SPE Drilling & Completion
Volume 24, Number 3, September 2009, pp. 362-372

SPE-110082-PA

Current State of the Premium Screen Industry: Buyer Beware, Methodical Testing and Qualification Shows You Don't Always Get What You Paid For

View full textPDF ( 1,273 KB )

DOI  More information 10.2118/110082-PA http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/110082-PA

Citation

  • Adams, P.R., Davis, E.R., Hodge, R.M., Burton, R.C., Ledlow, L., Procyk, A.D., and Crissman, S.C. 2009. Current State of the Premium Screen Industry: Buyer Beware, Methodical Testing and Qualification Shows You Don't Always Get What You Paid For. SPE Drill & Compl  24 (3): 362-372. SPE-110082-PA. doi: 10.2118/110082-PA.

Discipline Categories

  • 1 Drilling and Completions
  • 1.5 Completion Planning, Design and Installation
  • 1.5.3 Sand Control

Keywords

  • screen, premium, burst, collapse, sand control

Summary

Within the sand-control-technology sector today, there are many sand-exclusion screen options available for use in completion design. Sand-control screens have steadily improved with the introduction and enhancement of metal sand-retention-media-based sand-exclusion products in the early 1990s. However, recent catastrophic sand-exclusion failures have led some operators and independent laboratories to perform additional testing and quality control checks on sand-exclusion products to ensure full life cycle field value.

This paper describes a process to select sand-exclusion products by uniquely qualifying an individual product design, which includes retention media, metallurgy, subcomponents, manufacturing process, and the final assembled product. The technical evaluation is based on a two-tier qualification process that "uniquely qualifies" products for purchase consideration. Step 1 of the process tests the sand-retention media for plugging potential and solids retention. Step 2 then tests full-joint screens manufactured using media qualified during Step 1 for burst and collapse to ensure the product meets downhole performance specifications.

Recent testing has illustrated a range of significant conclusions that the industry should be aware of:

  • Published screen burst and collapse ratings are not always equivalent to actual screen performance.
  • Burst and collapse pressures are not equivalent to basepipe rating.
  • Welds can vary by plant; therefore, screens may vary by manufacturing location.
  • Excessive drainage layer gap leads to premature burst or collapse failure.
  • Not adjusting screen design for changes in metallurgy may lead to premature failure.
  • Delamination has been observed in some sintered retention media.
  • Scaling a product design up or down without conducting a detailed engineering analysis may lead to premature failures.

© 2009. Society of Petroleum Engineers

View full textPDF ( 1,273 KB )

History

  • Original manuscript received: 12 August 2007
  • Meeting paper published: 11 November 2007
  • Manuscript approved: 10 April 2008
  • Published online: 9 July 2009
  • Version of record: 28 September 2009