Sand Control Course Version.pdf
- 1. 1 Sand Control Selection Is sand control required? » Economically, one must consider: • Initial cost of sand control • Potential productivity reduction/increase caused by sand control • Risk incurred when ignoring sand control or using inadequate sand control • Costs incurred by inadequate sand control • Cost of lost production caused by inadequate sand control » Operational concerns include: • Expected well life • Complexity of completion • Environmental/Safety concerns
- 2. 2 Sand Control Selection Mechanical Behavior of Rock » Intrinsic Properties • Composition • Grain size • Porosity • Permeability • Depositional Environment • Initial discontinuities » Production Factors • Depletion induced stress • Phase changes • Pore fluid chemistry • Pore pressure • Temperature (a variable)
- 3. 3 Sand Control Selection Which completion method?
- 6. 6 Sand Control Selection If formation sand is mixed with the gravel, the permeability drops sharply. This one problem may result in skins as high as 300 in high rate wells. The cleaner the gravel outside the casing, the better the flow path. Efforts to clean the crushed sand in the perforations before packing is a good investment.
- 7. 7 Sand Control Selection Formation Strength and Sand Movement » If formation sand is mixed with the gravel, the permeability drops sharply. This one problem may result in skins as high as 300 in high rate wells. » The cleaner the gravel outside the casing, the better the flow path. » Efforts to clean the crushed sand in the perforations before packing is a good investment.
- 8. 8 Sand Control Selection Formation Strength and Sand Movement » Rocks below 1000 psi may need sand control » Rock fails when the drawdown is about 1.7 times the formations compressive strength. » Sonic • <50 seconds s a strong formation • >90 seconds is a weak formation • >120 seconds is near unconsolidated formation » Porosity, a good predictor for need of sand control • Porosity () > 30% : Sand production is likely • Porosity () < 20% : Sand production is very unlikely • 20% < < 30% : Sanding potential is difficult to predict
- 9. 9 Sand Control Selection Open Hole Completion » Area open to flow = 100 – 500% » Skin = -2 to 2 » Advantages • Lowest cost • Simplest completion • Least resistance » Disadvantages • No zone/water control • Sand restrained only by choke • Low reliability • Possible loss of hole
- 10. 10 Sand Control Selection Cased, Cemented and Perforated » Area open to flow = 6- 8% or 12spf, 0.75” EH(assumes all perfs open) » Skin = -1 to 5 » Advantages • Lower cost than full sand control • Routine completion • Zonal and water control » Disadvantages • Sand restrained only by choke • Low reliability in many cases. • Low inflow area
- 11. 11 Sand Control Selection Stand Alone Wire Wrap Screen » Area open to flow = 4-10% (base pipe open area ~ 4-9% » Skin = 2 > 10 » Advantages • Moderate cost (Lower than GP) • Some solids control » Disadvantages • Screen running procedures • Erosion • Plugging • High rate and fines content
- 12. 12 Sand Control Selection Slotted Liner » Area open to flow = 2-4% » Skin = 4 > 10 » Advantages • Moderate cost • Ease of installation • Good for well sorted sands » Disadvantages • Low torque rating • Low inflow area • Subject to erosion • Easily plugged
- 13. 13 Sand Control Selection Expandable Screen » Area open to flow = 6-10% » Skin = 0 to >5 » Advantages • Largest possible screen • Little to no annulus • Potential isolation capacity » Disadvantages • Much higher cost • Reliability • Subject to erosion in cased holes • Not necessarily compliant
- 14. 14 Sand Control Selection Resin Consolidation » Area open to flow = 3-6% » Skin = 10 to >50 » Advantages • Leaves wellbore open • Relatively low cost » Disadvantages • Limited zone height (6’ to 10’) • Longevity: months to a few years • Temperature sensitive (t<250°F) • Can’t use on failed well • Difficult to apply • Sand cleaning issues • Reduce matrix perm by 10 to 60% Resin cements the grains together –adds strength to the matrix
- 15. 15 Sand Control Selection Cased Hole Gravel Pack » Area open to flow = 6-10% » Skin = 10+ » Advantages • Known/trusted method • Moderate reliability » Disadvantages • Higher cost(pumping added) • Low inflow area • Subject to erosion • Low reliability • Moderately easy to plug
- 16. 16 Sand Control Selection » The heart of a gravel pack is the sizing of the gravel to stop the formation sand. If the sand invades the pack, the 100 to 400 Darcy permeability, by design of the gravel pack, drops to 50 to 500md with skins as high as 300 possible. Formation sand Gravel
- 18. 18 Sand Control Selection » The pore size flow area by a pack or either gravel or formation sand. The gravel use in traditional gravel packing presents a pore throat from about 80 microns to about 180 microns. The formation sand can bridge on this pore – usually using Abrams 1/3rd Rule.
- 20. 20 Sand Control Selection Understand presence of mobile fines » What is the effect of fines? • Stopped by the gravel? – No! Stopping requires a small, probably restrictive gravel o stop fines. • If the fines can invade the gravel, the gravel permeability or the screen conductivity will be reduced. • Solutions? What causes the movement?
- 21. 21 Sand Control Selection » Why are fines a problem? Even 1%(one gram in a 100 grams of formation sample) of mobile fines contributes millions of particles. If fines can move, then the potential for plugging rises sharply.
- 22. 22 Sand Control Selection Avoid Perforating Shale » Why? Exposed shale bleeds fines and debris that can plug screens or packs. » Can shale be identified from logs? Is a shaley pay really a source of production? » Can you non-perforate a section of the well and still have a good producer with better completion longevity?
- 23. 23 Sand Control Selection Open Hole Gravel Pack » Screen area open to flow = 6 to >10% » Skin = 0 to 5 » Advantages • Maximum un-fractured contact • High flow with high kh formations » Disadvantages • More difficult to design and place • Experience • Problems with high perm streaks • Limited zonal/water control • Formation wall is close to screen
- 24. 24 Sand Control Selection Open Hole Gravel Pack » GP sand is (by design) 5-6 times larger than formation sand d50. » GP’ing does not alter screen behavior. » GP’ing will arrest annular flow, i.e. transport of moveable material. » GP screen must allow production of fines, otherwise completion will plug. » Pore throat of most GP sands will restrict production of fines. » GP’ing will arrest/trap formation filter cake on the formation surface. » GP’ing will not allow formation to relax/de-stress.
- 25. 25 Sand Control Selection Pros • Generally accepted as the most successfully and widely applicable sand control technique • Proven effective in controlling sand production in a wide variety of conditions • Provides an additional filtration layer via the gravel to contain formation sand • Stabilizes the sand face Cons • Expensive in comparison to standalone screens • Successful design and execution may present challenges depending on reservoir/wellbore conditions. • Requires pumping equipment which brings additional cost, environment, safety and logistical considerations.
- 29. 29 Sand Control Selection Pros • In general, considered the most forgiving placement technique • Applications in complex wells. • Success is not dependent on maintaining returns • Filter cake cleanup can be incorporated into gravel pack carrier fluid • Can be used in well drilled with OBM or with unstable shales. Cons • Expensive due to cost of both hardware and non-Newtonian carrier fluids. • Smaller basepipe screen may have to be used due to the presence of shunt tubes • More complex design requiring significant upfront engineering in comparison to other techniques.
- 30. 30 Sand Control Selection • Simultaneous hydraulic fracturing of the formation and placement of a gravel pack • Used almost exclusively in cased hole wells with moderate to high permeability that are prone to sand production • Performed above fracturing pressure using viscous fluid with high gravel concentration • Generally designed for TSO and relatively short fractures around 30-50ft with large fracture width (>1”)
- 31. 31 Sand Control Selection Pros • Bypasses near wellbore damage • Increases effective wellbore radius (can result in negative skin) • Gravel pack prevents formation sand being produced • Reduces fines by lowering flow velocity and pressure drop. Cons • Increased cost, complexity equipment requirements and risk in comparison to other techniques • Not feasible in reservoirs without containment or those with proximate water/gas zones • Productivity limitations in wells with very high transmissibility due to presence of perforations.
- 32. 32 NEW APPROACH - SELECTING SAND CONTROL COMPLETION Factors Considered in Openhole Completion Technique Selection • PSD of sand • Lithological changes • Rock strength • Economic and risk analysis • Execution and life of well risks • Tolerance to solids production • Type of well • Type of fluids Zonal-isolation requirements
- 33. 33 NEW APPROACH - SELECTING SAND CONTROL COMPLETION • Reactive shales • Failure rate for a given completion type • Expected skin factor for a given completion type • Filter-cake erosion: • Formation collapse vc. Open annulus • Screen erosion: Annular isolation packers • Zonal Isolation • ICDs
- 34. 34 NEW APPROACH - SELECTING SAND CONTROL COMPLETION When not to use SAS • The required screen opening is too small to manufacture • The required screen for formation sand retention is susceptible to plugging • The project is intolerant to any transient sand production. • The formation is highly laminated with moveable shale • The production has enough strength such that at producing conditions the wellbore will not fails immediately.
- 35. 35 NEW APPROACH - SELECTING SAND CONTROL COMPLETION When not to use alpha/beta gravel pack • Extremely low pressure (fracture to pore) windows • The formation is weakly (or un-) consolidated , • Reactive shales are present and cannot be managed • Mitigation for the limitation of alpha / betha gravel packing
- 36. 36 NEW APPROACH - SELECTING SAND CONTROL COMPLETION SAS ALPHA BETHA PACKING SHUNT TUBES PACKING
- 38. 38 Sand Control Selection High Rate Water Pack » Screen area open to flow =6% to >10% » Perf area open 6 to 10% » Skin = -1 to 10 » Advantages • Pressured packing of perfs • Easier design/apply than frac pack • Good flow in mod. kh formations » Disadvantages • Lower flow capacity than frac • Limited zone/water control • Unequal packing of gravel per foot Injection rate rule of thumb: 1 bpm/10 ft of perfs
- 39. 39 Sand Control Selection Fracture Placement of Gravel (no FP) » Screen area open to flow =6% to >10% » Perf area open 6 to 10% » Skin = -1 to 10 » Advantages • Links across layers and low vertical k • Easier design/apply than TSO • Good flow in very low kh formations » Disadvantages • Very low conductivity • Frac capacity vs. perm contrast critical • Height growth uncertainty? • Proppant stability problem at > depth Narrow frac width
- 40. 40 Sand Control Selection Frac-Pack (FP) » Screen area open to flow =6% to >10%Perf area open 6 to 10%Skin = -3 to 10 » Advantages • Stimulation • Links across layers and low vertical k • Highest reliability sand control method • Good flow in moderate to higher kh » Disadvantages • Usually most expensive • Harder to design and apply • Frac capacity vs. perm contrast critical • Height growth uncertainty? • Some proppant stability problem at depth
- 41. 41 Sand Control Selection Horizontal open hole completions Stand-alone screens Open-hole gravel pack
- 42. 42 Sand Control Selection What influences success of SAS? • Screen sized properly for the formation sand • Variability of PSDs along the OH • Are there exposed shale sections in the OH? • Screen installed without plugging • The strength of the formation • Will the formation collapse around the screens? • How long will it take? • Mechanical integrity of the screens
- 43. 43 Sand Control Selection Advances in SAS • Bad experiences with such completions in the early stages of openhole horizontal wells. • Some of the PSD-Based guidelines proposed in the literature • General perception in the industry that SAS completion are limited to uniform sands. (a)Screens do not “plug” with sand of a given PSD. • Permeability of sandpack near the screen > permeability of injected sandpack • Size exclusion is the dominant mechanism of sand retention (b)Screen plugging can occur because of • Screen installation in improperly conditioned mud • Mixing of formation sand with mud even if the mud is well conditioned • Mixing of filter cake and formation sand • Annular missing of shales with formation sand or annular mixing of coarse sand with fine sand, if shales and coarse and fine sand are not isolated. (c)SASs can be used with UC much larger than 5 up to ~ 25 (d)Limitations put on SAS applications that are based on “fines content” are sometimes unjustified. • Sand production is independent of the “fines content”
- 44. 44 Sand Control Selection Pros • Can be used in wide variety of reservoirs to control sand production with the application envelope being constantly expanded • Lower cost and operationally simple when compared to open hole gravel packs. • Industry has expanded application Cons • Success depends on formation of natural sand pack • Require good description of reservoir granulometry • Lack of consensus on how to size these screens for different applications. • Still Cannot replace gravel packs in all types of reservoirs • Higher erosion risk in high rate gas wells.
- 45. 45 Sand Control Selection Advances in Alpha/Betha Packing The alpha/betha gravel packing is characterized by two stages 1. The alpha wave, gravel deposition in the lower wellbore section from heel to toe; 2. The Betha wave, gravel deposition on top of the alpha wave from toe to heel.
- 46. 46 Sand Control Selection Horizontal gravel pack »Provides excellent borehole stability by moving filter to borehole wall. »Gravel-filled annulus eliminates axial flow. »Lateral lengths exceeding 8000 ft have been successfully packed. »Gravel pack installation required following screen placement
- 48. 48 Sand Control Selection Gravel pack schematic Formation Sand Screen Gravel Pack Sand Gravel pack sand must be be properly sized to control formation sand Screen openings must be properly sized to control gravel pack sand
- 49. 49 Sand Control Selection Saucier’s Results 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Ratio of Median Gravel Pack Sand Diameter to Median Formation Sand Diameter (D50 / d50) Ratio of Final Permeability to Initial Permeabilit (k f / k i ) D50/d50 < 6, good sand control, no formation sand invasion of gravel pack sand 6 < D50/d50 < 13, good sand control, but restricted flow due to formation sand invasion of gravel pack sand D50/d50 > 13, no sand control, formation sand passes through gravel pack sand
- 50. 50 Sand Control Selection Optimization of gravel pack sand sizing 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Ratio of Median Gravel Pack Sand Diameter to Median Formation Sand Diameter (D50 / d50) Increasing Gravel Pack Sand Permeability as a Function of D 50 and D 50 / d 50 Optimum Sand Control No Sand Control D50/d50 < 5, good sand control, but restricted flow due to low gravel permeability 5 < D50/d50 < 7, good sand control and maximum pack permeability 7 < D50/d50 < 9, good sand control, but restricted flow due to formation sand invasion of gravel pack sand D50/d50 > 9, no sand control, formation sand passes through gravel pack sand
- 51. 51 Sand Control Selection Gravel pack sand design procedure » Construct a representative sieve analysis curve for the formation sand » Determine d50 of the formation sand » Multiply the d50 value by 6 to achieve D50 of the gravel pack sand Different layers in the formation sand may indicate different required gravel sizes. Generally, the smallest indicated gravel size is selected.
- 52. 52 Sand Control Selection Commonly available gravel sizes U.S. Mesh Size Range Grain Diameter Range (inches) Median Grain Diameter (inches) Median Grain Diameter (microns) Permeability (darcies) 6-10 .1320 - .0787 .1054 2677 2703 8-12* .0937 -.0661 .0799 2029 1969 10-20 .0787 - .0331 .0559 1420 652 12-20* .0661 - .0331 .0496 1260 518 16-25 .0469 - .0280 .0388 986 391 16-30* .0469 - .0232 .0351 892 398 20-40* .0331 - .0165 .0248 630 136 30-40 .0232 - .0165 .0199 505 138 30-50 .0232 - .0117 .0175 445 100 40-60* .0165 - .0098 .0132 335 61 50-70 .0117 - .0083 .0100 254 32 * stocked size
- 53. 53 Sand Control Selection Gravel pack sand » Naturally occurring quartz sand » Primary source is Ottawa formation in Northern USA » Must meet specifications of API Recommended Practices Number 58 » Adhering to API specifications ensures maximum permeability
- 54. 54 Sand Control Selection Man made gravels/proppants Resin coated gravel » Resin coating is thought to provide some protection against quartz dissolution due to high pH steam » Resin coating subject to attack by HCl-HF acid » Primary use is in prepacked screens » Gaining renewed interest for screenless frac packing Aluminum Oxides (Sintered Bauxite, Carbo-Lite, etc.) » Processed product with extremely high permeability » Resists dissolution due to high pH steam » Moderately to highly soluble in HCl-HF acid » Size ranges limited » Primary gravel pack application is frac-packing and thermal wells
- 55. 55 Sand Control Selection Roundness and Sphericity .1 .5 .3 .9 .7 .5 .3 Roundness Sphericity .7 .9
- 56. 56 Sand Control Selection Roundness and Sphericity Formation Sand Ceramic Proppant Natural GP Sand
- 57. 57 Sand Control Selection Liner/Screen selection for gravel packs Slotted liners and screens in a gravel pack are RETENTION DEVICES Formation Sand Wire Wrapped Screen Gravel Pack Sand
- 58. 58 Sand Control Selection Required Liner/Screen aperture size Screen or slotted liner opening should be no larger than 80% of the smallest gravel pack sand grain diameter Gravel Size U.S. Mesh Size Range (inches) Recommended Screen Opening (inches) Max Recommended Screen Gauge 8/12 .0937 - .0661 0.053 50 12/20 .0661 - .0331 0.026 20 16/30 .0469 - .0232 0.018 18 20/40 .0331 - .0165 0.013 12 40/60 .0165 - .0098 0.008 6 50/70 .0117 - .0083 0.006 6
- 59. 59 Sand Control Selection Maximum woven metal mesh aperture size for gravel pack application Gravel Size U.S. Mesh Size Range (inches) Size Range (microns) Max Recommended DB Opening 8/12 .0937 - .0661 2342 – 1694 275µ 12/20 .0661 - .0331 1694 – 841 275µ 16/30 .0469 - .0232 1192 – 589 275µ 20/40 .0331 - .0165 841 – 419 225µ 40/60 .0165 - .0098 419 – 250 175µ 50/70 .0117 - .0083 297 - 210 125µ
- 60. 60 Sand Control Selection Horizontal gravel pack » Provides excellent borehole stability by moving filter to borehole wall. » Gravel-filled annulus eliminates axial flow. » Lateral lengths exceeding 8000 ft have been successfully packed. » Gravel pack installation required following screen placement Success depends on maintaining intact borehole and preventing screen plugging.
- 61. 61 Sand Control Selection Proper planning » Matrix will fail at some point in time, what’s next? • Determine the particle size distribution – Two methods » Seive analysis » Laser particle size analysis
- 62. 62 Sand Control Selection Particle Size Distribution, PSD, Analysis Sieve Analysis Form Date: D40 (in. & micron): 0.00270 69mm Analyst: D90 (in. & micron): 0.00151 38mm Sample No.: D10 (in. & micron): 0.00598 152mm Company: D50 (in. & micron): 0.00250 64mm Field: UC (D40/D90): 1.8 Well No.: D50 x 6 (in. & mesh): 0.0150 45mesh Depth: Gravel Size: 40-60 Comments: Screen Options: S A S G P Screen Criteria:UC <3, d10 >150 mmSmallest Gravel Size Proweld: 6ga Proweld 6ga Proweld Dynaflo DB: Dynaflo DB 125 Dynaflow DB 125 Sieve Size Sieve (in.) Sieve (µm) Empty Wt. Final Wt. Sand Wt. Cumulative Wt. Cumulative % 60 0.0098 249 35.93 36.10 0.17 0.17 3.40 80 0.0070 178 34.39 34.55 0.16 0.33 6.60 120 0.0049 124 33.61 33.96 0.35 0.68 13.60 200 0.0029 74 33.27 34.10 0.83 1.51 30.20 270 0.0021 53 32.31 34.30 1.99 3.50 70.00 400 0.0015 38 31.86 32.88 1.02 4.52 90.40 PAN 0.0006 15 158.55 159.03 0.48 5.00 100.00
- 63. 63 Sand Control Selection Particle Size Distribution, PSD, Analysis 10% 40% 50% 90% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 1 10 100 1.000 10.000 Cumulative Percent Retained Diameter (microns) Sieve Analysis Plot CLAY FG SAND VCG SAND SILT VFG SAND CG SAND MG SAND GRAVEL
- 64. 64 Sand Control Selection Particle Size Distribution, PSD, Analysis » Uniformity coefficient, Uc = d40/d90 » Sorting coefficient, Sc = d10/d95 » Fines percentage, % < 44µ
- 65. 65 Sand Control Selection Screen coupon test cell
- 66. 66 Sand Control Selection Sand coupon test Acrylic test Cell
- 67. 67 Sand Control Selection Sand Retention Test, SRT
- 68. 68 Sand Control Selection Sand Retention Test, SRT
- 69. 69 Screen Selection C&A Oil-Flow Screen Test » A constant drawdown test • Utilizing a high viscosity oil » Used to determine • The amount of formation material that passed through the screen or screen and gravel pack • The retained permeability of the screen • The retained permeability of the gravel pack • The size of the particles produced through the screen or screen and gravel pack • The permeability of the formation and formation plus screen at three stress levels
- 70. 70 Screen Selection C&A Oil-Flow Test Method » Formation Deposition on Screens 1. The formation material is slurried in a Newtonian test oil. 2. The formation material is displaced onto the test screen or test screen plus gravel pack at a constant pressure drop of 200 psi. 3. The flow rate of oil through the screen is continuously monitored. 4. Pressure surges across the formation and screen of 0-400 psi are applied when approximately 0.75 gal of oil / ft2 screen area has passed through the screen. 5. Samples of the oil with produced solids passing through the screen are collected at regular volumes and the concentration of solids is determined as a function of pounds of formation / ft2 of screen area versus total flow / ft2 of screen area.
- 71. 71 Screen Selection C&A Oil-Flow Screen Test Stress versus Permeability 1. After the sample of formation material has been deposited onto the screen and about 3 gallons of oil / ft2 of screen surface has been produced through the formation and screen or gravel pack, formation and screen, the net uniaxial confining stress on the formation and screen is increased to 1000-psi while maintaining a constant 200-psi pore pressure for flow. 2. The oil flow rate is continuously monitored. Permeability vs. stress is determined. 3. At the conclusion of the test, the final gravel pack permeability (for gravel pack tests) and screen permeability are determined.
- 72. 72 Screen Selection C&A Oil-Flow Screen Test Actual Test with Results 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0,001 0,01 0,1 1 10 Cumulative (%) Particle Size (mm) Fine… Percentiles SAND 1 SAND 2 SAND 3 µm µm µm 0 10 158 193 232 16 134 168 200 25 110 142 165 40 82.1 111.3 116 50 66.2 94 81 75 22.6 47.2 17.9 84 12.1 22.8 9.96 90 7.27 11.7 6.35 95 4.03 5.07 3.68 Fines (<44um) % 36.8 23.9 40.3
- 73. 73 Screen Selection C&A Oil-Flow Screen Test Actual Test with Results
- 74. 74 Screen Selection C&A Oil-Flow Screen Test Actual Test with Results
- 75. 75 Screen Selection C&A Oil-Flow Screen Test Actual Test with Results
- 76. 76 Sand Control Selection Rules Of Thumb, ROT d40/d90 d10/d95 Sub 44u Sand Control Screen Design < 3 < 10 < 2% Lowest sorting values with low fines content may be SAS completions. Premium, Wire wrapped screen or Prepacked screen. < 5 < 10 < 5% Low to Medium sorting range, with fines just out of range, may be woven mesh screen. Premium screen if d10 is larger than 200 micron < 5 < 20 < 5% Medium ratio ranges, may be served by larger gravel (7x to 8x d50), placed in high rate water pack. Horizontal well should be Gravel packed or use Expandable screen < 5 < 20 < 10% Medium ratio ranges with too many fines may use combination of larger gravel and a fines-passing screen; candidates for HRWP or Frac Pack. Horizontal well should be Gravel packed or use Expandable screen > 5 > 20 > 10% Highest ratios with large amount if fines signal a critical need for enlarging wellbore; under-reaming to move gravel/formation interface away from wellbore. Horizontal well should be Gravel packed or use Expandable screen
- 77. 77 CompSet II HP Packer MS Closing Sleeve Premium Screen Bull Plug Dual Flapper Valve Set Down GP Service Tool Circulating Valve Washpipe ➢Hydrostatic is maintained on the formation via: • Through the HST tool • Around the assembly Run In Hole
- 78. 78 ➢Hydrostatic is maintained on the formation: • Packer is set – Annulus above communicates to the formation via the circulating valve/washpipe • Tubing remains sealed while packer is set • Packer is set and released Setting Ball Set Packer
- 79. 79 ➢Hydrostatic is maintained on the formation: • Pick up to open the treating sleeve and close circulating valve • Tubing hydrostatic now acts on the formation thru this process • Annulus is isolated – Test packer by psi on the annulus Setting Ball Test Packer
- 80. 80 Gravel Packing Reverse MS Closing Sleeve Open Circulating Valve Close ➢ Hydrostatic is maintained on the formation: • Perform circulating rates • Perform gravel pack • Pick up to Lower or Upper (full) reverse position and reverse out
- 81. 81 Stimulate Conversion Ball Acid Ball Valve ➢Hydrostatic is maintained on the formation: • Drop second ball to convert tool • Fluids pumped through the work string now exit via the washpipe • Perform stimulation selectively as desired
- 82. 82 Isolate Well Well Barrier Valve ➢ The Service tool is picked up to pull wash pipe through the flapper valve and allow it to close ➢ The flow diverter sub minimizes losses by sealing the wash pipe OD above the flapper ➢ Allows flapper to close safely and improves reliability
- 83. 83 Frac Pack
- 84. 84 ANSI/API SPECIFICATION 19SS Petroleum and natural gas industries- Downhole equipment – Sand screen ➢ Metal-mesh : metal fabric designed to filter solids, provide structural support and / or distribute flow. ➢ Metal-mesh roll : single , continuous spooling of mesh by the woven mesh supplier. ➢ Metal-mesh screens : sand control screen that consists of one or more layers of metal mesh as the filter media. ➢ Pore size : supplier / manufacturer determined metal-mesh filter opening; typically expressed in microns. ➢ Sand control screen : mechanical filtration devise used to retain the formation sand or annular gravel pack while allowing the passage of fluids into the production tubing.
- 85. 85 Woven Wire Metal Mesh Woven Wire Metal Mesh ➢ Six basic types of woven mesh Plain Square Weave, Twilled Square Weave , Plain Dutch Weave , Dutch Twilled Weave , Reverse Plain Dutch Weave , Twilled Reverse Dutch Weave. ➢ Warp wires are considered the foundation wires running lengthwise as the mesh is woven. ➢ Weft wires run crosswise as the mesh is woven and run perpendicular to the Warp wires. ➢ Woven wire mesh count is described by the number of wires or openings per Linear in in both Warp and Weft directions (ASTM E 2016). ➢ Warp and Weft wire diameters are measured are defined when specifying mesh (Plain Square Weave 60 x 60 x .0062” 316L SS). ➢ Woven wire mesh is manufactured on very robust textile style weaving loom.
- 87. 87 Plain Square Weave WARP WIRE WEFT WIRE Plain Square Weave ➢ Warp and weft count per Linear inch are the same. ➢ Warp and weft diameters are the same. ➢ Warp and weft wires are woven in a simple over and under pattern (over one - under one) 1/1. ➢ The openings are square and non obstructed with maximum in-flow area. ➢ Commonly used for accurate sieving applications. ➢ Precise contact opening.
- 88. 88 Plain Twilled Weave WARP WIRE WEFT WIRE Plain Twilled Weave ➢ Warp and weft count per Linear inch are often the same the same. ➢ Warp and weft diameters are often the same. ➢ Less rigid than plain weave and often with larger wire diameters. ➢ Weft wires are typically woven in a more complicated over two and under two pattern 2/2. ➢ The openings are square and non obstructed with maximum in-flow area.
- 89. 89 Plain Dutch Weave WARP WIRE WEFT WIRE Plain Dutch Weave ➢ Warp and weft diameters are not the same, warp wires are larger. ➢ Warp and weft wire count per Linear inch are not the same, warp wires have a lower count per Linear inch. ➢ Weft wires are woven in the plain over one under one pattern 1/1 without space between the weft wires. ➢ The strength is higher in the weft direction. ➢ Triangular open pores 90° to surface plain. ➢ Zero – aperture mesh.
- 90. 90 Dutch Twilled Weave Dutch Twilled Weave ➢ Warp and weft diameters are not the same, warp wires are larger. ➢ Warp and weft wire count per Linear inch are not the same, warp wires have a lower count per Linear inch. ➢ Weft wires are woven as closely as possible against each other in the ever two under two pattern 2/2. ➢ Triangular open pores 45° - 90° to surface plain with a more tortuous path. ➢ This weave utilizes smaller weft wires allowing an even denser weave than Plain Dutch Weave yielding finer filtration. ➢ Zero aperture mesh. WARP WIRE WEFT WIRE
- 91. 91 Reverse Plain Dutch Weave Reverse Plain Dutch Weave ➢ Warp and weft diameters are not the same, weft wires are larger. ➢ Warp and weft wire count per Linear inch are not the same, warp wires have a higher count per Linear inch. ➢ The smaller diameter warp wires are positioned as close as possible to each other and the larger weft wires are woven in at a defined distance. ➢ Woven in the one over - one under - one pattern (1/1) ➢ Triangular open pores 90° to surface plain, slight openings between warp wires. ➢ The warp direction in this weave has a higher strength. WARP WIRE WEFT WIRE
- 92. 92 Reverse Twilled Dutch Weave Reverse Twilled Dutch Weave ➢ Warp and weft diameters are not the same, weft wires are larger. ➢ Warp and weft wire count per linear inch are not the same, warp wires have a higher count per linear inch. ➢ The smaller diameter warp wires are positioned as close as possible to each other and the larger weft wires are woven in at a defined distance. ➢ Triangular open pores 45° - 90° to surface plain (more tortuous path). ➢ The warp direction in this weave has a higher strength. WARP WIRE WEFT WIRE
- 93. 93 18x140 - PDW
- 94. 94 18x210 - DTW
- 95. 95 Weave Pattern Effects These various weave patterns, wire diameters and wire count dictate mechanical strength, aperture size (micron rating), tortuous path and pore geometry all having direct impact on filtration specific properties.
- 96. 96 Glass Bead Test Glass Bead Test ➢ A functional test whereby a woven filter medium is challenged by glass beads of a known size in a liquid or air suspension. This test is considered suitable for characterizing woven-wire cloth ranging from 20 to 1000 µm. ➢ The beads passing through the medium are collected, analyzed and compared with those captured by the medium. Liquid suspension method – a split filter arrangement for holding the filter cloth, a vacuum or pressure system for transporting the suspension of beads through the filter and a means of collecting the beads passing the filter, for example a fine grade filter paper or a reservoir under the mesh.
- 97. 97 Glass Bead Test Cut Points and Pore Sizes from the Sonic Challenge Test Method ➢ The woven filter meshes are challenged with calibrated, narrow particle size distribution glass microspheres. ➢ The apparatus used produced high frequency, oscillating air currents to fluidize the calibration standards through the filter. ➢ From the percentage passing, a calibration graph or formula is used to determine the filter cut points. ➢ The complete process takes less than 5 minutes and the results are traceable to the international unit of length.
- 98. 98 Wire Weaving Standards Standards ➢ ASTM: E2016 -11, Standard Specifications for Industrial Woven Wire Cloth. ➢ ASTM: 2814-11, Standard Guide For Industrial Woven Wire Cloth. ➢ ISO: 4782, Metal Wire for Industrial Wire Screens and Woven Wire Cloth. ➢ ISO: 9044, Industrial Woven Wire Cloth – Technical Requirements and Testing. ➢ ISO: 3310-1, Test Sieves – Technical Requirements and Testing. ➢ ASTM: F778-88 (2007), Gas Flow Resistance Testing of Filtration Media. ➢ ISO: 4022, Permeability Sintered Metal Materials – Determination of Fluid Permeability. ➢ ISO: 16889, Multi-Pass Method for evaluating filtration performance of Filter Elements.
- 99. 99 Mechanical Testing Standards ANSI / API Sand Screen Standard ➢ ASTM: A370 – 14, Standard test methods and Definitions for Mechanical testing of Steel Products. ➢ ISO: 2814-11, 20482, Metallic material – Sheet and Strip Erichsen Cupping test ➢ ANSI/API Specification 19SS Sand Control ➢ ASTM: A262-02a, Standard Practice for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels.
- 100. 100 » Slip on wire jacket or direct wrap on pipe » Shrink fit ring to jacket welded to the base pipe » Cased hole applications » Limited open hole applications Wire Wrap Screens Wrap Wire Rib Wire
- 101. 101 » Inner and outer wire jackets » Pre-Pack gravel between jackets Pre-Pack Screen
- 102. 102 » Metal mesh filtration • 3-4 layer stacked weave • Filtering efficiency » Diffusion Bonded (DB) • Customizable, rigid construction Premium Woven Wire Mesh Screens
- 103. 103 Sand Control Selection Rules Of Thumb, ROT d40/d90 d10/d95 Sub 44u Sand Control Screen Design < 3 < 10 < 2% Lowest sorting values with low fines content may be SAS completions. Premium, Wire wrapped screen or Prepacked screen. < 5 < 10 < 5% Low to Medium sorting range, with fines just out of range, may be woven mesh screen. Premium screen if d10 is larger than 200 micron < 5 < 20 < 5% Medium ratio ranges, may be served by larger gravel (7x to 8x d50), placed in high rate water pack. Horizontal well should be Gravel packed or use Expandable screen < 5 < 20 < 10% Medium ratio ranges with too many fines may use combination of larger gravel and a fines-passing screen; candidates for HRWP or Frac Pack. Horizontal well should be Gravel packed or use Expandable screen > 5 > 20 > 10% Highest ratios with large amount if fines signal a critical need for enlarging wellbore; under-reaming to move gravel/formation interface away from wellbore. Horizontal well should be Gravel packed or use Expandable screen
- 104. 104 Glass Bead Challenge Test » Woven mesh screen only » Filter medium is challenged by glass beads of a known size in a liquid or air suspension. » The beads passing through the medium are collected, analyzed and compared with those captured by the medium
- 105. 105 Inflow Control Device » ICD » AICD
- 106. 106 Inflow Control Device Why inflow control device, ICD? Reservoir Behavior » Heterogeneities Well completion » Annulus flow • Geometry & fluid properties » Base pipe pressure drop • Geometry & fluid properties » Deployment • DIF » Additional pressure drop • Formation damage
- 107. 107 Inflow Control Device Physical phenomena in horizontal well Well Heel Well Toe InFlow Rate Length Homogeneous Formation InFlow Rate Length High Permeability At Heel Well Heel Well Toe InFlow Rate Length InFlow Rate Length High Permeability at Toe Alternating High-Low Permeability Strata
- 108. 108 Inflow Control Device Influx equalization technique Length Length • Evenly distribute production • Downhole water and gas control • Optimum pressure drop distribution • Well completion fit reservoir need • Improve well performance • Improve reservoir performance • Improve oil recovery
- 109. 109 Inflow Control Device ICD/AICD modeling Length Length
- 110. 110 Inflow Control Device ICD/AICD modeling Length Length
- 111. 111 Inflow Control Device ICD/AICD modeling Length Length
- 112. 112 Inflow Control Device ICD/AICD modeling Length Length
- 113. 113 Inflow Control Device ICD/AICD modeling Length Length