`
SPE 65140
Design Methodology for Selection of Horizontal Open-Hole Sand Control Completions
Supported by Field Case Histories
C. Bennett and J.M. Gilchrist, BP; E. Pitoni, ENIAgip; R.C. Burton and R.M. Hodge, Conoco; J. Troncoso,
Repsol-YPF; S.A. Ali and R. Dickerson, Chevron; C. Price-Smith and M. Parlar, Schlumberger
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE European Petroleum Conference
held in Paris, France, 24 and 25 October 2000.
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, 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 an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract 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
Reservoirs requiring sand control pose a major challenge for
selection of a suitable completion method. Horizontal open-
hole completions have been successfully utilised in such
reservoirs to eliminate sand production, while maximising
productivity/injectivity and well deliverability throughout the
expected life of the completion and minimising risk and
complexity.
Although horizontal open hole sand control completions have
been applied widely in the last decade, ranging from pre-
perforated/slotted liners to gravel packs, and many case
histories have been discussed in the literature, a systematic
methodology for selecting these completion methods remains
to be documented. It is the objective of this paper to propose
such a design methodology by unifying the broad experience
and understanding from a global and technically integrated
perspective.
The paper first discusses a generalised and unified
methodology for determining when to install sand control,
what to install for sand control and how to install sand control
in horizontal open-hole completions. Specific factors
recognised as affecting "when" are in-situ stresses and pore
pressure decline (sand prediction), expected well life,
production rate, hydrocarbon and well type, gross product
value, sand tolerance capacity, environmental limitations and
intervention capabilities, whilst the integration of all these
factors have an impact on the overall risk analysis. In addition
to many of the previous factors, critical drivers affecting
"what" are identified as wellbore architecture, reservoir
lithology and petrophysical properties, and sandface
equipment reliability. Additional parameters impacting "how"
are reservoir drilling fluid, displacement and cleanup
methodology, screen type, operational
implementation/assurance (risk management, operational
timing and location logistics), torque and drag analysis, and
gravel placement simulations.
Secondly, examples of this methodology are presented in
detailed case histories pertaining to different types of
horizontal openhole sandface completions including slotted
liners, standalone screens (including expandable) and gravel
packs as well as various integrated cleanup methods, along
with a summary of lessons learnt by each company.
Introduction and Literature Review
Open-hole horizontal completions have been widely used in
oil and gas industry for effective exploitation of hydrocarbon
reserves over the last two decades, in both sandstone and
carbonate formations. In sandstones, a major issue has been
whether sand control is required during the life of a particular
well, and if so, what technique to use in order to minimise
overall completion and remediation costs, thus to increase
profitability.
Most recently Bennett1 has developed a cross plot (Figure 1)
that looks at the likelihood of wellbore failure with respect to
formation quality and has used this to provide guidelines as to
sandface completion methodology, based on experienced
gained in the North Sea and Gulf of Mexico wells.
In earlier times others2 had developed a questionnaire based
approach for pooling industry experience and providing a
database of events from which to learn and share.
Unfortunately due to the anecdotal emphasis this encouraged,
little remains or has been developed since, especially in light
of the fact that the industry’s pace of technological
2 BENNETT, GILCHRIST, PITONI, PETIT, BURTON, HODGE, TRONCOSO, ALI, DICKERSON, PRICE-SMITH, PARLAR
development and understanding has once again accelerated in
the last 3-4 years.
So whilst we see that a tremendous level of expertise and
experience has been gained, through a large number of
horizontal well applications in sandstone formations and
numerous publications exist, a well-defined set of guidelines
for selecting the most suitable sand control technique in open
hole horizontal wells has not been published to date. It is
therefore the objective of this paper to provide a unified set of
guidelines based on 5 operators' and a completion service
provider's experience and engineering expertise.
The paper is organised as follows. First, we discuss sand
prediction methodology that should be used in order to
determine whether or not sand control is prescribed, and if so
when in the life of the well/reservoir it would be required.
Once it is established that sand control is needed, the
subsequent step is to decide between gravel packing (GP) and
standalone screens (SAS), for which we offer criteria based on
current field experience, knowledge and experimental data.3
For gravel packing, the next step is a selection methodology
between the two techniques used in open-hole horizontals:
water packing and shunt-packing. This is then followed by
screen selection for the respective techniques; i.e., water
packing, shunt packing and standalone screen completions.
Numerous case histories are given to support the selection
methodology, both successes and failures. Finally, suggestions
for future work and conclusions are made.
Sand Prediction
Prediction of formation failure criteria and subsequent
reservoir sand production tendency is a necessary first step in
horizontal well design. Use of an effective formation failure
prediction system, allows the operator to determine if
downhole sand exclusion completions, with their attendant
high cost and complexity, are required.
A number of different failure prediction systems have been
discussed in the literature.4-10 These range from analog studies
to log based predictions to core studies to integrated core and
failure simulation studies. From these studies the well
designer can determine reservoir sand production potential.
This information in turn can be used with estimated sand
production costs and sand mitigation costs to determine the
most economic sand control strategy. The details of this type
of analysis are beyond the scope of this paper, however,
suffice to say that methods are available to determine when
downhole sand exclusion is economically justified. Once
justified the well designer must select the best method of
downhole sand control to apply.
Hence the integration of prediction / geomechanics into SC is
vital. Furthermore sand detection on surface and potentially in
the future real-time downhole, is critical to long term delivery
and provide the necessary deterministic feedback loop to the
SPE 65140
sand prediction models and resultant strategies, in order to
ascertain the extent of their validity.
Standalone Screens or Open Hole Gravel Packing?
Early horizontal wells requiring sand control were completed
using screens or slotted liners in openhole. Screens were
often run in mud and wellbore clean-up techniques were
evolving. The generally poor level of clean-up led to serious
plugging problems in many wells. 11-14 Although there were
variations between operators, failure rates of 50% and higher
occurred in a number of early projects using standalone
screens for sand control in horizontal wells.1 As better drill-in
fluids were developed and better clean-up techniques
implemented, horizontal well failure rates declined to an
industry average of around 15 to 20%.
In order to combat well failures due to plugging and sand
breakthrough a number of operators began to implement
gravel packs in their horizontal wells requiring sand control.
As with standalone screens in openhole, early gravel packing
designs have evolved with time and study. At the current state
of affairs gravel packing is widely thought to reduce the risk
of well failure due to sand erosion, as the gravel pack
stabilises the formation and minimises the risk of plugging
and subsequent screen erosion, thus the associated
productivity losses. From a technical standpoint, gravel
packing is the preferred method of sand control in open-hole
horizontal completions, leading to the conclusion that all
horizontal wells should be gravel packed. However, gravel
packing does not provide this insurance without additional
costs. In addition, up until 6-7 years ago, the two gravel
packing techniques widely used today were not well
established and understood. Today, apart from economics,
there is little reason not to gravel pack an open-hole horizontal
well.
High pressure, high temperature wells may be exceptions and
are currently under-estimated from a technical and operational
perspective, whereby the ability to gravel pack may be
hampered by fluid availability and compatibility issues and
these amongst others, will be the serious challenges of the
future.
Expandable screens may provide an alternative to gravel
packing, and have shown a degree of applicability, in their
early/maturing stages of product life. As this remains a
developing technology, issues with respect to determining
applicable selection criteria remains outside the scope of this
paper.
In the criteria for selection between standalone screens and
gravel packing (Appendix A), we capture technical factors
explicitly and economic considerations implicitly. These
criteria were created through pooling of expert opinions from
6 major operators and a service company, and reflect their
 DESIGN METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTION OF HORIZONTAL OPEN-HOLE
SPE 65140 SAND CONTROL COMPLETIONS SUPPORTED BY FIELD CASE HISTORIES
worldwide experiences as well as consensus reached on
establishing critical decision-making steps.
In high-risk environments such as deep water (>1,500 ft.)
and/or high rate gas + a gas contract for example, where the
cost of intervention or remediation could upset the field
economics, the additional cost of gravel packing significantly
outweighs the risk associated with standalone screen
completions. In non-deep-water environments, the selection
between standalone screens and gravel packing depends
primarily on formation sand size distribution and its fines
content. For small formation sand sizes (D50 < 75 µm), fines
(particles < 44 µm) constitute a large portion of the sand size
distribution, thereby making design of standalone screens
impractical based on data presented by Tiffin et al.3 (NOTE:
measurements to determine fines content etc., stated in this
paper are mechanical sieve measurements and not based on
laser granulometry measurements). All wells that fall into this
category must be gravel packed regardless of the other
parameters. In reservoirs with medium-to-large grains D50 >
75 µm, the primary factors to consider are uniformity and
fines content. In non-uniform sand environment, the default
for the completion technique is also gravel-packing with few
exceptions. Examples of these exceptions are non-subsea
producers with short well life (2-3 years) and uniform hole
collapse regardless of production rates or low-rate non-subsea
producers with partial/no hole collapse and high net-to-gross,
or non-subsea water injectors with annular-to-base-pipe area
ratio less than 1.25. The annular-to-base-pipe area ratio is an
important parameter as it dictates the fraction of flow that
occurs in the wellbore/screen annulus bearing in mind partial
hole collapse. High ratios promote more problems in terms of
fines movement and consequently erosion and fines
production (or plugging of the formation in injectors).
Mean time to failure for standalone screen completions has
been 3½ years in the North Sea15 and it has been noted that a
large portion of primarily standalone screens used in
horizontal wells in the Gulf of Mexico have failed, within on
average the first 2-3 years of production. 2, 16 Thus, we define
short well life as 2-3 years based on statistical information.
Obviously in light of subsequent studies, conducted primarily
by operators but to some degree by the screen providers and
service companies, this criteria is changing, as a fuller
appreciation of the limits of standalone screens is obtained.
Thereby utilising standalone screens in a more purposeful and
applicable environments. Hence complimentary to these
studies and the experiences gained since 1997, this paper goes
some way in providing broad guidelines as to use of
standalone screen as well as a gravel pack methodology in
open hole horizontal wells.
By this definition, if clays are dispersed in the productive sand
bodies, they would be taken into account as part of the
3
formation sand size distribution, and not in net-to-gross. Thus,
net-to-gross refers to distinct non-pay shale/silt sections. High
net-to-gross indicates small amounts of non-pay sections that
could be isolated through inflatable packers or present a
minimal risk in terms of plugging in a standalone screen
completion. In non-uniform sand environment, all subsea
producers or injectors should be gravel packed because of the
high cost of intervention.
In uniform sand environments with large sand grains (D50 >
75 µm), the default is standalone screens due primarily to cost
and historically low-risk of screen failure. Exceptions are
listed in Appendix A, utilising similar considerations as to
annular area, wellbore stability, net-to-gross, etc. Multiple
shale sections can introduce complications and bring the cost
of standalone screen completions close to gravel packing
when inflatable packers must be used for isolating shale
sections in order to prevent movement of fines (shales).
In such cases, gravel packing should be preferred since the
packing of shale sections is possible through leakoff into the
screen/wash-pipe annulus. In addition, depending on the
length of the shale section, a gravel pack can offer significant
resistance to undesired water production if a pay zone
between two shale sections is internally isolated (e.g.,
polished bore receptacles) due to high water-cut.
Alternatively, if inflatable packers (IPs) are required for
absolute isolation/compartmentalisation, such packers can be
bypassed through the use of shunt tubes if shunt technique is
used for gravel packing. This system has been designed and is
available for in sizes from 4 in. to 5½ in. base pipe IPs and
lengths up to 20 ft. long.
Water-Packing or Shunt-Packing?
Once gravel packing is selected as the completion method, the
next step is to decide on the placement technique; i.e. water or
shunt packing. The differences in packing mechanisms of
these two methods have been discussed in several
publications.17, 18 Although both techniques have been used
successfully to gravel pack open-hole horizontal wells
exceeding 3,000 ft, the success ratio in terms of gravel
packing the whole horizontal interval has been different.
Based on overall industry experience, the success ratio
(complete packing) has been about 70% for water packs and
100% for shunt packs. There many “environmental”
differences as to the level of overall success in water packing
and it has been noted that a primary driver for success has
been length of hole and shale content/reactivity in the
reservoir. We have provided some additional guidelines,
whereby water packing has a high degree of risk associated
with it, in Appendix B, hence the requirement to shunt pack.
It is well known that water packing requires existence of a
low-permeability filtercake in order to maintain an
equilibrium gravel height below the wellbore diameter. As
4 BENNETT, GILCHRIST, PITONI, PETIT, BURTON, HODGE, TRONCOSO, ALI, DICKERSON, PRICE-SMITH, PARLAR
long as a tight filtercake exists, the only limitation of water
packing is friction pressure and thus the potential to exceed
fracturing pressure. However, high fluid losses induced due to
loss of cake integrity because of cake erosion or inadvertently
exceeding the fracturing pressure can result in a premature
screen-out. The signature for the former is slow loss of returns
while for the latter rapid increase in losses. The documented
rate of premature screen-outs in horizontal wells with shale
sections is high. In addition, wells drilled with synthetic/oil-
based reservoir drilling fluids (S/OB-RDFs), water (brine)
packing introduces a higher level of risk, due to the fluid-fluid
compatibility and integrity of the S/OB-RDF filtercake in long
horizontal intervals.19 In wells where out-of-gauge sections
are expected (e.g., shaly, low net-to-gross environments), the
equilibrium gravel height in the enlarged section would be
higher than the gauge hole section resulting in premature
termination of the α-wave. The same applies when the hole-
size decreases from the gauge hole (e.g., below the casing
shoe-previous casing rat hole). Furthermore issues with
respect to rathole need to be considered, especially for subsea
wells, where typically there remains a large (over size) rat
hole section below the last casing point and this enlarged hole
has lead to a number of premature screen outs when water
packing has been used. 20
In low-pressure reservoirs, the risk of premature screen-out
becomes higher should cake erosion occur. In cases where a
wash pipe cannot be run (e.g., shallow TVD and long
laterals), water-packing cannot be used as the placement
technique.21 Similarly, in cases where inflatable packers
would be required to provide for zonal isolation in
conjunction with a gravel pack, shunt technique can be
applied to bypass the inflated packers and/or inflate the
packers.22 In high-risk environments, where the reliance on
the gravel pack is greatest (e.g., fine and/or non-uniform sand
environment) and keeping in mind the previously mentioned
factors, shunt packing is recommended (Appendix B). In deep
water and/or subsea environment, water-packing is
recommended only in cases where the formation sand is
relatively uniform and net-to-gross is relatively high (> 60 or
80% depending on wellbore stability considerations, annular-
to-base-pipe area ratio and expected production rates).
Furthermore, as water packing carries a large degree of risk
associated with attaining a 100% pack other factors that need
to be considered in relation to those criteria mentioned above
are; rat hole, frac gradient, potential for filter-cake swabbing,
etc. These can be major issues that drive the completion
engineer to assess the risk associated with Water Packing,
especially in a high rate/value wells in subsea/deepwater
environments
Logistical issues that should also be considered are those
associated with location, equipment, potential advantages of
simultaneous cleanup and gravel packing, particularly for
injectors.
SPE 65140
Screen Selection
Standalone Screens
Screens in this case are sized to stop formation sand. Various
criteria have been offered in the literature, ranging from those
based on a single diameter in the formation sand size
distribution (either D10 as suggested by Rogers23 or 2*D10 as
recommended by Coberly24) to attempts to better characterise
the distribution through a uniformity coefficient (D40/D90).25
Recently, Tiffin et al.3 provided guidelines based on further
experimental results, where they introduced two new
parameters: Sorting coefficient D10/D95 and mass fraction of
fines (particles smaller than 44 µm). Their recommendations
can be summarised as follows.
Standalone Screens can be used if: D10 /D95 < 10 and
Wire-Wrapped Screens should be used if:
D40/D90 < 3 and Fines < 2% by Wt.
Prepacked or Premium Screens should be used if:
3 < D40/D90 < 5 and 2%< Fines < 5% by Wt.
Gravel Packing should be used if:
D10 /D95 > 10 or D40/D90 > 5 or Fines > 5% by Wt.
In this paper, the criteria set above have been used for
decision between gravel packing and standalone screens as
well as screen selection in standalone completions, with the
exception of deep water environment where high cost of
intervention justifies gravel packing. Appendix C shows the
screen selection criteria for cases where standalone
completions are appropriate (see Appendix A).
Water Packing
The most commonly used screens in water-packs are premium
screens. These screens typically have mesh openings
equivalent to 20/40 or 12/20 gravel pack pore sizes (105 µm
and 205 µm, respectively) on the average. The reason that the
premium screens are popular with water packing is because
they offer back up for formation sand retention in case of
premature screen-out. Although the unpacked screen segments
downstream may suffer from plugging as in standalone screen
completions, they do provide adequate sand retention.
Plugging can eventually lead to hot spots and erosion of the
screens depending on production rates, hydrocarbon type,
wellbore stability and length of screen exposed. Thus, as seen
in Appendix D, the default for water packing is premium
screens, with few exceptions where large, relatively uniform
sands are encountered and standalone completions are
inappropriate (e.g., subsea, high rate producers/injectors).
 DESIGN METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTION OF HORIZONTAL OPEN-HOLE
SPE 65140 SAND CONTROL COMPLETIONS SUPPORTED BY FIELD CASE HISTORIES
Shunt Packing
Because this technique does not rely on presence or the state
of the filtercake and allows bypass of any bridges formed due
to either high leakoff or wellbore instability (e.g., shale
collapse), it is more risk adverse. As such, the default for
shunt packing is wire-wrap screens. Exceptions where
premium or prepacked screens may be used are listed in
Appendix E. These are primarily fine and/or highly non-
uniform sands in high value environments such as deep water
and/or subsea.
What to do before and after installing Screens
Of equal importance to the selection of a completion
technique are displacements prior to and after running the
screens into the wellbore. Wellbore displacements prior to
running the screens in hole is dictated by the type of screens to
be used, irrespective of the completion type. RDF
conditioning can be practical for wire-wrapped screens
(depending on slot openings), although premium or shunted
screens (wire-wrapped or otherwise) should always be run in a
solids-free system to prevent plugging and/or to ensure
effective displacement prior to gravel packing, respectively. 26,
27
Torque and drag analysis must also be done to ensure
trouble-free installation, eliminating mechanical screen
damage during deployment that has been a significant source
of sand control failures around the world.1, 2, 16 Furthermore,
if the completion will be a gravel pack, sensitivity runs should
be made using gravel placement simulators in order to ensure
successful execution and minimise the risk. 28, 29
Another significant aspect in sand control completions is the
issue of filtercake cleanup. For standalone screen completions,
cleanup treatments are done after screens are installed. It has
been well established through field experience and supported
by laboratory experiments that rapid reacting breakers such as
acids (more so for HCl) cannot provide uniform filtercake
removal. Slow-reacting breakers such as enzymes and
oxidisers should be preferred to remove the polymeric
components of water-based RDF filtercakes. Furthermore,
when removal of bridging agents such as CaCO3 is necessary,
two-step treatments (e.g., enzyme or oxidiser soak followed
by acid) are considered ineffective, unless acid injection is
done through a jetting or cup tool.26 Another major concern is
corrosion of sand control screens due to ineffective
displacement of acids and low spots/holdup in well trajectory.
More effective means of removing both the polymeric
components and the bridging agents have recently been
proposed and used successfully in field applications.30, 18
Such breakers allow placement of chemicals without creating
thief zones, providing more uniform cleanup (thus preventing
premature gas/water breakthrough), save rig time by
permitting cake removal during the trip out with the work
5
string and in with the production tubing due to low-corrosion
rates, and eliminate a subsequent use of coiled tubing. In
gravel packed completions, cake removal can in principle be
done before, after or during gravel packing. It has been
demonstrated, through laboratory experiments, that cake
removal during gravel packing with water is a risk that is not
worth taking if a modified work string that allows circulation
immediately after gravel packing is used.31 Recent work by
Brady et al32 has shown that gravel packed wells require an
enzyme or an oxidiser treatment as a minimum depending on
the mineralogy (clays, clean sand etc.) along the horizontal
well and gravel size, as also shown by Hodge and Burton.33
Simultaneous gravel packing and cake cleanup can provide a
cost effective means in achieving optimal completion results
in terms of productivity and inflow profile as demonstrated by
several field case histories.34
Case Histories
We now present 10 case histories where the proposed criteria
were checked against what was actually practiced and what
the results were. It should be kept in mind that some of these
field applications have been done when there was essentially
little experience with horizontal sand control completions. The
Case Histories are highlighted within the Appendices, in the
comments section, in order to highlight and demonstrate the
rationale used and how it compares to the design methodology
proposed.
Case History 1: Standalone Wire-Wrapped Screens, West
Africa - Oil Wells (Low Rate)
These wells located offshore West Africa, not deep water and
not subsea, are part of a field development of 8 wells all
completed in the same vane. The reservoir permeability is 4.2
to 6.6 Darcy range, with a D50 of 170 µm, D10/D95 ~ 10,
D40/D90 ~ 3, and fines content less than 2%. Horizontal length
was 1,500 ft with a net to gross greater than 80%, and the
wellbore diameter was 8½ in. The selected completion method
was natural sand packing (standalone screens). The screens
were 10 gauge, 5½ in. wire-wrapped screens with 6 in. OD,
hence annular to base pipe area ratio is 1.41. The production
rate was 6,000 BOPD, which equates to 4 BOPD/ft. The
resulting PI for the wells ranged from 61 to 102 BPD/psi. No
PLTs have been performed and transient well testing indicated
a mechanical skin of –1 to zero for all wells. The wells have
been on production for 8 years without sand production, and
no decline in production apart from natural depletion.
Appendix A suggests that standalone screen completion
would be appropriate for this field. Furthermore, Appendix E
suggests wire-wrapped screens, as successfully practiced in
the field.
Case History 2: Standalone Prepacked Screens, West
Africa - Oil Wells (Low Rate)
6 BENNETT, GILCHRIST, PITONI, PETIT, BURTON, HODGE, TRONCOSO, ALI, DICKERSON, PRICE-SMITH, PARLAR
This is a field developed during last eight years with 4”
standalone prepack screens with a 5.1 in. OD. 6¼ in.
horizontal open holes were drilled in 2 Darcy sand at
approximately 1609 ft. (500 m) TVD, offshore in a non
subsea environment. Production from the filed has been at an
average flow rate of 250-300 cu. m/d (1575 to 1885 BOPD)
on ESP with a 10 bar (147 psi) of drawdown pressure.
Screen base pipe/Annular open Hole ratio was 1.07 and
average open lengths of 300 m (1000 ft) equating to 1.5 – 2
BOPD/ft.
Reservoir sand size distribution depending on formation layer
ranged from
D50 ≈ 175-225 µm, D10/D95 ≈ 30-150, D40/D90 ≈ 20-
40 and fines percentage (<44 µm) >> 5% from 1613
ft. (498.3m) to 1609 ft. (501.2m) TVD i.e. large very
non-uniform sand
to
D50 ≈ 150-205 µm, D10/D95 ≈ 3-10, D40/D90 ≈ 2-5 and
fines percentage (<44 µm) < 5% from 1614 ft.
(501.5m) to 1644 ft. (511.0m) TVD i.e. large
uniform sand.
Oil is 40-60 API and low GOR and with an active water
injection program in place.
Hence by using the Appendices starting with A it is clear to
see that such wells: low rate, large sand (uniform to non
uniform), low annular to base pipe area ratios can be
completed using standalone completions. The screen selection
for standalone screens (Appendix E) points to the fact that
prepack (cost) or premium screens would be the best screen
selection for this application especially in light of the
uniformity variance in the formation.
Case History 3: Standalone Prepacked/Premium Screen,
North Sea - Oil Well (High Rate)
Located offshore in a non subsea or deepwater environment in
the North Sea the completion design called for prepack and
later premium standalone screens for the initial horizontal oil
wells.
Reservoir conditions were as follows:
D50 of 125 µm, D10/D95 ≈ >10, D40/D90 ≈ 5, and fines
content ≈ 7%.
Production rates for the 2000 ft. open hole horizontal
completions ranged from 20,000 - 33,000 BFPD, which
equates to 10-16 BFPD/ft. (i.e. High rate wells). Annular to
base pipe ratio was 1.12 given 6.65 in. OD prepack screens
(5½” base pipe) were run in 8½ in. open hole. Typically shale
SPE 65140
sections were 166 ft. to 822 ft. of the total open-hole length
i.e. providing a net to gross equal to 60 to 90%.
These wells produced for between ½ to 3 years until
catastrophic sand failure occurred resulting in their shut in.
The design and screen selection criteria presented in this paper
(see Appendices A through E) indicates that for wells of this
type i.e. medium grain size (125 micron), non uniform and
high fines content formation sands, medium net to gross (60-
80%) and high flow rates that a Water or Shunt Gravel-Pack
open hole completion with a prepack or premium screen
would have been most appropriate to achieve extended well
life and minimise or eliminate sand production. In the case
where net to gross is higher than 80% and rates are lower (<10
bpd/ft) with large annular to base pipe ratio then water
packing would be preferred.
Case History 4: Water Pack using Premium Screens,
North Sea - Oil Well (High Rate)
Further to Case History 3 and due to the well failures that
resulted, the design was changed to open hole water packs in
the subsequent wells in the same field, as determined through
criteria given in Appendix A.
All the reservoir conditions remained the same in terms of
formation sand characterisation, production rates (15,000 to
25,000 BPD) but the shale section encountered were typically
0 to 300 ft. resulting in a net to gross >80%.
The screen type used was a premium screen due to the
medium size and non-uniform nature of the sands and the high
flow rate conditions, as shown in Appendix D.
Subsequently these wells have been flowing for 2½ years with
no sign of sand ingress and cumulative fluid off-takes from
the reservoir have exceeded those from the previous case
history using prepack/premium standalone screens.
Case History 5: Water Pack using Premium Screens,
Europe - Gas Well (High Rate)
An offshore non subsea field development of four open hole
horizontal well, drilled and completed during the last three
years, in a gas bearing sand of 500 mD to gas permeability at
a depth of 619 - 623 m (1992 - 2005 ft.) TVD. The wells were
completed as water packs (20/40 gravel in a 1.3 s.g. CaCl2
brine) in 6¼ in. 150 m (≈ 485 ft.) open hole, using premium
screens. Screen type used was 4 in. base pipe, premium (5.08
in. OD) 110 µm opening, giving an annular to base pipe area
ratio ≈ 1.06.
Reservoir conditions were as follows:
 DESIGN METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTION OF HORIZONTAL OPEN-HOLE
SPE 65140 SAND CONTROL COMPLETIONS SUPPORTED BY FIELD CASE HISTORIES
D50 of 156 µm, D10/D95 ≈ >16, D40/D90 ≈ 5, and fines
content ≈ 11% (Non-uniform),
with no clay barriers or zones encountered during drilling,
resulting in a net to gross for the reservoir of 100%.
Production rates for the 480 ft. open hole horizontal
completions has been typically 90 MMSCF/D, which equates
to 0.2 MMSCF/ft. (i.e. ≈ High rate gas wells).
Hence in summary for high rate gas well in a non uniform
environment, non subsea then gravel pack is the preferred
approach (Appendix A), whilst gravel pack type as can be
seen in Appendix C is a water pack using a premium screen
(Appendix D).
Case History 6: Standalone Premium Screen, Far East -
Oil Well (High Rate)
Located offshore, in a non-subsea completion or deepwater
environment. The reservoir drive mechanism is pressure
depletion drive. The reservoir permeability is between 1 and 5
Darcy. Core analysis in offset wells indicates the following:
D50 ≈ 130-210 µm, D10/D95 ≈ 3-6, D40/D90 ≈ 2-3 and
fines percentage ≈ 4 -5%.
Well was completed as a stand-alone completion with
premium screens (110 µm absolute size rating, 5½ in. base
pipe, 6½ in. OD and 8½ in. openhole; annular to base pipe
ratio 1.20) in 1350 ft. clean sand section. This well was the
first horizontal well in a field already developed by directional
wells requiring conventional (internal/cased hole) gravel
packs for sand control.
The completion used an electric submersible pump equipped
with a downhole pressure sensor to monitor bottom hole
conditions. The initial production rate was 12,048 BFPD
(11,446 BOPD, 5% water cut) and a Productivity Index (PI)
of 93 BFPD/psi (high rate). Production declined steadily with
reservoir pressure depletion accompanied with a slight decline
in productivity. One and a half years later the PI was
measured at ≈ 60 BFPD/psi. The decline in productivity was
attributed to remaining filter-cake and /or fines movement
partially plugging the filter media. An enzyme treatment (in a
low pH system) was performed restoring the PI to 90
BFPD/psi; similar to the PI measured immediately after
completion. The treatment targeted the starch and polymer
base of the drill-in-fluid and acid sensitive material. This
indicates that the damage mechanism was filter-cake
dominated. It is apparent that during production movement of
the remaining filter-cake occurred which did not flow through
the screen filter media, resulting in the slightly lower
productivity.
The selection criteria presented in this paper, using the core
7
analysis data presented above, suggest that the fines content
does require the use of premium screens. The decision of
using a stand-alone premium screen completion agrees with
the selection criteria (Appendices A and E) but it could be
speculated that the reduction in productivity could have been
avoided by an integrated wellbore cleanup process,
immediately after, the standalone screen installation.
Case History 7: Water Packing using Premium Screens,
Far East - Oil Well (High Rate)
Well #17 in the same field as case history number 6, was
completed in 407 ft. of clean sand and used an electric
submersible pump for artificial lift. The reservoir drive
mechanism is water drive with similar reservoir characteristics
to the ones described in the previous case. Although fines
content is consistently less than 5%, fines migration problems
occur in conventional gravel packs that produce at high fluid
rates and high water cuts in this particular field. To mitigate
potential problems in this openhole completion, it was decided
to use premium screens (110 µm absolute size rating, 5½ in.
base pipe, 6½ in. OD, and 8½ in. open-hole) and gravel pack
the open hole section with 20/40 mesh gravel pack sand.
“water packing” was used as the gravel packing technique,
however, insufficient slurry rate resulted in incomplete gravel
placement (73% of theoretical volume). Similarly, a less than
optimum DIF displacement velocity did not efficiently reduce
the filter cake in the well face and likely did not remove
cuttings from the open hole section. Well #17 initially
produced at a rate of 20,225 BFPD (19,416 BOPD / 4% water
cut) with a PI of 28 BFPD/psi (high rate). The well continued
to produce at high rates and increasing water cuts
accompanied by a steady increase in productivity as well. Two
years after completion, the well produced at approximately
15,500 BFPD (1100 BOPD / 93% water cut) and a PI of 107
BFPD/psi. But by then, there were some surface indications
that solids were being produced. A visual inspection and tear
down of the downhole equipment (ESP) during a well
workover confirmed that solids were being produced. A video
camera and a gravel pack evaluation log run in the horizontal
section determined the extent of the damage. The gravel pack
evaluation log indicated potential areas where formation or
gravel pack sand were produced and the video camera showed
solids in the low side of the wellbore and erosion of the screen
base pipe in several areas, in the unpacked section of the well.
Well #17 was repaired with a 3½ in. premium screen run
inside the original gravel pack screen. The well was returned
to production at a fluid rate of approximately 10,000 BFPD
and a PI ≈ 20 BFPD/psi.
Based on the production and pressure data, combined with the
information obtained from logging and the video camera, it is
clear that incomplete packing, inconjunction with the absence
of an integrated cleanup treatment, resulted in the majority of
the flux being attributed to the unpacked hole section. This
8 BENNETT, GILCHRIST, PITONI, PETIT, BURTON, HODGE, TRONCOSO, ALI, DICKERSON, PRICE-SMITH, PARLAR
eventually resulted in erosion of the premium screens leading
to “sand” production.
Similarly as in the previous case history, the selection process
presented here suggests that a stand-alone completion using
premium screens should be the recommended completion
type. It is interesting to note that a stand-alone completion
would have facilitated the removal of the excess filter cake
left in the wellbore after the completion operations and
probably improved the well productivity drastically in a
shorter period of time. Similarly, if this well had been a
marginal well with a productive life of 2½ years the decision
to run a standalone screen completion might have been the
correct economic decision. In those wells where a longer life
is anticipated, however, gravel packing may be a better
alternative, assuming you achieve a 100% pack. As mentioned
earlier incomplete gravel packing created “hot spots” that
accelerated or created the failure of the completion, which
emphasises even more the importance of an efficient gravel
pack, when fines movement occurs with production. Improved
reservoir drill-in-fluid displacement (to remove the majority of
the filter cake by displacing at rates greater than 300 ft. per
min. in conjunction with attaining minimum NTU readings,
optimising bottomhole assembly e.g. full gauge stabiliser and
maintaining overbalance) and gravel packing techniques
(shunt packing/simultaneous cleanup or water packing/anti-
swabbing tools as example combinations) have eliminated the
recurrence of the problems described in this case history. 32, 34
As a general remark, similar horizontal wells in water-drive
reservoirs have produced formation sand when gravel
placement through water packing has been incomplete.
Case History 8: Shunt Packing with Wire Wrap Screens,
North Sea - Oil Well
The individual sand bodies in this reservoir consisted of clean,
well-sorted, 3 - 4 Darcy unconsolidated sands, with the
following reservoir sand characteristics:
D50 ≈ 210 - 260 µm, D10/D95 ≈ 3-4, D40/D90 ≈ 2 and
fines percentage ≈ 5%.
The reservoir comprises of sand/shale sequences with
approximately 40% shales varying in thickness from several
meters to less than a millimeter. Up to 80% of the shale is
highly reactive smectite clay. The formation has a long fines
tail when the pay and non-pay sections of the reservoir are
combined in the sieve analysis.
Open hole lengths for the 2 wells in this field, that had
typically been 1500ft for the previous horizontal 7 wells (all
completed with standalone low profile prepack screen in 8 ½
in. open hole, 95% net to gross sands and < 2% fines content)
were 300 ft. (10 in. OH) and 1550 ft. (8½ in. OH)
respectively.
SPE 65140
The wells were completed with a shrouded 4½ in., 16-gauge
wire-wrapped shunt screens. (Wire OD of these screens are
4.86 in. given an annular to base pipe area ratio of 4.75 and
3.1 respectively).
Production rates for these wells are 7,700 – 10,000 BOPD
respectively corresponding to 38 BOPD/ft. and 11 BOPD/ft.
of net interval (high rate). PIs are ≈ 40 bbl/day/psi.
Using the design criteria we see that the use of the shunt
packing methodology is justified based on the high rate nature
of the wells and the high reactive shale component (Appendix
B) in the reservoir which is also the primary driver for the low
rate well. Furthermore these wells were being drilled in a new
reservoir in the same field, for which little frac gradient data
was available prior to drilling.
Case History 9: Standalone Prepack/Premium Screens,
North Sea - Gas Wells (High Rate)
Case History 9 provides data on a series of gas wells located
in the Southern Basin of the UK Sector of the North Sea. The
wells are located offshore with a water depth of approximately
250ft. Some wells are completed from platforms and some
wells have been completed subsea. Both horizontal and non-
horizontal wells have been used in the area. Average reservoir
permeabilities range from 0.1 mD to 200 mD with formation
D50 grain sizes ranging from 150 to 200 µm, 3<D10/D95 <8,
2<D40/D90 < 3 and fines content between 1 and 5%. Formation
failure analysis work conducted in the area show the
reservoirs to be prone to sand production as depletion
proceeds. The case study wells were completed in an area of
very low rock strength and were expected to produce sand
soon after completion if downhole sand exclusion was not
applied. To prevent damaging sand production while
maintaining high productivity, the wells were completed using
standalone screens in open hole. Early wells were completed
with pre-packed screens using 20/40 resin coated pre-pack
material. Later wells have been completed with premium
screens. Typical screen ODs ranged from 4½ in. to 5.0 in. As
noted above, both conventional and horizontal wells are
included in this case study.35 Conventional wells were drilled
through the reservoir at angles from 40 to 50 degrees
providing open hole completion intervals of from 400 to 500
ft. MD. Horizontal wells were used to improve rate and
recovery in lower permeability areas of the field. These
horizontal wells provided open hole completion lengths from
2000 to 3500 ft. MD. Net to gross ratios were in excess of
90% for all wells. Drilled wellbore diameters were 6 in. for all
cases and production rates ranged from 10 to 150 MMSCFD,
with the majority of the wells providing flow rates in the 100+
MMSCFD range. High rate conventional wells produced at
rates of 150 to 450 MSCFD/ft. corresponding to inflow rates
of 120 to 350 BPD/ft. at initial flowing conditions of
approximately 3900 psi. The high rate horizontal wells
 DESIGN METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTION OF HORIZONTAL OPEN-HOLE
SPE 65140 SAND CONTROL COMPLETIONS SUPPORTED BY FIELD CASE HISTORIES
typically produced at normalised inflow rates of from 40 to 50
MSCFD/ft. which is equivalent to 30 to 40 BPD/ft. at initial
flowing pressures of around 3900 psi. PIs for conventional
wells ranged from 300 to 3000 MSCFD/psi while the
horizontal wells had PIs ranging from 500 to 2000
MSCFD/psi. Pressure transient tests performed on both the
conventional and horizontal wells showed completion skins to
be near zero initially with no deterioration over time. One PLT
was performed in a horizontal well. This log showed the well
to be producing with a near uniform flux inflow distribution
indicating good well clean-up all along the completion
interval. These wells have been on production for 6 years
without sand production, and no decline in production apart
from natural depletion. Appendix A suggests that standalone
screen completion would be appropriate for this well.
Furthermore, Appendix E suggests premium or prepack
screens.
Case History 10: Standalone Wire Wrap Screens, North
Sea – Water Injector
Case History 10 is a series of 9 water injector wells completed
at 1500 ft water depth, located in the North Sea.
9
Reservoir conditions were as follows:
D50 of 210 µm, D10/D95 ≈ 4, D40/D90 ≈ 2, and fines
content < 2%. (uniform)
The completions were a combination of 5½ in. (6.05 in. OD)
wire wrap and premium standalone screens Annular to base
pipe area ratio (≈ 1.45), completed in 8½ in. openhole with net
to gross ≈ 80%. Injection rates for the 1500 - 2000 ft.
horizontal completions ranged from 20 – 30,000 BWPD (i.e.
High rate wells). Injection pressure is above frac pressure and
the wells have been injecting for over 3 years
Utilising the design criteria as laid out in the Appendices (A
and E) these wells should have been gravel-packed. However
there remains a concern over open hole gravel-packing water
injectors which will have to operate above frac pressure to get
sustainable injection rates, resulting in the potential to lose the
gravel to the fracture & plugging when Produced Water Re-
injection (PWRI) is initiated. This raises the question as to
whether OH Frac Packing may be a solution for the future). 34
The criteria point to the use of wire wrap screens, given a net
to gross of 80%, regardless of standalone or gravel-pack
completion.
Future Work
Although we have provided guidelines for selection of a
completion technique in open-hole horizontal wells based on
experts' opinions developed over years of experience and have
supported some of the criteria with case histories, it is our
intention to extend the scope of this work through a joint
industry project. Specifically, we are in the process of
establishing a database for horizontal sand control
completions combined with a knowledge management system
that is supported by well-defined case histories (Case Based
Reasoning) and selection criteria proposed in this paper as a
starting point. This will require operators and service industry
to first define a set of questions in order to qualify successes
and failures, and secondly to provide the required data in
order to refine or validate the criteria.
Some of the criteria set forward may need to be revisited. For
example, completion life expressed in years may not
necessarily be the proper way of qualifying success (i.e., sand-
free production for so many years). High-rate producers (e.g.,
in the North Sea) can produce 25-50 MMbbls per well in 3 to
4 years while low-rate producers reach the same level of
cumulative production in 10-15 years. Similarly, apart from
considerations of high versus low-rates (i.e., length-
normalised rates), we have not utilised well length in our
criteria for selection of a sand control method. Furthermore,
the injector case histories presented have been limited to a
single area, requiring special attention in the future. An
10 BENNETT, GILCHRIST, PITONI, PETIT, BURTON, HODGE, TRONCOSO, ALI, DICKERSON, PRICE-SMITH, PARLAR
additional area of investigation should be the presence or
absence of filtercake cleanup treatments in these completions,
as cleanup treatments can have a significant impact on success
or failure of a sand-control completion (injectors as well as
producers). For example, while a sand control technique could
have been successful with a proper cake cleanup methodology
(procedures and chemistry), it may end up being a failure (e.g.
produce sand). This could be due to incomplete cake cleanup,
resulting in hot-spots and potential screen erosion as a result
of screen plugging with cake flowback and/or corrosion of the
screens (e.g., with acids). Finally a correlation or revision of
Tiffin’s sand sorting, uniformity and fines criteria needs to
made for laser defined granular analysis as opposed to the
mechanical sieve analysis definitions given to date.
Conclusions
We have presented a unified set of guidelines for selecting a
sand control technique in open-hole horizontal completions
based on experts' opinions developed over years of experience
with five operators and a completion service provider.
Although we have demonstrated the validity of some of these
guidelines through ten case histories from major sand control
regions of the world, predicting both successes and failures;
these guidelines should be utilised cautiously until they are
further validated and/or refined through many more case
histories.
The development of a knowledge based system36 utilising
accepted design criteria, expert knowledge and validated by
case histories for open hole horizontal sand control
completions is a necessity if we are to better engineer and
provide the levels of reliability and longevity that the industry
is seeking. Such a system has been conceived and the system’s
knowledge base developed that will form the platform for
constructing a more rigorous expert/case based reasoning
system. In addition we feel this approach will form the basis
for a more robust sand management strategy to complement
the challenges of oil and gas reservoir management in the
future.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank BP, Chevron, Conoco, ENIAgip, Repsol-
YPF, Schlumberger and TotalFinaElf for permission to
publish this paper.
SPE 65140
References
1. C.L Bennett: “Sand Control Design for Open Hole
Completions,” presentation, Distinguished Lecturer, 1999.
2. J. McLarty: “How to Complete a Horizontal Well in the
Gulf of Mexico: Operators Share Experiences,” Hart’s
Petroleum Engineer International, Nov., 1997: pp 63-70.
3. D.L. Tiffin, G.E. King, R.E. Larese and L.K. Britt: “New
Criteria for Gravel and Screen Selection for Sand
Control,” SPE 39437 presented at the SPE Formation
Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, U.S.A., Feb. 18-
19, 1998.
4. M. P. Tixier, G. W. Loveless and R. A. Anderson:
“Estimation of Formation Strength from the Mechanical
Properties Log,” JPT, March 1975.
5. N. Stein, A. S. Odeh and L. G. Jones: “Estimating
Maximum Sand Free Production Rates from Friable
Sands for Different Well Completion Geometries,” JPT,
Oct. 1974.
6. A.P. Kooijman, M.G.A van der Elzen and C.A.M
Veeken: “Hollow Cylinder Collapse: Measurement of
Deformation and Failure in an X-Ray CT Scanner,
Observation of Size Effect,” Proc. of 32nd U.S.
Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Norman, U.S.A., July
1991.
7. C.A.M Veeken, J.V. Walters, C.J. Kenter and D.R.
Davies: “Use of Plasticity Models for Predicting Borehole
Stability at Great Depth,” Proceedings ISRM, SPE Int.
Rock Symposium, Pau, France, Aug. 1989.
8. C.A.M Veeken, D.R. Davies, C.J. Kenter and A.P.
Kooijman: “Sand Prediction Review: Developing and
Integrated Approach,” SPE 22792 presented at the 1991
ATCE, Dallas, U.S.A., Oct. 1991.
9. N. Morita, D. L. Whitfill and I. Massie: "Realistic Sand-
Production Prediction: Numerical Approach". SPE
Production Engineering Journal, Feb. 1989: pp 23-33.
10. R.C. Burton, E.R. Davis, N. Morita and H. O. McLeod:
“Application of Reservoir Strength Characterization and
Formation Failure Modeling to Analyze Sand Production
Potential and Formulate Sand Control Strategies for a
Series of North Sea Gas Reservoirs,” SPE 48979
presented at ATCE, New Orleans, U.S.A., Sept. 1998.
11. D.F. Ryan, S.V. Browne, and M.P. Burnham: “Mud
Cleanup in Horizontal Wells: A Major Joint Industry
Study,” SPE 30528 presented at the SPE Annual Meeting,
Dallas, U.S.A., Oct. 22-25, 1995.
12. S.V. Browne, D.F. Ryan, B.D. Chambers, J.M. Gilchrist,
and S.A. Bamforth: “Simple Approach to the Cleanup of
Horizontal Wells with Prepacked Screen Completions,”
JPT, Sept. 1995: pp 794-800.
13. S.A. Ali, and H.L. Dearing: “Sand Control Screens
Exhibit Degrees of Plugging,” Hart’s Petroleum
International, July 1996.
14. C. Marken, P. Markestad, and O. Rorvik: “Criteria for
Back Production of Drilling Fluids through Sand Control
Screens,” SPE 38187 presented at the SPE European
 DESIGN METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTION OF HORIZONTAL OPEN-HOLE
SPE 65140 SAND CONTROL COMPLETIONS SUPPORTED BY FIELD CASE HISTORIES
Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, The
Netherlands, June 2-3, 1997.
15. Internal data within Schlumberger based on Horizontal
job database
16. J. M. Perdue: “Completion Experts Study Gulf of Mexico
Horizontal Screen Failures,” Petroleum Engineer
International, June, 1996.
17. L.G. Jones, R.J. Tibbles, L. Myers, D. Bryant, J. Hardin
and G. Hurst: “Gravel Packing Horizontal Wellbores with
Leakoff Using Shunts,” SPE 38640 presented at the SPE
Annual Meeting, San Antonio, U.S.A., Oct. 5-8, 1997.
18. M. Parlar and E. Albino: “Challenges, Accomplishments
and Recent Developments in Gravel Packing,” SPE
57474 invited paper for JPT Distinguished Author Series,
JPT, Jan. 2000: pp50-58.
19. J.M. Gilchrist, W.L. Sutton and F.J. Elliott: “Advancing
Horizontal Well Sand Control Technology: First OHGP
Using Synthetic OBM,” SPE 48976 presented at the SPE
Annual Meeting, New Orleans, U.S.A., Sept. 27-30,
1998.
20. Conversations with Clive Bennett, BP.
21. R. J. Tibbles, G. D. Hurst, X. Qian, E. L. Blessen, R.
Kabota, B. Steven and P. C. Mysko: “Design and
Execution of a 3000 ft Horizontal Gravel packed
Completion. (A Kazakhstan Case History),” SPE 64410
presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference
and Exhibition, Brisbane, Australia, Oct. 16-18, 2000.
22. Patent application
23. E.B. Rogers: “Sand Control in Oil and Gas Wells,” Oil &
Gas Journal, Nov. 1, 8, 15 and 22, 1971: pp 54-68.
24. C.J. Coberly: “Selection of Screen Openings for
Unconsolidated Sands,” Drilling & Production Practices,
API, 1937: pp189-201.
25. D.H.Schwartz: “Successful Sand Control Design for High
Rate Oil and Water Wells,” JPT, Sept. 1969: pp 1193-98.
26. C Price-Smith, C. Bennett, S.A. Ali, R.M. Hodge, R.C.
Burton and M. Parlar: “Open Hole Horizontal Well
Cleanup in Sand Control Completions: State of the Art in
Field Practice and Laboratory Development,” SPE 50673
presented at the SPE European Petroleum Conference,
The Hague, The Netherlands, Oct. 20-22, 1998.
27. H.K.J. Ladva, M. Parlar, C. Price-Smith, L.J. Fraser and
S.A. Ali: “Mechanisms of Sand Control Screen Plugging
from Drill-in Fluids and Its Cleanup Using Acid,
Oxidizers and Enzyme Breakers,” SPE 39439 presented
at the SPE International Symposium on Formation
Damage Control, Lafayette, U.S.A., Feb. 18-19, 1998.
11
28. S. Karlstad, T. Sherlock-Willis, S. Rajan, B. Samsonsen
and P. A. Monstad: “An Evaluation and Design Approach
to Gravel-Pack Treatments in the Gullfaks field,” SPE
48978 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference, New Orleans, U.S.A., Sept. 27-30, 1998.
29. T. M. Sherlock-Willis, R.H. Morales and P. Price: “A
Global Perspective on Sand Control Treatments,” SPE
50562 presented at the SPE European Petroleum
Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, Oct. 20-22,
1998.
30. M. Parlar, R.J. Tibbles, F.F. Chang, D. Fu, L. Morris, M.
Davison, P.S. Vinod and A. Wierenga: “Laboratory
Development of a Novel, Simultaneous Cake Cleanup
and Gravel-Packing System for Long, Highly Deviated or
Horizontal Open Hole Completions,” SPE 50651
presented at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield
Chemistry, Houston, U.S.A., Feb. 16-19, 1999.
31. M.E. Brady, S.A. Ali, C. Price-Smith, G. Sehgal and M.
Parlar: “Near Well Bore Clean-up in Open-Hole
Horizontal Sand Control Completions: Laboratory
Experiments,” SPE 58785 (Revised) to be presented at
the SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage
Control, Lafayette, U.S.A., Feb. 23-24, 2000.
32. M.E. Brady, A. Bradbury, G. Sehgal, F. Brand, S.A. Ali,
C. Bennett, J.M. Gilchrist, J. Troncoso, C. Price-Smith,
W.E. Foxenberg and M. Parlar: “Filtercake Cleanup in
Open-Hole Gravel-Packed Completions: A Necessity or
A Myth?” SPE 63232 presented at the SPE Annual
Meeting, 2000, Dallas, U.S.A., Oct 1-4, 2000.
33. R.C. Burton and R.M. Hodge: “The Impact of Formation
Damage and Completion Impairment on Horizontal Well
Productivity,” SPE 49097 presented at the SPE Annual
Meeting, New Orleans, U.S.A., Sept. 27-30, 1998.
34. M. Parlar, C. Bennett, J. Gilchrist, F. Elliott, J. Troncoso,
C. Price-Smith, M. Brady, R.J. Tibbles, S. Kelkar, B.
Hoxha and W.E. Foxenberg: “Emerging Techniques in
Gravel Packing Open Hole Horizontal Completions in
High Performance Wells,” SPE 64412 presented at the
SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition,
Brisbane, Australia, Oct 16-18, 2000.
35. R.C. Burton and S.A. Boggan: “Sand Control Completion
Design, Installation and Performance of High Rate Gas
Wells in the Jupiter Field,” SPE 39432 presented at the
SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage
Control, Lafayette, U.S.A., Feb. 18-19, 1998.
36. M. Kanj, J-C. Roegiers and M. Zaman: “Building a
Knowledge-Efficient Sanding Advisor,” Knowledge-
Based System Journal, No. 12, 1999, pp 145-58.
12 BENNETT, GILCHRIST, PITONI, PETIT, BURTON, HODGE, TRONCOSO, ALI, DICKERSON, PRICE-SMITH, PARLAR SPE 65140

Application of OHGP & Screen Technology

North Sea & GoM Fields

Key:
Field F
Field G
Field H
Likelihood of Solids Production

High
Major depletion Field E
expected
during Well Life

(poor aquifer response,

depletion, compaction
drive, blowdown - gas)
OHGP
Medium

Field D
Field A

Field B Field C
Pressure support Prem. Screen
Screen Only
Low

(gas or water injection,

good aquifer support)
No Sand Control
Low Medium High

“Quality” of Sand (N/G, sorting…)

Figure 1: Cross Plot indicating Likelihood of Wellbore Failure vs. Quality of Formation
 DESIGN METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTION OF HORIZONTAL OPEN-HOLE
SPE 65140 SAND CONTROL COMPLETIONS SUPPORTED BY FIELD CASE HISTORIES 13
14 BENNETT, GILCHRIST, PITONI, PETIT, BURTON, HODGE, TRONCOSO, ALI, DICKERSON, PRICE-SMITH, PARLAR SPE 65140
 DESIGN METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTION OF HORIZONTAL OPEN-HOLE
SPE 65140 SAND CONTROL COMPLETIONS SUPPORTED BY FIELD CASE HISTORIES 15
16 BENNETT, GILCHRIST, PITONI, PETIT, BURTON, HODGE, TRONCOSO, ALI, DICKERSON, PRICE-SMITH, PARLAR SPE 65140
 DESIGN METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTION OF HORIZONTAL OPEN-HOLE
SPE 65140 SAND CONTROL COMPLETIONS SUPPORTED BY FIELD CASE HISTORIES 17
18 BENNETT, GILCHRIST, PITONI, PETIT, BURTON, HODGE, TRONCOSO, ALI, DICKERSON, PRICE-SMITH, PARLAR SPE 65140
 DESIGN METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTION OF HORIZONTAL OPEN-HOLE
SPE 65140 SAND CONTROL COMPLETIONS SUPPORTED BY FIELD CASE HISTORIES 19