石英砂在苏里格致密砂岩气藏压裂的适应性

Abstract

Abstract:

The minor principal stress of Sulige gas field was between 43 ~ 48 MPa, while the proppant always used in fracturing was 20/40 mesh ceramic with moderate strength. In order to evaluate the feasibility of replacing the ceramsite with the quartz sand, we analyzed the demand and current situation of fracture conductivity by numerical modeling and well testing data. On this basis, we studied the selection of quartz sand and the mixed mode of quartz sand and ceramsite by indoor experiments, thus proposing the corresponding plan and carrying out the field tests. The results showed that, firstly, the present fracture conductivity was about 130 μm ²·cm, which was higher than the demand of the reservoir in class I（94 μm ²·cm）, the reservoir in class Ⅱ（65 μm ²·cm） and the reservoir in class Ⅲ（25 μm ²·cm）. The quartz sand was available for fracturing. Secondly, the uniform mixing of the 20/40 mesh quartz sand and ceramsite was a good combination way of proppant. When the closing pressure was between 40 ~ 50 MPa and the proppant placement concentration was 10 kg/m ², the conductivity of these who in the proportion of 1∶0, 7∶3, 1∶1, 3∶7 respectively were 20 % ~ 46.7 %, 23.9 % ~ 56.7 %, 46 % ~ 74.6 %, 73 % ~ 89.7 % of that of ceramsite. Thirdly, the optimal mixed proportion of quartz sand and ceramsite for the reservoir in class I should be below 1∶1. The optimal mixed proportion for the reservoir in class Ⅱ should be below 7∶3. The quartz sand could be used throughout for reservoir in class Ⅲ.

Key words: Sulige, tight sand, gas reservoir, hydraulic fracturing, quartz sand

CLC Number:

TE357

Kou Shuangfeng,Chen Shaoning,He Le,Liao Kuo. Adaptability of quartz sand for fracturing of Sulige tight sand gas reservoir[J].Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2019, 9(2): 65-70.

Figures/Tables 12

Table 1

Classification and evaluation criteria of pore structure of Sugeli gasfield"

储层类型	主要孔隙类型	分类标准				储层评价
储层类型	主要孔隙类型	$?$ ,%	k/10^-3μm²	p_排/MPa	r_中值/μm	储层评价
I	粒间孔、粒间溶孔,连通性好	>10	>0.82	0.03 ~ 0.42	0. 298 ~ 3.108 2	好
II	局部溶蚀粒（内）间孔,残余粒间孔	7 ~ 10	0.1 ~ 0.82	0.31 ~ 1.21	0.168 ~ 0.234 9	中等
III	粒间微孔及晶间孔,连同性差	5 ~ 7	0.03 ~ 0.1	0.62 ~ 2.43	0.017 9 ~ 0.100 3	差
Ⅳ	只有晶间微孔,基本不连通	<5	<0.03	1.43 ~ 2.59	0.015 8 ~ 0.167 8	非储层

Table 1

Fig. 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

References 8

[1]	冉新权, 李安琪 . 苏里格气田开发论第二版[M]. 北京: 石油工业出版社, 2013.
[2]	慕立俊, 马旭, 张燕明 , 等. 苏里格气田致密砂岩气藏储层体积改造关键问题及展望[J]. 天然气工业, 2018,38(4):161-168.
[3]	曹科学, 蒋建方, 郭亮 , 等. 石英砂陶粒组合支撑剂导流能力实验研究[J]. 石油钻采工艺, 2016,38(5):684-688.
[4]	王雷, 张士诚, 温庆志 . 不同类型支撑剂组合导流能力实验研究[J]. 钻采工艺, 2012,35(2):81-83.
[5]	王志刚, 刘锋, 王伟 , 等. 致密砂岩中浅层低成本压裂支撑剂组合实验研究[J]. 化学工程与装备, 2014,( 12):21-24.
[6]	马旭, 郝瑞芬, 来轩昂 , 等. 苏里格气田致密砂岩气藏水平井体积压裂矿场试验[J]. 石油勘探与开发, 2014,41(6):742-747. doi: 10.11698/PED.2014.06.15
[7]	米卡尔J·埃克诺米德斯, 肯尼斯G·诺尔特 . 油藏增产措施第三版[M]. 北京: 石油工业出版社 , 2002.
[8]	万仁溥, 罗英俊 . 采油技术手册第二版[M]. 北京: 石油工业出版社, 1998.

支撑剂类型	规格范围内样品百分含量,%	顶筛上样品百分含量,%	系列底筛上样品百分含量,%	球度	圆度	酸溶解度,%	视密度/ （g·cm^-3）	体积密度/ （g·cm^-3）	浊度,FTU
20/40目陶粒	98.76	0	0.08	0.86	0.87	6.49	3.27	1.78	37.7
20/40目石英砂	93	0.08	0.8	0.7	0.7	4.5	2.61	1.56	83
40/70目石英砂	92	0.09	0.85	0.7	0.7	4.8	2.6	1.54	88

井号	层位	砂体厚度/m	有效厚度/ m	孔隙度,%	渗透率/ 10^-3μm²	气测全烃峰值,%	砂量/ m³	液量/ m³	排量/（m³·min^-1）	平均砂比,%	支撑剂类型
桃7-A	山1	8	7	5.8	0.1	55.0	15	124.6	2.4	23.8	20/40目石英砂
	山1	10	6.1	4.99	0.07	65.2	15	117.5	2.4	23.6
	盒8	12	11.5	5.23	0.12	69.5	20	145.6	2.4	24.0
邻井-1	山1	19	12.1	6.5	0.09	60.3	30	197.7	3~3.2	24.5	20/40目陶粒
邻井-1	盒8	8	3.9	8	0.13	62.5	15	108.1	2~2.2	22.8	20/40目陶粒
邻井-2	山1	6	2.6	7.4	0.13	23.9	14	109	2.3	23.7	20/40目陶粒
	山1	8	2.4	8.2	0.1	39.5	17.5	130.2	2.8	24.1
	盒8	9	3.1	9	0.11	28.8	25	153.8	2.8	25.3

井号	测试产量/ （10⁴m³·d^-1）	无阻流量/ （10⁴m³·d^-1）	投产井口压力/ MPa	90天井口压力/ MPa	90天累计产量/ 10⁴m³	90天压降速率/ （MPa·d^-1）	90天单位压降产量/ （10⁴m³·MPa^-1）
桃7-A	2.32	4.81	20.3	16.04	118.789	0.047 3	27.885
邻井-1	3.6	7.57	24.4	16.11	133.234	0.092 1	16.072
邻井-2	1.17	2.06	23.7	18.6	105.363	0.056 7	20.659

井号	试油层位	砂体厚度/m	有效厚度/m	孔隙度,%	渗透率/ 10^-3μm²	气测全烃峰值,%	砂量/ m³	液量/ m³	排量/（m³·min^-1）	平均砂比,%	支撑剂类型
桃7-B	盒8	8	4.6	4.8	0.06	35.9	20	153.7	2.4	25.4	20/40目石英砂
	盒8	5	3.2	7.9	0.14	76.1	15	118.9	2.4	24.0
	盒8	13	2.2	7.8	0.05	67.9	20	141.4	2.4	25.5
邻井-1	山1	4	2.8	7.9	0.1	57.3	12	126.1	2.4	19.6	20/40目陶粒
	盒8	5	2.6	9.7	0.13	86.0	15	121.5	2.4	22.3
	盒8	6	3.9	7.7	0.1	87.8	15	113.1	2.4	23.7
邻井-2	盒8	16	4.1	7.9	0.11	44.6	17.6	141.4	2.4	25.5	20/40目陶粒
	盒8	4	2.8	16.4	0.16	50.2	16	120.2	2.4	24.7
	盒7	3	2.4	9.9	0.19	20.1	12.4	95.6	2.2	23.8

井号	测试产量/ （10⁴ m³·d^-1）	无阻流量/ （10⁴m³·d^-1）	投产井口压力/ MPa	90天井口压力/ MPa	90天累计产量/ 10⁴m³	90天压降速率/ （MPa·d^-1）	90天单位压降产量/ （10⁴m³·MPa^-1）
桃7-B	2.112	3.39	21.3	15.18	101.813	0.069	16.636
邻井-1	2.69	4.15	23.1	16.12	120.21	0.077	17.222
邻井-2	1.35	2.54	21.6	13.5	118.593	0.09	14.641

Adaptability of quartz sand for fracturing of Sulige tight sand gas reservoir

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Like

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 12

References 8

Related Articles 15

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 10

[1]	ZHAO Di, MA Sen, CAO Yanhui. Seismic rock physics analysis and prediction model establishment of Shaximiao Formation in Zhongjiang Gas Field [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(5): 608-613.
[2]	XIA Haibang, HAN Kening, SONG Wenhui, WANG Wei, YAO Jun. Pore scale fracturing fluid occurrence mechanisms in multi-scale matrix-fracture system of shale gas reservoir [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(5): 627-635.
[3]	HAN Kening, WANG Wei, FAN Dongyan, YAO Jun, LUO Fei, YANG Can. Production forecasting for normal pressure shale gas wells based on coupling of production decline method and LSTM model [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(5): 647-656.
[4]	ZHANG Jiawei, LIU Xiangjun, XIONG Jian, LIANG Lixi, REN Jianfei, LIU Baiqu. Discrete element simulation study on fracture propagation law of dual well synchronous fracturing [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(5): 657-667.
[5]	XUE Gang, XIONG Wei, ZHANG Peixian. Genesis analysis and effective development of normal pressure shale gas reservoir: A case of Wufeng-Longmaxi shale gas reservoir in southeast margin of Sichuan Basin [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(5): 668-675.
[6]	SONG Dekang,LIU Xiaoxue,SHAO Zeyu,JIANG Zhenxue,HOU Lili,WANG Yuchao,HE Shijie,LIU Jipeng. Accumulation mode of Quaternary mudstone gas reservoir in Sanhu Depression, Qaidam Basin [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(4): 495-504.
[7]	YANG Yu,XU Qilin,LIU Ronghe,HUANG Dongjie,YAN Ping,WANG Jianmeng. Phase equilibrium law of CO₂ storage in depleted gas reservoirs [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(3): 280-287.
[8]	CHEN Yuanqian,SHI Xiaomin. Derivation and application of a new formula of the elastic two-phase method [J]. Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(2): 135-140.
[9]	HOU Mengru,LIANG Bing,SUN Weiji,LIU Qi,ZHAO Hang. Influence of mineral interface stiffness on fracture propagation law of shale hydraulic fracturing [J]. Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(1): 100-107.
[10]	WANG Xiaoqiang,ZHAO Li’an,WANG Zhiyuan,XIU Chunhong,JIA Guolong,DONG Yan,LU Detang. Data analysis method of pump shutdown pressure based on water hammer effect and cepstrum transformation [J]. Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(1): 108-116.
[11]	LI Ying,LI Maomao,LI Haitao,YU Hao,ZHANG Qihui,LUO Hongwen. Physicochemical mechanism of water phase imbibition in shale reservoirs [J]. Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(1): 64-73.
[12]	CHEN Shaoying,WANG Wei,YANG Qingchun,ZHANG Lisong. Sequential coupling thermal-hydro-mechanical model for multiple cluster of fracturing network fracturing in dry hot rock reservoir [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2022, 12(6): 869-876.
[13]	WANG Gaofeng, LIAO Guangzhi, LI Hongbin, HU ZhiMing, WEI Ning, CONG Lianzhu. Mechanism and calculation model of EOR by CO₂ flooding [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2022, 12(5): 734-740.
[14]	SHI Juntai,LI Wenbin,ZHANG Longlong,JI Changjiang,LI Guofu,ZHANG Sui'an. An inversion method of initial coal reservoir pressure using fracturing process data [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2022, 12(4): 564-571.
[15]	YANG Zhaozhong,YUAN Jianfeng,ZHU Jingyi,LI Xiaogang,LI Yang,WANG Hao. Thermal injection stimulation to enhance coalbed methane recovery [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2022, 12(4): 617-625.