SPE 64413
Sand Control Screen Plugging and Cleanup
Mahmoud Asadi, SPE, and Glenn S. Penny, SPE, Stim-Lab., Inc.
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and
Exhibition held in Brisbane, Australia 16-18 October 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling
Contractors or 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 IADC or
SPE, their officers, or members. Papers presented at the IADC/SPE meetings are subject to
publication review by Editorial Committees of the IADC and SPE. 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 an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract 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
Screens are used to mechanically restrain formation solid
entrance to a wellbore. As effective as this process may be, in
many cases it fails to retain solids. This is due to screen
plugging either during screen run in a wellbore or during
production where larger size particles bridge against a screen
and finer size particles plug the screen. In either case, plugged
screens are subjected to a cleanup treatment. In this paper, a
series of large-scale tests are conducted to evaluate screen
cleanup methods such as acid spotting, use of enzyme and acid
activated-breaker, backflow, and a combination of these
methods under downhole conditions. At first, each screen’s
retention performance is evaluated. Then, a drill-in-fluid
containing solids is pumped into a large-scale flow-cell at a
constant pressure drop across the screen to simulate a screen
run down in a wellbore. Inlet and outlet samples are collected
to evaluate removal efficiency of each screen. Then, each
plugged screen is subjected to a cleanup method. The
effectiveness of each cleanup technique is evaluated based on
the retained permeability of each screen. Degree of plugging
and percent area open to flow for each screen is also
presented.
Introduction
All mechanical techniques used in controlling sand production
are based on the bridging theory. This principle is based on
the large size particles bridging against a mechanical filtration
device such as a screen that allows the flow of fluid and
restrains solids. In many cases, these techniques are not
successful. In screen completion, the failure is due to either
screens being run into dirty drill-in-fluids, which will cause
screen plugging, or when screen is positioned in a wellbore,
larger solids bridge against the screen and finer materials will
either pass through the screen and onto the wellbore or plug
the screen.1,2 If finer particles pass through the screen, the
problem of local erosion becomes important.2 In addition,
sand production will be an issue. If these fine particles are
held by screen, they will eventually plug the screen.
Therefore, size selection of solids present in a mud becomes
very important because solids must bridge across pore throat
properly to form an effective filtercake.4
Today, various techniques are used to plug and clean
screens. Most of the previous works are done on small-scale
disk size screen. The cleanup techniques include acidizing
under dynamic conditions, acid spotting, use of enzyme
breaker, and oxidizer. This study utilizes a large-scale flow-
loop to plug screens and then uses various screen cleanup
methods under downhole conditions.
Experimental Setup
Laboratory Flow-Loop. A 6-ft long by 6-in. inside diameter
high strength Plexiglas flow-cell model was utilized to
evaluate screen plugging and various cleanup efficiencies
under downhole conditions. The flow-cell model is capable of
operating at 300 psi pressure differential and 180oF. The
model allows visualization of screen plugging and cleanups.
The active screen length used in this study was about 5 ft.
One end of each screen was capped, and a 6 in. base pipe was
connected to the other end to discharge fluid entering into the
screen during a test. To prevent any turbulence effect, a flow-
diverter was placed onto the capped end of the screen where
fluid was entering the flow cell. As fluid entered the flow cell,
it flowed around the screen, simulating a screen run down a
wellbore, and was then flowed out of the flow cell through the
6 in. base pipe. Pressure drop across the screen was measured
between the inlet point, before fluid entered the flow cell, and
at the point where fluid exited the flow cell through the 6 in.
blank pipe. Two valves, one at the inlet and one at the outlet,
were installed to collect inlet and outlet samples for size
distribution analysis of solids in the formulated drill-in-fluid.
These data were used to evaluate screen retention capabilities.
A Heat tape was wrapped around the insulated flow cell to
maintain a constant temperature during acid spotting and or
enzyme treatment. Flow rate, pressure drop, and fluid
temperature data were electronically collected. Fig. 1 shows
schematic of the experimental setup.
2 MAHMOUD ASADI AND GLENN S. PENNY
Screen Selection. The following three screens were selected
to evaluate four various cleanup methods.
1. 20/40 PMF, porous fiber materials. This screen is
characterized to have a slot opening of a 20/40 mesh
pore throat sand.
2. A 20/40 Stratapack. This screen is characterized to
have a slot opening of a 20/40 mesh sand with a
thicker filtration layer than that of 20/40 PMF.
3. An 0.008 in. gauge wire wrap prepacked with 40/60-
mesh resin coated sand.
Two tests were conducted with 20/40 PMF screens and one on
each of the 20/40 Stratapck and 0.008 in. gauge screen.
Testing conditions for each of these screens were similar.
Drill-in-Fluid. Sand control screen is based on a simple
relationship between screen openings and particle size
distribution, which was presented by Coberly in 1937.5
According to Coberly, screens should retain all solids with a
diameter of 2.5 times or more than screen openings. He
suggests that screen slots should be selected such that
openings are twice as the 10-percentile diameter of the solids.
This is based on the larger particle being more responsible for
screen plugging. However, if pore throat size is large enough,
finer materials can potentially plug the pore throat and
eventually impair production. This emphasizes the
importance of fine solids in screen plugging.6 Therefore, to
understand the effect of small size particles on screen
plugging, selected solids for these tests include both fine and
coarse materials. Fig. 2 shows particle size distribution of
solids used in this study. Also, Fig. 3 shows sieve analysis of
these solids.
Procedure
A retention test was performed on each screen to evaluate
removal efficiency. Also, a cleanup technique was used upon
each plugged screen to study the performance of each cleanup
technique. Screen’s area open to flow after cleanup treatment
was then calculated based on the retained permeability.
Retention. A retention test is usually conducted to evaluate
the ability of a screen to remove solids. It is also referred to as
screen removal efficiency. To conduct such a test, a polymer
solution with known solid size and concentration, which
should be formulated for a particular formation and screen, is
pumped around a screen where fluid can then flow into the
screen through the screen’s openings and out of the screen’s
base pipe. The test can be based on the basis of either a
constant pressure drop across the screen with varying flow
rates, or constant flow rate with pressure drop variation. By
knowing the mud density and using the following equation,
one can calculate a constant pressure drop across a screen,
P at 10% HCl for a period 6 hrs at temperatures of 120oF or
ρ= (1)
0.52 L
SPE 64413
During a retention test, inlet and outlet samples are collected
in a given time increment for size distribution analyses and
removal efficiency determination.
The retention test for this project was conducted with a
formulated drill-in-fluid containing drill solids, which was
pumped at a selected rate to produce a constant 60 psi pressure
drop across the 5 ft screen. The 60 psi pressure drop was
based on a 12 ppg mud density and 90 ft screen joint. The
pressure drop was maintained at 60 psi throughout the 2 hr
retention test by continuously adjusting flow rate. In the case
where the screen was fully plugged and fluid could not enter
the screen, fluid was allowed to pass around the screen and
exit through the annulus between the Plexiglas and the screen
while the 60 psi pressure drop was maintained. Rate variation
as a result of increase in pressure drop helped to understand
the effect of flux change on screen plugging, which is claimed
to be a major factor.7
Inlet and outlet samples were collected every 30 minutes
for size distribution analysis of solids as well as total solid
measurements. A computer program was then used to
evaluate removal efficiency of each screen.
Plugging and Cleanup. Plugging of a screen may occur as a
result of formation fines migration into a wellbore. These fine
solids flow through the throat of the gravel pack surrounding
the screen and into the screen openings causing partial
plugging. As production continues, these fine solids will
bridge against the screen and eventually plug the screen. Once
a screen is fully plugged, a cleanup method is used to clean the
plugged screen. The productivity of wellbore after screen
cleanup depends upon variety of factors including the
efficiency of the cleanup method.
Today, a number of different cleanup methods are
implemented upon plugged screen to increase productivity.
The mores common technique is to use brine based fluid
solution with breaker and acid to break the gel and to dissolve
carbonate. The brine solution is usually used to reduce mud
solids loading and consequently to increase mud weights.8,9,10
In this study, four cleanup methods were selected and
implemented upon plugged screens as follow,
1. Acid spotting using 10% HCl at 150oF for 6 hrs
2. Enzyme breaker spotting at 150oF for 12 hrs followed
by acid spotting using 10% HCl at 150oF for 6 hrs
3. Acid-activated breaker followed by acid spotting
using 10% HCl at 150oF for 6 hrs and backflowed
with water in the production direction
4. Acid-activated breaker followed by acid spotting
using 10% HCl at 150oF for 6 hrs
Previous works have shown that 15% HCl spotting is the most
effective remedial treatment for removing the CaCo3 based
filtercake.11 However, in the previous works conducted by the
authors it was concluded that acid spotting can be as effective
higher.12,13 In addition, it is also suggested that sodium
hyphochloric may be more effective in cleanups of organics
SPE 64413 SAND CONTROL SCREEN PLUGGING AND CLEANUP
than hydrochloric acid.14 However, sodium hyphchloric is not
economically effective.
Test Protocol
Four tests were designed and conducted using a large-scale
flow-cell. Each of these tests included a baseline pressure
drop measurements, screen retention and plugging, cleanup
test, and finally a screen treated-pressure drop measurements.
The baseline pressure drop data and the screen treated-
pressure drop data were used to calculated screen’s original
and retained permeabilities using the following equation.
 OD 
Q µ ln  This screen is characterized by having a filtration medium
 ID 
K= (2)
7.80 L ∆P
Each test included a baseline pressure drop measurement
across the screen with 10 ppg NaCl brine solution at 3000,
6000, and 9000 ml/min and at 150oF to simulate 30, 60, and
90 bpd over a 5 ft screen. A retention fluid was then pumped
at an initial rate of 16 gpm into the flow cell housing the
screen for 2 hrs. Inlet and outlet samples were collected for
particle size distribution analysis and hence removal efficiency
evaluation of each screen. Each plugged screen was then
subjected to a cleanup technique. Degree of plugging and
percent area open to flow after cleanup treatment was then
calculated based on retained permeability.
Test 1. A 20/40 PMF was used with a retention fluid
containing 36 lb/Mgal xanvis in 10 ppg NaCl, 95 lb/Mgal
starch, 45 lb/bbl fine salt, and 10 lb/bbl graded carbonate. The
screen was then subjected to cleanup treatment using 10% HCl
with 5 gpt corrosion inhibitor at 150oF and for 6 hrs.
Test 2. A 20/40 PMF was used with a retention fluid
containing 36 lb/Mgal xanvis in 10 ppg NaCl, 95 lb/Mgal
starch, 45 lb/bbl fine salt, and 10 lb/bbl graded carbonate. The
screen was then subjected to cleanup treatment using enzyme
breaker for 12 hrs at 150oF followed by acid spotting using
10% HCl with 5 gpt corrosion inhibitor for 6 hrs.
Test 3. A 0.008 in. gauge screen prepaked with 40/60 mesh
resin coated sand was used with a retention fluid containing 36
lb/Mgal xanvis in 10 ppg NaCl, 95 lb/Mgal starch, 45 lb/bbl
fine salt, and 10 lb/bbl graded carbonate. Also, an acid-
activated breaker at 24 lb/Magl was added to the solution.
The treated screen was then backflowed with water at 18 gpm.
Test 4. A 20/40 Stratapack was used with a retention fluid
containing 36 lb/Mgal xanvis in 10 ppg NaCl, 95 lb/Mgal
starch and 24 lb/Mgal anhydrous salt antioxidant, and 952
lb/Mgal anti-caking agent with a d50 of 20 µm, and 238
lb/Mgal anti-caking agent with a d50 of 10 µm. Also, an acid-
activated breaker at 12 lb/Magl was added to the solution to
clean screen. This drill-in-fluid used in this test did not
contain carbonate.
3
Results
Cleanup Evaluation of Test 1
Original permeability of this screen was measured using 10
ppg NaCl brine solution. The solution was pumped at 3000,
6000, and 9000 ml/min into the cell housing the screen and
pressure across the screen was measured at each rate, Fig. 4.
Following permeability measurement, a drill-in-fluid with
10,000 ppm solids having a d50 of 90 µm was pumped into the
screen at a constant pressure drop of 60 psi across the screen
for 2 hrs at an initial rate of 18 gpm to produce an annular
velocity of 70 ft/min. Inlet and outlet samples were collected
every 30 minutes for particle size distribution analysis and
hence removal efficiency measurement.
that represents a 20/40 mesh sand with an approximate median
gauge diameter of 630 µm.1 The d50 of solids contained in the
drill-in-fluid is 90 µm. Based on Ref. 5, this clearly indicates
that all of the solids should have easily passed through this
screen. However, based on the removal efficiency of this
screen which shown in Fig. 5, it is indicated that 50% of all of
the solids with a mean diameter of less than 50 microns have
passed through the screen. Since d10 of the solids used in the
drill-in-fluid is about 400 µm, it can be concluded that larger
size solids have bridged against the screen openings, and the
smaller size particles have plugged the pore throats of the
larger size particles causing restriction to flow.
During the plugging stage, pressure drop reached 60 psi in
less than 1 minute. This catastrophic increase in pressure drop
across the screen clearly indicates screen’s vulnerability to
plug, Fig. 6.
The plugged screen was then subjected to an acid spot
treatment using 10% HCl with 5 gpt corrosion inhibitor for 6
hrs at 150oF under static conditions. After acid treatment,
pressure drop across the treated screen was measured with 10
ppg NaCl solution at 3000, 6000, and 9000 ml/min, Fig. 4.
Screen’s retained permeability was then calculated and
compared to that of screen’s original permeability, Fig. 7.
According to the results, acid-spotting efficiency was 60%.
Presence of fine salt in drill-in-fluid may have contributed to
the poor cleanup efficiency.
Cleanup Evaluation of Test 2
Original permeability of this screen was measured using
similar procedure as of test 1. Pressure drops across the
screen corresponding to 3000, 6000, and 9000 ml/min are
presented in Fig. 8. Permeability of this screen was 10 Darcy
using 10 ppg NaCl.
The cleanup treatment used for this test included enzyme
breaker spotting at 150oF for 12 hrs before acid spotting, 10%
HCl, at 150oF for 6 hrs. Pressure drops corresponding to
3000, 6000, and 9000 ml/min after enzyme spotting and acid
spotting treatments are shown in Fig. 8. A comparison of
between screen’s original permeability and screen’s retained
permeability is shown in Fig. 9. According to the results,
addition of enzyme breaker to 10% HCl cleanup treatment did
not significantly enhance degree of cleanup.
4 MAHMOUD ASADI AND GLENN S. PENNY
Cleanup Evaluation of Test 3
Pressure drop across the 0.008 in. gauge screen prepacked
with resin coated 40/60 mesh sand was measured at 3000,
6000, and 9000 ml/min with 10 ppg NaCl brine solution. The
drill-in-fluid containing solids and 24 lb/Mgal acid-activated
breaker was then pumped into the flow cell at an initial rate of
16 gpm for 2 hrs at 150oF. The drill-in-fluid was then
displaced with 10% HCl (acid spotting) containing 5 gpt
corrosion inhibitor. The plugged screen was acidized for 6 hrs
under static conditions and at 150oF. The acid treated screen
was then backflowed with water at 18 gpm to flush salt
residue. Pressure drop across the treated screen was then
measured at 3000, 6000, and 9000 ml/min with 10 ppg NaCl
brine solution and was compared to the initial measurements,
Fig. 10. Also, permeability of the treated screen was
calculated and compared to the screen’s original permeability,
Fig. 11. According to the pressure drop results taken after
cleanup treatment, combination of acid-activated breaker and
acid spotting retained 20% of screen’s original permeability.
The backflow treatment, which was conducted to dissolve salt
residue, enhanced the retained permeability by an addition of
2% for a total of 22%. The poor cleanup efficiency could be
due to screen being prepacked. It is known that prepacked
screens are more susceptible to plugging.12,13 In fact the
pressure drop during the plugging stage reached to 115 psi in 2
minutes, Fig. 12, where rate had to be adjusted to
accommodate a constant 60 phi pressure drop across the
screen. After reducing the rate to about 5 gpm, the pressure
drop reached 120 psi within 30 minutes where screen was
100% plugged. The plugging susceptibility of this screen is
further noticed from its removal efficiency, Fig. 13, which
indicates that only 10% of solids with mean diameter of less
than 50% have passed through the screen and the rest have
been restrained by this screen.
The opening of this screen is 200 µm. The 40/60 mesh
prepacked media has a pore throat size of about 210 µm.
Based on the literature, 100% of all solids present in the drill-
in-fluid with a d50 of 50 µm or less should have passed
through the screen. However, contradict to the removal
efficiency results presented earlier, only 10% of all solids with
d50 of 50 µm or less have passed through the screen. This
indicates the effect of prepack media on screen plugging.
Also, it emphasizes the importance of pore throat size of a
prepack media in screen plugging. Therefore, drill-in-fluid
solids need to be selected based on prepacked pore throat size
media to prevent prepack plugging.
Cleanup Evaluation of Test 4
The 20/40 Stratapack is characterized similar to 20/40 PMF
except that the filtration media of the 20/40 Stratapack is
thicker making more solids to be restrained. The objective of
this test is to evaluate the effectiveness of an acid-activated
breaker to clean a polymer base drill-in-fluid without the
presence of any carbonate. Pressure drops corresponding to
pumping 10 ppg NaCl at 3000, 6000, and 9000 ml/min are
presented in Fig 14 for both prior to test and after cleanup
SPE 64413
treatment. Also, a comparison of screen’s original
permeability and retained permeability is presented in Fig. 15.
According to the data, this treatment resulted in 70% cleanup
efficiency. Because removal efficiency of this screen is
similar to that 20/40 PMF, Fig. 16, and the fact that acid-
activated breaker used in Test 3, did not effectively clean the
screen, it can be concluded that the high cleanup efficiency is
due to the absence of carbonate. Pressure drop across the
screen during plugging stage is shown in Fig. 17.
Conclusions
Catastrophic nature of screen plugging can be observed from
the pressure/rate plots. Either pressure drop across the screen
reaches very high in a short time and with a constant rate or
rate drops dramatically to hold the pressure drop across test
screen constant. This indicates the vulnerability of screens to
plug. However, it is important to notice that screen plugging
depends on various factors such screen type, formation solid
size distribution, solids in a drill-in-fluid and their size
distribution, rate of production, and flux. To fully understand
screen plugging mechanism and the efficiency of various
cleanup techniques, specific tests need to be conducted with
various screens, cleanup methods, and drill-in-fluids.
1. Although aggressive cleanup methods showed to be
effective, but it can introduce problems such as fluid
loss and solids invading formation.
2. Plugging occurs as a result of bridging by the larger
size particles and plugging of the pore throat of the
bridging media by the smaller size particles.
3. Presence of fine salt enhances screen plugging which
may be treated by water backflowing.
4. Addition of enzyme breaker to 10% HCl cleanup
treatment did not enhance the efficiency of cleanup.
5. Sudden pressure increase observed during plugging
stage of the prepacked screen indicated the
vulnerability of prepacked screens in plugging.
6. If prepacked screen are used, drill-in-fluid solids
need to be selected based on prepacked pore throat
size media to prevent prepack plugging.
Nomenclature
K = Permeability, Darcy
Q = Flow rate, bbl/day
µ = Viscosity, cp
OD = Screen outside diameter, in.
ID = Screen inside diameter, in.
L = Length, ft
∆P = Pressure drop, psi
ρ = Density, ppg
P = Pressure, psi
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank members of the Screen
Cleanup/Performance Evaluation in Horizontal Wells
Consortium for permitting the publication of this paper.
SPE 64413 SAND CONTROL SCREEN PLUGGING AND CLEANUP 5

References October, 1999 Houston, TX

1. Penberthy Jr., W. L. and Shughnessy, C. M., Sand 13. Asadi, M. and Penny G. S.: “Large-Scale Comparative
Control, SPE Monograph Series, Richardson, TX 1992 Study of Prepacked Screen Cleanup using Acid and
2. Hamid, S. and Ali, S. A.: “Causes of Sand Control Screen Enzyme Breaker,” paper SPE 62792, IADC/SPE Asia
Failure and Their Remedies,” paper SPE 38190, European Pacific Drilling Technology, 11–13 September 2000,
Formation Damage Symposium Conference, 2-3 June Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
1997, The Hague, The Netherlands 14. Ladva, H. K. J., Parlar, M., Smith C. P., and Fraser, L. J.:
3. Ali, S. A. and Dearing, H. L.: “Sand Control Screens “Mechanism of Sand Control Screen Plugging From
exhibit Degress of Plugging,” Hart’s Petroleum Engineer Drill-in-Fluids and its Cleanup using Acid, Oxidizers, and
International, July 1996 Enzyme Breakers,” paper SPE 39439 International
4. Browne, S. V., Ryan, D. F., Chambers, B. D., Gilchrist, J. Symposium on Formation Damage Control, 18-19
M., and Bamforth, S. A.: “Simple Approach to the February 1998, Lafayette, LA October, 1999 Houston,
Cleanup of Horizontal wells with Prepacked Screen TX
Completions,” Journal of Petroleum Technology,
September 1995
5. Coberly, C. J.: “ Selection of Screen for Unconsolidated
Sands,” Drilling and Production Practices, API, 1937
6. Markestad, D., Christie, O, Espedal, A, and Rorvik, O.:
“Selection of Screen Slot Width to Prevent Plugging and
Sand Production,” SPE paper 31087, Formation Damage
Control Symposium, 14-15 February 1996, Lafayette, LA
7. Underdown, D. R., Dickerson, R. C., Vaughan, W.: “The
Nominal Sand Control Screen: A Critical Evaluation of
Screen Performance,” paper SPE 56591, Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX 3-6
October, 1999
8. McLarty, J. M., Dobson, J. W., and Dick, M. A.:
“Overview of Offshore Horizontal Drilling/Completion
Projects in Unconsolidated Sandstone in the Gulf of
Mexico,: paper OTC 7352, May 3-6, 1993, Houston, TX
9. Ali, S. A., Sanclemente, L. W., Scketchler, B. C., and
LaFontaine-McLarty, J. M.: “Acid Breakers enhance
Open-Hole Horizontal Completions,” Petroleum
engineering International, November 1993
10. Sargeant, J. P., Siamos, A., and Eriksen, N. H.: “Use of
Sized Salt Mud in Horizontal Completions, paper OTC
7023, May 1992, Houston, TX
11. Hodge, R. M., Augustine, B. G., Burton, R. C., Sanderes,
W. W., and Atkinson, D. J.: “Evaluation and Selection of
Drill-in-Fluid Candidates to Minimize Formation
Damage,” paper SPE 31082, International Symposium on
Formation Damage Control, 14-15 February, 1996,
Lafayette, LA
12. Asadi, M. and Penny, G. S.,” Screen Performance and
Cleanup Characterization in Horizontal Well Drill-in-
Fluid using a Large-Scale Radial Flow-Cell,” SPE paper
56777, Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
6 MAHMOUD ASADI AND GLENN S. PENNY SPE 64413

Bran-Leubbe
intensifier pump

Gel Water

dP
6' long
Flowmeter Direct
6" ID Effluent
Sample
Data
Acquistion
System Sampling
Valve Flow Screen Samples for
Diverter Malvern Sieve
Analysis

Not to Scale

Fig. 1- Experimental Setup

Graded
5 Carbonate
Wt. Percent

2
Solid

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Size Microns

Fig. 2- Particle Size Distribution of Solids used in Drill-In-fluid

SPE 64413 SAND CONTROL SCREEN PLUGGING AND CLEANUP 7

100.00

90.00

80.00
Graded
Carbonate
70.00
Cumulative Percent

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00
Solid

20.00

10.00

0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Size Microns

Fig. 3- Sieve Analysis Curve Constructed from the Cumulative Percentage and Retained

0.16

Original Acidized
0.14

0.12
Pressure Drop, psi

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Flow Rate, gpm

Fig. 4- Pressure Drop Measurements Corresponding to Pre-plugging and after Treatment, Test 1
8 MAHMOUD ASADI AND GLENN S. PENNY SPE 64413

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70
Removal Efficiency (%)

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Size Microns

Fig. 5- Removal Efficiency of 20/40 PMF Screen

100

90

80

70
Pressure Drop, psi

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time, min

Fig. 6- Pressure Drop Across the Screen during the Plugging Stage, Test 1
SPE 64413 SAND CONTROL SCREEN PLUGGING AND CLEANUP 9

10

7
Permeability, D

0
Original Acidized

Fig. 7- Percent Retained Permeability after Treatment, Test 1

0.5
Screen Before Use Enzyme-S Acidized
0.45

0.4

0.35
Pressure Drop, psi

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Flow Rate, gpm

Fig. 8- Pressure Drop Measurements Corresponding to Pre-plugging and after Treatment, Test 2
10 MAHMOUD ASADI AND GLENN S. PENNY SPE 64413

10

7
Permeability, D

0
Original Enzyme-Breaker Acidized

Fig. 9- Percent Retained Permeability after Treatment, Test 2

1.2

Original Acidized Backflowed

0.8
Pressure Drop, psi

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Flow Rate, gpm

Fig. 10- Pressure Drop Measurements Corresponding to Pre-plugging and after Treatment, Test 3
SPE 64413 SAND CONTROL SCREEN PLUGGING AND CLEANUP 11

25

20
Permeability, D

15

10

20% 22%

0
Original Breaker/Acid Flowback

Fig. 11- Percent Retained Permeability after Treatment, Test 3

140

120

100
Pressure Drop, psi

80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time, min

Fig. 12- Pressure Drop Across the Screen during the Plugging Stage, Test 3
12 MAHMOUD ASADI AND GLENN S. PENNY SPE 64413

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70
Removal Efficiency (%)

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Size Microns

Fig. 13- Removal Efficiency of an 0.008 in. Gauge Screen Prepacked with
40/60 Mesh Resin Coated Sand

0.14

Original Acid-Activated Breaker

0.12

0.1
Pressure Drop, psi

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Rate, gpm

Fig. 14- Pressure Drop Measurements Corresponding to Pre-plugging and after Treatment, Test 4
SPE 64413 SAND CONTROL SCREEN PLUGGING AND CLEANUP 13

14

12

10
Permeability, D

8 75%

0
Original Acid-Activated Breaker

Fig. 15- Percent Retained Permeability after Treatment, Test 4

90

80

70

60
Pressure Drop, psi

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time, min

Fig. 16- Pressure Drop Across the Screen during Plugging Stage, Test 4
14 MAHMOUD ASADI AND GLENN S. PENNY SPE 64413

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70
Removal Efficiency (%)

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Size Microns

Fig. 17- Removal Efficiency of 20/40 Stratapack Screen