Successful Installation of Standalone Sand Screen in More Than 200 Wells-The
Importance of Screen Selection Process and Fluid Qualification

Mathisen, Anne Mette; Aastveit, Gry; Alteraas, Eva

doi:10.2523/107539-ms

Cited by 14 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A widely used definition of uniform sand in the industry has been UC = d 40 /d 90 < 3 to 5. Thus, SAS can be used in highly nonuniform sand environments as also noted by Mathisen et al (2007). As mentioned previously and discussed in Chanpura, Hodge et al (2011), more than 50% of the laboratory tests we have performed used sands of UC > 5 and up to 26, yet still satisfied a very conservative acceptable sand production criterion of 0.12 lb/ft 2 .…”

Section: Myth # 4: Larger Sand Particles Always Results In Smaller Sandmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…There are two types of SRTs that are generally performed for sand-screen selection: slurry tests (Ballard and Beare 2006;Gillespie et al 2000;Mathisen et al 2007;Underdown et al 2001;Williams et al 2006) and prepack tests (Ballard and Beare 2003;Constien and Skidmore 2006;Markestad et al 1996;Williams et al 2006). In a slurry test, which represents gradual rock failure around the borehole, low-concentration sand slurry (typically less than 1% by volume) is pumped at a constant rate and a sandpack forms on the screen during the test.…”

Section: Sand-retention Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many of the papers on screen selection for standalone applications refer to "plugging" or "plugging tendency" of the screens, although often "plugging" is not defined (Ballard and Beare 2006;Gillespie et al 2000;Mathisen et al 2007;Underdown et al 2001) with few exceptions (e.g., Markestad et al 1996;Williams et al 2006). Markestad et al (1996) define plugging as "a situation where the differential pressure across the screen is more than two times as high as expected from the Darcy equation."…”

Section: Myth # 1: Screens Plug With Formation Sandmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Unraveling the Myths Associated with Selecting Standalone Screens and a New Methodology for Sand-Control Applications

Chanpura

Mondal

Sharma

et al. 2012

SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many completion engineers use laboratory sand-retention testing as a tool to select a screen for standalone sand-control applications, some focusing on prepack and others on slurry testing. Those who use slurry tests for screen selection typically do so based on the conventional wisdom that slurry testing is more challenging; thus, it represents the worst-case scenario for sand production. Furthermore, the general belief in the industry has been that metal-mesh screens with a "pore structure" are better for sand retention compared with wire-wrap screens (WWS) of slot geometry, although they are more prone to "plugging." These are just a few of the many myths that exist in screen selection for standalone screen (SAS) applications.Recent papers on modeling of sand retention by screens of various geometries, and supported by laboratory experiments, provided the tools for predicting sand production in both prepack and slurry conditions, as well as allowing for a systematic performance comparison of various screens using the entire particle-size distribution (PSD) of formation sands (Chanpura, Fidan et al. 2011; Chanpura, Mondal et al. 2012; Mondal, Sharma, Chanpura et al. 2011; Mondal, Sharma, Hodge et al. 2011).In this paper, we discuss and challenge many myths in screen selection for SAS applications and substantiate our findings with modeling and experimental data. The conditions under which a slurry or a prepack test would be more conservative are identified, highlighting the mechanisms of sand retention (size exclusion or bridging dominated). We demonstrate the current thinking that prepack tests are always more conservative from a sand production standpoint is incorrect. We also show that the concept that metal-mesh screens are always superior for sand retention than WWS is incorrect, highlighting the factors that affect sand production through various screens (open flow area (OFA), wire thickness, fraction of bridging-size particles in the formation sand etc.). Finally, a methodology for screen selection in SAS applications is proposed.

show abstract

Section: Myth # 4: Larger Sand Particles Always Results In Smaller Sandmentioning

confidence: 67%

Section: Sand-retention Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Myth # 1: Screens Plug With Formation Sandmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Unraveling the Myths Associated with Selecting Standalone Screens and a New Methodology for Sand-Control Applications

Chanpura

Mondal

Sharma

et al. 2012

SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are two types of SRT's that are used to test SaS's: prepack tests and slurry tests 8,9,10,11,12,13 Due to the unconsolidated nature of the McMurray Formation sands, a complete collapse of sediments is expected around a horizontal SAGD wellbore; these conditions are recreated in a prepack SRT. A slurry test replicates a gradual rock failure, where a sandpack forms during the test.…”

Section: Prepack Sand Retention Tests Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Prepack Sand-Retention Tests (SRT's) to Narrow Down Liner/Screen Sizing in SAGD Wells

Devere-Bennett

2015

Day 3 Wed, November 25, 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to the unconsolidated nature of the Athabasca Oil Sands in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin, it is common practice to complete Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) well pairs with the use of standalone screens (SaS's). The sizing of the liner/screen types are commonly determined by: first, getting a particle size distribution (PSD) by dry-sieve analysis and/or Laser Particle Sand Analysis (LPSA); and second, running a number of prepack Sand-Retention Tests (SRT's).In this Nexen Long Lake study, five batches of unconsolidated McMurray Formation sand were collected from six different cored wells. Using these batches of sand, more than twenty SRT's were run with a variety of fine-tuned modifications to the traditional test protocols to best duplicate fluid production conditions as observed in the field. Some of these modifications included: altering the injected fluid/gas rate and reconfiguring the order in which the fluids / gas were injected.The SRT results were then plotted to identify if they passed the general criteria for a successful sand control device design. Unexpectedly, many of the SRT results did not meet the pass criteria for solids production and therefore, altered the direction in which future tests were run. However, when reviewing the solids production with the cumulative fluids / gas injected, the outcome commonly reverted to being favourable.Understanding the laboratory derived test results, and how they applied to the field, was instrumental in the lab testing process. By redefining the tests results and pass/fail criteria, based upon observed in-situ production conditions, it was possible to make both qualitative as well as quantitative analysis and therefore, more confidently decide on the optimal reservoir completion type.The study discusses an alternative approach to interpretation of conventional SRT results relative to observed field production conditions and how ultimately, this analysis influenced the choice of liner/ screen sizing selected for implementation in future Long Lake field development projects.

show abstract

“…Such tests are more widely used (Underdown et al 1999;Gillespie et al 2000;Ballard and Beare 2003;Mathiasen et al 2007). The testing equipment schematics used in Ballard and Beare (2003) testing is drawn in Fig.…”

Section: Sand Retention Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sand Control Methods

Matanović

Čikeš

Moslavac

2011

Sand Control in Well Construction and Operation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Successful Installation of Standalone Sand Screen in More Than 200 Wells-The Importance of Screen Selection Process and Fluid Qualification

Cited by 14 publications

References 2 publications

Unraveling the Myths Associated with Selecting Standalone Screens and a New Methodology for Sand-Control Applications

Unraveling the Myths Associated with Selecting Standalone Screens and a New Methodology for Sand-Control Applications

Using Prepack Sand-Retention Tests (SRT's) to Narrow Down Liner/Screen Sizing in SAGD Wells

Sand Control Methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About