SPE 143124
Use of Zeta Potential to Maximize Sand Free Rate: A New Approach on Sand
Control
Alfredo Mendez, SPE, Dan Johnson, SPE, Sarkis Kakadjian, SPE, Weatherford International Ltd.
Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Brasil Offshore Conference and Exhibition held in Macaé, Brazil, 14–17 June 2011.
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
There are several active and passive methods for controlling the production of formation sand. The main objective is to
produce at the maximum sand-free rate without compromising the well’s hydrocarbon production and longevity of the
completion system placed. This paper presents a new chemical method and the latest case histories from offshore reservoirs.
The new method changes the zeta potential of solid surfaces, thus strengthening attraction between the particles to optimally
align proppant, sand particles, fines, or coal fines. Laboratory tests are presented, showing the mechanism of zeta potential and
lab tests performed on unconsolidated cores by internal and independent labs. Core flood tests consisted of measuring the
permeability before and after the treatment and the formation sand retention. More than 100 jobs have been treated with this
chemical solution, with positive and promising results. Operational procedures and recommendations are presented on several
wells treated.
Introduction
Mechanical methods are highly reliable when it comes to formation sand and fines control. There are various options in the
industry that range from sophisticated to simpler methods, depending on the applications and economic drivers for the field in
question. When sand control is predicted to be a life-of-well issue, operators rely on placing a sand-control method to avoid
later costly interventions. A major concern is when a well is completed without any form of sand control, expecting that
passive methods, such as reduced drawdown or oriented perforations, will inhibit flow of fines and formation sand. The use of
methods other than mechanical becomes more attractive.
The use of chemicals, such as resins, has restricted applications to less than 15 ft to guarantee that all perforations accept
the treatment. Another major consideration when treating wells with resins for sand control is the fact that once these
treatments, are cured over the substrate, it cements the sand grains together, triggering reduced formation permeability. Mainly
for these mentioned restrictions, operators become very reluctant to try chemical injections, such as resins. The introduction of
a chemical method, altering the zeta potential of sandstone formations, presents a better option for treating wells with
formation fines production without the detriment related to reduction in the permeability. This chemical method will be called
and abbreviated Sand Agglomeration System (SAS) for simplicity purposes throughout this paper.
Sand Agglomeration System (SAS)
SAS is a chemical method that alters the zeta potential of any surface when in contact. When changing the zeta potential of the
surface, the materials agglomerate and attract each other. Zeta potential is the charge that develops at the interface between
liquids and solid particles surfaces. The optimal range for particulates to agglomerate is –20mV to 20mV. SAS alters the zeta
potential of solid surfaces such as sand grains. Another important contribution of SAS, when used in sandstone formations, is
the capability to leave the formation water wet. For a full description of zeta potential theory, refer to Kakadjian (2007).
Laboratory Tests
Several lab tests have been performed to evaluate the application of SAS. Common practice indicates that any treatment that
will be squeezed into the formation should avoid any possible formation damage. For this purpose emulsion and regained
permeability tests are mandatory as a first step to continue considering using such treatments. Second, the main objective of
SAS is to increase the maximum sand-free rate of a specific well, and tests to prove the agglomeration of sand grains are
performed using several methods, such as regular Ottawa sand and or actual sand and formation fines. Production
2 SPE 143124
enhancement, such as water wetting capabilities, is also advantageous and plays an important role when determining which
systems should be pumped into a well.
Formation A
The following procedure was used to show the agglomeration of formation sand with fines:
1. Prepare 2% KCl brine with 0.25% v/v of a non-emulsifier as the main system.
2. Place 200 g of sand sample in a 400-mL plastic beaker.
3. Wash sand four times with 200 mL of main brine system..
4. Wash sand four times with 200mL of main system system, now with 5% v/v SAS.
5. Wash sand with 200mL of main brine system with no SAS.
Fig. 1 and 2 show the SEM analysis of the untreated sample, magnified 30 and 150 times their size respectively.
Fig. 1. SEM of Untreated Sample Fig. 2. SEM of Untreated Sample at 150× Magnification
Fig. 3 and 4 show the SEM analysis of the untreated and treated fines, magnified 30 and 150 times respectively. In all
these figures the effect of the SAS on the formation sand sample is evident. These tests are conducted when a sample is
available; but they are not mandatory, as the database of several formation sand tests with different reservoir conditions is
extensive. One of the main concerns when determining the concentration of the SAS is the value of the formation permeability
and consolidation properties of the formation. With this information, the optimal concentration, based on past tests, can be
determined.
Fig. 3. SEM of Treated Sample Fig. 4. SEM of Treated Sample at 150× Magnification
SPE 143124 3
Regained permeability tests were performed using the parameters shown in Table 1. The procedure consisted of the
following steps:
1. Saturate the core with synthetic formation water.
2. Measure the liquid permeability by flowing in the production direction with 2% KCl brine at 120cc/hr for 20 pore
volumes.
3. Flow five pore volumes in the injection direction with 7% v/v SAS in 2% KCl brine.
4. Measure the regained permeability to liquid by flowing again in the production direction with 2% KCl brine at 120cc/hr
for 20 pore volumes.
Table 1. Regained Permeability Parameters
Description Parameter
Temperature 150°F
Overburden pressure 1,000 psi
Flow rate 120 cc/hr
Brine 2% w/v KCl in DI water
Saturation of the core In synthetic formation water
Concentration 7% SAS in 2% KCl brine
Core permeability to N2 440 to 544 mD
Core length 3.92 in.
Core diameter 1.48 in.
Fig. 5 shows the formation sample as received and after the treatment of SAS per the described laboratory procedures. The
bonding between particles and the change on the surface consistency of the fines treated with SAS can be clearly observed.
The sample on the right is the one treated with SAS after the sample was taken from the core flooding test apparatus. Emulsion
tests are not shown in this paper for simplicity reasons; but it is obviously recommended to be performed on applications of
SAS. So far no issues at all have been observed with regard to emulsion tests performed for every field job.
Fig. 6 shows the results of the core flooding tests where SAS treatment did not cause any formation damage to this type of
formation mineralogy. A total of 20 pore volumes were pumped through the core, and the permeability was quantified before
and after after the treatment. As in most of the cases, the regain permeability was much higher than the original permeability.
Fig. 5. Formation Sample Before and After SAS Treatment
4 SPE 143124
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
Initial Perm. (mD) Regain Perm. (mD)
Fig. 6. Regained Permeability to Fluid Results, Formation A
Formation B
Similar tests were performed on a different formation sample to simulate the best possible way to predict the effectiveness of
the SAS system. For this formation sand sample, the initial permeability was determined using 6% KCl in the production
direction. Flow was changed to injection direction, and the SAS was injected. The SAS was followed by brine in the injection
direction. Flow was changed back to production direction, and the final permeability was measured after one hour to 6% KCl.
After the final permeability measurement was made, a perforated plate was inserted into the cell. The cell was then shut in
overnight. After shut-in the cell was inverted so that production direction flow was initiated down at the perforated plate. A
flow ramp was initiated of 0 to100 ml/min over a period of 15 minutes. Two blank tests were performed, with each of the
formations treated with SAS. For the blank tests, the initial permeability was determined, the perforated plate was inserted in
the cell, and flow was initiated at the perforated plate. In all untreated cases the formation material catastrophically failed at
low flow rate and 2-psi differential pressure. The test results are presented in tabular form.
Table 2 contains the formation particle size distribution for each of the tests. Table 3 provides the permeability and sand
production test results for the SAS system product. Fig. 7 shows the photographs of the sand pack after the final permeability
and sand-production phases of the test.
Table 2. Formation B Sample Particle Size Data
Uniformity
Cumulative Weight Percent Larger Than (microns)
System Coefficient
d10 d25 d40 d50 d60 d75 d90 (d40/d90)
Blank 1 535 373 288 241 194 117 28.2 10.2
Blank 2 574 436 351 303 254 169 62.5 5.6
SAS 1 532 377 295 248 203 122 27.5 10.7
SAS 2 580 440 357 310 263 182 69.9 5.1
Table 3. Formation B Sample Permeability Results
Permeability (mD) Maximum Pressure Held
System Total Sand Produced
Initial Final (psi)
Blank 1 136 — 2 Failed
Blank 2 203 — 2 Failed
SAS 1 131 143 186 0.0448 gr in 750 ml
SAS 2 442 507 45 0.0131 gr in 750 ml
SPE 143124 5
Fig. 7. Formation B Sample After SAS Treatment
Case History Offshore West Africa
In more than 100 documented cases to date, SAS has been used to increase the maximum sand-free rate. Most of the case
histories involve wells completed with the expectation of a high sand-free rate, which is achieved in the beginning of the
producing life of a well. However, several factors contribute to a higher skin value than expected on unconsolidated
sandstones; among them, plugged perforations, screens, and gravel-pack completions. When the production index is reduced,
operators tend to produce wells automatically at a higher choke size, which causes sand and/or fines production as a result of
the poor consolidation of the sandstone. One of the options for the operator in these cases is choking the well to an acceptable
rate at which fines are not produced; another option is to perform a remedial job. The most economic option is to try a
bullhead agglomeration job, using SAS. The fact that SAS is a unique chemistry that does not cause formation damage, as
shown in coreflooding tests, encourages operators to try this method before anything else in the market.
This first case history is of particular interest, as it concerns a well that was completed with an internal cased-hole gravel
pack. Well data are presented in Table 4.
Table 4. West Africa Offshore Case History Well Data
Description Value
Casing 8-5/8 in., 36 lb/ft 7-5/8 in., 26.4 lb/ft
Work string 3-1/2 in.
Packer depth 538 ft
Treatment conductor Casing
Perforated interval(s) 565 to 568, 570 to 581, and 583 to 586 m
Production 63 BOPD, 84% W/C
Production type Oil
Bottomhole temperature 104°F
Bottomhole pressure 60 psi
Permeability 2,000 mD
Porosity 30%
At the time of the SAS treatment, the well was shut down in response to sand plugging. There is no information as to
where the fines were or how they were being produced. The operator simply had no surface-sand handling capabilities, which
meant zero sand production was desirable. Important to note is that the well was completed with an ESP, which had to be
removed before the SAS treatment. An overall procedure of the entire intervention program is presented below:
6 SPE 143124
1. Kill well.
2. POOH ESP.
3. RIH washpipe/drillpipe.
4. Tag top of sand.
5. Pump 530 gal of diesel as an injectivity test and to clean organic deposits.
6. Circulate fresh seawater up to 8 bpm with viscous pills.
7. If no returns, pump sized CaCO3 pill.
8. Circulate sand out of screens.
9. When screens cleaned, pump 63 bbl of acetic acid to remove CaCO3 cake.
10. POOH string.
11. RIH squeeze packer.
12. Perform Step Rate test to determine treatment rate and maximum pressure.
13. Bullhead SAS sand Agglomeration treatment below fracture rate and pressure.
14. Squeeze sand consolidation treatment SAS.
15. Shut in time: 4-6 hours.
16. Release packer and POOH.
17. Run upper completion with new ESP.
The base fluid used for the SAS was 2% KCl filtered seawater to 5 microns absolute. It is always recommended to filter the
base fluid to avoid the introduction of more fines into the formation. Fig. 8 is a photo of the log for the well in question. A
sieve analysis of the formation sand from cores was available. Results showed an average particle sand size diameter of 0.0064
in., thus resulting in a recommended gauge screen size of 0.016 and 16-30 mesh proppant. The well was completed using 20-
40 mesh proppant and 12-gauge screens to avoid any misinterpretation of the formation-sand samples. Diesel was injected into
the formation to soak the near wellbore region and dissolve any waxy depositions near the screens or the wellbore region.
During the diesel injection, a step rate test was also performed to obtain an estimate of the rates and pressures during the
injection and to estimate the fracture gradient of the formation. As it can be seen, during the final displacement, expected
pressure was about 900 psi at 5.5 BPM. During the first acetic acid treatment, pressures decreased from 650 psi to 600 psi at
5.5 BPM; while during the second acid treatment, pressures dropped below 550 psi at 6 BPM. The acid volumes were pumped
based on 1-ft radial penetration and then displaced using filtered seawater.
Fig. 8. Log Data from Offshore West Africa
SPE 143124 7
After the diesel and acetic acid treatment, it was decided to proceed with a pre-flush stage of the SAS treatment. The initial
pre-flush is intended to soak the near wellbore region with a surfactant and clean the surface of the sand grains. Some
difficulties were encountered during the beginning of the main treatment stage. There were some operational complications
with the high-pressure pump during the treatment that necessitated interruption of the main flush treatment. About 100 bbl of
base fluid was pumped before it was decided to stop the treatment and change the high-pressure pump. An increase in pressure
was observed during the main treatment. The planned pumping rate of 5 BPM was reduced to 4 BPM, taking into account the
increasing pressures. The pressure at 4 BPM was about 950 psi. Once the main treatment was completed and the post-flush
was started, the pressures began to decline once again. The rates were therefore increased to 5 BPM again. The remaining
treatment was successfully completed at 5 BPM.
Production results after three months of the treatment showed a huge increase in oil production and considerable water-cut
reduction. Post-treatment production reached 950 BOPD, compared to pre-treatment production of 63 BOPD. Water cut was
reduced from 84% to 74%. Most important, the post-treatment well produced zero formation sand and/or fines.
Case Histories Offshore West Malaysia
In three case histories from the same field offshore West Malaysia, all wells presented formation sand and fines production
after being produced for about six years. The wells were being produced until they sanded up. A gravel pack or other form of
sand control was run, depending on the economics of the completion and development program for the field. Sand production
was not expected; thus the offshore platform was not equipped to receive any solids at all on surface. When the operator
realized that production started to decline, the typical response was to produce the wells without being choked. Surface
samples showed fines and wells would stop producing as sand accumulated in the wellbore.
Table 5 shows the well data for the field and average values for three wells treated with SAS.
Table 5. Offshore West Malaysia Well Data
Parameter Value
Bottomhole temperature 200°F
Surface temperature 75°F
Frac gradient 0.7 psi/ft
Reservoir pressure 2,100 psi
Average porosity 24%
Average permeability 100 mD
MD of top perforation 8,077 ft
Perforated interval length 26 ft
Tubing size and weight 3-1/2 in., 9.3 lb/ft
The SAS operational procedure was similar to the case history presented from offshore West Africa, except that on these
wells an acid or diesel job was not required. Important to note is that a program to closely monitor returns after each treatment
was put into practice to enable a timely decision about the treatment of subsequent wells and take advantage of all pumping
equipment being available and rigged up at the offshore platform.
Well A increased production 69% compared to a mathematical average of the three months before the SAS treatment.
Water cut was reduced by 9%, and sand or fines were not observed after six months of closely monitoring fluid samples. Well
B increased production 20%, and gas lift was considerably reduced. Water cut dropped by 6%, and, again, neither sand nor
formation fines were observed. Well C increased production by 6% and water cut reduced by 3%; but, most important,
formation sand was not being produced following the SAS treatment.
Fig. 9 shows the pre-production and post-production results of the three wells treated with SAS. The results demonstrate
that 1) SAS treatments have a short payout time; 2) is the treatments are highly reliable when it comes to the main objective of
increasing the maximum sand-free rate; and 3) they do not cause formation damage.
8 SPE 143124
Fig. 9. Production Results Before and After SAS Treatment
Conclusions
Laboratory tests have demonstrated that SAS treatments do not cause formation damage.
Applications for SAS treatments have been in wells with formation permeability from as low as 100 mD to as high as
2,000 mD, as presented in this paper. However, these are not limitations; that is, lower and higher permeabilities can be
also treated with SAS.
SAS treatments have shown a quick payout time and therefore should be considered as a key alternative to conventional
methods.
SAS can be used in repairing existing mechanical sand control methods on wells that present fines and sand producing
problems.
The wells featured in the case histories presented here did not produce any fines after SAS treatments.
Overall results of more than 100 applications of SAS showed that the main objective, which was to increase the sand-free
rate, was achieved.
Aknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Weatherford International Ltd. for permission to publish this paper. The significant number of
contributors precludes the practicality of mentioning them all by name; therefore, the authors thank all laboratory, field, and
technical personnel involved.
References
Farias, R.L. et al.2004. Best Practices and Lessons Learned in Open Hole Horizontal Gravel Packs Offshore Brazil. Paper SPE 16049
presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 3–6 May.
Kakadjian, S. et al.2007. Zeta Potential Altering System for Increased Fluid Recovery, Production and Fines Control. Paper SPE 106112
presented at the International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, Texas, 28 February to 2 March 2.
Mathis, S.P. 2003. Sand Management: A Review of Approaches and Concerns. Paper SPE 82240 presented at the European Formation
Damage Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, 13–14 May.
SPE 143124 9
Mendez, A. et al. 2005. A Quantum Leap in Horizontal Gravel Pack Technology. Paper SPE 94945 presented at the Latin American and
Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 20–23 June.
Ott, W. and Joe D. Woods. 2005. Modern Sandface Completions Practices Handbook, Second Edition. Houston, Texas, World Oil
Magazine Gulf Publishing Company.
Penberthy, W.L. and Echols, E.E.: 1991.Gravel Placement in Wells. Paper 22793 presented at the Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 6–9 October.
Metric Conversion Factors
3
bbl × 1.589873 E–01 = m
in. × 2.54* E+01 = mm
lbm × 4.535924 E–01 = kg
lbf × 4.448222 E+00 = N
ft × 3.048* E–01 = m
lbf.ft × 1.355818E+00 = N·m
3
gal × 3.785412 E–03 = m
psi × 6.894757 E+00 = kPa
* Conversion factor is exact.
Nomenclature
BOPD = barrels of oil equivalent per day
BPM = barrels per minute
CaCO3 = calcium carbonate
ESP = electric submersible pump
KCl = potassium chloride
mD = millidarcy
MD = measured depth
POOH = pull out of the hole
RIH = run in the hole
SEM = scanning electron microscopy