High-Angle Gravel-Pack

Completion Studies
T.D. Elson, SPE, Chevron Oil Field Research
R.H. Darlington, SPE, Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
M.A. Mantooth, Chevron U.S.A. Inc.

CO.

Summary

A two-part study was conducted to define optimal

gravel-pack procedures for some high-angle well completions in an area operated by Chevron U.S.A. Inc. In
the first part of the study, gravel slurries were pumped
through a I,080-ft [329-m] tubing string to simulate actual slurry transport conditions in high-angle wells. The
tubing string had an inclination of 80 [1.4 rad] from
vertical. Measurements were made to determine suitable
viscosity and solids concentration for effective gravel
transport. In the second part of the study, a full-scale
cased-hole completion model was constructed. Gravel
slurries that had satisfactory transport performance were
tested for packing characteristics in the model well bore
(completion interval). The need for special completioninterval geometry to obtain satisfactory packs was
investigated.
Results showed that high-viscosity carrier fluids (600
to 700 cp [0.6 to 0.7 Pa's]) with high gravel concentrations (15 Ibm/gal [1797 g/ dm 3 ]) provide good transport,
but they are unsuitable for use in completion intervals in
wells with angles of 80 [1.4 rad] from vertical.
Satisfactory transport and improved packing were
achieved with lower carrier viscosity and concentration
(300 to 400 cp, 4 Ibm/gal [0.3 to 0.4 Pa' s, 479 g/dm 3]).
Special liner-tailpipe (washpipe) geometry considerations reported by previous investigators are required in
conjunction with the optimal slurry properties defined in
this study.
Completion operations designed from results of this
study have satisfactorily met general placement criteria.
Field experience to date has been in wells with inclinations up to 80 [1.4 rad] from vertical.
Introduction
The experimental study described in this report was
designed to simulate actual high-angle gravel-pack completion operations scheduled for offshore wells in the
U.S. gulf coast. Costs for the study were justified on the
basis of high installation cost and the practical limitations of gravel-packing high-angle wells with thenexisting techniques.
The subject wells are generally directional and highly
deviated, some with maximum deviation angles of 80
[1.4 rad] from vertical. Our experience with high-angle

0149-2136/84/0011-1012$00.25
Copyright 1984 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME

JANUARY 1984

wells such as these indicates that successful gravel-pack

operations require special completion-design considerations. Previous studies, including one simulating largediameter completions (11 in. [28 cm]), demonstrated
placement problems as well as procedures required to
overcome them and to place a gravel pack successfully in
an 80 [1.4-rad] wellbore. 1.2
Tests were scaled to the dimensions of the actual
wellbores because of closer tolerances (casing/liner) of
the planned completions. Transport studies were made to
identify problems in getting gravel to the completion
zone. Three transport tests were performed in a I,080-ft
[329-m] tubing string, and five gravel-pack tests were
run in an 80 [1.4-rad] inclined, full-scale, transparent
7-in. [17.8-cm] diameter model wellbore.
The pumping tests were designed to show the effects
of fluid viscosity and gravel concentration when they
were pumped through a long, highly deviated tubing
string. Pumping services were provided by oilfield service companies.
The gravel-pack tests were run in a model wellbore
having the same dimensions as downhole hardware commonly used by Chevron in one area of the gulf coast.
The purpose of these tests was to determine the packing
characteristics of the slurries studied in the long-tubingstring transport tests. The smaller casing size used to
construct the model for this study distinguishes it from a
previous study. 1 All slurries were prepared with
hydroxy ethel cellulose (HEC) polymer. Low-, intermediate-, and high-viscosity carrier fluids up to 600 to 700
cp [0.6 to 0.7 Pa's] and gravel loads up to I5-lbm/gaJ
[1797-g/dm 3 ] concentration were studied.
Use of such viscous fluids is state of the art for gravel
packing. Because of their high carrying capacity, viscous
carrier fluids result in shorter placement times. Primary
job-design considerations for slurry packing include
eliminating blank sections in the well bore (leakoff
through a liner or screen is required for pack dehydration). For somewhat vertical wells, a reserve of gravel
above the perforations or open hole is required to accommodate after-pack settling, a characteristic of slurry
packing. 3.4 Routine success associated with slurry packing vertical and near-vertical wellbores is not obtained in
highly deviated wellbores. Premature sandouts and afterpack settling often cause completion failure in deviated
wells. Process variables available for overcoming these
problems include carrier viscosity and liner-tailpipe annulus restriction. 1,2,5
69

TABLE 1-SUMMARY OF TUBING PUMP TESTS

Test

Fluid Viscosity
(cp)

1
2
3

600 to 700
30 to 40
300 to 400

Gravel
Concentration
(Ibm/gal)

15
1
4

Tubing-Pump Tests
Apparatus and Procedure. To investigate pumping of
gravel slurries through long, high-angle tubing strings,
36 joints of 2%-in. [6-cm] tubing (1.99-in. [5-cm] 10)
were laid along the surface of a hill having a slope of approximately 80 [1.4 rad] from vertical (Fig. 1). A
backpressure control valve was attached at the outlet end
of the string. A level pad near the begin.ning of the string
allowed for hook-up to full-size pump trucks typically
used in slurry gravel-pack operations. At the bottom of
the string, 55-gal [208-dm 3 ] drums were arranged in a
circle to collect the slurry after it was pumped. A long
arm on a swivel joint was used to direct the fluids to the
drums selectively.
The procedure for each pump test was as follows.
1. Fill tubing string with water.
2. Displace with 5 bbl [0.79 m 3 ] prepad.
3. Pump 20 bbl [3.2 m 3 ] gravel slurry.
4. Displace with 5 bbl [0.79 m 3] postpad.
5. Flush line out with water.
The pumping rate was approximately I bbIlmin
[2.65xlO- 3 m3/s]. For data collection, the barrels
were labeled 1 through 32, and the time was noted as
each barrel was filled, thus allowing an average flow rate
calculation. To distinguish between the different steps in
the operation, a new barrel was started each time a new
phase began (prepad, slurry, postpad, etc.). Thus, with
the time recordings, we could determine whether the
prepad, gravel slurry, or postpad overrode or underrode
the fluid in the tubing by arriving sooner than expected.
Given the average slurry concentration mixed in the
pump trucks, we also could determine whether gravel
settling occurred in the tubing during a test by measuring

the gravel concentration for each volume of slurry collected in the drums. These measurements were
calculated from the total slurry volume collected in each
drum and the dry weight of gravel in each.
The parameters studied for these transport tests were
fluid viscosity and gravel concentration. For all three
tests, a 20 to 40 U.S. mesh (0.0331 to 0.0165-in. [0.85
to 0.425-mm]) size range was used. The pumping rate of
1 bbIlmin [2.65 x 10 -3 m3/s] was chosen because it was
typical of field practice at that time. Table 1 summarizes
the parameter variation for each test.
Apparent fluid viscosity is reported in centipoise units.
For these tests, it was measured with a Marsh funnel
where funnel viscosity was correlated to centipoise units
as measured by a Fann viscometer.
Gravel concentration is reported by the units Ibm/gal
[g/dm 3]. It is defined as the ratio of sand weight to fluid
volume used to prepare a slurry. A slurry made of 1,680
Ibm [761 kg] sand and 10 bbl [1.6 m 3] water has a concentration of 4 Ibm/gal [479 g/dm 3].
Discussion of Results. Slurry data collected during
each of the tUbing-pump tests described in Table 1 were
used to construct plots of the volume of fluid pumped
through the tubing string vs. the gravel concentration
measured at the outlet (Figs. 2 through 4). These figures
record the expected volume sequence of fluid exiting the
tubing on a cumulative volume basis assuming piston
displacement of each fluid in the tubing by the subsequent phase. On the basis of the prepared volumes and
tubing capacity for this test setup, piston-displaced
prepad would arrive after approximately 4 bbl [0.64 m 3]
were pumped, gravel slurry after 9 bbl [1.4 m 3] and
postpad after 29 bbl [4.6 m 3].
For Pump Test 1, the plot of fluid pumped vs. gravel
concentration (Fig. 2) indicates that the high-viscosity
carrier (600 to 700 cp [0.6 to 0.7 Pas]) effectively
suspended and carried the gravel (15 Ibm/gal [1797
g/dm 3]) through the tubing string. Gravel-slurry arrival
was at approximately the predicted time based on piston
displacement. The concentration of gravel in each
volume of slurry collected was at or near 15 Ibm/gal
[1797 g/ dm 3] throughout the test.

Pump Truck

2-3/8 in. (6 em) Tubing x

36 Joints I@ - 30 It (9.1 m) ea.!

11

00
000

Pressure Gauge

00 .../ 00
O(!)OO

C8l:I Regan Valve

"

8urst Valve

Gate Valve

,,.0Cb

55 gal (208 dm 3 ) Drums

for Slurry Collection
and Measurement

Fig. 1-Layout of tubing used for slurry pump tests.

70

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

TABLE 2-SUMMARY OF TUBING PUMP TEST RESULTS

Test
1

2
3

0.97
0.82
0.86

0.03
0.17

18

15

Gravel Recovery, Fraction of

Total Pumped
Slurry Phase Post pad Other

10

0.01
.-'dmJ Xt02

Gr.....l
Concentr.llOM
lbm/gal

6.0

For Pump Test 2, a low-viscosity carrier fluid (30 to

40 cp [0.03 to 0.04 Pa' s] was used with the result shown
in Fig. 3. In sharp contrast with the first test, gravel did
not reach the outlet of the tubing string until nearly 20
bbl [3.2 m 3 ] fluid had been pumped. When the gravel
did arrive, the slurry concentration reached at least 2.5
Ibm/gal [300 g/dm 3], much more than the 1.0 Ibm/gal
[120 g/dm 3] prepared in the pump truck. The lowviscosity carrier was rated unsatisfactory in terms of
suspending and carrying capacity in high-angle holes. In
terms of job design and operation, this result shows that
it would be difficult to predict gravel placement and
movement downhole. An explanation for this behavior is
that gravel settled in the tubing and was moved
downward only when the fluid velocity (increasing
because of the restriction of tubing flow area caused by
gravel duning) was sufficient for transport.
Pump Test 3 used an intermediate-viscosity carrier
(300 to 400 cp [0.3 to 0.4 Pa' s]) with a 4-lbm/gal
[479-g/dm 3] gravel load. Fig. 4 shows that the result of
this test was similar to Test 1 where satisfactory transport
was observed. Slurry arrived at the time predicted and at
the expected concentration of around 4 Ibm/gal [479
g/dm 3].
Table 2 shows gravel recovered during each phase of
pumping (i.e., prepad, slurry, and postpad) as a fraction
of the total gravel used for that test. Because of the difficulty experienced with separating the gravel from the
viscous carrier fluids and then weighing it, material
balances of the gravel were not precise. For the first and
second tests, calculations showed that less gravel was
recovered than was originally pumped, while for the
third test more gravel was recorded during recovery procedures (includes flushing the tubing string at high rates)
than what was actually used. Despite this, the results in
Table 2 coincide with the conclusion drawn from the
plots of fluid pumped vs. gravel concentration.
Forthe first test, 97% of the measured gravel was collected during the expected time of slurry discharge (i.e.,
piston displacement). Only 82 % was collected during
the time slurry was pumped in Test 2, where the lowerviscosity carrier was used. For Test 3 the recovery was
86 %. Pressure loss through the tubing string was also
monitored during each test by pressure gauges (Fig. 1).
While the viscous slurries in Tests 1 and 3 were being
pumped, pressure loss was constant, indicating that these
fluids retained their prepared viscosities (i .e., changing
pressure loss implies changing friction losses that would
occur if viscosity was changing). The implication is that
viscosity loss because of shear thinning does not occur at
the I-bbl/min [2.65 X 10 -3_ m 3 Is] pump rate.
JANUARY 1984

10

Cumulative Volume of FlUId Pumped, bbl

Fig. 2-Gravel concentration vs. fluid pumped for Pump

Test 1.

3.2

2.0

1.8

1.5

Gr_l
ConeentrftlOn
Ibmf~

t.O

06

0.5

10

20

25

JO

35

Cumulative Volume of Fluid Pumped, bbl

Fig. 3-Gravel concentration vs. fluid pumped for Pump

Test 2.

50

3.'
Gr_1
ConcentratIOn
Ibm/911

2.0

1.2

25

30

35

40

Cumulative Volume of Fluid Pumped, bbJ

Fig. 4-Gravel concentration vs. fluid pumped for Pump

Test 3.

71

TABLE 3-SUMMARY OF MODEL WELLBORE TESTS

Test
1
2
3
4
5

Fluid
Viscosity
(cp)
600
300
300
300
300

to
to
to
to
to

Gravel
Concentration
(Ibm/gal)
15
4
4
4
4

700
400
400
400
400

Pack Wash

Tailpipe
00
(in.)

Tailpipe 00..;Screen 10
(in.)

Tailpipe 00..;Effective Screen 10

(in.)

yes
yes
no
no
no

2.4
2.4
3.0
3.0
2.875

0.68
0.68
0.85
0.85
0.81

0.63
0.63
0.79
0.79
0.75

'Casing 10=6.125 in .. screen 00=4.50 in., screen pipe base 10=3.548 in., effective screen 10=3.81 in. (accounts for annulus
between wire wrap and pipe base).

Fig. 5-Model wellbore

experiments.

for

high-angle

gravel-packing

easing

Fig. 6-Two flowpaths for carrier fluid during placement: (1)

casing-liner annulus and (2) liner-tailpipe annulus.

72

Model Wellbore Tests

Apparatus and Procedure. The second part of this
study investigated gravel-slurry behavior in high-angle
operations and, in particular, packing around a liner
(screen) inside casing. For these experiments, a fullscale, transparent model wellbore was constructed (Fig.
S) consisting of 4V2-in. [l1.4-cm] OD wire-wrapped
screen (O.OOS-in. [0.2-mm] openings) inside of 7-in.
[17.S-cm] casing (6. 12S-in. [lS.6-cm] ID). Four perforations were located in the lower half of the 4S-ft
[13.7-m] wellbore. The main screen was 40 ft [12.2 m]
long and extended nearly to the bottom of the wellbore,
leaving a 1 V2-ft [0.46-m] rathole. The casing was made
of clear acrylic plastic, allowing video recording of
gravel packing in the well bore by two mobile cameras
positioned along its side.
Gravel-packing experiments in the model wellbore
were designed to simulate actual completion operations.
Commercial oilfield service company equipment and
full-field pump rates were used. The experimental procedure was as follows.
1. Fill wellbore with water.
2. Displace water with S bbl [0.79 m 3 ] prepad.
3. Pump gravel slurry to sandoff.
4. Wash pack (Tests 1 and 2).
S. Pump second batch of gravel slurry to sandoff
(Tests 1 and 2).
Step 4 used the tailpipe (washpipe) as a combination
wash tool.
Table 3 summarizes the five model wellbore tests in
this study. Two carrier-fluid viscosities and gravel loads
were used, based on the tubing pump test results. The
only other variable was tailpipe size. Fig. 6 shows
schematically two flowpaths the carrier can take during
gravel placement. Use of the larger tailpipe minimizes
flow in the screen-tailpipe annulus (Flowpath 2). This
maintains more efficient gravel transport in the casingscreen annulus. Table 3 also lists the control parameter,
tailpipe OD divided by screen ID, for each test. This is
the same parameter used in other studies 1,2 and while
restriction of cross-sectional area is the factor affecting
annular-fluid velocity, the diameter ratio is a practical
and useful expression for well-completion description.
All experiments were run as actual completion jobs
with particular emphasis on cleanliness and quality control. Service company tanks were cleaned before slurry
mixing; pumps and flow lines were cleaned by pumping
gravel slurry through them up to the wellhead where it
was then discharged. Rescreened 40- to 60-U.S.-mesh
(0.016S- to 0.009S-in. [0.42S- to 0.2S0-mm]) gravel
with < 2 % fines was used for all tests. Previous work
has emphasized the importance of these steps. 3,4,6
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

(a) First Sandoff: 12:25 PM

(a) First Sandoff: 5:15 PM

(b) After-Pack Settling: 6:00 PM

(e) After-Pack Settling: Next Day, 8:30 AM

(e) After-Pack Settling: Next Day, 9:50 AM

Fig. 7-Model Well bore Test 1.

Fig. 8-Model Wellbore Test 2.

Discussion of Results. The results of the five model

wellbore tests are shown in Figs. 7 through 11. These
figures are schematics of gravel fill in the model
wellbore during different stages of the gravel packs.
For Model Wellbore Test 1, the high-viscosity carrier
fluid was used with a IS-Ibm/gal [1797-g/dm 3] gravel
concentration. A 2o/s-in. [6-cm] tailpipe was used giving
a tailpipe OD/screen ID ratio of 0.68. Carrier fluid
returned through this tailpipe through three ~-in.
[1.9-cm] ports located between two opposed cups (l8-in.
[45.7-cm] spacing) near the bottom of the string. During
pack washing, flow was reversed through the ports while
the string was pulled up through the screen in I-ft
[0.3-m] increments.
Figs. 7a through 7e show results of this gravel-pack
test. Fig. 7a shows the gravel pack in place after sandoff.
Gravel is represented by the dotted area. The area shaded
black was thought to be nondehydrated gravel slurry.
Before the job, leakoff through the perforations was set
at 1 gal/min [7.6XlO- 2 dm 3/ s] of water under a
pressure gradient of approximately 30 psi [207 kPa].

After sandoff, we observed that only a small amount of

gravel had entered the O.lO-cu ft [0.3-dm 3 ] perforation
cylinders.
After nearly 1 liz hours, extensive settling had occurred
(Fig. 7b). This is attributed to ineffective slurry dehydration at sandout followed by carrier-fluid viscosity
breakback, a result similar to that observed in a previous
study. 1 In our study, the negative effects of gravel settling are magnified because of the small dimensions of
the liner-casing annulus-i.e., for these diameters, very
little settling is required to expose the liner.
Fig. 7c shows the result of reversing flow and washing
the pack with the wash tool/tailpipe. Though the procedure used was effective in altering the pack to allow
more gravel to be placed, gravel was actually reversed
out of the interval through the crossover. Figs. 7d and 7e
show the result of a subsequent attempt to place gravel in
the wellbore after washing. A sandoff was experienced
in a very short time without placement of a significant
amount of gravel around the liner. It appeared that duning and sandoff occurred because the carrier fluid

JANUARY 1984

73

(al Sandoff: 4:20 PM

(al Sandoff: 4:30 PM

(bl After-Pack Settling: Next Day. 9:45 AM

Fig. 9-Model Wellbore Test 3.

(al Sandoff: 4:30 PM

(bl After-Pack Settling: Next Day. 8:20 AM

Fig. 10-Model Wellbore Test 4.

preferentially took the path through the tailpipe-liner annulus as shown in Fig. 6 (Flowpath 2). Pack irregularities were also noted around the bow-type
centralizers.
Without the aid of visual observation through the
transparent casing, this job may have been considered
successful because of the first positive sandoff, followed
by a pack wash, and the subsequent placement of gravel
and a second sandoff. The visual characteristic of the
model well bore allowed direct observation of severe
gravel settling, diversion of carrier into the liner-tailpipe
annulus (Flowpath 2, Fig. 6), and incomplete packing
even after the second sandoff.
On the basis of results from Test I, an intermediateviscosity fluid was used for Test 2. The tailpipe was
modified to simulate wash tools commonly used in the
74

(bl After-Pack Settling: Next Day. 8:00 AM

Fig. 11-Model Wellbore Test 5.

field, and clamp-on, fin-type centralizers were used instead of the bow-type used in the first test.
Figs. 8a through 8e show results for Test 2. After
sandoff, Fig. 8a, the gravel fill looked similar to that
observed in the previous test, although after-pack settling was not nearly as severe as with Test 1. Washing
the gravel pack in I-ft [0.3-m] increments with 3 to 4 bbl
[0.48 to 0.64 m 3] water did not alter the pack to any
beneficial degree. The washing caused local disturbance
between the wash-tool cups and the fluid exit points but
this did not significantly alter the gravel bridges. A
subsequent gravel-pumping effort resulted in immediate
sandoff. A summary of this test would be similar to Test
I-incomplete, unsuccessful pack procedure.
The results of Tests I and 2 showed that simply varying the carrier viscosity or gravel concentration would
not result in a successful pack procedure. Observations
indicated that too much fluid was diverting into the linertailpipe annulus, allowing early sandout and preventing
positive dehydration of gravel from the bottom to the top
of the wellbore. On the basis of earlier work, a restriction in the liner-tailpipe annulus was created by use of a
larger tailpipe. A 3-in. [7.6-cm] non external upset
tailpipe was used in Tests 3 and 4, and a 2/i;-in. [7.3-cm]
external upset one for Test 5. As shown in Table 3, these
sizes give tailpipe aD/liner ID ratios greater than 0.80,
which satisfies criteria developed and proved by the
other studies. 1,2 Because of irregularities noted around
clamp-on centralizers in Tests I and 2, welded-on fins
were used in all subsequent tests.
Because pack washing showed no benefits in Tests I
and 2, this step was eliminated in Tests 3 through 5. On
the basis of the reduced degree of settling noted in Test 2
compared with Test 1, a fluid (300 to 400 cp [0.3 to 0.4
Pa's]) with a 4-lbm/gal [479-g/dm 3] gravel load was
used for Tests 3 through 5. This decision was supported
by results of an earlier study I where the restricted
tailpipe criterion and high-viscosity carrier fluid was unsatisfactory because of after-pack settling.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

Figs. 9 through 11 show the results of Tests 3 through

5 made with the restricted liner-tailpipe annulus. In contrast with the previous tests, gravel slurry moved down
to the bottom of the wellbore, where positive dehydration occurred across the completion zone. The result was
near theoretical fill, with settling occurring only as a
result of incomplete perforation packing. This was not
considered a problem because of the exaggerated size of
the perforation voids in Tests 3 and 4. For Test 5 the external cylinders were filled with sand, leaving only the
IO-in. [25.4-cm]-long perforation tunnels available for
packing. This eliminated the after-pack settling problem.
(Note that the two middle perforations were prepacked in
the same manner in Test 4, with similar results.) Observations during these tests confirmed that there must be
leakoff through the perforations to achieve their packing
during the placement job. Following carrier-fluid
viscosity breakback, settling of gravel because of gravity
usually occurs from the wellbore-liner annulus into perforation voids along the low side of the hole.
Summary of Experimental Study
Tubing Pump Tests.
1. A high-viscosity fluid (600 to 700 cp [0.6 to 0.7
Pa s]) can transport a high gravel load ( 15 Ibm/gal [1797
g/dm 3]) effectively through a long, high-angle tubing
string.
2. An intermediate-viscosity carrier (300 to 400 cp
[0.3 to 0.4 Pa s]) with a gravel load of 4 Ibm/gal [479
g/dm 3] was rated nearly as satisfactory a transport fluid
as the high-viscosity carrier.
3. A low-viscosity carrier (30 to 40 cp [0.03 to 0.04
Pa s]) did not transport gravel satisfactorily under
similar conditions.
Model Wellbore Tests.
1. Successful packing of high-angle holes requires a
liner ID/tailpipe OD ratio greater than 0.80.
2. After-pack settling associated with a high-viscosity
carrier fluid (600 to 700 cp [0.6 to 0.7 Pa s]) prohibits
its use in highly deviated wells.
3. The optimal procedure, considering both transport
and packing steps, uses an intermediate-viscosity carrier
fluid (300 to 400 cp [0.3 to 0.4 Pa s]) with a 4-lbm/gal
[4 79-g/dm 3 ] gravel load in conjunction with a restricted
liner-tailpipe annulus.
4. Gravel-pack washing demonstrated no benefits to
completion operations.
Field Application
Two divisions of Chevron U.S.A. Inc. operating in the
gulf coast have modified gravel-pack completion practices to comply with guidelines based on results of the
experiments described here. Twenty zones in wells
deviated up to 70 [1.22 rad] from vertical have been
completed with the guidelines from this study. Eighteen
were rated successful, while in one of the two failures
the well was repacked after sanding-in and subsequently
tested sand-free.
Although high-angle wells have been gravel-packed
successfully with 15-lbm/gal [1797-g/dm 3 ] slurries in
conjunction with lower and/or upper telltale screen configurations, Chevron U.S.A. has observed a breakover
point of 60 [1.05 rad] as being an angle above which
JANUARY 1984

r-

6500~---+-------+--~~+-~

rr-

r.

f-Blan~

r Pipe
ff-

ff-

r
r
rr

ff-

f-

r-

0~---+-------+--~~+---4

rr-

r-

f-

o
o
o

r-Wire _

o_

f-Wrap
I=screen

r-

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

t-

tlttlIltlttttlttltlt-

Perforations

Gravel
Fill

6000
0
0
0
0
0

'-'"
Fig. 12-Gravel-pack log for Case 1.

completion problems are more frequent. This is supported in a previous study. 1 High-angle wells have been
completed both with small annular spaces, such as those
modeled in the experimental study, and with large annuli-e.g., 7-in. [17.8-cm] liner inside of 13%-in.
[34-cm] casing. .
In the former case, there is little margin for error, and
conventional slurry packing was shown inadequate by
the present study. In the latter, a large annulus and long
completion interval (> 100ft [30.5 m]) represents conditions conducive to gravel duning, a characteristic of
high-angle packing. 1.2
For wells completed with large liner-casing annuli,
two extensions of the experimentally based guidelines
have been made: (1) pump at sufficient circulating rate to
maintain as high a velocity as possible, and (2) maximize
the tailpipe-to-liner ratio. In actual cases this has
translated to as high as 5-bbl/min [1.33xlO- 2 -m 3 /s]
pump rates and tailpipe-to-liner ratios well above 0.80.
For example, for smaller-diameter completions with
2Ys-in. [7.3-cm] liner, a special string of 2 Yt6-in.
[5.2-cm] blast joints is used as washpipe (liner/tailpipe
ratio=0.845).
75

tlttttlIIl-

It-

t-Blan~

~Pipe tt-

--

l-

I-

lI-

t-__ttl""-_-JL_

----

"""'Wrap
Screen

lIlII-

l-

II-

l-

tttt-

;: ,{....-n

I-

~ lower
I- Tell-Tale
~ Screen

tFig. 13-Viscous slurry-packed well with 66

deviation.

[1.15-rad]

Other completion aspects considered critical in the

success of these jobs are gravel quality and system
cleanliness. In all cases, gravel is rescreened at the
blending tanks before being added to the carrier fluid.
Fluid changeover before gravel packing is accompanied
by running a bit and scrapers before the liner. Clean
drill strings are on hand to be used only for the gravelpacking operation to minimize introducing additional
material that may damage the completion. As in the experiments just described, gravel placement was accomplished in the circulating mode (vs. squeeze) with
returns taken at the surface.
With the success of these high-angle completions,
coupled with their simplicity and the ease of slurry
preparation, several low-angle wells 60 [1.05 rad])
have been packed by the same techniques. As a result,
recommendations have been made to standardize gravel
packing in all wells by use of these methods.
0

Case Histories. Four field cases are described to illustrate the subject gravel-packing procedures. Figs. 12
through 16 are corresponding logs designed to detect
76

Fig. 14-Gravel-pack log for Case 2.

gravel fill around the liner. Our use of these logs on a

routine basis is new, and one objective was to evaluate
their reliability and usefulness. They are presented here
as an example of their application and as supporting
evidence of completion results.
The log used consists of far and near thermal neutron
measurements from a compensated neutron log (CNL).
The far measurement is affected primarily by gravel,
casing, and formation, while the near is affected primarily by gravel and casing. Scales are adjusted and the
curves are normalized so that when gravel of known
porosity fills the liner-casing annulus the far and near
detector counts are approximately the same with the near
count rate slightly greater. With high porosity (loose
pack or voids), the near count is less than the far, with
significant separation when there is no gravel fill at all. 7
Case 1. This was the first well to use the new packing
techniques. It was a 58 [1.0l-rad] angle well with
lO%-in. [27.3-cm] casing. A 60-ft [18.3-m] continuous
interval was perforated with 12 shots/ft [39 shots/m],
0.7-in. [1.8-cm]-diameter holes, on the low side of the
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

~
~
~

F
F
F
F

~
~

~-

:ila~!.
Ipe
~
~
~

f-

F
F

Blank
Pipe ..........

f-

F
F
(':
F
1=
Wire

I-Top of

Screen

1=
1=
~

Wrap~

1=

Screen ~

F
F

f-

F
~

Wire ~
Wrap
Screen

5 100~____~__~~~____~____~

E
~
~
~
~

~
F

F
:::

F
F
F
F
F
t=

'--

NPHI
L-

txt
Fig. 15-Gravel-pack log for Case 3.

casing in a 120 [2.09 rad] arc. A 5 V2-in.

[14-cm]-diameter screen (O.OlO-in. [0.025-cm] openings)x 94 ft [28.7 m] with 130-ft [39.6-m] blank pipe
above was run. Other than the couplings for the screen
joints, the only blanks were 6-in. [15.2-cm]-long sections every 15 ft [4.6 m] to accommodate a welded-on
fin-type centralizer. A string of 4'/2-in. [11.4-cm]
drillpipe was used as the work string. The tailpipe
(washpipe) was 4-in. [lO.2-cm] flush joint resulting in a
tailpipe/liner ratio of 0.829. This string was set 4 ft [1.2
m] above the bottom of the screen.
Gravel-carrying fluid was mixed to 350 cp [0.35 Pa s]
viscosity and 20 to 40 U.S. mesh (0.0331 to 0.0165 in.
[0.85 to 0.425 mm)); rescreened Ottawa gravel was added to give a concentration of 4 Ibm/gal [479 g/dm 3].
Pumping rate was maintained at 5 bbl/min
[1.33xlO- 2 m3/s] throughout the job. Circulating
pressure was 200 to 300 psi [13.8 to 20.7 MPa]. Sandoff
pressure (1,800 psi [12.4 MPa)) occurred 2 bbl (0.32
m 3 ] short of calculated gravel fill (to 30 ft [9.1 m] above
the top of the screen). By pressuring up and allowing
bleedoff, another barrel of slurry was pumped. Excess
slurry was reversed out. The entire sequence was
trouble-free.
JANUARY 1984

Fig. 16-Gravel-pack log for Case 4.

The gravel-pack log was run and indicated a continuous pack throughout the interval (Fig. 12). Top of
the pack is noted at approximately 30 ft [9.1 m] above
the screen. Calculations based on volumes of gravel
pumped and the liner-casing annular volume indicated
that between 0.28 and 0.37 cu ft [0.8 and 1.1 dm 3 ] of
gravel went into each foot of perforations outside the
casing.
Before this well was completed, two wells with almost
exactly the same conditions (66 [I.15-rad] angle), except with shorter intervals, had been gravel-packed by
use of a lower telltale screen and a IS-Ibm/gal
[1797-g/dm 3] viscous slurry. Both were successfully
packed. Fig. 13 shows a gravel-pack log for one of these
wells. Note that the logging tool could not pass below
the lower telltale, thus the indication of no gravel in this
area.
Production rates have been sand-free in all three wells
described previously. Note that, for this deviation angle
( < 60 [1.05 rad)) , success would be predicted with
either technique on the basis of both laboratory and field
experience.
Case 2. This was a large-diameter casing completion
77

(13% in. [34 cm)) with a deviation angle of 66 [1.15

rad] from vertical. It was successfully packed with the
top of the gravel appearing approximately 40 ft [12.2 m]
above the screen as shown by the log on Fig. 14. A
screen 7 in. [17.8 cm] X 148 ft [45-m] with O.OIO-in.
[0.025-cm] openings was used. The tailpipe was 5 Vz-in.
[14-cm] flush joint, resulting in a tailpipe/liner ratio of
0.868. The job procedure was identical to the one
described in Case 1, and subsequent production has been
sand-free.
Cases 3 and 4. These cases represent two zones completed with one liner on top of another, piggy-back style.
As in Case 2, they are in a 66 [l.l5-rad] well with
large-diameter casing.
The bottom interval consisted of four sets of perforations with an overall length of 114 ft [34.7 m]. Screen
length was 144 ft [43.9 m]. The gravel-pack log (Fig.
15) indicates sand was placed 22 ft [6.7 m] above the top
of the screen. A shift in the "far" and "near" count
curves (FCNL and NCNL) between the bottom two sets
of perforations may indicate a loose pack in this area.
The top portion of this piggy-back had 99 ft [30.2 m]
of perforations and the screen was 131 ft [39.9 m] long.
The gravel-pack log indicates that the top of the pack
was 35 ft [10.7 m] above the top of the screen (Fig. 16).
When this well was initially tested, it produced sand.
The source could not be determined and the top liner was
pulled and repacked and the lower one plugged off.
Another log was attempted after repacking, but the tool
could not get into the liner.
Some sand was still produced from this well, though
after a rate cutback the result was sand-free production.
Conclusions

The results of this experimental study have been successfully applied in high-angle completions. We recommend the specific procedures outlined for all gravel-pack
completions including vertical wells.
1. Coupled with the intermediate carrier-fluid viscosity and gravel load, a restricted liner-tailpipe (washpipe)
annulus is required for successful packing in wells having angles greater than 60 [1.05 rad].
2. Minimizing blank pipe through the completion interval, using quality, rescreened gravel and paying close
attention to clean completion practices are all equally important aspects of gravel packing regardless of deviation
angle.

78

3. Wellsite supervIsIon plays a critical role in successful field application. Carrier-fluid viscosity, gravel
size, and equipment cleanliness all require systematic
monitoring.
Acknowledgment
We thank T.D. Ervin and R.S. Millhone, Chevron Oil
Field Research Co., and Baker Sand Control for contributions to this work; we also thank Chevron U.S.A.
Inc. for permission to publish this paper.
References
I. Shryock, S.G.: "Gravel-Packing Studies in a Full-Scale Deviated
Model Wellbore," J. Pet. Tech. (March 1983) 603-09.
2. Gruesbeck, C., Salathiel, W.M., and Echols, E.E.: "Design of
Gravel Packs in Deviated Wellbores," J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1979)
109-15.
3. Shryock, S.G., Dunlap, R.G., and Millhone, R.S.: "Preliminary
Results from Full-Scale Gravel-Packing Studies," J. Pet. Tech.
(June 1979) 669-75.
4. Shryock, S.G. and Millhone, R.S.: "Gravel-Packing Studies in a
Full-Scale, Vertical Model Wellbore-Progress Report," J. Pet.
Tech. (July 1980) 1137-43.
5. Maly, G.P. Robinson, J.P., and Laurie, A.M.: "New Gravel
Pack Tool for Improving Pack Placement," J. Pet. Tech. (Jan.
1974) 19-24.
6. Maly, G.P.: "Close Attention to the Smallest Job Details Vital for
Minimizing Formation Damage," paper SPE 5702 presented at
the 1976 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Houston,
Jan. 29-30.
7. Neal, M.R.: "Gravel Pack Evaluation," paper SPE 11232
presented at the 1982 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Sept. 26-29.
8. Chancellor, F.E. and Chancellor, R.O.: "Apparatus for Completing a Well," U.S. Patent No. 3,153,451 (1964).
9. Maly, G.P. and Robinson, J.P.: "Apparatus for Gravel Packing
Inclined Wells," U.S. Patent No. 3,637,010 (1972).
10. Maly, G.P. and Robinson, J.P.: "Tool for Gravel Packing
Wells," U.S. Patent No. 3,741,301 (1973).
II. Gruesbeck, C. et al.: "Method and Apparatus for Gravel Packing
Wells," U.S. Patent No. 4,046,198 (1977).

SI Metric Conversion Factors

E-03
cp x 1.0*
E-03
gal x 3.785 412
in. X 2.54*
E+OO
E-Ol
Ibm X 4.535 924
"Conversion factor is exact.

Pa's
m3
cm
kg
JPT

Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office Aug. 27. 1982.
Paper accepted for publication Feb. 4, 1983. Revised manuscript received Sept. 12,
1983. Paper (SPE 11012) first presented at the 1982 SPE Annual Technical Con
ference and Exhibition held in New Orleans Sept. 26-29.

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY