Scribd
Upload
31 views1 page

3.5. Standalone Screens: Soter Et Al., 2005

Uploaded by

Raed fouad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
31 views1 page

3.5. Standalone Screens: Soter Et Al., 2005

Uploaded by

Raed fouad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

170 Standalone Screens

depth filtration, the porosity of the mesh can exceed 90%. The woven design means
that they have non-uniform apertures, and despite attempts at standardisation,
comparing the size from one manufacturer against another without experimental
data is difficult. Some mesh screens have a simple plain weave, others have a more
complex twill weave (the mesh has different looking sides).
Their more robust construction makes premium screens preferable for sand
control in compacting reservoirs (Soter et al., 2005) or in harsh installation
environments – long, horizontal, open hole wells.

3.5. Standalone Screens


Standalone screens (SAS) are used extensively throughout the world due to their
simplicity and low installation costs. Many high-profile failures have led to them
obtaining a poor reputation. This poor reputation is not helped by the relative low cost
of a standalone screen installation and therefore the encouragement of their use in
borderline sand control applications as ‘insurance’. Standalone screens are frequently
poorly suited to such an environment. Nevertheless, in recent years, a strong emphasis on
both screen selection and rigorous quality control during installation has led to substantial
improvements in reliability when they are used in the appropriate environment.
Wire-wrapped, pre-packed and premium screens are all used as standalone
screens. Theses screens can be installed with or without a washpipe and often
incorporate blank sections of pipe and external casing packers (or swellable
elastomer packers). Because of the lack of pumping and screen expansion
operations, they are sometimes the only form of sand control that can be deployed
in extended reach wells or in many types of multilateral wells.

3.5.1. Standalone screen failures


It is clear from case studies that the predominant cause of standalone screen failure is
screen erosion exacerbated by screen plugging. A well-publicised example is in the
Alba field in the North Sea (Murray et al., 2003). With multiple failures and even
after a steep learning curve later wells still had an average of only 1.3 years to failure.
This led the operator (Chevron) to switch to gravel packing. To begin with, failures
were primarily caused by plugging from the mud (initially a pseudo oil-based mud
displaced by a completion brine once the screens had been run). The productivity
of the wells was very disappointing with screen failure and sand production soon
following. Later wells replaced the oil-based mud with sized salt, but the pre-packed
screens still plugged and ultimately failed. The pre-packed screens were then
replaced with premium screens, but failures still occurred, leading Chevron to the
conclusion that the reservoir and completion method were incompatible. In
particular, despite a uniform particle size distribution, the presence of reactive shales
caused screen plugging and the creation of erosion-prone hot spots. This open
annulus (and consequent ‘smearing’ of shales) is avoidable with expandable screens
and gravel packs, but is inherent to standalone screens.

You might also like