SPE 86463
The Role of the Annular Gap in Expandable Sand Screen Completions
J. Heiland, J. Cook, A. Johnson, B. Jeffryes, Schlumberger Cambridge Research
Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition
on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, U.S.A., 18–20 February 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
When an expandable sand screen is installed, the gap between
the outside of the screen and the rock can vary from zero
upwards. The gap is influenced by the state of the hole after
drilling, subsequent logging or completion operations, and the
natures of the screen and expansion process. This paper
describes experiments and modelling undertaken to help
understand and clarify the impact of the gap on the short- and
long-term integrity of the completion.
Experiments measuring hole closure showed that the
presence of a screen always improved hole stability relative to
that of the open hole; this benefit was reduced when there was
a significant annular gap. This conclusion was supported by
rock deformation modelling, which showed that for a screen
with relatively low radial stiffness, a very small or zero gap
was best, while a stiff screen could tolerate a slightly larger
gap, up to a few millimeters. In both cases this is to allow
mobilization of rock strength through yielding. Gaps larger
than this allow the rock to break up, potentially leading to
point-loading or erosion problems. Modelling of the transport
of liquid and sand showed that a smaller gap reduces annulus
liquid velocity, ultimately to the point where sand transport
(and potential erosion) no longer occurs. It also identified
conditions that could compromise the long-tem integrity of the
screen, such as blocked screen sections or regions of enlarged
gap, which generate persistent regions of concentrated flow
through the screen wall, again potentially leading to
erosion problems.
The experiments were carried out using a newly developed
bistable sand screen1. This has been designed to conform as
closely as possible to the borehole wall, and have a very low
deployment force, but the conclusions are equally applicable
to other types of screen.
Introduction
When an expandable sand screen is installed in a reservoir
section, the gap between the outside of the screen and the rock
can vary from zero to a significant fraction of the well
diameter. The gap is influenced by the state of the hole after
drilling (diameter, rugosity, tortuosity etc.,), the nature of the
screen, and the nature of any expansion process used (for
example, expansion of a plastically-deforming pipe with a
fixed size of mandrel is likely to leave a gap in boreholes
larger than the design size, while a more compliant expansion
system would be expected to push to pipe into closer
conformity with the borehole wall). The gap is likely to vary
with position along the well, and with time. The presence of a
gap could influence the short- and long-term integrity of the
completion in a number of ways, through its effect on yielding
and failure of the formation around the screen, and by offering
an annular route along the well for fluids or solids:
1. Yield and failure of the formation could result in large
loads being applied to the screen, as yielded material or
fragments are pushed against it. This loading could be
uniformly distributed around the screen, or not. If it exceeded
the rating of the screen in the appropriate configuration, the
screen would collapse, reducing production, blocking access
to the upstream part of the well, and potentially rupturing the
sand exclusion material;
2. Yield and failure could also release matrix grains or
fines from the rock. If these mix and settle around the screen,
they may plug the screen and cause a reduction in
well productivity;
3. If loose grains or fines can move along the annulus,
they may be accelerated in the flow there to such an extent that
they erode the screen or other components;
4. Yielded rock, if it stays in place, may have a lower
permeability than intact rock, leading to higher skin and
reduced productivity.
5. Even if there is no mechanical damage to the formation,
a gap allows fluid transport along the well. This means that
that proper assessment of inflow is difficult - for example, it
may be impossible to determine the points of water influx -
and subsequent workover treatments would also cause trouble.
There have already been a number of investigations of the
collapse and production behaviour of expandable screens (and
non-expandable ones). Willson et al2 concluded that the
behaviour of expandable screens was complex, but that
comprehensive finite element modelling could give enough
assurance of the integrity of the installation. Jones3 showed,
using simple yield models, how the yielded zone around a
2 SPE 86463
wellbore can influence productivity, and modify the loading
on the screen. Jones et al4 modelled the productivity and
inflow performance of different completions and found
significant advantages in the higher internal diameters allowed
by expandable screens. Inflow performance of screens has
also been studied; for example, Yildiz5 investigated the
influence of factors such as skin values, selective stimulation
and blank pipe distribution on short and long term production.
This paper reports experiments and modelling designed to
assess the effects of the gap on the short- and long-term
integrity of the completion. It examines the response of both a
transverse cross-section of the well and screen (looking at
closure and collapse behaviour), and an axial section (looking
at transport along the well and screen). The first of these is
through both experiments and modelling, the second through
modelling alone (since it was not possible to construct a
sufficiently long experimental wellbore).
Transverse Section - experimental
The problem here is to examine how the gap affects the
closure and collapse behaviour. This has been done
experimentally by installing short lengths of full-size screens
in simulated boreholes in rock samples, and observing the
closure of the screens as the rock samples are subjected
to stress.
The experimental procedure has been described before1. In
brief, a rock sample 600 mm (~24 in) in diameter, 1000 mm
(~39 in) long is used, with an axial hole to represent the
wellbore, approximately 216 mm (8.5 in) in diameter. The
rock sample is saturated with kerosene, the screen is installed,
and then the sample is jacketed and placed (vertically) in a
large pressure vessel. Kerosene is flowed up the wellbore (not
through the rock) to simulate production flows, and the
pressure around the rock is increased. Closure of the screen is
observed using a camera mounted inside the wellbore,
together with a light source that projects a ring of light on the
inner surface. All experiments were done on Castlegate
Sandstone, a weakly consolidated sandstone from the Upper
Cretaceous of Utah (USA), which is often used as a reservoir
equivalent rock. It has a uniaxial strength of about 15 MPa
(2200 psi) and a porosity of 25% - 27%.
A total of seven relevant experiments have been carried
out, with a range of screen types and gap conditions. They are
summarized in Table 1. In this table, "open hole" means no
screen at all in the wellbore; "basepipe" means that just the
bistable basepipe of the screen system was used, which has
large holes through which loose sand can pass; "full screen"
means the system as used in the field, with basepipe, sand
filter, shroud and other layers. Screen type 2 was a later
development, with higher radial stiffness and collapse
resistance than type 1. "Close fit" means a tight sliding fit
between wellbore wall and screen outer diameter; and the gap
values given are the differences in radii of hole and screen.
Because the rock used is weak in tension, an expansion tool
could not be used to achieve the outward stress in experiment
5 without the risk of splitting the rock sample. Instead, the
screen was expanded outside the rock, squeezed down to a
diameter less than that of the hole, restrained at this diameter,
inserted into the hole, and the restraints removed.
Experiment Screen type. Gap conditions.
1 Open hole
2 Basepipe Close fit
3 Basepipe + sand 3 mm (0.125 in) gap
filter
4 Full screen type 1 Close fit
5 Basepipe Zero gap, small
outward stress
8 Basepipe 12 mm (0.5 in) gap
9 Full screen type 2 Close fit
Table 1: Summary of conditions for the screen
closure experiments.
The testing procedure was to increase the confining
pressure on the outside of the rock sample, while observing
the closure of the screen and any production of sand. The
video images can be analyzed after the test to obtain
quantitative measurements of the screen closure.
A typical image, from Test 4, is shown in Figure 1, and the
quantitative results from all the tests are shown in Figure 2.
Here the ratios of the observed screen diameter to the diameter
of the original hole are plotted against applied pressure. This
has been found to be the best way of presenting such data
when the closure of the wellbore itself cannot be
directly observed.
In Figure 2, Test 1 (blue curve) is for an open hole with no
screen; the rock around the hole broke at about 170 bars (2465
psi) external pressure, and large fragments and abundant loose
sand were produced. Tests 2 and 5 (dashed red and solid
black) show that the presence of a close-fitting screen in the
hole approximately doubles the pressure that the hole can
sustain, and that the presence of an outward radial stress after
screen installation has no effect. In both these tests, sand
could escape through the slots in the basepipe, removing
material from the circumference of the hole. In Tests 4 and 9
(solid magenta and green), a close-fitting screen with a sand
exclusion filter was used; these tests show how a much greater
stabilizing effect is seen when sand cannot be removed from
the annulus. The two tests with gaps, nos. 3 and 8 (dashed and
dotted black) show different behaviour. In Test 3, the inner
diameter of the screen remains more-or-less constant until
about 200 bars (2900 psi) external pressure; we expect that the
rock failed before this point, but because the larger fragments
cannot move in the 3 mm gap, they are held in place by the
screen and help to stabilize the system. As the pressure
increased, the fragments were pushed inwards and made
contact with the screen, and the response began to resemble
that of the Type 1 screen, in Test 4. However, although there
was a simple sand filter around the screen, this was
ineffective, so individual sand grains could move out of the
annulus, and this allowed the collapse of the sample at 340
bars, much like Test 2 with basepipe only. In Test 8, with a
large gap, virtually no movement of the screen was seen, but
failure was taking place in the annulus, and the sample
collapsed at approximately 170 bars, the limit for an
SPE 86463
unsupported open hole. In this case we believe that the
fragments of rock could move freely in the annulus, and so did
not offer support to the wellbore wall.
To summarize:
• The most stable hole is achieved when the
movement of both large rock fragments and
individual sand grains is prevented;
• Most of the stabilizing effect of the screen comes
about by hindering the movement of failed rock;
an initial outward radial stress has negligible
further effect;
• A small gap reduces the stability of the screen, if
sand grains are free to move out of load-bearing
areas (through the screen or along the annulus);
• A large gap - on the order of 10 mm - seriously
reduces the stability of the screen, by allowing
movement of larger fragments of rock.
These points are similar to earlier conclusions made on the
basis of fewer tests1.
Transverse section - modelling
There are different, equally valid approaches to modelling
mechanical systems with many variables, such as the
interaction between screen and rock. Complex models can be
applied with a few specific sets of values of the variables, to
gain accurate values for design purposes, or much simpler
models can be run with wide ranges of values of the variables,
to uncover the principles behind the behaviour of the system.
We have chosen the second route, using a simple model for
the deformation of the rock that can easily be coupled to the
deformation of the screen.
The rock deformation model we have used is one that is
widely used in the mining and tunneling industries, where
interactions between rocks and support structures are
important6, and has been adapted for oilfield use7. It assumes
perfect plasticity in the rock, no pore pressure gradients, and
equal stresses acting perpendicular to the hole (isotropic far-
field loading). The assumption of no pore pressure gradients
means that the wellbore pressure is equal to the far-field
pressure, and so depletion rather than drawdown is the major
influence on deformation. The final assumption is a strong
one; horizontal wells generally have one stress (the
overburden) larger than the other, and this difference increases
with depletion. This is the primary reason why this method is
suitable for examining the basic principles of the system,
rather than as a design tool or for evaluation of
specific conditions.
Additionally, the model does not account for removal of
yielded or broken rock from the annulus, which was found to
play a role in the behaviour during the experiments.
The model calculates the stresses and displacements of the
rock around the hole as a function of the pore pressure and the
support pressure applied to the wall. It then includes the effect
of a screen of a specified diameter and stiffness, which applies
increasing support pressure as the wall moves in. Figure 3
3
shows an example of the output. The vertical axis is hole
closure; the horizontal axes are radial stress applied to the
wellbore wall, and the reservoir effective stress (i.e., total
stress minus pore pressure). As the reservoir is produced, pore
pressure decreases and so reservoir effective stress goes up,
essentially increasing the load on the system. The blue-orange
surface is the response of the rock, showing that increasing
effective stress increases the closure of the hole, but increasing
radial stress decreases it, as expected. The green planar
surface is the response of the screen, which exerts increasing
radial stress as its diameter is reduced (but is not influenced
directly by the reservoir stress). The results in Figure 3 are for
a hole with 0.216 m (8.5 in) initial diameter, in a rock with
unconfined strength 2 MPa (290 psi) and friction angle 30
degrees. The screen has an initial diameter of 0.2 m (7.9 in)
and radial stiffness 5 MPa (725 psi) (note that the radial
stiffness is for elastic, reversible, movement of the screen, not
collapse. The value here is in the middle of the range we have
measured for bistable screens). The hole has been drilled
under a reservoir effective stress of 20 MPa, with negligible
support stress, and so the rock has already closed in by about
25 mm; this closure is shown by the solid red circle. The bit,
however, will restore the hole diameter to 0.216 m.
The red stars represent the intersection of the two surfaces,
i.e., the response of the rock with the screen in place. Starting
from the red circle, the hole closure increases as the reservoir
effective stress increases (i.e., during production). When the
hole diameter reaches 0.2 m, it touches the screen, and starts to
compress it radially; the screen therefore exerts a stress
outwards on the rock, which stabilizes the hole. The initial
rapid rate of closure slows down as the radial stress builds up.
Although not shown here, the friction angle of the rock has a
strong effect on closure - high friction angle values, say 40
degrees, allow much smaller radial stresses to confer great
stability on the hole.
The closure information in Figure 3 can be summarized as
2-D plots of closure and radial stress versus reservoir effective
stress. An additional important parameter is the strain in the
rock at the wellbore wall, since we expect that sand grains and
rock fragments will become detached from the rock as the
strain increases. Figure 4 shows these three parameters.
Each of the plots in Figure 4 points to an independent
restriction on screen performance, as the reservoir pressure
decreases. If the diameter of the screen (related to the hole
diameter in the top plot) decreases too much, access through
the completion, e.g., for monitoring or workover, will be
restricted. If the stress exerted by the rock on the screen
(center plot) increases too much, the screen may collapse by
buckling. If the strain that the rock undergoes increases too
much, the rock will break into grains, which may be
transported along the annulus and cause erosion, or into
fragments, which may be pressed onto the screen and cause
collapse through point loading.
Clearly, for a given bit size, the smaller the gap the larger
is the internal diameter of the screen (and the larger it remains
during loading), so the first restriction is favored by zero gap.
4 SPE 86463
The second restriction, loading on the screen, improves as the
gap increases, because higher reservoir stress levels can be
achieved before the rock starts to load the screen. The third
restriction, failure of the rock, gets worse as the gap increases,
because the rock can deform more before encountering the
support stress from the screen. Some aspects of the
mechanical behaviour, then, are favored by a gap, others are
not. This tells us that, from a purely mechanical point of view,
there will be an optimum gap. The specific value of that
optimum will depend on the closure limit of the completion,
the collapse stress of the screen and the strain limit of the rock,
as well as on the rock and screen parameters already
mentioned. Repeated calculations show that the optimum gap,
on the basis of the second and third restrictions only, varies
from zero for a compliant screen (i.e., one that has a low radial
stiffness) to a few millimeters for a high stiffness screen. This
is thought to be because a low stiffness screen allows the rock
to deform, mobilizing its frictional strength, even in the
absence of a gap; a stiff screen prevents rock deformation
before this mobilization takes place, if there is only a small
gap. The first restriction (on the maximum closure) is difficult
to implement quantitatively into the scheme but will bias the
optimum gap towards smaller values.
Axial section - modelling
Because it was not feasible to carry out large-scale
experiments involving transport along the axis of the well and
screen, a numerical model has been constructed. This takes
into account radial flow in the formation, axial flow in any
annulus present, radial flow through the wall of the screen, and
axial flow along the basepipe. Liquid can flow in any of these
paths, and sand can flow along the annulus. As sand moves or
accumulates in the annulus the resistances to flow of fluid
radially through the screen or axially along the annulus are
changed. As with the transverse section mechanical model,
this is not a model for design of specific installations, but for
examining general behaviour and trends. The fluid flow
models and the sand transport criterion are very simple, as will
be seen.
Figure 5 shows a cross-section of the well, with the
geometry that the model aims to capture. The dotted line
represents the entire sand screen; it has a constant size
throughout the well, and lies on the bottom of the hole. The
bigger circle represents the hole in the rock, which can vary
along the length of the well. The height of the sand bed can
also vary along the length of the well, because of deposition of
sand in different places and/or variation of hole size. The
resistance to flow along the annulus is assumed to be
controlled by its hydraulic diameter, calculated from its area
and perimeter. The resistance to flow through the screen is
controlled by the area that is not covered by sand, and the
thickness of the sand bed on the areas that are covered. Both
these quantities vary strongly as the height of the sand bed
increases, especially when the bed covers the top of the screen.
The model splits the length of the well into a large number
of segments (500 - 1000). The four fluid paths described
above therefore form a network with many alternate routes
extending along the well. The flows and pressures are solved
using an electrical resistance network analogue. Figure 6
shows a section of the network. Here the battery on the right
represents the drawdown between formation pressure and the
basepipe; the resistors labeled "f" represent the resistance to
flow of the formation itself (radial flow only); those labeled
"a" represent the resistance of the annulus; "s" represents the
resistance to flow through the wall of the screen; and "p" is the
resistance of the interior of the basepipe. There is one of each
of these resistors for each segment of the well (typically each
segment is 1 meter) except the toe and heel segments, where
the arrangement is slightly modified.
The formation resistance is calculated from the standard
Dupuis equation for steady state flow into a well. The
equivalent resistance of the annulus (whose shape and
dimensions change considerably with sand bed height as well
as with well and screen diameters) is calculated from
Poisseuille's formula, assuming laminar flow and using a
hydraulic diameter calculated from the annulus cross-section
and its wetted perimeter.
The equivalent resistance of the screen depends very much
on the type of screen under consideration. The resistance to
flow of the unblocked screen is calculated from the parameter
(mesh thickness/mesh permeability) - a user input - and the
fluid viscosity and segment area, using Darcy's Law. As sand
builds up around the screen this resistance is increased. When
the sand bed does not completely cover the screen, this
increase is controlled by the proportion of the screen area that
is not blocked by the sand bed. When the sand bed covers the
screen completely, the screen resistance is increased by the
thickness of the bed of sand covering it, using Darcy's law
again (the permeability of the sand bed is assumed to be the
same as that of the unbroken rock; it could possibly be higher,
through dilatancy of the rock, or smaller, through release of
fines and grain mixing). The initial values of the basepipe
resistances are generated from its dimensions and the liquid
properties, using Poisseuille's equation for laminar flow, but as
discussed above these are modified, using a turbulent pipe
flow equation, during the solution.
Sand is assumed to be produced everywhere along the
well, at a rate which drops to zero as the sand bed grows to fill
the annulus completely. As sand is produced, it can either stay
in the segment where it is produced, or, if the axial liquid
velocity in the annulus is high enough, it is transported. Once
it is picked up by the flow, it stays suspended until the velocity
drops below a critical value, or the next segment is completely
blocked, or it reaches the heel of the well.
Using electrical network theory8, the flows in the different
pathways can be solved, provided that the response of each
element is linear. The flows in formation, annulus and screen
are all assumed to be laminar, so their behaviour is linear.
However, in the basepipe, turbulent flow is certainly expected.
The solver deals with this iteratively, calculating flows using
the network inversion, modifying the basepipe resistances to
represent the turbulent behaviour at the calculated flow rates,
and using these new values in the next iteration. When this
cycle is stable, the smaller changes resulting from changes in
SPE 86463 5

the other resistors (described below) are calculated, calculating step. The next plot shows the flow rate in the basepipe as
pressure drops in the basepipe as if the flow there is linear, but almost uniform, except right at the heel, when all the flow in
with the newly-assigned resistances. the annulus suddenly enters the pipe. Finally, the lowest plot
shows sand being deposited in the toe section of the well,
In summary, the sequence of calculation is as follows: where velocities are low, and also right at the heel, fluid leaves
• Solve the resistor network in Figure 6 for the the annulus and must leave its suspended sand behind.
currents, i.e., the flows, assuming laminar behaviour;
• Adjust the values of the resistors representing the The lower set of plots shows conditions at the end of the
basepipe so the flow calculated above generates the run (nominally 1000 seconds, although in reality, with more
pressure drop through each segment of basepipe realistic sand production rates, this would be much longer).
calculated for turbulent conditions; Some minor changes have taken place: the inflow has dropped
• Solve the network again with the new basepipe slightly right at the heel because sand has built up in the
resistors, and repeat until an unchanging solution is annulus there, causing an additional pressure drop; the sand
found; bed height has increased slightly in the toe section because
• Calculate the velocities in the annulus and through sand is continuously dropped there; and most significantly,
the screen; there is a spike in the cumulative flow profile right at the heel.
• Identify the targets for sand transported from each Similar spikes appear in other examples, and are thought to
segment, depending on the time step and velocities; present a danger to the integrity of the completion, because
• Find the volume of suspended sand in each segment; they represent points where there is a persistent, high,
localized, flow through the screen. If this flow is carrying
• Decide whether the suspended sand drops or not;
sand grains, this can lead to erosion and failure of the screen at
• Find the new volume of settled sand in the segment,
that point.
and the height of the bed;
• Calculate the effects on oil and sand production, and
Parameter Value
the blockage of the screen and annulus;
Well length 500 m
• Modify the resistor values in the network to represent
Segment length 1m
the blockage;
Well diameter 0.21 m
• Repeat for the next time step.
Screen outer diameter 0.19 m
A 1000-meter well, divided into a network of 1-meter Screen inner diameter 0.14 m
segments, results in a 2000x2000 matrix. Fortunately, this Time step in model 5 seconds
matrix is sparse, and can be solved rapidly (less than 1 second) Rate of sand generation 10-7 m3/m/sec
so the evolution of the well behaviour as sand is produced and Sand transport velocity 0.1 m/sec
moved is easy to observe. There are many variables in these Drawdown 0.5 MPa
simulations, and each run produces a great deal of detail. A Fluid viscosity 0.001 N.sec.m-2
few examples will be shown, and then the key features learnt Formation permeability 0.1 Darcy
from watching many simulations will be listed. Initial sand fill in annulus 0.1 * well diameter
Flow resistance of screen 0.0025
Figure 7 shows the start and finish of a run with a basic set (thickness in mm /
of conditions, which are shown in Table 2; sand generation permeability in Darcy's)
rate has been set high to illustrate the effects of sand Basepipe friction factor 0.01
movement on a tractable timescale. The horizontal axis shows Fluid density 1000 kg/m3
length along the well, running from the toe at the left to the Borehole profile Smooth
heel at the right. From the top, the plots are the inflow from
the formation; the velocity of fluid in the annulus (the two Table 2: conditions for the run shown in Figure 6.
dotted lines are the threshold velocity for sand transport - +/-
0.1 m/sec in this case); the flow through the wall of the screen, Figures 8 and 9 show the end of runs with conditions
and a measure of the cumulative flow during the run; the flow similar to those in Figure 7, except that the sand rate is
rate in the basepipe; and hole diameter (red), screen diameter increased by a factor of 10 (so that sand accumulation occurs
(dashed black), height of sand bed (blue) and settling indicator in a reasonable number of time steps), the number of time
(green - this is zero unless sand is dropping out of suspension steps is increased to 1000, and the size of the gap is varied. In
during this iteration of the model). Initially, as can be seen in Figure 8 the hole is 0.2 m in diameter, and the screen is 0.195
the upper set of plots, inflow is fairly uniform over the length m, so the gap is only 5 mm. In Figure 9 the screen diameter is
of the well. The annulus velocity rises slowly from zero at the 0.185 m, so the gap is 15 mm. There is a radical difference in
toe, reaches a peak 30 meters or so from the heel, and drops to behaviour. When the gap is small, no sand is transported; it
zero again (as should be expected - all the fluid has to enter settles where it is produced. When the gap is big, sand still
the screen eventually). The velocity exceeds the sand settles in the toe of the well, but in the mid section it is swept
transport threshold about halfway along the well. The next towards the heel, forming dunes and blockages, and generating
plot, flow through the screen, is uniform except at the heel; the regions of persistent high flow through the screen. The key
cumulative plot shows nothing different as this is the first time change is that in the run with the small gap, the annulus
6 SPE 86463
velocity is lower than the transport threshold. The smaller gap
means that the area of the annulus is reduced, and so one
might expect the annulus velocity to increase. The hydraulic
resistance of the annulus, however, increases more rapidly
than the area decreases, encouraging flow through the screen
into the basepipe rather than along the annulus. Clearly the
details of the conditions needed for this to happen depend
sensitively on the flow resistances of screen and annulus, and
this model does not aim to calculate these accurately.
Nevertheless, it is the geometry of the network that allows this
to happen, and the model reveals this unexpected benefit of a
reduced gap.
Figures 10 and 11 show two further aspects of the behaviour,
which are difficult to predict without the benefit of the model.
Figure 10 shows the effects of completely blocking the screen
between 350 and 400 meters from the toe (i.e., 100 to 150
meters from the heel). This might happen because of damage
during running in, or blockage by incompletely dispersed
mudcake. Because the fluids produced from the formation
over this interval cannot escape directly from the annulus into
the screen, they travel to the nearest point where the screen is
unblocked, and enter it there. This means that high annulus
velocities are generated, in both directions, and significant
hotspots develop at each end of the blockage (much more
intense than in the previous simulations). This could easily
lead to screen erosion; much of the sand generated over the
blocked interval is driven with high velocity against two very
local areas of the screen. The hotspotting is worse if the
blockage is closer to the heel, as might be expected, and
milder if close to the toe. This indicates that blockage of the
screen, or any kind of non-uniformity in its flow resistance, is
likely to be bad for the long-term integrity of the completion.
If the interval opposite the blockage is non-productive, this
effect is much less evident, so putting blank pipe sections
opposite shale intervals does not compromise the screen. It is
important, however, to make sure that the blank sections do
not overlap any productive intervals. Finally Figure 11 shows
the effect of an enlarged section of hole, perhaps due to
drilling damage or a weaker rock interval (a rough hole has
been chosen here, rather than the smooth hole of the previous
runs, but this produces very little difference). The larger hole
radius leads to slightly higher inflow, but more significantly to
higher annulus flow rates, for the reasons discussed above. As
this flow travels towards the heel, it re-enters the normally
sized section of well, and rapidly reverts to the balance of
screen and annulus flow appropriate to this hole or gap size.
This means, once again, a significant and persistent local flow
through the screen and the danger of erosion.
Conclusions
We have examined the role of the annular gap in determining
the long-term integrity of screen completions, with an
emphasis on expandable screens.
Through full-size experimentation, we find that the most
stable hole is achieved when the movement of both large rock
fragments and individual sand grains is prevented. Most of
the stabilizing effect of the screen comes about by hindering
the movement of failed rock; an initial outward radial stress
has negligible further effect. A small gap reduces the stability
of the screen, if sand grains are free to move out of load-
bearing areas (through the screen or along the annulus), and a
large gap seriously reduces the stability of the screen, by
allowing movement of larger fragments of rock.
Elastoplastic modelling of the rock-screen interaction
indicates that a small gap - up to a few millimeters - may be
beneficial if the screen is radially stiff, as it allows the rock
frictional strength to be mobilized in stabilizing the hole,
without generating too much stress on the screen. If the screen
does not have high radial stiffness, a smaller gap or none at all
is better. Too large a gap (greater than about 10 mm), in either
case, allows failure of the rock (to either grains or fragments)
and possible movement in the annulus, which may lead to
erosion problems, and also loses the possibility of the
stabilizing effect.
Modelling of fluid and sand movements in the well and
screen as a whole shows that a small gap decreases the fluid
velocity in the annulus, and therefore can prevent movement
of sand grains and rock fragments. If sand can move in the
annulus, it can form dunes and blockages in some
circumstances, which can lead to persistent, localized high
flowrates through the screen, with the attendant danger of
erosion. Blocked screen sections opposite permeable
formations, and locally enlarged hole sections (or locally-
enlarged gaps) can also lead to these erosion hotspots.
Taking into account both mechanical and fluid flow
behaviors, we believe that a very small, or zero, gap, is best
for the long-tem integrity of the completion.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Schlumberger for permission
to publish this paper. They would also like to think Gary
Goldsmith and Dave Scott of Schlumberger Cambridge
Research for their invaluable help in setting up and running
the large-scale experiments.
References
1. Hackworth, M., Johnson, C., Heiland, J., McClurkin, J., Eubank,
D., Kemp, M., Schetky, L.M., and Smith, P.S. (2003)
"Development and First Application of Bistable Expandable
Sand Screen". SPE 84265, presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado,
U.S.A., 5 – 8 October 2003.
2. Willson, S., Crook, A., Jian Guo Yu, Stenebråten, J., Gilchrist, J.
and Tiffin, D. (2002) "Assuring the Mechanical Integrity of
Expandable Sand Screens". OTC 14314, presented at the 2002
Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas
U.S.A., 6–9 May 2002.
3. Jones, C. (2002) "The use of yield zone equations to predict sand
production". Presented at the Sand Management Network
meeting, November 2002, Aberdeen.
4. Jones, C., Cameron, J. and MacKay, E. (2003) "Productivity,
Water Breakthrough And Ultimate Recovery In Horizontal
Wells With A Range Of Completion Types". OTC 15150,
presented at the 2003 Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 5–8 May 2003.
5. Yildiz, T. (2002) "Productivity of Horizontal Wells Completed
with Screens". SPE 76712, presented at the SPE Western
SPE 86463 7

Regional/AAPG Pacific Section Joint Meeting, Anchorage,

Alaska, USA, May 2002.
6. Brady, B.H. and Brown, E.T. Rock Mechanics for Underground
Mining. Chapman and Hall, 1999.
7. Somerville, J.M. and Smart B.G.D. (1991) " The prediction of
well stability using the yield zone concept". SPE 23127,
presented at the Offshore Europe Conference, held in Aberdeen
3-6th September 1991.
8. Scott, W.T. The Physics of Electricity and Magnetism. Wiley,
New York, 1966.

Figure 3: Modelled closure of the hole and screen as reservoir

effective stress increases, for the conditions described in the text.

Figure 1: an image of the interior of the screen in Test 4. The dark

area in the center is the light source, suspended from three struts.
The light rings are two illuminated portions of the inside of the
screen; the features visible in each ring are the partially expanded
slots in the basepipe.

Figure 4: Parameter values along the line of red stars in Figure 3,

Figure 2: Proportional closure of the screen versus applied
pressure for all the screen tests. The ends of each line represent
the maximum pressure applied during the test; most tests carried
on beyond this point with a decreasing pressure, since the
pumping system was not able to keep up with the rate of collapse
of the sample. Tests 3 and 8 were carried out with a finite initial
gap, so their starting levels of the diameter ratio are less than 1,
and the initial parts of their responses show very little change.
plotted against reservoir effective stress. The top plot shows the
hole diameter (in the rock) decreasing from its drilled value of
0.216 m. The decrease is rapid at first but at about 23.5 MPa the
rock touches the screen, the stress exerted by the screen on the
rock and the rock on the screen begins to increase (center plot),
and the rate of hole closure is slowed. The maximum radial strain
in the rock (at the wellbore wall) also increases (lower plot) with a
similar knee at the point of contact. (The slight irregularities in
each plot result from the numerical scheme used rather than
from reality).
8 SPE 86463

Figure 5: cross-section of the screen/well geometry, with an

annulus and a sand bed.

Figure 6: Part of the resistor network used to model the

well/screen flow system. See text for description.
SPE 86463 9

Figure 7: start (top) and end (bottom) of a simulation run under the conditions shown in Table 2.
10 SPE 86463

Figure 8: end results for the conditions in Table 2, except with higher sand rate production and more time steps, and a smaller gap; the hole
size is 0.2 m and the screen OD is 0.195 m.

Figure 9: end results for the conditions in Figure 8, except for a bigger gap; the hole size is 0.2 m and the screen OD is 0.185 m.
SPE 86463 11

Figure 10: conditions as in Table 2, but with a complete blockage of the screen between 350 and 400 meters from the heel.

Figure 11: conditions as in Table 2, but with an enlarged hole between 160 and 340 m.