Journal of Petroleum Engineering & Technology

ISSN: 2231-1785(online), ISSN: 2321-5178(print)

Volume 5, Issue 2
www.stmjournals.com

Chemical Sand Consolidation: An Overview

Saurabh Mishra*, Keka Ojha
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad-826004, India
Abstract
Sand production from reservoir is a critical issue related to oil/gas fields because it gives rise
to many serious problems in oil/gas production. Sand production from wells can damage the
surface and subsurface facilities as well as it can reduce the well productivity, thus it can have
adverse effects on economy of oil production. Sand control is requisite to economical
extraction of oil/gas from the unconsolidated formations. So the development in the sand
control techniques is ongoing in the oil industry. Several methods comprising mechanical and
chemical methods of sand consolidation have been developed by different researchers in past.
This paper comprehensively reviews the mechanism of sand production and control, different
investigations and techniques utilized in chemical sand consolidation process. Different resin
systems, other chemical systems and their implementation techniques to consolidate the loose
sand formation are discussed in this review article.
Keywords: Chemical method of consolidation, permeability retention, compressive strength,
resin system

*Author for Correspondence E-mail: saurabhmishrapetro@gmail.com, keka_ojha@yahoo.com

INTRODUCTION
The production of sand with the oil and gas is
one of the oldest issues of the oilfields
associated with unconsolidated or partially
consolidated formations. This may be
associated with the strength factors (sand grain
strength, inter-particles friction, and capillary
forces) and operational factors (strategies of
drilling, and completion, depletion of the
reservoir) [1]. The reservoir with loose
formations or unconsolidated formations,
having a greater permeability is more prone to
sand production. Such production fields can
exhibit sand production at its initial stage of
production.
There is only one fundamental parameter
formation strength which is responsible for
the sand production in oil fields. Formation
strength is developed due to overburden
pressure, by capillary forces, and by
cementation between sand grains [2, 3].
Oil bearing loose sand formation fails to hold
sand grains together under the reservoir
conditions due to insufficient cohesion
between the particles. These types of loose
sand formations may even collapse during
drilling or well completion operations [4]. The
requirement of sand control comes when

compressive strength (cohesive strength) of

formation would become too low to hold sand
grains together within the producing life of
well.
Sand production can be controlled by reducing
drag forces, and/or by increasing formation
strength. After a considerable production,
reservoir pressure decreases to a minimum
value, thus decrease in minimum in-situ stress
can lead to sand production [5].
Normally, sand production problems occur in
shallow formations that have very low degree
of cohesion between the sand grains, but in
some oil fields sand production may occur in
very high depths also [6]. Although weakly
consolidated reservoir rocks usually have the
desirable properties of high porosity and
permeability, they can often complicate or
prevent the production of oil and gas because
formation solids are dislodged due to poor
cohesion and carried along with the flow of
formation fluid [7].
Sometimes these formation solids/sand settle
down near the wellbore causing plugging of
formation fluid flow which encounters
uneconomic production [810]. These
formation solids when passing through the

JoPET (2015) 21-34 STM Journals 2015. All Rights Reserved

Page 21

Chemical Sand Consolidation

Mishra and Ojha

wellbore to the pipes, pumps, etc. can erode

and damage the moving parts of
surface/subsurface equipments, causing severe
production problems [1115]. Controlling
sand production involves maximization and
maintenance of production at acceptable
production rates. A large amount of revenue is
being invested each year for prevention of
sand production and other problems related to
it, which affect the economical profit of
industry significantly [1620]. In oil fields, to
control the sand production mechanical and
chemical methods have been used. Mechanical
method involves the use of sand screens,
filters, perforated and slotted liners, which are
placed inside the wellbore to prevent loose
sand grains intrusion into wellbore.

Water Production
A survey on water production from oil field
says that an oil field produces three barrel of
water for each barrel of oil [29]. Water
production may cause dissolution of
cementing materials between sand grains
which brings decrement in the degree of
cohesion and may weaken the rock. Water
production brings significant changes in the
surface tension and capillary forces which may
weaken holding pressure between load bearing
solids [3031]. Friction due to multiphase flow
may destabilize the sand. When clay material
comes in contact with water, swelling of clay
material may block porous medium and
increases the pressure gradient which
decreases the stabilizing force [32].

Mechanical devices, i.e., sand screens, filters;

liners fail to foreclose the flow of sand
particles completely into the production
equipment. These mechanical devices often
interfere in the workover and completion
operations that are applied continuously during
production life of the wellbore [11, 13, 21].
Mechanical devices have been successful in
limited applications; restrict larger sand
particles only which are not very efficient [22].
Chemical method involves the introduction of
resin, plastics or other chemicals into
incompetent formation layers adjacent to the
wellbore. Chemicals help to bind sand grains
tightly to increase the strength of formation
sand without much loss in formation
characteristics so that sand grains can
withstand the drag forces applied by the
flowing fluids at desired production rate [23
26].

Reservoir Pressure Depletion in Relatively

Strong Formations
When field became mature, pore pressure
depletion brings challenges in sand control
[33]. Reservoir fluid supports the in-situ
stresses in the formation along with its
inherent strength [34]. As production reached
to state of depletion, there is not enough
reservoir fluid to support the formation which
in turn increases the amount of effective stress
applied to the formation, the formation may be
crushed, creating sand grains fines that are
produced along with the formation fluids [16].
During initial production stage, high
production rate is usually desired for economic
reasons; however, too high drawdown can
result in erosion at the sand face [27, 31, 35,
36].

CAUSES OF SAND PRODUCTION

Solid production from an oil field consists of
load bearing solids and fine solids. Fine solids
are not part of mechanical structure of
formation. Some fine solids are probably
always produced. Thus sand control means
control of load bearing solids [23, 27]. Sand
production can be considered as a three step
process: (1) failure of the formation matrix, (2)
erosion of failed sand grains, (3) transported
by the formation fluid through wellbore up to
the surface. These three steps are governed by
drag forces, cohesive breakdown, and well
hydraulics respectively [28]. The causes of
sand production are briefly described below:

High Production Rate

The key factor in sand production is the
formation failure, which is governed by in-situ
stresses in addition to mechanical properties of
rock. As the production rate increases, applied
stress on the formation increases due to rise in
drag forces. When applied stress exceeds the
formation strength, sand production begins
[31, 37]. If flow rate increases further sand
production becomes excessive which is an
economic issue for production stresses around
the
wellbore/perforations
are
more
concentrated and weak rocks are prone to
deformation under these conditions. Sand
production caused due to very high flowrate of
reservoir fluid referred as catastrophic sand
production [38, 39].

JoPET (2015) 21-34 STM Journals 2015. All Rights Reserved

Page 22

Journal of Petroleum Engineering & Technology

Volume 5, Issue 2
ISSN: 2231-1785(online), ISSN: 2321-5178(print)

Unconsolidated Formations
Unconsolidated formations or loose formation
refers to have very low cohesive forces
between sand grains, to have very low degree
of cementation so that sand grains can be
dislodged very easily; may enter into the
wellbore, flow up to the surface and may cause
failure of equipment [40].

capable of withstanding the anticipated

drawdown. The stratum having high
compressive strength will likely have most
cementation and unfortunately the lowest
permeability. While this approach might
eliminate sand production, it is flawed because
of low communication between valuable oil
reserves.

AVAILABLE METHODS OF SAND

CONTROL

Chemical Method of Sand Consolidation

Chemical method of sand consolidation
involves the injection of chemicals such as
plastic resins, polymers etc. into the desired
loose formation to bind the sand grains
together at their contact point [14, 45]. This
method increases the compressive strength of
the formation that will be sufficient to
withstand the drag forces while producing at
desired rates [11].

Sand production during the production life of

an oil/gas well from the loose formations of
the reservoir without having sand control
technique referred as continuous sand
production [3839, 41]. To tackle this
problem, several techniques are available as
follows:
Maintenance and Workover
It is a passive technique to control sand
production from producing oil field. This
method allows sand to produce and deals with
its effects, if and when unavoidable. Such
operations require washing, bailing and
cleaning of surface facilities routinely to
maintain well productivity. It can be efficient
and environment friendly for specific
formations. This technique is primarily used in
oil fields having minimal sand production and
low production rates.
Rate Exclusion
Restricting the flow rate of the well up to a
level that reduces the sand production is an
approach that is used occasionally [42]. In this
approach the flow rate is reduced or increased
sequentially until an acceptable value of sand
production is achieved [43]. The main
objective of this technique is to establish
maximum sand-free flow rate. It is a trial-anderror method and may be repeated as reservoir
pressure, flow rate, and water cut change. The
problem with rate restriction is that the
maximum flow rate is required to establish and
maintain. Sand free production rate is
generally less than flow potential of producing
well. Compared to maximum rate, this may
represent a significant loss in productivity and
revenue [44].
Selective Completion Practices
The objective of this method is to produce
only from those strata of the reservoir that are

Mechanical Methods of Sand Consolidation

Mechanical methods of sand consolidation
involves use of gravel (with or without screen)
or screen (with or without gravel) to hold the
sand formation in place [4, 9, 43, 45, 46].
Loose formation is mechanically trapped
behind the downhole devices.
Advantages of chemical sand consolidation
over other sand consolidation methods are
reported as follows [27, 47]:
Chemical sand consolidation can be
applicable for multi-completion wells.
It can be carried out in wells having all
sizes of perforations.
Migration of fine sand particles can be
restricted completely outside of critical
flow region.
It is applicable for tubingless completions.
No mechanical risks associated with
screen placement through tubing and in
slim hole applications.
It does not need any downhole equipment
hence no rig is required.
Minimum loss in permeability thus
minimum loss in productivity can be
achieved
with
chemical
sand
consolidation.
Chemical sand consolidation is more
economic
than
mechanical
sand
consolidation.

JoPET (2015) 21-34 STM Journals 2015. All Rights Reserved

Page 23

Chemical Sand Consolidation

DEVELOPMENT IN CHEMICAL
SAND CONSOLIDATION
Chemical sand consolidation is highly
recommended and having been used in oil
fields applications since 1940s [48, 5]. Sand
production has many negative implications to
oil production and various techniques have
been developed in order to stop the sand from
being produced [44]. Many researchers have
worked on different chemicals such as resins,
polymers, organosilanes, nanoparticles and
others.
Resin Systems
From last more than 50 years, resin forming
mixtures with appropriate catalysts/hardeners
were used to inject into the desired formation
through tubing by positive pumping action
[49]. Till now only three systems: (1) one step
operation system in which the porous medium
is saturated with the two reactive components:
resin and curing agent in a proper proportion;
(2) two step operation system that involves the
injection of first concentrated reactive
component in to the desired formation pores
followed by the dilute solution of second
reactive component. This displaces the first
solution up to its residual saturation.
The degree of sand consolidation depends on
the immiscible process [50]; (3) the phase
separation system includes the injection of a
dilute solution of the reactive component into
hydrocarbon solvent into the loose formation
with an appropriate curing agent. After
placement of curing agent, the reactive
component and solvent phase are separated
after a definite period of time and reactive
component solidifies and bind the sand grains
together [51]. With the advancement of
chemicals and polymer sciences, these
methods have become more useful by
incorporating different chemical and polymer
combinations to enhance the efficiency of the
processes. Accurate control of resin placement
is critical because of over displacement which
results in unconsolidated sand near well-bore
area. Epoxy resins, furan resins, fufuryl
alcohol, phenolic resins, organosilane, mixture
of these chemicals in appropriate proportion
and some other chemicals like nanoparticles,
steel slag, carbonates, etc. had been used in the
oilfields that are struggling with the problem
of sand production.

Mishra and Ojha

DEVELOPMENT OF RESIN SYSTEMS

Epoxy Resin System
It was found that high resin concentration in
the chemical mixture results greater
compressive strength and thus greater
consolidation but poor permeability. Bezemer
suggested that partial consolidation is the only
way to maintain both the compressive strength
and permeability in the conventional methods
[52]. He claimed that the use of polyfunctional
metal organic compounds had greater effect to
solve this issue. The advantage with this
system was that there was no degradation of
consolidation due to passage of effluents
(water) thus resulting high service life.
The epoxy resin consolidated sand formation
may be contacted with one or more aqueous
liquids that were capable of weakening the
strength of the resin-to-grain bond and
therefore decreasing compressive strength of
the consolidated mass. To overcome this issue
Hambay et al., suggested, if these epoxy
consolidated sand formations are treated with
the organic silanes, it can increase its strength
and stability [53]. Brooks also used epoxy
resin in combination with a small amount of
silane coupling agent which promotes the
adhesion of resin to the sand surface [54]. He
claimed that use of ethylene glycol monobutyl
ether (EGMBE) in preflush enhances the
permeability retention of the resulting
consolidation. After-flush with the catalyst
carrier oil (immiscible with the resin system)
was carried out. It displaced the resin from the
center of the pores leaving sand grains coated
with thin film of resin. He reported 117%
permeability retention with the compressive
strength of 4745 psi. Substantially immobile
water adhering to the walls of the pore spaces
prevents the resinous material from coalescing
on the surface of the sand grains and bonding
them efficiently.
Davies utilized an epoxy compound containing
an average of at least one epoxy group per
molecule and an amino curing agent which
contains at least three amino hydrogen atoms
per molecule [55]. This mixture was dissolved
in an aqueous liquid containing at least one
dimethylaminomethyl-substituted
phenol.
Such phenol does not alter the capability of the
resin-containing solution to remain ungelled
while precipitating partially cured resin and

JoPET (2015) 21-34 STM Journals 2015. All Rights Reserved

Page 24

Journal of Petroleum Engineering & Technology

Volume 5, Issue 2
ISSN: 2231-1785(online), ISSN: 2321-5178(print)

does not accelerate the rate of polymerization.

Thus it shortens the initial resin precipitation
time. But its presence significantly reduced the
cost of the sand consolidation treatment by
eliminating the need for a water-removing preflush. Dewprashad et al., suggested a new HT
epoxy resin system which had several
advantages over previous epoxy systems [56].
In this resin system, resin and hardener can be
premixed and can be stored for a long time and
can be used when needed. It had a lower cure
rate even at higher temperature. It was more
compatible with fracturing treatments fluids,
and it provided superior compressive strength.
Recently Songire et al., developed an aqueous
based resin (ABR) system which is a resin
emulsion in an aqueous medium [57]. They
tested it at a well located in Nile delta (Egypt).
In this system a water soluble activator was
added to the brine phase while injecting the
dispersion into the formation. The droplets
were attracted towards the contact point
between the sand grains caused by the
capillary forces, which resulted in a highstrength consolidated sand mass. This system
had very low viscosity (close to water) to
overcome the pumping problems. This system
can be converted into foam using nitrogen
hence better placement and consolidation can
be achieved with little amount of consolidating
material. Epoxy resin system was prevalent in
use from 1940 to 1990 with the developments
in its application but the advancement in other
resins and chemicals has limited its
application.
Furan Resin System
Young developed an acid-catalyzed furan resin
system to consolidate loose formations
containing clays in the oil fields [58]. This
system possesses the multi-step process
involving (1) injection of low-viscosity
consolidating fluid (2) placement of diesel oil
spacer (3) placement of diesel oil catalyst
solution. This system was different from the
others by the following: (a) it has property to
shrink certain part of hydrated clay with in the
formation sand up to an extent that can
enhance the permeability of the consolidated
sand mass; (b) the system can be applied in the
formations having temperature ranging from

60 to 300F; (c) large volume of the catalyst

solution could be tolerated without removing
the resin from the formation.
Weaver reported in his work that injection of
catalyzed furan resin compound into the near
wellbore area of gas storage well can prevent
the withdrawal of sand with gas being
removed from the reservoir [59]. In
peninsular, Malaysia, several methods ranging
from choke management to screen technology
were introduced to tackle with the production
of sand but these did not reach to the success.
An externally catalyzed furan resin treatment
using coil tubing as fluid conveyance tool
combined with an inflatable packer to
selectively treat the desired zone was applied
to this oil field. This successfully resolved the
sand production problem compared to all other
sand control treatments that have been used in
those oil wells [60].
An injection sequence of diesel oil pre-flush
followed by the resin placement, diesel oil
spacer and catalyst was complicated and
provided inconsistent results. This method has
been facing disposal and fire hazard problems.
In 1970s process was modified and diesel oil
was replaced by brine for pre-flush and spacer
injection. However, success rate and reliability
were not improved. Friedman described a
furan based consolidation system which
involved the injection of a furfuryl
alcohol/ester diluent/sulfuric acid mixture with
high quality steam after an ester-acid pre-flush
to achieve a rapid consolidation near the
perforation [61]. To get a good quality of
consolidation the resin must be deposited
uniformly on the surface of sand grains. The
formation water removal by displacement with
diesel/surfactant was inefficient and costly.
Resin placement by displacement with another
fluid, such as diesel or brine was not reliable
in heterogeneous formations.
To overcome these problems, Shu et al.,
utilized phase separation mechanism for the
placement of the resin rather than conventional
fluid displacement [62]. He reported that, the
solution of furan resin in a water miscible
organic solvent like lower alcohol, acetic acid
injected into water-wet formation followed by
injection of spacer volume of water and

JoPET (2015) 21-34 STM Journals 2015. All Rights Reserved

Page 25

Chemical Sand Consolidation

introduction of acid catalyst. A uniform

deposition of resin is achieved by its phase
separation from the organic solvent due to
introduction of water. Water was then used
advantageously to aid the deposition of resin.
There was no need to dewater the formation
before the resin placement. Parlar introduced
an improved Furan resin placement practice
including six basic stages: (1) acid pretreatment, (2) surfactant preflush, (3) resin
placement, (4) displacement fluid, (5) acid
catalyst overflush, and (6) shut in [48]. This
method was successfully applied in the Gulf of
Mexico coastal area in interval up to 40 ft.
Phenolic Resin System
Phenolic resins were well known to seal off
the unconsolidated sand intervals in an oil well
bore. The characteristics of the reservoir
altered, if an external agent moves into it. The
decrement in porosity and permeability of the
known reservoir layer after the application of
phenolic resin was difficult to control. Cooper
et al., suggested an improvement to overcome
these difficulties [12]. He utilized the coated
aggregate mixture that containing a dry
thermoplastic-thermosetting
mixture
comprising a preponderant proportion of a
finely divided particulate, inert aggregate
material and an active powdered magnesium
oxide catalyzed aqueous phenolic liquid resin
binder, which might contain a small quantity
of hexamethylene tetraamine. This treatment
required less resin per foot of interval that
must be sealed in the wellbore in comparison
with conventional well treatment involving an
ordinary resin composition.
Walther et al., suggested a composition to
control sand production from subterranean
formations [63]. The cores were prepared
under water in to a resilient sleeve, with the
standard phenol-formaldehyde resin treatment.
These cores were flushed with aminopropyltriethoxysilane
in
mixture
consisting of 20% isopropanol and 80% diesel.
After this treatment the retained permeability
was 69% of the original permeability. The
average crushing strength of the treated core
was found to be 1736 psi. This composition
brought an improvement in strength and
durability of the porous skeletal structure of an
artificially
consolidated
subterranean
formation without decreasing the permeability.

Mishra and Ojha

Brooks developed a method for consolidating

an incompetent formation with a certain
percentage of clay content [64]. The core
sample was prepared from the sand containing
clay minerals (1.2% calcium and magnesium
montmorillonite, 3.3% illite, 1.6% kaolinite).
The sand was taken from Texas gulf coast oil
field. The test involved preflush with the
normal hexanol or a similar aliphatic alcohol
containing from 5 to 10 carbon atoms and
silane. Then well was shut for one-half to
120 h after the treatment with phenolformaldehyde resulting improved compressive
strength and then afterflush with the diesel oil
to insure reduction in permeability loss. He
claimed that normal hexenol gave somewhat
better results than do the other alcohols and
the compressive strength increases with
increasing concentration of silane.
Graham utilized mixture of alcohol and
nonionic surfactant as curing solution for resol
type phenolic resin coated particles used in
consolidation process [65]. It was believed that
the alcohol and surfactant in the curing
solution caused the resin to fuse at a lower
temperature than normal. Moreover, the
softening created larger fused areas of
contacts, thereby increasing the compressive
strength. Thus this composition was an
improvement for low temperature wells.
Armbruster used combination of furfuryl
alcohol and phenol-formaldehyde [66]. The
water soluble multivalent metal salts were
used as the catalyst that eliminated the
necessity for controlling the reaction pH. The
mixture of steam, furfuryl alcohol, a polar
organic solvent as a diluent and a non-volatile
acid catalyst was injected into the formation
without
any
problem
of
premature
polymerization. This injected mixture removed
and displaced undesired oil and other material
coating the sand grains and accomplished a
thorough coating of the sand grains with the
resin monomer-catalyst mixture. The vapor
phase of the injected fluid maintained the
residual permeability of the consolidated sand
mass [22].
Zhang et al., developed a phenolic resin with a
modified structure for its consolidation with
sand [67]. This method was economically
viable to the oil fields.

JoPET (2015) 21-34 STM Journals 2015. All Rights Reserved

Page 26

Journal of Petroleum Engineering & Technology

Volume 5, Issue 2
ISSN: 2231-1785(online), ISSN: 2321-5178(print)

Other Chemical Systems and Methods

The organic cementing material such as epoxy
resin, furan resin, phenol-formaldehyde, can
be utilized at reservoir temperature up to 80C
but at higher temperature they get degraded
subjecting to thermal and hydraulic
degradation. So some other chemical
consolidation systems were proposed to
overcome the problems related with the use of
resin systems.
Fitzerald applied warm air coking to control
the sand production from the unconsolidated
sand formation [68]. This technique involves
the injection of heated air into the desired
formation, saturated with heavy viscous crude
oil. Initially oxidation of crude oil increases its
viscosity that prevents complete displacement
of the oil by heated air.
The progressive heating of the crude oil results
into an insoluble coke which binds the sand
grains together. This method was potentially
benefited to stabilizing the unconsolidating
sand in the formation having 14API gravity
oil. This method provided the compressive
strength of 1400 psi with 70% permeability
retention. Aslensen reported a solder glass
sand consolidation which was like a
development of warm air coking [69].
This involved the injection of solder glass
followed by the injection of heated air. This
dispersed the solution throughout the
formation sand resulting in the uniform
deposition of the solder glass on the sand
grains. The resulted consolidated mass was
largely impervious to the temperature and the
chemical attack. It was able to withstand the
high velocity fluid flow. This method was
applied in the Fruitvale field in Kern Country,
California where mechanical method of sand
control had proven to be ineffective in solving
the sand production problems.
The commercially available chemicals for the
sand consolidation like epoxy, phenolic-resin,
furan etc. were acceptable for certain case but
most of them had a limited temperature range.
28 wells of Fruitvale field were treated with
this technique, of which 20 were successful
having no sand production with good
productivity.

Torrest proposed an alternative method for the

wells where shut-in is unacceptable for the
resin/plastic consolidation [70]. This method
followed injection of a catalyst that activates
the sand and then injection of an aqueous
solution of nickel salts co ntaining a chemical
reducing agent. The metal layer coating
occurred spontaneously on the sand grains,
binding them into a consolidated mass. This
technique provided better bonding strength
and suitable for the exposure to the
temperature beyond the range of plastic sand
consolidation. Curtice suggested an improved
method and composition to consolidate loose
formations [11]. He pumped light Portland
cement along with other additives like ground
silica for consolidation of formation. This
method and composition was particularly
adaptable for use in any type of well
completion but it was generally used in a well
wherein casing had been set and which had
perforations therein at the desired intervals
behind which the unconsolidated formations
sands were located.
Davies et al., reported a treatment using
silicon halide compounds as consolidating
agent [55]. These agents have been found to be
easy in handling in the field. By a simple
injection technique, silicon halide compound
can be injected either in gaseous or liquid form
down the well into the formation. It is
imperative that water is present around the
contact points of adjacent sand grains in the
formation parts into which the silicon halogen
compounds is injected. Amorphous silicon
dioxide formed by the reaction of water with
silicon halide will bond the sand grains
together, thereby increasing the compressive
strength of the formation. In order to retain a
sufficient permeability of the consolidated
formation, the water should be present therein
relatively in small quantity.
A new composition to improve the efficiency
of sand consolidation method was reported by
Anthony in 1983 [71]. Solution of an organic
silicate and alcohol is first injected into the
said formation. Most commercially available
tetraethyl silicate was applied in this method.
Then after the water is injected which
displaced the organic silicate away from the
wellbore. Organic silicates are insoluble in

JoPET (2015) 21-34 STM Journals 2015. All Rights Reserved

Page 27

Chemical Sand Consolidation

water and organic silicates are hydrolyzed

when it come in contact with proton source
water to polymerize into a coating like binding
mass fluid from the permeable formation
maintaining the formations permeability. This
composition had advantages over alkali metal
silicate solutions. Some part of the solution
reacts with the residual formation water in
areas having less mobility which was not
swept by alcohol-silicate solution and flush
water. This method and composition
strengthen the treated part of the formation
without affecting the permeability to oil and
gas. It retained the desired degree of
permeability [71].
Asphaltic content of the petroleum was proved
to be fruitful to consolidate the loose sand
formation in 1985 by Wiechel. He proposed a
method which involves the injection of
bituminous, asphaltic petroleum in to the
desired porous medium followed by the
injection of a solvent (methyl chloroform) and
steam in to the asphalt saturated sand
formation to cause the precipitation and
solidification of it respectively to bind the sand
grains strongly. Consolidated permeable mass
resulted from this process was insensitive to
thermal fluids and could be applicable with
thermal recovery. This method resulted in
compressive strength greater than 500 psi.
Steam injection caused an increment in cost of
application of this method [46].
An oil-insoluble rubber can be applied to form
a flexible permeable barrier around the
wellbore which retrains the movement of the
sand particles. A water emulsion of nitrile or
carboxylated nitrile rubber which also contains
an ester (ethyl monochloroacetate or ethyl
acetate) and a dibasic acid such as
ethylenediamine was injected into the
formations, the ester hydrolyzed, reducing the
pH which destabilized the emulsion and
caused the nitrile rubber to coat the sand
grains. The crosslinking of the rubber was
enhanced by ethylenediamine. This chemical
composition has been resulted in a flexible and
permeable mass which can sustain mechanical
forces associated with workover and
completions [7273]. A novel sand
consolidation technique using alkaline steam
injection in Tarzone, Willmington field,
California is reported in a case study. They

Mishra and Ojha

completed 11 vertical wells and two horizontal

wells over five years with minor or no sand
production problems. They injected 80%
quality steam into the desired formation
through willpower at 1600 psi and 600F,
which resulted in effective consolidation. Hot
alkaline water steam caused dissolution of
formation minerals which precipitated that
naturally bonded the sand grains together and
controlled the sand movement into the
wellbore. This method offered better control of
fluid entry into the wellbore.
This method of sand control resulted in
effective sand consolidation without adversely
affecting
formation
permeability
and
productivity [74]. Karen reported that 13
vertical wells and 7 horizontal wells were
treated with high pH steam in the Wilmington
field, California from 1991 to 1996 and this
method was very much economic [75]. To
better understand the process Moreno et al.
conducted an experimental study using the
sample of (1) pure quartz; (2) pure fledspar;
(3) 50:50 (by weight) mixture of these two.
They injected high-temperature (250260C)
solution of sodium carbonate (pH, 1112)
[76]. They reported that both the zeolite and
silica might be the cementing agents. Osman
et al., utilized low-temperature oxidation
(LTO) of crude oil in the porous medium as a
sand consolidation technique [77]. It is
reported that light oil were more susceptible to
LTO than heavy oils [78]. LTO resulted in
increase in viscosity of oil [79, 73] which
increases the asphaltenes and resins content in
the oil [80].
The LTO reactions can produce a heavy coke
like material, which cements sand grains
together to increase compressive strength of
loose formations. Aggour et al., developed a
full scale physical model to test the durability
of the consolidation [81]. They reported the
compressive strength between 1800 and
2300 psi with permeability retention up to
95% which was more than the prior technique
involving in-situ high temperature oxidation of
the hydrocarbon. Blast furnace slag and steel
making slag were used as consolidating
material along with calcium hydroxide and
calcium carbonate as the chemical activators.
The compressive strength was given by these
reactive components blast furnace slag and

JoPET (2015) 21-34 STM Journals 2015. All Rights Reserved

Page 28

Journal of Petroleum Engineering & Technology

Volume 5, Issue 2
ISSN: 2231-1785(online), ISSN: 2321-5178(print)

steel making slag were up to 108 and 158 psi

respectively after curing at 95C for 24 h and
absolute permeabilities were 0.28 and 0.375 D
respectively. This method and composition for
sand consolidation was very economical
because these two new components were very
cheap and easily available [82].
Espin introduced the application of
nanoparticles in sand consolidation of loose
formations [83]. Since very long time organic
compounds or resins were being used as
consolidating material with two-step or threestep operations which were very cumbersome
and difficult itself. This method was very
simple and easy to apply in the fields. This
method comprised a step of providing a well
drilled to the loose formation to be treated and
injection of a fluid suspension nanoparticles
into that formation. This resulted in stable
bridges between sand grains increasing its
strength so that it can bear the sufficient
friction force. Youngs modulus of
consolidated sand formation was greater than
1.0106 psi was reported and before it was
0.4106 psi. Water was used as curing agent.
To accelerate curing process pH of the system
was altered to basic.
Several sand consolidation chemicals were
evaluated for their ability to consolidate sand.
The evaluation was done by measuring sand
production and permeability before and after
treatment for each experiment. Different
groups of chemicals were tested: (a)
Organosilanes, (b) Enzyme derived method
based on precipitation of CaCO3. The best
overall chemical was an organosilane. Design
of experiments was done in order to
investigate the influence of concentration of
the chemical, the temperature during shut-in
and the shut-in time on sand production and
permeability impairment.
The
result
showed
that
increasing
concentration and shut-in temperature
decreased sand production and increased
pressure drop during sand production, whereas
shut-in time had only a minor effect. It was
reported that the treatment solution was oil
soluble, it did not alter the relative
permeability of the oil bearing zone, thus
reducing the risk of increased skin due to

change in saturation. This system would be

well suited to fields with low reservoir
pressure [84].
Larsen provided a new method to prevent sand
production from an unconsolidated sand
formation, which involves a controlled in-situ
enzymatic precipitation of calcium carbonate
scale on the surface of the sand grains and
forms bridges between them [85]. Thus,
strengthen the sand formation. This method is
termed as the quasinatural consolidation
(QNC). QNC-solution contained Ca2+, urea
and urease. Calcium carbonate precipitation
was controlled by the urease concentration and
temperature. This method was applicable in
the temperature range from 25 to 65C. The
compressive strength obtained was 1532 psi
with the reduction in permeability about 25%
from the initial.
Sand agglomeration system (SAS) is a new
chemical method which alters the zeta
potential of any solid surfaces when they come
in contact. When zeta potential of surface
changes, the material attraction between them
increases and agglomerates. It is found that
SAS treatment provided a quick payout time;
so should be considered as a key alternative to
conventional methods. It can be used in
existing mechanical sand control on wells
which is under repair.
This chemical method of sand consolidation
(SAS) can be used in both lower and higher
permeability formations. SAS treatment does
not cause formation damage. It reduces the
time for consolidating process [86]. Use of
nanoparticles to control sand production and
fine migration from loose formations was
investigated. Aluminum oxide (Al2O3),
Magnesium oxide (MgO), Zink oxide (ZnO),
Iron oxide (Fe2O3), Hydrophobic silicon oxide
(SiO2(H)), Silane treated silicon oxide
(SiO2(S)), etc. were used.
All experiments were conducted in both
absence and presence of crude oil at
atmospheric conditions. The results showed
that increase in nanoparticle concentration
tends to decrease fine migration. The results
shows that the nanoparticles of Aluminum
oxide, Zirconium oxide, Nickel oxide, Silane

JoPET (2015) 21-34 STM Journals 2015. All Rights Reserved

Page 29

Chemical Sand Consolidation

treated silicon oxide can reduce the fine

migration effectively. Aluminum oxide was
best of all nanoparticles used. This method
was advantageous regarding pumping issues
[87].

CONCLUSION
In this review we have shown a number of
effective techniques to treat the loose sand
formation. We have highlighted the
advantages and the limitations of the methods.
We have tried to elaborate in such a way to
enhance the readability/easiness to make it
understand. From the above discussion we can
conclude that a lot of work has been done on
the resin system i.e. epoxy, furfuryl alcohol,
furan,
phenol-formaldehyde,
urea
formaldehyde etc. These have been proved to
be effective systems which can deliver desired
results. New chemicals and techniques have
been developed for better results. Ordinarily
resins are viscous and placement of these
chemicals into the desired formation through
all perforations is critical to success. They are
difficult to pump in a reasonable length of
time. Currently the sand control has been the
key to recover the hydrocarbons economically
from the unconsolidated formations. Each of
the techniques has its own advantages and
limitations. Hence, the methods should be
chosen based on the requirement, reservoir
conditions i.e. temperature and pressure,
presence of fluids, pH etc. The development of
new chemicals, new techniques, fluid
dynamics and geological theories will enhance
further improvements in chemical methods of
sand consolidation, therefore further research
is needed.

REFERENCES
1. Bianco LC. Phenomena of Sand
Production in Non-Consolidated Sand
Stones. Thesis in Petroleum and Natural
Gas Engineering. PhD Thesis. The
Pennsylvania
State
University,
Department of Energy and GeoEnvironmental Engineering. 1999.
2. Lahalih SM, Ghloum EF. Polymer
Composition for Sand Consolidation in
Oil Wells. SPE Production and
Operations Conference and Exhibition.
Tunis, Tunisia. 810 Jun 2010. SPE
136024.

Mishra and Ojha

3. Abass HH, Nasr-El-Din HA, BaTaweel

MH. Sand Control: Sand Characterization,
Failure Mechanisms, and Completion
Methods.
SPE
Annual
Technical
Conference and Exhibition. San Antonio,
Texas. 29 Sep2 Oct 2002. SPE 77686.
4. Rosenberg M. Method of Permeably
Consolidating loose Sands. U.S. Patent
No. 3,393,739. 1968.
5. Abanum AM, Dulu A. Laboratory Studies
of Chemicals for Sand Consolidation
(SCON) in the Niger Delta Fields. SPE
Nigeria Annual International Conference
and Exhibition. Lagos, Nigeria. 57 Aug
2013. SPE 167516.
6. Adams N. Recommended Practices for
Testing Sand Used in Gravel Packing
Operations. API Recommended Practice.
1973; 58.
7. Mann RL, Phansalkar AK, Landers JE. A
New Sand Control System. Fall Meeting
of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of
AMIE. Los Angeles, California. 78 Oct
1962. SPE 423-MS.
8. Surles BW, Fader PD, Pardo CW. QuickSet Formation Treating Methods. U.S.
Patent No. 5,423,381. 1995.
9. Ott WK, Woods JD. Controlling SandRelated Production Problems. World Oil
Modern Sandface Completion Practices.
Huston. Gulf Publishing Company. 2003;
112p.
10. Anderson BW, Bowles BK, Murphey JR,
et al. Method of Consolidating
Incompetent Subterranean Formations
Using Aqueous Treating Solutions. U.S.
Patent No. 4,042,032. 1977.
11. Curtice BA, Harnsberger BG. Method and
Composition for Stabilizing Incompetent
Oil-Containing Formations. U.S. Patent
No. 3,955,993. 1976.
12. Cooper RH. Oil Well Treatment. U.S.
Patent No. 2,900,027. 1959.
13. Harnsberger BG. Sand Consolidation
Method. U.S. Patent No. 4,073,342. 1978.
14. Spain HH. Sand Consolidation Method.
U.S. Patent No. 3,297,086 A. 1962.
15. Muller AL, Vargas EA Jr, Goncalves CJ.
Numerical
Simulation
of
Solids
Productions in Slip-Lines type Breakout
Modes Using Standard and Cosserat
Continua. JPSE. 2014; 122(2014): 134
148p. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.20
14.06.027

JoPET (2015) 21-34 STM Journals 2015. All Rights Reserved

Page 30

Journal of Petroleum Engineering & Technology

Volume 5, Issue 2
ISSN: 2231-1785(online), ISSN: 2321-5178(print)

16. Nasr MS, Edbieb SM. Effect of Sand

Production on the Productivity of Oil Wells
in Unconsolidated Sandstone Reservoirs in
Sirte Basin Libya (Field Case Study). 19th
Annual India Oil and Gas Review Summit
and International Exhibition. Mumbai, India,
2012.
17. Ayres HJ, Ramos J. Halliburton Services
Sand Control Methods. Duncan, Oklahoma:
Halliburton. 1974.
18. Suman GO Jr. World Oils Sand Control
Hand Book. Huston. Gulf Publishing
Company. 1974.
19. Sparlin DD, Hagen RW Jr. Sand ControlPrevention of Formation Damage Critical.
OGJ. 1985; 9296p.
20. Weaver J, Blauch M, Parker M, et al.
Investigation of Proppant-Pack Formation
Interface and Relationship to Particulate
Invasion. SPE European Formation Damage
Conference. The Hague, Netherlands. 31
May1 Jun 1999. SPE 54771.
21. Acock A, Heitmann N, Hoover S, et al.
Screenless Methods to Control Sand. OFR.
2003; 15(1): 3853p.
22. Friedman RH, Surles BW. Sand
Consolidation Method. U.S. Patent No.
5040604 A. 1991.
23. Allen TO, Roberts AP. Production
Operations Vol. 2. 3rd Edn. Tulsa: OGCI.
1989; 3765p.
24. Edwards JS, Winsauer WO. Method for Sand
Consolidation. U.S. Patent No. 3,022,825A.
1962.
25. Jhon MD. Method for Sand Consolidation
with Resin. U.S. Patent No. 5,178,218. 1993.
26. Van Poollen HK, Malone WT. A
Stimulation-Sand Control Method. 34th
Annual Fall Meeting of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers of AIME. Dallas. 47
Oct 1959. SPE 1321-G.
27. Penberthy WL, Shaughnessy CM. Sand
Control. SPE Series on Special Topic. 1992.
1.
28. Hettema MH, Andrews JS, Blaasmo M. The
Relative Importance of Drawdown and
Depletion in Sanding Wells: Predictive
Models Compared with Data from the
Statfjord Field MM. SPE International
Symposium and Exhibition on Formation
Damage Control. Lafayette, L.A. 1517 Feb
2006. SPE 97794.

29. Bailey B, Crabtree M, Tyrie J, et al. Water

Control. OFR. 2000; 12(1): 3051p.
30. Morita N, Whitfill DL, Fedde OP, et al.
Realistic Sand Production Prediction:
Analytical Approach. 62nd Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of
the Society of Petroleum Engineers
Proceedings. Dallas, Texas. 2730 Sep
1987. SPE 16990.
31. Carlson J. Sand Control: Why and How?
Schlumberger Oilfield Review. 1992; 4(4):
4153p.
32. Han G, Dusseault M. Quantitative
Analysis of Mechanism for Water-Related
Sand Production. SPE International
Symposium and Exhibition on Formation
Damage Control. Lafayette, Louisiana.
2021 Feb 2002. SPE 73737.
33. Ripa G, Ligrone A, Zamparini A, et al.
Cost Effective Sand Control Operations
Play Key Role in Revitalizing Mature Gas
Field. Offshore Technology Conference.
Houston, Texas. 5th Mar 2004. OTC16038-MS.
34. Kuncoro B, Ulumuddin B, Palar S. Sand
Control for Unconsolidated Reservoirs.
Proceeding Simposium Nasional IATMI.
Yogykarta. 35 Oct 2001. IATMI 2001
08.
35. Manual on Formation Damage. IOGPT.
2006. ONGC Ltd, Panvel, India.
36. Al-Awad MNJ. The Mechanism of Sand
Production Caused by Pore Pressure
Fluctuations. OGST. 2001; 56(4): 339
345p.
37. Alqam MH, Al-Badairy HH, Caliboso ET,
et al. Laboratory Rock Characterization
Study for Optimized Sand-Control
Completion Using Samples Selected from
Pre-Khuff Reservoir. SPE Reservoir
Characterization
and
Simulation
Conference and Exhibition. Abu Dhabi,
UAE. 911 Oct 2011. SPE 148160.
38. Veeken CAM. Sand Production Prediction
Review: Developing an Integrated
Approach. SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition. Dallas, Texas.
69 Oct 1991. SPE 22792-MS.

JoPET (2015) 21-34 STM Journals 2015. All Rights Reserved

Page 31

Chemical Sand Consolidation

39. Wasnik A, Mete S, Ghosh B. Application of

Resin System for Sand Consolidation, MudLoss Control, and Channel Repairing. SPE
International Thermal Operations and
Heavy Oil Symposium. Alberta, Canada. 13
Nov 2005. SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97771PS2005-349.
40. Tao Q, Birchwood R, Ghassemi A.
Poroelasoplastic Analysis of Factors
Controlling Sand Production from a
Hemispherical Cavity. 42nd US Rock
Mechanics Symposium and 2nd US-Canada
Rock Mechanics Symposium. San Francisco.
Jun 2002 Jul 2008. ARMA 08-306.
41. Fattahpour V, Moosavi M, Mehranpour M.
An Experimental Investigation on the Effect
of Rock Strength and Perforation size on
sand Production. JPSE. 2012; 86
87(2012): 172189p.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2012.03.02
3
42. Tronvoll J, Dusseault MB, Sanfilippo F, et
al. The Tools of Sand Management. SPE
Annual
Technical
Conference
and
Exhibition. Orleans, Louisiana. 30 Sep3
Oct 2001. SPE 71673.
43. Aggour MA, Abu-Khamsin SA, El-Sayed
AO. A New Method of Sand Control: The
Process and Its First Field Implementation.
SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology
Conference and Exhibition. Cairo, Egypt.
2224 Oct 2007. SPE/IADC 108250.
44. Kotlar HK, Moen A, Haavind F, et al. Field
Experience
with
Chemical
Sand
Consolidation as a Remedial Sand Control
Option. Offshore Technology Conference.
Huston, Texas, USA. 58 May 2008. OTC19417-MS.
45. Harnsberger BG. Sand Consolidation
Composition. U.S. Patent No. 3644266.
1972.
46. Wiechel JF, French CR, Hall WL. Sand
Control Employing Halogenated, Oil
Soluble Hydrocarbons. U.S. Patent No.
4,494,605. 1985.
47. Young BM, Totty KD. Sand Control
Method. U.S. Patent No. 3,404,735. 1968.
48. Parlar M, Ali SA, Hoss R, et al. New
Chemistry and Improved Placement
Practices Enhance Resin Consolidation:
Case Histories from the Gulf of Mexico.
International Symposium on Formation
Damage Control. Lafayette, Louisiana. 18
19 Feb 1998. SPE 39435.

Mishra and Ojha

49. Mathis CH, Rampacek C. Preperation of

Resin for Plugging Formation. U.S. Patent
No. 2,307,843. 1943.
50. Bezemer C, Mejis FH. Development and
Field Application of the Process for Sand
Consolidation Employing EPOSAND
Resin. 41st Annual Fall Meeting of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers of AMIE.
Dallas, U.S.A. 25 Oct 1966. SPE 1591.
51. Hamby TW Jr, Richardson EA. Shells
Sand Consolidation Experience-Delta
Division. Spring Meeting of the Southern
District, API Division of Production.
American Petroleum Institute. 1968. API68-207.
52. Bezemer C, Franciscus HM, Marinus VZ.
Method for Consolidating a Permeable
Mass. U.S. Patent No. 3368626. 1968.
53. Hambay TW Jr, Strickland WT Jr. Epoxy
Resin Sand Consolidation Rejuvenation.
U.S. Patent No. 3,646,999 A. 1972.
54. Brooks FA, Muecke TW, Rickey WP, et
al. Externally Catalyzed Epoxy for Sand
Control. JPT. 1974; 26(6).
55. Davies DR, Zuiderwijk JJM, and
Hagelaars
AMPM.
Process
for
Consolidating Water-Wet Sands with an
Epoxy Resin-Forming Solution. U.S.
Patent No. 4,291,766. 1981.
56. Dewprashad B, Weaver JD, Besler M, et
al. Epoxy Resin Consolidation system
Improves Worker Safety, Chemical
Compatibility, and Performance. The
European Formation Damage Conference.
Hugue, The Netherland. 23 Jun 1997.
SPE 38189.
57. Songire S, Hassan A, Amer M, et al.
Successful Field Application of AqueousBased Formation Consolidation Treatment
Implemented in Nile Delta, Egypt. SPE
Saudi
Arabia
Section
Technical
Symposium and Exhibition. Al-Khobar,
Saudi Arabia. 2124 Apr 2014. SPE
172214-MS.
58. Young BM. An Improved Sand
Consolidation
Process
with
Clay
Conditioning. Soc. Petrol. Eng. 1965. SPE
1339-MS.
59. Weaver JD, Morgan JA. Furan Resin
Process Replaces Workover in Gas
Storage Reservoirs. SPE Gas Technology
Symposium. Dallas, Texas. 1315 Jun
1988. SPE 17742-MS.

JoPET (2015) 21-34 STM Journals 2015. All Rights Reserved

Page 32

Journal of Petroleum Engineering & Technology

Volume 5, Issue 2
ISSN: 2231-1785(online), ISSN: 2321-5178(print)

60. Keith CI, Azman A, Wijoseno DA, et al.

Coil Tubing Furan Resin Sand
Consolidation Treatment on Multi Layered
Formation in Pennisular Malaysia. SPE
Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition. Jakarta, Indonesia. 2224 Oct
2013. SPE 165911-MS.
61. Friedman RH, Surles BW, Fader PD. Sand
Consolidation Method. U.S. Patent No.
4,903,770. 1990.
62. Paul S. Water Compatible Chemical InSitu and Sand Consolidation with Furan
Resin. U.S. Patent No. 5,522,460 A. 1995.
63. Walther HC, Kuhn DA, Sparlin DD.
Method for Consolidating Material. U.S.
Patent No. 3282338. 1966.
64. Brooks FA Jr. Method for Consolidating
Subterranean Formations. U.S. Patent No.
3,419,073. 1968.
65. Graham JW. Method of Treating Wells
Using Resin-Coated Particles. U.S. Patent
No. 4,336,842. 1982.
66. Armbruster DR. Phenol-FormaldehydeFufuryl Alcohol Resin. U.S. Patent No.
4,722,991. 1988.
67. Zhang F, Quyang J, Xintong M, et al. A
New-Type of Phenolic Resin Sand Control
and its Construction Technology. Adv.
Mater. Res. 2013; 699: 8386p.
http://10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.6
99.83
68. Fitzgerald BM, Stephens G, Terwilliger
PL.
Warm
Air
Coking
Sand
Consolidation: Field Results in Viscous
Oil Sands. JPT. 1966; 18(1). SPE-1239PA.
69. Aslesen SK, Short CJ, Terwilliger PL. A
New Method for Sand Control and Well
Stimulation in Unconsolidated Dirty Sand.
Presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition. San Antonio,
Texas. 47 Oct 1981. SPE 10172-MS.
70. Torrest RS. Electroless Nickle Sand
Consolidation: Laboratory Studies of
Cementation and Calculated Effect on
Well Productivity. Soc. Petrol. Eng. J.
1975; 15(3). SPE 4964-PA.
71. Anthony DR. Sand Consolidation with
Organic Silicate. U.S. Patent No.
4,417,623. 1983.
72. Friedman RH. Sand Consolidation Method
Employing Latex. U.S. Patent No.
4,649.998. 1987.

73. Tehrani MA, Davies SN, Maitland GC.

Setting Composition for Well Operations.
U.S. Patent No. 6,177,483 B1. 2001.
74. Davies DK, Hara PS, Mondragon JJ III. A
Novel Low Cost Well Completion
Technique Using Steam for Formation
with Unconsolidated Sands. Wilmington,
California. SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition. San Antonio,
Texas. 58 Oct 1997. SPE 38793.
75. Karen B. Sand Consolidation by Use of a
High-Temperature Alkaline Solution. JPT.
2001;
53(5).
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/0501-0055-JPT
76. Moreno FE, Mamora DD. Sand
Consolidation Using High-Temperature
Alkaline Solution Analysis of Reaction
Parameters. SPE Western Meeting held at
Bakersfield. California. 2630 Mar 2001.
SPE 68847-MS.
77. Osman EA, Aggour MA, Abu-Khamsin
SA. In-Situ Sand Consolidation by LowTemperature Oxidation. SPE Prod. Facil.
2000; 15(1): 4249p.
78. Dabbous MK, Fulton PF. LowTemperature-Oxidation Reaction Kinetics
and Effects on the In-Situ Combustion
Process. Soc. Petrol. Eng. J. 1974; 14(3).
SPE 4143-PA.
79. Alexander JD, Martin WL, Dew JN.
Factors Affecting Fuel Availability and
Composition During In-Situ Combustion.
JPT. 1962; 14(10). SPE-296-PA.
80. Fassihi MR, Meyers KO, Basile PF. LowTemperature Oxidation of Viscous Crude
Oils.
SPE
RE.
1990;
5(4).
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/15648-PA
81. Aggour MA, Abu-Khamsin SA, Osman
EA. Investigation of In-Situ LowTemperature Oxidation as a Viable Sand
Consolidation Technique. JPSE. 2004;
42(2004):
107120p.
http://dx,doi.org/j.petrol.2003.12.004
82. El-Sayed Abdel-Alim H, Al-Awad MN,
Al-Homadhi E. Two New Chemical
Components for Sand Consolidation
Techniques. SPE Middle East Oil Show.
Bahrain. 1720 Mar 2001. SPE 68225.
83. Espin D, Chavez JC, Genlolet LC, et al.
Methods For Treating Drilling Fluid Using
Nanoparticles. U.S. Patent No. 6,579,832.
2003.

JoPET (2015) 21-34 STM Journals 2015. All Rights Reserved

Page 33

Chemical Sand Consolidation

84. Kotlar HK, Haavind F, Springer M, et al.

Encouraging Results with a New
Environmentally Acceptable, Oil-Soluble
Chemical for Sand Consolidation: From
Laboratory Experiments to Fields
Application.
SPE
International
Symposium and Exhibition on Formation
Damage Control. Lafayette, L.A. 1517
Feb 2006. SPE 98333.
85. Larsen T, Lioliou M, Josang LO, et al.
Quasinatural Consolidation of Poorly
Consolidated
Oilfield
Reservoirs.
Presented at SPE International Oilfield
Scale Symposium Aberdeen, Scotland. 30
May01 Jun 2006. SPE 100598.
86. Mandez A, Jhonson D, Kakadjian S. Use
of Zeta Potential to Maximize Sand Free
Rate: A New Approach on Sand Control.
Brazil
Offshore
Conference
and
Exhibition. Macau, Brazil. 1417 Jun
2011. SPE 143124.

Mishra and Ojha

87. Ogolo N, Olafuyi O, Onyekonwu M.

Effect of Nanoparticles on Migrating Fines
in Formation. SPE International Oilfield
Nanotechnology Conference. Noordwijk,
The Netherlands. 1214 Jun 2012. SPE
155213.

JoPET (2015) 21-34 STM Journals 2015. All Rights Reserved

Cite this Article

Saurabh Mishra, Keka Ojha. Chemical
Sand Consolidation: An Overview.
Journal of Petroleum Engineering and
Technology (JoPET). 2015; 5(2): 2134p.

Page 34