Bokor—A New Look at Sand Production
in a Mature Field
Abdullah Kasim, SPE, Petronas Carigali; and Frank Wijnands, SPE, and Surej Subbiah, SPE, Schlumberger
Summary
Although the stacked reservoirs of the Bokor field, offshore Sa-
rawak, Malaysia, are prone to sand production, the field-
development team did not opt a priori for gravel packs in every
well. While such completions can indeed eliminate sanding risk,
the team also wanted to consider the impact of the completion on
the production rate of a well. The optimum completion not only
excludes sand, but it also maximizes hydrocarbon production.
The team carried out a geomechanics and sand-production
study, using readily available data. The paper gives an insight in
the physics of sand production and how this process can be mod-
eled geomechanically. It shows how the model is used to select
feasible completions and quantify sand-free production rates over
the life of the reservoir.
One important outcome was that screenless completions were
possible in the deeper reservoirs by optimizing perforation orien-
tations. Apart from other advantages of screenless completions,
this leads to significant potential increases in sand-free production
rates.
An integrated sand-management process brought together geo-
mechanics, petrophysics, and reservoir and completion engineer-
ing to truly optimize completions.
Introduction
Certain questions have to be answered before completing a well in
a weak-sandstone reservoir: Will sand production be an issue now,
or as the reservoir depletes? If so, which completion options are
feasible, and when do they need to be installed? Several techniques
exist to prevent sand from being produced, from screens, gravel
packs, or frac packs to optimized and oriented perforating, each
with its own merits. But the choice of completion also has a major
impact on hydrocarbon-production rates, and therefore on the life-
long economics of a well. To truly maximize sand-free hydrocar-
bon production, an integrated approach is needed. This includes
reservoir knowledge from petrophysical and geomechanical inter-
pretations, reservoir and production engineering, completion de-
sign, and implementation.
If it can be shown that sand production is going to be a prob-
lem, screens, gravel packs, or frac packs can be run. The choice of
sand-exclusion equipment will likely have an impact on produc-
tivity, which needs to be considered.
The industry has become aware that oriented perforations can
prevent sand production in many cases. Oriented-perforation
completions have an advantage that they minimize the cost and
complexity of the completion. More importantly, they also gener-
ally give higher production rates than a screen or gravel pack
would give in the same well.
Clearly, there is a need to predict reliably under which circum-
stances the technique of oriented perforating can prevent sand
production. Geomechanical analysis can provide the answer.
While no generally accepted models exist today that can predict
rates or total amounts of sand production, we are able to predict the
onset of sand production with reasonable accuracy. In many cases,
such a prediction is enough to make an informed decision.
The Bokor field in the Baram delta, offshore Sarawak, Malay-
sia, has produced oil since 1982. Its unconsolidated, stacked
Copyright © 2008 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 102242) was accepted for presentation at the 2006 SPE Annual Technical
Conference & Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 24–27 September. Original manuscript
received for review 6 July 2006. Paper peer approved 10 April 2008.
December 2008 SPE Drilling & Completion
reservoirs are prone to sand production and were completed tra-
ditionally with gravel packs. In 2003, a full field-review study
identified new development opportunities, including deeper, pre-
viously untapped reservoirs.
Given new developments in geomechanics and sanding-
prediction models, the study team did not opt a priori for gravel
packs in every well. While such completions can indeed eliminate
sanding risk, the team also wanted to consider the impact of the
completions on the production rates of the wells. The optimum
completion not only excludes sand but also maximizes hydrocar-
bon production over the life of the well.
The team seized the opportunity to conduct a sanding-propen-
sity study to gain an understanding of sand-production risks and to
optimize completion designs. Geomechanical modeling played an
important role in the study.
In this paper, we aim to give an insight into some aspects of the
physics of sand production and how the process can be modeled
geomechanically. We explain how geomechanical models were
built from readily available data and how the models were used to
select feasible completions and compute critical drawdown pres-
sures (CDP) for various completion scenarios. We discuss how this
helps the Bokor-field study team quantify sand-free production
rates, now and over the life of the reservoir, and we comment on
the role of geomechanical modeling in the integrated, multidisci-
plinary approach that is needed to optimize completions.
Geomechanical Modeling of Sand Production
Sand production in (weakly) cemented rocks can be seen as a
two-stage process. First, the stresses acting at the completion sand-
face need to overcome the strength of the intact rock and cause a
shear failure. Then, the produced fluids need to transport the sand
grains to the surface. If the failure of the intact rock can be pre-
dicted and prevented, then the issue of transport is of no concern.
Therefore, our sand-prediction model aims to predict the onset of
shear failure of the intact rock.
The main tool we used for the Bokor-field study was the sand-
management-advisor (SMA) software (Schlumberger proprietary
software), which is based on a simple linear-elastic model, but it
achieves results that are very similar to a more complex numerical
analysis involving advanced laboratory-test data (Bradford and
Cook 1994; Morita et al. 1987).
The main advantage of SMA is that it can be run quickly and
efficiently, using only readily available data from wireline logs and
existing reports, interpretations, and studies. If first-pass results
indicate that precision is critical, then model calibration can be
achieved with relatively simple laboratory strength tests.
A mechanical Earth model (MEM) is required to provide the
necessary input data to the SMA. The MEM consists of the pore
pressure (PP), the directions and magnitudes of the in-situ princi-
pal stresses, elastic parameters (Young’s modulus and Poisson’s
ratio), and peak-strength parameters [unconfined compressive
strength (UCS) and friction angle] (Fjær et al. 1992).
SMA indicates where and under which conditions sand pro-
duction occurs. For a given completion, SMA quantifies sand-
production dependence on reservoir-pressure depletion and draw-
down pressure (Santarelli and Tronvoll 1998). SMA also shows
where oriented perforations can be a solution, apart from more-
conservative choices such as screens, gravel packs, or frac packs.
An Integrated Approach
The Bokor-field study team needed to consider the impact on
productivity of each feasible completion option. They achieved
415
this through integrating petrophysical analysis, reservoir simula-
tion, and completion design with the geomechanical analysis.
Whether selective or oriented perforations make sense also de-
pends on factors not contained in the MEM. An important question
is whether a reduced number of perforations is still going to deliver
the required hydrocarbon-production rates. Sometimes, a longer
zone can be perforated, or it may be possible to increase the
perforation efficiency or reduce the reservoir skin.
Geological Setting of the Bokor Field
The continental margin of Sarawak forms part of the eastern sec-
tion of the Sunda shelf that structurally connects Borneo with Penin-
sular Malaysia and the rest of continental southeast Asia. The Sa-
rawak basin, of late Eocene to recent age, is partly exposed on land
between Miri and Sibu and further northeast into the Sabah basin.
The Sarawak basin continues westward at the East Natuna ba-
sin (Indonesia) and is separated from the Sabah basin by a major
discontinuity referred to as the West Baram Line. The West Baram
Line has significant importance to sedimentary evolution of the
northwest Borneo basin. It separates the carbonate sedimentation
of the central Luconia provinces and the deltaic clastics of the
Baram delta provinces. Fig. 1 illustrates the geological setting of
the West Baram delta.
The Bokor field is located in the Sarawak basin. The Bokor
structural culmination is a gentle domal uplift with a collapsed
anticlinal crest. The main hydrocarbon accumulation is located
within the northern or upthrown block of Fault 9. The crest is
relatively flat, with dips ranging from 2 to 8° toward the flanks.
The majority of the wells are concentrated toward the crest, with
limited control data toward the flanks of the structure. Hydrocar-
bon is produced from several reservoir sands, which are deposited
over a considerable range of depths.
MEM for the Bokor Field
Before the sanding analyses, we generated an MEM, using data
mainly from Well BO-102. Below, we provide some detail on
MEM construction.
Data Compilation. The input data to the MEM included compres-
sional- and shear-sonic slowness, bulk density, gamma ray, resis-
tivity, porosity, clay volume, drilling reports, geology reports, pro-
duction data, and other studies and interpretations. Image logs and
multiarm calipers are often used in geomechanical studies, but
these types of data were not available.
Fig. 1—Greater West Baram delta geological setting and structural trend.
416
The input data in the Bokor field were generally of good qual-
ity. We corrected the sonic and density data for gas effects, using
the algorithms described by Murphy et al. (1993) and Gassmann
(1951). This gas correction, sometimes known as “fluid substitu-
tion,” aims to simulate the log values that would be measured if the
rock were water-filled. Fluid substitution is necessary because cor-
relations between logs and rock properties are based on log mea-
surements of water-filled rock.
Elastic Rock Properties. The elastic properties, Young’s modu-
lus, shear modulus, and Poisson’s ratio, while not explicitly used
in the sanding analysis, are basic inputs for the estimation of the
in-situ stresses, which are then refined and calibrated with other
information (Plumb et al. 2000). Assuming elastic isotropy, we
used the gas-corrected bulk density and compressional and shear
slowness to calculate dynamic elastic moduli (Fjær et al. 1992).
Dynamic rock properties are systematically different from the
equivalent static values needed for geomechanical analyses (Plona
and Cook 1995), so empirical methods usually are employed to
convert dynamic properties to their static equivalents. We used
proprietary correlations, established from a worldwide database of
log and laboratory measurements on clastics, to generate continu-
ous profiles of the static Young’s modulus and static Poisson’s
ratios (Plumb et al. 2000).
PP. We used modular-formation-dynamics tester (MDT) and re-
peat-formation-tester (RFT) pressure measurements and compres-
sional-sonic data to estimate pore-pressure profiles, which were
calibrated further against drill stem tests, mud weights, and drilling
events such as kicks and losses. The PPs in the Bokor field are
close to the hydrostatic pressure. However, overpressure up to
3,000 psi can be observed below 7,500 ft total vertical depth sub-
sea (TVDSS).
Overburden Stress. We used wireline-density logs to compute the
vertical, or overburden, stress. To estimate the density over inter-
vals of missing data above the top of logged intervals, we extrap-
olated an exponential curve that best fit the available wireline data
and the estimated seafloor-sediment densities (Ostermeier et al.
2001).
Rock Strength. We constructed continuous profiles of UCS, by
use of a proprietary correlation that relates the UCS to the elastic
moduli. In addition, we carried out laboratory tests on selected
December 2008 SPE Drilling & Completion
cores from Wells BO-102 and BO-107, obtaining direct measure-
ments of the UCS and static Young’s modulus. We intended to use
the laboratory results to adapt our proprietary correlations and so
to obtain locally validated correlations for the Bokor field. We
plotted the laboratory-measured UCS and static Young’s modulus
with the log-derived values. Fig. 2 shows this plot for Well BO-
102. Bearing in mind the differences in resolution and potential
depth mismatches between log and laboratory measurements, we
found that the log-derived UCS and Young’s modulus matched the
laboratory results well. We concluded that our correlations were
valid for the Bokor field and did not need further calibration.
Horizontal-Stress Direction. In the absence of image logs, mul-
tiarm calipers, or cross-dipole sonic logs, one of the few feasible
methods to derive information on the principal-stress directions
was to analyze regional structural features.
The main structural elements manifested in the Bokor reservoir
are growth faults that strike west or west-southwest. These faults
are either no longer active, or in some cases, they may have been
reactivated during more-recent uplift. Associated with this uplift,
there is compressional folding with northwest/southeast-trending
axes (Denis et al. 1999). Fig. 1 shows these structural elements for
the Baram delta and Figs. 3a and 3b show local structures in the
Bokor field. The major compression, and thus the maximum-
horizontal-stress direction is oriented northwest/southeast. This is
consistent with the regional horizontal stresses.
It has to be noted that the stress direction can sometimes show
perturbations because of local structural features. However, these
can be identified only with image or multicaliper logs (Bratton
et al. 1999).
Horizontal-Stress Magnitudes. Stress magnitudes cannot be
measured directly but can be modeled or inferred from other mea-
surements or indications (e.g., deformation, strain, pressure, and
failure). Determining the minimum horizontal stress is relatively
Fig. 2—UCS (purple curve) and static Young’s modulus (red curve in right track) from correlations plotted against UCS (red
symbols) and Young’s modulus of elasticity (YME) (green/red symbols) from laboratory tests for Well BO-102 (MD=Measured
Depth).
December 2008 SPE Drilling & Completion
straightforward if the minimum horizontal stress is also the mini-
mum principal stress, which seems to be the case here.
We used the poroelastic horizontal-strain model to compute the
horizontal stresses. This model requires values of horizontal tec-
tonic deformation (␧x and ␧y) as an input. Tectonic deformation
cannot be measured directly, but useful calibration data were avail-
able in the form of leakoff tests in several wells to provide esti-
mates of the minimum principal stress at discrete depths. Further
calibration was achieved by analyzing drilling events and borehole
breakout. Fig. 4 provides an example of the achieved consistency
between the model predictions and measured wellbore breakout.
We used regional experience and local calibration to develop es-
timates of ␧x⳱0.1 and ␧y⳱0.8 millistrain in the deepest reservoirs,
decreasing with depth to zero deformation at the seafloor.
Sanding-Tendency Prediction for the Bokor Field
Using the MEM as the input to SMA, we predicted sanding ten-
dencies and quantified CDPs (i.e., drawdown at which sanding
commences) for all the reservoirs. The CDP is related to the
critical wellbore pressure (CWP) through: CDP⳱reservoir
pressure−CWP.
Outputs from the analyses were continuous, depth-indexed pro-
files of the CDP and CWP. Apart from the UCS, the CDP is a
function of the in-situ stresses and PP, so its value changes as the
reservoir depletes. SMA can create CDP profiles for various deple-
tion scenarios, from initial reservoir conditions (0% depletion) to
25 or 50% pressure depletion. Another way of representing this
information is by plotting the CWP as a function of reservoir
pressure. This plot represents the sanding tendency for a particular
completion type over an entire reservoir section. Often, this type of
plot is more useful to a completion engineer than a continuous
profile of the CWP.
We analyzed the sanding tendency for different completion
scenarios—in particular, openhole, or slotted-liner, and perforated
completions. We also looked at the sensitivity of sand production
417
 Fig. 3—Structural elements evident from (a) interpreted seismic cross section and (b) reservoir-contour map.
to perforation orientation. This can show in which cases oriented
perforations can prevent or delay sand production.
Please note that conventional, nonoriented perforations are of-
ten shot in a spiral configuration, with individual perforations
phased at 60 or 30° azimuth steps. This configuration has the
disadvantage that there will always be perforations at or near the
least-stable perforation azimuth. Under marginally stable condi-
tions, a small number of perforations may thus be responsible for
all the produced sand. Oriented-perforation completions aim to
place perforations at, or close to, only the most stable orientation.
Under the right circumstances, this can result in a remarkable
increase in stability.
In a vertical well, a phasing of 0° means that the perforations
are aligned with the maximum horizontal stress. In a deviated well,
0° phasing orients the perforations in the vertical plane through
the well, while 90° phasing means horizontal perforations in this
context.
The sensitivity of sand production with respect to parameters
other than orientation (e.g., UCS or stress error, perforation size)
also can be analyzed. This may lead to a recommendation to per-
forate selectively (i.e., the least stable parts of the reservoir are not
perforated).
Once it was clear which completions were feasible in a certain
reservoir, the completion specialist computed completion skins for
each feasible option. When combined with the reservoir skin, these
options lead to a prediction of maximum hydrocarbon production
and a maximum drawdown pressure. This process also needs
petrophysical inputs, for instance net-sand and permeability esti-
mates. Expected reservoir-pressure behavior was available from
reservoir-simulation studies.
Results and Discussion
We assessed sand-production risk and computed critical draw-
down for all the reservoir sequences. The analysis included sen-
sitivity of CDP to variations in a number of input parameters—in
particular, wellbore trajectory, perforation orientation, and pore-
pressure depletion along with uncertainty in the UCS, horizontal-
stress directions and magnitudes, and perforation size.
To summarize the sand-production risks in each reservoir
briefly, we use the following broad classifications:
1. Safe—Any perforated completion can be produced sand-free
at the required drawdown pressure and down to the expected res-
ervoir-abandonment pressure.
2. Manageable-sanding risk—Certain completions may pro-
duce sand; however, sand production can be avoided completely
418
by optimizing the completion design. Techniques that can be em-
ployed to avoid sand production are
a) Oriented perforating—perforations are oriented at or near
the most-stable orientation.
b) Selective perforating—the weakest parts of the reservoir
are not perforated.
c) A combination of selective and oriented perforating.
3. Partially manageable sanding risk—There is sand-pro-
duction risk, but sand production can be reduced and delayed
significantly by optimizing the completion design with one of the
techniques mentioned in number three.
4. Unsafe—Sand will be produced from any possible comple-
tion at the early production stages. The only option is to exclude
sand with screens, gravel packs, or similar techniques.
Table 1 summarizes the sanding risk for the reservoir zones in the
Bokor field.
The sand-production risk does not depend solely on the reser-
voir conditions but also on wellbore orientation. It is possible that
an unfavorable wellbore orientation moves a reservoir from Cat-
egory 2 to 3 or even 4 for that particular well plan. Clearly, any
reservoir that falls into Category 2 or 3 needs to be assessed on a
well-by-well basis. The geomechanical knowledge captured in the
MEM ensures that this can be achieved in an efficient manner.
Sanding Analysis for A-to-F Reservoirs. The reservoir zones
from A to F are very weak in general, with UCS values between
100 and 600 psi. Sand-free production is not possible in these
zones, not even when orienting the perforations in the most stable
direction. Therefore, sand-exclusion equipment needs to be in-
stalled to keep formation sand from entering the wellbore.
Sanding Analysis for G-to-M Reservoirs. The UCS values in the
deeper-reservoir zones G to M are between 1,000 to 3,000 psi, and
these formations can be categorized as weak- to medium-strength
rocks. The UCS generally increases from Reservoir G through M,
and CDP profiles calculated for these zones show the presence of
reservoir intervals that allow sand-free production. The permitted
drawdown pressures also tend to increase with depth.
There are, however, no reservoirs that can be classified as
safe under all possible conditions of drawdown and perforation
orientation.
Example 1—Deviated Well Through Reservoir M. Fig. 5 is a
plot of the CDP over Reservoir M for an existing well, which
traversed the reservoir at a deviation of 45° and an azimuth of
December 2008 SPE Drilling & Completion
Fig. 4—MEM Consistency—Observed borehole enlargement from a caliper (shaded purple in right track) compared to modeled
breakout on the basis of MEM and mud weight while drilling: Wide breakout on 0–360° azimuthal track (second track from right)
for Well BO-102. Bratton et al. (1999) provides detail on breakout modes.

228°. The plot shows two CDP profiles, one for oriented perfora-
tions phased at 0° (the most-stable orientation—in the vertical
plane through the well) and the other for 90° phasing (least-stable
orientation—horizontal). The drawdown pressures for 0° phasing
are higher than those for 90°. The plot in Fig. 5 shows that part of
the reservoir (7,850–7,862 ft) could be produced sand-free, if ori-
ented perforations are used.
If the Bokor team wanted a screenless completion in this well,
part of the reservoir would have to be left unperforated. Given
reservoir porosity, horizontal and vertical permeability, and skin
and completion details, a production engineer can compare the
expected production from such an oriented completion over a lim-
ited zone with the expected production from a screen or gravel-pack
completion over the entire reservoir. In this case, a selective, ori-
ented-perforation completion would produce less hydrocarbon
than a gravel pack or screen over the entire reservoir zone. Ori-
ented perforating would not be the preferred choice here.
Example 2—Deviated Well Through Reservoir L3. Fig. 5
showed the CDP at virgin-reservoir pressure, but it did not show
what happens when the reservoir depletes with production. It can
be instructive to plot sanding-study results in a different way:
CWP as a function of reservoir pressure. Figs. 6a, b, and c present
such a plot. For clarity, the diagonal CWP⳱PP is drawn in the
plot. We are not interested in the zone above and to the left of the
diagonal. If CWP>PP, there can be no hydrocarbon production.
The curves below the diagonal show how the CWP varies with PP
for various values of UCS, starting from the virgin-reservoir pres-
sure of approximately 2,500 psi.
We constructed Fig. 6 for an existing well at a deviation of 47°
through Reservoir L3, to analyze the sensitivity of CDPs on the
UCS. In this case, a conventionally perforated completion (Fig. 6a)
offers significant sand-free production only where the UCS ex-
ceeds 2,000 psi. The UCS-distribution curve for L3 (Fig. 6c)
shows that this is not the case over the entire L3 reservoir. But
Fig. 6b shows that oriented perforations in the vertical plane
through the well (0° phasing, the most-stable orientation) offer
significant safe drawdown if the UCS exceeds 1,500 psi, which is
the case for the entire L3 reservoir.
Whether the sand-free CDP and sand-free reservoir-abandon-
ment pressure are sufficient to meet the desired production criteria
depends on other information that is available from petrophysical
study and from reservoir and production engineering. The geome-
chanical analysis has delivered the critical piece of information
that allows the completion team to make an informed decision and
optimize the completion in the L3 reservoir.

December 2008 SPE Drilling & Completion 419


Example 3—Sensitivity to Perforation Orientation in K. We
constructed Fig. 7 for an existing well through the K reservoir, at
a deviation of 45° and 228° azimuth. We used a UCS value of
1,250 psi, which is below the UCS of most of the K reservoir. The
plot shows that oriented perforations in the vertical plane through
the well (0° phasing) can achieve sand-free production down to
Fig. 5—UCS and CDP in Reservoir M for a well at 45° deviation and 228° azimuth. CDP (blue curve) is shown for virgin-reservoir
pressure (approximately 2,800 psi) for perforations phased at 0° (most-stable orientation in vertical plane through well) in the
second track from right and at 90° (least-stable orientation—horizontal) in the first track from right. Green shading denotes stable
drawdown conditions.
420
approximately half the initial reservoir pressure. Whether this is
enough to meet desired production criteria depends on inputs from
reservoir engineering.
The results in Examples 1 through 3 are valid only for the
particular wellbore orientations detailed above. If a well were
drilled at a different deviation, the outcome might be different—
see Example 4.
Example 4—Sensitivity to Wellbore Deviation in Zone K. Fu-
ture wells may penetrate the deep Bokor reservoirs at higher de-
viation angles than those that exist today. It is well known that
oriented perforating offers increasing benefits at higher well-
deviation angles, at least in most reservoirs. We studied the effect
of wellbore deviation in the Bokor-K reservoir to get an insight
into possible completion strategies for future, highly deviated
wells. Figs. 8a and b summarize the results. Fig. 8b shows that
oriented perforations can deliver substantial sand-free production
starting from wellbore deviations of approximately 50°. At 80° or
90°, the drawdown pressure would be unlimited, no matter what
the reservoir pressure is. Note, also, that higher wellbore devia-
tions offer no benefits if the perforations are conventional and
nonoriented (Fig. 8a).
Discussion of Results
Geomechanical modeling of the Bokor field has shown that Res-
ervoirs A to F are so weak and unconsolidated that they were
December 2008 SPE Drilling & Completion
Fig. 6—Sensitivity of CDP on UCS for conventional, nonoriented (a) and oriented (b) perforations. A conventionally perforated
completion offers significant sand-free production only where the UCS exceeds 2,000 psi (purple curve). The UCS-distribution
curve (c) shows that this is not the case over the entire L3 reservoir. An oriented-perforation completion shows significant safe
drawdown if the UCS exceeds 1,500 psi (cyan), which is the case for the entire L3 reservoir. (The well penetrates the L3 reservoir
at 47° deviation and 228° azimuth.)

classified as unsafe for screenless completions. These reservoirs
will start to produce sand very soon after production commences,
no matter what the wellbore or perforation orientations are.
The sand-production risks in Reservoirs G to M were classified
as partially manageable. Whether sand-free production from
screenless completions is possible in these deeper reservoirs de-
pends not only on geomechanical parameters, such as geological
stress and rock strength, but also on wellbore orientation. The
study showed that Reservoirs G to M can be produced sand-free
but only if perforations are oriented at or near the most-stable
directions. Of course, the wellbore deviation and azimuth through
the reservoir determine in which plane perforations can be shot. In
general, it can be said that wells at low deviation angles (less than
approximately 40°) need downhole sand exclusion in all the Bokor
reservoirs.
Screenless, oriented-perforation completions in Reservoirs G
through M are an option at higher wellbore deviations, with a weak
dependence on wellbore azimuth, too. In some of the reservoirs,
and depending on wellbore orientation, perforating would also
have to be selective (no perforating at the weakest intervals). The
impact of oriented and selective perforating or limiting drawdown
pressures on hydrocarbon-production rates needs to be quantified
to optimize the completion. This is possible with readily available
data from petrophysical analysis and production- and reservoir-
engineering studies. The geomechanical analysis provides the rest
of the information that is required to make informed decisions and
to optimize completions.
In the study, we provided sand-production analysis for repre-
sentative existing wells and for a number of generic wells through
the deeper Bokor reservoirs. True completion optimization, how-
ever, requires that candidate wells be reviewed on a well-by-well
basis. With the MEM now in place, such a review can be carried
out using a minimum of resources and time.
Conclusions and Discussion
True completion optimization in wells with sanding risk requires
more than just the exclusion of sand. The completion also needs to
optimize hydrocarbon-production rates. Each completion intro-
duces a completion skin in the well that can be quantified by a
completion engineer. Combined with petrophysical and reservoir
data, it is straightforward to estimate future production rates for
various completion options. In general, screenless completions
have lower completion skins than sand-exclusion equipment such
as screens or gravel packs.
Using the MEM built for the Bokor field, we computed for each
of the stacked reservoirs whether screenless completions can pro-

December 2008 SPE Drilling & Completion 421

Fig. 7—Sensitivity of CDP to perforation orientation and as a function of PP in the K reservoir (for 45° wellbore deviation at 228°
azimuth and a UCS of 1,250 psi).

duce sand-free. For feasible completion options, we also computed
CDP, not just at the virgin-reservoir conditions but for the life of
the field, as a function of reservoir pressure. The study showed
which completions were feasible in each of the Bokor reservoirs,
depending on wellbore and perforation orientation. The study thus
provided an important part of the information necessary to make
truly informed decisions with respect to completion optimization.
A certain amount of uncertainty was introduced by the fact that
the available input data were less than optimum. Ideally, we would
have liked to have full-waveform sonic measurements for more-
precise geomechanical correlation, image logs to provide informa-
tion on downhole stability, rock-failure mechanisms and stress
directions, and more (precise) leakoff-test information to calibrate
the stress profiles further. On the other hand, we were fortunate to
be able to carry out mechanical tests on core samples, which
matched very well with Young’s modulus and UCS correlations
that we used. The maximum horizontal stress is the least con-
strained parameter in the MEM, but this parameter did not have a

Fig. 8—Effects of wellbore-deviation angle on CDP in the K reservoir (UCS=1,250 psi, perforation diameter=1.6 in.).

422 December 2008 SPE Drilling & Completion

major impact on the uncertainty of our predictions. The most im-
portant parameter for sanding studies is generally the UCS, which
was very well constrained in this case.
Ultimately, the choice for a certain completion type needs to be
based on economic criteria. Our study provided the reservoir team
with analytical estimates of sand-production risk and made it pos-
sible to compute realistic production rates for feasible completion
options. In doing so, we reduced the economic risk of reservoir
development.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Petronas Carigali and Schlumberger for
allowing us to publish this work.
References
Bradford, I.D.R. and Cook, J.M. 1994. A Semi-Analytic Elastoplastic
Model for Wellbore Stability With Applications to Sanding. Paper SPE
28070 presented at Rock Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering, Delft,
The Netherlands, 29–31 August. DOI: 10.2118/28070-MS.
Bratton, T., Bornemann, T., Li, Q., Plumb, D., Rasmus, J., and Krabbe, H.
1999. Logging while drilling images for geomechanical, geological and
petrophysical interpretations. Paper JJJ presented at the SPWLA 40th
Annual Logging Symposium, Oslo, Norway, 30 May–3 June.
Denis, N.K.T., Abdul Hadi, A.R., Azlina, A., Bait, B., and Chow, K.T.
1999. West Baram Delta. In The Petroleum Geology and Resources of
Malaysia, Chap. 13, 293–342. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Petronas (Pe-
troleum Nasional Berhad)
Fjær, E., Holt, R.M., Horsrud, P., Raaen, A.M., and Risnes, R. 1992.
Petroleum Related Rock Mechanics. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Gassmann, F. 1951. Elastic waves through a packing of spheres. Geophys-
ics 16 (4): 673–685. DOI:10.1190/1.1437718.
Morita, N., Whitfill, D.L., Massie, I., and Knudsen, T.W. 1987. Realistic
Sand-Production Prediction: Numerical Approach. SPEPE 4 (1): 15–
24. SPE-16989-PA. DOI: 10.2118/16989-PA.
Murphy, W., Reischer, A., and Hsu, K. 1993. Modulus decomposition of
compressional and shear velocities in sand bodies. Geophysics 58 (2):
227–239. DOI:10.1190/1.1443408.
December 2008 SPE Drilling & Completion
Ostermeier, R.M., Pelletire, C.W., Winkler, C.D., and Nicholson, J.W.
2001. Trends in Shallow Sediment Pore Pressures. Paper SPE 67772
presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 27 Feb-
ruary–1 March. DOI: 10.2118/67772-MS.
Plona, T.J. And Cook, J.M. 1995. Effects of stress cycles on static and
dynamic Young’s moduli in Castlegate sandstone. In Rock Mechanics,
ed. J.J.K. Dæmen and R.A. Schultz, 155. Rotterdam, The Netherlands:
A.A. Balkema.
Plumb, R., Edwards, S., Pidcock, G., Lee, D., and Stacey, B. 2000. The
Mechanical Earth Model Concept and Its Application to High-Risk
Well Construction Projects. Paper SPE 59128 presented at the IADC/
SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, 23–25 February. DOI:
10.2118/59128-MS.
Santarelli, F.J. and Tronvoll, J.T. 1998. Reservoir Stress Path: The Deple-
tion and the Rebound. Paper SPE 47350 presented at the SPE/ISRM
Rock Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering, Trondheim, Norway, 8–10
July. DOI: 10.2118/47350-MS.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
ft × 3.048* E−01 ⳱ m
in. × 2.54* E+00 ⳱ cm
psi × 6.894 757 E+00 ⳱ kPa
*Conversion factor is exact.
Abdullah Kasim is a principal production technologist for
Petronas Carigali and is presently based in Kuala Lumpur for
lead well technology and production enhancement. He holds
a BE in petroleum engineering from the University Teknologi
Malaysia. Frank Wijnands is a principal geophysicist for Schlum-
berger and is presently based in Indonesia as domain cham-
pion for geophysics and geomechanics. He holds an MS in
exploration geophysics from the State University of Utrecht in
the Netherlands. Surej Kumar Subbiah is a senior geomechan-
ics engineer for Schlumberger and is presently based in Bucha-
rest as a geomechanics team leader for Europe. Subbiah ob-
tained BE and ME degrees in petroleum engineering, special-
izing in geomechanics, from the University Teknologi Malaysia.
423