A New Approach for Selecting Sand-Control Technique in Horizontal Openhole Completions

Abstract

Summary Openhole sand-control technique selection has been a topic of interest since the late 1990s and was discussed most comprehensively in SPE 85504 (Price-Smith et al. 2003), which proposed guidelines for selection between standalone screens (SASs), α/β packing, and shunt-tube packing. Proposed guidelines were based on formation characteristics such as formation strength, particle-size distribution (PSD), mineralogy across the well path; risk factors involved in execution as well as reliability/longevity; and cost considerations. From a PSD standpoint, their guidelines were based on the criteria proposed earlier in SPE 39437 (Tiffin et al. 1998), whereas risk evaluation was based on the technologies available at that time. Since then, significant advancements were made in understanding sand-retention mechanisms and failure modes of SASs, and in technology development to extend the limits of openhole gravel packing. These combined with the field experience in the last decade certainly warrant re-examination of their guidelines, which is the objective of this paper. In this paper, we begin with a critical review of the current sand-control technique-selection methodologies for openhole completions, including the way some of the risk factors are being evaluated to eliminate a given completion technique. On the basis of the technologies developed in the last decade, we propose a new approach for selecting sand-control technique, along with techniques/tools for proper evaluation of the risk factors. The proposed approach significantly extends the application limits of SASs and α/β packing compared with what was proposed in SPE 85504 (Price-Smith et al. 2003).

Sand screens application and performance for sand control: A review of selection criteria, screen materials, and causes of failure

“…Here, note that those UC values (5–26) are well beyond Tiffin criteria for SAS applications. Parlar et al [ 18 ] considered Tiffin criteria to be not justifiable to disqualify SAS and proposed practical implementation limitations if the following were needed from the design parameters: (1) Required opening are too small to be manufactured; (2) susceptibility to plugging during installation and prevention cost could be higher than gravel packing, i.e. high cost of or impracticality of mud conditioning or solid-free fluids; (3) intolerance to transient sand production before natural sand pack establishment; (4) very laminated formation having movable shale streaks difficult to be isolated using packers and (5) the strength of formation and the possibility of failure.…”

A review of experimental studies on sand screen selection for unconsolidated sandstone reservoirs

“…The aim is to reduce the amount of possible screen configuration options as well as the number of tests that are needed to make selection decisions. Alternative to stand-alone sand control Parlar et al (2016) suggest a number of reasons why SAS completion may be inappropriate for sand control:…”

Unreliable determination of in situ stress orientation by cross multipole array acoustic logging in fractured shale reservoirs

“…[16][17][18][19] Stress evaluation also has important applications in the development of well pattern deployment, 4,6,20 prediction of reservoir fractures, [21][22][23][24] wellbore stability, 4,19,25 hydraulic fracturing, [26][27][28][29] and sand control in oil and water wells. 30,31 Winterstein and Meadows 32 first determined subsurface stresses using shear wave polarization in the Lost Hills field. Sinha 33,34 and Norris 35 developed the theory of borehole acoustic elasticity and a method for inverting in situ stress using cross-dipole data in the case of the stress concentration of borehole stress.…”

“…Stress evaluation has become an indispensable basic method for reservoir engineering 4–6 ; oil, gas, and coal exploration 8,11–15 ; and oil and gas engineering design, drilling, and completion 16–19 . Stress evaluation also has important applications in the development of well pattern deployment, 4,6,20 prediction of reservoir fractures, 21–24 wellbore stability, 4,19,25 hydraulic fracturing, 26–29 and sand control in oil and water wells 30,31 …”