SPE 84914
First Successful Implementation Of Expandable Sand Screen (Ess®) Technology In An
Open Hole Horizontal Well Located In Baram Field, Offshore Malaysia- A Case Study
Mir Rezaul Kabir, SPE, Petronas Carigali; M. Zaki Awang , SPE, Petronas Carigali; L. Umar, Petronas Carigali; Norjusni
Omar, SPE, Weatherford Completion Systems; Khazimad Yusof, SPE, Weatherford Completion Systems
Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Improved Oil Recovery
Conference in Asia Pacific held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia , 20-21 October 2003.
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
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
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
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
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
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
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.
Abstract
During the second quarter of 2002 Petronas Carigali, the
State Oil Company of Malaysia, embarked on a campaign to
utilize Expandable Sand Screen (ESS®) in unconsolidated :
multi-zonal sandstone completions in the Baram and Alab
fields, offshore Malaysia. The primary objective of the
application of ESS® technology was to control sand in
conjunction with minimum skin damage without
encountering operational problems/constraints which are
inherently associated with gravel packing as a means of sand
control. A total of five deviated cased holes were equipped
with ESS® with mixed results which have been documented
in details in a previous publication by the authors (SPE paper
# 80449). Further investigation revealed that the wells
completed with ESS® have achieved satisfactory
improvement in productivity. ESS® technology has now
proven to be one of the best available sand control
techniques for the Baram field.
This paper will focus on Petronas Carigali’s experience in
ESS® technology implemented in a deep horizontal open
hole section of a sandy well which is to be equipped with a
gravel pack assembly in the upper section inside the cased
hole section, thereby providing an excellent source of
comparison between the performance of gravel packing and
expandable sand screen technology. Installation of ESS® in
well BA-47, being the first deep horizontal open hole
application in Malaysia, was an operational challenge with a
few lessons learnt which may be shared by other operators.
The primary objective of the well has been successfully
realized as evidenced by better than expected sand free
production. The execution of ESS® installation was
successful with some problems encountered while initiating
the expansion process. After some modifications on the
expansion string and mud/brine system, the expansion
process was carried out smoothly.
The secondary objective of the ESS® application was to
assess/evaluate the enhancement/impairment of productivity
of the well using ESS®, in comparison with the technique of
gravel packing. The well is presently in the process of being
cleaned up. Preliminary data indicates higher than expected
production. PI and PBU tests are planned for the well as
soon the well has cleaned up and/or stabilized.
Introduction
The Baram field is located about 25km NNW of Lutong,
Offshore Sarawak in Baram Delta, Malaysia ( Fig 1& 2).
The main Baram field was discovered in 1963. Baram
reservoirs are composed of many sand layers which are of
Miocene age consisting of alternating sequence of sand and
shale beds. The drive mechanism of the reservoir is strong
water drive.
Well # BA-47 was the first ESS® application in a horizontal
open hole completion located offshore Malaysia. The
previous wells from Alab/Baram fields were multi-zonal
cased hole ESS® applications which were successfully
executed. The well profile, trajectory, well overview ,
seismic cross-section and well diagram are shown in Fig 3 ,
4, 5, 6 respectively.
There are two main reservoirs completed in this well which
are I4.0 and I6.0 sandstones. Both the formations consist of
highly unconsolidated & friable sands requiring sand control
to produce the wells. The formation has a uniformity co-
efficient of +3 and a sonic transit time of 110 µsec/ft. The
average porosity, permeability and water saturation for these
reservoirs are 29%, 1000 mD and 37% respectively (Fig 7).
In view of the success achieved and lessons learnt from the
previous wells, deployment of ESS® was preferred over
Open Hole Gravel Pack (OHGP).
2 SPE 84914
® connectors which allows flow along the entire ESS®
The main drivers of ESS application were the following:-
1) Ease of operation, resulting in reduced rig time & cost.
2) Minimum logistical problem compared to
gravel packing
3) Reduced skin damage compared to gravel packing.
4) Bigger wellbore ID over the pay section , thereby
enabling deployment of intelligent completions.
5) Better wellbore stability.
During the previous cased hole ESS® deployments in the
Baram/Alab fields some of the lessons learnt were
as follows:-
1) Expandable Isolation Sleeve (EIS®) as a means of zonal
isolation was not effective.
2) The Axial Compliant Expander (ACE) tool needed
higher pressure (1600 psi) over the designed pressure
(1200 psi) and lower expansion rate ( < 10 ft/min) to
fully energize the rollers and expand the screens.
3) Running a fixed cone expansion tool in tandem with or
prior to running the ACE tool yielded better
expansion results.
4) Hole cleanout prior to running ESS® is of vital
importance to ensure successful deployment.
5) Friction reducer was recommended in order to reduce
torque/drag and slip/stick that could cause downhole
expansion velocities that are too high.
6) String weights (up and down) need to be checked every
500’ against the calibrated simulations.
7) Stabilizers should always be run on a pre-expansion or
expansion string to minimize the tool from slumping to
the low side of the hole which should increase the
chances of uniform contact between the tool and
the screen.
8) In case the tool is stuck in the hole, a safety joint needs
to be incorporated in the work string for fishing out
the equipment.
9) Torque & drag simulation must be run for ERW and/or
horizontal wells before the actual deployment in order to
identify buckling risks and the need to condition the
hole to reduce friction.
®
Introduction to ESS Deployment:
Expandable sand screen is a relatively new technology that
is rapidly gaining industry acceptance.The difference
between ESS® and other expandable tubular technologies
lies in the slotted base-pipe. The slotted base-pipe allows
expansion ratios up to 80% greater than the original
diameter2. This provides both a larger inflow area and
larger flowing I.D. than conventional sand screens deployed
in similar well-bore geometries. ESS® is constructed of
three sandwiched layers; the base-pipe, the filter media, and
the outer protective shroud. The base-pipe and outer shroud
slots open during expansion to accommodate the change in
diameter, while over-lapped layers of filter media slide
across each other to maintain sand integrity. The entire
length of the ESS® joint is expanded, including the
completion without any blank sections ( Fig 11).
Several methods have been designed to expand ESS®. The
simplest method is to push a fixed O.D. cone ring through
the ESS®. This method results in a minimum screen I.D.
equal to the cone ring O.D., plus an additional 4%. This
method is considered non-compliant, as the O.D. of the
ESS® is able to conform to the wellbore (casing or open
hole) by only a 4% variation. Two methods of compliant
expansion have been developed. The first was the CRES®
(Compliant Rotary Expansion System) tool which has been
replaced by a more reliable and more easily operated system,
known as ACE (Axial Compliant Expansion) tool.(Fig 10).
The tool is compliant in sense that the pistons can extend or
retract if an increased or decreased hole diameter is
encountered. This allows the ESS® to expand fully to give
improved wellbore contact, thus providing better hole
support and eliminating any micro-annulus. Activation of
the compliant roller/traveling piston assemblies is achieved
by generation of a back-pressure within the ACE tool. This
back-pressure is a result of flow through an integral drill bit
jetting nozzle directly in front of the compliant section.
Some of the limitations of the ESS® equipment application
are as follows:-
⇒ The process of expansion is activated by string weight
only thereby making the deployment of the expansion tool
difficult in ERW/Horizontal wells with shallow TVD. For
such applications hydraulically activated expansion process
is desirable.
⇒ The tool can not be rotated during the deployment phase
which could be a problem if the tool is stuck or a fishing
operation is encountered.
⇒ The collapse resistance of the screen is lower than the
pipe body which could turn out to be a problem in a highly
deviated well having high dog leg severity.
Well Design Consideration
In order to optimize the sand control completion design, a
technical & economic comparison was made between ESS®
and other methods of sand control e.g. open hole gravel
pack, frac pack, high rate water pack, extension pack with
conductivity enhancer , stand alone screen etc. Among all the
methods, ESS® & OHGP were the preferred choices.
Although OHGP jobs have been successfully performed in
the North Sea and Gulf of Mexico, case histories of OHGP
in horizontal wells in the South East Asia region are limited.
Moreover, operational and logistical constraints of OHGP
were taken into account.
The 150 micron weave screen was selected based on sieve
analysis performed on the core samples.
SPE 84914
Chronological Events During the job excution:
Open Hole Drilling
A 399 ft section of 5 7/8” hole was drilled horizontally inside
the I6.0 reservoir below the 7” liner (shoe depth at 8295 ft-
MD). The hole was drilled with a 10.5 ppg FLO-PRO NT
which is a non-damaging brine based drill-in mud system.
The mud was earlier conditioned over 250 mesh shaker
screens. Upon reaching TD at 8694 ft-MD, a wiper trip was
performed to thoroughly clean out the cuttings from the hole.
A 5 ¾” stabilizer and 7” scraper assembly was then run in
tandem to ensure the hole is large enough for ESS® assembly
to be deployed, while scraping the 7” liner to ensure the 7” x
5-1/2” ESS® EXP hanger could be deployed to desired depth
with no problems. The open hole was then displaced with
10.5 ppg FLO-PRO NT Solids Free pill, with 9.2 ppg brine
above in the 7” cased hole section.
Deployment
The 4” ESS® assembly was run with 150 micron sand filter
screens was deployed in one run, with only slight hang-ups
in the open hole. The 7” x 5-1/2” ESS® EXP deployment
packer was then successfully set at 8125 ft and the setting
tools retrieved to surface.
Expansion Run #1
A tandem expansion assembly, consisting of retrievable
fixed cone expansion tool on the bottom dressed with a
4.625” cone ring, and 4” Axial Compliant Expansion (ACE)
tool. The expansion string was run in hole on 3-1/8” drill
collars and drill pipe, and tagged the ESS® Expandable Top
Connector (ETC) as per tally. Weight was then applied to a
maximum of 50 k-lbs available slack off weight at surface.
However there was no progress made. The expansion string
was then reconfigured by changing three stands of 5”drill
pipe at surface to 5” hevi-wate. After this the weight was
applied to a maximum of 60 k-lbs, which was the maximum
available slack off at surface, with no progress made.
Expansion Run #2
It was agreed to change the expansion string to impart more
weight in the vertical section, and to stiffen up the string in the
horizontal section. The ACE tool was laid down and the
4.625” fixed cone was then run in hole. The initial plan was to
displace the cased hole section with drilling mud but due
insufficient mud chemicals onboard, a 9.2 ppg viscosified
brine was pumped instead to increase the lubricity, and
therefore aid the expansion process. The weight was applied
and worked in stages up to the maximum available weight of
92klbs; the entire expansion achieved at this point was about
four feet.
Drift Run
At this stage there was a concern that the ETC had a restriction
around it possibly caused by the formation collapsing. It was
decided to run a drift run with the 3 ⅛” drill collars open
ended to ascertain if the screens were restricted by the
formation. While running the string the crossover between the
4 ¾” drill collars and the 5” drill pipe parted at surface,
dropping the string down hole. A fishing assembly was then
3
run in hole; the fish was tagged at 2193 ft-MD, and then slid
down hole to rest in the ESS® bull nose. The fish was caught,
and the Wellzyme breaker pill was spotted in the open hole,
before pulling out the fish. The 3 ⅛” drill collars were pulled
out and examined, no damage was sustained to the exposed
pin or shoulder.
Expansion Run #3
The next plan was to run a reduced OD expansion tool through
the screens. The only suitable equipment on board was a 4”
OD 2⅞” regular pin x 2⅞” PAC box crossover. The pin end
on the crossover was machined into a bull nose, and the
shoulder was machined into a 45 degree taper, identical to that
on an expansion cone ring. The string was run in hole, and
expansion commenced. From the start of expansion at 8307 ft-
MD to 8500 ft-MD the expansion was very jerky, at the worst
point the weight on bit was fluctuating between 20–40 k-lbs.
One explanation for this could be that the 3 ⅛” drill collars
were buckling up above. From 8500 ft-MD to 8600 ft-MD the
expansion became much smoother, but the weight on bit
increased to around 50 k-lbs. From 8600 ft-MD to the end of
expansion at 8684 ft-MD, the expansion weight dropped, but
became slightly jerkier.
The ESS® screen connections were very difficult to see at the
start of expansion as the weight on bit was very jerky. Further
down when expansion was smoother the connections were
expanded with 52-60 k-lbs weight on bit.
Expansion Run #4
The next stage in the operation posed two options, first option
was to run the tandem assembly with a 4.625” cone on the
bottom. The risk with this being that if there was a restriction
at the top connector, it would be a wasted run in the hole. The
second option would be to run the ACE tool only where the
downside to this being uncertainty as to the size and
uniformity of the expansion. After further evaluation, a
decision was made to run the tandem assembly. This is based
on the potential reward of higher production rate from I-6
sands if the expansion was successful. The ETC was tagged
as per the tally and expansion commenced with 60 k-lbs+. As
with the previous expansion from 8307 ft-MD to 8500 ft-MD
the expansion was very jerky, at the worst point the weight on
bit was fluctuating between 24-62 k-lbs. The ESS® screen
connections were expanded with 70 k-lbs. The last 180’ of
screen was much smoother to expand. At the ESS® bottom
connector, repeated attempts were made to expand through it
with no success. As there was no benefit to expanding past it,
expansion was terminated to prevent any unnecessary damage.
The expansion assembly was then pulled back above the ESS®
top connector, and the ACE tool was activated as per the
surface test parameters. The expansion for the ACE run was
very smooth, the weight was steady between 14-20 k-lbs, and
the connectors required 30 k-lbs to pass. At approximately
8390 ft-MD the weight increased to 36 k-lbs. The pump was
shut down, the pressure bled off, and the string picked up 5 ft.
The pump was brought up to speed, and the expansion
recommenced till completion with 14-20 k-lbs.
4 SPE 84914
Operational Problems, Possible Causes
and Remedies:
The difficulty in expanding and higher expansion forces
observed could be contributed by one or combination of
the following causes:-
(1) The FLO-PRO mud system might have increased the
expansion force, although the mud was treated with
FLO-VIS, as the primary viscosifier, which would
have reduced the friction. But due to the fact that the
fluid was saturated and the salt was treated to remain
in suspension in un-dissolved state (for bridging
purposes) contributing to fairly high abrasiveness,
thereby resulting in high coefficient of friction.
(2) The tortuous well path could have caused the
3 ⅛” Drill Collars to helically buckle and lock up as
the weight was applied to the expansion tools. This
resulted in minimal weight transfer to the expansion
cone. This would also explain the erratic readings
observed during the mechanical expansion runs,
whereby the string was alternately locking up and
freeing, causing the expansion cone to go through the
screens in a stick/slip manner.
The expansion was achieved by two possible remedies:
1) Pumping the Wellzyme breaker fluid in the open hole
which would have dissolved the salt and therefore, reduce
the friction.
2) The deployment of 4” modified expansion tool, which
greatly reduced expansion force due to smaller OD,
allowing partial expansion and reducing the required
weight to expand later with the 4.625” cone.
Production Performance
The production profiles are exhibited in Figure 8 and 9.
The well is on sustained production since completion in
January 2003, presently yielding at 1200 BOPD on 16/64”
choke size with 0% water cut and 0% sand content This
compares favourably to the expected production rate of 800
BOPD. To further evaluate the performance of the well;
PI/PBU tests are planned to be conducted in the near future.
Lessons Learnt for Future Applications:
o More detailed investigations need to be conducted
when considering Drill in Fluid (DIF) for ESS® open
hole completion. Key understanding in term of the
mud characteristics is very important i.e. whether it
increases the friction such that it makes it difficult to
expand ESS® or potential of salt crystallization that
hinders the expansion.
o Have smaller size retrievable cone mandrels that can
be utilized with smaller cone rings in case similar
situation occurs as experienced in this well . The
standard sizes at present are 4.75” and 4.625”.
o Use 3-1/2” and/or 4-1/8” drill collars if anticipating
problem of buckling in 3-1/8” drill collar.( (based on
Torque & Drag analysis)
o Run Weight on Bit and Accelerator Subs to capture
the downhole expansion data information so that a
better understanding can be made of the
downhole events.
o In order to utilize the available ESS® equipment, a
wine glass shaped Expandable Bottom Connector
(EBC) of 5-3/4” OD was locally fabricated and used
in this job. The OD on EBC was large considering
the fact that it was run in 5-7/8” hole. A precaution
was taken by running in a 5-3/4” stabilizer as a
dummy run prior to deploying the ESS® assembly. In
future ESS® openhole application, a normal EBC that
comes with 5” OD should be used. This will
eliminate the need to do dummy run thus saving
rig time.
Conclusions
1. Although there were few operational problems during
initiating the expansion, the well had met the
overall objectives.
2. Expandable Sand Screens proves to be an economical
alternative to openhole gravel packing completions in
Baram field.
3. The production performannce is quite satisfactory, with
an increment of 50% oil production over the forecasted rate.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the managements of Petronas
Carigali and Weatherford Malaysia Sdn Bhd for their kind
permissions to publish this paper. Thanks also extended to Mr
Zuki Bidi, Mr. Neil Hudson and Mr. Tom Gado Bobo of the
Drilling Department of Petronas Carigali SDN BHD for their
support and encouragement. The author would also like to
extend appreciation to Mr Yeow Lei Meng of Production
Technology Department, Petronas Carigali and Mr Alistair
Geddes of Weatherford Solutions Sdn Bhd for their
encouragement and assistance throughout the project and
preparation of this paper.
References:
1.Van Vliet, J. Lau, H.C., and Saeby, J.: “Productivity of
Wells Completed with Expandable Sand Screens in Brunei”
paper OTC 14220 prepared for presentation at the 2002
Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas
U.S.A., 6–9 May 2002.
2.Caretta, F., Putra, R., Lavie, F., Martin, A.N.: “The Use of
Expandable Sand Screen to Prolong ESP Runlife in a Mature
Field with Severe Sand Production Problems” paper OTC
14216 prepared for presentation at the 2002 Offshore
Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas U.S.A., 6 –9
May 2002.
SPE 84914 5

3.Mir Rezaul Kabir,Foo Kok Wai, Abdur Rahim Ali, Petronas 72131 presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery
Carigali and Norjusni Omar, Pat Moran of Weatherford Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
Completion Systems: “ The Use Of Expandable Sand Screens 8-0 October 2001.
(ESS) to Control Sand in Unconsolidated Multi-zone
completions in the Baram and Alab fields, Offshore
Malaysia—A case Study. OTC paper 15154 presented in OTC SI Metric Conversion Factors:
conference & exhibition held in Houston, Texas,USA 5-8
May, 2003. ft x 3.048 E-01 = m
inches x 2.54 E-02 = m
4. Hong Chung Lau, Jacques Van Vliet, Mike Ward, bbl x 1.588 E-01 = m3
David Morin, Arifun Djamil of BSP: Walter Aldaz & Steven lbs x 4.535 E-01 = Kg
Shanks of Weatherford Completion Systems: “ Openhole psi x 6.894 E+03 = Pa
Expandable Sand Screen Completions in Brunei”; SPE paper#
6 SPE 84914

Fig. 1 & 2 – Field and Well Location

BR
M UN
AL E
AY M I BR
200
200 SI A UN TO
N A LA E
0 300
miles
miles YS I BSP
0 KM N IA
TO FAIRLEY
300 E11 BARONIA BARAM
KM
KK
SABAH BARAM
SOUTH
PENINSULAR CHINA SEA
MALAYSIA MIRI
MALAYSIA BETTY KUALA
BARAM
BAKAU KUALA BARAM BRUNEI
SARAWAK
KUCHING W.LUTONG
BOKOR
BOKOR
LUTONG
W.LUTONG
SUMATRA KALIMANTAN
TUKAU
MIRI
SUMATRA

SIWA SARAWAK

oil
gas

Seismic Cross Section (TWT) Along BA-47 Sdtr Well Path (Plan & Vertical View)
Top Structure Map For I4.0 Reservoir For Fault Block 11
BAJT-D
A
B

Fault Block 10 W Fault Block 10 E A

BAJT-F
33 32 0
00 50 320
BA-47 ST 00 50
34
50

34 D
32

00
33

3220

Fault Block 11 50
OD 33
T (B
A-9 ft
3350
8) @
3269 73 3400 C
/WU 32
T @32 C
@ B
W
78
(BA PO
3400 -43

Baram South D
C

I4.0 Wire Line Log Interpretation for BA-47 ST I6.0 Wire Line Log Interpretation for BA-47 ST
3,344 ft ss
3.220 ft ss

I4.0 was completed as a short string producer I6.0 was completed as a long string producer
Total perforation interval length 160 ft ah Total open hole exposure with ESS 394 ft ah Figure: 4
Completed in a inside 7 inch Liner Completed in a inside 6 inch open hole

Fig. 3 & 4 – Well Overview and Seismic Cross Section Along BA – 47 Well Path
SPE 84914 7

B A -4 7 H o r izo n ta l S d tr - Im p ed a n c e V a lu e a lo n g th e P r o p o se d W e ll P a th

H o rizo n ta l T a rg et

I4 .0
I6 .0

N o te : In v e rsion _ u p pe r_ A F ig u re : 5

Fig. 5 - Well Profile

B A -4 7 S 1

WELL INFO 7" Packer

WELL SCHEMATIC BA-47 Str-1 WELL PROFILE 7 " E XP P a c k e r

26” CDTR @ 267’ MDDF
MILLED WINDOW THRU
13-3/8” AND 18-5/8” CSG
@ 737-754’ MDDF
5 - 1 / 2 " B la n k P ip e ,
1. SINKING WELLHEAD V a m F JL
2. WORKOVER PROBLEM DUE TO
HIGHER TOC 4 " E x p a n d a b le 7 " C a s in g
3. HIGHLY DEVIATED (83 deg) IN I4.0 T o p C o n n e c to r
AND HORIZONTALWELL IN I6.0
4. OPEN HOLE COMPLETION

9-5/8” CSG @ 2674’ MDDF

7” CSG @ 8295’ MDDF 4 " E S S Jts

( 1 2 x 3 8 ft,
5 x 1 0 ft)
6 " O p e n H o le

TD @ 8694’ MDDF

4 " E x p a n d a b le
B o tto m
C o n n e c to r 5 - 1 / 2 " B u ll N o s e

Fig. 6 - Well Trajectory and Well Diagram

8 SPE 84914

Fig. 7 – Well Log Profile

B A -4 7 st1 I R E S E R V O IR S E R IE S
I4 .0 s a n d

I6 .0 s a n d

O b je c t iv e
W e ll o b je c t iv e is t o c o m p le t e t h e I4 .0 a n d I6 .0
s a n d s to d e v e lo p 3 M M s tb E U R

C h a lle n g e s
H ig h ly d e v ia te d in I4 .0 s a n d (8 3 d e g ) a n d
h o r iz o n ta l in I6 .0 s a n d
S h a llo w r e s e r v o ir s w ith h ig h ly u n c o n s o lid a te d
a n d fr ia b le s a n d w ith s a n d p r o d u c tio n h is to r y

Fig. 8 & 9 – Production Performance

Net Oil Rate & Watercut

1200 100
90
1000
80

watercut (%) & Bean Size

70
Net Oil rate (stb/d)

800
60
600 50
40
400
30
20
200
10
0 0
08-Feb-2003 28-Feb-2003 20-Mar-2003 09-Apr-2003 29-Apr-2003 19-May-2003 08-Jun-2003 28-Jun-2003
Date
Ne t oil GROSS WCUT Be an Size

GOR AND LIFT GAS RATE

4500 160
4000 140
LIFT GAS RATE (Mscf/d)

3500 120
GOR (scf/bbl)

3000
100
2500
80
2000
60
1500
1000 40

500 20
0 0
08-Feb-2003 28-Feb-2003 20-Mar-2003 09-Apr-2003 29-Apr-2003 19-May-2003 08-Jun-2003 28-Jun-2003

FGOR
Date Liftgas
SPE 84914 9

Fig. 10 & 11 – Expansion Tools and Screen

E xpandable S and S c reen

E xpansion Tools

P odger

C RES

AC E

Expandable Sand Screen

Pre- Post-
expansion expansion
10 SPE 84914

Fig . 1 2 – W e ll S ch e m at ic