ISRM International Symposium 2008

5th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium (ARMS5), 24-26 November 2008 Tehran, Iran

COUPLED FLUID-FLOW AND GEOMECHANICS IN

NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS

M.R. JALALI and M.B. DUSSEAULT

University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
(e-mail of corresponding author: mjalali@uwaterloo.ca)

Abstract
Naturally fractured reservoirs are considered extremely challenging in terms of accurate recovery prediction because of their
complexity and heterogeneity. Conventional simulators only consider pore compressibility as a geomechanical parameter for
simulation and assume permeability and porosity as static or pressure-dependent variables. These assumptions are insufficient
from a physics point of view because porosity and permeability are functions of effective stress and temperature as well as
pressure. Thus, parameter impact on both reservoir characterization and simulation processes should be considered via a thermo-
hydro-mechanically (THM) coupled approach for a more precise simulation. In this paper, a review of THM coupling methods in
the petroleum industry is presented, with emphasis on naturally fractured reservoirs. The governing equations for a thermo-
hydro-mechanical coupling are introduced in a fully coupled formulation, and applications of this approach are discussed.
Keywords: Petroleum Geomechanics; Coupling; Naturally Fractured Reservoirs; Reservoir Simulation.

1. Introduction
In the last two decades, there has been a strong
emphasis on the importance of geomechanics in
petroleum engineering. In reservoir manage-
ment, geomechanics plays a role as a multi-
disciplinary aspect among the various other
engineering specialities (geology, fluid flow, and
thermodynamics). In fact, the term “geomech-
anics” is often applied very broadly to describe a
wide range of reservoir phenomena.
The origins of formal geomechanics are based on
the concept of effective stress and consolidation
for incompressible solid grains formulated by
Terzaghi in 1936. Based on the concept of
Terzaghi’s effective stress, Biot investigated the
coupling between stress and pore pressure in a
porous medium and developed a generalized
three-dimensional theory of consolidation with
the basic principles of continuum mechanics [1].
He also to some degree extended poroelastic
theory to anisotropic and nonlinear materials.
Biot’s theory and published applications are
oriented more toward rock mechanics than fluid
flow. Because of this, Biot’s theory is less
compatible with the conventional fluid-flow
models (without geomechanics consideration) in
terms of concept understanding, physical inter-
pretation of parameters (e.g., rock compress-
ibilities), and computer code development [2].
Skempton (1960) derived a relationship between
the total stress and fluid pore pressure under
undrained initial loading through the so-called
Skempton pore pressure parameters A and B.
Geerstma (1957) gave a better insight of the
relationship among pressure, stress and volume,
clarifying concept of compressibility in a porous
medium. He also explained calculation of
reservoir porosity using volumetric strain. Van
der Knaap (1959) extended Geertsma’s work to
nonlinear but elastic geomaterials, such as dense
but uncemented sands. Nur and Byerlee (1971)
proved that the effective stress law proposed by
Biot is more general and physically sensible than
that proposed by Terzaghi. In other develop-
ments that are relevant to coupled flow-stress
problems, Ghaboussi and Wilson (1973)
introduced fluid compressibility into classic soil
mechanics consolidation theory. Rice and
Cleary (1976) showed how to solve poroelastic
problems by assuming pore pressure and stress
as primary variables instead of displacements as
employed by Biot. Khaled et al., (1984)
extended the single porosity Biot theory to a
dual-porosity medium via finite element

1253
formulations. Later, Valliappan and Khalili-
Naghadeh (1990) and Khalili-Naghadeh and
Valliappan (1991, 1996) developed the dual-
porosity single-phase flow problem by account-
ing for rock deformation effects on the matrix
and fracture pressure. The multiphase formul-
ation of a dual-porosity media was introduced by
Lewis and Ghafouri (1997). Yet, all this work
remains limited to the framework of linear
constitutive relations and single-phase flow in
porous media.
2. Fluid-Flow/Geomechanics Coupling
The coupling of a reservoir simulator to a
geomechanics module has wide application in
the petroleum industry. In a conventional
reservoir simulator, for example, subsidence is
often estimated by a simple formula without
knowing the complete geomechanical response.
The only geomechanical parameter which is
considered in that case is pore compressibility,
which is not sufficient to reproduce pore volume
changes induced by complex pressure and
temperature variations [3, 4]. Nevertheless, in
some problems, such as primary production and
linear-elastic reservoir materials, subsidence
computed by a reservoir simulator alone may
give results which are comparable to coupled
solutions. However, when nonlinear materials
are consider-ed, the results obtained with a
conventional simulator will be different from
those obtained with a coupled fluid-flow and
geomechanics simulator. The main reason is that
in a coupled simulation the flow is strongly
affected by stress and strain distributions that
give changes in porosity and permeability.
However, in a conventional simulator, this
stress-dependence is ignored completely;
therefore the solution obtained in this manner
can not give appropriate predictions if a stress
sensitive reservoir (e.g. naturally fractured
reservoir or poorly compacted reservoir) is
considered [5].
1254
2.1. Levels of coupling
There are different levels of coupling between
fluid-flow and geomechanics processes, some of
which are described below:
2.1.1. Decoupled method
This method is the loosest coupling technique
among coupling methods. In this case, the effect
of stress changes is introduced to the flow model
via some parameters such as compressibility and
permeability. After flow simulation,
deformation is calculated in a geomechanical
model in which pressure history is applied as an
external load [6]. This process is then repeated
until a suitable estimation for pressure and
temperature is achieved [7].
2.1.2. Pseudo coupling
This type of coupling is based on an empirical
model of absolute permeability and porosity as
functions of pressure. During this process, a
conventional reservoir simulator computes some
geomechanical parameters such as compaction
(via relationships between porosity and vertical
displacement) and horizontal stress changes
(using relationships between porosity and stress).
Usually, the empirical model is a table of
porosity and absolute permeability versus
pressure which is then introduced to the
simulator [8]. The permeability may then be
altered for the next time-step in the numerical
simulation. This method is not very realistic, but
may be applied in cases where the computational
costs for fully coupled modeling are prohibitive.
2.1.3. Explicit coupling
In this approach, which is also called the one-
way coupling method, information from a
reservoir simulator is sent to a geomechanics
model, but results from the geomechanics
calculations are not fed back to the reservoir
simulator. In this case, the reservoir fluid flow is
not affected by geomechanical responses
calculated by the geomechanics module.
However, change in reservoir flow variables will
affect the geomech-anics variables [9].
This coupling is an efficient and time-saving
approach for subsidence problems because
geomechanical calculations can be performed on
a different time scale than fluid-flow
calculations. Fluid-flow usually propagates in a
short time-step frame within flow simulation, in
comparison with deformation (subsidence)
calculation, which can be done when needed.
So, by using different time scales for flow and
geomechanical simulation, performance of the
simulation will be enhanced [9]. This method is
a flexible and straightforward technique for
coupling that can use an existing flow simulator
and an existing geomechanics simulator,
simultaneously [10].
On the other hand, one of the big concerns in this
technique is its stability and accuracy that
imposes some timestep restrictions on runs.
However, for many subsidence problems, fluid-
flow calculations require timesteps that are
smaller than those imposed by the explicit
coupling calculations [9].
2.1.4. Iterative coupling
In this coupling method, which is also known as
two-way coupling, information computed in
reservoir simulator and geomechanics model is
exchanged back-and-forth through nonlinear
iterations for each timestep. Therefore, reservoir
flow is affected by geomechanical responses as
calculated by the geomechanics model [8].
During each nonlinear iteration, a simulator
performs computations sequentially for multi-
phase porous flow and displacements. Flow and
displacement calculations are then coupled
through calculations of pore volumes (or
reservoir porosity) at the end of each nonlinear
iteration [9].
The main advantage of this coupling is its
flexibility, i.e., the two systems can be solved by
different numerical methods. In addition, a
conventional reservoir simulator can be coupled
with a suitable geomechanics module with
modest modifications in both codes [9].
1255
This method will be challenging for difficult
problems as it may require a large number of
iterations due to a first-order convergence rate in
the nonlinear iterations [9]. Another bottleneck
to this technique is that only relatively small
jumps in pore volume (or the reservoir porosity)
can be handled due to the large volume of fluids
which must move to the wells to conserve mass
when compaction occurs in the field [10].
An iteratively coupled approach will produce the
same results as a fully coupled approach if both
techniques use sufficiently tight convergence
tolerances for iterations [11].
2.1.5. Full coupling
In this approach fluid-flow and displacement
calculations are performed together using one
discretization system, which is usually the finite
element method, and the program’s linear solver
must handle fluid-flow variables and displace-
ment variables simultaneously [9].
The primary attraction of the fully coupled
approach is that it is the most stable approach of
all the techniques and it preserves second-order
convergence of nonlinear iterations. The
solution is reliable and can be used as a
benchmark for other coupling approaches.
Drawbacks to the fully coupled approach include
the following: it may be difficult to couple
existing porous-flow simulators and
geomechanics simulators, it requires more code
development than other techniques, and it can be
slower than the explicit and iterative techniques
used on some problems [9]. However, this
approach is the “gold standard” of numerical
coupling methods [12].
2.2. Coupling methods
According to Settari and Mourits (1998), there
are two main components of the coupling
between fluid-flow and geomechanics [3].
2.2.1. Volume coupling
Pore volume changes as a result of stress,
pressure or temperature variations are considered
in this case. For convergence purpose, the
calculated pore volume changes should be equal
in both fluid flow and geomechanics models.
The pore volume changes from the
geomechanics model are usually more accurate
than those of the fluid-flow model because it is
computed by volumetric strain through a
complex and hopefully more realistic material
constitutive model than simple constant pore
compressibility.
This coupling is more suitable for problems
which deal with large porosity changes resulting
from shear or plastic deformation. These
problems are common in unconsolidated heavy
oils, soft compacting reservoirs, oil sands, North
Sea chalk, California diatomite and perhaps
some other materials such as coal.
2.2.2. Coupling through flow properties
In this approach to coupling, changes in
permeability and relative permeability are related
to changes in stress, shear stress, or compaction.
When shear occurs in a porous medium, the
nature of the medium is changed, leading to an
alteration in permeability and relative
permeability.
This is important in reservoirs where compress-
ibility effects do not have a significant role in the
volumetric behaviour, such as gas reservoirs in
which volume coupling is not important.
Another example is a waterflooding process with
an injection pressure close to or above fracturing
pressure, generating enhancement in the
permeability around injectors or induced fracture
zones (e.g. by shear dilation).
3. Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
A significant amount of oil & gas reserves -
more than 60% of the world’s proved
conventional oil reserves and 40% of the world’s
gas reservesa - are found in fractured reservoirs.
Characteriza-tion of naturally fractured
reservoirs is important for reservoir management
because fractures behave completely different
a
Schlumberger Market Analysis, 2007
1256
than matrix. In a fractured reservoir, for
example, easily accessible fluids are stored in
fractures, leading to rapid recovery at the early
stage of exploitation, followed by a precipitous
decline in production. If this type of reservoir is
modeled via a normal reservoir simulator,
significant errors in storativity and recovery
estimates are to be expected because of a lack of
coupling.
In the following section, the concept of dual-
porosity is introduced, and governing equations
for a fractured medium are presented, coupling
geomechanics, temperature and fluid-flow.
3.1. Concept of dual-porosity
A theory for fluid flow in fissured continua was
developed by Barenblatt et al. in the 1960’s.
Warren and Root (1963) introduced the dual-
porosity concept in a petroleum reservoir model.
Kazemi et al. (1976) used the dual-porosity
concept in a numerical model for modeling
fractured reservoirs at a sufficiently large scale
to that homogenization might be justified. Also,
mixture theory was introduced by Aifantis
(1985) to simulate dual-porosity fluid flow in a
deformable porous medium.
Dual-porosity models consist of two overlapping
continua (Figure 1): matrix-blocks (primary
pores) and fractures (secondary pores) [13].
Each continuum has its own fluid pressure.
Because of production or loads applied to the
reservoir, a pressure gradient is created between
the fluid in the matrix blocks and the adjacent
fractures. This pressure gradient causes the fluid
within the matrix to flow toward the fissured
continuum. Thereafter, matrix fluids continue
toward the producing point through the fractures
[14].
Fig. 1. Idealization of a fractured system with a dual-
porosity model [15]
It is usually assumed that matrix blocks have network. ∇ 2 , ∇ and ∇. represent the
high porosity (i.e. high storage capacity) and low Laplacian, the gradient and the divergence,
permeability, whereas the fractures have high respectively.
permeability and low porosity.
The Lamé’s constants ( λ and G ) may be
In the dual- porosity concept, the fluid flow directly identified with the drained modulus and
domain is divided into two contiguous the shear modulus. According to Nur and
interacting but distinct media (matrix blocks and Byerlee [18], volumetric strain for an isothermal
fracture network), coupled via a leakage dual-porosity media is defined as
coefficient.
Heat transfer in fractured reservoir modeling has σm ⎛ 1 ⎞1 ⎛ 1 1 ⎞
εv = +⎜ − ⎟ p1 + ⎜ − * ⎟ p2 (2)
⎝K Ks ⎠ ⎝ Kb K ⎠
*
not often been considered because of the Kb
complexity of heat flow in the fractured
reservoirs. If fluid advection is excluded, the where ε v is volumetric strain, K b , K * , K s are
main heat transfer mechanism is conduction, the bulk modulus of the fissured rock, porous
based on the thermal conductivity of the matrix rock without fissures and solid grains, respect-
blocks. In the case of heat transfer via fluid ively, and σ m = (σ 1 + σ 2 + σ 3 ) / 3 is the mean
flow, temperature dissipation in the matrix is a
predominant phenomenon in the reservoir [16]. normal total stress. By comparing Eq. (2) and
Conduction occurs only in the matrix blocks the isothermal volumetric strain definition - Eq.
whereas convective heat transfer occurs in both (3) - fluid pressure ratio factors are calculated as
media. shown in Eq. (4).
Usually the fracture network deformation is σm α1 α2
assumed to be negligible because of its small εv = + p1 + p2 (3)
Kb Kb Kb
volume in comparison with total void space. In
this case, according to Bai et al. [17], a reduction α1 = K b K (1 − K K s )
* *

in the consolidation response and the pressure (4)

dissipation in matrix block usually occur. For
this phenomenon, a feasibility study based on
field data is needed to quantify the effects
involved.
3.2. Governing equation
In a fractured medium, governing equations of
geomechanics, fluid-flow and temperature may
be written as below.
3.2.1. Geomechanics
2
α 2 = (1 − K b K )
*
Bai and Roegiers [17] extended the formulae for
one-dimensional consolidation of saturated soil
proposed by Šuklje [19] into a dual-porosity
formulation and defined the fluid pressure ratio
factors as a function of porosity:
α i = 1 − (1 − φi ) K b K s ( n = 1, 2) (5)
where φ1 and φ2 are the porosities for the matrix
blocks and the fracture network, respectively.

G∇ u + ( λ + G )∇ (∇.u) = ∑ (α i ∇p i + β Ti ∇Ti ) (1)

2 The thermal ratio factor may be expressed as
i =1
E
β Ti = ( 3λ + 2G ) α Ti = α Ti = 3K bα Ti (6)
Here λ and G are Lamé’s constants, u , p and (1 − 2ν )
T are displacement, pore pressure and
temperature, respectively, α i and βT are fluid where α T 1 and α T 2 are the thermal expansion

pressure and thermal ratio factors and subscripts coefficients for the matrix block and fracture
network, respectively [17].
i = 1 and 2 represent matrix block and fracture

1257
3.2.2. Fluid-flow For the case of fracture permeability, two
different permeabilities are usually defined: (a)
⎡ ∂p j ∂Tj ⎤
∑ ⎢( −1)
2
ki i+ j intrinsic fracture permeability (kƒƒ), which is a
∇ pi + + biα Tj
2

∂t ⎥⎦
aij
μ j =1 ⎣ ∂t (7) measure of fracture conductivity and is
independent of the matrix block (surrounding
±Γ ( Δp) = 0
rock), and (b) conventional fracture permeability
Here k is the fluid permeability, μ is the fluid (k2), which is based on Darcy’s law and
considers the matrix block. Following Van Golf-
dynamic viscosity, j = 1 and 2 represent matrix
Racht [22], both fracture permeabilities may be
blocks and fracture network, and a and b are calculated empirically using a cubic law.
coefficients described in Appendix A. Γ is a
2
fluid transfer coefficient which is a function of b
k ff = cos θ
2
pressure differences between matrix blocks and (11)
12
the fracture network. There are different forms
the fluid transfer coefficient for quasi-steady b
3

k2 = k f = cos θ
2
state flow [e.g. Barenblatt et al., 1960; Warren (12)
and Root, 1963] and transient flow [e.g. Kazemi, 12h
1969; Kazemi et al., 1976; Rossen, 1977]. The
where k ff is the intrinsic fracture permeability,
quasi-steady state coefficient introduced by
Warren and Root is described as b is fracture aperture, k2 (= k f ) is conventional
Γ = γ (p1 − p 2 ) (8) fracture permeability, h is the thickness of the
layer and θ is the angle between the fracture
where direction and flow direction. Due to the fracture
roughness or tortuosity, fracture permeability
4n ( n + 2 ) k1 generally deviates from a cubic law, and may be
γ = (9)
μ adjusted with some correction factors [22].
2
d

Here n = 1, 2, 3 is the number of normal sets of 3.2.3. Temperature

fractures and d is the average dimension of a
∂T ∂ε v
porous matrix block [16]. K Ti ∇ Ti − ci − T0 β Ti ± Γ ( ΔT) = 0
2 s *
(13)
Khaled [20] applied the Kozeny empirical ∂t ∂t
formula for permeabilities in a matrix block in
where KT is the thermal conductivity, c s is the
the following manner:
intrinsic heat capacity, T0 is the absolute
φ1 10
2 8 8
10
k1 = = (10) temperature in a stress-free state and Γ* is the
2 F1 S (1 − φ1 )
2 2 2

v1
2 F1 S
where k1 is the fluid permeability in the matrix
block (in mD), F1 is the formation resistivity
factor of porous rock without fissures, Sv1 is the
specific surface of the porous block on a solid
volume basis (cm2/cm3) and Sφ1 is the specific
surface of the porous block on a pore volume
basis (cm2/cm3) [21].
φ1
thermal transfer coefficient.
In Eq. (13), the first term on the left hand side is
the temperature conduction in the rock medium
which is filled with liquid, the second term is the
change in energy, and the third term is the
deformation conversion energy (i.e. the effect of
volumetric strain on temperature changes) which
is small and usually neglected for computational
convenience (as recommended by Booker and
Savvidou [23]). The last term defines the heat
transfer between the matrix block and fracture

1258
network which is a function of temperature
differences between the media [17].
4. Numerical Modeling
In any engineering analysis, for quick estimation
and physical insight into the coupled problem, an
analytical or semi-analytical solution is
preferred. Although there are some analytical
solutions for coupled stress-flow problems such
as transient single-phase flow to a vertical well
[24], numerical methods are usually
implemented to model the coupled behavior of
reservoir. There are some constraints for
analytical method development for coupled
reservoir modeling such as a limited degree of
coupling [25], simple linear constitutive laws
[24], constant boundary conditions, and
simplified geometry.
Different numerical methods are usually used for
the reservoir simulation. In the literature, the
partial coupling approach often uses finite
difference methods (FDM) for fluid flow and
finite element methods (FEM) for geomechanical
computations [10]. In the case of full coupling,
different types of discretization methods can be
used such as finite differences [26, 27] or finite
elements [28, 29].
Efforts have been made to improve the
performance of numerical modeling in terms of
computational time (cost). One of these attempts
by Yin et al. [28] uses a finite element method
(FEM) for the reservoir region and a
displacement discontinuity method (DDM) to
model the overburden and boundary conditions
(Figure 2).
Fig. 2. Finite element and displacement discontinuity
element in a hybrid numerical modeling [27].
1259
They defined three zones: the reservoir; a T-p
influence zone which considers diffusion but not
convection; and the “rest of the world”,
represented by DD elements (Figure 3). The
exterior is elastic, whereas the reservoir (interior
zone) may experience non-linear behavior such
as dilatancy or collapse. Pressure and tempera-
ture flux are considered in the intermediate zone.
The advantage of this model is that it reduced the
degrees of freedom by a factor of 5 or so [12].
Fig. 3. Three zone concept in DDFEM model [30].
5. Some Applications
Applications for coupled modeling of fractured
reservoirs might include reservoir compaction
modeling, prediction of fracture propagation,
modeling of casing shear and well damage, shear
dilation modeling in thermally enhanced
recovery and so on. Here, some of these
applications are reviewed.
5.1. Reservoir compaction modeling
Reservoir compaction has important influences
both inside and outside of the reservoir such as
improved oil recovery via increasing the
production drive energy (up to 50 to 80% of total
production drive energy), surface or seafloor
subsidence (e.g. Wilmington field in California
and Ekofisk field in the North Sea (Figure 4)),
well failure, fault reactivation (e.g. Groningen
gas field in the Netherlands), permeability
reduction, and deformation of overlying shales
and aquifers (e.g. Cold Lake reservoir in
Alberta).
Different mechanism can induce compaction
such as compression, shear failure (e.g. chalk
reservoirs) and temperature increases (e.g.
diatomite) [32].
It is necessary to couple geomechanics with a
reservoir simulator to achieve a better prediction
of reservoir performance. Then, appropriate
mitigation measured can be studied, such as
modifying the injection scenarios or maintenance
of reservoir pressure above a certain level.
Fig 4. 3D representation of reservoir compaction and
sea-floor subsidence at Ekofisk field, North Sea [31]
5.2. Prediction of fracture propagation
Fracture geometry is a major concern in the oil
industry and different methods are used to assess
the fracture network characteristics. Among
these methods, passive microseismic monitoring
during injection is used to identify the location of
microseismic events, which are then used to infer
fracture geometry. This method is relatively
complex and uncertain.
When a reservoir rock is fractured, it is loaded
by stresses from fracture opening (deformation),
leak-off (pressure) and cooling or heating of the
area surrounding the fractures (temperature).
This process is a thermo-hydro-mechanical
coupled one, so a coupled approach might be
implemented here to model the fracture
propagation. Settari et al. [33] introduced several
types of numerical models to analyze the
fracturing mechanisms such as a pseudo-discrete
model which uses a continuum model with
pseudo-properties for a fissured rock.
In their approach, they assumed fractures with
zero normal displacement at initial conditions.
When the pressure exceeds the normal stress, the
1260
element will be fractured (Figure 5). In this
case, the location of microseismic events can be
predicted and the fracture geometry can be
deduced by matching numerical results with field
measurements.
Fig 5. Coupled fracture model [33]
6. Conclusion
The importance of geomechanics in the oil
industry was reviewed. In many cases, coupling
between fluid-flow and geomechanics is
essential, especially when we encounter stress-
sensitive reservoirs (collapse, changes in k, etc).
In conventional simulation, geomechanical
effects such as stress and strain changes are not
accounted for; this simplification leads to
inaccuracy in the modeling of reservoirs.
Different levels of fluid-flow and geomechanics
coupling can be used. Explicit coupling is
usually the easiest and fastest technique because
the relationship between the fluid-flow simulator
and the geomechanics simulator is one-way,
which means that only the results of fluid-flow
simulation are applied to the geomechanics
module. Iterative coupling is a two-way
coupling method between the fluid-flow and
geomechanics simulators in which information is
exchanged between them until convergence is
achieved. Full coupling is the most rigorous
approach, where the fluid-flow and
geomechanics equations are solved
simultaneously. It is the most reliable and stable
technique in comparison with other techniques if
all conditions are identical.
When all different techniques give the same
results, some other criteria should be of concern
in choosing the most suitable coupling method,
such as numerical stability, less computational
time, and program availability.
Also, the governing equations of geomechanics, uniaxial compaction modulus or oedometer
fluid-flow and temperature for a dual-porosity modulus; and δ ij is the Kronecker delta [16].
media were reviewed and essential parameters
for a thermo-hydro-mechanical coupling were References
introduced (Table. 1)
1. Biot, M.A., 1941. General Theory of Three-
Table 1. Essential parameters for a thermo-hydro-
mechanical coupling Dimensional Consolidation, J. Applied Physics,
12, 155–164.
Mechanism Parameters 2. Chen, H.Y. and L.W. Teufel, 2000. Coupling
s *
Thermal α KT c Γ Fluid-Flow and Geomechanics in Dual-Porosity
Hydraulic μ k Kf ρf Γ
Modeling of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs –
Model Description and Comparison, paper SPE
Mechanical Kb E ν Kn Ks ρs 59043 presented at the International Petroleum
Physical n s
* Conference and Exhibition, Mexico.
3. Settari, A. and F.M. Mourits, 1998. A
Appendix A Coupled Reservoir and Geomechanical Model-
ing System, SPEJ, SPE 50939, 219-226.
Fluid flow and heat flow coupling in a dual- 4. Tortike, W.S. and S.M. Farouq Ali, 1993.
porosity media may be expressed via the Reservoir Simulation Integrated with Geomech-
following equations modified from the original anics, J. of Canadian Pet. Tech., 32 (5), 28-37.
source (Eq. (7)). 5. Mainguy, M. and P. Longuemare, 2002.
Coupling Fluid Flow and Rock Mechanics:
ki 2
⎡ ∂p j ∂Tj ⎤
∇ p i + ∑ ⎢ ( −1) aij + biα Tj
2 i+ j
Formulations of the Partial Coupling between
μ j =1 ⎣ ∂t ∂t ⎥⎦ (A.1) Reservoir and Geomechanical Simulators, Oil &
±Γ ( Δp) = 0 Gas Science and Technology, 57 (4), 355-367.
6. Fredrich J.T., J.G. Arguelo, B.J. Throne, W.R.
where a and b are coefficients which are Wawersik, G.L. Deitrick, E.P. de Rouffiganc,
described as: and M.S. Bruno, 1996. Three-Dimensional
Geomechanical Simulation of Reservoir
⎡ (1 − φi ) φi ⎤ ⎡ 2φ j * ⎤
aij = ⎢ + ⎥ δ ij + ⎢ ⎥ (1 − δ ij ) Compaction and Implications for Well Failures
⎣ Ki Kf ⎦ ⎣(K j + K f )⎦ (A.2) in the Beldridge Diatomite, paper SPE 36698
i+ j
( −1) ⎡ Kb ⎤ ⎡ Kb ⎤ presented at the SPE Annual Technical
+ ⎢1 − (1 − φi ) K ⎥ ⎢1 − (1 − φ j ) K ⎥ Conference and Exhibition, v Sigma.
H ⎣ s ⎦ ⎣ s ⎦
7. Bagheri, M., 2006. Modeling Geomechanical
3K b ⎡ K ⎤ Effects on the Flow Properties of Fractured
bi =
⎢1 − (1 − φ ) K ⎥ (A.3)
b
Reservoirs. PhD thesis, Uni. of Calgary,
⎣ ⎦
i
H s Calgary.
8. Tran, D. and L. Nghiem, 2005. An Overview
Here φ * is the effective porosity with considera- of Iterative Coupling between Geomechanical
tion of average compressibility; K1 ( = K s ) , Deformation and Reservoir Flow, paper SPE
97879 presented at International Thermal Oper-
K 2 ( = K n s ) , K f and K b are the bulk modulus of
*

ations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary.

matrix, fracture, fluid and rock skeleton, 9. Dean, R.H., X. Gai, C.M. Stone and S.E.
respectively; K n is the fracture normal stiffness; Minkoff, 2006. A Comparison of Techniques for
s* is the fracture spacing; H ( = λ + 2G ) is the Coupling Porous Flow and Geomechanics, paper
SPE 79709 presented at Reservoir Simulation
Symposium, Houston.

1261
10. Minkoff, S., C. Stone, S. Bryant, M.
Peszynska and M. Wheeler, 2003. Coupled Fluid
Flow and Geomechanical Deformation Model-
ing. J. of Petroleum Science and Eng., 38, 37-56.
11. Settari, A. and D.A. Walters, 1999.
Advances in Coupled Geomechanical and
Reservoir Modeling with Applications to
Reservoir Compaction, paper SPE 51927
presented at Reservoir Simulation Symposium,
Houston, Texas.
12. Dusseault M. B. 2008. Coupling Geomech-
anics and Transport in Petroelum Engineering,
1st Southern Hemisphere International Rock
Mechanics Symposium, Perth.
13. Barenblatt, G.I., Iu.P. Zehltov and I.N.
Kochina, 1960. Basic Concepts in the Theory of
Seepage of Homogeneous Liquids in Fissured
Rocks, Soviet Appl. Math. Mech. 24, 1286-1303
14. Ghafouri, H.R. and R.W. Lewis, 1996. A
Finite Element Double Porosity Model for
Heterogeneous Deformable Porous Media. Int. J.
Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech., 20(11), 831–844.
15. Warren, J.E. and P.J. Root, 1963. The
Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs.
SPEJ, 3, 245-255.
16. Master, I., W.K.S. Pao, and R.W. Lewis,
2000, Coupling Temperature to a Double-
Porosity Model of Deformable Porous Media,
Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng., 49, 421-438.
17. Bai, M., and J.C., Roegiers, 1994, Fluid
Flow and Heat Flow in Deformable Fractured
Porous Media, Int. J. Eng. Sci., 32 (10), 1615-33.
18. A. Nur and J.O. Byrlee, 1971. An Exact
Effective Stress Law for Elastic Deformation of
Rock with Fluid, J. Geoph. Res., 76, 6414–6418.
19. Šuklje, L. 1969. Rheological Aspects of Soil
Mechanics. 1st ed. New York: Wiley.
20. Khaled, M. 1980. Infiltration of a Two-state
Compressible Fluid through a Linearly Deform-
ed, Porous, Elastic, Fissured rock, Ph.D. Thesis,
Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois.
21. Wilson, R.K. and E.C. Aifantis, 1982. On the
Theory of Consolidation with Double Porosity,
Int. J. Engng Sci., 20(9), 1009-1035.
22. van Golf-Racht, T.D. 1982. Fundamentals of
Fractured Reservoir Engineering. 1st ed. New
York: Elsevier.
1262
23. Booker, J.R. and C. Savvidou, 1985. Con-
solidation around a Point Heat Source, Int. J.
Num. Anal. Meth. Geomech., 9, 173-184.
24. Rothenburg, L., R.K. Bratli and M.B.
Dusseault, 1994. A Poroelastic Solution for
Transient Fluid Flow into a Well, PMRI
Publications, University of Waterloo, Canada.
25. Wang, Y. and M.B. Dusseault, 2003. A
Coupled Conductive-Convective Thermo Poro-
elastic Solution and Implications for Wellbore
Stability. J. of Pet. Sci. and Eng., 38, 187-198.
26. Osorio, J.G., H.Y. Chen, L. Teufel and S.
Schaffer, 1998. A Two-Domain, Fully Coupled
Fluid Flow/Geomechanical Simulation Model
for Reservoirs with Stress-Sensitive Mechanical
and Fluid-Flow Properties, Proc. SPE/ISRM
Eur-ock’98, Trondheim, Norway, 455-464.
27. Stone, T., B. Garfield and P. Papanastasiou,
2000. Fully Coupled Geomechanics in a
Commercial Reservoir Simulator, paper SPE
65107 presented at SPE European Petroleum
Conference, Paris.
28. Yin, S., M.B. Dusseault and L. Rothenburg,
2007. Coupled Multiphase Poroelastic Analysis
of Reservoir Depletion Including Surrounding
Strata. Int. J. of Rock Mech. & Mining Sci., 44,
758–766.
29. Lewis, R.W. and B.A. Schrefler, 1998. The
Finite Element Method in the Static and
Dynamic Deformation and Consolidation of
Porous Media. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.
30. Dusseault, M.B., S. Yin, L. Rothenburg and
H. Han, 2007. Seismic Monitoring and Geo-
mechanics Simulation, The Leading Edge, 26,
610-620.
31. Lewis, R.W., A. Makurat and W.K.S. Pao,
2003. Fully Coupled Modeling of Seabed
Subsidence and Reservoir Compaction of North
Sea Oil Fields. Hydrogeology J., 11, 142-161
32. Settari, A. 2002. Reservoir Compaction,
Journal of Petroleum Technology, 54(8), 62-69.
33. Settari, A., R.B. Sullivan, D.A. Walters and
P.A. Wawrzynek, 2002. 3-D Analysis and
Prediction of Microseismicity in Fracturing by
Coupled Geomechanical Modeling, paper SPE
75714 presented at the SPE Gas Technology
Symposium, Calgary, Alberta.