Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
This paper was prepared for presentation at Gulf Rocks 2004, the 6th North America Rock Mechanics Symposium (NARMS): Rock Mechanics Across Borders and Disciplines, held in Houston,
Texas, June 5 – 9, 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by a NARMS Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted earlier by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by ARMA/NARMS and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of NARMS, ARMA,
CARMA, SMMR, their officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of ARMA is prohibited.
Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by
whom the paper was presented.
ABSTRACT: This paper presents a fully coupled reservoir-geomechanics model with erosion mechanics to address wellbore
instability phenomena associated with sand production within the framework of mixture theory. A Representative Elementary
Volume (REV) is chosen to comprise of five phases, namely solid grains (s), fluidized solids (fs), oil fluid (f), water (w) and gas
(g). The particle transport and balance equations are written to reflect the interactions among phases in terms of mechanical
stresses and hydrodynamics. Constitutive laws (mass generation law, Darcy's law, and stress-strain relationships) are written to
describe the fundamental behaviour of sand erosion, fluid flow, and deformation of the solid skeleton respectively. Subsequently,
the resulting governing equations are solved numerically using Galerkin’s method with a generic nonlinear Newton-Raphson
iteration scheme. Numerical examples in a typical light oil reservoir are presented to illustrate the capabilities of the proposed
model in the absence of the gas phase. It is found that there is an intimate interaction between sand erosion activity and
deformation of the solid matrix. As erosion activity progresses, porosity increases and in turn degrades the material strength.
Strength degradation leads to an increased propensity for plastic shear failure that further magnifies the erosion activity. An
escalation of plastic shear deformations will inevitably lead to instability with the complete erosion of the sand matrix. The self-
adjusted mechanism enables the model to predict both the volumetric sand production and the propagation of wormholes, and
hence instability phenomena in the wellbore.
sand productions are also calculated as a function of Fig. 1 Phase components of a REV
time, stresses, and hydrocarbon flow rate.
For solid phase (s), the density of the solid phase
averaged out over a REV of volume dV can be
2. COUPLED MULTIPHASE FLOW AND written as the homogenized solid density (1-φ)ρs ,
GEOMECHANICS FORMULATION where porosity φ = dV
dV , and ρs is the density of the
V
2.1. Mass balance equations solid phase. The mass conservation requires that
The single-phase formulation describing sand ∂[(1 − φ ) ρ s ]
production in a deforming sand matrix was derived + ∇ ⋅ [(1 − φ ) ρ s u& s ] = − m& (2)
∂t
in a series of publications [3, 4]. It has been shown
to be a promising method for modeling sand where u& s is the absolute velocity of the solid phase
production in terms of matching numerical
boundary, and the negative sign of the right hand
calculations with lab test data, both in heavy and
side refers to a solid loss due to erosion since m& is
light oil conditions [5, 6, 7]. In this paper, an
chosen to be the local rate of solid gain per unit
extension to multiphase sand production model is
volume as seen from the fluidized solid phase.
presented within the same framework of mixture
theory, i.e., a coupled black-oil/geomechanics sand Similarly, for the fluidized solid phase (fs), the mass
production model with erosion mechanics is balance equation can be written, i.e.
∂[φS fs ρ fs ]
proposed to further account for the effects of
multiphase flow of three components (gas, water, + ∇ ⋅ [S fsφρ fs u& fs ] = m& (3)
oil) and their interaction with geomechanics. The ∂t
mass balance equation used in formulating the sand
where the fluidized solid saturation at reservoir
production problem is typically written as [dV ]RC
condition (RC) is S fs = [dVVfs ]RC , u& fs is the absolute
∂ρ
+ ∇ ⋅ (ρu& ) = m& (1) velocity of the fluidized solid phase, and ρ fs is the
∂t
density of the fluidized solid phase.
where state variables ρ, u& are the density and the
absolute velocity respectively, and m& is the source The basic assumptions for flow of oil, water and gas
or sink term to account for the local rate of solid phases follow those used in the classical black-oil
loss or gain per unit volume due to erosion. model [8]. The oil phase (o) continuity equation can
be derived at stock tank condition (STC), i.e.
The fluid/gas saturated sand body is idealized as a
∂[S oφρ o / Bo ]
Representative Elementary Volume (REV) which + ∇ ⋅ [S oφρ o u& o / Bo ] = 0 (4)
comprises of five phases, namely solid grains (s), ∂t
fluidized solids (fs), fluid (f), water (w) and gas (g)
where ρ o = fluid density at stock tank condition, ∇ ⋅ (σ eff − ωPm 1) + b = 0 (7)
[Vo ]RC
So = = oil saturation in reservoir condition
[VV ]RC
where b are body forces per unit volume, and ω is
[V +V ]
(RC), Bo = o[Vo ]dgSTCRC = the formation volume factor, a parameter accounting for the compressibility of
the sand grains. The sign convention adopted is that
and u& o = the absolute velocity of the oil phase.
negative stresses are compressive and fluid
Furthermore, the averaged density of gas can be pressures are always positive. The Kronecker delta
divided into two components: free gas S gφρ g / Bg tensor is given by 1 such that 1ij = δ ij . The
[V ] averaged mixture pressure can be defined as
and dissolved gas ρ gφSo , where S g = [VVg ]RCRC ,
[V ] Pm = So Po + S g Pg + S w Pw (8)
Bg = [Vgg ] RC , ρ g = BRos ρ g , ρ g = the gas density at
STC
y(m)
0.5 0.07
wellbore and perforations at the beginning of the 0.06
0.05
drawdown. 0.04
0.03
0.02
1 0.01
0.25
P1
0.75 P2
P3
0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
x(m)
Fig. 5 Fluidized sand saturation profile at time t=0.3 day.
y(m)
0.5
2
0.07
0.06
times at location P3 for time t=5 days respectively. 0.05
2 0.04
These numbers indicate that there is a dramatic 0.03
0.02
increase in the creation of fluidized sand 0.01
y(m)
the erosion around wellbore. 1 6.29
5.57
4.86
5 4.14
3.43
2.71
2.00
0.5
4 time=5days 0.14
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.11 0
3 0.10 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0.09 x(m)
0.08
Fig. 9 Erosion coefficient λ distribution at time t=0.3 days.
y(m)
0.07
0.06
0.05
2 0.04 2
0.03
0.02
0.01
12.00
1 11.29
time=0.6days
1.5 10.57
9.86
9.14
8.43
7.71
0 7.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
y(m)
x(m) 1 6.29
5.57
Fig. 8 Fluidized sand saturation profile at time t= 5 days. 4.86
4.14
3.43
1 6.29
5.57
the perforations where the sand matrix has a weak 4.86
4.14
material strength (initial porosity 0.6), and in the x- 3.43
2.71
direction where the pore pressure depletion is the 0.5
2.00
y(m)
ring of loose sand of about 0.5 m in radius. The 0.46
0.42
porosity values approach 0.77 and physically 2 0.39
0.35
correspond to the formation of a cavity and 0.32
0.28
mechanical failure of the wellbore. Figure 14 shows
a snapshot of the fully developed zone of high 1
0.32
0.28
0.25
0.2
0 0.1
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 P1
x(m) P2
1 0.46
0.42
0.39 time=0.6days
0.35
0.3
0.32
0.28
y(m)
0.5
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
x(m) 0.1
P1
Fig. 13 Porosity profile at time t=0.6 day. P2
P3
4.4. Fluid flux and pressure distribution 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
As the cavity enlarges, the permeability of the x(m)
reservoir increases since it is a function of porosity Fig. 16 Fluid flux profile at time t=0.6 days.
in Eq.(19). The gradually increased permeability
the high fluid flux dominates in three perforations in
enhances the well productivity. It is expected that
Figure 15 at the beginning of drawdown. Then, the
direction of large fluid fluxes shows a bias towards 4.5. Displacements and stresses
high porosity regions as shown in Figure 16, i.e. In this section, we look at the plastic shear strain
mostly x-direction in anisotropic permeability case. and stresses distribution in the well. The pressure
It is also worth to mention that the erosion process induced drag forces develop excessive plastic shear
increases the fluid flux by degrading the sand strains around perforations in both x- and y-
matrix where more regions progressively yield direction (maximum value is about 9% after 5 days
plastically due to the high fluid flux and stress in Figure 19). It is also noted that the material
redistribution. Figure 17 shows an increased flux strength parameters, i.e. cohesion C and friction
region around the wellbore at time t=5 days. angle ϕ follow the same distribution as that of
0.5 porosity with time since they are defined as a linear
function of porosity in Eq.(22).
2
0.4
0.090
0.086
0.081
time=5days time=5days 0.077
0.3 0.073
1.5
0.069
0.064
y(m)
0.060
0.056
0.051
0.2 0.047
y(m)
0.043
1
0.039
0.034
0.030
0.026
0.1 0.022
P1
0.017
P2 0.013
0.5
0.009
0.004
P3
0 0.003
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.001
x(m) 0.000
0.000
Fig. 17 Fluid flux profile at time t=5 days.
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
x(m)
Due to the initial anisotropic permeability Fig. 19 Plastic shear strain distribution at time t=5 days.
conditions, the dissipation of fluid pressures around
the well also occurs in regions of high 5
(Pa)
permeabilities, i.e. x-direction. As sand is being -7.00E+06
-7.53E+06
produced, the fluid pressure slowly depletes more -8.05E+06
-8.58E+06
4
from initial values of 27.6 MPa on the outside -9.11E+06
-9.63E+06
boundary to 24.5 MPa than at perforations P1, P2, time= 5 days -1.02E+07
-1.07E+07
and P3 around the wellbore, as shown in Figure 18. 3 -1.12E+07
-1.17E+07
-1.23E+07
y(m)
-1.28E+07
-1.33E+07
-1.38E+07
5 2 -1.44E+07
-1.49E+07
-1.54E+07
Time=5days (Pa) -1.59E+07
2.74E+07 -1.65E+07
4 2.72E+07 1 -1.70E+07
2.70E+07
2.69E+07
2.67E+07
2.65E+07
3 2.63E+07 0
2.61E+07 0 1 2 3 4 5
2.59E+07 x(m)
y(m)
increased around P3, as shown in Figure 21. Figure Figure 23 gives both the oil and sand rates over the
22 shows the tangential stress profile distribution. time of fluid drawdown. We observe that the sand
The high stress values indicate a highly sheared production rate rapidly increases in an initial phase
zone. Depending on the re-distribution of pore to reach a peak value in approximately 0.5 day.
pressure and stress during erosion, the high shear During this time period, the oil rate gradually
stress zone shifts and grows, which in turn causes increases as well. Then, this phase is followed by a
the evolution of plastic shear yielded zones. decline in sand production rate corresponding to the
5
(Pa)
decrease in availability of sand grains. However, the
-7.00E+06
-7.53E+06
oil rate continues to increase given the enhancement
4
-8.05E+06
-8.58E+06
in permeability of the reservoir induced by sand
-9.11E+06
-9.63E+06
production. This trend is also observed in oilwells
time=5 days -1.02E+07
-1.07E+07 under sand production.
-1.12E+07
3
-1.17E+07 12000 1200
-1.23E+07
y(m)
-1.28E+07
1.91E+06
1.76E+06
3 2000
1.60E+06
1.45E+06 15000 oil rate
y(m)
1.29E+06 1500
1.14E+06 sand rate
9.82E+05 10000
2 8.26E+05 1000
6.71E+05
5.16E+05 5000 500
3.61E+05
2.05E+05
1 5.00E+04 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
time (days)
0 1 2 3 4 5
x(m)
Fig. 22 Effective tangential stress τxy at time t=5 days. Fig. 24 Oil and sand rate history at isotropic permeability
conditions.
4.6. Volumetric sand production and oil rates
In the previous sections, detailed spatial As a comparison, an initial isotropic permeability
distributions of governing field variables with time case is also computed with kx0=ky0=0.5 Darcies. As
were discussed and the analysis revealed local expected, more sand and higher oil rates are
phenomena during sand production. From an obtained as larger initial reservoir permeability
engineering point of view, we would be interested prevails in y-direction, see Figure 24. The same
in examining the total oil and volumetric sand peak value of fluidized sand saturation is calculated,
production rates as integrated over the total but a smoother decline curve of sand rate is
perforation area S (P1, P2, and P3) of the wellbore. obtained in isotropic case, since there is no erosion
Hence, lag due to anisotropic permeability conditions.
5. CONCLUSIONS Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology. 41:4, 46–
52.
A fully coupled reservoir/geomechanics numerical
4. Wan, R.G. and J. Wang 2004. Analysis of sand
model is presented based on an extension of a production in unconsolidated oil sand using a coupled
theoretical and numerical model that the authors erosional-stress-deformation model. Journal of
have developed in the past to address sand Canadian Petroleum Technology. 43:2, 47–53.
production as an erosion problem coupled with 5. Wan, R.G. and J. Wang: 2002. A Coupled Stress-
hydro- and geo-mechanical effects. This is done Deformation Model for Sand Production using
within the framework of mixture theory in which Streamline Upwind Finite Elements. In Proceedings of
mechanics and transport equations are written for the Eighth International Symposium on Numerical
Models in Geomechanics – NUMOG VIII, Rome, Italy,
each of the concerned phases, i.e. solid, fluid (oil,
10-12 April, 2002, eds. Pande & Pietruszczak, 301–
water), gas, and fluidized solid. 309. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam. ISBN 90 5809 359 X
Leaving aside gas-related issues, it is found that 6. Wan, R.G. and J. Wang. 2004. Modelling of sand
sand production is a function of stress, time, and production and wormhole propagation in an oil
fluid rate. Sand erosion activity is strongly linked to saturated sand pack using stabilized finite element
methods. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology.
geomechanics and there is an intimate interaction
43:4, 46–53.
between sand erosion activity and deformation of
the solid matrix. As the erosion activity progresses, 7. Wan, R. G. and J. Wang. 2003. Modeling Sand
Production and Erosion Growth under Combined Axial
porosity increases and in turn degrades the material and Radial Flow. SPE International Thermal
strength. Strength degradation leads to an increased Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium and
propensity for plastic shear failure that further International Horizontal Well Technology Conference
magnifies the erosion activity. An escalation of SPE 80139. Calgary, Canada, 4–7 November 2002.
plastic shear deformations will inevitably lead to 8. Aziz, K, and A. Settari. 1979. Petroleum reservoir
wellbore instability with the complete erosion of the simulation. London. Elservier Applied Sci.
sand matrix. The self-adjusted mechanism enables 9. Vardoulakis, M. Stavropoulou and P. Papanastasiou.
the model to predict both the volumetric sand 1996. Hydromechanical aspects of the sand production
production and the propagation of wormholes. problem. Transport in Porous Media. 22, 225-244.
The multiphase results including gas phase will be 10. M. Stavropoulou, P. Papanastasiou and I. Vardoulakis.
1998. Coupled wellbore erosion and stability analysis.
presented in a forthcoming paper. The proposed Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 22, 749-769
model can be used for wellbore stability analysis
and design in open-hole completions, perforation 11. Wang, J. and R.G. Wan. 2004. Computation of Sand
Fluidization Phenomena using Stabilized Finite
pattern design, as well as volumetric sand prediction Elements, Finite Elements in Analysis and Design (in
at different pumping strategies in terms of press).
optimization of the hydrocarbon production.
12. Wang, J. 2003. Mathematical and numerical modeling
of sand production as a coupled geomechanics-
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS hydrodynamics problem. Calgary. (PH. D. dissertation)
The authors wish to express their sincere gratitude 13. Settari, A. and D. A. Walters. 2001. Advances in
for funding provided by Alberta Ingenuity Fund coupled geomechanical and reservoir modeling with
(AIF) and the National Science and Engineering applications to reservoir compaction. SPE Journal. 9:
334–342.
Research Council of Canada (NSERC).
REFERENCES
1. Tremblay, B., G. Sedgwick, and D. Vu. 1999. CT
imaging of wormhole growth under solution – gas
drive. SPE Reservoir Journal. 2: 1, 37–45.
2. Papamichos, E. and E. M. Malmanger. 2001. A sand
erosion model for volumetric sand predictions in a
north sea reservoir. SPE Reservoir Evaluation and
Engineering. 44–50.
3. Wan, R.G. and J. Wang. 2002. Modelling sand
production within a continuum mechanics framework.