DC166425 DOI: 10.
2118/166425-PA Date: 18-June-14 Stage: Page: 141 Total Pages: 9
Fifteen Years of Expandable-Sand-Screen
Performance and Reliability
I.M. Ismail*, SPE, and M.W. Geddes, SPE, Weatherford
Summary
Expandable-sand-screen (ESS), a technology concept envisaged
by Shell and initially developed by Petroline, was first field trialed
in 1997 with the idea that eliminating the annulus between the
sand screen and wellbore would improve downhole sand control
and allow enhanced reservoir performance and management. By
the end of 2012, ESS was installed in 677 wells, with 418,184 ft
of screen deployed globally. As such, ESS has matured as a viable
sand-control technology combining openhole-gravel-pack func-
tionality with the installation simplicity of a standalone-screen
(SAS) completion.
With performance, reliability, and long-term well life expect-
ancy of paramount importance to field-development economics,
an extensive internal installation database has been maintained for
Weatherford’s ESS systems. Over the past 15 years, observation
and analysis of design, planning, field implementation, and useful
life cycle have been documented in this database. This perform-
ance insight provides the foundation for future reliability and has
been used to identify learning opportunities, influencing the prod-
uct evolution and technology-application envelope.
With performance and reliability analysis provided and dis-
cussed in detail, the applicable ESS envelope is outlined. Product-
design enhancement, methodical application evaluation, and rig-
orous operating procedures result in improved successful use.
Analysis of both infant and production failure trends are presented
and show improvement. These data are used to estimate future
life predictions by use of recognized reliability-analysis tools. The
applicability of ESS in openhole wells is highlighted, with con-
tinuing performance in oil producers, gas producers, water injec-
tors, and underground-gas-storage applications. There are various
sand-control technologies successfully used in reservoirs around
the globe. This study outlines the applicable envelope for ESS
use, providing insight to enable informed evaluation, life-of-well
risk appraisal, and, ultimately, reliable sand-control-completion
selection for existing or new field-development appraisal.
Introduction
The first field trial of ESS was in the desert of Oman in Q1 1997
to test the initial design functionality, and was then followed by
further field trials in both the southern North Sea and Oman (Met-
calfe and Whitelaw 1999). ESS technology has been installed in a
wide portfolio of wells globally. Through introduction and use of
what was a new technology, much learning has been observed.
Despite subsequent use in cased-hole applications, ESS was spe-
cifically designed as an openhole sand-control technique for use
in weak, poorly consolidated, or unconsolidated reservoirs. The
idea was that expansion of a sand screen to contact the wellbore
face, eliminating the annulus, would support the near-wellbore
rock matrix. In theory, sand particles could be stabilized to pro-
vide effective downhole sand control. Furthermore, the resultant
large flow area presented and the increased inside diameter (ID)
would benefit well productivity and reservoir drainage, and would
result in reduced screen plugging and erosion (Gee et al. 2004;
* Now with Tendeka.
Copyright V
C 2014 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 166425) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 30 September–2 October 2013, and revised for
publication. Original manuscript received for review 4 July 2013. Revised manuscript
received for review 25 November 2013. Paper peer approved 30 January 2014.
June 2014 SPE Drilling & Completion
ID: jaganm Time: 19:01 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140013/APPFile/SA-DC##140013
Heiland et al. 2004). This concept of direct screen contact provides
a means of overcoming the limitations of SAS completions and the
complexities surrounding openhole-gravel-pack completions.
Previously published papers have discussed the design and
construction of ESS in detail (Innes et al. 2005; Morgan et al.
2006; Nicol and Geddes 2010). However, a brief overview of the
concept is discussed as follows. ESS construction comprises three
sandwiched layers: the base pipe, the filter media, and the outer
protective shroud (Fig. 1). The base pipe is longitudinally slotted,
as is the outer shroud. These slots open during expansion to
accommodate the change in diameter, and overlapped layers of
filter media slide across each other to provide sand-retention in-
tegrity. The use of slots allows expansion ratios up to 45% greater
than the original diameter and provides a larger inflow area than
perforated pipes.
Installations and Performance
Well-data capture is fundamental to understanding the performance
of a sandface completion. All ESS well installations have been
recorded in an internal proprietary database. The information cap-
tured provides broad detail on each installation including: safety
statistics, rig data, well type, well-geometry data, mud and fluid
data, completion details, ESS-equipment information, operational
details, formation details, productivity information, and well status.
This database is frequently updated and has been used to analyze
ESS performance to the end of 2012.
From inception to the end of 2012, ESS has been used to com-
plete 677 wells with 418,184 ft of screen length installed. Fig. 2
details the installations of ESS by completion type. As can be
observed, 451 installations, representing 67% of all wells, have
been completed in an openhole environment. With regard to
cased-hole applications, this accounts for 193 installations, 28%,
with open perforations and 33 installations, 5%, with either pre-
packed or frac-packed perforations. Fig. 3 details a more exten-
sive openhole application of the technology in terms of footage:
355,877 ft or 85% of total screen length installed has been in an
openhole environment. As such, cased-hole applications represent
52,230 ft or 13% with open perforations, and a further 10,077 ft
or 2% with either prepacked or frac-packed perforations.
A significant number of SPE papers detailing ESS case studies,
performance reviews, and analysis have been published. These
have demonstrated the scope of technology use in a variety of
applications, mainly in oil producers, gas producers, and water
injectors. With wells producing for more than 13 years, the cur-
rent maximum rates reported have been as follows: a maximum
oil-production rate of 30,000 STB/D, a maximum gas rate of 370
MMscf/D, and a maximum water-injection rate of 65,000 BWPD.
Although peak rates, they demonstrate a significant increase in
the maximum performance achieved by ESS completions com-
pared with the previously published ESS performance by Jones
et al. (2005) and Morgan et al. (2006). Some more recently pub-
lished examples of ESS applications are highlighted as follows.
Nicol and Geddes (2010) documented the installation perform-
ance of 7-in. ESS systems in water-injector and oil-producer wells
for deepwater West Africa projects. 7-in. ESS enabled the opera-
tor to target both single-zone and multizone reservoir sections,
affording greater flexibility through effective openhole sand con-
trol with zonal isolation to provide cased-hole functionality.
These installations were documented to provide operational time
efficiencies and cost savings, compared with alternative sandface-
141
 DC166425 DOI: 10.2118/166425-PA Date: 18-June-14 Stage: Page: 142 Total Pages: 9

Base Pipe Slots Open

During Expansion
Maximizing Inflow Area

Filter Media
Dutch Twill Weave
Weave Layers Slide Over
Each Other During Expansion

Outer Shroud
Protects Filter Media

No Change In Weave
Unexpanded Aperture Size Expanded

Fig. 1—ESS construction.

completion types, estimated at USD 10 million per multizone
completion.
Ginest et al. (2009) documented successful ESS use in a high-
temperature gas well in the Unayzah A reservoir, Saudi Arabia. It
is reported that ESS was installed and expanded without incident.
The well was successfully cleaned up and brought on line after a
21=2-year delay and continues to produce successfully at a sus-
tained, high sand-free rate. Al-Anazi et al. (2011) documented
that ESS-completion performance in the unconsolidated Unayzah
reservoir, Saudi Arabia, shows an improved production rate in
comparison with other sandface completions used. It also docu-
ments that the ESS completion is more reliable, more robust, and
less risky in comparison with other sandface completions, with
the proviso that the appropriate selection process is followed.
Stevenson et al. (2007) documented ESS use to complete a
three-zone oil producer in combination with an internal string of
remotely operated intelligent-completion flow valves at the
Okwori field in Nigerian offshore waters. This cutting-edge and
challenging project marked a step forward in subsea-well technol-
ogy. The field started producing in March 2006.
There have been many others who have noted increased pro-
duction and reduction in costs through ESS use. There have also
been many theoretical papers that document specific ESS benefits.
For example, Jones et al. (2003a, 2003b) discussed the effect of
the large ESS ID that results in very low frictional pressure losses,
delaying water breakthrough, improving sweep efficiency, and
increasing the recovery factor of a reservoir.
Current Systems and Applications
Since inception, ESS technology has evolved through initial and
continuing field application. From 2000 to 2002, numerous 5.5-
and 4.5-in. ESS-system failures were observed and widely publi-
cized. Investigations identified a weak connector design as the
cause of failure. These findings resulted in both system sizes
being withdrawn from use. It is notable that the 4-in. ESS-system
design, dating back to the initial technology development, is still
relevant and in use today, with wells dating back to Q1 2001.
After review of the failure mechanism, the 5.5- and 4.5-in. con-
nectors were redesigned and, after stringent qualification, reintro-
duced for use in late 2002. To date, the failure mechanism
initially observed remains eradicated.
In addition to expandable-screen development, the expansion
technology has also evolved. Early installations, 164 wells, used
fixed-diameter expansion tools, sized to ensure that top-down
expansion continued fully to the bottom of the deployed screen.
This technique did not meet the desired design concept of full-
screen contact with the wellbore face. As such, variable expansion
tools were developed to provide fully compliant wellbore contact.
There are various studies published discussing the benefit of com-
pliant expansion. Jones et al. (2005) reported field data showing a
noncompliant ESS average skin of 2.3 and a compliant ESS aver-
age skin of 0.3, derived over a data set of wells. Heiland et al.
(2004) highlighted that sand movement in a screen/wellbore annu-
lus could form dunes and blockages, which in some circumstances
could lead to screen plugging and erosion hotspots. More recently,
a study involving large-scale thick-walled-cylinder testing exam-
ined the effect of compliance and determined ESS provided a
60% increase in productivity over an SAS under the same condi-
tions (Hembling et al. 2008). These examples clearly show per-
formance benefits associated with openhole-compliant expansion.
As time has progressed, expansion-tool performance and reliabil-
ity have matured.
Over time, the application envelope has extended to encom-
pass cased-hole environments as an alternative for cased-hole
gravel packs and cased-hole frac packs. However, as observed
earlier, the majority of ESS cased-hole installations have been
exposed to nonpacked perforation tunnels. In effect, ESS is acting
as a big-bore SAS in these applications and, should the perfora-
tion tunnels remain open, may be exposed to potential erosion,
depending on perforation strategy, flow rate, particle size, and
particle loading. For this reason, ESS provides more benefit when
applied in open hole.

CASED HOLE
ESS
OPEN HOLE ESS (193) 28% OPEN HOLE ESS
(451) 67% (355,877 ft) 85%
CASED HOLE
ESS
(52,230 ft) 13%
OTHER OTHER
(CHESS/PP & (CHESS/PP &
CHESS/FP) CHESS FP)
(33) 5% (10,077 ft) 2%

Fig. 2—ESS installations by completion type. Fig. 3—ESS installed footage by completion type.

142 June 2014 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 19:01 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140013/APPFile/SA-DC##140013

 DC166425 DOI: 10.2118/166425-PA Date: 18-June-14
TABLE 1—CURRENT ESS SYSTEMS
Size Hole Run Outside
(in.) Size (in.) Diameter (in.)
4.0  5.88 4.40
4.5  6.00 5.00
5.5  8.50 6.10
7.0  8.50 7.60
In 2005, the 7-in. ESS system was introduced. Developed in col-
laboration with an operator to meet industry needs, the system was
specifically tailored for 81=2-in. openhole, multizone applications.
This involved integrating openhole-isolation devices, in addition to
improved collapse strength and increased compliant range in com-
parison with the 51=2-in. ESS system. There are various openhole iso-
lation options that are compatible with 7-in. ESS. These include
expandable zonal isolation, mechanical zonal isolation, and swel-
ling-elastomer technology. Together, the 7-in. ESS system enables
openhole productivity with cased-hole functionality.
Further product developments have seen the introduction of
120-lm weave in Q2 2006. Single-trip deployment systems for all
current ESS sizes and unidirectional fluid-loss control were inte-
grated into the 51=2- and 7-in. ESS systems. Table 1 outlines
details of current ESS systems.
With a view to gaining a detailed insight into ESS-well per-
formance and to provide useful information for future sand-con-
trol-system evaluation, it is clear that product use has significantly
influenced the current ESS systems and where they are applied
today. Therefore, the data set of wells used to investigate failure
analysis and assess reliability predictions will focus on these sys-
tems. Only current ESS systems, installed and expanded by use of
compliant tools into an openhole environment, will be included in
the following documented review. Cased-hole ESS installations
are not included in this study because ESS is not truly compliant
with the sandface and requires detailed erosion evaluation to con-
firm suitability. In doing so, the total 677-well data set is reduced
to 351 wells, or 51.8%. Although a significant reduction, this is
still a considerable data set. Installations dating back to Q1 2001
remain included,with 267,030 ft of screen installed and a total cu-
mulative production/injection time of 1,729 well years.
Fig. 4 details the 351 current ESS-openhole installations by
application. Oil-producer wells account for 215 installations, or
61%. Gas-producer wells account for 81 installations, or 23%, the
earliest of which dates back to Q1 2001. Water-injector wells
account for 48 installations, or 14%, the earliest of which dates
back to Q4 2002. Other wells, including gas-storage and water
producers, account for a further seven installations, or 2%.
250
215 (61%)
200
Installation
150
100 81 (23%)
48 (14%)
50
0 gations attempt to identify the most likely cause of failure, the pri-
Oil producer Gas producer Water Injector
(Water producer,
Water connector
& Gas storage)
Fig. 4—Current ESS-openhole installations by application.
June 2014 SPE Drilling & Completion
ID: jaganm Time: 19:01 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140013/APPFile/SA-DC##140013
Stage: Page: 143 Total Pages: 9
Maximum Compliant
Diameter (in.) Expansion Type Filter Media
6.06 Axial-compliant expansion Reverse Dutch twill
6.75 Expandable connections 120 mm
8.83 150 mm
9.25 Rotary-compliant expansion 230 mm
Premium connections 270 mm
This 351-well data set covers a variety of reservoir environ-
ments globally. Installations have taken place on various rig types
on land, offshore-platform, and deepwater-semisubmersible envi-
ronments. Well trajectories include vertical (<15o), deviated, and
horizontal (>85o) reservoir sections, and encompass single-zone
and multizone completions.
ESS Field Incidents
An understanding of product failure is central to the design
improvement, application-envelope definition, and future product
performance and reliability. Reliability studies published by King
et al. (2003) and Capderou and DiLorenzo (2012) have detailed a
wide range of sand-control completions: cased-hole oriented per-
forating, SAS, openhole gravel pack, cased-hole gravel pack,
cased-hole frac pack, expandable sand screen, and others. The
performance of the first 340 ESS installations to June 2005 has
also been documented (Jones et al. 2005). These studies began to
support the selection of a reliable sandface completion. However,
as described previously, ESS has matured considerably since the
work of King et al. (2003) and Jones et al. (2005). In addition, the
ESS data set used by Capderou and DiLorenzo (2012) represented
30 wells, a very small subset of the 677 wells installed globally.
In these studies, there was a larger data set used and the studies
focused on current system, application in open hole, where the
product is best used, and recommendations for future application.
All field incidents reported by operators for wells where ESS
has been used are investigated to determine the cause of failure.
The root-cause-analysis (RCA) process reviews all stages of ESS
implementation (Fig. 5).
It is recognized that well-failure definitions vary throughout
the industry: installation failure, curtailed production or injection
because of solids egress, well shut-in, remediated with an inter-
vention, and so forth (King et al. 2003; Jones et al. 2005; Cap-
derou and DiLorenzo 2012). In this study, to identify ESS-product
performance, sand-control failure is defined as produced sand
larger than the filter aperture used. In addition, because the actual
date of well cleanup or production startup is not always apparent
to the equipment supplier—where batch completions are con-
cerned—an addition to the infant-failure definition is used. There-
fore, infant failure is defined as the failure of sandface completion
during installation, resulting in loss of the reservoir section or pro-
duced sand larger than the filter aperture within 180 days of instal-
lation. Production failure is defined as produced sand larger than
the filter aperture after 180 days from installation.
Use of the RCA process allows a methodical review of field
incidents to determine the failure cause. However, the quality of in-
formation and facts available can vary and depend on a number of
aspects: Multiple subsea wells may be serviced by the same flow
architecture, well production data may be limited, well intervention
for investigation may not be feasible, and so forth. It is therefore
understandable that absolute definition of the failure mechanism
7 (2%) can sometimes be challenging. For this reason, sand-control investi-
Other
mary contributing factor. Two categories of primary contributing
factor are defined: controllable and uncontrollable. Controllable
factors are classified as areas from which lessons learned can be
captured and fed back into the sand-control-selection due diligence,
application planning, and operational processes. This enables
143
 DC166425 DOI: 10.2118/166425-PA Date: 18-June-14 Stage: Page: 144 Total Pages: 9

Applications Well Site

Engineering Installation
Well & Fluid
Cleanup
Scope of Pre-Job
Requirements Preparation
Completion Hole
Design Condition
T&D ESS Makeup
Mud Modeling Hanger & Deployment
Testing Setting
Filtercake ESS
Testing Expansion
Technical Well
Review Suspension

Sand
Production

Corrosion Equipment
Hole Potential Mobilisation
Sub Assembly
Geometry Make-Up
Erosion Equipment
Potential Inspection
Geomechanical Wellsite
EWBS Tallys
Weave 3rd Party
Operations sizing Installation Interfaces
Envelope Program
Basis of
Design
Due Operations Well
Diligence Planning Clean-Up

Fig. 5—RCA-investigation diagram.

TABLE 2—CONTROLLABLE PRIMARY CONTRIBUTING TABLE 3—UNCONTROLLABLE PRIMARY CONTRIBUTING

FACTORS FACTORS

Controllable Factor Description Uncontrollable Factor Description

Formation/hole condition Unstable formation; washouts, swel-
ling shale, openhole-deployment
interface; tight spot, hangups, and so
forth
Wellbore/hole trajectory Wellpath issues; high dogleg severity,
deployment/expansion weight-trans-
fer issues, and so forth
Improper bean up High initial drawdown, not following
beanup procedure
Improper weave size Poor weave retention, weave selected
on particle-size analysis not fully repre-
sentative of the reservoir sands
Design/installation Product and tool design, material
selection, rig-operational-related
problem, nonstandard completion
design
Mud/wellbore cleanup Fluids selection, mud conditioning/flu-
ids changeout, filter-cake cleanup/
mud flow back and other mud-related
issues, solids deposit, casing
scraper, and so forth
TABLE 4—ESS FAILURES (BOTH INFANT AND PRODUCTION)
Primary Contributing Factor Infant Production
Reservoir Unappraised geomechanical issue; abnor-
faults/tectonics mally stressed reservoir (overburden
stress is smaller than maximum horizontal
stress/reservoir faulting/tectonic activity)
Third-party swell Client-specified third-party-equipment
packer/openhole issue; elastomer design issue, early swel-
interface ling, unpredicted reaction with openhole
caused sandface completion to hang up
mitigation of future occurrences. These controllable factors are
categorized as six different types (Table 2).
Uncontrollable factors include issues experienced because of
unknown reservoir characteristics or third-party equipment. Les-
sons learned assist definition of the ESS-application envelope,
eliminating future occurrence. These uncontrollable factors are
categorized as two different types (Table 3).
Table 4 details well failures for the 351 current ESS-openhole
installations by primary contributing factor. These are split into
infant and production failures, as previously defined. The total
number of failures observed is 55 installations, or 16% of the data
set. Infant failures account for 25 installations, or 7% of the data
set, and production failures account for 30 installations, or 9% of
the data set. It should be noted that uncontrollable factors account
for 17 failures. Removal of these from the data set reduces the
total number of current ESS-openhole installations to 334 and
Total
observed failures to 38, or 11% of the data set.

FH Formation/hole condition 2 7 9
WT Wellbore/hole trajectory 1 0 1 TABLE 5—CURRENT ESS-OPENHOLE PERFORMANCE BY
YEAR
MC Mud/wellbore cleanup 4 4 8
WS Improper weave size 3 7 10
Number Well Infant Production Total
BU Improper bean up 2 1 3 Year of Wells Years Failure Failure Failure
DI Design and installation 4 3 7
FT Reservoir faults/tectonics 4 8 12 2003 58 70 3 0 3
SP Third-party swell 5 0 5 2006 176 342 13 16 29
packer/openhole interface 2009 299 915 25 24 49
Total 25 30 55 2012 351 1729 25 30 55

144 June 2014 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 19:01 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140013/APPFile/SA-DC##140013

 DC166425 DOI: 10.2118/166425-PA Date: 18-June-14 Stage: Page: 145 Total Pages: 9

2000 30%
Installation

Well Years 1729

1800
Infant Failure
25%
1600

Installation or Well-Years
Production Failure

Total Failure
1400

Failure Rate %
20%
1200 (29) 16.5% (49) 16.4%
(55) 15.7%

1000 915 15%

800
(16) 9.1% 10%
(25) 8.4%
600 (30) 8.5%
(13) 7.4%
(25) 7.1%
(24) 8.0%
(3) 5.2% 342 351
400
299 5%
176
200
70
58
(0) 0.0%
0 0%
2003 2006 2009 2012

Fig. 6—Current ESS-openhole performance by year.

Reliability Analysis well years have grown significantly from 70 well years in 2003 to
With well installation and failure data captured for current ESS 1,729 well years at the end of 2012. During this time, early wells
systems installed and expanded by use of compliant tools into an have been producing for nearly 12 years. On average, each current
openhole environment, analysis to predict future reliability has ESS-openhole well has been producing for 5 years. Infant failures
been investigated. Table 5 details the cumulative well quantity have occurred at a relatively constant rate, from three wells in
and cumulative online well years in 3-year intervals from 2000 to 2003 to 13 wells in 2006 to 25 wells in 2009. There has been a
the end of 2012. marked change between 2009 and 2012, with no further infant
Illustration of these data in Fig. 6 clearly shows installations failures. This is attributed to implementation of lessons learned
increasing considerably, at approximately 120 wells per timestep into the sand-control-selection due diligence, application plan-
from 2003, through 2006, to 2009. This installation rate reduces ning, and operational processes. With regard to production fail-
to 51 wells between 2009 and 2012 as the technology-application ures, none were observed in 2003; this is attributed to the
envelope was further defined. In contrast, the cumulative online definition of the current ESS-openhole data set. From 2003

ReliaSoft Weibull++ 7 - www.ReliaSoft.com

Reliability vs. Time Plot
1.000
Infant Failure
Trending

0.800

2012
Reliability, R(t) = 1–F(t)

0.600

2009

0.400

Production Failure
Trending

0.200

2006
0.000
0.000 6.000 12.000 18.000 24.000 30.000
Time, (t)
2006\2006: β = 1.5490, η = 10.7611, Ζ = 0.926136363636364
2009\2009: β = 0.9735, η = 40.4870, Ζ = 0.916387959866221
2012\2012: β = 0.7659, η = 114.3491, Ζ = 0.928774928774929

Fig. 7—Current ESS-openhole reliability by year.

June 2014 SPE Drilling & Completion 145

ID: jaganm Time: 19:01 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140013/APPFile/SA-DC##140013

 DC166425 DOI: 10.2118/166425-PA Date: 18-June-14 Stage: Page: 146 Total Pages: 9

indication of product performance as cumulative increase in well

TABLE 6—CURRENT ESS-OPENHOLE PERFORMANCE BY
APPLICATION
Number Well Infant Production
Application of Wells Years Failure Failure
Oil producer 215 1,085 23 26
Gas producer 81 371 2 3
Water injector 48 225 0 1
Other 7 48 0 0
onward, production failures were observed as follows: 16 wells in
2006, 24 wells in 2009, and 30 wells in 2012. This reducing fail-
ure rate is attributed to understanding of the applicable ESS enve-
lope maturing over time.
As has been documented, understanding past ESS performance
is critical to improving future performance. It is also true that this
information is useful in mathematical predictions of future reli-
ability. To analyze this, Weibull reliability software has been used
to predict the ability of ESS systems to control sand for a desired
period of time without failure. A statistical technique called Wei-
bull 2p (two-parameter distributions) was chosen with maximum-
likelihood-estimation techniques. All ESS failures within 180
days were classed as infant failures, with their production time set
as zero. All ESS failures after 180 days were classed as produc-
tion failures, with their production times recorded. Wells still in
production were treated as suspensions on 31 December 2012.
The Weibull reliability-analysis results (Fig. 7) provide a com-
parison of ESS-reliability performance in 2006, 2009, and 2012.
The x-axis parameter scale indicates time in years, with the markers
on the x-axis indicating the suspension time of the wells remaining
in production. The 2003 results are not recorded because of a small
data set and no production failures. These results for current ESS-
openhole systems indicate a significant reliability improvement at
each time increment. Performing mean life-function calculations
by use of Weibull software to measure the average time of product
failure indicates that in 2006, the data set exhibits a mean time to
failure (MTTF) of 9.0 years. The MTTF improves in 2009 to 38
years and again in 2012 to 124 years. This MTTF trend provides an
years. However, it is important to note that the MTTF value
assumes a constant well environment at both the start and end of
well life. Sand-control reservoirs are a complex and challenging
Total environment. Furthermore, the majority of the ESS wells have yet
Failure to reach the end of their useful life.
49
5 Reliability by Application
1 This section provides analysis of current ESS-openhole perform-
0 ance and reliability by application. Table 6 details the cumulative
well quantity and cumulative online well years per application
type to the end of 2012.
Illustration of these data in Fig. 8 clearly shows oil-producer
wells have the highest failure occurrence at 49 installations, or
22.8%. Infant failures account for 23 installations, or 10.7%, and
production failures account for 26 installations, or 12.1%. Per-
formance is significantly better in gas-producer wells, with a total
of five failures, or 6.2%. Infant failures account for two installa-
tions, or 2.5%, and production failures account for three installa-
tions, or 3.7%. ESS has the best performance in water-injector
wells with no infant failures and one production failure, or 2.1%.
Although a small data set, no failures have been observed in other
applications such as water producer, gas storage, and water con-
nector (connecting reservoir to reservoir).
Weibull reliability analysis by well application has been
repeated as previously described, with results illustrated in Fig. 9.
The reliability plot excludes water-injector wells and other wells
(water producer, water connector, and gas storage) because of the
small data sets. These results for current ESS-openhole systems
clearly indicate good performance in gas-producer wells. How-
ever, oil-producer well performance is below the overall reliabil-
ity performance for the current ESS-openhole 2012 reliability.
This is attributed to a number of early well failures that influenced
lessons learned and sand-control-selection due diligence.
Failure Mitigation
Understanding the performance and reliability of current ESS sys-
tems is of paramount importance to mitigate potential future fail-
ure. Fig. 10 shows primary contributing factors for failure,
detailed for 3-year intervals. It is observed that the number of

300 1200
Installation

1085 Infant Failure

Production Failure
250 1000
Well-Years

Total = 215
200 800
Installation

Well-Years

150 600

100 400
371
Total = 81
225
50 200
22 (10.7%) Total = 48
3 (3.7%)
27 (12.1%) 2 (2.5%)
1 (2.1%) 48
0 Total = 7 0
Oil Producer Gas Producer Water Injector Other
(Water producer, Water
connector & Gas storage)

Fig. 8—Current ESS-openhole performance by application.

146 June 2014 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 19:01 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140013/APPFile/SA-DC##140013

 DC166425 DOI: 10.2118/166425-PA Date: 18-June-14 Stage: Page: 147 Total Pages: 9

ReliaSoft Weibull++ 7 - www.ReliaSoft.com

Reliability vs. Time Plot
1.000

Gas Wells

0.800
2012 Reliability
Reliability, R(t) = 1–F(t)
Oil Wells
0.600

0.400

0.200

0.000
0.000 6.000 12.000 18.000 24.000 30.000
Time, (t)
2012\2012: β = 0.7659, η = 114.3491, Ζ = 0.928774928774929
2012 Gas\2012: β = 0.8481, η = 216.9645, Ζ = 0.975308641975309
2012 Oil\2012: β = 0.7160, η = 86.8978, Ζ = 0.893023255813953

Fig. 9—Current ESS-openhole reliability by application.

failures increased sharply from three wells in 2003 to a peak of 26
wells in 2006. This is attributed to the definition of the current
ESS-openhole data set, as described previously. The high number
of failures in 2006 and 2009 consists of those related to both con-
trollable and uncontrollable primary contributing factors. How-
ever, a considerable reduction is evident with six wells in 2012,
consisting of one controllable and five uncontrollable primary
contributing factors.
Failures because of the third-party swell packer/openhole inter-
face, classified uncontrollable, were observed in 2006 and 2009.
This equipment was specified and integrated outside the control of
the ESS manufacturer. Strict guidelines on their integration and
use, in conjunction with ESS, are now in place. As a result, this
failure mechanism has not been repeated in 2012.
Failures because of reservoir faults and tectonics, classified as
uncontrollable, are evident in 2006, 2009, and 2012. These

30
SP 3rdParty Swell Packer
Infant = 10 FT Faults/Tectonics
Production = 16 DI WFT Design & Installation
BU Improper Bean-UP
Total = 26
WS Improper Weave
SP, 1 MC Mud/Wellbore Clean-Up
25
WT Wellbore/Hole Trajectory
FH Formation/Hole Condition

FT, 6 Infant = 12
Production = 8
Total = 20
20

SP, 4
Failure Well

DI, 4

FT, 1
15
DI, 2

WS, 7 BU, 3

10
WS, 1
Infant = 0
Production = 6
MC, 3 MC, 5 Total 6
Infant = 3
5
Production = 0 WT, 1
Total = 3 FT, 5

WS, 2 FH, 4 FH, 4

FH, 1 DI, 1
0
2003 2006 2009 2012
Year

Fig. 10—Failure primary contributing factors by year.

June 2014 SPE Drilling & Completion 147

ID: jaganm Time: 19:01 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140013/APPFile/SA-DC##140013

 DC166425 DOI: 10.2118/166425-PA Date: 18-June-14 Stage: Page: 148 Total Pages: 9

TABLE 7—10-STEP DUE-DILIGENCE PROCESS

Step Evaluation Description

1 Sand properties
2 Wellbore fluids
3 Geomechanics
4 Erosion
5 Well geometry
6 Well condition
7 Functional design system
8 Corrosion
9 Well unloading
10 Process integrity
Aperture-size selection from sand-size data against retention-testing database or actual reten-
tion testing.
Flowthrough and filter-cake flowback testing performed during planning phase. Quality-control
checks performed at rigsite.
Consider borehole-stability modeling or FEA modeling for complex scenarios (e.g., sands/
shales/fractures/depletion).
Evaluate level of risk (e.g., velocity, particle size/type).
Consider trajectories, build angles, dogleg severities, and review string-design-deployability by
means of torque and drag.
Good drilling practices (e.g., hole gauge/washouts/shale instability/effective mud filter cake).
Integral/inner-inflow control, zonal-isolation requirements, fluid-loss control, instrumentation
interfacing, and others.
Design for chemical environment (e.g., corrosion, acid stimulation, scale treatments).
Define appropriate procedure/parameters (e.g., staged slow rates).
Ensure correct first-time installation.

failures are associated with unpredicted geomechanical reservoir
behavior at the time of sand-control selection. To mitigate future
failures, a finite-element-analysis (FEA)model as detailed by Jones
et al. (2011) has been developed to address more-complex geologi-
cal settings and a wider range of geomechanical phenomena.
Failures because of controllable primary contributing factors are
predominant in 2006 and 2009 as the quantity of installations
increased. It is evident that these failures have dramatically reduced
in 2012. This is attributed to use of an operations-process-manage-
ment system (OPMS), which manages installations from the initial
planning stage, through to well bean up and subsequent ongoing
field production. Embedded within OPMS is a 10-step sand-con-
trol-selection due-diligence process (Table 7). This evaluation pro-
cess is designed as a series of stage gates. Each gate requires
application-evaluation engineering to confirm suitability or to cap-
ture and flag any issues. All stages must be completed satisfactorily
to confirm sand-control-system applicability. In addition, all les-
sons learned through RCA investigations are fed into the processes
and procedures within OPMS, assisting future-failure mitigation.
Conclusion
In more than 15 years of field application, ESS has matured as a
viable sand-control technology. During this time, the product has
evolved into the current systems used. Maximum benefit of the
technology is realized when ESS is compliantly expanded into an
openhole environment. A review of ESS current systems that are
compliantly expanded in an openhole-environment data set,
including oil-producer, gas-producer, water-injector and gas-stor-
age wells, has identified trends of improvement in performance
and reliability, including both infant- and production-failure
modes. RCA of all failures is improving product understanding
through capture of lessons learned and feedback to an OPMS,
assisting future-failure mitigation. Use of a 10-step sand-control
selection, evaluation, and due-diligence process, embedded within
OPMS, is improving candidate-well selection.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the operators and the regional teams
who took time to supply the information for the database; col-
leagues past and present who have influenced this study; and
Weatherford for permission to publish this paper.
References
Al-Anazi, H. D., Al-Qahtani, A. A., Rahim, Z., et al. 2011. Selecting Opti-
mum Completion Strategy - Examples from Saudi Arabia’s Unconsoli-
dated Unayzah Reservoir. Presented at SPE/DGS Saudi Arabia Section
Technical Symposium and Exhibition, Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia, 15–18
May. SPE-149058-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/149058-MS.
Ballard, T. J and Beare, S. P. 2003. Media Sizing for Premium Sand
Screens: Dutch Twill Weaves. Presented at SPE European Formation
Damage Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, 13–14 May. SPE-
82244-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/82244-MS.
Capderou, C. and DiLorenzo, N. 2012. A Fresh Look at Completion Reli-
ability Supports Sand Control Selection. Presented at SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 8–10 Octo-
ber. SPE-159541-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/159541-MS.
Gee, N., Jones, C., and Ferguson, S. 2004. Towards the Expandable Reser-
voir Completion: The Case for Open-hole Completions. Presented at
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 3–6 May. OTC-
16714-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.4043/16714-MS.
Ginest, N., Al-Sagr, A., Al-Malki, B., et al. 2009. A Sucessful Expandable
Sand Screen Case History in a Deep, Corrosive Gas Well Application.
Presented at 8th European Formation Damage Conference, Schevenin-
gen, The Netherlands, 27–29 May. SPE-122847-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/122847-MS.
Heiland, J., Cook, J., Johnson, A., et al. 2004. The Role of the Annular
Gap in Expandable Sand Screen Completions. Presented at SPE Inter-
national Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control,
Lafayette, Louisiana, 18–20 February. SPE-86463-MS. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2118/86463-MS.
Hembling, D., Lauritzen, E., Phillips, J., et al. 2008. A Comprehensive
Study on the Effect of Compliance on Productivity. Presented at SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado,
21–24 September. SPE-116581-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/116581-
MS.
Innes, G., Morgan, Q., Macarthur, A., et al. 2005. Next Generation Ex-
pandable Completion Systems. Presented at SPE/IADC Middle East
Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition, Dubai, UAE, 12–14
September. SPE-97281-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/97281-MS.
Jones, C., Cameron, J., and MacKay, E. 2003a. Productivity, Water Break-
through And Ultimate Recovery In Horizontal Wells With A Range Of
Completion Types. Presented at Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, Texas, 5–8 May. OTC-15150-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.4043/
15150-MS.
Jones, C., Cameron, J., Owoeye, O., et al. 2003b. Production Issues Influ-
encing The Choice Of Completion Type In Horizontal Wells With
Sanding Problems. Presented at Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, Texas, 5–8 May. OTC-15131-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.4043/
15131-MS.
Jones, C., Tollefsen, M., Metcalfe, P., et al. 2005. Selection, Performance
and Reliability of Expandable Sand Screens, a Perspective from the
First 300 Installations. Presented at SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling
Technology Conference and Exhibition, Dubai, UAE, 12–14 Septem-
ber. SPE-97282-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/97282-MS.
Jones, C., Watson, K., and Morgan, Q. 2011. Formation Loading and De-
formation of Expandable Sand Screens. Presented at SPE European
Formation Damage Conference, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 7–10
June. SPE-143941-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/143941-MS.

148 June 2014 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 19:01 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140013/APPFile/SA-DC##140013

 DC166425 DOI: 10.2118/166425-PA Date: 18-June-14
King, G. E., Wildt, P.J., and Connell, E. O. 2003. Sand Control Comple-
tion Reliability and Failure Rate Comparison With a Multi-Thousand
Well Database. Presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 5–8 October. SPE-84262-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/84262-MS.
Metcalfe, P. and Whitelaw, C. 1999. The Development of the First Ex-
pandable Sand Screen. Presented at Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, Texas, 3–6 May. OTC-11032-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.4043/
11032-MS.
Morgan, Q., Jones, C., and Macarthur, A. 2006. Expandable Sandface
Completions—Design and Performance Review of Single-Zone Appli-
cations and Journey to Next Generation Multizone Systems. Presented
at Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu
Dhabi, UAE, 5–8 November. SPE-100747-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/100747-MS.
Nicol, M. and Geddes, M. W. 2010. Application of Multizone Expandable
Sand Screen Completions in Deepwater West Africa: Cased-Hole
Functionality With Openhole Performance. Presented at SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, 19–22 Septem-
ber. SPE-135066-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/135066-MS.
Stevenson, J., Lacy, R., Neumann, J., et al. 2007. A Combination of Ex-
pandable Sand Screens and Intelligent Control Systems in the Okwori
June 2014 SPE Drilling & Completion
ID: jaganm Time: 19:01 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140013/APPFile/SA-DC##140013
Stage: Page: 149 Total Pages: 9
Completions Offshore Nigeria. Presented at Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, Texas, 30 April–3 May. OTC-18484-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.4043/18484-MS.
Isma Mohd Ismail is the Product Line Manager for Sand Con-
trol/Inflow Control for Tendeka, based in Aberdeen. He is
responsible for sand-control and inflow-control product de-
velopment, material selection, and subsurface modeling.
Ismail has previously worked in multiple roles in sand-control
product line and operation, subsurface engineering, and
research and development for Weatherford. He holds mas-
ter’s and PhD degrees in mechanical engineering from the
University of Leeds, UK, specializing in oilfield sand erosion and
corrosion.
Martin Geddes is Completions Group Manager–Europe and
Caspian Region for Weatherford, based in Aberdeen. He is re-
sponsible for Weatherford’s upper, lower, and sand-control
completions business throughout the Europe and Caspian
markets. Geddes holds a Higher National Diploma in mechani-
cal and offshore engineering from the Robert Gordon Univer-
sity, Aberdeen. His career spans 25 years in the drilling and
completions sector, and he joined Weatherford in 2001.
149