裂缝性高饱和压力油藏产能计算新方法

doi:10.11743/ogg20130219

石油与天然气地质 ›› 2013, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (2): 264-266.doi: 10.11743/ogg20130219

裂缝性高饱和压力油藏产能计算新方法

朱婵¹, 沈开元², 童玉宝³, 江武², 钱乔雅², 李文苗¹

1. 中国石油辽河油田分公司,辽宁盘锦 124000;
2. 中国石油西部钻探工程有限公司,新疆克拉玛依 834000;
3. 中国石油新疆油田分公司,新疆克拉玛依 834000

收稿日期:2012-09-15 修回日期:2012-12-10 出版日期:2013-04-28 发布日期:2013-05-02
第一作者简介:朱婵(1987—),男,工程师,油藏工程。

A new productivity calculation method for fractured reservoirs with high saturation pressure

Zhu Chan¹, Shen Kaiyuan², Tong Yubao³, Jiang Wu², Qian Qiaoya², Li Wenmiao¹

1. Liaohe Oilfield Company, PetroChina, Panjin, Liaoning 124000, China;
2. Western Drilling Engineering Co.Ltd., PetroChina, Karamay, Xinjiang, 834000, China;
3. Xinjiang Oilfield Company, PetroChina, Karamay, Xinjiang 834000, China

Received:2012-09-15 Revised:2012-12-10 Online:2013-04-28 Published:2013-05-02

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

针对裂缝性碳酸盐岩高饱和压力油藏应力敏感性强、不适用常规产能预测方法的问题,从流动系数随压力的变化关系研究入手,以达西定理为基础,结合油田实际,提出了高应力敏感、高饱和压力油藏产能预测方法。用盐下油田3口井实测的向井流动态关系曲线进行对比的结果表明,经产能预测方法获得的计算值与实际测试值吻合得非常好,平均误差为4.1%。对于当井底流压低于某值,产量将随之降低,并且采用常规产能预测方法难以预测的难题,该新方法为此提供了科学的解决办法,对裂缝性高饱和压力油藏开发具有指导意义。

关键词: 压力下降, 向井流动态关系曲线, 产能预测, 高饱和压力油藏, 裂缝性油藏

Abstract:

As fractured carbonate reservoirs with high saturation pressure are strongly sensitive to stress,the conventional productivity prediction methods are not applicable.Beginning with the study on the variation of flow coefficient with pressure,this paper presents a new productivity prediction method for reservoirs with high stress sensitivity and high saturation pressure based on the theory of darcy flow and in combination with the production practices.Comparison with the mea-sured inflow performance relationship (IPR) curves from three wells shows that the calculated and measured values are in good agreement with an average error of only 4.1%.When bottom hole flowing pressure is lower than a given value output may decrease correspondingly,causing difficulty in productivity prediction with conventional method.The new method can be used to solve this problem,thus is of great significance for the development of the fractured reservoir with high saturation pressure.

Key words: pressure decrease, inflow performance relationship (IPR) curve, productivity prediction, high saturation pressure reservoir, fractured reservoir

中图分类号:

TE19

朱婵,沈开元,童玉宝,等. 裂缝性高饱和压力油藏产能计算新方法[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2013, 34(2): 264-266. doi: 10.11743/ogg20130219 Zhu Chan,Shen Kaiyuan,Tong Yubao,et al. A new productivity calculation method for fractured reservoirs with high saturation pressure[J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2013, 34(2): 264-266. doi: 10.11743/ogg20130219

参考文献

[1] 李传亮.裂缝性油藏的应力敏感性及产能特征[J].新疆石油地质,2008,29(1):72-75. Li Chuanliang.Stress sensitivity and productivity of fractured reservoirs[J].Xinjiang Petroleum Geology,2008,29(1):72-75.
[2] 徐东锋,赵红佳,刘见宝.济阳坳陷沾化凹陷异常高压与油气成藏模式[J].石油与天然气地质,2011,32(4): 601-605,624. Xu Dongfeng,Zhao Hongjia,Liu Jianbao.Abnormal pressure and hydrocarbon reservoiring pattern of the Zhanhua sag in Jiyang Depression[J].Oil & Gas Geology,2011,32(4):601-605,624.
[3] 孙炜,李玉凤,何巍巍,等.P波各向异性裂缝预测技术在ZY区碳酸盐岩储层中的应用[J].石油与天然气地质,2013,34(1):137-144. Sun Wei,Li Yufeng,He Weiwei,et al.Using P-wave azimuthal anisotropy to predict fractures in carbonate reservoirs of the ZY block[J].Oil & Gas Geology,2013,34(1):137-144.
[4] 黄保纲,汪利兵,赵春明,等.JZS油田潜山裂缝储层形成机制及分布预测[J].石油与天然气地质,2011,32(5):710-717. Huang Baogang,Wang Libing,Zhao Chunming,et al.Formation mechanism and distribution of fractured buried hill reservoir in JZS oilfiled[J].Oil & Gas Geology,2011,32(5):710-717.
[5] 陈冬,魏修成.塔河地区碳酸盐岩裂缝型储层的测井评价技术[J].石油物探,2010,49(2):147-152. Chen Dong,Wei Xiucheng.Well-logging evaluate technology for fractured carbonate reservoirs in Tahearea[J].Geophysical Prospecting for Petroleum,2010,49(2):147-152.
[6] 陈冬,陈力群,魏修成,等.火成岩裂缝性储层测井评价——以准噶尔盆地石炭系火成岩油藏为例[J].石油与天然气地质,2011,32(1):83-90. Chen Dong,Chen Liqun,Wei Xiucheng,et al.Log evaluation of fractured igneous reservoirs:a case study of the Carboniferous igneous reservoirs in the Junggar Basin[J].Oil & Gas Geology,2011,32(1):83-90.
[7] 张津海,姜洪福,张迪楠,等.海拉尔盆地布达特潜山裂缝性油藏油水层识别方法[J].石油与天然气地质,2011,32(4):593-600. Zhang Jinhai,Jiang Hongfu,Zhang Dinan,et al.Identification of oil and water layers in Budate fractured buried hill reservoir,the Hailar Basin[J].Oil & Gas Geology,2011,32(4):593-600.
[8] 苑闻京,魏伟,符力耘,等.地层孔隙压力的地球物理响应特征分析——以澳大利亚西北大陆架卡拉汶盆地超压地层为例[J].石油物探,2010,49(1):72-78. Yuan Wenjing,Wei Wei,Fu Liyun,et al.Geophysical response characteristics analysis of formation pore pressure:case study on overpressure formation in Kalawen Basin of Australia Northwest continental shelf[J].Geophysical Prospecting for Petroleum,2010,49(1):72-78.
[9] 赖枫鹏,李治平,郭艳东.川东北碳酸盐岩气藏岩石渗透率变化实验[J].石油与天然气地质,2012,33(6):932-937. Lai Fengpeng,Li Zhiping,Guo Yandong.Experiments on permeability change of carbonate gas reservoirs in northeastern Sichuan Basin[J].Oil & Gas Geology,2012,33(6):932-937.
[10] 郭彤楼.川东北地区碳酸盐岩层系孔隙型与裂缝型气藏成藏差异性[J].石油与天然气地质,2011,31(3):311-317,326. Guo Tonglou.Differences in reservoir forming between porous and fractured gas pools in carbonates,the northeastern Sichuan Basin[J].Oil & Gas Geology,2011,31(3):311-317,326.
[11] Vazquez M,Beggs H D.Correlation for fluid physical property[J].Journal of Petroleum Technoligy,1980,6:968-970.
[12] Beggs H D,Robinson J F.Estimating the viscosity of crude oil system[J].Journal of Petraoreum Technology,1975,9:1140-1141.
[13] 李发印.低流压下油井产能预测方法研究[J].大庆石油地质与开发,1991,10(3):39-44. Li Fayin.Prediction method of oil well productivity under flowling pressure[J].Petroleum Geology Oilfield Development in Daqing,1991,10(3):39-44.

裂缝性高饱和压力油藏产能计算新方法

A new productivity calculation method for fractured reservoirs with high saturation pressure

PDF (PC)

可视化

被引次数

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 5

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	苏玉亮, 王文东, 周诗雨, 李晓慧, 慕立俊, 鲁明晶, 盛广龙. 体积压裂水平井三线性流模型与布缝策略[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2014, 35(3): 435-440.
[2]	赵军龙, 闫博, 赵靖舟, 王轶平, 许登才, 高秀丽. 陇东环县油区M井区长8储集层特征及单井产能预测[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2013, 34(5): 694-699.
[3]	张津海，姜洪福，张迪楠，李建民，李全. 海拉尔盆地布达特潜山裂缝性油藏油水层识别方法[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2011, 32(4): 593-600.
[4]	李苗，李晓平，郭平. 阶梯水平井产能预测方法[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2010, 31(4): 499-504.
[5]	肖慈珣, 肖崇礼, 粟英姿, 胡华伟, 陈必孝. 天然气储层产能的测井评价与预测[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 1999, 20(4): 279-282,289.