Numerical Simulation of Oil Production With Simultaneous
Ground Subsidence
A. FINOL
S. M. FAROUQ ALI
MEMBERS SPE-AIME
ABSTRACT
A lwo",phase, two-dimensional black oil simulator
was developed for simulating reservoir production
behavior with simultaneously occurring reservoir
formation compaction and ground subsidence at the
surface.
The flow equations were solved by both
alternating direction implicit procedure and strongly
implicit procedure. Reservoir compaction was
described on the basis of the experimental data
reported. The magnitude of areal subsidence at the
surface was calculated using reservoir compaction,
utilizing the recently developed theory of
poroe las tici ty.
Computer runs were used to generate a variety of
data, such as reservoir pressure variation with oil
production, for. different reservoir compaction
coefficients. It was found that the average reservoir
pressure increased with the compaction coefficient
for a given cumulative oil production.
The model was used for generating the reservoir
formation profiles, as well as the ground subsidence
bowls for a variety of conditions. It was found that
the subsidence behavior strongly depends on the
depth of burial. For example, with an increase in
the depth, the reservoir bottom surface may actually
uplift, while the top surface subsides.
The model was also used for studying the effect
of subsidence on pressure buildup behavior. The
calculated reservoir pressure was higher in a
compacting than in a noncompacting reservoir,
taking into account the variation of permeability
with compaction.
Another phase studied was the effect of rebound
on reservoir performance when gas is injected into
the formation. Even though rebound is small in
practice (on the order of 10 percent of subsidence),
the effect was clearly evident in the reservoir
pressure . . production behavior. However, when there
was no rebound, gas i.njection simply inhibited
compa ction.
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers
office March II, 1974, Revised manuscript received April 28,
1975. Paper (SPE 4847) was first presented at the SPE-AIME
1974 European Spring Meeting 1 held in Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, May 29-30, 1974. Copyright 1975 American
Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc
1References given at end of paper.
This paper will be included in the 1975 Transactions volume.
OCTOBER, 1975
U. OF ZULIA
MARACAIBO, VENEZUELA
PENNSYLVANIA STATE U.
UNIVERSITY PARK, PA.
Finally, the model was used for simulating th e
reported oil production and subsidence history of
one of th e Bolivar Coas t oil fields in th eWes tern
Venezuela. Fair agreement was obtained between
the observed and the predicted behavior.
INTRODUCTION
The phenomenon of ground subsidence associated
with production of oil or gas from underground
hydrocarbon reservoirs is not common; however, it
does present environmental problems in a few
oil-producing areas around the worldQ Notable
examples are the Vlilmington oil field, below Long
Beach, Calif. where almo st 30 ft of subsidence
have been recorded, and the oil fields near and
under Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela, where the
surface has subsided as much as 10 ft. Other cases
have been reported in Harris County, Tex., in the
Niigata district of Japan, and in the Po Delta in
I Italy.
Numerous causes may give rIse to ground
subsidence, either natural or as a result of man's
activities. However, as far as the problem at hand
is concerned, the observed land subsidence is
considered to be a result of reservoir compaction,
resulting from pore pressure decline in reservoirs
that meet certain specific geometrical and structural
conditions. The changes in the petrophysical
properties of reservoir rocks caused by compaction
have been studied to some extent, as well as the
influence of such changes on the fluid production
behavior of the reservoir. However, very little has
been accomplished in relating the compaction of
the underground reservoir with the subsidence
occurring at the surface. Among the few studies
conducted on this problem, the most realistic are
those t~at consider subsidence above a disk-shaped
reservoir, in which a uniform pressure reduction
has occurred.! These studies do not simulate the
fluid production behavior of the compacting reservoir
as such; this is considered to be known and is
used to determine the compaction of the reservoir
and the accompanying subsidence.
The obj ecti ve of thi s study was to develop a
mathematical model for simulating a system
consisting of a closed two-dimensional reservoir of
arbitrary shape, in which simultaneous flow of oil
411
and gas is occurring, together with its fluid-
saturated, semi~infinite surroundings. The reservoir
is considered to be heterogeneous and anisotropic
from the point of view of fluid flow properties.
However, in reference to the deformation
characteristics, the whole system (that is, the
reservoir and its surroundings) is considered to be
homogeneous. The reservoir is penetrated by a
number of wells, but the individual well problem is
excluded since the main concern is reservoir
mechanics. The model was used to investigate the
effect of compaction on oil recovery and the
influence of the depth of burial, formation thickness,
and the areal extent of the reservoir on the
relationship between compaction and subsidence.
Apart from these, the effect of gas injection on
reservoir compaction and ground subsidence
behavior was studied. Results of pressure buildup
tests in compacting and noncompacting reservoirs
were also compared.. Finally, an attempt was made
to match the behavior of one of the reservoirs
compacting below the shore of Lake Maracaibo in
Venezuela.
PREVIOUS VIORKON ROCK PROPERTIES
UNDER SUPERIMPOSED LOAD AND
RELATING RESERVOIR COMPACTION
AND GROUND SUBSIDENCE
Hal1 2 was the' first to show the influence of
changes in rock pore volume and compressibility on
oil production in the case of an undersaturated
reservoir. He obtained correlations of effecti ve
rock compressibility with porosity.
Fatt and Davis 3,4 found that an increase in
overburden pressure reduces the absolute perme-
ability; however, the effect on relative permeability
is negligible.
McLatchie et al. S investigated the effects of
of reservoir compaction on porosity and permeability.
They concluded that the reduction of permeability
in clean sands is relatively small, while sands
with large amounts of clay show large reductions in
permeability with increasing effective overburden
pressure.
Abgrall 6 reported an experimental investigation
of the effect of temperature and pressure on the
petrophysical characteristics of rocks. His results
show the hysteresis of petrophysical characteristics
between the compression and decompression phases
of porous media and the variation in porosity,
permeability, and formation resistivity factor. The
variation in porosity a,nd permeability' was found to
be rather small compared with the variation in the
formation resistivity factor.
Parallel with the experimental investigations of
rock compressibility and related properties, a number
of investigations have considered the theoretical
aspects of reservoir compaction.
Biot 7 presen ted a theory of elastic deformation
of a porous material and its influence on fluid
displacement within the pores. He did not take into
account the velocity of deformation of the rock
412
matrix material when considering Darcy's equation.
He introduced a number of deformation constants
for reservoir rocks, the determinatiot:J. of which is
impractical from an experimental standpoint.
Lubinski 8 studied the stress distribution in an
elastic porous medium neglecting pore compress-
ibility. He pointed out the analogy bet'ween the
stress-strain relationships for porous media
subj ected to pore pressure changes and the
stress-strain relationships for solids subj ected to
temperature changes. The equations for pressure
distribution used by Lubinski did not take into
account the deformation of the potous medium.
Geertsma 9 d~veloped a theory to take into account
the elastic and viscous d~formations of reservoir
rocks. The theory is independent of the shape of
the pores but is restricted to isotropic porous
media consisting of continuous, homogeneous
matrix material. The main conclusion obtained from
thi s theory is that only three elastic constants and
three viscous constants are required for describing
pore and rock bulk volume variations, if the porosity
is con sidered explicitly in the treatment. These
constants were correlated with those obtained by
Biot. 7
A theoretical and experimental analysis of
changes in the volume of a porous medium caused
by changes in ~he e~ternal and internal pressures
was presented by van der Knaap.10 The results,
allowing for nonlinear behavior, enable direct
calculation of the effect of large increments in
stresses on the behavior of porous media. This
fact distinguishes the theory from the previous
theories, which used linear stress-strain
relationships in the neighborhood of prestressed
condition.
An end result of the experimental procedures and
the theories reviewed so far is the work of
Teeuw,11 which describes the currently used
techniques and equipment for measuring rock
compressibility and shows how the laboratory
compressibility data can be used to predict formation
compaction. A theoretical expression that relates
uniaxial and hydrostatic compactions is derived.
This expression enables the prediction of the
in-situ reservoir compaction from hydrostatic cell
compaction data.
Relatively few studies have been devoted to a
theoretical treatment of ground subsidence and its
relation to reservoir compaction. Early attempts in
this direction were made by' McCann and Wilts 12
and Grant. 13 While these studies lacked
mathematical rigor, they nevertheless demonstrated
the mechanics of the ground subsidence phenomenon.
The most definitive work in this direction has been
carried out by Geertsma, 1,14 who considers
subsidence to be a result of reservoir compaction,
basing the treatment on the poroelasticity theory.
Geertsma14 assigned linear elastic properties to
both the reservoir and the surroundings and assumed
the elastic constants inside and outside to be
the same. Considering a closed, disk-shaped,
producing reservoir in which a constant pressure
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
reduction has occurred, he developed analytical
expressions for determining the compaction profiles
and the subsidence bowl shape. In a further work,
Geertsma 1 presented a complete analysis of the
problem of compaction and the accompanying
subsidence. Based on the approach used in his
previous work, he outlined a procedure for the
detailed investigation of the phenomenon.
Furthermore, he gave experimental values of the
uniaxial compaction coefficient for different types
of rock and ranges of effective vertical stresses.
Geertsma's conclusions indicate that the amount of
subsidence resulting from reservoir compaction
depends mainly on the ratio of the depth of burial
to the lateral extent of the reservoir. Depletion-
type oil reservoirs consisting of unconsolidated
such a situation, the present development, which
assumes a uniform and isotropic medium, will yield
misleading results. For a uniform medium under
consideration, the reduction in reservoir thickness
is given by
(2)
In view of the structure of reservoir rocks, c m
is a function of pressure (Eq. 1), but in many
instances it is satisfactory to use a constant value
for the range of' pressures obtained during the
production of a reservoir. Based on this assumption,
Eq. 2 simplifies to
~h = f c (z)~~(z)dz.
m
. . (3)

sands, and extremely large gas reservoirs in either

loose or friable rocks, are most susceptible to This formulation brings out the individual factors
subsidence. affecting reservoir compaction: (1) reduction in pore
Other than the research done from the viev.Tpoint pressure, (2) vertical extent of the zone where the
of petroleum reservoir engineering, a large amount pore pressure occurs, and (3) actual value of the
of vTork on similar problems has been done in other uniaxial compaction coefficient.
fields, such as soil mechanics and subsurface Thus, to determine compaction of a reservoir,
hydrology. A comprehensive review and analysis of the following data are required: (1) geological data
the works related to soil mechanics has been on the reservoir formation, (2) uniaxial compaction
presented by Raghavan.15 The work of Cooper 16 coefficient, and (3) pressure distribution for the
is a good example of the research done in compacting reservoir as a function of space and
subsurface hydrology. time.
The geological data for the reservoir are
DEVELOP~AENT OF THE MA THEMA TIC.r\L provided by structural maps, isopach maps, logs,
MODEL etc. The uniaxial compaction coefficient can be
evaluated from laboratory compressibility data 11
Basically, this paper considers two-phase (oil since it is related to the hydrostatic bulk
and gas), two-dimensional flow in a' compacting deformation 14 by the formula
reservoir, and utilizes Geertsma's theory, adapted
for a rectangular system, for predicting ground = 1(1 + v) (1 - S) c . (4)
c 31-v b
subsidence. The model considers compaction of the m
reservoir as a result of pore pressure reduction,
The pressure distribution in a compacting porous
fluid flow in a compacting formation, and the
medium, as a function of space and time, is derived
relationship between compaction and ground
in the next section.
subsidence.
TWO-PHASE, TWO-DIMENSIONAL FLOW
RESERVOIR COMP ACTION IN A COMPACTING RESERVOIR
Since, in general, the lateral dimensions of a Equations of the flow of fluids in a compacting
reservoir are large compared with its thickness, porous medium can be derived in a manner similar
and the vertical stress is greater than the lateral to that used for a noncompacting porous medium;
stresses, the horizontal strains can be neglected that is, they can be derived by combining the
in comparison with the vertical strain. For example, continuity equation for each fluid with Darcy's
the maximum lateral deformation calculated in the equation and appropriate equations of state. The
numerical simulations discussed below was less basic differences are modification of Darcy's
than 1 ft, which is negligible in relation to the equation to account for the rock matrix moving in
areal dimensions of the reservoir (Table 3). As a the vertical direction and consideration of the
result, reservoir compaction essentially reduces to continuity of the rock matrix material. The final
vertical deformation and can be evaluated equations, derived in the Appendix, are as follows.
conveniently using the linear theory of elasticity,
gas
e . . . . (1)
zz kk kk
\/' (.--!"..& \/'p - -ro
- \/'p ) + Q
g +
v-rhere cm is the uniaxial compaction coefficient, R
llgB g so lJ B 0 g
defined as the formation compaction per unit change o o
in pore pressure reduction, and dp is the reduction
R S S R S
in pore pressure. It should be recognized, however, 1 d S
that the limiting effect of in-situ stress is often
not vertical in view of the prevailing structure. In
5.615 [ 3t <Ifg + B so
0
0)
+ (--&
B
g
+ so 0)
B
0

OCTOBER, 1.975 413

 (e
m
+ (1 - )e )
r
~P
at
], . . (5) - (1 S)l. o
dy
oil . . . . . . . . . (9b)
k.k
\I' (-~ 'V' ) + Q
l.l B
o 0
Po 0 (>.. + G)~e
oZ
+ 2
GV u
Z
- (1 S)l.
dZ
o,
1 a So . . (9c)
5.615 [~ (~) +
o where e = e xx + e + e zz .
U

o
:0(em + (1 - )er)~~
] . . . (6)
Differentiating .Eq. 9awith respect to x, Eq. 9b
with respect to y, and Eq. 9c with respect to z,
and adding all three, results in
It should be noted that it is assumed that fluid 2 2-
flow in the reservoir is parallel to the reservoir (A + 2G)V e = (1 - S)V p, . (10)
boundaries with the overburden and the underburden.
Strictly speaking, the boundaries are deforming which reduces to ~2e = 0 for solid bodies. 17
with time, and a curvilinear grid should be used. It Eq. 10 can be written as,
is felt? however, that the error introduced by the
assumption of parallel flow is small. V2e = 2-
c \I p,
rn
. . . . . . . . (11)
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CUMPACTION
AND SUBSIDENCE where em is the compaction coefficient previously
After the local compaction distribution is obtained used and related to the elastic properties of the
for the reservoir rock, the next step is to relate porous medium through
this compaction to the subsidence occurring at the
surface. This can be done on the basis of the c
(1 - s)
m A -1- 2G . . (12)
theory of poroelasticity as developed by
Geertsma. 9,14 The poroelasticity theory considers Eq. 12 can be simplified to Eq. 4 after making
a close"d reservoir separated from the semi-infinite appropriate substitutions. Eq. 11 provides the
surroundings by an impermeable barrier. The interaction between the average pore pressure field
reservoir and the surroundings are assumed to have and the displacement field. Once the dilation caused
uniform, isotropic elastic properties. The elastic by p is calculated, the displacements u x' u y ' and
constants inside and outside the reservoir are U z can be determined by defining the potential <I>
assumed to be constant. Thus, the reservoir of the displacements using Poisson's equation.
boundaries could be regarded as free traction
surfaces.
Briefly, the stress-strain relationship (caused by
\/2t1) = e = c
m
p, . . . . . . (13)
pore pressure distribution) for.a homogeneous and
with the displacements given by
isotropic reservoir is described by
V dcP dcP
0.. 2G[e .. + 1 2V eo .. J - U = --, U = -- and U
1J 1J -- 1J x, dX Y 8y Z

. . . .(7) NUMERICAL SOLUTION

The problem at hand requires the simultaneous
Considering the porous medium as a continuum, solution of the fluid flow equations (Eqs. 5 and 6)
the couple stresses can be disregarded. On the and the poroelasticity equation (Eq. 13), together
basis of the small strain theory used in continuum with the displacement equations. Briefly, the
mechanics, the linear strain tensor e ij is related following procedure was used.
to the displacement vector ui by 1. Solve the fluid flow equations in the
compacting porous medium to obtain the pore
1 C)'u
i
dU.
pressure distribution and reservoir compaction,
e .. = ':"-2r~ +~], (8) assuming negligible lateral displacement of any
1J 'oJ 01
with i and j standing for x? y, and z. point of the reservoir.
The equilbrium conditions for ~he stress field in 2. U sing reservoir compaction as evaluated in
terms of the displacements of Eq. 8 become 16 the above step, and using the pore pressure
distribution, the poroelastici ty equations are sol ved
to generate the formation profiles and the ground
de 2 S)lE. o
( A + G)-;;- + G'V u (1 subsidence bowl.
oX x dX Eqs. 5 and 6 were solved by the well known
. . (9a) implicit procedure, eliminating the phase saturations
414 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
by using the capillary pressure relationship, thus
obtaining two simultaneous equations in phase
u* = em[ z - ~ + 4v(z + ~) - (z + 3~)
pressures which were approximated by finite Z 411" R3 R3
differences. The resulting algebraic equations
1,2,3, 1,2,-3
were solved by the strongly implicit procedure for
simultaneous equation s, as developed by Weinstein 6z(z + ~)2] (15)
et al., 18, 19 as well as by the iterative alternating 5 '
direction implicit procedure developed by Douglas R
1,2,-3
and Rachford. 20 Details of the solution procedure
employed are well known and are gi ven in Ref. 21. where
The reservoir boundaries were assumed to be [(x - ~)2 + (y _ n)2 +
closed, with fluid (oil and gas) production and R1 ,2,3
injection (gas) occurring through suitably placed 2 1/2
sources and sinks. (z t;) ]
An analytical procedure was used for solving
the poroelasticity equations 13 analogously to Here, v is the total volume of reduced pressure and
Geertsma's 1,14 procedure for a disk-shaped ~p is the pressure reduction representing the
reservoir. Adapting his procedure for Cartesian displacement field in the semispace (that is, in
coordinates, the following equations result (this the reservoir rock and its surroundings).
was done in lieu of a numerical solution; see Ref. The integration process, indicated in Eqs. 14,
21). was carried out numerically, superimposing a finer
grid on the one used for the numerical solution of
u (x,y,z,t)
X
= the fluid flow equations in the compacting reservoir.
It should be mentioned that the integration process
is sensiti ve to the grid spacing used, and several
runs for different sizes were conducted to find the
optimum grid spacing, which assured the convergence
u (x,y,z,t) = of the calculated value of the integral to the true
y value.

f ~~(~,n,~,t)u*(x,y,z,~,n,~)dv(~,n,~),
The displacements u x ' u y ' and U z were
calculated for a series of strategically located
V y
points to determine the shape of the subsidence
u (x,y,z,t)
z
= bowl and the compaction profiles in the reservoir.
It is important to notice that Eqs. 14 give null
- -;'< lateral displacements only at the boundaries of the
f ~p(~,n,~,t)u (x,y,z,~,n,~)dv(~,n,~),
z . reservoir, while in the solution of the flow
V
equations it was assumed that the lateral
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14) deformation was negligible at every point in the
w"h_er~ t h e. f unctIons.
. u*
x' u * . *
y ' and u z are Green's
reservoir. This is a limitation of the method,
functIons for the dIsplacements. The integration however, taking into account that lateral deforma-
of these functions with respect to the volume in tions would make the solution of the fluid flow
w.hich the pore pressure is reduced, gives the field equations extremely difficult because the shape
dIsplacement in the semispace. These are as of the reservoir is changing with' time, and a
follow s: time-dependent curvilinear grid would be necessary.
The solution procedure described above was
C
~)[ (3 - 4v)
u *
X
m
-(x
41T 3
1 + 3 programmed for an IBM 360/165 computer. The
machine times averaged 0.01 to 0.02 seconds per
R R
1,2,-3
1,2,3, time step per block. The flow diagram of the
program is shown in Fig. 1.
6z(z + ~)l
5 .. ,
R DISCUSSION OF RESUL TS
1,2,-3
Seven specific cases of reservoir compaction and
c (3 - 4v) 1 ground subsidence were studied. The first six of
u*
m
41T(y n)[ 3 + 3 these are hypothetical, while the last one
Y R1,2,3, R1,2,-3 corresponds to an actual oil field in Western
Venezuela. Tables 1 and 2 list the pressure, volume,
6z(z + ~)] and temperature data. and the relative permeability
data used in the simulations.
RS ' The variation of porosity and permeability with
1,2,-3
pressure was taken into account in accordance with
the following relationships:

OCTOBER, 1975 415

 n n+l by the difference between the vertical displacements
= ep [1. 0 + c , (p of the top and bottom of the formation. The
.. p 0
compaction evaluated in this manner is in 'agreement
( 16)
with that calculated using Eq. 3 for points located
close to the center of the reservoir; however, a
n+l
k = kn [1.0 + c k (,Pon+l - Pon)] '

where cp is the effecti ve pore volume compressibility

. . . . . (17)
T
~---'M:-:-A-::-/""""N"""--PR-OGR::-A::-::CM-:-----:O:-:-N"-:::E"""----"
READ IN AND PRINT Tt--fE
INPUT DATA
related to cm' c 1 ' and by

c + (1 cp)c r COMPUTE ORIGINAL OIL AND GAS IN

PLACE AN~ OTHER CONSTANTS,

c = .......;;.;:;.;ffi_-ep_ _---,. . . . . . (18) INCLUDING THE SET OF ITERATION

PARAMETERS
p
INITIAT ALL QUANTITIES
CHANGING DURING TNE
and ck IS a coefficient of permeability reduction SIMULATION PROCESS

arbitrarily taken to be equal to the uniaxial

compaction coefficient, c m ' because of the lack of EXTRAPOLATE PRESSURES AND
SATURATIONS FOR TNE NEW
TIME LEVEL
appropriate experimental data.
Results for the relationship bet:w:een compaction ---~----.....-\
and subsidence for the different cases studied are CALCULATE PRESSURE AND/OR
SATURATION DEPENDENT COEF-
given in Figs. 3 through 6. Inthese figures, the amount FICIENTS (SUBROUTINE COEFF)

of compaction at any point of the reservoir is given

SOLVE FOR OIL AND GAS PRESSURES
USING SIP OR ADIP (SUBROUTINE
BITRI IN CASE OF ADIP)

TABLE 1 - PRESSURE-VOLUME-TEMPERATURE DATA

USED FOR CASES 1, 2, 3, 4, AND 5 SOLVE FOR OIL SATURATION USING TH~
CAPILLARY PRESSURE EQUATION AND COMPUTE
3 GAS SATURATION FROM TNE SATURATION
p R so Bo Bg X 10 fJ-o f-lg BALANCE EQUATION
(psia) (scf/bbl) (bbl/STB) (bbl/scf) ..Js?L ..Js?L
4,372.0 835.8 1.497 0.636 0.4251 0.0280 CHECK INCREMENTAL AND CUMULATIVE
MATERIAL BALANCES
4,158.4 794.5 1.477 0.673 0.4135 0.0272
3,944.8 753.4 1.456 0.714 '0.4075. 0.0264
3,731.2 712.5 1.436 0.759 0.4072 0.0256
3,517.6 671.8 1.416 0.810 0.4126 '0.0248
3,304.0 631.3 1.397 0.868 0.4237 0.0239
3,090.4 590.9 1.378 0.934 0.4405 0.0231
2,876.8 550.7 1.359 1.010 0.4630 0.0223
2,623.2 510.7 1.341, 1.098 0.4911 0.0215
2,449.6 470.9 1'.323 1.202 0.5250 0.0207 YES
MATERIAL BALANCE CHECK
2,236.0 413.2 1.305 1.326 0.5645 0.0198 IS VERIFIED ?
2,022.4 3.91.7 1.288 1.476 0.6097 0.0190
1,808.8 352.4 1.271 1.663 0.6606 0.0182
1,595.2 313.3 1.254 1.900 0.7172 0.0174
1,381.6 274.4 1.238 2.210 0.7795 0.0166
1,168.0 235.6 1.222 2.636 0.8475 0.0158 PRINT RESERVOIR PRODUCTION , INDIVIDUAL
WELL PRODUCTION RATES,
954.0 197.0 1.207 3.255 0.9211 0.0149 AND COMPUTATIONAL INDICIES
740.8 158.6 1.192 4.235 1.0005 0.0141
527.2 120.4 1.177 6.023 1.0855 0.0133
EVALUATE RESERVOIR COMPACTION
DISTRIBUTION
TABLE 2 - RELATIVE PERMEABILITY AND CAPILLARY
PRESSURE DATA USED FOR CASES 1, 2, 3, 4, AN D 5 PRINT AND PUNCH RESERVOIR COMPACTION
DISTRIBUTION
So k ro krg P cog
(fraction) (fraction) (fraction) (psi a)
0.800 1.0000 0.00000 0.0000 UPDATE PRESSURES, SATURATIONS, AND
0.770 0.8145 0.00000 0.2283 TIME - DEPENDENTS PARAMETERS
0.740. 0.6561 0.00000 0.4307
0.710 0.5220 0.00005 0.6656
MAIN PROGRAM TWO
0.680 0.4096 0.00008 0.9047 COMPUTE FORMATION AND
0.650 0.3164 0.00010 1.1263 SUBSIDENCE BOWL PROFILES
0.620 0.2401 0.00050 1.3159
0.590 0.1785 0.00140 1.4658
0.560 0.1296 0.00290 1.5751
0.530 0.0915 0.00560 1.6500 YES NO
0.500 0.0625 0.00990 1.7034 END OF SIMULATION ?
0.470 0.0410 0.01610 1.7553
0.440 0.0256 0.02490 1.8324
0.410 0.0150 0.03690 1.9686
0.380 0.0881 0.05280 2.2045
0.350 0.0039 0.07340 2.5878
0.320 0.0016 0.09950 3.1723
0.290 0.0005 0.13200 4.0201 FIG. 1 - FLOW CHART FOR THE COMPUTATIONAL
0.260 0.0001 0.17180 5.1992 PROCEDURE.

416 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL

difference, although small, becomes evident for that, for the given conditions, the only fluid
points far removed from the center. This difference production mechanism acting IS res~rvoir
increases in proportion to the di stance of the poin t compaction.
from the center of the reservoir and attains a Based on an abandonment pressure of 500.0 psia,
maximum at the boundaries of the. reservoir, which the con tribution of the compaction mechani sm to
is attributed to the fact that zero lateral deforma- the ultimate oil recovery is about 2.5 percent of the
tion occurs at the boundary points. The magnitude original oil in place for a uniaxial compaction
of this difference ranges from zero to 1 ft for the coefficient of 0.1 x 10-4 psi-1~ This represents 20
different cases presented. This order of magnitude percent of the oil recovered. This res'ult is for the
is very small compared with the formation thickness reservoir under consideration, and th erefore it may
and, therefore, the assumption of negligible lateral not be inferred that such a recovery contribution
deformation at any point in the reservoir, as used would result for all compacting reservoirs 'with the
in the solution of the fluid flow equations, may not same amount of reservoir compaction. In fact, this
be a restricti ve feature of the present simulator. this contribution varies wi~h the geometry and the
phy sical properties of the reservoir and its fluids,
CASE 1 - EFFECT OF RESERVOIR COMPACTION
as \vell as the production history. .
ON OIL RECOVERY
Production from a homogeneous and isotropic CASE 2 - EFFECT OF THE DEPTH OF BURIAL
compacting reservoir was simulated for different ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
COMPACTION AND SUBSIDENCE
values of the uniaxial compaction coefficient.
Pertinent data for this case are presented in Table In this case, the subsidence at the surface for
3 and the results are graphed in Fig. 2. similar reservoirs, exhibiting the same amount of
The curves plotted in Fig. 2 represent the compaction, but located at different depths, w'as
behavior of the same reservoir for different degrees simulated.
of compaction, but are subj ected to the same For comparison, the reservoir of Case -I with a
production history; that is, the fluid withdrawals uniaxial compaction coefficient of 0.1 x 10-4 psi- 1
are made at the same rates and the cumulati ve oil was used as a reference. Formation and subsidence
production, expressed as a percentage of the bowl profiles for this reference reservoir are
original oil in place, is the same. Production is presented in Fig. 3. The reservoir studied for this
effected through nine wells producing at the same case has the same characteristics as the reference
rate and evenly spaced in the reservoir to generate reservoir, except that its depth is only one-half
a reasonably uniform pressure drop over the (1,500 ft) that of the reference reservior. The
reserVOIr. production history is also the same as that of the
The plots of cumulati ve oil production, expressed reference reservoir. Fig. 4 shows the formation and
as a percentage of the initial oil in place vs subsidence bowl profiles for the reservoir. Results
average reservoir pressure for the different values presented in Figs. 3 and 4 correspond to the end of
of the uniaxial compaction coefficient (Fig. 2), the sixth year of production.
show how reservoir compaction increases me As shown in Figs. 3 and 4, subsidence increase,s
ultimate oil recovery. A plot for a noncompacting as the depth of burial decreases. The formation top
reservoir with identical characteristics is also and bottom profiles also change with the depth of
presented for comparison. Even though the uniaxial
compaction coefficient, as determined in the
laboratory, ranges from 0.2 x 10-6 psi -1 for well TABLE 3 - RESERVOIR AND PRODUCTION DATA
cemented rocks 'to 0.3 x 10-4 psi- 1 for loose sands, FOR CASE 1
an extremely high, unrealistic value of 0.1 x 10- 2 Grid size 9x9
psi -1 was used to check the behavior of the Reservoir length, ft 9,000.0
Reservoir width, ft 9,000.0
simulator and to illustrate that for a particular Reservoir thickness, ft 300.0
production history the average reservoir pressure Porosity, fraction 0.25
does not change. The results obtained indicate Absolute penneability, md 100.0
Residual 011 saturation, fraction 0.20
Irreducible water saturation, fraction 0.20
Critical gas saturation, fraction 0.07
Bubble-point pressure, psia 4,372.0
0.lxI0- 2 Initial oi I saturation, fraction 0.70
Initial pressure, psia 4,000.0
Rock matrix compressibility, psi- 1 0.1 x 10- 7
Poisson's ratio 0.25
~3000
Uniaxial compaction coefficient, psi- 1 (see Fig. 3)
~
. ~ Production History
~ 2000 Oil Rate
Q Year (B/D per well)
0.0
ll.J
~ 1 3,000.0
~ 1000
~q: 2 3,000.0
3 2,500.0
2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
CUMULATIVE OIL PRODUCTION, PERCENT OF INITIAL OIL IN PLACE
4 2,500.0
5 2,000.0
FIG. 2 - EFFECT OF RESERVOIR COMPACTION ON 6 2,000.0
OIL RECOVERY. Number of producing wells 9

OCTOBER, 1975 417

burial, although the amount of compa'ction IS the shapes of the formation and subsidence bowl
same. Thus, the ground subsidence above the profiles are similar for both reservoirs; however,
center of the reservoir increases by about 50 the uplift of the bottom of the reservoir is smaller
percent for the same percentage of reduction in the in the case of the smaller thickness.
depth. At the same time, for the shallower reservoir,
the bottom subsides, while for the deeper reservoir CASE 4 - EFFECT OF THE AREAL EXTENT OF
THE RESERVOIR ON THE RELATIONSHIP
the bottom uplifts. BETWEEN COMPACTION AND SUBSIDENCE

CASE 3 - EFFECT OF FORMATION THICKNESS
ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
COMP ACTION AND SUBSIDENCE
Subsidence above compacting reservoirs with
identical production histories and characteristics,
but different formation thicknesses, was simulated
in thi s case.
As in Case 2, the reservoir of Case 1, with a
uniaxial compaction coefficient of 0.1 x 10-4 psi- 1
and formation and subsidence bowl profiles
presented in Fig. 3, was used as a reference. The
'reservoir studied for this case has a formation
thickness of 150 ft. The production rates were
one-half to compensate for the difference In
thickness and to obtain the same reservoir
production behavior (the same curve of cumulative
oil production vs average reservoir pressure).
'Formation and subsidence bow.! profiles for the
reservoir studied, corresponding to the end of the
sixth year of production, are gi ven in Fig. 5.
Comparing Figs. 3 and 5, it can be seen that
subsidence increases vlith formation thickness,
although the amounts of reservoir compaction are
the same. In effect, the subsidence at the surface
above the center of the reservoir decreases by
about 44 percent when the formation thickness is
reduced by 50 percent of its original value. The
The purpose of this case was to simulate
subsidence for two reserVOIrs with identIcal
production histories and characteristics, but with
different areal extents, to investigate the effect
of the latter on the relationship between compaction
and subsidence.
As in Cases 2 and 3, the reservoir studied in
Case 1, vlith a uniaxial compaction c;oefficient of
0.1 x 10- 4 psi-I, was used as a reference. The
second reservoir was identical to the reference
reservoir, except that the reservoir length and
width were reduced to 7,071 ft, which is equivalent
to a 50-percent reduction in area. For the reason
gi ven in Case 3, the production rates were reduced
to one-half. Fig. 6 shows the formation and
subsidence bowl profiles at the end of the sixth
year of production.
As illustrated in Figs. 3 and 6, the subsidence
at the surface above the center of the reservoir
decreases by about 27 percent when the area of the
reservoir is reduced by 50 percent of its original
value. However, the reservoir compaction is
identical in the two cases. The profiles of the
formation top and bottom and of the subsidence
bowl are similar to those for the reference reservoir;
however, the uplift of the bottom of the reservoir
increases when the area is decreased.

THICKNESS = 300.0 FEET DEPTH = 3000.0 FEET

AREA = 81>< /06 SQ. FT. Cm = O.lx 10-4 psi-I THICKNESS = /50.0 FEET DEPTH = 3000.0 FEET
AREA = Blxl06 SQ. FT. em = 0.1 x10- 4 psi-I
-6

I- I SURFACE
~
-5ll..

~~. 2r---------=.;;;TOP~----- Ii~

~ -4ffi~
~~ ~<
~~3 -3 ~~
~8 -2 ~~
~~4 a~
a~ _I 3~'-~
....J &: 5 BOTTOM
~ '- ~--------=::::::::~;-----------.,O ~
~ 6
::::.

-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

- 4000 -3000 -2000 -/000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
DISTANCE ALONG X-AXIS IN THE RESERVOIR, FEET
DISTANCE ALONG X-AXIS IN THE RESERVOIR, FEET
FIG. 5 - FORMATION AND SUBSIDENCE BOWL PRO-
FIG. 3 - FORMATION AND SUBSIDENCE BOWL PRO-
FILES FOR THE RESERVOIR OF CASE. 3.
FILES FOR THE REFERENCE RESERVOIR OF CASE 1.
THICKNESS =300.0 FEET DEPTH = 3000.0 FEET
THICKNESS 300.0 FEET DEPTH = 1500.0 FEET AREA =
40.5 x 10 6 SQ. FT. c m = O,lx /0-4 psi-I
.AREA Six J()6 SQ. FT. cm =0.1 x 10- 4 psi-I

SURFACE

TOP

SURFACE
TOP

BOTTOM

80 TOM

-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

-4000 -3000 -2000 -/000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
DISTANCE ALONG X-AXIS IN THE RESERVOIR. FEET
DISTANCE ALONG X-AXIS IN THE RESERVOiR, FEET

FIG. 4 - FORMATION AND SUBSIDENCE BOWL PRO- FIG. 6 - FORMATION AND SUBSIDENCE BOWL PRO-
FILES FOlX THE RESERVOIR OF CASE 2. FILES FOR THE RESERVOIR OF CASE 4.

418 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL

CASE 5 - INFLUENCE OF GAS INJECTION ON of producing the well for 1 year at a constant rate
RESERVOIR COMPACTION BEHAVIOR and then shutting it in, and simulating the
A fluid production history with intervals of gas redistribution of the fluids until stabilization was
inj ection was simulated to examine compaction attained. The behavior simulated was rather
mechanics with reservoir repressuring. idealized since individual well problems such as
The reservoir studied is the same as in Case 1, skin effect, afterflow, etc., were not simulated;
with a uniaxial compaction coefficient of 0.1 x 10-4 also, possible rebound, which may occur, was
psi-I; however, the production history was varied neglected. Average block pressures, rather than
over a period of 2 years to permit gas inj ection in wellbore pressures, were considered in the
four of the nine wells. The resulting production simulator.
hi story is given in Table 4. The four inj ection wells Results of the tests for the compacting and
Vlere located uniformly in the reservoir to obtain a noncompacting reservoirs showed that these plots
reasonably uniform pressure _distribution. Although have similar shapes, although the well pressures
the simulator allows the use of the rebound factor for equal shut-in times were different. In view of
for compaction, this vIas ass~med to be zero to these results, it can be said that reservoir
demonstrate how the repressuring of the reserVOIr compaction does not seem to alter the normal-
inhibits compaction. response of the reservoir to a buildup test and,
Results of this run are shown in Fig. 7, where therefore, the analysis and the interpretation
the behavior of reservoir compaction and average applicable to noncompacting -reservoirs are al so
pressure are shown vs the cumulative oil production. valid for compacting reservoirs. Details and typical
The beginning and the end of the period of gas pre s sure buildup curve s are given in Ref. 21.
inj ection are also indicated. These results show
CASE 7 - HISTORY MATCH OF A RESERVOIR
that compaction increases as a result of pressure IN WESTERN VENEZUELA
decline up to a certain value, marked by the
As a final application of the simulator developed,
initiation of gas inj ection. Vlhen the reservoir
the history match of one of the reservoirs below
pressure increases or is maintained constant,
Lake Maracaibo in Western Venezuela, where
compaction is inhibited. However, when gas
extensive ground subsidence has been evident for
inj ection is stopped, the pressure starts to decline
many years, was attempted.
again, but compaction does not begin to increase
The lack of petrophysical and production data for
until the average pressure falls below the value
the reservoir precluded a rigorous history match of
attained when gas in jection was started.
the reservoir behavior. The available data corre-
CASE 6 - SIMULATION OF PRESSURE BUILDUP sponded to a portion of the reservoir being produced
TESTS IN COMPACTING AND NONCOMPACTING
RESERVOIRS
Buildup t~sts for a well at the center of a closed,
TABLE 4 - PRODUCTION HISTORY FOR THE RESERVOIR OF CASE 5
square-shaped drainage area were simulated,
Year 1 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 6
considering compacting and noncompacting porous Oil
Gas Oil
Gas
Oil
Gas
media, to observe any alteration in the normal Production
Injection Inj ection
Production Injection
Production
Rate
Rate
Rate
Rate Rate
Rate
response of such tests caused by reserVOIr Well ~ (MMscflD) ~ (W'MscflD) ~ (MMscflD)

1 3,000 2,500 2,000

compaction. 2 3,000 20 2,000
2,000
With the purpose of making the analy sis of such 3
4
3,000
3,000
2,500
20 2,000
2,000
tests easier and more precise, an undersaturated 5 3,000
3,000
2,500
20 2,000
6
reservoir was considered. Pertinent -data for the 7 3,000 2,500
20
2,000
2,000
8 3,000
reservoir are given in Table 5, with the exception 9 3,000 2,500 2,000

that the uniaxial compaction coefficient was 0.1 x

10-4 psi- 1 for the compacting porous medium and
TABLE 5 - RESERVOIR AND PRODUCTION DATA
was zero for the noncompacting one. FOR CASE 6
The simulation process, in both cases, consisted
Grid size (irregular) 9X9
Drainage area length, ft 2,200.0
4500,..--------------------------.
Drainage area width, ft 2,200.0
Reservoir thickness, ft 200.0
Porosity, fracti on 0.20
Absolute permeability, md 10.0
Residual oi I saturation, fraction 0.20
Irreducible water saturation, fraction 0.20
Bubble-point pressure, psia 2,440.0
Initial oi I saturation, fraction 0.80
Initial pressure, psia 4,000.0
Formation volume factor at bubble point, bbl/STB 1.322
Average oil compressibility, psi- 1 o. tx 10- 4
Average oi I viscosity, cp 0.600
Well flow rate, BID 500.0
500 1 - - - 1 . .- - - - - J1 - - . . . L- - - - - - l 4 - -L - - . . . . L------:lL - - - . . L . .- - - - . J O
Rock matrix compresslbi lity, psi- 1 0.1 x10- 7
0 1 2 3 5 S 7 a g
Poisson's ratio 0.25
CUMULATIVE OIL PRODUCTION. PERCENT OF OIL IN PLACE

FIG. 7 - INFLUENCE OF GAS INJECTION ON RE- Block sizes in both x and y directions, ft: 400.0,300.0,200.0,
SERVOIR COMPACTION BEHAVIOR. 150.0, 100.0, 150.0, 200.0, 300.0, 400.0

OCTOBER, 1975 419

by three oil companies. The map presented in Fig. 8 TABLE 6 - RESERVOIR DATA FOR CASE 7
shows the po"rtion of the reservoir simulated, which , (HISTORY MATCH)
corresponds to the holdings of Shell Oil Co. of Reservol r area, acres 8,400
Venezuela. The other two companies operate the Porosl ty, fractio.n 0.40
Absolute permeabi Iity, md 2,000.0
balance of the reservoir, which has a similar size Residual oi I saturation, fraction 0.30
and extends beyond the western flank of the part Irreducible water saturation, fraction 0.175
studied. Since no data were available for this Initial oi I saturation, fraction 0.825
Average reservoir temp'eratu~e, of 116
portion of the reservoir, it was assumed that no Bubble"'point pressure, psla 200.0
flow occurs across its eastern boundary. Initial pressure, psia 950.0
The assumption made in the preceding paragraph Gas solubility in oi I, scf/STB 62.0
Formation volume factor, bbI/STB, given by
is not restrictive from the point of view of the
8 0 = 1.100[1.0- 0.1 x 10-5 (p- 200.0)]
reservoir produc'tion behavior. However, it would
Oil viscosity, cp, given by
strongly inf1uen~e the subsidence computations,
since t.he pres sure drop and compaction occurring /10 = 206.0 -- 0.076 (p - 200.0)
in the portion of the reservoir not considered Rock bulk compressibility, psi- 1 0.1X10- 7
Poissonis ratio 0.25
directly aff~cts the ground subsidence above the Uniaxial compaction coefficient, psl-l, given by
portion of the reservoir studi'ed. The computed 0.1 X 10-4 for 850 S P S 950
subsidence would be expected to be roughly o'ne-half 0.5 x 10-4 for 550 < p < 850
0.3 x 10- 3 for - p < 550
the subsidence occurring along the western flank Number of producing wells used In the simulation 67
if the whole reservoir could be simulated.
Pertinent data for the reservoir portion studied
the reservoir oil is very heavy (13 API) and gas
are given in Table 6. The two-dimensional
description of the reservoir was implemented using production history and pressure-volume-temperature
the block grid shown in Fig. 8. The block relationship da~a were not available, ,the reservoir
thicknesses w~re assigned in accordance with the was considered to be above the bubble point and
isopach map of the reservoir and are indicated in the fluid properties presented in Table 6 were
assigned on the basis of the oil gravity.
FIg. 9. Porosity and permeability distributions were
The large number of wells (more than 500) made
not available; therefore, the average values given
the assignment of a single block for each well
in Table 6 were assigned to each grid block. Since
impractJ.cal. Therefore, the total production from
wells in each block was combined and assigned to
1150 an equivalent single well. Although the' number of
155Q f. 1.\ ~ ~070 2070 2070 3115 3//5 ~
blocks could have been increased, it could not be
~
justified since the individual well production
LJ I histories were not available. They were assumed
to be identical and equal to the total reservoir

V ~
production di vided by the number of producing

V
./ L 'Nell s in the field .
Nineteen years of production history were
(v
~
~ simulated on the basis of the data discussed in the
preceding paragraphs. Even though it is usual to

vary porosity and permeability in a history match,
the only parameter varied in this study was the
uniaxial compaction coefficient; it was varied
R
@ I because of its importance in the production
behavior of compacting' reservoirs, as discussed
R
@
R,
t for Case 1. Different values of the compaction
coefficient were used for different pressure ranges,
0
<\J 1
V
LO
~ .
/ r ~ ~o ~ t'......
1)150 220 25CJ'..t-.

l / 150 220 250 260 270 t-- ~

LO
L 150 220 250 260 270 240 190 \
Pi) VI55 150 220 250 255 265 240 190 \
130 150 140 175 250 250 200 180 15e
~
I~o
f()
t ~

)
150

140
140

120
175

150
250 250 200

190 190 160

180

160
150"

150
1\
\\
I'
10
l
'"
f()
V~ 140 120 150 170 170 140 140 /65 /30,
r'\. .-. \

~D
\
SCALE . 155 160 /30 130 175 160
1\5
I INC/-I : 5250 FEET 1\'-.../
FIG. 8 - TWO-DIMENSIONAL DESCRIPTION OF THE FIG. 9 - THICKNESS DISTRIBUTION USED IN THE
RESERVOIR OF CASE 7 (HISTORY MATCH). SIMULATION OF CASE 7 (HISTORY MATCH).

420 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL

as given in Table 6. The values were chosen on 5. The reservoir compaction and accompanying
the basis of a reasonable reservoir pressure history ground subsidence ca~ be inhibited by repressuring
match. Although these values are higher than those the reservoir.
reported for sandstones,1 they are not unrealistic, 6. The simulator developed can be used for
since the formations simulated are more akin to history matching and predicting the behavior of
unconsolidated sand. compacting reservoirs and the accompanying ground
The actual and simulated production histories subsidence.
are given in Fig. 10. Observed and simulated
subsidence for points located at the surface, above NOMENCLATURE
the western boundary of the reservoir, and
corresponding to the end of the 19 years of B formation volume factor, bbl/sTB for
production are given in Fig. 11. The simulated oil and water and bbl/scf for gas
production behavior can be considered to be in
C molal concentration, moll cu ft
reasonable agreement with the actual behavior;
c 'compressibility, psi- 1
however, thi s does not hold for the actual and
simulated ground subsidence. The principal reason em uniaxial compaction coefficient, psi- 1
for this discrepancy (other than the inherent E Young's modulus, psi
limitations of the model) is the fact that only the e = ,dilation or relative volume change of
eastern half of the reservoir was considered in the the bulk material, cu ftl cu ft
simulation. e1.J. strain component, ft/ft
Results for this simulation show that, in spite of
G bulk shear or rigidity modulus, psi
the unrealiability of the data used in this study,
the simulator developed can be used for studying h formation thickness, ft
actual cases of oil fields exhibiting compaction k absolute permeability (1.127 x darcy)
and associated ground subsidence phenomena. kr relative permeability, fraction
P pressure, psia
CONCLUSIONS
Pc capillary pressure, psia
On the basis of the two-phase, two-dimensional P pore pressure, p~ia
simulator developed for studying the ground Q source-sink volumetric flow rate,
subsidence behavior, and the computer studies and positive for injection, STB/D-cu ft
the field simulation conducted, the following of block volume for oil and water
conclusions are derived. and scf/D-cu- ft of block volume for
1. The ultimate oil recovery in compacting gas
reservoirs increases with the degree of compaction.
Q* source-sink molal flow rate, positive
Reservoir compaction provides an additional fluid for inj ection, mol/D-cu ft of block
production mechani sm. volume
2. For the same amount of reservoir compaction,
R so gas solubility in oil, scf/STB
the subsidence at the surface increases as the
depth of burial decreases. Also, with an increase R sw gas solubility in water, scf/sTB
in the depth of burial, the reservoir bottom surface S phase saturation, fraction
may actually uplift, while the top surface subsides. time, days
3. The ground subsidence increases with u displacement component, ft
formation thickness for the same amount of relative
v macroscopic velocity, B/D-sq ft of area
reservoir compaction.
4. The subsidence at the surface increases with vr matrix microscopic velocity, cu ft/D-
the areal extent of the reservoir for a constant sq ft of area
amount of reservoir compaction.
SURFACE BENCHMARKS
1000~-----------------------' 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9

HORIZONTAL SCALE
(;j I INCH: 4750 FEET
Qaoo .......

~~
~600
0::
~
~
~400
~
-- --
_ _ _ ACTUAL PRODUCTION BEHAVIOR

~
<;{200
_ _ _ _ _ SIMULATED PRODUCTION BEHAVIOR

- - - OBSERVED SUBSIDENCE

100 200 ----SIMULATED SUBSIDENCE

CUMULATIVE OIL PRODUCTION, 10 6 Bbls.

FIG. 10 ACTUAL AND SIMULATED PRODUCTION

BEHAVIOR FOR THE RESERVOIR OF CASE 7 FIG. 11 - OBSERVED AND SIMULATED SUBSIDENCE
(HISTORY MATCH). AT THE END OF 19 YEARS OF PRODUCTION.

OCTOBER, 1975 421

 x mole fraction, fraction
x,y,z axes of Cartesian coordinate system
{3 ratio of rock matrix and rock bulk
compressibilities
~x,~y,~z block dimensions in x, y, z directions,
ft
~ del ta operator
V del operator in fixed coordinates
v/= del operator in deforming coordinates
V2 Laplacian operator
8z, J. Kronecker delta operator
~,T/,' axes of Cartesian coordinate system
A- Lames's constant
Il viscosity, cp
v bulk Poisson's ratio
density, lb/cu ft
stress component related to the bulk
stress sy stem, psi
(j ..
ZJ intergranular stress component, psi
formation poro si ty, fraction
<P displacement potential, sq ft
SUBSCRIPTS
b bulk material
f fluid flowing
g gaseous hydrocarbon phase or gas
species
chemical species
liquid hydrocarbon phase
o oil phase or oil species
r rock matrix material
w liquid water phase or water species
x,y,z x, y, z directions
REFERENCES
1. Geertsma, J.: "Land Subsidence Above Compacting
Oil and Gas Reservoirs, n ]. Pet. Tech. (June 1973)
734-744.
2. Hall, H. N.: "Compressibility of Reservoir Rocks,"
]. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1953) 309-314; Trans., AIME
Vol. 198.
3. Fatt, I., and Davis, D. H.: "Reduction in Permea-
bility With Overburden Pres sure, " Trans., AIME
(1952) Vol. 195, 329.
4. Fatt, I.: "The Effect of Overburden Pres sure on
Relative Permeability," ]. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1953)
325-326; Trans., AIME, Vol. 198.
5. McLatchie, A. S., Hemstock, R. S., and Young, J. W.:
"Effective Compressibility of Reservoir Rock and
Its Effects on Perme ability," ]. Pet. Tech. (June
1958) 49-51; Trans., AIME (1958) Vol. 213, 386-388.
6. Abgrall, E. : "Etude du Comportement du Milieu
Poreux en Temperature et sous Contrainte," Revue
de l'Institut Francais du prltrole (July-Aug. 1971)
571-590.
7. Biot, M. A.: "General Theory of Three-Dimensional
Consolidation," ]. Appl. Phys. (Feb. 1941) Vol.. 12,
155-164.
8. Lubinski, A.: "The Theory of Elasticity for Porous
Bodies Displaying a Strong Pore Structure,11 Proc.,
Second U.S. Nat. Congo of Appl. Mech. (1954) 247-256.
422
9. Geertsma, J.: ,,( A Remark on the Analogy Between
Thermoelasticity and Elasticity of Saturated Porous
Media," ]. Mech. Phys. Solids (1957) Vol. 6, 13.
10. van der Knaap, W.: "Nonlinear Behavior of Elastic
Porous Media," Trans., AIME (1959) Vol. 216,
179-187.
11. Teeuw, D.: "Prediction of Formation Compaction
From Laboratory Compressibility Data, n Soc. Pet.
Eng. ]. (Sept. 1971) 263-271; Trans., AIME, Vol. 25t.
1:2. McCann, G. D., and Wilts, C. H.: "A Mathematical
Analysis of the Subsidence in the Long Beach-San
Pedro Area," Internal Report, California Institute of
Technology, Pasadena, Calif. (Nov. 1951).
13. Grant, U. S.: "Subsidence of the Wilmington Oil
Field, California," Div. of Mines and Geology,
Bulletin No.' 170 (1954) 19.. 24.
14. Geertsma, J.: "Problems of Rock Mechanics in
Petroleum Production Engineering,' 'Proc., First
Congo of the Int. Soc. of Rock Mechanics, Lisbon
(Sept. 1966) Vol. I, 585-594.
15. Raghavan, R.: "A Review of the Consolidation and
Rebound Processes in One-Dimensional Porous
Columns," paper SPE 4078 presented at the SPE..
AIME 47th Annual Fall Meeting, San Antonio, Tex.,
Oct. 8-11, 1972.
16. Cooper, H. H., Jr.: "The Equation of Groundwater
Flow in Fixed and Deforming Coordinates," J.
Geophys. Res. (Oct. 1966) Vol. 71, No. 20, 4785-4790.
17. Timoshenko, S., and Goodier, J. N.: Theory of
Elasticity,
2nd ed., McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.,
New York (1951) 234.
18. Weinstein, H. G., Stone, H. L., and Kwan, T. V.:
"An Iterative Procedure for Solution of Systems of
Parabolic and Elliptic Equations in Three Dimen-
sions," Ind. and Eng. Chern. Fundamentals (1969)
VoL 8,281-287.
19. Weinstein, H. G., Stone, H. L., and Kwan, T. V.:
~'Simu1taneous Solq,tion of Multiphase Reservoir Flow
Equations/' Soc. Pet. Eng. ]. (June 1970) 99-110.
20. Douglas, J., Jr., and Rachford, H. H., Jr.: "On the
Numerical Solution of Heat Conduction Problems in
Two and Three Space Variables," Trans., Am. Math.
Soc. (1956) Vol. 82, 421-439.
21. Finol Parra, A.: "Numerical Simulation of Oil Pro-
duction with Simultaneous Ground Subsidence," PhD
thesis, Pennsylvania State U.(Aug. 1973).
APPENDIX
DERIVATION OF MUL TIPHASE FLOW
EQUATIONS FOR A COMPACTING
RESERVOIR
Consider a small fixed elemental volume with
dimensions ~x, ~Y', and ~z in a porous medium in
which three phases, liquid hydrocarbons, gaseous
hydrocarbons; and liquid water, are flowing. If this
porous medium is deforming predominantly in the
vertical plane, then, at any vertical distance z in
the element, the 'flowing phases will have
macroscopic velocities ve, vw ' and v with respect
to the origin of the coordinates, and tte rock ,matrix
will have a microscopic velocity, v r , with respect
to the same origin.
A molal balance over the elemental volume for
the chemical species i, which is present in one or
more of the phases, results in the follovling
equation.
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
 and, therefore, the rate of change of thickness is

";'~
1 d - Do
1 D(i1z) = c 12 zz
5. 6-15 ~t(xloCoSo
Q./5.615 + Dt mDt = -cm---n:t ... (A.-6)
1 a ,(.. ,(.. -c 6z
x C S + x. C S ). .. . . (A-I) Because the rate of change of thickness, ~z,
iw w w 19 g g also gi ves the rate of change of volume, ~x~y~z,
In the case where the matrix is moving at some the right side of Eq. A-6 is equal to the divergence
microscopic velocity vr with respect to a fixed of the rock matrix velocity. Thus,
point, the macroscopic velocity of the fluid with
dV
respect to the same fixed point is r 1 D(i1z) . . . (A-7)
\J V
a;-
r 6z Dt
V
f
+ SfVr ' . . . . . . . . (A-2)
or, substituting Eq. A-6 in Eq. A-7,
where v / is the fluid veloci ty gi ven by Darcy's
equation and S/vr is the velocity of the fluid dV -
moving with the rock matrix. r C 12'
' . . . . . . . . . (A-B)
Expanding Eq. A-I, and incorporating Eq. A-2 dZ mDt
and the following differential operator, where p is either the average pore pressure or the
pressure of any phase neglecting capillary pressure
effects.
The term D/Dt can be evaluated by considering
into the expanded equation, gi ves: the continuity equation of the rock matrix material,
which is
kk kk
V (x oC o r&;po+ X. C ~\7p + d d
i-c -c ~ -c lW W llw w -'(v P (1 - ))
dZ r r
=- -;-t(P (l - )).
0 r
"J~
kk Q. . . ., (.'\.-9)
x C --E&Vp ) +
ig g llg g
5.~15 Expanding and introducing the definition of rock
matrix compressibility, gi ven as the unit change in
rock matrix density per unit change in pore
1 [rJ?.-( C S + X C S + x. C S )
5.615 ~Dt Xit t t iw w w 19 g g pressure, results in the following expression.
- dV
+ (XitCtSt + x.lWCWSw + x.19 Cg Sg ) l!!
D l!! = (1 - )c Dp + (1 _ ) ~.
t Dt rDt dZ
dV . . . . . . . . . . . (A-IO)
r
+ ep(xitCtSt+ x.lWCWSw + x.19 Cg Sg )-8-].
z Substitution of Eqs. A'-8 and i\.-IO 1n Eq. A- 3
g1ves
. . (A- 3)
kk kk
V ~ (x C rf ~ + x. C --I!!..D +
The term dV r / dz can be evaluated by considering il l ]J;\7pl lW W ]Jw vpw
an interior point in the moving porous medium. 16
The weight of the overburden material above this kk C)'J~
interior point remains constant and is supported by
the average pore pressure p and the intergranular
x. C --E&Vp ) +
19 g llg g
.5.~~5
stress azz' acting on the rock matrix at that point.
That is, the overburden pressure is equal to
p + ~z' and because it remains constant, the 5.~15[~(XilClSl + xiwCwS w + XigCgS g )
following expression results:

Dcr
Dp = - - zz
- . . (A-4)
Dt Dt ' -
where the differential operator is used, since the
(c + (1 - ) c )12] ~
m r Dt
rock matrix is moving as a result of compaction.
. . . . . . (A-II)
The relative change in the thickness of the
elemental volume, Az, is given by Eg. 1 as, The differential operator in Eqs. A-3, A-8, and
_
. .. \-10 can be approximated by Ole partial derivatives
d(_'~_z)
~Z
= c dp
TIl'
(A-5) with respect to time if' v r is neglected; however,
the same approximation can be obtained by

OCTOBER, 1975 423

considering the equation i~ deforming coordinates,
since in this frame of reference the differential
operators become equal to the partial derivatives. 16
Thus, denoting the del operator in deforming
coordinates by V ~ and writing Eq. A-II for a black
oil system where water is considered to be
immobile, Eq s. 5 and 6 will result. It should be
424
noted that, with pore pressure decline, the connate
water may become mobile, with the accompanying
necessity of obtaining data on relati ve permeabilities
of compacting porous media. At the same time, the
mobilized connate water will produce a water-drive
effect.
***
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL