Rock Compressibility and Failure as

in Geopressured
~=e~ervoirM-echanisms
-.-----.
Gas Reservoirs
David W. Harville,* SPE-AIME, Louisianastate U.
Murrsy F. Hawkins, Jr., SPE-AIME,Louisiana State U.
.

Introduction
Rock compressibility has long been recognized as an
important factor in material balance calculations of
Qfl im place for closed reservoirs producing above
bubble-point pressure. 1 For example, if the pore volume compressibtity of the reservoir rock is half of
t~e g~m-pm~sih~ty Of tie undersaturated oil, neglect
of the rock compressibtity term results in about a 50
percent overestimation of oil in place. In general, it
may be stated that in material balance calculations on
closed reservoirs, consideration of rock compressibtity becomes increasingly importantas the fluid compressibility decreases. For this reason the effect of
rock compressibility is commonly neglected in studies
on gas reservoirs where gas compressibfity is usually
great.
Because gas compressibilities decrease with increasing pressures, the consideration of rock compressibility becomes increasingly important for deeper,
high pressure gas reservoirs. For example, the compressibility of the gas in the reservoir to be discussed
is 30 microsip** at an initial reservoir pressure of
8,921 psia. For a nominal pore volume rock compressibtity of 6 microsip, neglect of rock compressibility in material balance calculations on a closed
reservoir will result in a 20 percent overestimation of
initial gas in place. If the rock compressibfity is
larger than 6 microsip, then a still larger overestimadcn ~f ~u~~ ~!ace ~.~l~t~$In this study we propose
Now with Phillips Patmleum
. .Abb~aVia~~n
f~~ 10-6 ~i-1,
inches

per pound)

being

psi-l.

Co.,
~i~m

Mo~an
being

City,
10-c

La.

and

sip

(aqll

are

that because of low net Overburden pressures, mek

compressibilities in geopressured reservoirs are considerably greater than for similar rocks in normally
pressured reservoirs. We further suggest that as reservoir pressure is depleted, the increase in net overburden pressure initially causes inelastic rock compaction or rock failure. As failure continues with decreasing pore pressure, rock compressibility deaeaaes
and eventually reaches normal values in the range of
6 microsip.

North Ossun F]eld, Louisiana

The mechanisms proposed in the previous paragraph
are believed to be illustrated by the performance of
the NS2B reservoir of the North Ossun field, Lafayette Parish, La. This is a geopressured gas reservoir
with an initial pore pressure of 8,921 psia at 1Z,5W
ft subsea depth, or a gradient of 0.725 psi/ft. Table
1 gives pertinent data on this reservoir. Oood geologic
control is indicated by the structure map, Fig. 1. Although a gas-water contact exists, it is doubtful that
the associated aquifer is very large because the reservoir appears to shale out on the west. III addition,
considerable complex faulting in the area almost eertairdy closes the reservoir with a small aaswiated
aquifer.
Good core and log data have been used to cakmhvtkmarkn
1... . . -u;.;t;~l ..J.--.--
lCWall
rnnre
- volume of 583 million cu ft, and, with PVT dataj to calculate an initial
gas in place of 114 Bscf. The pressure-production

A study of the North Ossun field, Louisiana, reveals that as reservoir pressure is
depleted the increase in net overburden pressure initially causes rock failure and as the
failure continues with decreasing pore pressure, rock compressibility decreases until
eventually it reaches a normal value.
1528

TABLE 1-RESERVOIRDATANORTHOSSUNFIELD*
LAFAYEITE PARISH, LA., NS2B RESERVOIR

inithi

100

1.472

Z fSCtO;

Initial gas compressibility

114

30 X iO-O p~i- at

8,S$2i

@a

of the reservoir is shown in Fig. 2, and p/z

cumulative production is shown in Fig, 3. For pressures below the dew point, two-phase gas deviation
factors were calculated from the PVT data as described in Chapter 2 of Ref. 1,
Fig. 3 indicates, from extrapolation in the early
life, an initial gas in place of 220 Bscf, almost twice
the volumetric estimate of 114 Bscf. It is proposed
that during the early life the pressure is partially
sustained by high rock compressibfity resulting from
rock failure as described previously. After the production of some 20 Bscf, rock failure is essentially
completed and rock compressibfity drops to a normal value of about 6 microsip, at a pore pressure of
about 6,500 psi. At thk pore pressure the gas compressibility is up to about 75 microsip, which makes
rock c.ompressibfity a comparatively small factor.
Thus extrapolation of the curve after about 20 Bscf
has been produced should be valid, and in fact it extrapolates to 118 Bscf to agree well with the volumetric estimate of 114 Bscf.
A further analysis of thk reservoir includes the
calculation, with the following equation, of total apparent reservoir pore volume as a function of pressure.

history

vs

14

4 ,;%--...:: w c
Ig

+ c.(P,

0.235
0.24
0.34
200
4
18
6,920
160
47
2,480

Initiai gas in piace, Bscf (volumetric)

P ~ y[l

p)] + (G G,)%

(Gas)

(l?ater)

12,500
8,921
0.725
248
12,580

Depth, ft
Pressure, psia
Gradient, psi/ft
Temperature, F
Gas-water contact, ft
Average gross sand, tt
Porosity (33 s% quite uniform)
(electric ioga)
Connate water (eiectric logs)
Permeability, md (33 SS)
Producing walls
Geologic controi weils
Dew-point pressure, psia
initial GOR, bbi/MMacf
Condensate gravity, *APi
Net bulk gas volume, MMcf

~_GBS

(1)

..

As used in this study, tbe connate water Sw included

only that water in the gas reservoir. In other calculations presented by Harville2 the connate water value
was increased to include water in associated limited
aquifers. In one case the aquifer size was assumed to
be equal to the size of the gas reservoir, and in another case is was assumed to be twice the size of the
gas reservoir. Pressure equalization between the reservoir and the aquifer was shown to be a valid assumption for these small aquifers and for the indicated rock and fluid properties.
Fig. 4 shows the pore volume calculated by Eq. 1
no aaeoci~~ ~ $GEc~oEof pm ?~ssu~, ~&g
ated aquifer and using for. the
gas in place the
. . i&ial
.
.
.
- ...nti..r.a nf
.
volumetric estimate of i 14 BSCI. The d=rivau..
this curve may be used to calculate the rock compressibility at each point. As indicated in Fig. 4, the
rock compressibfity reaches a maximum of 28 microsip during the early depletion where rock failure is
presumed to occur. Below about 6,000 psi, according
to thk interpretation, rock failure is essentially complete and the calculated rock compressibility drops
to a more usual I alue of 6 microsip. Because of lower
rock and h@er gas compressibilities at lower pore
pressures, reservoir performance is very close to that
of a constant volume system, and the p/z extrapolation is reasonably accurate. It may be only coincidental that rock compressibility drops to more usual
values when the pore pressure reaches a normal value
for the reservoir depth; i.e., a gradient of about 0.50
psi/ ft.
The foregoing presentation does not prove, of
course, that rock failure is the major source of pressure support of this reservoir during depletion. (However, Fig. 5, taken from work by Fatt,a provides a
striking similarity in the behavior of a Sespe sandstone sample that had not undergone high overburden
pressures during its geologic history.) Corroboration
for the suggestion that rock failure is a major
source of pressure support during depletion is

lg

.*

b~
*>

.....

,6*

--------

2i

18

. . ..

0
s

20

,)

-..

3
.

---

~
12

.*

25 ~

0----

20:

<8

-------------

07

g9

-. #-

:.

.-9

15 z
:

. . . . . ..-Q---

+:~~

~o

102

;6

1:

~
5

5
-.7
59

II&

lStructure

mep, top of sand, NS2B reservoir,

North Oesun field, Le.

DECEMBER,1%9

60

0
61

62

63

64

65

66

Year

Fig. 2Pressure-produdion

histov,

NS2B r$servoir.
1529

found in the difficulty of explaining the character of

the support by generally accepted water influx theories, because the strong initial support rather suddenly drops to a very small value. In the additional
studies by Harville, not presented here, which considered small associated aquifers, the character of the
pressure support was unchanged, and only the values
of the rock compressibil@ were reduced, during both
the initial assumed rock failure interval and the later
stage.
It has been suggested that pressure support in this
~~ of reservoir may be water influx from the overlying and underlying shales. Preliminary studies of
this possibility indicate that the adjacent shales can
provide neither the volume nor the character of the
pressure support indicated by Fig. 4. On the other
hand, rock failure rather nicely explains both.
l~~efiyei ~~ fi~f ~~ f~~.~ oc~~-rsh tajs tyrpe of

\
Gas

Fig. 3-p/z

Production

reservoir, it should not be forgotten that normal rock

compressibtity and connate water expansion are important reservoir mechanisms at higher pore pressures
because of decreasing gas compressibility. It should
also be realized that what we have just said is even
more important with oil reservoirs because of their
very low fluid compressibilities.
With regard to geopressured gas reservoirs, it is
understood that many that we bdieved to be essentially closed systems exhibit a large discrepancy between the volumetric estimate of gas in place and that
estimated by extrapolation of the p/z plot. Commonly
mentioned is a ratio of about 2 between the figmes,
which is the ratio found in thk study. We hope that
this study will encourage other studies that may shed
more light on this discrepancy and the reservoir
mechanism or mechanisms controlling production
from geopressured reservoirs.

BCF)

vs cumulative production for the

NS2B reservoir.

Nomenclature
B, = gas volume factor at pressure p, cu ft/8cf
B,l = gas volume factor at initial pressure,
W2
Pressure,

PSIA

(000

Cu ft/scf
c* = connate water compressibtity, psi-i
(used 3 X 10+ psi-)
G = initial gas in place, scf
G, = gas produced when pressure is p, scf
p = average pore pressure at later time, psia
Pi = initial reservoir pore pressure, psia
& = connate water saturation, fraction
v, = total pore volume, cu ft

s)

Fig. 4-Calculated
pore volume of the NS2B resenroir,
assuming no water influx and G = 114 Bcf.

References
1. Craft, B. C. and Hawkins, M. F., Jr.: Applied Petroleum

Reservoir Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Engiewood

cliffs,
N. J. (1959) 135-138.
2. Harville, D. W.: Rock Collapse as a Producing Mechsn-

ism in SuperpressureReservoira,MS thesis, Louisiana

StateU., BatonRouge(1967).
3,Fatt, I.: Compreasibdityof Sandstonesat Low to Mod:~5~ Preasuses,Bull., AAPG (1954) 4% No. 8, 1924JWT

External

Pressure,

PSI

10
(000

12

14

s)

5-Bulk
volume change of a Seapa sandstone sample,
zero pom pressure (after Fatt), Pore volume compreasi.
bilities are based on porosity of 25 percent.
Fig.

1530

Original
manuscript
raceivad March 24, 1969. Raviaad manuscript received July 9, 1969. Paper (SRZ 2600) wos pmntad
at
Symposium
on Abnormal
Subsurface
Praasum held st Louiaisma
Stste U., Baton Rouga, April 28, 1967.0
copyright
1969 Amaricsn
hsatituta of Minin&
Matelluraicsl,
and Petroleum
Ssseineass, k.

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNO~OGY