Horizontal Well Completions

We can divide horizontal wells into three general categories, based on their curvature
from vertical to horizontal:

short radius

medium radius

long radius

These categories are starting points for designing the well completion.

Short radius wells have curvature radii of less than 50 ft [15.2 m], and as low as 30 ft
[9.1 m]. Their buildup angles are consequently very large — as much as 2 degrees
per foot [0.115 rad/m]. Horizontal sections are relatively small (typically 75 - 150 ft,
or 23 - 46 m). With current technology, it is not possible to run casing or
measurement-while-drilling (MWD) tools in these sections. Hole diameters are limited
to a maximum of about 6 1/4 inches [158.75 mm].

Medium radius wells have curvature radii ranging from 300 to 700 ft [approx. 90 to
210 m], and buildup angles of between 8 and 20 degrees/100 ft [0.46 - 1.15 rad/100
m]. They require specialized, articulated drilling equipment, and commonly employ
compressive service pipe. These wells can be logged and cased. Hole diameters are
limited to approximately 12 3/4 inches [323.85 mm].

Long radius wells use standard drilling equipment to attain build angles of 3 to 5
degrees per 100 ft [0.17 - 0.29 rad/100 m]. Well diameters are of the same
magnitude as those in vertical wells. This configuration is becoming commonplace,
with lengths of 3,500 ft [914 m] now considered routine,and sections approaching
20,00ft [~4100 m] being reported as of 1996.

The decision to drill a short, medium or long radius well depends on a number of
factors, such as:

Geological discontinuities and well spacing: Although long radius and/or extended
reach wells make for spectacular drilling records, short lateral sections may be more
suitable for cases of severe reservoir heterogeneities along the projected well course.

Reservoir coverage: Short radius wells are often associated with multiple
completions emanating from the same vertical well. They are useful for
producing unswept zones in depleted reservoirs, where drilling an infill vertical
well may be uneconomical. The short radius configuration can also be applied
in enhanced oil recovery (e.g., steam injection).

Formation evaluation requirements: Long radius wells are useful for

measuring reservoir properties over extended intervals.

Cost: We must consider costs within the context of the overall reservoir
exploitation strategy.
Stimulation and completion needs, more often than not, point towards long-radius wells. Of the
three configurations, we should therefore consider long radius first (keeping in mind that we might
want to limit the length to better manage the well). We should consider short radius second, for
multiple horizontal completions and, in enhanced recovery applications, for injection/production
configurations. Medium radius wells represent an intermediate option, and are relatively less
common.

Hole diameter is an important consideration in selecting drilling and production

equipment, but it has relatively little impact on horizontal well performance. We can
illustrate this using the data from a previous example where we calculated a
theoretical production rate of 2,490 STB/D [396 m3/D] for a hole diameter of 7 7/8 in
[200 mm]. If we had made this calculation using a diameter of 9 3/4 in [248 mm], the
production rate would have been 2,527 STB/D [401 m3/D]. Or, if we had used a 5-in
[127-mm] diameter, the rate would be 2,417 STB/D [384 m3/D].

Hole size also has a relatively small effect on the pressure drop across the horizontal
section, as we see in Figure 1 (Lackner, 1992).

Figure 1

The standard tubing gradient curves at the top of this illustration show depth versus
bottomhole pressure, with the gas-liquid ratio (GLR) as the parameter. The bottom
plot shows the pressure drops in a 6,000 ft [1829 m]+ horizontal well versus the
estimated flowing pressures at the bottom of the vertical section. (Again, GLR is the
parameter.) The production rate is 10,000 STB/D [1590 m3/D].

It is easy to see that the pressure drops in the horizontal section are small and, as
one might expect, are smaller for higher pressures at the bottom of the vertical
section. The fluid is more liquid, and therefore the friction pressure drop — which is
the only component of the pressure gradient — is smaller.

Vertical wells have a limiting GLR above which the pressure gradient in the well
increases, marking the transition from hydrostatic to friction pressure domination. In
a horizontal section, there is no such division. As the GLR increases, so does the
pressure gradient, since all of the pressure loss is due to friction.

Note that Figure 1 (Vertical, connected to horizontal section gradient curves) is an

approximation, which assumes a sharp transition between vertical and horizontal
sections. We could incorporate the angle of curvature with a more rigorous
calculation. However, our general conclusions would not change.

Pressure Drop in a Horizontal Well

Assume a well depth of 9,000 feet, a GLR of 1,000 SCF/STB and a wellhead pressure
of 100 psi. From the top portion of Figure 1 , we see that the flowing bottomhole
pressure is 1,350 psi. Starting from this point in the bottom plot, the corresponding p
in horizontal section is 115 psi. Such a pressure drop is relatively small, unless the
well is intended to be run at reservoir drawdowns of this magnitude (note that Figure
1 is for a flow rate of 10,000 STB/D).

The relationship between p and length is largely linear. Therefore, if we reduced the
length of the horizontal section to 2,000 ft,. the corresponding p would be
approximately 38 psi.

While well diameter is not a key factor in choosing a completion design, the type of
well completion does depend greatly on such variables as:

expected well service;

reservoir lithology;

lateral heterogeneities or differential pressure depletion.

Crouse (1991) has identified a number of possible uses for horizontal wells, each of which may
require different completion strategies. Figure 2 and Figure 3 illustrate some of these
applications.
Figure 2
 Figure 3

As an exploration or formation evaluation tool, a horizontal well (always preceded by

a vertical pilot hole) may be completed openhole. For draining multiple zones, a well
may contain multiple horizontal completions. The same holds true for the creative
possibility of using a single vertical well with two horizontal sections kicked off, where
one section is an injector and the other is a producer. Considerations like these form
the basis for understanding the features, benefits and limitations of various
completion types.

Types of Well Completions

Figure 1 illustrates the most common completion designs for horizontal wells:

Open hole (a);

 Figure 1

Slotted, perforated or pre-packed liner in open hole (b);

Liner with External Casing Packers (ECPs) (c);

Cased, cemented and perforated (d).

In addition to these options, we may install pre-packed liners to alleviate sand production. We
may also employ combinations of these completion methods, such as using selective cementing
to isolate a gas cap or other overlying zone.

Open Hole

The open hole completion design was the one most commonly used in the early
years of horizontal drilling. It is still in wide use today, although there has been a
gradual shift to other options.

Of the four main completion types, the open hole configuration is the simplest and
cheapest to execute. In general, the vertical section is cased and cemented, and the
horizontal is left open to the formation. Frequently, a section of the horizontal well
nearest to the vertical is cemented off bottom (Reiley et al., 1987). This technique
involves installing a polymer plug (cross-linked when set; broken later with chemical
breakers) for up to 200 feet [60.96 m] into the horizontal section, filling the well
section in front of the plug with cement, and subsequently drilling it out. The
ostensible purpose is to isolate overlying layers or a gas cap.
The usual formation requirements for vertical open hole completions (i.e., competent
rock, no sand production) also apply to horizontal wells. In addition, we need to
understand that horizontal wells rarely traverse truly homogeneous formations — one
reason for drilling a horizontal well in the first place is to cut across reservoir
heterogeneities.

For example, Italy's Rospo Mare field in the Adriatic Sea, where the modern era of
horizontal wells started, produces from a vugular formation. In this field, a well's success
depends upon its penetrating these vugs, which are separated by largely impermeable,
zero-porosity rock.

The Austin Chalk formation in Texas is another center of horizontal well

activity, where success likewise depends on wells intersecting massive natural
fracture networks.

In such environments, an open hole completion may not be an attractive option. Its inability to
provide zonal isolation may lead to unwanted comingling of reservoir fluids and, in the case of
differential pressure depletion, actual loss of production from one zone into another. Neither is it
possible to perform selective matrix stimulation treatments.

Slotted, Perforated or Prepacked Liner in Open Hole

In homogeneous, relatively less competent formations, we might run a slotted or pre-

perforated liner in open hole. Where sand production is a problem, we may instead
use a pre-packed liner. All of these designs have the same limitation that
characterizes open hole completions: lack of zonal isolation. An additional problem
with installing slotted liners is the inability to perform hydraulic fracture treatments.
Unless we are targeting homogeneous formations with relatively short horizontal
wells, and stimulation is unnecessary, neither open holes nor slotted liners are likely
to be attractive completion options.

Of course, in all cases, we need to balance the costs of completion against the costs
of potential subsequent problems. If the problems of zonal isolation and stimulation
are severe, then we should use one of the two remaining techniques, which afford
selective completion capabilities: slotted liners with ECPs, or cased and cemented
wells. (Note: Reiss (1985) and Lessi and Spreux (1988) present some of the first
applications of selective completion technologies and the difficulties involved in
applying them. Spreux et al. (1988) present relatively complete reviews of horizontal
well completion technology, especially as it applies to selective completions.)

Slotted Liners with External Casing Packers (ECPs)

Lessi and Spreux (1988), in publishing what is perhaps the first comprehensive
evaluation of horizontal completion technologies, described the testing of formation
packers under both laboratory and field conditions. They concluded that inflatable
packers cannot provide satisfactory seals, because horizontal wellbores are likely to
be oval-shaped and poorly gauged. As it turns out, however, even short ECPs with
common rubber elements have proven able to deform and take the shape of the
hole, and at the same time hold substantial pressure differentials. Figure 2 shows a
typical slotted liner/ECP configuration, and a blank liner installed and bracketed by
ECPs to shut off potentially unwanted influx or production loss.
 Figure 2

In a number of wells, ECP-equipped slotted liners have provided adequate selective

completion capabilities, and also have lent themselves to zonal isolation for matrix
stimulation.

Of course, not all ECP applications have been successful. Moreover, they may be
somewhat less flexible for long-term production adjustments than our final
completion option: a cased, cemented and perforated well.

Cased, Cemented and Perforated Wells

There is no question that a cased, cemented and perforated well offers the highest
flexibility for zonal isolation and production options. Unfortunately, this configuration
is more expensive than the other completion designs, and has inherent problems of
execution.

But we should never exclude cemented and cased wells based on "up front" costs
alone. We must consider the long-term benefits. Coupled with the concept of partially
perforated wells, this type of completion should be the first one considered. We
should employ other types of completions only if the risks they present are minimal,
or if the incremental benefits from cemented wells are marginal.
Zonal Isolation Techniques
Zonal isolation — contrary to frequent popular misconception — is as essential for
horizontal wells as it is for vertical wells. The slotted liner/ECP design and the cased
and cemented well can offer selective completion capabilities adequate for
overcoming production-related problems and for performing stimulation treatments.

First, it is not necessary to complete the entire horizontal well length. Perforating
only a fraction (say, 60 percent) of a cemented and cased horizontal section, with
perforated sections evenly distributed, may result in a production rate that is more
than 90 percent of the theoretical, open-hole-equivalent production. We could attain
similar success using slotted liners, equipped with ECPs and with blanked-off
sections. This type of completion is not only conducive to excluding troublesome
intervals, but it is particularly applicable to stimulation.

To accomplish zonal isolation and selective fluid placement for matrix stimulation
treatments, we can use chemical diverters and coiled tubing. For temporary zonal
isolation during hydraulic fracturing, we might perform the following sequence (
Figure 1 , Temporary zonal isolation for hydraulic fracturing in horizontal wells using
a sand plug):

Starting from the far end of the well, perforate the first section.

Figure 1

Perform the fracture treatment on this section.

 Place a temporary plug before performing the second treatment. This could
be a deliberate, inside-the-well screenout, using a multidensity, multimeshed
mixture of sand, or a cross-linked polymer plug that can be engineered to
break after the treatment. Take care in selecting the polymer, because certain
polymers are acid-sensitive and may decompose during an acid breakdown of
the next set of perforations. Section 4 contains a discussion of the optimal
distance between perforations (i.e., the number of treatments to perform) and
the length of the perforated interval.

Damgaard et al. (1989) and Andersen et al. (1990) have introduced a highly sophisticated zonal
isolation technique especially for horizontal wells. This method employs specially designed
hardware and procedures for perforating, stimulating and isolating the well, with the idea of
reducing the number of trips required for the job. Since stimulation treatment time constitutes a
large part of the total completion cost (especially offshore), the overall result is a significant cost
saving, even though the equipment itself is expensive. Application of this technology requires
good cement jobs. Furthermore, the published literature suggests long-radius horizontal wells as
the preferred candidates.

This technique has been applied in wells completed with 7 in. [177.8 mm] liners in a
8-1/2 in. [215.9 mm] hole. The completion system described here remains in the well
permanently, and is especially useful for production management.

The system consists of three separate assemblies, as shown in Figure 2 (Completion

system for perforating, isolating and stimulating in one trip).
 Figure 2

(Damgaard et al., 1989):

A sump packer, set permanently at the deepest point in the well.

A downhole assembly, consisting of:

—a seal assembly that connects with the sump packer.

—a length of 4-1/2 in. [114.3 mm] tubing (the length is equal to the designed
zone length).
—a sliding sleeve that can be opened or closed with a coiled tubing conveyed
manipulation string.
—a retrievable, hydraulically-set isolation packer.

The same downhole assembly is repeated as many times as the desired number of zones in the
horizontal well. The seal of each new downhole assembly simply connects with the isolation
packer of the previous one.

A service assembly for perforating and stimulating each zone, which consists of:

—a tubing-conveyed perforating gun (TCP), which can retract after firing.

—a circulation port, which allows flow of fluids around the service assembly and into the
annular space of the casing.
—a length of 2-3/8 in. [60.325 mm] tubing.
—a retrievable packer.
The complete procedure of perforating, stimulating and isolating takes place in a single trip. The
operator:
positions the service assembly (which carries a downhole assembly) with the TCP guns
opposite the perforation interval.

sets the packer.

fires and then retracts the guns.

performs the stimulation treatment.

Following the treatment, the downhole assembly is set in place (sealed in the previous
assembly's packer, with its own packer set), and the service assembly's packer is released and
retracted for the next zonal completion.

Casing Design
The loads imposed on casing in horizontal wells are similar to those encountered in
vertical wells. The magnitude of these loads, however, may vary considerably at
different points in the well. We can identify three distinct regions of loading:

the horizontal, or reach section;

 the angle build interval;

the vertical section.

Of course, we can break down these areas further (especially in the angle build interval) for the
purpose of calculating the load (Greenip, 1989).

Casing design criteria in a vertical well typically include:

tension load;

collapse resistance to external hydrostatic pressure;

burst pressure (an important consideration for fracturing jobs or for gas
wells).

We may apply the same considerations to horizontal wells, keeping in mind that the vertical
stress (which is normal to the horizontal section) is often much larger than the two horizontal
stresses (which are normal to a vertical well).

A significant difference between the highly deviated and the vertical well sections is
the bending load on the angle build interval. In certain cases, bending load may be
the major design criterion (Greenip, 1989).

The bending stress (b) in psi is equal to

(2.1)
where
dc is the outside diameter in inches

is the build angle in degrees.

Where b is expressed in kPa (with dc given in millimeters and  in radians) 211 becomes 3282.

For example if  = 30 degrees and dc = 5 inches, then b = 31,650 psi (157,000 lb).

This bending stress is additional to the axial load, and for certain cases it can account for 60 to 80 percent of the total load.

In the horizontal section, the pipe may be subjected to considerably smaller loads. To reach this part of the well, however, it must pass through the

angle build section. We must take this into consideration when designing the horizontal casing.

Casing Design
The loads imposed on casing in horizontal wells are similar to those encountered in
vertical wells. The magnitude of these loads, however, may vary considerably at
different points in the well. We can identify three distinct regions of loading:

the horizontal, or reach section;

 the angle build interval;

the vertical section.

Of course, we can break down these areas further (especially in the angle build interval) for the
purpose of calculating the load (Greenip, 1989).

Casing design criteria in a vertical well typically include:

tension load;

collapse resistance to external hydrostatic pressure;

burst pressure (an important consideration for fracturing jobs or for gas
wells).

We may apply the same considerations to horizontal wells, keeping in mind that the vertical
stress (which is normal to the horizontal section) is often much larger than the two horizontal
stresses (which are normal to a vertical well).

A significant difference between the highly deviated and the vertical well sections is
the bending load on the angle build interval. In certain cases, bending load may be
the major design criterion (Greenip, 1989).

The bending stress (b) in psi is equal to

(2.1)
where
dc is the outside diameter in inches

is the build angle in degrees.

Where b is expressed in kPa (with dc given in millimeters and  in radians) 211 becomes 3282.

For example if  = 30 degrees and dc = 5 inches, then b = 31,650 psi (157,000 lb).

This bending stress is additional to the axial load, and for certain cases it can account for 60 to 80 percent of the total load.

In the horizontal section, the pipe may be subjected to considerably smaller loads. To reach this part of the well, however, it must pass through the

angle build section. We must take this into consideration when designing the horizontal casing.

Cementing
While the same reasons for cementing casing in vertical wells are also valid for
horizontal wells (i.e., zonal isolation, casing support, corrosion control), a horizontal
well's geometry gives rise to two problems:

1. Poor drilling mud displacement, resulting from gravity/flow incompatibility with the
cement slurry, and aggravated by improper pipe centralization.
 2. Free water accumulation at the upper side of the well as the slurry sets,
resulting in an inadequate seal.

Mud Displacement and Free Water Accumulation

Efficient drilling mud displacement is essential to forming a good cement seal. This is
true for any well, whether it is vertical or horizontal. Undisplaced mud or drilled
cuttings can result in channeling and zonal communication. In vertical wells, gas
migration is a severe and prevalent problem. While gas migration may be less of an
issue in horizontal wells, we still have to worry about heterogeneous pressures
causing intrazonal flow and loss of production.

We also have to consider gravity and flow direction. In a vertical well, the mud
returns flow up the hole, opposite the direction of gravity. Thus, if the flow rate is
high enough, it may slow or even prevent particles from settling. In a horizontal hole
section, however, fluid flows at right angles to gravity, and so flow rate does not
prevent particle settling. We need to take this into account when we design the mud
rheology. Also, we should plan for frequent cleanout trips during drilling to remove
mud solids and cuttings, and to reduce the risk of stuck pipe (Griffin, 1992).

Gravity may also work with the horizontal well geometry to produce an eccentric
liner-to-well configuration. This is likely to result in a buildup of drilled cuttings in the
lower part of the well and, after cementing, a free water accumulation at the top of
the well ( Figure 1 , Gravity-related mud displacement problems in horizontal wells.

Figure 1
Drilled cuttings settle in the bottom and liner non-centralization causes a much
smaller cement slurry flow rate in the bottom of the well. Free water after cement
setting results in a channel at the top of the hole).

The smaller liner-to-hole clearance in the lower hole section leads to a considerably
reduced flow rate (and far less efficient mud displacement) relative to the upper hole
section.

We refer to this clearance as the standoff, where

% standoff = (2.2)
where
w is the minimum clearance, and

rw and rc are the radii of the well and casing, respectively, as shown in
Figure 1 .

Crook et al. (1985) studied the issue of mud displacement in highly deviated wells. Of particular
importance is drilled cuttings transport in wells with deviations from 50 degrees to 90 degrees
[0.87-1.57 rad].

In these situations, we may improve displacement efficiency by:

keeping the thixotropic behavior of the fluid at a minimum;

decreasing the mud viscosity;

increasing the mud density;

maintaining turbulent flow (this will be adversely affected by standoff

problems).

To prevent particles from settling when the mud is static (i.e., before pumping the cement slurry),
a minimum threshold point is required, which increases with angle of deviation. The mud's
rheological properties are therefore critical. Also, pumping should begin as soon as possible.

While the preceding guidelines are general, the mud design that facilitates cuttings
transport and allows for good mud displacement is specific to each well, and must
incorporate the appropriate job parameters. For critical wells, extensive laboratory
testing is recommended.

Griffin (1992) has set forth guidelines for mud circulation before cementing:

Circulation to break the gel strength should continue until at least 95 percent of the mud
is moving.

To avoid settling of solids due to the broken gel strength, avoid excessive
circulation — two hole volumes should be adequate.
 Pipe movement helps to break the gel strength an improve mud
displacement. Both rotation and reciprocation have been used in horizontal
wells, and either is recommended. Rotation should be 10 to 20 RPM and
reciprocation should be in 10 - 20 ft [ 3 - 6 m] strokes with 1 to 2 strokes
every 1 to 2 minutes.

Centralization

Field and experimental evidence suggests that mud is easy to remove in well-
centralized casings, where the standoff is more than 67 percent. Poor mud removal
occurs at standoffs of less than 30 percent (Parcevaux, 1987). Casing centralization,
however, can be difficult to achieve in highly deviated or horizontal wells because of
the increasing load on the centralizers.

The obvious solution to this problem would be to simply run more centralizers.
Unfortunately, this increases the risk of sticking the pipe in the bent hole section. An
alternative solution is to decrease standoff by reducing the density difference
between cement, spacer and drilling mud, and by employing the lightest possible
displacement fluid (Parcevaux, 1987, Griffin 1992). Parcevaux also suggests that in
going from mud to spacer to cement to displacing fluid, it may be desirable to
sequentially reduce the density. Of course, any density reduction is subject to well
control considerations. Note also that while these decreasing densities might work in
the horizontal section, they may be insufficient for adequate mud displacement in the
vertical section.

Liner Sizing

The liner size relative to the hole diameter is important in determining the standoff
and number of centralizers required, and — if the number of centralizers is relatively
large — in reducing the risk of sticking. Hardman (1986) concludes that the ratio of
casing to well diameter should be much smaller than in conventional wells. He
recommends 5-1/2 in. [139.7 mm] liners in 8-1/2 in. [215.9 mm] holes. Others have
suggested that larger ratios of casing-to-well diameters are possible (Griffin, 1992).
However, current practice frequently uses the 5-1/2 and 8-1/2 in. configuration.

Cement Slurry Design

Potential problems, such as poor mud displacement efficiency and free water
accumulation, determine the desired slurry and set cement characteristics.

To offset casing centralization problems, the cement density must be at least as low
as the drilling mud density. Furthermore, casing eccentricity suggests using a slurry
with as low a yield point as possible, so that it can flow in the lower part of the
annulus. The problem with this approach is that low-yield point slurries can cause
free water breakout and cement particle sedimentation, resulting in a poor seal.
Thixotropic cements can prevent free water formation, but they exhibit high yield
stresses (Parcevaux, 1987).

The only cements that combine low density, low settling and low yield stress are
foamed cements or cements with microspheres. Moreover, the vertical stress on a
horizontal well is usually greater than the two horizontal stresses acting on a vertical
well, and thus requires a cement with relatively higher compressive strength.
Foamed or microsphere cements can provide this compressive strength.
A number of free water inhibitors, which also act as particle dispersants, have been
introduced as cement slurry additives, and are recommended for use on horizontal
wells.

Sand Control
In some formations, sand production is a serious problem, affecting surface
production facilities and, in extreme cases, causing wellbore instability. The
magnitude of the pressure drawdown is one of the key variables controlling sand
production. Horizontal wells, by affording lower drawdowns, may be ideal for these
reservoirs.

In some formations where vertical wells require sand control measures, drilling
horizontal wells may in itself alleviate the problem. In other cases, however, drilling
horizontal wells may not be enough, and sand control measures may be necessary.
Gravel packing of horizontal wells has been attempted with relatively successful
results.

Long horizontal intervals that need to be gravel packed may generate considerable
friction pressure loss in the particle-laden slurry. This pressure loss reduces the fluid's
horizontal velocity, thus requiring particular attention to the particle settling velocity.

Roodhart (1985) has presented a modification of Stokes' Law for single particle
terminal settling velocity for power-law fluids.

(2.3)
(Equation 2.3 is in SI units).

where:

g = acceleration of gravity, m/s2

= density difference between that of the particle and the carrier fluid,
kg/m3

dp = particle diameter, m

µ0 = zero shear viscosity, Pa-s

n' and K' describe the rheological properties of the fluid.

It is apparent from Equation 2.3 that the settling velocity is a minimum if  is small (i.e., using
lower density particles) and if dp is small.

Example: Calculation of Settling Velocity

Assume that:
 gr = 2650 kg/m [165.4 lb/ft ]
3 3

fluid = 1000 kg/m3 [62.4 lb/ft3]

n' = 0.37

K' = 4 Pa-sn' [0.0835 lbf/ft2-sn']

µ0 = 0.2 Pa-s [200 cp]

dp = 2.5 x 10-4 m [8.2 x 10-4 ft]

g = 9.78 m/s2 [32.2 ft/s2].

Calculate the single particle settling velocity.

Solution

From Equation 2.3:

(2.4)

and therefore:

ut = 2.8 x 10-4 + 2.6 x 10-3 ut0.63 (2.5)

From Equation 2.5, ut = 2.95 x 10-4 m/s [1 x 10-3 ft/s]

The results of Example 2.2 illustrate the contrasting factors affecting particle
transport in a horizontal well. Higher viscosity may result in lower settling velocity (if
µ0 were 2000 cp, then ut would be 3.18 x 10-5 m/s [1 x 10-4 ft/s]).

Higher settling velocity causes the particles to dune, which reduces the clearance,
increasing the velocity above a critical value. This in turn prevents further particle
settling and bridging in the well.

In gravel packing, however, the situation is more complicated. The fluid must flow
normal to the screen, and fast enough to force the particle-laden slurry to pack off
against the formation. Lower-viscosity fluid with reduced particle concentrations may
cause duning at the screen, with carrier fluid leaking off and causing inadequate
gravel transport at the formation interface.

There are several models available that can account for these phenomena. In
general, a model must balance the fluid rheological properties, gravel properties,
temperature, screen size and the length of the interval to be packed.
Milne et al. (1991) have offered the following practical guidelines. Keep in mind,
though, that job design is extremely well-specific, and that critical wells require
sophisticated, customized models.

Optimize the slurry by reducing particle concentration, taking into account the
increased leakoff during packing.

Reduce carrier viscosity by taking into account particle transport and

settling velocity.

Minimize the density differential between the particles and carrier fluid.

Reduce screen diameter to lower the friction pressure drop in the annulus
and prevent bridging at the screen.