Abstract
Ensuring quantitative prediction of eroded sand volume is a
major challenge for companies, which seek to conduct
effective sand management. This is particularly a key point for
Cold Heavy Oil Production With Sand.
IFP has been studying the geomechanical aspects of heavy
oil cold production for several years from both the
experimental and theoretical points of view [Deruyter & al.,
1998], [Nauroy J.-F., 1999]. While experimental studies of sand
erosion are mostly based on linear flow through cylindrical
cells [Tremblay & al., 1995], IFP has designed a special
oedometric cell to simulate a radial flow around a well drilled
in an unconsolidated sand reservoir.
The current device allowed to observe two types of erosion
figure under CT-scan, defined as "cavity" or "spread erosion".
Two main key parameters governing erosion have
been identified.
Dimensional analysis shows that CHOPS in situ conditions
should lead to a "cavity" type erosion. Various theoretical
models describing sand erosion and mixed sand/fluids flow
have been investigated. An algorithm allowing to predict the
formation of a cavity has notably been defined and already
validated for a 1D numerical modeling. A 2D numerical
modeling is in progress.
Introduction
Cold Heavy Oil Production With Sand (CHOPS) is one of the
most effective production method for heavy oils located in
unconsolidated reservoirs, e. g. in Athabasca. In some cases of
conventional oil production from poorly consolidated
reservoirs, Sand Management appears to be more profitable
than total Sand Control. The challenge is now to predict, for a
given well, the ratio of eroded sand to produced oil as a
function of reservoir and production parameters.
SPE 86949
This device has been operated since the end of 2001 and
more than 30 tests have been realised.
Axial stress
Sand bed
Well
Reservoir
pressure
SPE 86949
700
13
600
21
23
15
20
28
22
500
Pceff (kPa)
Production phase
The downstream pressure is then progressively decreased
to a given value and a radial flow appears between the
injection sectors and the perforations. Depending on the
hydraulic gradient, confining pressure and relative density, we
do or do not observe sand comings.
When sand comings are observed, we stop the hydraulic
flow by closing the perforations and take new CT-scan
pictures of the sand bed.
We repeat this production phase several times for each test.
Cavity
32
30
31
17
27
400
12
300
11
Spread erosion
200
100
0
Preliminary tests
Sand nature influence
In Canadian reservoirs (e.g. Elk Point), the sand is both
very fine (d50<300 m) and tangled. Dusseault and Van
Domselaar (1982) give a porosity of 30 to 32% for Cold Lake
field and 28 to 34% for Athabasca field. They point out the
high number of concavo-convex contacts, which result of sand
dissolution and recrystallization phenomena [Dusseault &
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
al., 1978].
Test n 27
Weak density area
After the first production phase. After the second production phase.
Fig. 3: Erosion localization (test n 27)
SPE 86949
Initial state
State 1
Water produced: 5 L
State 2
Water produced: 11 L
Final state
Water produced: 17,5 L
Numerical modeling
The mechanisms involved in the erosion of weakly
consolidated sandstone are very complex. They notably
depend on the geomechanical properties of the sand, on the
flow properties of the fluids (oil, water and gas) and on the
nature of the sand/fluid and fluid/fluid interactions. The
modeling aim is to predict sand production rate and its effect
on the oil production rate and the oil recovery ratio.
Three different approaches can be found in the literature:
the development of a cylindrical zone of enhanced
permeability around the well [Dusseault & al., 1994], the
development of wormholes (enhanced permeability channels)
from the well [Tremblay & al., 1999], [Dusseault & al., 1997], or a
homogenized approach considering the development of an
heterogeneous area damaged by sand erosion [Shao & al.,
2002], [Wang & al., 2000].
We chose to distinguish two zones: a zone of intact
reservoir, which has a poroelastic behavior, and a zone of
slurry (mixture of oil and sand), which follows the behavior of
a Poiseuille fluid. No assumption on the geometry of the
boundary between these two zones is made. We then defined
an algorithm, which allows to predict the evolution of the
moving boundary between the two zones. This algorithm has
been successfully programmed with SCILAB for a
1D modeling.
Modeling assumption
The object is first to develop a tool able to predict the
flows of sand and oil during a test in IFP cell. In a second
time, this tool will be transposed to real cases.
This paper deals with a 1D modeling. If we consider an
experimental production phase where sand is coming, the sand
bed could be represented by an external zone of intact sand,
which has a poroelastic behavior, and an internal zone of
slurry (mixture of oil and sand), which follows the behavior of
a Poiseuille fluid (Fig. 6).
"Slurry"
"Intact" sand
P0
First prodution phase
Conclusion
The conducted tests have clarified the link between erosion
schemes, confining pressure and initial relative density.
According to our results, reservoir conditions would lead to
the development of a "cavity", whose geometry will depend on
the reservoir heterogeneity.
All the tests have been made with water. It would then be
interesting to study the influence of the fluid viscosity on the
erosion schemes.
Another key parameter could be the granulometry of
the sand.
P2
x
V(t)
L(t)
P1
SPE 86949
Resolution algorithm
V : slurry velocity
V=ks(P0-P1)/L(t)
[m/s]
v s : skeleton velocity in porous medium
[m/s]
f
Q : filtrationvector in porous medium Q = (v v s )
[m/s]
Mass conservation at the slurry/porous
interface gives:
(v (fL ) L& ) = c(V L& )
for oil
s
(1 )(v ( L ) L& ) = (1 c)(V L& ) for sand
which yields :
medium
L(t)
P0(t0)=P2
V=0
Slurry
Q( L ) + v (sL ) = V
x=H
Hydraulics
Q( L ) + v(sL ) = V
p=P2
Mechanics
xx = P0
=0
Concerned
equation
Diffusion
Mechanical
balance
Constitutive equations
( xx ) + f x = 0
Mechanical balance:
x
The volumetric force, f x = k f (x) has to be introduced
due to the 1D modeling to represent the friction stresses at the
porous medium contour ([kf]=[Pa.m-2]). It will not appear in
the 2D modeling.
2
& =k P
Diffusion equation:
p
x 2
where is the volumetric flow of fluid mass and kp is the
hydraulic conductivity of the porous medium.
Sand behavior:
The intact sand is represented by a brittle poroelastic
medium.
d xx = (0 + 2 )d xx bdP
dP
d = M + b xx
with xx C
where:
0 and are Lame coefficients
b is Biot coefficient (b=1)
M is Biot modulus
Porous
medium
, Q, vs
=0
P2
P( x) = 1
( x) = ( x) + P ( x) = 0
xx
eff
We then drop P1 to zero, while P0 and P2 are kept
unchanged in a first time. The pressure gradient between P0
and P1 induces a displacement velocity in the slurry:
P (t ) P1 (t )
V (t ) = k s 0
with V = V e x .
L(t )
We then run a calculation in the porous medium with these
boundary conditions. It is important to note that the fluid
pressure in the porous medium at the interface slurry/porous
medium is not imposed. This pressure is a result of the
poroelastic calculation in the porous medium and is not a
priori equal to P0. However, at equilibrium, these two
pressures have to be identical. This is ensured through an
iterative calculation, which yields the correct P0(t) value.
The calculation conducted with new boundary conditions
gives new pressure and stress distributions in the porous
medium. Several cases are possible:
The effective stress is in every point lower than the
sand strength. The sand bed is then mechanically
steady and we can skip to the next time step.
There is an area in the porous medium where the
effective stress is higher than the sand strength. The
sand bed is then eroded up to the first encountered
point of this area called xrup. Staying in the same time
step, we run a new calculation with updated boundary
conditions:
interface position: Lnew(t)=L(t)+xrup
slurry pressure at the interface: P0(t)=-(xrup)
P (t ) P1
slurry velocity: V (t ) = k s 0
Lnew (t )
SPE 86949
Main results
The numerical results presented here do not pretend to be
quantitative. The object is only to present a
qualitative behavior.
Steady state
The 1D modeling allows to analytically determine an
asymptotic steady state where pressure and stress no more
depend on time. This steady state is physically admissible if
the maximum effective stress in the sand bed is lower than the
sand strength, that is if:
1
tanh[ AH (1 AL )] 1
Ac AH [1 + ( Ak 1) AL ]
where :
Ak =
kp
ks
; AL =
kf
L
C
; Ac =
; AH = H
H
P
0 + 2
Compression
Traction
Curve obtained with numerical
program (after 4000 time steps)
Production curves
Conclusions
The first results obtained with our sand erosion algorithm are
very encouraging. Indeed, when this algorithm will be
introduced in a 3D finite elements program, we will be able to
predict the flows of sand and oil from only a few classical
fluid and sand characteristics. Note particularly that no
assumption on the geometry of the cavity is required.
The calculations could be improved through more accurate
constitutive laws for the sand, the slurry and the oil, especially
in the case of heavy oil.
A 2D modeling is in progress and its results will be
compared with the tests conducted in IFP cell.
Even if the study has initially been initiated for CHOPS,
the results can be adapted to conduct sand management for
conventional oils.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Total, and especially Philippe
Marchina, for their support on the experimental work and
INRIA, ENPC and the SCILAB Consortium for the
development of this free scientific software.
References
Intact sand
bed
Slurry
Oil Concentration
in the slurry
The model gives at each time step the length of the cavity
and the velocity of the slurry, which allows to determine: the
cumulated oil volume produced at the well, the cumulated
1. Deruyter C., Moulu J.-C., Nauroy J.-F., Renard G., Sarda J.-P.
Bibliographie sur la "Production froide des huiles visqueuses",
ARTEP, 1998.
2. Nauroy, J.F., 1999, "Mcanismes de production massive de sable
dans les huiles lourdes", Rapport IFP n45577.
3. Tremblay, B., Sedgwick, G., and Forshner, K., 1995, "Imaging of
sand production in a horizontal pack by X-ray computed
tomography", SPE 30248.
4. Tremblay B., Sedgwick G. and Forshner K., "Simulation of Cold
Production in Heavy Oil Reservoirs: Wormhole Dynamics",
SPE 35387, 1996.
5. Tremblay B., Sedgwick G. and Don Vu, "CT Imaging of
Wormhole Growth under Solution-gas Drive", SPE
39638, 1998.
6. Tremblay B., Oldakowski K., "Wormhole Growth and interaction
in a large sand pack", SPE 39638, 2002.
7. Cerasi P., "Etude de la croissance dune instabilit drosion dans
un milieu poreux non consolid. Application langiognse",
Thse de luniversit Paris 7-Denis Diderot, 1996.
8. Dusseault M. and Van Domselaar H. "Unconsolidated sand
sampling in canadian and venezuelan oil sands", Heavy Crude
and Tar Sands, 1982.
9. Dusseault M. and Morgerstern N., "Shear strength of Athabasca
oil sands", Canadian Geotechnical Journal 15, 2, 1978.
10. Dusseault M., Dulien F. and Geilikman M., "Sand production as a
viscoplastic granular flow", SPE 27343, 1994.
11. Tremblay B., Yuan J. Y. and Babchin A., "A wormhole network
model of cold production in heavy oil", SPE 54097, 1999.
12. Dusseault M. and Geilikman M., "Dynamics of wormholes and
enhancement of fluid production", 48th An. Tech. Meeting of the
Petroleum Society, 1997.
13. Shao J.F. and Marchina P., "A damage mechanics approach for
the modelling of sand production in heavy oil reservoirs",
SPE/ISRM 78167, 2002.
SPE 86949
14. Wan R.G. and Wang J., "Modelling sand production within a
continuum
mechanics
framework",
CIPC
2000,
Calgary, Alberta.
15. Dormieux L., Bourgeois E., "Introduction la mcanique des
milieux poreux", Presses des Ponts et Chausses, 2002.
Notations
c : oil concentration in the slurry
: porous medium porosity
Q : filtration vector in porous medium (Q= (vf- vs))
[m/s]
f
v : fluid velocity in porous medium
[m/s]
v s : skeleton velocity in porous medium
[m/s]
V : slurry velocity
V=ks(P0-P1)/L(t) [m/s]
ks : hydraulic conductivity in the slurry
[m2Pa-1s-1]
kp : hydraulic conductivity in the porous medium [m2Pa-1s-1]
P1 : well pressure
[Pa]
P2 : reservoir pressure
[Pa]
P0 : slurry pressure at slurry/sand interface
[Pa]
: axial strain
xx : total axial stress
[Pa]
eff : effective axial stress
[Pa]
C : sand strength
[Pa]