Unraveling the Myths Associated With Selecting Standalone Screens and a New Methodology for Sand-Control Applications
- Rajesh A. Chanpura (Schlumberger) | Somnath Mondal (University of Texas at Austin) | Mukul M. Sharma (University of Texas at Austin) | Jamie S. Andrews (Statoil) | Anne-Mette Mathisen (Statoil) | Frederic Martin (Total) | Fivman Marpaung (Total) | Joseph A. Ayoub (Schlumberger) | Mehmet Parlar (Schlumberger)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Drilling & Completion
- Publication Date
- July 2013
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 227 - 236
- 2013. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 2.4.3 Sand/Solids Control, 5.1 Reservoir Characterisation, 3.2.5 Produced Sand / Solids Management and Control
- 11 in the last 30 days
- 664 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 10.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 30.00|
Many completion engineers use laboratory sand-retention testing as a tool toselect a screen for standalone sand-control applications, some focusing onprepack and others on slurry testing. Those who use slurry tests for screenselection typically do so on the basis of the conventional wisdom that slurrytesting is more challenging; thus, it represents the worst-case scenario forsand production. Furthermore, the general belief in the industry has been thatmetal-mesh screens with a "pore structure" are better for sand retentioncompared with wire-wrap screens (WWSs) of slot geometry, although they are moreprone to "plugging." These are just a few of the many myths that exist inscreen selection for standalone screen (SAS) applications. Recent papers on themodeling of sand retention by screens of various geometries, and supported bylaboratory experiments, provided the tools for predicting sand production inboth prepack and slurry conditions, as well as allowing for a systematicperformance comparison of various screens by use of the entire particle- sizedistribution (PSD) of formation sands (Mondal et al. 2011 and 2012; Chanpura etal. 2012, 2013). In this paper, we discuss and challenge many myths in thescreen selection for SAS applications and substantiate our findings withmodeling and experimental data. The conditions under which a slurry or aprepack test would be more conservative are identified, highlighting themechanisms of sand retention (size exclusion or bridging dominated). Wedemonstrate that the current thinking that prepack tests are always moreconservative from a sand-production standpoint is incorrect. We also show thatthe concept that metal-mesh screens are always superior for sand retention thanWWSs is incorrect, highlighting the factors that affect sand production throughvarious screens [e.g., open flow area (OFA), wire thickness, and fraction ofbridging-sized particles in the formation sand]. Finally, a methodology forscreen selection in SAS applications is proposed.
|File Size||2 MB||Number of Pages||10|
Ballard, T. and Beare, S. 2003. Media Sizing for Premium Sand Screens: DutchTwill Weaves. Paper SPE 82244 presented at the SPE European Formation DamageConference, The Hague, The Netherlands, 13-14 May. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/82244-MS.
Ballard, T. and Beare, S. 2006. Sand Retention Testing: The More You Do, theWorse It Gets. Paper SPE 98308 presented at the International Symposium andExhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 15-17 February.http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/98308-MS.
Burton, R.C. and Hodge, R.M. 1998. The Impact of Formation Damage andCompletion Impairment on Horizontal Well Productivity. Paper SPE 49097presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,Louisiana, 27-30 September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/49097-MS.
Chanpura, R.A., Fidan, S., Mondal, S. et al. 2012a. New Analytical andStatistical Approach for Estimating and Analyzing Sand Production ThroughWire-Wrap Screens During a Sand-Retention Test. SPE Drill & Compl 27 (3): 416-426. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/143731-PA.
Chanpura, R.A., Hodge, R.M., Andrews, J.A. et al. 2011. A Review ofScreen Selection for Standalone Applications and a New Methodology. SPEDrill & Compl 26 (1): 84-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/127931-PA.
Chanpura, R.A., Mondal, S., Andrews, J.A. et al. 2012b. Modeling of SquareMesh Screens in Slurry Test Conditions for Standalone Screen Applications.Paper SPE 151637 presented at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition onFormation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 15-17 February. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/151637-MS.
Coberly, C.J. 1937. Selection of Screen Openings for Unconsolidated Sands.In API Drilling and Production Practice, 189-201.
Constien, V. and Skidmore, V. 2006. Standalone Screen Selection UsingPerformance Mastercurves. Paper SPE 98363 presented at the InternationalSymposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana,15-17 February. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/98363-MS.
Gillespie, G., Deem, C.K., and Malbrel, C. 2000. Screen Selection for SandControl Based on Laboratory Tests. Paper SPE 64398 presented at the SPE AsiaPacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Brisbane, Australia, 16-18October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/64398-MS.
Hodge, R.M., Burton, R.C., Constien, V.G. et al. 2002. An Evaluation Methodfor Screen-Only and Gravel-Pack Completions. Paper SPE 73772 presented at theInternational Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,Louisiana, 20-21 February. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/73772-MS.
Markestad, P., Christie, O., Espedal, Aa. et al. 1996. Selection of ScreenSlot Width to Prevent Plugging and Sand Production. Paper SPE 31087 presentedat the SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, 14-15February. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/31087-MS.
Mathisen, A.M, Aastveit, G.L., and Alterås, E. 2007. Successful Installationof Standalone Sand Screen in More Than 200 Wells-The Importance of ScreenSelection Process and Fluid Qualification. Paper SPE 107539 presented at theEuropean Formation Damage Conference, Scheveningen, The Netherlands, 30 May-1June. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/107539-MS.
Mondal, S., Sharma, M.M., Chanpura, R.A. et al. 2011. Numerical Simulationsof Sand-Screen Performance in Standalone Applications. SPE Drill & Compl 26 (4): 472-483. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/134326-PA.
Mondal, S., Sharma, M.M., Hodge, R.M. et al. 2012. A New Method for theDesign and Selection of Premium/Woven Sand Screens. SPE Drill &Compl 27 (3): 406-415. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/146656-PA.
Price-Smith, C., Parlar, M., Bennett, C. et al. 2003. Design Methodology,for Selection of Horizontal Openhole Sand-Control Completions Supported byField Case Histories. SPE Drill & Compl 18 (3):235-255. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/65140-PA.
Suman, G., Ellis, R., and Snyder, R. 1985. Sand Control Handbook.Houston: Gulf Publishing Company.
Suri, A., and Sharma M.M. 2004. Strategies for Sizing Particles in Drillingand Completion Fluid. SPE J. 9 (1): 13-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/87676-PA.
Tiffin, D.L., King, G.E., Larease, R.E. et al. 1998. New Criteria for Graveland Screen Selection for Sand Control. Paper SPE 39437 presented at the SPEFormation Damage Control Conference Lafayette, Louisiana, 18-19 February. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/39437-MS.
Underdown, D.R., Dickerson, R.C., and Vaughan, W. 2001. The NominalSand-Control Screen: A Critical Evaluation of Screen Performance. SPE Drill& Compl 16 (4): 252-260. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/56591-PA.
Williams, C.F., Richard, B.M., and Horner, D. 2006. A New Sizing Criteriafor Conformable and Nonconformable Sand Screens Based on Uniform PoreStructure. Paper SPE 98235 presented at International Symposium and Exhibitionon Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 15-17 February. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/98235-MS.