深层页岩气地质工程一体化井距优化——以威荣页岩气田为例

doi:10.13809/j.cnki.cn32-1825/te.2021.03.008

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

页岩气井距设计是气田开发技术政策设计的关键,关系到资源最大化利用,井距设计与地质特征和压裂工艺技术密切相关。威荣页岩气田开发方案初期设计400 m井距,随着产能建设主体压裂工艺由“控近扩远”向“密切割”工艺转变,微地震监测、压裂模拟以及动态分析均反映产建井井间储量动用不充分,现有井距需进一步优化。为进一步提高气田的储量动用及采出程度,实现气藏效益开发,采用地质建模—数值模拟一体化技术方法,开展了不同改造工艺的单井数值模拟研究,明确了改造工艺转变带来的单井储量动用状况差异;在单井研究基础上建立了“密切割”工艺下的井组数值模拟模型,结合技术、经济指标对开发井距进行优化。研究表明：在现在工艺及经济条件下,推荐威荣气田最优井距由400 m调整为300 m,20年末采出程度可从22 %提高到28 %。

关键词: 压裂工艺, 井距优化, 数值模拟, 威荣页岩气田, 地质工程一体化

Abstract:

The design of shale gas well spacing is the key to the technical policy of gas field development, which is related to the maximum utilization of resources. Well spacing design is closely related to geological characteristics and fracturing technology. The well spacing of Weirong Shale Gas Field designed at the initial development stage is 400 m. With the transformation of the fracturing technology of the main body of productivity construction from “controlling the fracture propagation and making longer hydraulic fractures” to “intensive perforating”, microseismic monitoring, fracturing simulation and dynamic analysis all reflect that the reserves between production and construction wells are still not fully utilized, and the existing well spacing needs to be further optimized. In order to further improve the reserve production and recovery degree of the gas field, and realize the beneficial development of gas reservoirs, the integrated technical method of geological modeling and numerical simulation is adopted to carry out the studies on single well numerical simulation with different fracturing technology. It is clear that the difference in the production status of single well reserves is caused by the fracturing process. On the basis of the researches of the single wells, the numerical simulation model of well groups under “intensive perforating” technology is established, and the development well spacing is optimized by combining technical and economic indexes. The study shows that under the current technological and economic conditions, it is recommended that the optimal well spacing in Weirong Gas Field could be adjusted from 400 m to 300 m, and the recovery degree can be increased from 22 % to 28 % at the end of 20 years.

Key words: fracturing technology, well spacing optimization, numerical simulation, Weirong Shale Gas Field, geology-engineering integration

中图分类号:

TE334

赵勇,李南颖,杨建,程诗胜. 深层页岩气地质工程一体化井距优化——以威荣页岩气田为例[J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2021, 11(3): 340-347.

ZHAO Yong,LI Nanying,YANG Jian,CHENG Shisheng. Optimization of deep shale gas well spacing based on geology-engineering integration: A case study of Weirong Shale Gas Field[J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2021, 11(3): 340-347.

图/表 18

图1

表1

图2

图3

表2

图4

图5

图6

图7

图8

表3

图9

图10

图11

图12

图13

图14

图15

参考文献 20

[1]	何东博, 贾爱林, 冀光, 等. 苏里格大型致密砂岩气田开发井型井网技术[J]. 石油勘探与开发, 2013, 40(1):79—89.
	HE Dongbo, JIA Ailin, JI Guang, et al. Well type and pattern optimization technology for large scale tight sand gas, Sulige Gas Field[J]. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2013, 40(1):79-89.
[2]	位云生, 贾爱林, 何东博, 等. 中国页岩气与致密气开发特征与开发技术异同[J]. 天然气工业, 2017, 037(011):43-52.
	WEI Yunsheng, JIA Ailin, HE Dongbo, et al. Comparative analysis of development characteristics and technologies between shale gas and tight gas in China[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2017, 37(11):43-52.
[3]	丁麟, 程峰, 于荣泽, 等. 北美地区页岩气水平井井距现状及发展趋势[J]. 天然气地球科学, 2020, 31(4)
	DING Lin, CHENG Feng, YU Rongze, et al. Current situation and development trend of horizontal well spacing for shale gas inNorth America[J]. Natural Gas Geoscience, 2020, 31(4):559-566.
[4]	贾爱林, 位云生, 金亦秋. 中国海相页岩气开发评价关键技术进展[J]. 石油勘探与开发, 2016, 43(6):949-955.
	JIA Ailin, WEI Yunsheng, JIN Yiqiu. Progress in key technologies for evaluating marine shale gas development in China[J]. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2016, 43(6):949-955.
[5]	刘尧文, 廖如刚, 张远, 等. 涪陵页岩气田井地联合微地震监测气藏实例及认识[J]. 天然气工业, 2016, 36(10):5662.
	LIU Yaowen, LIAO Rugang, ZHANG Yuan, et al. Application of surface-downhole combined microseismic monitoring technology in the Fuling Shale Gas Field and its enlightenment[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2016, 36(10):56-62.
[6]	TRENT J. Three trends shaping global production: us well spacing, argentine shale, and middle east conventionals[EB/OL]. (2018-11-20) https://www.spe.org/en/jpt/jptarticle-detail/?art=4827.2018-11-2.
[7]	APIWAT O L, CRAIG C, CHRISTIAN G, et al. Multidisciplinary data gathering to characterize hydraulic fracture performance and evaluate well spacing in the Bakken[C]// Paper SPE-194321-MS presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition, February 5-7, 2019, The Woodlands, Texas, USA.
[8]	BELYADI H, YUYI J, AHMAD M, et al. Deep dry utica well spacing analysis with case study[C]// Paper SPE-184045-MS presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, September 13-15, 2016, Canton, Ohio, USA.
[9]	CIPOLLA C, GILBERT C, SHARMA A, et al. Case history of completion optimization in the Utica[C]// Case history of completion optimization in the Utica, January 23-25, 2018, The Woodlands, Texas, USA.
[10]	LIANG B, DU M, YANEZ P P. Subsurface well spacing optimization in the Permian Basin[J]. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2019, 174:235-243. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2018.11.010
[11]	张珈铭, 郭晓霞, 何文渊. 川南地区页岩气开发对比研究及降本增效途径[J]. 国际石油经济, 2018, 26(9):39-46.
	ZHANG Jiaming, GUO Xiaoxia, HE Wenyuan. Comparative study on shale gas development in southern Sichuan and the ways to reduce costs & increase efficiency[J]. International Petroleum Economics, 2018, 26(9):39-46.
[12]	雍锐, 常程, 张德良, 等. 地质-工程-经济一体化页岩气水平井井距优化[J]. 天然气工业, 2020, 40(7):42-48.
	YONG Rui, CHANG Cheng, ZHANG Deliang, et al. Optimization of shale-gas horizontal well spacing based on geology-engineering-economy integration: A case study of Well block Ning 209 in the National Shale Gas Development Demonstration Area[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2020, 40(7):42-48.
[13]	周珺, 邓睿, 韩旭, 等. 基于停泵压降分析的致密砂岩压裂效果评价[J]. 特种油气藏, 2017, 24(2):166-169.
	ZHOU Jun, DENG Rui, HAN Xu, et al. Evaluation on the fracturing effects of tight sandstones based on pump-off pressure drop analysis[J]. Special Oil and Gas Reservoirs, 2017, 24(2):166-169.
[14]	邹顺良. 页岩气微注压降测试方法[J]. 油气井测试, 2018, 27(1):37-41.
	ZHOU Shunliang. Shale gas injection/fall off testing method[J]. Well Testing, 2018, 27(1):37-41.
[15]	张逸群, 余刘应, 张国锋. 基于微注入压降测试的页岩气储层快速评价方法[J]. 石油钻探技术, 2017, 45(3):106-111.
	ZHANG Yiqun, YU Liuying, ZHGANG Guofeng. Rapid Evaluation of shale reservoirs based on pre-frac injection/falloff diagnostic test[J]. Petroleum Drilling Techniques, 2017, 45(3):106-111.
[16]	王妍妍, 王卫红, 胡小虎, 等. 基于压裂效果评价的页岩气井井距优化研究[J]. 西南石油大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 40(5):131-139.
	WANG Yanyan, WANG Weihong, HU Xiaohu, et al. Study on the optimization of shale gas well spacing based on assessment of the fracturing performance[J]. Journal of Southwest Petroleum University(Science & Technology Edition), 2018, 40(5):131-139.
[17]	LALEHROHE F, BOUMA J. Well spacing optimizationin EagleFord[C]// Well spacing optimizationin EagleFord, 30 Septembe, 2014, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
[18]	PANKAJ P, SHUKLA P, KAVOUSI P, et al. Hydraulic fracture and reservoir characterization for determining optimal well spacing in the Marcellus shale[C]// Paper SPE-191802-MS presented at the SPE Liquids-Rich Basins Conference-North America, September 5-6, 2018, Midland, Texas, USA.
[19]	位云生, 王军磊, 齐亚东. 页岩气井网井距优化[J]. 天然气工业, 2018, 38(4):129-137.
	WEI Yunsheng, WANG Junlei, QI Yadong. Optimization of shale gas well pattern and spacing[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2018, 38(4):129-137.
[20]	胡文瑞. 地质工程一体化是实现复杂油气藏效益勘探开发的必由之路[J]. 中国石油勘探, 2017, 22(1):1-5.
	HU Wenrui. Geology-engineering integration-a necessary way to realize profitable exploration and development of complex reservoir[J]. China Petroleum Exploration, 2017, 22(1):1-5.

单段簇数（簇）	波及长度（m）
单段簇数（簇）	范围值	均值
3	236~302	269.0
4	156~187	173.0
5	183~198	191.0
6	140~245	182.4
7	142~164	153.0

簇数（簇）	单簇主裂缝长（m）	压裂段内裂缝密度（m²/m³）
3	381	0.276
4	307	0.667
5	259	0.731
6	225	1.208

工艺技术	供给半径（m）	井控储量（10⁸m³）	评价期末地层压力（MPa）	压降幅度（%）	采出程度（%）
一段三簇	110	2.051 4	44.7	42.40	30.58
	150	2.813 6	49.0	36.86	25.68
	200	3.777 8	53.6	30.93	20.93
一段六簇	70	1.300 3	31.3	59.67	62.86
	130	2.430 8	45.8	40.98	36.83
	150	2.813 6	48.9	36.99	32.74
	200	3.777 8	54.5	29.77	24.66