Multi-Scale Geomechanics: How Much Model Complexity Is Enough?

G. Hoedeman
{"title":"Multi-Scale Geomechanics: How Much Model Complexity Is Enough?","authors":"G. Hoedeman","doi":"10.2118/177634-MS","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Nowadays oil and gas exploration and production is often performed in geomechanically challenging enviroments. Choosing the right scale and complexity of a model is critical for performing an effective and efficient geomechanical analysis. In this paper different geomechanical modeling techniques are compared for their accuracy and efficiency using a relatively simple (continental slope) and a more complex geological setting (submarine canyon). This was done by comparing the resulting state of stress of 1D well-centric geomechanical models with those of reservoir-scale 3D geocellular and 4D finite-element models. The more complex submarine canyon model shows that in relatively complex areas the 1D and 3D geomechanical models no longer give accurate stress results and a 4D model is needed to accurately simulate the state of stress. On the other hand, the continental shelf model shows that in a simple geological setting creating a 1D wellbore-scale geomechanical model is an efficient and effective way of calculating stress. The paper concludes that the initial step in a geomechanical study is assessing the geomechanical application of the model, taking the complexity of the geological setting into account and based on that assessment choosing the modeling complexity that is necessary to get accurate results, without unnecessarily spending resources.","PeriodicalId":213700,"journal":{"name":"Eastern Mediterranean Workshop 2018","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eastern Mediterranean Workshop 2018","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2118/177634-MS","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Nowadays oil and gas exploration and production is often performed in geomechanically challenging enviroments. Choosing the right scale and complexity of a model is critical for performing an effective and efficient geomechanical analysis. In this paper different geomechanical modeling techniques are compared for their accuracy and efficiency using a relatively simple (continental slope) and a more complex geological setting (submarine canyon). This was done by comparing the resulting state of stress of 1D well-centric geomechanical models with those of reservoir-scale 3D geocellular and 4D finite-element models. The more complex submarine canyon model shows that in relatively complex areas the 1D and 3D geomechanical models no longer give accurate stress results and a 4D model is needed to accurately simulate the state of stress. On the other hand, the continental shelf model shows that in a simple geological setting creating a 1D wellbore-scale geomechanical model is an efficient and effective way of calculating stress. The paper concludes that the initial step in a geomechanical study is assessing the geomechanical application of the model, taking the complexity of the geological setting into account and based on that assessment choosing the modeling complexity that is necessary to get accurate results, without unnecessarily spending resources.
多尺度地质力学:多少模型复杂性才足够?
如今,油气勘探和生产经常在地质力学具有挑战性的环境中进行。选择合适的尺度和模型的复杂性对于进行有效和高效的地质力学分析至关重要。本文比较了不同地质力学建模技术在相对简单(大陆斜坡)和更复杂的地质环境(海底峡谷)下的精度和效率。通过将以井为中心的1D地质力学模型的应力状态与油藏尺度的三维地胞体模型和四维有限元模型的应力状态进行比较,得出了这一结论。更为复杂的海底峡谷模型表明,在相对复杂的区域,一维和三维地质力学模型已不能给出准确的应力结果,需要使用四维模型来精确模拟应力状态。另一方面,大陆架模型表明,在简单的地质环境下,建立一维井眼尺度的地质力学模型是一种高效有效的应力计算方法。本文的结论是,地质力学研究的第一步是评估模型的地质力学应用,考虑地质环境的复杂性,并在此基础上选择建模复杂性,以获得准确的结果,而不会不必要地花费资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信