Back to Session
PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION
Thirty-Sixth Annual Convention & Exhibition, May 2012
SAND MANAGEMENT STUDY: SAND ONSET PREDICTION, SAND PRODUCTION AND SAND
CONTROL AT WELL X
Mitra Dolok Sion Silaban*
ABSTRACT
The problem of sand significantly plagues many
reservoirs and has strongly affected benefit-cost
relationships in the oil industry for years. Sand
production is defined as the production of small or
large amounts of solids, together with reservoir
fluids. Sanding problems are caused by many
factors, such as: formation strength, effective stress
and pressure depletion in a reservoir. There will
always be a risk of sand problem in a well. The
onset of sanding prediction for a payzone is an
important step to know when sand appears in a well,
and then we can predict the volume of sand
produced in order to select the optimum sand
control method.
In this study, stress components around the wellbore
are determined by logging data, MDT test data,
LOT’s/FIT’s data and an Anderson correlation.
Formation strength is determined by logging data,
and then correlated to laboratory test data to get the
most accurate formation strength. Those data will
be used to secure critical drawdown pressure (CDP)
and critical reservoir pressure (CRP). Then we can
calculate the quantity of sand produced if the value
is exceeded. In this study we calculate an estimation
of the amount of free sand generated between
sheared planes caused by fluid drawdown or the
sand production capacity by using a Musaed &
Talal correlation.
From the results of this study, we can predict that a
given analyzed well will carry a high risk of sand
problem. We can also predict the volume of sand
produced so we can choose the optimal sand control
method. The calculation shows that the sand
produced can be tolerated. By using this estimation
we can determine the optimal sand control method.
INTRODUCTION
Most of the hydrocarbon production in the present
* Institute of Technology Bandung (ITB)
IPA12-SE-044
world comes from formations with the potential to
produce sand during well life. In the United States,
sand producing formations occur commonly in the
Gulf of Mexico, California and Texas. Around the
world, sand production is common in West Africa,
Canada, China, Venezuela, Trinidad, Cameroon,
Azerbaijan, Malaysia, Indonesia and parts of the
North Sea and Nile Delta.
Sand production occurs when the stresses of the
formation exceed the strength of the formation. The
formation strength is derived from the natural
cementing material that bonds the sand grains
together. Sand grains are also held together by the
cohesive forces caused by immobile formation
water. The stress of the formation-sand grains is
caused by many factors, such as tectonic actions,
overburden pressure, pore pressure, stress changes
from drilling, and the drag forces of the producing
fluids. When fluids are produced from reservoirs,
stresses are imposed on the sand grains, that tend to
move them into the wellbore, along with the fluids
produced. These stresses are caused by pressure
difference in formation, fluid frictional forces, and
the weight of the overburden.
In this study, some calculations are used in sanding
onset prediction and sand production problems.
Each stage of this study has a different approach.
The stress components around wellbore are
determined by logging data, MDT test data,
LOT’s/FIT’s data and an Anderson correlation. The
formation strength is determined by logging data
and then correlated to laboratory test data to get the
most accurate formation strength. Those data will
be used to get critical drawdown pressure (CDP)
and critical reservoir pressure (CRP). Then we can
calculate the quantity of sand produced if the value
is exceeded. In this study we calculate the
estimation of the amount of free sand generated
between sheared planes caused by the fluid
drawdown or the sand production capacity by using
Musaed & Talal correlation.
From the results of this study, we can predict that
the well analyzed exhibits high risk in sand
problems. We can also predict the volume of sand
produced so we can choose the optimum sand
control method. The calculation show that the sand
produced can be tolerated. By using this estimation
we can select the optimum sand control method.
METHODOLOGY
Sanding Onset Prediction
Some assumtions used related to the calculation are
that the sandstone formation is linear-poroelastic,
overburden pressure and temperature are constant,
frictional angle of the rock is 30o and horizontal
stress is isotropic. Here are the steps and the
procedures for the calculation needed to determine
the sanding onset prediction:
1. Calculate the overburden pressure (SV). The
data needed are bulk density (  b ) from the log
data.
2. Determine the reservoir pressure (Pr) based on
MDT test for well X.
3. Calculate the horizontal stress (Sh) using
Anderson’s correlation and compare the result
with leak off tests (LOTs) and formation
integrity tests (FITs) data for given field Y in
which well X is located.
4. Calculate uniaxial compressive strength (UCS)
based on Deere and Miller with log data as an
input.
5. Compare the result of UCS from Step no.4 with
UCS and thick-walled cylinder (TWC) data
from the laboratory measurement, to obtain the
relationship between TWC and UCS.
6. Calculate the formation strength (U)
7. Calculate CBHFP
8. Determine the weakest depth by observing the
minimum value of UCS or the maximum value
of CBHFP as obtained from Step no.7.
9. Determine the sanding onset prediction caused
by the changing of the reservoir pressure by
determining the critical reservoir pressure
(CRP) used. Changing of the horizontal stress is
obtained based on linear-poroelastic theory by
using this following equation:
S h  A.Pr
(1)
Sand Production
From the sanding onset prediction calculation, if we
could obtain the value of critical reservoir pressure
(CRP) and critical depletion pressure (CDP), then
we can calculate the quantity of sand produced if
the value is exceeded. There is an important factor
necessary for the estimation if the amount of free
sand generated between sheared planes is caused by
fluid drawdown. This is called the sand production
capability factor and was created by Musaed &
Talal. Using a correlation between CBHFP with
depth, we can predict the interval that potentially
becomes a yielded zone and we can calculate the
sand production capability factor and the volume of
sand produced from each zone. The model for this
calculation is a tube with an intact zone ratio of 1.72
and 1.16 (dimensionless for rw), where the radius of
the well used is a hypothetical 0.375 ft. By
predicting the volume of sand produced, we can
predict the optimum sand control method.
Sand Control
After predicting the volume of sand produced, we
can select the optimum sand control method. By
considering that the prediction of the volume of the
sand produced can make trouble in future, we need
to optimize the sand control method needed. To
simplify the calculation and procedure, we use a
common type of software in our well performance
analysis. In designing the optimum sand control
method, we simplify some parameters needed and
implement a sensitivity study to obtain an optimum
sand control method. The constraint of the sand
control performance is the maximum gas flow rate
allowed. We have to design the optimum sand
control to obtain an allowable gas flow rate at well
X.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Sanding Onset Prediction
The calculation of overburden stress on this well
uses the overburden gradient from the field data and
will be combined with density log data from the
payzone formation. The overburden gradient which
is measured in the laboratory still does not consider
the depth of the sea water, and we need the
combination of the log density, because the
sandstone formation which will be analyzed is
located under the core sample depth level which
used to determine the overburden gradient. The
result of the calculation of the overburden stress can From the relationship between TWC and UCS, we
be shown at Figure 1. can obtain the equation to calculate the formation
strength for the sandstone formation which is:
The reservoir pressure is determined based on the
MDT data from the sandstone formation. These data For well X:
will be plotted with depth and then make a linear
regression with that data to obtain the
approximation of the reservoir pressure for each U  3.1* TWC
depth. This linear regression equation only valid for
the formation where we do the test because we only  3.1* (33.898 * UCS0.6346 )
used the data from that formation, without use the (3)
data from other formation that not related. The
result of the linear regresion from the MDT data for From the equation above, we can determine the
well X can be shown in Figure 2. From the linear formation strength for each depth in the sandstone
regression of the MDT data, we can approach the formation of well X, from which its result can be
reservoir pressure for the sandstone formation and discerned in Figure 7.
the result is shown in Figure 3.
The Critical Bottomhole Flowing Pressure
The horizontal stress (  h ) is calculated using the (CBHFP) is calculated for the initial condition of
horizontal stress and reservoir pressure for each
Anderson’s correlation and the compared with the
depth. The maximum value of CBHFP for a
leak off tests (LOT’s) and formation integration
particular depth in the payzone represents the
tests (FIT’s) data that tested to several wells in the
weakest point for which the probability of the sand
field Y in which well X is located. Theorically, this
occurs is higher. The weakest point is used to
is happen based on the approach that the pressure
calculate the critical drawdown pressure (CDP) and
from that tests can give the approximation to the
critical reservoir pressure (CRP). The maximum
value of the horizontal stress for the formation
value of CBHFP in well X occurs at 10465’ TVDss
around the well. The result of the LOT’s and FIT’s
ft depth. The result of the The Critical Bottomhole
test of the field Y is shown on Figure 4. To predict
Flowing Pressure (CBHFP) for each depth of the
the formation strength for the particular depth in the
sandstone formation in well X is represented in
formation, it is necessary to calculate uniaxial
Figure 8.
compressive strength (UCS) first by using the data
from the log data. The value of the UCS for each
The negative value of CBHFP represents the
depth is shown in Figure 5.
amount of shales contained in the formation. This
shale will have a significant impact on the
After getting the result of the UCS from the
formation. The trend of CBHFP will decline as well
calculation, then we compare that result with the
as the increase of the volume of the shales in the
UCS from the laboratory calculation and the thick-
formation. This means that the formation strength
walled cylinder (TWC). The UCS data from the log
will increase if the volume of shale contained in the
data have to be plotted with the TWC and UCS data
formation increases because the shale is more
from the laboratory measurement to get a
consolidated, so the probability of liberated sand
correlation between field data and laboratory data.
particles or grains is less. The formation strength
This correlation is theorically based on the research
can also be represented by the porosity profile of
done by Tronvoll et al on samples of sandstone. The
the reservoir. If porosity increases, the formation
result of the correlation between TWC and UCS for
strength will decrease, and contrarily if the porosity
well X1 is shown in Figure 6.
decreases, the formation strength will increase. This
happens because the porosity represents the porous
The correlation between TWC and UCS for well X :
level of the rock. If the porosity decreases, it means
the rock becomes more compact and solid.
y = 33.898x0.6346
Theoretically, with the decrease of reservoir
Where y : TWC, psi pressure, horizontal stress will also decrease. It will
x : UCS, psi cause the value of the CDP to change as well as
(2)
altering the horizontal stress value. If the drawdown
pressure is bigger than the critical drawdown
pressure (CDP), sand will appear. The value of the
critical drawdown pressure (CDP) of well X can be
seen in Table 1.
From the table above, it can be shown that if the
reservoir pressure decreases, the critical drawdown
pressure (CDP) will also decrease, and if the
decreasing of the critical drawdown pressure (CDP)
is equal to 0, it means that the reservoir pressure is
equal to the critical reservoir pressure which means
that if we produce more and the reservoir pressure
is less than the critical drawdown pressure (CDP),
sand will start to appear. The critical reservoir
pressure for well X is 4609 psi.
The Calculation of Vs (Free Sand Produced) in
The Yielded Zone
Based on the calculation in the sanding onset
prediction, we have discovered where the weakest
depth of the well is, and also the value of the critical
drawdown pressure (CDP) and the critical reservoir
pressure (CRP). Based on that calculation, we can
predict the potential zone that will produce sand at
all depths in well X. In this study, we will analyse
all depths in well X.
Using the sand production capability factor equation
previously presented and the thickness of the
yielded zone around the wellbore, the free sand in
the yielded zone ready to move into the wellbore is
calculated using the following relationship:
(Vs)total = ∑{π(ri2 – ri-12) h (Ca)r1}
(4)
We make the assumption that the yield zone around
this borehole extends for 1.16 and 1.72 non-
dimensional radii into the formation at angular
positions of 0o and 90o, respectively. That
hypothetical data is very useful because of the
limitation of the data, to simplify the calculation
and reduce uncertainty. The layers that potentially
could become yielded zones are :
1. 10416 ft – 10418 ft
2. 10434.5 ft – 10436.5 ft
3. 10444 ft – 10446 ft
4. 10460 ft – 10462 ft
5. 10465 ft – 10467 ft
6. 10473 ft – 10475 ft
The consideration in choosing all these 6 layers is
based on the value of the Critical Bottom Hole
Flowing Pressure (CBHFP). These 6 layers have a
very big CBHFP compared to another layer. So, by
considering this, these 6 layers potentially have a
greater possibility to become yielded zones than the
others slighlty below these 6 zones, so we did not
have to include these other layers.
In this calculation, we have to consider one
important parameter, which is the sand production
capability factor (Ca). Before calculating the
estimation of free sand in the yielded zone, we have
to determine the value of sand production capability
factor (Ca) beforehand. The basic theory of this
sand production capability factor has been
explained in the previous chapter. The result for
zone 1 is shown in Figure 9. From the 6 yielded
zones calculated, it is shown that each yielded zone
produces not more than 0.8 ft3 or 22.5 litres of sand.
The yielded zone which has the biggest volume is
yielded zone 2. The homogenity of the value of Ca
showed in each interval describes the similarity of
the rock’s mechanical properties. It makes the gap
between one and another slightly smaller. By using
this calculation, we can obtain the value of Ca for
the same value of Sh at the same depth. On the
other hand, the value of Vs is the thickness of the
correlated yielded zone. In this study, the value of
the volume of the sand produced is slightly less and
can be tolerated. This sanding value can be used to
consider the next activity or operation, such as the
production, completion and also can consider how
to determine the optimal sand control needed.
It is necessary to know a rule of thumb for the
excessive sand producer. For a gas well, it is good
to have less then 1 lb/MMSCF. From the
calculation above, it is showed that each yielded
zone produces not more than 0.8 ft3 or 22.5 litres of
sand. The yielded zone 1 is the yielded zone which
has the biggest volume, which is 0.671 ft3. It is
about 1.613 lb/MMSCF, so we need the sand
control, or in this study we need to install a gravel
pack and analyse its performance.
Sand Control Performance
A DST in well X has been tested between 11405
feet and 10479 feet below sea level, and flowed at a
maximum rate of 36.4 MMSCFD, with a drawdown
of 106 psi at an initial reservoir pressure of 5820
psi. This drawdown is much less than that which
would produce sand. From the calculation in the
previous chapter, it is concluded that at well X, it is
important to install a gravel pack and check its
performance.
One of the most important aspects of designing a
gravel pack for maximum productivity is the
selection of the gravel to be used. To assure
effective sand control and longer-lived gravel
packs, it appears that the gravel should be sized to
prevent invasion of the gravel pack by the finest
formation sand. The particle-size distribution
generally is obtained by sieve analysis of formation
samples.
A considerable amount of technology has been
developed in this area by researchers such as
Coberly and Wagner, Saucier, Gumpertz, Karpoff,
Schwartze and Williams et al. It is concluded that
the 50-percent grain diameter provides a more
reliable basis for gravel-size selection in formations
with uniformly fine sand. The basis for this
conclusion is that the 10-percent fraction is more
susceptible to error because of sand separating. The
50-percent point is more reproducible from sample
to sample. From the data collected, the relative
permeability varies from 100 to 300 mD. So, the
best gravel size will be 10-20, 16-30, 20-40 or
another size which fulfills the requirement.
By sensitizing perforation spacing and diameter, the
effective pressure drop due to flow concentration on
well performance can be investigated. Likewise,
the effect of varying gravel length (i.e. the thickness
of gravel between the OD of the screen and the ID
of the original open hole) on the skin can be
evaluated. The contribution of the gravel pack to
total skin pressure drop can be readily seen on the
IPR plot. Sensitivities can be calculated for factors
such as gravel pack thickness, shots per foot etc. to
evaluate the the effectiveness of gravel pack
designs.
We used the C and n Reservoir Model in this study.
This is the a common form of the back pressure
equation. C and n can be determined from a plot of
rate (Q) versus drawdown pressure on log-log
paper. N is the inverse of the slope and varies
between 1 for laminar flow and 0.5 for completely
turbulent flow. This is suitable for gas reservoirs
and can also simplify the calculation for the gas
well, because of the limitation of data provided. We
used the maximum gas rate of the well (36.4
MMSCF) as the main constraint to obtain the value
of C and n.
After the gravel has been properly sized to restrain
formation sand with a minimum invasion of the
pack, the next step is to determine the permeability
of the pack and the inlet area required to provide a
minimum pressure drawdown. The emphasis in
gravel sizing is to size the gravel properly to
prevent sand production. However, in special
circumstances (such as extremely high angle wells),
another concern could involve selecting gravel with
parameters which will ensure the best pack
placement. For example, Stokes’s law shows that
single particle setting rates are directly proportional
to the difference between the densities of the
particle and the fluid and to the square of the
particle diameter. From this, it appears that gravel
placement can be impacted by varying either the
size or the density of the material used for gravel
(Benipal, 2004).
After determining the gravel pack permeability, it is
also important to make another sensitivity study on
other parameters. The other parameters that are
considered as important parameters are the gravel
pack length, shot density, perforation interval,
perforation density, screen etc. The combination of
maximum penetration possible and gravel size
required for optimum inflow performance are
important in obtaining an effective well-design
optimization. The optimum parameters from the
rock parameters (such as porosity and permeability
value, combined with gravel pack parameters) can
be selected to aid in the choice of the optimum sand
control method.
From all the results of the sensitivity studies, we can
conclude the gravel pack design needed for well X.
This design only considers the parameter from the
gravel pack. Generally, gravel pack design
constitutes the selection of the gravel size and slot
width, completion design, gravel pack base, and
screen design. The gravel size and the slot width are
primarily based on formation particle sizes, so that
the formation sand is effectively restrained. From
Figure 10, we can see that the AOF of the well
reaches 36.796 MMscf/day. It is not precisely equal
to the original maximum rate of 36.4 MMSCFD.
But the sand control (gravel pack) is considered
good enough to nearly reach a maximum rate of
36.4 MMSCFD, with a drawdown of 106 psi at an
initial reservoir pressure of 5820 psi.
CONCLUSION
From the overall results obtained for solving the
calculation and simulation from this study, several
conclusions could be drawn:
1. The weakest depth in well X (which is the
 weakest depth in the sandstone formation)
is 10465 ft TVDss. It can be shown from
the value of formation strength (U),
9165.23 psi, and UCS, 996.47 psi, which
are the minimum values of U and UCS
from all depths. And also from the value of
CBHFP, 3197.72 psi, which is the
maximum value of the CBHFP from all
depths in well X. The maximum drawdown
pressure (CDP) at initial condition in
sandstone formation for well X is 2630.51
psi. And the critical reservoir pressure
(CRP) for well X is 4600 psi, which means
the well will produce sand if the reservoir
pressure is less than the critical reservoir
pressure (CRP).
2. There is no yielded zone that produces less than
0.8 ft3 or 22.5 litres of sand. The yielded zone 1
is the yielded zone which has the biggest
volume, which is 0.671 ft3. It is about 1.613
lb/MMSCF, so we need sand control.
3. The sand control (gravel pack) has been
designed and gives good results, due to the
maximum rate allowed in well X.
REFERENCES
Abass, H.H., Nasr-El-Din, H.A., BaTaweel, M.H.,
2002. Sand Control: Sand Characterization,
Failure mechanisms, and Completion Methods, SPE
77686, Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Anwar Husen Akbar Ali, et al., 2003. Watching
Rock Change-Mechanical Earth Modelling,
Schlumberger Summer Oilfield Review.
Benipal, N., 2004. Sand Control and Management –
Development of A Sand Control Strategy, The
University of Texas at Austin.
Breckels, I.M. and van Eekelen, H. A. M., 1982.
Relationship Between Horizontal Stress in
Sedimentary Basins, Journal of Petroleum
Technology, p2191-99.
Descapria, R., 2006. Studi Parametrik Untuk
Memprediksi Awal Mula Kepasiran, Tugas Akhir,
Program Studi Teknik Perminyakan, Institut
Teknologi Bandung.
Deepwater Drilling Data: Unocal Company
Indonesia, Jakarta, 2005.
Fjǽr E., Holt R.M., Horsrud P., Raaen A.M., Risnes
R. 1992. Petroleum Related Rock Mechanics.
Elsevier.
Geertsma, J. 1985. Some Rock-Mechanical Aspect
of Oil and Gas Well Completion, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, p848. Buku geomechanic
Morita, N., Whitfill, D.L., Fedde, P. and Lovik,
T.H., 1987b. Parametric Study of Sand Production
Prediction: Analytical Approach, SPE 16990. SPE
62nd Annual Technical conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, TX, September 27-30, p.561-575.
Musaed, N., Talal, Y. 2005. Estimating the Amount
of free Sand in Yielded Zone around Vertical and
Horizontal Oil Wells, SPE SA (0526), Society of
Petroleum Engineers.
Oyeneyin, M.B., 1990. Numerical Analysis of the
Effects of Gravel Packing on Gas-well Productivity,
SPE Production Engineering.
Pacheco, E., Soliman, M.Y., Zepeda, R., 2009.
Sanding Prediction in a Gas well Offshore Mexico
Using a Numerical Simulator, SPE 122962, Society
of Petroleum Engineers.
Papamichos, E., 2002. Sand Mass Prediction in a
North Sea Reservoir, SPE/ISRM 78166, Society of
Petroleum Engineers.
Ritonga, B.P., 2008. Perhitungan Jumlah Volume
Pasir Terproduksi Maksimal Terhadap Penurunan
Tekanan Reservoir dan Tekanan Horizontal Pada
Sumur X, Tugas Akhir, Program Studi Teknik
Perminyakan, Institut Teknologi Bandung.
Settari, A.T., Walters, D.A., Behie, G.A., 2000. Use
of Coupled Reservoir and Geomechanical
Modelling for Integrated Reservoir Analysis and
Management, Paper Petroleum Society 2000-78,
Canadian International Petroleum Conference.
Petsoc
Singh, B. 1995. Preliminary Guidelines to
Investigate Borehole Stability in Drilling and
Completions. Unocal Reports.
Tronvoll, J., Papamichos, E., Skjǽstein, A.,
Sanfilipo, F., 1997. Sand Production in Ultra-Weak
Sandstones: Is Sand Control Absolutely Necessary?,
Paper SPE 39042, Petroleum Engineering
Conference and Exhibition, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Walls, J.D. and Jack Dvorkin. Measured and
Calculated Horizontal Stress in Travis Peak
Formation, SPE 21843, Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
Wang, J., Wan, R.G., Settari, A., Walters, D., 2005.
Prediction of Volumetric Sand Production and
Wellbore Stability Analysis of a Well at Different
Completion Schemes, ARMA/USRMS 05-842,
American Rock Mechanics Association.
Wang, Y. and Xue, S., 2002. Coupled Reservoir-
Geomechanics Model With Sand Erosion for Sand
Rate and Enhanced Production Prediction, SPE
73738, Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Wilson S.M., Moschovidis Z.A., Cameron J.R.,
Palmer I.D., 2002. “New Model for Predicting the
Rate of Sand Production,” paper SPE 78168,
SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference, Irving,
USA.
Yi, X., Valko, P.P., Russel, J.E., 2004. Predictiong
Critical Drawdown for the Onset of Sand
Production, SPE 86555, Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
TABLE 1 - CRITICAL DRAWDOWN PRESSURE (CDP) OF WELL X

Pr,psi Sv, psi Shmin,psi CBHFP, psi CDP, Psi

5828 7869 6437 3291 2537
5500 7869 6206 3646 1854
5250 7869 6031 3916 1334
5000 7869 5855 4187 813
4750 7869 5680 4457 293
4650 7869 5610 4565 85
4609 7869 5581 4609 0
 Overburden Vs Depth

8200

7800

7400

7000
Overburden, psi

6600

6200

5800

5400
Prospective Zone
SAND ZONE
5000
10300 10320 10340 10360 10380 10400 10420 10440 10460 10480 10500
Depth, Ft

Figure 1 - The graph of the overburden stress in the sandstone formation in well X

MDT Results
Gas Gas 2 Water Linear (Gas 2)

6,100

6,000

5,900
y = 0.0842x + 4947.1
R2 = 0.9889
5,800
Formation Pressure, psi

5,700

5,600

5,500

5,400

5,300

5,200
9,800 9,900 10,000 10,100 10,200 10,300 10,400 10,500 10,600 10,700 10,800 10,900
Depth, ft

Figure 2 - The Graph of MDT data of well X

 Tekanan Reservoir Vs Depth

5835

5830

5825

5820
Pr, psi

5815

5810

5805

Prospective Zone
SAND ZONE
5800
10300 10320 10340 10360 10380 10400 10420 10440 10460 10480 10500
Depth, ft

Figure 3 - Reservoir Pressure for sandstone formations in well X

Data LOT and FIT, Lapangan-Y

LOT OR FIT

11500

11000

10500

10000

9500
LOT OR FIT, psi

9000

8500

8000

7500

7000

6500

6000

5500

5000
8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000

De pth. ft

Figure 4 - LOT and FIT data for field Y

 UCS

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000
UCS,psi

4000

3000

2000

1000

Prospective Zone
SAND ZONE
0
10300 10320 10340 10360 10380 10400 10420 10440 10460 10480 10500

DEPTH, ft

Figure 5 - UCS graph for each depth in well X

TWC VS UCS
LAB LOG Pow er Law Trendline

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000 0.6346
TWC

y = 33.898x
4000 2
R =1
3000

2000

1000

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
UCS

Figure 6 - The correlation between TWC and UCS for well X

 Formation Strength Vs Depth

35000

30000

25000
Formation Strength (U), psi

20000

15000

10000

5000

Prospective Zone
SAND ZONE
0
10300 10320 10340 10360 10380 10400 10420 10440 10460 10480 10500
Depth, ft

Figure 7 - The Formation Strength Graph of Well X

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
10300 10320 10340 10360 10380 10400 10420 10440 10460 10480 10500
CBHFP,psi

-1000

-2000

-3000

-4000

-5000

-6000

-7000

-8000

-9000

-10000

-11000
Depth, Ft

CBHFP Vs Depth Pr

Figure 8 - CBHFP vs Depth Graph of the Sandstone Formation in Well X

 Figure 9 - Vs vs Shmin zone 1

Figure 10 - Sand Control Results