See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/338348398

A review of experimental studies on sand screen selection for unconsolidated

sandstone reservoirs

Article in Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology · January 2020

DOI: 10.1007/s13202-019-00826-y

CITATIONS READS

8 824

3 authors:

Nur Aqilah Ahad Morteza Jami

Universiti Teknologi Brunei Institution
1 PUBLICATION 8 CITATIONS 15 PUBLICATIONS 185 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Stephen Tyson
Universiti Teknologi Brunei
35 PUBLICATIONS 192 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Facies Modelling with Non-Linear Geostatistics Incorporating Depositional Asymmetry View project

PREDICTION AND MANAGEMENT OF SOLIDS PRODUCTION View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nur Aqilah Ahad on 18 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-019-00826-y

REVIEW PAPER - PRODUCTION ENGINEERING

A review of experimental studies on sand screen selection

for unconsolidated sandstone reservoirs
Nur Aqilah Ahad1 · Morteza Jami1 · Stephen Tyson1

Received: 16 September 2019 / Accepted: 23 December 2019

© The Author(s) 2020

Abstract
Sand production is a problem that affects hydrocarbon production from unconsolidated sandstone reservoirs. Several fac-
tors, such as the strength of the reservoir, its lithification and cementation and reduction in pore pressure, may cause sand
to be separated from the rock and transported by hydrocarbons to the well. Producing sand commonly causes erosion and
corrosion of downhole and surface equipment, leading to production interruptions and sometimes forces operators to shut-in
wells. Several different methods of sand control are available to reduce the impact of sand production. The reviewed papers
suggest that the most suitable methods for unconsolidated sandstone reservoirs are stand-alone screens and gravel packs.
Because of the cost and complexity of gravel packs, stand-alone screens are usually the first choice. These screens have
different geometries, and selection of the most suitable screen depends on the particle size distribution of the grains in the
formation and other reservoir and production parameters. A screen retention test, run in a laboratory with screen samples
and typical sands, is often used to ensure that the screen is suitable for the reservoir. This paper reviews the main causes of
sand production, the properties of unconsolidated sandstones that predispose reservoirs to sand production problems and
the selection criteria for the most suitable mitigation method. The process of selecting a screen using experimental screen
retention tests is reviewed, and the limitations of these tests are also discussed. Some numerical simulations of experimental
tests are also reviewed, since this represents a very cost-effective alternative to laboratory experiments.

Keywords Sand production · Fine production · Sand control · Well screen · Stand-alone screen · Sand retention test

Introduction and Sylvester 2015; Changyin et al. 2016; Gupta et al. 2016;
Toelsie and Prediepkoemar 2013; Matanovic et al. 2012).
Sand production affects more than 70% of the oil and gas In considering sand control methods, one must differen-
reservoirs around the world (Khamehchi et al. 2015; Ikporo tiate between load-bearing solids and fine particles (fines),
and Sylvester 2015). It can have a severe effect on well pro- where it is actually beneficial to produce fines as long as they
ductivity and equipment as it could plug the well and erode can move freely through the screen or gravel packs and not
equipment which could lead to loss of containment and also plug it. Sand control usually refers to the control of the load-
settle in surface vessels. Sand production can be controlled bearing solids that support the overburden. The critical fac-
and mitigated by installing sand control both downhole and tor in assessing the risk of sand production is the ability to
at the surface. The application of sand control in a reservoir maintain the sand production below an acceptable rate, and
could prevent or minimize the sand from being produced. at flow rates which will make the well production accept-
However, installing unsuitable sand control normally comes able. The aim of this paper is to review the experimental
with risks, such as high skin and a decrease in productivity studies on various sand screens to mitigate sand production
index (Hodge et al. 2002; Khamehchi et al. 2015; Ikporo in unconsolidated reservoirs (Ikporo and Sylvester 2015;
King 2013; Hodge et al. 2002; Khamehchi et al. 2015).

* Morteza Jami Causes of sand production

[email protected]
Sand production generally occurs when the reservoir
1
School of Petroleum and Chemical Engineering, Universiti sandstone cement is weak and fails under in situ stress or
Teknologi Brunei, Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

imposed stress, where both stresses were changed during compaction and cementation of sandstone is a secondary
hydrocarbon production. The produced oil or gas from such geological or diagenetic process. Older sediments and par-
reservoirs can create problems ranging from erosion of the ticular lithologies tend to be more consolidated. For this
downhole or surface facilities to well stability and later pro- reason, most shallow, geologically younger reservoirs are
duced sand disposal. Sand production can occur both natu- associated with sand production, as they often have weak
rally, in unconsolidated formations, or due to drilling and cementation that binds the sand grains together. Compres-
production activities. sive rock strength is a geomechanical property of rock that
In completely unconsolidated formations, sand produc- is related to the degree of consolidation. Unconsolidated
tion may happen at the start of the fluid flow from the for- formations usually have a compressive strength of less than
mation due to drag from the fluid or gas turbulence, which 1000 psi or about 6.89 MPa (Ikporo and Sylvester 2015;
detaches sand grains and carries them to the perforation. Wan and Wang 2004; Ikporo and Sylvester 2015; Toelsie
It also can start when there are changes in the production and Prediepkoemar 2013; Penberthy and Shaughnessy 1992;
rate, water breakthrough or changes in the gas–liquid ratio Roberts 2014; Suman et al. 1991).
(Deghani 2010; Ikporo and Sylvester 2015; Toelsie and
Prediepkoemar 2013). Reduction in pore pressure throughout the life
Sand production can lead to one or more of the following of a well
problems:
Part of the weight of the overlying rocks is supported by the
• Formation damage or collapse by the flowing sand grains pore pressure in the reservoir. Upon producing hydrocarbon,
• Wellbore instability the pore pressure drops and some of the support is removed.
• Casing collapse This creates an increased amount of stress on the reservoir
• Impairment or failure of downhole and surface equip- to the point where the sand grains may break loose from the
ment matrix and create fines that are produced along with fluids
• Lost production time due to well shut-in to change dam- (Penberthy and Shaughnessy 1992; Roberts 2014; Suman
age equipment or clean the sand filled wellbore et al. 1991; Toelsie and Prediepkoemar 2013).
• Work-overtime and expense to service the well and pro-
duction equipment Production rate
• Coiled tubing cost and possible complications
• Cost of separating sand from the produced fluid The production of reservoir fluids creates pressure differen-
• Environmental problems in the disposal of the produced tial and frictional drag forces that could exceed the formation
contaminated sand. compressive strength when those two forces are combined.
This suggests that there is a critical flow rate, a rate when
When sand and hydrocarbon are produced at the surface the combined forces are great enough to exceed the forma-
with a given flow rate, it creates downhole reservoir cavita- tion compressive strength for the sand production to happen.
tion, and over time the formation may collapse due to lack of This critical flow rate may be determined by slowly increas-
support which may result in a complete loss of productivity. ing the production rate until sand production is detected. In
The formation collapse leads to a significant pressure drop many cases, the critical flow rates are usually found to be
near the wellbore. When sand production occurs, the sand below the acceptable production rate for the well (Khame-
grains will accumulate behind the casing to create a lower hchi and Reisi 2015; Khamehchi et al. 2015; Ikporo and
permeability zone, especially for formations with a high clay Sylvester 2015; Penberthy and Shaughnessy 1992; Roberts
content or a wide range of sand grain sizes. Sandstones with 2014; Suman et al. 1991; Toelsie and Prediepkoemar 2013).
narrow grain size distributions show lower variations in per-
meability. The five main factors affecting the sand produc- Reservoir fluid viscosity
tion are: the degree of consolidation, reduction in pore pres-
sure, production rate, reservoir fluid viscosity and increasing The frictional drag force created by the flow of reservoir
water production throughout the life of the well (Ikporo and fluid is directly related to the velocity of the fluid flow and
Sylvester 2015; Deghani 2010; Khamehchi et al. 2015). viscosity of the reservoir fluid being produced. High fluid
viscosity will apply a greater frictional drag force to the for-
Degree of consolidation mation sand grains and will cause sand to be produced from
many heavy oil reservoirs (Ikporo and Sylvester 2015; Pen-
The degree of consolidation defines how strong the indi- berthy and Shaughnessy 1992; Roberts 2014; Suman et al.
vidual sand grains have been bound together and how 1991; Matanovic et al. 2012; Toelsie and Prediepkoemar
the cementation process has developed. Typically, the 2013; Changyin et al. 2016).

13
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

Increasing water production throughout the life Types of sand production

of a well
According to Khamehchi and Reisi (2015), the classification
Sand production may happen when water enters the well. of sand production is considered an essential part of predict-
Water production has a severe impact on the stability of ing the produced sand rates. This classification has been
the sand arch around the perforation, which may initiate developed based on field observations to allow for a better
sand production. Water production can affect the relative comparison and interpretation of sand production.
permeability in water-wet formations. As more water is
produced, the relative permeability of oil decreases and Transient sand production
this results in an increase in differential pressure to pro-
duce oil at the same production rate. This eventually cre- Transient sand production is when the sand concentration
ates a greater shear force across the formation sand grains is declining with time under constant well production con-
and leads to instability of sand arch around each perfora- ditions. It is observed during clean-up after perforating or
tion and raises the sand production. Table 1 summarizes acidizing after bean-up and after water breakthrough.
the various causes of sand production into three catego-
ries: formation, completion and production issues. Continuous sand production

Sand settles inside the wellbore and increases the hold-up

depth. Depending on the sand concentration and the lifting
capacity of the fluid flow, the producing interval may eventu-
ally be blocked.

Table 1  Parameters influencing sand production (Khamehchi and Catastrophic sand production
Reisi 2015)
Categories Factors affecting sand production This happens when the rate of sand produced is high enough
to cause the well to suddenly choke and possibly die. It may
Formation: reservoir properties Rock strength
Vertical and horizontal in situ be due to slugs of sand creating sand bridges of moderate
stresses (change during deple- volume in tubing or choke, for example, during or after
tion) bean-up and shut-in operations, or when a massive influx of
Depth (influences strength, sand fills and obstructs the wellbore.
stresses and pressure)
Pore pressure changes during
reservoir depletion Sand control methods
Permeability
Fluid composition (gas, oil, A wide range of sand control methods are available includ-
water)
Drainage radius ing a variety of different downhole sand screens and gravel
Reservoir thickness packs. However, installing each type of sand control car-
Reservoir heterogeneity ries risks; thus, it is important to determine the correct sand
Completion Wellbore orientation control method for a particular formation. Ott (2008) sum-
Wellbore diameter marized various types of sand control methods including;
Completion type (openhole,
perforated) no control, slotted liner, wire-wrapped screen, prepacked
Perforation policy (height, size, screen, shrouded metal mesh screen, expandable screen,
density, phasing, under/over- in situ consolidation (resin), oriented and selective perfora-
balanced). tion, openhole gravel pack, frac pack and screenless frac
Sand control (screen gravel pack,
chemical consolidation) pack.
Completion fluids, stimulation The main factors in the selection of suitable sand control
(acid volume, acid type) methods are cost, efficiencies in retaining sand and life span.
Size of tubular Table 2 presents the advantages and disadvantages of the
Production Flow rate available sand control methods.
Damage (skin)
Bean-up and shut-in policy Among various sand control methods, the screen-only
Artificial lift technique completions are considered the preferred option for the
Depletion sand control method for unconsolidated formations, as these
Cumulative sand volume methods maximize productivity and minimize completion
Water or gas coning
complexity and cost. This is consistent with a new approach

13
 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

Table 2  Advantages and disadvantages of conventional sand control methods (King 2013; Parlar et al. 2016)
Sand control method Advantages Disadvantages

Wire-wrapped screen Simplest and cheapest Easily damaged in running operations

Most difficult to plug Less resistant to erosion
Best in the lower part of a vertical well Inaccurate wire spacing can allow the
Keystone slot production of formation sand or plug
High manufacturing efficiency Can be damaged when installing through
Profile materials can be stainless steel doglegs, high angle and horizontal
sections
Expandable sand screen (ESS Easy installation Stimulation requires a separate trip
is also known as conformance The expansion provides increased internal diameter for remedial Fluid loss control devices cannot be used
screen) work Low collapse rating
Less chance of hot spots and plugging
Prepacked screen Moderately expensive Easiest to plug
Can withstand some erosion Easily damaged in running operations
Best in the upper part of the vertical well and in horizontal wells
Woven screen or metal mesh Can withstand some erosion Expensive
Best in the upper part of a vertical wells, horizontal wells and in Relative easy to plug
bare screen completions Easily damaged in running operations
Slotted liner Not used to control sand production, but to help with borehole Low rotational strength
stability Low inflow area
Moderate cost Subject to erosion
Easy installation Low reliability
Good for well-sorted sands Easily plugged
Low skin
Openhole gravel pack Maximum un-fractured contact More difficult to design or place
High flow in higher permeability formations Limited application experience
Limited zone or water control
Formation wall is close to the screen
Cased-hole gravel pack A trusted method for deepwater reservoir High cost of installation and replacement
Moderate reliability Low inflow area
Subject to erosion
Low reliability
Easily plugged

by Parlar et al. (2016), which suggests that to select sand • Type of well (producer or injector)
control options, one should start with the simplest and most • Type of fluids (oil or gas for producers, seawater, pro-
cost-effective sand control, and move to select the complex duces water or gas for injectors, cycled injection and
and expensive options if the simple ones do not meet the production as in underground gas-storage wells) rates
design criteria for the project. A stand-alone screen is usu- • Zonal-isolation requirements
ally the first choice for completing an openhole completion • Inflow control valve (ICV) requirements
that is prone to sand production (Hodge et al. 2002). • Logistics (rig space and location)
Parlar et al. (2016) have also listed technical factors
required for selecting a completion technique:
Stand‑alone screen (SAS)
• Particle size distributions (PSDs) of sand samples from
various depth Stand-alone sand screens are the lowest cost sand con-
• Lithological changes (shales, silts, clean/dirty sand) trol option. They are highly reliable and simple and give
along the planned well path long-term productivity performance. SAS is the preferred
• Rock strength option for highly deviated or horizontal openhole com-
• Economic and risk analysis including the cost of instal- pletions. One of the key parameters for SAS is the sand
lation and cost of failure retaining precision, which determines the success of
• Risks involved in well execution and through the life of sand control and whether high production rates can be
wells. achieved. The objective of SAS selection is to identify
• Tolerance to solids production considering surface facili- screens that effectively retain sands while maximizing
ties, disposal and erosion issues hydrocarbon production, by choosing optimal sand screen

13
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

aperture and evaluating the limitations during sand reten- Design and screen size selection
tion tests (Wu et al. 2016; Changyin et al. 2016).
There are different types of stand-alone sand screens The first step in designing the screen is to describe the reser-
(Fig. 1). The common types are: voir sands from samples taken from available cores and logs.
These sand samples will then be tested using a laser particle
1. Wire-wrapped screen, size analysis (LPSA) to determine the grain size distribu-
2. Prepacked screen, tion, its uniformity, the range of grain sizes with indications
3. Woven, mesh or premium screen. of sorting and grain consolidation (Agunloye and Utunedi
2014; Hodge et al. 2002).
The wire-wrapped screen is a carefully wound trian- The major factors in sand screen design and selection are:
gular-shaped wire with a constant gap in between suc-
cessive turns. The wire is welded to vertical formers • The grain size distribution and uniformity. Figure 2 is
placed at 1-cm interval around the internal diameter of an example of the grain size curves of sandstones from
the screen. Wire-wrapped screens have an advantage over different outcrops in Brunei, which shows the cumulative
prepacked screens, as they do not plug easily with drilling amount of grain sizes.
mud, and the plugging materials are easily removed from • Choosing the proper type, strength and adequate sizing
wire-wrapped screens as it tends to get trapped inside pre- to ensure long-term and effective sand control, and avoid
pack. Wire-wrapped also has an advantage over a slotted an unwanted situation such as total or partial plugging.
liner, where the gap between wire-wrapped wires could
be made smaller and achieve much greater precision to Screen permeability is also one of the important param-
allow the screen to retain finer grains than the slotted eters in designing a screen, as it is a true indicator of inflow
liner (Markested et al. 1996). capacity. The standard practice is to perform sand reten-
tion tests with real or simulated formation sand. There are
numerous design and performance criteria that should be
considered when designing a screen. Among these criteria,

Fig. 1  Different types of stand-

alone screens a and b premium
screens with multiple layers; c
wire-wrapped screen, d basic
screen; e slotted liner and f
prepacked screen. Photographs
a to d taken and image e and f
created by Jami Morteza

13
 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

Fig. 2  PSD curves generated

from grain size test of different
Brunei outcrop samples (meas-
ured at UTB by Ahad Aqilah)

the sand retention and plugging resistance (retained perme- Screen retention testing (SRT)
ability) are quite important. Over the years, sizing guidelines
have been developed to increase the sand control reliability Sand retention tests are commonly used to select the most
under specific conditions (Hodge et al. 2002; Khamehchi appropriate screen to be used in sand control. Due to the
et al. 2015; Parlar et al. 2016). problems associated with the empirical criteria, the indus-
Wu et al. (2016) present some of the important screen try-standard practice is to conduct laboratory sand retention
size selection criteria which were determined from empiri- tests on different screen coupons to determine their effective
cal correlations (Table 3) based on one or two parameters screen opening size. All tests measure pressure during the
derived from the grain or particle size distribution (PSD), test (or flow rate if pressure is controlled) and the amount of
practical experience and laboratory retention tests. sand produced. The process works with both reservoir sand
Coberly’s (1937) original screen selection criterion does and simulated sand. Wetting fluid, flow rate and channeling
not produce reliable results since it does not consider the are the major factors affecting sand retention test results.
sorting or uniformity of sands. Gillespie et al. (2000) and Sand retention tests were useful to compare the retention
Ballard and Beare (2003, 2006) suggested alternative criteria performance and plugging potential of alternative screens
which tend to perform better than Coberly (1937) by using for given formation sand (Agunloye and Utunedi 2014;
sand sorting and uniformity coefficient. It is preferable to Chanpura et al. 2011).
determine the sand screen opening size by testing a repre- Screen performance is often evaluated based on the fol-
sentative sand in a sand retention laboratory or in numerical lowing two factors (Wu et al. 2016; Mondal et al. 2011;
modeling simulation. Ballard et al. 2016):

Table 3  Lists of empirical Reference Criteria Remarks

selection criterion for sand
control aperture (Wu et al. Coberly (1937) W < 1 to 2 * d10 Wire-wrapped screen or slotted liner
2016)
Gillespie et al. (2000) W < 2.5 * d50 if Uc < 6 Sintered weave screens
Gillespie et al. (2000) W < 2 * d50 for somewhat Wire-wrapped screen
uniform sands
Ballard and Beare (2003, 2006) W < 1 * d5 Dutch twill weave screens
Ballard and Beare (2003, 2006) W < 1 * d10 Sintered weave screens

W—slot width, d5—particle size at 5% cumulative weight distribution, d10—particle size at 10% cumula-
tive weight distribution, d50—average particle diameter of the sample, Uc—uniformity coefficient

13
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

• Screen plugging, as it is preferred to have a screen that amount of sand produced, and pressure drop across the
can last as long as possible before plugging, and screen, may be obtained from the test.
• Sand retention, in order to achieve maximum sand reten-
tion, and do not pass a significant amount of sand through
the screen. Slurry test

There are two types of sand retention tests: slurry and Slurry sand retention tests use low sand concentrations
sand-pack or prepack retention test, which will be discussed pumped through the screen to prevent segregation of the
in the next section. Both of these tests are able to measure formation sand before it reaches the screen. The sand is
the following parameters (Mondal et al. 2011): suspended in a slurry which is a viscous polymer solution
and is added to a high-flow-rate brine stream by a displace-
• Mass of sand produced as a function of time or mass of ment pump to dilute the sand concentration flowing onto
sand injected which gives some measure of a screen’s the screen. Figure 4a shows the experimental set up for a
sand retention efficiency slurry test. Slurry tests measure the weight of solids that
• The pressure developed across the screen and the sand passed through the screen as well as the rate of pressure
pack to give some measure of screen’s plugging tendency buildup across the screen and the amount of sand contact-
• The particle size distribution (PSD) of the produced sol- ing the screen (Agunloye and Utunedi 2014).
ids, which will help assess erosion capability.

Wu et al. (2016) reported that in the sand retention test, Sand‑pack or prepack test
the sand has to be deposited onto the screen at a constant
drawdown pressure, and not at a constant flow rate. This is to In the sand-pack test, the sand is placed directly on the
avoid misinterpretation of the rapid increase in the pressure screen with a confining stress imposed on the sand, so
profile attributed to screen plugging from a constant flow the sand will be in full contact with the screen. A wet-
rate test. Screen plugging can be determined by measuring ting liquid will then flow through the sand pack and the
the permeability of the sand screen before and after the test screen. This test measures the weight of sand produced
was completed. Figure 3 shows the apparatus for the sand as well as the pressure drop that occurred during the test.
retention test. Figure 4b shows the experimental setup for the sand-pack
There are no agreed industry standards on how sand test (Agunloye and Utunedi 2014; Wu et al. 2016; Mondal
retention should be performed or how the results are et al. 2011; Chanpura et al. 2011).
interpreted. Parameters, such as the screen permeability,

Fig. 3  Schematic diagram of a sand retention apparatus. Modified after Changyin et al. (2016)

13
 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

Fig. 4  Schematic diagrams of a slurry test setup, b sand-pack test setup. Modified after Agunloye and Utunedi (2014)

Numerical modeling • M–S method by Mondal et al. (2010, 2011) created a

numerical simulation tool to evaluate the performance
It may be expensive and time-consuming to conduct many of sand screens. The simulation is based on a corre-
laboratory sand retention test experiments for selecting lation between numbers of particles (Np) of diameter
the effective sand control method. Numerical models and (Dp) produced through a screen of slot opening (W). It
software have been developed using experimental data allows the user to estimate the mass and the size distri-
from laboratory test. The aim of conducting numerical bution of the produced solids using the entire particle
simulations for screen size selection is to avoid repeating size distribution of the formation sand. It is applicable
laboratory tests in areas where extensive sand retention to:
test data are available. Currently, numerical modeling does
not accurately account for interactions between fluids and • Wire-wrap screens and providing more accurate pre-
the particles (Agunloye and Utunedi 2014; Wu et al. 2016; dictions of screen performance and, in the absence
Feng et al. 2012; Mondal et al. 2010; Markested et al. of experimental data, can also be used as a screen
1996; Constien and Skidmore 2006). selection tool.
A number of the numerical models have been developed • Square-mesh screens if the PSD (particle size distri-
for screen size selection: bution) of the formation sand is known.

• Feng et al. (2012) developed a fully coupled numeri- • Markested et al. (1996) developed a numerical model to
cal model by combining computational fluid dynamics simulate plugging and sand production through a single
(CFD) with discrete element method (DEM) code. This wire-wrapped screen. It was developed to predict critical
technique simulates the sand slurry flow and the sand slot widths and is based on a fractal model for the particle
retention process to determine the effect of parameters size distribution of reservoir sands.
such as liquid velocity, screen slot size and particle • Constien and Skidmore (2006) developed a method based
concentration, or solid volume ratio, on sand screen on laboratory screens testing, which is called the per-
performance. This approach, where DEM is used to formance curve or ‘mastercurve’ for individual screen
model solid phase and CFD for fluid phase, can provide laminates. The mastercurve could be used to predict the
information on the interaction forces and the movement screen performance in well with mixtures of particle size
of individual particles. It could also reveal: distributions. It is constructed by measuring screen per-
formance for produced solids and retained screen per-
• The movements of entire particle size distributions, meability versus a ratio of an effective formation size
• Retention process of sand particles by the screen, divided by the size of the screen pore opening. The aim
• The degree of plugging or blockage of the screen is to reduce the amount of possible screen configuration
aperture, and options as well as the number of tests that are needed to
• Interactions among sand particles and the screen. make selection decisions.

13
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

Alternative to stand‑alone sand control ratio. In a gravel pack completion, a screen is used with the
gravel pack to prevent the gravel from moving. The common
Parlar et al. (2016) suggest a number of reasons why SAS type of screen in the gravel pack is wire-wrap screen. Screen
completion may be inappropriate for sand control: openings should not be larger than the smallest gravel diam-
eter. Three basic tools are used in gravel packing operations:
1. Screen opening too small to manufacture
2. The formation sand retention screen is susceptible to 1. Packer or crossover tool assembly
plugging during installation which increases the comple- 2. Over-top tool assembly
tion cost or complexity beyond the gravel packing. 3. Port collars
3. The project is intolerant to any transient sand produc-
tion. Deghani (2010) has listed the basic gravel pack processes,
4. The formation is highly laminated with moveable shale which are presented in Table 4.
streaks that are difficult to isolate with annular packers
5. The formation has enough strength that at producing
conditions the wellbore will not fail immediately. Discussions and limitations of screen
retention tests
If stand-alone sand screen is not suitable for sand control,
then the next option is usually to consider gravel packing to Limitations on the sand retention test
the reservoir.
When reservoir sand is not available, commercial sand can
Gravel packing be made with a matching particle size distribution to the
reservoir sand, using either commercially quarried outcrop
Gravel pack was developed in the early 1990s in response sands or ground silica, or a mixture of both. These types of
to an increasing number of failures of the traditional stand- sand are generally well sorted with narrow size distributions.
alone sand screen completions. The driving force for apply- Ground silica is used to represent the fines in reservoir rocks,
ing openhole gravel packs (OHGPs) in deepwater wells was and as well as any inaccuracies in the representation of the
to safeguard long-term productivity of the well by mini- reservoir sand, the simulated sand will comprise silica only.
mizing screen plugging, which may result in productivity Ballard et al. (2016) state that using simulated sand could be
decline and creation of localized areas of high-velocity flow difficult in the sand retention test because the reservoir sand
(production hot spots) in non-plugged parts of the screen. production can be highly variable, and a much slower fluid
However, these factors are equally valid for onshore wells flow velocity could cause uncertainties.
that need to be completed with sand control in relatively Limitations that have been identified by Chanpura et al.
long, highly deviated reservoir sections (Vliet et al. 2001). (2011) and Agunloye and Utunedi (2014) from sand reten-
In gravel packing, sand production can be controlled by tion tests include
careful selection of gravel size considering the formation
sand size. The main factor that influences the sand produc- • A screen with a retained permeability greater than 50%
tion in gravel packed wells is the flow restriction caused by of the original screen permeability is acceptable
the gravel pack itself. There are three important parameters • The screen was selected based on the relative perfor-
in designing and investigation of gravel packed wells that mance of screen candidates
influence gravel pack permeability and cost (Khamehchi • The screen was considered plugged when the pressure
et al. 2015; Deghani 2010): difference across sand pack and screen was greater than
100 psi (0.7 MPa)
• Selection of gravel size or mesh size to stop the move- • Tests were stopped at a low pressure limit, long before
ment of formation sand, either solid production stops or stabilizes.
• Determination of gravel pack length or penetration of • Parameters such as the pressure or flow rate used in the
gravel in formation, system are generally controlled and tend to be one or two
• Placement of gravel, ideally in a tight pack that has a magnitudes higher than the field parameters. This could
radius as large as possible exaggerate the screen performance that might not exist.

The ideal size of gravel pack sand can be determined from Chanpura et al. (2011) also pointed out that the sand pro-
LPSA or sieve analysis from core samples, or bailed samples duced from sand retention tests cannot be directly used to
which tend to be large, or produced samples which tend to make quantitative predictions of sand production under field
be small, which are sized to achieve a suitable grain size conditions unless the test procedures include the maximum

13
 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

Table 4  Types of gravel packs (Deghani 2010)

Types of gravel pack Brief description

Openhole gravel pack (OHGP, sometimes referred to as internal gravel Commonly installed in vertical wells
pack, IGP) Easiest type of gravel pack
Less expensive than other types of gravel packs
Hole stability, screen plugging and thief zones can be a problem
Limited to bottom interval in multiple-zone completions
Fracture pack Combination of fracture treatment and annular gravel pack
Creates wide fracture extending through the near-wellbore zone
Could prevent from making contact with unwanted zones
Used where sands are laminated
High rate water pack Pumps water and sand at high rates to create short fractures
Maximizes gravel placement in the perforations
Typically used in completion near water or gas contacts
Horizontal openhole gravel pack It is important to define the allowable pump operating ranges
Pump rate used must be high enough to exceed the rate of fluid
loss to push the dunes of gravel (alpha wave) to the end of the
screen
Uses small-diameter tubes along the outside of the screen that
allows gravel to be pumped at high velocities.
A controlled viscosity fluid is used to suspend gravel and aid its
transport

laboratory-measured sand production rates and maximum New test apparatus introduced
impairment values.
Chen et al. (2016) developed a new test apparatus to offer
more accurate screen performance evaluation. They con-
Reservoir or simulated sands cerned that the current laboratory tests use a small screen
disk, due to its convenience and low cost. The current test
Ballard et al. (2016) conducted sand retention tests on two methods can only test the minimal opening size and pres-
reservoir sands (B77 and M1) along with their simulated sure drop of local screen material and could not effectively
version. M1 sand is better sorted than B77 sand to determine reflect the performance of an integrated screen pipe run in
the differences between using reservoir sand and simulated the wellbore.
sand on wire-wrapped and metal mesh screen in sand reten- Instead of using small disks, they used full-size screen
tion tests. The PSDs created for the simulated sands matched samples (Fig. 5). In their method, different types of full-size
the respective reservoir sands. During sand retention tests, screens were tested using sand samples from target reser-
both versions of sand gave different retention results, despite voirs. The results were then compared with the results from
having similar grain size distributions. The authors noted: the cut small disks mainly from the plots of the particle size
distribution of screen and pressure drop across the screen
• On slurry tests, both B77 and M-1 reservoir sands were sample. They concluded that the small disks sample can only
poorly retained on wire-wrapped screen and yield better reflect performances of local sand retention material.
retention on metal mesh screen than its simulated sands.
• On sand-pack tests, both B77 and M-1 reservoir sands
were better retained on both wire-wrapped and metal Sandstone properties of Brunei reservoirs
mesh screens than the simulated sands.
This section will review Brunei reservoirs that produce
This may be explained by the particle shape. The simu- sand. Brunei’s major onshore and offshore fields are situ-
lated sand is made with well-rounded particles composed ated within the Neogene Baram, Champion and Meligan
entirely of silica, but reservoir sands contain a variety of Deltas and Northwest Borneo along the South China Sea.
minerals, which affect the grain shape and its properties. These deltaic fluvio-marine sediments are composed of sev-
The authors pointed out that these observations may not be eral sandstone reservoirs vertically stacked with thin layers
widely applicable as they considered only two types of sand of laterally continuous shales as cap rocks. Anglo Saxon
in their tests, though they suggest that reservoir sand should Petroleum Co. drilled the Belait-2 well which struck the first
be used whenever possible (Ballard et al. 2016). oil in Brunei in 1914. Since then, many wells have been

13
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

higher depth known as the sand production cut-off depth

with relatively consolidated rock formation. At that time,
the expandable sand screen (ESS) was a new and unproven
technology. Three wells were completed with ESS and one
well (CW-12) with an internal gravel pack (IGP) for com-
parison. ESS was considered as a good alternative to gravel
packing because of the lower cost, the ease of operation,
logistic simplicity and completion flexibility. ESS could
expand to eliminate the annulus and make gravel packing
operations unnecessary in reservoirs with reactive shale, low
fracture gradient, or fractures and faults (Saeby et al. 2001;
Lau et al. 2004).
Reservoirs in the Champion field are relatively consoli-
dated sandstones with low risk of major sand failure, but
due to expected transient failure during high drawdown and
depletion all wells have been completed with either IGP and
ESS. Based on Table 5, the CW-12 well was completed with
Fig. 5  Schematic diagram of the full-screen test apparatus which can conventional acid prepacked IGP with PI of 15–25 m3/d/bar
replace the screen test chamber in Fig. 2. Modified after Changyin
and skin of 15. Meanwhile, the production data of CW-13,
et al. (2016)
14 and 15 with ESS completion show higher productivity.
CW-15 was tested and showed high productivity and low
drilled and several onshore and offshore fields have been skin (Q = 800 m3/d, PI = 40 m3/d/bar, skin = 5). CW-13
developed. These are poorly consolidated sandstone reser- and 14 ESS completions showed the PI in the range of
voirs, and many of the wells have experienced sand pro- 25–50 m3/d/bar. In the initial stages of production, no sand
duction. To mitigate the impact of sand production, many or water has been observed (Saeby et al.2001).
wells were completed with internal gravel packing as the
preferred method of sand control (Fourie et al. 2013; Saeby South West Ampa field
et al. 2001).
South West Ampa (SWA) field is located 10 km offshore
Champion field Brunei Darussalam. The initial discovery was made in 1963
with SWA-1 which showed a shallow reservoir with API
In 1998, Brunei Shell Petroleum (BSP) decided to redevelop gravity of 40°, initial oil viscosity of 0.35 cp with relatively
a number of reservoir blocks located in the southeastern high solution gas–oil ratio and variable condensate content.
part of the Champion field. The reservoirs involved were SWA field consists of many thin stacked sand layers, with
relatively shallow (< 1100 mTVD), with shaly, laminated a history of sand production. The shale stability issues and
and unconsolidated sandstone. These reservoirs were to be multiple sand layers made the sand control completions chal-
developed by drilling highly deviated wells, and sand control lenging. Several openhole gravel packs were installed in the
was to be installed in the producing reservoirs. Due to prob- field and were unsuccessful due to the collapse of shale once
lems during SAS installation on these deviated wells, BSP the openhole was displaced to brine. Consequently, ESS was
decided to install openhole gravel pack (Vliet et al. 2001). chosen as the sand control method to replace gravel packing
After installing OHGPs, the following production chal- and was first installed in SWA-290 well (Lau et al. 2004).
lenges were recognized: Results show that ESS was successfully run and expanded
543 m of 4″ ESS strings and expanded into a 6″ horizontal
• The small difference between pore and fracture pressure, reservoir section. Prior to running the ESS, the mud was
• The length of the reservoir sections planned to be gravel further conditioned over 325 mesh screens to reduce the par-
packed was more than 1000 m, ticle size in the mud for running and expanding the screens.
• The presence of faults and fractures and associated risk Similar 4″ ESS was successfully run in Champion Field,
of heavy fluid losses. CP-306 (Lau et al. 2004).

Champion West (CW) is located at 7 km NNW of the Egret field

Champion main field offshore Brunei and has been produc-
ing since 1975. This field was developed without consider- The Egret field is located 43 km offshore in 60 m water
ing sand production because the reservoirs were located at depth. The field consists of stacked sandstone formations in

13
 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

Table 5  Champion West wells CW-12 CW-13 CW-14 CW-15

data (Saeby et al. 2001)
Max deviation (°) 56.5 63.1 65.3 54.3
Well depth (m) 3244 4463 4444 3240
Mud type TAME/Palm Oil PETROFREE PETROFREE TAME/PalmOil
Completion brine 2% KCl/NaCl 2% KCl/NaCl CaCl2 2% KCl/NaCl
Zones (total/with-sand-control) 4/2 4/4 5/1 3/3
Top–bottom perforations (m) 2650/3190 3160/3835 2692/4393 2782/3195
Net perforation (m) 230 214 303 108
Sand control 2 × single IGP 1 × triple ESS 1 × single ESS 1 × dual ESS
1 × single ESS 1 × single ESS
Screen type IGP ESS ESS ESS
Screen size 4″ 4″ & 4.5″ 4.5″ 4″
Initial production pi (­ m3/d/bar) 25 25–50 25–50 40
Skin 15 – – 5
Total screen length (m) 152 315 116 174

TAME thermally activated mud emulsion

mainly gas and some oil-rim reservoirs. The first production field was an oil field located offshore Nigeria. Between
was from three gas wells in 2003. Two of the three gas wells, 2014 and 2016, four wells failed due to multiple sand-
EG-1A and EG-1B, needed sand control, and a combina- ing events, unstable production rates and platform trips.
tion of hydraulic fracturing and ESS was selected. The com- Further investigations of the bottom-hole pressure data
bined technologies were a key factor in achieving the desired showed that three wells, A1, A2 and A3, failed due to
product performance. After the sand control was installed, high pressure drawdown, leading to screen breakage, and
the tendency for the screen to get plugged was minimized sand bridge in tubing. A4 well failed either due to the
and the sand production was successfully controlled with a tubing restriction, screen breakage, sand bridge in tub-
low skin factor. The fines production from the Egret field ing or scale formation buildup. The asset team decided
was also successfully mitigated, with no production decline to design and install frac-pack completion to improve
observed (Abdul-Rahman et al. 2006). sand control. Frac pack was selected because it has better
durability for wells with high pressure drawdown.
Current situation • Ojeh-Oziegbe et al. (2019) describe the successful instal-
lation of a single-trip stand-alone screens completion
This section lists down some of the sand control that is (STC-SAS) in Bonga deepwater reservoir. Bonga field
recently installed in different reservoirs around the world. is located in the southwest of Warri, on the continental
They are: slope of the Niger Delta. Due to the declining oil price,
the main reason for using STC-SAS was that it could
• Zeidan et al. (2018) investigated a reservoir called Lower reduce the rig completions time by about 50% compared
Fars from Umm Niqa field in north Kuwait. This field to the conventional multiple trip SAS completions, hence
has been successfully completed with vertical cased saving operation costs.
SAS despite being in a challenging environment with • Openhole gravel packs (OHGPs) with a predrilled liner
unconsolidated, sub-hydrostatic-sand and a highly sour have been successfully installed in 4 wells in the Raven
and moderately corrosive environment. The reservoir was field as reported in Tahirov et al. (2019). Raven field is
originally planned to be completed with a gravel pack located in Egypt and is high-pressure high-temperature
because of the PSD result of the sand showing high Uc (HPHT) gas field with a reservoir pressure of over 10,700
of about 7.5% and 11% of fine sands. This plan was then psi and reservoir temperature around 141 °C (285 °F).
challenged by the author, and it was decided to complete The reservoir contains stacked channel formation and
the reservoir using Halliburton’s PoroMax SAS (vertical requires sand control completion to sustain long-term
cased SAS). The decision was made based on a thorough gas production. All 4 wells showed good performance
analysis of the formation sand, the design of the screen results with very low skin numbers (+ 1.5 to + 5).
as well as the completion fluid during SAS installation. • Mahakam River delta is located in the East Kalimantan
• Daramola and Alinnor (2018) present remedial sand Province of Borneo, Indonesia. It consists of a large gas
control for a low-permeability sandstone reservoir. The field (Tunu) and an oil filed (Handil), where the primary

13
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

targets located in the shallow, unconsolidated reservoir are important parameters in screen selection that can be
sands. The gross interval that requires sand control was determined from screen retention tests. The standard prac-
believed to be more than 1000 m long. To save rig time tice is to perform these tests with either real or simulated
to complete the wells with long multilayer intervals, mul- formation sand. There are two main types of sand retention
tizone single-trip gravel pack (MZ-STGP) completion test: slurry and sand-pack or prepack retention test. Both of
was selected to maximize oil and gas recovery. To date, these can measure the mass of sand produced as a function
more than 650 zones have been successfully installed of time, the pressure developed around the screen and the
with MZ-STGP (Muryanto et al. (2018). particle size distribution of the produced sand.
The recent development of numerical simulation tech-
niques may provide an approach to solving the general prob-
Conclusions lem of screen selection for different grain shapes and size
distributions, different fluids and different pressures, once
Sand production is controlled by four major factors: reser- these simulations have been calibrated with experimental
voir rock properties (lithological, chemistry and mechani- tests. They may also suggest improvements to experimen-
cal), fluid properties (fluid phases and chemistry, water inva- tal techniques to allow the investigation of the behavior of
sion), pressure regime (production strategy) and secondary stand-alone screens, expandable screens and gravel packs
interventions such as water or chemical flooding. A better over a range of reservoir parameters encountered during the
understanding of the impact of these factors for a given res- life of the field.
ervoir can significantly improve the effectiveness of sand The unconsolidated sands from Brunei’s deltaic and
production mitigation strategies. fluvio-deltaic reservoir sandstones are vertically stacked
Various methods of sand control are available includ- with thin layers of laterally continuous shales as cap rocks.
ing slotted liner, wire-wrapped screen, prepacked screen, These reservoirs have encountered significant sand pro-
shrouded metal mesh screen, expandable screen, in situ duction issues, so most offshore and onshore wells have
consolidation (resin), oriented and selective perforation, been completed with stand-alone screens, expandable sand
openhole and cased-hole gravel pack, frac pack and screen- screens or openhole gravel packs. The expandable and stand-
less frac pack. Each method has associated risks such as alone screens have had limited success in particular areas.
installation difficulty, cost, level of fines production, impact Openhole gravel packs have been outperforming the screens,
on well productivity and longevity. It is essential to deter- maintaining permeability across the screen, retaining sand
mine the reservoir and well parameters such as rock strength, effectively and showing a long-term resistance to plugging.
grain size distribution, lithological variations, well type and
completion, surface facilities tolerance before selecting the Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
sand control method. tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
Stand-alone sand screens are of low cost, reliable and as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
simple, with relatively good long-term productivity particu- provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
larly for highly deviated or horizontal openhole completions. were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
If stand-alone screens are to be used, standard experimen- otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
tal screen retention tests will usually be run to determine the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
the most appropriate screen for a given set of conditions; permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
typically for a well in particular location in a reservoir with need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
a known fluid composition and pressure. The limitation of
such tests is that they usually do not test the behavior of the
screen over the full range of operating parameters. A rigor-
ous screen selection procedure, based on reservoir’s grain
References
size distribution, is essential to choose the best screen for a Abdul-Rahman S, Lim D, Lim J, Ong K (2006) Innovative use of
given reservoir. expandable sand screens combined with propped hydraulic frac-
Openhole and cased-hole gravel packs are effective turing technology in two wells with intelligent completions in
alternatives to stand-alone screens. These packs minimize egret field, Brunei. In: SPE Asia Pacific oil & gas conference and
exhibition. Society of petroleum engineers
the sand production with the selection of appropriate sized Agunloye E, Utunedi E (2014) Optimizing sand control design using
gravel for the produced formation sand. Gravel packs are sand screen retention testing. In: SPE Nigeria annual international
generally designed for long-term productivity of the well and conference and exhibition. Society of petroleum engineers
are expensive and require larger-diameter holes to install. Ballard T, Beare S (2003) Media sizing for premium sand screens:
dutch twill weaves. In: SPE European formation damage confer-
Screen permeability and the associated sand retention and ence. Society of Petroleum Engineering
plugging resistance are indicators of inflow capacity which

13
 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

Ballard T, Beare S (2006) Sand retention testing: the more you do, the Matanovic D, Cikes M, Moslavac B (2012) Sand control in well con-
worse it gets. In: SPE international symposium and exhibition on struction and operation. Springer, Berlin
formation damage control. Society of petroleum engineers Mondal S, Sharma MM, Chanpura R, Parlar M, Ayoub JA (2010)
Ballard T, Beare S, Wigg N (2016) Sand retention testing: reservoir Numerical simulations of screen performance in standalone screen
sand or simulated sand—Does it matter? In: SPE international applications for sand control. In: SPE annual technical conference
conference & exhibition on formation damage control. Society of and exhibition. Society of petroleum engineers
petroleum engineers Mondal S, Sharma M, Hodge R, Chanpura R, Parlar M, Ayoub J (2011)
Changyin D, Qinghua Z, Kaige G, Kangmin Y, Xingwu F, Chong Z A new method for the design and selection of premium/woven sand
(2016) Screen sand retaining precision optimization experiment and screens. In: SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Soci-
a new empirical design model. Pet Explor Dev 43(6):1082–1088 ety of petroleum engineers
Chanpura RA, Hodge RM, Andrews JS, Toffanin EP, Moen T, Parlar M Muryanto B, Fransiskus W, Wijaya R, Styward B, Ji Y, Albertson E,
(2011) A review of screen selection for standaloe applications and Widyastuti A (2018) Applications of a multizone single-trip gravel-
a new methodology. SPE Drilling Completion 26:84–95 pack system in developing a shallow-gas field. In: Offshore technol-
Chen Y, Wang S, Deng G, Chen Z, Zhang J, Li W (2016) A new test ogy conference Asia. Offshore Technology Conference
apparatus for evaluating premium screen performance. Adv Pet Ojeh-Oziegbe O, Olatunji I, Alawode O, Walker J, Murdoch E, Patel D,
Explor Dev 11(1):30–34 Aye Y (2019) Successful installation of the first deep water single
Coberly C (1937) Selection of screen openings for unconsolidated sands. trip stand-alone screens in the industry saves rig time on bonga
API Drilling and production practice. American Petroleum Institute, project. In: Offshore Technology Conference. Offshore Technol-
New York, pp 189–201 ogy Conference
Constien VG, Skidmore V (2006) Standalone screen selection using per- Ott WK (2008) Selection and design criteria for sand control screens.
formance mastercurves. In: SPE international symposium and exhi- SPE 120505-DL, SPE Distinguished Lecture and Presentation Dur-
bition on formation damage control. Society of petroleum engineers ing 2007–2008
Daramola B, Alinnor C (2018) Optimising sand control and production Parlar M, Tibbles RJ, Gadiyar B, Stamm B (2016) A new approach for
strategies in a low permeability sandstone oil field. In: SPE inter- selecting sand-control technique in horizontal openhole comple-
national conference and exhibition on formation damage control. tions. SPE Drilling & Completion 31(01):4–15
Society of petroleum engineers Penberthy W, Shaughnessy C (1992) Sand control. Henry L. Doherty
Deghani M (2010) Oil well sand production control. In: The 1st interna- Memorial Fund of AIME, Society of petroleum engineers
tional applied geological congress. Islamic Azad University, Iran Roberts A (2014) Geotechnology: an introductory text for students and
Feng Y, Choi X, Wu B, Wong C (2012). Evaluation of sand screen per- engineers. Elsevier, Amsterdam
formance using a discrete element model. In: SPE Asia Pacific oil Saeby J, Lange F, Aitken S, Aldaz W (2001) The use of expandable
and gas conference and exhibition. Society of petroleum engineers sand-control technology as a step change for multiple-zone smart
Fourie B, Marpaung B, Jansen R, Wong A, Mok D, Karlsey N (2013) well completion—a case study. In: SPE Asia Pacific oil and gas
First installations of the 9-5/8-in. enhanced single trip multi-zone conference and exhibition. Society of petroleum engineers
sand control technology in Offshore Brunei. In: IPTC 2013: inter- Suman GO, Ellis RC, Snyder RE (1991) Sand control handbook: prevent
national petroleum technology conference production losses and avoid well damage with these latest field-
Gillespie G, Deem C, Malbrel C (2000) Screen selection for sand control proven techniques. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas
based on laboratory. In: SPE Asia Pacific oil and gas conference and Tahirov T, El-Wakeel W, Mohiuldin G, Whaley K, Jackson P, Olinger
exhibition. Society of petroleum engineers M, Elshafaie I (2019) Sand control completions for raven field in
Gupta A, Kamat D, Zulkapli M, Borhan N, Kobbeltvedt A, Hammers- Egypt. In: Offshore technology conference
mark J, Sam A (2016) An alternate sand handling technology for Toelsie S, Prediepkoemar G (2013) Sand control in shallow unconsoli-
efficient sand management: pilot and way forward. In: Offshore dated sandstone oil reservoirs at staatsolie NV suriname. In: SPE
technology conference Asia. Offshore Technology Conference European formation damage conference & exhbition. Society of
Hodge RM, Burton RC, Constien V, Skidmore V (2002) An evaluation petroleum engineers
method for screen-only and gravel-pack completions. In: Interna- Vliet J, Lau H, Skilbrei O, Rahman S (2001) Horizontal openhole gravel
tional symposium and exhibition on formation damage control. packs boost oil production in Brunei. In: SPE Asia Pacific improved
Society of petroleum engineers oil recovery conference. Society of petroleum engineers
Ikporo B, Sylvester O (2015) Effect of sand invasion on oil well produc- Wan R, Wang J (2004) Analysis of sand production in unconsolidated
tion: a case study of garon field in the Niger Delta. Int J Eng Sci oil sand using a coupled erosional-stress-deformation model. J Can
(IJES) 4(5):64–72 Pet Technol. https​://doi.org/10.2118/2001-049
Khamehchi E, Reisi E (2015) Sand production prediction using ratio of Wu B, Choi S, Feng Y, Denke R, Barton T, Wong C, Madon B (2016)
shear modulus to bulk compressibility (case study). Egyptian J Pet Evaluating sand screen performance using improved sand retention
24(2):113–118 test and numerical modelling. In: Offshore technology conference
Khamehchi E, Ameri O, Alizadeh A (2015) Choosing an optimum sand Asia. Offshore Technology Conference
control method. Egyptian J Pet 24(2):193–202 Zeidan A, Al-Bader H, Pandey C, Al-Ibrahim A, Ayyavoo M, Al-Ateeq
King GE (2013) Sand control methods. Retrieved from https​://www. A, Bosilca D (2018) Successful installation of stand alone screen in
yumpu​.com/en/docum​ent/read/61843​34/sand-contr​ol-metho​ds- challenging environment in Umm Niqa Field. In: SPE international
georg​e-e-king-engin​eerin​g heavy oil conference and exhibition. Society of petroleum engineers
Lau H, Vliet J, Morin D, Ward M, Djamil A, Kuhnert P, Shanks S (2004)
Openhole expandable-sand-screen completions. SPE Drilling & Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
Completion 01(19):46–51 jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Markested P, Christie O, Rorvik O, Espedal A (1996) Selection of screen
slot width to prevent plugging and sand production. In: SPE forma-
tion damage control symposium. Society of petroleum engineers

13

View publication stats