Chapter 3 Gravel-Pack Productivity Introduction ‘Controlling sand in wells originated with the water-wel industry ‘because early water-well completions in shallow formations com monly prexdiced sand, Gravel packing was introduced i the wah wel industry in the early 19C0"s, but the technique was not used in oil wells until the early 1930°s. It involves placing aveurately sized coarse-grained material (gravel) ayainst the formation sand to prevent the production ofthe finer-grained material while Nuids are prexluced. A sereen/slocted liner is located concentrically in- ‘ie the layer of gravel 10 prevent gravel entry into the well. In the early con the mechanical deviees included torch-eut slots. perforated casing, a louver-type sercen, and machine stated pipe. More reoenily, several warities of wire swapped sence ake ‘heen used for this purpose, See Chap. $ fora detailed discussion cof sereens and ote lines.) The technology used in gravel pack ingail and yas wells was borrowed from the water-well industry CCalike mont oi and gas well, water well usually were by developing « natural gravel pack, which involved alternate ing atid producing the mation. The Hine panicles were ultimately prixluced fromthe well, which left the uniformly graded sand or ‘gravel with higher porosity and permeability surrounding the vereen fo slot linet Effective development of a water well hy this metho might take ‘several weeks, and the effectiveness depends on the sand charac- teristics, wellscreen design, and the drillers skill. Fig. 3.1 is a schematic of a natural gravel puck. Water wells that were not dk ‘eloped to Form a natural gravel pack but needed sand control ustal- ly were gravel-packed Because the gravel-packing technology was borrowed, early oil and gas completions were similar to those of water wells and at fiet included running only a sloued liner to prevent sand produc tion. Openhole gravel packing was the most commonly used ahter- native i slowed Tiners proved ineffestive. Oil- and gas-well ‘completions opened a new dimension in grave packing. Peforaed- ceasing completions became popular withthe advent of gun and jet perforating Inthese cases, screens were run inside a wel's casing 8nd gravel was packed around them. Gravel-Packed Completions Gravel packing consists of installing a downhole fer to exclude formation sand. Fig. 3.2 shows the two basic gravel-pack geome- ‘ties currently in use, the openhole ad cased-hole techniques. ‘Openhote Gravel Packs. In opeahole gravel packs, there is no «casing between the gravel pack and the formation sand (see Fig. 3.2). This completion has the highest product: ity ofall pack emptor ony by open coptins primary disadvantage of the apenhole gravel pack isthe ico tor hong ettanene esi Em atthe sanfice. A second limitation is that no all sand formations fare physially tructured to accommodate this type of completion, ‘easing hole instability. In these eases the sad formations ae us ly cased off before completion ‘The openhole gravel pack is the prefered mechanical sand con- rol technique for high-productivity wells. Its most effective in Tong-tife completions where bole stability the production of water and oF yas will aot present prom ‘Cased-Hole Gravel Packs. The cascd-hole gravel pack consists fof a screen or slowed liner tat is gravel packed inside perforated cssing (sce Fig 3.2). This completion isthe most widely wd gravel pack in oil and gas wells because, upon intial completion, 0 {ors are not always certain whether wells will produce formation sand. Consequently. the easing is perforated and the wells. are pro- duced. If no sand appears. gravel pack isnot evessary. A cased hole gravel pack can be performed Inter, however ifsand pred tion i not manageable. Funkermore, this completion is beter adap ced to exclude water and/or gas if the nced arises. Drilling and workover considerations often dictate that » cased completion is more desirable. For thse reasons, casel-hole gravel packs are more ‘common than opentole gravel packs. ‘The primary disadvantages ofthe cased-hole gravel pack are that itis not as well suited for high flow rates as the openhole gravel ‘pack and thar it is much more difficuk to perform correctly. These limitations arise from Muid ow through sand-filled perforations. ‘The cross-sectional area through the perforations represents only 1 few percent ofthe area exposed in openhole completions. even atextremely high perforation densities (Such as 24 shots/M). There fore, itis important that all perforations and the regions outside them contain gravel ofthe Fighc:t permeability that will contol formation sand effectively. Gravel packing outside the perforations is commonly referred to as prepacking but should not be confused with prepacked sereens (discussed in Chap. 5). Prepacking is im- portant for achieving high-produetivity, long-life completions. “Table 3.1! compares open- and cased-hole productvities. Note that, for this example, the openiole gravel pack has a much higher productivity than the cased-hole gravel packs. Also, the cased-hole ‘gravel pack, with gravel placed through and outside the perfora- tions, has a higher productivity than the case without prepack. For ae‘SAND CONTROL ‘TABLE 9.1—GRAVEL-PACK PRODUCTIVITY mi | (20PDes) | wai we Ls" 3" { ‘Openhole gravel pack 48.4 (14) 6.4 (13) | Conporoaecensrs S88) Sa) | Gecaaholo pave pack 12901) 3.202) (with prepack) citnatle gel pick 40170) (without prepack) Fig. 3.1—Schematie of a natural gravel pack after developing (courtesy Johnson Div., UOP ine.) | ope ROLE CASED HOLE coravL PACK (PERFORATION i {PRE PACKED) PACKED) ‘packing techniqu ~ a om own aie 3 tors ren oor s $2 oe 4 | se goer] | A | ‘© 500 1000 1500 2000 2800 3000 3800, FLOWRATE, BPOMFT Fig, 3.4—Flow capacity of slotted liners, 0.020+in. slots, with 20140-U.8.-meah grav = wetned 1 ad (OWN) 298/276 Sof —— mE WarAED 7 So Be Be i i le a 1000 2000 909 —«@00 S000 6660 7000 [ FLOWRATE, SPOT with 20/40-0.8.- F Fig. 2. 3—Pow capacity of 12 jaugeserae | mesh grave this example, the eased-hole gravel packs were perforated from 4 6 shots/f and do not reflect the productivites possible wit ‘ent perforating technology. Productivtes would have been higher had high-density, large-diameter perforating practices been used. ‘As a cesll of problems associated with gravel-pack productivi- ty, a whole new dimension in gravel packing arose withthe cased- hole gravel-pack completion because substantially different tech ‘iques and procedures are required. Sand control isnot difficult in eased-hole gravel packs, but in many instances the wells are rate- limited because improper techniques and procedures were used. By contrast, opeahole gravel packs are not limited by low through _gravel-filed perforations. ‘The productivity limitations encountered in cased-hole gravel packs prompted numerous investigators to begin work to define and solve related problems. Early work on the proper gravel size re> ‘uired for effective sind contol indicated that gravel/sand ratios {rom 5 1 10 should be used. Design points any where from 10 49 70% cumulative were recommended.2-19 ‘Most ofthis esearch was conducted in linear flow packs operat- cc under single-phase tlow conditions. Additional work'-'®.3 con- Firm that the min Fesristion to flow was sand-flled perforations For maximum productivity. plugging the perforation with forma- tion sand must be avoided, The solution has been to pressurespack the perforations with gravel ofthe highest permeability capable of preventing the production of formation sand. ‘New emphasis as been placed on gravel packing, particularly when eased-hole packs are required. This interest has evolved be- cause of the new high-rate fields under development that will re= quire sand contol. Examples are fields inthe North Sea, the Middle {East and Southeast Asia, Some ofthe wels in these areas are capa ‘le of producing at rates exceeding 200 BFPD/M. Research on cased hole gravel-pack performance has also accelerated because of higher ‘water and gas cuts associated with produced oll in older fields. a circumstance tending to have adverse effecis on productivity and sand production. Completion Productivity Studies have been conducted to determine the magnitude of produc tivity losses associated with screens and slotted liners with gravel pocked around them, Test results (Figs. 3.3 and 3.4) show that the flow rates were extremely high, but pressure loses were quite low. Wire-wrapped screens had higher flow capacities than slotted liners: however, at realistic field rates, the pressure drop through the screens or liners was small, Note also that the flow capacity of slotted liners is proportional tothe number of slots per foot, and ‘otto the liner diameter as with screens.* See Chap. 5 fora dis- cussion of screens and sloted liners. *urewsane Een Pevaton Ren Co. open, Hoot (178,GRAVEL-PACK PRODUCTIITY Pr :SSURE DROP-PSI:N 100 Gauss = Flow 100 — 201n PERF, 3 0 1002000400500 FLOWRATE BOFT 121m Peres gem cman comer | CTT. -6—Schematic of a perforation after cleanup (courtesy Schlumberger) ‘The implication ofthese tests is thatthe sercen/stotted liner and travel puck offer no significant restriction wo well prexhctviy. w= fess they become plugged. Slotied Imers seem to become plugged more easily than wire-wrapped screens Fig. 3.513 shows results obtained from sin gravel packs. These results demonstrate that well produetvi mas be sigmiticanly reduced in this type of completion but that increas ing the number and size of perforations can improve productivity ificantly. Comparison ofthe rates shown in Figs. 3.3 and 3 ‘which reveal only small pressure drops, with these results shows. that a perforated gravel pack is productivity-limited by virtwe of the flow through the sand- or gravel-ille perforations, This svs- gests that perforating practices are very important in eased-hole sgravel-pack completions. Perforating Most cased-hole gravel-packed wells are perforated with et perfo- ‘ators. Jet perforating consists of (ring a shaped charge to gener- ate an impingement pressure of about 5 million psi_on the Jinner-casing wall and formation. Because this pressure is much ‘higher wn the yield strength of either the casing wal or the for- mation. a hole and tunnel are created with dimensions related 10 the charge design and the amount of explosive. Shaped charges ean 'be designed to create either long, small-diameter perforation tun- nels cr short, large-diameter wanes. The high pressures geeral- ced by the jet actually crush and compact the reservoir rock in a zone adjacent to the perforation tunnel, as Fig. 3.6 illustrates. ‘Most investigaions!#-16 indicate that, with conventional per- {orating practices, a perforation density of about 4 shotsfe with a penetration of about 6 108 in. results ina productivity equivalent {0 that of an openhole completion (Fig. 3.7). Perforating a well to be gravel-packed yields different results because, after gravel packing. the perforating tunnel is filled with gravel. At a gravel Porosity of about 35%, roughly two-thirds of the cross-sectional | SHOTSPER Poor PRODUCTIVITY RATIO. oe Be a PERFORATION PENETRATION, INCHES Fig, 3.7—Effect of penetration and shot density on produe- tivity (ater Harris). area open to flow contains gravel. Comparison of Figs. 3.8 and 3.6 shows the impact of gravel-filed perforations. The implica- jons here are that higher perforation densities are necessary for gravel-packed completions than for conventional completions. Higher perforation densities are beneficial beeause linear flow through the gravel-illed perforation can cause high pressure loss- es and reduced well productivity. LLarge-diameter perforations are also desirable to expose more inflow area tothe well. For gravel packing, large-diameter perfo- ‘ations are more important tian perforation length. provided that the perforations effectively communicate with the formation. Per- foration diameters from 0.75 in. to >I in. may be required for high well productivity. In evaluations of perforation charges, test results should conform to API RP 43, Standard Procedure for Eval- uation of Well Perforators ‘To arrive atthe optimum completion configuration, |? designs cof a perforating program fora gravel pack must consider the uid ‘ow from the reservoir through the perforations, and from the well. Some operators have used a systems approach 1 gravel-pack com pletion design called nodal'® analysis that provides a reasonably sound basis for determining the tubing size and perforation require- ‘ment. For particular fields and operating conditions, however. thisRave PAC = ‘SAND CONTHOL x10" \P OR PRESSURE. oa 8 16 ‘RATE, MCFD, proc is 19, Ths logic used in this appevact thatthe difference hereon the wel’ safle an oatlow Jeter ea nthe stone foratwns, Th nmsance-reltionsp UPR 7 usually calla first the huss of reservoir test data The tubing capacity 4s then determined asa funetion wt wellhead pressure fora given wing sie. By subtracting the tubing-eapacity ‘curve from that of the PL or IPR curve and repottng its the pees sure rap acres the completion, the allewable pressure dp though the perforations is determined. The pressure drop through the pet Fortin cun then be called wi either a, 3.2 oF 3.3 and plotted aay shown in Fig, 3.9 to atte atthe proper perforation size and ‘density configuration fr that particle fh rate, "Te intersection fof the pressare drops foe the Sarkes petoration sizes and dens Tiss ith dhe petted cares th hehst Maw ate fe that pee ration sige and shot density, However, should the pressure drop ross a perforation exceed a value known to create problems is should e added. F 3,9—Systems response curves to gravel-pack perfora- tion design (alter Crouch and Pack"). 1 | | | | | ‘example, a well is known to be capable of flowing 20 Msct/D at a wellhead pressure of 7,2. What perforation diameter and shot density are require? For 0.7-in.liameter perforations. Fig. 3.9 indicates that & minimum of 10 shots/At is necessary to aecommo- ths ea cvause the perforation tunnels ean bea source of high prewsre drop. panicularly if formation sand enters them. it is extremely ‘portant that the proper size and numberof perforations are sles td. Calculations (see Eq. 3.2 or 3.3) usually reflect ideal or op- ii projections ofthe pressure drop across perforation because the actual gravel permeability may be lower than that fora given mesh size awing to the generation of fines during handling. Also. the presenee of gas or wuter saturation inthe gravel. the invasion ‘of formation fines, or the gravel being ol-wet testo reduce its permeability. The perforation size could also be smalfer than that specified. Finally. some ofthe perforations may not be contribut- ing to flow because they are pgged or otherwise damaged. Hence. this procedure provides a way to determine the tubing size and the ‘minimum perforating eoquiement for a gravel-packed completion hut should be eoupled with field experience, FLOW IN SCREENS FILTERTr) Low AATE ROPER » casne se low pateannrenr | Fig, 2,11—Resuns of casea-hole gravel-pack tests (no pre- | pack—perforation tilled with grave)" Fig. 3.12—Results of cat repack). In many cacs, she pressure drop through the tubing and the reser- voir product; are already known, The perforating program for js merely the one that provides the optinnum per- rop for the projeced Now rate from a cost and ‘opetstional strdpoint Equations use in calculating the linear pressure drop through zone Jerived from the Forebheimer equation (Eq. usualy used to describe Ape sunt <-dprL, Bn) where ‘Spy = presute drop. psi. B= SSOsty, ‘= Darcy superticial velocity, em/sec. L.= length of perforation tunnel, = permeability, darcies, turbulence factor. alm-sec2/g, and accounts for the pressure dap caused by laminar fa’. the oven tert deserbes the pressure deop eased by curbole | PERFORATION PRESSURE | ROP-PSI | 400 300 20140 GRAVEL, pea NO PREPACK 100 20/40 GRAVEL PREPACKED. 0 ° 5 10 18 20 FLOW RATE-B/D/PERF Eq, 3.1 can be exprewsed in engincering units for liquid Now.? Bp, =0.888(LyglkA)=9.1X10-MBLAIGIAY?. «.--0.-2) where = permeability of tunnel fll material, dacies, Mow rate por pertoration, B/D. A = cross-sectional flow ates of perforation tunnel 2. ‘9 = Tid densi thoy, and 3 = ets fact inertia coettciot for saison) oes-9 Sib Hit For gas flow. Eq. 3.1 becomes. in engincering wnits.22 63) 2s rate per perforation. se/D. as specific eravity (air= 1.0), = perforation diameter, in.. 5 Ts temperature. K. and as comprewibilty ctor Eqs, 3.1 through 3.3. ean be used to determine the pressure drop across a petforation containing a gravel of known permeability as ' consequence of viscous and turbulent flow. accounts for the fect of turbulent flow in each equation. The pressure drop increases significantly compared withthe viscous pressure drop once turbu- lent flow is encountered. The design ofa gravel pack is also based PERFORATION PACKED Bggoynovenessune 3 8 8 8 Oe ee 00 ete te te cher FoRuaron GRAS RATIO Fig, 2.13-Produetivity with prepacking, without prepacking, ‘and with formation sand In the perforations. Fig, 9.14—Importance of proper gravel elze and prepacking Interms of productivity.6 PeRcate vines rio penueaguty ose SAND CONTROL Preracneo | ena BEY F zwous wesianaver E , Gsom penronanion * ‘a | coun sap sence E | PERFLENGTN 27500 PERFLENGTY 2751 7 | rowan aa 1 | femeon”” Sain i Coote Som ott! | thet Sen Ge) | folate" | “onrate soe Fig 3.15—Toat rent iceaing Ti 2 Tenue densa ingore apc | ity of permenent for- |_mation damage when prepacking is not used, ‘on ud inflow into the well, so if the pressure drop is too high {or low). the perforation program can be changed to increase (oF decteane) the Size and number of perforations to moet the design ‘condition, Radial Model Gravel.Pack Productivity Studies “The perforation wnnel is probably the most rica region ina ease inne gravel pack fromm the staspint of completion Mo capacity Tn addition to perforation diameter, the ett of gravel size, geus= elsand geometries, low rae, and multiphase Now theough gravel- filled perforations have been showem to affect well prxttvity and ‘completion performance signiticantly. The impact ofthese factors ‘on preductivity and sand vontrol has been studied inthe lage radi- «al model shown in Fig. 3.10.!? fy represented a 70° sector about ‘a well and hada $-f radius, Factors that affect gravel-ick produc tivity could be isolated with his large niedel and observed in a parse ‘metric study more etfetvely and economically theough an analysis fof field results Uniform Formation Sanus. Flow test results with 3 uniform slarey sand with no prepack but wit the periotion lel wah gravel ‘Fig. 3.11) revealed a large pressure drop aetoss the perforation. ‘The formation sand had a uniformity eoeficien of 1.5 as deter mined by the ratio of th dyyldyy. The For dtferent geavel sizes use repre ebimedian-sind size ratios of 4.3. 6.9.9.6. and 68, The pg ging observed resulted from viscvus forees causing the forwation Sand to migrate into the entrance of the perforation, Wet a pre- pack was used (Fig. 3.12), however, the pressure drop actos the Perforation was substantially stall. The smallest pressure Jrop ‘was associated with the largest gravel tesod (7/14 U.S. mesh). ‘A comparison between the (wo types of gravel placement (Fig. 3.13)—ie., wth and without prepacking—shows tha the smallest [Pressure drop is associated with the prepacked completions. When Ing in prevention of perforation damat no prepack was used. plugying was more severe wih larger gravel because the formation sand could migrate farther ino the gravel in the perforation. If properly prepacked, on the other hand, for- ‘mation sand was not produced at concentrations sufficient to cause plugging in the per fegariless of gravel size. Finally, the ‘worst condition resulted when the perforations became completely filled with formation sand, “The dats also indicate! tht picking the perforation was ‘only fequirement fora suceessul high-rate completion, as Fi shows. Selecting the proper gravel size was also critical, Aga the large pressure losses were associated with the lack of prepack ing. but prodctvity was improved signiticamly by prepacking. Fig. 3.14also shows that, when gravel/mrdian-sand size ratios excoed about 10, sand control becomes les effective as the gravel size creases. Testing indicated that a ratio of about Sto 6 was optimum {or effective sand control with this simulated formation sand. Un- der these highly controlled conditions, iowever, small amounts of formation sand were continually produced, regardless ofthe rav- cl size used. All data indicated that finite sand prodtion was in- herent in gravel packs. Subsequent testing with no prepack showed that such eonple- tions were mire rae-semsitive than prepackel completions and tht 48 a result, permanent damage can result ifthe threshold rate was exceeded. This ibility is demonstrated in Fig. 3.18. Plugging oF damage oecurred when the viseous forces were high enough io move the formation sand into the perforation. ‘On the other hand. eased-hole prepacked gravel pucks ate not aasseverely afected by rate. ax Fig. 3.16 shows. They are affected by turbulent or non-Darcy flow effects. In Fig. 3.16 the apparent perforation-tunnel permeabitty decrease asthe ow rate increase. ‘The apparent loss in permeability was the result of turbulent flow effects. Note that when the flow rate was decreased to the initial level, no permanent damage was evident. The remedy to this ap- parent loss in permeability is to increase the size and number of| perforations atthe FARE aoe suet amie! an Pere verom 2750 Pagar gem, SW ap ae Fig. 9.17—Test results demonstrating importance of gravel ‘uniformity in maintaining optimum productivity. a PERFORATION PACKED: imine ne 79 WATERLGAS ot AE aa + [aa PERF OIA. osm rn En Se Lee Flowanie-worehe Fig. 3.18—Etfect of multiphase flow on productivity.GHAVELPAGK FHODUGIIVILY Seenasze Foe 310 0 SSS Sn crave sae) | Fig. 3.19—Effeot of multiphase flow on formation sand pro- duction (cased nole with prepack). Fig. 3.20—Etfect of multiphase flow on formation sand pro- duction (eased hole with prepack). Nonuniform Formation Sands. Tests with a nonuniform sand {uniformity coefficient of 3.6) yielded results significantly differ- ‘ent from those with uniform sands. Fig, 3.17 shows that pressure «dropped significantly compared with the uniform sand and thatthe largest drop occurred at the gravel/sund interface rather than weross the perforation. However, the pressure drops neross the pefora- tion forthe uniform and nonuniform sands were essentially the same In these west, the 40/60- and 20/80-U.S-mesh sand represented _gravel/median-sand size ratios of 3.6 and 6.4. Resieving the grav ‘lusereased the pressure drop across the interface. It also affected "he sand eu, AMT tens with uniform sand involve gravel that 5 rot resieved. yet the pressure drops atthe gravel/sand interface were substantially lower. In this ease, the sand that was no esieved con- tained about 10% finer-grained material, which is significandly higher than the 25% fines allowed by API RP 58, Recommended Practices for Testing Sura Used in Grave-Pack Operations (March 31. 1986). ‘cray dlfeacton analysis indicated that the uniform sand eon- tains 6.9 wt% clay and the nonuniform sand contained 16.5 91%. ‘The additional pressure drop noted wt the gravel/sand interface in Fig. 3.17 resulted because of the increased clay content and the ‘wider particle-size distribution that must bridge when nonuniform, sands are gravel packed, ‘Multiphase-How Effects. The effet of multiphase flow on gravel= pick productivity and sand production can be significant. Fig. 3.18, ‘Som the results ofa Mow test where 10/20-U.S.-mesh gravel as sed to control the uniform sand. This size represents a grav ‘eV median sand size raio of about 10. The test results demonstrate that, as long as single-phase water is lowed, there is no perme ‘nent damage from perforation plugging. As shown earlier (Fig. 3.15), an apparent permeability loss resulted because of turbulent Tow: when the rate was decreased, however, nu permanent damage was noted. When two-phase water/gus Now was initiated, perma ‘nent plugging of the perforation resulted, Fig, 3.19 demonstrates prepacked gravel-pack performance when ‘TA-U.S.-mesh sand (gravel/sand ratio of 14.8) is used to contol formation sand. Note that intial sand production was high but ‘eclined rapidly until two-phase flow was initiated, which eaused ‘an instantaneous surge in sand production. When single-phase flow conditions were re-rtabished. however, the sand cut decreased, ‘much as it did at se beginning of the test. Fig. 3.19 indicates that it makes litle difference whether water/gas or wateroil is flow- ing: the effect on sand cut is about the same in cither case. These ‘examples are intended to demonstrate that muliphase-flow effets ‘ean cause and accelerate the production of formation sand. While many different situations inthe field may also promote sand pro- duction, itis not uncommon for wells to produce sand-fre until water production begins. This common event significantly increases the tendency for sand production, It propery sized gravel is used cgravel/median-sand size ratio (of Sto 6), the effects of multiphase flow are not as severe as those ‘Mustrated in Fig 3.29. Although there were variations in sand cut, they were much lower than when larger gravel was used. These test results imply that multiphase-low effects can cause permanent perforation plugging and itloence sand eut if proper gravel sizes are not used. Gravel-pack experience under numerous conditions has showa that wells commonly decline in productivity. or begin Yo produce ‘excessive amounts of sand. when water production begins. There are claims that water dissolves cementing materia. and tat changes in capillary prossure and interfacial tension cause Fines migration ‘nd sund production. The data presented here do nat completely support these ela "Theve dat and resis ot esearch?" 2 on fines sngratio| indicate tha multiphase tow causes loalized prewure disturbances Iecause of the numerous interfices moving throweh the pore sii ture and causing excessive fins movement, Reus have alo shown that, boeause most fines are water-wet, they do not bey until the water phase becomes mobile, These data indicate that, in al probability, a combination of localized disturbances and wate Wet fines causes most sand production and loss of productivity in a gravel-packed region. Summary ‘The following general coaclasions concerning gravel-pack pro tity apply during the design and iyplementation of gi ‘completions 1 The screca/sltte liner and gravel pack do aot signifi et well productivity unless they become plage wi on sand 2 For caxcd-hole gravel packs, maximizing the size and ume ber of perforations increases productivity 3. Prepacking (somtimes called pressure packing) ix essential for high-rate. long-life. cased-hole gravel packed completions 4, Turbulence, a major factor in decreasing the proictvity in high-rate. cased-hole gravel packs, can be lessened by the use of large-diameter. high-density perforations. ‘5. Although no single design point completely describes a for- ration sand. the median, o¢ SOth percentile. point appears 10 be a compromise (see Chap. 6. A gravel/median-san. sie ratio of about 6 yielded the best results for these test conditions. However. ratios from 4 to 8 have Also been used in the field succesfully for sands with different size distributions and clay and fines contents. Small amounts of forma- tion sand are continually produce through the gravel pack under these conditions. 7. Gravel packs should be designed (0 allow the production of fine particles, Impedance of this process can result in a loss of productivity. '8. Nonuniform sands are more difficult to gravel pack effective~ ly to maintain high well productivity because of their wide range of grain sizes, which reduces bridging efficiency. 19. The use of accurately sieved gravel may be critical to well productivity. 10, Multiphase flow causes localized pressure disturbances, which can precipitate excessive fines migration, sand production, and per- {oration plugging. ee4 References sash. KE. and Citiglano, 1: “Gratel Packing i Vener event Word Pt. Comp. Merion City (19671 So. 1 307-19. Scr aan Dsl: “Soveefal Sand Contd Desig for High Rate Oi an Water Well," JPT (Sop. 1969) 193-98 Mal. G Pad Krueger. RF “lenpeoper Foemton Suing Leas tw Kaper Selection of Gravel Sie." JPT (Dee. 1971) 1403-08 Sage, LH. and Lacy, W.N. "Eetvenss of Gravel Seco.” Tas MIME (1992) 146, 89-106, il. Kt. "Paetor feting the Use ot Gravel in Ol Welk,” Bri and Prod, Prac. APL(I951) L343, Coes C.. ara Wagner, EM: “Some Coanideratons inthe Sle ‘ia sd isalation of Gravel Packs for OM Well” Prt Teck: (XE 19380 1-20, ‘Taush, GH. and Corey, CB. e.: “Sand Exclusion ia Oil and Gas Well. Drill and Pr. Prac. API (1988) 66-2 Witaon BB. Fg LS sand Weiner RH. Pract oe sok Conn Grave Pak Compo.” JT Uap Sat vio Gre Pack Dp" JPTira 9) SoS Tame ATES 2 iHoton. 6. cl Sty Sands." JPT (Sept. 1976) 999-43 one, SoA and Penberhy, W.L. Jr: “Gravel Packing High Volume Water Suply Well." JPT (Dee. 1980) 2097-2102. MeLewd, #.0. Jt. and Crwford, H.R. "Gravel Packig for High Rate Completions, pape SPE 11008 presente athe 19K2 SPE. An- ‘wal Techical Conference and Exhibition, New Oran, Sep, 26-2. ‘SAND CONTROL 18, Ponteriy. WC, Jr ad Cope, Bde: “Design and Products GroveePached Conipletoy, SPT (Oe, 1980) 1879-86 14 Bel, W.T: Perforating Teshuigas for Maviiaing Well Prelui 19." pupet SPE 10083 preetted atthe 1982 SPE fl Petrol Es Tuten and Tsshnial Spnivn, jing. March 18-26 1S. Hares, NCH. "The Ete of Perforating Well Preuctsity. °° PF Xpet 1966) §18-28: Trane AINE, 297, 16, Mev. H.O. Se: The Ect of Besta formance.” JPT Jan 1983) 31-39 1, Gh an Fs "Sen Us he Dein anal Exton of High Rae Gay Well tthe 1980 SPE Annual Techical Confers and Exhibition, Dall Sept 21-25, 18, Mich, J, Peano, B.A. and Brown, K.f.: “Application of Prove tion Shtcns Anas ws Determine Completion Senstvity on Ge Wal Pralocton. paper BI-Pet-13 presented atthe 1981 ASME Enerey ‘Sources Testi) Conference, Howson, Jat. 18-21 19, Conke, CE Je: ""Conduuvity of Fracture roppnts a MatipleLay~ en JET (eph. 197) OL-OT: Ts, IME, 255, 20, Kale, D.L. er a: Handbook of Naural Gas Engineering, MeGra ‘Book Co. nc, Sew York Chy (1959) 47-50, 21, Muocke, Ts "Foraton Fines ond Factors Cot ment in Pos Media" JET (Feb, 1979) 148-50, ‘Grucsbeck, Cl Calis, RE: “Enteament and Depron of Fine Pantcls in Pons Mei." SPEY (Dec, 1982) 447-56, 23, Gabriel, GA and ame. G.R.: "Experi Investigation of Fines Migration in ocous Media” paper SPE 12168 presente at the 198 SPE Ann Teshnkal Conizence and Exhibition, San Franch, Ot 5 mins ot Well Per ing Thc Move: