See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/306029594

A Comparative Study of Wire Wrapped Screens vs. Slotted Liners for Steam
Assisted Gravity Drainage Operations.

Conference Paper · March 2014

CITATIONS READS

4 219

5 authors, including:

Jamie S. Andrews Jugana Sladic

Equinor Majulero Società Coop
41 PUBLICATIONS   801 CITATIONS    5 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sand Control View project

Traduzione e plurilinguismo.Significati ed equivalenze View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jamie S. Andrews on 18 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 WHOC14 - 113

A Comparative Study of Wire Wrapped Screens vs. Slotted

Liners for Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage Operations
U.G. ROMANOVA, G. GILLESPIE, J. SLADIC, T. MA

Weatherford

T.A. SOLVOLL, J.S. ANDREWS

Statoil ASA

This paper has been selected for presentation and/or publication in the proceedings for the 2014 World Heavy Oil Congress [WHOC14]. The authors of this material
have been cleared by all interested companies/employers/clients to authorize dmg: events (Canada) inc., the congress producer, to make this material available to
the attendees of WHOC14 and other relevant industry personnel.

ABSTRACT show that WWS are less dependent on particle size

Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) is used
extensively around the world to produce bitumen. Preventing
excessive sand production is a challenge in SAGD operations
due to the unconsolidated nature of the majority of such
deposits, in particular, oil sands in Western Canada. Studies
have clearly demonstrated that different sand control
solutions are required for reservoirs with different sand
quality. A comparative study of wire wrapped screens (WWS)
versus slotted liners (SL) has been conducted on “fine” and
“coarse” oil sands using test conditions simulating SAGD. The
paper describes the detailed test procedure and differences in
the sand control behavior of WWS and SL. WWS used in SAGD
applications that were designed based on the recommended
approach, have shown good sand control performance in
terms of minimal pressure build up with acceptable fines
production. Analysis of the formation sand from the field
distribution (PSD) than slotted liners. One WWS aperture
width can effectively control a wider range of particle size
distributions than a SL aperture width.
INTRODUCTION
Thermal heavy oil and bitumen recovery technology
is extensively used around the world. Sand production
continues to be a challenge due to the unconsolidated nature
of the majority of heavy oil and bitumen deposits such as the
oil sands in Western Canada. With depletion of high quality
oil sand deposits, the focus of industry has shifted towards
development of lower quality and/or finer oil sands.
Achieving maximum well productivity without excessive sand
production or plugging in such deposits requires new
technical solutions (not “one size fits all”) and a better

1
understanding of the reservoirs and the sand control
phenomena.
Slotted liners (SL), straight cut (SC) and rolled top (RT), have
been used extensively in SAGD operations in Canada due to
their cost and perceived mechanical strength and integrity in
contrast to other mechanical sand control devices. Sand
control is required due to the generally poor or
unconsolidated nature of the majority of formations in which
SAGD applications are conducted. SL are a relatively simple
and cost-effective well completion technique. However, long
term plugging of SL is a common problem (Cabeen and
Bernies, 1949; Bennion et al, 2008). Slot closure/opening and
collapse of liners due to installation loads, thermal cycle
loading and external pressure (Xie and Solvoll, 2009;
O’Rourke, 2010), liner expansion (Cavender et al, 2011),
formation damage (Tang et al, 2006) and scale (Brand, 2010)
are among other challenges when SL are used in steam
injection projects. A recent study of a failed SL shows the
plugging materials are iron hydroxide, iron sulfide and clay
(Romanova and Ma, 2013).
Wire wrapped screens (WWS) are used in oil, gas and water
wells around the world. Higher cost of WWS than SL, and
perceived issues with screen erosion, installation problems
and production of solids may be among the main issues why
WWS has not been used much in SAGD completions. Screens
erosion (Hamid and Ali, 1997; Gillespie and Jones, 2009),
screen installation (Mathiesen et al, 2007; Xie and Solvoll,
2009) and solids-related issues are reported elsewhere
(Furgier et al, 2013) and the need of laboratory testing and
screen testing (Constien and Skidmore, 2006; Chanpura et al,
2012) are discussed elsewhere. A few examples of the screen
applications in heavy oil recovery projects have been
reported (Toma et al, 1988; Islam and George, 1991;
Underdown and Chan, 2006).
A comparative study of WWS versus SL has been conducted
on the oil sand core material from the McMurray formation
located in Western Canada. “Fine” and “coarse” oil sands
were used in the study. Laboratory testing was conducted
under test conditions simulating SAGD. The paper describes
the detailed test procedure, differences in the sand control
behavior of WWS and SL and field data.
STUDY OBJECTIVE
The objective of the study was to investigate
performance of WWS samples and conventional SC and RT SL
by the means of laboratory testing. The primary use of the
knowledge would be for long horizontal, SAGD wells at high
temperature conditions in loosely or unconsolidated
sandstone formations. The most common application of
2
SAGD is presently in the Western Canadian Sedimentary
Basin (WCSB) where over 30 commercial and/or pilot
operations are currently being conducted. The technology
has also been used, or is being contemplated for use, in many
other locations worldwide including the US, Venezuela, Oman
and Kuwait.
A properly sized sand control device in horizontal well has to
exclude the coarser end of the sand distribution but also
minimize pressure drop across the sand control device that
can develop due to plugging and poorly sized apertures. As
gravity drainage is the main drive mechanism for the SAGD
process, high pressure drops across the production liner can
result in coning, steam breakthrough and poor steam
chamber growth and propagation. Excessive sand production
can also result in sand-in of the production wellbore,
necessitating expensive clean-outs or re-drills.
TEST PROCEDURES
Wet/Dry Sieve Analysis
Clean sand representative for the formation is used
in sand control testing. Prior to testing, the sand is in cleaned
by toluene in such a way that no fine particles (particles with
less than 44 micron diameter) are lost. Particle size
distribution (PSD) on the sand is determined before and after
cleaning. PSD is determined with wet/dry sieve analysis (API,
1989).
Sand Control Flow Tests
Weatherford Laboratories (Canada) has developed a
detailed multiphase test procedure for sand control testing
for SAGD applications (Bennion et al, 2007, 2008). The
procedure allows pressure tapped coupons of actual liner
material (SL, WWS or other sand control media) to be
mounted under simulated reservoir compaction conditions
with a reservoir sand pack. A schematic of the sand control
test apparatus is provided in Figure 1. Photographs of a SL
coupon and a WWS coupon are shown in Figure 2 and Figure
3, respectively. Coupon diameter is 6.36 cm. A typical SL
coupon has one slot. A typical WWS coupon is a flat piece
that has been flattened and cut from the cylindrical screen. It
has several apertures/slots.
Sand production and plugging effects at a range of oil, oil-
water, and oil-water-gas concurrent injection rates which
cover the expected range of production rates and conditions
that have the potential to occur over the life of a typical
SAGD thermal production well can be observed. To simulate
average thermal conditions of approximately 200 to 250°C
which occur in typical McMurray formation operations, a
refined mineral oil of 0.005 Pa·s viscosity was used in the
tests to simulate the bitumen phase. The tests are conducted
at ambient temperature (20°C) based on past work
conducted by Weatherford Labs (Canada), where it has been
determined that it is primarily the absolute viscosity value of
the in-situ oil that affects the sand production and plugging
character of a given sand control device, rather than the
specific temperature at which the tests are conducted.
Hence, using lower temperatures and a viscosity matched oil
allows the tests to be conducted much less expensively.
Nitrogen gas is used to simulate a point source steam
breakthrough and a formation water composition based on
the typical McMurray formation water analysis (1% NaCl) is
used for the water phase.
The tests are conducted in a steady-state fashion, attempting
to cover the range of single phase (oil only), two phase (oil
and water concurrently) and three phase (oil, water and
gas/steam concurrently) flow, which would approximate the
conditions to be expected over the life of a typical SAGD
production well. Test rates are calculated based on the actual
or projected field rates. A matrix of rates used in each SL or
WWS laboratory test is provided in Table 1. This matrix of
flow rates reflects the typical range of bitumen and water
production rates for most SAGD operations. The gas rates
simulate a point source steam breakthrough over an
approximately 5 meter long section of the liner. The same
rates are used for both the SL tests which contain only a
single slot in the apparatus and the WWS tests which contain
a complete screen section with 4-8 times the open area of a
SL. Due to many variables related to the flow regime in a
SAGD well pair, typical sand control tests in the lab are done
at essentially the same rates for both liners and screens.
Thus, the lower aperture velocity that occurs in the larger
surface area of a WWS versus SL completion is also simulated
in the testing program and the effective oil/water/gas
production rates are equivalent between the various slotted
and screen tests. The WWS test coupons have a ratio of
about seven times the flow area of the SL coupon. Taking
into account that percentage of flow for SL completions
typically has about 1 to 2% flow area, the ratios to WWS are:
• 10 gauge is 5.0 to 1
• 12 gauge is 5.9 to 1
• 16 gauge is 7.6 to 1
• 18 gauge is 8.3 to 1
This confirms that the test conditions are realistic versus field
conditions. Aperture and flow area for different tested sand
control media is shown in Table 2.
Nominal value of aperture in each coupon is measured prior
to testing. Tolerance is +/- 1 gauge.
3
Typical sand control device performance is based primarily on
experience (in evaluation of the performance in the
laboratory versus performance in the field of multiple
projects that Weatherford Laboratories (Canada) has
conducted in the past). Typical criteria for an acceptable sand
control device design are:
1. Total peak pressure drop across the sand control
device at maximum flow rates of oil/water/gas of
less than 35 kPa (or 5 psi).
2. Total granular solids production at any given rate
step in the test should not exceed 0.1 grams, and the
size of produced sand/solids should be colloidal clay
or material of < 50 microns in diameter.
Extensive past testing has shown that total solids exclusion
(trying to retain both the clay sized fines as well as the larger
sand grains) results in rapid and severe plugging and that the
best sand control device performance occurs when the
colloidal sized fines (< 50 microns) can easily pass through
both the porous media and the sand control device while the
larger grains bridge and are retained.
Epoxy Impregnation
Epoxy impregnation of the post-test core was done
in the study. Determination of the composition and particle
size distribution in the slots was performed on each sample.
Oxford INCA X-ray energy dispersive spectrometer (EDS) was
used for the compositional analysis of the material in the
slots. Mosaic images and images for particle size
measurement were taken using the backscattered electron
detector on the JEOL JSM-6610 scanning electron microscope
(SEM). An example of the epoxy impregnated posttest SL
coupon is shown in Figure 4.
CORE MATERIAL
The majority of SAGD operations to date have been
conducted in the McMurray sandstone formation. This sand
body is typically 150 to 450 meters in depth (too deep to
allow conventional surface mining), tends to be totally
unconsolidated in nature once heated, and typically contains
o
7-9 API gravity bitumen, with an initial viscosity at reservoir
conditions in excess of 2,000 Pa·s. To conduct this study, two
end members of typical McMurray formation sand were
used. PSD data for the oil sand characterized in this study as
the “finer” grain McMurray sample and the “coarser” grain
McMurray sample are presented in Figure 5 and Figure 6,
respectively. Typically oil sands are characterized based on
the amount of fines (particles with less than 44 micron
diameter), D50 (median particle size, D10 (diameter of
particles at which 90% of particles are of a smaller diameter)
and UC (uniformity coefficient or heterogeneity) coefficient Data on the top of slot/screen ΔP and amount of produced
which is determined as D40/D90. solids versus oil-water-gas injection rate obtained in the
study show the same trends as reported elsewhere (Bennion
Thus, the main characteristics of two sands are as follows: et al, 2007, 2008). In the beginning of a test when oil is
injected, very low ΔP and very small amount of produced
• “Fine” sand : 6.5 wt% of fines, D50 = 140 solids are observed for different sand control media. As soon
microns (0.006”), D10 = 236 microns (0.009”), as water is introduced to the injection fluid, top of
UC = 2.36 slot/screen ΔP and amount of produced solids increase;
• “Coarse” sand : 2.3 wt% of fines, D50 = 230 higher rates typically lead to higher ΔP and higher amount of
microns (0.009”), D10 = 473 microns (0.019”), produced solids. This phenomenon is believe to be related to
UC = 2.21 the wettability of Athabasca oil sand which is water wet or
moderately water wet (Takamura, 1982). Oil flow in a sand
The main characteristics of the sand from the Leismer pack normally does not move solids at these rates. Solids
Demonstration Project area where Statoil is producing migration of solids begins when water is injected with oil
bitumen from oil sands by SAGD, are as follows: causing an increase in ΔP and amount of produced solids. Oil-
water-gas injection regime simulates the “worst-case
• Leismer sand #1 : 5.4 wt% of fines, D50 = 178 scenario”: steam breakthrough. Introduction of gas may
microns (0.007”), D10 = 245 microns (0.010”), break sand arches/bridges on top of slot/screen if
UC = 1.78 arches/bridges are not stable. The last stage of the test is oil
• Leismer sand #2 : 5.0 wt% of fines, D50 = 162 injection. If partial plugging of the sand control media takes
microns (0.006"), D10 = 236 microns (0.009"), place, ΔP during oil injection at the end of the test is higher
UC = 2.63 than that in the beginning of the test. Figures 9, 10 and 11
and show the trends, in particular that ΔP during the oil
Particle size distribution for the Leismer sand # 1 and the injection regime is slightly higher than in the beginning of the
Leismer sand # 2 is respectively presented in Figure 7 and test and the difference is bigger for SC and RT than for WWS.
Figure 8. This confirms that some gradual plugging is occurring in the
SL during the test. Subsequent analysis (see later) shows that
Based on the particle size distribution, the Leismer sands are this is due to clay films that start to grow in the SL slot.
closer to the “fine” sand used in the laboratory study.
As shown in Table 4, the values of produced fines for
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 0.010”WWS, 0.012”WWS and 0.018” WWS are in the same
range and the values are very small. However, 0.020” WWS
“Fine” Sand shows the amount of produced fine solids approximately
ten times higher than that for other WWS during water-gas
The following 8 (eight) tests were conducted on the
injection regime showing that the sand arches/bridges are
“fine” sand:
not stable and would likely break during steam breakthrough.
1. SC - 0.010” , 0.018”;
The test results show that at an equivalent aperture opening
2. RT - 0.012” x 0.018”, 0.018” x 0.024;
size a WWS screen has substantively less pressure drop than
3. WWS - 0.010”, 0.012”, 0.018”, 0.020”.
a SC or RT of comparable aperture which is likely due to the
larger open area available for flow. The test results also show
The top of slot/screen differential pressure (ΔP) conducted
that a WWS with its larger keystone aspect ratio appears to
with the “fine” sand is presented in Figure 9 for SL and WWS
be far superior at clearing sand/plugging than a slotted liner.
of 0.010” entry value and in Figure 10 for SL and WWS of
As shown in Figure 10, 0.018” WWS has a lower top of
0.018” entry value. Comparison of top of sand control media
slot/screen ΔP than 0.018” SC and 0.012” x 0.018” RT during
ΔP data for all SL tests is presented in Figure 11. Comparison
oil-water, oil-water-gas injection regime and the last oil rate.
of top of sand control media ΔP for all WWS tests is
Post-test impregnation of the test samples clearly shows little
presented in Figure 12. Top of sand control media ΔP and
to no granular sand or clay retained in the wire wrapped
weight of produced fine solids for all tests conducted with
screen coupons in comparison to the SL tests.
“fine” sand are presented in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively.
Top of sand control media ΔP exceeding 5 psi and amount of
The test samples shows less solids and clay adhesion to the
produced solids exceeding 0.1 grams are shown in Red in the
surface of the WWS than with the SL, which is likely related
tables.
to surface smoothness, as the cold extruded wire in the WWS

4
is much smoother on a micro scale basis than that of a blade
cut slot. The extreme keystone aspect ratio present in the
WWS appears to also be much more effective at clearing
plugging solids and clay than the more limited keystone
aspect ratio in a SL type completion. Some illustrative photos
of the post-test cross sections of the slots and screens for the
fine grained sand clearly illustrate this phenomenon. To
create these images the post-test sand packs were
impregnated with thin section epoxy to “freeze” all of the
sand, clay and fines in place. The test coupon was then cut
perpendicular to the SL or WWS and a polished block thin
section was prepared and a scanning electron microscope
was then used to photograph the slot and its contents. Epoxy
impregnated 0.018” SC and 0.018” WWS are shown in Figure
13 and Figure 14, respectively.
A SEM image of the plugging material in 0.018” SC is shown in
Figure 15. Elemental analysis of the material in the slots
indicated that the large grains were quartz sand as expected,
the smaller more amorphous material that lines the slot walls
and plugs and fills in the interstitial space in the sand pack
was a mixture of clay (mostly kaolinite and illite, which are
the two dominant clays in the McMurray formation) as well
as iron (corrosion products) and clay sized silicate fines.
SEM images of the epoxy impregnated 0.018” WWS show
sand and clay bridges in 15% of screen entries (Figure 16)
while 85% of screens entries are open and unplugged
(Figure 17).
At an equivalent aperture diameter (with the exception of
the 0.018” WWS) the WWS produces more solids than the SC
or rolled top slot. The 0.020” WWS was run to determine the
upper threshold for sand control, and we saw massive sand
production at this screen size, so this would indicate that a
0.020” WWS would definitely be too large of a screen size for
this finer grained sand. This is to be expected given the larger
area to flow for WWS and thus a larger period of time
required for the formation of sand bridges/arches to cover all
slots in WWS. The previous images show that the production
of colloidal sized solids is desirable to prevent slot or screen
plugging – the question is – are all of the solids that are
produced on the smaller slot/screen aperture tests colloidal
sized clay material, or large sand grains which may result in
sanding of the horizontal well. To evaluate this, selected filter
papers from each rate that were used to collect and measure
the total mass of produced material were subjected to SEM
analysis on selected samples to allow a determination of the
particle size and composition of the solid material actually
produced through the slot or screen. The results of this
analysis are summarized in Table 4.
5
Observation of this data indicates, with the exception of the
0.020” WWS where massive sand production was observed,
that all of the solid material collected on the filter papers and
representing the solids passing through either the liner or the
screen, are colloidal size fines, typically with an average size
of less than 2 microns in diameter. In general the average size
of the colloidal fines passing through the wire wrapped
screens was slightly larger than those passing through the
straight cut or rolled top slots, once again indicative of the
superior solids clearing performance of the screens in
contrast to the slots. This is keeping with the fact that the SL
experience some build up/plugging of clay material which
reduces the effective aperture size and so will reduce the size
of solids that can pass. Typical images of produced fine solids
of colloidal type obtained by SEM at x 10,000 magnification
are shown in Figure 18. SEM images of produced fine solids
from the 0.018” x 0.024” RT test and from the 0.012” WWS
test are shown in Figure 18a and Figure 18b, respectively.
The results from this work suggest that both RT and WWS
could be implemented which would meet the pressure and
sand retention requirements for an acceptable sand control
device. The optimum SL design for this particular sand would
appear to be a 0.018” x 0.024” RT. For a WWS, a 0.018”
aperture appears to provide very good results as it has
comparable solids control to the 0.018” x 0.024” RT but the
WWS design has much lower pressure drops suggesting
superior overall performance from a sand control and flow
perspective. Analysis of the posttest SEM images also
suggests that the WWS will experience less built up of
clay/fines material and this will likely make them more
resistant to plugging in the long term. If an actual design
were contemplated based on this work, since the 0.018”
WWS aperture appears to be very close to the point of
significant sand production, as evidenced by the performance
of the 0.020” WWS, a more conservative design of perhaps
0.016” aperture on the WWS would be the practical
recommendation. The results clearly indicate that from solely
a reservoir pressure drop and sand control perspective that
WWS perform better than SL designs.
It should be pointed out that what is often reported as
"plugging" in high rate slurry tests may not be plugging at all
but is a geometry dependent measure of Darcy and non-
Darcy pressure loss. New laboratory and theoretical work
(Chanpura, Hodge et al, 2011; Chanpura, Fidan et al, 2011;
Larsen et al, 2012) shows however that plugging does not
occur when flowing reservoir sand at such correctly sized
screens in such conventional reservoirs. Plugging of screens
in such operations can occur only either under installation
due to poor design (poor filtrate control in mud / fluffy filter
cake, poorly screened running fluid, clay smearing,
settlement/sag of weighting material during suspension prior
to clean-up), due to down hole scaling or due to
redistribution and mixing of sands and fines in the partially
open annulus during production. This last mechanism of
transport and mixing in an open annulus can create a low
permeability "filter cake" that plugs screens. This mechanism
of annular transport/mixing is probably not prevalent for
SAGD operations where formation collapse is believed to
occur after the liner/screen has seen first thermal cycle (from
steaming). However, the lab tests discussed here show
another mechanism for "plugging" that appears not to be an
issue for more conventional reservoirs that have used WWS -
where microfilms of clay start to grow on the surface of slots
and then grows back to mix with coarser sands bridging
across aperture. It may be that the intrinsic properties of
WWS, such as its aspect ratio of the keystone shape and
surface smoothness of the wire, make WWS less susceptible
to this plugging than slots. Alternatively it may be due to the
nature of clays and heavy oil that such clays are much more
"sticky" than mobile clays.
“Coarse” Sand
The following 8 (eight) tests were conducted on the
“coarse” sand:
1. SC - 0.016”, 0.020”, 0.028”;
2. RT - 0.018” x 0.024” ;
3. WWS - 0.010”, 0.012”, 0.016”, 0.020”.
Top of sand control media delta P and solids production
values from the eight tests conducted on the “coarse” sand
are respectively presented in Table 6 and Table 7. Top of sand
control media ΔP exceeding 5 psi and amount of produced
solids exceeding 0.1 grams are shown in Red in the tables.
Evaluation of the data indicates that the case for WWS over
SL is not quite as clear cut and definitive for this higher
permeability sand as it was for the previous finer facies, as
this sand has less clay and less plugging tendencies than that
in the finer sand.
Results of the 0.020” and 0.028” SC tests show minor sand
production but no major plugging. The amount of produced
sand is only slightly over what would be considered to be the
acceptable threshold. Any of these SC designs could be used
in the field with success including the 0.028” SC without
taking into consideration corrosion issues.
Some solids production is detected for the 0.020” WWS. So
this would be the biggest aperture for the “coarse” sand for a
screen. However, the pressure differential is about the same
or less for WWS than for SL, even though the WWS aperture
is much smaller than that the SL design. It can be seen that
top of slot pressure drop increases at 0.016” aperture
6
indicating that the plugging threshold for this sand is around
this area.
The results of the WWS tests show consistently lower
pressure drops at sizes all the way down to 0.010” than
observed for the 0.016” SC slot. This indicates that the WWS
has superior flow performance than SC designs, even at
significantly smaller entry aperture sizes. Solids production
for all of the WWS design, with the exception of some minor
sand production for the 0.020” WWS, is minimal and well
within specifications for an acceptable design. Detailed
particle size analysis on the effluents via SEM was not
conducted for this facies in light of the consistent data for the
“fine” sand indicating that only colloidal clay sized fines were
capable of passing through the sand control devices.
Physical post-test imaging was conducted on all of the slots
and screens used in the study. Evaluation of the image data
suggests less retention of fines and clays in the straight cut
slots in contrast to the finer grained sand facies tested
previously. This would be consistent with the lower clay
content of the coarser grained facies sand. Almost no
evidence of sand or clay retention is present in the screen
samples that were imaged, once again supporting the utility
of the use of screens vs. slots in this situation.
The results suggest that a 0.018” x 0.024” RT provides good
sand control and pressure drop performance, however,
comparable or superior sand control can be obtained and
lower pressure drops maintained down to WWS design as
small as 0.010” for this sand, allowing a much wider window
of acceptable sand control aperture design for the screens
versus the slots.
It should be noted in conclusion that this work has been
designed solely to evaluate the performance of SL
completions versus WWS completions from a reservoir
viewpoint. Other factors will need to be taken into
consideration in the overall decision of which technology is
most appropriate for a given field application including;
1. The variability of the formation grain size across the
SAGD well pads and down the length of the
horizontal well – the results suggest that
considerably smaller WWS apertures can be used
which provide comparable or better pressure drop
performance than a SL of the same aperture. This
means in highly variable sand that WWS may
potentially be a superior choice as a smaller
aperture could be used that would exclude both the
fine and coarser grained sands while still maintaining
good ΔP performance in contrast to the same size of
slot that might be required.

2. Well trajectory and hole condition – both factors can
impact mechanical integrity of the SL vs. WWS
completion during deployment and subsequent sand
control integrity during production operations.
3. Performance during thermal cycle loading.
4. Resistance to corrosion and erosion.
FIELD DATA
Statoil operates 23 SAGD well pairs on 4 pads in the
Leismer Demonstration Project. Typical horizontal well length
is 680 - 780 m. Several different lower completion
configurations are trialed. Sand samples from different part
of the pads were tested and analyzed. The analysis showed
that WWS are less dependent on PSDs than slotted liners.
One WWS aperture width could effectively control a wider
range of PSDs than a SL aperture width. Eight of the
producers were completed with 0.010” WWS with 9 m screen
jacket length and 8% open area whereas RT slotted liners
with 11 m slot length were run in the remaining 15 producers
(both 0.014" x 0.018" for fine sand and 0.017" x 0.020" for
coarser sand). Area open to flow for the slotted liners is 1.5%.
All injectors were completed with 0.013" SC slotted liners
with 1% open flow area. All slotted liner wells were
completed with L80 steel alloy. The 8 WWS wells were
completed with L80 steel alloy base pipe and wrapped with
304L stainless steel wires. The Leismer Demonstration Project
well layout is presented in Figure 19.
First production was January 2011 from pad 1, with
production from pad 2 following straight after. Production
from pads 3 & 4 then followed a few months later. The last
downhole electric submersible pump (ESP) was installed in
June 2011. Consequently there is currently about 2.5-3 years
of production data. A comparison of the relative
performance between SL and WWS was performed after
approximately 1 year of production. This concluded that all
producers were performing well with low ΔP between SAGD
well pairs. Some performance variability was seen across
completion type and pad location but due to the low
drawdowns and inherent measurement inaccuracies, no
substantial differences in performance or production trend
were observable after this short period of production. Figure
20 shows a comparison of the productivity index grouped
according to completion type (no scale given on figure).
At the time of writing the drawdown is typically low, in the
100-250 kPa region for all wells. However, differences in
trends between WWS and SL wells are now being observed.
Most of WWS wells show a drawdown of approximately 100
7
kPa and all show consistent drawdown with time except for
one well with a slightly higher drawdown of 150 kPa. The
majority of SL producers have started to show a gradual
increasing drawdown with time – with the majority operating
at drawdowns of between 200 and 250 kPa. The trends are
not constant and this could be indicative of gradual plugging.
Figure 21 shows the development in the pressure differential
against time for two example wells (SL and WWS) from the
same pad after almost 3 years of production. The example is
representative of two of the wells with better quality data.
Downhole pressures are measured using bubble tubes with
inherent uncertainties and inaccuracies. With time we expect
trends to become clearer as we can more confidently
attribute any observed drawdown trends to liner
performance. The extra pressure drop experienced in the SL
completions is not significant at the moment and does not
appear to have had a large impact on production – however,
if this trend continues, it is unclear how any increase in
drawdown will impact the inflow profile and the control of
the sub cool temperature, steam breakthrough and steam
chamber development.
CONCLUSIONS
A comparative study of WWS versus SL has been
conducted on fine and coarse oil sands from under test
conditions simulating SAGD. The study shows that:
1. WWS outperforms both SC and RT slotted liners
from a plugging (flow performance) perspective.
2. There is significant build-up of debris e.g. clay/fines
on the underside of both SC and RT designs. Minimal
build-up is found on the WWS.
3. Solids production for WWS is marginally higher than
for SL at the same aperture width. This is related to
the higher plugging tendency of SL that reduces
effective aperture and captures more fines and a
larger open flow area of WWS.
4. The clay/fines portion of the reservoir sand should
be produced to minimize plugging.
5. WWS designs, even with smaller aperture width,
have a lower pressure drop than SL, particularly in a
multi-phase environment.
6. The smaller aperture width of the WWS results in an
effective sand control design.
7. Analysis of sand samples across the field show that
WWS are less dependent on PSD than SL. One WWS
aperture width can effectively control a wider range
of PSDs than a SL aperture width. This can reduce
operational risk and cost of SAGD projects for lower
quality oil sand reservoirs.
8. After one year of production the comparison of the
productivity index between SL and WWS indicates
 no apparent difference. After 2.5-3 years of
production, the field data show that the majority of
the SL producers have started to show a gradual
increasing drawdown of 200 - 250 kPa against time
and that this could be indicative of gradual plugging.
The WWS producers show a stable drawdown of
100 kPa.
The major drawback of a SL design is the relatively small
effective open area on the liner surface versus WWS, which
typically have 4 to 8 times more open flow area. WWS, in
addition to larger open surface area and better dispersed
flow paths around the liner, are constructed of smooth
surfaced extruded wire of a triangular cross section that
provides an extreme keystone aspect ratio of the aperture
which results in better release of fines being produced. The
WWS has corrosion resistant stainless steel wires (304L or
316L); in contrast to J55, K55 or L80 steel alloys that are
typically used for SL completions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors like to express their gratitude to
late Dr. D.B. Bennion for the contribution to the study. The
authors would also like to thank GR Petrology Consultants
and Calgary Rock and Materials for the petrographic work.
Many thanks also to Scott Thompson for his input on field
data from Leismer Demonstration Project.
NOMENCLATURE
API = American Petroleum Institute
ΔP = Differential Pressure
EDS = Energy Dispersive Spectrometry
ESP = Electric Submersible Pump
PSD = Particle Size Distribution
RT = Rolled Top
SAGD = Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage
SEM = Scanning Electron Microscopy
SC = Straight Cut
SL = Slotted Liner
WCSB = Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin
WS = Wire Wrapped Screen
REFERENCES
API Recommended Practices for Testing High Strength
Proppants Used in Hydraulic Fracturing Operations (1989),
Recommended Practice 60, American Petroleum Institute,
First Edition, February, 1989.
Bennion, D.B., Ma, T., Thomas, F.B., and Romanova, U.G.
Laboratory Procedures for Optimizing the Recovery from High
8
Temperature Thermal Heavy Oil and Bitumen Recovery
Operations. Paper 2007-206, Canadian International
Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 12 –
14, 2007.
Bennion, D.B., Gupta, S., Gittins, S., and Hollies, D. Protocols
for Slotted Liner Design for Optimum SAGD Operations. Paper
2008-186, Canadian International Petroleum Conference,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 17 – 19, 2008.
Brand, S. Results from Acid Stimulation in Lloydminster SAGD
Applications. SPE paper 126311, SPE International
Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage, Lafayette,
Louisiana, USA, February 10-12, 2010.
Cabeen, W.R. and Bernies, E.G. Field Performance of Sand-
Control Liners in California, American Petroleum Institute,
SPE paper 49-271.
Cavender, T., Hunter, T., and Pipkin, R. Method of Minimizing
Liner Expansion in Horizontal Thermal Applications. SPE paper
150493, SPE Heavy Oil Conference and Exhibition in Kuwait,
Kuwait City, Kuwait, December 12-14, 2011.
Chanpura, R.A., Hodge, R.M., Andrews, J.S., Toffanin, E.P.,
Moen, T., and Parlar, M. A Review of Screen Selection for
Standalone Alpplications and a New Methodology, SPE paper
127931-PA, SPE Drilling and Completions Journal, Volume 26,
Number 1, March 2011.
Chanpura, R.A., Fidan, S., Mondal, S., Andrews, J.S., Martin,
F., Hodge, R.M., Ayoub, J.A., Parlar, M., and Sharma, M.M.
Advancements in Screen Testing, Interpretation and
Modeling for Standalone Screen Applications, SPE paper
143731 presented at SPE European Formation Damage
Conference, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, June 7-10, 2011.
Chanpura, R.A., Fidan, S., Mondal, S., Andrews, J. S., Martin,
F., Hondge, R.M., Ayoub, J.A., Parlar, M., and Sharma, M.M.
New Analytical and Statistical Approach for Estimating and
Analyzing Sand Production Through Wire-Wrap Screens
During a Sand-Retention Test, SPE paper 143731-PA, SPE
Drilling and Completion Journal, Volume 27, Number 3,
September 2012.
Constien, V. and Skidmore, V. Standalone Screen Selection
Using Performance Mastercurves, SPE paper 98363, SPE
International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation
Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, February 15-17,
2006.
Gillespie, G. and Jones, C. Sand Control Screen Erosion –
When Are You at Risk? SPE paper 122269-MS, 8th European
Formation Damage Conference, Scheveningen, The
Netherlands, May 27-29, 2009.
Furgier, J.-N., Viguerie, B., Aubry, E. and Rivet, P. Stand Alone
Screens: What Key Parameters are Really Important for a
Successful Design? SPE Paper 165170-MS presented at SPE
European Conference and Exhibition on Formation Damage,
Noordwijk, The Netherlands, June 5-7, 2013.
Hamid, S. and Ali, S.A. Causes of Sand Control Screen Failures
and Their Remedies, SPE paper 38190-MS, SPE European
Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, Netherlands,
June 2-3, 1997.
Islam, M.R. and George, A.E. Sand Control in Horizontal Wells
in Heavy Oil Reservoirs, SPE paper 18789-PA, Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology, Volume 43, Number 7, July
1991.
Larsen, O.S., Fjellstad, V., Mathisen, A.M., Andrews, J.S.,
Joranson, H., and Aas, B. New Sand Retention Test Setup
Exhibits No Plugging Tendencies With Various Screen Types
Using Non-uniform Test Sand, SPE paper 151346 presented at
SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation
Damage Control, Lafayette, USA, February 15-17, 2012.
Mathiesen, A.M., Aastveit, G.L. and Alteras, E. Successful
Installation of Stand Alone Screens in more than 200 Wells –
the Imprortance of Screen Selection Process and Fluid
Qualification, SPE paper 107539-MS, SPE European Formation
Damage Conference, Scheveningen, The Netherlands, May 30
– June 1, 2007.
O’Rourke, J.C. The Potential for Slot Closure, Screen Damage,
and Collapse of Liners in Thermal Horizontal Wells. SPE paper
9
136871, Canadian Unconventional Resources and
International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, October 19-21, 2010.
Romanova, U.G. and Ma, T. An Investigation of the Plugging
Mechanisms in a Slotted Liner from the Steam Assisted
Gravity Operations. SPE paper 165111-MS, SPE European
Formation Damage Conference and Exhibition, Noordwijk,
The Netherlands June 5-7, 2013.
Takamura, K. Microscopic Structure of Athabasca Oil Sand,
Can. J. Chem.Eng., 1982, Vol. 60, Issue 4, pp. 538-545.
Tang, Yu., Yildiz, T., Ozkan, E., and Kelkar, M. Effects of
Formation Damage and High-Velocity Flow on the
Productivity of Slotted-Liner Completed Horizontal Wells. SPE
paper 101987-MS, International Oil & Gas Conference and
Exhibition in China, Beijing, China, December 5-7, 2006.
Toma, P., Liesey, D., and Heidrick, T. 1988. New Sand-Control
Filter for Thermal Recovery Wells, paper 15057-PA, SPE
Journal of Production Engineering, Volume 3, Number 2, May
1988.
Underdown, D. and Chan, H. 2006. A Critical Evaluation of
Sand Control Completions in the Duri Steam Flood, Sumatra,
Indonesia. SPE Paper 103821-MS presented at the
International Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition in China,
December 5 – 7, 2006, Beijing, China.
Xie, J. and Solvoll, T.A. 2009. Optimization of Sand Control
Liner Designs for Leismer SAGD Demonstration Horizontal
Wells. World Heavy Oil Congress, Venezuela, November 3-5.
Paper 2009-352.
 Table 1. Matrix of rates used in SL and WWS sand control tests

Oil Rate Water Rate Gas Rate Oil Rate Oil Rate Water Rate Water Rate Steam Rate Steam Rate
cc/hr cc/hr cc/hr m3/day bbl/day m3/day bbl/day m3/day bbl/day
40 0 0 120 755 0 0 0 0
80 0 0 240 1510 0 0 0 0
120 0 0 360 2264 0 0 0 0
160 0 0 480 3019 0 0 0 0
160 80 0 480 3019 240 1510 0 0
160 160 0 480 3019 480 3019 0 0
160 240 0 480 3019 720 4529 0 0
160 320 0 480 3019 960 6038 0 0
160 320 10000 480 3019 960 6038 150 944
160 320 20000 480 3019 960 6038 300 1887
160 320 30000 480 3019 960 6038 450 2831
160 0 0 480 3019 0 0 0 0

Table 2. Aperture and flow area for different tested sand control media

Sand Control Aperture Flow Area

Media inch square inch
Straight Cut Liner 0.010 0.0189
0.012 0.0227
0.016 0.0302
0.018 0.0340
0.020 0.0378
Rolled Top Liner 0.018 0.0340
Wire Wrapped Screen 0.010 0.1403
0.012 0.1651
0.016 0.2118
0.020 0.2551

Table 3. Top of sand control media delta P for “fine” sand

Oil, Water, Gas 0.010" 0.018" 0.012" x 0.018" 0.018" x 0.024" 0.010" 0.012" 0.018" 0.020"
Rate SC SC RT RT WWS WWS WWS WWS
cc/hr psi psi psi psi psi psi psi psi
40, 0, 0 0.14 0.15 0.02 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.05 0.03
80, 0, 0 0.26 0.25 0.03 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.06 0.04
120, 0, 0 0.26 0.25 0.04 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.06 0.05
160, 0, 0 0.32 0.30 0.05 0.25 0.23 0.17 0.07 0.06
160, 80, 0 0.28 1.05 0.34 0.28 0.40 0.28 0.13 0.03
160, 160, 0 0.57 1.43 0.47 0.42 0.50 0.33 0.20 0.04
160, 240, 0 0.75 1.86 0.33 0.50 0.56 0.41 0.21 0.07
160, 320, 0 0.82 1.80 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.44 0.25 0.08
160, 320, 10000 3.60 2.47 1.92 1.39 0.77 0.93 0.33 0.25
160, 320, 20000 4.20 2.52 2.26 1.60 1.16 1.01 0.39 0.28
160, 320, 30000 5.26 2.64 2.38 1.70 1.34 1.12 0.45 0.25
160, 0 , 0 1.74 1.18 0.49 0.69 0.50 0.44 0.14 0.13

10
 Table 4. Weight of produced solids for “fine” sand

Oil, Water, Gas 0.010" 0.018" 0.012" x 0.018" 0.018" x 0.024" 0.010" 0.012" 0.018" 0.020"
Rate SC SC RT RT WWS WWS WWS WWS
cc/hr grams grams grams grams grams grams grams grams
40, 0, 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.03
80, 0, 0 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02
120, 0, 0 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01
160, 0, 0 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.02
160, 80, 0 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.02
160, 160, 0 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.01
160, 240, 0 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.02
160, 320, 0 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.01 0.07
160, 320, 10000 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.03 0.13
160, 320, 20000 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.27
160, 320, 30000 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.87
160, 0 , 0 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02

Table 5. Particle size data for solids produced in sand control tests with “fine” sand

Sample ID Mean Mode Median Max Min Standard

microns microns microns microns microns Deviation
0.018" x 0.024" RT, 160/320/167 2.98 0.12 0.96 32.8 0.06 4.94
0.018" SC, 160/320/167 0.29 0.43 0.20 3.25 0.03 0.28
0.018" x 0.026" RT, 160/160 0.42 0.15 0.31 2.16 0.04 0.34
0.020" WWS, 160/320/500 98.4 5.43 99.8 321 4.75 70.0
0.020" WWS, 160/320/167 0.70 0.15 0.35 17.6 0.05 1.13
0.020' WWS, 160/320 1.01 0.23 0.34 12.9 0.04 1.66
0.012" WWS, 160/80 0.99 0.31 0.41 25.7 0.07 1.98
0.012" WWS, 160/320/167 2.69 0.14 0.31 60.1 0.10 6.49
0.010" WWS, 160/320/167 3.78 1.54 1.04 54.8 0.15 6.84
0.010" WWS, 160/80 5.63 0.47 2.72 49.4 0.16 6.93
0.010" SC, 160/320/500 0.28 0.10 0.20 1.41 0.05 0.22
0.012" x 0.018" RT, 160/320/167 1.39 0.09 0.79 18.1 0.05 1.98
0.018" WWS, 160/80 1.30 0.38 0.44 41.5 0.04 3.24
0.018" WWS, 160/320/167 0.24 0.17 0.18 1.37 0.03 0.19

Table 6. Top of sand control media delta P for “coarse” sand

Oil, Water, Gas 0.016" 0.020" 0.028" 0.018" x 0.024" 0.010" 0.012" 0.016" 0.020"
Rate SC SC SC RT WWS WWS WWS WWS
cc/hr psi psi psi psi psi psi psi psi
40, 0, 0 0.19 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.15 0.04 0.07 0.06
80, 0, 0 0.32 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.21 0.08 0.15 0.10
120, 0, 0 0.41 0.20 0.19 0.05 0.27 0.09 0.21 0.20
160, 0, 0 0.48 0.27 0.28 0.08 0.29 0.13 0.30 0.27
160, 80, 0 0.65 0.45 0.30 0.04 0.46 0.15 0.33 0.45
160, 160, 0 0.72 0.47 0.32 0.05 0.49 0.18 0.38 0.47
160, 240, 0 0.78 0.49 0.32 0.08 0.52 0.18 0.43 0.49
160, 320, 0 0.94 0.53 0.35 0.09 0.55 0.20 0.55 0.53
160, 320, 10000 1.22 0.55 0.41 0.50 0.74 0.31 0.57 0.55
160, 320, 20000 1.37 0.57 0.44 0.52 0.81 0.32 0.61 0.57
160, 320, 30000 1.60 0.60 0.43 0.59 0.91 0.35 0.61 0.60
160, 0 , 0 0.34 0.44 0.12 0.12 0.32 0.50 0.50 0.44

11
 Table 7. Weight of produced solids for “coarse” sand

Oil, Water, Gas 0.016" 0.020" 0.028" 0.018" x 0.024" 0.010" 0.012" 0.016" 0.020"
Rate SC SC SC RT WWS WWS WWS WWS
cc/hr grams grams grams grams grams grams grams grams
40, 0, 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
80, 0, 0 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
120, 0, 0 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00
160, 0, 0 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02
160, 80, 0 0.03 0.07 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.07
160, 160, 0 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.04
160, 240, 0 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.03
160, 320, 0 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.02
160, 320, 10000 0.04 0.10 0.13 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.10
160, 320, 20000 0.03 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.09
160, 320, 30000 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.05
160, 0 , 0 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01

Figure 1. Schematic of sand control test apparatus

12
 Figure 2. Photograph of a slotted liner coupon

Figure 3. Photograph of a wire wrapped screen coupon

13
 Visualization
Impregnated and Sectioned Post Test Coupon
Sandpack above Slot

Sample is impregnated
With thin section epoxy
Under stress and then
Sectioned to allow
Evaluation of the
Morphology of the slot
Liner Or screen and bridging
Or plugging materials
Pressure Tap On a post test basis via
Above Slot Scanning Electron
Cross Section Microscope (SEM)
Of Slot

Figure 4. Photograph of an epoxy impregnated slotted liner coupon

14
 Coarse Medium Fine Very Fine
Pebble Sand Sand Sand Sand Silt & Clay

0.9

0.8

0.7

Mass Fraction
0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
2000 1000 425 250 150 106 75 62.5 53 44.2 -44.2

Particle Size (micron)

Particle US Screen Particle Size Retained Cumulative STATISTICAL DATA

Category No. Microns Fraction Fraction Median Particle Size, µm:
Pebble 10 2000 0.000 0.000 140.3 µm
18 1000 0.001 0.001 Mean Particle Size, µm:
Coarse Sand 40 425 0.003 0.004 166.5 µm
Medium Sand 60 250 0.044 0.048 SLOT SIZING
Fine Sand 100 150 0.372 0.420 D-10 Size: 235.9 µm
140 106 0.364 0.783 ( 0.009 inch)
Very Fine Sand 200 75 0.094 0.877 2 X D-10: 471.9 µm
230 62.5 0.031 0.908 ( 0.019 inch)
Silt & Clay 270 53 0.008 0.916 D-50 Size: 140.3 µm
325 44.2 0.019 0.935 ( 0.006 inch)
< 325 -44.2 0.065 1.000 Heterogeneity Coefficient
C = 2.36

Figure 5. Particle size distribution for “fine” grain McMurray oil sand

Coarse Mediu Fine Very

Pebble Sand m Sand Sand Fine Silt & Clay

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
Mass Fraction

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
2000 1000 425 250 150 106 75 62.5 53 44.2 -44.2
Particle Size (micron)

Particle US Screen Particle Size Retained Cumulative STATISTICAL DATA

Category No. Microns Fraction Fraction Median Particle Size, µm:
Pebble 10 2000 0.000 0.000 229.7 µm
18 1000 0.005 0.005 Mean Particle Size, µm:
Coarse Sand 40 425 0.104 0.109 308.1 µm
Medium Sand 60 250 0.314 0.422 SLOT SIZING
Fine Sand 100 150 0.382 0.805 D-10 Size: 472.9 µm
140 106 0.134 0.938 ( 0.019 inch)
Very Fine Sand 200 75 0.032 0.970 2 X D-10: 945.9 µm
230 62.5 0.007 0.977 ( 0.037 inch)
Silt & Clay 270 53 0.004 0.981 D-50 Size: 229.7 µm
325 44.2 0.000 0.976 ( 0.009 inch)
< 325 -44.2 0.024 1.000 Heterogeneity Coefficient
C = 2.21

Figure 6. Particle size distribution for “coarse” grain McMurray oil sand

15
 Coarse Medium Fine Very Fine
Pebble Sand Sand Sand Sand Silt & Clay

0.9

0.8

0.7

Mass Fraction
0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
2000 1000 425 250 150 106 75 62.5 53 44.2 -44.2

Particle Size (micron)

Particle US Screen Particle Size Retained Cumulative STATISTICAL DATA

Category No. Microns Fraction Fraction Median Particle Size, µm:
Pebble 10 2000 0.000 0.000 177.6 µm
18 1000 0.002 0.002 Mean Particle Size, µm:
Coarse Sand 40 425 0.006 0.008 192.3 µm
Medium Sand 60 250 0.065 0.073 SLOT SIZING
Fine Sand 100 150 0.591 0.663 D-10 Size: 245.4 µm
140 106 0.254 0.917 ( 0.01 inch)
Very Fine Sand 200 75 0.057 0.974 2 X D-10: 490.7 µm
230 62.5 0.012 0.986 ( 0.019 inch)
Silt & Clay 270 53 0.005 0.991 D-50 Size: 177.6 µm
325 44.2 0.004 0.995 ( 0.007 inch)
< 325 -44.2 0.005 1.000 Heterogeneity Coefficient
C = 1.78

Figure 7. Particle size distribution for Leismer sand # 1

Coarse Medium Fine Very Fine

Pebble Sand Sand Sand Sand Silt & Clay

0.9

0.8

0.7
Mass Fraction

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
2000 1000 425 250 150 106 75 62.5 53 44.2 -44.2

Particle Size (micron)

Particle US Screen Particle Size Retained Cumulative STATISTICAL DATA

Category No. Microns Fraction Fraction Median Particle Size, µm:
Pebble 10 2000 0.000 0.000 161.5 µm
18 1000 0.000 0.000 Mean Particle Size, µm:
Coarse Sand 40 425 0.002 0.002 181.7 µm
Medium Sand 60 250 0.022 0.024 SLOT SIZING
Fine Sand 100 150 0.538 0.562 D-10 Size: 235.9 µm
140 106 0.228 0.790 ( 0.009 inch)
Very Fine Sand 200 75 0.095 0.885 2 X D-10: 471.8 µm
230 62.5 0.029 0.914 ( 0.019 inch)
Silt & Clay 270 53 0.019 0.933 D-50 Size: 161.5 µm
325 44.2 0.017 0.950 ( 0.006 inch)
< 325 -44.2 0.050 1.000 Heterogeneity Coefficient
C = 2.63

Figure 8. Particle size distribution for Leismer sand # 2

16
 6.0

5.0

4.0
Top dP, psi

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

Oil - water - gas injection rate, cc/hr

0.010" SC 0.010" WWS

Figure 9. “Fine sand”: top of slot/screen differential pressure for SL and WWS of 0.010” entry value

6.0

5.0

4.0
Top dP, psi

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

Oil - water - gas injection rate, cc/hr

0.018" SC 0.012" x 0.018" RT 0.018" WWS

Figure 10. “Fine” sand: top of slot/screen differential pressure for SL and WWS of 0.018” entry value

17
 6.0

5.0

4.0
Top dP, psi

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

Oil - water - gas injection rate, cc/hr

0.010" SC 0.018" SC 0.012" x 0.018" RT 0.018" x 0.024" RT

Figure 11. “Fine” sand: top of slot differential pressure for all SL tests

6.0

5.0

4.0
Top dP, psi

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

Oil - water - gas injection rate, cc/hr

0.010" WWS 0.012" WWS 0.018" WWS 0.020" WWS

Figure 12. “Fine” sand: top of screen differential pressure for all WWS tests

18
 0.018” SC Slot Post Test Image
Sandpack
Above Slot

Clay Films on
Slot Wall

Partial Plug inside

Slot of sand grains
And clay/fines

Figure 13. “Fine” sand: 0.018” SC after epoxy impregnation; arrows: yellow – quartz,
purple - iron, green - clay

0.018” WWS Post Test Image

Very Minimal Sand/Clay Solids Retention Observed in

17 out of 20 Screen Cross Sections That Were
Evaluated

Figure 14. “Fine” sand: 0.018” WWS after epoxy impregnation; red arrows - epoxy

19
 Figure 15. “Fine” sand: 0.018” SC – high magnification image of clay film on slot wall;
arrows: purple – iron, red – epoxy, green - clay

Figure 16. “Fine” sand: 0.018” WWS after epoxy impregnation - 15% of screen entries showing bridging and
clay retention; arrows: purple – iron, red – epoxy, yellow – quartz, green – iron oxide

Figure 17. “Fine” sand: 0.018” WWS after epoxy impregnation - 85% of screen entries
are open and unplugged

20
 a)

b)
Figure 18. “Fine” sand: produced fine solids from 0.018” x 0.024” RT test, 160/320/10,000 cc/hr rate (a)
and 0.012” WWS test, 160/320/10,000 cc/hr rate (b), x 10,000 magnification

21
 Figure 19. Leismer Demonstration Project well layout

Figure 20: Comparison of the productivity index after one year’s production grouped
according to completion type

22
 500
Wire-wrap screen
400 Slotted Liner
Injector
to
300
Producer
Pressure
Differential/ 200
Drawdown
(kPa)
100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Elapsed time on production (months)

Figure 21. Injection- production pressure differential for SL and WWS

23

View publication stats