JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGY

ISSN: 2723-0988, e-ISSN: 2723-1496 Vol.3 No. 2 2022

Sand Problem Handling Strategy on Well AR-02 with Hydraulic Pumping Unit

Ayu Regita Pramesti 1*), Nur Suhascaryo 2), Boni Swadesi 3)

1)
Universitas Pembangunan Nasional Veteran Yogyakarta
* corresponding emailyuregitap18@[Link]

ABSTRACT
AR-02 well is one of the oil production wells located in Structure X. This well is produced using the Hydraulic
Pumping Unit (HPU) method due to low reservoir pressure as a result of the reduced production capacity of the Y Field
formation. In addition, this well has sand problems because the fluid production rate of 96 bfpd exceeds the critical sand
flow rate of 66.81 bfpd. The physical properties of reservoir rocks do not cause sand problems because they have a
cementation factor of highly cemented (m = 1.99), relatively small clay content (5.4%), compact rock (∆t = 54.16 s/ft),
and compact as well as stable formation rock (G/Cb = 14.85x1012 psi2). In solving the sand problem in the AR-02
Well, the Gravel Pack and screen were installed. The correct Gravel size according to the Saucier method is 0.035 inch
and the correct screen size according to the Coberly & Wagner, Tauch & Corley, and H. J. Ayre methods is 0.016 inch.
The value (G-S) ratio indicates that the selection of Gravel and screen sizes is correct (stable), namely the value (G-S)
ratio is at number 5. Redesign of the production scheme due to the installation of the Gravel Pack with the use of HPU
pumps at the same setting produces; P due to Gravel installation 40 psi, qfluid after Gravel installation 90 bfpd
(previously 95 bfpd), PI after Gravel installation 0.188 (previously 0.198), Min allowable stress 8991.56 psi, Max
allowable stress 23420.64 psi, Total stretch 55.42 inch, Over travel 0.391 inch, Plunger stroke 94.97 inch, and Pump
Displacement 135.65 bfpd.

Keywords: : sand problem; gravel pack; hydraulic pumping unit; sand; screen

I. INTRODUCTION
The AR-02 well is one of the oil production wells located in Structure X. The reservoir for Structure X is located in the
Baturaja Formation (BRF) which is carbonate rock at a peak depth of -2,200 mbpl. The initial reservoir pressure is
3,305 psi, the reservoir temperature is 295 °F and the bubble pressure is 2,525 psi, the reservoir is undersaturated. This
formation is divided into 2 zones, namely Upper BRF and Lower BRF. Upper BRF consists of Sub zone 1 Upper BRF
and Sub zone 2 Upper BRF. Upper BRF has relatively good porosity and permeability in the range (6-20) % and
permeability (0.2-20) ms. Structure X was discovered in November 1997, with an initial production rate of 1.085
BOPD, 0.79 MMSCFD and very low moisture content. The total production rate of AR-02 well is 96 BFPD with a
water cut of 25% and a gas liquid ratio (GLR) of 2782.66 SCF/BBL. Structure X is located in the capital city of South
Sumatra, including within the working area of PT Pertamina Hulu Rokan, Field Y. This well is produced using an
artificial lifting method of HPU pump (Hydraulic Pumping Unit) due to low reservoir pressure as a result of the reduced
production capacity of the formation belong to Field Y. In addition, this well is experiencing sand problems so it needs
an evaluation of strategy to find a solution without decreasing the well effectivity.
The sand problem occurs due to the bond stability damage of the sand grains caused by friction and collisions by a flow
of fluid where the flow rate that occurs exceeds the maximum limit of the allowed critical flow rate, so that the sand
grains are produced together with oil to the surface. Co-production of sand with production fluids is a common problem
in oil fields, which is usually associated with transient shallow formations, and in some areas sand problems are
encountered at depths of 12,000 ft or more. This is because the wells produce from unconsolidated layers (easily
released), so that it can interfere with the productivity of the wells and can damage production equipment. This problem
is caused by the presence of sand-sized grains around the well carried by the fluid flow and will be buried at the bottom
of the well (for large grains) or carried to the surface (for small grains).
There are generally three classifications of formation sands:
1. Quicksand (completely uncoupled formation sand)
2. Partially Consolidated Sand (has cementation but only weak linkage)
3. Friable Sand (semi-competent, cemented and potentially disruptive)
The factors that influence the tendency of a well to produce sand are:
1. Degree of cementation of rock

12
 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGY
ISSN: 2723-0988, e-ISSN: 2723-1496 Vol.3 No. 2 2022

2. Formation strength
3. Critical flow rate
4. Formation clay content
5. Reservoir pressure drop.
In general, the actual sand problem can be identified with the following parameter criteria:
1. The rock cementation factor is relatively small (less than 1.8).
2. Relatively small formation strength (less than 0.8 × 1012 psi2).
3. High production rate (greater than the critical production rate) causes high fluid drag force. This causes the sand
stability curve to collapse.
4. The increase in water saturation will cause the clay in the formation to expand. This causes the curvature of
stability to be reduced, therefore the curvature of the sand stability is easy to collapse.
Sand problems occurred several times in the AR-02 well with a probability due to the low compaction of the reservoir
rock of the well or the rate production exceeds the maximum critical rate. The production of formation sand along with
oil-water-gas can affect the performance of the installed HPU pump. Where the pump can get stuck which will cause a
decrease in oil production. This problem resulted in the AR-02 well-being frequently shut-in and a decrease in
production efficiency. Therefore, in this study, a discussion and evaluation of planning will be carried out in dealing
with sand problems in the AR-02 well.

II. METHODS
The method applied for handling strategy of sand problem in the AR-02 well consists of three stages. The first stage
begins with evaluating and analyzing the parameters that can be the cause of sand that occurs in the AR-02 well. After
knowing the cause of the sand problem that occurred in the AR-02 well, the second stage was to tackle the sand
problem. Sand management is carried out by installing a Gravel Pack and a screen which determined based on
calculations and analysis. The last stage is to redesign the production scheme on the AR-02 well while still using
existing production equipment in the field, namely using the artificial lift production method using the Hydraulic
Pumping Unit (HPU). The description of the procedure for each stage is as follows:
1. The first stage: Evaluation of the parameters causing the sand problem
At this stage, it begins by evaluating the physical properties of the reservoir rock against the sand problem. The
physical properties of rocks evaluated include cementation of reservoir rock as seen from the cementation factor,
formation stability as seen from the reservoir clay content, rock compactness from the interval transit time value
from the productive zone sonic log data, and rock strength based on the calculation of the G/Cb value in the
productive formation. After evaluating the physical properties of the reservoir rock, it is continued by evaluating
the fluid flow rate against the critical sand flow rate.
2. Second stage: Plan to handling the sand problem
Solving the problem of sand is done by calculating the size of the Gravel Pack and the right screen. The
calculation of the gravel pack size is calculated using the Sauchier method while for the screen size using the
Coberly & Wagner, Tauch & Corley, and H. J. Ayre methods. Furthermore, to ensure that the selected Gravel
and screen sizes can be calculated using (G-S) Ratio.
3. Third stage: Re-design the production scheme for the AR-02 well while still using existing production equipment
in the field
Gravel installation will provide additional pressure loss to the fluid flow. This pressure loss causes the flow rate to be
lower than originally designed. Therefore, it is necessary to design a re-production scheme by taking into account the
loss of pressure and the decrease in productivity index due to the installation of Gravel.

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Prior to the strategy for dealing with the sand problem, an evaluation was carried out to determine the cause of the sand.
The evaluation consisted of 2 evaluation parts, namely the analysis of the physical properties of the reservoir rock
against the sandy problem and the analysis of the fluid flow rate against the critical flow rate. In the evaluation of the
physical properties of the reservoir rock, the rock cementation factor in the AR-02 well reservoir has a value of 1.99.

13
 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGY
ISSN: 2723-0988, e-ISSN: 2723-1496 Vol.3 No. 2 2022

According to Sparlin D.D in 1993 that reservoirs with cementation factors are classified as highly cemented reservoirs.
So that the cementation of the reservoir rock is not the cause of the sand problem in the AR-02 well. Next, analyze the
clay content in the reservoir formation. The clay content will affect the sand problem, especially in reservoirs with a
water drive. Because when the well has been produced for a long time, the WOC will rise to the productive zone.
The contact between water and reservoir formations that have a high clay content will cause the rock in the reservoir to
expand (swelling) which will affect the reservoir rock compaction which can have an impact on sand problems when
fluids are produced. The Y field reservoir has a water drive propulsion. Based on the calculation of the GR log data, it
was found that the clay content of the AR-02 well reservoir formation was at a value of 5.40%. This value is relatively
small, so that the clay content of the formation is also not the cause of the sand problem in the AR-02 well. Next,
analyze the compactness of the formation. Whether or not the formation is compact is seen from the value of the transit
time interval resulting from recording sonic logs in productive formations. The principle is to determine the transit time
interval (∆t) which is a function of formation lithology and porosity. Formations with a transit time interval < 95 s/ft are
categorized as compact formation, 95 s/ft < (∆t) < 105 s/ft are doubtful of compactness, and (∆t) > 105 s/ft are classified
as formation is not compact. Based on the sonic log data on the AR-02 well reservoir, the transit time interval for the
productive formation is 54.15 s/ft. This means that based on the sonic log data, the compactness of the reservoir rock of
the AR-02 well is not the reason for the sand problem in the well. Next analyze the strength of the productive formation.
The strength of the productive formation is determined based on the calculation of the G/Cb value which can be seen in
Equation 1.

(( )
) (1)

From the above equation, the G/Cb value in the productive formation of the AR-02 well is 14.85 x1012 psi2. The G/Cb
value is > 0.8 x 1012 psi2, so according to Tixier, the formation is strong/compact (stable). From all the analysis of the
physical properties of the reservoir rock against the sand, it can be seen that the physical properties of the reservoir rock
are not the cause of the sand problem in the AR-02 well.
Next, analyze the fluid flow rate against the critical flow rate of sand. Sand problems can occur if the fluid flow rate
exceeds the critical sand flow rate. Based on the calculation, the critical flow rate for the AR-02 sand well is 66.81 bfpd.
While the actual fluid flow rate is at 96 bfpd. So that the cause of the sand problem that occurs in the AR-02 well is that
the fluid flow rate exceeds the critical sand flow. If it is observed from the parameters that affect the critical flow rate of
sand, the thing that can be done to increase the critical flow rate is to change the formation permeability parameter
and/or change the number/density of the perforation holes. Increasing the permeability of the formation can be done by
acidizing considering the lithology of the reservoir rock is a carbonate reservoir. Meanwhile, changing the
number/density of perforated holes can be done by re-perforating. However, the discussion of this thesis is limited to
considerations of optimization and installation of special equipment on the AR-02 well as well as the existing HPU
pump using equipment that already available in the field. Therefore, the consideration of doing acidizing and re-
perforating will only be included in the recommendations section.
After knowing the cause of the sand, the next step is to overcome the problem of sand. This countermeasure includes
the installation of Gravel Pack and screen liners. Before determining the size of the Gravel Pack and screen liner that is
suitable for use, it is necessary to analyze the sieve data first.

14
 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGY
ISSN: 2723-0988, e-ISSN: 2723-1496 Vol.3 No. 2 2022

Opening Diameter vs Cumulative Weight

d90 = 0.59 mm

d50 = 0.129 mm
d40 = 0.145 mm

.
Figure 1. Results of Grain Size Analysis of the “AR-02” Well Formation
From the graph of the formation grain size analysis of AR-02 well, the values of the cumulative weight 40% (d40),
cumulative weight 50% (d50), and cumulative weight 90% (d90) are tabulated in the following table.
Table 1. Values of d40, d50, and d90
d40 d50 d90
Mm Inch Mm Inch Mm Inch
0.145 0.005709 0.129 0.005079 0.59 0.023228

Therefore, from these data it can be calculated the value of the uniformity coefficient of the formation grains using
Equation 2.

C= (2)

Sieve data is rock core analysis data to determine the sorting or distribution of reservoir rock sizes. After
analyzing, it was concluded that the AR-02 well reservoir rock had a good distribution/sorting because the C value was
at 2,434. Furthermore, the calculation of the selection of Gravel Pack is carried out. Gravel Pack size selection is done
by the Saucier method, namely the recommended Gravel Pack size is 5 to 6 times the data d50 sieve data. With the
Gravel size range, the values of and are 0.02537 inch - 0.003045 inch, the recommended Gravel size is 16-30
U.S. Mesh. Gravel size can be determined based on the available screen sizes in the following table.
Table 2. Available Gravel Sizes (Source : Benipal, N.S., 2004)
Size Gravel (Inch) U.S. Mesh (Size) Diameter median (Inch)
0,006 x 0,017 40/100 0,012
0,008 x 0,017 40/70 0,013
0,010 x 0,017 40/60 0,014
0,017 x 0,033 20/40 0,025
0,023 x 0,047 16/30 0,035
0,033 x 0,066 12/30 0,05
0,039 x 0,066 12/18 0,053
0,033 x 0,079 10/20 0,056
0,047 x 0,079 10/16 0,063
0,066 x 0,094 8/12 0,08
0,079 x 0,132 6/10 0,106

15
 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGY
ISSN: 2723-0988, e-ISSN: 2723-1496 Vol.3 No. 2 2022

Table 3. Gravel Size Used

d50 Sand 5d50 6d50 Gravel
(Inch) (Inch) (Inch) ([Link]) (Inch)
0.005079 0.0254 0.0305 16-30 0.035

So that the correct Gravel Pack size for the AR-02 well is 0.035 inch. After that, the calculation is carried out
to determine the right screen size. Screen size is determined based on the method of Coberly & Wagner, Tauch &
Corley, and H. J. Ayre, i.e. A good screen size to choose is one that can hold Gravel grains in place and can provide
sufficient flow area. Based on the size of the Gravel, the determination of the screen size used is 0.016 inch.
Table 4. Screen Size Used Based on Gravel Range Size
(Source : Economides, 1993)
Gravel Size Gravel Size Screen Range Screen
(Inch) (Inch) Gauge
40 – 60 0.0165 – 0.0093 0.008 8
30 – 50 0.0230 – 0.0120 0.010 10
20 – 40 0.0330 – 0.0165 0.012 12
16 – 30 0.0460 – 0.0230 0.016 16
12 – 20 0.0660 – 0.0330 0.020 20
8 – 16 0.0940 – 0.0460 0.028 28

Table 5. Screen Size Used

d50 Sand 5d50 6d50 Gravel Screen
(Inch) (Inch) (Inch) ([Link]) (Inch) (Inch)
0.005079 0.0254 0.0305 16-30 0.035 0.016

Next do the calculation of the G-S Ratio. The G-S ratio is the ratio between the Gravel grain size and the formation
sand grain size. To determine the value (G-S) of this ratio by comparing the size of the Gravel (D50) with the grain
size of the sand at 50% of the cumulative weight of the sand (d50). The value of d50 is obtained from Table 1 and D50
is obtained from Table 3, so that the (G-S) ratio can be calculated using Equation 3.
( )
(G-S) ratio = (3)
( )

Saucier said that the permeability will be stable if the value of (G-S) ratio is 5 to 6. Where if the value of G-S ratio is
less than 5 there is a reduction in the permeability of the Gravel Pack because the Gravel Pack is too small to control the
sand. Meanwhile, G-S ratio of 6 to 10, there is a reduction in the effective permeability of the Gravel packing. And for
the value of G-S ratio more than 10 then the formation sand will freely pass through the Gravel packing. The optimum
value of the G-S ratio is 5 to 6 because it appears the bridging function of the Gravel. So Saucier concluded that the
optimum ratio of Gravel size to formation sand size between 5 and 6 can be used to maintain packing stability, because
the permeability can be maintained in a high state. So that the selection of Gravel and screen sizes on the AR-02 well is
correct because it gives a value (G-S) ratio of 5.
Then redesign the production of the AR-02 well. The redesign was carried out because changes were made to the well
production equipment, namely the installation of Gravel Packs and screens to overcome the sand problem that occurred.
The reset scheme is carried out by observing changes in the optimum flow rate after the Gravel Pack installation. Gravel
installation causes a pressure flow loss of 40 psi which results in a decrease in the optimum flow rate from 95 bfpd to 90
bfpd. This causes a change in the productivity index which was previously at a value of 0.198 bfpd/psi to 0.188 bfpd/psi
or a decrease in the productivity index of 5.26%.
Furthermore, in the HPU Design, no changes were made to the design of the HPU tool, only a re-calculation was made
due to changes in flow rate and productivity index due to the installation of the Gravel Pack. To recalculate the
performance of the HPU pump, well data is needed where the depth is 2299.5 m or 7544 ft with a tubing size of 2,441
inches, the pump size is 2 inches with a pump depth of 1740 m or 5708.66 ft and a stroke length of 150 inches. Then in
this well using 4 SPM with a Q-test of 96 bpd and a Q design of 90 bpd. This well has a static pressure (ps) of 1200 psi
and a pwf of 720 psi with a PI of 0.188 bpd/psi. From these data using the Equation 4-11.

16
 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGY
ISSN: 2723-0988, e-ISSN: 2723-1496 Vol.3 No. 2 2022

Imfulse factor = 1 + (4)

Max Allowable Stress = (22500 + 0.5625 x wt of fluid) x service factor (5)

Max Allowable Range = (Max – Min) Allowable Stress (6)

Rod stretch (inch) = ( )2 x ( )x( )x( ) (7)

Tubing stretch = (8)

Total stretch = Total stretch rod + tubing stretch (9)

2
Over travel = 1.41x(impulse factor–1)x(Pump depth/1000) (10)
Plunger stroke = SL – total stetch + over travel (11)
Pump displacement = 0.1166 x plunger stroke x SPM x plunger diameter2 (12)
So that the PPRL results are 15155 lb, MPRL is 7970 lb, the minimum allowable stress is 8,991.59 psi and the
maximum allowable stress is 23420.64 psi, then the maximum allowable range is 14429.05 psi with a 5/8 inch stretch
rod of 0 inch, stretch 6/8 inch rod by 35.1295 inch, stretch 7/8 inch rod by 17.23 inch, and stretch 1 inch rod by 0 inch,
then the total stretch rod is 52.36 inch and tubing stretch is 3.06 inch and total stretch of 55.42 inches. In this well, 0.39
inch of over travel is obtained and a plunger stroke of 94.97 inches and a pump displacement of 135.65 bfpd.

IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the results of the research on the Strategy for Handling the Sand Problem of the HPU Pump in the AR-02
Well, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The cause of the sand problem in the AR-02 Well is because the fluid production rate of 96 bfpd exceeds the
critical sand flow rate of 66.81 bfpd. The physical properties of reservoir rocks do not cause sand problems
because they have a cementation factor of highly cemented (m = 1.99), relatively small clay content (5.4%),
compact rock (∆t = 54.16 s/ft), and compact and stable formation rock. (G/Cb = 14.85x1012 psi 2)
2. In tackling the sand problem in the AR-02 Well, Gravel Pack and screen were installed. The correct Gravel size
according to the Saucier method is 0.035 inch and the correct screen size according to the Coberly & Wagner,
Tauch & Corley, and H. J. Ayre methods is 0.016 inch. The value (G-S) ratio indicates that the selection of
Gravel and screen sizes is correct (stable), namely the value (G-S) ratio is at number 5.
3. The redesign of the production scheme due to the installation of the Gravel Pack by using the HPU pump at the
same setting resulted in:
- ∆P due to Gravel installation : 40 psi
- qfluid after Gravel installation : 90 bfpd (previously 95 bfpd)
- PI after Gravel installation : 0.188 (previously 0.198)
- Min allowable stress : 8991.56 psi
- Max allowable stress : 23420.64 psi
- Total stretch : 55.42 inch
- Over travel : 0.391 inch
- Plunger stroke : 94.97 inch
- Pump Displacement : 135.65 bfpd

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the management of SKK Migas and PT Pertamina Hulu Rokan for
their permission to publish this paper and their pioneering spirit to fluid production using the Hydraulic Pumping Unit
(HPU) method in its area of operation, which allows this successful case history to occur.

17
 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGY
ISSN: 2723-0988, e-ISSN: 2723-1496 Vol.3 No. 2 2022

REFERENCES
A T. Adeniyi, 2018, “Economic Evaluation Of Selected Artificial Lift Methods In A Marginal Oil Field In The Niger
Delta”, International Journal of Petroleum and Gas Engineering Research, Vol.2, No.1, pp.8-22, July 2018, UK.

Beggs, H.D., 2003, “Production Optimization Using Nodal System Analysis”,chapter 5 page 155, Oil and Gas
Consultans International, Inc., Tulsa.

Brown, Kermit. E., 1977, “The Technology of Artificial Lift Method”, Vol.2a chapter 2 page 52, Pennwell Publishing
Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Brown, Kermit. E., 1980, “The Technology of Artificial Lift Method”, Vol.2b chapter 9 page 567, Pennwell Publishing
Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Brown, Kermit. E., 1982, “Overview of Artificial Lift System”, Vol.34 Number 10, Journal of Petroleum Technology.

Daryanto, Isnu, 2019, “Evaluasi masalah water coning dan kepasiran pada sumur minyak vertikal X, Y dan Z lapangan
ID, Kalimantal Timur”, Universitas Trisakti, Jakarta.

Dwijono, Ir. Mustofa, 2004, “Petunjuk Praktis Menanggulangi Problem Sand Di Lapangan Pertamina dan
Meningkatkan Produksi‟‟

Hermadi, Ganjar, 1980, “Analisa Sistem Nodal Dalam Metode Artificial Lift‟‟, Forum Teknologi, Tulsa.

Li, Guixi, 2007, “Design and Analysis of Hydraulic Pumping Units”, ASME International Mechanical Engineering
Congress and Exposition, Washington.

Penberthy, W. L, C.M. Shaughnessy, 1992, “Sand Control”, Volume 1, SPE Series, USA

Putra, Yudi Ardila, 2015, „‟Evaluasi Dan Optimasi Kinerja Hydraulic Pumping Unit (HPU)”, Jurusan Teknik
Perminyakan Fakultas Teknik Universitas ISLAM Riau, Pekanbaru.

Saputra, Wardana, 2016, “Problem Encountered When Producing Carbonate Sand Reservoir”, ErSE 309, Saudi Arabia.

Zahroh, Khumairoh Az, 2016, “Evaluasi problem kepasiran pada sumur-sumur di lapangan X”, Universitas Trisakti,
Jakarta., Jakarta.

18