio. The mixture is injected at the exterior of the casing
and positioned at the sand prone zone (Sullivan et al., 2011; Renpu, 2011).
The minimum consolidation strength reported as safe for oil producing well formation is 147 psi or 10
bar (10kg/cm2), but values ranging from (35–100 kg/cm2) have been achieved by some polymer
treatments (Lahalih and Ghloum, 2010). The consolidation strength obtained depends on the the pore
volume treatment, temperature, formation permeability, curing time, and treatment rate (Sumit et al.
2014).
The treatment of formation with chemical consolidation always causes reduction in permeability to oil
(Lahalih and Ghloum, 2010). However, if resin consolidation is properly applied under the right condition
it has key advantages (Allen and Robert, 1989; Carlson et al. 1992; Wasnik et al. 2005). The objective of
this paper is to present the criteria selection for chemical sand consolidation, resin system types that have
been used in the industry over the last seven decades, operational constrains encountered over the seven
decades in using chemical sand consolidation as sand control method in the industry: citing some
successes and failures encountered in field applications and the recommendations to overcome these
constraints. Consolidation performance in high clay content formations and either relatively low or high
temperature reservoirs are highlighted and techniques to manage these are proposed.

Selection Criteria Forchemicalsand Consolidation

Before any sand control method is selected as suitable means for controlling oil or gas wells producing
fines and particulates, the following needs to be considered;
● The Economics – The cost benefit analysis of the selected exclusion method needs to be
determined. This would give the initial and total cost of using the selected treatment method, the
benefits in terms of the total effect on production. Will the method selected affect or enhance
production; if it would enhance production can this be quantified and compared to the other
available exclusion methods.
● Historical success of the method selected cannot be over emphasized. The success or failure rate
of the methods in similar formations or reservoirs should be considered. Appropriate data on the
success or failure of the method should be analysed to determine the feasibility in the formation
to be treated.
● Sustainability – Estimation of the severity and the rate of sand production in the wells to be treated
are necessary, this would determine how long the selected method would be used. In addition
repeatability of treatment should be known and how sustainable the method would be with respect
to the duration of treatment.
● Degree of usability – No matter how good, sustainable and economical a method is, the degree of
difficulty in applying the treatment should be considered. The technical know-how of the
SPE-178306-MS 3

technicians and the degree of difficulty in application of the method should be assessed and
evaluated.
The reasons chemical sand consolidation is selected over other sand control methods are their
applicability in small diameter wellbores and holes without rig. Unlike other sand exclusion methods,
which require tools to be fixed downhole, thereby reducing the hole clearance for remedial jobs to be
conducted with ease, chemical sand consolidation do not require any of such tools downhole. Many

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/15NAIC/All-15NAIC/SPE-178306-MS/1462250/spe-178306-ms.pdf/1 by Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS user on 29 March 2021

researchers have supported the fact the following criteria should be considered before choosing chemical
sand consolidation as sand control method (Allen and Robert, 1989; Carlson et al. 1992; Wasnik et al.
2005; Chaloupka et al. 2010; Renpu, 2011):
● Bottom-hole temperature range: Generally temperatures from 100 to 225 °F are applicable, though
some resins (epoxy) have recorded as high as 350 °F.
● Zone thickness: It has been established by many researchers that sand consolidation should be
limited to short intervals of 10 -15 ft.
● Sand homogeneity: Permeability variations pose problems for successful resin placement. Resin
penetration in less permeable intervals is difficult to achieve. Sand consolidation works well in fine
sands difficult to control with gravel packing.
● Reservoir production life: Sand consolidation treatment is difficult to determine, though the design
is believed to cover the normal production of the field.
● Previous sand production: Sand consolidation is less successful in reservoirs with sand production
history, though it has been used for remedial jobs and recommended for newly perforated intervals.
● Well completion: Some well configurations make safe access to target zones difficult. However,
chemical consolidation is suitable for multiple reservoir completions, small diameter casing,
through existing tubing and coiled tubing application. It has been observed to work well in
offshore or isolated locations where tubing hoist is not available.
● Economics: Sand consolidation is economically favourable over conventional gravel packing for
short intervals and reservoirs with short production life. Favourable in swamp areas than offshore.
Cheaper compared to gravel packing and frac-packing.
● Compressive strength: Compressive strength values of 600 to 700 psi can be attained while
ensuring 60 to 90% of the original permeability and yielding about 90% of the original produc-
tivity in chemical sand consolidation applications. It is rarely used in formations with permeability
values below 500 mD.
Resin System Types
According to Cholet (2000) for a successful and an effective chemical sand consolidation, two require-
ments must be met:
● The formation must be treated (consolidated) outside all perforations.
● The consolidated sand mass must remain permeable to well fluids.
These are important requirements as the issue of permeability and formation strength is a critical factor
in chemical sand control methods. The challenge is to ensure strong formation strength that can resist the
drag forces during fluid production without damaging the permeability of the reservoir.
Resin systems can either be internally or externally catalysed. The base solution can also be either
solvent or aqueous. The advantage the aqueous-based has over the solvent-based is its high flash points
and the ability to be foamed with the introduction of nitrogen gas enhancing its consolidation (Nguyen and
Rickman, 2012). The various categories are presented below:
● Internally Catalysed Systems contain a hardener and accelerator. A curing agent or catalyst
(hardener) is added at the surface and the amount is determined by the temperature of the
4 SPE-178306-MS

formation to be treated. These systems are usually time-dependent with rapid reaction in high
temperature formations. The success of these systems in high clay formation or high temperature
zones is not definite.
● Externally Catalysed Systems also known as overflush systems, the resin is first pumped into the
formation followed by an overflush hardener. The overflush can be either hydrocarbon or aqueous
solution containing a hardener or accelerator chemical introduced as a curing agent (catalyst).

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/15NAIC/All-15NAIC/SPE-178306-MS/1462250/spe-178306-ms.pdf/1 by Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS user on 29 March 2021

● Solvent-Based Resins (SBRs). These conventional systems have been used for sand consolidation
in the petroleum industry since the start of resin consolidation as sand control method in the early
1940s. They can either be internally or externally catalysed but are associated with many problems
in their applications. Many researchers Haggerty et al. (2009); Nguyen and Rickman (2012) and
Sumit et al. (2014) and cite low flash points making its handling and storage problematic, high
viscosity, uneconomical nature for treating long intervals as some of the challenges.
● Aqueous-Based Resins (ABRs). Unlike the solvent-based resins the ABRs are fairly new in their
applications in the petroleum industry. They are highly sought after for their environmental
friendliness due to the high flash points, low viscosity which is close to water among other
advantages. This makes them easier to handle and store reducing their operational challenges.
Various kinds of polymers have been used to consolidate sand as far as they provide sufficient
compressive strength without excessive loss in permeability (Lahalih and Ghloum, 2010) Common among
these polymers is the epoxy, furan and phenol resins. Epoxy resins, also known as polyepoxides belong
to a class of reactive prepolymers and polymers which contain epoxide groups. Epoxy resins may be
reacted (cross-linked) either with themselves through catalytic homopolymerisation, or with other com-
pounds such as acids, phenol, alcohol etc. Cross-linking reaction is termed curing and the co-reactants
often referred to as hardeners or curatives. Curing of polyepoxides with themselves or polyfunctional
hardeners forms a thermosetting polymer, with strong mechanical properties, high temperature and
chemical resistance. Some epoxy resins/hardener combinations will cure at ambient temperature but many
require heat at temperature ranges of 150 °C to 200 °C. They have applications in high tension electrical
insulators, fibre-reinforced plastic materials and structural adhesives.
Furan is a heterocyclic organic compound, which consist of five-member aromatic ring with four atoms
and oxygen. It is a colourless, flammable, and highly volatile compound, which has a boiling point closer
to room temperature. Furan is considerably more reactive than benzene in electrophilic substitution
reaction, which has a molecular mass of 68.07g/mol and molecular formula: C4H4O (Matar and Hatch,
2000). Though it is toxic and can be considered as carcinogenic, it has a number of industrial uses. Phenol
formaldehyde resins (PF) are synthetic polymers which are a product of reaction of phenols or substituted
phenol with formaldehyde. They mostly have applications in circuit boards production, adhesives and
coatings. Being a thermoset, hydroxymethyl phenols will crosslink on heating to around 120 °C to form
a methylene and methyl ether bridges through the elimination of water molecules. The high crosslinking
gives this type of phenolic resin its hardness, good thermal stability and chemical resistance. Different
types of chemical consolidation methods, their formulation, advantages and disadvantages have been
presented in Table 1.
SPE-178306-MS 5

Table 1—Chemical Sand Consolidation Method Selection Reference (Renpu, 2011).

Supporting Formulation Advantages and
Method Binding Agent Agent (Weight Ratio) Applicable Range Disadvantages

Sand-cement slurry Cement slurry Quartz sand Cement:water: Later sand control of oil production Wide material source,
artificial borehole quartz sand and water injection wells. Sand low strength, short
wall ⫽ 1:0.5:4 control of low pressure and valid period.
shallow wells.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/15NAIC/All-15NAIC/SPE-178306-MS/1462250/spe-178306-ms.pdf/1 by Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS user on 29 March 2021

Water-cement-sand Cement Quartz sand Cement:quartz Later sand control of high water cut Wide material source,
artificial sand ⫽1:2 oil well and water injection wells. low cost, serious
borehole wall –2.5 plug.
Diesel oil-cement Diesel oil- Diesel Initial sand control of oil production Wide material source,
slurry emulsion cement oil:cement: and water injection wells. Less low cost, serious
artificial slurry water sand production. plug.
borehole wall emulsion ⫽1:1:0.5
Phenol aldehyde Phenol Phenol:formal- Initial and early sand control of oil Strong adaptability,
resin artificial aldehyde dehyde: production and water injection high cost, sort resin
borehole wall resin ammonia wells. Sand control of medium storage life.
solution water ⫽ and coarse sandstone reservoirs.
1:1.5:0.05
Resin walnut hull Phenolaldehyde Walnut hull Resin:walnut Early and later sand control of oil High binding strength,
artificial resin hull ⫽ production and water injection high permeability,
borehole wall 1:1.5 wells. Less sand production. good sand control
effectiveness,
difficult material
source, complicated
operation.
Sand-resin slurry Phenol Quartz sand Resin:quartz Later sand control of oil production High binding strength,
artificial aldehyde sand ⫽1:4 and water injection wells strong adaptability,
borehole wall resin complicated
operation.
Phenol aldehyde Phenol Phenol:formal- Initial and early sand control of oil Low solution viscosity,
solution aldehyde aldehyde: production and water injection easy tobe squeezed
subsurface solution hardening wells with reservoir temperature into reservoir, able
synthesis agent ⫽ above 60°C. to be used for
1:2:0.3 separate-layer sand
–0.36 control.
Resin coating gravel Epoxy resin Quartz sand Resin:gravel ⫽ Early and later sand control of oil High permeability, high
artificial 1:10 – 20 production and water injection strength, simple
borehole wall wells with reservoir temperature operation.
above 60°C.

Operational Constraints
As a sand control method, chemical sand consolidation has been used successfully both for primary and
remedial job in the petroleum industry. Despite these successes, there are some operational constraints that
need to be resolved. Some of these challenges have been resolved over the past years; however other
constraints remain unresolved. The first among these challenges to be considered is how the permeability
of the formation treated is always reduced.
Reduction in Formation Permeability
The difficulty in ensuring the balance between permeability reductions and achieving an acceptable
compressive strength is one of the challenges associated with chemical sand consolidation. Permeability
reduction and formation strength is always critical in the treatment of chemical consolidation, based on
this; application of resins is reserved for highly permeable reservoir. Carlson et al. (1992) showed that,
the quantity of resin injected to the formation to be treated is always a compromise between enhancing
consolidation strength and reducing permeability. If an 8 Darcy unconsolidated sand formation is treated
with a resin to give a compressive strength of up to 3300 psi, there might be a 25 % reduction in
permeability which could result up to about 10 % decrease in productivity. This assertion was in
6 SPE-178306-MS

agreement with the findings of Allen and Robert (1989) and Kuncoro et al. (2001) that, sand prevention
becomes a challenge when chemical injection is uneven and sand is highly exposed and uncoated by the
injected resin. Abanum and Appah (2013) concluded in their studies conducted in the Niger Delta region
that all commercial resins being currently used in the oil industry in this region reduced permeability.
Their studies were purely laboratory based experiment, where core samples from the Niger Delta region
were subjected to both quantitative and qualitative analyses. The base core was compared with nine

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/15NAIC/All-15NAIC/SPE-178306-MS/1462250/spe-178306-ms.pdf/1 by Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS user on 29 March 2021

different chemical resin treated cores, out of which three were locally made chemical resins. The
permeability and porosity of each core was determined and compared to base core at different over burden
pressures from 500 psi through 3500 psi. The Niger Delta formation is naturally unconsolidated or weakly
consolidated with high permeability with an average porosity of 30%. The base core used had permea-
bility of 8000 mD with those of the resins ranging from 7170 mD to as low as 1.15 mD at 3500 psi over
burden pressure. It can be seen clearly that chemical consolidation causes reduction in permeability of the
formation and the severity is due to the type of resin employed. Rike (1966) established through laboratory
experiments that plastics consolidation reduces permeability by almost 50%. However, it was evaluated
that the effective permeability is about 80 % of the original permeability and reduction in well
productivity should amount to about 20 %. It was further concluded that proper design treatment does not
materially affect the productivity of sand with practically good permeability. This was verified by the 369
successful jobs recorded in that study. It is therefore proper to limit chemical consolidation to formations
having permeability above an appropriate value; however this is highly dependent on the type of resin
treatment system. A resin under the trade name Sandtrap 225 service is not recommended for low
permeability formations, this is based on the fact that sand consolidation is generally more feasible when
the reservoir formation is more than 10 mD for gas reservoirs and 50 mD for oil reservoirs. Another trade
name Eposand Resin 112, which is an overflush resin system for sand consolidation involving clean or
dirty sands is reported as having a minimum regained absolute permeability of 70 %. This gives an
indication that a viable sand consolidation might not be achievable when this system or other resin
systems of equal features are applied to lower permeability reservoirs.

● Formation Treatment Interval

Cholet (2000) revealed that sand consolidation field experience has been successful in producing intervals
of up to 10 m (30 ft) thick. However these were successful with the use of special preflush systems and
diverting agents. Carlson et al. (1992) and Kuncoro et al. (2001) however recommended that sand
consolidation method tends to be reserved for short intervals of up to 3 to 4 m [10 to 15 ft] as sand
production would not be prevented in an uneven chemical injection. Renpu (2011) outlines that a
subsurface-synthesized phenolaldehyde sand resin developed at the Shangai oil field have successful
application in oil fields for sand control. His findings however indicated that, this chemical consolidating
formulation by the Canadian Alberta Research Centre (ARC) has applications limited to single thin bed
of about 5 m thick. The resin failed in treatment intervals exceeding bed thickness of 5 m and it is
concluded this resin system is not applicable in sand consolidation of thick bed and long well section. A
review conducted in Louisiana by Rike (1966) for over 500 wells treated with chemical consolidation
showed that out of 545 wells treated, 25 % were not successful. Among the reasons given for most of the
failures are wells having longer perforated intervals and higher perforation densities. This finding also
affirms the assertion that chemical sand consolidation is reserved for short intervals. In other to obtain
effective consolidation in all of the intervals close to the wellbore which transmit fluid to the well, it
advisable to limit the length of perforated interval and the number of perforations. From field experience
it is concluded that a perforated interval limited to less than 10 ft is preferred and it must be noted that
this is in conformism with other findings by different researchers. Because of this reason, chemical
consolidation appears to be reserved for short intervals, up to 10 to 15 ft according to Lahalih and Ghloum
(2010), Chaloupka et al. (2010) and Renpu (2011).
SPE-178306-MS 7

● Acceptable Compressive Strength

Lahalih and Ghloum (2010) conducted a research to develop and characterise polymeric composition
based on the compressive strength, their stability in 3 % KCl at 80 °C and other key properties. In their
experiment, sandpacks were examined for their compressive strength, stability in brine and oil at
temperatures of 80 °C - 90°C, and before and after treatment. The effectiveness of the resins were
analysed based on material properties such as polymer type and concentration, polymer pore volume and

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/15NAIC/All-15NAIC/SPE-178306-MS/1462250/spe-178306-ms.pdf/1 by Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS user on 29 March 2021

dispersants, and under the following operating conditions: sand type, mesh size, presence of clay, brine,
and pressure. The viscosities of the various compositions are affected by temperature and this was noticed
with different concentrations. The concentrated polymer compositions (20 %- 47 % conc.) measured at 80
°C and 100 s⫺1 gave values ranging from 14.13 cP to 418 cP and 35.2 cP to 2105 cP when recorded at
40 °C and 100 s⫺1 shear rate. For the diluted polymer compositions (6.3% - 17.7 % conc.) the viscosities
recorded ranged from 3.5 cP to 15.8 cP and 4.8 cP to 37 cP when measured at 80 °C and 100 s⫺1 and 40
°C and 100 s⫺1 shear rate respectively. The viscosities are strongly affected in the temperature range of
25 °C to 110 °C, a reduction factor of 5–10 and 20 –50 are observed for 10 % and 6.3 % concentrations
respectively.
The compressive strength of treated sandpack is affected by a number of variables. The compressive
strength of treated sand with 1% by weight of sand of Bentonite clay with dispersant was increased from
4 Kg/cm2 to 16.5 Kg/cm2, showing that the strength was quadrupled. The sand particle size is observed
to have effect on the compressive strength, irrespective of the type of polymer and dispersant used except
for modified styrene-acrylic copolymer. With respect to all other polymers it is noticed that the
compressive strength increases as the particle size decreases. However, the sand treated with dispersant
exhibited greater compressive strength at the same sand particle size. The compressive strength increased
by a factor of two for particle size of 100 microns when it is treated with dispersant, for polymer
composition #12 without dispersant it is 50 Kg/cm2 and when treated with dispersant gave a compressive
strength of 114 Kg/cm2. The increase in compressive strength as the particle size decreases is due to
increase in surface area of the smaller particle size. It can be concluded from the research that, dispersant
have intense effect on the compressive strength of treated sands irrespective of the type of the polymer
formulations used and the compressive strength increased proportionally with increase in the concentra-
tion of dispersants.
The research shows that different polymers have different effect on the compressive strength of the
treated sandpacks. Among the polymers under investigations, modified amino aldehyde polymer com-
position #12 gave the greatest compressive strength of 44.5 Kg/cm2 whereas the lowest recorded was from
sample #5 (Furfuryl alcohol with EAC) which gave a value 3 Kg/cm2. These values were obtained when
they were treated with 3.5 % by weight of 500 microns by weight of sand. The effect of the injected pore
volume on compressive strength was evaluated for polymer composition #1 with 0.2 % acetic acid acting
as a cross-linker. This also exhibit a proportional relationship as the increased pore volume result in
increased compressive strength; with about three folds being recorded when about 2 pore volumes of the
polymer was injected (that is from 135 Kg/cm2 to 332 Kg/cm2). From the core flooding test, it was noticed
that, more volume of polymer is required to achieve the same compressive strength as dilution factor of
the polymer increases and compressive strength of treated sand depends on the concentration of the
polymer used in the treatment. It is observed that temperature has great influence on the amount of
polymer pore volume to be injected to achieve the desired compressive strength of 10 Kg/cm2. The results
revealed that about 0.4 PV is required at 80 °C compared to about 1–1.2 PV at 110 °C and 0.25 PV at
60 °C of concentrated polymers solutions (20 % to 24 % conc.) to achieve the desired compressive
strength. The presence of clay had considerable effect on compressive strength of the treated sand packs,
and it is more prominent with respect to the diluted solutions than the more concentrated solutions. The
compressive strength recorded for diluted solutions in the presence of clay was 33 Kg/cm2 and 7.5 Kg/cm2
for the concentrated solutions. It must however be noted, that high clay content in treated formations
8 SPE-178306-MS

usually result in poor consolidation performance. With respect to the regained permeability, the diluted
polymer formulation gave 40 % whereas the more concentrated formulation was 25 %.
The application of resin consolidation in high clay content formations and either extremely low or high
bottom-hole temperatures poses major constraints. The next two challenges considered in this paper
focuses on these two challenges and recommends possible solution to solve them in other to enhance the
performance of chemical sand consolidations in such formations.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/15NAIC/All-15NAIC/SPE-178306-MS/1462250/spe-178306-ms.pdf/1 by Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS user on 29 March 2021

● High Clay Content Formations
Clay hydration is a major cause of formation damage in hydrocarbon formations. The ability of clay to
swell arises when they come into contact with water or any other polar molecule. The hydration is
believed to be highly induced by exchangeable cations that happen when the clay interacts with the polar
molecule in an aqueous phase. These determine the extent of clay hydration. Clays exhibit a property
called cation exchangeable capacity (CEC), and is defined as the maximum quantity of total cations that
the clay is holding which is available for exchange with solutions for a given pH value. The smectite group
of clays, of which montmorillonite happens to be a good example has the highest swelling potential (Pham
and Nguyen, 2014). Montmorillonite can swell several times its original volume upon interaction with
polar molecules, and are noted to be the most frequent in hydrocarbon formations. This characteristic
makes them plug and damage permeable zones in the reservoirs. Other clay mineral types like the illites,
kaolinites and chlorites also do pose swelling and migration problems in hydrocarbon reservoir, especially
when unstable condition is created making them problematic. Studies show that all clay mineral types
exhibit instability above certain temperatures. Kaolinites and illites have been noted to cause fine
migration problems in addition to dispersing in fresh water leading to plugging in permeable formation.
Researchers Allen and Robert (1989) and Carlson et al. (1992) asserts that chemical sand consolidation
performs poorly when the formation contains about 10% of fines and clay mineral. This challenge is more
prevalent with phase separation resin systems. These are systems consisting of 15 to 20 % active resin
which upon attraction to the grain contacts, hardens to form consolidation. The remaining unreactive
material fills the centre portion of pore spaces enhancing permeability. The clay acts as dirt on the sand
surface reacting with active resin and impairing effective consolidation which results in reduced bonding
strength.
The way forward in resolving this challenge of clay swelling is by inhibition of the clay during sand
consolidation. These inhibitors can be integrated into chemical sand consolidation systems to curb the
problem of swelling. This is because the swelling of clay is dependent on the type and concentration of
cations present in the aqueous solution exposed to the clay mineral. Gonzalez and Scherer (2004) suggest
that three types of clay swelling inhibitors (surfactants) gives remarkable results when tested in clay
inhibition studies. These surfactants: 1,3-diaminopropane dihydrochloride (H2N(CH2)3NH2*2HCl), eth-
ylenediaminedihydrochloride (C2H8N2*2HCl) and hexadecyltrimethylammomium bromide, known as
CTAB (CH3(CH2)15N(CH3)3Br) are aminoalcohols which are known to be used for steel corrosion
control. The findings from their studies showed that these surfactants could also be active in clay
inhibition. It was noted that each single surfactant resulted in 50 % reduction in swelling and a
combination of the surfactants proved to be more effective compared to the single applications. It is
believed that integrating a combination of these surfactants into chemical sand consolidation systems may
help improve the performance of consolidation in high clay content formations.
Montmorillonite, a high swelling clay mineral is known to exhibit decreased swelling potential when
brine solutions such as NaCl and KCl are present. In a research to evaluate the effect of polyethylene
glycol (PEG)-coated silica nanoparticles, KCl and NaCl brine on clay inhibition Pham and Nguyen (2014)
came to the conclusion that clay swelling was reduced greatly in the presence of both NaCl and KCl
brines. It was noticed that these reductions became more obvious as the concentrations of the brines
increased; however KCl brine appeared to be more effective as the montmorillonite used in the experiment
SPE-178306-MS 9

was exposed to the K⫹ cations. The effectiveness of KCl against NaCl was observed with all the series
of concentrations 0.5 wt% to 5 wt% used in the experiment. The PEG- coated silica nanoparticle when
added to the brines showed a synergistic inhibiting effect, as the swelling index showed further general
decrease at all levels of the brine concentrations. Carlson et al. (1992) suggest in their research that
integrating clay stabilizer in sand consolidation systems can mitigate the challenge posed by clay swelling
in reservoirs.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/15NAIC/All-15NAIC/SPE-178306-MS/1462250/spe-178306-ms.pdf/1 by Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS user on 29 March 2021

Low and High Bottom-hole Temperature Reservoirs
The chemistry of the process that transforms resins used in chemical sand consolidation from their liquid
phase to solid phase is important in their performance evaluation under temperature. Temperature has an
important effect on the rheological properties of polymeric melts, just as it does to polymeric solids. The
flow behaviour of Newtonian fluids as a function of temperature is expressed in terms of the Arrhenius
equation, showing variation of apparent viscosity with temperature (equation 1).
[1]

ŋ is the apparent viscosity, A is constant coefficient, E is the activation energy for flow, and R is the
gas constant, T is temperature. The curing time for resin is dependent on the temperature of the formation
among other factors (Filbrandt, 2010). The curing process involves reaction that transforms the liquid
resin into a three dimensional network, this process is also known as cross-linking. This organic in
polymers defines the distinction between thermosetting compounds and thermoplastic polymers (Matar
and Hatch, 2000). During cross-linking, building blocks which consist of small monomers molecules
aggregate into clusters, these clusters combine in larger clusters, until a network is formed that spans the
reacting mass. It has been observed that build-up of these clusters obeys Stoke’s law for viscosity; such
that as the cluster size increases the movement of the clusters becomes more restricted. As the gel point
is approached, the cluster network increases suddenly in mass and large-scale movement is no longer
possible. At this point, termed the gel time, the viscosity of the fluid jumps asymptotically to infinity. No
fluid can be squeezed after this stage, and this transition time should be considered as the operational time
limit for resin placement in the targeted location. This explains the abysmal performance of these resins
when used in sand consolidation operations at temperatures outside the range conducive for resin
cross-linking. It is a confirmation of the reservoir temperature range generally given as applicable for
successful sand consolidation that is from 100 to 225 °F.
The resins can be enhanced to perform in wider temperature ranges by controlling the reaction that
leads to gelation. The reaction can either be accelerated in low reservoir temperatures or retarded in high
reservoir temperatures to create conducive operating conditions for the desired cross-linking to be
achieved. This desired result can be achieved through catalyst enhancement of the resins, thereby
widening the temperature range applicable for successful chemical sand consolidation. Catalyst is an
important compound which promotes a chemical reaction without itself being consumed. There are
different types of catalysts for specific chemical reaction however Wasniket al. (2005) identified the
following: AlCl3, Al(SO4)3, NiCl2, ZrOCl2, NH4Cl, Cr(CH3COO)3 and o-Phosphoric acid as the best in
resin curing process. These catalysts altered the rate of reaction by changing the concentration of the
catalyst in the resin solution to achieve the desired results at the desired temperatures. The integration of
selected catalysts in sand consolidation systems would promote the performance of chemical sand
consolidation in either relatively low or high reservoir bottom-hole temperatures.

Field Application Experience with Chemical Sand Consolidation

An internally catalysed epoxy resin tested on three sand prone gas wells in the Mahakam Delta, Indonesia
gave an encouraging results. The fluid developed for this work is of low viscosity, about 10 cP at 71 °F
10 SPE-178306-MS

and had a temperature range from 200 to 350 °F. The fluid was designed to overcome the following
existing challenges with high viscosity and externally catalysed resins (Chaloupka et al., 2010):
● High-viscosity resins migrate to the intervals having the highest permeability.
● High-viscosity resins require relatively high permeable formations for efficient placement.
● The possibility of the activating fluid incapable of effectively displacing the resin from low
permeable zones.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/15NAIC/All-15NAIC/SPE-178306-MS/1462250/spe-178306-ms.pdf/1 by Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS user on 29 March 2021

Three wells were treated and the results obtained from the field application are as follows: The first two
wells, well A and well B had estimated permeability values of 5 D and 2 D respectively. The initial
production rate of well A was 9.2 MMscfd and 720 bcpd with no sand production. The post treatment gas
rate was maintained at 5 MMscfd to delay water breakthrough. The Well produced an equivalent 0.76 Bcf
of gas and 16000 bcpd for more than 8 months before dying due to water ingress. No sand production was
observed during the life of the well confirming the stability of the resin. The treatment cost for this well
was repaid within five days justifying how economical the sand consolidation treatment was.
Well B was brought back to production at rates of 10.9 MMscfd and 1255 bcpd with maximum
drawdown of 150 psi without sand production. Just like well A, the reservoir was produced at limited rates
of 5 MMscfd and 350 bcpd. The consolidation treatment paid off 4 days after production, which meant
well B was economically viable and the choice of sand consolidation was good. Well C was not an ideal
candidate when compared to the two previous wells; this reservoir had a porosity of 20 % and low
permeability of 35 mD. After treatment the well’s production rate was around 2 MMscfd and four months
after consolidation this was reduced to 1.5 MMscfd and 50 bwpd and has produced 0.16 Bcf of gas
without sand production. Unlike wells A and B, the treatment costs repay for well C was 4 weeks. The
following conclusions can be drawn from the Mahakam Delta field experience:
● Sand consolidation can be reliable remedial sand control technique
● The treatment costs repayment is encouraging especially in associated condensate production the
payoff was less than a week.
● Internally catalysed fluids simplifies the treatment placement as it is one-component and enhances
the chances of success.
● To ensure longer curing times, the consolidation fluid was used at the lower end of the temperature
range, but it is interesting to note that it did not affect the consolidation strength. However it is
suggested to use consolidation fluids within the specified temperature range.
● Regained permeability for well C was 63 % and it was considered as acceptable due to the very
low initial permeability of 35 mD. It was expected that formations with high permeability would
record comparatively higher regained permeability, but this could be not be confirmed with well
A and well B pre-treatment pressure build-up data.
● The success of sand consolidation technique is strongly dependent on compliance of candidate
selection criteria and effective resin placement techniques.
Karian et al. (1999) compared the performance of furan resin system with internal gravel packing (IGP)
in Baram Delta oil fields, offshore Malaysia. In the study, the team decided to use furan resin system due
to its economic viability advantage over other resin systems. One of the Barem wells treatment with the
furan resin system enhanced its production rate with much less skin compared to the results obtained with
internal gravel packing. The furan resin system gave about 1000 bopd from 15 ft of perforation interval
compared with only 400 bopd from 49 ft perforated in other well. Preliminary observations gave a clear
indication of no sand traces from the wellhead sample; this showed that the furan system performance is
better than the IGP performance installed on another well during this study. This is because with only 15
ft perforation interval treated with furan resin system; well BA-66st2 could produce at least double
productivity compared to the well BA-93 of the IGP well.
SPE-178306-MS 11

Conclusion
This paper reviewed chemical sand consolidation used as both primary and remedial sand control method.
It highlighted the operational constraints encountered during its application, such as the reduction in
formation permeability, formation treatment interval, the acceptable compressive strength, focusing on the
challenges in high clay content formation and relatively low or high bottom-hole reservoirs. Solutions

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/15NAIC/All-15NAIC/SPE-178306-MS/1462250/spe-178306-ms.pdf/1 by Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS user on 29 March 2021

were proposed to the management of these problems: clay inhibition of formations with high clay content,
which would prevent hydration of the clay minerals thereby ensuring that the formation remains
permeable to the flow of hydrocarbon fluids. Added to this, catalyst enhancement of the systems to ensure
effective consolidation in either relatively low or high reservoir temperatures were recommended as the
way forward to elucidate these problems. Finally, some field applications experiences of chemical sand
consolidation were outlined.

Acknowledgement
The authors wish to express their thanks to World Bank for offer of Ph.D scholarship at World Bank
African Centre of Excellence, Institute of Petroleum Studies, University of Port Harcourt.

References
Abanum A. M. and Appah D. 2013. Laboratory Studies of Chemicals for Sand Consolidation (Scon)
in the Niger Delta Fields. Paper presented at SPE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Lagos,
Nigeria, 20 July – 1 August. SPE 167516.
Abubakar M., Ikeh L., Sunday A. et al. 2012. Comparative Study of Sand Control Methods in Niger
Delta. Journal of Petroleum Science Research 1(3): 57–64.
Allen T. O. and Roberts A. P. 1989. Production Operation: Well Completions, Workover and
Stimulation, third edition, Vol 2. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Oil and Gas Consultants International Inc.
38 –55.
Bhasker R., Foo-Karma A. F. and Foo I. 2012. Successful Application of Aqueous-Based Formation
Consolidation Treatment Introduced to the North Sea. Paper presented at Coiled Tubing & Well
Intervention Conference & Exhibition, Woodlands, Texas, 26 –27 March. SPE 163880.
Carlson J., Gurley D., King G. et al. 1992. Sand Control: Why and How? Completion / Stimulation
Oilfield Review. 41–53.
Chaloupka V., Riyanto L., Rayne A. et al. 2010. Remedial Sand Consolidation: Case Study from
Mahakam Delta, Indonesia. Paper presented at SPE Symposium & Exhibition on Formation
Damage, Lafayette, Louisiana, 10 –12 February. SPE 127489.
Cholet H. 2000. Well Production Practical Handbook, Editions TECHNIP. Paris: InsitutFrancais Du
Petrole Publications. 165–184.
Dong B., Cheng C., Zhou Z. et al. 2008. Questions and Comprehensive Economic Evaluation Model
for Sand Management. Paper presented at ARMA Symposium on American Rock Mechanics, San
Francisco. 29 June – 2 July. ARMA 08 –195.
Filbrandt J. D. 2010. Laboratory Analysis of a New Sand Consolidation Material for Oilfield
Applications. MS thesis, Texas A&M University (December 2010).
Gonzalez I. J. and Scherer G. W. 2004. Effect of Swelling Inhibitors on the Swelling and Stress
Relaxation of Clay Bearing Stones. Environmental Geology 46: 364 –377. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s00254-254-004-1038-8.
Haggerty D. J., Manning J. D., Nguyen P. D. et al. 2009. Sand Consolidation Testing in an API RP
19B Section IV Perforation Flow Laboratory. Paper presented at SPE European Conference on
Formation Damage, Scheveningen, Netherlands, 27–29 May. SPE 120901.
12 SPE-178306-MS

Karian A. M., Salleh A., Haron J. et al. 1999. Resin Sand Consolidation in Barem Delta, Sarawak.Case
Study on Resin Performance versus Internal Gravelpacking with Acid Prepacking. Paper presented
at SPE Asia Pacific Conference on Improved Oil Recovery, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 25–26
October. SPE 57314.
Kotlar H. K., Moen A., Haaland T. et al. 2008. Field Experience with Chemical Sand Consolidation
as a Remedial Sand Control Option. Paper presented at Conference for Offshore Technology,

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/15NAIC/All-15NAIC/SPE-178306-MS/1462250/spe-178306-ms.pdf/1 by Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS user on 29 March 2021

Houston, Texas, 5– 8 May. OTC 19417.
Kuncoro B., Ulumuddin B. and Palar S. 2001. Sand Control for Unconsolidated Reservoirs. Paper
presented at SimposiumNasional IATMI, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 3–5 October. IATMI 2001– 08.
Lahalih S. M. and Ghloum E. F. 2010. Polymer Compositions for Sand Consolidation in Oil Wells.
Paper presented at Conference & Exhibition on Production & Operations, Tunis, Tunisia, 8 –10
June. SPE 136024.
Matar S. and Hatch L. F. 2000. Chemistry of Petrochemical Processes, second edition, Houston,
Texas: Gulf Publishing Company.
Nguyen P. D. and Rickman R. D. 2012. Foaming Aqueous-Based Curable Treatment Fluids Enhances
Placement and Consolidation Performance. Paper presented at SPE Symposium & Exhibition on
Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 15–17 February. SPE 151002.
Nouri A., Vaziri H., Belhaj H. et al. 2006. Sand-Production Prediction: A New Set of Criteria for
Modelling Based on Large-Scale Transient Experiments and Numerical Investigation. SPE JJune
2006 227–237. SPE 90273.
Osisanya S. O. 2010. Practical Guidelines for Predicting Sand Production. Paper presented at SPE
Annual Conference and Exhibition, Tinapa, Calabar, Nigeria, 31 July – 7 August. SPE 136980.
Pham H. and Nguyen Q. P. 2014. Effect of Silica Nanoparticles on Clay Swelling and Aqueous
Stability of Nanoparticles Dispersions. J Nanopart Res 16:2137 hhtp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11051-
013-2137-9.
Renpu W. 2011. Advanced Well Completion Engineering, third edition, New York: Gulf Professional
Publishing. 105–109.
Rike J. L. 1966. Review of Sand Consolidation Experience in South Louisiana. Journal of Petroleum
Technology, May 1966. 545–550.
Simon G. J., Nelson E. B. and Guinot F. J. 2002. Sand Consolidation with Flexible Gel System. US
Patent No. 6,450,260 B1.
Sullivan P. F., Nelson E. and Gonzalez J-C. et al. 2011. Emulsion System for Sand Consolidation. US
Patent No. 7,975,764 B2.
Sumit S., Amro H., Mohamed A. et al. 2014. Successful Field Application of Aqueous-Based
Formation Consolidation Treatment Implemented in Nile Delta, Egypt. Paper presented at SPE
Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition, Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia, 21–24 April. SPE-
172214-MS.
Tananykhin D. S., Maksyutin A. V. and Shagiakhmetov A. M. 2014. Laboratory Study of Terrigenous
Core Samples Strength after Chemical Consolidation. Life Science Journal 11(6s): 303–306.
Wasnik A., Mete S. and Ghosh B. 2005. Application of Resin System for Sand Consolidation,
Mud-Loss Control and Channel Repairing. Paper presented at SPE Symposium on International
Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil, Calgary, Alberta, 1–3 November. SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA
97771.