Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Balancing Act: Gulf of Mexico Sand Control Completions, Peak Rate Versus Risk of
Sand Control Failure
G. K. Wong, SPE, Shell E&P Company, P. S. Fair, SPE, Shell E&P Technology Company, K. F. Bland, SPE, Shell E&P
Company, and R. S. Sherwood, SPE, Shell E&P Company.
Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2003 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., 58 October 2003.
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, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE 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
This paper outlines a general concept and develops a practical
well surveillance method to monitor and operate sand control
completions that optimizes production without introducing
extra risk of completion impairment and failure. The general
concept requires: (a) determining the sand control failure
criteria that the surveillance method should be based on, (b)
establishing a direct link between the identified failure criteria
and pressure transient analysis information, and (c) validating
the surveillance method. The proposed surveillance method
utilizes readily accessible well information without requiring
production log measurements of down-hole velocities within
the completion interval.
The proposed method is fully developed for cased hole,
gravel pack completions assuming the gravel-filled
perforations dominate flow within the completion. The
equations are given and velocity criteria are established. In
this case the two dominant completion failures are screen
erosion and destabilization of annular pack. The maximum
flowing velocities for these failure mechanisms can be
established using field production logs, laboratory screen
erosion data, and mathematical calculations of fluid flow in
the annulus pack. The pressure drop across the gravel packed
perforation tunnel is the dominant completion pressure drop
for the cased-hole gravel pack system. This pressure drop
equation is non-linear or proportional to square of perforation
flowing velocity.
The well surveillance method monitors down-hole flowing
velocity and completion pressure drop to operate the well
without introducing unnecessary completion impairment and
sand control failure risks. The process of ramping up the well
and determining a safe maximum rate goes beyond the strict
adherence to absolute values of acceptable completion
Introduction
The economics of developing unconsolidated sand and geopressured reservoirs in deepwater in the Gulf of Mexico
(GOM) increasingly demands fewer wells per project. These
wells need sand control completions and require higher
production rate and higher ultimate recovery per well.
Production from each well is more critical which highlights
the importance of maintaining well productivity and
minimizing completion failure risk.
Proper selection, effective design, rigorous quality
assurance and control of equipment and field execution
procedures of sand control completion have been recognized
to be essential for meeting productivity and reliability
requirements.1,2 However, for geo-pressured reservoirs the
higher reservoir pressure also provides the potential of
delivering greater rate with higher production drawdown and
larger tubing. This approach elevates the need for developing
well surveillance guidelines to operate these wells without
impairing and failing the sand control completion.
A Generalized Approach
This section outlines a generalized procedure to develop a
SPE 84497
SPE 84497
completion components.
Although the fundamentals of PTA are well established,5 a
brief discussion is warranted to clarify how PTA results are
intended to be used with this surveillance method. The main
parameter for quantifying the completion is the skin (S). The
fundamental definition of skin has not changed significantly
since the concept was first introduced by van Everdingen and
Hurst.6,7 The pressure drop due to skin (p skin) is determined
from the PTA and skin is obtained by converting this pressure
drop attributed to skin into a dimensionless pressure.8
S=
kh
pskin .. (1)
141.2qB
Generally, p
components:
skin
could
be
separated
into
different
SPE 84497
SPE 84497
properties of kg, and g. These inputs are chosen such that the
surveillance method can optimally identify and separate
known failures without being too limiting as calibrated from a
set of available field data.
To assess the feasibility of the maximum velocity criteria
and to select the optimum gravel input properties for the
surveillance method, a set of 45 wells is gathered and
analyzed using the PTA and flow calculations described in
Equations (3) and (7). These wells all have permanent downhole pressure gauges to ensure the most consistent and reliable
PTA interpretations. There are 32 FP completions with 30 oil
and 2 gas wells. The peak production rate ranges between
5,000 and 38,740 bpd for oil wells and 55 and 101.7 MMCF/d
for gas wells. The 13 HRWP completions have 8 oil and 5
gas wells with peak rates ranging between 10,640 and 28,730
bpd and 74.6 and 119.3 MMCF/d for oil and gas wells,
respectively. Although Shell has many more sand controlled
wells, the choice was made to limit the wells included in this
study to recently installed sand control systems with high
quality PTA data such that the method implied by Equation
(3) could be maintained.
Within this dataset, there are 8 known sand control
completion failures: 3 gas and 1oil HRWP and 3 oil and 1 gas
FP wells. They are labeled as Failures (f1) to (f8). Detailed
evaluations of these failures reveal that: Failures (f1) and (f2)
are completion installation induced failures (with burst
screens), Failure (f4) is a high risk completion design with an
annular gravel pack thickness of 0.5, and Failure (f5) is a
late-life failure (over 14MMbbls recovered) attributed to
casing deformation due to reservoir compaction. No obvious
completion design and installation problems have been found
for the remaining Failures (f3), (f6), (f7), and (f8). Only these
last four failures should be used to assess the applicability of
the proposed maximum velocity limits. The other failures
(design, installation, and compaction problems) are included
for completeness and to highlight the importance of how nonrate factors can also greatly impact completion failures.
Figures (4) and (5) show p skin-mechanical vs. Vc and p skinmechanical vs. Vs plots, respectively, for all 45 wells at their peak
rates using a gravel permeability with 65% damage. Sand
control failure points and the appropriate maximum velocity
limit line (Vcm = 10 ft/sec or Vsm = 1 ft/sec) are depicted on
these plots to help assess the applicability of the method.
When sand control wells fail below the maximum velocity
limits, the consequences are costly well failures. Inputting
severely damaged gravel (i.e., lower kg and higher g) in
Equation (7) would predict lower perforation and screen
velocities and increase the risk of failing the completion
before reaching the maximum limits.
For annulus
destabilization, Figure (4) shows Failures (f6) to (f8) are
appropriately placed above the velocity limit of 10 ft/sec but
Failure (f3) is below the velocity limit. For screen erosion,
Figure (5) shows the velocity limit of 1 ft/sec delineates
Failures (f3) and (f7) but not Failures (f6) and (f8). These
results suggest that, with the input of 65% gravel damage,
neither one of the failure mechanisms alone properly defines
all four failures in this dataset. This is not unexpected given
the complexity of the completion. Fortunately, when both
proposed velocity limits are used they predict all 4 failures.
SPE 84497
ri =
8(0.0002637)kt
...(9)
ct
SPE 84497
SPE 84497
Conclusions
The following conclusions may be drawn based on our study:
A simple surveillance method for sand control
completions can be developed using both completion
pressure drop and down-hole flowing velocities to
monitor well performance.
For cased-hole gravel packs, two dominant, and rate
dependent, failure modes were (a) destabilization of the
annular pack and (b) screen erosion. These two failure
modes were shown to be complementary and should be
used for each completion. The maximum velocities that
define these failures were: Vc = 10 ft/sec and Vs = 1 ft/sec
for annular destabilization and screen erosion failure,
respectively.
Using only pressure buildup data, consistent definition of
completion pressure drop, and the assumption that gravelfilled perforation dominates the flow in cased-hole gravel
packs, the down-hole flowing velocities can be easily
calculated from pskin-mechanical. This relationship is not
linear.
The reliability of the maximum velocity criteria and the
feasibility of the surveillance method were demonstrated
using data from 45 sand control completions.
It is recommended that during the ramp-up period, in
reaching the peak production rate for the first time,
several PTAs be taken, at increasing flow rates, to assess
and diagnose performance changes with the completions.
Wells with a history of impairment, or operating close to
maximum velocity limits or operating with high
completion pressure drop should be monitored carefully
and identified for further evaluations before opening up to
higher rates.
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to thank the management of Shell for their
permission to publish this paper. Special acknowledgment is
extended to D. A. Cole for laying down the foundation that
most of this work is based on, to D. E. Carpenter and A. R.
Melancon for their critical review of this paper and analyses
of the field examples, and to Victor Dunayevsky for
developing solutions of the flow in the annular pack. Finally,
SPE 84497
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Nomenclature
B = Formation volume factor, r-bbl/s-bbl for oil wells, and rbbl/sMcf for gas wells.
k = Formation permeability, md
q = Surface production rate, bpd for oil wells and Mcf/d for
gas wells.
h = True stratigraphic thickness of the reservoir pay, ft.
= Down-hole reservoir fluid viscosity, cP
= Down-hole reservoir fluid density, lb/ft3
g = Kinetic energy coefficient (for nonDarcy flow through
porous media) or beta factor for the gravel, 1/ft.
kg = Gravel permeability in the perforation tunnel, md
Lg = Length of the perforation tunnel, defined as the
difference between well bore radius and radius to casing
ID, inches.
Ap = Average cross-section area of individual perforation, in2
hp = Measured length of perforated interval, ft
t = Time in hours
= Formation porosity, fractions
Ct = Reservoir compressibility, 1/psi
PreBU
Rate
(bpd)
Shutin
Time
(hrs)
PTA
Mech
Skin
Adj
p
Skin
Mech
(psi)
2.7
175
1 10,800 5.60
17,747
0.84
3.9
424
2
21,276
1.14
4.0
505
3
3.5
421
4 21,003 2.48
28,693
1.29
4.0
655
5
Table 1 Well A PTA Results
q (bpd)
pskin-mechanical (psi)
Vc (ft/sec)
Vs (ft/sec)
Vc
(ft/s)
Vs
(ft/s)
Tot
Compl
etin
p
(psi)
Target
Peak
Rate
(bpd)
3.0
0.24
504
26,990
4.8
0.38
948
27,921
5.2
0.42
1145
Outflow
4.8
0.39
1116
Outflow
6.0
0.48
1638
Outflow
15,000
700
8
0.6
20,000
1,200
11
0.9
10
SPE 84497
Cement Sheath
FP-Oil
FP-Gas
HRWP-Oil
HRWP-Gas
SC Failures
3500
Casing
3000
Vc
dP skin-mechanical (psi)
Vs
Annulus
Pack
f7
2500
Compaction
Failure
2000
Installation
Failures
1500
f6
f3
1000
f2
f5
f4
500
f8
f1
Screen
Perforation
Tunnel
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
FP-Gas
HRWP-Oil
HRWP-Gas
SC Failures
3500
f7
3000
10,000
75
60
6,000
45
4,000
30
"Hot" Spot
8,000
Covered by Vc
2000
Installation
Failures
1500
Compaction
Failure
f6
f3
1000
f5
f2
500
f4
f1
0.0
Shunt Tubes
f8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
0
17180
15
17200
17220
17240
17260
17280
17300
17320
17340
0
17360
1.0E+02
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
1.0E-01
1.0E-02
0.1
1.0
10.0
(lb/1000 bbls) 10
(lb/1000 bbls) 1
SPE 84497
11
Well C
Well A
30000
10.00
27000
9.00
Well is cleaning
up with
Rate (Bopd)
6.00
getting
15000
5.00
impaired with
1
production.
4.00
9000
3.00
6000
2.00
3000
1.00
0.00
1000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Measured Data dP
Casing Vel
Vcasing
20000
Rate (Bopd)
7.00
6.00
15000
5.00
12000
4.00
1
3.00
6000
2.00
3000
1.00
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0.00
1000
Measured Data dP
Screen Vel
Casing Vel
Vcasing
Vscreen
10.00
27000
9.00
24000
8.00
21000
7.00
18000
6.00
6
15000
5.00
4.00
4
9000
3.00
6000
1
2.00
3000
1.00
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0.00
1000
900
Measured Data DP
Screen Vel
Casing Vel
Vc
Vs
Rate (Bopd)
Well B
30000
12000
Well Failed
shortly after
8.0
4.0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
8.00
12.0
9.00
24000
9000
10.00
5
27000
5000
Well A
18000
16.0
5
2
15000
10000
21000
Cleaning
up
Vscreen
30000
Vs
20.0
Impairing
Screen Vel
Vc
Peak Rate
Casing Vel
1400
1600
1800
0.0
2000
Vc and Vs (ft/sec)
Well is
18000
Screen Vel
24.0
25000
7.00
12000
Measured Data DP
8.00
production.
21000
Rate (Bpd)
24000
dP Skin Mech
30000