SPE 134492

Enhancing Sand Screen Reliability: An Innovative, Adaptive Approach

C. S. Yeh, SPE, and T. J. Moffett, SPE, ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company, M. D. Barry, SPE, and
M. T. Hecker, SPE, ExxonMobil Development Company, D. A. Howell, SPE, ExxonMobil Production Company,
A. Green, SPE, G. A. Gillespie, SPE, C. A. Hall, and S. McNamee, Weatherford International

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Florence, Italy, 19–22 September 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed
by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract

Sand control reliability becomes increasingly important when combining challenging well conditions with the expectations of high
flow rates, reduced well counts, and rising costs. Sand screens, the final sand control barrier, have been a critical element to assure
long term well reliability. Any screen damage along the well may allow sand ingress and adversely impact the overall production.
Preventive (flux limitations) and reactive (choking) methods can reduce the risk of downhole screen damage under complex
producing environments, but these methods are unable to mitigate all risk. A step change in screen design to enhance sand screen
reliability is needed which can also maintain simple and economic completions.

MazeFlo™ technology, currently under development, was invented to be adaptive to downhole uncertainties and to self-mitigate
screen damage. The technology utilizes a redundant sand screen and compartment maze to constrain local sand ingress caused by
screen damage without interrupting well production. A prototype screen has been designed and fabricated.

A series of hydraulic and mechanical tests were conducted to validate the prototype design. Both compartment and redundant
screens are qualified in flow friction, erosion resistance, and mechanical integrity. A field trial has been designed to demonstrate
the screen installation, downhole self-mitigating capability, and sustained production. Operationally, the innovative and robust
screen design will appear and run similar to conventional screens.

Successful prototype development will lead to a 2 3/8-in MazeFlo screen ready for use in remedial workover applications. The
design philosophy and qualification process are being extended to larger screen sizes for broader applications. The adaptive
approach implemented in this novel sand screen establishes a new milestone to enhance sand screen reliability. The collaboration
between operator and service supplier enables effective commercialization of innovative technology for the next generation of
sand control completions.

Introduction

Sand control reliability becomes increasingly important when combining challenging well conditions (High Pressure-High
Temperature, deepwater, remote, long intervals, multi-zones, etc.) with the expectations of sustained, high rate production. The
rising costs and fewer well counts further demand the longevity of each sand control completion. Sand screens, the final sand
control barrier, have been a critical element to assure completion integrity.

Although sand screens are continuously improved, screen failure has not been eliminated and still poses significant risks to
maintaining pre-failure production levels. Screen failure typically involves a combination of plugging and erosion. A quantitative
prediction of the failure has been difficult to develop as the failure location and timing is partly driven by the downhole
2 SPE 134492

uncertainty. One local screen failure along the well may result in sand production, wellbore fill, or eventually well intervention.
Both preventive and reactive methods have been applied in the field to mitigate screen failure. Operating guidelines under certain
flux limits were developed to prevent screen failure (Gillespie, 2009; Chitale, 2009; Tosic, 2008). A common response to sand
production is choking the well at the surface until sand-free production is observed uphole. The addition of surveillance programs
has also helped in operating the well near or below the safe operating boundary. However, due to the downhole uncertainty in
local screen failure, these methods may unnecessarily curtail the hydrocarbon production and limit the producing options in overall
reservoir management.

A step change in screen design to enhance sand screen reliability is needed while still maintaining simple and economic
completions. This paper reviews an innovative screen technology and highlights the prototype qualification in both hydraulic
performance and mechanical integrity.

Adaptive, Self-Mitigating Screen

An innovative MazeFlo screen technology was introduced (Yeh, 2009) to adapt to the downhole uncertainties, self-mitigate local
screen damage, and improve overall reliability of sand control completions. The new screen (Figure 1) is composed of a series of
flow compartments along a selectively perforated basepipe.

Figure 1 Self-mitigating screen

Each compartment has a primary screen, outer housing, flow baffles, and a secondary screen. Produced fluids in the wellbore flow
into the primary screen and are re-distributed by flow baffles. The re-distributed and more uniform flow continues traveling to the
secondary screen and then into the perforated basepipe, where it commingles with production from the other compartments. If the
primary screen is eroded ("hot spot"), sand will flow into the annular compartment, accumulate on the secondary screen, and
subsequently increase the resistance to flow in the problematic compartment. The producing fluid is then diverted to the adjacent,
undamaged screen compartments. The MazeFlo screen self-chokes production only at the sand breakthrough locations, compared
with choking the entire producing interval when reacting to a conventional screen failure by choking the well at the surface. The
self-choking action occurs automatically without the need of surveillance or a control system. The new screen is designed to adapt
to and to self-mitigate the uncertainty of screen failure location and timing.

Self-Mitigating Screen Prototype

The first MazeFlo prototype (Figure 2) has a 2-3/8-in basepipe with direct wire-wrap for both the primary and the secondary
screens.
SPE 134492 3

Figure 2 2-3/8" screen prototype with cutout on housing

A flow baffle is designed between the primary screen and the secondary screen. The flow baffle is composed of an annular
manifold, flow ports, wedge-shaped profile elements around the basepipe circumference, and an annular section between the
housing and the basepipe. The primary screen in Figure 2 is not full-scale in length, and the housing is cutaway to show the
internal components and annular flow regions. Figure 3 shows a full-scale compartment with the primary screen as well as an
outer housing over the baffle and the secondary screen.

Figure 3 Full scale MazeFlo compartment

The flow baffle re-distributes the flow from the primary screen so that it is more uniformly distributed as it approaches the
secondary screen; thereby reducing the erosion potential of the flow stream. The length of each maze compartment, including the
primary screen and housing, is 10 ft. Each screen joint has three maze compartments in series. Sufficient blank space is reserved
adjacent to the compartment to keep the elevator pick-up and torque make-up operations the same as conventional screens.
4 SPE 134492

The prototype design balances flow hydraulics, mechanical integrity, overall screen dimensions, and manufacturing complexity.
These design categories are optimized for the individual component as well as integrated into the entire assembly (Yeh, 2009).
Following the engineering design and prototype fabrication, physical testing was conducted to qualify the hydraulic performance
and mechanical integrity. Hydraulic qualification included friction flow tests, erosion tests, and pack-off tests. Mechanical
qualification included collapse and burst tests. Additional mechanical testing involving bending, torsion, tension, compression,
push-off, and load bearing are not addressed in the current paper.

Hydraulic Flow Tests

Hydraulic flow tests were performed to qualify friction loss, erosion resistance, and sand pack-off within the compartment.
Extensive Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analyses and erosion modeling were performed during the design phase to size
the housing - secondary screen annulus and the baffle region to balance and uniformly distribute flow. As mentioned above, details
of the CFD, erosion modeling, and design parameters were the subject of a previous paper (Yeh, 2009).

Friction flow tests

The objective of the flow test was to verify the low friction loss in the compartment as estimated by CFD modeling during the
design phase. Water was pumped through the annulus between the primary screen and the non-perforated basepipe, into the baffle
section, through the secondary screen, and into the perforated basepipe. Figure 4 indicates that the friction loss across the baffle
section is less than 3.5 pounds per square inch (psi) over a wide range of flow rates up to 1,200 barrels per day (bpd) through a
single maze compartment.
4

Friction loss across flow baffle

3
Pressure Drop (psi)

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Water Flow Rate (bpd)

Figure 4 Friction loss across baffle area

The friction loss is approximately 1 psi in the baffle section assuming a 720 bpd rate through a single 2-3/8-in compartment, across
a 10-ft interval. The test results verify that the new screen design does not induce significant friction loss in achieving the flow re-
distribution.

Higher friction was found between the primary screen and basepipe, similar to a conventional screen with an inflow control device
(ICD). It appears that the least resistant flow path would be from the wellbore into the primary screen adjacent to the baffle area.
However, the exact flow pattern into the primary screen will depend on the annular pack and screen plugging, which further affects
the overall friction across the screen.

Erosion tests

The objective of the erosion test was to evaluate the plugging potential and erosion impact to the baffle section and the welded
areas under the conditions of a primary screen failure. To mimic a primary sand screen failure, test sand was loaded into water and
injected at a 1,440 bpd rate through an entry port into the primary screen (Figure 5).
SPE 134492 5

Figure 5 Erosion test setup

The port covered approximately 15% of the screen circumference. The concentrated sand inflow at this high rate would impose a
worst case erosive condition on the maze compartment. The sand flows through the limited annulus between the primary screen
and the non-perforated basepipe before entering the baffle section and then the annulus between the housing and the secondary
screen. The flow was directed through the secondary screen and housing annulus versus through the secondary screen and
perforated basepipe so that the sand did not pack off on the secondary screen and prematurely end the test. The total volume of
sand pumped was equal to three times the compartment volume and had a median size of approximately 130 microns. The sand’s
D10 size was slightly larger than the nominal screen opening, which means it would take a relatively long time for the sand to
bridge on the screen surface. Under field failure conditions of the primary screen, the sand will pack off against the secondary
screen and the total amount of sand the internal components would be exposed to would be approximately one maze compartment
volume. Under these more severe testing conditions, no visual erosion evidence in the compartment was observed and all welding
areas in the compartment passed the post-test inspection. The test results verified that the compartment design has minimum
erosion or plugging potential.

Pack-off tests

The objective of pack-off tests is to verify sand pack-off in the compartment if the primary screen is damaged. A transparent
housing was installed to allow visualization of the pack-off action. Test sand was loaded in water and injected at 720 bpd into the
compartment. The test sand size was selected to meet the criteria for sand control with standalone alone screens. As the sand
starts to deposit on the secondary screen and fill the compartment, the flow capacity is expected to drop. Figure 6 shows the ratio
of flow capacity during the pack-off test once sand injection began.

1.0
2 - 3/8" MazeFlo Horizontal Pack-Off

0.8
Start
Flow Capacity Ratio (-)

sand
injection
0.6

0.4

> 97% flow

reduction
0.2

0.0
20:55:10 20:55:30 20:55:50 20:56:10 20:56:30 20:56:50 20:57:10 20:57:30
Time (hr:min:sec)
Figure 6 Sand pack-off in the compartment

The flow capacity maintained above 80% for some period as the sand packed on the secondary screen. At a certain pack-off level,
the flow capacity dropped quickly. Either reducing injection rate or increasing injection pressure is required to continue the test.
6 SPE 134492

The test was finally stopped after about 2 minutes when the pack-off reduced more than 97% of the initial flow capacity. Figure 7
shows that this time was significantly less than the time for passed sand to start eroding the screen at a velocity of 58 ft/sec in tests
conducted at Southwest Research Institute using the test set up as described in a previous paper (Gillespie, 2009).

Figure 7 Slot wear after 6 hours, 9 gage wire wrapped screen

In downhole conditions, the wellbore fluid would be diverted to the adjacent compartments during the flow capacity drop or self-
mitigating action.

The compartment was partially filled at the end of test. The pack-off condition depends on sand size, sand loading, screen slot
size, and flow rate. When sand size is much greater than the screen slot size, a complete sand fill, like a gravel pack, in the
compartment is expected. High sand loading and high flow rate are more erosive but the rapid pack-off limits the erosion time. In
a high angle well, when the flow capacity or flow rate continues decreasing, the sand may settle before reaching the secondary
screen.

Mechanical Tests

Both burst and collapse tests were based on ISO Standard testing (Gillespie, 2008; ISO 17824, 2009) by pumping a fluid loss
control (FLC) pill to seal the slots and apply hydraulic pressure either internal or external to the screen. The particle size
distribution in the FLC pill (Figure 8) was designed such that approximately 33% of the particles were greater than the screen slot
size (9 gauge), 33% between the screen slot size and one-third of slot size, and 33% below one-third of the slot size.

100
90
80
70
Cumulative %

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10000 1000 100 10 1
Particle Size (micron)

Figure 8 Particle size in fluid loss control (FLC) pill

SPE 134492 7

Using the pill instead of a bladder across the screen is intended to measure sand control failure instead of physical collapse of the
screen. Three test assemblies were fabricated to evaluate the mechanical integrity of a conventional screen, MazeFlo primary
screen plus housing, and MazeFlo secondary screen respectively.

The peak pressure in the burst tests was 3,865 psi for an 8-ft conventional wire-wrapped screen. In burst tests of both the primary
and the secondary screens, the peak pressure was higher at approximately 4,200 psi, possibly due to the shorter screen length in the
MazeFlo design. The footprint of pill break-through around the assembly supported the screen failure. While burst testing the
primary screen, the housing was also pressurized internally. The strain gauge on the housing did measure a small increase in the
hoop strain, but this increase was below the material yield limit. No visual geometry change of the housing was observed after
sand control failure of the primary screen. Therefore, the burst limit is driven by the sand control failure in the primary or the
secondary screen, not the housing.

The peak pressure in the collapse tests of 5,223 psi for an 8-ft conventional wire-wrapped screen is shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9 Collapse testing of 2-3/8", 9 gage conventional wire wrapped screen

resistance is 5223 psi

The collapse testing ended with hot spot erosion following numerous attempts to recover the applied pressure after sand control
was lost. No physical collapse or significant geometric change was observed, but the screen had eroded as shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10 "Hot spot" erosion in collapse test

8 SPE 134492

The peak collapse pressure on the secondary screen was slightly higher at 5,596 psi, again possibly due to the shorter length of the
secondary screen. When collapse testing the primary screen and the housing, the housing collapsed before the primary screen with
a collapse strength of approximately 3,500 psi in the current housing design for a 2-3/8-in screen. In the field, high differential
pressure from outside of the screen resulting in a collapse situation could occur at the top joint in a long-interval gravel pack or
high rate frac pack operations. Depending on the need in downhole conditions, the housing collapse rating could be further
improved by higher strength material, increasing the wall thickness, or by the addition of supporting rings/spacers in the annulus
beneath the housing.

Innovative Sand Control Technology

Following the successful prototype development and qualification, a 2-3/8-in MazeFlo screen is ready for installation in remedial
workover applications. Operationally, the new screen design is as robust as conventional screens. A field trial has been planned to
demonstrate the screen installation, the downhole self-mitigating capability, and the sustained production. The design philosophy
and qualification process are being extended to a larger 5-1/2-in screen size for primary completions that can also be combined
with other emerging technologies.

The self-mitigating screen adapts to downhole uncertainties and is designed to be operationally simple, functionally forgiving, and
mechanically robust. The adaptive approach establishes a new milestone in enhancing sand screen reliability. As the industry
continues to evaluate the sand control options in balancing productivity performance, cost, and operational complexity (Chanpura,
2010), the new screen would add selection flexibility. This innovative technology also provides more producing options in field
development by enhanced sand control reliability.

Dedicated collaboration between the operator and service suppliers enables successful technology commercialization, during
engineering design, prototype fabrication, qualification testing, and production manufacturing through field application. The
development of the MazeFlo prototype demonstrates a milestone from such collaboration. ExxonMobil is continuing to work with
service suppliers to commercialize innovative technology for the next generation of sand control completions.

Conclusion

• A new MazeFlo screen uses an innovative and adaptive approach to enhance sand control reliability without
compromising hydraulic performance or mechanical integrity

• Physical testing verifies low friction loss and low erosion or plugging potential

• The burst resistance of 4,200 psi is comparable to or higher than conventional screens of the same configuration

• The collapse resistance of 3,500 psi is currently determined by the housing covering the secondary screen; enhanced
options are available for specific applications if the need arises to match the collapse resistance of the housing to the
screen sections

• A 2-3/8-in self-mitigating screen has been successfully developed and qualified for field installation

• Collaboration between the operator and service supplier has enabled successful development of MazeFlo technology

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the management of ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company, ExxonMobil Development
Company, ExxonMobil Production Company, and Weatherford International to allow the publication of this paper. Special thanks
go to Stress/Mohr Engineering for their dedication in performing the hydraulic and mechanical tests, and to Southwest Research
Institute for their erosion test work.
SPE 134492 9

References

1. Chanpura, R. A. et.al.: "State of Art Screen Selection for Standalone Screen Applications," paper SPE 127931 presented at the 2010
SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Feb. 10-12.
2. Chitale, A. A. et.al.: "A new Methodology to Safely Produce Sand Controlled Wells With Increasing Skin," paper SPE 124051
presented at the 2009 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, Aug. 4-6.
3. Gillespie, G. et.al.: "Screen Development to Withstand 4,000-psi Overbalance, Subhydrostatic Completion in Deepwater GOM Subsea
Waterflood Injector Wells," paper SPE 116091 presented at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Sept.
21-24.
4. Gillespie, G. et.al.: "Collapse and Burst Test Methods for Sand Screens," paper SPE 116094 presented at the 2008 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Sept. 21-24.
5. Gillespie, G. et.al.: "Sand Control Screen Erosion - When Are You at Risk?," paper SPE 122269 presented at the 2009 SPE European
Formation Damage Control Conference, Scheveningen, The Netherlands, May 27-29.
6. Gillespie, G. et.al.: "Can Sand screen Failures be Prevented in Gravel Packed Cased Hole Completions?," paper SPE 125170
presented at the 2009 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Oct. 4-7.
7. International Standard ISO 17824, "Petroleum and natural gas industries - Downhole equipment - Sand Screens," International
Organization for Standardization, First edition, 2009-08-15.
8. Tosic, S. et.al.: "New Flux Surveillance Approach for High Rate Wells," paper SPE 115689 presented at the 2008 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Sept. 21-24.
9. Yeh C. S. et.al.: "A Self-Mitigating Sand Control Screen," paper SPE 121844 presented at the 2009 SPE European Formation Damage
Control Conference, Scheveningen, The Netherlands, May 27-29.
10. Yeh C. S. et.al.: "Advancing Self-Mitigating Sand Control Screen," paper IPTC 13614 presented at the 2009 International Petroleum
Technology Conference, Doha, Qatar, December 7-9.