Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byAden Duffus Modified over 10 years ago
1
WG on Determination of Fluid Loss Screen Life API SC 10 Scott Jennings 25 June, 2013 2013 Exploration and Production Standards Conference on Oilfield Equipment and Materials
2
2 Current Situation Currently, Sec. 10 Static fluid-loss tests The screens shall be replaced when they show visible plugging, wear, damage, or distortion. (API RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 10B-2 SECOND 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
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
4 FL Cell
5
5 Water Test New Fluid Loss Screens Time for 165 ml to pass through 325 mesh screen 12345AveRate Time (sec)ml/sec 41.439.141.541.740.240.784.05 42.540.84042.141.341.343.99 H 39.742.142.241.940.541.284.00 41.339.540.241.539.640.424.08 L 40.342.440.839.941.741.024.02 A Screen Weight Average time for all40.974.03 H -HeavyL -LightA -Average
6
6 20 tests ran
7
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
8 Water Test Used Screens Used Fluid Loss Screens Weight ScreenGramsVisibility123Ave.Rate No.Time (sec)ml/sec 119.67Worst300+82.7 ml left 300.00<0.55 519.31Low93.692105.497.001.70 820.5272.369.772.871.602.30 1122.59High48.550.347.148.633.39 1320.31Best49.744.749.848.073.43
9
9 Future Work Any Interest to Pursue? 21.99 New 4.03
10
10 WG Formed
11
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
12 Both FL Screens
13
13 10 Tests Using Latex Cement
14
14
15
15 New Screen 10 Tests Using Latex Cement
16
16 10 Tests Using Latex Cement
17
17 10 Tests Using Latex Cement
18
18 CSI Testing Procedure from previous testing used Newer non-backed screens used Two slurries tested
19
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
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
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
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29 Pre Slurry #2 Post FL #3 Post FL #2
30
30 Post FL #5 Post FL #6 Post FL#4
31
31 Post FL #10 Post FL #8 Post FL #9
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
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
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
37 Water Test Variances Lab Water rate - perforated back screen (ml/sec) Water rate - screen back (ml/sec) Exit Valve Saudi Aramco 4.033.95 Full opening Ball valve
38
38 Choice 2 Split ring New 325 mesh screen every test 60 mesh screen or Perforated disk Metal support ring 325 mesh screen
39
39 Choice 3 – Use Fluid Loss Screen Tester Drawings by Chandler Engineering
40
40 Work Continues with Water Tester Fabrication in Progress
41
41 Questions
42
42
43
43 Lab – Lab Results Variables running the test are: Technician – accuracy of performing FL test Pressure delivered Screen Visibility Weight Flow rate
44
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. N 2 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
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
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
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
48
49
49
50
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
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.