SPE/ISRM 78166
Sand Mass Prediction in a North Sea Reservoir
Euripides Papamichos, SPE, SINTEF Petroleum Research and Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference held
in Irving, Texas, 20-23 October 2002.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/ISRM 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 or
International Society of Rock Mechanics 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, International Society of Rock Mechanics, its officers, or members. Papers
presented at SPE/ISRM 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
An engineering analytical model for sand mass prediction is
presented. The model is based on a sand production function
with parameters correlated to the uniaxial compressive
strength of the formation. The model is used for the prediction
of sand production in an inclined perforated well in the North
Sea.
Introduction
Hydrocarbon production increases if the zero sand production
criterion is relaxed and sand production is allowed. The
benefits of the increased production need of course not to
outweigh the negative consequences of sand production such
as risk of well failure, erosion of pipelines and surface
facilities, and sand separation and disposal. A proper
assessment is thus required where the knowledge of the mass
and rate of sand production is necessary. Experimental studies
for volumetric sand measurements in different sandstones,
model development and theoretical and numerical analysis has
lead to the development of some prediction models for sand
production. For heavy oil reservoirs a volumetric sand model
has been proposed by Geilikman et al. [1] to predict the
amount of sand as a function of the changes in drawdown over
time. For conventional reservoirs, a hydrodynamic erosion
model was proposed by Vardoulakis et al. [2]. The model was
subsequently coupled with the mechanical behavior and
failure of an elastic or elastoplastic formation [3],[4],[5]. For a
wellbore with perforations, a hydrodynamic only analysis
shows how sand is produced around the perforation tunnels
[6].
However, for complicated perforation geometries in a
variety of formations, the numerical sand production models
become cumbersome and time consuming. An alternative is
presented in this paper where an engineering analytical model
is presented. The model can provide estimates of the mass and
rate of sand production expected during the life of a well
under given production scenarios. The conditions for massive
sand production and the relation to water breakthrough are
currently studied for inclusion in the model. Field validation
remains a challenge as limited reliable sand production data
can be found in the industry. An application to a North Sea
well is presented for the optimum deviation of the well and the
optimum perforation pattern for sand production purposes.
Sand mass prediction model
Analysis of sand production test results through an erosion
sand production model lead to a model where the sand
production mass Ms is a function of a stress, a pore pressure
gradient and time. For the hollow cylinder sand production test
these correspond to the external stress σc, the pore pressure
gradient at the cavity dpc and the test time t, i.e.
M s = M s ( dpc , σ c , t ; as , dps , σ s ) .................................... (1)
The sand production function contains also three material
parameters, a calibration constant as, and the critical for sand
production initiation external stress σs and pore pressure
gradient at the cavity dps.
Sand production test. The sand production function Eq.(1)
can be calibrated on test data from a volumetric sand
production test [5] to obtain the constants as, σs and dps. The
latter two correspond to the critical external stress and cavity
pore pressure gradient for sand production. From the test data
where a radial fluid flow rate Q is imposed, the cavity pore
pressure gradient dpc is obtained as
µ Q
dpc = .............................................................. (2)
k 2π ri H
where k is the permeability of the sandstone, µ is the fluid
viscosity, ri the current cavity radius, which increases with
sand production, and H the specimen height. Figure 1 shows
as an example the approximation of the cumulative sand mass
data with Eq.(1) for a reservoir sandstone.
The sand production function can alternatively be
calibrated on field sand production data when reliable such
2 E. PAPAMICHOS SPE/ISRM 78166

data are available. In the absence of test or field data, the Field application model. An engineering software, SINTEF’s
calibration parameters can be obtained from correlations with Sand Predictor, has been developed to predict the sand mass
basic mechanical properties such as for example the Uniaxial and rate for given in situ stress conditions and production
Compressive Strength (UCS). These correlations are based on scenarios. For the application of the analytical model to field
the physics of the sand production process and a number of conditions, the cavity stress σc and cavity pore pressure
experimental test data for both reservoir and outcrop gradient dpc in the model are related through analytical
sandstones. In particular the following correlations have been formulas to relevant field quantities, i.e. in situ stresses,
developed drawdown and depletion.
For open hole completions, the cavity stress σc in Eq.(1) is
σ s = a (UCS ) ............................................................... (3)
b

related to the drawdown ∆pdd and depletion ∆pdep as follows

[7], [8]:
as = as (σ s ) ................................................................... (4)
 σ xo + σ yo
σ c = Maxθ  − (σ xo − σ yo ) cos 2θ −
where a, b are correlation constants. As an example the  2
correlation in Eq.(3) is plotted in Figure 2 (after [7]). For the
pore pressure gradient dps, a constant value has been used, as − 2σ xyo sin 2θ − preso +
it has not been possible yet to obtain a reliable correlation with
 χx + χy  ... (5)
a basic mechanical parameter. + 1− + ( χ x − χ y ) cos 2θ + 2 χ xy sin 2θ ∆pdep
 2 
 α (1 − 2ν )  
1.8 55 + 1 −  ∆pdd 
1.6 53  2 (1 − ν )  
1.4 51 where σxo, σyo, σxyo are the original in situ total stresses
External stress
expressed in the cartesian coordinate system of the deviated
Sand production

1.2 49
External stress

wellbore where the z-axis is parallel to the wellbore, the y-axis

1 47
horizontal and the x-axis parallel to the lowermost radial
0.8 45 direction of the wellbore [9]. The expression in the brackets
0.6 43 varies with the angle θ around the wellbore (measured
Model
0.4 41 anticlockwise with respect to the x-axis). The maximum with
Sand test data
respect to θ corresponds to the most critical location for sand
0.2 39
production. The drawdown term in Eq.(5) assumes radial flow
0 37 towards the wellbore.
0 5000 10000 15000
The stresses σxo, σyo, σxyo may be expressed in terms of the
Time initial in situ total vertical, major horizontal, and minor
Figure 1. Volumetric sand production test results for a reservoir horizontal stresses σvo, σHo, σho, respectively, as follows1
sandstone and model calibration on the cumulative sand data.
σ xo = l xH σ Ho + l xhσ ho + l xvσ vo
2 2 2

σ yo = l yH σ Ho + l yhσ ho
2 2
70
........................................... (6)

60
σ xyo = l xH l yH σ Ho + l xh l yhσ ho
Cavity failure
External stress [MPa]

50 The direction cosines of the stress transformation Eq.(6)

Onset of sand production relate to the wellbore deviation angle dev (i.e. the angle
40 between the direction of σvo and the z-axis; 0° ≤ dev ≤ 90° )
30
and the azimuth angle azim (i.e. anticlockwise angle between
y = 6.0841x0.6346 the direction of σHo and the x-axis; 0° ≤ azim ≤ 180° ), as
20 R2 = 0.9583 follows
10
1
σvo, σHo, σho are assumed to be principal stresses. The
0 equations apply also in general as long as σvo, σHo, σho
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
represent the in situ principal stresses and the angles are
Uniaxial compressive strength [MPa]
defined with respect to the directions of these principal
Figure 2. Correlation between the critical sand production
external stress and the Uniaxial Compressive Strength based on stresses (which in that case will not coincide with the vertical
cavity failure tests (after [7]). and horizontal directions).
SPE/ISRM 78166 SAND MASS PREDICTION IN A NORTH SEA RESERVOIR 3

l xH = cos ( azim ) cos ( dev ) (b) Perforated completions

l yH = − sin ( azim ) ∆pdd

dpc = ............. (12)
l xh = sin ( azim ) cos ( dev ) ............................................. (7) [ (L
rp n p L p ln re p ]
+ rw ) + 0.5 f D
s
rp L p

l yh = cos ( azim ) where rw is the wellbore radius, re the well drainage radius, rp
the perforation radius, Lp the perforation length, and np the
l xv = − sin ( dev ) perforation density (number of perforations per well length).
Furthermore, preso is the original reservoir pressure, α Equation (11) is based on radial Darcy flow towards the open
hole, while Eq.(12) is based on an approximate analytical
Biot’s effective stress coefficient and ν the Poisson’s ratio.
model of radial Darcy flow up to the perforation tip followed
The dimensionless parameters χx, χy, χxy describe how the in
by local spherical flow convergence into individual
situ total stresses σxo, σyo, σxyo change with depletion and can
perforations [10]. Parameter f D = f D ( n p , L p , perf pattern ) is
s s
be expressed as
a Darcy flow spherical shape factor used to represent the
σ xo − σ x
χx = = l xH χ H + l xh χ h + l xv χ v
2 2 2
results of exact finite element perforation inflow simulations
∆pdep with the analytical expression in Eq.(12). For spiral
perforation patterns, which involve the least interaction
σ yo − σ y between adjacent perforations, the shape factor does not differ
χy = = l yH χ H + l yh χ h
2 2
........................... (8)
∆pdep substantially from unity, i.e. f D = 1 . Saleh and Stewart [10]
s

σ xyo − σ xy report the shape factors for rp = 0.635 cm and four common
χ xy = = l xH l yH χ H + l xh l yh χ h
∆pdep perforation patterns, spiral 180 (180º phasing), spiral 120
(120º phasing), plane 90 (90º phasing) and strip 0 (0º phasing
where χH, χh, χv describe how the in situ total vertical, major with all perforations in line). For use in the analytical model,
horizontal, and minor horizontal stresses σHo, σho, σvo change the published data were approximated with the function:
with depletion, i.e.
f D = Lp ( a1 n p + a2 ) + L p ( a3 n p + a4 ) + a5 n p + a6 ........ (13)
s 2

σ Ho − σ H
χH = where a1 to a6 are calibration constants different for each
∆pdep perforation pattern, as listed in Table 1.
σ ho − σ h Equation (12) assumes that the fluid flow is distributed
χh = .............................................................. (9) evenly around the surface of the perforation. In reality,
∆pdep however, a large portion of the flow is concentrated around the
σ vo − σ v perforation tip, where the damage of the rock is smaller and
χv = therefore not significant sand production is expected. Thus,
∆pdep around the length of the perforation where the damage is
concentrated and sand production is expected, a smaller fluid
and σx, σy, σxy and σH, σh, σv are the total in situ stresses after flux exists. This makes Eq.(12) a conservative estimate for
depletion ∆pdep. For uniaxial reservoir compaction during sand production predictions.
depletion and no arching of the overburden, i.e. zero lateral
displacement and constant total vertical stress, we have
Table 1. Constants in Eq.(12) for calculation of Darcy
α (1 − 2ν )
χH = χh = χ v = 0 ........................... (10) flow spherical shape factor f D .
s

1 −ν
Constants Perforation pattern
The expressions for the open hole can be applied to Spiral 180 Spiral 120 Plane 90 Strip 0
perforated completions by considering the perforations as a1 [m ]
-1
0.38963 0.20641 0.098111 -0.03383
open holes of small diameter. In such a case, it is assumed that -2
a2 [m ] -0.29051 0.318 2.396 2.0171
the wellbore does not influence the stress field around the a3 [ - ] -0.06444 -0.01426 0.040256 0.19944
perforations. -1
a4 [m ] -1.489 -1.4353 -2.6614 -2.3301
The cavity pore pressure gradient dpc in Eq. (1) is related a5 [m] 0.017 0.007037 -0.00394 0.063381
to the drawdown ∆pdd and depletion ∆pdep as follows: a6 [ - ] 1.0755 0.96742 1.1023 0.9629
(a) Open hole completions:
∆pdd
dpc = ....................................................... (11)
rw ln ( re rw )
4 E. PAPAMICHOS SPE/ISRM 78166

Field case percent up to a few factors). In the production Well A, the

The Volumetric Sand Production model has been calibrated
against laboratory experiment data, both from outcrops and
reservoirs. In order to test the model in predicting sand
production in the field, relevant formation and production data
were collected for a North Sea reservoir, such as
Borehole dimension and orientation, and perforation
dimensions, spacing and phasing.
Formation properties of perforated sections (in the form
of logs), such as strength (e.g. UCS), permeability,
porosity, fluid viscosity.
In situ total horizontal and vertical stresses and their
dependence on reservoir depletion, and reservoir pressure.
Production history, i.e. depletion and drawdown over
time.
Two wells were analyzed. Well A was logged after drilling
and then it was put into production. No core was taken. Well
B, an analogue to production well A, was a vertical
exploration well where a core was taken. The sand production
test in Figure 1 was on core from this well.
Borehole and perforation data. The deviation of well A to
the vertical is 55º and the azimuth angle is 148º SE. The
perforation was at 120º phasing, 6 shots per foot. The design
perforation diameter is 0.012 m and the length is 0.25 m.
Reservoir data. The reservoir fluid pressure at the time of
drilling of well B was 27.6 MPa. This is about 1 MPa less then
the original (pre-production) fluid pressure. Oil viscosity at
STC is 0.47 cp. The final flow rate was 1095 m3/day and the
bottom hole pressure 21 MPa.
porosity in the reservoir ranges from 15 to 28%, i.e. very
similar to that in exploration Well B. Most porosity is in the
range 20 to 25% with the porosity trend increasing
downwards. The porosity in the perforated zones is about
25%. The grain size distribution as a function of depth was
measured. The average grain size diameters on three particular
formations were 202 µm, 309 µm and 387 µm.
Rock strength. The Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS)
has been measured in laboratory experiments on tens of core
samples from Well B. Formel analysis was done (termed here
LMP) to compute the UCS-log. Formel uses acoustic data and
other basic log parameters to calculate the formation strength.
The experimental data show a larger scatter than the log-
derived UCS. Most data indicate a UCS in the range of 10 to
15 MPa. About 25% of the data is in the range of 15 to 20
MPa. Based on wireline log data (density and P-wave
velocity) in Well A and using the match between
experimentally-measured and wireline-log-based UCS in Well
B, a strength profile was made for production Well A (from
which no core was taken). The computed UCS ranges from 6
MPa to 32 MPa.
Field prediction. A volumetric sand production prediction
study was performed for Well A. Seven intervals were
perforated in this well with a total length of 67.5 m. Table 2
shows the formation properties used in each perforation
interval. These properties were selected from logs, shown in
Figure 3 for the production Well A and in Figure 4 for the
exploration analogue Well B.

Porosity and permeability. The reservoir porosity is in the

range of 15 to 28% with most data in the range of 22 to 26%.
Permeability data are in the 100 to 1000 mD range. Horizontal
permeability is larger than vertical permeability (a few tens of

Table 2. Well A: Perforated intervals and formation properties.

Perforation MD TVD Average TVD Perforation Max porosity Max permeability Median Min UCS
interval [m] [m] [m] length [m] [-] [mD Poisson’s ratio [MPa]
1 5368 - 5374 2672.63 - 2676.05 2674.34 6 0.30 6007.3 0.28 8.35

2 5383 -5395 2681.16 - 2687.96 2684.56 12 0.28 2055.3 0.23 6.82

3 5402 - 5404 2691.95 - 2693.07 2692.50 2 0.17 6.1 0.33 31.2

4 5408 -5420 2695.34 - 2702.17 2698.75 12 0.28 2055.3 0.25 6.49

5 5428.5 -5432.5 2706.98 - 2709.25 2708.12 4 0.20 29.3 0.31 18.6

6 5466 -5490 2728.27 - 2741.90 2735.09 24 0.26 706.2 0.24 6.27

7 5494 -5501.5 2744.17 - 2748.43 2746.30 7.5 0.28 2055.3 0.22 5.46

Total 67.5
SPE/ISRM 78166 SAND MASS PREDICTION IN A NORTH SEA RESERVOIR 5

Porosity Log Oil volume fraction only).

Porosity max Formation boundary Porosity Log Oil volume fraction
Formation boundary Porosity Core
Porosity and Oil volume fraction
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Porosity and Oil volume fraction
2670 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
2675

2680

2690 2700

2700
2725
TVD [m]

TVD [m]
2710

2720 2750

2730

2775
2740

2750
Well A 2800
Well B

UCS LMP UCS min

Formation boundary UCS LMP UCS Core
Formation boundary
UCS [MPa]
0 10 20 30 40 50 UCS [MPa]
2670 0 10 20 30 40 50
2675

2680

2690 2700

2700
2725
TVD [m]

TVD [m]

2710

2720 2750

2730

2775
2740

2750
Well A 2800
Well B

Figure 3. Porosity, oil volume fraction and UCS logs for Figure 4. Porosity, oil volume fraction and UCS logs for
production Well A (values in perforation intervals are shown exploration Well B.
6 E. PAPAMICHOS SPE/ISRM 78166

Vertical stress Minor horizontal stress 10000

Pore pressure Formation boundary
Perf intervals
1000
In situ stresses and pore pressure [MPa]

Vertical permeability [md]

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
100
2670

10
2680
1

2690
0.1

2700 0.01
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
TVD [m]

Porosity Well B
2710

10000
2720
1000

Horizontal permeability [md]

Pres σh σv
2730
100

2740 10

1
2750
Well A
0.1
Figure 5. Initial total vertical and minor horizontal stress, and
initial pore pressure in the perforation intervals. 0.01
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Porosity Well B
Vertical Horizontal Formation boundary
Figure 7. Vertical and horizontal permeability measured in cores
Permeability [md] in exploration Well B vs. porosity.

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

2675
Estimates of the initial total vertical σvo, maximum
horizontal σHo and minimum horizontal σho in situ stresses,
and the initial reservoir pressure preso at the perforated
2700 formations and perforated intervals are shown in Figure 5. No
information was available for the changes of the in situ
stresses with depletion, so poroelastic uniaxial compaction
was assumed and Eq.(10) was used with Biot’s effective stress
2725 coefficient α = 0.9.
The permeability in Well A was calculated from
TVD [m]

permeability vs. porosity relations derived for Well B based on

core measurements of horizontal and vertical permeability
2750 shown in Figure 6. Plots of the vertical and horizontal
permeability vs. porosity and the approximated functions are
shown in Figure 7. With these functions the vertical kv and
horizontal kh permeability are given as functions of the
2775
porosity φ:
For a conservative estimate on the sand production, the
minimum value for each perforation interval was selected for
the Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS), and the maximum
2800
for the porosity and permeability. For the permeability, the
Well B
average between the maximum vertical and horizontal
Figure 6. Log of vertical and horizontal permeability measured in permeabilities was taken. For the Poisson’s ratio the median
cores in exploration Well B. value was selected to avoid the extremes in the log values. The
SPE/ISRM 78166 SAND MASS PREDICTION IN A NORTH SEA RESERVOIR 7

oil viscosity is µ = 0.47 cp. The sand production stress σs was Well Perf interval 1 Perf interval 2
Perf interval 4 Perf interval 6 Perf interval 7
calculated from the UCS using Eq.(3). For the sand production 250
parameter as = as (σ s ) , a correlation as in Eq.(4) was used.

Max Sand production [kg]

200
The simulated production history for the drawdown and
depletion over time was based on the field production data and
is shown in Figure 8. A constant drawdown of 0.5 MPa and a 150

linear increase of the depletion with time were applied over

the production period of eight years and three months. The 100
total depletion was 8 MPa. The deviation of the perforations is
not fixed, as the perforation pattern is a 120º spiral. Therefore, 50
the results are given for various deviations angles between 35º
and 90º with respect to vertical. 0
The total sand production for the entire well and each of 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
the perforation intervals is given in Figure 9a and it is Perforation deviation [deg]
increasing with perforation deviation from vertical because the (a)
vertical in situ stress is the major principal stress. Perforation Perf interval 1 Perf interval 2 Perf interval 4
intervals 3 and 5 do not produce sand. Figure 9b shows the 0.2
Perf interval 6 Perf interval 7

maximum sand rate and Figure 9c the maximum perforation

0.18
radius (initial radius = 0.006 m) at each perforation interval as
0.16
a function of perforation deviation with respect to vertical.

Max Sand rate [kg/h]

0.14
Some perforation intervals, depending on the perforation
0.12
deviation, do not produce sand at the start of production but
0.1
later on the life of the well as the reservoir is depleted. Figure
10 shows the time and Figure 11 the depletion to sand 0.08

production vs. perforation deviation for each of the five sand 0.06
producing perforation intervals. Figure 12 show as an 0.04
example the sand production and sand rate at perforation 0.02
interval 4 (5408-5420 MD) as a function of time. The 0
perforations with deviation larger than 50º produce sand from 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
the start. The maximum sand rate is then at the start and it Perforation deviation [deg]
decreases later because the perforation radius increases. The (b)
perforations with deviation smaller than 50º do not produce Perf interval 1 Perf interval 2 Perf interval 4
sand from the beginning. The maximum sand rate is at the end 0.016
Perf interval 6 Perf interval 7

of the production period at the largest depletion. The effect of 0.015

water cut on sand production was not included in the sand
Max Perforation radius [m]

0.014
prediction.
0.013
0.012
0.011
0.01
Drawdown Depletion
0.6 9 0.009
8 0.008
0.5
7 0.007
Drawdown [MPa]

Depletion [MPa]

0.4 6 0.006
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
5
0.3 Perforation deviation [deg]
4
(c)
0.2 3
2 Figure 9. (a) Maximum sand production, (b) Maximum sand rate,
0.1
1 and (c) Maximum perforation radius vs. perforation deviation w.r.t.
vertical for the entire well A and for each of the five sand
0 0 producing perforation intervals. Intervals 3 and 5 do not produce
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 sand.
Time [h]
Figure 8. Simulated production history for the drawdown and
depletion.
8 E. PAPAMICHOS SPE/ISRM 78166

Perf interval 1 Perf interval 2 Perf interval 4 Perf deviation

50
80000 Perf interval 6 Perf interval 7
45 90 deg
70000
Time to Sand production [h]

40

Sand production [kg]

60000 35
50000 30
60 deg
40000 25
20
30000
15
45 deg
20000 10
10000 5 35 deg
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 20000 40000 60000 80000
Perforation deviation [deg] Time [h]

Figure 10. Time to sand production vs. perforation deviation w.r.t. (a)
vertical for each of the five sand producing perforation intervals.
0.002
0.0018
Perf interval 1 Perf interval 2 Perf interval 4 0.0016

Sand prod. rate [kg/h]

9 Perf interval 6 Perf interval 7
0.0014
Depletion to Sand production [MPa]

8 0.0012
Perf deviation
7 0.001
6 0.0008 90 deg
5 0.0006 60 deg
4 0.0004 45 deg

3 0.0002
35 deg
0
2
0 20000 40000 60000 80000
1
Time [h]
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 (b)
Perforation deviation [deg]
Figure 12. (a) Sand production and (b) sand rate for various
Figure 11. Depletion to sand production vs. perforation deviation perforation deviations w.r.t. vertical vs. time for perforation
w.r.t. vertical for each of the five sand producing perforation interval 4 (5408-5420 MD).
intervals.

Acknowledgements
Conclusions The author wishes to thank Nils Kågesson-Loe of Norsk
The results show that well deviation and perforation pattern Hydro for supplying information about reservoir and
can delay the onset of sand production and reduce production data. The sponsors of the joint industry project
substantially the sand rate and cumulative produced sand. The ‘Volumetric Sand Production’ at Sintef Petroleum Research,
fluid flow flux into the perforations affects significantly the Conoco Norway, Shell International Exploration &
sand rate and sand production and accurate estimates from Production, Norsk Hydro and Statoil are recognized for
reservoir simulations have to be used for correct predictions. supporting this research.
Sand production may decrease due to the enlargement of the
perforations and the resulting reduced pressure gradients.
The sand mass prediction model can be applied for the Nomenclature
estimation of the cumulative amount of produced sand and the a1 to a6= calibration constants in Eq. (13)
sand rate over the life of a well. Parametric studies can also be as = calibration parameter in Eq. (1)
performed to optimize the production strategy (drawdown and a = calibration constant in Eq. (3), (m/Lt2)-b
depletion), well and/or perforation orientation, selective
azim = azimuth angle of σHo, –, deg
perforation, etc. The model’s estimates may also be used as
b = calibration constant in Eq. (3), –
input to sand transport and erosion models for the calculation
dev = wellbore deviation from vertical, –, deg
of sand transport in horizontal wells and pipelines and erosion
dpc = pore pressure gradient at the cavity, 1/Lt2
of pipes and other facilities.
SPE/ISRM 78166 SAND MASS PREDICTION IN A NORTH SEA RESERVOIR
dps = critical pore pressure gradient at the cavity for sand
initiation, 1/Lt2
s enhancement by exploiting sand production,” paper SPE 27820
f = Darcy flow spherical shape factor, –
D presented at the 1994 SPE/DOE Ninth Symposium on Improved
k = permeability, L2, mD
kh = horizontal permeability, L2, mD
kv = vertical permeability, L2, mD
lxH, lxh, lxv, lyH, lyh = direction cosines of stress transformation
in the wellbore coordinate system, –
np = perforation density, 1/m, shots/ft
preso = initial reservoir pressure, m/Lt2, MPa
re = wellbore influence radius, m
ri = current cavity radius, m
rp = perforation radius, m, cm, m
rw = wellbore radius, m
t = time, t, h
H = hollow cylinder specimen height, m
Lp = perforation length, m, m
Ms = cumulative sand mass, m
MD = measured depth, m, m
TVD = true vertical depth, m, m
UCS = uniaxial compressive strength, m/Lt2, MPa
Q = fluid flow rate, m3/t
α = Biot effective stress coefficient, –
θ = coordinate in cylindrical coordinate system, –
µ = fluid viscosity, m/Lt, cp
ν = Poisson’s ratio, –
σc = external cavity stress, m/Lt2
σs = critical external cavity stress for sand initiation,
m/Lt2
σx, σy σxy = in situ total stresses in the wellbore coordinate
system, m/Lt2
σxo, σyo σxyo = initial in situ total stresses in the wellbore
coordinate system, m/Lt2
σh = in situ total minor horizontal stress, m/Lt2, MPa
σH = in situ total major horizontal stress , m/Lt2, MPa
σv = in situ total vertical stress, m/Lt2, MPa
σho = initial in situ total minor horizontal stress, m/Lt2,
MPa
σHo = initial in situ total major horizontal stress , m/Lt2,
MPa
σvo = initial in situ total vertical stress, m/Lt2, MPa
χh = ratio of σh change with depletion, –
χH = ratio of σH change with depletion, –
χv = ratio of σv change with depletion, –
χx = ratio of σx change with depletion, –
χxy = ratio of σxy change with depletion, –
χy = ratio of σy change with depletion, –
φ = porosity, –
∆pdd = drawdown, m/Lt2, MPa
∆pdep = depletion, m/Lt2, MPa
9
References
1. Geilikman MB, Dusseault MB, Dullien FA: “Fluid production
Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 17-20 April.
2. Vardoulakis I, Stavropoulou M, Papanastasiou P:
“Hydromechanical aspects of the sand production problem,”
Transport in Porous Media (1996) 22, 225-244.
3. Stavropoulou M, Papanastasiou P, Vardoulakis I: “Coupled
wellbore erosion and stability analysis,” Int. J. Num. Anal.
Methods Geomech. (1998) 22, 749-769.
4. Papamichos E, Malmanger EM: “A sand erosion model for
volumetric sand predictions in a North Sea reservoir,” SPE
69841, SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, (Feb. 2001),
44-50.
5. Papamichos E, Vardoulakis I, Tronvoll J, Skjærstein A:
“Volumetric sand production model and experiment,” Int. J.
Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. (2001) 25, 8, 789-808.
6. Wan RG, Wang J: “Analysis of sand production in
unconsolidated oil sand using a coupled erosional-stress-
deformation model,” presented at the 2001 Canadian
International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada,
June 10-12, Paper #2001-49.
7. Tronvoll J, Papamichos E, Skjærstein A, Sanfilippo F: “Sand
production in ultra-weak sandstones: Is sand control absolutely
necessary?” SPE 39042, presented at the 1997 5th Latin
American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference
and Exhibition, Rio de Janeiro.
8. Kessler N, Wang Y, Santarelli FJ: “A simplified pseudo 3D
model to evaluate sand production risk in deviated cased holes,”
SPE 26541, presented at the 1993 68th Annual Technical Conf.
And Exhibition of the SPE, Houston.
9. Erling F, Holt RM, Horsrud P, Raaen AM, Risnes R: Petroleum
related rock mechanics, Developments in Petroleum Science,
33, Elsevier (1992).
10. Saleh AM, Stewart G: “New approach towards understanding of
near well bore behaviour of perforated completions,” SPE
36866, presented at the 1996 SPE European Petroleum
Conference, Milan, Italy, 447-464.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
cp × 1.0* E-03 = Pa·s
in. × 2.54* E-02 = m
ft × 3.048* E-01 = m
ft2 × 9.290 304* E-02 = m2
ft3 × 2.831 685 E-02 = m3
gal × 3.785 412 E-03 = m3
lbm × 4.535 924 E-01 = kg
mD × 9.87 E-16 = m2
psi × 6.894 757 E-03 = MPa
bar × 1* E-01 = Mpa
*
Conversion factor is exact.