See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254512457

Coupled Reservoir-Geomechanics Model With

Sand Erosion for Sand Rate and Enhanced
Production Prediction

Conference Paper · February 2002

DOI: 10.2118/73738-MS

CITATIONS READS

10 68

2 authors:

Yarlong Wang Xue Shifeng

Petro-geotech inc China University of Petroleum, China, Huadong
78 PUBLICATIONS 544 CITATIONS 3 PUBLICATIONS 13 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

1.in situ stress perturbation near faults and their impacts on hydraulic fracturing. 2. Two phase flow
coupled with geomechanics ivy a dual porosity model in fractured reservoirs. 3. Stress distribution near a
hydraulic fracture and SRV evaluation. 4 fracture propagation with plasticity and impacts on fracture
geometry and productivity. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yarlong Wang on 31 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE 73738
Coupled Reservoir-Geomechanics Model With Sand Erosion for Sand Rate and
Enhanced Production Prediction
Yarlong Wang and Shifeng Xue, SPE, Petro-Geotech Inc.
Copyright 2002, Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition
on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, 20–21 February 2002.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
A fully coupled reservoir-geomechanics model is
developed to simulate the enhanced production
phenomena both in heavy-oil reservoirs (i.e.
Northwestern Canada) and conventional oil reservoirs
(i.e. North Sea). The model is implemented numerically
by fully coupling an extended geomechanics model to a
two-phase reservoir flow model. A sand erosion model
is postulated after the onset of sand production, which is
determined based on the degree of plastic deformation
inside the reservoir formation calculated by the coupled
reservoir-geomechanics model. Both the enhanced
production and the ranges of the enhanced or sanding
zone are calculated, the effect of solid production on oil
recovery and enhancement are analyzed. Field data for
solid production and enhanced oil production from Frog
Lake (Lloydminster, Canada) are used to validate the
model for the sand rate and sand production. Our studies
indicate that the enhanced oil production can be
contributed by either (1) the a large-scale reservoir
formation mobility improvement, (i.e. wormhole type
model), by (2) a higher fluid velocity due to the
movement of the sand particles according to the
modified Darcy’s flow, or by (3) an effective well radius
increase or negative skin development due to sand
erosion if formation does not permit an extensive
erosional zone. Such an improvement on productivity
reduces the near well pressure gradient so that the
sanding potential is weakened, but permits an easier path
for oil to flow into the well due to an enhanced
permeability. Two-phase flow can affect pressure
gradient and formation residual cohesion due to capillary
pressure buildup. Indirectly, production enhancement
strategy can be controlled by the water saturation
distribution and development, as the success and
economic value of a field operation can depend on if
sand production can be induced or not. Such an analogy
can also be used for a completion strategy by allowing a
certain amount of sand production before gravel pack in
high flow-rate reservoir.
Introduction
Sand production is a phenomenon that occurs during
aggressive production induced by the in-situ stress
concentration near a wellbore and perforation tips in
poorly cemented formations. Such a solid production
compromises oil production, increases completion costs,
and reduces the life cycles of equipment down hole and on
the surface. Sand production has been a major concern to
production engineers for decades, either in poorly
consolidated reservoirs or from those formation with
cement. These sanding effects often are associated with
high production rates, and the issue is becoming more
critical these days as operators are following more
aggressive production schedules. Sand production, on the
other hand, has been proven a most effective way to
increase well productivity both in heavy oil and light oil
reservoirs1,7 . A typical 4-10 fold increase in oil production
is normal in heavy oil reservoirs (Cold Production) 1,6 , and
up to a 44% increase in sand-free rate after a certain
amount of sand production in conventional oil reservoirs
has been reported8,9 . For conventional oil producers, both
enhanced production and improved sand-free rate are
highly desirable. Whereas for the heavy crude operators,
other than the improved productivity, operating cost
reduction is vital for a profitable operation, because the
price margin between heavy oil and light oil is high (this is
2 WANG AND XUE
particularly important for cold production operators in
northwestern Canada). The costs associated with such an
operation are usually a result of high work-over frequency,
short PC-pump life, sand disposal vs. potential
enhancement, in-filled drilling costs, pump down-time,
and production decline after well shut-in, etc. In attempt to
maximize oil production and minimize costs during cold
production, operators depend on experience and empirical
models to evaluate cold production performance because
of the complex nature of the fluid/solid slurry flow
processes involved. A quantitative model will allow
producers to understand this unique production process,
evaluate the impact of sand production on reservoir
enhancement, and provide an efficient tool to reduce
unnecessary costs during the field operations.
Models in a continuum framework with a moving
boundary were proposed for cold flow production
studies10-13. Material balance of solid is established on the
sanding zone interface. Wormhole model is also proposed
for heavy-oil flow 13-15 . Considered informative for history
match, a model as such has many shortcomings for the
field design when predictability becomes important. These
wormhole models share a common drawback when
wormhole geometry related parameters are key to the
simulation. These parameters are very difficult to define
and estimate, if not impossible either in the field or
through experiments. The final results, analysis and
conclusions can be mainly manipulated through our desire
to match a field data by determining these undefined
wormhole parameters. A field calibration is always
required and yet multiple parameters are required to be
calibrated. Another issue surfaced using this wormhole
model is that the postulation of wormhole network existing
inside reservoir formation remains controversial.
Particularly when sand production in relatively
consolidated formation such as North Sea is concerned. In-
situ stress and geomechanics behaviors under the latter
circumstances can dominate the sanding and the
corresponding enhanced oil production processes. A fully
coupled reservoir-geomechanics model thus seems more
attractive.
A formulation by Vardoulakis et al., on sand erosion16 , is
based on fundamental fluid/solid transport process for
predicting the volumetric sand rate in a continuum
framework. A coupled geomechanics model with a single -
phase steady-state flow was also developed including the
sand erosion model. This model is reported to generate
informative and encouraging results for conventional oil
reservoirs,8,9 . Such an approach is an interesting alternative
for sand rate prediction, in which a key measurable
parameter, i.e. formation erosion parameter reflecting the
SPE 73738
competent of a rock formation to the seepage force, can be
defined and used for prediction purposes.
To enhance the capability of such an erosion model in
multiphase flow conditions, a fully coupled reservoir-
geomechanics model has been developed. This
development is also supported by the experimental testing
results indicating that water/oil saturation can have
significant effects on sanding and sand rate. In a recent
report17 , critical water saturations were found for the onset
of sand production, i.e. Sw = 20-25%, and massive
sanding, i.e. Sw = 32-35% subject to a fixed external
confining stress, i.e. σe = 13.8 MPa.
The proposed model herein is developed by coupling a
two-phase flow model with solution gas behavior to an
elastoplastic geomechanics model with dilation and
erosion. A finite element method is employed together
with a simultaneous solution (SS) strategy. Specifically, a
classic and comprehensive geomechanics model fully
coupled to a two-phase flow is utilized before a critical
shear strain is exceeded. Thereafter, an erosion model,
describing time-dependent porosity change and formation
erosion after the onset of sand production, is incorporated
with a reservoir geomechanics formulation. A constitutive
relationship on porosity evolution, i.e. solid mass
proportional to porosity, slurry flow rate, and an erosion
parameter, is implemented, which has been demonstrated
to be representative either in poorly consolidated
reservoirs (northwestern Canada type)18 or cemented
sandstone reservoirs (i.e. North Sea Type)8,9 . For the newly
proposed model, only additional input parameter, the
erosion parameter, is introduced as one of the key coupling
points between the erosion model and the geomechanics
model.
A continuum mechanics approach is used in our
calculation. Rather than characterizing each random
possible wormhole proposed13-15 , we impose a
homogeneous medium with an average permeability to
make the numerical solutions manageable. The
wormholes or geomechanical dilation zone can be
represented by a higher permeability region in the plastic
yielding zone due to porosity enhancement19 , and solid
flow is considered as a continuous moving phase along
the transient multiphase fluid flow.
Coupled Two-Phase Flow and Geomechanics
Formulation
Basic Formulation: In general, to define deformation
and coupled fluid flow through stresses, strains and
pressure gradient, three primary variables are of interest:
SPE 73738 FULLY COUPLED RESERV OIR-GEOMECHANICS MODEL WITH EROSION FOR SAND RATE PREDICTION
formation volumetric strain, wetting phase pore pressure,
and wetting phase saturation. A fully coupled
formulation containing the three variables has been
presented to simulate a formation compaction problem20 .
The solid displacement and three pressures are identified
as the primary variables, whereas the saturation is
treated as intermediate variables. Earlier, Lewis et al. 21
also considered a coupled two-phase flow problem,
assuming a linear elastic deformation. Similarly Li et
al. 22 studied a two-phase flow problem, in which the
primary variables are displacement, wetting phase
pressure, and saturation. Following several previous
solution strategies22,23,24, we define the skeleton
displacement, wetting phase pressure, and wetting phase
saturation as the primary unknowns. To simplify the
computational procedure, the calculation of saturation
can be decoupled from those pressure and deformation
in a simultaneous manner, but still coupled to the
pressure and deformation iteratively. Such a
simplification is used so that we can take advantage of
the well-defined coupled formulation for single -phase
flow. The computational pr ocedure may be summarized
as following:
I. We calculate the displacement and wetting
phase pore pressure with an initial saturation;
II. The saturation can be calculated using the newly
calculated pore pressure and displacements;
III. The saturation-dependent reservoir properties
such as relative permeability and fluid
compressibilities are modified; and
IV. The pore pressure and the skeleton deformation
are calculated again with the new reservoir
properties for the next time step.
We are simulating a three-phase situation but with only
two mobile phases, i.e. water and oil phases. The pore
pressure changes respond to either pore volume change
or/and boundary loading conditions. The gas saturation
in the oil phase may not change initially above the
bubble point. Below a bubble point, free gases may be
released from the oil phase, forming the so-called
solution-gas phase (foamy oil) with a higher
compressibility for the oil-gas mixture. The saturation of
each component (oil or gas) in the solution-gas phase is
changing with reservoir pressure in the foamy zone,
which is presented in Tables for heavy oil25 . This oil and
gas ratio change inside the foamy phase under bubble
point pressure does not change the relative permeability
of the foamy oil phase, nor it will change the nature of
the water/oil two-phase flow, as they remains as a single
3
phase flow. The relative permeability is postulated to
change with water/oil ratio only. If a light oil reservoir is
considered, the dissolved gas may be separated from the
oil phase simultaneously. Our model can still be
generally used to simulate a water/oil two-phase flow, in
which no consideration for the solution-gas flow is
required. Considering a process in which the water phase
in the near well formation is the wetting phase, water
saturation may gradually increase during production.
The rising wetting phase saturation reduces the relative
permeability and mobility of the oil phase, which
requires a pressure gradient increase if the same level oil
production be maintained. Such an increase in pressure
gradient, which participates the force balance in the
mechanical equilibrium equations, may increase the risk
on sand production. Such a pressure gradient increase,
however, provides an important driving energy for slurry
sand to flow toward the production well during the cold
flow oil production.
Fully Coupled Two-Phase Flow: The solid velocity,
which is linked to the time-dependent volumetric
deformation of the reservoir formation, is usually not
negligible near a wellbore or perforation tunnels.
Significant error either on the pore pressure and
deformation calculations can be induced if such a
component is removed from the coupled formation26,27.
Producing oil from poorly consolidated reservoirs when
a large skeleton deformation is expected, the
contribution of the solid velocity to the coupled flow
system must be included.
Water/oil Phase Flow: For an oil/water two-phase flow,
an expansion of fluid mass balance equation gives19,24:
∂ε v ∂p
S wα + [C wφS w + (α − φ )C s S w ] w
∂t ∂t
k  R
= ∇  rw {k}(∇p w + ρ w g ) + w
 µw  ρw
∂ε v ∂p
S oα + [C o φS o + (α − φ )C s S o ] o (1)
∂t ∂t
k  R
= ∇  ro {k}(∇p o + ρ o g ) + o
 µo  ρo
For two-phase oil/water flow, we can define
Sw + So = 1 (2)
A combined expression for water and oil phase flow
leads to19,24
4 WANG AND XUE SPE 73738

∂εv ∂p or explicitly in term of volumetric strain as:

− ∇[λ{k }(∇p + ρg )] = o + w
R R
α +C (3)
∂t ∂t ρo ρw 3 1 − 2ν 1  2 1 ∂ε v   C s  ∂p
2 1 + ν Cb ∇ u + 1 − 2ν ∂t  = 1 − C  (12)
where p can be considered as an average pore pressure,    b  ∂t
i.e. Equations (2) and (12) can be solved simultaneously for
skeleton deformation and pore pressure at a given
p = pw S w + po S o (4) saturation. Within each time increment, if the saturation
is defined, a complete solution can be obtained. We
or the wetting phase pressure assuming the capillary emphasize here that, equations (2) and (12) have similar
pressure is negligible. The other parameters are defined format as those in a coupled single -phase flow, which is
as: plausible as we could use those well established
C = [C w S w + C o S o ]φ + (α − φ )C s algorithms for a single phase flow to achieve efficient
solutions, while saturation treated as a known variable at
k ro k each time increment. One assumption made above is that
ρ = λw ρw + λo ρo = ρo + ρw rw the capillary pressure is very small comparing to the
µo µw (5)
total pore pressures, which allows us to assume the
k ro k pressures in the oil and water phase equal. This can only
λ= + rw be applicable when reservoir pressure is high, may
µo µw trigger discrepancy near a wellbore when the bottom
k k rw hole pressure is extremely low.
λo λ = ro ; λw λ = λw + λo = 1 Fluid Saturations: Further rearranging equation (1), we
µo µw ;
have:
In Equation (3), absolute permeability and porosity are
∂ ( S w ρ w ) 1 ∂φ ∂ε v
functions of the deformation. The permeability change is +[ + ](S w ρ w ) = Fs (13)
defined by an equation based on the Kozeny-Poiseuille ∂t φ ∂t ∂t
correlation25 : where Fs denotes to the updated reservoir properties and
defined unknowns in the previous time step:
k (1 + εv / φ0 ) 3  k 
= (6) Fs = ∇ ρ w rw {k}(∇p + ρ w g ) + Rw . (14)
k0 1 + εv
 µw 
Similar expression, Carmen-Kozeny, Combining (12) and (13) with equation (2), saturation
can be solved in an explicit manner, leading to a
k φ3 complete solution for wetting phase pressure, solid
= (7)
k 0 (1 − φ) 2 displacement and saturation.
Coupling Parameters : The fluid compressibility term
can also be alternatively used8,9,6,, in which the subscript C for single phase has been defined as :
28

0 denotes to the initial states. 9 µ(νu − ν )(1 − 2νu )

Solid Phase Flow: The equilibrium equations: C= = φC f + (α − φ)C s (15)
σij , j + F j = 0 (8) 2GB 2 k (1 − 2ν )(1 + νu )
The compressibility in a two-phase mixture is defined in
The displacement-strain geometrical relationship Equation (5) and that for a foamy-oil with three phases,
1  ∂u i ∂u j  i.e. water, oil, and gas, can further be defined as19,24:
εij = +  (9)
2  ∂x j ∂x i 
 [ ]
C = C w S w + (C o S o + C g S g ) φ + (α − φ )C s (16)
and constitutive Biot’s poroelastic theory where S o = S g + S o , in which over bared saturation
2Gεij = σij − νσkk δij + α(1 − 2ν) pδij (10) denotes to oil component in solution-gas phase below
Combining the stress-strian-displacement relationship, bubble point, and ν, G, B are Poisson’s ratio, shear
the equilibrium equation for solid deformation can be modulus, and Skempton constant28 .
written in term of displacement and pore pressure as 26-28 : Considering a simple two-phase system with water and
G oil, the gas-phase flow is assumed insignificant for a
G∇ 2 u i + u k , ki − α p, i = 0 (11) conventional oil case, but is defined as part of the foamy
1 − 2ν oil flow in heavy-oil reservoirs. It is noted that the gas
SPE 73738 FULLY COUPLED RESERV OIR-GEOMECHANICS MODEL WITH EROSION FOR SAND RATE PREDICTION 5

saturation in the latter case affects foamy oil recurrence relation29 :

compressibility and oil density, not the foamy oil M s C  u 
relative permeability before the critical gas saturation is  T Ät  1 
reached. The foamy oil flow has been considered one of  C − M + C  p1 
 
f
key driving mechanisms in heavy-oil production when 2 (19)
dissolved gases existing inside the oil diffuse out of the - M s -C  u  2 F 
oil into free gas phase below bubble point pressure1 . =  T Ät  0  +  
These gases remain in a discontinuous phase, forming a  C M + C  p 0   0 
 
f
unique type of the oil, which makes the solution-gas 2
phase more compressible. The introduction of the foamy
oil flow with three phases does not change the remaining Deformation in porous media may not be always
process of the fluid flow as a two-phase flow, as the recoverable. A plastic yielding state is defined after the
entrained free gas is assumed to be discontinuous below onset of this irrecoverable deformation. A plastic
a critical gas saturation. yielding surface is often assumed to separates two stress
In viscous heavy oil, a much larger critical gas saturation or strain states, elastic and plastic (irrecoverable strains).
is required before a continuous gas phase can be The incremental plastic flow rule is introduced in next
established. This phenomenon can justify the procedure section.
used in this study to simulate the three-phase system by Once the pressure and formation skeleton displacement
the two-phase flow system. Once the critical gas are defined, the saturation change can be subsequently
saturation is exceeded, the correlation between obtained in an explicit procedure by considering (13):
saturation and relative permeability must be defined. A
fully coupled three-phase flow following the similar
procedure above is required, which is beyond the scope
[M] Sw
t
[ ]
+ W S w = Fs (20)
of this article.
Numerical Discretization: Now the coupled formulation where M is a function of porosity change within each
system i.e. Equation (2) and (12) is ready to be solved element, and W contains terms of displacement and
and a discretized coupled formulation is written as: pore pressure rate in the previous time variable, and Fs
M s u + Cp = F (17) is defined by the known source and flow terms on the
∂u ∂p boundary surface.
CT − M fp +C =0
∂t ∂t Elastoplastic Yielding and Flow: In reservoirs with
high porosity and poor cement, the volumetric strains or
where u is the displacement vector, p is the wetting displacements in the equilibrium equation, i.e. in
phase pore pressure, M is the stiffness matrix, C the equation (11) should be used only incrementally, as they
are often related to the external loading in a nonlinear
coupling matrix, and C the matrix characterizing the
fluid compressibility, and subscripts f and s for fluid and manner. Typically such a relation is loading history-
solid, respectively. dependent in porous geo-materials. This is because only
To integrate equation (17) with respect to time there are a limited loading can be sustained on most geomaterials
again many methods available, but we consider only the before irrecoverable deformation is generated and
unloading does not follow the same loading path. Such a
Crank-Nicholson method to further discretize the
equation as29 : limited loading condition in geomaterials is often
defined by a Mohr-Coulomb criterion. The equation for
ω M s u 1 + ω C p 1 = (ω − 1) M s u 0 the Mohr-Coulomb surface is expressed as29
+ (ω − 1) C p 0 + F (18) σ1' + σ3' σ ' + σ3'
F= sin Φ − 1 sin Φ − c cos Φ (21)
ωCT u 1 − ω2 ∆t M f p1 + ωC p1 = ω C T u 0 2 2
+ ϖC p 0 − ω (ω − 1) ∆t M f p 0 which, when rewritten in terms of invariance, becomes
provided that the body force F is independent of time or
J1 sin θ sin Φ
the above formulation is incremental. In the Crank- F= sin Φ + J 2 (cos θ − )
Nicholson type of approximation, ω, ranging between 0 3 3
to 1, is made equal to ½ in the above, leading to the − c • cos Φ (22)
6 WANG AND XUE SPE 73738

where the Lode angle Sand Erosion: During production, especially in a poorly
consolidated reservoir, loose sand particles can be
−3 3 J  π π
θ =
1  3  − ≤ θ ≤ (23) removed from the body of the consolidated reservoir
arcsin  
3 3/2 6 6 carried into the production well. This sanding zone may
 2 J
2 
initiate near the wellbore or through perforation tunnels
and and propagate into the reservoir. The above formulation
describes the plastic flow before onset of sand
J1 = σ11 + σ22 + σ33 production and beyond the fluidized slurry zone once
sand erosion initiates. Within this slurry erosion zone,
1
J 2 = [(σ11 − σ22 ) 2 + (σ33 − σ22 ) 2 + (σ11 − σ33 ) 2 ] the slurry transport can be described as following8,9,16:
6
Continuity equation for solids:
J 3 = σ11σ22σ33 ∂φ m&
= + (1 − φ)εv (28)
Plastic flow follows a similar equation as the Mohr- ∂t ρs
Coulomb yielding criterion: Continuity equation for the fluidized slurry:
& [Ω φ]
+ (Ωq i ),i
m
J sin θ sin ψ = (29)
Q = 1 sin ψ + J 2 (cos θ − ) ρs t
3 3 Eroded and generated solid mass constitutive law:
− c • cosψ (24)
φ& = λ (1 − φ ) Ω qiqi (30)
where ψ is defined as the angle of dilation. In practice, where Ω is the solid concentration and Kozeny-
ψ is considered equal to the internal friction angle, Φ Poiseuille permeability law defined in (6) is also used.
(fully associated flow), less than Φ (non-associated The cpntinuity condition between the slurry zone and the
flow) or equal to zero (flow with no plastic volume plastic zone must be defined to solve the problem. The
change). slurry zone is restricted whinin the plastic zone and
During a plastic deformation, the incremental stress- boundary lies in the location where a critical plastic
strain relationship after a plastic yielding is decomposed strain is exceeded. An emipirical relationship between
into: cohesion and porosity is also imposed. Parameter λ is
intorudced to characterize the erosion related formation
dε = dε p + dεe (25) damage process, which takes a dimension of [1/L],
defined as8 :
with the plastic increments being given by the flow rule:
 0
∂Q 
λ(γ ) = λmin ( λ − λppeak )
p p
dε p = κ (26)
∂σ' 
 λmax
Note that a general expression for the plastic flow is
written in Equation (24), the plastic potential function Q if γ ≤ γ peak
p

however can be defined as a plastic yielding function if γ peak

p
≤ γ ≤ γ peak
p
+ λmax / λmin
(i.e. Q = F), giving an associated plastic flow condition.
if γ peak + λmax / λmin ≤ γ
p
The onset of sand production is defined when the
following criterion for the effective plastic strain, εep , is Typical values for λ max and λmin are 5x104 and 75 m-1 .
The erosion zone is determined by either the shear or
satisfied:
volumetric plastic strain.

[ ]
2 p 2
εep = a0 + a1 J1 = (ε ) + (ε22p ) 2 + (ε33p ) 2
3 11
and typical data a0 = 0.02 and a1 = 0.008 have been
suggested for sand production, if the compression is
taken positive 30,31. A single value 1.1062% for the
effective shear strain was also used8 .
Sand Production and Reservoir Enhancement: Once
(27) the reservoir formations plastically yield, loose sand
particles can be generated. Sand production has been
postulated as a critical condition when the effective
radial stress reaches the tensile strength32 . Such a
condition however is replaced here by a criterion based
on a critical plastic strain 8,30,31. We can use both models
SPE 73738 FULLY COUPLED RESERV OIR-GEOMECHANICS MODEL WITH EROSION FOR SAND RATE PREDICTION
to evaluate the onset of sand production in our numerical
model. Either high permeability channels or a large
porosity zone can be hypothesized generated adjacent to
a well, a porosity increase or reservoir improvement can
be achieved once sand production initiates. In the field,
besides the geomechanical factors, the for mation natural
cement and its geological characteristics may also affect
sand production. We emphasize that for engineering
design purpose, however, we normally idealize the field
conditions and impose various restricted conditions in
order to develop the numerical or analytical solutions.
By these solutions, we can describe the degree of the
formation disturbance and correlate the radius of the
disturbance zone to those conditions such as sand
production initiation and cumulative sand production.
We also must point out that for a successful cold flow
production operation in the field, we may rely on sand
production for more oil production, a prediction on the
incipience of sand production thus is extremely vital
along with sand rate prediction.
Simulation Results and Discussion
One of main objectives in this article is attempting to study
the mechanisms of sand erosion in a multiphase-flow
environment. In addition to formation deformation, pore
fluid pressure is identified as a key parameter for sand
erosion, production, and expected to reflect with the
multiphase flow condition. The dilatant deformation,
however, seems to dominate the pressure change near the
wellbore inside the sand erosion zone. The critical
behavior such as pressure gradient is apparently dominated
by the empirical correlation between permeability and
porosity. Using the Carman-Kezony law, a flat pressure
gradient is produced, whereas the pressure gradient is
relatively sharp by the alternative choice of Kozeny-
Poiseuille correlation, where BHP = 4, 2.5 0.5 MPa
correspond to production time of 60, 75, and 100 Days
(Figure 1). No attempt was made to investigate the
intrinsic behavior of porosity-permeability change in
poorly consolidated formation in our study. This
simulation results seem to suggest that the predictability of
our proposed model can critically depend on the intrinsic
correlation. Therefore a specific study on this aspect for
the reservoir simulated is recommended. The porosity-
permeability changes near a wellbore is also calculated
(Figure 2). Using the Kozeny-Poiseuille law and input
parameters described in Tables 1-3, a field condition in the
Northwestern Canada is simulated. Figure 3 shows the
sand rate and cumulative production with production time.
A unrealistic pay zone thickness is used to generate a sand
rate and production which represent the same level of
7
those in the field. A simulation using a residual cohesion
of 0.01 MPa can bring a plastic zone more than 40 times of
the wellbore radius, permits similar results for sand rate
and production with a reasonable pay zone thickness, i.e. 5
meter (Figure 7). Despite our simulation can mimic the
general trend of the field performance, it must be pointed
out that the production mechanism is quite different from
those published previsously 13-15 . In the latter case, a
wormhole network is postulated inside the reservoir
formation. Whereas the enhanced production in our current
discussion is triggered by an uniform (tangential) and
gradual (radial) permeability increase, similar to those in
North Sea studied by Papamichos et al. 8,9 . This may not
help to clarify the issue of whether the enhanced
production in Western Canada is dominated by wormhole
or a large plastic dilatant zone, the proposed model is more
practical as it requires only one addition input parameter,
the sand production parameter, which can also be
measured experimentally. The disadvantage for a
wormhole model is that the geometrical parameters of
wormhole and its network can be difficult to define, and
such a difficulty weakens severely the applicability and
predictability of such a model, i.e. a calibration by
comparing with field production condition or experimental
test is required before the model can be used, and yet such
a calibration can be compromised by the fact that either the
field condition can be randomly selected or the
experimental testing condition may not rigorously
represent the field conditions where applied. Figure 4
shows the water saturation increase near a wellbore due to
production, plastic deformation and sand erosion, which
can further enhance additional sand production, either due
to capillary pressure loss or a residual cement chemical
weakening due to water-rock interactions. Figure 5 shows
the stresses and strains distribution near a wellbore
reflecting the critical conditions of plastic yielding,
sanding, and post-sanding conditions. No major change of
stresses and deformation can be found based on the
postulated model. Such an observation suggests that the
observed enhanced sand production correlating to a high
water cut can be mainly due to either water-rock
interaction on their cementing strength or capillary
pressure loss after the water invasion. Finally the sanding
zone propagation is illustrated in Figure 6, and a critical
volumetric plastic strain of 1.1% is used to define the onset
of sand production.
A constitutive law describing sand erosion is used in this
study. A modified erosion law without introducing the
sand concentration was also proposed33 . A much smaller
erosion parameter is measured and used in the simulation.
Such an improvement can simplify the numerical problem
solved and be important to define the physical meaning of
this parameter, but it may not change the physical process
simulated. The original formulation was used.
Water saturation increases as production initiates.
Capillary pressure may increase with this saturation
change as well. An initial sand production is likely to be
induced by a combination of mechanical plastic
deformation and drag force due to the viscous flow. Initial
saturation may act to cement the sand particles before
large amount water invades into a well. A water saturation
exceeds 40% can be easily obtained based on our
simulation, when a massive sand production was
reported17 . No particularly stress condition is observed
associated to the water saturation change. It is thus highly
likely that capillary force acting originally on the sand
grain is removed. An improvement on the model to
rigorously considering the capillary pressure will be
interesting to study the effect of the capillary pressure
change during water content change.
Conclusions
A fully coupled reservoir-geomechanics model with
sand erosion is proposed and used to simulate a field
condition in the Northwestern Canada. This model can
also be used for sand production study in the
conventional oil/gas reservoir such as North Sea
formations. The enhanced oil production is postulated as
an effective wellbore radius increase. Only a general
model and result are presented and a detailed study on
the capillary pressure and the impact of multiphase flow
on sanding and erosion will be carried out in a
forthcoming paper. It seems that the two-phase flow can
be important in the elastoplastic domain when no severe
sand erosion has taken place. The two-phase related
behavior can be overshadowed by the fact of that a high
porosity zone is induced due to erosion and capillary
pressure effect can be less important in comparing to
those geomechanics behavior. On the other hand, the
two-phase flow can be important when the built-up drag
force due to the mobile multiphase flow carries sand-
fluid slurry into well. The viscosity and flow velocity
can be the key to estimate the slurry transport, sand rate,
and enhanced oil production.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The financial support by IRAP program is deeply
appreciated. Special thanks go to Dr. E.D. Towson for
his technical guidance on the project.
REFERENCES
1. Smith, G.E., “Fluid flow and sand production in heavy-
oil reservoirs under solution-gas drive”, SPE
Production Engineering, May 1988, pp. 169-180.
2. Solanki, S. and M. Metwally, “Heavy oil reservoir
mechanism, Lindbergh and Frog Lake fields, Alberta
Part II: Geomechanical Evaluation”, SPE 30249, Int.
Heavy Oil Symp., Calgary, Alberta, June 19-21, 1995,
pp. 87-102.
3. Metwally, M and S. Solanki, “Heavy oil reservoir
mechanism, Linbergh and Frog Lake fields, Alberta
Part I: Field Observations and Reservoir
Simulation”, Paper 95-63, 46th Annual Technical
Meeting of the CIM, Banff, Alberta, 1995.
4. Loughead, D.J. and M. Saltuklaroglu, “Lloydminster
heavy oil production- why so unusual?”, 9th Annual
Heavy Oil and Oil Sand Technology Symp., March 11,
1992, Calgary, Alberta
5. Yeung, K.C. and M.F. Adamson, “Burnt Lake project-
Bitumen production from the cold lake oil sands
deposit with steam”, AOSTRA/CHOA “Fueling the
Future” Conference, Calgary, Alberta, June 10-12,
1992
6. Geilikman, M.B., M.B. Dusseault, and F.A. Dullien,
“Sand production and yield propagation around
wellbores”, paper 94-89, Pet. Soc. of CIM &
AOSTRA, Calgary, Alberta, 1995.
7. Bratli, R.K., M.B. Dusseault, J. Tronvoll, and F.J.
Santarelli, “Sand management protocol increases
production rates, reduces completion costs”, 12th
SPE Trinidad and Tobago Section Biennial
Technical Conference and Exposition on the 21th
Century Energy Landscape, held in Port-of-Spain,
Trinidad, 11-13 March, 1998
8. Papamichos, E., and M. Stavropoulou, “An erosion-
mechanical model for sand production rate
prediction”, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min Sci. & Geomech.
Abstr. Vol 35(5), 531-532,1998
9. Papamichos, E. and E. M. Malmanger, “A sand
erosion model for volumetric sand predictions in a
North Sea reservoir”, SPE Reservoir Evaluation &
Engineering, February, 44-50, 2001
10. Geilikman, M.B., M.B. Dusseault, and F.A. Dullien,
“Fluid rate in flowing granular medium with moving
boundary”, 4th European Conference on the
mathematics of oil recovery, Roros, Norway, June 7-
10, 1995, pp. 41-50.
11. Geilikman, M.B., M.B. Dusseault, and F.A. Dullien,
“Sand production as viscoplastic granular flow”,
SPE 27343, Int. Symp. Formation Damage Control,
1995
12. Wang, Y. and J.-Y, Yuan, “Cold Production and
Wormhole Propagation in Poorly Consolidated
Reservoirs”, UNITAR#041, Presenting in the 7th
Annual UNITAR Conference, Beijing, China, Oct 27th-
SPE 73738 FULLY COUPLED RESERV OIR-GEOMECHANICS MODEL WITH EROSION FOR SAND RATE PREDICTION
30th, 1998
13. Yuan, J.-Y., B. Tremblay and A. Babchin, “A
wormhole network model of cold production.”
ADOE/ARC Core Industry Research Program,
Report #9697-17, 1997
14. Tremblay, B., G. Sedgewick and K. Forshner,
“Modelling of sand production from wells on
primary recovery.” Proc. CIM 47th Ann. Tech. Mtg.,
Calgary, AB, Paper 96-26, June 1996
15. Wang, Y., “Sand production and foamy oil flow in
heavy-oil reservoirs”, SPE 37553, Int. Thermal
operations & Heavy Oil Symp., Bakersfield, CA,
Feb., 1997
16. Vardoulakis, I., M.Stavropoulou, and P.
Papanastasiou, “ Hydro-mechanical aspects of the
sand production problem”, Transport in Porous
Media, 22, pp225-244, 1996
17. Bianco, L.C.B. and P.M. Halleck, “Mechanisms of
arch instability and sand production in two-phase
saturated poorly consolidated sandstones”, SPE 68932,
SPE European Formation Damage Conference held in
Hague, The Netherland, 21-22 May, 2001
18. Tremblay, B., G. Sedgwick and K. Forshner,
“Imaging of sand production in a horizontal pack by
X-ray computed tomography.” SPE Formation
Evaluation, 1996, p. 94
19. Wang Y., C.C. Chen, and M. B. Dusseault, “An
integrated reservoir model for sand production and
foamy oil flow during cold heavy oil production”,
SPE 69714, SPE International Thermal Operations
and Heavy Oil Symposium held in Margarita,
Venezuela, March 12-14, 2001
20. Lewis, R.W. and Y. Sukirman, “Finite element
modelling of three-phase flow in deforming
saturated oil reservoirs”, Int. J. Num. Anal. Meth.
Geomech., Vol. 17, 1993, pp. 577-598
21. Lewis, R.W., P.J. Roberts, and B.A. Schrefler,
“Finite Element modeling of two-phase heat and
fluid flow in deforming porous media”, Transport in
Porous Media, Vol. 4, 1989, pp. 319-334.
22. Li, X., O.C. Zienkiewicz, and Y. M. Xie, “A
numerical model for immiscible two-phase fluid
flow in a porous medium and its time domain
solution”, Int. J. Num. Anal. Meth. Geomech., Vol.
30, 1990, pp. 1195-1212
23. Xue, S.F. and H.Z. Song, “The theoretical
formulation of immisciable saturated two-phase flow
in deformed porous media II: uncoupling equation
by finite element formulations”, Seismological
Geology (Chinese), 1999 (3), 253-260
24. Wang Y. and B. Lu, “A Coupled Reservoir-
9
Geomechanics Model and Applications to Wellbore
Stability and Sand Prediction” SPE 69718, SPE
International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil
Symposium held in Margarita, Venezuela, March
12-14, 2001
25. Tortike, S. W.: Numerical Simulation of Thermal,
Multiphase Fluid Flow in an Elastoplastic
Deforming Oil Reservoir, Ph.D. Thesis, University
of Alberta, 1991.
26. Biot, M.A., “General theory of three-dimensional
consolidation”, J. Appl. Phys. 12, 155-164 , 1941
27. Rice, J.R. and Cleary, M.P., “Some basic stress-
diffusion solutions for fluid saturated elastic porous
media with compressible constituents, Rev. Geophys.
Space., 14, 227-241,1976
28. Detournay, E. And A. H-D. Cheng, “Poroelastic
response of a borehole in a non-hydrostatic stress
field”, J. Rock Mech. Min Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. Vol
25(3), 171-182,1988
29. Smith, I.M. and D.V. Griffiths, Programming the
Finite Element Method, 2nd Edition, John Wiley &
Sons, 1988
30. Morita, N., “Field and laboratory verification of
sand production prediction models”, SPE 27341,
SPE Int. Symp. On Formation Damage Control held
in Lafayette, Louisiana, Feb., 1994
31. Morita, N. and P.A. Boyd, “Typical sand production
problem: case studies and strategies for sand control”,
SPE 22739, 1991.
32. Bratli, R.K. and R. Risnes, “Stability and failure of
sand arches”, SPEJ, Trans. AIME, April 1981, pp.
236-248.
33. Papamichos, E. I. Vardoulakis, J. Tronvoll, and A.
Skjarstein, “Volumetric sand production model and
experiment”, in press, Int. J. Num. Anal. Methods
Geomech, 25, 2001
10 WANG AND XUE SPE 73738

Nomenclature 0.557 0.0970 0.3029 0

κ,γ Plastic constant and Hardening parameter 0.630 0.1148 0.1555 0
B Skempton constant 0.673 0.1259 0.0956 0
Cj , C Compressibility in phase j and that for the 0.719 0.1381 0.0576 0
fluid mixture 0.789 0.1636 0.0000 0
c Cohesion 1.000 0.2500 0.0000 0
Ω Solid concentration
TABLE-2...PVT FOR Foamy OIL_____
E,ν Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio
G Skeleton Shear Modulus P, MPa Gas Volume, Fraction
k Absolute permeability _____________________________________
krj The relative permeability for phase j
Mj The stiffness matrix for j component 0.2 0.05
mj Fluid mass for j component 0.4 0.04
p Pore pressure 0.6 0.03
Rj Source/sink term for component j 0.8 0.02
q Specific volume discharge 1.0 0.01
Q Plastic Potential 1.5 0.005
Sj, Saturation for phase j. 2.0 0.002
u Displacement vector 2.5 0.0
vj Average flow velocity in j phase
σ1, σ3 Maximum and minimum principal stresses
λ, λ j Absolute and the relative mobility for fluid
Table 3: FEM Numerical Model Parameter
phase j, where j = w, o
σr, σθ The radial and tangential stresses
p0 ,pw The external and internal pressures Borehole diameter: 2rb = 0.1m
φ,ψ Friction and dilatant angles
Initial porosity φ0 = 0.2
ρ j, ρ s Fluid and solid skeleton’s density
εr,ε θ The total radial and tangential strains Initial permeability K0 = 300 MD
εer,εeθ The elastic radial and tangential strains Fluid sand initial
ε r,ε θ
p p The plastic radial and tangential strains Ω 0 = 0.2
Concentration
µ Fluid viscosity
Young modulus E = 1.5 GPa
ξ Empirical constant for formation stiffness
Possion’s ratio 0.25
Subscript s, w, o, u denote to solid, water, oil phase and
undrained condition, respectively Dilatant angle 15°
Superscript e and p denote to elastic and plastic Residual cohesion 0.1-0.01MPa
components
Peak cohesion 0.3MPa
Frictional angle 30°
Table 1: Oil/water Two Phase Case Sand erosion coefficient λmax=5x104 /m; λ min=75/m

Sw KRW Krow Pcw ,MPa Initial water saturation 0.2

_________________________________ Fluid viscosity (cp) γw =1; γo =50
0.200 0.0000 1.00 0
0.250 0.0102 0.769 0 Residual oil saturation 0.1
0.294 0.0168 0.7241 0
0.357 0.0275 0.6206 0 Fluid compressibility Cw=0.4E-6; Co=0.9E-5, 1/KPa
0.414 0.0424 0.5040 0
0.490 0.0665 0.3714 0
SPE 73738 FULLY COUPLED RESERV OIR-GEOMECHANICS MODEL WITH EROSION FOR SAND RATE PREDICTION 11

T =60 days
Normalized Pore Pressure

T=75 days

T=100 days

Normalized Radius

Figure 1a:Pore Pressure Change with Time Figure 1b:Pore Pressure Change with Time
and Radial Distance (Carman-Kozeny) and Radial Distance (Kozeny-Poiseuille)

T=100 days
φ
φ0 Sand rate (m3 /day)
T=75 days

T= 60 days

Normalized Radius
Production Time, day
Figure 2a: Porosity Enhancement by
Figure3a: Sand Rate Simulation
Kozeny-Poiseuille Correlation
Cumulative sand volume (m3 )

T=100 days

T=75 days

T=60 days
k
k0

Normalized Radius Production Time, day

Figure 2b: Permeability Enhancement Figure3b: Cumulative Sand Production

by Kozeny-Poiseuille Correlation Simulation
12 WANG AND XUE SPE 73738

T=100 days
S w/S wr

Sanding
T=60 days Onset

Normalized Radial Distance

Figure 4: Water Saturation Changes

Figure5c: Strain corresponding to Sand Onset

Normalized Plastic Region

scale
Plastic
Radius

Figure5a: Effective Stress Distribution

Figure 6: Plastic Zone Propagation (cr=0.1 MPa)

Yielding
Point

Production Time, day

Figure 7: Plastic Zone Propagation (cr=0.01 MPa)

A rougher mesh is used to simulate a larger domain.
Figure5b: Strain Distribution

View publication stats