Sand Control

d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
Gravel Pack Design e
s u
s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
T au
x -P
E
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr
Manuel Bramao
PE-SC-0006
Learning Objectives

▪ Main tests for a sand control design

▪ Gravel size d . 8
r v e 201
▪ Slot size for Gravel Pack s e un 1,
s re 28 - J
h t ay
▪ Slot size for Natural Sand Pack or SAS r i g (Stand
-M Alone Screen)
A ll ran c e
▪ Fluid selection T . au, F
x -P
NEouard
t © Dr
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr

1 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Information necessary for Sand Control

• Dry sieve analysis

• Mineralogy
• Laser particle
. size
Formation • Shale stability Particle Size
e d 018
analysis
analysis Distribution v
er un 1,
2
s
re - J
g hts a y 28

• Oil or water based l l ri nce • Theoretically Saucier etc.

-M
. A , Fra
• Required additives for xT Pau • Verified with sand
Completion fluid
stability NE uard - Gravel Sizing retention test
selection
t © Dro
h tin
y rigValen
op or
• OpenChole
f
c edor cased
u • Wire wrap slot size
hole.Prod
Gravel pack • Premium screen pore size
method ? • 𝞪𝞫 or Alternate Path Screen sizing

2 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Information necessary for Sand Control

▪ Completion method based on the formation information

– Shale stability . 8
d
e 201
– Bottom Hole Temperature (BHT) r v
e un 1,
s
re 28 - J
– Bottom Hole Pressure (BHP) h s
t ay
r i g e-M
– Formation Heterogeneity l l nc
T . Aau, F r a

– Formation Height E x -P
N ouard
t © Dr
– Deviation i g h ntin
y r Vale
– Acid Solubility Cop d for
u ce
Reservoir Drive od
– Pr Type (water, gas, compaction, etc.)

▪ Completion fluid selection and compatibility

3 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Sand Control Completion will depend on:

▪ Type of drilling/drill-in fluids

▪ Casing setting depth d . 8
r v e 201
▪ Displacement procedures and well conditioning s e un 1,
s re 28 - J
h t ay
▪ Completion equipment r i g e-M
l l nc
▪ Perforation Strategy T . Aau, F r a

E x -P
N ouard
▪ Fluid loss control t © Dr
i g h ntin
▪ Completion procedures y r Vale
o p for
C uced
▪ How the well isProbrought
d on production
▪ How the well is produced
▪ Required producing life for the completion
4 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved
Formation sampling

▪ Per layer
– critical for gravel size determination
▪ Full core samples are best d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
▪ Sidewall cores are the next best e
s u
e
r 28 - J
– frequent sampling
h t s ay
– heterogeneous formation - 1 ft g
ri nce - M
l l
– uniform formations - 5, 10, 20 ft spacing . A u, Fra
T a x -because
▪ Bailed samples are not representative E
N ouar d
P
of loss of smaller particles which
are usually carried out withhthe t ©tinhydrocarbon
Dr
▪ Sand separator samples y rigare a
n
leusually not representative because the larger
p V
Cobeen f or
particles may have c ed left in the well and the very fine particles may pass
u
though the separator.
P r od

▪ shale-shaker
– Is not acceptable. It is often mixed with the mud so the mineralogy and size distribution are
suspect.

Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Testing

▪ First step
– Determine the formation particle size distribution (PSD) or. granulometry.
e d 018
▪ Second step e v
r n 1, 2
r e s - Ju
– Determine the screen size (slot, gauge) and the t s gravel
28 size using specific
rules i g h - Ma y
l l r nce
– Or, perform lab test with formation . A ,and
sand Fra different screens
x T Pau
N E ard -
▪ Third step t © Drou
i g h ntin
r Vale
– Select the different ycompletion fluids
o p for
– Determine the C packing
ed mechanism you plan to use.
uc
rod
– If required, select
P the gravel packing fluid.
▪ Polymer and breaker to transport gravel
– Kill pill formulation
Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved
Particle Size Distribution

▪ Two methods used in the industry

– Dry Sieve analyses
d . 8
▪ Requires larger samples e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
▪ Simpler and cheaper equipment
s re 28 - J
▪ Can only measure down to about 45 microns
i ht ay
g e-M
– Laser Particle Size Analysis
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
x -PT au
▪ More expensive equipment E
N ard
▪ Smaller sample sizes t © Dro
u
g n h tin
p for yri ale
▪ Quicker to run multiple samples
V
o
▪ Data presented inCcumulative
ed weight % vs size
u c
od
Pr
▪ Large particles contribute more to the results than smaller particles. There are
far more smaller particles in a given sand than the sieve analysis would indicate
– This error may lead to wrong gravel and screen selection

7 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Sieve analysis

▪ Formation Sand
– Sample is run through a series of sieves . 8
d
e 201
– Only measure down to 45 µm r v
e un 1,
s
re 28 - J
– Time consuming h s
t ay
r i g e-M
– Results depend on lab procedure (crushing l l ncand
T . Aau, F r a
cleaning) E x -P
N ouard
– Amount remaining on each t ©sieve
Dr is plotted as a
i h
g lent in
r
y oweight
function of cumulative Va % versus grain
p
Couced f
r
diameter d o
Pr

8 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

US Mesh Sizes

d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
T au
x -P
E
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr

Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Laser particle size analysis
▪ Laser particle analysis
– Sample is dispersed in water* or alcohol. When the laser beam hits a particle,
d . 8
the beam diffracts around, through and scatters from the
r v e 201
particle.
s e un 1,
– Measure down to 0.4 µm
s re 28 - J
h t ay
– Very quick lab test r i g e-M
l l nc
– Two theories for analysis T . Aau, F r a

E x -P
▪ MIE – Most accurate especially©when N ouard
small prticles are presentight ntin D
r

y r Vale
o p finor older units.
▪ Fraunhofer – Technique
C ed uc
P rod

* The dispersing media is very important especially if

clays are present. Using distilled water could
disperse clays which would generate many more
finer particles
10 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved
Sieve analysis Results

d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
T au
x -P
E
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr

Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Example of granulometry (PSD)

d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
T au
x -P
E
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr

Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Sieve Analysis Plot

▪ Various points are determined

– d10 is representative of the biggest particles . 8
d
e 201
– d40 r v
e un 1,
100

– d50 average size s

re 28 - J
90

s
Poorly Sorted Sand

d90 is representative of the smallest particles ight - May

Cumulative Weight (%)

80
Well Sorted Sand

– 70

l l r nce 60

– . A , Fra
d95 is representative of the smallest particles
xT - Pau
50

– Sub 45 micron is considered to beEfines 40

N ouar
d
©
30

▪ Uniformity coefficient, UCh=t d40 Dr/ d90 20

▪ Sorting coefficient, SC r=i gd10/d95

nt in
y or Va le
10

p
o ed f
0

▪ These points andCthe uc UC are used to

0.1000 0.0100 0.0010 0.0001

Grain Diameter (inches)

Fines
o d
determine the required
Pr size for gravel

13 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 First pass recommendations for screen and gravel

▪d50<75𝞵, use gravel pack

d . 8
▪d50>75 𝞵 Tiffin Criteria (SPE 39437) e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
r es8 - Ju
–D10/D95<10, D40/D90<3, sub 325 mesh <2%, h ts ay 2 OH SAS
r i g e-M
–D10/D95<10, D40/D90<5, sub 325 mesh A l l<5%, a nc OH SAS Premium Screen
T . au, F r
–D10/D95<20, D40/D90<5, sub 325 E xmesh- P <5%, Gravel Pack (GP)
N ouar d
–D10/D95<20, D40/D90<5, t
sub© 325 Dr mesh <10%, GP Screen sized for fines
i g h t in
y r Vale n
o p for sub 325 mesh >10%,
–D10/D95>20, D40/D90>5, GP Horizontal
C uce d
od
Pr

SPE 39437, Tiffin & al Criteria

14 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Recommendations continued

▪ If SAS completion
– WWS use sand advisor or if that is not available start at slot size of d10
d . 8
– For premium mesh screens us sand advisor or if that is not available
e 1 v
r n 1, 2
0
▪ For d50 > 200 micron , use 250 micron mesh screen e
s - Ju
r e
▪ For 200 micron > d50 > 140 micron , use 175 m mesh screen
t s
hscreen y 28
i g
r nce
▪ For 140 micron > d50 > 120 micron , use 115 m mesh - Ma
l l
▪ For 120 micron > d50 > 65 micron , use 60.mAmesh rascreen
T ,F
▪ If Gravel Pack completion E x - Pa
u
N ouar d
– For gravel sizing uses Saucier’s ©
t tin criteria
Dr (D50 = 6 x d50)
h
– For screen sizing, wp=y0.5 rigVxalD90
en
o for
▪ For 40/60 gravel,Cusec8e gauge screen slot
d
u
od 12 gauge screen slot
▪ For 20/40 gravel,Pruse
▪ For 16/30 gravel, use 18 gauge screen slot
▪ For 12/20 gravel, use 25 gauge screen slot
▪ Verify all final designs with simulation and retention testing
15 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved
Uniformity coefficient (UC)

UC = D40 / D90

d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
100

90 s u
re 28 - J
s
ht ay
g e-M
Poorly Sorted Sand

i
80

r
Well Sorted Sand
Cumulative Weight (%)

ll nc
A , Fra
.
70

x -P T au
E
60

N ard
50
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
40

p or
Couced f
30

od
20

Pr
10

0
0.1000 0.0100 0.0010 0.0001

Grain Diameter (inches)

Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Heterogeneous formation with high % of fines

Hungo-2 Cummulative Grain Size

d . 8
e 01
erv n 1, 2
100.0

res8 - Ju
90.0

h ts ay 2
ig - M
80.0

l l r nce 70.0

. A ra,F
x T au
60.0

NEouard

Cumlative (%)
-P
© Dr
50.0

t
h tin
rigValen
40.0

y
p or 30.0

Couced f 20.0

od
Pr 10.0

0.0
10000 1000 100
44 m 10 1
Grain size (m)

Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

17
Exercise - Granulometry

d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
T au
x -P
E
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr

Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Gravel Pack design : gravel size
d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
T au
x -P
E
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr
 Gravel Pack design

▪ To better understand the gravel pack process we need to look at

several phenomena: .
e d 018
v
er n 1 , 2
r es8 - Ju
– Arching effect h s 2
t ay
r i g e-M
l l nc
– Matrix and Gravel damage
T . Aau, F r a

– Fines migration E x -P
N ouard
t © Dr
i g h ntin
y r Vale
o p for
C uced
od
Pr

20 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Comparison Permeability to Pore Size

Critical Plugging
Permeability Pore Size Range
d . 8
(*Millidarcies) (Microns) 1/3 to 1/7
r v e 201
s e un 1,
re 28 - J
(Microns)
s
h t toay0.14
1 1
r i g e-M
0.3
5 2.2 l l nc
0.75 to 0.32
10 3.2 T . Aau, F 1.05 to 0.45
r a

50
x P 2.36 to 1.01
7.1NE ard -
t © Drou
100
i h 10.0
g 15.8 nt in
3.33 to 1.43
250 y r a le 5.27 to 2.26
o p for 22.4
V
500 C uced 7.45 to 3.19
750 od 27.4 9.13 to 3.91
Pr
1000 31.6 10.54 to 4.52
1500 38.7 12.91 to 5.53
2000 44.7 14.91 to 6.39

Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Arching Assists in Restricting Sand Production

d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
T au
x -P
E
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr

Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Why Arches Do Not Remain Stable

▪ Changing Stress State

– Pore Pressure Reduction . 8
d
e 01
▪ Changing Drag Forces e rv n 1, 2
s u
re 28 - J
h s
t ay
▪ Changes in Flow Velocity r i g e-M
l l nc
▪ Changing Water Saturations xT. Aau, F r a

E d-P N oForces
ar
– Reduction of Capillary Pressure© u
h t tin Dr
– Relative Permeability g len
riEffects
p y Va
Couced f Material
or
– Solubility of Cementing
d o
Pr

23 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Gravel Sizing
d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
T au
x -P
E
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr
Saucier (1974)
(SPE 4030)
▪ Gravel sizing criteria for GP application from sieve analysis
▪ Based on experiments with severe flow disturbances (flowdrate . 8 changes,
pressure surges, and gas evolution), suggested a ratio r v
ofepack 1
20 median grain
s e un 1 ,
size (D50) to formation median grain size (d50 oftsthe re finest
8 - J segment of
h y2
producing formation) to be between 5 andl r6igfor a
e effective
-M bridging without the
l
A , Fran
c
loss of pack permeability, i.e., .
T Pau
x
E ard -
▪ For ratios between 6 and 10.5, N
formation sand enters the pack and reduces
©
t tin D r ou
h
rigValen
the effective pack permeability
y
oped 10.5,
▪ For ratios greaterCthan for the formation sand is not adequately constrained
u c
od
Pr
D50 ~5  6d50

Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Saucier experiment

Gravel Pack Sand .

FormationdSand
v e 18
er n 1 , 20

r es8 - Ju
h t ay s 2
ig - M Fluid Flow
ll r
A , Fra nc
e
.
T au
E x -P
N ard
t © Dro u

ig alen h tin
y r
▪ Establish initial flowpratefor(qVi) and stabilized pressure drop, calculate initial permeability
(ki) Couced
P rod
▪ Increase flow rate and establish
new stabilized pressure drop
▪ Reduce flow rate to initial rate (qi) and establish stabilized pressure drop, calculate
final permeability (kf)
▪ Optimum sand control occurs when kf = ki
26 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved
 Gravel / Sand Ratio < 6

d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
T au
x -P
E
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr

27 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Gravel / Sand Ratio 6 - 10

d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
T au
x -P
E
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr

28 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Gravel / Sand Ratio > 10

d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
T au
x -P
E
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr

29 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Gravel Pack Size Selection
Sand Gravel

d . 8
100 - e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
re 28 - J

Gravel Pack Retained K %

s
ht ay
r i g e-M
A , Fra ll nc
.
T au
E x -P
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr
0-
1 6 14
D50 / d50 Ratio

30 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Gravel Pack Sizing

▪Gravel size(D50) vs Sand size(d50)

d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J
ht ay
Sand Gravel

r i g e-M
ll nc
A , Fra
.
T au
E x -P
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr

31 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Gravel Sizing

▪ Gravel Pack case

– Saucier rule for Gravel pack 5-6 x d50 . 8
d
e 01
▪ Frac Pack e rv n 1, 2
s u
re 28 - J
– rule 7-10 x d50 s
ht ay
r i g e-M
l l nc
– One size larger than Saucier/Schwartz’s
T . Aau, FCriteria
r a

E x -P
N ouard
t © Dr
i g h ntin
y r Vale
o p for
C uced
od
Pr
UC Saucier Schwartz
<5 uniform 5 to 6 d50 6xd10
5 to 10 Not very uniform 5 to 6 d50 6xd40
> 10 Not at all uniform 5 to 6 d50 6xd70
Sampling not very
representative 5 x d50 Cannot be used

32 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Exercise – Gravel Pack

▪ a)
d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
T au
x -P
E
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr

33 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Gravel and Proppants

▪ Lots of options
▪ Quartz sand (API-RP-58) d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
▪ Man-made Proppants e
s u
s re 28 - J
Carbolite / Econoprop
– i ht ay
g e-M
l l r nc
Light Weight Proppants
– T . Aau, F r a

E x -P
High Temperature Gravels © N ouard
–
h t tin Dr
High Density Proppant
–
y rigValen
o p for
C uced
▪ Generally speaking
od
Pr Ex of Gravel perm @4000 psi
– The higher the permeability, the better. K20/40 = 480 Darcy
– Typically ceramics are used more often than quartz K16/20sand
= 830today.
Darcy
K12/18 = 1100 Darcy

34 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

API RP58 (Gravel testing)

▪Sizing ▪Crush Resistance.

e d 018
- 96 % in the sieve range - Maximum e v
r n%1, 2of fines under
- Less 2 % through smallest 2,000
r es8psi
-J :
u
h ts ay 2
sieve r i g- e8/16
- M = 8%
A ll ra-n 12/20 = 4 %
c
▪Roundness and Sphericity T . au, F
E x -P
- Both superior to 0.6 in the N ouard - Smaller = 2 %
©
Krumbein Chart ght ntin Dr
y ri Vale
▪Acid Solubility op d for
C uce
- Not exceedPr1%
od in (HCl-HF)

Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Gravel selection optimization

▪ Synthetic gravel
Better sorting & less fines during handling / placement .
–
e d 018
More uniform pore size distribution
– e v
r n 1, 2
r es8 - Ju
Narrower size ranges
– h ts ay 2
r i g e-M
Optimize range (e.g. 20/25, 30/35…mesh)
– l l at
nc minimal cost
T . Aau, F r a

▪ Saucier is still commonly used. E x -P

N ouard
t © Dr
▪ Some indications that i g h may
it tin be overly conservative but…
yr or Va le n
p
Couced f(USA) experience may indicate that we have gotten
– Some Gulf of Mexico
od
overly aggressive
Pr thus the increased market for fines control chemistry.

▪ When in doubt, go to the lab and test your sand with the gravel of
choice.
36 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved
Screen opening design
d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
T au
x -P
E
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr
Gravel Pack case – Wire Wrapped situation

▪ In the 30’s Coberly : gravel can retain sand if d50gravel >2.5

slot size d . 8
e 01 rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J
i g between ht ay
▪ The screen opening is typically
l l r c e -M 50-70% of the
. A , Fra n
xT Pau
smallest gravel diameter
E ard -
- For 20/40 sand the smallest N
t © Drougravel is 40 mesh (D50 = 0.0165”)
gh lentin or 0.012” opening (12 gauge)
- 0.0165” x 70%y=ri0.01155”
p Va
Couced f or

od
Pr

38 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Gravel and screen slot design

Mesh
US
f f f median
moyen f median
moyen Porosity
Porosité k
K Screendes
Slot slot
mesh
US (inch)
(inch) (mm)
(mm) (inch)
(inch) (mm)
(mm) (%)
d . (D)
(D) gauges
crépines
3-4 0.265-0.187 6.73-4.75 0.226 5.74
rv e 01
8100
23700
8 100
4-6 0.187-0.132 4.75-3.35 0.160 4.06
s e 1, 90
6-8 0.132-0.094 3.35-2.39 0.113 2.87
r e Ju
n 2900 60
6 - 10 0.132-0.079 3.35-2.01 0.106
h t s
2.68
y
-
2842 2703 50
8 - 10 0.094-0.079 2.39-2.01 0.0865
r i g2.197
2.035 - M
a 50

ll e
8 - 12 0.094-0.066 2.39-1.68 0.080 41.5 1970 30
c
10 - 14 0.079-0.056 2.01-1.42
.
0.0675
A F
n
ra1.60
1.71 800 30
10 - 16 0.079-0.047 2.01-1.19
x T 0.063
0.056Pau
, 20

NE
10 - 20 0.079-0.033 2.01-0.838 1.42 40.5 650 20
-
10 - 30 0.079-0.023 2.01-0.589 rd
0.051
a0.053
1.299 15
12 - 18 0.066-0.039
t ©
1.68-0.99
rou 1.335 20

gh tin
D
yri
12 - 20 0.066-0.033 1.68-0.84 0.050 1.26 510 20
n
ale
16 - 20 0.047-0.033 1.19-0.84 0.04 1.015 330 20
16 - 30 0.047-0.023
o p r V
1.19-0.589
fo0.84-0.419
0.035 0.889 270 15
20 - 40
30 - 40 0.023-0.0165
C
0.033-0.0165 d
u ce 0.584-0.419
0.025
0.01975
0.629
0.502
40.9 170
110
12
12
40 - 50
P rod
0.0165-0.0117 0.419-0.297 0.014 0.358 8
40 -60 0.0165-0.0098 0.419-0.249 0.013 0.334 39.8 70 8
50 - 60 0.0117-0.0098 0.297-0.249 0.01075 0.273 40 6
40 - 70 0.0165-0.0083 0.419-0.210 0.013 0.314 6
40 - 100 0.0165-0.006 0.419-0.149 0.011 0.284
60 - 70 0.098-0.0083 0.249-0.210 0.053 0.230

Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Stand alone screen SAS

▪ Slotted Liner
– Slotted Liner Opening is approximately equal to d10 . 8
d
e 01
▪ Wire Wrapped Screen e rv n 1, 2
s u
re 28 - J
– Slot width = d10 s
ht ay
r i g e-M
▪ Mesh Screen ll nc
A , Fra
.
T au
E x -P
– Nominal pore size = d10 © ou N ard
h t tin Dr
▪ Lab test y rigValen
o p for
C depending
– Slurry or pack test ed on which failure mechanism you envision.
uc
P rod

43 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

SAS WWS – slot design

Designing the adequate sand screen

d . 8
for a typical turbiditic sand granulometry e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
re
100
-J
hts

Cumulative proportion (%)

y 28
r i g e -M
a
ll nc
A , Fra
75
.
T au
E x -P
N ard 50
t © D rou
h tin
y rigValen
p or 25
Couced f d10
P rod 0
1000 Slot or pore = 300 micron100 10
approx. 12 gauge screen
Particle size (microns)

Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Screen OD Sizing Guidelines

▪ Clearance: minimum 3" in OH and 2" in Case Hole

d . 8
r e 01
v 1, 2
Casing Screenss une
s re 28 - J
h t ay
5" and 5 1/2" rig2ce3/8"
ll ran
-M
A
. au, F
T
7" Ex d - P 3 1/2" or 4"
N ouar
©
t tin Dr
h
rig7 5/8"
len
y or Va
4" or 4 1/2"
p
Couced f 9 5/8" 5" or 5 1/2"
od
Pr

Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Screen, blank pipe & wash pipe

▪ Screen length: 5 ft above and 5 ft below perforations

▪ Screen OD: gap of 1-in per side d . 8
rv e 201
▪ Wash pipe OD: very close to screen ID screenrese- Jminimumu n 1,
gapwash-pipe

t s 28
h - Ma  1-in
y
▪ Blank pipe OD: slightly less than screen i g
r nce
l l
A , Fra
.
▪ Blank pipe ID: same as screenxT - Pau
NEouard
t © Dr
h tin
y rigValen
p or
blank pipe
Couced f
od
Pr

screen

46 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Completion Skin

rw

d . 8
r v e 201
s e 1,
re s - Jus p  sd  sdp
n

i g ehts a y 28
r -M
kdp
rdp
ll nc
A , Fra
.
rp

x -P T au
E
N ard
t© rou
kR

igh n D
r nti
p y Va
le

CL o ed f or
uc
p

Pr
od  h  rdp  k R k R 
sdp   ln   
kd  L p n  rp  k dp k d 
   
rd
47 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

After McLeod, JPT (Jan. 1983) p. 32.

 Gravel Pack Skin

Cement

d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
x -P T au k R hLg
E
N ard
t © Dro
h tin
u s gp 
g 2
p yri Va len 2nk gp rp
o
C ed for
uc
P rod

Lg

48 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Exercise – Gravel Pack

b)

d . 8
c) e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
T au
x -P
E
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr

Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Any Questions?

d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
T au
x -P
E
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr

50 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved