0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

5 Ansichten28 SeitenJul 16, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

5 Ansichten28 Seiten© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 28

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech., 2001; 25:1229}1256 (DOI: 10.1002/nag.174)

oil reservoir simulation

W. K. S. Pao, R. W. Lewis*R and I. Masters

Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Wales Swansea, Swansea SA2-8PP, U.K.

SUMMARY

A fully coupled formulation of a hydro-thermo-poro-mechanical model for a three-phase black oil reservoir

model is presented. The model is based upon the approach proposed by one of the authors which fully

couples geomechanical e!ects to multiphase #ow. Their work is extended here to include non-isothermal

e!ects. The gas phase contribution to the energy equation has been neglected based on a set of assumptions.

The coupled formulation given herein di!ers in several ways when compared to the earlier work and an

attempt is made to link the #ow based formulation and mixture theory. The Finite Element Method is

employed for the numerical treatment and essential algorithmic implementation is discussed. Numerical

examples are presented to provide further understanding of the current methodology. Copyright 2001

John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS:

1. INTRODUCTION

As recognised by Gutierrez and Lewis [1], the role of geomechanics in petroleum reservoir

engineering is becoming increasingly important as deeper formations are detected and explored.

The stress, #uid pressure and temperature conditions encountered at large depth give rise

to a range of situations where conventional reservoir modelling fails to provide an accurate

analysis [2].

Since the pioneering work to Biot [3] on isothermal consolidation theory, many advances has

been made by various researchers with applications in civil engineering and hydrology. By

drawing the analogy between thermoelasticity and poroelasticity, the Biot equations were

extended by many workers to include thermal e!ect, e.g. References [4}7]. A direct application of

geomechanics to hydrocarbon reservoirs is relatively rare but can be tracked in the earlier work of

Swansea SA2-8PP, U.K.

R E-mail: R.W. Lewis@swansea.ac.uk

Contract/grant sponsor: Fractures Reservoir Project, University of Wales (under the control of Norwegian Geotechnical

Institute) BP-AMOCO, ELF and Norwegian Research Council

Revised 2 March 2001

1230

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

Geertsma [8,9], Gassman [10] and later, by other (see References [11}24]). A more exhaustive

literature review on the subject can be found in Lewis and Schre#er [25].

Based on the above literature study, we see that, although geomechanics aspects have been

applied to petroleum reservoirs since 1957, these models only make use of the pore compressibility as a sole coupling factor. The heuristicity of this approach cannot be justi"ed

analytically or rationally. On the other hand, for coupled formulations, a discrepancy of opinion

still exists among reservoir engineers, who prefer #ow based formulation rather than those based

on the theory of mixtures, as discussed by Chen and Teufel [26]. We therefore feel that there is

a need to settle this problematic issue and provide a consistent geomechanics integration into

so-called &traditional' petroleum reservoir simulators. Also, we are of the opinion that extending

this rationale to take into account thermoelastic e!ects is highly desirable.

2. PRELIMINARY SUPPOSITION

In a multi-components model, we assume that water, an evolving original heavy crude oil in place

(OOIP) and an organic gaseous phase co-exist in the porous arc. The gaseous phase consists of

both the original organic gas in place ( OGIP) and the fragmentation of long hydrocarbon chains

into shorter components below the bubble point pressure. As far as the gas phase is concerned, no

distinction is made in between these two gas components at the present stage. We further assume

that there are two distinct zones which exist in the porous continua, namely a dominant water}oil

zone and a dominant oil}gas zone. We suppose that in the water}oil zone, the system is

water-wet, while in the oil}gas zone, the system is oil-wet.

According to standard petrology for immiscible #uids, each phase will occupy a partial pore

volume S "d / such that

G

NG

N

S #S #S "1

(1)

in which S is termed the saturation of phase i. The subscript i"w, o and g denotes water, oil and

G

gaseous phase, respectively.

2.1. Capillary pressure relationship

In order to specify the interacting motion of each phase (not including skeleton constituents), one

requires equations which link the evolution of the partial pressures of each phase to their

saturation values. According to Hassanizadeh and Gray [27], the most practical method in

characterizing this interacting motion is to use an empirical correlation relating the capillary

pressure, p and the saturation, S. In this sense, the correlation may be thought of as being

representative equations which account for all e!ects and processes that in#uence the #uid

distribution. This argument is strongly supported via the Buckingham analysis carried out by

Slattery [28], and is favourably viewed amongst practicing reservoir engineers [29]. It should be

noted that at the macroscopic level, the capillary pressure is the di!erence of averaged pressures

and not the average of their di!erence.

Following this, we can write

S "F (P ,)

G

G

Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

(2)

1231

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

(3)

S

S p

p

S

"

! #

t

t

p

t

t

(4)

dS

dS

dS

"! !

dt

dt

dt

(5)

S

p

S

p

S

! #

"

p

t

t

t

t

Similarly, for an oil}gas system,

Using Equations (3) and (4), and substituting into Equation (5) results in

S

p

S

p

S

S

p

p

S

"!

! !

! !

#

(6)

p

t

p

t

t

t

t

t

Simplifying, and letting S "S /p , S "S /p , S "S / and S "S / one

2

2

obtains

p

S

p

! #S

"S

2

t

t

t

t

(7)

S

p

p

"S

! #S

2

t

t

t

t

(8)

S

p

p

"!S

! !S

t

t

t

p

p

! !(S #S )

2

2 t

t

t

(9)

The e!ective pore pressure, pN , has been de"ned in di!erent ways by many authors based on a set

of arguments. Tortike and Farouq-Ali [30], for example, argued that in a tar sand, the grains are

entirely encapsulated by water and therefore, the water phase pressure is the only in#uencing

mechanism on the skeleton. This argument has been adopted by many researchers, particularly

those in the area of hydrology. Here, we attempt to show a derivation which will be consistent

with those used by petroleum reservoir engineers.

Let p be de"ned as the molar pressure of the #uid in an in"nitesimal pore volume . Then, the

G

volume averaged pore pressure pN , can be written as

1 A

pN "

p n d

(10)

G 2

G

in which n is the total mole number and c is the number of components. The total mode number

2

is related to the mole fraction via

n

x" G

G n

2

Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

(11)

1232

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

where n is the mole number of species i. Substituting Equation (11) into (10), one obtains

G

n

1 A

p G d

(12)

pN "

G

x

G

G

Equation (12) can be written as

n

1 A

p G

pN "

Gx

G

G

d

(13)

But

A

d"

G

G

Substituting Equation (14) into (13) yields

(14)

n

1 A

p G

pN "

(15)

Gx G

G

G

However S " / . Realising that n /x "1, and replacing i"w, o, g, one obtains

G

G

G G

pN "S p #S p #S p

(16)

This derivation is consistent with the thermodynamic pressure usually employed in physical

chemistry. On totally di!erentiating Equation (16), we have

dpN "S dp #p dS #S dp #p dS #S dp #p S

Making use of the relationships from Equations (7)}(9) and simplifying by de"ning

S"S !p S !p S

S "S #p S

S"S #p S

S "p S !p S

2

2

2

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

one obtains

pN "S p #S p #S p #S

(22)

2

Equation (22) has been obtained by considering small perturbation hypothesis in which the

convective component is assumed to be zero.

3.1. Equilibrium equation

The starting point of the equilibrium equation is the skeleton momemtum balance, which reads

div !f"0

Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

(23)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

1233

in which is the total stress and f represents the external forces. The total stress is related to the

e!ective stress via the following state law:

"!IpN

(24)

where the #uid is assumed to be mechanically perfect as indicated by a second order identity

tensor, I, in front of the volume averaged pore pressure, pN . From Equations (23) and (24), two

options exist. One can either formulate the equilibrium equation in terms of the total or e!ective

stress. Here, we shall choose the e!ective stress formulation. The constitutive equation relating

the e!ective stress to the strain is given by Lewis and Schre#er [25] as

d"C : (d!d !d )

(25)

2

when C is the drained consistent tangent of the skeleton and is the total strain of the skeleton.

The quantity represents the volumetric strains caused by uniform compression of the skeleton

matrix due to a con"ning pressure, which can be given as

I

dpN

(26)

d "!

N

3K

where K is the bulk modulus of the matrix, which may well be di!erent from the bulk modulus of

the skeleton. The quantity is the volumetric thermal strain of the skeleton due to temperature

2

changes, i.e.,

I

d " d

2 3

(27)

Here, is the thermal coe$cient of expansion of the skeleton and d is de"ned w.r.t. a reference

temperature at a reference con"guration. Making use of the state equations given by (22),

(24)}(27), Equation (23) reads

div C : !S ) grad p !S ) grad p

!S ) grad p ! C : I ) grad !f"0

3

(28)

K

"1!

K

where K is the skeleton bulk modulus. However, if C is anisotropic, then

C:I

"I!

3K

(29)

(30)

There are many ways to derive the volumetric balance equations for the #uids. One of those has

been previously described by Pao et al. [31]. Here, we cast the volumetric equations in

a terminology which is familiar to petroleum reservoir engineers.

Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1234

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

Consider a region of rock with bulk volume , whose pore space contains an amount of #uid

mass M . If the density of this particular #uid is denoted by , the volume occupied by this #uid is

G

G

M / . If the pore volume is partially saturated with the #uid phase i, the pore volume occupied by

G G

this #uid is therefore,

M

G

(31)

G

where Equation (31) is expressed at reservoir conditions. In order to express Equation (31) into

the stock tank conditions, stc, w.r.t. the hydrocarbon component, we write

d (S )"d

G

MB

G G

(32)

'

where B is the formation volume factor and is the density of phase i at stc. Totally

G

'

di!erentiating Equation (32), and multiplying both sides by gives

'

S d # dS "B dM #M dB

(33)

' G

' G

G

G

G G

Dividing Equation (33) by , we obtain

d

B dM

M

" G

G! dS # G dB .

S

(34)

'

G

G

' G

where

d (S )"d

G

"

(35)

and

M

G"

S

(36)

G '

where

is the porosity. It should be noted that in Equation (36), the #uid mass is expressed at stc,

and not at the reservoir condition. Equation (34) describes a very interesting relationship, where

the partial pore volumetric change per unit of bulk volume can be broken into three parts on the

RHS. The "rst term is due to the additional #uid mass dM that moves into the pore volume per

G

unit of bulk volume. The second term is due to the extraction of the #uid mass from the pore

volume due to the change in saturation dS , a phenomena known as drainage. Finally, the third

G

term is due to the compression of the #uid phase i that is already in that region.

Following Biot's methodology, we introduce

dM

G

d

"

(37)

G

Substituting expressions (35), (36) and (37) into Equation (34) and rearranging will yield the

following:

d

1

# '

dS #

S d

d

" ' S

G

'

G

G B G

B

B

G

G

G

Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

(38)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

1235

Now, the quantity dS has been de"ned previously and the derivative of B is easily determined.

G

G

However, we need an expression for d / . Let us write

d

"d

! d

(39)

According to Charlez [2]

1 1

1

dpN

d

"

!

(dN #dpN )!

(40)

K K

K

in which K is the bulk modulus of the skeleton whose expression can be obtained from the

consistent tangent matrix C. The value of K has to be determined from the jacketted test of the

core samples. In Equation (40), is the so-called con"ning total stress, whose expression can be

obtained via

1

" tr

3

(41)

d

1

1

dpN

" !

(dN #dpN )!

K K

K

We now make use of the mean total stress equation, i.e.

K

dpN

d"d! 1!

K

Substituting Equation (43) into (42), one "nally "nds the following relationship:

d

"

1

1

1

K

!

d#

!

dpN

K K

K

K

(42)

(43)

(44)

and

d

dpN

"

(45)

K

It should be noted that Equation (44) is signi"cantly di!erent from the commonly accepted

relationship used in an uncoupled petroleum reservoir simulation, (see e.g. References [16, 30]),

which is given by

d

"c dpN

(46)

where c is commonly known as the pore compressibility. The validity of equation (46) is doubtful

since it is in fact a linear equation relating

to pN . Experimental evidence, however, suggests that

no such relationship exists, see Figure 1. Equation (44) can also be cast, using the terminology of

Lewis and Schre#er [25], as

1

1

1

I : C : d!

I : C : I dpN #

dpN

d

"d(tr )!

3K

9K

K

Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

(47)

1236

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

Figure 1. Evolution of con"ning yield pressure versus porosity, adapted from Reference [32].

is simply the volumetric strain of the skeleton.

Therefore, Equation (39) will not, after taking into account the volumetric thermal strain

component, read as

d

!

" dtr #

dpN !(!

) d

3

K

(48)

!

1

d

" ' S dtr #

dpN !(!

) d # '

dS #

S d

G B G

G

' G

K

3

B

B

G

G

G

(49)

div M #mR "q

G

G

G

(50)

where M is the mass #ux vector of phase i, q is the volumetric source/sink and the overdot

G

G

denotes partial time derivative. We now de"ne dm as

G

dM

G

dm "

G

Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

(51)

1237

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

Utilizing the fact that for a small perturbation, d(*)/dt+(*)/t, and substituting Equation (49)

into (51), one obtains

div M # ' S tr
#

G B G

G

# '

SQ #

S

G

' G

B

G

By assuming Darcy's law, the mass #ux vector

!

pNQ !(!

) Q

K

3

1

"q

G

B

G

takes the form

(52)

Kk

(53)

M " ' G grad p

G

G

B

G G

in which K is the intrinsic permeability and k is the relative permeability. Since M , pNQ , SQ and etc.

G

G

G

are all known, the derivation of the #uid phase equation is now straight forward. For the water

phase, we obtain

div

Kk

S S !

p

grad p #Q #

#

S B ! S

B t

B

B

K

K

S S !

p

S !

p

#

#

# S

B

K

B U t

B

K

t

S

S S !

S

# 2

! (!

) #

S B

# "0

2 t

B

B t

B

K

K

(54)

in which

(55)

(56)

1

B "

p B

and

1

B "

2 B

The source term is de"ned as

q

Q "

Similarly, the oil equation can be derived as

div

(57)

Kk

S S !

p

grad p #Q #

# S

B

B

K

B t

S S !

p

#

! (S !S )#

S B

B

B

K

t

1238

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

S p

S !

!

B

K

B

t

S !

S

#

!(!

) #

S B

# "0

2 t

B t

B

K

#

(58)

in which

(59)

1

B "

2 B

(60)

q

Q"

(61)

1

B "

p B

and

div

Kk

R Kk

grad p # grad p #Q

B

B

!

R S p

# S

#

B

K

t

S

R

S

!

p

# S

! ! (S !S )# R #

R S B

t

B

B

B

K

!

R S

p

# S

! # S #

S B

B

B

K

t

!

S

#

S !(!

) #

S B # R #

R S B

2

2

2

2 t

B

K

!

#

"0

K

t

(62)

in which

"

B "

p

1

,

B

R

R " ,

p

S

RS

#

B

B

(63)

1

B "

2 B

R

R "

2

(64)

(65)

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

1239

q

(66)

Q " #R Q

In Equations (62)}(65), R is the volume of the dissolved gas in the oil phase per unit volume of oil

at stc.

Before we proceed, it is important to observe that the formulation provided by Equations (54),

(58) and (62) is valid irrespective of whether the "nal consideration requires a coupled or

uncoupled solution. For an uncoupled model, we need to eliminate the partial time derivative

term of the volumetric strain, i.e. /t. Under the assumption that the rate of change of total

stress is zero, i.e. "constant, we can write, making use of Equation (24)

IpNQ

div v" "

K K

(67)

where is the skeleton velocity and an overdot denotes time derivative. Equation (67) can be used

to eliminate the time derivative of the volumetric strain term in Equations (54), (58) and (62)

resulting in a decoupling of the #ow equations from the equilibrium equations.

3.3. Energy balance equation

By enforcing the local postulate that the #uid reaches thermal equilibrium instantaneously with

the reservoir rock, then the only relevant mechanisms of energy transport are conduction and

convection. Neglecting kinetic energy, viscous and intrinsic dissipation, the energy balance on an

in"nitesimal reservoir element can be written as

!div ( grad )# c v ) grad#Q !Q c " ( c)

G G

G G

t

(68)

in which v "K(k / ) grad p , is the velocity of the #uid phase i. In Equation (68), Q is the

G

PG G

G

external volumetric heat input into the system, e.g. via wellbore heating, etc. The quantity Q c is

G G

the energy density of the #uid phase i entering/leaving the system via a production or injection

well. On the RHS of Equation (68), the quantity c dt d represents the increase, or decrease, of

the internal energy of the system due to a temperature evolution "! . Note that the

intensive quantity has been de"ned with respect to a reference temperature, and in Equation

(68), is taken to be zero. The bulk quantity c in Equation (68) represents an averaged heat

storage capacity of the reservoir system. For a microscale problem, unlike a petroleum reservoir,

e.g. brick drying, the determination of the bulk value of c is possible via experimentation. For

a reservoir, this is impossible as our only window into the reservoir formation is via the outcrops

and cores, drilled via a tiny hole of the wellbore. In addition, the sample size obtained from a "eld

investigation may not be representative due to the chaotic distribution of reservoir material and

the heterogeneity of the formation. In this case, the bulk heat storage capacity has to be expressed

in terms of the heat capacity of the pure substances. The time derivative of the heat capacity can

now be expressed as

( c)" [(1!

) c #S

c #S

c #S

c ]

t

t

Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

(69)

1240

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

In Equation (69), instantaneous local thermal equilibrium has been enforced. If the time derivative on the RHS of Equation (69) is taken into account, the resulting equation system will be

prohibitively large. A simpli"cation can be made w.r.t. Equation (69), by "rst observing that

; in which the subscript l denotes the liquid phase. For most organic gases, c +c up to

5003F, from 15 to 3000 psia, see Reference [33]. Hence, the heat capacity of the gas phase can be

neglected (the ratio of the heat contributed by gas to the liquid phase is approximately 1 : 1000)

and Equation (69) now reads

( N c)" [(1!

) c #S

c #S

c ]

t

t

(70)

A consequence of this assumption is that the application of Equation (70) is limited to a speci"c

range of material and conditions. Provided that the saturation of the gas phase is small relative to

the liquid phase (as in most of the cases in black/green oil reserves), this assumption is justi"able.

Following this, the energy equation can be derived as, after taking the time derivative of Equation

(70) and neglecting

/t, the mechanical heating term

!div ( ) grad )#( c v # c v ) grad

# (1!

)c

p

S #S

c !

c S #

c S

K

K

t

# (1!

)c

p

S#S

c #

c S !

c S

K

K

t

S

S

!

c

# !S

c !S

c #

c

#(1!

) c #S

c #S

c !(1!

) c

#(1!

)c

S

#Q !Q c !Q c "0

K 2 t

(71)

We may safely ignore the work contribution due to pore evolution and this can be justi"ed by

studying Equation (47), in which if K "R, the magnitude of

is of the same order of

magnitude as tr .

Equations (28), (54), (58), (62) and (71) represent a set of highly non-linear partial di!erential

equations for three-phase #ow coupled with the consolidation behaviour occurring in a deformable petroleum reservoir. The major non-linearities, i.e. the phase saturation S , relative permeabG

ility k , formation volume factor B , viscosities and porosity

, are strongly dependent on the

G

G

G

primary unknowns and therefore should be updated at appropriate time intervals. In order to

complete the descriptions of the above governing equations, we need the initial and boundary

conditions. The initial conditions is given by

u"u; p "P; " ;

G

G

Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

x at t"0

(72)

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

1241

u"u x3 , n; " x3

O

Kk

G grad p "Q (x, t) x3

p "pN x3p, n;

G

G

G

G

B

G G

"M x3 , ( c v ! grad ) ) n; "q (x, t) x3

2

G G G

(74)

O

G

2

(76)

(73)

(75)

with

in which L.

The "nite element discretisation of the balance equations may now be expressed in terms of the

nodal displacements, u; , nodal #uid pressure, i.e. P< , and nodal temperature T< , by using Galerkin's

G

method. The unknowns are related to their nodal values by the following expressions:

u"Nu; ,

"Bu;

(77)

P "NP< ,

"NT<

(78)

G

G

where N and B are standard "nite element shape functions and linear operator, respectively. The

displacement and pressure equations are discretised using the Bubnov}Galerkin method, while

the energy equation is discretised using an upwinded Petrov}Galerkin technique [34].

The application of the "nite element method results in the following semi-discrete equation:

A

dX

#BX"f

dt

(79)

where X is the solution vector and f is the prescribed nodal force and source/sink. Using

a variable- scheme for the time stepping algorithm, one arrives at

(80)

[A#tB]L> X "[A#t(1!)B]L> X #t f L>

R> R>

R

R

R>

where t and n are time step and iteration counter, respectively. The resulting equation is solved

using a relaxation based iterative method, which in its symbolic form can be given as

XL>"X #(1!)XL

(81)

R>

R

R>

in which is termed the relaxation parameter. If "1, the method is exact relaxation and if

(1 this is known as under relaxation. Over relaxation can only be used when convergence is

ensured. The convergence criteria is set as

XL>!XL

"

XL

Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

(82)

1242

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

in which is the prescribed tolerance. The overall algorithm for this procedure is given as

a pseudo code in Box 1.

Box 1. Relaxation based iteration algorithm.

DO WHILE n)NITER

xS>"x #(1!) xL

R>

R

R>

UPDATE Eq. (28), (54), (58), (62) and (71)

SOLVE Eq. (80) for xL>

R>

CHECK xL>!xL /xL )

R>

R>

R>

CHECK % !%)r

IF (CONVER. TRUE.) THEN

EXIT

ELSE

nQn#1

xLQxL>

ENDIF

ENDDO

It is observed that the internal and external #uxes, % and % are simply Equations (28), (54),

(58), (62) and (71). During the checking procedure, the calculated primary unknowns are used to

evaluate the #ux terms such as , M , etc. to ensure #ux balance.

G

5. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES

This section presents some numerical examples to test the validity of our model and compare it

with a known closed form solution.

5.1. Hot water injection

This section serves to validate the #ow side of the formulation, i.e. the #uid and energy #ow

equations, by "xing the displacement degrees of freedom equal to zero. The example considered in

convection caused by movement of #uids inside the reservoir and was "rst proposed by Aktan

and Farouq-Ali [11]. The reservoir has a dimension of 30 ft by 90 ft with a thickness of 100 ft.

Two wells, one injector and one producer, were located at opposite ends of the resevoir and

operated under a constant pressure maintenance of 2200 and 2000 psia, respectively. The

formation was fully penetrated. Incoming water was maintained at a constant temperature of

5503F with an initial reservoir temperature of 1003F. The reservoir was composed of Berea

sandstone. The following equations of state were used in the modelling:

B "B [1#K (p!p)! (! )]

(83)

"2.185/(0.04012#0.0000051547!1)

(84)

and

The results obtained from our simulation are shown in Figures 2 and 3. During the initial

period, the temperature of the reservoir is low and thus the viscosity of the #uid is high. The #ow

Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1243

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

Sandstone density, 1b m/ft

Thermal conductivity of sandstone, Btu/D ft 3F

Speci"c heat of sandstone, Bru/1b m 3F

Total pore compressibility, vol/vol psi

Porosity, %

Absolute permeability, darcy

Coe$cient of thermal expansion, vol/vol 3F

Density of #uid at stc, 1b m/ft

Speci"c heat of #uid, Btu/1b m 3F

Coe$cient of thermal expansion for #uid, vol/vol 3F

Fluid compressibility, vol/vol psi

148.95

35

0.2

10;10\

18.67

0)089

15;10\

62.4

1

490;10\

3;10\

Figure 2. Convection and conduction transport for pressure versus distance, compared to

Aktan and Farouq-Ali [11].

within the reservoir is hence subject to viscous resistance. When water is injected, the pressure

builds up immediately, which is obvious at a 20 day period where the pressure at the inlet section

is higher than in the rest of the formation. A continuous injection of #uid at constant temperature

heats up the formation, thus reducing the viscosity of the original #uid in place. The resulting #ow

of #uid o!ers less resistance, hence the pressure drops. A steady state solution is attained after 160

days of injection where the pressure gradient across the formation is the same as the prescribed

Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1244

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

Figure 3. Convection and conduction transport for temperature versus distance, compared to

Aktan and Farouq-Ali [11].

pressure at the wells. After that period, the formation temperature becomes constant at 5503F. We

observed a slight discrepancy in these "gures, both for the pressure and temperature values when

compared to Reference [11]. A close study of Figure 2 will reveal that the greatest discrepancy

occurred at approximately 100 days, i.e. during the transient period of the reservoir. The pressure

solution from Reference [11] is still within the transient regime at 100 days, while the pressure

solution from our own prediction is already near steady state conditions at that time. The

superiority of our results can be justi"ed by studying the temperature evolution curve at 100 days

in Figure 3, where the overall formation temperature is near to the injection temperature. When

the overall formation is heated up su$ciently, resistance to #ow due to the viscosity changes will

be minimized, hence the pressure across the domain must be equal to the imposed pressure

gradient at the ends of the reservoir. This example suggests that pressure-temperature coupling

becomes signi"cant at the later stages when the overall formation has been heated up su$ciently

by the incoming water. On the other hand, it also illustrates that a leap-frog coupling methodology may cause a lag in the pressure evolution.

Another simulation was also performed by considering the heat transport via conduction

e!ects only, and the results are shown in Figures 4 and 5 for the pressure and temperature versus

distance, respectively. The use of a Petrov}Galerkin upwinding scheme did not e!ect the solution

at all in this case. This might be due to the relatively small Peclet number used for this simulation.

An interesting feature is to note the huge di!erence in the pressure-temperature pro"le in Figures

4 and 5 when convection is neglected.

Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

1245

Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1246

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

Figure 6. (a) Mandel's problem and (b) Finite element mesh and boundary conditions.

The Mandel poroelasticity problem is well known for its non-monotonic pressure increase during

a sudden loading cycle. A typical Mandel problem is illustrated in Figure 6(a).

May researchers have considered this problem extensively, see Reference [35] and the references cited therein. However, no numerical solution has been found for Mandel's thermoporoelasticity problem, as far as the authors' are aware. Here, we intend to investigate the

so-called Mandel e!ects when temperature is also considered. The material properties required

for the isothermal simulation are given as follows: shear modulus G"1;10 N/m, undrained

Poison ratio, v "0.5, drained Poison ratio, v "0.2, K/"1;10\ m/Pa s. The porosity is set

arbitrary as

"0.2. For the non-isothermal test, "0.5 MW/m\K\, C "3 M J m\ K\,

C "4 MJ m\ K\, "3 "0.9;10\ K\. The impermeable plate is assumed to be

connected to a "lament which supplies the heat at 1000 MJ D\. The initial temperature was

assumed to be 03C and the temperature at the permeable boundary was assumed to be at

constant room temperature of 203C. A modi"ed Mandel problem is illustrated in Figure 6(a),

while Figure 6(b) shows the "nite elements were mesh used in this example where a"b"1m and

F"1;10 N. Linear quadrilateral elements were used in this case. Since the problem is

symmetrical, only one quarter of the domain was considered. The displacement and excess pore

pressure pro"les at the center of the mesh for both the isothermal and non-isothermal cases are

compared in Figures 7 and 8 while Figure 9 illustrates the temperature increase at the centre of

the mesh.

It was found that the displacements and maximum excess pore pressure values were insensitive

to the temperature e!ects and both the isothermal and non-isothermal cases were almost

identical. Even though convection was taken into account, the maximum excess pore pressure

values are still the same. To further consolidate this supposition, the value was multiplied by

Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

1247

Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1248

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

2 and then 3. The maximum excess pore pressures and displacements were still identical. There

may be two reasons which collectively contributed to this abnormal behaviour. Firstly,

the applied loading was too large and dominates the thermal straining. Second, the porosity

used in this example is below the critical porosity, an aspect pointed out by Bai and

Roegiers [36].

Figures 10 and 11 illustrate the pore pressure contours at di!erent time steps while Figures 12

and 13 compare the conductive temperature evolution at di!erent times when convection was

taken into account. It is seen that conduction dominates the heat transport process during the

initial period (Figure 12) while convection takes over during the later stages. This is because in the

beginning, the pore pressure gradient is non-uniform in the domain, thus disrupting the convective mechanism. During the later period, a consistent pressure gradient is established thus

enhancing the convective transport.

5.3. Partially saturated soil column compaction

The last example is very much similar in nature to the previous case except that the problem is

a simpli"ed one-dimensional column undergoing compaction. Two cases are investigated,

a single phase #ow and a two phase #ow. The geometry and boundary conditions used in this case

are shown in Figure 14. The top soil is subjected to a traction loading with an intensity of , and

a prescribed temperature of 503C. The initial stress, pressure and temperature values are

everywhere equal to zero for the single phase case. For the two phase problem, the initial gas

Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

1249

Figure 10. Excess pore pressure at (a) 0.0001 days and (b) 0.0005 days.

Figure 11. Excess pore pressure at (a) 0.001 days and (b) 0.006 days.

pressure is prescribed as being atmospheric everywhere and the corresponding water phase

pressure can be calculated using Equation (86) with a saturation of 92.0 per cent. The boundary

condition for the gas phase is such that it is equal to the atmospheric pressure at the top surface

and the water saturation there is prescribed as 98.8 per cent. A water saturation value of unity

cannot be prescribed there because of the limitation imposed by Equation (86). All the sides of the

domain are adiabatic and impermeable except the top surface.

Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1250

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

Figure 12. Temperature evolution at (a) 0.011 days and (b) 0.291 days.

Figure 13. Temperature evolution at (a) 1.291 days and (b) 2.291 days.

The material properties for this example are tabulated in Table II.

However, the following equations of state are employed.

"661.2 (!229)\

Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

(85)

1251

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

Figure 14. Finite element mesh and boundary conditions for two phase #ow.

Table II. Material properties for two phase soil column compaction.

Drained elastic modulus, Pa

Drained Poison ratio

Matrix bulk modulus, 1/Pa

Density of soil at stc, kg/m

Thermal conductivity, kJ/m 3C s

Speci"c heat of soil, kJ/kg 3C

Thermal expansion for soil, vol/vol 3C

Porosity, %

Absolute permeability, m

Viscosity of water, Pa s

Residual water saturation, %

Initial water saturation, %

Density of water at stc, kg/m

Thermal expansion for water, vol/vol 3C

Water bulk modulus, 1/Pa

Gas viscosity, Pa s

Density of gas at stc, kg/m

6;10

0)4

0.14;10

2000

1.15

125

1.0;10\

30.0

0.46;10\

1.0;10\

20.0

92.0

1000

2.1;10\

0.43;10\

1.0;10\

1.22

in which is given in kelvin and as cP. The saturation capillary relationship is obtained from

Brooke and Corey [37], i.e.,

S "S

Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1.68;10

#S

P

(86)

1252

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

in which S is the maximum saturation in the domain and S is the maximum residual water

saturation. The compressibility of gas is taken into account via the perfect gas law conversion, as

P

B"

(87)

P

in which P"P and "273 K. Note that in this example, R "0, c "0 and the initial gas

saturation is very small relative to the liquid phase, i.e. 8 per cent. With the experience gained

from the Mandel case, the applied traction , has to be small relative to the thermal stress so that

the thermal strain can be observed. This can be estimated heuristically from Equation (28).

Setting p "0, f"0, and applying the divergence theorem to the internal stress, we have

G

C : I ) grad d

n; d"

(88)

C

Substituting the values from Table II, we "nd that under isochoric conditions, the thermal stress

will cause an internal stress of approximately 100 KPa. Therefore we choose "1 KPa, which is

well below the thermal stress value.

Figure 15 shows a comparison of the compaction pro"le for a saturated case and a two phase

case at various selected points within mesh. A very pronounced compaction was observed in the

two phase problem where the gas phase is very compressible relative to the liquid phase. Figure 16

compares the solution obtained in the present model with those obtained by Schre#er et al.

Figure 15. Compaction pro"le for single phase (circle) and two phase #ow (solid line). 7}6.8 m from bottom,

27}6 m from bottom, 37}4 m from bottom and 42}2 m from bottom.

Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

1253

Figure 16. Comparison of two phase #ow solution (solid line) with Schre#er et al. [38] (circle). All the

location are counted from bottom of the mesh.

[38]. It may be observed that due to the prescribed pressure boundary conditions, the gas phase is

experiencing drainage while the liquid phase is experiencing imbibition into the mesh, i.e. there is

a constant #ow of liquid phase into the domain. This case is of practical interest in overburden

modelling where there is a constant intrusion of sea water into the seabed overburden. We

observed that immediately after the loading, the column moves downward vertically due to the

collective compressibility of the solid, liquid and gas. In the subsequent period, the column moves

vertically upward, a trend obvious in Figure 15 when compared to results of Schre#er's et al. At

approximately 1000 s, the thermal strain creeps in since the temperature in the column is now

su$ciently great to cause volumetric expansion of the material. Figure 17 illustrates the saturation evolution over the period 1.0E#07 s. Note that the saturation pro"le after 1.0E#5 s is

experiencing some oscillation, shown as a zig-zag pattern in Figure 17. This is because after that

period, the liquid}gas movement has almost reached equilibrium and thus the domain is under

a drainage-imbibition cycle. The temperature pro"le is shown in Figure 18 as compared to results

of Schre#er et al. A close agreement is observed in this case, even though the contribution due to

the gas phase has been neglected in the present model.

6. CONCLUSION

A formulation for a fully coupled hydro-thermo-poro-mechanical model for the simulation of

a three-phase black oil model has been presented. A critical analysis regarding the in#uence of

Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1254

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

1255

utilizing either a coupled or uncoupled formulation has also been discussed. An attempt has been

made to achieve a balance of formulation where neither the skeleton deformation nor the #uid

#ow regime have been given priority. With this, we hope that the di!erence of opinion by these

two schools of thought may be bought closer together. By making appropriate assumptions on

the gas phase, the formulation of the energy balance equation has also been simpli"ed. This

assumption places a restriction on the applicability of the energy equations within a range of

speci"c material and conditions. However, the gas contribution can easily be taken into account.

Various numerical examples have been presented and studied, and of particular interest is the

observation that the Mandel problem is insensitive to temperature, particularly with respect to

the non-monotonic pressure increase and the maximum excess pressure attained. A two phase

#ow example, which was used to illustrate the in#uence of seabed overburden compaction was

demonstrated via a simple uni-dimensional column problem. Water imbibition into the column

caused a very small, but identi"able, upward displacements. At steady state, the column experienced a imbibition-drainage cycle which caused the saturations to oscillate. The examples

presented were used either to validate the model or to study the numerical behaviour described by

the governing equations. Further work will be done in the future to illustrate the applicability of

the present model in simulating &real life' reservoir problems.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge the support given by the University of Wales, the Fractured Reservoir

Project (under the control of Norwegian Geotechnical Institute) in particular BP-AMOCO, ELF and

Norwegian Research Council. Thanks are also due to Dr. M. Gutierrez and Dr. F. Cuisiat for many helpful

discussions on technical issues.

REFERENCES

1. Gutierrez M, Lewis RW. The role of geomechanics in reservoir simulation. Proceedings of the SPE/ISRM

E;ROCK198, (SPE paper 47392), Trondheim, Norway, 1998.

2. Charlez PhA. Rock Mechanics, <olume I: Theoretical Fundamentals. Editions Technip, France, 1991.

3. Biot MA. General theory of three dimensional consolidation. Journal of Applied Physics 1941; 12:155}163.

4. Schi!man RL. A thermoelastic theory of consolidation. Environmental Geophysics Heat ransfer Division ASME

1972; 4:78}84.

5. Brownell Jr DH, Grag SK, Pritchett JW. Governing equations for geothermal reservoir. =ater Resources Research

1977; 13:929}934.

6. Bear J, Corapcioglu MY. A mathematical model for consolidation in a thermoelastic aquifer due to hot water

injection or pumping. =ater Resources Research 1981; 17:723}736.

7. McTigue DE. Thermoelastic response of #uid saturated porous rock. Journal of Geophysical Research 1986;

91:9533}9542.

8. Geertsma J. The e!ect of #uid pressure decline on volumetric changes of porous rocks. Petroleum ransactions AIME

1957; 210:331}340.

9. Geertsma J. Problems of rock mechanics in petroleum production engineering. Proceedings of the 1st Congress of

International Society of Rock Mechanics, Lisbon, 1966; 585}594.

10. Gassman F. UD ber die ElastizitaH t poroH ser Medien. Vierteljahrsschrift der Naturforschenden Gessellshaft in ZD 'urich,

Mitteilungen aus dem Institut fu& r Geophysik 1956; 17.

11. Aktan T, Farouq Ali SM. Finite element analysis of temperature and thermal stresses induced by hot water injection.

SPEJ December 1978; 457}469.

12. Rattia R. Numerical simulation of steam injection into a compacting reservoir under non-newtonian #ow condition.

PhD Dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1980.

Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1256

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

13. Ito Y. The introduction of the microchannelling phenomenon to cyclic steam stimulation and its application to the

numerical simulator (sand deformation concept). SPEJ August 1984; 417}429.

14. Noorishad J. Tsang CF, Witherspoon PA. Coupled thermal-hydraulic-mechanical phenomena in saturated fractured

porous rock: numerical approach. Journal of Geophysical Research 1984; 89:365}373.

15. Vaziri HH. Coupled #uid #ow and stress analysis of oil sands subject to heating. JCP 1988; 27:84}91.

16. Settari A. Physics and modelling of thermal #ow and soil mechanics in unconsolidated porous media. SPE 18420

presented at the 10th SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, Houston, TX, 6}8 February 1989.

17. Settari A, Ito A, Jha KN. Coupling of a fracture mechanics model and a thermal reservoir simulator for tar sands.

JCP 1992; 31:9}20.

18. Li XK. Multiphase #ow in deforming porous media*a "nite element approach. PhD Dissertation, University of

Wales Swansea, 1991.

19. Fung LSK, Buchanan L, Wan RG. Coupled geomechanics-thermal simulation of deforming heavy-oil reservoir.

Proceedings of the CIM Annual echanical Conference, Clagary, June, 1992.

20. Beattie CI, Boberg TC, McNab GS. Reservoir simulation of cyclic steam stimulation in the cold lake oil sands.

SPERE 1991; 6:200}206.

21. Tortike WS. Thermal #ow in a deforming oil reservoir. PhD Dessertation, Department of M.M.P.E., University of

Alberta, Canada, 1991.

22. Lewis RW, Sukirman Y. Finite element modelling of three-phase #ow in deforming saturated oil reservoir. International Journal for Numerical Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 1993; 17:577}598.

23. He!er KJ, Last NC, Koutsabeloulis NC, Chan HCM, Gutierrez M, Makurat A. The in#uence of natural fractures,

faults and earth stresses on reservoir performance-analysis by numerical modelling. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on North Sea Oil and Gas Resevoir, Trondheim, Norway, 1992.

24. Gutierrez M, Makurat A. Coupled HTM Modelling of Cold Water Injection in Fractured Hydrocarbon Reservoirs.

International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mineral Science 1997; 34:492.

25. Lewis RW, Schre#er BA. he ,nite element method in the static and dynamics deformation and consolidation of porous

media (2nd edn). Wiley: England, 1998.

26. Chen HY, Teufel LW. Coupling #uid-#ow and geomechanics in dual-porosity modeling of naturally fractured

reservoirs. Paper SPE 38884 presented at SPE Annual Techanical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, 1997.

27. Hassanizadeh SM, Gray WG. Thermodynamic basic of capillary pressure in porous media. =ater Resources Research

1993; 29:3389}3405.

28. Slattery JC. Interfacial transport phenomena. Chemical Engineering Communications 1980; 4:149}166.

29. Aziz K, Settari A. Petroleum Reservoir Simulation. Applied Science Publishers: London, 1979.

30. Tortike WS, Farouq Ali SM. Saturated steam property functional correlations for fully implicit thermal reservoir

simulation. SPE Reservoir Engineering 1989; 4:471}474.

31. Pao WKS, Masters I, Lewis RW. Integrated #ow and subsidence simulation for hydrocarbon reservoir. 7th Annual

Conference of ACME+99, 1999; 175}178.

32. Havmoller O. Foged N. Reviews of rock mechanics data for chalk. Danish Geotechnical Institute, Joint Chalk

Research IV, Project 4.1, report released to the "rst author in memo form by NGI without date.

33. Prats M. hermal Recovery, SPE Monograph, Henry L. Doherty Series, vol. 8, AIME: New York, 1982.

34. Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL. he Finite Element Method (4th edn), vols 1 and 2. McGraw-Hill: London 1989.

35. Abousleiman Y, Cheng AHD, Cui L, Detournay E, Roegiers JC. Mandel's problem revisited. Geotechnique 1996;

46:187}195.

36. Bai M, Roegiers JC. Fluid #ow and heat #ow in deformable fractured porous media. International Journal of

Engineering Science 1994; 32:1615}1633.

37. Brooks RH, Corey AT. Properties of porous media a!ecting #uid #ow. Journal of Irrigation Drainage Division, ASCE

1966; 92:61}88.

38. Schre#er BA, Zhan XY, Simoni L. A coupled model for water #ow, air #ow and heat #ow in deformable porous

media. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Heat and Fluid Flow 1995; 5:531}547.