SPE 68747

Clean up and Well Testing Operations in High-Rate Gas-Condensate Field Result in

Improved Sand Management System
Jiten Devender Kaura, Alex Macrae, David Mennie, SPE, Halliburton Energy Services

Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

between 500 and 580 bar, and the temperature ranges from
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and 125ºC to 145ºC. At present, the operational strategy is to
Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 17–19 April 2001.
hydraulically fracture all wells by means of up to five stacked
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, as
proppant fractures using a 'tip screen-out' design to intercept
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to as much of the 200-to 250-m reservoir height as possible. The
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at wells must be cleaned up and tested to evaluate fracturing
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
results and to obtain reservoir information prior to production.
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is To meet the start-up gas production targets, up to five rigs,
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 two fracturing units, and two well-test units plus associated
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
services were contracted. An integrated service contract
covering cementing, fracturing, coiled tubing, perforating and
well testing was awarded to enable and encourage contractor
Abstract ownership for the entire scope of work.
During development of high pressure/high temperature
(HP/HT) gas wells in Oman, clean-up operations that remove Design Considerations
up to 10 tons of proppant fracture material from individual gas The objectives of the system were to 1) reduce the time
wells have become routine. The continuing development of between tests and 2) assist the customer in achieving the target
fracturing, clean up and testing processes in the HP/HT well- of delivering gas capacity of 40 million m3/day over a period
testing environment has provided a unique opportunity to of two years. To meet these parameters, two well test units
fulfill the need for enhancement of proppant clean-up are being used.
equipment and methods. Several key factors, summarised as follows, impacted the
Efforts have been concentrated on improving clean-up design and operation of the well test units:
times, equipment efficiency and refining the design of the • The proposed system would be capable of stand-alone
desander/filter sand management system (SMS). As a result of operations.
the improvents, the clean-up and testing processes have • The system would be a skid-mounted mobile unit for field
undergone significant modification. locations.
During the initial phase of the project, numerous • Max. condensate flow rate: 700 m3/day (15,000 bpd)
challenges had to be overcome, and improvements were made • Max. gas flow rate: 3 MM m3/day (105 mmscfd)
in the solids clean-up process. This paper will describe how • Operating pressure: 105 bar (1,500 psi)
proppant and other solids materials were managed during the • Design Pressure: 690 bar (10,000 psi)
wellbore and formation clean-out process. • Operating temperature: 95 ºC (200ºF)
• Design temperature: 121 oC (250 oF)
Introduction • GVF at desander inlet: 14:1, gas:liquid by volume
The Oman LNG upstream project has developed the deep gas • Allowable pressure drop: 50 bar (725 psi)
and condensate fields in central Oman. The project currently • Proppant size: 20/40 mesh, 12/20 mesh
has a peak gas processing capacity of 40 million m3/day and • Proppant density: 3600 kg/m3 (225lbs/ft3)
an estimated peak condensate production of 12,500 m3/day. • Proppant rate 250 kg/hr (550lbs/hr)
To obtain this capacity, 36 wells are being drilled in an initial • Proppant concentration: 2.85 kg/m3 (1lbs/bbl)
phase over the first 2½ years, with a potential project • Liquid phase viscosity :0.28 cP
requirement of 130 wells. The wells are drilled vertically to • Liquid phase density: 700 kg/m3 (5.85 lb/gal)
the hydrocarbon-bearing sandstone formation at depths of • Gas phase viscosity: 0.018 cP
between 4,200 and 4,700 m and completed with a 4½-in. liner • Gas phase density: 98 kg/m3 (6.118 lbs/ft3)
with 5-in. and 5½-in. tubing. The reservoir pressure varies • Carbon dioxide: (CO2) up to 0.5%
2 JITEN KAURA, ALEX MACRAE, AND DAVID MENNIE
An engineered clean up and well test package was
designed with the additional capability of handling sand at
surface.
Process and Instrumentation Diagram Description
The process and instrumentation diagram (P&ID) in Fig. 1a
shows components of the mobil clean-up and well-test unit
employed to test high-rate gas condensate wells in Oman. The
components are:
Production Wellhead
1. Emergency shutdown valve
Sand Management System (Fig. 1b)
1. Wellhead desander
2. Wellhead filters
3. Flushing pump
4. Proppant recovery tank with measuring system
Process Equipment
1. Choke manifold
2. Three-phase separator
3. Metering tank with transfer pump
4. Flare line
Production Wellhead
The production wellhead comprises:
1. Lower manual master valve
2. Upper hydraulic master valve
3. Swab valve
4. Flow-wing valve
5. Kill-line valve
The fluids from the wellbore and the reservoir flow as a
mixture of gas, oil, water and proppant into the production
tubing and through the production wellhead flow-wing valve
and a 690-bar emergency shut down (ESD) valve. The ESD
valve is mounted on the flow-wing valve and is hydraulically
actuated. A high-pressure kill pump is connected to the
wellhead through a check valve onto the kill-wing valve. The
ESD valve and the upper hydraulic master-valve control lines
are connected to a control panel that has two pumps that
enable the fail-closed valves to open under hydraulic pressure.
The end connections on the ESD valve are 4-1/16-in. flanges
with API 6BX ring gaskets that have a pressure rating of 690
bar.
Sand Management System
Wellhead desander. Two types of wellhead desanders were
used on these wells. The first design (Design 1) is described
below.
Desander Vessel (Design 1). The wellhead desander unit is
comprised of two major components:
1. A wellhead desander vessel containing a single cyclone
insert
2. A solids accumulator vessel.
SPE 68747
Gas, oil, water, and solids enter the cyclone tangentially
through the inlet under pressure, and the resulting centrifugal
force causes the gas to disengage and exit through the vortex
finder (Fig. 3). The liquid passes into the conical section of the
cyclone where the reduction in diameter accelerates the fluid,
generating centrifugal forces strong enough to separate the
solids from the liquid. The solids are forced toward the wall
and travel down the length of the conical section of the
cyclone in a spiral pattern toward the solids outlet, the
underflow. The gas and liquid migrate toward the center of the
cyclone, where the flow reverses and moves toward the
overflow through the vortex finder.
There are various theories behind the principles of
cyclone-based separators. In operation, the entire wellstream
is fed into the desander vessel and directed into the insert.
Cyclonic separation of the solids takes place in the insert, with
solids falling through into the accumulator vessel. The
selection of insert size will suit the particular design
conditions specified.
The desander and accumulator vessels are separated by a
double “block-and-bleed” gate-valve system, and the
accumulator itself drains via a similar arrangement.
Emptying or purging of the accumulator vessel involves its
isolation using the valve arrangement between the desander
and accumulator, venting the accumulator to atmospheric
pressure, and flushing out the recovered solids using plant
water or clean produced water. The accumulator vessel will be
filled with plant water or clean produced water before it is re-
opened to the process in order to minimize the ingress of oil
into the accumulator and to keep the solids discharge process
as clean as possible. The desander is left on-line during the
purging process. Solids separated in this period will collect in
the holding space beneath the insert in the desander vessel and
will pass to the accumulator, once it is reopened to the
process.
Purging of the accumulators is a manual operation.
Wellhead Desander Vessel
The wellhead desander vessel houses the cyclone separator
insert (Fig. 4). Access to the desander for insert change-out or
maintenance is achieved via an API flange connection in the
top of the vessel.
Solids hold-up volume in this vessel is approximately 8
gallons. Hold-up volume in the desander vessel is sized to
provide enough capacity to collect solids when the
accumulator is isolated for emptying. Manually, this process
takes approximately 15 minutes.
Accumulator Vessel
Separated solids are collected in the accumulator vessel
located beneath the desander vessel.
The accumulator vessel is a simple cylindrical pressure
vessel that incorporates inlet and outlet connections for the
separated solids along with vent and flush connections to
assist the purging process.
The solids flushing mechanism inside the accumulator
consists of one flushing connection low down on the
SPE 68747 CLEANUP AND WELL TESTING OPERATIONS IN HIGH-RATE GAS-CONDENSATE FIELD
RESULT IN IMPROVED SAND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
accumulator which will ensure that the solids are fluidized and
flushed from potential dead spots in the vessel.
Wellhead Filter
The desander is designed to remove 95% of produced well
solids. In order to collect remaining solids and to protect the
choke from erosion, a dual-pod filter system is installed
downstream of the desander (Fig. 5). The filter system is
comprised of two units, each housing two flange-connected
wedge-wire filter screen elements. The filter screen, with a
mesh size of 100 microns, is designed to treat flow from inside
to outside. The separated sand collects inside the screen in the
lower part of the vessel. The filter vessel is periodically
isolated from the process, de-pressured, and the sand is
flushed to a cleaning/disposal system. Each filter can be
flushed independently, and all valves on the desander and
filter units are manual. Each vessel is capable of processing
100% of the specified capacity; thus, the system covers 200%
of capacity.
The wellhead filter system is installed downstream of the
desander system, treating the overflow (or solids depleted
stream) from the desander.
The objective of the wellhead filter is to catch any solids
fines that carry over from the wellhead desander. The mesh
size of the screen in the filter vessel is 100 µm or 200 µm.
The wellhead filter vessel was manufactured to the same
design code and specifications as the desander.
The desander vessel, accumulator, filter vessel, and the
piping spools are made from AISI 4130 material. The filter
screens are made from 316 SS material.
The inlet and outlet connections on the desander and the
filter are 4-1/16-in. flanges with API 6BX ring gaskets having
a pressure rating of 690 bar.
Process Equipment
Choke manifold. The clean fluid from the sand filters then
flows to the choke manifold where the pressure drop is taken
in order to provide stability to the separator. It provides a dual
path to the fluid flow — one through the adjustable choke and
the other through the positive choke.
The choke manifold has 4-1/16-in. inlet/outlet flanged
connections with API 6BX ring gaskets.
Three-phase separator. The 48-in. horizontal, three-phase
separator is capable of handling 3 million m3/day of gas.
Twenty-five hundred m3/day of condensate was used to
provide differential density separation between the gas, oil,
and water by gravity segregation. The gas and water was
flared at the flare pit while the condensate was diverted to the
condensate collection plant through the temporary lines.
The maximum allowable working pressure of the separator
vessel is 100 bar. There are three pilot-operated relief valves,
one inlet, and two pressure-relief valves on the separator.
Calibration tank with transfer pump. The 16 m3 calibration
tank is used to calibrate the liquid turbine meter on the oil line
3
and where required, on the water line. Under normal flowing
conditions, this tank is always on a bypass. When a meter
calibration is to be carried out, the fluid is flowed into the tank
and allowed to settle. The calibration tank has a vent line
through which the gases escape, and a reading is taken and
corrected to standard conditions. The maximum allowable
working pressure of the tank is 10 bar.
The transfer pump is used to pump the contents of the tank
to the flare pit and to empty the tank.
Theories On Wellhead Desander Working Principle
To understand the operation of the wellhead desander, four
fundamental parameters must be determined in terms of the
operating and design variables. These parameters are:
1. The separation or cut size
2. The flow split between overflow and underflow
3. Sharpness of separation
4. Capacity – pressure drop
With the capability to calculate the above four parameters
for a given set of conditions, it is possible to determine the
complete mass balance of the cyclone.
Cut Size1. It has become common practice to express the cut
size in terms of the d50 size. The d50 size is that size having
equal (50%) probability of separation from the flow stream.
Theoretical attempts to define the cut size in terms of
operating and design have been based on one of the following
three hypotheses:
(1) Equilibrium Orbit Hypothesis
Most of the fundamental equations used to calculate the
separation size are based on the concept of the equilibrium
orbit. At some point in the cyclone, it is assumed that the d50
size particle is at equilibrium with respect to the two principal
forces acting on it — fluid drag force and centrifugal force. As
illustrated in Fig. 6, the centrifugal force tends to force the
particle to the cyclone periphery, and the drag force tends to
force the particle towards the cyclone center. As shown in
Fig. 7, the particle in the outer periphery (where Fc > Fd) will
exit the cyclone via underflow; and the particles swept to the
center (where Fd > Fc) will be carried over to the overflow.
Since the proppant particles are spherical in shape,
assuming diameter d, the centrifugal force term becomes:
Fc = ∏ d3 (ρs - ρ) ν2 (1)
6 r
Assuming laminar flow relative to the particle (Stokes'
equation), the fluid drag force may be expressed as:
Fd = 3 ∏ d µ ω (2)
At equilibrium, the two forces are equal, and assuming the
particle to be a d50-sized particle, the expression becomes:
4 JITEN KAURA, ALEX MACRAE, AND DAVID MENNIE
d50 = 18 µ ω r ½ (3)
(ρs - ρ) ν2
Thus, all that remains to be solved is
• ω, the radial velocity component;
• ν, the tangential velocity component; and
• r, the radius of orbit at equilibrium.
Based on Kelsall's2 work and other studies, semi-empirical
expressions were developed for various terms. Based on his
own and Kelsall's studies, Lilge3 assumed the d50 size
equilibrium to be on the envelope of zero vertical velocity at a
radius of one-sixth the cyclone radius. Fig. 7 shows the
location of the zero vertical velocity in a cyclone. The
tangential and the radial components of velocity were
calculated at the assumed equilibrium point and expressed in
terms of the operating and design variables. Substituting these
relationships in Equation 3, Lilge obtained what he called
“cone force equation”3:
d50 = 39 Di 0.87 Do 1.13 (1 – Uv) µ ½ … (4)
(1 – Di/Do) 0.8 (ρs - ρ) Qh
The above equation makes a reasonably good
approximation of the d50 particle that will be separated.
(2) Retention Time Hypothesis
An issue of contention was that in one or two seconds of
residence time in a desander, it is unreasonable to assume that
equilibrium could be achieved, or even approached. An
alternative approach is to consider residence time and non-
equilibrium conditions. The main proponent of this concept
was Rietema, who assumed that a d50 size particle would, if
injected at the centre of the inlet, migrate to the outer
periphery in the time taken for the particle to be swept to the
underflow. Using Stokes' Law, an expression was obtained for
the d50 size in terms of a constant, which he called the
“characteristic cyclone number.” This cyclone number was
then related empirically to the dimensional variables.
(3) Crowding Theory
The crowding theory proposed by Fahlstrom4 states that
except for operations with low-feed-pulp density, the d50 size
is primarily a function of the capacity of the underflow orifice
and the size analysis of the feed. According to this theory, the
coarsest fraction of the feed is discharged by the underflow up
to its capacity limit, with the remaining fines being discharged
through the overflow.
The crowding theory emphasises the effect of the apex size
on the cyclone in making a separation. In practice, this
crowding effect can be observed by making a sufficient
reduction in the underflow orifice size.
Flow split1. Flow split is the volume split between the
overflow and underflow. Detailed theoretical analysis is
beyond the scope of the paper.
SPE 68747
Sharpness of separation. This refers to the efficiency of
separation. It is an exponential function of the particle size and
is represented by a Rosin-Rammler type of equation:
η = 1 – exp -0.693 (d/d50) m … (5)
In the above equation, m serves as a direct measure of the
sharpness of separation (i.e., for a desander, an m of 3 would
represent sharp separation, whereas an m of less than 2 would
be relatively poor separation) 1.
The sharpness of separation is essentially a function of the
following:
1. fluid properties
2. solids properties
3. volumetric flow rates.
Fluid properties (viscosity and density); solids properties
(solids size distribution), density, and concentration.
The sharpness of separation decreases with increasing fluid
density. It is also found that the sharpness of separation is
influenced not by the desander dimensions but by the solids
properties, such as specific gravity and shape.
Pressure drop. Since the desander works on the principle of
conservation of energy (i.e.; that energy is constant), in the
case of desander applications assuming that frictional energy
is constant, the equation can be written as:
pressure energy + kinetic energy = constant
As the flow goes through the desander and is forced to
spin, the kinetic energy of the flow increases. Since kinetic
energy is increased, pressure energy must decrease since the
energy present within a system remains constant. Thus, a
pressure drop across the desander is observed.
The pressure drop within the desander is required to
determine the capacity of the desander. The pressure drop is a
function of:
1. fluid properties
2. volumetric flow rates through the desander.
Usually, the pressure drop is ascertained from the flow-
pressure gauge located at some distance upstream from the
cyclone inlet and a further pressure gauge located at some
distance downstream of the cyclone outlet. As fundamentally
derived equations do not include inlet losses, it would be
expected they will predict lower-than-actual pressure drops.
Operational Experience
Since the start of project, two well test units have been
completed, and 32 wells have recovered over 120 tons of
3
proppant, produced 200,000 m of condensate, and an initial
3
gas capacity of 50 million m /day was made available.
In order to achieve these results, the clean up and testing
process had to undergo significant modification and
improvement during the period of the project in which the
SPE 68747 CLEANUP AND WELL TESTING OPERATIONS IN HIGH-RATE GAS-CONDENSATE FIELD 5
RESULT IN IMPROVED SAND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

above occurred. Efforts were concentrated on improving bakes onto the filter screens and cannot be removed by back
clean-up times with the SMS because of the need to meet gas flushing.
delivery deadlines. The above conditions were attributed to:
The main needs for improving clean-up and testing times • High-gas-flow velocities
were as follows: • mechanical design of the equipment
• Erosion • prolonged proppant and fines back production5.
1. Insert erosion
2. Desander vessel erosion High Gas Flow Velocity
3. Mating flange of filter screens erosion Post erosional analysis showed that the velocity through the
• Filter screen: plugging due to formation fines flowback desander tripled after exiting the inlet. Meticulous scrutiny of
the mechanical design and the process simulation produced
Wellhead Desander the data shown in Table 1:
Desander erosion challenges existed from an early point in the
test sequence. Initial inspections revealed that severe damage Table 1— Post Erosional Analysis
to the desander inserts with further erosion to the wall of the Vapor fraction: 0.9275
vessel body (see Figs. 8 and 9) had taken place. It was evident Temperature: 85.39ºC
that operational changes were needed. Pressure: 105 bar
First, to resolve the erosion needs, inspection frequencies
Density (gas + condensate): 110.1211 kg/m3
were shortened so that the gas velocities at which the
washouts occurred could be identified. As a part of the Mass flow (gas + condensate): 149,340 kg/hr
solution to the operational challenges, wellhead desander Mass flow (gas): 106,030 kg/hr
design 2, which offered more efficient separation and overall Mass flow (condensate): 43,303 kg/hr
performance, was introduced to the project. Gas flow: 123,620 Sm3/hr
From the investigation results, it was determined that the Gas flow: 1287.6 actual m3/hr
rating of the standard chrome carbide-coated insert be Mole weight (gas): 20.2811
downgraded by 50% to gas-flow rates of 1.5 million m3/day. SG (air = 1.0): 0.7002
This had an economic impact on the project as it had been Z Factor (gas): 0.8674
expected
3
that individual well gas capacities of up to 3 million Viscosity (gas): 0.0165 cP
m /day be tested. Condensate flow: 63.4 Sm3/hr
A typical clean out involves recovery of between 3 and 10
Condensate flow: 68.6 actual m3/hr
tons of proppant at initial gas rates up to 1 million m3/day
Mole weight (condensate): 105.8822
flowing at pressures of between 280 to 350 bar with a gas/oil
3 3 3
ration (GOR) in the region of 200m /m (CGR 350 m /million SG (water = 1.0): 0.6330
3 Viscosity: 0.3932 cP
m ). Once the initial solids have been recovered, the wells are
beaned up to a maximum drawdown of 106 bar with gas rates
of up to 3 million m3/day and condensate rates of between 750 *NOTE: The above data are based on a design-case flow rate
and 1,500 m3/day. of 3 million m3/day and associated condensate.
A variety of desander insert materials were manufactured
and tested. These included ceramic-lined; boron-diffusion The desander inlet piping is 4-in. nominal internal
plated; tungsten carbide coated; reaction-bonded and silicon diameter (ID) 690 bar piping. At the desander inlet, there is
carbide materials; however, with the exception of the original an inlet wear sleeve with an ID of 2-3/8-in. This results in a
chrome carbide-coated units, all failed to handle increased nozzle effect at the inlet because of the reduction in effective
velocities. flow area.

Wellhead Filters
Since the wellhead desander is only 95% to 98% efficient,
small amounts of proppant were carried over to the filters. The
dual-pod filter units also incurred start-up challenges with
washouts through erosion. Washouts occurred between the
interconnecting flange faces of the filters (inside the main
filter body) and in the welds connecting the filter mesh to the
interconnecting flanges.
Produced fines consisting mainly of mullite-corundum and
quartz, basically a crushed fracture proppant, were a continual
challenge in the filters. Standard filter back flushing will
remove loose solids, but the fines build up a solids layer that
Based on the above numbers, the gas velocity through the
desander would be 131.8 m/sec (474 km/hr), and the line
velocities would be 45 m/sec (162 km/hr). These velocities
can be calculated by the following equation:
Vg = 60 Z Qg T (6)
(ID) 2 P
Since Z is a constant based on temperature and pressure,
the equation can be rewritten in the following way to get a
good approximation of the line velocity:
(7)
6 JITEN KAURA, ALEX MACRAE, AND DAVID MENNIE
Vg = 32000 Qg
(ID) 2 P
The flow velocity through the desander can be calculated by:
Vdesander = 3*Vg (8)
The challenge was to reduce the flow velocities within the
desander such that the erosion would be reduced or brought
under control.
Mechanical Design Of The Equipment
All eroded desander inserts had exhibited a similar erosion
trend; this lead to the detailed scrutiny of the mechanical
design of the desander insert and the vessel. The erosion of the
desander inserts was found to be the result of the mechanical
design of the equipment; in practice, the proppant did not
travel downwards but tended to remain on a fixed path around
the inner circumference of the insert. If the insert was not
inspected regularly and replaced, the action of the proppant
would erode the desander vessel.
As a result, it was necessary to find an alternative design
for the insert and vessel.
Prolonged Proppant and Fines Back Production
Initially it was believed that the prolonged proppant flowback
was due to the lack of information on fracture flowback
procedures. As a result, flowback procedures were developed.
It was observed that in certain wells proppant back-production
was a persistent challenge.
Thus, it was necessary to devise a system that could curb
the proppant back production from the formation.
Fines flowing from certain wells were analysed and found
to consist primarily of quartz. These fines escape from the
desander and become trapped in the filters, resulting in
plugged filter screens. This causes high differential pressures
across the screens, and in some cases, results in burst filters.
The flushing system was designed primarily to flush the
proppant that falls to the bottom of the vessel.
Thus, a primary need was to develop an effective flushing
system that could flush through the internal diameter of the
screens.
Design and Operational Modifications
Since its inception, this project was faced with issues that were
difficult to resolve. The intention was to incorporate design
and operational modifications so that the objectives of the well
test could be met safely.
Wellhead Desander
Design. The vessel design was also revisited, and the internal
dimensions of the inlet 'wear sleeve' were increased in order to
reduce velocities. Experiments were run on the desander insert
sizes, but it was clear that only the largest unit, which
measured 25cm, would be capable of handling the capacities
involved. Modifications were carried out to enable two units
SPE 68747
to run in parallel (to reduce inlet velocities), but it was
impractical to implement this design because of the initial gas-
capacity deadlines. The bean-up procedure of the well during
clean up was revised to a less aggressive regime and limited to
a maximum solids recovery rate of less than 230 kgs
proppant/hour.
Alternative desander system designs were considered in
December, 1998 and the decision was made to have a
desander unit manufactured and supplied. The new multi-
insert desander unit (Design 2) operates on a similar principle
to the single insert unit. The main difference is that rather than
using a single 25cm insert, six individual desander units are
encased within a similar-sized vessel body (Fig. 10). This
system provided:
• improved vessel geometry
• better insert inlet geometry.
Another distinguishing feature is that design 2 does not
have an inlet wear sleeve. As a result, the gas flow velocities
in design 2 are significantly lower. These reduced flow
velocities do not cause severe erosion.
The design 2 system is also operated on the tangential feed
of liquids and solids into the desander body. The centrifugal
force induced by the flow causes solids to be pushed into the
inner wall of the device and discharged from the lower end of
the cone. Gas and liquid discharges from the top of the
desander via the vortex finder.
A design 2 unit was supplied and installed in June, 1999,
and initial experience confirms that it is performing to
expectations. Minimal cyclone insert3
wear has been noted at
gas rates in excess of 2 million m /day, but the design allows
the inlet nozzle to be replaced and the conical chamber to be
revolved, thereby inflicting the potential 'wear path' on an
unexposed area of the chamber.
Operational Issues
Modified operating methods included complete bypass of the
SMS in the early stages of clean up. When large quantities of
solids are being recovered and gas velocities are low, the SMS
is inefficient and prone to blockage. To solve this problem, a
separate sacrificial choke system was used to recover solids.
This bypass method enabled quick unloading of the wellbore
and was generally assisted by a coiled tubing clean out when
the wellbore levels were such that the well pressure was
unable to lift the solids. As soon as gas returns were observed,
the well flow was switched back via the SMS to avoid choke
erosion, and controlled cleanup and testing commenced.
Coiled tubing (CT) clean outs were frequently employed,
and again, experience allowed operating methods to be
refined. Depending on the proppant levels left by the
fracturing operation, it was more efficient to commence the
clean up of the proppant with the CT until gas returns were
observed at surface. Then, lifting was continued using well-
gas assist while lifting across the perforated area and into the
sump. The combination of SMS bypass/utilisation proved to
be an efficient method for initial proppant clean up.
A real time data acquisition system was installed to give a
real time onsite display of the differential pressures across the
SPE 68747 CLEANUP AND WELL TESTING OPERATIONS IN HIGH-RATE GAS-CONDENSATE FIELD
RESULT IN IMPROVED SAND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
desander to provide an indication of the flow velocities within
the desander. A database of differential pressure versus the gas
flow rate was set and maintained on the wells with Design 1
and design 2 desanders. This system, along with the insert
inspection schedule, provided a useful comparison of insert
erosion in the two designs.
Wellhead Filters
Mating flange erosion. The filter screens were manufactured
in two 2-meter sections for easy handling. These two sections
were mated using a mating flange with a metal-to-metal seal.
This sealing arrangement was rated to a pressure of 2 bar, but
the filter units were being operated at 20 bar differential
pressure. In order to increase the rating, the flanges were
modified, and in order to effect a better seal, elastomers were
inserted between the flange faces. While these modifications
were effective temporarily, the eventual solution was to weld
the flanges and use them as a unit.
Screen plugging due to fines. The initial resolution was to
dismantle the filter and steam clean the screens outside the
vessel. For safety reasons, this necessitated shutting down the
process, which incurred substantial downtime in the clean-up
program.
One solution was to manufacture a 200-micron screen and
run one pod with 100-micron screens and the other with 200-
micron screens. This reduced the build-up of solids and
screens-blockage, as the fines could be bypassed at low
velocities without erosion to the downstream process. The
second attempted solution was to introduce chemicals into the
stream to dissolve or reduce the effects of solids build-up; this
approach proved to be ineffective.
The third method, which proved to be the most effective,
was the introduction of a jet washing system in situ. This
involved manufacturing an adaptor flange on top of the vessel
to allow a jet wash nozzle, driven by a high-pressure pump, to
be inserted into the filter. This system washed the screens
internally, eliminating the need to remove them from the
vessel. This method not only saved time but also allowed the
well to continue flowing on the second filter pod while
cleaning was being performed.
This jet-washing tool is used in conjunction with the real
time data acquisition system, which displays the onsite real
time differential pressure across the filters. When the
differential pressure across the filters reaches a specific value
or shows a tendancy to increase, onsite personnel activate the
jet flushing operation.
Fracture Flowback Procedures
Initial welltest data interpretation indicated that the well was
not performing as had been anticipated. When it was
determined that the aggressive clean-up technique was proving
to be detrimental to the formation, an appropriate clean-up and
bean-up procedure was established.
Choke control played an important part in well clean up
efficiency. With the well flowing through the SMS, tight
7
control of the gas velocities required to lift solids in an
efficient manner was essential. Small choke sizes prevented
velocities from lifting solids, and oversized chokes resulted in
overwhelming the system with proppant. Each well had its
own characteristics, but as a result of experience, a general
procedure, which enabled efficient recovery of solids while
maintaining testing continuity, was adopted. Generally, choke
changes were varied only in 0.39mm (1/64-in.) increments
between 2.38mm (6/64-in.) and 9.53mm (24/64-in.), and
limitations on solids recovery amounts were set prior to
making a choke variation. Once solids recovery rates fell
below specified levels, a more aggressive bean-up procedure
was adopted to achieve maximum drawdown at minimal
proppant rates. The criterion for a clean well is 0.5kgs
3
proppant/day for every 1 million m /day gas produced.
Design Improvements on Design 2 Desander
The Design 2 desander has been in service since June 1999.
During that time, it has been observed that the vortex finders
showed similar trends of erosion around the inlet/outlet and
the lip of the body. This indicates that the influencing factor is
the angle of ramp on the vortex finder. After the flow exits
into the body of the insert from the ramp, a percentage of
proppant particles becomes trapped because of the form of the
vortex finder body, and this results in erosion.
The solution was to increase the angle of the ramp in the
vortex finder body so that the fluid exiting the ramp does not
commingle with the fluid at the inlet. The approaches adopted
were:
• To build an epoxy polymer cement (EPC) coating
• To manufacture hardened steel inserts with a vortex finder
• To improvise the manufacturing process of the original
insert material.
Building epoxy polymer cement (EPC) coating.
Having identified that the ramp would need to be steeper, it
was necessary to find a simple way of determining the
performance of the steeper ramp. The best method was to
build an EPC coating on a used vortex finder. The selection of
the EPC was based on its resistance to corrosion, erosion; and
high impact resistance.
The flow body and the vortex finder with the modified
ramp were installed on one of the well test units.
Following the rate test, the desander vessel was dismantled
to inspect the insert body and the vortex finders. The results
showed that the erosion points inflicted by the flow were on
the body, but were inconclusive as the epoxy polymer cement
coating eroded resulting in similar erosion trends.
Manufacturing Hardened Steel Inserts and Vortex
Finder
In order to avoid any downtime and keep the system
operating, the unit was supplemented with a supply of special
hardened steel inserts manufactured from AISI 4145 material.
Since the inserts were not pressure containing parts of the
system the hardness of the inserts could be increased in order
8 JITEN KAURA, ALEX MACRAE, AND DAVID MENNIE SPE 68747

to make them impact and wear resistant. These steel vortex 2 The hands-on experience of commissioning and operating
finders were built with a modified ramp in order to achieve the the system proved invaluable in optimising and refining
desired flow direction. design and operating methods.
After fabrication, these inserts were installed. When they 3 Desander Design 1 has been downrated permanently to
were inspected after a period of operation, it was observed that 1.5 million m3/day and is used on low capacity wells, whereas
the steep ramp design assisted in controlling the erosion on the the design 2 is capable of handling up to 3 million m3/day.
vortex finder inlet/outlet and the lip. Only the body of the 4 Fracture clean up and flowback procedures developed for
insert was slightly eroded. this project should be considered for flowback of fractured gas
wells.
Improving the Manufacturing Process of the Original
Insert Material. Acknowledgements
Several difficulties still had to be addressed. Because of the The authors wish to thank Petroleum Development Oman; the
toughness of the ceramic material used for the fabrication of Ministry of Oil and Gas, Sultanate of Oman; and Halliburton
the inserts, the material tended to crack during the cooling Energy Services, Inc, for their permission to publish this
period after firing in the kiln. The other initial challenge was paper.
cutting the ramp in the vortex finder. Improved processes were The authors would like to take the opportunity to specially
put in place to resolve the first problem and allow manufacture thank Mr Thomas Watt and Mr Arild Fossa for their
of the inserts from the silicon nitride material. The latter contribution to the paper, untiring support, and persistent
difficulty was also resolved. encouragement.
The authors also wish to thank Mr Alan Richardson, Mr
Performance Comparison of Desander Designs 1 Alan Smith, Mr Brian Mcwilliams, Mr Brian Sealy, Mr Ian
and 2 Patterson, Mr. Mohammed Ali and Mr Martin Roberts for
During the course of the project, observations were made and motivating and leading the welltest crew to undertake the
documented. One of the main observation studies was of the challenges posed by the system and environment and for their
capacity of the two systems. A database of pressure drop contributions.
across the desander vessel for both the units was set up and
maintained. The following observations were made: References
• Desander Design 1 showed higher differential pressures 1. Plitt, L R. A Mathematical Model of the Hydrocyclone Classifier,
for the same flow rate when compared to Design 2 (see Figs. Mineral Processing, University of Alberta, Edmonton Calgary.
11 and 12). 2. Kelsall, D F: A Study of the Motion of Solid Particles in a
Hydraulic Cyclone, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng., 30, p.87, 1952
• Higher differential pressures across Design 1 were due to 3. Lilge, E.O.: Hydrocyclone Fundamentalas, Trans. IMM, 71,
the inlet wear sleeve at the inlet of the desander design. The p.285, 1962
inlet wear sleeve acts as a nozzle resulting in significant 4. Fahlstrom, P H: Studies of Hydrocyclones as Classifier. Mineral
increase the velocity accompanied by a pressure drop (from Processing, proceedings 6th Int. Congress, Cannes, 1963.
Bernoulli's principle) 5. Al-Zakwani, S, Pongratz, R, Fidan, E, and Kaura, J D:
• Design 1 exhibited improved slug handling capabilities “Management of Proppant and Fines Back Production in High-
over Design 2. This explanation can be using the basis of Rate Gas-Condensate wells.” SPE 68103 submitted at MEOS in
crowding theory, since Design 1 has a single insert with an Bahrain in March 2001.
underflow apex diameter on the insert of 3.5-in.. The multi-
insert design has six inserts with an underflow apex diameter S.I. Metric Conversion
of 1-in. on each; hence the effective diameter is 2.44-in.. bar x 1.0* E + 05 = Pa
Note: Observation for Design 1 is in oilfield units and those ft x 3.048* E–1=m
for design 2 is in SI units. In x 2.54 E–2 =m
The other outcomes of the observation were that 1) design °F (°F –32)/1.8 = °C
1 obeys the Equilibrium Orbit Hypothesis, and the Retention lbm x 4.535 E – 1 = kg
Time Theory, whereas design 2 tends to obey the “equilibrium gal x 3.785 E - 3 = m3
orbit hypothesis” and the “Crowding Theory.” psi x 6.895 E + 3 = Pa
mD x 9.869 E - 1 = µm2
Conclusions MT x 1.0 E + 3 = kg
1 The experience gained through the operation of an lb/gal x 1.2 E + 2 = kg/m3
unproven system has been invaluable. In considering the
success of the project, it should be noted that this system is a Symbols and Abbreviations
world's first in capacity design, and no direct experience was Fc = Centrifugal Force
available prior to its commissioning. d= Particle diameter
ρs = Solids density
ρ= Liquid density
SPE 68747 CLEANUP AND WELL TESTING OPERATIONS IN HIGH-RATE GAS-CONDENSATE FIELD 9
RESULT IN IMPROVED SAND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

ν= Tangential velocity component of fluid velocity Uv = Underflow solids recovery

r= Radius within the desander η= Separation efficiency
Fd = Drag force Vg = Gas flow velocity
µ= Viscosity of suspending fluid Qg = Gas flow rate
ω= Radial component of fluid velocity in desander Z= Gas compressibility factor
Di = Inlet diameter to desander insert ID = Internal diameter of flowpipe
Do = Overflow diameter of insert P= Pressure

T= Temperature

HT-400 PUMP
10,000 psi WP

39
SAND FILTERS

MOTOR

MOTOR
10,000 psi WP 35 37
Production 5
6 PI Wing Valve 9
Service ESDV 26
Wing Swab 2 36 38
Valve 8 25 MIXINGTANK
18 20
24 40
5 7 19 21
4 Master
3 Valves CHOKE MANIFOLD PUMP PUMP
2 10 23
10,000 psi
Annulus 11
Valves 1
27 22
12 13
14 15
28
31
29 32 33
16 17
30 34
FROM
RESERVOIR DESANDER COLD RELIEF
10,000 psi WP

60 FLARE PIT
2nd Cement
Pump.

Similar to the other ATMOSPHERIC TANK

shown on this (Propant flushing tank) FLAME
ARRESTORS
drawing Vent Linev
58 COLD VENT

44

57
22
PSV PSV
PCV NOTES
1 Vent Linev
2 3 1.) ESDV-2 is bolted directly to PDOs
65 Production Wing Valve. (One some wells
56 their Wing Valve will be actuated and have
PSV designation ESDV-1.)
1 CAILBRATION 2.) ESDV-2 is a Halliburton valve.
42 TANK 3.) The Propant Flushing Tank will be located next
to the Cement Pump and gravity feed to that pump.
(Atmospheric)
TEST SEPARATOR 41 TRANSFER
1440 psi PUMP 63

43
64
LCV 62
2
53
2

BLIND
46 FLANGED
51 52
47 49 LCV 54
1
55

48 50
TO FLOW STATION

NOTE: TITLE:
Date: 25.11.97 3rd party control: OIL AND GAS IN PROCESS
SIMPLIFIED P&ID
Rev.: B Company: PDO SURFACE WELL TEST PLANT
Description: Issued for Commissioning Drawn: Arild Foss OIL IN PROCESS LNG PACKAGE
Ref.: PDO_LNG.PPT Checked: Dave Mennie
GAS IN PROCESS SAIH RAWL & BARIK FIELDS
Contract: PDO C684007 Ref. Documents:
WATER IN PROCESS DRAWINGNO.: SPID-LNG-001-B REV. B

Fig. 1a — P & ID for the clean up and well-testing operations.

 10 JITEN KAURA, ALEX MACRAE, AND DAVID MENNIE SPE 68747

Fig. 1b — SMS equipment on location with frac tanks and proppant recovery
tank in the background

overflow
vortex
finder
feed

tangential
feed inlet

Desander Vessel primary

vortex

Isolation Valves
secondary
vortex

Accumulator Vessel

spigot

Fig. 2 — Desander (Design 1) 690 bar working pressure

underflow

Fig. 3 — Desander Cyclone

SPE 68747 CLEANUP AND WELL TESTING OPERATIONS IN HIGH-RATE GAS-CONDENSATE FIELD 11
RESULT IN IMPROVED SAND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Desander vessel with single insert.

Fig. 4 — Desander vessel and cyclone insert: PlanView

Filter Vessel
with wire
mesh
screens

Fig. 5 — Wellhead filters: 690 bar working pressure

12 JITEN KAURA, ALEX MACRAE, AND DAVID MENNIE SPE 68747

Fc

Fd
Radius = r

Fig. 6 — Forces acting on an orbiting particle in a desander

Overflow
Vortex Finder

Inlet

Envelope of zero
vertical velocity

Underflow

Fig. 7 — Distribution of vertical and radial

velocity of components in desander.
SPE 68747 CLEANUP AND WELL TESTING OPERATIONS IN HIGH-RATE GAS-CONDENSATE FIELD 13
RESULT IN IMPROVED SAND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Fig. 8 — Undamaged insert, inlet wear sleeve and Fig. 9 — Erosion on the desander vessel wall.
damaged insert.

Multi-insert in Design 2 Desander Vessel

Fig. 10 — Multi-insert desander cyclone in plan view.

14 JITEN KAURA, ALEX MACRAE, AND DAVID MENNIE SPE 68747

Capacity curve for design 1, various GOR, 247F

average fluid conditions
300 GOR=5000
GOR=5500
GOR=6000
250
Pressure drop Psig

200
Operate below 145psi DP to minimise
erosion
150

100

50

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Gas rate mmscfd

Fig. 11 — Observations from Design 1 desander

GAS CAPACITY / DELTA- P CURVES

3e+6

2.5e+6

2e+6
Sm3/d

Gas sm3/d
1.5e+6

1e+6

0.5e+6

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Delta P psi

Fig. 12 — Onsite observations for Design 2 desander.