IPTC 11657
Reservoir Rock Behavior Pre and Post Pore Collapse during Production
Hadi Belhaj, SPE, Texas Tech University, Texas and Alireza Nouri, University of Alberta, Canada
Copyright 2007, International Petroleum Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference held in Dubai, U.A.E., 46 December 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme 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 International Petroleum Technology Conference
and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or
members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society
Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology
Conference 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, IPTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
It is very common that effective stresses increase as reservoir
fluids being produced from both shallow and deep reservoirs.
It may seem reasonable to assume that permeability and
porosity decrease as pore pressure declines, since effective
volumetrical stresses become intensified during reservoir
depletion. However, laboratory results show that this is not
always the case.
A series of very delicate experimental procedures was
conducted to reveal some of the most interesting phenomena
in pore collapse and their impact on permeability. Sandstone
samples were tested using a triaxial set-up. Experimental
results show that porosity is certainly decreases as a result of
the compaction process, which allows the breakage of grain-
to-grain cement bonds. Grain particles will become more
compacted as both lateral and axial effective stresses increase.
On the other hand, permeability shows no definite trend.
In weak reservoir formation, pore collapse does not occur
suddenly. Rather, rocks gradually compact as grain-to-grain
cement bonds break down. It was found that permeability
indeed changes as effective stresses increase. Nevertheless,
the pathway to permeability was found to be much more
complex than previously stipulated. It was discovered that
enhancement or damage to permeability is not a function of
pore collapse alone. Other factors, such as stress path, initial
porosity, particle size, and particle shape and distribution play
a major role in determining the type of permeability alteration
and the severity of this change.
Introduction
As reservoir production continues during pressure depletion
process, effective stresses within the reservoir increase. It may
seem reasonable to assume that the effect of stresses on
porosity and permeability of the reservoir is more severe when
porosity and permeability are high, although some
experimental studies like Hubbert and Willis1, Voight2, and
Rosepiler3 showed this effect is still significant even at low
porosity and permeability. It is also understood that stress
paths have a large influence on horizontal and vertical
permeability and also on porosity.
The elastic uniaxial strain model is mostly used in reservoir
engineering to describe production-induced changes in
horizontal stress due to pore pressure decline (pressure
depletion). It predicts the total horizontal stress by using
overburden stress, reservoir pressure decrease, and material
mechanical parameters. The principal assumption in this
model is that there is no lateral deformation (zero horizontal
strain condition) during the depletion process.
For a sandstone rock, Ruistuen et al.4 showed that the ratio of
change in minimum effective horizontal stress to the change in
effective vertical stress in a reservoir depletion process was
0.53. This effective stress relationship was believed to be the
same for production-induced or geologically-induced changes
in pore pressure, i.e. before reservoir disturbed by production.
Schutjens et al.5 concluded that in an elastic domain of
deformations, permeability reduction is predominantly
controlled by mean effective stress increase and not by stress
path.
Depletion of the reservoir may contribute to the failure of the
formation in two ways. Pore collapse is one of the
mechanisms which in fact is a volumetric failure. This
mechanism is mainly activated where lateral displacement is
either zero or small. In this case, shear failure cannot take
place and the only mechanism for material disaggregation
would be pore collapse through volumetric failure. For this
mechanism to be activated, material must have a high porosity
and low strength. If the stress path meets the cap, i.e.
volumetric failure surface, volumetric failure takes place.
Another failure mechanism induced by depletion is shear. As
the reservoir pressure depletes, effective stresses increase. The
increase of effective stresses around the wellbore deforms
perforation cavities and shears them. Depletion induces shear
stress increment, which adds to the shear stress induced by
pressure drawdown. As depletion increases, shear failure
develops, which, in the worst condition, fails it.
Even though the pore collapse phenomenon has been studied
to understand the driving mechanism of land subsidence of oil
fields, it has not been taken into account in solid production
studies. Under large depletion the overall disaggregation may
take place in which compressive strains break down the
bonding among the sand grains, i.e. pore collapse. This
2 IPTC 11657
depletion-induced volumetric failure starts from near the
wellbore and weaker zones and then spreads to other parts of
the reservoir. The key point is that effective stresses around
any opening recover very quickly inward. On the other hand,
pore pressure changes are much more moderate. Therefore,
effective stresses near the wellbore can be more than inside the
reservoir. Later, as oil production continues, the pressure of
the whole reservoir depletes and pore collapse, which initially
started from near the wellbore, may spread to the whole
medium.
The overall volumetric failure of the reservoirs consequent to
depletion has been reported for a number of reservoirs, e.g.
Ekofisk field (Lawrence et al.)6. Hamilton and Shafer7 studied
pore collapse characteristics of a high porosity diatomite and
carbonate rock. Lawrence et al.6 studied pore collapse by using
stresses resulting from shut-in pressure data of hydraulic
fracturing tests over the production period of the oil wellbores
in the Ekofisk field. Simulating the same stress path in
laboratory experiments, they concluded shear failure rather
than volumetric failure had occurred in the reservoir. What
they did not notice was that hydraulic fracturing tests yield the
minimum stress near the wellbore, where shear failure may
have a possibility of occurrence. But this may not be true a bit
away from the open-face inside the reservoir. As a matter of
fact, the radial stress gradient near the wellbore is very sharp,
and that makes the interpretation of these test results difficult.
On the other hand, generally speaking, the volumetric yield
pressure of most of the rock material has been reported to be
high. Therefore, if the prospective effective stresses of a
reservoir are not expected to meet the cap, pore collapse and
consequently material disintegration would not take place. The
pore collapse pressure, which corresponds to the cap pressure,
highly depends on porosity and UCS (or any other strength
representative) of the samples. As an example, Soares and
Ferreira8 reported test results of pore collapse experiments on
limestone samples taken from Campos Basin as having a
porosity in the range of 25 to 35%. Cap pressure of these
samples ranged from almost 40 Mpa for samples with 31%
porosity to almost 90 Mpa for those with 20% porosity.
On the other extreme, Hamilton and Shafer7 experimented fine
grain diatomite with porosity over 50% and reached a cap
pressure of almost 3 Mpa. They also performed the same test
on carbonate samples with over 20% porosity, and the cap
pressure was 24 Mpa. For the Ekofisk field that pore collapse
of chalk medium resulted in over four meters of sea floor
subsidence. A cap pressure of almost 22 Mpa was concluded
(Lawrence et al.)6.
Similar tests were performed by Ditzhuijzen et al.9 on samples
from offshore Sarawak. Mouldic limestone and dolomite
samples ranged from 26.8 to 40.7% in porosity. Mouldic
limestone samples resulted in 15 to 36 Mpa vertical failure
stress. Dolomitic samples ranged from 33 to 47 Mpa. Smits et
al.10 reported a pore collapse vertical effective stress of 20
Mpa to 50 Mpa for Mouldic limestone with porosity in range
of 27 to 39%. They also concluded a failure stress of 18 Mpa
to 60 Mpa for Danian and Maastrichtian chalk samples that
were in a range of 35 to 50% porosity.
Tronvoll et al.12 discussed the possibility of pore collapse
occurrence in the Northern Adriatic field. According to their
numerical results, during drilling, near wellbore formation
reaches the stage of large plastic flow, which produced sand
upon oil production. The contradictory point in their work is
that pore collapse only takes place with drawdown and mainly
depletion. At the time of drilling, i.e. before production starts,
no pore collapse has the chance of occurrence.
In the following, the results of the experiments on four
different types of samples are discussed and their behaviour in
both elastic and plastic domains is investigated. Permeability
and porosity tracking are checked with mechanical behavior in
the same graph for more in depth understanding of their
behaviours.
Experimental Program
Two kinds of outcrop sandstones and two kinds of synthetic
sandstones were tested in the experimental program. In all of
cases, samples were first brought to in-situ stress condition.
Then, the depletion process was simulated by decreasing the
pore pressure. In each defined interval, permeability was
measured. The only type of sample in which depletion was not
practiced by decreasing the back pressure was the glass sand
type. Nevertheless, in all of the experiments uniaxial strain
condition was imposed. In all of the tests, fluid flow was
performed in the axial stress direction. Therefore, permeability
was measured parallel to the major principal stress. The
samples were saturated with water and the same water was
flowed through the samples for measuring permeability.
Behaviour in Elastic Range
Two consolidated sandstone samples were experimented
under uniaxial strain condition, which showed elastic
behavior. Table 1 shows some properties of these two
materials, namely, GSF, fine-grained glass sandstone and
MBH, the Middle member of the Horton Bluff formation. The
fine-grained glass sand samples were taken from the upper
member of the Horton Bluff Formation. The unit is dominated
(90% or more) by quartzarenites. MBH samples are composed
predominantly of black to grey shale, coaly shale, siltstone and
nodular carbonate beds.
In the GSF sample, after bringing the confining pressure to
8000 kpa, the axial stress to 15000 kPa and back pressure to
3000 kPa, the axial stress is increased while the cell volume is
kept constant. As seen in figures 1 and 2, loading is in the
elastic domain. Also, it is evident that confining pressure has
only marginally changed with axial loading. This suggests that
the sample has deformed little radially. This small deformation
would be enough to increase lateral stresses in a stiff rock, but
not in rather compressible oil that was controlling the
confining pressure. Fig. 3 shows the change of permeability
with mean effective stress. Mean effective stress is defined as
one third of the first invariant of the total stress tensor minus
the pore fluid pressure. As seen, permeability is decreased
exponentially with increasing mean effective stresses.
IPTC 11657 3

In the case of MBH sample, first axial stress was from the original strain hardening behaviour. More porosity,
increased, keeping radial pressure and backpressure constant. less strength and high mean effective stresses at relatively low
Permeability was measured when the sample was loaded and differential stresses increase the chance of volumetric failure.
also after it was unloaded. Fig. 4 depicts this phase of loading A cap model is needed to capture this behaviour in a
and unloading. Obviously in Fig. 6, no significant difference mathematical modeling.
resulted in permeability. This can be attributed to the fact that
even though mean effective stress, which is a compaction Besides the GSF and MBH samples, uniaxial strain tests
source, is decreasing, at the same time shear stress, which is a were performed on artificial samples of two kinds. In one
dilation source, is also decreasing and these two balance each series of samples, Portland cement was used to bind sand
other. grains together while in the second kind, sodium silicate was
applied. Permeability and porosity were measured in different
In the next stage, total stresses were increased on the stages. Porosity change was calculated form the initial
sample when effective stresses remained almost constant. In porosity to the end of the test using the following formula
this stage, permeability increased from 0.017 mD to 0.042 mD (Schutjens et al.)5:
(Fig. 6). This is believed to be the result of grain
compressibility of the rock or rock matrix compressibility V p
under the huge backpressure that assists in void enlargements ( 0 )
Vb 0
and therefore increases the permeability. = ( (1)
V p
+
Depletion of the sample under uniaxial strain condition is Vb 0
the next stage of the experiment. Fig. 5 depicts the effective
axial increase as sample pressure depletes. Radial effective Where is Biot-Willis coefficient and is defined as
stress increased almost as much as axial stress did. This is follows:
because this sample has a high stiffness that makes it
minimally deformed in radial direction. Therefore, radial
Cr
pressure would not appreciably decrease in the course of = 1 (2)
depletion. The permeability of the sample decreases with C bc
depletion. Permeability changes as a result of depletion, as
depicted in Fig. 6. As shown in the first 10 MPa of depletion, C r is grain compressibility and C bc is bulk volume
more than 75% of all reduction in permeability takes place. compressibility.
This can be attributed to the fact that in this depletion interval,
the MBH sample deforms more sharply than the rest of the 1 Vr
depletion course. Cr = ( ) Pc = PP (3)
Vr P
Finally, another set of unloading and then depletion was
followed and permeability values were measured in each step. 1 Vb
C bc = ( ) PP = 0 (4)
Fig. 7 captured the entire permeability data together. This Vb Pc
graph, along with the graph in Fig 8, shows that permeability
significantly changes even in an elastic range. With a
Cement Samples
depletion of as much as 30 MPa, permeability of the GSF
To prepare these samples, Portland cement was used to
sample was reduced by as much as 66% of the initial value. A
bind sand grains. The process of sample making was
permeability reduction of near 100% of the initial permeability
consistent for all the samples in order to make sure that they
was concluded with 58 MPa depletion of the MBH sample.
would provide reproducible results. Two slightly different
More importantly, most of the permeability reduction took
compositions were used for preparing the samples that are
place in the initial phase of depletion.
shown in Table 2.
Behavior in Plastic Range
Synthetic Samples
At relatively high mean effective stresses and low
The manufacturing of synthetic sandstone is based on a
differential stresses, volumetric failure, i.e. pore collapse, is a
method developed by Holt et al.12. The process employs sand
possible mechanism of failure. In brittle material, pore
with a sodium silicate solution. These components are mixed
collapse can be very quick, while in more compressible
into slurry, and then slightly pre-compacted when filling. By
material it can be very gradual. When pore collapse takes
using this technique, samples with unconfined compression
place, pore pressure increases in the failed zone because of the
strength ranging from 0 to 10 MPa and porosity as high as
tendency for material compression. In this case, effective
40% can be produced.
stress decreases. Following pore collapse, compaction
At relatively high effective mean stresses and low
behaviour takes place at a lower stress level. With increasing
differential stresses, sedimentary rocks with relatively high
strain, the average intergranular stress increases, and very high
porosity show volumetric failure behavior, i.e. pore collapse.
strains may be achieved in high stresses. The strain hardening
Post pore collapse, material shows compaction behaviour.
behaviour after pore collapse occurs in a completely different
microstructure than the original one, and is therefore different
4 IPTC 11657
Results and Discussions
Petrophysical properties data are very crucial for reserves
assessment and fluid flow characterization of petroleum
reservoirs. A great deal of money and effort are usually
assigned in order to accurately estimate these properties.
Permeability and porosity are among those properties and are
by far the most important. Porosity is the key for reserves
estimate while permeability is the main parameter to predict
flow rates, design drawdown and therefore wellbore
completion. Until recently, the common belief was that, once
determined, these properties remain constant throughout the
production life of the reservoir. Studies4,9,13-15 including this
paper showed that this is not a realistic assumption.
Experimentations on both cement and synthetic samples in this
study stress the same conclusion.
Fig. 7 depicts the stress-strain behaviour of the sample Cement
1. In the beginning, axial and confining pressure as much as
700 and 1000 kPa respectively were applied to the sample and
a permeability test was conducted at this stage (first point in
permeability graph of figures 7 and 8). In the next stage, axial
and confining pressures as well as backpressure were
increased simultaneously. A small effective stress of 1000 kPa
for radial and 2000 kPa for axial were applied at this stage.
According to the permeability curve of Fig. 8, permeability of
the sample was increased after the second stage was
completed. This difference of permeability is due to the grain
compressibility, and therefore the increase of porosity of the
sample. In the next step, the depletion process is started. After
each 4 MPa depletion, a permeability test is performed. Fig. 7
shows that after almost 3 MPa of depletion at which porosity
of the sample has only slightly reduced, the sample starts to
extensively deform, which is an indication of pore collapse. In
this process, cementation of the sample is totally destroyed
and axial strain increases almost 4%, under almost constant
effective stresses. Increase in the permeability during the
course of pore collapse can be attributed to the breakage of the
grain-to-grain bonds as a result of the sample failure. Further
depletion reduced the porosity and permeability.
Figures 9 and 10 depict the behaviour of sample Cement 2.
The loading process was first to apply a small confining
pressure and axial stress to sit the membrane and pistons
attached to the sample. Then confining pressure and axial
stress and backpressure were increased to 51, 55 and 50 MPa
respectively. In this stage, porosity increased from 39 to
almost 50%. After the sample was brought to in-situ stress
state, the depletion process started. According to Fig. 9, pore
collapse took place at an effective axial stress of
approximately 8 MPa. After pore collapse occurred, the
compaction stage initiated and therefore porosity started
decreasing, as shown in Fig. 10. Consistent with the results
presented previously, permeability significantly dropped down
in this stage as shown in Fig. 10. During the unloading stage
of this sample, only a small portion of the deformation
returned, which indicates the highly plastic behaviour of the
sample as a result of pore collapse. This can be deduced from
changes in axial strain and porosity during unloading, as
shown in Figures 9 and 10.
Figures 11 and 12 show the results of a uniaxial strain test on
another cement sample. Unconfined compressive strength of
this sample measured 1.1 MPa. This sample was first brought
to in-situ stress state of 25000, 24700, 24000 KPa for axial
stress, confining pressure and back pressure respectively.
Depletion process then followed while measuring permeability
in each 4 MPa intervals. For this sample pore collapse took
place at a mean effective stress of 5000 kPa (axial effective
stress of 8070 kPa and radial effective stress of almost 3200
kPa). At the time of total stress increases in the beginning of
the test, porosity and permeability increased. With the start of
depletion process, porosity and permeability started
decreasing. In elastic domain, permeability significantly
decreased and the pore collapse more decreased the
permeability and porosity. Permeability rate decline dropped
in the depletion course, even though porosity continued its
steady decline. This fact indicates the important role of big
pores in fluid passage capability. Moreover, Figure 12 shows
a drop of permeability at the time pore collapse took place.
As for the synthetic samples, sample Synthetic 1, a confining
pressure of 16000 kPa, axial stress of 16500 kPa and
backpressure of 15000 kPa are applied on the sample. Then,
the sample pore pressure is depleted. Figures 13 and 14 show
the behaviour of the sample Synthetic 1. Fig. 13 shows that
pore collapse took place after the sample was depleted as
much as almost 10 MPa. Following pore collapse, pore
pressure was increased since pore fluid could not be expelled
instantly following pore collapse. Fig. 14 shows that the
porosity of the sample was decreased with increasing mean
effective stress. Following pore collapse, porosity decreased
sharply. This indicates more compressibility of the sample at
this stage. Permeability of the sample also shows a significant
change from almost 2000 mD in the beginning of the test to
almost 7 mD at the end of the test.
Synthetic 2, on the other hand, did not show a distinctive pore
collapse. In this sample, first axial stress of 16000 kPa,
confining pressure of 15700 kPa and backpressure of 15000
kPa have been applied on the sample. This followed by the
depletion process. The high axial strain in the beginning of the
loading process, shown in Fig. 15, seems to be due to the
separate of the sample from the end pistons. This theory is
confirmed in Fig. 16, where the porosity of the sample did not
change in that stage. Fig. 16 shows a constant rate decrease of
porosity with an increase of mean effective stress in the
depletion course. Permeability change of the sample also
shows a similar trend. Less compressibility of the sample in
higher stress conditions also clearly shows the compaction
behaviour of the sample from the beginning of the loading
process.
Conclusion
In both elastic and plastic segments of behaviour, undrained
increase of stresses highly increases porosity and permeability.
Permeability increased as much as 60% in the MBH sample in
elastic range, while this increase was more significant in the
cement sample. Porosity was also increased in this stage as
much as 10 to 25% in cement and synthetic samples. This
IPTC 11657
change, as well as the amount of pressure increase, would be
very different for various samples.
In those circumstances in which pore collapse is a plausible
mechanism, permeability of the sample can change
significantly. A difference must be noticed between the
behaviour of the sample at the time of pore collapse and
afterwards. When pore collapse takes place, porosity of the
sample may significantly decrease while cement bonds of the
grains break. Permeability of the sample in this stage may be
enhanced because of porosity decrease, as a result of cement
breakage. But clearly in the compaction phase after pore
collapse, permeability always decreases. In some of the
samples permeability decreased as much as two orders of
magnitude.
Finally, it should be noted that there is a considerable
difference between the behaviour of the material near and far
from the wellbore. Inside the reservoir, uniaxial strain
condition (or near to this state) dictates the stress path of the
medium. Therefore, volumetric deformation and thus failure
mechanism are usually predominant. In the well face on the
other hand, shear failure mode is predominant and therefore
dilation of the material after yield may significantly enhance
permeability in the shear failed zone.
Acknowledgement
The authors appreciate the financial support provided by
different Canadian industrial and governmental organizations
to carry this research work.
Nomenclature
C bc Bulk sample compressibility
Cr Grain Compressibility
Pc Mean total stress
Pp Pore pressure
Bulk volume
Vb
Vp Pore volume
Grains volume
Vr
Biot-Willis coefficient
Porosity
0 Initial Porosity
References
1. Hubbert, M.K., and Willis, D.G.: Mechanics of hydraulic
fracturing American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical,
and Engineers Petroleum Transactions, 1957, v. 210, p.
153-166, 1958.
2. Voight, B.: Stress History and Rock Stress, Proc.,
Third Intl. Congress of the Society of Rock Mechanics,
Part A, 508-582(3), 1974.
3. Rosepiler. M.J.: Determination of Principal Stresses and
Confinement of Hydraulic Fractures in Cotton Valley,
paper SPE 8405 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, 1979.
5
4. Ruistuen, H., Teufel, L.W., and Rhett, D.: Influence of
reservoir stress path on deformation and permeability of
weakly cemented sandstone reservoir, SPE-36535, in
Annual technical conference and exhibition proceedings,
v. omega, Formation evaluation and reservoir geology:
Society of Petroleum Engineers, p. 463-470, 1996.
5. Schutjens, P.M.T.M. et al.: Completion-Induced
Porosity/Permeability Reduction in Sandstone Reservoirs:
Data and Model for Elasticity-Dominated Deformation,
SPE 71337, Annual technical conference, Loisiana, 2001.
6. Lawrence W.T., Douglas, Rhett W., Farrell, H.E.: Effect
of Reservoir Depletion and Pore Pressure Drawdown on
In Situ Stress and Deformation in the Ekofisk Field, North
Sea, Rock Mechanics and Multidisiplinary Science,
Balkema, Rotterdom, 1991.
7. Hamilton, J.M., Shafer, J.L: Measurement of Pore
Compressibility Charachteristics in Rock Exhibiting Pore
Collapse and Volumetric Creep, SCA conference paper
Number 9124, 1991.
8. Soares, A.C., Ferreira, F.H.: An Experimental Study for
Mechanical Formation Damage, SPE international
symposium and exhibition on formation damage control,
Lafayette, Louisiana, 2002.
9. Ditzhuijzen, P.J.D., Waal, J.A: Reservoir Compaction
and Surface Subsidence in the Central Luconia Gas
bearing Carbonates, Offshore Sarwak, East Malaysia,
SPE 5th offshore south east Asia conference, Singapore,
1984.
10. Smits, R.M.M., Waal, A., Kooten, J.F.C.: Prediction of
Abrupt Reservoir Compaction and Surface Subsidence
Due to Pore Collapse in Carbonates, 61th annual SPE
conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1986.
11. Tronvol, J., M.B. Dusseault, F. Sanfilippo, and F.J.
Santarelli: The Tools of Sand Management, SPE 71673,
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, Louisiana, 2001.
12. Holt, R. M., Kenter, C. J., Unander, T. E., Santarelli, F.:
Unloading effects on Mechanical Properties of a Very
Weak Artifical Sandstone: Application to Coring,
Geotechnical Engineering of Hard Soils-Soft Rocks,
Balkema, 1993.
13. Belhaj, H.A., Ryan, R.J., Butt, S.D., Frempong, P.,
Donald, A. and Islam, M.R.: A New Coupled Fluid
Flow/Stress Model for Porous Media Behaviour:
Numerical Modeling and Experimental Investigation,
SPE 90265, 2004 SPE International Petroleum
Conference, Puebla, Mexico, 2004.
14. Palmer, I., Moschovidid, Z, and Cameron, J.: Coal
Failure and Consequences for Coalbed Methane Wells,
SPE 96872-MS, SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, TX, 2005.
15. Wu, B., Mohamed, N.A., Tan, C.P., Sukahar, M.W,
Hong, T.Y., Viswanathan, C. and Yee, H.V.: An
Integrated Wellbore Stability and Sand-Production
Prediction Study for a Multifield Gas Development,
SPE 101087-MS, SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference
and Exhibition, Adelaide, Australia, 2006.
6 IPTC 11657

120000 12000

100000 10000

80000 8000
effective axial

radial stress
60000 6000

40000 4000

20000 2000

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
axial strain axial stress

Figure 1. Axial stress increases under Figure 2. Radial stress increases under
uniaxial strain condition uniaxial strain condition while axial stress increases

70000

60000
50
45
Effective axial stress

50000
40
Permeability (mD)

35 40000
30 -0.6776
y = 20975x
25 2
30000
R = 0.9858
20
20000
15
10
10000
5
0 0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95
mean effective stresses (kPa) axial strain

Figure 3. Permeability decreases with mean Figure 4. Axial loading of sample under a confining
effective stress increase pressure of 3500 kPa and back pressure of 2000 kPa

0.045 25000 49

0.04
47
e ffective stresse s (kPa), Pe rmeability

20000
0.035
45
Permeability (mD)

0.03
15000 effective axial
43
porosity

0.025 effective radial

(mD)

0.02 permeability
41
10000 porosity
0.015
39
0.01
5000
0.005 37

0 0 35
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 0 5 10
mean effective stresses (kPa) axial strain

Figure 5. Depletion of the sample under uniaxial Figure 6. Permeability change of MH samples with
strain condition mean effective stress increase
IPTC 11657 7

1600 49
40000 53

1400 47 51

Effe ctive stre sse s (kPa), Pe rme ability

35000

1200 49
45 30000
perme ability (mD)

1000 47
25000 effective axial

porosity
43
permeability

porosity
45 effective radial

(mD)
800
20000
41 porosity permeability
43
600 15000 porosity
39 41
400
10000
39
200 37
5000 37
0 35
0 35
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
0 2 4 6 8
mean effe ctive stress (kPa) axial strain

Figure 7. Physical and mechanical behavior of Cement Figure 8. Variation of petrophysical properties of
Sample 1 Cement Sample 1 with mean effective stress

1800 55 30000 42

1600 53
effe ctive stresse s (kPa), Permeability

41
25000
1400 51

49 40
pe rme ability (mD)

1200 20000
47 effective axial
39

Porosity
porosity

1000 permeability effective radial

(mD)

45 15000
800 porosity permeability (mD)
38
43 porosity
600 10000
41 37
400 39
5000
36
200 37

0 35 0 35
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 0 1 2 3 4
me an e ffective stre ss (kPa) axial strain

Figure 9. Physical and mechanical behavior Figure 10. Variation of petrophysical properties
of Cement Sample 2 of Cement Sample 2 with mean effective stress

6000 42 25000 50

45
41
5000
20000 40
40 35
Pe rme ability (mD)

4000
15000 30 effective axial
porosity

39
Porosity

permeability effective radial

3000 25
porosity permeability
38 10000 20 porosity
2000
37 15

5000 10
1000
36
5

0 35 0 0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 -2 3 8 13 18
Me an effective stre ss (KPa) axial strain

Figure 11. Physical and mechanical behavior Figure 12. Variation of petrophysical properties of Cement
of Cement Sample 3 Sample 3 with mean effective stress
8 IPTC 11657

25000 50 2500 46

45
44
20000 40 2000
42
35

pe rme ability (mD)

15000 30 effective axial 40
1500

porosity

porosity
effective radial permeability
25 38
permeability
porosity
10000 20 porosity 1000
36
15
34
5000 10 500
5 32

0 0 0 30
-2 3 8 13 18 0 5000 10000 15000
axial strain me an e ffective stre ss (kPa)

Figure 13. Physical and mechanical behavior Figure 14. Variation of petrophysical properties of
of Synthetic 1 Synthetic 1 with mean effective stress

30 30 47

25000
25 25 45
Effective Stresses (kPa)

20000
permeability (mD)

pe rme ability (mD)

20 20 43
effective axial

porosity
15000 permeability
15 effective radial 15 41
porosity
permeability
10000 10 10 39

5000 5
5 37

0 0
0 35
0 5 10 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
axial strain me an e ffe ctive stre ss (kPa)

Figure 15. Physical and mechanical behavior of Figure 16. Variation of petrophysical properties of
Synthetic 2 Synthetic 2 with mean effective stress
IPTC 11657 9

UCS
Sample Initial Porosity d (gr/cm3) sat (gr/cm3)
(MPa)
23 2.00 2.23 45
MH
13 2.24 2.37 57
GSF
39 1.55 1.92 ~0.50
Cement 1
39,39,39,39 1.59,1.56, 1.54 1.98,1.95,1.91 ~0.7,0.50, 0.50
Cement 2 (3,5,6)
34,37 1.71,1.64 2.05,2.01 1.01,1.15
Cement 3 (8,9,10)
40 1.61 2.00 ~0.75
Synthetic 1
40 1.61 2.00 ~0.75
Synthetic 2

Table 1. Characteristics of the samples used in the experimental program

Sample Sand Weight (gr) Cement/Sand ratio Water/Cement weight ratio

Cement 1 416.5 11.4 1.25

Cement 2-3 428.4 11.1 1.00

Table 2. Composition of materials used for making cement samples