SPE 88493

Screening Methodology for Downhole Sand Control Selection

Chris Farrow, SPE, Helix RDS; David Munro, Woodside Energy Ltd, and Thomas McCarthy, SPE, Woodside Energy Ltd

Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition held in Perth, Australia, 1820 October 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
The Sand Management Strategy for existing North West Shelf
(NWS) fields involves reactive downhole sand control in the
event sand is produced above acceptable limits. Sand face
completions for new wells consider well and system risks over
the life of the development.
A screening methodology has been developed to evaluate
and rank the available sand control techniques for NWS
conditions. Published criteria are used in a systematic manner,
allowing a consistent, balanced and transparent view of
benefits and risks across the different system aspects.
The methodology incorporates a combination of a
flowchart and sand control matrix, where each selection
criterion is evaluated according to a likelihood x consequence
ranking. In this way all relevant information and its relative
importance are included in the decision making process.
This paper describes the methodology and its application
for conceptual design across a number of NWS high rate gas
well case studies. These range from existing, near-vertical
platform wells to new, horizontal subsea wells.
Introduction
The NWS gas condensate fields (North Rankin, Goodwyn,
Perseus and Echo-Yodel), operated by Woodside Energy Ltd,
are located approximately 135 km offshore from Dampier in
the NW of Western Australia.
The fields are operated on behalf of the Joint Venture
Participants; Woodside Energy Ltd., BHP Petroleum (North
West Shelf) Pty. Ltd., BP Developments Australia Pty. Ltd.,
Shell Development (Australia) Pty. Ltd., ChevronTexaco
Australia Pty Ltd and Japan Australia LNG (MIMI) Pty. Ltd.
These fields are the main suppliers of gas for the LNG and
DOMGAS contracts supplied by Woodside and the NWSV
partners.
The NWS fields have typically been developed without
downhole sand control or specific topsides sand handling

equipment. Considerable benefits have been realised in terms

of development costs and production capacity as a result, with
minimal sand production observed to date. However
uncertainty is recognised over future sand production as
reservoirs deplete or water breakthrough occurs.
Woodside formed an integrated sand team with the
specific aim to protect against the possible impact of sand. The
team developed a sand management strategy which includes:
Manage current (low) levels of sanding by well
management (including best practices for sand
monitoring, drawdown and bean up) and assess
topsides desanding options.
Develop a downhole remediation plan for key
existing wells. Activate this plan on a reactive basis
should sand be proven.
Directionally, build system robustness against the
risk of sand by considering the installation of
downhole sand control on new wells.
To support this, a systematic approach to ranking available
sand control options (for both remedial and new field
developments) has been developed and applied.
Sand Control Selection Methodology
The methodology incorporates a combination of a flowchart
and sand control matrix.
The initial flowchart is used to categorise whether or not
the well is an existing well (remedial/retrofit solution),
whether it is subsea or platform and to address deviation
across the reservoir section. An example of the flowchart is
presented in Figure 1.
The sand control selection matrix uses a traffic light
system to represent results based on the following: green = no
concerns, yellow = some concern, orange = significant
concern, red = ruled out. The system is similar to an HSE type
matrix where the colour code is selected according to a
likelihood x consequence ranking. Anything which receives a
red ranking in any category is eliminated immediately while
the remaining options are graded according to overall
comparison across all categories.
In some cases rankings may be assigned using well
defined, objective criteria (e.g. PSD criteria for screens,
reliability data), while in other categories the rankings can be
more subjective and/or context specific. It was recognized that
similar wells unders different circumstances could have a
different ranking of risk for valid reasons (e.g. introducing a
new sand control technique versus using an established

SPE 88493

technique for an area) the matrix enables this to be shown in

a balanced and transparent manner.
The selection criteria can be categorized:
Sand Failure Characteristics
Particle Size Distribution
Well Condition and Shales
Reservoir and Reservoir Fluid Characteristics
Production Performance
Intervention & Reservoir Management Requirements
Reliability
Cost and and Installation Risk
These are presented in Figure 2 and are discussed below.
Sand Failure Characteristics. The likelihood of sand failure
and the mode of failure (i.e. transient or catastrophic), along
with the uncertainty in the prediction and degree of failure
over the reservoir section are addressed. The details of this
analysis using proprietary sand failure prediction tools which
are correlated with available rock strength data and offset well
information are beyond the scope of this paper.
The sand failure criteria are used to assess whether surface
sand management techniques are applicable (or if downhole
sand control is required), the potential for passive sand control
(such as near wellbore drawdown control or selective
perforating) or if sand control installation can be deferred
leading to possible increases in production as well as saving
completion costs.
It should however be recognized that there is significant
uncertainty in the prediction of sanding, particularly with
respect to the volume and concentration of sand produced. The
work of Palmer et al.1 on quantified sand production and
Nisbet and Dria2 on sand monitoring may lead to better
quantification of sand risks and requirement for downhole
sand control compared to a cased and perforated completion
coupled with surface sand management.
Particle Size Distribution (PSD). Mechanical sieve
measurements are used in a similar manner to that proposed
by Bennett et al.3,4 to select between stand-alone screen and
expandable sand screen or gravel packing applications.
Applicability typically depends on such factors as D50 particle
size, uniformity and sorting coefficients and fines content.
Expandable sand screens are evaluated separately to the
more conventional stand-alone screens with their application
to non-uniform formation PSDs or high fines environment
being dependent on full compliance with the borehole wall.
Well Condition and Shales. For a new well the key critieria
addressed are the presence and extent of shales within the
reservoir section, borehole stability issues (e.g. degree of
consolidation and chemical compatibility/reactive shale
problems), whether washouts are likely to occur and how
severe they are predicted to be, the hole size, and the planned
drill-in fluid and filter-cake design. Whilst it is difficult to be
definitive with regards to quantifiable design limits for these
criteria they are used to rank the relative risks associated with
installing expandable sand screens (ESS), cased or openhole
gravel packing, in particular the requirement for alternate path

designs, and frac-and-pack techniques. Detailed fluids, screen

and shale testing and/or gravel pack simulation modelling is
required for a definitive decision however the general
guidelines used can allow a first pass estimate to be made, e.g.
justification of the use of alternate path technology in the
event an annular bridge is expected (shale swelling, sloughing
or hole collapse). For ESS, Heiland et al.5 have highlighted the
impact of wellbore compliance in order to minimize the
potential for regions of concentrated flow where there is an
enlarged annular gap.
For existing wells the perforated interval length,
perforation condition in particular presence of cavities, and
degree of reservoir damage are reviewed for cased hole
conditions. For openhole existing wells the current wellbore
configuration (i.e. presence of existing sand control) and its
status are taken into account.
Reservoir and Reservoir Fluid Characteristics. The initial
and final reservoir pressures are evaluated with respect to
materials selection and gravel pack design. The abandonment
reservoir pressure is of concern for compaction and potential
collapse of expandable sand screens6 and also related to
potential reduction in well productivity with respect to
collapse of formation sand around stand-alone screens7. For
reservoirs with high compaction, Ali et al.8 have stated that a
frac-and-pack completion may represent the best choice.
Recent work by Cuthbertson et al.9 has suggested the potential
deployment of sand control in an underbalanced condition,
particularly ESS. Whilst this has not been considered in detail
in this work, application of these techniques for depleted
reservoir conditions will be considered in future NWS studies.
Fracture gradient will impact the required pumping
pressures for frac-and-pack completions and is an important
design consideration for openhole gravelpack design. Specific
issues are treatment pressures, displacement techniques, fluid
selection and the requirement for alternate path technology (in
the event of no or limited returns due to loss of filtercake or
fracturing).
Reservoir temperature and fluid properties should be taken
into account for sand control materials and fluid selection.
Reservoir permeability and vertical to horizontal
permeability ratio (kv/kh) will influence the selection and
design of sand control techniques and should be critically
evaluated where cased hole applications are being considered.
The length of the completion interval and net to gross
(NTG) along the section are two of the most important criteria
for sand control selection. For example chemical consolidation
techniques are typically limited to intervals of the order of 5 to
10 metres and hence are not normally applied where there is a
significant gross reservoir thickness. A completion length cut
off is also applied for a single frac-and-pack operation which
is dependent on the well deviation and reservoir sand
description, based on experience reported in the Gulf of
Mexico and Trinidad. NTG including the presence of mobile
fines or multiple shale sections is critical to the potential
application of standalone screen or openhole gravel packing
techniques.
The number and distribution of reservoir intervals to be
completed will also effect the technique selected and may lead
to multiple treatments being required. This can lead to the

SPE 88493

exclusion of certain techniques for example a frac-and-pack

operation may be discounted in favour of a high rate water
pack (HRWP) with alternate path equipment for a high
permeability formation10.
Proximity to fluid contacts may also preclude the use of
frac-and-pack techniques where it is not possible to ensure
control of fracture growth or where there is a lack of fracture
containment.
Production Performance. The required production rates, i.e.
well productivity, near wellbore drawdown and downhole
velocities will significantly impact the sand control option
selected.
The reduced completion inside diameter associated with
gravel packing techniques (particularly where alternate path
options are included) may result in unacceptable frictional
pressure drops for high rate gas developments. Modelling of
inflow performance including frictional pressure drop is
therefore critical in determining the appropriate sand control
technique.
Downhole velocity across the sandface will affect the
choice of standalone/expandable screens and cased hole gravel
pack techniques. Velocity limits based on industry reported
experience have been applied as part of the sand control
selection matrix11,12,13. In addition it is intended to incorporate
the work of Tiffin et al.14 on flux based (fluid flow per unit of
screen) guidelines for various cased and openhole sand control
techniques in future versions of the selection matrix.
Water breakthrough has been linked to sand production15,16
and as such water production rates and timing are also
considered with respect to the potential for delayed sand
production.
When ranking the available sand control techniques on the
basis of productivity it is important to recognize that there is a
limited reliable data set available for NWS conditions.
Published sand control skin data is predominantly the total
skin for oil well completions (i.e. total skin often evaluated at
a single pressure transient rate and therefore the non-Darcy
skin component is indivisible). For high rate gas fields it is
frequently the non-Darcy skin that controls the inflow
performance of the wells. For this reason a database of
mechanical and non-Darcy skin factors for various sand
control techniques has been constructed and used to evaluate
well performance for different sand control completions. This
work is similar to that performed by Wehunt17 for predicting
well performance with various sand control completions.
The available dataset is limited in terms of the number of
wells and hampered by a lack of a consistent, systematic and
accurate build up analyses on high rate gas wells. However
work is being performed in this area to include additional data
and to ensure reliable interpretation of the various skin effects
(e.g. completion, perforations, geometry and sand control).
Furthermore whilst it is recognised that any comparison of
the skin data from different wells and fields is somewhat
arbitrary, it is believed that the data represents a significant
improvement over theoretical modelling techniques alone,
particularly in the area of non-Darcy skin factors.
Intervention and Reservoir Management Requirements.
Key considerations are the requirement for zonal isolation or

shut off of discrete intervals, whether production is

commingled or selective, and whether access is required for
stimulation or logging.
The need for frequent well interventions and/or shut in and
bean ups are also considered and may preclude the use of
passive sand control techniques such as drawdown control or
selective perforating.
Reliability. The various sand control options are ranked in
terms of reliability based on the work performed by King et
al.18 This comprehensive database compiled by BP through
inter- and intra-company networking includes over 300 gas
well completions. This relatively large population of wells
gives some confidence that general conclusions from the
database are accurate although reliability data for more recent
sand control techniques is clearly limited in the context of
potential 30 year well lives on the NWS.
Cost and and Installation Risk. These criteria are evaluated
on an individual project basis by a multi-discplinary team of
well engineers, and sand control / completion engineers.
Application of Methodology to Key Opportunities
The application of this sand control screening methodology
for several key Woodside development wells/projects is
discussed below. Note that all projects listed are still in the
conceptual planning phase so as yet it is not possible to
undertake post execution evaluation of the methods discussed.
Case 1. This is an existing, low angle, platform well currently
producing at a rate of circa. 180 MMscf/d from a 35 metre
perforated interval.
Near wellbore drawdown control and surface sand
management form part of the reactive sand management
strategy already defined for the field and are therefore not
considered further.
Oriented and/or selective perforating are not viable options
for existing sand producing intervals.
Downhole shut off which assumes that the sand producing
interval can be identified through wireline logging and then
isolated is not considered sufficiently mature to be used as the
basis of a sand management strategy. In addition issues such
as repeat/multiple interventions, the reduction in inflow
performance, surface and downhole sand tolerance will all
need to be considered prior to implementation of this
technique.
Sand Failure Characteristics. There has been little or no
sand production to date from the well (apart from initial
perforation clean up), but the reservoir units have the lowest
recorded sand strengths in NWS fields.
Previous sand failure prediction work suggests that there is
a risk of transient sand failure in the future as the field goes
into blowdown. However there is significant uncertainty with
regards to the timing of this sand failure.
Particle Size Distribution. Particle size distribution (PSD)
data is available from 10x conventional sieve analyses of core
sample plugs. The sieve analysis results are shown in Figure 3
and are indicative of:
Very coarse grained sand with D50 particle size of 468
1207 microns, average 670 microns.

SPE 88493

Well to poorly sorted sand with uniformity coefficient,

Uc (D40/D90) in the range 1.6 to 7, and 3 of the 10
(30%) samples with Uc > 5, and sorting coefficient
(D10/D95) in the range 5 to 50, and 5 of the 10 (50%)
samples with D10/D95 > 10.
Relatively low average fines concentration of 1.7%
but with some intervals up to circa. 5%.

Productivity impairment due to plugging and the risk of

subsequent hot spot screen failure are the major concerns
when considering standalone screens in this well.
Based on the PSD data and using the criteria of Bennett et
al., a significant proportion (50%) of the samples exhibit
sorting coefficients >10 indicating that standalone screens are
not acceptable and that alternative sand control completion
options are required. This conclusion is further supported by
the high rate nature of the well (particularly for this cased hole
application with very high perforation exit gas velocities), the
reliability of supply issues, and the longevity concerns for
standalone screens in a cased & perforated completion.
Well Condition and Shales. The hole inclination, along
hole depth of 3000 metres and 9-5/8 production casing are
not particularly restrictive with regards to sand control
completion selection.
However due to the perforation interval length and
potential presence of cavities behind the existing casing the
use of sand consolidation is excluded due to the requirement
for multiple treatments (circa. 4) and the concerns over the
effectiveness of the job.
Detailed sand control design is necessary to determine the
effectiveness of a frac-and-pack completion with alternate
path technology over the entire 55 metre interval at a deviation
of 27 degrees.
Well Status and Production Performance. With regards to
well status and production performance of the well, the
following key points are pertinent to the sand control
selection:
Well deviation 27 degrees at perforations.
Perforated interval 35 metres net, 55 metres gross.
Production rates typically 180 MMscf/d @ 3700 psi
FBHP.
No (or limited) sand / water production to date.
Downhole velocity circa. 10 ft/sec average velocity
exiting perforations.
9-5/8 production casing with 5.41 minimum
completion restriction in the packer tailpipe.
The downhole velocity of circa. 10 ft/sec exiting the
perforations is significantly above current erosion limits of 0.1
m/s (0.27 ft/sec) for ESS installation and hence ESS has been
discounted for remedial sand control within the existing
completion. Pre-packing of the perforation tunnels could be
considered further however there is limited experience of the
application of the technique in high rate gas wells of this
nature.
Production performance for the well for both HRWP and
frac-and-pack has been modelled and indicates that the
production impact for P50 skin value from the sand control
productivity database is limited (maximum of 23 MMscf/d for

HRWP). However for P90 skin values the production impact

is in the range 63 to 89 MMscf/d for frac-and-pack and HRWP
completions respectively, which highlights the importance of
good sand control completion practices in this high rate gas
well environment. As discussed previously however there is
significant uncertainty over the production performance
predictions due to the limited dataset and in particular the
application of the performance data to these conditions
(specifically remedial sand control in high rate gas wells).
Reservoir and Reservoir Fluid Characteristics and
Intervention & Reservoir Management Requirements. Of the
other selection criteria the most important considerations are
the:
1. Degree of depletion the reservoir will experience.
2. Fracture gradient (for design in gravel packing
operations).
3. Proximity to the gas water contact.
4. Number and distribution of producing intervals /
existing perforations to be completed.
Points 1 to 3 are not considered to be show-stoppers
however as can be seen from the log (Figure 4) there are three
existing perforation intervals with limited blank sections
(circa. 5 to 12 metres) between them. It will therefore not be
possible to perform individual frac-and-pack treatments to
each interval unless the existing perforations are squeezed off.
A frac-and-pack treatment using shunt tubes over the gross
interval length of the well is considered to be operationally
complex and have significantly more risk attached than a
circulating cased hole high rate water pack.
Reliability. Reliability data indicates that a HRWP has a
lower failure rate than frac-and-pack although the differences
are marginal and also difficult to extrapolate to specific field
conditions.
Cost and and Installation Risk. Budgetary cost estimates
for a conventional workover and sand control installation
indicate a cost saving for a HRWP over frac-and pack.
Operational risks are considered to be primarily related to
removing the existing completion (including milling the
existing packer), and the lack of local experience with gravel
packing technology. These are applicable to both frac-andpack and HRWP and therefore are not considered to
differentiate between options.
Recommendation. Based on the sand control selection
methodology described the recommended option for the Case
1 well is to install a cased hole circulating HRWP using
conventional completion retrieval workover techniques. This
completion option has the lowest cost, lowest operational risk,
highest reliability and with good sand control practices
achieved is predicted to have only a marginal impact on
current well deliverability.
Case 2. This is an existing horizontal platform well currently
producing at a rate of circa. 120 MMscf/d from a 61 metre
perforated interval. As for the Case 1 well, near wellbore
drawdown control and surface sand management are part of
the base operating philosophy, and oriented/selective
perforating are not viable remedial solutions.
Particle Size Distribution. PSD for the reservoir unit is
available from 12x sieve analysis from core plug material in

SPE 88493

two offset wells. The sieve analysis results are shown in

Figure 5 and are similar to those for Case 1. Therefore based
on the PSD data and the concerns of reliability, standalone
screens are not considered acceptable and alternative sand
control completion options are required.
Well Condition and Shales. The horizontal deviation
across the perforated interval precludes the use of chemical
consolidation treatments and frac-and-pack techniques. It is
recognised that frac-and-pack completions have been
performed at high angles in the Gulf of Mexico however there
are associated technology challenges and experience is limited
at very high angles. The main concerns are the difficulty in
achieving a successful gravel pack of the screen/casing
annulus, the difficulty of placing gravel in the cleanest
perforations (which are typically on the top side of the casing),
and the potential for multiple facture generation.
The interval length coupled with the horizontal well
configuration and step out precludes the use of frac-and-pack
or extension pack techniques, and suggests that alternate path
technology would be required.
Well Status and Production Performance. Key points
with regards to sand control selection for Case 2 are:
Well deviation 90 degrees at perforations.
Perforated interval 61 metres net, 138 metres gross.
Production rates typically 120 MMscf/d @ 3700 psi
FBHP.
Limited water production to date but with current
water gas ratio (WGR) of circa. 5 - 10 bbl/MMscf.
Downhole velocity circa. 5 ft/sec average velocity
exiting perforations.
7 production casing with minimum completion
restriction of 5.75.
Option to sidetrack and install an open hole sand
control solution is also considered as a potential
alternative to remedial work in the existing casing.
The downhole velocity of circa 5 ft/sec exiting the
perforations is again significantly above the current ESS
erosion limit.
The predicted well performance is presented in Figure 6:
production impact for P10 skins is negligible but for P50 and
P90 skin values is significant compared to an openhole gravel
pack. As a result, more detailed followup is also needed for
Case 2 to assess the option to sidetrack and perform an
openhole gravel pack
Recommendation. Based on the sand control selection
criteria described it is recommended that a cased hole gravel
pack with alternate path technology is utilized. There is
potential to install through-tubing using a hydraulic workover
unit, although the along hole depth of the perforation intervals
of circa. 6250 6400 metres may be prohibitive.
The option for sidetracking plus sand control must be
evaluated further to establish whether the incremental
production is sufficient to justify the additional cost and
operational risk.
Case 3. This subsea satellite field is produced via a 23 km 12
pipeline to a production platform. Two horizontal
development wells were drilled and completed during 2001.

Both wells were completed with ESS to minimize the risk of

sand production during well life, and 9 5/8 tubing to
maximize deliverability. Production from each well is
currently 180 MMscf/d and 19,000 bcpd.
Development of an additional sand requires a single 8-1/2
diameter horizontal lateral of approximately 1000m length
through the reservoir (required for access to multiple
compartments).
An approximate well life of two years is expected, which
raises the possibility of a cheaper fit for purpose completion.
This view must be balanced by the requirement to produce at
high rate and the need to protect both the development well
and the broader system (subsea equipment, pipeline and
platform).
The field is connected to a very active basal aquifer, which
is expected to provide strong pressure support, such that the
extent of depletion over the producing life will be relatively
low.
Sand Failure Characteristics. Sand failure prediction
modelling indicates that there is only a small risk of sand
production (excluding clean-up sand) from a cased, cemented
and perforated horizontal section. Indeed, the drawdown
related stresses are so low that failed rock may remain as part
of the formation rather than transport into the wellbore. It
should also be recognised that volumes of clean up sand
would potentially be very significant given the long
perforation interval, and that clean up of the entire section will
be delayed as initial production is likely to be dominated by
the heel of the well.
The possibility of some degree of sand production cannot
be completely ruled out and the expected production of water
by this well further influences this view. A decision tree
analysis of the incremental costs for sand control and the
consequences of sand production indicates that the likelihood
of sand failure needs to be only very low to justify up front
sand control. The main issue here is the very high cost of
remedial action should the well produce sand and with no sand
control in place the sand control is effectively an insurance
policy.
Selective perforation has been discounted due to the
inability to provide a reliable correlation between log
properties and rock strength in this field. High (reactive)
intervention costs for a subsea well mean that downhole
shutoff can not be realistically considered.
The original completion option for this well was cased,
cemented and perforated (CCP). This option has been
discounted as it clearly provides the least protection to sand,
has a high downside exposure in a subsea environment
(despite the low probability of sand production), and for a long
horizontal well the cost and operational complexity of the
CCP option is not insignificant relative to other alternatives.
Particle Size Distribution. There are three sources of
analogue PSD data, the key conclusions from which are:
Fines content for all sands is low (< 5% by weight).
Of the 29 PSD analyses available there are 4 (14%)
that indicate a Uc (D40/ D90) value > 5, and 9 (31%)
with a D10/ D95 value > 10

SPE 88493

There is a wide variation in D50 particle size, and in all

cases the D50 values are indicative of a coarse grained
sand.

Based on the PSD data above, some of the formation sand

will have a tendency to cause unacceptable plugging.
However, as only a minority of samples can be classed as
poorly sorted there is an argument that the percentage these
intervals contribute to the total length of the horizontal well is
low and any plugging effects will be minimal. Standalone
screens are therefore considered to be viable particularly in
light of the expected lmited well life of two years.
Wellbore Condition and Shales. Chemical consolidation
and frac and pack techniques have been excluded as viable
options due to the long completion interval. In terms of gravel
packing options for a new well, openhole solutions are
preferable to the cased hole alternative, which is likewise
eliminated from further consideration.
ESS has been discounted due to the concerns regarding
hole condition (multiple shales) and the risks associated with
running and expanding the ESS along the entire 1000+ metre
horizontal openhole section an interval which would be at or
near a world record for this technology. These concerns were
highlighted by the poor hole conditions experienced in the the
second of the existing producing wells.
The presence of internal shale bodies are also of concern
for openhole gravel packing operations and for the application
of standalone screens. For example, Bennett et al. consider a
net to gross (NTG) lower than 80% to present an unacceptable
plugging risk in a standalone screen completion. This is
comparable to the expected NTG for Case 3 of 75 to 80% over
the full horizontal section. If major shales can be isolated (e.g.
by external open hole packers (EOHPs) in combination with
blank pipe) the effective NTG over the completed intervals
would be higher and annular flow (risking hot spotting and
erosion) reduced.
Production Performance. It is likely that alternate path
techniques would be required for openhole gravel packing.
These techniques result in a significant reduction in the flow
conduit inside diameter. The impact of the increased frictional
pressure drop has been modeled and shown to be of the order
of 10 to 20 MMscf/d at typical initial production conditions.
This loss of well productivity coupled with the increased
operational risk/complexity and costs associated with
openhole gravel packing, particularly in a region with limited
gravel packing experience, is not considered to be justifiable.
Recommendation. The recommendation for Case 3 is
therefore to install premium standalone screens with EOHPs
and blank sections to isolate shales. This completion is the
lowest cost, lowest operational risk option, which provides the
necessary insurance policy for system robustness against
sand production.
A comprehensive drill-in fluid and screen compatibility
testing program will be required to mitigate installation and
clean up risks, combined with testing and technology
assurance of EOHP equipment. The risks of plugging and
erosion of the screen are considered acceptable due to the
short well life, the low fines content (particularly with EOHPs
in place) and the relatively uniform sand PSD. In addition it

should be recognized that typical drawdowns are predicted to

be very low (circa. 50 psi @ 150 MMscf/d).
Conclusions
Selecting the optimum sand control strategy for a well can
make significant differences in terms of life cycle risks and
well productivity. A screening methodology has been
developed to evaluate and rank sand control techniques in a
comprehensive and systematic fashion for NWS high rate gas
conditions.
The methodology, incorporating a combination of a
flowchart and sand control selection matrix, enables a
structured discussion in particular regarding the key design
parameters and the assessment of risks. The common approach
developed ensures best practices are utilised with a transparent
quality assurance.
The methodology has been applied to several sand control
selection decisions, including the examples:
Case 1 and 2 existing platform wells - cased hole
gravel packing is the preferred technique.
- High rate water packing is recommended for
vertical or deviated wellbores with high kh based
on limited productivity impact (P50 level), high
reliability and lowest operational risk and cost.
- Alternate path cased hole gravel packing is
preferred for remedial sand control in existing
horizontal wells. However further economic
evaluation and detailed design is required to:
o confirm the potential production impact of
high skin values.
o assess the operational risks associated with
sand control in these long step out wells.
o evaluate the cost-benefit of improved
production from openhole completion
options (e.g. sidetrack and ESS or gravel
packing technology).
- Frac and pack (F&P) is of limited benefit in the
key wells reviewed due to the length of
completed intervals, and the configuration of the
existing perforation intervals. An effective shut
off of these existing sections would be required
prior to performing frac-and-pack on reperforated intervals.
- Expandable sand screens (ESS) are not preferred
in existing key wells due to longevity issues and
concerns with regards to erosion from high
velocity flow causing direct impingement on the
expandable screen at the perforation tunnels.
Case 3 new subsea development well - standalone
screens with EOHPs along the openhole length to
eliminate annular flow between the screen and the
sandface is the preferred option.
- An openhole gravel pack completion carries
significant operational (installation) risk and
additional cost which cannot be jusitifed for a
single well development with a very short lifetime
(2 years) and where the installation of sand
control is more for insurance purposes in the low
chance of sand failure.

SPE 88493

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the following: Pat Moran, Tim
Rabbitte, Hans Vaziri, David Underdown and Wesley Moore
for invaluable technical input during the JVP workshop,
George King for use of the comprehensive reliability database,
and Helix RDS, Woodside and the NWS JVP for permission
to publish this paper.
References
1. Palmer, I., Vaziri, H., Willson, S., Moschovidis, Z. and
Cameron, J.: Predicting and Managing Sand Production:
A New Strategy, paper SPE 84499 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,
Colorado, 5-8 October 2003
2. Nisbet, W. J. R. and Dria, D. E.; Implementation of a
Robust Deepwater Sand Monitoring Strategy, paper SPE
84494 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 5-8 October 2003
3. Bennett, C., Gilchrist, J. M., Pitoni, E., Burton, R. C.,
Hodge, R. M., Troncoso, J., Ali, S. A., Dickerson, R.,
Price-Smith, C. and Parlar, M.: Design Methodology for
Selection of Horizontal Openhole Sand Control
Completions Supported by Field Case Histories, paper
SPE 65140 presented at the 2000 SPE European
Petroleum Conference, Paris, 24-25 October 2000
4. Price-Smith, C., Parlar, M., Bennett, C., Gilchrist, J. M.,
Pitoni, E., Burton, R. C., Hodge, R. M., Troncoso, J., Ali,
S. A., and Dickerson, R.: Design Methodology for
Selection of Horizontal Openhole Sand Control
Completions Supported by Field Case Histories, SPE
Drilling & Completion, September 2003
5. Heiland, J., Cook, J., Johnson, A. and Jeffryes, B.: The
Role of the Annular Gap in Expandable Sand Screen
Completions, paper SPE 86463 presented at the SPE
International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation
Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18-20 February
2004
6. Willson, S., Crook, A., Jian Guo Yu, Stenebrten, J.,
Gilchrist, J. and Tiffin, D.: Assuring the Mechanical
Integrity of Expandable Sand Screens, OTC 14314
presented at the 2002 Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, Texas, 6-9 May 2002
7. Tronvoll, J., Larsen, I., Li, L., Skjetne, T. and Gustavsen,
.: Rock Mechanics Aspects of Well Productivity in
Marginal Sandstone Reservoirs: Problems, Analysis
Methods and Remedial Actions, paper SPE 86468
presented at the SPE International Symposium and
Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,
Louisiana, 18-20 February 2004
8. Ali, S., Grigsby, T. and Vitthal, S.: New Tools and Fluid
Technology Redefine the Application Envelope for
Horizontal Openhole Gravel-Packing into a Mainstay
Deepwater Completion Method, paper SPE 83995
presented at Offshore Europe, Aberdeen, 2-5 September
2003

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.
14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

Cuthbertson, R. L., Green, A., Dewar, J. A. G. and

Truelove, B. D.: Completion of an Underbalanced Well
Using Expandable Sand Screen for Sand Control, paper
SPE/IADC 79792 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference, Amsterdam, 19-21 February 2003
Neumann, L. F., Pedroso, C. A., Moreira, L. and Bezerra
de Melo, R. C.: Lessons Learned from a Hundred Frac
Packs in the Campos Basin, paper SPE 73722 presented
at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on
Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 20-21
February 2002
Wong, G. K., Fair, P. S., Bland, K. F. and Sherwood, R.
S.: Balancing Act: Gulf of Mexico Sand Control
Completions, Peak Rate Versus Risk of Sand Control
Failure, paper 84497 presented at SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 5-8
October 2003
Hamid, S. and Ali, S. A.: Causes of Sand Control Screen
Failures and Their Remedies paper SPE 38190 presented
at the 1997 European Formation Damage Conference,
The Hague, June 2-3 1997
Farley, I., Weatherford Completion Systems, personal
communication: cased hole ESS guidelines, June 2003
Tiffin, D. L., Stein, M. H. and Xiuli Wang: Drawdown
Guidelines for Sand Control Completions, paper 84495
presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 5-8 October 2003
Veeken, C. A. M., Davies, J. R., Kenter, C. J. and
Kooijman, A. P.: Sand Production Prediction Review:
Developing an Integrated Approach, paper SPE 22792
presented at the 66th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 6-9 October 1991
Vaziri, H. et al: What is the Magic of Water in
Producing Sand paper SPE 77683 presented at the 2002
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, Texas, 29 Sept 2 October 2002
Wehunt, C. D.: Well Performance with Operating Limits
under Reservoir and Completion Uncertainties, paper
SPE 84501 presented at SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 5-8
October 2003
King, G. E., Wildt, P. J. and OConnell, E.: Sand Control
Completion Reliability and Failure Rate Comparison
With a Multi-Thousand Well Database, paper 84262
presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 5-8 October 2003

SPE 88493

Existing
Well

New Well Flowchart

Evaluation of new well or sidetrack

and OH completion should also be
performed

Retrofit

Existing Subsea Well

Flowchart

Platform

Deviation
< 65 deg

All existing platform wells in

NWS Gas are cased &
perforated

Y
Openhole

Options include:
Drawdown control
Sand Consolidation
Shut Off
Surface Management
Slotted/Pre-drilled liner
Wire-wrapped screens
Pre-packed screens
Premium screens
Expandable screens
External gravel pack
EGP c/w shunts

Options include:
Drawdown control
Sand Consolidation
Shut Off
Surface Management
Slotted/Pre-drilled liner
Wire-wrapped screens
Pre-packed screens
Premium screens
Expandable screens
Internal gravel pack
Frac&Pack

Note: No examples
in NWS Gas

Selection Matrix 1

Options include:
Drawdown control
Sand Consolidation
Shut Off
Surface Management
Slotted/Pre-drilled liner
Wire-wrapped screens
Pre-packed screens
Premium screens
Expandable screens
External gravel pack
EGP c/w shunts

Note: No examples
in NWS Gas

Openhole

Options include:
Drawdown control
Sand Consolidation
Shut Off
Surface Management
Slotted/Pre-drilled liner
Wire-wrapped screens
Pre-packed screens
Premium screens
Expandable screens
Internal gravel pack

Selection Matrix 2

Notes:
1. Selective or oriented perforating are not considered for existing well
2. Openhole options exclude internal gravel pack and frac&pack.
3. Openhole highly deviated wellbore excludes Frac&Pack, HRWP and Extension Pack
4. Cased hole excludes external gravel pack and external gravel pack c/w shunts (underreaming or sidetrack not considered)

Figure 1 Initial Selection Flowchart

Sand failure
characteristics

Particle size
distribution

Other selection criteria

Well status and

production performance
Figure 2 Example Sand Control Selection Matrix

Longevity, Cost and

Operational Risk

SPE 88493

Particle Size Data

100.00

90.00

Case 1-2969.1
Case 1-2969.6

70.00

Case 1-2970.9
60.00

Case 1-2974.5
Case 1-2975.5

50.00

Case 1-2977.2
40.00

Case 1-2987.6
Case 1-2988.2

30.00

Case 1-2998.3
20.00

Case 1-3001.15

10.00

Grain Size (microns)

Figure 3 Case 1 Particle Size Distribution

Figure 4 Case 1 Log

10

1000

100

0.00
10000

Cumulative Grain Size Distribution % by Weight

80.00

10

SPE 88493

Particle Size Data

100.00

90.00

Well 1-3097.2
70.00

Well 1-3101.35
Well 1-3117.2
60.00

Well 1-3120.0
Well 1-3127.07

50.00

Well 2-2882.5
Well 2-2888.5

40.00

Well 2-2890.3
Well 2-2845.6

30.00

Well 2-2862.9A
Well 2-2862.9B

20.00

Well 2-2877.7
10.00

10

100

10000

1000

0.00

Grain Size (microns)

Figure 5 Case 2 Offset Well Particle Size Distribution

P50 Skin Values

5000

5000

4500

4500

4000

4000
Flowing Bottomhole Pressure (psi)

Flowing Bottomhole Pressure (psi)

P10 Skin Values

3500
3000
2500
VLP: 2nd Mar 2003 Well Test
IPR: Cased & Perforated 2nd Mar 2003 Well Test

2000

IPR: IGP
IPR: OHGP

1500

3500
3000
2500
2000
1500

VLP: 2nd Mar 2003 Well Test

IPR: Cased & Perforated 2nd Mar 2003 Well Test

1000

1000

500

500

0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Gas Production Rate (MMscf/d)

IPR: IGP
IPR: OHGP

50

100

150

200

250

Gas Production Rate (MMscf/d)

P90 Skin Values

5000
4500
4000
Flowing Bottomhole Pressure (psi)

Cumulative Grain Size Distribution % by Weight

80.00

3500
3000
2500
VLP: 2nd Mar 2003 Well Test

2000

IPR: Cased & Perforated 2nd Mar 2003 Well Test

1500

IPR: IGP
IPR: OHGP

1000
500
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Gas Production Rate (MMscf/d)

Figure 6 Case 2 Predicted Well Performance for Various Sand Control Completions

300

350