考虑诱导应力的压裂气井出砂预测

Abstract

Abstract:

Based on the stress distribution in the zone near the well, and by the consideration of the artificial fracture induced stress, we found out the stress field around the wellbore of the fractured wells. According to the Drucker-Prage criteria, we obtained the formation stability coefficients under the different conditions. The calculation results showed that the main factors of the formation sanding are induced stress caused by the high production pressure difference instead of the gas drag. More fractures, larger induced stress and more unstable formation made the sanding easier. Meanwhile, the formation stability coefficient decreased with the increase of the permeability, and the speed of the growth overall dropped down. However, the porosity had little impact on the formation stability coefficient. As the length of the fracture increased, the stability coefficient increased as well, on the contrary, the risk of the sanding decreased. By considering the impacts of the induced stress on the stability coefficient in the process of the production, we studied the influencing factors of the sanding comprehensively, to provide the theoretical references for the sanding control design.

Key words: fracturing, sanding, induced stress, stability coefficient

CLC Number:

TE358

Luo Zhifeng,Zhang Nanlin,Zhao Liqiang. Sand prediction of fractured gas wells by consideration of induced stress[J].Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2018, 8(1): 38-43.

Figures/Tables 9

Table 1

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Table 2

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

References 15

[1]	刘玉奎, 郭肖, 唐林 , 等. 天然裂缝对气井产能影响研究[J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2014,4(6):25-28. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-1426.2014.06.006
[2]	Almedeij J H, Algharaib M K . Influence of sand production on pressure drawdown in horizontal wells: Theoretical evidence[J]. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2005,47(3):137-145. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2005.03.005
[3]	刘洪, 刘向君, 孙万里 , 等. 水平井眼轨迹对气井出砂趋势及工作制度的影响[J]. 天然气工业, 2006,26(12):103-105.
[4]	王小鲁, 杨万萍, 严焕德 , 等. 疏松砂岩出砂机理与出砂临界压差计算方法[J]. 天然气工业, 2009,29(7):72-75. doi: 10.3787/j.issn.1000-0976.2009.07.022
[5]	李士斌, 官兵, 张立刚 , 等. 裂缝诱导应力场影响因素敏感性评价[J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2017,7(2):23-30.
[6]	王彦利, 陈小凡, 邓生辉 , 等. 疏松砂岩临界出砂压差的计算方法研究及应用[J]. 西南石油大学学报(自然科学版), 2009,31(1):78-80. doi: 10.3863/j.issn.1674-5086.2009.01.019
[7]	刘先珊, 张林, 秦鹏伟 , 等. 不同物性的储层砂岩出砂力学响应分析[J]. 土木建筑与环境工程, 2014,36(2):28-34.
[8]	董长银, 王爱萍 . 出砂水平井近井塑性区出砂半径预测研究[J]. 中国矿业大学学报, 2012,41(4):663-668.
[9]	胡南, 夏宏泉 . 高陡构造异常高压深气层出砂测井预测研究[J]. 测井技术, 2014,38(5):617-621. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1338.2014.05.022
[10]	Papamichos E, Vardoulakis I, Tronvoll J , et al. Volumetric sand production model and experiment[J]. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 2010,25(8):789-808. doi: 10.1002/nag.154
[11]	Hoek P J V D, Hertogh G M M, Kooijman A P , et al. A new concept of sand production prediction: Theory and laboratory experiments[J]. Spe Drilling and Completion, 2000,15(4):261-273. doi: 10.2118/65756-PA
[12]	Wang Y, Wu B . Borehole collapse and sand production evaluation: Experimental testing, analytical solutions and field implications[J]. Bmc Infectious Diseases, 2001,12(14):584-584.
[13]	赵栋 . 考虑生产影响的气井出砂预测方法研究[D]. 中国石油大学, 2010.
[14]	雷征东, 李相方, 程时清 . 考虑拖曳力的出砂预测新模型及应用[J]. 石油钻采工艺, 2006,28(1):69-72. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-7393.2006.01.019
[15]	李士伦 . 天然气工程[M]. 北京: 石油出版社, 2000.

井号	裂缝长度/m	孔隙度,%	裂缝高度/m	泊松比	孔隙流体压力/MPa	气体相对密度	气体黏度/（mPa·s）	渗透率/10^-3μm²
KS2-2-20	100	6.6	74	0.21	103.4	0.76	0.027	70
KS2-2-10	100	6.6	210	0.21	112.84	0.76	0.027	70

井号	临界生产压差/MPa
井号	不考虑诱导应力	对称双翼缝	两对对称双翼缝
KS2-2-10	17.6	11.5	9
KS2-2-20	13.57	7.45	5.12

Sand prediction of fractured gas wells by consideration of induced stress

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Like

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 9

References 15

Related Articles 15

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 10

[1]	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.
[2]	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.
[3]	CUI Chuanzhi, LI Huailiang, WU Zhongwei, ZHANG Chuanbao, LI Hongbo, ZHANG Yinghua, ZHENG Wenkuan. Analysis of pressures in water injection wells considering fracture influence induced by pressure-drive water injection [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(5): 686-694.
[4]	ZHANG Fengxi, NIU Congcong, ZHANG Yichi. Evaluation of multi-stage fracturing a horizontal well of low permeability reservoirs in East China Sea [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(5): 695-702.
[5]	KONG Xiangwei,XIE Xin,WANG Cunwu,SHI Xian. Evaluation of geological engineering factors for productivity of deep CBM well after fracturing based on grey correlation method [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(4): 433-440.
[6]	LIN Hun, SUN Xinyi, SONG Xixiang, MENG Chun, XIONG Wenxin, HUANG Junhe, LIU Hongbo, LIU Cheng. A model for shale gas well production prediction based on improved artificial neural network [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(4): 467-473.
[7]	REN Hongda, DONG Jingfeng, GAO Jing, LIU Kaixin, ZHANG Jingchun, YIN Shuli. Field test of self-suspending proppant at Mahu sandstone reservoir in Xinjiang Oilfield [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(4): 513-518.
[8]	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.
[9]	YANG Zhaozhong, ZHENG Nanxin, ZHU Jingyi, LI Xiaogang. Preparation of nanoparticle-stabilized foam fracturing fluid and its foam stabilization mechanism [J]. Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(2): 260-268.
[10]	ZHANG Jinhong. Progress in Sinopec shale oil engineering technology [J]. Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(1): 1-8.
[11]	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.
[12]	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.
[13]	JIANG Shu,LI Yuanping,DU Fengshuang,XUE Gang,ZHANG Peixian,CHEN Guohui,WANG Hu,YU Ruyang,ZHANG Ren. Recent advancement for improving gas production rate from perforated clusters in fractured shale gas reservoir [J]. Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(1): 9-22.
[14]	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.
[15]	YAO Hongsheng,XIAO Cui,CHEN Zhenlong,GUO Tao,LI Xin. Adjustment countermeasures for efficient development of deep coalbed methane in southern Yanchuan CBM Field [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2022, 12(4): 545-555.