An Integrated Geomechanical and
Passive Sand-Control Approach to
Minimizing Sanding Risk From Openhole
and Cased-and-Perforated Wells
Khalil Rahman, SPE, Abbas Khaksar, SPE, and Toby Kayes, SPE, Baker RDS
Summary
The source of sand production is the presence of disintegrated sand
grains caused by rock failure at the wellbore and/or perforation walls.
Decision for appropriate sand-control strategy requires engineering
analysis to evaluate timing and severity of sanding over the life of
field conditions. Optimizing well parameters such as well trajectory,
perforation orientation, and level of drawdown using geomechanical
principles can minimize and delay sand production.
This paper presents a geomechanical modeling approach that
integrates production history with information from drilling data,
well logs, and rock-mechanics tests. A gas field in south Asia with
11 wells and several years of production experience is used to dem-
onstrate this approach. Core-calibrated rock-strength-log profiles
are estimated throughout the reservoir depth for all existing wells.
A rock-failure criterion at the sandface is developed as a function of
in-situ stresses, rock strength, well trajectory, perforation orientation,
reservoir depletion, and drawdown. Sanding-evaluation results are
calibrated and verified with production data and evidence of sanding
in existing wells. Sand-free operating envelopes and sand evaluation
logs are then generated for all existing wells and planned infill wells
for the life of field conditions. Sand-prone zones and timing of sand-
ing are established as a function of depletion and drawdown for each
well, using production forecasts for the rest of field life. For new
infill wells, optimum well trajectories, selective perforation intervals,
and optimum perforation orientations are proposed to minimize and
delay sand production. Recompletion and using passive sand-control
methods including selective and orientated perforations are recom-
mended for a number of existing wells.
This paper is expected to provide well engineers with guide-
lines to understand the principles and overall workflow involved
in sand-production prediction and minimization of sand produc-
tion risk by optimizing well trajectory, perforation orientation, and
selective-perforation strategy.
Introduction
Mitigation of sand production is increasingly becoming an impor-
tant and challenging issue in the petroleum industry as ever-increas-
ing demands for oil and gas resources are forcing the industry to
expand its exploration and production operations in more-challeng-
ing, unconsolidated reservoir rocks and depleted sandstones with
more-complex well-completion architecture. A sand-production
prediction study is now an integral part of an overall field-develop-
ment planning study to see whether and when sand production will
be an issue over the life of the field and, depending on its timing
and severity, what type of sand-control measures and sand-man-
agement strategy will be cost effective for the field.
The source for sand production is the presence of disintegrated
sand grains around the wellbore or perforation walls. The source for
disintegrated sand grains may be the unconsolidated reservoir sands
Copyright 2010 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 116633) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 2124 September 2008, and revised for publication.
Original manuscript received for review 07 July 2008. Revised manuscript received 30 June
09. Paper peer approved 27 October 2009.
June 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion
or rock failure around the borehole or the perforation. While uncon-
solidated reservoir sands often call for sand-control measures from
the beginning of the production phase, the sand-production predic-
tion study provides much benefit for reservoirs having sandstones of
weak-to-intermediate strengths. Rock failure in such reservoirs may
be minimized by controlling the well trajectory, perforation orienta-
tion, perforation intervals, and drawdown by knowing the in-situ
stresses and rock strength in the field. While standard methods are
available for in-situ-stress and rock-strength characterization, the
solution over the field life becomes complex because of the change
of reservoir pressure and its effect on rock failure.
This paper presents a general rock-failure criterion as a function
of far-field stresses, rock strength, reservoir pressure, drawdown, and
wellbore/perforation trajectory. Characterization of far-field stresses
and rock strength and their calibration by field experience are dis-
cussed. The model is applied to 11 existing producing wells in a gas
field in south Asia to predict the timing and severity of sand production,
and it will be used by the operator to plan appropriate sand-control
strategy including recompletion of some of the wells and controlled
production in other wells. The model is also applied to plan a number
of infill wells to optimize well trajectory, perforation orientation, per-
foration intervals, and drawdown to avoid and delay sand failure and
hence to minimize sand production over the life of the field.
A General Sand-Failure Criterion
Sand grains around an arbitrarily oriented borehole or a perforation
are assumed to disintegrate by shear failure when the maximum
effective tangential compressive stress, maxe, exceeds the effective
strength of the formation, U,
max e
max e U or = LF 1 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
U
where LF is called load factor. The maximum effective tangential
compressive stress, max e is calculated as max Pw in which Pw is
the wellbore pressure during production, which is usually known as
the bottomhole flowing pressure (BHFP), and is Biots constant.
During production from a permeable formation, the near-well pore
pressure is equal to Pw , and, hence, the effective stress is calcu-
lated by subtracting Pw. The compressive stress on an arbitrarily
oriented wellbore/perforation that is likely to cause sand failure is
the maximum principal stress, 1 (defined in Eq. 2). The location of
this failure is on the hole circumference where 1 has its maximum
value, max. This value (max) is found by solving the following
equation for 1 varying values of with a small interval from 0 to
180 ( is defined counterclockwise positive from the H direction
in a vertical hole and from the top in an inclined hole):
1
( + z ) + ( z ) + 4 2z , . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
2
1 =
2
where
(
= x + y 2 x y cos 2) , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
{Pw + A( Pr Pw )} 4 xy sin 2
155
 ( )
z = z 2 x y cos 2 A( Pr Pw ) 4 xy sin 2 , U = b f 1.55 TWC , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (15)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4) where bf is the boost factor and TWC is TWC strength. The value of
the boost factor should be adjusted to match sand-failure evidence
( )
z = 2 xz sin + yz cos , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(5) in a well under certain drawdown conditions during production
tests or actual production in a field. In the absence of any such
data, a conservative default value of 2 is often used for bf , which
x = ( H cos 2 + h sin 2 ) cos 2 + v sin 2 , . . . . . . . . . . (6) is usually the source for U = 3.1 TWC strength in many refer-
ences for cased-and-perforated wells (Willson et al. 2002). For an
openhole completion, a slightly more conservative boost factor of
1.6 is usually recommended.
y = H sin 2 + h cos 2 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
For openhole completions, Eq. 1 is directly applicable to
calculate LF (i.e., max e/U) for a given drawdown or BHFP (Pw)
at a certain depth using the wells inclination and azimuth. For
z = ( H cos 2 + h sin 2 ) sin 2 + v cos 2 , . . . . . . . . . . (8) cased-and-perforated completions, the inclination of perforations
from a deviated, or a vertical, well can be defined by the following
equation as a function of well trajectory (, ):
yz = 0.5 ( H h ) sin 2 sin , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)

perf = 90 cos perf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (16)

xz = 0.5 ( H cos 2 + h sin 2 v ) sin 2 , . . . . . . . . . . . . (10)
For a horizontal well ( = 90),

xy = 0.5 ( H h ) sin 2 cos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)

perf = perf , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (17)
In Eqs. 6 through 11, v, H, and h are the vertical, maximum
horizontal, and minimum horizontal in-situ stresses, respectively; in which perf is the perforation orientation in degrees from the top of
is the hole inclination with respect to the vertical; and is the the wellbore in deviated wells. The value of perf is positive clockwise
angle between the hole direction (projection on plane) and H and negative counterclockwise from the top of the well. For a devi-
direction (counterclockwise positive from H direction). In Eqs. 3 ated well, the perforation azimuth can be calculated as follows:
and 4, Pr is the far-field reservoir pressure, and A is a poroelastic
constant given by:
perf = Waz + 90 sin perf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18)
(1 2 )
A= , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (12)
(1 ) For a vertical well ( = 0), the perforation azimuth is defined as
in which is Poissons ratio and is Biots constant. Biots con-
stant is defined as follows: perf = haz + perf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (19)

= 1 Cr Cb , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13) For a horizontal well ( = 90), the perforation azimuth is defined

as
where Cr and Cb are the grain and bulk compressibilities, respec-
tively. perf =0 ; if perf = 0
The borehole direction (well azimuth, Waz, in degrees) and the
minimum-horizontal-stress direction (haz in degrees) are defined = Waz 90 ; if perf < 0 , . . . . . . . . . . . . (20)
clockwise positive from the north direction. The well deviation, , = Waz + 90 ; iff perf > 0
(in degrees) then can be related as

= 0,if = 0; = haz + 90 Waz ,otherwise. . . . . . . . . . . . (14) where perf is the perforation azimuth in degrees. Having the perfo-
ration azimuth defined by using the appropriate equations among
Eqs. 18 through 20, the other perforation-trajectory parameter,
The effective formation strength, U, in Eq. 1 is not measured perf , can be calculated as follows:
directly in the laboratory. In relation to sanding study, the so-called
thick-wall-cylinder (TWC) strength is measured in the laboratory.
The standard dimensions for TWC samples used are usually 1-in. perf =0 ; if perf = 0
outside diameter (OD) -in. inside diameter (ID) 3-in. length. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (21)
The standard OD/ID ratio = 3 for samples does not replicate the = haz + 90 perf ;otherwise
hole collapse under the in-situ condition where the OD/ID ratio
tends to be infinity. By varying the sample OD/ID ratio in a series
Sand failure at a particular perforation can be assessed using Eq.
of TWC tests, it has been established that in-situ TWC strength is
1 by replacing and with perf and perf , respectively. The critical
approximately 1.55 times the laboratory measured TWC strength
BHFP (CBHFP) or critical drawdown (CDD) (CDD = Pr CBHFP)
with the standard sample dimensions (Willson et al. 2002). Thus,
can be calculated by numerically solving Eq. 1 with LF = 1.
theoretically, the effective formation strength, U, could be equated
The effect of reservoir-pressure decline caused by production
to 1.55 TWC strength. However, because of the conservative
can be accounted for in the preceding computation by updating the
nature of the linear elastic theory on which the preceding equa-
in-situ stresses. For a laterally large reservoir compared to its thick-
tions are based, the satisfaction of Eq. 1 with a value of U = 1.55
ness, the change in vertical stress, v , is considered negligible, and
TWC strength does not necessarily cause instant sand failure of a
therefore it is usually kept constant. The maximum and minimum
significant volume caused by residual strength of the failed rock
horizontal stresses are updated as follows, respectively:
and arching effects after initial rock failure. This effect is usu-
ally taken into account pragmatically by boosting the formation
strength further, as follows: H = H + H P , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (22)

156 June 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion

 Drilling and Production Data Core Data Well Logs
mud weights/ECD, PWD, survey, Routine &SCAL Caliper, GR, Rhob, Sonic,
drilling history and events, LOT/XLOT, UCS, TWC,, PSD, thin section, image, dipmeter, MWD/ LWD
RFT/MDT, DST, production info SEM, XRD dispersion, chemical

Geolo. Geophys. and Petrophy.

Geomechanical Model Seismic, Tectonic history,
sediment., analogs, etc.
stress magnitudes and orientation,
Validate the model pore pressure and rock strength
with drilling
experience and hole data

Sanding Evaluation

Sanding Evaluation Log Perforation Optimization Operating Envelope

Fig. 1Sanding-evaluation workflow.

h = h + H P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (23)
In Eqs. 22 and 23,
1 2
H = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (24)
1 logs (for borehole breakouts). Anisotropy of shear-wave velocity
and
P = Pc Pi , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (25)
where Pc is the current reservoir pressure and Pi is the initial res-
ervoir pressure. While using updated H and h stresses in Eqs. 1
through 11, it is also important to use current reservoir pressure
Pc in place of Pr. In Eq. 24, H is defined as the stress-path factor
expressing the change of horizontal stresses with reservoir-pressure
variations in a passive and normal-faulting stress regime. Different
equations have been suggested for the determination of stress-path
factors in other stress regimes and tectonically active areas (Addis
1997). Nevertheless, published literature and the worldwide data
set indicate a range of 0.50.9 for the stress-path factor.
Sanding-Evaluation Workflow
The final application of Eq. 1 to assess sand failure requires an
extensive geomechanical workflow, presented in Fig. 1. The central
component is the geomechanical model that consists of the magni-
tudes of in-situ stresses, v, H, and h; direction of H or h stress
and magnitude of pore pressure, Pp; and rock mechanical properties
including rock strengths and elastic moduli. Zoback et al. (2003)
have provided a comprehensive methodology for determination of
magnitudes and orientation of stresses in hydrocarbon reservoirs.
The magnitude of vertical stress is most preferably calculated
by integrating the density log (b) over the depth. In the absence of
a direct density log, a pseudodensity log can be created by using
other logs such as sonic or VSP. If no log is available, lithological
and regional information can be used to approximate v.
The magnitude of least principal stress (h in normal and strike/
slip-faulting stress regimes) is usually estimated from leakoff tests
(LOTs), extended LOTs (ELOTs), or minifrac tests. ELOTs/LOTs
are usually carried out as part of a drilling program. A minifrac test
is conducted with the particular objective to measure the minimum
horizontal stress in a field. It is a controlled fracturing of a well at
limited scale with detailed recording of injection-pressure data. While
determining h by interpreting LOT, ELOT, and minifrac data, screen-
ing out poor quality data is an important part of quality control. If
LOT, ELOT, or minifrac data are not available, h can be calculated
from the vertical stress by using Poissons relationship. This approach,
however, is not reliable in tectonically active areas. Use of regional
information and empirical models for the magnitude of least principal
stress is also useful where reliable field data are not available.
The orientation of horizontal stresses is best derived from
observation of borehole breakouts and drilling-induced tensile
fractures in high-resolution image logs and/or multiarm caliper
determined from fast and slow shear-wave-velocity data measured
by acoustic logs in cross-pole mode can also be used to derive
stress orientation. This is possible when the stress-induced veloc-
ity anisotropy can be distinguished from other sources of velocity
anisotropy, such as anisotropy caused by rock fabric, bedding and
lamination, and natural fractures. In the absence of high-resolution
image- and multiarm-caliper-log data or shear-wave-anisotropy
data, other sources of information for stress orientation include
recent tectonic activities in the area of interest and regional stress
data such as the world stress map (Reinecker et al. 2005).
There is no direct way to measure or determine the value of
maximum horizontal stress, H. However, it could be modeled fairly
accurately using linear elastic theory and rock-failure criteria for a
given borehole condition (e.g., presence or absence of hole break-
outs and/or induced tensile fractures observed in high-resolution
image logs and multiarm caliper logs). A systematic graphical tech-
nique known as the stress polygon method developed by Moos
and Zoback (1990) uses frictional equilibrium theory and borehole-
failure observation to estimate the magnitude of H consistent with
in-situ stresses, rock strength, mud weight, and pore pressure.
Rock-strength parameters, including unconfined compressive
strength, peak cohesion, and friction angle, are best determined from
triaxial tests on representative rock samples. Laboratory-derived
rock-strength values are then correlated with well logs to derive a
continuous strength profile as a function of depth. Published rock-
strength models (Chang et al. 2006; Khaksar et al. 2009) and analog
rock-strength data sets are often used for rock-strength profiling
where limited or no core rock-strength data are available.
Pore pressure is determined from direct measurements in perme-
able and reservoir zones (e.g., repeat formation tester and drillstem
test or other well tests). Using the modeled points as a basis, in-
situ stress profiles vs. depth are produced by using the effective-
stress-ratio principle.
Once the initial geomechanical model is built, the model is
validated, and revised if necessary, to support drilling experiences
and hole conditions at other depth sections in the study wells and
across the field. The final geomechanical model, the rock-strength
profile, and initial reservoir-pressure and pressure-decline data
(from the production plan) are used for sanding evaluation.
Sanding-evaluation results are expressed in terms of sand-
free operating envelope and sanding-evaluation- log plots. The
sand-free operating envelopes show a series of curves representing

June 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion 157

specific rock strengths at a given depth, whereas the sanding-
evaluation logs are depth plots for a production zone with known
rock-strength profile under a specific reservoir-pressure condition.
In sand-free operating envelopes the critical BHFPs are plotted
for a series of drawdown and depletion conditions, including the
current drawdown and the planned final abandonment pressures.
These form a family of curves separating the sand-free zone (no
sand) from the sand-prone zone (sanding). Where the BHFP and
reservoir pressure for any well flowing condition cross a rock-
strength curve, sand failure is predicted and the onset of sand
production is assumed from rocks with the specified strength.
In the sanding-evaluation log, the CDD depth profile is plot-
ted over the entire production zone for a given reservoir pressure.
Where the critical drawdown (Pr BHFP) is less than the planned
drawdown, sand failure is predicted and the onset of sand produc-
tion is assumed. Alternatively, a sanding-evaluation depth plot
known as the load-factor plot can be generated for any pair of
reservoir and drawdown pressures. A load-factor plot compares
the maximum effective borehole stress acting around a hole or
perforation to the effective formation strength U (Eq. 1). If LF is
less than 1, then the formation will not fail and sand will not be
produced. However, if LF > 1, the converse is true.
Sanding-evaluation logs and sand-free operating envelopes are
produced for a given reservoir pressure, well trajectory, and perfo-
ration orientation or openhole condition. These graphical outputs
clearly show the weak (sand-prone) intervals in the reservoir section
and the maximum drawdown that can be achieved in these intervals
without producing sand with the reservoir pressure at a particular pro-
duction stage. This information assists production engineers to make
strategic sand-management decisions, such as minimizing sanding
risk by optimizing well trajectories and perforation orientations,
planning for selective perforation from the beginning or shutting off
perforations in weak intervals at a certain stage of production, or
adapting the best active sand-control measures on the basis of the
severity and the likely timing of sanding in sand-prone intervals.
A Case Study: Application to Gas Field Y
The preceding sanding-evaluation methodology has been applied
to a gas field in the south Asia region. Because of the confiden-
tiality agreement, a hypothetical name Y is used for the gas field
in this paper. The field had been on production since 1999, and
9 gas producers were in operation at the time of this study (late
2006). These producers are: Y-2, -3, -7, -8, -11, -13, -16, -17, and
-18, which all have cased-and-perforated completions with no sand
control installed. The field production-history data have indicated a
very minor amount of sand production (i.e., only approximately 10
kg of sand was found in the production separator in late 2005). This
sand might have been produced during the initial beanup and/or
cleanup of perforation debris in the wells. The Y-12 well, which
was completed with an expandable sand screen (ESS) was shut
down in 2006 because of unexpected water production.
In 2003, an initial sanding-evaluation study was conducted for
the field using a limited data set. The initial sanding study indicated
that there was a moderate risk of sanding at the early stage of field
life and recommended a selective-perforation and controlled-beanup
strategy as the means of minimizing sanding risk under no- or limited-
pressure-depletion conditions. The field came to the hands of a new
operator in 2004, and additional data were acquired from the field
by drilling six new wells within the field and adjacent areas. A new
field-development plan came into play, and the field life was planned
to extend to 20292030. The initial reservoir pressure within the target
sandstones was approximately 3,100 psi, and the current reservoir
pressure (as of 2006) has decreased to 2,4002,700 psi as a result of
approximately 7 years of gas production. The final reservoir pressure
is expected to drop to 400700 psi. In light of the new field plan and
additional new well data including image and multiarm caliper logs,
ELOTs, core rock-strength data, and 7 years of production history in
the field, an augmented sanding study was conducted to
Update the geomechanical model (rock strength and in-situ
stresses) in the field for the overburden and reservoir rocks using
available data from the most recent wells.
158
Build a sand-failure prediction model using the updated geo-
mechanical model, verified and calibrated with production data.
Assess sanding risks for the specific reservoir sandstones in
existing wells over their producing life, with a more detailed review
when the flowing tubinghead pressure (FTHP) drops to 100 psi,
for which compression would be required.
Assess the risk of sand production for planned infill wells to
be drilled in the near future.
Building the Geomechanical Model. First, daily drilling reports
and end-of-well reports for all post-2004 wells were reviewed to
document drilling experiences and to extract relevant information
for building the geomechanical model (see Fig. 2 as an example;
there is discussion later on its use).
The vertical stress (v) was calculated from the integration of
density-log data in a well with the longest density-log coverage
among the study wells. The vertical-stress profile indicates a stress
gradient of approximately 1.01 psi/ft at 6,850 ft true vertical depth
subsea (TVDSS), which is the depth of the target reservoir sand-
stones. The values of least principal stress (or h in vertical hole)
were estimated from ELOTs conducted at the casing shoes in study
wells. Assessing the availability and quality of reported pressure/vol-
ume data in all study wells, 7 ELOTs from three wells were used
to constrain the magnitude of the least principal stress in the field
(see Fig. 3 as an example).
The pore-pressure (Pp or Pr) information was obtained from
direct measurements in the reservoir sections. Available image-log
data in two of the study wells were analyzed for stress-induced
borehole breakouts and tensile fractures. The hole condition over
the interval with image-log coverage was mostly in gauge with
sporadic overgauge sections in shale and sandstone intervals
(Fig. 4). No clear borehole elongation and/or tensile fractures
could be detected from image data in the reservoir and sections
immediately above the reservoir in both wells; therefore, the
azimuth of H could not be determined from image data in this
study. Analysis of four-arm caliper (dipmeter) data in two pre-
2004 vertical wells drilled in the nearby area indicates consis-
tent borehole elongation in northwest/southeast direction in the
overburden section at depths between 4,000 and 5,500 ft TVD,
which indicates a northeast/southwest direction for the azimuth of
maximum horizontal stress. The stress orientation inferred from
dipmeter data is consistent with the published regional stress data
(Reinecker et al. 2005).
Rock-Strength Data and Modeling. Multistage triaxial compres-
sive-strength tests were performed on ve sandstone samples from
the Y-11 core, one of which was from the reservoir interval of con-
cern. Individual samples were tested at different conning pres-
sures: 300, 1,000, 2,050, and 3,100 psi. As a sample is conned,
it structurally reinforces the sample so that the axial stress required
to cause failure increases in accordance with Mohr-Coulomb theory.
The multistage data from the ve samples were combined to pro-
vide a set of composite Mohr-Coulomb parameters for each sam-
ple. The unconned-compressive-strength (UCS) values derived
from the multistage tests scatter between approximately 2,300 and
3,660 psi, except for one sample from the nontarget reservoir with
a UCS value of 1,754 psi. During inspection of the Y-11 core, it
was found that this sample had been taken from a highly laminated
section of the reservoir, and therefore, the test results may not
represent mechanical properties of the entire reservoir sandstones
in the study area.
As discussed earlier, TWC rock strength is necessary for
sanding evaluation. TWC tests were conducted on 13 horizontal
plugs from the Y-11 well. The measured TWC values ranged
between 1,450 and 5,300 and between 2,200 and 5,770 psi for
internal failure initiation and external wall catastrophic failure,
respectively. Typically, there is a distinction between internal and
external wall failures. The external wall catastrophic-failure pres-
sure corresponds to the perforation-failure condition that could
cause continuous and possibly catastrophic sand production. The
internal-wall-failure pressures normally correspond to the onset
of transient sanding, which is often assumed to be manageable.
June 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion
 Mud Weight (ppg)
Drilling and Logging Experiences
7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0
0 Tight Hole
0
26 in.
Ream
26 in. 200
200 Formation
Seawater with HVIS Sweep Overpull/Drag/Torque
400 185/ 8 in.
400 Losses
185/ 8 in. 600 Pipe/Tool Stuck
600
800
800
KCL/PHPA
133/ 8 in.
1000
1000
133/ 8 in.
1200
1200
Mud W eight 1400
1400
Measured Depth [MD, m]

Formations 1600
1600

Depth [RTD, m]
Casing Shoes 1800
1800
Formation 2000
2000
2200
2200
2400 95/ 8 in.
2400
2600 7 in.
2600
2800
2800
95/ 8 in.
LTSBM
3000
3000
7 in. 3200
3200
3400
3400
3600
3600
TD 3933 m MD 3800
3800
12900 ft MD
4000
4000

Fig. 2Mud weight and drilling experiences in Well Y-16.

Similar to the multistage triaxial test results, the TWC-test results
indicate intermediate rock strengths that are reasonable, consider-
ing the age and depth of the target sandstones in the field.
TWC and multistage triaxial test results along with well-log
data in a cored well were used to derive empirical relationships
for UCS and TWC rock strength for reservoir sandstones in the
Y field. The results are shown in Figs. 5 and 6, for UCS and
TWC relationships, respectively. The UCS values derived from
multistage triaxial tests correlate well with corresponding sonic
travel times (Dtc) from the sonic log. A similar strong correlation

Fig. 3Interpretation of ELOT in Y-8 well (13 38-in. casing shoe) to determine least principal stress (3 or hmin).

June 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion 159

 in-gauge, good quality image in shales
GR

Callipers in-gauge, good quality image in sands

Over-gauge
hole (washed
out), but no
clear borehole
elongation
(breakout) can
be detected

in-gauge, good quality image in sands

Fig. 4Example of image-log data in a post-2004 well showing good hole quality. Caliper logs indicate overgauge hole condi-
tion at 7,335- and 7,350-ft intervals, but no clear breakout can be detected in image data.

between UCS and sonic log data has been reported for other rocks
(McNally 1987; Horsrud 2001). The UCS/Dtc correlation for the
target sandstones is in the form of
UCS = 40, 847 exp(0.0268 Dtc ) , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (26)
where bc is bulk density in g/cm3 from corrected density log. The
TWC/M correlation for the target sandstones is in the form of
TWC = 10 8 M 1.77 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (28)

where UCS is in psi and Dtc is sonic transit time in s/ft.
A very good correlation was also found between the core-
measured TWC strength and log-derived dynamic compressional
modulus (M). The dynamic compressional modulus (M) is defined
by the following:
bc
M = 1.34 1010 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (27)
Dtc2
where TWC is in psi and M is dynamic compressional modulus also
in psi. Similar strong correlation between TWC and dynamic com-
pressional modulus has been reported for other rocks (McPhee et al.
2000).
No laboratory strength tests were conducted on the interres-
ervoir and overburden shales. The following empirical equation
developed for tertiary shales in the North Sea by Horsrud (2001)
was used for the shale sections in the study area:

(b)
0.0268x
(a) y = 40847e
UCS vs Dtc (sonic log) 2
R = 0.7565
4500
4000

3500

3000
UCS (psi)

2500

2000
1500 UCS
1000 Expon. (UCS)
500
0
85 90 95 100 105
Dtc (us/ft)

Fig. 5Core-log calibration and UCS profile in Y field based on core and log data in Y-11 well: (a) UCS calibration and (b) log-
derived UCS profile.

160 June 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion

 (b) TWC (psi)
0 4000 8000 12000 16000
7850

7900

(a)
7950
7,000
Log-derived
1.77 Core data
6,000 TWC = 1E-08 M
R = 0.85 8000
Core TWC (psi)

5,000

4,000

MD (ft)
8050
3,000

2,000

8100
1,000

0
2.E+06 3.E+06 3.E+06 4.E+06 4.E+06 5.E+06 5.E+06
8150
Dynamic Compressional Modulus (psi)

8200

8250

Fig. 6Core-log calibration and TWC profile in Y field based on core and log data in Y-11 well: (a) TWC calibration and (b) log-
derived TWC profile.

2.93 above stress and pressure model corresponds to preproduction con-

304.87
UCS = 111.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (29) ditions. The initial reservoir pressure within the target sandstone
Dtc reservoirs at 6,850 ft TVDSS was approximately 3,100 psi (i.e., a
hydrostatic-pressure gradient). The reservoir pressure at the time of
These empirical core-log rock-strength equations derived from
the Y-11 well were used to create a continuous rock-strength profile
in the target sands of all study wells. Figs. 5 and 6 display the log- Pressure and Stress Profile
derived UCS and TWC profiles, respectively, for reservoir layers 0
in the Y-11 well. The UCS profile for the target sand interval in v
Y-11 indicates a UCS ranging from 3,050 psi (P10) to 4,500 psi Pp hydrostatic
(P95) with an average (P50) of 3,570 psi, indicating intermediate 1000 Pp Y 7
rock strength. Pp Y 11
Log-derived TWC rock-strength profiles in target sands of Pp Y 16
Pp YN 1
study wells indicate the following: 2000
Pp YNE 1
P10 TWC-strength range between 3,270 (in Y-2) and 3,870 MW Y 7
psi (in Y-13) MW YNE1
P50 TWC-strength range between 3,350 (Y-8) and 4,820 psi 3000 Reported FIT/LOT
(Y-13) QC'd LOT-XLOT
P90 TWC-strength range between 5,200 (Y-17) and 10,100 h
TVD (ft ss)

psi (Y-13) H Y 11
4000
The magnitude of maximum horizontal stress (H) was con- H
strained by modeling the stress and pressure conditions with the Tops Y 7
Casings Y 7
rock strengths (UCS) that are consistent with drilling experiences
5000
and wellbore failures (or lack of failure) inferred from image-log
and caliper data in the Y-11 well. For example, if a tight spot was
experienced at a certain depth (Fig. 2) and a breakout could be
identified from caliper and image logs (Fig. 4) at the same depth, 6000
then the accurate value of H at this depth would be able to simulate
the hole breakout in conjunction with other stresses, pore pressure,
rock strength, and mud weight used during drilling at this depth. 7000
Fig. 7 shows the resultant stress and pressure profile in the Y
field. According to the generated geomechanical model, the field is
associated with a normal-faulting stress regime, h < H < Sv. The 8000
magnitude of the stresses and pore pressure in the target reservoirs 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
at approximately 6,850 ft TVDSS are v gradient (psi/ft) 1.01 Pressure and Stress (psi)
0.005; H gradient (psi/ft) 0.83 0.02; h gradient (psi/ft) 0.79
0.02; and original Pr, or Pp, gradient (psi/ft) 0.45 0.02. The Fig. 7Stress and pressure profile for Y field.

June 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion 161

 (a) TWC (psi)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
8098
8106
8114
8122
(b)
8130
8138
8146
Measured Depth (ft)
Percentile
8154
8162
8170 Not perforated
8178
8186
8194
8202
Not perforated
8210
8218
8226
Fig. 8Calibrated log-derived TWC profile using data from Y-11 well (a) TWC-strength profile, (b) TWC-strength percentiles.
this study (end 2006) in the target reservoirs decreased, as a result
of several years of gas production, with the depletion rate varying
between 50 to 150 psi/yr.
Sanding Evaluation. The values of characterized geomechanical
parameters (magnitudes and orientations of in-situ stresses, pore
pressure, and TWC strength) were used as input for sand-produc-
tion prediction in the Y eld. The operator provided the initial
reservoir pressure and the production history and forecasts. The
planned abandonment reservoir pressure was considered to be
approximately 400700 psi. The depletion rates were reported
to be approximately 50150 psi/yr since the start of production
in 1999. A Biots constant of 1.0 and Poissons ratio of 0.25 are
assumed for effective-stress and depletion calculations.
In the Y field, there was no evidence of sanding from the
producing wells since the beginning of production in 1999. All
wells had been completed with standard casing and perforations
without sand control with the exception of the Y-12 well. Y-12
was completed with an openhole ESS in 2004. Following water
breakthrough in 2006, the well had been shut in. Using the default
values of boost factor (Eq. 15), reservoir pressure, and drawdown
conditions that were being used during production in 2006, model
predictions matched field observations of no sanding in all cased-
and-perforated study wells but predicted sand production in Y-12
before water breakthrough. However, the sand-production predic-
tion for Y-12 well could not be verified by field data because the
Y-12 well had downhole sand exclusion and hence sand could not
be seen at the surface even if it was produced. It therefore seemed
reasonable to continue the sanding modeling over the life of the
field conditions assuming the default values for boost factor as
2.0 for cased-and-perforated completions, and 1.6 for openhole
completions which are considered to be conservative.
To limit the size of this paper, sanding evaluations for the Y-11
(vertical), Y-12 (deviated openhole), Y-16 (highly deviated), and Y-7
(deviated) wells will be discussed here, whereas the findings for
162
Perforated Zones only
100
P95 TWC ~ 7050 psi
80
60
P50 TWC ~ 4730 psi
40
20
P10 TWC ~ 3560 psi
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
TWC (psi)
other wells will be summarized briefly. The procedure for sanding
evaluation for each well is as follows:
Construct a continuous TWC rock-strength profile and TWC-
strength percentile curve along the completed section for each well
using the developed TWC/M relation (Eq. 28) derived from the
Y-11 core-log calibration.
Verify model prediction against the no-sand observation under
the reservoir-pressure and drawdown conditions as of 2006.
Establish the best and worst perforation orientations for sand
production.
Assess the sanding risk for each well with the best and worst
perforation orientations for life of well conditions, from current
reservoir pressure to the designated abandonment pressures, using
sand-free envelope plots.
Identify the sand-prone zones in the entire perforated section
for the worst perforation orientation.
Generate sanding-evaluation logs for reservoir-and draw-
down-pressure conditions when the FTHP drops to 100 psi as a
special case of interest.
Y-11 Well. This well was drilled in 2004, was completed with
standard perforations, and began gas production in August 2004
with an initial reservoir pressure of approximately 2,900 psi. The
well was producing sand free with a pressure depletion of approxi-
mately 250 psi and drawdown pressure of 200 psi as of August
2006. The log-derived TWC rock-strength profile and percentile
curve over the perforated zones (Figs. 8a and 8b, respectively)
indicate that TWC values range between 3,560 (P10) and 7,050 psi
(P95) with an average of 4,730 psi (P50). Fig. 9 shows the produc-
tion history and forecasts for the well. The well is nearly vertical
at the depth of the sandstone (8,1008,226 ft measured depth).
Note that perforation optimization is not necessary for this
well because it is known that the H direction is the worst and h
direction is the best for perforations in terms of sand production
from a vertical well subject to a normal-faulting stress regime. This
is because the perforations along the H direction become subject
June 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion
 Y-11 WELL PERFORMANCE
485 MM 1100 psi WHP, 500 psi WHP, and 100 psi WHP
Block P, FTHP, FBHP, SBHP, Qwtr, Qcond
4000
3000
2000
1000
0 0
Jan-99 Jan-09 Jan-19
Fig. 9Production history and forecast for Y-11 well.
to the highest deviatoric stress (v h) that is orthogonal to the
perforation axis. This causes the maximum principal stress, and
hence the highest sanding risk. The reverse is true for perforations
oriented along h. Fig. 10 shows a CDD log plot (sanding-evalu-
ation depth profile) with the worst and best perforation directions
under the reservoir- and drawdown-pressure conditions in August
2006 (brown dashed vertical line shows the drawdown). This
figure indicates that the entire perforated interval should have
remained sand free. This prediction is consistent with no-sanding
observation in this well as of August 2006. Also, it is interesting
to note the wisdom behind the decision not to perforate the two
weak intervals (shaded blue in the plot). Had these two weak
intervals been perforated, sand might have been produced before
2006. Fig. 11 shows the modeled CDD pressure in the Y-11 well
in October 2016 when the FTHP drops to 100 psi with a reservoir
pressure of approximately 1,300 psi (i.e., approximately 1,600-psi
pressure depletion), which indicates that sanding is expected from
approximately 40% of the production zone.
Fig. 12 is a sand-free envelope plot for the Y-11 well for both
the best and the worst perforation directions with a series of TWC
rock strengths from 3,500 to 5,000 psi. This plot indicates that
the well should produce completely sand free until the reservoir
Well Sanding Evaluation Log
Fig. 11CDD log for Y-11 with FTHP = 100 psi condition.
June 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion
100
80
Gas Rate, MMCFD
60
MD (ft)
40
20
Jan-29
Critical Drawdown
Fig. 10CDD log for Y-11 well with reservoir pressure and
depletion in 2006.
pressure drops to approximately 2,4002,500 psi (i.e., approxi-
mately December 2008 through January 2009 according to Y-11
production plan; see Fig. 9). At this reservoir pressure, very minor
sanding would be expected from perforations along worst direc-
tions only because rocks with a TWC strength of approximately
3,500 psi or lower (approximately P10) will be sand prone. For
a given rock strength, perforations parallel to h (i.e., northwest/
southeast orientation) would be more stable and allow an additional
approximately 200-psi pressure depletion before sanding. Approxi-
mately 50% of the perforated zone is expected to produce sand
at the final reservoir pressure because rocks with TWC strength
< 5,000 psi will fail. Sand production is likely to be exacerbated
with water production (from January 2018 onward). The effect
BHP (psi)
Reservoir Pressure (psi)
Fig. 12Sand-free operating envelope for Y-11.
163
 Y-13 WELL PERFORMANCE
485 MM 1100 psi WHP, 500 psi WHP, and 100 psi WHP
4000
Block P, FTHP, FBHP, SBHP, Qwtr, Qcond
3000
2000
1000
0 0
Jan-99 Jan-09
Fig. 13Production history for Y-12 well.
of water production on sanding severity is not considered in this
paper. Water production may exacerbate sand production because
of chemical reactions between water and sand and changes of
capillary forces leading to cohesive-strength reduction (Han and
Dusseault 2002). The effect of capillary-force alteration is usually
incorporated in the elastoplastic modeling approach (Hawkes and
McLellan, 1996).
Y-12 Well. This well was drilled and brought on production in
2004 from a secondary target above the main sands. It is a highly
deviated well with deviation and azimuth of 74 and 63, respec-
tively, through the reservoir target at 15,40016,000 ft measured
depth. The well was shut in 2006 because of water production (Fig.
13). The values of log-derived TWC strength in the production
interval vary between 3,070 psi (P10) and 6,730 psi (P95), with
an average of 3,960 psi (P50).
To establish the optimum well trajectory for openhole comple-
tion in the field, a sanding polar plot showing critical BHFP is
created (Fig. 14) at 6,800 ft TVDSS with the initial reservoir
pressure and TWC strength = 3,070 psi (P10). Y-12 well trajectory
is shown by the green triangle on the polar plot. This plot shows
that a vertical (at the center of polar plot) or a near-vertical well
would have been the optimum well trajectory for openhole comple-
tion from a sanding point of view, giving approximately 1,200-psi
CBHFP (i.e., approximately 1,800 psi CDD) at the beginning of
production. However, the well may have been drilled with the
chosen trajectory for other reasons, and consequently, it is almost
Fig. 15Sand-free operating envelope for openhole Y-12.
164
100
90
80
70
Gas Rate, MMCFD
60
50
40
30
20
10
Jan-19 Jan-29
Fig. 14Openhole sanding polar plot for Y-12.
a horizontal well approximately perpendicular to the minimum
horizontal stress. Thus, the well has been subject to the maximum
deviatoric stress and hence almost the maximum sanding risk in
the prevailing stress field. The initial CBHFP for Y-12 well trajec-
tory is approximately 3,700 psi. Noting that the initial reservoir
pressure is approximately 3,000 psi, no sand-free drawdown would
exist for the openhole-completed Y-12 well even at the beginning
of production. This is also confirmed by the sand-free envelope
plot (Fig. 15) for TWC-strength values between 3,500 and 4,000
psi. Sand production could be expected from intervals with rock
strength less than 3,750 psi with 240-psi pressure depletion and a
400-psi drawdown (these conditions existed before water break-
through in 2006). Therefore, nearly 40% of the production zone
should have been producing sand at the time of water production.
Sand production should have been exacerbated by water produc-
tion. Nevertheless, this prediction could not be verified from the
field observation data because this well had downhole sand control
(ESS). It is highly likely that though the bottomhole sand failed
from the beginning, it had not been detected at the surface because
of the presence of an ESS.
Y-16 Well. This well was drilled and gas production started in
July 2004 with an initial reservoir pressure of approximately 2,900
psi. The well was producing sand free with a pressure depletion
of approximately 250 psi and drawdown pressure of 200 psi as of
January 2006. The well is deviated 5759 with a hole azimuth of
approximately 190 at the target sand depth (12,060 12,180 ft mea-
sured depth). The log-derived TWC rock strength profile over the
perforated zones indicated that TWC values range between 3,600
(P10) and 5,450 psi (P95), with an average of 4,350 psi (P50).
Fig. 16 shows the effect of perforation orientation on sanding
risk for the Y-16 well trajectory for a rock with TWC strength of
3,500 psi at 6,650 ft TVDSS under different reservoir-pressure
conditions starting from 2,860 psi. This is indicated by plotting
the CDD pressure vs. perforation angle measured clockwise (posi-
tive angle) and counterclockwise (negative angle) from the top of
the hole. Fig. 16 indicates that all perforation orientations should
be stable (sand free) under zero and 500-psi pressure depletion,
but at 1,000-psi pressure depletion, perforations with a direction
angle between 70 and 60 will remain stable with the planned
200-psi drawdown. With further depletion, the risk of sanding
will increase; for example, with 2,000-psi pressure depletion only
perforations with a 30 and a 10 angle from top will be stable.
The worst perforation direction (highest sanding risk) will be the
perforations at the side of the well. Fig. 17 is the load factor (LF)
vs. depth plot for perforations along the worst direction under res-
ervoir-pressure and drawdown conditions as of January 2006. The
LF value less than unity (LF < 1) over the entire production zone
indicates sand-free production. This is consistent with no-sanding
observation in the well as of January 2006.
June 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion
 3500
3000
2500
Critical Drawdown (psi)
2000
1500
1000
500
0
90 75 60 45 30 15 0 15 30
Perforation Orientation (deg)
Fig. 16Perforation optimization for Y-16 well.
Fig. 18 is the sand-free envelope plot for this well with hori-
zontal perforations located on the sides of the hole (worst orienta-
tions) and for perforations located near to the top and bottom of
the hole (best orientations) for a series of TWC rock strengths
from 3,500 to 5,000 psi. For horizontal perforations located at the
wellbore sides, no sanding would be expected until the reservoir
pressure drops to approximately 2,200 psi (approximately January
2010). At this time, minor sand production may occur from these
side perforations in rocks with a TWC strength less than 3,500
psi (approximately P05). In January 2015, when the FTHP drops
to 100 psi (with predicted reservoir pressure of 1,340 psi), sand-
ing would be expected from approximately 40% of the horizontal
perforations. In contrast, no sanding is expected from perforations
at the top and bottom of the holes even at the final reservoir pres-
sure (Pr 400 psi), while at this pressure, approximately 90% of
the side perforations are expected to produce sand.
Fig. 18Sand-free operating envelope for Y-16 well.
June 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion
Depl.=0 psi
Depl.=500 psi
Depl.=1000 psi
Depl.=2000 psi
45 60 75 90
Fig. 17Load-factor log for Y-16 well with January 2006 condi-
tions.
Y-7 Well. This well had been producing sand free since May 2004
from an initial reservoir pressure of approximately 2,900 psi. In Janu-
ary 2006, depletion and drawdown pressures were approximately
250 and 200 psi, respectively. The log-derived TWC rock-strength
profile over the perforated zones indicates that TWC-strength values
range between 3,300 (P10) and 5,800 psi (P95), with an average of
4,100 psi (P50).
Fig. 19 shows the effect of perforation orientation on sanding
risk with the well trajectory at 6,500 ft TVDSS for rocks with a
TWC strength of 4,100 psi (P50) as function of reservoir pressure.
The well deviation and azimuth at this depth are 24 and 64,
respectively. Perforations orientated at 2530 from top and bottom
of the hole are the most stable. All perforations will be unstable at
the final reservoir pressure, 550 psi. For a given reservoir pressure,
these perforations would have a critical drawdown approximately
150 psi greater than those located on the side of the wellbore
(worst perforation direction). This relatively small difference for
the CDDs between the worst and best perforation orientations is
because of the low deviation angle for this well. A comparison of
the perforation-optimization plots for Y-7 (Fig. 19) and Y-16 (Fig. 16)
Fig. 19Perforation optimization for Y-7 well.
165

Fig. 20Load-factor plots for Y-7 well as of January 2016.
indicates that the higher the hole deviation angle, the greater the
difference between the CDDs for the best and the worst perfora-
tion orientations.
Fig. 20 shows LF vs. depth plots for perforations at sides and top
and bottom of the hole under the reservoir-pressure and drawdown
conditions as of January 2006, indicating sand-free production for
the perforated zone (LF < 1). This is consistent with observation
of no sand in this well. The sand-prone zones (e.g., 7,0007,030 ft
and 7,0657,200 ft) were not perforated following a selective per-
foration strategy. The results in Fig. 20 supports the wisdom of the
selective-perforation strategy (i.e., LF >1 in these intervals implies
that they would have produced sand if they were perforated).
The sand-free envelope plot for the best (top and bottom) and
worst (side) perforation orientations for a series of rock strengths
from 3,000 to 5,000 psi revealed that no sanding from side per-
forations would be expected until the reservoir pressure drops to
approximately 2,350 psi (approximately mid-year 2008) when
minor sand production may occur in rocks with a TWC strength
less than approximately 3,300 psi (approximately P10). Sanding
would be expected from approximately 50% of the side and from
approximately 30% of the top and bottom perforations of the hole
when the FTHP drops to 100 psi in January 2014 (with predicted
reservoir pressure of 1,450 psi).
Conclusions
The paper has presented a methodology for sand-production pre-
diction from arbitrarily oriented wells with openhole and cased-
and-perforated completions.
The methodology has been applied to the Y field to assess
sanding risks in existing wells and to guide in minimizing sand-
ing risk in future infill wells. Sanding-evaluation results using the
predictive model presented in this paper matched the observations
in the Y field of no sanding as of year 2006. Sanding evaluations
were performed over the life of field conditions from current to
final (abandonment) reservoir pressures and at pressure conditions
corresponding to the decrease of FTHP to 100 psi during the well
life for all existing production wells.
Sanding evaluation indicates that the likelihood of sand pro-
duction in the Y field increases with further pressure depletion for
all existing wells. Therefore, some type of sand control would be
needed for producing wells in the area. With the planned BHFP
and depletion rates, modeling results indicated that some of the
wells may start very minor sanding as early as 2008 (e.g., Y-2,
-11, -17, and -18) from perforations along their respective worst
directions. Even this predicted minor sanding may be delayed
further because conservative boost factors have been used in the
model in the absence of credible data (e.g., sand-influx-test data)
for model calibration. At the time of this revision (mid-2009), no
sanding has been observed at the surface. This is generally consis-
tent with the model prediction; however, definitive conclusions still
could not be made because the reservoir-pressure and drawdown
data were not supplied for further analysis. Also, because of the
lack of sophisticated sand-detection tools in the wells, it was not
possible to be certain whether sand has started failing downhole.
Sand may be failing, but the solids produced are not being lifted
by the well fluids to the surface. So far, any production decline is
not attributed to the well filling with solids. Depending on well
trajectories, rock strength, and perforation orientations, sanding
would start later for other wells (e.g., Y-7, -13, -16). With the given
reservoir-pressure conditions and planned production conditions
for the field, the sanding risk in all producing wells in the Y field
can be summarized in Table 1.
The sanding evaluations summarized in Table 1 are for the
least-stable perforation orientations (i.e., perforations at the side
of the hole in deviated wells and parallel to the H azimuth in
vertical wells). The exact timing of sand production in existing
wells cannot be determined because of variations in rock-strength
profile and perforation orientation. The effect of water production
on sanding potential has not been accounted for in these analyses.
Water production may exacerbate sanding, particularly in weaker
rocks and rocks with reactive cementation. The effect of water
production on sanding is not considered in this study.
For the current reservoir and drawdown pressures, there are
possible well paths and perforation orientations that may be used
to delay the requirement and installation of sand control in new
production wells. For openhole (barefoot) completion, vertical
wells and deviated wells in the northwest/southeast direction (90
from the H azimuth) can produce sand free longer because these
deviated wells will be subject to the minimum deviatoric stress
(v H). For cased-and-perforated completions, deviated wells
with perforations near to the top and bottom of the hole can pro-
duce sand free longer. Perforation optimization in terms of critical
drawdown with two deviated well trajectories has shown that the
magnitude of difference in drawdowns between the best perfora-
tion orientation and the worst perforation orientation depends
significantly on the well trajectory. For higher pressure depletions
and/or higher flow rates (drawdowns), sanding would be expected

TABLE 1SUMMARY OF SANDING EVALUATION RESULTS FOR PRODUCING WELLS IN Y FIELD

Pr in psi When Percentage of Percentage of Onset of Water
Initial Current (late FTHP=100 psi Unstable Perfs When Final Pr Unstable Perfs Production
Well Pr (psi) 2006) Pr (psi) (date) FTHP=100 psi (%) (psi) at Final Pr (%) (year)

Y-2 3,120 2,570 1930 (July 2011) 35 700 60

Y-7 2,925 2,550 1450 (Jan. 2014) 45 690 75 Mid 2021
Y-8 3,100 2,560 1800 (Jan. 2012) 60 447 75 Mid 2017
Y-11 2,880 2,590 1600 (Jan. 2016) 40 750 50 Mid 2017
Y-13 2,980 2,720 1800 (Apr. 2013) 10 550 55 Mid 2006
Y-16 2,860 2,500 1340 (Jan. 2015) 60 400 90
Y-17 3,125 2,450 2000 (Jul. 2011) 40 525 90 Mid 2015
Y-18 3,120 2,490 1800 (Aug. 2011) 50 425 90

166 June 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion

for all wells in the Y field. Therefore, some type of sand control
would be needed for new production wells in the field.
The optimum sand-control mechanism for existing and future
wells in the Y field could vary from well to well, depending on
rock-strength profile, timing of water production, well trajectory,
and production plan. A combination of passive (such as recomple-
tion for selective and oriented perforation) and active sand control
is currently under investigation for the existing wells.
Although the sanding-evaluation results with the default boost
factors are consistent with the no-sanding observation in existing
wells, model predictions could be improved further with the results
of beanup trials and observation of sanding from any of the study
wells. Results from such a model that is calibrated by beanup trials
should help decide the timing of sand-control installation.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the contribution of Richard McNaught,
senior software engineer, Helix RDS, for the development of com-
puter code and graphics outputs. Phil Taylor also deserves thanks
for internal peer review of this paper. Finally, two anonymous
reviewers deserve thanks for providing very constructive com-
ments to address, which has raised the standard of this paper.
References
Addis, M.A. 1997. The Stress-Depletion Response of Reservoirs. Paper SPE
38720 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-
tion, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 58 October. doi: 10.2118/38720-MS.
Chang, C., Zoback, M.D., and Khaksar, A. 2006. Empirical relations
between rock strength and physical properties in sedimentary rocks.
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 51 (34): 223237. doi:
10.1016/j.petrol.2006.01.003.
Han, G. and Dusseault, M.B. 2002. A Quantitative Analysis of Mecha-
nisms for Water-Related Sand Production. Paper SPE 73737 pre-
sented at the International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation
Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 2021 February. doi:
10.2118/73737-MS.
Hawkes, C. and McLellan, P.J. 1996. Transient Poro-Elasto-Plastic Mod-
eling of Yielded Zone Enlargement Around an Unstable Wellbore.
Presented at the 2nd North American Rock Mechanics Symposium
(NARMS 96), Montreal, Quebec, 1921 June.
Horsrud, P. 2001. Estimating Mechanical Properties of Shale From Empiri-
cal Correlations. SPE Drill & Compl 16 (2): 6873. SPE-56017-PA.
doi: 10.2118/56017-PA.
Khaksar, A., Taylor, P.G., Fang, Z., Kayes, T., Salazar, A., and Rahman, K.
2009. Rock Strength from Core and Logs, Where We Stand and Ways to
Go. Paper SPE 121972 presented at the EUROPEC/EAGE Conference
and Exhibition, Amsterdam, 811 June. doi: 10.2118/121972-MS.
McNally, G.H. 1987. Estimation of coal measures rock strength using
sonic and neutron logs. Geoexploration 24 (45): 381395. doi:
10.1016/0016-7142(87)90008-1.
McPhee, C.A., Lemanczyk, Z.R., Helderle, P., Thatchaichawalit, D., and
Gongsakdi, N. 2000. Sand Management in Bongkot Field, Gulf of
Thailand: An Integrated Approach. Paper SPE 64467 presented at the
SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Brisbane,
Australia, 1618 October. doi: 10.2118/64467-MS.
Moos, D. and Zoback, M.D. 1990. Utilization of observations of well bore
failure to constrain the orientation and magnitude of crustal stresses:
Application to continental, deep sea drilling project, and ocean drilling
June 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion
program boreholes. J. Geophys. Res. 95 (B6): 93059325. doi: 10.1029/
JB095iB06p09305.
Reinecker, J., Heidbach, O., Tingay, M., Sperner, B., and Mller, B. 2005.
The World Stress Map Project, http://www.world-stress-map.org.
Willson, S.M., Moschovidis, Z.A., Cameron, J.R., and Palmer, I.D. 2002.
New Model for Predicting the Rate of Sand Production. Paper SPE
78168 presented at the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference, Irving,
Texas, USA, 2023 October. doi: 10.2118/78168-MS.
Zoback, M.D., Barton, C.A., Brudy, M., Castillo, D.A., Finkbeiner, T.,
Grollimund, B.R., Moss, D.B., Peska, P., Ward, C.D., and Wiprut,
D.J.. 2003. Determination of stress orientation and magnitude in deep
wells. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
40 (78): 10491076. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2003.07.001.
Khalil Rahman is a Principal Geomechanics Specialist with
Baker RDS. His teaching, research, and consulting career spans
over 22 years. In the past, he held senior lecturer positions at
the University of New South Wales and later at the University
of Western Australia, where he taught various petroleum engi-
neering courses, led curricula development in petroleum engi-
neering, and conducted research and consulting activities in
hydraulic fracturing optimization, wellbore-stability assessment,
and sand-production prediction areas. In his university and
industry positions, Rahman has completed numerous research
and consulting projects in petroleum geomechanics, published
65 peer-reviewed journal and conference papers, offered
industry short courses, and supported technology and soft-
ware development activities. He obtained his PhD degree from
the University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK, is an active mem-
ber of SPE, and serves various SPE committees. Abbas Khaksar
is a Principal Geomechanics Specialist with Baker RDS, with 19
years of industry and research-and-development experience in
petroleum rock mechanics, petrophysics, and exploration. He
has a BS in mining engineering from Tehran University (1989), and
an MS in petroleum geology and geophysics (1994), and a PhD
in rock physics (1998) from the University of Adelaide. Khaksar
has worked extensively in petroleum geomechanics, involved in
more than 100 projects in many areas of geomechanics. Before
joining RDS, he was with Geomechanics International (GMI)
(20002005) as a petrophysicist, geomechanics specialist, and
manager of consulting services in Asia Pacific. Khaksar was a
post-doctoral researcher at the University of Adelaide (1999
2000), working on pore-pressure prediction and CO2 sequestra-
tion. He is a short course instructor and has about 50 publica-
tions and conference presentations in reservoir geomechanics
and rock physics, and he is a member of SPE and FesAus. Toby
Kayes is a principal geomechanics specialist and a senior man-
ager with Baker RDS based in Kuala Lumpur. He has 16 years
of industry experience in all areas of petroleum geomechanics
including drilling optimization, wellbore stability, pore-pressure
prediction, stress sensitive reservoir modeling, hydraulic fractur-
ing, and sand management. This is based on sound soil and
rock mechanics experience Kayes gained as a civil engineer
working for Arup before joining the petroleum industry. He has
also worked as a wireline engineer, log analyst, research scien-
tist, and consultant for Schlumberger, specializing in petroleum
geomechanics. Kayes obtained his BE in civil engineering from
the University of Bristol and researched sand production physics
at the University of Cambridge with a Schlumberger Cambridge
Research award. He is a chartered petroleum engineer and
chartered European engineer. Kayes is a member of the SPE
committee for sand management, the external advisory board
for the Center of Integrated Petroleum Engineering and Geosci-
ence at the University of Leeds, and the Energy Institute.
167