An Alternative to Sand-Control Screens: Is Permeable Cement a Viable Option?
- Benoit Vidick (Schlumberger) | Simon G. James (Schlumberger) | Bruno Drochon (Schlumberger)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Drilling & Completion
- Publication Date
- September 2008
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 229 - 234
- 2008. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 1.6 Drilling Operations, 4.1.2 Separation and Treating, 2.5.2 Fracturing Materials (Fluids, Proppant), 5.1 Reservoir Characterisation, 2 Well Completion, 2.4.3 Sand/Solids Control, 4.3.4 Scale, 1.6.9 Coring, Fishing, 4.3.1 Hydrates, 2.4.5 Gravel pack design & evaluation, 2.2.2 Perforating, 1.11 Drilling Fluids and Materials, 5.2 Reservoir Fluid Dynamics, 1.14 Casing and Cementing, 1.14.3 Cement Formulation (Chemistry, Properties)
- 3 in the last 30 days
- 500 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 5.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 35.00|
The search for a cost-effective alternative to screens has been intensive in the sand-control field. Different systems have been proposed in the past, including various solutions based on permeable cement, but none of them have made a real breakthrough.
This paper presents a new permeable-cement system that has significant advantages over previous systems. In particular, this permeable cement was formed in a one-stage process, eliminating the need for a subsequent treatment to generate permeability. This permeable-cement system also has adequate strength and sufficient permeability for several sand-control applications. However, the durability of the permeable cement was evaluated and found to be poor. Some suggestions are made for possible applications of the permeable cement for both primary and remedial sand-control applications.
The search for an alternative to screens has been ongoing for many years. One of the first inventions in this area was by Harnsberger and Payton (1969). These inventors slurried cement and sand in oil, and the mixture was subsequently suspended in an aqueous carrier fluid. The suspension then was to be forced into the formation and flushed with a surfactant solution to water-wet the cement to consolidate the injected sand and the weak formation. There were several subsequent patent applications along these lines, but no publications on the subject have been identified in the open literature, indicating that this idea has probably not been used commercially. One of the main drawbacks of this solution is that an overflush is required to water-wet the cement. Not only does this process increase the time required, but it is also difficult to ensure that all the cement/sand mixture has been activated.
A patent published many years later by Harris et al. (1994) described the use of very-high-quality foam (67% foam quality) cement to generate permeable cement. This process provides permeable cement in a one-stage process, but it is extremely difficult to mix and pump correctly because of the very high nitrogen volume in the slurry. In addition, the set cement has low compressive strength (<1.4 MPa) and the foamed slurry had a very low density. Subsequent inventions combined lower foam quality with acid-soluble material (Carpenter and Wilton 1996) and added oil-soluble particles and degradable polymer beads (Chatterji et al. 2001). Both of these solutions decrease the required foam quality, but both also require a post-treatment of acid or solvent. An acid post-treatment degrades the cement matrix. To date, no practical method to prepare permeable cement has been identified. This paper describes a permeable-cement system that overcomes many of the previous issues.
|File Size||1 MB||Number of Pages||6|
Brady, M.E., Bradbury, A.J., Sehgal, G. et al. 2000. Filtercake Cleanup in Open-HoleGravel-Packed Completions: A Necessity or a Myth? Paper SPE 63232 presentedat the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 1-4 October.doi: 10.2118/63232-MS
Carpenter, R.B. and Wilton, B.S. 1996. Method for Controlling Fluid Lossfrom Wells Into High Permeability Formations. US Patent No. 5,529,123.
Chatterji, J., Cromwell, R.S., Reddy B.R. et al. 2001. Methods andCompositions for Forming Permeable Cement Sand Screens in Well Bores. US PatentNo. 6,202,751.
de Rozieres, J. and Ferriere, R. 1991. Foamed-Cement Characterization UnderDownhole Conditions and Its Impact on Job Design. SPEPE 6(3): 297-304; Trans., AIME, 291. SPE-19935-PA doi:10.2118/19935-PA
Drochon, B. and Maroy, P. 2005. Permeable Cements. US Patent No.6,883,609.
Harnsberger, B.G., and Payton, J.T. 1969. Method and Composition forStabilizing Incompetent Oil-bearing Formations. US Patent No. 3,429,373.
Harris, K.L., Carpenter, R.B., Hines, R.E. et al. (1994). Well cementingusing permeable cement. US Patent No. 5,339,902.
Moulin, E., Revil, P., and Jain, B. 1997. Using Concrete Technology to Improvethe Performance of Lightweight Cements. Paper SPE 39276 presented at theSPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference, Bahrain, 23-25 November.doi: 10.2118/39276-MS
Pedersen, R.O., Scheie, A., Johnson C., et al. 2006. Cementing of an Offshore DisposalWell Using a Novel Sealant That Withstands Pressure and Temperature Cycles.Paper SPE 98891 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Miami, Florida,USA, 21-23 February. doi: 10.2118/98891-MS