Comparative Study on the Performance of Different Stand-Alone Sand Control Screens in Thermal Wells

Abstract

Stand-alone sand screen (SAS) is proven to be effective for sand control in unconsolidated sands in thermal wells. The characteristic design parameter to specify SAS is the aperture size, while the Open to Flow Area (OFA) is chosen to balance between the mechanical integrity of the screen, the completion cost, and the plugging risk. The objective of this study is to compare the performance of common SAS types for a certain geological condition. A series of three-phase large-scale sand retention tests (SRTs) is performed on slotted liner, wire-wrapped screen, and punched screen coupons. The tests are performed using two common representative PSDs of the McMurray Formation. The test matrix includes the common aperture sizes and OFA for each screen and PSD based on the current best practices in the industry. The test procedure is designed to mimic the near wellbore flow velocities, with three-phase flow ranging from 0%-100% water cut and produced gas-oil ratio ranging from 0-277 scf/bbl. The gas flow was supposed to simulate the steam breakthrough incidents. Live measurements are obtained of the sanding amount and pressure drops along the sand-pack and across the screen. Screen plugging is assessed after the completion of each test. The sanding and flow performance are shown to be a function of the aperture size, PSD, near-wellbore flow velocities, and the water cut. In low fluid flow rates, all the screen types show minimal pressure drops and perform similarly. As near-wellbore velocities increase or gas flow occurs, pressure drops show a significant increase for all devices. Results show OFA, aperture size, and screen type affect the pressure drop and sanding. In all cases, the produced sand in three-phase flow is the determining design parameter for the upper-bound acceptable aperture. The gas flow is observed to accompany large amounts of sanding for larger aperture sizes. Further, test results indicate high pressure drops for three-phase flow conditions. Test results reveal the complexity of the interaction between different design parameters, which affect the sand and flow performance, hence, necessitating an SRT test for each specific case. This paper presents the results of physical model testing of different standalone screens in terms of flow performance and sand control. This will help to identify the main factors that influence the performance of each specific screen type and develop the rationale for the screen type selection in new developments.

An Investigation into Current Sand Control Testing Practices for Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage Production Wells

“…A few sand control testing setups and procedures are introduced in the literature, attempting to simulate SAGD production wells. The testing devices in the literature can be categorized into two groups: slurry sand retention testing [8][9][10][11][12][13][14] and pre-pack sand retention testing [3,4,7,13,[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. In the slurry testing, a low concentration slurry of sand and fluids is pumped into an empty cell towards the SCD coupon at a constant flow rate.…”

“…Wang et al [24], Fattahpour et al [25], and Guo et al [29] introduced a scaled completion testing (SCT) facility to evaluate the performance of different SCDs at various axial and lateral stress conditions. They used the moist tamping technique and representative brine pH and salinity.…”

Experimental Evaluation of the Multiphase Flow Effect on Sand Production Process: Prepack Sand Retention Testing Results

“…The sanding process is being investigated for steamassisted gravity drainage (SAGD) operations and for conventional oil and gas production. This is mostly due to specific applications of the SAGD-production process: high temperatures, low reservoir depths, high clay content, and other features [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. Conventional oil and gas production from wells prone to sanding is not as widely discussed and studied as for SAGD-operations, even though sanding in such fields is present for almost a century [8].…”

CFD-DEM Simulation Of Multi-Particle Arching At Sand Filter Opening

“…The filter open flow area, that is the area of filter open to flow, and mesh size or opening size of the filter are the factors considered when selecting a filter. Solid particle buildup and plugging [9], [10] at the entrance and throughout the length of the filter opening are the common failure [11] mechanisms in filters. Plugging is the reduction in the open flow area of the filter, mainly due to trapped solid particles.…”