8 views

Uploaded by Juan Pablo Sepúlveda

- Solution Gas Drive
- Bruls and Golinval 2008 - On the Numerical Damping of Time Integrators for Coupled Mechatronic Systems
- PDF Online
- L21 SPE-1235-G Simplified equations of flow in gas-drive reservoirs.pdf
- 3cd0ccddd5b0cb0f2765dd9ad3616aa2c16f(1)
- actividad 6 grupal
- Basic Reservoir Engineering - Part I
- SPE 131787
- Blow-Up of Finite Difference Solutions to Parabolic Equations With Semilinear Dynamical Boundary Conditions - Miglena Koleva and Lubin Vulkov
- li2016.pdf
- SPE-102079-PA Gringarten From Straight Lines to Deconvolution
- Outline s3
- Carlos D Acosta.pdf
- CO-of-all-subjects.pdf
- Mae Dynamics
- A Multiscale Finite Element
- LI-THESIS-2012.pdf
- Efficient Numerical Solution of Parabolic Optimization Problems by Finite Element Method
- NT_503_504
- Armenta Dis

You are on page 1of 0

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,

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

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)

cf =

1 f

................................................... (4)

f p

SPE 73742

~

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

t

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)

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

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)

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

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

term given by:

r =

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

rz =

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

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

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)

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)

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 stress state (effective stress) at which the increment ij

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

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

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)

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)

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

(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)

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

Ci , j , k ,

E i , j ,k ,

Si , j , k

and

Ti , j , k

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

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

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

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

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

, ,k

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)

,,

n

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

,,

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)

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 )

Discretization of the Pore Pressure Equation. Following the

notation in Eq. 39, the finite difference approximation of Eq. 9

can be written as

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,

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.

4.

j,

U r in,+1k .

j,

5.

j,

j,

U z in,+,1k .

j

6.

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

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

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.

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.

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

, ,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

, ,k

Ti , j ,k 1 / 2

1

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

,

+

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

/

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

+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

( )

= 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)

,

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 +

,

,

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)

,

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

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

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

and 27 (m = y z) are similar to the coefficients writtes above

(the detailed equations are provided in reference 9).

SPE 73742

Well

re

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

Outer raidius, ft

Wellbore radius, ft

Reservoir thickness, (feet)

1500

0.198

20

API gravity

30

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

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

40

1000

1.0E-5

4500

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

8000

H = V

-1

3.0E-6

1.0E-7

Poisson ratio

0.2

kn

m,n-1

m-1 n

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)

kn+1/2

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

kn-1

kn-1/2

0.150

Wellbore Pressure (psi)

Total compressibility, psi

4330

4325

4320

4315

4310

10

(Tp+DT) / DT

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 )

2.49E+01

2 .4 9 E + 0 1

Permeability (md)

Permeability(md)

11

2.48E+01

2.47E+01

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)

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)

and adjacent layers).

and adjacent layers).

- Solution Gas DriveUploaded bydavid
- Bruls and Golinval 2008 - On the Numerical Damping of Time Integrators for Coupled Mechatronic SystemsUploaded byMartin Palm
- PDF OnlineUploaded byemillersound
- L21 SPE-1235-G Simplified equations of flow in gas-drive reservoirs.pdfUploaded bySolenti D'nou
- 3cd0ccddd5b0cb0f2765dd9ad3616aa2c16f(1)Uploaded byKristin Louise Agbulos
- actividad 6 grupalUploaded byluispdzp
- Basic Reservoir Engineering - Part IUploaded byTabitha Taylor
- SPE 131787Uploaded bydownloader1983
- Blow-Up of Finite Difference Solutions to Parabolic Equations With Semilinear Dynamical Boundary Conditions - Miglena Koleva and Lubin VulkovUploaded byOmagu
- li2016.pdfUploaded byAnonymous l2fASkJbzk
- SPE-102079-PA Gringarten From Straight Lines to DeconvolutionUploaded byChávez Ibarra Sergio Kevin
- Outline s3Uploaded bySheraz Ali
- Carlos D Acosta.pdfUploaded byjfgf236640
- CO-of-all-subjects.pdfUploaded byRamesh Babu
- Mae DynamicsUploaded bydenisekrse
- A Multiscale Finite ElementUploaded byZeljko Lazarevic
- LI-THESIS-2012.pdfUploaded bybu7amud
- Efficient Numerical Solution of Parabolic Optimization Problems by Finite Element MethodUploaded byStruct DesignPro
- NT_503_504Uploaded byRohitMadke
- Armenta DisUploaded byDedy Dayat
- 11.pdfUploaded byDraveilois
- Reservoir Permeability From Wireline Formation Testers - SPE 2013Uploaded byRoni Hepson Tambun
- Spe 205346 Des WaanUploaded bycontradictorio_alex
- PBU ANALISIS 1Uploaded byEmil Muhammad Isnan
- Copy of Spe Papers_well TestingUploaded byAndy Cole
- An efficient model for frequency-dependent on-chip inductance.pdfUploaded byChandan Choudhury
- Predicting Reservoir System AAPG 1999Uploaded byanjumbukhari
- Chapter 2 AllUploaded byRobel Metiku
- 40509 the Role of Geoengineering GoodUploaded bySky walking
- Electrical HandbookUploaded byHossein Jalali Moghaddam

- AmericanOilandGasReporter (1)Uploaded byJuan Pablo Sepúlveda
- Phase Redistribution (Qasem Et Al. - Elsevier)Uploaded byJuan Pablo Sepúlveda
- Naturally Fract ReservoirsUploaded bySoto Edgar
- 1527101Uploaded byJuliano Ferreira
- Pore pressure estimation from drilling and seismic informationUploaded byJuan Pablo Sepúlveda
- HaneyUploaded byJuan Pablo Sepúlveda
- Showalter Su Apr02Uploaded byJuan Pablo Sepúlveda
- Evaluación de Yacimientos Naturalmente Fracturados y Retos Por ResolverUploaded byjutll
- (MJ)-. SPE 75354.- Pletcher-. Improvements to Reservoir Material-Balance MethodsUploaded bySergio Flores
- 3Uploaded byJuan Pablo Sepúlveda
- 121108 Geomecanica YNF AIPM 2012Uploaded byJuan Pablo Sepúlveda
- SPE FORMULARIOUploaded byDiego A. Navia
- Pore Pressure Prediction From Well Log_Earth Sci Rev_2011Uploaded bysrpadron
- pap12_4.pdfUploaded byJuan Pablo Sepúlveda
- Drilling OverpressureUploaded byJuan Pablo Sepúlveda
- Srb 101 Dec04 ChanUploaded byJuan Pablo Sepúlveda
- PoroElasticity Theory and Problems - Arnold VerruijtUploaded byjulianariasg
- Fenomenos de TransferenciaUploaded byJuan Pablo Sepúlveda
- Material Balance - AzizUploaded byJuan Pablo Sepúlveda
- 00091789 Modelo de DUUploaded byJuan Pablo Sepúlveda
- A Non Linear Dual Porosity - M. Bai, Q. Ma & J.C. RoegiersUploaded byJuan Pablo Sepúlveda
- Collins Et Al. WHOC 2008-500Uploaded byJuan Pablo Sepúlveda
- 8Uploaded byJuan Pablo Sepúlveda
- 1941, M.C. Leverett, Capillary Behavior in Porous SolidsUploaded byJuan Pablo Sepúlveda
- Well Test Analysis for NFR With Transient Interporosity Matrix, Microfractures, And Fractures Flow. Pulido, Samaniego Et Al.Uploaded byJuan Pablo Sepúlveda
- Analisis de Pruebas de Presión Con Pseudotiempo en Pozo Horizontales en YNF de Gas Seco - Escobar Et Al.Uploaded byJuan Pablo Sepúlveda
- 1Uploaded byJuan Pablo Sepúlveda
- 1934, M. Muskat and R.D. Wyckoff, A Theoretical Analysis of Water-flooding NetworksUploaded byJuan Pablo Sepúlveda
- 49-260Uploaded byIndra Prasetyo
- Libro Análisis moderno de presiones - EscobarUploaded byDiana Carolina Figueroa Mendez

- IEC60617demoUploaded byDiego Cordova
- 2012EMI_E1100Uploaded byRomeo Sonon
- Pollution EssayUploaded byMuhammad5555
- Metro Automation - Facts and FiguresUploaded byrjkmehta
- CTBUploaded bymike307
- Carbide formation.pdfUploaded byGuru Samy
- NEW SASL Reference-manualUploaded byspunk2me
- Mech UCO Lect 06 Using APDL 1Uploaded byPercy Romero Murillo
- CSR BlueCore4Rom Single Chip Bluetooth Datasheet 200711Uploaded byYu Lun Cheng
- Unit 1 summary, history of the UK in EnglishUploaded byRachel Moch
- Multi Functional Radio Frequency Directed Energy System - Www-freepatentsonline-comUploaded byElectronic-Stalking
- Analysis of Spring ElementUploaded byKamran Shahid
- CDE-9848RBUploaded byMiguel Cervantes Peñalver
- Material Selection Tutorial 1Uploaded byhschoi12
- Solar System DesignUploaded bypraveshkafle
- 400 What is DementiaUploaded byAzeera Rohimi
- Download Il Libro Tell the Wolves i m Home Di Carol Rifka BruntUploaded byWidiyani Saputrioss
- ADR Reporting, Medication Error Reporting SystemUploaded byfarmasi_hm
- Wind Loading-Base Station Antennas White Paper WP-108047-EnUploaded byAbdul Saboor Marwat
- Tunnel DiodeUploaded byNaveed Ramzan
- HP 1155 All-In-One Desktop PCUploaded byRafael Fonseca
- Inspection and Test Plan Manual and Gearbox Ball ValvesUploaded byalinor_tn
- Irradiation of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables-IfT ReportUploaded byEduardo Aranda
- MC3362 FM ReceiverUploaded byzafarnaz
- 002-00182-0-5SYA2036-01Uploaded byfatullahdonie
- storstability.pdfUploaded byPongthip Pesachpinankul
- Historical Theory of DecadenceUploaded byDianasofiaRs
- 1. Rigging and Pre Lift ChecklistUploaded byPao Barillas
- A Fresh Look at the Aryan ControversyUploaded byFACT
- Asafoetida_Ferula_antiviraleUploaded byrolambia