Semi-Analytical Solutions for the Effect of Well Shut-Down on Rock Stability
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Poorly consolidated rock around the wellbore may become unstable after the process of well shut-down and restart. Possible reasons for instability include pressure recovery and water hammer effects. These are defined and analyzed by two different fluid mechanics models. The pressure recovery model results in a quasi-static solution defined in the context of Darcy theory. The water hammer model is based on inertial effects inside the wellbore, and seeks to specify the magnitude of short-term stress variation from the generation of a compressional shockwave due to sudden shut-down of a flowing well. To quantify the effect of well shut-down on rock stability, a fully coupled geomechanics model accounting for the changes of fluid pressure is developed. The redistribution of fluid pressure in a reservoir are analytically solved and coupled with the stress model, while the water hammer equations provide a boundary condition for the bottom-hole pressure. This approach allows a direct solution for the relationships among fluid properties, rock properties, and production parameters, within the context of rock stability, and defined as an effective stress-dependent strength or yield threshold. Model calculations demonstrate that the fluctuations of effective stresses and shear stresses may reach several hundred kPa because of the pressure wave created by a water hammer inside the wellbore. The model can be applied to evaluate the risks of triggering rock instability and select the wells that may start sanding if they are shut-down or started up abruptly. Furthermore, the paper provides a method to quantify the effect of pressure fluctuation on rock stability. Introduction Dynamic pressure fluctuations near a well in a reservoir can, in principle, lead to rock instability; however, there is little field documentation available. Santarelli et al. reported the injectivity decline of some water injectors in the Norwegian Sea after well shut-in(1). Dusseault et al. developed a new workover method to clean up wellbore damage based on a strong dynamic pressure pulse method, clearly demonstrating that dynamic pressure perturbation can re-initiate sand influx in heavy oil wells that use sand production as a means of recovery(2). Santos has indicated that during the well drilling process, pressure oscillation at bottom hole not only can destabilize sand but also shale(3). The lack of more extensive documentation of dynamic pressure pulse induced instability is, we believe, due to several reasons: first, monitoring rapid downhole pressure fluctuations has traditionally been difficult; second, the presence of gas in the oil dampens the effect of pressure oscillations; and third, the impact of dynamic effects on sand instability has not been widely understood. We note also that the solution to this problem is, in principle, relatively simple: smooth production rate or injection rate reductions can be easily implemented to avoid abrupt pressure changes. However, it is valuable to evaluate rock stability before a production strategy is chosen, and a thorough understanding of mechanisms and quantitative analysis of their potential effects should be pursued. When production (or injection) is adjusted at the wellhead, or when the drilling string is moved up or down during drilling, pressure fluctuations will appear within the wellbore.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».