Fully Coupled Geomechanics, Multi-Phase, Thermal and. Equation of State Compositional Simulator

Similar documents
Geological Storage Group

Geological Storage Group

ME FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS FORMULAS

Numerical Simulation of ES-SAGD Process in Athabasca Oil Sands with Top Water and Gas Thief Zones. Presented by Xia Bao

Bending Stress. Sign convention. Centroid of an area

Reservoir Geomechanics and Faults

Model Inversion for Induced Seismicity

SHEAR-SLIP ANALYSIS IN MULTIPHASE FLUID-FLOW RESERVOIR ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS USING TOUGH-FLAC

Reservoir Geomechanics with ABAQUS

Jihoon Kim, George J. Moridis, John Edmiston, Evan S. Um, Ernest Majer. Earth Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 24 Mar.

4 Undrained Cylindrical Cavity Expansion in a Cam-Clay Medium

Geology 229 Engineering Geology. Lecture 5. Engineering Properties of Rocks (West, Ch. 6)

Production-induced stress change in and above a reservoir pierced by two salt domes: A geomechanical model and its applications

Gas Shale Hydraulic Fracturing, Enhancement. Ahmad Ghassemi

Available online at ScienceDirect. Energy Procedia 114 (2017 )

Integration of Geophysical and Geomechanical

3D simulations of an injection test done into an unsaturated porous and fractured limestone

SPE DISTINGUISHED LECTURER SERIES is funded principally through a grant of the SPE FOUNDATION

Tensor character of pore pressure/stress coupling in reservoir depletion and injection

CHAPTER 1 Fluids and their Properties

Chapter 5 Elastic Strain, Deflection, and Stability 1. Elastic Stress-Strain Relationship

Fluid Mechanics Introduction

Introduction to Marine Hydrodynamics

Chapter 7. Highlights:

Design and Modeling of Fluid Power Systems ME 597/ABE Lecture 7

MODELING OF GAS MIGRATION THROUGH LOW-PERMEABILITY CLAY USING INFORMATION ON PRESSURE AND DEFORMATION FROM FAST AIR INJECTION TESTS

Finite Element Modeling of an Aluminum Tricycle Frame

Salt Crystallization in Hydrophobic Porous Materials

Integrating Lab and Numerical Experiments to Investigate Fractured Rock

Lecture 8. Stress Strain in Multi-dimension

Energy Procedia 4 (2011) Energy Procedia 00 (2010) GHGT-10

16 Rainfall on a Slope

Mechanics of Materials II. Chapter III. A review of the fundamental formulation of stress, strain, and deflection

Monitoring of underground construction

Coalbed Methane Properties

P = 1 3 (σ xx + σ yy + σ zz ) = F A. It is created by the bombardment of the surface by molecules of fluid.

Finite Element Method in Geotechnical Engineering

Geomechanical controls on fault and fracture distribution with application to structural permeability and hydraulic stimulation

D : SOLID MECHANICS. Q. 1 Q. 9 carry one mark each. Q.1 Find the force (in kn) in the member BH of the truss shown.

SEMM Mechanics PhD Preliminary Exam Spring Consider a two-dimensional rigid motion, whose displacement field is given by

A Multi-Continuum Multi-Component Model for Simultaneous Enhanced Gas Recovery and CO 2 Storage in Stimulated Fractured Shale Gas Reservoirs Jiamin

Particle flow simulation of sand under biaxial test

Localization in Undrained Deformation

TOUGH2Biot: A Coupled Thermal-Hydrodynamic-Mechanical Model for Geothermal Development

Discrete Element Modelling of a Reinforced Concrete Structure

Current challenges at CO 2 Sites

Analysis of Fracture Propagation under Thermal Stress in Geothermal Reservoirs

These slides have a special sentimental value to me: It presents a joint work with Olivier Coussy, one of my dearest friends.

CHAPTER 5. Beam Theory

A Geothermal Reservoir Simulator with AD-GPRS

Question 1. Ignore bottom surface. Solution: Design variables: X = (R, H) Objective function: maximize volume, πr 2 H OR Minimize, f(x) = πr 2 H

Reservoir Modeling for Wabamun Area CO2 Sequestration Project (WASP) Davood Nowroozi

The Effect of Stress Arching on the Permeability Sensitive Experiment in the Su Lige Gas Field

MODELLING FLUID FLOW IN STRESS SENSITIVE PETROLEUM RESERVOIR CONSIDERING FAULT REACTIVATION PROBLEM

Rock Mechanics Laboratory Tests for Petroleum Applications. Rob Marsden Reservoir Geomechanics Advisor Gatwick

Finite element modelling of fault stress triggering due to hydraulic fracturing

SSNV199 Cracking of a beam DCB with cohesive models

EDEM DISCRETIZATION (Phase II) Normal Direction Structure Idealization Tangential Direction Pore spring Contact spring SPRING TYPES Inner edge Inner d

Evaluation of Stress and Strain Induced by the Rock Compaction on a Hydrocarbon Well Completion Using Contact Interfaces with Abaqus

EART162: PLANETARY INTERIORS

GEOMECHANICAL IMPACT OF SOIL LAYERING IN HYDRATE BEARING SEDIMENTS DURING GAS PRODUCTION

3D Finite Element Modeling of fault-slip triggering caused by porepressure

Solution: The strain in the bar is: ANS: E =6.37 GPa Poison s ration for the material is:

CO 2 storage capacity and injectivity analysis through the integrated reservoir modelling

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

Building confidence of CCS using knowledge from natural analogues

TIME-DEPENDENT BEHAVIOR OF PILE UNDER LATERAL LOAD USING THE BOUNDING SURFACE MODEL

DOWN-HOLE SEISMIC SURVEY AND VERTICAL ELECTRIC SOUNDINGS RABASKA PROJECT, LÉVIS, QUÉBEC. Presented to :

Instructor : Dr. Jehad Hamad. Chapter (7)

Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting

Numerical Investigation of the Effect of Recent Load History on the Behaviour of Steel Piles under Horizontal Loading

Example-3. Title. Description. Cylindrical Hole in an Infinite Mohr-Coulomb Medium

REE Internal Fluid Flow Sheet 2 - Solution Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics

AERO 214. Lab II. Measurement of elastic moduli using bending of beams and torsion of bars

Mechanical Engineering Ph.D. Preliminary Qualifying Examination Solid Mechanics February 25, 2002

Seals and CO 2 : Techniques and Issues. Dave Dewhurst CSIRO Petroleum

V (r,t) = i ˆ u( x, y,z,t) + ˆ j v( x, y,z,t) + k ˆ w( x, y, z,t)

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS IN NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF MULTIPHASE FLOW FOR CO 2 STORAGE IN SALINE AQUIFERS USING THE PROBABILISTIC COLLOCATION APPROACH

Figure 3: Problem 7. (a) 0.9 m (b) 1.8 m (c) 2.7 m (d) 3.6 m

APPLICATION OF 1D HYDROMECHANICAL COUPLING IN TOUGH2 TO A DEEP GEOLOGICAL REPOSITORY GLACIATION SCENARIO

Chapter 1 Fluid Characteristics

Behaviour of Blast-Induced Damaged Zone Around Underground Excavations in Hard Rock Mass Problem statement Objectives

NONLINEAR ANALYSIS OF A DAM-RESERVOIR-FOUNDATION SYSTEM UNDER SPATIALLY VARIABLE SEISMIC EXCITATIONS

Large releases from CO 2 storage reservoirs: analogs, scenarios, and modeling needs

Fluid Properties and Units

Fractures and fluid flow in petroleum reservoirs

NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF CONCRETE EXPOSED TO HIGH TEMPERATURE DAMAGE AND EXPLOSIVE SPALLING

GATE SOLUTIONS E N G I N E E R I N G

Modelling of bird strike on the engine fan blades using FE-SPH

FRACTURE REORIENTATION IN HORIZONTAL WELL WITH MULTISTAGE HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

Clayey sand (SC)

Symmetric Bending of Beams

Petroleum Geomechanics for Shale Gas

Lecturer, Department t of Mechanical Engineering, SVMIT, Bharuch

Stresses and Strains in flexible Pavements

1 Introduction. Abstract

5 IEAGHG CCS Summer School. Geological storage of carbon dioxide (a simple solution)

Hydraulic Fracture Propagation in Unconventional Reservoirs: The Role of Bedding Plane

FINAL EXAMINATION. (CE130-2 Mechanics of Materials)

Stress Analysis Lecture 3 ME 276 Spring Dr./ Ahmed Mohamed Nagib Elmekawy

Transcription:

Fully Coupled Geomechanics, Multi-Phase, Thermal and Equation of State Compositional Simulator Jean H. Prévost, Lee Y. Chin*, Zhihua Weng e-mail: prevost@princeton.edu URL: http://www.princeton.edu/~prevost URL: http://www.princeton.edu/~dynaflow URL: http://denali.princeton.edu collaborators: G. Scherer, R. Fuller, B. Huet sponsors: BP, Ford Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Princeton University *ConocoPhillips, Bartlesville, Oklahoma Princeton University 2/7/28 1

Research Focus: CO2 leaks Research Focus Wells cement degradation / leakage paths: Geochemical interaction with wells cement» cement degradation; seal loss Leakage:» thru seepage across overburden T» via abandoned wells (damage due to injection) Super-critical/sub-critical CO 2 flow; crossing saturation line; CO 2 bubbling/condensing Thermal/heat transfer effects w/ rock P L G Princeton University 2/7/28 2

Dynaflow Fully Coupled Multiphysics Simulator Geomechanics Multi-Phase flow; Multi-components Heat flow (including heat of reaction) Flash via equation of state Modular flash and geochemistry Transportable to other codes (e.g., Eclipse) Related models: TOUGH2 (K. Pruess, LBL): similar flash capabilities but not modular; no coupled poromechanics; no cement geochemistry NUFT (Nitao, Wolery, J. Johnson, LLNL): no extensive thermodynamic data base for cement geochemistry; no coupled poromechanics FLOTRAN (Lichtner, J. Carey, LANL): reactive transport; no coupled poromechanics ECLIPSE (Schlumberger), VIP (Halliburton),.: no accurate CO 2 flash; no cement geochemistry; no coupled poromechanics

finite element based (arbitrary meshing)» Galerkin, stabilized Galerkin (SUPG)» Finite volume (cell centered; vertex centered) staggered implementation to allow flexible/versatile algorithmic options for integration of coupling effects multiphase flows» compressible; incompressible flows» miscible; immiscible flows» heat transfers fluid flows fully coupled with geomechanics reactive transports capabilities for cement attack/degradation by CO 2 (B.H.) eos based flash (L.Y.C.) 1D/2D/3D capabilities Dynaflow parallel computing on shared and/or distributed memory/architectures (openmp/mpi) Princeton University 2/7/28 4

Modeling Leakage If a gap exists, the escaping (super-critical) fluid will react with the cement, but it will also boil Simulation shows advance of boiling front (gas, aqueous phase and CO 2 -rich liquid Other flash models are unable to handle this case

. adiabatic CO2 leak (Nc=2, Np=3) Princeton University 1/28/28 [ ] [ ] domain : x =., L Area = 1 1 L = 6. m initial conditions : T( x, t = ) = 15 CO2 H2O Z x t Z x t + T( x=, t = ) = 15 C 2 1. / (, ) (, ) Px ( =, t= ) = 5.23 MPa, Px ( = Lt, = ) =.1MPa (, = ) =, (, = ) = 1. boundary conditions : g = m s T = T x t P = P x t C + + Px ( =, t= ) = 5.73 MPa, Δ P =.5 MPa, P( x = L, t = ) =.1MPa CO2 Z x t + ( =, = ) = 1. g % L x P 6 T

adiabatic CO2 leak (Nc=2, Np=3) Princeton University 1/28/28 7

Radial steam injection (Nc=3, Np=3) r r 1 [ ] domain : r = r, r r =.1m r = 25. m initial conditions : Trt (, = ) = 65 Prt (, = ) = 6.MPa 1 1 C3 16 Z r t Z r t Z r t C HO 2 (, = ) =.4, (, = ) =.4, (, = ) =.2 boundary conditions : + Tr ( = r, t= ) = 3 C T= Trt (,) P= Prt (,) C + Pr ( = r, t= ) = 7. MPa, Δ P= 1.MPa + ( =, = ) = 1. HO 2 Z r r t r Princeton University 1/28/28 8

Radial steam injection (Nc=3, Np=3) 1d1x; time = 1, 1 days 35 1 3 S_L.8 25 2 temp.6.4 15 S_Aq 1 S_G.2 Princeton University 1/28/28 5 2 4 6 8 1 radial_distance (m) 9

Radial steam injection (Nc=3, Np=3) Loss of injectivity 35 3 25 1d1x; time = 1, 1 days pressure 7 6.5 2 6 15 1 temperature 5.5 Princeton University 1/28/28 5 5 2 4 6 8 1 radial_distance (m) 1

Geomechanics and Well Leakage Pressure created by injection of CO 2 deforms overburden Simulation investigates stresses from bending of cap rock and shear of cement relative to cap rock Overburden stress = 9 MPa σ ' = 1.4 MPa H, reservoir 2 m Cement Abandoned well Overburden 48 m depth = 1 km r o r i r 1 Void t s Δp 1 cement/rock interface Cap rock (shale) Reservoir 1 m Not to scale!!! 2 m 1 m t Steel

interface (slide-line) elements Modeling the well (cement)-rock interface beam τ Cohesion k 1 ε Schematic of interface element Tangential constitutive relation for interface elements 12

Material properties Geological layers Young's Modulus Poisson's ratio Density Permeability E (Pa) υ ρ (kg/m 3 ) κ (m 2 ) Overburden 3.45E+9.35 2.5E+3 1.E-15 (1 md) Reservoir 2.E+9.4 2.6E+3 1.E-13 (1 md) Shale 1.E+1.35 2.5E+3 1.E-17 (1 μd) 13

Material properties Geological layers Parameters Young's Modulus of cement E c (Pa) Value Poisson's ratio of cement υ c.2 6.9E+9 Materials Young's Modulus of steel E s (Pa) 2.7E+11 Poisson's ratio of steel υ s.28 Young's Modulus of composite beam E (Pa) 5.15E+1 Inner radius r i (m) Outer radius c or r o (m) Beam thickness t (m) 7.74E-2 1.21E-1 4.33E-2 Dimensions Steel layer thickness t s (m) 1.15E-2 Solid section area, A (m 2 ) Bending inertia, I (m 4 ) 2.69E-2 5.53E-4 S, I/c (m 3 ) 4.58E-3 EI (N.m 2 ) 2.85E+7 Rock-cement Tangential stiffness k 1 (Pa) 3.E+9 interface Normal stiffness k 2 (Pa) 2.E+12 Cohesion (Pa) 4.E+5 14

Finite element mesh 3D Well 15

Finite element mesh 2D axisymmetric 16

Beam bending: 3-layer formation (w/ shale) σ σ bending bending = N / A+ M / S 3MPa 2.E-4 2D axisymmetric 3D.4.E+ 2D axisymmetric 3D Bending moment (MN.m) 1.E-4.E+ -1.E-4.2 Bending stress (MPa) -.2 Bending moment (MN.m) -4.E-5-8.E-5-1.2E-4 -.1 -.2 Bending stress (MPa) -.3 -.4-2.E-4 5 1 15 2 25 3 Elevation from datum (m) Spatial distribution of bending moment/stress at t = 3 days 17-1.6E-4 1-4 1-3 1-2 1-1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 Time (month) Time history for maximum bending moment/stress

shear stress in formation 3.E-2 3.E-2 2.5E-2 2.5E-2 Shear stress (MPa) 2.E-2 1.5E-2 1.E-2 Shear stress (MPa) 2.E-2 1.5E-2 1.E-2 5.E-3 2D axisymmetric 3D 5.E-3 2D axisymmetric 3D.E+ 5 1 15 2 25 3 Elevation from datum (m).e+ 1-3 1-2 1-1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 Time (month) Spatial distribution of shear stress t = 5 days Time history for maximum shear stress 18

w/ slip at rock-cement interface 8.E-5.E+ Bending moment (MN.m) 4.E-5.E+ -4.E-5-8.E-5.1 -.1 -.2 Bending stress (MPa) Bending moment (MN.m) -5.E-5-1.E-4-1.5E-4 -.1 -.2 -.3 Bending stress (MPa) -1.2E-4 5 1 15 2 25 3 Elevation from datum (m) 1-4 1-3 1-2 1-1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 Time (month) Spatial distribution of bending moment/stress at t = 3 days Time history for maximum bending moment/stress 19

w/ slip at rock-cement interface 5.E-1 1.2E-3 Interface shear stress (MPa) 4.E-1 3.E-1 2.E-1 1.E-1 @3days @2years Relative displacement (m) 8.E-4 4.E-4.E+ beam-rock (LHS) beam-rock (RHS) between rocks.e+ 1 15 2 25 3 Elevation from datum (m) Spatial distribution of interface shear stress t = 3 days -4.E-4 5 1 15 2 25 3 Elevation from datum (m) Spatial distribution of interface shear displacement t = 3 days 2

w/ slip at rock-cement interface 5.E-1 8.E-4 Interface shear stress (MPa) 4.E-1 3.E-1 2.E-1 1.E-1 Interface shear stress Relative displacement 6.E-4 4.E-4 2.E-4.E+.E+ 1-4 1-3 1-2 1-1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 Time (month) Relative displacement (m) 21 Time history for shear and relative displacement

Geomechanics and Well Leakage Pressure created by injection of CO2 deforms overlying formation Simulation investigates stresses from bending of cap rock (found to be negligible) and shear of cement relative to cap rock (causing sliding, and possibly leakage???)

Volumetric flow rate at injection site 5.E+3 5.E+4 Volumetric flow rate (m 3 /month) 4.E+3 3.E+3 2.E+3 1.E+3 t=3days t = 2 years Volumetric flow rate (m 3 /month) 4.E+4 3.E+4 2.E+4 1.E+4.E+ 2 4 6 8 1 Elevation from datum (m) Spatial distribution of volumetric flow rate.e+ 1-4 1-3 1-2 1-1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 Time (month) Time history for total flow rate 23

Numerical results: Shear stress τ xy 24

Numerical results: Mises stress, Caprock failure? mobilized ϕ 17 shear stress τ 3 MPa 25

Future work Stabilize flash (Nc=2, Np=3) Investigate failure in cap rock Incorporate interface in 3D model Parametric studies Detailed leak simulation: viz., fluid (P,T, composition) cement exposure vs depth Princeton University 2/7/28 26

Hydrogeologic parameters = = 13 2 permeability : K 1 m 1 mdarcy porosity : ϕ =.15 pore compressibility : C =. relative permeability : Stone' s first 3 phase method a : Aqueous phase : SAq Sar kraq = Sar =.15 n= 3 1 Sar b : Liquid phase : ) ) S S Aq 1 S ( )(1 ) ar S S Sar S lr Aq krl = ) S Sa r 1 SAq Slr 1 Sar ) S = 1 S S S =.5 n= 3 c : Gas phase : SG Sgr krg = Sgr =.1 n= 3 1 Sar thermal parameters : rock density : ρr = 26 kg / m Princeton University 1/28/28 n G lr lr : = 2. / thermal conductivity KT W m C rock specific heat : n c R = 1 / m J kg C 3 n 27