Ground Subsidence
U. OF ZULIA
A. FINOL
MARACAIBO, VENEZUELA
S. M. FAROUQ ALI PENNSYLVANIA STATE U.
MEMBERS SPE-AIME UNIVERSITY PARK, PA.
o
:0(em + (1 - )er)~~
] . . . (6)
Differentiating .Eq. 9awith respect to x, Eq. 9b
with respect to y, and Eq. 9c with respect to z,
and adding all three, results in
It should be noted that it is assumed that fluid 2 2-
flow in the reservoir is parallel to the reservoir (A + 2G)V e = (1 - S)V p, . (10)
boundaries with the overburden and the underburden.
Strictly speaking, the boundaries are deforming which reduces to ~2e = 0 for solid bodies. 17
with time, and a curvilinear grid should be used. It Eq. 10 can be written as,
is felt? however, that the error introduced by the
assumption of parallel flow is small. V2e = 2-
c \I p,
rn
. . . . . . . . (11)
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CUMPACTION
AND SUBSIDENCE where em is the compaction coefficient previously
After the local compaction distribution is obtained used and related to the elastic properties of the
for the reservoir rock, the next step is to relate porous medium through
this compaction to the subsidence occurring at the
surface. This can be done on the basis of the c
(1 - s)
m A -1- 2G . . (12)
theory of poroelasticity as developed by
Geertsma. 9,14 The poroelasticity theory considers Eq. 12 can be simplified to Eq. 4 after making
a close"d reservoir separated from the semi-infinite appropriate substitutions. Eq. 11 provides the
surroundings by an impermeable barrier. The interaction between the average pore pressure field
reservoir and the surroundings are assumed to have and the displacement field. Once the dilation caused
uniform, isotropic elastic properties. The elastic by p is calculated, the displacements u x' u y ' and
constants inside and outside the reservoir are U z can be determined by defining the potential <I>
assumed to be constant. Thus, the reservoir of the displacements using Poisson's equation.
boundaries could be regarded as free traction
surfaces.
Briefly, the stress-strain relationship (caused by
\/2t1) = e = c
m
p, . . . . . . (13)
pore pressure distribution) for.a homogeneous and
with the displacements given by
isotropic reservoir is described by
V dcP dcP
0.. 2G[e .. + 1 2V eo .. J - U = --, U = -- and U
1J 1J -- 1J x, dX Y 8y Z
f ~~(~,n,~,t)u*(x,y,z,~,n,~)dv(~,n,~),
The displacements u x ' u y ' and U z were
calculated for a series of strategically located
V y
points to determine the shape of the subsidence
u (x,y,z,t)
z
= bowl and the compaction profiles in the reservoir.
It is important to notice that Eqs. 14 give null
- -;'< lateral displacements only at the boundaries of the
f ~p(~,n,~,t)u (x,y,z,~,n,~)dv(~,n,~),
z . reservoir, while in the solution of the flow
V
equations it was assumed that the lateral
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14) deformation was negligible at every point in the
w"h_er~ t h e. f unctIons.
. u*
x' u * . *
y ' and u z are Green's
reservoir. This is a limitation of the method,
functIons for the dIsplacements. The integration however, taking into account that lateral deforma-
of these functions with respect to the volume in tions would make the solution of the fluid flow
w.hich the pore pressure is reduced, gives the field equations extremely difficult because the shape
dIsplacement in the semispace. These are as of the reservoir is changing with' time, and a
follow s: time-dependent curvilinear grid would be necessary.
The solution procedure described above was
C
~)[ (3 - 4v)
u *
X
m
-(x
41T 3
1 + 3 programmed for an IBM 360/165 computer. The
machine times averaged 0.01 to 0.02 seconds per
R R
1,2,-3
1,2,3, time step per block. The flow diagram of the
program is shown in Fig. 1.
6z(z + ~)l
5 .. ,
R DISCUSSION OF RESUL TS
1,2,-3
Seven specific cases of reservoir compaction and
c (3 - 4v) 1 ground subsidence were studied. The first six of
u*
m
41T(y n)[ 3 + 3 these are hypothetical, while the last one
Y R1,2,3, R1,2,-3 corresponds to an actual oil field in Western
Venezuela. Tables 1 and 2 list the pressure, volume,
6z(z + ~)] and temperature data. and the relative permeability
data used in the simulations.
RS ' The variation of porosity and permeability with
1,2,-3
pressure was taken into account in accordance with
the following relationships:
CASE 3 - EFFECT OF FORMATION THICKNESS The purpose of this case was to simulate
ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN subsidence for two reserVOIrs with identIcal
COMP ACTION AND SUBSIDENCE
production histories and characteristics, but with
Subsidence above compacting reservoirs with different areal extents, to investigate the effect
identical production histories and characteristics, of the latter on the relationship between compaction
but different formation thicknesses, was simulated and subsidence.
in thi s case. As in Cases 2 and 3, the reservoir studied in
As in Case 2, the reservoir of Case 1, with a Case 1, vlith a uniaxial compaction c;oefficient of
uniaxial compaction coefficient of 0.1 x 10-4 psi- 1 0.1 x 10- 4 psi-I, was used as a reference. The
and formation and subsidence bowl profiles second reservoir was identical to the reference
presented in Fig. 3, was used as a reference. The reservoir, except that the reservoir length and
'reservoir studied for this case has a formation width were reduced to 7,071 ft, which is equivalent
thickness of 150 ft. The production rates were to a 50-percent reduction in area. For the reason
one-half to compensate for the difference In gi ven in Case 3, the production rates were reduced
thickness and to obtain the same reservoir to one-half. Fig. 6 shows the formation and
production behavior (the same curve of cumulative subsidence bowl profiles at the end of the sixth
oil production vs average reservoir pressure). year of production.
'Formation and subsidence bow.! profiles for the As illustrated in Figs. 3 and 6, the subsidence
reservoir studied, corresponding to the end of the at the surface above the center of the reservoir
sixth year of production, are gi ven in Fig. 5. decreases by about 27 percent when the area of the
Comparing Figs. 3 and 5, it can be seen that reservoir is reduced by 50 percent of its original
subsidence increases vlith formation thickness, value. However, the reservoir compaction is
although the amounts of reservoir compaction are identical in the two cases. The profiles of the
the same. In effect, the subsidence at the surface formation top and bottom and of the subsidence
above the center of the reservoir decreases by bowl are similar to those for the reference reservoir;
about 44 percent when the formation thickness is however, the uplift of the bottom of the reservoir
reduced by 50 percent of its original value. The increases when the area is decreased.
I- I SURFACE
~
-5ll..
SURFACE
TOP
SURFACE
TOP
BOTTOM
80 TOM
FIG. 4 - FORMATION AND SUBSIDENCE BOWL PRO- FIG. 6 - FORMATION AND SUBSIDENCE BOWL PRO-
FILES FOlX THE RESERVOIR OF CASE 2. FILES FOR THE RESERVOIR OF CASE 4.
FIG. 7 - INFLUENCE OF GAS INJECTION ON RE- Block sizes in both x and y directions, ft: 400.0,300.0,200.0,
SERVOIR COMPACTION BEHAVIOR. 150.0, 100.0, 150.0, 200.0, 300.0, 400.0
V ~
production di vided by the number of producing
V
./ L 'Nell s in the field .
Nineteen years of production history were
(v
~
~ simulated on the basis of the data discussed in the
preceding paragraphs. Even though it is usual to
vary porosity and permeability in a history match,
the only parameter varied in this study was the
uniaxial compaction coefficient; it was varied
R
@ I because of its importance in the production
behavior of compacting' reservoirs, as discussed
R
@
R,
t for Case 1. Different values of the compaction
coefficient were used for different pressure ranges,
0
<\J 1
V
LO
~ .
/ r ~ ~o ~ t'......
1)150 220 25CJ'..t-.
140
140
120
175
150
250 250 200
160
150"
150
1\
\\
I'
10
l
'"
f()
V~ 140 120 150 170 170 140 140 /65 /30,
r'\. .-. \
~D
\
SCALE . 155 160 /30 130 175 160
1\5
I INC/-I : 5250 FEET 1\'-.../
FIG. 8 - TWO-DIMENSIONAL DESCRIPTION OF THE FIG. 9 - THICKNESS DISTRIBUTION USED IN THE
RESERVOIR OF CASE 7 (HISTORY MATCH). SIMULATION OF CASE 7 (HISTORY MATCH).
HORIZONTAL SCALE
(;j I INCH: 4750 FEET
Qaoo .......
~~
~600
0::
~
~
~400
~
-- --
_ _ _ ACTUAL PRODUCTION BEHAVIOR
~
<;{200
_ _ _ _ _ SIMULATED PRODUCTION BEHAVIOR
- - - OBSERVED SUBSIDENCE
";'~
1 d - Do
1 D(i1z) = c 12 zz
5. 6-15 ~t(xloCoSo
Q./5.615 + Dt mDt = -cm---n:t ... (A.-6)
1 a ,(.. ,(.. -c 6z
x C S + x. C S ). .. . . (A-I) Because the rate of change of thickness, ~z,
iw w w 19 g g also gi ves the rate of change of volume, ~x~y~z,
In the case where the matrix is moving at some the right side of Eq. A-6 is equal to the divergence
microscopic velocity vr with respect to a fixed of the rock matrix velocity. Thus,
point, the macroscopic velocity of the fluid with
dV
respect to the same fixed point is r 1 D(i1z) . . . (A-7)
\J V
a;-
r 6z Dt
V
f
+ SfVr ' . . . . . . . . (A-2)
or, substituting Eq. A-6 in Eq. A-7,
where v / is the fluid veloci ty gi ven by Darcy's
equation and S/vr is the velocity of the fluid dV -
moving with the rock matrix. r C 12'
' . . . . . . . . . (A-B)
Expanding Eq. A-I, and incorporating Eq. A-2 dZ mDt
and the following differential operator, where p is either the average pore pressure or the
pressure of any phase neglecting capillary pressure
effects.
The term D/Dt can be evaluated by considering
into the expanded equation, gi ves: the continuity equation of the rock matrix material,
which is
kk kk
V (x oC o r&;po+ X. C ~\7p + d d
i-c -c ~ -c lW W llw w -'(v P (1 - ))
dZ r r
=- -;-t(P (l - )).
0 r
"J~
kk Q. . . ., (.'\.-9)
x C --E&Vp ) +
ig g llg g
5.~15 Expanding and introducing the definition of rock
matrix compressibility, gi ven as the unit change in
rock matrix density per unit change in pore
1 [rJ?.-( C S + X C S + x. C S )
5.615 ~Dt Xit t t iw w w 19 g g pressure, results in the following expression.
- dV
+ (XitCtSt + x.lWCWSw + x.19 Cg Sg ) l!!
D l!! = (1 - )c Dp + (1 _ ) ~.
t Dt rDt dZ
dV . . . . . . . . . . . (A-IO)
r
+ ep(xitCtSt+ x.lWCWSw + x.19 Cg Sg )-8-].
z Substitution of Eqs. A'-8 and i\.-IO 1n Eq. A- 3
g1ves
. . (A- 3)
kk kk
V ~ (x C rf ~ + x. C --I!!..D +
The term dV r / dz can be evaluated by considering il l ]J;\7pl lW W ]Jw vpw
an interior point in the moving porous medium. 16
The weight of the overburden material above this kk C)'J~
interior point remains constant and is supported by
the average pore pressure p and the intergranular
x. C --E&Vp ) +
19 g llg g
.5.~~5
stress azz' acting on the rock matrix at that point.
That is, the overburden pressure is equal to
p + ~z' and because it remains constant, the 5.~15[~(XilClSl + xiwCwS w + XigCgS g )
following expression results:
Dcr
Dp = - - zz
- . . (A-4)
Dt Dt ' -
where the differential operator is used, since the
(c + (1 - ) c )12] ~
m r Dt
rock matrix is moving as a result of compaction.
. . . . . . (A-II)
The relative change in the thickness of the
elemental volume, Az, is given by Eg. 1 as, The differential operator in Eqs. A-3, A-8, and
_
. .. \-10 can be approximated by Ole partial derivatives
d(_'~_z)
~Z
= c dp
TIl'
(A-5) with respect to time if' v r is neglected; however,
the same approximation can be obtained by