Effect of sand production on the productivity of oil wells in unconsolidated

sandstone reservoirs in Sirte basin Libya (field case study)

Mohamed S. Nasr and Said M. Edbieb

Sand production is one of the major challenges that facing the petroleum industry in
completing and producing oil and gas wells. The production of sand from such wells
causes wear to surface and subsurface well equipment as well as reducing the oil well
productivity. These problems can result in a great effect on the well’s production cost.
Sand production is usually associated with Pilocene and younger Tertiary age sediments
and production of sand is expected from wells completed in the unconsolidated reservoirs
of these sediments. There are many chronic and troublesome sand production areas in
different oil basins in the world. These areas include US gulf coast, California, Indonesia,
Nigeria, Trinidad, Venezuela, and Libya. Although most of formation sand problems
occur in younger sediments, failure may also occur in older formations when in-situ rock
strength is reduced by poor completion and production practices. The objectives of this
study are:

1) To investigate the effect of the completion (perforation) techniques as well as the

bottom hole flowing pressure in controlling sand production from unconsolidated
sandstone reservoirs in Sirte basin Libya.
2) To study the effect of sand production and the gravel pack on the oil productivity
from sand producing wells.

This study is conducted by comparing the oil flow rates from wells before and after the
start of sand production. An investigation is also conducted by comparing the oil flow
rate of wells producing sand with different perforation completion techniques.

The data utilized in this study is collected from wells producing under natural flow and
under gas lift producing mechanism for different flow periods. The producing data also
was collected for producing wells under open hole completion and under different
perforating completion patterns and techniques. The data is analyzed by constructing
plots of oil flow rate as well as water cut and gas oil liquid ratio versus producing time.
The results of the analysis indicate that the sand production was observed in wells that
produce with gas lift mechanism compared to natural flow wells in the same field. High
reduction in wellbore pressure causes sand consolidation to be weakened and therefore
sand grains are separated from each other. The movement of sand grains in the wellbore
causes a stable emulsion of oil and water mixed with sand in the wellbore resulting in
great reduction in the oil effective permeability and hence decreasing the oil well
productivity. It is also observed that well’s completed with higher perforation densities

19th Annual India Oil & Gas Review Summit & International Exhibition Page 1
over long perforation intervals required less sand production cleanouts during longer
periods of production. It is therefore concluded that sand production causes great
reduction in overall well productivity and hence reduces the oil recovery factor in the
studied reservoirs.

Introduction

Sand production is one of the major challenges that facing the petroleum industry in
many oil field in Libya. The production of formation sand into a well from
unconsolidated sandstone is one of the oldest problems plaguing the oil and gas industry,
because of its adverse effects on well productivity and equipment. The history of sand
production dates back to the 1900’s with the completion of water wells with sand control
installations. The sand problems are normally associated with shallow geological
formations that have little or no natural cementation to hold the individual sand grains
together, but in some areas the sand problems may be encountered in high depths.1

The production of formation fluids will probably be associated with the production of
formation sand as a result, when the wellbore pressure is lower than reservoir pressure,
drag forces are applied to the formation sand as a consequence of fluid production. If the
formation's restraining forces are exceeded, sand will be drawn into the wellbore. In some
situations, small quantities of formation sand can be produced with no significant adverse
effects; however, in most cases, sand production leads to reduced productivity and/or
excessive maintenance to both downhole and surface equipment.
Sufficient sand production may also cause premature failure of the wellbore and well
equipment. Several sand prediction models have been developed to predict the onset of
sand and the amount and rate of sand production. More efficient and advanced sand
control installations have been put into wells to stop sand from moving into the wellbore
and filling the hole “sand up”2. Controlling formation sand is costly and usually involves
either slowing the production rate or using gravel-packing or sand consolidation
techniques. Well completion practices are a critical consideration in zones where there is
probability for sand production.

Sand management has been identified as one of the key issues in field development in
over 70% of the world’s oil and gas fields. Sand management is not just about selection
of sand control systems, it is about maximizing and maintaining production while
managing sand at acceptable rates. Operators spend millions of dollars each year to
prevent the production of formation sand and to deal with other sand related problems.
Expenditures of this magnitude obviously have a significant impact on profits. In spite of
these costs, effective sand-control practices have yielded oil and gas from wells that
otherwise would have been shut- in.3

19th Annual India Oil & Gas Review Summit & International Exhibition Page 2
In considering sand control or formation solids control, one must differentiate between
load-bearing solids and the fine particles (fines) that are not usually a part of the
mechanical structure of the formation. Some fines are probably always produced with the
well fluids, which in fact, are beneficial, if fines move freely through the gravel pack,
they will not plug it, and thus, sand control” actually refers to the control of the load-
bearing particles, those that support the overburden. The critical factor to assessing the
risk of sand production from a particular well is whether or not the production of load
bearing particles can be maintained below an acceptable level at the anticipated flow
rates and producing conditions which will make the well production acceptable.4,5

Opposing the fluid forces are the resulting forces that act to hold sand grains in place.
These forces arise from intergranular bonds ( natural consolidation), intergranular
friction, a gravity forces and capillary forces. Internal pore pressure (reservoir pressure)
helps support the weight of the overburden, thereby acting to relieve some of the stress on
the sand grain. Of these forces, the intergranular bonds are the most important factor in
preventing sand production. The compressive strength of formation sand is probably the
best measure of the intergranular bond.6

If good completion and production practices are followed, formation with a compressive
strength exceeding 1000 psi will generally produce sand free. The exception is the case
where the pressure drawdown around the well is high. If the pressure drawdown is low,
however, sands with much lower compressive strength may also produce sand free. If an
oil well is produced at a desired production rate which causes the well flowing pressure
to be lower than formation collapse pressure, the formation consolidation breaks down,
and sand tends to move toward the wellbore.7,8

Discussion of the results

The bottom hole flowing pressure and the corresponding oil flow rate was measured for
wells producing sand in the time period when the wells were not producing sand and in
later times when the wells started to produce sand. The data was collected form two giant
sandstone reservoirs in Sirte basin Libya. This measured data was utilized for the
construction of the inflow performance curves for the studied wells. The inflow
performance curve was used as a measure of the effect of the sand production on the
productivity of the well.
The first reservoir is located in the South Eastern part of the basin was discovered in
November 1961 experienced no production of sand from the wells for long time. As the
reservoir pressure declined in some parts of the reservoir some of the wells in the
pressure sink area started to produce sand. In recent years the sand production was the
mean cause of shut-in of some of the wells in the field. The productive formation is a
generic term for a group of formations of Nubian, Nubian Triassic and pre-Mesozoic age.

19th Annual India Oil & Gas Review Summit & International Exhibition Page 3
The reservoir has historically been sub-divided into five major formations, referred to as
unit V, IV, III, II and I, in order of increasing age, all of which are present in the
reservoir. These formations are present in two adjacent reservoirs. These reservoirs are
sealed by the group shales, which are the main regional source rock. The upper sealing
rock also includes some carbonate zones as well as a few sand stringers, which may
contain a significant oil volume. The average depth of the wells is 9530 ft and the
underlaid water oil contact is at a depth of 13260 ft. The reservoir was produced under
natural depletion, with only partial replacement of withdrawals by edge-water aquifers.
Most of the wells are on gas-lift, with a few having ESP’s.

Figures 1, 2 and 3 are constructed from the inflow performance before and after the
gravel packing treatment for wells Y1, Y2 and Y3 which are producing with high oil API
gravity and producing with different water cuts and producing under gas lift mechanism.
Well Y1 produces with low water cuts where wells Y2 and Y3 produce with high water
cuts. It is observed that the inflow performance after gravel packing was not greatly
affected by the water cut, and the effect was approximately the same for high and low
water cut wells. These wells produce under gas lift artificial lift mechanism which
believed not to affect the gravel pack in the bottom of the well.

The other giant oil field is located in the South of Sirte Basin Libya, was discovered in
October 1961. The primary zone of interest is the Oligocene. The reservoir development
started early after first discovery in 1961 when the well X-1 tested commercial oil
production. The oil inflow performance of this well is illustrated in figure 4. The field
started commercial production in October 1964 from one giant sandstone reservoir which
was developed to produce under the mechanism of natural bottom water drive. Field
development has continued since its discovery, a total of 127 wells with average well
spacing 147 acres have been drilled and completed, and the productive area of the
reservoir about 16,768 acres. Presently, most wells are being produced by ESP. As of
December 31st 2008 the field average oil production rate was 24691 BOPD, with 27.4%
WC.

It is observed that the oil flow performance of this well was greatly affected by the high
water cut experienced in the well as well as the producing lifting mechanism which is
ESP. It is therefore concluded that the stability of the gravel pack in the bottom of the
well is very sensitive to the turbulent flow condition in the borehole caused by ESP. This
well produces with low oil API gravity which makes easy for the heavy oil to form
emulsions with the produced water in the presence of the formation sand in the wellbore.

19th Annual India Oil & Gas Review Summit & International Exhibition Page 4
 P 1850

Figure (1) illustrates the effect of gravel packing on well Y-1 performance producing
with low water cut and high API gravity and producing with gas lift mechanism.

19th Annual India Oil & Gas Review Summit & International Exhibition Page 5
Figure (2): illustrates the effect of gravel packing on well Y-2 performance producing
with moderate water cut and high API gravity and producing with gas lift mechanism.

P 1850

19th Annual India Oil & Gas Review Summit & International Exhibition Page 6
 Figure (3): illustrates the effect of gravel packing on well Y-3 performance producing
with high water cut and high API gravity and producing with gas lift mechanism.

Figure (4): illustrates the effect of gravel packing on well X-1 performance producing
with high water cut and high API gravity and producing with ESP mechanism.

Conclusions

19th Annual India Oil & Gas Review Summit & International Exhibition Page 7
 1. Older sediments tend to be more consolidated than newer sediments. This
indicates that sand production is normally a problem when producing from
shallow formations, so the degree of consolidation can be considered one of many
reasons of sand production.
2. The pressure in the reservoir supports some of the weight of the overlying rock,
lowering the reservoir pressure creates an increasing amount of stress on the
formation sand itself, the formation sand grains may be crushed, creating fines that
are produced along with the well fluids.
3. It is observed that the sand production has increased or begins as water begins to
be produced or as water cut increases.
4. The frictional drag force exerted on the formation sand grains is created by the
flow of reservoir fluid due to high viscosity (8.62 cp). High reservoir fluid
viscosity would apply a greater frictional drag force to the formation sand grains
and in turn sand started to move.

References
1. Adams.N, “Recommended Practices for Testing Sand Used in Gravel Packing
Operations”, American Petroleum Institute, API Recommended Practice 58 (RP58),
March 1986.
2. Cocales, B., “Optimizing Materials for Better Gravel Packs”, World Oil (December
1992), 73-77.
3. Coberly, C.J., “Selection of Screen Openings for Unconsolidated Sands”, API Drilling and
Production Practice, 1941.
4. Gurley, D., Copeland, C., and Hendrick Jr., J., “Design, Plan, and Execution of Gravel-
Pack Operations for Maximum Productivity,” Journal of Petroleum Technology, October
1977, 1259-1266.
5. Penberthy, W.L. and Echols, E.E., “Gravel Placement in Wells”, SPE Paper 22793, Journal
of Petroleum Technology (July 1993), 612-613, 670-674.
6. Penberthy, W.L. and Shaughnessy, C.M., Sand Control, SPE Series on Special Topics,
Volume 1, 1992.
7. Sanfilippo F., Brignoli M., Giacca D. and Santarelli.F. “Sand Production from Prediction
to Management” 1997.
8.Suman, G.O. Jr., Ellis, R.C., and Snyder, R.E., Sand Control Handbook, Second Edition,
Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas, 1991.

19th Annual India Oil & Gas Review Summit & International Exhibition Page 8