Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
Yale et. al.1 showed significant differences between
uncoupled reservoir simulations of a highly compressible
(but elastic) reservoir and the same model run with
deformation and fluid flow coupled together. This paper
utilizes a similar model but investigates the effect of plasticity
of the reservoir rock and alteration of permeability with
deformation on these coupled simulations.
The coupled simulations show that plasticity significantly
increases the compressibility of the rocks and the compaction
drive energy of the reservoir. The initial stress state of the
reservoir is shown to have a large effect on the degree of
plasticity and the degree of depletion for the same amount of
fluid withdrawal and the same rock properties.
Modeling the change in permeability with deformation of
plastic sands shows an extremely large effect on near wellbore
pressure drawdown and deformation over normal reservoir
simulations. The coupld geomechanis-fluid flow simulations
show very strong interaction between pressure drawdown,
plastic strain, and permeability.
Introduction
Numerical simulation of flow in and from petroleum
reservoirs is done to predict production so that optimal
development plans for the reservoir can be developed. The
more accurately the models represent the physics of the
problem, the more useful the prediction made from the models
can be. Most developments in numerical reservoir simulation
have revolved around accurate modeling of fluid properties
D. YALE
(1)
(2)
(3)
SPE/ISRM 78202
Total
Depth
SP 1
SP2
SP3
SP4
SP5
SP6
(feet)
12000
12000
12000
12000
12000
12000
Initial
Reservoir
Pressure
(psi)
8123
8203
8111
8534
9611
8171
h0/v0
0.61
0.40
0.95
0.75
0.98
0.50
SPE/ISRM 78202
(4)
(5)
D. YALE
Flow
Rate
Eover/
Ereser
Eside/
Ereser
7a
9
11
12
13
14
21
25a
26
27a
28
33
38
39
60
61
63
(TBD)
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0.5
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.0
1.0
1.7
1.7
1.0
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
Mobility
mD/cP
1E+5
750
750
750
750
750
20.8
20.8
20.8
20.8
20.8
20.8
20.8
20.8
20.8
20.8
62.5
Hard.
Parm
Elas
Elas
30
Elas
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
10
15
15
15
15
15
Perm
alter
Y
Y
Y
Y
Initial
stress
state
SP4
SP4
SP4
SP4
SP4
SP4
SP4
SP2
SP3
SP1
SP5
SP4
SP1
SP5
SP6
SP4
SP4
Coupled
Avg
Depletion
Ratio
Coupl/
Uncoup
Depletion
(psi)
7a
9
11
12
13
14
21
25a
26
27a
28
33
38
39
60
61
63
481.1
2052
1768
2075
1579
1595
3036
2604
2940
2806
3486
2809
2086
2922
2737
2475
2480
Coupl
Draw
Down
(psi)
0.999
0.957
0.824
0.968
0.736
0.744
0.708
0.607
0.686
0.654
0.813
0.655
0.641
0.898
0.638
0.816
0.817
481
2080
1796
2104
1607
1623
5056
4624
4960
4826
5504
4828
16006
13422
4757
15890
4048
Eff Avg
Comp
(0 1.5 yrs)
-6
(10
-1
psi )
59.4
13.2
13.0
13.0
13.2
13.0
13.3
13.3
13.3
13.3
13.3
13.4
12.4
12.2
13.3
12.2
12.2
Table 3 - Results
Eff Avg
Comp
(4.5 7.5yrs)
-6
(10
-1
psi )
59.4
14.1
17.0
13.9
19.6
19.4
21.9
27.1
23.1
25.1
15.4
24.6
24.8
15.3
26.1
21.9
21.9
Initial
stress
state
SP4
SP4
SP4
SP4
SP4
SP4
SP4
SP2
SP3
SP1
SP5
SP4
SP1
SP5
SP6
SP4
SP4
SPE/ISRM 78202
SPE/ISRM 78202
(6)
D. YALE
SPE/ISRM 78202
Permeability function
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
-0.005
-0.01
-0.015
-0.02
Vertical Strain
Figure 7
Horizontal permeability function (reservoir layer only) used in
model runs with permeability alteration.
We have input this function into the FEM model used in the
rest of this study. We found that the permeability decrease
leads to exceptionally high near wellbore drawdowns due to
the near wellbore permeability drop and the constant
production rate.
Figure 8 shows drawdown in the near wellbore region and
Figure 9 the permeability change for various stress paths and
different periods of production. We note that for the strongly
elastic stress path 5, very little permeability change occurs
after 5 years. The figure also shows the drawdown (near
wellbore pressure minus the far-field reservoir pressure for
this figure) for the perm change case and a similar model with
no permeability change. Note the mild permeability change of
stress path 5 has only a small effect on the near wellbore
drawdown. However, for stress path 4, which goes plastic
earlier but otherwise is similar to stress path 5, there is a larger
permeability change as some of the near wellbore region has
gone plastic after 5 years. Path 1 shows an even larger near
wellbore drawdown associated with the larger permeability
changes due to more plasticity.
The drawdowns become unrealistically large when production
is taken to 7.5 years (greater than the reservoir pressure). In
reality, the production rate would have to have been
SPE/ISRM 78202
Nomenclature
= 1 (Cr/Cbc) = Biot alpha parameter
Cr = compressibility of rock matrix or grains
Cbc = compressibility of rock skeleton (bulk compressibility)
Cf = compressibiliy of reservoir fluid
Cf = the matrix of fluid compressibilities of the reservoir
Cpc = pore compressibility (under confining pressure change)
Cpp = pore compressibility (under pore pressure change)
Cpp(unix) = pore compressibility (uniaxial strain conditions)
= volumetric solid strain
e = void ratio = /(1)
e0 = initial void ratio
= porosity
F = matrix of applied mechanical loads to the system
H = cap plasticity hardening parameter
K = global stiffness matrix
K = h/ v = (yy +xx )/2zz
k = permeability
= slope of elastic portion of e:ln mcurve
= slope of plastic portion of e:ln mcurve
L = solid-fluid coupling matrix
= fluid viscosity
sip = microsip = 10-6 psi-1
= Poisson ratio
p = fluid pressure
p = mean effective stress = m
pn = fluid pressures from the previous timestep
Pco= pre-consolidation pressure (yield cap parameter)
1/Q = ( - )Cr + Cf = Biot coupling term
Q = fluid flux matrix
q = differential stress = zz - (yy +xx )/2
ij = ij component of total stress tensor
ij= ij component effective stress tensor
m = mean effective stress = (xx +yy +zz )/3
t = FEM timestep
t = time
=transmissibility matrix
References
1. Yale, D.P., Lyons, S.L. and Qin, G.: "Coupled GeomechanicsFluid Flow Modeling in Petroleum Reservoirs: Coupled versus
Uncoupled Response," presented at the 2000 4th North
American Rock Mechanics Symposium, Seattle, 31 July-3 Aug.
2. Koutsabeloulis, N.C. and Hope, S.A.: "Coupled" Stress/ Fluid/
Thermal/
Multi-phase
Reservoir
Simulation
Studies
Incorporating Rock Mechanics," presented at the 1998
SPE/ISRM Eurock '98: Rock Mechanics in Petroleum
Engineering, Trondheim, July 1998, SPE 47394.
3. Settari, A. and Walters, D.A.: "Advances in Coupled
Geomechanical and Reservoir Modeling With Applications to
Reservoir Compaction," SPE Journal (Sept. 2001) 334.
4. Gutierrez, M. and Hansteen, H. Fully-coupled analysis of
reservoir compaction and subsidence, presented at EUROPEC
94, London, July 1994, SPE 28900.
5. Stone, T., Gowen, G., Papanastasiou, P., and Fuller, J. Fully
coupled geomechanics in a commercial reservoir simulator,
D. YALE
SPE/ISRM 78202
SPE/ISRM 78202
55
4000
3000
Yield Cap
SP2
2000
SP6
Plastic
Region
SP1
1000
SP4
Elastic
Region
5000
0
500
1000
35
Path SP2
Path SP3 Hard=15
Path SP4
25
15
SP3
SP5
45
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
5
1500
4000
2500
3500
4500
Mean stress (psi)
5500
Figure 1
Constitutive model parameters for the overconsolidated
reservoir sand and initial stress states used in FEM modeling
Figure 2
Constitutive model pore compressibility (Cpp) as a function of
mean stress for the various initial stress states and hardening
factors used in this study
0.6
4000
K factor
SP6
0.4
SP1
SP4
0.3
SP5
SP3
ElasticUniaxial Strain
SP2
0.5
3000
SP2
2000
SP6
SP1
SP4
0.2
0
1000
2000
3000
SP3
SP5
Elastic
Region
4000
Plastic
Region
1000
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
Figure 3
Effect of initial stress state and stress path on K factor at the end
of the run (K=ratio of horizontal to vertical effective stress change
from depletion) as a function of distance from the wellbore
Figure 4
Stress paths in the reservoir sand during depletion for various
initial stress states. Note the change in slope of the stress paths
once the yield cap is exceeded.
10
D. YALE
Reservoir Energy
Tim e (yrs)
10
27
-500
Run25
SP2
-1000
Run27
SP1
-1500
-2000
Run28
SP5
-2500
Run26
SP3
-3000
Reservoir Depletion
0
SPE/ISRM 78202
25
Run25
SP2
23
Run27
SP1
21
19
Run28
SP5
17
15
Run26
SP3
13
11
0
-3500
10
Time (yrs)
Figure 5
Figure 6
path 5
4yrs
Permeability Change
250
200
path 4
4 yrs
path 1
4 yrs
150
100
13530 vs. 2085
50
path 4
low
mob
7.5 yrs
path 4
7.5 yrs
5000
Permeability (mD)
path 1
4 yrs
4000
3000
path 4
no perm
change
2000
path 4
7.5 yrs
1000
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
path 1
7.5 yrs
Figure 8
Permeability change as a function of distance from the wellbore
for various stress paths and various times. Number near curves
represents drawdown (in psi) for model with permeability
variation vs. model with constant permeability
path 5
4 yrs
50
100
150
200
path 4
low mob
7.5 yrs
Figure 9
Near wellbore drawdown as a function of distance from wellbore
for various stress paths and mobilities