SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition 1993
DOI: 10.2118/26541-ms
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Simplified Pseudo 3D Model to Evaluate Sand Production Risk in Deviated Cased Holes

Abstract: When comparing various wells on a given field in terms of sand production, it often happens that they display quite different behaviours: for example, deviated wells will produce sand whilst vertical ones won't. A major reason behind such an apparent paradox is the orientation of the well and its perforations in the in-situ stress field. Such a problem is usually studied by using complex non linear 3D Finite Element Models. In an attempt to make such an approach more flexible, this paper pres… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

1999
1999
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…[32][33][34][35] This assumption, however, ignores the fundamental effect of stress anisotropy on sanding, so the technique cannot explain sanding risk related to borehole orientation. [36][37][38] Additionally, the failure criterion used in this circumstance considers critical plastic deformation (e.g., it specifies the allowable extent of plastic deformation before instability occurs), but this factor is difficult to determine and is somewhat arbitrary.…”
Section: Review Of Sanding Prediction Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…[32][33][34][35] This assumption, however, ignores the fundamental effect of stress anisotropy on sanding, so the technique cannot explain sanding risk related to borehole orientation. [36][37][38] Additionally, the failure criterion used in this circumstance considers critical plastic deformation (e.g., it specifies the allowable extent of plastic deformation before instability occurs), but this factor is difficult to determine and is somewhat arbitrary.…”
Section: Review Of Sanding Prediction Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…36,39 A significant merit of this method is that it takes into account the most important aspects of sand production: stresses, rock strength, and the effect of in-situ stress anisotropy. 8 Compared to numerical methods, this elastic approach reduces the time and effort needed for analyses and also overcomes the difficulties of obtaining complex input parameters.…”
Section: Review Of Sanding Prediction Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This generally requires a rock mechanics model incorporating in situ stresses, material behavior parameters (strength and deformation parameters), and knowledge of stress and pressure evolution, perhaps even incorporating hydrodynamic drag. Analyses can range from highly complex 3-D elastoplastic finite element models 11 , to analytical or semi analytical models based on only a few stress and strength parameters 12,13,14 , to laboratory studies of sands under as realistic conditions as possible 15 , integrated analysis and field studies 16 , and collation and correlation of empirical data 17 .…”
Section: Risk Managementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3,4 This model computes the stress concentration around the perforations and compares it with the critical conditions given by the adopted failure criterion. In this case, such failure criterion was calibrated using experimental results of cavity failure tests.…”
Section: Adopted Strategy To Predict the Risk Of Sand Productionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…σ h : 508 bar (4) which means that a strike-slip regime acts on the Varg field (the maximum and the minimum principal stresses are horizontal). This situation has already been observed in other fields in the North Sea.…”
Section: Analysis Of the In-situ State Of Stressmentioning
confidence: 99%