Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
3
path coefficient itself, however, is likely to be influenced
by the fractures. Consider again fractures normal to h .
2
The fracture aperture during the depletion-injection
cycle behaves similarly to the fracture permeability
(Figure 4).
As evident from Figure 4, the fracture is stiffer during
unloading (injection) than during loading (depletion). If
h we now consider a rock with many such fractures
Figure 3. Nonlinearity and hysteresis of fracture permeability (Figure 5), the behavior of the rock mass will be affected
under normal loading. Fracture permeability, k, as a function by the individual fractures' behavior. As a result, the
of normal effective stress, h . 1 - pre-depletion state; 2 effective stiffness of the rock mass in the direction of
depleted reservoir; 3 after injection, if stress path during h will be higher during injection than during depletion.
injection is the same as during depletion; 4 after injection, if The deformability in that direction will be, accordingly,
stress path during injection is smaller than during depletion.
lower during injection than during depletion. This is
equivalent to having the Poisson's ratio for horizontal
Let us consider how the permeability of such fractures deformation lower during injection than during
changes during depletion of and subsequent injection depletion. Consequently, the irreversible normal
into the reservoir. It is assumed that the horizontal deformation of tension fractures acts to increase the
dimensions of the reservoir are much larger than its
stress path coefficient h during injection, as compared
to the h values during depletion. The extent to which Let us analyze how slip of a shear fracture may develop
during depletion and subsequent injection. The fracture
this effect can influence h depends on the availability is assumed to be located in the reservoir and to be
and properties of tension fractures normal to h . As parallel to the intermediate in-situ stress, H (normal
pointed out by Smart et al. (2001), the dominant type of tectonic regime is assumed here, as before).
fractures in a reservoir are not tension fractures oriented
Before depletion, the fracture is assumed to be in
normal to h , but shear fractures that may have
equilibrium, i.e. the shear stress on its plane is not
different orientations. (It is also quite unlikely that a sufficient to overcome Coulomb's friction. During
fracture set in situ is oriented exactly normal to the depletion, the total vertical stress remains constant,
currently acting h , since fractures develop during the while the total horizontal stress decreases. In the normal
entire geological history, and their orientations thus need tectonic environment, this would imply that the shear
not be related to the present-day stress directions.) stress on the fracture increases. Counteracting this effect
is the reduction of the pore pressure, which leads to an
w increase of the effective normal stress acting on the
fracture surface. This leads to an increase in the
frictional resistance on the fracture plane. It is intuitively
clear that in order to induce shear (and, thus, alter the
Loading permeability) of a shear fracture under depletion, the
(depletion) stress path coefficient, h must be sufficiently high so
that the effect of reduction in h dominates. Let us
evaluate how high the stress path coefficient needs to be
in order for the net shear stress on the fracture plane
Unloading during depletion to be higher than before depletion. The
(injection) net shear stress is defined as follows:
net = n (5)
h
where is the shear stress on the fracture plane; is
Figure 4. Fracture aperture, w, as a function of normal the friction coefficient between the fracture faces; n is
effective stress, h . the effective normal stress on the fracture plane. The
cohesion between the fracture faces is neglected here,
v and the Biot effective stress coefficient used to compute
n will be assumed equal to unity in this Section (both
assumptions are common in fracture mechanics and will
h not affect the general conclusions drawn from our
analysis.)
Eq. (5) shows that the net stress being zero would not
imply that the shear stress has dropped to zero. It would
rather imply that the shear stress is balanced by the
frictional stress.
The net shear stress acting on the fracture plane before
depletion is given by:
Figure 9. a) The stress path coefficient h along a horizontal line crossing the reservoir center, b) Mohr circle at the reservoir
center, c) Mohr circles at the inner flanks, d) Mohr circles at the outer flanks for only injection and injection after depletion.
of coupled properties for a single rock joint. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. 36: 641-650.
Fjr, E., R.M. Holt, P. Horsrud, A.M. Raaen, and R. Risnes,
2008. Petroleum Related Rock Mechanics (2nd ed.). Elsevier.
491 pp.
Fjr, E., A. Stroisz, R.M. Holt. 2013. Elastic dispersion
derived from a combination of static and dynamic
measurements. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 46: 611-618.
Hettema, M.H.H., P.M.T.M. Schutjens, B.J.M. Verboom, and
H.J. Gussinklo, 2000. Production-induced compaction of a
sandstone reservoir: The strong influence of stress path. SPE
Reservoir Evaluation Eng. 3: 342-347.
Hettema, M.H.H., B. Bostrm, and T. Lund. 2004. Analysis of
lost circulation during drilling in cooled formations. SPE
90442; 12 pp.
Figure 10. Number of damaged elements vs pressure change Holt, R.M. and C.J. Kenter. 1992. Laboratory simulation of
and the corresponding h due to depletion and rebound. core damage induced by stress release. In Tillerson &
Waversik (eds.) Proc. 33rd US Rock Mechanics Symposium,
A.A. Balkema.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Holt, R.M., M. Brignoli, and C.J. Kenter. 2000. Core Quality:
The authors wish to thank colleagues at NTNU and Quantification of coring induced rock alteration. Int. J. Rock
SINTEF for valuable discussions. SINTEF Petroleum Mech. & Min. Sci. 37: 889-907.
Research is acknowledged (AL) for permission to Holt, R.M. and J. F. Stenebrten. 2013. Controlled laboratory
perform and publish part of the present work. The work experiments to assess the geomechanical influence of
is partly performed (RMH) within the ROSE Program at subsurface injection and depletion processes on 4D seismic
NTNU, funded by The Research Council of Norway and responses. Geophysical Prospecting 61: 476-488.
a number of industrial partners. This publication has also
Holt, R.M., E. Fjr, and A. Bauer. 2013. Static and dynamic
been produced with partial support from the BIGCCS moduli so equal, and yet so different. ARMA 13-521; 8 pp.
Centre (for SG), performed under the Norwegian
research program Centres for Environment-friendly Holt, R.M., J.F. Stenebrten, and M. Brignoli. 2014. Effects of
Energy Research (FME). The authors acknowledge the cementation on in situ and core compaction of soft sandstone.
following partners for their contributions: Gassco, Shell, ARMA 14-7397, 9 pp.
Statoil, TOTAL, ENGIE, and the Research Council of Gutierrez, M., L.E. ino, and R. Nygrd. 2000. Stress-
Norway (193816/S60). dependent permeability of a de-mineralised fracture in shale.
Mar. Petrol. Geol. 17: 895-907.
Lavrov, A. 2003. The Kaiser effect in rocks: principles and
REFERENCES stress estimation techniques. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 40:
Addis, M.A., N.C. Last, and N.A. Yassir. 1996. Estimation of 151-171.
horizontal stresses at depth in faulted regions and their Lavrov, A. 2005. Fracture-induced physical phenomena and
relationship to pore pressure variations. SPE Formation memory effects in rocks: a review. Strain 41: 135-149.
Evaluation, 11(1) 11-18.
Lavrov, A., I. Larsen and A. Bauer. 2015. Numerical
Alassi, H.T. 2008. Modelling reservoir geomechanics using modelling of extended leak-off test with a pre-existing
discrete element method: Application to reservoir monitoring. fracture. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering. 49: 1359-
PhD thesis at NTNU, Trondheim, Norway. 1368.
Becker, D., B. Cailleau, T. Dahm, S. Shapiro, and D. Kaiser. Lavrov, A. 2016a. From fracture gradient to the spectrum of
2010. Stress triggering and stress memory observed from lost-circulation pressures: a paradigm shift? Abstract
acoustic emission records in a salt mine. Geoph. J. Int. 182: submitted to GHGT-13.
933-948.
Lavrov, A. 2016b. Lost Circulation: Mechanisms and
Chan, A.W., P.N. Hagin, and M.D. Zoback. 2004. Solutions. 1st ed. Oxford. Elsevier.
Viscoplastic deformation, stress and strain paths in
unconsolidated reservoir sands (part 2): Field applications Lavrov, A. 2016c. Dynamics of stresses and fractures in
using dynamic DARS analysis. ARMA/NARMS 04-568; 9 pp. reservoir and cap rock under production and depletion. Energy
Procedia 86: 381-390.
Esaki, T., S. Du, Y. Mitani, K. Ikusada, and L. Jing. 1999.
Development of a shear-flow test apparatus and determination Longuemare, P., M. Mainguy, P. Lemonnier, A. Onaisi, Ch.
Grard, and N. Koutsabeloulis. Geomechanics in reservoir
simulation: overview of coupling methods and field case
study. Oil & Gas Science and Technology Rev. IFP 57 (5):
471-483.
Lorenz, J.C. 1999. Stress-sensitive reservoirs. J. Pet. Tech.
51(1): 61-63.
Mahi, A. (2003). Stress development in oil reservoirs. Ms.C.
thesis, NTNU. Trondheim, Norway.
Mulders, F.M.M. 2003. Modelling of stress development and
fault slip in and around a producing gas reservoir. PhD
Thesis, TU Delft, Netherlands.
Perkins, T.K. and J.A. Gonzalez. 1984. Changes in Earth
Stresses around a wellbore caused by radially symmetrical
pressure and temperature gradients. SPEJ, April 1984, 129-
140.
Santarelli, F.J., J.T. Tronvoll, M. Svennekjaer, H. Skeie, R.
Henriksen, and R.K. Bratli. 1998. Reservoir stress path: the
depletion and the rebound. SPE/ISRM 47350 in Proc.
SPE/ISRM Eurock'98 Symposium held in Trondheim, Norway,
July 8-10, 1998; Vol 2, 203-209.
Santarelli, F.J., O. Havmller, and M. Naumann. 2008.
Geomechanical aspects of 15 years water injection on a field
complex: An analysis of the past to plan the future. SPE
112944; 13 pp.
Shahri, M.P. and S.Z. Miska. 2014. Experimental
investigation of reservoir stress path hysteresis during
production-injection periods. Paper OMAE2914-
24653presented at ASME 2014 33rd Int. Conf. on Ocean,
Offshore and Arctic Engineering, San Francisco, USA, 8-13
June 2014; 8 pp.
Smart, B.G.D., J.M. Somerville, K. Edlman, and C. Jones.
2001. Stress sensitivity of fractured reservoirs. J. Pet. Sci.
Eng. 29: 29-37.
Sreide, O.K., S. Hansen, and J.F. Stenebrten. 2014.
Estimation of reservoir stress effects due to injection of cold
fluids: an example from NCS. ARMA 12-7394; 7 pp.
Zoback, M.D., and J.C. Zinke. 2002. Production-induced
normal faultingin the Valhall and Ekofisk oil fields. Pure Appl
Geophys. 159: 403-420.