Effects Of Reservoir Compaction

In Deep Water Environment

N. Yusuf
Harold Vance Department
of Petroleum Engineering.
Texas A&M University

Outline

Objectives

Linear Elastic properties of a solid material

Elastic properties applied to reservoir rock
Review of SPE papers

Objectives

Understand Reservoir compaction

Determination of parameters affecting kh
Review industry works to obtain, k, h
Develop a criteria / selection tool

Outline

Linear Elastic properties of a solid material

Youngs modulus, E

F
vertical stress zz
A
z
vertical strain zz
z
zz
Young Modulus E
zz

F
z
A
Z

Typical values
E steel 3 x 107 psi
E rock 3 x 105 psi
5

Poisson Ratio,
F
A
z
vertical strain zz
z
x
normal strain xx
X
y
normal strain yy
Y
xx yy
Poisson ratio

zz
zz

vertical stress zz

Typical values
v steel 0.3
v rock 0.3

z
A
Z

Bulk modulus, K

V
bulk strain b
V

bulk mod ulus K

V/V
E
K
3(1 - 2v)
Typical values
K steel 2.5 x 107 psi
K rock 2.5 x 105 psi

Uniaxial modulus, M

No movement (strain ) allowed except for zz

zz
Uniaxial mod ulus M
zz

E(1 - v)
M
(1 v)(1 - 2v)

Constrained

Constrained

Typical values
M steel 4.04 x 10 psi
7

M rock 4.04 x 105 psi

Constrained

Outline

Elastic properties applied to reservoir rock

Strain relationships for Porous Rock

Vb Vp Vg

Vb: bulk volume

Vb Vp Vg

Vp: pore volume

Vb
Vg
Vp

Vb
Vb
Vb
Vb
Vg

Vb
Vb

Vg

V
g

Vg: grain volume

Vp
Vb

Vp

V
p

b g 1 p
p

g 1

10

Strain relationships for Porous Rock

With respect to change in pressure

1 Vb
1 Vp
1 Vg

1
Vb p
Vp p
Vg p
Cb Cp ( 1 ) C g
Cp

Cb

Cg

11

Rock compressibility
Elastic Compressibilities- Definitions

Vb

Volume changes: Bulk volume:

Pore Volume:
Pressure changes:

Overburden Pressure:
Pore Pressure:

Bulk Volume Compressibilities

Pore Volume Compressibilities

Vp
pp

1 Vb
c bc

pp
Vib pc

c pc

pc

1 Vp

pp
Vi b pc

1
c bp
Vib

Cpc

Vb

pc
p p

1 Vp
Vib pc

pp

12

Compressibility relationships for a Porous Rock

Zimmerman, 1991

1.
2.

Cb p Cbc Cg
Cpp Cpc

Cg

Bulk strain due to pore pressure changes

Vs bulk strain due to lab pressure changes

Pore strain due to pore pressure changes

Vs pore strain due to lab pressure changes

3.

Cbp i Cpc

BULK STRAIN due to PORE PRESSURE

changes related to PORE STRAIN due to
CONFINING PRESSURE changes.

SIGNIFICANCE:
1 psi change in Confining (or Lab) pressure produce more strain on the bulk & pore
volume than 1 psi change in pore pressure by an amount equal to the matrix
compressibility.
If matrix compressibility is negligible, equal changes in either pore or confining (lab)
pressure produce the same bulk and pore volume changes.

13

Compressibility relationships for a Porous Rock

Zimmerman, 1991: OTHER FORMS OF THE RELATION

Cpc

Cpp

Cbc

Cg

i
Cbc ( 1 i ) Cg

14

Compressibility relationships for a Porous Rock

Nur & Byerlee, 1971: EFFECTIVE STRESS LAW

eff

pc pp
is the Biots constant

K
Cg
1
Kg
Cbc

SIGNIFICANCE:
To simulate an equivalent strain in a porous rock the laboratory
stress should be less than the pore pressure depletion by a 1- .

15

Uniaxial compressibility
Overburden
Loading conditions:
constrained strain
Uniaxial compressibility Cm
Constrained

Constrained

Cm

1 Cbc
3 1
Constrained

16

Typical Lab Testing

Hydrostatic Test

Triaxial Test

Uniaxial Strain Test

3/2

To compute Cbc, Cpc

1
l

3/2

To compute , Cm

d
To compute Cm

17

Uni-axial Strain Test / Oedometer Test

Simulates the reservoir boundary condition of zero

lateral displacement.

Provide direct measurement of Cm, uniaxial

compaction coefficient.

Difficulty: Requires size of core to fit Exactly in the

cell.
Gap in cells: Lateral strain, disintegration of
sample, measurement errors.

18

Tri-axial Test

Generally used to determine strength under various

conditions of stress: i.e. vary

1
Modifications: to balance lateral effect of 1
Calculation of

l
Difficulty: Requires size of core to fit Exactly in the cell.

3/2

19

Hydrostatic Test

Easiest to conduct, Hydrostatic confining pressure:

Measure Pore compressibility : Cpc

Bulk compressibility: Cbc

Uni-axial compressibility (Cm) can be calculated

using: the uni-axial correction factor

1(1 )
3 (1 )

3/2

20

Reservoir compaction
Constrained Deformation in the reservoir
Axial Compaction co-efficient Ca:

Cm

1 z
Z p

Overburden

z Cmp

Total reduction in reservoir height

Constrained

Constrained

H pf

H Cm p, z pz
0 pi

Neglecting variation of Cm with pressure

Constrained

H Cm z p z pz
0

21

Reservoir compaction
Factors leading to Reservoir compaction
Large reduction in pore pressure

Large vertical extent of the zone of pressure reduction

Large order of magnitude of Cm

Controlling magnitude of compaction

Pressure maintenance, Limiting Perf interval
Study of Cm

22

Outline

Review of SPE papers

23

Paper Review 1
SPE 3730:

Land Subsidence Above Compacting Oil and Gas Reservoirs J Geeertsma

Early work to understand the subject

Causes of compaction / subsidence
Prediction method

Approach:
Observations from field data
Mathematical derivation
Compaction / Subsidence prediction

24

Paper Review 1
SPE 3730:

Land Subsidence Above Compacting Oil and Gas Reservoirs J Geeertsma

Susceptible reservoirs from observed field Data

Loose / weakly cemented formation
Low depth of reservoir burial (ave: 1000m)
Significant p (e.g depletion type reservoir)
p over large interval
Consolidated reservoirs with large p & H

Factors affecting Cm
Rock type (hard, consolidated, friable, loose)
Degree of cementation
Porosity (high -> high Cm)
Depth of burial

25

Paper Review 1
SPE 3730:

Land Subsidence Above Compacting Oil and Gas Reservoirs J Geeertsma

Prediction tool: Calculation of Cm

Sandstone:
3 rock types, 2 depths

Input variables:
Rock type
Porosity / Stress level
Depth

Interpretation:
Low Cm: 1-3 X 10-5
High Cm: > 10 X 10-5

26

Paper Review 1
SPE 3730:

Land Subsidence Above Compacting Oil and Gas Reservoirs J Geeertsma

Limestone:
depth

2 rock types, 1

Prediction tool:
Limited variables

27

Paper Review 2
SPE 66479:

Compaction Effects on Porosity and Permeability in Deepwater Gulf of Mexico-R.M. Ostermeier

Peculiarity in Deep water Environment

High developmental cost
Typical sand is unconsolidated
Limited Aquifer support
Problematic pressure maintenance

Approach:
Core samples collection over 4 yrs
Laboratory measurement of stress Vs k,
Development of permeability model

28

Paper Review 2
SPE 66479:

Compaction Effects on Porosity and Permeability in Deepwater Gulf of Mexico-R.M. Ostermeier

Results: Varying responses with 2 extreme cases

Case A:
Geologically younger :softer sands
Exhibiting higher PV compressibility (25)
Compr increases to a max value (120)
Case D:
Geologically older sands: harder
Exhibiting lower initial PV Compr (12)
Slight decrease(10)

29

Paper Review 2
SPE 66479:

Compaction Effects on Porosity and Permeability in Deepwater Gulf of Mexico-R.M. Ostermeier

Porosity & Permeability variations: Case A

Loading Conditions:
Step increases of pressure to 7,000 psi
Time period of 1,500 days

Results:
Porosity: 0.32 0.24 (25%),
Permeability: 1.3 0.2 D (84.6%)

k

ko
o

6.5

30

Paper Review 2
SPE 66479:

Compaction Effects on Porosity and Permeability in Deepwater Gulf of Mexico-R.M. Ostermeier

Porosity & Permeability variations: Case D

Loading Conditions:
Step increases of pressure to 8,000 psi
Time period of 300 days

Results:
Porosity: 0.265 - 0.250 (5.7%),
Permeability: 0.65 - 0.475 D (26.9%)

k o o

5 .3

31

Paper Review 2
SPE 66479:

Compaction Effects on Porosity and Permeability in Deepwater Gulf of Mexico-R.M. Ostermeier

Permeability model

Limitations
High error range: +/- 30%
Requires Stress Vs as input

32