SPE 58788

Perforating Requirements for Sand Prevention

A. Venkitaraman, SPE, L.A. Behrmann, SPE, Schlumberger Reservoir Completions, A. H. Noordermeer, SPE, BP Amoco
Exploration

Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE International Symposium on
Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, 2324 February 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Sand prevention implies an acceptable risk of sand production
over the producing life of the well with no sand control
mechanisms implemented. This paper reviews available
methods to optimize the choice of perforation parameters
(phasing, shot density and charge type) for sand prevention.
Prior work has shown that sand production is preceded by
failure of the perforation tunnels. In order to have successful
sand prevention it is necessary to have stable perforation
tunnels through rate (drawdown) changes, depletion, and
water-cut. Available methods to determine the ability of
perforation tunnels to produce sand free can be classified into
theoretical models, experimental methods and historical
techniques.
Deep penetrating charges are recommended as they
produce smaller diameter perforation tunnels that are more
stable than larger diameter tunnels produced by big hole
charges. Optimum phasing technique relies on the
maximization of distance between adjacent perforations in 3dimensional space for a given wellbore radius and shot
density. This is advantageous in avoiding inter-linking of
failed zones around adjacent perforations. Data from the
Magnus field in the North Sea supports the use of these two
techniques in minimizing sand production. Where there are
significant stress contrasts in the formation and the directions
are known, oriented perforating can be used to increase the
stability of perforation tunnels (especially when increasing
drawdown and when depleting the reservoir).
It is shown how these three main techniques can be used to
perforate for sand prevention. In addition, the paper also
provides guidelines on how to avoid sand production at the
time of perforation, selective perforating where there is a

contrast in formation strength with depth and the use of

experimental techniques to determine perforation stability due
to rate (drawdown) changes, depletion and water-cut.
Introduction
In most unconsolidated and weakly consolidated wells around
the world, traditional approach has been to use sand control
techniques whenever there was a risk of sand production. This
was driven mainly by safety (erosion of surface hardware) and
economic concerns. However many wells where sand control
mechanisms are installed have proven to be costly in terms of
productivity impairment. There has been a two-fold approach
to tackling this problem: a) determine the sources of
impairment to sand control methods and find out how to
minimize them1 , and b) prudent use of sand prevention
techniques as opposed to total sand exclusion.
The essence of sand management is the quantification of
the risk of sand production that helps decide if/how/when sand
exclusion (control) or sand prevention should be implemented.
Sand prevention incorporates methods to minimize the amount
of sand produced and also methods to minimize the impact of
sand produced. The objective of this paper is to outline best
perforating practices for minimizing the amount of sand
produced over the producing life of cased and perforated
wells. Three main events are responsible for sand production:
rate or drawdown changes, depletion (effective stress) and
water cut.
Sand production is a two-part decoupled phenomenon:
Sand must be separated from the perforation tunnel (failure),
and the flowing fluid must transport the failed sand. Stress,
controlled by drawdown and depletion does the first, and rate,
also controlled by drawdown does the second2 . Using this
theory sand production is dictated by the stability of
perforation tunnels. Prior to perforating for sand prevention it
is necessary to determine whether the tunnels would be stable
over the producing life of the well.
Perforation Tunnel Stability Determination
For successful sand prevention, a good understanding of the
stability of the tunnels over the producing life of the well is
needed before completion. Three different approaches are
used by the industry to accomplish this.

A. VENKITARAMAN, L.A. BEHRMANN, A. H. NOORDERMEER

Theoretical Models: The models originally developed for

borehole stability are extended to perforations. Three steps are
used, determination of rock mechanical properties (using log
data, core samples), determination of in-situ stress conditions,
and determination of failure (conditions) using a particular
model3 . Theoretical models are effective in predicting
perforation stability with change in stress conditions
(drawdown and depletion). Two distinct approaches have been
developed: the tensile failure model and the shear failure
model.
According to the tensile failure criterion the fluid flow into
a cavity at high production rates will induce a tensile stress
near the cavity resulting in formation failure (sand grains
being pulled away from the tunnel) and subsequent sand
production4 . This model is seldom used as numerical studies
and experiments indicated that this criterion predicts
unrealistically high production rates to initiate sand production
in weak but consolidated sandstone. Also, some sand
production experiments showed stress-induced shear failure to
precede sand production5 . Shear failure models can be
classified according to the assumed material behavior: linear
elastic/brittle, elasto-plastic. The models can also be classified
according to the assumed geometry (simple 1D to 3D). The
material property requirements and the complexity increase in
the more sophisticated geometry and material behavior
conditions. Mohr-Coulomb criterion is most widely used for
shear failure assessment.
Experimental Methods: Experimental methods involve
testing of available reservoir core samples or outcrop rock
samples (with similar mechanical properties). There are two
different types of test: drilled hole tests and single-shot
perforation and flow tests.
In a typical drilled hole test, a cylindrical cavity of uniform
diameter is drilled in a core sample. The drilled sample is then
placed inside a rubber sleeve and isotropic confining pressure
is applied on the outside of the core 6 . The stress on the sample
is increased until the yield point is reached. According to
elastic theory when the circumferential stress on the inner wall
of the hole reaches the (apparent) strength of the material the
hole will fail. The main drawback is that the sample size/hole
size ratio of the hollow cylinder can influence the result
obtained7 .
Though not widely used, available core sample from the
well is perforated and flowed at different rate, depletion and
water-cut conditions8 . The test parameters can be chosen
based on the expected conditions during the producing life of
the well. This method can be used to augment analyses from
theoretical models and to check for sand production during
water-cut. The tests can also help determine (the stability of
perforation tunnel or) sand production at the time of
underbalance perforating. The drawbacks to this method are
the discrete nature of data (core sample from specific depths)
and availability of samples.
Historical: Historical sand production prediction criteria rely
on production experiences (rate, drawdown, percentage watercut) on other wells in the same reservoir to arrive at a choice
between sand control and sand prevention. In some cases

SPE 58788

reservoir strength data is used as the yardstick to compare and

predict potential for sanding across different reservoirs. This is
by far the most widely used technique. The best use of this
approach utilizes available data to calibrate theoretical models
for future sand production prediction.
Perforating for Stability
Charge Type, Shot density and Phasing: For maximum
single perforation stability use deep penetrating charges.
Smaller holes (deep penetrating charge) are more stable than
larger holes (big hole charge). In addition to single perforation
stability one has to consider inter-linking of failed zones
around adjacent perforation tunnels. This can lead to collapse
of structure inducing massive sand production. Besides the
stability of individual perforation tunnels this is dictated by the
perforation spacing in the wellbore. The perforation spacing is
dictated by the shot density and phasing. Though the shot
density can be decreased to increase perforation spacing this
will have the undesirable effect of increasing the flow rate per
perforation (which can enhance transport of any failed
material leading to sand production). Optimum phasing using
SandFreeX guns will allow the maximization of perforation
spacing for a given wellbore radius and shot density. Figure 1
demonstrates the principle behind optimum phasing (not
drawn to scale), showing a gun with charges at 60 degree
phasing, and the perforations in the formation sandface (in
two-dimensional form, with the corresponding angles marked
in the bottom). The idea behind optimum phasing is to
maximize the perforation-to-perforation spacing for a given
shot density to preserve as much as possible, the intervening
formation material. In the figure the three distances between
adjacent perforations are marked L1 , L2 , and L3 . By adjusting
the phasing for a given wellbore radius (R) and shot density,
the distances can be optimized (with the ideal of obtaining L1 =
L2 =L3 ) to avoid interaction between adjacent perforations.
Figure 2 shows optimum phasing (or optimum perforation
spacing) calculation for different total wellbore radius
(wellbore radius multiplied by shot density). In reality, it is not
possible to have L1 =L2 =L3 for a spiral phased gun. The
optimum solution (maximum perforation-to-perforation
spacing for a given shot density) occurs when any two of the
above perforation spacings are equal. The example shown in
Figure 1 show the critical perforation spacings between the
first two spiral wraps. For R*spf > 42, an additional
perforation spacing, L4 , between the first and third wrap must
be considered and will control the minimum perforation
spacing. Simple algebraic equations are used to calculate these
perforation-to-perforation spacings. The discontinuities in
Figure 2 are a result of different pairs of Ls being equal. For
simplicity, the wellbore radius (R) is used in Figure 2;
however this is only true for a centralized gun. The exact
definition of R is the distance from the perforator jet virtual
origin (a mathematical term for the location within the
perforator where the jet is assumed to originate) to the
sandface. For practical purposes, the distance from the center
X

Mark of Schlumberger

SPE 58788

PERFORATING REQUIREMENTS FOR SAND PREVENTION

of the perforating gun to the sand face can be used to define

the distance (R). For an eccentered or a non-oriented gun, the
minimum distance from the center of the gun to the sandface
will determine the optimum phasing. Thus, the minimum
perforation-to-perforation spacing will be on the low side of
the well.
The increase in perforation-to-perforation spacing for an
optimum phased gun can be substantial when compared with
the standard phased guns. For example, for R*spf=25.5, the
minimum perforation spacing increased from 4.88 inches to
7.61 inches, a 56% increase by changing the phasing from 60
degrees to 99 degrees.
Field Data (Magnus): Evidence of the effectiveness of
optimum phased perforations in minimizing sand production
comes from field data evaluation of BP Magnus in the North
Sea. The Magnus reservoir (age: Upper Jurassic) is split up in
two main selections: Magnus main sand MSM (top sands) and
LKCF (lower sands). There is communication between the
layers but only in some parts of the reservoir. MSM, Magnus
main sand is high permeability (500 md), high porosity, thick
sands with high net to gross ratio whereas LKCF is medium
permeability (200 md), medium porosity, thin sands with low
net to gross ratio. Initially the reservoir pressure was 6653 psi
at 240F (3050m TVD) but this dropped quickly to 3000 psi
due to insufficient water injection in some parts of the
reservoir. Increased and more efficient water injection
reversed this process and the reservoir pressure is back up
(MSM 3000 to 6000 psi & LKCF 3000 to 4000 psi). The oil is
39 API with 0.30 cp viscosity at reservoir conditions and total
production of 90,000 reservoir barrels a day. Watercut varies
from 0 to 95 %. The wells are completed with 5-inch tubing
with 5-inch or 7-inch liner. Most wells are completed with
gaslift. Typical well depths are 4000 to 5000m MD (2900 to
3300m TVD) with deviations from 40 to 60 degrees.
The original perforating strategy used 3 3/8 inch guns at 60
degree phasing (6 spf). This was later changed during 1997 to
99 degree phasing (optimum phasing) while keeping the same
shot density. Comparison of wells perforated with the two
different phasings showed a decline in sand production
evidenced by the decrease in problems associated with sand
production.
Theoretical Validation: A 2-D plane strain model of the two
different perforating strategies was used to simulate
perforation tunnel failure due to increasing effective stress.
For comparative purpose normalized values of effective stress
were used in both cases assuming elasto-plastic behavior of
the rock material. For increasing effective stress (depletion or
drawdown) it can be seen that the inter-linking of failed zones
around adjacent perforation tunnels happen at a 33% lower
effective stress for the 60 degree phased perforation tunnels
than the 99 degree phased perforation tunnels (Figure 3).
Oriented Perforating
In regions where there is a large contrast between the vertical,
maximum and minimum horizontal stresses, perforations
should be oriented in the direction of maximum stability9 . In
these cases, if the rates per perforation are not too high, 0/180

degree phased perforating guns can be used. If the rate per

perforation is a concern: For vertical wells, shoot in direction
of maximum perforation tunnel stability at a +/- angle of phi
(see Figure 4) and for horizontal wells shoot up/down at a +/angle of phi. Phi is dependent on the in situ stresses and will
typically be between 15 and 25 degrees. Phi can also be
optimized using plain strain simulation mentioned in the
previous section if in-situ stress conditions and reservoir
properties are known.
The concept of optimum phasing for an oriented gun
(using SandFreeX guns) is similar to that of a continuous
phased non-oriented gun: to have a maximum shot density for
a given perforation-to-perforation spacing. The current
practice is to use 0/180 degree phased guns shot in the
direction of maximum perforation stability. As an example,
assume a minimum perforation-to-perforation spacing of 4
inches is required. This allows only 6 spf for a 0/180 degree
phased gun. Because sand production requires both loose sand
(failed perforation tunnel) and sufficient flow velocity to
transport the sand, one would like to increase the shot density
to minimize the transport of any failed sand. Since the
perforation stability changes slowly with modest angular
misalignment between the preferred and proposed perforation
orientation, a substantial increase in shot density is possible by
shooting an angle of +/- phi to the preferred direction. Using
the above example, for a wellbore radius of 4.25 inches,
shooting at +/- 22.5 degrees from the preferred direction gives
an 81% increase in shot density from 6 to 10.9. In this
example, each shot is in a different axial plane.
For larger wellbores, the minimum perforation-toperforation spacing changes from adjacent perforations
separated by an angle of 2*phi to adjacent perforations at the
same azimuth. In this configuration, there are two shots per
axial plane and the maximum shot density is 48/L, where L is
the minimum perforation-to-perforation spacing.
Evidence of the effectiveness of oriented perforating for
sand prevention comes from two earlier published
applications. The technique of optimal phased oriented
perforating was applied to the Eocene C reservoir in Lake
Maracaibo, Venezuela 10 . Another case is the Andrew field in
the North Sea where the perforations were oriented at an angle
+/- 25 degrees in the topside in horizontal wells 11 . In both
cases the perforating strategy used deep penetrating charges.
Other Considerations
Underbalance Perforating: One of the main reasons for
perforating underbalance is to reduce the extent of
permeability damage in the crushed zone (extent of damaged
zone around the perforation tunnel walls). If this material is
not removed at the time of perforation, it will result in a larger
pressure drop at the perforations that can contribute to tensile
failure 12 . This may or may not constitute a sand production
problem (depending on whether the failure occurs
immediately or at later stages when the drawdown is
increased, or reservoir depletes, or during water-cut and also
depending on whether this material is transported). Perforating
at underbalance allows us to produce the sand during the

A. VENKITARAMAN, L.A. BEHRMANN, A. H. NOORDERMEER

initial stages and thus avoid having to manage transient sand

production during later stages of well production13 . The
underbalance value must be chosen to avoid catastrophic
failure of the formation (sanding in the guns) at the time of
perforation. The limit on the underbalance can be chosen
based on values obtained from perforation stability model
(keeping the underbalance value below the critical drawdown
value). Single-shot perforation and flow experiments can be
used to confirm the underbalance value chosen.
Selective Perforating: In formations where the strength varies
drastically with depth, by avoiding perforating in sections that
are weaker, one can maintain sand-free production throughout
the reservoir life 11 . Both productivity analysis using nodal
analysis programs (to study the impact of partial penetration
on productivity) and strength analysis (using methods
mentioned in previous section) need to be carried out prior to
making this choice.
Summary
1. Use deep penetrating charges to minimize perforation
damage, for tunnel stability through depletion and
drawdown, and to have good perforation spacing.
2. Use optimum phasing to minimize inter-linking of failed
zones around adjacent perforations (minimize risk of
collapse
of
structure)
without
compromising
rate/perforation.
3. Use maximum shot density to keep rate/perforation below
a critical value to minimize transport of sand.
4. Perforate at optimum underbalance to minimize
perforation damage. Keep underbalance below a critical
value to minimize perforation failure at the time of
perforation.
5. Orient perforations for maximum perforation stability in
cases where there is a large stress contrast.
6. Manage initial transient sand production.
7. Core Studies will help obtain maximum drawdown/rate to
prevent sand production through failure/transport and also
know the impact of water-cut.
Nomenclature
spf =Shots per foot (shot density)
MD =Measured Depth
TVD =True Vertical Depth
R = Radius of Wellbore (Sandface), inches
L =Minimum Perforation Spacing, inches
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the BP-Amoco and Schlumberger Reservoir
Completions organizations for permission to publish the
paper.
References
1. Blok,
R.H.J.,

Welling,
R.W.F.,
Behrmann,
L.A.,
Venkitaraman.A.: "Experimental Investigation on the Influence
of Perforation Induced Gravel-Pack Impairment", SPE 36481,

SPE 58788

presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and

Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, Oct 6-9.
2. Kooijman, A.P., van Den Hoek, P.J., Ph. de Bree, Kenter, C.J.,
Zheng, Z., Khodaverdian, M.: Horizontal Wellbore Stability
and Sand Production in Weakly Consolidated Sandstones, SPE
36419, presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, Oct 6-9.
3. Bruce, S.: "A Mechanical Stability Log", SPE 19942, presented at
the 1990 IADC/SPE Conference, Houston, Texas, Feb 27 - Mar
2.
4. Weingarten, J., Perkins, T.: "Prediction of Sand Production in Gas
Wells: Methods and Gulf of Mexico Case Studies", SPE 24797,
presented at the 1992 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Washington DC, Oct 4-7.
5. Behrmann, L.A., Willson, S.M., Ph. De Bree, Presles, C.: "Field
Implications from Full Scale Sand Production Experiments",
SPE 38639, presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, Oct 5-8.
6. Presles, C., Cruesot, M.: "A sand Failure Test can cut both
Completions Costs and the Number of Development Wells,
SPE 38186, presented at the 1997 SPE European Formation
Damage Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, Jun 2-3.
7. Papamichos, E., van Den Hoek, P.: "Size dependency of
Castlegate and Berea Sandstone Hollow Cylinder Strength on
the Basis of Bifurcation Theory", Proceedings, 35th US
Symposium on Rock Mechanics (1995).
8. Venkitaraman, A., Li, H., Leonard, A.J., Bowden, P.R.:
"Experimental Investigation of Sanding Propensity for the
Andrew Completion", SPE 50387, presented at the 1998 SPE
International Conference on Horizontal Well Technology,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Nov 1-4.
9. Santarelli, F.J., Ouadfel, H., Zundel, J.P.: "Optimizing the
Completion Procedure To Minimize Sand Production Risk",
SPE 22797, presented at the 1991 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Oct 6-9.
10. Sulbarban, A.L., Carbonell, R.S., Lopez-de-Cardenas, J.E.:
"Oriented Perforating for Sand Prevention", SPE 57954,
presented at the 1999 SPE European Formation Damage
Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, May 31 - Jun 1.
11. Mason, J.N.E., Gomersall, S.D.: Andrew/Cyrus Horizontal Well
Completions, SPE 38183, presented at the 1997 SPE European
Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands,
Jun 2-3.
12. Morita, N., Burton, R.C., Davis, E.: "Fracturing, Frac Packing,
and Formation Failure Control: Can Screenless Completions
Prevent Sand Production?", SPE 51187, SPE Drilling &
Completion, Sep 1998, pp 157-162.
13. Behrmann, L.A., Li, J., Venkitaraman, A., Li, H.: "Borehole
Dynamics During Underbalanced Perforating", SPE 38139,
presented at the 1997 SPE European Formation Damage
Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, Jun 2-3.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

in. 2.54*
E+00 = cm
psi 6.894757
E+00 = kPa
md 9.869233
E-12 = cm2
* Conversion factor is exact

SPE 58788

PERFORATING REQUIREMENTS FOR SAND PREVENTION

L1

60

120

180

240

300

360

Figure 1 Perforations at the wellbore sandface are shown in 2-D

geometry along with the critical distances between adjacent
perforations

200

4.5
Phase Angle

180

4.0

Perf-spacing/Distance
3.5

160

3.0

Figure 3 Results of 2-D plane strain elasto-plastic simulation of

inter-linking between failed zones around adjacent perforations
(60 degree phasing and 99 degree phasing). The effective stress
is increased (depletion) as one moves down the column. The left
hand column shows the 60 degree phased adjacent perforations
and the right hand column shows the 99 degree phased
perforations. For similar inter-linking to occur for 99 degree
phased perforations the effective stress would have to be a factor
of 1.3 times the stress at which inter-linking occurred for the 60
degree phased perforations

2.5
140
2.0
120

2 phi

1.5
1.0

100
0.5
80
0

30

60

90

120

0.0
150

Distance * SPF

Figure 2 Optimum phasing for a given wellbore radius at the

sandface and shot density (Distance = R, the wellbore radius at
sandface)

60

120

180

240

300

Figure 4 Oriented perforating shown in 2-D

360