(1)
( )
]
]
]
,
,
+
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
z p r z p
g g g s o o o
s g o
g
g s
o
o
r q q
B
S r
B
S
t
+ +
]
]
]
]
,
,
,
+
(2)
( )
]
]
]
,
,
+
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
z p R z p
o o o s g g g
o s g
o
o s
g
g
q R q
B
S R
B
S
t
+ +
]
]
]
]
,
,
,
+
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
(3)
Additional equations include the constraint equation for the
sum of saturations and capillary functions.
1 + +
g o w
S S S
(4)
) (
w cwo
S f P
(5)
(6)
) ( g cgo S f P
Finite difference methods are normally used to discretize the
above equations. The reservoir simulator used in this paper is
a generalpurpose model for black oil and compositional
applications.
10
It contains compaction logic, which
approximates results from the coupled reservoir and
geomechanics model for specific cases.
The governing equations for the geomechanics model are
derived based on the balance of linear momentum and the
effective stress law.
11
The equations are stated as follows:
0 b + ) ' ( p
(7)
In order to derive the full set of governing equations, Eq. 7
must be supplemented with an appropriate constitutive
equation for the solid porous matrix. In general, the
constitutive equation is in the form:
) , ( ' f
(8)
Assuming the solid grain is incompressible, the solid strain
rate is related to solid velocities as:
(9)
s
) (
v
These nonlinear constitutive equations (Eqs. 8 and 9) are
usually appropriate to describe the nonlinear behavior of weak
reservoir rocks. Details of the constitutive models used in this
work are presented in reference 12.
Data Exchange Interface
Within a given time step and for each coupled iteration,
pressure and water saturation values obtained from the
reservoir model are directly passed to the geomechanics model
through a data exchange interface. Porosity values and
derivatives are passed from the geomechanics model to the
reservoir model. Uniquely named disk files are used to
exchange data between the two models. After each data file is
written and closed, a second uniquely named file containing
time, time step number, and iteration number is written. The
existence of the second, small file signals that the model
awaiting data may open and read the new data file.
The mathematical system of the reservoir model is based on
the Eulerian description with a fixed mesh configuration that
is timeindependent, while the mathematical system of the
geomechanics model is based on the Lagrangian description
with a deformable mesh configuration that changes with time.
Therefore, the true porosity calculated from the geomechanics
model cannot be directly passed to the reservoir model. To
maintain numerical consistency with the definition of porosity
used in the reservoir model, the true porosity of a given
element has to be converted to the reservoirsimulation
porosity defined by the constant bulk volume for the
corresponding grid block in the reservoir model. The
equations that relate the true porosity and the reservoir
simulation porosity to the volumetric strain of a given element
in the geomechanics model are
v
e
) 1 ( 1
0
(11)
) 1 (
0
+
v
e
(12)
SPE 77723 COUPLED GEOMECHANICS AND RESERVOIR SIMULATION 3
At time equal to zero, the initial reservoirsimulation porosity
and the initial true porosity are the same. Note that
v
is
negative for compaction. The reservoirsimulation porosity for
each grid block is obtained from the geomechanics model
using Eq. 12 and is passed to the reservoir model.
Parallel Computing Environment
The coupled procedure presented in this paper is designed to
run on a single PC, multiple personal computers with multiple
CPUs, or on a cluster of PCs using the messagepassing
interface (MPI).
13
Figure 2a illustrates the use of two nodes
on the cluster to perform the coupled analysis with the
controlling reservoir model on node one and the geomechanics
model on node 2. These two models are run sequentially and
therefore either or both can be run in parallel using multiple
PCs. The twoheaded arrow in Figure 2b indicates the data
exchange and communication between the two nodes each
coupled iteration.
On field scale problems 70 to 80 percent of the run time is
spent in the geomechanics model solving the system of linear
equations. The compute intensive nature of this model is a
function of several items. First, the finite element formulation
of the geomechanics model has a 27 point stencil compared to
the standard seven point stencil in the reservoir simulation
model. The second factor is the number of unknowns in the
geomechanics model, which is three at each node compared to
one at each cell in an IMPES finite difference simulation
model. The last item is the total number of grid blocks used in
the geomechanics model is larger due to the overburden,
underburden, and sideburden regions that are simulated in this
model in addition to the reservoir grid blocks. To efficiently
implement the parallel version of the solver, communication
between CPU nodes must also be minimized to achieve the
desired speed improvement.
Due to the disparity in run times between the geomechanics
model and the reservoir simulation model only the
geomechanics model is run in parallel at this time which is
illustrated in Figure 2b.
The parallel version of the geomechanics model was
developed with a parallel iterative linear solver based on the
ILU preconditioned biconjugate gradient method. Domain
decomposition with overlapping boundaries was used to
divide the model into multiple regions. Linear solver iterations
are then conducted, for each Newton iteration, until
convergence is reached. The number of iterations for the
linear solver varied from 525 depending on the number of
processors used and the difficulty of the problem. Likewise,
the average number of Newton iterations required for the
geomechanics model ranged from 15.
Example Cases
Five example cases are presented to illustrate the performance
of the coupled reservoir and geomechanics models. The first
example is a single cell model, which is used to demonstrate
the efficiency of the coupled model during depletion,
repressurization by waterflooding, and blowdown. The
second example is a fieldscale, 3D, geomechanics problem
that is run in parallel mode to demonstrate the efficiency of
this model versus the number of processors used. The third
example is a twophase, multilayered, five spot area of a field
with varying layer properties that illustrates depletion
followed by waterflooding. The effect of stress dependent
permeability is also included in this example. A second 3D,
fivespot example is used to illustrate the performance of the
coupled model on a threephase example. The last example is
a large fullfield model that includes historical production, gas
injection, and water injection.
A comparison between results from the coupled and stand
alone simulation models is presented here for several of the
example cases. Comparisons between coupled and uncoupled
simulators for previous examples are given in reference 7.
Single Cell Example
This example illustrates the coupled simulation of a two
phase, single cell model. The initial and boundary conditions
for the geomechanics model are uniaxial, vertical load with
rigid side and bottom boundaries. Thus, a direct comparison
between the coupled reservoir and geomechanics models
should give the same results as the stand alone reservoir
model assuming that the same stressstrain data and hysteresis
logic is used in both the geomechanics model and the reservoir
model.
The overburden pressure was held constant in this run at 9000
psia. The initial reservoir pressure is 7120 psia and the bubble
point pressure is 2000 psia. Initial and connate water
saturations were set equal to .15 and residual oil to water
saturation was equal to .3. Normalized saturation squared
curves
10
were used to calculate relative permeabilities. Other
pertinent data for this example are given in Table 1. The
stressstrain curves for this case are a function of water
saturation and are presented in Figure 3.
This example was produced under primary depletion for the
first 3000 days. Partial pressure maintenance was applied
during the next 2000 days with limited water injection. At
5000 days massive water injection was initiated, repressuring
the cell to approximately 6400 psia prior to blowdown at 7300
days.
Plots of pressure, water saturation, and porosity versus time
for this example as well as the stressstrain path taken during
the run are presented in Figure 4, 5, 6, and 7 for both the
coupled reservoir and geomechanics models and the stand
alone reservoir model. Essentially identical results were
obtained in both simulations. The number of time steps and
iterations for both runs using a fixed 90 day time step were 84
and 86, respectively verifying the robust nature of the coupled
model.
4 L. K. THOMAS, L.Y. CHIN, R.G. PIERSON, AND J. E. SYLTE SPE 77723
Geomechanics Example
A fieldscale, 3D, geomechanical problem was used to study
the parallel computing method developed here. The problem is
a rectangular, parallelepiped with a mesh configuration that is
composed of 50x50x25 (62,500) hexahedral elements. The
problem has a single pointload, which is a function of time,
applied on the top surface of a corner element and the material
modeled in the problem is treated as linear elastic. The
performance of parallel computing for this problem is shown
in Table 2. Speedup is the ratio of the run times between the
parallel run and the singlenode run. Efficiency is defined as
the speedup in terms of the percentage of the number of nodes
used. The results show that a computing efficiency of
approximately fifty percent was accomplished when 16 nodes
on the cluster were used.
Five Spot Example 2Phase
This example is used to illustrate the ability of the coupled
model to simulate a 3D, twophase, layered fivespot with
stress dependent permeability and porosity that is a function of
stress. Data for this example is essentially the same as that
presented in reference 8, with the exception of the
permeability versus stress data which is given in Table 3,
absolute layer permeabilities that were set to 5, 10, 50, 10, 5,
and the nonlinear (plastic deformation) stressstrain
relationships similar to those shown in Figure 3.
The fivespot was produced under primary depletion for the
first five years prior to the initiation of water injection. The
producing well was assigned a maximum total liquid rate of
3000 STB/day and a minimum bottomhole pressure of 2000
psia. The maximum injection rate of each of the water
injection wells was set equal to 1000 bbl/day with a maximum
bottomhole injection pressure of 6000 psia.
Coupled simulations for this example with and without stress
dependent permeability were run. The coupled runs were
made running the geomechanics model on one processor and
on 16 processors in parallel with essentially identical results.
Oil production rate, water cut, and average hydrocarbon
pressure for the stress independent and dependent permeability
runs are shown in Figures 810, respectively. Cumulative oil
production for the stress dependent permeability case was
approximately six percent less than the run with constant layer
permeabilities at 20 years.
In general there were insignificant differences between the
stand alone and coupled runs presented for this example,
however, this is not always the case as was illustrated in
reference 7.
Five Spot Example 3Phase
The purpose of this example is to illustrate, under controlled
conditions, ie. minimal changes in rate, the performance of the
coupled model on a threephase, multilayered fivespot which
is set up to reflect the nature of the complex field example
which is presented next.
The grid for the reservoir model was 11x11x5 and the grid for
the geomechanics model was 11x11x15 with eight layers in
the overburden and two in the underburden. The reservoir is
initially undersaturated with an initial pressure of 7120 psia
and a saturation pressure of 5562 psia. Porosity is constant in
each layer and varies from 32 to 36 percent. Water dependent
stressstrain curves similar to those in Figure 3 were used. A
constant permeability of 40 md was used for all layers with
k
v
/k
h
equal to .1. Layer thickness values are the same as those
used in the previous example.
The production well was produced at a constant liquid rate of
2500 STB/day throughout the run. The bubble point pressure
was reached at approximately 5 years at which time the gasoil
ratio increased rapidly from its undersaturated value of 1530
SCF/STB to over 8000 SCF/STB at 9 years. Water injection
at a rate of 3000 bbl/day per well was introduced at 9.3 years.
Pmax was set to 6700 psia for the injectors.
Plots of hydrocarbon average pressure and gasoil ratio, for
both stand alone and coupled runs (16 processors), are
presented in Figures 11 and 12. Essentially identical results
were obtained. The number of time steps and iterations for the
stand alone and coupled runs were both 253 and 254,
respectively.
Ekofisk Example
The Ekofisk problem was selected to illustrate the application
of the coupled simulations to a large, complex full field
example with a well documented
1417
compaction history. The
field performance includes primary depletion, gas injection,
water injection, and extensive infill drilling. The compaction
mechanisms include pore collapse due to increasing effective
stress levels and water weakening. Due to the complexity of
the field and its history, the stand alone geomechanical and
reservoir simulations themselves have been a challenge.
The primary drive mechanisms during the depletion period
include oil expansion, solution gas drive, compaction drive,
and limited water influx. The field wide gas injection rates are
shown in Figure 13. Oil rate from the start of production in
1971 through 2001 is presented in Figure 14. During this
period the field average GOR increased from below 1500
SCF/STB at initial conditions, to in excess of 9000 SCF/STB
prior to the start of water injection in 1987. The oil rates
declined from a peak of 350,000 BOPD in 1976 to near 70,000
BOPD prior to the start of water injection, with reservoir
pressures below 3500 psia (7120 psia initial) in large portions
of the field.
Fullscale water injection began in late 1987, Figure 15, with
pressure stabilization achieved by late 1993. Despite stable to
increasing reservoir pressures, surface subsidence continued at
the 40 cm/year trend established during the depletion period
SPE 77723 COUPLED GEOMECHANICS AND RESERVOIR SIMULATION 5
until mid 1998, primarily as a result of the water weakening
phenomena. Due to further increases in reservoir pressure and
the expenditure of the water weakening effect, surface
subsidence is now at a relatively modest level approaching 10
cm/year. Production from the field has averaged around
300,000 BOPD the last few years due to a combination of an
efficient waterflood, infill drilling, and installation of new
production facilities, with a producing field GOR below 1100
SCF/STB, and water rates below 80,000 BWPD.
The reservoir model for Ekofisk used in this study is a five
component, compositional model
10
with a 67x41x14 layer
grid. A cell size of approximately 450 feet was used in the
central part of the field. The grid in the geomechanics model
was 67x41x24 elements that consist of the reservoir section
and the overburden, sideburden, and underburden regions.
The mesh configuration and geological description of the
geological section are identical to those of the reservoir model.
The stressstrain relationships of the reservoir rock in Ekofisk
are based on uniaxial data from the laboratory with
adjustments for the natural fracture system (K
0
=.2) in this field
and were modeled with a hypoelastic/hypoplastic
constitutive model. Dry and fully waterweakened stress
strain curves for a range of porosity values were used to
interpolate for strain knowing initial porosity, stress, and water
saturation.
The match of field GOR versus time for Ekofisk using the
coupled model is presented in Figure 16. A similar match of
water cut versus time was obtained. Maximum trapped gas
saturations during repressuring that were used in the history
matching process ranged from 1018 percent and are
consistent with values measured in the laboratory.
This example was simulated using the coupled model with 16
processors for the geomechanics model and took 366 time
steps and 661 iterations in the reservoir model for the
approximately 30 year simulation. Thus, the coupled
procedure performed the simulation in a robust and efficient
manner. The total CPU and elapsed times for the run were
126 minutes and 144 minutes, respectively. These results
indicate that the proposed procedure can be used for analyzing
fieldscale problems that integrate reservoir and geomechanics
simulation.
Discussion
The example cases illustrate several important features of the
coupled reservoir and geomechanics model presented here.
First, the single cell example demonstrates that identical
results should be obtained between a stand alone reservoir
model and the coupled model if a consistent treatment of the
rock stressstrain relationships is employed in the two models.
The second example demonstrates the efficiency of the
geomechanics model run in parallel mode. This efficiency
starts at 100% for one node and decreases quadratically to
approximately 50% with 16 nodes due to the communications
overhead between processors and the efficiency of the domain
decomposition solution algorithm.
The third and fourth examples illustrate the robust nature of
the coupled model on two and three phase fivespot examples
with variable layer properties subject to depletion and
secondary recovery by waterflood. Both of these examples
use stressstrain curves that were a function of water
saturation. The last example demonstrates the successful
application of the coupled model to a difficult full field
simulation. An additional parallel run was made on this field
to compare with scalar coupled results reported previously
7
.
Here the run was made using bilinear stressstrain curves up
to 1988, which is prior to significant water injection. The
elapsed times for the one node and sixteen node, coupled
simulations for this case were 186 minutes and 36 minutes,
respectively.
Based on results from examples 3 and 4 where little difference
was observed between forecasts from stand alone reservoir
simulation and coupled runs, a feature was added to the
coupled model to periodically skip calls to the geomechanics
model for a number of time steps. An Ekofisk field case was
then run where the geomechanics model was only called once
a year during depletion up to midyear 1988. After that time,
the model was run in fully coupled mode. Essentially
identical field results were obtained between this run and the
fully coupled run. The ratio of the elapsed times for these two
runs was .75.
All run times reported in this paper were made on a Beowulf
cluster consisting of 16 dual processor nodes. Each node is a
dual PIII 1.13 Ghz rack mounted PC with 2 Gb memory. The
ratio of run times running only one process on each of the
sixteen nodes versus two processes on each of eight nodes is
approximately .7.
Conclusions
1. A fully coupled procedure has been developed for
integrating reservoir simulation and geomechanics
models using a parallel computing architecture based
on the messagepassing interface (MPI).
2. The procedure is general and can be used with any
reservoir simulation model and geomechanics model.
3. The data exchange interface used in this development
allows usage of the method on any PC with one or
more CPUs, or a cluster of PCs.
4. The parallel computing method developed and
implemented for the geomechanics model removes
the major bottleneck in the coupled model.
5. Simulation results from the example cases included
in this paper indicate that the procedure developed
here can be used to effectively and efficiently analyze
fieldscale, 3D problems of fully coupled
geomechanics and reservoir multiphase flow.
6 L. K. THOMAS, L.Y. CHIN, R.G. PIERSON, AND J. E. SYLTE SPE 77723
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Phillips Petroleum Company
Norway and their PL018 coventurers TotalFinaElf Exploration
Norge A.S., Norsk Agip A/S, Norsk Hydro Produksjon a.s and
Den norske stats oljeselskap a.s, for permission to publish
this paper.
Nomenclature
l
Formation volume factor of phase l
K History dependent tensorial quantity
K
0
Ratio of horizontal to vertical effective stress
p
cgo
Gasoil capillary pressure
p
cwo
Wateroil capillary pressure
p
l
Pressure of phase l
q
l
Volume of stock tank phase l produced per unit of
reservoir volume per unit time
r
s
Oil in gas phase
R
s
Solution gasoil ratio
S
l
Saturation of phase l
t Time
v
s
( )
Symmetric part of the solid velocity gradient
z Depth measured positive downward
Greek
b Body force
Solid strain
v
Volumetric strain of an element
.
Solid strain rate
l
Weight density of phase l
Kronecker delta
l
Transmissibility of phase l
Reservoir simulator porosity
o
Initial porosity
Total mass density
True porosity
Solid effective stress
Subscripts
g Gas phase
o Oil phase
w Water phase
References
1 Sulak, R. M., Thomas, L. K., and Boade, R. R.: 3D Reservoir
Simulation of Ekofisk Compaction Drive, JPT, October 1991,
pp. 12721278.
2 Cook, C.C. and Jewell, S.: Simulation of a North Sea Field
Experiencing Significant Compaction Drive, SPERE, Feb.
1996, 4853.
3 Settari, A. and Mourits, F.M.: A Coupled Reservoir and
Geomechanical Modeling System, SPEJ, September, 1998,
219226.
4 Gutierrez, M. and Lewis, R.W.: The Role of Geomechanics in
Reservoir Simulation, SPE/ISRM 47392, Proc. Eurock 98, 2,
Trondheim, Norway, July 810, 439448.
5 Koutsabeloulis, N.C. and Hope, S.A.: Coupled
Stress/Fluid/Thermal MultiPhase Reservoir Simulation Studies
Incorporating Rock Mechanics, SPE/ISRM 47393, Proc.
SPE/ISRM Eurock 98, 2, Trondheim, Norway, July 810, 449
454.
6 Settari, A. and Walters, D.A.: Advances in Coupled
Geomechanical and Reservoir Modeling With Applications to
Reservoir Compaction, SPE 51927, Proc. The 1999 SPE
Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, Texas, Feb. 1417.
7 Chin, L.Y. and Thomas, L.K.: Fully Coupled Analysis of
Improved Oil Recovery by Reservoir Compaction, SPE 56753,
Proc. The 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Texas, Oct. 36.
8 Chin, L.Y., Thomas, L.K., Sylte, J.E., and Pierson, R.G.:
Iterative Coupled Analysis of Geomechanics and Fluid Flow in
Reservoir Simulation, Oil and Gas Science and Technology
Rev. IFP, Vol. 57 (2002), No. 5, pp. 113.
9 Aziz, K. and Settari, A. (1979) Petroleum Reservoir Simulation,
Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London and New York.
10 Coats, K.H., Thomas, L.K., and Pierson, R.G.: Compositional
and Black Oil Reservoir Simulation, SPE Res. Eval..& Eng.,
August, 1998, 372379.
11 Terzaghi, U. (1943) Theoretical Soil Mechanics, Wiley, New
York.
12 Prevost, J.H. and Chin, L.Y.: A Constitutive Model for
Simulating Reservoir Compaction under a Constrained Stress
Path that Leads to High Shear, Proc. of the 8
th
Int. Conf. on
Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics,
Morgantown, West Virginia, May 2228, 21392144.
13 Gropp, W., Lusk, E., and Skjellum A. (1999) Using MPI:
Portable Parallel Programming with the Message Passing
Interface, 2nd edition. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
14 Sylte, J. E., Thomas, L. K., Rhett, D. W., Bruning, D. D., and
Nagel, N. B., "Water Induced Compaction in the Ekofisk Field,"
Paper 56426, presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical
Conference, Houston, Texas, October 36, 1999.
15 Heugas, O. and Charlez, P.: Mechanical Effect of the Water
Injection on Ekofisk Chalk, Third North Sea Chalk
Symposium, Copenhagen, June, 1990.
16 Maury, V, Piau, J. M. and Halle, G.: Subsidence Induced By
Water Injection In Water Sensitive Reservoir Rocks: The
Example of Ekofisk," Paper SPE 36890, presented at the 1996
European Petroleum Conference, Milan, Italy, 2224 October,
1996.
17 Cook, C. C., Andersen, M. A., Halle, G., Gislefoss, E., and
Bowen, G. R.: Simulating the Effects of WaterInduced
Compacton in a North Sea Reservoir, Paper SPE 37992,
presented at the SPE 14
th
Reservoir Simulation Symposium,
Dallas, Tx., June, 1997.
SPE 77723 COUPLED GEOMECHANICS AND RESERVOIR SIMULATION 7
Table 1 Single Cell Example
Thickness = 230 ft
X = Y = 2000ft
Porosity = .40
Permeability = 30md
Water compressibility = 3.5(10
6
) psi
1
Oil compressibility = 10.0(10
6
) psi
1
Water viscosity = .35 cps
Oil viscosity = .5 cps
Bwi = 1.0 RB/STB
Bo (Psat) = 1.3 RB/STB
Rate Schedule (Pmin = 1000 psia, Pmax = 7500 psia)
Time, days Liq Rate, STB/day Water Inj, bbl/day
03000 3500
30005000 5350 3000
50007300 5350 8000
73007800 5350
Table 2 Parallel Efficiency of Geomechanics Model
No. of
Nodes
Linear
Solver
Elapsed
Time (sec.)
Speedup Efficiency
(%)
1 CG 1828.36 1 100
4 CG 537.16 3.40 85
8 CG 331.60 5.51 69
9 CG 308.11 5.93 66
16 CG 233.08 7.84 49
1 ILUBiCG 1216.67 1 100
4 ILUBiCG 375.50 3.24 81
8 ILUBiCG 239.87 5.07 65
9 ILUBiCG 207.17 5.87 63
16 ILUBiCG 159.36 7.63 48
Table 3 Permeability Factor vs Stress
Stress Permeability Factor
2000 1.00
3000 0.78
4000 0.62
5000 0.51
6000 0.46
7000 0.44
Reservoir
Simulator
Geomechanics
Model
p
0
S
w
0
Reservoir
Simulator
Geomechanics
Model
p
k
S
w
k
Initialization
t
0
=0
t=t
n
dt=t
n
t
n1
n=1,2,3,..
0
, (d/dp)
0
,
(d/dS
w
)
0
k
, (d/dp)
k
,
(d/dS
w
)
k
Newton loop
Converged?
t
n
>=t
max
n=n+1
No
Yes
Stop
Iteration k
k=1,2,..
n
=
k
p
n
=p
k
S
wn
=S
w
k
Reset k=1
Coupled Solution
No
Yes
Figure 1 Flow Chart of the Coupled Analysis
1 2
3 2
5 4
1
Reservoir
simulator
Reservoir
simulator
Geomechanics
model
Parallel Geomechanics model
a
b
Figure 2  Schematic of the Computation Process for the
Iteratively Coupled Analysis
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
0 5 10 15
Axial Strain, %
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
A
x
i
a
l
S
t
r
e
s
s
,
p
s
i
Dry
Wet
Figure 3 StressStrain Curves
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Time, days
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
s
i
a
Stand Alone
Coupled
Figure 4 Single Cell Pressure vs Time
8 L. K. THOMAS, L.Y. CHIN, R.G. PIERSON, AND J. E. SYLTE SPE 77723
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Time, days
W
a
t
e
r
s
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
Stand Alone
Coupled
Figure 5 Single Cell Water Saturation vs Time
0.24
0.26
0.28
0.3
0.32
0.34
0.36
0.38
0.4
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Time, days
P
o
r
o
s
i
t
y
,
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
Stand Alone
Coupled
Figure 6 Single Cell Porosity vs Time
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
0 5 10 15
Axial Strain, percent
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
A
x
i
a
l
S
t
r
e
s
s
,
p
s
i
Sw = 0 left
Sw = .15 m iddle
Sw = .325 right
Geom echanics Run
Coupled Run
Figure 7 Single Cell StressStrain Path
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 5 10 15 20
Time, years
O
i
l
R
a
t
e
,
S
T
B
/
d
a
y
K=f(stress)
Base
Figure 8 5 Spot (2Phase) Oil Rate vs Time
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 5 10 15 20
Time, years
W
a
t
e
r
C
u
t
,
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
K=f(stress)
Base
Figure 9 5 Spot (2Phase) Water Cut vs Time
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
0 5 10 15 20
Time, years
H
y
d
r
o
c
a
r
b
o
n
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
s
i
a
K=f(stress)
Base
Figure 10 5 Spot (2Phase) HC Average Pressure vs Time
SPE 77723 COUPLED GEOMECHANICS AND RESERVOIR SIMULATION 9
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
0 5 10 15 20
Time, years
H
y
d
r
o
c
a
r
b
o
n
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
s
i
a
Coupled
Stand Alone
Figure 11 5 Spot (3Phase) HC Average Pressure vs Time
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
0 5 10 15 20
Time, years
G
a
s

O
i
l
R
a
t
i
o
,
S
C
F
/
S
T
B
Coupled
Stand Alone
Figure 12 5 Spot (3Phase) GasOil Ratio vs Time
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Time, years
G
a
s
I
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
R
a
t
e
,
M
C
F
/
d
a
y
Figure 13 Ekofisk Gas Injection Rate vs Time
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Time, years
O
i
l
R
a
t
e
,
S
T
B
/
d
a
y
Figure 14 Ekofisk Oil Rate vs Time
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Time, years
W
a
t
e
r
I
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
R
a
t
e
,
b
b
l
/
d
a
y
Figure 15 Ekofisk Water Injection Rate vs Time
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Time, years
G
O
R
Coupled Results
M easured Data
Figure 16 Ekofisk GOR vs Time