Sand Control Type of

Completions
GENERAL INFORMATION
Why is sand control important

 HSE – system integrity

 Well Productivity
 Operability
 Disposal
Why is sand control important
Existing development have increasing sand challenges
• North Sea – Foinaven, Schiehallion, Harding, Andrew

• Azerbaijan - Chirag

• Trinidad – Mahogany, Amherstia, Immortelle

• Gulf of Mexico – GOM Shelf, Horn Mountain, Nakika

As reservoirs deplete and water encroaches problems become worse.

Sand Prone Reservoirs
Non Sanding Reservoirs
Why is sand control important?

New fields requiring sand control

• Azerbaijan

• Deepwater GoM

• Trinidad

• Angola

• Indonesia

• Egypt Etc

• Etc
Goal: To enable wells in sand-prone environments to achieve
the same level of reliability, integrity, performance and
manageability that can be delivered by wells in competent
© formations.
bp Issue 5 Baku Sept 2004 [Rev
SAND PRODUCTOIN
PHILOSOPHY
Sanding occurs in two discrete steps:
1. Mechanical failure of the rock occurs in the near wellbore area
2. Failed rock material may then be produced into the wellbore

The main features of the reservoir that will influence the formation
mechanical failure and result in sand production are:

 The stresses being applied to the rock

 The ability of the rock to withstand these stresses

Near Wellbore stresses
Overburden stress

 The vertical (overburden) stress is determined by integrating the rock

density (obtained from open hole logs) over depth (1psi/ft is usually a
good approximation).

Horizontal stresses

 In a sedimentary basin and under an isotropic stress regime (no

tectonic activity) the horizontal stresses are equal.

 Appropriate values of horizontal stress can be estimated from offset

data such as FIT’s, LOT’s of frac data (e.g. minifrac test).
 Formation Strength
Is the ability of the rock to withstand stresses
It is affected by pore pressure and in-situ stresses;

The void created in a rock as a result of drilling will induce high stresses and a
redistribution of the in-situ stresses in the surrounding rock.

Weakening of cementation may occur due to contact with reactive fluids e.g. water
or acid
 Design Process Leading to Recommendations

1. Determine potential for rock disaggregation

 Involves use of wireline logs and core strength tests

2. If rock disaggregates, perform sand management analysis to

determine viability of no sand control

3. Should sand control be required, provide optimized ramp-

up strategy for minimizing SC impairment while
maximizing production rate
 Schematics of Sanding Mechanisms
Resistance to sand production due to:
 Cementation, capillary cohesion, interlocking of grain particles, arching, SC
completion support
Forces driving sanding:
 Drawdown, rate of drawdown application, watercut

unstable sand zone

Flow
 Lab determination of Unconfined Compressive Strength

 Increasing axial stress applied to core plug

 No lateral confinement

 Tested to failure

Vertical stress (1) increased

until failure Horizontal stress (2, 3)=0 Equivalent stress diagram
3

3

2 = 0 2

3 = 0
2
3

3
Describing and Characterising Rock Strength (at Surface
Conditions)

STRENGTH CHARACTERISTIC

Unconsolidated No effective grain to grain cementation. Practically

loose sand.

Partially Consolidated
Weak cementation, crumbles easily.

Moderate strength cementation with grains that can

Friable be removed by rubbing a sample of the rock between
your fingers.
Strong grain to grain cementation and difficult to
Consolidated remove individual grains with hands. Can only be
crushed by forceps.

Hard Pieces cannot be broken using forceps.

 Thick Walled Cylinder Strength Rock Testing

NO SAND
PRODUCTION

X
SAND
PRODUCTION

Predicts onset of rock failure,

not sand production
In-Situ Stresses – Far field

 Net Stress (a.k.a. Effective stress) impact of Overburden, Horizontal

Stresses & Pore pressure Vertical stress
v

Max
horizontal
stress H

Min
horizontal
stress h

 Pore pressure in rock acts in all directions so it will reduce the total in-
situ stresses
 Logs

UCS Prediction • Typical UCS from neutron/density logs

from logs
25000 100

90
UCS

Calibration w/ 20000
GR
80

lab TWC tests GR 70

15000 60

GR, API
UCS, psi

50

Calibrated TWC 10000

UCS 40

log 30

5000 20
Factor: 3.1 Sand analysis 10

Disaggregated 0
19850 19900 19950
Perforated zones
20000 20050 20100
0
20150

Formation MD, ft

Strength log
Completion strategy – Is sand production an issue?

Sand Production
Envelope: Plot of
Bottom Hole
Flowing Press. vs.
Sand Free
Reservoir Press. Zone
BHFP (psi)

Threshold for onset

of sand production

Sand Production
Possible

Reservoir Pressure (psi)

We will discuss this further in the Rock mechanics section
Sand control completion options

Selected & Orientated Cased Hole Cased Hole Frac

Perforating Gravel Pack Pack
(CHGP, IGP)

Cased
Hole

Screen Only Open Hole Expandable

(SOC, NSP or SAS) Gravel Pack Screen

Open
Hole

Which technique is appropriate ??

20
Design Requirements for Sand Control Completions

 No Sand Control Failures

• Deepwater & high rate gas focus (intervention/sidetrack, cost, HSE impact)

 High Performance Sand Control Completions

• Productivity not limited by sand-face completion
• Low skin & high recoveries / completion

 Completions With Cased Hole Functionality - Conformance

• Selective completion
• Effective surveillance
• Zonal isolation
• Intelligent well integration

 Completion Installation Assurance and Reliability

• Time and cost efficient installation
• Long term reliability - benchmarking
Gravel and Screen Sizing
Introduction
The gravel and screen sizing criteria to be discussed is applicable to the following
sand control techniques:
• Open Hole Gravel Pack (OHGP)

• Frac-Pack (FP) or High Rate Water Pack (HRWP)

• Cased Hole Gravel Pack (CHGP)

• Stand Alone Screen (SAS)

• Expandable Sand Screen (ESS)

 Gravel (or proppant) specification is based on analysis of the sand distribution

and laboratory results

 Screen Specification based on gravel (or proppant) specs or other criteria if none
gravel application.
Formation sampling
 In order to determine the optimum sand control technique & equipment,
samples of the formation sand should be analysed
 It is essential to perform the analysis with truly representative samples
• Inadequate analysis might lead to premature failure of the selected
completion type
• Gravel too fine? Too coarse? Screen too fine? Too coarse?

 Samples can be obtained from full cores (preferred) or sidewall cores (not as
good)
• Produced or bailed sand is used (but carries risks of being
unrepresentative)
• Use of analogue sand – discuss with geologist

 Homogeneous reservoirs, sample at +/- 20 ft. intervals

 Heterogeneous reservoirs, sample at +/- 1 ft. intervals
Roundness & Sphericity

Roundness – Measure of the relative

sharpness of grain corners or of grain
curvature

Sphericity – Measure of how close a

sand particle approaches the shape of
a perfect sphere

• Lab tests indicate that a gravel less round and less spherical can control sand
production cf an equivalent sized perfectly round & spherical gravel.
• However, productivity must be considered and it is usually more beneficial to
use a more round & spherical gravel instead (in the case of above - smaller to
control sand)
 Dry Sieving – Sample preparation
1. Break down core and grind using Pestle Mortar achieving at least 30-50g of
sample
2. Remove other non-representative elements such as mud, oil etc by cleaning with a
solvent
3. Dry the sample
4. Pass the sample through a series of selected sieves (shaken – mechanically or
sonically) for 12-15min.
5. Take example from the first largest sieve and analyze under the microscope. If
there are particle clumps, grind more. Hand running over the screens can help to
separate clumps. Must be done carefully not to damage screens
6. Repeat sieving until only individual grains are left on each particular sieve size
7. Weigh the sand retaining in each sieve
 Dry Sieve analysis

• Summary of Equipment Utilized

Large

Small

Smallest sieve size 44m sub 325 mesh)

- particle smaller than this value collected in bottom tray
Laser particle size analysis ‘LPSA’
 Uses only a couple of grams of formation, therefore essential this is
representative and undamaged

 Recommended that sample is inspected to ensure it is clean

• Microscope inspection / removal of broken grains
• Mineralogical treatment to remove mud solids

 Sample is added to fluid (usually water) and resultant slurry is flowed through
the LPSA for analysis

 Identifies formation fines down below 44m sub 325 mesh)

 Measures Volume fraction of sands – not weight

 Very cost effective, less core used in the process

Laser particle size analysis ‘LPSA’ - theory
 Laser analyzers emit a laser light beam that scatters from the particle,
which is then measured and interpreted to determine particle size
distribution.
S a m p le in

1 5
2
2 2 3 4 5
S a m p le o u t

1 -L ig h t S o u r c e
2 -B e a m P r o c e s s in g U n it
3 -P a r tic le P r o c e s s in g U n it
4 -F o u r ie r le n s
5 -M u lti-E le m e n t D e te c to r

Malvern LPSA Analyzer

LPSA vs Traditional Sieve PSD response – other issues (1)
Sieve differentiates grains by the maximum secondary axis - may allow an
oblong grain to pass through if turned on its secondary axis

LPSA measures ‘equivalent spheres’ and obtains an average Grain

Diameter
Analysis Limitations of Sieve vs. Laser
Dry Sieving
 Uses 30 - 40gms of material
 Cannot measure particle sizes < 44
m
 Poorly sorted formations - Finer
particles may attach to larger
particles due to electrostatic forces
• Particles appear larger than
actual size
 Sieve errors due to damaged screens
possible
 Measure smallest dimension
 Good for coarser/well sorted
formations
LPSA
 Uses 1-2 gms of material
 Able to measure sub 44 m particles
 Pump rate must be checked to ensure drop
out is not occurring
 Coarser particles may cause ‘Eddy’
currents giving high fines reading
 Too high a concentration of sample may
result in bi-measurement – overestimate
fines
 Too low a concentration of sample may
result in insufficient signal-to-noise ratio
 Measures average diameter
 LPSA Analyzer must be checked for
damage and calibration
 Optical particle size analysis (OPSA) or SEM
Generalized Procedure for SEM Analysis

1. Percussion Side Wall Core Sample is

selected, cleaned and dried
2. Sample is coated in conductive
material for analysing (usually gold)
3. SEM mount is prepared (dry mount)
4. Sample is place under the SEM at
fairly low magnifications so that
shape, angularity and size can be
observed
5. Digital pictures are taken while SEM
moves ~250 times over the sample

Example of Sidewall Core Surface Used

for Optical SEM Point of Count
 Particle Size Distribution Analysis
Forms the basis for gravel and screen sizing and for completion selection
100

90

80

70
• D”Y”=“X” means
Cumulative % More Than

that “Y” % of 60

sand is greater 50
than “X” microns. 40

30

20

10 D50

0
1000 D10 D40 100 10 D90 D95 1
Particle size,microns
 PSD Analysis – Specific Data Points on PSD Plot
There are a few specific data points on a PSD plot critical to gravel and screen sizing and to
sand control type selection. These are:

• D10 – 10% of sand is larger than this diameter

• D40 – 40% of sand is larger than this diameter
• D50 – Median Grain Size
• D90 – 10% of sand is smaller than this diameter
• D95 – 5% of sand is smaller than this diameter

From these the following critical ratios are defined

• D40/D90 – Uniformity Coefficient, to evaluate sorting of the sand (well sorted/poorly
sorted)
• D10/D95 – Size Range, was identified by King/Tiffin (SPE39437)
Dry Sieve analysis – Particle Size Distribution (PSD)

100

90
Coarse,
80 Well-
sorted
70 sand
Cum. % more than

60

50
Finer, Poorly sorted
40 sand: Sieve cuts off
30
at ~44 µm

20

10

0
1000 100 10 1
Particle size, microns

Limitations on dry sieving in terms of fine sand characterisation

 PSD Analysis – Different ways to plot PSD

100
• “X” axis in
increasing 90

value 80
Cumulative % More Than

70
• “Y” axis “Cum 60
% More Than”
50

• Specific 40

parameters 30

stay the same 20

D50
as in previous 10
plot
0
1 D95 D90 10 100 D40 D10 1000
Particle size,microns
LPSA compared with Traditional sieve analysis
All samples
100

90

80

70
LPSA Fines
60 Tail
Total %

50

40 44 m
30

20

10

0
10000 1000 100 10 1 0.1
Particle size, microns
LPSA Average Sample #2 SPSA Sample#2 LPSA Average Sample #205
SPSA Sample#205C LPSA Sample from Iran SPSA Sample from Iran
Gravel size selection
 This is one of the most important steps in designing a gravel pack

 The most significant factor in gravel pack design is to leave a highly

permeable pathway between the formation and wellbore, one that sand
cannot penetrate

 To maximise productivity and minimise the skin of a well, it is essential

to
• Define the sand size likely to be productive

• Select the gravel size to stop the formation sand while not hindering
productivity
• Ensure the smallest gravel is larger than the screen mesh such that it
does not enter the screen
U.S. Mesh Definition Grain Size

 U.S. mesh series specifies the mesh size

and width of opening

 Mesh of a sieve or screen refers to the

number of openings per linear inch
1

 Width of the opening depends on the

mesh and diameter of the wire

 Mesh is used to describe gravel sizes

also
Gravel & screen selection – sizing principles
Gravel Pack Formation
Sand Sand

 Gravel is sized to stop the

formation sand

 Screen gauge should be smaller

than smallest gravel pack sand
grain size to stop gravel being
produced.

Wire Wrapped
Screen
Gravel & screen selection – consequences of getting it wrong

High fines & poorly sorted sand

in a Premium (mesh) Screen
Plugged Screen Element
Sizes vary, eg:75 to 250 micron

Installation failure – erosion of a

Issuescreen
1 Dec 2004 [Rev 0]
Sieve analysis – range of sand and mesh sizes

Mesh Inch mm Microns Sand

4 0.187 4.76 4760
5 0.157 4.00 4000
9 0.132 3.36 3360
Granular
7 0.111 2.83 2830
8 0.094 2.38 2380
10 0.079 2.00 2000
12 0.066 1.68 1680
14 0.056 1.41 1410 Very coarse sand
16 0.047 1.19 1190
18 0.039 1.00 1000
20 0.033 0.84 840
25 0.028 0.71 710 Coarse sand
30 0.023 0.59 590
35 0.020 0.50 500
Sieve analysis – range of sand and mesh sizes (cont’d)

Mesh Inch mm Microns Sand

40 0.017 0.42 420
45 0.014 0.35 350
Medium sand
50 0.012 0.30 300
60 0.0098 0.25 250
70 0.0083 0.21 210
80 0.0070 0.177 177
Fine sand
100 0.0059 0.149 149
120 0.0049 0.125 125
140 0.0041 0.105 105
170 0.0035 0.088 88
Very fine sand
200 0.0029 0.074 74
230 0.0025 0.063 63
270 0.0021 0.053 53
325 0.0017 0.044 44 Coarse silt
400 0.0015 0.037 37
Guidance on gravel selection – Saucier limitations

Does not take into account sorting or % sub 44 µm

100

90

80

70
Well sorted
Cumulative %

60 Poorly
Sand
50 Sorted
40
sand
30
Same Median size for both sands
20 (D50=75µm)
10

0
1000 100 10 1
Particle Diameter,µm
Gravel size selection guidelines – selection of minimum D50
Particle Size Distribution
100.00

90.00
Cumulative Percent of Sample By Weight

80.00

70.00

60.00
Most of the data
falls in this area
50.00

40.00 Productive Unproductive

30.00

D50 Range
20.00 Sand Medium - Sand Fine

10.00
Min D50
0.00
v. crs crs med fine v. fine crs med fine v. fine Clay
Sand Silt
Screen selection – wire spacing for WWS with gravel

 A widely accepted rule in selecting wire spacing is to determine a width no

larger than 75% of the smallest diameter gravel

 For example, for 20/40 gravel

• 40 mesh average diameter is 0.0165”
• 75% of this (0.0165” x 0.75) = 0.012”
• 12 thou is 12 gauge
 A 12 gauge wire wrapped screen could be
selected

 Lab tests indicate should have min 0.003” interference between min gravel and
max slot width

 E.g.: 12ga with 20/40 gravel, tolerance 0.0045” cf nominal gauge

Gravel & screen selection – screen selection
 Typical Gravel / screen combinations

Gravel size Median Gravel

Gravel Grain Range of Wire
Grain Diameter
(US Mesh) Diameter (inches) Spacing (Gauge)
(inches)
8 to 12 0.066 to 0.094 0.079 40 - 50
10 to 20 0.033 to 0.079 0.056 20 - 24
12 to 20 0.066 to 0.033 0.050 20 - 24
10 to 30 0.023 to 0.079 0.051 16 – 18
16 to 30 0.023 to 0.047 0.035 16 - 18
20 to 40 0.0165 to 0.033 0.025 10 - 12
30 to 40 0.0165 to 0.023 0.020 10 - 12
40 to 60 0.0098 to 0.0165 0.013 6-8
50 to 60 0.0098 to 0.0117 0.011 6–8
60 to 70 0.0083 to 0.0098 0.009 5–6
50 to 70 0.0083 to 0.0117 0.010 5-6
 Gravel size selection guidelines – Lab testing
Slurry Test
 ‘Worst Case’ scenario – formation sample is disaggregated, fluidized
and then pumped into gravel pack
 Utilizes a single phase brine with formation sample to generate slurry.
 Maximum of 100 psi utilized for pumping slurry
Sand Pack Cell

Slurry

Valve
Peristaltic Pump
Gravel size selection guidelines – Lab testing
Slurry Test

Filter cake
perm vs.
time
TIME

dP (screen)

TIME

Solids
Conc.
TIME
Gravel invasion – thin section photos

Thin section of non-invaded gravel / formation sand interface

Thin section of invaded gravel / formation sand interface

SCREENS
Screen types – wire wrapped screens
Typically a single wire wrapped around a perforated base pipe and welded to support
rods.
 Wire-wrapped screens have a higher inlet area per foot than slotted pipe, inflow
area 9 – 19% dependant on screen gauge and wire thickness

 Would be the screen of choice for the majority of SAS completions, though there
is a school of thinking that a premium screen is preferable in certain areas (e.g.
fine or heterogeneous sand)
WWS Wrap & Rib wires
Wires used in the fabrication of screens are produced
by shaping round wires into one of the following basic
shapes:
 Triangular
 ‘House’
 Round
Size of the wire is commonly designated by a six digit
code
 First 3 digits of these codes designate the width of
the wire in thousandths of one inch.
 Last 3 digits designate the height, also in
thousandths of one inch.
 For example:
• 090105 wire is 0.090” width and 0.105” height.
• 090140 wire is 0.090” width and 0.140” height.
Specific WW Screens – BakerWeld or Weatherford SuperWeld
 Both are conventional wire wrap screens. Weatherford SuperWeld
 Very similar to each other; widely used.
 Wire welded to the support rods at every point.
End ring
 Screen attached to base pipe at end rings.
 The Superweld is available in three different types Surface wire
of wire
• offered for increasing erosion resistance
• Of limited benefit Support rib

90L Wire 90 Wire 90H Wire Base pipe

0.090” 0.090”
0.090”

0.075” 0.140” 0.140”

Wire Wrapped Screens
Two sub-types:
Direct-wrap screen:
Slip-on screen:
Screen jacket rib wires are in direct contact
Screen jacket is manufactured with the base pipe & wrap wires along the
separately and later installed over the axial length.
perforated basepipe.
 No annular gap between pipe and
 Annular gap between pipe and
screen jacket.
screen jacket.
 Increased tensile, torque, and collapse
 Able to maintain tighter screen slot
strength relative to slip-on screens.
tolerances relative to direct wrap
screens.  Increases potential for slot size
variability relative to slip-on screens.
 Cost effective to manufacture.
 Simple manufacturing process.
Specific Direct Wrap Screens – Reslink LineSlot

 One of the most robust screens on the market.

The base pipe broke – the
 Reslink claims strength is limited only by the strength screen did not.
of the base pipe – tests appear to back up this claim.
 Very expensive – the price of a premium screen even
though it is only a wire wrapped screen.
• Reslink report superb field performance.
 No sand production on any of the wells it has
completed.
• Reslink offer lighter version (LiteSlot) if concerns
about weight of screen exist
Screen types – pre-packed screens

 These use specifically sized gravel (usually resin coated) held in place
by inner & outer wire wrap or inner wire wrap and outer shroud.

 The total inflow area

is less than wire-
wrapped screens and
slotted liners,
typically 3%

 Are easily plugged with fines, mud or dirty fluid

Screen types – pre-packed screens
• Pre-packs generally have higher collapse resistance than standard wire wraps
(though not better than direct wrap wire wraps).
• Pre-packed screens offer negligible or non-existent erosional benefit over wire
wraps.
• Erosion failure driven by solids loading – risk if void in gravel pack
• Erosion happens to any screen.
Type of Screens
Solid Cone Expansion
Differences Between Premium Screens.

 Both field and laboratory evidence indicates that no

single premium screen stands out over its
competitors, though some will perform better than
others for individual fields.

 The choice of premium screen should be made on an

individual field basis by means of laboratory testing
and financial considerations.

 Great care should be taken to maintain QA/QC.