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