MBDCI

Well Testing Geomechanics

3-F Well Testing Geomechanics

Maurice Dusseault
 MBDCI

Stress-Pressure Coupling

Initial conditions Q Early time - t

v(r) v(r)

p(r) p(r)
3-F Well Testing Geomechanics

shale
reservoir
p coupling improves well test
analysis, even in linear elastic systems
 MBDCI

Conventional Well Test Analysis

Well equations (& software) are based on
variants of the original Theis solution 1935

The basic equation, using head, is

2h/
r2 + (1/r)(
h/
r) = (S/T)(
h/
t)
3-F Well Testing Geomechanics

S is reservoir storativity
T is reservoir transmissivity

The implicit assumption: = 0, so = p

This is a non-coupled solution

It is therefore an incomplete solution
 MBDCI

Stress Arching in Well Testing

p leads to a small V,
and a redistribution of v

stress arching
v
3-F Well Testing Geomechanics

p region ri H

no p yet W

Arching of stresses begins Large-scale arching

Now you see why we call it stress arching!

 MBDCI

Stress-Pressure Coupling

In well-test equations, it is implicitly assumed
that v = constant, but

This is obviously not correct

There are actually large changes in v
These are a function of:
3-F Well Testing Geomechanics

 Stiffnessof the overlying strata

 Compressibility of the reservoir rock

 The degree and radius of drawdown - p(r)

 The geometry thickness of the reservoir, depth

below surface, dip
 MBDCI

Full mathematical
Some Practical Consequences
simulation may be

All well test equations
needed in critical are in error
 Flow rate predictions wrong by up to 50%
cases...
 This has impact on decision-making

 One axi-symmetric elastic closed-form solution

has been developed for this
3-F Well Testing Geomechanics

Arching effect changes with time

 Compaction can be delayed until the p zone is
large enough for v re-imposition
 Early time behavior will under-predict
compaction/subsidence
 Ekofisk in the North Sea, for example
 MBDCI

Horizontal Stresses also Change

v, section A-A
A must be
v
always constant

gain loss gain

B p
h
3-F Well Testing Geomechanics

A zone A
of -p*
p
h,
B
*-p causes -V B-B
 MBDCI

Well Test Equation Assumptions

They assume that the compressibility of the
rock is a constant (no change in effect)

They assume that the overburden stress
remains constant on the top of the reservoir

They assume that permeability remains
3-F Well Testing Geomechanics

constant with effective stress

They assume k and Cc are constant with radius

They assume zero grain crushing or collapse

These are sometimes OK, sometimes not.

Geomechanics plays a vital role here.
 MBDCI

Effects on Pressures
0 3.5 7 10.5 14 17.5 21
Pressure (kPa)
200
0
-200
-400 1min
-600 2min
3min
-800 10min
20min
3-F Well Testing Geomechanics

-1000 30min
60min
-1200
Distance - X (m)

A Coupled Well-Test Model shows

clearly the p-effect arising from time-
dependent stress transfer
 MBDCI

Also - Non-Linear Compressibility

Mainly in high porosity and fractured strata

C = () = (confining effective stress)
 Grain contacts stiffen with higher
 Fissures, fractures also show the same behavior

If compression is a first-order factor in the

3-F Well Testing Geomechanics

drive mechanism for the well test:

 Large errors can arise in the interpretation
 Model with C = () should be used

 Also, fractured media k variation is important

Even a simple non-linear compressibility can

give very different flow model results
 MBDCI

Compressibility

Brick
contact
model
Cc = constant
Compressibility

Reality
3-F Well Testing Geomechanics

Hertzian
contact
model

Effective confining stress -

 MBDCI

E.g.: Grain Crushing is Non-linear

Depletion or differential volumetric strain
causes high , high fn on individual grains

Weak (lithic) or cleavable (felspathic)
grains crush and fragment (e.g.: Chalk)

These strains are irreversible (plastic) and
3-F Well Testing Geomechanics

also reduce k substantially

Easily cleaved or weak grains crush first
feldspar crushed, quartz intact

fn
feldspar quartz
 MBDCI

Permeability and Effects

Negligible for most sandstones (<10-15%)

But, a first-order effect on flow rate (Q) in
fissured reservoirs (i.e. at least a 10% impact)

Q depends on aperture width (a) as well as p

This is a high-order dependency, Q a2
3-F Well Testing Geomechanics

p causes , a, flow rate drops

A [k] = () is required for full analysis

Single fracture test useful but limited

A homogeneous [k] may be used for numerical
modeling & test interpretation. IS THIS OK?
 MBDCI

Fracture Compression Nonlinearity

fracture aperture - a

fracture flow rate -q

" k " crack = k ( a , )
effective aperture
p p + p

asperities
3-F Well Testing Geomechanics

effective stress - n
V de
l
o
arm
soft e
Lin
stiff All aspects of strain and flow in
fractured media are non-linear
Actual
behavior
 MBDCI

Coal Bed Methane Example

Coal fissures close with +, k drops

Gas cannot flow through fractures (2-phases and
capillary blockages impede gas flux)

After some dewatering time, gas begins to flow
After a longer time, coal shrinks from CH4 loss
3-F Well Testing Geomechanics

Stresses change, -h, fissures open, flow

Thus, coal gas flow is both and p dependent

A stress-coupled flow model with non-linear
rock properties is needed for coal seam behavior
 MBDCI

Permeability Reduction and

stresses around wellbore

Q virgin k

k - apparent
permeability
r - effective stress*

po
pressure - p
3-F Well Testing Geomechanics

fracture-dominated stratum
* p because of p-
induced volume change
 MBDCI

Coal Gas Production

Q - Rate

conventional theory using virgin k

3-F Well Testing Geomechanics

with k = ()
(fracture flow)
Time
Well rates are mis-predicted if only small drawdowns used and
equations do not include fracture effects (e.g. Austin Chalk)
 MBDCI

Late-Time Coal Permeability

The CH4 is depleted near the k - apparent

wellbore, causing a permeability
shrinkage of the coal blocks.
This leads to a loss of stress ko
and a permeability increase
as the fractures open up. po
- stress pressure - p
3-F Well Testing Geomechanics

affected region fracture-dominated stratum

However, coal shrinkage is appreciable; as drawdown
proceeds, fracture permeability impairment is reversed.
 MBDCI

Fractures & Coal Shrinkage

Q - Rate

conventional theory

Early-time impairment
Late-time improvement
3-F Well Testing Geomechanics

with k = (), (fracture flow),

followed by shrinkage of coal
Time
These problems caused consternation when coal bed
methane was first considered for development
 MBDCI

Geomechanics: Cavity Completion

The cavity is generated so k - apparent

that the rock is damaged and v- stress permeability
a high drainage surface area
ko
is generated, accelerating
gas drainage. Parameter
po
values are along cavity pressure - p
midpoint.
3-F Well Testing Geomechanics

heavily
perforated
well

damaged region cavity Low h, high v

Geomechanics knowledge led to the idea of a Cavity

Completion, now widely use in coal bed methane (better wells!)
 MBDCI

Production with Cavity Completion

Rate
with the cavity completion approach

extra $$
Casing
Cavity
Damaged zone
3-F Well Testing Geomechanics

closure of aperture
(aperture = ()) conventional theory

Time

The cavity method makes a better well, with good early

production, and which gets better with time
 MBDCI

Lets Revisit Arching

Early time: -p gives +, rock compresses

Occurs near the wellbore first, and v drops

Farther out, v must rise, thus -p +

But, all well test equations assume p = -
Errors can arise (up to 50%), in well tests of
3-F Well Testing Geomechanics

thick compressible liquid reservoirs (Ekofisk)

 Compaction potential underestimation from arching
 Underestimates of potential well productivity

Use a geomechanically rigorous model

 MBDCI

Overburden Arching Effect

Delay of compression always occurs in early time by the

arching effect, but eventually stresses change

stress arching intermediate

early p v
3-F Well Testing Geomechanics

ri H
p region ri
well test ri
no p yet W

*aspect ratio is W/H; when W>~3-4H, arching disappearing

Arching effects arise in coal bed methane (high loads help
dilation) and, realistically, it enters into all reservoir problems
 MBDCI

Similar Effects for an Injection Well!

Vertical displacement -m
displacement (m)
0.032
Z 0.03
0.028
0.026
0.024
0.022
0.02
0.018
0.016
0.014
X Y 0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
3-F Well Testing Geomechanics

0 0
200 200
400 400
Y (m )
) 600 600
X (m
800
1000 1000
800
Injection well
Vertical displacement
Inverse of arching!
In this case, it is an injection well. We can see uplift around
the injection point. Vertical stresses there also go up
 MBDCI

Stress Redistribution Effects

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
10 0

50 p/t at a point near the well

0
Pressure(kPa)

- 50
3-F Well Testing Geomechanics

- 10 0

- 150

-200

- 2 50

Tim e(m inutes)

 MBDCI

Production and Geomechanics

Q - Well production
rate
conventional theory

Coupled well equations

(with reservoir-scale
stress redistribution)
3-F Well Testing Geomechanics

with k = ()
(fracture flow)

Time

More physically complete flow models give better results,

giving better engineering and economic decisions
 MBDCI

Better Flow Models with

The conventional well test equations are
incomplete and can give errors up to 50%

If you are concerned and feel geomechanics
coupling is an issue:
 Use better models (e.g. Rothenburg developed a
3-F Well Testing Geomechanics

model including stress redistribution)

 Use a Finite Element Model that includes full
stress-flow coupling
 Compare to the simpler models and evaluate

Economic consequences may not be trivial,

and it is vital in reservoir analyses.
 MBDCI

Well Evaluation Geomechanics

Reservoir compressibility often non-linear

Also, permeability changes with

Overburden response effects are vital
 Overburden stress redistribution
 Arching and delayed compaction drive
3-F Well Testing Geomechanics

 Mis-estimation of well productivity

Well test protocols including geomechanics

 Better models that include stress effects
 Better assessment of compaction potential

Without geomechanics, well test models must

be considered incomplete