SPE 153541

Geomechanics Applied to Perforating Design: One Solution to Reduce the

Sand Production Risk
Y. Quintero, M. Jaimes, Ecopetrol S.A., D. Martin, G. Rivera, Natfrac
Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Mexico City, Mexico, 1618 April 2012.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
One of the main causes of sand production is the rock faulting, situation that is given by the stress condition, pressure and
mechanical properties that is applied. We use geomechanical criteria for the design of gunfire (density, diameter, penetration,
phase and drop pressure for cleaning, etc.). It is possible to generate stable conditions that reduce the risk of the rock failure.
Therefore, identified some geomechanical criteria to determine areas of highest stress contrasts, which can accelerate the rock
failure, areas with increases in stresses for proximity effect between canyons, among others, must be taken into account in the
perforating operations in areas susceptible to sand production, in order to reduce the risk of the rock failure and start early
sand production. With the aid of geomechanical models and these criteria it is possible elaborate a methodology for optimal
perforating design.
Introduction
The costs associated with sand production can become so critical that the wells are unproductive and even the oil fields. To
reduce the impact of this problem and make profitable assets, it is necessary to delay the sand production, with completion
design line up for that purpose. One alternative to understand the behavior of this process in the rock and to predict their
occurrence is the analysis of reservoir geomechanical behavior, and how different perturbations generated during the
completion and production of the well, affects the sand production.
In general, sand production occurs mainly by three mechanisms, the first one is the shear failure, the second one is the tensile
failure and the last one are the drag forces of fluids, this paper show the analysis for the shear failure. The increase of
perforation density in the completion of the well generally is used to maximize the flow area, this practice is oriented to
reduce the drag forces, and however, the application of this criterion does not take into account the disruption that causes
each additional hole in the rock.
During the development of this methodology various aspects related to the characteristics of well completion are reviewed,
geomechanical variables of the rock, selective perforating, optimal orientation and tool design (distance between shots,
housing size and underbalanced optimum for cleaning the perforations). The analysis of these variables is oriented to reduce
the risk of rock failure caused by inappropriate practices in the perforating operations.
Geomechanical Stability
Determining the degree of stability of each interval is important, because with this, you can know the limitations of the well
and if apply conventional or oriented perforating. For this evaluation, we estimate mechanical property and stress profiles
with information from electric logs and correlations found in literature for weak rocks, the fig. 1 shows the profiles obtained
for this analysis.

SPE 153541

POISSON

(psi/ft)

(PSI)

YM (PSI)

2000000

STRESS

UCS

YOUNG'S MODULUS
1000

4000000

2000

3000

0.15

6700

6000000

0.25

0.35

6700

0.5

0.7

0.9

6000

6700

6800

6800

6800
6500
6900

6900

6900

7000

7000

7100

7000

Depth (ft)

7100

Depth (ft)

Depth (ft)

Depth(ft)

7000

7100

7500
7200

7200

7200

7300

7300

7300
8000

7400

7400

7400
Min
Max
V

7500

8500

7500

7500

Fig. 1 Geomechanical data, Well A

With the mechanic and stress characterization, we used a failure model, in this case, model Mohr Coulomb. In the fig. 2
shows the maximum and minimun draw down pressure, these profile are estimate assuming that the maximum and minimum
stress contrast are oriented in the same direction of the in-situ horizontal stress for vertical well.

CRITICALDRAWDOWNPRESURE(PSI)

4500
4000
ACTUALDD

3500
MIN

3000
2500

MAX

2000
PERFORATIONS
TOP

1500
1000

PERFORATIONS
BASE

500
0
7400

7500

7600

7700
DEPTH(FT)

7800

7900

8000

Fig. 2 Minimal y maximum draw down pressure profiles

The purpose of this analysis is to identify the intervals of interest that can withstand a higher level of draw down (green
range), and which are more sensitive (red range) to identify the alternatives to be applied. In the case of the first interval,
taking into account the DDC magnitude (draw critical down), a conventional perforating would be a good option considering
that the difference between the optimal direction and critical is minimal. On the other side the second area, depending its
potential, you can opt for a selective perforating in this interval, since the conditions you wish to operate the well, even with
oriented tools not enough to prevent sand production, other option is oriented perforating to the minimal stress contrast and
reducing DD, which also punish the production of upper intervals.

Oriented perforating
The purpose of targeted perforating is to locate the gun in the direction under which the holes will generate the lowest
alteration in the rock, stay with the least effort possible contrast in cross-sectional area, and thus be more favorable to avoid

SPE 153541

the rock failure. This technique is very useful in cases where the difference between the minimum and maximum DDC is
considerable and the chances that a conventional perforating holes are generated in the unfavorable direction is considerable.
In the case of Fig. 1, could be applied oriented perforation in the red area, if the DD to apply is between 1200 and 1500 psi.
The procedure is to perform the evaluation of the geomechanical predictive model between maximum and minimum stress of
the system to determine the opening of the stable area (AZE) and the range in which the tool can be oriented. The AZE must
be sufficiently broad to ensure that the tool can be oriented in the optimal angle more easily, if AZE is minimal or null, it is
impossible to avoid sand production with this technology. The Fig. 3 shows schematically it was explained above.

Fig. 3 Selection scheme to completion

Perforating tool design

During the perforating operation, two geomechanic parameters are changed around hole, which are the stress distribution and
rock strength. The redistribution of stress in the vicinity of the well is caused by the absence of rock material in each of the
holes generated, where despite original stress conditions remain constant, near the edge of the hole it increases, due to the
load that was previously supported by the total rock, this must now be transmitted to the surrounding area of the hole. An
analogy for this situation is a beam that is sustained by a group of columns, if removed one column, the beam is still
weighing the same, this weight must be redistributed in the remaining columns, a greater proportion of this weight is
sustained by columns near where the missing column and lose this effect far away from it (Fig. 1).

Fig. 4 Schematic redistribution of stresses by perforation

In general, the optimal design of perforating tool is oriented in establish which is the minimum distance that must be located
each of the guns, so that the disturbance caused by a hole, does not come to affect the stability conditions of others. Fig. 5
shows the increasing of stress concentration to the extent that it reduces the distance between the shots, which can carry out
to rock failure. In this part comes into play the perforating density, phase and hole size for obtain the minimum optimal
distance.

SPE 153541

Fig. 5 Increase of stress with reduction of distance between holes. QMLSS 2004 @ PMI

It should be noted that since the geomechanical point of view, with less holes generated in the rock, the stability condition
will be better, however, the fluid drag forces increase due to reduced available flow area, so which must handle a balance
between least amount of shots and flow area to the optimal design in the completion tool.
The change of mechanical properties is mainly due to the impact generated by the detonating tool. As a consequence, we can
identify three different resistance areas , the first is the compacted rock, where there is material displaced by the effect of
bullet entry into the formation, which has lost much of its mechanical strength, porosity and permeability, the second zone is
weak rock, even if lost some of its mechanical strength, has better conditions than the compacted zone, and a final area
corresponding to the undamaged rock, where the physical properties of the material were not altered by the detonation. (Fig.
6).

Fig. 6 Change of rock mechanical properties after perforating operation

Theoretically, in the initial production of well, the cleaning draw down is enough to remove the compacted and weakened
rock, to reduce the damage created in the bullet hole. It is important to note than DDC data is the upper limit of cleaning draw
down, since a high pressure drop during the cleaning process can also induce the sand production.
The purpose of geomechanic analysis applied to completion, is identify which kind of perforating is better, whether
conventional or oriented. If the option is conventional perforating, it is necessary identify the optimum phase, density and
size of bullet, to reduce the risk of rock failure. Below, the application of the methodology to a well A, in the Middle
Magdalena Valley of Colombia is shown.

Field generalities
The Yarigui - Cantagallo field is located in the basin of Middle Magdalena Valley (Fig. 2), at a distance of approximately 20
km NNE of the city of Barrancabermeja and 290 km NNW of Bogota, between the departments of Santander and Bolivar,
more precisely on the banks of the Magdalena River in the municipality of Puerto Wilches. Yarigui-Cantagallo wells have
been declining production potential because of problems such as sand, water cut increases, depletion (evidenced by loss of
fluid level), asphaltene presence, formation damage and the low reliability of the electrical system that causes increase of
damage in the artificial lift system.

SPE 153541

Fig. 7 Middle Magdalena Valley ubication

In the well A, the stresses and mechanical properties data from electric logs were modeled. Fig. 8 shows the results of
predictive model for the interest sand. According to that was shown for the geomechanical model, it is viable the application
of conventional perforating, because the DDC curves are higher than the value of DD you need to work the well.

CRITICALDRAWDOWNPRESURE(PSI)

6000

5000

ACTUALDD

4000

MIN

3000

MAX

2000

PERFORATIONSTOP

1000

PERFORATIONS
BASE

0
7150

7200

7250

7300

7350
DEPTH(FT)

7400

7450

7500

7550

Fig. 8 Critical Draw Dow, Well A

Following is establishing the minimum distance between perforations to increase the chances that the stability conditions
presented in the model can be mainteined. To model the influence of distance, the data listed in Table 1 was used, that
represent P50 (fifty percentile) of each one of the mechanical properties of the rock and stresses in the area of interest.
Table 1 Geomechanical data for perforating design calaculations

TVD ft

7300

Poisson

0.28

AFI degree

29

Pore pressure psi

3300

Sv psi

7136

Shmin psi

5100

Shmax psi

5700

Co psi

1950

To start the analysis, the first step is to determine the real diameter of each hole in the formation according to the mechanical
rock strength and charge characteristics used in the perforating process, for which we used the SPAM software from
Schlumberger Company. It is important explain that the diameter requested in this analysis isn't the shot diameter, in that
point it is necessary to know the diameter of hole in the formation after of perforating operation. For the conditions of this
well the diameter estimated was 1.36 inches, Fig. 9.

SPE 153541

Fig. 9 Formation hole diameter. SPAM 2008 @ Schlumberger

Defined the approximate diameter that will have the hole, we proceed to determine the change of stress in function of the
reduction of distance between bullets, for this analysis was used QMLSS software, developed by PMI in the University of
Oklahoma, Fig. 10, show the increase the maximum effective stress, while the distance between holes is reduced.

9 inches

8 inches

5 inches

4 inches

Fig. 10 Increase of stress with reduction of distance between holes, Well A. QMLSS 2004 @ PMI

Specifically you can see in the first image , that the maximum stress in the face of the hole is approximately 11,000 psi, with
a distance of 9 inches between holes, this magnitude is changing with the reduction of distance, so that in the last image
shown the values upper to 15000 psi, when the distance is 4 inches, with this magnitude of change in the stresses, the risk of
rock faulting is higher compared with a situation without this effect, it is the reason because it is necessary to know the
optimal distance between bullets. The Fig. 11 shows how the failure geometry is not changed for distance higher than 5
inches, but when is less, the geometry of deformation change, and the failure is bigger.

SPE 153541

9 inches

5 inches

8 inches

4 inches

Fig. 11 Rock failure behavior with reduction of distance between holes. QMLSS 2004 @ PMI

In the case of the A well, the completion with liner of 7 inches, for obtain the optimal distance, the maximum number of
bullets per foot is 5 with a phase of 72 degrees, as show in fig. 12.

Fig 12 Optimal ubication scheme of bullets for sanding risk reduction.

Conclusions and Recommendations

1.

Using geomechanical analysis to establish the best configuration of completion for wells in sands susceptible to sand
production is of great importance, since the lack of knowledge of the proximity effect between holes can initiate or
increase the problem to the point of doing so impossible.

2.

It is important to note that if you want to maximize the time without sand production, it is good to increase the
distance between shots, because with the pressure decline, the stresses also increases, whereby is recommended take
it into account in the security margin of completion design.

3.

It is important to note that the decrease in the number of perforating holes in the producing zone increases the fluid
drag forces, making it necessary to make a balance between these two concepts for not induce the sand production.

4.

The location of the maximum and minimum stresses contrast points is particular depending of the trajectory, which
is recommended in the case of deviated wells to perform the analysis of the well path to locate the orientation of
these points, since this does not always match the orientation of the in-situ stresses.

SPE 153541

Nomenclature
CDP = Critical Draw Down Pressure. (Psi)
Phase= Angle measured between guns of the completion tool
UCS = Unconfined Compressive Strength (Psi)

References
1.

I.D Palmer: Prediction of Sanding Using Oriented Perforations in a Deviated Well, and Validation in the Field. Higgs
Technologies, BP plc. Paper SPE 98252, 2006.

2.

J.S Andrews: Oriented Perforating as a Sand Prevention Measure Case Studies from a Decade of Field Experience Validating
the Method Offshore Norway. Statoilhydro. Paper OTC 19130, 2008.

3.

Venkitaraman:Perforating Requirements for Sand Prevention. BP Amoco Exploration. Paper SPE 58788, 2000.

4.

EivindHillestad: Novel Perforating System Used in North Sea Results in Improved Perforation for Sand Management Strategy.
Statoil, Halliburton Energy. Paper SPE 86540. 2004.

5.

H.H Abass: Sand Control: Sand Characterization, Failure Mechanisms, and Completion Methods Saudi Arabian oil Company.
Paper SPE 77686.

6.

A.L Sulbaran: Oriented Perfotating for Sand Prevention, PDVSA, SLB. Paper SPE 57954, 1999.

7.

Khalil Rahman: A Decision Support System for Cost-effective Assessment of Sand Production Risk and Selection of
completion. Paper SPE 132497.

8.

M. S Asadi: Experimental and Simulation Analysis of Jet-Perforated Rock Damage. SPE. Paper SPE 38140. 2000.

9.

M. S Asadi: Discrete Element Simulation of Induced Damaged Zones in Perforation of Deep Gas Reservoirs. Paper SPE
131264. 2010.

10. J.K Pucknell: An investigation of the Damaged Zone Created by Perforating, BP Research. Paper SPE 22811, 1991.
11. Fjaer et al, Petroleum related rocks mechanics, 2nd edicin, capitulo 10, Pag 353.