No abstract

EVWUDFW² 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV UHVHDUFK ZDV WR ILQG D FRVW HIIHFWLYH DQG UHSHDWDEOH PHWKRG IRU UHOHDVLQJ KLJKTXDOLW\ PLFURSDUWV IURP D VLOLFRQ VXEVWUDWH E\ EXON PLFURPDFKLQLQJ WHFKQRORJ\ &U\VWDOORJUDSKLF VKDSH UHPRYDO WHFKQRORJ\ RQ WKH ILQDOO\ UHOHDVHG VLOLFRQ R[LGH SDUWV ZDV SXW LQWR VFUXWLQ\ 6HYHUDO PHWKRGV ZHUH DSSURDFKHG DV SRVVLEOH VROXWLRQV 7KHVH PHWKRGV LQFOXGH HWK\OHQHGLDPLQH ± S\URFDWHFKRO ZDWHU (3: HWFKDQW WKH DGGLWLRQ RI D ERURQ GRSDQW WR WKH VLOLFRQ GLR[LGH OD\HU SUHWKLQQLQJ RI ZDIHUV DQG WKH XVH RI SRO\LPLGH FRDWLQJV WR WKLQ WKH VLOLFRQ VXEVWUDWH VXEVHTXHQW WR SDUW UHOHDVH 7KH FRPELQHG PHWKRG RI ERURQ GRSLQJ DQG SRO\LPLGH FRDWLQJ SURGXFHG WKH EHVW UHVXOWV ,QGH[ 7HUPV²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

During frac-pack treatments, proppant erosion is often a limiting factor for the allowable flow rate and total volume of proppant pumped during the job. Each completion assembly has a rating based on limited amounts of full scale erosion testing which is typically provided for one or two types of proppant. Previous testing results have shown that different types of proppant, such as lightweight ceramic (LWC), intermediate strength proppant (ISP), and high-strength proppant (HSP) have different erosion rates.A jet impingement test facility was used to compare different sources of proppant for each of the commonly used proppant types. The test facility was designed to replicate the downhole conditions, while providing the capability to control the test parameters. A nozzle diameter was selected to represent the typical flow-structure size within the completion equipment and a linear gel with proppant loadings between 2 and 10 PPA was selected for the test slurry. The test coupons were low-alloy steel with a representative heat treatment of the material used for downhole equipment. The results were analyzed by measuring mass removal and the 3D erosion profile to compare the overall erosion rate in each test, as well as the erosion profile produced by the various proppants. Furthermore, the proppant was inspected using a laser confocal microscope to provide comparisons between proppant types and sources.The test results, presented in this paper, show that different sources of proppant within a single type of proppant can lead to significantly different erosion rates. Comparison between two sources of HSP showed that there can be a variation in erosion rate of over 60% and that the variation in erosion rate can double when comparing two sources of ISP. These results have verified that proposed changes, such as changing the proppant from what was tested originally for the frac-job operation, can affect the erosion within the completion equipment. Therefore, it is of critical importance to evaluate the possible effects of any change to ensure that the rating of the tool will not be exceeded. HistoryThe industry has recognized that utilizing higher rates when gravel packing yields better well results. Early work pursued high rate water packs (Ledlow et al. 1993), while others pursued early frac packing technology using gelled fluid as a carrier (Hannah et al. 1994). The early work focused on the effects of formation stimulation and the lower skins that could be achieved. Existing gravel packing tool systems had been designed for low rate gelled gravel pack or water packing processes. As larger proppant volumes and higher rates were envisioned, it became apparent that the tool systems had to be evaluated for their suitability for use.Frac Pack testing began in the early 1990s: an early project that drove testing was for a completion in Alaska that required pump rates up to 20 barrels per minute (BPM) and proppant volumes as high as 1.2 million pounds of proppant. Testing was conducted by several service companies and thei...

No abstract