SPE 56948
Solving Sanding Problems using a Sand Production Management System.
Case Histories
c
Craig M K.Webster and Juan J.Tovar D, Innovative Engineering Systems Ltd.
Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 Offshore Europe Conference held in
Aberdeen, Scotland, 7–9 September 1999.
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
In this paper three case studies are presented of a Sand
Production Management System (SPMS™) used to
successfully predict, evaluate, resolve and manage sand
production problems. These cover drilling and production
problems in Lake Maracaibo, a subsea development in the
North Sea and a prediction and management in the Far East.
As a primary feature, the SPMS™ integrates the
geomechanical characteristics of a reservoir, its deliverability
and equipment performance throughout the life of the field.
The system is based on a geomechanical model that
determines the in-situ rock properties and field stresses then
predicts the changes that will occur during reservoir depletion.
Critical issues addressed include optimum well deviation and
orientation, borehole size effects, critical production
conditions, time to abandonment and sand control measures.
In each of the cases, both drilling and production performance
were improved significantly while minimising or avoiding
sanding problems.
The Sand Production Management System
In general, sanding problems should be considered during the
exploration and appraisal phases of a reservoir to identify
productive intervals which have sanding potential. Depending
on the predicted severity of the problem, geomechanical
characterisation of the reservoir rock may then have to be
carried out to determine if sand control measures will be
required.
SPMS™(1) is a software based system that was developed to
represent the geomechanical and reservoir conditions for a
particular geographical area. It is based on a geomechanical
model that is generated from specific drilling information,
reservoir logs, DST results and core analysis data for a
particular field. The model then allows a variety of
computations to be carried out according to the development
phase of the field. Figure 1 in Appendix A illustrates the
general structure of the system covering the well construction
and production phases. The system software has four main
modules:
• data acquisition module
• geomechanical model
• database module
• output module
Data Acquisition Module
The system requires input of the well configuration details
(e.g. deviation, depth, azimuth, hole and casing sizes) and
wellbore logs from each well in a field in order to develop a
comprehensive geomechanical model. While the logs can be
either imported from an ASCII file or input manually, they
must be in a suitable format for the subsequent computations.
The module is designed so that the user can collate the field
information at a single point then generate the geomechanical
model and calculate the critical operating conditions.
Geomechanical Model
Figure 2 in Appendix A shows the structure of the
geomechanical model in schematic format. Exploration and
appraisal drilling data or offset data from nearby wells, are
used to estimate the magnitude and orientation of field
stresses, while the mechanical properties of the rock are
calculated from reservoir logs. The addition of coring data and
core-plug test results then allow the generation of a database.
From this, correlations are developed to estimate formation
strength and the effect of other properties such as
permeability, porosity and mineral content.
Data Storage Module
Input from the data acquisition module is downloaded to a
series of large databases - one for each well in the field - that
form the data storage module. This allows sections of a well to
be analysed at different reservoir pressures, thus simulating
important effects such as depletion. The calculations from the
Geomechanical Model can be correlated for a single offset
2 C.M K WEBSTER, J.J. TOVAR D.
well, or for an entire field. Analysis results are stored
temporarily in the data storage module but must be exported to
an output file, as they will be overwritten by subsequent
calculations.
The Output Module
The system has been designed for easy access and utilisation
of the information by technical and operating personnel.
Search, storage and data manipulation functions simplify
navigation through the program and an on-screen output
displays results in a numerical format. Layer strength and
stability can be analysed on a foot by foot basis so that
reperforating, stimulation and post-workover production
issues can be addressed effectively.
Figure 3 in Appendix A illustrates a typical numerical output
from the system. This information is also presented
graphically in log format as the Sand Production Prediction
(SPP) log which integrates mechanical stability and
productivity. The SPP log can be presented in a variety of
forms depending on the particular application and generally
has four tracks. In the left-hand track are presented the gamma
ray and density data normally used for correlation purposes;
the two central tracks show the maximum critical drawdown
pressures on two different scales and for various reservoir
pressures; the right-hand track has reservoir productivity
represented by a permeability curve. This user-integration of
mechanical and production information, simplifies the
decision process.
Case History 1 - Offshore Gas Field
This gas field in the Far East was discovered in late 1992 and
appraised the following year. By early 1999, six development
wells had been drilled from the single platform. The field
consists of a complex echeloned series of east-dipping faults
that are orientated roughly north-south. The reservoir interval
is a sequence of good to high quality Miocene sandstone
layers inter-bedded with mudstone from deposition in a large
tidal delta. All six wells have similar sedimentary
characteristics with inherent reservoir properties and hence
rock strength modified by factors such as dolomite/calcite
cementation, pore-filling kaolinite and feldspar/carbonate
dissolution. Consequently, the relatively competent reservoir
layers have a number of weak and friable sections.
Field Development Strategy
The main field has been developed from two bridge-linked
separate drilling and production platforms. Gas at an initial
rate of 200 MMscf/day will be exported to the mainland
through offshore and onshore pipelines, while condensate will
be shipped by shuttle tanker.
The main objective was to accurately define sanding problems
and then to develop, implement and validate a system that
would allow these problems to be addressed throughout the
life of the field. Optimum well deviation and orientation,
SPE 56948
completion type, perforation strategies, prediction of rock
failure and sanding were essential elements of this
management strategy. A factor that weighed heavily in the
development strategy was the need to minimise initial Capex
by avoiding sand control completions.
Model Development - Field Stresses
Field stresses were determined from drilling data and the
maximum and minimum horizontal values estimated by
conventional rock mechanics methods(2). Stress orientation
established by analysis of dipmeter and caliper log data was
modified as further information from the development wells
was made available, the field was found to have a normal
stress regime (σv > σH > σh ). Table 1 in Appendix B
illustrates the field stresses in the area.
Rock Strength and Mechanical Properties
Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) and Tri-axial testing
was carried out on a large number of core samples taken from
four of the six exploration wells, and two of the six
development wells. These included both strongly consolidated
rock and samples from weak and friable sections. As testing
progressed it became apparent that there was a wide variation
in rock strength both between and across various layers of the
reservoir. Sonic data from three of the exploration wells was
used to determine the rock mechanical properties and robust
correlations were developed to estimate rock strength on a
field wide basis. Figure 4 in Appendix B illustrates the rock
strength contrast within a core from well D
Critical Operating Conditions
The critical drawdown pressure is the threshold value at which
a perforation cavity will collapse during production. Once the
rock has failed, erosion by the production fluids will carry
sand and solids into the wellbore. For each well, the
computational part of the system determined the critical
operating pressures on a foot-by-foot basis. These were
calculated as a function of reservoir pressure in order to
identify initially trouble-free intervals that would fail within
the first 200 psi drop in reservoir pressure.
In addition to determining the critical operating conditions, the
model introduces two new parameters - the Net Competent
Interval (NCI) and the Geomechanical Efficiency (GE). The
NCI represents the length of interval in a reservoir that will
not produce sand at a specified drawdown pressure, while the
Geomechanical Efficiency is the NCI expressed as a
percentage of the entire interval. Figure 5 in Appendix B
presents a section of a Sand Production Prediction log for well
D illustrating the critical drawdown pressures, and giving GE
and NCI for this particular interval.
Depletion Effects
The effect of declining reservoir pressure was evaluated for
each well. This was done by determining the mechanical
integrity limit of each producing layer as a function of
SPE 56948 SOLVING SANDING PROBLEMS USING A SAND PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. CASE HISTORIES
reservoir pressure and hence time. Consequently, failure
points can be identified as reservoir pressure declines
throughout the life of the well, allowing the operator to plan
remedial measures and expenditure. Figure 6 in Appendix B
shows the effect of pressure depletion on the producing layers
in well C as a function of NCI.
Current Status
The implemented system identifies the critical operating
conditions for sand-free gas production. Consequently, the
operator can postpone capital expenditure on sand control
measures for at least two years after starting production.
Recommendations were made for modified well paths -
deviation and orientation - and for a selective perforating
strategy based on the critical pressures determined for each
productive layer in a well. DST data provided successful
initial validation of the solution. Because of concern that the
high productivity of these wells could cause erosion at
perforation level it was also recommended that production
rates should be kept below 60 MMSCFD.
Each layer of this reservoir was characterised and its GE and
NCI determined for various reservoir pressures, allowing
determination of the time-related point at which the rock
would fail. This information will be used for managing
production and planning workover and intervention
operations. Current system developments are concentrated on
quantifying the effects of erosion and validating the model for
calculating the volumes of sand that will be produced. The
field is due to start production in the last quarter of 1999.
Case Study 2 - Offshore Oil Field.
This prospect in the North Sea UKCS was to be developed
subsea with artificial lift. It was expected that the
unconsolidated reservoir would be produced for five years
using horizontal well producers and injectors. The objectives
were to optimise completion design and to identify sand
control measures that would avoid or minimise sanding
problems. An approach similar to the previous Case Study was
required in order to develop solutions. The main
characteristics of the reservoir and wells are listed in Table 2,
Appendix C.
A geomechanical model of the area was developed to
determine the in-situ field stresses and rock properties of the
reservoir. As it was important to optimise the length of
horizontal interval to be drilled this was done by integrating
reservoir productivity, borehole mechanical integrity and
equipment performance. Critical drawdown pressures for both
initial and abandonment reservoir conditions were established
and productivity determined for two scenarios of production
impairment by formation damage.
Sets of databases incorporated in SPMS™ were used to carry
out a detailed review of UKCS sand control completions,
including completion options, equipment types and
3
performance, drill-in fluids and well cleanout procedures. This
review restricted the completion options to gravel packing and
sand screens. It also highlighted that very few of the 30 or so
UKCS gravel packed horizontal wells had horizontal sections
exceeding 2500 feet. Furthermore, there was limited
performance data from these few wells, almost all of which
had suffered operational problems that restricted effective hole
packing. On the other hand, however, over 108 wells had been
completed with sand screens, despite some concern over
screen failure. A review of data from a large set of wells
indicated that conventional pre-packed screens were
performing better than the latest technology of filtration media
screens. Pre-packed screens have an average effective life
span in this area of more than 38 months compared with 22
months for the present generation of the new technology type .
Completion Design - Reservoir Section
Having identified pre-packed screens(PPS) as the preferred
sand control option, a detailed completion design was carried
out. Critical factors for optimum screen selection were:
• Long term performance and reliability
• Maximum productivity throughout the entire interval
A database review of long term reliability in similar UKCS
well completions covered not only time-to-failure, but such
other factors as completion and production fluids, formation
type and operational practices. This led to a qualification of
suppliers and equipment suitable for these wells. The system
allows evaluation of the screen pressure behaviour based on a
model assuming uniform flow contribution from the reservoir.
After establishing the maximum pressure drawdown limits in
terms of borehole integrity, selection of 5 1/2" and 6 5/8" pre-
packed screens was based on their performance under the
expected reservoir and production conditions.
The pressure behaviour for a 6 5/8" PPS system as a function
of horizontal length is presented in Figure 7, Appendix C. This
shows that the proposed 20,000 BOPD production rate can be
achieved with a shorter horizontal section and if an smaller
size PPS is considered would not only require a much longer
horizontal section, but that the maximum pressure drawdown
limits would be exceeded. However, evaluation of a 6 5/8"
PPS system showed much lower pressure drawdowns. If the
critical pressure drawdown is exceeded the wellbore wall will
fail and collapse onto the screens, potentially damaging them
or even resulting in their complete failure. However, there
would anyway be severe implications for plugging trends
across the screen and hence its flow efficiency.
Gravel type and size having been selected on the basis of
gravimetric data and rock mineralogy, plugging trends were
evaluated to determine screen performance and productivity.
The sieve analysis results for the reservoir are presented in
Figure 8, Appendix C. Although gravimetric data had
indicated that 20/40 US mesh was the most suitable size,
4 C.M K WEBSTER, J.J. TOVAR D.
computer simulations were also carried out to determine the
plugging trends for 30/50, 40/60 and 50/70 mesh gravel. The
results are presented in Figure 9, Appendix C. These indicate
that while 50/70 mesh gives the best flow efficiency, it would
tend to plug in the longer term. As a compromise between
reduced flow efficiency and longer time-to-plug, either 30/50
resin-coated gravel or 40/60 proppant gravel were proposed.
Integration of the reservoir contribution, screen performance
and mechanical borehole integrity showed that the planned
production rates could be achieved with 2000 feet of
horizontal section - less than the 3000 feet of reservoir
exposure originally anticipated.
Current Status
From this analysis, equipment specifications were prepared for
the reservoir section and integrated with the other technical
and commercial factors of the project. Technical efforts are
currently focused on expanding the system to predict time-to-
plug and other potential failure points in the screen system.
This would provide performance monitoring and prediction
for future developments.
(4,5)
Case Study 3 - Offshore Oil Field
This offshore field in Lake Maracaibo, Venezuela, was
discovered in 1978. Sanding problems are common during
production, while swelling clays and abnormally pressurised
zones have resulted in wellbore stability difficulties during
drilling. The main reservoir has a stratigraphic sequence of up
to seven distinct sands. Over 30 wells have been producing
from it, all of them with a sand content that has caused many
problems significantly limiting output. The general reservoir
and fluid properties are presented in Table 3, Appendix D.
As in the other two Case Studies, a geomechanical model of
the reservoir was generated using a large number of data sets
and sources. These included cores, logs, and laboratory test
results such as Differential Strain Analysis (DSA) and
Acoustic Anisotropy Analysis (AAA). When the different
stages in the life of the existing wells were evaluated two
important factors were identified - the high strength of the
reservoir rock (>7300 psi UCS) and the large pressure
drawdowns in the wells during production. It was also found
that the in-situ field stresses at reservoir level varied from
normal to an almost isotropic regime. The stress values are the
highest in Venezuela.
Production History Analysis
A well performance model for a multi-layer reservoir was
developed to evaluate the reservoir potential and equipment
constraints. Modelling results were validated using PLT data.
These results indicated that the very high drawdowns required
to produce these wells were due to severe formation damage
caused during drilling and subsequent intervention operations.
Further investigation of the problem using drilling data
identified high fluid invasion profiles across the reservoir.
Analysis of perforation charge performance revealed that
SPE 56948
charge penetration had been much less than the manufacturer
specification mainly because of the high compressive strength
of the rock. Table 4 in Appendix D summarises well
performance results for four wells in the field.
Rehabilitation Scheme - Drilling
The two options considered for a field rehabilitation scheme
were casing removal and side-tracking. However, the
numerous operational problems encountered during drilling
and production made side-tracking the most practical solution,
though depending on casing integrity and cement bond
quality. In the sidetrack program proposed the main wellbore
would be exited at the 9 5/8" casing and a 7.0" liner would be
set at the top of the Misoa formation prior to entering the
reservoir section. For wells unsuited for commingled
production an alternative casing/liner option was developed
that would allow proper isolation and production of the zones
of interest. A mixed 5.0" x 4 1/2" liner system allows the
installation of sand control measures that use Expandable
Sand Screens (ESS) technology. Low toxicity oil-based
drilling fluid system was selected for both drilling
performance and environmental compliance. Table 5 in
Appendix D gives an overview of the drilling fluid system.
Rehabilitation Scheme - Completion
Whether production is to be commingled or selective, single 3
1/2" tubing is still the most suitable system. For selective
production, a set of retrievable packers and PBR assemblies
allow relatively easy removal and replacement of each
component while ensuring isolation and well integrity. ESS
technology was chosen as the most appropriate sand control
method for either selective or commingled production.
However the deployment, installation and long term
performance of ESS were of concern since this new
technology has a limited field record. Depending on the length
and number of intervals in a mixed liner system ESS would be
installed using snubbing or coiled tubing equipment. Since a
typical well in the area produces from 3 - 5 intervals a number
of installation runs would be required. Using this alternative,
the completion equipment can then be installed under proper
interval isolation, setting packers and other components where
required.
Current Status
Six new wells have been drilled in the field with the SPMS™
recommendations implemented. Each well has been oriented
using the geomechanical model developed for the field and its
deviation revised, particularly at reservoir level. A new and
improved mud system has given good results from both the
drilling and formation damage points of view. However,
completions to date have been limited to a non-selective
packer and a single 3 1/2" tubing string. Oriented perforations
are the norm and current production has increased
significantly. Sand production is controlled by restricting the
flow rate and has been successfully held to manageable levels
below 10 lbs/1000 bbls.
SPE 56948 SOLVING SANDING PROBLEMS USING A SAND PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. CASE HISTORIES 5

Conclusions Nomenclature
1. Sanding problems have been diagnosed, remedied or σv = Maximum vertical stress, psi
minimised in a variety of reservoirs and production σH = Maximum horizontal stress, psi
scenarios by using a Sand Production Management
System.
σh = Minimum Horizontal stress, psi
NCI = Net Competent Interval
2. The system develops a geomechanical model that
integrates technical and operational factors to give a GE = Geomechanical Efficiency
realistic representation of current field conditions. The UCS = Uni-axial compressive strength
system covers all aspects of well construction and field SPMS = Sand Production Management System
production processes. SPP = Sand Production Prediction log
3. The three cases presented demonstrate the importance of TVDSS = True vertical depth sub sea
considering and incorporating geomechanical factors
from the very earliest stages of the well planning process. Acknowledgement
The SPMS has been used for both new and existing wells
The authors would like to thank the management of Innovative
to address wellbore stability problems during drilling, as
Engineering Systems Ltd for permission to publish this paper
well as formation damage and sanding problems that arise
and gratefully acknowledge the contribution of P. McCurdy to
during production.
4. The system has a proven evaluation capability for the development of the computational element of the system,
avoiding or minimising sanding problems. However, its PDVSA personnel for providing updated information
effectiveness depends on the accuracy and quantity of concerning progress made in the implementation of the results
field data available as well as on the actual field in the Ceuta field.
conditions and specific prevailing problems.
5. A large number of databases allows the user to timely
evaluate equipment and materials performance necessary
for drilling and completion design. Such a databases
include rock and reservoir data, sand control equipment
performance and methodologies as well as operational
information .

References

1. Innovative Engineering Systems Ltd.: “Sand Production

Prediction System - Technical literature ", Aberdeen, Scotland,
UK. February 1997.
2. Aadanoy B.S.: “Modern Well Design", A.A. Balkema Publishers,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1996.
3. Fjaer E., Holt R.M. et al.: “Petroleum Related Rock Mechanics",
Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1992.
4. Maraven S.A.: "Area 2 South. Current Sand Control Strategy,
Technical Sessions", Caracas, Venezuela, February 1997.
5. Tovar J., Zerpa L and Guerra E.: "Impact of Formation Damage
on Sand Production in Deep Eocene Reservoirs, Lake Maracaibo,
Venezuela: A Case History", SPE paper 54757 presented at the
European Formation Damage Conference in The Hague, The
Netherlands, 31 May- 1 June 1999.
6 C.M K WEBSTER, J.J. TOVAR D. SPE 56948

APPENDIX A - Sand Production Management System

Figure 1 – SPMS™ General Structure

DRILLING
Well Path
Deviation
Orientation
Wellbore
Stability
TESTING &
COMPLETION
REMEDIAL
Perforation Strategy
Point of Failure Intervals
Type and Timing SPMS Clean Up
Of Workover Max. Underbalance
Options Radius of Plasticity
Failed Zone
Skin Factors

PRODUCTION
Max. BHFP
Screens Database Depletion Effects
Gravel Pack Design QMAX
Screen Performance Volume of
Sand Consolidation Produced Sand

Figure 2 - Geomechanical model structure

Drilling &
Reservoir Data

Determination of in-situ Optimum well

field stresses orientation
(Magnitude & orientation)
Log data
input

Determination of the dynamic & static

rock properties

Determination of rock Critical drawdown,

strength Optimum well deviation
SPE 56948 SOLVING SANDING PROBLEMS USING A SAND PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. CASE HISTORIES 7

Figure 3 – SPMS™ - Typical Numerical Output

Sand Production
Well A Management System
Layer 1 Produced by
IESL

Depth Gamma Ray Porosity UCS Initial Pr Abnd. Pr Crit. DP-int. Crit. DP- abn. Status
[feet] [API] [%] [psi] [psi] [psi] [psi] [psi]

6500 141 12 2560 3200 2800 257 200 Top of Layer

6501 152 13 2240 3200 2800 243 176

6502 162 22 987 3200 2800 113 56

6503 145 23 800 3200 2800 128 68

Scroll Down for More Entries

Back Forward Data View Well

Sort Find All Find Record Record Main Menu Entry Summary Summary Delete Quit
SEL QUIT
ECT

APPENDIX B - Case History 1 - Offshore Gas Field

Table 1 - In-situ Field Stresses

Depth σv
Well σh / σH σh / σv σH/ σv
[ feet ] [ psi ]
A 6679 6994 ~ 0.79 ~ 0.59 ~ 0.74
B 6620 7083 ~ 0.77 ~ 0.61 ~ 0.80
C 6899 7190 ~ 0.78 ~ 0.62 ~ 0.79
D 6755 7420 ~ 0.83 ~ 0.54 ~ 0.65
E 6905 8010 ~ 0.82 ~ 0.53 ~ 0.65
 8
SAND PRODUCTION PREDICTION LOG
Critical Drawdown
Critical Drawdown for Varying
for Varying
Reservoir Pressures
Reservoir Pressures (psi)
(psi)

500
Figure 5 – Section of SPP Log

0
1000
1500
2000
1
1000

0
50
100
150
200
250
1000000

0.001
6905
6905 6905

6915
6915 6915
Figure 4 – Contrast in Rock Core Strength

6925
6925 6925

6935
6935 6935

6945
6945 6945

6955 6955
6955
C.M K WEBSTER, J.J. TOVAR D.

6965
6965 6965

6975 6975
6975

6985 6985
6985

6995 6995
6995
SPE 56948
SPE 56948 SOLVING SANDING PROBLEMS USING A SAND PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. CASE HISTORIES 9

Figure 6 – Impact of Pressure Depletion

250

Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
200
Layer 4
Layer 5
Net Competent Interval (feet)

Layer 6

150

100

50

0
3300 3100 2900 2700 2500 2300 2100 1900 1700 1500
Reservoir Pressure (psi)

APPENDIX C - Case History 2 - Offshore Oil Field

Table 2 - Reservoir and Fluid Data

Top of Reservoir 5240 feet

Initial PR 2247 psi
Saturation Pressure 2382 psi
Reservoir Temperature 326 deg F
Average Permeability 5 Darcies
Average Porosity ~ 32 %
Typical field PI 0.15 bpd/psi/ft
Formation Volume Factor 1.08 rb/stb
Mean formation grain size 120 microns
10 C.M K WEBSTER, J.J. TOVAR D. SPE 56948

Figure 7 – Pressure behaviour as function of Length

160

140

120
P .I = 0 .1 5 B P D /p s i/ft.
P .I = 0 .0 7 5 B P D /p s i/ft.

100
Pressure [ psi ]

80 C ritic a l d ra w d o w n @ In itia l

60

C ritic a l d ra w d o w n @ A b a n d o n m e n t
40

20

6 5 /8 " P re p a c k e d s c r e e n s p re s s u re b e h a vio u r - f (Q )
0
0 500 100 0 150 0 200 0 250 0 300 0 350 0 400 0 450 0
H o riz o n ta l S e c tio n [ F e e t ]

Figure 8 – Sieve Analysis Results

120 S IE V E ANAL Y S IS RE S UL T S

100
Retained Weight (%)

80

Sample 2
60

Sample 1
40

20

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
S ie v e size (m icro n s)
SPE 56948 SOLVING SANDING PROBLEMS USING A SAND PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. CASE HISTORIES 11

Figure 9 – Plugging Trend Analysis

1.1 PLUGGING BEHAVIOUR - GRAVEL SELECTION

0.9
FLOW EFFICIENCY [ % ]

50/70
0.8

40/60
0.7

0.6 30/50

0.5

0.4
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
FINES CONCENTRATION [gm/l]

APPENDIX D – Case History 3 – Offshore Oil Field

Table 4 – Well Performance Results

Well No. Qmax 1 Qlog Skin

Layers [ stb/day ] [ stb/day ]
68 3 9067 1950 > 120
61 3 - 1409 > 90
34 1 11934 2222 > 135
72 2 7500 3500 < 30
1
For S= 0

Table 5 – Main Characteristics of Drilling Fluid

Property Diesel Oil Vassa LP-120 Vassa LP-100

Distillation range [ oC ] 270 - 330 260 - 330 226 - 270
Density API 36.5 41 43.6
Viscosity @ 40 oC [ cSt ] > 3.5 3.5 2.2
Aromatic content [ % ] > 35 0.6 0.6
Sulphur content [ ppm ] 2500 15 15
Lubricity index 0.12 0.15 0.15
Paraffin content [ % ] - 36.1 33.1
Density @ 15 oC 0.84 0.82 0.81