.

A Method of Analyzing Performance

of Gravel-Pack Completions
in Seria Field, Brunei
R.E. Jones.* 5PE, Unionoil Co. of Grew Britain
G. Thorp, * SPE, Shell U.K. Exploration& Production

Introduction

~
s
m

Brunei Shell Petroleum (IMP) Co. Ltd.s Seria field

prodaces from shallow, unconsolidated, depleted
sands. The majority of wells require sand control
during their production lifetime, and over the years
many gravel packs, both openhole a-d inside packs,
have been placed. The productivities achieved by the
various gravel-pack repair techniques have been
difficult to analyze due to the few reliable data points
and wide range of values.
Therefore, a statistical test was used to compare
actual ~roductivity indices (PIs) before and after
gravel packing with theoretically derived PIs. The
effects on productivity of different types of gravel
packing and different gravel sizes also were compared.
To do this it was necessary to establish theoretical
values for the specific PIs (RB/13/psi/ft) of the
various pack configurations using Seria reservoir
data and completion sizes.
The changes in well productivity as a result of
gravel packing were calculated theoretically for the
various gravel-pack types and placement methods by
considering the individual pressure drops through the
sequential resistances to flow imposed by gravel and
liner and by considering these resistances as apparent
Now with Unionoil Norge AIS.
With
shell,
BP& Todd Oil se~lces Ltd.

.NOW

0149.2120/S0/0002$S0S$00.25
@1980 Society of Petroleum Engtn rers

skin factors in the flow equation.

~
The equations were developed using typical Seria
field reservoir data and completion sizes

Gravel-Pack Types
There are two basic types of gravel packs used in
BSPS Seria field: openhole gravel packs (OHGP)
and inside gravel packs (IGP).
Openhole Gravel Packs
An OHGP consists of a slotted liner or wire-wrapped
screen in an open hole, packed around with gravel.
The openhole section normally is underreamed to
increase the effective wellbore radius and pack
thickness, This is achieved simply in a new completion; in an existing completion this requires
milling a window in the casing, sidetracking, underreaming, and the. gravel packing. This is referred
to as a sidetracked underreamed gravel pack
(STUGP).
OHGPS allow completions with little apparent PI
impairment and not too severe PI decline with
continuing production. It will be shown later that in
practice severe pack impairment does occur but
largely is offset by the increase in effective wellbore
radius as a result of the underreaming.
Inside Gravel Packs
With this type of pack, a liner is run inside existing
perforated casing, and gravel is placed in the

A method of evaluating gravel-pack completions has been developed that allows the
use of small samples of observed t-%tawith large variance to be checked tigainst
theoretics!!.v derived values - in this case, the normalized productivity indices. The
results give insight into the mechanics of impairment and lend support to previously
suspected causes of impairment.
4%

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

The formation permeability of 0.5 chrcies assumed

in these productivity calculations was obtained from
field measurements.

Openhole Completion
The ideal flow of a slightly compressible fluid of
constant compressibilityy into the wellbore of a single
well completed over the whole producing interval in a
bounded radial reservoir is given by this pseudosteady-state equation:
2m(p~-Pwf)

1127, ,,, . . . . . ...(1)

:[4:)-0*751

The specific productivity index (SPI) J~othen equals

S4m

d!=

4
o= ~p.f)h

!NT( O/.) -

Fig. 1- Permeability of sand/gravel mixtures,

liner/casing annulus. The advantage of this method

is that it is simple, relatively cheap, and can be
carried out with a light well-pulling hoist. Unfortunately, in the past, severe PI impairment has
resulted, apparently from the filling of perforation
tunnels with produced formation sand. However, the
use of recently introduced packing techiques to fill
the tunnels with hig;l-permeability gravel can reduce
the pressure drop in the perforations significantly. 1
Both packs have been used in BSPS shallow land
wells. IGPs were the standard completion (when
sand control was thought necessary) until 1963, when
} concern over the high observed PI declines resulted in
the introduction of OHGPS for all new shallow wells
and STUGPS for sand control in existing wells.

7.08

= q
@(~)-07l
, . . . . . ...0 . . . . . . ...0 ,. ...,..

(2)

Cased-Hole C~mpletion
When caring is run, cemented, and perforated,
additional resistance to flow is imposed by the
limited flow entry from the wellbore into the casing.
The effect of perforations was studied initially by
Muskat,2 who attempted to treat the problem
analytically by considering perforations as point
sinks,
Further research by McDowell and Muskat3 and
Howard and Watson4 using electrolytic models and
an analytical study by Harriss showed the important
variables to be perforation diameter, density,
penetration beyond the cement sheath, and geometr>
(i.e., phasing). If the effect of perforations is considered as an apparent skin, Eq. 2 can be modified to
give the SPI for a cased hole perforated well:
J .- =

7.08

. . . . . . . . . ...(3)

TheoreticalEffect of GravelPackingon PI
Laboratory Tests on Sand/Gravel Mixtures
Laboratory tests were carried out on sand and gravel
mixtures in order to estimate values for the permeabilities of impaired and unimpaired gravel packs. The
gravel used was 14-20 mesh, commonly used in Seria
field gravel packing, and the sand was produced
from a Seria well. The permeabilities of the mix!~tes
plus the grain-size distribution of the sand and gravel
are shown in Fig. 1.
For the purpose of evaluating theoretical
productivities, the following permeabilities were
used.
Unimpaired gravel pack
(1OW7O
gravel)
Impaired gravei pack
(45070gravel/55Vo sand)
Sand formation, loose pack
(100Vosand)
MARCH 1980

108darcies
2 darcies
2.5 darcies

Values of Sa are very difficult to calculate, but

based on McDowell and Muskats model results, Sa
is plotted in Fig. 2 as a function of perforation
penetration, assuming 4 shots/ft, 0.5-in. -diameter
perforations, and 0 phasing. Figures presented by
Harris are in good agreement, but McDowell and
Muskats results are used here because they quote
results for flush perforations (i.e., zero formation
penetration), which, as will be shown later, are
required for the calculation of IGP impairment.
For O.~-in.-diameter perforations in 7-in. casing
and 4 shots/ft with the perforations extending 2 in.
beyond the cement sheath, it can be seen from Fig. 2
that Sa = 1.7 (rW=0.35 ft). If re = 350 ft, then
J~C=(7.08 kf/q)/7.85.
Openhole Gravei Pack
When an OH@P is set, the inflow equation can be
497

Aswmptirn

(EgF

c 4 shots/ ft 00 phasing
05 diameter @fcratiom

IATK3NPENETRA
~)
rw

Fig. 2-Apparent
skin Imposed b perforations as a
function of perforation pene ! ration (Ref. 3).

obtained by modif ying Eq. 2 to incorporate the flow

resistances imposed by the pack and liner. Assuming
radial flow, the resistance is simply a function of the
wellbore radius and pack permeability, whereas the
resistance created by the liner can be considered as an
apparent skin factor SL. Thus,

. . . . . . ...*

. . . . . . . . . . i. ..,...

(4)

An approximate solution for SL has been given by

Muskat2 and maybe written as

&=;

hi(~).

..0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(5)

This equation is presented graphically in Fig. 3.

It is apparent from Eq. 4 and the apparent skins
calculated from Eq. 5 that

; [ln(;)+sLl~;[n(
:)=*51*
providing that kp is much greater thank . This will
be true if the gravel pack is unimpaire d (as stated
previously, kp =108 darcies). Thus, the inflow
equation for an unimpaired OHGP can be
represented effectively by Eq. 2. If the pack becomes
impaired, kp approaches the formation permeability
kf, and Eq. 4 must be used.
For an unimpaired pack with the wellbore increased from 8.5 in. to 11 in., the SPI becomes
~g=(7.08kf/q)/5.89.
Consider an impaired pack with these conditions:
r = 0.46 ft, kp = 2 darcies, ric = 0.167 ft (4%-in.
li~er), and 60 slots/ft of 2 x 0.028 in. area, giving SL
= 0.76 (from Fig. 3). The SPI then becomes JS8i =
(7.08~f /7)/6.33.
498

Fig. 9-Apparent

skin Imposed by slot?8d llner(Ref. 2),

Inside Gravei Pack (Before 1%3)

1: is assumed that gravel is placed only between the
perforated casing and liner and that the perforation
tunnels (in casing and cement) and perforation
cavities (penetration into formation) remain empty.
Any sand produced from the formation will fill the
perforations (plus any voids that may have been
formed behind the casing) as soon as a bridge is
formed at the pack face. It alsos assumed that the
permeability of the sand entering the perforations is
equal to the laboratory-measured sand permeability
(i.e., 2.5 darcies).
In model studies of packed perforation tunnels
carried out by Shell Development Co., Torrest6 has
used the Blake-Kozeny and Kozeny-Carman
equations to predict pressure drops through pdcked
beds (see Appendix A for explanation of equations).
He has shown that even at moderate specific flow
rates (i.e., flow rates per foot of producing interval),
turbulent flow exists and can make a significant
addition to the overall pressure drop. By rearranging
the terms of the above mentioned equations, the flow
resistance created by packed perforation tunnels can
be expres.ed in the form of a two-component apparent skin, consisting of a Darcy flow and a nonDarcy flow component. The Darcy skin sd is
6.282LC
s~= ~A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(6)
The non-Darcy skin Snd is specific flow rate
dependent and is
2.14x 10-0 l-_dd pkfLc
~
. . (7)
Snd=
*~
43
()
A2n2q () h
SD
Snd is plotted m-a function of ~P and @in Fig. 4. The
SPI becomes
J.i=7.08+(~[ln(~)

-o.75+~.+s.d

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

100,,

01

I I I I
I

oaoo20030040ce

o4xooT

0C80030D

MEANFACXDIAMHER. dp km)

Fig. 4-Apparent
nomDarcy skin imposed by packed
perforation tunnels (Snd) as a function of mean
pack particle diameter and porosity.

+%(+9
+#[q +%]))*
. @)

Because of the low resistance to flow created by a

gravel bed, Sa is assumed to be unaffected by the
prese~ce of gravel in the perforation cavities.
Note that he effect of Sd is much reduced compared with .- conventional IGP because it is
multiplied by the factor kf /kg, which is much less
than 1. From Fig. 4 it is apparent that Snd also will be
redueed because the larger particle diameter and
better grain sorting wiii result in a higher porosity
and permeability.
Using the same assumptions (kp = 108 darcies, Sa
= 1.7, s~ = 0.76, $j = 192. Snd = 0.22, t? = 0.05
cm, and 4.= 0.35), the SPI becomes Jsk =(7.08
kf/q)/9.06.
Comparison of Theoretical Productivities
If the theoretical SPIS calculated for the various
gravel-packing methods now are normalized to the
SPI for a gun-perforated cased-hole completion, an
evaluation can be made of the productivity impairment (or improvement) resulting from grave:
packing:
Normalized Productivity Index (NPI)
Openhole Gravel Pack (unimpared: kp *kf )
J~ng=7.85/5.89=

1.33.

where Sa now is assum~d to be the apparent skin for

a flush perforation.
If the pack itself is unimpaired and kp *kJ, the
equation simplifies to

Openhole Gravel Pack (impaired: kp = 2 darcies,

kf = 0.5 darcies),
J~ngi= 7.85/6.33 = 1.24.
Inside Gravel Pack (before 1963)
J~ni=7.85/68.84=0.11.

Jsi=7*08+(~[,n(~)-07,+sa

Inside Gravel Pack (tunnel packed with grfivel)

+Snd+sd($q]]).

. . . . . . . . . ...(9)

For 4 perforations/ft, 0.5-in. diameter, and a tunnel

of 2 in. in casing and cement, Sa = 14.5 (from Fig. 2)
and sd = 216. If kf = 0.5 darcies and ks = 2.5 darcies,
with a mean pack diameter of 0.015 cm, sphericit y of
0.8, porosity of 0.2, and a specific flow rate of 10
RB/D/ft, then Snd = 5 (from Fig. 4). The SPI then
becomes J~b = (7.08 k /v)/68.84.
It is apparent tha { even if the pack becomes
severely impaired, the flow resistance imposed by the
pack itself and slotted iiner will remain negligible
compared with the extremely high apparent skins
caused by sand-packed perforation tunnels and
cavities.
Inside Gravel Pack (Tunnel Packed With Cement)
When, during the packing operation, gravel is
packed tightly in the perforation tunnels and perforation extensions into the formation and remains
there during subsequent production, Eq. 8 must be
modified as follows.

J~nk= 7.85/9.06=0.87.
It is apparent that OHGPS provide the best way of
maintaining (or even theoretically improving)
productivity.
Providing that no pack impairment occurs, an IGP
with a packed tunnel still retains a large proportion
of initial productivityy. By far the lowest productivityy
results from the type of IGP used in Seria field before
1963, even when unimpaired.

Statistical Analysis
Although a large number of gravel packs have been
completed in Seria field, there always has been a
difficulty in interpretation of the gravel-pack performance because of the variety of the operations,
the small amount of reliable data, and the wide range
in values.
Gravei-Pack Field Data
Throughout this study it is assumed that the PI
stabilizes during the first 50,000 bbl of production
after packing, and the PI at this point compared with
the previous PI is taken to represent the NPI for the
pack. Aithough more impairment may occur during
subsequent production, this is difficult to evaluate
due to the masking effects of reservoir deciine.
For the IGP analysis, only those wells completed

~sb=7-08+(:[1n(:)
-o*~5+sa+snd
++
8
MARCH 1980

~nf~)+SL+S~]]).
ic

. . . .(10)

499

initially with perforated cased-hole completion and

then recompleted as IG13sare considered.
To obtain sufficient data from the OHGPS, it was
necessary to include wells that initially were compkted conventionailv, then inside gravel packed, and
subsequently sidetradce~ ~ac!openhole gravel packed
on the same reservoir. In these cases the NPI has
been assumed to be the ratio of the PI after OHGP to
the PI before IGP. Ail wells that experienced pack
failure soon after packing have been ignored.
Frequency Distt!bution
Provided, of course, that the field data can be
represented bv a recognizable frequency distribution,
these data are suitable materiai for statistical
analysis. Thus, before attempting a statistical
anaiysis, it was necessary to find a distribution that
adequately described the field data. Log-normai J~n
has been plotted in the form of frequency
distributions using grouped data, and these are
presented in Fig. 5 through 8.
Ail these are approximately straight iines;
therefore, it can be assumed that the population of
log-normal J~nis distributed normaily.
In the following tests it is assumed that the
population mean is equal to the theoretically derived
value of NPI and that the sample mean is the NPI
measured after 50,000 bbl of postpack production.

Students t Test
As there is an underlying normai distribution, simple
statistical testing is possible. A test know as Students
t test, which is applicable to small samples, has been
selected.s This test can be used in two ways: (i) to
compare the means of two samples and (2) to
compare a sample mean against the population
mean.
A description of the tests used in this paper is
included in Appendix B. Vaiues oft are pubiished in
most statistical reference works.
Inside Gravel Packs
Fig. 5 indicates that the mean observed Iog-normai
-1.60 (or that the observed NPI = 0.20).
J
Ts&%iue now can be compared, using Students t
test, with the theoretical NPI of O.i 1 for a conventional IGP with the perforation tunnels plugged
with formation sand. Sirniiariy, the observed value
can be compared with the theoretical vaiue of 0.87
for an IGP in which gravel is squeezed into the
perforations. From Table i, the calculated t scores
are significant at the 20 and 1qo levels, respectively.
The tests show that if it is assumed that the observed
mean of Iog-normai 0.20 is part of a population with
a mean of log-normal O.i 1, then there ~Za 20qo
chance of the assumption being correct. However, in
the second case there is only a i qo chance that the
.*.O

.*.
1
.,-0

!4
0
$

6-

.,. 0

Fig. 6- ;:c~:ency

distribution

plots-

Internal

gravel

/ .

1/

Fig. 7- ;~cpsency

50

distribution

so

plots-openhole

.0s36

077,

0+73

J_

gravel

.3

.2

.,

.,

..? .
5

s.
.

S*.
u.

-4

!%

8o St
I

-9

*,,

Fig. 6- ;re!.$mcy

dlstribut:on

99

plots-internal

J
-0 ?2

.,,8

I
W$4

9s9

gravel

Fig. 8- Frar~cy
.

distribution

plots-openhole

gravel

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

TABLE 1-COMPARISON

OF THEORETICAL

AND OBSERVED NPI

NPI

t Critical

20%

.6%

0.11

1.276

1,337

2.120

2.921

Not significant at 20% level

0.20

0.87

3.015

1,337

2.120

2.921

Slgrrlflcant at 1% level

11

0.673

1,33

2.794

1.372

2.228

3.169

Slgnlflcant at 5!40 level

11

0,673

1,24

2.507

1.372

2.228

3.169

Significant at 5?40level

N%

Observed

Theoretical

Inside gravel pack,

conventionally placed

17

0.20

Inside gravel pack,

tunnel packed with gravel

17

Openhole gravel pack,

unimpaired
Openhole gravel pack,
Impaired

Openhole Gravel Packs

Fig. 7 shows the measured stabilized NPI to be 0.67.
This can be compared with the calculated values of
1.33 for an unimpaired OHGP and 1.24 for an
impaired OHGP.
Likewise, from Table 1 both of the calculated t
scores are significant at the 5!70level. Therefore, the
tests show that there is only a Y70 chance that the
sample comes from either of the two populations.
Then it must be assumed that a factor unaccounted
for in the theoretical calculation is prevailing, and it
is necessary to reevaluate the assumptions used in
deriving the theoretical values.
One possible cause could be in assuming 2 darcies
as the impaired pack permeability as ascertained in
the laboratory experiments. A further reduction
below this level could be caused by gravel breakage
from blending and pumping operations, creating a
higher percentage of fine gravel and, hence, poorer
sorting. This aspect was investigated in Seria during
operations and found to be of little consequence at
that time.
A further possible cause is the intimate mixing of
loose formation sand with the gravel during
placement and washing, compounded by plugging
from solids in the packing fluid, giving lower pack
permeabilities than obtained in the laboratory. The
difference between the calculated and observed
NPIs can be explained if the pack permeability was

1
I

MARCH 19S0

Comments

Type of Gravel Pack

observed data is drawn from a population with mean

log-normal 0.87. Thus, in this instance the statistical
test indicates that the behavior of the IGPs is nearer
to the theoretical behavior of an IGP with perforations plugged with sand.
The same conclusion also can be derived from the
rate of PI impairment. Pack impairment by plugging
w,-h fines maybe expected to be a gradual process, as
certain specific conditions are required for sand
bridges to be formed over the gravel pores. A iarge
quantity of sand and a large number of bridges
would have to be formed before the pack becomes
impaired completely. On the other hand, sand-filled
perforations can result from very small quantities of
produced sand as soon as bridges are formed at the
perforatiotipack interface. This has been observed
in practice where the majority of impairment occurs
either during or immediately after gravel packing.
Thus, Fig. 6 indicates that the NPI measured immediately after gravel packing is 0.31, whereas from
Fig. 5 the stabilized NP1 is 0.2.

I
.

1 Vo

reduced to one-third of the effective formation

permeability (i.e., +0.2 darcies). However, it is not
expected that the laboratory observations are in error
by a factor of 10.
The most logical explanation is that no allowance
is made for true skin (i.e., wellbore permeability
damage). There is insufficient data to confirm this,
but it might be expected that the effects of underreaming and packing would cause a positive skin
to be formed. In part, this could result from filter
cake left by the underreaming or carrying fluid. An
increase in skin from O to S would explain the difference.
Fig. 8 indicates that the NPI measured soon after
gravel packing equals 0.8, whereas theoretically there
should bean improvement in NPI to +1.3. Thus, the
major part of impairment must occur during
placement or immediately after bringing the well
back on production, Either of the two suggested
causes for the reduction (skin or low pack permeabilityy) could explain this, but the former is more
likely.
Effect of Gravel Size on Production Decline
Selecting itn optimum gravel size always has been a
problem in Seria field because of the scarcity of core
data. Selection has been based mainly on the grain
size distributions of samples of sand recovered from
producing wells. Although these analyses are better
than nothing, complete reliance on them can lead to
an incorrect selection of gravel size.g
Gravel sizes used in Seria cover 10-15, 14-20, 1428, and 20-28 mesh. The 10-15 mesh sand was
selected fol the high permeabilityy but was discontinued because .:ignificant sand production still
occurred. The 14-20 mesh, for various reasons, was
selected as standard,
even though complete
control of fine sand and silt was not achieved. The
smaller sizes, although probably more correctly
sized, never were accepted as it was thought that
productivity declines would be more severe due to
fines plugging.
To determine the effects of plugging after
stabilization, data were collected at 50,000, 100,000,
and 200,000 bbl of postpack production. The
frequency distributions of the NPIs for the two main
gravel sizes are given in Figs. 9, 10, and 11. The mean
values of the two gravel size samples then were tested
against each other at the three cumulative postpack
production levels. This comparison is for the 01-fGP
only, as insufficient data are available from the

inside gravel uacks.

The-t test-scores from Table 2 show that after
50,000 bbl of postpack production there is a 20070
chance that the NPIs are drawn from the same
(unspecified) population. At the 100,000-bbl level,
the chance that they come from the same population
is 70?/0and at the 200,000-bbl level there is again a
XWo chance that they come from t E same
population. The inference to be drawn rem the
above is that there is no significant diffe ience between the samples at any level of postpack
production. Thus, it would be fairly safe to assume
that neither of the two gravel sizes used has a
significantly different effect on impairment due to
plugging.
These data are applicable only to the OHGPs. In
IGPs the necessity to transport gravel efficiently into
the perforation tunnels can add another variable to
the gravel size selection.

Conclusions
7

z
:

2
.
.
--

Evaluation of gravel-pack completions has been

hampered by the lack of reliable data and the wide
range of values. A method has been developed that
allows the use of small samples of observed data with
large variance to be checked against theoretically
derived values - in this case, the normalized
productivity indices (NPIs).
By using the same statistical test to compare
sample means, the effects of different techniques and
parameters can be assessed. In this way the effect of
different gravel sizes on productivity decline has been
eva!uated.
The results of these comparisons have given insight
into the mechanics of impairment and the effects of
different packing techniques. Support has been given
to improved pack design.
The technique used here would be applicable to
many other production and drilling performance
problems. Obvious applications would be completion
fluid evaluation, perforator performance, and bit
run analyses.

Nomenclature
~ = areaof one perforation, sq ft (m2)

Fig. 9- :f$ot
.

M.zomtw.d

i,.02e

a 7,

O.n

yt

.a
,
$

Fig. 10- :~~ct

.

f=

S02

$s

\*

dp = weighted average pack partical diameter,

fr~c~on of slotted liner open to flow
h= thickness of producing interval, ft (m)
J~= specific productivity index
J SC=specific productivity index, cased-hole
completion
J~g= specific productivity index, openhole gravel
pack
JS8,= specific productivity
index, impaired
openhole gravel pack
J~i= specific productivity index, inside gravel
pack (before 1%3)
J~&= specific productivity index, squeeze inside
gravel pack
= normalized productivity index
J~C = normalized productivity index, cased-hole
completion

of gravel size on productivity after 50,000

* %%%=

-0.39

070

o-w

$0

of gravel size on proctuctlvity after 100,000

*.z9fwwal
i

-0!0

s..

Fig. 11- ::ect

II

063

0.84

,0

of gravei size on productivity after 200,000

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

.
9

TABLE 2- EFFECT OF QRAVEL SIZE ON PRODUCTWITIES

Postpack
Production
(bbl)

~
u

N.

20-28 + 1428
Mesh Gravel

NPI

0.660

mMOO

18

0.770

200.000

22

0,64

io,oilo

14-20 Mesh
Gravel

N.

t Critical

- 1%

2,042

2.760

Commente

175

0,660

0.34

1,325

2.080

2.645

Not stgnfffcant at 2(WOfevel

12

0.620

1.40

1.309

2.036

2.741

Sfgniflcant at 20% fevel

J~ng= normalized productivity index, openhole

gravel pack
J$ngj= normalized productivity index, impaired
openhole gravel pack
J~ni= nor&alized productivity index, inside gravel
pack (before 1%3)
J$fl&= normal~d
productivity index, squeeze
inside gravel pack
J~no= normalized productivity index, openhole
completion
Jso= specific productivity
index, openhole
completion
k= permeability, darcies
kf = formation permeability, darcies
kg= gravel permeability, darcies
kp = pack permeability, darcies
k~ = permeability of produced sand in the
perforation tumels, darcies
LC= length of perforation tunnel in casing and
cement, ft (m)
M= antilog of i
n = density of perforations per foot
Rem = modified Reynolds number
N~ = number of continuous slot columns per foot
Nx = sample size
PR = average r$s~rvoir pressure, psi (pa)
pWf= wellbore flowing pressure, psi (Pa)
Ap = pressure drop, psi (Pa)
g= flowrate, R13/1)(res m3/d)
re = radius of reservoir boundary, ft (m)
r~c= imer adius of slotted line, ft (m)
rW= radius of wellbore, ft (m)
Sa = apparent skin caused by perforation
Sd = Darcy flow skin
SL = apparent skin caused by slotted or perforated liner
Sti = non-Darcy flow skin
t= statistic from Students t distribution
v= superficial velocity, crn/sec
i= sample mean
q= viscosity of produced fluid, cp (Pa
S)
OS=sphericity of pack particles
p= mean of random variable
p= density, gm/cm2
U= startdard deviation of a random variable
ax= standard deviation of a sample
@=porosity

We thank the management of Brunei Shell PetroIeum

Co. Ltd. for permission to present this paper. We
also thank all those who have contributed to it in any
way, however small.
MARCH 1980

- 5?/0

Acknowledgments

200/0

NPI

IiiTi)

Slgnlficant at 20V0 level

References
1. Suman, George 0,: Sand Control, Part 3-How To Avoid
Poorly Des@wd or Plugged Perforrnations That Impair
Productivity and Prevent Effective Sand Control, Wor/d 0//
(Jan. 197S)83-90.
2. ~uskat, fi.: Phystcal Principles of Oil Production, McGrawHift Book Co. Inc., New York City (1949).
3. hfcDoweU, J.M. and Muskat, M.: The Effect on Well
Productivity of Formation Penetration Beyond Perforated
Casing, Trans., AIME, (1950) 1S9, 309-312.
4. Howard, R.A. and Watson, M. S.: Relative Productivity of
Perforated Casing, Trans., AIME (19S0)189,179-182.
s. Hams, M. H.: The Effect of Perforating on Well Prodtrctivity, J. Pet. Tech, (April 1966)S18-S28,
6. Torrest, R,S,: Gravel Packs-Their Placement, Impairment,
and Effect on Welf Productivity, Shell Development Co.,
Houston (Feb. 1972),
7. Moroney, M.J.: Facts From Figures, Penguin Book Ltd.,
England (19S1).
8. Volk, W.: Applied Statistics for Engineers, McGraw-Hilt Book
Co. Inc., Ncw York City (1958).
9. MalY. G.P. and Krueger. R.F.: Imrxooer Formation Ssmplfng- Leads to Impro-& Selection o~ Gravel Size, J. Pet.
Tech. (Dec. 1971) 1403-1408.

APPENDIX A

Equations Used for Pack Impairment

Analysis
Kozeny-Carman Equation
This is an equation relating permeability of a packed
bed to the porosity and specific surface exposed to
the fluid and is expressed as
k=

(Ql#

.ips

1s0
(1 -@2
$S can vary from 0.55 for jagged sand to 0.95 for
nearly spherical sand.
Blake-Kozeny Equation
This expresses the pressure drop of a pack bed as a
function of the above parameters and, as stated
below, gives the pressure drop for the flow through a
packed perforation tunnel.

Ergun Equation
The Blake.Kozeny quation is vflld oniy at low flow
rates when laminar flow predominates. For transitional flow this equation must be expanded to
.
incorporate an inertia term.
lsoq
(1-&
&q
=X*W
~
LC
S03

1.75pq2 (1 -4)

Substituting

this in

the equation fort gives

+ Q?PA2 ~

This equation is valid for modified Reynolds

numbers of 10 to 1,000 where the modified Reynolds
number is given by

APPENDIX B

Students ?Test
The test can be used in two ways: (1) to test a sample
mean against an assumed population mean and (2) to
comparetwo sample means. The hypothesis is made
that the two are equal. If the calculated t is less than a
critical value off (this value will depend on the level
of significance required), then the hypothesis is not
disproven.
1. To test a sample mean against an as ntmed
population mean (hypothesis X= p),
Ix-pi
.

t=
/u\

u
~x2 ~ N
_&xL_
~-,,

2+Naux22
+NR-2

!31Metric Omwxsion Factors

?bl x 1.589 873 E-01
E-03
Cp x 1.0
ft x 3,048
E-01
E+OO
in. x 2.54*
micron x 1
psi x 6.894757 E+OO

=
=
=
=
=
=

m3

Pass
m
cm
pm
kPa

The standard deviation of the population is

unknown. However, the sample deviation can be
used to give an unbiased estimate of the population
standard deviation. Thk is

Convorslon facw

%&+

CJrlgiIIal m?ru,sc!ir>t received In $oclety of Petroleum Englneere OfflGe AU$ 5,

1977. Paw accepted for publlcetlon April 8,1978. Revised menuwrlpt received
t2ec. 3, 1979. Paper (SPE S80S) fket presented et the SPE 52nd Annual Fall
Tachnlcal Conference and Exhlbltlon, held In Denver, Oct. 9.12,1977.

x-

504

IS exact,