Predicting Geomechanical Dynamics of Steam-Assisted Gravity-Drainage Process. Part II: Modified Cam-Clay Model

Abstract

SummaryIn Part I of this study (Irani 2018), the geomechanical effects in the reservoir associated with steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) steam chamber growth was evaluated on the basis of two core assumptions: reservoir yield behavior follows that of the Mohr-Coulomb (MC) dilative behavior, and the reservoir stress response follows that of a drained sand. In Part I, it was shown that although the dilative model nicely described the shearing and the sheared zone thickness at the front of the SAGD steam chamber, it could not predict the displacements associated with cold dilation in SAGD reservoirs, in which cold dilation refers to vertical displacement created in the zone ahead of the heated zone caused by isotropic unloading generated by the pore pressure increase and the increase in far-field horizontal stress. In cold dilation, the stresses do not reach the critical state line (CSL), which defines the yield surface and should, therefore, be analyzed considering elastic behavior. A modified Cam-Clay (MCC) model, however, can be used to describe the behavior of the oil sand in the cold dilation zone before reaching the CSL. In this study and as an extension to the results presented in Part I, strains developed in the reservoir during SAGD operation are calculated using an MCC model, and the associated oil rate enhancement and displacements are evaluated. The vertical strains and displacements are compared with measured values from the extensive monitoring program conducted at the Underground Test Facility (UTF) in the late 1980s. Two aspects of geomechanical effects are compared between the cap models (Part II) and dilative models (Part I): first, prediction of the sheared zone thickness and its effect on SAGD production enhancement, and second, prediction of vertical and horizontal displacements. It is shown that consideration of the material model effects on production rates are negligible for both models and that the MCC model can predict displacements in both the heated and cold zones of the reservoir reasonably accurately. Although dilative constitutive models can be used to predict horizontal and vertical displacements in the heated zone quite accurately, they lack the ability to predict the response in the “cold dilation zone.” Another main advantage of using an MCC model is that the MCC model provides a better description of a stress path and how the reservoir mobility can affect reservoir dilation, especially in the cold dilation zone.