Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SPE 03730 Geertsma
SPE 03730 Geertsma
Introduction
During the last 20 years, the Royal Dutch/Shell notable examples, such as the Goose Creek oil and
Group has conducted extensive investigations into gas field in Harris County, Tex., where dramatic
the phenomenon of reservoir compaction and sub- subsidence occurred between 1918 and 1925,”2 and
sidence. These have included research projects to the Wilmington field below Long Beach, Calif.,3-s
study subsidence above Bolivar Coast oil reservoirs where almost 10 m of subsidence was experienced in
in Venezuela and to examine the huge Groningen 1960. Further subsidence could be avoided in this
gas reservoir in The Netherlands. latter case after unitization and pressure maintenance
The latter investigation was conducted by a team as a result of water injection. More recently, a search
of specialists from both the Koninkh]ke/Sheii Ex- for adciitionai, documented surface depresshs over
ploratie en Produktie Laboratonum (KSEPL) and oil and gas fields in the U. S. was reported by Yerkes
B\’ Ncderlandse Aardolie Maatschappij (NAM), the and Castle.s This search revealed only a few other
latter being the producing company owned jointly significant cases, mainly fields close to Wilmington,
by Sheii and Esso. Detaiis of the Gmniiigeii irmsti- -..~h . +kfi.~ .* R,,-ma victa
>W & tIIU& UL -w.- .
Hllntinotnn
w..., .
Reach ~nd
. - . . . ...@----- —--- ,
g~!jo~ are pubiished eisewheres’-zs but as it may Inglewood. From this concentration of subsidence
have consequences for other operating companies bowls, it may be inferred that such events are some-
working in lowland and other subsidence-prone areas, how related to a similarity in reservoir conditions..
W~Silaii CO ~-:~--
II MUGL
ka.-
JJLIL
tha e.tt.
L,IL, +Uu.
ac mf cllhcirlence
vo “1
ahn~e-
.Uwu . . . . . ..-w --- ~h~ii has been confronted only once with a major
hydrocarbon-producing reservoirs in a more general land-subsidence problem. It is related to the produc-
way, and review the state of the art of its prediction. tion of oil and gas in Venezuela, where subsidence
A simple method will be presented for estimating above a number of important oil reservoirs bordering
the order of magnitude of both compaction and Lake Maracaibo is a constant phenomenon. and huge
the accompanying subsidence. Application of this dykes have been built to protect the coastal area from
method. which can be used to explore the need for flooding. Its cause is discussed by Van der Knaap
an investigation in depth, requires hardly any spe- and Van der Vlis.’ Subsidence data for oil and gas
cialist knowledge. The objective is twofold: to dem- fields outside the Americas are very scarce indeed.
onstrate that land subsidence due to hydrocarbon OkumaraS and Hirono’ describe a case from the
production seldom leads to serious subsidence, and Niigata district of Japan that results from the produc-
to pinpoint the few potential problem areas. tion of methane dissolved in water. In Italy, AGIP
has been accused of contributing to subsidence in
Earlier Field Observations the Po Delta by producing from a number of gas
The literature on subsidence deals mainly with a few fields. However, this area is also plagued by a number
Notable subsidence above producing oil and gas fields is the exception rather than the
rule. A simple procedure is outlined to single out the exceptional but real problem
areas. This exercise in potential-problem analysis shows that the huge Groningen gas
field in The Netherlands is a candidate jor causing subsidence troubles in a lowland area.
1. A significant reduction in reservoir pressure production. Under these circumstances, Eq. 2 simpi-
takes place during the production period. fies to
2. Production is effected from a large vertical
interval.
3. Oil or gas, or both, are contained in loose or
AH=
6
FGd
Z)Ap(Z)d Z. (3) . . . . .
weakly cemented rock. This formulation enables us to recognize three indi-
4. The reservoirs have a rather small depth of vidual influences on reservoir-compaction behavio~
burial. (1) the reduction in reservoir pressure, (2) the verti-
The major productive zones of the Wilmington oil cal extent of the zone in which pore-pressure reduc-
,. ..,.
nem, lor instance, cover seven stacked intervais dis- tion takes piace, and (3) the order of rrragrritude of
tributed over a vertical section from 500 to 2,000 m the relevant deformation property of the reservoir
below surface. Oil and gas are produced from sands rock. Three of the contributions presumed character-
of varying thicknesses and degrees of consolidation, istic for subsidence in the previous section are there-
interbedded with layers of shale or siltstone. The fore also apparent in this general formulation of
adjacent Inglewood oil reservoir produces from Mid- formation-compaction behavior.
dle to Upper Pliocene sands over a depth range of These elementary considerations show immediately
300 to 1,000 m. Commercial production from the that the combination of a large productive interval,
Goose Creek field originated at depths between 350 or stack of smaller productive intervals, and a large
and 1,400 m from unconsolidated sands and clays drop in reservoir-fluid pressure in unconsolidated
constituting a productive interval more than 300 m formations may lead to large compaction. On the
thick. The Lake Maracaibo reservoir rocks are post- other hand, a sizable degree of compaction can be
Eocene loose sands interbedded with clay. The aver- expected even in hard rock for the particular con-
age depth of burial of these reservoirs is 1,000 m. ditions of large pore-pressure reductions and a suffi-
“v’an tier Kriaap ana3 “--
van aer
‘-”- ““-7 -- —--
v ns iiaVe cunse- —,.—.,..,———-———
clerruy J. .-:-- mivrva.
large pruuuc]ng :-. -— .-1
quentiy already concluded that subsidence is the re- It is well known that the reduction in reservoir
sult of reservoir compaction. Furthermore, only loose pressure as a function of place and time depends on
or weakly consolidated rocks seem to be candidates many factors, such as the mobility, volubility, density,
for considerable compaction, and compressibility of the various pore fluids, as well
However, we must be careful first to unravel all as on the reservoir boundary conditions (faults, edge
the factors contributing to reservoir compaction. or bottom water, etc.). Gas reservoirs show a simpler
behavior than most oil reservoirs. In many cases the
Estimating Reservoir Compaction drop in reservoir pressure from the start of the pro-
Reservoir compaction or a reduction in reservoir duction period until abandonment is very small. In
volume is primarily the result of a reduction in reser- other instances. particularly in gas and oil reservoirs
voir height. Provided their lateral dimensions are that produce mainly under the influence of a solution-
large compared with their height, reservoirs deform gas drive. the pore pressure reduction may be con-
predominantly in the vertical plane.’” Formation com- side rable. ” In a gas reservoir, the rate and degree
p~ction can therefore be conveniently characterized of pore-pressure reduction depend on the permea-
by the vertical strain in the reservoir. ., = d:/:, dur- bility distribution, the location of the production
ing production, which expresses the change in height wells, and the production rate in relation to the rate
(relative to the initial height) caused by an increase of encroaching edge or bottom water. Reservoir simu-
in effective stress due to a reduction in reservoir or lators are of great help nowadays for predicting pres-
pore pressure, p, under constant overburden. A uni- sure distributions as a result of alternative produc-
axial compaction coeflkient, c.,, can then be defined tion policies.
.L r. ——-. !-—-- —---- :_- --- ..-:4 -1 -------:- ---,. T..
111
+ha P..,w.;nmmn m.. A,31A arlm= ,.,. +-. l-wm”f=il-=t.=c
ZN WE IOHIKiUOn LXJHIJJW1l UI1 p~l U1ll L (Xldllgc 111 pulc- L1l G VLU1llll~bll ~a> lZbl U, b-~ti WCL%bl rJti LBbLfi Utti O
pressure reduction: into the reservoir, mainly from the north, far too
slowly to maintain the original reservoir pressure. By
~ /i-
about the year 2000, iarge parts of the resemmir ‘W-WI
cm
=-F- ;; ’or c:=c~,dp. . . . (ij
have experienced a pore-pressure reduction of some
(The relationship between cm and other, better known 300 kg/cm’. The producing interval is large, varying
deformation properties, such as rock bulk compres- from 90 m in the south, where the production wells
sibility and Poisson’s ratio, will be discussed later.) are presently concentrated in clusters, to more than
The total reduction in reservoir height can then be 200 m in the north. These figures were sufficiently
expressed as: large to warrant an investigation of the possibility of
H Pf
compaction, the crucial parameter being the com-
AH= f fcti, (p, z)dpdz. . . . . (2) paction coefficient.
o p, The compaction coefficient depends on a number
Owing to the very nature of the structure of reser- of factors, such as rock type, degree of cementation,
tive stress also influences the deformability of the there is a gradual transition in the deformation be-
rock skeleton, which accounts for the nonlinear re- havior from elastic to cataclastic. Elastic behavior is
1—+++——+
e roc& m 71 I
fig. ]—Uniaxial compaction coefficient, c., (vertical axes) for sandstone reservoirs. Effective vertical
stress range U. = 100 to 200 kg/cm’, corresponding to depth of burial of 1,000 m
for normally pressured reservoirs.
I I I I ~1
H=#
105
:n?/kg
4 40 ‘
1(7
cdfk
30-
165
cm?fkg
2
20 ‘
..::::7.:.:... .. .,., .
0 10 20 30
EEEE
15 35
=.=.. - md
----- till-cansalidated
.---. .--.. ——-—
— %mi.rnncnlidnt~d 1
● rock
&
Fig. 2—Uniaxial compaction coefficient, cm, (vertical axes) for sandstone reservoirs. Effective vertical
-1---- rarlge
stress ----- 9nm .-LU cwu
u. = cwu erifi ng/r.111
l.- /--? , bUIIGapUIIUIIIg
-- ..-.=.-.” .4;-” tc depth hli.; .t -f 2 nnn M
d Uul l-1 WI *,WWW
for normally pressurized reservoirs.
105
&~/~g
0 10 20 30 tl 20 z 30 3s%
0 10 m 30152025303S%
porosity smlas
porosityScolss
W1l- consoltiuf
1- Well - consohdotcd
Im===l
Fig. 3—Uniaxial compaction coefficient, c~, (vertical Fig. 4--U niaxial compaction coefficient, c., (vetilcal
axes) fOr carbonate rock. Effective vertical stress axes) for carbonate rock. Effective vertical stress
range C, = 100 to 200 kg/cm’, corresponding range O, = 300 to 600 kg/cm2, corresponding
to depth of burial of 1,000 m for to depth of burial of 3,000 m for
normally pressured reservoirs, normally pressured reservoirs.
determine the interaction between the shrinking in- The results of the nucleus-of-strain concept can be
clusion and its surroundings to which it is connected. applied to real reservoir conditions in a number of
.... .
ways. NA.. al. 111 Lvlllla L1or, car, ~~ ~~i~~~~~
lVIUL1l :,.4,..-”+; f~~rn. an
This interaction can be calculated with the heip of
the theory of poroelasticity, sometimes inappropri- analysis of the deformation pattern around a disc-
ately called the “theory of consolidation”. This theory shaped reservoir of thickness H and radius R at depth
%7
Ur(r,o]
z r /
% 2,0)
D ur
Uz
Uz(r,d = +
F%ivi
Urk,o)=++ Uz(z,o)= -8;G,,2+%2i--w . .
~= ti 03
_;
2
ti = TENSION PER IMT AREA WER
OF TENSION SPHERE;
SURFACE
w (r,o)=a
8-
r
(~2+D2)~ [+ [j2-(1-2v,v- q3;2v) IJ
M xPAh p= =REmH OF VERTICAL FORCES
o =RAOIUS OF TENSION SPHERE Ah= EFFECTWE SEWRATION OF FORCES
Fig. 5A—Spherical-tension model of McCann and Wilts.” Fig. 5B—Vertical-pincer model of McCann and Wilts.”
. . . . . .
H
.
(1–
. .
\~
.
q
. (6a)
)
can be found by integrating the nucleus solution over
the entire reservoir volume. z’ After the necessary Also, since reservoir compaction amounts to cmAPH,
mathematical manipulations, one obtaiiis we may write
uz(r, O).= –2c., (1 —v)AP~~ Subsidence
– 2(1 – lJ)A,
Reservoir compaction =
7e-Du.1, (a Z?) JO (a r) da, . . (6)
6 which means + — 1.5 A . . . . (8)
and Horizontal surface displacement
U*Q.afiIAir = 2(1 – v)B,
t4, (r,0j= +Zc)), (i —vj ApHR .,WOWL.“., w“.... . . ... ..
cnmnartinn
orz 1.5 B.
Ye-D”J, (a R)J, (ar)da , . . (7)
b . . . . . . . . . . ?: (9)
in \vhich 1,, and .lI are Bessel functions of zero and Thus the ratio between maximum subsidence and
first order. respectively. Numerical values of these reservoir compaction is in essence determined by the
“Hankel-Lipschitz integrals” have been reported by ratio ~,between depth of burial and the lateral extent
Eason c’t al.”) After introducing the dimensionless of the reservoir. Small, deeply buried reservoirs are
m
TABLE l—VALUES OF A = R (- J, (a R) J, (a r) e ‘“R da FOR RANGES OF VALUES OF p = r/R AND TI = D/R
b
,,
0.2 0.6 1.8 2.0 3.0
P 0.0 0.4 0.8 —.1.0 1.2 ——1.4 1.6 — ——
m 1.0000 0.8039 0.6286 0.4855 0.3753 0.2929 52318 0.1863 0.1520 0.1258 0.1056 0.0513
0.2 1.0000 0.7983 0.6201 0.4771 0.3683 0.2876 0.2279 0.1835 0.1500 0.1244 0.1045 0.0510
0.4 1.0000 0.7789 0.5924 0.4508 0.3473 0.2720 0.2167 0.1754 0.1442 0.1202 1.1014 0.0502
0.6 1.0000 0.7349 0.5377 0,4043 0.3124 0.2470 0.1989 0.1628 0.1351 0.1135 0.0965 0.0488
0.8 1.0000 0.6301 0.4433 0.3368 0.2658 0.2147 0.1762 0.1465 0.1234 0.1049 0.0901 0,0470
1.0 0.5000 0,3828 0.3105 0.2559 0.2130 0.1787 0.1510 0.1286 0.1102 0.0951 0.0827 0.0449
1.2 0.0000 0.1544 0.1871 0.1795 0.1621 0.1433 0.1257 0.1103 0.0965 0.0848 0.0748 0.0424
1.4 0.0000 0.0717 0.1101 0.1216 0.1197 0.1120 0.1024 0.0925 0.0831 0.0744 0.0667 0.0398
1.6 0.0000 0.0400 0.0682 0.0829 0.0876 0.0865 0.0824 0.0768 0.0707 0.0646 0.0589 0.0370
1.8 0.0000 0.0249 0.0449 0.0580 0.0647 0.0668 0.0659 0.0633 0.0597 0.0557 0.0516 0.0343
2.0 0.0000 0.0168 0.0312 0.0418 0.0485 0.0519 0.0528 0.0520 0.0502 0.0477 0.0450 0.0315
3.0 0.0000 0.0042 0.0082 0.0118 0.0149 0.0174 0.0193 0.0207 0.0216 0.0221 0.0222 0.0198
TABLE 2—VALUES OF B = R ~ J, (a R) J, (CYr) e ‘“~ d. FOR RANGES OF VALUES OF p= r/R AND ~ = D/R
o
.,
& 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 3.0
—— —— —
0.0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.2 0.1015 0.0954 0.0804 0.0628 0.0472 0.0350 0.0259 0.0194 0.0147 0.0113 0.0089 0.0032
0.4 0.2134 0.1979 0.1622 0.1238 0.0917 0.0675 0.0500 0.0375 0.0285 0.0220 0.0173 0.0062
0.6 0.3530 0.3163 0.2443 0.1789 0.1298 0.0949 0.0703 0.0529 0.0405 0.0314 0.0248
0.8 0.5721 0.4573 0.3151 0.2197 0.1570 0.1147 0.0854 0.0648 0.0500 0.0391 0.0311 0.0117
1.0 x 0.5456 0.3422 0.2355 0.1693 0.1252 0.0945 0.0726 0.0567 0.0448 0.0359 0.0139
1.2 0.5235 0.4278 0.3072 0.2237 0.1666 0.1265 0.0976 0.0764 0.0605 0.0485 0.0393 0.0158
1.4 0.3293 0.3026 0.2482 0.1958 0.1535 0.1208 0.0958 0.0766 0.0619 0.0504 0.0414 0.0174
1.6 0.2338 0.2228 0.1962 0.1650 0.1358 0.1110 0.0907 0.0743 0.0611 0.0506 0.0422 0.0185
1.8 0.1767 0.1711 0.1566 0.1377 0.1180 0.0997 0.0838 0.0703 0.0590 0.0496 0.0420 0.0194
2.0 0.1390 0.1358 0.1272 0.1152 0.1018 0.0885 0.0762 0.0653 0.0559 0.0478 0.0410 0.0199
3.0 0.0580 0.0576 0.0562 0.0541 0.0514 0.0483 0.0449 0.0414 0.0380 0.0346 0.0314 0.0190
therefore hardly capable of producing significant sub- core analyses, NAM’s Schoonebeek oil reservoir must
sidences, even if their rese-moir compaction cannot show a small subsidence of this order of magnitude.
be neglected. In contrast, extermely large reservoirs Careful Ievelling surveys indeed show small surface
at large depths may be potential candidates for movements, but the displacement rate is too small
subsidence, to aiiow a detailed comparison ‘M-w-eeti‘&eory d
In order to illustrate the deformation pattern of practice.
compacting reservoirs and their surroundings in more It is not even justified to take a fixed order of
detail, Fig. 6 exaggerates the vertical-displacement magnitude as a universal tolerance limit; the iatter
distribution at the surface, as well as at the top and depends both on the location of the reservoir in re-
bottom of the reservoir. Two practical ratios q = D/R lation to residential or industrial areas, and on the
are used for this illustration: 1.0 and 0.2. For q = 1.0, acceptability of flooding or other surface calamities.
subsidence is about 0.45 times reservoir compaction. The compaction of offshore reservoirs, or reservoirs
For q = 0.2, subsidence is much larger for the same beneath the desert or a tropical forest, may have to
degree of compaction; i.e., 1.20 times reservoir com- be analyzed for reservoir-engineering studies, but
paction. It is thus seen that subsidence may exceed probably not in the light of local subsidence, uniess,
compaction for homogeneous rock conditions, the for example, a large dam is or will be located in the
maximum ratio being 2(1 – v). Figs. 7 and 8 pro- neighborhood, or an active fault plane may be
vide details of these deformation patterns. mobilized.
To date no field cases have been reported of sub- Nevertheless, our technical survey confirms what
sidence above reservoirs at depths exceeding 2,000 m. has been observed in practice; namely, that detailed
However, the theory certainly does not exclude this and costly investigations are necessary only in a very
possibility. In practice, the chances of severe sub- restricted number of cases. Such an investigation in-
sidence above deeply buried oil or gas reservoirs are volves a series of steps, which we shall outline in the
~m.~11for the f~]low@ reasons: following section.
1. The value of uniaxial -compaction coefficient
decreases with increasing effective stress (see Figs. 1 Laboratory Measurement of the Uniaxial-Compaction
through 4). Because reservoirs frequently experience Coefficient on Representative Core Samples
a hydrostatic pore pressure before production, the The technical difficulties are related to equipment
original effective stress will increase with depth of design, the selection of representative core material,
burial of the reservoir, and the degree of compaction and the interpretation of the measurements.
will therefore be reduced.
2. To provide similar q-values, deep reservoirs Equipment Design. The uniaxial compaction of loose
must have a larger lateral extent than shallow ones. ,sands and clays can best be measured with the help
On the other hand, deep resewoirs can be sub- of an oedometer-type cell. A great deal of care must
jected to a larger ultimate reduction in reservoir be taken when cutting the samples from rubber-sleeve
pressure compared with what is physically possible cores and mounting them in the cell with the least
in shallow reservoirs. This means, for instance, that possible distortion. The most compressible parts of
giant gas reservoirs are in principle candidates for the core material are frequently the most vulnerable
subsidence, even if they are situated at great depth. during both recovery and laboratory handling. Well
We have come to the conclusion that the Groningen consolidated and friable rocks can be studied either
gas field, for which q <0.20 and for which ultimate in a triaxial cell with zero lateral deformation, or in
compaction may reach a value of 1 m, is such a case. a hydrostatic loading cell. As has been pointed out by
Teeuw,” the first method is the more accurate and
~~~~~~.~~~ f~~ ~ ~c*zJilaA
WLuna””
l“”@Q*~~~*i~~
. .. v w“..&. . . . . .
~1-- -l I_...” -- A.. -a-a” ,.4 Dn;..r,ri$c -If~fi. ~C%~\r~~,
dlsu illluw> Iuccxidl Glllwt U1 1 UIS?.W1l s , a.!”,
A survey ofthe !k!ihm! d both cmnpaction and it is also the more elaborate technique. The second
subsidence in the way indicated above reveals that procedure can be carried out rapidly in a rather
there are only a few candidates for further analysis, simple setup and is thus better suited for routine
if we take 10 cm as an acceptable but already diffi- measurements. A formula relates uniaxial and hydro-
cult to analyze subsidence measure. According to static compaction data:
1
c.=— ~ (l–~)cb, . . (10)
3 ()
where
Ch= hydrostatically determined bulk compressi-
bility.
v = Poisson’s ratio, for which an estimated value
flf 075
., ..,--- to
.- 030
._.=__ can
.—----he used for most res-
ervoir rocks. v can also be measured for a
selected number of cores in the triaxiai ceil
~ = ratio between rock matrix and rock bulk
compressibility = c,/cb. This ratio can be
determined for sands and sandstones on
Fig. 6-Compaction and subsidence. the basis of the c. value of quartz, and for
1 2 P“& 3
00
mr
Fig. 7—Compaction and subsidence for q = D/R = 0.2 Fig. 8-Compaction and subsidence for ~ = D/R = 1.0
and I, = 0.25. and I, = 0.25.
and subsidence. The cataclastic deformation proper- in observation wells and levelling surveys during the
ties of friable and loose rock material are not reflected production period. The costs of this field work con-
in the known petrophysical properties measured in stitute the main expense and it should be carried out
a wellbore. only if the severity of the problem justifies it.
which together represent the reservoir volume. An maintenance. Gas reservoirs can be produced only
indhidual pore-pressure reduction can be assigned to by expansion; water injection may have an adverse
each nucleus. The summation is performed by a effect on the recovery factor and is therefore usually
digital computer. unattractive.
Important aspects of the subsidence/compaction On the basis of these crude generalizations, it may
relationship, such as the ratio between the volume be concluded that oil reservoirs of the depletion type
..-— .-:_ . ..J GA-w+. --I., 1ow-- naQ ract=rvnirc in
of the subsidence bowi and the reduction in reser-vrm i~l i~~S~ S~i@. cI1lU L1&lluy wl& &O .U-W .V .= ...
volume, as well as the subsidence profile, are influ- either loose or friable rocks, are most sensitive to
enced by contrasts in deformability between reservoir subsidence. Other reservoirs cannot give rise to real
and underlying formations. For the Groningen gas concern in this respect.
field the deformability of the reservoir is rather small
and seems to be of the same order of magnitude as Nomenclature
that of the overlying and underlying formations. This Ctj= rock bulk compressibility
means that, according to the theory, the subsidence cm = uniaxial compaction coefficient
volume may exceed the reduction in pore volume. c, = rock matrix compressibility
Conversely, under Bolivar Coast conditions these D = depth of burial
volumes are approximately equai, because here the G = shear moduius
basement rock is very stiff compared with the highly H = height of productive interval
deformable loose sands and clay layers that consti- AP = pore (reservoir) pressure reduction
tute the reservoirs. r = radius
The nuclei-of-strain concept can even be applied R = reservoir radius
to analyze the latter type of conditions, provided the u. = radial displacement
surface deformations u, (r, O) and u, (r, O) for a nucleus us = vertical displacement
are tabulated from a finite-element analysis of the V = volume of a nucleus of strain
heterogeneous half-space. There is a restriction in z = vertical coordinate
that the deformation contrasts must be due to hori- p = c,/cb
zontal layering. Provided this approximates the real ez = vertical strain = dz/z