Sand Control

d . 8
rv n 1, 2 e 01
OH versus CH Sandface TechniqueseSolution
u
s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
T au
x -P
E
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr
Ray Tibbles, Sand Control Advisor
PE-SC-0009
Learning Objectives

▪ Sand Control completion types

▪ Completions selection drivers
d . 8
▪ Technical considerations r v e 201
s e un 1,
▪ OH & CH – when? s re 28 - J
h t ay
▪ Welling criteria r i g e-M
l l nc
▪ Horizontal OH gravel packing T . Aau, F r a

E x -P
▪ Water packing or Shunt N ouard
packing
t © Dr
i g h ntin
▪ Frac Pack vs HRWP y r Vale
o p for
▪ Completion options
C uced
od
Pr

1 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Cased Vs Open Hole

▪ Cased Hole ▪ Open Hole

d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
A , Fra
Perforations
.
T au
E x -P
N ard
t © Dro u
g h tin
yri Vale
n
p for
Liner/Casing
o
C ed uc
P rod

Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Sand Control Completion Types

Cased Hole (50 to 250 ft screen per zone)

d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra Frac-pack
Gravel Pack
x -PT au
E
N ard
© per
Open Hole (1000 to 3000+ ft screen ou
well)
t tin Dr
h
ig n
y r Vale
p or
Couced f
od
Pr

Stand Alone Screen (Including Gravel Pack (Alpha ESS

ICD) Beta and APS)

Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Completion Selection Drivers

▪ Efficiency – lowering cost

▪ Reliability d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
▪ Longevity e
s u
s re 28 - J
▪ Risk mitigation i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
▪ Completion performance x -PT au
E
N ard
t © Dro
u
h tin
REVENUE
y rigVCAPEX
ale
n + OPEX + RISKEX PROFIT
p or
Couced f
od
Pr

?
Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved
Technical Considerations

▪ Production rate/kh
▪ Zonal isolation d . 8
r v e 201
▪ Wellbore stability s e un 1,
s re 28 - J
h t ay
▪ Stresses – can I fracture r i g e-M
l l nc
▪ Depth T . Aau, F r a

E x -P
N ouard
▪ Interval length t © Dr
h n g
yri le nti
p Va
o
C ed f or
uc
P rod

Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Open Hole – when

▪ When
– High rate/kh wells
▪ Limitations/Risks
d . 8
- Wellborervstabilitye 201
– Longer interval length s e un 1,
- Multizone
s re 28 - J wells
h t ay
r i
- g Zonal-M isolation
▪ Benefits l l
A , Fra n c e
.
xT - Pau - TVD < 15,000 ft
– Higher productivity – low skinNE uard
t © Dro
– Lower well cost i g h ntin
y r Vale
o p for
C ed uc
P rod

Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Cased Hole – when

▪ When
– Multizone wells
▪ Limitations/Risks
d . 8
- Perforations rv eare20choke
1 for high rate
– Deeper wells s e un 1 ,
e 8-J
wellsr(especially gas)
– Full zonal isolation h s
t ay 2
-rigInterval
- M length limited to < 250 ft
– Wellbore stability A ll ra(TVD)
n c e
.
T u, F
E x -P a
N ard
t © Dro u
▪ Benefits h tin
y rigValen
p or
– Reliable Couced f
od
Pr

Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Welling Criteria – SPE 39475
Based on modeling
▪ For oil wells: . 8
d
e 01
Frac-pack if Kres < 900 mD
e rv n 1, 2
OHGP if Kres > 900 mD s u
re 28 - J
s
ht ay
▪ For gas wells: r i g e-M
ll nc
A , Fra
Q < 200 Mscf/d .
T au
Frac-pack if Kres < 300 mD E x -P
N ard
HRWP if Kres > 300 mD
t © Dro u

igh tin
y r Vale n
oped for
Q > 200 Mscf/d
F&P if Kres < 200C
mD
d uc
HRWP if Kres > 200
Pr
o mD

Q > 500 Mscf/d

F&P if Kres < 150 mD
HRWP if Kres > 150 mD
OHGP if Kres > 600 mD
Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved
Horizontal Open Hole Gravel Packing
▪ Increase reservoir contact (get well to the oil)
▪ Avoid coning or cusping d . 8
rv e 201
▪ Reduce flux rates for thin pays s e 1,
r e 8 - Ju n

h ts ay 2
▪ Minimize compaction issues r i g e-M
l
A ,F l a nc
▪ Improve sweep T . r
x au
NEouard - P

▪ Stitch compartmentalized t ©reservoirs

Dr
i h
g lent in
r
y oproduction
Va
p
▪ Reduce risk ofCsand
o df r
ce
odu
Pr

* Open hole completions increase operational complexity and pose more completion risk

Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Open Hole Completion Type Selection - Key Parameters

▪ Rock strength properties – UCS, in-situ stresses

▪ Formation Particle Size Distribution (PSD) d . 8
r v e 201
▪ Drilling mud environment s e un 1,
s re 28 - J
h t ay
▪ Is the formation homogenous or heterogeneous r i g e-M
l l nc
▪ Are there reactive shales T . Aau, F r a

E x -P
N ouard
▪ Reservoir – fracture pressure t © Dr window
i g h ntin
▪ Zonal isolation opyrfor Val
e

C uced
▪ Sand production Pr at the onset of depletion
od

▪ Is it a high risk environment – subsea

Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Particle Size Distribution (PSD)

Cumulative Log Diagram

Sample B
. 8
Saucier Sizing

d
Well Sorted
e 01
rv n 1, 2
20/40 40/60
100%
e
s u
re 28 - J
90%
80% D50 s
ht ay
r i g e-M
ll nc
70%
A , Fra
Cum. % by Weight

60%
.
T au
50%
E x -P
Sample A N ard
40%
Poorly Sorted
t © Dro u
h tin
rigValen
30%
20% y
p or
0.006

Co
0.017 0.00021
f
10% ed
uc
od
Pr
0%
0.1000 0.0100 0.003 0.0010 0.0001
Grain Diameter (inches)

D40 0.006 D40 0.003

  29 Sample A   3 Sample B
D90 0.00021 D90 0.001

Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Based On Field Experience (Bennett et al., BP)

d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
T au
x -P
E
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr

Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Frac-Pack vs HRWP

▪ HRWP when
d . 8
– Marginal economics e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
– Pressure limitations in the near wellbore areas res8 - Ju
h t ay 2
– Probability of parting casing/liner top l rig ce - M
A l ran
– Close proximity to water T . au, F
E x -P
N ouard
t © Dr
i g h ntin
y r Vale
o p for
C ed uc
P rod

Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Completion Options

OH Frac no screens

CH Frac no screens

CH FP w/screens
OH FP w/screens
d . 8
e 01

Perforations
rv n 1, 2

Gravelpack
e
s u
re 28 - J
Best Completions Based
On Production s
ht ay
r i g e-M
ll nc
A , Fra
.
T au
Sand Control
E x -P
N ard
t © Dro
Borehole Stability u

i
Sustainedg hProduction
tin
Poor 1
yr or Va le n
p
CoZonal
Fair 2
fIsolation
ed
d uc Good 3
P ro Rig Time Savings

Execution Logistics
10 9 11 11 13 12

Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Chevron Survey: Key elements used in the selection of the
preferred sandface completion design

Top 5: Reliability; long term well deliverability; economics; technical feasibility; skin

d . 8
Surprised or Expected? e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J 17

ht ay
Skin
5
i g e-M
Installation cost
Drawdown (as it affects completion reliability)
r
ll n3c
8

A , Fra
Drawdown (as it affects reserve recovery, water / gas
coning)
.
T au 5
x -P
Installation simplicity

E
N ard
Economics (ROCE, NPV , etc.)
19

t©
2
rou cost)
Availability (up time)

igh n D 5
nti
M aintainability (intervention

r
28
y le Reliability
a
o p LongV
or Best practices (BPs)
term well deliverability
20

C u c ed
f
6
9

rod
Lessons learned (LLs)
P Technical feasibility
17

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Sand Control
Geographic Distribution - Completion Type
OH Water Pack
Sand Prone Reservoirs
SAS

North Sea OH Gravel Pack

d . 8
rv 1, 2e 01
Alaska
Bakus e
Eastern
r e 8 - Jun
CH Frac-Pack
s 2
OH
t ay
Canada
Italy
h
ig - M
Water Pack

rEgyptnce
SAS

l l
A ra
CHFP
GoM
T . ,F
x au
Saudi Arabia

NE -P
Venezuela and Trinidad South China Sea
ardNigeria
OH Gravel Pack t © Dro u
h tinCH FP
India
APS
y rigValen Open Hole
p or OH GP
Co
Water Pack Angola SAS

e df APS Water pack

c OptiPac
o du Water Pack CHFP Australia
Pr Brazil

OH Water Pack OH Gravel Pack

APS
CH Frac-Pack Water Pack
ESS
SAS
Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved
Questions?

d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
T au
x -P
E
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr

Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved