SPE-193697-MS

Risk Assessment in Sand Control Selection: Introducing a Traffic Light

System in Stand-Alone Screen Selection

Mahdi Mahmoudi and Vahidoddin Fattahpour, RGL Reservoir Management; Arian Velayati, University of
Alberta; Morteza Roostaei and Mohammad Kyanpour, RGL Reservoir Management; Ahmad Alkouh, College of
Technological Studies; Colby Sutton and Brent Fermaniuk, RGL Reservoir Management; Alireza Nouri, University
of Alberta

Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Heavy Oil Conference and Exhibition held in Kuwait City, Kuwait, 10-12 December 2018.

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
Sand control and sand management require a rigorous assessment of several contributing factors including
the sand facies variation, fluid composition, near-wellbore velocities, interaction of the sand control with
other completion tools and operational practices. A multivariate approach or risk analysis is required to
consider the relative role of each parameter in the overall design for reliable and robust sand control. This
paper introduces a qualitative risk factor model for this purpose.
In this research, a series of Sand Retention Tests (SRT) was conducted, and results were used to formulate
a set of design criteria for slotted liners. The proposed criteria specify both the slot width and density for
different operational conditions and different classes of Particle Size Distribution (PSD) for the McMurray
oil sands. The goal is to provide a qualitative rationale for choosing the best liner design that keeps the
produced sand and skin within an acceptable level. The test is performed at several flow rates to account for
different operational conditions for Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) and Cyclic Steam Stimulation
(CSS) wells. A Traffic Light System (TLS) is adopted for presenting the design criteria in which the red
and green colors are used to indicate, respectively, unacceptable and acceptable design concerning sanding
and plugging. Yellow color in the TLS is also used to indicate marginal design.
Testing results indicate the liner performance is affected by the near-wellbore flow velocities,
geochemical composition of the produced water, PSD of the formation sand and fines content, and
composition of formation clays. For low near-wellbore velocities and typical produced water composition,
conservatively designed narrow slots show a similar performance compared to somewhat wider slots.
However, high fluid flow velocities or unfavorable water composition results in excessive plugging of the
pore space near the screen leading to significant pressure drops for narrow slots. The new design criteria
suggest at low flow rates, slot widths up to three and half times of the mean grain size will result in minimal
sand production. At elevated flow rates, however, this range shrinks to somewhere between one and a half
to three times the mean grain size.
2 SPE-193697-MS

This paper presents novel design criteria for slotted liners using the results of multi-slot coupons in SRT
testing, which is deemed to be more realistic compared to the single-slot coupon experiments in the previous
tests. The new design criteria consider not only certain points on the PSD curve (e.g., D50 or D70) but also
the shape of the PSD curve, water cut, and gas oil ratio and other parameters.
Keywords: Screen aperture size, Skin Factor, Open area to flow, Plugging tendency, Slotted liner design
criteria

Introduction
Sand control is a major concern in reservoirs, which contain unconsolidated sands. Slotted liners have been
the completion method of choice in many cases due to their low cost, ease of use, and excellent performance
(Fattahpour et al., 2016a&b)
Sand control selection, design, and evaluation are at the heart of completion design for wellbores in
unconsolidated and weakly consolidated sand reservoirs. Mahmoudi et al. (2016a; 2018a,b,c) discussed
two completion design approaches for sanding: (1) sand control where the well completion is designed to
avoid sand production; and (2) sand management a finite amount of sand production is allowed or even
encouraged but is now allowed to exceed levels that go beyond the tolerance of the wellbore and surface
facilities to continuous sand production.
Sand management has emerged as completion and operating strategy to overcome the deficiencies of
conventional sand control measures relying on sand exclusion (Mathis, 2003; McKay et al., 2008; Tronvoll
et al., 2001). There are several fields/wells where the sand exclusion cannot be applied or is very expensive
to execute (Gonzalez et al., 2014; Hussain and Gruening, 2008; Tugimin et al., 2018). In this approach,
detailed monitoring of the sand influx, fluid rate, and phase ratios along with reliable analytical and physical
models are used to manage the consequence of sand production (Rawlins, 2013; Tronvoll et al., 2001).
Over the last decade, sand management methodologies have been developed and successfully applied in
the field, which proves they are practical and economical approaches (Rawlins, 2013). Sand management
mitigates the formation damage and enhances wellbore productivity. The enhancement is attributed to the
self-cleanup associated with the episodic sand spurts that remove the sand within the damaged zone around
the wellbore and enhances near-wellbore permeability (Vaziri et al., 2000). Several researchers discussed
that the removal of the damaged zone in the near-wellbore region and the ensuing higher permeability is
the primary contributor to the higher productivity indices.
A good sand management must include the following components: (1) Prediction of the sanding initiation
to describe the conditions associated with the sanding onset; (2) quantitative sand rate modeling in relation
to fluid flow rates, downhole GOR, and water cut; (3) a good estimation of the sand transport from
the production point to the surface facility, sand accumulation and potential of wellbore fill up or other
completion component clogging by sand; (4) the sanding-induced erosion risk in the downhole completions
components, tubular, wellhead and surface facilities; and (5) a surface facility that can handle the volume
of the produced sand to separate the sand/silt particles from produced fluids by using hydrocyclone de-
sander, settlement tank in their production separator, or filters for solid separation. The surface facility must
allow the separated solids to be removed from the production facility safely and be removed from process
pressure and flow through the use of hydrocyclone accumulator, vessel drain, or sump tank. Once the sand
is removed, the adsorbed hydrocarbon and formation fluids are removed from the collected sand before the
sand is hauled away from the facility (Rawlins et al., 2000; Rawlins, 2013; Wilson, 2013).
A proper sand management approach requires the consideration of the components above in the overall
design of the well completion, wellhead, and production facility. One element of the sand management
framework is risk analysis. The next section discusses the application of risk assessment models and
introduces the risk modeling in the design of sand control screens as a part of the sand management system.
SPE-193697-MS 3

Risk Assessment (RA)

The term "Risk" is defined as the uncertainty associated with the probability of adverse circumstances and
consequences it might cause. The operational risk is the result of the selection of operational strategies,
equipment, and facilities within the operation, and the personnel operating the facility. The mitigation
measure is the alternative operational practices, and equipment selection aimed to achieve the desired target
performance and reducing the probability of incurring economic damage. This has been the traditional
risk assessment where the probability and consequence multiplication are used to describe the risk factor.
If the risk is above an acceptable threshold, a series of mitigation measures are implemented to reduce
the risk factor. This routine risk management framework consists of five subdivisions beginning with risk
identification, risk assessment, risk measurement, risk monitoring and finally risk reporting (Al-Minhali,
1996; Brekke and Thompson, 1996; Cloutier, 2002; Keilty and Rabia, 1996).
The modern state-of-the-art manufacturing, healthcare, engineering, finance, and many other fields are
dynamic and complex. A primary consideration is the interaction of different components and variables
in the system. The risks and uncertainties are often composed of several cause-effect relationships. For
example, the initial state of the well when the oil is flowing, and the rock is moderately competent, exhibits
low to no sand production risk. However, with either depletion or water breakthrough, the rock loses its
strength and moderate to massive sanding could be expected.
Conventional quantitative risk frameworks (fault tree analysis or failure mode effects analysis) have been
designed to demonstrate static dependencies among different variables. A drawback is neglecting the time
dependency of the variables and assessments. This avoids considering the time-dependent variations in the
operation and the ageing of the operation and equipment.
These downsides have led to the development of the so-called Dynamic Risk Assessment (DRA). The
DRA is a risk assessment method that updates the time-dependent risk value of a deteriorating system
based on the performance of the control system, maintenance activities, and the implementation of periodic
inspections/monitoring (Bravo and Huerta, 2014; Leong, 2012; Pozniak, 2011).
DRA methods conventionally depend on statistical or modeling (physical or numerical) data for risk
updating. A drawback of using only such data is that one has to wait for accidents or near misses to occur
before updating the estimation of the risk indices, or/and the need for complex and expensive testing/
modeling. Besides, statistical failure data collected from similar or nearby fields, are not fully representative
of the target field geology and operation. A valuable real-time assessment can be provided if these historical
data sets are complemented by monitoring data, which come from the online monitoring of the field
operation, (Kim et al., 2015). Condition/monitoring data contain information on sand concentration, fluid
rates, and the ratio of different phases within produced fluid, pressure and temperature which update
the reliability values before failures happen. Consequently, integrating condition-monitoring data with
statistical failure data can significantly enhance the effectiveness of the DRA (Zeng and Zio, 2018).
The overall risk assessment framework must consist of a systematic, comprehensive, and proactive set
of interrelated time-dependent processes which enables effective management of asset integrity associated
with activities throughout the life cycle of the asset, including design, procurement, construction, operation,
maintenance and abandonment activities. This framework must assure the project remain economical by
reducing the initial capital cost, operating cost and increased productivity.
Several components are required for the effective sand management system. This study focuses on
the sand control design and estimating the relationship between the aperture sizes and produced sand
concentration. Two risks are defined as produced solid and permeability impairment. This risk model has a
dependency on the flow rate. Hence, it is indirectly a dynamic risk assessment technique.
4 SPE-193697-MS

Methodology
This paper focuses on determining slot aperture and density for slotted liners to illustrate the proposed design
framework. The criteria are developed based on a series of sand retention tests (SRT) tests with different
PSD's in the McMurray Formation. The testing program used slotted liner coupons with different slot widths
and slot densities (Mahmoudi et al., 2016a,2016b, 2016c, 2017a, 2017b). The Traffic Light System (TLS)
is utilized as a quantitative risk indicator to determine the acceptable, marginal or unacceptable design.

TLS Design Approach

The slotted liner design for a new field consists of reviewing the sand variation along the wellbore trajectory
and within the reservoir to determine the safe slot width window (Markestad et al., 1996; Mahmoudi et
al., 2016d, 2017a, 2017b). Existing design practices, however, neglect the role of operational practices,
fluid flow rates, the water-oil ratio (WOR) and the gas-oil ratio (GOR) on the liner's sanding and flow
performances. Mahmoudi (2017d) showed that the sand production is mainly controlled by slot width, slot
density, PSD and flow rates (drag forces of the flow). The flow performance, however, is more complicated.
Additional factors such as fines/clay content and composition, pH and salinity of the produced brine, and
reservoir sand porosity in the near-wellbore region influence the flow performance of the liner. One of the
main drawbacks of the current design criteria is the reliance on a single point in the PSD curve to determine
the slot width regardless of the PSD characteristics such as the PSD shape, fines content, and composition.
This paper introduces the TLS which is based on a simplified risk model to color code different risk levels
with the red, yellow, and green colors. The colors signify unacceptable, marginal, and acceptable design.
Further variables could be incorporated in this model to include their role on sanding and flow performance
in the sand control selection.

Components of TLS Design Criteria

The TLS design criteria provide a range of acceptable slot width, called slot window, in relation to two
important phenomena. These phenomena which are used to judge the performance of the slotted liner
are sand production and plugging. This section presents the maximum sanding and plugging allowed in
operation, which lays the foundation for developing the slot aperture.
Maximum Acceptable Sanding. Sand transport in wellbore conduits is mainly governed by the drag
forces of the flowing fluids, particle size and density, and flow direction in relation to gravitational forces.
Assuming brine flow in a horizontal pipe, a velocity of at least 0.4 m/sec is required to mobilize the sand
grain (Danielson, 2007; Shook et al., 1992). For transporting the sand in a vertical pipe, a higher velocity
of over 0.7 m/sec is needed to transport the sand.
It is believed that sand transport does not commonly occur in long horizontal wells with low flow rates,
such as in thermal wells. Therefore, produced solids could accumulate in the horizontal well, increase the
pressure drop, and reduce productivity. Several operators have reported severe pressure drops when running
stand-alone screens below their Electric Submersible Pump (ESP) assembly in the horizontal leg of the well.
The severe pressure drop has been attributed to the accumulation of produced sand and debris in the annular
space between the casing and screen. High flow rates in the wellbore filled with sand and derbies induce
high-pressure drops and lead to reduced wellbore productivity.
Generally, the industry has accepted less than 1% of the liner volume as the maximum amount of
accumulated solid over the life of a well. It is believed that this volume of produced sand induces only a
small amount of productivity loss in low-rate horizontal wells.
Figure 1 shows a typical completion design used to complete the SAGD production wells. For this typical
completion configuration, the 1% sand volume limit translates to roughly 0.15-0.40 pounds of produced
sand per square foot of liner surface area. Commonly, researchers opt for the lower bound of the range and
SPE-193697-MS 5

consider 0.12-0.15(lb)ft2 for the produced sand as the maximum allowed (Hodge et al. 2002; Chanpura et
al. 2011).

Figure 1—Schematic design of a typical thermal horizontal producer well completion

In the TLS system, the green color signifies acceptable sanding when sanding is below 1% of the liner
volume for transient sanding. For continuous sanding, a limit of 5 gr/bbl has been suggested (2850 ppm, 11
lb per thousand bbl), although this seems to be inapplicable to SAGD wells due to inadequate sand transport
(Mahmoudi et al., 2016d).
The red color in the TLS signifies unacceptable sand production as it excesses 1% of the liner volume. The
red color is also assigned to continuous sand production in SAGD. The red color indicates an extreme risk
due to sand production as it can fill the liner and hampers productivity and can also damage the artificial lift
system. Table 1 recaps the TLS color coding with respect to sanding for defining the safe slot width window.

Table 1—TLS color code definition for sand production and flow performance

Maximum Acceptable Plugging. Conventional sand control installations result in higher pressure drops
than the open hole. The selection of the sand control requires the consideration of the best sand control
6 SPE-193697-MS

product that not only reduces the solid production but has the least flow impairments (pressure drop). The
flow impairment is related to the flow convergence, and near-wellbore velocities. The flow convergence
and the complex flow dynamics near the wellbore could lead to near-wellbore plugging or the corrosion/
fouling which in turn leads to the screen/liner aperture plugging.
Furui et al. (2007) described the near-wellbore area skin consists of a flow-dependent term and a flow-
independent term. The flow dependent term is caused by flow convergence which changes the near-wellbore
flow velocity and geometry while the flow-independent part is caused by pore plugging, sand retention on
the screen, and the additional pressure drop within the slots/screen aperture.
Commonly for open slots, the pressure drop inside unplugged slots is negligible while the pressure drop
of partially or fully plugged slot may be significant. This high-pressure drop is partly caused by the high
convergence velocity, and mainly because of the restriction imposed on the flow as a consequence of the
low permeability. The pressure drop in the plugged slot will increase the overall pressure drop due to flow
across the sand control product.
Retained permeability (Markestad et al., 1996; Ballard et al., 1999) has been commonly used to describe
the additional pressure drop caused by the sand control device. Retained permeability is the ratio of
the screen permeability to the formation permeability. Ideally, screen permeability should be similar to
the formation permeability which indicates the installation of the screen has no effect on the wellbore
productivity. Previous researchers assigned 50% retained permeability as the lowest acceptable permeability
(Markestad et al., 1996).
The TLS system assigns the green color for flow performance for retained permeability above 75%,
yellow color for retained permeability between 50 and 75%, and red color for less than 50% retained
permeability.

Slotted Liner Design

Performance indicators for slotted liner design based on the proposed TLS approach and the color coding
are presented in Table 1. SRT results have been used to formulate the effect of the PSD, and flow velocity
on the sanding and flow performance of the slotted liner with different slot width and slot density.
The safe slot window is defined by normalizing the PSD in term of its points within the PSD curve such
as the mean grain size, and the upper 10% of the coarser grain. For each PSD, a linear representation of
the size is used where the color codes are used to describe the sanding and flow performance. This linear
representation of the PSD on a linear axis is shown in Figure 2a for DC-II and Fig. 2b for DC-III, where it
is marked in terms of the PSD D-values. Table 2 shows the DC-II and DC-III D-values. A wide range of
slot sizes was tested according to the testing program varying from 1.5 D50 to 3.5 D50 as shown in dashed
lines in Fig. 2(a) and Fig. 2(b).

Figure 2—Linear axis illustration of the PSD and slot sizes in SRT tests, (a) DC-II (b) DC-III
SPE-193697-MS 7

Table 2—PSD representation of DC-II and DC-III based on D-values

Figures 3a and 3b show the color-coded design window for the slot density of 30 SPC on a 7" pipe for
DC-II. Figure 3a presents the sanding performance in the upper axis section and the flow performance in
the axis lower section. Figure 3b combines the two previous windows to present the combined slot window.
Likewise, the sanding and flow performance for two more SPC values (42 and 54) are presented in Figs.
4a through 5b for DC-II, and Figs. 6a through 8b for DC-III.

Figure 3a—Sanding performance (top section) and flow performance (bottom section) for DC-II, SPC=30

Figure 3b—Overall performance for DC-II, SPC=30

Figure 4a—Sanding performance (top section) and flow performance (bottom section) for DC-II, SPC=42

Figure 4b—Overall performance for DC-II, SPC=42

8 SPE-193697-MS

Figure 5a—Sanding performance (top section) and flow performance (bottom section) for DC-II, SPC=54

Figure 5b—Overall performance for DC-II, SPC=54

Figure 6a—Sanding performance (top section) and flow performance (bottom section) for DC-III, SPC=30

Figure 6b—Overall performance for DC-III, SPC=30

Figure 7a—Sanding performance (top section) and flow performance (bottom section) for DC-III, SPC=42

Figure 7b—Overall performance for DC-III, SPC=42

SPE-193697-MS 9

Figure 8a—Sanding performance (top section) and flow performance (bottom section) for DC-III, SPC=54

Figure 8b—Overall performance for DC-III, SPC=54

It is obvious from the overall performance slot window for the two PSDs (DCII and DCIII) that increasing
the slot density leads to a wider safe slot selection. This illustrates the shortcoming in the existing evaluation
and design protocols that are independent of the slot density.

Conclusions
This paper presents a risk model for the selection of optimal sand control. A set of new design criteria
are introduced for the selection of slot width and density for slotted liners. This new approach combines
multiple variables such as sand facies variation, slot density, slot width, flow rate, and sanding mode. The
TLS design approach was applied to the results of SRT physical testing on different types of sand facies.
The design criteria provide slot window which is bounded by a higher limit decided by sand production.
In other words, increasing the slot width beyond the upper bound results in unacceptable levels of sand
production. The lower bound is related to the flow performance. Any further reduction of the slot width
below the lower bound results in significant pressure drops and higher than acceptable skin build-up.
Physical testing and field results show that wider slots- within the slot window- and higher slot densities
result in superior liner performance. Further, the slot window is vastly sensitive to operational variables such
as flow rate. It is found that the slot window becomes narrower as the flow rate increases. The model could
be further expanded by formulating a more complex DRA and including the field monitoring of the pressure
and sanding rate in the model and incorporating the historical data from nearby fields in the assessment.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the funding by NSERC through their CRD program and RGL
Reservoir Management for their financial and technical support and permission to publish the paper.

References
Fattahpour, V., Azadbakht, S., Mahmoudi, M.et al. 2016a. Effect of Near Wellbore Effective Stress on the Performance
of Slotted Liner Completions in SAGD Operations. Presented at SPE Thermal Well Integrity and Design Symposium,
Banff, Alberta, Canada, 28 November-1 December, SPE-182507. https://doi.org/10.2118/182507-MS
Fattahpour, V., Mahmoudi, M., Nouri, A.et al. 2016b. A Critical Review of Sand Control Design for SAGD Wells.
Presented at World Heavy Oil Congress. WHOC16-613
Kim, H, Lee, S-H., Park, J-S.et al. 2015. Reliability data update using condition monitoring and prognostics in probabilistic
safety assessment," Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 47(2):204–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2014.12.008
Mahmoudi, M. 2017d. New Sand Control Design Criteria and Evaluation Testing for Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage
(SAGD) Wellbores. PhD dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
10 SPE-193697-MS

Mahmoudi, M., Fattahpour, V., Nouri, A.et al. 2016a. An Experimental Investigation of the Effect of pH and Salinity
on Sand Control Performance for Heavy Oil Thermal Production. Presented at the SPE Canada Heavy Oil Technical
Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 7-9 June, SPE-180756-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/180756-MS
Mahmoudi, M., Fattahpour, V., Nouri, A.et al. 2016b. New Criteria for Slotted Liner Design for Heavy Oil Thermal
Production. Presented at SPE Thermal Well Integrity and Design Symposium, Banff, Alberta, Canada, 28 November-1
December, SPE-182511. https://doi.org/10.2118/182511-MS
Mahmoudi, M., Fattahpour, V., Nouri, A.et al. 2017a. An Experimental Evaluation of Pore Plugging and Permeability
Reduction Near SAGD Sand Control Liners. Presented at the SPE Canada Heavy Oil Technical Conference, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, 7-9 June, SPE-184999-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/184999-MS
Mahmoudi, M., Fattahpour, V., Nouri, A.et al. 2018c. An Experimental Investigation into Sand Control Failure Due to
Steam Breakthrough in SAGD Wells. Presented at the SPE Canada Heavy Oil Technical Conference, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, 13-14 March, SPE-189769-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/189769-MS
Mahmoudi, M., Fattahpour, V., Nouri, A.et al. 2016c. The Effect of Screen Aperture Size on Fines Production and
Migration in SAGD Production Wells. Presented at World Heavy Oil Congress. WHOC16-612
Mahmoudi, M., Fattahpour, V., Nouri, A.et al. 2017b. An Experimental Evaluation of Pore Plugging and Permeability
Reduction Near SAGD Sand Control Liners. Presented at the SPE Canada Heavy Oil Technical Conference, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, 15-1f Febraury, SPE-184999. https://doi.org/10.2118/184999-MS
Mahmoudi, M., Roostaei, M. and Ghalambor, A. 2016d. Sand Screen Design and Optimization for Horizontal Wells Using
Reservoir Grain Size Distribution Mapping. Presented at SPE International Conference and Exhibition on Formation
Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 24-26 February. SPE-179036. https://doi.org/10.2118/179036-MS
Mahmoudi, M., Nejadi, S., Roostaei, M.et al. 2017c. Design Optimization of Slotted Liner Completions in Horizontal
Wells: An Analytical Skin Factor Model Verified by Computational Fluid Dynamics and Experimental Sand Retention
Tests. Presented at the SPE Thermal Well Integrity Design Symposium, Banff, Alberta, Canada, 29-30 November,
SPE-188167-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/188167-MS
Mahmoudi, M., Roostaei, M., Fattahpour, V.et al. 2018a. Standalone Sand Control Failure: Review of Slotted Liner, Wire
Wrap Screen, and Premium Mesh Screen Failure Mechanism. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, 24-26 September, SPE-191553-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/191553-MS.
Mahmoudi, M., Roostaei, M., Fattahpour, V.et al. 2018b. Standalone Sand Control Failure: The Role of Wellbore and Near
Wellbore Hydro-Thermo-Chemical Phenomenon on the Plugging. Presented at the SPE Thermal Well Integrity Design
Symposioum, Banff, Alberta, Canada, 29-30 November, SPE-193355-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/193355-MS
Z. Zeng and E. Zio. 2018. Dynamic Risk Assessment Based on Statistical Failure Data and Condition-Monitoring
Degradation Data. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 67(2):609–622. 10.1109/TR.2017.2778804
Rawlins, C.H. and Wang, I. 2000. Design and Installation of a Sand Separation and Handling System for a Gulf of Mexico
Oil Production Facility. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Dallas, Texas, 1-4 October,
SPE-63041-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/63041-MS
Rawlins, H., 2013. Sand management methodologies for sustained facilities operations. Oil and Gas Facilities,
2(05):27–34. SPE-1013-0027-OGF. doi:10.2118/1013-0027-OGF
Markestad, P., Christie, O., Espedal, A.et al., 1996. Selection of screen slot width to prevent plugging and sand production.
Presented at SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium. 14-15 February, Lafayette, Louisiana, SPE-31087-MS.
https://doi.org/10.2118/31087-MS
Chanpura, R.A., Fidan, S., Mondal, S.et al., 2011. Advancements in Screen Testing, Interpretation and Modeling
for Standalone Screen Applications. Presented at SPE European Formation Damage Conference. Noordwijk, The
Netherlands, 7-10 June, SPE-143731-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/143731-MS
Hodge, R.M., Burton, R.C., Constien, V. and Skidmore, V., 2002. An evaluation method for screen-only and gravel-
pack completions. Presented at International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control. Lafayette,
Louisiana, 20-21 February, SPE-73772-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/73772-MS
Furui, K., Zhu, D., Hill, A.D.et al., 2007. Optimization of horizontal well-completion design with cased/
perforated or slotted liner completions. SPE Production & Operations, 22(02):248–253. SPE-90579-PA. https://
doi.org/10.2118/90579-PA
Ballard, T., Kageson-Loe, N. and Mathisen, A.M. 1999. The development and application of a method for the evaluation
of sand screens. Presented at SPE European Formation Damage Conference. The Hague, Netherlands, 31 May-1 June,
SPE-54745-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/54745-MS
McKay, I., Russ, P. and Mohr, J., 2008. A sand management system for mature offshore production facilities. The APPEA
Journal, 48(1):13–20. https://doi.org/10.1071/AJ07002
Tronvoll, J., Dusseault, M.B., Sanfilippo, F.et al., 2001. The tools of sand management. Presented at SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition. New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September-3 October, SPE-71673-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/71673-MS
SPE-193697-MS 11

Mathis, S.P., 2003. Sand Management: A Review of Approaches and Concerns. Presented at SPE European Formation
Damage Conference. The Hague, Netherlands, 13-14 May, SPE-82240-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/82240-MS
Tugimin, M., Kamat, D., Baghdadi, F.et al., 2018. Improved Sand Management Methodology Application in Mature
Field. Presented at SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition. Brisbane, Australia, 23-25 October,
SPE-192085-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/192085-MS
Hussain, S.B. and Gruening, T., 2008. Sand management challenges in the South China Sea. Presented at International
Petroleum Technology Conference. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 3-5 December. https://doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-12522-MS
Gonzalez, L.D., Rivero, M.E., Curteis, C.et al., 2014. Case Study: Sand Management Evolution in a Brownfield. Presented
at SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control. Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 26-28
February, SPE-168114-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/168114-MS
Vaziri, H.H., Lemoine, E., Palmer, I.D.et al., 2000. How can sand production yield a several-fold increase in productivity:
experimental and field data. Presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Dallas, Texas, 1-4 October,
SPE-63235-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/63235-MS
Wilson, A., 2013. Facilities Sand-Management Techniques Fall Into Two Types: Inclusionary and Exclusionary. Journal
of Petroleum Technology, 65(10):166–168. SPE-1013-0166-JPT. https://doi.org/10.2118/1013-0166-JPT
Cloutier, D.R., 2002. Risk Assessment/Risk Reduction aka Risk Analysis. Presented at ASSE Professional Development
Conference and Exposition. Nashville, Tennessee, 9-12 June.
Al-Minhali, A. A. N., 1996. Human Factors and Risk Assessment. New Orleans, Louisiana, 9-12 June, SPE-35795-MS.
https://doi.org/10.2118/35795-MS
Brekke, K. and Thompson, L.G., 1996. Horizontal well productivity and risk assessment. Presented at SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition. Denver, Colorado, 6-9 October, SPE-36578-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/36578-
MS
Keilty, I.D. and Rabia, H., 1996. Applying quantitative risk assessment to casing design. Presented at SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference. New Orleans, Louisiana, 12-15 March, SPE-35038-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/35038-MS
Pozniak, E.E., 2011. Concept of Dynamic Risk Assessment: Does it Apply Everywhere?. Presented at ASSE Professional
Development Conference and Exposition. Chicago, Illinois USA, 12-15 June.
Leong, W.F., 2012. Applicability of Dynamic Risk Assessment in the Oil and Gas Industry. Presented at SPE Middle East
Health, Safety, Security, and Environment Conference and Exhibition. Abu Dhabi, UAE, 2-4 April, SPE-151139-MS.
https://doi.org/10.2118/151139-MS
Cervantes Bravo, R.J. and Huerta, V.A., 2014. Dynamic Model of Risk Assessment for Mature Fields. Presented at SPE
Latin America and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference. Maracaibo, Venezuela, 21-23 May, SPE-169416-
MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/169416-MS
Shook, C.A., Gillies, R.G., Kristoff, B.J.et al., 1992. Sand transport mechanism in horizontal wells. Presented at Technical
Meeting/Petroleum Conference of The South Saskatchewan Section. Petroleum Society of Canada. Regina, Canada,
October 7 – 9. https://doi.org/10.2118/SS-92-15
Danielson, T.J., 2007. Sand transport modeling in multiphase pipelines. Presented at Offshore Technology Conference.
Houston, Texas, 30 April-3May. https://doi.org/10.4043/18691-MS