MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4255330528 · doi:10.2118/76805-jpt

Reservoir Compaction

2002· article· en· W4255330528 sur OpenAlexaffabout
A. Settari

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2002
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCompactionSubsidenceGeologyGroundwater-related subsidenceNorth seaGround subsidenceWork (physics)Petroleum engineeringEngineeringMining engineeringGeotechnical engineeringOceanographyGeomorphologyStructural basinMechanical engineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Distinguished Author Series articles are general, descriptive representations that summarize the state of the art in an area of technology by describing recent developments for readers who are not specialists in the topics discussed. Written by individuals recognized as experts in the area, these articles provide key references to more definitive work and present specific details only to illustrate the technology. Purpose: to inform the general readership of recent advances in various areas of petroleum engineering. Introduction Reservoir compaction has been considered an "exotic" aspect of reservoir engineering, usually studied only when the associated surface subsidence became a problem. In recent years, it has been recognized that reservoir compaction occurs in many reservoirs, and it is responsible both for improved recovery and a number of field operating problems. Consequently, the understanding of the process and the methods for its analysis have improved dramatically. This article provides a general overview of the compaction aspects of reservoir engineering. Compaction in Reservoirs In the past, reservoir compaction was usually dealt with only after being indicated by the associated surface subsidence or operational problems. Some well-known cases include the Willmington field in California and the Ekofisk field in the North Sea. Depletion of the Willmington field caused a subsidence bowl reaching a maximum depth of 9 m, requiring extensive remedial work in and around the city of Long Beach.1 The sea floor under the Ekofisk platform sank by 1984 in excess of 3.5 m, and the platform had to be extended(jacked up) at a cost of U.S. $1 billion.2 In both cases, the events triggered extensive reservoir/geomechanical studies and changes in field management to arrest further subsidence. Compaction is present in many other North Sea chalk reservoirs such as Eldfisk, Valhall, Dan, Tyra, and Gorm. Compaction of California Diatomite fields was the cause of numerous wellfailures, which in some cases reached 20 to 30% of the wellsdrilled.3 Better understanding of the cause of the deformations led to a significant decrease in well failures. Compaction also has been recognized as an important drive mechanism in Alberta and Venezuela heavy oils and oil sands. In this case, the problem is further complicated by thermal aspects and by the unconsolidated nature of the porous media. Recent exploration activity tends to discover more and more deepwater "soft" reservoirs (e.g., in the Gulf of Mexico) and high-temperature/high-pressure reservoirs, where compaction often is an important issue. Compaction of the reservoir itself, besides providing the additional drive energy for production (in some cases amounting to 50 to 80% of total energy), has important consequences both inside and outside the reservoir. The most obvious is the surface/seafloor deformation (i.e., subsidence), which creates problems for the environment as well as for oilfield structures and seabed pipelines. Additional problems include well failure caused by casing deformations, fault reactivation resulting in seismic activity (e.g., Groningen gas field in the Netherlands), reduction in permeability leading to loss of productivity, and effect of deformation on overlying shales or freshwater aquifers.4 While compaction can contribute to reservoir energy and increase recovery, its side effects are undesirable: increasing development costs and creating barriers to project acceptance. Therefore, field development of compacting reservoirs is always more complex compared with conventional reservoirs, and it requires a more detailed analysis. Inaccurate estimate of the compaction effect can lead to over- or underestimation of reserves, even in gas reservoirs. Compaction/subsidence problems may be expected in "soft" or unconsolidated formations and chalk reservoirs, which are overpressured or will be severely depleted and have large thickness. Because most deformations are irreversible, it is difficult to correct the negative effect after compaction has occurred. This critical issue points to the need to screen, assess, and engineer for compaction early in the life of a field. As deeper reservoirs are developed in deeper water with fewer, very expensive wells, there is an increased need to improve the engineering and modeling technology to deal with these difficult issues at the planning stage. Compaction Mechanisms While all reservoirs undergo deformations during exploitation, compaction is the process in which the compressive strength of the rock is exceeded and plastic deformation occurs, resulting in irreversible reduction of porosity and permeability. This irreversible change differentiates compaction from elastic compression of the reservoir. The volumetric behavior of the rock under plastic deformation determines the changes in porosity and apparent compressibility.Fig. 1a shows the customary representation of the process in which porosity, f, is a function of pressure, p. However, from the theory of poroelasticity5 (and thermoelasticity), the volumetric behavior of the rock is fundamentally a function of the mean effective stresssm'=sm-ap, wheresm is the mean total stress, sx=(sy+ sz)/3; a is Biot's constant; and p is the fluid (pore) pressure. The porosity vs. effective stress (also called net pressure) during the depletion of the reservoir follows the path shown in Fig. 1b. It must be stressed that the fundamental physical mechanism is that of Fig. 1b, while the representation in Fig. 1a is an approximation, which must be derived from data of Fig. 1b by ignoring (or making assumptions about) stress variations.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,038
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,128

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,003
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0380,011

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,210
Écart entre enseignants0,200 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations49
Publié2002
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Petroleum TechnologyMême sujetHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisTravaux en français237 207