Regaining Sand Control

Sand-prone reservoirs contain a growing percentage of the world’s hydrocarbon

reserves. Many of the wells tapping into these resources are producing significantly
beyond their original life expectancy, which can result in weakened formations.
Consequently, operators are increasingly seeking cost-effective methods for repairing
failed systems or for adding new sand control systems where none existed previously.

Ricky J. Armentor
Michael R. Wise
Chevron USA Inc.
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA

Mike Bowman
New Orleans, Louisiana

Gustavo Cavazzoli
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Gildas Collin
Vincent Rodet
Perenco
Paris, France

Bob Holicek
Houston, Texas, USA

George King
BP
Houston, Texas

Chris Lockyear
BP
Sunbury-on-Thames, England

Mehmet Parlar
Rosharon, Texas

For help in preparation of this article, thanks to Andrew

Acock, Aberdeen; Leo Burdylo, London; Mary Jo Caliandro
and Ali Mazen, Sugar Land, Texas; Timo Staal, Southampton,
England; Bryan Stamm, Rosharon, Texas; and Ezio Toffanin,
Stavanger.
CoilCADE, Jet Advisor, Jet Blaster, MeshRite, PIPESIM,
ProCADE and Virtual Lab are marks of Schlumberger.
1. Acock A, ORourke T, Shirmboh D, Alexander J, Anderson G,
Kaneko T, Venkitaraman A, López-de-Cárdenas J, Nishi M,
Numasawa M, Yoshioka K, Roy A, Wilson A and Twynam A:
“Practical Approaches to Sand Management,” Oilfield
Review 16, no.1 (Spring 2004): 10–27.
2. McPhee C, Farrow C and McCurdy P: “Challenging
Convention in Sand Control: Southern North Sea
Examples,” paper SPE 98110, presented at the
SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on
Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana,
February 15–17, 2006.

4 Oilfield Review
In weakly consolidated formations, fluids produc-
tion is nearly always accompanied by sand. This
can lead to reduced recovery rates, damage to
surface and downhole equipment and elevated
maintenance costs. The result of a two-stage
process, sand production is initiated by stresses
acting on formation rock to cause shear failure.
Produced fluids then carry the spalled sand to
the wellbore from which it flows to the surface or
becomes deposited elsewhere within the well
system. Phase change, particularly water
breakthrough, has also been associated with
sand migration.
Numerous explanations have been offered
about the exact relationship between water
breakthrough and formation failure. One holds
that since most sandstone reservoirs are water-
wet, water breakthrough results in decreased
capillary pressure due to increased wetting
phase saturation (see “Fundamentals of
Wettability,” page 44). Because capillary pressure
tends to hold the grains together, water break-
Summer 2007
through facilitates sand production. In essence,
low water saturation equates to high capillary
pressure, high water saturation equates to low
capillary pressure, and no water equates to no
capillary pressure because then only a single
liquid phase exists.
Another theory holds that as water breaks
through the formation, it reduces the relative
permeability of oil and water. Operators react by
increasing drawdown to maintain hydrocarbon
production, thus initiating fines movement. The
water also increases the viscosity of produced
fluids and creates a higher drag rate across the
sand grains, pulling fines through the formation.
In the end, most experts agree the connection
between water breakthrough and sand production
is poorly understood and is likely the result of
several factors.
With onset of formation failure and evidence
of mobilized sand (or solids particulates)
through the formation, operators can opt to
reduce flow to rates incapable of carrying solids,
manage produced sand, or create a barrier, in
essence a filter, to prevent sand movement from
formation to wellbore. Stopping, or at least
slowing, the flow of sand, while minimally
impacting production, requires the operator to
choose from among such mechanical exclusion
techniques as cased-hole gravel packs, high-rate
water packs, frac packs, openhole gravel packs or
stand-alone screens. Additionally, screenless
completions offer a chemical option applicable
in moderately weak reservoirs. This technique
uses resin-coated proppant to stabilize the near-
wellbore region, while leaving enough of the
original permeability in place to allow produc-
tion of the formation and fluids.1
Sand management solutions that may have
been appropriate at the time of the well’s
construction may fail with time and changing
downhole conditions. Openhole horizontal com-
pletions offer a case in point. By virtue of
their design, risk of sand failure in many of
these wells is extremely low during initial
production but increases to around 50% near
abandonment pressures.2
How an operator responds to the onset of sand
production is almost always a function of
economics. When a highly prolific zone produces
sand early, for example, a recompletion or side-
track may be justified. In the case of a well nearing
its economic limit, it may be just as effective to do
nothing and simply recover any possible remaining
reserves before the wellbore fills with sand and
stops flowing. Between these extremes, engineers
must strike a balance between sound economics
and what is technologically possible. The value
gained must be weighed against the cost of the
operation and, in many instances, deciding
whether and how to pursue remediation is also
informed by mechanical realities such as the
existing well profile, available technology, the
failure mechanism and geographic location.
Within this article, sand control remediation
refers to sand production problems that occur
after a period of oil and gas production. We
describe sand control remediation options and
tools—such as through-tubing gravel packs,
screen patches, screen cleanouts, expandable
sand screens and placement of new screens
inside failed ones—along with the decision-
making process that leads to them. Through case
histories, we investigate specific remedies and
their outcomes. Recompletions and large-bore
sidetracks will not be considered as these can
include primary sand control methods.
How Sand Control Completions Fail
Sand control remediation focuses on finding the
optimal method to repair wells that have failed
because of unexpected sand production or a
failed original sand control device. The emphasis
on “optimal” reflects the fact that the system
must be selected not only for its ability to keep
sand from the wellbore, but also for its ability to
maximize safe production throughout the well’s
life. Because sand control completions are
complex systems, judgments as to their success
or failure are often subjective. For example,
faced with accelerating sand production, an
operator may choose to simply choke back the
well. Assuming the resulting lower drawdown
pressure reduces sand production to levels
compatible with the capabilities of an existing
screen or gravel pack, some operators may
consider this sand control option a success.
Given the associated reduction in production
rate, however, others may adopt a more
aggressive approach.
Other assessments of sand control success or
failure are more objective (see “Analysis of Failure,”
page 7). Improperly executed or inappropriate
procedures can result in damaged screens or
ineffectively placed gravel and frac packs,
leading to system failure during early or even
initial production. Incompatible processes and
materials, sometimes coupled with, and
sometimes the result of, poor reservoir under-
standing can lead to corrosion, erosion and other
mechanical failures. Systems will eventually fail
when screens or packs are required to perform
beyond the life or service conditions for which
they were originally designed. Flaws introduced
during installation, which may have been
5
 > Erosion damage. Stand-alone screens unprotected by gravel packs can fail as a result of erosion
begun when perforation tunnels act as nozzles focusing flow from the formation (left). As erosion
continues to open the first point of failure, a second can be seen in a pattern following the 60° phasing
of the perforations (right). Remedial action on stand-alone screen completions includes gravel
packing the tunnels and, in some cases, placing gravel between the screen and formation or casing,
essentially creating a gravel-pack completion. (Photograph courtesy of BP.)

> Damaged screen. The extensive damage to the

screen in this photograph was probably inflicted
during running operations. During early
production, the effects of such flaws, commonly
less severe than this, may not be immediately
evident but can be starting points for
catastrophic failure later in the well’s life. It is
often difficult to determine whether a system
was compromised by poor application or poor
design since damage can lead to secondary
failure causes such as erosion that may mask
the original problem.

relatively minor and might never have created a

problem over the term of the well’s original life
expectancy, may compromise the system during
extended service time. Or the screens may no
longer be suited to an unforeseen solids
production rate or particle size (above left).
The most common point of failure in sand
control systems is at the screen designed to
constrain the gravel or, in the case of screen-only
completions, at the formation. Screens typically
fail as the result of productivity or completion
activities. Failure causes can be grouped in the
following categories:
• destabilized annular gravel pack due to exces-
sive flow velocity through the perforations
• screen erosion
• screen corrosion
• localized hot spots caused by flow around sec-
tions of plugged screens or by inadequate
annular gravel packing
• screen collapse from compaction
• screen collapse caused by plugging.3 > Screen corrosion. Sand screens are made of stainless steel to withstand the
These mechanisms often work in concert to harsh downhole chemical environment. Under certain conditions these
cause final system failure. This is particularly screens may still suffer from corrosion as is the case with the screen parts
(top), retrieved from a failed screen in a Trinidad well and then cleaned at
true in the case of interplay between destabilized the former Amoco Research Laboratory in Tulsa (bottom). The problem was
annular packs, screen erosion and corrosion. In embrittlement caused by stress cracking, a common problem with stainless-
this scenario, as the gravel packed into the steel screens in high-chloride environments. A centimeter ruler is shown for
scale. (Photograph courtesy of BP.)

6 Oilfield Review
 Analysis of Failure

Sand control screen failures can be divided into
five categories including design failure, applica-
tion failure, early-time failure, production
failure and subsidence failure (below). Design
failure reflects the difficulty of matching a sand
control system to a particular producing hori-
zon. Successful frac packs and openhole gravel
packs, for instance, require extensive knowl-
edge of such parameters as formation
permeability, frac-pack gel-breaking chemistry,
and fracture progression and initiation.
Application failure is a function of opera-
tional problems during system installation
that cause the job to be prematurely termi-
nated. These malfunctions may be the result
of poor planning or a calculated risk such as
foregoing redundancy based on previous expe-
rience. Design and application failures in
frac-pack and openhole gravel-pack systems
are commonly the result of insufficient or
poor-quality data. Once these complex systems
have been in place and performing properly
for a period of time, however, they have proved
to be the most reliable of available sand
control options.
Early-time failures, defined as those that
occur within 30 days of startup, generally can
be traced to either a design or application fail-
ure not initially recognized as such. Failures
occurring after that time are production fail-
ures usually resulting from problems related
to plugging or hot spots. Sand control failures
caused by subsidence are sometimes the
result of poor reservoir understanding but, in
other cases, are expected by operators who
maintain a drilling unit or coiled tubing unit
on location and plan to redrill pay zones every
6 to 30 months.
Historically, tracking such data has been
difficult and only recently has a sufficient
number of cases been documented to allow
reliable conclusions. However, time and expe-
rience are having their expected effect, as are
the benefits of such advances as downhole
gauges that enable engineers to evaluate jobs
in real time as they are being performed.

Total
number Subsidence
wells of each Design Application Early-time Production failure,
completion Total failure, % failure, % failure, % failure, % failures/
type well-years of attempts of attempts of attempts of attempts well/year
Type of completion

Injectors (soft sand formations) 42 101 0 7.1 0 22.7 0

Screenless fractures 26 107 0 27 0 7.7 0
Cased and perforated 61 321 0 1.6 0 41 0.0031
Screen-only cased hole 44 167 0 0 0 18.2 0
Screen-only open hole 206 803 0.5 0 0.97 13 0.001
Expandable screens 213 263 0.5 4.2 0.5 8.9
Cased-hole gravel pack 388 1,665 0 2.3 0.8 5.4 0.0006
Openhole gravel pack 208 613 0 7.7 0.48 4.8 0.0016
High-rate water pack 187 556 0 0.5 0.53 2.7 0
Frac pack 845 3,403 1.5 2.4 0.49 2.0 0.0015

Total wells 2,220 7,999

> Table of recent well completion data averages. (Courtesy of BP.)

annulus or the perforation tunnels becomes
unstable and shifts, gaps are created through
which formation fluids flow at high velocity. Sand
particles moving in this high-velocity stream
pummel the screen, initiating and then accel-
erating its erosion. How quickly a screen fails
depends on fluid-flow velocity, angle of incidence
of the flow, sand particle size and concentration,
flow duration and fluid properties such as density
and viscosity. This same mechanism works to
hasten failure in screen sections already made
vulnerable by corrosion (previous page, top right).
Corrosion begins independently and, in time,
can cause failure even in the absence of a
destabilized pack. Corrosion is a particular
threat in screens placed along high-angle and
horizontal sections. The acid, which is used in
conjunction with gravel-pack treatments,
migrates to low spots in the hole and remains
there for the life of the well. Most often,
corrosion arises from a poor choice of screen
material, such as austenitic alloys, which are
susceptible to pitting, crevice-cracking and
stress-related corrosion cracking in the presence
of chloride and oxygen.4 Corrosion can also result
from improper cleanup or ineffective mud
removal following initial installation (previous
page, bottom right).
3. Wong GK, Fair PS, Bland KF and Sherwood RS:
“Balancing Act: Gulf of Mexico Sand Control
Completions, Peak Rate Versus Risk of Sand Control
Failure,” paper SPE 84497, presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,
October 5–8, 2003.
4. Austenitic alloys are stainless steels containing
chromium and nickel and sometimes manganese and
nitrogen. They are structured around the Type 302
composition of iron, 18% chromium and 8% nickel and
are generally resistant to corrosion and pitting except in
certain chemical environments.

Summer 2007 7
 A somewhat different screen-failure mech-
anism is due to increased flow velocity focused
on a small area when fine particles plug screens.
When large sections of the screen become
plugged, flow is funneled to a few remaining open
spots that have formed pathways of least
resistance. This funneling action works to
significantly increase flow velocity, creating what
the industry terms localized hot spots. These hot
spots can also arise from poorly placed gravel
packs that leave voids that, much like a
destabilized gravel pack, become flow paths
through which sand-laden fluid is directed to a
small section of screen. Voids in gravel packs
have been seen even when the volume of sand
pumped into the annulus and perforation tunnels
during gravel-pack operations equaled, or even
exceeded, the calculated space to be filled. The
discrepancy is usually attributable to washouts
along the wellbore that add annular volume not
accounted for in original calculations.
Another screen-failure mechanism occurs
when screens become plugged along their entire
length, but rather than create hot spots, develop
sufficiently high pressure-induced loads to cause
them to collapse (right). Collapse can also occur
as a result of wellbore compaction.5 In the former
case, the problem often stems from poor screen
and gravel-pack sizing that allows fines to
migrate through the gravel pack and become
trapped in the screen.6 Both cases may result
from poor reservoir understanding, although
compaction and ensuing collapse are sometimes
accounted for in the well plan. Even when
pressures are insufficient to cause collapse, the
well may still suffer untenable production losses
as the screens become impermeable and must be
either pulled or cleaned in situ.7
Sand control system life, to date, appears to
be a function of type. Screen-only completions,
for instance, exhibit a tendency to accelerated
failure rates in two to three years. Cased-hole
gravel packs do the same in about six to eight
years. Openhole gravel packs (OHGP) and frac
packs (FP) historically have resisted that trend
and, once early failures are culled from the data,
appear to last the well’s lifetime.
A possible explanation for this anomaly is
that OHGP and FP systems have been in wide-
spread use only a short time and may yet have a
time-related shift to higher failure rates
sometime in the future. Additionally, unlike the
other two systems, openhole gravel packs and
frac packs are deployed using high pressure that
forces gravel into the voids of the near wellbore.
This pressure probably works to shut off flow
from high-permeability streaks that might
8 Oilfield Review
> Screen plugging. With many of the flow paths through the screen reduced
by plugging during production, increased velocity flow erodes and enlarges
the remaining paths until sand can pass through them. In other instances, as
in this photograph, pressure builds across the plugged screen until it collapses.
Most screen failures trace their origins to plugging. It has been calculated
that 1 gram of a less than 44-micron size substance contains about 1 million
particles. If those particles are mobile and can bridge, they will eventually
plug a screen despite their diminutive size.
otherwise lead to nozzle effects responsible for attributed to increasing water cut and declining
the failure of many screens. Frac packs have also production rates. The bulk of the field’s
traditionally been a Gulf of Mexico practice. That production comes from three of the field’s seven
may skew the data as the systems are used to production wells, Q, T and S, all of which
fracture across barriers and so commingle produced nearly dry oil with water cuts of less
production from numerous sandstones. This
5. For more on compaction: Doornhof D, Kristiansen TG,
spreads the flow of high-permeability streaks Nagel N, Pattillo P and Sayers C: “Compaction and
across a wider section of the pack, creating less Subsidence,” Oilfield Review 18, no. 4 (Autumn 2006):
50–68.
flux loading on the screen. And finally, it is a
6. Fines can include different materials such as clays
common practice in the Gulf of Mexico to drain (phyllosilicates smaller than 4 microns) and silts
zones quickly and move on to others; because of (silicates or aluminosilicates with sizes ranging from 4
to 64 microns). Kaolinite and illite are the most common
this, screens may be removed from service before migrating clays. Fines migration causes particles
application or design problems cause them to fail. suspended in the produced fluid to bridge the pore
throats near the wellbore, reducing well productivity.
7. For more on sand control failure: Arukhe J, Uchendu C
Washing Troubles Away and Nwoke L: “Horizontal Screen Failures in
Unconsolidated, High-Permeability Sandstone
In recent years, pressed by the high cost and Reservoirs: Reversing the Trend,” paper SPE 97299,
tightening supply of offshore rigs and a prolif- presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, October 9–12, 2005.
eration of subsea wells, operators have become
Acock et al, reference 1.
eager to find rigless intervention methods to deal Ali S, Dickerson R, Bennett C, Bixenman P, Parlar M,
with screens plugged by fines migration. One Price-Smith C, Cooper S, Desroches J, Foxenberg B,
Godwin K, McPike T, Pitoni E, Ripa G, Steven B, Tiffin D
service-industry response has been through- and Troncoso J: “High-Productivity Horizontal Gravel
tubing, chemical-based solutions derived from Packs,” Oilfield Review 13, no. 2 (Summer 2001): 52–73.
those used to treat scale buildup on production- Ali S, Norman D, Wagner D, Ayoub J, Desroches J,
Morales H, Price P, Shepherd D, Toffanin E, Troncoso J
tubing interior walls. and White S: “Combined Stimulation and Sand Control,”
Production from Shell’s Bijupira field in the Oilfield Review 14, no. 2 (Summer 2002): 30–47.
8. Injected fluids tend to follow the path of least resistance,
Campos basin is the first by an international often resulting in the least permeable areas receiving
operator offshore Brazil. Since first oil in August inadequate treatment. By using either mechanical or
chemical means of diversion, the treatment can be
2003, the field had reached a production plateau focused on the areas requiring the most treatment.
of about 50,000 bbl/d [8,000 m3/d] by 2004 before 9. When acid is bullheaded into the formation, it may
declining to around 15,000 bbl/d [2,400 m3/d] dissolve the fines blockage it first encounters and by
doing so create a flowpath for the remaining acid into
less than two years later. This rapid falloff was the formation. Consequently, the remaining acid would
flow into the first zone and not reach the remaining
affected areas.
than 10%. The combined production from those
Basepipe before treatment Jet Blaster spray Basepipe after Jet Blaster treatment
three wells had fallen from a peak of 40,000 bbl/d
[6,400 m3/d] to 8,000 bbl/d [1,300 m3/d].
Declines on Q and T were gradual and constant
over time, at exponential rates of 60% per year.
The decline on S happened suddenly during a
routine scale-inhibition bullhead squeeze using
procedures and chemicals that had proved Wire wrap before treatment Wire wrap after Jet Blaster treatment
successful on other wells in the field.
By the end of 2004, routine well surveillance
confirmed these declines were not the result of
pressure depletion due to compartmentalization.
Instead, analysis by Shell and Schlumberger
engineers revealed that the wells were impaired.
After considering numerous possibilities, the > Jet Blaster service. Placed at the end of coiled tubing, the Jet Blaster carbide nozzles with swirl
engineers concluded that the most likely cause eliminators increase hydraulic efficiency, while the drift ring controls the rate of penetration,
precluding a need for multiple passes.
was formation fines migrating through poorly
sized gravel of the more than 600-m [2,000-ft]
long gravel packs, plugging the screens. Although
scaling was considered a secondary, considerably flowed back quickly without disrupting ongoing The configuration also ensures that energy is
less likely cause, the decision was made to treat FPSO operations. Finally, the plan required a imparted to the fluid at the injection point so
for both possibilities in a two-phased approach. reasonable degree of chemical diversion across that acid reaches the lower parts of the open
The wells were to be first treated with a coiled the long horizontal sections to ensure uniform hole. Use of coiled tubing alters the relative
tubing-conveyed barium sulfate [BaSO4] scale treatment of the screens and formation.8 contact time of acid on separate zones and so
dissolver, followed by acid stimulation to remove To avoid incompatibility issues between the addresses the complex relationship between the
fines from the gravel-pack screens and near- acid being pumped and the FPSO turret, a rate of change of the skin factor in each zone and
wellbore gravel pack. drillship was brought in to act as an operations the distribution of acid in the wellbore.9
A testing program was conducted to ensure platform from which to work. Acid was placed Engineers recognized that a possible draw-
the chemicals and acid would not harm the directly across the screens using coiled tubing, back to the use of coiled tubing in this case is
formation, materials in the completion, or the thus circumventing concerns that raw acid might pump-rate limitation, particularly as treatment
topsides of the floating production storage and damage seals in the subsea completion equip- depth of penetration is essentially a function of
offloading (FPSO) vessel to which the wells ment or well. Chances for uniform stimulation injection rate. Jet Advisor scale removal software
produce. The acid system had to be designed so along the reach of the gravel packs and optimal simulated best pressures and rates to optimize
that it would not generate hydrogen sulfide [H2S] screen cleaning were enhanced by using a Jet flow and pressure effectiveness, along with a
while dissolving scale in the tubing or minerals in Blaster jetting scale removal tool in the coiled constant jetting-nozzle rotation (below). In
the formation, and the treatment had to be tubing bottomhole assembly (above). addition, CoilCADE coiled tubing design and

140 6,000
CT
Circulating pressure drop, psi

120 BHA
5,000 Annulus
Nozzle power, hp

100 Nozzle
4,000
80
3,000
60
2,000
40
20 Downward nozzle 1,000
Radial nozzle
0 0
0.07 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16
Radial nozzle diameter, in. Radial nozzle diameter, in.

> Jet Advisor software. After selecting a coiled-tubing size, the engineer inputs well and fluid data to be used by
Jet Advisor software to calculate the maximum pump rate through it and thus the maximum possible annular
velocity. The pump rate will also indicate the nozzle pressure drop based on each nozzle size. The Jet Blaster tool
will require a minimum of 1,500 psi [10.3 MPa] across the nozzle to rotate the head. Based on the above data, the
Jet Advisor software will select one of the four standard nozzle sizes and nozzle heads to maximize ROP and
nozzle horsepower given user specifications. Nozzle performance varies with specific bottomhole conditions (left),
and nozzle selection is based on developing the highest possible jetting power in the existing wellbore
environment. Pressure drop across coiled tubing, jetting nozzles, BHA and annulus (right) is used to help select
proper jetting nozzles, coiled tubing size and fluid to be pumped.

Summer 2007 9
 Well name Pretreatment WHP
Q 1,100 psi [7.6 MPa]
S 560 psi [3.8 MPa]
T 410 psi [2.8 MPa]
> A two-pronged approach in three wells in Brazil. Decreased wellhead
pressure (WHP) during and immediately following scale and acid treatments
indicates successful removal of fines that had been plugging sand screens in
each of three wells in the Bijupira field, offshore Brazil.
evaluation software was used to check coiled
tubing forces and stresses and wellbore hydraulic
dynamics. Virtual Lab geochemical simulation
software evaluated possible damage to the
formation from secondary and tertiary reactions
between all products involved.10 The acid was
continuously mixed by batches and no liquid
hydrofluoric acid [HF] was handled as it would
be generated by the reaction between
hydrochloric acid [HCl] and ammonium
bifluoride [NH5F2].11
Each well first received scale-dissolver
treatments that reduced wellhead pressures.
Acid stimulations began once the scale dissolvers
were flowed back to the FPSO. When the first-
stage formic acid made contact with the
formation, wellhead pressures decreased to
50 psi [0.344 MPa] in Well Q, and to 0 psi in
the other two wells. The wellhead pressure in
Well Q dropped to 0 psi during the main
treatment before dipping below hydrostatic
pressure (above).
After cleanup, testing determined that
productivity on all three wells increased by a
factor of about 10. Before treatment the wells
produced through artificial lift and drawdowns of
about 2,000 psi [14 MPa]. Afterwards they all
flowed naturally with drawdowns of 300 to
400 psi [2 to 3 MPa]. The initial plan was to limit
10. For more on Virtual Lab software: Ali S, Frenier WW,
Lecerf B, Ziauddin M, Kotlar HK, Nasr-El-Din HA and
Vikane O: “Virtual Testing: The Key to a Stimulating
Process,” Oilfield Review 16, no. 1 (Spring 2004): 58–68.
11. Damage created by fines usually is located within a
radius of 3 to 5 ft [1 to 1.5 m] of the wellbore, but can
also occur in gravel-pack completions. In sandstone
formations, hydrofluoric acid [HF] mixtures are used to
dissolve fines. In carbonate formations, the goal is not to
dissolve but rather to disperse fines in the wormholes,
so hydrochloric [HCl] acid is used as the treatment fluid.
12. Bogaert P, Cavazzoli G, Perez DR, Guimaraes C,
Trummer S and Lungwitz B: “World’s First Combined
Acid Stimulation of Horizontal Openhole Gravel-Pack
Application of Coiled-Tubing, Dynamically Positioned
Vessel, and Floating Production, Storage, and Offloading,
10
Postscale WHP Postacid WHP
760 psi [5.2 MPa] 0 psi
5 psi [0.03 MPa] 0 psi
11 psi [0.076 MPa] 0 psi
the risk of fines migration by limiting drawdown
and keeping production at about 6,000 bbl/d
[950 m3/d] per well. The three wells were
brought on line at a cumulative 17,460 bbl/d
[2,780 m3/d] of oil. After several months of
unchanged conditions, however, Shell began to
increase flow rate, and by October 2006,
production from the S well was up to about
7,000 bbl/d [1,100 m3/d], with similar increases
in Wells T and Q in the following months. By
March 2007, Wells T and S were producing about
8,000 bbl/d, and the Q well held steady at 6,000
bbl/d. By May 2007, the treatments had resulted
in the addition of 2 million bbl [318,000 m3] of
incremental oil, while skin-factor tests
confirmed no indication of fines migration.12
Salvage Operations
Resins and proppant-flowback control, in conjunc-
tion with screenless completions, have also been
deployed to manage sand-prone formations.13
Screenless completions require an integrated
approach involving reservoir characterization,
perforating, coiled tubing intervention, matrix
acidizing, resin consolidation, optimized fracturing
with proppant-flowback control and fines-
migration prevention.14 A primary attraction of
these screenless completions is that they can be
deployed as through-tubing systems without the
Deepwater Offshore Brazil,” paper SPE 106546,
presented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing and Well
Intervention Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands,
Texas, March 20–21, 2007.
13. For more on screenless completions: Acock A,
Heitmann N, Hoover S, Malik BZ, Pitoni E, Riddles C and
Solares JR: “Screenless Methods to Control Sand,”
Oilfield Review 15, no.1 (Spring 2003): 38–53.
14. For more on perforating for sand control: Bruyere F,
Clark D, Stirton G, Kusumadjaja A, Manalu D, Sobirin M,
Martin A, Robertson DI and Stenhouse A: “New
Practices to Enhance Perforating Results,” Oilfield
Review 18, no. 4 (Autumn 2006): 18–35.
15. In fracturing high-permeability formations, wide and
high fractures are preferable to those extending great
distances from the wellbore. Such a configuration is
achieved through tip screenout (TSO) once the fracture
cost of a rig. They exhibit lower skin factors
than conventional gravel-packing techniques
and do not restrict wellbore access. In maturing
fields, screenless systems are especially well-
suited for initial completions for their economy
and their ability to stop fines migration without
sacrificing production.
These same attributes make screenless
completions appropriate for reentering wells to
capture reserves left behind pipe in sand-prone
formations. Their attraction is enhanced when
those reserves are too small to justify the
expense of a drilling rig. For example, upon
discovering its 40/60 gravel-pack sand screen in a
well in the Adriatic Sea was nearly completely
plugged by fines, Eni opted to first seal the
existing completion and then reperforate the
screen using wireline guns. The interval was then
fractured with a tip-screenout (TSO) design, and
a through-tubing screen was placed across the
perforated section.15 A surface-modifying agent
helped prevent fines migration and plugging of
the gravel pack. A second well in the same field
failed when the action of produced sand and
proppant eroded through a screen of a frac-pack
completion. The well was refractured through
the hole in the screen, and a resin was applied
to the proppant to lock it into place, thus
repairing the damaged screen without restricting
the flow area.16
Recently, Chevron leveraged Schlumberger-
provided screenless completions to greatly
increase return on its investment in a series of
six wells in a mature Gulf of Mexico field. In each
of the wells, the techniques included optimized
perforation phasing and size, near-wellbore
consolidation, tip screenout and fines manage-
ment to capture behind-pipe reserves (next
page). The team used K300 furan resin sand
consolidation systems on all six wells and,
heeding lessons learned on the third well, fines
inhibitor on the final three.
has opened the desired distance from the wellbore. TSO
is achieved by allowing leakoff of the fracturing fluid into
the formation to the point where there is insufficient fluid
to suspend the associated proppant.
16. Lightford SC, Pitoni E, Emiliani CN, Devia F and Valli V:
“Rigless Interventions to Failed Gravel-Pack Gas Wells
Using New Resin Systems,” paper SPE 98263, presented
at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on
Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana,
February 15–17, 2006.
17. Wise MR, Armentor RJ, Holicek RA, Gadiyar BR,
Bowman MD, Hansen RA and Krenzke SN: “Screenless
Completions as a Viable Through-Tubing Sand Control
Completion,” paper SPE 107440, presented at the SPE
European Formation Damage Conference, Scheveningen,
The Netherlands, May 30–June 1, 2007.
Oilfield Review
 completion is economic. It allows planners to use
production history-matching plus nodal analysis
to see if the target production rates can be
Optimal perforations achieved within the drawdown limitation.
Well A has four zones that are still productive
but require sand control. The intervals are
separated by a total of only 200 ft [60 m]. This
small separation would typically require that the
operator use completion equipment employing
screens that would, in turn, force the use of rig-
Resin consolidation
based workovers to pull and rerun the screens in
the course of future recompletions. A screenless
completion was planned that included perfora-
ting the zone of interest, injecting sand-
TSO fracturing consolidation resin, fracturing with fiber
through consolidated proppant-flowback control and washing prop-
matrix pant from the wellbore using coiled tubing. The
interval was perforated to achieve optimal
productivity with the fracturing treatment while
ensuring that all perforation tunnels were
treated. The formation was consolidated, and the
fracture treatment was designed for TSO with
sufficient conductivity contrast between the
fracture and formation to reduce drawdown to a
> Rigless intervention. Through use of optimal perforating techniques,
minimum. A resin-coated proppant with a fiber
resins and tip screenout fracturing, sand and fines migration can be
proppant-flowback-control additive was used to
prevented without involving a rig. The resin, used for remediation on six
Chevron wells in the Gulf of Mexico, works through polymerization stabilize the proppant in the fracture without
reactions when injected into loose or unconsolidated formations in the mechanical devices such as screens.
near-wellbore matrix. The resin cures to a hard plastic that bonds the The operator was anticipating a production
unconsolidated sand particles. Fines are dangerous only if they become
mobile. A fines-inhibitor treatment was required to further stabilize the near rate of 200 bbl/d [32 m3/d], but after treatment
wellbore. The inhibitor uses three fluids—surfactant, monomer and initiator. the well produced 500 bbl/d [80 m3/d] of oil and
It is designed to be pumped after an acid treatment and leaves an ultrathin 2.5 MMcf/d [70,800 m3/d] of gas. Sand from a
film coating around the sand grains, effectively immobilizing fines by lower zone left behind pipe forced the well to be
binding them to the rock surface.
shut in 18 months after initial production. The
event confirmed that no sand or proppant was
being produced from the screenless completion.
Of the six completions, Wells A, B, C and F are permeability data calculated from pressure The well was put back on production following a
in a field that has been on line since the 1960s. responses recorded during fracture stimulation. coiled tubing gravel-pack installation across the
While beyond peak-production levels, they still Engineers then applied drawdown-limitation offending lower zone.
contained several small formations of limited guidelines for screenless completions, based on The economic driver for Well B was limited gas
reserves, all of which needed sand control. To experience and known limitations of the fiber reserves. The original completion on this well did
justify completing these untapped zones, it was proppant-flowback-control additive, to avoid not include sand control. However, when the
essential that they be completed as economically proppant flowback and sand production. natural completion produced sand, the well was
as possible without sacrificing productivity. A Following production startup, the team closely choked back and could no longer meet its targeted
fifth well, D, was completed in a depleted monitored rates and pressures and compared gas production rate of 1 MMcf/d [28,300 m3/d].
reservoir that included four natural them with the nodal analysis, not only to ensure The goal for Schlumberger engineers was twofold:
completions—without sand control. The sixth, E, that drawdown pressure did not exceed the guide- control sand and increase production. Sand was
was also completed in a depleted reservoir with line limit, but also to quantify the completion cleaned from the well before a mix of matrix acid
two previous completions—a gravel pack and a performance by calculating total skin factor. and consolidation fluid was injected into the
lower, naturally completed zone.17 In wells with a long production history, formation using coiled tubing. The well was
Project engineers used PIPESIM production ProCADE well analysis software was used to fractured using resin-coated proppant and fibers
system analysis software to conduct nodal match that history with a material-balance before the excess fracture slurry was washed out.
analysis on each well and to model its reservoir model to determine reservoir parameters such as The results were an end to sand production and
and completion to determine production rates permeability, total skin factor and reservoir size. gas rates that reached 3.2 MMcf/d [90,600 m3/d]
for a given drawdown pressure. The PIPESIM ProCADE software not only evaluates comple- at 1,100 psi [7.6 MPa] flowing tubing pressure, a
model is populated with reservoir properties tions performance, but can also be applied in the fourfold increase over its rate of 800 Mcf/d
from well logs, production history and reservoir candidate-recognition phase to estimate remain- [23,000 m3/d] prior to treatment.
ing reserves and so determine if a screenless

Summer 2007 11
 The target in Well C was a bypassed pay zone.
The existing completion configuration—a gravel
pack below the zone of interest—did not allow a
traditional sand control method without first
mobilizing a rig to pull the original completion.
As a matter of economics, after first perforating
the casing with the tubing in place, the options
Resin consolidation
were to then deploy either a through-tubing Reperforating
screen and gravel pack or a through-tubing
screenless system. The latter was chosen and
installed in much the same manner as the two
earlier wells.
Following the workover, the well produced
sand-free at 600 bbl/d [95 m3/d] of oil, 200 bbl/d
more than expected before the job, and
3.5 MMcf/d [99,100 m3/d] of gas with a post-
Fracturing
stimulation skin factor of 0.5. Two months later,
however, the well began to produce very fine-
grained solids through the proppant pack. The
operator performed a fines-control treatment and
installed a vent screen. Production decreased to
350 bbl/d [56 m3/d] of oil and 1 MMcf/d of gas
with a drawdown of 1,000 psi [6.9 MPa]. As a
result, the next three well-treatment designs
included fines control. > A first for screenless completions. Through-tubing sand control
Well D has four existing completions, all remediation is applicable to failed sand control systems and for retrieving
reserves from bypassed reserves in formations that require sand control.
naturally completed and isolated over time. The latter is particularly attractive to operators since many bypassed
Before being shut in because of late-life sand reserves were left behind pipe because they were relatively small and so
production, the well’s last completion had would not be economic if they required a rig-based recompletion. Chevron
produced for five years with final rates of recently accomplished a first in order to capture reserves left behind pipe.
After first plugging the lower depleted formations, the company performed a
108 bbl/d [17 m3/d] of oil, 485 Mcf/d [13,735 m3/d] screenless completion behind both tubing and casing between two existing
of gas and 1,100 bbl/d [175 m3/d] of water. A production packers and two depleted gravel-pack completions.
fracture treatment was necessary to reach the
operator’s production targets of 350 bbl/d of
oil, or 1,750 bbl/d [280 m3/d] of fluid with 80%
water cut.
That decision, in turn, narrowed sand control Wells E and F were also successful screenless In all six cases, the lowest risk option for sand
options to either a screenless or a through-tubing completions. The zone of interest in Well E had control was a conventional gravel pack or frac
vent-screen completion. However, since a vent- not been produced before and so optimal pack. But the economics of these wells,
screen system would create additional pressure perforating and fluid-placement practices were particularly those with questionable or limited
drops, increase operational complexity and limit applied. With a target production of 250 bbl/d remaining reserves, did not support the cost of a
future workover options, a screenless completion [40 m3/d], it too outperformed initial expec- rig. Beyond abandonment, traditional alterna-
was selected. The procedure differed from tations by initially producing 367 bbl/d [58 m3/d] tives included perforating without sand control,
previous wells in the series in that existing of oil, 306 Mcf/d [8,665 m3/d] of gas and 245 bbl/d perforating with chemical consolidation and
perforations were used, and fines control was [39 m3/d] of water. installing a stand-alone screen, through-tubing
included in the design. Put back on production Well F, located in the same mature field as A, gravel pack, through-tubing screen with gravel
immediately following the treatment, the well B and C, is the first screenless completion pack or through-tubing screen with frac pack. All
exceeded targets with rates of 500 bbl/d [80 m3/d] performed behind both tubing and casing and have economic benefits over rig-based solutions
of oil, 130 Mcf/d [3,700 m3/d] of gas and 516 bbl/d between two existing production packers and but also have drawbacks, such as requiring the
[82 m3/d] of water. two depleted and isolated gravel-pack comple- use of a rig for future workovers, or production
tions. As a result of this configuration, the zone compromises through restricted flow areas.
18. Powers B, Edment B, Elliot F, Gilchrist J, Twynam A and of interest was perforated through both tubing Screenless solutions used for properly selected
Parlar M: “A Critical Review of Chirag Field Completions
Performance–Offshore Azerbaijan B,” paper SPE 98146, and casing. The operation was completed candidate wells, on the other hand, offer an
presented at the SPE International Symposium and successfully, though what was expected to be a alternative that includes production optimi-
Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,
Louisiana, February 15–17, 2006. 200- to 300-bbl/d [32- to 47-m3/d] zone turned out zation and sand control.
instead to be a gas zone producing 1.4 MMcf/d
[39,600 m3/d] (above).

12 Oilfield Review
Screen in Screen
Expandable sand screens (ESS) are a relatively
new sand management product. They are
attractive in openhole completions applications
for their ease of installation and, since they use
no filter medium, result in a low skin factor.
These characteristics make ESS an effective
means for controlling sand production in the
Niungo field onshore Gabon. The highly uncon-
solidated sandstone reservoir, with permeability
ranging from 0.5 to 2 darcies, requires sand
control. The 31°API, paraffinic crude is
accompanied by 250 ppm H2S. Initial reservoir
pressure was 1,091 psi [7.5 MPa] with
109°F [43°C] bottomhole temperature and a
gas/oil ratio of 200 Mcf/bbl [36 million m3/m3].
Operator Perenco completed the first of three
wells in the prospect with a cased-hole gravel
pack. The second phase of development
consisted of 23 wells using openhole expandable
sand screens with 230-micron premium mesh.
The third phase of development, completed more
recently, used openhole gravel packs and stand-
alone screens. For the upper completions,
Niungo wells require artificial lift. Electrical
submersible pumps (ESPs) and a few
progressing cavity pumps (PCPs) are installed in
most wells in the field.
> A close look. A microscopic image of solids
taken with a sand bailer at 806 m in the Niungo-26
well shows sand grains too large to have passed
through an intact 230-micron weave ESS. It also
makes clear that reduced production was not the
result of contamination. Convinced that the
existing sand control system on the onshore
Gabon Niungo field had failed, Perenco engineers
used a snubbing unit to place a MeshRite screen
inside its obviously damaged ESS.
Summer 2007
Following the second development phase,
several ESS wells experienced low pump run life.
Analysis indicated the major causes to be high
sand production, gas lock, electrical failures and
ESP failures. Produced sand taken at 806 m
[2,644 ft] with a sand bailer was too large to have
passed through a 230-micron weave, and what
was visible on the microscope was clearly not
contamination (below left). Clearly, active sand
control had failed, but the cause was uncertain.
During its first two years of production, seven
workovers were performed on the Niungo-26
well, including switching from an ESP to a PCP.
However, the problems of erratic production, gas
locking and sand production continued, so the
operator decided to include remedial sand
control prior to rerunning a new pump. Since the
smallest ID of the ESS was 4.880 in., the decision
was made to order two remedial screen sizes,
27⁄8 in. (3.6 in. maximum OD) and 31⁄2 in. (4.25 in.
maximum OD). A MeshRite stainless-steel
screen was selected because it would maintain
the ESS hole integrity and would retain the
biggest particles that might enter the failed ESS
creating a natural pack inside it. The workover
was performed with a Perenco-owned snubbing
unit and because the oil in the Niungo-26 well is
paraffinic, it was first cleaned using hot water
and viscous gel through coiled tubing.
Using 11⁄2-in. coiled tubing, the well was
cleaned with 80°C [176°F] water containing 2%
potassium chloride [KCl]. An obstruction was
encountered at 814 m [2,670 ft] and nitrogen and
gel were added to progress to bottom. Then,
27⁄8-in. remedial liner screens could be set only at
827 m [2,713 ft] measured depth inside the ESS.
The ESS top was at 816 m [2,677 ft] and its
bottom at 837 m [2,746 ft], which could have
been a result of ESS damage.
Following the MeshRite installation, the well
was slowly put on production according to the
supplier’s recommendation and eventually came
on line at rates equal to its initial production
with no sand. In the next six months, the well
delivered production equal to that of the first
18 months of its life.
Future Remediation
Active sand control remediation has been
gaining increased attention within the industry.
Significant crude-oil and gas price increases,
combined with reduced access to large new
finds, have added a sense of both urgency and
potential value to remaining reserves in aging
fields. Anxious to avoid the risks and high costs
associated with adding reserves through techno-
logically difficult and expensive plays in deep
water and other remote environments, operators
find remediation of existing assets particularly
attractive. As a consequence, companies that
once sought to sell off maturing properties rather
than dedicate resources to rehabilitating them,
today may view stranded reserves in sand-prone
reservoirs as a major source of reserve growth.
Interest in sand management has been
further fueled by reports from major operators
who indicate their reserves from sand-prone
reservoirs have increased significantly. Just a few
years ago, for example, about one third of BP’s
production came from sand-prone reservoirs. By
the end of this decade, however, such formations
are expected to account for nearly half of all BP’s
production.18 The company considers the
situation sufficiently important to have recently
established a technology leadership area (TLA),
“Beyond Sand Control,” to globally organize the
sand management of its assets.
Recent data suggest that the introduction of
real-time monitoring during system installation,
likely available within the next few years,
coupled with growing industry experience in
sand control design and application, will sub-
stantially reduce failures. The logical next step
would be sand control systems equipped with
production monitoring capabilities to warn
operators of particle movement at the sandface
or of the onset of plugging and hot spots. Such
real-time data could also be used to increase
knowledge about the effects of production on
formations and so aid in the creation of services
and practices that may significantly extend
well life. —RvF
13