24.01.2014 Views

reservoir geomecanics

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

38 Reservoir geomechanics<br />

production from previously drilled wells in what was mapped as the same <strong>reservoir</strong>.<br />

Thus, this <strong>reservoir</strong> appears to be compartmentalized at a smaller scale than that mapped<br />

seismically, presumably by relatively small, sub-seismic sealing faults that subdivide<br />

the sand into small compartments.<br />

Figure 2.10 illustrates compartmentalization in a Miocene sand (the Pelican sand)<br />

in Southern Louisiana (Chan and Zoback 2007). A structure contour map indicating<br />

the presence of faults that compartmentalize the <strong>reservoir</strong> is superimposed on an air<br />

photo of the region. As shown in the inset, the pressure in the wells penetrating this<br />

sand in fault blocks I, II and III were initially at a pressure of ∼60 MPa. By 1980<br />

fault blocks I and III had depleted along parallel, but independent depletion paths to<br />

∼5MPa (all pressures are relative to a common datum at 14,600 ft). Wells B and C are<br />

clearly part of the same fluid compartment despite being separated by a fault. Note that<br />

in ∼1975, the pressure in the fault blocks I and III differed by about 10 MPa. However,<br />

the pressure difference between fault blocks I and III and fault block II after five years<br />

of production is quite dramatic. Even though the first two fault blocks were signicantly<br />

depleted when production started in fault block II in the early 1980s, the pressure was<br />

still about 60 MPa. In other words, the pressure in wells E and F was about 55 MPa<br />

higher than that in wells B and C in the same sand. The fault separating these two<br />

groups of wells is clearly a sealing fault whereas the fault between wells B and C is<br />

not.<br />

An important operational note is that drilling through severely depleted sands (such<br />

as illustrated in Figure 2.10a) to reach deeper <strong>reservoir</strong>s, can often be problematic<br />

(Addis, Cauley et al. 2001). Because of the reduction of stress with depletion<br />

described in Chapter 3, amud weight sufficient to exceed pore pressure at greater<br />

depth (and required to prevent flow into the well from the formation) might inadvertently<br />

hydraulically fracture the depleted <strong>reservoir</strong> (Chapter 6) causing lost circulation.<br />

This is addressed in Chapter 12 both in terms of such drilling problems but also from<br />

the perspective of the opportunity <strong>reservoir</strong> depletion offers for refracturing a given<br />

formation.<br />

It is worth briefly discussing how pore pressure can appear to increase with depth<br />

at gradients greater than hydrostatic. In Figure 2.2, atdepths greater than ∼11,000 ft,<br />

pore pressure increases with depth at approximately the same rate as the overburden<br />

stress increases with depth. This would suggest that a series of compliant, isolated<br />

<strong>reservoir</strong>s is being encountered in which the <strong>reservoir</strong> pressure is supporting the full<br />

overburden stress. However, an extremely high pressure gradient is seen between 9000 ft<br />

and 11,000 ft (much greater than the overburden stress gradient). One should keep in<br />

mind that data sets that appear to show pressure gradients in excess of hydrostatic<br />

are compilations of data from multiple wells which penetrate different <strong>reservoir</strong>s at<br />

different depths, even though a hydrostatic pressure gradient is observed within each<br />

individual <strong>reservoir</strong> (assuming that water is in the pores).

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!