叙利亚Tishirine油田复杂碳酸盐岩储层有效性综合评价

doi:10.13809/j.cnki.cn32-1825/te.2020.02.005

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

储层有效性是制约油气藏高效开发的关键因素,也是储层评价的难点之一。叙利亚T油田C组、J组碳酸盐岩裂缝性油藏岩性、孔隙结构复杂,储集空间多样,基质孔隙高孔低渗,产量低。构造作用形成的裂缝对基质储层渗流能力改造明显,但裂缝有效性测井评价存在多解性,基质—裂缝型复杂碳酸盐岩储层有效性标准亟待建立。利用岩心、扫描电镜、压汞等分析化验资料标定测井曲线,结合多元回归方法,构建了包括岩性、物性、孔隙结构、测井响应、储层品质因子和流动指数等多参数的储层有效性综合评价标准,全面评价此类复杂碳酸盐岩储层,为油藏高效开发提供技术支撑。

关键词: Tishirine油田, 碳酸盐岩, 双孔双渗, 储层有效性, 综合评价

Abstract:

Reservoir effectiveness is a key factor restricting the efficient development and also one of the difficulties in reservoir evaluation. Formation C and J of the T oilfield in Syria are carbonate fractured reservoirs. The diversified storing space, complex lithology, pore structure and other reservoir characteristics lead to high porosity and low permeability of matrix pore. Although fractures formed by tectonic action have improved reservoir’s seepage capacity significantly, there still have great ambiguity in fracture effectiveness well logging interpretation. It is urgent to establish a criterion for the effectiveness of matrix-fracture complex carbonate reservoirs. According to the above problem, geology and rock physics analysis such as core observation, scanning electron microscopy（SEM） and mercury injection data are used to calibrate well logging. In combination with multivariate statistical method, the comprehensive evaluation standard of reservoir effectiveness, including the lithology, physical properties, pore structure characteristics, logging response and reservoir parameters like reservoir quality factor and flow index of different reservoir storing space, has been established. This study provides technical support for comprehensive evaluation and efficient development of such complex carbonate reservoirs.

Key words: Tishirine Oilfield carbonate, dual-porosity and dual-permeability, reservoir effectiveness, comprehensive evaluation

中图分类号:

TE31

贾俊. 叙利亚Tishirine油田复杂碳酸盐岩储层有效性综合评价[J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2020, 10(2): 30-36.

Jun JIA. Comprehensive evaluation for effectiveness of complex carbonate reservoir: A case from Tishirine Oilfield in Syria[J]. Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2020, 10(2): 30-36.

图/表 9

图1

图2

图3

图4

表1

表2

图5

图6

表3

参考文献 26

[1]	贾承造, 郑民, 张永峰 . 中国非常规油气资源与勘探开发前景[J]. 石油勘探与开发, 2012,39(2):129-136.
	JIA C Z, ZHENG M, ZHANG Y F . Unconventional hydrocarbon resources in China and the prospect of exploration and development[J]. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2012,39(2):129-136.
[2]	戴金星, 倪云燕, 吴小奇 . 中国致密砂岩气及在勘探开发上的重要意义[J]. 石油勘探与开发, 2012,39(3):257-264.
	DAI J X, NI Y Y, WU X Q . Tight gas in China and its significance in exploration and exploitation[J]. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2012,39(3):257-264.
[3]	邹才能, 陶士振, 侯连华 , 等. 非常规油气地质学[M]. 北京: 地质出版社, 2014.
	ZOU C N, TAO S Z, HOU L H , et al. Unconventional petroleum geology[M]. Beijing: Geological Publishing House, 2014.
[4]	汪勇, 向奎, 马立群 , 等. 车排子凸起石炭系火山岩储层测井综合评价[J]. 特种油气藏, 2018,25(2):9-10.
	WANG Y, XIANG K, MA L Q , et al. Comprehensive logging evaluation of the carboniferous volcanic reservoir in Chepaizi Uplift[J]. Special Oil & Gas Reservoirs, 2018,25(2):9-10.
[5]	范文同, 郑新华, 袁仕俊 , 等. 大北高陡构造地应力测井解释及致密砂岩储层有效性评价[J]. 工程地球物理学报, 2014,11(1):66-70.
	FAN W T, ZHENG X H, YUAN S J , et al. Exploration of earth stress logging and effectiveness evaluation of tight-sand reservoir in Dabei area with steep structure[J]. Chinese Journal of Engineering Geophysics, 2014,11(1):66-70.
[6]	司马立强, 姚军鹏, 黄丹 , 等. 合川气田须家河组低孔隙度低渗透率砂岩储层有效性测井评价[J]. 测井技术, 2011,35(3):254-258.
	SIMA L Q, YAO J P, HUANG D , et al. Effectiveness log evaluation of low porosity and low permeability sand reservoir in Xujiahe group of Hechuan Gas Field[J]. Well Logging Technology, 2011,35(3):254-258.
[7]	李虎, 范存辉, 秦启荣 , 等. 川东北元坝中部地区须家河组致密储层裂缝特征及成因探讨[J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2018,8(2):1-6.
	LI H, FAN C H, QIN Q R , et al. Fracture characteristics and its genesis of tight reservoir in Xujiahe formation of central Yuanba area in Sichuan basin[J]. Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2018,8(2):1-6.
[8]	齐宝权, 赵佐安, 贺洪举 , 等. 应用测井储层品质综合评价指数来判别储层的有效性——以四川盆地西部地区二叠系栖霞组为例[J]. 天然气工业, 2018,38(2):27-29.
	QI B Q, ZHAO Z A, HE H J , et al. Reservoir eﬀectiveness evaluation based on comprehensive reservoir quality evaluation indexes of well logging: A case study on the Permian Qixia Fm in the western Sichuan Basin[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2018,38(2):27-29.
[9]	邵维志, 解经宇, 迟秀荣 , 等. 低孔隙度低渗透率岩石孔隙度与渗透率关系研究[J]. 测井技术, 2013,37(2):150-153.
	SHAO W Z, XIE J Y, CHI X R , et al. On the relation of porosity and permeability in low porosity and low permeability rock[J]. Well Logging Technology, 2013,37(2):150-153.
[10]	李明, 戚楠, 陈朝兵 , 等. 甘谷驿油田L2区特低渗储层非均质性及其对油层分布的影响[J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2019,9(2):1-6.
	LI M, QI N, CHEN C B , et al. Extra-low permeability reservoir heterogeneity and its effect on the distribution of reservoirs in L2 area of Ganguyi Oilfield[J]. Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2019,9(2):1-6.
[11]	赫志兵, 汪忠浩, 张娟 , 等. 低孔低渗储层产能评价方法——以东濮凹陷卫城油田为例[J]. 石油天然气学报, 2010,32(6):81-86.
	HE Z B, WANG Z H, ZHANG J , et al. A method of productivity evaluation in low porosity and low permeability reservoirs——By taking Weicheng Oilfield in Dongpu Depression for example[J]. Journal of Oil and Gas Technology, 2010,32(6):81-86.
[12]	王国亭, 程立华, 孟德伟 , 等. 鄂尔多斯盆地东部奥陶系古岩溶型碳酸盐岩致密储层特征、形成机理与天然气富集潜力[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2018,39(4):685-695.
	WANG G T, CHENG L H, MENG D W , et al. Characterization and formation of the Ordovician tight paleokarst carbonates in the eastern Ordos Basin and its gas accumulation[J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2018,39(4):685-695.
[13]	魏新善, 陈洪德, 张道锋 , 等. 致密碳酸盐岩储集层特征与天然气勘探潜力——以鄂尔多斯盆地伊陕斜坡东部奥陶系马家沟组为例[J]. 石油勘探与开发, 2017,44(3):319-329.
	WEI X S, CHEN H D, ZHANG D F , et al. Gas exploration potential of tight carbonate reservoirs: A case study of Ordovician Majiagou Formation in the eastern Yi-Shan slope, Ordos Basin, NW China[J]. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2017,44(3):319-329.
[14]	熊金玉, 李思田, 唐玄 , 等. 湖相碳酸盐岩致密储层有机质赋存状态与孔隙演化微观机理[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2015,36(5):756-765.
	XIONG J Y, LI S T, TANG X , et al. Organic matter occurrence and microscopic mechanism of pore formation in the lacustrine tight carbonate reservoirs[J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2015,36(5):756-765.
[15]	任颖, 孙卫, 张茜 , 等. 低渗透储层不同流动单元可动流体赋存特征及生产动态分析——以鄂尔多斯盆地姬塬地区长6段储层为例[J]. 地质与勘探, 2016,52(5):974-984.
	REN Y, SUN W, ZHANG X , et al. Characteristics of movable fluids and study of production performance in different flow units of low-permeability reservoirs: An example from the Chang 6 block of the Jiyuan Oilfield in Ordos Basin[J]. Geology and Exploration, 2016,52(5):974– 984.
[16]	高伟, 王允诚, 刘宏 . 流动单元划分方法的讨论与研究[J]. 西南石油大学学报:自然科学版, 2009,31(6):37-40.
	GAO W, WANG Y C, LIU H , et al. The discussion and study on the division methods of flow unit[J]. Journal of Southwest Petroleum University(Science & Technology Edition), 2009,31(6):37-40.
[17]	ABBASZADEH M, FUJI H, FUJIMOTO F . Permeability prediction by hydraulic flow units——theory and applications[J]. SPE Formation Evaluation, 1996,11(4):263-271.
[18]	吴松涛, 朱如凯, 李勋 , 等. 致密储层孔隙结构表征技术有效性评价与应用[J]. 地学前缘, 2018,25(2):191-202.
	WU S T, ZHU R K, LI X , et al. Evaluation and application of porous structure characterization technologies in unconventional tight reservoirs[J]. Earth Science Frontiers, 2018,25(2):191-203.
[19]	张龙海, 周灿灿, 刘国强 , 等. 孔隙结构对低孔低渗储集层电性及测井解释评价的影响[J]. 石油勘探与开发, 2006,33(6):671-675.
	ZHANG L H, ZHOU C C, LIU G Q , et al. Influence of pore structures on electric properties and well logging evaluation in low porosity and permeability reservoirs[J]. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2006,33(6):671-675.
[20]	赵行, 贾春生, 彭小龙 , 等. 储层岩石平均毛管压力J函数研究[J]. 科学技术与工程, 2016,16(20):47-50.
	ZHAO X, JIA C S, PENG X L , et al. Study on the rock average capillary pressure J function[J]. Science Technology and Engineering, 2016,16(20):47-50.
[21]	胡勇, 于兴河, 陈恭洋 , 等. 平均毛管压力函数分类及其在流体饱和度计算中的应用[J]. 石油勘探与开发, 2012,39(6):733-738.
	HU Y, YU X H, CHEN G Y , et al. Classification of the average capillary pressure function and its application in calculating fluid saturation[J]. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2012,39(6):733-738.
[22]	童亨茂 . 成像测井资料在构造裂缝预测和评价中的应用[J]. 天然气工业, 2006,26(9):60-61.
	TONG H M . Application of imaging well logging data in prediction of structural fracture[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2006,26(9):60-61.
[23]	高霞, 谢庆宾 . 储层裂缝识别与评价方法新进展[J]. 地球物理学进展, 2007,22(5):1460-1465.
	GAO X, XIE Q B . Advances in identification and evaluation of fracture[J]. Progress in Geophysics, 2007,22(5):1460-1465.
[24]	孙建孟, 刘坤, 王艳 , 等. 泥页岩储层裂缝识别与有效性评价研究[J]. 测井技术, 2015,39(5):613-614.
	SUN J M, LIU K, WANG Y , et al. Fracture identification and effectiveness evaluation research of shale reservoir[J]. Well Logging Technology, 2015,39(5):613-614.
[25]	唐佳伟 . 成像测井资料处理与裂缝识别方法研究[D]. 西安:西安科技大学, 2013.
	TANG J W . Image logging data processing and fracture identification methods research[D]. Xi’an: Xi’an University of Science and Technology, 2013.
[26]	SHACKLETON N J, BERGER A, PELTIER W R . An alternative astronomical calibration of the lower Pleistocene timescale based on ODP site 677[J]. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Earth Sciences, 1990,81:251-261.

储层分类	孔隙度/ %	渗透率/10^-3μm²	流动单元指数	储层品质因子
Ⅰ类	24.763	1.920	0.846	0.278
Ⅱ类	22.084	0.945	0.730	0.207
Ⅲ类	19.493	0.426	0.611	0.148
非储层	16.835	0.012	0.132	0.027

压汞参数	均值系数XP	分选系数CS	歪度系数SK	变异系数CC	饱和度中值压力/MPa	饱和度中值半径/ μm	排驱压力/MPa	最大孔喉半径/ μm	最大进汞饱和度/ %	残留汞饱和度/ %	视退汞效率/ %	视孔喉体积比	平均毛管半径/ μm	综合物性指数
Ⅰ类	10.725	1.624	1.066	0.149	2.611	0.381	0.696	1.063	97.556	67.469	30.896	2.668	0.413	0.245
Ⅱ类	11.202	1.280	1.697	0.116	3.751	0.200	2.234	0.351	94.544	57.666	38.478	1.798	0.159	0.151
Ⅲ类	12.560	1.177	1.079	0.095	6.187	0.178	3.703	0.270	94.566	67.126	28.622	2.796	0.060	0.110
非储层	11.673	2.329	1.268	0.216	28.884	0.040	17.209	0.062	82.243	66.795	18.98	14.984	0.026	0.029

储层分类		沉积微相	岩性	排驱压力/ MPa	主流喉道半径 /μm	孔隙度/%			渗透率/10^-3μm²		测井响应					品质因子（RQI）	流动指数（FZI）	孔隙型储层有效性分类系数	裂缝型储层有效性评价系数
储层分类		沉积微相	岩性	排驱压力/ MPa	主流喉道半径 /μm	总孔隙度	有效孔隙度	裂缝孔隙度	基质渗透率	总渗透率	CGR /API	AC/ （μs·m^-1）	DEN / （g·cm^-3）	CNL/%	RT/ （Ω·m）	品质因子（RQI）	流动指数（FZI）	孔隙型储层有效性分类系数	裂缝型储层有效性评价系数
Ⅰ	孔隙型	潮间带、深缓坡相	颗粒灰岩、泥粒灰岩	<1.1	>0.58	≥29	≥16.5	≥0.04	≥40	≥45	≤10	≥295.2	≤2.30	≥30	≥3	≥1.174	≥2.875	5
	裂缝型					≥22	≥3.9	≥0.33	≥1.2	≥400	≤15	≥249.2	≤2.47	≥20		≥0.234	≥0.828		0.4
	裂缝- 孔隙					≥24	≥5.6	≥0.16	≥2.1	≥150	≤15	≥282	≤2.35	≥25	≥1.5	≥0.296	≥0.937
Ⅱ	孔隙型	潮间带、深缓坡相	泥粒灰岩、粒泥灰岩	1.1~8	0.15~0.58	≥25	≥13	≥0.02	≥22	≥26	≤20	≥282	≤2.43	≥28	≥2.5	≥0.938	≥2.814	-0.8
	裂缝型					≥20	≥3.5	≥0.28	≥0.82	≥250	≤21	≥246	≤2.48	≥19		≥0.204	≥0.815		0.25~0.4
	裂缝- 孔隙					≥22	≥5.3	≥0.13	≥1.4	≥100	≤21	≥275.5	≤2.37	≥23	≥1.2	≥0.252	≥0.894
Ⅲ	孔隙型	深缓坡相、外缓坡相	粒泥灰岩、泥灰岩	8~39	0.07~0.15	≥22	≥8.5	≥0.01	≥12	≥15	≤30	≥262.4	≤2.45	≥22	≥2	≥0.739	≥2.618	-2.8
	裂缝型					≥17.5	≥3.01	≥0.2	≥0.5	≥100	≤22	≥241	≤2.50	≥18		≥0.169	≥0.797		0.13~0.25
	裂缝- 孔隙					≥21	≥5.0	≥0.1	≥1.05	≥50	≤22	≥249.3	≤2.45	≥20	≥1.2	≥0.22	≥0.829