Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
Sand prediction at BP has been developed by dividing it into
three parts: (1) onset, (2) transient sanding, (3) steady-state
sanding. For example, as drawdown is increased in a well in a
sand-prone formation, significant sanding begins at some
point (the onset), and this is followed by a transient sand burst,
which may last hours or days or months. The sanding
eventually declines to a background level (steady-state), in the
range 1100 pptb. We have made recent step-changes in (2)
and (3), and we now have a tool that can predict sanding
onset, and volumes during any stage of a wells production
history, or even injection history.
The onset of sanding is predicted using a stress-based
model. This model is conservative, based on a benchmarking
study of field applications. One application predicts sanding in
water injectors during shut-in, and recommends not using sand
control. Another application explains delayed sanding in an
HPHT gas reservoir, in terms of restraining forces due to
capillary cohesion (i.e., the damp sand effect at the beach).
The transient sanding model is a fully-coupled finite element
(FE) model. The model has successfully predicted sand
volumes in laboratory and field tests. With this model, we can
judge whether we can manage the produced sand, from both
production and injection wells. Finally, we have applied this to
predict whether a well will kill itself after a blowout, due to
sand in the wellbore increasing the hydrostatic pressure.
The steady-state model is an empirical model that is based
upon extensive tests of sanding from cores in the laboratory.
The model has been applied to predict sanding in an offshore
field, and this has led to the conclusion that sand rates can be
managed at surface, without sand control: a huge economic
advantage. Finally, we present a case history where we use all
three models to make an integrated prediction of onset,
onset of sanding
quantum leaps in two areas
to complement prediction
of failure onset
transient
volume
steady state
sand rate
CBHFP <
3 1 3 y
2 A
Pr
A
2 A
(1)
y = 3.1 TWC
(2)
Max Depletion
5000
4000
3000
Max Drawdown
Onset of sanding
Model summary
The onset of sanding is predicted using a stress-based model
of shear failure around a perforation or an open hole wellbore.
Essentials of the BP sand onset model are:
Predicts shear failure around a perforation or an open hole
(but this may not predict when sand actually enters a well)
Predicts the onset of sand production in cased and
perforated and open hole completions using a combination
of empirical and analytical relationships.
The essential inputs to the model are thick-walled cylinder
tests (TWC) obtained from cores tested in the laboratory,
and unconfined compressive strength (UCS) predicted
from logs (gamma-ray, density and dipole sonic).
The TWC collapse strength corresponds to the point of
significant sanding (equivalent to development of many
shear bands that eventually coalesce).
Analysis is performed at the weakest point of the UCS log.
CBHFP (psi)
SPE 84499
1000
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Figure 2. Sand prediction using shear failure model for cased and
perforated vertical well
SPE 84499
CBHFP ratio
conservative
predictions:
BP model predicts
sanding too early.
This is safety factor
2
1
over-optimistic prediction:
not consistent with BP model
0
-1
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
-2
1 / 7 cases BP
model is overoptimistic.not
good
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
P-4/B3
P-8/C1
P-10/B8
P-11/C1
LL-1/B1
SPE 84499
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
P-4/B1
P-8/C1
P-10/B8
P-11/C1
LL-1/B1
LL-1/A4
Figure 5:
Comparison of the predicted critical drawdown
pressure against observed maximum drawdown pressure
25
20
15
Cprw = 0.3 psi
Cprw = 5 psi
10
water production
0
0
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
-3000
-3500
Drawdown (psi)
SPE 84499
P1
P2
6000
5000
no sand
4000
sand
2000
if UCS < 200 psi,
predict sanding
due to crossflow
0
0
result is
Pb Pa may
be up to
500 psi
Pa
Does this
produce sand
via crossflow
after
shutdown?
Pb
sealing fault or pinchout
causes Pb > Pa
Pb = 4900 psi
+ 100 psi frac
pressure
3000
1000
Prediction
based on
BP model
200
the difference
between the 2
curves is in
the noise
Pb = 4900 psi
+ 500 psi seal
pressure
400
600
800
1000
1200
SPE 84499
5
4
20
8 inch rathole fillup (ft)
100-500 psi between pay zone B and pay zone A. Then using
the ENHANS numerical model, we estimate a sand volume of
1.6 4 bbl (the uncertainty lies in the bilinear Coulomb plot of
strength vs. stress). This volume of sand would fill up 6-16 ft
of 8-inch rathole. We can classify this worst-case situation as
a P10 case. The volume ranges are plotted in Figures 9 and 10.
15
min rathole fillup
10
5
0
P10
1
0
P10
P50
P90
P50
P90
SPE 84499
total loss of cementation. The dark blue line shows the radius
of the zone experiencing sand production (tensile failure), the
so-called cavity zone.
The yellow line in Figure 11 shows cumulative sand
increasing with drawdown, and reaching ~13 bbl at the end.
We can now predict whether the well would have killed itself.
We do this by first calculating the drag force acting on a
typical sand grain,7 and then comparing it with the results of
Figure 12.
80
70
Upper Limit
60
Carrying Capacity (%)
50
y = 14.373x - 0.2952
40
30
20
10
0
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Drag Force
For the well of Figure 11, producing ~10 MMcfd, the drag
force is high, and the sand-carrying capacity is at the upper
limit of the plot in Figure 12 (i.e., 60% of sand by volume in
the well). About 12 bbl of sand would occupy a sand column
of only 426 ft in this 10,000 ft well. The extra hydrostatic
pressure due to this column of sand is only 316 psi. When
added to the gas column in the rest of the well (727 psi), we
get a total hydrostatic pressure of 1,043 psi. This could not kill
the well, since the BHP just inside the well is 3,700 psi
(depleted reservoir pressure minus drawdown). We estimate
that >100 bbl of sand would be needed to kill the well. Note
however, we have not investigated possible well self-kill by
bridging of sand in tubing, or by flow surging which can
increase friction pressure and thereby increase BHP.
Note that if the sand-carrying capacity were 30% instead
of 60%, the height of sand column would be twice as high, but
SPE 84499
10000.00
5
Formation Permeability (mD)
4.5
4
3.5
100.00
3
2.5
10.00
2
1.5
1.00
1
0.5
0.10
9750
0
9775
9800
9825
9850
9875
9900
9925
9950
9975
Steady-state sanding
The steady-state model is an empirical model that is based
upon extensive tests of sanding from cores in the laboratory
(Willson, et al.8). A non-dimensionalized approach is used to
combine and interpret laboratory sand production
experimental data. This includes a Loading Factor concept
that allows the derived sanding rate model to be consistent
with existing models for predicting the onset of sand
production. A Reynolds Number concept includes fluid
flow effects, and is well documented from perforation cleanup research. Lastly, an empirical water boost factor, which
accounts for the effects of water production, is corroborated
by field evidence.
10000
Then we have:
Sanding rate = f (Loading factor, Reynolds number, Water
boost factor)
When applied to field examples from sand producing wells,
the new model is seen to perform well when compared with
the measured data.
The model has been applied to predict continuous sanding
in an offshore field,8 and has led to the conclusion that sand
rates can be managed at surface, without sand control. This is
a huge economic advantage. Figure 13 shows the predicted
sand influx versus depth for well B/1 for the following
specified producing conditions: 29,690 bpd gross liquid
production; 77% water-cut; 592 psi drawdown and 265 psi
depletion. The overall predicted sand production for the entire
perforated interval is 119 lbs/day, equivalent to a sanding rate
of 4 pptb. Also shown in Figure 13 is the formation
permeability distribution. This correlates well with porosity
and inversely with formation strength (high permeability, low
strength). The figure shows that a high permeability streak
from 9927 ft to 9930 ft TVD.SS is predicted to produce 12 lbs
of sand per day, approximately 10% of the overall predicted
total. Therefore, if sand production rate and erosional
SPE 84499
9
A/3 Sand Cleanout April-July 01
Av-Sand (pptb)
5000
360
4000
320
3000
280
2000
240
1000
200
160
0
-1000
120
-2000
80
-3000
40
-4000
15300
0
15400
15500
15600
15700
15800
15900
16000
16100
16200
MD (ft)
GR.GAPI
Shutdowns
BHP (PSIG)
Oil Rate(STB/D)
Av-WHP(psi)
160
16,000
140
14,000
120
12,000
100
10,000
80
8,000
60
6,000
40
4,000
20
2,000
0
14-Apr-01
4-May-01
24-May-01
13-Jun-01
3-Jul-01
0
23-Jul-01
Date
Figure 15. Sand rate in pptb (second from top) and oil flowrate
(top curve) during transient sanding event
GR (GAPI)
CBHFP (psi)
[psi or STB/D]
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
4/9/2001 4/19/2001 4/29/2001 5/9/2001 5/19/2001 5/29/2001 6/8/2001 6/18/2001
Figure 16. Change in BHP with time during transient sand event
10
SPE 84499
80000
cum sand (lbs)
60000
transient predicted
40000
steady-state predicted
(2.13 pptb)
20000
40000
transient observed
steady-state
observed
for 1 pptb
0
0
30000
100
200
300
400
500
Days
prediction
20000
observation
10000
y = -0.016x3 - 2.0381x2 + 593.16x + 6887.7
R2 = 0.9216
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Days
SPE 84499
11
12
Nomenclature:
A
a poroelastic constant (a function of the Poissons
ratio and formation compressibility)
BHFP
bottomhole flowing pressure
BHP
bottomhole pressure
CDP
critical drawdown pressure at the start of
production
CBHFP critical bottomhole flowing pressure
CHC
cased hole completion
Pr
current average reservoir pressure
TWC
thick-walled cylinder strength
UCS
unconfined compressive strength
WHP
well head pressure
Greek
1 and 3 total principal major and minor stresses
y
the formation strength near the opening
References:
1. Ispas, I., Bray, R.A., Palmer, I.D., and Higgs, N.G.:
Prediction and Evaluation of Sanding and Casing
Deformation in a GOM Shelf Well, SPE/ISRM 78236
presented at the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference,
Irving, Texas, October 20-23, 2002.
2. Vaziri, H., Xiao, Y., and Palmer, I.D.: Assessment of
several sand prediction models with particular reference to
HPHT wells, SPE/ISRM 78235 presented at the,
SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference, Irving, TX,
October 20-23, 2002.
3. Weingarten, J.S. and Perkins, T.K.: Prediction of Sand
Production in Gas Wells: Methods and Gulf of Mexico
Case Studies, SPE 24797 presented at the 67th Annual
SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington
DC, October 4-7, 1992.
4. Vaziri, H., Barree, R., Xiao, Y., Palmer, I., and Kutas, M.:
What is the Magic of Water in Producing Sand?, SPE
77683 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition., San Antonio, TX, September 29 October
2, 2002.
5. Santarelli, F.J., Skomedal, E., Markestad, P., Berge H.I.,
Nasvig, H.: Sand Production on Water Injectors: Just
How Bad Can It Get?, SPE 47329 presented at the
SPE/ISRM Eurock 98, Trondheim, Norway, July 8-10,
1998.
6. Morita, N., Davis, E., and Whitebay, L. Guidelines for
Solving Sand Problems in Water Injection Wells, SPE
39436, pres. at SPE Intl. Symp. Formation Damage
Control, Lafayette, LA, Feb 18-19, 1998.
7. Tronvoll, J., Santarelli, F.J., Sanfilippo, F., and Dusseault,
M.B.: Sand Production Management for Seabed
Separation Systems, Report prep. for CoSWaSS
Consortium, Dec 1998.
8. Willson, S.M., Moschovidis, Z.A., Cameron, J.R., and
Palmer, I.D.: New Model for Predicting the Rate of Sand
Production, SPE/ISRM 78168, presented at the,
SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference, Irving, TX,
October 20-23, 2002.
SPE 84499
9. Palmer, I.D., McLennan, J.D., and Vaziri, H.H. CavityLike Completions in Weak Sands, SPE 58719, presented
at the International Symposium on Formation Damage
Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, February 23-24, 1999.
SPE 84499
13
field
gas/oil
field 1
field 2
field 3
field 4
field 5
field 6
field 7
gas
gas
oil
oil
gas
gas
oil
TVD
22000
15000
9400
10050
13150
17000
8315
initial
Po
15800
15000
4100
4910
5750
14500
3400
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
sand
observed?
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
CBHFP ratio
pred/observed
3.72 lower limit
1.94
-1.45 lower limit
1.83
0.93
1.33
-0.456