SPE 93821

Sand Production Prediction and the Selection of Completion Methods for Horizontal
Wells in Intercampo Oil Field, Venezuela
D. Hongen and H. Dandan, RIPED PetroChina, and C. Wenxin, CNPC America Ltd.

Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and
Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 5 7 April 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented,
have not been reviewed by The Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by
author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society
meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum
Engineering. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for
commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300 words;
illustrations may not be coped. The proposal must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of
where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.BOX
833836,Richardson, TX 75083-3836,U.S.A, FAX 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Intercampo oilfield is unconsolidated sand reservoirs that are
characterized by heavy crude oil and mid-high permeability and
high saturation. This paper analyses sand production mechanism
and applies five prediction models to predict sand production.
Sand production condition of wells in Intercampo oilfield
indicates that prediction results are to meet with oilfield actual
status that sand production to occur seriously and the method of
the combination modulus is more accurate than other models
according to wells of acoustic logging data.
This paper considers the effect of formation damage and well
completion parameters of different well completion methods on
productivity forecast of horizontal wells with four series of well
completion, including open hole, slotted liner with openhole,
open hole gravel packing with wire wrapped/pre-packed screen
and cased perforated completion. And, the productivity forecast
equations were corrected by authors, the corrected equation is
accuracy compared with the former equations by calculation,
and one well completion method that open hole with gravel
packing and pre-packed screen was selected. Sine 1999, the
selected well completion method have been applied in
Intercampo oilfield of CNPC in Lake of Maracaibo and obtained
higher productivity than other completion methods of other
companies. The sand production was effectively controlled and
the oilfield was continuously kept sand free for 5 years in the
area. Finally, a good economic benefit was gained because the
workover and well re-completion in the oilfield for sand control
was down.
Introduction
Intercampo oilfield is located in Zulia of western Venezuela and
in the northeast on the Lake of Maracaibo, which was taken over
by CNPC American Ltd. Company since 1998. The water depth
of the lake is about 7 to 26 meters and the whole area is 39.56
square meters. Most of these reservoirs buried from 3560ft to
7500ft and the heavy crude oil gravity ranges from 12.5 to 23.3

API. The reservoir is characterized by strong heterogeneity and

bigger differential of physical property and the middleheavy
crude oil and edge water and bottom water1.
Intercampo contract area can be divided into 7 reservoirs in the
longitudinal direction, between which geologic character is
different and of which exploitation is at an imbalance state. At
present, the reservoirs in the contract area can be classified to
three types, including BASUP and BAMED in top Miocene,
which are heavy oil and mid-high permeability and high
saturation unconsolidated sand reservoir. BAINF and LAGNA
and LGINF in middle Miocene, which are middle heavy crude
oil and mid-high permeability and high saturation
unconsolidated sand reservoir, and B-2-X in low Eocene, which
are middle heavy crude oil and low porosity-permeability and
high saturation sand reservoir.
Mid-high permeability heavy reservoir covers BASUP53 and
BAMED78, which have multi oil-water systems, and Initial
petroleum in place is approximately 500MMB, it taken up
27.9% of all contract area.
High permeability middle heavy reservoir covers BAMED58
and BAINF60 and LAGUNA10 and LGINF11 which have multi
oil-water systems, and Initial petroleum in place is
approximately 558MMb, it accounted for 31.2% of the whole
contract area. Presently, recovery percent of reserves of LA10
and LG11 in Miocene were up to 34% and 39.6% respectively
and has been at a mid-later stage of oil recovery.
For high oil saturation reservoir in Miocene, Porosity is about
26.7 to 37.8% and the mean porosity is 30.38%. Air
permeability is about 409 to 2962mD, the mean 1456.93 mD.
Oil saturation is about 57% to 86, the mean is 70.17%.
Reservoir property parameters in Intercampo oilfield can be
seen in the Table 1. Owing to unconsolidated cemented
formation there, sand production occurred in oil production
process, in this case, daily liquid-oil production is decline
dramatically and GOR is rise suddenly to a high value, the wells
general production was influenced critically, Therefore, sand
control completion methods must be applied in the oilfield.
Analysis for sand production
In recent 10 years, horizontal well technology has been
employed widely in the production of heavy oil and extra heavy
oil. A main problem is to solve heavy crude oil with sand
production in horizontal well for the unconsolidated sand
reservoir. Therefore, it is most important to forecast sand
production and optimization completion method.
BAMED-58/78 and BAINF60 are the main reservoirs in
Intercampo oilfield as well as the typical unconsolidated sand

reservoir of the area. For BAMED-58/78, permeability is

1436mD, porosity 30%, oil saturation around 72% to 75%, and
for BAINF60, permeability is 1854mD, porosity 30%, oil
saturation 76%.
Baker Oil Tools has obtained 75 d50 (mean particle size of
formation sand) from 5304ft to 6393ft in different depth. Table 2
provided 40 d50 of BAMED-58 and BAINF-60 from 5304ft to
5726ft in different depth. (See Table 2)
Sand production mechanism and reasons have been analyzed
according to the main property parameters in the area. Rule of
thumb of sand production prediction were used to achieve an
exact result of sand production conditions by acoustic logging
data and reservoir parameters of Intercampo oilfield.
Consequently, it is clear that why sand control completion must
be adopted.
Sand production mechanism
Continuous sand production
Production parameters and sand production concentration will
keep stable and the attenuation time changes slowly during the
period. The stable continuous sand production for long time is
the dominating sand production type in well production in the
area. Usually, if shear strength of rock were lower than 1000psi,
it would be considered as weak consolidation rock. As we know,
unconsolidated sand belongs to a kind of weak consolidation
and has low rock strength, which would turn into loose sand
after fluid scoured. This is one of basic reason why the
reservoirs produce sand.
Unstable sand production
The amounts of sand production decrease with time when oil
wells produce daily. In general, such type sand production
happens in discharging after perforation and acidizing treatment,
in addition, when bottom water is coned/crested or production
pressure differential was increased, such as sand production
concentration and volume and its attenuation time, of which
physical variable change is bigger. At present, dropdown of
BAMED and BAINF reservoir are 140psi and 156psi
respectively. Reservoir pressure attenuation is equal to augment
effective stress to cause shear in well wall; pressure increase
make borehole wall wreck-stretched easily and production
pressure differential or production rate goes up, finally, sand
production occurs.
Sudden sand production
There are two action mechanisms for viscous fluid flows in sand
production process. The first is sand-suspending and carrying,
and sand was scoured and denudated by carrying fluid. The
second is as following: when water invades, water-blocking
effect will bring about and oil flow resistance increase. Water
production can dissolve a part of cement sand particles result in
the cementing damage of formation. There are two behaviors:
when clay expands, permeability decreases and oil flow
continuity is interrupted, when gas invades, Jamins effect will
happen and oil flow resistance will rise up. Meanwhile, sand
production rises up because gas bubble will break down, which
make cavitations erosion in the reservoir.
Cased perforated completion would bring about uncompleteness
of well, therefore, the completion fluid flow speed is too high
and sand production will occur as a result of reservoir structure
distortion and breakage when completion fluid flow speed is
higher than critical sand production speed. In addition,
improper stimulation production methods (including acidizing

SPE 93821

and fracturing) and management can cause downhole pressure

surge and sand production of a sudden subsequently. This is a
matter that amounts of sand production will bring about sanded
up in short time, or will result in a trouble of off production. For
example, thanks to a big production rate or well-stopped
production to form sand bridge to lead to the sand blocking, in
this case, the wellbore will be plugged by a large amount of
sand. The reservoir is a weak consolidation sandstone, the rock
strength is low, therefore, the rock will be changed into looses
sand particle by the flow fluids, this is a main reason why sand
shall be produced in the area. Worse rock grading is a big
character in the area, which brings certain difficulty to sand
control techniques 9.
According to statistical data, the amount data of d50 more than
0.00325in is 30, it taken up 75% of the whole amount. In
addition, sand production can be classified into two kinds: one is
free sand filling among rock skeleton and the other is rock
skeleton sand. When flow fluid speed of formation fluid reaches
to a certain value, it causes unconsolidated free sand in reservoir
channel will be moved and sand production in oil well will start.
With flow fluid speed going up and force on oil well changing,
the amount of sand production increases. Accordingly, the
unconsolidated sandstone will be broke by shear, the rock
structure is broken, and skeleton sand will be changed into free
sand and moved by flow fluid when fluid speed reaches a certain
value, moreover, a large amounts of sand was produced from oil
well. It is defined that this moving packing sand speed is called
threshold flow speed. When liquid production speed is more
than the threshold, packing sand would be carried with fluid.
Moreover, when skeleton sand becomes free sand, its flow speed
is called critical flow speed. When liquid production speed is
more than critical flow speed, skeleton sand in reservoir would
be carried too. Once this kind sand will be pumped, pay zone
may collapse, or even oil wells will be abandoned. If packing
sand were in porous medium, sand particle would encounter
more and more fluid scouring force when fluid speed increases
continually. When fluid flow speed is up to a certain value,
small particle goes through pore throat into oil well to causes
sand production in oilwell.
Five methods for the sand production forecast
There are four prediction methods of sand production including
field observation, rule of thumb, laboratory, and numerical
modeling method based on popular sort method. This paper
mainly applied the empirical forecast method, including
combination modulus, Schlumberger, interval transit-time,
porosity, and bottom-hole pressure control method 7. At present,
it is difficult to adopt only one method to forecast sand
production exactly in the completely well exploitation phase.
So it is considered that only several methods are combined to
employ, utmost prediction accuracy can be achieved.
Interval transit-time method
Using acoustic logging data of formations, sand production
would also be forecasted. A critical Interval transit-time value
89.9 s/ft had been defined first of all. If t is more than this
value, oil well would produce sand. Otherwise, sand-free
production should be appeared. However, this value is slightly
different in different oilfield production.
In terms of the statistics of the wells in the oilfield, the interval
transit time in the reservoir is mostly more than 89.9 s /ft;

SPE 93821

BA744 and BA2295 results were shown in Table 3.

Combination modulus method
Applying acoustic and density logging data, Mexico Bay of
America, North Sea of British and Sand Control Center of
Shengli oilfield have forecasted sand production in some oil
wells and achieved above 80% accuracy. Numerous analysis on
statistical results of oil wells sand production show that no sand

cementing force of the rock particle in order to prevent the sand

production of formation, and then they had deduced the equation
of bottom hole flowing pressure to prevent sand production, as
follow:

a 10 3 C
Pwf g H (cos )
1

is produced when EC is more than or equal to 2.88106psi, light

sand is produced when EC is between 2.16106psi and
6

2.8810 psi, and great sand is produced when EC is less than

2.16 106psi. Elastic combination modulus EC is calculated as
follow,
9 . 94 10 8 r
Ec =
t c2
(1)

Some calculated elastic combination modulus EC can be seen in

Table 5 based on five wells acoustic logging data. Most of
formations EC values of well BA2295 are less than 2.16106psi,
some are between All EC values of BA744, BA2297, BA2313
and BA2326 wells are shown less than 2.16106psi. Therefore,
it is concluded that most of formations would produce sand
when wells are normal operating, and some layers may be worse
or lighter and or even no sand.
Schlumberger method
This method is to calculate ESEB, which is the function of rock
porosity, Poisson ratio and interval transit-time. Schlumberger
Co. put forward this approach after they had made many tests to
oil wells in Mexico Bay. It is suggested that no sand is
produced when ESEB is more than 5.51109psi and sand is
possibly produced when ESEB is less than 4.79109psi. the
results were shown in Table6, ES EB is computed as following
Equation,

ES EB =

(9 .94 10 8 ) 2 (1 2 )(1 + ) 2
6 (1 ) ( t c )
2

(2)
It is concluded that all five wells would produce a large amount
of sand. However, some layers of well BA2295 are not.
Porosity method
With regard to the loose sandstone formation, porosity of
formation can be one of discriminant criteria that can judge
whether sand production will happen in a certain formation or
not. If porosity of formation exceeds 30%, the possibility of
sand production is larger. If the porosity is within the range of
20%~30%, slight sand production will emerge, but sand control
measurements should be taken. The porosity of the formation in
area is above 30%, without sand control measurements, sand
production will be very serious in the area.
Bottom-hole pressure control method
.. of former Soviet Union put forward bottom-hole
pressure control method and proposed that formation stability
near wellbore is related with not only formation properties but
also bottom-hole pressure. .. et al. based on
conditions that tangential stress on bottom formation is less than

(3)
As the above equation has described, particle cohesion C was
put 203.05psi, particle friction force coefficient a was put 0.1,
Poisson ratio was put 0.2 to 0.5, rock pressure conductor
coefficient was supposed as 0.8 and formation slant angle
was put 0. Just like the above method, Interval transit-time data
was used in the calculations. Using five wells acoustic logging
data, the calculated critical pressure was more than the actual
bottom-hole pressure, which indicated that formations sand
production surely occurs.
To sum up, the above data is original from all five oil wells in
the same area. Combination of five methods can get good
forecast result. Moreover, combination modulus is more
accurately than other methods. Accordingly, horizontal wells in
this area must adopt the corresponding completion method (See
Table 6, 7).
The selection of completion methods for horizontal well
Corrected productivity forecast equations
Giger, Joshi, Borisov, and Renard&Dupuy have put forward
horizontal well productivity equation in 80s of last century. If
eccentricity of actual horizontal wellbore and formation
anisotropy coefficient is considered, Joshis natural productivity
forecast equation as (4) and (5) for horizontal well should be
adopted.
542 .8 K h h / B o o
J h1 =
2
a + a ( L / 2) 2
ln[
] + ( h / L ) ln[ h / 2 rw ]
L/2
(4)

Jh2 =

542.8Khh / Boo

a + a (L / 2)2
(h / 2)2 + ()2
]
ln[
] + (h / L) ln[
hrw / 2
L/ 2
(5)
2

Factually, it is proved that forecast productivity by using the

above equations is more than the actual productivity. The
permeability Kh using Q to calculate is unstable. So corrected
Joshi equation is reckoned as rational that Kh substitutes for K.
K is the geometry mean of horizontal permeability Kh and
vertical permeability Kv, corrected equation is as follow 2

Jh3 =

542.8Kh/ Bo o

(6)

a + a2 (L / 2)2
(h / 2)2 +()2
ln[
]+(h / L) ln[
]
L/ 2
hrw / 2

Productivity equation for openhole completion

As damages come from drilling and completion, wellbore of all
completion methods will bring along the additional drawdown
that cause decrease of production. Therefore, productivity
equation should be put up under the different completion
methods, which are based on forecast equation of natural

SPE 93821

productivity. If openhole completion is applied, oil well will

have a lower productivity than natural producing due to
formation damage from drilling fluid. So open hole horizontal
skin S is added to equation (7) to predict productivity in
openhole completion 4.
542.8Kh/ Boo
(7)
Jh3 =
2
2
2
2
a + a (L / 2)
(h / 2) + ( )
] + Shd
ln[
] + (h / L) ln[
hrw / 2
L/ 2

Productivity equation for openhole gravel packing with

cased completion
As perforated completion is employed, oil well will have a
lower productivity than natural producing due to formation
damage from drilling and cementing as well as perforation.
Perforation damages mainly come from unperfected perforation
degree, including two kinds dropdown. When flow streams
bend and flow into to get together, one of dropdowns happens.
When rocks around perforated hole are compacted in the
perforation process, the other dropdown is formed to decrease
permeability greatly. Geometry skin coefficient Sp and
compacted skin coefficient Sc are used to describe the two above
additional pressure drawdown. Oil productivity of perforated
completion would be predicted by adding these skin coefficients
to equation 3 (8).
542.8Kh/ Boo
(8)
J =
hd4

a+ a2 (L/ 2)2
(h/ 2)2 +()2
ln[
]+(h/ L)ln[
]+Shd +Shp
L/ 2
hrw / 2

Productivity equation for openhole gravel packing with wire

wrapped/pre-packed screen completion
Gravel packing completion is general employed to achieve a
good sand control result for unconsolidated loosen heavy oil
reservoir. Accordingly, gravel packing in outside casing with the
wire wrapped/pre-packed screen completion should be used if
geologic condition can not allow openhole completion and
formation must be expect sand control. Gravel-packing barrier
as a sand filtration will be formed between casing wall and wire
wrapped/pre-packed screen after gravel is packing in outside
casing. In order to gravel packing prevents formation sand
production as well as keeps high permeability, the gravel
diameter should be equal to 5 to 6 times of d50. Nevertheless,
wire wrapped screen completion only controls sand by wire
wrapped screen, without combination effects. SG would be
added to equation (9) to express additional pressure drop when
oil flows through gravel packing. Here are three skin
coefficients Shd, Shp and SG as following equation, which can be
used to compute oil productivity when the above completion
methods are applied at the same time 3.

Jhd5 =

542.8Kh/ Boo

a + a (L/ 2)
(h/ 2)2 +()2
ln[
] +(h/ L)ln[
] + Shd +Shp + SG
L/ 2
hrw / 2
2

9
Productivity equation for openhole gravel packing with
slotted liner
Horizontal well productivity forecast equation for the
completion with slotted liner is right for middle and coarse
unconsolidated sand reservoir. When the slotted liner

completion is used a certain additional dropdown would be

formed between the liner and borehole wall by the formation
sand of natural accumulation, to make the oil well productivity
was declined finally. To add skin Ss to indicate this additional
dropdown, production equation can be expressed as follow 8.
542.8Kh/ Boo
10
Jhp6 =
2
2
2
2
a + a (L/ 2)
(h/ 2) +()
] +(h/ L)ln[
] + Shd + Shp + Ss
ln[
L/ 2
hrw / 2

Comparison productivity with different completion methods

for the same horizontal well
Productivity of four horizontal wells with different completion
methods have been calculated according to wells data in
Intercampo oilfield. Basic parameters of the reservoir are as
follow:
Kh=1000mD Kv=1/101/5Kh o=2.510cp
Bo=1.11.2422 h=24.691.8ft rw=0.36ft
o=60.61lbm/ft3 L=13111339ft Kg=142mD
rd=1.64ft P=261.07725.19psi .
The radius of casing and wrapped/pre-packed screen and slotted
liner are 7in, 5-1/2in and 6-1/2in respectively. 6in perforation
gun was selected; permeability of perforation zone is about
120mD, perforation density about is five shots/ft, perforation
depth 0.53ft, and perforation radius about 0.036ft and phase
angle 180. Comparing results were shown in Table 4, it could be
concluded that openhole gravel packing with wire wrapped/prepacked screen completion is the best combination completion
method to gain oil well a high production rate. Meanwhile,
prediction error is no more than 10% by corrected equations and
they are applicable greatly. Horizontal wells such as BA2330,
BA2348, and BA2387 in Intercampo oilfield have applied the
combination completion method and they show that the results
are consistent with the above conclusion.
The selection of completion method applied in Intercampo
oilfield 6
Sand control at early stage was adopted to assure stable
production in Intercampo oilfield. In terms of the rule of sand
control selection and comparison with different completion
methods are considered that combination sand control
technology of the gravel packing with wire wrapped screen or
pre-packed screen technique will be selected firstly for
horizontal well according to sand production characters.
Horizontal well sand control with Slim-Packer pre-packed
screen with gravel packing in high-pressure has applied in the
oilfield. However, traditional methods were stand-alone slotted
liner or pre-packed screen without gravel packing out casing in
this area. Gravel size was determinated between 20 to 40 meshes
according to oilfield experiences.
Combination sand control mechanism is that stainless wire
wrapped screen would go into oil formation and high qualitypermeability quartz gravel is filled in annulus between screen
and casing. Then the purpose of sand control is achieved by
forming multilayer sand barrier, of which are constituted by
gravel packing to keep out formation sand and screen to keep
out gravel.
Merits of combination sand control are mainly as below: control
sand flow effect on oil production; make sure oil flow all right;

SPE 93821

prolong sand control period but have no effect on production. In

addition, fluid flow condition can be improved and oilwell
production rate will be increased with gravel packing
More than 40 horizontal wells sand control technology has been
employed in Intercampo oilfield. Oil flow resistance is low and
accord with the standard of sand was controlled but was not
blocked. Sand control is proved effective and production cost
was cut down. Finally, a good economic benefit should be
obtained.
The combination sand control was a pioneer work to been used
in Lake Maracaibo. Sand control success ratio is 95%, but local
is only 75%. Most of sand control period has been up to 4
years.
Horizontal well BA2299 sand control completion successfully
firstly in 1999, PDVSA regards as a miracle in the area.
Production curve and completion method shall be seen in Fig.1.
Production decline of BA2299 is smaller than adjacent well,
which oil rate kept approximately 300bbl per day for a long time
and accumulative total oil production has reached 50MMbbl
(see Fig.3). Another horizontal well BA2321 sand control has
been succeed at the same year (See Fig.2 and 4) 1.
Workover for Well BA2397
Combination sand control completion has been popularly with
more than 40 horizontal wells in Intercampo oilfield. However,
sand control again will meet in the future development; it is recompletion a difficult problem. Workover for horizontal wells in
Intercampo oilfield has been seldom occurring in Maracaibo
area. But fishing pre-packed screen of horizontal section is a
difficult task in the gravel is packed outside casing. It is a gap in
the workover task in the area. The traditional method used
sidetrack, but costs is too much. Therefore, an economic and
effective method for re-completion of horizontal well has been
searched for re-completion well BA2397, which re-completion
of BA2397 has successfully applied cutting, back off and then
fishing sand control tubing. Workover for BA2397 has taken 10
days and horizontal section was 357ft after re-completion, oil
rate went up to 162bbl per day and water cut declined from
70%to 54%, of which re-completion of sand control is the first
example for workover of open-hole horizontal well in the area
and workover experiences have been also gained.
Conclusions
1. Studies of sand production mechanism show that
continuous sand production is a main characteristic of
heavy oil sand production in Intercampo oilfield. And that
why sand is produced in this area is due to weak
consolidation of the unconsolidated sand and low rock
strength, which make the rock easily to become into loose
sand after fluid flow scouring action.
2. Sand production prediction indicates that there is sand
production in some blocks and sand control must be
performed in early stage. Of the five forecast methods,
combination modulus has a higher subdivision grade and
can distinguish light, possible and worse sand production.
However, sand production prediction accuracy will be
improved by many forecast methods combination
3. Studies show that corrected equation predicted productivity
is more practicality and nearer to producing data. It is
proved that combination sand control such as openhole
gravel packing with wire wrapped/pre-packed screen
would make a higher and longer time stable production

than other sand control methods.

Workover success of BA2397 brought rich experience to
deal with sand control failure of horizontal wells.
Reference
1. Hongen D et al., Research report of horizontal well
development
technology
in
Intercampo
4.

oilfieldVenezuela (Sept 2004).

2. Hongen D: A new method to predict horizontal wells
production,Petroleum drilling and production technology
(Sept 1996) 76.
3. Youming X., Yingde P, Study on productivity prediction of
the horizontal wells with completion methods of perforation
series, Journal of Southwestern Petroleum Institute (May
1996)
4. Youming X., Yingde P: Study on productivity prediction of
the horizontal wells with open hole series of completion
methods, Journal of Southwestern Petroleum Institute
(May 1997) 43.
5. Dongchuan L.: A study on perforation crushed zone,
Petroleum Exploration and Development (Jan. 2000) 110.
6. Renpu W.: Advanced well Completion Engineering, second
edition, Petroleum Industry Press in China (May 2000), 73.
7. Carlos Guirados et al., Production Optimization of Sucker
Rod Pumping Wells Producing Viscous Oil in Boscan Field,
Venezuela, paper SPE 29536 presented at the 1995 SPE
Production Operation Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK,
U.S.A, 2-4 April.
8. Wang Pingshuang et al., Sand Production Prediction of
Weizhou 12-1 Oilfield in Beibu Gulf in South China Sea,
paper SPE 64623 presented at the 2000 SPE International
Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, China, 7-10
November.
9. Yula Tang et al., Performance of Horizontal Wells
Completed with Slotted Liners and Perforations, paper
SPE 65516 presented at the 2000 SPE/Petroleum Society of
CIM International Conference on Horizontal Well
Technology, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 6-8 November.
10. Travis W.Cavender, Heavy Oil Development: Summary of
Sand Control and Well Completion Strategies Used with
Multilateral Applications, paper SPE 87966 presented at
the 2004 IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology
Conference and Exhibition, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 13-15
September.
Acknowledgements
The authors want to thank CNPC America Ltd, Venezuela for
giving permission to publish this paper. We also thank the
Department of oil & gas development planning, RIPED,
Petrochina for their valuable assistance on preparing this paper.
Nomenclature
Ec= combination modulus value, 106psi
tc=time difference of sound wave,s/ft
=layer density, lbm/ft3
ESEB=schlumberger value, 109psi
Pwf=bottom-hole pressure, psi
H=oil layer depth, ft
g=gravity acceleration,ft/s2

SPE 93821

=slant angle of layer,

QA=actual production rate, bbl/d
QIO=ideal production rate, bbl/d
QAO=actual openhole production rate, bbl/d
Q1=open hole gravel packing with wire wrapped or pre-packed
screen production rate, bbl/d
Q2= open hole gravel packing with slotted liner production rate,
bbl/d
Q3=openhole gravel packing with perforation production rate,
bbl/d

SG=skin factor when sand packed in casing in horizontal well

Ss=skin factor when gravel packing with slotted liner in
horizontal well

o=oil density , lbm/ft

A=flow square of well wall, ft2

Appendix

o=oil viscosity, cp
Bo=oil volume coefficient
= anisotropy coefficient
=eccentricity distance of horizontal well, ft
=major semi-axis of the ellipse area , ft
Kh=horizontal permeability, mD
Kv=vertical permeability, mD
K=effective permeability, mD
=formation thickness, ft
rw=wellbore radius, ft
L=horizontal well length, ft
reh=reservoir outer boundary radius, ft
Shd=open-hole horizontal drilling skin factor
Svd=open-hole vertical drilling skin factor
Shp= perforated skin of horizontal perforation factor
Svp= perforated skin of vertical perforation factor
Sp=geometry skin from perforation factor
Sh=flow skin in radial direction, mD
Kd=permeability of drilling damage section, mD
rd= radius of drilling damage, ft
rwe=effective wellbore radius, ft
lp=penetrating thickness in perforations (calculate from well
wall),ft
= a coefficient defined by rwe,
Sv=flow skin factor in vertical flow direction factor
hD=dimensionless perforations distance,
Den=perforated density, shots/ft
rpd=dimensionless perforations radius, ft
rp= perforations radius, ft
h1=distance between perforated hole, ft
Swb=wellbore skin factor
rwd=dimensionless radius around wellbore,
Sc=perforating compaction zone skin factor
Kc=permeability of compaction zone, mD
rc=compaction zone radius, which is equal adding rp to
compaction zone thickness, ft

Pg=additive dropdown when oil flew gravel packing layer, psi

Ps=additive dropdown when oil flew in formation sand layer,
psi
Kg=permeability of sand packing layer, mD
Lg=sand layer thickness, ft. Lg= (wellbore diameter-outer

diameter of screen tubing/slotted liner)/2

Equations for different completion methods are deduced

as follow
As noted in the text, represents anisotropy in horizontal
direction and vertical direction, which is important to production
equations.
=(h/v)0.5
All equations are based on Joshi equation, fluid drainage as an
ellipse.

a = ( L / 2)[0.5 + 0.25 + (2reH / L ) 4 ]0.5

When openhole completion was selected, skin factor should be
considered as follow.

Shd =

h
L

Svd =

h K h
L

[(

Kd

1) ln

rd
h K
] + ( h 1)S p
rw
L Kd

When the effect of perforation was considered, the skin factor

should be calculated as follow,

Shp =(h/L)Svp Svp =Sp+Sc Sp=Sh+Sv+Swb

Sh =ln(rw/rwe) rwe =(rw/lp),
value see Table.1

Table.1 value of
phase angle

phase angle

0.250

90

0.726

180

0.500

60

0.813

120

0.648

45

0.860

S v = 10ahDb1 rpdb
h

1
D

en

k
l

rpd =rp(Kv/Kh+1)/2h, h1=1/Den,

a=a1lg(rpd)+a2 b=b1rpd+b2
Select a1 a2 b1 and b2 according to phase angle, see Table.2

SPE 93821

Table.2 value of a1 a2 b1 and b2

Phase
angle

a1

a2

b1

b2

-2.091

0.0453

5.1313

1.8672

180

-2.025

0.0943

3.0373

1.8115

120

-2.018

0.0634

1.6136

1.7770

90

-1.905

0 .1038

1.5674

1.6935

60

-1.898

0.1028

1.3654

1.6490

45

-1.788

0.2398

1.1915

1.6392

Swb =C1exp(C2rwd)

Sc =

SG=

4.468 1013 EBo LG

Bo LG
P g=
(qo )2 +
qo
2
0.5877 103 K g A
A

1.47 10 7
and E=
.
K G0.55
When openhole gravel packing with wire wrapped/pre-packed
screen was applied in a horizontal well, skin factor must be
calculated as follow,

rwd =rw/(rw+lp)

Ss =

C1 and C2 are decided by phase angle, see Table.3

Table.3 value of C1 and C2

0
180
120

C1

C2
-1

1.610

2.675

-2

4.532

-3

5.320

2.610
6.610

Phase
angle
90

qo Bo o

And Pg was additive pressure when crude oil flew in grave,

K
K
r
1
l p [ h h ] ln c
Den
Kc Kd
rp

Phase
angle

542 .8 K h K v L Pg

C1
1.910

qo Bo

And Pg was additive pressure when crude oil flew in grave,

C2
-3

542.8 K h K v LPs

P s =

6.155

60

-4

3.010

7.509

45

4.610-5

8.791

4.4681013 EBo Lg
2

(qo )2 +

Bo Lg
0.5877103 Kg A

and A =2rwL.

When openhole gravel packing with wire wrapped/pre-packed

screen was applied in a horizontal well, skin factor must be
calculated as follow.

Tables
TABLE 1 Reservoir Property of Intercampo
Reservoir type

Mid-high permeability heavy oil

Reservoir

Permeability
(mD)

Porosity
(%)

API

BASUP.53

10001500

2831

10.518.3

14361854

2831

21.223.2

<10

15.4

22.222.7

BAMED.78
High permeability middle heavy oil

BAMED.58
BAINF.60
LAGUNA.10
LGINF.11

Low permeability middle heavy oil

B-2-X

qo

SPE 93821

TABLE 2 Middle Value Data of Formation Sand Size in BAMED-58 and BAINF-60
Reservoir

BAMED-58

Depth
(ft)

d50
(in)

5*d50
(in)

6*d50
(in)

5304

0.000195

0.000975

0.00117

5311

0.0003

0.0015

0.0018

5329

0.0085

0.0425

0.051

5333

0.0035

0.0175

0.021

5340

0.0065

0.0325

0.039
0.048

5349

0.008

0.04

5359

0.005

0.025

0.03

5365

0.00146

0.0073

0.00876

5368

0.0050

0.025

0.03

5383

0.007

0.035

0.042

5394

0.007

0.035

0.042

5404

0.00475

0.02375

0.0285

5417

0.0022

0.011

0.0132

5424

0.0117

0.0585

0.0702

5437

0.008

0.04

0.048

5445

0.0085

0.0425

0.051

5448

0.01176

0.0588

0.07056

5453

0.00325

0.01625

0.0195

5467

0.005

0.025

0.03

5476

0.0093

0.0465

0.0558

5484

0.0047

0.0235

0.0282

5491

0.00325

0.01625

0.0195

5502

0.0036

0.018

0.0216

Gravel Size(US Mesh)

8-12

12-20

20-40

40-60

Continued TABLE 2 Middle value data of formation sand size in BAMED-58 and BAINF-60
Reservoir

Depth
(ft)

d50
(in)

5*d50
(in)

Small total
Percents
BAINF-59

5534

0.005

0.025

0.03

5544

0.0065

0.0325

0.039

5550

0.008

0.04

0.048

5575

0.0063

0.0315

0.0378

5586

0.0045

0.0225

0.027

5605

0.00024

0.0012

0.00144

5612

0.0025

0.0125

0.015

5616

0.004

0.02

0.024

5627

0.0117

0.0585

0.0702

5635

0.0002

0.001

0.0012

5656

0.0095

0.0475

0.057

5660

0.00183

0.00915

0.01098

5680

0.0098

0.049

0.0588

5692

0.0022

0.011

0.0132

5711

0.0065

0.0325

0.039

5717

0.0075

0.0375

0.045

5726

0.0156

0.078

0.0936

Small total
Percents
All total

Gravel Size(US Mesh)

6*d50
(in)

8-12

12-20

20-40

40-60

10

5%

40%

50%

5%

6.7%

53.3%

16

3
20%

13

20%
4

SPE 93821

TABLE 3 Interval Transit-time Prediction

Well No.

Depthft

Acoustic time(us/ft)

Sand production

Well No.

Depthft

Acoustic time (us/ft)

Sand production

BA744

5604

88.5

no

BA2295

5055.58

86.63

no

5446.5

87.37

no

5055.33

86.82

no

5377

89.03

no

4963.08

75.42

no

5376.5

85.58

no

4962.83

68.59

no

5376

87.08

no

4962.58

71.42

no

5375.5

89.8

no

4962.33

76.17

no

---

---

---

4962.08

79.4

no

4961.83

87.03

no

TABLE 4 Comparisons of Oil Rate in Different Completion Methods

Well No.

Well No.

Qbbl/d
QA

QIO

QAO

Q1

Q2

Q3

BA2526

780

949

870

863

852

795

Q/QIO

0.82

--

0.92

0.91

0.90

Q/QA

--

0.18

0.10

0.09

BA2330

650

841

721

Q/QIO

0.74

--

0.86

Q/QA

--

Qbbl/d
QA

QIO

QAO

Q1

Q2

Q3

BA2348

1428

1815

1550

1537

1482

1437

0.84

Q/QIO

0.79

--

0.85

0.85

0.82

0.79

0.08

0.02

Q/QA

--

0.21

0.08

0.07

0.04

0.01

714

707

669

BA2387

1291

1616

1397

1382

1347

1347

0.85

0.84

0.79

Q/QIO

0.80

--

0.86

0.86

0.83

0.83

Q/QA

--

0.25

0.08

0.07

0.04

0.04

0.2927 0.1083 0.0972

0.0866 0.0272

10

SPE 93821

TABLE 5 Combination Modulus Prediction

Well No. Depthft Acoustic time
(us/ft)

Sand production
Combination modulus106psi

BA744

BA2295

BA2297

BA2313

BA2326

5343.5

111.44

1.1015

worse

5363.5

129.93

0.8103

worse

5376.5

85.58

1.8678

worse

5385

100.73

1.3482

worse

5650

125.35

0.8706

worse

5059.58

216.82

0.291

worse

5042.83

169.9

0.4739

worse

5465.58

97.1

1.4509

worse

5055.58

86.63

1.8228

worse

4962.33

76.17

2.3578

light

4963.08

75.42

2.4049

light

5108.75

126.51

0.8547

worse

5132.75

123.66

0.8946

worse

5002

113.63

1.0595

worse

5099.75

103.57

1.2753

worse

4982.25

90.24

1.6799

worse

4868.5

138.72

0.7109

worse

4870

136.32

0.7361

worse

4907.5

125.21

0.8725

worse

5262.5

115.6

1.0237

worse

4943

107.93

1.1743

worse

5403.5

94.91

1.5186

worse

4860.5

130.41

0.8044

worse

4967.25

125.1

0.8741

worse

4796

115.9

1.0184

worse

4981.5

106.98

1.1953

worse

4807.25

96.7

1.4629

worse

4806

86.59

1.8245

worse

11

SPE 93821

TABLE 6 Prediction Comparison Combination Modulus with Acoustic Time Modulus

Well No.

Parameter

BA744

Ec

--

1.868

0.810

1.14

worse

ESEB

0.2

4.599

0.865

1.75

possibility

Pos.ratio

Max.

Min.

Mean

Sand
production

0.3

4.338

0.816

1.62

possibility

Ec

--

2.907

0.291

0.01

possibility

ESEB

0.2

11.145

0.112

1.66

Free or
possibility

0.3

10.513

0.105

1.57

Free or
possibility

Ec

--

1.680

0.855

1.11

worse

ESEB

0.2

9.630

3.720

1.66

possibility

0.3

3.510

0.908

1.57

possibility

Ec

--

1.519

0.711

1.07

worse

ESEB

0.2

2.868

0.628

1.44

possibility

0.3

3.003

0.658

1.51

possibility

1.824

0.804

1.16

worse

0.2

4.388

0.853

1.82

possibility

0.3

4.139

0.805

1.72

possibility

BA2295

BA2297

BA2313

BA2326

Ec
ESEB

Which Ec are measured in 106Psi and ESEB are measured in 109Psi.

TABLE 7 Results of Wellbore Pressure Control

Well
num.

Critical
max.
(psi)

Critical
min.
(psi)

Critical
pressure
(psi)

Actual
pressure
drop (psi)

BA744

610.70

521.39

566.04

<435.12

BA2295

586.13

498.96

542.55

<435.12

BA2297

540.75

508.39

524.58

<435.12

BA2313

580.55

482.09

531.32

<435.12

BA2326

509.61

480.95

495.28

<435.12

12

SPE 93821

Figures

Horizontal Well: BA-2321 wellbore Schematic

Cabezal:
Bompet serie 900 (11x7-1/16x3-1/2

Niple S pos. #1 @ +/- 206

OBJETIVO: ISNOTU-09 (EGHD-IGL)

9-5/8 Surfac Casing: @ 1036

Tubing 3-1/2, 9.3 #/P

Gas Lift Mandriles: 1714; 2732; 4067

Niple X (ID: 2.813) @ 4643

Packer SC-1 @ 4643

7 23#/P @ 4922 (MD)

Fondo @ 5828 (MD)

4921-5828 Horizontal section

(ISNOTU-09)

Fig. 1 Completion of Well BA2299

Fig. 2 Completion of Well BA2321

80. 0

450

70. 0

400

60. 0

rate(B
/D
)

350

50. 0

300

40. 0

250
200

Li qui d r at e

Oi l

r at e

W
at er

cut

30. 0

150

w
ater cut(%
)

BA2299
500

20. 0

100

10. 0

50
0

0. 0

9902

9907

9912

0005

0010

0102

0107

0112

0205

0210

0303

0308

0401

0406

yym
m

Fig. 3 Production Curve of Well BA2299

BA2321
2400

rate(B
/D
)

2000
1600
1200
800
400
0

9905

9910

0003

0008

100. 0
90. 0
80. 0
70. 0
60. 0
50. 0
40. 0
30. 0
20. 0
10. 0
0. 0

w
ater cut(%
)

Li qui d r at e
Oi l r at e
W
at er cut

0101

0106

0111

0204

0209

Fig. 4 Production Curve of Well BA2321

0301

0306

0311

0404

yym
m