Evaluation of Control Techniques for

Unconsolidated Silty Sands

G. B. Holman, SPE-AIME, Amoco Production Co.

Introduction
Amoco Trinidad produces from three offshore fields
near Trinidad in the West Indies. As shown in Fig. 1,
these are the Samaan, Teak, and Poui fields. These
fields produce from Miocene-age sands and contain
both oil and gas wells. Although sand production exists,
the Samaan and Poui fields do not have the same degree
of sand-control problems as does the Teak field. After
discovery of the Teak field, it became apparent that
some type of sand control would be necessary; the two
types of control chosen were triple-wrap screens and
gravel packing.
Initially, wells completed with the triple-wrap screen
were capable of high producing rates; therefore, emphasis was placed on this type of installation. At the
same time, wells that were completed with gravel packs
were perfonning poorly. Although attempts were being
made to stop sand production down hole and the
triple-wrap screens appeared to be working, trace
amounts of sand were continually being produced from
all wells. These traces of sand were sufficient to erode
choke manifolds and flowlines and to fill up onshore
and offshore separators. A triple-wrap screen was
pulled after only 21 days on production. This screen, as
shown by Fig. 2, had multiple eroded holes. Shortly
thereafter, a gravel-pack screen that was pulled after
less than 2 weeks on production had similar eroded
holes. Subsequently, most wells pulled had holes
eroded in the screens. At this time, a project was initiated to determine the optimum sand-control technique
for these operations. Using specially designed wellbore

simulators, tests were run to evaluate conventional

gravel packs, to determine the effectiveness of prepacking, and to compare the triple-wrap screen with
the gravel-pack system in either cased or open-hole
completions.

Project Objectives
Our basic approach to this sand-control problem had
been to stop the migration of sand down hole by installation of either the conventional gravel pack or triplewrap screen. Neither system was completely successful
because of erosion of the screens, chokes, flowlines,
and valves by produced sand. Disposal of the produced
sand was also a problem. The primary purpose of the
project was to find a way to stop sand production and
maintain high productive capacity.
The objectives of this project were to (l) evaluate a
conventional gravel pack, where gravel is placed only
in the annulus between the screen and casing; (2)
evaluate the effectiveness of prepacking or placing
gravel outside the casing in conjunction with a gravel
pack; (3) compare the triple~wrap' screen with gravel'
packing to detennine which would better retain sand
and allow maximum productivity; and (4) compare
open-hole and perforated-casing completions with
gravel packs and triple-wrap screens.

Experimental Procedures
Apparatus - Wellbore Simulators
Wellbore models were designed to simulate a 1-ft pro-

In a laboratory study of sand~control techniques for unconsolidated silty sands in

high-capacity wells, wellbore simulations were used to model a typical completion in the
offshore Teak field. Among other results, it was found that the optimum control system
was an open-hole gravel pack or a triple-wrap screen when used in open hole.
SEPTEMBER, 1976

979

ducing interval with sand-control equipment equivalent

to a typical completion in the Teak field. The cell dimensions were 49 in. OD and 24 in. high, with a 300psi working pressure at 100 of. Two test cells and flow
systems with these dimensions were built. During the
course of these tests, numerous changes were made to
improve both the flow pattern and the accumulation of
data. Fig. 3 shows a test cell.
The flow system was designed to attain radial flow
through a simulated formation to the sand-control device. The desired test rate was 70 BOPD/ft, based on a
field rate of about 5,000 BOPD from 70 ft of pay that
resulted in an equivalent flow rate for the cell of 2.0
gal/min. The actual test rates varied from 0.5 to 10
gal/min .. Pressure probes were placed at the first and
fhird perforations when using four perforations per foot.
Although open-hole completions were also tested, the
pressure probes were always placed in the same location. Pressure differentials were' measured across the
formation, aqfoss the prepack (from a 19-in.-OD circle
to the cement sheath), across the perforation tunnel (being only the cement sheath and casing), across the
gravel pack, and across the screen. In the tests, 9o/s-in.
casing and wire-wrapped screens on 4Vz-in. liners,
which is the same size well equipment that is used in
Teak field, were used. The cells when loaded would
hold about 2 tons of simulated formation sand.
There were three formations in the Teak field that
were causing control problems - the V, MM-01, and
the MM-l/2 sands. Since the V and the MM-l/2 sands
have about the same particle-size distribution, it was
decided to run tests using only the V and MM-01 sands.
Initially, it was planned to use sand from the producing
formation that outcropped on the island, of Trinidad.
Because of the cost and restrictions placed on shipment
of the sand by the V.S. Dept. of Agriculture, a local
supply was secured. The blended sands closely approximate the formation sands in particle-size distribution
and mineral content. Fig. 4 shows the grain-size distribution by cumulative weight percent for the V and
MM-Ol sands. It can be seen that these are fine-grained
sands with silt contents ranging from 28 percent for the
MM-Ol to 12 percent for the V sand. Silt content is
defined as that sand which is smaller than 325 mesh.

.i

i
SAMAAN

TRINIDAD

;'

Pt.Galeota

:....
"""-'-'-'-'_'_'

Fig. 1 -

FIELD
~
~

...........

<>'tW.TEAK

paul

"O<>FIELD

-.....,.......

980

The following is a generalized procedure used to prepare a cell for a test.

1. Insure that the test cell and all auxiliary equipment
are clean.
2. Install the pressure probes, casing, and screen.
3. Load the cell with simulated formation sand and
with the control device being tested.

_- _...........
..

..........

FIELD
0' Q

(>

(>
....

_r..-""--

Amoco Trinidad operations.

Fig. 2 - Eroded screen.

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

4. Vibrate the cell for about 12 hours.

5. Add 22 gal of deionized water saturated to 18,000
ppm chloride using reagent-grade sodium chloride to attain a 28-percent connate water saturation.
6. Place the top on the cell and pull a vacuum of 60
to 70 cm of mercury to degasify the liquid. After holding the vacuum 6 hours, saturate with oil.
7. Initiate the test by cycling the flow rate from 0.5
to 2.5 gal/min every other day for 2 weeks with the
flow rate held constant at 2.5 gal/min on alternate days.
After 2 weeks of testing, increase the flow rate to 10
gal/min or the highest rate at 250-psig inlet pressure on .
alternate days and cycle 0.5 to 10 gal/min every other
day.
During the test, produced sand was caught on
5-micron filters. The filters were changed each day
(more often if necessary) and the sand was weighed. A
very small portion of the sand (1 to 2 percent) is finer
than 5 microns, and probably passed through the filters.
During early tests, common salt and fresh water were'
used in the test cells; however, it was found that the salt
had sufficient calcium carbonate in it to cause precipitation of calcium carbonate crystals in the perforation
tunnels, thus consolidating the sand and causing .plugging. It was necessary to use deionized water and
reagent-grade salt to eliminate this problem.

Gravel-Pack Tests and Results

A gravel pack involves the placement of gravel around
a wire-wrapped screen or liner in such a fashion as to
retard the movement of formation sand. Since our initial
experience using gravel packing was very poor, tests
were conducted to evaluate the best type of gravel pack.
The first gravel-pack tests showed conclusively that a
prepack is required to maintain high productivity while
adequately controlling sand. In our tests, a prepack is
any system where gravel is placed outside the perforations. Subsequent tests using the configurations seen in
Fig. 5 showed that the gravel must be placed outside
the perforations to obtain the desired productivity. This
figure shows a cross-section through the wellboresimulator cells at a perforation. The dowel rod prepack
was a system where only the perforation tunnel is filled
with gravel. This system is intended to represent a per-

foration tunnel through the casing and cement sheath

penetrating into the formation about 2 or 3 in. The perfect prepack would represent a pressure-pack system
where gravel was forced through the perforations to
form an annular ring 19 in. in diameter around the casing, much like a gravel pack in an underreamed open
hole. It is realized that this is a highly idealized system
and in actual practice probably could not be achieved.
The star pack was one in which cones of gravel were
placed at each perforation in an attempt to more nearly
portray what might be a more practical field case. Finally, the open-hole gravel pack was a system like the
perfect prepack where the casing was removed.
Using these systems, it was apparent that most of the
pressure drop for all the cased-hole tests was through
the perforations. By increasing the size of the sand in
the perforation, the pressure drop was reduced, thus allowing higher flow rates. A set of curves (see Fig. 6)
was developed to show the effect of sand of various
grain sizes in the perforations. The most restricted
condition was when the 4V2-in. perforations were
filled with formation sand; and the least restrictive was
when the perforations were filled with 0.04- x 0.06-in.
gravel. A summary of the gravel-pack test is shown
in Table 1. As expected, the dowel rod annulus pack
resulted in the lowest producing capacity in B/D/ft and
in B/D/psi-ft. The star-pack, prepack, and open-hole
completions all show the same productive capacity.
This is a function of the capacity of the test cell pump
and not the sand-control system. A better measure
of productive capacity is shown when the pressure
drop in the system (productivity index) is taken into account. This shows that the open-hole system had the
highest flow capacity. It is also interesting to note that
the gravel-prepack-to-formation contact area and the
presence of perforated casing had a marked effect on
productivity index (B/D/psi). As shown by Fig. 6, tests
using 0.04- x 0.06-in. gravel with both a star pack and
a perfect prepack were run. The perfect prepack, which
had a contact area 12 times greater than that of the star
pack, had a higher productive capacity. Therefore,
capacity was found to be a function of the contact area
of the prepack when the same size gravel was used.
When the casing was removed, the capacity of the sys-

100

90

U SAND

80

MMllI SAND

70
CASING
SCREEN

60
CUMULATIVE

50

WEIGHT

40

PERCENT
30
20

10
30
40

60

100

230 325 U. S. STANDARD

200 270
SIEVE SERIES

DECREASING GRAIN SIZE-

Fig. 3 - Test cell.

SEPTEMBER, 1976

Fig. 4 -

Trinidad sand analysis.

981

CASING

CEMENT

SCREEN
SCREEN

A.

DOWEL PREPACK

B.

"PERFECT" PREPACK
OR 19 11 PREPACK
.

0PEN H0LEG RA VEL PAC K

CASING

SCREEN

SC RE EN

c.

STAR PAC K

Fig. 5 - Configurations of gravel packs.

tern was a function of the formation sand rather than the

packing system. The sand-production rates for the perforated completions were about the same. No sand-rate
data are shown for the annulus pack test because these
were the first tests run before using 5-micron filters and
a reliable sand measurement was not obtained. Initially,
samples of the oil were taken from the cell to determine
the sand content using a centrifuge. This technique did
not prove reliable; therefore, 5-micron filters were installed. During the annulus pack tests, the centrifuge
tests showed only a trace of sand that was comparable
with the sand content in. the other tests.
Two distinct phenomena that occurred in relation to
the movement of formation sand were (I) particle migration through the gravel pack and (2) massive sand intrusion. Particle migration is caused by high flow velocity allowing fine particles to be carried into the pack. If
the bridging theory presented by many authors l -4 is correct, sand migration should stop at some point; however, this was not the case in any of these tests. Sand
production was restricted to as little as 0.0023 ppm,
TABLE 1 -

Number of tests
Capacity, B/D/ft
B/D/psi-ft
Sand rate, ppm
982

which would be essentially zero sand production in a

field situation; however, zero sand production was not
obtained. The other phenomenon observed was massive
sand intrusion into the annulus, as shown by Fig. 7.
Although the mechanism for this type of movement is
not entirely understood, it appeared that sufficient
fluidization or redistribution. of the annulus pack occurred. This allowed the massive influx of sand.
Even though the annulus pack was vibrated in place and
the annulus was apparently 100-percent filled, a massive
intrusion did occur.

Triple-Wrap Screen Test and Results

The triple-wrap or multilayer screen theoretically does
not require placement of a gravel pack at the time of
installation. It is designed to form a pack of formation
sand against the screen as the well is produced. The
function of the multiple wraps of various gauge openings is to bridge the larger grains at the outer layer, the
intermediate grains in the middle layer, and the smaller
grains in the innermost layer. Fig. 8 is a sketch of a

SUMMARY OF GRAVEL..PACK TESTS

Perforated Completions
Annulus Star Pack
Prepack
3
3
4

56
0.23
NA

330
1.4
0.019

Open-Hole
Completions
1

340
3.3
0.018 to 0.002

343
28
0.008

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

TABLE 2 -

Number of tests
Capacity, B/D/ft
B/D/psi-ft
Sand rate, ppm

SUMMARY OF TRIPLE-WRAP SCREEN TESTS

Perforated Completions
16 (four 0.5-in.)
1 (eight 0.75-in.)
22 to 27
154
0.63
0.09 to 0.11
1~3 to 18
0.04

triple-wrap screen. Since triple-wrap screens were eroding and sand was being produced through the screen,
tests were run to detennine the optimum gauge spacing
for the screens and how to pack screens before they
eroded, and to compare the screen's capacity with that
of gravel pack.
Initially, it was thought that the triple-wrap screen
would provide a system for perforated completions of
high capacity and sand-retention capability similar to a
gravel pack. Although the sand-production rates were
higher, they were maintained at acceptable rates when
using 4V2-in. perforations per foot. However, as seen in
Table 2, the productivity of this system was very low.
This can also be seen in Fig. 6, where the highest pressure drop through the perforations is a system with
4lh-in. perforations per foot filled with the fonnation
sand. The capacity was greatly increased by removing
the cas.ing and allowing the triple-wrap screen to pack
as in an open-hole completion. The rate of 670 BOPD/ft
was obtained by compounding the two test-cell pumps
for this one test. This open-hole test showed that the
triple-wrap screen could be used in open hole and
would have a capacity equivalent to the better gravel
pack. The major accomplishment of this test was to
show that, to operate effectively, the screen has to
pack. Sand that is produced a grain at a time will not
pack the screen; therefore, it must move en masse. It
was found that the best way to move the sand en masse
was to cycle the flow rate.
As a result of screen failure caused by erosion, it was
concluded that to prevent erosion the screen should be
packed. A test of this concept was conducted using a
0.006- X 0.012- x 0.020-in. triple-wrap screen packed
with 0.0041- x 0.0070-in. sand. Eight 34-in. perforations were used in this test, which showed much better
sand retention and also had higher capacity. The increased flow area of 3.53 sq in. for eight 34-in. holes
compared with 0.785 sq in. for four lh-in. holes used in
previous tests was the primary reason for the increase in
capacity;

Open-Hole
Completions

2
670
8.0
0.02

In the open-hole completion, the multilayer screens

showed excellent potential. For this type of completion
the fonnation must be clean and capable of sloughing
around the screen on initiation of production. If it were
feared that the fonnation would not slough, the fonnation could be acidized and then the well surged. Although the flow capacity of the open-hole multiw'rap
test was not as high as the open-hole gravel-pack test,
the ease of installation makes it an attractive technique.

Consolidated Gravel-Pack Test and Results

Although no sand consolidation job has been perfonned
in Amoco Trinidad's operation, it appears from previous tests that some type of consolidation might be
necessary. As discussed above, apparent fluidization of
the gravel pack allowed massive sand intrusion into the
annulus, thus causing a failure of the sand-control system. It is felt that some type of system is needed to
keep the gravel in place once it has been pumped into

Fig. 7 -

Intrusion of formation sand into the casing

screen annulus.

GAUGE SPACING LUGS

200

;g 150
....

WELD BEAD --1itiI~t--:j;~~~~

fORMATION
4-1/2" PERfS.

-<
o"'"

OlITER WRAP

-~~r.:J

S 100
A..

MIDDLE WRAP

_~

....

INNER WRAP

40

80

120
160
200
240
FLOW RATE BBL DAY FT

320

Fig. 6-ap in perforation at various flow rates.

SEPTEMBER,1976

GAUGE SPACING
a ,0.030 IN.
b 0.020 IN.
c 0.010 IN.

360

Fig. 8 -

Multilayer sand screen.

983

TABLE 3 ~ CASED-HOLE SAND-CONTROL TESTS

Rate
Well
Teak A-2
Teak A-6
Teak A-6
Teak C10
Teak C11

sapo bbl/ft
---1,925
1,830
2,875
2,265
1,530

32
26
35
38
77

TABLE 4 -

Well
Teak C-12*
Teak C-13**

Rate
sapo bbl/ft

---4,230
4,195

80
36

Prepack
None
None
0.017 to 0.033
0.04 to 0.06
0.04 to 0.06

Gravel Pack
0.04 to 0.06
0.04 to 0.06
0.017 to 0.033
0.04 to 0.06
0.04 to 0.06

Screen
Size
0.012
0.02
0.012
0.02
0.02

Remarks
4 cleanouts
2 cleanouts
14 months
8 months
6 months

OPEN-HOLE SAND-CONTROL TESTS

Prepack
Open hole
Open hole

Gravel Pack
0.04 to 0.06
0.04 to 0.06

Screen
Size
0.02
0.02

---

Remarks
6 months
4 months

"T-sand well capable of seven times rate of average well.

""U-sand well capable of 5,000 SOPD.

the well. The technique where gravel is coated with a

resin and then pumped into the well to form a consolidated pressure pack (outside the casing) could be an
economical and efficient solution to the problem.
A 0.030- x 0.060-in. gravel was used in this test,
which was designed to simulate perfect placement of
the gravel around the wellbore. As Can be seen in Fig.
6, the capacity of this system was lower than that of a
0.04- x 0.06-in. gravel pack. The increase in pressure
drop probably was caused by plastic in the pore spaces.
The average sand production in this test was 0.022
ppm, which is low like other prepack tests. The compressive strength of the resin-coated gravel was measured and the average compressive strength of the unused cores was 712 psi, while the average compressive
strength of those that had been flowed was 660 psi. This
is considerably lower than the reported 2,300 psi. Scanning electron microscope photographs showed definite
deterioration of the plastic after flowing. Even though
strength reduction was noted, sufficient strength was
present to prevent movement of the gravel pack.

Summary of Field Results

Following the tests conducted in the laboratory, suggestions were made to Amoco personnel in Trinidad concerning various gravel-pack systems and techniques.
Table 3 shows. a tabulation of wells that were gravel
packed. Two of the wells (Teak A-2 and Teak A-6)
were not prepacked. These wells had an average producing rate of 1,800 to 1,900 BOPD before they sanded
up. Each of these wells required adeanout of sand
to restore production. On reworking, Teak A-6 was prepacked; that is, gravel was pumped through the perforations. Following this prepack, the well retested for
2,875 BOPD and has produced for about 14 months
without additional cleanouts. Two other wells, Teak
C-I0 and Teak C-ll, were also prepacked. These wells
have produced without cleanout and are maintaining
high producing rates.
Probably the most outstanding results achieved in our
field operations in Trinidad are shown in Table 4. The
data shown are the results of two open-hole gravel
packs in Teak C-12 and Teak C-13. Both wells, which
were completed in open hole, are capable of producing
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office July 28,
1975. Paper accepted for publication Jan. 6, 1976. Revised manuscript received
July 20,1976. Paper (SPE 5656) was first presented at the SPE-AIME 50th Annual
Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, held in Dallas, Sept. 28-0ct. 1,1975.
Copyright 1976 American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum
Engineers, Inc.

984

in excess of 5,000 BOPD and have produced for 4 to 6

months without failure.
This summary of field results deals with only a small
part of the sand-control operations in Amoco Trinidad's
offshore fields. A detailed review of these operations is
presented in a separate technical paper. 5

Conclusions
1. A zero-sand-production rate was not achieved in
these laboratory tests. However, with the best method,
the concentration range was reduced to parts of sand per
billion parts of oil, which would be considered nil from
an operational standpoint.
2. The integrity of the gravel pack must be maintained during production to prevent screen erosion or
pack plugging by formation sand intrusions, which result in well sand-off and loss of productivity.
3. In the gravel-pack, perforated-casing completion,
each perforation must be filled completely with gravel
to keep the formation sand from moving and to keep the
gravel in place if high productive capacity is to be
achieved.
4. Laboratory tests indicate the triple- wrap screen
would perform very well in open hole where the formation can slough around the screen.

Acknowledgments
This report required the special efforts and time of a
large group of technical and nontechnical people. The
author wishes to give special recognition to J. W.
Sprulock of Amoco Production Research' Co. (now retired), R. J. Rundt of Phillips Petroleum Co. (formerly
of Amoco International Oil Co.), D. S. Tipton of Texas
International Petroleum Corp. (formerly of Amoco International Oil Co.), and C. R. Milam of Amoco Production Research Co.

References
1. Saucier, R. J.: "Considerations in Gravel Pack Design," J. Pet.
Tech. (Feb. 1974) 205-212; Trans., AIME, 257.
2. Coberly, C. J. and Wagner, E. M.: "Some Considerations in the
Selection and Installation of Gravel Packs for Oil Wells," Pet.
Tech. (Aug. 1938) 1-20.
3. Hill, K. E.: "Factors Affecting the Use of Gravel in Oil Wells,"
Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1941) 134-143.
4. Karpoff, K. P.: "Laboratory Report No. EM-l.32," Earth Materials Laboratory, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,
Washington (March 1947).
5. Likwartz, D. J.: "A History of Sand Control in the Teak Field,"
J. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1976) 972-978.
JPT

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY