SPE 157459

Propellant Treatment to Clean Out Gravel-Pack Wells

V.H. Hamdan, SPE, M.S. Jumaat, M. Samsu, and R. Trebolle, SPE, Schlumberger

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Production and Operations Conference and Exhibition held in Doha Qatar, 14–16 May 2012.

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
A mature offshore field in Malaysia consists of wells that are over 20 years old and completed with dual-strings and multiple
packers to produce from different sand layers. Due to the unconsolidated formation, most of the wells were completed with a
gravel pack. After many years of production, the water cut has increased and fines migration has gradually plugged the gravel
packs and screens. This has resulted in closing in these wells, leaving stranded potential oil behind. Continuing to produce
through the plugged screens would require higher drawdown, which in turn induces greater sanding from the nearby reservoir
rock and higher water cut. However, working over these wells was often noneconomical.
Initially, several wells were treated with acid but were reported to produce sand after the treatment. This was attributed to
screen damage and gravel-pack failure requiring costly repair. Additionally, the acid used to remove the plugging caused by
the fines migration weakened the matrix, increasing the sanding tendency.
This paper presents a case history of propellent stimulation treatment performed in two wells at this field. The gravel-
packed wells were rejuvenated by applying a propellent treatment instead of acid treatments to clean the plugging in the gravel
packs and screens over selected intervals that are known to be oil-bearing. Zones that could be producing water because of
movement of the oil/water-contact can be left untreated so that the plugging in the screens helps in delaying water production.
Propellant has been used in the oil industry for many years, but its application has been mainly for minifracturing of
consolidated rock in standard cased and perforated wells. Its application to clean gravel pack is not well known and knowledge
in this domain is limited. As such, the case study started with candidate selection and proceeded through the proposed solution,
conceptual job design, execution, and finally the results of the application.

Introduction
The reservoirs in this mature Malaysian field have a fluid property gradient with depth—the shallower accumulations contain
oil of low API gravity (19°–20°), and the dissolved gas is only 80–100 scf/stb. As depth increases from the shallower sands
toward the intermediate accumulations, the API gravity gradually increases to ~24° and ~200 scf/stb, reaching ~37° API
gravity in the deepest sands with ~400 scf/stb. Generally gas caps are small on the reservoirs that have managed to trap gas on
the upward fluid migration. Overall, the field has excellent pressure support from a strong aquifer on most sands. The adverse
mobility condition between the rather heavy oil and the encroaching aquifer water poses significant challenges for field
development.
Development drilling of this offshore field began early in the 1980s. The standard completion type is dual string with
internal gravel packs. The field is currently operated with unmanned platforms. The main lift system on the field is gas lift.
Over years of production, the water cut increased and the screens and gravel packs became plugged by fines migration or
scale buildup. This increased the skin of the producing zones. The well performance trending and nodal analysis results
indicated that significant productivity gains could be achieved if the damage skin could be removed or reduced. Various
stimulation methods were considered to rejuvenate the productivity of the wells. A typical method was the use of acid but the
result has been mixed. In some cases more sanding was caused that required further remedial work by installing additional
wellbore screens.
Other disadvantages of acidizing are as follows:
 A brownfield well typically has perforations that are producing water. Properly stimulating the oil-producing zone is
important to avoid producing more water. This process involves the use of chemical or mechanical diverters that are
expensive and can be difficult to set up.
 If bull-heading method is used, the whole completion tubing must have good integrity. In old wells, this can be an
additional risk to the operation.
2 SPE 157459

 Some offshore platforms are small, like the ones in the field in this study. The logistics of performing an acidizing
operation are more difficult here and adds to the expense.
Reperforation was also considered but that would damage the screens, resulting in more sand production. Propellant was an
alternative method proposed for this field.

Propellant for Cleaning Screens and Gravel Packs

Propellant has been used in Malaysia and worldwide for fracturing and bypassing the damage zone in a normal competent and
consolidated rock (Sia et al. 2007). In this typical application, when propellant is burnt, its high-pressure gas enters the
perforations and causes multiple fractures in the reservoir rock. Propellants are energetic materials that burn to produce gas in
a relatively short-lived, high-pressure event. This differs from hydraulic fracturing, which is a slower pressure event that
creates a bi-wing fracture. Note that explosives generate extreme pressures in the microsecond timeframe that pulverizes
formation rock.
Because the formations in this field are unconsolidated and most of them are gravel packed, the use of propellant for
cleaning the screen and the gravel pack was proposed for the first time in Malaysia. By burning the propellant right in front of
the zone of interest, the high-pressure gas created may clean the screen and shake up the gravel to rejuvenate productivity. The
high-pressure gas would shake the fines and plugging away from the screen, at least temporarily. How soon the productivity
will drop again is unknown, but it will be monitored as part of this trial. In any case, considering the low cost of a propellant
job, it would be worth repeating the treatment after some time as means of maintaining the well production level.
The treatment was designed to dissipate the strength of the pressure pulse (Fig. 1) to only weakly affect the screen above
and below the treatment zone. This feature was used by selectively positioning the propellant to treat the oil-bearing zones
while leaving the water-bearing zones untreated. Additionally, the propellant system can be deployed on electric-wireline or
slickline, and this reduces operational complexity and cost. Economic evaluation was also performed, and it showed that
production enhancement by using propellant stimulation was the preferred option.
The challenge of using this technique is the risk of damaging the screens because the wells are old. The mitigation was to
design the propellant size properly so that the gas pressure was not excessive. This was done through careful prejob
simulation. Finally, post-treatment solids production monitoring was required to ensure the success of the method. Propellant
gun lengths of 15 ft and 20 ft were selected for simulation purposes.

Fig. 1— Simulation of propellant peak pressure showing pressure dissipation away from the treatment point.

Propellent Gun System

The propellent material comes in sticks and is conveyed in slotted carriers (Fig.-2) that is available in different lengths. In this
project, consideration was made to convey these carriers downhole using either electric wireline or slickline.

Fig. 2—Propellent gun carrier with slots.

SPE 157459 3

The gun carriers are run and placed directly in front of the zone of interest requiring treatment. Upon firing, the propellent
sticks rapidly burn and eject very high-pressure gas through the slots on the gun carrier. The high-pressure gas continues to
expand in all directions and into the screens and gravel. The magnitude of the peak-pressure pulse is dependent upon the
volume of propellant chemical burnt downhole, so it is critical to simulate the propellent treatment to ensure that the optimal
peak pressure pulses are generated.
For this purpose, a gun carrier with an external diameter of 2 in. was proposed to be run through a minimum completion ID
of 2.205 in.

Well Candidates
In Well A and Well B, screens located on the long strings were identified as potential candidates for trial. They have similar
completions (Fig.-3), and the zones of the interest are located at the gravel-packed section below the end of the tubing. For
both wells, the gravel pack has 4.5-in. base pipe inside 9 5/8-in. casing.
Short String (SS) Long String (LS)

3.1/2" KBUG
3.1/2" KBUG
3.1/2" X-NIPPLE

3.1/2" x 2.7/8" X-0VER

Upper zone \
\

9.5/8" Packer

9.5/8" Packer

3.1/2" x 2.7/8" X-OVER

2.7/8" XN-NOGO
Zone of Interest
\
for propellant treatment \

HUD

Fig. 3: Typical wellbore diagram of Wells A and B. The zone of interest is located below the end of the tubing. The gravel pack has a
4.5-in. base pipe.

Prejob Simulation
Prejob simulation is important for determining the expected peak pressure pulse to be achieved by the planned job. The target
peak pressure needs to be high enough to ―shake‖ the screen and gravel to clean them, but it cannot so excessively high that it
damages the aging screens. The expected peak pressure is dependent upon a few parameters. Of them, the pipe ID at the
treating interval has a major influence on the expected peak pressure. There are two extreme scenarios of pipe ID:
 Totally plugged screen
In this scenario the pipe ID is taken to be the same as the base pipe OD. This condition also presents the highest risk
to the screen because it experiences the full differential pressure of the fast-expanding propellant gas. The screen can
fail at a differential pressure of 750 psi.
 Clean screen with very permeable gravel
In this scenario the pipe ID is taken to be the same as the casing ID. A normal screen has minimal risk to fail in this
scenario.

Unfortunately, in the case of old wells, the magnitude of the plugging is unknown and the pseudo pipe ID is somewhere
between the two scenarios. This is especially true in another possible plugging scenario, which is that the screen is clean but
the gravels are plugged. For the purpose of this project, a pseudo pipe ID between the two extreme scenarios was used for the
simulation. A fast-recording pressure gauge capable of recording of more than 100,000 reading samples per second was
specified for the jobs. The recorded data from the first job would be used to provide feedback on how close the estimation was
and guide future simulation input for similar wells. Based on this analysis, it was agreed that 15-ft and 20-ft propellent lengths
are optimal and they were selected for the trials.
4 SPE 157459

Job Execution of Well A

Well-A was executed first so that the results and learning from this well could be implemented in Well B. A total of 35 ft of
screen at the zone of interest was treated with two runs of propellant. In both runs, a fast-recording pressure gauge was
connected to the gun strings to record the actual downhole peak pressure achieved from the propellant burning. The gauge data
shows that Run 1 and Run 2 (Figs. 4 and 5) achieved peak pressures of 2400 psi and 2100 psi, respectively.

Well A Run-1 of 20-ft Propellant Well A Run-2 of 15-ft Propellant

Fig. 4—Well A run 1 with 20-ft propellent stick Fig. 5—Well A run 2 with 15-ft propellent stick
and recorded delta-P of 1100 psi. and recorded delta-P of 750 psi.

Well A Post-Job Results and Analysis

After the propellent treatment, instantaneous oil production went up by 150% at the same choke size, and subsequently within
a short period the oil rate stabilized to an average rate of 100% above prestimulation. This is possibly due to post-treatment
reorganization and settling of the gravel. However, based on the well productivity, the near-wellbore damage has been reduced
significantly. Nodal analysis performed showed that the total darcy skin has been reduced by 38%.
While the oil production stabilized and was maintained over 12 months after the treatment, sand production monitoring
also showed an encouraging result as it stabilized at 3 to 5 pptb. The water production after the propellent treatment also
maintained at the rate of pretreatment.

Job Execution of Well B

Post-job analysis of Well A shows the following:
 Comparing the pressure gauge data and the prejob simulation, as expected the correct pseudo pipe ID is somewhere
between the casing ID and the base-pipe OD.
 A successful increment in oil production was achieved.
 There was no incremental growth in sand production.
With this understanding, the design for Well B used similar parameters to achieve screen cleanup without damaging the
screens.
One run of 15-ft propellant was performed. The fast-recording pressure gauge was also used, and the recorded data is
shown in Fig. 6.

Well B Post-Job Results and Analysis

Before the treatment, the well was producing oil with a 128/64-in. choke. After the treatment, the oil production was
maintained at the same rate even with a smaller choke of 28/64 in. and an improved flowing tubing head pressure (FTHP). The
well was not opened to a bigger choke because it was producing 20 pptb of solids, with a 40- to 70-micron particle size,
corresponding to fines and silt. Before the propellent job, the sand production was about 5 to 8 pptb. Installation of a desander
is planned for the well so that a larger choke could be used and the sand production could be monitored to determine if the
screen here was damaged. The delta-P achieved in Well B was less than the 750-psi limit and less than what was observed in
Well A, which did not show any sign of sand production, but it is still possible that there is damage in consideration of the
condition of the very old screen.
SPE 157459 5

Fig. 6—Well B run with 15-ft Propellant stick and fast-recording pressure gauge delta-P of 650 psi.

Pressure Gauge Data Analysis

From the three sets of data collected there are two pressure dynamic behaviors:
 Type 1: Figs. 4 and 6 show a similar response, with a spike followed by a pressure drop and then a hump. The spike is
due to the quicker pressure buildup in the smaller pipe ID as a result of more plugging on the screen. The pressure drops
when the screen plugging is broken. The following hump is a slower pressure buildup as the propellent gas expands into
the gravel.
 Type 2: Fig. 5 has only a hump, which is similar to the hump for Type 1. There is no screen plugging and a slower
pressure buildup is observed as the propellent gas expands into the gravel.

Based on this analysis, both wells had plugging on the screen that was broken by the Propellant treatment. The delta-P
magnitude in Well A (Fig. 4) is higher than in Well B (Fig. 6) because of the longer propellant stick used.

Conclusions
 Through selective zone treatment, the propellant was proved successful in improving the well productivity of the
gravel-packed zones while the water production remained stable.
 It was initially believed that the improved well productivity from this treatment would soon deteriorate as the fines and
plugging starts to settle again at the screen and gravel pack after some duration of production. However, production data
from both wells after 12 months of production are still showing stable rates following a normal reservoir decline.
 It is unclear if the screen in Well B was damaged by the treatment. Longer term sand production monitoring is needed
to arrive at a more confident determination. If the screen was damaged, the delta-P limit needs to be lowered for future
treatments.
 Operationally, propellant-based treatment was proved to be a safe and relatively economical method.

Nomenclature
API: American Petroleum Institute
delta-P: delta-pressure
ID: internal diameter
OD: outside (external) diameter
FTHP: flowing tubing head pressure
pptb : pounds per thousand barrels

Acknowledgments
The authors thank Schlumberger for permission to publish this paper. Appreciation is also expressed to the operational team
involved on this project for making it a successful one.

References
Sia, C.H., Azhar, M., Ali, N., Hamzah, E., and Jumaat, S. 2007. Mini Fracturing: A New Horizon of Breakthrough Integrated Technology
for Small Fields. Paper IPTC-11537 presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Dubai, 4–6 December.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

mm × 2.54 E–02 = in m3 × 6.293 E+00 = bbls
m × 0.305 E+00 = ft MPa × 0.145 E+03 = psi