Predicting and Managing Sand Production: A New Strategy

Abstract

TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. AbstractSand prediction at BP has been developed by dividing it into three parts: (1) onset, (2) transient sanding, (3) steady-state sanding. For example, as drawdown is increased in a well in a sand-prone formation, significant sanding begins at some point (the onset), and this is followed by a transient sand burst, which may last hours or days or months. The sanding eventually declines to a background level (steady-state), in the range 1-100 pptb. We have made recent step-changes in (2) and (3), and we now have a tool that can predict sanding onset, and volumes during any stage of a well's production history, or even injection history.The onset of sanding is predicted using a stress-based model. This model is conservative, based on a benchmarking study of field applications. One application predicts sanding in water injectors during shut-in, and recommends not using sand control. Another application explains delayed sanding in an HPHT gas reservoir, in terms of restraining forces due to capillary cohesion (i.e., the damp sand effect at the beach). The transient sanding model is a fully-coupled finite element (FE) model. The model has successfully predicted sand volumes in laboratory and field tests. With this model, we can judge whether we can manage the produced sand, from both production and injection wells. Finally, we have applied this to predict whether a well will kill itself after a blowout, due to sand in the wellbore increasing the hydrostatic pressure.The steady-state model is an empirical model that is based upon extensive tests of sanding from cores in the laboratory. The model has been applied to predict sanding in an offshore field, and this has led to the conclusion that sand rates can be managed at surface, without sand control: a huge economic advantage. Finally, we present a case history where we use all three models to make an integrated prediction of onset, * now at Higgs Technologies, Houston transient, and steady-state sanding, and find quite good agreement with field observations. In summary, the new threefold strategy of sand prediction at BP has significantly increased our capability to predict sanding in production or injection wells. This quantum leap is invaluable to help decide if we can manage the sand at surface (or if downhole sand control is required); to decide if we can defer sand control until a later date (possibly increasing production as well as saving completion costs); to decide how much sand will be produced if we increase the drawdown in a sand-prone well; and even decide if we need sand control in water injectors.

A Comparison of Methodologies for Handling Produced Sand and Solids to Achieve Sustainable Hydrocarbon Production

“…A reasonable level of steady state sand production is <1 ppmv. 10 A failure in the gravel pack will lead to a significant spike in sand concentration and size.…”

Sanding Study for Deepwater Indonesia Development Wells: A Case History of Prediction and Production

“…Seno-104 S102 S104 WS-4 well A02 well The sand prediction done for the West Seno wells uses a shear-failure-based prediction model 1,2 . It predicts the onset of failure/collapse (and substantial sanding), and is extended to predict levels of continuous sand production, within the following four-step approach:…”

Formation Damage Mechanisms and Their Phenomenological Modeling—An Overview

“…Formation failure, disaggregating, and sanding are irreversible phenomena (Dusseault and Santarelli, 1989). They may occur when the following sanding criterion is satisfied (Palmer et al, 2003):…”

“…The magnitude of the critical interstitial velocity or fluid drag is affected by the fluid viscosity and type (oil, gas, and water), friction, and capillary tension (Nouri et al, 2003). It depends on the grain contact strength (cementation) and the prevailing flowing pressure condition (Palmer et al, 2003, Wan and Wang, 2004, Hayatdavoudi, 2005.…”