You are on page 1of 0

SPE 73742

A Numerical Model to Study the Formation Damage by Rock Deformation from Well
Test Analysis
Jose Gildardo Osorio, SPE, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Alejandro Wills, SPE, New Mexico Institute of Mining and
Technology, Osmar Rene Alcalde, SPE, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition
on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, 2021 February 2002.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
In oil/gas reservoirs, the state of stress changes as fluid
production/injection from/into the reservoir takes place. Also,
petrophysical and geomechanical properties may change due
to the variation of the effective stress. However, this
consideration is seldom taken into account in well
test analysis.
This paper presents a numerical, fully coupled, fluidflow/geomechanical model to perform well test analysis in
stress-sensitive reservoirs. The governing equations are
developed in cylindrical coordinates honoring the geometry of
the flow lines characterizing the drainage area in most well
tests. The model is a 3D, point distributed, finite-difference
simulator which applies a fully implicit discretization scheme
to ensure maximum stability.
The model assumes isothermal, single-phase fluid-flow
(slightly compressible fluid). Infinite and finite acting
behavior is allowed during the well test. Reservoir properties
are allowed to change from one layer to another. Both cases
isotropic and anisotropic rock property behaviors are
considered in the model. The rock behaves as elastic system
whose deformation is described by nonlinear theory
(the mechanical properties are function of the mean
effective stress).
The results show that in stress-sensitive reservoirs the
permeability decreases with production time reaching its
minimum value near the wellbore and moving more and more
into the reservoir as production time increases. After a certain
production time, the permeability distribution reaches a
constant value. An important finding from this study is that the
damage caused by rock deformation is irreversible; therefore,

its early detection and treatment is essential for optimum


reservoir management.
Introduction
Conventionally, well test analysis models are based on the
following implicit assumptions: (i) constant fluid-flow and
geomechanical rock properties, and (ii) constant stress state.
However, published laboratory studies show that in stress
sensitive reservoirs rock properties may change significantly
with variation of the pore pressure and the stress state.1-7 Also,
the variation in the well pressure produces a variation in the
stress state. In fact, the largest deviations from the initial stress
state are found at the borehole wall and its neighborhood
where the pore pressure variation is always maximum.
To study the impact that the above mentioned assumptions
have on well testing, it is necessary to solve the governing
equations describing the deformation of the solid part of the
rock coupled with the governing equations describing the
changes in the pore pressure. Due to their strong nonlinear
behavior, the solution of this set of differential equations must
be performed numerically.
This paper presents a 3D, point-distributed, finitedifference model discribing the formation damage caused by
rock deformation in stress-sensitive reservoirs. The physical
system is represented in cilyndrical coordinates and
discretized by means of a point-distributed grid (Fig. 1). The
governing equations are based mainly on the following
assumptions: (i) isothermal, single-phase fluid flow, (ii) the
deformation of the solid part of the rock behaves as a
nonlinear elastic medium with small strains, and (iii) the
mechanical and fluid-flow properties are assumed to be
functions of the mean effective stress. The primary variables
in the resulting system of governing equations are the
incremental displacements and the pore pressure.
The nonlinear set of equations is discretized using secondorder approximations in space. A fully-implicit procedure is
applied to achieve maximum numerical stability. The resulting
set of algebraic equations are arranged as a 4 x 4 block matrix
system corresponding to each of the four primary unknowns
(i.e., the incremental displacements in the r-, - and zdirections and the pore pressure). The numerical procedure
used to solve this system of equations involves an iterative

J.G. OSORIO, A. WILLS, O.R. ALCALDE

sequence that includes evaluation of nonlinear properties as


function of pore pressure and stress state.
Mathematical Formulation
The model used in this study assumes an isothermal singlephase fluid flowing through a deformable rock skeleton. The
deformation of the solid part of the rock behaves as a
nonlinear elastic medium with small strains. The fluid-flow
and geomechanical properties are functions of the average
effective stress and may vary from layer to layer. The model
may be applied to both infinite and finite acting reservoirs.
The physical model is represented by a successive set of
concentric cylinders of variable height and thickness.
Horizontally, the system is divided into arcs of different
angular size. The governing equations are represented in
cylindrical coordinates.
The mathematical formulation of the model presented in
this paper accounts for the multicomponent nature of the
reservoir rock (one fluid component and one solid
component). Therefore, the formulation comes from the
coupling of two different models: a fluid-flow model
describing the motion of the pore fluid and a stressdeformation model describing the deformation of the rock
solid skeleton.
Fluid-Flow Model. Four basic relations constitute the fluidflow model: fluid mass conservation, solid mass conservation,
Darcys law, and the equation of state. Mathematically, these
relations can be expressed as follows
Fluid mass conservation:

) (

f u fz
1 f u fr r 1 f u f

=
r
r
r

z
1 ( f Vt ) ~
+ q f ................................................. (1)
t
Vt
Solid mass conservation:

1 [ s (1 )u sr r ] 1 s (1 )u f

r
r
s (1 )u fz
1 f Vt [(1 )] ~
=
+ q s .................. (2)
z
Vt
t

Darcys law:

(u fi u si ) = k

p ........................................ (3)

Equation of state (isothermal fluid compressibility):


cf =

1 f
................................................... (4)
f p

SPE 73742

In Eq. 1 through 4, is the density, is the effective


~
porosity, u is the velocity, V is the bulk volume, q is the
t

source/sink term expressed as mass rate per unit of bulk


volume (we adopt the convention that the minus sign represent
a source and the plus sign a sink), k is the permeability
tensor, is the fluid viscosity, p is the fluid pressure, t is
time, and c is compressibility. The subscript f refers to fluid.
The subscripts r , , and z refer to the r , , and
z directions, respectively. The subscripts s and l refer to the
liquid and solid phases, respectively. The symbol denotes
gradient.
For a slightly compressible fluid. Eq. 4 yields:

f = fo e

c f ( p p0 )

............................................... (5)

In Eq. 4, the subcript o refers to a reference state.


Combining Eqs. 1, 2, 3 and 5 gives the following fluid
flow equation:
1
r f
r r


f kz
z
f

kr p 1
f k p +
+
f r r f

~
p
= f 1 V P + c f p + q f ........ (6)
z
t
V p t

In Eq. 6, V p is the pore volume. Eq. 3 assumes that the


solid source/sink term is zero.
Following Zimmerman8, the change of the pore volume
term in Eq. 6 can be expressed as
1 dV p 1
dp
d
= (cbc c r (1 + )) (cbc c r ) v
V p dt
dt
dt cbc

(7)

In Eq. 7, v is the volumetric strain (in this study the stress


is positive if compressive), cs is the compressibility of the
rock-matrix material measured from an unjacketed
compressibility test, and c bc is the bulk compressibility
expressing the effect of the mean stress variation on the bulk
volume at constant pore pressure8,
1 V
c bc = t .............................................. (8)
V t p

In Eq. 8, is the mean stress.


Substitution of Eq. 7 into Eq. 6 gives,

dp
~
K
(c bc c r ) v + q f
f
p = f c t
f
dt c bc
dt

...................................................................................... (9)

SPE 73742 A NUMERICAL MODEL TO STUDY THE FORMATION DAMAGE BY ROCK DEFORMATION FROM WELL TEST ANALYSIS

In Eq. 9, denotes divergence; ct is a compressibility


term given by:

r =

ct = cbc cr (1 + ) + c f ...............................................(10)

rz =

The porosity is a pressure and stress-dependent property


which can be expressed as
d = (c bc (1 + ) c r )(d dp ) ..................................(11)
Stress-Deformation Model. The fundamental assumption of
the stress-deformation model is that the relationship between
increments in stress and increments in strain from time t to
time t + dt is described by the theory of nonlinear elastic
deformation with small strains.
The stress-deformation model is based on three basic
relations: stress-equilibrium, strain-displacement and stressstrain-pressure equations
Stress-equilibrium equations. To preserve equilibrium of
forces after a time increment t, the stress-equilibrium
equations must satisfy that9
0
0
0
0
0
r 1 r rz r r 1 r
+
+
+
+
+
r
z
r
r
r
r
zr r
+
+
= 0 .........................................(12)
r
z
0
0
0
0
1 r z 2 r 1 r
+
+
+
+
+
r
r
r
r
z
r
r 2 r
+
+
= 0 ................................................(13)
z
r
0

0
0
0
z rz 1 z rz z rz
+
+
+
+
+
z
r
z
r
r
r
1 z rz
+
+
= 0 ................................................(14)
r
r

In Eqs. 12 through 14, i , i = r, , z, is the incremental


total stresses in the i direction; rz , r and z are
incremental shear stresses.
Strain-displacement equations. In incremental form, the
incremental displacements and incremental strains are related
by10, 11
u r
.................................................................(15)
r
u
1
= u r +
...............................................(16)

r =

z =

u z
.................................................................(17)
z

1 ur
u
u +
................................(18)

2r
r

1 u z u r
+

...........................................(19)
2 r
z
1 1 u z u
z =
+
.......................................(20)
2 r
z

In Eqs. 15 through 20, i and ui , i = r, , z, are the


incremental normal strains and the displacements,
respectively, in the i direction; r , rz and z are
incremental shear stresses.
Stress-strain-pressure equations. The stress-strainpressure equations in incremental form are given by4
ij = 2 G ij + v ij + p ij .............................(21)

In Eq. 21, p is the incremental pore pressure; G , and


are the shear modulus, the Lames constant and the Biots
poroelastic constant, respectively; ij is Kroneckers delta
( ij = 1 for i=j, ij = 0 for i j); v is the incremental
volumetric strain defined as
v =

u
u r 1
+ u r +

u z
+
.....................(22)

The effective stress is a measure of the actual stress carried


by the solid skeleton of the rock. The incremental effective
stress law defines the relation combining the incremental total
stress and the incremental pore pressure to obtain the
incremental effective stress. Following the usual definition for
the effective stress, the incremental effective stress is given by

ij = ij p ij ...................................................(23)

The Biots poroelastic parameter in Eq. 23 is a function of


the stress state (effective stress) at which the increment ij

takes place. Notice that Eq. 21 can be written as

ij = 2 G ij + v ij ............................................(24)

Governing Equations of the Stress-Deformation Model in


Terms of Displacements and Pore Pressure. The stressdeformation model can be written in terms of the incremental
displacements and incremental pore pressure by introducing
Eqs. 15 through 20 into the set of equations represented by Eq.
24, and substituting the resulting equations into Eqs. 12
through 14. This results in

J.G. OSORIO, A. WILLS, O.R. ALCALDE

0
0
0
0
0
r 1 r rz r
+
+
+
+ (Gu r )
r
r
z
r
(p ) 1 (Gu
u

+ G
+ ( u ) +
r

r r
r2

2G
r

u r

(p
)

2G u
= 0 ...........................................(25)
r 2

(Gu r )
1
( u ) + 1 (p ) G u + 22
2
r
r

r
r
(Gu ) Gu 3G u
1

+
= 0 .............(26)
+
r
r
r r r r
+

0
0
0
0
z rz 1 z rz
+
+
+
+
z
r
r
r
(p )
u
(G u z ) + G
=0
+ ( u ) +
z
z z
.......................................................................................(27)

In Eqs. 25 through 27, u is the incremental displacement


vector given by

u = ( u r + u + u z )T ......................................(28)
Initial Boundary Conditions. The solution of the governing
equations requires the definition of fluid-flow and
geomechanical initial conditions.
Fluid-Flow Initial Condition. The initial pore pressure is a
function of the depth. Mathematically,
p( x , y , z ) = p o (z ) , t = 0 ..............................................(29)
Geomechanical Initial Conditions. The simulation is
initialized
with
zero
incremental
displacements.
Mathematically,

u i = 0 , i = r , , z ;

t = 0 ..........................................(30)

Outer Boundary Conditions. Outer boundary conditions are


required for both the fluid-flow and the stress-deformation
equations.
Fluid-Flow Boundary Conditions. The model assumes
constant flow rate at the wellbore and no fluid-flow at the
outer boundaries of the reservoir. Mathematically,

(p

r )r = rw = q kA t = Cons tan t ................................(31)

(p

r )r = r = 0 .............................................................(32)
e

z ) z =bottom and

SPE 73742

top

= 0 .............................................(33)

Stress-Deformation
Boundary
Conditions.
Zero
incremental displacements are considered at the outer
boundaries, except at the reservoir top which is treated as a
constant stress boundary and equal to the overburden.
Mathematically,

u i )r = rw , re = 0 , for i = r , , z ...................................(34)

u i )bottom = 0 , for i = r , , z ....................................(35)


At the reservoir top9, 11, 12,
1
1
r = 1 + r r + ( r ) +
r
r

zr z = 0 ...............................................................(36)

1
2

r + 1 + r + z z = 0
r
r

......................................................................................(37)

1
1
z = z z + 1 + rz r + z = 0
r
r

......................................................................................(38)
In Eqs. 36 through 38, i , i = r , , z , are the
components of the incremental total stress tensor applied on
the top boundary, and i are the components of a unit vector
normal to the surface and pointing outward..
Periodic boundary conditions are considered in the
direction (the dependent variables and reservoir physical
properties at = 0 and = 2 are identical9).
Numerical Analysis Approach
The governing equations (Eqs. 9 through 11and Eqs. 25
through 38) are strongly nonlinear and, therefore, their
solution requires the application of a numerical approach.
In this study, the governing equations are discretized using
the finite difference method. The physical system is
represented in cylindrical coordinates and is discretized by
means of a point-distributed grid. All equations are solved by
using second-order approximations in the r-, - and zdirections (the grid notations in these directions are given by i,
j and k, respectively). A fully implicit time marching
procedure is adopted to assure maximum numerical stability.
The finite difference approximation of Eq. 9 and Eqs. 25
through 27 can be expressed as seven-point stencils of the
form

SPE 73742 A NUMERICAL MODEL TO STUDY THE FORMATION DAMAGE BY ROCK DEFORMATION FROM WELL TEST ANALYSIS

0
0
0 B
i , j ,k

0
0

0
0
0 T
+
i , j ,k
0
0

0
0

0 X in, +,1 1 + Wi , j ,k
jk
0
0

N i , j ,k
C i , j ,k
S i , j ,k

E i , j ,k X in, +,1
jk
0

0
0 X in, +,1 +1 = Fi,j,k ..................................(39)
jk
0

In Eq. 39, the stencil elements Bi , j , k ,


Ci , j , k ,

E i , j ,k ,

Si , j , k

and

Ti , j , k

Ni , j , k , Wi , j ,k ,

represent the matrix

1
coefficients of the difference equation for X in, +,1 1 , X in, ++1,k ,
jk
j

X in +1j ,k ,
1 ,

X in, +,1 ,
jk

X in +1 j ,k ,
+ 1,

1
X in, +1,k ,
j

and

X in, +,1 +1 ,
jk

respectively. The variables X n+1 represent the unknown values


of one of the dependent variables (pore pressure or one of the
incremental displacements) in the discretized equation at node
(i , j , k ) . The stencil coefficients and the values Fi , j ,k are

Grid Generation in the r-Direction. To have a better grid


resolution near the wellbore, the node positions in the rdirection are located according to the following geometric
progression13, 14 (Fig. 2):

(ri +1 ri ) = (re

1
Bi, j , k Pinj+1 1 + Si, j , k Pinj+1, k + Wi, j , k Pin +,1j , k + Ci, j , k Pinj+1
, ,k
,
1
, ,k

1
+ Ei , j , k Pin +,1j , k + Ni, j , k Pinj++1, k + Ti, j , k Pinj+1 +1 = Fi. j.k ....(40)
,
, ,k
+1

The stencil coefficients Bi , j , k , Si , j ,k , etc. in Eq. 40 are


defined in Appendix A. Pinj+1 represents the discrete value of
, ,k

the pore pressure at node (i , j , k ) and time level n+1.

Discretization of the Stress-Deformation Model Equations.


The finite difference approximations of Eqs. 25 through 27
can be written as
n
n
B m ,i , j ,k U m+i1j ,k 1 + S m ,i , j ,k U m+i1j 1,k +
,,
,,
n
n
W m ,i , j ,k U m+i1 1, j ,k + C m ,i , j ,k U m+i1j ,k +
,
,,
n
n
E m ,i , j ,k U m+i1 1, j ,k + N m ,i , j ,k U m+i1j +1,k
,+
,,

n
+ Tm,i , j ,k U m+i1 j ,k +1 = Fm,i , j ,k .....................................(41)
,,

In Eq. 41, m = r, , z, depending if it refers to Eq. 25, Eq.


n
26 or Eq. 27, respectively. U m+i1 j ,k represents the discrete
,,

value of the incremental displacements at node (i , j , k ) and


time level n+1. The stencil coefficients B m i , j ,k , S m i , j ,k , etc.
in Eq. 41 are defined in Appendix B.

rw )

1
N 1

.....................................................(42)

In Eq. 42, ri and ri +1 are the radial positions of the nodes


and (i + 1, j , k ) , respectively; N is the number of
nodes in the r-direction; re and rw are the outer and wellbore
radius, respectively.
A volume control is assigned to each node. The lower and
upper radial limits of the volume controls are calculated by
application of a logarithmic average as described by the
following equations13, 14 (Fig. 2):

(i , j , k )

ri +1 / 2 =

ri +1 ri
........................................................(43)
ln (ri +1 ri )

ri 1 / 2 =

ri ri 1
.......................................................(44)
ln (ri ri 1 )

functions of the unknown variables, X n+1.


Discretization of the Pore Pressure Equation. Following the
notation in Eq. 39, the finite difference approximation of Eq. 9
can be written as

Discretization of the Porosity Equation. The discretization


of Eq. 11 is given by

in +,1 =
,j k

)(
[

) (

n+
in j ,k cbci1j ,k c r in +,1 p in,+,1 in j ,k p in, j ,
,
,
,j k
j
,

[(

) (

n+
1 cbci1j ,k in +,1 p in,+,1 in j ,k p in, j ,
,
,j k
j
,

)]

)]

......................................................................................(45)
Numerical Solution Procedure. Given the nonlinear behavior
of the governing equations and their discretized forms, their
solution must be found iteratively. The numerical procedure
used in this study involves a Picard-like, block Gauss-Seidel
iteration where the nonlinear terms are updated as soon as new
values for one of the dependent variables are computed. The
iterative sequence that includes evaluation of nonlinearities is
as follows:
1. An initial guess is assigned to the pore pressure and
incremental displacements at time level n + 1 .
2. Eq. 41 is applied to the incremental displacement in

n
the radial direction U m+i1j ,k = U r in,+1k . Thus, the nonlinear
,,
j,

coefficients and vector Fi , j ,k are updated and Eq. 41 is solved


for U r in,+1k .
j,
3. The strains and effective stresses are calculated by
applying discretized forms of Eqs. 15 through 20 and Eq. 24.
In this calculations, the latest estimated values for U r in,+1k
j,
are used.

J.G. OSORIO, A. WILLS, O.R. ALCALDE

4.

Steps 2 and 3 are repeated for U in,+1k instead of


j,

U r in,+1k .
j,
5.

Steps 2 and 3 are repeated using the latest estimated

values of U in,+1k and U r in,+1k to obtain an estimate for


j,
j,

U z in,+,1k .
j
6.

Steps 2 and 3 are repeated using the latest estimated

values of U in,+1k , U r in,+1k and U z in,+1k to obtain an


j,
j,
j,
1
1
estimate for Pi nj+,k . Notice that Pi nj+,k is estimated by solving
,
,

Eq. 40.
7. Steps 2 through 6 are repeated until convergence is
found (the incremental displacements and pore pressure
distributions are the same, within certain tolerance, after two
consecutive iterations).
Once covergence is achieved, all dependent variables at
time level n replaced by their latest calculated values. The
above procedure is performed for calculation at a new time
level n + 1 .
Example of Application
This paper includes only an example of application of the
model developed in this study and presents a limited
discussion of results obtained from this example. There are
two reasons for limiting the discussion of results. First, the
length of this paper would not allow an extensive discussion
of several of important aspects withdrawn from the application
of the model. Second, given the importance of the topic, the
authors are preparing a second paper devoted exclusively to
the formation damage behavior of stress-sensitive reservoirs.
Fig. 3 shows the permeability curve and Table 1 the
parameters used as input data. The reservoir consists of eight
layers. The two upper and lower layers exhibit low
permeablity and porosity values to be consistent with what
really takes place in the reservoir.
Production rate is constant during the first 21.6 hours of
the well test. Then, it is decreased gradually becoming zero
after a productin time of 25 hours.
Effect of Stress-Sensitivity on a Horner Plot. Fig. 4 shows a
Horner plot for two different drawdown tests. The first test
refers to a stress-sensitive reservoir whose permeability
changes as described by the curve with base permeability
equal to 45 md in Fig. 3 (in this study, the base permeability is
defined as the value obtained from the permeability curve at a
mean effective stress equal to zero). The conditions for the
second test are the same as those used for the first test, except
that in the second test the permeability is kept constant and
equal to the base permeability (45 md).
As shown in Fig. 4, the pressure drop at the wellbore of a
stress-senstive reservoir is different from the case in which the
permeability is considered to remain constant durinf the well
test. This difference is due to the fact that, in stress-sensitive
reservoirs, the rock undergoes some deformation as the local

SPE 73742

stress state varies with pressure drawdown. This deformation


causes formation damage in a region under compressive stress
located around the wellbore where the pore pressure is always
minimum.
Fig. 5 shows the Horner plot for two build-up tests carried
out under the same conditions as the drawdown curves
presented in Fig. 4. For the build-up case, it is observed that
both curves tend to the same reservoir static pressure at high
shut-in times. However, at early shut-in times both curves tend
to separate, what confirms the presence of a formation damage
component due to rock deformation as observed in Fig. 4.
The results presented in Figs. 4 and 5 show that the
application of conventional well test techniques to analyze
well test data from stress-sensitive reservoirs may yield to
under or over estimate the well formation damage.
Effect of Production Time on Formation Damage. Fig. 6
shows the reduced permeability at different drawdown test
times. The qualitative behavior of the curves presented in
Fig.6 shows that the permeability reduction is maximum near
the wellbore. As the radial distance from the wellvore
increases, the permeability tends to a higher constant value.
Again, this behavior is due to the fact that the stress
perturbation inside the reservoir is less than in the wellbore
neighborhood. As production time increases, the radius of
investigation travels deeper inside the reservoir, what causes a
propagation of the formation damage region inside the
reservoir. This indicates that for long production times, the
formation damage caused by rock deformation affects not only
the wellbore neighborhood, but also reservoir regions far from
the wellbore. The impact of this type of formation damage on
reservoir productivity, under different production scenarios, is
currently under investigation.
Figs. 7, 8 and 9 show the permeability reduction as
function of the radial distance in the producing layer as well as
in the upper and lower layers adjacent to the producing layer.
The curve refer to three different flow times: 0.2 (Fig. 7), 11
(Fig. 8) and 21 hours (Fig. 9).
After 0.2 hours, the permeability reduction in the wellbore
neighborhood is greater in the producing layer than in the
adjacent layers. However, at a radial distance of 2.5 feet
approximately, the permeability reduction is greater in the
upper layer adjacent to producing layer than in the producing
layer itself. The permeability reduction is always less in the
lower adjacent layer than in the producing layer. This behavior
is caused by the superposition of two effects: (i) the
compaction caused by the overburden, which is stronger in the
upper layers due to the constant stress boundary condition, and
(ii) the rock deformation cuased by fluid production, which is
stronger in the producing layer and in the region close to the
wellbore.
Given the pressure reduction, rock deformation is the
predominant effect in the wellbore neighborhood of the
producing layer. This is the reason why the permeability
reduction close to the wellbore is greater in the producing
layer than in the upper and lower adjacent layers. As the radial
distance from the wellbore increases, the effect of rock

SPE 73742 A NUMERICAL MODEL TO STUDY THE FORMATION DAMAGE BY ROCK DEFORMATION FROM WELL TEST ANALYSIS

deformation on formation damage decreases, because of the


lower pressure drop, and compaction becomes the
predominant effect. This is the reason why the permeability
reduction, in the region far from the wellbore, is greater in the
upper layer than in the producing and lower layers.
Conclusions
This paper develops a numerical, fully coupled, fluidflow/geomechanical model to perform well test analysis in
stress-sensitive reservoirs. The application of the model is
illustrated through a simple example. On the basis of the
results from this study, the following general conclusions are
derived:
1. The application of conventional well test techniques
to analyze well test data from stress-sensitive reservoirs may
yield to a wrong estimation of the well formation damage.
2. The permeability of a stress-senstive reservoir
decreases with producing time. This permeability reduction is
caused by variations in the stress state due to a decrease in the
pore pressure. The permeability reduction is greater in the
region near the wellbore than inside the reservoir. However, as
production time increases, the damage region penetrates
deeper inside the reservoir.
3. Producing layers undergo a strong permeability
reduction near the wellbore due to: (i) the rock deformation
caused by the pore pressure decline, and (ii) the reservoir
compaction caused by the overburden. Far from the wellbore,
the permeability reduction in the upper layers is greater than in
the producing layers. In this latter case, the predominant
mechanism for permeablity reduction is the rock compaction
caused by the overburden. As production time increases, this
effect penetrates deeper and deeper into the reservoir.
Nomenclature
B = formation volume factor; also stencil element
representing the dependent variable coefficient of
the cell below the cell in reference
c = compressibility, Lt2/m
C = stencil element representing the dependent variable
coefficient of the cell in reference
E = stencil element representing the dependent variable
coefficient of the cell east to the cell in reference
W = stencil element representing the dependent variable
coefficient of the cell west to the cell in reference
F = stencil element representing the right-hand side
term
G = shear modulus, m/Lt2
i, j = integer denoting cell location in the r-, -direction,
respectively
k = permeability, L2; also, integer indicating cell
location in the z-direction
N = stencil element representing the dependent variable
coefficient of the cell north to the cell in
reference
P = pressure (discrete approximation), m/Lt2
q = voumetric flow rate, L3/t

~
q = mass rate per unit of bulk volum, m/L3t
r = radius, L
S = stencil element representing the dependent variable
coefficient of the cell south to the cell in
reference
t = time, t
T = total stress acting on the top boundary, m/Lt2; also,
stencil element representing the dependent
variable coefficient of the cell above the cell in
reference
u = displacement (continuous function), L; also,
velocity, L/t
U = displacement (discrete approximation), L
V = volume, L3
W = stencil element representing the dependent variable
coefficient of the cell west to the cell in reference
r, z = distance, L
X = discrete approximation of a dependent variable
= Biots poroelastic constant, dimensionless
ij = Kroneckers delta
= increment
= strain
= Lames constant, m/Lt2
= outward normal vector
= porosity, fraction
= angle, radians
= viscosity, m/Lt; also component of the unit vector
= density, m/L3
= stress, m/Lt2
= mean stress, m/Lt2
Subscripts
b = bulk
bc = bulk volume, with mean stress changing
i, j, k = cell location in the r-, -, z-direction, respectively
f = fluid
e = outer radius
o = reference state
p = porous
r = rock
s = solid
v = volumetric
t = total
w = wellbore
r, , z = r-, -, z-direction, repectively
Superscripts
N = number of nodes in the r-direction
= direction of the unit vector
n = integer indicating time level
0
= initial state
= effective
References
1. Vairogs, et al.: Effect of Rock Stress on Gas Production From
Low-Permeability Reservoirs, JPT (Sept. 1971) 1161-67.

J.G. OSORIO, A. WILLS, O.R. ALCALDE

2. Thomas, R.D. and Ward, D.C.: Effect of Overburden Pressure


and Water Saturation on Gas Permeability of Tight Sandstone
Cores, JPT (Feb. 1972) 120-24.
3. Jones, F.O. and Owens, W.W.: A Laboratory Study of LowPermeability Gas Sands, JPT (Sept. 1980) 1631-40.
4. Warpinski, N.R. and Teufel, L.W.: Determination of the
Effective-Stress Law for Permeability and Deformation in LowPermeability Rocks, paper SPE 20572 presented at the 1990
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, Sept. 23-26.
5. Holt, R.M.: Permeability Reduction Induced by a Nonhydrostatic
Stress Field, SPEFE (Dec. 1990) 444-48.
6. Rhett, D.W. and Teufel, L.W.: Effect of Reservoir Stress Path on
Compressibility and Permeability of Sandstones, paper SPE
24756 presented at the 1992 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Washington, DC, October 4-7.
7. Morita, N. et. al.: Rock-Property Changes During Reservoir
Compaction, SPEFE (Sept. 1992) 197-205.
8. Zimmerman, R.W.: Compressibility of Porous Rocks, J.
Geophys. Res. (1986) 91, 12765-77.
9. Alcalde, O.R. y Wills, A.: Anlisis de Pruebas de Presin en
Yacimientos Sensitivos a Esfuerzos y Deformaciones,
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Medelln, Facultad de
Minas. Tesis, 2001.
10. Fjaer, E., Holt, R.M., Horsrud, P., Raaen, A.M.I., and Risnes, R.:
Petroleum Related Rocks Mechanics, Elsevier science
publishing company inc. 1992.
11. Chou, Pei C., and Pagano, N.J.: Elasticity: Tensor, Dyadic and
Engineering Approaches, Dover publications, Inc., New York,
1992.
12. Osorio, J.G., Chen, H.G., and Teufel, L.W.: Numerical
Simulation of the Impact of Flow Induced Geomechanical
Responses on the Productivity of Stress Sensitive Reservoirs,
paper SPE 51929, presentated at the 1999 SPE Reservoir
Simulation Symposium, Houston, Texas, february 14-17.
13. Settari, A., and Aziz, K.: Petroleum Reservoir Simulation,
Elsevier applied science publishers, Londres, 1979.
14. Gmez, C.O.A., y Vanegas, R.: Simulacin de Pruebas de Flujo y
Restauracin de Presin, Universidad Nacional de Colombia,
Sede Medelln, Facultad de Minas. Tesis, 1992.

Appendix A- Stencil Coeficientes in Eq. 40.


Finite-difference, point-distributed, discretization of Eq. 9
yields the definition of the stencil coefficients in Eq. 40. These
coefficientes are as follows:

SPE 73742

Ti , j ,k = Tinj+1 1 / 2 ...................................................... (A-6)


, ,k

1
+
+
C i, j ,k = Tinj+1 1 / 2 + Tinj+1 / 2,k + Tin112, j ,k + Tin 112, j ,k
/
+ /
, ,k
,
1
+ Tinj++1 / 2,k + Tinj+1 +1 / 2 + i , j ,k f
,
, ,k

i, j,k

ct

i, j ,k

............. (A-7)

Fi , j ,k = i , j ,k fi , j ,k c ti , j ,k p in j ,k + Q f i , j , k f i , j , k
,
1

Vbi, j ,k f i , j , k i , j ,k t r (ru r ) + (u ) + z (u z )
r

................................................................................ (A-8)
In Eqs. A-1 though A-8, the T terms are defines as:
Ti +1 / 2 , j ,k =

Fi ri +1 / 2 , j ,k i +1 / 2 , jk ri2 1 / 2 , j ,k ri2 1 / 2 , j ,k
+

4 ri , j ,k ri F j Fk

................................................................................ (A-9)
Ti 1 / 2 , j ,k =

Fi ri 1 / 2 , j ,k i 1 / 2 , jk ri2 1 / 2 , j ,k ri2 1 / 2 , j ,k
+

4 ri , j ,k ri 1 F j Fk

................................................................................ (A-10)

Ti , j +1 / 2 ,k =

i , j +1 / 2 ,k (ri 2 1 / 2 , j ,k ri 2 1 / 2 , j ,k )
+

4 ri 2j ,k j Fk
,

................................................................................ (A-11)

Ti , j 1 / 2 ,k =

Ti , j ,k +1 / 2 =

i , j 1 / 2 ,k (ri 2 1 / 2 , j ,k ri 2 1 / 2 , j ,k )
+

4 ri 2j ,k j 1 Fk
,

....... (A-12)

i , j ,k +1 / 2 (ri 2 1 / 2 , j ,k ri 2 1 / 2 , j ,k )
+

....... (A-13)
4 z k F j

i , j ,k 1 / 2 (ri 2 1 / 2 , j ,k ri 2 1 / 2 , j ,k )
+

....... (A-14)
=
4 z k 1 F j

Bi, j ,k = Tinj+1 +1 / 2 .......................................................(A-1)


, ,k

Ti , j ,k 1 / 2

1
Si , j ,k = Tinj+1 / 2,k .......................................................(A-2)
,

The following definitions hold for Eqs. A-1 through A-14:

+
Wi, j , k = Tin 11 2, j , k ........................................................(A-3)
/

i, j ,k = Vb,i, j ,k t

Ei, j ,k = Tin +1 2, j , k ........................................................(A-4)


+1 /

t ( ) = n +1 n t

1
N i , j ,k = Tinj++1 / 2,k .....................................................(A-5)
,

m ( ) =

m +1 m 1
, m = r,, z y n = i, j, k.
m n 1 + m n

SPE 73742 A NUMERICAL MODEL TO STUDY THE FORMATION DAMAGE BY ROCK DEFORMATION FROM WELL TEST ANALYSIS

( )

= fk f
Fn = 1 (mn + mn 1 )
For n = i, j, k and m = r, , z, respectively.
Appendix B- Stencil Coeficientes in Eq. 41.
Finite-difference, point-distributed, discretization of Eq. 25
yields the definition of the stencil coefficients in Eq. 41. These
coefficientes are as follows:
B r ,i , j ,k = 2C k 1Gi , j ,k 1 / 2 .........................................(B-1)

S r ,i , j ,k = 2C j 1 ri2j ,k Gi. j 1 / 2,k .............................(B-2)


,

Wr ,i , j ,k = 4C i 1 ri , j ,k Gi 1 / 2 , j ,k ri 1 / 2 , j ,k + 2C i 1 i 1 / 2 , j ,k
Fi ri 1 / 2, j ,k i 1 / 2, j ,k ...........................................(B-3)
C r ,i , j ,k =
4C
4C
i Gi +1 / 2 , j ,k ri +1 / 2 , j ,k + i 1 Gi 1 / 2 , j ,k ri 1 / 2 , j ,k +
ri , j ,k
ri , j ,k

(2C

ri2j ,k Gi . j +1 / 2 ,k + 2C j 1 ri2j ,k Gi , j 1 / 2 ,k +
,
,

+2Ck Gi , j ,k +1 / 2 + 2Ck 1Gi , j ,k 1 / 2 +


2Ci i +1 / 2 , j ,k + 2Ci 1i 1 / 2 , j ,k

Fi ri +1 / 2 , j ,k i +1 / 2 , j ,k + Fi ri 1 / 2 , j ,k + 2Gi , j ,k ri2j ,k
,

....................................................................................(B-4)

E r ,i , j ,k = 4C i ri , j ,k G1+1 / 2 , j ,k ri +1 / 2 , j ,k + 2C i i +1 / 2 , j ,k +

(Fi

ri +1 / 2 , j ,k i +1 / 2 , j ,k ..............................................(B-5)

N r ,i , j ,k = 2C j ri2j ,k Gi. j +1 / 2,k ...............................(B-5)


,

Tr ,i , j ,k = 2C k Gi, j ,k +1 / 2 .............................................(B-6)
Fr ,i , j ,k =

Fi F j

Fi F j
1
Gi , j +1 / 2 ,k +

i +1 / 2 , j ,k U n,++1, j +1,k +
i
ri , j ,k

ri , j ,k

Fi F j

Fi F j

U n +1
G
+

+
ri , j ,k i , j +1 / 2 ,k ri , j ,k i 1 / 2 , j ,k ,i 1, j +1,k

Fi F j

Fi F j

U n +1
G
+

ri , j ,k i , j 1 / 2 ,k ri +1 / 2 , j ,k i +1 / 2 , j ,k ,i +1, j 1,k

Fi F j

Fi F j
1

Gi , j 1 / 2 ,k +
i 1 / 2 , j ,k U n,+1, j 1,k
i
ri , j ,k

ri 1 / 2 , j ,k

Fi F j

Fi F j

U n +1
G
G

ri , j ,k i , j +1 / 2 ,k ri , j ,k i , j 1 / 2 ,k ,i +1, j ,k

Fi F j
Fi F j

ri +1 / 2 , j ,k i +1 / 2 , j ,k ri 1 / 2 , j ,k i 1 / 2 , j ,k

Fj
2F j
n
Gi . j +1 / 2 ,k 2 Gi . j ,k U ,+,1j +1,k +
i
2

ri , j ,k
ri , j ,k

Fi F j

Fi F j
n 1

Gi , j +1 / 2 ,k
Gi , j 1 / 2 ,k U ,+1, j ,k +
i
ri , j ,k

ri , j ,k

Fi F j
Fi F j

i +1 / 2 , j ,k
i 1 / 2 , j ,k
ri +1 / 2 , j ,k
ri 1 / 2 , j ,k

Fj
2F j
n
Gi . j 1 / 2 ,k 2 Gi . j ,k U ,+,1j 1,k +
i
2

ri , j ,k
ri , j ,k

Fj

Fj

Gi . j +1 / 2 ,k 2 Gi , j 1 / 2 ,k U n,+,1j ,k
i
2
r

ri , j ,k
i , j ,k

(Fi Fk Gi , j ,k +1 / 2 + Fi Fk i +1 / 2 , j ,k )U zn,++11, j ,k +1 +
i
n +1
(Fi Fk Gi , j ,k +1 / 2 + Fi Fk i 1 / 2 , j ,k )U z ,i 1, j ,k +1 +
(Fi Fk Gi , j ,k 1 / 2 + Fi Fk i +1 / 2 , j ,k )U zn,++11, j ,k 1
i
n +1
(Fi Fk Gi , j ,k 1 / 2 + Fi Fk i 1 / 2 , j ,k )U z ,i 1, j ,k 1 +
( Fi Fk Gi , j ,k +1 / 2 + Fi Fk Gi , j ,k 1 / 2 )U zn,++11, j ,k +
i
n +1
(Fi Fk Gi , j ,k +1 / 2 Fi Fk Gi , j ,k 1 / 2 )U z ,i 1, j ,k
(Fi Fk i +1 / 2 , j ,k Fi Fk i 1 / 2 , j ,k )U zn,+,1j ,k +1 +
i
n +1
(Fi Fk i +1 / 2 , j ,k + Fi Fk i 1 / 2 , j ,k )U z ,i , j ,k 1
Fi i +1 / 2 , j ,k Pi n +,1j ,k + Fi i 1 / 2 , j ,k Pi n +,1j ,k
+1
1

(Fi i +1 / 2 , j ,k Fi i 1 / 2 , j ,k )Pin, j+,k1 +

n
n
Fi r i +1, j ,k r i 1, j ,k +

Fj
r i , j ,k

n
n
Fk rz i , j ,k +1 rz i , j ,k 1 +

n
r i , j +1,k

n
r i , j 1,k +

1
n
rni , j ,k i , j ,k .... (B-7)
ri , j ,k

The following operators hold in Eqs. B-1 through B-7:


Cn = 1 [mn (mn + mn 1 )]
Cn 1 = 1 [mn 1(mn + mn 1 )]
For n = i, j, k and m = r, , z, respectively.

10

J.G. OSORIO, A. WILLS, O.R. ALCALDE

The stencil coefficients for the discretized forms of Eqs. 26


and 27 (m = y z) are similar to the coefficients writtes above
(the detailed equations are provided in reference 9).

SPE 73742

Well

re

SI Metric Conversion Factors


cp 1.0*
E-03 = Pa.s
ft 3.048*
E-01 = m
ft3 2.831 685 E-02 = m3
md 9.869 233 E-04 = m2
psi 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa
R R/1.8
= K

ri+1/2
ri

ri-1/2

Fig. 2 - Horizontal grid refinement.

Conversion factor is exact.

Table 1-Parameters used as input data


Outer raidius, ft
Wellbore radius, ft
Reservoir thickness, (feet)

1500
0.198
20

API gravity

30

Gas gravity (air=1)

Relative Permeability

120
100
80
60

B a se p e rm e a b ility= 4 5 ,0 (m d )

20

B a se p e rm e a b ility= 6 3 2 ,0 (m d )

0.8

Fluid compressibility, psi-1

B a se p e rm e a b ility= 3 ,8 6

40

1000

1.0E-5

Initial pressure at the bottom layer, psi

4500

Initial stress at the top layer, psi

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

M e a n E ffe c tive s tre s s (P s i)

8000

H = V

-1

3.0E-6

Rock compresibility, psi-1

1.0E-7

Poisson ratio

0.2

Initial porosity, fraction

kn

m,n-1
m-1 n

V ariable perm eability


C o nstant perm eability

4150
4100
4050
4000
3950
3900
3850
3800
3750

0.1

m+1,n kn-1

m,n

10

10 0

Tim e (h o u rs)

Fig. 4 Horner plot (drawdown test).

kn+1/2

Base permeability = 45.0 m d

m n+1

kn+1

4335

lm-1

lm-1/2

lm

lm-1
Fig. 1 - Point-distributed grid.

lm+1/2

lm

lm+1

Wellbore Pressure (psi)

kn-1
kn-1/2

0.150

B a se P erm eab ility = 45.0 m d


Wellbore Pressure (psi)

Initial stress anisotropy state


Total compressibility, psi

Fig. 3 Permeability curves used as input data.

4330
4325
4320

Variable perm eability

4315

Constant perm eability

4310
10

(Tp+DT) / DT

Fig. 5 Horner plot (build-up test).

SPE 73742 A NUMERICAL MODEL TO STUDY THE FORMATION DAMAGE BY ROCK DEFORMATION FROM WELL TEST ANALYSIS

B a s e p e r m e a b ility = 4 5 ,0 m d
(T im e = 1 1 h o u r s )

Base Permeability = 45.0md

2.49E+01

2 .4 9 E + 0 1

Permeability (md)

Permeability(md)

11

2.48E+01
2.47E+01

Time = 0.2 hours


Time = 11 horas
Time = 21 hours

2.46E+01

2 .4 8 E + 0 1
2 .4 7 E + 0 1

P e r m e a b ility o f la y e r = 4
P e r m e a b ility o f la y e r = 5
P e r m e a b ility o f la y e r = 6

2 .4 6 E + 0 1
2 .4 5 E + 0 1

2.45E+01
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

10

11 12 13

14 15

R a d ia l d is ta n c e (ft)

Radial distance (ft)

Fig. 6 Permeability vs. radial distance (producing layer).

Fig. 8 Permeability vs. radial distance, t=11 hours (producing


and adjacent layers).

B a s e p e rm e a b ility = 4 5 m d
(T im e = 0 ,2 h o u r s )

B a s e p e rm e a b ility = 4 5 ,0 m d
(T im e = 2 1 h o u rs )
2 .4 9 E + 0 1
Permeability (md)

Permeability (md)

2 .4 9 E + 0 1

2 .4 8 E + 0 1

2 .4 7 E + 0 1

P e rm e a b ility o f la y e r = 4
P e rm e a b ility o f la y e r = 5
P e rm e a b ility o f la y e r = 6

2 .4 6 E + 0 1
0

10

R a d ia l d is ta n c e (ft)

2 .4 8 E + 0 1
2 .4 7 E + 0 1

P e rm e a b ility o f la y e r = 4
P e rm e a b ility o f la y e r = 5
P e rm e a b ility o f la y e r = 6

2 .4 6 E + 0 1
2 .4 5 E + 0 1
0

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

R a d ia l d is ta n c e (ft)

Fig. 7 Permeability vs. radial distance, t=0.2 hours (producing


and adjacent layers).

Fig 9 Permeability vs. radial distance, t=21 hours (producing


and adjacent layers).