Criteria for Back Production of Drilling Fluids through Sand Control Screens

Marken, Craig; Markestad, Per; Rorvik, Ola

doi:10.2523/38187-ms

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…8,9 Lau and Davis conducted experiments with various screen and mud combinations, with known PSD in the muds, and suggested the "1/7 th rule," which states that no plugging will occur if the D 50 of the particles in the mud is 1/7 th of the screen openings. 8 Marken et al conducted a series of experiments with wire-wrapped screens using conditioned (passed through shaker screens) mud systems and various gauge WWS, and suggested that no screen plugging would occur if the screen openings are greater than 2.5 to 2.7 times the shaker screen openings.…”

Section: Screen Plugging and Obm Conditioningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…8 Marken et al conducted a series of experiments with wire-wrapped screens using conditioned (passed through shaker screens) mud systems and various gauge WWS, and suggested that no screen plugging would occur if the screen openings are greater than 2.5 to 2.7 times the shaker screen openings. 9 Note that in both cases, the primary interest was whether or not the screens could be run in conditioned mud and the well produced with conditioned OBM flow back in standalone screen completions, without plugging the screens. The primary driver for the rule proposed by Marken et al was that there is no practical method for controlling D 50 of the particles in the mud, but the maximum particle size could be controlled, by passing the mud through shaker screens.…”

Section: Screen Plugging and Obm Conditioningmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gravel Packing Wells Drilled With Oil-Based Fluids: A Critical Review of Current Practices and Recommendations for Future Applications

Parlar

Twynam²,

Newberry³

et al. 2004

All Days

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. AbstractMany of the recently discovered reservoirs in deepwater/subsea environments are prime candidates for horizontal open-hole gravel packs. Presence of multiple reactive shale breaks and penetration of different sand bodies along these holes introduce a formidable challenge for selection of proper carrier fluids, considering that most of these wells require oilbased (OB) drilling fluids.Various procedures were practiced for gravel-packing wells drilled with OB fluids, most utilizing water-based (WB) carrier fluids. Primary concern in using WB carrier fluids is the destabilization of the shales.If the displacements to WB fluids are performed prior to running in hole with the sandface completion assembly, inability to run the screen assembly to target zone is the risk. Consequently, operators were forced to use a two-step process, whereby a predrilled liner is run in hole in OB fluid environment, followed by displacements to WB fluids and gravel-packing with WB fluids. This approach introduces additional rig time and increases completion costs.If the displacements to WB fluids are performed after running in hole with completion assembly, primary challenge is the prevention of screen plugging. This necessitates a comparison of the benefits and risks of displacements to solids-free oil-based fluids and conditioning of the OB drilling fluid, considering logistics.An additional consideration in gravel packing with WB fluids in reactive-shale environments is the risk of intermixing of gravel with shales, thus reduced gravel-pack permeability. Various approaches may be taken to minimize this risk. The type of carrier fluid must also be kept in mind from a formation and gravel pack damage standpoints, should losses be experienced during gravel packing.Another approach in reactive shale environments is to use an oil-based carrier fluid and avoid exposure of the open hole to WB fluids both prior to and during gravel packing. This approach, practiced in two applications, also has its limitations.In this paper, a critical review of gravel-packing practices in oil-based drilling environments is provided, along with some of the recent developments and recommendations for future applications based on lessons learned from earlier practices.

show abstract

Section: Screen Plugging and Obm Conditioningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Screen Plugging and Obm Conditioningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gravel Packing Wells Drilled With Oil-Based Fluids: A Critical Review of Current Practices and Recommendations for Future Applications

Parlar

Twynam²,

Newberry³

et al. 2004

All Days

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The generally poor level of clean-up led to serious plugging problems in many wells. [11][12][13][14] Although there were variations between operators, failure rates of 50% and higher occurred in a number of early projects using standalone screens for sand control in horizontal wells. 1 As better drill-in fluids were developed and better clean-up techniques implemented, horizontal well failure rates declined to an industry average of around 15 to 20%.…”

Section: Standalone Screens or Open Hole Gravel Packing?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Design Methodology for Selection of Horizontal Open-Hole Sand Control Completions Supported by Field Case Histories

Bennett¹,

Gilchrist²,

Pitoni³

et al. 2000

Proceedings of SPE European Petroleum Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. AbstractReservoirs requiring sand control pose a major challenge for selection of a suitable completion method. Horizontal openhole completions have been successfully utilised in such reservoirs to eliminate sand production, while maximising productivity/injectivity and well deliverability throughout the expected life of the completion and minimising risk and complexity.

show abstract

Filtercake Cleanup in Open-Hole Gravel-Packed Completions: A Necessity or a Myth?

Brady

Bradbury²,

Sehgal

et al. 2000

SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Offshore reservoirs requiring sand control pose a major completion challenge because of extremely high cost and risk involved in remedial treatments, particularly in sub-sea completion and/or deep-water environments. It is therefore of utmost importance to ensure sand control without sacrificing flow conformance, recoverable reserves and well deliverability throughout the expected life of the completion. A major trend in these environments is towards open-hole, horizontal, gravel-packed completions. Although gravel packing stabilizes the wellbore, it can also entrap the filter-cake formed by the reservoir drilling fluid, potentially resulting in high drawdown requirements (flow initiation pressures) and/or low production rates (retained permeabilities). The cleanup procedures in the industry have varied significantly from no cleanup at all to complicated two-stage breaker treatments involving post-completion coiled tubing intervention, with no guidelines existing in the literature. In this paper, we present experimental results and field cases involving filter-cake flow-back through gravel packs with and without cleanup. Effects of various parameters, including gravel size (40/60, 20/40, and 12/20), formation permeability, drill-solids type (clays, quartz) and concentration, and the type of cleanup fluid have been investigated. Flow initiation pressure and retained permeabilities during flow back are reported as a function of these parameters. The experimental results show that the flow initiation pressure is a strong function of gravel size and the type of drill solids. It is concluded that, in clean (low-to-no clay content) formations of large grains and high permeabilities (~ several darcies) requiring large gravel sizes (e.g., 12/20), an enzyme or an oxidizer treatment is sufficient based on laboratory results and productivity predictions. This conclusion is also supported by several field applications as shown. In lower permeability (~ 100–250 md) formations of small sand sizes requiring smaller gravel (e.g., 40/60) elimination of both the fluid loss control agent (starch) and bridging agent (CaCO3) is necessary based on high flow initiation pressures and low retained permeabilities. In intermediate permeability (~ 500–800 md) formations of medium size sand-grains typically requiring 20/40 gravel, the results depend strongly on the type of drill solids: in clean formations (no clays in drilling fluid), an enzyme or an oxidizer treatment is sufficient, while in dirty formations removal of both CaCO3 and starch is necessary. These results are also supported by field case histories presented in the paper. Introduction Gravel packing has been gaining wider popularity in open-hole horizontal completions where sand control is required, particularly in sub-sea completion and/or deep-water environment. The cost of intervention in such cases makes risk mitigation a much more pronounced task. Until recently, a large majority of horizontal sand control completions have utilized standalone screens. However, because a substantial fraction of these wells have failed prematurely (either productivity loss due to screen plugging or loss of sand control due to screen erosion),1 many operators have changed their primary completion technique in these wells from standalone screens to gravel packing. This is particularly true in formations containing a large fraction of non-pay (shale, mudstone/siltstone) and/or have a wide particle size distribution.2

show abstract

Criteria for Back Production of Drilling Fluids through Sand Control Screens

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Gravel Packing Wells Drilled With Oil-Based Fluids: A Critical Review of Current Practices and Recommendations for Future Applications

Gravel Packing Wells Drilled With Oil-Based Fluids: A Critical Review of Current Practices and Recommendations for Future Applications

Design Methodology for Selection of Horizontal Open-Hole Sand Control Completions Supported by Field Case Histories

Filtercake Cleanup in Open-Hole Gravel-Packed Completions: A Necessity or a Myth?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About