Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 16

SPE 114781

Sand Management: What Are We Sure Of?


A.G. Slayter, SPE, M. Byrne, SPE, C.A. McPhee, SPE, P. McCurdy, SPE, Senergy Ltd
Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Perth, Australia, 2022 October 2008.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Sand management is an issue pertinent to all those disciplines responsible for maturing a project. It requires leadership from
the asset owner, expertise from the specialists and top quality equipment from the vendors. Excellence must span all the stages
of field development for, like many aspects of well construction, 9 out of 10 is usually not good enough. For this reason
guidance is proposed for management and design of sand related projects.
While sanding prediction is the first step in the process, it is only briefly mentioned in this paper, where focus is more on
selected design activities for an openhole production well with sand control, namely:

Rock mineralogy

Particle size distribution testing (sieve and laser) and the definition / issues relating to fines

Selection of sand control system with review of the screen to openhole annulus

Sand retention tests

Screen mesh size assessment

Screen failure mechanisms

Erosion

Collapse and/or buckling

Screen ratings, increasing screen strength where possible

Review of statistics
Although many of the above are relevant to other well designs, no specific reference is made to frac and packs, selective or
oriented perforation, sand consolidation, execution or operation of sand control, or surface sand management.
The sand management team needs to define the tasks and activities to achieve established and shared objectives, those
objectives being to achieve the required well productivity, longevity and functionality.
Although these objectives are few, they can only be achieved through careful execution of the various tasks and associated
activities. Many tasks are entwined between two or three objectives and need to be done in a particular order. This paper
proposes a methodical workflow framework to achieve this.
In many cases the answers to design questions are dispersed amoungst an unmanageable number of papers, manuals,
guidelines, training and conference proceedings and this paper goes some way to draw the threads together for some of the
common design issues. In some areas, work is still to be done by our industry to clarify equipment specification, standardising
definitions, test methods, and modeling techniques.
Introduction
An Operator recently identified that 95 of their top 100 production wells were completed with sand control, some with a daily
capacity of 60,000 BOPD or 350 million scf/D of gas. More than 1 million BOEPD was from reservoirs with risk of sand
production (Balgobin, 2005). An increasing number of subsea fields are being developed where surface sand management and
retrofit sand control is not usually an option.

SPE 114781

Sand managers are expected to advise on important questions for the field development: How should we design these wells?
For how long will they perform? When will sand be produced and what will it do? Can we constrain future water or gas
breakthrough?
The industry demonstrates its recognition of these questions with at least two annual conferences dedicated to the subject,
complemented by others such as the Formation Damage Symposium, APPEA, SPWLA and APOG. However, particularly to
the newcomer, assimilating so much information is becoming impractical. At least 400 papers have been written on sand
management with test procedures, guidelines, equipment and specifications being continually revised.
When designing for sand, it will be seen that the devils in the detail. Unfortunately despite our learning, important testing
procedures are inconsistent across the industry, concepts are understood in different ways, we work with legacy guidelines
where the supporting background is obscure and with published specifications that dont withstand heavy scrutiny.
With this challenge to acquire the knowledge, the aspiring sand manager may neglect the importance of an enabling
environment and methodology. Therefore, this paper answers at least some questions regarding what we are sure of, proposing
good practice for the management of a sand related project, the importance of which is often underestimated. Objectives, tasks
and activities are placed within a recognized structure, thereby defining a methodology to progress a project. Certain selected
test procedures, concepts, legacy guidelines and specifications are scrutinized.
While strong in some areas of this discipline, we still have work to do. Where claims below are misinformed, it is hoped that
this will only encourage improved understanding through future debate.
Project Management
Project management can be an after-thought for projects requiring sand management and so varies between projects.
When completing with openhole sand control, it is not possible to perforate through wellbore damage, perform reliable shutoffs, late in the life of a compacting field and so achieve 20-years of problem-free service. Sand management is a new
environment requiring a development of the responsibility of the parties involved in completion selection, design, execution
and operation.
The responsibilities of productivity, longevity and functionality become shared objectives of all project staff. Leadership at the
appropriate level is required to help align objectives with quantified, shared and incentivised goals. Tasks arising from shared
objectives will be objective. If a certain well construction step (e.g. well clean up) is costly, but likely to lead to a more
productive and long-lasting well, then a cost-benefit analysis should be conducted.
The involved disciplines must have the appropriate skill levels, staff integration, continuity and be well resourced with data,
tools and lead time. While a perforation job could be planned in a week, its common for operators to plan field developments,
requiring sand control, over 2 to 3 years, with specialists in the office for many months.
Objectives, Task and Activities
Successful sand management requires aligned objectives (e.g. productivity), addressed in a timely way by executing tasks (e.g.
sand screen selection), with the appropriate competence, using reliable practices (e.g. petrology analysis), at all stages of field
development. An expansion of this is provided in Table 1 and placed in context within an enabling environment in Fig. 1.

SPE 114781

Objective
Productivity

Longevity

Productivity and
longevity

Task

Activities

Flow modeling

Testing

Hole condition assurance

Screen integrity assessment

Assess the petrology

Productivity,
longevity and
functionality

Selection of screen type &


mesh/gravel sizing
Mud design selection

Compaction prediction
Sand control system
selection

Well design

Installation

Operation

Run sensitivities on base case design to determine


likelihood of and risks to delivering target production
Return permeability testing
Sequential testing for fluids to be used to confirm
compatibility, need for breaking/stimulation
Model well bore stability
Consideration of crossing faults with the reservoir section
which could reactivate with depletion or suffer high
losses
Review of failure mechanisms:

Screen erosion

Screen buckling and collapse


Screen ratings
Increase screen strength
Investigate the mineralogy of the rock between the
reservoir sands (the intra layers) and within the reservoir
rock matrix (interstitial) to determine the presence of
clays and micas and the clays behavior and reactivity
(using specialist lab techniques and tests)
Perform particle size distribution (PSD): sieve and
laser
Use PSD as a guide complemented by sand retention
testing (SRT)
Consider requirements for acceptable torque and drag,
shale stabilization in reservoir section and sizing of mud
solids
Quantify loss of reservoir thickness and permeability
Consider field development type
Determine if screen/openhole annulus needs to be
removed
Review statistics and analogue fields
Establish pressure margin between pore and fracture
pressure (i.e. for gravel packing)
Consider water/gas shut-off requirements
Local experience, equipment availability/lead time
Cost
Casing design to avoid cap rock in reservoir completion
interval
Find compromise between the drivers that influence the
hole size, angle and length
Employ best practice e.g. testing all the fluids to be used
in the well, for compatibility, breaking, etc
Drill with rotary steerable assemblies
Cleaning of entire well bore
Define approach to sand management and select
monitoring equipment
Design a clean up program
Define bean up procedure

Table 1: Sand management objectives, tasks and activities.

SPE 114781

leadership

data

tools

alignment

Productivity

continuity

Longevity
petrology
screen type
mesh sizing

Sanding prediction has show


that sand control is required

flow modeling
fluids testing

mud design
compaction
sand control system
selection

hole condition
screen
integrity

well design
installation
operation

gas/water shutoff

Functionality

assess opportunity, select, design/develop, execute, operate + evaluate


Fig. 1- The objectives and tasks of sand management, over the all stages of a project, within an enabling environment.

Testing, Guidelines and Specifications: What Are We Sure Of?


A select number of sand control design activities, that frequently receive attention, are scrutinized and developed in the
following section. These are bulleted below and can be seen in context as bold text in Table 1 above. To remain focused, only
a brief mention is made of sanding prediction:

Sanding prediction

Rock mineralogy

Particle size distribution (PSD) testing (sieve and laser) and the definition / issues relating to fines

Selection of sand control system with review of the screen to openhole annulus

Sand retention tests (SRT)

Screen mesh size assessment

Screen failure mechanisms:

Erosion

Collapse and/or buckling

Screen ratings, increasing screen strength where possible

Review of statistics
Sanding Prediction
Best practice guidelines are to:

Plan to acquire fit for purpose data such as core, logs, extended leak-off (XLOT) and sand influx tests (SIT) early in
the evaluation process. Extended leak-off tests in sand are not easy to obtain but the results are invaluable in
constraining reservoir stresses. XLOTs can be carried out at relatively low cost prior to abandoning an exploration or
appraisal well. SIT data, or well-documented sand production records, are used to calibrate the sand prediction model
and enables both diagnostic and predictive applications

Ensure core is available for rock mechanics tests and is representative and ideally preserved. Samples should be taken
when sampling for petrophysical tests to avoid later sampling of core that has been slabbed or allowed to deteriorate.
Rock mechanics tests are the ground-truth, against which log-derived strength models must be calibrated. It may
prove important to core the cap rock for well construction

Calibrate the geomechanical model for the field and reservoir against drilling incidents such as breakout, drilling
induced fractures, stuck pipe, and losses. This allows you to forward-model with increased confidence

Select a sanding prediction model that provides a fit for purpose evaluation with acceptable accuracy and has the
ability to do multiple realizations and sensitivity analyses (to reflect the uncertainties in the input geomechanical data)
without the need for excessive computational effort and time/cost. Due to the complexity of the required input data,
predictions from complex numerical models (such as FEM) may not be as reliable, or accurate, as simpler analytical
approaches that rely on easily accessible input data (Qiu et al, 2006)

Use the sanding prediction model to evaluate the many options available to the sand management team including
selective perforation, oriented perforation and the retrofit of sand control.

SPE 114781

Rock Mineralogy
Rock strength, structure and mineral content impact most aspects of sand management. Assuming that sanding prediction
has indicated a requirement for sand control, then detailed petrology tests are recommended.
It is important to establish the presence and type of clay and other potentially sensitive mineralogy, either within the matrix
of the sandstone or in the intra-shales using optical microscope, x-ray diffraction (XRD), cation exchange capacity (CEC),
and/or scanning electron microscope (SEM). Clays can be dispersive, swelling and mobile.
Swelling clays are identified by their value of CEC, a measure of the potential reactivity of the shale (e.g. swelling
smectites have a CEC of 80-150 meq/100g. Mobile kaolinites have a CEC of 1-10 meq/100g).
The mineralogy of the test sample is identified by XRD. Micas and clays are of interest. By glycolating the clay with mono
ethylene glycol (MEG), XRD can also identify swelling clays. Note that although unreactive micas, from the sand face, can
plug sand screens (they are generally too big to migrate from inside the matrix).
SEM is effective at helping to picture the position and structure of the clay within the sand matrix.
Dynamic flow through tests (DFTT). Useful work has been done on assessing clay behaviour where candidate well fluids
are circulated at high rates through a shale core (Shenoy et al, 2006). This combined chemical and erosive test for fluids (i.e.
from high rate circulation) can be invaluable in helping the team establish if water based fluids are suitable for a particular clay
formation which might be suspected to be unstable, allowing an ordinary water pack to be used rather than more complex
options.
It will be seen below how this mineralogy information helps design the PSD test program and validate results.
Particle Size Distribution Testing
Particle size distribution results are crucial in the selection, sizing and operation of a sand control system and the prediction
of long term well production performance. It is seen how they shouldnt be considered to be standalone tests but instead
combined with other test results.
Whilst many SPE papers written on the subject of sand control will refer to PSD, an SPE paper is yet to be written on the
best practice for PSD derivation and, whilst various studies have been made by Operators and Consultants, the resulting
information is not commonly available. Some useful work has been performed over the years and this is shared (Ballard, 2008,
Rawle, date unknown).
Laser particle size analysis (LPSA) is often the first test done on a sand. However, this is not always wise as the results of
mineralogy tests can often help to dictate how the LPSA should be performed or help to quality check the PSD results. For
example:

Where a sample contains a swelling clay the LPSA is best performed using a non-aqueous fluid such as methanol and
wet sieving should be avoided

If the sample contains significant amounts of common clay, then a PSD result, showing the sand to be well sorted, is
probably inaccurate

If the sample contains negligible clay or cementation, then a PSD result showing the sand to be poorly sorted, could be
an indication of poor preparation (e.g. sample crushing).
In Fig. 2 below, the plots demonstrate how optical microscopy, SEM and PSD can be combined to provide a collaborative
view of a sand.
PSD Plot for a Dirty Sand
PSD Plot for a Clean Sand
100

90

LPSA

90

80

Sieve

80

Cumulative % Oversize

Cumulative % Oversize

100

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1000

LPSA
Sieve

70
60
50
40
30
20
10

100

10
Grain Size (um)

0.1

0
1000

Fig. 2- Collaborative view of a sand using a variety of petrology techniques.

100

10

Grain Size (um)

0.1

SPE 114781

Some key issues relating to PSD are covered below:

While the cost might be low, its value is high, making it worthwhile to do it properly

Prioritize testing of the weaker samples which are most likely to fail and least likely to be damaged in the preparation
process

PSD results are highly sensitive to preparation and sampling techniques, being affected by crushing, stirring,
sonication, pumping etc so review the techniques used by your laboratory:

Ensure the contents of the sieves are reviewed under a microscope. If the grains are not individual then ensure
they are re-ground

Sieves can easily blind off and usually the finer particles will need to be helped through, especially on the < 90
micron sieves

At least a mechanical riffler (device for balanced sampling) is required to sample representatively for PSD
measurements

Perform both sieve and laser measurements. Amongst other things, sieve will identify sand grains which are too large
for accurate LPSA measurement (particles more than about 800 microns are poorly suspended in the carrier fluid used
for LPSA)

Fine particles are poorly characterised by sieve analysis due to:

Being trapped on coarser particles, due to static and chemical forces

Being lost as dust around the equipment

Plugging of sieve meshes

The finest sieve for a practical measurement is ~40 microns.


These are some of the reasons why there will often be considerable difference between sieve and LPSA data. It is
found that wet sieving tends to produce results between the two, and in many cases wet sieving can be argued to be
superior to dry sieving

Send out a standard sand with each set of samples, ideally measured by the instrument manufacturer

Measure at least one of the samples twice and use more than one laboratory to ensure reproducibility

Ask for the laboratory operator to be listed against the sampling result to help identify different practices

Specific to LPSA:

Ensure the sample used is sufficient to give an acceptable signal (obscuration) but not too much to cause multiple
scattering, resulting in an artificially high fines content. The correct level of obscuration must be checked but is
usually ~ 20 to 30%

Excessive stirring, to keep larger particles in suspension, will form air bubbles which will appear as coarse
particles

When reviewing the results, recognize that sand particles could be considered to be similar to a matchbox. While a
shape will have many dimensions, our task requires us to describe them with just one
With so many different considerations for PSD, it might be expected that results depend on selection of technique and
laboratory and this has been confirmed by a recent JIP run by the company, Corex. It is hoped that agreed test standards will
be developed.
It is seen that the key output parameters from PSD are the sand sizes for the d5, d10, d40, d50, d90, d95 of retained sand (Tiffin
et al, 1998) and these are discussed in the section on sand control selection below. The percentage of fines is also an important
output from PSD and this fraction of the sample is also discussed.
Fines
A rigorous definition of fines is that part of a rock which can move within and between the pores of that rock. However a
legacy guideline is that fines are those particles that are smaller than 325 mesh (44 microns). Where this value came from has
at least two origins:
1. A 325 mesh screen is the finest screen for practical use, so everything that passed this mesh cant be defined any
further, so had to be classified together, as fines
2. 20/40 mesh gravel is the most common range (Ottawa Quarries had the most of this when they started selling gravel
for fracture jobs and fracture treatments). The D50 of 20/40 gravel is 630 microns so (depending on grain geometry)
the opening will be about 100 microns as shown in Fig. 3. Based on the principle that particles of less than one third of
opening size will be able to pass these openings (Coberly, date unknown; Penberthy, date unknown; Abrams, 1977)
then particles of ~ 35 microns are able to pass the gravel, so could be termed mobile fines.

SPE 114781

20/40 gravel

D/d=6.5

D50 =630 microns


Fig. 3- Geometry of ideally packed gravel, showing relative dimension of pore throat.

We avoid getting stuck on this issue of how to describe fines by addressing the concerns we have with them:

Resorting: they could resort with other available minerals in the screen/openhole annulus, if the annulus is open and
large

Production: they could be produced from within the formation matrix, potentially leading to:

Plugging of the sand control system

Plugging of the sand matrix

Erosion.
There is various evidence that resorting is a valid concern (Price-Smith et al, 2003; Mason et al, 2005) and this is reviewed
in the next section on annulus removal.
Regarding their production:

The only fines that can be mobilized from within a restrained (e.g. gravel packed) formation matrix are those that are
loosely bound (typically kaolinite). They must also pass the pore throats of the matrix, typically in the range 10-30
microns. Such particles, typically in the range 3-10 microns in diameter will easily pass the screen and gravel,
typically with openings of >100 microns. As these particles are produced, their concentration will usually reduce over
time as the fluid velocity, reduces away from the wellbore, to below the critical velocity for mobilisation. Fines could
potentially plug the gravel/screens if a cascade were mobilized, something that might occur with water breakthrough.
However, rather than fines, it is considered more likely that the material at the face of the wellbore (e.g. filtercake)
plugs the gravel pack or screens

It is likely that the intra-matrix fines (e.g. kaolinite) could mobilize at certain flow conditions (e.g. high fluid velocities
and/or water breakthrough). If this release is sudden, then pore throats are more likely to become plugged, with the
potential to impact productivity (Tiffin et al, 1998). This highlights the importance of slow and gradual bean up. Fines
migration testing is the only method available to establish the critical flow rate for mobilization for different fluids
(Miranda et al, 1993). However, the tests are complicated and can be inconclusive

While there is evidence, from erosion probes (intrusive electrical resistance type), that particles as fine as 30-50
microns can be erosive in high rate, gas environments (Hedges et al, no date), matrix fines are usually an order of
magnitude smaller than this and, often being soft clays, are unlikely to be erosive.
Selection of Sand Control System and Review of the Screen to Openhole Annulus
The three key questions for openhole sand control system selection are:

Should the screen-open-hole-annulus be removed?

What type of sand screen should be used?

If packing is required, should an alternate path gravel packing system be used?


A commonly used guideline for system selection was developed by Tiffin et al, 1998, itself developed from Schwartz,
1969, and embellished by Price-Smith et al, 2005, and complimented by Farrow et al, 2004.
d10/d95 sorting

d40/d90 uniformity

sub 44 microns

coefficient

coefficient

or fines

<10

<3

< 2%

screen only

<10

<5

< 5%

premium screens

<20

<5

< 10%

gravel pack

>20

>5

>10%

benefit from enlarging the wellbore


(horizontals, fracture)

Table 2- Criteria for sand control selection (Tiffin et al, 1998).

proposed completion system

SPE 114781

Whilst guidance from the papers listed above has helped the industry considerably over the last decade, there is benefit in
viewing the criteria in Table 2 in combination with the following:

The paper highlights:

That the coefficients, where problems begin, are not exactly known but rough ranges are beginning to emerge

Critical coefficients have been seen to be dependent on the coarseness of sands where, the coarser the sand, the
higher the allowable uniformity coefficient (UC) for stand alone screen (SAS) application (i.e. screens positioned
away from the wellbore without the annulus packed with gravel) (Tiffin et al, 1998)
Annulus removal: while annulus removal may not be needed to protect from formation resorting, it may be needed for
other reasons as described in the section on this subject, below
Fines: the sub 44 microns classification, as discussed above, is not usually pertinent to long-term plugging. If there are
no mobile fines, then there is no reason to enlarge the wellbore to reduce the flow velocities
Derivation of the PSD: it has been confirmed through correspondents, with an author of the paper, that both sieve and
LPSA were used in the derivation of the guideline and, although weight fraction nomenclature was used (this is the
usual output from sieve analysis), this was done to standardize all of the study samples. It was stated that it was
possible that the differences in results between the two methods could have been considered in more detail
Expandable sand screens: when this paper was written, expandable sand screens were just emerging on the market but
can be considered in the same way as gravel packed screens except that, like most metal mesh screens, when very fine
sands are being completed, a gravel pack is needed (e.g. the d5 of the sand may be finer than the finest available screen
mesh (~100 microns)
Required well functionality: if gas/water shut-off is an important capability in a well, this may drive the completion
type. Note that, while expandable screen systems and SAS with external packer provide the most reliable opportunity
for shutoff, it is possible to effect water shut-off in a gravel packed well. Due to the nature of high pressure drop from
linear flow, a drawdown of more than 100 psi is required to produce just 50 bbls along a 20 meter annulus, even when
filled with 20/40 gravel (permeability of 140 Darcy). It is necessary to run a straddle of blank-pipe inside the screen
over this area
Screen type: the paper makes reference to premium screens. This term premium is losing favour but it refers to woven
screen meshes. Extensive work has been done (Ballard et al, 2006) showing that, while conventional d40/d90 was not as
helpful as previously thought in establishing a point at which premium screens should be used, a plot of the ratio of
Folk and Wards sorting / the sand d50 and the pressure drop across the screen (from SRT) indicated a benefit of
using a premium weave screen for poorly sorted sands. This better suitability of premium screens for poorly sorted,
finer formations has been reported elsewhere by Hodge et al, 2002.

In recent years, inflow control devices (ICDs), and swellable annulus packers have become available and have been
effectively used by StatoilHydro, where the avoidance of annulus removal in their many, long and complex wells provided a
considerable cost saving. StatoilHydro ran approximately 230 horizontal stand alone completions where 75% would have been
completed with open hole gravel packs (OHGPs) according to the criteria in Table 2 above, yet the failure rate, due to gradual
plugging, was 1% (Mathiesen, 2007).
Annulus Removal
Removal of the screen-openhole annulus (by either expanding the screen to the sandface or filling the annulus with gravel)
has many benefits and, if done well, the only downside is cost. Removal:

Prevents behind pipe, linear flow:

Shales and/or mica, that may be present in the open hole, may not have been tested with PSD. If they are mobile,
dispersive or reactive they can plug screens. This has been reflected by experimental results (Markestad et al,
1996). Annulus removal reduces screen blinding and/or erosion as plugging or fine particles from the formation
are held in position and unable to move up to areas of clean screen

The chance of high flow velocities, that are seen when annular flow enters the well at the uppermost sand screens,
is reduced

The reliability of production log data improves

Prevents autopacking, the mixing of any drilled solids, produced/collapse formation matrix (likely to resort) and
filtercake in the annulus. This autopack behaviour has been seen to occur during sand retention tests.
Gravel in the annulus:

Provides a deep filtration layer and so reduces the loading and size of particles that contact the screen

Reduces the velocity at which particles contact the screen

Supports a screen, despite over-gauge hole, to mitigate against buckling and shield against radial loads.

SPE 114781

It has been stated that, if the ratio of cross sectional area of annulus flow / cross sectional area of pipe base flow is less
than 1.25 then stand alone screens are more acceptable (Price-Smith et al, 2003), as behind-pipe-flow is reduced. Advice from
an author of this paper is that this ratio was based on empirical well successes /failures. Some Operators are further decreasing
this area ratio by running 7-3/8 in. OD screens in 8-1/2 in. hole.
Sand Retention Tests (SRT)
Having selected a sand control system, a further step is now available to the engineer when selecting the mesh and gravel
type and size.
Two screen sizing criteria have served the industry for over 100 years between them, Coberlys criteria (Coberly, 1937)
where the mesh is sized to twice the d10 of the sand and Rogers criteria (Rogers, 1971) where the mesh is sized to the d10.
Many engineers continue to use the d10 criteria (although experimentation has shown it to be less reliable for wire wrapped
screens (WWS) (Ballard et al, 2006).
The start of SRT in 1996 (Markestad et al, 1996) and its development (Ballard et al, June 1999) led to some new industry
guidelines and tools for screen sizing. One tool can be used effectively to select a screen for sands that vary in a well bore
(Markestad et al, 1996). Also a new d5 criteria was proposed for woven screen meshes (Ballard et al, 2003) (with certain
important caveats).
SRT offers the industry the chance to balance good screen retention with minimal plugging to ensure good productivity
and longevity. It is a promising concept but must address experimental assumptions (Ballard et al, 2006). Around 15 different
test methodologies have arisen from the challenge of reproducing well production.
Selection of a method, for sand retention tests, depends on the vision of how sand face fails for any given wellbore and so
varies from one operator to the next.
Some tests involve flowing a slurry of formation sand that is suspended in a high-density or viscosified brine or oil. Some
tests create a pack of sand against the sand control and then flow through it, using different fluid phases / rates.
Some considerations for SRT are reviewed below:

To be able to select one screen from another, a definition of maximum acceptable sand production is beneficial. A
value of 0.12 lbs of sand per square foot of screen has been proposed (Hodge et al, Feb 2002) and is used by at least
two suppliers of SRT. This value is based on the comparison of screen lab tests with screens, in the field, which
remained integral. This value can be constructively challenged. For example, if a screen exceeds this value but sand
production tails off, and the screen suffers minimal pressure build up, then it could be the screen is acceptable

The coarsest fraction of the sand is the most influential in promoting retention so it is essential to ensure this fraction
is transported to the screen. Particularly when the sand sample is coarse, this is difficult to achieve. One approach is to
use a fluid viscosifer and high flow rates (Ballard et al, 2006). Once transported to the test cell, the viscous sand
suspension is diluted with water to ensure it loses its viscosity. However this leads to high water flow rates (up to 500
cc/min is used in some procedures) through the screen which, being higher than field rates, means the bridging
behaviour may not be representative

Another approach is to use a Newtonian test oil (Hodge et al, Feb 2002). However it has been seen that sample
wettability and fluid phase influence the quantity of produced sand (Ballard et al, 2006), being worse with brine, better
with methanol and best with oil

In some tests, the pressure drop (dP), due to plugging, is measured across the screen with the pack in place. In others,
it is measured with the pack removed. This second test would be better at identifying a screen which has a high areaopen-to-flow (so the dP is low) but may still have suffered high plugging (the dP of the screen is higher after the test
than before)

In other tests procedures, when the formation pack, on the screen, reaches 0.25 in., the pressure is surged from 0-400
psi, to disrupt weak particle bridges, so simulating the destabilizing effect of beanup on the pack

It has been seen that clay-rich sands can provide better than expected retention in sandpack tests where the pack can
form a gel, preventing grains from being mobilized

Retention tends to be worse in samples that have a high fines content.


There is an ongoing JIP, run by Corex to compare different SRT methods and trends in data, and it is hoped that some of
the findings will be published in the near future. However, there are no plans to develop an industry standard. The key is to
understand the test method and its limitations.
Screen mesh size assessment
It is difficult to assess the true size rating of particularly a woven mesh screen (with reasons being documented
(Underdown et al, 1999)) so screen specifications do not always accurately describe screen size. This makes the SRT a
valuable test.

10

SPE 114781

Screen Failure Mechanisms


There are number of mechanisms that could lead to sand control failure, the ones considered in this paper are erosion,
plugging and reservoir pressure depletion.
Erosion
When producing through an unplugged screen, erosion is possible under extremely high fluid rates. Flow velocities are
increased when the open area of the screen is low (due to design) or lowered (due to plugging).
The industry is still at the early stages of deriving the critical erosional flow conditions through a sand screen. The rate of
erosion is influenced by the:

Presence of solid particles or liquid droplets, their quantity and hardness

Kinetic energy of the impact, i.e. particle or fluid density, size, and the flow rate, itself influenced by production rate
and flow regime. (Erosion rate is proportional to between the square and cube of the velocity (Cameron et al, 2007))

Impact angle (e.g. flow path geometry)

Hardness of the eroding material

Carrying capacity of the flowing fluid.


Incorporating all these parameters into an erosion model is a challenge so APIs Recommended Practice 14E is often used
for pipelines. From the list, directly above, the API equation only considers the nature of the eroding material and fluid density
so is suitable for solids-free fluid flow in horizontal pipes. This approach is particularly conservative for gas service, and work
has been done to derive C factors for gas flow (Terziev et al, 2004).
To improve on the simplistic API RP 14E approach, a number of modeling tools have been developed, some which are
only available to the development sponsors:

Sand Production Pipe Saver (SPPS) from Tulsa University

Harwell erosion-corrosion model from AEA

ERBEND from DNV

Correlations from Salama and Ventatesh.


These models have been assessed in an informed study (TUV NEL, 2003). However, modeling erosion through sand
screens is more complicated. Assumptions need to be made regarding the solids: will they impinge and/or pass through the
screen and, if so, with what concentration and for how long will they contact the screen? Will they be sharp and hard?
Previous work done (Bennett et al, 1998; Cameron et al, 2007) is some of the best to date but:

Some results are from modeling tools that are not freely available to the industry

There are few guidelines on what to assume for solids behaviour. In some cases, the only solids that should be
produced through a good completion are small (3-10 microns), soft and likely to be short lived so likely to be neither
erosive nor plugging.

SPE 114781

11

Perhaps because of this, guidelines of allowable flux rates have emerged which are summarised in Table 3.
Screen System

Critical velocity
for Liquid Flow

Critical velocity for


Gas Flow

Company

Comment

Weatherford ESS

1 ft/sec

1 ft/sec (see
comments)

Weatherford

An ESS flux limit of 0.27 ft/s was set in


2001, derived from a sand-free, highrate Gulf of Mexico (GOM) gas well.
Modelling work in 2007 derived safe
liquid flux rates of at least 1 ft/sec
(Cameron et al, 2007) assuming fines
production and low solids rates. For gas
this could be as much as 10 times more
but further testing is required to be sure.

Stand alone wire


wrapped screens

1 ft/sec

5 ft/sec

US Filter,
Johnson
Screen

Technical specification note (Oct 1998)

Woven and wire


wrapped screens

1 ft/sec

screen erosion data


for gas are not
available. Extension
of data to down-hole
gas flow should be
done with caution

Shell

This quoted value (Wong et al, 2003) is


recommended by one of the 4 major
operators that sponsored work done by
Southwest Research Institute (SwRI).
Testing was done mostly with 37 micron
silicon carbide SiC (Bennett et al, 1998)

Cased hole gravel


packs

10 ft/sec

As above

Shell

This guideline value is the critical


velocity for the destablisation of a cased
hole gravel pack, and was derived from
being between a safe velocity, modelled
by Penberthy (3.8 ft/s), and a rate that
lead to well failure (14.6 ft/s) (Wong et
al, 2003)

Cased hole gravel


packs

10 ft/sec

20 ft/sec

BP

These guideline values arise from


review of failures of some 200 BP cased
hole gravel packs which correlated to
some of the SwRI measurements (Tiffin
et al, 2003)

Table 3- Critical flux rates to avoid erosion for different sand face completions.

Some pertinent information behind this data is as follows:

Both modeling work (Cameron et al, 2007) and empirical review (Tiffin et al, 2003) shows that there is between 2 and
10 times less specific-erosion from gas flow than from liquid. This is at odds with surface erosion, where the poor
carrying ability of a gas means that particles tend to keep going straight and hit (and in some cases bounce around)
pipe bends, rather than be carried around and cushioned by liquid. Down hole, the erosion of a weave seems to depend
on the ability of the fluid to carry the particle through the weave and gas is less efficient at accelerating the particles to
the screen

It appears that at sufficiently high rates, gravel across a perforation becomes fluidized and loses its ability to protect
the screen which is subject to erosion at flux rates of 1-5 ft/sec (dependent on fluid type)

Many of the experimental results were derived from tests where fine SiC was flowed through the sand screen. SiC is
known for its abrasive qualities and is more dense (3.2 g/cm3) than quartz (2.5 g/cm3) so corrections are required,
considering that quartz is about half as erosive as SiC. Also, sand is likely to build up, over time, on the screen and so
both protect it from direct impingement and reduce the quantity of solids passing through the screens

The work done (Tiffin et al, 2003) to derive critical flux rates from 200 internal gravel packs (IGPs) only found a good
correlation between flux and failure when flux values were derived using the perforation area rather than screen area
and the variation in productivity of the sands, within the completed reservoir section, was considered

12

SPE 114781

While it was considered likely that critical flux rates would be similar for openhole packs, this could not be confirmed
due to limited data. Because the critical rate, for cased-hole screen erosion, was derived assuming the area of flow on the
screen was only that of the perforation area (Tiffin et al, 2003), if the flow area on the screens is more than from the
perforations alone (likely), the critical flux rate (at which screens were failing), will be lower than that calculated,
assuming that the annular behaviour for openhole completions is crudely the same.
Therefore, the following is proposed:

For ESS (Weatherford), the critical flux rate is ~1ft/sec for all fluids but is likely higher for gas

For SAS the critical flux rate is ~1ft/sec for liquid and ~5ft/sec for gas

For successfully packed screens in cased hole, the critical flux rate is ~10ft/sec for liquid and ~20ft/sec for gas

For successfully packed screens in an open hole, the critical flux rate can be assumed to be the roughly the same as, or
slightly less than, that for cased hole

It is important to consider the contrast in the productivity of different sands in the completion when deriving the
allowable flow rate (from the critical flux rate) as it is usually inappropriate to assume even inflow

All the above rates will be higher if the screen mesh is made of nickle alloy 825. No testing is known to have been
performed on this alloy.
Collapse and/or Buckling
Collapse can occur due to:

Production through a badly plugged screen

Depletion effects that can lead to side (a.k.a. lateral or transverse) loading, exacerbated in compacting reservoirs by
buckling forces. The following sections explain how collapse can occur in non-compacting reservoirs.
Plugging
Should the screen become entirely plugged, under production they will experience a pressure differential that may collapse
them (at pressures of just a few hundred pounds per square inch for some screens). However, Fig. 4 highlights that the
differential across a plugged screen need not be as high as the full reservoir drawdown pressure. Only if the well is rapidly
brought up to full drawdown will the full dP be experienced across a plugged screen. If instead the well is beaned up slowly,
the differential across the screen could be moderate as, over time, the pressure at the sand face will drop.
formation
plugged
screen
t=0

reservoir pressure

t=1

t=2
flowing
wellbore
pressure

drainage radius

t=3

Fig. 4- The differential, across a plugged screen, varies over time for the same drawdown.

Depletion
When a reservoir depletes, compaction (reduction in reservoir thickness) and subsidence (drop in level of land/seabed) can
result (Jinnai et al, 2008; da Silva et al, 1990). Some examples of this are the Ekofisk field which suffered 58 casing failures
and a GOM field, where all the wells in an entire block failed within a short time (Tiffin et al, 2003).
Compaction will tend to impart a compressive strain on the wellbore tubulars and will be more likely to result in buckling
if:

The compaction is extreme


The tubulars have external upsets which provide a surface on which the compaction force may act
There is poor contact between the tubular and the sand face
There are imperfections in the tubular
Combined with side loading on the tubular
The well angle is low. Buckling decrease from a maximum for a vertical well to zero for a horizontal well (Fig. 5)

SPE 114781

13

Buckling and collapse can be pictured with the childhood game of standing on an empty drink can. While it can normally
take a large load, if the load it too large (buckling) and/or, if a side load is applied (collapse), then the can will fail.
In angled wells compaction will also impart shear strain on the wellbore (shear strain is zero for vertical and horizontal
wells, Fig. 5). While some work has been done to define the critical strain for casings, cemented (~4%) and stand-alone (~1%)
(Bruno, 2002; Cernocky et al 1995), predicting screen behaviour requires an understanding of the critical strain for each screen
type as they all vary in construction. Cernocky et al, 1995, also provided recommendations to select casings with a diameter
to-thickness ratio (D/t) of less than ~10, where possible, to improve the resistance to crushing. Such a recommendation may be
used as a guideline but it is unlikely that values for screens, with their varying constructions, have been established.

strain

compressive
shear

45
well deviation (degrees)

90

Fig. 5- Compressive and shear tubing strains versus well deviation.

It is also possible to have tubular collapse from side-loading without compaction. When pore pressure is reduced, the effective
stress increases on the reservoir rock (as the overburden pressure remains constant). Where the rock has high compressive
strength, it shields the tubular while in softer rocks the stress is imparted to the wellbore. The strength of the screen will
determine whether this stress leads to deformation (see Statistics section below on the issues of defining failure). While for
some of the less robust sand screens, deformation is possible, failure is only usually likely with extreme depletion. Such screen
collapse and/or buckling has been experimentally studied by a joint industry project, organised by the PEA. Access to the
findings of this work is limited to the sponsors.
To predict loading on a screen, the combined axial and side loads must be considered. Axial loading (imparted by the
compaction of the reservoir) can be derived with relative accuracy by analytical methods. However the side loading on a
screen is a more complex scenario and cannot readily be approximated as it is a combination of the formation initial stress
state, material characteristics (including the non-linear, post failure response) depletion and the screen properties.
Stiff screens will tend to attract more loading from the formation than more flexible screens (small deformations of the screen
allow the formation to displace and hence the loading will alter). Therefore, to predict the loading on a screen, both the
formation and screen must be simulated together.
Numerical modeling allows contact between the screen and formation to be represented and hence the screens are loaded
directly from the long-term formation deformation, and in turn the formation will be constrained by the appropriate stiffness of
the screen. Screens are represented by a 3D solid section; formations are represented in a plane strain manner and are extended
to far-field boundaries. Formation material models are capable of representing the shear strength, the brittle-ductile transition
and the compactive response of appropriate geological materials. Hence the correct deformation/failure mode of the formation
is accurately captured. A-symmetric screens, combined with gravel packs can be modeled and a combination of axial and sideloading can be used to determine potential collapse/buckling.
Further concerns arise from the presence of shales across tubulars:

Shales tend to be laminated, weak and brittle so are likely to fail

Shales usually have lower friction angles to those of sand so, while the effective strength of a sand can increase with
depletion, this is unlikely for a shale

If an intra-bedded shale (or other low permeability rock) is thin (less than a couple of metres) then its possible that its
pore pressure will deplete. In this case the effective stress will increase and make failure more likely

If an intra-bedded shale (or other low permeability rock) is thick, then it is possible its pore pressure will not deplete
while the permeable rock will. In this case the effective stress differential between the different formations could
cause the development of a shear force. This is represented in Fig. 6 below, where the comparatively lower pressured
sand (yellow) experiences higher effective stress than the tight rock (brown) and may impinge on the screen, setting
up a shear force at the interface of the rocks

Shales can be unstable or dispersive, meaning overgauge hole can result from the drilling process. This will weaken an
expandable screen at this point and increase the chance of buckling

A shale is generally more likely to plug a screen than sand.

14

SPE 114781

Fig. 6- Depleted sand (yellow) experiences higher effective stress than the tight rock (brown) which may impinge on the screen.

Screen Ratings
When seeking a screen rating, the following challenges are faced:

The definition of failure, used by screen vendor, varies considerably. It could be: the elastic limit of the screen; the
loss of sand retention of the screen or its connector; the loss of a percentage of the tubulars I.D.; or the complete
flattening of a pipe. Furthermore, test procedures vary considerably

While the industry has started a testing program, ISO/IEC CD 17824

The final results are not expected until 2011

The products covered are wire wrap, pre-pack and metal mesh screens but not expandables

The test procedures do not follow an industry standard

Conoco Philips has done some extensive screen testing for burst and collapse testing and found that some ratings were
as low as 15% of the published value (Adams et al, 2007)

It is hard to simulate the loads acting on a screen with a test-rig and it is likely that can only be done with finite
element numerical analysis (FEA) which can include whether the screen is constrained and consider the presence of
small imperfections in the screen (e.g. lack of symmetry, spiraling or inherent variation of slot width) which have been
shown to influence collapse resistance (Wilson et al, 2002).
In some cases it may be possible to increase the strength of a sand screen. To increase drainage area, some sand screens
have up to 192 holes per foot of basepipe yet other screens, with inflow control devices (ICDs), have just 2 to 6 small nozzles
for an entire joint so the screen user can be safely reduce the predrill density of heavily perforated basepipes.
Statistics
There are a number of complexities when assessing sand control completion reliability from statistics such as:

Ensuring like-for-like comparison: e.g. sand control system A may have produced with a flux rate (volume per day per
metre of screen) ten times that of system B. The environment may be far more challenging (e.g. compaction) or the
completion installation/operation may not have followed best practices

The definition of failure: e.g. definition could be a high skin factor, the onset of sand production or when sand can no
longer be tolerated

Data skew: completions in wells with short-lived production, may remain in the database, when the equipment never
entered the wear stage.
BP (King et al, 2003) has initiated and managed a well-known database. This tool clearly defined failure, and lists over
two thousand wells. This large data set allows comparison of the reliability of one type of sand control with another and
perhaps to identify common modes of failure within a system. While it is tempting to use this data to derive the probability of
well failure within a certain time frame (and so the required OPEX budget), a former data custodian has advised that this
would be an abuse of the accuracy limits of this type of data.
Wellmaster (developed by Sintef) is also a source of statistics for the analysis of screen performance as is The Centre for
Frontier Engineering Research (C-FER) which recently launched a database: Sand Control Completions - Reliability
Information and Failure Tracking System.

SPE 114781

15

Conclusions

Successful sand management requires aligned objectives (e.g. productivity), addressed in a timely way by executing
tasks (e.g. sand screen selection), with the appropriate resources, using reliable practices (e.g. petrology analysis), at
all stages of field development

Reliable sand prediction is only possible with a set of input data which is rarely collected, as standard practice

A methodical approach is recommended for the execution of prerequisite, sand control design activities

It is important to investigate the mineralogy of all the rocks of the reservoir section and to view the results in
combination

For particle size distribution and sand retention testing, adherence to best practice will help the development of
industry standards for these important tests

Fines are best described in terms of how likely they are to jeopardize well objectives (e.g. are they able to resort in the
annulus, plug the pore throats) rather then defining them too specifically

The industry should continue to develop criteria to select sand control systems and screen types as understanding
develops and new products enter the market (e.g. ICDs, packers)

Screen mesh size and strength ratings are best scrutinized before being used

There are a number of screen failure mechanisms. Erosion and collapse are likely the key causes of failure. While
some good work has been done on modeling screen erosion, we must continue to use predominantly empirical
guidelines until modeling is further developed. Previous work on recommended critical flux rates, for different types
of screens, has been consolidated here and some guidelines provided. Collapse, buckling and shear are also described
in this paper. It is proposed that, when attempting to predict well life, numerical modeling of the interaction between
the rock and sand control system is critical. The use of statistics alone can be misleading.
Nomenclature
CEC
DFTT
dP
d10
ESS
FEM
ICD
IGP
JIP
LPSA
OHGP
PSD
SAS
SEM
SiC
SIT
SRT
UC
WWS
XLOT
XRD

Cation Exchange Capacity


Dynamic Flow Through Tests
Differential Pressure
Median particle size (10 percentile)
Expandable Sand Screen
Finite Element Modelling
Inflow Control Device
Internal Gravel Pack
Joint Industry Project
Laser Particle Size Analysis
Open Hole Gravel Packs
Particle Size Distribution
Stand Alone Screens
Scanning Electron Microscope
Silicon Carbide
Sand Influx Tests
Sand Retention Tests
Uniformity Coefficient
Wire Wrapped Screen
Extended Leak-Off Test
X-ray Diffraction

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the following individuals:
Alan Brodie for his vision to promote the sand management team
Abbas Khaksar of Helix RDS and Joe Allan for help in quantifying some of the concepts provided
Ralf Napalowski of BHP Billiton for the support of many discussions, sharing of knowledge and peer review
David Tiffin, George King and Paul Adair from BP, Bob Burton of Conoco Philips and Rick Dickerson of Chevron for their
open and reliable advice
Colin Jones and John Cameron from Weatherford, Suzanne Winton and Egil Fagervik of Baker Oil Tools, Adam Bere of
Rockfield and many other service-company experts for answers to various questions, over the years
Rick Hughes of CSIRO, Michael Fisher of Lucid and Tracey Ballard of Avanteq for their supportive work on PSD
Debbie Murdoch of Senergy Ltd for formatting our paper

16

SPE 114781

References
Abrams, A., Mud Design to Minimise Rock Impairment due to Particle Invasion, Feb 1977, SPE 5713(2)
Adams, P. et al, Current State of the Premium Screen Industry: Buyer Beware- Methodical Testing and Qualification Shows
You Dont Always Get What You Paid For, Nov 2007, SPE 110082
Balgobin, C. Sand Management of Ultra-High-Rate Gas Wells, June 2005, SPE 94896
Ballard, T., Kageson-Loe, N., Mathisen, A., The Development and Application of a Method for the Evaluation of Sand
Screens, June 1999, SPE 54745
Ballard, T., Beare, S., Media Sizing for Premium Sand Screens: Dutch Twill Weaves, May 2003, SPE 82244
Ballard, T., Beare, S., Sand Retention Testing The More You Do, The Worse It Gets, Feb 2006, SPE 98308
Ballard, T., Byrne, M., Slayter, A., Particle Size Distribution the Challenges and Potential Solutions 2008, 3rd European
SPE Sand Management Forum, Panel Session
Bennett, C., et al, Sand Control Screen Erosion Industry Joint Project, May 1998, SwRI Project Report 04-8560,
Bruno, M., Geomechanical and Decision Analysis for Mitigating Compaction-Related Casing Damage, Sept 2002, SPE
79519
Cameron, J., and Jones, C., Development, Verification and Application of a Screen Erosion Model, Jun 2007, SPE 107437
Cernocky, E., and Scholibo, F., Approach to Casing Design for Service in Compacting Reservoirs, Oct 1995, SPE 30522
Coberly, C. J., Well Completions, SPE Reprint No. 5 156-175
Coberly, C., Selection of Screen Openings for Unconsolidated Sands, 1937, API Washington D.C. 189
Farrow, C., Munro, D., McCarthy, T., Screening Methodology for Downhole Sand Control Selection, Oct 2004, SPE 88493
Hedges, B., Bodington, A., A Comparison of Monitoring Techniques for Improved Erosion Control: A Field Study (no date
or paper number)
Hodge R., Burton, R., Constien, V., Skidmore, V., An Evaluation Method for Screen-Only and Gravel-Pack Completions,
Feb 2002, SPE 73772
Jinnai, Y., and Morita, N., Analysis of Casing-Shift Problems in Compacting Reservoirs, March 2008, SPE 111243
King, G., Wildt, J., O'Connell, E., Sand Control Completion Reliability and Failure Rate Comparison with a Multi-Thousand
Well Database, 2003, SPE 84262
Markestad, P., Christie O., Selection of Screen Slot Width to Prevent Plugging and Sand Production Feb 1996, SPE 31087
Mason, D., Ramos M., Pena, C., Cameron, J., Jones, C., A Comparison of the Performance of Recent Sand Control
Completions in the Mokoko Abana Field Offshore Cameroon, May 2005, SPE 94651
Mathisen, A., Successful Installation of Stand Alone Screen in More than 200 Wells - The Importance of Screen Selection
Process and Fluid Qualification, June 2007, SPE 107539
Miranda, R., Underdown, D., Laboratory Measurement of Critical Rate: A Novel Approach for Quantifying Fines Migration
Problems, March 1993, SPE 25432,
Penberthy, W. and Shaughnessy, C., SPE series on Special Topics Volume 1 "Sand control", 1-5
Price-Smith, C., Parlar, M., Bennet, C., et al: Design Methodology for Selection of Horizontal Openhole Sand Control
Completions supported by Field Case Histories, June 2003, SPE 85504
Qiu, K., Marsden, J., Alexander, J., Retnanto, A., Abdelkarim, O., and Shatwan, M., Practical Approach to Achieve Accuracy
in Sanding Prediction, September 2006, SPE 100944
Rawle, A., Basic Principles of Particle Size Analysis (date unknown), Malvern Instruments Guidance note
Rogers, E., Sand Control in Oil and Gas Wells, 1971, Oil and Gas Journal 54
Schwartz, D., Successful Sand Control Design for High Rate Oil and Water Wells JPT September 1969, SPE 2330-PA
88493
Shenoy, S., Gilmore, T., Twynam, A., et al, Guidelines for Shale Inhibition During Openhole Gravel Packing with Water
Based Fluids, Sept 2006, SPE 103156
da Silva, F., Debande, G., Plischke, B., Casing Collapse Analysis Associated With Reservoir Compaction and Overburden
Subsidence, Oct 1990, SPE 20953
Terziev, I., Taggart, I., Improved Procedures for Estimating the Erosional Rates in High Offtake Gas Wells, Oct 2004, SPE
88492
Tiffin, D., King, G., Larese, R., Britt, L., New Criteria for Gravel and Screen Selection for Sand Control, Sept 1998, SPE
39437
Tiffin, D., Stein, M., Wang, X., Drawdown Guidelines for Sand Control Completions, Oct 2003, SPE 84495
TUV NEL Ltd, Erosion in Elbows in Hydrocarbon Production Systems, Review Document for the HSE, 2003
Underdown, D., Dickerson, R., Vaughan, W., The Nominal Sand Control Screen: A Critical Evaluation of Screen
Performance, Oct 1999, SPE 56591
Wilson, S. et al, Assuring the Mechanical Integrity of Expandable Sand Screens, May 2002, OTC 14314
Wong, G., Fair, P., Bland, K., Sherwood, R. Balancing Act: Gulf of Mexico Sand Control Completions, Peak Rate Versus
Risk of Sand Control Failure, Oct 2003, SPE 84497

Вам также может понравиться