Eni Agip E&P Division

Corporate Technical Services

Technological Area: Corporate E & P Laboratories

Activity: Rock Mechanics

Sand Production Prediction

Quaderno Tecnico n° 2
 SAND
PRODUCTION
PREDICTION
 Sand Production Prediction

INDEX
1 - Introduction .................................................................................................... 2
2 - What is sand production?....... ....................................................................... 3
3 - The technical-economic importance of a correct predictive analysis............ 5
4 - Techniques to predict the risk of sand production........................................ 5
5 - Case history: the study of Anemone Field ..................................................... 8
6 - List of the fields where the presented methodology has been applied .......... 12

Form 1 - The concepts of effective pressure and total drawdown...................... 13

Form 2 - The operational problems linked to sand production.......................... 14
Form 3 - The economic problems linked to sand production............................. 14
Form 4 - Sand control techniques ....................................................................... 15
Form 5 - List of information to acquire for performing a study on sand
production risks ................................................................................. 16
Form 6 - Recommended actions to be performed during the appraisal phase
of a new field ...................................................................................... 17
Form 7 - Uniaxial and triaxial tests ..................................................................... 18
Form 8 - Technical-economic importance of knowing the state of in-situ
stresses in different contexts of the oil industry ................................ 19

Bibliography......................................................................................................... 20

F. Sanfilippo
D. Giacca G. Paccaloni
0 February 1998
M. Brignoli

Rev. Date Prepared Checked Approved

1
1 - Introduction

Most oil wells produce from sandstone formations deposited in marine or delta
environments. In the case of older formations, the grains of sand are cemented by
limestone or silica minerals, and in general the consolidation process is at a mature stage.
More recent deposits, (starting approximately from the Miocene) are instead only
partially consolidated and their degree of cementation is non-existent or extremely low:
these are the reservoir rocks where there is a risk of sand production.
In most cases, sand production leads to serious operative problems. So, on the one
hand, it is one of the most important constraints considered when developing reservoirs
in weak sandstone formations and, on the other, one of the main factors that determine
the profitability of investments made.
The study of the conditions which may lead to sand production is a typically multifaceted
activity, which involves many different professional positions within the oil industry. In
fact the risks may affect:

• the reservoir development strategy (number of wells, their spacing, the possibility of
producing safely from horizontal or highly deviated wells, pressure maintenance
policy, etc.);

• the completion strategy (if and when to apply sand control techniques, what type of
technique to adopt, etc.);

• in the case of conventional completions, the perforation strategy (selecting the

intervals to shoot, the type of charges, density, preferential orientation, etc.);

• designing and sizing surface equipment in order to minimize the operative impact of
sand production;

• procedures for managing single wells (shut-downs and re-starts, variations in the flow
rate, routine wireline controls, decisions to take when “water breakthrough” occurs,
etc.);

• the sand production monitoring strategy during production.

The onset of sand production can vary within the same reservoir. In some zones it may
be triggered off at the start of a well’s productive life; in others it may begin during the
production stage, while in other zones it may not even occur.
In order to promptly identify the risk zones and estimate the conditions in which sand
production will be triggered off, Agip has developed predictive techniques which
combine information from all available sources: field tests, lab tests on cores, log
measurements, tectonic stress measurements, production history analysis, depositional
models, physical-mathematical models. The result of the prediction can be integrated
with reservoir simulations in order to estimate the moment when risk conditions will
begin in the reservoir (figure 1).
In this way, the best strategy for managing sand production and, consequently, for
minimizing its negative impact on the return on investments, is suggested.

2
 120

Pore Pressure (kg/cm 2) Minimum Safety

100 Pore Pressure

80

60

40

Period without Sand

20 Production Problems

0
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
Date

Figure 1: Example of integrating the results of sand production prediction

and the forecasts of the reservoir model in order to optimize the
production strategy for a pay zone.

2 - What is sand production?

Sand production in oil wells can be defined as follows:

the failure of a weak sandstone, which causes the grains to detach and be
transported inside the well by the fluids produced.

The physical process can be described by a two stage mechanism (figure 2):

the first stage (the onset) is a process of failure of the reservoir rock in the vicinity of
the well-bore walls. As a result of the original texture being destroyed, the grains are
entirely loosened. So there are basically two factors which cause the conditions that
trigger off sand production:

• rock strength;
• the intensity of the forces applied to the formation around the well.

In the majority of cases, the risk of triggering off sand production increases during the
reservoir production stage, due to the fact that the actual effective pressures (i.e.
those which act on the rock skeleton alone) increase in time (Form 1).
As a result, in many cases the strength of the formations is such that they can
withstand the forces applied at the start of production; however sand production is
set off during reservoir production when the pore pressure has decreased (and the
effective pressures increased) by a sufficient entity.

3
 1 Breaking of the rock
2 Erosion of the grains

Figure 2: The two stages of sand production, observed during a

compression test on a sandstone plug with a cavity: 1) the failure of the
rock around the cavity because of shear bands occurrence; 2) erosion of
the detatched grains after fluid flow.

2. After the rock matrix has been destroyed, the sand grains are eroded and transported
inside the well by the fluids produced. The amount of sand produced and the way it is
transported inside the well are affected by other factors such as:

• fluid velocity;
• fluid viscosity;
• the effects of relative permeability in the case of two-phase fluid production;
• the size of the sand grains.

Whether or not sand production can be considered manageable, in operative terms,

depends on how this second stage of the process takes place.
In gas wells, the most important event which usually leads to the manageability
threshold being exceeded, is the start of formation water production. This fluid is
more viscous than gas and so it can transport a greater amount of solids inside the
well. For this reason, sand production is traditionally connected to the production of
formation water, because, when this event occurs, usually larger amounts of solids

4
 start to be transported up to the surface, which finally can be detected with the
standard monitoring equipment installed at the rig-site, and, very often, this strong
increase in sand causes the first operative problems to happen.

3 - The technical-economic importance of a correct predictive analysis

Sand production causes serious operative problems (Form 2) which, in turn, significantly
affect the return on investments made for a given field development project (Form 3).
Knowing if and when sand production will be triggered off, preferably before the start of
production, makes it possible to: prevent these problems, devise an optimized strategy
for reservoir development and make economic forecasts which take into account this
important constraint.
Proper risk management allows for the best compromise between the need to avoid
unmanageable sand production and the need to not jeopardize the project’s profitability.
There are basically three goals to achieve:

1. avoiding operative problems, which may compromise the working of production

facilities;

2. controlling sand (Form 4) only when necessary and at the best times, to avoid
pointless investments and reductions in well productivity; these reductions usually
occur in any case, even though new frac-pack techniques have mitigated this problem;

3. increasing the range of sand production conditions which are tolerable for operations
by suitably designing and sizing well equipment.

4 - Techniques to predict the risk of sand production

The techniques developed to predict the critical conditions which trigger off sand
production are based on interpreting the mechanism as a breaking process of the rock
matrix close to the well. From a strictly operative point of view, the techniques must be
able to provide an answer to one question:

When the rock strength and in-situ forces are known, what is the critical pore
pressure value which triggers off sand production?

In order to provide a sufficiently accurate answer, information from various sources

needs to be collected and integrated. A sufficiently detailed list of this information is
given in Form 5.

A typical predictive study can be divided into three stages:

1. measuring rock strength;

2. measuring in-situ stresses;
3. estimating critical pore pressure.
Measuring rock strength

5
The only way to directly measure rock strength is to perform lab tests on bottom hole
cores (uniaxial and triaxial tests, Form 6). However, in most wells, material is not
available and in any case, is never available for the entire producing interval to study.
Consequently, strength is indirectly estimated by continually measuring other physical
parameters recorded by logs. The parameters most frequently used as strength indexes
are porosity and the transmission rate of acoustic waves.

Measuring the state of in-situ stress

In order to know the pressures acting on the reservoir, the directions and the intensity
of the so-called three main stresses need to be known.
As concerns the directions, in most cases it is assumed that one of the main stresses is
along the vertical axis. So, the other two stresses are horizontal and their orientation can
be obtained by measuring the ovality of the hole (breakout analysis) (figure 3).

Direction of the
Minimum Horizontal
Stress

Vertical Hole

Direction of the Maximum

Breakout
Horizontal Stress

Figure 3: Estimate of the directions of the two main horizontal stresses,

starting from ovality measurements of the vertical holes.

As concerns the intensity, the vertical stress is generated by the weight of overlying
sediments (overburden load) and is calculated starting from estimates of the rock density
taken from log measurements. The minimum horizontal stress can only be measured by
hydraulic fracturing tests (mini- or micro-frac tests, leak-off tests), while no reliable
methodology for measuring the maximum horizontal stress exists at present. In sand
production studies, when no information is available, the maximum horizontal stress is
assumed to be equal to the minimum stress.
Planning a field measurement survey to identify the state of in-situ stress is extremely
important for sand production studies, as well as for many other aspects of the oil
industry which are listed and briefly discussed in Form 7.

Estimating the critical pore pressure

6
After the rock strength and pressures have been established, it is possible to qualitatively
evaluate where the sand production risk is greater, i.e. identify the reservoir zones where
strength is the lowest and pressures on the rock matrix are the highest.
However other information must be integrated in order to quantitatively assess the
critical pore pressure and make predictions which enable the risk to be properly
managed. This information basically comes from three sources:

a) performing specific field tests (Sand Flow Tests);

b) analysing well production history, for fields already in production;
c) using calculation codes based on predictive models.

200 160000

140000
180
Bottom Hole Pressure (kg/cm2)

120000

Gas Flow Rate (m3/day)

160
100000

140 80000

60000
120
Critical Pressure
40000
100
20000
Sand arriving at the surface
80 0
21:00 0:00 3:00 6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 0:00 3:00 6:00
Time

Figure 4: The onset of continual sand production at the surface during a

Sand Flow Test represents the measurement of the critical bottom hole
pressure.

a - Sand Flow Tests

This test is specifically designed to measure field conditions which trigger off sand
production. The test involves gradually increasing production from the test level until
grains flow to the surface. The bottom hole pressure is decreased during the test; the
value at the time of the rock matrix failure is the critical pore pressure value below which
risks of sand production exist, during the well’s production life (figure 4).
b - Analysing the production history of wells already in production

Analysing the behaviour of wells which are already in production, in terms of sand
production, can be done in the same way as the Sand Flow Tests: knowing what the
critical conditions are makes it possible to quantitatively assess the risk of future wells
which will produce from the same levels (figure 5).

7
 Static Pore Pressure (kg/cm2)
Daily Water Production (L)

Static Pore Pressure (kg/cm 3)

400

300 Sand at Surface

200 Critical Pressure

100

0
0 5 10 15 20
Years of Production

Figure 5: Analysis of the production history of wells which are already in

production helps to identify critical conditions.

Clearly this analysis can be performed for mature fields. It has the benefit of providing
many field measurements of critical conditions, from different reservoir zones. However
there is one major constraint, due to the poor quality of common sand production
monitoring techniques, which makes it difficult in most cases to interpret the information
available.

c - The use of predictive models

Predictive models enable critical conditions to be evaluated for all reservoir areas where
a field measurement of the conditions triggering off sand production has not been
recorded. Agip uses some empirical criteria which have been adequately validated in the
field (figure 6) as well as some analytical models developed in-house. Because of their
complexity and the high number of input parameters required, numerical simulators are
not used. In order to obtain accurate results which are operatively acceptable, all
techniques are previously calibrated, for each reservoir, with the field measurements
available.

5- Case history: the study of Anemone Field

Anemone is a gas field in the Adriatic off-shore, where producing layers are at depth
ranging from 2100 and 3800 m. Its exploitation started in 1978 from 10 wells belonging
to a platform and a cluster; the installation of a second platform, having 6 new wells, is
planned for the next future.
The analysis of the production history of the already producing wells showed that sand
production was not triggered-off in the majority of the wells and, whenever occurred,
never created serious operative problems. However, many of the layers being exploited
already had a value of the pore pressure which could be considered as critical according
to the empirical criterion developed at the scale of the entire Adriatic basin (figure 6).

8
 Total Drawdown in Critical Conditions (kg/cm 2) 300

250

200 Risk Conditions

150

100 Safe Conditions

50

0
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Depth (m)

Figure 6: Empirical criteria designed by identifying the onset of sand

production in wells in the Northern Adriatic. The Total Drawdown is the
difference between the pore pressure value in virgin conditions and the
bottom hole pressure during production (Form 1).

In order to decide the completion strategy in anticipation of the work-over operations on

three wells belonging to the cluster and on the future wells belonging to the new
platform, a predictive study was requested.

Main actions have been:

1. performing uniaxial and triaxial tests on the available cores, in order to measure the
rock strength and other mechanical parameters to be used as input within the
prediction models (friction angle and Poisson’s ratio);
2. developing an empirical correlation between rock strength and log-derived porosity,
in order to estimate the strength also in not cored intervals using a continuous index
(figure 7);
3. performing four Sand Flow Tests on three layers considered at risk;
4. calibrating the predictive analytical model using the results of the Sand Flow Tests,
pinpointing the most risky layers and estimating the critical pore pressure with respect
to the onset of sand production.

9
 Rock strength at 0.5 MPa confining pressure (MPa)
25

20

15 y = -86.764x + 25.78
R2 = 0.8136

10

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Log porosity (p.u.)

Figure 7: Example of a continual estimate of rock strength, starting from

log porosity measurements and identification of the production levels
most at risk. The critical pore pressure values (in kg/cm2) for the onset of
sand production are estimated using models developed in-house.

Results
The study concluded that sand production risk was to be considered low almost in every
layer up to the end of the exploitation of the field. This conclusion was based on the
integration of the results of the laboratory and the field tests. In fact:
Rock strength at 0.5 MPa confining pressure (MPa)

14

12
All measurements in the Adriatic
off-shore (100% recovery)
10 Anemone

0
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Depth (m)

Figure 8: Comparison between the rock strength values as measured

on the Anemone cores and the average trend of the Adriatic off-shore.

1. the tests of mechanical characterization showed that Anemone formations are

stronger than the average trend in the Adriatic basin (figure 8);

10
2. sand production was never triggered-off during any of the four Sand Flow Tests, even
when the bottom hole pressure was decreased below the value forecasted at the end
of the exploitation of the tested layers;
3. according to the predictive model, a few intervals, several decimeter thick, all grouped
in the shallowmost part of the reservoir, could be considered at risk (figure 9). The
recommendation was to shoot the charges selectively, avoiding to create perforations
within these intervals.

12

10
Rock Strength (MPa)

4 120
150

2
240 310
260
0
2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400
Depth (m)

Figure 9: Individuation of the most risky intervals in the Anemone

reservoir. The critical pore pressure values (in kg/cm2) for the onset of
sand production are estimated using the analitical predictive model
developed in-house.

Technical and economic consequences

Based on these conclusions it was decided to complete conventionally the three wells of
the cluster under work-over and the completion scheme of the wells of the new platform
was revisited the same way. With respect to the original proposal, a total of 36 Inside
Casing Gravel Packs were saved. This choice allowed to increase the amount of
completed intervals per well, passing from 2 to circa 10 per well, allowing a much better
drainage of this multilayer reservoir.
Taking into account that the difference between the costs of a conventional completion
and an Inside Casing Gravel Pack is around 300 million lira, the total savings due to the
adoption of a less conservative approach (circa 10,5 billion lira) are covering all the costs
due to the creation of a much higher number of multiple completions.

11
6 -List of the fields where the presented methodology has been
applied

Italy: Agostino - Porto Garibaldi

Amelia
Anemone
Annalisa
Antonella
Fields operated by SPI in Southern Italy
UK: Judy/Joanne
Egypt: Well El Qar’a 9 hor
Gabon: Limande Marine.

For further information, please contact Francesco Sanfilippo (ext. no. 56213) or Marco Brignoli (ext.
no. 46357), AGIP/LAPO Dept., ENI Labs, Via Maritano 27, 20097 S. Donato Milanese.

12
Form 1 - The concepts of effective pressure and total drawdown.

Reservoir rocks are subject to external pressure applied by tectonic stresses

and by the weight of overlying sediments.
These pressures do not only act on the rock matrix, but are also borne by the
fluids (gas, oil or water) contained in the pores (figure S1-A).
The effective pressure is the pressure acting on the rock matrix and,
according to the simplest model, is provided by:

Peff = Pext - Pp Peff = effective pressure

Pext = external pressure
Pp = fluid pressure inside the pores

Weight of Overlying Sediments

Horizontal Tectonic Stress

Rock Skeleton

Pore
Pressure

Figure S1-A: Porous rock element in the subsoil. The effective pressure is
the pressure which acts on the matrix alone: this is the difference
between external compressional forces and the fluid pressures inside the
pores.

During the reservoir production stage, the effective pressure around the well
increases, because, while the external pressures are constant over time, yet
the fluid pressures inside the pores decrease.
The total drawdown is a measurement of this increase compared to initial
conditions and is simply obtained by:
TD = Pi - Pw TD = Total drawdown
Pi = pore pressure in virgin conditions
Pw = bottom hole pressure

13
Form 2 - The operative problems linked to sand production.

Among the many problems posed by sand production, one can mention:
• bottom hole filling up and obstruction of the perforations;
• bottom hole pumps failure;
• reduction in rig safety due to:
- erosion of equipment inside the well;
- erosion of the well-head valves;
- erosion of the surface lines;
- erosion of the separator relief valves;
• obstruction of the separators;
• obstruction of the lines, downstream the separators;
• disposal of polluting material.

Form 3 -The economic problems linked to sand production.

A - Sand production reduces the well’s profitability:

1) in the case of conventional completions, this is caused by:

• an inevitable decrease in production;

• routine production halts to enable solids to be removed;
• an inevitable exclusion of levels which are still productive;

2) in the case of completions with sand control techniques, this is caused by:

• production being stopped, so these techniques can be applied;

• a drop in production compared to conventional completions;
• the impossibility to perform completions for several levels.

B - Sand production also increases management costs because of the

following:

• re-completions are performed to replace eroded lines and/or apply sand

control techniques;
• in the most serious cases, the well is lost;
• treatments are performed to make inert the solids produced.

14
Form 4 - Sand control techniques.

• Gravel pack: this method involves packing the sand grains at the pay
interval. It has the dual function of supporting formation sand and
preventing it from entering the well. Depending on the type of completion, it
is possible to use an Open Hole Gravel Pack or an Inside Casing Gravel
Pack;
• Frac-pack: this is an inside casing Gravel Pack where the sand is also
packed inside a fracture previously created around the well (figure S4-A);

INSIDE CASING GRAVEL PACK FRAC-PACK

Packed
Sand

Filter

Perforations Fracture

Figure S4-A: Two of the main sand control techniques: the Inside
Casing Graving Pack and the Frac-pack.

• Mechanical filters: these are tools placed in front of the producing intervals.
They let the produced fluids pass through holes which are small enough to
prevent grains of sand going into the production tubing. These filters can
also be lined with a layer of pre-packed sand (pre-packed screens).
• Artificial consolidation of the formation: this technique involves injecting
resins around the well. These resins, which stick to the grains and solidify
them, act as a binding material; at the same time, the resins leave a part of
the pores open, so fluids may pass through.

15
Form 5: List of information to acquire for performing a study on sand
production risks.

(Each item of information is stated below along with its importance rating, which
ranges from number [1]: “to be acquired, if available, though it is not strictly
necessary” to number [4]: “very important”).

a - General field information:

• stratigraphic column [3];

• geological description of the field [2];
• geographic map of the area and map of the well locations [2];
• depositional model [2].

b - Information which enables a direct or indirect estimate of the rock

strength to be made:

• results of mechanical compression tests on cores [4];

• petrophysical properties measured from cores [3];
• sonic log measurements [3];
• porosity estimate from log measurements [3].
• mineralogical composition [1];
• granulometric distribution [1].

c - Information on the in-situ stress state:

• estimate of sediment pressures [4];

• results of leak-off tests [3];
• results of mini- or micro-frac tests [3];
• results of vertical borehole breakout analysis [2].

d - Reservoir information:

• name and depth of the producing intervals [4];

• measurements of the initial static pore pressure and the pore pressure
during the productive life of the producing intervals [4];
• forecasts on the pore pressure variations up to the end of production [2].

e - Any information about events linked to past sand production in the

field’s wells [4].

16
Form 6 - Recommended actions to be performed during the appraisal
phase of a new field.

In a new field where sand production is feared, during the appraisal phase several
actions are specifically recommended in order to perform a reliable predictive
analysis. The acquired information must be integrated with those measurements
which are already performed because of other purposes (production tests, static pore
pressure profiles, log measurements, core uptaking, mineralogical and petrophysical
characterizations, granulometric distributions, etc.).

On the first exploration well:

on the field:
• performing “leak-off tests” during drilling of the overburden formations;
• performing either an “injection step rate tests”, or a “mini-frac test”, or a “micro-frac
test” within the reservoir section;

in the lab:
• performing mechanical characterization tests of the whole cored material of the
reservoir rock;

analyses to be performed:
• developing, calibrating and selecting the best empirical correlations between rock
strength, as measured on the cores, and log-derived parameters (porosity,
mineralogical composition, sonic transit times, etc.);
• evaluating preliminarly the most risky intervals, where eventually to perform Sand
Flow Tests.

On the next appraisal wells:

on the field:
• performing “leak-off tests” during drilling of the overburden formations in wells
located in new zones of the field;
• uptaking cores from the intervals where Sand Flow Tests were planned;
• performing Sand Flow Tests, including erosion tests on the rig-site facilities;

in the lab:
• performing further mechanical characterization tests on cores taken from the most
important producing layers;

analyses to be performed:
• calibrating the predicting models using the Sand Flow Tests results, the rock
strength evaluation and the knowledge of the in-situ state of stress;
• assessing the critical pore pressure for the onset of sand production in the risky
intervals.

17
Form 7 - Uniaxial and triaxial tests.

These are the most common lab tests for determining rock strength. During
these tests, cylindrical plugs, taken from bottom hole cores, are compressed
alongwith their axis until the plugs break. When no confinement pressure is
applied along the lateral surface of the sample, the test is uniaxial, vice versa
the test is triaxial.

The aim of these tests is to evaluate how the material reacts when it deforms
due to the effect of external compression. In the case of reversible processes,
the measurement of the strain along the sample’s axis and along its lateral
surface makes it possible to obtain the elastic properties of the material as
Young’s Modulus (E) or as Poisson’s Ratio (ν).

Figure S6-A shows the result of a uniaxial or triaxial test as a “stress-strain”

graph, which indicates how the main mechanical parameters were obtained.

Axial Compressive Strength

Yield Stress
Axial Pressure

Straightline Slope =
Young’s Modulus

Relationship between the strains

= Possion’s Coefficient

Lateral Strain Axial Strain

Figure S6-A: Result of a hypothetical compression test (uniaxial or

triaxial).

18
Form 8: Technical-economic importance of knowing the state of in-situ
stresses in different contexts of the oil industry.

1. Modelling basin sedimentological processes: the tectonic stresses which act on

rock formations over time affect their present structure. So, within the context of
structural geology studies, information about the current state of stress helps to
reconstruct the past history of a geological basin, in terms of the deformation which
has taken place, the development of faults, etc. One of the operative advantages
of this is to have greater knowledge on the presence, direction and dip of faults
and/or natural fractures and an estimate of the seal efficiency of different
formations. Overpressured zones can then be predicted.
2. Predicting borehole stability during drilling and production: as regards all
borehole stability criteria, the intensity of the stresses acting on the walls of a
weelbore is one of the fundamental parameters, as it determines the compressive
strength limit of a rock as well as its fracturing pressure. Knowing this, it is then
possible to optimise drilling operations as regards the weight of the mud, casing
profile and well deviation. Moreover knowledge on the variation in the state of
stress due to a decrease in the reservoir’s internal pore pressure makes it possible
to predict the stability of open hole completions for wells during reservoir
development.
3. Planning the direction of deviated wells: the intensity of the forces acting on the
borehole wall, and consequently, its stability, depend on the dip of the well, on the
well’s orientation compared to the direction of the two main horizontal forces. In
particular, the stability is minimum for wells which are drilled in the direction of the
maximum horizontal stress. Borehole stability problems may therefore be
prevented by suitably choosing the direction of the wells, based on knowing the in-
situ state of stress.
4. Planning and performing hydraulic and thermal fracturing operations: the aim
of a fracturing operation (which can be achieved by increasing the hydraulic
pressure, or thermally by cooling the surrounding area of the borehole), is to
convey a pressure to the bottom hole which is greater than the minimum stress
which acts on the borehole wall. Knowing the intensity and direction of the
minimum stress makes it possible to correctly plan operations in terms of feasibility,
prediction of direction and propagation of the fracture.
5. Optimizing the completion strategy: the feasibility of open hole completions can
be estimated on the basis of borehole stability analysis. Moreover, when reservoirs
have natural fractures, it is possible to optimize their development, considering that
the highest likelihood of encountering open fractures occurs with wells drilled along
the minimum horizontal stress.
6. Optimizing storage field management: the importance of knowing the state of
stress is evident, considering that the sealing pressure of the cap rock depends not
only on its thickness and permeability, but also on the tectonic stresses acting on it.
7. Predicting subsidence: the entity of reservoir rock compaction depends on its
compressibility value and on the variation of the forces applied during production,
compared to virgin conditions. The original state of stress and its variation over
time due to hydrocarbon production therefore represent fundamental parameters
for the models which simulate the subsidence process.

19
Bibliography

1. Kooijman, A.P., Halleck, P.M., de Bree, P., Veeken, C.A.M., Kenter, C.J.,: “Large-
Scale Laboratory Sand Production Test”, paper SPE 24798, SPE 67th An.Tech.Conf.
and Exhib.Proc., Washington, DC, Oct.4-7, 1992
2. Moricca, G., Ripa, G., Sanfilippo, F., Santarelli, F.J.: “Basin Scale Rock Mechanics:
Field Observations of Sand Production”, paper SPE/ISRM 28066, Eurock ‘94: Rock
Mechanics for Petroleum Engineering Proc., Delft (NL), 29-31 August 1994.
3. Morita, N.: Field and Laboratory Verification of Sand Production Prediction
Methods”, paper SPE 27341, Intl. Symp. on Formation Damage Control Proc.,
Lafayette, Feb.7-10, 1994
4. Sanfilippo. F., Ripa, G., Brignoli, M., Santarelli, F.J.: “Economical Management of
Sand Production by a Methodology Validated on an Extensive Database of Field
Data”, paper SPE 30472, SPE 70th An. Tech. Conf. and Exhib., Dallas, TX, 22-25
October 1995.
5. Sanfilippo, F., Brignoli, M., Giacca, D., Santarelli, F.J.: “Sand Production: From
Prediction to Management”, paper SPE 38185, SPE European Formation Damage
Conference, The Hague (NL), 2-3 June 1997.
6. Sanfilippo, F., Ripa, G., Santarelli, F.J.: “Project DSP 201: VAMOS - Final Report”,
AGIP/LAPO Internal Report n° 14/1996.
7. Sanfilippo, F., Brignoli, M.: “Procedure Operative per Effettuare un’Analisi di Rischio
di Produzione di Sabbia nei Pozzi di Appraisal”, AGIP/LAPO Internal Report n°
7/1997.
8. Tronvoll, J., Fjaer, E.: “Experimental Study of Sand Production from Perforation
Cavities”, Int.J.Rock Mech. Sci., Vol.31, No.5, pp.393-410, 1994

20