34 views

Uploaded by redup25

- What is Shale Gas
- Sandstone vs Carbonate Petroleum Reservoirs a Global Perspective on Porosity Depth and Porosity Permeability Relationships AAPGBulletin Ehrenberg Nadeau 2005
- Design Anchor
- materials
- Asme Case 1896-2
- Strength of Materials Rk Rajput
- 7287477hp1
- Simplified Concrete Modeling With Mat_concret_damage_rel3
- 6 Inch Inertia
- 19
- Geology of Petroleum Systems
- Dr9-6-10-6903Sugano.pdf
- Composite Materials Design
- Seikowave Pipeline FFS
- 95-S28
- MainProducts-1
- GE3244 Revision Guide
- 394
- Comparative Study of Sae 1045 Carbon Steel and Aluminium Alloy 7075-t6 for Lower Suspension
- h1017v2

You are on page 1of 9

SPIWSRM 47360 Benefits of assessing the solids production risk in a North Sea reservoir using elastoplastic modelling

I.D.R. Bradford. SPE. Schlumberaer Cambridae Research: J. Fuller, Schlumbercter GeoQuest; P.J. Thompson, Amoco (UK) Exploration Company and ~.R. Walsgro;e, Amoco (UK) Exploration Com6any

-t

l~i

Introduction

paper was seiecfed for Preswdatica by an SPS Program Ccfmnlfte8 Mowing review of Infofrnabca ccatalned in an abstract mtbmiffed by ffm author(s). CcWenk of the paper, as pmented, hava not twan revlewsd by fha Society of Petroleum Engineers and are su@ecf to corrwtion by the mdhcf(s). W material, as pmsantti, *S not necessdy reflect any positkm of the Soclefy of Petrofeum Engineers. IIS officers, or nwmbars Papers presented at SPS rIK4fKIs am subjsct !0 Publiitkm review by Editorial Committees of tha .SOcWy of Petrcieum Er!@eers. Elec+rmk mprwhmfkm, di.stributica, or stora~ of any part of this psper for ccamwrcid purposes without tfw wnlfen consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. PermlssiwI to reproduce in PM k rsssfkled to an abstract of not more than SIX words; illustraltcas may not h -. The abstract must cmtain conspicuous ac+mowlq of Wwm and by wtvxf fha paper was presented Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. 8ax SSS8S6, Richardson, TX 7S083-3S35, US.A, fax 01-972 -9S2-S435.

mk

Abstract

A reliable, non-conservative assessment of the risk of solids production is essential in order to identi~ the optimaI completion strategy. A technique for such an assessment is developed in this paper through a geomechanical study of the Everest Complex of the North Sea, involving wells 22/10a-T2 and 22/1 Oa-T6. The process is based on calibrating depth indexed measurements at discrete points using core data. The core samples were selected to be representative of the complete range of porosities and various clay volumes throughout the reservoir. The first step is the construction of the reservoir mechanical model by combining geophysical well logs, the results of laboratory tests on core samples, and other field data, particularly drilling histories. In the second step, critical drawdowns calculated using elastic-brittle modelling are calibrated using predictions determined at singie points using an elastoplastic theory (Bradford and Cookl) which incorporates the influences of plastic hardening and dilation. Results calculated using a new elastic-perfectly plastic model, which is derived in this paper, are also included. This model is suitable for use with log data. Results have been verified by simulating production through a perforation with thick wall cylinder tests on whole core from 22/1 Oa-T2 (Nicholson et al.j. The results of the modelIing provide formation failure data to build a map of the sanding potential in the Everest reservoirs.

During the early production history of the Everest field, sand production was evident. The producing formations of the Everest CompIex consist of the Forties and Andrew sandstones (Thompson and Butchers). These reservoirs comprise deep turbidite sediments of interbedded sands and shales with significant amounts of calcite cement towards the base of the Andrew. Feldspars, both orthoclase and plagioclase, are present throughout the sections. Porosities in the sands vary from as high as 25% to virtually zero in well cemented intervals. It is commonly accepted that sand instability, which leads to sand production, is related to the compressive strength of a formation (Veeken et al.). The compressive strength of a rock depends on the interaction between extrinsic and intrinsic factors. The most important extrinsic factors governing rock strength are the stress state and strain rate. Primary intrinsic factors include porosity, grain size, mineralogy and cement types (Plumb 3). The range of these parameters through the Everest reservoir results in the uniaxial compressive strength varying. approximately, from 10 MPa to 40 MPa. Sand influx is most likely to occur from the weaker zones, with the stronger intervals being most capable of withstanding the required production drawdowns. This paper deveIops a technique to identify the potential for sanding in the reservoir through a geomechanical study of the Everest Complex in the North Sea involving wells 22/10aT2 and 22/1 Oa-T6. Both wells have core through the reservoir section from which triaxial loading tests and thin section textural geometry and composition analysis have been conducted. The wells also have complete logging suites, including dipole shear sonic data. The process is based on the practicaI methodology of calibrating depth indexed measurements at discrete points using core data. The core samples were selected to be representative of the complete range of porosities and various clay volumes throughout the reservoir. The first step in the process is the construction of the reservoir mechanical model, comprising the in-situ stress state and pore pressure together with constitutive parameters of the formation, by combining geophysical well logs, the results of

261

u.

SPE 47360

laboratory tests on core samples, and other field data, p~icularly drilling histofies. The second step in the process is a critical drawdown analysi~. This calculates the point at which the formation will fail as the pressure in the weIIbore is reduced. In this analysis, a depth indexed log of critical drawdown pressure is generated using elastic-brittle modelling. Critical drawdowns are also calculated with ektstoplastic modelling (Bradford and Cookl) at discrete points using core data. The results of the two analyses are then compared and an appropriate offset applied to the uniaxial compressive strength to ensure that the predictions of the elastic-brittle modelling are as realistic as possible. This approach makes the assumption that the influence of plastic phenomena through the reservoir is invariant; given the variation in Iithology, this is reasonable but not strictly valid. Results calculated using a new elastic-perfectly plastic model, which is derived in the Appendix, are also included.

Geological characterization

of fluids from adjacent calcareous mudstones has resulted in the localised development of doggers. The main reservoir sandstones however, dominated by primary interpaxticle porosity, reflect only minor clay authigenesis and display typical values of 22% porosity and 70mD. Compaction has only a moderate effect on the majority of the reservoir rock, king more significant only in the lobe fringe environments.

Mechanical eakh model The mechanical earth model

-.

The Everest Complex comprises four structural stratigraphic gas - condensate accumulations reservoired in turbiditic sandstones of the Paleocene Montrose Group, that were deposited in submarine fans on the eastern flanks of the Central Graben. The Forties Formation (e.g. well 22/1 Oa-T6) which constitutes the reservoirs in North and South Everest contains a variety of depositional environments, including inner-mid fan lobes, channel-lobe transitions, lobe-fringe, interlobe and outer fan. Reservoir quality rock is confined to the first three environments. The reservoir itself comprises a multi-layered heterogeneous sequence of sandstones and shales, with the development of thick-bedded composite, elongate lobes between 15-30ft thick, with a combination of both Facies B and Facies C sandstones. The Andrew Formation (e.g. well 22/1 Oa-T2) which is present in East and Northeast Everest is a more distal turbidite deposit, comprising a series of composite heterolithic sandstone lobes laid down in a mid-outer fan environment. In general the sandstones are of a poorer quality than in the Forties, with a higher percentage of inter-bedded shales. However, sheet-like thick-bedded sandstones up to 40ft thick are present, representative of periodic fan progradation; these are dominated by Facies B sandstones whereas elsewhere, Facies D sandsto~es are prevalent. The bulk of the sandstones are moderately to poorly sorted, angular to subrounded, tine to medium, submature, feldspathic arenites dominated by micro-crystalline quartz (7590 -90%) with minor potassium feldspar (8% - 10%) and mica, with occasional rock fragments. Reservoir quality is controlled primarily by depositional environments, where those facies with higher proportions of detrital clay witness occluded porosity and reduced permeability from the development of authigenic chlorite and illite precipitation, Towards the base of the section, the influx 262

comprises the constitutive parameters of the formation and the in-situ stress state. It is constructed by combining log measurements with the results of laboratory tests on core samples and data generated during the drilling of wells. The mechanical earth model and well survey contain the parameters required for an analysis of the potential for sanding. Co33stitative parameters Rock strength, expressed in terms of the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), is computed using empirical equations derived from both sonic log measurements and laboratory tests on the core specimens. The first step in the calculation of the UCS requires the derivation of a local correlation beween the dynamic Youngs modulus and its static counterpart. The reasons for the differences between static and dynamic values are not discussed in this paper. However, the former is determined by a standard analysis of sonic measurements. The latter is measured in laboratory triaxial tests on core specimens. Table 1 gives static and dynamic Youngs modulus data for wells 22 MOa-T2 and T6. The correlation between the dynamic Youngs modulus, Ed, and its static equivalent, E., is :E, = 0.0018E7 . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ...(1)

where all units are expressed in GPa. The Poissons ratio, v, of the formation is also determined at this stage using standard log analysis techniques. In the second step of the calculation, the static Youngs modulus is converted to uniaxial compressive strength. Plumbl 1, following Deere and Miller3, developed a world-wide database using borehole core samples, and showed that the correlation between UCS and static Youngs modulus, for rocks typically encountered in sandstone reservoirs, is :UCS = 2.280 +4 S089E, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(2)

Table 2 compares this correlation with the results of laboratory tests on Everest core samples. It is evident that equation (2) is applicable to the Everest reservoir. Thus, combining equations (1) and (2) implies VCS=2280+ 0.W7E;'7 . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . ...(3)

u.

Equation (3) allows the construction of a continuous depth indexed log of UCS. This is shown in Figure 1.

In-situ stress state The overburden stress, estimated from density logs, averages

0.02 MPa/m (0.91 Psi/ft) through the reservoir. The in-situ minimum horizontal stress is then computed using a biaxial strain model and constrained using failure data from laboratory core tests. This constraint is calculated using the linear MohrCoulomb failure envelope; the internal friction angle at reservoir stress states is 25 degrees in sandstones and 9 degrees in shales. The maximum horizontal stress cannot be directly measured but can be bounded using inversion methods (Peska and Zoback12). Sufficient appropriate data was not available from this field to refine the maximum horizontal stress beyond wide bounds. A reasonable value of 1.1 was therefore taken for the ratio of the horizontal stresses in the area. This estimate can be refined by using rnini-frac or extended leak-off tests to make measurements of the minimum horizontal stress. The azimuth of the maximum horizontal stress, determined by a breakout analysis of caliper logs, is estimated to be 21 degrees clockwise tlom magnetic north (Cowgill et al.3) The pore pressure in the reservoir is determined fi-om measurements made using a formation testing tool in well 22/10a-T6. The reservoir pressure at 2585 m (8481 ft) true vertical depth (WD) is 26.9 MPa (3897 Psi). The pressure gradient through the hydrocarbon column is 0.002 MPa/m (0.085 PsVft). Figure 1 shows the in-situ stress state through the reservoir, indexed to measured depth ( MD ) rather than TVD.

Drawdown failure analysis

During production, the in-situ pore pressure exceeds the pressure in the wellbore. The magnitude of the difference between the two pressures is termed the drawdown. At sufficiently high drawdowns, formation failure can occur. The point at which failure first occurs is termed the critical drawdown. Ilk section contains a critical drawdown analysis. The aim of such an analysis is to generate a depth indexed log of the critical drawdown to identify reservoir zones which could potentially sand. This is achieved here using two methods. The first approach utilizes eIastic brittle mode[ling calibrated at individual points using an elastoplastic model (Bradford and Cookl), which incorporates plastic hardening and dilation. The second approach utilizes a new elastic-perfectly plastic model, presented in the Appendix, that can be applied to log data. Figure 2 shows the three models, calibrated using the results of a triaxial test on a plug recovered from 3184 m (10446 ft) MD in well 22/10a-T6. The associated constitutive parameters are given in TabIe 3. The elastic-brittle model idealizes the mechanical response of the formation as being linear elastic with failure occurring when the peak strength is attained; it is therefore represented by the lines AB and DE. 263

The elastic-perfectly plastic model has a linear elastic response, like the elastic-brittle theory, but in addition, allows plastic deformation to occur when yield strength is attained; it is therefore represented by the lines ABC and DEF. It is important to note that this model allows an indefinite amount of plastic flow to occur and so for practical applications an additional empirical failure criterion must be imposed. This is discussed in further detail below. The fully elastoplastic model also idealizes the formation as being initially linear elastic, but distinguishes plastic yield and peak strength. In particukw, it models the strengthening that occurs due to post-yield plastic deformation. Failure is assumed to occur when peak strength is attained; the modeI is therefore represented by the dashed lines AC and DF. The area under the solid data lines AC and DF (13gure 2) can be regarded, albeit crudely, as the energy per unit volume that is required to fail the sample. It is evident, therefore, that of the three theories, the fully elastoplastic model will give the best estimate of the conditions under which the formation will fail. By the same argument, the elastic-brittle model underestimates the energy required for failure, with the elasticperfectly plastic theory providing a corresponding overestimate. Elastic-brittle modelling, as a consequence of the above, tends to underestimate the stabiIity of the rock, leading to unrealistically low critical drawdown predictions. This is illustrated in Figure 3, which shows, for well 22/10a-T6, that the elastic-brittle theory implies that the formation cannot sustain any drawdown without failing. These predictions can be improved using the elastoplastic modelling, as follows. The constitutive parameters for the core extracted from well 22./1Oa-T6 at 3184 m MD are given in Table 3. Under insitu stress conditions, the predictions of the elastic-brittle model can be made to mimic those of the elastoplastic theory (Bradford and Cook) by increasing the UCS by a factor of 3.6. Figure 3 shows a critical drawdown log where the UCS has been increased by a factor of 3.6 throughout the reservoir section. It can be seen that the zones 3020-3120 m and 32003250 m MD are the most susceptible to sanding. In the zone 3150-3200m MD, it is predicted to be safe to use a critical drawdown of at least 5 MPa. It is interesting to note that the elastoplastic model (Bradford and Cookl) accurately predicts the outcome of sanding experiments (Nicholson et aLIO) in which a thick walled cylinder is subjected to increasing external pressure. The inner surface of the cylinder is stress free. In a test on a core recovered from well 22/10a-T2, sanding was first observed at an external pressure of 39 MPa. The elastoplastic model estimates that initial failure occurs at 42.4 MPa. Figure 3 also shows a critical drawdown log generated by the elastic-perfectly plastic model, In order to calculate these predictions, it is assumed that failure will occur if the angle subtended by the plastic zone at the borehole/perforation wall, 26P, (Figure 5) exceeds 90 degrees. This is an empirical failure criterion that has been used in the industry, with

-.

M.

Structures (1972) 8, 149-192.

SPE 47360

success, for borehole stability calculations. It can be seen that, as expected, this model provides the least conservative of all the predictions; it implies that a drawdown can be applied to the entire reservoir without inducing failure. The model does, however, indicate that the critical drawdown is relatively low in zones where the calibrated elastic-brittle theory predicts failure under drawdown. This model will, therefore, be of particular use in situations where core samples are unavailable. Conclusions

This paper assessed the potential for sand production in the Everest Complex of the North Sea through a geomechanical study involving wells 22/10a-T2 and 22/10a-T6. The analysis combined elastic-brittle predictions with two varieties of elastopktstic modelling to produce a depth indexed log of the critical drawdown. This enabled the relatively weak zones, which are more susceptible to sand production, to be identified.

Acknowledgements

10, Nicholson, E.D., Goldsmith, G.A. and Cook, J.M.: The sanding behaviour and mechanical properties of weak sandstones, paper SPE 47328 presented at the 1998 Eurock Rock Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering Conference, Trondheim, July 8-10. 11. Pan, X.D. and Brown, E.T.: Influence of axial stress and dilatancy on rock tunnel stability, J. Geotechnicaf .Engirreering (February 1996) 139-146. 12. Peska, P. and Zoback, M: Observations of borehole breaJcouts and tensile wall-fractures in deviated boreholes: a technique to constrin the in-situ stress and rock strength, Proc 35*hU.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium (1995), Balkema, Rotterdam, 319-325. 13. Plumb, R.A.: Influence of composition and texture on the failure properties of elastic rocks, paper SPE 28022 presented at the 1994 Eurock Rock Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering Conference, Delft, Aug. 29-31. 14 Salencon, J.: Expansion quasi-statique dune cavite a synretrie sphenque ou cylindrique, Annfs Ponts Chauss (1966) 3, 175187.

The authors wish to thank Amoco and Schlumberger for giving permission to publish this work, R. Marsden and J. Dennis (Imperial College, London) conducted the triaxial testing, G. (Schlumberger Cambridge Goldsmith and B. Nicholson Research) for performing the sanding experiment. Part of this work has been funded by the European Commission, as part of Thermie Project 0G199/95.

References 1. Bradford, LD.R. and Cook, J.M.: A semi-analytic elastoplastic model for welbore stability with applications to sanding, paper SPE 28070 presented at the 1994 Eurock Rock Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering Conference, Delft, Aug, 29-31, 2. Bradford, l,D.R, and Durban, D,: Stress and deformation patterns around a cylindrical cavity embedded in a pressure sensitive elastoplastic medium, J. Appl. Mech. (forthcoming). 3. Cowgill, S.M., Meredith, P.G., Murrell, S.A.F. and Brereton, N.R.: Crustrd stresses in the North Sea from breakouts and other borehole data, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. (1993) 36, N0. 7, 1111-1114. 4. Deere, D.U. and Miller, R.P.: Engineering classification and index propetiies for intact rock, Technical report AFWL-TR-65-116 (1969), Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Kirtkmd, New Mexico. 5. Detoumay, E.: An approximate statical solution of the elastoplastic interface for the problem of Galin with a cohesivefrictional material, lnt. J. Solids Structures (1986) 22, No. 12, 1435-1454. 6, Detournay, E. and Fairhurst, C.: Two-dimensional elastoplastic analysis of a long, cylindricaJ cavity under non-hydrostatic loading, lnt. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. (1987) ~ No. 4,197-211. 7. Durban, D. and Papanastasiou, P.C.: Cylindrical cavity expansion and contraction in pressure sensitive geomaterirds, Acts Clarendon Press, Oxford (195 1). 9. Huang, Wu-Cheng.: Theoretical stress concentrations at circular holes and inclusions in strain hardening materials,. Int. J. Solids

Mechanica ( 1997) 122,99-122. 8. Hill, R.: The mathematical /heory of plasticity,

15. Salencon, J.: Contraction quasi-statique dune cavite a syrnetne spherique ou cylindrique, Annls Ponts Chauss (1969) 4, 231236. 16. Thompson, P.J. and Butcher, P. D.: The geology and geophysics of the Everest Complex, paper in Generation, accumulation and production of Europes hydrocarbons: Proceedings of the 1989 Annual EAPG Conference, May 30-June 2,89-98. 17. Veeken, C.A.M., Davies, D.R., Kenter, C.J. and Kooijman, A.P.: Sand production prediction review developing an integrated approach, Paper SPE 22792 presented at tbe 1991 Annual Technicrd Conference and Exhibition, DalIas, Oct. 6-9. Appendix - An elastic-perfectly plastic model

perfectly plastic medium. The wellbore is subjected to an internal mud pressure p and non-uniform loading at infinity comprising of perpendicular compressive in-situ normal stresses of magnitude al and cr2ordered such that o, 2 Oz 20. The normal stress o, is applied along the axes O = *Z / 2, with crz acting along the axes O = Oand 9 = r .The deformation is restricted to the plane perpendicular to the cavity axis (z) and is symmetric with respect to the loading axes. This problem simulates the behaviour of vertical and horizontal wells, where the wellbore axis is parallel to a principal stress direction. It is, however, a good approximation to the behaviour of near vertical and near horizontal wellbores, where the angle between the borehole axis and a principal stress direction is less than approximately 20 degrees.

Model formulation

Bradford and Durbanz determined the stress and deformation patterns around the wellbore in the case where the formation has a pressure sensitive elastoplastic, strain hardening and nonassociative response. In this analysis, the transformation x = a / r maps the infinite region exterior to the wellbore, r>a, onto the finite domain OS x <1. The stress 264

SPE 47360BENEFITSOF ASSESSINGTHE SOLIDSPRODUCTIONRISKIN A NORTHSEARESERVOIRUSING ELASTOPLASTIC MODELLING5 components, F(x,8) are expressed in terms of a stress function

(sW = -

;((7, +C72)-XOX2

+6y2X4 1 +az )+xoxz -~2)+6~2X4 } cos 2e, . . . . . ... (A.4) Cos20,

- ~(~1 a2)+4a2x2

{

z d2F , &2

with the axial stress, au , determined fkom the plane strain constraint e= = O. The symmetry conditions allow F Fourier cosine series of the form to be expanded as a form

sin 26.

NPO,, crw = k,

with

compressive strength (UCS) and the constant N@ = (1i- sin rp) / (1- sin rp), where q is the friction . . ...(A.2) angle. The stress state is defined (Salencon 14 5) by k p+ Np+l {} k -N? + x Nq+l

1-N

F=

~fm(X)COS?@, m=0,2,4.-

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

where the fimctions ~m(x) are to be determined. In the region x < a /b, where the formation is elastic (l%gure 5), it is easily shown that F =ao +/30 ln(x)+yox2 +~oxz In(x)+

crrr=-

c7~ = -Np

k p+ N@+l {}

q +

k Nq+l

(A.5) -

m=0,2,4,-

The differential equations governing the plastic solution (A.5) to (A. 10) are hyperbolic. It is necessary, therefore, that the ratio (b- a)/ af?p should not be too great (certainly less than two). Otherwise the ekis.toplastic interface is cut twice by certain characteristics and the problem is not statically determinate (Hllla). In the vicinity of the wellbore ~a,, / &is virtually constant. This phenomenon has been observed in many elastoplastic models (e.g. Bradford and Cook*, Durban and Papanastasiou, Pan and Brown* l). It is therefore permissible to determine ~w in the region x < a I b using a Taylor series expansion about x = b. Thus ~rr(x)=arr,xb,+(,_3)xb+x=x,,.................,A.6)

The constants am, lh, Ym and xm (m= 0,2,4,...) are determined from the boundary conditions and by the requirement that the sotution is continuous across the eh.stoplastic boundary. In particular, the in-situ stresses require thatao= -(a1+cr2)/ 4and X2=-( ol-a2)/4, with~~=O (m 2 O) and X==O(m24). The constant ym is indeterminate as the boundary conditions are specified in terms of stresses. It is, however, permissible to proceed with y~ =0 without loss of generality. Huang9 and Bradford and Durban2 anaIysed the number of terms in the expansion (A.2) that are required in order to obtain a convergent solution for the elastoplastic deformation mound a cavity. Results derived using the first two terms in the series differed by less than 1070 from the full solution. It is, therefore, acceptable to truncate the expansion (A.2) after the f~st two terms for the purposes of this model. In the purely elastic region x c a /b, combining the first two terms of (A.3) with (A. 1) implies

where Xb = a f b. Thus, combining (A.6) with (A.4), equating coefficients of cos me and applying the wellbore boundary condition implies (3-2xb)x:xo = p+&rl +c72), .. (A.7) 4a2x~(3 2xb ) + 6y2x~(5 - 4xb ) =:(01 -a*).

265

4.

SPE 47360

Atx=xband

O= Othe elastic

the

Example Figure 6

Mohr-Coulomb criterion. Therefore CJl- NP02 - ZO(NP + 1)x) ... . . . . . ...(A.8) -4Npa2x~ - 6T2(NP +

)Xj =

shows the elastoplastic interface in the case where cl = 100 MPa and CT2 =50 MPa. The mud pressure

MPa. p = (_)

The friction

angle

k.

compressive strength k = 120 MPa. Equations (A.7) to (A.9) imply Xb = O, Z. = 83.71 MPa, az = 41.45 MPa then and ~z = 27.93 MPa. Thus, from (A. 11), the equation of the elastoplastic interface shown in Figure 6 is

49.87xP cos20-(60.26M.45xP) =0 . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. ..(A.l2)

Xb P

1-N*

Ng+l

. . . . . ... (A.9)

As n,, cr2, Nq and k are known then xb, X., az and yz are easily determined from (A.7), (A.8) and (A.9). Suppose the elastoplastic interface is located at (XP, 0), where xb < XP s I . The radial stress in the region Xb S XP <1, derived by combining (A.5a) with (A.6) is

(A.2). Truncating this expansion after the first two terms is acceptable because it results in an error of less than 10$ZO and allows the development of a near analytic elastic-perfectly plastic model. The model requires two constitutive parameters, namely the unconfined compressive strength and friction angle. These parameters are available from sonic and Iithological data (Plumb3). The model is consequently suited for use with log data.

If the model is combined with an empirical failure criterion for

-~(cr,

-cz)+4a2x~

()

3:2$ Cos20. 1

. . .. . . (A.1O)

a wellbore (e.g. failure occurs if the angle subtended by the plastic zone at the wellbore surface exceeds 90 degrees, or perhaps maximum depth of the plastic zone exceeds 50~o of the borehole radius) then it can be used to predict the mud pressures at which reck failure occurs.

+6y2 5-4? ()

As err, must be continuous across the interface then equations (A.5a) and (A. 10) imply

elastoplastic

TABLE 1- STATIC AND DYNAMIC YOUNGS MODULUS DATA FOR WELLS 2Z1OA-T2 AND T6. THE CONFINING PRESSURE FOR THE STATIC MEASUREMENTS IS 1 MPa. Dynamic static

~ T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T6 T6 T6 Depth m 12436 12501 12530 12604 12627 12636 12692 10428 10461 10473 Formation U. And M. And M. And L. And L. And L. And L. And Fotties Forties Fotlies Youngs Modulus fQ!?i2) 3.05 Youngs Modulus IQ&)

.-.

+,

+c72)+fi v

. . . . . . . ..(A.11)

{&p}x-N+x0x{3-2:}

This is the equation governing the location of the elastoplastic interface. The angle at which this interface meets the weilbore wall, t3P, is easily derived by substituting XP =1.

266

SPE 47360 BENEFITS OF ASSESSING THE SOLIDS PRODUCTION RISK IN A NORTH SEA RESERVOIR USING ELASTOPLASTIC MODELLING 7

-2950 TABLE 2- RESULTS OF MULTIPLE FAILURE STATE TRIAXIAL TESTS ON CORE SAMPLES FROM THE EVEREST RESERVOIR COMPARED TO THE UCS CALCULATED USING THE PLUMB3 CORRELATION

w T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T6 T6 T6 Depth E 12501 12530 12604 12627 12636 12692 10428 10461 10473 = M. And M. And L. And L. And L. And L. And Forties Forties Forties Measured YCS (MPa) 12.7 3.0 9.2 26.1 21.3 93.5 16.6 21.3 27.0 19.1 Correlated UCS fMPa\ 14.8 3.1 11.0 23.9 31.4 98.0 19.6 26.5 24.5 22.9

-3000

-305C

Hl

TABLE 3- CONSTITUTIVE PARAMETERS DERIVED FROM THE TRIAXIAL TEST ON THE PLUG RECOVERED FROM 10446 IT MEASURED DEPTH IN WELL 22/10A-T6. NOTATION FOLLOWS BRADFORD AND COOK. WA MEANS NOT APPLICABLE.

Conslitutive parameter Youngs modulus (GPa) Poissons ratio Friction angle (dag) UCS (MPa) Dilation angle (dag) Hardening Parameter at tiPa) Hardening parameter bl Elasticm Elastic-perfectly 9!8Q!Q 9.49 0.15 25 41.2 NIA WA N/A NIA NIA ElastoL?!@k

-320[

41.2 N/A WA WA

NIA

9.5 3.5 182.65 0.33 7.8 X 10_3

Maximum

N/A

WA

plastic strain

-330(

I 20

t 40

1 60

Strength & stress ( MPa ) Figure 1 : Unlaxial compressive strength and in-situ atraas state th;ough the Everest reservoir.

267

-.

SPE 47360

-2950

\

7 :

k<-

...

-- ;..;:

i ,-:,,p.. , .+,:.:

, -*

/ -3050

-..\--r

s

... ..,,.._ -----

~ Figure 2: Deta from a triaxial teat on a plug recovered from 3184 m meaaured depth In wall 22/1Oa-T6. Elaatic-brittle, elaaticperfectlyplastic and alaatoplaatlc models are flttad to the date. 5 8 -3150 2

-=--

~-

>

<2

~%

-3200

.-, - _ .5

>

-3250

-P --

..... 3 -- .....

._.,:::y.-

, ..... ~F.!---.=.

i

i .

,. ..,. . .. .. .. . -.* .+$ ... .. .. .. . --- ;:::;,,. ?-. ,=.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . , . . . . . . . ----------- -=-.-=-=-,-,J,,J:,.-:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ...=.= =,,-.,.._

.,.-?:.

.....*- 3i. 1 .. .

=-/-

---+-f.-1.-

i!!?.-.::

Y;:,:,=,t===,,=tT_

-3300

-10

,E

10

( MPa )

20

Critical drawdown

Figure 3 : Critical drawdown log for well 22110a-T6. Note that negativevalues mean that for atsbility the wallbore pressure must

exceed the pore pressure.

268

u.

SPE 47360BENEFITS

OF ASSESSING THE SOLIDS PRODUCTION RISK IN A NORTH SEA RESERVOIR USING ELASTOPLASTIC MODELLING 9

JIJl__

4 2a *

1.

WELLBORE WALL

02

0.

INTERFACE

-.

0.5 Figure 6: Elaatoplastlc interface 1 5

Plastic

zone

CY

2

269

- What is Shale GasUploaded byDiego Armando Padilla
- Sandstone vs Carbonate Petroleum Reservoirs a Global Perspective on Porosity Depth and Porosity Permeability Relationships AAPGBulletin Ehrenberg Nadeau 2005Uploaded byRahll Raj
- Design AnchorUploaded byshanker
- materialsUploaded byKiranKumar
- Asme Case 1896-2Uploaded byDinh Nguyen Gia
- Strength of Materials Rk RajputUploaded byIvy Kayo
- 7287477hp1Uploaded byapi-273257329
- Simplified Concrete Modeling With Mat_concret_damage_rel3Uploaded byHasan Ayouby
- 6 Inch InertiaUploaded byRagunath Karthick
- 19Uploaded byEduard Nicolescu
- Geology of Petroleum SystemsUploaded byRando Randori
- Dr9-6-10-6903Sugano.pdfUploaded byAlberto Astorayme Valenzuela
- Composite Materials DesignUploaded byGihanFernando
- Seikowave Pipeline FFSUploaded byTariq
- 95-S28Uploaded byXuejian Liu
- MainProducts-1Uploaded byLloyd R. Ponce
- GE3244 Revision GuideUploaded byMohammad Taha Irfan
- 394Uploaded bylijiabinbin
- Comparative Study of Sae 1045 Carbon Steel and Aluminium Alloy 7075-t6 for Lower SuspensionUploaded byIAEME Publication
- h1017v2Uploaded byozland9
- 13_220Uploaded bypravin1307
- Revealing Hydrocarbon Potential in a TigUploaded byAldis Ramadhan
- Bridge Rating Flowchart SDUploaded bySuvash Dhakal
- Chapter 07 (1)Uploaded byHassan Saeed
- Laboratory Tests of rocks.docxUploaded bySujit Kumar
- 173020124 Reinforced Concrete Mechanics Design Sol(1)Uploaded byariani710
- Sheet MetalUploaded bymanmohansinghlotey
- 25 Iunie 09 Sakata FootbridgeUploaded byGyorgy Adrienne
- 3a John Draper Fe Safe From Safe Technology UTMIS 2010Uploaded byKaushik Kalita
- Seoul-0077-2012.R2_1A-5_rev1Uploaded byStephen Hicks

- Comparision ChartUploaded byASHOK
- Pantex Lattice GirdersUploaded bybrodie
- Knuckle JointUploaded bytushar035
- W36x150 Higher Modes and Modal InteractionUploaded bymoomeejee
- Fukuoka2011 FEA ThreadedFastenersUploaded byjtoreroc
- Beam Design128Uploaded bydhruvgoku
- Bhattacharya - MagnetostrictionUploaded byhp2020
- Effects of Thermal Loads on Agricultural SilosUploaded bymacikalin
- AdvCeramSentinel-July2015Uploaded byMohammed Khalid
- MetallizationUploaded byjust4u2cjoshy
- RP-C203Uploaded byYoungtae Kim
- Evaluation of Extended End-Plate Moment Conn Und. Seismic LoadingUploaded bymsener
- Nonlinear and Stability 2013Uploaded byanser_ti68400
- crd_c513Uploaded byazharb
- SECOND SEMESTER PHYSICS -2 TWO MARKS WITH ANSWERS REGULATION 2013Uploaded byPRIYA RAJI
- An Electrohydrodynamic Micropump for On-Chip Fluid Pumping on a Flexible Parylene SubstrateUploaded byqoberif
- calculs BAEL.xlsUploaded byAloys Thierry Mvindi
- Chapter12 Unrestrained Beam DesignUploaded byGunjan Kolarkar
- Estimating Gear Fatigue LifeUploaded bynishantbandaru
- AISC Seismic Supplement No-1 1999Uploaded bymarie_hamidah
- Thesis AbrivardUploaded byKais Ammar
- Chemical-Vapor-Deposition-of-Tungsten-and-Tungsten-Silicides-for-VLSI-ULSI-Applications-.pdfUploaded byFelipe
- 1.4_Microfluidics.pptUploaded byHuruk Brosnan
- unconfined compression test.docxUploaded byBahaaAbdalkareem
- Test QuestionsUploaded bySelva Kumar
- SOM MCQUploaded byVignesh Vicky
- Surface Integrity Characteristics of NiTi Shape Memory Alloys R 2014 ProcediUploaded byhasib_07
- metals-08-00812.pdfUploaded byAnonymous vXMIAFu2
- gap elements.pdfUploaded byshashi1810
- NanoUploaded byShridhar Mathad