ARMA 09-89

Aspects of Coupling Between Petroleum Reservoir Flow and Geomechanics

David Tran Computer Modelling Group Ltd. Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2L 2A6 Long Nghiem Computer Modelling Group Ltd. Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2L 2A6 Lloyd Buchanan Computer Modelling Group Ltd. Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2L 2A6
Copyright 2009 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association This paper was prepared for presentation at Asheville 2009, the 43rd US Rock Mechanics Symposium and 4th U.S.-Canada Rock Mechanics Symposium, held in Asheville, NC June 28th July 1, 2009. This paper was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical and critical review of the paper by a minimum of two technical reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of ARMA, its 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: Several aspects of coupling between reservoir fluid flow and geomechanics deformation are examined, namely accuracy, adaptability and running speed. Four different widely used time-coupling techniques (full, iterative, explicit and pseudo) are reviewed and evaluated based on these three aspects. This paper focuses on the iterative time-coupling approach with detailed discussions on how reservoir porosity and absolute permeability are changed with geomechanics. In addition, dual-grid coupling techniques are evaluated with respect to memory storage and CPU requirements for a large field problem. A SAGD example compares fluid-flow and geomechanics results obtained from pseudo coupling versus iterative coupling approaches. A waterflood example shows how iterative time-based coupling method is combined with the dual-grid coupling method to improve CPU speed. In a compaction example where modelling of country rock is crucial, the dual-grid coupling method avoids non-conforming grids when local grid refinement is used around a producing well.

Keywords: full coupling, iterative coupling, explicit coupling, pseudo coupling, grid coupling, reservoir porosity, true porosity, absolute permeability, geomechanics, deformation.

1. INTRODUCTION
Recently, the role of geomechanics has proven to be important in petroleum reservoir studies. With the help of geomechanics, many oil-field physical phenomena such as compaction [1,2], subsidence [3,4], wellbore failure [5,6] and sand production [7,8] can be explained. A conventional simulator normally does not incorporate stress changes and deformation in response to pressure and temperature changes but instead assumes that total stress and bulk volume do not change. Therefore, in a conventional simulator, the porosity is normally computed solely from rock compressibility and thermal compressibility. Rock and thermal compressibilities measured in a lab usually involve a small sample of reservoir rock subjected to certain boundary conditions. This configuration corresponds to simple reservoir cases in which shear stresses are neglected and plastic deformation occurs in only one direction. In general, a conventional simulator cannot predict accurate results without the help of geomechanics when non-linear materials, complex stress paths, external loads, multiple dimensions and nontrivial boundary conditions are taken into account. The fundamentals of geomechanics are based on Terzaghis theory of effective stress and Biots generalized 3D theory of consolidation; on the other hand, the

fundamentals of reservoir flow are based on Darcys fluidflow law and the conservation of mass and energy. These physical phenomena do interact, so stress, pressure and fluid flow in a porous medium will influence each other. Hence, effective coupling between geomechanics and reservoir flow is necessary for a deformable porous medium in which pressure, temperature, fluid flow, deformation and stress must be integrated thoroughly. Coupling between reservoir flow and geomechanics has been discussed by many authors. Each type of coupling has advantages and disadvantages, and each one is used depending on the kind of problem and authors point of view. Nevertheless, any coupling approach should satisfy these aspects to some degree: Accuracy: A coupling approach must give reasonable and consistent results. Numerical results using a fine grid should approximate closely an analytical solution if one is available. Otherwise, the coupling method should be able to match established benchmark results. Adaptability: A good coupling approach should allow any fluid-flow simulator to be coupled with any geomechanics simulator without large code changes. Adaptability also facilitates the subsequent maintenance of the code system.

Running Speed: This factor is important for practical full-field simulations that involve millions of cells. Even though computer technology in recent years has advanced significantly, long run times are a concern for reservoir engineers working within a project time frame. These three aspects can be visualized as the corners of a triangle (Fig. 1). Like a point inside the triangle, a coupling approach can be strong in one or two aspects but usually does not excel in all three. For example, when one coupling approach has good running speed and adaptability, it might not be accurate as desired.
Adaptability

Iterative coupling: The fluid-flow and geomechanics equation-variable subsystems are solved separately and sequentially [11,12]. The total system is converged when the most restrictive tolerance of changes in pressure, stress or porosity is satisfied. The success of this approach depends strongly on the selection of variables to exchange information between the two simulators, as well as the allowed number of coupling iterations. This method is capable of accuracy close to the full coupling approach, with better running speed depending on the degree of non-linearity. This approach is quite adaptable once the two simulators agree on the exchange variables. On Fig. 1 this method might be located near the centre. Explicit coupling: Information is transferred from the fluid-flow simulator to the geomechanics calculations, but there is no feedback in the other direction. [13,14]. This approach is also called one-way coupling. This coupling method is quite adaptable and very fast since the geomechanics simulator is run entirely as a postprocessing step. However, accuracy can suffer significantly since the reservoir flow does not depend on geomechanics. This method would sit on the lower left side of Fig. 1. Pseudo coupling: Empirical relations between porosity and vertical displacement or stress are used in fluid-flow calculations to approximate phenomena such as compaction and dilation [14,15]. There is no use of a geomechanics module per se. Essentially, simple formulae are implemented in a reservoir simulator to approximately compute local heave and subsidence during a recovery process. Running speed is high, and adaptability is high once the empirical formula is coded. However, this method does not produce geomechanics information (e.g. stress field). Even so, this kind of coupling has been used widely to do history matches for flow and pressure [16]. This approach is suitable for a project with a limited time frame. This coupling method would sit near the middle left side of Fig. 1. Spatial Coupling (Grid) Both the fluid-flow and geomechanics simulator deal with space (volumes) discretized into grids, so spatial coupling between them is required. However, to model their respective physical phenomena the two simulators may need gridding in different places or with different resolutions. For example, geomechanics calculations need gridding in the overburden, the underburden and the sideburden but fluid flow calculations do not. Also, fluid flow around wells and sharp fluid fronts may need cells that much smaller than those required by geomechanics calculations. In general, grid coupling can be divided into two types [17]:

Running speed
Fig.1. Balancing of coupling aspects

Accuracy

Time-Based Coupling (Implicitness) A fluid-flow simulation is inherently time-based, starting from initial conditions and advancing through time by discrete time steps. Geomechanics calculations themselves are not time-based, but the estimated deformation and hence pore volume changes can be fed back to the timebased fluid-flow solution. The frequency or degree to which the geomechanics solution is kept up-to-date with the fluid-flow solution is called the implicitness of the coupling. The implicitness coupling method has a strong influence on running speed and computational accuracy and can be categorized as follows: Full coupling: Flow variables (pressure, temperature) and geomechanics variables (stresses, displacements) are solved simultaneously through a system of equations [9,10]. It normally gives reliable and accurate solutions which can be used as benchmarks for other coupling approaches. However, this approach requires the solution of a large matrix which can result in a low running speed. In addition, the mixing of fluid-flow and geomechanics equations gives low adaptability, especially when dealing with elastoplastic materials. The full coupling approach would appear in Fig. 1 almost completely in the Accuracy corner.

Single-grid system: The fluid-flow and geomechanics simulators use the same grid, at least at the start of the run. The geomechanics grid may deform but keeps a one-toone correspondence with the fluid-flow grid. This grid coupling method often results in a larger number of grid cells than either simulator needs for itself. This can affect running speed and memory usage drastically, especially since the geomechanics simulator often solves many more equations per cell than the fluid flow simulator. Dual-grid system: The fluid-flow and geomechanics simulators use different grids. Often the geomechanics grid covers a larger volume to capture country rock and can use a coarser grid if local deformation effects are not extreme. This grid coupling method requires a mapping algorithm between the grids. These grid coupling methods can be used with any of the time-based (implicitness) coupling approaches. The iterative time-based coupling approach is the main focus here since it is flexible and has been successfully used in many practical applications [18,19]. In addition, when the dual-grid system is used with the iterative coupling, CPU time is reduced drastically for many large field scale problems [17]. Test examples are discussed to illustrate the above coupling methods. In this work, the sign convention for compressive stress is positive.

For simplicity, the basic flow equations for a singlecomponent single-phase flow system can be stated as follows [14]: 2.1. Mass flow equation: combines mass conservation and Darcys law of fluid flow in a porous medium.
k * f f [p f b] = Q f t

(1)

2.2. Conservation of energy: used only when temperature varies with time in a reservoir.
k * f U f + 1 * r U r + f (p f b )H f t
(T ) = Qh

(2)

The porosity used in these two equations is called reservoir porosity which is defined as [21]:
* = Reservoir porosity = Current pore volume Vp = 0 Initial bulk volume Vb

(3)

Contrast this to the true porosity defined as:

= True porosity = Current pore volume Vp = Current bulk volume Vb

(4)

The relationship between those two porosities is:

* = (1 v )

(5)

2. BASIC EQUATIONS
Basic equations for coupled fluid flow and deformation consist of two sets: one for fluid flow in porous media and another set for solid deformation. The fluid-flow equations include conservation of mass and energy, Darcys law and equation of state for fluid; the basic equations for solid deformation describe force equilibrium, the straindisplacement relation and the constitutive relation for the solid. These equations are developed on the basis of continuum at the macroscopic scale where average porosity remains constant [20]. At this scale, an integration volume called REV (Representation Element Volume) corresponds closely, if not exactly, to the reservoir simulation concept of grid cell that results from the spatial discretization of fluid flow equations.
Gas

where: v = ( Vb0 Vb )/ Vb0 is the volumetric strain. In a conventional reservoir simulator, the grid does not deform or move on a bulk basis, that is, the bulk volume of each cell remains constant during the simulation time. In order to take into account the change of bulk volume computed by geomechanics, a relationship between reservoir porosity and stress must be established as discussed in the section on porosity formula. For small strain, the basic equations of a deformable porous medium can be stated as: 2.3. Force equilibrium equation:
rB = 0

(6)

(7)

Liquid

2.4. Small strain and displacement relation:

=
1 T u + (u) 2

(8)

Solid

2.5. Total and effective stress relation:

= + p I

Fig.2. Representative Element Volume (REV)

(9)

2.6. Constitutive relation for solid rock:

= C : T I

(10)

 E r (1 2 ) for 3D and plane strain = E r for plane stress (1 )

(*k +1) = * + C 0 (p (k ) p n ) + C1 (T(k ) Tn ) n n n

(13)

(11a,b)

where:
C 0 = (c 0 + c 2 a1 )n n
C1 = (c1 + c 2 a 2 )n n
c0 = 1 dVp d dT + Vb c b m + Vp p 0 dp dp Vb dp

(14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20)

By substituting the above equations into the force equilibrium equation, the displacement equation can be obtained:
1 T C : u + (u) = r B - [(p T )I ] 2

(12)

Equations (1), (2), and (12) must be solved for the three primary variables {u,p,T}. The full coupling approach would solve for the three unknowns simultaneously using an iterative technique (e.g., Newtons method). However, this paper uses the iterative coupling approach where the two fluid-flow equations are solved together for p and T which are then used in equation (12) to solve for strain. Based on the updated geomechanics information, new values of p and T and then strain are recomputed. This process is repeated until convergence is achieved. Compared to the full coupling approach, the iterative coupling approach has reduced coupling between the fluid-flow and geomechanics equations, so some problems may require more (Newton) iterations. However, the iterative coupling approach can handle efficiently the very different convergence behavior of the two equation sets and may result in faster run time. This is especially true for problems with highly non-linear solid material properties.

c1 =

Vp
0 Vb

c2 =

Vb
0 Vb

c b

2 E (c b c r ) a1 = 9 (1 )

2 E p a 2 = 9 (1 )

p(k) : pressure at kth Newtons iteration pn Tn : pressure at previous time step n : temperature at previous time step n T(k) : temperature at kth Newtons iteration

* : reservoir porosity at previous time step n n * : reservoir porosity at kth Newtons iteration k
m p : factor that depends on the prescribed boundary conditions : mean total stress : volumetric thermal expansion coefficient

3. COUPLING VARIABLES
In the fluid-flow equations (1) and (2), the effect of geomechanics on fluid flow is through reservoir porosity (*) and absolute permeability tensor (k), whereas in the geomechanics equation (12) the effect of the fluid is through pore pressure and temperature. In other words, pressure and temperature induce changes of geomechanical variables whereas porosity and permeability via stress and deformation induce changes of reservoir variables. Since mass conservation depends mostly on pore volume and less on permeability, the iterative coupling approach uses reservoir porosity as the primary coupling variable along with pressure and temperature. Therefore, the relationship between porosity and geomechanical responses is important. 3.1. Reservoir Porosity There are many porosity formulae developed by various authors. In this work, the porosity formula developed by Tran et al. [21] is adopted for the iterative coupling approach. The formula was developed on the fundamental of continuum mechanics within one time step of computation:

The geomechanics simulator generates coefficients C 0 n (rock compressibility) and C1 (thermal compressibility) n so that changes in bulk volume, pore volume, mean total stress and effects of boundary conditions are all taken into account. These coefficients are analogous to the familiar compressibility and thermal expansion coefficient, but they change with time for each cell in the fluid-flow grid. The geomechanics simulator provides not just porosity values but local porosity functions which can be used by the fluid-flow simulator to solve for p and T. This porosity function makes it possible for the fluid-flow simulator to maximize its use of geomechanics information while keeping porosity continuous with time. 3.2. Absolute permeability Absolute permeability can be computed by two different approaches:

(i) Directly related to geomechanics: permeability is a direct function of volumetric strain or mean effective stress. An absolute permeability is generated by the geomechanics simulator and passed to the fluid-flow simulator.
Reservoir Grid (RG) Geomechanics Grid (GG)

equation (21) gives a value not related to geomechanics. In the iterative coupling approach, reservoir porosity is considered a primary coupling variable whereas absolute permeability is considered a secondary coupling variable. Both variables can have strong effects on the flow simulation. A general flow chart including the iterative time-based coupling approach and dual-grid coupling approach [17] is shown in Fig. 3. The reservoir grid (RG) and geomechanical grid (GG) are defined independently. The only restriction is that there must be some overlap so that the relation between the two grids can be set up. The fluid-flow grid can be a subset of the geomechanics grid or vice versa, as illustrated in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5. The explicit time-based coupling method (no feedback from geomechanics to the fluid-flow simulator) uses neither the porosity coefficients nor the ng loop in Fig. 3. On the other hand, the iterative time-based coupling approach uses both the porosity coefficients (feedback from geomechanics to fluid-flow) and the ng loop. Control exits the ng loop when a convergence criterion is satisfied, e.g., porosity from Equation (13) is close enough to the geomechanics value. In Fig.3, the CRITERION of pressure, porosity or mean total stress is used for the loop of coupling iteration which provides enough feedback to obtain a solution as the fully coupled method. CI stands for coupling iteration. The condition is checked whether the loop of coupling iteration is employed.

Establish geometrical relationships between reservoir grids and geomechanics grids

ng = 0

Compute P, T , on RG Mapping P and T from RG to GG

Compute u, , on GG n=n+1 (timesteps) * Mapping u, , from geomechanics grids (GG) to reservoir grids (RG) * Compute m, v as well as other geomechanics variables on RG * Output variables and grid deformation on RG and GG

ng = ng + 1 (coupling iterations)

Compute coefficients for porosity formula on RG Compute permeability on RG

NO

CI NO

YES

CRITERION OK?

YES

Geomechanics Grid

Fig. 3: A general flowchart for iterative time-based coupling and dual-grid coupling A simple form of permeability formula suggested by Li and Chalaturnyk [23] can be stated as:
ln (k / k 0 ) = C n1 v
Reservoir Grid

where k and k0 are permeability at current and initial conditions (v = 0), respectively and Cn1 is a parameter that is determined by matching laboratory measurements. (ii) Indirectly related or non-related to geomechanics: permeability is solely a function of reservoir porosity [24]. One of the formulae of this type is:
* 0 k = k 0 exp k mul 1 0

Fig. 4: Reservoir is a subset of geomechanics

Geomechanics Grid

(21)

where kmul is a multiplier and 0 is the initial porosity. Note that if the porosity is determined by a geomechanics simulator, permeability defined by Equation (21) is indirectly related to geomechanics. In explicit or pseudo time-based coupling method, reservoir porosity normally is obtained from an empirical formula, in which case

Reservoir Grid

Fig. 5: Geomechanics is a subset of reservoir

4. CASE STUDIES
These studies are based on Computer Modelling Groups STARS (Steam, Thermal and Advanced processes Reservoir Simulator) and CMGs geomechanics module. 4.1. Example 1: SAGD problem This is an example of Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) for heavy oil recovery. Bitumen in a reservoir is heated by a horizontal steam injector so that the oil viscosity around the injector will be decreased. This allows oil and condensed water to flow to lower layers where they are collected by a lower horizontal producing well. A reservoir model is illustrated in Fig. 6. Grid resolution used in the model is 29125 in Cartesian coordinates.

i)

Elastic loading path (Line 1-2): Fluid injection causes the pressure to increase in an elastic state from starting point 1 to point 2 where plastic behaviour starts. Dilation loading path (Line 2-3): Continued pressure rise causes the material to behave in a plastic manner.

ii)

iii) Elastic unloading path (Line 3-4): After injection changes to production, pressure reduces elastically from the higher porosity. iv) Recompaction path (Line 4-5): Continued pressure decrease results in a switch to plastic behaviour. v) Elastic reloading path (Line 5-6): When injection resumes, pressure increases and the material behaves elastically until it hits the dilation path (Line 2-3) again.

(ii) Iterative coupling: The geomechanics simulator uses a pseudo dilation constitutive model which mimics the empirical model just described (Fig. 7) by allowing a different value of Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio for each path. In this particular example, each path has the same value of Poissons ratio; all the elastic paths have the same value of Youngs modulus; and the Dilation and Recompaction paths each have their own Youngs modulus. The Dilation path starts at a pressure of 2500 kPa and Recompaction path starts at a pressure of 2000 kPa. From Fig. 7 the compressibility for each path can be approximated as:
Fig. 6: Locations of horizontal injector and producer

Cr =

(22)

This reservoir model is simulated by two different timebased coupling approaches. (i) Pseudo coupling: The empirical dilation-recompaction model supports the complex pressure-porosity behavior sketched in Fig. 7.

so the Youngs modulus of each path is given by:

E=

(1 + )(1 2 ) 0 (1 )C r

(23)

Recompaction

Elastic unloading

Other data related to the reservoir model are given in Appendix A. Results obtained are illustrated in Figures 8 to 12. Fig. 8 shows the steam injector creating a chamber in which steam rises and heats the region above the injector (arrows are flow vectors). Condensed steam and in-situ water also flow to lower layers due to gravity. In Fig. 9, oil drains down to the lower regions after it is heated and mobilized. Oil and water are withdrawn by a producing well located near the bottom of the reservoir. These two coupling approaches give practically the same histories of average pressure and average temperature (Fig. 10) as well as cumulative liquid produced and injected (Fig. 11). However, the upward vertical displacements (heave) at the top centre of the reservoir (directly over the wells) is very different (Fig. 12). The pseudo coupling method gives a value that is about twice the value given by

3 6 2
Dilation

4 5 1
Elastic reloading

Elastic loading

p
Fig. 7: Empirical Dilation-Recompaction Model

In this model a complete process normally is divided into several stages, starting at point 1:

the iterative coupling method. This is because the pseudo coupling methods value is based only on porosity change in a vertical column of blocks and ignores the effects of stress and constraining boundary conditions.

Fig 11: Cumulative liquid (surface conditions) for the two wells

Fig.8: Circulation of steam in a heated chamber

Fig 12: Displacement at top centre of reservoir

4.2. Example 2: Waterflood problem This example from Deans paper [25] compares the running speed of a single-grid system versus a dual-grid system with a coarser geomechanics grid. A reservoir with dimensions 1260 ft 1260 ft 220 ft is modelled with a uniform 212111 Cartesian grid for fluid flow. The reservoir top is located at 4000 ft depth where the initial stresses are 2000 psi (horizontal) and 4000 psi (vertical). The stress gradients are 0.4628 psi/ft (horizontal) and 0.9256 psi/ft (vertical). The formation is linear elastic and homogenous with a Youngs modulus of 5104 psi, a Poissons ratio of 0.35 and an initial porosity of 0.3. The reservoir is constrained at the bottom and sides but is free to move at the top. The fluid consists of three phases: water, gas and oil.

Fig.9: Flowing liquid to a producing well

Fig 10: Histories of average pressure and average temperature

The reservoir is one quarter of a repeated five-spot pattern: in one corner water is injected at 500 bbl/d and in the opposite corner fluid is produced at 650 bbl/d (Fig. 13). Both wells are perforated in all 11 layers and operate for 9000 days. Other data related to this study can be found in Appendix B and in Dean et al. The iterative time-based coupling method is used. This example looks at the effect of changing the resolution of the geomechanical grid (GG) while keeping the fluid-flow grid (FG) unchanged.
Table 1: Comparison of Geomechanics Grid cases Resolution I, J cell CPU Time size (ft) Ratio 60 1 Case 1 21 21 11 84 0.7 Case 2 15 15 11 126 0.5 Case 3 10 10 11

Figures 15, 16 and 17 show that the recovery results of these cases are very close to Deans results; in these figures, only Case 1 results are shown for clarity.

Table 1 summarizes the different areal grid resolutions used for the geomechanics grid, with the resulting CPU running time ratios. As expected, decreasing the number of geomechanical cells reduces running time (increases speed). Fig. 14 shows the geomechanics grid for Case 3.

Fig. 15: Average pressure and subsidence at grid (6,6,1)

Fig. 16: Water oil ratio and gas oil ratio

Fig.13: Locations of injector and producer

Fig.17: Displacement and mean effective stress Fig. 14: Geomechanics grids for Case 3

Since the geomechanical grids in Cases 2 and 3 are coarser in the I and J directions, the corresponding displacements may be affected. Fig. 17 shows histories of mean effective stress and displacement along I (or X) direction at the top centre fine-grid location (11,11,1). All three cases give almost the same mean effective stress. Cases 1 and 2 give the same displacement and Case 3 (the coarsest geomechanics grid) differs only modestly. If the results of Case 3 shown in figures 15, 16 and 17 are acceptable, the CPU saving of 50% is significant. This is the key advantage of a dual-grid coupling method used together with the iterative time-based coupling approach. 4.3. Example 3: Compaction problem In this example the fluid-flow reservoir volume is a small subset of the modelled geomechanics volume. The fluidflow grid (Cartesian 111110 with local 991 refinement - Fig. 18) is embedded in the geomechanics grid (Cartesian 484826 - Fig. 19) in dual-grid mode. A producing well is located at the center of the fluid-flow grid and perforated in K layers 1-10. This is a primary production process, where the well produces for 500 days at 15000 bbl per day with a minimum bottom-hole pressure of 500 psi. This example is a modified version of Deans case study #1 [25]. More information can be found in Appendix C. This example illustrates two issues. 1. Non-conforming grids: A single-grid system requires that the finite-element geomechanics grid conform to the fluid-flow grid. In this example local refinement of the fluid-flow grid would result in non-conforming finite elements, which would require special treatment and still would not guarantee a consistent solution. Instead, a dual-grid system is used whereby the geomechanics grid does not attempt to conform to the fluid-flow grid but is related to it by a consistent twoway mapping technique. This is a convenient and consistent way to handle both the fluid-flow local refinement and the coverage of a large volume of surrounding rock by the geomechanics grid. 2. Surrounding rock: This example considers the effect of the strength (and absence) of surrounding rock (Table 2). The fluid-flow reservoir formation has Youngs module E = 104 psi.
Table 2: Surrounding rock cases Case 1 Surrounding rock E = 104 psi Case 2 Surrounding rock E = 106 psi Case 3 No surrounding rock Fig. 18: Reservoir grid and local refinement

Fig.19: Reservoir and surrounding rock (Cases 1 and 2)

Fig. 20 shows subsidence at the centre of the fluid-flow reservoir, at grid cell (coarse: 6,6,1; fine: 5,5,1). Subsidence is lowest in Case 2 since the surrounding rock is hardest; it is higher in Case 1 since the surrounding rock is softer; and it is highest in Case 3 since there is no constraint at the top of reservoir. The effect of compaction can be seen in Fig. 21 where cumulative oil production is high in Cases 1 and 3 but low in Case 2. Fig. 22 shows that average pressure decreases faster in Case 2 than in Cases 1 and 3 (no surrounding rock). These results show that the effect of surrounding rock on the effective compressibility of a reservoir can depend significantly on the strength of the surrounding rock (represented by Youngs modulus). The surrounding rock acts like a backbone or frame which holds back the reservoir formation when it compresses due to pressure depletion. The higher the strength of the backbone (Youngs modulus E), the more resistance there is to deformation in the fluid-flow reservoir. It is assumed in this example that the reservoir and surrounding formations remain intact.

Generally in primary production, bottom-hole pressure (BHP) decreases with fluid withdrawal until the wells BHP limit is reached. These three cases have the same constant fluid withdrawal rate and BHP limit. Fig. 23 shows that the Case 2 BHP drops to its limit much faster than the other two cases. This is because in the fluidcontaining region, the effective compressibility (via deformation) is lower due to the strong backbone effect discussed above. Ignoring the effect of surrounding rock may lead to an incorrect estimation of total production as well as average pressure of the reservoir after depletion. This backbone phenomenon is rarely seen in a conventional reservoir simulator since the geomechanical effect of surrounding rock is not taken into account.

Fig.22: Average fluid pressure

Fig. 20: Subsidence at reservoir centre

Fig.23: Well bottom-hole pressure

5. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Aspects of coupling between fluid-flow simulation and geomechanics calculations are illustrated through three examples. In Example 1, a SAGD problem is studied using two separate time-based coupling approaches: pseudo coupling and iterative coupling. The pseudo coupling method is faster; the run time is about half of the run time of the iterative coupling method since it does not involve the use of a geomechanics simulator but simply computes subsidence through a special porosity function implemented in the fluid-flow simulator. The results in terms of flow variables compare well with those obtained from the iterative coupling approach. However, vertical displacement is quite different from the iterative coupling method. Furthermore, the pseudo coupling approach does not give any related information of stresses or horizontal strain which can used to analyze the possible failure of rock and well casing.

Fig.21: Cumulative oil production

Example 2 considers a waterflood problem in which the iterative time-based coupling method is combined with the dual-grid coupling method to improve CPU speed. It examines three resolutions for the geomechanics grid while the fluid-flow grid is unchanged. Results of all three cases match Deans results well. The three cases show differences in I (or J) direction displacement, which increases with decrease in geomechanics grid resolution. In Fig. 17 the displacement of Case 3 shows more difference than Case 2 when both are compared to Case 1. If the displacement error of Case 3 is acceptable, a speedup factor of two can be obtained over Case 1. Therefore, this dual-grid coupling is an efficient option which can reduce the memory storage for geomechanics simulation and increase running speed for flow-deformation coupling. In Example 3 iterative time-based coupling and dualgrid coupling are used to study a compaction problem in which primary production is performed with a producing well located at the centre of the reservoir. The fluid-flow reservoir is embedded in the geomechanics field but, unlike the first two examples, the fluid-flow reservoir floats and moves freely in the geomechanics domain. The geomechanics grid is constrained at the bottom and sides but not at the top. In fact, the fluid-flow reservoir is effectively being compacted by the surrounding (county) rock. A single-grid coupling method would have required a much larger fluid-flow grid to cover the geomechanics domain, with the attendant negative effect on running speed. Another feature of Example 3 is the application of local refinement in the fluid-flow grid around the well. A single-grid coupling method would have required nonconforming finite elements which are troublesome in geomechanics computation. However, this becomes one of the advantages of the dual-grid coupling method: use a geomechanics grid without any non-conforming finite elements but keep the local refinement in the fluid-flow grid. Analyzing results of Example 3 also leads to an important point: oil production of a reservoir can be affected strongly by its surrounding rock. With the assumption that the reservoir rock and its surrounding rock are elastic and intact, the oil production is high when the strength of the surrounding block is comparable to the reservoir rock, but the production is low when the strength of surrounding rock is higher than the reservoir rock. In conclusion, a good coupling approach should satisfy simultaneously 3 conditions: accuracy, adaptability and CPU speed. Depending on the specific problem, the selected coupling approach should fit the project time frame. The coupling involves both the transfer of timebased information from a flow simulator to a geomechanics module and the mapping between the two grid systems. With the combination of a grid coupling technique and one of the time-based coupling approaches (fully coupling, iterative coupling and

explicit coupling), acceptable results can be obtained with reasonable memory storage and running speed. Furthermore, the dual-grid coupling method also helps to avoid non-conforming finite elements, which cause problems in numerical accuracy and stability when local grid refinement is used in the fluid-flow simulator. Generally, although the fully coupled approach is good for obtaining benchmark solutions, it is not very adaptable and may require large run time for highly nonlinear problems. The iterative coupling approach is more adaptable and efficient, and provides accurate solutions for non-linear problems if sufficient coupling iterations are allowed. The explicit coupling approach is very adaptable and efficient but the solutions may not be accurate for some problems. The pseudo coupling approach gives quick flow results but no detailed geomechanics information, except for approximate vertical displacements. Grid coupling can be used with time-based coupling approaches to improve CPU speed, avoid numerical stability caused by non-conforming finite elements and accommodate a geomechanics domain different extent from a reservoir domain NOMENCLATURE
b B C cb cs Cr E h Hf Hr I k p q Qf Qh R T u Uf Ur v vf vr Vb Vb0 Vp p

= body force /unit mass of fluid (m/s2) = body force/ unit mass of solid grain (m/s2) = tangential stiffness tensor (psi | kPa) = bulk compressibility (1/psi | 1/kPa) = solid grain compressibility (1/psi | 1/kPa) = rock compressibility (1/psi | 1/kPa) = Youngs modulus (psi | kPa) = heat supply per unit mass per unit time (J/kg/s) = enthalpy of fluid (J/gmole) = enthalpy of solid grain (J/m3) = identity matrix = absolute permeability tensor (m2 | ft2) = pressure (psi | kPa) = heat flux vector (J/m2) = Flow rate of fluid at source or sink location = heat loss or gain (J) = rotation tensor (m/m) = temperature (C | F ) = displacement vector (m/s | ft/s) = internal energy of fluid (J/gmole) = internal energy of solid grain (J/m3) = superficial velocity vector (m/s | ft/s) = velocity vector of fluid (m/s | ft/s) = velocity vector of solid grain (m/s | ft/s) = current bulk volume (m3 | ft3) = initial bulk volume (m3 | ft3) = current pore volume (m3 | ft3) = Biots number = linear thermal coefficient of bulk volume (1/C | 1/F) = excess pore pressure (psi | kPa)

T v ii * 0 f r ii

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

change in temperature (C | F) volumetric strain of bulk volume normal strain in i direction (i = 1, 2, 3) factor Poissons ratio true porosity reservoir porosity initial porosity fluid viscosity (Pa.s) fluid density (kg/m3| lb/ft3) solid grain density (kg/m3| lb/ft3) total stress tensor (psi | kPa) effective stress tensor (psi | kPa) normal total stress in i direction (i = 1, 2, 3)

International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics. 33: 449-485.

11. Settari, A. and Mourits, F.M. 1998. A Coupled Reservoir and Geomechanical Simulation System. SPE Journal. 219-226. 12. Tran, D., Nghiem, L. and Buchanan, L. 2005. Improved Iterative Coupling of Geomechanics with Reservoir Simulator. Paper SPE 93244-PP presented at the 2005 SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, 31 Jan 2 February 2005. 13. Minkoff, S.E., Stone, C.M. Arguello, G., Bryant, S., Eaton, J., Peszynska, M. and, Wheeler, M. 1999. Staggered in Time Coupling of Reservoir Flow Simulation and Geomechanical Deformation: Step 1 One Way Coupling. Paper SPE 51920 presented at the 1999 SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, 14-17 February 1999. Texas: Houston. 14. Tran, D., Nghiem, L. and Buchanan, L. 2005. An Overview of Iterative Coupling Between Geomechanical Deformation and Reservoir Flow. Paper SPE 97879 presented at the 2005 International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary, 1-3 November 2005. 15. Espinoza, E.E. 1983. A New Formulation for Numerical Simulation of Compaction, Sensitivity Studies for Steam Injection. Paper SPE 12246 presented at the Reservoir Simulation Symposium, San Francisco,,15-19 November 1983. 16. Yang, Z., Ershaghi, I., Mondragon, J.J. and Hara, S. 1998. A Simulation Study of Steamflooding in a Highly StressSensitive Heavy Oil Formation. In Proceedings of 7th Unitar International Conference on Heavy Crude and Tar Sands, Beijing, 27-30 October 1998, 469-484. 17. Tran, D., Buchanan, L. and Nghiem, L. 2008. Improved Gridding Technique for Coupling Geomechanics to Reservoir Flow. Paper SPE 115514-PP presented at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 21-24 September 2008. 18. Settari, A. and Walters, D.A. 1999. Advances in Coupled Geomechanical and Reservoir Modeling with Application to Reservoir Compaction. Paper SPE 51927 presented at the 1999 SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston. 14-17 February 1999. 19. Chin, L.Y., Thomas, L.K., Sylte, J.E. and Pierson, R.G. 2002. Iterative Coupled Analysis of Geomechanics and Fluid Flow for Rock Compaction in Reservoir Simulation. Oil & Gas Science Technology Rev. IFP,. 57 (5): 485-497. 20. Bear, J. 1988. Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media. New York: Dover Publication, Inc. 21. Tran, D., Nghiem, L., Buchanan, L., Geilikman, M., Leshchyshyn, T., Hannan, S. and Wong, S.W. 2008. Modelling Thermal Geomechanical Effects on Simulation Porosity. In Proceedings of the 42nd US Rock Mechanics Symposium and 2nd US-Canada Rock Mechanics Symposium, San Francisco, ,29 June 2 July 2008. 22. Tran, D., Settari, A. and Nghiem, L. 2004. New Iterative Coupling Between a Reservoir Simulator and a Geomechanics Module. SPE Journal. 9 (3): 362-369.

REFERENCES
1. Pattillo, P.D. 1998. Reservoir Compaction and Seafloor Subsidence at Valhall. Paper SPE 47274 presented at the 1998 SPE/TSRM Eurock 98, 8-10 July 1998. Norway: Trondheim. Virkram, S. and Settari, A. 2005. Coupled Geomechanical and Flow Modelling of Compacting Reservoirs. Society of Exploration Geophysicists. 24 (12): 1284-1286. Gilluly, J. and Grant, U.S. 1949. Subsidence in the Long Beach Harbor Area, California. Bull. Geological Soc. America. 60 (3): 461-530. Van der Knapp, W. and Van der Vlis, A.C. 1967. On the Cause of Subsidence in Oil-Producing Areas. In Proceeding of the 1967 World Petroleum Congress, Mexico City. 85-95. Fung, L.S.K., Wan, R.G., Rodriguez, H., Bellorin, R.S. and Zerpa, L. 1999. An Advance Elasto-plastic Model for Borehole Stability Analysis of Horizontal Wells in Unconsolidated formation. J. Can. Pet. Technology, 38 (12): 41-48. Frederich, J.T., Arguello, J.G., Deitrick, G.L. and de Rouffignac, E.P. 2000. Geomechanical Modeling of Reservoir Compaction Surface Subsidence and Casing Damage at the Belridge Diatomite Field. Paper SPE 65354, SPE Reservoir Eval. Eng. 3 (4): 348-359. Coombe, D., Tremblay, B., Tran, D. and Ma, H. 2001. Coupled Hydro-Geomechanical Modelling of the Cold Production Process. Paper SPE 69719 presented at the SPE International Thermal Operations and heavy Oil Symposium, Porlama, 12-14 March 2001. Vaziri, H.H., Xiao, Y., Islam, R. and Nouri, A. 2002. Numerical modeling of seepage-induced sand production in oil and gas reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering. 36: 71-86. Du, J. and Wong, R.C.K. 2005. Development of a Coupled Geomechanics-Thermal Reservoir Simulator Using Finite Element Method. CIPC Paper 2005-027.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. Yin, S., Dusseault, M.B. and Rothenburg, L. 2009. Thermal reservoir modeling in petroleum geomechanics.

23. Li, P. and Chalaturnyk, R.J. 2004. Permeability Variations Associated with Shearing and Isotropic Unloading during the SAGD Process. CIPC paper 2004-240. 24. STARS Users Guide Version 2008, Computer Modelling Group Ltd. 25. Dean, R.H., Gai, X., Stone, C.M. and Minkoff, S.E. 2003. A Comparison of Techniques for Coupling Porous Flow and Geomechanics. Paper SPE 79709 presented at the 2003 SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, 3-5 February 2003.

APPENDIX B
RESERVOIR PROPERTIES FOR WATERFLOOD PROBLEM Grid type Grid resolution Reservoir dimensions (ft) Top depth of reservoir (ft) Porosity Horizontal permeability (md) Vertical permeability (md) Cartesian 21 21 11 60 60 20 4000 0.3 5, 100, 20, 20, 20, 100, 20, 20, 100, 20, 20 0.05, 1, 0.2, 0.2, 0.2, 1, 0.2, 0.2, 1, 0.2, 0.2 3010 4010 1.0 4.510-7 62.4 750 500 9125 (21,21,1:11) (1,1,1:11)

APPENDIX A
DESCRIPTION OF SAGD PROBLEM Grid type Grid resolution Reservoir dimensions (m) Top depth of reservoir (m) Porosity Horizontal permeability (md) Vertical permeability (md) Reference pressure (kPa) Reference depth (m) Oil viscosity (cp) 2D Cartesian, vertical cross-section 29 1 25 29 45 25 200 0.3 1000 1000 2000 200 6 2.010 at 10C 2.2104 at 40C 200 at 100C 10 at 200C 4 at 240C 1.510-6 610-4 1010 (15,1,24) (15,1,19) 109 J/day for 90 days BHP 3000 kPa 2000 638

Reference pressure (psi) Reference depth (ft) Oil viscosity (cp) Oil compressibility (1/psi) Oil density (lb/ft3) Production rate (bbd) Producer Injector Production time (days) Vertical well location Producer Injector

Oil compressibility (1/kPa) Oil thermal expansion coef. (1/C) Oil density (kg/m3) Horizontal well location Producer Injector Pre-heat stage, both wells Inject steam at 234C, 90% quality Production BHP (kPa) Production time (days)

GEOMECHANICS PROPERTIES FOR WATERFLOOD PROBLEM Grid type Grid resolution Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Reservoir dimensions (ft) Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Biot number Poissons ratio Youngs modulus (psi) Horizontal effective stress (psi) Vertical effective stress (psi) Cartesian 21 21 11 15 15 11 10 10 11 60 60 20 84 84 20 126 126 20 1.0 0.3 5104 2000 + (0.4628/ft)depth 6000 + (1.2031/ft)depth

GEOMECHANICS PROPERTIES FOR SAGD PROBLEM Biot number Poissons ratio Youngs modulus (kPa) Lines 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 Line 2-3 start at 2500 kPa Line 4-5 start at 2000 kPa Linear thermal exp coeff (1/C) Horizontal effective stress (kPa) Vertical effective stress (kPa) 1.0 0.3 (Refer to Fig. 7) 1.707106 5104 2.478105 10-6 200 + (0.9345/m)depth 400 + (0.9869/m)depth

APPENDIX C:
RESERVOIR PROPERTIES FOR COMPACTION PROBLEM Grid type Grid resolution Reservoir dimensions (ft) Top depth of reservoir (ft) Porosity Horizontal permeability (md) Vertical permeability (md) Initial oil pressure (psi) Oil viscosity (cp) Oil compressibility (1/psi) Oil density (lbmol/ft3) Production rate (bbd) Production time (days) Vertical well location Cartesian 11 11 10 200 200 20 6000 0.2 50 5 3000 1.0 4.510-7 62.4 15000 500 (6,6,1:10 / 5,5,1)

GEOMECHANICS PROPERTIES FOR COMPACTION PROBLEM Grid type Grid resolution With surrounding Without surrounding Reservoir dimensions (ft) With surrounding I direction and J direction K direction Without surrounding I direction and J direction K direction Top depth of geomechanics (ft) Biot number Poissons ratio Youngs modulus (psi) Reservoir rock Surrounding rock Horizontal effective stress (psi) Vertical effective stress (psi) Cartesian 48 48 26 40 40 10

1004, 5540, 1004 5005,400,2015,402 1003 55 20 3000 1.0 0.3 104 10 or 106 4000 + (0.49345/ft)depth 6000 + (0.9869/ft)depth
4