WG on Determination of Fluid Loss Screen Life

API SC 10Scott Jennings

25 June, 2013

2013 Exploration and Production Standards Conference on Oilfield

Equipment and Materials

2

Current Situation

• Currently,

• Sec. 10 Static fluid-loss testsThe screens shall be replaced when they show visible plugging, wear,damage, or distortion. (API RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 10B-2SECOND EDITION, APRIL 2013)

• Problems noticed when testing FLAs for acceptance criteria & comparing FL data with SC.

• API spec for Blade Wear:

• Discard if mass loss >10 %

3

Review

Average of 11 tests

• ARAMCO vs SC A = 15.3%

• ARAMCO vs SC B = 45.8%

• ARAMCO vs SC C = (-13.6%)

4

FL Cell

5

Water Test

New Fluid Loss ScreensTime for 165 ml to pass through 325 mesh screen

1 2 3 4 5 Ave Rate

Time (sec) ml/sec

41.4 39.1 41.5 41.7 40.2 40.78 4.05

42.5 40.8 40 42.1 41.3 41.34 3.99 H

39.7 42.1 42.2 41.9 40.5 41.28 4.00

41.3 39.5 40.2 41.5 39.6 40.42 4.08 L

40.3 42.4 40.8 39.9 41.7 41.02 4.02 A

Screen Weight Average time for all 40.97 4.03

H -Heavy L -Light A -Average

6

•20 tests ran

7

• 13 used screens weighed (metal backed)

Ave. 20.33 gr.

High 22.59 gr.

Low 19.31 gr.

• 5 screens selected for water flow test

Weight (high and low)

Visibility (best and worst)

• Water gravity flow test

165 grams of water flow through cell (SG-1.00)

3 test times recorded (sec)

Rates calculated (ml/sec)

Used FL Screens

8

Water Test Used Screens

Used Fluid Loss ScreensWeight

Screen Grams Visibility 1 2 3 Ave. Rate

No. Time (sec) ml/sec

1 19.67 Worst 300+ 82.7 ml left   300.00 <0.55

5 19.31 Low 93.6 92 105.4 97.00 1.70

8 20.52 72.3 69.7 72.8 71.60 2.30

11 22.59 High 48.5 50.3 47.1 48.63 3.39

13 20.31 Best 49.7 44.7 49.8 48.07 3.43

9

Future Work

Any Interest to Pursue?

21.99 New 4.03

10

WG Formed

11

Needed volunteers to run the non perforated disk backed screen

• CSI • ran 30 tests

• Chandler Engineering• designed water test Apparatus

• Saudi Aramco (perforated disk)• ran 10 more test (total 30 tests) • 10 tests with Latex cement

12

Both FL Screens

13

10 Tests Using Latex Cement

14

15

New Screen 10 Tests Using Latex Cement

16

10 Tests Using Latex Cement

17

10 Tests Using Latex Cement

18

CSI Testing

• Procedure from previous testing used

• Newer non-backed screens used

• Two slurries tested

19

Slurry #1

• 16.4 ppg Class H + 0.3% bwoc fluid loss additive

• Ten fluid loss tests run

• Initial fluid loss: 46 ml

• Final fluid loss: 37 ml

• Initial screen weight: 19.202 g

• Final screen weight: 19.252 g

• Initial average water flow rate: 8.02 ml/sec

• Final water flow rate: 0.26 ml/sec

20

21

22

23

24

• 16.4 ppg Class H + 0.2% bwoc fluid loss additive

• Ten fluid loss tests run

• Initial fluid loss: 207 ml

• Final fluid loss: 215 ml

• Initial screen weight: 19.252g

• Final screen weight: 19.594 g

• Initial average water flow rate: 0.4 ml/sec

• Final water flow rate: 0.11 ml/sec

Slurry #2

25

26

27

28

29

Pre Slurry #2

Post FL #3

Post FL #2

30

Post FL #5

Post FL #6

Post FL#4

31

Post FL #10

Post FL #8

Post FL #9

32

33

34

35

3 Choices

1. Change complete screen every time

• Costly

2. Change the 325 mesh screen every time (split rings)

• 60 mesh screen half thickness ring 325 mesh on top and blank ring on top. Need perforated disk type for strong backing

3. Use Plastic FL screen tester to determine flow rate

• Continue with screens currently provided

36

Water Tests Variable Results

Aramco flow rate• 3.95 ml/sec screen backing

• 4.03 ml/sec perforated backing

Chandler flow rate• 1.96 ml/sec screen backing

CSI flow rate• 1.69/1.83 ml/sec screen backing

37

Water Test Variances

Lab

Water rate - perforated

back screen (ml/sec)

Water rate - screen back

(ml/sec)Exit Valve

Saudi Aramco 4.03 3.95

Full opening Ball valve

38

Choice 2 Split ring New 325 mesh screen every test

60 mesh screen

or Perforated disk

Metal support ring

325 mesh screen

39

Choice 3 – Use Fluid Loss Screen TesterDrawings by Chandler Engineering

40

Work Continues with Water TesterFabrication in Progress

41

Questions

42

43

Lab – Lab Results

• Variables running the test are:

• Technician – accuracy of performing FL test

• Pressure delivered

• Screen

• Visibility

• Weight

• Flow rate

44

Initial Findings• Labs discard screens at technician discretion (Vis.).

• Unattended test lead to higher degree of uncertainty.

• Tech. around but not totally on top of test.

• N2 source should have a defined min. starting supply pressure for the static test.

• regulated pressure down to 1000 psi diff.

• 1200 psi on stirred FL apparatus

45

Flow Rate Determination Procedure (New Screen)

1. Weigh FL screen dry

2. Soak in water for 2 mins.

3. Assemble FL cell

4. Fill cell with 165 gr. Water SG=1.00

5. Open drain valve and start clock simultaneously

6. Stop clock and record time when water level has left the inside of the cell.

7. Dry with compressed air

8. Repeat steps 4-7 four more times

46

Initial Study• 26 new screens weighed (metal backed)

Ave. 21.99 gr.

High 22.24 gr.

Low 21.52 gr

• 5 screens selected for water flow test

• Water gravity flow test

165 grams of water flow through cell (SG-1.00)

5 test times recorded (sec)

Rates calculated (ml/sec)

Best match to average was selected (screen no. 5)

47

20 FL Tests Performed•10 slurries selected 115-283 cc’s/30 mins.

Screen weighed before FL test

Water Flow Rate determined before FL test

2 tests made 30 mins.

•Same 10 slurries repeated 120-215 cc’s/30 mins.

Screen weight increased from 22.01 to 22.08 gr.

4 tests made 30 mins.

•Can continue if SC 10 is interested.

New FL Screen no. 5 Selected

48

49

50

Flow Rate Determination Procedure (Used Screen)

1. Weigh FL screen dry

2. Soak in water for 2 mins.

3. Assemble FL cell

4. Fill cell with 165 gr. Water SG=1.00

5. Open drain valve and start clock simultaneously

6. Stop clock and record time when water level has left the inside of the cell.

7. Dry with compressed air

8. Repeat steps 4-7 two more times

51

52

53

54

55