Translating laboratory compaction test results to field scale
conference paper
In recent studies on the surface subsidence caused by hydrocarbon recovery of the Groningen gas field, the predicted subsidence is overestimated if results of compaction experiments are not corrected by an empirical `upscaling factor'. In order to find an explanation for this `upscaling factor', an analysis is presented of different laboratory experiments conducted by NAM on samples of the Groningen field. In the mentioned studies, the result of the 1' loading cycle is generally used for the compaction calculations, while in the 2" and subsequent loading cycles a lower compaction coefficient (Cm) is observed. It is also observed that stress path has a significant influence on the measured Cm. A maximum of 25 % of the discrepancy in lab and reservoir scale compaction can likely be attributed to this difference in stress path between laboratory and reservoir. The Cm values of the 2" cycle compaction experiments with a stress path similar to the stress path of the Groningen reservoir are very comparable to the best-fit line used for predicting reservoir compaction. These results would imply that a 2" loading cycle is more representative of actual reservoir compaction
TNO Identifier
745590
ISBN
9781510828025
Publisher
American Rock Mechanics Association (ARMA)
Source title
50th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium 2016. 26 June 2016 through 29 June 2016 volume 4
Pages
3180-3186
Files
To receive the publication files, please send an e-mail request to TNO Repository.