Numerical Analysis of the Effects of

Gravel Packing on Gas-Well Productivity

M.B. Oyeneyln, * SPE, U. of Benin

Summary. This paper presents an aid in the effective design of a comprehensive optimum gas-well completion program involving
the gravel-packing method of sand control to ensure maximum productivity for a long period. A numerical approach using PI as a
measure of eventual well performance is used in analyzing the productivity of gravel-packed gas wells with a computer. An outline
of the comprehensive equations needed to compute PI under steady- and semisteady-state flow conditions based on modified Darcy's
law for gas flow is presented. The final analysis with the computer package centers on how best to design a gravel-packed gas-well
program that will ensure maximum productivity.

Introduction
Gas wells generally are associated with high pressure and high flow which gas must flow into the wellbore. Thus, in the analysis of
velocity. These two major factors contribute to easy sand production the inflow performance for cased-hole gas-well completions, four
from unconsolidated pay sands, a characteristic feature of the Niger distinct sectors were assumed to contribute to the overall drawdown,
delta, U.S. gulf coast, and elsewhere. With its increased sophisti- Llpf, given as P~-P~: (1) pressure drop as a result of linear
cation, gravel packing is now the cheapest, most reliable sand- laminar flow through perforations, Llpf; (2) pressure drop caused
control method. by linear turbulent flow through perforations, Llpr; (3) pressure
Designing a gravel pack for maximum productivity generally drop resulting from radial laminar flow through the sand body,
consists of selecting the proper gravel size to retain formation sand, LlPf' which varies depending on steady- or semisteady-state flow
screen size, slot openings, hole size, pack thickness, perforation- conditions; and (4) pressure drop owing to radial turbulent flow
tunnel length, and gravel placement technique. through the sand body, Llp}. Thus,
Many studies on the effects of gravel packing on oilwell productiv-
Llpf=d-p~=Llpf+Llpr+Llpj+LlP}, .............. (I)
ity have been carried out with some success. 1-11 Himmatramka 12
extended this work to both gas- and oilwell productivity, and a re-
cently developed computer package 13 for designing a compre-
hensive program for oil wells continues the effort. This paper. a LlPr=qgC·93:;:gLp). .......................... (2)
follow-up to that work, presents the results of the computer package,
which was intended to be an aid in the effective planning and design 1.247 x 1O-16FBg'YgZTRLp)
of a comprehensive gas-well gravel-pack completion program to and Llpr =qi ( A2 ' ............. (3)
ensure maximum productivity over a given number of years. At- p
tempts have been made to develop more comprehensive equations where the constants 8.93 and 1.247 x 10- 16 in Eqs. 2 and 3
to compute PI under steady- and semi steady-state flow conditions become 424.51 and 59.28x1O- 16 , respectively, in SI units.
given a number of factors. This work assumes that the best com- For steady-state conditions,
pletion program incorporates the gravel pack as part of the initial
completion program. By virtue of high-pressure conditions and
safety operations, cased-hole completion techniques are usually used Llpj=qg [
1.4241!gzTR J
[In 0.472(Te/T w)+sTl , .......... (4)
for gas wells. Thus, the modified equations developed here are re- kfh
stricted to inside-casing gravel-pack completions. The factors con- where 1.424 becomes 67.694 in SI units.
sidered include radial extent of the damaged zone; gravel-pack For semi steady-state conditions,
thickness; drainage radius; wellbore radius (hole size); gravel size
as a function of gravel permeability; formation permeability, kf ;
flushed-zone skin, sd; non-Darcy skin; and perforation skin factor. Llpj=qg [
1.4241!gzTR
[In 0.472(re/Tw)-0.75+sTl
J ..... (5)
kfh
Development of Productivity Equations 3.16X 1O-18FB'YgZTR)
The PI of a well is the most common measure of its ability to de- and LlfJ} =q/ ( h ' ................ (6)
liver fluid. In gas wells, this ability is measured in terms of the
inflow performance. To arrive at the required equations, steady- where the constants 1.424 and 3.16x1O- 18 become 67.694 and
and semisteady-state flow conditions were assumed. Steady-state 150.219X1O- 18 , respectively, in SI units.
flow occurs when the flow rate and pressure at each point in the The gravel-pack turbulence factor is given by
reservoir are constant with time. In many gas reservoir situations,
F Bg = 10(6.5-0.95 logIOkg) ...•.•.••••...••••.•..•.•••• (7)
however, sustained gas production is accompanied by a continuous
decline in pressure throughout the system. Thus, pressure is a and true skin is given by
function of time, and the mass of gas in the radial zone decreases.
This is basically an unsteady-state process. When an undersaturated sT=sd+snD +Sg +s/+sp +Dqg . ...................... (8)
boul1ded reservoir is produced at a constant rate, however, after The non-Darcy skin factor is
an initial startup period, the rate of pressure decline at all points
in the system becomes constant and uniform. This situation is re- SnD=SASBscPqscJh, ..... c ••..•......•.•••..•.•.•••. (9)
ferred to as semisteady state because the time derivative of pressure where SA =2.14x 1O- 11 Ns4, ........................ (10)
is constant.
sB=(I-c/J)/c/>3, .................................. (ll)
Performance Equation .for Cased-Hole Gravel Pack Gas-Well sC=kf Lp /A 2 nJl!g . ................................ (12)
Completions. In cased-hole gravel packs for gas wells, pressure
drop is more critical because of the perforation tunnels through The particle sphericity, !/Is, is a fraction ranging from 0.55 for
jagged sand to 0.95 for nearly spherical sand.
"Now at Heriot·Watt U. The perforation skin factor is
Copyright 1990 Society of Petroleum Engineers sp=(hD/aDqp)-ln To/Tw, ......................... (13)
SPE Production Engineering, May 1990 171
 STOP

NO IS
n p ,,20 shots/It

Fig. 1-Flow chart for cased-hole gravel-pack completion.

and assuming an isentropic reservoir, where F B = 10(6.5-0.95 loglOktl, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (19)

sp=hpl(Lpqp)-ln rolrw, .......................... (14)
where
hD=(hplrw)'\IkHlkV' ............................. (15)
and aD=Lplrw.
The apparent skin resulting from the gravel pack is
sg=(kf lk g -1)ln rwlri' ............................ (16)
The apparent skin resulting from the screen is
Sf = ( 2Inc)(ln 2/f)100 . ............................. (17)
Sf usually is considered to be negligible for rod-based, wire-
wrapped screens.
Dqg is the non-Darcy skin caused by high-velocity gas flow near
the wellbore.
or 10(7·016-0.95 JoglOkf ) in SI units, Psc= 14.7 psi [101.357 kPa],
and Tsc=520oR [15.56°C].
sd is the skin effect caused by drilling and completion fluids and
by the phasing angle for 3D flow through perforations. For
penetration that terminates within or at rs ,
sd=0.1576(h i lrw)0.6769(0)0.9843
X (aDlr w) -0.7928 (kslkf ) -1.5759. . .................... (20)
For penetration that goes beyond r s ,
sd=0.02272(h i lr w)0.7631 (0) 1.1221(aDlrw) -2.5671
X (kslkf ) -0.9522(rslr w)3.0874. . ...................... (21)
The inflow performance, P, as defined by Tracy14 is
P=qgltJ.Pf=qgl(p~-P;'f)' ........................ (22)

2.715X1O- 15 F B MPsckf Solution Method

D= , ...................... (18) The IBM Prime 750™ was used for the numerical analysis to test
/LghprW Tsc
the effects of gravel packing on gas-well productivity. The package
172 SPE Production Engineering, May 1990
 TABLE 1-EFFECT OF GRAVEL SIZE ON TABLE 4-EFFECT OF PRESSURE COMPONENTS
INFLOW PERFORMANCE OF GAS WELLS ON INFLOW PERFORMANCE

Gravel Gravel Inflow Performance Production Pressure Drop Inflow

Size Permeability (10 -2 MscflD-pSi 2) Rate (psi 2) Performance
(U.S. mesh) (darcies) h=50 ft h= 100 ft h= 150 ft h=200 ft (Mscf/D) 2 11p 2 2 2 (scf/D-psi 2 )
11p1 11p3 11p4
--- 2
10/20 325 13.19 26.38 39.57 52.76 200 891.81 4,321.92 1,493.31 0.846 29.82
10/30 191 13.18 26.35 39.53 52.71 400 1,783.61 17,287.67 2,986.62 3.383 18.13
20/40 121 13.16 26.32 39.47 52.63 600 2,675.42 38,897.26 4,479.93 7.61 13.03
30/40 110 13.15 26.30 39.46 52.611 800 3,567.23 69,150.69 5,973.24 13.53 10.16
40/60 45 13.07 26.14 39.27 52.29 1,000 4,459.03 108,047.95 7,466.5521.14 8.33
1,200 5,350.84 155,589.03 8.959.86 30.45 7.06

TABLE 2-EFFECT OF PACK THICKNESS

ON INFLOW PERFORMANCE
TABLE 5-EFFECT OF PERFORATION PHASE ANGLE
Pack Inflow Performance for ON INFLOW PERFORMANCE
thickness 20/40-mesh gravel
(in.) Sd Sf _S_9_ (10- 2 Mscf/D-psi 2) Perforation 20/40-mesh gravel
4 1.216 0.726 -0.399 11.00 Phase Angle Pressure Drop Inflow Performance
8 1.216 0.726 -0.399 13.16 (degrees) (psi 2) (scf/D-psi2)
10 1.216 0.726 -0.399 14.05 0 13,799.95 21.74
12 1.216 0.726 -0.399 14.87 180 13,043.39 23.00
14 1.216 0.726 -0.399 15.64 120 12,813.7 23.41
16 1.216 0.726 -0.399 16.37 90 12,725.28 23.57

TABLE 3-EFFECT OF PERFORATION PENETRATION TABLE 6-POROSITYIINFLOW-PERFORMANCE

ON INFLOW PERFORMANCE OF GAS WELLS RELATIONSHIP

Perforation Inflow Performance Pressure Drop Inflow Performance

Penetration (scflD-psi2) Porosity (psi2) (scf/O-psi2)
(in.) 10/30-mesh gravel 20/40-mesh gravel 0.10 407,745.38 0.74
0.15 116,913.88 2.08
'. =8 in.
0.20 48,776.16 6.16
2 26.46 26.03 0.25 25,443.16 11.79
4 33.67 32.29 0.30 15,538.28 19.31
6 36.31 33.96
8 36.90 33.73
10 36.66 32.84
12 35.72 31.44 's
in. [> 25 cm] for = 10 in. [25 cm] (Table 3), especially for
14 34.76 30.11 1O/30-mesh gravel, but it occurs at 8 in. [20 cm] on average for
other gravel sizes.
,.=10in. Table 4 shows that the total pressure drop is the result mainly
2 26.46 26.03 of pressure drop through the perforation tunnel. Generally, the non-
4 31.55 30.34 Darcy factor will be enhanced if a pronounced gravel/sand mixing
6 35.08 32.88 occurs that leads to increased turbulent-flow pressure drops.
8 36.28 33.22 Perforation phasing effects on inflow performance are presented
10 36.32 32.56 in Table 5, and Table 6 shows the effect of an effective gravel pack,
12 35.51 31.26 especially for maximum packing efficiency, as represented by the
14 34.63 30.01 porosity/inflow-performance relationship. Other effects, of course,
can be generated by the computer program.

highlights a number of parameters as they affect the inflow per-
formance by use of field operational data.
The program developed for the inside-casing gravel pack was
based on the equations presented here, the algorithm of which is
shown in Fig. 1.
Analysis and Discussion of Results
The results obtained for the different parameters considered are Illgh-
lighted in Tables 1 through 6. Table 1 shows the effect of gravel
size on inflow performance, which is very important in gravel-pack
design. The gravel sizes considered were based on the standard per-
meability values of each worked-clean commercial gravel size. As
expected, the inflow performance was also found to increase with
an increase in pack thickness (Table 2), although it is not clear
whether a critical thickness exists beyond which inflow performance
will not increase.
For inside-casing gravel packs, perforation penetration is very
important. Table 3 shows that perforation penetration> 8 in. [> 20
cm] led to a decrease in inflow performance for,s = 8 in. [20 cm] .
This decline did not occur, however, until after a penetration > 10
SPE Production Engineering, May 1990
Application of Computer Package
In Gravel·Pack Design for Gas Wells
One can easily compute the inflow performance for gravel-packed
gas wells given the necessary parameters. Thus, for optimum gas-
well performance, one can generate the values of the different
variables and ensure an effective well program.
The combination of maximum penetration possible and gravel
size required for optimum inflow performance are important in ob-
taining an effective well-design program. The optimum porosity
value combined with pack thickness can be selected to aid in the
choice of screen size. Even the type of completion fluid can be pre-
dicted on the basis of the skin.
Conclusions
The results generated from the computational analysis, samples of
which are presented here, highlight the fact that efficient gravel-
packing design, for oil or gas wells, must take into account all the
factors that affect eventual well performance. Results confirm that
minimizing the gravel size will not noticeably affect the inflow per-
formance of the gas well as long as the gravel is slightly larger than
173
the formation sand and has good permeability. Results also confirm
that, for gas wells, using semi steady-state flow conditions in
analyzing well performance works better than using steady-state
conditions. Likewise, perforation penetration equal to the flushed-
zone radius but within a minimum of 8 in. [20 cm] was found to
be the critical tunnel length for maximum productivity. The skin
effects imposed by the gravel pack, screen, and perforation are very
important factors in the analysis of inflow well performance. Like
the earlier program for oil wells,13 this one will go a long way
in formulating simulated values of well parameters, the conditions
of which should ensure long-term optimum gravel-packed gas-well
performance.
Nomenclature
aD = Lp/rw
A = area, ft2 [m 2]
Ap = perforated area, ft2 [m 2]
4 = average particle size of gravel pack (50 percentile
diameter), in. [cm]
D = defined by Eq. 18
f = fraction of screen open to flow
FB,FBg = turbulence factor, ft- I [m- I ]
h = completion interval, ft [m]
hD = defined by Eq. 15
hi = height of repeating perforating pattern, ft [m]
hp = perforated spacing, ft [m]
kf = formation permeability, darcies
kg = gravel-pack permeability, darcies
kH = horizontal permeability, darcies
ks = skin permeability
kv = vertical permeability, darcies
Lp = perforated-tunnel length, ft [m]
M = molecular weight
nc = number of continuous slot columns, ft- 1 [m- I ]
np = perforation density, ft -I [m -I]
PR = reservoir pressure, psi [kPa]
Psc = pressure at standard conditions, psi [kPa]
Pwf = flowing bottomhole pressure, psi [kPa]
Apr. = p~-pJ.r, psi 2 [kPa 2 ]
r
Ap = pressure drop owing to linear laminar flow through
perforations, psi 2 [kPa2 ]
Api= pressure drop owing to linear turbulent flow
through perforations, psi 2 [kPa 2 ]
Apl = pressure drop owing to radial laminar flow through
sand body, psi 2 [kPa 2 ]
1
Ap = pressure drop owing to radial turbulent flow
through sand body, psi 2 [kPa 2 ]
P = inflow performance
qg = gas production, MscflD [std m 3 /d]
qp = production rate per perforation, sefID [std m 3 /d]
qsc = gas production rate at standard conditions, sefID
[std m 3 /d]
re = drainage radius, ft [m]
ri = screen inner radius, ft [m]
r0 = radial-flow radius, ft [m]
r w = wellbore radius, ft [m]
sA,sB,
Se = skin defined by Eqs. 10 through 12, respectively
sd = apparent skin resulting from fluid invasion
174
s g = apparent skin resulting from gravel pack
S I = apparent skin resulting from screen/liner
snD = non-Darcy skin
sp = perforation-damage skin
s T = true skin
TR = reservoir temperature, oR [0C]
Tsc = temperature at standard conditions, oR [0C]
z = compressibility factor
'Y g = gas specific gravity
(J = perforation gun phasing, rad
P,g = gas viscosity, cp [Pa' s]
p = density
cf> = porosity
1/; s = particle sphericity
References
1. Saucier, R.I.: "Considerations in Gravel Pack Design," JPT(Feb. 1974)
205-12; Trans., AIME, 257.
2. Oyeneyin, M.B. and Peden, I.M.: "Factors to Consider in the Effective
Gravel Packing of Deviated Wells," paper SPE 13916 available at SPE,
Richardson, TX.
3. Peden, I.M. eta/.: "Laboratory Studies of the Effectiveness of Gravel
Packing Perforations and Screen-Casing Annulus in Deviated Wells,"
paper SPE 12805 presented at the 1982 SPE European Petroleum Con-
ference, London, Oct. 25-28.
4. Ellis, R.C., Snyder, R.E., and Suman, G.O. Ir.: "New Design Concepts
Help Optimize Sand Control," World Oil (Dec. 1981).
5. Hong, K.C. and Standing, M.B.: "Productivity of Perforated Com-
pletions in a Zone of Permeability Damage," paper SPE 4653 presented
at the 1973 SPE Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Sept. 30-0ct. 3.
6. McLeod, H.O. Ir.: "The Effect of Perforating Conditions on Well Per-
formance," JPT(Ian. 1983) 31-39.
7. Harris, M.H.: "The Effect of Perforating on Well Productivity," JPT
(April 1966) 518-28; Trans., AIME, 237.
8. Coberly, C.I. and Wagner, E.M.: "Some Considerations in the Selection
and Installation of Gravelpack for Oilwells," API Tech. Paper No. 960,
API, Dallas (1938).
9. Oyeneyin, M.B.: "The Effects of Gravel Packing on Well Produc-
tivity," Nigerian Engineer (1986) 21, No.3, 1-11.
10. Lampros, K.: "Gravel Packing Review and Application to Deviated
Wells," MS thesis, Heriot-Watt U., Edinburgh (1977).
11. McDowell, I.M. and Muskat, M.: "Effect on Well Productivity of For-
mation Penetration Beyond Perforated Casing," Trans., AIME (1950)
189, 309-12.
12. Himmatramka, A.H.: "Analysis of Productivity Reduction Due to Non-
Darcy Flow and True Skin in Gravel-Packed Wells," paper SPE 10084
presented at the 1981 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Antonio, Oct. 4-7.
13. Oyeneyin, M.B.: "Computer Programs Help Pick Best Gravelpack
Design," Oil & GasJ. (March 2, 1987).
14. Tracy, G.W.: "Diagnosing Productivity Problems in Gas Wells," Oil
& Gas J. (Aug. 6, 1956).
SI Metric Conversion Factors
ft x 3.048* E-Ol
ft3 x 2.831 685 E-02
in. x 2.54* E+OO cm
md x 9.869233 E-04 p,m 2
psi x 6.894 757 E+OO kPa
SPEPE
* Conversion factor is exact.
Original SPE manuscript received for review Feb. 8, 1988. Paper accepted for publication
Jan. 18, 1990. Revised manuscript received Nov. 30, 1989. Paper (SPE 17170) first
presented at the 1988 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium held in Bakersfield,
Feb. 8-9.
SPE Production Engineering, May 1990