南川页岩气田压裂水平井井间干扰影响因素及对策研究

doi:10.13809/j.cnki.cn32-1825/te.2023.03.008

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

随着页岩气开发不断深入，水平井实施压裂过程中邻井的干扰现象日益增多，对气田的产量、套管的安全、气井的管柱造成较大影响，有待明确压裂井间干扰的影响因素及降低干扰的治理对策。采用井下压力监测的方式证实压裂井间干扰的矿场表现，通过生产动态跟踪分析及微地震监测结果基本明确井网井距、压裂改造强度、天然裂缝是影响压裂水平井井间干扰的主要因素。对降低压裂干扰提出了压裂设计源头优化、采气井现场管理、生产运行调整3种治理对策，在现场应用中获得了较好的效果。

关键词: 页岩气, 矿场试验, 井间干扰, 治理对策

Abstract:

With the continuous development of shale gas, the interference of adjacent wells is increasing during the fracturing of horizontal wells, which has a great impact on the production of gas fields, the safety of casings, and the string of gas wells. The influencing factors of the interference between fracturing wells and the countermeasures to reduce the interference need to be clarified.The field performance of fracturing interwell interference is confirmed by downhole pressure monitoring. Through production dynamic tracking analysis and microseismic monitoring results, it is basically clear that well spacing, fracturing transformation intensity, and natural fractures are the main factors affecting the interference between horizontal wells during fracturing. Three governance strategies have been proposed to reduce fracturing interference, including optimization of fracturing design source, on-site management of gas production wells, and production operation adjustment. These measures have achieved good improvement effects in on-site applications.

Key words: shale gas, field test, interwell interference, governance countermeasures<br

中图分类号:

TE371

卢比,胡春锋,马军. 南川页岩气田压裂水平井井间干扰影响因素及对策研究[J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2023, 13(3): 330-339.

LU Bi,HU Chunfeng,MA Jun. Influencing factors and countermeasures of inter-well interference of fracturing horizontal wells in Nanchuan shale gas field[J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(3): 330-339.

图/表 17

图1

图2

图3

图4

表1

图5

图6

图7

图8

图9

图10

图11

表2

图12

图13

表3

图14

参考文献 25

[1]	孙焕泉, 周德华, 蔡勋育, 等. 中国石化页岩气发展现状与趋势[J]. 中国石油勘探, 2020, 25(2): 14-26. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-7703.2020.02.002
	SUN Huanquan, ZHOU Dehua, CAI Xunyu, et al. Progress and prospect of shale gas development of Sinopec[J]. China Petroleum Exploration, 2020, 25(2): 14-26. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-7703.2020.02.002
[2]	蔡勋育, 赵培荣, 高波, 等. 中国石化页岩气 “十三五” 发展成果与展望[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2021, 42(1): 16-27.
	CAI Xunyu, ZHAO Peirong, GAO Bo, et al. Sinopec's shale gas development achievements during the “Thirteenth Five-Year Plan” period and outlook for the future[J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2021, 42(1): 16-27.
[3]	王濡岳, 胡宗全, 董立, 等. 页岩气储层表征评价技术进展与思考[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2021, 42(1): 54-65.
	WANG Ruyue, HU Zongquan, DONG Li, et al. Advancement and trends of shale gas reservoir characterization and evaluation[J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2021, 42(1): 54-65.
[4]	卢志远, 何治亮, 余川, 等. 复杂构造区页岩气富集特征——以四川盆地东南部丁山地区下古生界五峰组-龙马溪组为例[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2021, 42(1): 86-97.
	LU Zhiyuan, HE Zhiliang, YU Chuan, et al. Characteristics of shale gas enrichment in tectonically complex regions—A case study of the Wufeng-Longmaxi Formations of Lower Paleozoic in southeastern Sichuan Basin[J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2021, 42(1): 86-97.
[5]	肖佳林, 游园, 朱海燕, 等. 重庆涪陵国家级页岩气示范区开发调整井压裂工艺关键技术[J]. 天然气工业, 2022, 42(11): 58-65.
	XIAO Jialin, YOU Yuan, ZHU Haiyan, et al. Key technologies for development adjustment well fracturing in Chongqing Fuling National Shale Gas Demonstration Area[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2022, 42(11): 58-65.
[6]	苏映宏. 滩坝砂油藏不同压裂方式下单井控制可采储量预测方法[J]. 石油实验地质, 2021, 43(4): 697-703.
	SU Yinghong. Prediction of single-well-constrained recoverable reserves in beach bar sand reservoir using different fracturing methods[J]. Petroleum Geology & Experiment, 2021, 43(4): 697-703.
[7]	朱海燕, 宋宇家, 唐煊赫, 等. 页岩气藏加密井压裂时机优化——以四川盆地涪陵页岩气田X1井组为例[J]. 天然气工业, 2021, 41(1): 154-168.
	ZHU Haiyan, SONG Yujia, TANG Xuanhe, et al. Optimization of fracturing timing of infill wells in shale gas reservoirs: A case study on Well Group X1 of Fuling Shale Gas Field in the Sichuan Basin[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2021, 41(1): 154-168.
[8]	谢军, 鲜成钢, 吴建发, 等. 长宁国家级页岩气示范区地质工程一体化最优化关键要素实践与认识[J]. 中国石油勘探, 2019, 24(2): 174-185. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-7703.2019.02.005
	XIE Jun, XIAN Chenggang, WU Jianfa, et al. Optimal key elements of geoengineering integration in Changning National Shale Gas Demonstration Zone[J]. China Petroleum Exploration, 2019, 24(2): 174-185. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-7703.2019.02.005
[9]	周小金, 杨洪志, 范宇, 等. 川南页岩气水平井井间干扰影响因素分析[J]. 中国石油勘探, 2021, 26(2): 103-112.
	ZHOU Xiaojin, YANG Hongzhi, FAN Yu, et al. Analysis of factors affecting frac hits in horizontal shale gas wells in the southern Sichuan Basin[J]. China Petroleum Exploration, 2021, 26(2): 103-112.
[10]	刘伟新, 卢龙飞, 叶德燎, 等. 川东南地区奥陶系五峰组—志留系龙马溪组页岩气异常压力封存箱剖析与形成机制[J]. 石油实验地质, 2022, 44(5): 804-814.
	LIU Weixin, LU Longfei, YE Deliao, et al. Significance and formation mechanism of abnormally pressured compartments of shale gas in the Ordovician Wufeng-Silurian Longmaxi formations, southeastern Sichuan Basin[J]. Petroleum Geology & Experiment, 2022, 44(5): 804-814.
[11]	柳筠, 张梦吟. 页岩气田储层含气性测井评价——以四川盆地涪陵页岩气田J区块为例[J]. 石油实验地质, 2021, 43(1): 128-135.
	LIU Yun, ZHANG Mengyin. Gas-bearing property evaluation by petrophysical logging in shale gas reservoirs: A case study in J area of Fuling shale gas field,Sichuan Basin[J]. Petroleum Geology & Experiment, 2021, 43(1): 128-135.
[12]	陈剑, 郭建春, 兰芳. 加密井井间干扰影响因素及对邻井产能的影响[J]. 中外能源, 2015, 20(4): 54-57.
	CHEN Jian, GUO Jianchun, LAN Fang. Influencing factors and effect on adjacent well productivity of interwell interference in infilled wells[J]. Sino-Global Energy, 2015, 20(4): 54-57.
[13]	林彦兵, 胡艾国, 陈付虎, 等. 红河油田水平井压窜原因分析及防窜对策建议[J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2013, 3(4): 56-61.
	LIN Yanbing, HU Aiguo, CHEN Fuhu, et al. Horizontal well fracturing channeling cause analysis and channeling prevention countermeasures in Honghe oilfield[J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2013, 3(4): 56-61.
[14]	何乐, 袁灿明, 龚蔚. 页岩气井间压窜影响因素分析和防窜对策[J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2020, 10(5): 63-69.
	HE Le, YUAN Canming, GONG Wei. Influencing factors and preventing measures of intra-well frac hit in shale gas[J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2020, 10(5): 63-69.
[15]	滕小兰, 邱玲. 调整井压裂井间干扰实例分析及技术对策[J]. 石油钻采工艺, 2011, 33(2): 88-90.
	TENG Xiaolan, QIU Ling. Example analysis and technical measures for wells interference in adjustment well fracturing[J]. Oil Drilling & Production Technology, 2011, 33(2): 88-90.
[16]	WU K, OLSON J E. Mechanics analysis of interaction between hydraulic and natural fractures in shale reservoirs[C]// Paper URTEC-1922946-MS presented at the SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, Denver, Colorado, USA, August 2014.
[17]	ESQUIVEL R, BLASINGAME T A. Optimizing the development of the Haynesville shale-lessons learned from well-to-well hydraulic fracture interference[C]// Paper URTEC-2670079-MS presented at the SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, Austin, Texas, USA, July 2017.
[18]	SETH P, ELLIOTT B, SHARMA M M. Rapid analysis of offset well pressure response during fracturing: distinguishing between poroelastic, hydraulic and frac-hit responses in field data using pattern recognition[C]// Paper URTEC-2020-3129-MS presented at the SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, Virtual, July 2020.
[19]	LIU Z, SAMUEL R, GONZALES A, et al. Analysis of casing fatigue failure during multistage fracturing operations[C]// Paper SPE-193189-MS presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, November 2018.
[20]	BARREDA D, SHAHRI M P, WAGNER R, et al. Impact of cyclic pressure loading on well integrity in multi-stage hydraulic fracturing[C]// Paper URTEC-2902463-MS presented at the SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, July 2018.
[21]	ADAMS N J, MITCHELL R F, EUSTES A W, et al. A causation investigation for observed casing failures occurring during fracturing operations[C]// Paper SPE-184868-MS presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, January 2017.
[22]	KING G E, RAINBOLT M F, SWANSON C. Frac hit induced production losses: evaluating root causes, damage location, possible prevention methods and success of remedial treatments[C]// Paper SPE-187192-MS presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, October 2017.
[23]	RAINBOLT M F, ESCO J. Frac hit induced production losses:evaluating root causes, damage location, possible prevention methods and success of remediation treatments, PartⅡ[C]// Paper SPE-187192-MS presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, October 2017.
[24]	BAHORICH B, OISON J E, HOLDER J. Examining the effect of cemented natural fractures on hydraulic fracture propagation in hydrostone block experiments[C]// Paper SPE-160197-MS presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, October 2012.
[25]	SWANSON C, HILL W A, NILSON G, et al. Post-frac-hit mitigation and well remediation of Woodford horizontal wells with solvent/surfactant chemistry blend[C]// Paper URTEC-2902400-MS presented at the SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, July 2018.

类型	井号	空间距离/m	平面距离/m	垂向距离/m
平行井网	SY2-2HF	240	228	74
	SY14-7HF	348	338	86
	SY14-8HF	260	258	33
	SY2HF	350	332	109
	SY2HF	334	319	97
	JY199-1HF	285	273	82
	JY195-1HF	308	282	114
	JY195-2HF	254	251	78
	JY197-2HF	280	279	24
	SY12-2HF	195	189	47
	SY12-3HF	259	257	30
	SY12-1HF	363	362	22
首尾相邻	SY12-1HF	145	145	14
	SY2-12HF	93	93	4
	SY2-12HF	212	212	9
	SY2-3HF	263	262	31
	SY14-5HF	299	298	22
	SY14-5HF	192	191	20
	SY14-5HF	185	180	44
	SY1HF	253	247	50
	SY1HF	291	288	43
	SY1HF	180	180	2
	SY20-2HF	405	405	12
	JY195-5HF	456	454	41
上下气层	SY14-S1HF	236	221	82
	SY14-S1HF	101	9	101
	JY197-21HF	161	99	128
交错井网	SY9-1HF	361	333	139

类型	序号	井号	压窜前产量/ 10⁴ m³	复产产量/ 10⁴ m³	恢复期/ d
压裂期间连续生产	1	SY2-2HF	8.5	3.7	119
	2	SY14-7HF	7.1
	3	SY12-1HF	2.0	1.6	151
	4	SY12-1HF	2.0	1.6	121
	6	SY2-12HF	6.2	4.5	72
	7	SY2-12HF	6.2	4.5	82
	平均		5.3	3.2	109
压窜至气量为0时关井	1	SY9-1HF	7.3	5.1	108
	2	SY2-3HF	5.4	5.4	8
	3	SY14-8HF	9.8	6.6	140
	4	SY14-S1HF	2.3	1.6	95
	平均		6.2	4.7	88
压裂前提前关井	1	SY2HF	5.0	4.9	3
	2	SY12-2HF	2.7	2.0	2
	3	SY12-3HF	1.5	1.9	1
	4	SY14-5HF	15.8	15.8	6
	5	SY1HF	1.5	1.6	2
	6	SY20-2HF	2.5	3.0	5
	7	JY199-1HF	3.1	6.4	2
	8	JY195-1HF	3.9	6.5	32
	9	JY195-2HF	1.8	2.1	2
	10	JY195-5HF	1.8	1.9	48
	11	JY197-2HF	3.4	5.0	18
	12	JY197-21HF	5.7	4.8	2
	平均		4.1	4.7	11