页岩油开发初期产能控制因素分析——以长庆油田里151区为例

doi:10.13809/j.cnki.cn32-1825/te.2021.04.011

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to clarify the main principal factors that affect the initial productivity during the development of shale oil reservoirs, a comprehensive data analysis method involved both the hierarchical cluster analysis and the principal component analysis in data statistics is presented; and then the deta of the static formation parameters, fracturing operation parameters and the oil productivity of 51 wells in Block Li-151 are analyzed quantitatively. At first, the wells in the block are divided automatically into two types, Type A and Type B, by the hierarchical cluster analysis method. Then, a principal component analysis method is used to analyze the principal productivity factors for different types of wells. Analysis results show that, when the well shut-in time is less than 125 days, the oil production decline rate can be reduced effectively by the well shut-in measures; however, when it is greater than 125 days, the effect of well shut-in measures on oil production decline rate becomes negative. The production decline rate of Type A wells is highly negative with the amount of injected fracturing water; the main principal factors for the production decline rate of Type B wells are the moving liquid level and the porosity of shale matrix. The principal factors for the production rate of Type B wells are the number of fracturing sections. All in all, for the production optimization of shale oil development in Block Li-151, the differences of principal production factors between Type A wells and Type B wells should be considered and the different analysis results of the principal factors that affect the initial shale oil productivity under different well types should be fully utilized. Some guidance can be provided specifically for the formulation of a reasonable shale oil efficient development plan.

Key words: shale oil, well shut-in, hydraulic fracturing, hierarchical cluster analysis, controlling factors of productivity, principal component analysis

CLC Number:

TE348

WEI Jiaxin,ZHANG Yan,SHANG Jiaohui,LYU Na,LIU Wenchao,WANG Hengkai,MA Fujian,ZHANG Qitao. Principal factor analysis on initial productivity in shale oil development: A case study of Block Li-151 in Changqing Oilfield[J].Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2021, 11(4): 550-558.

Figures/Tables 10

Table 1

Table 2

Results of hierarchical cluster analysis for oil production wells in Block Li-151"

井名	水平井段长（m）	钻遇率（%）	段数	簇数	加砂量（m³）	入地液量（m³）	闷井时间（d）	抽深（m）	动液面（m）	孔隙度（%）	渗透率（10^-3 μm²）	含油饱和度（%）	日产油量（m³）	递减率	聚类分析分类
华H5-5	862	79.7	12	57	2 097.0	17 366.6	47	1 480	1 288	9.95	1.25	61.21	13.33	0.21	A
华H47-1	1 147	77.5	13	61	1 631.5	14 901.6	21	1 502	1 399	10.94	1.73	37.02	12.46	0.41	A
华H1-7	1 150	52.4	15	58	2 394.6	20 310.4	101	1 395	1 354	9.50	0.15	55.73	13.65	0.18	A
华H21-1	1 190	46.9	17	86	2 392.9	22 486.1	144	1 250	925	10.17	0.19	55.72	16.56	0.02	A
华H21-2	1 192	77.2	14	74	2 189.1	22 895.3	158	1 250	1 010	10.18	0.18	54.18	13.69	0.15	A
华H12-4	1 237	73.4	15	73	2 024.3	19 729.1	77	1 334	688	8.73	0.78	42.83	19.11	0.21	A
华H21-3	1 310	68.9	15	82	1 884.9	24 039.6	80	1 350	954	10.46	0.19	55.94	15.73	0.03	A
华H11-5	1 369	70.8	17	63	3 046.2	19 984.7	38	1 389	1 124	9.14	0.80	40.85	17.76	0.26	A
华H7-1	1 385	42.2	12	56	1 870.7	16 244.1	91	1 298	1 224	9.98	1.06	42.06	17.38	0.58	A
华H2-1	1 387	62.8	20	78	1 273.0	16 782.6	12	1 475	1 324	8.67	1.71	51.18	14.07	0.30	A
华H61-4	1 430	45.6	16	94	2 557.7	32 314.3	166	1 500	1 238	10.83	1.61	40.07	14.44	0.06	A
华H61-3	1 469	54.0	15	80	2 086.4	20 366.1	179	1 600	1 400	11.03	1.63	43.31	8.70	0.26	A
华H10-3	1 520	81.7	16	104	2 505.1	23 194.9	98	1 350	1 022	9.17	0.60	48.06	17.79	0.05	A
华H11-3	1 537	55.1	16	67	2 414.8	24 105.7	61	1 400	837	9.37	0.84	40.60	22.97	-0.10	A
华H15-2	2 096	63.4	22	90	2 350.6	18 282.8	114	1 453	1 211	9.33	0.13	51.23	13.56	0.03	A
华H6-5	1 401	75.6	19	91	2 439.9	25 595.8	71	1 355	1 308	9.88	1.33	42.06	13.04	0.44	B
华H4-3	1 405	67.2	22	99	4 480.4	27 918.3	80	1 301	931	9.67	1.45	42.14	18.64	0.27	B
华H25-2	1 488	87.1	20	120	3 172.5	28 051.0	62	1 470	555	11.49	1.68	34.24	18.19	-0.51	B
华H2-2	1 520	78.0	25	61	4 330.1	33 565.4	86	1 433	1 316	8.70	1.56	48.88	19.42	0.36	B
华H6-7	1 535	84.2	23	92	4 158.3	27 932.6	50	1 242	1 011	9.82	1.30	34.94	17.37	0.06	B
华H37-1	1 535	79.9	23	123	3 859.1	29 677.1	70	1 500	1 442	9.77	1.01	48.37	8.99	0.45	B
华H6-3	1 536	76.0	23	120	3 132.7	32 527.1	239	1 400	1 098	9.76	0.68	41.92	14.73	0.15	B
华H6-4	1 536	64.7	19	96	2 574.9	26 157.2	82	1 245	1 216	10.28	1.37	44.15	10.84	0.25	B
华H61-2	1 540	74.0	19	114	3 060.9	26 665.8	146	1 200	586	10.63	1.02	41.87	9.77	0	B
华H37-2	1 545	77.8	20	113	3 556.9	27 421.5	81	1 400	1 388	9.09	0.49	43.57	8.05	0.47	B
华H5-1	1 555	98.6	25	126	4 213.6	36 400.6	47	1 357	924	9.47	1.16	46.09	18.82	0.56	B
华H1-4	1 594	82.5	27	124	3 843.9	35 895.6	58	1 406	1 135	10.35	0.18	57.32	24.26	0.10	B
华H41-5	1 599	78.0	16	181	3 666.2	28 938.8	95	1 350	1 322	9.57	1.30	35.91	7.44	0.28	B
华H30-4	1 638	75.2	21	118	3 330.1	28 674.2	95	1 348	455	9.31	1.48	33.65	15.67	0.27	B
华H6-2	1 681	87.8	25	126	3 416.5	33 497.9	100	1 350	1 168	9.55	0.76	44.15	13.62	0.16	B
华H10-1	1 700	86.3	22	130	3 356.8	29 887.5	98	1 206	988	10.11	1.16	41.68	14.71	0.09	B
华H11-1	1 719	69.3	22	97	4 284.8	30 376.6	41	1 246	726	9.37	1.13	43.35	28.57	0	B
华H14-4	1 863	85.9	24	147	3 811.1	30 520.4	145	1 346	511	9.94	0.18	53.63	17.53	-0.08	B
华H13-1	1 865	82.3	23	206	2 948.9	29 907.1	140	1 500	628	9.67	1.23	45.50	17.54	0.15	B
华H14-3	1 870	82.7	23	146	3 580.3	30 735.2	159	1 349	589	9.07	0.12	52.22	16.54	0.01	B
华H14-2	1 967	81.9	26	160	3 943.5	34 295.0	99	1 342	522	11.30	0.26	57.52	16.39	-0.10	B
华H13-4	2 035	74.4	30	129	4 821.6	36 808.5	152	1 505	533	8.91	0.93	45.33	16.75	0.00	B
华H3-2	2 062	55.6	27	120	3 831.7	34 593.7	27	1 349	1 299	9.63	1.34	53.06	16.28	0.33	B
华H15-1	2 070	80.7	32	127	3 087.9	27 307.7	61	1 299	566	11.30	0.27	54.42	17.58	0.10	B
华H7-2	2 082	87.3	28	132	3 858.0	34 627.7	64	1 400	722	9.35	0.91	42.51	20.64	0.39	B
华H25-1	1 070	47.6	11	52	1 455.8	14 088.3	58	1 396	825	11.26	2.59	35.29	9.21	0.22	C
华H7-5	2 039	68.1	31	85	5 208.7	35 710.8	54	1 109	722	6.80	0.78	40.64	28.86	0.33	D

Table 2

Table 3

Fig. 1

Table 4

Fig. 2

Table 5

Fig. 3

Table 6

Table 7

References 24

[1]	付锁堂, 姚泾利, 李士祥, 等. 鄂尔多斯盆地中生界延长组陆相页岩油富集特征与资源潜力[J]. 石油实验地质, 2020, 42(5):698-710.
	FU Suotang, YAO Jingli, LI Shixiang, et al. Enrichment characteristics and resource potential of continental shale oil in Mesozoic Yanchang Formation, Ordos Basin[J]. Petroleum Geology & Experiment, 2020, 42(5):698-710.
[2]	YANG Y F, WANG K, ZHANG L, et al. Pore-scale simulation of shale oil flow based on pore network model[J]. Fuel, 2019, 251(6):683-692. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2019.03.083
[3]	雷浩, 何建华, 胡振国. 潜江凹陷页岩油藏渗流特征物理模拟及影响因素分析[J]. 特种油气藏, 2019, 26(3):94-98.
	LEI Hao, HE Jianhua, HU Zhenguo. Physical simulation and influencing factor analysis of the flow characteristics in the shale oil reservoir of Qianjiang depression[J]. Special Oil & Gas Reservoirs, 2019, 26(3):94-98.
[4]	李世臻, 刘卫彬, 王丹丹, 等. 中美陆相页岩油地质条件对比[J]. 地质论评, 2017, 63(S1):39-40.
	LI Shizhen, LIU Weibin, WANG Dandan, et al. Continental shale oil geological conditions of China and the United States[J]. Geological Review, 2017, 63(S1):39-40.
[5]	付茜. 中国页岩油勘探开发现状、挑战及前景[J]. 石油钻采工艺, 2015, 37(4):58-62.
	FU Qian. The status, challenge and prospect of shale oil exploration and development in China[J]. Oil Drilling & Production Technology, 2015, 37(4):58-62.
[6]	杨跃明, 黄东. 四川盆地侏罗系湖相页岩油气地质特征及勘探开发新认识[J]. 天然气工业, 2019, 39(6):22-33.
	YANG Yueming, HUANG Dong. Geological characteristics and new understandings of exploration and development of Jurassic lacustrine shale oil and gas in the Sichuan Basin[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2019, 39(6):22-33.
[7]	朱彤. 四川盆地陆相页岩油气富集主控因素及类型[J]. 石油实验地质, 2020, 42(3),345-354.
	ZHU Tong. Main controlling factors and types of continental shale oil and gas enrichment in Sichuan Basin[J]. Petroleum Geology & Experiment, 2020, 42(3):345-354.
[8]	黎茂稳, 金之钧, 董明哲, 等. 陆相页岩形成演化与页岩油富集机理研究进展[J]. 石油实验地质, 2020, 42(4):489-505.
	LI Maowen, JIN Zhijun, DONG Mingzhe, et al. Advances in the basic study of lacustrine shale evolution and shale oil accumulation[J]. Petroleum Geology & Experiment, 2020, 42(4):489-505.
[9]	LIU W C, ZHANG Q T, ZHU W Y. Numerical simulation of multi-stage fractured horizontal well in low-permeable oil reservoir with threshold pressure gradient with moving boundary[J]. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2019, 178:1112-1127. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2019.04.033
[10]	ZHANG Q T, ZHU W Y, LIU W C, et al. Numerical simulation of fractured vertical well in low-permeable oil reservoir with proppant distribution in hydraulic fracture[J]. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2020, 195:107587. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107587
[11]	霍进, 支东明, 郑孟林, 等. 准噶尔盆地吉木萨尔凹陷芦草沟组页岩油藏特征与形成主控因素[J]. 石油实验地质, 2020, 42(4):506-512.
	HUO Jin, ZHI Dongming, ZHENG Menglin, et al. Characteristics and main controls of shale oil reservoirs in Lucaogou Formation, Jimsar Sag, Junggar Basin[J]. Petroleum Geology & Experiment, 2020, 42(4):506-512.
[12]	YANG L, ZHANG X H, ZHOU T, et al. The effects of ions diffusion on imbibition oil recovery in salt-rich shale oil reservoirs[J]. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, 2019, 16(3):525-540. doi: 10.1093/jge/gxz025
[13]	ZANG Y J, GE H K, SHEN Y H, et al. Evaluating the potential for oil recovery by imbibition and time-delay effect in tight reservoirs during shut-in[J]. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2020, 184(2):1-8.
[14]	江昀, 许国庆, 石阳, 等. 致密岩心带压渗吸规律实验研究[J]. 石油实验地质, 2021, 43(1):144-153.
	JIANG Yun, XU Guoqing, SHI Yang, et al. Forced imbibition in tight sandstone cores[J]. Petroleum Geology & Experiment, 2021, 43(1):144-153.
[15]	马莉, 张驰, 刘敦卿, 等. 涪陵页岩气田压裂后焖井工艺适应性初探[J]. 特种油气藏. 2019, 26(1):147-151.
	MA Li, ZHANG Chi, LIU Dunqing, et al. Preliminary study on the well-soaking adaptability after fracturing in Fulling shale gasfield[J]. Special Oil & Gas Reservoirs, 2019, 26(1):147-151.
[16]	MA X H, LI X Z, LIANG F, et al. Dominating factors on well productivity and development strategies optimization in Weiyuan shale gas play, Sichuan Basin, SW China[J]. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2020, 47(3):594-602. doi: 10.1016/S1876-3804(20)60076-3
[17]	KIM G, LEE H, CHEN Z H, et al. Effect of reservoir characteristics on the productivity and production forecasting of the Montney shale gas in Canada[J]. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2019, 182(1):106276. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106276
[18]	汤志, 镇国钧, 陈兴炳, 等. 昭通黄金坝YS108区块页岩气产能主控因素分析[J]. 新疆石油天然气, 2018, 14(3):58-62.
	TANG Zhi, ZHEN Guojun, CHEN Xingbing, et al. Analysis of master factor of shale gas production in Huangjinbays108 Block in Zhaotong City[J]. Xinjiang Oil & Gas, 2018, 14(3):58-62.
[19]	马文礼, 李治平, 高闯, 等. 页岩气井初期产能主控因素“Pearson-MIC”分析方法[J]. 中国科技论文, 2018, 13(15):1765-1771.
	MA Wenli, LI Zhiping, GAO Chuang, et al. “Pearson-MIC” analysis method for the initial production key controlling factors of shale gas wells[J]. China Sciencepaper, 2018, 13(15):1765-1771.
[20]	郭建成, 林伯韬, 向建华, 等. 四川盆地龙马溪组页岩压后返排率及产能影响因素分析[J]. 石油科学通报, 2019, 4(3):273-287.
	GUO Jiancheng, LIN Botao, XIANG Jianhua, et al. Study of factors affecting the flowback ratio and productive capacity of Longmaxi Formation shale in the Sichuan basin after fracturing[J]. Petroleum Science Bulletin, 2019, 4(3):273-287.
[21]	REVELLE W. Hierarchical cluster analysis and the internal structure of tests[J]. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1979, 14(1):57-74. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr1401_4
[22]	KARAMIZADEH S, ABDULLAH S M, MANAF A A, et al. An overview of principal component analysis[J]. Journal of Signal and Information Processing, 2013, 4(3B):173.
[23]	檀朝东, 贺甲元, 周彤, 等. 基于PCA-BNN的页岩气压裂施工参数优化[J]. 西南石油大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 42(6):56-62.
	SHAN Chaodong, HE Jiayuan, ZHOU Tong, et al. A Study on the optimization of fracturing operation parameters based on PCA-CNN[J]. Journal of Southwest Petroleum University(Science & Technology Edition), 2020, 42(6):56-62.
[24]	刘彪, 许瑞, 王居贺, 等. 基于改进的主成分分析法的钻头优选评价模型[J]. 石油机械, 2020, 48(9):8-14.
	LIU Biao, XU Rui, WANG Juhe, et al. Bit selection and evaluation model based on improved principal component analysis[J]. China Petroleum Machinery, 2020, 48(9):8-14.

	水平井段长	钻遇率	段数	簇数	加砂量	入地液量	闷井时间	抽深	动液面	孔隙度	渗透率	饱和度	日产油	递减率
水平井段长	1.000	0.293	0.834	0.640	0.621	0.657	0.096	-0.134	-0.420	-0.240	-0.281	0.035	0.327	-0.153
钻遇率	0.293	1.000	0.466	0.549	0.462	0.477	-0.088	-0.053	-0.286	-0.074	-0.184	0.025	0.109	-0.091
压裂段数	0.834	0.466	1.000	0.550	0.785	0.801	-0.031	-0.174	-0.376	-0.289	-0.252	0.142	0.436	-0.069
簇数	0.640	0.549	0.550	1.000	0.492	0.647	0.279	0.000	-0.399	0.054	-0.195	0.019	-0.024	-0.213
加砂量	0.621	0.462	0.785	0.492	1.000	0.852	-0.011	-0.284	-0.319	-0.381	-0.140	-0.074	0.440	-0.032
入地液量	0.657	0.477	0.801	0.647	0.852	1.000	0.174	-0.173	-0.321	-0.213	-0.181	0.024	0.376	-0.109
闷井时间	0.096	-0.088	-0.031	0.279	-0.011	0.174	1.000	0.089	-0.159	0.134	-0.298	0.072	-0.259	-0.265
抽深	-0.134	-0.053	-0.174	0.000	-0.284	-0.173	0.089	1.000	0.323	0.217	0.265	0.043	-0.327	0.031
动液面	-0.420	-0.286	-0.376	-0.399	-0.319	-0.321	-0.159	0.327	1.000	-0.027	0.189	0.075	-0.444	0.543
孔隙度	-0.240	-0.074	-0.289	0.054	-0.381	-0.213	0.134	0.217	-0.027	1.000	0.157	0.034	-0.408	-0.330
渗透率	-0.281	-0.184	-0.252	-0.195	-0.140	-0.181	-0.298	0.265	0.189	0.157	1.000	-0.636	-0.219	0.249
饱和度	0.035	0.025	0.142	0.019	-0.074	0.024	0.072	0.043	0.075	0.034	-0.636	1.000	0.068	-0.099
前三个月日产油	0.327	0.109	0.436	-0.024	0.440	0.376	-0.259	-0.327	-0.444	-0.408	-0.219	0.068	1.000	-0.209
递减率	-0.153	-0.091	-0.069	-0.213	-0.032	-0.109	-0.265	0.031	0.543	-0.330	0.249	-0.099	-0.209	1.000

	水平井段长	钻遇率	段数	簇数	加砂量	入地液量	闷井时间	抽深	动液面	孔隙度	渗透率	饱和度	日产油	递减率
水平井段长	1.000	-0.220	0.731	0.527	0.199	0.126	0.211	0.159	-0.036	-0.214	-0.162	-0.284	0.098	-0.291
钻遇率	-0.220	1.000	-0.113	0.016	-0.080	-0.270	-0.419	-0.015	-0.145	-0.221	-0.058	0.174	-0.036	-0.033
压裂段数	0.731	-0.113	1.000	0.542	0.126	0.088	0.004	0.124	-0.047	-0.463	-0.120	0.065	0.034	-0.432
簇数	0.527	0.016	0.542	1.000	0.180	0.567	0.476	0.002	-0.228	0.012	-0.149	0.047	-0.033	-0.568
加砂量	0.199	-0.080	0.126	0.180	1.000	0.504	0.342	-0.179	-0.248	-0.079	-0.406	-0.095	0.306	-0.454
入地液量	0.126	-0.270	0.088	0.566	0.504	1.000	0.575	-0.091	-0.339	0.245	-0.145	-0.064	0.210	-0.663
闷井时间	0.211	-0.419	0.004	0.476	0.342	0.575	1.000	-0.091	-0.048	0.476	-0.256	0.089	-0.310	-0.297
抽深	0.159	-0.015	0.124	0.002	-0.179	-0.091	-0.091	1.000	0.672	0.290	0.710	-0.274	-0.557	0.121
动液面	-0.036	-0.145	-0.047	-0.228	-0.248	-0.339	-0.048	0.672	1.000	0.380	0.507	-0.007	-0.768	0.504
孔隙度	-0.214	-0.221	-0.463	0.012	-0.079	0.245	0.476	0.290	0.380	1.000	0.261	-0.112	-0.549	0.109
渗透率	-0.162	-0.058	-0.200	-0.149	-0.406	-0.150	-0.256	0.710	0.507	0.261	1.000	-0.525	-0.291	0.487
饱和度	-0.284	0.174	0.065	0.047	-0.095	-0.064	0.089	-0.274	-0.007	-0.112	-0.525	1.000	-0.234	-0.295
日产油	0.098	-0.036	0.034	-0.033	0.306	0.210	-0.310	-0.557	-0.768	-0.549	-0.291	-0.234	1.000	-0.314
递减率	-0.291	-0.033	-0.432	-0.568	-0.454	-0.663	-0.297	0.121	0.504	0.109	0.487	-0.295	-0.314	1.000

	水平井段长	钻遇率	段数	簇数	加砂量	入地液量	闷井时间	抽深	孔隙度	渗透率	饱和度	日产油	递减率
水平井段长	1.000	-0.013	0.706	0.468	0.190	0.450	0.046	0.125	0.029	-0.443	0.495	0.260	-0.175
钻遇率	-0.013	1.000	0.148	0.295	0.046	0.238	0.054	0.189	0.111	-0.275	-0.019	0.103	-0.115
压裂段数	0.706	0.148	1.000	0.033	0.412	0.644	-0.087	0.257	0.028	-0.437	0.611	0.487	-0.034
簇数	0.468	0.295	0.033	1.000	-0.130	0.159	0.321	0.279	0.153	-0.332	0.160	-0.155	-0.192
加砂量	0.190	0.046	0.412	-0.130	1.000	0.594	-0.183	0.168	-0.420	-0.036	0.167	0.430	0.034
入地液量	0.450	0.238	0.644	0.159	0.594	1.000	0.039	0.399	-0.287	-0.259	0.448	0.435	0.068
闷井时间	0.046	0.054	-0.087	0.321	-0.183	0.039	1.000	0.159	-0.124	-0.321	-0.001	-0.257	-0.236
抽深	0.125	0.189	0.257	0.279	0.168	0.399	0.159	1.000	-0.228	-0.020	0.127	0.006	0.066
动液面	-0.476	-0.231	-0.279	-0.338	-0.064	-0.052	-0.270	0.062	-0.301	0.232	-0.038	-0.393	0.630
孔隙度	0.026	0.111	0.028	0.153	-0.420	-0.287	-0.124	-0.228	1.000	-0.159	0.149	-0.025	-0.564
渗透率	-0.443	-0.275	-0.437	-0.332	-0.036	-0.259	-0.321	-0.020	-0.159	1.000	-0.696	-0.071	0.167
饱和度	0.495	-0.019	0.611	0.160	0.167	0.448	-0.001	0.127	0.149	-0.696	1.000	0.246	0.011
日产油	0.260	0.103	0.487	-0.155	0.430	0.435	-0.257	0.006	-0.025	-0.071	0.246	1.000	-0.280
递减率	-0.175	-0.115	-0.034	-0.192	0.034	0.068	-0.236	0.066	-0.564	0.167	0.011	-0.280	1.000

相关系数绝对值	相关性分级	附加说明
0 ~0.5	中低度	非控制因素
0.5~0.7	高度	控制因素
0.7~1.0	极高	控制因素

项目	水平井段长	钻遇率	段数	簇数	加砂量	入地液量	闷井时间	抽深	动液面	孔隙度	渗透率
日产油（全区）	中低	中低	中低	中低	中低	中低	中低	中低	中低	中低	中低
日产油（A类）	中低	中低	中低	中低	中低	中低	中低	高	极高	高	中低
日产油（B类）	中低	中低	高	中低	中低	中低	中低	中低	中低	中低	中低
递减率（全区）	中低	中低	中低	中低	中低	中低	中低	中低	高	中低	中低
递减率（A类）	中低	中低	中低	高	中低	高	中低	中低	高	中低	中低
递减率（B类）	中低	中低	中低	中低	中低	中低	中低	中低	高	高	中低

Principal factor analysis on initial productivity in shale oil development: A case study of Block Li-151 in Changqing Oilfield

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Like

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 10

References 24

Related Articles 15

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 10

[1]	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.
[2]	YAO Hongsheng,YUN Lu,ZAN Ling,ZHANG Longsheng,QIU Weisheng. Development mode and practice of fault-block oriented shale oil well in the second member of Funing Formation, Qintong Sag, Subei Basin [J]. Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(2): 141-151.
[3]	ZHANG Jinhong. Progress in Sinopec shale oil engineering technology [J]. Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(1): 1-8.
[4]	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.
[5]	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.
[6]	WANG Xiaoming,CHEN Junbin,REN Dazhong. Research progress and prospect of pore structure representation and seepage law of continental shale oil reservoir [J]. Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(1): 23-30.
[7]	SONG shuling,YANG Erlong,SHA Mingyu. Influencing factors of occurrence state of shale oil based on molecular simulation [J]. Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(1): 31-38.
[8]	LIN Zhongkai,ZHANG Shaolong,LI Chuanhua,WANG Min,YAN Jianping,CAI Jingong,GENG Bin,HU Qinhong. Types of shale lithofacies assemblage and its significance for shale oil exploration: A case study of Shahejie Formation in Boxing Sag [J]. Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(1): 39-51.
[9]	XIE Xin,DOU Zhengdao,YANG Xiaomin,JIN Jing,WANG Yuanyuan,REN Fei. ROP enhancement technique for slimhole drilling in shale oil development [J]. Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(1): 83-90.
[10]	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.
[11]	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.
[12]	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.
[13]	WANG Lei. Self-suspension proppant fracturing test of shale oil in the fourth member of Shahejie Formation in Guan-17 well area, Niuzhuang Sag [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2022, 12(4): 684-689.
[14]	ZHOU Xin,LIU Xiangjun,DING Yi,LIANG Lixi,LIU Yexuan. Simulation of intersecting hydraulic fractures with natural fractures considering layer barrier effect [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2022, 12(3): 515-525.
[15]	TANG Botao,ZENG Ji,CHEN Weihua,CHEN Yixin,WANG Tao,LIU Cheng,FENG Feng. Multi cluster perforation optimization design method and its application effect of tight sandstone horizontal wells in Qiulin area, central Sichuan [J]. Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2022, 12(2): 337-344.

	A	B	C	D
A	0	0.78	1.33	3.33
B	0.78	0	2.76	1.68
C	1.33	2.76	0	6.20
D	3.33	1.68	6.20	0