Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Taurus Reservoir Solutions Ltd., 2,5 Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calgary, 3 Department of
Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Calgary
Copyright 2004, ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association
This paper was prepared for presentation at Gulf Rocks 2004, the 6th North America Rock Mechanics Symposium (NARMS): Rock Mechanics Across Borders and Disciplines, held in Houston,
Texas, June 5 9, 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by a NARMS Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted earlier by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by ARMA/NARMS and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of NARMS, ARMA,
CARMA, SMMR, their officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of ARMA 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 acknowledgement of where and by
whom the paper was presented.
ABSTRACT: This paper presents a fully coupled reservoir-geomechanics model with erosion mechanics to address wellbore
instability phenomena associated with sand production within the framework of mixture theory. A Representative Elementary
Volume (REV) is chosen to comprise of five phases, namely solid grains (s), fluidized solids (fs), oil fluid (f), water (w) and gas
(g). The particle transport and balance equations are written to reflect the interactions among phases in terms of mechanical
stresses and hydrodynamics. Constitutive laws (mass generation law, Darcy's law, and stress-strain relationships) are written to
describe the fundamental behaviour of sand erosion, fluid flow, and deformation of the solid skeleton respectively. Subsequently,
the resulting governing equations are solved numerically using Galerkins method with a generic nonlinear Newton-Raphson
iteration scheme. Numerical examples in a typical light oil reservoir are presented to illustrate the capabilities of the proposed
model in the absence of the gas phase. It is found that there is an intimate interaction between sand erosion activity and
deformation of the solid matrix. As erosion activity progresses, porosity increases and in turn degrades the material strength.
Strength degradation leads to an increased propensity for plastic shear failure that further magnifies the erosion activity. An
escalation of plastic shear deformations will inevitably lead to instability with the complete erosion of the sand matrix. The selfadjusted mechanism enables the model to predict both the volumetric sand production and the propagation of wormholes, and
hence instability phenomena in the wellbore.
1. INTRODUCTION
The production of formation sand has plagued the
oil and gas industry for decades because of its
adverse effects on wellbore stability and equipment,
while it has also been proven to be a most effective
way to increase well productivity. When
hydrocarbon production occurs from shallow and
geologically young (or so-called unconsolidated /
weakly consolidated) formations that have little or
no cementation to hold the sand particles together,
the interaction of fluid pressure and stresses within
the porous granular material can lead to the
mechanical failure of the formation and unwanted
mobilization of sand. It has been reported that 10%40% sand cuts normally stabilize in time to levels
less than 5% in heavy oil reservoirs [1], while an
average of 40% productivity increase was achieved
through sand management in light oil reservoirs [2].
When sand is produced from reservoir formations, it
can cause a number of problems. These include the
instability of wellbores, the erosion of pipes, the
plugging of production liners, the subsidence of
AND
+ (u& ) = m&
t
(1)
wellbore
sand, oil,
gas
cavity or
wormhole
REV
fluidized solid
(fs) Mfs , fs , dVfs
solid
(s) Ms , s , dVs
dVv
dV
Phase diagram
[(1 ) s ]
+ [(1 ) s u& s ] = m&
t
(2)
[S fs fs ]
t
+ [S fs fs u& fs ] = m&
(3)
(4)
So =
[Vo ]RC
[VV ]RC
t
+ [S g g / Bg u& g + Rs So g / Bo u& o ] = 0
(5)
[V w ]RC
[VV ]RC
, Bw =
[Vw ]RC
[Vo ]STC
(6)
can be related to a
( eff Pm 1) + b = 0
(7)
(8)
v j = S j (u& j u& s )
(9)
v fs = S fsu& fs = S fs ( v m u& s )
(10)
v m = So v o + S g v g + S w v w
(11)
m&
+ [(1 ) u& s ] =
t
[ ( S fs 1)]
t
+ [S fs v m + (1 + S fs ) u& s ] = 0
(12)
(13)
v
S u& S
. o + o s + o = 0
Bo t Bo
Bo
(14)
v
S u& S
. w + w s + w = 0
Bw t Bw
Bw
(15)
S u&
R S u&
v g / Bg + g s + Rs v o / Bo + s o s
Bg
Bo
S g
R S
+ s o +
=0
Bg
t Bo
(16)
m&
= (1 ) S fs v m
if v m v crm
=0
if v m < v crm
(17)
= ( p ) = 0 +
p
p / max
p
+ p / max
(18)
vj =
Pj
(19)
= 0 +
p
p / max
p
p
+ / max
p
p / max
k = k0
0
3
1 or k = k0 exp A
1
2
(1 )
1
(20)
d p = d
(21)
C = C0
max
1
1
and = 0
1 0
1 0
(22)
(23)
Wn +1 ( Vn +1 ) = H n +1 ( Vn )
(25)
(24)
Wnk+1 ( Vnk+1 ) +
W
Vnk+1 = H n +1 ( Vnk )
V n +1
(26)
[ ] [H
Vnk+1 = J kn +1
n +1
(27)
k
in which J n1 is the Jacobian of the linearized
system, i.e.
k
k
n +1
W
=
V n +1
(28)
(29)
[C1]
[D1]
[A2]
[B2]
[C 2]
[D 2]
[A3]
[B3]
[C 3]
[D3]
[A4] k S kfsn+1
[B 4] nk+1
[C 4] p kn+1
[D 4] n+1 u kn+1
= X ( S kfsn+1 , nk+1 , p kn +1 , u kn +1 )
(30)
4. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
In the following simulation, a numerical example of
a light oil reservoir in North Sea is examined under
hydrodynamics and geomechanics, while examples
in heavy oil reservoirs can be found in a series of
publications [5, 6, 7]. In this paper, no gas phase
effect is presented, given the space restriction.
0.5
0.4
ext = 42MPa
0 = 30
=0.008
=0.1
o = 0.8 g/cm3
= 5 cp
= 0.25
P0= 27.6 MPa
0.3
extends to 5 m
Fig. 3. Mesh layout near wellbore showing perforations.
0.2
0.1
P3
P2
perforations
0
P1
0.1
0.2
x(m)
0.3
0.4
0.5
time=0.3days
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.75
y(m)
0.5
1
0.25
P1
0.75
0
P2
P3
0.25
0.5
0.75
x(m)
y(m)
0.25
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
1.5
P1
P2
P3
0.25
0.5
x(m)
0.75
y(m)
0.5
1.5
x(m)
time=2days
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
y(m)
x(m)
12.00
11.29
10.57
9.86
9.14
8.43
7.71
7.00
6.29
5.57
4.86
4.14
3.43
2.71
2.00
time=0.3days
1.5
y(m)
0.5
4
time=5days
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
y(m)
x(m)
y(m)
1.5
12.00
11.29
10.57
9.86
9.14
8.43
7.71
7.00
6.29
5.57
4.86
4.14
3.43
2.71
2.00
time=0.6days
0.5
0.5
x(m)
1.5
12.00
11.29
10.57
9.86
9.14
8.43
7.71
7.00
6.29
5.57
4.86
4.14
3.43
2.71
2.00
time=5days
1.5
y(m)
x(m)
1.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
x(m)
1.5
x(m)
0.5
0.5
0.4
time=0.3days
0.3
y(m)
0.77
0.73
0.70
0.66
0.63
0.59
0.56
0.53
0.49
0.46
0.42
0.39
0.35
0.32
0.28
0.75
0.25
0.2
0.25
0.5
x(m)
0.75
0.1
P1
P2
0.77
0.73
0.70
0.66
0.63
0.59
0.56
0.53
0.49
0.46
0.42
0.39
0.35
0.32
0.28
1.5
0.5
P3
0.1
0.2
x(m)
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
time=0.6days
0.3
y(m)
Porosity
time=0.6days
y(m)
0.77
0.73
0.70
0.66
0.63
0.59
0.56
0.53
0.49
0.46
0.42
0.39
0.35
0.32
0.28
Porosity
time=0.3days
Porosity
time=5days
y(m)
y(m)
0.2
0.5
x(m)
1.5
2
0.1
P1
P2
P3
0.1
0.2
x(m)
0.3
0.4
time=5days
0.090
0.086
0.081
0.077
0.073
0.069
0.064
0.060
0.056
0.051
0.047
0.043
0.039
0.034
0.030
0.026
0.022
0.017
0.013
0.009
0.004
0.003
0.001
0.000
0.000
time=5days
0.3
y(m)
1.5
y(m)
0.2
0.1
P1
P2
0.5
P3
0.1
0.2
0.3
x(m)
0.4
0.5
0.5
x(m)
1.5
(Pa)
-7.00E+06
-7.53E+06
-8.05E+06
-8.58E+06
-9.11E+06
-9.63E+06
-1.02E+07
-1.07E+07
-1.12E+07
-1.17E+07
-1.23E+07
-1.28E+07
-1.33E+07
-1.38E+07
-1.44E+07
-1.49E+07
-1.54E+07
-1.59E+07
-1.65E+07
-1.70E+07
4
time= 5 days
y(m)
5
(Pa)
2.74E+07
2.72E+07
2.70E+07
2.69E+07
2.67E+07
2.65E+07
2.63E+07
2.61E+07
2.59E+07
2.57E+07
2.55E+07
2.54E+07
2.52E+07
2.50E+07
2.48E+07
Time=5days
y(m)
x(m)
x(m)
(Pa)
-7.00E+06
-7.53E+06
-8.05E+06
-8.58E+06
-9.11E+06
-9.63E+06
-1.02E+07
-1.07E+07
-1.12E+07
-1.17E+07
-1.23E+07
-1.28E+07
-1.33E+07
-1.38E+07
-1.44E+07
-1.49E+07
-1.54E+07
-1.59E+07
-1.65E+07
-1.70E+07
4
time=5 days
y(m)
x(m)
Figure 23 gives both the oil and sand rates over the
time of fluid drawdown. We observe that the sand
production rate rapidly increases in an initial phase
to reach a peak value in approximately 0.5 day.
During this time period, the oil rate gradually
increases as well. Then, this phase is followed by a
decline in sand production rate corresponding to the
decrease in availability of sand grains. However, the
oil rate continues to increase given the enhancement
in permeability of the reservoir induced by sand
production. This trend is also observed in oilwells
under sand production.
12000
1200
10000
1000
8000
800
6000
600
oil rate
sand rate
4000
2000
time=5 days
y(m)
x(m)
25000
3000
20000
2500
2000
15000
oil rate
sand rate
10000
1500
1000
5000
500
0
0
(Pa)
3.00E+06
2.84E+06
2.69E+06
2.53E+06
2.38E+06
2.22E+06
2.07E+06
1.91E+06
1.76E+06
1.60E+06
1.45E+06
1.29E+06
1.14E+06
9.82E+05
8.26E+05
6.71E+05
5.16E+05
3.61E+05
2.05E+05
5.00E+04
time (days)
200
0
400
(31)
qoil = v f dS ; qsand = S fs v f dS
time (days)
5. CONCLUSIONS
A fully coupled reservoir/geomechanics numerical
model is presented based on an extension of a
theoretical and numerical model that the authors
have developed in the past to address sand
production as an erosion problem coupled with
hydro- and geo-mechanical effects. This is done
within the framework of mixture theory in which
mechanics and transport equations are written for
each of the concerned phases, i.e. solid, fluid (oil,
water), gas, and fluidized solid.
Leaving aside gas-related issues, it is found that
sand production is a function of stress, time, and
fluid rate. Sand erosion activity is strongly linked to
geomechanics and there is an intimate interaction
between sand erosion activity and deformation of
the solid matrix. As the erosion activity progresses,
porosity increases and in turn degrades the material
strength. Strength degradation leads to an increased
propensity for plastic shear failure that further
magnifies the erosion activity. An escalation of
plastic shear deformations will inevitably lead to
wellbore instability with the complete erosion of the
sand matrix. The self-adjusted mechanism enables
the model to predict both the volumetric sand
production and the propagation of wormholes.
The multiphase results including gas phase will be
presented in a forthcoming paper. The proposed
model can be used for wellbore stability analysis
and design in open-hole completions, perforation
pattern design, as well as volumetric sand prediction
at different pumping strategies in terms of
optimization of the hydrocarbon production.
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to express their sincere gratitude
for funding provided by Alberta Ingenuity Fund
(AIF) and the National Science and Engineering
Research Council of Canada (NSERC).
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Wan, R.G. and J. Wang: 2002. A Coupled StressDeformation Model for Sand Production using
Streamline Upwind Finite Elements. In Proceedings of
the Eighth International Symposium on Numerical
Models in Geomechanics NUMOG VIII, Rome, Italy,
10-12 April, 2002, eds. Pande & Pietruszczak, 301
309. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam. ISBN 90 5809 359 X
6.
7.
8.
9.