See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/289664735

Analytical prediction model of sand production integrating geomechanics for

open hole and cased - Perforated wells

Article · January 2014

CITATIONS READS

2 649

6 authors, including:

Edson Felipe Araujo Guillermo Alzate

National University of Colombia National University of Colombia
6 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS    26 PUBLICATIONS   28 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Alejandra Arbelaez Alejandro Cardona

National University of Colombia King Abdullah University of Science and Technology
16 PUBLICATIONS   20 CITATIONS    4 PUBLICATIONS   11 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Geomechanics Modelling for Diagnostics, Evaluation and Manage of Sand Production in Offshore Wellbores View project

Refracturing Colombian foothills View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alejandra Arbelaez on 20 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

14LAHO-P-255-SPE

Analytical Prediction Model of Sand Production Integrating Geomechanics

for Open Hole and Cased – Perforated Wells.
E.F Araujo, G.A Alzate-Espinosa, A. Arbeláez-Londoño, S. Peña Clavijo, A. Cardona Ramirez, A. Naranjo
Agudelo, U. Nacional de Colombia.

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Heavy and Extra Heavy Oil Conference - Latin Americaheld in Medellin, Colombia, 24–26 September 2014.

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 Engine ers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written cons ent 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 mus t contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Sand production treatment, control and mitigation generate high costs for the petroleum industry. Therefore, this is
considered a critical problem and requires a continuous monitoring and special management. A sand production study is
fundamental in field development and will help to eliminate or mitigate the related problems. This way, an analytical
geomechanical sand production model is proposed to design the best field sand free production plan and to select the type of
sand control measures and sand management techniques. The model needs as input data, the reservoir characteristicsn and a
mechanical earth model derived from well logs that includes the stress state regime. It also requires the well direction,
azimuth and completion information in order to evaluate the well characteristics. In this model an onset sand production
condition is calculated looking for the borehole pressure that makes the maximum effective tangential compressive stress
equal or higher than the rock strength (failure criteria), which is usually known as critical borehole pressure (CBHP). The
results are presented on two kinds of graphs: the CBHP versus depth graph that allows determining the sand production free
interval and the CBHP versus reservoir pressure graph that helps to design different well production plans for optimizing the
recovered volume avoiding sand production. Results must be calibrated and verified with data field to simulate the real
reservoir behavior. Briefly, for a specific well path it is possible to propose the operating CBHP as a function of the reservoir
depletion and well completion (open or cased hole), also for a new well, it is possible to design the best well direction and the
completion type, in addition to the operating CBHP to minimize sand production.

Introduction
Sand production has historically been a problem associated to poor cemented formations. This phenomenon is an important
issue that affects hydrocarbons production and it can cause serious problems in oil or gas flow within a reservoir as well as
affects the proper performance of the production equipment. Sand management involves a wide understanding of the entire
sand “life cycle”. Sand management describes the quantification of the risk of sand production, and if the risk is high, in
terms of economic impact, then sand control, mitigation and treatment methods are needed.

The source for sand production is the disintegrated sand grains around the wellbore in open hole or perforated walls in cased
hole completion, therefore, sand production prediction study provides much benefit for field development in sandstones of
low or intermediate strength. Determining rock strength and in-situ stress is a challenge because during field life these
parameters change according to reservoir pressure depletion due to hydrocarbon production. In this paper, rock failure criteria
and the Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) importance will be discussed as critical points, moreover an analytical
geomechanical model is proposed to choose the optimal well completion and production rates. Finally, two kinds of graphs
show the results of the analytical geomechanical software, which can calculate the critical borehole pressure (CBHP) for any
well direction and mechanical rock properties.

Rock Failure Mechanisms.

The most common types of rock failure are: compressive, tension, shear and cohesion. The compressive failure occurs when
rock volume decreases due to the increase of the existing stresses. This type of failure is common known as pore collapse.
During the production, a high pressure drop is generated near to the wellbore and it generates the presence of tensile, shear
2 14LAHO-P-255-SPE

and cohesion failure. The nature of these rock failures can be generated from different well operations (drilling, stimulation
and other treatments) or by reservoir changes as a result of fluid production. Then, rock failure occurs by:
 Shear failure: In the instant that cavities are generated in the formation (drilling or perforating), the radial effective
stress immediately drops to zero while vertical and tangential stresses remains or increase its value. The difference
between these stresses can generate shear failure. In another case, the reduction of the reservoir pressure increases the
effective stress applied to the rock, this can also cause shear failure.
 Tensile failure: When the tensile forces are large enough for overcoming the material strength on the rock, it fails for
tensile criteria. This effect is determined by three principal factors: tensile rock strength, regional in-situ stress and pore
pressure. The rock fails by tensile when the stresses and pore pressure are equal or greater than rock strength.
 Volumetric failure: This kind of failure occurs when reservoir pressure has decreased. The pore pressure reduction
within the reservoir generates an increase of the average effective stress (whereas lateral deformation remains low)
moving stress state towards the failure envelope causing pore collapse.
 Cohesion failure: Cohesion is defined as the strength that exists among formation grains and it is directly related with
the consolidation level and cement quality of the rock. The forces that compose grains cohesion are divided in binding
forces or cementation between grains and contact forces or frictional forces.

Sand Production Causes.

Sand production is generated by different well operations or changes within reservoir due to production depletion. These
must be take into account for comprehending the nature of this phenomenon and afterwards to design sand control treatment
and management. Well operations and changes within reservoir that contribute to sand production are:

 Completion and drilling operations: During completion operations, it is important to control the invasion of the fluid
in the reservoir because it is possible to generate formation damage due to: clay swelling, rock wettability changes and
emulsions around the wellbore. These factors contribute to reduce the porous media conductivity (pressure drop
increases) and the rock strength, which enables the formation of weak zones (plastic zones) around the wellbore (Wang,
2005). The pressure gradient will be higher in cased–perforated wells than in open hole wells because there is less area to
flow in the first case, and it will be even greater if the number of perforated - holes were less, then it means that the sand
production level depends on the number of perforated - holes.
 Reservoir in-situ stress state and rock deformation: Sand production and well instability take place in a similar way.
Both of them are a function of in–situ stress, stresses around the wellbore generated during well drilling stages, well
completion, well production and operating pressures. Rock formation presents an elastic behavior in some stages while
the stress state related forces are lower than rock strength.
 Level of pressure drop around the wellbore: When a well starts to produce, the pressure around the well decreases
generating a pressure gradient. It is clear that while fluid production volume is higher, pressure drop will be larger near
the wellbore. Thus, depending of the rock consolidation, sand production will begin when the borehole pressure reaches
a level under which the stresses around the wellbore are larger than the rock strength. Sand grains dragging occur if the
drag forces are sufficiently high to transport the grains after failure.
 Reservoir depletion: If the reservoir pressure decreases, the sand production potential increases due to the increase of
the stress level applied on the reservoir rock. Thus, a higher effective stress increases the possibility of matrix failure
which is a type of volumetric failure as it was mentioned above.

Mechanical Earth Model as an Input to Sand Production.

The mechanical earth model is the initial step in the analysis of any geomechanical issue, including sand production. It
comprehends the magnitudes and directions of in-situ stresses which can be impacted by multiple factors, including rock
type, depositional settings, uplift and regional tectonics. Furthermore, pore pressure and rock mechanical properties are
required and nowadays, a lot of techniques have been developed to estimate pore pressure and rock strength. The magnitude
of the vertical stress usually is calculated using density logs, considering that it consists in the weight of the overlaying beds.
Typically, the magnitude of the least principal horizontal stress is calculated using leak-off tests (LOT) or minifrac tests, but
such tests cannot always be done. Therefore some equations that depend of the elastic moduli have been developed. On the
other hand, the best way to determine the orientation of the stresses is from borehole breakouts and induced tensile fractures
analysis using image logs. For these reasons, the construction of the mechanical earth model is complex and often requires a
lot of time and costs can be very high, but it is completely necessary to avoid or prevent sand production and other issues
geomechanic related.

The strength of the rock is the stress level at which a rock typically fails. However, it depends of the stress geometry and the
type of the test in which the stress is measured. A uniaxial compression test consists of inserting a sample into a load frame
14LAHO-P-255-SPE 3

and the axial stress is increased while the horizontal or confining stress is held zero. The value of axial load when the rock
fails is known as Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS). On the other hand, Thick Wall Cylinder Test (TWC) is a test in
which the radial stress and axial stress are increased together until the point of failure. These geomechanical parameters are
very important in the evaluation of sand production as a failure criterion and therefore, it is necessary to correct the calculated
values, in order to match them with the core test results. In this case, UCS is used as a parameter that indicates rock failure.
Because it is complicated to have a lot of samples for one well, a lot of correlations have been developed as a function of well
logs. Chang (2006) summarizes 28 equations that allow the estimation of the UCS as a function of porosity, Young modulus,
velocity of P-wave and lithology. Generally, these correlations work in a particular region and its uncertainty might be very
high. Then, a sensitivity analysis is performed for Well-1 using three sets of correlations, including McNally (1987), Moos
(1999), Horsrud (2001) and Lal (1999) and other correlations that have not been published, and later on the sand production
is evaluated using the model presented here.

In ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia., the model of sand production has been used for three different sets
of correlations. The reservoir produces sand when the UCS is lower than the maximum effective tangential compressive
stress. For Set 1, the reservoir produces sand the whole interval and for Set 2 and Set 3, the sand production occurs just a few
feet. This indicates that the UCS is an important parameter and the validation is necessary using laboratory data. It can reduce
the uncertainty and ensure that the intervals with sand production are right and therefore, avoid possible mistakes that will
turn into non-productive investments.

Figure 1 – Evaluating of sand production using different correlations for UCS.

Analytical Prediction Model.

Sand production model needs input data related with the well and the reservoir as: in-situ stresses regimen, rock elastic
properties and rock strength, reservoir pressure, well direction and well completion. Rahman (2008) presents a sand
production model that converts the in-situ stresses regimen from a cartesian coordinated system to a cylindrical coordinated
system with the objective of evaluating the magnitudes of the radial and tangential stress near the wellbore. The equations
below represent the stresses in the wellbore calculated as function of the regional stresses.

𝜏𝑦𝑧 = −0.5(𝜎𝐻 − 𝜎ℎ )𝑠𝑖𝑛2𝛽𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛹 (1)

(2)
𝜏𝑥𝑧 = 0.5(𝜎𝐻 𝑐𝑜𝑠 2 𝛽 + 𝜎ℎ 𝑠𝑖𝑛2 𝛽 − 𝜎𝑣 )

𝜏𝑥𝑦 = −0.5(𝜎𝐻 − 𝜎ℎ )𝑠𝑖𝑛2𝛽𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛹 (3)

𝜎𝑥 = (𝜎𝐻 𝑐𝑜𝑠 2 𝛽 + 𝜎ℎ 𝑠𝑖𝑛2 𝛽)𝑐𝑜𝑠 2 𝛹 + 𝜎𝑣 𝑠𝑖𝑛2 𝛹 (4)

𝜎𝑦 = 𝜎𝐻 𝑠𝑖𝑛2 𝛽 + 𝜎ℎ 𝑐𝑜𝑠 2 𝛽 (5)

4 14LAHO-P-255-SPE

(6)
𝜎𝑧 = (𝜎𝐻 𝑐𝑜𝑠 2 𝛽 + 𝜎ℎ 𝑠𝑖𝑛2 𝛽)𝑠𝑖𝑛2 𝛹 + 𝜎𝑣 𝑐𝑜𝑠 2 𝛹

For a cased-perforated completion, 𝛽 y 𝛹 in above equations must be replaced by 𝛽𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑓 and Ψ𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑓 by the following
expressions,

𝛹𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑓 = 90 − 𝛹𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛷𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑓 (7)

𝛽𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑓 = 𝜎ℎ𝑎𝑧 + 90 − 𝜆𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑓 (8)

Where 𝛷𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑓 , 𝜎ℎ𝑎𝑧 and 𝜆𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑓 are the perforation orientation from top of the wellbore in deviated wells, the azimuth of the
minimum horizontal stress and perforation azimuth respectively. The stresses in the cartesian coordinated system are changed
into radial coordinated system with the following equations,

𝜎𝜃𝜃 = 𝜎𝑥 + 𝜎𝑦 − 2(𝜎𝑥 − 𝜎𝑦 )𝑐𝑜𝑠2𝜃 − [𝑝𝑤𝑓 + 𝐴(𝑃𝑟 − 𝑝𝑤𝑓)] − 4𝜏𝑥𝑦 𝑠𝑖𝑛2𝜃 (9)

𝜎𝑧𝜃 = 𝜎𝑧 − 2𝑣(𝜎𝑥 − 𝜎𝑦 )𝑐𝑜𝑠2𝜃 − 𝐴(𝑃𝑟 − 𝑝𝑤𝑓) − 4𝑣𝜏𝑥𝑦 𝑠𝑖𝑛2𝜃 (10)

𝜏𝜃𝑧 = 2(−𝜏𝑥𝑧 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 + 𝜏𝑦𝑧 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃) (11)

The maximum stress 𝜎1 (principal tangential stress) can be calculated for several angles around the wellbore, the larger of
these one will be maximum stress 𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 ,

2 (12)
𝜎1 = 0.5 [(𝜎𝜃𝜃 + 𝜎𝑧𝜃 ) + √(𝜎𝜃𝜃 − 𝜎𝑧𝜃 )2 + 4𝜏𝜃𝑧 ]

Maximum effective stress is obtained as:

𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑒 = 𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝛼𝑃𝑤𝑓 (13)

Critical borehole pressure is the pressure which makes the maximum effective stress to become equal to UCS, and it can be
estimated as:
𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑈𝐶𝑆 (14)
𝐶𝐵𝐻𝑃 =
𝛼

The process to find the critical borehole pressure must be solved iteratively because the equations to calculate the maximum
effective stress and the critical borehole pressure are mutually dependent.

A Study Case: Well-1.

Table 1 presents the Well-1characteristics and its mechanical rock properties and in-situ stress regime.
Table 1 – Mechanical rock properties, well characteristics and in-situ stress regime for Well-1.

Characteristics Range
Analyzed Interval (ft) 4050 – 4200
Interest Interval (ft) 4120 – 4152
ψ (º) 0.0
β (º) 0.0
Maximum Horizontal Stress (psi) 5156 – 4401
Minimum Horizontal Stress (psi) 3325 – 2948
Vertical Stress (psi) 4022 – 3990
UCS (psi) 3925 –12324
Biot Constant 0.81 – 0.84
Poisson´s ratio 0.21 – 0.31

The analysis is performed considering two different scenarios of completion: open hole and cased-perforated. Open hole
completion case helps to identify the zones with sand production potential. As function of this analysis, the second stage is
evaluated, in other words, how this zone behaves under cased-perforated completion. From this, the change of the critical
14LAHO-P-255-SPE 5

borehole pressure is calculated according to well completion that lets to select the optimum well completion to get the less
critical borehole pressure, reducing the sand production potential.

The Figure 2 presents the CBHP log for Well-1 that includes the UCS (Uniaxial Compressive Strength) values, the gamma
ray and sonic logs, and the critical borehole pressure for the sand production onset for the interval of interest (brown fringe).
Figure 2-A shows the high potential of sand production for the interval of interest because the critical borehole pressure is
greater than reservoir pressure on the top of the interval. This sand production potential justifies a gravel pack installation in
this zone as a sand production control method. At the bottom, the critical borehole pressure is obtained and it is less than the
reservoir pressure. In this section, at 4141 ft for the open hole completion case, the critical borehole pressure equals 1355 psi.

On the other hand, the Figure 2–B presents the sand production analysis for the cased-perforated completion which
evidences a higher pressure drop without sand production. For this case, at 4141 ft when the perforated-hole is oriented
parallel to the maximum horizontal stress direction, the critical borehole pressure is lower than zero. Also, this type of
completion can be considered as a strategy of sand control because it reduces the sand production potential and increases the
operation drawdown.

After the type of completion that causes a larger pressure drop has been defined, which is cased-perforated completion for
Well-1, the optimal position around the wellbore for the perforated setting is defined using a sensitivity analysis. This study
consideres the most critical cases: a cased-perforated completion with the perforated-hole oriented parallel to the maximum
horizontal stress direction and the other one with the perforated-hole oriented parallel to the minimum horizontal stress
direction. Figure 2–B shows that for, the cased- perforated case when the perforated hole is parallel to the maximum stress
direction, the well could be managed with larger pressure drop without sand production risk.

Figure 2 – CBHP log for Well-1.

Figure 3 shows the sand production free envelope for open hole and cased-perforated cases. For open hole completion, the
representative cases are presented as function of the UCS

• Zone 1: 7092 psi – UCS minimum value, (4125-4132 ft),

• Zone 2: 9677 psi – UCS intermediate value, (4138-4142 ft),
• Zone 3: 13691 psi – UCS maximum value, (4145-4150 ft).

For zone 1, it is observed that CBHP to Pr line is above any possible borehole pressure during the well production. This
reflects that this zone always will have sand production. It is defined like a zone with unconditional sand production.
6 14LAHO-P-255-SPE

For zone 2, it is possible to define a range of borehole pressures without sand production, which delimit the envelope of sand-
free production (green area). Then, sand production is determined by the borehole pressure and the reservoir pressure at
which is possible to operate the well. This defines a zone of conditional sand production.

Finally, for zone 3, it is observed that CBHP to Pr line is below zero, in other words, for any reservoir pressure whatever
borehole pressure can be used without producing sand. This situation represents a zone of null sand production.

For a cased-perforated well, if the perforated hole is parallel to the maximum stress direction, the critical borehole pressure
obtained is less than the reservoir pressure. This lets to handle the borehole pressure during reservoir depletion which
prevents sand production. Otherwise, if the perforated hole is parallel to the minimum stress direction, when reservoir
pressure is depleting the critical borehole pressure obtainted is not enough to prompt sand production. In other words, the
best case scenario for this type of completion is presented when the perforated hole is parallel to the maximum stress
direction.

Figure 3 – Sand free envelope for Well-1.

Production Forecasting.
The next analysis starts from the calculated critical borehole pressure for Well-1 with the open hole completion case. The
sensitivity study is done considering three borehole pressures (above and below of critical borehole pressure) and it tries to
obtain the best well pressure conditions for Well-1 (more oil and water production without sand production). For this
sensitivity case a radial biphasic model was used (for water and oil). The simulation input data is the water rate obtained in a
DST well test performed on Well-1, given that the water rate is a critical variable due to the high production rates and the fact
that it is used to match the history data. Results obtained are oil rates and borehole pressure for Well-1. The simulation
performed tries to adjust oil production history for Well-1 as a function of relative permeability curves, porosity and initial
14LAHO-P-255-SPE 7

saturation of the reservoir that best reproduces the production history in the DST well test. Figure 4 shows the best
adjustment obtained, Table 3 and Table 4 summarize the calculated properties.

Table 2 – Kr curve obtained from production matching.

Sw Krw Kro
0.15 0.00 0.82
0.20 0.00 0.21
0.25 0.00 0.15 Table 3 – Reservoir characteristics.
0.30 0.01 0.12 Porosity (fraction) 0.24
0.35 0.04 0.10 Initial water saturation (Swi) 0.17
0.40 0.08 0.08
0.45 0.15 0.07
0.50 0.20 0.05
0.55 0.22 0.04
0.60 0.23 0.01
0.61 0.23 0.00

Figure 4 – Production rate forecasting.

Figure 5 shows a production forecasting starting with the case scenario that best fits the model. The production is forecasted
for ten years with a constant borehole pressure condition taking into account water and oil production of Well-1 for different
borehole pressures, higher and lower than the calculated critical borehole pressure.

Figure 5-A shows the effect that has borehole pressure in water production. It can be observed, that if the borehole pressure
decreases, the amount of water produced will be higher. The amount in conjunction with sand production must be taken into
account since, while borehole pressure decreases BSW increases. While it more decreases the borehole pressure, the volume
of accumulate produced water and BSW increases.

Figure 5-B shows the accumulated produced oil for 3 different borehole pressures. The pressures are chosen around the
critical borehole pressure obtained for Well-1, considering open hole completion, which is 1355 psi. At this point, the
selected borehole pressures are: 1455 psi that is a borehole pressure without sand production (green curve), 1300 psi and
1255 psi with sand production both of them but with larger production for the lower pressure (red and blue curves). Proposal
borehole pressures look for showing the amount of accumulated produced oil with and without sand production. It evidences
that when the borehole pressure decreases the amount of accumulated produced oil increases. If the borehole pressure is held
above the calculated critical borehole pressure (case without sand production), accumulated produced oil will be less than for
the case where the borehole pressure is lower than the critical borehole pressure (case with sand production). The
considerations lead to have a larger amount of oil produced accumulated with sand production (BHP < CBHP) or having less
accumulated produced oil without sand production (BHP > CBHP).
8 14LAHO-P-255-SPE

Figure 5 –Accumulated produced forecasting.

Conclusions.
The selection of the failure criterion is essential to evaluate the sand production. Furthermore, the calculation of UCS using
different correlations showed that this parameter is critical for the mechanical earth model because, choosing an inadequate
correlation or selecting a correlation without validating data can generate differences within the interval of producing sand.
Therefore, the mechanical earth model must be corrected in order to obtain accurate estimates.

The proposed pressures are governed by the economic analysis, which must be overseen by the production scheme that
optimizes profitability between producing sand with high volumes of oil and water (BHP < CBHP) or not producing sand
thus oil and water volume are lower (BHP > CBHP). Production strategy in relation with sand production must be handled
along with economic analysis looking for the one that generates higher profitability.

The mechanical earth model proposed for the analysis of sand production for Well-1 is very sensitive in relation with the
UCS parameter. Also, the sand production model presents high sensitivity to this parameter. It is necessary to calibrate the
models taking into account values of UCS parameter found from several sources, such as core tests.

Critical borehole pressure calculated can help to design better completion and production strategies. From the completion
strategies analyzed, the one which enables better operational condition to avoid sand production is cased – perforated
completion with perforation in the maximum stress direction.

Nomenclature.
𝐶𝐵𝐻𝑃 = Critical Borehole Pressure (psi).
𝐵𝐻𝑃 = Borehole Pressure (psi).
𝑃𝑟 = Reservoir pressure (psi).
𝜎𝐻 = Maximum horizontal stress (psi).
𝜎ℎ = Minimum horizontal stress (psi).
𝜎𝑣 = Minimum horizontal stress (psi).
β = Angle between well direction (projected xy cartesian plane) and maximum horizontal stress direction 𝜎𝐻 (degrees).
Ψ = Well inclination with vertical (degrees).
β𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑓 = Perforated angle (projected xy cartesian plane) and maximum horizontal stress direction 𝜎𝐻 (degrees).
Ψ𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑓 = Perforated inclination with vertical (degrees).
𝜏𝑦𝑧 = Shear in the plane yz (psi).
𝜏𝑥𝑧 = Shear in the plane xz (psi).
𝜏𝑥𝑦 = Shear in the plane xy (psi).
𝜎𝑥 = Stress in x direction (maximum horizontal stress) (psi).
𝜎𝑦 = Stress in y direction (minimum horizontal stress) (psi).
𝜎𝑧 = Stress in z direction (vertical stress) (psi).
𝛷𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑓 = Perforated orientation from top of the wellbore in deviated wells (degrees).
𝜎ℎ𝑎𝑧 = Minimum horizontal stress azimuth (degrees).
𝜆𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑓 = Perforated azimuth (degrees).
𝜃 = Failure angle (degrees).
𝜎𝜃𝜃 = Stress in tangential direction (psi).
 14LAHO-P-255-SPE 9

𝜎𝑧𝜃 = Stress in the plane z𝜃 (psi).

𝜏𝜃𝑧 = Shear in the plane θz (psi).
𝑣 = Poisson ratio (adimensional).
𝛼 = Biot constant (adimensional).
𝑈𝐶𝑆 = Uniaxial Compressive Strength (psi).
𝜎1 = Compressive tangential stress (psi).
𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 = Compressive tangential maximum stress (psi).
𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑒 = Effective compressive tangential maximum stress (psi).

References.
Chang, C. and Zoback, M.D., (2006). Empirical Relations Between Rock Strength and Physical Properties in Sedimentary Rocks. Journal
of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 51, 223-237.
Horsrud, P., (2001). Estimating Mechanical Properties of Shale from Empirical Correlations. SPE Drilling & Completion, Vol. 16, No. 2,
pp. 68-73. SPE 56017-PA.
Hossain, M.M., Rahman, K., and Rahman, S., (1991). Hydraulic Fracture Initiation and Propagation: Roles of the Wellbore Trajectory,
Perforation and Stress Regimes. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 27 (2000), 129 – 149.
Lal, M., (1989). Shale Stability: Drilling Fluid Interaction and Shale Strength. SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering
Conference held in Caracas, Venezuela. SPE 54356-MS.
McNally, G.H., (1987). Estimation of Coal Measures Rock Strength Using Sonic and Neutron Logs. Geoexploration 24, 381-395. SPE
124161-MS.
Moos, D., Zoback, M. D., & Bailey L., (1999). Feasibility Study of the Stability Openhole Multilaterals, Cook Inlet, Alaska. SPE Mid
Continent Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 28-31 March, 1999. SPE 52186.

Rahman, K., Khaksar, A., & Kayes, T. (2008). Minimizing Sanding Risk by Optimizing Well and Perforation Trajectory using an
Integrated Geomechanical and Passive Sand-Control Approach. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver,
Colorado, 21 – 24 September, 2008. SPE 116633.
Soliman, M., Dupont, R., Folse, K., Mason, J., Burleson, J. and Azari, M., (1999). Use of Oriented Perforation and New System Optimizes
Fracturing of High Permeability, Uncosolidated Formations. SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held
in Caracas, Venezuela, 21-23 April, 1999, SPE 53793.
Sulbaran, A.L., Carbonell, R.S., and Lopez-de-Cárdenas, J.E., (1999).Oriented Perforating for Sand Prevention. SPE European Formation
Damage Conference held in The Hague, The Netherlands, 31 May – 1 June, 1999, SPE 57954.
Teufel, L., Rhett, D., and Farrerl, H., (1991). Effect of Reservoir Depletion and Pore Pressure Drawdown on in situ Stress and Deformation
in the Ekofisk Field, North Sea. Rock Mechanics as a Multidisciplinary Science 194.
Wang, J., Wan, R. G., Settari, A., and Walters, D. (2005). Prediction of Volumetric Sand Production and Wellbore Stability Analysis of a
Well at Different Completion schemes. Proceedings of the 40th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, (USRMS 05-842).
Wilson, S.M., Moschovidis, Z.A., Cameron, J.R., and Palmer, I.D., (2002). New Model for Predicting the Rate of Sand Production.
SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference held in Living, Texas, 20-23 October, 2002. SPE 78168-MS.

View publication stats