SPE 135294

Comparison of Inflow Performance and Reliability of Open Hole Gravelpacks and

Open Hole Stand-Alone Screen Completions

Bob Burton and Richard Hodge, SPE, ConocoPhillips Company

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Florence, Italy, 19 22 September 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed
by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Open Hole Gravelpacks and Open Hole Stand-Alone Screen Completions are used in many high rate oil and
gas wells. Selection criteria for determining the applicability of these alternative completion techniques
tends to be company specific with proponents of Open Hole Gravelpacks claiming significantly better
productivity and reliability than Open Hole Stand-Alone Screens. Review of laboratory and field data in this
study shows these claims to be erroneous.

This paper presents results of well productivity studies from field and laboratory data comparing Open Hole
Gravelpack and Open Hole Stand-Alone Screen flow performance. Key completion design and installation
parameters driving performance for each completion type are indentified and discussed. Field well life and
reliability data are also reviewed to show that properly designed and installed open hole completions have
reliability statistics similar to those seen in cased hole gravelpacks and frac-packs.

Design criteria using an integrated reservoir characterization, laboratory testing and field installation
procedure are provided to allow better selection between Open Hole Gravelpacks and Open Hole Stand-
Alone Screen completions.

Introduction
A number of studies have shown the benefits of open hole sand control completions over traditional cased
hole gravelpacks or cased hole frac-packs1-6. These studies show that the much larger flow areas afforded by
open hole completions reduce Darcy and Non-Darcy flow resistance through the sand control media,
allowing these types of wells to flow higher rates at lower pressure losses than comparable cased hole sand
control completions. Field data also show that open hole sand control completions are generally easier to
install and cheaper than cased hole completions, allowing longer, high inclination and horizontal, wells to be
more effectively used in fields requiring high well productivity.

Comparison of open hole sand control completion alternatives with a cased hole frac-pack for a typical sand-
prone reservoir is provided in Figure 1: IPR Comparison for Sand Control Completions.
2 SPE

IPR Comparison for Sand Control Completions

Kh=100 md, Kh/Kv=1, H=100', A=72 acres, u=1 cp, B=1 bbl, Kmf/Kr=0.5, rmf/rw=5 and rw=0.354 ft for all cases

4500

4000

3500
Pressure at Reservoir Depth, psia

3000

2500

2000

VW CHFP: Incl=0 deg, SPF=12, Dp=0.75", Xf=25 ft, Kf*Wf=50,000 md-in and Kpt/Kr=10
1500
VW OHGP: Incl=0 deg, Mud Cake Removal=20%, Kann/Kr=0.2 and Screen Baase Pipe OD=4-1/2"
Inclined OHGP:Incl=60 deg, Mud Cake Removal=20%, Kann/Kr=0.2 and Screen Base Pipe OD=4-1/2"
Inclined OHGP:Incl=75 deg, Mud Cake Removal=20%, Kann/Kr=0.2 and Screen Base Pipe OD=4-1/2"
1000
Hz OHGP: L=1000 ft, Mud Cake Removal=20%, Kann/Kr=0.2 and Screen Base Pipe OD=4-1/2""
Hz OHSAS: L=1000 ft, Mud Cake Removal=20%, Kann/Kr=0.2 and Screen Base Pipe OD=6-5/8""
4-1/2" Tubing
500
5-1/2" Tubing

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000
Flow Rate, STB/day

As shown, the open hole completion alternatives outperform the cased hole frac-pack. Figure 1 also shows
that maximum productivity is attained when open hole completions are used in high angle and horizontal
wells where inflow area is greatest. Although the vertical cased hole frac-pack cannot compete with the high
angle and horizontal wells in terms of productivity in the example reservoir, it could still be a good design
choice for a multi-layered system where the benefits of high inclination are minimized.

While the benefits of open hole sand control completions are generally accepted in the industry, selection of
the type of open hole sand control completion is often controversial. Different operators and even different
design teams within an operating company frequently have different opinions on whether open hole
gravelpacks or open hole stand-alone screen completions should be employed in a candidate well or series of
wells. These differences of opinion are generally based on conflicting productivity and sand control
reliability assumptions. In many cases there are valid economic or operational reasons to select one open
hole alternative over another, however, in a significant number of cases key design assumptions appear to be
based on limited knowledge, inadequate data or misperceptions. These issues lead to design bias which can,
in turn, result in selection of an inappropriate completion alternative, increased project cost and lower
productivity.

Removing design bias and improving the open hole sand control selection process requires an improved
understanding of open hole pressure losses, increased data on open hole completion reliability and improved
understanding of the issues which lead to sand control failures in open hole completions. Productivity issues
can best be addressed by review of the key productivity features which govern flow through open hole
gravelpacks and open hole stand-alone screen completions. Similarly, sand control reliability concerns can
SPE 3

best be addressed through review of field reliability data and assessment of key failure mechanisms for open
hole gravelpacks and open hole stand-alone screen completions.

Productivity of OHGP and OHSAS Completions

Well productivity and completion skin for open hole gravelpacks (OHGP) and open hole stand-alone screens
(OHSAS) are reviewed in the discussion below.

Vertical Wells with Open Hole Gravelpacked Completions

Modeling flow to a vertical well with an open hole gravelpacked completion consists of modeling the
following elements in series:

Flow through Undamaged Reservoir

From the reservoir drainage radius, re, fluid moves through undamaged reservoir with permeability, Kr, and
thickness, H, until it reaches a point where the permeability has been altered by mud filtrate leak-off during
drilling. This inner flow radius, where reservoir permeability is affected by mud filtrate, is referred to as the
radius of mud filtrate invasion, rmf.

Flow through the Mud Filtrate Invaded Region

From the mud filtrate invasion radius, rmf, the flow proceeds through the mud filtrate invaded region which
typically has a permeability less than the undamaged reservoir permeability. This mud filtrate reduced
permeability is referred to as Kmf and extends from rmf to the borehole wall at the wellbore radius, rw.

Flow through the Mud Cake

At the bore hole wall, rw, flow must move through a mud cake which has been penetrated by fluid flow or by
some type of filtercake clean-up system such as enzymes, chelants or acids. The inner radius of the mud
cake is designated as rmci, with the effective permeability of the mud cake after initiation of flow or clean-up
treatment designated as Kmc.

Flow through the Hole/Screen Annulus

From the mud cake s inner radius, rmci, flow moves through the gravelpacked hole/screen annulus with an
effective permeability of Kann until it reaches the outer edge of the sand control screen, rso. For OHGP
completions the width of this hole/screen annulus, also referred to as the radial clearance between the hole
and screen, is generally designed to be in the order of one to two inches to facilitate gravel placement and
provide an effective barrier to formation solids flow.

Flow through the Sand Control Screen

From the sand control screen s outer radius, rso, flow moves through the sand exclusion layer with an
effective permeability of Ks to the internal radius of the screen s sand control media, rsi, where it enters the
basepipe. Flow from the basepipe s outer diameter to its inner diameter through a pattern of closely-spaced
drilled holes is assumed to result in negligible pressure loss.

These open hole gravelpack flow elements are shown in Figure 2: OHGP Flow Elements.
4 SPE

Open Hole Gravelpack Flow Elements

Sand Screen Base Pipe

Sand Screen OD

Gravel-Filled
Hole/Screen Annulus

Base Base
Pipe Pipe
Mud Cake
OD ID

Mud Mud
Undamaged Filtrate Filtrate Undamaged
Reservoir Invaded Invaded Reservoir
Region Region
rsi
Kr Kmf Kann rso

Kmc Ks rmci rw rmf re

Completion pressure losses and skin effects which occur as a result of flow across each of the flow elements
outlined above will be described. These flow elements will then be compared to similar flow elements for an
open hole stand-alone screen completion.

Vertical Wells with Open Hole Stand-Alone Screen Completions

Flow to a vertical well with an open hole stand-alone screen completion follows a very similar path to that
seen for the open hole gravelpack. While similar, there are, however, differences between the completions
various flow elements resulting in different inflow performance characteristics. The OHSAS flowpath
consists of the following series of flow elements:

Flow through Undamaged Reservoir

This flow element is exactly the same for an open hole gravelpack or an open hole stand-alone screen.
Pressure losses during flow will be determined by host reservoir permeability and geometry, the depth of
mud filtrate invasion during drilling, flow rate and reservoir fluid properties as outlined in the previous
OHGP section.
SPE 5

Flow through the Mud Filtrate Invaded Region

As with the reservoir flow element described above, the mud filtrate invaded region will be essentially the
same for both the open hole gravelpack and the open hole stand-alone screen completion, being defined by
the depth of mud filtrate invasion and the degree of permeability reduction which occurs during drilling and
subsequent completion operations.

Flow through the Mud Cake

At the bore hole wall, rw, flow must move through the mud cake which has been penetrated by fluid flow or
chemical filtercake clean-up. Pressure losses across this flow element are likely to show differences between
the OHGP and OHSAS, as the nature of wellbore filtercake clean-up operations are different in these
alternative completion types. Filtercake clean-up is expected to be better for an OHSAS completion. This is
because OHSAS completion procedures generally call for pumping high rate chemical clean-up treatments
along the hole/screen annulus prior to producing the well and allowing formation materials to collapse
around the screen.

Flow through the Hole/Screen Annulus

From the mud cake s internal radius, rmci, flow moves through the hole/screen annulus with an effective
permeability of Kann until it reaches the outer edge of the sand control screen, rso. This flow element is also
likely to show differences between the OHGP and the OHSAS as a result of the different screen geometries,
different wellbore clean-up operations employed and the different types of granular material filling the
hole/screen annulus. In general, OHSAS completions use larger diameter screens which minimize the width
of the hole/screen annulus. As noted above, OHSAS procedures also generally call for high rate chemical
clean-up treatments. This typically results in better mud cake clean-up than seen in OHGP completions. The
combination of small annular clearance and good mud cake clean-up tends to reduce the effect of having
lower permeability reservoir materials fill the hole/screen annulus.

Flow through the Sand Control Screen

Pressure losses across this flow element may also show differences between the OHGP and OHSAS
completion. While both completions are likely to use the same type of high permeability premium wire-
mesh screens, as noted above, the OHSAS completion will generally use a larger diameter screen. This
provides additional flow area, thereby limiting plugging potential and offering a possibility of reducing
pressure loss across the screen.

These open hole stand-alone screen flow elements are shown in Figure 3: OHSAS Flow Elements.
6 SPE

Open Hole Stand-Alone Screen Flow Elements

Sand Screen Base Pipe

Sand Screen OD

Formation-Filled
Hole/Screen Annulus

Base Base
Pipe Pipe
Mud Cake
OD ID

Mud Mud
Undamaged Filtrate Filtrate Undamaged
Reservoir Invaded Invaded Reservoir
Region Region
rsi
Kr Kmf Kann rso

Kmc Ks rmci rw rmf re

Completion pressure losses and skin terms associated with each flow element for example OHGP and
OHSAS completions will be reviewed in the sections below.

Comparison of OHGP and OHSAS Flow Performance

Using typical OHGP and OHSAS completion geometries, flow performance of these alternative open hole
completions will be compared for a single vertical well. Reservoir and completion dimensions used in this
comparison are provided in the Table 1: Completion Dimensions for Well Comparisons.
Reservoir or Completion Dimension Open Hole Gravelpack Open Hole Stand-Alone Screen
Reservoir Net Pay Thickness, H 100 ft H 100 ft H
Reservoir Drainage Radius, re 1000 ft re 1000 ft re
Mud Filtrate Invasion Radius, rmf 21.250 inch rmf 21.250 inch rmf
Wellbore Radius, rw 4.250 inch rw 4.250 inch rw
Mud Cake Internal Radius, rmci 4.125 inch rmci 4.125 inch rmci
Sand Screen Outer Radius, rso 2.655 inch rso 3.688 inch rso
Sand Screen Inner Radius, rsi 2.250 inch rsi 3.313 inch rsi
Screen Base Pipe Outer Diameter 4.500 inch OD 6.625 inch OD
Screen Base Pipe Inner Diameter 3.958 inch ID 5.921 inch ID

Reservoir and completion permeabilities used in the comparison are provided in the Table 2: Permeability
SPE 7

Data for Well Comparisons.

Reservoir or Completion Permeability Open Hole Gravelpack Open Hole Stand-Alone Screen
Undamaged Reservoir Permeability, Kr 100 md Kr 100 md Kr
Permeability in Mud Filtrate Invaded Zone, Kmf 50 md Kr 50 md Kr
Effective Mud Cake Permeability, Kmc variable md Kmc variable md Kmc
Permeability in Hole/Screen Annulus, Kann variable md Kann variable md Kann
Effective Permeability of Sand Screen, Ks 50000 md Ks 50000 md Ks

Flow and pressure loss calculations for the completion comparison will be performed using Forchheimer s
equation:

P=141.2*Q* *B/(Kr*H)*(LN(re/rw)+S+D*Q)

From this basic equation, pressure losses due to flow through an undamaged reservoir and incremental
pressure losses due to skin can be predicted:

Ptotal Preservoir + Pskin

Preservoir=141.2*Q* *B/(Kr*H)*LN(re/rw)

Pskin=141.2*Q* *B/(Kr*H)*(S+D*Q) =141.2*Q* *B/(Kr*H)*Stotal

The pressure loss due to skin can be further subdivided into pressure losses due to Darcy and Non-Darcy
skin effects:

PDarcyskin=141.2*Q* *B/(Kr*H)*S

Pnon-Darcyskin=141.2*Q* *B/(Kr*H)*D*Q

For simplicity, the reservoir is assumed to flow under steady-state conditions with all flow taking place at
pressures above the bubble point. Reservoir fluid viscosity, , is held constant at 1 cp and the fluid volume
factor, B, is set at 1 bbl/stb over the entire flowing pressure range. For non-Darcy flow calculations, fluid
density has been held constant at 58 lb/ft3. With these simplifying assumptions, the flow performance for the
OHGP and OHSAS can be compared over a range of mud cake clean-up and hole/screen annular
permeability values.

As noted above, reservoir conditions are the same for both cases. Similarly the extent of the mud filtrate
invaded region (rmf/rw=5) and the permeability impairment in this region (Kmf/Kr=0.5) has been assumed to
be the same for both the OHGP and OHSAS. This results in the same Darcy mud filtrate damage skin for
both cases as calculated from Hawkins formula7:

Smf=[(Kr/Kmf)-1]*LN(rmf/rw)=1.61.

Similarly, the Non-Darcy flow coefficient (D-term) for flow through the undamaged reservoir and mud
filtrate invaded zone can be calculated as:
8 SPE

Dr=1.63E-16* r*B*p/(Hmd2)*(K*H/ )*(1/rw -1/re)=1.94E-6 stbpd-1

Dmf=1.63E-16*( mf- r)*B* /(Hmd2)*(K*H/ )*(1/rw -1/rmf)=2.01E-6 stbpd-1.

The total D-term for flow to the well through the reservoir and mud filtrate affected zone is then:

Dr+Dmf =3.95E-6 stbpd-1.

At a 1000 stb/day reference flow rate, total skin (Stotal=S+D*Q) for flow elements outside of the mud cake,
the hole screen annulus and the sand screen is therefore 1.61. As noted above, this value has been assumed
to be the same for both the OHGP and the OHSAS completion for subsequent calculations.

Due to the small non-Darcy Skin effect (D*Q) at the low 1000 stb/day reference rate, Non-Darcy Skin
components will not be discussed in detail for subsequent flow elements. Total skin values (Stotal=S+D*Q)
will be calculated for all cases and will be shown in the graphs, however, the smaller Non-Darcy Skin
components will not be reviewed in detail unless they result in a significant pressure loss.

In addition to the mud filtrate Darcy and Non-Darcy skin terms shown above there will also be a skin effect
due to flow through the mud cake. This skin is calculated from the effective permeability of the mud cake
and the mud cake thickness calculated from the data provided in the table above. For the OHGP/OHSAS
comparisons in this paper, effective permeability through the mud cake has been characterized in terms of
the percentage of the mud cake area penetrated by holes due to fluid flowback or chemical action. These
openings in the mud cake increase effective mud cake permeability as shown in Figure 4.

Effect of Mud Cake Removal on Effective Mud Cake Permeability

Wellbore Radius=4.250", Mud Cake Thickness=0.125" and Mud Cake Removal=% of Mud Cake Area Penetrated by Holes

10000

1000
Effective Permeability of Mud Cake, md

Permeability of Intact Mud Cake without Holes

100 Permeability of Mud Cake with Holes and for Kmf/Kr=0.50

10

0.1

0.01

0.001

0.0001

0.00001
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Mud Cake Removal, %
SPE 9

In this graph, effective mud cake permeability is calculated over the mud cake thickness and assumes
uniform hole spacing and hemispherical flow convergence to the holes in the mud cake through the mud
filtrate invaded region beyond. As shown in the permeability vs. mud cake removal plot, once the filtercake
is penetrated by even a small number of holes, the effective permeability of the mud cake rises dramatically.
Once mud cake removal rises above approximately 10%, mud cake flow resistance becomes insignificant.
While 10% mud cake removal seems like a surprisingly low value to attain zero mud cake skin, it provides a
flow area comparable to 653 shots per foot of 0.25 inch diameter perforations in an 8.5 inch diameter
borehole.

Conversion of effective mud cake permeability to skin is provided in Figure 5.

Effect of Mud Cake Removal on Skin

Wellbore Radius=4.250", Mud Cake Thickness=0.125" and Mud Cake Removal=% of Mud Cake Area Penetrated by Holes
20
19
18
17
16
15 Skin due to Mud Cake Flow Resistance
14
13
Mud Cake Skin

12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Mud Cake Removal, %

As shown, skin due to mud cake flow resistance is very high at low values of mud cake removal, dropping
rapidly to less than one at 1% mud cake removal and reaching a negligible value of 0.04 at 10% mud cake
removal.

The total skin for the open hole gravelpacked completion including the effects of the mud filtrate damaged
region, the mud cake, the gravelpacked annulus and the sand control screen can then be presented as a
function of the reservoir normalized hole/screen annular permeability ratio, Kann/Kr and the mud cake
removal percentage. This is shown in Figure 6.
10 SPE

Effect of Mud Cake Removal and Annular Permeability on OHGP Skin

Kmf/Kr=0.5, rmf/rw=5, Incl=0 deg, Well Radius=4.25", Screen OD=5.32", Screen Perm=50,000 md, Basepipe OD=4.5"

1000

Mud Cake Removal= 0.2%

100 Mud Cake Removal= 2.0%

Total Skin: Stotal=S+D*Q

Mud Cake Removal=20.0%

10

0.1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Reservoir Normalized Hole/Screen Annular Permeability, Kann/Kr

As shown, skin values are high for all cases when low mud cake removal and low annular permeability ratios
are encountered. As hole/screen annular permeability ratios, Kann/Kr values, rise above 0.01, the curves
begin to separate. When Kann/Kr values increase beyond this threshold value, annular permeability ceases to
dominate skin, allowing better mud cake removal to provide better, lower, total skin values.

A similar evaluation of total skin for the open hole stand-alone screen completion is shown in Figure 7.
SPE 11

Effect of Mud Cake Removal and Annular Permeability on OHSAS Skin

Kmf/Kr=0.5, rmf/rw=5, Incl=0 deg, Well Radius=4.25", Screen OD=7.38", Screen Perm=50,000 md, Basepipe OD=6.63"

1000

Mud Cake Removal= 0.2%

100
Total Skin: Stotal=S+D*Q

Mud Cake Removal= 2.0%

Mud Cake Removal=20.0%

10

0.1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Reservoir Normalized Hole/Screen Annular Permeability, Kann/Kr

As shown in Figure 7, OHSAS skin values follow similar trends to those seen for the OHGP: low mud cake
removal and low annular permeability ratios result in high skins while high mud cake removals and high
annular permeabilities result in low skins.

Using the OHGP and OHSAS skin values for 20% mud cake removal provided in the respective figures, a
direct comparison of well skin is provided Figure 8.
12 SPE

Comparison of OHGP and OHSAS Skin

Kmf/Kr=0.5, rmf/rw=5, Incl=0 deg, Well Radius=4.25", Screen Permeability=50,000 md and Q=1000 STB/day for all cases

1000

OHSAS with 20% Mud Cake Removal and 6-5/8" Base Pipe Screen
100
Total Skin: Stotal=S+D*Q

OHGP with 20% Mud Cake Removal and 4-1/2" Base Pipe Screen

10

0.1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Reservoir Normalized Hole/Screen Annular Permeability, Kann/Kr

Under these types of successful mud cake removal conditions, the open hole stand-alone screen completion
provides lower skin and, as a consequence, higher well productivity for low annular permeability ratios:
Kann/Kr less than approximately ten. The lower, better, OHSAS skin at low Kann/Kr ratios is the result of the
smaller hole/screen annular width in the OHSAS completion. As noted earlier, this benefit comes from
being able to run a larger diameter sand screen in the OHSAS completion since there is no need to
gravelpack around the screen. For Kann/Kr values greater than approximately ten, the skin due to flow across
the hole/screen annulus drops to insignificant levels, effectively removing the advantage of the larger screen.
When this happens, both the OHGP and OHSAS completions provide the same skin and resulting well
productivity.

This example shows that skin and productivity for wells completed with open hole gravelpacks and open
hole stand-alone screens are primarily functions of mud cake removal and hole/screen annular permeability.
As a result, selection of the most productive completion option should be based on the degree of mud cake
clean-up and hole/screen annular permeability that can be attained in the target well. The question for well
design teams is, therefore: What is an appropriate mud cake clean-up and annular permeability value to use
in design studies and economic evaluations? This question can best be answered by review of field
productivity data and laboratory studies of effective gravelpack/stand-alone screen annular permeability.
Both laboratory and field data is correlated back to hole/screen annular permeability values to provide a
common basis for comparison.

Laboratory Filtercake Removal Studies

The impact of drilling fluid filtercake on the productivity of open-hole completions has been the subject of
many laboratory studies.2, 8-20 Over the past fifteen to twenty years, a variety of laboratory test methods
have been employed to simulate down-hole conditions during drilling, completing, and producing wells with
SPE 13

open hole gravelpack and open hole stand-alone screen completions. These test methods have ranged from
large-scale, radial flow devices to small-scale, linear flow cells. Although the extent of the impairment
observed in these tests has varied from study to study, two common observations have been reported. All
studies have reported filtercake remaining within the sand control media or on the core face and all have
demonstrated the benefit of applying a chemical/reactive cleanup treatment to promote filtercake
degradation.

Further, these studies have shown the level of reservoir and completion damage is impacted by a number of
variables. These variables include the mineralogy of the formation, the composition of the drilling fluid, the
drill solids composition and concentration in the drilling fluid, the opening size of the sand retention media,
polymer content of the filtercake, flow conditions (dynamic or static flow) during filtercake deposition,
volume and reactivity of cleanup fluid, contact time of cleanup treatment, and stability of the sand pack and
sand retention media throughout the test.

Recently, a test method has been developed to address some of the procedural issues related to maintaining
the stability of the sand retention media. This method provides more detailed insight into the distribution of
the impairment within the formation material (formation damage) and the sand retention media (completion
impairment)8. This test involves installing a sand pack prepared from disaggregated formation sand in a
pressure-loaded test cell and measuring the permeability of the sand pack in the production direction under
uniaxial confining stress to maintain sand pack stability. A drilling fluid is then placed in the test cell and a
filtercake deposited. After depositing the filtercake, the excess drilling fluid is carefully removed from the
test cell, a gravel pack is installed and the uniaxial stress is reapplied to stabilize the gravel pack and
formation sand pack. With the filtercake held in place between the formation sand and gravel pack, the
permeability is measured in the production direction. On obtaining a stabilized permeability value, a section
of the formation sand or gravel pack is carefully sliced away, the confining stress is re-applied, and the
permeability of the remaining formation sand and gravel pack is measured in the production direction. This
is repeated until the entire gravel pack and formation sand pack have been removed. From the change in
permeability values, the permeability of the layer sliced away can be calculated.

Results of this testing show that a large amount of mud cake material is left within the gravelpack after
flowback. This material plugs portions of the gravel pore system, significantly lowering gravelpack
permeability. Results show that the permeability impairment varies as a function of location within the
gravel pack, with maximum impairment occurring near the formation/gravelpack interface where the
filtercake was originally deposited. The retained permeability of the gravel was found to vary from
essentially 0% of its initial value at the filtercake interface to nearly 100% of its initial value at the
gravel/screen interface. The size of the gravel and the effectiveness of the cleanup treatment were also seen
to have a significant impact on the permeability gradient across the gravel pack.

Other researchers have observed similar damage to gravel pack or screen permeability caused by drilling
fluid filtercake. Hodge et al9 demonstrated the potential for damage to gravel packs from untreated drilling
fluid filtercake in pre-packed screens containing resin-coated gravel. For 20/40 gravel, the gravel was
completely plugged, 0% retained permeability, at pressure drawdowns up to 200 psi. For 12/20 resin-coated
gravel, some improvement in filtercake cleanup was observed, resulting in a retained permeability of 17%.
In a series of tests evaluating the effectiveness of various chemical cleanup treatments, Parlar et al10 observed
retained gravel permeability values ranging from 40% without treatment to as much as 95% with treatment.
Extending the findings of the earlier study, Parlar et al11 conducted a more detailed evaluation of the effects
14 SPE

of drilling fluid composition, gravel size, cleanup treatment chemistry and gravel erosion on filtercake
damage. The retained gravel permeability values ranged from very low, approximately 0% retained
permeability, for the smaller gravel sizes without cleanup to as high as 95% with a cleanup treatment.
Additionally, the effect of filtercake erosion by the gravel slurry on retained gravel permeability was
simulated and found to be significant. However, it must be remembered that erosion in highly deviated,
circulating gravel packs only occurs along a very limited surface of the wellbore due to the transport of
gravel by stationary bed saltation flow12-13. Therefore, the benefit of filtercake erosion may be overstated
in highly deviated, openhole gravelpacking. Using a radial flow apparatus to simulate an openhole gravel-
pack completion, Chambers et al14 reported retained permeability values ranging from 33% to 50% with oil-
based drilling fluid and no cleanup treatment. Tiffin et al15 reported retained permeability values for a
variety of gravel sizes and screen-only completions ranging from 4% for 40/60 gravel to 25% for 20/40
ceramic proppant without a chemical cleanup treatment. With a cleanup treatment, the retained permeability
ranged from 4% to 82% depending on the gravel size, drilling fluid composition, and cleanup treatment
chemistry.

In summary, a wide range of studies have shown gravel pack permeability impairment caused by drilling
fluid filtercake. Correlation of available data from SPE 128060 and SPE 63232 shows that laboratory
measured Kann/Kr values range from 0.001 to 0.22 for gravelpacks without a clean-up treatment. Similar data
for gravelpacks with clean-up treatments provides Kann/Kr values from 0.01 for an enzyme treatment to 0.45
for enzyme and chelant to 1.29 for acid clean-up. This data is summarized in Figure 9.

Laboratory Measured Kann/Kr Values for Openhole Gravelpacks

10

1 Data from SPE128060

Data from SPE 63232
Value of Kann/Kr

0.1

0.01

0.001

0.0001
40/60 Gravel without 20/40 Gravel without 12/20 Gravel without 40/60 Gravel with 40/60 Gravel with 40/60 Gravel with 10%
Clean-Up Clean-Up Clean-Up Enzyme Clean-Up Enzyme+Chelant HCl Acid Clean-Up

Results from similar studies performed for OHSAS completions19-20 are shown in Figure 10.
SPE 15

Laboratory Measured Kann/Kr Values for Stand-Alone Sreens

1

Data from SPE112497

Data from SPE 49097

0.1
Value of Kann/Kr

0.01

0.001

0.0001
OHSAS-1 without Clean-Up OHSAS-1 with HCl Acid Clean-Up OHSAS-2 with HCl Acid Clean-Up OHSAS-3 with HCl Acid Clean-Up OHSAS-4 with HCl Acid Clean-Up

As shown by the laboratory data cited, gravelpack and formation sand pack permeabilities can be
significantly lower than host reservoir permeabilities in open hole completions due to ineffective filtercake
clean-up. Use of chemical filtercake clean-up treatments can improve hole/screen annular permeability
values for both OHGP and OHSAS completions. While the laboratory test data show permeability
improvement when chemical filtercake clean-up treatments are employed, results are dependent on the type
of chemical treatment, the reactivity of the filtercake and the time and quantity of clean-up chemical
contacting the filtercake. Upscaling of laboratory results, where contact time and quantity of chemical in
contact with the filtercake can be readily controlled, to field conditions takes special care.

Estimation of Hole/Screen Annular Permeability Values from Field Data

In addition to the laboratory gravelpack and stand-alone screen studies noted above, an extensive review of
field well performance data20-32 on a large number of OHGP and OHSAS completions shows that effective
hole/screen annular permeability values generally fall in the range: 0.01< Kann/Kr <10. In this review,
pressure build-up data from ConocoPhillips operated wells, partner operated wells and published data from
the literature has been used to calculate effective Kann/Kr values required to match reported skin and well
productivity. Kann/Kr calculations are performed in a manner similar to the methods presented in the
previous sections. A summary of the resulting Kann/Kr information is provided in Figure 11: Kann/Kr
Cumulative Distribution Plot for OHGP and OHSAS Completions.
16 SPE

Kann/Kr Values for OHGP and OHSAS Completions

100

All OHSAS Field Data

10
All OHGP Field Data
Value of Kann/Kr

0.1

0.01

0.001
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of Population with Kann/Kr Value Less Than or Equal to Stated Value

As shown, both the OHGP and OHSAS distributions have similar shapes up to the population s 70th
percentile point where Kann/Kr values for both distributions are approximately 0.2. Above the 70th percentile
level the OHGPs rise to higher Kann/Kr values than the comparable OHSAS completions. This is assumed to
be the result of the much higher initial permeabilities of the gravel placed in these OHGP completions:
typically in the 50,000 to 200,000 md range for commonly employed gravel sizes. What is, however,
surprising is that the majority of the wells reviewed had Kann/Kr values less than one, indicating that most of
the wells, whether gravelpacked or not, had hole/screen annular permeabilities less than or equal to the host
reservoir permeability. While low Kann/Kr values were expected for the open hole stand-alone screen
completions due to the near-certainty of reservoir permeability degradation during formation collapse and
packing of the hole/screen annulus, Kann/Kr values for gravelpacked annuli were expected to be much higher
due to the very large initial permeabilities of the gravels employed. With typical reservoir permeabilities for
open hole sand control completions in the 500 to 5,000 md range, effective hole/screen annular permeability
values calculated for open hole gravelpacks are many times less than the 50,000 to 200,000 md surface
measured gravel permeabilities typically used in gravelpack well design studies.

Cross-checking the field measured Kann/Kr values with laboratory measured Kann/Kr values shows that the
low Kann/Kr values seen in the field data distributions are in line with laboratory test results. In references 8
and 11, laboratory Kann/Kr values for OHGPs that were flowed back without chemical filtercake clean-up
varied from 0.001 to 0.22. Use of a chemical filtercake clean-up treatment increased laboratory OHGP
Kann/Kr values in the 0.39 to 1.29 range. As noted in the previous laboratory testing section, other
investigators have also seen low permeability values in their open hole gravelpack experiments. Similar
SPE 17

studies19-20 performed on OHSAS completions show laboratory Kann/Kr values ranging from less than 0.001
to 0.03 without chemical filtercake clean-up and 0.18 to 0.81 for Kann/Kr with a chemical filtercake clean-up
prior to hole collapse. A cross-plot of the laboratory Kann/Kr results on the field data is provided in Figure
12: Field Kann/Kr Values for OHGP and OHSAS Completions with Laboratory Kann/Kr Data.

Kann/Kr Values for OHGP and OHSAS Completions

100

All OHSAS Field Data

OHSAS Lab Tests without Clean-Up

10
OHSAS Lab Tests with Acid Clean-Up

All OHGP Field Data

OHGP Lab Tests: Gravel without Clean-Up

Value of Kann/Kr

1 OHGP Lab Tests: Gravel with Acid Clean-Up

0.1

0.01

0.001
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of Population with Kann/Kr Value Less Than or Equal to Stated Value

The data summarized in Figure 12 has also been subdivided into wells completed with chemical filtercake
clean-up treatments and wells without reactive filtercake removal treatments.

Comparison of chemical filtercake removal results for OHGP completions is provided in Figure 13.
18 SPE

Kann/Kr for OHGP: Effect of Chemical Clean-Up Treatments

Data from OHGPs with and without Chemical Treatments for Filtercake Removal

100

OHGP Field Data for Wells With Chemical Filtercake Clean-Up Treatment
10
OHGP Field Data for Wells Without Chemical Filtercake Clean-Up Treatment
Value of Kann/Kr

0.1

0.01

0.001
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of Population with Kann/Kr Value Less Than or Equal to Stated Value

While some improvement is seen for OHGP wells using chemical filtercake removal treatments, the overall
trend shows rather limited benefit: Kann/Kr for wells with reactive filtercake clean-up appears to be roughly
two times higher than Kann/Kr without a chemical clean-up treatment over the majority of the data range. As
discussed in the laboratory filtercake clean-up section above, this is thought to be primarily due to the
difficulty in performing an effective clean-up treatment in a gravel-filled annulus but may also be due to
ineffective filtercake design.

A similar plot of data for OHSAS wells completed with chemical filtercake clean-up treatments and OHSAS
wells without the chemical treatment is provided in Figure 14.
SPE 19

Kann/Kr for OHSAS: Effect of Chemical Clean-Up Treatments

Data from Wells With and Without Chemical Clean-Up Treatmentsfor Filtercake Removal

10

OHSAS Field Data for Wells with Chemical Filtercake Clean-Up Treatments

OHSAS Field Data for Wells without Chemical Filtercake Clean-Up Treatments
1
Value of Kann/Kr

0.1

0.01

0.001
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of Population with Kann/Kr Value Less Than or Equal to Stated Value

This plot shows that OHSAS completions with chemical filtercake clean-up treatments have significantly
better Kann/Kr values than wells completed without chemical clean-up treatments. This dramatic benefit is
thought to be due to the more effective fluid/filtercake contact resulting from pumping clean-up treatments in
turbulent flow along the open hole/screen annulus.

A comparison of chemical clean-up results for both OHGP and OHSAS completions is shown in Figure 15.
20 SPE

Kann/Kr Values for OHGP and OHSAS Completions

100

OHSAS Field Data with Acid Clean-Up

10 OHGP Field Data with Acid Clean-Up

Value of Kann/Kr

0.1

0.01

0.001
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of Population with Kann/Kr Value Less Than or Equal to Stated Value

The mid-point of this chemical clean-up cumulative distribution (p50) is roughly the same for both OHGP
and OHSAS completions: Kann/Kr of roughly 0.1. This value can therefore be used as a most probable
Kann/Kr value for design studies. At the low end of the distribution, 10% of both the OHGP and OHSAS
completions have Kann/Kr values less than roughly 0.01, providing a reasonable minimum value for use in
design and workover planning studies. At the high end of the distribution, OHGP and OHSAS completions
trend toward different Kann/Kr values with OHGPs attaining p90, population 90 percentile point, Kann/Kr
values of approximately 2 while OHSAS completions attain p90 Kann/Kr values in the 0.3 range.

It is important to note that the Kann/Kr values provided in the figures noted above have been compiled from
both conventional vertical and inclined wells as well as horizontal wells. Values taken from the resulting
distributions are therefore applicable to both conventional and horizontal well types as long as applicable
skin conventions are followed. For a fully completed vertical or horizontal well Darcy hole/screen annular
flow skin can be calculated as:

Hole/screen annular flow skin = Sann = [Kr/Kann]*LN(rw/rso)

Vertical Well Pskin=141.2*Q* *B/(K*H)*Sann

Horizontal Well Pskin=141.2*Q* *B/(Kh*H)*(H/L)*sqrt(Kh/Kv)*Sann

Using a Kann/Kr value of 0.2 from the previous figures and the example OHGP hole/screen annular
dimensions described above, hole/screen annular flow skin (Sann) is calculated as:
SPE 21

Sann=(1/0.2)*LN(4.250 /2.655 )= +2.4

This results in a pressure loss due to skin for a fully completed vertical well of

Pskin=141.2*1000 STBPD*1 cp*1 bbl/stb/(100 md*100 ft)*2.4 = 33 psi

The impact of the various skin effects noted in the sections above on the example vertical well s inflow
performance relationship (IPR) is noted in Figure 16: IPR Comparison for Vertical OHGP and OHSAS
Completions.

IPR Comparison for OHGP and OHSAS Completions

Kh=100 md, Kh/Kv=1, H=100 ft, Mud Cake Removal=20%, Kmf/K=0.5, rmf/rw=5, u=1 cp, B=1 bbl/stb, Pr=4000 psia, re=1000 ft and rw=0.354 ft

4500

4000

3500
Pressure at Reservoir Depth, psia

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000 IPR for OHGP with Kann/Kr=0.2 around Screen with 4-1/2" Base Pipe

IPR for OHSAS with Kann/Kr=0.20 around Screen with 6-5/8" Base Pipe
500
4-1/2" Tubing Outflow

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Flow Rate, STB/day

As shown, both the OHGP and OHSAS completion examples provide roughly the same production rates.
The small advantage seen for the OHSAS completion is the result of the larger OD screen run in this well.
This larger OD screen reduces the width of the hole/screen annulus, thereby lowering skin, and also lowers
frictional pressure losses in the screen s base pipe. For longer, high inclination or horizontal, wells
producing at high rates, the benefit of the OHSAS completions larger diameter screen can become more
significant. This benefit is most commonly seen in high rate gas wells but can also be observed in high rate
oil wells or water injectors.

For high inclination wells, completion length will be greater than in a vertical well. In a 60 degree
inclination well the annular flow skin term is modified to include the longer completion interval as:
22 SPE

Sann= +2.4*(100 ft H/200 ft Hmd) = +1.2

And pressure loss due to skin:

Pskin=141.2*1000 STBPD*1 cp*1 bbl/stb/(100 md*100 ft)*1.2= 17 psi

This shows the benefit of using high inclination to overcome low annular permeability in the hole/screen
annulus. Since open hole completions are generally less sensitive to operational problems and costs
associated with high wellbore inclinations than typical cased hole frac-pack and cased hole gravelpack
completions, the benefits of using long, high angle, completion intervals to reduce skin effects is a design
that should be fully exploited in all types of open hole completions.

Horizontal Wells with Open Hole Sand Control Completions

Flow to horizontal wells with open hole gravelpacks and open hole stand-alone screen completions follows
the same flow paths noted in the previous vertical well discussion. Skin effects will also be similar to those
seen in the vertical well examples described above.

Horizontal Wells with Open Hole Gravelpacks and Stand-Alone Screens

Using the same completion reservoir and completion design described for the vertical well cases above, skin
effects and productivity for a 1000 ft long well will be reviewed. Completion dimensions and permeability
data are provided in Tables 3 and 4, below:
Reservoir or Completion Dimension Open Hole Gravelpack Open Hole Stand-Alone Screen

Reservoir Net Pay Thickness, H 100 ft H 100 ft H

Horizontal Well Length, L 1000 ft L 1000 ft L
Reservoir Drainage Radius, re 1000 ft re 1000 ft re
Mud Filtrate Invasion Radius, rmf 21.250 inch rmf 21.250 inch rmf
Wellbore Radius, rw 4.250 inch rw 4.250 inch rw
Mud Cake Internal Radius, rmci 4.125 inch rmci 4.125 inch rmci
Sand Screen Outer Radius, rso 2.660 inch rso 3.688 inch rso
Sand Screen Inner Radius, rsi 2.250 inch rsi 3.313 inch rsi

Screen Base Pipe Outer Diameter 4.500 inch OD 6.625 inch OD

Screen Base Pipe Inner Diameter 3.958 inch ID 5.921 inch ID

Reservoir or Completion Permeability Open Hole Gravelpack Open Hole Stand-Alone Screen

Undamaged Reservoir Permeability, Kr=Kh 100 md Kr 100 md Kr

Horizontal/Vertical Permeability Ratio, Kh/Kv 1 Kh/Kv 1 Kh/Kv
Permeability in Mud Filtrate Invaded Zone, Kmf 50 md Kr 50 md Kr
Effective Mud Cake Permeability, Kmc variable md Kmc variable md Kmc
Permeability in Hole/Screen Annulus, Kann variable md Kann variable md Kann
Effective Permeability of Sand Screen, Ks 50000 md Ks 50000 md Ks

As with the vertical well cases described above, reservoir pressure losses, mud filtrate invasion losses and
skin due to flow through the mud cake will be the same for both open hole gravelpacks and open hole stand-
alone screen completions.

Darcy and Non-Darcy Skin due to mud filtrate invasion and mud cake removal are calculated in the same
manner as discussed in the vertical well cases above. Total skin due to these flow resistance effects is shown
SPE 23

in Figure 17.

Effect of Mud Filtrate Invasion and Mud Cake Removal Skin Effects
L=1000 ft, Kmf/Kr=0.5, rmf/rw=5 and Well Radius=4.25"

1000

Mud Filtrate and Mud Cake Skin

100
Total Skin: Stotal=S+D*Q

10

0.1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Mud Cake Removal, %

The horizontal skin values provided in this paper are reported in terms of skin referenced to well length, Sq/L.
Under this skin convention, multiplication of skin value by flowrate per unit completion length (Q/L)
provides the correct pressure drop. Using this skin convention, a mud cake removal of 100% results in a
total skin: Sq/Ltotal =Sq/L+Dq/L*Q at Q=1000 stbpd of 1.64. This 1.64 Sq/L skin value results in a skin related
pressure loss calculated as:

Pskin=141.2*Q* *B/(Kh*H)*[(H/L)*sqrt(Kh/Kv)*Skin]=2.3 psi for the example well.

As noted in the earlier vertical well discussion, this mud filtrate and mud cake skin value will be the same for
either an OHGP or OHSAS completion due to the same mud filtrate invasion radius, mud filtrate zone
permeability and mud cake removal assumptions for both completion types. Additional skin terms will then
be added for each completion type based on the dimensions and permeability of its hole/screen annulus and
its sand control screen.

Skin effects due to flow across the gravelpack or the formation-filled hole/screen annulus and the different
sand control screens are shown in Figure 18.
24 SPE

Effect of Mud Cake Removal and Annular Permeability on Skin

L=1000 ft, Mud Cake Removal=20%, Kmf/Kr=0.5, rmf/rw=5 and Well Radius=4.25" for all cases

1000

OHGP with 4-1/2" Base Pipe Screen

100 OHSAS with 6-5/8" Base Pipe Screen
Total Skin: Stotal=S+D*Q

10

0.1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Reservoir Normalized Hole/Screen Annular Permeability, Kann/Kr

In a similar fashion to that seen in the vertical well cases above, the horizontal well s skin for both the OHGP
and OHSAS completions declines as hole/screen annular permeability values rise until a minimum, best, skin
value of 1.64 is reached. This minimum skin value corresponds to the mud filtrate invasion and mud cake
removal skin noted in Figure 17. It is also interesting to note that at Kann/Kr ratios less than ten the OHSAS
has a lower total skin than the OHGP. As previously discussed, this is primarily due to the larger screen
diameter, smaller hole/screen annular gap, for the OHSAS completion.

Using a typical field Kann/Kr value of 0.2, the skin effects and skin related pressure losses for the example
horizontal OHGP and OHSAS completions are provided in Table 5.
Completion Kann/Kr Value Darcy Skin Non-Darcy D-term Flow Rate Stotal=S+D*Q DP due to Skin
OHGP 0.2 Kann/Kr 3.8 = S 2.94E-05 1/STBPD 1000 stbpd 3.9 S+D*Q 5.5 psi DPskin
OHSAS 0.2 Kann/Kr 2.2 = S 4.32E-06 1/STBPD 1000 stbpd 2.2 S+D*Q 3.2 psi DPskin

IPR comparisons for the example horizontal completions are provided in Figure 19.
SPE 25

IPR Comparison for Horizontal OHGP and OHSAS Completions

Kh=100 md, Kh/Kv=1, H=100', Zw=H/2, L=1000 ft, u=1 cp, B=1 bbl, Mud Cake Removal=20%, Kmf/Kr=0.5, rmf/rw=5 and rw=0.354'
4500

4000

3500
Pressure at Reservoir Depth, psia

3000

2500

2000

1500 OHSAS: Kann/Kr=0.2 and Screen Base Pipe OD=6-5/8""

OHGP: Kann/Kr=0.2 and Screen Base Pipe OD=4-1/2""

1000 4-1/2" Tubing Curve

5-1/2" Tubing Curve

500

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
Flow Rate, STB/day

As shown, both completion types provide roughly the same production at low to moderate drawdowns, with
the OHSAS providing slightly better overall productivity.

On the basis of the productivity comparisons provided above it is difficult to understand why OHGPs would
be selected by design teams more frequently than OHSAS completions. OHSAS completions tend to equal
or outperform OHGPs in most productivity comparisons, yet the majority of open hole sand control
completions reviewed in the literature are OHGPs. This implies that well productivity is not the main driver
used when evaluating open hole sand control completion options.

Completion Reliability for OHGP and OHSAS Completions

After productivity, the next most hotly debated topic in the OHGP vs. OHSAS review process is well
reliability. In particular, the sand control reliability of the completion. In this area there is a great deal of
anecdotal evidence available but there are only limited published studies on the subject. The two most
comprehensive and most frequently referenced studies33-34 are found in SPE 53926 and SPE 84262.

These studies both show failure rates for OHSAS completions to be in the 20 to 25% range. The earlier
study, reported in SPE 53926, did not review OHGP completions as they were not generally being applied in
offshore wells at the time. King et al s initial study34 reviewed both open hole and cased hole sand control
completions and reported the failure rate for OHGPs to be in the 6% range. Subsequent updates to this
database35 have shown the failure rate of the OHGPs to have risen to around 12% while the OHSAS failure
rate has dropped to around 14%.

While representative of the data available for compilation at the time of the studies, these pioneering
26 SPE

databases are thought to provide a distorted view of current open hole sand control reliability due to their
emphasis on early-time data from operators with high failure rates. The conclusions provided in SPE 53926
were developed from early to mid-1990s failure data from a wide range of stand-alone screen completions.
In many of these wells, older pre-pack screens were run in mud without effective mud displacement or
filtercake clean-up treatments. Similarly, King et al s database34 relied on failure data from a wide range of
operators that had not implemented effective open hole sand control completion practices such as the use of
acid soluble drill-in fluids, effective hole cleaning, use of wellbore clean-up treatments and use of premium
wire-mesh sand control screens. As open hole completion techniques have improved, completion sand
control reliability in both OHSAS and OHGPs has also improved, although this improvement cannot be
shown in the static databases provided in the available SPE references33-35.

Review of industry data from operators that have used improved completion design and implementation
practices shows much lower failure rates for OHSAS and OHGP completions. To illustrate this point, field
reliability data from a series of ConocoPhillips OHSAS completions will be used36. These wells were all
completed using a controlled design and implementation process consisting of:

* Sand Screen Selection based on Laboratory Testing of Core and Screen

* Drill-In Fluid Design Based on Laboratory Testing for damage and clean-up effectiveness
* Selection of Drill-In Fluid Clean-Up System based on Lab Testing
* Use of Drill-In Fluid Maintenance Guidelines based on Lab Testing
* Effective displacement of Drill-In Fluid from the hole prior to running screens
* Use of Field Procedures to ensure effective acid/filtercake contact
* Effective corrosion inhibition of wellbore clean-up fluids

These OHSAS wells are completed in a wide range of oil and gas reservoirs with premium wire-mesh sand
control media sized from 100 microns to 250 microns to control target formation (d10) grain size diameters
ranging from 90 to over 250 microns. Reliability data on the OHSAS wells outlined above is provided in
Figure 20.
SPE 27

Sand Control Failure Data for ConocoPhillips OHSAS Completions

Data Current through December 2009
1000
Well Count, Number of Failures and Cumulative Failure % .

Number of Wells
Number of Sand Failures
100 Cumulative Failure %

10

0.1
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 10 to 11 11 to 12 12 to 13 13 to 14 14 to 15 15 to 16 16 to 17
Well Life, years

As shown, well failure rates for wells completed using the OHSAS design/implementation process noted
above are less than 5% as opposed to the previously quoted 20+% range. A number of these wells have been
in service for longer than 10 years, maintaining high productivity without sand production. This experience
is not unique to ConocoPhillips. Other operators that have concentrated on OHSAS completions have
developed similar design and implementation methodologies and have seen similar success37-38

Comparison of ConocoPhillips OHSAS failure data with general industry failure data33-35 is provided in
Figure 21.
28 SPE

Sand Control Failure Data for Open Hole Completions

Cumulative Failure Rate=100%*Sand Control Failures/Total Number of Completions
50

45
SPE 53296 Database-1999
40 SPE 84262 Database-2006
COP Database-2009
Cumulative Failure Rate, %

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
Open Hole Gravelpack Open Hole Stand-Alone Screen

This comparison shows that sand control reliability data for well designed and well executed OHSAS
completions is considerably better than current industry references suggest. The data also suggest that well
designed and well executed OHSAS completions offer the same or better reliability than that provided by
OHGP completions.

Comparison of this same information with cased hole gravelpack and cased hole frac-pack reliability data34-
35
shows that open hole completions offer the same general level of reliability as cased hole sand control
completions. This is shown in the Figure 22.
SPE 29

Sand Control Failure Data for Open and Cased Hole Completions
Cumulative Failure Rate=100%*Sand Control Failures/Total Number of Completions
50

45
SPE 53296 Database-1999
40 SPE 84262 Database-2006
ConocoPhillips Database-2009
Cumulative Failure Rate, %

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
Cased Hole Gravelpack/Frac-Pack Open Hole Gravelpack Open Hole Stand-Alone Screen

Due to the marked differences in the open hole sand control failure rates for wells following the
ConocoPhillips design process outlined above and the older industry data it is worthwhile to review the main
causes of sand control failures observed in open hole completions.

For Open Hole Stand-Alone Screen Completions the major failure mechanisms observed by the authors are:

Ineffective Sand Screen Design

Ineffective Mud and Mud Cake Clean-Up
Ineffective Corrosion Inhibition of the Screen

Ineffective Sand Screen Design

Ineffective sand screen design encompasses selection of the correct aperture for premium wire-mesh screens
or gap-width for wire-wrapped screens as well as selection of adequate mechanical strength of the screen
system for use under the target downhole conditions39. To prevent ineffective sizing of the sand control
media, best practice calls for laboratory flow testing of field cores against a range of screen samples40.
Assessment of sand passage and permeability results from these flow tests allows selection of the best sand
control media for the reservoir or field in question. In general the best screen designs allow passage of
reservoir fines and mud solids while stopping large formation grains to build a natural high permeability
pack around the screen. In a similar manner, preventing use of sand screens with inadequate mechanical
strength requires a determination of likely downhole loads and rigorous qualification testing as outlined in
SPE 11008239 and the new ISO screen standard40.
30 SPE

Ineffective Mud and Mud Cake Clean-Up

Ineffective mud and mud cake clean-up encompasses drill-in fluid design, mud displacement and filtercake
clean-up design and execution. All three are crucial for successful open hole stand-alone screen completion
design. As in the screen selection process, effective design starts with laboratory testing. Alternative drill-in
fluid designs are tested to assess mud damage potential, filtercake lift-off and filtercake clean-up/solubility
against formation core samples. Filtercake flowback through the target screen with and without chemical
clean-up is also performed. These tests also review the effects of different mud contaminants on filtercake
performance to determine effective field drill-in fluid maintenance guidelines for maximum acid insoluble
drill solids content and maximum reactive solids content. Mud displacement operations and chemical clean-
up operations are simulated using vendor software to optimize displacement and clean-up fluid flow around
the screen. Centralizer requirements are also determined during this stage of the design. After a proper drill-
in fluid and clean-up system has been designed, field procedures for reservoir drilling, drill-in fluid
maintenance, drill-in fluid displacement, screen running and clean-up. In new areas which have not
performed OHSAS completions, experienced personnel are placed on location to supervise the initial jobs
and train local personnel.

Ineffective Corrosion Inhibition of the Sand Screen

Ineffective corrosion inhibition of the sand screen encompasses selection of the correct metallurgy for the
sand screen base pipe and more importantly the metallurgy for the premium wire-mesh or wire-wrap sand
control media. It also encompasses selection of appropriate corrosion inhibitors for use in the chemical
filtercake clean-up system. As in the previous sections, best practices calls for detailed laboratory testing of
inhibited clean-up systems for times up to and beyond the maximum anticipated time that the clean-up fluids
will remain in contact with the screen. In many cases this requires corrosion coupon tests to be run under
downhole temperature conditions for three and four weeks. An effective corrosion inhibitor is selected on
the basis of these tests and the resulting chemical clean-up system with all additives, including corrosion
inhibitor, is checked to determine if it still provides effective filtercake clean-up.

Of these potential OHSAS failure mechanisms, the most commonly seen in well failure analyses is
Ineffective Mud and Mud Cake Clean-Up. In cases examined to date, ineffective rig-site quality control of
the drill-in fluid system or poor drill-in fluid displacement/chemical washing of the hole/screen annulus is
most common. Review of available data from well failures in partner operated fields indicates that this is
also the most common mechanism seen in the field.

For Open Hole Gravelpack Completions the major failure mechanisms are:
Ineffective Sand Screen Design
Ineffective Mud and Mud Cake Clean-Up
Ineffective Corrosion Inhibition of the Screen
Ineffective Gravel Sand Control Design
Ineffective Gravel Placement

These OHGP failure mechanisms include all of the failure mechanisms for OHSAS completions but offer
two additional failure mechanisms: Ineffective Gravel Sand Control Design and Ineffective Gravel
Placement.

Ineffective Sand Screen Design

SPE 31

Preventing ineffective sand screen design for OHGPs is essentially the same as for OHSAS completions. In
long intervals, screen selection generally follows OHSAS design and laboratory testing guidelines. Screens
are typically tested to provide control of formation grains to minimize screen failure chances in the event of
an incomplete gravelpack.

Ineffective Mud and Mud Cake Clean-Up

As with sand screen design, preventing Ineffective mud and mud cake clean-up in OHGPs is essentially the
same as in OHSAS completions. Best practice calls for rigorous testing of mud candidates and filtercake
clean-up systems. For OHGPs, effective placement of a chemical filtercake clean-up system is more difficult
than for a comparable OHSAS completion. This is because the OHGP clean-up treatment must be pumped
through a gravel-filled hole/screen annulus at low rates against a largely intact filtercake. As can be
imagined, pumping at low rates into the gravelpacked annulus and trying to provide effective chemical
contact/dissolution of the mud cake is a very difficult task. Laboratory simulations and Kann/Kr values
calculated from field data show that this process has not been successfully mastered.

Ineffective Corrosion Inhibition of the Sand Screen

Prevention of ineffective corrosion inhibition in OHGPs requires the same techniques as those outlined for
OHSAS completions above.

Ineffective Gravel Sand Control Design

As in sand control design for screens, gravel sand control design requires laboratory testing to determine an
effective gravel size to prevent formation solids from moving from the reservoir through the gravelpacked
hole/screen annulus and then into the wellbore. In addition, an effective gravel design must be large enough
to allow for successful clean-up and flowback of the filtercake laid down during drilling and must also be
small enough to prevent flowback of large particles that then form a filtercake on the sand control screen.
Use of too large a gravel size will allow plugging of the gravelpack with formation solids, leading to low
hole/screen annular permeability values, and, if combined with a small sand control screen opening size, may
cause a filtercake to form around the sand screen. Review of Saucier s data42 shows that mixing of clean
gravel and formation solids in a poorly sized pack can lower effective permeabilities to values significantly
less than reservoir permeabilities. Inclusion of mud solids from the drilling filtercake can lower the effective
hole/screen annular permeability still further.

Ineffective Gravel Placement

Ineffective gravel placement can result in voids or incomplete gravel fill of the hole/screen annulus. When
this occurs, high permeability hot spots can occur, allowing high rates of flow over limited areas. When
coupled with low hole/screen annular permeabilities in other areas of the gravelpack this can lead to erosion
of the sand screen and well failure. In these cases, the incomplete gravelpack actually encourages well
failure by providing high differential drawdown and flow variation along the well.

Of these potential OHGP failure mechanisms, the most commonly seen in well failure analyses is Ineffective
Mud and Mud Cake Clean-Up and Incomplete Gravel Placement32, 43-44. In cases that the authors have
examined to date, poor drill-in fluid displacement/chemical washing of the gravelpacked hole/screen annulus
is most common. Available PLT data from well failure examples typically shows high drawdown along the
wellbore with a small number of very high rate flow hot spots prior to failure. This indicates that the
majority of gravelpacked hole/screen annulus has relatively low permeability leading to high drawdown with
small areas having very high permeability. This variation in flow performance along the well length is most
32 SPE

probably due to incomplete gravel placement. The resulting difference in gravelpack permeability leads to
hot spots which cause screen erosion and well failure over time.

Summary
The productivity and reliability data provided in this paper show that selection of alternative open hole sand
control completion designs can be made on the basis of a design process based on laboratory testing and
sound engineering evaluation

Use of the productivity design methodology outlined in this paper in conjunction with sand control and
wellbore clean-up design techniques outlined in the reference papers cited can improve both open hole
gravelpack and open hole stand-alone screen reliability and performance.

Objective evaluations based on flow performance, well reliability and project economics should also result in
selection of open hole stand-alone screen completions in many more cases than currently seen. This, in turn,
is expected to lower field development costs and drive further improvements in open hole completion
reliability. A further outcome will be to provide additional data for future reliability and productivity
comparisons.

Acknowledgement
The authors thank ConocoPhillips for permission to publish this paper. In addition we would also like to
thank the many colleagues who have published data on open hole sand control completions.
SPE 33

Nomenclature:

Q=flow rate, stb/day

=fluid viscosity, cp
B=fluid volume factor, bbl/stb
=fluid density at flowing conditions, lb/ft^3
P=pressure, psia
P=pressure differential, psi
Preservoir=pressure differential to flow through undamaged reservoir, psi
Pskin =pressure differential due to skin, psi
PDarcyskin =pressure differential due to Darcy skin, psi
Pnon-Darcyskin =pressure differential due to Non-Darcy skin, psi

K=permeability, md
Kr=undamaged reservoir permeability, md
Kh=undamaged reservoir horizontal permeability, md
Kv=undamaged reservoir vertical permeability, md
Kann=hole/screen annular permeability, md
Kmf=permeability in mud filtrate invaded region, md
Kmc=effective permeability of the mud cake, md
Ks=effective permeability of sand control screen, md
Kpt=effective permeability of material filling perforation tunnel, md

H=formation net pay vertical thickness, ft

Hmd=well measured length completed across formation, ft

L=horizontal well length, ft

Lann=length of hole/screen annulus, ft

=Forchheimer turbulence coefficient, 1/ft

mf=Forchheimer turbulence coefficient for mud filtrate invaded zone, 1/ft
r=Forchheimer turbulence coefficient for undamaged reservoir, 1/ft

re=drainage radius, ft
rmf=mud filtrate invasion radius, ft
rw=drilled wellbore radius, ft
rmci=internal radius of mud cake, ft
rso=outer radius of sand control screen, ft
rsi=internal radius screen s sand control media=outer radius of base pipe, ft
rli=internal radius of screen base pipe, ft

Stotal=Darcy Skin + Non-Darcy Skin, dimensionless

S=Darcy skin, dimensionless

Sann=Darcy skin due to gravel or formation solids filled hole/screen annulus, dimensionless
34 SPE

Smc=Darcy skin due to mud cake, dimensionless

Smf=Darcy skin due to mud filtrate invasion, dimensionless
Sq/L =Darcy horizontal well skin referenced to flow rate in BPD/ft of well length, dimensionless

D=Non-Darcy Skin Coefficient, 1/stbpd

Dr=Non-Darcy Skin Coefficient for reservoir flow convergence, 1/stbpd
Dmf=Non-Darcy Skin Coefficient for mud filtrate invaded zone, 1/stbpd

d10=formation grain size at the 10% cumulative weight/volume point in a sieve or laser particle size
distribution: d10 is coarser than 90% of the distribution

p50=value at 50 percentile point on cumulative distribution

p90=value at 90 percentile point on cumulative distribution

IPR=inflow performance relationship

OHSAS=open hole stand-alone screen
OHGP=open hole gravelpack
CHFP=cased hole frac-pack
ISO=International Standards Organization
SPE 35

References:
1) Burton, R.: Impact of Open Hole Sand Control on Well Performance , presentation at Completions
Engineering Association Open Hole Sand Control Symposium, Houston, Texas, November 4-5, 2009.

2) Marques, L.C.C. et al; The 200th Horizontal Openhole Gravel-Packing Operation in Campos Basin: A
Milestone in the History of Petrobras Completion Practices in Ultradeep Waters , SPE 106364 presented at
the European Formation Damage Conference, Scheveningen, the Netherlands, May 30-June 1, 2007.

3) Welling, R.; Conventional high Rate Well Completions: Limitation of Frac & Pack, High Rate Water
Pack and Open Hole Gravel Pack Completions , SPE 39475 presented at the SPE International Symposium
on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, February 18-19, 1998.

4) Akong, S. et al: Completion of High-Rate Gas Wells, Horizontal Gravel Pack and Filter-Cake Clean-Up:
A Case History from the Mahogany Field, Trinidad , SPE 86515 presented at the SPE International
Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, February 18-20, 2004.

5) Burton, R. and Boggan, S.; Sand Control Completion Design, Installation and Performance of High Rate
Gas Wells in the Jupiter Field , SPE 39432 presented at the SPE International Symposium on Formation
Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, February 18-19, 1998.

6) Burton, R., Davis, E., Hodge, R., Gilbert, T., Stomp, R., Abdelmalek, N and Bailey, M.; Subsea
Development of Shallow, Low-Pressure, Gas Reservoirs Using High Performance Well Designs , SPE
74365 presented at the International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition, Villahermosa, Tabasco, Mexico,
February 10-12, 2005.

7) Hawkins, M.F.: A Note on the Skin Effect , Trans. AIME, 207 (1956), 356-357.

8) Hodge, R., Burton, R., Fischer, C. and Constein, V.: "Productivity Impairment of Openhole Gravel Packs
Caused by Drilling Fluid Filtercake", SPE 128060 presented at the SPE International Formation Damage
Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, February 10-12, 2010.

9) Hodge et al: Evaluation and Selection of Drill-In Fluid Candidates to Minimize Formation Damage ,
SPE 31082 presented at the SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,
Louisiana, February 14-15, 1996.

10) Parler, M. et al: Laboratory Development of a Novel, Simultaneous Cake-Cleanup and Gravel-Packing
System for Long, Highly Deviated or Horizontal Open-hole Completions , SPE 50651 presented at the
European Formation Damage Conference, the Hague, the Netherlands, October 20-22, 1998.

11) Parler, M. et al: Filtercake Cleanup in Open-Hole Gravel-Packed Completions: A Necessity or A

Myth? , SPE 63232 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas,
October 1-4, 2010.

12) Gruesbeck, C., Salathiel, W.M. and Echols, E.E.: Design of Gravelpacks in Deviated Wellbores , SPE
6805, JPT, January 1979.
36 SPE

13) Hodge, R.M.: Gravel Transport in Deviated Wellbores , SPE 10654 presented at the SPE Formation
Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, March 24-25, 1982.

14) Chambers, M.R., Hebert, D.B and Shuchart, C.E.: Successful Application of Oil-based Drilling Fluids
in Subsea Horizontal, Gravelpacked Wells in West Africa , SPE 58743 presented at the SPE International
Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, February 23-24, 2000.

15) Tiffin, D. et al: Evaluation of Filtercake Flowback in Sand Control Completions , SPE 68933 presented
at the European Formation Damage Conference, the Hague, the Netherlands, May 21-22, 2001.

16) Hylkema, H. et al: Integrated Approach to Completion Design Results in Major Producers in Trinidad:
The Hibiscus Project , SPE 81108: presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference, Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, West Indies, April 27-30, 2003.

17) Luyster, M.R., Patel, A.D. and Ali, S.A.: Development of a Delayed-Chelating Cleanup Technique for
Openhole Gravel-Packs Horizontal Completions Using a Reversible Invert Emulsion Drill-In System SPE
98242 presented at the SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana,
February 15-16, 2006.

18) Davis, E.R. et al: Optimizing Drill-In Fluid and Completion Cleanup Processes for Openhole
Gravelpacked Completions in Low Temperature Formations , SPE 86510 presented at the SPE International
Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, February 18-20, 2004.

19) Constein, V.: Evaluation of Formation Damage/Completion Impariment Following Dynamic Filter-
Cake Deposition on Unconsolidated Sand , SPE 112497 presented at the SPE International Formation
Damage Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, February 13-15, 2008.

20) Burton, R.C. and Hodge, R.M.: The Impact of Formation Damage and Completion Impairment on
Horizontal Well Productivity , SPE 49097 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, September 27-30, 1998.

21) Burton, R.C. and Hodge, R.M.: "Drilling and Completion of Horizontal Wells Requiring Sand Control,"
SPE 52812 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, Holland, March 9-11, 1999.

22) Pinto, A.C.C. et al: Marlim Complex Development: A Reservoir Engineering Overview SPE 69438
presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires,
Argentina, March, 2001. 1999.

23) Calderon, A. et al: Experience with Clean Up in Open Hole Injectors , presentation at Completions
Engineering Association Open Hole Sand Control Symposium, Houston, Texas, November 4-5, 2009.

24) White, D., Price-Smith, C. and Keatings, P.: Breaking the Completions Paradigm: Delivering World
Class Wells in Deepwater Angola , SPE 115434 presented at the SPE Russian Oil & Gas Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Moscow, Russia, October 2008.

25) Whaley, K., Price-Smith, C., Burt, D. and Jackson, P.: Greater Plutonio Openhole Gravel-Pack
SPE 37

Completions: Fluid Design and Field Applications , SPE 107297 presented at the European Formation
Damage Symposium, Scheveningen, the Netherlands, May 30-June 1, 2007.

26) Hurst, G. et al: Alternate Path Completions: A Critical Review and Lessons Learned from Case
Histories with Recommended Practices for Deepwater Applications , SPE 86532 presented at the SPE
Formation Damage Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, February 18-20, 2004.

27) Cooper, S.D. et al: A Critical Review of Completion Techniques for High Rate Gas Wells Offshore
Trinidad , SPE 106854 presented at the European Formation Damage Symposium, Scheveningen, the
Netherlands, May 30-June 1, 2007.

28) Healy, J. et al: Erosion Study of 400 MMcf/D Completion: Cannonball Field, Offshore Trinidad , SPE
115546 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, September
21-24, 2008.

29) Mason, D. et al: A Comparison of the Performance of Recent Sand Control Completions in the Mokoko
Abana Field Offshore Cameroon , SPE 94651 presented at the European Formation Damage Symposium,
Scheveningen, the Netherlands, May 25-27, 2005.

30) Powers, B.S. et al: A Critical Review of Chirag Field Completions Performance-Offshore Azerbaijan
B , SPE 98146 presented at the SPE Formation Damage Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, February 2006.

31) Davidson, E.: Successful Deployment of a New Stimulation Chemical, Post-Horizontal Open Hole
Gravel Pack in Wells Drilled with Both Water-Based and Oil-Based Drill-In Fluid , SPE 101964 presented
at the SPE/IADC Indian Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition, Mumbai, India, October 16-18,
2006.

32) ConocoPhillips Files

33) Foster, J., Grigsby, T. and LaFontaine, J.: The Evolution of Horizontal Completion Techniques for the
Gulf of Mexico: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going , SPE 53926 presented at the SPE Latin
American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Caracas, Venezuela, April 21-23, 1999.

34) King, G., Wildt, P. and O Connell, E.: Sand Control Completion Reliability and Failure Rate
Comparison with a Multi-Thousand Well Database , SPE 84262 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, October 5-8, 2003.

35) King, G, personal communication-updates to SPE 84262 database

36) ConocoPhillips Well Failure Database

37) Petit, G., Foucalt, H. and Igbal, A.; Sand Control Robustness in a Deepwater Development: Case
Histories from Girassol Field (Angola) , SPE 107767 presented at the European Formation Damage
Conference, Scheveningen, the Netherlands, May 30-June 1, 2007.

38) Mathisen, AM., Aastveit, G.L. and Alteras, E.; Successful Installation of Stand Alone Sand Screen in
38 SPE

More Than 200 Wells-The Importance of Screen Selection Process and Fluid Qualification , SPE 107539
presented at the European Formation Damage Conference, Scheveningen, the Netherlands, May 30-June 30,
2007.

39) Adams, P.R. et al: Current State of the Premium Screen Industry; Buyer Beware. Methodical Testing
and Qualification Shows You Don't Always Get What You Paid For SPE 110082 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, California, November 11-14, 2007.

40) Hodge, R., Burton, R., Constein, V. and Skidmore, V.: An Evaluation Method for Screen-Only and
Gravel-Pack Completions , SPE 73772 presented at the SPE Formation Damage Symposium, Lafayette,
Louisiana, February 20-21, 2002.

41) International Standard ISO-17824: Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries-Downhole Equipment-Sand
Screens, first edition, 2009-08-15.

42) Saucier, R.J.: Considerations in Gravel Pack Design , JPT, February 1974.

43) Svela, P.E. et al: Identifying Point of Failure and Repairing Damaged Sand Screens in Gravel Packed
Wells: A Case History from the Heidrun Field , SPE 122153 presented at the SPE European Formation
Damage Conference, Scheveningen, the Netherlands, May 27-29, 2009.

44) Arukhe, J., Uchendu, C. and Nwoke, L.: Horizontal Screen Failures in Unconsolidated, High-
Permeability Sandstone Reservoirs: Revering the Trend , SPE 97299 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, October 9-12, 2005.

45) Hamid, S. and Ali, S.A.: Causes of Sand Control Screen Failures and Their Remedies , SPE 38190
presented at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference, the Hague, the Netherlands, May 2-3, 1997.

46) Krieger, K.D, and Pucknell, J.K.: Producing Trinidad Solids Free: A Retrospective Sand Control
Completion Study , SPE 81053 presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Conference,
Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, West indies, April 27-30, 2003.