SPE-191987-MS

Sand Conglomeration Trial as an Alternative to Sand Control: Case Study

from Mahakam Delta, Indonesia

Boris Styward, Ryan Wijaya, Dasa Manalu, Fransiskus Wahyudhi, Thomas Setiawan, Albert Malvin Dading, Muhdi
Rizal, Tri Maharika Widarena, Geraldie Lukman, and Indah Primasari, Pertamina Hulu Mahakam; Putu Astari
Merati, Rizka Hezmela, Muhammad Fuad, Chidi Nwafor, and Liu Hai, Schlumberger; Pratyush Singh

Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Brisbane, Australia, 23–25 October 2018.

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
Pertamina Hulu Energi operates numerous wells that produce gas from unconsolidated, tight sands in the
Mahakam Delta. The company maintains a zero-sand production policy as its surface facilities are not
designed to handle sand. If sand is produced, the wells are choked back, thus impairing the overall field
production. To fix sand and fines in place, the primary sand control method used has been multizone single-
trip gravel packing, sometimes in conjunction with sand consolidation or ceramic screen for noneconomic
zones. However, the current state of the Tunu shallow portfolio renders sand consolidation infeasible, as
more than 50% of the remaining reservoirs are either low-stakes (i.e. not economical) or are located in
low-permeability zones. Against this backdrop, sand conglomeration is being considered as an alternative
solution to produce the remaining reservoirs. A trial has been conducted to assess the feasibility of using
sand conglomeration technology as an alternative to sand consolidation in the Mahakam Delta, the results
of which will be reviewed in this paper.

Introduction
Mahakam oil and gas block (Fig. 1) is located in the East Kalimantan Province of Borneo, Indonesia. This
block consists of four gas fields, namely Tunu, Sisi-Nubi, Tambora, Peciko, and two oil fields, Bekapai
and Handil. Tunu is a giant gas field located in the Mahakam River Delta in Indonesia's East Kalimantan
Province on the island of Borneo. Production started in 1990 with hundreds of wells drilled to date. Until
recently, gas was produced solely from the main reservoir of this field, which is a deep, well-consolidated
reservoir. To maintain production targets, the previous operator had started production of the shallow zone
reservoirs. These consist mainly of poorly sorted and highly unconsolidated sands which occur in small
pockets or thin layers with large heterogeneities within a depth of 500 to 2,500 mTVD. The first wells
targeting Tunu shallow reservoirs were drilled in 2008. Since then more than 200 shallow wells have been
drilled, contributing 50% of the overall field production.
2 SPE-191987-MS

Figure 1—Mahakam Block

Due to the formation characteristics, sand is produced along with reservoir fluids. In the early stages of
the shallow reservoir development, single-trip multi-zone gravel pack completion was selected as the main
sand control solution as it is robust, reliable, and economically viable to produce the high-stakes reserves.
This solution was later reconsidered as what remains in the shallow zones are the marginal reserves that are
widely scattered; therefore, a more cost-effective solution was required.
Since its industrialization in 2015, resin sand consolidation has gained popularity, allowing for the
unlocking of significant amounts of reserves. Over fifty reservoirs, representing more than 10 Bcf of
reserves, have been produced using this technology. Based on this promising result, monobore completion
(Fig. 2) with sand consolidation has been selected for future wells that cannot be completed with gravel
pack due to marginal stakes.

Figure 2—Typical Monobore Completion with Sand Consolidation

SPE-191987-MS 3

Despite its advantages, resin sand consolidation has a drawback in that injection into tighter sands may be
difficult or impossible due to its high viscosity at downhole circulating temperatures. Resins will typically
reduce permeability by around 50%; in tight formations, this level of damage is significant and hinders
production. To be able to produce from low permeability reservoirs therefore, alternative sand control
solutions are needed.
This paper details implementation of an advanced sand conglomeration system designed for treatment
in Tunu Shallow reservoirs as an alternative sand control solution. The chemical system increases the
attraction between particles (zeta potential) without imposing damage, therefore trapping formation fines
and sands to maximize sand-free flow rates and increase production. It is suited for use across a wide range
of permeabilities, which makes it feasible for the lower-permeability reservoirs of the Mahakam Delta.

Sand Conglomeration
Sand conglomeration is a proactive sand control method. It decreases the zeta potential of solid surfaces
for optimum agglomeration of the sand or fines grains (Mendez 2011). Zeta potential is defined as the
electro-kinetic potential between the surface of a particle and the bulk phase of the suspending liquid. The
modification of the zeta potential, within its optimum range of +3 to −5 mV, provides a tighter attraction
between sand fines; as a result, the grains will agglomerate not only to each other but also to the reservoir
rock itself, with very minor losses in permeability (Singh 2014b).
The system can be applied to sandstone formations with permeabilities ranging from a few millidarcy to
several darcies with bottomhole temperatures up to 350 °F. There are little or no practical limits to the length
of the perforation interval that can be treated. The treatment can be used to enhance existing sand control
mechanical systems such as gravel packs, standalone screens, and frac packs. One of the major features of
this type of treatment is that, when the formation stresses change due to reservoir depletion or other factors,
it can adapt to the resultant changing reservoir conditions, causing the sand to re-agglomerate. This is due
to the fact that it is not a bonding agent or a glue-like substance such as a resin, but rather it creates an ionic
attraction which allows particles to move relative to each other without losing their ionic attraction and re-
agglomerate if they become dislodged.
The fluid is relatively easy to apply in the field. Most of the jobs are bullheaded down the production
tubing or workstring either with mechanical isolation (Mason 2014), or without. Placement through subsea
flow lines from an FPSO has also been applied successfully (Piemontese 2014). The viscosity of the system
is similar to that of brine, therefore it can be applied in tight formations, unlike resin systems which have
high viscosities at downhole circulating temperatures.

Candidate Selection
Both economic and technical considerations must be taken into account when setting clear guidelines as
to when sand conglomeration should be the preferred sand control method. Several sand conglomeration
treatments have been pumped over the years and best practices for successful jobs have been defined (Singh
2014a). Specifically, for the Tunu sand conglomeration trial, several characteristics were considered, as
follows:
1. Well completion: the configuration of some wells can make safe access to target zone isolation tools
difficult. Small ID nipples or casing patches can make sand conglomeration placement more difficult
and economically less attractive. In such a scenario, wells completed as monobore (Fig. 2) or gravel
pack are then preferred as they represent the least complicated way to validate sand conglomeration
without increased placement risks.
2. Economics: Economic factors play a vital role in sand conglomeration candidate selection. The main
purpose of this treatment was to validate its suitability for zones which are so marginal that the existing
4 SPE-191987-MS

sand consolidation method is not economical. Wells in swamp areas were preferred to offshore wells
due to lower barge costs and ready availability of barges in the swamp (i.e. better logistics)
3. Zone production lifetime. The typical reservoir life in Tunu field is estimated to be between 6 and 12
months. Previous field data shows that sand conglomeration can be effective over this time period.
4. Previous sand production: Although sand conglomeration could be used as a remedial sand control
solution, there is evidence in the literature (Penberthy, 1992) that sand consolidation on intervals with
a history of previous sand production have a low success ratio. Therefore, for this trial, only treatments
on newly perforated "ideal candidate" intervals were recommended.

Design Consideration
To ensure a successful trial, thorough preparation was necessary. This included, but was not limited to, the
design of the sand conglomeration recipe, laboratory tests, treatment sequence, and well cleanup procedure.
Laboratory Testing. Minimum lab testing, including XRD (Table 1), agglomeration test, and maximum
sand-free rate test, was done on bailed sand samples from several wells in the field. Compatibility tests with
formation water were also performed to ensure no incompatibility issues.

Table 1—X-Ray Diffraction Analysis of Bailed Sand Samples from Well 1 and Well 2

Minerals detected Composition amount in % by weight of

Class Group Mineral Well 1 Well 2

Silicates Quartz Quartz 84.2 84.6

Feldspars Albite 6.8 5.0
Clay Illite 6.1 –
Kaolinite 1.9 3.9
Halides Halite Sodium Chloride 1.0 –
Carbonates Aragonite Aragonite – 6.4

The treatment recipe was a modified formula of that described in SPE 168143 (Singh 2014b). To obtain
the optimum recipe, sand conglomeration concentration was increased up to 20% with 7 washing cycles.
Due to the high clay content of the formation, clay stabilizer was added to the formulation to optimize
agglomeration. The treatment volume and design radius of penetration were determined by the formation
lithology and porosity. The resulting formulation was validated by performing an agglomeration test,
wherein sand is treated with the conglomeration fluid and placed in a bottle which is then left for 6 hours
and inverted to show agglomeration (Fig. 3).

Figure 3—Agglomeration Test: Left - untreated sand, Right - treated sand

SPE-191987-MS 5

Placement. Carrier fluid must be filtered to prevent bridging of pore throats. As a general rule, particles
in the carrier fluid with diameter smaller than 13 times the diameter of the average formation sand grain
can invade the pore space and may become trapped within the matrix (Singh 2014b). Therefore, the correct
filtration medium and size must be selected. The average pore throats can be calculated using the equation
Average pore throat size (micron)= ✓(Permeability (mD))
As a guideline; particles one-fifth to one-seventh of the pore throat size can bridge the pore throat.
Therefore, the maximum particle size allowed should be less than one-fifth of the average pore size.
Successful placement of the fluid system is critical to achieve effective sand consolidation. An
overwhelming majority of the sand conglomeration jobs performed to date have been bullheaded down
production tubing (Singh 2014a). This method allows simpler placement over coiled tubing because higher
rates can be achieved with lower treating pressures. In the Tunu field, where the treated intervals are
relatively low (below 15 ft), the volumes required to achieve coverage are relatively small. Coiled tubing
placement allows precise injection of these small chemical volumes. Further, some of Tunu's wells are up
to 30 years old, posing the risk of fluid contamination while bullheading, which can lead to perforation
plugging. The use of coiled tubing can mitigate these risks.
A 1.75" coiled tubing was used to place the treatments and a coiled tubing packer was used as top isolation
to ensure a "spot-on" placement. All three reservoirs in this trial were perforated underbalance, with 12
spf and 60° phasing. Prior to every treatment, a survey was run in order to measure the BHP/BHT, fluid
levels, and fluid character in the tubing. Two swamp barges (a pumping and a testing barge) were utilized to
perform the sand conglomeration treatment (Fig. 4). The testing barge was also outfitted with either a hydro
cyclone or a sand filter to prevent sand from entering the testing choke manifold. After every treatment, it
is required to shut-in the well for a minimum of 6 hours prior to commencing the well clean-up operation.

Figure 4—Left: Coiled Tubing Barge and Right: Testing Barge

A simulation model based on the MAPDIR (Maximum Pressure Differential and Injection Rates)
technique (Paccaloni, 1995) was used to find an optimum pump schedule that provides fluid coverage across
all reservoir zones or layers without exceeding the pumping pressure limitations and fracture gradient of
the well. Using this model allows better prediction of the leak-off profile of the treatment. The inputs to the
model include permeability, porosity, and reservoir pressure.
Well Clean-up Procedure. After 6 hours of soaking time, the well is opened into the testing barge to begin
the well clean-up. The clean-up guideline generally follows the procedure for openhole standalone screen
completion. First, the choke is opened by 8/64" for 6 hours, then ramped up at intervals of 0.5 bar per 6 hours
or 2/64" choke opening per 6 hours, whichever comes first. For the trial, the well clean-up will be stopped if:

• the gas flow rate reaches 2 MMscfd, or

• the drawdown reaches 30 bars, or

6 SPE-191987-MS

• the gas velocity at perforation is less than 4 m/s, or

• the sand rate is above 21 cc/hr for 3 consecutive hours.

During the well clean-up, if any small traces of sand are present, the procedure dictates choking back
immediately and observing for another 3–6 hours while taking a sample every 30 minutes. If no sand is
observed within 3–6 hours, the ramp up may be continued until the target production rate is achieved. If
sand production is still observed after 6 hours, choke down until no sand is observed, keeping an observation
period of 3 hours for each 2/64" choke opening.

Job Execution and Results

Well TN-XX1. This well was drilled to TD of 6621 ftMD and was completed with gravel-pack in January
2015. The casing is 9-5/8" with 3.5" tubing in the pay zone and 5.5" screen on the gravel-pack zones (Fig.
5). The top 10 ft of a new reservoir were perforated from 1610–1613 mMD (948 mTVD) in August 2017
in the double casing interval. This reservoir has high porosity and permeability with a gas/water contact.

Figure 5—TN-XX1 Well Schematic

SPE-191987-MS 7

The treatment required setting a pack-off plug 50 m below the bottom perforation. A potential test was
conducted prior to the treatment, with the following results: gas flow was 1.072 MMscfd at WHFP of 1,092
psi and choke opening of 12/64". Shut-in pressure at the perforation was 1,346 psi. Top of sand was tagged
at 1655 mBRT.
There are several challenges to overcome in properly placing the fluid in the formation. First, the tubing
volume is large compared to the treatment fluid volume, which makes pinpoint injection necessary. Second,
there are two perforated pup joints which are ~1000 meters apart. Therefore, the tubing is always in
communication with the annulus even with a Coiled Tubing and Coiled Tubing packer configuration. Third,
the well was under vacuum during the wellbore fill-up stage. Under this condition the annulus may be filled
with gas, which risks treatment fluids getting into it, instead of into the formation. Fourth, the formation is
thin with a low injectivity. Under such conditions, conventional sand consolidation treatments with resin
are almost impossible.
A pumping strategy was required to inject fluid into the formation without letting it move up the annulus.
The Sand Conglomeration treatment was then placed precisely with a controlled injection rate based on the
response of the tubing/Coiled Tubing annulus pressure. The injection rate was chosen as that at which the
volume of fluid entering the annulus was at a minimum, estimated using data obtained from the step rate
test, such as gas compression, change in the hydrostatic pressure and bottomhole pressure during treatment.
The treatment was performed with a total fluid volume of 199 bbl including initial and final
displacements, Sand Conglomeration preflush, main fluid, and overflush. The maximum applied surface
pumping pressure was 1500 psi and the pumping rate was 0.7 bbl/min. Following a 6 hour shut-in period,
the well was initially flowed up to 1.2 MMscfd without any sand or liquid production at a wellhead pressure
of 493 psi. A post treatment build-up interpretation suggests a skin increase up to 300% compared to that
prior to the treatment. Based on this first trial result, acidizing (as an action to reduce the skin) was deemed
necessary, as the well productivity was unsatisfactory. Therefore, organic acid was pumped as preflush in
Well TN-XX2 prior to the Sand Conglomeration treatment, which will be described in detail in Well TN-
XX2 description.
Following the treatment, the well was put back in production one month later at 3.3 MMscfd, exceeding
the 2.0 MMscfd pre-treatment target rate, at a wellhead pressure of 696 psi with choke opening of 25/64".
However, severe losses were observed both during the pre-treatment wellbore fill-up as well as during the
treatment itself, which resulted in a much longer time taken to recover the treatment fluids; this is most
likely due to the treatment fluid having leaked far away from the near wellbore. Following this, the well
productivity was slightly improved compared to the pretreatment condition. The well was producing for 6
months until the no-flow condition (Fig. 8), and the cumulative production exceeded 200% of the estimated
initial reserves.
Well TN-XX2. One week following the first well (TN-XX1) treatment, the Sand Conglomeration fluid was
pumped into TN-XX2. This well is also a gravel pack well, with a 9-5/8" casing, 3.5" and 5.5" screen in
the gravel pack zones (Fig. 6). The well was drilled in November 2015 to TD of 4094 ftMD/3752 ftTVD.
The target zone for the Sand Conglomeration treatment is located between two gravel pack zones isolated
by packers. The top 1 m of the target zone was perforated through the triple casing. Following perforation,
the well was tested with a gas flowrate of 1.3 MMscfd at wellhead pressure of 996 psi with no sand or
liquid produced.
8 SPE-191987-MS

Figure 6—TN-XX2 Well Schematic

The treatment started with filling up the wellbore with 5% KCl brine. As an increase in skin was observed
right after the Sand Conglomeration treatment of Well TN-XX1, it was decided that 4 bbl of 10% acetic acid
was to be pumped following the wellbore fill up stage to remove the near wellbore damage. 51 bbl of 5%
KCl was pumped as a spacer between the acid and the Sand Conglomeration preflush stage. The treatment
was pumped in September 2017 at rate of 0.6 bbl/min with a maximum bottomhole pressure of 1200 psi.
The job pumping chart (Fig. 11) shows typical behavior encountered during the performed conglomeration
treatments.
Following a 6 hour shut-in period, the well was cleaned-up until a sand burst of 400 cc/hr occurred at a
gas flowrate of 1.0 MMscfd with a wellhead pressure of 899 psi. Several possible causes for the TN-XX2
sand burst were identified and are discussed as follows:
1. Leakage in the completion causing communication with lower zones was ruled out, since it was
subsequently found that the top of sand (TOS) value was 25 m higher than the previous tagging.
2. Sand being trapped in the annuli was also ruled out, as sand production did not diminish.
SPE-191987-MS 9

3. The samples received for the pre-job lab tests may not represent the well's reservoir. However,
inversion tests on the produced sand showed good agglomeration using the actual Sand
Conglomeration recipe pumped in the well, so this is unlikely to be the case.
4. Another possibility, which cannot be discounted, is that the Sand Conglomeration recipe is not
optimal. However, further investigation would be needed to confirm this.
5. The sand burst was most likely caused by the spearhead acid impacting the Sand Conglomeration
treatment. It seems that dilution of the 10% acetic acid solution with more than 10 parts of 5% KCl
was still not sufficient to minimize the acid's effect on the Sand Conglomeration performance.
Well TN-XX3. This is the last well in the trial campaign. The well was drilled to a TD of 1177 mMD and
completed with one gravel pack zone in November 2016. The target zone for Sand Conglomeration lies in
the rathole of the gravel pack zone (Fig. 7). The top 1 m of the zone was perforated through the single 9-5/8"
casing. Following perforation, the well was tested, with the following result: gas flow was 1.3 MMscfd at
877 psi wellhead pressure with no sand production. TN-XX3 has relatively high water saturation compared
to TN-XX1 and TN-XX2.

Figure 7—TN-XX3 Well Schematic

10 SPE-191987-MS

Logging showed that there were some lighter fluids in the wellbore, suspected to be condensates.
Therefore, the pumping strategy was to pump without stopping during the treatment to minimize fluid
exchange between the Sand Conglomeration fluid and the condensate in the rathole. Similarly, as was
the case for the previous wells, the treatment in this well started with a wellbore fill-up with 5% KCl
brine followed by an injectivity test. Without stopping, the formation was flushed with a total of 11 bbl
of Sand Conglomeration preflush fluid, followed by 21 bbl of Sand Conglomeration fluid, 16 bbl of Sand
Conglomeration overflush fluid, and finally displaced with 39 bbl of 5% KCl. The treatment was pumped
with an injection rate of 1.2 bbl/min and the maximum bottomhole pressure reached was 1200 psi. No acid
preflush was pumped for this zone.
After the treatment the well was produced at 1.2 MMscfd sand free until it stopped producing (Fig. 10).

Figure 8—TN-XX1 Well Clean Up Results and Nodal Analysis

Figure 9—TN-XX1 Well Clean Up Results and Nodal Analysis

Figure 10—TN-XX3 Well Clean Up Results and Nodal Analysis

SPE-191987-MS 11

Figure 11—Well TN-XX2 Sand Conglomeration Pumping Chart

Reservoir properties and treatment designs are summarized in Table 2 and Table 3 The pre- and post-
treatment production of the three wells is summarized in Table 4

Table 2—Well Data

Parameters Well TN-XX1 Well TN-XX2 Well TN-XX3

Gas/oil Gas Gas Gas

Bottomhole
130°F 125°F 120°F
temperature
Frac gradient 0.73 psi/ft 0.62 psi/ft 0.62 psi/ft
Reservoir pressure 1,250 psi 1,178 psi 1,046 psi
Average porosity 34.3% 21.0% 25.0%
Average Sw 3.8% 11% 29%
Average shale volume 7.1% 39% 25%
Average permeability 4,227 mD 352 mD 920 mD
MD of top perforation 5,282 ft 3,038 ft 3,049.5 ft
Perforated interval
10.0 ft 3.3 ft 3.3 f
length
Tubing size and weight 3.5 in, 9.2# 3.5 in, 9.2# 9.625in, 47#
12 SPE-191987-MS

Table 3—Treatment Summary

Fluid Type Well TN-XX1 Well TN-XX2 Well TN-XX3

5% KCl Brine - Initial

5 bbl – 54 bbl
Displacement
10% Acetic Acid –
– 4 bbl –
Acid Preflush
5% KCl Brine - Spacer – 51 bbl –
Sand Conglomeration -
38 bbl 20 bbl 11 bbl
Preflush
Sand Conglomeration –
66 bbl 40 bbl 21 bbl
Main Fluid
Sand Conglomeration -
49 bbl 30 bbl 16 bbl
Overflush
5% KCl Brine
41 bbl 41 bbl 39 bbl
Displacement
Total Volume 199 bbl 186 bbl 141 bbl

Table 4—Well Performance Before and After Treatment

Well TN-XX1
Date Remark WH Choke WHFP Gas Flow Qliq (bbl) Sand Skin
(/64 in) Barg MMscfd (cc/hr)

Potential
3 Sep 12 75 1.1 0 0 (+)
test
17 Sep 1st clean up 26 34 1.2 0 0
2 Oct 2nd clean up 44 30 2.2 0 0 (-)
8 Oct Prod test 25 44 2.4
23 Oct Prod test 25 48 2.0
2 Nov Prod test 25 52 3.6
Well TN-XX2
Date Remark WH Choke WHFP Gas Flow Qliq (bbl) Sand Skin
(/64 in) Barg MMscfd (cc/hr)
Potential
28 Aug 17 69 1.3 0 0 (+)
test
26 Sep 1st clean up 18 62 1.0 44 700
5 Oct 2nd clean up 10 61 0.5 2.7 162
Well TN-XX3
Date Remark WH Choke WHFP Gas Flow Qliq (bbl) Sand Skin
(/64 in) Barg MMscfd (cc/hr)
Potential
29 Aug 18 61 1.3 0 (+)
test
1 Oct 1st clean up 45 29 0.3 0
7 Oct POP 45 48 6.0 (-)
14 Oct 2nd clean up 18 58 1.2 70 0.5
4 Nov Prod test 20 48 1.1

Trial Cost
Compared to the existing resin sand consolidation method, the average cost of each Sand Conglomeration
treatment is 30% less. The treatment cost is repaid after one month of production on average.
SPE-191987-MS 13

Conclusions
A Sand Conglomeration trial on three wells was executed successfully in the Tunu field in Q4 of 2017. The
following conclusions are based on field trial results:
1. The treatments verified that sand conglomeration can be applied as a viable sand control option and
showed a significant potential for shallow field development.
2. The acetic acid preflush had a detrimental effect on Sand Conglomeration performance as seen in the
treatment of well TN-XX2.
3. Despite the 6-hour Sand Conglomeration shut-in time, the field trial showed that the wells generally
require two-to-three weeks to clean-up before achieving their optimum production rates.
4. The treatment durability has been demonstrated to match the time required to produce the reservoirs
at gas and liquid rates commonly encountered in the Tunu field.
5. Full coverage of the interval is key for job success; therefore, treatment placement is crucial.

Way Forward
Further treatments are required to validate the applicability of the Sand Conglomeration chemicals for the
Tunu field. As a way forward, deployment using Coiled Tubing is still preferred. It is not recommended
that acetic acid be used as a preflush stage. If an acid treatment is necessary, a high pH acid system is
recommended. To reduce the overall costs, the use of Coiled Tubing packer should be avoided where
possible.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Pertamina Hulu Mahakam (PHM) and Schlumberger for permission to publish
this paper. We would also like to express our sincere gratitude towards all PHM and Schlumberger field
personnel for their support and dedication during job preparation and execution, as well as the staff at the
Schlumberger Client Support Laboratory in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Nomenclature
bcf billion cubic feet
ft feet
in inch
mD milidarcy
MD measured depth
MMscfd million standard cubic feet per day
POP put on production
psi pound per square inch
TVD true vertical depth
WHFP wellhead flowing pressure
WHFT wellhead flowing temperature

References
Mason, D. et al. 2014. Advanced Sand Control Chemistry to Increase Maximum Sand Free Rate with Improved Placement
Technique – A Case Study. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 27-29 October 2014. SPE-170594-MS.
Mendez, A. et al. 2011.Use of Zeta Potential to Maximize Sand Free Rate: A New Approach on Sand Control. Presented
at the Brazil Offshore Conference and Exhibition, Macae, Brazil, 14-17 June 2011. SPE 143124.
Paccaloni, G. 1995. A New Effective Matrix Stimulation Diversion Technique. Presented at SPE Annual Technical
Coneference and Exhibition in Washington, DC, 4-7 October 1995. SPE 24781.
Penberthy, Jr. W.L., Shaughnessy, C. M. 1992. Sand Control (SPE Series on Special Topics Vol. 1)
14 SPE-191987-MS

Piemontese, M. et al. 2014. Successful Placement of an Advancing Sand and Fines Control Chemical as a Remedial Sand
Control, using Subsea Flow Lines from FPSO. Presented at the SPE Deepwater Drilling and Completions Conference
held in Galveston, Texas, USA, 10-11 September 2014. SPE-170278-MS.
Singh, P. et al. 2014. An Advanced Placement Approach for Chemical Sand and Fines Control Using Zeta Potential
Altering Chemistry. Presented at Offshore Technology Conference Asia held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 25-28 March
2014. OTC-24690-MS.
Singh, P. et al. 2014. Advancing Chemical Sand and Fines Control Using Zeta Potential Altering Chemistry by Using
Advanced Fluid Placement Techniques. Presented at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition of Formation
Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 26-28 February 2014. SPE 168143.