SPE 124307

Development of a Geomechanical Reservoir Modelling Workflow

and Simulations
B. Bostrm, StatoilHydro

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 47 October 2009.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
A Geomechanical Earth Model (GMEM) is wanted for every field development and should be maintained for the life-time of
the field. These models are needed in order to contribute to safe and optimum drilling and production in depleting and
complex reservoirs. This strategy is only possible if an automated workflow is developed.
Links between the stress simulator Abaqus and the geological software Irap RMS and between Abaqus and the reservoir
simulator ECLIPSE are established in order to have; (1) faster and better generation of geomechanical reservoir simulation
models, (2) to better account for geomechanical effects in the reservoir simulation and 4D feasibility studies. Abaqus
scripting interface is used to link Irap RMS and Abaqus. The link consists of a set of Python scripts that rebuilds the reservoir
geometry in the CAD, meshing and visualization program Abaqus/CAE. This is believed to be a unique feature of the
developed workflow as opposed to earlier developments that reuse the reservoir grid. In addition, a link between Abaqus and
ECLIPSE is developed transferring reservoir pore pressure data, initial porosity and degree of water saturation between
ECLIPSE and Abaqus through the file system. Verification and demonstration of capabilities of the developed workflow is
done using a faulted North Sea oil and gas field.
Introduction
Both commercial and research simulators that take the fully coupled nature of three-phase-flow and deformation into account
exists today. Stone et al 2000 have extended ECLISPE-300 (trademark of Schlumberger) to include geomechanics in a
finite difference context, while for instance Li and Zienkiewics 1992 have developed a similar approach using the finite
element method. It is then natural to ask if this will make the partly coupled approach described here superfluous. Our
experience is however that a partly coupled approach between a conventional reservoir simulator and a stress simulator is the
best approach for the near future when advanced geomechanical issues must be taken into account. This is also the industry
trend as for instance Schlumberger now is marketing the partly coupled approach between ECLIPSE and the finite element
stress simulator VISAGE (trademark of Schlumberger). The partly coupled approach benefits from the latest developments
in physics and numerical techniques of both simulators.
Computer programs from three vendors are involved in the geomechanical reservoir modelling workflow illustrated in Figure
1: (1) Irap RMS (trademark of Roxar Technologies) for geological modelling, (2) ECLIPSE (trademark of
Schlumberger) for reservoir modelling and (3) Abaqus (trademark of Dassault Systmes) for geomechanical reservoir
modeling/stress analysis. A standard procedure is to build the faulted reservoir geometry with the geological tool Irap RMS.
After gridding and upscaling a simulation ready model is exported to the reservoir simulator ECLIPSE. A similar coupling
between the stress-simulator Abaqus and Irap RMS did not exist starting this project.
Parts and assemblies can be imported into Abaqus/CAE (Computer Aided Engineering) from a third-party CAD (Computer
Aided Design) system. However Irap RMS does not support the CAD industry standards implying that the reservoir
geometry must be generated from scratch within Abaqus/CAE using the geometry creation tools: Solid features, cut features,
shell features, wire features, datum geometry and partition tools.

SPE 124307

It is also necessary to modify the Irap RMS geometry in order to address the important question of fault reactivation during
depletion. This question will be answered introducing the geometry of the fault fill material with its mechanical properties
into the Abaqus/CAE simulation model.
Figure 1 also indicates the two way data exchange between ECLIPSE and Abaqus. Here we focus on the transfer of pore
pressure data from the reservoir simulator to the stress simulator. In addition the specification, programming and verification
of the link between Irap RMS and Abaqus are main issues of this paper.
Irap
RMS
Reservoir geometry
Abaqus
P,T,Sw

, k
ECLIPSE
Simulation model
Inp file
Irap
RMS

Figure 1: Geomechanical reservoir modelling workflow.

Modelling strategy
Two apparent choices exist regarding establishing a geomechanical reservoir simulation model for Abaqus: (1) Rebuild the
geometry within Abaqus/CAE or (2) Use the grid of the geological model or the reservoir model directly in Abaqus.
Earlier developments within this field typically generate the simulation model or input file to the stress simulator, i.e. re-use
the reservoir simulation grid. This is normally done by extending the reservoir simulation grid up in the surrounding shale as
shown in Figure 2. Commericial reservoir simulators that use this approach are ECLISPE 300 with geomechanics and
STARS with internal geomechanical model (trademark of CMG). Examples of this approach may also be found in Samier
and Gennaro 2007; Kristiansen et al 2005; Marchina and Onaisi 2006. This last approach lack the flexibility needed to handle
displacement localization in the overburden that may occur when reservoir is produced by huge depletion.
The first approach is chosen here as we aim at: (1) High quality mesh with a limited total number of elements in the model,
(2) Adaptive re-meshing requires tetrahedron meshing (localization), (3) Extend fault fill material geometry out in the
surrounding shale and (4) Finer discretization level for the fault fill material utilizing cohesive elements.

SPE 124307

Figure 2. ECLIPSE 300 grid for a North Sea oil and gas field (structured gridding).

Tool specifications
Specifications of the tool that link Irap RMS and Abaqus will be given below.
Reservoir geometry from Irap RMS
The starting point for generating a faulted reservoir model in Irap RMS is the irregular fault surfaces that penetrate the
reservoir. Interpreted horizons from the seismic are added in a consistent way. Thereafter the reservoir volumes are
discretized using a corner point grid as shown in Figure 3. This is a structured grid where the horizontal distance between the
grid block corners may vary.
A consequence of representing heavily faulted reservoirs with a structured grid is concave blocks along the fault surfaces.
These blocks are easily identified in Figure 3 as all concave blocks are split into two wedge elements before visualization in
Abaqus/viewer. In addition the pinchout of layers will generate problems in the finite element representation of the faulted
reservoir grid.

Figure 3: Irap RMS corner point grid visualized in Abaqus/Viewer. Note that concave blocks along the faults are split into two wedge
elements.

Merge grid blocks

RMS2ABA must be able to merge grid blocks. There are two reasons for that: (1) pinch-out of layers in the geological model
and (2) necessary reduction of the number of reservoir grid blocks for the stress simulator.
Layers that pinch-out create problems. Block being neighbors to undefined blocks with zero thickness due to the pinch-out of
the layer can not be represented by a hexahedral element. This is solved by merging of layers. The total number of reservoir
grid blocks is reduced effectively by merging layers, which may be necessary keeping in mind that the volume of the
surrounding shale is much larger than the reservoir volume.

SPE 124307

Some restrictions must be set to the merging process: (1) Layers that are merged should have the same pressure depletion
history and material properties and (2) Merging is restricted to vertical blocks only.
An example is shown in Figure 4. The three layers seen in the geological model to the top is reduced to two layers is the
Abaqus simulation model shown in the bottom figure. This merging process is handled in RMS2ABA by picking the
top/bottom reservoir horizons and user defined layer interfaces. Horizons and layer interfaces are numbered from 1 to NZ+1,
starting at top reservoir. NZ is the number of layers in the geological model.

layer 1
layer 2
layer 3

pinch-out

layer 1
layer
2+3

Figure 4: Block merging shown in a cross sectional view. (a) Pinch-out of layer 2 in the geological model (top figure) and (b) Merging
of grid blocks in layers 2 and 3 (bottom figure).

Connect grid blocks

RMS2ABA must be able to smooth faults, i.e. connect FW/HW grid blocks. Three alternatives are sketched in Figure 5.
These are: (1) Move HW nodes, (2) Move FW nodes, and (3) Move both FW/HW nodes. RMS2ABA use the last option.

FW
HW

Figure 5: Connection of two grid blocks shown in a cross sectional view. (a) Move HW nodes, (b) Move FW nodes, and (c) Move both
FW/HW nodes.

Open grid
RMS2ABA must be able to open up the grid along the fault surfaces and introduce the geometry of the fault fill material
when a detailed fault model is wanted in Abaqus/CAE. A parametric representation of the cell sides along the fault is used
deciding the blocks shrinkage normal to the fault surface as indicated in Figure 6. In addition blocks with only a corner
touching the fault surface must be handled according to the shrinkage of its neighboring blocks.

SPE 124307

fault tip

fault fill material

bounded fault
fault tip

Figure 6: Grid opening and placement of the fault fill material (map view). (a) Irap RMS grid that includes a bounded fault and (b)
Abaqus/CAE representation of the faulted reservoir geometry.

Unique material properties will be given for the fault fill material.
Geometry for surrounding shale
RMS2ABA must add over-, under- and side-burden geometries to the reservoir geometry. This is obtained by a simple CUT
operation between the global box (solid) and the surface representation of the reservoir geometry (Boolean operation). The
global box includes the reservoir and the surrounding formations up to seabed, possibly down to base rock and some
reservoir width to each side in order to limit the effects of the imposed displacement boundary conditions on the global box.
This implies that modelled volumes outside the reservoir are far larger than the volume of reservoir represented in Irap
RMS/ECLIPSE.
Overburden horizons may be included if interpreted, either from Irap RMS or other seismic software. These can be imported
into Abaqus/CAE as a surface (shell representation using Abaqus terminology).
Tool programming
RMS2ABA is programmed in Python (trademark for the Python Software Foundation).
Abaqus scripting language
An automated generation of a triangulated surface (shell geometry in Abaqus/CAE) representation of the Irap RMS reservoir
geometry is obtained utilizing the scripting interface in Abaqus. The flowchart for the script RMS2ABA is given in Figure 7.

SPE 124307

RMS2ABA

RMS/VIP

RMS/MULT

Merge layers

Yes

No

Faulted model

Open grid

Close faults

Repair geometry

Generate reservoir shell geometry

stop

Figure 7: RMS2ABA flowchart.

RMS2ABA is started in Abaqus/CAE. After initialization, block geometry and fault definition are read from the Irap RMS
ASCII files VIP and MULT respectively. The merging of grid blocks, fault opening and closing are discussed above. Grid
repair is restricted to repairing gaps in the Irap RMS grid. Finally a reservoir surface (shell using Abaqus terminology)
representation of the reservoir geometry in within Abaqus/CAE is generated utilizing the geometry creation tools: Datum
geometry, wire feature and shell feature. Interpreted horizons in the overburden may be constructed in Abaqus/CAE using the
same geometry creation tools.
Interface against Irap RMS
Irap RMS can export 3D grids to several commercial available reservoir simulators. Amongst these are the reservoir
simulator VIP (trademark of Landmark). The file format for this simulator, named VIP CORP format, uses the corner point
description. Corner point coordinates (X,Y,Z) for each grid block (number given by its indices I, J and K) are grouped
together as shown in Table 1. Grid blocks are ordered with I index cycling fastest, followed by the J and K indices.
Undefined blocks are inactive grid blocks in the simulation model.

SPE 124307

Table 1. Irap RMS grid block coordinates.

C
C GRID BLOCK: I = 2 , J = 7 , K = 1
C UNDEFINED BLOCK
C
4842.64 -6240.09
4274.01
4929.84
5004.11 -6253.06
4231.87
4918.62
4842.64 -6240.09
4274.01
4929.84
5004.11 -6253.06
4231.87
4918.62
C
C GRID BLOCK: I = 3 , J = 7 , K = 1
C
4929.84 -6327.09
4224.11
4994.99
5069.00 -6324.16
4226.38
5004.11
4926.37 -6323.62
4237.74
4991.42
5066.17 -6320.62
4240.66
5001.16

4
-6327.09
-6168.40
-6327.09
-6168.40

4224.11
4274.01
4224.11
4274.01

3
2

J
7
5

-6397.25
-6253.06
-6393.40
-6249.80

4219.05
4231.87
4233.48
4245.45

The fault model generated in Irap RMS is based on a fault network, and consists of a set of gridded fault surfaces, with
corresponding fault lines along the intersections between the selected horizons and the fault surfaces. Table 2 gives the
syntax used in the MULT file that defines the fault location within the simulation grid. I1 and I2 are lower and upper Icoordinate of cells along the fault. J1, J2, K1 and K2 are defined in a similar manner. The face of the block that is part of the
fault surface is either TX MINUS or TY MINUS (see sketch in Table 2). This implies that the fault surfaces description given
in the MULT file typically are made up of both block faces from the HW and FW side. An algorithm has been made that
transform this definition to either a FW or HW description of the fault surface before a shrinkage of the blocks can be
performed.
Table 2. Irap RMS fault description.
MULT TX ALL MINUS MULT
FNAME Acw_SE1
-- I1 I2
J1 J2 K1 K2
51 51 50 51
1 28 1.000
50 50 52 54
1 28 1.000
49 49 55 56
1 28 1.000
48 48 57 57
1 28 1.000
47 47 58 64
1 28 1.000
48 48 65 71
1 28 1.000
49 49 72 73
1 28 1.000
MULT TY ALL MINUS MULT
FNAME Acw_SE1
50 50 52 52
1 28 1.000
49 49 55 55
1 28 1.000
48 48 57 57
1 28 1.000
47 47 58 58
1 28 1.000
47 47 65 65
1 28 1.000
48 48 72 72
1 28 1.000
49 49 74 74
1 28 1.000
C
C next fault
C
MULT TX ALL MINUS MULT
FNAME Pw1_NE3
30 30 8 9
1 28 1.000
29 29 10 24
1 28 1.000
MULT TY ALL MINUS MULT
FNAME Pw1_NE3
29 29 10 10
1 28 1.000

Tx MINUS

I
TY MINUS
K

SPE 124307

Link between ECLIPSE and Abaqus

A link between Abaqus and ECLIPSE is developed transferring reservoir pore pressure data and initial porosity between
ECLIPSE and Abaqus through the file system. This transfer of data requires special considerations as different meshes are
required. Abaqus use non-structured meshing, while structured gridding is used in ECLIPSE. Non-structured meshing is
required to handle fault details, to handle the necessary coarsening of the mesh moving away from the reservoir and to be
able to catch possible depletion induced localization of deformations. The mapping technique chosen here is the weighted
least square approximation. This scheme which is written in FORTRAN gives improved mapping for discontinuous
functions.
The Weighted Least Squares Functional () for point (j) is defined as

j = w( xi )[ f j f i ]2
n

(1)

i =1

Where n is the number of points on the original mesh used in the mapping operation, w(xi ) are weighting functions for each
node of the original mesh and fi is the value of the function at each node of the original mesh. For each node (j) the function
is defined in terms a set of unknowns j related to a polynomial function; i.e.

f j = p( x ) j

(2)

p(x) is a polynomial and i is an unknown coefficient vector. The Weighted Least Squares Functional may then be written as

j = w( xi )[ p (x j ) j f i ]2
n

(3)

i =1

Minimisation of this functional leads to

A = F

(4)

Where in 3D with p ( xi ) = a + bxi + cyi + dzi

1
x
n
A = w( xi ) i
yi
i =1

zi

xi
xi xi

yi
xi yi

yi xi

yi2

zi xi

z i yi

zi
xi zi
yi z i

zi2

fi
x f

F = w( xi ) i i
yi f i
zi f i
An illustration of the mapping process is shown in Figure 8.

(5)

(6)

SPE 124307

Point on the new mesh

Original points (i) used in mapping
Original points (i) not used in mapping
Figure 8: Illustration of the search algorithm.

Geomechanical evaluation of Kvitebjrn

Verification and demonstration of capabilities of the developed workflow is done using the faulted North Sea HPHT gascondensate field Kvitebjrn as a pilot case. Background data abouth the field may be found in a companion paper (Hettema,
Bostrm and Pedersen 2009), which focuses on the calibration and verification of the full-field Kvitebjrn geomechanical
model.
Geometry
The first step was to regenerate the reservoir geometry within Abaqus/CAE, taking into account both active and inactive cells
in the geomodel. An example of this is shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Bottom view of the Kvitebjrn un-faulted reservoir geometry consisting of 41040 triangles.

10

SPE 124307

Here the top and bottom reservoir horizon is represented as triangulated surfaces (shell geometry). The rug is the Assembly
of 100 Parts, each consisting of 400 triangles. A total of 41040 triangles are needed to represent the contour of the reservoir
geometry. Traces of the fault network are still seen after connecting HW/FW blocks. A water-tight (closed volume)
structure is obtained adding triangulated reservoir edge surfaces. This process is fully automated creating valid and precise
shell geometry that must be converted to a solid geometry before meshing.
The process of creating a CAD representation of the reservoir geometry could certainly be done in any commercial CAD
tool. Here we have choosen ABAQUS/CAE, a tool that is fully integrated with the FEM tool Abaqus. In this way have
avoided issues related to the import of CAD geometries from third party software: Geometry repair tool.
In Figure 10, a top view of the reservoir is shown displaying the depth coordinate. The top reservoir is at deph 3933 m
TVDSS, while the lower most part is at depth 4610 TVDSS. Note that Z coordinates are scaled with a factor of 5.

Figure 10: Top view of the reservoir displaying the depth coordinate m TVDSS. Note that Z coordinates are scaled with a factor of 5.

Reservoir geometry is next expanded to include the overburden up to seabed, the sideburden and underburden as shown in
Figure 11. The dimensions of this box like geometry will typically be: Width - 3 times the reservoir width, height - At least
twice the reservoir depth (maximum down to solid rock). This is done in order to avoid boundary effects on the calculated
values of interest like reservoir compaction, reservoir stress changes, movements along plane of weakness, overburden stress
changes, seabed subsidence etc. The current Kvitebjrn model includes volumes that are 3500 times as large as the reservoir
volume.

SPE 124307

11

Seabed

40km
40km

7km
Figure 11: Global box that includes the reservoir and the surrounding formations.

Material data
Kvitebjrn geomechanical reservoir mesh must be populated with material properties. This will not be a topic here as this is
covered in some extend in the companion paper (Hettema, Bostrm and Pedersen 2009). This paper emphasizes the
importance of including transversal anisotrophy for the reservoir surrounding shale. This model may be extended into the
elasto-plastic regime using the Cam clay model as a reference frame. See Crook, Yu and Wilson 2002 and Sreide, Bostrm
and Horsrud 2009 for details.
Some general comments will however be given here. Geomechanical materials are characterized as pressure sensitive
materials so it is of importance to test the materials over the range of hydrostatic pressure of interest. Typical tests performed
are hydrostatic (or isotropic compression tests), oedometer (or uniaxial strain) tests, triaxial compression and extension tests;
drained CID tests for the sandstone and undrained CIU tests for the shale, uniaxial compression tests (special case of triaxial
compression tests), shear tests and Brazilian tests (should be standard).
Information generated by these standard tests is enough to calibrate the constitutive model chosen to represent the sandstone
and shale matrix in the present study. The list below summarizes the model parameters that should be identified
Elastic secant drained Youngs modulus, E
Poissons ratio,
Bulk modulus of pore water, Kw
Shear strength
Tensile strength
Compression strength
Biot Cofficient (or bulk modulus of the solid particles)
Porosity, n
Permeability
Undrained effective stress analysis
A technique to handle displacement undrained effective stress analyses in commercial software that do not support the Kwformulation according to Naylor 1974 is developed. This technique makes use of two overlapping elements: (1) the first
element represents the matrix and (2) the second element represents the fluid. The overlapping elements have different
element numbers, however identical node numbers, thus deforming together.
The apparent compressibility of the pore water, Ka, is given as
K a=

Kw

Here Kw is the bulk modulus of the pore water and is the porosity.

(7)

12

SPE 124307

Geostatic procedure
All geomechanical analyses where pressure depend material models are used (Mohr Coulomb plasticity etc.) need to begin
from a geostatic state, which is a steady-state equilibrium configuration of the undisturbed rock body under geostatic loading.
It is important to establish these initial conditions correctly so that the problem begins from an equilibrium state.
Vertical equilibrium in the model is obtained introducing the submerged unit weight of the matrix corresponding to the v.
The excess pore pressure is set to zero.
Mesh
Meshing will be done in Abaqus as a consequence of the chosen geometry based strategy. Non-structured gridding will be
applied in order to mesh these complex geometries consisting of reservoir horizons, calculated layer interfaces and fault
geometries as shown in Figures 12 and 13. A model with more than 400 thousand 10-noded modified tetrahedron elements
has been created. Corresponding number of variables are more than 3 million. The mesh resolution will be high in the
reservoir and in the reservoir surrounding formations, i.e. where large straining is expected.

Figure 12: Wavy cross sectional view through the model showing vertical displacements. Note that the reservoir elements are not
displayed.

SPE 124307

13

Figure 13: Horizontal view at reservoir level showing horizontal mesh resolution. Note that the reservoir elements are not displayed.

Pore pressure loading

A link between ECLIPSE and Abaqus is established reading amongst other pressure data. The pore pressure depletion
history is used as loading in the geomechanical model. Values displayed in Figure 14 for the year 2025 show that the pressure
depletion is relative constant within different zones.

Bottom view

Figure 14: Bottom view of the pore pressure change 1 of January 2025. Finite elements representing inactive cells in the geomodel
have zero pressure change and are coloured red in the contour plot.

Results
Reservoir deformations
The companion paper focuses amongst other on seabed subsindence and reservoir compaction early in the production history
for model calibration purposes. Here we present the estimated top reservoir subsidence in the year 2025 as shown in Figure
15. The found subsidence reflects to some degree the varation in the reservoir thickness. Peak value is less than 0.41 m.

14

SPE 124307

Top view

Figure 15: Reservoir compaction, top view.

Reservoir stress path

Knowledge of the stress path during depletion is essential in order to estimate the no drill date using conventional drilling
equipments. A convenient scalar expression for the reservoir stress path is the depletion coefficient given by Equation 8. This
coefficient is defined as the ratio of the horizontal stress and pore pressure change.

h
p

(8)

An estimate of this scalar is obtained assuming uniaxial compaction (see Fjr et al 2008 for more details)

1 2 0.56, = 0.22, n = 12%

=
1 0.66, = 0.17, n = 21%

(9)

Where is the Biot coefficient, is the Poissons ratio and n is the porosity of the Kvitebjrn reservoir sandstone. Using
triaxial test based data for the Kvitebjrn sandstone, this value is found to vary between 0.56 and 0.66.
This property may also be evaluated from the finite element results taking into account both non-uniaxial compaction,
arching effects and non-linear material behaviour. Figure 16 displays this property at the top of the reservoir. The finite
element results indicate a broader variation range for the depletion coefficient than found using the simple uniaxial strain
model. The depletion coefficient in the blue area is below, green area is equal, while in the yellow/red area exceed the values
found using an uniaxial assumption. This knowledge may be used to optimize the placement of the infill well at the reservoir
level. Finally, note that the stress path is not defined outside the depleted reservoir segments, i.e. white areas in the contour
plot.

SPE 124307

15

Top view

Figure 16: Stress path map showing different zones red, yellow and green with respect to infill drilling.

Drilling window change

Wellbore stability calculation for the infill well can conveniently utilize the finite element results for the overburden. For the
given well trajectory as shown in Figure 17, we have calculated the total stress changes along the path as shown in Figure 18.
The vertical stress is reduced in the overburden as a consequence of the overburden swelling that take place during depletion,
while the two horizontal stresses increase in value. These can be transformed to s.g units and added to the initial stress field
before doing a standard wellbore stability calculation.
Advanced finite element wellbore stability analyses may conveniently be done at critical depth as found from the stardard
wellbore stability calculations above. These are local models that are initialized by the global full-field model.

Figure 17: Infill well trajectory.

16

SPE 124307

Change in total stresses, MPa

-3

-2

-1

1000

2000

m TVDSS

3000
S11
4000

S22
S33

5000

6000

7000

8000

Figure 18: Overburden total stress changes along the well path. Compressive stresses are positive.

Submodelling
Regional models or submodels driven by the full-field geomechanical model will be used to obtain an accurate, detailed
solution in a local region from an initial, relative coarse, global mesh. Typically there will be two levels of models; (1)
Reservoir scale models and (2) wellbore scale model. Even reservoir scale models with fault details may be run as a
submodel to the global un-faulted full field model in order to keep the geomechanical models at a convenient size. A
submodel can be a global model for a more refined submodel.
Here we will show an application of a wellbore stability model using a node based submodelling technique, i.e the nodes at
the boundary of the wellbore stability model is driven from the global model. The mesh of the model that is shown in Figure
19 will have an orientation with respect to the global coordinate system according to the well path at the depth of interest.
The plot indicates that the displacement degree of freedoms at the periphery of the model is prescribed.

SPE 124307

17

Figure 19: Finite element mesh and boundary conditions of wellbore stability model.

The finite element wellbore stability model will be run in four steps: (1) Geostatic; (2) Reservoir depletion, (3) Drillout and
(4) Open hole. The model is initialized in the geostatic step. Initial effective Terzaghi stresses are read, while the excess pore
pressure is set to zero. All nodes at the periphery of the model are fixed. In the reservoir depletion step, the wellbore stability
model is driven by the global reservoir geomechanical model. Using a node based submodelling technique, all displacement
nodes at the boundary of the wellbore stability model is driven by the global model. After this step we have the correct
state of stress at the time of the infill drilling. In the drillout step, the borehole is excavated by removing elements. A normal
pressure equal the mud pressure is applied at the borehole wall pW-p0 (excess pore pressure calculations). Pore pressure
equalization will take place in the open hole step. This implies that we will have different type of elements representing the
shale in the global and the submodel: Displacement elements are conveniently used in the full-field model to capture the
undrained (no pore fluid flow) shale response using a Kw-formulation, while poro-elastic elements are utilized in the
wellbore stability model in order to capture both the undrained shale response immediately after drillout and the pore
pressure equalization taking place with time.
Figure 20 show a result from running the model. The excess pore pressure contours immediately after drillout varies with the
local hoop direction as a consequence of the anisotropic stress situation. The cross section picked is in the middle of the
model in order to reduce the effect of the fixed top and bottom boundary.

Figure 20: Contour plot of the excess pore pressure build up immediately after drillout (undrained shale response).

18

SPE 124307

A tool box with submodel is under development. In addition to the wellbore stability model outlined above, we will have
casing integrity models and sand prediction models. Simple GUIs will be developed that ease the use of these submodels
that are created using the Abaqus scripting interface (i.e. programmed in Python).
Geomechanical model deliveries
To sum up, deliveries from the above simulation model are deformations and the evolution of stresses across the entire field:

Subsidence, overburden effects, compaction prognoses and fault behaviour

Drilling (Stress path map, drilling window)

This has provided a basis for dividing the reservoir into different zones of red, yellow and green with respect to infill drilling.
The above results may be used further in related studies:

Well collapse
Sand prediction
Casing integrity
Geomechanical effects on reservoir flow properties (two-way coupling with ECLIPSE)
Geomechanical effects on 4D seismics

Conclusions
The established workflow has successfully been applied to model the coupled hydro-mechanical behaviour of the faulted
Kvitebjrn reservoir. A model with more than 400 thousand 10-noded modified tetrahedron elements has been created.
Corresponding number of variables are more than 3 million. A wellbore stability model has also been successfully applied
showing the versatility of the established workflow.
The most challenging part of the work has been to establish a valid geomechanical model based on the geomodel. A
geometry based strategy has been chosen. First the reservoir geometry is recreated within the CAD, meshing and
visualization program Abaqus/CAE. Second the geometry of over-, side- and under-burden is added. In other words all
developments are geometry based which is believed to be a unique feature of the developed workflow. Meshing will be done
in Abaqus/CAE as a consequence of the chosen geometry based strategy. Non-structured meshing must be applied to mesh
these complex geometries consisting of reservoir horizons, calculated layer interfaces and fault geometries.
A technique to handle displacement undrained effective stress analyses in commercial software that do not support the Kwformulation according to Naylor 1974 is also developed. This technique makes use of two overlapping elements: (1) the first
element represents the matrix and (2) the second element represents the fluid. The overlapping elements have different
element numbers, however identical node numbers, thus deforming together.
The link between Abaqus and ECLIPSE requires special considerations as used in the geomechanical simulator differs from
the geogrid. Abaqus use non-structured meshing, while structured gridding is used in ECLIPSE. Non-structured meshing is
required to handle fault details, to handle the necessary coarsening of the mesh moving away from the reservoir and to be
able to catch possible depletion induced localization of deformations. The mapping technique chosen here is the weighted
least square approximation.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the Kvitebjrn Unit license owners; Enterprise Oil Norge, Petoro, Total Norge and
StatoilHydro, for permission to publish this paper. The author would also like to thank Eiliv Skomedal and Per Horsrud for
their valuable contribution to the discussions.
References
Bostrm, B. and Skomedal, E. 2007. A Geomechanical Reservoir Modelling Tool. Abaqus Users conference.
Crook, A.J.L., Yu, J.G., Wilson, S.M, 2002. SPE/ISRM 78238. Development of an Orthotropic 3D Elastoplastic Material Model for Shale.
Rock Mechanics Conference, 20-23 October, Irving, Texas.
Fjr, E., Holt, R.M., Horsrud, P., Raaen, A.M, and Risnes, R., 2008. Petroleum Related Rock Mechanics 2nd edition. Elsevier B.V.
Hettema, M. H. H., Bostrm, B. and Pedersen, E. S., 2009. SPE 124713. Depletion-induced Stress Changes in a HPHT Reservoir:
Calibration and Verification of a full-field Geomechanical Model. To be presented at the ATCE conference in New Orleans, Oct. 4-7.

SPE 124307

19

Kristiansen, T.G., Barkved, O.I., Buer, K. and Bakke, R., 2005. IPTC 10818. Production-Induced Deformation Outside the Reservoir and
Their Impact on 4D Seismic. IPTC, Doha, Qatar, 21-23 November.
Li., X., Zienkiewicz, O.C., 1992. Multiphase Flow in Deforming Porous Media and finite Element Solutions. Comp Struct;45(2):211-27.
Marchina, P. and Onaisi, A., 2006. SPE/IADC 92546. Reservoir-Geomechanics Coupled Simulations: A Powerful Tool for Well Design
and Operation in HP-HT Environment. SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 23-25 February.
Naylor, D.J., 1974. Stresses in Nearly Incompressible Materials by Finite Elements with Application to the Calculation of Excess Pore
Pressure, I.J.N.M.E., Vol. 8, pp. 443-460.
Samier, P.S. and De Gennaro, S., 2007. SPE 107077. A Practical Iterative Scheme for Coupling Geomechanics with Reservoir Simulation.
SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and exhibition, Oct. 11-14 June.

Stone. T., Bowen, G, Papanastasiou, P., Fuller, J., 2000. SPE European Petroleum Conference, 24-25 October, Paris, France.
Sreide, O. K., Bostrm, B. and Horsrud, P., 2009. Borehole Stability Simulations of an HPHT Field using Anisotropic Shale Modeling.
The 43rd US Rock Mechanics Symposium and 4th U.S.-Canada Rock Mechanics Symposium, held in Asheville, NC June 28th July
1.