Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/ISRM Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or
International Society of Rock Mechanics and are subject to correction by the author(s). The
material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, International Society of Rock Mechanics, its officers, or members. Papers
presented at SPE/ISRM meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of
the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part
of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more
than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
An engineering analytical model for sand mass prediction is
presented. The model is based on a sand production function
with parameters correlated to the uniaxial compressive
strength of the formation. The model is used for the prediction
of sand production in an inclined perforated well in the North
Sea.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference held
in Irving, Texas, 20-23 October 2002.
Introduction
Hydrocarbon production increases if the zero sand production
criterion is relaxed and sand production is allowed. The
benefits of the increased production need of course not to
outweigh the negative consequences of sand production such
as risk of well failure, erosion of pipelines and surface
facilities, and sand separation and disposal. A proper
assessment is thus required where the knowledge of the mass
and rate of sand production is necessary. Experimental studies
for volumetric sand measurements in different sandstones,
model development and theoretical and numerical analysis has
lead to the development of some prediction models for sand
production. For heavy oil reservoirs a volumetric sand model
has been proposed by Geilikman et al. [1] to predict the
amount of sand as a function of the changes in drawdown over
time. For conventional reservoirs, a hydrodynamic erosion
model was proposed by Vardoulakis et al. [2]. The model was
subsequently coupled with the mechanical behavior and
failure of an elastic or elastoplastic formation [3],[4],[5]. For a
wellbore with perforations, a hydrodynamic only analysis
shows how sand is produced around the perforation tunnels
[6].
However, for complicated perforation geometries in a
variety of formations, the numerical sand production models
k 2 ri H
.............................................................. (2)
E. PAPAMICHOS
as = as ( s ) ................................................................... (4)
1.8
55
1.6
53
49
47
0.8
45
0.6
43
Model
0.4
0.2
41
39
37
0
5000
10000
xo + yo
( xo yo ) cos 2
2
c = Max
x + y
(1 2 )
+ 1
51
External stress
1.2
+ 1
External stress
Sand production
1.4
SPE/ISRM 78166
15000
Time
... (5)
pdd
2 (1 )
where xo, yo, xyo are the original in situ total stresses
expressed in the cartesian coordinate system of the deviated
wellbore where the z-axis is parallel to the wellbore, the y-axis
horizontal and the x-axis parallel to the lowermost radial
direction of the wellbore [9]. The expression in the brackets
varies with the angle around the wellbore (measured
anticlockwise with respect to the x-axis). The maximum with
respect to corresponds to the most critical location for sand
production. The drawdown term in Eq.(5) assumes radial flow
towards the wellbore.
The stresses xo, yo, xyo may be expressed in terms of the
initial in situ total vertical, major horizontal, and minor
horizontal stresses vo, Ho, ho, respectively, as follows1
xo = l xH Ho + l xh ho + l xv vo
2
yo = l yH Ho + l yh ho
2
70
60
40
30
y = 6.0841x0.6346
R2 = 0.9583
20
10
0
0
10
........................................... (6)
xyo = l xH l yH Ho + l xh l yh ho
Cavity failure
50
15
20
25
30
35
SPE/ISRM 78166
l yH = sin ( azim )
l xh = sin ( azim ) cos ( dev ) ............................................. (7)
l yh = cos ( azim )
l xv = sin ( dev )
x =
xo x
= l xH H + l xh h + l xv v
2
pdep
yo y
y =
xyo xy
xy =
= l yH H + l yh h
pdep
pdep
........................... (8)
= l xH l yH H + l xh l yh h
Ho H
H =
h =
v =
pdep
ho h
pdep
.............................................................. (9)
vo v
pdep
H = h =
(1 2 )
1
v = 0 ........................... (10)
pdd
rw ln ( re rw )
....................................................... (11)
dpc =
[ (L
rp n p L p ln re
pdd
p
+ rw ) + 0.5 f D
rp L p
............. (12)
a1 [m ]
-2
a2 [m ]
a3 [ - ]
-1
a4 [m ]
a5 [m]
a6 [ - ]
Spiral 180
0.38963
-0.29051
-0.06444
-1.489
0.017
1.0755
Perforation pattern
Spiral 120
Plane 90
0.20641
0.098111
0.318
2.396
-0.01426
0.040256
-1.4353
-2.6614
0.007037
-0.00394
0.96742
1.1023
Strip 0
-0.03383
2.0171
0.19944
-2.3301
0.063381
0.9629
E. PAPAMICHOS
Field case
The Volumetric Sand Production model has been calibrated
against laboratory experiment data, both from outcrops and
reservoirs. In order to test the model in predicting sand
production in the field, relevant formation and production data
were collected for a North Sea reservoir, such as
Borehole dimension and orientation, and perforation
dimensions, spacing and phasing.
Formation properties of perforated sections (in the form
of logs), such as strength (e.g. UCS), permeability,
porosity, fluid viscosity.
In situ total horizontal and vertical stresses and their
dependence on reservoir depletion, and reservoir pressure.
Production history, i.e. depletion and drawdown over
time.
Two wells were analyzed. Well A was logged after drilling
and then it was put into production. No core was taken. Well
B, an analogue to production well A, was a vertical
exploration well where a core was taken. The sand production
test in Figure 1 was on core from this well.
SPE/ISRM 78166
MD
[m]
5368 - 5374
TVD
[m]
2672.63 - 2676.05
Average TVD
[m]
2674.34
Perforation
length [m]
6
Max porosity
[-]
0.30
5383 -5395
2681.16 - 2687.96
2684.56
12
0.28
2055.3
0.23
6.82
5402 - 5404
2691.95 - 2693.07
2692.50
0.17
6.1
0.33
31.2
5408 -5420
2695.34 - 2702.17
2698.75
12
0.28
2055.3
0.25
6.49
5428.5 -5432.5
2706.98 - 2709.25
2708.12
0.20
29.3
0.31
18.6
5466 -5490
2728.27 - 2741.90
2735.09
24
0.26
706.2
0.24
6.27
5494 -5501.5
2744.17 - 2748.43
2746.30
7.5
0.28
2055.3
0.22
5.46
Total
67.5
Max permeability
Median
[mD
Poissons ratio
6007.3
0.28
Min UCS
[MPa]
8.35
SPE/ISRM 78166
Porosity Log
Porosity max
only).
Porosity Log
Formation boundary
0.1
0.2
0.3
0
2670
0.1
0.2
0.3
2675
2680
2700
2690
2725
TVD [m]
TVD [m]
2700
2710
2720
2750
2730
2775
2740
2750
2800
Well A
Well B
UCS LMP
Formation boundary
UCS min
UCS LMP
Formation boundary
UCS [MPa]
0
10
20
30
40
UCS Core
UCS [MPa]
50
0
2670
10
20
30
40
50
2675
2680
2700
2690
2725
TVD [m]
TVD [m]
2700
2710
2720
2750
2730
2775
2740
2750
Well A
2800
Well B
E. PAPAMICHOS
10000
10
20
30
40
50
60
2670
2680
2690
Vertical stress
Pore pressure
Perf intervals
SPE/ISRM 78166
1000
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
2700
TVD [m]
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Porosity
2710
0.3
0.35
Well B
10000
Pres
2730
2740
2750
Well A
2720
1000
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
0
Vertical
Horizontal
Formation boundary
Permeability [md]
0.01
2675
0.1
10
100
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Porosity
0.25
0.3
0.35
Well B
1000 10000
2700
TVD [m]
2725
2750
2775
2800
Well B
Drawdown
0.6
Depletion
0.5
0.4
6
5
0.3
0.2
0
0
20000
40000
60000
Perf interval 2
Perf interval 7
200
150
100
50
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
(a)
Perf interval 1
Perf interval 6
0.2
Perf interval 2
Perf interval 7
Perf interval 4
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
(b)
Perf interval 1
Perf interval 6
0.016
Perf interval 2
Perf interval 7
Perf interval 4
0.015
0.014
0.013
0.012
0.011
0.01
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.1
Perf interval 1
Perf interval 6
7
Depletion [MPa]
Drawdown [MPa]
Well
Perf interval 4
250
SPE/ISRM 78166
0
80000
Time [h]
0.006
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
(c)
Figure 9. (a) Maximum sand production, (b) Maximum sand rate,
and (c) Maximum perforation radius vs. perforation deviation w.r.t.
vertical for the entire well A and for each of the five sand
producing perforation intervals. Intervals 3 and 5 do not produce
sand.
E. PAPAMICHOS
Perf interval 1
Perf interval 6
Perf interval 2
Perf interval 7
Perf interval 4
Perf deviation
50
45
70000
Sand production [kg]
80000
SPE/ISRM 78166
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
90 deg
40
35
30
60 deg
25
20
15
45 deg
10
10000
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
35 deg
0
90
20000
40000
60000
80000
Time [h]
(a)
0.002
Perf interval 2
Perf interval 7
Perf interval 4
0.0018
Perf interval 1
Perf interval 6
8
7
6
5
0.0016
0.0014
0.0012
Perf deviation
0.001
0.0008
90 deg
0.0006
60 deg
45 deg
0.0004
0.0002
35 deg
20000
40000
60000
80000
Time [h]
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Conclusions
The results show that well deviation and perforation pattern
can delay the onset of sand production and reduce
substantially the sand rate and cumulative produced sand. The
fluid flow flux into the perforations affects significantly the
sand rate and sand production and accurate estimates from
reservoir simulations have to be used for correct predictions.
Sand production may decrease due to the enlargement of the
perforations and the resulting reduced pressure gradients.
The sand mass prediction model can be applied for the
estimation of the cumulative amount of produced sand and the
sand rate over the life of a well. Parametric studies can also be
performed to optimize the production strategy (drawdown and
depletion), well and/or perforation orientation, selective
perforation, etc. The models estimates may also be used as
input to sand transport and erosion models for the calculation
of sand transport in horizontal wells and pipelines and erosion
of pipes and other facilities.
(b)
Figure 12. (a) Sand production and (b) sand rate for various
perforation deviations w.r.t. vertical vs. time for perforation
interval 4 (5408-5420 MD).
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Nils Kgesson-Loe of Norsk
Hydro for supplying information about reservoir and
production data. The sponsors of the joint industry project
Volumetric Sand Production at Sintef Petroleum Research,
Conoco Norway, Shell International Exploration &
Production, Norsk Hydro and Statoil are recognized for
supporting this research.
Nomenclature
a1 to a6= calibration constants in Eq. (13)
as = calibration parameter in Eq. (1)
a = calibration constant in Eq. (3), (m/Lt2)-b
azim = azimuth angle of Ho, , deg
b = calibration constant in Eq. (3),
dev = wellbore deviation from vertical, , deg
dpc = pore pressure gradient at the cavity, 1/Lt2
SPE/ISRM 78166
References
1. Geilikman MB, Dusseault MB, Dullien FA: Fluid production
enhancement by exploiting sand production, paper SPE 27820
presented at the 1994 SPE/DOE Ninth Symposium on Improved
Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 17-20 April.
2. Vardoulakis I, Stavropoulou M, Papanastasiou P:
Hydromechanical aspects of the sand production problem,
Transport in Porous Media (1996) 22, 225-244.
3. Stavropoulou M, Papanastasiou P, Vardoulakis I: Coupled
wellbore erosion and stability analysis, Int. J. Num. Anal.
Methods Geomech. (1998) 22, 749-769.
4. Papamichos E, Malmanger EM: A sand erosion model for
volumetric sand predictions in a North Sea reservoir, SPE
69841, SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, (Feb. 2001),
44-50.
5. Papamichos E, Vardoulakis I, Tronvoll J, Skjrstein A:
Volumetric sand production model and experiment, Int. J.
Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. (2001) 25, 8, 789-808.
6. Wan RG, Wang J: Analysis of sand production in
unconsolidated oil sand using a coupled erosional-stressdeformation model, presented at the 2001 Canadian
International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada,
June 10-12, Paper #2001-49.
7. Tronvoll J, Papamichos E, Skjrstein A, Sanfilippo F: Sand
production in ultra-weak sandstones: Is sand control absolutely
necessary? SPE 39042, presented at the 1997 5th Latin
American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference
and Exhibition, Rio de Janeiro.
8. Kessler N, Wang Y, Santarelli FJ: A simplified pseudo 3D
model to evaluate sand production risk in deviated cased holes,
SPE 26541, presented at the 1993 68th Annual Technical Conf.
And Exhibition of the SPE, Houston.
9. Erling F, Holt RM, Horsrud P, Raaen AM, Risnes R: Petroleum
related rock mechanics, Developments in Petroleum Science,
33, Elsevier (1992).
10. Saleh AM, Stewart G: New approach towards understanding of
near well bore behaviour of perforated completions, SPE
36866, presented at the 1996 SPE European Petroleum
Conference, Milan, Italy, 447-464.