首页> 外文会议>Society of Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition >Unraveling the Myths Associated with Selecting Standalone Screens and a New Methodology for Sand-Control Applications
【24h】

Unraveling the Myths Associated with Selecting Standalone Screens and a New Methodology for Sand-Control Applications

机译:解开与选择独立屏幕相关的神话以及用于砂控制应用的新方法

获取原文

摘要

Many completion engineers use laboratory sand-retention testing as a tool to select a screen for standalone sand-control applications, some focusing on prepack and others on slurry testing. Those who use slurry tests for screen selection typically do so based on the conventional wisdom that slurry testing is more challenging; thus, it represents the worst-case scenario for sand production. Furthermore, the general belief in the industry has been that metal-mesh screens with a "pore structure" are better for sand retention compared with wire-wrap screens (WWS) of slot geometry, although they are more prone to "plugging." These are just a few of the many myths that exist in screen selection for standalone screen (SAS) applications. Recent papers on modeling of sand retention by screens of various geometries, and supported by laboratory experiments, provided the tools for predicting sand production in both prepack and slurry conditions, as well as allowing for a systematic performance comparison of various screens using the entire particle-size distribution (PSD) of formation sands (Chanpura, Fidan et al. 2011; Chanpura, Mondal et al. 2012; Mondal, Sharma, Chanpura et al. 2011; Mondal, Sharma, Hodge et al. 2011). In this paper, we discuss and challenge many myths in screen selection for SAS applications and substantiate our findings with modeling and experimental data. The conditions under which a slurry or a prepack test would be more conservative are identified, highlighting the mechanisms of sand retention (size exclusion or bridging dominated). We demonstrate the current thinking that prepack tests are always more conservative from a sand production standpoint is incorrect. We also show that the concept that metal-mesh screens are always superior for sand retention than WWS is incorrect, highlighting the factors that affect sand production through various screens (open flow area (OFA), wire thickness, fraction of bridging-size particles in the formation sand etc.). Finally, a methodology for screen selection in SAS applications is proposed.
机译:许多完工工程师使用实验室砂保留测试作为选择独立式防抱道应用的屏幕的工具,一些专注于浆料测试的预付款和其他人。那些使用屏幕选择的浆料测试的人通常根据浆料测试更具挑战性的传统智慧来这样做;因此,它代表了砂生产的最坏情况。此外,与插槽几何形状的线包装屏幕(WWS)相比,该行业的一般信念一直是具有“孔隙结构”的金属网屏幕与槽内屏幕(WWS)相比,砂潴留较好,尽管它们更容易止“堵塞”。这些只是独立屏幕(SAS)应用中存在的屏幕选择中存在的许多神话中的一些。近期各种几何形状的砂潴留建模的论文,并由实验室实验支持,提供了用于预测预备和浆料条件的砂生产的工具,以及使用整个粒子的各种屏幕的系统性能比较 - 形成砂的大小分布(PSD)(Chanpura,Fidan等,2011; Chanpura,Mondal等,2012; Mondal,Sharma,Chanpura等。2011; Mondal,Sharma,Hodge等。2011)。在本文中,我们在SAS应用程序中讨论和挑战屏幕选择中的许多神话,并用建模和实验数据证实我们的研究结果。确定浆料或预备试验更保守的条件,突出了砂保留的机制(尺寸排除或桥接支配)。我们展示了当前认为预备试验总是从沙子生产的立场更保守的是不正确的。我们还表明,金属网屏始终优于砂保留的概念而不是WWS不正确,突出了通过各种屏幕(开放流量面积(OFA),线材厚度,桥接尺寸粒子的尺寸粒子的砂产生的因素形成砂等)。最后,提出了一种在SAS应用中选择屏幕选择的方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号