\ wety of PetroleumEn~!
neersI
SPE 39437
New Criteria for Gravel and Screen Selection for Sand Control
Tiffin, D. L., King, G. E., Larese, R. E., Britt, L. K., Amoco E&P
Cepyright 1998, Society of Petroleum Englnaam, Ino.
This paper was prepar~ for prawntatlon at the 1996 SPE Formation Dawe Control
Conference held In Lafayetie, LA, 16-19 Feb. 1998.
This paper was selwt~ for presenfatlon by an SPE Pragrem committee followlng retiew of
Informetlon wntalnd In an abstrad aubmitfed by the author(a). Content$ of the paper, as
presented, have not bean revl- by the ~laty of Patmlaum Engineers and are subject to
corraotion by the author(s). The material, as prawntd, does not necessarily refld any
posltlon of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Its officers, or msmbara. P~re pre-sen!d at
SPE meetings are subJact 10 publication review by Editorial committees of tha Soolely of
Petroleum Englneara. Electronic reptiuctlon, dlstrlbutlon, or storage of any pert of this -
for commercialPUPSW Mthout the written consent of the Seclaty of Pdmleum Englnwra la
pmhlbltad. Permlsslon to reproduce In print Is raatrlcted to an ebstraat of not mre than 300
WrdV illustrations may not be qld. The ebstrwt must mntaln WEPICWUS
acknotiadgment of Mere and by whom the ~ w presented. Write Ubrarlan, SPE, P.O.
Box SS3626,Richardson,TX 75WS-S636, U.S.A., fax 01-972-962-94S5.
Abstract
Guidelines for sand control completion technique and gravel
size selection are presented. These new criteria are based
primarily on reservoir sand size distribution. Emphasis is on
formations with very high frees content and a wide distribution
of grain sizes. Upon failure and/or particle movement, these
formations can exhibit very high skins and reduced production
capacity with traditional control methods. Guidelines are also
discussed for formations with little frees and a very unifom
grain size distribution.
Proposed criteria are based on field experience and
experiments conducted with reservoir cores from different
sand formations worldwide. Experiments were conducted by
“packing” different gravels at the effluent end of core plugs
and surging fluids through the plugs and gravel. Cases are
presented where traditional methods would lead to an overly
restrictive gravel pack and advantages are obtained with use of
larger gravel.
Introduction
This work attempts to provide easily determined guidelines to
help address the question of “What is the optimal sand control
technique for a weak or unconsolidated sand?” The guidelines
are based solely on reservoir sand size. No attempt is made to
determine when or if a reservoir will fail. The guidelines here
are for the case where the reservoir will fail during its
producing life and some type of sand control will be needed.
Guidelines are based on operating experience and simple lab
testing. Emphasis is on formations containing large amounts
of fines, since these fines can contribute to very high skins and
reduced production capacity with haditional control methods.
Current gravel pack completion designs generally do a
201
good job at preventing reservoir sand invasion with reservoir
sand that has a “normal” distribution pattern, but questions
linger whether ra~s could be increased and costs lowered with
screen-only completions, For reservoir sand distributions that
are skewed towards fiier sands ancifor where large amounts of
fines predominate, skins from traditional gravel pack and
screen completions can be high and failures have occurred.
Although gravel packing is a well established coIIlpletion
mechanism, the amount of darnage seen after packing i~ often
severe. The cause of this damage takes many forms, but
increasingly, the size and presence of formation fines is
recognized as one of the major contributors to this damage.*
The action of frees as a flow restriction in a gravel packed
completion is known, but often ordy considered as an c~.iisting
condition immediately stir the completion. Often ht. ~~ever,
skins increase over time with production, with migrat r: fines
blamed as a major culprit. Part of this work is based on a
hypothesis that the gravel pack design may actually be a
contributor to this damage in some cases. The basic hypothesis
that is presented and defended here is that some formations
have the “right” sti of fines and sufficient quantities of the
fines to seal against the gravel pack, causing severe restrictions
in flow,
The principle fines suspected are sub 325 mesh grains
(clay sized fines) from the formation. The origin of the frees is
still a point of research, but a few causes are understood about
what turns these frees loose in the formation. When these frees
are present in the right size or in large quantities, or when the
formations are poorly sorted (a very wide size range between
minimum and maximum grain size), the result is often il~vasion
by the finest particles into the pores, reducing permeat,; lity in
the critical near-wellbore area.
Background from published literature in this area is
extensive, but most of the data from field operations has
focused on near well damage caused by screen damage from
drilling and completion fluids, perforation flow dynanli~s, gel
damage from packing or fluid loss control fluids or ~!~t-of-
specification gravel. Related work to this study appe:l! to be
limited to a few authors that recognize some componeii, of the
contribution to flow restriction of fies along the gravel pack
interface or the screen.1-5
2 D. L. Tiffin, G. E. King
Current Gravel Pack Design Methods and Problem
Identification
Saucier and others solidified gravel pack selection criteria with
several studies in the 1960’s and 70’s that led to the often
applied gravel sizing criteria based on 6 times the 50% particle
size~s The resultant plot, Figure 1, is a typical design aid used
in most current gravel sizing studies. Reference 9 offers a good
review of gravel sizing criteria,
The use of this criteria has proven effective for stopping
sand in most formations; however, there have been a number
of papers in the 1990’s investigating productivity impairment
to sand control completions in general and gravel packed
completions in particular.1&12In looking at these papers, the
average skin damage values to gravel packed completions are
ranging from a low of around +10 to over +50 even on
completions that do not report obvious completions based
problems. Recently published data has shown that the average
skin calculated for frac-packed completions ranges from a skin
of -2 to 5.13-1s
Although the gravel packing carrier fluids have been
studied closely, few investigators have looked in detail at the
sizing of the gravel relative to the formation for a large variety
of formation samples. The basis of this paper is not to try to
disprove the Saucier criteria. It,is rather, as an added piece of
design information, and should be useful in more intelligently
selecting candidates for various sand control completions.
An evaluation of gravel pack failures identified several
cases that support a change in the way gravel and screens are
sized. The data is interesting, and becoming more conclusive,
that the size, type and quantity of “free” particles (sub 325
mesh = 0.0017” - 44 microns) may play a starring role in
plugging both gravel packs and screens. The sub 325 mesh is
selected here, because the average pore size of the 40/60 mesh
gravel (smallest common gravel pack gravel) is about 45
microns. This size and smaller particles can enter the pores
and can bridge inside the pack, Additionally, large masses of
particles in this size range can plug the formatiotigravel pack
interface, causing significant darnage skins. The created
pressure drop at the interface is also a catalyst for scale
formatiow a feat that has been documented on small grained
formations.
In practical engineering investigations of screen failures in
several parts of the world (both vertical and horizontal wells),
unpublished accounts of the completion behavior immediately
before the screen failed showed several cases where the
pressure inside the screen fell sharply while the reservoir
pressure remained the same (or built up?). One explanation for
this behavior is that the screens, and in some cases the gravel
packs, were plugging with fines, becoming, in effect, blank
pipe sections; thus the failures may have been more related to
hydraulic collapses than mechanical crush events. This same
occurrence may take place in vertical wells.
The proposed solution is to:
1. Identify these formations by a particle sorting criteria,
202
SPE 39437
based on sim range and quantity, and
2. Use a completion mechanism that will either pass the frees
or confine them so far away from the wellbore that the
conductivity damage they cause has a minimum effect on
production.
3. Additionally, when the fines are absent or the formation is
well sorted, conventional designs based solely on a 5070
number may be too restrictive, creating conditions that
lead to high pressure drop and rate limiting turbulence.
When large quantities of fme mesh grains are present, the
fines, combined with medium and a few larger formation
grains create a plugging po~ntial likened to bridging
technology. What is needed is a new selection criteria for
completions that recognizes both the damaging potential when
fme mesh particles are present and when large numbers of the
fme particles create significant plugging potential. It is
important to remember that both a particular fine particle size
and a sufficient amount of fines are necessary. What is
proposed here is a conditional method of gravel and screen
selection that is still based upon the 50% distribution, but takes
into account the sorting and sub 325 mesh fines content of the
formation, to help determine the relationship of the “fit” of the
gravel to the formation sand.
Test Accuracy and Measurement Problems
In many cases, poor field coring or sampling procedures or
poor test procedures will loosen frees. Because the frees are
easily attracted to charged surfaces, suspended in liquids or
blown away in air from equipment cooling fans, a significant
amount can be lost under normal processes. Additionallti’,most
mechanical screening tests only test to 325 mesh, measuring
smaller sizes to get the full range must be measured by laser or
other methods.
Note that sand sim analyses are reported in weight percent.
Although only a few weight percent of sub 325 frees sounds
harmless, converting this weight percent to number of particles
can be quite alarming.
Variation within the formation has long been recognized as
a severe problem in design of gravel “containment” systems,
whether they are conventional gravel packs, high rate packs, or
frac packs. Handling variation of sand sizing and sorting in the
formation can take several forms. One historical approach was
to design for the worst (smallest grain) zone. This approach
may produce a “worst case” completion in some cases as
reflected by near well skin and turbulence. Splitting the pay up
with different completions methods has been done, but is not
popular, and not perforating zones of smallest sand (since the
permeability is lowest there anyway) has appeal. The best way
to handle variation is arguable, but identifying zones with the
problem is key.
Mobility of Fines.
One key consideration needing to be considered is the mobility
of fme particles, When fme particles are present, the quantity
of the fines available to move and form a seal is critical. The
SPE 39437 New Criteriafor Gravel and Screen Selaetionfor Sand Control
sub 325 mesh value may be misleading, especially if the fies
are bound in aggregates and are not free on an individual basis.
Careful geological analysis and testing should be undertaken to
make this important determination. Certainly, if the formation
fails due to changes to the in-situ forces keeping a weak
formation consolidated, individual fines would be available to
plug flow paths and reduce flow capacity. For a typical
formation, fines greater than 5% or so would provide a
sufficient quantity to bridge and seal against the medium and
coarse particles at the interface of the gravel pack.
Fines can be loosened by other mechanisms short of
formation failure and these factors need to be considered as
well. Particle movement in the formation can be triggered by
physical force (drag forces on the particle from flowing fluids),
by chemical repulsion/attraction, by breaking the binding force
to the formation host grain and by a chemical upset where the
.~articles are held in suspension,
Common causes of particle movement are
1. High shear force on the solids by flowing liquids,
especially at high flow rates and with high viscosity fluids.
2. acids - pH shift is a chemical upset, as is the 70,000+ ppm
equivalent chloride ion strength - often flocculates
polymers, silica and some dispersed particulate such as
minor effect on most sands however.
::=;:~ - the solvents can disperse frees by
3.
removing the liquid surrounding the grain that may be
binding the fines to the host grain. Limited by contact.
4. change in salinity of fluids invading formation - most
likely form of damage mechanism from Smectites and
dispersible clays. Often liberates particles in the 1 to 5
micron size.
5. Solvents that reduce viscosity of a trapped liquid layer
that may be holding frees.
6, Ad, by far, the most likely problem, is the dissagregation
of the matrix of the formation by change in water
saturation or overburden increase.
There are few practical methods of preventing frees from
flowing in a producing formation where fines are naturally or
easily liberated: the act of fluids production can be a strong
frees mover. Only by bridging the fines, keeping the
drawdown low (limiting production), or spreading the
drawdown out (improved reservoir contact by fracturing, open
hole gravel packs, high rate water packing, horizontal wells,
etc.), can the fines be stopped. Bridging the fines is usually
very flow restrictive, Where fines ordy flow for short periods
early in the life of the well, rate limiting maybe effective, But,
where frees are part of the prtiucing challenge over the life of
the well, handling by preventing their flow or passing them
through the completion appears to be the best option.
Sand Sorting Considerations
The following proposed sorting ratios and general data in
Table 1 can be obtained from a simple sieve analysis. The
advantage of the sieve analysis is that it can run easily on
almost any sample regardless of the condition. These ratios
and other data do not say anything about the potential fcr frees
203
3
migration. That very important piece of information is still to
be addressed by a sand strength model. The “D” designations
in the table refer to the sieve size distributions (cumulative%).
The D40/D90 ratio, for example, is the sieve opening (in
inches, mm or microns) above which ~~o of the sand is
retained, divided by the sieve opening (same measurement)
above which 9090 of the sand is retained. An example from a
moderate size, well sorted formation yields a D40 of 0.0098”
(60 mesh), divided by a D90 of 0.0035” (170 mesh) to give a
D40/D90 of 2.8. A more poorly sorted example would be a
D40 of 0.017” (40 mesh) end a D90 of 0.0017” (325 mesh),
which yields a D40/D90 of 10.
Two formations may have similar sortings but very differ-
ent sizing. A formation with a D40/D90 of 0.02’’/0.0049” -5,
has approximately the same sorting as a formation with a
D40/D90 of 0.0049’’/0.001” -5, but the D50% of the fwst
formation is about 0.017” (40 mesh) and the D50% of the
second formation is about 0.0041” (140 mesh). At fust, tie
difference in sizing in these two formations with essentially the
same sorting may seem to invalidate the ratio sorting
parameter, but the real considerations that we are trying to
describe are the ability of the formation to form blockages, like
the bridging and fluid loss control arguments from the
Appendix. The sorting measurement, therefore is a
measurement of the range of coarser to freer particles. The
larger the ratio, the larger the range between the coarse and
fme particles and the more likely the formation sand grains are
to form bridges and lower the permeability. The smaller the
ratio, the more permeability is preserved. For example, gravel
is sized in tight ranges, like 1220 mesh, with a D40D90 of
0.056’’/0.039 -1.4 20/40 mesh, where the D40/D90 ratio is
about 0.028/0.019 - 1.5; or 40/60 mesh, with a D40/~90 of
0.014/0.00.01 1-1.3. The sizing and the permeability of these
gravels vary widely, but permeability is preserved with the
consistent pore sizes where plugging frees are absent (hence
the low sorting ratios).
Formations with low sorting values should be completed in
a different manner from formations with high sorting values,
where frees will plug off on screens or secondary (larger
formation sand grains) matrixes over the scree,~... For
D40/D90 sorting values of 1 to 3, consider bare screen
completions, particularly if the permeability of the formation
sand is high enough (1 to 2 darcies or higher) to prevent
creation of significant pressure drops through sand packed
perforations.
The actual level of tie sorting value, where problems begin
to show, is not exacdy known, but rough ranges are beginning
to emerge, along with the knowledge that the screen filtration
level itself is important in the selection of a maximum level of
the ratio. It is important to note that the sorting minimum or
maximum level may also change with the type of sorting
deftition. The D40/D90 has been found to be useful for
figuring out whether bare screen completions with woven
mesh screens will work, The level of the D40/D90 from Alex
Procyk at Pall for the 80 micron absolute Stratop& screen is a
4 D. L. Tlfin, G. E. King
maximum of 6, while the 200 micron version of the screen has
a maximum D40/D90 of 8.20 The coarser screens can pass
more of the particles without plugging, hence the higher limit
on the ratio for candidates. Levels of D40/D90 of 5 (from
empirical data) and above are warning signs of fines size that
could plug the screen.
Other sorting methods mentioned in Table 1 have utility as
well. The D 10/D95 criteria was selected based on the ability to
see distinct variation between the size and sorting ranges of
formation sands. From the section on bridging agent
performance, the ugly correlation between a wide particle size
range and the potential to form a permeability-limiting bridge
is evident, once again. The selection of the D 10 level is a bit
arbitrary, but it is a recognition of the importance of larger
particles in building a second matrix over the gravel. This
“coarse end” of the formation sand size spectrum is important,
although less so than the fines. The addition of coarse sand
particles over the gravel surface does not typically
significantly reduce the system permeability, as proved by the
Darcy beds-in-series relationship. The layer would only
become important if the permeability of the layer was
substantially lower than the gravel (<<10% of gravel
permeability) or if the coarse sand layer was thick.
The biggest impact on productivity of a gravel pack is a
three way contrast between the permeabilities ofi the gravel,
the formation and the interface layer between the formation
and the gravel. From the beds-in-series relationship, the major
impact is presewing the permeability of the otherwise thin
interface layer. The factor that can most dominate on this layer
is the presence of fines that can fill the pores of the larger
grains and reduce’ permeability sharply. The D1OD95 ratio
increases sharply with a finer size of sand at the D95 position.
For this reason, it is a good indicator of potential problems
with ultra wide range of particle size, one that can predict
problems with a particle size range that is too wide. For the
DIO/D95 ratio, levels above 10 are considered high,
Core Test Procedures
Two types of lab tests were conducted 1) to determine the
mobility of frees under minimal flow stress; and 2) to
dete~e the effectiveness of different gravel packs with
reservoir sand,
The fwst test is conducted with a 1 to 1.5 inch diameter
reservoir core plug, about 2 inches long, The core plug is
loaded into a Hassler type sleeve core holder and stressed to a
net confiig pressure approximating reservoir conditions.
Pressure is applied both radially and axially. Fluids are
produced through a filter which can be examined later. A base
permeability is established at a low rate (l-2 cc/rein) with a
non-damaging brine at room temperature, Permeability
measurements are then obtained at higher rates (up to 10
cc/rein) until a plot of permeability as a function of rate is
determined. For the permeability range studied here, pressure
drops accross the cores were less than 15 psi. If mobile frees
are present, permeability typically decreases as rate is
204
SPE 39437
increased because frees are turned loose and plug pore throats.
Since other effects (like geometry) can reduce permeability
with rate, the testing sequence is repeated at decreasing rates
to see if the curves overlay. If permeability is decreased due
to fines mobilization, then the permeability will not recover as
rate is decreased and the two curves diverge.
The second test is conducted in the same core holder,
however flow rates and stresses are much higher. In this case
the core is mounted and loaded similarly; however 1/2 to 1
inch of gravel is “packed” into the core holder on the core exit
end. Brine is “surged” through the core at 50 psi increments
until flow is restricted and/or formation sand is produced
through the core and gravel. Surging was simula~d by
pressuring the core to the desired pressure and rapidly
depressuring through the exit end. Between surging,
permeability was measured at a low injection rate as in the
previously described testing, In addition to the permeability
decline, damage to the gravel pack was determined by
collecting and identifying sand produced and collected in a
downstream filter and by making a thin section along the
sand/gravel interface. As discussed below, some of these thin
sections were very useful in demonstrating the type of damage
which can occur.
Laboratory Flow Tests
Case A. Representative sand size distribution for the
Formation A cores used in this testing is presented in Figure 1
while the sorting criteria are in Rgure 2. Note the even
distribution with a little over 10% frees (-325 mesh). D50 is
.08 mm. As expected, -40/+70 gravel does a good containing
the sand after surging brine at up to 700 psi. A thin section cut
along the -40/+70 gravel/sand interface clearly shows a sharp
delineation between the sand and gravel with no invasion in
Figure 3a -20/+40 gravel allowed sand to itilltrate into and
through the gravel pack with only 50 psi surge pressure as
shown in Figure 3b. Figure 3C demonstrates advantages of
synthetic gravel. In this case, -20/+40 synthetic gravel was
used. As can be seen, little invasion of the gravel by the sand
has occurred. Generally only frees were produced above 300
psi surges with small amounts of sand between 600 and 900
psi surging.
Although the D40/D90 ratio indicates that the formation
may be a candidate for a bare screen completion, Iab{!ratory
tests with the fme sand on a woven screen showed dechnes in
screen permeability. In a practical view, there were simply too
many frees and too much spread between minimum and
maximum sand size values.
This is an example of a case where a combination of larger
gravel and a frees-passing screen might be applicable.
DIO/D95C20, D@/D90e5 and sub 325mesh<10%. The actual
sub-325 mesh is slightly greater than the proposed 107o
threshold, but some of the frees in this sample may be
agglomerated or immobile.
SPE 3%37 New Criteriafor Gravel and Screen Seleetionfor Sand Control
Case B. The Case B sand is characterized by silt-size siderite
and pyrite crystals approximately 15-20 microns in diameter.
These crystals are loosely disseminated as cement throughout
intergranular pore spaces.
Core flood results cotilrm the mobility of the pyrite and
siderite in this sand. Results are presented for one sample in
Figure 4. Testing was conducted as described earlier by
measuring permeability at increasing flow rates and then
decreasing flow rates using a non-damaging fluid (brine in this
case). As shown in Figures Sa and b, fines were mobilized
with a minimal amount of flow. The loosely packed crystals
move within pores and probably brushpile against pore throat
apertures, resulting in permeability decrease.
Sand size distribution and sorting parameters for this sand
are presented in Figures S and 6, The 50% sand size is about
0.09 mm, This sand is just slightly too fine to meet Saucier’s
criteria for -20/+40 gravel, so -30/+50 gravel if available, or
more commonly -40/+60 gravel would be the recommended
conservative choice. Sorting factors in Figure 7 depict poorer
sorting than Case A sand for all parameters, especially the sub-
325 mesh fines which is over 20% in one of these samples.
Surge tests through gravel packs were conducted for this
sand as well. Again thin sections were cut across the
grave~sand interface and particles were collected on the
downstream filter to detefine what passed through the gravel.
Surges as high as 1000 psi were applied across the cores. As
expected the -40/+70 mesh gravel did an excellent job of
stopping sand migration as shown in Figure 7a. Migration of
sand into the gravel pack was minimal and very little sand was
collected on the downstream filter. Figure 7b depicts results
with natural -20/+40 mesh gravel. Reservoir sand clearly
invaded into and through the gravel pack. Results with the
synthetic -20/+40 mesh gravel are presented in Figure 7c.
Note the sharp interface between the sand and gravel and lack
of significant amount of reservoir sand in the gravel pack.
Sand and fines that entered the gravel pack were produced
through the pack and onto the downstream filter paper as
shown. There was more residue on the filter paper with this
gravel than either of the other two cases. In addition to
smaller sand grains, size and texture of additional material on
the filter paper are consistent with siderite or pyrite.
It is apparent in this case that if larger gravel is chosen,
higher permeability and flow rates would be expected with the
synthetic gravel, but care must be exercised in selecting a
screen fiat allows the fines to pass into the wellbore without
plugging.
Case C. Case C sand differs significantly from the Case B
sand even though both are from the same geographical area.
Thin sections of the Case C sand (Figure 8) clearly show
mostly quartz and feldspar with no siderite, pyrite or similar
fme material. Of special significance for this sample however
is the predominance of fractured quartz grains. Fracture
porosity is 8 volume percent of the entire sample, accounting
205
5
for over 25% of the total porosity. The lack of Iithification by
cementatioticompaction has permitted lateral
rotatiotigrinding, resulting in grain breakage. Detached slivers
of broken quartz grains possess the potential for realignment
into pore throat intervals thus restricting reservoir flow.
Flow tests at low rates shown in Figure 9 clearly indicate
that frees are not migratig at normal reservoir rates and
pressure drops. Permeability is constant at increasing and
decreasing rates.
Formation sand size varies widely in the 25 Sand as shown
in Figure 10. The 50% sand size varies from .07 to 2 mm
with sand size generally decreasing with increasing depth.
Note also tie long “tails” on these curves as particle size
decreases. (This presents some problems for selecting a gravel
pack size for the entire interval.) Of particular interest are the
sorting factors presented in F]gure 11. This poor sorting was
evident from the tails on the sand size figures, but really stands
out when comparing these numbers to the previous samples.
DIO/D95 is ~ically between 30 and 40, D40/D90 is over 10
and sub-325 frees varies to one sample over 50% by weight.
This sand clearly contains a large quantity of frees and
presents a challenging completion problem. Note also how
sorting and the amount of frees gets worse with depth.
As with the previous samples, surging was also carried out
using various gravel packs at the core exit. Samples chosen for
this testing were all from the upper part of the Case C Sand
where average grain size was larger (0.2 mm) and sorting
parameters were better. Saucier would predict -20/+40 gravel
to be adequate for this sample. Despite using cores with the
better sand, this formation easily defeated both -20/+40 gravel
packs as shown in Figures 12a and b. There is no sharp
bound~ between the gravel and sand as with earlier samples
and large amounts of formation sand (mostly fractured quartz)
was collected on the downstream filter paper. Advanhges of
the synthetic -20/+40 gravel compared to the natural gravel
were slight.
Results using -40/+70 gravel in this case were fascinating.
As presented in Figure 1%, the smaller gravel does a good job
at limiting reservoir sand from passing through the gravel
pack, but at the expense of severe “brushpiling” of frees at the
sand/gravel interface. This brushpiling can severely limit
~rmeability and production rate.
This formation would appear to present a completion
dilemma. If large gravel is chosen to maximize rates and allow
fines to be produced, the large amount and nature of the frees
could cause problems with plugging and cutting through the
screen. If freer gravel is chosen, rates could be severely
impacted with brushpiling of frees at the gravel/sand interface.
One possible solution to this dilemma would be a completion
in which one attempts to minimize flow surging by maximizing
the area between the reservoir and wellbore. There is a critical
need to enlarge the wellbore (move the gravel/formation sand
interface away form the wellbore). This can be accomplished
by fracturing, underrearning, horizontal or multilateral well
technology or large volume prepacking to minimize the
6 D. L. Tiffin, G. E. King
consequences to flow of severe permeability damage at the
interface.
Benefits of Larger Gravel
The accepted basis for gravel sizing in gravel packing design
focuses in on preventing invasion into the matrix created by
the gravel. In the 1970’s, Chevron showed that too large a
gravel, specifically tiose designs based on a bridging concept,
would be invaded by formation sand and the gravel
permeability would be sharply lowered.zl The problem was
created by filling of the pore spaces between the gravel with
frees from the formation. Since that work, several authors have
proposed that certain formations could use larger gravels and
proved the point by gravel packing with 7x through 9x sized
gravels. The formations that respond well to this approach are
clearly in the minority. A quick study of their character shows
that they are the larger grained, more well sorted sands,
typically with little or no fines.22’23
When the sorting methods presented here indicate a well
sorted formation that requires gravel packing, larger, rounder,
gravel, with a tighter size range maybe of value in improving
flow capacity through lowering pressure drop and improving
conductivity. Before taking on the issue of gravel sizing in the
special (well sorted) formations, it may be of use to consider
ways of improving both interface control and gravel
permeability. The permeability of the gravel is controlled by
the size of the pores that a stressed gravel pack presents to the
formation and maintains between the formation and the screen.
Long known methods of improving gravel permeability are
1. Using a rounder gravel (presents a more constant pore size
and higher permeability)
2. Using a gravel that contains less initial out-of-range
particles,
3. Using a gravel that produces less fines during handling
and placement (stronger)
4. Using a gravel with a narrower size range.
The rounder gravel offers sharply higher permeability and
less frees created in the gravel handling and placement steps.
The synthetic gravels offer much rounder profiles and greater
strengths for only a small increase in cost over regular gravels.
Resieving gravel, especially synthetic gravels, is an
amazingly cheap method of obtaining gravel with more
consistent pore size~ an automatic way of achieving more
permeability and less invasion. There is nothing magic about
the presently available gravel sizes of -20+40 mesh, -30+50
mesh, etc. These mesh sizes were selected, at least in part,
because the naturally occurring gravels could be screened into
commercially saleable quantities in these ranges and tie ranges
offered what was considered good permeability. Selecting new
ranges of say; -20+25 mesh or -30+35 mesh may seem
unusual, but may offer tremendous advantages in either the
case of abundant fines or low fines content. Cost is minimal in
comparison to benefits, especially in synthetic gravels.
There are really two types of formations that may benefit
from gravel sizes larger than the standard 6x those without
206
SPE 39437
significant fines and those with too many frees.
Proposed Sorting Criteria.’i’he sorting criteria presenkd in
this paper suggest that the following applications data should
work (with other factors as noted). When all values are under
the thresholds, the risk of damage is low where the formation
sand is well described by the examined samples. These ratio
and comparison thresholds are
1. (D10~95c10, D40/D90c3, sub 325 meshc2%) the
lowest sorting values with low frees content may be bare
screen completion candidates. (Need >1 Darcy formation
permeability for cased and perforated completion, with
possible use of prepacked screens).
2. (D IO/D95e10, D40/D90c5, sub 325 mesh<5%) low to
medium sorting ranges, or with frees just out of range may
best be served by bare screen completions with new
technology, woven mesh screens. (Need >1 Darcy
formation permeability for cased and perforated
completion).
3. (DIO/D95<20, D40/D90c5, sub 325 meshe5%) medium
ratio ranges may be served by larger gravel (7x or 8x
50%), placed in high rate water pack, particularly if the
formation sand size is consistent over the zone (no
laminations and minimum streaks).
4. (DIO/D95e20, D40/D90c5, sub 325 meshclO%) medium
ratio ranges with too many fines may use a combination of
larger gravel and a fries-passing screen.
5. (DIO/D95>20, D40/D90>5, sub 325 mesh>lO%) the
highest ratios, particularly those coupled with large
amounts of frees signal a critical need for eniuging the
wellbore (move the grave~formation sand interface away
from the wellbore), through fractig, horizontal or
multi-lateral well technology underrearning, or large
volume prepacking to minimize severe permeability
damage at the grave~sand interface due to flow.
Conclusions
1. Sorting criteria and resultant completion techniques
proposed here should be useful in selection of gravel and
screen to optimize flow rates in a sand control completion.
2. Synthetic gravel may offer advantages over natural gravel
in optimizing production rates and minimizing sand
invasion,
References
1. Bigno, Y., M. B. Oyeneyin,md J, M. Peden, “investigationof
Pore-BlockingMechanismin Gravel Packs in the Management
and Control of Fines Migration”,SPE 27342, presentedat SPE
Int’1FormationDamageControl,Lafayette,La, Feb 7-10, 1994.
2. Oyeneyin, M. B., J. M. Peden, A. Hosseini, G. Ren, and Y.
Bigno, “OptimumGravel Sizing for Effective Sand Control”,
SPE 24801, presented at the 67th Annual Tech Conf. and
Exhibitionof SPE, WashingtonD.C., Ott 4-7, 1992.
3. Markestad,P. and O. Christie,“Selectionof Screen Slot Width
to Prevent Plugging and Sand Production,” SPE 31087,
presented at SPE Int’1Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,
 .. .—

SPE 354,37 New Criteriafor Gravel and Screen Selectionfor Sand Control 7

La, Feb 14-15,1996. 19. Muecke,T. W., “FormationFines and Factors ControllingTheir
4. Jennings,A. R. Jr., “LaboratoryStudies of Fines Movementin Movementin PorousMedia,”JPT, (Feb 1979), 144-150.
Gravel Packs,” presented at the Annual Tech Conf. and 20, Procyk,Alex,Pall Well Screens,PrivateCommunication
Exhibitionof SPE, Denver,CO, Ott 6-9, 1996. 21. Shyrock, S. G.: “Gravel-Packing Studies in a Full-Scale
5. Reijnen,P. H. F., Trampert,R. A., and Samuel,A. J.: “Plugging DeviatedModelWellbore:’JPT, (March 1983),pp 603-609.
Potential of Gravel Carrier Fluids, Contaminatedby Satellite 22, Leone, J. A., M. L. Mana, and J. B. Parrnley, “Gravel-Sizing
Particles Originating from Gravels: paper SPE 36952, Criteria for Sand Control and Productivity Optimization,”,
presentedat the 1996SPE EuropeanPetroleumConferencehalo SPE 2W29, presented at the 60th CaliforniaRegional Meeting
in MilanItaly, Oct. 22-24,1996. of the SPE, Ventura,CA, April 4-6, 1990.
6. Coberly, C. J.: “Selection of Screen Openings for 23. Chan, A. F. and J. P. Parmley, “Gravel Sizing Criteria for Sand
UnconsolidatedSands:’ API Drill. &Prod. Practice(1937) Control and Productivity Optimization: Part II - Evaluation of
7. Saucier,R. J.: “SuccessfulSand Control Design for High Rate the Long-Termed Stability;, SPE 23767, presented at SPE Int’1
Oil and WaterWells,”JPT, Vol. 21, 1193, 1969 Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, La, Feb 26-27, 1992.
8. Penberthy,W. L., and B. J. Cope “Design and Productivityof
Gravel-PackedCompletions:’JPT, Vol. 32, 1679,1980.
9. Bouhroum,A., and-F. Civan, “A Critical Review of Existing Table 1: Formation Sand Sorting Values Considered in
Gravel-Pack Design Criteria”, Paper 24, presented at 5th This Work
Petroleum Conference of the S. Saskatchewan Section, The
Soting or Comparison Proposed Purpose
PetroleumSot. of CIM,ReginaOct. 18-20,1993.
100 Shucart,J. K,, and A. F. Rustandaja,“GravelPacking in High- D50 Standard Saucier Criteria
Rate Oil Completions:’ SPE 22978, presented at SPE Asia- D40/D90 Screen Damage Ratio from Pall
Pacific Conferenceheld in Perth, WesternAustralia,Nov. 47, Dlo/D95 Size range betvveen common
1991. min and max particle sizes
11. Burton, R. C., W. M. MacKinlay,R. M. Hedge, and W. R. sub 325 mesh Quantity of sub 44 micron
Lzndrum, “Evaluations Completion Damage in High Rate,
particles
Gravel Packed Wells:’, SPE 31091, presented at SPE Jnt’1
FormationDamageControl,Lafayette,La, Feb 14-15,1996.
12. Beng-SweeChuah, Hasumi,A. R., Samsudin,N., and Matzain,
A.: “Formation Darnage in Gravel Packed and Non-Gravel
Packed Completions A Comprehensive Case Study,” Paper
SPE 27360, presented at the Formation Damage Control
Symposiumin Lafayette,buisiana, February7-10,1994.
13. Fletcher, P. A., Montgomery, C. T., Ramos, G. G.,
Guillory,R. J., and Francis, M. J.: “optimizing Hydraulic
Fracture Length to Prevent Formation Failure in Oil and Gas
Wells,” paper SPE 27899, presented at the SPE Western
RegionalMeetingheld in Long Beach,CA.,Mmh 23-25,1994
14. Wong, G. K., R. R. Fors, J. S. Casassa, R. H. Hite, and
J. Shlyapohrsky, “Design, Exwution, and Evaluation of Frac
and Pack (F&P)Treatmentsin UnconsolidatedSand Formations
in the Gulf of Mexico”, SPE 26563, presented at the 68th
Annual Tech Conf. and Exhibition of SPE, Houston, TX,
Ott 3-6, 1993.
15. Ayoub,J. A., R. D Barree, and W. C. Chu, “Evahrationof Frac
and Pack Completions and Future Outlook”, SPE 38184,
presentedat SPE EuropeanFormationDamageConference,The
Hague,Netherlands,2-3 June, 1997.
16. Hannah,R. R., Park, E. I., Walsh,R. E,, Porter, D. A., Black,J.
W. and Waters, F.: “A Field Study of a Combination
Fracturing/Gravel Packing Completion Technique on the
Amberjack,MississippiCanyon 109 Field,” paper SPE 26562,
presented at the 68th Annual Twhnical Conference and
Exhibitionof the SPE held in Houston,TX., Oct. 3-6,1993.
17. Hainey,B. W. and Troncoso,J. C.: “Frac-Pack An Innovative
Stimulation and Sand Control Technique,”paper SPE 23777,
presented at the Formation Damage Control help in
Lafayette,Louisiana,February26-27,1992.
18. Powell, K. R., R. L. Hathcock,M. E. Mullen, W. D. Norman,
and P. D. Baycrofi,“ProductivityPerformanceComparisonsof
High Rate Water Pack and Frac-PackCompletionTechniques:
SPE 38592, presented at the 1997 Annual Tech Conf. and
Exhibitionof SPE, San Antonio,TX., Ott 5-8, 1997.

207
 0.1 0.01 O.ml
Slew Opening, mm

Figure 1. Case A distribution.

6-

4-

2-

0- 1 1 I
12191.5

Depthlft

Figure 2. Sorting factor Case A.

208
 .... .— ..—-. --. ——. .—

SPE 3W37 New Criteriafor Gravel and Screen Selation for Sand Control 9

Flgulre rks well.

280

270

260

240

230

220
o 2 4 6 6 10 12
rate (tiMn)

Figure 4. Caee B rate tests demonstrating moblllty of fines under minimal flow.

209
 . ..

10 D. L. Tiffin, G. E. King SPE 39437

-lee
+ :, :,,‘u
*
+ : :*

+ :a
4

*
m

* ~
●
,, u
u 130a9.3
f3109.5
,,1,,

; 13117.6

.
*
.ifi *+
*8

1 0.1 0.01 O.ml

Siwe Opening, mm

Figure 5. Partlcla siza distribution, Caae B

13c195.4 13a39,5 13109.5 13117.5

Ilepth, fi

Figure 6. Sorting factor comparleon, Caaa B

210
 —.

New Criteria for Gravel and Screen Seleotionfor Sand Control 11

SPE 39437

Figure 7. Thin seotlons across graveUaand Interface for 3 different gravals and Case B eend.

211
12 D. L. Tlffin, G. E. King SPE 39437

Figure 8. Photomicrographs illustrating potential for “grairr/fines” movement end mlgratlon Ine elaoted
sandstone core plugs subjeoted to $tepleurge flow teeta.

600

500

400

~ 300

200

100

0
0,0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
rate (mL/min)

Figure 9. Case C fines mobility demonatratlng that no fines move under mlnlmel flow atreeeea.

212
 —.. .. .. .—
..—. ——..—
.. .. ..—

SPE 3%37 New Criteriafor Gravel and Screen Selection for Sand Control 13

+ 12790.3
u 12m5.5
12799.5
12#1.8
x 12~4.5
E 12810.5
+ 12s20.5
Q 12S24.5
w 12%30.5
o 12S34.5
I I D 12838.5
F* a w o
~;12840.5
v w
m* .Omo
n
1 0.1 0.01 o,mi
SiaW Opening, i n~

Figure 10. Formation aand distribution, Case C.

..
b 01
N m
Depthtft

Formation fines sorting study, Case C.

213
 — ..-

14 D. L. Tiffin, G. E. King SPE 39437

12(c) Caaa C sand with -40/+70 gravel

Figure 12. Thin saotlons acroaa gravel/sand Intetiace for 3 different gravels and Caae C send.

214