SPE 163880

Successful Application of Aqueous-Based Formation Consolidation

Treatment Introduced to the North Sea
R. Bhasker and A.F. Foo-Karna, Halliburton; I. Foo, Shell

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing & Well Intervention Conference & Exhibition held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 2627 March 2013.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Sand production presents a major challenge for many operators in unconsolidated formations. The production of formation
sand and fines can cause erosion damage to surface and downhole equipment, resulting in major well intervention and sand
disposal costs. This has a significant negative impact on hydrocarbon production and revenue in terms of decline in
production and downtime for intervention.
The oil industry encounters severe costs each year attempting to control sand production by methods such as gravel
packing, frack packing, and screen-only completions, which are designed to inhibit the movement of sand from the formation
into the wellbore. Resin consolidation is an alternative cost-effective solution to mechanical methods. Resin consolidation
increases the cohesion forces between sand grains, resulting in high-strength consolidation of the formation grains while
maintaining most of the permeability of the rock. Historically, chemical treatments for sand control have been solvent-based,
applicable only in relatively short intervals, and with low flash points; as a result, they can be challenging to manage in an
offshore environment and difficult to register for use in the North Sea. Recent developments in aqueous-based resin (ABR)
technology have resulted in resin consolidation that provides additional benefits, such as improved health, safety, and
environmental (HSE) characteristics, and also allow longer heterogeneous intervals to be treated.
This paper discusses the application of an ABR treatment that was used successfully for the first time in the North Sea for
Shell. Job planning, laboratory analysis, execution, and well performance are discussed. Subsequent sand monitoring has
shown that the sand production in this well decreased by more than 80%, with no impairment to oil production.
Introduction
Conventional treatments for sand-producing wells include gravel packs, frack packs, resin-coated sand slurry squeeze
treatments, and formation consolidation. Gravel packs offer a filtering mechanism through the formation of stable proppant
or gravel bridges at the formation face to control sand production. Screens are installed to provide a mechanical barrier to
help prevent the proppant and gravel from being produced. However, over time, permeability loss can occur from the fines
being produced, reducing productivity. Frack packs create short, wide, and highly conductive fractures and stimulate past any
wellbore damage. This method involves forming an in-situ mechanical screen, which creates a filtration mechanism far from
the wellbore and distributes and reduces the drawdown pressure near the wellbore. However, these approaches can be
expensive, and resin consolidation of formation grains offers an alternate cost-effective solution.
Resin consolidation has been used in the oil industry since the 1940s to strengthen and consolidate weakly consolidated
formations in the near wellbore (NWB) region. These include phenol-formaldehyde, epoxy resin, and furans systems.
Traditional systems are comprised of several stages, including an external catalyst, which makes uniform placement a
challenge. With current resin technology, the resin is internally catalyzed without the need for an external post-flush to
initiate the curing process. This is achieved using a low-viscosity liquid curable resin, which increases the cohesion forces of
the formation sand grains while maintaining the permeability of the rock.
ABR vs. Solvent-Based Resin (SBR) Systems
ABR enables simplified completions in most sand-prone reservoirs and production of marginal reservoirs in both mature and
deepwater fields compared to traditional screen-type completions. This system can be used in oil, gas, and water injectors,
both in primary or remedial applications. ABR can be used to support openhole completions with stand-alone screens or
perforated liners. In remedial applications, it can be used to stop sand production from completions with failed screens. It

SPE 163880

simplifies operations and reduces costs by allowing long intervals to be treated through bullheading without the need for a rig
and expensive completions installation and tools.
Recent developments in ABR have resulted in a dilute concentration of less than 10% curable epoxy resin consolidation
material dispersed in an aqueous brine-based carrier fluid with a water-soluble activator. It is an in-situ consolidation process
used to treat poorly consolidated formations. ABR is an internally catalyzed system that does not require an external catalyst
overflush. The low-viscosity of the system allows it to penetrate and displace deep into the formation matrix to help treat the
matrix effectively. The resin is attracted to the solid surfaces of the formation sand grains; specifically, grain-to-grain contact
is created through the action of capillary forces. This results in a high-consolidation-strength pack using relatively small
amounts of resin. The pore channels within the formation matrix are filled with brine after the coating is complete, resulting
in open pore throats and, hence, high regained permeability values. The current version is applicable at bottomhole
temperatures from 80 to 235F.
Some of the key benefits of ABR compared to solvent-based resin (SBR) include the following:
SBRs are only generally applicable in short treatment intervals less than 20 ft, whereas ABRs, because of their
aqueous base, are suitable to be comingled or foamed with nitrogen, thereby improving placement through better
diversion. Nitrogen also helps with fluid load recovery, as well as being a volume extender.
SBR has a low flash point and is difficult to manage in an offshore environment because of safety issues related to
storage, handling, and completion operations. ABR contains no volatile solvents and, with its higher flash point and
easy cleanup methods (usually water), is safer to use as a result.
ABR has low viscosity (similar to water), making it easier to pump than SBR, especially in lower-permeability
applications.
With small amounts of resin concentration, a high-strength consolidation can be achieved in conjunction with high
regained permeability. Because of the capillary action described previously, large overdisplacement is not required
with ABR to achieve good regained permeability. With SBR, the resin is in a concentrate form, failure to properly
overdisplace the resin from the pore spaces can damage the formation.
Figs. 1 and 2 are SEM photographs showing an unconsolidated formation and a consolidated formation following
treatment with an ABR.

Fig. 1Unconsolidated formation pretreatment with ABR.

Fig. 2Consolidated formation post-treatment with ABR showing consolidation at contact points and open pore spaces.

Well Candidate Selection

ABR was selected by Shell to be included in a long-term testing program aimed at identifying a range of effective chemical
techniques that could be deployed for remedial sand control in a number of key oil and gas-bearing sandstone formations
offshore in the UK Continental Shelf. In line with the primary goal of implementing such treatments in the field, the selection
process was governed by two key considerationsacceptable strength increase balanced with acceptable permeability

SPE 163880

reduction after treatment. These formed the foci of the testing program. The following factors were also given due
consideration at the screening stage: temperature limits, placement efficiency (especially in multiple layers), and compliance
with UK offshore HSE regulations. Other techniques were also considered for testing that are not designed to increase
strength but to retard sand mobilization by fluid flow after rock failure; however, these belong to a later phase in the program.
These unconventional chemical sand control techniques have niche applications in the solutions toolbox the operator is
assembling to address different well and completions types.
The selected candidate well is a subhydrostatic gas-lifted oil producer and, based on data from manual and acoustic
clamp-on testing, has produced sand continuously. Its completion is cased-hole perforated, with a short perforated interval of
22 ft at 12,176 to 12,198 ft measured depth (MD). A target was set of 50% sand production reduction post-treatment, thereby
reducing the risk of well failure caused by continuous sand production.
Selected ABR
The ABR system chosen was comprised of three partsa hardener, a coupling agent, and a resin. The resin composition
concentrations were specially tailored through a series of laboratory tests using formation cores, or loose sand packs, specific
to a particular application based on temperature and regained permeability. The fluids upper temperature limit was 235F,
although pumping a cooling preflush could make it applicable for higher-temperature wells. This consolidation fluid was low
viscosity, which allowed it to penetrate and displace deep into the formation matrix. Generally, a minimum formation
permeability of 500 md is the recommended limit; however, it might be applicable in lower-permeability rocks (>100 md)
based on laboratory testing. Treatments are usually bullheaded, and intervals longer than approximately 20 ft with variable
permeability are generally foamed. Being aqueous-based allowed the resin to be foamed, which provided a volume extender
as well as acting as a diverter to assist with better job placement.
An essential part of planning such resin jobs is not only to carefully select the appropriate resin formulation and its
volume, but to consider the pre- and post-flush volumes that condition the formation to accept the resin and displace the
treatment an appropriate distance into the formation. With respect to the distance displaced into formation, an optimum
distance of 3 ft is recommended to provide enough consolidation support around the wellbore and balance with economics. A
base brine of 3% KCl was chosen to provide clay control appropriate for this particular reservoir, and the base brines for each
stage were filtered to 2 m to prevent unwanted solids from affecting the regained permeability post-treatment. The fluids
pumped in the Nelson field non-foamed treatment were as follows:
Preflush 1Consisted of a solvent and filtered 3% KCl brine. Its purpose was to condition the formation by
cleaning up any oil residue on the formation sand grains to allow the resin to better adhere to the formation sand
grains.
Preflush 2This stage consisted of filtered 3% KCl brine. Its purpose was to continue to condition the formation in
preparation for the consolidation treatment.
ABR FluidThe recommended design treatment volume was 50 gal/ft of perforation, which corresponds to a radial
penetration of approximately 3 ft from the wellbore, depending on wellbore ID and porosity. This treatment volume
was increased to 100 gal/ft because of the potential cavity, which will be discussed in the Job Planning and
Execution section in this paper.
Post-FlushConsisted of filtered 3% KCl brine. Its purpose was to overdisplace the resin away from the wellbore
to maximize regained permeability.
DisplacementFiltered 3% KCl brine displaced the pumped fluids train into the formation. The well was shut in
for at least 24 hr to allow the resin to cure, while ensuring positive pressure maintained on the well to help minimize
any potential of fluid swabbing back from the formations into the wellbore. The displacement fluid volume is
important to ensure a good balance of strength and regained permeability. If the resin is overdisplaced into the
formation, there is potential to decrease the consolidation strength of the treatment.
Laboratory Testing and Results
Testing of ABR was performed in Shells laboratories. Core flow tests were performed to determine regained permeability.
The samples were then subjected to thick-wall cylinder (TWC) strength measurement.
Core plugs were subjected to the following standardized test procedure:
1. Core plugs were prepared from preserved core with the following dimensions: 4-in. length and 1-in. diameter. The
samples were not deep cleaned before flooding to minimize alteration of in-situ pore fluid and wettability, which
could inadvertently favor certain treatment systems in the laboratory but not in the field. It is possible that there was
some residual hydrocarbon in the core plugs.
2. Before loading onto the core flow rig, each core plug was saturated in 7% KCl brine. Porosity was calculated by the
sample dimension and weight change after brine saturation.
3. Each fully saturated core plug was loaded in a Hassler sleeve-type core holder with a confining pressure of 1,500 psi
and back pressure of 500 psi. The confining pressure was lower than the current mean effective stress in the
candidate well location, but trial runs showed that applying higher confining pressure would have failed all core
plugs prematurely. Initial brine permeability was measured in the injection direction.

SPE 163880

4.

5.

6.

7.
8.

After stabilization, the brine was displaced with diesel (viscosity = 2.7cp) until no brine could be detected in the
effluent. Water saturation was considered to be irreducible at this stage. Next, each core plug was shut in for at least
16 hr to obtain uniform distribution of connate water. Afterward, diesel permeability was measured in both injection
and production directions at room temperature.
Once pretreatment permeability had been established, each core plug was treated with ABR in the following
sequence, which mimics a typical treatment that could be applied in the field:
a. Core holder temperature was increased to the expected bottomhole treatment temperature of 195F using
the service companys placement simulation software. This temperature was lower than the reservoir
temperature to simulate the cool down effect from pumping brine to check injectivity of the formation
before an ABR treatment.
b. Two pore volumes (PVs) of mutual solvent were injected, followed by three PVs of 7% KCl brine. The
preflush sequence comprising mutual solvent and brine was intended to displace diesel and leave the sand
surface as clean and water-wet as possible in preparation for contact with the ABR.
c. Eight PVs of ABR fluid were then injected. The exact formulation and resin concentration was specific to
the formation and field based on the mineralogy and shut-in bottomhole temperature.
d. Two PVs of 7% KCl brine were injected as a post-flush.
e. Afterward, injection was shut down and the core holder was heated to a representative bottomhole shut-in
temperature of 235F. The resin was allowed to cure for 18 hours.
Once the curing period ended, the core plug was cooled down to room temperature before retained permeability was
measured by first flowing 7% KCl brine. While this mimics brine flowback after a treatment, it also provides
common ground for comparing pre- and post-treatment brine permeability at 100% water saturation.
To measure post-treatment diesel permeability at irreducible water saturation, Step 4 was repeated.
On completion of the permeability measurements, the core plug was unloaded and cut into two 2-in. halves
lengthwise from the injection end. Each half was subjected to TWC measurements. TWC from each half provided a
macroscopic measurement of the treatment gradient. The measured values were compared with baseline TWC
strengths of adjacent core plugs that were not treated with ABR.

The test results for core plugs are presented in Figs. 3 and 4.

Fig. 3Retained permeability in core plugs after ABR treatment.

SPE 163880

Fig. 4Strength increase in core plugs after ABR treatment.

The regained permeability with KCl brine ranged from 73 to 90%, and regained permeability to diesel in the injection
direction ranged from 78 to 221% and 77 to 213% in the production direction. The apparent increase in diesel permeability
after ABR treatment in two samples could have been the result of changing sand surface wettability, which was mixed-wet.
However, this would only be confirmed in future tests by first deep cleaning core plugs before performing core flooding.
Overall, the increase in TWC strength after treatment with ABR was more pronounced at the injection end than at the
effluent end. This is in line with observations in the wider testing program. The measured range of increase in TWC strength
was the highest ever achieved among tested treatment systems up to this point in the testing program. TWC strength after
treatment to average baseline (before ABR treatment) ranged from 104 to 187%, with an average of 130% over six
measurements.
Job Planning and Execution
It is imperative to clean the wellbore and remove any sand fill before pumping ABR to ensure the resin will treat the entire
perforated interval. It is recommended to run a slickline tag as well to help ensure the well is free of any obstructions down
through the perforated interval.
An injectivity test was performed with brine to ensure there was sufficient injectivity into the formation before pumping
the ABR fluid train. Onsite quality control was also performed to ensure the resin behaved as expected.
As mentioned, it is of great importance that the treatment volumes and displacement are chosen carefully. In the case of
the selected candidate well, there were three issues that could have potentially threatened the placement and, therefore, the
effectiveness of the resin treatment.
Sufficient injectivity into the wellbore before pumping the resin treatment.
There was a suspected cavity behind the casing, estimated at 42 bbl in volume, which would have had the potential
to decrease the consolidation strength of the treatment, as it would become lost in the cavity space and not reach the
zone of interest.
The well was subhydrostatic and, as such, there was a potential to overdisplace, thereby decreasing consolidation
strength.
Ideally, the issue of the potential cavity would have been solved by performing a gravel prepack; however, this solution
was discounted because of operational complexity and also because it would have been difficult to evaluate the effectiveness
of the ABR treatment alone. As a result, the resin volume was increased to twice the initial recommended volume, and 100
gal/ft was pumped to account for the unknown volume of the cavity area. It was decided that the total displacement volume
minus half the cavity volume should be pumped as the displacement stage, thereby reducing the effect of the wells
subhydrostatic nature.
Proprietary simulation software was used in the design planning stage of the resin application to provide indications of
pipe time, adherence to pressure constraints, and fluid placement. The ABR is temperature activated and, as such, careful
consideration should be given to the bottomhole temperature and the exposure time of the treatment to this temperature. A
minimum pump rate of 2.5 bbl/min was established based on the results of these simulations. This allowed the resin to reach
the zone of interest without the possibility of a premature setup scenario in the wellbore. A 400-bbl injectivity test was
performed to ensure that this rate could be achieved just before pumping the resin treatment; however, previous experience
with this well indicated that the 2.5 bbl/min injection rate was highly achievable. Fig. 5 shows the relationship between the
pressure and injection rate versus time for the duration of this treatment generated by the simulation.

SPE 163880

Fig. 5Relationship between the pressure and injection rate vs. time.

The modeling showed that at 2.5 bbl/min, the maximum surface treating pressure of 1,500 psi and the maximum
bottomhole treating pressure (BHTP) of 4,352 psi were not exceeded. The pipe time for the ABR to reach full displacement
at this rate was almost 134 min, and this modeling provided an assurance that placement could be achieved for the designed
recipe without concerns with setting up in the wellbore.
Based on the formation permeability and porosity data, Fig. 6 shows approximately 5 to 6 ft of radial penetration at the
perforations at full displacement. The simulation did not take into account the cavity volume and, as such, the actual radial
penetration depth should be slightly more than the modeled penetration depth. The modeling showed that the rate was enough
to divert and place the resin uniformly.

SPE 163880

Fig. 6Simulation showing radial penetration at the perforations.

During the actual operation, a 5-bbl/min rate during the injectivity test and a 4.5-bbl/min rate during the resin placement
were achieved without fracturing the formation. All of the stages were pumped according to plan. Operationally, the
treatment was conducted without any HSE incidents.
Post-Treatment Well Performance
The goal of pumping a chemical sand consolidation in the selected candidate well was to reduce sand production and
safeguard this oil well from potential liner failure. This had already occurred in two other long-term sand producers, which
ultimately experienced liner failure near the weakest perforated intervals. The candidate well was also selected because of its
relatively low oil rate, which minimized the impact on overall field production should the treatment trial lead to an excessive
reduction in permeability.
The results of the treatment are shown in Fig. 7. A comparison of samples obtained manually before and after the well
was treated showed a noticeable reduction in sand production. At the same time, there was no change to total liquid rate, lift
gas injection rate, or other operation conditions, with only a marginal increase in water cut. The results suggest that the
treatment led to a stabilization of the cavities behind the pipe, which implies some strength increase was achieved without
reducing the overall permeability to any appreciable degree. This is in line with laboratory test results, although the apparent
lack of permeability change in the laboratory cannot yet be systematically explained, given the mixed-wettability of the
treated sandstone.

SPE 163880

Fig. 7Candidate well pre- and post-treatment with ABR system.

Sand production was reduced post-ABR treatment approximately 80%. The facility can handle the current amount of
produced sand.
Conclusions
Based on the experimental testing and result from field trials, the following conclusions can be made:
ABR is proven to be successful at both laboratory and field scale for remedial application to control formation sand
production. It offers a cost-effective alternative to SBRs with additional benefits.
ABR has shown to increase consolidation strength of formation sand without sacrificing the formation permeability.
The permeability of the candidate well is recommended to be above 500 md; although, ABR has been successfully
used in permeabilities as low as 100 md. Core flow testing is highly recommended to ensure a good combination of
consolidation strength and regained formation permeability.
ABR can be used at bottomhole shut-in temperatures from 80F to as high as 235F. Formation temperature cooldown from the pumping of fluids also helps with treatment placement.
The shortness of the interval helped to ensure the success of the resin treatment in this field trial.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the management of Shell and Halliburton for permission to publish this paper. The authors also
acknowledge Ying Zhang (Shell) and Rick Rickman (formerly Halliburton) for their assistance in the experimental work, as
well as the field personnel for their efforts in the planning and execution of the successful job.
References
Haggerty, D.J., Manning, J.D., Nguyen, P.D., Rickman, R., and Dusterhoft, R.G. 2009. Sand Consolidation Testing in an API RP 19B
Section IV Perforation Flow Laboratory. Paper SPE 120901 presented at the 8th European Formation Damage Conference,
Scheveningen, The Netherlands, 2729 May. doi: 10.2118/120901-MS.
Nguyen, P.D. and Rickman, R.D. 2012. Foaming Aqueous-Based Treatment Fluids Enhances Placement and Consolidation Performance.
Paper SPE 151002 presented at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette,
Louisiana, USA, 1517 February. doi: 10.2118/151002-MS.
Villesca, J., Loboguerrero, S., Gracia, J., Hansford, A., Nguyen, P., Rickman, R., and Dusterhoft, R. 2010. Development and Field
Applications of an Aqueous-Based Consolidation System for Proppant Remedial Treatments. Paper SPE 128025 presented at the SPE
International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 1012 February. doi:
10.2118/128025-MS.