SPE 166092

Ceramic Screens - An Innovative Downhole Sand Control Solution for Old &
Challenging Cased Hole Completions
Asaf Nadeem, Alfonso Strazzi, Pablo Justiniano and Mario Lopez, BG-Group; Stefanie Wildhack and Samuel Joly,
ESK Ceramics

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 30 September–2 October 2013.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract

Erosion in gas wells caused by sand producing formations can result in severe operational issues leading to the degradation
of surface and downhole equipment and the shutdown of production facilities at surface.
Old cased hole wells in highly unconsolidated, poorly sorted sandstone formations require robust sand control. In such
instances, conventional gravel packing methods are not always possible and the installation and maintenance of downhole sand
control throughout the well life can be challenging. In gas wells where sand velocities are high, the supporting metallic
material being used in, for example standalone sand control screens is subject to plugging and subsequent rapid wear because
of its low resistance to erosion. Hence the longevity of metallic sand control equipment is poor and frequent expensive re-
completions and workovers are required.
An innovative solution using ceramic screens was used in an existing gas well in Bolivia, South America. The well
geometry included double casing with sub-optimal cement across the target zone and, due to the complexity of voids behind
the casing, it was not possible to perform the initial option of a cased-hole gravel pack. In addition to sand control the
completion required mechanical zonal isolation to prevent water ingress at a later stage. In summary the project involved
removing the existing completion, isolating deeper lying depleted producing zones, clearing the casing of debris, re-
perforating the casing, installing a new completion with ceramic screens and zonal isolation valves.
BG Group in conjunction with German ceramics manufacturer ESK developed over a period of 18 months a series of
ceramic sand control screens and sliding sleeve protections that provided a downhole sand control completion solution
complete with mechanical water isolation.
The successful project exceeded all expectations and to date the well has produced sand free. The operational time and re-
completion costs were less than of a cased-hole gravel pack, the operation much simpler and safer.
BG are now working on a project to use this innovative technology as a thru-tubing sand control solution for existing high
rate gas wells offshore worldwide where open hole or cased hole gravel packs have failed.

Introduction

Sand control has always been a challenge for BG-Group when developing its gas condensate sandstone reservoirs.
Experiences with degradation of surface & downhole equipment have shown that erosion is a severe operational issue and can
be a major production constraint.
Several sand control methods, such as conventional gravel packing and metallic standalone screens, have been applied by
BG Group in Bolivia, South America. On September 2012 a workover was carried out in well X, one of the gas condensate
wells in field Z operated by BG-Group in Bolivia’s Chaco Plains Region. The main objectives for this workover were to
isolate depleted deeper lying gas condensate reservoirs B and C and produce from the shallower virgin sandstone reservoir A
using a completion design which would allow for simultaneous sand control and mechanical zonal isolation for water ingress
prevention.
2 SPE 166092

Geological Background
The gas condensate field Z is located in the southern Bolivian foothills very close to deformation front. The field Z is a
faulted anticline with gas accumulations in carboniferous reservoirs. The virgin reservoir A, one of the gas compartments in
field Z, is composed mainly by fluvial sandstones arranged in stacked channels with frequent intercalated layers of mudstones
which are related to glacial events.
The sandstone is the dominant lithology in the virgin reservoir A with withish-green, fine to medium and occasionally
grain size, firm to friable and some siliceous cement content. The reservoir A in well X was identified with three sandy
intervals with 51 m of gross thickness and 27 m of net sand thickness. The average porosity of the sandstones is 15% and the
permeability calculated from well test is 28 md.

Sand Control Methods Evaluation

The well X conditions prior to the workover were very challenging due to the presence of double casing with sub-optimal
cement within the 9 5/8” and 7” casings, as per Figure 1. Due to these challenging well conditons, the uncertainty in gravel
placement, the potential risks in circulation paths and a potential technical failure, it was not possible to perform conventional
cased-hole gravel pack (the preferred base case option). The use of metallic standard alone screens, such as premium or wire-
wrapped screens, were initially considered for sand control, however experiences applied in similar operated sandstone
formations resulted in low erosion resistance and rapid screens wear ending in costly future workovers.

Figure 1 – Well X completion schematic prior to the workover and cased-hole logs highlighting sub-optimal cement within casings

Hence an alternative downhole sand face completion was required and ceramic screens were evaluated as a potential
solution. The ceramics properties include superior resistance to erosion, stability under high temperature ranges and universal
corrosion stability; operationally due to high erosion resistance the ceramic screens do not require gravel packing and can
work as standalone screens consequently reducing the pressure drop and increasing the production rate. Beyond their singular
properties as an effective sand control method the ceramic screens could allow a special design with SSD’s in order to control
water entrance at a later well stage.
After a detailed evaluation of all technologies ceramic screens were selected as the most effective completion solution for
well X given the conditons. BG-Group then in conjuction with ESK developed over a period of 18 months a series of ceramic
downhole sand control screens with outside protection of sliding sleeves to engineer a downhole sand control face completion
solution complete with mechanical water isolation.
SPE 166092 3

Screens Sizing

Due to the unavailability of representative cores from Sand A a full sieve analysis could not be performed for this
formation. Existing sieve analysis from neighbour formations were then used as a basis for sizing the ceramic screens slots to
be used in well X. Sand C was selected as the most representative neighbour formation and its core particle size distribution
(PSD) is illustraded in Figure 2. A +/- 10% and +/- 20% PSD range scenario was also considered to accommodate for any
uncertainty due to possible grain size difference between Sand A and Sand C.

100

90

80

70
Cumulative Weight (%)

Sand C Core PSD
60
Sand A is 10% finer than Sand C
50 Sand A is 10% coarser than Sand C

40 Sand A is 20% finer than Sand C

Sand A is 20% coarser than Sand C
30

20

10

0
0.05 0.005 0.0005
Grain Diameter (in)

Figure 2 – Particle size distribution: core from Sand C and uncertainty range scenario used for Sand A

An average uniformity co-efficient (Uc) of 2.61 was calculated based on the core PSD from Sand C leading to the
understanding that this was not a poorly sorted formation, however the average percentage of fines was observed as being
higher than 8.8%. If the preferred gravel pack option could have been performed and based on criteria developed by Saucier
(1974) 20/40 gravel with a 12 gauge screen would have been selected, as is the case in the existing neighbour gravel packed
wells.
However in this particular case a standalone screen solution had to be used due to the double casing scenario and cement
uncertainty. Two sizing criterias were utilized to determine the screens sizing: Rogers (1971) whose criteria is based on the
formation D10 and Coberly (1937) whose criteria is based on the formation D10 x 2. Both criterias were used to consider the
uncertainty range scenario and the screens gap width were calculated based on King (2009), as summarized in Table 1. From
Table 1 it can be seen that the range for the screen size should be between 6 and 10 gauge, however a dual 6 gauge & 12 gauge
approach was used. The reason for this is that a flexibility factor had to be considered for the slot opening size difference
between screens in the event that the 6 gauge screen proved to be too fine causing a potential plugging effect. Hence a dual 6
gauge & 12 gauge approach was selected as it provided greater flexibility in slot opening size difference between screens when
compared to a 6 gauge & 10 gauge approach.

TABLE 1 - UNCERTAINTY RANGE SCENARIO FOR CERAMIC SCREENS SIZING

Sand PSD Available Uncertainty Scenario Rogers (μm) Coberley (μm) Screen Gap Width

C Yes None 254 508 0.008 in (8 Gauge)

A No 10% finer than Sand C 228.6 457.2 0.006 in (6 Gauge)

A No 10% coarser than Sand C 279.4 558.8 0.008 in (8 Gauge)

A No 20% finer than Sand C 203.2 406.4 0.006 in (6 Gauge)

A No 20% coarser than Sand C 304.8 609.6 0.010 in (10 Gauge)

4 SPE 166092

Ceramic Sand Screens

Description Design
The ceramic screens were first designed as a fit-for-purpose solution to prevent erosion in stimulated production wells. In
order to prevent the erosion of sliding sleeves and tubulars, a method of efficient protection was sought which would allow the
placement of sliding sleeves directly opposite of the perforations to minimize the pressure drop. A sintered silicon carbide
ceramic material was chosen as it offers a unique combination of properties: excellent abrasion and corrosion resistance, high
hardness and stiffness, low density and thermal stability up to 1,800°C.
The ceramic sand screen concept consists of stacked ceramic rings with integral spacers designed to provide and maintain
the desired slot opening (Figure 3). Due to the chemical and thermal stability ceramic is ideal for both ensuring the desired slot
opening is maintained and screen longevity increased within H2S, C02 and high temperature well conditions. The ceramic rings
are slanted to create keystone shaped slots favorable to prevent plugging and to allow high laminar flow rates, thus
maintaining low pressure drops across the screen. Ceramic rings are manufactured with three integral spacers shaped as
spherical ‘bumps’ ensuring only point contact between the stacked rings. In combination with the spherically dished ring
shape, this design is well suited to ceramics, giving flexibility to the stack of ceramic rings and stability against torsion as well
as flexure.

Figure 3 – Ceramic ring design and stacked ceramic rings providing for keystone slot shape

The screen systems are assembled to ISO standards by initially sliding the rings in place over a regular metal base pipe or
other tubular support, i.e. sliding sleeves. Guiding rods assist in stacking the ceramic rings. At the same time, they provide for
a gap between the rings and the base pipe to even out flow across the perforated base pipe or other well jewelry. Couplings on
both sides of the stack mechanically constrain the ceramic rings. The rings are placed under compression by a spring system
inside the couplings that still allows for some flexure during deployment without compromising sand retention or slots sizing.
The spring system is designed to absorb any load due to tubing movement and varies in shape and material according to well
conditions. An outer metallic shroud covers the rings for additional protection during deployment. The screens geometry can
be freely chosen and adapted to nearly any prevailing wellbore geometry either as a full bore system or through tubing
workover; for further details see Müssig et al. (2010).
For the well X, 2 different types of ceramic screens have been used (Figure 4):
a) Ceramic stand-alone screens (SAS) are mounted on 3.5” L80 base pipes. The SAS are assembled in a modular design
with a total length of 9 m. They comprise 5 filter modules each and have a maximum outer diameter of 4.78” including
protective shroud. After evaluation of the grain size distribution, the final decision was to use 6 gauge and 12 gauge
screens.
b) The ceramic sand screens are installed to protect commercially available 3.5" SSD’s from erosion. Again, 6 gauge and
12 gauge screens were chosen with a length of 1.5 m and a maximum outer diameter of 5.46".

Figure 4 – Ceramic screens during and after assembly

SPE 166092 5

Qualification Tests
The ceramic screens have been subjected to a variety of tough qualification tests. Tests include erosion, corrosion, loop and
bend testing. For the application in Bolivia, a customized computational flow simulation (CFS) and push-off tests were
additionally performed.

Erosin Test
The erosion tests were performed using modified IEPCO microsand blasting equipment and coupons mounted in test
fixtures as shown in Error! Reference source not found.. The blasting pressure was 2.0 bars correlating with flow rates of
high rate gas well, 30-50 m/s. The proppant beam was directed perpendicular to the test surfaces, and testing was performed
with a variety of different proppants as 20/40 frac sand proppant, 20/40 carbolite proppant and 100 mesh proppant. The fixture
had a 40 mm opening to test ceramic screens and wire-wrap screens respectively to compare erosion performance.
The results showed that sintered silicon carbide has an excellent potential to mitigate wash-out erosion compared to all
steels and hard coated steels tested. For example, wire-wrap screens failed in every test at slightly different timings, whereas
the ceramic screens did not show any visible wear or material loss.

Figure 5 - Erosion test with 20/40 mesh sand, high loaded in air, blasting with 30 – 50 m/s after 60 minutes

Corrosion Test
To evaluate the corrosion resistance in test conditions sintered silicon carbide samples were exposed to a number of
drilling, completion and treatment fluids, such as:
• Hydrochloric acid (HCl), 15% w/w
• Sulphuric acid (H2SO4), 70% w/w
• Mixture of 3 M H2SO4 and 1 M HCl
• Formic acid (HCOOH), 5% w/w
• Mixture of HCl 12% w/w and hydrofluoric acid (HF) 3% w/w
• Brine (calcium chloride CaCl2 / calcium bromide CaBr2)
The tests were performed under hydrothermal conditions at 80°C for 14 days and did not show any significant corrosive
response of the ceramic materials to the fluids (standard stainless steel samples were heavily corroded or completely dissolved
under the same conditions).

Loop Test
The purpose of this test was to determine if the developed ceramic screen is able to withstand the forces acting on it in bent
pipe during the deployment on drill pipe and to approve its installation in the down hole application.
The ceramic screen assembly was tested in a 7” OD test loop in Måde, Denmark at the premises of Maersk Oil (Figure 6a).
The horizontal test loop was equipped with 800ft of 7” 29.0 ppf L80 Casing and had a coiled tubing rig on the facility to run
completion equipment up and down through the horizontal test loop. To simulate accurately the well conditions, a dog leg
severity of 5 degree / 100ft was set up with the ceramic screen run with pup joints below and above the SSD (each 8ft long) to
mimic the lower completion design. In total the ceramic screen was run and successfully tested through a distance of 36,000 ft
in the horizontal test loop at an average speed of 24 m/min (80 ft/min). This test length represented three times 12,000 ft
because the ceramic screen should be able to be unaffected by at least this three runs (1x RIH, 1x POOH again due to
unplanned events, 1x RIH).
The post test inspection showed no damage to the ceramic system, with only minimal wear of the metal shroud (not needed
once the ceramic screen is at target depth). After disassembly and cleaning, the ceramic screen components where intact and
re-usable, none of the ceramic rings were damaged. For further details see Müssig et al. (2010).

Bend Test
A 1.5m test screen has been submitted to bend testing (Figure 6b). The slot openings have been monitored with a
displacement transducer, and the bending angle was incrementally raised.
6 SPE 166092

Up to 20° / 100 ft, all bending is absorbed via the spring system and the slot opening size is stable. This indicates that the
ceramic screen could filter efficiently even being installed in a dogleg of 20° / 100 ft as slot opening tolerance is maintained.
The bending angle was than increased up to 90° / 100 ft without damaging the ceramic screen. Under these conditions, the
slots open throughout the screen as supposed by design of the spring system. After relaxation, the slot opening closes again
down to the original value, with no damage to either the ceramic rings or other system parts.

Push-off Test
The end caps of the ceramic screens have been tested in order to determine the maximum applicable load upon installation.
The test is performed from both sides, and the end rings are pushed at with full contact (Figure 6c). A symmetrical distribution
of push load is essential. The tests for 3.5″ screen size were passed and the end rings could not be pushed off with a load of 62
tons (limit of the test press).

Figure 6: Ceramic Screens Qualification Tests, a) loop test, b) bend test, c) push-off test

Customized Computational Fluid Simulation (CFS) Calculation

In order to evaluate the pressure drop over the ceramic screens, a CFS has been developed in cooperation with the
University of Bochum, Germany. Basis of the calculation is the one-dimensional flow filament theory with the parameter
being calibrated in according to an entire computerized fluid simulation of a smaller section of the screen. The theory was
confirmed by real-life testing showing a negligible deviation, well within pre defined tolerances. In the current application, the
CFS showed very small pressure drops < 0.4 bar over the screens.

Field Application

Prior to the workover the well X had a commingled gas condensate production from the deeper lying Reservoirs B and C
through a 3 ½” single completion. The workover objectives were to abandon the depleted depeer lying formations and
complete the well to produce new gas condensate reserves from shallower virgin Reservoir A, by running a 3 ½” single
completion with ceramic screens and sliding sleeves for both sand control and water shut-off.

Operational Procedure
A workover rig was utilized and the well was killed with 25 bbl of LCM pill and displaced with 63 bbl of 8.55 ppg KCl
brine; a slickline operation was performed to set a XX plug at 2288.5 m MDBRT. In sequence the X-mas tree was nippled
down and the BOP stack was nippled up and tested with 500-3,500 psi. The existing 237 joints of 3 ½” TSH production string
was pulled out of hole. Two permanent bridge plugs were run in hole on wireline and then set at 2284 & 2265 m MDBRT in
order to isolate both deeper lying formations.
Once the completion was pulled an USIT-CBL-GR-CCL log run was performed, which revealed low corrosion damage on
the 7” casing but confirmed a sub-optimal cement bond within 7” and 9 5/8” casings around the target zones. A sump packer
assembly was then set at 2039 m MDBRT (top) with wireline for exact positioning to isolate the depper lying formations. The
virgin Reservoir A was then perforated using TCP/DST with 700 psi underbalance. This was made up of a 4 ½” gun assembly
allowing 5 SPF and with 4539 ZX Predator HMX charges for extra deep penetration.
The completion assembly was made up of a WPE-5 Optimax SSSV, a 2.81” SSD, a PHL Hydraulic Set Perma-Latch
packer, 2 x 2.75” Slimline SSD’s shrouded with ceramic screens of 6 gauge & 12 gauge (both below the PHL packer), a
middle isolation PHL packer, 2 x 3 ½″ ceramic screens 6 gauge & 12 gauge below the middle isolation PHL packer and a No-
Go seal unit locator, which allowed the assembly to be located into the previously run Sump packer. The PHL packers were
then set with 3,500 psi and pressure tested up to 2,700 psi. Figure 7 shows ptotographs involving some operations during
ceramics screens deployment. The final well completion schematic post workover is illustrated by Figure 8.
SPE 166092 7

Figure 7: Well X workover, a) screens being lifted, b) screens being assembled, c) screens being deployed

Figure 8 – Well X completion schematic post workover with downhole ceramic screens and sliding sleeves
8 SPE 166092

Well Clean-up
The well was cleaned-up using coiled tubing (CT) and nitrogen; a standard onshore well test package was used (coiled flex,
desander, ESD device, choke manifold, heater, fluids separator, gauges tanks and gas flare system). The well was unloaded
using Nitrogen conveyed by CT at different depths to create adequate underbalance and consenquently allowing the well to
flow on its own ability. Once the well had been fully unloaded a slow and cautious bean-up operation was performed in order
to avoid abrupt drawdown changes and consequential damage to new downhole completion equipment. Figure 9 illustrates the
well clean-up history with both unloading and bean-up operations.

Gas Rate Choke Size WHP Brine PH @ Surface Cumulative Brine Production

Gas Rate (MMscf/d) Choke (1/64")  WHP (100 psig)  Brine PH

26 80
CT @ 500 m MD pumping 
N2 @ 250 scf/min 
24
70
22

Cumulative Brine Production (bbl)  
20
60
18
CT being POOH
16 50

14
CT @ 360 m MD pumping 
40
N2 @ 300 scf/min 
12

10 30

8
20
6

4
10
2

0 0

Figure 9 – Well X post workover clean-up with unloading and bean-up operations implemented

Results

The selected perforating charges proved to be effective bypassing both the 9 5/8” and 7” casings. Prior to lining up well X
on production tests were performed to evaluate screens slot sizing; the sand rates were measured at surface with both acoustic
monitor and desander under different well conditions to determine which screens would allow sand free gas production. In
addition to this a flow-after-flow test followed by a build-up were performed to evaluate reservoir properties and well damage.

Production Tests for Screens Evaluation

Two production tests were performed after the well had been cleaned-up under the following well conditions:
1) Production flow through both the 6 gauge and 12 gauge ceramic screens
2) Prodution flow only through the 6 gauge ceramic screens
For each test the sand rates were measured at surface using both the acoustic monitor and desander every 30 minutes. The
desander sand rates results and well conditions for each test are shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11.
Comparing both productions tests it was concluded that the gap width of 0.012″ provided by 12 gauge ceramic screens was
very slow at allowing a natural sand formation bridge to occur behind the screens and thus sand was flowing freely into the
well bore and to surface compromising well and surface facilities. With the 6 gauge ceramic screens the natural sand
formations bridge occurred quicker and sand free gas production was observed. Based on these results the production was then
allocated through the 6 gauge ceramic screens and the 12 gauge ceramic screens were isolated.
SPE 166092 9

Figure 10 – Production test with flow through all 6 gauge and 12 gauge ceramic screens

Figure 11 – Production test with flow only through 6 gauge ceramic screens

Well Test
A well test designed as a flow-after-flow followed by a build-up was then performed in well X with main objectives to
evaluate reservoir properties and well damage. The log-log plot methodology was used for the interpretation and the radial
flow signature resulted in a reservoir conductivity of 749 md.m (Figure 12). Prior to the pressure build-up the well was
flowing at 5.5 MMscf/d with a drawdown of 100 psi and for the abovementioned radial flow the well damage (skin) was
calculated as being 10. Neighbour gravel packed wells with similar gas production have shown higher skins.
10 SPE 166092

2580

P re ssu re [p sia ]
1E+7 2530
Gas potential [psi2/cp]

2480

1E+6

G a s ra te [M scf/D ]
5000

2500

0
1E+5 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10
Time [hr] Time [hr]

Figure 12: a) log-log plot with simulated model response b) BHP history during the test with simulated model response

Production History
The well X was set on production on 3rd October 2012 and its production history is show in Figure 13. Production tests
were regularly performed at surface to monitor fluids and fines production. Within two weeks the fines rate dropped to zero
and a constant gas rate was observed at the same choke size with the build up of a natural sand formation bridge behind the
screens. On 23rd January 2013 the well had to be shut-in due to the planned gas plant maintenance providing us a good
opportunity to investigate the observed rapid WHP decrease; after 40h at shut-in conditions a static gradient was performed
and it was noticed that the reservoir pressure was 600 psi lower than its virgin pressure. Therefore this confirms that the rapid
WHP decrease was due to the reservoir depletion and not to the fact of screens being plugged by fines; consequently this
proves that stable borehole conditions had been achieved.

WHP Gas Rate Choke Size Fines Rate (g/d)

Fines Rate (g/d)

2,200 60

55

50
2,000
45

40

Gas Rate (MMscf/d)

1,800 35
WHP (psig)

30

1,600 25

20

15
Choke Size (1/64″)
1,400
10

1,200 0

Figure 13 – Well X production history

Conclusions

The ceramic screens have proved to be an effective alternative solution as a downhole sand control method in well
completions. In this particular project where sand control was required in a gas condensate well the use of ceramic screens
allowed production from a virgin formation reinstating a well which was potentially marked for abandonment.
Due to the challenging well conditions including double casing with sub-optimal cement across the target zone it was not
SPE 166092 11

possible to perform the initial option of a cased-hole gravel pack. In gas wells and sandstone formations where the erosional
environments can be extremely high the ceramic screens with their exceptional properties provide longer lifetime than
conventional screens therefore reducing the need of costly future workovers. For this project the ceramic screens were selected
as the most effective completion solution allowing a standalone screen assembly for both downhole sand control and
mechanical water isolation.
It is important to conclude that a representative formation core PSD is critical during the screen design phase. Without this
suboptimal slot sizing can lead to sand production or plugging of the screens. In this particular project due to the absence of
such data a dual screen sizing approach had to be used which added cost to the project. In this project the 6 gauge screen
provided the required retention and effective sand control. The sand retention with the 12 gauge screen was very
slow resulting in poor bridging behind the screen and allowing formation sand to pass through it; this could have affected the
integrity of the well and subsequent topside equipment.
When utilizing the ceramics as a dual screen sizing approach (or if ceramic screens are being run for the first time) it is
paramount that both acoustic and surface sand retention equipment (for example cyclonic desanders or sand catchers) are used
in the surface well test spread. This will enable accurate evaluation of sand retention of the screens. Prior to this a detailed
analysis should be performed to evaluate acceptable sand rates during the well test.
By utilizing the ceramic screens as downhole sand control solution the requirement of having to use complex fluid trains
(common to gravel packing) was also removed. This clearly resulted in a lower formation damage (highlighted by a skin of 10)
when compared to gravel packed wells in the same vicinity and with similar production. The well production history shows
satisfactory sand free gas production at stable borehole conditions confirming the project success achieved with ceramic
screens deployment.
Finally to conclude the ceramic screens offer a viable alternative to existing sand control methods. As a result of their
exceptional properties they can be used for new wells or as thru-tubing solution for wells which are currently shut-in or on
reduced production. They can also play an important role in challenging wells where interventions can be problematic and
expensive (for example deepwater subsea) and in extreme reservoir conditions (for example HPHT).

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank BGA Group plc and ESK Ceramics for their fully commitment during ceramic screens
development phase. We would also like to thank BG Bolivia and Christine Gonzalez for their encouragement, for their support
during job design & execution and also for their permission to publish this work.

References

 Saucier, R.J. 1974. Considerations in Gravel Pack Design. Paper SPE 4030 presented at the SPE-AIME Annual Fall Meeting held in San
Antonio, Texas, USA, 8-11 October.
 Rogers, E.B.Jr. 1971. Sand Control in Oil and Gas Wells. Oil and Gas Journal 54
 Coberly, C.J. 1937. Selection of Screen Openings for Unconsolidated Sands. Drilling and Production Practices: 189-201
 King, G.E. 2009. Sand Control Overview. http://gekengineering.com/Downloads/Free_Downloads/Sand_Control_Overview.pdf
(downloaded 09 April 2012).
 Müssig, S., Wagner, S., Kayser, A., and Wildhack, S. 2010. The Development of Ceramic Screens to Prevent Sand Influx and erosion in
Stimulated Production Wells. OIL GAS European Magazine 3: 126-130.