SC

Sand Production & Control Options : an Introduction
By Professor Jim Peden
Copyright: Pitac Ltd 2011
Learning Objectives
Understand the issues and consequences arising from sand production Be familiar with sand management and exclusion options Be able to analyse particle size data and make preliminary sand exclusion recommendations Awareness of the flow capacity impact of sand exclusion decisions Awareness of modes of failure and consequences for sand management
Contents of workshop
Causes of sand production Consequences of sand production Sanding prediction What is moving? - grain size distribution Sand management versus sand exclusion Sand Management options Sand exclusion options Technical evaluation strategy Sand control failures
Copyright: Pitac Ltd 2011 3
Causes of sand production
Causes of Sand Production

Sandstone strength linked to degree of cementation. Cementation increases over time older sediments are more consolidated. As depth of burial (compaction) increases, porosity decreases and the effectiveness of the cementation increases. Sand production more common in younger and shallower sediments. Effects of production (pressure reduction and fluid movement) contribute to formation breakdown due to inertial and viscous forces. Pressure depletion increases grain to grain forces potential to exceed compressive strength failure. Inertial and viscous forces vary depending on the fluid eg gas or heavy oil potential to exceed tensile strength failure. There is a critical flowrate (drawdown) below which sand production can be minimised.
Causes of Sand Production

The onset of water production further increases potential for sand production. Relative permeability effects change the capillary forces within the grain structure (cohesion). When cohesion is reduced increased risk of sand production as previously stable arches become compromised. Impact on cementation - chemical attack reduces strength increased risk of sand production.
Causes Movement of Formation Material?
The formation components move when :

The forces induced by the flow or other factors are stronger than the forces that hold the grain in place Source of stress /forces
Compaction squeeze Radial differential pressure Fluid inertia Fluid drag
What is meant by sand production?

Production of solids - type?
Formation sand grains Formation fines
Clay Silica Compaction/detrital material
How much?
1-10 lbs/1000bbls or 1MMSCF In heavy oil, amounts could be very large
How much sand is tolerable?

Depends on well location offshore/onshore Fluid type - gas or oil Well type - subsea/platform/onshore Facilities for separation/handling/disposal
Formation Failure Causes

Brittle failures
spalling & sloughing (shales, dolomites, hard sands)
Creep
unloading stress through movement of a free edge (chalks, shales, silts, some sands)
Ductile failure
flow (chalks, silts)
Impact damage
drilling induced (all)
Grain production
usually sands, others possible
10
Brittle Failures
Causes - tension failures, local stress reactions Identification - chips and small, irregular pieces of the formation Location - from formation face near fractures and any free face near a flow area (permeability zone) Problems - fill (sometimes severe fill in wellbore) Prevention - not practical in most cases Control - liners and screens
11
Creep
Causes - reaction to a stress in the surroundings Identification - Constricting or collapsing wellbore, usually in plastic behavior formations such as shales and chalks Location - most severe near salt domes or geopressured areas Problems - collapse of wellbore, limits to flow Prevention - usually not practical Control - heavy wall pipe or dual casing
Ductile Failure
Causes - unconsolidated formation reaction to pressure drop and may also follow chemical change Identification - large quantities of solids flowing like fluidized sand (quicksand), occurs in sands, silts and chalks Location - usual area is near the perfs Problems - obstruction of flow channels, tubulars Prevention - prevent ability to move or pressure drop Control - fractures, gravel packs
Grain Production
Causes - reaction to drag force exerted by flow Identification - sand produced with flow Location - perfs, wellbore Problems - sand in produced fluids, erosion, perforation tunnel collapse or fill Prevention - rate reduction (is this acceptable?), sand control Control - plastics, gravel packs, fracs
14
Rock Classification System

TermBHNPhysical appearance Unconsolidated<2 No cement Partial/semi consol. 2-5 Pieces easily crushed w/fingers Friable 5-10 Pieces crushed when rubbed hard Consolidated 10-30 Pieces crushed with forceps Medium Hard Very hard 30-50 50-125 >125
15
Unconsolidated Sand
Usually shallow (<8000 ft /2400 m), young (Miocene to recent) deposits While drilling it may be difficult to keep hole open coring difficult Sand grain production begins with any fluid movement Strength from cohesion forces (grain-to-grain friction), but easily washed Sand production increases with produced fluid viscosity and rate Without sand control, some degree of continual sand control is expected
Partially Consolidated Sand
Some cementing agents Low compressive strengths (<200 to 500 psi) Core can be taken but crumbles easily and must be preserved to maintain shape Openhole completions, possible early in reservoir life, fail when producing conditions change
17
Friable Sands
Moderately well cemented Easily cored and cores appear strong Cementing agents are unstable and break down with unfavorable producing conditions May make sand for days or weeks after a completion, then formation stops producing sand until the next workover or shift in productionconditions Most difficult to select effective strategy for
18
Problems associated with sand production

Erosion - downhole and surface Plugging ?
Sump and flowlines Perforations Pore space - fines!
Near wellbore compaction

Slumping of casing Subsidence Loss of productivity ( increased apparent skin)
Filling of separators poor efficiency Removal difficulties Disposal of contaminated sand

Economics of sand production and its mitigation Cost factors?

Handling and disposal costs HSE issues if failure occurs loss of well? Loss of productivity deferred revenue
Costs of remediation?
Treatment costs Loss of PI? deferred revenue
When to control?
Sometimes difficult to decide
21
Effects of Sand Production
22
Potential impact of deferring sand control

Most control options cause a reduction in PI potential exceptions fracpacks and expandable screens Will the sanding get worse or better over time?
Example scenarios of timing sand control decisions
Prediction
When data on stresses and rock strength are known then analyses can be conducted to try and predict sand production. Continual improvements made with acquisition of better quality data from logs and laboratory testing. Better prediction will aid definition of reservoir management strategy, completion design and topsides engineering and therefore field economics. Three techniques form the basis of sand production prediction;
Empirical techniques correlating sand production to a single/group of parameters such as porosity, flow rate, sonic transit time. Analytical techniques known rock strength data is correlated to known stresses. Numerical techniques finite element methods (FEM) with full range of formation behaviour during elastic, plastic and time-dependent deformation events.
Large volume of literature available on sand production prediction and many of these papers have been reviewed as part of this study. There still has not been developed a single widely applicable model.
Prediction Formation Strength

General operational indicators
Regional or field analogues Drilling - borehole instability/washouts Poor recovery whilst coring High porosity and permeability Shallow /young sediments Rapid decline in well production rate
Methods of assessment
Logging - principally based on porosity logs Flow testing - bean up well to establish critical drawdown Laboratory testing of core samples
Establishing Critical Rate/Drawdown

Well is beaned up progressively and sand production is monitored Concerns? Rock is tested to failure - does this weaken the rock - hysteresis? Is the failure affected by fluid type/saturation? Is QMSF an economic rate? Prediction For a gas well, QMSF depends on (drawdown)0.5 For an oil well, QMSF depends on : drawdown / strength / fluid saturation

Single most important parameter in sand production prediction predicted from logs or measured in the laboratory. Log derived formation strength prediction
Continuous data over interval of interest, most commonly from porosity (neutron or density) log and sonic logs. Porosity the most commonly correlated parameter to rock strength. Dipole Shear Sonic Imager measures shear wave anisotropy in weak sands. The greatest differential between the maximum & minimum horizontal stress is associated with observed incidence of sand production. Formation Micro Imager provides a visual image which can help identify breakouts, fractures and bedding which in turn assists with determination of stress fields. However there are no direct correlations between wireline log data and rock strength.
29
30

Many correlations in the literature examples are;
UCS = 111.65 (304.8/t)2.93where UCS = UCS &t = sonic transit time in s/ft.
Other correlations are functions of parameters such as Youngs modulus (E), Poissons ratio () and the bulk modulus (Kb) and these can be derived from the full waveform sonic log. E, & Kb are dynamic (refer to rock properties at sonic velocities). Must be converted to static values. Once this is done there are many correlations for estimating formation strength, such as;
Vsh is derived from the gamma ray log. Output still imprecise - uncertainty reduced by correlating log derived data to core derived data.
31
Rock Mechanics Testing
32

Laboratory derived formation strength prediction
Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) & confined compressive strength (CCS) attempt to predict long term depletion dependent behaviour Thick walled cylinder (TWC) test replicates perforation tunnel behaviour attempts to predict drawdown dependent behaviour UCS easier and cheaper to conduct than TWC, and are used for calibration with log data. Most log derived correlations use UCS rather than TWC. Sand production prediction models generally use TWC data so log derived, core corrected UCS data must be corrected to TWC data using;
TWC = a.(UCS)b
This gives a log derived, core corrected TWC strength profile to use in prediction mode. Prediction based on calculating the critical bottomhole pressure.
Output from strength testing

Decision on whether sand will be produced( how much? / how continuous?/ how variable? What will be produced - failure mode - fines, grains or clumps? Weak points in formation Establish recommended operating conditions
34
Rock Mechanics Testing

Normally the best approach if good core samples are available Unconfined Compressive Strength - UCS basic test Triaxial load test - more representative as it allows for overburden effects Hollow cylinder tests - attempt to consider the effects on perforations or cavities on rock failure
35
Principles
Particle size analysis (PSA) done by dry sieving or using laser diffraction after sample preparation according to API RP 58 (cleaned, dried and broken up). Dry sieving involves vibrating the sample through a progressively smaller sequence of 18 known sized mesh (2350m - 44m). The weight of material captured on each mesh is measured and a size distribution plotted. Sieving generally underestimates fines content due to aggregation. For laser PSA the disaggregated sample is dispersed in water and light scattering is used to calculate the volume of a particle (assuming sphericity). LPSA can detect particle sizes as small as 0.04m, and will provide a much more accurate estimate of fines particles content. A known issue with sieving is long, thin grains may pass through a certain sieve but still have a mean diameter larger than the sieve opening.
Comparison of Laser Sizing & Sieving

Dry Sieving - Need at least 20g; does not measure below 44 microns; measures smallest
dimension of particle; particles not necessarily well dispersed.
Laser Diffraction - Sample size depends on particle size but typically <1g; measures down
to 0.04 micron; measures average diameter of particles; sample is fully dispersed; quicker than sieving
100 90 80 cumulative volume % 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 10 100 1000

laser analysis supplied sieve data wet sieving
Copyright: diameterPitac (um) Ltd 2011
38
How is PSA used?

Some percentile values are most commonly used when designing sand control screens and gravel for gravel packs. These are d10, d40, d50, d90 and d95. Using these values, various ratios are calculated:
d40/ d90 = U, the Uniformity Coefficient; d10/ d95 = S, the Sorting Coefficient The percentage of fines particles ie < 44m, is also routinely used.
These ratios characterise formation materials and assist in selecting the appropriate size for sand control equipment. The fines content is used to help assess the likelihood of plugging problems with both screens and gravel packs. LPSA produces significantly higher coefficient values than sieve data.
Sieve data U = 2.6 vs LPSA U = 14 Sieve data S = 5.5 vs LPSA S = 43.3 (from previous slide)
Examples of fine grained homogeneous and heterogeneous sands
Homogeneous sand
Heterogeneous sand
Example of Heterogeneity over a short interval

Distribution, King's Peak Sands
120 100 9049.1 80 60 40 20 0 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 9046.5 9043 9040.25 9037.5 9034.4 9031.8
P ercent R etained
Sieve Opening, mm
When the formation sand size varies enormously, perforate only the higher permeability sands, or consider fracpack
Sand Grain Distribution Of Worldwide Producing Areas
42
How is PSA used?

Wire-wrapped screens, if
d50> 75 microns d40/d90< 3 d10/d95<10 Uniformity Coefficient Sorting Coefficient
and Fines (<44 microns) < 2 wt%
Pre-packed or Premium Screens, if

d50> 75 microns d40/d90< 5 and d10/d95< 10 and 2 wt-% < Fines (<44 microns) < 5 wt-%
Gravel Pack, if
d50< 75 microns or d40/d90> 5 or d10/d95 > 10 or Fines (<44 microns) > 5 wt-%
Definitions
What do we mean by Sand Control? Sand control is the employment of techniques and technologies which are designed to prevent bulk formation material from being produced into the wellbore.
Includes the terms sand exclusion and sand prevention. Typically capital expenditure intensive.
What do we mean by Sand Management? Sand management is the employment of techniques and technologies in the production system to monitor and manage known sand production.
Typically capital and operating expenditure intensive.
The economic impact of either must be evaluated before deciding which strategy to pursue.
Sand Management- Volumetric Methods

Making the decision to control/handle produced formation material by operational management of wells and appropriately designed surface facilities. Foundation of sand management is continual monitoring and data acquisition. Volumetric methods focus on surface measurements of produced material; Separator clean-out time consuming, costly and not very accurate Sand traps/in-line filters flowline mounted, downstream of wellhead. Introduce a larger cross section area to drop out sand into a pot. As pot fills up, less sand drops out. Useful when used as a component in a more integrated monitoring strategy. Regular fluid sampling at the wellhead for centrifugation and measurement of solids content Major drawback of surface monitoring techniques is they only tell you about material which can be produced to surface, which will be the finer sized particles.
Acoustic Sand Detectors

Used to detect sand concentration within the flowstream across a given cross section area. Can be intrusive or non-intrusive. Non-intrusive detectors usually mounted on the flowline at a bend. After installation the detector is calibrated by injecting known quantities of sand into the flowline at representative rates to generate a signature profile. Any change in production conditions is noted. Noise from other sources also picked up so data plotted to show increase in noise above a set background level.
48
Other Sand Detectors

Intrusive ASD uses probe in the flowline to measure erosion caused by sand particles. As probe erodes, electrical resistance increases. Thickness reduction correlated to change in mass concentration ie sand rate. Not real time so cant be used for quick production optimisation, but is the most common type of sand monitor. Other devices which measure erosion rate include;
Ultrasonic gauges clamped externally to measure wall thickness. Erosion coupons made from the same material as the pipe being monitored periodically retrieved and measured for weight loss not suitable for subsea. Electrochemical probes determine erosion rate by measuring linear polarisation resistance between electrodes through a conductive medium in the flowstream only really suitable for high water cut oil streams.
Greater use of non-intrusive detectors, particularly in subsea applications.

Production Rate Control

Rate control is achieved by gradually beaning up a well and monitoring for sand production. There are two principal values which characterise the technique:
Maximum Sand Free Rate (MSFR) Maximum Allowable Sand Rate (MASR)
The onset of sand production in a well directly related to increasing production rate implies there is critical rate below which sand production will not occur. This is the MSFR. Establishing the MSFR involves well rate manipulation to the point where sand is noted. This rate is kept constant until equilibrium is reached, at which point the rate is reduced back to a sand free rate. The MASR is the rate at which sand production can be tolerated through the production system without affecting its integrity.
50
Production Rate Control

Production system may have to be modified to accommodate the volumes produced eg jetting systems in separators. Economic decision as the rate which corresponds with the MASR may not be commercially viable (also applies to MSFR). Need a structured monitoring programme to ensure system integrity maintenance eg avoid erosion. Rate control has some advantages;
Generally lower CAPEX (unless major topsides modifications are required) and flexibility to incorporate workovers if required. Appropriate for situations where rates must be limited for water or gas ingress.
Always requires careful control of wells gradual rate changes to avoid shocks to the formation caused by pressure fluctuations downhole.
51
Allowable Sand Production Levels

Typical Allowable Sand Production Levels
Produced Fluid Gas Production Rate <50 MSCFD >50 MSCFD <5000 bopd 5000 15000 bopd >15000 bopd Allowable Sand Level 1 lb/MMSCF 0.5 lb/MMSCF 30 lb/1000 bbl* 10 lb/1000 bbl 5 lb/1000 bbl *Reduced by 50% for high GOR Heavy Oil 200 lb/1000 bbl or more
Light Oil
52
Sand Removal
Removal of fill build up in wells is typically addressed with four techniques;
Workstring; Through-tubing clean-out using coiled tubing; Sand bailers, modified jet pump (uses concentric coiled tubing); Wireline bailing
Circulating fluids usually brine or diesel, sometimes viscosified. Surface facilities to handle and dispose of produced sand require the following steps;
Separate; Collect; Clean; Dewater & Transport
The logistics behind these operations depend on location eg more difficult and costly for an offshore facility. Advantageous to be able to remove produced solids without interrupting production use of de-sanders (hydrocyclones) similar to those used in drilling packages for mud clean-up.
Sand Removal at the Wellhead
54
Important Reservoir Characteristics

Cementation determines rock strength but type and distribution of cementation also controls formation porosity and permeability. Clay content has several important effects;
Constituent of cementation so impacts rock strength Source of fines which is an important parameter in selecting sand control method Distribution of clays, and their mobility, has a direct bearing on productivity
56
Exclusion Options
Screenless exclusion
Orientated perforating Sand consolidation Frac packs
Physical exclusion - bridging

Standalone Screens
Standard Premium Expandable
Gravel packs
Screenless
Screenless sand control aims for sand production prevention rather than sand exclusion. The following techniques when used alone or in combination form the basis of screenless sand control;
Optimal/selective perforating (orientation, phasing, shot density and charge size) Selective zonal production avoid high K or water breakthrough zones Tip screen-out (TSO) frac packing Chemical consolidation Proppantflowback control
58
Screenless Selective / Oriented Perforating

Selective perforating done to avoid opening up zones prone to failure. Requires good understanding of formation strength to conduct successfully. Disadvantages are;
Loss in productivity due to partial penetration higher P Weakest sands generally the most productive lower recovery Connectivity between zones not guaranteed lower sweep, recovery
Oriented perforating - maximise chance of creating stable perforations. optimise entry hole diameter, perforation length and P. Perforations should also be kept as far apart as possible.
Aim to
Smaller hole, low shot density increases spacing but increases flow and pressure loss per perforation. High shot density reduces drawdown, flow rate and drag forces per perforation. Modelling can be done to optimise. Consider underbalance in combination to achieve success.
Sand Control
Screenless Selective / Oriented Perforating
60
Screenless TSO Frac Packing

Tend to use in heterogeneous, fine grained formations eg Gulf of Mexico. Optimal perforation design is central to success of fracturing treatment. Perforations aligned with maximum stress direction optimise impact of initiation and propagation pressures. Use of resin coated proppant (RCP) may further help stabilise formation.
61
Screenless TSO Frac Packing

Stress directions known?
No - 0 phasing increases probability that perforations will connect with fracture. Yes - 0/180 phasing oriented in the PFP mitigate tunnel failure and sand production.
62
Frac Pack
63
Fracpacks
Fracpacks are a short conductive fracture Best suited to heterogeneous sands with a lot of fines d50Fracpack sand = 6-8x d50 Formation sand Allow some fines to migrate through on clean up? Gives higher PI - Skin usually 0 to -2 Must have good frac containment
Thick reservoir No fluid contacts Limited entry perforating
TIP SCREEN-OUT FRACTURE CONCEPT
HYDRAULIC FRACTURE IS CREATED AND THEN GROWS AS PAD IS PUMPED

AS CARRIER FLUID LEAKS INTO FORMATION, IMMOBILIZATION OF PROPPANT (OR SCREENOUT) AT FRACTURE TIP ARRESTS FRACTURE EXTENSION
SINCE PROPPANT CANT MOVE, CONTINUED PUMPING EXPANDS FRAC WIDTH AND INCREASES PROPPANT LOADING IN FRAC
Screenless Consolidation
Treat formation in immediate vicinity of wellbore to bond sand grains.
Formation must be treated through all perforations; Consolidated sand mass must remain permeable to well fluids; Consolidation should remain constant over time
Two principal types of treatment;

Epoxy resin (3 stage treatment) isopropyl alcohol pre-flush, then resin is pumped followed by viscous oil to displace resin from the pore space). Limitations - only 20 ft at a time, temperature maximum of 100C, max clay content 20%. Furan, phenolic resins &alkoxysilane have higher temperature range than epoxy but consolidation may experience brittle failure. Difficult chemicals to handle safely.
Consolidation can include a gravel proppantwith the treatment (can be resin coated). Fibre consolidation carbon fibres mixed with proppant during pumping. interlock and help prevent proppantflowback no curing time. Resin and fibre consolidation are the main methods of proppantflowback control.
Fibres
Screenless Consolidation
69
Resin Consolidation- Challenges?

Resin consolidation conducted in 3 steps Pre - flush with Mutual solvent and/or surfactant Main Resin stage Post flush to restore permeability /remove excess resin
Sand Consolidation
Technique augments natural cementation Layeral permeability limits treatment to <10ft section at a time thus it can be expensive to apply in long intervals Although new formulations have been developed in the last 5 years, they may degrade over time Reduction in permeability is likely Can be conducted through tubing e.g. with CT Useful as a remedial approach ?
Frac Pack
Aim to create wide propped fractures which extend beyond the damage zone. Proppant pumped at high rates into the perforations. Main advantages are; Fracturing ensures leak off to the formation and bypasses near wellbore damage Large contact area between proppant and formation makes it effective in formations with fines invasion (increased flow area reduced flow velocity reduced risk of mobilising fines). Not suited to intervals close to contacts or where cement quality is poor as uncontrolled fracture growth could impair well performance. More complex operationally - requires more complex fluids, higher pumping rates, large fluid volumes and more equipment than CHGPs.
Screenless Emerging Techniques

Permeable Cement foamed cement with hollow spheres which react with the cement on dehydration to create additional porosity alternative to consolidation. Slotted Boreholes Near wellbore stress reduction by jetting slots in borehole wall. Moves stress concentration into the reservoir where rock mass is more confined and stronger. Laboratory tests report strength increases of up to 50%. Expandable Slotted Tubular ESS without the weave transfers near wellbore stresses to the EST, reducing the tendency for failure. Elliptical Perforating Charges These aim to reduce stress concentration around the perforation tunnel thus preventing or delaying tunnel collapse. Telescopic Perforations Integral to the liner when run. Telescopic tubes push against formation then liner is cemented. Tubes contain sand control media and form conduits from the formation to the wellbore.
73
Physical Bridging systems

Standalone Screens
Standard Premium Expandable
Gravel packs
74
Screens - Principles
Sand control using installed screens is designed to exclude all but the finest formation particles from being produced into the wellbore. Effective design of screens requires acquisition of core samples for particle size analysis. Seeking to induce particle bridging and dynamic filtration.
75
Sand Exclusion/Retention Systems

The variety of retention types can be classified under the following broad headings; Depth Filtration Surface Filtration
Slotted liners Single Wire Wrap (SWW) Screens Premium Screens Expandable Screens Pre-packed Screens (PPS) Premium Screens Expandable Screens External Gravel Pack (EGP) Internal Gravel Pack (IGP) Horizontal Open Hole Gravel Pack High Rate Water Pack
Modified Drainage Geometry

Frac Pack
76
Slotted Liners
Simplest and cheapest form of installed sand control equipment. Best suited to coarse grained formations which are fairly homogeneous. Slot width set at d10 percentile value from the PSA 1/3 - 1/7 rule suggests particles with a d50 diameter 1/3 of the slot opening will form bridges. Slotting to very low widths (0.001) now possible with laser cutting techniques. Various slot patterns can be cut, with slots either straight sided or keystone shaped (increasing slot width from liner OD to liner ID). Flow performance through slotted liners influenced by slot width, slot density, slot spacing and open area. Slot spacing and density are the most influential parameters for inflow resistance of slotted liners. Determination of slot factor (skin factor) to assess P. Flow effects and interference vary with different slotting patterns.
Slotted Liners
78
Slotted Liner - slot orientation

Slot size
Width 0.012 0.250 Length 1 2.5
Straight slots carry the risk that they can plug if particle concentration is high Keystone slot offers surface bridging with lower plugging potential
Flow Capacity of slotted Liners - no plugging

Flow Capacity of Clean Screen
Pressure Drop, psi 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 5000 Flow Rate, BPD/ft 10000
2-3/8" 2-7/8" 3-1/2"
Wire Wrapped Screens (WWS)

Wire wrapped around heavy duty support rods (rod based) or perforated base pipe (pipe based). Pipe based WWS stronger. WWS have larger flow area than slotted liners lower pressure loss. Aperture size between wire wrap down to 0.005. WWS are applicable for situations where uniformity < 3 and the fines content is < 2% by weight.
81
Wire Wrapped Screens
Pipe Based WWS
Rod Based WWS
82
Wire Wrapped Screens

Offers larger flow area than solid screens/liners Slots normally from 0.010 and larger (smaller slots down to 0.006 also available) Less robust - external surface easily damaged may be protected with a sheath or shroud Good for homogeneous larger grained sands
UC < 3 d10> 200 - 250 micron
83
Metallurgy - examples from Weatherford
84
Pre-Packed Screens (PPS)

PPS provide a modular gravel pack ie depth filtration. Construction more complex, two layers of wire wrap to contain gravel (usually resin coated). Gravel vibrated into place to form tight pack with no voids. Typically gravel size is approximately 5 6 times the formation d50particle size. Can be used for formations with finer particles than SWW.
85
Prepack Screens
Offers a depth filter Layer of granular material fills annulus
GP sand Synthetic proppant
Various designs depending on screen OD/ID and through bore Susceptible to internal plugging if formation sand is heterogeneous
Minimum Thickness Prepack

Double wrapped screen is not considered a good design Two locations for particles to plug No major increase in screen life in erosive conditions
Prepack with outer Protective Shroud

Outside jacket is good for rough holes and conditions requiring rotation The downside is severe plugging potential of screen
Prepack Applications
Suitable for more heterogeneous sand but fine sands will plug Comparable to gravel pack but
Much easier installation in high angle /horizontal wells Smaller effective borehole ID if formation collapses onto screen Secondary annulus if no collapse shutoff?
Design is based on d50 Prepack = 5-6 x d50 Formation sand Design conservatively to minimise pack plugging
Premium Screens
Premium screens gradually replacing PPS over the past 10 years. Many types available from Baker, Halliburton, Schlumberger & Weatherford. Differences usually to do with type of filter material being offered. This ranges from Dutch twill weaves to porous metal fibres. More common now for laboratory tests to compare performance before making a selection. Filter media aperture size specified to facilitate selection. Examples are Baker Excluder, Halliburton PoroMax, Schlumberger MeshRiteTM and Weatherford Stratapac, amongst others. Premium screens applicable to wider range of situations than WWS or PPS and have better resistance to plugging/erosion compared to PPS. Due to the use of layers of weaves or mesh they provide a measure of depth filtration. Also allow larger base pipe to be used compared to PPS.
Premium Screens
Premium Screens
Weatherford Stratapac
Baker Excluder2000TM
Schlumberger MeshRite
Halliburton PoroMax
91
Premium Screens - Performance
92
Premium Screens
Offer a range of different media
Sintered metal particles Metal weave Multiple layers
Provide good filtration and reported to give good clean up
Standalone Screen Filter Media Options
94
Porous Metal Media PPM

Finest filtration
Down to 60 microns
Engineered pore size distribution Designed to replace 40/60 prepack
Porous Metal Fibre PMF

Woven screen
125 to 200 micron More porous and permeable Coarser screen
Flow area of filter media

Flow area defines conductivity but also retention and plugging characteristics
Sand Retention efficiency

Results are for 20/40 equivalent Formation sand was
d50 of 70 microns UC =15 35% fines <45 microns
Weatherford Screening Matrix

Screening graph comparing Gravel Pack, PMM and PMF systems
Expandable Screens
Most significant development in last 10 years. Only alternative to GP for conformance to borehole. Weave/mesh type filter media - 100 300m size. Baker EXPress, Halliburton PoroFlex & Weatherford ESS. Deployed in CH & OH - for CH applications in low strength formations perforations should be prepacked. Expandables have the following advantages over other screen types;
Largest screen inflow area Largest ID of any screen type for hole size Filter media forces fluid direction change reduce velocity Lower weight allows deployment in long horizontal Copyright: Pitac Ltd 2011 sections
100
Expandable Screens
Use expandable base pipe and normally a mesh screen Expansion ratio around 1.4 : 1 Benefits?
No secondary annulus - if conformed Retain maximum bore for internal access Retain more of PI Can be used for selective isolation
Depiction of ESS Components
102
Components of an expandable screen

Expandable screen showing
Slotted base pipe Actual filtration mesh Outer shroud
ESS Expansion Equipment - Options
Expansion cone Expansion Mandrel Compliant Rotary Expansion CRES
Flowback through ESS?
105
Benefits of Borehole Compliance

Compliance is a major benefit of ESS Most other screens offer secondary annulus
Complicates flow control and monitoring
Baker ESS
All vendors offer ESS but designs vary between suppliers
Expandable Sand Screen

Vendors have different forms of expandable screens Baker/Halliburton Weatherford
Expandable Screen Protective Shroud

Protective shroud is important as it protects the screen from mechanical damage but also keeps filter media off the borehole wall and hence the filter cake
Comparison between ESS and Gravel Pack
Source Weatherford
Expandable Screens
Disadvantages are; Additional trips may be required for expansion increased operational costs. Higher cost/lower collapse resistance than other screens.
111
Operational Considerations for Screens

Major cause of standalone and gravel pack screen failures is lack of planning and preparation. The major areas requiring close attention are;
Fluid conditioning An essential activity to be completed prior to installing screens. Screen Handling Procedures should detail the type of slings and elevators to be used. The on-site Completion Engineer also needs to make sure the deck and rig crews are aware of any special handling requirements. Screen Make-up & Running Important to use stabbing guide. Moderate screen running speed and care should be taken when lowering screens through the rotary. Well Profile Well design should accommodate the bending properties of the screens and doglegs should be minimised. Expandables All the above remain valid but the expansion process is unique to these screens. Expansion speeds will be specified. Operation of expansion tools is either by weight on bit or fluid pumping rate/pressure, and these will be specified.
112
Gravel Packing
Retains formation sand by bridging it across the apertures on a layer of gravel Gravel packing is the most common form of sand control Gravel pack design principle #1
Gravel stops formation sand movement, and, Screen stops gravel movement
Gravel pack design principle #2

Establish a highly permeable pathway between the formation and the wellbore that formation sand cannot penetrate
External Gravel Pack (EGP)

EGPs are open hole applications. No cemented and perforated casing. Screen/formation annulus filled with gravel. Hole section can be under-reamed prior to pack placement. Replacement of formation with gravel increases wellbore radius. Gravel permeability > formation permeability reduces near wellbore P. Good wellbore stability extremely important to successful execution of EGP. Horizontal open hole gravel packs are a type of external gravel pack.
114
Open Hole Gravel Pack

Double Bridge Principle Screen/gravel/ sand d50 Gravel = 5-6x d50 Sand Slot - 0.75x minimum gravel grain size
Internal Gravel Pack (IGP)

IGP or cased hole gravel pack most common sand control completion worldwide. Screen / casing/liner annulus filled with gravel perforations can also be packed 2 stage job. Provides more flexibility than EGP. Perforations must extend beyond any near wellbore damage zone. Packing perforations above fracture pressure beyond the damaged zone improved productivity. Principle behind frac packing and high rate water packs (HRWP).
Internal/inside Gravel Pack

Key constraints are
Thinner pack Reduced effective rw More prone to plugging Must ensure perforations are packed Diametrically constrained for access
Usually results in higher skin than external / openhole GP
Gravel pack Productivity

In practise a GP provides a positive skin PI reduction can be minimised by underreaming Avoid pack invasion - use smaller gravels Ensure perforations are packed for an internal gravel pack Gravel quality is very important Good roundness Good sphericity
Sauciers Curve for Gravel Sizing
119
Grain Sphericity
120
Grain Roundness
121
Gravel Sizes
122
Good Gravel Pack

Example of good gravel pack Note the minimal invasion of the pack Gravel is quite uniform and rounded
Gravel Pack depicting pack invasion

Pack Invasion/plugging Poor quality gravel variation in grain size and non-rounded particles Final permeability is a fraction of formation K
Backflow into Gravel Pack

Gravel pack invaded by fines and solids on flowback Stresses need for wellbore preparation, clean fluids and filter cake selection
Gravel Pack Productivities - key areas?

Formation sand mixed with gravel causes permeability loss Skin as high as 300 in high rate wells result Clean gravel outside the casing creates the best flow path Design gravel pack and installation to assure clean gravel and not crushed sand is in the perforations before packing
Gravel Pack Options

High flowrate water pack
Dilute gravel concentrations: Approx. 1ppg Better perforation packing Relies on fluid inertia to transport gravel
Slurry pack
High viscosity and gravel concentrations Less settling of gravel Less leak off through perforations poor packing
High Rate Water Pack
Non-viscosified aqueous carrier fluid means high leak off pump rates and fluid volumes are large. Created fractures generally short and thin.
Gravel Pack Fluid Options
Carrier fluid
Requires to overbalance reservoir pressure Clean fluids- use filtration as per bridging laws Use brines to prevent clay problems
Viscosifier
Linear or crosslinked gels HEC / HPG or VES
Slurry types
High rate water pack low gravel conc. 1ppg Slurry pack - high viscosity carrier fluid + gravel up to 25ppg conc.
Gravel Packing Fluids

Basic Brines NaClNaBr CaCl2 CaBr2/CaCl2 CaBr2/ZnBr2 SG 1.2 1.5 1.35 1.7 2.3 Range of Formate salts being introduced Consider density, compatibility, crystallisation, cost, HSE Fluid Loss Control (Kill Pill) Viscosity + graded solids (oil soluble resin, NaCl, CaCO3) Mechanical solution - flapper valve Viscosifiers HEC or other polymer, oil/emulsion or foam Oxidative viscosity breaker
130
Polymers As Carrying Fluid
SC Slide 131
3 different polymer concentrations providing a wide range of viscosities
Gravel Placement - High Rate (Water Pack)

Squeeze packing with water or low vis fluid 0.5 - 2 ppg gravel Leak-off rate > .01 bpm/perforation Denser packing Preferred for short interval IGP Relies on high rate to shear dunes ? Rates of DTP / DSCREEN0.6
Gravel Placement with High Viscosity Fluids (Slurry Pack)

Main Application - Cased Hole (IGP) and Prepack perforations prior to running screen Viscous carrier fluid (up to 300cp) High gravel conc (up to 15 lb/gal or >50% bulk vol. Gravel) Less fluid and screen plugging, faster but can loose volume control via U-tubing Low pump rate (0.5 - 1.5 bpm)
Gravel Placement with High Viscosity Fluids (Slurry Pack)

Gravel slurry dehydration begins at perforation tip forming node in casing and around screen Circulate into screen casing annulus followed by squeeze Tailor slurry design / technique for potential problem wells Large permeability contrasts Long (>50ft) zones Deviation angle > 50 Often more expensive than Water Pack
Internal Gravel Pack - Cased Hole
135
Internal GP with Completion Isolation Valve
Weatherford Copyright: Pitac Ltd 2011 136
Gravel Pack Placement with Multi-point Tool
Running in/Squeeze
Circ thru upper screen Circ thru lower screen Copyright: Pitac Ltd 2011
Reverse Circulating 137
Horizontal Open Hole Gravel Pack

Extensively applied in Campos Basin offshore Brazil and Gulf of Mexico. Zonal isolation not possible - executed as circulating packs with the -wave / -wave order or using Alternate Path Techniques (APT). Specific areas of improvement have been in carrier fluids for effective gravel transport in long horizontal sections. Until recently most carrier fluids were water based understanding shale behaviour was critical to avoid risk to pack placement by due to swelling. Oil based carrier fluids now available which improves this Copyright: Pitac Ltd 2011 138 situation.
High Rate Water Pack for Horizontal Well

Stage 1: Initial Circulation Stage 2:Alpha wave
Stage 4: Beta wave to top Stage 3:Alpha wave to TD
Horizontal Open Hole Gravel Pack
140
High Rate Water Packs

Pumped at high rates above fracture pressure. Lower gravel concentrations than either CHGP or frac pack as carrier fluid is not viscosified. Fracturing induced to pack the perforations, not for stimulation, and to create a short fracture which extends beyond any damage. Simpler than frac pack - used where frac pack not suitable ie proximity to contacts. Advantages include; Creation of multiple fractures Minimal fracture growth Less complicated operationally ie no viscosified fluids or breakers required
141
Alternate Path Technologies (APT)

Provides additional flexibility over circulating pack techniques. Applied where losses to the formation or annular blockages expected. Use viscous carrier fluids to allow higher gravel loadings. Gravel diverted through shunt tubes attached to screen. Have holes to allow free flow of gravel slurry. Shunts can be oriented in a variety of ways eg longitudinally or in a spiral.
Example of Shunt Tube Application
Alternate Path Technologies (APT)
144
Selection of Sand Management or Sand Control
146
Selection of Sand Management or Sand Control

Requires an analysis of the formation strength as part of the process of evaluating the risk of sand failure and production OR already have clear evidence from well test. Log data can be used alone but better to perform lab tests on core UCS, TWC & TXL. Can then calibrate log data. Determine critical drawdown pressure compare with predicted well performance. Sand control OR selective perforating? Economics/risk must be addressed cost of sand control vs risked cost of no sand control. Cost of sand control should include productivity/ultimate recovery impact. Decision requires analysis of entire production system and the impacts of choosing one strategy over another.
147
Selection & Design of Sand Control
148

Sand Quality Plot
15
Uniformity Coefficient C = d40/d90
Gravel Pack
10
Premium Screen Frac Pack
Prepacked Screen
5
Wire wrapped screen or slotted liner
10
20
Sorting Coefficient S = d10/d95
149

The key to any selection and design is to ensure there is sufficient good quality data available upon which to base the choice. Core and log data required as a minimum to perform laboratory studies on the rock to determine particle size distribution, clay mineralogy, fines migration potential & pore throat sizing. Critical not only for selecting type of sand control but also in the selection and formulation of reservoir drill-in fluids. Use of sand quality plot to indicate likely candidates for sand control (guideline only). Lab testing of screen/fluids to understand solids plugging behaviour and retention capability of the candidate screens. Understanding downhole velocities, especially in gas wells is important when assessing erosion risk. Other factors can influence ultimate choice eg well performance impact
Guideline Procedure Remedial
Action Plan for Sand Production
151
Sand Control Failures

Reasons Equipment
Screens Gravel Permeability Damage
153
Sand Control - Damage Control

Skin damage
Reservoir-to-wellbore limits Invasion of fines into gravel Crushing/breaking of gravel
Physical Damage
Screen Running Damage Erosion during production Corrosion from produced and injected fluids
154
Plugging of Screens
Plugging of screens is a real concern as it
Reduces PI Can cause hotspots
Flowback and Clean Up

Some screens will allow particle flow through screen
What size and concentration of particle? Extraneous material such as cuttings? Small flow area susceptible to plugging
Better not to flow through screen if possible

Annular circulation Soluble filter cake materials Prevention by design is the key
157
Clean up on screens ( after Schlumberger)
158
Example of Clean up flowing through screens
159
Defining An Operating Envelope

Worldwide Data with Emphasis on Gulf of Mexico
SC Slide 160
Physical Damage
Screen Running Damage Erosion during production Corrosion from produced and injected fluids
161
damage created by overshot while pulling completion similar damage created while running screen in hole
SC Slide 162
Primary Erosion Locations

directly opposite perforations at sharp turns in the flow path where gas velocity is maximum near eddy current and similar patterns at constrictions in the flow path
SC Slide 163
erosion failure in a non-prepacked screen occurred in less than 1 hour failures usually at the top of the interval in vertical wells
164
Screen Failure Consequences?
Sand production causes damage to facilities and resultant curtailment or production shut in.
165
Barriers
Inner well
Carbide blast joints Resin coated sand layer
Best Barriers
move interface away from the wellbore
Gravel pack on outside of screens Gravel packed perforations Packed fractures

Wire Wrap Screen (WWS) Erosion w/ Air
8 Gauge BAKERWELD
These erosion tests, part of a service company, highlight that erosion failure can happen to any screen with any method of covering
SLIM-PAK
Baker Tests
Multi-Layered MultiSintered Screen Erosion
Weave screens, even with protective shields on the outside are no match for impingement flow of gas or liquid streams containing particles
Baker Excluder Screen Damage from Trinidad Erosion Damage In A New Generation Screen
No type of outer physical barrier is immune to impingement flow from a solids containing fluid stream - failure is a matter of time at exposure Outer shroud showing erosion damage.
Baker Excluder Screen Damage from Trinidad Weave Damage on an Eroded Screen
Seam
Upper shroud removed - notice that the major damage is on the seam. This type of damage can occur anywhere a hot spot develops.
Screen Damage Under Weave/Shroud - Baker Excluder
Erosion Plugged hole
Upper shroud, layer, & support screen removed showing base pipe - notice that the major damage is at the center hole. Considerable erosion from outside to inside is seen here - material blocking some of the holes has fallen out
early stage erosion

Copyright: Pitac Ltd 2011 SC Slide 172
erosion holes opposite perforations
SC Slide 173
Multiple Damage Mechanisms

A typical failure cause is when the flow areas begin plugging with debris, followed by very high velocity flow through a few remaining open flow areas - high velocity flow is what drives the site specific erosion
Erosion hole in screen and adjacent holes were Hole inplugged screen can bedebris seen with
HOTSPOT vs. UNIFORM PLUGGING

v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v SAND FACE^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^ P1 Cake Buildup
HOTSPOT
P2 P = P1 - P2 "Hot Spot" Erosion Path
C L
v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^ SAND FACE^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v Natural Gravel Pack
P1
UNIFORM
P2 P = P1 - P2 Copyright: Pitac Ltd 2011 C L
Baker
175
Erosion Damage Throughout The Sand Control System

Production
Above the packer Surface equipment
Initial Placement
Surface usually not a problem Downhole is the first place to fail
176
Failure Points In The flow Path During Frac Or Gravel Packing 1. crossover port 2. casing opposite crossover port 3. annular area between screen and casing wall a. b. c. erosion from high velocity linear flow minimal problem erosion from high velocity flow as the slurry enters a perforation pressure drop in this area during high rate flow (fracs) can collapse screens problems are very rare, but watch clearances
slurry
liquid return to surface
SC Slide 177
Examples of Screen Failures

Brittle Failure-SSC?
178
Typical Tensile Failure Welded Screen
179
Typical Tensile Failure Rod Based Screen
180
Collapse Failure Welded Screen
From: W. Pemberthy 181
Collapse Failure 2-7/8 Slotted Liner
From: W. Pemberthy 182
Operating Companies
All have internal guidelines for dealing with sand production. Degree of structure reflects size and scope of operations. Differences in implementation between companies. Some address at well level and others look field wide commercial decision. Clear from feedback that economic factors, field location, type of fluid and ease of well access all factor into the decision making process. Increase in application of probabilistic risk assessments in determining the appropriate strategy for dealing with sand prone reservoirs. In bp, choice between risked value of failure to implement sand control versus the cost of incorporation from the start. The view across all companies is similar for selection and design - no formal process exists but selection guidelines and tools are used consistently. All agreed that design must be specific to the situation.
Operating Companies
Smaller companies tend to;
Have no formal systems documented or in place Rely more on sand control than sand management Rely more on individuals, who often lack specialist knowledge Be forced or choose to bear risks larger companies treat as optional ie use of or the decision to use risk management
Half reported sand failures due to technical reasons eg poor procedures and equipment reliability but also due to personnel issues. Having a project team with suitably experienced personnel is a significant way to improve the likelihood of success. Only one company had designated sand control professionals (happened to be bp, the largest of the respondents). There is a growing realisation that knowledge management and retention is extremely important means of learning, and of avoiding future problems.
Operating Companies
Performance tracking of sand control completions has also received major focus. George King (formerly of bp) issued a landmark survey of sand control completions in 2005. This was the first industry wide review of the technology and its performance. Since the King survey, there has been a growth in the successful application of screen only completions. Screens now used where 10 years ago a gravel pack would have been an automatic choice. This shift has come about because of;
Improvements in operational practices. Improved understanding of the value of acquisition of relevant data. Improvements in manufacturing processes and quality control. Cost Operational simplicity
Sand Control Failure Statistics King

Completions in Sand Control Environments
Sand Control Failure Statistics
Type of Completion Injectors (soft sand) Screenless Fracs Cased and Perfed Screen Only Completion Expandable Screens* Cased Hole Gravel Pack Open Hole Gravel Pack High Rate Water Packs Frac Pack Total
Production Production Subsidence Failure Failure Failure Design Application Infant % of (failures / Number of Total Well- Failure % of failure % Failure % (failures / wells Years attempts of attempts of attempts well/yr) attempts well/yr)
30 26 61 194 197 387 208 187 842 86 107 337 757 262 1664 613 556 3351 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 1.5 10 27 1.6 0 3.6 2.3 7.7 0.5 2.4 0 0 0 1.03 0.5 0.8 0.48 0.53 0.24 0.07 0.019 0.074 0.056 0.023 0.012 0.016 0.009 0.005 31.3 7.7 41 21.6 3 5.2 4.8 2.7 2 0.0006 0.0016 0 0.0015 0 0 0.003 0.0013
2132
7539
Manufacturing Companies
All the manufacturing companies have internal processes. The last decade has seen rapid growth in the variety of standalone screen products on the market, particularly in the premium screen sector. The most important new technology since 2000 has been expandable screens. Still not able to compete with gravel packs for fine grained formations but there are now products from 3 manufacturers instead of the original monopoly enjoyed by Weatherford. Manufacturers now offer to provide the engineering analysis which traditionally would have been carried out by the Operating company. Technology development tracking applications in frontier areas eg Arctic Canada with Cold Heavy Oil Production with Sand (CHOPS), deep water horizontal gravel packing offshore Brazil. Significant growth in the availability of Inflow Control Devices (ICD) able to be used in conjunction with standalone screens.
Relative Costs
Manufacturers were approached for cost data for the various types of sand control methods. To allow a relevant comparison to be made between applicable sand control options a type well was specified, as follows;
A 500m long horizontal section with an 81/2 hole through the reservoir to be completed. Slotted liner to be 7, 29 lb/ft L-80 carbon steel Standalone screens to have 51/2, 17 lb/ft L-80 base pipe Expandable screen nominal OD to be 51/2 Horizontal open hole gravel pack screen base pipe to be 41/2 or 51/2 For an internal gravel pack assume a 7, 29 lb/ft liner has been run, cemented and perforated For frac pack and IGP the screen base pipe to be 41/2, 12.6 lb/ft Screen filter weave/mesh to be nominal 150m
188
Cost Data
Normalised Cost (Premium Screen = 1.0)
Method
Baker Slotted Liner SWW Screen Pre-packed Screen Premium Screen Expandable Screen IGP EGP/HOHGP Frac Pack 0.25 0.67 1.0 1.25 2.0 1.2 2.0 Halliburton Schlumberger 0.9 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.8 Weatherford 0.25 0.6 1.2 1.0 1.7 2.0 -
Unit Type
DSP-06 Topside Particle Monitor (Explosion Proof) DSP-06 Topside Particle Monitor (Intrinsically Safe) Subsea Compact Particle Monitor
Cost (US$)
15,000 13,000 40,000
189
Cost Data
As expected, gravel packing is more costly in terms of equipment required. No allowance for additional rig time required need an additional 24 36 hours for a gravel pack. For a subsea well = additional US$0.5 0.75MM. For the expandable screen options a further 6 -12 hours rig time should be added for screen expansion (assuming a single trip run/expand operation). If two trips are required an additional 12 24 hours would be required compared to a standalone screen installation. These compare the costs on a purely financial basis. Not all methods are applicable in every situation and it requires careful consideration and matching of the application envelope to the scenario being considered. Sand monitors - given the potential importance of the information being recorded these units are very cost effective compared to the likely cost impact of a loss of system integrity due to erosion.
. . . end of course comments or questions?
191

SC

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

SC

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Sand Production & Control Options : an Introduction

By Professor Jim Peden

Copyright: Pitac Ltd 2011

Copyright: Pitac Ltd 2011

Causes of sand production

Copyright: Pitac Ltd 2011

Causes of Sand Production

Causes of Sand Production

Copyright: Pitac Ltd 2011

Causes Movement of Formation Material?

The formation components move when :

Copyright: Pitac Ltd 2011

What is meant by sand production?

How much sand is tolerable?

Formation Failure Causes

Copyright: Pitac Ltd 2011

Copyright: Pitac Ltd 2011

Copyright: Pitac Ltd 2011

Rock Classification System

Copyright: Pitac Ltd 2011

Partially Consolidated Sand

Copyright: Pitac Ltd 2011

Copyright: Pitac Ltd 2011

Problems associated with sand production

Near wellbore compaction

Filling of separators poor efficiency Removal difficulties Disposal of contaminated sand

Economics of sand production and its mitigation Cost factors?

Copyright: Pitac Ltd 2011

Effects of Sand Production

Copyright: Pitac Ltd 2011

Potential impact of deferring sand control

Example scenarios of timing sand control decisions

Prediction Formation Strength

Establishing Critical Rate/Drawdown

Prediction Formation Strength

Copyright: Pitac Ltd 2011

Prediction Formation Strength

Copyright: Pitac Ltd 2011

Prediction Formation Strength

Copyright: Pitac Ltd 2011

Rock Mechanics Testing

Copyright: Pitac Ltd 2011

Prediction Formation Strength

Output from strength testing

Copyright: Pitac Ltd 2011

Rock Mechanics Testing

Copyright: Pitac Ltd 2011

Comparison of Laser Sizing & Sieving

100 90 80 cumulative volume % 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 10 100 1000

Copyright: diameterPitac (um) Ltd 2011

How is PSA used?

Examples of fine grained homogeneous and heterogeneous sands

Example of Heterogeneity over a short interval

Sand Grain Distribution Of Worldwide Producing Areas

Copyright: Pitac Ltd 2011

How is PSA used?

and Fines (<44 microns) < 2 wt%

Pre-packed or Premium Screens, if

Sand Management- Volumetric Methods

Acoustic Sand Detectors

Copyright: Pitac Ltd 2011

Other Sand Detectors

Greater use of non-intrusive detectors, particularly in subsea applications.