XR Screens Outlast and Outperform TBC Screens
Published: 01/01/2010
XR Screens Outlast and Outperform TBC Screens
Published: 01/01/2010
| Well Information | |
|---|---|
| Well Information Location | Baku, Azerbaijan |
| Well Information Rig Name | T-105 |
| Well Information Rig Type | Platform |
| Well Information Interval, Bit Diameter, in | 12¼-in. |
| Well Information Interval Test Length | 2,240 ft (683 m) |
| Well Information Instantaneous ROP | 59 ft/hr (18 m/hr) |
| Well Information Circulation Rate | 1,050 gal/min (3,975 L/min) |
| Well Information Formations | Claystone/Sandstone |
| Well Information Mud Type | NOVATEC* SBM |
| Well Information Mud Density | 12.68 lb/gal (1.52 sg) |
| Well Information Scalper Screen Size | 10 mesh |
| Well Information Screen Size Tested | 230 mesh |
The Situation
M-I SWACO was supplying the operator with both XR and TBC screens on Brandt brand VSM 300^ shakers, and a trial was scheduled to determine the better screen for the drilling conditions so that improvements in inventory and logistics could be achieved. The trial was designed to evaluate:
- Cost per hour
- Screen life (hours) relative to screen position
- Conductance (flow capacity)
- Difference in Cut Point – Particle Size Analysis
The Results
XR Screens demonstrated an overall cost reduction of up to 70% over TBC screens:
- Front screen life: XR screens showed extremely low wear rates, and life was six to seven times longer than TBC screens.
- Back Screen life: Testing showed XR screens had 4 and 52 times longer life than the TBC.
The dramatic difference in screen life is a result of the XR screen’s proprietary design. The use of larger wire diameters increases durability and extends screen life, resulting in fewer required screen changes and reduced overall cost even when compared to screens with significantly lower unit cost.
The Details
Cut Points:
| Sample | d10 (microns) | d50 (microns) | d90 (microns) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sample XR 230 | d10 (microns) 1.09 | d50 (microns) 8.31 | d90 (microns) 46.69 |
| Sample TBC 230 | d10 (microns) 1.13 | d50 (microns) 8.78 | d90 (microns) 47.55 |
The rig was fitted with four VSM 300 shale shakers. All of the shakers were inspected and maintenance carried out prior to the trial.
The test was performed on shakers two and three, ensuring equal flow passed over the two test shakers. Shaker two was dressed with four 230-mesh XR screens, while shaker three was dressed with four 230-mesh TBC screens. All of the shakers were fitted with 10-mesh scalpers. Each screen was marked, numbered, and its position on the shaker recorded. When one screen needed repair, all eight screens were removed, repaired, and replaced. Special care was taken to install each screen in the same position. This method allowed screen life to be monitored according to position and ensured that each screen experienced the same number of hours of use.
The screen test concluded after 79 hours, when both of the back XR screens were judged to be at 15% wear. In the 79 hours it took for the back XR mesh screen to show 15% wear, five new TBC screens were worn out in the corresponding position. Samples were collected and analyzed for oil on cuttings and particle size distributions.
“The cost and performance results of the XR* mesh has made it an easy decision to switch to these screens exclusively.”
Chris Wallace, Project Engineer
Questions? We’ll be glad to answer them.
If you’d like to know more about XR Mesh screens and how they are performing for our other customers, please call the M-I SWACO office nearest you.
Challenge: M-I SWACO was supplying the operator with both XR and TBC screens on Brandt brand VSM 300^ shakers, and a trial was scheduled to determine the better screen for the drilling conditions so that improvements in inventory and logistics could be achieved.
Results: XR Screens demonstrated an overall cost reduction of up to 70% over TBC screens.
