Figure 1.
The schematic illustration of the H-T-M coupling procedure applied to the dynamical model.
Figure 1.
The schematic illustration of the H-T-M coupling procedure applied to the dynamical model.
Figure 2.
Schematic relationships between the ratio of the increase in permeability () and the effective normal stress (). The brown line (1) determines a failure of fracture-prone rock masses with the formation of new fractures. The yellow curve (2) indicates the permeability route of critically stressed fractures during the reactivation process. The yellow curve (3) indicates the reactivation of fractures that are not optimally aligned. The yellow curve (4) marks the boundary of the reactivation mechanism of the fractures. The blue line (5) refers to the development of fracture permeability under elastic deformations.
Figure 2.
Schematic relationships between the ratio of the increase in permeability () and the effective normal stress (). The brown line (1) determines a failure of fracture-prone rock masses with the formation of new fractures. The yellow curve (2) indicates the permeability route of critically stressed fractures during the reactivation process. The yellow curve (3) indicates the reactivation of fractures that are not optimally aligned. The yellow curve (4) marks the boundary of the reactivation mechanism of the fractures. The blue line (5) refers to the development of fracture permeability under elastic deformations.
Figure 3.
Schematic of the structural model, including model zonation, dislocation, and leakage pathways. The intact host rock is separated by the fault zone, which is composed of two individual facies: an impermeable fault core and a highly conductive, naturally fractured damage zone. The potential CO2 leakage pathways are marked with black arrows.
Figure 3.
Schematic of the structural model, including model zonation, dislocation, and leakage pathways. The intact host rock is separated by the fault zone, which is composed of two individual facies: an impermeable fault core and a highly conductive, naturally fractured damage zone. The potential CO2 leakage pathways are marked with black arrows.
Figure 4.
Division of zones in the geological model. 1—caprock zone, 2—storage rock zone, 3—base rock zone, 4—caprock fault damage zone, 5—storage rock damage zone, 6—base rock fault damage zone, and 7—fault core zone. The green arrows indicate the cross-section line shown above in the figure.
Figure 4.
Division of zones in the geological model. 1—caprock zone, 2—storage rock zone, 3—base rock zone, 4—caprock fault damage zone, 5—storage rock damage zone, 6—base rock fault damage zone, and 7—fault core zone. The green arrows indicate the cross-section line shown above in the figure.
Figure 5.
The distributions of oil saturation (SOIL), pressure (PRES), and temperature (TEMP) for the initial state (t = 0) and the pre-injection phase (t = 10) on an exemplary vertical cross-section SW–NE. Exemplary cross-sections of oil saturation (A) pressure (B) and temperature (C).
Figure 5.
The distributions of oil saturation (SOIL), pressure (PRES), and temperature (TEMP) for the initial state (t = 0) and the pre-injection phase (t = 10) on an exemplary vertical cross-section SW–NE. Exemplary cross-sections of oil saturation (A) pressure (B) and temperature (C).
Figure 6.
The scheme with the initial properties, the boundary conditions, and the geometry of the geomechanical model. Orange and blue arrows indicate the directions of spread of the injected fluid.
Figure 6.
The scheme with the initial properties, the boundary conditions, and the geometry of the geomechanical model. Orange and blue arrows indicate the directions of spread of the injected fluid.
Figure 7.
Examples of pressure distributions for the initial state and 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 years of exploitation of the oil reservoir using IOR/EOR methods, including water flooding (A) and water–CO2 injection (B). Middle layer of reservoir model (K = 30).
Figure 7.
Examples of pressure distributions for the initial state and 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 years of exploitation of the oil reservoir using IOR/EOR methods, including water flooding (A) and water–CO2 injection (B). Middle layer of reservoir model (K = 30).
Figure 8.
Examples of temperature distributions for the initial state and 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 years of exploitation of the oil reservoir using IOR/EOR methods, including water flooding (A) and water–CO2 injection (B). Middle layer of reservoir model (K = 30).
Figure 8.
Examples of temperature distributions for the initial state and 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 years of exploitation of the oil reservoir using IOR/EOR methods, including water flooding (A) and water–CO2 injection (B). Middle layer of reservoir model (K = 30).
Figure 9.
Examples of fluid saturation distributions (water—blue, oil—green, and CO2—red) for the initial state and 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 years of exploitation of the oil reservoir using IOR/EOR methods, including water flooding (A) and water–CO2 injection (B). Middle layer of reservoir model (K = 30).
Figure 9.
Examples of fluid saturation distributions (water—blue, oil—green, and CO2—red) for the initial state and 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 years of exploitation of the oil reservoir using IOR/EOR methods, including water flooding (A) and water–CO2 injection (B). Middle layer of reservoir model (K = 30).
Figure 10.
Exemplary distributions of horizontal stress component () for initial state and 1, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 years of oil production with EOR, including water injection (A) and water–CO2 injection (B). Middle layer of reservoir model (K = 30).
Figure 10.
Exemplary distributions of horizontal stress component () for initial state and 1, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 years of oil production with EOR, including water injection (A) and water–CO2 injection (B). Middle layer of reservoir model (K = 30).
Figure 11.
Exemplary distributions of horizontal stress component () for initial state and 1, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 years of oil production with EOR, including water injection (A) and water–CO2 injection (B). Middle layer of reservoir model (K = 30).
Figure 11.
Exemplary distributions of horizontal stress component () for initial state and 1, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 years of oil production with EOR, including water injection (A) and water–CO2 injection (B). Middle layer of reservoir model (K = 30).
Figure 12.
Exemplary distributions of vertical stress component () for initial state and 1, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 years of oil production with EOR, including water injection (A) and water–CO2 injection (B). Middle layer of reservoir model (K = 30).
Figure 12.
Exemplary distributions of vertical stress component () for initial state and 1, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 years of oil production with EOR, including water injection (A) and water–CO2 injection (B). Middle layer of reservoir model (K = 30).
Figure 13.
Exemplary distributions of volumetric strain () for initial state and 1, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 years of the production with EOR, including water injection (A) and water–CO2 injection (B). Middle layer of reservoir model (K = 30).
Figure 13.
Exemplary distributions of volumetric strain () for initial state and 1, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 years of the production with EOR, including water injection (A) and water–CO2 injection (B). Middle layer of reservoir model (K = 30).
Figure 14.
Exemplary distributions of stress regime, orange—strike-slip () or blue—normal faulting (), for initial state and 1, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 years of oil production with EOR, including water injection (A) and water–CO2 injection (B). Middle layer of reservoir model (K = 30).
Figure 14.
Exemplary distributions of stress regime, orange—strike-slip () or blue—normal faulting (), for initial state and 1, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 years of oil production with EOR, including water injection (A) and water–CO2 injection (B). Middle layer of reservoir model (K = 30).
Figure 15.
Exemplary distributions of failure mode, blue—stable formation, orange—fracture reactivation, and red—rock shear/tensile failure, for initial state and 1, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 years of the oil production with EORs, including water injection (A) and water–CO2 injection (B). Middle layer of reservoir model (K = 30).
Figure 15.
Exemplary distributions of failure mode, blue—stable formation, orange—fracture reactivation, and red—rock shear/tensile failure, for initial state and 1, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 years of the oil production with EORs, including water injection (A) and water–CO2 injection (B). Middle layer of reservoir model (K = 30).
Figure 16.
The contribution of temperature () and pressure () fluctuations to the change in the principal components of the stress tensor, (A) and (B) .
Figure 16.
The contribution of temperature () and pressure () fluctuations to the change in the principal components of the stress tensor, (A) and (B) .
Figure 17.
The relationship between the relative change in temperature () and pressure () to the relative change in the principal components of the stress tensor, (A) and (B) .
Figure 17.
The relationship between the relative change in temperature () and pressure () to the relative change in the principal components of the stress tensor, (A) and (B) .
Figure 18.
The geomechanical stability analysis of the selected oil reservoir (well XI-1 and XI-2) in terms of the Coulomb–Mohr approach with respect to plasticity function. Vertical cross-section between XI-1 (yellow) and XI-2 (indigo) injection wells. Non-isothermal scenario () for the following 0, 16, 18, 20, and 35 years of the oil production with EOR, including water injection (A) and water–CO2 injection (B). Failure mode: blue—stable/intact formation, yellow—reactivation, and red—failure. Color lines represent production and injection wells.
Figure 18.
The geomechanical stability analysis of the selected oil reservoir (well XI-1 and XI-2) in terms of the Coulomb–Mohr approach with respect to plasticity function. Vertical cross-section between XI-1 (yellow) and XI-2 (indigo) injection wells. Non-isothermal scenario () for the following 0, 16, 18, 20, and 35 years of the oil production with EOR, including water injection (A) and water–CO2 injection (B). Failure mode: blue—stable/intact formation, yellow—reactivation, and red—failure. Color lines represent production and injection wells.
Figure 19.
The geomechanical stability analysis of the selected oil reservoir (well XI-1) in terms of the Coulomb–Mohr approach with respect to plasticity function. Vertical cross-section between XI-1 (yellow) injection well in the south and the northern part of the reservoir. Non-isothermal scenario () for the following 0, 16, 18, 20, and 35 years of the oil production with EOR, including water injection (A) and water–CO2 injection (B). Failure mode: blue—stable/intact formation, yellow—reactivation, and red—failure. Color lines represent production and injection wells.
Figure 19.
The geomechanical stability analysis of the selected oil reservoir (well XI-1) in terms of the Coulomb–Mohr approach with respect to plasticity function. Vertical cross-section between XI-1 (yellow) injection well in the south and the northern part of the reservoir. Non-isothermal scenario () for the following 0, 16, 18, 20, and 35 years of the oil production with EOR, including water injection (A) and water–CO2 injection (B). Failure mode: blue—stable/intact formation, yellow—reactivation, and red—failure. Color lines represent production and injection wells.
Figure 20.
The geomechanical stability analysis of the selected oil reservoir (well XI-4) in terms of the Coulomb–Mohr approach with respect to the plasticity function. Vertical cross-section between XI-4 (blue) injection well and the north-eastern part of the reservoir. Non-isothermal scenario () for the following 0, 16, 18, 20, and 35 years of the oil production with EOR, including only water injection. Failure mode: blue—stable/intact formation, yellow—reactivation, and red—failure. Color lines represent production and injection wells.
Figure 20.
The geomechanical stability analysis of the selected oil reservoir (well XI-4) in terms of the Coulomb–Mohr approach with respect to the plasticity function. Vertical cross-section between XI-4 (blue) injection well and the north-eastern part of the reservoir. Non-isothermal scenario () for the following 0, 16, 18, 20, and 35 years of the oil production with EOR, including only water injection. Failure mode: blue—stable/intact formation, yellow—reactivation, and red—failure. Color lines represent production and injection wells.
Figure 21.
The geomechanical stability analysis of the selected oil reservoir (well XI-1, XI-2, XI-3, XI-4, and XI-5) in terms of the Coulomb–Mohr approach with respect to plasticity function. Up—uppermost layer of caprock and Mid—middle layer of reservoir formation. Non-isothermal scenario (), for the following 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, and 35 years of production and waterflooding stage. Re—reactivation of pre-existing fractures, SF—shear failure, HF—hybrid failure, and TF—tensile failure.
Figure 21.
The geomechanical stability analysis of the selected oil reservoir (well XI-1, XI-2, XI-3, XI-4, and XI-5) in terms of the Coulomb–Mohr approach with respect to plasticity function. Up—uppermost layer of caprock and Mid—middle layer of reservoir formation. Non-isothermal scenario (), for the following 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, and 35 years of production and waterflooding stage. Re—reactivation of pre-existing fractures, SF—shear failure, HF—hybrid failure, and TF—tensile failure.
Figure 22.
The geomechanical stability analysis of the selected oil reservoir (well XI-1, XI-2, XI-3, and XI-5) in terms of the Coulomb–Mohr approach with respect to plasticity function. Up—uppermost layer of caprock and Mid—middle layer of reservoir formation. Non-isothermal scenario (), for the following 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, and 35 years of production and EOR-CO2 stage. Re—reactivation of pre-existing fractures, SF—shear failure, HF—hybrid failure, and TF—tensile failure.
Figure 22.
The geomechanical stability analysis of the selected oil reservoir (well XI-1, XI-2, XI-3, and XI-5) in terms of the Coulomb–Mohr approach with respect to plasticity function. Up—uppermost layer of caprock and Mid—middle layer of reservoir formation. Non-isothermal scenario (), for the following 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, and 35 years of production and EOR-CO2 stage. Re—reactivation of pre-existing fractures, SF—shear failure, HF—hybrid failure, and TF—tensile failure.
Table 1.
Relative permeability curve parameters.
Table 1.
Relative permeability curve parameters.
| Phase | Parameter | Value |
|---|
| water | nw | 2 |
| water | Sw,min (=Srw) | 0.05 |
| water | Sw,max | 0.8 |
| CO2 (water–CO2 system) | nCO2 | 2 |
| CO2 (water–CO2 system) | SCO2,min (=SrCO2) | 0.22 |
| CO2 (water–CO2 system) | S CO2,max | 0.8 |
Table 2.
List of simulation scenarios and general geomechanical stability results for injection zones.
Table 2.
List of simulation scenarios and general geomechanical stability results for injection zones.
| Tinj | ΔT | Caprock | Reservoir |
|---|
| °C | °C | React | Failure | React | Failure |
|---|
| 80 | 0 | NO | NO | NO | NO |
| 70 | −10 | NO | NO | NO | NO |
| 65 | −15 | NO | NO | YES | NO |
| 55 | −25 | NO | NO | YES | NO |
| 45 | −35 | NO | NO | YES | NO |
| 35 | −45 | NO | NO | YES | YES |
Table 3.
Results of geomechanical stability analysis performed according to Coulomb–Mohr (C-M) failure criterion for selected oil production with IOR-waterflooding. Reactiv.—fracture reactivation event, FM_S—rock failure in shear mode, FM_T—rock failure in tensile mode, Leak (NO/Up)—no observed CO
2 leakage/upward leakage through specific region, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6—numbers of regions determined in dynamic model enlisted in
Figure 6, and NO—formation is stable.
Table 3.
Results of geomechanical stability analysis performed according to Coulomb–Mohr (C-M) failure criterion for selected oil production with IOR-waterflooding. Reactiv.—fracture reactivation event, FM_S—rock failure in shear mode, FM_T—rock failure in tensile mode, Leak (NO/Up)—no observed CO
2 leakage/upward leakage through specific region, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6—numbers of regions determined in dynamic model enlisted in
Figure 6, and NO—formation is stable.
| Oil Reservoir Stability During Well Test and IOR Acc. C-M Failure Criterion |
|---|
| C-M Plascicity Function (FS) | Tinj = 35 °C, ΔT = −45 °C | Tinj = 35 °C, ΔT = −45 °C | Tinj = 35 °C, ΔT = −45 °C | Tinj = 35 °C, ΔT = −45 °C | Tinj = 35 °C, ΔT = −45 °C |
|---|
| XI-1 | XI-2 | XI-3 | XI-4 | XI-5 |
|---|
| Timstep | Elaps. Time | Stage | Reactiv. | FM_S | FM_T | Leak | Reactiv. | FM_S | FM_T | Leak | Reactiv. | FM_S | FM_T | Leak | Reactiv. | FM_S | FM_T | Leak | Reactiv. | FM_S | FM_T | Leak |
|---|
| Start | 0 | Initial | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO |
| 1 | 1 | Welltest | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO |
| 2 | 2 | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO |
| 3 | 6 | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO |
| 4 | 10 | IOR-waterflooding | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO |
| 5 | 12 | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO |
| 6 | 14 | 2 | NO | NO | NO | 2 | NO | NO | NO | 2 | NO | NO | NO | 2 | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO |
| 7 | 16 | 2 | 2 | 2 | NO | 2 | 2 | 2 | NO | 2 | NO | NO | NO | 2 | 2 | 2 | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO |
| 8 | 18 | 2 | 2 | 2 | NO | 2.6 | 2 | 2 | NO | 2 | 2 | 2 | NO | 2 | 2 | 2 | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO |
| 9 | 20 | 2.6 | 2 | 2 | NO | 2.6 | 2 | 2 | NO | 2 | 2 | 2 | NO | 2.6 | 2 | 2 | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO |
| 10 | 35 | 2.6 | 2 | 2 | NO | 2.6 | 2 | 2 | NO | 2 | 2 | 2 | NO | 2.6 | 2 | 2 | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO |
Table 4.
Results of geomechanical stability analysis performed according to Coulomb–Mohr (C-M) failure criterion for selected oil production with EOR-CO
2. Reactiv.—fracture reactivation event, FM_S—rock failure in shear mode, FM_T—rock failure in tensile mode, Leak (NO/Up)—no observed CO
2 leakage/upward leakage through specific region, 1, 2, 3, and 4—numbers of regions determined in the dynamic model enlisted in
Figure 6, and NO—formation is stable.
Table 4.
Results of geomechanical stability analysis performed according to Coulomb–Mohr (C-M) failure criterion for selected oil production with EOR-CO
2. Reactiv.—fracture reactivation event, FM_S—rock failure in shear mode, FM_T—rock failure in tensile mode, Leak (NO/Up)—no observed CO
2 leakage/upward leakage through specific region, 1, 2, 3, and 4—numbers of regions determined in the dynamic model enlisted in
Figure 6, and NO—formation is stable.
| Oil Reservoir Stability During Well Test and IOR Acc. C-M Failure Criterion |
|---|
| C-M Plascicity Function (FS) | Tinj = 35 °C, ΔT = −45 °C | Tinj = 35 °C, ΔT = −45 °C | Tinj = 35 °C, ΔT = −45 °C | Tinj = 35 °C, ΔT = −45 °C | Tinj = 35 °C, ΔT = −45 °C |
|---|
| XI-1 | XI-2 | XI-3 | XI-4 | XI-5 |
|---|
| Timstep | Elaps. Time | Stage | Reactiv. | FM_S | FM_T | Leak | Reactiv. | FM_S | FM_T | Leak | Reactiv. | FM_S | FM_T | Leak | Reactiv. | FM_S | FM_T | Leak | Reactiv. | FM_S | FM_T | Leak |
|---|
| Start | 0 | Initial | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO |
| 1 | 1 | Welltest | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO |
| 2 | 2 | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO |
| 3 | 6 | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO |
| 4 | 10 | IOR-waterfl. | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO |
| 5 | 12 | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO |
| 6 | 14 | 2 | NO | NO | NO | 2 | NO | NO | NO | 2 | NO | NO | NO | 2 | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO |
| 7 | 16 | 2 | 2 | 2 | NO | 2 | 2 | 2 | NO | 2 | NO | NO | NO | 2 | 2 | 2 | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO |
| 8 | 18 | EOR-CO2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | NO | 2.6 | 2 | 2 | NO | 2 | 2 | 2 | NO | 2 | 2 | 2 | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO |
| 9 | 20 | 2 | 2 | 2 | NO | 2.6 | 2 | 2 | NO | 2 | 2 | 2 | NO | 2.6 | 2 | 2 | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO |
| 10 | 35 | 2 | 2 | 2 | NO | 2 | 2 | 2 | NO | 2 | 2 | 2 | NO | 2 | 2 | 2 | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO |