SPE 103821
A Critical Evaluation of Sand-Control Completions in the Duri Steamflood, Sumatra,
Indonesia
David Underdown, SPE, Chevron, and Henky Chan, SPE, Chevron Pacific Indonesia
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE International Oil & Gas Conference
and Exhibition in China held in Beijing, China, 5–7 December 2006.
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
The Duri field in Sumatra, Indonesia shown in Figure 1
operated by Chevron Pacific Indonesia (CPI) is one of the
largest steam flood operations in the world. Producing heavy
oil (API gravity ≈ 25) from an essentially unconsolidated
reservoir with a depth that ranges from 300 – 700 feet using
steam injection @ 300 – 400 °F poses a unique challenge in
designing an effective yet economic completion. One of the
biggest problems associated with the production of the crude
oil in this environment is the production of solids, i.e., sand. It
is reported that greater than 1,000,000 lbs of sand per day are
produced from the field. In addition to the cost of the
re-completions, problems associated with disposing of this
amount of sand; and the effect the produced solids have on the
facilities such as stabilization of emulsions is a large cost to
operations.
A program was initiated in 2002 to evaluate the effectiveness
of the completions in the Duri field. This effort involved
evaluated field data such as the frequency and type of
workovers, the amount and size of produced solids, the nature
and number of failed liners, and the frequency of stuck pumps
to better understand the efficiency of the sand control
completions. Local sand control gravel used in the
completions was evaluated for steam dissolution and
adherence to API gravel pack sand standards. An audit of the
primary sand control screen manufacturer was also conducted
to evaluate the quality of the sand control screens used in the
completions. In addition, on-site inspections of the
operational aspects of the completions were done. The results
of the program showed the completion designs, and sand
control screens were up to industry standards. However,
several operational aspects were identified as opportunities for
improvement. The results of the program are presented, and
items for improvement of the completion for thermal wells in
the Duri field are discussed in this paper.
Understanding the Produced Solids
The origin and cause of solids production was not well
understood. A field wide effort was initiated to sample
produced fluids and solids from wells, test stations and
gathering stations. Bailed sands from well services and
workovers were also collected for analysis. The analysis
objective was to understand size, nature and amount of
gathered solids at surface
Several particle size analyses were done to understand the
particle size distribution on both core and produced/gathered
solids in order to get a better picture of the produced solids
origin. Figure 2 shows a laser particle size distribution
(LPSA) of a typical formation in the Duri field. Figures 3 & 4
show the histograms of typical produced and bailed samples
from wells in the field.
Inspection of Figures 3 & 4 reveals that most of the solids
produced to the surface are consistently the very small
particles; whereas, the bailed samples were mostly the larger
particles. This observation was not unexpected. Some of the
larger material analyzed was gravel pack sand which indicated
that the sand control placed in the well was compromised to
some level.
Origin of Produced Solids
A major concern for the project was to understand the source
of the “fine” solids produced from the wellbore. It was not
clear if the production of the fines was just characteristic of
the formation or as a result of some type of interaction of the
steam and the formation. Typical mineralogy percentages of
the Duri formation are given in Table 1.
Several tests were conducted which consisted of initially
flowing simulated formation brine through a core sample, and
then stepwise decreasing the salinity. The decrease in salinity
simulates the decreasing salinity of the water in the formation
as a result of the injecting steam to stimulate the oil.
2 SPE 103821
Impact of the decreasing water salinity towards fine
production and core permeability was also measured during
the test. The core was initially saturated with a high salinity
NaCl brine to establish stable initial brine permeability. Core
was then injected with gradually decreasing brine salinity at
discrete steps and stable brine permeability established at each
salinity value. The final step consisted of flooding the core
with fresh (deionized) water, which approximated the salinity
of condensed steam. Results indicated that the permeability
does not change until the injected water is relatively fresh. At
this point, permeability increased each time the salinity was
reduced due to production of clay fines out of the core plug.
Increase in permeability is due to removal of clay from the
finite length core (Duri reservoir rock has large pore throats);
however, this migration is not expected to increase the
permeability of the formation sands in the field. Examination
of the produced fines from the core test revealed that the fines
were the same as the pore lining and pore filling clays found
in the formation core.
Analyses of the solids from the surface facilities, around the
screens in the wellbore and found stabilizing emulsions
showed that the material was fine sand and clays. These
results are consistent with what was observed from the core
tests. Based on the lab tests and the solids analyses from the
field, it was concluded that the vast majority of the solids
produced into the wellbore are fines from the formation
caused by the movement of fluids in the reservoir. This
information led to reviewing the factors that could affect the
completion efficiency throughout the field.
Completion Efficiency
The basis of design for the completions in the Duri field is an
open hole gravel pack using 20/40 gravel pack sand around a
12 gauge wire wrapped screen. Other completion types such
as frac packs and consolidated resin coated sand have not
proven successful. Even though gravel pack logs indicate
complete packs, stuck pumps and the need to replace screens
results in significant operating costs and lost production.
A common workover practice is to pull the sand control screen
and re-gravel pack the well if it is thought the well is making
too much sand. This practice is called a revised liner (RL)
workover. Over the past several years, the completion
efficiency has increased as evidenced by the decrease in
revised liner (RL) and stuck pump jobs as shown in Figures 5
& 6. In addition, the introduction of good heat management
practices has resulted in increased completion efficiency as
depicted in Figure 7. However, statistics are sometimes a little
deceiving. There are a lot of wells in the Duri field, and over
400 workovers in the past year represent a substantial
operating cost and lost revenue from deferred production.
The decision to do a workover is very important in reducing
the operating cost of the Duri field, and is based on several
criteria. These include monitoring the number of stuck pumps
over a period of time, the amount of fill in the tubing,
production of solids to the surface, and detection of holes in
the sand control screens. Figure 8 is an example of a gravel
pack screen pulled from a well that was producing a great deal
of sand. The regular pattern of holes indicates the holes are
across from perforations. The most obvious cause for this
type of completion failure is a void in the gravel pack. The
cause of the voids is not known; however, incomplete packs or
dissolution of the gravel pack sand from steam break through
are considered the most likely reasons. Plugging of sand
screens is also a common problem. The material plugging the
screen is composed of combination of asphaltene, CaCO3
scale and fine sand. The plugging is considered to promote
gravel pack screen erosion by creating local hot spots. A
typical plugged screen is shown in Figure 9.
One technique most recently used to detecting holes and scale
in the gravel pack screen is a log type method developed by a
major service company. The technique involves generating an
image log of the inside of the sand control screen to allow
visual inspection of the screen. Figure 10 is a typical out put
from an image log. Calibration and refinement of the
supporting software are still underway; however, this
technique does take some of the guess work out of
determining the need for pulling the liner.
Besides the image logging method, an indirect method is also
used as a guideline to judge the need for a revise liner job.
This method involves evaluating the number of stuck pumps
over a period of time, and/or sand fill. A revised liner job is
judged necessary only if there are 3 stuck pumps within 3
months, or there is at least 100 ft of sand fill within 3 months.
If either of these situations exist, then there is most likely a
hole in the liner and a revised liner job is warranted.
However, the metric related to the number of stuck pumps per
3 month period needs more investigation. There is no
question about the need to pull a pump if it is stuck. A stuck
pump is a stuck pump. It is surmised that the pump is stuck
because of the failure of the liner. This might not be the case.
The liner in the well has 20/40 gravel pack sand around the
liner. If the gravel is in place without voids, the 20/40 gravel
can let solids with a median size of 54 microns or less pass
through without plugging the gravel. The largest median
particle that will pass through 20/40 gravel is about 100
microns. The opening in a 12 gauge wire wrapped screen
ranges from 250 – 325 microns. Based on this information, if
the particles in the stuck pump are on the average 100 microns
or smaller, then the liner has not failed and the gravel pack
sand is in place. If the particles in the stuck pump are 352
microns or less this indicates that the liner is OK, but there is a
void in the gravel pack sand. Therefore, just using the number
of stuck pump occurrences as a guide to do a revised liner job
is not the best approach. It is best to augment this information
with additional information about the particle size distribution
of the solids in the pump. It is possible that there is not a need
to do a revised liner job at all if every time the particles in the
pump are 100 microns or less. Any particle size analyses are
best done using the laser particle size analysis (LPSA)
technique. A standard sieve analysis will not distinguish
between the particles less than 44 microns.
SPE 103821
Evaluation of Gravel Pack Sand
Local sources of 20/40 gravel pack sand are usually used for
cost considerations. One objective of the evaluation program
was to do a quality check of the local gravel pack sand.
Figures 11 and 12 show samples of Ottawa sand and the local
sand. The presence of the discolored grains in the local gravel
pack sand caused concern about the relative stability of the
material in the presence of steam or hot water. Cross
polarized light evaluation of the two sands shown in Figures
13 & 14 shows that the local sand has substantially more
polycrystalline grains and is much more angular than the
Ottawa sand. There was concern that the polycrystalline
grains of the local sand could have less crush strength than
monocrystalline grains like that found with the Ottawa sand.
Evaluation of the local sand control gravel revealed that the
material did not meet API RP- 56 specifications for crush
resistance.
There are only a limited number of SPE papers that address
the dissolution of gravel pack sand. Dr. Marian Reed with
Chevron Research published a SPE paper in the mid 70’s (1).
During this same time period, Dr. Das and Underdown (2)
also published data related to dissolution of gravel pack sand
in thermal operations. The latest work in the area of
dissolution of gravel pack sand was done by Dr. Weaver with
Halliburton (3).
All the SPE papers support the already well known effect of
pH and temperature on the dissolution of silica based material.
The high pH and alkalinity in injected steam results from the
HCO3 – in the steam feed water decomposing to OH – and
CO2. The OH – ions dissolve in the aqueous phase causing
the pH to increase. The increase in the pH depends on the
amount of HCO3 – in the feed water to the steam generator.
Research has shown that the dissolution of silica into an
aqueous phase liquid increases rapidly with increasing pH and
temperature. Work by Krauskopf (4) and Iler (5) shows that
below pH 9.0, the dissolution is very small as a function of
temperature. At the pH increases above 9.5 the dissolution of
silica increases greatly; almost exponentially.
Dissolution tests were done to compare Ottawa gravel pack
sand and local gravel pack sand. The dissolution tests were
done from pH 8.4 of 9.8 and a temperature of 270°F. A pH of
8.4 was chosen because the pH of the produced water in the
Duri field consistently is around pH 8.0 – 8.4. At the higher
pH, the test results indicated that the sample of local gravel
pack sand had a substantially higher dissolution rate than
Ottawa sand. However, at pH 8.4 the dissolution rates were
essentially the same and very low. The low dissolution rate at
pH 8.4 is what is expected based on the work of Reed,
Krauskopf, Iler, Weaver, & Underdown. Based on the
dissolution rate at the pH of the produced water, the local sand
was deemed acceptable for use in the Duri sand control
completions.
Even though work by Reed, Krauskopf, Iler, Weaver, &
Underdown indicate significant dissolution of silica based
material (i.e., gravel pack sand ) at elevated pH and
3
temperature, there is anecdotal data from the Duri field that
suggests that even if gravel pack dissolution is occurring that
it is not much of a problem. A recent evaluation of over 100
wells that were steam stimulated did not show any increase in
revised liner jobs as compared to wells that were not steam
stimulated. This indicates that even if the dissolution is
occurring as suggested by the studies of the above referenced
researchers, there apparently is no significant impact; using
the number of revised liner jobs as a reference.
Standard Operating Procedures & Practices
The standard operating procedures (SOP) for the sand control
completions were carefully reviewed. It was found that the
SOP’s are up to date and reflect the best practices used
throughout the industry. However, there were areas for
improvement in the implementation of the completions. On-
site inspections of revised liner jobs revealed that all the
necessary equipment needed to do the job was on location, and
safety was a major concern with the operation. Interviews
pointed out that the wellsite supervisor on location understood
the SOP.
One example of a major area identified for improvement was
the cleanliness of the fluids used to pump the sand control
gravel. Proper use and operation of the filter unit was
recognized as an opportunity for improvement in the
operation. In order to help facilitate following all SOP’s and
best practices on location, the CPI Completion Team is
instituting the use of a score card. The score card will help the
wellsite supervisor to assure that SOP’s are followed, and
provide feedback to the Completion Team about the operation.
Inspection of Screen Manufacturer
The screen manufacturing facility of the major supplier of
wire wrapped screens was audited by the Quality Assurance
Team, representatives of Chevron’s Energy Technology
Company, and local CPI engineers. The purpose of the audit
was to determine the quality and worthiness of the
manufacturing process of the wire wrapped screens supplied
to CPI. A pre-audit check list of areas of interest was
provided to the supplier.
The machine used to manufacture the wire wrapped jacket for
the sand control screens was designed and built under the
supervision of one of the senior engineers of the company.
Inspection of the wire wrapping machine showed good control
features of the electrical system to generate the welds between
the wire ribs and the warp wires. The audit also disclosed the
screen supplier was forming the wedge wire for the screens on
site. The method for the inspection of the wedge wire was
done on a scheduled basis using a micrometer. This method is
not as fancy; however, the method is very satisfactory. It was
also found that the Quality Plan of the supplier also included a
schedule for the inspection and calibration of the
manufacturing equipment. In addition, a process for full
traceability of the products is in place. A major plus in the
Quality Program was the incorporation of a plan to address
non-conformance issues.
4 SPE 103821

Conclusions and Observations Acknowledgements

The following are based on the information obtained during The authors thank BPMIGAS, Chevron Pacific Indonesia and
the evaluation of the sand control completions in the Duri Chevron Energy Technology Company for permission to
field: publish this paper. In addition, we would like to than all our
colleagues at CPI for the all the help in gathering the field data
1. The source of the fine solids; i.e. sub 44 micron, presented in this paper.
produced into the wellbore in the Duri field is fines
released during the movement of fluids through the References
reservoir.
2. A competent sand control completion placed using 1. Reed, M., “Gravel Pack and Formation Sandstone
good standard operating procedures allows Dissolution During Steam Injection”, SPE 8424, JPT,
production of a very large amount of fine; i.e., sub 44 June, 1980, pp. 941 – 949.
micron, formation material through the completion in 2. Underdown, D., & Das, K., “Stability of Gravel
the Duri field. Packing Materials for Thermal Wells”, SPE 11793,
3. Local sand control gravel is more angular and has JPT, 1985, pp. 2006 – 2012.
less crush resistance than Ottawa sand. 3. Weaver, J.D., & Knox, J.A., “Evaluation of Steam
4. The dissolution of the local sand control gravel is Resistance of Gravel Packing Materials”, SPE 20025,
equivalent to Ottawa sand at 270 °F in water with a Production Engineering, May, 1992, pp. 155 – 159.
pH equivalent to that of the produced water from the 4. Krauskoph, K., Introduction to Geochemistry,
Duri field. McGraw – Hill Book Company, Inc., New York
5. Adherence to standard operating procedures for sand City, 1967, pp. 167 – 70, 208 – 11.
control completions will help increase completion 5. Iler, R. K., The Colloid Chemistry of Silica and
efficiency. Silicates, Cornell University Press, New York City,
6. Guidelines for when to pull liners need revision. 1955, pp. 4 – 13.
Basing the need for pulling liners upon the number of
stuck pump jobs and amount of fill in the wellbore SI Metric
per a period of time is not adequate. Evaluation of
particle sizes of the material in the pump and fill will Psi x 6.894 757 E + 00 = kPa
help greatly to understand the nature of the sanding Lbm x 4.535 924 E -01 = kg
problem. °F ( °F -32 )1.8 = °C
7. The local supplier of wire wrapped screens provides Ft x 3.048 E -01* = m
an acceptable product, and has a good Quality Plan in in x 2.54* E +04 = µ
place.
* Conversion factor is exact
Improvement Plans

Based on the findings of the completion efficiency evaluation,

several steps were suggested for improvement. These include:

1. Adopt the practice of proper heat management to

more areas of the field
2. Establish SOP for gravel pack operations in the form
of a score card for use on location which includes
every step in the completion procedure
3. Initiate use of API quality gravel pack sand according
to API RP-56.
4. Conduct trial of premium sand control screen to
improve producer well productivity and longevity.
5. Start measuring particle size distributions of solids in
pulled pumps to better understand the nature of the
produced solids.
SPE 103821 5

Distribution of Trapped Sand Grain Diameter at Surface Facilities

8

7
Classification(After Folk, 1974):
Clay: 0.06 - 4μ
6
Fine Silt: 4 - 30μ
Coarse Silt: 30 - 65μ
Very Fine Sand: 65 - 125μ
5
Fine Sand: 125 - 250μ
Medium Sand: 250 - 500μ

# Observations
Coarse Sand: >500μ
4

182.9 to <= 205.7

22.9 to <= 45.7

91.4 to <= 114.3

114.3 to <= 137.2

160. to <= 182.9

205.7 to <= 228.6

228.6 to <= 251.5

274.3 to <= 297.2

320. to <= 342.9

137.2 to <= 160.
Particle Diameter, microns
DURI

Figure 4. Histogram of Produced Sand

Figure 1. Duri Field, Sumatra
REVISED LINER JOB STATISTIC
5000 7.0%
Revise Liner
20 100 6.4%
4500 No.of Producer well
6.0%
% Failure RL
4171 4190 4224 6.0%
18 90
4000 5.6% 3959
16 80
3569 5.0%
3500
Incremental Volume, percent

Cumulative Volume, percent

14 70
3179

No.of job/ No. of Well

4.4%
3000
12 60 2902 4.0%

% Failure
2665
3.6%
10 50 2500 2422
2488

2220 3.1% 3.0%

8 40 2000 2.7% 2.7%
2.5%
6 30
1500 2.1%
2.0%
4 20
1000
2 10
1.0%
0.8%
500
0 0 161 204 199
97 61 76 104 106 112 87 34
mm 0 0.0%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
YEAR

Figure 2. Particle Size Distribution of Typical Duri Figure 5. Revised Liner Jobs
Formation
REVISED LINER JOB STATISTIC
5000 7.0%
Revise Liner
6.4%
4500 No.of Producer well
6.0%
Distribution of Bailed Sand Grain Diameter % Failure RL
4171 4190 4224 6.0%
4000 5.6% 3959

30
3500
3569 5.0%

3179
No.of job/ No. of Well

Classification(After Folk, 1974): 4.4%

25 3000
Clay: 0.06 - 4μ 2902 4.0%
Fine Silt: 4 - 30μ

% Failure
Coarse Silt: 30 - 65μ 2665
3.6%
20 Very Fine Sand: 65 - 125μ 2500 2488
# Observations

2422
Fine Sand: 125 - 250μ
Medium Sand: 250 - 500μ 2220 3.1% 3.0%
15 Coarse Sand: >500μ 2000
2.7% 2.7%
2.5%

10 1500 2.1% 2.0%

1000
5
1.0%
0.8%
500
0 204 199
161 112
300.8 to <= 376.
0. to <= 75.2

75.2 to <= 150.4

150.4 to <= 225.6

225.6 to <= 300.8

451.2 to <= 526.4

526.4 to <= 601.6

676.8 to <= 752.

827.2 to <= 902.4

902.4 to <= 977.6

2180.8 to <= 2256.

2406.4 to <= 2481.6

104 106
376. to <= 451.2

97 61 76 87 34
0 0.0%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
YEAR
Particle Diameter, microns

Figure 6. Stuck Pump Jobs

Figure 3. Histogram of Bailed Sand
6 SPE 103821

Radius (calculated Amplitude

A8 PUMP STUCK from TT)
12

10

8
# OF CAS

4 After Heat Management

Before Heat Management
2

0
M ay_00

M ay_01

M ay_02

M ay_03
Nov_00

Nov_01

Nov_02
Sep_01
Sep_00

Sep_02
M a r_ 0 0

Jan_01

M ar_ 0 1

M a r_ 0 2

Jan_03

M ar_ 0 3
Jan _00

Jan _02

J u l_ 0 3
J u l_ 0 0

J u l_ 0 1

J u l_ 0 2
Figure 10. Image Log of Cut Out Liner
Figure 7. Heat Management

Figure 11. Local Gravel Pack Sand

Figure 8. Pulled Liner

Figure 12. Ottawa Sand

Figure 9. Gravel Pack Screen Plugging

SPE 103821 7

Figure 13. Cross Polarized Light View – Local Sand

Figure 14. Cross Polarized Light View – Ottawa Sand

Table 1. Mineralogy of Duri Formation

COMPONENT WEIGHT %
Quartz 40 – 90
K-feldspar 4 – 14%
Plagioclase 0 – 20 %
Siderite (cement) 0.5 – 10 %
Calcite (cement) 0–5%
Kaolinite 3 – 20 % ( of clay fraction )
Illite – smectite 3 – 20 % (of clay fraction )