延长油田低温低渗油藏空气泡沫驱矿场实践

doi:10.13809/j.cnki.cn32-1825/te.2020.01.017

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

延长油田T区块油藏具有低温低渗的特点,注水井和油井大多经过重复压裂,水驱开发过程中存在沿裂缝或优势通道水窜的问题,进而导致注水开发效果差。针对T区块水驱开发存在的问题,结合空气泡沫驱油的优势,2007年开始实施空气泡沫驱矿场试验,探索低温低渗油藏空气泡沫驱可行性,并取得了一定的效果。鉴于前期试验效果,研究区于2011年后陆续扩大空气泡沫驱矿场应用规模。目前,经过多年的空气泡沫驱矿场实践,延长油田低温低渗油藏空气泡沫驱见到了较好的效果,并形成了完整的配套工艺技术及安全保障措施。矿场应用表明：约有70 %的单井见效,区块单井月均产油增加了2.2 t、综合含水降低了25个百分点,提高阶段采出程度达1.21 %,延长油田低温低渗油藏空气泡沫驱见到较好效果。

关键词: 低渗, 低温, 空气泡沫驱, 防窜, 矿场实践

Abstract:

The oil reservoirs in Block-T of Yanchang Oilfield have the characteristics of low temperature and low permeability. Most of injection wells and oil wells have been fractured repeatedly, and the effect of water injection development is poor because of the water breakthrough along fracture or dominant channels. In order to solve the problems existing in the water flooding development of Block-T, combined with the advantages of air foam flooding, its field test was carried out in 2007 to explore its feasibility in low temperature and low permeability reservoirs and certain effects had been obtained. Based on the effects of the preliminary tests, its site application scale expanded after 2011. After years of field tests, the air foam flooding shows good effects in the low temperature and low permeability reservoirs now, and the complete supporting technology and safety guarantee measures have been formed. The field test shows that the measures applied in about 70 % of the single wells are effective, the average oil production per month of single well increases by 2.2 t, the comprehensive water cut reduces by 25 %, and the oil recovery improves by 1.21 %. The air foam flooding has a good effect in low temperature and low permeability reservoirs of Yanchang Oilfield.

Key words: low permeability, low temperature, air foam flooding, control the water breakthrough, field practice

中图分类号:

TE357

姚振杰,江绍静,高瑞民,王伟,杨红. 延长油田低温低渗油藏空气泡沫驱矿场实践[J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2020, 10(1): 108-112.

YAO Zhenjie,JIANG Shaojing,GAO Ruimin,WANG Wei,YANG Hong. Field practices of air foam flooding in low temperature and low permeability reservoirs of Yanchang Oilfield[J]. Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2020, 10(1): 108-112.

图/表 5

图1

图2

图3

图4

表1

参考文献 15

[1]	王成俊, 洪玲, 高瑞民 , 等. 低渗透油藏提高采收率技术现状与挑战[J]. 非常规油气, 2018,5(3):102-108.
	WANG C J, HONG L, GAO R M , et al. Status-quo and challenges of enhanced oil recovery in low permeability reservoirs[J]. Unconventional Oil & Gas, 2018,5(3):102-108.
[2]	王谦, 石玉江, 谭茂金 , 等. 基于孔隙结构分类的致密砂岩含水率计算模型——以鄂尔多斯盆地陇东西部延长组长81储层为例[J]. 石油物探, 2019,58(5):669-680.
	WANG Q, SHI Y J, TAN M J , et al. Calculation model of water cut for tight sandstone based on pore structure classification: A case study from Chang 81 Reservoir in the Yanchang Formation in the Ordos Basin, China[J]. Geophysical Prospecting for Petroleum, 2019,58(5):669-680.
[3]	吉子翔, 路存存, 胡方芳 , 等. 超低渗透油藏改善水驱效果技术研究[J]. 石油化工应用, 2018,47(9):59-63.
	JI Z X, LU C C, HU F F , et al. Ultra-low permeability reservoirs to improve the effect of water flooding technology research[J]. Petrochemical Industry Application, 2018,47(9):59-63.
[4]	张作安 . 低渗透油藏泡沫驱油机理及应用现状研究[J]. 当代化工, 2017,46(8):1693-1695.
	ZHANG Z A . Study on the mechanism and application of foam flooding in low permeability reservoirs[J]. Contemporary Chemical Industry, 2017,46(8):1693-1695.
[5]	邱隆伟, 穆相骥, 李浩 , 等. 鄂尔多斯盆地杭锦旗地区二叠系下石盒子组岩屑发育特征及其对储层物性的影响[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2019,40(1):24-33.
	QIU L W, MU X J, LI H , et al. Characteristics of detritus development in the Permian lower Shihezi Formation in Hangjinqi area and its influence on reservoir physical properties[J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2019,40(1):24-33.
[6]	计秉玉, 赵宇, 宋考平 , 等. 低渗透油藏渗流物理特征的几点新认识[J]. 石油实验地质, 2015,37(2):129-133.
	JI B Y, ZHAO Y, SONG K P , et al. New insights into the physical percolation features of low-permeability reservoirs[J]. Petroleum Geology & Experiment, 2015,37(2):129-133.
[7]	吴康军, 刘洛夫, 徐正建 , 等. 鄂尔多斯盆地长7段致密油成藏物性下限研究[J]. 石油实验地质, 2016,38(1):63-69.
	WU K J, LIU L F, XU Z J , et al. Lower limits of pore throat radius, porosity and permeability for tight oil accumulations in the Chang-7 Member, Ordos Basin[J]. Petroleum Geology & Experiment, 2016,38(1):63-69.
[8]	庄永涛, 刘鹏程, 张婧瑶 , 等. 大庆外围油田CO₂驱注采参数优化研究[J]. 钻采工艺, 2014,37(1):42-46.
	ZHUANG Y T, LIU P C, ZHANG J Y , et al. Optimization of injection and production parameters of CO₂ flooding in Daqing Oilfield[J]. Drilling & Production Technology, 2014,37(1):42-46.
[9]	朱红云, 张津, 吴淑艳 , 等. 低渗透油藏气驱开发方式研究[J]. 非常规油气, 2014,1(3):43-46.
	ZHU H Y, ZHANG J, WU S Y , et al. Research on development regime by gas drive in low permeability reservoir[J]. Unconventional Oil&Gas, 2014,1(3):43-46.
[10]	吴婷婷 . 低渗透致密油藏注水开发方式研究[D]. 成都:西南石油大学, 2015.
	WU T T . The study on low permeability tight reservoir waterflood development[D]. Chengdu: Southwest Petroleum University, 2015.
[11]	张冰, 金志, 白慧芳 , 等. 低渗油藏空气泡沫驱提高采收率潜力评价新模型[J]. 非常规油气, 2019,6(4):71-75.
	ZHANG B, JIN Z, BAI H F . A new model for evaluating the recovery potential of air foam flooding in low permeability reservoirs[J]. Unconventional Oil & Gas, 2019,6(4):71-75.
[12]	吴海俊, 付美龙, 孙晶 . FY油藏注空气原油氧化速率影响因素的研究[J]. 当代化工, 2018,37(9):1896-1899.
	WU H J, FU M L, SUN J . Study on influencing factors of oxidation rate of crude oil in FY reservoir[J]. Contemporary Chemical Industry, 2018,47(9):1896-1899.
[13]	吴张洪, 张新春, 杨兴利 , 等. 长6致密油空气泡沫驱注入有效性地质因素研究[J]. 中国石油大学学报(自然科学版), 2018,42(5):105-113.
	ZHANG H, ZHANG X C, YANG X L , et al. Influence of geological factors on air foam flooding efficiency in a tight oil reservoir[J]. Journal of China University of Petroleum(Edition of Natural Science), 2018,42(5):105-113.
[14]	齐翊如 . 鄂尔多斯盆地甘谷驿油田长6低渗透砂岩油藏空气泡沫驱油机理研究[D]. 西安:西北大学, 2017.
	QI Y R . Air-foam flooding mechanism of Chang-6 oil reservoir with low permeability sandstone in Ganguyi region, Ordos Basin[D]. Xi’an: Northwest University, 2017.
[15]	黄春霞, 郭茂雷, 余华贵 , 等. 空气泡沫在非均质油藏中渗流能力的实验研究[J]. 岩性油气藏, 2014,26(2):128-132.
	HUANG C X, GUO M L, YU H G , et al. Experimental study on flow properties of air foam in heterogeneous reservoir[J]. Lithologic Reservoirs, 2014,26(2):128-132.

井号	测试时间	各组分含量/%
井号	测试时间	CH₄	C₂H₆	C₃H₈	i-C₄H₁₀	n-C₄H₁₀	i-C₅H₁₂	n-C₅H₁₂	C₆⁺	O₂	N₂
T5-2	200806	29.80	9.80	11.10	1.590	4.52	0.80	0	0	1.90	40.58
T5-2	201511	22.38	4.22	4.06	0.47	0.68	0.05	0.12	0	5.65	62.37
T5-8	200806	60.20	11.25	13.30	1.58	4.70	0.84	1.11	0.30	1.67	5.09
T5-8	201511	53.47	8.83	7.72	0.79	1.09	0.06	0.15	0	2.46	25.43