See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320390828

Effect of Saturation Alteration on Wellbore Stability during WAG Injection

(Russian)

Conference Paper · January 2017

DOI: 10.2118/187826-RU

CITATIONS READS
0 481

5 authors, including:

Mahmood Bataee Zakaria Hamdi

Curtin University Sarawak Heriot-Watt University
42 PUBLICATIONS   245 CITATIONS    36 PUBLICATIONS   104 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sonny Irawan Rahman Ashena

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI PETRONAS, SERI ISKANDAR PERAK MALAYSIA B&B Consulting
121 PUBLICATIONS   776 CITATIONS    53 PUBLICATIONS   278 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Injection of CO2 at Low Temperature to Improves Miscibility in Light Oil High Temperature Reservoirs View project

Oil and Gas Production and Facilities View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zakaria Hamdi on 21 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE-187826-MS

Effect of Saturation Alteration on Wellbore Stability during WAG Injection

M. Bataee, Asia Pacific University; Z. Hamdi, Heriot-watt University; S. Irawan, Universiti Teknologi Petronas; R.
Ashena, Montanuniversität Leoben; M. F. Ghassemi, Russian Academy of Science

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Russian Petroleum Technology Conference held in Moscow, Russia, 16-18 October 2017.

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 have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
Nowadays, enhanced oil recovery (EOR) injection methods are very popular due to its simplicity and
effectiveness in increasing the recovery. The water alternating gas (WAG) injection method shows higher
sweep efficiency and recovery than the one-phase fluid injection. However, extremely high injection
pressure will fracture the wellbore. Moreover, the saturation alteration changes the rock mechanical
properties and stress values around the wellbore. The purpose of this study is to study the effects of
saturation alteration on wellbore stability. This study has implemented with modelling procedure regarding
the obtained experimental results from modified triaxial testing device. The core holder for this device is
exclusively designed to prepare the favourable data of rock mechanical properties for different saturation
schemes. The parameters of pressures, saturations, and stresses were obtained for the WAG flow using
numerical modelling. For the pressures and saturation values, finite difference method (FDM) was used and
to solve the rock stress values, finite volume method (FVM) was applied. According to experimental results,
the recorded maximum axial stress was higher than the water and oil saturated cases (48.19 respected to
42.33 and 41.28). It indicates that the formation was more resistive to failuire for gas injection. However,
after modelling, it was concludedthat the formation was more unstable in the gas injection case because
of higher pressure transient. Therefore, the possibility of wellbore failure was higher during gas injection
rather than water injection.

Introduction
There is a significant financial risk for well construction or field development projects that require
geomechanics information to amend inaccurate engineering design. Moreover, the analysis of geomechanics
in field scale multiphase flow condition is a very complex matter. Thus, it is crucial to investigate the
effect upon reservoir geomechanics after WAG injection. Furthermore, it is rather imminent to look into
reservoir properties affected by stress changes, as well as their incorporation in reservoir modelling, to
ensure reservoir integrity.
Nonetheless, the problem pertaining to stability in WAG differs from the ordinary EOR methods as
different phases should be analysed and the effect of multiphase flow in the reservoir is important due to the
gravity segregation and phase miscibility. Wellbore injection with high pressure or low temperature could
2 SPE-187826-MS

lead to fracturing of the formation. Therefore, it should be precisely determined to avoid wellbore failure.
Unfortunately, currently no comprehensive model or geomechanical study on the failure for WAG injection
is available.
Other than that, the fluid flow in the porous media causes changes in the stress, porosity, and permeability
(the role of effective stress theorem). These lead to the change in pressure distribution; therefore, an
enhanced two-way coupling method should be used. Nonetheless, there are some problems regarding the
coupling studies by commercial software and other methods in the literature: 1. The commercial software
products use pseudo-coupling, where the accuracy of the results is low via this method. 2. The coupling study
by software is weak in the study of wellbore, particularlyin the flow part. 3. In WAG injection studies, all
the three phases should be analyzed. The commercial software products consider constant rock mechanical
properties for the formation conditions; however, they differ for any saturation distribution case and they
might cause a major error in the results. 4. Failure cases in the wellbore differ from reservoir and software
products designed for the study in the reservoir. 5. The coupling process was very time consuming in the
previous studies, as huge matrices were solved via those methods, particularlyin small mesh sizes. 6. The
mechanical properties of the rock changes after the stress and saturation aspects are altered. Current studies
have ignored these effects, but employed similar rock mechanical properties for the whole process.
Thus, the technique in coupling modelling for rock mechanics should be modified. Such modelling
is essential for studying the fundamental processes that occur in rocks and for rock engineering design.
Improving these techniques can eventually lead to faster and more accurate results concerning the wellbore
stresses.

Methodology
Numerical study is considered inadequate to determine the exact values of stress because; rock mechanical
properties change as saturations alter. Therefore, some experiments are required to obtain the rock
mechanical properties. The experiment applied in this study is called triaxial testing of rocks. The strain
and stress were measured by a device in real-time until the samples failed. This experiment calculated the
rock mechanical properties for dried, water-saturated, and oil-saturated samples. The device, nonetheless,
had been modified to satisfy the results in dynamic cases, as well as to calculate stress and strain in flowing
condition.
Different sets of experiments were conducted to determine the rock mechanical properties. The required
rock mechanical properties havebeen λ(the Lame parameter), G' (the shear modulus), and K' (the bulk
modulus). In the experiments, Young's modulus was obtained for each case using the slope of stress-strain
line and the length of sample. Furthermore, three sets of experiments were designed to obtain the required
parameters; dried, water-saturated, and oil-saturated. The experimental procedure is given as follows:
Test 1: Before test 1 began, the sample was dried in the oven at a temperature of 70 °C. In the first test
(base case), there was no gas, water, or oil flow in the system. The mechanical properties of the core sample
were obtained without any flow. The confining stress was adjusted, while the compression was begun. This
was continued until the rock failed.
Test 2: The sample was totally saturated with water. In order to saturate the sample with water, the
following procedure was employed. First, it was placed in a container full of water. Then, the container was
placed in the vacuum chamber to release the remaining bubbles from the core for two days. The mechanical
properties of the core sample were obtained without any flow after breaking the core with compression.
Test 3: The sample was totally saturated with oil. In saturating the sample with oil, first, the core sample
was dried in the oven at 70 °C. Then, it was placed in an oil container. Finally, the container was placed in the
vacuum chamber to release the bubbles from the core for two days. The mechanical properties of the core
sample were obtained without any flow. The compression was begun and continued until the sample failed.
SPE-187826-MS 3

Pressures and saturations

In order to obtain six unknowns, namely, Pw, Po, Pg, Sw, So, and Sg, six equations are required, expressed
as follows:
– WO-capillary equation:

[1]
– OG-capillary equation:

[2]
– Total saturation:
[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

For the oil phase:

[8]

And for the gas phase:

[9]

Temperature
In order to find the temperature distribution, the following formula is used:
[10]

[11]

[12]
4 SPE-187826-MS

After expansion,the followingrelation is obtained:

[13]

Stress modelling
The following procedure were used to determine the stress and strain parameters. First, the equation
should be transformed into a weak form and solved for each node:
[14]
[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]
Hence, Eq. 15 is transformed into Eq. 21–23:

[21]

[22]

[23]

where the matrix is transformed into Eq. 24, where "u", "v", and "w" are the deformations toward the x,
y, and z directions:

[24]

The factor is taken from the equations, and the derivative of u over x is transformed to F (F=δu/δx). The
procedure used to obtain N and H is the same.

[25]

After the transformation, the matrix transforms into Eq. 26:

[26]

Therefore, the following equation is obtained:

[27]
SPE-187826-MS 5

The equations should be multiplied by the unit volume:

[28]
After rearranging these formulas, Eq. 29–31 are obtained:

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

Table 1, presents the input data of this study. The boundary conditions of the stress and flow conditions
are expressed as follow:
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]

[39]

Table 1—Rock and fluid properties and wellbore data used in this study

Model parameter Values

Permeability (md) 35
Porosity (%) 20
Solid bulk modulus (MPa) 32600
Fluid bulk modulus (MPa) 3290
Gas bulk modulus (MPa) 330
Wellbore initial temperature (C°) 50
Reservoir temperature (C°) 70
Friction angle 40
Initial wellbore pressure (MPa) 6.895
Injection pressure (MPa) 13.79
Connate water saturation 0.22
Residual oil saturation 0.4
Water density (g/cm3) 1
Oil density (g/cm3) 0.8
Gas density (g/cm3) 0.00184
Wellbore radius (cm) 10.795
6 SPE-187826-MS

Iterative Coupling
In this study, stress and strain are solved using FVM, and the other parameters (i.e., pressure, temperature,
and saturation) are calculated using FDM. The coupling study conducted after obtaining the required
parameters. The nodes in the FDM and FVM are in different positions. Thus, the values are obtained using
bi-linear interpolation of the nearby nodes. The relation between the change in porosity and strain change
and that between porosity and permeability was considered. This procedure continues until convergency
obtained under a certain level of accuracy (0.01 Psi).

[40]

Permeability changes with the porosity and the correlation for the change is expressed in Eq. 41:

[41]

Wellbore Stability Model

Drucker-Prager is the most suitable rock failure criterion among all failure criteria regarding the wellbore
modelling. The Drucker-Prager failure criterion is expressed, using principal stresses, as in Eq. 42–46. Eq.
42 expresses the failure index and if it becomes a minus value, the failure happens.
[42]
Where
[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

Experimental Procedure
Different sets of experiments should be done to find the rock mechanical properties. The required rock
mechanical properties were λ (theLame's parameter), G' (the shear modulus) and K' (the bulk modulus). In
the experiments, the Young's modulus was obtained for each case using the slope of stress-strain line and
the length of sample. The supplementary equations were presented in the next part to serve the parameters
in equation 47:
(47)
Rock mechanical properties were related to each other. Young's modulus was calculated by the triaxial
test device for which the calculation was based on Eq. 48. It was obtained for each sample bymultiplying
the slope of by L (the length of sample).

[48]

The values of Poisson's ratio were imported from the literature data to the model. The shear and bulk
modulus (G' and K') values were calculated using Eq. 49 and 50:
[49]
SPE-187826-MS 7

[50]
In order to calculate the stress values (for Eq. 47), the module of elasticity and Biot's coefficient were
calculated (Eq. 51 and 52):

[51]

[52]

Three sets of experiments were designed to obtain the required parameters; dried, water-saturated and
oil-saturated. Figure 1 shows the modified triaxial device scheme that was used in this study. Figure 2 shows
the core holder that is specifically designed for this study.

Figure 1—Modified triaxial testing apparatus scheme.

Figure 2—Modififed core holder for the triaxial testing device

8 SPE-187826-MS

The summary of the experimental procedure is expressed as follows: In the tests, there was not any flow
of water, gas, or oil into the system. This was because only the effect of saturation change on the rock
mechanical properties was investigated.
The rock mechanical tests were implemented to obtain the rock properties for different saturation cases.
The values were applied in the FVM model of stress. The stress values are coupled with pressure results
to find the corrected values of stress. Finally, the stress values are analysed by the failure criteria to check
the wellbore stability.

Results
The results were obtained for different tests with different saturations to analyse the effect of saturation on
the stresses. The results were applied in the model.
Table 2 and Figure 3 show the result of the first experiment (test 1). In this test, a dried sample (in the
oven) without any flow was tested to check the mechanical properties in the first basic case.

Table 2—Base case (test 1); dried sample

Result Criteria Test # 1

Maximum axial stress (MPa) 48.19

Young modulus (MPa) 4093.76

Poisson's ratio 0.16

G' Shear Modulus (MPa) 1764.55

K' Bulk Modulus (MPa) 2006.75

λ Lame's Parameter (MPa) 830.37

Figure 3—Case 1; dried sample

SPE-187826-MS 9

Table 3 and Figure 4 show the results for the water-saturated case (test 2).

Table 3—Case 2 (test 2); water saturated sample

Result Criteria Test # 2

Maximum axial stress (MPa) 42.33

Young modulus (MPa) 3953.73

Poisson's ratio 0.18

G' Shear Modulus (MPa) 1675.31

K' Bulk Modulus (MPa) 2059.23

λ Lame's Parameter (MPa) 942.36

Figure 4—Case 2; water saturated sample

Table 4 and Figure 5 show the results for the oil-saturated case (test 3).

Table 4—Case 3 (test 3); oil saturated sample

Result Criteria Test # 3

Maximum axial stress (MPa) 41.28

Young modulus (MPa) 3735.27

Poisson's ratio 0.24

G' Shear Modulus (MPa) 1506.16

K' Bulk Modulus (MPa) 2394.4

λ Lame's Parameter (MPa) 1390.3

10 SPE-187826-MS

Figure 5—Case 3; oil-saturated sample

In the case of dried sample, the rock was stronger (according to recorded maximum axial stress and the
Young's modulus). The concept was called "water weakening effect" and it was investigated in the literature
studies. Based on the results (tests 1 to 3), the values were introduced to use in the model.
Figures 6 to 9 express the corrected values of radial, vertical, tangential, and shear stresses respectively.

Figure 6—Radial stress values at the top-level of the cube around the wellbore

Figure 7—Tangential stress values at the top-level of the cube around the wellbore
SPE-187826-MS 11

Figure 8—Vertical stress values at the top-level of the cube around the wellbore

Figure 9—Shear stress values at the top-level of the cube around the wellbore

Discussions on Water and Gas Injection Effects on Stability

The failure index values for the water and gas injection was different. This difference was due to the variation
in rock mechanical properties and pressure values for water and gas injection. Figure-10 shows the results
of failure index after 15 minutes of water injection. It was obtained under the conditions of 23, 20, and 17
MPa of vertical, horizontal maximum and minimum in-situ stresses respectively. The injection properties
were as Table 1. The result shows that in 2000 psi (13.79 MPa) injection pressure, there was no failure in
the wellbore (original formation pressure was considered 1000 psi or 6.9 MPa). However, the values in the
direction of horizontal maximum stress were very small and close to breaking.

Figure 10—Failure index after 15 minutes of water injection

12 SPE-187826-MS

The failure index values after 15 minutes of gas injection were depicted in Figure 11. It was obtained
under same in-situ stresses.

Figure 11—Failure index after 15 minutes of gas injection

Figure 12 shows the results of stability in the case that the values of rock mechanical properties were
considered thesame as in water injection. Therefore, comparing Figures 11 and 12 leads to understand the
effect of the change in the rock mechanical properties in stability results.

Figure 12—Failure index after 15 minutes of gas injection without the change in rock mechanical properties

Conclusions
The pressure values were increased through injection around the wellbore; in the case of gas injection, the
pressure change was higher forabout 500 psi. Meanwhile, oil saturation was reduced after injection and
the two-phase water-oil system was swept by the gas bank. Moreover, a sharp change in temperature was
obtained after the injection was begun.
Stress redistribution was found to occur around the wellbore after the injection. Furthermore, the
corrected values for radial, tangential, vertical, and shear stresses had been calculated after iterative
coupling. The numerical study was not enough to find the exact values of stressbecause rock mechanical
properties change as saturations alter. Therefore, in order to have strong input data, some experiments were
required to obtain the rock mechanical properties. The experiment in this study was called triaxial testing
of rocks. The strain and stress were measured by the triaxial device in real-time until the samples break.
SPE-187826-MS 13

The worldwide procedure of defining rock mechanical properties from thedevice was used. This experiment
calculates the rock mechanical properties for dried, water saturated, and oil saturated samples. According to
experimental results, the recorded maximum axial stress was higher than the water and oil saturated cases
(48.19MPa respected to 42.33MPa and 41.28MPa). It indicates that the formation was more sensitiveto
failure for gas injection. However, after modelling, it was obtained that the formation was more unstable
in gas injection case because of higher pressure transient. Therefore, the possibility of wellbore failure was
higher during gas injection rather than water injection.

References
A. Kaffash and M. Zare-Reisabadi, "Borehole stability evaluation in overbalanced and underbalanced drilling: based on
3D failure criteria," Geosystem Engineering, vol. 16, pp. 175–182, 2013.
Z. Chen, G. Huan, and Y. Ma, Computational methods for multiphase flows in porous media vol. 2: Siam, 2006.
Tran, D., Settari, A., Nghiem, L., SPE Journal, 9, (3), 362 (2004).
M. Bataee, S. Irawan, F. Namazi-Saleh, S. Ridha, (2017). "Development of Stress Model near the Wellbore Using an
Iterative Coupling Method." International Journal of Geomechanics, 04016047.
M. Bataee and S. Irawan, "Review of Geomechanical Application in Reservoir Modeling," Journal of Applied Sciences,
vol. 14, p. 981, 2014.
M. Bataee, S. Irawan, S. Ridha, H. Hematpour, Z. Hamdi, "Wellbore Failure During Water-Alternating-Gas Injection by
Use of Flow-Stress Coupling Method", SPE Journal.
S. Yin, M. B. Dusseault, and L. Rothenburg, "Multiphase poroelastic modeling in semi-space for deformable reservoirs,"
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, vol. 64, pp. 45–54, 2009.
G. Chen, M. Chenevert, M. Sharma, and M. Yu, "Poroelastichemical, and thermal effects on wellbore stability in shales,"
in DC Rocks 2001, The 38th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS), 2001.
G. Chen, M. E. Chenevert, M. M. Sharma, and M. Yu, "Thermal and chemical effects on shale stability," Department of
Petroleum & Geosystems Engineering, 2001.
S. Irawan and M. Bathaee, "Numerical Modeling of Flow and Temperature Distribution in Heterogeneous Wellbore
Medium," in SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference, 2015.
W. K. Pao, R. W. Lewis, and I. Masters, "A fully coupled hydro‐thermo‐poro‐mechanical model for black oil reservoir
simulation," International journal for numerical and analytical methods in geomechanics, vol. 25, pp. 1229–1256,
2001.
R. W. Lewis and B. A. Schrefler, "The finite element method in the deformation and consolidation of porous media," 1987.
E. Fjar, R. M. Holt, A. Raaen, R. Risnes, and P. Horsrud, Petroleum related rock mechanics vol. 53: Elsevier, 2008.
R. Chalaturnyk and P. Li, "When is it important to consider geomechanics in SAGD operations?," Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology, vol. 43, 2004.
E. Papamichos, P. Cerasi, J. Stenebraten, A. Berntsen, I. Ojala, I. Vardoulakis, et al, "Sand production rate under multiphase
flow and water breakthrough," in 44th US Rock Mechanics Symposium and 5th US-Canada Rock Mechanics
Symposium, 2010.
A. M. Al-Ajmi and R. W. Zimmerman, "Relation between the Mogi and the Coulomb failure criteria," International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, vol. 42, pp. 431–439, 2005.
A. M. Al-Ajmi and R. W. Zimmerman, "Stability analysis of vertical boreholes using the Mogi-Coulomb failure criterion,"
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, vol. 43, pp. 1200–1211, 2006.

View publication stats