SPE-183737-MS

Gravel Pack a 500 ft High Permeability Cased Hole Well: Case Study, Gulf of
Suez, Egypt

Omar Khaled, Omar El Maghraby, and Ahmed Sobhy, Halliburton; Mohamed Okasha, BP; Mahmoud Arafa and
Sameh Hashem, GUPCO

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference held in Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain, 6-9 March 2017.

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
Sand production has always been a challenge for oil operators worldwide. Several parameters can lead
to sand production, including poor cementing material in the reservoir, high production rates, and high
drawdown applied to an unstable zone. The subject field consists of 105 wells; 90 of these wells are oil
producing wells, 11 are water injection wells, two are dump flood wells, and two are water source wells.
The primary challenge was to perform a gravel pack job on a high permeability water source well to deliver
a planned rate of 25,000 bwpd.
A study for the formation, the area, and the history of gravel packing in the operator fields was made to
provide the optimum solution for the target well. The well was categorized as a critical well because of the
various challenges and because of its importance to the operator in supplying the field with the injection
water, which was down for months. The completion specifications, sizes, and the pumping techniques were
agreed upon with the operator and the critical well review team. The well suffered from high losses resulting
from the high permeability and long interval. The fluid losses had to be controlled before running in with
the completion equipment and pumping the gravel pack treatment to avoid premature screenout.
After perforating the pay zone, the well, as expected, suffered from high losses. These losses were
controlled by pumping several non-damaging fluid loss pills until the losses were suitable for running the
gravel pack assembly in the hole. The treatment was pumped in alternating stages of clean fluid and slurry
fluid to aid in the displacement of the proppant in the annular space and to minimize the risk of bridging.
Premium screens (6-5/8 in. with 175 micron filter) were used along with a 40/60 proppant. A 5-in. wash
pipe was used to force the majority of the fluid in the slurry to remain in the casing/screen annulus to
maximize sand transport, rather than leaking off through the screen and into the screen base pipe/wash pipe
annulus.
The treatment was successfully pumped, covering the 500 ft of screens and leaving excess volume of sand
covering the blanks. The well was completed with an electrical submersible pump (ESP) and is producing
11,500 bwpd with no reported issues.
The injection in the field is now online after being down for five months as a result of shutting down
the well.
2 SPE-183737-MS

Introduction
Waterflooding is considered to be one of the successful methods of enhancing the oil production through
sweeping the reservoir, energizing the reservoir pressure, and consequently, enhancing the productivity in
the producer wells.
The operator depends on water source wells to deliver large volumes of water to offshore platforms to
be used for injection. However, the primary challenge encountered by the operator is the sand production
problems arising from the characteristics of the formation composition, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1—Water source well minerology composition.

Mineral Wt %

Quartz 60
Calcite 15
Dolomite 10
Microcline 3
Pagioclase 5
Orthoclase 2
Kaolinite and Illite 5

Area History
The field of interest, October field, is located in the northern part of the Gulf of Suez. The field was
discovered in 1977, and the first production platform was installed in 1979. By this time, the reservoir
pressure in the producing wells began to decline, and the production began to decrease.
Consequently, a waterflooding system began in the field in April 1996. Injection rates reached up to
150,000 BWIPD, but has been decreasing since January 2001 as a result of reservoir management and
operational issues. The reservoir primarily consists of laminated sandstone with poor vertical permeability
between reservoir layers. In an offshore field with low well density, waterflooding is necessary to provide
greater oil sweep efficiency and to maintain reservoir pressure for all of the producing payzone layers.
All of the required water volume was supplied by water source well(s) (WSW) that were drilled and
completed specifically for this purpose.

Oil Reservoir Summary

The Upper Cretaceous Nezzazat pool was discovered in 1978 during the appraisal of the underlying Nubia
accumulation. The single pool of light oil is trapped in a tilted fault block. The pool is sealed by a simple top-
lateral fault combination. The reservoirs are fine- to medium-grained quartz arenites, deposited in coastal
and fluvial environments. Most of the oil is produced from a channel in the Wata formation. Thicknesses
and reservoir properties vary considerably, both within and between the reservoir formations. The Matulla
formation has a weak aquifer drive, whereas the natural drive in the Wata formation is solution gas.

Payzone Summary
The target water production layer is a thick (+/- 500 ft), highly permeable (2 to 10 Darcies) sandstone
layer. Offset water source wells have a history of sand production at rates similar to the well's target rate
of approximately 20,000 bbl/day. No logs were available for the payzone to be used as a guide in the well
design. Both offset wells were drilled approximately 20 years ago, and limited data about the formation
description or the lower completion design basis was available. The target formation has a relatively low
pressure (1,400 psi at 3,000 ft subsea), and it is not capable of flowing naturally. The reservoir pressure has
SPE-183737-MS 3

been confirmed to be steady over the last 20 years, despite the high water withdrawal rate. Fig. 1 shows
a map of the formation structure.

Figure 1—Top Zeit formation structure map.

Well of Interest
Based on the commercial study and the limited number of free slots on the offshore platform, the target well
was a plug and abandonment (P&A) well from an existing producer that has produced from a deeper zone
and re-complete the well as a water source well from the shallower one.
The well as discussed was of high importance and very challenging. Performing a gravel pack for a 500
ft high permeability formation was not a conventional treatment to design. Many parameters were critical
in the selection of this treatment, beginning with the gravel size, pumping procedures, and fluid loss control
method.

Completion String
The completion string was designed to cover the entire 500 ft of perforations with screens and to add half
their length with blanks to ensure that the screen would be covered after the proppant settled.
The screens used for the gravel pack were 175 microns. The recommended screen should be 125 microns;
however, because the smallest grain size for 40/60 gravel is 250 micron and there is 20% safety factor, the
175 micron screens can technically work and have been successful in previous jobs.
The system used for the job was a high rate water pack, which could tolerate a fracture rating of 8,820
psi, with 20 bbl/min, and 60,000 lb for 20/40 gravel. The gravel pack tool used was a live annulus tool with
a weight-down indicator position for the circulation position.
A 5-in. wash pipe was used to cover the minimum ratio between the ID of the screens and the OD of the
wash pipe to avoid bridging while pumping.

Challenges and Solutions Provided

This section includes specific information about the challenges encountered and the solutions provided.
4 SPE-183737-MS

Gravel Size. A sand sieve analysis was performed on an offset well; the analysis showed that the
recommended gravel size for the treatment was 12/20 (Saucier 1974). Because of the high production rates
of up to 25,000 BWPD in the area and the expected well production rate of +/- 15,000 BWPD, however,
the design was performed with 40/60 gravel size to mitigate any fine sand migration or production with this
high water production rates. Table 2 shows the sand sieve analysis of an offset well.

Table 2—Sand sieve analysis on offset well.

D40 D50 D90 Unconformity Recommendation

Coefficient (D40/D90)

0.0145 0.0127 0.0096 1.5 12/20 gravel with

20 lb screens

Fluid Loss Control. Fluid loss represents a very challenging parameter when treating a long interval that
has a permeability of 5 Darcies. Part of the proposed early screenout mitigation plan included the use of
hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC) as a clean low residue fluid loss pill, which could be washed by the well
production or dissolved with hydrochloric acid. This plan was performed as designed and performed as a
part of the proposed early screen-out mitigation plan.
Pumping Technique. Early screen-out was a high probability risk in such a treatment that had to be
mitigated for a successful treatment. The mitigation plan for the treatment included pumping pulses of clean
fluid and low concentration sand-laden fluid to overcome any bridging on the perforation tunnels.

Settling Velocity vs. Maximum Rate across the Screen

Choking on the flowback is not the common practice when pumping a gravel pack job. The maximum
flowback rate across the screen is +/-2 bbl/minute, which could lead to proppant bridging or settling as a
result of pumping with a low rate across a long high permeability zone. The process performed included
increasing the pumping rate with choking to avoid damage to the lower screen.

Treatment Plan
After considering the previously described challenges and the proposed mitigation plan, the treatment
pumping schedule was developed. The following sections provide details about the treatment pumping
schedule.
Tubing Pickling. In all sand control treatments, it is a common practice to pickle the tubing with acid and
solvent to dissolve any solids or wax. This process avoids the risk of solids and wax getting to the screens
or formation during pumping.
Friction Test. Friction tests are performed in both reverse and circulation positions to determine how much
pressure is added as a result of the screens; if plugged, an acid wash is performed on the screens. This is
observed by comparing the surface pressure difference between the reverse and circulation positions; the
results in this job showed a minimal increase in differential pressure, indicating clear unplugged screens.
Fluid Loss Control. Controlling fluid loss was crucial for the gravel pack treatment because of the large
target zone with nonuniformity in its permeability. Consequently, controlling the fluid loss would ensure
better gravel packing around the screen assembly and mitigate early screenout.

Pumping the Gravel Pack Treatment.

The required gravel mass needed to fill the annular volume between the screens and the perforations
was +/-6,400 lb. Stages of clean and sand-laden fluid were pumped simultaneously with 0.5 ppg sand
concentration to fill the annulus and eliminate any bridging or screenout with the clean fluid. The treatment
SPE-183737-MS 5

was divided into six sand-laden fluid stages; the last stage was 1 ppg to maximize the length of the blanks
being covered after the screenout.

Real Time
The gravel pack treatment began with a pad stage to establish injectivity with the formation and to enable
adjustments of the pumping and return rates. The pad stage was followed by sand stages to begin packing the
long interval downhole screens (Fig. 2). As designed, the entire sand volume was successfully placed below
the crossover port as shown by a real-time calculation. Next, the induced screenout trial was performed
by decreasing the pumping rate and increasing the sand concentration. The treatment continued until the
screenout was observed from the surface pressure.

Figure 2—Gravel pack pumping treatment summary.

The Well Completion

The water source well was vertically drilled with total depth of +/-3,300 ft. The well was completed with 4
½-in. production tubing with an ESP. Fig. 3 provides a diagram of the wellbore.
6 SPE-183737-MS

Figure 3—Wellbore diagram.

The lower completion of the well includes a cased hole gravel pack treatment with 175 µm screens that
were packed with 40/60 natural sand.
Tubing-conveyed perforating guns were used for this well. The payzone was perforated twice to
maximize the reservoir access behind double casing.
The target well produced 11,500 bbl/day vs. the designed 20,000 bbl/day. The well production index
(PI) was +/-20% of the PI of offset producers, despite having a thicker perforated interval. Investigations
confirmed that the reduced PI was attributable to the mechanical skin exerted by casing and cement, as
compared to the open hole gravel pack jobs in offset producers.

Conclusion
A gravel pack was successfully performed on the 500 ft interval perforation with non-uniform permeability
using the pulsing pumping technique of the gravel with clean carrier fluid. This technique aided in the
completion of the designed gravel volume needed to pack the screens.
SPE-183737-MS 7

Acknowledgment
The authors wish to thank GUPCO and BP for permission to publish this paper, in addition to all who
contributed in the success of this project.

References
Saucier, R.J. 1974. Considerations in Gravel Pack Design. JPT 26 (02): 205-212. SPE-4030-PA.