SPE 28041

Results from reservoir depressurisation simulation incorporating phenomena revealed

in a reactive reservoir analogue
B. G. D. Smart. D. H. Tehrani, P.w. H. Olden & M. Jin, Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt
University, Edinburgh, UK

Copyright 1994. Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1994 Eurock SPEIISRM Rock Mechanics in
Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Delft, The Netherlands, 29-31 August 1994.

ABSTRACT
Field observations of rock mechanical phenomena made in reactive analogues are presented, along with the
output from coupled simulation models of reservoirs incorporating these phenomena. The models
demonstrate that fault activation occurs during depressurisation, altering conductivities and hence
controlling the flow of fluids towards the producing wells.

Als reaktive Analoge gemachte Feldbeobachtungen gesteinsmechanischer Phanomene werden zusammen mit
dem Output aus gekoppelten Simulationsmodellen von Speichern, die diese Phanomene aufweisen,
vorgestellt. Die Modelle demonstrieren das Auftreten von Fehleraktivierung und Scherung der
Ablagerungsebene wahrend einer Druckminderung, wodurch Leitfahigkeiten und damit auch die Kontrolle
des Flusses von FIUssigkeiten zum Produktionsbohrloch geandert werden.

Les phenomenes rocheux mecaniques observes sur Ie terrain dans des systemes analogiques reactifs sont
presentes accompagnes des sorties obtenues de modeles couples de simulation de reservoirs presentant ces
phenomenes. Les modeles demontrent que I' activation de faille et Ie cisaillement de plan de stratification se
produisent a la depressurisation donnat des modifications de conductivite affectant l'ecoulement des fluides
vers Ie puits de production.

1. INTRODUCTION 2. REACTNE RESERVOIR STUDIES

The development and application of petroleum
engineering rock mechanics is hampered by the
remoteness of the rock mass, i.e the reservoir, being
engineered. This may be partially overcome by
finding suitably stressed analogues of reservoirs and
translating observations made of rock deformation
processes in the stressed analogue to the reservoir
environment. To differentiate between the outcrop
analogues used in reservoir description studies and
these stressed analogues, the former have been
called passive anlogues, and the latter reactive
analogues.
These rock deformation processes may then be
transposed to the reservoir, using coupled fluid
flow/rock mechanical models. This is demonstrated
for a hypothetical reservoir subjected to
depressurisation.
2.1 The Concept of the Reactive Reservoir
Reservoir characterisation studies may utilise data
retrieved from outcrops. Such studies utilise passive
reservoir analogues. In real reservoirs at depth, the
reservoir is stressed in a manner which probably
reflects the modifications imposed by basement
structures and reservoir rock types on regional
tectonic trends. The strata comprising the reservoir
have reacted in geological time to the in situ stress
state by developing continuous ground strains and
structural features such as faults, joints and bedding
plane parallel shear zones. Despite these
equilibrating phenomena, in situ stress fields remain
distorted and non-hydrostatic. Through the
expression of these types of reaction, changes in the
in situ stress state during geological time will have
influenced the migration of hydrocarbon through the
formation, and hence the current location of
reserves. It is further argued that production -
induced reduction in pore pressure and the
associated changes in effective in situ stress state

155
can cause compaction, reactivating faults and
bedding plane parallel shear zones. During these
phases of activation, shear on the discontinuities
sometimes creates permeability barriers, although in
some other situations high permeability conduits
may be produced. The development of the
understanding of these geomechanical phenomena
requires extensive access to a reactive reservoir
analogue. A reactive analogue is defined here as an
appropriate sedimentary analogue of the reservoir
type under study, with the additional qualifications
that it lies at depth and is therefore stressed. The
analogue is likely also to contain significant
structural features. Furthermore sufficient access
should be provided to that analogue to enable the
stress state and the location and properties of
discontinuities to be evaluated.
Access to the reactive analogue may be provided
through a large number of boreholes, or more
comprehensively by mining. In particular coal mines
are reactive analogues for shaly reservoirs.
2.2 Rock Deformation Processes Observed in
Reactive Analogues
Given the relative ease of access, quantitative and
qualitataive observations have been made in the
reactive analogue, revealing quantitative data about
the activation of joint sets, faults, bedding plane
parallel shear and in situ stress state. The data
presented here focusses on one phenomenon
substantiallly ignored but fundamental to the manner
in which strains associated with depressurisation-
induced compaction is absorbed by the layered
structure of the typical shaly reservoir, i.e. bedding
plane parallel shear. Coal mine strata deformation
processes are represented in Figure I, which is a
compilation of measurements and observations
made at several sites as the strata reacted to the
passage of a longwall coal face at the right-hand side
of the figure.
Measurements of change in strata dip in
region A at sites in the South Wales and
Scottish Coalfields. ( Isaac, Smart and
Roberts 1982, Smart and Haley 1987)
Observations made on the influence of
parting planes and strata thickness on the
caving process at sites in the UK and
Australia. ( Smart and Aziz, 1986 )
Observation of shear on parting planes
along the line CD at sites in the UK and
Australia (RowlandsI992, Smart 1992)
Observation of tensile fractures, initiating
on parting planes in the region E, at sites in
the UK ( Holland and Smart 1990)
156
These observations suggest that subsiding strata
accomodate changes in stress and the asscoiated
strains by allowing shear to occur on certain
"dominant " bedding or parting planes. The
distribution of these parting planes within the
sequence of strata that comprise the reactive
analogue, and hence the reservoir, characterise the
manner in which strata deform. In particular the
aggregated flexural stiffness of the strata is
determined by the distance between dominant
partings, and subsidence-induced fractures originate
in relative tension at the partings and migrate
downwards.
In addition to these observations, anisotropic
horizontal stress fields are regularly detected in
coalmines, and the activation of faults has been
associated with the redistribution of stresses around
mine excavations.( Hasegawa, Wetmiller and
Gendzwill, 1989).
Awareness of these phenomena has been utilised in
configuring the stress sensitive model described
below, which adresses the simulation of fault
activation by production.
3. STRESS SENSITIVE SIMULATION
3.1 The Simulation Process and Model
Configurations
A Brent-like reservoir with a fault was chosen to
examine the likely impact of stress sensitive
simualtion. This was constructed with the
background knowledge that faults may change
transmissibility during production (Bayat and
Tehrani 1985)
Stress sensitivity was introduced into the reservoir
simualtion by coupling a finite element stress
analysis programme (ANSYS) with a reservoir
simulator. (ECLIPSE). ANSYS predicts the
mechanical effects, including changes in
permeability, caused by production-induced
increases in effective stress. The modified
permeabilites are used as input data for ECLIPSE,
which relates production to permeability and ouputs
pore pressures. Thus effective stresses are
determined for input to ANSYS. The coupling of
ANSYS and ECLIPSE is demonstrated in Figure 2.
For the purpose of this discussion the descriptions of
model configurations can be separated into the
details of the ANSYS stress analysis model and the
ECLIPSE reservoir simulation model. The ANSYS
model was also utilised on its own to examine the
sensitivity of fault re-activation to various
parameters and together with ECLIPSE in fully
coupled production scenarios.
3.1.1 The ANSYS Rock Mechanical Model
The mesh geometry of the model was set up so that
basic model parameters could be easily changed.
These included:-
1. Overall extent of the model
2. Dip angle of beds
3. Dip angle of the fault
4. Thickness and number of beds through
reservoir
5. Offset thickness between faulted halves of
reservoir.
The initial model was taken to extend from -1000 m
to + 1000 m in the X -direction, -750 m to +750 m in
the Z-direction and 0 m to 100m in the Y -direction,
measured at the centre of the fault (ECLIPSE axes
convention). Subsequently the X-direction range
was increased to -1400 m to +1400 m. In this
configuration the ANSYS model comprised 1214
elements of which 660 were two-dimensional solid
and 554 two-dimensional interface elements. The
model was taken to be formulated in plane strain
which was thought to be applicable to the Brent
field structure in the north-south direction. An
example of the model mesh is shown in Figure 3.
The rock mechanical model was assumed to be
composed of two different linear elastic materials,
their mechanical properties as listed in Table 1. In
addition, the potential for bedding plane parallel
shear was accommodated by incorporating nterfaces
between strata. The coefficient of friction on the
fault and bedding layer interfaces was varied in the
range 0.1 to 0.5.
3.1.2 Coupled Modelling Features
A number of modelling features were also built into
the rock mechanical model so that it could represent
the effect of pore pressure change on the rock
matrix. These included a stress I permeability
relationship for the rock matrix as shown in Figure
4. Although this is not determined for the Brent
reservoir it is based on published data and laboratory
measurements (Smart, Somerville and Hamilton,
1989). An important feature of the curve is that the
permeability ratio klko for the rock changes from
1.0 to 0.5 as the mean effective stress increases from
Oto 100 MPa.
The sealing characteristics of the fault were based
on a hypothetical relative shear displacement -
transmissibility functions as shown in Figure 5. Two
different characteristics were modelled - one in
which the fault switched from non-seal to seal and
the other in which it switched from seal to non-seal
as relative shear displacement across the fault was
activated with reservoir depressurisaton.
157
3.2 Reservoir Simulation Model
The basic reservoir simulation data for the ECLIPSE
model was taken from published literature ( Struijk
and Green, 1991) and is shown in Table 2. For the
purpose of the modelling programme all data was
converted into metric units so that it was possible to
read across pressure values from ECLIPSE (bar) to
ANSYS (MPa) with only a factor of 10 conversion
between them. Expanded reservoir fluid property
data was produced to construct the simulation
model, and in the absence of actual laboratory data,
some hypothetical saturation functions were used.
3.3 Fault Reactivating Sensitivity Study
In order to gain an insight into the likely behaviour
of the ANSYS rock mechanical model to
depressurisation for various parameters, without the
more time-consuming inclusion of an ECLIPSE
simulation, a sensitivity study was carried out on the
ANSYS model alone.
The parameters that the sensitivity study varied
were:-
- Fault angle: 45, 60 and 75.
- In situ stress state,with the vertical stress
being held constant at 65MPa and
the horizontal stress varied at 45,50 and
55MPa
- Coefficient of friction on the fault - 0.1 to
0.5
In this study both sides of the reservoir were
depressurised by equal amounts, pressure being
dropped until activation of the fault was detected for
a given stress state and coefficient of friction.
Typical results for fault slip are shown in Figure 6
while the results for critical combinations of all
three parameters are shown in Figure 7. Note that
the magnitude of fault slip mirrors the throw in the
fault, originating at the fault centre and moving
outwards.
3.4 Fully Coupled Production Case
The ECLIPSE model was run in a fully coupled
production scenario with the ANSYS model for the
following case:-.
The configuration of the ECLIPSE model was:-
-wac and GOC located far below and above
respectively, the reservoir so that primarily only
oil was produced, in a depletion type of
recovery.
The configuration of the ANSYS model was:-
-Permeability of each reservoir block a function
of effective stress on the block.
 -Transmissibility across the fault a function of
the shear displacement on the fault which can
either change from non-sealing to seal or vice
versa.
An ECLIPSE only simulation (ie. ignoring the rock-
mechanical effects apart from compressibility) was
carried out with fixed rock matrix permeabilities for
each reservoir block and fixed fault
transmissibilities through every time step against
which the ANSYS coupled simulation could be
compared.
Figure 6 shows the typical development of shear
displacement along the fault in the rock mechanical
model with time.
For the case with fault transmissibility changing
from non-seal to sealing, the coupled model
simulation predicts economic oil production lasting
340 days before the producer is shut. The
comparative Eclipse only (with no rock mechanics
input) simulation lasts 500 days with a
corresponding increase in field total oil production.
These results are presented together in Figure 8
which show plots of field oil production rate, total
oil production, oil in place for Region 2 (see Figure
3) and oil producer well bottom hole pressure.
Comparison of the results indicate that if the rock
mechanical effects are ignored in this example,
Eclipse could produce misleadingly optimistic
results.
The differences in the simulations may be accounted
for by the fact that as the transmissiblity of the fault
is reduced as a pressure differential develops across
it. This leads to a further increase in shear
displacement on the fault and further decrease in
transmisibility, with associated reduction in oil
production rate which takes place sooner together
with reduced overall total oil production because oil
becomes "trapped" in Region 2.
For the case in which fault transmissibility changes
from seal to non-sealing the coupled model
simulation predicts economic oil production lasting
440 days before the producer is shut. In contrast to
the situation above, the Eclipse only simulation
lasts less time at 234 days ie. this is the reverse of
the previous simulation and Eclipse is giving
pessimistic results. Again for the longer lasting case
there is a corresponding increase in field total oil
production. The results of these simulations are
presented in Figure 9. From the graph of well
bottom hole pressure (WBHP) vs time it can be seen
that where the well is producing from Region 1
only and Region 2 is isolated by the fault, the
pressure difference across the fault causes the fault
plane to open up after 150 days of production. The
resulting flow of oil from Region 2 to Region 1
causes the pressure in Region 1 to build up. This
gives the producing well longer life and more
recovery. From the plot of reservoir oil in place for
158
Region 2 it can be seen that this starts to flow at 150
days as the sealing characteristcs of the fault begin
to change from seal to non-seal. This has the effect
of causing an increase in well bottom hole pressure
thereby maintaining the oil production rate at 2000
m 3 /d for an extra 73 days compared to the non-seal
to seal case before the producing well control
changes to BHP. The Eclipse only simulation here
has the shortest duration because the well is only
producing from Region 1 of the reservoir since the
rest of the reservoir oil is trapped in Region 2 by the
sealing fault. These hypothetical simulations point
to the importance of rock mechanical aspects of
reservoir performance prediction that could have a
significant impact on decisions regarding the
development of a field.
4.CONCLUSIONS
A stress-sensitive fluid flow simulator which
requires minimal manual intervention has been
constructed by coupling ECLIPSE with ANSYS
via programs which manipulate input/output data.
The stress-sensitive simulation of a fault in a Brent-
like reservoir suggests that the fault can be re-
activated by depressurisation. The amount of
depressurisation required to cause the re-activation
is a function of the in situ stress state, fault angle
and the coefficient of friction on the fault.
For the simplified Brent-like situation modelled,
accommodation of a decrease in fault
transmissibility which is related to shear
displacement in the reservoir leads to a significant
difference in simulated reservoir performance
compared to that predicted by conventional non
stress sensitive simulation for the last stages of
reservoir life.
The results from the parametric study suggest that
sensitivity of fault re-activation, (and hence
production), to stress is reservoir specific, requiring
dedicated studies.
5. ACKNOWLEDGE~NTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the sponsorship
provided by the DTI for the simulation work
presented.
6. REFERENCES
1. Isaac A.K., Smart B.G.D., Roberts D." The Re-
use of Gateroads serving Retreat Faces at Betws
Colliery" The Mining Engineer June 1982727-738.
2. Smart B.G.D, Haley S.M., " Further Development
of the Roof Strata Tilt Concept for Pack Design and
the Estimation of Stress Development in a Caved Table 2: Basic reservoir simulation data
Waste" Mining Science and Technology, 5 (1987)
121-130. Trap
Type Unconformity: tilted fault block

3.Smart B.G.D., Aziz N.!., "The Influence of Depth to crest

Lowest closing contour
Caving in the Hirst and Bulli Seams on Powered Gas/oil contact
Oil/water contact
Supports" Ground Movement and Control related to Gas column
Coal Mining Symposium AusIMM Dlawara Branch Oil column
25'2 m (8240 ft) TVSS
2835 m (9300 ft) TVSS
2609 m (8560 ft) TVSS
2755 m (9040 ft) TVSS
98 m (320 ft)
'46 m (480 ft)

1986 Pay zone

Formation Brent Group
Age Middle Jurassic
4. Rowlands D., "Surface Subsidence Associated Gross thickness (average; range) 247 m (8'0 It): 238259 m (780-850 ft)

with Partiel Extraction: An Australian Case Study" Porosity (average: range)

Permeability (average: range)
Effects of Geomechanics on Mine Design Balkema
Hydrocarbons
1992. Oil gravity
Oil type
Gas gravity
5. Smart B.G.D., "Controls Exerted by Dominant Saturation pressure
Parting Planes over the Deformation of Tabular Gasioil raho (average)
Condensate yield
Deposits" Effects of Geomechanics on Mine Design Formation volume factor (average)
21%; 16-28%
650 mD: , 0-6000 mD
876 kg/m3 (54.7 Ibmlf'3)
Low sulphur light crude
0.74
298-397 barsa (4326-5750 psia)
0.281 sm3/sm3 (1.58 Kscf/stb)
0.775 rm3/sm3 (138 bbllMscf)
1.80 rm3/sm3 (1.80 bbl/stb)

Balkema 1992. Formation water

Salinity
Resistivity
6. Holland C.I., Smart B.G.D., " Beyond PI 1982/6"
The Mining Engineer luly 1990 29-32 . Reservoir conditions
Temoerature
Pressure
7. Hasegawa H.S., Wetrniller R.I., Gendzwill D.I., " Pressure- gradient in reservoir
25.000 ppm NaCI eqv
0.236 ohm m at 2SC (77'F)
95.6"C 1204"F)
399 barsa (5785 psia)
0.062 bar/m (0.2i4 psilfH oil

Induced "Seismicity in Mines in Canada - An

Overview" Pure Appl. Geophys. 129 423-453.
8. Knott, S.D. 1993. Fault Seal Analysis in the
North Sea. The American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin V.77, No.5, pp 778-792.
9. Bayat M.G., Tehrani D.H., " The Thistle Field-
Analysis of its Past Performance and Optimisation B
of its Future Development" SPE 13989/1 Offshore
Europe, Aberdeen 1985.
10. Smart B.G.D., Somerville, I. McL. & Hamilton,
S.A., 1989. Absolute Permeability at Reservoir Fig 1: Observed strata deformation processes
Conditions. University of Strathclyde Dept. Mineral
Resources Engng. report to Britoil pIc.
11. Struijk, A.P. Green, R.T. 1991. The Brent
Field, Block 211129, UK North Sea. From Abbotts,
I.L. (ed.), United Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields 25
Commemorative Volume, Geological Society
Memoir No. 14, pp. 63-72.

Table 1: Rock mechanical properties

Material Elastic Poissons' Compress

Description Ratio -ibility
No. Modulus
(GPa) (llbar)
I Reservoir rock 12.0 0.2 5.8 xlOs
2 Over/underburden rock 1.2 0.4 NA

159
 Hypothetical Relative Shear Dlsplacament -
Transmissibility Characteristics
-------- -I 1.0
r---------~--------_.
1 l--~
0.8
/
'/ I I I

0.6
.II III Non-seal to seal

~I Seal to non-sea
~ I 1
:a
.
0;
0.4

IA
....
E 0.2
c I~
Pre-prgcaujog Ph_ lII.,r--
~ 0.0
o 100 200 300 400 500 600
Relative Shear Displacement (mm)

Fig 5: Fault displacement / transmissibility

FAU. T ANClE 60 P~PRE~ 400 be,. - COL I

COEFF. FRICTION 0.2 300 I..,. - cot. 2
1 N'P. STRESSES 65( V) ,50( H) HP. 200 b .. r - COl. 3
1 100 ,. - COl ..
L Solytion
____ pba._ (x IOU-I)
4 . - ...

Post-procaaaing Program 3.5 - - - - ... ---- --1--1---1--1--1---1---1

save data file & pJot diagram:
stresses. displacement. pressure
production rate. etc. 3 - --1--- --- - - --c---.- ._f--

2.5 - - - - - - - - - - --I~ ::""'\-_. - ..- --

Fig 2: ANSYS / ECLIPSE coupling
".
t..

C
.:~=-rt \. --+--1-1

'::=-::~;;;:1
(f)

.
ex: 0""
o ESt ~
COL 4
-0.5f--- \ - - - ---I---I---+--I--.~--+--.I-----j

-I L..._._ I--.'---f---
-500 -300 -100 100 300 500
-400 -200 0 200 400
Oi st. <11 on II di sconti nui ty (m)

Fig 6: Typical fault slip plots

0.6
Fig 3: Finite element model of Brent-like reservoir 0.5
0.4
Coefficient of 0.3
Friction 0.2
Hypothetical Stress - Permeability Curve
0.1
1.0 o o
1.8600~-2X
1 I I

'" I Y = 0.99836 - + 3.1 445e-4x"2

- 2.6973e-6x"3 + 9.1485e-9 x"4 Fault Angle
0.8
..... R"2 1.000 =
~
(deg)
0.6 .I I Ratio of Horizontal

-...... I
0

0.4
I to Vertical Stress

0.2
I Fig 7: Critical combinations of parameters

0.0
o 20
I
40 60 80 100
Stress (MPa)

Fig 4: Stress / penneability sensitivity

160
 rop,. VS TIME Me 1 3-& ROIPL AEON 2 "S TIME MC13-0
"OPA "s
TIM MC12-5
FOPR VS T .... E MC1t-o
ROIPL RECI. 2 VS TIME .... C12-S
ROIPL REG,. 2 VS TIME MC11-0
....
to.:s/o
__ 3 ...v 11M"
.fO__ O
2.0 ,...........- - - - - - -..... ----...,.:-------------
~O -----------------------------,

t
\'.
\:
~
\
1
1
1
1
2
-
-
-
..,...~,.,.,..,.,..,.~~~~_:_:_:_
--.....:.........,. I
1

.. .. .... .... 1
\ 1
1.2 \ 1 1
\ 1 2.2 - I
\ 1 I
0." ~
~
I1 .... I
I
I
I
0.4 "\\ I1 1.4
I
I
~, .' 1 I
'.:<".:.: 1 I
o.oo~.o~~~7t~0~OC..O~~~2~O~0~.0~~~~of~~4~o~o~.ro~~~a~o~o~.~o~~~.~o~o.o t.OO,~.O~~~~1rO~O~.0~~~2~O~O~.o~-L~~~0~'b
O~AYW~L-~4~0~O.o~-L~a~o~o~.o~-L~a~o~o.o

WBHP OP- 1 va TINE ....e 13-0 ,.OPT vS TIME ......::: 1 3 - .

wBHP OP- 1 vS T .... E .... C12-S FOPT VS TINS: "'C12-5
Y/BHP OP-1 VS T ..... E MC1t-O FOPT "S TIME Me 11-0
.AA .... ."'3
-10--3

700.0
----------------~:~~~~---~--~
400.0

380.0
//
800.0
.20.0 ..... ..........
500.0
""
L"":------
280.0
~', .........'-
2"'0.0
..... 400.0
".
200.0

1180.0
"'-,
........---..:~.~------.
300.0

120.0 .z00.0

ao.o
AO.O

'00.0 200.0 400.0 800.0 .00.0

Fig 8: ECLIPSE output for cases in which fault transmissibility changes from non-seal to seal

roPft \IS T .... E ....CZ-3 AOIPL fltEON 2 va TIME .....C2-3

"OPA VS T .... E MC2-1 ROIPL RECN 2 VS TI .... E ....C 2 - '

".0
!t'cl':'!AY
~==--- .....------...._--------------I
...."
_to __ 8

...
\ 1 3.0 -
\ 1
\ 1 2
\
\
'.2 \
\ 2.2

\
D
\
\
\
....
\
D." \ 1."
\
\
.....

WBH'" 0 .. -1 va TINE MC2-3

P'O"T va TI .... E ....(;2-3
WBHP OP-1 VS TINE MC2-1 F"OPT VS T .... E ....C2-'

.......... .... 3
-~=~-------------- -::.:-=-=--~~-------I ..
400.0 .00.0
I
1
0.0 I
.20.0 &00.0 1
I
2.0.0 I
~
....00.0 1
aAD.O
\ I
200.0 \ ,, ~OO.O
----------------------1
I
1.0.0
'----\ I
1ao.o
200.0 I
\ I
ao.o \ 100.0
I
\ I
40.0
\ I

Fig 9: ECLIPSE output for cases in which fault transmissibility changes from seal to non-seal

161