*

Managing extreme sand production in subsea wells

J. Tovar and S. Haider, Innovative Engineering Systems Global, M. Travis and N. MacLean*, Centrica Energy Upstream, I. Laing, Wood Group Engineering Abstract The Chestnut field in the Central North Sea is operated by Centrica Energy Upstream and located in 340 feet of water. It produces from the Nauchlan sand, a weak, high permeability sandstone reservoir with similar characteristics to those found in the nearby block. The field produces hydrocarbons from two subsea wells; a horizontal and a deviated producer, both completed open hole with sand control equipment.

the chosen strategy that covers all the aspects of the sand management process is described in detail. Sand and hydrocarbons production, monitoring, well and system integrity, flow assurance, separation, removal and disposal of the produced sand is also described. Introduction Chestnut field was developed with active sand control producing to the Hummingbird FPSO, a Sevan 300 new generation FPSO (shown in photograph 1). Preparation or contingency was integrated into plant and platform design to deal with sand production but was limited to elevated separators with valving, pipework and nozzles installed to enable flushing and cleaning of the vessels whilst in production. Most completion failures tend to occur as a result of plugging and erosion of the filter media. As a result, sand volumes tend to be incremental giving some time to assess the situation and identify the problem. Catastrophic completion failure such as in well P2 is a sudden event that induces production processes to behave in an erratic and unexpected manner. Changes in pressures (pipeline and plant), erratic flow patterns and inefficient separation are some of the immediate events associated with the initiation of sand production in the Chestnut field. In specific conditions such as fields with high GOR, condensate or gas fields a failure of this type means immediate closure of the well before the integrity of the flowline, equipment and process can be compromised. A brief description of subsea equipment layout and plant specifications is presented in the following paragraphs. Reservoir and well completion characteristics were documented in detail in an earlier publication. Subsea infra-structure and equipment All wells are subsea therefore; a number of subsea systems are used to produce/inject/control fluids and hydrocarbons. The original well P1 is the closest to the FPSO with the injector (I1) and second producer (P2) connected to the main subsea manifold via trenched and backfilled lines. Control functions are provided by two umbilicals: one reaching P1 and the second one to the injector and second producer. A 3000 umbilical extension connects the injector to the P2 producer. 1 and 2 Gas lift lines are provided to both producers and are currently used for start up duties if required. Subsea system characteristics and specifications are presented in table 2.

Photograph 1 Sevan Hummingbird FPSO in block 22/2a

An open hole injector, also completed with sand control equipment, provides means of reservoir pressure support. Well P1 successfully started production in September 2008, with the second producer and injector brought on line early in 2009. The second producer P2 is located 2 miles away from the production facility and hydrocarbons are produced via a 6 flow line into a single train processing plant at Hummingbird, the floating production and storage facility. Well P2 suffered a catastrophic sand face completion failure and started producing sand after less than a week in production. This paper presents our experience in successfully managing the sand face completion failure and the resulting sand production problem, from the time it occurred until present. The process of tackling the problems caused by the failure started with the formation of a highly experienced team that could provide engineering, operating and management skills to successfully solve the various challenges of producing, transporting, processing and disposing of large volumes of sand from subsea wells. Development and implementation of

* Now at Ithaca Energy

2010 Sand Management Forum

Process and plant Figure 1 illustrates the plant and process; the main component of the plant and processing facilities at Hummingbird is the separation system. The first stage separator is a 3 phase horizontal separator with a submerged weir design, operating at 9 barg. Most of the gas is routed to flare with a side stream taken off for fuel. Produced water is routed to the produced water treatment plant (hydrocyclone, induced gas flotation unit and coalescing filters). Oil is routed to the second stage separator via interstage heaters. The separator has internal jetting nozzles installed for sand removal. The second stage separator is of similar design to the first stage and operates at 1.5 barg. Gas is routed to flare, produced water is returned to the first stage separator and oil is routed to the cargo tanks via coolers to drop the temperature before storage. The second stage separator also has internal sand jetting nozzles. Instrumentation and measuring systems The wells and process at Chestnut are instrumented both subsea and at surface. Downhole pressure, temperature and flow sensors are located in the two (2) production wells while pressure and temperature sensors have been installed in the injector. Pressure sensors at the trees and manifolds are also installed subsea. The schematic presented in figure 2 illustrates the different sensors installed for well P2 and flowline systems. Two level indicators in the separators are provided by differential pressure (dP) cells. Each level instrument has two pressure transmitters, one located near the bottom of the vessel and one near the top. The difference in pressure between the two cells is used to calculate the level of liquid in the vessel. On the Hummingbird separators, the nozzle connections for the bottom pressure transmitters come right off the bottom of the vessel, which makes them susceptible to blockage by sand. Remote access to all this data is carried out via the ProcessNET onshore monitoring system. Chestnut sand management strategy Upon identification of the main consequences of the problem, a management team was formed composed of specialists from both operator and contractors with experience related to the fields infra-structure (trees, flowlines and process plant), reservoir and well systems. The following table 1 illustrates the initial objectives for the strategies developed.
Table 1 Sand Management strategy (1/04/09)

the failure. Three (3) key objectives formed part of each of the strategies developed; Maintain systems integrity Maintain and maximise productivity, Minimise overall sand production cost per barrel.

Sand face completion performance The second producer (P2) and the injector (I1) were completed using expandable sand screens (ESS). Design and installation was described in detail in a previous publication (Tovar J. 2008). For P2, the installation of the ESS was completed with very few problems. A depth control issue with the expansion assembly occurred resulting in the expansion tool being activated half way into the expandable screen. This was identified and corrected, the rest of the ESS installation concluded without further problems. Scaling is predicted to be an issue in the Chestnut field; therefore all wells are scheduled to be regularly treated. For P2 during the first treatment, a large number of pressure cycles were applied to the sand face completion to achieve injection of a pre-emptive squeeze treatment at the end of the completion phase. Eventually, the formation was thermally fractured and the treatment completed. Figure 4 illustrates the temperature and pressure cycling effect on the completion and the reservoir. The well was then successfully flow tested to the rig, without apparent sand production, and a skin of 7 determined prior to start of full production. However, shortly after the well started producing to the FPSO, it was clear that it was producing significant quantities of sand and that the ESS had failed. Failure diagnosis ESSs failure was investigated in detail by both, operator and vendor. It was concluded that a number of events contributed to the failure. The premature activation of the expansion tool and further pressure/ temperature cycling during the scale inhibitor treatment are considered to be the main factors weakening the base pipe of the screen, many elongation and contraction cycles as a result of thermal changes while attempting to inject scale inhibitor occurred. Failure occurred in our view during the start up of production (cleanup) of the well as a result of the pressure drops applied across the weakened screens base pipe. Produced sand samples taken were tested in the laboratory to compare them with existing reservoir grain size data and models. Figure 5 illustrates PSD results from collected samples plotted against the original results from LDA test used to design the filter media and select the sand control equipment. Two (2) independent verification processes for grain sizing were carried out as produced sand samples were supplied to an independent laboratory and to the expandable sand screen vendor. Photograph 2 illustrates a produced sand sample from the first stage separator. Darker grains and clusters are considered to be decanted or flocculated sand (including other minerals) grains.

PERIOD
Short term Medium term Long term

DURATION
30 days [60 80] days Life of the field

OBJECTIVES
Determine severity of the problem, identify tools and resources Carry out SFRT, develop guidelines for safe operation until intervention Manage sand production without compromising system integrity

Short and medium term strategies were developed to deal with the problem immediately and to identify ways to overcome or correct the problem in the long term. The flow diagram presented in figure 3 illustrates the main steps for the shortterm strategy. The medium term plan considered that a rig would have to be brought in to intervene or re-complete the well, most likely during the 6 months after the occurrence of

2010 Sand Management Forum

these options a temporary chemical sand mitigation technique and the use of stand-alone screens were considered. Extensive laboratory tests were carried out to qualify the chemical mitigation technique. Cost, track record and uncertainties related to the possible wellbore status ruled out any intervention for remedial purposes. Re-completion using a drilling rig was then evaluated as the remaining option for the well P2. Two (2) main factors influenced the decision to go for sand management through the life of the field. The high cost associated with a rig-based re-completion along with the success obtained at this point in managing the produced sand. Very high sand production rates (larger than 400 pptb) were successfully managed in the first 5 months of the process. Long term sand management Currently, estimated hydrocarbons in place and reservoir properties indicate that the economic case for drilling additional wells is limited. Increasing water production, pore pressure maintenance and reservoir mechanical performance all indicate what the future challenges are going to be. Under these conditions, a sand management strategy for the life of the field will optimise the production and recovery from the field in the most efficient way. In addition to the work already carried out, engineering studies to understand the expected reservoir mechanical performance as a result of pore pressure changes were undertaken. Pore pressure maintenance The results from these studies indicate that provided pore pressure does not deplete more than 350 psi (Po > 2740 psi), current reservoir mechanical integrity will remain until the end of the life of the field. Pore pressure maintenance then became one of the key parameters to successfully managing sand production and maximizes hydrocarbon recovery. A mechanically failed reservoir can lead to reduced porosity/permeability as a result of pore system collapse not only at the near wellbore but throughout the field. Figure 7 illustrates Chestnuts latest reservoir mechanical integrity in terms of porosity changes for pore pressures (Po 2800 psi). The main result from this analysis is the decision to manage and maximize water injection through the life of the field. Reservoir mechanical integrity is monitored through the injectors well performance as illustrated in figure 8. Sand production Sand production rates and volumes have varied dramatically during the first 11 months of production. Of particular importance is the somewhat unexpected decrease from the initial rates 300 480 pptb to current rates that vary between 20 40 pptb. In weak sandstones such as the Nauchlan reservoir this tends to be atypical. However, further investigation of the issue indicates that of the two (2) main requirements (San Filipo F. 1998, Kessler N. 1994) for sand production to occur; only one (rock mechanical failure) is being met under current operational conditions. The second requirement related to the drag forces generated by fluid production is not occurring due to the localized enlargement and dilatancy of the near wellbore that has resulted in an

Photograph 2 Produced sand sample (17/04/09)

Short term sand management A review of the available data was carried out in order to determine the severity of the problem and the resources available (access to data, contractors availability, etc.) to implement a sand management strategy. On the basis of the teams findings, it was concluded that a sequential flow rate test SFRT was the next main step in the process. Additional actions such as erosion monitoring were also identified and a process initiated to implement an erosion measurement program. Medium term sand management The first stage separator was then cleaned for the first time and the process prepared for the SFRT. Field production systems were divided into three (3) areas; reservoir/wells, subsea infrastructure and surface process/plant. Tools to monitor system performance were identified or developed. An inventory of the sensors available in each area was made and the reliability and criticality of each, to the management process, was determined. A complete system performance model was developed using NODAL analysis software. The model was successfully validated with production data. Figure 6 illustrates the layout of the subsea and surface network nodes used to determine parameters such as rates, pressures and gas volumes for any particular set of operating conditions. Sequential flow rate test Detailed test guidelines, well and plant limits are presented in table 3 to illustrate the proposed steps to test P2. The test was completed successfully and based on the results, four (4) main parameters were selected as the key indicators for managing the process; these being flow rate, drawdown, water oil ratio (WOR) and pore pressure. Procedures and guidelines for the two (2) production wells were then developed. Operational implementation of the strategy was concentrated on maximizing production and safely dealing with transport, separation and disposal of the produced sand. Sampling and testing programs of produced sand and fluids were also implemented. The medium term strategy was conceived to allow safe production until additional engineering studies and a review of the options available were carried out. In addition to sand management, two (2) other options were investigated in detail; rig-based and vessel-based intervention. For both of

2010 Sand Management Forum

increased flow area. This has led to a reduction of the drag forces that mobilise sand grains into the wellbore. Flow at the wellbore is expected to occur through the failed section of the ESS therefore, it is localized, the screen sections above and below the failure point might be intact providing some support to the formation. Another beneficial factor is that P2 currently produces dry oil allowing cohesion between the sand grains to keep the failed material together. With a view to determining what the borehole condition might be, an analogy with cavity completions (Palmer I. 2000) can be made as illustrated in figure 9. A localized radial enlargement of the borehole is generated by the production of sand; this is much larger and can reach a few feet in extension. Sand transport All produced sand particles are transported through the wellbore and the tubing string. Two (2) main factors contribute to this; the viscosity of Chestnuts crude (5 Cp) and the upper completion configuration (4 tubing). Continuous shut-in and start-up of P2 has been carried out without any indication of wellbore filling or sand deposition in the well. However, due to the changes in cross sectional area in the flowline and risers, transport and lifting is much less efficient and it is estimated that moderate volumes of sand have settled in the 6 flowline. Current production rates from P2 are low which do not contribute to effective solids transport despite the increase in viscosity resulting from the cooling effect at the seabed. It is estimated from pressure drop data across the P2 flowline that as much as 5 MT of sand might have been deposited. Downstream from the manifold the situation improves dramatically as production from well P1 (>10000 bfpd) enters the system ensuring efficient sand transport and lifting through the riser up to the first stage separator. Transient high sensor noise is detected every time P1 is started up indicating settling of sand in the manifold and flexible riser. Flow assurance and system mechanical integrity Two (2) parameters are key to the flow assurance and system integrity evaluation of Chestnuts sand management process. These are erosion and inhibitor removal in the flowline. The systems (wells, flowline and plant) mechanical integrity was considered critical to the success of the sand management process, therefore measurement programs and erosion models were developed for each of the components. Surface erosion measurements are regularly taken and were used for validation of the analytical models. Under current conditions the estimated rate of metal loss on the critical components has stabilized and is very low throughout the system and will not compromise mechanical integrity of the plant. For the flowlines, manifold and riser four (4) common erosion algorithms were tried and compared with surface measurements for validation purposes.
Photograph 3 Ultrasonic image from 2, 1 separator drain
st

The API model (API RP 14a, 1989) proved to be more representative and consistent with the actual measured data, it can be illustrated by the following formula. E = 22.4 M x V2 / d2 (1)

Where E is the rate of erosion in mm per year, M is the sand production rate in gm/sec, V is the mixture velocity and d is the I.D. of the pipe. Erosion trends and rates are continuously monitored using the validated models; seven (7) plant inspection programs have already taken place since the start of sand production. Figures 10 and 11 illustrate the latest erosion rates for critical plant components and the flowline. Corrosion inhibitor removal in the flowline by the produced fluids and sand is a concern in the short term. Pipe corrosion below the deposited sand through the flowline is also a long term concern particularly when water production from P2 starts. Preliminary studies (Headridge B. 2009) indicate that for current conditions this is not occurring. Sand volumes quantification and separator cleaning A sand detection system was installed in the process but was never calibrated. Noise detection caused by sand production has been erratic and is unreliable for use as a consistent indicator or for determination of the sand volumes produced. Two (2) other measurements are used to quantify the continuous filling of the 1st stage separator; Thermal Images (TI) and actual measurements during vessel cleaning. A simple volumetric model was developed to estimate sand deposition level in the separator. Because the pressure transmitters are located at the bottom of the vessel, build up of sand volume in the separator starts to interfere with the pressure transmission and therefore level control. This is now considered as an early indication of the sand volumes deposited and is used to estimate the frequency at which cleaning of the separator might be required. Figure 12 illustrates the TI for the 1st stage separator prior to the first cleanout (10/05/2009).

2010 Sand Management Forum

Sand cleaning and removal 1st stage separator cleaning is carried out using commercially available technology. The system has two (2) main components which operate together in a loop; the jetting skid and the clean up skid. The jetting skid supplies high pressure produced water to the jetting nozzles fitted to the bottom of the separator. The high pressure produced water agitates the sand collected in the bottom of the vessel allowing transport of the fluidised sand to the clean up skid under vessel pressure. When the slurry reaches the clean up skid the sand is separated from the produced water using hydro cyclones (see photograph 4 below). The produced water is recycled to the jetting skid where is injected back into the vessel. The separated sand is dropped into a washing tank where it is circulated with solvent until it is free of oil and once clean it is discharged overboard. The separator cleaning process is carried out in batches with around two tonnes of sand removed, cleaned and discharged in each cycle. The schematic presented in figure 13 illustrates the fluidizing component of the system.

the shutdowns that have occurred to date are as a result of sand production. Future sand management challenges for Chestnut One of the key challenges for continued success is pore pressure support and management. Production of reservoir or injection water at well P2 represents one of the biggest challenges for the sand management strategy during the life of the field. Water production is commonly associated with the removal of cohesion forces at the wellbore that allow the sand grains to be mobilised. It is estimated that for WORs larger than [8 15] %, massive sand production will occur again (Bianco L.C.B & Halleck P.M. 2001); perhaps up to levels at which sand management might not be feasible. Current reservoir simulations indicate that water will not be an issue in P2 until 2013. Balancing the production burden between both producing wells is underway and will require optimizing the current operating conditions in P2 and the system as a whole. Increased drawdown pressures will contribute to this objective however, at the risk of inducing water coning, higher sand production rates and compromising mechanical integrity of the flowline and process plant. This along with maintaining flow assurance and systems mechanical integrity will need to be changed in such a manner that field production can continue in an efficient, safe and profitable manner. Conclusions The current success in managing high rates and large volumes of produced sand in Chestnut field has been a learning process since the completion failure occurred in P2, the following lessons have been learned A sand management strategy is a continuous changing process that requires operators commitment and operational/technical skills. Applying sand management through the life of the field was not the original plan for Chestnut but initially conceived as a short term strategy. Chestnut has a number of features that have allowed a sand management strategy to be successfully implemented. The crudes rheological properties and adequate instrumentation/control systems have contributed significantly to the success so far. Pore pressure support and reservoir mechanical integrity are critical to this success. Reduction in the near wellbore effective stresses and a larger flow area has contributed to a dramatic drop in sand production rates. This would have been impossible under straight pore pressure depletion. A critical component of the strategy is the team and its facts based decision process. This and its integration with the offshore side of operations contributed greatly to the current success.

Photograph 4 Hydro cyclone being cleaned (Courtesy of RBG)

Field performance to date Reservoir and well performance in Chestnut is meeting the production targets albeit with the larger contribution coming from well P1 for the time being. Effective sand management has contributed almost a million barrels of dry oil and over 30 MT of sand from the P2 well. Once control of the various systems was achieved in terms of flow assurance, mechanical integrity and productivity; a production optimization process was initiated to maintain or improve the production targets set. This optimization is being carried out by switching the production burden from P1 to P2, to ensure that no further loss of pore pressure occurs that might compromise reservoirs mechanical integrity. Table 4 and Figure 14 details the field performance to date. A current constraint to production performance is the risk of loss of pore pressure as a result of limited water injection capacity. Wells up time so far is > 80% indicating very high well availability to production. None of

2010 Sand Management Forum

Communication and detailed review/discussion of every issue associated with reservoir, well and system performance has been a key to the process. Sand volumes of over 400 pptb were managed for large periods of time without compromising systems integrity or productivity. Robust, validated models and analytical tools were developed to predict well and system performance. These proved to be invaluable to the sand management process. In terms of sand face completion design, a number of changes to improve QA/QC during installation need to be implemented to avoid similar problems. However, if new wells were to be drilled in Chestnut a similar method and filter media selection process would still be recommended. Instrumentation and sensors performance is a critical issue in any sand management programme, as calibration, malfunction and reliability will vary over the life of the project. We concluded that provided pore pressure support is increased and water production avoided/minimised for P2, the sand management process can be successful until the end of the fields life.

5. American Petroleum Institute (API): API RP 14E: 1991

recommended practice for design and installation of offshore production platform piping systems. 5th Edition, 1991 6. Innovative Engineering Systems Ltd.: Sand management, Course manual, 2006, Aberdeen,UK. 7. Bianco L.C.B & Halleck P.M. Mechanisms of Arch Instability and Sand Production in Two-Phase Saturated Poorly Consolidated Sandstones, SPE European Formation Damage Conference, 21-22 May 2001, The Hague, Netherlands 8. Headridge B.: Erosion Review, Chestnut Field, Internal report, 2009, Aberdeen, UK

Abbreviations FPSO API TI RIH GOR TVDSS DHPT TIF bbls bopd ppg pptb psi psi/ft ft/hr scf/stb gpm barg WOR SFRT PSD LDA ESS QA QC Floating production and storage vessel American Petroleum Institute Thermal images Run in the hole Gas-oil ratio True vertical depth sub-sea Downhole pressure and temperature Thermal induced fracturing Barrels Barrels of oil per day Pounds per gallon Pounds per thousand barrels Pounds per square inch Pounds per square inch per foot Feet per hour Standard cubic feet per standard reservoir barrel Gallons per minute Bar at atmospheric pressure Water oil ratio Sequential flow rate test Particle Size Distribution Laser Diffraction Analysis Expandable Sand Screen Quality assurance Quality control

Acknowledgements We would like to thank management at Centrica Energy Upstream and Chestnut partners Dana Petroleum and Atlantic Petroleum, to Wood Group Engineering and Innovative Engineering Systems for permission to publish this paper. Also our thanks to all the contractors (Sevan, Champion, SMS, RBG, Axess) and particularly to the Hummingbird personnel that diligently and efficiently have embraced the challenges of managing the produced sand and contributed to the continuous success of these operations. References
1. 2. Tovar J.: An expandable sand face completion for a multifunction well Chestnut field, Block 22/2a, paper presented at the 2008 Sand Management Forum, Aberdeen, Scotland. Sanfilippo F, Brignoli M., Giacci D., Santarelli F.: Sand Production: From prediction to Management, SPE paper 38185 presented at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference, June 1997, The Hague, The Netherlands. Kessler N., Wang Y., Santarelli F.: A simplified Pseudo 3D model to evaluate sand production risk in deviated cased holes, SPE paper presented at the SPE ATCE in 1993, Houston, TX, USA. Palmer I., McLennan J. Vaziri H.: Cavity-like completions in weak sands, SPE paper 58719 presented at the SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, February 2000, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA.

Table 2 Subsea equipment characteristics

WELL
P1 P2

FLOWLINE
6, 0.0125 miles w/1 gas lift flexible line 6, 2.5 miles w/1 gas lift flexible line 8, 1.5 miles w/2 gas lift flexible line

UMBILICAL

6 flexible riser

3.

I1

8 flexible riser, additional 0.5 miles from 16Y

4.

2010 Sand Management Forum

Figure 1 Plant and Process at Hummingbird

Figure 2 P2 Process Schematic

2010 Sand Management Forum

Figure 3 Short-term Management Strategy (04/09)

Figure 4 P2 Temperature & Pressure Cycling during inhibitor injection

Figure 5 PSDs from collected samples & core material

2010 Sand Management Forum

P2

P1

Figure 6 Subsea & surface network for NODAL analysis

Table 3 Proposed steps for SFRT

10

2010 Sand Management Forum

Figure 7 Field porosity changes as a result of depletion

Figure 8 I1 well performance

Figure 9 Localized enlargement of wellbore (Palmer I, 2000)

2010 Sand Management Forum

11

Figure 10 Process piping wall thickness results

Figure 11 Flowline erosion integrity

Sand Levels

Figure 12 TI Image of 1 stage separator before a cleanout

st

12

2010 Sand Management Forum

Figure 13 Schematic of the Fluidizing component of the sand washing system(Courtesy of RBG)

Figure 14 Sand Management Profile

Table 4 Estimated Field Performance (09/02/2010)