Completion Technology For Unconsolidated Formations

Completion
Technology for
Unconsolidated
Formations
Rev. 2 / June 1995

Table of Contents
Introduction
Chapter 1 Radial Flow and Formation Damage
Radial flow; Near Wellbore Flow Restrictions; Potential Formation Damage

Mechanisms.
Chapter 2 Causes and Effects of Sand Production
Nature of Sand Production; Effects of Sand Production; Causes of Sand

Production.
Chapter 3 Predicting Sand Production
Operational and Economic Influences; Formation Strength; Sonic Log; Formation

Properties Log; Porosity; Finite Element Analysis; Time Dependence.
Chapter 4 Sand Control Techniques
Maintenance and Workover; Rate Exclusion; Selective Completion Practices;

Plastic Consolidation; High Energy Resin Placement; Resin Coated Gravel;
Slotted Liners or Screens without Gravel Packing. Slotted Liners or Screens with
Gravel Packing.
Chapter 5 Gravel Pack Sand Design
Formation Sand Sampling; Sieve Analysis; Gravel Pack Sand Sizing; Gravel
Pack Sand; Gravel Pack Sand Substitutes.
Chapter 6 Slotted Liners and Wire Wrapped Screens
Slotted Liners; Wire Wrapped Screens; Prepacked Screens; Pressure Drop

Through Slotted Liners and Screens; Gage Sizing for Slotted Liners and
Screens.
Chapter 7 Gravel Pack Completion Equipment and Service Tools
Gravel Pack Completion Equipment; Gravel Pack Service Tools.
Chapter 8 Well Preparation for Gravel Packing
Drilling Practices; Cleaning the Casing; Workstring; Tanks and Liners; Filtration;
Completion and Gravel Pack Fluids.
Chapter 9 Perforating for Gravel Packed Completions
Shaped Charge Technology; Types of Explosives; Perforating for Gravel

Packing; Perforation Cleaning.
Chapter 10 Fluid Loss Control
Hydrostatic Pressure; Viscous Polymer Gels; Oil Soluble Resins; Graded Salt
Systems; Calcium Carbonate System; Perfflow; Gravel Pack Sand.
Chapter 11 Gravel Placement Techniques
Gravel Placement Objectives; Gravel Placement Techniques; Historical

Background; Physical Model Observations of Brine and Gel Packing; Field
Results.
Chapter 12 Cased-Hole Gravel Packing Practices
Perforation Prepacking, Prepacking Below Fracture Pressure, Prepacking Above

Fracture Pressure, Pumping Equipment Requirements, Completion Type Selection
Chapter 13 Open Hole Gravel Packing
Guidelines for Selecting Open Hole Gravel Pack Candidates; Top Set Open Hole
Gravel Pack; Set-Thru Open Hole Gravel Pack.
Chapter 14 Gravel Pack Performance
Productivi ty and Longevity; Perforating Techniques; Perforation Packing;

Remedial Gravel Packs; Open Hole Versus Cased Hole Gravel Packs.
Chapter 15 Horizontal Well Completions
Why Horizontal Wells are Drilled; Special Considerations for Unconsolidated

Formations; Slotted Liner or Screen Completions; Prepacked Screen
Completions; Gravel Packed Completions.
Appendix 1 SPE Paper 31089 – “Gravel Pack Procedures for Productivity

and Longevity”
Appendix 2 SPE Paper 38593 – “Water-Fracturing vs. Frac-Packing: Well

Performance Comparison and Completion Type Selection
Criteria.
Appendix 3 SPE Paper 31147 – “ Gravel Placement in Horizontal Wells”
Appendix 4 Petroleum Engineer Article – Applied Technology and

Management
Chapter 1
RADIAL FLOW AND FORMATION DAMAGE
Introduction
The completion phase of well operations begins when drilling is completed, and ends when the
well is brought on production. Typical completion operations include, but are not restricted to,
perforating, placing gravel packs, acidizing, fracturing and setting production tubing and packers.
The goal of these operations is to obtain a well which has a productivity that is not limited by the
completion itself. While this sounds easy to accomplish, completion techniques are commonly
used in many parts of the world that restrict the productivity of the well.
The issue of productivity is especially important in wells requiring sand control. Gravel packed
wells are particularly sensitive to problems of extremely poor productivity if improper comple tion
techniques are used. On the other hand, the implementation of recognized “best practices” can
result in very acceptable productivity from gravel packed wells.
The purpose of this manual is to provide information on completion techniques for maximizing
productivity and longevity of gravel packed wells. To achieve this purpose, the factors that can
have a negative effect on the flow of fluids from a well should be understood. The nature of fluid
flow towards a wellbore and a description of the potential restrictions to production are described
in this chapter.
Radial Flow
The flow of fluids towards a well is governed by the principles of fluid flow through porous media.
Darcy’s Law states that the flow of fluids through porous material is controlled by the pressure
gradient from the virgin formation to the wellbore, the viscosity of the flowing fluid and the area
available for flow in the formation. The constant of proportionality between pressure drop and
flow rate is called permeability.
Completion Technology for Unconsolidated Formations 1-1

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Chapter 1
RADIAL FLOW AND FORMATION DAMAGE
Figure 1.1
Radial Flow Geometry

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Radial Flow and Formation Damage Chapter 1
The permeability of a formation is a measure of the available flow area within a given
cross-sectional area of porous material. In a linear flow situation, the flow area is constant, and
therefore the pressure drop required to induce a given flow rate is constant. However, fluids
flowing toward a well do not represent a linear flow situation and are usually modeled more
accurately as radial flow. Under radial flow conditions the area available for flow continuously
decreases as the fluid gets nearer to the wellbore, as illustrated in Figure 1.1. As the flowing fluid
approaches the wellbore, the decreasing area available for flow causes an increasing velocity of
flow, with a corresponding increase in pressure drop. The equation below is Darcy’s Law for
radial flow expressed in oilfield units. This equation can be used to examine the pressure changes
surrounding a flowing well.
141.2qBo µ  re 
pi = p e − ln 
kh  ri 
where: pi = pressure at point of interest (pounds per square inch)

pe = pressure at drainage radius of well (pounds per square inch)
q = production rate (stock tank barrels of oil per day)
Bo = formation volume factor of produced oil (reservoir barrels per stock tank barrel)
µ = viscosity of produced fluids (centipoise)
k = formation permeability (millidarcies)
h = thickness of the reservoir (feet)
re = drainage radius of well (feet)
ri = radial distance from wellbore to the point of interest (feet)
The results of using this formula are illustrated in the graphs of Figure 1.2 for an oil well with a
200 millidarcy formation permeability that is flowing at 5000 stock tank barrels per day. The
graph on the right is a detail plot of the left hand graph, and shows that the total pressure drop is
equal to the reservoir pressure (approximately 2700 pounds per square inch), minus the pressure
at the wellbore (approximately 2070 pounds per square inch), giving a total pressure loss across
the area near the wellbore of 630 pounds per square inch. Notice that almost half of the
630 pounds per square inch of total pressure drop occurs within the 10 feet nearest the wellbore,
and that more than 100 pounds per square inch of pressure drop occurs within a 1 foot radius of
the wellbore.

Rev. 2 / June 1995
2700 3000
Formation Permeability = 200 md
Formation Permeability = 200 md 2900 Production Rate = 5,000 stb/day
2600 Oil Viscosity = 1.02 cp
Production Rate = 5,000 stb/day
2800
Oil Viscosity = 1.02 cp
Reservoir Pressure = 2700 psi
2500 2700
Pressure (psi)
Pressure (psi)
2600
2400
2500
2300
2400
2200 2300
2200
2100
2100
2000 2000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 10 20 30 40 50
Radial Distance (ft) Radial Distance (ft)
Figure 1.2
Calculated Pressure Distribution Around a 200 Millidarcy Oil Well
Near Wellbore Flow Restrictions

Because most of the pressure drop takes place in the area very near the wellbore, this same area
is where any additional restrictions to flow have the most detrimental effect. Two factors that
affect the increase of this pressure drop are the amount of the permeability impairment, which is
measured as a permeability reduction, and the radial thickness of the impaired or damaged area.
Using the equation1 below to calculate the additional pressure drop associated with a near
wellbore flow restriction, Figure 1.3 illustrates the additional pressure drop that is created by
reducing the permeability surrounding a wellbore from 1000 millidarcies to 100 millidarcies. The
different curves on this figure represent increasing radial distances of permeability damage
ranging from 6 inches to 5 feet.
141.2 qB o µ  k   r 
∆p skin =  − 1 ln s 
kh  ks   rw 
where: ∆pskin = pressure drop through the damaged zone (pounds per square inch)
q = production rate (stock tank barrels of oil per day)
Bo = formation volume factor of produced oil (reservoir barrels per stock tank
barrel)
µ = viscosity of produced fluids (centipoise)
ks = damaged zone permeability (millidarcies)
h = thickness of the reservoir (feet)
rs = radius of damage (feet)
rw = radius of wellbore (feet)
This plot indicates that, as expected, the total system pressure drop increases with increasing
depth of damage. However, the plot also illustrates that the majority of the increase in pressure
drop is within a foot or so of the wellbore.

Rev. 2 / June 1995
3000
2500
Damage Zone
2000 Thickness
Production Rate = 10,000 stb/day
Damaged Zone Permeability = 100 md
No Damage
Pressure (psi)
6 inches
1500 1 foot
2 feet
5 feet
1000
500
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Radial Distance (ft)
Figure 1.3
Additional Pressure Drop Associated With Increasing Depth of Damage
The other factor that determines the magnitude of damage is the permeability of the damaged
zone. Figure 1.4 indicates the pressure drop increase associated with a damaged zone which has
a radial depth of 2 feet. The damaged zone consists of material with a permeability of
100 millidarcies, 50 millidarcies and 25 millidarcies, which is equivalent to 10, 5 and 2.5 percent of
the permeability of the virgin formation. Comparison of Figures 1.3 and 1.4 indicate that severe
permeability impairment near the wellbore is much more detrimental than is moderate damage
deep into the formation.
3000
2500
2000 Formation Permeability = 1000 md

Damaged Zone
Prodcution Rate = 10,000 stb/day
Permeability
Damaged Zone Thickness = 2 ft.
Pressure (psi)
100 md
1500 50 md
25 md
1000
500
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Radial Distance (ft)

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Figure 1.4
Effect of Damage Severity on Magnitude of Pressure Drop Increase
The importance of severe permeability impairment can be shown by a calculation of the damaged
productivity of a well expressed as a ratio of the undamaged productivity. This ratio is calculated
as a function of the radial thickness of the damaged zone and the degree of permeability reduction
by the following equation:2
ks r 
log  e 
Js k o  rw 
=
Jo  r  k r 
log  s  + s log  e 
 rw  k o  rs 
where: Js = productivity index of damaged well (produced stock tank barrels per day per
pound per square inch of drawdown)
Jo = productivity index of undamaged well (produced stock tank barrels per day per
pound per square inch of drawdown)
ks = permeability of damaged zone (millidarcies)
ko = permeability of undamaged formation (millidarcies)
rw = wellbore radius (feet)
rs = damaged zone radius (feet)
Figure 1.5 shows the results when this equation is plotted against the damaged zone radius for
different degrees of damage. This figure further supports the critical influence of permeability
reductions very close to the wellbore.

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Figure 1.5
Productivity Loss Caused by Formation Damage 2
The permeability impairment surrounding a well is called “skin factor”, which is a dimensionless
representation of the additional pressure drop across the near wellbore formation associated with
the flowing of fluids through a near wellbore damaged zone. The following equation3 illustrates
how the dimensionless skin factor relates to this increased pressure drop.
0.00708kh ∆Pskin
s=
q µ Bo
where: s = skin factor

h = interval thickness (feet)
∆pskin = pressure drop through the damaged zone (pounds per square inch)
q = flow rate (stock tank barrels per day)
µ = fluid viscosity (centipoise)
Bo = formation volume factor of produced oil (reservoir barrels per stock tank
barrel)
If the calculated skin number is positive, there is an increased pressure drop around the well and
the well is considered to be damaged. On the other hand, if a negative skin is calculated, there is
a zone of increased permeability present, typical of a stimulated well. Skin factors can range
from about -6 to any positive number. Skin factors from +25 to +50 in high permeability
formations are not uncommon.

Rev. 2 / June 1995
The effect of formation damage can be approximated through the concept of flow efficiency.
This is a measure of the relative percentage of the theoretical flow rate that can actually flow
through a formation. The following equation presents an approximate method for calculating flow
efficiency.
 r  
 ln  e  
q    rw    8 
FE = 100 s  = 100   ≈ 100  
 qo   s +8
 s + ln  re  
 
  rw  
where: FE = flow efficiency (percent)

qs = flow rate from damaged well (stock tank barrels per day)
qo = hypothetical flow rate possible from undamaged well (stock tank barrels per day)
s = skin factor

Rev. 2 / June 1995
The approximation of 8 for the term ln(re/rw) results from the fact that the natural log of a large
number divided by a small number is approximately 8. Based on this equation, a well with a skin
of +20 will have a flow efficiency of only about 28 percent.
Skin factor is only a relative measure of an additional pressure drop in the flowing system. Skin
factor does not distinguish between a near wellbore severely damaged zone and a deeper
moderately damaged zone.
Potential Formation Damage Mechanisms

Skin is strictly a measure of an excess pressure drop in the producing formation as fluids flow into
a well. This excess pressure drop can occur from any one or several of a wide variety of causes.
Various damage mechanisms can be classified into the following general categories:
• drilling mud, cement and completion fluid filtrate invasion

• solids invasion
• perforating damage
• fines migration
• swelling clays
• asphaltene/paraffin deposition
• scale precipitation
• emulsions
• reservoir compaction
• relative permeability effects
• effects of stimulation treatments
The critical factor from a well completions standpoint is to limit, where possible, the creation of
damage, especially severe plugging in the near wellbore area. This means avoiding plugging of
the perforations in a cased-hole completion and avoiding plugging of the formation face in an
open-hole completion. Methods to avoid plugging will be described later in this manual. Beyond
taking steps to eliminate severe permeability reduction in the near wellbore area, the next step in a
completion is to obtain the best possible communication of the wellbore with the virgin formation.
Methods to bypass damage in the area near the wellbore will also be detailed in a later chapter.
Summary
Reducing or eliminating near wellbore reductions in permeability are critical to the success of any
well completion. Wells requiring sand control are especially susceptible to near wellbore damage
since the primary technique for controlling sand production, gravel packing, requires the
introduction of additional fluids and gravel pack sand into the near wellbore area. Furthermore,
once a gravel pack is in place, opportunities to clean-up the near wellbore area by flowing the
well, acidizing or reperforating are somewhat limited. Therefore, the best approach to a

Rev. 2 / June 1995
successful gravel pack completion is to ensure that minimal formation damage occurs from the
moment the drill bit enters the pay zone until the well is brought on production.
References
1. Earlougher, R.C. Jr., Advances in Well Test Analysis, SPE Monograph Series, Volume 5,
1977.
2. Williams, B.B., Gidley, J.L. and Schechter, R.S., Acidizing Fundamentals, SPE Monograph
Series, Volume 6, 1979.
3. Lee, W.J., Well Testing, SPE Textbook Series, Volume 1, 1982.

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Chapter 12
CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF SAND PRODUCTION
Introduction
Chapter 1 addressed radial flow through porous media and showed the nature of the pressure
distribution around a producing well. Negative effects on productivity caused by flow restrictions
in the near wellbore area have been described. With the concepts of radial flow and formation
damage understood, the problems unique to unconsolidated formations can be explored.
In highly unconsolidated formations, the production of formation fluids will probably be associated
with the production of formation sand. In some situations, small quantities of formation sand can
be produced with no significant adverse effects; however, in most cases, sand production leads to
reduced productivity and/or excessive maintenance to both downhole and surface equipment.
Sufficient sand production may also cause premature failure of the wellbore and well equipment.
Nature of Sand Production

The conditions which can cause sand production and the probable condition of the formation
outside of the casing after sand is produced can be determined by the factors that affect the
beginning of sand production. These factors must describe both the nature of the formation
material and also the forces that cause the formation structure fail.
The strength of a sandstone is controlled by:

• The amount and type of cementing material holding the individual grains together
• The frictional forces between grains
• Fluid pressure within the pores of the rock
• Capillary pressure forces
The type of failure that is likely to occur in sandstone has been investigated by several
researchers. Work at Exxon1 indicates that the nature of a failed perforation tunnel is indicative
of a shear failure that will occur when the compressive strength of the rock is exceeded. In
addition, the Exxon work indicates that in weakly consolidated sandstones, a void is created behind
the casing. Exxon concluded that the rock’s compressive strength should be a good indicator of
sand production potential, and that sand production will probably cause a void behind the casing
that can be filled with gravel pack sand during a gravel packing operation. The details of the
research work performed by Exxon may be found in Reference 1.

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Causes and Effects of Sand Production Chapter 2
In general, the compressive strength of a rock is primarily controlled by the intergranular frictional
forces, therefore, the strength of the rock will increase as the confining stress on the rock
increases. In the situation of failure of the rock matrix surrounding a perforation tunnel, the rock
will be in an unconfined state of stress, so sand production should be related to the unconfined
compressive strength of the rock. The degree of consolidation (intergranular cementation) will be
more important than intergranular frictional forces. The stresses that cause the rock to fail in this
situation include the mechanical stress resulting from the overburden material, and the drag forces
associated with the flow of viscous fluids through the rock matrix. The overburden stress is
partially supported by the pore pressure within the rock; so the stress actually working to cause
failure of the rock (i.e., the effective stress) is the difference between the overburden stress and
the pore pressure.
The mechanical failure of unconsolidated rock surrounding a perforation is analogous to the failure
of a loose material surrounding a tunnel in soft earth. The mechanism for load transfer
surrounding a tunnel in such a situation was described by Terzaghi2 in 1943. As the earth material
over the tunnel yields, the stress originally held in the yielded material is relieved and transferred to
the more rigid material surrounding the tunnel. However, a portion of the original stresses is
supported by intergranular friction above the tunnel. In tunneling operations, if there is no intent to
provide internal support to the tunnel, then the common practice is to excavate a tunnel height
approximately twice the tunnel width to create a stable arch so that the material above the tunnel
will not collapse (see Figure 2.1). The arch is made more stable through the presence of cohesive
forces as well as from surface tension stresses if the granular material is wet.
An altered state of stress exists in the material above a tunnel. This altered state of stress
extends to a height above the tunnel approximately five times the width of the tunnel. The
material in the area that is more than five times the width of the tunnel base above the tunnel does
not feel any of the effects of the excavation, and remains in its original stress state.
Carried by Arching
H =5B
Carried by Wedge
Carried by Wedge
Carried
by Roof
Support Hp = 2B
H1
Figure 2.1
Loading of a Tunnel Support in Sand2

Rev. 2 / June 1995
To a certain extent, the arching concepts used in tunneling apply to the unconsolidated rock
surrounding a perforation. After some sand is produced from around a perforation tunnel, an arch
is formed that has sufficient strength to support the weight of the surrounding material. Under
certain conditions, the production of a limited amount of formation sand can be tolerated to allow
an arch to develop, after which the production of formation sand ceases.3 Figure 2.2 illustrates
the concept of a stable arch around a perforation; however, the stability of the arch is complicated
by the fact that the state of stress surrounding the perforation is constantly changing due to
changes in flow rate, reservoir pressure, producing water cut, etc.
Figure 2.2
Geometry of a Stable Arch Surrounding a Perforation3
Effects of Sand Production

The effects of sand production are nearly always detrimental to the short and/or long term
productivity of the well. Although some wells routinely experience “manageable” sand
production, these wells are the exception, not the rule. In most cases, attempting to manage the
effects of severe sand production over the life of the well is not an economically attractive or
prudent operating alternative.
Accumulation in Surface Equipment. If the production velocity is great enough to carry sand
up the tubing, the sand may become trapped in the separator, heater treater, or production pipeline.
If a large enough volume of sand becomes trapped in one of these areas, cleaning will be required
to allow for efficient production of the well. To restore production, the well must be shut-in, the

Rev. 2 / June 1995
surface equipment opened, and the sand manually removed. In addition to the clean out cost, the
cost of the deferred production must be considered.
If a separator is partially filled with sand, the capacity of the separator to handle oil, gas and water
is reduced. For example, one cubic foot of sand in an oil/water separator with a 2 minute
residence time will cause the separator to handle 128 fewer barrels of liquid per day. If the ratio
of oil to water entering the separator is one to one (i.e., 50% water cut), the separator will deliver
64 fewer barrels of salable oil per day. At $18.00 per barrel, this adds up to $420,480.00 worth of
oil per year that is not moving through the separator.
Accumulation Downhole. If the production velocity is not great enough to carry sand to the
surface, the sand may bridge off in the tubing or fall and begin to fill the inside of the casing.
Eventually, the producing interval may be completely covered with sand. In either case, the
production rate will decline until the well becomes "sanded up" and production ceases. In
situations like this, remedial operations are required to clean-out the well and restore production.
One clean-out technique is to run a "bailer" on the end of slickline to remove the sand from the
production tubing or casing. Since the bailer removes only a small volume of sand at a time,
multiple slickline runs are necessary to clean out the well. Another clean-out operation involves
running a smaller diameter tubing string or coiled tubing down into the production tubing to agitate
the sand and lift it out of the well by circulating fluid. The inner string is lowered while circulating
the sand out of the well. This operation must be performed cautiously to avoid the possibility of
sticking the inner string inside the production tubing. If the production of sand is continuous, the
clean-out operations may be required on a routine basis, as often as monthly or even weekly. This
will result in lost production and increased well maintenance cost.
Erosion of Downhole and Surface Equipment. In highly productive wells, fluids flowing at
high velocity and carrying sand can produce excessive erosion of both downhole and surface
equipment leading to frequent maintenance to replace the damaged equipment. Figure 2.3 is a
photograph of a section of screen exposed to a perforation that was producing sand. Figure 2.4
shows a choke that failed due to excessive erosion. If the erosion is severe or occurs over a
sufficient length of time, complete failure of surface and/or downhole equipment may occur,
resulting in critical safety and environmental problems as well as deferred production. For some
equipment failures, a rig assisted workover may be required to repair the damage.

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Figure 2.3
Screen Failure due to Erosion by Formation Sand
Figure 2.4
Surface Choke Failure due to Erosion by Formation Sand
Collapse of the Formation. Large volumes of sand may be carried out of the formation with
produced fluid. If the rate of sand production is great enough and continues for a sufficient period
of time, an empty area or void will develop behind the casing that will continue to grow larger as
more sand is produced. When the void becomes large enough, the overlying shale or formation
sand above the void may collapse into the void due to a lack of material to provide support. When
this collapse occurs, the sand grains rearrange themselves to create a lower permeability than
originally existed. This will be especially true for a formation sand with a high clay content or
wide range of grain sizes. For a formation sand with a narrow grain size distribution and/or very
little clay, the rearrangement of formation sand will cause a change in permeability that may be

Rev. 2 / June 1995
less obvious. In the case of an overlying shale collapsing, complete loss of productivity is
probable. In most cases, continued long term production of formation sand will usually decrease
the well’s productivity and ultimate recovery.
The collapse of the formation is particularly important if the formation material fills or partially fills
the perforation tunnels. Even a small amount of formation material filling the perforation tunnels
will lead to a significant increase in pressure drop across the formation near the well bore for a
given flow rate.
Causes of Sand Production

The solid material produced from a well can consist of both formation fines (usually not
considered part of the formation’s mechanical framework) and load bearing solids. The
production of fines cannot normally be prevented and is actually beneficial. Fines moving freely
through the formation or an installed gravel pack are preferable to plugging of the formation or
gravel pack. The critical factor to assessing the risk of sand production from a particular well is
whether or not the production of load bearing particles can be maintained below an acceptable
level at the anticipated flow rates and producing conditions which will make the well production
acceptable.
The following list summarizes many of the factors that influence the tendency of a well to produce
sand:
• Degree of consolidation
• Reduction in pore pressure throughout the life of a well
• Production rate
• Reservoir fluid viscosity
• Increasing water production throughout the life of a well
These factors can be categorized into rock strength effects and fluid flow effects. Each of these
factors and their role in the prevention or initiation of sand production is discussed in the remainder
of this chapter.
Degree of Consolidation. The ability to maintain open perforation tunnels is closely tied to how
strongly the individual sand grains are bound together. The cementation of a sandstone is typically
a secondary geological process and as a general rule, older sediments tend to be more
consolidated than newer sediments. This indicates that sand production is normally a problem
when producing from shallow, geologically younger Tertiary sedimentary formations. Such
formations are located in the Gulf of Mexico, California, Nigeria, French West Africa, Venezuela,
Trinidad, Egypt, Italy, China, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia and others. Young Tertiary formations
often have little matrix material (cementation material) bonding the sand grains together and these
formations are generally referred to as being “poorly consolidated” or “unconsolidated”. A
mechanical characteristic of rock that is related to the degree of consolidation is called
“compressive strength”. Poorly consolidated sandstone formations usually have a compressive
strength that is less than 1,000 pounds per square inch. Additionally, even well consolidated
sandstone formations may be changed by degrading the matrix material, which would allow sand

Rev. 2 / June 1995
production. This can be the result of acid stimulation treatments or high temperature steam flood
enhanced recovery techniques.
Reduction of Pore Pressure. As mentioned previously, the pressure in the reservoir supports
some of the weight of the overlying rock. As the reservoir pressure is deple ted throughout the
producing life of a well, some of the support for the overlying rock is removed. Lowering the
reservoir pressure creates an increasing amount of stress on the formation sand itself. At some
point the formation sand grains may break loose from the matrix, or may be crushed, creating
fines that are produced along with the well fluids. Compaction of the reservoir rock due to a
reduction in pore pressure can result in surface subsidence. For example, the Ekofisk central
platform in the North Sea is reported to have sunk 10 feet in its first 10 years of existence due to
subsidence.

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Production Rate. The production of reservoir fluids creates pressure differential and frictional
drag forces that can combine to exceed the formation compressive strength. This indicates that
there is a critical flow rate for most wells below which pressure differential and frictional drag
forces are not great enough to exceed the formation compressive strength and cause sand
production. The critical flow rate of a well may be determined by slowly increasing the production
rate until sand production is detected. One technique used to minimize the production of sand is to
choke the flow rate down to the critical flow rate where sand production does not occur or has an
acceptable level. In many cases, this flow rate is significantly below the acceptable production
rate for the well.
Reservoir Fluid Viscosity. The frictional drag force exerted on the formation sand grains is
created by the flow of reservoir fluid. This frictional drag force is directly related to the velocity
of fluid flow and the viscosity of the reservoir fluid being produced. High reservoir fluid viscosity
will apply a greater frictional drag force to the formation sand grains than will a reservoir fluid
with a low viscosity. The influence of viscous drag causes sand to be produced from heavy oil
reservoirs which contain low gravity, high viscosity oils even at low flow velocities.
Increasing Water Production. Sand production may increase or begin as water begins to be
produced or as water cut increases. Two possibilities may explain many of these occurrences.
First, for a typical water-wet sandstone formation, some grain-to-grain cohesiveness is provided
by the surface tension of the connate water surrounding each sand grain. At the onset of water
production, the connate water tends to cohere to the produced water, resulting in a reduction of
the surface tension forces and subsequent reduction in the grain-to-grain cohesiveness. Water
production has been shown to severely limit the stability of the sand arch around a perforation
resulting in the initiation of sand production. 3
A second mechanism by which water production affects sand production is related to the effects
of relative permeability. As the water cut increases, the relative permeability to oil decreases.
This results in an increasing pressure differential being required to produce oil at the same rate.
An increase in pressure differential near the wellbore creates a greater shear force across the
formation sand grains. Once again, the higher stresses can lead to instability of the sand arch
around each perforation and subsequent sand production.
Summary
The above discussion highlights the fact that the production of sand is a very complicated process
that is controlled by the formation properties, the state of stress in the formation, and the fluid flow
regime. Knowledge of these factors is often quite limited, hence the ability to predict sand
production is a very imprecise process. However, there are methods available which attempt to
predict the onset of sand production. These methods will be detailed in the next chapter.

Rev. 2 / June 1995
References
1. Penberthy, W.L. and Shaughnessy, C.M., Sand Control, SPE Series on Special Topics,
Volume 1, 1992.
2. Roberts, A., Geotechnology: An Introductory Text for Students and Engineers, Pergamon
Press, New York, New York, 1977.
3. Suman, G.O. Jr., Ellis, R.C., and Snyder, R.E., Sand Control Handbook, Second Edition,
Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas, 1991.

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Chapter 3
PREDICTING SAND PRODUCTION
Introduction
Being able to predict whether a well will produce fluids without producing sand or predicting that
some type of sand control will be required has been the goal of many completion engineers and
research projects. In spite of the fact that there are a number of analytical techniques and
guidelines developed to assist in determining if sand control is necessary, no technique has proven
to be universally acceptable or completely accurate. In some geographic regions, guidelines and
rules-of-thumb apply that have little validity in other areas of the world. At the current time,
predicting whether a formation will or will not produce sand is not an exact science and more
refinement is needed. Until better prediction techniques are available, the best way of determining
the need for sand control in a particular well is to perform an extended production test with a
conventional completion and observe if sand production occurs. Offset wells producing in the
same formation, in the same field and under similar conditions are also a good indicator of the
need for sand control.
Operational and Economic Influences

The difficulty of determining whether or not sand control is required in a given well is compounded
when the well is drilled in an area where there is little or no producing experience and where the
various reservoir factors are slightly different from previously exploited regions. Even if the
reservoir and formation properties are almost identical to other developments, the operating
conditions and risks may be such that different strategies apply. One example is a subsea project
as opposed to a platform development. Here, the consequences and risks associated with sand
production are significantly different due to differing cost and risk associated with remedial well
operations. Hence, the decision to use a sand control technique is both an economic and
operational decision that must be made with limited data. The decision is complicated by the fact
that sand control techniques, such as gravel packing, are expensive and can restrict well
productivity if not done properly. Therefore, gravel packing cannot be applied indiscriminately
when the possibility for sand production from a well is unknown. Making the decision to gravel
pack is not too difficult or risky if the formation material is either very hard or very weak. The
difficulty arises when the strength of the formation material is neither strong nor weak, but is in
the range between those two extremes. At that point the decision normally ceases to be primarily
a technical issue but more of an economic and risk management exercise.

Rev. 3 / October 1996
Predicting Sand Production Chapter 3
Formation Strength
The general procedure followed by most operators considering whether or not sand control is
required, is to determine the hardness of the formation rock (i.e., the rock’s compressive
strength). Since the rock’s compressive strength has the same units as the pressure drawdown in
the reservoir, the two parameters can be compared on a one to one basis and drawdown limits for
specific wells can be determined. Research performed at Exxon1 in the early 1970’s shows that
there is a relationship between the compressive strength and the incidence of rock failure. These
studies show that the rock failed and began to produce sand when the drawdown pressure is
1.7 times the compressive strength. As an example, a formation sand with a compressive strength
of 1,000 pounds per square inch would not fail or begin to produce sand until the drawdown was
about 1,700 pounds per square inch. The testing described was performed in the equipment
illustrated in Figure 3.1 and an example of rock sample failure is shown in Figure 3.2. The
correlation of the data from the research is shown in Figure 3.3. Other operators use Brinnell
hardness of the rock as an indicator of whether to apply sand control. Actually, the Brinnell
hardness of the rock is related to the compressive strength but is not as convenient to use since
the units of hardness are dimensionless and cannot be related to drawdown as easily as
compressive strength.
Figure 3.1
Apparatus for Testing Failure of Rock with Pressure Drawdown1

Early Results Completion of Test
Figure 3.2
Cavity Formation in Rock Sample During Drawdown Failure Testing1
3500
Compressive Strength (psi)
3000 Slope = 0.6

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 2000 4000 6000
Pressure Drop at Failure (psi)
Figure 3.3
Correlation From Sand Production Initiation Testing
Sonic Log
The sonic log can be used as a way of addressing the sand production potential of wells. The
sonic log records the time required for sound waves to travel through the formation in
microseconds. The porosity is related to the sonic travel time. Short travel times, (for example,
50 microseconds) are indicative of low porosity and hard, dense rock; while long travel times (for
example, 95 microseconds or higher) are associated with softer, lower density, higher porosity
rock. A common technique used for determining if sand control is required in a given geologic
area is to correlate incidences of sand production with the sonic log readings. This establishes a
quick and basic approach to the need for sand control, but the technique can be unreliable and is
not strictly applicable in geologic areas other than the one in which it was developed.

Formation Properties Log

Certain well logs such as the sonic (as discussed above), density and neutron devices are
indicators of porosity and formation hardness. For a particular formation, a low density reading is
indicative of a high porosity. The neutron logs are primarily an indicator of porosity. A formation
properties log2 is offered by several wireline logging companies that performs a calculation using
the results of the sonic, density, and neutron logs to determine the likelihood of whether a
formation will or will not produce formation material at certain levels of pressure drawdown. This
calculation identifies which intervals are stronger and which are weaker and more prone to
produce formation material. While the formation properties log has been used by some companies
for over 15 years, the consensus is that this type of log is usually conservative in its predictions on
the need for sand control.
Porosity
The porosity of a formation can be used as a guideline for the need for sand control. If the
formation porosity is higher than 30 percent, the probability of a requirement for sand control is
higher. Conversely, if the porosity is less than 20 percent, the need for sand control will probably
be less. The porosity range between 20 to 30 percent is where uncertainty usually exists.
Intuitively, porosity is related to the degree of cementation present in a formation; thus, the basis
for this technique is understandable. Porosity information can be derived from well logs or
laboratory core analysis.
Drawdown
The pressure drawdown associated with production may be an indicator of potential formation
sand production. No sand production may occur with low pressure drawdown around the well
whereas excessive drawdown can cause formation material to be produced at unacceptable
levels. The amount of pressure drawdown is normally associated with the formation permeability
and the viscosity of the produced fluids. Low viscosity fluids such as gas experience small
drawdown pressures as opposed to the drawdown that would be associated with a 1,000 cp fluid
produced from the same interval. Hence, higher sand production is usually associated with
viscous fluids.
Finite Element Analysis

Probably the most sophisticated approach to predicting sand production is the use of
geomechanical numerical models developed to analyze fluid flow through the reservoir in relation
to the formation strength. The effects of formation stress associated with fluid flow in the
immediate region around the wellbore are simultaneously computed with finite element analysis.
While this approach is by far the most rigorous, it requires an accurate knowledge of the
formation’s strength both in the elastic and plastic regions where the formation begins to fail.
Both of these input data are difficult to determine with a high degree of accuracy under actual
downhole conditions and that is the major difficulty with this approach. The finite element analysis

method is good from the viewpoint of comparing one interval with another; however, the absolute
values calculated may not represent actual formation behavior.
Time Dependence
Whether time has an effect on the production of formation sand is sometimes considered to be an
issue; however, there is no data that suggests that time alone is a factor. There have been
undocumented claims that produced fluids could possibly dissolve the formation’s natural
cementing materials, but no data is available to substantiate these claims.
Multiphase Flow
The initiation of multiphase fluid flow, primarily water and oil, can also cause sand production.
Many cases can be cited where wells produced sand free until water production began but
produced unacceptable amounts of formation material subsequent to the onset of produced water.
The reasons for the increased sand production is caused by two primary phenomena: the
movement of water-wet fines and relative permeability effects. Most formation fines are water
wet and as a consequence are immobile when a hydrocarbon phase is the sole produced fluid
because hydrocarbons occupy the majority of the pore space. However, when the water
saturation is increased to the point that is also becomes mobile, the formation fines begin the move
with the wetting phase (water) which creates localized plugging in the pore throats of the porous
media. Additionally, when two-phase flow occurs, increased pressure drawdown is experienced
as a consequence of relative permeability and increases the pressure drop around the well by as
much as a factor of 4 to 5. The result of fines migration, plugging, and reduced relative
permeability around the well increases the drawdown to the point that it may exceed the strength
of the formation. The consequences may be excessive sand production.
Summary
In some respects predicting the sanding potential of formations may be an academic exercise.
Present technology can produce a calculation or other methodology to accurately determine
whether sand control will be required in a particular well or reservoir. The irony of this situation is
that at the point where the calculation or methodology has been developed and proven, the
operator already knows whether sand control is necessary or not due to the producing experience
gained while obtaining the necessary data for the calculations.
Experience has generally indicated that the best approach to completing wells, particularly in high
productivity and high cost developments, is to avoid sand control in situations where the need for
sand control is not clearly defined and where economics and risk analysis suggest that
conventional (no sand control) alternatives are economically more attractive. Production
experience from early wells should indicate whether this approach is correct. If sand control is in
fact required, a few wells will have to be worked over; however, the sand control issue will be
resolved once and for all and the remaining field development can proceed with a high degree of
confidence in knowing the sand production tendencies of the formation. The exception to this
argument is when water production is anticipated at some later date which may cause excessive
sand production. If this event is anticipated, weighing whether to gravel pack the wells initially or

to wait until sand production occurs tends to be more of an economic exercise than a technical
issue.

To summarize, the best technique for predicting sand control is the performance of the well in an
extended production test. If such a test is not available, then existing technology, as discussed
above, should be used to assess the sand producing tendencies of the formation. In the
unfortunate event that applicable sand prediction techniques are inconclusive or borderline, the risk
and economic analysis of not installing sand control can be evaluated to determine the type of well
completion best suited for the formation and operating environment.
References
Volume 1, 1992.
2. Tixier, M.P., Loveless, G.W., Anderson, R.A., “Estimation of Formation Strength From the
Mechanical-Properties Log”, Journal of Petroleum Technology (March 1975), 283-293.

Chapter 4
SAND CONTROL TECHNIQUES
Introduction
Numerous techniques are available for dealing with sand production from wells. These range
from simple changes in operating practices to expensive completions such as sand consolidation
and gravel packing. The sand control method selected depends on site specific conditions,
operating practices and economic considerations. Some of the sand control techniques available
are:
• Maintenance and workover
• Rate exclusion
• Selective completion practices
• Plastic consolidation
• High energy resin placement
• Resin coated gravel
• Slotted liner or screens without gravel packing
• Slotted liner or screens with gravel packing
Maintenance and Workover

Maintenance and workover is a passive approach to sand control. This method basically involves
tolerating the sand production and dealing with its effects as and when necessary. Such an
approach requires bailing, washing, and cleaning of surface facilities on a routine basis to maintain
well productivity. This approach can be successful in specific formation and operating
environments. The maintenance and workover method is primarily used where sand production is
limited, production rates are low, risk of performing some service is low and economically
feasible, or in marginal wells where the expense of other sand control techniques cannot be
justified. Of importance are the formation characteristics which determine how much sand is
produced and the effects on safety and productivity as discussed in Chapter 2.

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Sand Control Techniques Chapter 4
Rate Exclusion
Restricting the well’s flow rate to a level which will reduce the sand production is a method used
by some operators. The procedure is to sequentially reduce or increase the flow rate until an
acceptable value of sand production is achieved. The object of this sand control technique is to
attempt to establish a maximum flow rate possible in conjunction with a stable arch in the
formation as discussed in Chapter 2. This is a trial and error approach that may have to be
repeated from time to time as the reservoir pressure, flow rate and water cut change. The
problem with rate exclusion as a sand control technique is that the flow rate required to establish
and maintain a stable arch is generally less than the flow potential of the well and may represent a
significant loss in productivity and revenue. For high rate production, this approach is impractical,
not economical and unacceptable.Selective Completion Practices.
As discussed in the section on formation strength in Chapter 3, the pressure drawdown required
to produce a well can induce sand production if the magnitude of the drawdown is approximately
1.7 times the compressive strength of the formation. Application of this technique would be to
produce only from the sections of the reservoir capable of withstanding the anticipated
drawdowns. Perforating only the higher compressive strength sections of the formation allows
higher drawdown. The high compressive strength sections will likely have the highest degree of
cementation and, unfortunately, the lowest permeability. Therefore, the formation should have
good vertical permeability to allow draining of the reservoir (see Figure 4.1).
Low Strength Sand
Higher Strength Sand
Figure 4.1
Sand Control Using Selective Completion Practices

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Plastic Consolidation
Plastic consolidation involves the injection of plastic resins, which are attracted to the formation
sand grains. The resin hardens and forms a consolidated mass, binding the sand grains together at
their contact points. If successful, the increase in formation compressive strength will be
sufficient to withstand the drag forces while producing at the desired rates.
Three types of resins are commercially available: epoxies, furans (including furan/phenolic
blends), and pure phenolics. The resins are in a liquid form when they enter the formation and a
catalyst or curing agent is required for hardening. Some systems use “internal” catalysts that are
mixed into the resin solution at the surface and require time and/or temperature to harden the
resin. Other systems use “external” catalysts that are injected after the resin is in place. The
internal catalysts have the advantage of positive placement since all resin will be in contact with
the catalyst required for efficient curing. A disadvantage associated with internal catalysts is the
possibility of premature hardening in the workstring. The amounts of both resin and catalyst must
be carefully chosen and controlled for the specific well conditions. Epoxy and phenolics can be
placed with either internal or external catalysts; however, the rapid curing times of the furans (and
furan/phenolic blends) require that external catalysts be used.
There are two types of plastic consolidation systems. These are called “phase separation”
systems and “overflush” systems. Phase separation systems contain only 15 to 25 percent active
resin in an otherwise inert solution. The resin is preferentially attracted to the sand grains leaving
the inert portion that will not harden to fill the pore spaces. These systems utilize an internal
catalyst which is mixed into the solution at the surface. Very accurate control of displacement is
required to place the resin through the perforations. Overdisplacement will result in
unconsolidated sand in the critical near wellbore area.
Phase separation systems may be ineffective in formations which contain more than 10 percent
clays. Clays, which also attract the resin, have extremely high surface area in comparison to
sands. The clays will attract more resin and because phase separation systems contain only a
small percentage of resin, there may not be enough resin to consolidate the sand grains.
Overflush systems contain a high percentage of active resin. When first injected, the pore spaces
are completely filled with resin, and an overflush is required to push the excess resin away from
the wellbore area to reestablish permeability. Only a residual amount of resin saturation, which
should be concentrated at the sand contact points, should remain following the overflush. Most
overflush systems use an external catalyst, although some include an internal catalyst.
All plastic consolidation systems require a good primary cement job to prevent the resin from
channeling behind the casing. Perforation density should be a minimum of 4 shots per foot to
reduce drawdown and improve the distribution of plastic. Shaley zones should not be perforated.
A clean system is essential for plastic consolidation treatments because all solids which are in the
system at the time of treatment will be “glued” in place. The perforations should be washed or
surged, workover rig tanks should be scrubbed and fluids should be filtered to 2 microns.
Workstrings should be cleaned with a dilute HCl acid containing sequestering agents, and pipe
dope should be used sparingly on the pin only. A matrix acid treatment, which includes HF and
HCl is recommended for dirty sandstones.

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Both phase separation and overflush systems require a multistage preflush to remove reservoir
fluids and oil wet the sand grains. The first stage, generally diesel oil, serves to displace the
reservoir oil. Epoxy resins are incompatible with water, and therefore, isopropyl alcohol follows
the diesel to remove formation water. The final stage is a spacer which prevents the isopropyl
alcohol from contacting the resin.
The main advantage of plastic consolidation is that it leaves the wellbore fully open. This
becomes important where large OD downhole completion equipment is required. Also, plastic
consolidation is suitable for through tubing applications, and may be applied in wells with small
diameter casing. For many applications, the problems associated with plastic consolidation
outweigh the possible advantages. The permeability of a formation is always decreased by plastic
consolidation. Even in successful treatments, the permeability to oil is reduced because the resin
occupies a portion of the original pore space, and because the resin is oil wet. The amount of
resin used is based on uniform coverage of all perforations. However, perforation plugging or
permeability variations will often cause some perforations to take more plastic than others. The
perforations which received excess plastic may be plugged, and little, if any, strengthening will
occur in the perforations not receiving resin. In systems which utilize an external catalyst, there
will be no sand control in areas which are not contacted by both resin and catalyst.
The primary difficulty in using resin systems is complete and even placement of the chemicals in
the formation. For this reason plastic consolidation is only suitable for interval lengths less than
10-15 feet. Longer intervals can be treated using packers to isolate and treat small sections of the
zone at a time, but such operations are difficult and time consuming. Plastic consolidation
treatments also do not perform well in formations with permeabilities less than about
50 millidarcies and/or bottom hole temperatures in excess of 225°F.
Plastic consolidation was used extensively in the late-1950’s through the mid-1970’s for
completing wells in the Gulf of Mexico; however, this technique currently represents less than
about 1% of all sand control completions worldwide. The reasons for decreased usage include
the placement difficulties described above, as well as tight regulations on the handling of the
chemicals, which are generally quite toxic (with the furans being the least toxic of the three). In
addition, these treatments tend to have a high cost. Sand consolidation is used with good success
in some fields in Africa where the formations meet the general screening criteria.
High Energy Resin Placement

As discussed above, one of the main reasons for the lack of acceptance of chemical consolidation
techniques has been difficulties in placing the resin uniformly across the entire target interval, with
problems being more severe in intervals greater than about 15 ft long. Causes for this are
typically attributed to differences in injectivity caused by incomplete perforation clean-up during
underbalanced perforating jobs or permeability variations in the formation interval length. By
using a small amount of underbalance pressure, enough flow may be induced to bring formation
sand into the perforation tunnel, but not enough to clean the tunnel.

Rev. 2 / June 1995
A technique developed by Oryx,1 seeks to remedy this problem. In this new method the well is
perforated, and resin is placed under highly overbalanced conditions. The resin is surged into the
formation at rates that will place the resin before the formation has a chance to fail. Another
benefit to the rapid resin placement is that this technique does not appear to be affected by
permeability contrasts. This characteristic leads to more uniform placement over a long
perforated interval.
Three methods are available for creating the high overbalance pressures that can assist resin
placement. These are a propellant gas fracturing tool, overbalanced perforating, and
overbalanced surging. Of these three techniques, the overbalanced perforating method is
currently the method recommended by Oryx, when possible.
Propellant Gas Fracturing. The use of propellant gas fracturing tools involves the conversion
of solid propellant by chemical reaction into a gas in the target zone of a wellbore.1 The chemical
propellant is changed into combustion gases by one of two different mechanisms, detonation or
flame propagation. Detonation involves a reaction characterized by a shock wave that moves
rapidly through the interval to be treated. This shock wave, traveling as velocities between 15,000
and 25,000 feet per second, induces pressures ranging from 400 to 4,000,000 pounds per square
inch, with pressurization rates up to 100,000 pounds per square inch per microsecond.
The flame propagation method is a much more controlled process. In this technique, the reaction
proceeds without shock, at rates that can be as low as one foot per second, and pressures of only
100 pounds per square inch. Typical loadings for gas generators in this mode are approximately
1000 pounds per square inch per millisecond. This leads to a complete reaction event taking
between 0.02 and 1.00 seconds.1
The reaction products are contained in place by the liquid column in the wellbore above the tool
(see Figure 4.2). The rapid generation of gas forces the resin placed in the annular space
surrounding the tool out the perforations and into the formation. For this process to be successful,
the casing must be in good condition and properly cemented; however, cementation is not as
critical for this method as for the high-overbalanced perforating technique discussed later.
Perforations must be clean and clear of debris, and all debris should be removed from the
wellbore. Only clean sands should be perforated. Finally, if sand has been produced, the
perforations should be prepacked with gravel prior to the treatment.
Fluid Head
Gas Generator
Figure 4.2
Schematic of Gas -Propellant Tool

Rev. 2 / June 1995
The process involved in completing a treatment of this type is to first pump a preflush to remove
water from the target interval. Furan resin is then placed across the perforations, and the gas
generating propellant tool is placed across the entire perforated interval. Nitrogen overbalance is
applied to the workstring, and the propellant device is fired to inject resin above fracture pressure.
The resin is then followed with an acid post flush to catalyze resin curing.
An advantage to this system is that resin will be placed in all perforations immediately across from
the location of the gas generator tool. However, if multiple tool runs are required to treat an
interval longer than about 36 feet, movement of the tool will make holding the resin in position
difficult. The two methods of overbalanced perforating, and overbalanced surging are designed to
alleviate the problem of maintaining the resin in position.
Overbalanced Perforating or Surging. High-overbalanced perforating resin placement

(abbreviated as OB Perf Resin) may be used if the well has not been perforated. If a well has
existing perforations, the interval can be prepacked and then the resin placed with a high pressure
surge (OB Surge Resin). The description of these processes have been provided by Dees and
Handren2 as follows:
The OB Perf Resin method is used when the casing has not been perforated in a
wellbore suspected of being within an incompetent sand productive formation.
Composition of the resin solution is furfuryl alcohol resin, solvent, coupling agent, and
wetting agent. The resin catalyzes with an acid to form a furan plastic. The resin solution
is positioned across an interval of planned perforations. A higher density fluid may
precede below the resin to fill a portion of the wellbore below the zone of interest. A
lower density fluid may follow above the resin in the wellbore to keep the resin from
floating up above the zone of interest. This technique can ensure more accurate
placement of resin across the interval soon to be perforated. Pressure in the wellbore
fluid at the depth to be perforated is increased to a value higher than the pore pressure in
the formation. This applied pressure before perforating may be higher than the formation
fracturing pressure. Wireline through tubing or casing guns, or tubing conveyed
perforating can all be used for perforating. Resin is forced into the new perforations upon
perforating with the overbalanced pressure (see Figure 4.3). Acid is injected into the
perforations to convert the liquid resin into a strong plastic that will consolidate the sand.

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Pressurized
Nitrogen
Low Density
Fluid
Perforating
Gun Resin
High Density
Fluid
Figure 4.3
Well Schematic for a OB Perf Resin Treatment
The OB Surge Resin method is used when the casing has existing perforations in a wellbore
suspected of being within an incompetent sand productive formation. Tubing is used in the well
with a means to hold high pressure differentials with a plug or frangible disk (see Figure 4.4).
Additional resin placed in the tubing is pressured with gas such as nitrogen. Resin is forced into
the perforations with the near instantaneous release of the overbalanced pressure surge. Acid
injection into the perforations converts the liquid resin into a strong plastic consolidation of prepack
gravel or formation sand.
Pressurized
Nitrogen
Frangible
Disk Resin
Figure 4.4
Well Schematic for a OB Surge Resin Treatment

Rev. 2 / June 1995
An initial pressure pulse from the overbalanced fluid column drives a quantity of resin to fill
adjacent perforations. The remainder of downhole resin is injected further into the formation by
the overbalanced pressure condition. Additional resin from the surface is pushed into the
formation by the pressure applied from a high pressure nitrogen or additional surface pumping
with fluids. A subsequent acid overflush ensures setting, or cure, of the resin coating the
formation sand near the wellbore.
Formation permeability is regained by displacement of resin with gas, brine spacer, and acid
overflush. The displacement process leaves an oil-wet film of plastic to consolidate the friable
formation sand grains. The thinness of the film leaves most of the original hydrocarbon
permeability. Stimulation frequently occurs when the applied pressure fractures the formation
sand. The sudden fluid surge of resin clears the perforations of formation sand and perforating
debris. Formation sand near the well is left with an oil-wet coating of hard plastic resin acting as
an external sand control screen.
Resin Coated Gravel

Resin coated gravel is high permeability gravel pack sand coated with a thin layer of resin. When
exposed to heat, the resin is cured resulting in a consolidated sand mass. The use of resin coated
gravel as a sand control technique involves pumping the gravel into the well to completely fill the
perforations and casing. The bottomhole temperature of the well or injection of steam causes the
resin to cure into a consolidated pack. After curing, the consolidated gravel pack sand can be
drilled out of the casing leaving an unobstructed wellbore. The remaining consolidated gravel in
the perforations acts as a permeable filter to prevent the production of formation sand.
Although simple in concept, using resin coated gravel can be a complex operation. First, and most
important, a successful job requires that all perforations be completely filled with the resin coated
gravel and the gravel must cure. Complete filling of the perforations becomes increasingly
difficult as zone length and deviation increase. Secondly, the resin coated gravel must cure with
sufficient compressive strength. The compressive strength of the resin coated gravel is
dependent on temperature and time. Currently available systems will cure at temperatures
exceeding 180°F after about 14 days; however, compressive strength is poor. To achieve high
compressive strengths, temperatures in excess of 300°F are required for several hours. Such
temperatures are difficult to achieve downhole unless the well is in a field utilizing thermal
recovery techniques. Unfortunately, there is very little information on the use, success or failure
of resin consolidated gravel as a sand control technique.

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Slotted Liners or Screens without Gravel Packing

In some cases, slotted liners or screens are used without gravel packing to control the formation
sand. Unless the formation is a well-sorted, clean sand with a large grain size, this type of
completion may have an unacceptably short producing life before the slotted liner or screen plugs.
When used alone as sand exclusion devices, the slotted liners or screens are placed across the
productive interval and the formation sand mechanically bridges on the slots or openings in the
wire wrap screen. Bridging theory shows that particles will bridge on a slot provided the width of
the slot does not exceed two particle diameters. Likewise, particles will bridge against a hole if
the hole diameter does not exceed about three particle diameters.
Normally, the slot width or the screen gauge should be sized to equal the formation sand grain size
at the largest 10 percent level. Chapter 5 contains details on determining formation grain size.
Since the larger 10 percent of the sand grains will be stopped by the openings of screen, the
remaining 90 percent of the formation sand will be stopped by the larger sand. The bridges
formed will not be stable and may breakdown from time to time when producing rate is changed
or the well is shut-in. Because the bridges can breakdown, resorting of the formation sand can
occur which over time tends to result in plugging of the slotted liner or screen. When this
technique is used to control formation sand, the slotted liner or screen diameter should be as large
as possible to minimize the amount of resorting that can occur. Another potential disadvantage of
both slotted liners and screens in high rate wells is the possibility of erosional failure of the slotted
liner or screen before a bridge can form.
Using a slotted liner or screen without gravel packing is not recommended as a good sand control
technique because some plugging will eventually occur and will almost always reduce the
production capacity of the well. This reduction is caused by intermixing of formation sands,
shales and clay as the formation sand is filling in around the screen. The mixture of sand, clay
and shale may have much less permeability than the native formation sand. Note that this sand
control technique is used extensively in horizontal wells and will be discussed in Chapter 15.
Slotted Liners and Screens with Gravel Packing

Gravel packing relies on the bridging of formation sand against larger sand with the larger sand
positively retained by a slotted liner or screen. The larger sand (referred to as gravel pack sand
or simply, gravel) is sized to be about 5 to 6 times larger than the formation sand. Gravel packing
creates a permeable downhole filter that will allow the production of the formation fluids but
restrict the entry and production of formation sand. Schematics of an open hole and cased hole
gravel pack are shown in Figure 4.5. Because the gravel is tightly packed between the formation
and the screen, the bridges formed are stable, which prevents shifting and resorting of the
formation sand. If properly designed and executed, a gravel pack will maintain its permeability
under a broad range of producing conditions.

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Figure 4.5
Open Hole and Cased Hole Gravel Packs
Gravel packs are performed by running the slotted liner or screen in the hole and circulating the
gravel into position using a carrier fluid. For optimum results, all the space between the screen
and formation must be completely packed with high permeability gravel pack sand. Complete
packing is relatively simple in open hole completions, but can be challenging in cased hole
perforated completions. Although expensive, gravel packs have proven to be the most reliable
sand control technique available and are, therefore, the most common approach used.
Summary
Many decisions involving sand control are made based on specific conditions and operating
philosophy. Actually, the issue of sand production involves operations management. The best
technical solution to sand control may not be the best economic solution. Whether a well
produces formation sand may not be the issue. The real issue is which operating practice is the
most economic for a particular field. If periodic sand clean-outs of the production equipment is
the most economic approach for an operation, then clean-outs may be the method of choice. On
the other hand, if high-rate wells are involved and there is risk of damaging equipment and
creating a safety problem, sand production should be controlled in the well. Differences in
operating strategy may also apply if the wells are onshore, in remote areas or located offshore.
The sand control technique selected depends on the specific operating conditions. As a
consequence, sand control management may involve dealing with a small amount of sand
production if that approach is the most economically attractive and does not create unsafe
operating conditions for personnel.

Rev. 2 / June 1995
When sand control is required, gravel packing is the most common approach. Gravel packing can
be applied in both open and cased hole completions, in well deviations from 0 to 110° and in zone
lengths up to a few thousand feet. Systems are available for virtually any well temperature,
pressure or environment. Gravel packed wells can be produced under high drawdown without
concern of sand production. Although the gravel packing process can induce significant formation
damage when not correctly performed, adherence to proper practices as well as advanced
installation techniques can limit formation damage to acceptable levels.
References
1. Hollabaugh, G.S, and Dees, J.M., “Propellant Gas Fracture Stimulation of a Horizontal Austin
Chalk Wellbore”, SPE Paper 26584, SPE 68th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, Texas, October 3-6, 1994.
2. Dees, J.M. and Handren J.M., “A New Method of Overbalanced Perforating and Surging of
Resin for Sand Control”, SPE Paper 26545, Journal of Petroleum Technology (May 1994),
431-435.

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Chapter 5
GRAVEL PACK SAND DESIGN
Introduction
As discussed previously, a gravel pack is simply a downhole filter designed to prevent the
production of unwanted formation sand. The formation sand is held in place by a properly sized
gravel pack sand and the gravel pack sand is held in pla ce with a properly sized screen. To
determine what size gravel pack sand is required, samples of the formation sand must be
evaluated to determine the median grain size diameter and grain size distribution. With this
information a gravel pack sand can be selected using the technique outlined by Saucier.1 The
quality of the sand used is as important as the proper sizing. The American Petroleum Institute
(API) has set forth the minimum specifications desirable for a gravel pack sand in their
Recommended Practices 58 (RP58).2
Formation Sand Sampling

Improper formation sand sampling techniques can lead to gravel packs which fail due to plugging
of the gravel pack or the production of sand. Because the formation sand size is so important, the
technique used to obtain a formation sample is also important. With knowledge of the different
sampling techniques, compensations can be made in the gravel pack sand size selection if
necessary.
Produced Samples. In a well producing sand, a sample of the formation sand is easily obtained
at the surface. Although such a sample can be analyzed and used for gravel pack sand size
determination, produced samples will probably indicate a smaller median grain size than the
formation sand. The well’s flow rate, produced fluid characteristics and completion tubular design
will influence whether a particular size of formation sand grain is produced to surface or settles to
the bottom of the well. In many cases, the larger sand grains settle to the bottom, so that a
sample that is produced to the surface has a higher proportion of the smaller size of sand grains.
This means that the surface sample probably is not a good representation of the various sizes of
formation sand which are present. Also, the transport of a sand grain through the production
tubing and surface flow lines may result in small corners being broken from the sand grains,
causing the presence of more fines and smaller grains. This is sometimes called grain shattering.
Grain shattering also reduces the quantity of larger formation sand grains, giving the impression of
a smaller median grain size than the formation sand actually has. The use of produced sand
samples may result in the use of smaller gravel pack sand than required.

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Gravel Pack Sand Design Chapter 5
Bailed Samples. Samples collected from the bottom of a well using wireline bailers are also
relatively easy to obtain, but these also are probably not representative of the actual formation
sand. Bailed samples will generally consist of the larger size sand grains, assuming that more of
the smaller grains are produced to surface. Bailed samples may also be misleading in terms of
grain size distribution. When closing the well in to obtain a sample, the larger sand grains will
settle to the bottom of the well first, and the smaller sand grains will fall on top of the larger ones.
This results in a sorting of the formation sand grains into a sample which does not representative
the formation sand. The use of bailed samples may result in the design of larger than required
gravel pack sand which can result in sand production (small formation particles passing through
the gravel pack) or plugging of the gravel pack (small formation particles filling the spaces
between the gravel pack sand grains).
Sidewall Core Samples. Sidewall core samples are obtained by shooting hollow projectiles from
a gun lowered into the well on an electric line to the desired depth. The projectiles remain
attached to the gun via steel cables, so that when pulling the gun out of the well, the projectiles are
retrieved with a small formation sample inside. Taking sidewall core samples is generally included
in the evaluation stages of wells in unconsolidated formations and these are the most widely used
sample type for gravel pack sand design. Although more representative than produced or bailed
samples, sidewall core samples can also give misleading results. When the projectiles strike the
face of the formation, localized crushing of the sand grains occurs, producing broken sand grains
and generating more fine particles. The core sample may also contain drilling mud solids that can
be mistaken for formation material. Experienced lab analysts can separate the effects of crushing
and mud solids to some degree prior to evaluating the sample, thus improving the quality of the
results.
Conventional Core Samples. The most representative formation sample is obtained from
conventional cores. In the case of unconsolidated formations, rubber sleeve conventional cores
may be required to assure sample recovery. Although conventional cores are the most desirable
formation sample, they are not readily available in most cases due to the cost of coring operations.
If available, small plugs can be taken under controlled circumstances at various sections of the
core for a complete and accurate median formation grain size and grain size distribution
determination.
Sieve Analysis
Sieve analysis is the typical laboratory routine performed on a formation sand sample for the
selection of the proper size gravel pack sand. Sie ve analysis consist of placing a formation
sample at the top of a series of screens which have progressively smaller mesh sizes. The sand
grains in the original well sample will fall through the screens until encountering a screen through
which that grains size cannot pass because the openings in the screen are too small. By weighing
the screens before and after sieving, the weight of formation sample retained by each size screen
can be determined. The cumulative weight percent of each sample retained can be plotted as a
comparison of screen mesh size on semi-log coordinates to obtain a sand size distribution plot as
shown in Figure 5.1. Reading the graph at the 50 percent cumulative weight gives the median
formation grain size diameter. This grain size, often referred to as D50, is the basis of gravel pack

Rev. 2 / June 1995
sand size selection procedures. Table 1.1 provides a reference for mesh size versus sieve
opening.
Figure 5.1
Sand Size Distribution Plot from Sieve Analysis
The samples used for sieve analysis must be representative of the formation if the analysis data is
expected to provide accurate gravel packing information. If possible, a sample should be taken
every 2 to 3 feet within the formation or at every lithology change. The minimum size of the
formation sample required for sieve analysis is 15 cubic centimeters. Sieving can be performed
either wet or dry. In dry sieving (the most common technique), the sample is prepared by
removing the fines (i.e., clays) and drying the sample in an oven. If necessary, the sample is
ground with a mortar and pestle to insure individual grains are sieved rather than conglomerate
grains. The sample is then placed in the sieving apparatus, which uses mechanical vibration to
assist the particles in moving through and on to the various mesh screens. Wet sieving is used
when the formation sample has extremely small grain sizes. In wet sieving, water is poured over
the sample while sieving to ensure the particles do not cling together.

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Table 5.1
Standard Sieve Openings
U.S. U.S.
Series Sieve Sieve Opening Series Sieve Sieve Opening
Mesh Size Opening (in.) (mm) Mesh Size Opening (in.) (mm)
2.5 0.315 8.000 35 0.0197 0.500
3 0.265 6.730 40 0.0165 0.420
3.5 0.223 5.660 45 0.0138 0.351
4 0.187 4.760 50 0.0117 0.297
5 0.157 4.000 60 0.0098 0.250
6 0.132 3.360 70 0.0083 0.210
7 0.111 2.830 80 0.0070 0.177
8 0.0937 2.380 100 0.0059 0.149
10 0.0787 2.000 120 0.0049 0.124
12 0.0661 1.680 140 0.0041 0.104
14 0.0555 1.410 170 0.0035 0.088
16 0.0469 1.190 200 0.0029 0.074
18 0.0394 1.000 230 0.0024 0.062
20 0.0331 0.840 270 0.0021 0.053
25 0.0280 0.710 325 0.0017 0.044
30 0.0232 0.589 400 0.0015 0.037
Gravel Pack Sand Sizing

There have been several published techniques for selecting a gravel pack sand size to control the
production of formation sand. The technique most widely used today was developed by Saucier.1
The basic premise of Saucier’s work is that optimum sand control is achieved when the median
grain size of the gravel pack sand is no more than six times larger than the median grain size of
the formation sand. Saucier determined this relationship in a series of core flow experiments
where half the core consisted of gravel pack sand and the other half was formation sand as
illustrated in Figure 5.2. The ratio of median grain size of the gravel pack sand and median grain
size of the formation sand was changed over a range from two to ten to determine when optimum
sand control was achieved.
Figure 5.2
Saucier’s Experimental Core

Rev. 2 / June 1995
The experimental procedure consisted of establishing an initial stabilized flow rate and pressure
drop through the core and calculating an effective initial permeability (ki). The flow rate was
increased and maintained until the pressure drop stabilized followed by a decrease in flow rate
back to the initial value. Once again, pressure drop was allowed to stabilize and an effective final
permeability (kf) of the core was calculated. If the final permeability was the same as the initial
permeability, a conclusion was made that effective sand control was achieved with no adverse
productivity effects. If the final permeability was less than the initial permeability, the conclusion
was made that the formation sand was invading and plugging the gravel pack sand. In this
situation sand control may be achieved, but at the expense of well productivity. Figure 5.3
illustrates the results of the core flow experiments. As can be seen from the plot, the ratio of kf to
ki decreases as the ratio of media n gravel pack sand size to median formation sand size increases
above six. Note that as the ratio of median gravel pack sand size to median formation sand size
increases, the ratio of kf to ki begins to increase again. This indicates that the formation grain size
is so small that formation grains begin to flow through the gravel pack sand without obstruction.
This phenomena is known to occur, but was not verified as part of Saucier’s work.
1.2
1.0
Ratio of Final Permeability to
Initial Permeabilit (kf / ki)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Ratio of Median Gravel Pack Sand Diameter to

Median Formation Sand Diameter (D50 / d50)
Figure 5.3
Results of Saucier’s Gravel Size Experiments1
In practice, the proper gravel pack sand size is selected by multiplying the median grain size of the
formation sand by four and eight to achieve a gravel pack sand size range whose average is six
times larger than the median grain size of the formation sand. This calculated gravel pack sand
size range is compared to the available commercial grades of gravel pack sand. The available
gravel pack sand that matches the calculated gravel pack size range is selected. In the event that
the calculated gravel pack sand size range falls between the size ranges of commercially available
gravel pack sand, the smaller gravel pack sand is normally selected. Table 5.2 contains
information on commercially available gravel pack sand sizes.

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Table 5.2
Commercially Available Sand Sizes
Gravel Size ( U.S. Mesh) Size Range (inches)

8/12 .094 - .066
12/20 .066 - .033
20/40 .033 - .017
40/60 .017 - .0098
50/ 70 .012 - .0083
Note that Saucier’s technique is based solely on the median grain size of the formation sand with
no consideration given to the range of sand grain diameters or degree of sorting, present in the
formation. The sieve analysis plot discussed earlier can be used to get an indication of the degree
of sorting in a particular formation sample. A near vertical sieve analysis plot represents a high
degree of sorting (most of the formation sand is in a very narrow size range) versus a more nearly
horizontal plot which indicates poorer sorting as illustrated by curves “A” and “D” respectively in
Figure 5.1. A sorting factor, or uniformity coefficient, can be calc ulated as follows:
D 40
Cµ =
D 90
where: Cµ = sorting factor or uniformity coefficient

D40 = grain size at the 40% cumulative level from sieve analysis plot
D90 = grain size at the 90% cumulative level from sieve analysis plot
If Cµ is greater than five, the sand is considered to be poorly sorted and the next smaller size
gravel pack sand than calc ulated using Saucier’s technique may be justified. Another method
which can be applied when poorly sorted sand is encountered is to use the D75 grain size instead
of D50 to calculate the appropriate gravel pack sand size.
Gravel Pack Sand

Gravel pack well productivity is sensitive to the permeability of the gravel pack sand. To ensure
maximum well productivity only high quality gravel pack sand should be used. The API RP582
establishes rigid specifications for acceptable properties of sands used for gravel packing. These
specifications focus on ensuring the maximum permeability and longevity of the sand under typical
well production and treatment conditions. The specifications define minimum acceptable
standards for the size and shape of the grains, the amount of fines and impurities, acid solubility,
and crush resistance. A summary of the API gravel test procedures and specifications are given
in Table 5.3. Only a few naturally occurring sands are capable of meeting the API specifications
without excessive processing. These sands are characterized by their high quartz content and
consistency in grain size. A majority of the gravel pack sand used in the world is mined from the
Ottawa formation in the Northern United States. Table 5.4 gives the permeability of common
gravel pack sand sizes conforming to the API RP58 specifications.

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Table 5.3
API Specifications for Gravel-Pack Sand2
Sieve Analysis A minimum of 96% by weight of the tested sand sample should
pass the designated course sieve and be retained on the
designated fine sieve (with the designated course and fine sieves
defined for specific size gravels in the RP58). Not over 0.1% of the
total tested sample should be retained by the most course
designated sieve and not over 2% of the total tested sample pass
through the most fine designated sieve. No more than 1.9% of the
total by weight should be retained by the second sieve screen
(100% - 0.1% - 2% - 1.9% = 96%).
Sphericity and Roundness Gravel pack sand should have an average sphericity of 0.6 or
greater and an average roundness of 0.6 or greater as determined
by visual analysis using the chart developed by Krumbein and
Sloss 3 (see Figure 5.4).
Acid Solubility A 5 gram sand sample is added to 100 ml of 12%-3% HCl-HF acid
and allowed to sit for one hour at 72°F to allow dissolution of
contaminates (carbonates, feldspars, iron oxides, clays, silica fines
etc.). The sand is then removed and dried. The before and after
weights are compared to determine acid solubility. The acid
soluble material in gravel pack sand should not exceed 1.0% by
weight.
Silt and Clay Content A 20 ml sample of dry sand is mixed with 100 ml of demineralized
water and allowed to sit for 30 minutes. The sample is then
shaken vigorously for 30 seconds and allowed to sit for 5 minutes.
A 25 ml sample of the water-silt suspension is removed and the
turbidity is measured. The resulting turbidity of tested gravel pack
sand should be 250 NTU's or less.
Crush Resistance A sand sample is sieved to remove all fines and weighed. The
sample is then exposed to 2,000 psi confining stress for two
minutes. The sample is resieved to determine the weight of fines
generated. Gravel pack sand subjected to this test should not
produce more than 2% by weight fines. For large sand sizes, 12/20
U.S. Mesh and 8/12 U.S. Mesh, the amount of fines produced
should not exceed 4% and 8% respectively.

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Table 5.4
Permeability of Gravel Pack Sands
Permeability Permeability Permeability

U.S. Mesh Range (Darcy’s)4 (Darcy’s)5 (Darcy’s)6
6/10 2703 - -
8/12 1969 - -
10/20 652 500 -
12/20 - - 668
16/30 - 250 415
20/40 171 119 225
40/60 69 40 69
50/70 - - 45

Rev. 2 / June 1995
.9
.7
Sphericity
.5
.3
.1 .3 .5 .7 .9
Roundness
Figure 5.4
Chart for Visual Estimates of Sphericity and Roundness of Sand Grains 3
Gravel Pack Sand Substitutes

Although naturally occurring quartz sand is the most common gravel pack material used, a number
of alternative materials for gravel pack applications exist. These alternative materials include
resin coated sand, garnet, glass beads, and aluminum oxides. Each of these materials offer
specific properties that are beneficial for given applications and well conditions. The cost of the
materials will range from 2 to 3 times the price of common quartz sand. Table 5.5 summarizes
the alternative gravel pack materials, their applications and limitations.
Resin coated gravel pack sand consist of standard gravel pack sand coated with a thin layer of
resin. When exposed to high temperatures, the resin cures resulting in a consolidated sand pack.
As discussed briefly in Chapter 4, resin coated gravel has been used on occasion as a sand
control technique. The primary application of resin coated sand is in prepacked screens as
discussed in Chapter 6.

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Table 5.3
Gravel-Pack Sand Substitutes
Resin Coated Gravel Used primarily in prepacked screens. Also used in thermal wells
where the resin is thought to protect the sand grains from
dissolution by high pH steam. High temperature required to cure
resin. Strength of consolidated pack is dependent on curing
temperature and time. Consolidated pack will lose compressive
strength when exposed to HCl-HF mud acid.
Garnet Complex silicate. High specific gravity (3.4 to 4.3). Primary

application is thermal wells due to resistance to dissolution by high
pH steam. Resistant to HCl-HF mud acid. Grains are angular
reducing permeability.
Glass Beads Processed product. Grains are extremely round. Permeability is

extremely high. Highly soluble in HCl-HF mud acid. Predecessor to
Aluminum Oxides.
Aluminum Oxides Processed product. Grains are extremely round. Permeability is

extremely high. Permeability of 20/40 mesh sample is ±400
darcies. Primary application is intermediate to high strength
proppants in hydraulic fracturing. Numerous proprietary
formulations are available. Moderately to highly soluble in HCl-HF
mud acid. Gravel packing applications include frac-packing and
thermal wells.
References
1. Saucier, R.J., “Considerations in Gravel Pack Design”, SPE Paper 4030, Journal of
Petroleum Technology (February 1974), 205-212.
2. “Recommended Practices for Testing Sand Used in Gravel Packing Operations”, American
Petroleum Institute, API Recommended Practice 58 (RP58), March 1986.
3. Krumbien W.C. and Sloss, L.L., Stratigraphy and Sedimentation, Second Edition, W.H.
Freeman and Company, 1963.
4. Sparlin, D.D., “Sand and Gravel - A Study of Their Permeabilities”, SPE Paper 4772, SPE
Symposium on Formation Damage Control, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 7-8,1974.
5. Gurley, D.G., Copeland, C.T., Hendrick, J.O. Jr., “Design, Plan, and Execution of Gravel-
Pack Operations for Maximum Productivity”, SPE Paper 5709, Journal of Petroleum
Technology (October 1977), 1259-1266.
6. Cocales, B., “Optimizing Materials for Better Gravel Packs”, World Oil (December 1992),
73-77.

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Chapter 6
SLOTTED LINERS AND WIRE WRAPPED SCREENS
Introduction
Wells conventionally completed in unconsolidated sandstone formations commonly produce a small
fraction of the formation material caused by viscous drag forces when reservoir fluids flow towards
the wellbore. The consequence of producing formation sand either fills surface facilities, erodes well
and surface equipment, or plugs the casing if the flow rate is low. Having to deal with the formation
material presents problems, particularly since it has no economic value but restricts a well’s ability to
produce at the reservoir capacity. Ways of coping with formation sand production involve economic,
operational, and technical issues. Sand production has to be dealt with either at the surface or
downhole. For most oil and gas operations, the continuous inspection of surface facilities and the
removal of formation material from production vessels is not acceptable, particularly in offshore
installations. Hence, the solution of choice has been to control sand downhole as a integral part of
the completion provided the productivity and longevity is acceptable.
Completion methods used to control the entry of formation sand into the wellbore have consisted of
using either plastic consolidation, resin-coated gravel, gravel packing, or using slotted
liners/wire-wrapped screens. Plastic consolidation has many economic, placement, and operational
limitations and is an unacceptable solution except in short, high-permeability intervals. On the other
hand, gravel packing can be used on almost any well. Both gravel packing and stand-alone screens
or slotted liners have been used for sand exclusion in horizontal wells.
Gravel packing consists of placing gravel in the annulus between the slotted liner or screen and the
formation to filter the solids from the reservoir fluids as illustrated in Figure 6.1. The gravel in this
case is no more than unconsolidated sand that has a median diameter that is typically 5 to 6 times
larger than the median size of the formation material. However, a retention device such as a slotted
liner or a wire-wrapped screen is used to hold the gravel in place and prevent gravel migration into
the wellbore. For most gravel packs, the slot width is typically about half the smallest gravel size.

Rev. 3 / March 6, 1997
Slotted Liners and Wire-Wrapped Screens Chapter 6
FIGURE 6.1
GRAVEL PACK SCHEMATIC
Slotted Liners
Slotted liners are used in gravel packed completions to prevent the production of gravel pack sand or
can be used in stand-alone service when the formation grain size is large. Slot widths are often
referred to in terms of “gage” or “gauge”. Slot or screen gage is simply the width of the opening in
inches multiplied by a 1,000. For instance, a 12 gage screen has openings of 0.012 inches.
Slotted liners are manufactured by machining slot openings through oil-field tubulars with small rotary
saws. Slotted liners are fabricated in a variety of patterns as illustrated in Figure 6.2. The minimum
slot widths that can be achieved is about 0.012 inches; however, slots widths cut below 0.030 inches
in thickness involve higher costs because of excessive machine down time to replace broken saw
blades that become overheated, warped and break. While the slotted liners are usually less costly
than wire-wrapped screens, they have a smaller inflow area and experience higher pressure drops
during production. Slotted liners also plug more readily than screens and are used where well
productivity is low and economics cannot support the use of screens.
The single slot staggered pattern is generally preferred because a greater portion of the original
strength of the pipe is preserved. The staggered pattern also gives a more uniform distribution of
slots over the surface area of the pipe. The single slot staggered pattern is slotted with an even
number of rows around the pipe with a typical 6 inch longitudinal spacing of slot rows.

Rev. 3 / March 6, 1997
6"
Horizontal Slotted Single Slotted Single Slotted Gang Slotted

Non-Staggered Rows Staggered Rows Staggered Rows
FIGURE 6.2
SLOTTED LINER GEOMETRIES
The slots can be straight or keystone shaped as illustrated in Figure 6.3. The keystone slot is
narrower on the outside surface of the pipe than on the inside. Slots formed in this way have an
inverted “V” cross-sectional area and are less prone to plugging since any particle passing through
the slot at the OD of the pipe will continue to flow through rather than lodging within the slot.
Straight Slot
Keystone Slot
FIGURE 6.3
STRAIGHT AND KEYSTONE SHAPED SLOTS
The length of the individual slots is gauged on the ID of the pipe. Usual practice dictates 1½ inch long
slots for slot widths 0.030” and under, 2 inch long slots for slot widths between 0.030 to 0.060 inches
and 2½ inch long slots for slot widths 0.060 inches and larger (see Figure 6.4). Slot width tolerance is
generally ±0.003 inches for widths 0.040 inches and wider and ±0.002 inches for widths less than
0.040 inches.

Rev. 3 / March 6, 1997
±3-1/8"
±2-1/2"
±2"
1-1/2"
2"
2-1/2"
FIGURE 6.4
STANDARD SLOT LENGTHS
Slotted liners are generally designed to have a 3 percent open area relative to the OD surface area of
the pipe although open areas up to 6 percent are feasible in some cases. The number of slots per
foot required to achieve a given open area is calculated with the equation below. Typical slot per
foot values for standard pipe sizes are given in Table 6.1. The equation below can be used to
determine the number of slots required to provide a desired inflow area.
12 π D C
N=
100W L
where: N = required slots/foot (if N < 32, round up to the nearest multiple of four, if N > 32,
round up to the nearest multiple of 8)
π = constant (3.1416)
D = outer diameter of pipe (inches)
C = required open area (percent)
W = slot width (inches)
L = length of slot measured on ID of pipe (inches)
Table 6.1
Slots Per Foot Required for 3% and 6% Flow Area in Common Liner Sizes
3½” Liner 4½” Liner 5½” Liner 7” Liner

Slot 3% 6% 3% 6% 3% 6% 3% 6%
2
Width (4.0 in /ft) (7.9 in2/ft) 2
(5.1 in /ft) (10.2 2
(6.2 in /ft) (12.4 2
(7.9 in /ft) (15.8
(inches) in 2/ft) in 2/ft) in 2/ft)
0.012 224 440 288 568 352 696 440 880
0.015 176 352 232 456 280 560 352 704
0.018 152 296 192 384 232 464 296 592
0.020 136 264 176 344 208 416 264 528
0.025 112 216 136 272 168 336 216 424
0.028 96 192 128 248 152 304 192 384
0.040 56 104 64 128 80 160 104 200
0.060 40 72 48 88 56 104 72 136
0.125 16 32 24 48 28 56 32 64
0.250 8 16 12 24 16 28 16 32

Rev. 3 / March 6, 1997
The slotting process reduces the tensile strength of the pipe. The tensile strength of a slotted liner
manufactured with a single slot staggered pattern can be estimated using the following equation.
 π (D 2 − d 2 ) NW(D − d) 
Tm = σ  − 
 4 4 
where: Tm = maximum allowable tension (pounds)

σ = tensile strength of pipe material (pounds per square inch)
π = constant (3.1416)
D = outer diameter of pipe (inches)
d = inner diameter of pipe (inches)
N = number of slots/foot
W = slot width (inches)
The primary advantage of slotted liner over wire wrapped screens is usually cost; however, certain
slotting geometry’s may cost almost as much as wire-wrapped screens. The disadvantages of slotted
liner are limited flow area (creating a low tolerance to plugging) and minimum available slot size
(approximately 0.012 inches). The practical minimum slot size is about 0.020 inch widths compared
to 0.006 inches for wire wrapped screen. In slot sizes less than 0.020 inches, the saw blades are thin
and blade breakage increases. Increased blade breakage adds time and cost to the manufacturing
process. The broken blades often wedge in the slot interfering with the available flow area. Another
potential problem with slot widths less than 0.020 inches cut in standard carbon steel pipe grades is
corrosion closing the slots or, in some cases, opening the slot width so that the liner does not control
sand.
Slotted liners should be deburred on the ID to remove burrs and other debris. Standard ID deburring
consists of a reamer which moves along the full inside diameter length of the pipe. Simultaneously, a
high volume, high velocity water spray directed at the outside of the pipe forces cuttings to the inside
of the pipe for removal by the reamer. This procedure removes approximately 95 percent of all burrs
and shavings. An additional procedure can be performed when installation of packers inside the
slotted liner is planned. After the standard deburring operation, the ID is hydro-blasted with a
combination of high pressure water and an abrasive. Hydro-blasting results in a smooth ID and the
removal of all burrs.
Wire-Wrapped Screens
Wire-wrapped screens offer another alternative for retaining the gravel in an annular ring between
the screen and the formation. The advantage of a wire-wrapped screen over a slotted liner is
substantially more inflow area as Figure 6.5 illustrates. The screen consists of an outer jacket which
is fabricated on special wrapping machines that resemble a lathe. The wire wrap is simultaneously
wrapped and welded to longitudinal rods to form a single helical slot. The jacket is subsequently
placed over and welded at each end to a supporting pipe base (containing drilled holes) to provide
structural support. This standard design is generic and is manufactured by several companies. A
schematic of the screen construction is shown in Figure 6.6.

Rev. 3 / March 6, 1997

Rev. 3 / March 6, 1997
32
n
28 ree
Sc
ld ed
24 ll We
)A
els
Effective Inlet Area

n
20 an
(ch
(Sq. in/ft)
ed
i bb
16 dR els
)
pe ann
ap (ch
Wr e en
12
W ire Scr
d
ove
Gro
i ne
8
M ach
4
Slotted Pipe
0
1" 1-1/2" 2-7/8" 4" 5" 6-5/8" 8-5/8"
Pipe Size
FIGURE 6.5
COMPARISON OF EFFECTIVE INLET AREAS (20 GAUGE SCREEN )
Wire Wrap
Rib(s)
Pipe Base
Fluid Flow
FIGURE 6.6
W IRE-W RAPPED SCREEN
A great deal is known about the performance properties of wire-wrapped screens since these
designs have been used for the past 20 years in worldwide oil field operations. The typical pipe-base
screen fabrication consists of a grade 316L stainless steel jacket placed over a N-80 pipe base;
however, other metallurgy can be specified as required for the site specific application.

Rev. 3 / March 6, 1997
A version of the wire-wrapped screen is the rod-based screen which consists of the jacket only;
however, rod-based screens may have additional, heavier rods and a heavier wire wrap than the
jackets used on pipe base screens to provide additional strength. Rod-based screens are commonly
used in shallow water-well completions which typically range from a few hundred to maybe a
thousand feet in depth. Water wells are almost always drilled vertically. Hence, they do not require
the strength that is gained by installing the screen jacket over a pipe base. Examples of pipe-base
and rod-base screens are illustrated in Figures 6.7 and 6.8. Figure 6.9 illustrates details of the jacket
and pipe-base construction.
FIGURE 6.7 FIGURE 6.8

ALL -W ELDED SCREEN (PIPE-BASE) ROD -BASE SCREEN
FIGURE 6.9
SCREEN JACKET AND PIPE-BASE CONSTRUCTION

Rev. 3 / March 6, 1997
Water wells that require sand control are not always gravel packed. While most high volume water
source wells are either developed or gravel packed to enhance longevity, many private wells that
supply water for single -family dwellings are equipped with a screen run across the uncased
completion interval (open hole). Slot sizing for these applications is usually about twice the formation
sand size at the ten (10) percentile point taken from a representative sieve analysis. Since single
phase water is produced from these wells, this design is usually satisfactory. Using stand-alone
slotted liners or wire-wrapped screens usually has not been acceptable in most oil or gas wells
because of multiphase flow complications and other factors that cause them to plug. The stand-alone
design has been more successful in horizontal wells, apparently because of low flow rates per foot of
completion interval that reduces the tendency of the screen to plug.
Prepacked Screens
Prepacked screens are a modification of existing wire-wrapped screens and represent a modular
gravel pack. They consist of a standard screen assembly with a layer of resin-coated gravel
(consolidated) placed around it which is contained in an annular ring supported by a second screen
(dual-screen prepack) or outer shroud (single -screen prepack). The thickness of the gravel layer can
be varied to meet special needs. The screens with the lowest profiles are those which contain an
annular pack between the jacket and the pipe base which has a thin lattice screen wrapped around it
to prevent gravel from flowing through the drill holes in the pipe base prior to consolidation
(SLIM-PAK™). Examples of prepacked screens are shown in Figure 6.10. They have been used
in conjunction with gravel packs instead of a wire-wrapped screen in addition to being used as stand
alone applications in horizontal wells.
Dual-Screen Prepack Single-Screen Prepack SLIM-PAK™
FIGURE 6.10
TYPES OF PREPACKED SCREENS

Rev. 3 / March 6, 1997
Screens, prepacked screens or slotted liners were the initial horizontal completion method used to
restrict the entry of formation sand into the well. Gravel packing horizontal wells has not been
performed until recently, as this technology was not thought to be available but is gaining acceptance.
However, within the past five (5) years several new screen designs have become available which are
designed to be used as stand-alone applications. The new generation of screens were developed to
address concerns that were perceived to be a problem with these completions; namely, plugging and
erosion before the wells were depleted. The new generation screens that typically fall into this
category include:
• SINTERPAK™ Screen (Halliburton)

• STRATAPAC® Screen (Pall Technology)
• CON-SLOT™ Screen (Filter and Sieve International)
• EXCLUDER™ Screen (Baker Hughes)
As mentioned earlier, a great deal is known about conventional screens and slotted liners since their
designs are standard and are manufactured by several companies. However, the special screen
designs listed above are fabricated by separate companies which in some cases have patented them.
There are numerous claims made about the advantages of the special screens; however, many of
these claims have not been documented, fully evaluated or verified with data or field experience.
Flow Capacities of Screens and Slotted Liners

Figures 6.11 through 6.15 show the pressure drop associated with standard slotted liners and
commercial wire-wrapped screens manufactured by several manufacturers. These flow capacity
tests were performed using water containing no plugging material. The data indicate that all screens
have exceptionally high flow capacities. Flow testing with slotted liners revealed that their flow
capacity was related to the slot density rather than the screen diameter (see Figure 6.11). Note that
the flow rates were measured in increments of barrel/day/ft of screen or slotted liner. For flow rates
that are typical of most wells, the pressure loss through the screen is negligible provided that they do
not plug. Testing has demonstrated that slotted liners are more easily plugged than wire-wrapped
screens since the slots are usually cut parallel. On the other hand wire-wrapped screens are
fabricated with keystone-shaped wire that allows a particle to pass through the screen if it can
traverse the minimum restriction at the OD of the screen. The keystone wire design can be
observed in Figures 6.5 and 6.8.
Completion Technology for Unconsolidated Formations 6 - 10

Rev. 3 / March 6, 1997
FIGURE 6.11
FLOW CAPACITY OF SLOTTED LINERS, 0.020 IN . SLOTS,
WITH 20/40 U.S. MESH GRAVEL

FLOW CAPACITY OF 12 GAUGE HOWARD SMITH FLOW CAPACITY OF 12 GAUGE JOHNSON SCREENS WITH
SCREENS WITH 20/40 U.S. MESH GRAVEL 20/40 U.S. MESH GRAVEL

Rev. 3 / March 6, 1997

FLOW CAPACITY OF 12 GAUGE BAKER SCREENS FLOW CAPACITY OF 12 GAUGE HOUSTON W ELL
WITH 20/40 U.S. MESH GRAVEL SCREENS WITH 20/40 U.S. MESH GRAVEL
Tensile Strengths of Screens with 10 round API Connections

Table 1 lists tensile test results performed on screens and slotted liners in standard test equipment
which reflects that standard pipe-base screens have higher tensile ratings than rod-base screens.
Most of the recorded failures in these tests were actually at the coupling. While testing demonstrated
that yielding occurred in the pipe body, the connection was also yielded. As a consequence, when
yielding in the connection caused a thread to jump, the test was terminated. Figure 6.16 is an
example of a typical failure where the pipe body was yielded but the failure was at the connection as
described above. Figure 6.17 represents a tensile failure of a standard rod-base screen which was
about half that of the pipe-base design for this particular product. These tests demonstrated that the
tensile strength of standard pipe-base screens easily surpassed the rod-base screens which is
probably the reason that the pipe-base screens are preferred. A comparison of the tensile strength
test results is shown in Table 6.2. All wire-wrapped screens were fabricated with grade 304
stainless steel wrapped on grade J-55 pipe.

Rev. 3 / March 6, 1997
TABLE 6.2
COMPARISON OF SCREEN -SLOTTED LINER TENSILE TESTS
OD ID Failure Stress
Screen (in.) (in.) Load (lb.) (psi) Type Failure
Howard Smith Wire-Wrapped 2-7/8 2.441 112,500 85,250 Coupling and screen
Howard Smith All-Welded 2-7/8 2.441 115,000 84,150 Coupling and screen
Howard Smith Wire-Wrapped 3½ 2.992 149,000 74,930 Coupling and screen
Howard Smith All-Welded 3½ 2.992 157,000 78,950 Coupling
Johnson Rod Base 2-7/8 2.441 48,250 -- Weld at coupling
Johnson Super-Weld 2-7/8 2.441 102,750 77,865 Coupling and screen
Johnson Rod Base 3½ 2.992 70,000 -- Weld at coupling
Johnson Super-Weld 3½ 2.992 149,500 75,180 Coupling and screen
Baker BAKERWELD® 2-7/8 2.441 102,500 77,675 Coupling and screen
Baker BAKERWELD® 3½ 2.992 145,000 72,915 Coupling and screen
Houston Slip-On 2-7/8 2.441 102,500 77,675 Coupling and screen
Houston Slip-On 3½ 2.992 150,000 75,430 Coupling and screen
Gang Slotted Liner 2-7/8 2.441 105,000 79,570 Coupling
Slotted Liner 2-7/8 2.441 100,500 76,160 Coupling

Rev. 3 / March 6, 1997
FIGURE 16 FIGURE 17
ALL -W ELDED SCREEN (PIPE-BASE) ROD -BASE SCREEN
TYPICAL TENSILE FAILURE TYPICAL TENSILE FAILURE
Collapse of Wire-Wrapped Screens and Slotted Liners

Collapse testing has shown that the collapse resistance of screens and slotted liners are related to the
size and weight of the pipe base and the standoff between the jacket and the pipe base. This testing
consisted of placing rubber sheathing around the screen and applying hydrostatic pressure until a
collapse failure occurred (see Table 6.3). For standard weight tubulars with a screen jacket that fits
snugly around the pipe base, the collapse failure pressure was about 50% higher than the collapse
rating of the pipe base. For jackets that fit loosely, a standoff of 0.150 inches or more, the collapse
failure pressure of the jacket was attained at 3,000 to 4,500 psi and was observed to deform against
the pipe base; however, the pipe base was not deformed. Figure 6.18 is an example of a collapsed
jacket with no pipe-base failure.

Rev. 3 / March 6, 1997
TABLE 6.3
W IRE-W RAPPED SCREEN /SLOTTED LINER COLLAPSE TEST RESULTS
Failure
Size Pressure
Manufacturer Screen (in.) (psi) Type Failure
Howard Smith Wire-Wrapped 2-7/8 9,000 No failure

(STANCLIFF™)
All-Welded 2-7/8 6,600 Screen
Wire-Wrapped 3½ 8,800 No failure
(STANCLIFF™)
All-Welded 3½ 5,300 Screen
Johnson Rod Base 2-7/8 5,200 Screen
All-Welded 2-7/8 7,000 Screen and pipe
(SUPER-WELD™)
Rod Base 3½ 4,500 Screen
(SUPER-WELD™)
Baker Hughes All-Welded 2-7/8 5,200 Screen
(BAKERWELD®)
(BAKERWELD®)
Houston All-Welded (SLIP-ON™) 2-7/8 10,000 No failure
All-Welded (SLIP-ON™) 3½ 4,200 Screen
Local Slotted Liner 2-7/8 9,200 Pipe
Slotted Liner 3½ 6,200 Pipe

Rev. 3 / March 6, 1997
FIGURE 6.18
ALL -W ELDED SCREEN
COLLAPSE FAILURE
Collapse testing of slotted liners showed that their collapse rating was equal to or greater than the
API collapse rating of the tubing. However, further examination showed that the slot openings were
forced to close prior to the collapse failure of the tubing. This phenomena does not occur for a drilled
pipe base used on wire-wrapped screens because the round holes distribute the compressive force
around the hole. The slot does not distribute the force and is compressed to the point that there is no
slot opening when a critical force is exceeded.
Strengths and Flow Capacities of Prepacked Screens

The performance of prepacked screens has also been evaluated in terms of their tensile ratings and
collapse resistance. The same recommendations are suggested for minimum tensile strengths and
collapse resistance as those listed for pipe-base screens when designing completions with prepacked
screens and with standard screen. For conservative designs, the tensile strengths should be either the
lesser of 65% of the pipe body strength or the joint pullout published for the connections. The
collapse ratings of 3,500 psi is suggested for conservative designs which represent a collapse of the
jacket only in spite of the fact that significantly higher collapse pressures have been recorded where
the jacket and the pipe base failed simultaneously. The flow capacities of prepacked screens are
slightly less than those measured for standard wire-wrapped screens and are a consequence of lower

Rev. 3 / March 6, 1997
inflow areas which average about 3 to 4% of the total screen area compared with inflow areas for
wire-wrapped screens that are typically over twice as high. However, the prepack material is
significantly more prone to plug than is a wire-wrapped screen because of the variable pore openings
that range from 40 to 200 microns depending on the grain size of the prepack material. Table 6.4
shows the pore size distribution of BAKERBOND® material for the various mesh sizes.
BAKERBOND® is a phenolic resin-coated gravel where the resin coating represents about five (5)
weight percent of the gravel.
TABLE 6.4
PORE SIZE ANALYSIS OF BAKERBOND™
Grain Size Pore Throat Pore Size

Proppant Type (U.S. Mesh) Opening (microns) (microns)
BAKERBOND 16/30 50-200 50-500
Resin Coated IP 20/40 40-120 50-400
BAKERBOND 12/20 40-200 50-700
BAKERBOND 20/40 40-90 50-400
BAKERBOND 40/60 30-60 20-200
Special Screen Designs

Recently developed, special designs are available. The discussion below is a brief assessment of the
particular designs. The new designs include:
• SINTERPAKTM - Halliburton
• STRATAPAK® - Pall Technology
• CON-SLOTTM - Filter and Sieve International
• EXCLUDERTM - Baker Hughes
These designs were primarily developed for stand-alone screen installations in horizontal wells rather
than in a gravel packed completion; however, gravel pack screen applications should not be ruled out.
The implications with all of these designs are that they are premium equipment that surpass the
performance of either a standard wire-wrapped screen or a prepacked screen in their ability to resist
plugging and erosion. Since horizontal completions typically consist of a thousand to several thousand
feet of completion interval, the main issue is the susceptibility of a particular design to plug with time
rather than the initial flow capacity. Other issues involve the ability to run the screen without creating
damage that would either prevent sand control or restrict productivity. Since these specialty screens
are run in long horizontal sections, non API or proprietary connections are typically used because of
their high strength and the ability to rotate if necessary.
The following discussion deals with the basic design and construction of the various special screens.
Guidelines are reviewed for assessing their tensile strengths and collapse resistance. Since these
screens are being used in many stand-alone applications, the results of in-house flow testing is
reviewed, which was designed to assess the ability of particular designs to resist plugging.

Rev. 3 / March 6, 1997
SINTERPAK™ Screens (Halliburton)

The SINTERPAK™ screen design was the first of the special screen designs and was developed in
about 1990. The design consists of placing a sintered metal sleeve which is 0.15 to 0.25 inches thick
over a drilled pipe base. The sintered metal sleeve contains approximately 30% flow area. The
sleeve acts as the filtration medium while the pipe base provides tensile strength and collapse
resistance. Figure 6.19 is a schematic of the SINTERPAK™ screen design. The pore size
distribution of the sintered metal is reported to be as follows:
SINTERPAK™ PORE T HROAT DISTRIBUTION

Smallest pore diameter 39 microns
Most frequent diameter 46 microns
Effective pore diameter 101 microns
Largest pore diameter 184 microns
FIGURE 6.19
SINTERPAK™ SCHEMATIC
Tensile strength and collapse resistance of SINTERPAK™ screens should be consistent with the
information provided in Tables 6.2 and 6.3. For conservative designs the tensile strength capabilities
should be the about 65% of the lesser of either the published pipe strength or the joint pull out of the
coupling. A conservative collapse rating should be similar to published values for wire-wrapped
screens listed in Appendix “A”, about 3,500 psi.

Rev. 3 / March 6, 1997
STRATAPAC® Screens (Pall)

The STRATAPAC® screen represents Pall Corporation’s sole well-screen product which has been
available since mid 1994. The screen design consists of multiple layers (3 or 4) of porous metal
membrane (PMM), which contains about 30% open area through variable sized pore openings,
between an underlying drainage and overlying protecting mesh screens which are placed
concentrically between a drilled pipe base and a perforated outer shroud. A schematic of the
screen’s construction is illustrated in Figure 6.20. Test data for STRATAPAC® screens shows
tensile strength testing performed to 110k lbs and a collapse test to about 7,000 psi performed on
2-7/8 inch screens, both of which reflect the strength of the pipe base. These data are similar to that
shown in Tables 6.2 and 6.3. For conservative designs, the tensile strength rating should be the lesser
of 65% the pipe body or the connection since physical properties of the screen jacket and perforated
shroud should not contribute to these properties significantly. At higher pressures there is a potential
for the PMM to crack or fail near unsupported pipe-base holes.
Protection
Layer
Drainage
Layer
Perforated
Outer Shroud
Filtration
Layers
Pipe Base
FIGURE 6.20
STRATAPAC SCHEMATIC
The filter medium for the screen is sintered metal powder that is pressed against a stainless steel
lattice screen which provides structural support for the filtration medium. The pore size distribution
of the PMM is listed below:

Rev. 3 / March 6, 1997
PORE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF

POROUS M ETAL M EMBRANE
Volumetric Distribution
µ m)
Size (µ (cc/micron cc)
16 5.86
25 7.90
30 9.33
40 12.92
50 15.67
60 15.19
70 14.60
80 12.92
90 12.50
100 11.96
110 10.53
120 8.73
150 4.97
170 3.23
CON-SLOT™ (Filter and Sieve International)

The CON-SLOT™ screens are available as rod-base or pipe-base designs; however, the promoted
design is a heavy-duty, rod-base screen which allows it to be handled like ordinary pipe. These
reports of high tensile strength and collapse ratings for these rod-based screens is accomplished by
fabricating the screen from large-diameter longitudinal rods spaced closely together around the ID of
the screen in addition to supplying wire wrap that is sometimes over twice the thickness of most
standard wire-wrapped screens. The screen appears to be a quality, heavy duty wire-wrapped, rod-
based screen. It is being promoted for use in open hole and horizontal completions as a stand-alone
method of controlling formation sand which is believed to be risky. For these reasons it is addressed
as a special screen design.
THE EXCLUDERTM
This is the newest of the special screen designs and consists of three layers of media that form the
jacket which are placed concentrically around a drilled pipe base. The base wrap for the jacket
consists of a round stainless steel wire-wrapped support and drainage layer for the overlying Vector
Weave filtration medium. The Vector Shroud is then placed concentrically over the Vector Weave.
See Figure 6.21 for a schematic of the EXCLUDER design.
The purpose of the base wrap or inner jacket is for base support for the overlying Vector Weave
against high differential pressure and also promotes using the Vector Weave’s entire surface area for

Rev. 3 / March 6, 1997
filtration which optimizes plugging resistance. The openings in the base wrap are typically about 25
µm or larger than the Vector Weave to provide secondary sand control. The Vector Weave
provides an inflow surface area that is comparable to that of the formation, about 30%. It contains
uniform pore throat openings which assist in maximizing the inflow area which develops a more
permeable filter cake. The design of the Vector Weave redirects the flow through it to minimize
erosion and extend screen life. The EXCLUDER™ design being offered for Gulf of Mexico service
is rated at a uniform pore-throat opening size of 110 µm; however, specific designs are available to
other site-specific applications, such as the North Sea (230 µm). The Vector Shroud protects the
inner Vector Weave during installation in the well and assists in redirecting the flow stream during
production so that erosion of the Vector Weave is minimized. Schematics of the EXCLUDER™
components and their effects of the flow stream during production are illustrated in Figures 6.21-6.23.
Base
Pipe
Drainage
Layer
Vector
Weave
Vector
Shroud
FIGURE 6.21
EXCLUDER™

Rev. 3 / March 6, 1997
Vector
Weave
Drainage
Layer

VECTOR SHROUD EXCLUDERTM JACKET AND PIPE BASE
The EXCLUDER™ has been performance tested to a collapse resistance of 6,000 psi, tensile tested
to 2% elongation and torque tested to 1°/ft deformation. A crush test where the EXCLUDER™
was deformed up to 60% of the original diameter was conducted prior to flow testing which showed
that after deforming the screen continued to provide sand control.
Plugging Tests on Wire-Wrapped Screens

Recently, in-house comparative testing has been performed on as many different screens that could
be obtained from U.S. manufacturers. Two types of flow tests were performed: a laboratory and
full-scale test.
The laboratory tests consisted of placing a 1.278 inch diameter test sample of a screen sample in a
test fixture, Figure 6.24, and flowing water at a rate of 500 ml/min which contained 1,500 ppm,
50/50 blend of A.C. coarse test dust and 70/140 U.S. mesh gravel. The test was terminated when
the injection pressure reached 100 psi. The flow time required to reach 100 psi was the time to plug
for these test conditions. The implications were that screens that plugged quickly had low plugging
resistance while those that plugged slowly had high resistance to plugging. Seven (7) screens were
tested:

Rev. 3 / March 6, 1997
1 110 micron EXCLUDER™ Screen

2 40/60 Mesh Consolidated Dual-Screen Prepack.
3 40/60 Mesh Consolidated Single -Screen Prepack
4 20/40 Mesh Consolidated Dual-Screen Prepack
5 20/40 Mesh Consolidated Single -Screen Prepack
6 SINTERPAK™ Screen
7 STRATAPAC® Screen (Tests performed with single and double layers of PMM)
The results of the laboratory scale tests are shown in Figure 6.25 and 6.26. The EXCLUDER™
screen was clearly more resistant to plugging than the other screens tested.
COMPUTER VALIDYNE
DATA PRESSURE
ACQUISITION TRANSDUCER
1/2 INCH BY 1.27 INCH

SPACER MIXER
(TOP & BOTTOM)
PERF. JACKET
(3/8” HOLES @ 0.1”
STANDOFF)
PUMP
SCREEN
SCREEN OVERBURDEN
SUPPORT PRESSURE
w/1/16” HOLES 200 PSI
FIGURE 6.24
HASSLER CELL CONFIGURATION - H20 WITH CONTAMINANT
120
120 Single Layer PMM®
40/60 SSPP Stratapac™
40/60 DSPP Test 1 and 2 Test 1 and 2
20/40 SSPP
100 Sinterpak
100 20/40 DSPP
80
80
Pressure (psig)
Pressure psi
110 micron EXCLUDERTM 110 micron EXCLUDER™

60
60
40
40
20
20
0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (min.)
Time (min)

Rev. 3 / March 6, 1997

SMALL SCALE LAB TESTS SMALL SCALE TEST RESULTS - H2O
WITH CONTAMINANT
Full-scale tests were also performed on 4 ft. long, 2-7/8 inch well screen samples placed in the test
fixture illustrated in Figure 6.27. All testing was performed at a flow rate of 55 gpm using the same
plugging materials and concentration listed for the laboratory-scale tests. Testing was suspended
when the upstream pressure reached 1,500 psi.
FIGURE 6.27
FULL SCALE CONFIGURATION - SIMULATED W ELLBORE
The results of these tests are illustrated in Figure 6.28 and show similar relative plugging resistance
as that recorded in the laboratory-scale tests. Figures 6.29 and 6.30 show the normalized plugging
resistance to the above screens in addition to regular wire-wrapped and SLIM-PAK™ screens.
Plotting the data in this manner may allow a more accurate, direct comparison of a screens
performance due to slight differences in screen length and pump rate fluctuations during specific test
runs. Regardless of which approach was taken, the EXCLUDER™ screen was observed to be the
most resistant to plugging.
1600 1600
SSPP 40/60 DSPP 40/60 . STRATAPAC™ EXCLUDER™
Consolidated STRATAPAC™ EXCLUDER™ SINTERPAK™
Consolidated SINTERPAK™
Consolidated
SSPP 40/60
Consolidated
1400
DSPP 40/60
1400
1200
1200
1000
Pressure (psig)
1000
Pressure (psig)
800
800
600
600
400
400
200
200
0
0 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 Lbs. Sand / Square Ft. of Screen
Time (min.)

FULL SCALE TEST RESULTS (TIME) FULL SCALE TEST RESULTS (LBS.)

Rev. 3 / March 6, 1997
1600
4 ga. Bakerweld®
8 ga. Bakerweld®
Failure -Erosion
1400
Failure -Consolidated Material
1200 Slim-Pak 

12/20 Consolidated Gravel
Pressure (psig)
1000 Slim-Pak™
20/40 Consolidated Gravel
800 Slim-Pakä
16/20 Consolidated Carbo-Lite
600
400
200
0
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00
Lbs. Sand / Square Foot of Screen
FIGURE 6.30
FULL SCALE TEST RESULTS
Figure 6.30 also shows that 4 and 8 gauge wire-wrapped screens were also tested. While plugging
occurred rapidly on the 4 gauge screen, the 8 gauge screen required significantly more time to plug.
The 8 gauge supported more plugging material per foot of screen but likely also passed more material
through it. The implications here is that regular wire-wrapped screen should also be considered for
stand-alone applications. We disagree with this strategy; however, upon observing the slot opening of
these screens after the test, screen erosion was detected and is illustrated in Figure 6.31. Careful
observations revealed that certain sections of the screen had been eroded, namely intervals where the
screen is welded to the longitudinal rods. While the erosion observed here was enhanced by small
irregularities in the slot width, oversizing a stand-alone, wire-wrapped screen would have the same
effect since some material will pass through the screen and erode it. Hence, it would appear that
relying solely on the wire wrap to provide long-term sand control primarily has application in uniform,
large grained formations. Applied to other situations, a stand-alone wire-wrapped screen appears to
be risky.

Rev. 3 / March 6, 1997
FIGURE 6.31
EXAMPLE OF AN ERODED SCREEN
Erosion Tests
When water was the test fluid, screen erosion was noted with the wire-wrapped screens mentioned
on the preceding page. Erosion tends to be much more serious when fluids are in a turbulent flow
regime (Reynolds numbers > 2,100). To evaluate the erosion resistance of screens, testing was
performed using compressed air as the flow medium which contained 30/100 mesh sand blast
material about 10% of which were fines smaller than 60 mesh. The test consisted of placing a one-
foot screen sample in the fixture schematic shown in Figure 32 and flowing air and blast sand through
a port containing a 0.25-inch choke to simulate a perforation tunnel opposite the screen. The flow
rate through the port was 49 cubic feet per minute at 60 psi containing the blast sand conveyed into
the flow stream at a rate of 25 lb/min. Assuming that a well was perforated 12 shots/foot this
equates to a flow rate of about 4.3 mmscf/day/ft. This rate was not meant to replicate any particular
field condition. In fact it is considered to be on the high end of observed flow rates and sand
production, but allowed comparisons in erosion resistance to be made quickly since the test duration
was typically 2 minutes.
FIGURE 6.32
EROSION TEST FIXTURE SCHEMATIC
Screens subjected to testing were :

1. BAKERWELD® - 2 gauge (50 µm)
2. BAKERWELD® - 8 gauge (200 µm)
3. SLIM-PAK™ (40/60 mesh)
4. EXCLUDER™ (110 micron)
5. Multi-Layered Sintered Membrane

Rev. 3 / March 6, 1997
Observations from these tests showed that:

• BAKERWELD® Screen - Experienced severe erosion of the wire wrap in less than one minute
(see Figure 6.33).
• SLIM-PAK™ Screen (40/60 mesh) - The wire wrap showed excessive erosion and most of
the consolidated material was removed but the test fixture sanded up before complete failure
(see Figure 6.34).
• EXCLUDER™ 110 Screen - Minor erosion of the Vector Shroud. Vector Weave and
underlying support wire were unaffected (see Figure 6.35).
• Multi-Layered Sintered Membrane - Slight erosion of the perforated shroud. Four (4) holes
eroded through the Multi-Layered Sintered Membrane opposite the drill holes in the perforated
shroud (see Figure 6.36).
Testing showed that the EXCLUDER™ screen was the most erosion resistant of the screens tested.
Implications of these results suggest that the Vector Shroud is a key element in screen design in that
it resists erosion and thereby protects the inner filtration layer.

BAKERWELD® EROSION TEST SAMPLE SLIM-PAK™ EROSION TEST SAMPLE

Rev. 3 / March 6, 1997
FIGURE 6.36
FIGURE 6.35 MULTI -LAYERED SINTERED MEMBRANE
EXCLUDER™ EROSION TEST SAMPLE EROSION TEST SAMPLE
Conclusions
The flow capacities of wire-wrapped screens are substantially higher than those of slotted liners
owing to the higher inflow areas of wire-wrapped screens.
The flow capacities, tensile strengths and collapse resistance of standard wire-wrapped screens of
the same size and design are similar.
Prepacked screens with similar designs and dimensions also have approximately the same tensile
strength, collapse resistance and flow capacity. However, the flow capacity of prepacked screens is
lower than the wire-wrapped screens because of slightly less inflow area as a consequence of some
resin-coated gravel in the slot openings.
The tensile strengths and collapse resistance of SINTERPAK™, STRATAPAC®, and

EXCLUDER™ screens are similar for identical pipe-base dimensions.
Comparative flow tests designed to evaluate the plugging resistance of standard and specialty
screens has clearly demonstrated that the EXCLUDER™ screen is significantly more resistant to
plugging than the other screens tested .
Comparative erosion tests showed that the EXCLUDER™ screen was the most erosion resistant of
the screens tested. Implications were that the Vector Shroud is a key element minimizing erosion.

Rev. 3 / March 6, 1997
Chapter 7
GRAVEL PACK COMPLETION EQUIPMENT
AND SERVICE TOOLS
Introduction
There are numerous types, combinations and systems of gravel pack completion equipment
available to handle virtually any conceivable well conditions. Illustrated in Figure 7.1 are typical
offshore gravel pack completions in cased and open hole. The completions, as illustrated, make
use of crossover type circulating gravel pack technology which is considered state-of-the-art in
the industry today. This chapter outlines the functions of the individual system components and
basic equipment design criteria.
Gravel Pack Completion Equipment

Gravel pack completion equipment is defined as the equipment that remains in the well as part of
the completion after the gravel placement operations are complete. The equipment discussed
below does not represent all the types of equipment that are available, but does represent a typical
gravel pack completion. The equipment design recommendations discussed below are just that -
recommendations. It is important to remember that certain well conditions may require
compromises in the type and design of gravel pack equipment that can be run. The compromises
must be made in light of the risks they create and certain compromises will be preferable to
others. Another important concept to remember is that there may be several different, yet equally
effective, ways to complete a well.
Sump Packer. The first step in installing a gravel pack completion is to establish a base. In
cased hole completions, the most common type base is a sump packer. The sump packer is
normally run into the well on electric wireline prior to perforating and is set a specified distance
below the lowest planned perforation. The distance below the perforations must accommodate
the length of the seal assembly and production screen overlap. The sump packer is normally set 5
to 10 feet below the lowest perforation.
In most cases, the sump packer is a permanent seal bore type packer like the Baker Model “D”
or “F” Retainer Production Packer as illustrated in Figure 7.2. Retrievable seal bore packers like
the Model “SC-1” Packer can also be used. In the case of multiple zone gravel packs, the gravel
pack packer for the lower zone can be spaced out to serve as the sump packer for the upper
zone. The advantage of using a sump packer compared to other techniques is that the packer
provides access to the bottom of the well as a sump for debris left or dropped in the hole. The
sump also facilitates the running of production logs below the producing interval to monitor oil, gas
and water contacts.

Rev.3/ March 1997
Gravel Pack Completion Equipment and Service Tools Chapter 7
Figure 7.1
Typical Gravel Pack Completion Equipment in Cased and Open Holes

Rev.3/ March 1997
Setting Sleeve
Left-Hand Square Thread
Locating Shoulder
Body Lock Ring
Upper Slips
Polished Bore
Packing Element
Lower Slips
Figure 7.2
Model “D” Sump Packer
Although sump packers are the preferred gravel pack base, other options such as a bridge plug or
cement plug can be used. In open hole completions, provisions for a debris sump or logging
access can be achieved, but are not routine; therefore, the gravel pack base is normally a bull plug
on the bottom of the screen. The types of common gravel pack bases are illustrated in Figure 7.3.
Screen Screen
Seal Assembly Bull Plug

Sump Packer Bridge Plug
Sump Packer and Seal Assembly Bull Plug on Bridge Plug
Screen
Bull Plug
Screen
Cement Plug
Bull Plug
Bull Plug on Cement Plug Bull Plug in Open Hole
Figure 7.3
Types of Gravel Pack Bases

Rev.3/ March 1997
Seal Assembly. The seal assembly is required to establish a seal in the bore of the sump packer
to prevent gravel pack sand from filling the bottom of the well during gravel packing. In the case
of multiple gravel packs, the seal is required for zonal isolation. The seal assembly used to engage
the sump packer is normally a snap latch type or a multiple indicating type as illustrated in
Figure 7.4.
Collapsible Threaded
Lat ch
Loca ting Shoulder
Molded Seals
Model ‘S-22’ Snap Latch Model ‘S-22’ Multiple Acting

Seal Assembly Indicator Seal Assembly
Figure 7.4
Seal Assemblies for Engaging Sump Packer
The snap latch type seal assembly has threaded fingers that collapse inward as it contacts the top
of the packer. When the assembly is fully lowered into the sump packer, the threaded fingers
expand and engage the left-hand square threads in the top of the sump packer. Approximately
2000 pounds of set down weight is required to snap into the packer and 8,000 to 12,000 pounds
are required to snap out. This tool can be snapped in and out of the sump packer as required, to
verify that the gravel pack assembly is properly positioned. The snap out force will be reduced
with repeated actuations.
The multiple acting indicator type seal assembly provides the most positive sump packer locating
device. This tool incorporates a locating shoulder at the top with an indicating collet spaced out a
known distance below. Approximately 2000 to 4000 pounds of set down weight is required to
force the indicating collet through the packer bore. The tool is lowered until the locating shoulder
contacts the top of the sump packer giving a positive set down weight indication. To verify that
the seal assembly is in the sump packer, the tool is raised until the indicating collet contacts the
bottom of the packer. Overpull of 6,000 to 15,000 pounds (depending on tool size ) is possible to
give a positive pick up weight indication. The tool may be raised and lowered between the upper
and lower indicating positions with a known amount of stroke in between to provide an extremely
positive indication that the seal assembly is engaged in the sump packer. The multiple acting

Rev.3/ March 1997
indicator type seal assembly is especially beneficial in highly deviated wells or wells completed
with a floating vessel. The multiple acting indicator type seal assembly should only be used with
permanent type packers since the indicating collet can actuate the release mechanisms on some
retrievable type packers. Since the tool extends below the packer when engaged, it is not used in
upper gravel pack completions in multiple zone wells.
Gravel Pack Screen. The purpose of the gravel pack screen is to create the annulus that is
filled with gravel pack sand and act as a filter to ensure the gravel pack sand is not produced..
As discussed in Chapter 6, there are several different types of screens and slotted liners available
for gravel pack applications. The gage of the screen is determined by the size of the gravel pack
sand as discussed in Chapters 5 and 6. This section discusses recommendations on centralization,
length and maximum screen OD, and is applicable for all slotted liner and screen types.
Screen Centralization. Filling the annulus between the screen/casing (or open hole)
with gravel pack sand is essential to the control of formation sand production. To ensure
that the annulus is properly filled completely around the screen, centralization of the
screen is required. In cased hole completions, weld-on blade type centralizers are
normally used. The blades are cut from .25 to .50 inch thick plate steel and are
approximately 6 inches long. The edges of the centralizers are beveled to ensure easy
run-in. The centralizers consist of four blades welded to the screen base pipe 90° apart
to result in an OD approximately 0.25 inches under the ID of the well’s casing. The
centralizers are spaced 15 to 20 feet apart and can be positioned at the top, bottom
and/or middle of a screen joint as required.
In open hole gravel packs, centralization is accomplished with bow spring type
centralizers. These centralizers consist of a top and bottom collar connected with
4 to 6 steel spring bows. The bows can be compressed (i.e., centralizer is elongated) for
running through restricted ID’s. When the centralizer enters a larger ID, the bows
attempt to expand to their original position resulting in a centralization or restoring force.
Sufficient centralizers are required such that the combined restoring force is capable of
lifting the weight of the screen in the given hole conditions. Computer programs are
available for determining optimum centralizer spacing for a specific bow spring
centralizer, hole size and deviation.
The collars used on bow spring centralizers can be a slip-on or hinged type and are sized
to fit around the base pipe of the screen. Depending on the centralizer spacing required,
special screen lengths may be needed to accommodate the collars. When running in the
hole, it is important that the centralizers are “pulled” in as opposed to being “pushed”.
This is accomplished by fixing the position of the lower collar with set screws or by
attaching it below a pipe coupling such that the centralizer elongates in the upward
direction while going in the hole. Again, special screen design may be required to
accommodate the elongation of the centralizers. Special combination type bow spring
centralizers are available where the bottom collar fits on the base pipe and the top collar
fits around the screen jacket to eliminate the amount of blank pipe required for
centralizer elongation.

Rev.3/ March 1997
Screen Length. In cased hole completions, the length of the screen is generally
selected to result in approximately 5 to 10 feet of overlap below and above the gross
perforated interval. This overlap ensures that the entire perforated interval is covered by
screen and will compensate for any minor space-out discrepancies. Additional overlap is
often used above the gross perforated interval, but the benefits of the additional screen
overlap is arguable. In open hole completions, the screen length is designed to cover
from the bottom of the hole to approximately five feet below the casing shoe. There is a
tendency for a void or a washout to occur directly beneath the shoe when drilling
through it This void can be difficult to gravel pack effectively. To prevent sand
production from this void, blank pipe is run in this area.
Screen Diameter. For cased hole completions, the screen OD should be selected to
provide an optimum annular gravel pack as well as provide for fishability in the event the
gravel pack must be retrieved from the well. In most cases, maintaining a minimum
annular clearance of 0.75 to 1.0 inches between the screen OD and casing ID is
sufficient to accomplish both a good annular pack and fishability. In underreamed open
hole completions, a minimum annular clearance of 0.75 to 1.0 inches between the screen
OD and casing ID above the open hole is recommended. For open holes that are not
underreamed, a minimum annular clearance of 0.75 to 1.0 inches between the screen
OD and hole ID is recommended. Available washover pipe for fishing operations may
influence the maximum screen OD selected.
Blank Pipe. The purpose of blank pipe is to provide a reservoir of gravel pack sand to ensure
that the screen remains completely packed in the event of pack settling. During gravel pack
operations it is possible for minor voids in the annulus pack to occur. In fact, gravel packing with
viscous gel carrier fluids will always result in minor voids, particularly opposite the short lengths of
blank pipe between screen joints. Depending on deviation angle, pack settling shortly after gravel
placement will fill these voids, but it is important to have a sufficient reserve of gravel pack sand
available for this process to occur without uncovering the top of the screen.
Blank Pipe Centralization. As with screen, the blank pipe needs to be centralized to
ensure even gravel distribution in the blank and casing annulus. Weld-on centralizers are
normally used in both cased hole and open hole completions since the blank pipe is
almost always positioned inside the casing. Bow spring centralizers can be used if
desired or required.
Blank Pipe Length. Several rules of thumb exist for determining the length of blank
pipe required when using viscous gel carrier fluids. Perhaps the most scientific method
would be to recognize that voids will occur within the length of screen wherever non-
screen exists (i.e., screen joint connections, etc.). A long-standing guideline for gravel
reserve has been to maintain a minimum of 30 feet of packed gravel in the blank pipe
above the top of the screen. By adding this number to the total length of non-screen
within the length of screen, a minimum value of packed blank pipe required can be
determined. Recognizing that packing of the blank pipe when using viscous gel carrier
fluids occurs by sand settling, the length of blank pipe must be increased based on the
settling factor associated with the gravel concentration used as illustrated in Figure 7.5.
This logic is shown in the following equation:

Rev.3/ March 1997
Lns + 30
Lb =
SF
where: Lb = minimum length of blank required (feet)

Lns = length of non-screen within the screen section (feet)
SF = settling factor for gravel pack sand in viscous gel carrier fluids
(fraction)
From this equation it can be seen that as the length of non-screen within the screen
section increases and/or the settling factor decreases, the minimum recommended length
of blank pipe required will also increase. Notwithstanding the above calculation, a
minimum of 90 feet of blank pipe should be run, if possible, when using viscous gel
carrier fluids.
80
70
60
Settling Factor (%)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Gravel Loading (ppg)
Figure 7.5
Settling Factor for Gravel in Viscous Gel Slurries
The length of blank pipe required when using non-viscosified brine carrier fluids is
determined differently than when using viscous gel carrier fluids. With brine carrier
fluids, filling of the blank pipe and casing annulus occurs by mechanical placement
versus settling. Darcy’s Law for linear flow can be used to calculated the amount of
blank filled since it is possible to pump through a packed gravel column with brine. The
applicable equation is:

Rev.3/ March 1997
0.00078kA (p s − p i )
h=
µq
where: h = gravel height above top of screen (feet)

k = permeability of gravel pack sand (darcies)
A = flow area in casing/blank annulus (square feet)
ps = sand-out pressure (pounds per square inch)
pi = initial circulating pressure at sand-out rate (pounds per square inch)
µ = completion fluid viscosity (centipoise)
q = sand-out pump rate (barrels per minute)
For given job parameters, a sand-out rate and pressure can be determined to result in the
desired amount of packed gravel above the top of the screen. In most cases, a gravel
height of 60 feet is easily achieved with reasonable sand out rates and pressures;
therefore blank pipe lengths of 60 to 90 feet are common. It should be noted that the
voids opposite screen connections that occur with viscous gel carrier fluids are not seen
with brine carrier fluids.
Blank Pipe Diameter. For practical reasons, the blank pipe diameter is selected to be
the same size as the base pipe of the screen. This prevents a drastic change in annular
flow area at the blank pipe and screen interface. Alternately, larger blank pipe sizes can
be used to more closely match the OD of the blank pipe with the OD of the screen.
This should be considered when running Dual Screen Prepacks or Single Screen
Prepacks whose OD is relatively large compared to the ID. The use of too small of
blank pipe OD can result in the formation of a bridge at the top of the screen during the
gravel pack due to the severe change in OD profile and corresponding change in flow
area.
Shear-Out Safety Joint. A Shear-Out Safety Joint (SOSJ) consists of a top and bottom sub
connected by a number of shear screws (see Figure 7.6). This device is incorporated in most
gravel pack completion assemblies to allow retrieval of the gravel pack packer and extension
independently of the blank pipe and screen. The SOSJ is parted with straight tension to shear the
screws while pulling the packer with the packer retrieving tool. After removing the packer, the
blank pipe and screen may then be washed over and retrieved using routine fishing techniques. If
a SOSJ is not run, the blank pipe below the packer must be cut to allow retrieval of the packer.
The shear pins used in the SOSJ must support the weight of the blank pipe and screen with a
generous safety factor. The limitations of the workstring that will be used to retrieve the packer
should also be considered when selecting a shear rating. Standard shear ratings are adjustable
between 44,800 and 80,640 pounds depending on the size of the tool. The top and bottom subs
are rotationally locked to allow torque transmission if required. SOSJ’s are not normally used
when running permanent style gravel pack packers or when running extremely long and heavy
gravel pack assemblies. Because these tools do shear with upward tension, gravel pack
assemblies are normally set in compression to insure they do not shear when gravel packing
pressures are applied.

Rev.3/ March 1997
Figure 7.6
Model “GPR-6” Shear-Out Safety Joint
Knock-Out Isolation Valve. The Knock-Out Isolation Valve (KOIV) is a mechanical fluid loss
device that prevents completion fluid losses and subsequent damage to the formation after
performing the gravel pack. The downward closing flapper in the KOIV is held open by the
gravel pack service tools (normally the wash pipe) during the gravel pack. When the service tools
are pulled out of the KOIV, the flapper closes preventing fluid loss to the formation (see Figure
7.7). The gravel pack service tools can be removed from the well and the completion tubing run.
Under producing conditions the flapper will open. Alternatively, the flapper is made of a
breakable material and can be broken hydraulically or mechanically prior to producing the well.

Rev.3/ March 1997
Washpipe
Curved Flapper
Housing
Figure 7.7
Model “C” Knock-Out Isolation Valve
Gravel Pack Extension. Gravel pack extensions are used in conjunction with the gravel pack
packer and service tools to provide a flow path from the tubing above the packer to the
screen/casing annulus below the packer. The gravel pack extension consists of the upper
extension (which contains flow ports for the gravel pack fluids), seal bore (sized to match the bore
of the gravel pack packer) and lower extension (to house the gravel pack crossover tool
throughout its range of motion). The length of the gravel pack extension is carefully designed to
work with a particular gravel pack packer and crossover tool. Gravel pack extensions are
available in two types, perforated and sliding sleeve (see Figure 7.8). In a perforated gravel pack
extension, the upper extension simply has drilled holes for fluid exit. These holes should be
isolated during the well production with a seal assembly as a precaution to prevent any gravel
production. In a sliding sleeve gravel pack extension, the holes in the upper extension are open
during the gravel pack but isolated with a sliding sleeve that is closed by a shifting tool when the
gravel pack service tools are pulled out of the well.

Rev.3/ March 1997
Upper Extension
Gravel Pack Ports
Sliding Sleeve
Seal Bore Sub
Lower E xtension
Model “S” Perforated Model “S” Gravel Pack Extension

Gravel Pack Extension With Sliding Sleeve
Figure 7.8
Gravel Pack Extensions
Gravel Pack Packer. At the top of the gravel pack assembly is a gravel pack packer. This
packer may be permanent or retrievable. However, retrievable type packers are recommended
for gravel pack applications. Because gravel packing is a complex completion operation, failures
during initial gravel placement or during the life of the reservoir can occur. A retrievable packer
expedites workover activities without the potential cost and risk of milling a permanent packer.
The retrievable packers used for gravel packing are seal bore type packers such as the Model
“SC-1” Packer (see Figure 7.9). In addition to facilitating gravel pack operations the packer can
be used for production; therefore, the packer must be designed for the temperature, pressure and
environmental conditions present in the well.
The standard features of the Model “SC-1” are:

• Retrievable with straight pull releasing tool.
• Withstands differential pressures up to 6000 pounds per square inch from above or below
and temperatures up to 250°F.
• Sets with a hydraulically actuated setting tool with no rotation required.

Rev.3/ March 1997
• Can be easily modified for use in hostile environments and thermal applications.
• Can be easily milled in emergency situations due to cast iron construction above the slips.
• Single, cup forming packing element facilitates milling by eliminating metal spacers as
found in other retrievable packers.
• Available for most casing sizes.
The Model “SC-2” Packer and Model “HP-1” Packer are higher pressure versions of the Model
“SC-1” Packer and are intended for gravel packing in more severe well environments. The
Model “SC-2” Packer can withstand 7,000 to 9,000 pounds per square inch differential pressure
and 350°F. The model “HP-1” packer can withstand 10,000 to 12,000 pounds per square inch
differential pressure and 450°F. These packers function identically to the Model “SC-1” Packer,
but have more sophisticated packing element systems and more rigorous material specifications to
withstand higher temperatures and pressures.
Setting Sleeve
Left Ha nd Sq uare T hrea ds

Locating Sh ou lder
Bod y Lo ck Ring
Packing Eleme nt
Polishe d B ore
Up per C one
Bi-Directio nal Slip s
Lo wer Con e
R etrieving Coll et
Co llet Sup p ort Rin g
Figure 7.9
Model “SC-1” Gravel Pack Packer
Gravel Pack Service Tools

Gravel pack service tools are defined as the equipment necessary to perform the gravel pack, but
which are removed from the well after gravel packing. In most cases, the service tools required
for a gravel pack are dictated by the type of gravel pack equipment used. Further discussion of
the service tools follows.

Rev.3/ March 1997
Hydraulic Setting Tool. The hydraulic setting tool is basically a hydraulic piston that generates
the force required to set the gravel pack packer (see Figure 7.10). It is attached to the top of the
crossover tool and has a sleeve shouldered against the setting sleeve of the packer. A setting ball
is dropped to the ball seat in the crossover tool to plug off the ID of the workstring. Applied
pressure to the workstring acts on a piston in the hydraulic setting tool to force the sleeve down to
compress the slips and packing element of the packer. Special versions of the setting tool are
available which allow for rotation and high circulating rates while running the gravel pack
assembly.
Figure 7.10
Model “SC” Hydraulic Setting
Tool
Gravel Pack Crossover Tool. The gravel pack crossover tool creates the various circulating
paths for fluid flow during the gravel packing operation. It consists of a series of molded seals
surrounding a gravel pack port midway down the tool and a return port near the top of the tool
(see Figure 7.11). A concentric tube design in the crossover tool along with the gravel pack
packer and gravel pack extension allow fluid pumped down the workstring above the packer to
“crossover” to the screen/casing annulus below the packer. Similarly, return fluids flowing up the
washpipe below the packer can “crossover” to the workstring/casing annulus above the packer.

Rev.3/ March 1997
Latch
Return Port
Molded Seals
Latch Suppor t
S leeve
Ball Seat
Gravel P ack Port
fh3
Figure 7.11
Model “S2H” Gravel Pack Crossover Tool
Mechanically, the crossover tool carries the weight of the gravel pack assembly into the well via a
left hand square thread connection to the top of the gravel pack packer’s seal bore. The
crossover tool also contains the ball seat to allow pressuring of the workstring to set the packer.
After setting the packer, workstring pressure is increased to blow the ball into a sump area below
the gravel pack ports of the crossover tool. At this time the crossover tool can be released from
the left-hand square thread of the packer. Crossover tools are supplied with either a rotational
release or a hydraulic release. The mechanical release requires 10 to 12 rotations to the right at
the packer with slight upstrain. The hydraulic releasing mechanism is actuated by pressure in the
workstring/casing annulus. The mechanical release may be used as a backup to the hydraulic
release.

Rev.3/ March 1997
Gravel pack crossover tools have three positions - squeeze, circulating, and reverse circulating as
illustrated Figure 7.12. The squeeze position is found by setting down weight on the packer to
seal the return ports in the packer bore. The squeeze position allows all fluids pumped down the
workstring to be forced into the formation and is used to perform squeeze gravel pack treatments
and/or inject acid treatments into the formation. The circulating position is located by picking the
crossover tool up approximately 18 inches above the squeeze position. The circulating position
works in conjunction with properly sized washpipe to provide a flow path to circulate gravel pack
sand to completely fill the screen/casing annulus. The flow path is down the workstring, into the
crossover tool, out the gravel pack extension, down the screen/casing annulus, into the sreen, up
the washpipe, into the crossover tool again, and up the workstring/casing annulus.
Figure 7.12
Gravel Pack Crossover Tool Positions

Rev.3/ March 1997
The reverse circulating position is found by pressuring the workstring/casing annulus to

approximately 500 pounds per square inch and slowly raising the gravel pack crossover tool until
circulation up the workstring is seen. The reverse circulating position allows excess gravel pack
sand to be reversed out the workstring at the conclusion of gravel pack operations. A rubber
coated “low bottom hole pressure ball” or “reversing ball” placed in the bottom sub of the
crossover tool acts as a check valve to prevent fluid losses to the formation while reverse
circulating. In actual operations, the positions of the crossover tool are located and the workstring
is marked at surface for easy reference prior to starting the gravel pack.
Variations of the gravel pack crossover tool exist for special applications. One variation
incorporates a rotational lock feature to allow right-hand rotation to be applied through to the
gravel pack assembly while running in the well. The rotational lock feature is used primarily in
highly deviated wells where high frictional drag may be encountered. Other variations allow
circulating straight through the crossover tool while running in the well. This feature is beneficial
in removing fill without making a special clean-out trip. Still other variations are adapted to work
in conjunction with floating rigs.
Shifting Tool. The shifting tool is run below the gravel pack crossover tool and is used to open
and close the sliding sleeve in the gravel pack extension (see Figure 7.13). The tool is basically a
collet designed to catch the fingers of the sliding sleeve and shift it closed with upward movement
or open with downward movement. The shifting tool is only required if running the gravel pack
extension with sliding sleeve.

Rev.3/ March 1997
Figure 7.13
Model “S-1” Shifting Tool
Washpipe. Washpipe is run below the gravel pack crossover tool or shifting tool inside the blank
pipe and screen to insure that the return circulation point for the gravel pack carrier fluid is at the
bottom of the screen. This assists in getting gravel pack sand to the bottom of the screen and
packing in a bottom up fashion. The end of the washpipe should be positioned as close to the
bottom of the screen as possible.

Rev.3/ March 1997
Research1,2 indicates that maximizing the washpipe OD increases the resistance to flow in the
washpipe/screen annulus. The greater resistance to flow forces the gravel pack carrier fluid to
flow in the screen/casing annulus and carry the gravel pack sand to the bottom of the well. By
accomplishing this, gravel packing of the screen/casing annulus is more complete. Based on the
experiments, the optimum ratio of washpipe OD to screen base pipe ID should be approximately
0.8. Achieving this ratio in some screen sizes will require the use of special flush joint washpipe
connections.

Rev.3/ March 1997
HIGH RATE, HIGH PRESSURE TOOLS
Introduction
The previous section described the tools and equipment used in standard water, or brine-based
gravel pack operations. This section describes the design philosophy behind the new gravel pack
tools designed to be used with all current gravel pack pumping and placement technologies in use
today. This analysis was undertaken to insure Baker’s tools are able to provide the service
required, no matter what pumping treatment is selected. Since current state-of-the-art pumping
treatments are normally pumped at higher rates and pressures than considered the norm just a
few years ago, it became imperative that the downhole life of all components was maximized, and
that we understood the wear mechanisms involved. In other words, we wanted to determine the
safe operating envelopes for the critical downhole tools -- the ones which are likely to experience
the highest degree of erosion during a typical pumping treatment. We also wanted to know what
the friction pressure drop across the downhole assembly would typically be so we could better
evaluate treatment results. Finally, and perhaps, most importantly, we wanted to be able to
positively ensure the position of the service tool string at all times, in order to make sure the
pumped treatment goes where it is intended.
Operating Envelope -- Crossover Port

During the initial scoping of our tool enhancement re-design project, it was determined that the
critical component, as far as erosion at high rates and pressures is concerned, is the crossover
port in the crossover tool. This is the point from which the well treatment slurry exits the tubing
string into the screen/casing annulus. Historically, the port has exhibited critical levels of erosion
while the remainder of the tool string showed little, if any, erosion (see Figure 7.14).
Consequently, we identified as critical the capability to know “how much is enough”. The
purpose of determining an expected operating envelope, under a given set of input parameters
such as rate, pressure, volume, proppant concentration, etc., is to be able to specify, with a high
degree of accuracy, the life expectancy of the crossover port under the given conditions. During
the investigation to determine these correlations, it was discovered that varying certain parameters
caused others to move in a positive direction. For instance, if the sand concentration were
lowered from a given value, then the pumping rate could be increased. Again, if the downhole
viscosity of the slurry were increased, the sand loading could be increased, or the pumping rate
increased, or both. The correlation is illustrated in Figure 7.15. It is based on full scale testing
under the most conservative conditions (brine), and can be extrapolated to different carrying fluids
of varying downhole viscosities. This correlation is available for all size crossover tools.
For ease of analysis during both pre-job planning and post-job analysis, a computer program has
been developed which incorporates our correlative data thereby allowing a prediction of crossover
port wear to be made based on the expected treatment design. Input parameters include the
pumping schedule (rates, pounds of proppant added and time). Output is a calculation of
crossover port erosion during the treatment. See Figure 7.16 for an example.

Rev.3/ March 1997
Figure 7.14
Typical Wear Final Port Design
100000000
New design
ke of class
Proportional erosion thickness
10000000
Total weight proppant, lb
1000000
100000
10000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Pump rate, bpm
40-26 80-32 80-40 190-47 190-60 KLB 8/20/96
Figure 7.15
Operating Envelope - Crossover Port

Rev.3/ March 1997
Figure 7.16
“XOT-Live” Wear Prediction Program
Pressure Drop Analysis

Another concern, and, therefore, another piece of information we wanted when studying the re-
design of the crossover port, was the pressure drop the slurry experienced when being pumped
through it. As it turns out, the pressure drop can be managed to be not substantial, and when this
occurs, erosion through the port is also very manageable. See Figure 7.17 for a typical pressure
drop summary.
Gravel Pack Completion Equipment

Other equipment has been modified to insure its compatibility with high rate/high pressure gravel
pack treatments. Following is a discussion of the modifications made.
Gravel Pack Screen and Blank Pipe. When selecting screen for a high rate/high pressure
application, consideration should be given to the applied pressures both the screen and blank pipe
will be exposed to. Failure to do so could result is collapsed screen and/or blank pipe, possibly
resulting in sand control failure caused by distorted screen gauge openings. Another possible
result is a stuck crossover tool caused by proppant entering the ID of the screen/blank section, or
by the screen/blank collapsing against the washpipe. Therefore, it may be appropriate to specify
N-80 blank pipe and screen base pipe. It may also be appropriate to specify Bakerweld “140”
Gravel Pack Screen. This is the heavier duty version of the standard Bakerweld Screen. It
features thicker gauge wire wrap and increased collapse resistance.

Rev.3/ March 1997
Gravel Pack Extension. The Gravel Pack Extension run beneath the gravel pack packer in a
high rate/high pressure sand control treatment has been modified in several ways. First, the upper
section, or the joint of pipe directly below the packer features increased wall thickness and
hardness in order to resist erosion. During normal gravel packing, the “B-250” Crossover Port
will be positioned inside this heavy walled section of the extension in order to protect the casing
from erosion. Second, the sliding sleeve (see Figure 7.18), is locked in place and will not
accidently close during pumping operations. Finally, the sliding sleeve has also been modified so
that it is permanently closed following pumping operations. This feature prevents the sliding
sleeve from opening during production operations.
Figure 7.17
Pressure Drop Analysis
Size 80-40 Crossover Tool

Rev.3/ March 1997
Figure 7.18
Hi-Rate G.P. Extension with
Sliding Sleeve
Gravel Pack Packer. Generally, no modifications to Baker’s “SC” style packers are required to
make them suitable for high rate/high pressure work. It is important, however, to again consider
the maximum anticipated downhole pressures and temperatures. It may be necessary to upgrade
to an “SC-2” gravel pack packer with its higher differential pressure rating. For most sizes, the
“SC-2” has a pressure rating of 7,500 psi. An “SC-1”, for most sizes, has a pressure rating of
6,000 psi.
Model “A” Indicating Sub. In addition to the above, a Model “A” Indicating Sub was added to
the gravel pack equipment (see Figure 7.19). The purpose of this sub is to provide the base on
which Baker’s S.M.A.R.T. Collet operates. The operation of this tool is explained below.
Gravel Pack Service Tools

Some components of the gravel pack service tool string have been modified or added, for high
rate/high pressure pumping operations. These changes are discussed, as follows.
Gravel Pack Crossover Tool. Already discussed was the fact that the crossover port in the
crossover tool experienced critical erosion at times, and the various factors affecting it. This new
port, called Baker’s “B-250” Crossover Port, has been optimized for extreme velocities (see
Figure 7.20). It features an increased inner diameter for increased flow area through it. It also
features increased flow through the port itself. In addition, the primary packer setting ball is now
trapped after the packer is set, thereby eliminating the possibility of it returning to surface during
reversing operations. The setting mechanism has been balanced so that it cannot shear early
when setting the packer in low bottom hole conditions. The new port also allows for wash down
and debris removal prior to gravel packing. This feature can be important, expecially in open hole
applications.

Rev.3/ March 1997
Figure 7.19
Hi-Rate Hook-Up

Rev.3/ March 1997
Figure 7.20
Hi-Rate Port with Ball Catcher
A new tool has been added to the bottom of the crossover tool, and takes the place of the
traditional low bottom hole pressure ball. This new tool, the Flapper Anti-Swabbing Tool (see
Figure 7.21), is a single acting device designed to keep the low bottom hole pressure flapper
temporarily unseated, thus preventing the swabbing effects caused during positioning of the
crossover tool during gravel packing operations. The flapper is released by picking up on the
crossover tool past the reverse position. The F.A.S.T. features a positive, single acting, protected
collet actuating system with a shear release of 18,000 lbs. It has an open ID prior to actuation
which facilitates wash down/debris removal operations, and which also allows passage of the
detonating bar when used in the One Trip Perforate and Gravel Pack System.

Rev.3/ March 1997
Figure 7.21
Anti-Swabbing LBHP Sub
S.M.A.R.T. Collet. The S.M.A.R.T. Collet is a multi-acting locating device used to positively
locate the gravel pack crossover tool down hole in different positions during gravel packing
pumping operations (see Figure 7.22). This allows the crossover tool seals to remain in a static
position when pumping. This is very important in high rate/high pressure pumping operations since
crossover tool movement can occur otherwise, due to pressure and temperature induced pipe
length change. If sufficient unaccounted for crossover tool movement were to occur while
pumping, thereby moving the crossover tool out of its proper position, the pumped treatment could
be diverted from its intended destination. This can cause several problems, including crossover
tool sticking. In order to eliminate this possibility, the S.M.A.R.T. Collet, along with the previously
mentioned Model “A” Indicating Sub, is run. This combination of tools positively locates the
crossover tool during pumping operations, normally conducted in the circulating position. The
S.M.A.R.T. Collet allows set down weight to be placed and maintained downhole thereby
positively positioning the crossover tool in the desired pumping position, and providing a means of
monitoring the crossover tool’s position on the surface by means of the rig’s weight indicator.
Used with the S.M.A.R.T. Collet is the Rotationally Locked Space-Out Sub (see Figure 7.23).
The purpose of this sub is to accurately position the S.M.A.R.T. Collet in the service tool string,
relative to the gravel pack assembly. This is done to insure the S.M.A.R.T. Collet accurately
places the crossover tool in its various pumping positions. As indicated, it is rotationally locked,
and has an adjusting stroke of two feet, which can be quickly and easily changed on location.

Rev.3/ March 1997
Top Sub
Spring
Upper Indicating Sub
Indexing Sleeve
Lower Indicating Sub
Indicating Collet
Collet Support
Figure 7.22
S.M.A.R.T. Collet
Top Sub
Mandrel
Key Retainer
Sleeve
Key
Housing
Bottom Sub
Figure 7.23
Rotational Locked Adjuster Sub

Rev.3/ March 1997
Open Hole Gravel Pack Completion Equipment

The previous discussion centered on performing gravel packs, either high rate/high pressure, or
those which are less rigorous, inside a cased hole. All previously discussed equipment, with two
exceptions, is suitable for use in an open hole gravel packed application. In order to optimize the
gravel pack assembly for use in an open hole, the bottom of the assembly has been modified in
order to allow circulation through it. Circulation through the bottom of the gravel pack assembly is
considered important for two reasons. First, circulation, along with the ability to rotate the string,
may assist in getting the assembly to bottom, in an open hole, especially if highly deviated or
horizontal. Second, circulation may be necessary to displace drilling fluids and replace with a
clear brine so that the risk of plugging the gravel pack with drilling solids is removed. To optimize
the gravel pack assembly for use in an open hole, the following enhancements were added.
• The gravel pack packer, setting tool, and crossover tool have been rotationally locked to
withstand up to 7,000 ft-lbs torque, for most sizes (see Figures 7.24 through 7.27).
• Shouldered connections are specified throughout the gravel pack assembly, again capable of
up to 7,000 ft-lbs torque, for most sizes.
• As mentioned above, the bottom of the gravel pack assembly has been modified to allow
circulation through it.
Figure 7.24
Model ‘SC-1L Packer
Rotationally Locked

Rev.3/ March 1997
Figure 7.25
Rotationally Locked Setting System
With Hydraulic Releaser
Figure 7.26
With Dual Hydraulic Release

Rev.3/ March 1997
Figure 7.27
With Dual Hydraulic Release
Wash Down Shoe. The Wash Down Shoe has a built in bypass mandrel which can divert fluid
flow from out the bottom of Shoe to the screen or slotted liner above (see Figure 7.28). It
features single activation, and, once activated, is positively locked in the closed position. This
feature will prevent any gravel pack or formation material from entering the gravel pack assembly
through the Shoe. The Wash Down Shoe is used in conjunction with the Washpipe Extension
(see Figure 7.29). It is installed in the warehouse into the Wash Down Shoe. It includes a soft
release mechanism which closes the Wash Down Shoe with upward movement. It has 15 feet of
stroke before it will close the Wash Down Shoe. The Washpipe Anchor Latch (see Figure 7.30)
is run on the end of the washpipe when preparing the gravel pack assembly on the surface. It
latches into the Washpipe Extension and retrieves it at the end of the job. It also features 15 feet
of stroke.
These three tools together provide open hole washdown capability for gravel pack assemblies,
while retaining the ability to gravel pack through the bottom of the screen.

Rev.3/ March 1997
Run-In Position Closed Position
Top Sub
Lock-Ring Housing
Lock Ring
O-Ring Sleeve
By-Pass
Mandrel
Bottom Sub
Perforated
Bull Nose Sub
Figure 7.28
Wash Down Shoe
Anchor Sub
Extension Tube
Soft Release Collet
Figure 7.29
Washpipe Extension

Rev.3/ March 1997
Top Sub
Polished Stinger
Body
Locking Keys
Locking Collet
Bottom Sub
Torque Nut
Figure 7.30
Washpipe Anchor Latch
References
1. Gruesbeck, C., Salathiel, W.M., and Echols, E.E., “Design of Gravel Packs in Deviated
Wellbores”, SPE Paper 6805, Journal of Petroleum Technology (January 1979), 109-115.
2. Penberthy, W.L., and Echols, E.E., “Gravel Placement in Wells”, SPE Paper 22793, Journal
of Petroleum Technology (July 1993), 612-613, 670-674.

Rev.3/ March 1997
Chapter 8
WELL PREPARATION FOR GRAVEL PACKING
Introduction
Careful planning, well preparation, and completion execution are all required for completion
success. The omission of any of these steps may account for a completion that falls short of its
objectives since many of the completion operations are interdependent. To achieve the
completion goals of sand control, productivity and longevity, attention must be given to drilling
practices, cleanliness, completion fluids, perforating, perforation cleaning, acidizing, gravel
specifications, tool specifications and rig and service company personnel. The proper preparation
of a well for gravel packing can be the key to a successful completion.
Drilling Practices
Productivity of the open or cased hole gravel packed completion is determined in part by the
condition of the reservoir behind the filter cake, quality of the filter cake and stability of the
wellbore. Given this, it can be said that the completion begins when the bit enters the pay and
therefore the goal of drilling is to maintain wellbore stability while minimizing formation
damage.
Wellbore Stability. Wellbore stability in the form of washouts, hole collapse and fracturing is an
effect of high fluid loss, high PV and YP, inadequate overbalance and or reaction between filtrate
and formation. But for what ever reason, instability effects both open and cased-hole completions
and can cause loss of the wellbore. Thick cement sheaths in washed-out sections result in poor to
no perforation penetration and the lack of cement can make sand placement difficult. Hole
collapse can prevent running either casing or screen to bottom and failure in the form of fracturing
or collapse can stop an open-hole gravel pack, should failure occur while the pack is in process.
Since stability is an effect of the reaction between drill-in fluid and formation, filtrate, filter cake,
weight and rheology become key parameters in building a drill-in fluid. These variables can be
usually be addressed by using polymers and fluid-loss agents in a brine based fluid containing a
properly sized bridging agent. PERFFLOW® is such a system.
Formation Damage. Formation damage is expressed in the form of skin and is an effect of
filtrate and particle damage and filter cake quality in the case of open-hole gravel packs. Skin in
turn is reflected in poor productivity and it is expensive to remove or bypass while rarely being
completely removed or bypassed. Preservation of reservoir pore throats and rock requires
keeping particles out of pores, minimizing filtrate loss and employing a filtrate that is compatible
with rock and reservoir fluids. Quality of filter cake for open hole gravel packing is expressed in
friability and low breakout pressure which is a function of the particles and polymers that make up
the cake.

Rev. 3 / October 3, 1996
Well Preparation for Gravel Packing Chapter 8
With open-hole completions filtrate requirements seem rather obvious, but they are generally over
looked in cased-hole completions. Frequently it is assumed that any damage caused by filtrate
will be bypassed with perforating. Looking at the times reservoirs are exposed and the moderate
to high fluid losses, often expressed as a "thirsty mud", it is easy to have filtrate invade 1 to 3 ft.
from the wellbore. If this filtrate is incompatible with reservoir rock and fluid, then there is a
damaged ring past which it may not be possible to perforate. For open-hole completions, the
quality of filter cake is also as important as the other requirements. Since the cake is to be gravel
packed into place, it is necessary that the cake be thin, friable and have a low breakout pressure.
Again as with the wellbore stability issue, filtrate and filter cake become key parameters. Proper
selection of a filtrate brine base along with polymers and fluid loss agents containing a properly
sized bridging agent will usually meet these needs. PERFFLOW is such a system.
Cleaning the Casing, Open Hole, Work String,

and Surface Facilities
Cleanliness may be one of the most important considerations when implementing a completion for
gravel packing. Since a gravel pack represents the installation of a downhole filter, any action
that promotes plugging the filter (i.e., the gravel pack sand) is detrimental to the success of the
completion and well productivity. Many advances have been made in improving the cleanliness of
gravel pack operations, particularly completion fluids. However, in spite of the fact that clean
completion fluids are used, the lack of cleanliness in the casing, work string, lines, pits and other
equipment is a source of potential formation damage and lost productivity. While cleaning the
well and rig equipment can be expensive, it is not as expensive as lost productivity or having to
rework the entire completion because proper cleaning was neglected in the beginning.

It requires only one cubic foot of solids to completely fill 495 average gravel pack perforations.
At a typical shot density of 12 shots per foot, this amounts to 41 feet of perforated interval. In
completing high permeability, unconsolidated formations, the formation should normally be
experiencing fluid loss. If this is the case, all solids entering the well will most likely end up in the
perforations. Hence, the risk of formation damage is real and the need for cleanliness is
illustrated.
Casing. Reverse circulation is the preferred method of circulation for cleaning the casing and the
recommended annular velocity is 130 ft/min for casing shoe deviations less than 60° and 300
ft/min for deviations greater then 60°. Reverse circulation is more effective than circulating the
long way as material is moved down hole with gravity; unrecovered material is pushed to the
bottom of the hole; work string scale and pipe dope, provided the connection is wiped off, does not
enter the casing and, in the case of an open-hole completion, reverse circulation permits cleaning
the casing to specification before addressing the open hole. Planning for a work string that will
permit reverse circulation is required.
Both mechanical, hydraulic and chemical cleaning agents should be employed to clean the casing.
Mechanical agents are usually in the form of casing scrapers and most hydraulic agents are push
pills and filtered brine. Casing sweeps provide a chemical wash to address polymers, oil and/or
solids adhering to the casing wall.
As a mechanical agent, scrapers will remove cement and scale that a bit will miss but
unfortunately a packer may not. It is prudent to run casing scrapers to bottom or at least through
the interval to be perforated. For open-hole completions, the scraper should be run to within
100 ft of the shoe or at least past the proposed packer seat. In displacing the drill-in fluid, a push
pill is pumped first followed by a casing sweep which is followed by filtered brine (See Figure
8.1). Push pills serve as a hydraulic piston by creating a sharp interface between mud and casing
sweep. The casing sweep removes polymers and solids adhering to the casing wall and the
filtered brine provides turbulence to help remove and wash material out of the casing.
Filtered Brine
Casing Sweep
Push Pill
Drill-In Fluid
Casing Scrapers
Reverse Circulation
Figure 8.1
Cleaning the Casing

Push pill volumes should at least be equal to the volume of 300 feet of work string, casing annulus,
have the same density as the drill-in fluid and have a yield point that is 1.5 to 2.0 times that of the
drill-in fluid. Thus they are easily made from a portion of the drill-in mud by the addition of a
viscosifier to raise the yield point. Casing sweeps depend on the chemical employed to remove
solids and polymer and to be effective will require some contact time at turbulent rates. For
PERFFLOW, calcium hypochlorite (65% active) at 1.5 ppb and a 5 minute contact time will
effectively remove PERFFLOW polymers and fluid loss agents.
Open Hole. As with the casing, reverse circulation is the preferred method of circulation. With
the casing cleaned as previously discussed, now all attention can be focused on cleaning the open
hole. Well bore losses and stability can be easily detected and repaired if necessary, and any
unrecovered material will be pushed to bottom out of the way. Recommended annular velocity is
300 ft/min at any deviation to scour the filter cake in preparation for gravel packing and to clean
the hole.
Push pills should be used to displace the drill-in fluid from the open hole. The pill should be spotted
in the casing and work string annulus above the open hole using forward circulation, then the work
string is run to bottom and the pill and drill-in fluid displaced from the open hole with filtered brine
using reverse circulation (See Figure 8.2). Push pills are formulated and sized as previously
discussed under casing clean up.
Filtered Brine
Push Pill
Drill-In Fluid
Stabilizer
Reverse Circulation
Figure 8.2
Cleaning the Open Hole
Work string. The work string should be sized to permit reverse circulation and always be run in
open ended to minimize back pressure on the formation. The work string will contain the same
types of debris associated with the casing. However, unlike the casing, both the inner and outer
surfaces must be clean because completion fluid will be circulated along both surfaces. Scraping
the work string is usually not an option as with the casing, but visual inspections of the tubing
before it is run into the well are encouraged to ensure that the tubing is in good mechanical
condition and clean. As a minimum, a “rabbit” with a diameter equal to the drift diameter of the

work string will help to loosen scale and other debris, as well as providing assurance of the
internal diameter of the work string. Once the work string is clean every effort must be made to
keep it clean. A common source of contamination of the gravel pack is thread dope lubricant.
Recommendations are to use thread dope lubricant sparingly only on the pin ends during the
completion phase, and to eliminate the use of thread dope completely on the final run in the hole
just prior to gravel packing the well. Pickling the work string with a pipe dope solvent and 10%
HCl before starting a gravel pack is a must. As with any solvent, there is a required contact time
and wash rate to dissolve lubricant and carry material out the work string. The use of a dedicated
clean work string strictly for gravel packing should be considered if a number of wells are to be
completed.
Surface Facilities. Tanks and lines are sometimes ignored but are a common cause of damaging
materials, particularly when the rig that drilled the well is used for completing the well. Tanks
must be thoroughly scraped and jetted to ensure any residual solids from the drilling fluids are
removed. When possible, tanks should be dedicated to completion fluids when a drilling program
involves drilling numerous wells requiring gravel packs. Casing sweep chemicals and sea water
are recommended for removing debris from rig lines.
Quality Assurance. If properly filtered brine is used as per following discussion on filtration, the
hole displaced as recommended and surface facilities cleaned, then it is easy to obtain brine
returns less than 20 NTU’s on cleaning the cased and open hole and through out the entire gravel
pack operation. Again this is only possible if all of the steps are followed and there are no "short
cuts".
Filtration
As mentioned previously, gravel-pack completion fluids must be sufficiently clean in order that
suspended particles do not plug or reduce the permeability of the formation, perforations or
gravel-pack sand. To achieve a clean fluid requires filtration. Completion fluids are typically
filtered to at least 2 microns, but in some cases they are filtered to 1 micron. The fluid can be
filtered by either a diatomaceous earth (DE) filter upstream in combination with a cartridge filter
unit downstream, or with a cartridge filter unit alone. A schematic of the diatomaceous earth unit
is shown in Figure 8.3. A cartridge filter unit is shown in Figure 8.4. The diatomaceous earth
filter unit does a majority of the filtration before the fluid arrives at the cartridge filter unit. Since
diatomaceous earth is less expensive than cartridges, the use of a DE filter with a cartridge filter
downstream will be more economical than a cartridge filter unit alone. This is especially true if
the completion fluid is very dirty, which is usually true at some point during the completion, or if
large volumes of fluid are required, as in the case of gravel packing.

CARTRIDGE FILTRATION UNIT

FILTER PRESS
0
0
0
ACTIVE
PIT
0 0 0 0
RESERVE
PIT
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
FEED PUMP
ADMIX PRECOAT
TANK TANK
ADMIX PRECOAT
PUMP PUMP WELL
Figure 8.3
Diatomaceous Earth Filtration System for Completion or Workover
DE filters are not absolute type filters, so a wide variety of particle sizes are capable of “bleeding
through” the filter. The diatomaceous earth itself will also bleed through the filter. Diatomaceous
earth is very capable of plugging the formation and is not acid soluble; therefore, a DE filter
should always incorporate a downstream cartridge filter to stop the diatomaceous earth and
provide additional finer fluid filtration.
Cartridge filter units can use either nominal or absolute type filter cartridges. The nominal filters
are typically wound elements designed for bulk solids removal using depth type filtration. The
absolute filters have pleated elements that rely on surface filtration to retain specific size particles.
Absolute filters are rated based on their efficiencies indicated by their beta rating. Beta rating is
defined as the ratio of the concentration of a given particle size entering the filter to the
concentration of the same size particle exiting the filter. Commonly used filters have beta ratings
from 100 to 5,000. Note that the beta rating is very dependent on flow rate. As an example, a
filter that will stop a 2 micron particle at 1gallon per minute (gpm) might not stop the same
particle at 10 gpm. Also, beta ratio is dependent on the particle size considered. A cartridge will
have a higher beta ratio (removal efficiency) when retaining large particles, but a lower beta ratio
when retaining smaller particles. A typical cartridge performance curve is illustrated in Figure
8.5. The equation for calculating removal efficiency from the beta ratio is given below.
 β − 1
RE x = 100  x 
 βx 
where: Rex = removal efficiency for particle size “x” (percent)

βx = beta ratio for part2icle size “x”

Most completion fluids used for gravel packing are filtered to 2 microns with at a removal
efficiency of 99 percent or better. Care should be taken while filtering to ensure the pressure
differential while flowing through the cartridges does not exceed the cartridge manufacturers
recommendation (typically 30 to 50 pounds per square inch) or collapse of the cartridge may
occur destroying its efficiency. Filtration of naturally viscous fluids may present a problem due to
the increased pressure drop required to flow a viscous fluid through the cartridge. Occasionally,
extremely dirty fluids may have to be dealt with. If time permits, it is advisable to allow the dirty
fluid to stand undisturbed overnight to allow solids to settle to the bottom of the tank. The clean
fluid can then be decanted from the top of the tank and filtered without having to deal with the
large volume of settled particles. Oil entrained in the completion fluid can also present filtration
problems.
Figure 8.4
Cartridge Filter Unit for Completion or Workover
If viscous polymer gels are used during the completion, the base fluid should be filtered before the
polymers are added. After adding the polymers, the gel should be thoroughly sheared to remove
unhydrated dry polymer clusters commonly referred to as “fish eyes”. After shearing, the
polymers can be filtered through a cartridge filter unit. The cartridge filters used for gels are
generally rated to 10 microns with a minimum 98 percent removal efficiency. Attempting to filter
viscous polymer gels prior to shearing tends to plug the filter unit and remove the polymer from
the base fluid.

Figure 8.5
Cartridge Filter Performance Chart2
To summarize, the technique used to filter the fluid is not the issue, it is the fluid cleanliness that is
important. The filtration technique used is based strictly on achieving the desired results in the
most economical fashion. All fluids entering the well after the initial casing clean-up should be
filtered. Filtration should be performed throughout the entire completion operation, because small
amounts of debris are continuously being removed from the well throughout the pumping
operations.

Completion and Gravel Pack Fluids

In addition to being clean, the fluids used in the well completion must be compatible with the
formation and formation fluids. Of particular concern is clay swelling and compatibility with
formation water to avoid ion precipitation. The candidate completion fluids should be tested in the
laboratory to ensure their compatibility with the formation and formation fluids. An incompatible
completion fluid can cause permanent formation damage. The normal sources of completion
fluids are produced brine, sea water or clear brines.
Of course, the overriding design criteria for a completion fluid is the hydrostatic requirements to
maintain well control. Fluid density can be controlled by the addition of several soluble salts such
as sodium chloride, sodium bromide, potassium chloride, ammonium chloride, calcium chloride,
calcium bromide, zinc chloride, zinc bromide and lithium bromide. The densities of these fluids
range from 8.33 to as high as about 20 pounds per gallon (ppg). All have their advantages and
disadvantages and, depending on the density of the fluid required, their cost can exceed $500 per
barrel.
The fluids used for gravel packing can be water or oil based. The water based fluids are usually
the most desirable and are considered to be more flexible than the oil based systems. Because of
this, the water based fluids are more commonly used. The simplest water based fluid used for
gravel packing is the completion brine itself. Crude oil has been used in the past by some
companies in preference to water because it was less expensive, however, with the increase in
the cost of oil its use has been largely discontinued in preference to the water based systems.
Crude oil is still a valid alternative in extremely water sensitive formations.
Fluid loss control is a common consideration when completing unconsolidated formations with a
gravel pack. This is especially true in very high permeability formations. In addition to the
potential formation damage caused by fluid loss, there is particular anxiety when high cost fluids
are involved or when completion fluid reserves are low. The amount fluid loss that can be
tolerated tends to be site specific, but when losses exceed about 30 barrels per hour (bph),
concern is usually voiced. Chapter 10 deals specifically with fluid loss control techniques. At this
point, it is important to emphasize that the fluid loss control technique selected should be
compatible with the formation and any damage caused by the technique should be reversible.
Summary
The factors influencing the success of a completion begin when the drill bit enters the pay zone.
From this point onward, all operations should be carried out with consideration given to their
effects on the formation. In addition to proper drilling and cementing operations, successful
completions are dependent on establishing and maintaining a clean wellbore environment. All
fluids and equipment put in the well should be evaluated with this in mind. Simple quality control
checks, such as NTU readings on completion fluid, can be implemented to monitor and ensure the
wellbore is as clean as possible throughout the completion.

References
1. Sollee, S.S., Elson, T.D. and Lerma, M.K., “Field Application of Clean Completion Fluids”,
SPE Paper 14318, SPE 60th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Los Vegas,
Nevada, September 22-25, 1985.
2. Product Information, Parker Hannifin Corporation, Commercial Filters Division, Lebanon,

Indiana, 1992.

Chapter 9
PERFORATING FOR GRAVEL PACKED COMPLETIONS
Introduction
This chapter reviews perforating technology applicable to gravel packs that focus on achieving
high-productivity completions. Operations that aid in cleaning debris from the perforations prior to
gravel placement will also be discussed.
Cased-hole completions must be perforated to establish communication between the formation and
the wellbore. The perforating operation penetrates the casing, cement, damaged zone and,
hopefully, into the undamaged formation to communicate it with the well. Perforating guns are
configured to provide a variety of shot diameters, shot densities, and entrance-hole phasing. The
perforating gun system consists of the charge (multiple charges are used in an actual gun),
primacord, detonator, and the hollow carrier as shown in Figure 9.1 illustrates. The size, phasing,
and shot density can be varied depending on the gun design. Figure 9.2 shows an example of the
perforating pattern created by a 90° phased gun, but phasing of 0, 30, 45, 60, 120, and 135 degrees
are also available. Shot densities as high as 21 shots/ft. are available depending on the guns size.
Perforating is an effective way of communicating with the formation, but it is extremely violent,
and may leave a considerable amount of debris within the perforation tunnel. In non-gravel
packed wells, the debris usually can be flowed from the perforation during production. In gravel
packed wells, there is a danger of trapping the debris in the perforation tunnel with the gravel pack
sand, reducing its permeability which results in permanent damage to the well and reduced
productivity.
Figure 9.1
Schematic of Steel Hollow Carrier
Shaped Charge Gun Assembly

Rev. 3 / April 1997
Perforating for Gravel Packed Completions Chapter 9
Casing
Cement
Borehole
Mud Cake Zone

Mud Filtrate Zone
Undamaged Formation
Figure 9.2
Cased Hole Perforating Process
Shaped Charge Technology

Shaped charge (jet perforators) are the primary method used to communicate the well with the
formation for both gravel packed and non-gravel packed completions, but occasionally bullet guns
are used when large gun sizes can be used and the formation temperature is less than 250°F.
Shaped charges consist of a case to contain the charge, explosive charge and a liner made of
some inert material such as powdered compressed copper. An example of a shaped charge is
shown in Figure 9.3. Upon detonation, a high-pressure jet is formed that consists of the liner and
explosive gases that is projected forward at a velocity of about 30,000 ft/sec. The jet produces an
impingement pressure of about 15 million psi that impacts the casing, cement and formation to
create (punch) the perforation since the impingement pressure exceeds the strengths of the
surroundings.
The shaped charge detonation is initiated at the back of the charge and moves toward the front
creating a pressure wave. The pressure wave causes the liner to collapse inward and forces it to
move out along the center line of the charge. The pressure wave and collapsed liner material
begin to form a jet and continue to travel along the center line of the shaped charge at a velocity
of 30,000 feet per second (fps). The tail of the jet travels much slower (±15,000 fps) due to the
lessening of explosive energy available as the charge spends. The extremely high pressure and
velocity at the tip of the jet forces the casing, cement and formation to plastically yield and flow
out the path of the jet to create the perforation. The shaped charge detonation sequence
described above is illustrated in Figures 9.3 & 9.4, and a schematic of the pressures and velocities
is portrayed in Figure 9.5.

Rev. 3 / April 1997
Figure 9.3
Shaped Charge Detonation Sequence

Rev. 3 / April 1997
Figure 9.4
Damage to Formation Due to Jet
Penetrating Process
Figure 9.5
Approximate Velocities and Pressures
Pressure on Target - P1 = 15 x 106 PSI
Lateral Pressure - P2 = 100,000 PSI
Velocity Forward Jet - V1 = 30,000 Ft./Sec.
Velocity Rear Jet - V2 = 15,000 Ft. Sec.
Shaped charges used for perforating are available as deep penetrating (DP) charges and gravel
pack (GP) charges. The interior shape of the housing and the shape of the liner determine the
shape and size of the jet formed by the charge. A deep penetrating charge liner typically has a
deep, sharp angle, usually in the range of 42° to 45°. The angle of the liner acts to focus the jet to
achieve a greater depth of penetration (See Table 9.1). The DP charge creates a perforation that
has a small diameter entry hole in the casing and deep penetration into the formation. A GP
charge liner is designed with a wide angle to create a larger entrance hole. The GP charge
creates a perforation that has a large diameter entry hole in the casing and a relatively shallow
depth of penetration.
Figure 9.6 and Table 9.1 show the differences between the design & performance of deep
penetrating and gravel pack charges. Other factors that affect the performance of the charge
include the distance between the shaped charge and the ID of the gun carrier (i.e., stand-off) and
the distance between the OD of the gun carrier and the ID of the casing (i.e., clearance). The
engineering design of a gun seeks to optimize the various factors to create the desired type of
perforation.
Table 9.1
Comparison of Deep Penetrating and Gravel Pack Shaped Charges
Charge Deep Penetrating Gravel Pack

Characteristic Charge Charge
Liner Deep, sharp angle (42° to Shallow, rounded liner
45°)
Entry Hole ≈ 3/8" to 1/2" diameter ≈ 1/2" to 1" diameter
Penetration ≈ 13" to 30" deep ≈ 6" to 8" deep

Rev. 3 / April 1997
Deep Penetrating Shaped Charge
Main Explo sive Charge Housing
Liner (42-45 angle)
Primacord Groove
Primer Charge
Gravel P ack Shaped Charge
Main Explo sive Charge Housing
Rounded Liner
Primacord Groove
Primer Charge
Figure 9.6
Deep Penetrating and Gravel Pack Shaped Charge Design
Types of Explosives
The explosive materials normally used for shaped charges are RDX, HMX, HNS and PYX. The
explosive selected is based on the time that the guns will be exposed to the maximum anticipated
well temperature. The exposure limits for the various explosives are shown in Figure 9.7.
(Exposure to high temperatures for extended lengths of time caused the explosives to either
detonate low or high order or to outgas and melt.) Knowing which event occurs can not always
be predicted. Hence, the temperature stability chart, Figure 9.7 is valuable in establishing safe
time-temperature limits. Table 9.2 shows the maximum temperature that can be withstood by the
various explosives for an exposure time of 100 hours. In term of cost, RDX is the lowest and
PYX is the highest. The type of explosive will effect charge performance due to different
detonation characteristics. RDX and HMX are essentially equal in energy output (i.e.,
performance) but are rated for lower temperatures, whereas HNS and PYX are rated for
progressively higher temperatures. However, the performance of HNS is about 10 to 15% less
than HMX while the PYX performance is about 10 to 15% less than HNS, i.e., while greater
temperature stability is achieved with HNS and PYX, performance is decreased.

Rev. 3 / April 1997
EXPLOSIVE TIME-TEMP CAPABILITY
DEGREES F.
600
PYX
575
550
HNS
525
500
475
450
HMX 425
DEGR. F.
400
375
RDX 350
325
300
275
250
225
200
175
1 10 100 1000
HOURS
Figure 9.7
Temperature Ratings of TCP Explosive Systems
Table 9.2
Maximum Temperature Rating
of Explosives at 100 Hours Exposure
EXPLOSIVE TYPE TEMPERATURE LIMIT

RDX 240°F
HMX 310°F
PYX 500°F

Rev. 3 / April 1997
Perforating for Gravel Packing

In non-gravel packed wells, experience and theory1 indicate that a perforation density of four
shots per foot is sufficient in most wells to equal the theoretical open-hole productivity of the
formation (see Figure 9.8). The perforations in a gravel packed well will be gravel filled. In fact,
filling the perforations with gravel pack sand is a critical phase of gravel packing. Since the gravel
pack sand has a porosity of about 35 percent, a perforation filled with gravel will have about two-
thirds of its cross-sectional flow area occupied by gravel with only a third o the perforation area
capable of passing reservoir fluids. Vie wed from another perspective, if two-thirds of the
perforation cross-sectional area is occupied by gravel, a shot density of twelve shots per foot is
required to achieve the effective cross-sectional flow area of four perforations not filled with
gravel pack sand.
1.4
Shots per foot
rR = 660 ft.
1.2 rWa = 0.25 ft.
d = 0.5 in.
1 4
Productivity Ratio
2
0.8
1
0.6
0.4
McDowell & Muskat
0.2 Harris
Note: Data based on ideal perforations

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Perforation Penetration (inches)
Figure 9.8
Productivity Ratio Versus
Perforation Penetration and Density1
The primary objective of perforating as applies to a gravel packed well, is to communicate with
the reservoir, have adequate perforation area and to prepack each perforation with
uncontaminated gravel. Said another way, not only is the perforation density a concern, but the
perforations should be as large as possible and must be effective and contribute to flow. Even
where the perforation density is 12 shots per foot, if the diameter of the perforations are small,
there may be a substantial pressure drop through the perforations that limits the well’s flow
capacity. Figure 9.9 illustrates a perforation filled with gravel pack sand. This geometry
represents ideal conditions and is probably seldom achieved; however, every attempt must be
made to place as much gravel as possible into each perforation to provide a defined interface and
prevent mixing of formation sand and gravel pack sand. Referring to Figure 9.9, note the area of
linear flow through the perforation tunnel. Neglecting compressibility effects and turbulent
effects, Darcy’s equation is applicable to this area of liner flow is:

Rev. 3 / April 1997
13.60322µqL
∆p =
kd 2
where: ∆p = flowing pressure drop (pounds per square inch)

µ = viscosity (centipoise)
q = flow rate (barrels per day)
L = distance from screen OD to cement sheath OD (inches)
k = gravel pack sand permeability (darcys)
d = diameter of perforation (inches)
Linear Radial
Flow Flow
Cement
Casing
Gravel Pack Sand
Screen
Figure 9.9
Flow in Ideal Gravel Packed Perforation
For a given flowrate, the only non-reservoir factors that can be controlled to reduce the pressure
drop is increasing the flow area by increasing the perforation diameter and increasing the
permeability of the gravel pack sand. The permeability of the gravel pack sand is determined by
the size of the gravel required for sand control as discussed in Chapter 5. Table 9.3 shows the
results of the calculations using the above equation for different diameter perforations and gravel
pack sand permeabilities. As can be seen from the table, increasing perforation size decreases
the pressure drop required to maintain a given flowrate.

Rev. 3 / April 1997
Table 9.3
Pressure Drop (psi) Through Perforation
Tunnel as a Function of Perforation Diameter
Gravel Pack Sand Perforation Diameter (inches)

Permeability (darcys) 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25
45 580.4 145.1 64.5 36.3 23.2
69 378.5 94.6 42.1 23.7 15.1
119 219.5 54.9 24.4 13.7 8.8
Flow Rate = 10 bpd, Viscosity = 3 cp, Length = 4”
From the discussion thus far, it should be evident that perforating for gravel packed wells requires
large hole diameters and high-shot densities. This point can be further emphasized by performing
a systems analysis on the inflow of the reservoir and the outflow of the well’s tubing and
completion. Such an analysis is frequently referred to as systems (inflow-outflow) or NODAL
analysis and can be extremely valuable in optimizing a well’s productivity. The logic used with this
method of analysis is that flow from the reservoir represents potential inflow into the system,
while the tubing capacity represents outflow. Figure 9.10 shows the inflow-outflow results for a
typical high permeability well requiring a gravel pack. The figure shows five reservoir inflow
curves and one tubing outflow curve. The intersection of the inflow curves with the outflow curve
indicates the theoretical flow rate possible from the well for that condition. The five reservoir
inflow curves represent the case of ideal productivity (i.e., no damage and no gravel pack), high-
shot density with large hole size, high-shot density with small hole size, low-shot density with large
hole size and low-shot density with small hole size. As can be seen, the case of high-shot density
with large perforation hole size comes closest to achieving the ideal well productivity. This
situation is desired in wells requiring a gravel pack.

Rev. 3 / April 1997
4500
Tubing Outflow Curve
4000 Zero Skin Well

0.75" Diameter Perf, 12 SPF
3500
Flowing Bottomhole Pressure (psi)

3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Flow Rate (bpd)
Well parameters: 7” casing in 8-1/2” hole, 3500 psi reservoir pressure, 170°F reservoir temperature,
200 md permeability, 25 feet net pay, 8500 feet to mid-perf, 35° API oil gravity, .65 gas gravity,
1000 scf/stb gas -oil ratio, 3.00” screen OD, packer at 8250 feet, 24” invasion zone with 100 md
permeability, 5” crushed zone with 20 md permeability
Figure 9.10
Effect of Perforation Shot Density and
Diameter on Gravel Pack Well Performance
The large entry hole, high-shot density perforations required for gravel packed completions can be
created with either wireline or tubing-conveyed guns, but tubing conveyed guns are usually
preferred because they can perforate the entire production interval underbalanced in a single gun
run. The capability to perforate long intervals in one operation becomes more significant because
of the desirability of underbalance the zone to be perforated. Wireline perforations can typically
shoot only about 2 to 30 feet of perforations at a time because of lubricator length limitations. If
the zone to be perforated is longer, multiple wireline runs are required, and the additional gun run
will be shot at formation pressure (balanced) because the well pressure will equalize after the first
perforating run. Hence, wireline perforating becomes more attractive for short intervals that can
be perforated in a single gun run. When formation temperatures are high, the speed at which
wireline guns can be run, positioned and detonated may allow the use of lower temperature rated,
lower cost and more efficient RDX or HMX explosives as opposed to HNS or PYX which would
have to be used in TCP perforating operations because of the longer temperature exposure time.
The system analysis approach can be used to design the optimum perforations required for a given
formation, but may, in many cases, be an academic exercise because the exact number of
perforations contributing to flow (due to misfires or tunnels not being in communication with
permeable formation) is not always known. Also, it is difficult to determine how many
perforations are plugged with debris. In most cases, the practical approach is to perform the
systems analysis exercise to determine the ideal shot density and hole size requirements and then
select the perforating gun that can generate the required perforation performance plus some
additional performance in terms of hole size and shot density without causing significant cost or
operational problems.

Rev. 3 / April 1997
Another consideration is that unless the perforating guns are centralized, the perforations will not
be the same depth or diameter in all directions. If the charges do not penetrate deeply (as is the
case with gravel pack charges), the perforations made in one direction may never even penetrate
the cement outside the casing. There is also the possibility that some charges in the gun may not
perform as designed. Because of the potential of having perforations that do not meet the publish
perforation diameter and penetration, wells should always be perforated with as many perforations
as is practical.
Perforation Cleaning
As stated previously, when a shaped charge explosive is detonated, a high-pressure jet is formed
which can easily reach pressures in excess of 15,000,000 psi at the front of the pressure wave.
At these pressures, virtually all materials are plastic and penetrable. The charge does not “burn”
or “cut” a hole through the material in front of the pressure wave. Instead, the pressure jet
literally pushes its way into the material, much the same way that a nail will push a path into a
block of wood.
When the jet pushes through the casing and cement, and into the formation, it compacts the
materials immediately surrounding the perforation. Since the cement and the formation are
crystalline in structure, they are compacted to a greater extent that the steel. Because of this, a
zone of reduced permeability is created at the boundary of the perforation in the formation as
illustrated in Figure 9.11. This compacted zone can be up to 1/2 inch thick and can have a
permeability that is substantially less than that of the bulk formation which can significantly restrict
well productivity.
Mud
Filtrate Virgin Formation
Z one
Compacted Perforating
Zone Debris
Cement
Casing
Figure 9.11
Typical Results of Perforating Without Cleaning
In addition, the shaped charge creates debris that is deposited in the perforation. The metal from
the housing is typically steel and is not soluble in acid. The liner is usually made of compressed
copper that forms a copper slug called a “carrot” after the perforation is created. The carrot may
remain inside the hollow carrier and be retrieved or could remain in the perforation tunnel or
become lodged in the perforation entrance hole in the casing.

Rev. 3 / April 1997
The perforating debris and the compacted zone must be removed to maximize well productivity.
Failure to remove the debris and compacted zone can reduce the potential production rate. The
methods available for perforation cleaning include acidizing, washing, backsurging, and
underbalanced perforating. Some recent developed techniques are also available to assist in the
operation of cleaning the perforations.
Acidizing - Acidizing perforations involves injecting a predetermined type and volume of acid into
the perforations after they have been created to dissolve any acid soluble material. In most cases,
perforating debris is not highly soluble in acid, therefore, acidizing is more effective and better
applied when used in conjunction with some of the other cleaning techniques discussed in this
section. Some critical considerations when acidizing are the compatibility of the acid with the
formation, the volume of acid to pump and uniform placement of the acid into the perforations.
Acid solubility tests should be performed on a formation sample to select the most effective acid.
This is extremely important, because certain situations exist in which the acid will actually damage
the formation instead of providing stimulation and higher productivity. The volume of acid to pump
is typically determined by the number of perforations and the length of the perforated interval.
Poor placement of acid produces variable and inconsistent results possibly leading to a decrease in
productivity. Ideally, each perforation would receive an equal volume of acid. In reality, the acid
tends to go into the perforations that already open to flow and do not especially need cleaning.
Meanwhile, other perforations that do need cleaning allow little or no acid to flow into them.
To achieve uniform placement of acid into the perforations, an acid "diverter" can be used in an
attempt to divert acid from the permeable perforations to the damaged perforations. The usual
technique involves pumping several stages of acid separated by diverter slurries consisting of
viscous gel and gravel pack sand. The diverter will flow into the most permeable perforations and
fill them with gravel pack sand. The combination of gravel pack sand and the high viscosity of the
gel reduces the ability of the perforation to accept fluid. The next acid stage should then flow into
the other, more resistive perforations allowing for a more uniform treatment. This technique is
referred to as a "staged acid treatment" or an "acid prepack" and can be performed immediately
after underbalanced tubing conveyed perforating (for best results) or just prior to performing the
gravel pack.
Washing - Washing perforations involves running an opposing cup type tool into the well after
perforating the producing zone. The cup tool seals on the inside of the casing and allows a
circulation path through the tool and out ports located between the opposing cups. The tool’s cups
packing is usually about one foot to focus the washing operation over a short interval. The
washing consists of pumping filtered completion fluid at as high rate as possible without breaking
down the formation, as Figure 9.12 illustrates. The goal of washing is to establish communication
between several sets of perforations to effectively remove the perforation debris and compacted
zone from the well.

Rev. 3 / April 1997
Fluid in
Sleeve valve
Fluid out
Figure 9.12
Washing Perforations with Wash Tool
Perforation washing is an excellent way of cleaning perforations. Unfortunately, it is commonly

performed incorrectly because the operation is time consuming. Prior to underbalanced tubing
conveyed perforating, washing was a commonly applied perforation cleaning technique.
Unfortunately, results of washing tended to be unpredictable because of the flawed procedures
and as a consequence, it’s use is not widespread today. Although often discounted, washing has
given favorable results in some fields and may be worthy of consideration, particularly in
conjunction with other cleaning techniques such as backsurging and underbalanced perforating.
Backsurging - Backsurging involves running a calculated volume of atmospheric chamber into

the well after perforating. The atmospheric chamber is trapped in the workstring between two
valves. A packer is set and the lower valve is opened exposing the perforation to atmospheric
pressure. The formation immediately surges in with significant force to hopefully remove the
debris and compacted zone from the perforations. Backsurging can be a very effective
perforation cleaning technique and is often used following overbalanced wireline conveyed
perforating. The primary disadvantage of backsurging is that it requires a special trip in the hole
with the backsurging tools. Also, results from backsurging have been documented to be
somewhat inconsistent. More details on backsurging are available in SPE Paper 12106. 2
Underbalanced Tubing Conveyed Perforating - Underbalanced tubing conveyed perforating

has been shown to be an efficient means of cleaning perforations from a total operating standpoint
because the underbalance can be preset prior to detonating the perforating guns. The goal of
underbalanced perforating is to remove all debris and the compacted zone from the perforation
tunnels as illustrated in Figure 9.13. Underbalanced perforating is similar to back surging in that
the formation is exposed to a low pressure in the wellbore and is allowed to surge to clean the
perforations. Unlike backsurging, which requires a special trip in the hole to execute,
underbalanced perforating is done in conjunction with the perforating operation. Underbalanced
refers to the condition where the hydrostatic pressure in the wellbore at the guns is lower than the
pressure in the formation being perforated. Upon gun detonation, the formation is immediately

Rev. 3 / April 1997
(within milliseconds) surged by backflow into the well. To effectively surge all the perforations,
tubing conveyed perforating guns must be used. If wireline conveyed guns are used, only the first
run in the well is surged as mentioned previously. Also, in some cases, the amount of
underbalance must be limited to prevent blowing the guns up the hole after they are fired.
The amount of underbalanced pressure that the formation is exposed to can be adjusted to achieve
optimum results. Typically, the underbalanced should surge the formation up to, but no exceeding,
the point of massive formation failure. Excessive formation material surged into the well can stick
the guns in the hole. Determining how much underbalance is required is a trial and error
procedure within a specific formation. Normally, a starting underbalance of 500 psi is suggested
for oil wells and 1,000 psi gas wells.
Mud
Filtrate Virgin Formation
Zone
Compacted Zone and Perforating Debris

Removed by Surge of Underbalance
Cement
Casing
Figure 9.13
Effectively Cleaned Perforation After Underbalance Perforating
Fracturing - A relatively new technique is to bypass perforating damage instead of using a

cleaning or removal technique. Extreme overbalance perforating is used to perforate and then
fracture the formation. As of early 1995, the process has only been utilized on consolidated
formations with relatively high compressive strengths.
Frac-pack and H2O-FRAQSM completions have been successfully used in unconsolidated

formations to bypass perforating damage as well as drilling and cementing damage. Although
these processes are still being evaluated, there is certainly evidence of increased productivity.
Further discussion of fracturing to by-pass damage is contained in Chapter 12.
Reduced Debris-Size Charges - PERFFORM shaped charges have been developed to

minimize the size distribution of perforating debris that is created and is left in the perforations.
When a standard shaped charge is detonated, the solid copper liner creates a carrot that may
remain the in perforation tunnel. However, when a PERFFORM shaped charge is detonated,
no carrot is formed because the liner is fabricated with a patented alloy, which does not
consolidate into a solid carrot. Instead, a high density jet is formed. In addition to eliminating the
carrot, the PERFFORM shaped charge creates debris that is much smaller in size. The

Rev. 3 / April 1997
consequence is that the debris can more easily flow from the perforation tunnels as well as being
more soluble in acid than the debris created by a standard shaped charge. Acid solubility tests
reveal that the PERFFORM debris is 64% soluble, whereas the standard charge debris is only
3% soluble. Hence, by minimizing the particle size of the debris that is created and increasing the
solubility of the debris that remains, reduced operational problems result, i.e., perforation tunnels
will be much cleaner, acid treatments are more effective on perforation cleanup and ultimate
productivity will be improved. Finally, the PERFFORM charge provides cleaner perforations
without sacrificing entry hole diameter, shot density or penetration.
PERFFORM shaped charge advantages:

• Does not form a carrot
• Smaller debris size
• Increased debris solubility
• Cleaner wellbores and perforations
• Reduced completion problems related to perforating debris
• Enhanced formation treatments
• Improved productivity
Underbalanced Perforating with Auger Guns - Auger tubing conveyed perforating guns were
developed in late 1990 and represent a unique and radically different approach to enhancing
traditional underbalanced perforating. The basic concept of the system is to enclose standard
tubing conveyed perforating guns and accessories in a perforated shroud. Attached to the outside
of the shroud is a continuous spiral blade forming an auger which is capable of rotating out of
packed sand as required. The ultimate goal and advantage of Auger tubing conveyed perforating
guns is improved well productivity.
Auger tubing conveyed perforating guns are available for 7" and 9-5/8" casing and can be used
with mechanically or hydraulically actuated firing heads. The auger shrouds with left hand helical
augers are mounted on the perforating guns using special gun connectors. The gun connectors
rotationally lock the shrouds to the guns and align the perforations in the shrouds with the gun's
spiral shot pattern. The left hand auger allows the guns to be rotated out of packed sand with
right hand rotation.
The auger shrouds must cover the entire length of the guns, firing head and tubing
above the firing head to a flow port. Connections through the augered length of the
hook-up are Stub Acme to allow high tensile and torque loads. Above the augered
section of the hook-up, standard perforating accessories with API IF drill pipe
connections are used. A special retrievable packer, to withstand high torque loads,
completes the standard hook-up.

Rev. 3 / April 1997
The features and benefits of the Auger Gun System include:

• Gun centralization due to the auger blades results in uniform and improved perforating
charge performance.
• The helical pattern of the auger blades increases fluid velocity in the gun/casing annulus
resulting in more efficient removal of formation fines and perforating debris. Fluid
velocities around auger guns are 4 to 5 times greater than around standard perforating
guns.
• Perforating can be done with significantly higher underbalance since the auger design
overcomes gun sticking problems. Stuck guns can typically be retrieved with straight pull.
If straight pull is unsuccessful, right hand rotation will unscrew the guns from the
formation sand surged in from the perforations.
• In gravel packing applications, the well can be prepacked after flowing the well to remove
perforating debris without unsetting the packer and moving the guns. This technique is
especially applicable in high fluid loss wells since the prepack gravel becomes a clean
non-damaging fluid loss control agent.
• Auger blades can reduce gun shock by as much as 40 percent.
• The auger blades and shroud do not interfere with the gun shot pattern resulting in
standard API gun performance.
• Auger guns are compatible with PERFFORM reduced debris perforating charges.
Specifications and ratings of the Auger Gun System are as follows:

• The system for 7” casing uses a 4-1/2” 12 shots per foot, 45° phased perforating gun with
a 4-3/4” OD shroud and 5-13/16” OD auger blades.
• The system for 9-5/8” casing uses a 6” 12 shots per foot 45° phased perforating gun with
a 6-1/2” OD shroud and 8-1/8” OD auger blades.
• Torque rating is 6,000 ft/lbs.
• Tensile rating is 160,000 lbs. with no torque and 50,000 lbs. with 6,000 ft/lbs. of torque.
• Pressure rating is 17,000 lbs. per square inch.
Summary
The primary objective of perforating for a gravel packed well is to provide large inflow area (12
shots/ft. or higher and 3/4” or larger perforations) through the casing because the subsequent
gravel pack will fill about two thirds (2/3) of the perforations with gravel. The secondary objective
is to clean the perforations to remove all debris and formation material prior to packing the
perforation tunnels with gravel prior to performing the annular gravel pack. Ways of achieving
these objectives is to perforate the well underbalanced in a single operation using large diameter,
high-shot density perforating guns. Washing or surging are also alternatives to providing additional
perforation cleaning over and above that achieved with underbalanced perforating.
References
1. Bell, W.T., Brieger, E.F. and Harrigan, J.W., “Laboratory Flow Characteristics of Gun
Perforations”, SPE Paper 3444, SPE 46th Annual Fall Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana,
October 3-6, 1971.

Rev. 3 / April 1997
2. Bonomo, J.M. and Young, W.S., “Analysis and Evaluation of Perforating and Perforation
Clean-up Methods”, SPE Paper 12106, SPE 58th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Francisco, California, October 5-8, 1983.

Rev. 3 / April 1997
Chapter 10
FLUID LOSS CONTROL
Introduction
Fluid loss should be controlled or managed but not necessarily stopped. As mentioned in Chapter
8, the amount of fluid loss that can be tolerated during the completion is site specific. Ideally,
nothing would be done to stop fluid loss, but when expensive high density brine is being lost,
completion fluid reserves are low or the loss rate makes operations unsafe, some type of loss
control system must be employed. Also, the formation damage potential of continued fluid loss
(even though the fluid is filtered) should be considered in light of the potential damage from
employing a fluid loss control system.
The normal methods for controlling fluid loss are:

• Reduced hydrostatic pressure
• Viscous polymer gels
• Graded solid particles
• Mechanical means
The type of fluid loss control that is recommended depends upon where in the well completion
process you are. Since the completion process should be considered as beginning as soon as the
bit enters the pay and continues through the running of production tubing, fluid loss may become
an issue at the following times:
• While drilling the reservoir

• During an open hole gravel pack (especially for a highly deviated hole)
• Immediately after perforating
• After prepacking
• After gravel packing
When selecting a fluid loss control technique, the condition of the well at the current time,
operations that still must be completed, and available remedial techniques for elimination of the ill
effects of fluid loss control must all be considered. These considerations will lead to different
fluid loss control techniques being utilized throughout the completion process.
Hydrostatic Pressure
Fluid loss is a direct result of differential pressure into the formation due to the overbalanced
condition created by the hydrostatic pressure of the completion fluid. A reduction in the rate of
fluid loss can be accomplished by simply lowering the density of the completion fluid. Some
operators have even allowed the hydrostatic pressure exerted by the completion fluid to equalize
with the formation pressure by letting the completion fluid seek its own level in the wellbore.
Working with a low fluid level in the well would only be acceptable in wells that are not capable
of flowing to surface. Regulatory authorities and/or operator imposed safety regulations may

Rev.3/ March 1997
Fluid Loss Control Chapter 10
dictate the minimum hydrostatic overbalance allowed which could limit the effectiveness of this
technique.
The rate of fluid loss associated with a given overbalance pressure is controlled by several
factors. To estimate the fluid loss rate for a given differential pressure, Darcy’s Law for radial
flow can be examined.
kh∆P
Q=
 r  
. × B0 × µ ×  ln e  − 0.75 + S
24 × 1412
  rw  
Where:
Q= Loss rate (bph)
k= Permeability (md) h= Net sand thickness (ft)
∆P = Pressure differential (psi) Bo = Formation vol. factor of comp. fluid
µ= Visc. of comp. fluid (cp) ln(re/rw) = Assume = 8
S= Skin
This equation indicates that the flow of fluids from the wellbore for a given differential pressure is
controlled by the formation’s permeability, the interval thickness, the viscosity of the flowing fluid,
the compressibility of the reservoir fluids, as well as the degree of formation damage surrounding
the wellbore. Figure 10.1 illustrates the level of fluid loss rates associated with a 1 cp fluid leaking
off to formations of different permeabilities with overbalance pressures ranging from 0 to 500 psi.
This plot makes it clear that while a reduction of overbalance pressure may successfully control
fluid loss for moderate to low permeability formations, for high permeability formations excessive
loss rates may still occur even for overbalance pressures down to 100 to 200 psi. Overbalance
pressures much below this level will impose additional well control concerns on the operation.
160
Interval Length = 25 ft
140 Fluid Viscosity = 1 cp
Skin = 5
120
100
Loss Rate (bph)
50 md
100 md
80
250 md
500 md
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Differential Pressure (psi)
Figure 10.1
Effect of Differential Pressure on Fluid Loss rate for 1 cp Fluid

Rev.3/ March 1997
There are two factors, increased brine viscosity and formation damage, that can improve the
ability of hydrostatic head reductions to control fluid loss. Figure 10.2 is a plot of fluid loss rate
for a 3 cp brine, with all other well conditions being the same as those modeled in Figure 10.1.
Comparison of Figure 10.2 to Figure 10.1 illustrates that a 3:1 increase in viscosity leads to a 3:1
reduction in fluid loss rates. However, for high permeability formations, the losses can still be
excessive.
50.0
Interval Length = 25 ft
45.0
Fluid Viscosity = 3 cp
Skin = 5
40.0
35.0
Loss Rate (bph)
30.0 50 md
100 md
25.0
250 md
500 md
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Figure 10.2
Effect of Differential Pressure on Fluid Loss rate for 3 cp Fluid
The effect of a damaged zone surrounding a well is also to reduce the fluid loss rate, but not as
significantly as does an increase in fluid viscosity. Figure 10.3 indicates that a doubling of skin
from 5 to 10 results in a 30 percent reduction in fluid loss rate

Rev.3/ March 1997
30
Interval Length 25 ft
25 Fluid Viscosity = 1 cp
20
Loss Rate (bph)
Skin = 5
15
Skin = 10
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Figure 10.3
Effect of Skin on Fluid Loss Rate
Viscous Polymer Gels

Examination of Figures 10.1 and 10.2 shows that fluid loss rate is directly affected by the viscosity
of the fluid that is lost to the formation. This relationship between loss rate and viscosity has led
to the common use of viscous polymer gels to control fluid loss. Viscous gels are very effective
at controlling losses provided the permeability of the formation and the overbalance are not too
great. In general, it becomes impractical to control fluid loss if the wellbore pressure exceeds the
reservoir pressure by more than about 500 psi. In addition, elevated temperatures are detrimental
to the ability of gels to control fluid loss. The gels will degrade at high temperatures and often
additional gel pills will be required throughout the course of the completion or workover to keep
the loss rate at an acceptable level. The total volume of pills likely to be needed can be calculated
based upon Darcy’s Law calculations combined calculations of viscosity increase as the velocity
decreases with radial distance into the formation. Figure 10.4 illustrates the results of such a
calculation.

Rev.3/ March 1997
90
80
80 pptg HEC
70 30 ft Interval Length
Desired Fluid Loss Rate = 4 bph
60
Pill Volume (bbls)
50
Formation Permeability
1000 md
40
500 md
250 md
30 100 md
20
10
0
1000 750 500 250
Figure 10.4
Volumes of HEC Pills Required to Control Losses to 4 bph
for Various Reservoir Conditions
If the temperature is such that the gel degrades too slowly or incompletely, chemical breakers
may be required. Breakers are chemicals which act to degrade the polymer and restore the
viscosity to the original value of the base brine in which the polymer was mixed. The biggest
disadvantage to the use of viscous polymer gels as a fluid loss control technique is a tendency of
residual polymer or viscous gel to remain in the near wellbore area where it inhibits flow.
Hydroxy-ethyl-cellulose (HEC) is one of the most commonly used polymers for viscosifying
oilfield brines. It is supplied as a dry powder and is easy to transport, safe to handle and
environmentally acceptable. It is also compatible with a wide range of completion fluids and may
be broken with a wide range of breakers. If required to be stored for more than a few days after
hydrating, biocide must be added because bacteria present in the brine, tanks or lines will cause
the polymer to break prematurely. Biopolymers like XC and Shellflo-S have also been used for
fluid loss control, but like HEC, are not effective in extremely high permeability formations.
HEC is commonly mixed in ratios of 65 to 75 pounds per 1,000 gallons of brine when used as a
gravel pack carrier fluid. For fluid loss applications, HEC can be mixed in ratios of 90 to
150 pounds per 1,000 gallons. At 194ºF, an HEC gel pill without a breaker will probably
completely break in a few days. At 185ºF, approximately 14 days will be required for an HEC
gel pill to totally break. Below that 185ºF, the gel is unlikely to completely break without the use
of a chemical breaker. HEC gel can be broken at low temperatures with a weak solution of any

Rev.3/ March 1997
of the commonly available enzymes. At medium to high temperatures oxidizers and weak acids,
such as sulfamic, formic, citric, hydrochloric, etc. are used as breakers.
Before oxidizers are used as breakers, consideration should be given to the possibility of the
damage to the formation caused by the oxidizer. The freshness of oxidizers is also important,
since the quality of oxidizers deteriorates fairly quickly once a container has been opened. If the
oxidizing agent is not fresh, then the gel will not break completely, and in some circumstances may
not break at all for a significant length of time causing plugging in the near wellbore area and
inhibition of production.
At normal well temperatures, a maximum of 0.15 percent by volume of HEC remains behind as
residual solids after complete viscosity reduction with chemical breakers. If large quantities of gel
are pumped into a well which has been cased and perforated, consideration should be given to the
resultant volume of residual solids produced by the broken gel. The solids volume may prove to
be a significant portion of the volume of the perforation tunnels. As discussed in Chapter 8, the
HEC gel should always be pumped through a shear device to ensure that all the dry HEC material
has completely hydrated. The hydrolyzed gel should then be filtered before being pumped into the
well.
Crosslinked HEC systems have been investigated for use as a fluid loss control technique in high
permeability formations; however, they should be used with caution. The high viscosities and
sophisticated breaker systems of crosslinked HEC may give promising sealing and dissolving
results under laboratory conditions, but their use is questionable for field applications. A
crosslinked HEC system is not filterable to 2 micron specification, is very sensitive to hydraulic
shearing and involves the use of exotic breaker systems that have not been totally reliable in field
operations. Crosslinked HEC systems designed to control fluid losses over time normally involves
the use of encapsulated, delayed chemical breakers designed for formation fracturing operations
that can cause dramatic permeability impairment in wells that will be gravel packed.
Graded Solid Particles

The third class of fluid loss control materials is the use of graded solid particles. These materials
consist of solid particles of different types that have been carefully sized to form a filtercake
either on the formation face or on gravel pack sand. These solids should be designed to provide
fluid loss control by creating a thin filter cake to reduce adhesion and operational problems and to
provide better opportunity for complete removal. Particle sizing must be designed so that little
invasion of solid particulate occurs. The general assumption is that particles with sizes as small as
1/3 of the pore throat openings of the formation will aid in plugging or bridging of the pore throats
to form a thin impermeable filter cake. The square root of the formation permeability in
millidarcies can be used as a rough estimate of the size of the pore throat opening.
The base fluid used to carry the solids into the well must be compatible with the formation fluids
and matrix mineralogy of the formation. The solids and viscous carrier fluids must be stable under
downhole conditions without phase separation and migration of particles. The final density of the
material must be heavier than the completion brine to prevent density underbalance effects in
deviated wellbores.

Rev.3/ March 1997
The three most common fluid loss systems using graded solids mixed in viscous carrier fluids are:
• Resin particles (soluble in solvents like xylene or diesel)
• Salt particles (soluble in undersaturated brine)
• Calcium Carbonate particles (soluble in acid)
Oil Soluble Resins

Establishing a mechanical bridge at the formation face requires carefully sized solids mixed in a
viscous carrier fluid and pumped in the well. One such solid material is oil soluble hydrocarbon
resins. Oil soluble resin systems were developed for use as fluid loss control and acid diverting
agents, and have been utilized successfully in gravel pack applications in some fields. Oil soluble
resin fluid loss control systems were improved considerably at the end of the 1980’s and have
been used extensively in the North Sea.
A typical oil soluble resin systems consist of:

• Brine as a base fluid
• HEC as a viscosifying agent
• Graded oil soluble hydrocarbon resins for loss control in larger pore throats
• Starch and/or crosslinked starch for fluid loss control in the smaller pore throats
• Magnesium oxide as a pH buffer at higher temperatures
Oil soluble resins normally have an upper temperature limit of 212ºF. The most common type of
oil soluble resin is made of polymerized hydrocarbons. A new type oil soluble resin made by
processing natural pine resin has recently been developed. This resin is stable in temperatures up
to 300ºF and easier to dissolve.
Laboratory testing of oil soluble resins at actual well conditions and formation parameters is
recommended to determine the suitability of the resin system. In addition to bridging particles at
the face of the formation, some of the resin can liquefy. The amount of liquefied resin depends
on the amount and type of hydrocarbons the resin contacts in the well and on the downhole
temperature. In some cases, this liquefying effect has been known to produce a gummy mass
which effectively invades the formation and is difficult to remove. Resins have also been seen to
coagulate into a hard mass causing operational problems. These examples serve to emphasize the
need for laboratory testing prior to using oil soluble resins in a particular field for the first time. Oil
soluble resins have a specific gravity of approximately 1.10 and may tend to float when the
density of the brine in the well exceeds the resin density. This has also caused some operational
problems.
The size of the oil soluble resin pill needed to control fluid loss is normally equal to twice the hole
volume of the perforated or open hole interval. The pill should be displaced downhole and
squeezed into the formation at the maximum practical rate. The seal effectiveness of the pill
should be tested by applying 200 to 300 pounds per square inch of pressure against the filter cake.

Rev.3/ March 1997
The oil soluble resin is removed using a hydrocarbon based resin solvent that is pumped into the
well. In the past, xylene (mutual solvent) at a 25 percent concentration was used because it was
very effective in cleaning the resin from the formation. However, the use of xylene has been
discontinued in may parts of the world because of environmental and safety concerns. The most
successful and practical resin removal method employed today is a mixture of approximately
75 percent diesel with approximately 25 percent oil-wetting surfactant or mutual solvent.
The proper sizing of the oil soluble resin beads with respect to the formation is important and
becomes obvious at the two extremes. If the particles are too large, they will not form an
effective filter cake at the formation face and fluid loss will continue. If the beads are too small,
they will completely or partially invade the formation and are less likely to be removed during
clean-up operations. This can result in formation damage and reduced well productivity.
Oil soluble resin systems designed to work in highly permeable formations are much more
expensive than graded salt or graded calcium carbonate. In addition the fluids required for clean-
up are more expensive. This makes oil soluble resins unsuitable as a drill-in or underreaming fluid
for open-hole gravel packing. Also resins in large quantities will cause disposal problems since
they cannot be disposed of in the sea due to environmental restrictions.
Oil soluble resins have very good fluid loss control characteristics and can, if properly designed,
completely stop losses to the formation. The limited use of oil soluble resins as a fluid loss control
technique is due to uneasiness regarding adequate clean-up, since a poor clean-up job can
severely reduce well productivity. Failure to achieve a satisfactory clean-up is the greatest single
problem with using oil soluble resins, and may be affected by several factors, including, but not
limited to:
• Improper diesel/surfactant diversion technique
• Temperature of the formation
• Improper sizing of the resin beads in relation to the formation pore size
• Ineffective final clean-up due to low production flow rate and/or gravity of the formation oil.
Graded Salt Systems

Another widely available system using solid material for fluid loss control is graded salt pills.
Graded salt pills contain various sized solid salt particles and starches which act as bridging agents
on the face of the formation. The combination of solid salt particles of different sizes and the
starch act as a membrane with a lower permeability than the formation. The overbalance created
by the completion fluid hydrostatic pressure holds the particles in place.
The graded salt systems are designed for application in completion and workover operations to
provide fluid loss control in a wide range of fluid densities and downhole temperatures of up to
300ºF. The system consists of:
• Brine as a base fluid
• Xanvis as a viscosifying agent and suspending agent
• Graded salt particles for loss control in larger pore throats
• Crosslinked starch for fluid loss control in the smaller pore throats

Rev.3/ March 1997
• Magnesium oxide as a pH buffer at higher temperatures
The graded salt particles are added to the system to achieve a seal on the formation face in the
wellbore. A proper concentration and distribution of the correct size salt particles is essential to
form a thin, ultra low-permeability filter cake on the formation face. Controlling fluid loss in
micro-fractures, extremely high permeability sands or on the inside of a slotted liner or wire
wrapped screen is possible, but requires coarser salt particles. The optimum blend of salt particle
sizes that provide fluid loss control and good clean-up characteristics may have to be determined
from field experience.
The salt particles are not subject to deformation like the oil soluble resins and will not liquefy and
be squeezed into the formation pore throats. The filter cake created by a graded salt pill is
capable of withstanding extremely high pressure differentials. In some workover applications, up
to 1,000 pounds per square inch of pressure has been applied to the filter cake with no detrimental
effects. Normally an overbalance pressure differential of 200 to 300 pounds per square inch is
sufficient to hold the filter cake in place.
The volume of graded salt pill required to control fluid losses is normally very small since it is only
necessary to establish the filter cake on the face of the formation. In a gravel pack application it
is advantageous to place small volumes of graded salt pill at the formation face and allow the
particles to bridge. It is important to limit the amount of total treatment placed in the wellbore to
the minimum which will accomplish the desired effect of controlling fluid loss. The salt particles
have a specific gravity of 2.165 and the coarser particles may settle out of the pill after
placement; however, this has not caused major operational problems as compared to the upwards
migration of light oil soluble resins in heavy brines.
From laboratory tests and field operations, temperature is seen to have an effect on the dissolving
efficiency of the salt particles in the filter cake. At temperatures above 176ºF the speed at which
the filter cake dissolves in undersaturated fluid with a breaker is significantly increased compared
to lower temperatures. For cased hole applications at 185ºF, weak organic acids like citric and
formic, are recommended. The acids attack the polymers in the filter cake prior to using
undersaturated brine for dissolving the remaining salt. Proper diversion techniques are vital in
achieving a uniform dissolution of the filter cake with minimal productivity impairment.
Clean-up is accomplished by circulating undersaturated brine, produced brine or acid which

dissolve the salt particles. However, prior to dissolving the salt, an oxidizer is required to break
the polymer and allow the salt to be contacted. Another difficulty in obtaining complete cleanup is
that the cubic structure of NaCl (Figure 10.5) leads to a tightly packed tough filtercake. This
strong cake can cause clean up fluids to “worm-hole” through the cake, and not provide total
removal.

Rev.3/ March 1997
Figure 10.5
Scanning Electron Microscope Image of Graded Salt Filter Cake
Calcium Carbonate System

Another method of fluid loss control which is functionally similar to the graded salt system is the
sized calcium carbonate system. As with graded salt systems, calcium carbonate is pumped into
the well to the perforated interval and forms an extremely low permeability cake on the face of
the formation or on the gravel pack sand.
As with the oil soluble resin and graded salt system, a proper concentration and distribution of the
correct size particles is essential to forming a thin, ultra low-permeability filter cake on the
formation face. If the calcium carbonate particles are too large, they will not form an effective
filter cake at the formation face and fluid loss will continue. If the calcium carbonate are too
small, they will be completely or partially invade the formation and are less likely to be removed
during clean-up operations. This can result in formation damage and reduced well productivity.
One definite advantage of calcium carbonate pills is the primary removal technique is acid which
also has a stimulation effect on many formations. If the formation will not be damaged by
exposure to acid or if an acid treatment is already planned as part of the gravel packing program,
the calcium carbonate can be applied and fluid loss control established after the perforations have
been prepacked. With this done, the gravel pack can be installed and the screen and casing
annulus packed. With the gravel pack in place, the acid job is pumped to dissolve the calcium
carbonate filter cake.

Rev.3/ March 1997
PERFFLOW®
Baker Hughes has developed a new fluid loss control system which solves many of the problems
and difficulties inherent in existing fluid loss control methods. Designated as PERFFLOW, the
fluid contains suspended sized calc ium carbonate in a brine base and is applied directly to the
formation face in an open hole or prepacked perforations having unacceptably high fluid losses.
The solids are placed at the formation face or the prepacked sand face in the same way that
graded salts are applied and the overbalance of the well holds the solids in place. When fluid loss
control is no longer required, the well is allowed to flow, carrying the solids out of the formation or
prepacked sand face with the produced fluid. The PERFFLOW system is compatible with light
completion fluids. PERFFLOW has also been tested to seal against highly permeable formations.
PERFFLOW is a blend of bridging, viscosifying and filtration control agents. It is formulated in a

single packaged product to simplify the mixing and to ensure uniform composition of the fluid.
The bridging material utilized in PERFFLOW is a specially selected hard, graded, angular to sub-
angular calcium carbonate blend with a particle size distributions ranging primarily from 1 to 192
microns (Figure 10.6). The filtration and viscosifying agents are a combination of modified starch
and biopolymers which actively coat (Figures 10.7 and 10.8) the calcium carbonate particles. This
coating prevents the particles from adhering to each other and therefore allows for ease in
particle removal upon production of the well.
100
80
% Less Than
60
40
20
0
1 1.5 2 3 4 6 8 12 16 24 32 48 64 96 128192
Particle Size, um
Figure 10.6
PERFFLOW  Particle Size Distribution

Rev.3/ March 1997
Old Carbonate System
New Carbonate System
Figure 10.7
Schematic Illustrating Polymer Coating of Carbonate Grains in PERFFLOW 
Figure 10.8
Photomicrograph Illustrating Polymer Coating of Carbonate Grains in PERFFLOW 
The net effect of the above features of the PERFFLOW system is that the filtercake formed is a
very thin, yet friable cake (Figure 10.9). Because of the wide particle size distribution, the
calcium carbonate bridges very quickly, preventing the filtercake from penetrating the formation

Rev.3/ March 1997
(Figure 10.10). The result of producing a friable, non-penetrating filtercake is that it can be
removed from the formation face with very little back pressure (Figure 10.11). Likewise,
because of the wide particle size distribution, the smaller end of the carbonate particles can be
produced back through the gravel pack sand providing in excess of 80% return permeability
(Figure 10.12). Both the elevated breakout pressure, and the somewhat reduced return
permeability for the test performed at 265º F, result from polymer breakdown at the elevated
temperature. Finally, the friable nature of the filtercake becomes important when the filtercake
must be flowed back through a screen in a non-gravel packed completion. The PERFFLOW
filtercake breaks up easily to allow flow through the screen without plugging.
1 mm
Figure 10.9
PERFFLOW  Filtercake

Rev.3/ March 1997
Solids Bridged
at Pore Throat
Unfilled
Pore
Opening
Figure 10.10
Pore Throat Bridging with PERFFLOW 
60
50
Breakout Pressure (psi)
40
30
20
10
0
PERFFLOW W-307 W-307 @ 265ºF
DIF
Figure 10.11
Low Filtercake Breakout Pressure with PERFFLOW 

Rev.3/ March 1997
120
100
Return Permeability (%) 80
60
40
20
0
PERFFLOW W-307 W-307 @
DIF 265ºF
Figure 10.12
Return Permeability with PERFFLOW  When Bridging on 40/60 Gravel
One concern when using PERFFLOW, or any other solids-based fluid loss control material, is
attempting to bridge against gravel that is 20/40 Mesh or larger. To prevent excessive penetration
of the calcium carbonate into the gravel pack sand, additional carbonate at the larger end of the
particle size distribution can be added. Figure 10.13 indicates that this approach allows successful
fluid loss control being obtained on gravel sizes of at least 12/20 Mesh.
35
30
25
Fluid Loss (ml)
20
15
10
Time (min)
Figure 10.13
PERFFLOW  with Adjusted Particle Size Distribution Effectively Bridges on 12/20

Rev.3/ March 1997
Gravel Pack Sand
Gravel Pack Sand

In gravel packed wells, a critical factor to obtaining a successful completion, is to fill perforation
tunnels with high-permeability gravel-pack sand. As will be detailed in Chapter 12, fluid leakoff
during the perforation packing process is required to accomplish this. Therefore, if a fluid loss
control pill is pumped prior to perforation packing, very poor perforation filling may result. For this
reason, the use of gravel pack sand as a fluid loss control material can prove to be very benefic ial.
Gravel pack sand does not require removal, has no temperature limitations and when placed in the
perforations to limit fluid loss has the added effect of greater perforation filling efficiencies. If
sand is utilized in conjunction with the perforating hardware, potentially damaging fluid loss control
agents can be eliminated. This eliminates the need to remove fluid loss control agents prior to
gravel packing and provides two opportunities to place the gravel in the perforations. The results
include higher productivity and higher production longevity. This issue will be further expanded in
the Chapter 12 on prepacking.
Mechanical Fluid Loss Control

Since any type of fluid loss control pill has the potential of damaging the formation, it is
advantageous for fluid loss to be controlled through mechanical means whenever possible. Two
of the most commonly applied devices for this purpose are the Knock-Out Isolation Valve
(KOIV) and the Iso-Sleeve assembly.
Knock-Out Isolation Valve. The Knock-Out Isolation Valve (KOIV) is a mechanical fluid loss
device that prevents completion fluid losses and subsequent damage to the formation after
performing the gravel pack. The downward closing flapper in the KOIV is held open by the
gravel pack service tools during the gravel pack. When the service tools are pulled out of the
KOIV, the flapper closes preventing fluid loss to the formation (see Figure 10.14). The gravel
pack service tools can be removed from the well and the completion tubing run. Under producing
conditions the flapper will open. Alternatively, the flapper is made of a friable material and can be
broken hydraulically or mechanically prior to producing the well.
Iso-Sleeve . The Iso-Sleeve assembly (Figure 10.15) straddles the entire gravel pack screen
assembly, totally isolating the zone. The washpipe seals in seal bores located above and below
the screen. The washpipe is also mechanically locked to prevent premature actuation during
gravel packing. The washpipe can be perforated with a tubing punch to open the zone for
production. Alternatively, sliding sleeves can be included in the assembly.

Rev.3/ March 1997
Washpipe
C urved Flapper
Housing
Figure 10.14
Model “C” Knock-Out Isolation Valve

Rev.3/ March 1997
Figure 10.15
Iso-Sleeve
Recommended Applications
Given the wide range of available fluid-loss control techniques, it is important to review when, or
if, each of these are recommended. If we examine the list of possible times during the completion
operation when fluid-loss control may be required, it is recognized that not only is the wellbore
condition different during each of these operations, but the subsequent operations yet to be
performed are also different. Table 12.1 is provides an explanation of the most important aspect
of the completion operations that dictate the fluid-loss control technique recommendation. This
table also lists the primary, and where applicable, a secondary recommendation.
Table 12.1
Recommended Fluid-Loss Control Techniques for Each Stage of Completion
Operation
Stage of Critical Issue Primary Secondary

Completion Recommendation Recommendation
Drilling of High Quality Filtercake PERFFLOW DIF Graded Salt DIF
Reservoir
High Quality Filtercake PERFFLOW “Virgin” PERFFLOW
Prior to Filtercake Cleans Up w/ (no Calcium Carbonate)

Rev.3/ March 1997
Open Hole GP Production (if losses occur after

running screen)
Following Don’t Totally Shut Off Gravel Pack Sand Xanvis w/ Breaker
Perforating Leakoff PERFFLOW if loss rate
high
Following Bridges on Gravel Pack PERFFLOW Pills Graded Salt Pills
Prepacking Sand
Following Non-Damaging to Mechanical Devices PERFFLOW
Gravel Gravel Pack (with large particle size
Packing distribution)
During the drilling of the pay section, the choice of drill-in fluid should be strongly influenced by
the type of completion planned. If a stand-alone screen completion is planned, the filtercake must
be able to be produced back through the screen. The friable PERFFLOW filtercake greatly
assists this process. Graded salt systems have also been used with some success. If the well is
to be gravel packed, the filter cake also must withstand the pumping of brine during the gravel
packing operation. This requirement eliminates the applicability of graded salt systems.
There are two points during a gravel packing operation that the improper use of fluid-loss control
materials can be very detrimental. First, as will be discussed in Chapter 12, for cased-hole gravel
pack completion, it is critical that all of the perforations be completely filled with gravel pack sand.
Since leakoff is required to pack perforations, it is recommended that the well be prepacked just
as soon as possible, ideally immediately after perforating. In this situation, the gravel pack sand
itself can be thought of as a fluid-loss control material.
If it is not possible to prepack the perforations, the next choice would be to use just enough HEC
to reduce losses to a manageable level. If losses are excessive, PERFFLOW can be used in
empty perforations; however, an acid soak will be required to remove the filtercake prior to
gravel packing. A caution that must be addressed is that PERFFLOW is not compatible with
HEC. Therefore, if it is recommended that another gel such as Xanvis be used if there is a
possibility that PERFFLOW may also be required.
Another critical point for the use of fluid-loss control materials, is at the conclusion of gravel pack.
When losses occur at point, the typical practice is to spot the fluid loss pill out of the end of the
workstring, and allow it to be pulled into the screen. Once losses have been controlled, the
workstring is pulled from the hole. The difficulty with this approach is that if this pill does not
clean-up with production, a coiled-tubing workover is required. An alternative approach is to use
some sort of mechanical fluid-loss control technique, so that pills do not have to be spotted inside
the screen. If mechanical options are not acceptable, then a PERFFLOW pill with the coarse
calcium carbonate particle size distribution is recommended to prevent the pill from penetrating
the gravel pack.
The special situation of an open-hole gravel pack requires that the filtercake be able to flow back
through the gravel pack, as well as provide good leakoff control during the complete gravel
packing operation (including pumping). Because of the unique formulation of the PERFFLOW

Rev.3/ March 1997
system, this is the only material that we have found that meets this requirement. However, even
though the PERFFLOW is extremely durable, and experience indicates that screen can easily be
run across it without damaging it fluid-loss control capabilities, there are situations when additional
fluid loss control is required after the screen has been run. To help limit the probability of screen
plugging, it is recommended that fluid loss control at this time be accomplished by the base
PERFFLOW polymer system (without the calcium carbonate).
Summary
Fluid loss is a common occurrence in gravel packed well completions due to the relatively high to
extremely high permeabilities of unconsolidated formations. Fluid loss is further aggravated by the
fact that the formation may be exposed to losses for several days after perforating while the
gravel pack is installed and completion tubing run. The absolute best alternative to dealing with
fluid loss is to accept it. Although perceived as a problem in the completion process, fluid loss
after perforating indicates the perforations are open and clean, the completion fluid is compatible
with the formation and the reservoir is permeable. The real problem occurs when fluid loss is
stopped, indicating that something either intentionally or unintentionally has plugged the formation.

Rev.3/ March 1997
Chapter 11
GRAVEL PLACEMENT TECHNIQUES
Introduction
Gravel packing consists of installing a down-hole filter in the well to control the entry of formation
material but allow the production of reservoir fluids. The gravel packed completion is perhaps the
most difficult and complex completion operation performed on a routine basis. As discussed in
previous chapters, the success of a gravel pack is influenced by many factors beginning when the
drill bit enters the productive pay and ending when the completion tubing is run in the well. Since
the gravel pack is a filter, any operation or procedure that leads to plugging will impair well
productivity. Hence, the importance of minimizing near wellbore damage, using compatible
completion and stimulation fluids and establishing a clean wellbore environment is imperative.
Also, perforation requirements and cleaning techniques are critical to gravel placement in them by
ensuring that they are effective and that there is finite fluid loss for the transport of gravel.
Gravel Placement Objectives

There are two primary objectives in gravel packing a well. First the annulus between the screen
and casing must be packed with gravel. Filling the annulus with the properly sized gravel will
ensure that the formation sand is retained downhole and not produced to surface. The second
objective is to pack each perforation with gravel. Filling the perforations with gravel is the key to
obtaining high productivity from the well. In an unconsolidated formation, any perforation that is
unfilled with gravel will fill with formation sand and restrict well productivity. As discussed in
Chapter 9, the flow through a gravel packed perforation tunnel is represented by linear darcy
flow. The Pressure drop through the perforation tunnel is minimized if the tunnel is filled with
high-permeability gravel as opposed to formation sand. Tables 11.1 and 11.2 compare the
calculated pressure drops in different perforation diameters for formation sand and gravel-filled
perforation tunnels and emphasize the importance of perforation filling during the gravel
placement process.
TABLE 11.1
Pressure Losses in a Packed Perforation (Formation Sand - 1,000 md)
Pressure Drop (psi)

Flow Rate 3/8-in Dia 1/2-in Dia 3/4-in Dia
(BPD/Perforation) Perforation Perforation Perforation
1 450 190 64
10 27,760 9,280 2,091

Rev. 3 /April 1997
Gravel Placement Techniques Chapter 11
TABLE 11.2
Pressure Losses in a Packed Perforation (20/40 gravel - 119,000 md)
Pressure Drop (psi)

Flow Rate 3/8-in Dia 1/2-in Dia 3/4-in Dia
1 2 1 0.4
10 55 21 6
25 272 99 25
Gravel Placement Techniques

The crossover circulating technique is the most common method used to place the gravel in the
perforations and around the screen. The gravel pack equipment and service tools allow
circulating the gravel down the workstring above the packer and into the screen/casing annulus
below the packer with returns coming back up the washpipe and up the workstring/casing annulus
as discussed in Chapter 7. The fluid used to carry the gravel can either leak-off to the formation
or be circulated out of the hole through the wash pipe (as illustrated in Figure 11.1) depending on
the position of the service tools and the condition of the perforation in terms of excepting fluid
leak-off.
A variety of fluids have been used as gravel carrier fluids for gravel packing operations such as
include brine, oil, diesel, crosslinked gels, clarified xanthum gum (XC) gel and hydroxy-ethyl-
celluse (HEC) gel, and foam. The most commonly used fluids have been brine and HEC gel.
Gravel packs performed with brine carrier fluids are referred to as water packs or conventional
packs. Gravel packs performed with HEC gel carrier fluids are referred to as slurry packs, gel or
viscous packs.
Table 11.3 is a comparison of HEC gel and brine characteristics in regards to their use as gravel
transport fluids. When using HEC, the gravel pack sand is influenced primarily by viscous forces
(i.e., the gravel is suspended by the gel). When using brine as a transport fluid, the gravel is
influenced primarily by gravity forces (i.e., the gravel settles quickly). Hence, higher pump rates
may be required to cope with settling in some situations as Table 11.3 suggests.
TABLE 11.3
Comparison of HEC and Brine Gravel Pack Carrier Fluids
HEC Gel Brine

Fluid Viscosity 300 - 750 cp 1 - 2 cp
Typical Gravel Concentration 10 - 15 ppg 1 - 3 ppg
Typical Pump Rate 1 - 4 bpm 4 - 5 bpm
Tell-Tale Screen Used Yes No

Rev. 3 /April 1997
Return ports
Gravel Pack ports
Ball Seat
(Sheared out)
Washpipe
Figure 11.1
Flow Paths During Gravel Packing

Rev. 3 /April 1997
Historical Background
The earliest gravel packs where performed in shallow, vertical wells by simply pouring gravel into
the tubing/casing annulus and allowing the gravel to settle around a screen. This technique is still
employed in the water well industry, but is seldom used in oil or gas wells. As equipment and
technology improved, gravel packing of oil and gas wells was accomplished by mixing sand in
brine and pumping the mixture into the hole. Brine represents the simplest of the transport fluids.
Prior to the early 1960’s, brine continued to be the preferred (in terms of use) gravel pack fluid
because many other fluid systems had not been developed at that time.
The early equipment used to mix brine and gravel was inefficient and resulted in the “slugging” of
gravel into the hole as opposed to a consistent brine and gravel mix ratio. The brine was seldom
filtered and no specifications were in place to ensure gravel pack sand quality was acceptable.
Overall rig housekeeping was poor and the perforating techniques available were limited to small-
diameter charges that produced entrance-hole diameters that were less than 0.5 inches. The
combination of all these factors resulted in inefficient gravel packs completions which were
commonly damaged.
In the late 1960’s, research efforts1,2,3 by several companies focused on improving the gravel
packing process. The culmination of the research efforts was the introduction of viscosified
gravel carrier fluids. The viscosified carrier fluid of choice was HEC. HEC gel provided a
reasonably clean medium for isolating and transporting the gravel pack sand to the bottom of the
well. The gel allowed consistent batch mixing and protected the gravel from crushing and
contamination during pumping operations. Due to its apparent advantages, HEC gel carrier fluids
rapidly replaced brine as the gravel packing fluid of choice. Viscous HEC gel carrier fluids
remained the “state-of-the-art” gravel transport fluid for many companies until the early 1990’s.
Despite the technology advances in gravel quality, wellbore cleanliness, fluid filtration and
perforation quality, gravel packed wells were not, in general, producing as efficiently as
theoretically possible. Also, it became common knowledge that gravel packs performed with
gelled fluids commonly contained voids in the gravel packs. Attention was focused on HEC gel
as a potential cause of the poor productivity. It was discovered that HEC was not as non-
damaging as originally assumed and as a consequence, improved shear mixing procedures were
developed. 6 Despite better mixing, damage due to residual gel remained likely. Research also
indicated that HEC did not pack perforations efficiently as well deviation and zone length
increased. 7 Alternatives to HEC, such as XC and Shellflo-S were proposed but were never
completely accepted as were a myriad of other fluid systems which were being developed for use
as the ideal gravel-pack fluid.
Significant research and operating data were presented by Exxon in the early 1990s which
showed that water was a general purpose gravel transport fluid that produced low porosity packs
that did not contain voids and was capable of prepacking perforations provided that there was
acceptable fluid loss. Baker Hughes developed the Gravel Infuser as the first efficient brine and
sand mixing equipment for water-pack systems. The equipment allowed consistent mixing of
gravel in brine and redirected attention to brine as the gravel transport fluid of choice. Coupled
with research data and positive field results, the Gravel Infuser initiated the trend for the rest of

Rev. 3 /April 1997
the industry accept brine as a gravel pack carrier fluid. 8,9 Although gel represented an
improvement in technology at the time and is still applicable for certain well situations, brine is the
most widely used gravel pack carrier fluid in the industry today.
Continued evolution of procedures saw the introduction of diatomaceous earth filtration systems
(circa 1980) which were able to filter large quantities of brine quickly at reasonable costs.
Coupled with the increasing use of clear brine (as opposed to mud), diatomaceous earth filtration
systems resulted in a substantially cleaner wellbore environment than had been previously
possible.
In 1986, the API introduced specifications for gravel pack sand (API RP 58).4 These
specifications established rigorous requirements for gravel pack sand. The API specifications
called for gravel sieved to strict tolerances with low crush resistance and acid solubility which
was capable of passing through pumping equipment with little or no degradation. 5 Finally, in the
early 1980’s, underbalanced tubing conveyed perforating became a common and well established
technique for achieving the high shot density, large hole diameter, clean perforations required for
maximum gravel packed well productivity.
All of the above improvements, developments and changes significantly improved the gravel
packing systems that are offered today as a routine service.
Physical Model Observations of Brine and Gel Packing

Exxon studied the gravel packing characteristics of brine and gel carrier fluids in a 22 foot long
clear plastic gravel pack model. The model simulated 7 inch casing conditions with perforation
shot density variable from 0 to 12 shots per foot. The model could be rotated to simulate well
deviations from 0 to 110° from vertical. The results of the study were reported in 1993 in SPE
Paper 22793,7 and are summarized below.
Brine Transport Fluids - Simulations with brine carrier fluids were performed at 0 to 45°, 45 to
60° and 60 to 110°. The gravel-packing sequence at well deviations from 0 to 45° were highly
controlled by gravity and packed from the bottom of the well upwards as Fig. 11.2 portrays. As
long as finite leak-off occurred through a given perforation it was packed with gravel. The gravel
did not begin filling the perforation tunnels until the level of the gravel in the annulus reached the
perforation entrance. At this point, the gravel would divert into the perforations (if the perforation
was experiencing leak-off) and completely pack the perforation as the annular pack level rose.
The end result was a tight annular pack and completely prepacking the perforations experiencing
leak-off. In the 45 to 60° range, the well was also completely packed, but the packing began on
the lowside of the hole and filled the annulus with a series of dunes propagated up and down the
length of the model. At about 60° well deviation, the gravel is in transition between falling to the
bottom of the interval or remaining at the top of the interval on the lowside of the hole. As a
consequence, the packing is random as shown in Figure 11.3. The reason for this behavior is that
at about 60° represents the complement of the angle of repose for gravel whic h is about 28° as
illustrated in Figure 11.4.

Rev. 3 /April 1997
Figure 11.2
Packing Sequence With Brine Carrier Fluids In Wells Less Than 45°° 2
Figure 11.3
Packing Sequence With Brine Carrier Fluids In Wells At 60°° Deviation2

Rev. 3 /April 1997
Container
Dry Sand
Inverted Cone of
Dry Sand
62°
28°
Figure 11.4
Angle of Repose for Gravel-Pack Sand3
As the well deviation exceeds 60°, a gravel dune forms initially at the top of the completion
interval and is propagated sequentially from the top to the bottom of the completion interval. This
occurs because the angle of repose has been exceeded and gravity becomes a more dominant
force that causes the gravel to settle high in the completion interval. To ensure propagation of the
dune, the ratio of the wash-pipe OD to the screen ID must be about 0.70 or larger. . The purpose
of the large-diameter wash pipe is to divert flow from the annulus between the wash pipe and the
screen to the annulus outside the screen. Testing and field experience has shown that the ideal
ratio is probably in the range of 0.70 to 0.80. Additionally, the return flow rate to cross sectional
area ratio between the screen and the casing should be at least 1 ft/sec to supply sufficient
transport velocity. If the ratio of washpipe OD to screen ID is too small, excess fluid will flow in
the small annulus and the gravel dune will prematurely stall high in the completion interval,
resulting in a “premature sandout” (see Figures 11.5). Figure 11.6 shows the effect of wash pipe
to screen diameter ratios on gravel placement efficiency. If the ratio of washpipe OD to screen
ID is too large, sticking the wash pipe is a concern as well as potentially high pump pressures
during the final stages of gravel placement. A schematic of the gravel packing process in wells
greater than 60° when large diameter wash pipe is used is illustrated in Figure 11.7. This figure
shows the dune deposited and propagated along the lowside of the hole until it reaches the end of
the completion interval (alpha wave). At this point a secondary deposition (beta wave) backfills
and packs the volume over the top of the alpha wave to complete the gravel pack.

Rev. 3 /April 1997
Figure 11.5
Failed Packing Sequence With Brine Carrier Fluid In High-Angle Well Resulting
From Low Rate and Small Diameter Washpipe 2
100
0.8
0.5
Efficiency (%)
Wash pipe O.D.

50
Screen I.D. Ratio
Low Viscosity Fluid

0
0 45 90
Well Deviation
Figure 11.6
Effect of Washpipe OD to Screen ID Ratios on
Gravel Placement Efficiency2

Rev. 3 /April 1997
Figure 11.7
Packing Sequence With Brine Carrier Fluid In High Angle Well Using
High Rate and Large Diameter Washpipe 2
Gel Transport Fluids - Simulations with gel carrier fluids were also performed at 0 to 45°, 45 to
60° and 60 to 80°. The packing mechanisms with gel were more complex than with brine. At 0
to 45°, the high viscosity of the gel allows radial packing around the gravel pack screen and node
build-up at the perforations. At screen connections, voids were commonly observed immediately
after pumping ceased. But the voids where typically filled by gravel settling after a few hours
provided that the well deviation was less than about 60°. As with brine, perforation packing was
complete but occurred only if the perforation experienced fluid leak-off. At deviations greater
than 60°, voids persisted in areas where incomplete slurry dehydration occurred (opposite screen
joint connections or unperforated sections of the interval). Unlike the lower deviation simulations,
gravel pack settling at deviations greater than 60° resulted in voids along the top of the gravel
pack. When the voids occurred opposite perforations, gravel pack sand placed in the perforations
would be unloaded into the voids when production occurred. Under actual conditions, this
phenomena would result in either sand production or localized plugging of the gravel pack as the
perforation tunnels filled with formation sand.
Transport Fluid Summary. Based on the results of laboratory testing and field experience,
brine exhibits more complete packing of the perforations and annulus under a wide variety of well
conditions and is considered to be a general purpose gravel pack fluid. Gel transport fluids should
be limited to use in wells with deviations less than 45° and gross zone lengths less than 70 feet in
length.
Field Results
The main objective of annular gravel placement is to effectively pack the annulus between the
screen and the casing or the open hole For cased-hole completions an added objective is to pack
the perforations with gravel since the latter significantly improves well productivity and longevity.

Rev. 3 /April 1997
See Chapter 12 for additional details. In addition to perforation packing, the quality of the pack in
the screen/casing annulus is important regardless of whether the well is completed open or cased
hole. Figures 11.8, 11.9, 11.10 and 11.11 show gravel pack log examples from actual wells where
both water and gels were used as the transport fluid. These logs indicate complete annular
packing when using brine carrier fluids. The gravel packs performed with viscous gel carrier
fluids show the presence of large voids in the annular pack which, if not repaired, will result in
formation sand production. Figures 11.12 and 11.13 are examples of wells gravel packed with
viscous gel and then re-packed with brine due to voids in the initial viscous gel pack. The
subsequent brine pack filled the voids.
Figure 11.8 Figure 11.9

Brine Pack in Gas Well Brine Pack in Oil Well
(7,600 ft Depth, 51º, 42 ft Net Perfs) (3,600 ft Depth, 67º, 76 ft Net Perfs)

Rev. 3 /April 1997
Figure 11.10 Figure 11.11

Brine Pack in Oil Well Viscous Gel Pack in Oil Well
(12,800 ft Depth, 68º, 50 ft Net Perfs) (13,600 ft Depth)
Viscous Gel Pack Brine Pack
Figure 11.12
Comparison of Viscous Gel Pack and Brine Pack in Gas Well
(3,500 ft Depth, 54º, 110 ft Net Perfs)

Rev. 3 /April 1997
Viscous Gel Pack Brine Pack
Figure 11.13
Comparison of Viscous Gel Pack and Brine Pack in Gas Well
(4,200 ft Depth, 63º, 20 ft Net Perfs)
References
1. Sparlin, D., “Fight Sand With Sand - A Realistic Approach to Gravel Packing”, SPE Paper
2649, SPE 44th Annual Fall Meeting, Denver, Colorado, September 28 - October 1, 1969.
2. Lybarger, J.H., Scheuerman, R.F. and Willard, R.O., “Water-Base, Viscous Gravel Pack
System Results in High Productivity in Gulf Coast Completions”, SPE Paper 4774, SPE
Symposium on Formation Damage Control, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 7-8, 1974.
3. Novotny, R.J. and Matson, R.P., “Laboratory Observations of Gravel Placement

Techniques”, SPE Paper 5659, SPE 50th Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, Texas, September 28 -
October 1, 1975.
4. “Recommended Practices for Testing Sand Used in Gravel Packing Operations”, American
Petroleum Institute, API Recommended Practice 58 (RP58), March 1986.
5. Roll, D.L., Himes, R., Ewert, D.P. and Doerksen, J., “Effects of Pumping Equipment on
Sand-Laden Slurries”, SPE Paper 15071, SPE Production Engineering (November 1987),
291-296.

Rev. 3 /April 1997
6. Ashton, J.P. and Nix, C.A., "Polymer Shear Mixer: A Device for Improving the Quality of
Polymer Viscosified Brines", SPE Paper 14829, SPE 7th Symposium on Formation Damage
Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, February 26-27, 1986.
7. Penberthy, W.L. and Echols, E.E., “Gravel Placement in Wells”, SPE Paper 22793, Journal
8. Johnson, M.H., Montagna, J.N., and Richard, B.M., "Studies, Guidelines, and Field Results of
Nonviscosified Completion Brine Gravel-Pack Carrier Fluids", SPE Paper 23774, SPE
International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, February 26-
27, 1992.
9. Thibodeaux, G.A., Gill, S.B., Richard, B.M. and Bowman, C.W., “Comparative Study of
Gravel/Water Packing 12 Gulf Coast Wells”, SPE Paper 22794, SPE 66th Annual Technical
Meeting and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, October 6-9, 1991.

Rev. 3 /April 1997
Chapter 12
CASED-HOLE GRAVEL PACKING PRACTICES
Introduction
Cased hole gravel packs are one of the most common methods for controlling the production of
formation sand in oil and gas wells. Cased hole completions are more commonly applied than
open-hole gravel packs for several reasons.1 First, if the operator is not aware of a need for sand
control when the well is drilled, a perforated casing completion can be installed, with the gravel
pack being installed later if the need arises. Also, cased-hole completions are often required for
the upper zones of multi-zone completions. In addition, water or gas exclusion is easier in a cased
hole completion, and wellbore stability is more easily maintained. One negative aspect of the
cased hole completion is low productivity unless gravel is placed through and outside the
perforations properly.
Perforation Prepacking
Several completion techniques have been developed to help alleviate the problems associated with
cased hole gravel packs. One commonly applied technique, which Penberthy1 has demonstrated
to be quite effective is perforation prepacking. This process involves placing gravel through the
perforation tunnels, into the cavity created at each perforation behind the casing (see Figure 12.1).
Figure 12.1
Prepacked Perforations
Prepacking controls fluid loss, increases perforation filling efficiencies and decreases drawdown
pressure drop through the perforations tunnels by preventing formation sand filling the tunnels.
Filling the perforations with gravel is the key to obtaining high productivity from the well. In an

Rev. 3 / February 1997
Cased-Hole Gravel Packing Practices Chapter 12
unconsolidated formation, any perforation not filled with gravel will fill with formation sand. As
discussed in Chapter 9, the flow through a gravel packed perforation tunnel is represented by
linear darcy flow. Pressure drop through the perforation tunnel is minimized if the tunnel is filled
with high permeability gravel as opposed to formation sand. Tables 12.1 and 12.2 compare the
calculated pressure drops in different perforation diameters for formation sand filled and gravel
filled perforation tunnels. These tables dramatically emphasizes the critical importance of
complete perforation filling during the gravel placement process.
Table 12.1
Pressure Losses in a Packed Perforation (Formation Sand - 1,000 md)
Pressure Drop (psi)

Flow Rate 3/8” Diameter 1/2” Diameter 3/4” Diameter
1 450 190 64
10 27,760 9,280 2,091
Table 12.2
Pressure Losses in a Packed Perforation (20/40 gravel - 119,000 md)
Pressure Drop (psi)

Flow Rate 3/8” Diameter 1/2” Diameter 3/4” Diameter
1 2 1 0.4
10 55 21 6
25 272 99 25
The practical effect of the productivity lost from the increased pressure drop caused by partial
filling of perforation tunnels with formation material has been described in a recent publication2
and is illustrated in Figure 12.2.

Figure 12.2
Effect on Productivity of Formation Material Partially Filling Perforations 2
When it is considered that prepacking can be defined as: any method that intentionally places
gravel into the perforation tunnels and out into the formation, it becomes obvious that
several techniques should be available to accomplish this. Filling of perforation tunnels can be
accomplished either with a dedicated operation prior to running the gravel pack assembly, or it can
be accomplished by forcing injection into the perforations during gravel packing. So in evaluating
a cased-hole gravel pack completion techniques the distinction becomes: was a dedicated prepack
performed, was the prepack performed with the gravel pack assembly in the hole, or was a
circulating gravel pack performed with limited leakoff to the formation. The technique utilized is
normally dictated by well parameters such as excessive fluid loss, extended rat hole area,
reservoir acid sensitivity, zone length, etc. An additional concern that must be addressed is which
carrier fluid was used for the prepacking operation.
Carrier Fluid Selection
As with the annular packing process described in Chapter 11, there are two basic classes of
carrier fluids available for prepacking perforation tunnles, non-viscous (brine) carrier fluids, and
viscous (gelled) carrier fluids. Many of the same transport mechanisms present during annular
packing with these two classes of fluids are also operative when they are used to transport gravel
into a perforation tunnel.
To assess the effectiveness of each of these fluids for perforation filling, three factors become
important:

1. the fluid-loss characteristics of the carrier fluid

2. the packing sequence within the perforation tunnel
3. the injection rate.
Leakoff to the formation is required to allow gravel pack sand to enter the perforation tunnel. If
no leakoff exists, thus not providing a flow path for completion fluid to leave the perforation to
allow a volume of gravel to enter, the only mechanism available for perforation filling is gravity
settling (Figure 12.3). If only a small portion of the perforation tunnel is filled with formation
sand, severe reductions in effective permeability will result (Figure 12.4). To remedy this
situation, every effort must be made to maintain leakoff during the perforation filling process. If a
gelled carrier fluid is used, the carrier fluid itself can act a fluid-loss control material. The lack of
leakoff control with brine carrier fluids, is a major reason why field data demonstrate that more
gravel can be placed outside casing while using non-viscous carrier fluids.
Gamma Ray Pumping Pressure < Fracture Pressure
With
Leakoff
VS
Without
Leakoff
Figure 12.3
Leakoff is Required for Perforation Filling

1000000
L
k= 100000
n Lj
∑k
Average Permeability (md)

10000
j= 1 j
1000
L=1 100
150 md
k formation = 150 md 10
k gravel = 120,000 md
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Fraction of Perforation Filled With 150 md Formation Material
Figure 12.4
Effect of Partial Perforation Filling on Average Permeability
Another important issue concerning the ability to fill perforation tunnels is the gravel transport
mechanism of the selected carrier fluid. As is the case for annular packing, as described in
Chapter 11, when a viscous carrier fluid is used, the viscous forces of the fluid are greater than
the gravitational forces acting on the gravel. Under these conditions, the perforation filling
progresses from the tip of the perforation tunnel, then back towards the wellbore (Figure 12.5).
The problem with this packing sequence is that as the perforation packs, a viscous fluid is leaking
off to the formation immeadiately outside the casing. The leakoff of the viscous fluid will tend to
restrict further leakoff, thus restricting the ability to pack the tunnel in the critical area
immeadiately adjacent and through the cement and casing.

Casing
Flow
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Node
Cement
Figure 12.5
Perforation Filling With Viscous Carrier Fluid
When a non-viscous carrier is used, the gravitational forces now dominate, and the gravel
transport is through an equilibrium bed mechanism, similar to the annular packing of a highly-
deviated wellbore. With this mechanism acting, gravel is first placed in the tunnel through the
casing and cement, and then out into the formation (Figure 12.6). In addition to losing only non-
damaging fluid that does not restrict further leakoff, this packing sequence leads to more efficient
packing.
Casing
7
Flow
1 2 3 4 5 6
Cement
Figure 12.6
Perforation Filling With Non-Viscous Carrier Fluid

A final aspect that affects the ability to pack perforation tunnels, especially when using brines as
carriers, is the injection rate. While it is a misconception that elevated viscosity is required to
cause the gravel to “turn the corner” into the perforations, a minimum injection rate is required to
maximize the perforation filling effeciency. Several industry studies2,3 suggest that an injection
rate of 0.2 gpm/perforation optimizes perforation filling efficiency. This value should be
considered a general guideline, and may vary for some applications, especially for intervals
consisting of multiple sand layers. For these wells, only a portion of the overall zone may be
taking fluid at any one time; therefore, injection requirements as based on the overall zone length
are reduced.
Field Evaluation
A common approach to qualitatively assess the results of a gravel pack is to determine the “pack
factor”. The pack factor is simply a measure of the quantity of gravel placed behind casing
during the gravel packing operations. The pack factor is calculated using a material balance as
follows:
Vt − Vcp − Vs − Vb − Vr
PF =
Hn
where: PF = perforation pack factor (pounds of gravel per foot of perforations)

Vt = total amount of gravel pumped during prepacking and gravel packing (lbs)
Vs = total amount of gravel filling the screen and casing annulus (lbs)
Vb = total amount of gravel filling the blank and casing annulus (lbs)
Vcp = total amount of gravel filling casing after prepacking (lbs)
Vr = total amount of gravel reversed out of the well after prepacking & gravel packing
(lbs)
Hn = net perforated interval (feet)
While the pack factor does not provide strong correlation to well performance, it does provide
information upon which comparisons of perforation filling efficiencies of different carreir fluids
can be made. Figures 12.7 - 12.9 demonstrate the effectiveness of brine carrier fluids as
compared to gels. Figure 12.7 is a presentation of pack factor for four general classes of wells,
old and new oil wells and old and new gas wells. This plot indicates that regardless of the well
type, brine carrier fluids are capable of placing more gravel behind casing than are the viscouis
carriers. Simila r results can also be recogoinized as a function of interval length and well
deviation (Figures 12.8 & 12.9). These results combine to offer strong support that non-viscous
carrier fluids are actually more efficient in filling perforation tunnels than are the gelled fluids.

70
65
Brine Carrier Fluid

60 58
56 Viscous Gel Carrier Fluid
( ) Number of Zones
50
45
Gravel Placement (lbs/ft)
40
30
30
26
24 24
20
10
(208) (6) (75) (3) (140) (14) (82) (7)
0
New Gas Old Gas New Oil Old Oil
Well Type
Figure 12.7
Perforation Pack Factor as a Function of Well Type
90
83
80
Brine Carrier Fluid
Viscous Gel Carrier Fluid

70
( ) Number of Zones
60
53 54
50
38 39
40
34 33
30
24
21
20 17
15
10
10
(161) (26) (147) (26) (87) (8) (46) (6) (35) (2) (86) (4)
0
0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 101+
Interval Length (ft)
Figure 12.8
Perforation Pack Factor as a Function of Interval Length

100
90 Brine Carrier Fluid
Viscous Gel Carrier Fluid 80

80
( ) Number of Zones
70
60
53
51
50 47
40
32
30
22
20
10 (455) (63) (65) (7) (42) (2)
0
0-45 46-60 61-90
Well Deviation (°)
Figure 12.9
Perforation Pack Factor as a Function of Well Deviation
Figure 12.10 illustrates that, although some scatter is present, there is a benefit of increased
injection rates when using brine to carry gravel into perforation tunnels. These data suggest that
the best practice for prepacking perforation tunnels, especially when packing below fracture
pressure, is to inject the brine/gravel slurry at the maximum rate practical.
300
250
Gravel Pack Factor (lb/ft)
200
150
100
50
0
>5
.91-1
1.1-2
2.1-3
3.1-4
4.1-5
.05-.1
.11-.2
.21-.3
.31-.4
.41-.5
.51-.6
.61-.7
.71-.8
.81-.9
Leakoff Rate (gpm/perforation)
Figure 12.10
Effect of Leakoff Rate to Perforation Filling Efficiency

Because perforation filling is so important, it is recommended that the prepacking operation be

carried out at the earliest possible opportunity (i.e., immediately after perforating). In addition to
helping control fluid loss, prepacking immediately after perforating affords two opportunities to
place gravel in the perforations (i.e., during the prepack and during the gravel pack). Although
this method may require an additional trip to clean out the well prior to gravel packing, the
improved gravel placement typically outweighs the additional cost associated with the additional
wash trip.
Where high fluid-loss situations exist and there is a need for fluid-loss control agents, the
recommendation is to prepack the perforation tunnels prior to using fluid-loss control agents.
Prepacking with gravel-pack sand offers a number of significant advantages in the well killing
operation of gravel-pack completions:
• The largest pressure drop in gravel packs occurs in the perforation tunnels. Therefore
filling these tunnels with high permeability gravel will help maximize well productivity (see
Figure 12.2).
• When the perforation tunnels are filled with proppant of a known particle size, the
optimum fluid loss control treatment that will successfully bridge out on this gravel is
easier to design.
• A properly designed prepack should reduce the surface area that fluid loss control is
required to cover. This lowers the volume of loss control material required and
simultaneously reduces removal problems, fluid loss control material cost, and time and
effort required to remove smaller amounts of material.
• By placing the fluid loss control material as near to the wellbore as possible, the
subsequent operations to remove the material are made easier. Maximizing the removal
of fluid loss material increases well productivity.
• Placing the fluid loss control material inside the perforations can lead to voids in the gravel
inside those perforations over the life of the well as formation fluid may dissolve residual
loss control material. These voids can be filled with formation sand, which will result in
reduced productivity or failure to control sand production, or both.
The success, or lack of success, associated with gravel-pack completions is dependent on filling
all perforations and any cavities outside the perforations created by perforating, washing, or
backsurging. Table 12.3 illustrates the relative productivity of open-hole gravel pack completions,
non-gravel pack perforated completions, and cased hole gravel packs with and without a prepack.
Note that the cased hole completions in this example were perforated with 4 to 6 shots per foot.
Therefore, these productivities do not represent productivities that are possible with current gravel
packing techniques. However, the benefit of prepacking is illustrated.

Table 12.3
Gravel Pack Productivity from Miocene Reservoirs, Venezuela 1
Productivity Index
(bopd/psi)
Interval 1 Interval 2
Open-Hole Gravel Pack 48.4 (14) 6.4 (13)
Gun Perforated Casing 36.6 (20) 5.2 (14)
Cased hole Gravel Pack 12.9 (19) 3.2 (12)
(with prepack)
Cased hole Gravel Pack 4.0 (14) 1.7 (3)
(without prepack)
( ) - Number of wells
Brunei Shell Petroleum (BSP) published the results of a series of field trials with the purpose of
improving productivity of gravel pack completions.3 The results of this study were similar to those
summarized in Table 12.3. That is, while prepacking did provide an incremental improvement,
cased hole gravel packs with a prepack still produced at significantly lower rates than open-hole
gravel packs in similar intervals. The BSP paper suggested that the reason for this is that the
process of perforating and washing did not completely remove the damage surrounding the
wellbore. Figure 12.11 illustrates how this may occur. When prepacking is carried out below
fracture propagation pressure, gravel can only fill the empty volumes behind casing created during
the underbalanced perforating and flow back period. If the perforation tunnel and/or any cavities
created do not extend beyond the near wellbore damaged zone, a positive skin can be expected.
However, another very real possibility for the reduced productivity of the previously cited cased-
hole gravel pack work has much to do with how the gravel packs were placed. Many of those
treatments utilized gravel packing techniques since identified as leading to low efficiency
completions. Gravel packing techniques have improved, and use of proper procedures can lead to
cased-hole gravel pack completions with efficiencies at least as high as open-hole gravel packs.
Ideal Wellbore Actual Wellbore

Damage
Zone
Compacted
Zone
Figure 12.11
Conventional Perforation Prepacking May not fully
Penetrate Damaged Zone

To allow for a valid comparison to be made concerning the various prepacking techniques that are
available, common definitions are required to classify these techniques. The classification offered
here will divide prepacking into two major subsets: techniques carried out below the formations
fracture pressure, and those performed above fracturing conditions. This distinction is important
because the ability to produce a high-efficiency completion will be based upon the ability to
effectively remove formation damage when treating below fracture pressure treatements, and to
bypass the damage for the treatments carried out above fracture pressure.
Prepacking Below Fracture Pressure

Circulating Water Pack: Brine used as a carrier fluid. No effort to intentionally force leakoff
(in excess of natural losses) to the formation. While a high-quality annular pack may be obtained,
perforation filling will not be optimal.
Brine Prepack: This can be a dedicated prepack (prior to running the gravel pack assembly), or
leakoff can be forced to the perforations either by restricting returns at the surface or by pumping
the treatment with the crossover in the squeeze position. Injection rates will be less than 0.2
gpm/perf.
Gel Prepack: The same as a Brine Prepack with the exception that the prepack is pumped with
a gelled carrier fluid. Gel loading is typically low, commonly using 20 lb/1000 gal HEC; however,
higher gel loadings may also be used. It is important to specify the prepack carrier fluid,
especially when a brine annular pack is performed.
Acid Prepack: Pumping a multi-stage acid treatment with diverters prior to gravel packing.
When gravel is used as a diverter material, an acid prepack becomes a gravel prepacking
technique. Because it is the goal of these treatments to remove near-wellbore formation damage
(rather than to bypass it) these treatments are typically pumped at low rates. If the injection rate
is increased up to the maximum possible and still remains below the formation’s fracture pressure,
these treatments may be classified as High-Rate Acid Prepacks.
H2O-PAQSM : Prepacking technique that is carried out below the formation’s fracture pressure,
incorporates a brine as a carrier fluid, and injects the brine/gravel slurry into the formations at
rates that exceed 0.2 gpm/perf. The value of 0.2 gpm/perf arises from the results of several
industry studies4,5 that suggest that this value is a minimum to optimize perforation filling
efficiency (see Figure 12.10). This value should be considered a general guideline, and may vary
for some applications, especially for intervals consisting of multiple sand layers. For these wells,
only a portion of the overall zone is taking fluid at any one time; therefore, injection requirements
as based on the overall zone length are reduced. For an H2O-PAQ, gravel concentrations are
held below 2 ppa to allow the treatment to be self-diverting; therefore, providing the opportunity to
prepack several sand intervals with a single pumping operation.
High-Rate Gel Prepack: As with the Gel Prepack, this process is similar to an H2O-PAQ
treatment in all aspects other than carrier fluid. Rather than a brine carrier fluid, a lightly-gelled
fluid is used. The injection rates still exceed 0.2 gpm/perf, and the formation fracture pressure is
again NOT exceeded.

Performance Comparison for Prepacking Below Fracture Pressure
To determine which of the above listed procedures leads to the best quality completion, well test
data can be examined for several of these techniques. First, to provide a baseline upon which
recent advances in cased-hole gravel packing processes can be compared, well performance
information from completions typically termed “conventional gravel packs” can be provided.
Figure 12.12 is a plot of skins reported in the Shell Brunei paper3 for cased-hole gravel packs
perfromed with gelled carrier fluids. Examination of these data supports the conclusion that the
use of gel while gravel packing by its very nature severely reduce the productivity of a well. In
fact for the data set presented in Figure 12.12 the average flow efficiency is about 25 percent.
80
70
60
50
Skin
40
30
20 Average Skin = 24
10
Figure 12.12
Performance of Slurry Packed Wells
It has already been shown that one of the potential causes for low productivity for cased-hole
gravel packs performed below a formation’s fracture pressure is that it is difficult to effectively
place gravel completely though the near-wellbore damaged zone. One method to solve this
problem is to attempt to remove the damage by injecting acid into the formation. Acid prepacking
techniques have been the major technique for attempting to accomplish this goal.
A critical aspect of a successul damage removal procedure is that the acid must come into
contact with the entire interval. In addition, it has been commonly thought that contact time must
be sufficient to allow all of the damage to be dissolved. Therefore, with these assumptions, acid
prepacking quickly evolved into a process where a diverted acid treatment is pumped at a low

rate. Several studies indicate that one of the most effective diverters for acid prepacking is to
carry relatively small quantities of sand in an HEC gel. While this combination did provide good
diversion, well test results (Figure 12.13) tend to be very inconsistent, especially in high kh
applications. Poor perforation filling resulting from injecting a sand/gel slurry into the perforations
at a low rate coupled with formation damage resulting from the use of HEC are the most likely
causes for these elevated skins. The detrimental effects of this poor perforation filling can easily
overpower any benefit obtained from the acid.
40
35
30
25
20
Skin
15
10
-5
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000
Formation kh (md-ft)
Figure 12.13
Acid PrePack Performance vs. Formation kh
High injection rates, and the use of non-viscous carrier fluids are two techniques that have been
demonstrated to provide improved perforation filling. The traditional acid prepacking techniques
violate both of these conditions. If the perforation filling is indeed the critical factor of a cased-
hole gravel pack, completions methods that focus on filling perforations should prove superior to
those that sacrifice perforation filling for damage removal.
Figure 12.14 illustrates this point. A major operator has presented skin values for 56 Gulf of
Mexico wells 6, 42 of which were prepacked at a high-rate with a 20 lb/1000 gal HEC (slickwater)
carrier fluid, and 14 that were completed with an H2O-PAQ (high-rate brine prepack followed by
an annular brine pack). The wells completed with a high-rate gel prepack required a post-gravel
pack acid job to achieve the performance reported in Figure 12.14. However, in both sets of data,
the carrier fluid was able to easily leakoff to the formation, and high injection rates were used to
enhance placement of gravel in the perforation tunnels. The data presented indicate that not only

are the average skins reduced over acid prepacking and slurry packing results, but that the overall
consistancy is also improved (especially for high kh formations).
75
65
55
45
Skin
35
25
15
-5
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000
Formation kh (md-ft)
20#/1000 gal HEC (w/ post-job acid) Brine Carrier (no acid)
Figure 12.14
H2O-PAQ and High-Rate Gel Prepack Performance vs. Formation kh
It has therefore been demonstrated that when prepacking below fracture pressure it is more
important to ensure that as many perforations as possible are completely filled with gravel pack
sand than for the damage to be removed. However, this does not negate the fact that improved
well performance will result if damage can be effectively removed without jeopardizing the ability
to fill perforations. It is this goal that is sought in a recent advance in acid prepacking. High-rate
acid prepacking injects acid at the maximum rate possible while remaining below the formation’s
fracture pressure. If the injection rate is gradually increased to maintain constant bottomhole
pressure as the formation damage is removed, the treatment can be made to be self-diverting. In
addition, if diverters are required, gravel pack sand (carried in brine) can be very effective at the
elevated injection rates. The one aspect of acid prepacking that is eliminated with this technique
is long contact times. However, the Shell Auger development7 used high-rate acid injections to
obtain some very efficient completions, suggesting that the long contact times may not be as
important as once believed.

Prepacking Above Fracture Pressure

One of the main detriments to prepacking below fracture pressure is that gravel can only be
placed into spaces created during the perforating and perforation cleanup operations. If this
amount of penetration into the formation does not extend completely through the near-wellbore
damaged zone, restricted well productivity will result. To overcome this difficulty it becomes
necessary to remove the damage with acid. As has just been shown, while this is possible, it is
not always trivial to accomplish. Another technique to eliminate the effects of the damaged zone
is to bypass it rather than to attempt to remove it. This is accomplished by hydraulically inducing
a fracture.
Techniques available to create these fractures include brine fracturing (the Baker Oil Tools H2O-
FRAQSM process), or a full-scale frac-pack. A type of treatment, which is used on occasion, can
be considered a compromise between these two processes. This third technique, which we will
term a gel prepack above frac, consists of creating a short fracture with a moderate to low
viscosity gel carrier fluid. As will be demonstrated, this process does not create a large enough
fracture to overcome the damage associated with the gelled carrier fluid; therefore, the final result
is typically higher skin completions than are obtained with either frac-pack or H2O-FRAQ
completions. To allow frac-packing and H2O-FRAQ to be distinguished, a description of these
techniques follows:
Frac-Pack: A fracture with a length of at least 25 ft is created with a highly viscous carrier
fluid. High pump rates are typically employed (15 to 20 bpm) and proppant loading is ramped
from low concentrations up to 12 to 15 ppa. The total amount of gravel pumped is typically in
excess of 900 lbs/ft.
H2O-FRAQSM: A fracture with a length between 5 and 15 ft (Figure 12.15) is created with a
low-viscosity (brine) carrier fluid. Pump rates are higher than conventional gravel packing
operations, but usually lower than for a frac-pack. Typical pump rates are in the range of 8 to 12
bpm. Proppant loading is held constant between 1 and 2 ppa, and total job size is typically from
100 to 150 lbs/ft. These treatments can be multi-staged to further enhance the ability to
effectively treat several sand subintervals with a single treatment.
Damaged Zone Gravel Pack
5 - 15ft
Screen Fracture
Figure 12.15

H2O-FRAQ Completion
Near-Wellbore Focus
A critical aspect of an H2O-FRAQ completion is that it is considered part of the gravel pack;
therefore, it is important that the focus remains in the near-wellbore area. Included in this focus
are concerns that the fracture not be excessively long, that nothing is done during the creation of
the fracture that may jeopardize the quality of the annular gravel pack, and that the gravel
(proppant) is placed close to the wellbore. Treatment objective is to prepack the perfs and to
extend the fracture past any formation damage, with long fractures not being required for high
permeability formations. A fracture of this type is best created by the use of low-viscosity carrier
fluids (water) to ensure that the proppant is not carried too deeply into the fracture, and to provide
a high quality annular pack. In addition, since long fractures are not required, small treatments
can be pumped, leading to the ability to pump the jobs using rig-based pumping equipment typical
of gravel pack operations.
Fracture Length. Since H2O-FRAQ completions are typically performed in highly permeable,
unconsolidated formations, most of the improvement in well performance will result from placing a
highly conductive, propped fracture through the near-wellbore damaged zone, rather than from
formation stimulation. Figure 12.16 illustrates the results of a well inflow simulation, which
demonstrates that, for a 200 millidarcy oil well, the majority of the productivity improvement
comes from bypassing a near-wellbore damaged zone. Also, while additional fracture length may
have some benefit, a fracture length beyond 10 to 20 feet leads to significantly decreasing
benefits.
Effect of Fracture Length on Well Performance for High-Permeability Formation

200 md Formation 35 API Oil
2500
2000
Flowing Bottomhole Pressure (psi)
Cased-Hole Gravel Pack w/ Skin = 20

Tubing Intake @ 300 psi Sep. Pressure
1500 Fracture Length = 5 ft.

Fracture Length = 10 ft.
1000 Fracture Length = 30 ft.
500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Production Rate (BOPD)
Figure 12.16
Results of Computer Simulations of the Effect of Fracture Length on
Well Performance for a High-Permeability Oil Well

Similar conclusions can be drawn from examination of two recent publications covering the
optimum fracture length for “frac-pack” completions. In the first paper, by Hunt et. al. of
Halliburton Energy Services8, a single-well reservoir model was used to determine the effect of
fracture length on the productivity of a damaged wellbore. In this study, a damaged zone of 10 ft
was assumed, and the conclusion results indicate that a 12 ft fracture is all that is required to
maximize hte well’s productivity. If these same results are used to estimate the necessary
fracture length to maximize productivity for a well with a damage zone extending only 2 to 3 ft
into the formation (as is more typically assumed) a length of closer to 5 ft is suggested.
In a second, more recent study, R.H Morales of Dowell Schlumberger et. al. 9, calculate the
optimum fracture length based on a NPV analysis. Figure 12.17, taken from this paper, is a plot
of the optimum fracture length as a function of reservoir size. While this plot suggests continually
increasing benefit with fracture length, if drainage radii for typical reservoir sizes of 40 or 160
acres, an optimum fracture length of 2 to 15 ft is again indicated. A caution is provided in this
paper concerning fracture length. That caution being that the fracture length must be sufficient to
exceed beyond the zone of mechanical damage surrounding the wellbore. However, plots in this
paper (Figure 12.18 and 12.19) indicate that this mechanically damaged zone shoudl extend about
3 wellbore radii into the formation. For an 8.5 inch borehole, this would equate to about 1 ft into
the formation.
160 Acre => 1500 ft, 3 ft < L < 15 ft
30 - 40 Acres => 640 ft, 2 ft < L < 8 ft
Figure 12.17
Optimum Fracture Length as a Function of Reservoir Size (From Ref. 9)

Figure 12.18
Extent of Mechanical Damage (From Ref. 9)
(Number of Wellbore Radii into Formation)
Figure 12.19
Radial Extension of Tangential Stresses (From Ref. 9)
(Number of Wellbore Radii into Formation)

Water as a Carrier Fluid. In conjunction with creating a short fracture, it is also necessary to
place the proppant close to the wellbore, and not carry it deeply into the fracture. A good method
to accomplish this is to use a low-viscosity fluid, such as water, to carry the proppant. The lack of
viscosity causes the proppant to be deposited by the formation of an equilibrium bank10 (see
Figure 12.20), thus resulting in most of the proppant being concentrated very close to the
wellbore.
Suspended Proppant
Proppant Free Fluid
Proppant Bank
Stationary Bed
Figure 12.20
Equilibrium Bank Formation Within a Fracture
Another benefit associated with the use of water as a carrier fluid arises when the prepacking
and annular packing are performed as a single step. In this situation, it is vital that the fluid
selected provides the highest quality annular pack possible. Since research in the Baker Oil Tools
gravel pack simulator indicates that the likelihood of creating a void (see Figure 12.21) is much
greater when using a viscous fluid to carry gravel, the usefulness of water is again highlighted.

Figure 12.21
Void Formed While Gravel Packing with HEC Gel
The third important benefit of the use of brine as a carrier fluid is related to the elimination of
several of the major damage mechanisms that can plague frac-pack completions. Wong et. al. 11
have identified four factors that may lead to a damaged frac-pack completion. These four factors
are: the fracture skin (related to fracture conductivity), perforation skin (related to the proppant
permeability as well as the total area available for flow, the choked fracture skin (related to a
reduction of fracture width in the immeadiate near-wellbore area, and the fluid leakoff skin
(related to the formation damage imposed due to the leakoff of the high-viscosity fracturing
fluids). Of these four damage mechanisms, use of brine as a carrier fluid can eliminate (or
significantly reduce) the fracture skin, the choked fracture skin, and fluid leakoff damage.
Fracture skin is eliminated by avoiding proppant permeability reductions caused by gel residue.
The lack of gels also greatly reduces the formation damage along the fracture face. Finally, the
elimination of the choked fracture effect relates to how frac-pack treatments are often pumped.
Since frac-packs are usually pumped with the gravel pack assembly in place, it is critical that no
voids remain in the screen/casing annulus at the end of pumping. However, as already mentioned,
the use of gelled fluids results in a high probability that voids will be created. To remedy these
voids, the pressure is rapidly bled off of the annulus at the conclusion of pumping, in hopes of
bring proppant into the wellbore from the fracture to fills voids. For this to occur, the fracture
width in the near-wellbore vacinity must be reduced, thus leading to a choked fracture.
When brine is used as a carrier fluid, the risk of creating voids in the screen/casing annulus is
virtually eliminated. Therefore, there is no need to surge proppant into the wellbore from the
fracture. In addition, the equilibrium bank transport mechanism present with a low-viscosity
carrier fluids concentrates the proppant close to the wellbore, further reducing the choking effect.
The total results of these damage mechanisms on the performance of frac-pack completions as
compared to H2O-FRAQ completions is illustrated in Figure 12.22. This plot shows well

performance vs. fracture length for undamaged fractures. In addition, curves are also plotted for
a frac-pack that has experienced the damage mechanisms described above. These results point
out that any benefit of fracture length can easily be negated through these damage mechanisms.
u 50% Gel Damage for

Frac-Pack 3000
u 5 ft Choked Length
(0.25” Width) for 2500
Frac-Pack
Flowing Bottomhole Pressure (psia)

u No Choking for 2000
Water-Frac
u 50 md Fracture 1500
Face Perm to 3 ft for
Frac-Pack
1000
u 125 md Fracture Reservoir Perm: 250 md
Reservoir Fluid: 35º API Oil w/ 500 GOR
Face Perm to 2 ft for Reservoir Pressure: 2,500 psi @ 5,050 ft
500
Water-Frac Interval Length: 90 ft
u 50 md Damaged
0
Zone, 1 Radial ft 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Deep for Gravel Production Rate (BOPD)
Pack 2-7/8 inch Tubing 3-1/2 inch Tubing 25 ft Frac Pack
50 ft Frac-Pack 2 ft Water Frac 5 ft Water Frac
u 1-inch Avg. Frac 10 ft Water Frac 15 ft Water Frac Conventional Water Pack
Width for Frac-Pack
& Water-Frac
Figure 12.22
Effect of Fracture Damage on Productivity
The final factor that must be addressed when brine is considered as a fracturing is whether the
formation can be fractured. To create a hydraulic fracture in a formation, one must be able to
pump into the formation faster than fluid can leakoff. The rate that a formation can accept
leakoff is controlled by the permeability of the formation, the interval length, the difference
between the formation pore pressure and the fracture pressure, and the viscosity of the injected
fluid. The actual rate required to fracture a formation can be predicted through theortical
calculations or measured in the field.
The theoretical calculations are based upon Darcy's Law for flow through porous media. The
equation below is Darcy's Law written in "oil field units" and rearranged to consider radial flow.12
The equation also takes into consideration the effect of a near-wellbore damaged zone by
incorporating a skin factor. It must also be recognized that the form of Darcy's Law presented in
below is for pseudo-steady-state flow. During an H2O-FRAQ treatment this condition will not be
met, but that does not negate the usefulness of this equation for rough approximations.

kh ∆p
q=
 r 3 
203328 .0 µ ln e + + s
 r w 4 
where: q = injection rate (barrels per minute)

k = reservoir permeability (millidarcies)
h = formation thickness (feet)
∆p = pressure differential between wellbore and reservoir pore pressure (pounds per
square inch)
µ = fluid viscosity (centipoise)
s = skin factor
If ∆p is set at the difference between the pore pressure and the fracture initiation pressure, then
the maximum injection rate for radial flow through the rock's matrix may be calculated for various
values of permeability and net permeable thickness, fluid viscosity and skin. Figure 12.23
illustrates these calculations for an example well.
This calculation technique can be used to investigate the expected fracturing rate for different
formation permeabilities, interval lengths and fluid viscosities. It must be realized when making
these calculations, that none of these factors are well understood. First, prior to treating a well
the formation permeability can only be estimated, and the value of the damaged zone permeability
is even less clear. Likewise, for long intervals, it is not necessarily true that the entiure interval
will fracture at one time. Especially in situations where the interval consists of several
subintervals, a small portion of the total zone may fracture first. Finally, it must also be realized
that not all brines have a viscosity of 1 cp. Rather, depending on brine weight and reservoir
temperature, viscosities of brines can range from about 0.5 cp up to 5 cp (see Figure 12.24).
Since the fracturing rate is inversely proportional to fluid viscosity, this range of viscosity can lead
to a ten-fold reduction in injection rate required for fracture initiation.

DARCY'S RADIAL FLOW EQUATION

Q = [k x h x delta P] / [24 x 60 x 141.2 x Bo x u x (ln(re/rw)-0.75+S)]
delta P = Frac. pressure - reservoir pressure

K = permeability
h = formation thickness
B = formation volume factor of injected fluid (1 for water)
u = viscosity of injected fluid (1 cp for water)
re/rw = ratio of drainge radius radius to well radius, assume ln(re/rw)=8
BHP psi 3572

TVD feet 7681
k md 100
h feet 18
B unitless 1.03
u cp 0.6
ln(re/rw) unitless 8
Skin unitless 0
Frac. Grad. psi/ft 0.68
Frac. Press. psi 5228
Delta P psi 1656
Q to Frac. bpm 3.27
50 100 150 200 250 300 350

md md md md md md md
Frac. Rate Frac. Rate Frac. Rate Frac. Rate Frac. Rate Frac. Rate Frac. Rate
Thickness BPM BPM BPM BPM BPM BPM BPM
5 ft 0.45 0.91 1.36 1.82 2.27 2.73 3.18

10 ft 0.91 1.82 2.73 3.64 4.54 5.45 6.36
15 ft 1.36 2.73 4.09 5.45 6.82 8.18 9.54
20 ft 1.82 3.64 5.45 7.27 9.09 10.91 12.72
25 ft 2.27 4.54 6.82 9.09 11.36 13.63 15.91
30 ft 2.73 5.45 8.18 10.91 13.63 16.36 19.09
35 ft 3.18 6.36 9.54 12.72 15.91 19.09 22.27
40 ft 3.64 7.27 10.91 14.54 18.18 21.81 25.45
Test Well No. 1

Frac. Inj. Rate vs. Permeability For Varying Formation Thicknesses
50.00
45.00
40.00
35.00
Est. Frac. Inj. Rate, (bpm)
30.00 5 ft
10 ft
25.00 15 ft
20 ft
20.00 25 ft
30 ft
35 ft
15.00
40 ft
10.00
5.00
0.00
0 100 200 300 400
Permeability, (md)
Figure 12.23
Injection Rates Required to Induce Fracturing While Injecting Water
Into Formations of Various Thicknesses and Permeabilities

7
11.6 PPG
6.5
5.5
4.5 11.0 PPG

Centipoise
3.5 10.8 PPG
2.5 10.0 to 10.6 PPG
2
9.4 to 9.8 PPG
1.5
1 8.8 to 9.2 PPG
0.5
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Temperature (Deg F)
Figure 12.24
Viscosity of CaCl2 Brines
Because of the uncertainity of the input information, theoretical determination of fracturing rate is
somewhat questionable. Therefore, it is highly recommended to perform a step-rate test prior to
every H2O-FRAQ to determine if the planned treatment will exceed fracturing pressure. The
recommended procedure for performing a step-rate test is as follows:
1. Begin injecting water at lowest practical rate (approximately 0.25 barrels per minute) and
inject at stabilized injection rate for at least 2 minutes.
2. Record last injection pressure and increase injection rate by 0.25 barrels per minute
increments until above fracture propagation pressure or approximately 1.25 barrels per
minute. Record last injection for each increment.
4. Increase injection rates to 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and maximum barrels per minute for 2 minutes at
each rate.
5. Record last injection pressure for each rate.
6. Plot injection rate versus pressure (with pressures corrected for frictional effects).
7. A reduction in slope indicates the initiation of fracture propagation pressure.
Figure 12.25 illustrates results from a step-rate test for the same well who’s fracturing rate was
predicted in Figure 12.23. In this figure, a minimum injection rate of 2.7 barrels per minute is
indicated to cause fracturing at a fracturing pressure of approximately 4950 psi. This is very good
agreement between the theoretical estimate and measured values for fracturing rates and
pressures.

CLOSURE Pressure (from Step Rate plot) 4608 psi.
FRACTURE EXTENSION Pressure (from Step Rate plot) 4935 psi.
FRACTURE EXTENSION Rate (from Step Rate plot) 2.7 bpm.
Figure 12.25
Results of an Example Step-Rate Test
Examination of Figure 12.25 indicates that successful analysis of step-rate test results requires
that data be obtained both above and below fracturing rates. Therefore, the data recorded at the
low pump rates is extremely important. The Darcy’s Law equation presented earlier can be used
to determine what pump rates are required to allow a high-quality step-rate test to be obtained.
Multi-Stage Treatments
Once the required injection rate is determined, it is important to determine how the H2O-FRAQ
treatment will be pumped. The goal of a H2O-FRAQ treatment design is to provide good
coverage of the entire perforated interval, by pumping a self-diverting treatment.
H2O-FRAQ treatments usually are designed to inject a pad of brine followed by a slurry at a
constant concentration, ranging between 1 and 2 pounds per gallon. Proppant volumes are sized
to provide about 100 pounds per foot outside the casing. For long intervals, the entire interval
should not fracture at the same time. Rather, one zone should breakdown first, followed in
succession by a breakdown of other portions of the perforated interval (see Figure 12.19).

Gamma Ray
Fracture Not Yet Initiated
Propagating Fracture
Filled Fracture
Figure 12.26
Self-Diverting Nature of H2O-FRAQ Treatment
To assist the process outlined in Figure 12.26 to proceed to completion, a multi-stage H2O-FRAQ
may be pumped. Under these conditions several pad/slurry stages are pumped in succession.
When the pad is first injected, some portion of the perforated interval will breakdown (it may or
may not be the bottom of the interval as shown in the figure). The created fracture will
preferentially take the slurry until it becomes filled with proppant. Once the fracture is filled, a
screenout occurs, and the injection pressure begins to rise. When the pressure reaches the
fracture initiation pressure for some other portion of the perforated interval and the next pad stage
is at the perforations, the new subzone will fracture, and slurry will begin to fill this fracture. Prior
to the second pad stage reaching the perforation, any slurry from the preceding stage that cannot
enter the first fracture will seek the easiest path, most likely filling perforations not in
communication with the fracture. The process of creating successive fractures should continue
until the entire perforated interval is treated. A simple 2-stage H2O-FRAQ pumping schedule is
listed in Table 12.4. This treatment was designed for a well with two perforated intervals of
approximately 50 ft., which are separated by a 15 ft. shale section.

Table 12.4
Typical Pumping Schedule for Two-Stage H2O-FRAQ Treatment
Slurry Vol. Clean Vol. Prop. Conc. Rate (barrels Fluid Cum. Prop. Pump Time
(Mgal) (Mgal) (ppg) per minute) Type (pounds.) (min.)
2.00 2.00 0.0 8.0 2% KCl 0.0 6.0
2.50 2.29 2.0 8.0 2% KCl 4.6 7.4
2.00 2.00 0.0 8.0 2% KCl 4.6 6.0
2.50 2.29 2.0 8.0 2% KCl 9.2 7.4
Total Slurry: 9000 gal. Total Fluid: 8580 gal.

Total Proppant: 9200 pounds. Avg. Conc.: 1.1 ppg
Total Pump Time: 26.8 min.
Multi-stage H2O-FRAQ treatments are generally used for intervals that are made up of more
than one sand unit (Figure 12.27). Under this scenario, a treatment would be designed for an
average sand thickness in the sequence. Each stage would be separated by a brine pad. This
low-viscosity pad should enhance the ability to fracture a new interval rather than continue to
inject into the interval that is filled with proppant. With one stage for each sand subinterval,
excellent proppant coverage over the entire perforated interval should be obtained.
There are several methods currently available for determining the best pumping schedule for a
given well. The technique that provides the greatest opportunity to optimize treatments is to use a
3-D hydraulic fracture numerical simulator to predict the fracture geometry resulting from various
pumping schedules. From this information, the treatment that provides the combination of the best
perforation coverage and fracture conductivity can be selected. The difficulty with applying this
technique on a routine basis is that much of the input data necessary for these programs are
usually not known, and estimates must be made. This problem may be overcome to some extent
if several treatments are performed in the same field. Under this situation, “history matching” 13
of previously completed jobs may be performed to obtain a better estimation of effective
formation properties.

Figure 12.27
Log Indicating Need for Multi-Stage H2O-FRAQ Treatment
Another, more simplified approach, is to size these treatments using a "Interval Unit" approach. 14
An example of this design method considers the formation in 20 foot units. Each unit is treated
with 800 to 1,000 gallons. of pad, followed by 1,000 gallons. of 1.5 pound per gallon slurry. A
sufficient number of these stages are pumped to cover the entire perforated interval. The ability
to multi-stage H2O-FRAQ treatments allows long intervals to be effectively treated.

Performance Comparison: H2O-FRAQ vs. Frac-Packs
To assess the relative advantages of the three methods for prepacking above fracture pressure:
Baker Oil Tools H2O-FRAQ process, gel prepack above frac, and a full scale frac-pack, the
comparative performance of each technique must be examined. Figure 12.28 indicates the
relative performance for these three types of treatments. The H2O-FRAQ completions, as well
as the five gel prepack above frac treatments, represent Baker Oil Tool jobs (some additional
details of these treatments have been appended). The frac-pack treatments are those reported in
three different SPE papers15-17 (as indicated on the plot). Two of the SPE papers15&16 highlight
GOM completions of major operators, while the third paper17 describes the experiences of
another major operator in West Africa.
35
A
30
G
B F
25
H
20
C
D E I
Skin
15
10
-5
Gel Prepacks Above Frac BHI H2O-FRAQ's GOM Frac-Packs (Ref. 5)

GOM Frac-Packs (Ref. 6) W. Africa Frac-Packs (Ref. 7)
Figure 12.28
Comparison of Treatments Pumped Above Formation Fracture Pressure
Several conclusions can be reached from the examination of Figure 12.28. First, the gel prepacks
above frac do not perform as well as either the H2O-FRAQ or the frac-pack treatments. The
cause for these higher skins is likely that the treatment is an attempted compromise between an
H2O-FRAQ and a frac-pack. By making this compromise, the job is sized similar to a H2O-
FRAQ treatment, which is not large enough to overcome the effects of gel damage within the
fracture as well as in the formation. For this reason, treatments of this type are not
recommended.

Since the gel prepacks above frac are not recommended, we will focus now on a comparison of
H2O-FRAQ’s and frac-packs. Examination of Figure 12.28 shows that although both the H2O-
FRAQ process and frac-packs experience the occasional high-skin well, these instances are
usually fairly easily explained. Excluding the few high skin cases, both of these completion options
provide skin distributions that are nearly identical (Figure 12.29).
57 Frac-Pack Wells 23 H 2O-FRAQ Wells

>10 >10
14% 13%
<0
<0 26%
30%
5 to 10
9% 5 to 10
13%
3 to 5
11%
3 to 5
9%
0 to 3 0 to 3
36% 39%
Figure 12.29
Skin Distribution Comparison Between Frac-Pack and H2O-FRAQ Completions
To help understand the reasons for elevated skins in Figure 12.28, Table 12.5 is offered. This
table lists the most likely cause of the high skins as determined by in-house analysis for the H2O-
FRAQ treatments, and as described in the associated SPE papers for the frac-pack completions.
Once these outliers are eliminated, it can be observed that for the majority of applications an
H2O-FRAQ completion is equally effective as a frac-pack. In addition, this plot indicates that
treatments above fracture pressure produce more consistent results than those pumped below
fracture pressure.
Table 12.5
Reported Causes for High Skins in Figure 12.28

Well Comp. Skin Reason Given for High Skin

Type
A H2O- 31 Post G.P. Pill Pumped to Halt 6 bbl/hr Losses
FRAQ
B H2O- 26 Covered Perforations w/ Surge Debris, Lost 4,300 bbl of Fluid Prior to
FRAQ Prepacking
C H2O- 18 Preceded H2O-FRAQ w/ Multi-Stage Acid w/ Gel & Sand Diverters, Used DP
FRAQ Charges
D Frac-Pack 16 Overbalanced Perforated, Only Treated Portion of Interval
E Frac-Pack 15 Gel Slow to Break, Still Cleaning Up During Well Test
26, Jobs Ended Prematurely w/ No Tip-Screenout
F-H Frac-Pack 28, (Two Due to Mech. Causes, One Due to Incorrect Closure Pressure Estimate)
24
I Frac-Pack 15 Unbroken Gel & Insufficient Flowback
Figure 12.30 provides some additional information to help further understand the effects of various
operational practices on th e H2O-FRAQ process. In particular, the effect of gels either as a
carrier fluid (as in the gel prepack above frac treatments), or as a fluid loss control pill is
highlighted. This plot indicates that the most detrimental factor to H2O-FRAQ treatments is to
carry the gravel in a gelled fluid. In addition, the use of fluid loss control pills is also shown as
detrimental, yet not nearly as bad as when they are used as a carrier fluid. This is particularly
true if these pills are pumped immediately after gravel packing, with no acid cleanup. As
indicated by Well A in Table 12.5, an unbroken gel pill (whether or not it contains a solid-based
leakoff control material) has the potential of creating a very high skin. As mentioned previously,
mechanical (not FLCM’s) fluid loss control devices should be used after gravel packing. If no
pills have been pumped, our experience to date is that completion skins in the 0 to + 3 range are
commonly obtained.

20
15
10
Skin
-5
Gel Carriers Gel Pills Only No Gels
Figure 12.30
Effect of Gels on H2O-FRAQSM Completions
A final issue that often arises concerning prepacking above fracture pressure is whether it is
beneficial to pump acid prior to prepacking the formation. The data in Figure 12.31, a plot of skin
for wells that had acid pumped prior to a water-frac treatment, suggest that little additional
improvement can be seen when varying amounts of acid are pumped prior to a fracture
treatment. In fact, the one well in the data set that had a multi-stage acid prepack pumped with
gel and sand diverter, experienced the highest skin. While this evidence may not be conclusive, it
does suggest that acid can be both non-beneficial and potentially detrimental when pumped prior
to a fracture treatment. One exception is acid pumped at the beginning of a frac-pack treatment
to assist in gel cleanup. The acid’s detrimental effects can arise from a variety of sources
including: the diverters pumped, incorrect acid volumes, and acid/formation incompatibilities.
Therefore, if the appropriate formation mineralogy information is not available, the risks
associated with incompatible acids are best avoided by eliminating the acid altogether and simply
bypassing the damage.

20
15
10
Skin
-5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Total Acid Volume (gal/ft)
No Acid Pumped Single-Stage Acid no Diverter 2-Stage Acid w/ 65# HEC/Sand Diverter
Figure 12.31
Effect of Acid Prior to Water-Frac Damage Bypass Treatment

Pumping Equipment Requirements

An important aspect of H2O-PAQ and H2O-FRAQ operations is that they are performed with
gravel packing equipment ( Figure 12.32), not hydraulic fracturing equipment. The significantly
reduced surface equipment requirements are a direct result of the small scale treatments. Typical
pump rates are on the order of 5 - 10 barrels per minute, and require several hundred, rather than
several thousand, hydraulic horsepower. This horsepower reduction leads to significantly reduced
pump requirements.
Figure 12.32
Rig-Based Pumping Equipment Used in H2O-PAQ and H2O-FRAQ
Treatments
In addition to smaller (and fewer) pumps, the near-wellbore focus of H2O-FRAQ operations lead
to reduced fluid and proppant volumes. This not only leads to less storage space being required
on the platform, but it also leads to significant cost benefits. Figure 12.33 illustrates a typical
equipment layout for a H2O-PAQ or an H2O-FRAQ treatment. This compact design allows all
equipment to be placed on the platform, eliminating the need for a stimulation vessel.

Approx 70’
Primary Triplex
Tool Infuser Pump
Fill
Box Line
Skid Data
Trac
Filter Backup Triplex
Approx. Pump
50’ Hose Basket To
Pits
Hyd. Slurry
Power Pack Dehyd.
27 BBL 5 X 6 Cent.
Blender
105 BBL Tank
To From
Well Well
Figure 12.33
Example Equipment Layout for an Enhanced Prepack Operation
Since the use of brine carrier fluids is instrumental to the success of H2O-PAQ and H2O-FRAQ
treatments, the ability to accurate control sand loading while pumping a sand/brine slurry is
critical. This is particularly when pumping multi-stage H2O-FRAQ treatments, which will be
described in the following section. The Baker Oil Tools Gravel Infuser18 (Figure 12.34) is
designed to allow acurate control of the mix ratio between sand and brine. This device also
allows rapid response as sand is started and stopped during a multi-stage pumping program
(Figure 12.35).

Figure 12.34
High-Rate Gravel Infuser
5 10
4.5 9
4 8
3.5 7
3 6
Mix Ratio (PPA)
Rate (BPM)
2.5 5
2 4
1.5 3
1 2
0.5 1
0 0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Elapsed Time (min)
Densimeter Sand Auger Rate
Figure 12.35
Gravel Infuser Allows Close Control of Gravel Mix Ratio in
Brine Carrier Fluids


Completion Type Selection Criteria

With the performance of H2O-PAQ, H2O-FRAQ, and frac-pack completions having been
reviewed, we can now establish a criteria for selecting between these completion options. As
these criteria are presented, it should be remembered that all three of these techniques are
capable of providing a low-skin completion. Therefore, while the criteria that is about to be
presented is designed to help establish the optimum completion for various situations, these rules
are not meant to describe the only possible method. In addition, it should be realized that these
selection criteria represent the best of our understanding at this time. As more experience is
gained, these criteria may be slightly modified.
Influence of Formation Properties on Completion Selection
The first factor that must be considered when it comes to selecting between a prepacking method
is to determine the relative effect of increased fracture length. If the effect of fracture length is
insignificant, formation stimulation cannot be expected, and improvement in well productivity will
only result from the bypassing of near-wellbore formation damage. Figures 12.36 and 12.37
indicate the relative benefit of fracture length for formations of various permeabilities.
Figure 12.36
Effect of Fracture Half-Length on 35º API Oil Well Productivity from
Formations of Various Permeabilities
Depth = 5,000 ft Reservoir Pressure = 2,500 psi Separator Pressure = 500 psi 2-7/8 inch Tubing

Figure 12.37
Effect of Fracture Half-Length on Gas Well Productivity from
Formations of Various Permeabilities
Depth = 5,000 ft Reservoir Pressure = 2,500 psi Separator Pressure = 500 psi 2-7/8 inch Tubing
The information presented in these two figures illustrate that the benefit for increased fracture
length becomes significantly less important as formation permeability increases. In addition, the
maximum permeability where formation stimulation can be expected is lower for a gas well than
for an oil well. These two plots represent only two specific well conditions; therefore, some
leeway is allowed for the cutoff permeability. Based upon these data, a general guideline has
been established that for oil wells with formation permeability less than about 50 md, and for gas
wells with permeabilities less than about 10 md, a frac-pack would be the recommended
completion option. An exception to this rule would be if the interval consists of more than one
sand layer. The reason for this exception is that a multi-stage H2O-FRAQ treatment can be
pumped that will greatly increase the likelihood for placing gravel into all of the subzones. The
increased probability for providing an undamaged completion across the entire interval will
outweigh the benefit obtained from a longer fracture, which may not cover the entire interval.
Another issue that must be addressed when determining where an H2O-FRAQ treatment is
applicable is the ability to fracture the formation with brine at an injection rate available with rig-
based pumping equipment. Factors controlling our ability to fracture the formation with brine

include: formation permeability, interval length, degree of formation damage, reservoir pore
pressure, and reservoir fluid viscosity and compressibility. To help make this assessment, Figure
12.38 is offered. This chart represents the results of Darcy Law calculations for the maximum
formation permeability height product (kh) that can be fractured when injecting brine at 10 bpm
given an estimate of initial skin and reservoir pressure. Findings based on the results presented in
Figure 12.38 are:
1. If the kh of the formation (or the kh of any single sand layer in an interval consisting of
multiple sands) is less than 15,000 md-ft, a fracture can easily be created with brine.
Therefore, any near-wellbore formation damage can be bypassed equally well with either a
H2O-FRAQ or a frac-pack. This range of formation permeabilities covers a large proportion
of the gravel packing applications worldwide, and therefore, supports the results of the
performance comparison presented in Figure 12.29.
2. If the formation kh increases to a value between 15,000 md-ft and 40,000 md-ft, it begins to
become more difficult to fracture the formation with brine. For formations of this conductivity
the H2O-FRAQ will still be applicable as long as a skin of at least 5 to 25 is present. This
moderate level of formation damage might be expected if the well is a new completion drilled
with a conventional drilling fluid. If reservoir kh exceeds 15,000 md-ft, and the formation is
relatively undamaged (skin less than 5, as would be typical for a well drilled with a specially
selected drill-in fluid), this formation would not be able to be fractured with brine. However,
because of the low amount of formation damage, the need for any type of fracture to bypass
this damage is questionable. Therefore, it is recommended that an H2O-PAQ, possibly
preceded by an acid prepack (either non-diverted, or using foam or sand as the diversion
material) should be successful at removing the small amount of damage that may be present,
thus resulting in a highly-efficient completion.
3. If formation kh exceeds 40,000 md-ft, the well will need to be highly damaged to allow
fracturing with brine. Therefore, for the situation where an old well with severe near-
wellbore formation damage is to be worked over, either an H2O-FRAQ or a frac-pack should
successfully bypass this damage. For the H2O-FRAQ, the reduced permeability will provide
the leakoff control while the fracture is propagating through the damaged zone. Once the
fracture extends beyond the damage, the leakoff rate will increase, and fracture propagation
will cease. Therefore, an H2O-FRAQ should be successful at placing gravel pack sand
through the damage zone, but not too far beyond. However, for a highly permeable
formation, this would be sufficient.
If a high kh formation is to be completed, which is expected to have only a moderate amount of

damage, it may prove difficult to create a fracture with a brine. However, there would still be a
need to bypass this damage, therefore, a frac-pack would be the recommended treatment.
Formation kh and skin are not the only factors that control the ability to fracture a formation with
brine. Another factor that affects the leakoff rate of a brine is the viscosity and compressibility of
the reservoir fluids. For high-viscosity crudes, natural leakoff control is provided by the reservoir
fluids themselves. Therefore, even for very high kh wells, H2O-FRAQ completions can be very
successful in situations where the reservoir fluids have an API gravity of approximately 20º or

less. Again, benefits of H2O-FRAQ will be strengthened if multiple sand subzones are present in
the overall interval.
100000
Maximum Allowable kh for H2O-FRAQ (md-ft)
90000
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Expected Initial Skin
Underpressured (<8 ppg) Normally Pressured (8-12 ppg) Overpressured (> 12 ppg)
Figure 12.38
Maximum Allowable kh For Each Sand Subinterval That Can be Fractured at 10 BPM at a
Given Value for Estimated Initial Skin
Fracture Growth and Operational Constraints
Besides factors directly related to formation permeability, other concerns affect the decision to
select either a frac-pack or an H2O-FRAQ. In general it can be assumed that because of the
reduced leakoff associated with a gelled fracturing fluid, as well as the increased pump rate,
vertical fracture growth is expected to be greater for a frac-pack. This can be either good or bad
depending upon the reservoir condition.
For example, a frac-pack would be recommended over an H2O-FRAQ completion for intervals
greater than about 50 ft that consist of thinly laminated sand/shale sequences (6-inch to 1 ft thick
sand lenses). In formations of this type it is beneficial to create a single fracture to place all of
the sand layers into communication with the wellbore. For a short interval, this can likely be
accomplished with either an H2O-FRAQ or a frac-pack. However, as the interval length exceeds
about 50 ft, it may be difficult to achieve sufficient vertical frac growth with an H2O-FRAQ
treatment. Therefore, a frac-pack may prove to be beneficial. One method for extending the
application of H2O-FRAQ in this application is to multi-stage the treatment to increase the

probability for creating more than one fracture, thus allowing the entire zone to be treated.
However, without distinct sand intervals, the self-diverting nature of multi-stage H2O-FRAQ
treatments is less clearly defined.
When several distinct sands are to be treated, a multi-stage H2O-FRAQ is the recommended
treatment. By alternating brine pads and brine/gravel slurry stages, the bottomhole treating
pressure increase that is associated with fracture filling can be used to assist in diverting the
treatment and creating fractures in several sands during a single pumping operation. The high
sand concentration as well as the gelled fluids used during frac-pack operations tend to prohibit
this self-diversion from taking place. This, coupled with the fact that soft shales can be very
effective barriers to vertical fracture growth, indicates that there is a strong possibility for a frac-
pack to treat only a portion of the entire interval. Therefore, an H2O-FRAQ should be used
whenever multiple sands are to be treated and one time.
A situation where extended vertical fracture growth would be detrimental is when the perforated
interval is located close to a gas/oil or an oil/water contact. Because of the combined effects of a
high leakoff rate and a small job size, our experience has indicated that fractures created by an
H2O-FRAQ treatment stay quite close to the perforated interval. Treatments have been
successfully pumped without breaking into water when the perforations were as close as 10 feet
from the water contact. This ability to contain fracture growth increases if a shale is present
between the perforations and the contact. While a shale is also capable of containing a fracture
from a frac-pack, a shale thickness of at least 20 ft is typically desired for these applications. It
must be cautioned, however, that treatment modeling would be necessary to assess the risk of
unacceptable fracture height growth for any type of fracture treatment carrier out near a gas/oil
or oil/water contact.
Other factors that often control the applicability of H2O-FRAQ are operational constraints. Since
H2O-FRAQ utilize smaller scale treatments, they are pumped with rig-based pumping equipment.
However, severely overpressured reservoirs may dictate elevated hydraulic horsepower
requirements, thus leading to the selection of a frac-pack. Similarly, if a severely underpressured
reservoir is to be treated, the fluid-loss rate may be too high to overcome while pumping a brine at
reasonable rates. Therefore, a frac-pack may again prove beneficial.
The brine carrier fluids used in the H2O-FRAQ completions are beneficial in two situations:
treating high-angle, long intervals, and treating high temperature wells. Because of improved
gravel transport mechanics of low-viscosity fluids in a high-angle well, there is a greatly improved
chance to obtain a void-free annular pack using an H2O-FRAQ. Likewise, since no gels are used
in this process, the degradation of fracturing fluids at high temperatures is not an issue for H2O-
FRAQ.
Summary of Selection Criteria
To help summarize the reservoir conditions affecting the decision between H2O-PAQ, H2O-
FRAQ, and frac-pack applications Figure 12.38 is offered. This chart provides a systematic
method for narrowing down the choice between H2O-FRAQ and frac-pack; however, it does not

cover all of the important issues. Some of the other issues that influence this decision process are
outlined in Figure 12.40. The remaining criteria primarily relate to the fracture growth mechanics
of these two processes, as well as some of the operational constraints.
Examination of Figures 12.39 and 12.40 indicate that the only call-out for an acid prepack
completion is for high kh wells with a limited amount of damage. Our experience has been that in
general acid prepacks are less effective in removing damage than H2O-FRAQ’s are in bypassing
it. In addition, attempting to combine the benefits of acid prepacking with an H2O-FRAQ can
produce problems that lead to an elevated skin. This difficulty arises by trying to achieve
adequate diversion during the acid treatment. To accomplish this, it is often necessary to use gel
or gel & sand diverters. Apart from the damaging effects of the gel, the use of gel & sand
causes perforation tunnels to be poorly packed, thus resulting in a increased pressure drop along
the tunnels, and therefore a reduced completion efficiency.
Since, it is not generally recommended to use acid prepacking in conjunction with an H2O-FRAQ
completion, the question becomes: are there any application for this technology? The best
application for this type of treatment is for jobs that either need to be pumped below fracture
pressure (i.e., those with a very close (less than 10 ft away) GOC or OWC) or those where only
a small amount of damage needs to be removed. To eliminate the detrimental effects of gels,
other options should be considered for use as diverters. Some additional options include the use of
either foam, gravel pack sand carried in NH4Cl, or no diverter at all for short zones. The use of
sand diverters will require that higher pump rates be used than are typical for acid prepack
treatments. This will reduce the contact time, and may reduce the damage removal capability of
the acid. However, these methods should provide adequate diversion without imposing the
damaging effects of gels into a portion of the formation that has just been acidized.

Gas well with average

reservoir perm. < 10 md, Thinly bedded Interval length
No Yes No Frac-Pack
or oil well with average sand/shale < 50 ft
reservoir perm. < 50 md
Yes
Yes
H2O-FRAQ
Multiple No or
sand Yes H2O-FRAQ Frac-Pack
intervals
No
Multiple kh of individual sand H2O-PAQ

Frac-Pack sand Yes Yes Initial skin < 5 Yes
intervals > 15,000 md-ft w/ Acid Prepack
intervals
No
No
Initial skin > 25 H2O-FRAQ No
No
Yes
Initial skin from H2O-PAQ

No Initial Skin < 5 kh > 15,000 md-ft Yes
5 to 25 w/ Acid Prepack
H2O-FRAQ
or
Frac-Pack
Yes
No
H2O-FRAQ
Frac-Pack Yes kh > 40,000 md-ft No or
Frac-Pack
Figure 12.39
Completion Type Selection Flow Chart

Well Condition H2 O-FRAQ Frac-Pack

Application Application
Reservoir average reservoir permeability < 10 md for gas well or < 50 md for oil well X
Conductivity
individual sand interval, kh > 40,000 md-ft w/ initial skin > 25 X X

individual sand interval, kh > 40,000 md-ft w/ initial skin from 10 to 25 X
Fracturing individual sand interval, kh > 15,000 md-ft w/ initial skin < 5 No need to No need to
Constraints fracture fracture
kh > 40,000 md-ft and high-viscosity crude (≈ 20º API or less) X X
multiple sand intervals, kh for each subinterval < 15,000 md-ft w/ any initial skin X
kh for any sand interval from 15,000 md-ft to 40,000 md-ft w/ skin > 5 X X
thinly bedded sand/shale w/ interval length < 50 ft X X

thinly bedded sand/shale w/ interval length > 50 ft X
interval of any length consisting of several sand lobes X
Fracture GOC or OWC within 10 ft in same sand Do Not Do Not
Growth Fracture Fracture
GOC or OWC > 10 ft away in same sand X
shale barrier between pay and water sand < 20 ft thick X
shale barrier between pay and water sand > 20 ft thick X X
severely overpressured (pore pressure > 15 ppg) X

severely underpressured (pore pressure < 6 ppg) & damaged X X
Operational severely underpressured & low initial skin X
Constraints
bottomhole temperature > 250º F X
hole deviation > 60º & interval length > 50 ft X
poor quality cement job Do Not Do Not
Fracture Fracture
Figure 12.40
Completion Type Selection Chart

Summary
It has been demonstrated that the process of perforation prepacking can lead to highly effective
gravel-pack completions. If this prepacking process succeeds at placing a highly conductive flow
path completely through the near-wellbore damaged zone, completion efficiency will be further
increased. Methods to enhance the ability to provide this flow path are the Baker Oil Tools H2O-
PAQ and H2O-FRAQ process as well as frac-pack completions.
Performance data from H2O-PAQ, H2O-FRAQ, and frac-pack completions have been compared
to build a set of criteria for selecting between these completion options. This evaluation indicates
that the performance of H2O-FRAQ completions is virtually the same as that of frac-pack
completions. Both completion options experience the occasional high skin well, but these are
usually easily explained. The main causes of elevated skin on H2O-FRAQ completions are the
use of gelled carrier fluids, and the use of fluid-loss control pills inside the gravel pack screen. To
eliminate these potential damage mechanisms, only non-gelled carrier fluids should be used, as
should mechanical fluid-loss control rather than pills.
Because of this very similar performance, either H2O-FRAQ’s or frac-packs can be used in the
vast majority of sand-control applications. However, there are applications where one technique
is superior to the other. Frac-packs will tend to be recommended for low-permeability formations
(<10 md for a gas well, < 50 md for an oil well), for moderately damaged wells in formations with
kh > 40,000 md-ft, and for sections of thinly laminated sand/shale sequences that are greater than
50 ft in extent. Conversely, H2O-FRAQ completions are better suited for situations with a nearby
gas/oil or oil/water contact; long, highly-deviated intervals; high temperature reservoirs; as well as
for intervals that consist of more than one sand layer. In this last situation, a multi-stage H2O-
FRAQ treatment greatly increases the probability for treating the entire interval.
For situations where fracturing would not be required, such as an undamaged, high-permeability
formation, an H2O-PAQ is recommended. In this situation completely filling all perforations with
gravel pack sand and obtaining a high-quality annular pack will lead to a highly efficient
completion. Since this type of treatment will not bypass near-wellbore formation damage, it is
recommended that the H2O-PAQ be combined with an acid prepack to assist in removing any
damage that may be present. This is also the case for wells where it is recommended to not
fracture the formation, with the exception of wells with a poor quality cement job (i.e., for wells
with a very close gas/oil or oil/water contact). To help the acid prepack be as effective as
possible, it is recommended to use foam, or sand diverters, rather than gel or gel & sand. The
hope here is to remove as much damage as possible, while not imposing another damage
mechanism onto the system.
Since it is the purpose of an H2O-FRAQ treatment to bypass damage, and the purpose of an acid
prepack to remove the damage, these two treatment types are not always mutually beneficial. It
is often the case that procedures necessary to optimize the acid treatment may hinder the
effectiveness of the fracture treatment. The net result being that a completion efficiency less
than or no more than equal to that obtainable by the H2O-FRAQ treatment alone would be
obtained. Therefore, the added cost of the acid treatment would not be justified. For this reason,
it is recommended that an acid prepack not be combined with an H2O-FRAQ treatment.

References
Volume 1, 1992.
2. Mullen, M.E., Norman, W.D., and Stewart, B.R., “Evaluation of Bottomhole Pressure in 40
Soft Rock Frac Pack Completions in the Gulf of Mexico”, SPE Paper 28532, SPE 69th
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, September 25-28,
1994.
3. Welling, R.W.F., “Improving Gravel Packing Techniques in Brunei Darussalam Field Trial
Results”, SPE Paper 25363, SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Singapore,
September 8-10,1993.
4. Skaggs, B.B., "Transport Efficiency of High-Density Gravel Packing Slurries", SPE Paper
12480, SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Bakersfield, California, February 13-14,
1984.
5. Peden, J.M. and Russell, J., "A Numerical Approach to the Design of a Gravel Pack for
Effective Sand Control in Deviated Wells", SPE Paper 13084, SPE 59th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, September 16-19, 1984.
6. Barrilleaux, M.F., Ratterman, E.E., and Penberthy, W.L. Jr., “Gravel Pack Procedures for
Productivity and Longevity”, SPE 31089, 1996 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium,
Lafayette LA., 14-15 February 1996.
7. Norton, S.J and Smith, C.D., “Auger Well Completions - Sand Control Installation and
Mechanical Design”, OTC 7886, 27th Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,
TX, 1-4 May, 1995.
8. Hunt, J.L., Chen, C.C, Soliman, M.Y., “Performance of Hydraulic Fractures in High
Permeability Formations”, SPE 28530, 69th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans LA, 25 - 28 September, 1994.
9. Morales, R.H., Norman, W.D., Ali, S., and Castille, C., “Optimum Fractures in High
Permeability Formations”, SPE 36417, 1996 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, CO., 6 -9 October 1996.
10. Ledlow, L.B., "High-Pressure Packing With Water: An Alternative Approach to Conventional
Gravel Packing", SPE Paper 26543, SPE 68th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, Texas, October 3-6,1993.
11. Wong, G.K., Fors, R.R., Casassa, J.S., and Hite, R.H., “Design, Execution, and Evaluation of
Frac and Pack (F&P) Treatments in Unconsolidated Sand Formations in the Gulf of Mexico”,
SPE 26563, 68th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, 3 - 6 October,
1993.

12. Lee, J., Well Testing, SPE Textbook Series, Volume 1, 1982.
13. Claiborne E.B., Saucier, R.J., and Wilkinson, T.W., “Water Frac Applications in High Island
384 Field”, SPE 36459, 1996 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver CO.,
6-9 October 1996.
14. Patel, Y.K., Troncoso, J.C., Saucier, R.J., and Credeur, D., "High Rate Pre-Packing Using
Non-Viscous Carrier Fluid Results in Higher Production Rates in South Pass Block 61 Field",
SPE Paper 28531, 69th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
Louisiana, September 25-28, 1994.
15. 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
Mississippi Canyon 109 Field”, SPE 26562, Annual Technical Conf. & Exhib., Houston,
Texas, 3 - 6 October, 1993.
16. Stewart, B.R., Mullen, M.E., Ellis, R.C., Norman, W.D. and Miller, W.K., “Economic
Justification for Fracturing Moderate to High Permeability Formations in Sand Control
Environments”, SPE 30470, Annual Tech. Conf. & Exhib., Dallas, Texas, 22 - 25 October,
1995.
17. Petit, G., Leschi, P. and Dusterhoft, R., “Frac and Pack Stimulation: Application and Field
Experience from Hylia Gabon, West Africa”, SPE 30115, European Formation Damage
Conf., The Hague, The Netherlands, 15 - 16 May, 1995.
18. Johnson, M.H., Montagna, J.N., and Richard, B.M., "Studies, Guidelines, and Field Results of
Nonviscosified Completion Brine Gravel-Pack Carrier Fluids", SPE Paper 23774, SPE
International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, February 26-
27, 1992.

Chapter 13
OPEN HOLE GRAVEL PACKING
Introduction
As discussed in the previous two chapters, much of the focus of cased hole gravel packing is
aimed at completely packing the perforations with high permeability gravel pack sand. Failure to
completely pack the perforations jeopardizes well productivity and completion longevity. Open
hole gravel packs completely avoid the difficulties and concerns of perforation packing, and
reduce the gravel placement operations to the relatively simple task of packing the screen/open
hole annulus. Because open hole gravel packs have no perforation tunnels, formation fluids can
converge toward and through the gravel pack radically from 360° eliminating the high pressure
drop associated with linear flow through perforation tunnels. The reduced pressure drop through
an open hole gravel pack virtually guarantees that it will be more productive than a cased hole
gravel pack in the same formation. Figure 13.1 illustrates the theoretical pressure drops
experienced in an open hole and cased hole gravel pack assuming completely packed
(prepacked), partially packed (no prepack) and formation sand filled perforations. As can be seen
from the figure, open hole gravel packs result in virtually no additional pressure drop as the
formation fluids converge on the wellbore.
400
Formation Sand in Perf

300
Pressure Drop (psi)
20/40 Gravel
No Prepack
200
100
20/40 Gravel
Prepacked
Open Hole
0
0 60 120 180 240 300
Flow Rate (B/D/ft)
Figure 13.1
Comparison of Pressure Drawdowns for Cased and
Open Hole Gravel Packs1

Rev. 3 / March 1997
Open Hole Gravel Packing Chapter 13
Guidelines for Selecting Open Hole Gravel Pack Candidates

Despite their potential for creating high productivity wells, open hole gravel packs are not suitable
for all reservoirs and formations. One disadvantage of the open hole completion (including open
hole gravel packs), is the inability to always isolate unwanted water and/or gas production. Unlike
cased hole completions that can be precisely and selectively perforated only in the zones of
interest, open hole completions sometimes offer less control over which fluids (water, oil and gas),
are exposed to the wellbore. Furthermore, remedial operations (such as squeeze cementing, plug-
backs or straddle pack-offs) to isolate unwanted fluid production can be carried out with a
reasonably good chance of success with little to no forward planning in a cased hole well. Such
remedial operations in an open hole (with the exception of a plug-back), require more forward
planning to isolate undesirable fluids. Also zonal isolation considerations for the open hole will be
different for a deviated and horizontal completion. With this in mind, open hole completions are
best suited for a single reservoir completion rather than multiple completions with water or gas
between the completions. Open hole completions are also suitable for formations that will
produce with a high water-oil or gas-oil ratio despite the type completion (cased or open hole)
employed. In this case, the higher productivity afforded by an open hole completion takes
precedence.
Maintaining borehole stability during the drilling and completion phase is an essential requirement
for open hole gravel packs. Concern over the lack of borehole stability is a primary reason why
open hole gravel packs are not used more often in unconsolidated, dilatant formations. Unstable
boreholes will make running of the gravel pack assembly difficult and may prevent proper gravel
placement if the formation flows in around the screen. Fortunately, state-of-the art drill-in fluids,
such as PERFFLOW, are effective in maintaining borehole stability while making a horizontal
completion in dilatant type formations known to present problems in the past.
Open hole gravel packs should be avoided in formations with several sand and shale laminations,
if the shales are prone to eroding and/or sloughing. During gravel placement, the shale can
intermix with the gravel pack sand resulting in reduced gravel permeability and impaired well
performance. Again, proper drill-in fluid selection can alleviate some of the problems associated
with laminated sand and shale formations.
A summary of the advantages and disadvantages of open hole gravel packs as well as the
guidelines for selecting open hole gravel pack candidates is listed below.
Advantages of open hole gravel packs:

• Low drawdown and high productivity
• Excellent longevity
• No casing or perforating expense
Disadvantages of open hole gravel packs:

• Sometimes difficult to exclude undesirable fluids such as water and/or gas
• Not easily performed in shales the erode or slough when brine is pumped past them.
• Requires special fluids for drilling the open hole section

Rev. 3/ March 1997
Guidelines for selecting open hole gravel pack candidates:

• Formations where cased hole gravel packing has unacceptable productivity
• Situations where increased productivity is required
• Reservoirs where long, sustained single phase hydrocarbon flow is anticipated
• Situations where workovers for isolating gas or water cannot be accomplished.
• Wells where high water-oil or gas-oil ratios can be tolerated
• Reservoirs with single uniform sands (avoid multiple sands interspersed with troublesome
shale layers or water sands)
• Formations that can be drilled and completed maintaining borehole stability in the
completion interval
• Situations where cased hole completions are significantly more expensive (i.e., long
horizontal wells)
Top Set Open Hole Gravel Pack

The most common type of open hole completion is referred to as “top set” as illustrated in Figure
13.2. While this figure show a vertical completion this discussion is pertinent to horizontal
completions. In this completion, the production casing is set at the top of the completion interval
to isolate overlying strata. Once the casing is cemented, the productive formation is drilled to total
depth, hole cleaned and the gravel pack is installed. Critical issues in top set open hole gravel
packs include selecting the casing seat, drilling the open hole, underreaming if necessary, cleaning
the hole and gravel packing.
Gravel Pack in Gravel Pack in

Drilled Open Hole Underreamed Open Hole
Figure 13.2
Top Set Open Hole Gravel Pack Completion
Selecting the Casing Seat. Selecting the casing seat at the proper depth can have a significant
impact on the success and cost of an open hole completion. Normally, the casing should be set at
the top of the reservoir and just barely into the productive interval. Should the overlying formation

Rev. 3/ March 1997
be an unstable or sloughing (heaving) shale, failure to isolate the shale behind casing may cause
problems and delays throughout the remainder of the completion and even through the entire life
of the well. Well logs should be run to ensure all offending strata have been penetrated and will
be cased prior to running the casing. In some instances, several logging runs may be required as
the well is deepened to determine exactly when the casing should be run. In the case of logging
while drilling, the casing point can be easily picked without multiple logging runs. Alternatively,
the well can be drilled to total depth and logged to determine the appropriate casing depth. A
sand plug can then be placed across the productive interval prior to cementing the casing or a
cementing stage packer can be used to avoid contaminating the formation sand face with cement
solids and/or filtrate.
Drilling the Open Hole. Several options are available for drilling the open hole completion
interval. How this is performed and the type of fluids used depends on the mineral and fluid
content of the formation (i.e., whether it is sensitive to the drilling and/or completion fluid).
Another factor is whether the open hole will be enlarged by underreaming as discussed later. The
fluid used for drilling the open hole is critical to the success of the completion. The general
requirements of an ideal drill-in (or underreaming) fluid are as follows:
• Compatible with the reservoir rock and fluids(non-damaging)
• Good suspension properties
• Low friction loss
• Low fluid loss
• Density easily controlled
• Readily available
• Inexpensive
• Easily mixed and handled
• Non toxic
• Thin friable filter cake with low break-out pressure
While most fluids do not have all of these properties, some, such as calcium carbonate brine based
systems have performed well as drill-in and underreaming fluids. PERFFLOW is an example of a
calcium carbonate brine based fluid that has been used as a drill-in fluid. The critical issue is that
the drill-in fluid should do minimal irreversible damage to the face of the formation. The solids
laden fluids should quickly form a filter cake to minimize filtrate losses. The filter cake should be
easily removable prior to or after gravel packing and the ease to which it is removed is reflected
in a low break-out pressure. Break-out pressure is that drawdown pressure required to initiate
production after the formation has be mudded off with the drill-in fluid. In some cases, clear
brines have been acceptable as a non-damaging drill-in fluid. If the open hole will be
underreamed, standard drilling mud may be used as a drill-in fluid, provided the underreaming
operation removes the mud invaded, damaged portion of the formation.
Underreaming. Underreaming is the operation of enlarging the hole size below the casing shoe.
One reason for underreaming an open hole is to remove damage present in the pilot hole which is
unnecessary if the pilot hole is drilled with a non-damaging fluid.. The larger diameter hole will
also enhance the well productivity slightly, but in most cases this is not significant. Underreaming
may be performed simply to provide greater clearance between the screen and the open hole. In

Rev. 3/ March 1997
any event, underreaming should be performed with a non-damaging fluid. Traditional drilling muds
should only be used as a last alternative and damage removal treatments should be planned prior
to placing the well on production.
Underreaming is usually more of an annoyance than an incremental time, cost or productivity

issue, since a cased hole completion also requires changing over to a clean fluid prior to
perforating. Perforating, of course, is unnecessary for an open hole completion. On an
incremental cost basis, the position normally taken is that underreaming and perforating cost
usually offset each other.
In the event that running a liner across the completion interval at a later date is an option to isolate
unwanted fluids, underreaming should probably be avoided. The cement sheath in an
underreamed hole will be much thicker than normal and will interfere with effective perforating or
make perforating operations more difficult. The difficulties, perforating, or ineffective perforations,
will adversely effect gravel packing operations and subsequently, will restrict well productivity.
Hole Cleaning. Solids in the form of drill-in fluids, drill solids and thick filter cakes plug screens,
tools and gravel pack sand. The importance of cleaning the hole and scouring the filter cake is
shown in Figure 13.3. This bar graph based on field data collected from 10 wells, shows the
relationship between completion skin and hole cleaning. This relationship is not too surprising but
what is often overlooked is the fact that once a well is damaged, subsequent acid work not yield
an undamaged well. Before running screen in the hole and gravel packing, it is necessary to
remove the drill-in fluid, drill solids from the hole, clean the hole and scour the filter cake down to
its dynamic thinness. Details for cleaning the hole are given in Chapter 8.
4 Properly Cleaned -
Number of Wells
Not Acidized
Not Properly
3 Cleaned - Acidized
Not Properly Cleaned -

2 Not Acidized
0 5 10 15 20
Skin
Figure 13.3
Proper Hole Cleaning

Rev. 3/ March 1997
Gravel Pack Equipment. Running and installing the gravel pack equipment in an open hole is
basically the same as in a cased hole gravel pack. As discussed in Chapter 7, bow spring
centralizers are required, particularly if the completion interval is underreamed. While there is
considerable debate as to the degree that bow-spring centralizers interfere with gravel placement,
model work does not show any interference. However, other options for centralization are not
available except in very short intervals. In some underreamed open hole gravel packs completed
in short intervals, no bow-spring centralizers may be required. Centralization can be achieved by
underreaming to about 10 to 15 feet short of total depth. The non-underreamed interval at total
depth provides centralization for the bottom of the screen. The packer at the top of the screen
provides centralization at the top.
Running the screen in an open hole differs from a cased hole in that there is no sump packer.
The screen is normally landed a foot or two from the bottom of the well. Setting the screen in
compression should be avoided to prevent buckling which will be detrimental to centralization.
Shear-Out Safety Joints are not typically used in open hole gravel packs. If the screen is not set
on bottom or in the event the bottom of the well is “soft”, the hydraulic pressures created during
gravel placement can generate sufficient forces to cause downward movement of the screen and
shearing of the Shear-Out Safety Joint.
One other item to note when doing a open hole gravel pack is the type cross-over tool to be
employed. High rate frac cross-over tools are typically designed to maximize flow area into the
wellbore, consequently the return ports are usually small. These smaller return ports can create
sufficient back pressure that the open hole cannot be circulated at the required pack rates below
frac pressure. A rate verses pressure drop curve for the high rate frac tool is a must when
making an open hole gravel pack evaluation.
Gravel Placement. Gravel placement operations in open holes are again almost identical to
those performed in cased holes, except that no special operations to fill the perforations are
required.. Typically the gravel volume required for gravel packing will be 25 to 50 percent greater
than theoretical. This is true at all wellbore deviations. If available the open hole volume should
be obtained from a caliper log. Again, based on experience in a certain field or formation, a
generous amount of excess gravel may be required since calipered volumes often underestimate
the actual hole volume due to hole irregularities and washouts.
As to the physical placement of sand around the screen, returns are not an issue at wellbore
deviations less than 55°. Sand will fall to bottom and pack the screen with no returns as long as
the injection loading does not exceed the fall rate of the sand in brine. At Deviations greater then
55° sand no longer "falls" down the hole. This is understandable considering the angle of repose
for dry sand is around 28°, making the complementary wellbore deviation 62° ( See Figure 13.4 ).
As sand is pumped out the cross-over tool it falls to the bottom of the casing and builds a dune.
For sake of definition this dune is called the alpha wave. Now returns are necessary and a
minimal annular velocity of 1.0 ft/sec in the screen open hole annulus is required to move the
alpha wave to bottom. The alpha wave is shown as areas 1 through 6 in Figure 13.5. With the
alpha wave at bottom sand is then deposited on top of the alpha wave, and the well gravel packed

Rev. 3/ March 1997
back to the top screen. The wave coming back is called the beta wave and is shown as areas 7
thru 12 in Figure 13.5.
Figure 13.4
Angle of Repose for Dry Sand
Figure 13.5
Horizontal Gravel Pack
(Complete Pack)
To meet the annular velocity of 1.0 ft/sec, losses to the formation must be controlled and bypass
between the wash pipe - screen base pipe annulus minimized. Controlling losses to the formation
is accomplished by selecting of a proper drill-in fluid as discussed in Chapter 8. Keeping the wash

Rev. 3/ March 1997
pipe OD - screen ID ratio around 0.8 will minimizing bypassing between wash pipe and screen (
See Figure 13.6 ).
Treating the Formation. Treating the formation to remove formation damage may be required
in some situations. If the drill-in fluid filter cake or fluid loss material used is acid soluble, an HCl
acid treatment (7.5 to 15 percent) is usually sufficient to dissolve the plugging material and restore
production. Typical acid volumes are 10 to 15 gallons per foot. Acid may dissolve formation
cementation causing formation sloughing prior to gravel placement; therefore, formation acid
treatments should be delayed until after the gravel pack if possible.
Figure 13.6
Horizontal Gravel Pack
(Partial Pack)
Set-Thru Open Hole Gravel Pack

In situations where accurately setting the casing depth is difficult or when secondary pay zones
exist above the primary target, set-thru open hole completions can be applied. In this type
completion the casing is run through all formation pay zones and cemented in place. Open and
cased hole well logs are used to determine the exact location of the pay zones behind the casing,
and windows are milled opposite the completion interval to create an “open hole” environment.
The well can then be gravel packed. Schematics of example set-thru type completions are shown
in Figure 13.7. Due to the amount of debris created by milling casing windows, it is recommended
that all set-thru type open hole completions be underreamed to expose a clean, non-damaged
formation face. The criteria for underreaming fluids is the same as discussed in the previous
section. A requirement in applying set-thru type completions is a good cement job. The casing
must be securely cemented to facilitate milling operations and maintain alignment between the
upper casing and the lower casing sections. Because a sump packer can be used, a set-thru

Rev. 3/ March 1997
gravel pack assembly is basically the same as a cased hole type assembly. The only exception
would be the use of bow spring type centralizers in long open hole sections. Set-thru type
completions are especially well suited for up hole recompletions in existing wells.
Single Set-Thru Set-Thru Open Hole Gravel Multiple Set-Thru

Open Hole Gravel Pack Pack Above Top Set Open Open Hole Gravel Packs
Hole Gravel Pack
Figure 13.7
Examples of Set-Thru Type Open Hole Gravel Pack Completions
Summary
As a result of their potential for high productivity, open hole completions are receiving new,
widespread attention for wells that require gravel packing. As will be discussed in the next
chapter, open hole gravel pack completions can be among the highest productivity type
completion. In addition, open hole gravel packs demonstrate good longevity.
References
Volume 1, 1992.

Rev. 3/ March 1997
Chapter 14
GRAVEL PACK PERFORMANCE
Introduction
The success or failure of a completion technique is best determined by its performance in the
field. Field performance may be affected and influenced by many factors not necessarily related
to the quality of the completion technique applied. Examples of these factors include human
influences, operational restraints, reservoir misunderstandings, regulatory requirements or
combinations of these. Despite these outside influences, after a sufficient number of completions
have been conducted, trends in performance can be established. Performance trends, if properly
documented, are extremely valuable in planning future well completions or project developments.
Although not as plentiful as desired, data is available on the performance of gravel pack wells that
shows the effects of different completion types and techniques on well productivity and longevity.
This chapter presents some of the available gravel pack performance data. These data reflect
general trends resulting from many gravel pack completions; however, as stated above, some of
the results may be influenced by site specific conditions. When evaluating trends, it is important
to remember that future results (especially in different operating environments and formations)
may deviate somewhat from past results.
Productivity and Longevity

Gravel pack field results are most often presented in terms of productivity or longevity.
Productivity can be defined in terms of skin factor, productivity index or flow efficiency
(as discussed in Chapter 1) or variations of these factors for a specific study. Longevity is
generally defined in terms of cumulative sand free production for a particular sand control
technique. The equation1 to calculate the longevity, or success, of a particular comple tion
technique is given below. Success can be plotted against cumulative production to estimate the
longevity of a particular type of gravel pack completion technique.
nB
SB =
B n ii −1
T− ∑
i −1 S i −1
where: SB = success at “B” barrels of production (fraction)

nB = number of zones that have produced at least “B” barrels
T = total zones
i = production increments
n ii −1 = number of jobs that have produced at least “i-1” but have not yet had the
opportunity to produce “i” increments of production
Si-1 = success at “i-1” increments of production (fraction)

Gravel Pack Performance Chapter 14
Perforating Techniques
Chapter 9 discussed the importance of achieving the proper size and number of perforations to
minimize pressure drop in cased hole gravel pack completions. The importance of clean
perforation tunnels was also stressed and perforation cleaning techniques were discussed.
Figure 14.1 presents field results of gravel pack success versus perforated flow area. This data is
obtained from wells producing from short intervals (i.e., average is less than 10 feet of net
perforated pay), so the perforation flow areas indicated are for the entire zone.1 The implication
of this plot is that higher flow areas reduce fluid velocity making the gravel pack less likely to fail
due to formation sand plugging of the perforation tunnels or annular gravel pack. Figure 14.2
shows the effects of perforation cleaning technique on gravel packed well productivity. 2 The field
study from which this data is derived compared washing (perf-wash), backsurging (perf-surge)
and underbalanced perforating (surge-perf). The gravel pack productivity is represented by the
“completion index”. The completion index, in this case, is a skin factor that takes into account the
effects of formation damage as well as perforation efficiency. Like skin factor, the lower the
completion index the less damaged the well. From this study, underbalanced perforating resulted
in the lowest average completion indices by a factor of two-to-one over perforation washing and
three-to-one over backsurging. The paper documenting this study (SPE Paper 12106) is given in
Appendix 1.
100
90
>12 in2 (35 jobs)
80
8-12 in2 (20)
Success - Percent
70
4-8 in2 (34)
60
50
40
0-4 in2 (29)
30
20
10
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Fluid Production - MBBL
Figure 14.1
Longevity of Cased Hole Gravel Packs as a Function
of Perforated Flow Area1

12
10
Underbalanced TCP (Average CI = 38)

Perforation Washing (Average CI = 139)
8
Backsurging (Average CI = 228)
Frequency
0
0-9
190+
100-109
110-119
120-129
130-139
140-149
150-159
160-169
170-179
180-189
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
80-89
90-99
Completion Index
Figure 14.2
Productivity of Cased-Hole Gravel Packs as a Function of Perforated
Cleaning Technique 2
Perforation Packing
As discussed in Chapter 11, completely filling the perforation tunnels with gravel pack sand is a
critical requirement for a successful cased hole gravel pack completion. Packing the perforations
ensures completion longevity by preventing the formation sand from moving in and plugging the
tunnels and/or annular gravel pack. Furthermore, packing the perforations places the highest
possible permeability material in the critical linear flow area through the perforation tunnel
resulting in minimal pressure drop. Prepacking techniques (as discussed in Chapter 12) provide
the greatest opportunity for complete perforation packing; thus, the importance of perforation
packing can be assessed by comparing prepacked and non-prepacked gravel packed wells.
Figure 14.3 indicates the effects of perforation prepacking on completion longevity. Figure 14.4
indicates the effects of prepacking on well productivity. In terms of longevity and productivity,
prepacking has a positive influence on cased hole gravel packing. Figure 14.5 shows the positive
effects of the H2O-FRAQ technique discussed in Chapter 12. These data indicate that very low
skin completions are possible when prepacking is performed with brine carrier fluids above the
formation fracture pressure.

100
90 Prepacked (18 Wells)
80
Miocene Reservoir
Success, Percent
70 Offshore Louisiana
60
50 No
n-
Pr
ep
40 ac
ke
d(
30 8W
ell
s)
20
10
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Fluid Production, 1,000 BBL
Figure 14.3
Longevity of Cased-Hole Gravel Packs as a Function of Prepacking1
Kscf/Day/ft.
500
400
300
Pre-Packed
(5 wells)
200
Non Pre-Packed
(6 wells)
100
0
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
Time, months
Pre-Packed Non Pre-Packed
Figure 14.4
Productivity of Cased-Hole Gravel Packs as a Function of Prepacking1

50
40
+31
30
+20
20
Skin
+11.8
10 +9
+4
+1.7 +2
0
-0.1 -1.6
-2.7
-10
Source: Reference 4 (Cross-Hatched bars indicate wells where a 10 bbl HEC

pill w/out breaker was pumped after gravel packing)
Source: Reference 5
Recent Completion
Figure 14.5
Productivity of Cased-Hole Gravel Packs Using the
H2O-FRAQ Technique
Remedial Gravel Packs

The question is raised from time to time regarding the success of gravel packs performed in
formations that have already produced some formation sand versus gravel packs installed in the
initial completion. Such remedial gravel packs are typically performed in wells that were not
originally gravel packed, but have started to produce sand in an unmanageable fashion.
Figure 14.6 shows that the completion success of gravel packs in “old” intervals is lower than the
success of gravel packs performed when the well is “new”. Whether this can be explained as a
consequence of inadequate procedures or is the result of other causes is not clear. Intuitively, one
would expect more problems attempting to gravel pack a well that produced sand due to the
possibility of large cavities behind pipe or as a result of resorting and permeability reductions of
the formation material in the near wellbore area as sand was produced. In the field study results
illustrated in Figure 14.6, a tubingless completion is a well that is completed inside of 2-7/8 or 3½
inch “casing” and produced without an inner tubing string.

100
Convential - New Intervals (73 jobs)
90
80
Success, Percent
Convential - Old Intervals (17)
70
Tubingless
60 New Intervals (18)
50
40
Tubingless - Old Intervals (48)
30
20
10
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Fluid Production - MBBL
Figure 14.6
Longevity of Cased-Hole Gravel Packs in New and Old Wells 1
Open Hole Versus Cased Hole Gravel Packs

As discussed in Chapter 13, open hole gravel packing should provide higher productivity wells
since the additional pressure drop associated with incompletely packed perforation tunnels is
avoided. Field results support the productivity enhancements achievable with open hole gravel
packs. Table 14.1 shows productivity indices of open hole gravel packs compared with
non-gravel packed cased hole completions, cased hole gravel packs with prepacking and cased
hole gravel packs without prepacking. This study is unique in that four different completion
techniques were applied in the same fields under similar conditions. Note that the data confirms
that open hole gravel packs are capable of achieving high productivity. The data in the table is
from two different reservoirs in Venezuela. In spite of the fact the absolute values of the
productivity indices are different, the trend is the same. Another case history showing that open
hole gravel pack completions have better productivity than cased hole gravel packs is shown in
Figure 14.7.
Table 14.1
Gravel Pack Productivity from Miocene Reservoirs, Venezuela 1
Productivity Index
(bopd/psi)
LL-5 Reservoir LL-3 Reservoir
Open-Hole Gravel Pack 48.4 (14) 6.4 (13)
Gun Perforated Casing 36.6 (20) 5.2 (14)
Cased- Hole Gravel Pack 12.9 (19) 3.2 (12)
(with prepack)
Cased-Hole Gravel Pack 4.0 (14) 1.7 (3)
(without prepack)
( ) - Number of wells

Cumulative distribution (%)

TCP + PP 42%
WL + WASH + PP 29% Mid Point
SFS Trial 28% IGP EGP 61%

PERF 48%
34%
Imp. Test 15%
Note: WIQI = actual production/ideal production (no skin)
Figure 14.7
Productivity of Open-Hole Gravel Packs Versus Cased-Hole
Gravel Packs in Brunei Darussalam Fields 3
In addition to better productivity, case histories also support that open hole gravel packs have
greater completion longevity than cased hole gravel packs. This is illustrated in Figures 14.8 and
14.9. In addition to oil and gas wells, several water source wells completed with open hole gravel
packs have produced in excess of 25 million barrels each. 1
100
8 Open Hole Gravel Packs
90
80
70
5 Cased Hole Gravel Packs
Success, percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2
Fluid Production, mbbl
Figure 14.8
Longevity of Open-Hole Gravel Packs Versus Cased-Hole Gravel Packs1

100
90
OHGP (91 Jobs)
80
CHGP (60 Jobs)
Success, percent
70
60
Consolidation (294 Jobs)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Fluid Production, mbbl
Figure 14.9
Longevity of Open-Hole Gravel Packs,
Cased-Hole Gravel Packs and Plastic Consolidation Treatments1
Summary
Field experience with gravel pack completions has yielded the following results that can be used
for planning purposes:
• Higher perforation quantity and quality enhances completion longevity and productivity in
cased hole gravel packs.
• Perforation prepacking enhances the productivity and completion longevity of cased hole
gravel packs.
• Cased hole gravel packs performed on the initial completion are more successful than gravel
packs performed in a remedial workover.
• Open hole gravel packs have higher productivity and completion longevity than cased hole
gravel packs.
Site specific well conditions, formation properties, field procedures and applications will influence
actual results in future fields.
References
Volume 1, 1992.
2. Bonomo, J.M. and Young, W.S., “Analysis and Evaluation of Perforating and Perforation
Clean-up Methods”, SPE Paper 12106, SPE 58th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Francisco, California, October 5-8, 1983.

3. Welling, R.W.F., “Improving Gravel Packing Techniques in Brunei Darussalam Field Trial
Results”, SPE Paper 25363, SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Singapore,
September 8-10,1993.
4. Ledlow, L.B., "High-Pressure Packing With Water: An Alternative Approach to

Conventional Gravel Packing", SPE Paper 26543, SPE 68th Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, October 3-6,1993.
5. Patel, Y.K., Troncoso, J.C., Saucier, R.J., and Credeur, D., "High Rate Pre-Packing Using
Non-Viscous Carrier Fluid Results in Higher Production Rates in South Pass Block 61 Field",
SPE Paper 28531, 69th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
Louisiana, September 25-28, 1994.

Chapter 15
HORIZONTAL WELL COMPLETIONS
Introduction
Horizontal wells have received considerable attention as a way of improving well productivity and
project economics. Although horizontal wells have enjoyed their greatest popularity over the past
ten years, they were used as early as the late-1930’s in the mid-continent region of the United
States and in West Texas to enhance production rates. The original horizontal wells, referred to
as drainholes, were beginning to be accepted as a viable technique to increase productivity when
Amoco developed the hydraulic fracturing stimulation process in 1953. At the time, hydraulically
fractured wells were capable of matching or exceeding the productivity of a horizontal drainhole
with considerably less expense. As a consequence, the drainhole technology remained dormant
for about the next 25 years until the oil producing companies realized that horizontal wells had
advantages over fracturing in certain reservoir conditions. In the past 10 years, horizontal well
technology (particularly drilling) has improved substantially to the point that some new reservoirs
are being developed solely with horizontal wells. Horizontal sidetracks from existing mature wells
have also enabled some operators to extend the production life of fields that would have been
abandoned if conventional well technology was the only means of exploiting the remaining
reserves.
A rigorous definition of a horizontal well is a drilled hole achieving a deviation angle of 90° from
vertical. In application, the technology is much broader than this, and well profiles with deviation
angles exceeding ±70° are often referred to as “horizontal” if the length of the wellbore within the
producing formation is many times greater than the thickness of the producing formation. As a
very general statement, horizontal wells cost about 50% more than a conventional well, but their
productivity may be many times that of a conventional well in the same field. Therefore, a
horizontal well may represent less capital expense per unit of production. Because of this,
horizontal wells have been drilled worldwide and the number of wells has increased significantly
since 1985 as shown in Figure 15.1.
2000
1800
1600
Number of Horizontal Wells Drilled
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
Year
Figure 15.1

Rev. 3 / March 1997
Chapter 15
HORIZONTAL WELL COMPLETIONS
Industry Horizontal Well Experience Since 1985

Rev. 3 / March 1997
Horizontal Well Completions Chapter 15
Why Horizontal Wells are Drilled

There has been a great deal of discussion as to why horizontal wells have become so popular.
Their potential for increasing productivity is an obvious incentive, but another possible reason for
the popularity of horizontal wells is the volatility of oil prices. Since 1985, operators have placed
increasing emphasis on the use of cost effective programs to increase productivity in order to
survive in the era of low oil prices. Other factors contributing to the popularity of horizontal wells
include improvements in and increased use of 3-D seismic to provide greater in-depth
understanding of the areal extent of reservoirs. Finally, drilling technology has improved to include
measurement-while-drilling (MWD) capabilities coupled with steerable drilling systems to permit
the accurate placement of horizontal sections in specific locations within the reservoir with
confidence. Despite the technological improvements, without question, the economic impact of
horizontal wells is the primary reason for their increased popularity. The factors that contribute to
the improved economics are:
• Increased productivity
• Improved reservoir management
• Increased recoverable reserves
While horizontal wells have received considerable attention, their use does not imply that
conventional well technology is a thing of the past. Both technologies are here to stay and the use
of horizontal wells is merely another alternative which is available to improve project economics.
Types of Completions for Horizontal Wells

Considerable publicity has been given to drilling horizontal wells, but the completion technology
has largely been downplayed. However, how horizontal wells are completed is as important as
how they are drilled. As with conventional wells, there are two generic ways of completing a
horizontal well, either cased hole or open hole. Both completion techniques have their advantages
and disadvantages and site specific applications.
Cased Hole Completions. Cased hole completions offer distinct advantages in terms of zonal
isolation and successful future remedial work; therefore, cased hole horizontal wells have been
applied primarily in reservoir situations where the ability to achieve zonal isolation (either initially
or in the future) is paramount to the success of the well. This situation is similar to the application
of cased hole completions in conventional wells. The disadvantages of a cased hole completion in
a long horizontal well include the cost of the casing and cementing operations, as well as the cost
of the tubing conveyed perforating operations. If in addition, the well requires sand control, the
completion cost can easily exceed the drilling cost of the well. For this reason, cased hole
horizontal completions are not as common as open hole completions, and, in general, cased hole
completions are applied in formations that do not require sand control.

Rev. 3 / March 1997
Open Hole Completions. Open hole completions are by far the most common approach taken
to complete horizontal wells. The types of open hole completions include barefoot, pre-drilled
pipe, slotted liner or screen, prepacked screen and gravel packs (see Figure 15.2). The barefoot
and pre-drilled pipe options are generally applied in competent formations where sand production
is not an issue. Barefoot completions offer no control of the production profile of the well and
zonal isolation is not possible. Pre-drilled pipe completions can be used in conjunction with
external casing packers to provide some degree of zonal isolation as illustrated in Figure 15.3.
Completing horizontal wells in unconsolidated formations requires difficult decisions regarding the
type of sand control to use. Slotted liners or screens, prepacked screens and gravel packs have
all been used in unconsolidated formations. Each of these techniques will be discussed in more
detail in later sections. The advantages and disadvantages of horizontal open hole completions are
basically the same as in conventional open hole completions as discussed in Chapter 13.
Cased Hole With

Perforations
Open Hole With

Pre-Drilled Liner
Open Hole With

Slotted Liner, Screen
or Prepacked Screen
Open Hole With

Gravel Pack
Figure 15.2
Types of Horizontal Well Completions

Rev. 3 / March 1997
Open Hole With

Pre-Drilled Liner
With External
Casing Packers
Open Hole With

Prepacked Screen
With External
Casing Packers
Figure 15.3
Zonal Isolation Options in
Open-Hole Horizontal Well Completions
Drilling Influence. The techniques used to drill the well can have a profound influence on the
type of completions that can be applied. Horizontal wells are loosely referred to as long, medium
and short radius depending on how quickly the well deviates from 0 to 90°. Table 15.1 shows the
differences in long, medium and short radius wells in terms of build angle and radius. Long radius
wells are extensions of standard directional processes and allow the greatest flexibility in terms of
the types of completions that can be installed. The abrupt change from 0 to 90° in a short radius
well makes it difficult to get certain completion components like screens, casing and external
casing packers “around the bend”; therefore, completion options may be restricted. Medium
radius wells may or may not present completion problems depending on the exact build rate and
specifications of the desired completion equipment. In any event, special attention is required in
the selection of completion equipment to ensure it is suitable for the given well conditions. The
ability to rotate and circulate while running the completion equipment can assist in overcoming the
torque and drag required to push the equipment around the bend and into the open hole.
Completion equipment incorporating rotational and washdown features is available for use in
horizontal wells.
Table 15.1
Drilling Techniques for Horizontal Wells
Type Well Build Angle Radius

Short 1 to 3.5°/ft 19 to 42 ft
Medium 8 to 20°/100 ft 286 to 716 ft
Long 3 to 6°/100 ft 1,900 to 1,000 ft

Rev. 3 / March 1997
Special Considerations for Unconsolidated Formations

Horizontal wells are characterized by long productive pay intervals. Because so much of the pay
zone is exposed, horizontal wells are capable of producing at much higher rates than conventional
wells. Despite the higher total rate, the flow rate per foot of formation in horizontal wells is
usually substantially less than the flow rate per foot of formation in a conventional well. In
addition, the flowing pressure drop required to produce a given rate from a horizontal well is
significantly less than that of a conventional well. The combination of lower flowing pressure
drop and lower flow rate per foot reduces the viscous drag forces on the formation material
making horizontal wells less likely to produce formation sand than their conventional counterparts.
A conventional well in a particular formation may require sand control; whereas, a horizontal well
in the same formation may produce sand free. Unfortunately, the problem is complicated by the
unavailability of techniques to accurately predict sand production potential, so most operators take
some precautions against sand production in horizontal wells in unconsolidated formations. These
options range from simple slotted liners to gravel packs.
As with conventional wells, the best technique to determine the optimum completion method is
based on experience in the field with other wells. Due to changing reservoir conditions over the
life of the well, it is not always immediately apparent if the completion method chosen is optimum;
thus, an extremely difficult situation arises. As more and more fields are developed solely with
horizontal wells and because fields developed with horizontal technology require less wells to
adequately drain the reserves, the importance of each well to the project is magnified. The
consequences of an improper sand control completion can be severe if wells are unable to
produce due to sand problems. There now exists a number of horizontal wells in unconsolidated
formations that have been producing for several years. As these formations are depleted and
water production begins, the industry will be better able to access the applicability of different
sand control completion techniques.
Slotted Liner or Screen Completions

Slotted liners or screens represent the simplest approach to sand control in a horizontal well. The
openings in the slotted liner or screen are typically sized to be twice the diameter of the formation
sand grain at the largest ten percentile (D10). This sizing criteria stems from the work of Coberly 1
who determined that a sand grain will bridge on a slot opening twice its diameter provided two
particles attempt to enter the slot at the same time. Of course, establishing the bridges requires
that a sufficient concentration of formation sand attempting to enter the slotted liner or screen at
the same time. If the produced fluids liberate only a small concentration of formation sand, there
is a possibility of sand production rather than sand control. For a slotted liner or screen to be
effective, it can only be used in well sorted, large grained, relative high permeability formations
with little or no clay. If sufficient clay is present in the formation, the sand bridges formed on the
slotted liner or screen are subject to plugging. If a wide sand particle size range exists, plugging
of the slotted liner or screen with sand grains is possible.

Rev. 3 / March 1997
The choice between slotted liner or screen is largely based on economics. Slotted liner is less
expensive, but has limitations on minimum practical slot width (as discussed in Chapter 6) and
generally has less available flow area. Screens are capable of much smaller openings and have
greater flow area, but are more expensive.
Advantages of slotted liners or screens:

• Reasonably inexpensive
• Easy to run
• Can provide reasonable sand control under proper conditions
Disadvantages of slotted liners or screens:

• Susceptible to plugging under certain conditions
• Suitable only for well sorted, large grained, high permeability formations with little or no
clay materials or other fines
Prepacked Screen Completions

As discussed in Chapter 6, prepacked screens contain a thin layer of consolidated resin coated
gravel within the screen assembly to act as a positive guard against formation sand production.
Prepacked screens were designed and intended for use with a gravel pack to prevent sand
production in the event voids occurred during gravel placement. The nature of the consolidated
resin coated gravel makes it a very efficient filter for stopping formation sand production, but
unfortunately, like all filters, prepacked screens are prone to plugging. In a gravel packed well,
this tendency to plug is desirable and in fact is what prepacked screens are designed to do. In a
non-gravel packed well, the tendency to plug can be disastrous to the longevity of the completion.
The use of prepacked screens without gravel packing was never intended as a viable completion
technique but arose out of necessity in horizontal wells where the ability to effectively gravel pack
was suspect. Given the situation of a horizontal well in an unconsolidated formation that is likely
to produce sand and the situation where gravel packing is not possible with any degree of
confidence, the only real sand control option is to complete the well with prepacked screens. This
was the situation of the industry in the late-1980’s when horizontal drilling technology begin to be
used in unconsolidated formations. Thus, the industry precedence was set, and prepacked
screens are now widely used without gravel packing as a completion technique for horizontal
wells drilled into unconsolidated formations. To date, many of these completions have been
successful. The apparent success of prepacked screens without a gravel pack in horizontal well
completions may be due, in part, to the formation not producing sand. It is hoped that wells
completed with prepacked screens continue to be successful as the older horizontal wells began
depleting and producing water. There have been documented cases of prepacked screens
plugging due to formation sand production in horizontal wells. Stand-alone screen failure rates
due to plugging, erosion, and otherwise have been as high as 50% in some operations. The
average failure rate in the Gulf of Mexico is over 25%.

Rev. 3 / March 1997
Despite their tendency to plug, there are applications where prepacked screens can be used
successfully in a horizontal well environment without a gravel pack. Guidelines for using
prepacked screens are much the same as with slotted liners and screens (i.e., well sorted, large
grained, high permeability formations with little or no clay materials or other fines), but emphasis
must be placed on using them in clean formations where the flow rate through the screen is less
than about 5 barrels per day per foot of screen. The consequence of subjecting them to high
throughput rates is a higher probability that plugging will occur.
Another consideration with prepacked screens is their applicability to short-radius type wells. In
these wells, the consolidated resin coated gravel may experience cracking while being pushed
through the high build angles. This cracking may effect the sand filtering properties of the screen.
This is particularly true in Single Screen Prepack type screens where cracking of the consolidated
resin coated gravel can cause the gravel to fall out of the perforated outer shroud directly
exposing the wire wrapped screen jacket to formation sand production. New screen products
using multiple layers of wire mesh have been developed that resist damage due to bending.
Because the pore openings in the wire mesh are more consistent, the screens made with the mesh
do not seem to plug as fast as a prepacked screen. However, screens made with wire mesh will
still have a tendency to plug over time and their use should be restricted to well sorted, large
grained, high permeability formations with little or no clay materials. The time required to plug a
prepacked screen or wire mesh screen is dependent on the particle size distribution, concentration
and rate of the formation material being produced. This data is extremely difficult to obtain, and,
for the most part, defie s prediction; therefore, the longevity of prepacked screens used without a
gravel pack is a concern.
Advantages of prepacked screens:

• Relatively easy to run, but care must be taken to displace solids laden mud from the hole
prior to running screens to prevent plugging
• Excellent sand control
Disadvantages of prepacked screens:

• Highly susceptible to plugging over time
• Expensive relative to slotted liners or non-prepacked screens
• Suitable only for well sorted, large grained, high permeability formations with little or no
clay materials or other fines
Gravel Packed Completions

Gravel packing is another option for completing horizontal wells in unconsolidated formations.
While this technology is more complicated and sophisticated than slotted liners, screens or
prepacked screens, it is a more general purpose completion for horizontal wells where sand
control presents a problem. Gravel packing can be used in either cased or open hole completions.
While using slotted liners, screens or prepacked screens may be applicable only for certain wells,
a gravel pack can be used on almost any horizontal completion provided that the gravel placement
guidelines outlined in this section are followed.

Rev. 3 / March 1997
Gravel packing has not been widely used in horizontal wells until recently. The reason for the
lack of use appears to be a reluctance on the part of operating companies to try a long, horizontal
gravel pack because of the perception that the technology is not available to place gravel over an
interval of several thousand feet with success. The industry has long recognized the difficulties of
successfully gravel packing long, highly deviated conventional wells using viscous gravel carrier
fluids. Since horizontal wells represent the ultimate long, highly deviated well, a reluctance to
gravel pack is well founded. At the time horizontal wells were beginning to be drilled in
unconsolidated formations, viscous gel carrier fluids represented the state-of-the-art in gravel
packing technology. Research and studies in physical models confirm that performing a
successful gravel pack in a horizontal well using viscous gravel carrier fluids is extremely difficult.
Today, brine is the state-of-the-art gravel carrier fluid. Research and studies in physical models
confirm that performing a successful gravel pack in a horizontal well using brine is possible.
Field-Scale Testing
The feasibility of gravel packing a long, horizontal well which includes the completion equipment
design, pumping schedules and other related procedures have been determined using scaled
physical models. Up to well deviations of about 60°, gravity tends to initially assist in transporting
the gravel to the bottom of the completion interval as Figure 15.4 indicates. However, at well
deviations exceeding 60°, the angle of repose of the gravel is exceeded (see Figure 15.5). As a
result, dimensional changes must be made to the gravel-pack equipment and higher pump rates
are required to completely gravel pack the entire interval. The main requirement is that the ratio
of the OD of the wash pipe to the ID of the screen must be at least 0.75 and returns through the
wash pipe must be sufficient to transport the gravel to the toe of the well.

Rev. 3 / March 1997
Figure 15.4
Packing Sequence With Brine Carrier Fluids In Wells Less Than 45° 2
The gravel placement at deviations exceeding 60° is initiated at the top of the completion interval
rather than at the bottom of the well, which is what happens when well deviations are lower. The
subsequent gravel placement extends downwards until the gravel dune, commonly referred to as
the alpha wave, reaches the bottom of the well. At that point, secondary placement, or beta wave
deposition, packs the volume above the alpha wave as Figure 15.6 reflects. However, if the
gravel concentration is too high, the flow rate is too low, or the wash pipe permits excessive flow
in the annulus between it and the screen, the alpha wave will prematurely stall. Increasing the
diameter ratio to 0.75 and maintaining a return flow superficial velocity of 1 ft/sec (the ratio of the
flow rate to the cross-sectional area of the annulus) promotes the stable alpha-beta wave packing
sequence illustrated in Figure 15.6.
Container
Dry Sand
Inverted Cone of
Dry Sand
62°
28°
Figure 15.5
Packing Sequence With Brine Carrier Fluid In High Angle Well Using High
Rate and Large Diameter Washpipe 2
Studies in a 7-inch OD by 25-ft long scaled gravel-pack simulator have confirmed the findings
portrayed in Figures 15.4 and 15.6. However, because the model was short, there was concern
that horizontal gravel-pack tests would not be representative for actual conditions since tests could
be dominated by end effects. Consequently, a longer field-scale model was designed and
constructed at the Baker Hughes test site in Willis, Texas. The model consisted of 1500 feet of
4½ inch casing equipped with a 2-1/16 inch screen and is illustrated in Figure 15.7. Fluid loss was
simulated by using foot-long pipe filled with resin-coated gravel. The difference in the flow into
the model and the returns through the wash pipe was the fluid loss to the formation. The model
was equipped with high-strength plastic windows that allowed the visualization of the gravel

Rev. 3 / March 1997
packing process as it progressed down the model. Figure 15.8 shows the alpha wave traversing a
window.
Figure 15.6
Packing Sequence With Brine Carrier Fluid In High Angle Well Using High
Rate and Large Diameter Washpipe 2
Flow In Washpipe Perforation Screen
Return
Flow
Fluid Loss
Figure 15.7
1500 Foot Horizontal Gravel Pack Model

Rev. 3 / March 1997
Figure 15.8
Results From 1,500 Foot Horizontal Gravel-Pack Model -
Alpha Wave Propagating in Model
A typical plot of the location of the alpha and beta waves as a function of time for a horizontal
gravel pack is illustrated in Figure 15.9 and demonstrates that the entire 1500-ft model was
packed with gravel. Testing clearly revealed that the height of the alpha wave was not constant
with pack length as had been implied from studies conducted in 25-ft models. Instead the height
of the alpha wave is inclined upwards from the heel to the toe of the model as Figure 15.10
illustrates. The reason for the inclination is a result of fluid loss which reduces the annular flow
velocity with length. The consequence is an increase in the alpha-wave dune height with length.
Should the top of the borehole interfere with deposition over the top of the alpha wave, deposition
stalls and beta wave deposition begins at the stall location. To avoid a premature stall, the annular
velocity must be maintained above a minimum value which has been determined to be a
superficial velocity of 1 ft/sec based on return flow through the wash pipe. Provided that the
design of the gravel pack is dimensionally correct and a superficial velocity of 1 ft/sec is
maintained, gravel packing a long horizontal gravel pack can be performed with routine
procedures. However, for open-hole completions, a clean, stable wellbore is an additional
requirement for a quality gravel pack to avoid contamination with formation material. Displacing
the hole to brine prior to running the screen and gravel packing the well is preferred.

Rev. 3 / March 1997
1600
Average Velocity
1400 6.3 fpm
1200
Packed to End
1000 Average Velocity
19.1 fpm
800
Average Velocity Average Velocity
7.2 fpm 8.6 fpm
600
400
Average Velocity
4.4 fpm
200
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Elapsed Time, min
KLB 8/9/94
Figure 15.9
Results From 1500 Foot Horizontal Gravel-Pack Model -
Gravel Dune Location Versus Elapsed Time
4.00
Test 7
Test 5
3.50 Test 4
3.00
Test 1
2.50
2.00
Test 6
1.50
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Location, ft
Figure 15.10
Alpha Wave Gravel Dune Height Versus Location
The recorded pressure, rates, and gravel concentration as a function of time for a field-scale test
in the 1500-ft model and are illustrated in Figure 15.11. For this test, the pump rate was 1.5

Rev. 3 / March 1997
bbl/min with 0.75 bbl/min return flow through the wash pipe. The entire model was gravel
packed. After about 2 hours of pumping, there was a distinct increase in the slope of the pressure
vs. time. The change in slope reflects the end of alpha-wave and the initiation of beta-wave
deposition. Data acquisition from an actual completion, a 2500-ft horizontal gravel pack, is
illustrated in Figure 15.12 and shows similar data. For this well, the pump rate was about 5
bbl/min and the return rate was 4 bbl/min. This is typical for most
horizontal gravel packs performed to date in 8-1/2 inch holes where the open-hole completion was
displaced to brine prior to running the screen. Also, note the change in slope of the pump
pressure-time relationship at about 6 1/2 hours into the gravel pack which also signaled the
initiation of beta wave deposition. The similarity in these data is not unique to these two examples
and is routinely observed in horizontal gravel packs.
1200 P1 2.00
1 Perf blew out

Calibrate Qi on BDAQ
P2 1.75
1000 Gravel/Conc.
Flow Rate, BPM or WG, ppga

1.50
Injection Rate
800 P3
Pressure, psi
1.25
P4
P5
600 1.00
0.75
400 Return Rate
0.50
200
Start Sand
0.25
0 0.00
10:00 10:10 10:20 10:30 10:40 10:50 11:00 11:10 11:20 11:30
Time
Figure 15.11
Pressure, Rate, and Gravel Mix Ratio vs. Time

Rev. 3 / March 1997
Flow Rate, BPM or WG, ppga

2000 STP 10
1800
1600 8
1400
Pressure, psi 1200 Qi 6
1000 Qr
800 4
600
400 WG 2
200
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Elapse Time, min
Figure 15.12
Results From 2,500 Foot Horizontal Gravel-Pack Well -
Pressure, Rate, and Gravel Mix Ratio vs. Time
Field Results
As of March 1997, approximately 75 wells have been horizontally gravel packed by Baker Oil
Tools. Tables 15.2 and 15.3 tabulate the completion and job execution results of selected
horizontal gravel packs performed to date. All horizontal gravel packed wells were completed
open hole and most used 40-60 U.S. mesh gravel and prepacked screens. Note that the deepest
well was 10,000 ft, the longest pack was 3300 ft, and that most wells had horizontal lengths
between 1500-2000 ft. Wellbore diameters have ranged from 4.75 to 8.5 inches. Typical gravel
mix ratios pumped have been about 1 ppa (pound per gallon added); however, pack times have
been reasonably short except for large diameter holes. Typical gravel pack times are in the 4-6
hour range. Wells that have been gravel packed do not experience the productivity declines
observed with stand-alone screens provided that the completion process described above is
followed. For example, Well 1 in Tables 15.2 and 15.3 has a significantly better PI than wells in
the same project that were completed with stand-alone prepacked screens. Well 7 represents the
average of 11 wells in a particular project that were gravel packed. About half way through the
project, it was decided to run a stand-alone 40-60 U.S. mesh prepacked screen to determine if
gravel packing was actually needed. The stand-alone prepacked screen completion experienced
a significant productivity decline from the onset. After several months the screen was removed
and the well was gravel packed. The ensuing productivity was superior to the prepacked screen
completion, consistent with the other gravel packed wells and did not experience the decline in
productivity that was noted with the stand-alone prepacked screen. This particular property was
subsequently acquired by another operator who drilled and completed three additional wells with
stand-alone, proprietary multi-layer sintered metal screens on the resumption that they would not
plug like the prepacked screens. The initial productivity from these completions could not be
sustained and the well performance has been disappointing and has declined with time. As a
consequence, the operator has elected to remove the screens and gravel pack the wells.

Rev. 3 / March 1997
Wells 2-6 are all from the same project which has completed about 50 horizontal gravel packs.
An additional 12 wells will be gravel packed before the project is completed. Ironically, the initial
completions were stand-alone slotted liners. Their initial flow rates were 3000-5000 bbls/day, but
sand production was excessive and the wells plugged upon the onset of water production. By
gravel packing the wells, productivity has been maintained even after water breakthrough.
Table 15.2
Horizontal Gravel Pack Information
Completion Geometry
Depth Horizontal Hole Screen Screen Washpipe Wash/Screen Workstring

Well TVD (ft.) Length (ft.) Diameter (in.) Type Diameter (in.) Diameter (in.) OD/ID (in.)
1 7,385 2,500 8.500 SSPP 5.000 3.500 0.790 3.5 / 5.0

2 4,276 1,980 6.125 Bakerweld 3.500 2.375 0.793 3.50
3 4,287 1,739 6.125 Slim-Pak 3.800 2.375 0.793 3.50
4 4,255 1,743 6.125 Slim-Pak 3.500 2.375 0.793 3.50
5 4,261 1,667 6.125 Slim-Pak 3.500 2.375 0.793 3.50
6 4,274 1,642 6.125 Slim-Pak 3.500 2.375 0.793 3.50
7 3,600 1,800 8.500 Slim-Pak 3.500 2.375 0.790 4.50
8 5,400 600 6.875 SSPP 2.875 1.900 0.780 3.50
9 6,890 1,128 6.125 Slim-Pak 3.500 2.375 0.790 3.50

Rev. 3 / March 1997
Table 15.3
Horizontal Gravel Pack Information
Job Execution/Results
Pump Return Pump Pressure Gravel ACT/CAL Gravel Pack Prod

Well Rate (bpm) Rate (bpm) Alpha (psi) Conc. (ppg) Placed (%) Time (hrs.) Comments
1 5.00 4.20 1,000 1.00 129 7.50 1,700 BOPD / 1,950 psi / 1/8"
2 3.20 2.80 1,400 1.00 59** 4.00 710 BOPD / Pump
3 4.40 4.38 1,500 1.00 154 5.75 1694 BOPD / 32/64 choke
4 3.00 3.00 600 1.00 151 6.00 2259 BOPD / 36/64 choke
5 3.03 2.12 460 1.00 102 3.00 1958 BOPD / 38/64 choke
6 3.07 1.02 690 1.00 92*** 3.50 1800 BOPD / 20/64 choke
7 5.00 4.00 1,000 1.00 130 7.00 6,000 BOPD / Pumped
8 5.00 4.90 1,500 0.60 100* 2.00 1,100 BOPD / WHP ~ 1500 psi
9 4.00 3.50 1,200 1.25 79**** 2.50 1350 BOPD / WHP ~ 230 psi
* Pumped only theoretical volume

** PERFFLOW not displaced from the wellbore prior to gravel packing.
*** Bottomhole "knocked out" when shearing out setting ball
**** Plugging due to exposed to shale
Based on the preceding discussion, gravel pack technology is available for completing long,
horizontal wells. Regardless of whether the horizontal well is completed cased or open hole, the
same gravel packing procedures and guidelines apply. As pointed out in the previous discussion,
maintaining sufficient returns is critical to the success of a horizontal gravel pack. The amount of
fluid returns is directly related to the amount of fluid loss to the formation during gravel packing.
If high losses are experienced, the pump rate must be increased to maintain the minimum required
fluid returns. If fluid losses are extreme or pump rate capacity is limited, the length of horizontal
interval that can be packed will be reduced. As discussed in Chapter 11, fluid loss is essential for
properly packing the perforation tunnels. In a cased hole horizontal well this creates a paradox.
Fluid loss is required for perforation packing and high well productivity, but fluid loss will limit or
jeopardize the length of horizontal interval that can be packed. Although technically possible,
gravel packing cased hole horizontal wells is considerably more difficult than packing an open hole
horizontal well.
The recommended procedure to gravel pack an open hole horizontal well is to eliminate fluid
losses to the formation by using a filter cake building drill-in fluid. After drilling the well, the drill-
in fluid is displaced from the hole with a clear brine leaving only the filter cake at the face of the
formation. The gravel pack assembly is run and the well is gravel packed. Because there are no
perforations to pack and fluid loss to the formation is controlled by the filter cake, gravel packing
is a relatively easy process. After gravel packing, the filter cake must be removed. If the
PERFFLOW system is used as a drill-in fluid, the filter cake can be removed simply by flowing
the well. If other types of drill-in fluids are used, special chemical soaks and treatments may be

Rev. 3 / March 1997
required to adequately remove the filter cake. The PERFFLOW system has been used on
several successful open hole horizontal gravel packs with encouraging productivity results.
Guidelines for gravel packing a horizontal wells
Based on field scale testing and actual field results and procedures, the following guidelines for
gravel packing horizontal wells are suggested:
• Use a drill-in fluid such as PERFFLOW to control fluid loss and obtain an initial fluid
return ratio greater than 70%.
• Maintain a minimum superficial velocity of 1 foot per second in the flow area outside the
screen based on fluid return rate.
• Use brine as a carrier fluid.
• Keep the gravel concentration below 2 pounds of gravel per gallon of carrier fluid.
• Ensure that the ratio of wash pipe OD to screen ID is 0.75 to 0.80.
Gravel packing offers distinct advantages over a simple prepacked screen in horizontal
completions in unconsolidated formations. Gravel packing places a finite stress against the
formation at the gravel/formation interface that reduces the movement of fines into the gravel
pack. Prepacked screens are a suspended filter that do not place a finite stress against the
formation. A consequence of the lack of stress against the formation is that formation particles
are free to move with the produced fluids. Since the formation fines are more mobile than the
load bearing particles in the formation, the accumulation of fines at the
outside surface of the prepacked screen and/or just below the outside surface can cause plugging
and a loss in productivity. This problem becomes more significant when fine grained, or high clay
content formations are involved and when there is production of viscous fluids. In this case,
plugging of a prepacked screen alone is inevitable and gravel packing would seem to be the only
long term sand control technique available.
Another potential advantage of gravel packing over prepacked screens alone is zonal isolation
possibilities. A horizontal well completed with prepacked screens can incorporate external casing
packers to achieve zonal isolation. The success of the zonal isolation is dependent on setting the
external casing packers in the right location and the sealing characteristics of the packer.
Accurately predicting the setting location required for future zonal isolation can be difficult.
Gravel packing can incorporate external casing packers, but this requires more complex service
tools and operations to accomplish setting of the external casing packers and gravel packing.
Another evolving zonal isolation technique takes advantage of the gravel filling the annulus outside
the screen. By pumping the proper chemicals, the permeability of the gravel pack sand an be
artificially destroyed creating some degree of zonal isolation. As stated, this technology is
evolving and field results are limited.
Advantages of gravel packing horizontal wells:
• Excellent sand control.

Rev. 3 / March 1997
• Enhanced completion longevity.

• Potential for zonal isolation.
Disadvantages of gravel packing horizontal wells:
• Slightly higher cost than stand-alone screens .
Summary
The same completion options available for conventional wells are available for horizontal wells;
however, there is a trend toward performing a higher percentage of open hole completions in
horizontal wells than in conventional wells. If the horizontal section is cased the well can be
produced sand free, provided that the reservoir is competent. However, if sand production
presents a problem, running screens or slotted liners will significantly reduce productivity as a
consequence of the perforations becoming plugged with formation sand. For a cased hole
completion, gravel packing appears to be the primary alternative for maintaining sand control and
completion productivity. Successfully gravel packing a cased hole horizontal well requires
significant job planning and complex field execution.
Open hole horizontal completions offer additional flexibility over cased hole horizontal completions.
Sand control options include slotted liners, screens and prepacked screens in formations with well
sorted, large grained, high permeability formations containing little or no clay materials or other
fines. External casing packers can be used to achieve some degree of zonal isolation. In poorly
sorted formations or formations containing significant quantities of clay, gravel packing should be
considered to ensure completion longevity. If suitable drill-in fluids are used, gravel packing an
open hole horizontal well is a relatively simple operation.
References
1. Coberly, C.J., “Selection of Screen Openings for Unconsolidated Sands”, API Drilling and
Production Practice, 1941.
2. Penberthy, W.L. and Echols, E.E., “Gravel Placement in Wells”, SPE Paper 22793, Journal
Volume 1, 1992.

Rev. 3 / March 1997

Completion Technology For Unconsolidated Formations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Completion Technology For Unconsolidated Formations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Completion Technology For Unconsolidated Formations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Completion

Rev. 2 / June 1995

Chapter 1 Radial Flow and Formation Damage

Radial flow; Near Wellbore Flow Restrictions; Potential Formation Damage

Chapter 2 Causes and Effects of Sand Production

Nature of Sand Production; Effects of Sand Production; Causes of Sand

Chapter 3 Predicting Sand Production

Operational and Economic Influences; Formation Strength; Sonic Log; Formation

Chapter 4 Sand Control Techniques

Maintenance and Workover; Rate Exclusion; Selective Completion Practices;

Chapter 5 Gravel Pack Sand Design

Chapter 6 Slotted Liners and Wire Wrapped Screens

Slotted Liners; Wire Wrapped Screens; Prepacked Screens; Pressure Drop

Chapter 7 Gravel Pack Completion Equipment and Service Tools

Gravel Pack Completion Equipment; Gravel Pack Service Tools.

Chapter 8 Well Preparation for Gravel Packing

Shaped Charge Technology; Types of Explosives; Perforating for Gravel

Chapter 10 Fluid Loss Control

Chapter 11 Gravel Placement Techniques

Gravel Placement Objectives; Gravel Placement Techniques; Historical

Chapter 12 Cased-Hole Gravel Packing Practices

Perforation Prepacking, Prepacking Below Fracture Pressure, Prepacking Above

Chapter 13 Open Hole Gravel Packing

Chapter 14 Gravel Pack Performance

Productivi ty and Longevity; Perforating Techniques; Perforation Packing;

Chapter 15 Horizontal Well Completions

Why Horizontal Wells are Drilled; Special Considerations for Unconsolidated

Appendix 1 SPE Paper 31089 – “Gravel Pack Procedures for Productivity

Appendix 2 SPE Paper 38593 – “Water-Fracturing vs. Frac-Packing: Well

Appendix 3 SPE Paper 31147 – “ Gravel Placement in Horizontal Wells”

Appendix 4 Petroleum Engineer Article – Applied Technology and

Completion Technology for Unconsolidated Formations 1-1

Completion Technology for Unconsolidated Formations 1-2

where: pi = pressure at point of interest (pounds per square inch)

Completion Technology for Unconsolidated Formations 1-3

Near Wellbore Flow Restrictions

Completion Technology for Unconsolidated Formations 1-4

Radial Distance (ft)

2000 Formation Permeability = 1000 md

Radial Distance (ft)

Completion Technology for Unconsolidated Formations 1-5

Completion Technology for Unconsolidated Formations 1-6

where: s = skin factor

Completion Technology for Unconsolidated Formations 1-7

where: FE = flow efficiency (percent)

Completion Technology for Unconsolidated Formations 1-8

Potential Formation Damage Mechanisms

• drilling mud, cement and completion fluid filtrate invasion

Completion Technology for Unconsolidated Formations 1-9

3. Lee, W.J., Well Testing, SPE Textbook Series, Volume 1, 1982.

Completion Technology for Unconsolidated Formations 1-10

Nature of Sand Production

The strength of a sandstone is controlled by:

Completion Technology for Unconsolidated Formations 2-1

Completion Technology for Unconsolidated Formations 2-2

Effects of Sand Production

Completion Technology for Unconsolidated Formations 2-3

Completion Technology for Unconsolidated Formations 2-4

Completion Technology for Unconsolidated Formations 2-5