ARMA/NARMS 04-594

Compaction-Induced Wellbore Failure and Fault Instability: A Hybrid

Approach
Ahmed S. Abou-Sayed
Fan H. Meng
Gary Wang
Advantek International Corporation, Houston, Texas USA
Copyright 2004, ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association
This paper was prepared for presentation at Gulf Rocks 2004, the 6th North America Rock Mechanics Symposium (NARMS): Rock Mechanics Across Borders and Disciplines, held in
Houston, Texas, June 5 9, 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by a NARMS Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted earlier by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by ARMA/NARMS and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of
NARMS, ARMA, CARMA, SMMR, their officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent
of ARMA 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
acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: This paper outlines a solution approach for evaluating the stability of casing and faults due to reservoir compaction.
Firstly, a geomechanics model is presented for the evaluation of casing failure due to reservoir compaction. Secondly, a threedimensional finite element analysis is coupled with the developed geomechanics compaction model for the detailed casing failure
analysis. Deformations and stresses are determined on a cylindrical surface surrounding the length of the newly drilled or
completed wellbore in the regions of interest. This cylindrical surface is sufficiently remote from the wellbore so that the wellbore
has no or little influence on the stresses and displacements due to the reservoir compaction on this surface. The calculated
displacements on the cylindrical surface are then used as boundary conditions for a focused near-wellbore stress and strain analysis
using finite element technology. This hybrid analysis affords evaluating the near wellbore details that are often glossed over with a
fastly compacted solution not requiring multimillion FEA cells. Yet, it preserves the fine details around the wellbore and allows
for incorporating fault loading and macro influences of geologic structures and reservoir extent. It preserves the material balance
and does not alter the pressure volume relationship in the reservoir void space. Interface elements can account for the slippage
between the casing and the cement and between the formation rock and the cement. Field cases are presented for both the
geomechanics model and hybrid finite element model.

1.

INTRODUCTION

Depletion can generate large vertical deformation in

the vicinity of reservoirs, especially in the Gulf of
Mexico, where reservoirs are typically deep, multilayered, over-pressured and weakly cemented sands
and silt sequences. Rock geomechanics plays a
major role in both the recovery mechanisms and the
integrity of the reserve delivery via well
survivability. Hence it becomes necessary for the
operators in these fields to carry out geomechanics
assurance of reserve delivery by assessing the risk
of well and casing failure, evaluating fault seal
integrity during production, and by analyzing the
impact of reservoir compaction on the integrity and
recovery of the reservoirs resources. The results of
these evaluations would assist the operators in
devising appropriate strategies for more optimal
recovery of the hydrocarbon from deepwater
reservoirs. The studies must be aimed at a careful
evaluation of the reservoirs pore volume

compressibility, the impact of pressure depletion on

reservoir recovery, production rates, fault
movements, and well casing integrity [1-7].
Issues related to the impact of compaction on
pressure maintenance, total recovery, and the
survivability of well casing and completions have
been well documented in various reservoirs
worldwide such as in the North America fields in
California, Western Canada and in the Gulf of
Mexico. Many fields have experienced well failures
(as illustrated in Figure 1) and loss of productivity
following pressure depletion and reservoir
compaction.
This risk adds to the economic and technical
challenges of developing deepwater reservoirs.
While the industry has access to large coupled finite
elements (FE) software that can model rock and
casing deformations caused by pressure changes,
widespread use of these packages is severely

hampered by several vital factors, such as, lack of

long-term reservoir performance forecasts and
strategy studies needed by the reservoir engineers,
unnecessarily large number (several million) of
model cells required for the FE analysis, and lack of
sufficiently detailed description of the rock
properties for these cells.

displacements on the cylindrical surface are then

used as boundary conditions for a focused nearwellbore stress and strain analysis using finite
element technology [8-10].

Figure 1 Acoustic Images of Failed Well Casings (Photo

courtesy of ExxonMobil)

The well integrity analysis is carried out after

defining the stresses, strains and displacements
acting on the casing, as well as the reservoir and
overburden deformations that would result from
reservoir exploitation. These results can assist in
developing a robust plan for field exploitation that
accurately defines reserves and recovery risks for
various production scenarios.

In this study, a developed numerical geomechanics

model can incorporate many important factors and
provide an effective approach to estimate reservoir
compaction, the mudline subsidence, formation
interface displacements, fault movement and the
displacements, stresses and strains along the
wellbore trajectories due to reservoir depletion. The
developed numerical model utilizes the identical
grid blocks and properties from the reservoir
simulation, without the need for translation or
rescaling. Deformation and strains in the
overburden and along the wellbore from production
and injection are computed semi-analytically by
integration of the Greens function derived in the
model for a multi-layer formation. For detailed
evaluation of the wellbore behavior, a three
dimensional finite element analysis is coupled with
the geomechanics model. Deformations and stresses
are determined on a cylindrical surface surrounding
the length of the newly drilled or completed
wellbore in the regions of interest. This cylindrical
surface is sufficiently remote from the wellbore so
that the wellbore has no or little influence on the
stresses and displacements due to the reservoir
compaction on this surface.
The calculated

This hybrid analysis provides an affordable scheme

for evaluating the near wellbore details that are
often glossed over with a fast compacted solution
without requiring multimillion FE cells. Yet, it
preserves the fine details around the wellbore and
allows for incorporating fault loading and macro
influences of geologic structures and reservoir
extent. It preserves the material balance and does
not alter the pressure volume relationship in the
reservoir void space. The near wellbore region is
automatically discretized to incorporate the physical
wellbore, casing strings, cement, and the formation.
Interface elements can account for the slippage
between the casing and the cement and between the
formation rock and the cement. The time required
for model execution is very efficient and the
duration of a specific assessment project is reduced
from months to days.

2. GEOMECHANICS MODELING
The developed numerical geomechanics model
determines the forces leading to casing failure in
compacted reservoirs as well as in associated
overburden layers using reservoir description and
simulation data (blocks and their properties).
Simulated pressure decline (increase) associated
with production (injection) and rock formation
compressibility changes would induce the earth
displacement. These deformations are calculated by
numerical integration of the Greens function
derived from strain nuclei in a multi-layer halfspace that represents the earth and reservoir. The
calculated deformation includes rock movements
within the overburden, displacement along well
trajectories and ground subsidence at the mudline.
Reservoir compaction is related to the reservoir
bulk compressibility or compaction coefficient, the
pressure depletion, and the reservoir geometry. The

The pressure profile calculated inside the reservoir

simulator is used as input to the numerical
geomechanics model along with reservoir rock
formation properties (porosity, net to gross, pore
volume compressibility - PVC). The model imports
these reservoir description files from commercial
simulators, allowing the REs to concurrently
perform well and reservoir management studies.
The numerical model utilizes the same grid system,
input and output files generated by the simulator
and its pre-processors. This easy coupling allows
for very efficient operations for evaluating the
effects of reservoir depletion on rock deformation
within the overburden, fault movements, bedding
plane slippage, formation interface displacement,
mudline subsidence and well casing integrity.
The well-integrity analysis calculates the magnitude
and direction of deformation and stresses exerted on
the well casing. Two interface conditions may be
considered to handle the well/cement interface. The
first option assumes a perfect cement bond, i.e. no
relative displacement, between the casing and the
formation and results in full coupling between the
cement, the rock and the casing. This full coupling
allows for the calculation of the worst-case scenario
of maximum generated loads and deformation
caused by reservoir depletion. The second option
permits total axial slippage between the well casing
and the rock. Slippage between the rock and the
casing generates lesser axial loads but may allow
for helical and axial buckling, or cross-sectional
shearing, of the casing.
The overburden is represented by a two-layer
system. These include a surface layer and the main
overburden body. Both layers behave elastically
except for slippage along fault or bedding planes.
The value of Youngs modulus and Poissons ratios
for both layers may be specified.

2.1.

Depletion Rate Effects on PVC

Pore volume compressibility (PVC) plays an

important role in the reservoir compaction analysis.
Its values will depend on the pressure decline and
the rock formation mechanical properties, i.e, the
impact of depletion rate, reservoir geometry and
surrounding rock properties on PVC.
Typically, constant pore volume compressibility
values are used in reservoir simulation. The
deformation experienced by many materials
actually depends on the rate at which they are
loaded. The amount of rock compaction at a
particular time depends on the rate of depletion. For
example, when the production rate is increased, the
compressibility initially becomes much lower and
the reservoir response is classified as stiff (i.e.,
more resistant to compacting). Conversely, when
the loading rate (i.e., the depletion rate) is
decreased, the compressibility will initially become
much higher and the reservoir response is said to be
softer. During early stages of reservoir depletion,
the pressure decline rate is quite rapid and the early
rock response is stiff. Therefore, the pore volume
does not change substantially and the pressure
declines a great deal. As time progresses, the
pressure decline is moderated and the reservoir
responds with higher compressibility (see Figure 2).
Pressure Difference, [pi-p] (psi)
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

12000

14000

3.25E-05
3.00E-05
Pore Volume Compressibility (psi-1)

overburden and basement formations have uniform

mechanical properties that can be characterized
using geophysical well logs. A top layer with
distinct properties may be added to the overburden
to represent unique situations such as topsoil,
permafrost, deepwater, etc [8, 9]. Deformation and
stress on the wellbore are calculated from the
displacement and the force continuity conditions,
with the approximate assumption that the wellbore
has no impact on the deformation calculated on the
rock formation [10].

2.75E-05
2.50E-05
2.25E-05
2.00E-05
1.75E-05
1.50E-05
1.25E-05
Reservoir Pressure
Reservoir Pressure Difference

1.00E-05
7.50E-06
5.00E-06
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

BP30 PVMULT Reservoir Pressure (psi)

Figure 2 PVC relationship with reservoir Pressure

The application of field-scale PVC values requires a

two-step procedure. First an initial reservoir
simulation run is executed using laboratory-based
constant PVC values for the reservoir simulation
blocks. The initial reservoir pressure decline rate is
calculated and then used to calculate pressuredependent values of PVC using the RTCM (Rate
Type Compaction Measurements) model to derive
pressure-dependent PVC values. Stochastic

procedure may also be used to provide risk

weighted values for further assessment [10].
2.2.
Reservoir Geometry factor on PVC
In situ pore volume compressibility also depends on
the reservoir geometry and the material properties
surrounding the reservoir. The imbedded zone or
reservoir will act as an inclusion with higher bulk
compressibility (softer) than its surroundings.
Geomechanics principles indicate that the soft
inclusion will be stiffened by its surroundings and
thus the reservoir will behave in situ with a lower
compressibility than its intrinsic value measured on
a core sample. Figure 3 illustrate this relationship
where the equivalent reservoir extent and thickness
are represented by r and h respectively.
Effective Depletion Compressibility
1
0.9
0.8

Core Compressibility

Depletion Compressibility /

0.7

Buckling may occur if the axial load becomes larger

that the lateral support. It happens mostly near the
center of the producing interval where pressure
depletion and compaction are the greatest and if
significant sand production has taken place. In
unconsolidated reservoirs, sand or solid production
will erode the lateral formation support.
Casing shear and bending failure may occur when
horizontal deformations are larger, especially in the
areas of weak layers within the overburden mass,
interfaces between the formations, flanks of the
field and top of the producing interval.
2.4.
Fault Movement
Reservoir compaction may induce movements
along the faults. The fault movement will cause
severe localized shear deformation and may shear
the casing through the gouge zone.

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Aspect Ratio r/h

Ccore/Cshale=2
Ccore/Cshale=10

Ccore/Cshale=3

Ccore/Cshale=5

Ccore/Cshale=12

Ccore/Cshale=7

Ccore/Cshale=15

Figure 3 Field PVC as a function of reservoir geometry

The affect of reservoir geometry and surrounding

material on the pore volume compressibility
depends on two factors:
The ratio of reservoir areal extent, r, to the
height of the depleted zone, h (aspect ratio, r/h)).
The ratio of the bulk compressibility of the
surrounding rock (shale) to the reservoir bulk
compressibility, Csand/Cshale.
As a result, the rock compressibility during
depletion is a function of the aspect ratio of the
depletion zone - the ratio of the sands areal extent
or radius to the thickness of sand layer. This
geometric factor should be applied to scale
laboratory results with the reservoir size. The
particular scaling factor also varies for various
values of the ratio of sand core compressibility to
the compressibility of surrounding shale [10].
2.3.

Compression of the casing may be caused by large

deformations. As the rock formation compacts due
to reservoir depletion, displacements are transferred
from the formation to the cement and finally to the
casing. The axial compression will most likely
occur within the producing interval. This has been
observed in most wells compression failures.

Casing Failure Mechanics

The effective normal stress and shear stress acting

on the fault plane or bedding plane may be used to
analyze fault slip and activation. Tectonic loads
may be determined from Log data analysis or
laboratory test results. Since deformation and
strains induced from the reservoir production and
injection are computed at any location in the earth,
the induced normal stress and shear stress changes
on a fault are computed in the developed numerical
model from Hookes law or from any specific rock
constitutive model. The risk of activating or
slippage of the fault plane or bedding planes can
then be assessed using a fault-slip criterion, for
example, the Mohr-Coulomb criterion.
3. HYBRID MODELING
While the industry has access to large coupled finite
elements (FE) software codes that can assess rock
and casing deformations due to reservoir pressure
changes, widespread use of these packages is
severely hampered by several critical factors, such
as the following:
The FE models do not provide a reasonable or
efficient way to model the progression of reservoir

development or incorporate practical strategy

assessments needed by the reservoir engineers,
The FE models do not allow input of phase
behavior or well management routines used by
reservoir engineers (RE) and necessary for reservoir
simulations and studies,
The stepwise approach of alternating use of
reservoir simulator followed by FE analysis is prone
to error by adding or eliminating reserves due to the
incompatibility in the pore pressure-pore volume
relationships within the two software packages,
The ponderously large number (several million)
of model cells required for the FE analysis and the
lack of detailed description of the rock properties
for each of these cells inhibit the user from building
FE models large enough to accurately represent the
reservoir. This also casts doubt on the effectiveness
and pragmatic nature of the analysis approach.
One approach to solve these problems is to combine
the numerical geomechanics model with finite
element analysis to improve analysis accuracy of
wellbore stresses and strains, and to evaluate
reservoir development impact on well completion.
As stated in the previous section on Numerical
Geomechanics Model, the earth deformations
(displacement components at any locations) are
computed by integration of the Greens function
derived from a strain nucleus in the reservoir in a
multi-layer half-space to represent the earth. The
model accounts for the wellbore section at a certain
depth as a point and gives the displacement, strain
and stress for that point. For the detailed strain and
stress analysis around wellbore, a hybrid finite
element and geomechanics model is proposed. The
displacement components are determined on a
cylindrical surface surrounding the length of the
newly drilled or completed wellbore in the regions
of interest by using geomechanics model. This
cylindrical surface is sufficiently remote from the
wellbore so that the wellbore has no or little
influence on the stresses and displacements due to
the reservoir compaction on this surface boundary.
The calculated displacements together with pressure
change within the cylindrical surface are then used
as boundary conditions and body force for a focused
near-wellbore stress and strain analysis using the
finite element technology (see Figure 4).
The hybrid analysis affords evaluating the near
wellbore details that are often glossed over with a
fast compacted solution without requiring

multimillion FEA cells. Yet, it preserves the fine

details around the wellbore and allows for
incorporating fault loading and macro influences of
geologic structures and reservoir extent. It also
accounts for material balance and does not alter the
pressure volume relationship in the reservoir void
space. Interface elements can account for the
slippage between the casing and the cement and
between the formation rock and the cement. Finally,
this hybrid method allows the reservoir engineers to
carry out reservoir development and strategy
studies.

Figure 4 Schematic of the generated FE grid

4. APPLICATIONS AND FIELD CASES

Numerous reservoirs have been evaluated using the
geomechanics model and hybrid finite element
analysis to assess reservoir compaction and related
mudline/surface subsidence, and to assure the
casing integrity of reservoir wells. These analyzed
cases include remote onshore, shallow offshore and
deepwater offshore fields. There have been discrete,
isolated, single layer reservoirs, as well as multilayer reservoir situations. Reservoir simulation
results are obtained from commercial simulators.
The results from the analysis have assisted in
devising improved strategies for reservoir
management and depletion or waterflood plans.
4.1.
Case 1 - Well Integrity Assessment
The well is located in the Gulf of Mexico at ~3400
feet of water depth. The blocks for reservoir
simulation comprise 170,000 cells. The reservoir
simulation extends 20,000 ft in the horizontal
direction and lies at a depth of approximately
17,000 ft. Each cell has its own formation properties
and reservoir pressure changes (depletion and
waterflood) to represent the actual field simulation

case. The calculated reservoir simulation results are

directly used for the casing integrity evaluation.

Subsidence (ft): 0.165 0.184 0.202 0.221 0.240 0.258 0.277 0.296 0.314 0.333 0.352 0.370 0.389 0.408 0.426

0.
40
77
71

0.258296
0.29
5665

0.202 243

0.370
403

0.333034

0.426456

0.18
355
9

0 .2

76 9
81

71
8

0.3
143
49

0.3
51

64

02
2

43

87
4

0.2
58

0.2

2
09
22
0.

65
95 6
0.2
0.276981

1960000

0.1

2
61
39
0 .2

29
6

18
17
35
0.

5
66
95
0.2
1
98
76
0.2

0 .2
39 6
12
0.2
20
9 28

96
582
0.27

0.314
349
0.3
33 03
0.351
4
718

6981

0 .2

0.370403

0.220928

0.239612

0.295665

0.3 14349

0.276981

71

03

0.314
34

0.389087

077

0.3 89087
0.3 7
04

25
82
96

1950000

0.20224

66
0.295

718

Y-Coord. (ft)

96

0.351

0.407771

71

0 .4

0.33 3034
0.

5 82
0.2

40
3

7
07
0.4

9087
0.38

4
3303
349

10075000

0.3

10080000

70

0.426456

10085000

0.3

4
03
33

3
7040
0 .3
87
890
0.3

0.3

10090000

0.314

Figure 5 shows the casing strain changes vs true

vertical depth. The predicted strains from the
numerical geomechanics model match very well
with field-test data. The square symbols indicate the
models predicted results and the circle symbols
indicate the field measurements obtained from
monitoring the position of radioactive bullets/tags in
the well with geophysical well logs. The field
measurements were collected three months after the
model predicted strains were delivered to the
operating company. The close agreement indicate a
successful prediction using this approach to predict
casing deformations.

Frame 001 17 Jun 2002 S ubsidence and Compaction Analysis

1970000

X-Coord. (ft)

Figure 6. Mudline subsidence at 5 years production.

11000.0

12000.0

Field test data

strain along well

GR

13000.0

-80

-40

-20

20

40

60

80

100

20000

14000.0

depth, ft

-60

20100

15000.0

20000
Strain along well

20100

GR

20200

20200

20300

20300

20400

20400

20500

20500

20600

20600

20700

20700

20800

20800

20900

20900

16000.0

Depth, TVD

17000.0

18000.0

19000.0

20000.0
-5.0%

-4.0%

-3.0%

-2.0%

-1.0%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

Strains

Figure 5. Strain vs. true vertical depth

4.2.
Case 2 Subsidence and Well Failure
The analyzed well is located in deeper water (~5000
feet) in Gulf of Mexico. The reservoir simulator
analyzed production and depletion from a major
sand reservoir located at 20,000 feet depth.
Surface/Mudline subsidence is analyzed for
different times. Figure 6 demonstrates the mudline
subsidence after 5 years production with a
maximum value of 0.43 ft.
Strain and stress analysis are performed for several
wells. Figure 6 shows the strain after 5 year
production. The circle symbols represent strain
values and solid lines indicate the Gamma Ray
along the depths. Possible well failure may occur in
the reservoir interval with the maximum value of
6.7% compressive strain. It is considered to be a
significant threat to the integrity of the well casing.
Further analysis of how this critical axial strain
might affect this well indicated that the casing
would form a dog leg with a maximum deflection of
approximately 7.8o/100' along the axis of the casing
and an cross-section ellipsoidal distortion (ovality)
of approximately 0.38" (potential crushing failure).

21000
-9%

-7%

-5%

-3%

-1%

1%

3%

5%

7%

9%

11%

21000
13%

Strain

Figure 3.

Strain vs true vertical depth.

Field observation after 6 years production

confirmed the numerical model predictions of
casing failure at the same predicted location.
Shear failure was also modeled, to address the
concerns of salt body movement on top the
reservoir in response to compaction of the reservoir.
4.3.
Case 3 - Hybrid FEM and GM Model
Finite element analysis is coupled with
geomechanics model to evaluate the near wellbore
details. This hybrid finite element analysis takes the
advantages of the finite element method without
using large number of cells. It preserves the fine
details around the wellbore and allows for
incorporating fault loading, macro influences of
geologic structures and reservoir extent. This hybrid
method gives the opportunity to use the finite
element analysis and still allow the reservoir

engineers to carry out reservoir development and

strategy studies.

20000
20100

Figures 8 and 9 plot the strain comparison between

the results from the geomechanics model and the
hybrid finite element around the wellbore near and
within the reservoir section. Figure 5 and Figure 6
give axial strains and horizontal strains respectively.
The circle symbols represent the hybrid finite
element predicted results without considering
casing, cement and rock rigidity, the diamond
symbols indicate the hybrid finite element predicted
results with considering casing, cement and rock
rigidity, while the solid line in the figure represents
results obtained from geomechanics model.
Figure 7 also shows the contour plot of the strain
around the wellbore predicted by the finite element
technique.

FEM, not considering casing, cement, & rock rigility

FEM, considering casing & cement rigility

20300
20400
20500
20600
20700
20800
20900
21000
-10.0%

-8.0%

-6.0%

-4.0%

-2.0%

Figure 8. Axial strain prediction.

It should be observed that the effect of the stiffness

of the casing could exaggerate the calculated strains
induced within the casing. This might be caused by
the higher pressure drawdown near the wellbore
region at distance comparable to the casing
thickness and diameter.
20000
exx, @comp
20100

FEM, not considering casing, cement, & rock rigility

FEM, considering casing & cement rigility

20200
20300
20400
20500
20600
20700
20800
20900
21000
-0.5%

-0.3%

-0.1%

0.1%

0.3%

0.5%

0.7%

Horizontal strain, %

Figure 9. Horizontal strain predictions.

Figure 7. Deformed finite element mesh used in case 3

hybrid analysis. The radius of the formation around the
wellbore is 50 ft. The length of the depth section
including reservoir (with crowded mesh) is about 1000 ft.

0.0%

Axial strain, %

True vertical depth, ft

Figure 7 shows the deformed finite element mesh

generated by geomechanics model along an
analyzed well with 4032 elements and 4640 nodes.
The finite element meshes represent casing, cement
and rock formation. Different mechanical properties
can be accounted for these three different materials
in the analysis. Displacement boundary conditions,
obtained from geomechanics model, are applied at
the out surface of the body. Reservoir pressures and
pressure draw-down values are assigned around the
wellbore and within ach element. Interface elements
can account for the slippage between the casing and
the cement and/or between the formation rock and
the cement interfaces.

True vertical depth, ft

20200

ezz, @comp

Figure 10. Horizontal strain contour.

0.9%

1.1%

1.3%

1.5%

4.4. Case 4 Fault Stability

This case involves development of oil filed where
associated gas production has no nearby market and
must be injected in the area. Gas Injection is
planned in sands below the depleting reservoir. The
following characteristics represent the subsurface
situation in that field (see schematic in Figure 11):
1. There are multiple sands that are hydrocarbon
bearing formations.
2. There is a truncating fault, intersecting the
sands at a 90o angle to the reservoir dip direction.
3. The reservoir layers are moderately dipping
formations but the areas near and along a truncating
fault dip more steeply
4. The formation dip at the intersection with the
fault is about 45.
5. There are underlying aquifer layers that may
serve as injection formation for the gas but they also
terminate at the fault.
Gas injection provides an option for dealing with
associated produced gas in areas where gas sales are
not possible. However, it is necessary to evaluate
several factors before embarking on such an option:

Figure 11

Reservoir and fault geometries

1. If there is injection into one of the zones that

intersects the fault, will there be substantial
movement of fluids along the fault?
2. Will the fault be activated as a result of the
simultaneous oil production and gas injection in the
two separate layers?
The technical difficulties for the planned gas
injection in this geologic structure include:
Gravity segregation would cause gas to migrate
to the top (shallower sections) of the injection
horizon.

The reservoir sands have high permeability,

which may lead to fast breakthrough time and
gravity segregations would also drive the gas
toward the fault.
Communication to existing fault system could
be rapid, even if injection is carried out in the
down-dip part of the layer.
Field experience suggests that gas override
rather than solution will dominate the response of
the injection layer.
Hence, pressure increase during injection may
present risks to both the integrity of the target
formation itself (vertical hydraulic fracture growth
into adjacent zones) and the sealing fault (pressure
dependent fracture conductivity and transmissibility
changes), especially at the fault intersections.
There is an issue related to the extent of seal
integrity at current tectonic setting since leakage has
occurred in the past along the fault.

Fault-Integrity Geomechanics Model

Production and injection can cause significant
compaction and subsidence, and may activate
existing faults via movement, and effective aperture
or transmissibility changes. Fault integrity and
sealing capacity are an integral part of reservoir and
gas injection management. It is necessary to
maximize recovery and to mitigate failure risks
associated with production and injection. Large
FEM models are normally used in these situations
with a need for massive efforts (similar to wellbore
integrity issues) and little known data or properties
distribution within the earth model. Therefore, a
similar approach to well modeling discussed above
has been implemented for assessment fault
activation and seal integrity.
A geomechanics model may be constructed to
represent formation and overburden deformation by
explicitly incorporating reservoir simulation
forecasts of pressure. The predictions indicates the
spatially-induced displacements, stresses, and
strains, and the potential for fault activation (shear
and/or normal displacement).
The numerical model is based on the Green's
function for a nucleus of strain in the reservoir
(Abou-Sayed et al., 2003). It is coupled with the
reservoir simulations in order to evaluate the
influence of gas injection, pressure maintenance and

In the geomechanics model, it was assumed that

production was from the top two reservoir sands
and that the target gas injection zone would be the
down-dip in the underlying, non-communicating
sand. Considering that there may be hydrocarbon
up-dip in the injection sand and that the reservoir
has a turtleback structure, it is preferable to have
the gas injection wells in the lower dip of the
injection sand to avoid direct gas injection in the
hydrocarbon-bearing zone.
Relatively little is know about the geomechanical
characteristics of faults (compliance/stiffness and
conductivity). Some relevant rough data and
observations may be gleaned from the literature.
Pressure changes due to production and concurrent
gas injection in different sand layers - causes both
normal and shear stress changes on the fault plane
and surrounding rock. The stress changes were
determined for two situations:

The stress changes due to reservoirs production,

The stress changes from injection in the
underlying sand.

The fault friction angle and cohesion were

determined from the meta-stable state of the fault at
the virgin in-situ effect stress (initial reservoir)
conditions. Parametric values for the friction angle
and cohesion were obtained using a Mohr-Coulomb
criterion for virgin effective normal and shear
stresses on the fault plane. The first pass assumed
friction angle and cohesion were taken as 30 and
200 psi, respectively.
The pressure changes under various production and
injection scenarios have been combined with the
vertical and horizontal stresses to generate new
effective normal and shear stresses on the fault.
Then, a Coulomb criterion was adopted and
parametric evaluations were carried out.

30000000
Tau difference (psi)
478.8
441.8
404.7
367.7
330.6
293.5
256.5
219.4
182.4
145.3
108.2
71.2
34.1
-2.9
-40.0

29998000
29996000
29994000
29992000

The truncating, bounding fault was approximated

by a plane and the resulting normal and shear stress
changes on the fault plane were predicted due to
production and/or injection. The critical required
input to the model (such as the reservoir blocks and
the pressure data) came from reservoir simulation.

Figure 12 shows the predicted difference between

acting shear stresses and Fault Shear strength on the
fault for a 1500-psi depletion. The shear strength of
the fault is predicted from a Mohr-Coulomb relation
based on the native normal and shear stresses on the
fault. Negative values indicate that the shear stress
on the fault is greater than the strength and thus the
fault may slip locally.

29990000
29988000
29986000
29984000
540000

545000

550000

555000

Figure 12 Shear stress difference on the fault caused

by reservoir depletion of 1500 psi

It is clear that in some points along the fault, the

acting shear stress can become larger than the
critical shear strength delineated by a simple
Coulomb criterion. Hence, fault slip is indicated for
that condition alone. Figure 13 shows a similar plot
for the shear stress differential for a 1000-psi
increase in pressure caused by injection in the lower
zone. The resultant differential shear stress
distribution on the fault due to the simultaneous
production/injection is not included at the request of
the operator due to the sensitivity of the results.

30000000

Tau difference (psi)

537.4
498.6
459.9
421.1
382.4
343.7
304.9
266.2
227.4
188.7
150.0
111.2
72.5
33.7
-5.0

29998000
29996000
29994000
29992000

reservoir development schedules on fault stability

and parametric analyses are reported.

29990000
29988000
29986000
29984000
29982000
535000

540000

545000

550000

555000

Figure 13 Shear stress difference cause by 1000 psi

pressure increase due to injection.

Several cases were analysed, three for production

and one for injection. The analyses assumed that:
The initial vertical stress on the fault was
deduced from the density log and the water depth.
The initial horizontal stress was obtained from
logging analyses, validated from LOT data. In
other words, the fault does not change the local
initial in-situ stress. This is certainly not an exact
assumption since, at least in hard rock
environments; there are stress perturbations in the
vicinities of faults.
The fault was assumed to be initially metastable - at a critical condition. The friction angle of
the fault was estimated from the estimated initial
normal and shear stresses on the fault. Although the
estimated friction angle may be high, it is within the
range of some reported fault friction angle. If there
is substantial gouge present, the friction angle could
be considerably lower.
The analysis assumes uniform pressure
elevation in the injection zone, but can be replaced
with actual simulation results if available.

Figure 14 Results of fault permeability tests from soft rocks.

As can be seen, at a given normal stress to the fault, fault slip
may not increase fault permeability and reverse shear slip in
fact reduces fault permeability.

The foregoing analyses were performed to evaluate

the risk of fault slippage or reactivation due to
either production or injection. However, for soft
formation fault slip and asperity contact may not
cause dramatic increase in fault permeability and
thus gas leak rate. Figure 14 shows laboratory fault
permeability in soft rock formations. It can be seen
that, the fault permeability may not increase much
from fault slip for a given normal stress on the fault.
Laboratory fault permeability tests also reveal that

fault permeability increase depends strongly on

normal stress reduction on the fault. Therefore, gas
injection pressure limit may have to be based on its
impact on fault permeability effect and other
considerations such as fracturing due to injection.
Injection pressure limits were estimated for two
potential leakage mechanisms listed below:
1. Gas can escape from the injection zone if there
is permeable matrix flow upwards and the overlying
material is an ineffective seal. Of greater concern is
the possibility of gas flow to other zones by a
propagating hydraulic fracture.
Potentially, gas leakage could occur through a
fracture initiated from the injection well and
penetrating into/through the upper sealing
formation. To evaluate this scenario, it was
assumed that the formation above the gas injection
sand had good sealing properties and that gas
leakage could only occur when the injection zone
connects to the production layer through a fracture.
Fracturing simulation indicated that as long as
the injection pressure was below the minimum insitu in the seal, the fracture created in the injection
sand would be contained in the injection zone. This
may not be the complete story because of long-term
poroelastic stress increases in the target zone. Even
with gas, over time, the total stresses in the injection
zone can increase. Eventually, these stresses may
become high enough that upward growth is
encouraged however, the growth criterion
specified would still apply. On the other hand,
fracture growth in the injection zone may connect
the created fracture with the major fault causing a
short circuit around the seal, depending on the
injection well location relative to the fault.
2. The second mechanism is gas leakage through
the major existing fault, by opening of the fault.
Gas leakage associated with fault opening depends
on fault permeability variations as a function of the
normal stress on the fault. This is not the subject of
the current paper and would be discussed in future
publications.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Reservoir compaction and injection can induce well
failures and/or fault activations as have been
reported around the world. The most commonly
observed casing damages include compression and
buckling within the producing interval and shear
failure above reservoir and in the weak overburden.

This paper presented a computationally efficient

model to study the impact of reservoir development
and compaction on well integrity. The model
couples the reservoir compaction mechanics and the
reservoir simulations. The detailed analysis of
wellbore behavior due to compaction is carried out
by using coupled process of geomechanics model
with finite element analysis - hybrid approach.
Geomechanics model gives the boundary conditions
as the input into the finite element model. Field
cases studies from geomechanics model and hybrid
finite element model were presented.
It is important to use the accurate pore volume
compressibility values for both reservoir
simulations and case failure evaluations. Reservoir
shape, age and the depletion rate affect the pore
volume compressibility determination.
A computationally efficient numerical model
was presented for modeling and simulation of
compaction-induced problems. The greatest
advantage of this geomechanics model is that it uses
the reservoir simulation results directly, ( grid cells,
pressure and formation properties assigned to each
block). As a result, the casing evaluation assessment
is consistent with the reservoir development plan
and strategy studies.
The numerical geomechanics model has been
used to estimate compaction, surface/mudline
subsidence, casing-failure risk and fault slippage.
A hybrid finite element approach to accurately
evaluate casing was developed. The geomechanics
model generating boundary conditions and meshes
around the trajectory of a well for the input of finite
element analysis. The analysis will utilize all the
information from reservoir simulation and avoid
unnecessary large number (several million) of cells
required for the FE analysis and the uncertain
description of the rock properties for these cells.
Hybrid finite element analysis gives more
options for the detailed casing evaluation, such as
the consideration of slippage between the casing
and the cement and between the formation rock and
the cement.
Successful numeral field studies have been
performed for reservoirs in Gulf of Mexico, Alaska,
South America and West Africa. Those onshore,
offshore and deepwater reservoirs include single
reservoir and multi-layer reservoirs systems.
Case studies showed good agreement between
the predicted results from the geomechanics model

and field-measured data. Well failure predicted by

the geomechanics model has been confirmed later.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to express their gratitude to
their clients for allowing the publication of the
included data in anonymous form. Miss Chris
Summers invaluable editing and review is herby
greatly acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1.

Abou-Sayed, A.S., Noble, J.E. Guo Q. and Meng F.:

Application of Risk Analysis to Assessment of Casing
Integrity and Subsidence in Deepwater Reservoirs, PE
paper 76791 presented at the 2002 SPE/ISRM Rock
Mechanics Conference held in Irving, Texas, 20-23
October 2002.

2.

de Waal, J.A. and Smits, R.M.M.: Prediction of

Reservoir Compaction and Surface Subsidence: Field
Application of a New Model, paper SPE 14214
presented at the 1985 Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition , Las Vegas, NV, September 22-25.

3.

Geertmsa, J.: General Report: Advances in the

Analytical Treatment of Predicting the Mechanical
Effects of a Pore Pressure Deformation, Rock at Great
Depth, Maury and Fourmaintraux (eds.), Balkema,
Rotterdam, 1990, ISBN 90 6191 975 4, pp. 1131-1139.

4.

Bruno, M.S.: Subsidence-Induced Well Failure,

SPEDE 148, June 1992.

5.

Dale, B.A., Narahara, G.M., and Stevens, R.M.: A

Case History of Reservoir Subsidence and Wellbore
Damage Management in the South Belridge Diatomite
Field, SPE paper 35658 presented at the 1996 SPE
Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage, 22-24 May.

6.

Yudovich, A., Chin, L.Y. and Morgan, D.R.: Casing

Deformation in Ekofisk, JPT, 729, July 1989.

7.

Schwall, G.H. and Denney, C.A.: Subsidence Induced

Casing Deformation Mechanisms in the Ekofisk Field,
SPE paper 28091 presented at the 1994 SPE/ISRM
Rock Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering Conference,
Delft, The Netherlands, 29-31 August, 1994.

8.

Geertsma, J.: A Basic Theory of Subsidence due to

Reservoir Compaction: the Homogeneous Case,
Verhandelingen Kon. Ned. Geol. Mijnbouwk. Gen.,
Vol. 28, pp43-62.

9.

Mindlin, R.D. and Cheng, D.H.: Thermoelastic Stress

in a Semi-infinite Body, J. of Appl. Physics, Vol. 21,
pp.931-933.

10. Abou-Sayed, A.S., Fan H. Meng, Noble, J.E. and Guo

Q.: Modeling of Reservoir Compaction and Casing
Integrity Evaluation Using Reservoir Simulation, SPE
paper 81072 presented at the Latin American and
Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Port-ofSpain, Trinidad, West Indies, 27-30 April 2003.