Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
N. Yusuf
Harold Vance Department
of Petroleum Engineering.
Texas A&M University
Outline
Objectives
Objectives
Outline
Youngs modulus, E
F
vertical stress zz
A
z
vertical strain zz
z
zz
Young Modulus E
zz
F
z
A
Z
Typical values
E steel 3 x 107 psi
E rock 3 x 105 psi
5
Poisson Ratio,
F
A
z
vertical strain zz
z
x
normal strain xx
X
y
normal strain yy
Y
xx yy
Poisson ratio
zz
zz
vertical stress zz
Typical values
v steel 0.3
v rock 0.3
z
A
Z
Bulk modulus, K
V
bulk strain b
V
Uniaxial modulus, M
zz
Uniaxial mod ulus M
zz
E(1 - v)
M
(1 v)(1 - 2v)
Constrained
Constrained
Typical values
M steel 4.04 x 10 psi
7
Constrained
Outline
Vb Vp Vg
Vb
Vg
Vp
Vb
Vb
Vb
Vb
Vg
Vb
Vb
Vg
V
g
Vp
Vb
Vp
V
p
b g 1 p
p
g 1
10
1 Vb
1 Vp
1 Vg
1
Vb p
Vp p
Vg p
Cb Cp ( 1 ) C g
Cp
Cb
Cg
11
Rock compressibility
Elastic Compressibilities- Definitions
Vb
Overburden Pressure:
Pore Pressure:
Vp
pp
1 Vb
c bc
pp
Vib pc
c pc
pc
1 Vp
pp
Vi b pc
1
c bp
Vib
Cpc
Vb
pc
p p
1 Vp
Vib pc
pp
12
1.
2.
Cb p Cbc Cg
Cpp Cpc
Cg
3.
Cbp i Cpc
SIGNIFICANCE:
1 psi change in Confining (or Lab) pressure produce more strain on the bulk & pore
volume than 1 psi change in pore pressure by an amount equal to the matrix
compressibility.
If matrix compressibility is negligible, equal changes in either pore or confining (lab)
pressure produce the same bulk and pore volume changes.
13
Cpc
Cpp
Cbc
Cg
i
Cbc ( 1 i ) Cg
14
eff
pc pp
is the Biots constant
K
Cg
1
Kg
Cbc
SIGNIFICANCE:
To simulate an equivalent strain in a porous rock the laboratory
stress should be less than the pore pressure depletion by a 1- .
15
Uniaxial compressibility
Overburden
Loading conditions:
constrained strain
Uniaxial compressibility Cm
Constrained
Constrained
Cm
1 Cbc
3 1
Constrained
16
Triaxial Test
3/2
1
l
3/2
To compute , Cm
d
To compute Cm
17
18
Tri-axial Test
1
Modifications: to balance lateral effect of 1
Calculation of
l
Difficulty: Requires size of core to fit Exactly in the cell.
3/2
19
Hydrostatic Test
1(1 )
3 (1 )
3/2
20
Reservoir compaction
Constrained Deformation in the reservoir
Axial Compaction co-efficient Ca:
Cm
1 z
Z p
Overburden
z Cmp
Constrained
Constrained
H pf
H Cm p, z pz
0 pi
Constrained
H Cm z p z pz
0
21
Reservoir compaction
Factors leading to Reservoir compaction
Large reduction in pore pressure
22
Outline
23
Paper Review 1
SPE 3730:
Approach:
Observations from field data
Mathematical derivation
Compaction / Subsidence prediction
24
Paper Review 1
SPE 3730:
Factors affecting Cm
Rock type (hard, consolidated, friable, loose)
Degree of cementation
Porosity (high -> high Cm)
Depth of burial
25
Paper Review 1
SPE 3730:
Input variables:
Rock type
Porosity / Stress level
Depth
Interpretation:
Low Cm: 1-3 X 10-5
High Cm: > 10 X 10-5
26
Paper Review 1
SPE 3730:
Limestone:
depth
2 rock types, 1
Prediction tool:
Limited variables
27
Paper Review 2
SPE 66479:
Approach:
Core samples collection over 4 yrs
Laboratory measurement of stress Vs k,
Development of permeability model
28
Paper Review 2
SPE 66479:
29
Paper Review 2
SPE 66479:
Loading Conditions:
Step increases of pressure to 7,000 psi
Time period of 1,500 days
Results:
Porosity: 0.32 0.24 (25%),
Permeability: 1.3 0.2 D (84.6%)
k
ko
o
6.5
30
Paper Review 2
SPE 66479:
Loading Conditions:
Step increases of pressure to 8,000 psi
Time period of 300 days
Results:
Porosity: 0.265 - 0.250 (5.7%),
Permeability: 0.65 - 0.475 D (26.9%)
k o o
5 .3
31
Paper Review 2
SPE 66479:
Permeability model
Limitations
High error range: +/- 30%
Requires Stress Vs as input
32