V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-3-AH-119)

SAND CONTROL FOR HIGH PERMEABILITY-POROSITY SANDSTONES IN ECUADOR

Angel Hernández ─ BJ Services Company; Fabricio Serrano ─ AEC Ecuador

Summary
In the Ecuadorian northeast area, sand production has been associated with high porosity. Certain zones
where the M-1 Sandstone has porosity above 25 % have experienced a lot of sand production. High rate
gravel packs have been successful and more than 27 jobs have been successfully performed. As a rule
on new wells with porosity above 25% a gravel pack system is installed on the initial completion.

One important fact is the wellbore cleaning process. On the first jobs, several products were pumped to
avoid severe losses to the formation; but due to the high permeability and low reservoir pressure it was
not possible to control that. Therefore to minimize production impairment attributed by invasion of
contaminants into the gravel pack and formation, a well bore clean out procedure was implemented to
remove potentially damaging solids, including filtering all the water to 2 microns.

After the gravel pack, a phosphonic / HF acid treatment is pumped to both clean the gravel from any
debris coming on the pumping and placement process and stimulate the producing zone. This treatment
has shown excellent results on production and has diminished the effect of the additional restriction
created by the gravel pack.

Introduction
In the Ecuadorian northeast area, sand production has been associated with high porosity. Certain zones
where the M-1 Sandstone has porosity above 25 % have experienced a lot of sand production. High rate
gravel packs have been successful and more than 27 jobs have been successfully performed. As a rule
on new wells with porosity above 25% a gravel pack system is installed on the initial completion.

One important fact is the wellbore cleaning process. On the first jobs, several products were pumped to
avoid severe losses to the formation; but due to the high permeability and low reservoir pressure it was
not possible to control that. Therefore to minimize production impairment attributed by invasion of
contaminants into the gravel pack and formation, a well bore clean out procedure was implemented to
remove potentially damaging solids, including filtering all the water to 2 microns.

After the gravel pack, a phosphonic / HF acid treatment is pumped to both clean the gravel from any
debris coming on the pumping and placement process and stimulate the producing zone. This treatment
has shown excellent results on production and has diminished the effect of the additional restriction
created by the gravel pack.

Sand control for high permeability-porosity sandstones in Ecuador

At the moment, more than 27 High Rate Gravel Packs (HRGP) have been performed to control the sand
production in the Ecuadorian northeast area.

The designs include the use of a 20/40 gravel for an average sand particle diameter (D50) of 0.196 mm
obtained from sieve analysis of formation sand from cores as shown in Figures 1 and 2. The 20/40 size
for the gravel is obtained from 6 times the average sand particle diameter (D50), based on the work of
Saucier (1974). Continuing on design, a 12 gauge, 4.25” O.D. Screen is used for the 7” 26-29 #/ft casing
when the gravel pack completions have been installed. The screen OD should be selected to provide an
annular clearance of 0.75 to 1.0 inches between the screen OD and casing ID. The gravel pack system
for the completion is shown in Figure 3.

With the conditions of the pay zone as illustrated in Table 1, pumping rates average 8 bpm with a sand
concentration of 2 pounds per gallon of carrier fluid (ppa). The carrier fluid is treated water with
surfactants and clay inhibitors.
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-3-AH-119) 2

70

60

FREQUENCY, %
50

40

30

20

10

0
40 60 80 100 140 200 PAN
SIEVE SIZE, M ESH

Figure 1. Size Frequency obtained from Sieve Analysis of formation sand from core analysis

100
90
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT, %

80

70
60
50
40

30
20

10
0
1 0.196 0.1 0.01
SIEVE OPENING, mm

Figure 2. Sieve opening distribution obtained from Sieve Analysis of formation sand from core analysis

Formation M-1 Sandstone

Porosity 24 – 32 %

Permeability 700 - 5000 mD

API Oil 21 – 24 °

Reservoir Pressure 1800 – 3200 psi

Table 1. Formation data

V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-3-AH-119) 3

7" x 4.00" 26.0-29.0# GPS-II SEAL BORE PACKER

7" x 4.00" SLIDING SLEEVE EXTENSION

7" x 4.00" SEAL BORE SUB

C
7" x 4.00" EXTENDED LOWER EXTENSION
7" x 4.00" REPEATER COLLET HOUSING
E 7" x 4.00" SLIDING SLEEVE CASING SPACER
F
G 3 1/2" x 50,000# GP-2 SAFETY SHEAR SUB
H
3 1/2" EU 8RD N-80 CENTRALIZED BLANK

3 1/2" NU 10RD 12-GA. "PRODUCTION” SCREEN

7" x 4.00" 26.0-29.0# CS PERM-II PACKER

Figure 3. Basic Gravel Pack System used for Sand Control.

The techniques of the sand control jobs have been changing since 1999 when the first job was
performed. The efforts to minimize the impact on the oil production have been observed on the last jobs.
With 27 jobs performed at the date as shown in Figure 4, the results can be evaluated as described in the
next paragraphs.

One important improvement is the wellbore Clean-out procedure, where a Non-acid fluid is pumped to
pickle both the casing and tubing to clean them from organic and non-organic deposits to minimize
production impairment attributed by invasion of contaminants into the gravel pack and formation. Also the
water is filtered to 2 microns.
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-3-AH-119) 4

2005
7%
2004
45% 1999
11%

2000
4%
2001
7%
2002
2003 4%
22%

Figure 4. Total Sand Control jobs performed at the date.

Regarding the succeed of the sand control mechanisms, the produced sand was successfully controlled
on all of these jobs as illustrated in the ranges obtained before and after the jobs on Figure 5.

180
165
160
140
Produced Sand, PTB

120
100
80

60

40
25
20
6
0 0.3
Before Job After Job

Figure 5. Results obtained on Sand Control jobs performed at the date.

To minimize the production impairment attributed by the additional restriction created by the gravel pack,
some techniques could be used as described next:

On the first jobs, several products like viscous non-damaging polymer pills were pumped to avoid severe
losses to the formation; but due to the high permeability and low reservoir pressure it was not possible to
control that.

FracPack is the best option, because the formation could be stimulated and the oil production could be
increased even though exist the restriction created by the gravel pack. This method has a limitation, when
the water-oil contact is close to the lower perforation, the fracture could reach this zone and the water cut
would increase drastically. The water control technology is now working on these fact and excellent
results has been observed even though the water contact is very close. Currently the water control
technique is working mostly in low to medium permeability reservoirs. An attempt for FracPack was
performed in one of the sand control jobs done here in Ecuador, but as the M-1 Sandstone has high
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-3-AH-119) 5

permeability and in most of the cases the water-oil contact is close to the lower perforation, the water cut
increased drastically from 80 to 95%, diminishing the oil production.

Acid Stimulation is another method and has been applied with success on all the last jobs. The fluids
pumped and the volumes are shown next:

30 gal/ft Solvent Preflush, 75:25 Diesel : Organic deposits solvent

40 gal/ft 7.5% Enhanced HCl Acid
50 gal/ft 1.5% Phosphonic / HF acid
75 gal/ft 3% Enhanced HCl Acid

This Acid Treatment is pumped right after the Gravel Pack job is performed.

On the next Figures 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, the results obtained by pumping the acid
treatment right after the gravel pack, are compared with those jobs were the acid treatment was not
pumped.

SKIN OBTAINED ON INITIAL JOBS SKIN OBTAINED ON LAST JOBS

90 70
84
80
60 58
70
50
60
40 40
50
Skin

Skin

40 40 30

30
20
20
13 10 9
10
0
0 -3
-3 Before Job After Job
Before Job After Job
-10 -10

Figure 6. Skin ranges observed before and after Figure 7. Skin ranges observed before and after
the Sand Control jobs on the first treatments. the Sand Control jobs on the treatments where
the acid was pumped. **

** Most of the last jobs were performed on new well completions

V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-3-AH-119) 6

Figure 8. PI reduction observed after job on Figure 9. PI reduction observed after job on last
initial Sand Control jobs. Sand control jobs where acid was pumped.**

OIL PRODUCTION VARIATION ON INITIAL JOBS OIL PRODUCTION VARIATION ON LAST JOBS
4,500 4,500
4,231

4,000 4,000
3,819

3,500 3,500
3,221

3,000 3,000
OIL PRODUCTION, bopd

OIL PRODUCTION, bopd

2,527 2,622
2,500 2,500
2,266
2,000 2,000

1,500 1,461 1,465

1,534 1,500
1,164 1,136
1,055
1,000 978 958 996 1,024
1,067
845 822 1,000 1,022
917
693 854 817
798
447
500 426 367 626 626

235
364
269
333 500 428
179 404 336
0 116
46
0
44
11

13
1

9
ell

ell

ell

ell

ell

7
ell

ell

l1

l2

l2

l2
l1

l1

l2
W

el

el

el

el
el

el

el

Before After Before After

W

Figure 10. Oil production variation observed on Figure 11. Oil production variation observed on
initial Sand Control jobs. last Sand Control jobs where acid was pumped. **

** Most of the last jobs were performed on new well completions

V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-3-AH-119) 7

OIL PRODUCTION REDUCTION AFTER JOB ON

INITIAL GRAVEL PACKS OIL PRODUCTION REDUCTION AFTER JOB
600 ON LAST GRAVEL PACKS
180
523 160 161
500
140
400
OIL PRODUCTION REDUCTION, %

120

OIL PRODUCTION REDUCTION, %

100
300
281 86
80
241
200 60
176
40
100
25
52 20
36 42 10
0 0

ll 1 ll 3 ll 5 ll 7 ll 9 ll 1
1
ll 1
3
ll 15 ll 1
7
ll 1
9
ll 2
1
ll 2
3
ll 2
5
ll 2
7
We We We We We We We We We We We We We We

Figure 12. Oil production reduction observed on Figure 13. Oil production reduction observed on last
initial Sand Control jobs. Sand Control jobs where acid was pumped. **

PROFIT REDUCTION AFTER JOB ON INITIAL GRAVEL

PACKS PROFIT REDUCTION AFTER JOB ON LAST
GRAVEL PACKS

$120,000
$14,000
$107,870
$100,000
$95,008 $12,000
$11,621

$80,000 $10,000
PROFIT REDUCTION, $/day

PROFIT REDUCTION, $/day

$8,514
$8,000
$60,000
$49,186 $6,000
$40,000
$32,099 $4,000
$2,861 $1,693
$20,000
$14,464 $13,675 $2,000

$3,905
$- $-

ll 1 ll 3 ll 5 ll 7 ll 9 l 11 l 13 5 7 9 1 3 5 7
We We We We We Wel Wel ll 1 ell 1 ell 1 ell 2 ell 2 ell 2 ell 2
We W W W W W W

Figure 14.Profit reduction calculated on initial Figure 15.Profit reduction calculated on last Sand
Sand Control jobs. Control jobs where acid was pumped. **

Reference price for oil: $36/bbl

** Most of the last jobs were performed on new well completions

V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-3-AH-119) 8

Conclusions
1. Excellent results were obtained on sand production control. Total produced sand was reduced
from a maximum of 165 PTB to a maximum of 6 PTB.
2. The Stimulation of the well at the same time the sand control completion system is placed, is the
best practice to minimize the additional restriction created by the gravel pack.
3. The clean-out procedure on the casing and tubing before to pump the gravel minimize the
production impairment attributed by invasion of contaminants into the gravel pack and formation.
4. Calculated savings obtained for the customer, ranged from $2,000 to $100,000 per day on the
jobs where the acid treatment was pumped after the gravel pack

Technical and Economical Contributions

1. The best technique for Sand Control operations is the FracPack.
2. If the water-oil contact is close to the lower perforations, a Phosphonic / HF acid treatment can
minimize the effect of the additional restriction created by the gravel pack.
3. Calculated savings obtained for the customer, ranged from $2,000 to $100,000 per day on the
jobs where the acid treatment was pumped after the gravel pack.
4. By cleaning the wellbore from organic and non-organic deposits before the job, the damage on
the reservoir is minimized.

Bibliography
1. Saucier (1974). Saucier’s gravel pack sand size determination
2. Forchheimer’s Equation
3. Darcy’s Law.
4. Pashen, Mark and McLeod, Harry O.: "Analysis of Post Audits for Gulf of Mexico Completions
Leads to Continuous Improvement in Completion Practices", SPE 36460, 1996.
5. Pashen, Mark and McLeod, Harry O.: "Well Completion Audits to Evaluate Gravel Pack
Procedures", SPE 31088, 1996.