SPE 133364

Successful Applications of Expandable Sand Screen in Persian Oil Fields,

Part 1
Reza Salehi-Moorkani, Gholam Abbas Safian, and Abouzar Mirzaei-Paiaman, SPE, NISOC

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Production and Operations Conference and Exhibition held in Tunis, Tunisia, 8–10 June 2010.

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
In some Iranian oil fields hydrocarbon recovery is mainly from sandstone reservoirs and sand production is a major problem in
these fields. Main reason of sand production in these reservoirs is due to unconsolidated sandstone layers. The common
method to decrease this problem is achieved by installing mechanical sand control systems. Previously, some techniques of
sand control have been used in Iranian oil fields, such as gravel packing, slotted liner and chemical consolidation by resin. The
results which have been obtained through these methods are not remarkably good enough in some cases.
Expandable sand screen (ESS) is a new technique in sand control that can result in lower skin and consequently improves
reservoir inflow performance. Field tests in various conditions have shown very satisfactory results in both open and cased
hole applications. This paper will provide a brief overview of ESS and its advantages and will explains some of the concerns
deal with ESS well completion. It provides details of well production results before and after installation of ESS. It also
suggests that the use of ESS as an alternative to conventional sand control methods in Iran oil fields is preferable specially in
cased hole completed wells.

Introduction

Iran is one of the countries which have the largest oil and gas fields in the world. More than 80 percent of Iran oil reservoirs
are carbonate and about 20 percent are sandstone. The main sandstone reservoir layers in Iran fields are in Asmari, an Oligo-
Miocene formation. The Asmari oil fields of Iran are truly giant, most of them having recoverable reserves greater than 1
billion bbl each, and many having much more. Asmari reservoir is limestone of Oligo-Miocene age and mostly consists of
shallow-water, with a significant sandstone member in the northwest part of the area [1].
In the south of Dezful embayment, Asmari lithology changes into a mixed siliciclastic-carbonate deposit consisting of
carbonate beds with several intervals of sandstone, sandy limestone and shale. This facies provides the Ahvaz sandstone
member in some oil fields such as A and M field (Motiei, 1993). In this paper A and M fields are studied and their location
among other Iran fields is shown in Fig.1.

Fig.1- Location of A and M oil fields in the Dezful Embayment of Zagros basin
2 SPE 133364

Field and Reservoir Characteristics

Overview of Field A

Field A is one of the major oil reservoirs in Dezful Embayment, north of Persian Gulf which is discovered in 1958 when the
presence of two oil producing formations were established: the Asmari and Bangestan reservoirs. There is a sandstone member
in the Asmari Formation. These sandstones were transported in a long distance over the Arabian Shield and deposited along
the passive continental margin of the Oligocene- Miocene Zagros foreland basin. Field A sandstones were cemented by
dolomites, and then leached by diagenetic fluids therefore; its sandstones in subsurface sections have loose grain. There have
been reports of sand production problems at Asmari reservoir since 1940. Recently, to control sand production, Expandable
Sand Screen (ESS) has been installed in 4 wells of this field that has serious sand production problem. Analyzing the
performance of these ESS systems is discussed in the subsequent sections.

Overview of Field M

Field M was discovered in 1962 and consequent drilling has been confirmed in two reservoirs (Asmari and Bangestan). It was
put on production in 1974. A total of more than 60 wells have now been drilled in the field. The Asmari formation is
recognized as a regionally extensive geological unit, and it is known to contain a number of large oil accumulations. The
structure is a northwest-southeast trending asymmetric anticline. It is defined by seismic with no surface expression, and it is
located in the Dezful Embayment.
The first field study for the Asmari was prepared by BP in 1974 using 3 wells. That study divided the Asmari into 5 units.
Zone 1: Upper carbonate
Zone 2: Upper sandstone
Zone 3: Middle carbonate
Zone 4: Lower sandstone
Zone 5: Lower carbonate
In 1978 Shir Mohammadi reviewed this reservoir and separated it into 8 zones. Zones 1, 6 and 8 were mainly carbonate
whereas zones 2, 3, 4 and 5 were mainly sandstone, and zone 7 was locally sandy shale. Based on the petrophysical
evaluations zone 2 (by more than 80 percent sandstone) is the best pay zone and has the most values of net thickness, net to
gross ratio and oil column and oil saturation. Zones 4 to 8 are located below the oil water contact and are not pay zones [2].
Sandstones in zone 2 and 3 have small grains with poor sorting and are cemented with calcite and dolomite. In most of the
cases sandstones have poor cementation and their grains were distinguished as free quartz (Heydari 2001). Due to
unconsolidated sandstones in Asmari formation and high oil flow rates, sand grains will go upward with fluid and cause
problems. To prevent sand production, in 9 wells of this field ESS system is installed which is discussed thoroughly in this
paper.

Sand Production Consequences

The effects of sand production are nearly always detrimental to the short and/or long term productivity of the well. Although
some wells routinely experience “manageable” sand production, these wells are the exception, not the rule. In most cases,
attempting to manage the effects of severe sand production over the life of the well is not an economically attractive or careful
operating alternative. Some problems that are happened as a result of sand production are as follows:
Accumulation in Surface Equipment: If the production velocity is great enough to carry sand up the tubing, the sand may
become trapped in the separator, heater treater, or production pipeline.
Accumulation Downhole: If the production velocity is not great enough to carry sand to the surface, the sand may bridge off
in the tubing or fall and begin to fill the inside of the casing. Eventually, the producing interval may be completely covered
with sand. In either case, the production rate will decline until the well becomes "sanded up" and production ceases.
Erosion of Downhole and Surface Equipment: In highly productive wells, fluids flowing at high velocity and carrying sand
can produce excessive erosion of both downhole and surface equipment leading to frequent maintenance to replace the
damaged equipment.
Collapse of the Formation: If the rate of sand production is great enough and continues for a sufficient period of time, an
empty area or void will develop behind the casing that will continue to grow larger as more sand is produced. When the void
becomes large enough, the overlying shale or formation sand above the void may collapse into the void due to a lack of
material to provide support. In the case of overlying shale collapsing, complete loss of productivity is probable. In most cases,
continued long term production of formation sand will usually decrease the well’s productivity and ultimate recovery [3].

Sand Exclusion Techniques

Numerous techniques are available for dealing with sand production problems. These range from simple changes in operating
SPE 133364 3

practices to expensive completions such as sand consolidation and gravel packing. The sand control method selected depends
on site specific conditions, operating practices and economic considerations [3]. Main available sand control techniques are:
ƒ Maintenance and work over
ƒ Chemical Methods
ƒ Mechanical Methods

Expandable Sand Screen

The ESS is a further development based on the expandable slotted tubular. An expandable slotted tubular is produced by
cutting an overlapping slot pattern along the length of a stainless steel tubular. The operation of expansion is simply to swage
the pipe diameter to a larger size by passing a tapered mandrel or “cone” through the inside of the ESS.
Construction: The ESS consists of three basic layers, see Fig.2:
1. A slotted base pipe structure
2. The filter media
3. An outer protection and encapsulating layer

Fig.2- Three Layers of ESS in unexpanded and expanded conditions

The slotted base pipe is an expandable slotted tubular. The filter media used in the ESS is a woven metal-wire media specially
developed for expandable screens. The filter media is attached in an overlapping style to the slotted base pipe, such that the
dimensional increase of expansion can be accommodated at the same time as sand integrity is maintained. The filter media is
“sandwiched” in position by an outer protection layer, which is essentially, a “micro expandable slotted tube” formed around
the outside of the sand screen [4].
ESS Advantages and Limitations

The advantages of ESS are as follows:

ƒ Easy and safe installation
ƒ It can achieve borehole contact and eliminate the annulus without using a gravel pack
ƒ Provides more filtration/flow area than other sand control tools (lower skin effect)
ƒ Stabilizes weak formations, allowing them to withstand high depletions
For using this technology its limitations should be considered, especially in well candidate selection step for ESS completion.
ESS limitations are as follows:
ƒ After installation and expansion of ESS in well, it sticks to wellbore and it is not retrievable
ƒ In highly washed out wells, ESS is not applicable because it can not cover all borehole section
4 SPE 133364

Production Results
In this work, 4 wells from field A and 8 wells from field M have been studied. According to the oil production history of these
wells which were completed with ESS in both fields, a comparison was performed in oil production before and after
installation of ESS. Firstly for each well, oil production during one year before and after installation of ESS is selected and a
monthly oil production average has been calculated. Fig.3 and Fig.4 show the results of this comparison in A and M fields.

Fig.3- Average oil production of each well in field A before and after ESS installation

Fig.4- Average oil production of each well in field M before and after ESS installation

Fig.5 shows oil production history of wells in field A during one year before ESS installation and one year after ESS has been
installed.

Fig.5- Oil production comparison before and after ESS installation in field A
SPE 133364 5

The cumulative oil production in the year after installation of ESS is more than the time well was producing without ESS
completion. Total oil production increased 247 % after installation of ESS (Fig.6).

Fig.6- Total Oil production comparison before and after ESS installation in field A

In well A-102 after it completed with ESS, the well produced for three month and afterwards the well filled up with sand. The
reason of this problem was the lower size of formation sand grains that passed through ESS screen. Oil production history of
wells with ESS completion in field M is shown in Fig.7. The production has increased for each well of the field after ESS has
been installed.

Fig.7- Oil production comparison before and after ESS installation in field M

Total oil production increased 28 % after installation of ESS (Fig.8). All wells have increase in production except well M-60
which is not considered in the Fig.7 because immediately after drilling this well, ESS was installed in the open hole and after a
period of production due to high water cut, the well has been side tracked and completed directionally.

Fig.8- Total Oil production comparison before and after ESS installation in field A
6 SPE 133364

Conclusions

According to different well conditions and various sand control techniques, appropriate tool selection to obtain optimum flow
rate and minimum cost is extremely important. Consequently, this study was performed to confirm this fact and the following
results are achieved. Since there is no unique solution for sand control in all wells, proper well candidate selection in these
case studies seem to be performed appropriately. In general, with ESS completion, significant installation cost savings can be
achieved in comparison with conventional sand control techniques. Based on production results of M and A fields at least after
one year, it can be inferred that ESS technique is a good alternative for Iranian sandstone reservoirs specially in cased hole
wells.

Acknowledgement

The authors thank National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) and National Iranian South Oil Company (NISOC) for their help and
support during all stages of this project.

References
[1] Cedric E. Hull, Happy R. Warman, "Asmari Oil Fields of Iran", AAPG Special Volumes, Volume M 14: Geology of Giant
Petroleum Fields, Pages 428 - 437 (1970)
[2] Shir mohamaddi N.H, 1980, "Geological study of Asmari reservoir in M field", (report No. P-3703), National Iranian Oil
Company, A, Iran
[3] Completion Technology for Unconsolidated Formations, Rev 2 / June 1995, chapter 2
[4] Mark van Buren and Léon van den Broek, " Trial of an ESS to Replace Internal Gravel Packing", paper SPE/IADC 57565,
presented at Middle East Drilling Technology Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 8–10 November 1999