O slideshow foi denunciado.
Utilizamos seu perfil e dados de atividades no LinkedIn para personalizar e exibir anúncios mais relevantes. Altere suas preferências de anúncios quando desejar.
T. Lynch1, Q.J. Fisher1, D. Angus1, P. Lorinczi1 
Modelling Stress Path and Fracture Pressure Hysteresis for CO2 Storage i...
Overview Summary 
Context of research – Stress path and fracture pressure hysteresis Modelling approach – Coupled geomecha...
Context of Research Stress Path and Fracture Pressure hysteresis 
Principle: 
• 
Stress path hysteresis leads to reduction...
Context of Research Stress path hysteresis 
a) Classic textbook pore pressure response
Context of Research Stress path hysteresis 
b)/c) Reservoir scale pore pressure/stress coupling
Context of Research Stress path hysteresis 
d) Stress path hysteresis e.g Field data from: Santarelli, Tronvoll et al 1998...
Context of Research Stress Path Parameters 
(푎푎) 훾훾푣푣= Δ휎휎푣푣 Δ푝푝 푏푏 훾훾ℎ= Δ휎휎ℎ Δ푝푝 풄풄 푲푲풔풔풔풔= Δ흈흈흈풉풉 Δ흈흈흈풗풗 = 휸휸풉풉−휶휶 휸휸풗풗−...
Context of Research Stress Path and Fracture Pressure hysteresis 
Santarelli et al. 1998 report: 
• 
γh = 0.7 during deple...
Coupled Modelling Approach Coupled modelling 
- Initial grid - Initial porosity - Pressures 
TEMPEST 
ELFEN 
ELFENRS 
- 
M...
Coupled Modelling Approach Current capabilities and future developments 
- Initial grid - Initial porosity - Pressures 
TE...
Coupled Modelling Approach Fluid flow modelling 
0.0 
0.1 
0.2 
0.3 
0.4 
0.5 
0.6 
0.7 
0.8 
0.9 
1.0 
0.00 
0.20 
0.40 
...
Model Set-up Generic “Two fault” model 
• 
Investigated effect of model parameters on stress path using a generic gas rese...
Results Generic “Two fault” model 
• 
p’-q plots of the stress path 
• 
1 – 2 elastic depletion 
• 
2 – 3 plastic depletio...
Results Generic “Two fault” model 
0 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
0 
10 
20 
30 
40 
50 
q (MPa) 
p' (MPa) 
High TM Low Friction K ...
Results Generic “Two fault” model 
0.0 
2.0 
4.0 
6.0 
8.0 
10.0 
12.0 
0.0 
10.0 
20.0 
30.0 
40.0 
50.0 
Shear Stress (M...
Results Generic “Two fault” model 
0 
2 
4 
6 
8 
10 
12 
14 
16 
0 
10 
20 
30 
40 
50 
60 
Shear Stress (MPa) 
Normal St...
Results Generic “Two fault” model 
0 
2 
4 
6 
8 
10 
12 
14 
16 
0 
10 
20 
30 
40 
50 
60 
Shear Stress (MPa) 
Normal St...
Results Generic “Two fault” model 
0 
2 
4 
6 
8 
10 
12 
14 
16 
0 
10 
20 
30 
40 
50 
60 
Shear Stress (MPa) 
Normal St...
Results Generic “Two fault” model 
• 
Model stresses around the reservoir in the overburden for seismic modelling/monitori...
Conclusions 
• 
Shown potential for fracture pressure to change during the lifetime of a field – particularly important in...
Próximos SlideShares
Carregando em…5
×

Modelling Stress Path and Fracture Pressure Hysteresis for CO2 Storage in Depleted Reservoirs - presentation by Thomas Lynch of the University of Leeds at the UKCCSRC meeting Monitoring of the deep subsurface, 23 October 2014

899 visualizações

Publicada em

Modelling Stress Path and Fracture Pressure Hysteresis for CO2 Storage in Depleted Reservoirs - presentation by Thomas Lynch of the University of Leeds at the UKCCSRC meeting Monitoring of the deep subsurface, 23 October 2014

Publicada em: Engenharia
  • Seja o primeiro a comentar

  • Seja a primeira pessoa a gostar disto

Modelling Stress Path and Fracture Pressure Hysteresis for CO2 Storage in Depleted Reservoirs - presentation by Thomas Lynch of the University of Leeds at the UKCCSRC meeting Monitoring of the deep subsurface, 23 October 2014

  1. 1. T. Lynch1, Q.J. Fisher1, D. Angus1, P. Lorinczi1 Modelling Stress Path and Fracture Pressure Hysteresis for CO2 Storage in Depleted Reservoirs Centre for Integrated Petroleum Engineering and Geoscience, Institute of Applied Geoscience, University of Leeds
  2. 2. Overview Summary Context of research – Stress path and fracture pressure hysteresis Modelling approach – Coupled geomechanical-fluid flow modelling Results – Fracture pressure hysteresis in a faulted depleted gas reservoir, stress changes around the reservoir Conclusions
  3. 3. Context of Research Stress Path and Fracture Pressure hysteresis Principle: • Stress path hysteresis leads to reduction of predicted fracture pressure upon re-injection in depleted fields Evidence: • Based on observations by Santarelli, Tronvoll et al 1998 and Santarelli, Havmoller et al 2008 • Few studies on phenomenon in literature
  4. 4. Context of Research Stress path hysteresis a) Classic textbook pore pressure response
  5. 5. Context of Research Stress path hysteresis b)/c) Reservoir scale pore pressure/stress coupling
  6. 6. Context of Research Stress path hysteresis d) Stress path hysteresis e.g Field data from: Santarelli, Tronvoll et al 1998 and Santarelli, Havmoller et al 2008
  7. 7. Context of Research Stress Path Parameters (푎푎) 훾훾푣푣= Δ휎휎푣푣 Δ푝푝 푏푏 훾훾ℎ= Δ휎휎ℎ Δ푝푝 풄풄 푲푲풔풔풔풔= Δ흈흈흈풉풉 Δ흈흈흈풗풗 = 휸휸풉풉−휶휶 휸휸풗풗−휶휶
  8. 8. Context of Research Stress Path and Fracture Pressure hysteresis Santarelli et al. 1998 report: • γh = 0.7 during depletion • γh = 0 during injection • Clear implications for CO2 storage if the fracture pressure is reduced during injection • Equally situations where fracture pressure is higher than expected are beneficial.
  9. 9. Coupled Modelling Approach Coupled modelling - Initial grid - Initial porosity - Pressures TEMPEST ELFEN ELFENRS - Modified pore volume Universities of Leeds and Bristol and Rockfield Software Ltd. developed coupled methodology ELFEN (geomechanics) Tempest (flow)
  10. 10. Coupled Modelling Approach Current capabilities and future developments - Initial grid - Initial porosity - Pressures TEMPEST ELFEN ELFENRS - Modified pore volume • SR3 (soft rock 3) – Cam Clay type const. model – large strains, range of initial stress, plastic deformation • Geometry - complex • Uplift and surface deformation • Seismics and Microseismics Future: • Temperature – through manual pass through from Tempest, hope to automate
  11. 11. Coupled Modelling Approach Fluid flow modelling 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Relative Permeability kr Gas Saturation Sg CO2 - Host Brine - Host CO2 - Fault Brine - Fault From Tueckmantel 2010 Tempest black oil flow simulation – simplification - cut down run times Using experimentally derived relative permeabilities – available for fault and host rock Message passing interface – allows efficient coupling without write files
  12. 12. Model Set-up Generic “Two fault” model • Investigated effect of model parameters on stress path using a generic gas reservoir with depletion - reinjection • Poorly lithified sandstone reservoir, shale over/sideburden – from compilation of literature data • Fault transmissiblity – sealing and non-sealing • Fault movement also controlled with friction parameter
  13. 13. Results Generic “Two fault” model • p’-q plots of the stress path • 1 – 2 elastic depletion • 2 – 3 plastic depletion • 3 – 4 elastic injection • Minimal impact of fault transmissibility and movement on the stress path • Lower frac. Pressure indicated by increment to failure between points 1 and 4 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 20 40 q (MPa) p’ (MPa) High TM Low Friction p-q High TM High Friction p-q Low TM Low Friction Low TM High Friction Yield Surface Initial Yield Surface Final 1 2 4 3
  14. 14. Results Generic “Two fault” model 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 10 20 30 40 50 q (MPa) p' (MPa) High TM Low Friction K = 0.9 High TM Low Friction K = 0.5 High TM Low Friction K=0.7 1 3 1 1 4 • Biggest impact on stress path – initial stress ratio - K (not to be confused with Ksp represent the same ratio) • High K leads to greatest fracture pressure reduction • Also leads to similar stress path parameters to those observed in literature.
  15. 15. Results Generic “Two fault” model 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Shear Stress (MPa) Normal Stress (MPa) 0.35 Poisson's ratio 3.8 Gpa reservoir 13.8GPa reservoir - soft overburden 13.8 Gpa reservoir - side 3.8 Gpa reservoir - side • Other important factors are those that ‘flatten’ the stress path, greater reduction in fracture pressure observed with: • Increased Poisson’s ratio in reservoir • Less stiff overburden • Marginal location within the geometry
  16. 16. Results Generic “Two fault” model 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Shear Stress (MPa) Normal Stress (MPa) Initial Depletion End Injection Start Injection End Final Yield s'-t 0 Horizontal Stress Parameter s'-t 0 Horizontal Stress Path Parameter 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Shear Stress (MPa) Normal Stress (MPa) Edge • After K ratio edge or geometric effects have the largest effect on stress path • In current work reservoir edge flat interface modelled • Other geometries would be interesting e.g. lense like Centre
  17. 17. Results Generic “Two fault” model 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Shear Stress (MPa) Normal Stress (MPa) Initial Depletion End Injection Start Injection End Final Yield s'-t 0 Horizontal Stress Parameter s'-t 0 Horizontal Stress Path Parameter 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Shear Stress (MPa) Normal Stress (MPa) Edge Centre • The Mohr circle/stress path shows that: • γh = 0.8 during depletion • γh = 0.6 injection in the centre • γh = 0.43 injection in the edge
  18. 18. Results Generic “Two fault” model 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Shear Stress (MPa) Normal Stress (MPa) Initial Depletion End Injection Start Injection End Final Yield s'-t 0 Horizontal Stress Parameter s'-t 0 Horizontal Stress Path Parameter 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Shear Stress (MPa) Normal Stress (MPa) Edge Centre • The Mohr circle plots show that the models do not fully replicate the behaviour observed by Santarelli et al. • Temperature is suggested as a significant factor in a later paper by Santarelli • Do show inherent potential for hysteresis even w/out temp. effects • Both a risk and potential opportunity
  19. 19. Results Generic “Two fault” model • Model stresses around the reservoir in the overburden for seismic modelling/monitoring – shows different behaviour depending on reservoir stiffness due to redistribution of stress during plastic deformation Low stiffness reservoir (3.8 GPa) High stiffness reservoir (13.8 GPa)
  20. 20. Conclusions • Shown potential for fracture pressure to change during the lifetime of a field – particularly important in CO2 injection ( generic modelling of the Bunter – 20% reduction in the fracture pressure reduced capacity by 60%) • Important factors other than the initial stress ratio of the field are the geometry of the field and the temperature effects of CO2 injection • Further modelling of phenomenon in more complex geometries with temperature effects would be interesting • Meshing complex geometries remains a significant challenge which requires automation • Important crossovers with monitoring - with plastic compaction and depletion/re-injection – apparent divergent response in seismic attributes

×