Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.9720/kseg.2019.4.367

Comparison of Different Permeability Models for Production-induced Compaction in Sandstone Reservoirs  

To, Thanh (Department of Geological Sciences, Chungnam National University)
Chang, Chandong (Department of Geological Sciences, Chungnam National University)
Publication Information
The Journal of Engineering Geology / v.29, no.4, 2019 , pp. 367-381 More about this Journal
Abstract
We investigate pore pressure conditions and reservoir compaction associated with oil and gas production using 3 different permeability models, which are all based on one-dimensional radial flow diffusion model, but differ in considering permeability evolution during production. Model 1 assumes the most simplistic constant and invariable permeability regardless of production; Model 2 considers permeability reduction associated with reservoir compaction only due to pore pressure drawdown during production; Model 3 also considers permeability reduction but due to the effects of both pore pressure drawdown and coupled pore pressure-stress process. We first derive a unified stress-permeability relation that can be used for various sandstones. We then apply this equation to calculate pore pressure and permeability changes in the reservoir due to fluid extraction using the three permeability models. All the three models yield pore pressure profiles in the form of pressure funnel with different amounts of drawdown. Model 1, assuming constant permeability, obviously predicts the least amount of drawdown with pore pressure condition highest among the three models investigated. Model 2 estimates the largest amount of drawdown and lowest pore pressure condition. Model 3 shows slightly higher pore pressure condition than Model 2 because stress-pore pressure coupling process reduces the effective stress increase due to pore pressure depletion. We compare field data of production rate with the results of the three models. While models 1 and 2 respectively overestimates and underestimates the production rate, Model 3 estimates the field data fairly well. Our result affirms that coupling process between stress and pore pressure occurs during production, and that it is important to incorporate the coupling process in the permeability modeling, especially for tight reservoir having low permeability.
Keywords
permeability; reservoir compaction; pore pressure; production rate;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Ahmed, T., 2010, Reservoir engineering handbook, Gulf Professional Publishing, 1524p.
2 Brace, W., 1980, Permeability of crystalline and argillaceous rocks, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics, 17(5), 241-251.   DOI
3 Chin, L., Raghavan, R., Thomas, L., 2001, Fully coupled geomechanics and fluid-flow analysis of wells with stress-dependent permeability, SPE Journal, 5(1), 32-45.   DOI
4 David, C., Wong, T., Zhu, W., Zhang, J., 1994, Laboratory measurement of compaction-induced permeability change in porous rocks: Implications for the generation and maintenance of pore pressure excess in the crust, Pure and Applied Geophysics, 143(1-3), 425-456.   DOI
5 Freeze, R., Cherry, J., 1979, Groundwater, Prentice-Hall.
6 Fyfe, W., 1978, The evolution of the earth's crust: Modern plate tectonics to ancient hot spot tectonics?, Chemical Geology, 23(1-4), 89-114.   DOI
7 Guo, B., Lyons, W., Ghalambor, A., 2007, Petroleum production engineering.
8 Heap, M.J., Baud, P., Meredith, P.G., 2009, Influence of temperature on brittle creep in sandstones, Geophysical Research Letters, 36(19), 1-6.
9 Hillis, R., 2000, Pore pressure/stress coupling and its implications for seismicity, Exploration Geophysics, 31(1-2), 448-454.   DOI
10 Ink, D., Mattar, L., Blasingame, T., 2007, Production Data Analysis - Future Practices for Analysis and Interpretation, Petroleum Society's 8th Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Alberta, Canada.
11 Kruseman, P., de Ridder, A., Verweij, M., 1994, Analysis and evaluation of pumping test data, International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement, The Netherlands, 377p.
12 Nelson, P., Anderson, L., 1992, Physical properties of ash flow tuff from Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Journal of Geophysical Research, 97(B5), 6823-6841.   DOI
13 Rice, J., 1992, Fault stress states, pore pressure distributions, and the weakness of the San Andreas Fault, Academic Press, 475-503.
14 Stanko, M., Asuaje, M., Diaz, C., Guillmain, M., Borregales Reveron, M., Gonzalez, D., Golan, M., 2015, Model-based production optimization of the Rubiales field, Colombia, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.
15 Walder, J., Nur, A., 1984, Porosity reduction and crustal pore pressure development, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 89(B13), 11539-11548.   DOI
16 Wu, Y., Pruess, K., 2000, Integral solutions for transient fluid flow through a porous medium with pressure-dependent permeability, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 37(1), 51-61.   DOI
17 Yale, D., 1984, Network modelling of flow, storage and deformation in porous rocks, PhD. Thesis, Stanford University, 91-94.
18 Zhang, S., Cox, S., Paterson, M., 1994, Porosity and permeability evolution during hot isostatic pressing of calcite aggregates, Journal of Geophysical Research, 99(B8), 15741-15760.   DOI
19 Zhu, W., Wong, T.-f., 1997, The transition from brittle faulting to cataclastic flow: Permeability evolution, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 102(B2), 3027-3041.   DOI