Abstract

Physics-based assessment of the effects of hydrocarbon production from sandstone reservoirs on induced subsidence and seismicity hinges on understanding the processes governing compaction of the reservoir. Compaction strains are typically small (ε < 1%) and may be elastic (recoverable), or partly inelastic (permanent), as implied by recent experiments. To describe the inelastic contribution in the seismogenic Groningen gas field, a Cam–clay-type plasticity model was recently developed, based on the triaxial test data obtained for sandstones from the Groningen reservoir (strain rate ~ 10−5 s−1). To underpin the applicability of this model at production-driven strain rates (10−12 s−1), we develop a simplified microphysical model, based on the deformation mechanisms observed in triaxial experiments at in situ conditions and compaction strains (ε < 1%). These mechanisms include consolidation of and slip on µm-thick clay films within sandstone grain contacts, plus intragranular cracking. The mechanical behavior implied by this model agrees favourably with the experimental data and Cam–clay description of the sandstone behavior. At reservoir-relevant strains, the observed behavior is largely accounted for by consolidation of and slip on the intergranular clay films. A simple analysis shows that such clay film deformation is virtually time insensitive at current stresses in the Groningen reservoir, so that reservoir compaction by these mechanisms is also expected to be time insensitive. The Cam–clay model is accordingly anticipated to describe the main trends in compaction behavior at the decade time scales relevant to the field, although compaction strains and lateral stresses may be slightly underestimated due to other, smaller creep effects seen in experiments.

Highlights

  • A physics-based assessment of the short- and long-term effects of hydrocarbon production from sandstone reservoirs on induced subsidence and seismicity requires an understanding of the processes operating in the reservoir system (Mallman and Zoback 2007; Van Thienen-Visser and Breunese 2015; Van Wees et al 2018)

  • We develop and test a series of microphysical models addressing the inelastic deformation processes observed in the conventional triaxial compression experiments on Slochteren sandstone reported by Pijnenburg et al (2019a)

  • The present paper attempts to assess the physical mechanisms underlying the empirical elastic plus inelastic (Cam–clay type) compaction model proposed for the Groningen reservoir by (Pijnenburg et al 2019a) as well as the applicability of this model to the reservoir conditions and time scales that apply in Groningen and possibly elsewhere

Read more

Summary

Introduction

A physics-based assessment of the short- and long-term effects of hydrocarbon production from sandstone reservoirs on induced subsidence and seismicity requires an understanding of the processes operating in the reservoir system (Mallman and Zoback 2007; Van Thienen-Visser and Breunese 2015; Van Wees et al 2018). Following the main focus of the previous experimental studies, many microphysical models developed for inelastic deformation of sandstone are typically based on the brittle phenomena observed during the high strain (ε = 1–15%) stages 3d and 3c Such models invoke combined frictional slip plus intergranular or intragranular cracking to describe dilatant stage 3d behavior (Ashby and Sammis 1990; Guéguen and Fortin 2013; Baud et al 2014) or intragranular cracking in the case of stage 3c (Sammis and Ashby 1986; Zhang et al 1990; Wong et al 1997; Einav 2007a; Guéguen and Fortin 2013). The present paper attempts to assess the physical mechanisms underlying the empirical elastic plus inelastic (Cam–clay type) compaction model proposed for the Groningen reservoir by (Pijnenburg et al 2019a) as well as the applicability of this model to the reservoir conditions and time scales that apply in Groningen and possibly elsewhere

Decoupling of Elastic and Inelastic Deformation
Quantifying the Elastic Contribution
Microstructural Model for Inelastic Deformation
Key Microstructural Observations
Idealized Microstructure and Microstructural Unit Cell
Assumed Deformation Processes
Stresses at the Unit Cell and Grain Contact Scales
Consolidation Behavior of Illite Within Grain Contacts
Clay Film Response to Hydrostatic Loading and Effects at Unit Cell Scale
Stage 3d
Assumed Grain Contact Properties and Behavior at the Onset of Stage 3c
Grain Splitting Criterion in Terms of Stresses at the Unit Cell Scale
Model Development
Subsequent Intragranular Evolution
Criterion for Edge Cracking
Strain Increment Associated with Multi‐edge Cracking
Multimechanism Model Integration
Total and Inelastic Deformation Behavior
Stress Conditions Required for Stages 3d and 3c
Inelastic Compaction Behavior During Stages 1 and 2
Model Evaluation and Suggestions for Future
Implications
Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call