Sand Prediction and the Selection of Completion Methods for Horizontal Wells...

8/9/2019 Sand Prediction and the Selection of Completion Methods for Horizontal Wells...

1/12


2/12

2 SPE 93821

reservoir of the area. For BAMED-58/78, permeability is

1436mD, porosity 30%, oil saturation around 72% to 75%, and

for BAINF60, permeability is 1854mD, porosity 30%, oilsaturation 76%.

Baker Oil Tools has obtained 75 d50 (mean particle size of

formation sand) from 5304ft to 6393ft in different depth. Table 2

provided 40 d50 of BAMED-58 and BAINF-60 from 5304ft to

5726ft in different depth. (See Table 2)Sand production mechanism and reasons have been analyzedaccording to the main property parameters in the area. Rule of

thumb of sand production prediction were used to achieve an

exact result of sand production conditions by acoustic logging

data and reservoir parameters of Intercampo oilfield.

Consequently, it is clear that why sand control completion must

be adopted.

Sand production mechanism

Continuous sand production

Production parameters and sand production concentration will

keep stable and the attenuation time changes slowly during the

period. The stable continuous sand production for long time is

the dominating sand production type in well production in thearea. Usually, if shear strength of rock were lower than 1000psi,

it would be considered as weak consolidation rock. As we know,

unconsolidated sand belongs to a kind of weak consolidation

and has low rock strength, which would turn into loose sand

after fluid scoured. This is one of basic reason why the

reservoirs produce sand.

Unstable sand production

The amounts of sand production decrease with time when oil

wells produce daily. In general, such type sand production

happens in discharging after perforation and acidizing treatment,

in addition, when bottom water is coned/crested or production

pressure differential was increased, such as sand production

concentration and volume and its attenuation time, of whichphysical variable change is bigger. At present, dropdown of

BAMED and BAINF reservoir are 140psi and 156psi

respectively. Reservoir pressure attenuation is equal to augment

effective stress to cause shear in well wall; pressure increase

make borehole wall wreck-stretched easily and production

pressure differential or production rate goes up, finally, sand

production occurs.

Sudden sand production

There are two action mechanisms for viscous fluid flows in sand

production process. The first is sand-suspending and carrying,

and sand was scoured and denudated by carrying fluid. The

second is as following: when water invades, water-blocking

effect will bring about and oil flow resistance increase. Water

production can dissolve a part of cement sand particles result in

the cementing damage of formation. There are two behaviors:

when clay expands, permeability decreases and oil flow

continuity is interrupted, when gas invades, Jamins effect will

happen and oil flow resistance will rise up. Meanwhile, sand

production rises up because gas bubble will break down, which

make cavitations erosion in the reservoir.Cased perforated completion would bring about uncompleteness

of well, therefore, the completion fluid flow speed is too high

and sand production will occur as a result of reservoir structure

distortion and breakage when completion fluid flow speed is

higher than critical sand production speed. In addition,

improper stimulation production methods (including acidizing

and fracturing) and management can cause downhole pressure

surge and sand production of a sudden subsequently. This is a

matter that amounts of sand production will bring about sandedup in short time, or will result in a trouble of off production. For

example, thanks to a big production rate or well-stopped

production to form sand bridge to lead to the sand blocking, in

this case, the wellbore will be plugged by a large amount of

sand. The reservoir is a weak consolidation sandstone, the rockstrength is low, therefore, the rock will be changed into loosessand particle by the flow fluids, this is a main reason why sand

shall be produced in the area. Worse rock grading is a big

character in the area, which brings certain difficulty to sand

control techniques9.

According to statistical data, the amount data of d50more than

0.00325in is 30, it taken up 75% of the whole amount. In

addition, sand production can be classified into two kinds: one is

free sand filling among rock skeleton and the other is rock

skeleton sand. When flow fluid speed of formation fluid reaches

to a certain value, it causes unconsolidated free sand in reservoir

channel will be moved and sand production in oil well will start.

With flow fluid speed going up and force on oil well changing,the amount of sand production increases. Accordingly, the

unconsolidated sandstone will be broke by shear, the rock

structure is broken, and skeleton sand will be changed into free

sand and moved by flow fluid when fluid speed reaches a certain

value, moreover, a large amounts of sand was produced from oil

well. It is defined that this moving packing sand speed is called

threshold flow speed. When liquid production speed is more

than the threshold, packing sand would be carried with fluid.

Moreover, when skeleton sand becomes free sand, its flow speed

is called critical flow speed. When liquid production speed is

more than critical flow speed, skeleton sand in reservoir would

be carried too. Once this kind sand will be pumped, pay zone

may collapse, or even oil wells will be abandoned. If packingsand were in porous medium, sand particle would encounter

more and more fluid scouring force when fluid speed increases

continually. When fluid flow speed is up to a certain value,

small particle goes through pore throat into oil well to causes

sand production in oilwell.

Five methods for the sand production forecastThere are four prediction methods of sand production including

field observation, rule of thumb, laboratory, and numerical

modeling method based on popular sort method. This paper

mainly applied the empirical forecast method, including

combination modulus, Schlumberger, interval transit-time,

porosity, and bottom-hole pressure control method7

. At present,

it is difficult to adopt only one method to forecast sand

production exactly in the completely well exploitation phase.

So it is considered that only several methods are combined to

employ, utmost prediction accuracy can be achieved.

Interval transit-time method

Using acoustic logging data of formations, sand production

would also be forecasted. A critical Interval transit-time value

89.9 s/ft had been defined first of all. If t is more than this

value, oil well would produce sand. Otherwise, sand-free

production should be appeared. However, this value is slightly

different in different oilfield production.

In terms of the statistics of the wells in the oilfield, the interval

transit time in the reservoir is mostly more than 89.9 s /ft;


3/12

SPE 93821 3

BA744 and BA2295 results were shown in Table 3.

Combination modulus method

Applying acoustic and density logging data, Mexico Bay of

America, North Sea of British and Sand Control Center of

Shengli oilfield have forecasted sand production in some oil

wells and achieved above 80% accuracy. Numerous analysis onstatistical results of oil wells sand production show that no sand

is produced when ECis more than or equal to 2.88106psi, light

sand is produced when EC is between 2.16106psi and

2.88106psi, and great sand is produced when EC is less than

2.16106psi. Elastic combination modulus EC is calculated as

follow,

2

81094.9

c

rc

tE

=

(1)Some calculated elastic combination modulus ECcan be seen in

Table 5 based on five wells acoustic logging data. Most of

formations EC values of well BA2295 are less than 2.16106psi,

some are between All EC values of BA744, BA2297, BA2313

and BA2326 wells are shown less than 2.16106psi. Therefore,

it is concluded that most of formations would produce sand

when wells are normal operating, and some layers may be worse

or lighter and or even no sand.

Schlumberger method

This method is to calculate ESEB, which is the function of rock

porosity, Poisson ratio and interval transit-time. Schlumberger

Co. put forward this approach after they had made many tests to

oil wells in Mexico Bay. It is suggested that no sand is

produced when ESEB is more than 5.51109psi and sand is

possibly produced when ESEB is less than 4.79109psi. the

results were shown in Table6, ESEBis computed as followingEquation,

(2)

It is concluded that all five wells would produce a large amount

of sand. However, some layers of well BA2295 are not.

Porosity methodWith regard to the loose sandstone formation, porosity of

formation can be one of discriminant criteria that can judge

whether sand production will happen in a certain formation ornot. If porosity of formation exceeds 30%, the possibility of

sand production is larger. If the porosity is within the range of

20%~30%, slight sand production will emerge, but sand controlmeasurements should be taken. The porosity of the formation in

area is above 30%, without sand control measurements, sand

production will be very serious in the area.

Bottom-hole pressure control method

.. of former Soviet Union put forward bottom-hole

pressure control method and proposed that formation stability

near wellbore is related with not only formation properties but

also bottom-hole pressure. .. et al. based on

conditions that tangential stress on bottom formation is less than

cementing force of the rock particle in order to prevent the sand

production of formation, and then they had deduced the equation

of bottom hole flowing pressure to prevent sand production, as

follow:

(3)

As the above equation has described, particle cohesion C was

put 203.05psi, particle friction force coefficient a was put 0.1,

Poisson ratio was put 0.2 to 0.5, rock pressure conductor

coefficient was supposed as 0.8 and formation slant angle

was put 0. Just like the above method, Interval transit-time data

was used in the calculations. Using five wells acoustic logging

data, the calculated critical pressure was more than the actual

bottom-hole pressure, which indicated that formations sand

production surely occurs.

To sum up, the above data is original from all five oil wells inthe same area. Combination of five methods can get good

forecast result. Moreover, combination modulus is more

accurately than other methods. Accordingly, horizontal wells in

this area must adopt the corresponding completion method (See

Table 6, 7).

The selection of completion methods for horizontal well

Corrected productivity forecast equations

Giger, Joshi, Borisov, and Renard&Dupuy have put forward

horizontal well productivity equation in 80s of last century. Ifeccentricity of actual horizontal wellbore and formation

anisotropy coefficient is considered, Joshis natural productivity

forecast equation as (4) and (5) for horizontal well should be

adopted.

]2/ln[)/(]2/

)2/(ln[

/8.542

221

w

oohh

rhLhL

Laa

BhKJ

++

=

(4)

]2/

)()2/(ln[)/(]

2/

)2/(ln[

/8.542

22222

w

oohh

hr

hLh

L

Laa

BhKJ

++

+=

(5)Factually, it is proved that forecast productivity by using the

above equations is more than the actual productivity. The

permeability Kh using Q to calculate is unstable. So corrected

Joshi equation is reckoned as rational that Khsubstitutes for K.K is the geometry mean of horizontal permeability Kh andvertical permeability Kv, corrected equation is as follow

2

]2/

)()2/(ln[)/(]

2/

)2/(ln[

/8.542

22223

w

oo

h

hr

hLh

L

Laa

BKhJ

++

+= (6)

Productivity equation for openhole completion

As damages come from drilling and completion, wellbore of all

completion methods will bring along the additional drawdown

that cause decrease of production. Therefore, productivity

equation should be put up under the different completion

methods, which are based on forecast equation of natural

( )( )( ) ( )42

228

16

121)1094.9(

c

BSt

EE

+=

( ) CaHgPwf

3101

2cos


4/12

4 SPE 93821

productivity. If openhole completion is applied, oil well will

have a lower productivity than natural producing due to

formation damage from drilling fluid. Soopen hole horizontal

skin S is added to equation (7) to predict productivity in

openhole completion4.

hd

w

ooh

Shr

hLh

L

Laa

BKhJ

++

++

=

]2/

)()2/(ln[)/(]

2/

)2/(ln[

/8.542

2222

3

(7)

Productivity equation for openhole gravel packing with

cased completion

As perforated completion is employed, oil well will have a

lower productivity than natural producing due to formation

damage from drilling and cementing as well as perforation.

Perforation damages mainly come from unperfected perforation

degree, including two kinds dropdown. When flow streams

bend and flow into to get together, one of dropdowns happens.

When rocks around perforated hole are compacted in the

perforation process, the other dropdown is formed to decrease

permeability greatly. Geometry skin coefficient Sp andcompacted skin coefficient Scare used to describe the two above

additional pressure drawdown. Oil productivity of perforated

completion would be predicted by adding these skin coefficients

to equation3

(8).

hphd

w

oohd

SShr

hLh

L

Laa

BKhJ

+++

++

=

]2/

)()2/(ln[)/(]

2/

)2/(ln[

/8.542

22224

(8)

Productivity equation for openhole gravel packing with wire

wrapped/pre-packed screen completion

Gravel packing completion is general employed to achieve a

good sand control result for unconsolidated loosen heavy oil

reservoir. Accordingly, gravel packing in outside casing with thewire wrapped/pre-packed screen completion should be used ifgeologic condition can not allow openhole completion and

formation must be expect sand control. Gravel-packing barrier

as a sand filtration will be formed between casing wall and wire

wrapped/pre-packed screen after gravel is packing in outside

casing. In order to gravel packing prevents formation sand

production as well as keeps high permeability, the graveldiameter should be equal to 5 to 6 times of d50. Nevertheless,

wire wrapped screen completion only controls sand by wire

wrapped screen, without combination effects. SG would be

added to equation (9) to express additional pressure drop when

oil flows through gravel packing. Here are three skin

coefficients Shd, Shpand SGas following equation, which can beused to compute oil productivity when the above completion

methods are applied at the same time3

.

Ghphd

w

oohd

SSShr

hLh

L

Laa

BKhJ

++++

++

=

]2/

)()2/(ln[)/(]

2/

)2/(ln[

/8.542

22225

9

Productivity equation for openhole gravel packing with

slotted linerHorizontal well productivity forecast equation for the

completion with slotted liner is right for middle and coarseunconsolidated sand reservoir. When the slotted liner

completion is used a certain additional dropdown would be

formed between the liner and borehole wall by the formation

sand of natural accumulation, to make the oil well productivitywas declined finally. To add skin Ss to indicate this additional

dropdown, production equation can be expressed as follow8.

shphd

w

oohp

SSShr

hLhL

Laa

BKhJ

++++

++

=

]2/

)()2/(ln[)/(]2/

)2/(ln[

/8.542

22226

10

Comparison productivity with different completion methods

for the same horizontal well

Productivity of four horizontal wells with different completion

methods have been calculated according to wells data in

Intercampo oilfield. Basic parameters of the reservoir are as

follow:

Kh=1000mD Kv=1/101/5Kh o=2.510cp

Bo=1.11.2422 h=24.691.8ft rw=0.36ft

o=60.61lbm/ft3 L=13111339ft Kg=142mD

rd=1.64ft P=261.07725.19psi .

The radius of casing and wrapped/pre-packed screen and slotted

liner are 7in, 5-1/2in and 6-1/2in respectively. 6in perforation

gun was selected; permeability of perforation zone is about

120mD, perforation density about is five shots/ft, perforation

depth 0.53ft, and perforation radius about 0.036ft and phase

angle 180. Comparing results were shown in Table 4, it could be

concluded that openhole gravel packing with wire wrapped/pre-

packed screen completion is the best combination completion

method to gain oil well a high production rate. Meanwhile,prediction error is no more than 10% by corrected equations and

they are applicable greatly. Horizontal wells such as BA2330,

BA2348, and BA2387 in Intercampo oilfield have applied thecombination completion method and they show that the results

are consistent with the above conclusion.

The selection of completion method applied in Intercampo

oilfield6

Sand control at early stage was adopted to assure stable

production in Intercampo oilfield. In terms of the rule of sand

control selection and comparison with different completion

methods are considered that combination sand control

technology of the gravel packing with wire wrapped screen orpre-packed screen technique will be selected firstly for

horizontal well according to sand production characters.

Horizontal well sand control with Slim-Packer pre-packed

screen with gravel packing in high-pressure has applied in theoilfield. However, traditional methods were stand-alone slotted

liner or pre-packed screen without gravel packing out casing inthis area. Gravel size was determinated between 20 to 40 meshes

according to oilfield experiences.

Combination sand control mechanism is that stainless wire

wrapped screen would go into oil formation and high quality-

permeability quartz gravel is filled in annulus between screenand casing. Then the purpose of sand control is achieved by

forming multilayer sand barrier, of which are constituted by

gravel packing to keep out formation sand and screen to keep

out gravel.

Merits of combination sand control are mainly as below: control

sand flow effect on oil production; make sure oil flow all right;


5/12

SPE 93821 5

prolong sand control period but have no effect on production. In

addition, fluid flow condition can be improved and oilwell

production rate will be increased with gravel packing

More than 40 horizontal wells sand control technology has been

employed in Intercampo oilfield. Oil flow resistance is low and

accord with the standard of sand was controlled but was notblocked. Sand control is proved effective and production cost

was cut down. Finally, a good economic benefit should beobtained.

The combination sand control was a pioneer work to been used

in Lake Maracaibo. Sand control success ratio is 95%, but local

is only 75%. Most of sand control period has been up to 4years.

Horizontal well BA2299 sand control completion successfully

firstly in 1999, PDVSA regards as a miracle in the area.

Production curve and completion method shall be seen in Fig.1.

Production decline of BA2299 is smaller than adjacent well,

which oil rate kept approximately 300bbl per day for a long timeand accumulative total oil production has reached 50MMbbl

(see Fig.3). Another horizontal well BA2321 sand control has

been succeed at the same year (See Fig.2and 4)1.

Workover for Well BA2397Combination sand control completion has been popularly withmore than 40 horizontal wells in Intercampo oilfield. However,

sand control again will meet in the future development; it is re-

completion a difficult problem. Workover for horizontal wells in

Intercampo oilfield has been seldom occurring in Maracaibo

area. But fishing pre-packed screen of horizontal section is a

difficult task in the gravel is packed outside casing. It is a gap inthe workover task in the area. The traditional method used

sidetrack, but costs is too much. Therefore, an economic and

effective method for re-completion of horizontal well has been

searched for re-completion well BA2397, which re-completion

of BA2397 has successfully applied cutting, back off and then

fishing sand control tubing. Workover for BA2397 has taken 10days and horizontal section was 357ft after re-completion, oil

rate went up to 162bbl per day and water cut declined from

70%to 54%, of which re-completion of sand control is the first

example for workover of open-hole horizontal well in the area

and workover experiences have been also gained.

Conclusions1. Studies of sand production mechanism show that

continuous sand production is a main characteristic of

heavy oil sand production in Intercampo oilfield. And that

why sand is produced in this area is due to weak

consolidation of the unconsolidated sand and low rock

strength, which make the rock easily to become into loose

sand after fluid flow scouring action.

2. Sand production prediction indicates that there is sandproduction in some blocks and sand control must be

performed in early stage. Of the five forecast methods,

combination modulus has a higher subdivision grade and

can distinguish light, possible and worse sand production.

However, sand production prediction accuracy will be

improved by many forecast methods combination

3. Studies show that corrected equation predicted productivityis more practicality and nearer to producing data. It is

proved that combination sand control such as openhole

gravel packing with wire wrapped/pre-packed screenwould make a higher and longer time stable production

than other sand control methods.

4. Workover success of BA2397 brought rich experience todeal with sand control failure of horizontal wells.

Reference1. Hongen D et al., Research report of horizontal well

development technology in Intercampo

oilfieldVenezuela (Sept 2004).2. Hongen D: A new method to predict horizontal wells

production,Petroleum drilling and production technology

(Sept 1996) 76.

3. Youming X., Yingde P, Study on productivity prediction ofthe horizontal wells with completion methods of perforation

series, Journal of Southwestern Petroleum Institute (May

1996)4. Youming X., Yingde P: Study on productivity prediction of

the horizontal wells with open hole series of completion

methods, Journal of Southwestern Petroleum Institute

(May 1997) 43.

5. Dongchuan L.: A study on perforation crushed zone,

Petroleum Exploration and Development (Jan. 2000) 110.6. Renpu W.: Advanced well Completion Engineering, second

edition, Petroleum Industry Press in China (May 2000), 73.

7. Carlos Guirados et al., Production Optimization of SuckerRod Pumping Wells Producing Viscous Oil in Boscan Field,

Venezuela, paper SPE 29536 presented at the 1995 SPEProduction Operation Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK,

U.S.A, 2-4 April.

8. Wang Pingshuang et al., Sand Production Prediction ofWeizhou 12-1 Oilfield in Beibu Gulf in South China Sea,

paper SPE 64623 presented at the 2000 SPE International

Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, China, 7-10November.

9. Yula Tang et al., Performance of Horizontal WellsCompleted with Slotted Liners and Perforations, paper

SPE 65516 presented at the 2000 SPE/Petroleum Society of

CIM International Conference on Horizontal Well

Technology, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 6-8 November.10. Travis W.Cavender, Heavy Oil Development: Summary of

Sand Control and Well Completion Strategies Used with

Multilateral Applications, paper SPE 87966 presented at

the 2004 IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology

Conference and Exhibition, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 13-15

September.

AcknowledgementsThe authors want to thank CNPC America Ltd, Venezuela for

giving permission to publish this paper. We also thank theDepartment of oil & gas development planning, RIPED,

Petrochina for their valuable assistance on preparing this paper.

NomenclatureEc= combination modulus value, 10

6psi

tc=time difference of sound wave,s/ft

=layer density, lbm/ft3

ESEB=schlumberger value, 109psi

Pwf=bottom-hole pressure, psi

H=oil layer depth, ft

g=gravity acceleration,ft/s2


6/12

6 SPE 93821

=slant angle of layer,

QA=actual production rate, bbl/d

QIO=ideal production rate, bbl/d

QAO=actual openhole production rate, bbl/d

Q1=open hole gravel packing with wire wrapped or pre-packed

screen production rate, bbl/d

Q2= open hole gravel packing with slotted liner production rate,bbl/d

Q3=openhole gravel packing with perforation production rate,

bbl/d

o=oil density , lbm/ft3

o=oil viscosity, cp

Bo=oil volume coefficient

= anisotropy coefficient

=eccentricity distance of horizontal well, ft

=major semi-axis of the ellipse area , ft

Kh=horizontal permeability, mD

Kv=vertical permeability, mD

K=effective permeability, mD

=formation thickness, ft

rw=wellbore radius, ft

L=horizontal well length, ft

reh=reservoir outer boundary radius, ft

Shd=open-hole horizontal drilling skin factor

Svd=open-hole vertical drilling skin factor

Shp= perforated skin of horizontal perforation factorSvp= perforated skin of vertical perforation factor

Sp=geometry skin from perforation factor

Sh=flow skin in radial direction, mD

Kd=permeability of drilling damage section, mD

rd= radius of drilling damage, ft

rwe=effective wellbore radius, ft

lp=penetrating thickness in perforations (calculate from well

wall),ft

= a coefficient defined by rwe,

Sv=flow skin factor in vertical flow direction factorhD=dimensionless perforations distance,

Den=perforated density, shots/ft

rpd=dimensionless perforations radius, ft

rp= perforations radius, ft

h1=distance between perforated hole, ft

Swb=wellbore skin factor

rwd=dimensionless radius around wellbore,

Sc=perforating compaction zone skin factor

Kc=permeability of compaction zone, mD

rc=compaction zone radius, which is equal adding rp tocompaction zone thickness, ft

SG=skin factor when sand packed in casing in horizontal well

Ss=skin factor when gravel packing with slotted liner in

horizontal well

Pg=additive dropdown when oil flew gravel packing layer, psi

Ps=additive dropdown when oil flew in formation sand layer,

psiKg=permeability of sand packing layer, mD

Lg=sand layer thickness, ft. Lg= (wellbore diameter-outerdiameter of screen tubing/slotted liner)/2

A=flow square of well wall, ft2

Appendix

Equations for different completion methods are deduced

as follow

As noted in the text, represents anisotropy in horizontal

direction and vertical direction, which is important to production

equations.

=(h/v)0.5

All equations are based on Joshi equation, fluid drainage as an

ellipse.

5.04

/ ])2(25.05.0)[2/( LeHrLa ++=

When openhole completion was selected, skin factor should be

considered as follow.

p

d

h

w

d

d

hvdhd S

K

K

L

h

r

r

K

K

L

hS

L

hS )1(]ln)1[( +==

When the effect of perforation was considered, the skin factor

should be calculated as follow,

Shp=(h/L)Svp Svp=Sp+Sc Sp=Sh+Sv+Swb

Sh=ln(rw/rwe) rwe=(rw/lp),

value see Table.1

Table.1 value of

phase angle phase angle

0 0.250 90 0.726

180 0.500 60 0.813

120 0.648 45 0.860

b

pd

b

Dv rahS110 =

v

h

pen

D kk

lDh

1=

rpd=rp(Kv/Kh+1)/2h, h1=1/Den,

a=a1lg(rpd)+a2 b=b1rpd+b2

Select a1a2b1and b2according to phase angle, see Table.2


7/12

SPE 93821 7

Table.2 value of a1a2b1and b2

Phaseangle

a1 a2 b1 b2

0 -2.091 0.0453 5.1313 1.8672

180 -2.025 0.0943 3.0373 1.8115

120 -2.018 0.0634 1.6136 1.7770

90 -1.905 0 .1038 1.5674 1.6935

60 -1.898 0.1028 1.3654 1.6490

45 -1.788 0.2398 1.1915 1.6392

Swb=C1exp(C2rwd) rwd=rw/(rw+lp)

p

c

d

h

c

hp

en

cr

r

K

K

K

Kl

DS ln][

1=

C1and C2are decided by phase angle, see Table.3

Table.3 value of C1and C2

Phase

angle

C1 C2 Phase

angle

C1 C2

0 1.610-1 2.675 90 1.910

-3 6.155

180 2.610-2 4.532 60 3.010

-4 7.509

120 6.610-3 5.320 45 4.610

-5 8.791

When openhole gravel packing with wire wrapped/pre-packed

screen was applied in a horizontal well, skin factor must be

calculated as follow.

SG=

ooo

gvh

Bq

PLKK

8.542

And Pg was additive pressure when crude oil flew in grave,

P g=o

g

Goo

Go q

AK

LBq

A

LEB3

2

2

13

105877.0

)(10468.4

+

and E=55.0

71047.1

GK

.

When openhole gravel packing with wire wrapped/pre-packed

screen was applied in a horizontal well, skin factor must be

calculated as follow,

Ss=oo

svh

Bq

PLKK 8.542

And Pg was additive pressure when crude oil flew in grave,

P s= og

go

o

goq

AK

LBq

A

LEB

3

2

2

13

105877.0)(

10468.4

+

and A =2rwL.

Tables

TABLE 1 Reservoir Property of IntercampoReservoir type Reservoir Permeabil ity

(mD)

Porosity

(%)API

BASUP.53Mid-high permeability heavy oil

BAMED.7810001500 2831 10.518.3

BAMED.58

BAINF.60

LAGUNA.10

High permeability middle heavy oil

LGINF.11

14361854 2831 21.223.2

Low permeability middle heavy oil B-2-X


8/12

8 SPE 93821

TABLE 2 Middle Value Data of Formation Sand Size in BAMED-58 and BAINF-60

Gravel Size(US Mesh)Reservoir Depth

(ft)

d50

(in)

5*d50

(in)

6*d50

(in)8-12 12-20 20-40 40-60

5304 0.000195 0.000975 0.00117

5311 0.0003 0.0015 0.00185329 0.0085 0.0425 0.051

5333 0.0035 0.0175 0.021

5340 0.0065 0.0325 0.039

5349 0.008 0.04 0.048

5359 0.005 0.025 0.03

5365 0.00146 0.0073 0.00876

5368 0.0050 0.025 0.03

5383 0.007 0.035 0.042

5394 0.007 0.035 0.042

5404 0.00475 0.02375 0.0285

5417 0.0022 0.011 0.0132

5424 0.0117 0.0585 0.07025437 0.008 0.04 0.048

5445 0.0085 0.0425 0.051

5448 0.01176 0.0588 0.07056

5453 0.00325 0.01625 0.0195

5467 0.005 0.025 0.03

5476 0.0093 0.0465 0.0558

5484 0.0047 0.0235 0.0282

5491 0.00325 0.01625 0.0195

BAMED-58

5502 0.0036 0.018 0.0216

Continued TABLE 2 Middle value data of formation sand size in BAMED-58 and BAINF-60

Gravel Size(US Mesh)Reservoir Depth

(ft)

d50

(in)

5*d50

(in)

6*d50

(in)8-12 12-20 20-40 40-60

Small total 1 8 10 1

Percents 5% 40% 50% 5%

5534 0.005 0.025 0.03

5544 0.0065 0.0325 0.039

5550 0.008 0.04 0.048

5575 0.0063 0.0315 0.0378

5586 0.0045 0.0225 0.027

5605 0.00024 0.0012 0.00144

5612 0.0025 0.0125 0.015

5616 0.004 0.02 0.024

5627 0.0117 0.0585 0.0702

5635 0.0002 0.001 0.0012

5656 0.0095 0.0475 0.057

5660 0.00183 0.00915 0.01098

5680 0.0098 0.049 0.0588

5692 0.0022 0.011 0.0132

5711 0.0065 0.0325 0.039

5717 0.0075 0.0375 0.045

BAINF-59

5726 0.0156 0.078 0.0936

Small total 1 8 3 3

Percents 6.7% 53.3% 20% 20%

All total 2 16 13 4


9/12

SPE 93821 9

TABLE 3 Interval Transit-time Prediction

Well No. Depthft Acoustic time(us/ft) Sand production Well No. Depthft Acoustic time(us/ft) Sand production

5604 88.5 no 5055.58 86.63 no

5446.5 87.37 no 5055.33 86.82 no

5377 89.03 no 4963.08 75.42 no

5376.5 85.58 no 4962.83 68.59 no

5376 87.08 no 4962.58 71.42 no

5375.5 89.8 no 4962.33 76.17 no

-- -- -- 4962.08 79.4 no

BA744

-- -- --

BA2295

4961.83 87.03 no

TABLE 4 Comparisons of Oil Rate in Different Completion Methods

Well No. Qbbl/d Well No. Qbbl/d

QA QIO QAO Q1 Q2 Q3 QA QIO QAO Q1 Q2 Q3

BA2526 780 949 870 863 852 795 BA2348 1428 1815 1550 1537 1482 1437

Q/QIO 0.82 -- 0.92 0.91 0.90 0.84 Q/QIO 0.79 -- 0.85 0.85 0.82 0.79

Q/QA -- 0.18 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.02 Q/QA -- 0.21 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.01

BA2330 650 841 721 714 707 669 BA2387 1291 1616 1397 1382 1347 1347

Q/QIO 0.74 -- 0.86 0.85 0.84 0.79 Q/QIO 0.80 -- 0.86 0.86 0.83 0.83

Q/QA -- 0.2927 0.1083 0.0972 0.0866 0.0272 Q/QA -- 0.25 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.04


10/12

10 SPE 93821

TABLE 5 Combination Modulus Prediction

Well No. DepthftAcoustic time

(us/ft)

Combination modulus106psi

Sand production

5343.5 111.44 1.1015 worse

5363.5 129.93 0.8103 worse

5376.5 85.58 1.8678 worse

5385 100.73 1.3482 worse

BA744

5650 125.35 0.8706 worse

5059.58 216.82 0.291 worse

5042.83 169.9 0.4739 worse

5465.58 97.1 1.4509 worse

5055.58 86.63 1.8228 worse

4962.33 76.17 2.3578 light

BA2295

4963.08 75.42 2.4049 light

5108.75 126.51 0.8547 worse

5132.75 123.66 0.8946 worse

5002 113.63 1.0595 worse

5099.75 103.57 1.2753 worse

BA2297

4982.25 90.24 1.6799 worse

4868.5 138.72 0.7109 worse

4870 136.32 0.7361 worse

4907.5 125.21 0.8725 worse

5262.5 115.6 1.0237 worse

4943 107.93 1.1743 worse

BA2313

5403.5 94.91 1.5186 worse

4860.5 130.41 0.8044 worse

4967.25 125.1 0.8741 worse

4796 115.9 1.0184 worse

4981.5 106.98 1.1953 worse

4807.25 96.7 1.4629 worse

BA2326

4806 86.59 1.8245 worse


11/12

SPE 93821 11

TABLE 6 Prediction Comparison Combination Modulus with Acoustic Time Modulus

Well No. Parameter Pos.ratio Max. Min. Mean Sand

production

Ec -- 1.868 0.810 1.14 worse

0.2 4.599 0.865 1.75 possibility

BA744

ESEB

0.3 4.338 0.816 1.62 possibility

Ec -- 2.907 0.291 0.01 possibility

0.2 11.145 0.112 1.66 Free or

possibility

BA2295

ESEB

0.3 10.513 0.105 1.57 Free or

possibility

Ec -- 1.680 0.855 1.11 worse

0.2 9.630 3.720 1.66 possibility

BA2297

ESEB

0.3 3.510 0.908 1.57 possibility

Ec -- 1.519 0.711 1.07 worse

0.2 2.868 0.628 1.44 possibility

BA2313

ESEB

0.3 3.003 0.658 1.51 possibilityEc 1.824 0.804 1.16 worse

0.2 4.388 0.853 1.82 possibility

BA2326

ESEB

0.3 4.139 0.805 1.72 possibility

Which Ecare measured in 106Psi and ESEBare measured in 10

9Psi.

TABLE 7 Results of Wellbore Pressure Control

Well

num.

Criticalmax.

(psi)

Critical

min.

(psi)

Criticalpressure

(psi)

Actualpressure

drop (psi)BA744 610.70 521.39 566.04


12/12

12 SPE 93821

BA 99

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

9902 9907 9912 0005 0010 0102 0107 0112 0205 0210 0303 0308 0401 0406yym

rate(B/D)

0. 0

10. 0

20. 0

30. 0

40. 0

50. 0

60. 0

70. 0

80. 0

watercut()

Li qui d r at e Oi l r at e Wat er cut

BA 3

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

2400

9905 9910 0003 0008 0101 0106 0111 0204 0209 0301 0306 0311 0404

yym

rate(B/D)

0. 0

10. 0

20. 0

30. 0

40. 0

50. 0

60. 0

70. 0

80. 0

90. 0

100. 0

watercut()

Li qui d r at e

Oi l r at e

Wat er cut

Figures

Fig. 1 Completion of Well BA2299 Fig. 2 Completion of Well BA2321

Fig. 3 Production Curve of Well BA2299

Fig. 4 Production Curve of Well BA2321

Fondo @5828 (MD)

9-5/8 Surfac Casing: @ 1036

7 23#/P @4922 (MD)

4921-5828 Horizontal section

(ISNOTU-09)

Packer SC-1 @4643

Niple S pos. #1 @+/-206

Tubing 3-1/2, 9.3 #/P

Niple X (ID: 2.813) @4643

OBJETIVO: ISNOTU-09 (EGHD-IGL)

Horizontal Well: BA-2321 wellbore Schematic

Gas Lift Mandriles: 1714; 2732; 4067

Cabezal:

Bompet serie 900 (11x7-1/16x3-1/2

Sand Prediction and the Selection of Completion Methods for Horizontal Wells...

Documents

Transcript of Sand Prediction and the Selection of Completion Methods for Horizontal Wells...