Reservoir Evaluation and Development ›› 2019, Vol. 9 ›› Issue (4): 12-18.
• Reservoir Evaluation • Previous Articles Next Articles
FANG Yujia,YANG Erlong,YIN Daiyin
Received:
2018-11-20
Online:
2019-08-26
Published:
2019-08-28
CLC Number:
FANG Yujia,YANG Erlong,YIN Daiyin. Study on utilization ratio of remaining oil in fractured low permeability reservoirs at different water cut stages[J].Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2019, 9(4): 12-18.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks
Table 1
Distribution characteristics of various types of residual oil in different water cut period (Conventional water flooding without fractures)"
渗透率/10-3μm2 | 含水阶段 | 剩余油类型 | 合计 剩余油 饱和度, % | 驱油 效率,% | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
簇状 | 柱状 | 油滴状 | 膜状 | 盲端状 | |||||||||||||
饱和度,% | 比例, % | 饱和度,% | 比例, % | 饱和度,% | 比例, % | 饱和度,% | 比例, % | 饱和度,% | 比例, % | ||||||||
6 | 含水率30 % | 38.843 | 75.210 | 3.760 | 7.280 | 3.558 | 6.890 | 2.546 | 4.930 | 2.939 | 5.690 | 51.646 | 16.700 | ||||
含水率50 % | 30.456 | 61.556 | 5.066 | 10.240 | 7.231 | 14.616 | 2.740 | 5.538 | 3.983 | 8.050 | 49.476 | 20.200 | |||||
含水率70 % | 26.419 | 56.664 | 5.865 | 12.580 | 7.461 | 16.003 | 2.763 | 5.926 | 4.115 | 8.827 | 46.624 | 24.800 | |||||
含水率90 % | 20.961 | 50.012 | 6.153 | 14.682 | 7.653 | 18.260 | 2.853 | 6.806 | 4.292 | 10.240 | 41.912 | 32.400 | |||||
含水率100 % | 17.004 | 44.320 | 6.261 | 16.320 | 7.876 | 20.530 | 2.908 | 7.580 | 4.316 | 11.250 | 38.366 | 38.120 | |||||
16 | 含水率30 % | 38.595 | 79.274 | 2.936 | 6.030 | 2.829 | 5.810 | 2.023 | 4.156 | 2.303 | 4.730 | 48.685 | 25.100 | ||||
含水率50 % | 31.829 | 69.261 | 4.010 | 8.726 | 5.512 | 11.994 | 2.091 | 4.550 | 2.513 | 5.469 | 45.955 | 29.300 | |||||
含水率70 % | 27.530 | 65.060 | 4.361 | 10.307 | 5.685 | 13.436 | 2.101 | 4.965 | 2.638 | 6.233 | 42.315 | 34.900 | |||||
含水率90 % | 21.962 | 58.863 | 4.552 | 12.200 | 5.877 | 15.753 | 2.112 | 5.660 | 2.807 | 7.524 | 37.310 | 42.600 | |||||
含水率100 % | 17.077 | 51.870 | 4.711 | 14.310 | 5.943 | 18.050 | 2.124 | 6.450 | 3.068 | 9.320 | 32.923 | 49.350 | |||||
45 | 含水率30 % | 39.029 | 82.703 | 2.605 | 5.520 | 2.015 | 4.270 | 1.405 | 2.977 | 2.138 | 4.530 | 47.192 | 30.600 | ||||
含水率50 % | 33.655 | 76.852 | 3.232 | 7.380 | 3.222 | 7.358 | 1.459 | 3.332 | 2.224 | 5.079 | 43.792 | 35.600 | |||||
含水率70 % | 29.113 | 72.936 | 3.390 | 8.492 | 3.582 | 8.974 | 1.490 | 3.733 | 2.342 | 5.866 | 39.916 | 41.300 | |||||
含水率90 % | 23.023 | 67.046 | 3.513 | 10.230 | 3.836 | 11.172 | 1.530 | 4.455 | 2.437 | 7.097 | 34.340 | 49.500 | |||||
含水率100 % | 17.188 | 59.140 | 3.656 | 12.580 | 4.092 | 14.080 | 1.587 | 5.460 | 2.540 | 8.740 | 29.063 | 57.260 |
Table 2
Distribution characteristics of various types of residual oil in different water cut period (Conventional water flooding with fractures)"
渗透率/10-3μm2 | 含水阶段 | 剩余油类型 | 合计 剩余油 饱和度,% | 驱油 效率,% | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
簇状 | 柱状 | 油滴状 | 膜状 | 盲端状 | |||||||||||||
饱和度,% | 比例, % | 饱和度,% | 比例, % | 饱和度,% | 比例, % | 饱和度,% | 比例, % | 饱和度,% | 比例, % | ||||||||
6 | 含水率30 % | 41.059 | 79.120 | 2.896 | 5.580 | 3.415 | 6.580 | 2.356 | 4.540 | 2.169 | 4.180 | 51.894 | 16.310 | ||||
含水率50 % | 31.360 | 62.600 | 4.439 | 8.860 | 7.860 | 15.690 | 2.495 | 4.980 | 3.943 | 7.870 | 50.096 | 19.220 | |||||
含水率70 % | 27.524 | 58.260 | 5.367 | 11.360 | 7.427 | 15.720 | 2.707 | 5.730 | 4.219 | 8.930 | 47.244 | 23.810 | |||||
含水率90 % | 22.604 | 52.030 | 5.969 | 13.740 | 7.798 | 17.950 | 2.776 | 6.390 | 4.297 | 9.890 | 43.443 | 29.930 | |||||
含水率100 % | 19.885 | 48.050 | 6.415 | 15.500 | 7.867 | 19.010 | 2.905 | 7.020 | 4.312 | 10.420 | 41.385 | 33.250 | |||||
16 | 含水率30 % | 40.098 | 80.535 | 2.425 | 4.870 | 3.259 | 6.546 | 2.011 | 4.039 | 1.997 | 4.010 | 49.790 | 23.400 | ||||
含水率50 % | 32.875 | 69.762 | 3.836 | 8.140 | 5.273 | 11.190 | 2.161 | 4.585 | 2.980 | 6.324 | 47.125 | 27.500 | |||||
含水率70 % | 28.393 | 65.489 | 4.434 | 10.226 | 5.355 | 12.351 | 2.164 | 4.991 | 3.010 | 6.943 | 43.355 | 33.300 | |||||
含水率90 % | 23.494 | 60.747 | 4.586 | 11.857 | 5.399 | 13.959 | 2.167 | 5.602 | 3.030 | 7.835 | 38.675 | 40.500 | |||||
含水率100 % | 19.957 | 56.670 | 4.606 | 13.080 | 5.438 | 15.440 | 2.173 | 6.170 | 3.043 | 8.640 | 35.217 | 45.820 | |||||
45 | 含水率30 % | 41.748 | 84.682 | 1.992 | 4.040 | 2.051 | 4.160 | 1.350 | 2.738 | 2.159 | 4.380 | 49.300 | 27.500 | ||||
含水率50 % | 35.429 | 78.231 | 3.010 | 6.646 | 3.070 | 6.778 | 1.434 | 3.166 | 2.345 | 5.179 | 45.288 | 33.100 | |||||
含水率70 % | 29.616 | 73.570 | 3.122 | 7.756 | 3.604 | 8.952 | 1.485 | 3.688 | 2.429 | 6.033 | 39.916 | 40.800 | |||||
含水率90 % | 24.180 | 68.806 | 3.172 | 9.027 | 3.749 | 10.667 | 1.528 | 4.347 | 2.514 | 7.152 | 35.142 | 48.320 | |||||
含水率100 % | 20.330 | 64.560 | 3.187 | 10.120 | 3.851 | 12.230 | 1.587 | 5.040 | 2.535 | 8.050 | 31.491 | 53.690 |
[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. |
[2] | 殷代印, 项俊辉, 房雨佳 . 低渗透油藏微乳液驱微观剩余油驱替机理研究[J]. 特种油气藏, 2017,24(5):136-140. |
[3] | 殷代印, 房雨佳, 辛勇亮 . 低渗透油藏改变驱替方向微观机理研究[J]. 特种油气藏, 2017,24(3):59-63. |
[4] | 李馨悦, 吕栋梁, 唐海 . 低渗油藏五点井网产水规律研究[J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2016,6(6):21-26. |
[5] | 陶帅, 郝永卯, 周杰 , 等. 透镜体低渗透岩性油藏合理井网井距研究[J]. 岩性油气藏, 2018,30(5):116-123. |
[6] | 李爱芬, 何冰清, 雷启鸿 , 等. 界面张力对低渗亲水储层自发渗吸的影响[J]. 中国石油大学学报(自然科学版), 2018,42(4):67-74. |
[7] | 王平美, 罗健辉, 林远平 , 等. 低渗透裂缝型油田长效智能深部调驱技术[J]. 油田化学, 2018,35(2):252-256. |
[8] | 李晓骁, 任晓娟, 罗向荣 . 低渗透致密砂岩储层孔隙结构对渗吸特征的影响[J]. 油气地质与采收率, 2018,25(4):115-120. |
[9] | 王东琪, 殷代印, 周亚洲 . 特低渗透微裂缝发育油藏综合相渗曲线计算方法[J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2017,7(5):20-25. |
[10] | 谢坤, 韩大伟, 卢祥国 , 等. 高温低渗油藏表面活性剂裂缝动态渗吸研究[J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2017,7(3):39-43. |
[11] | 彭缓缓, 王文环, 吕文峰 , 等. 考虑动态裂缝的特低渗透油藏渗流模型[J]. 断块油气田, 2016,23(5):630-633. |
[12] | 王建民, 张三, 杜伟 , 等. 低幅度构造对特低渗透油藏油气水富集及开发动态的控制效应[J]. 石油勘探与开发, 2019,46(4):728-738. |
[13] | 黄迎松 . 水驱速度对束缚型和油膜型剩余油动用的影响理论及实验[J]. 大庆石油地质与开发, 2018,37(2):56-61. |
[14] | 郭粉转, 刘滨, 荆冠军 , 等. 水平缝发育低—超低渗透油藏注水开发特征[J]. 特种油气藏, 2018,25(1):108-111. |
[15] | 刘彦子, 孙雷, 潘毅 , 等. 裂缝性油藏微观水驱油渗流机理可视化研究[J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2012,2(5):28-31. |
[1] | LI Ning,MIAO He,CAO Kaifang. Prediction of volcanic fractures based on prestack azimuthal anisotropy: A case study of LFS area in southern Songliao Basin [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2024, 14(2): 197-206. |
[2] | TANG Yong, TANG Kai, XIA Guang, XU Di. Retrograde condensation pollution and removal method of BZ19-6 low permeability reservoir [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2024, 14(1): 102-107. |
[3] | CHEN Hongcai, LI Zhaorui. Seismic prediction technology for thin sandstone reservoir of Dainan Formation in Majiazui Oilfield [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2024, 14(1): 108-116. |
[4] | SUN Yili. Mechanism of CO2 injection to improve the water injection capacity of low permeability reservoir in Shuanghe Oilfield in Henan [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2024, 14(1): 55-63. |
[5] | REN Hong,LI Weiqi,GUO Zhongchun,YANG Xiaoteng,XU Jian,WANG Xiao. Dynamic quantitative characterization and automatic identification of the buried hill reservoir types in Yakela block [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(6): 789-800. |
[6] | XU Yandong, TAO Shan, HE Hui, WAN Xiaoyong, ZOU Ning, YUAN Hongfei. Well test model of vertical double-hole channeling considering gravity [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(6): 827-833. |
[7] | LIANG Yunpei, ZHANG Huaijun, WANG Lichun, QIN Chaozhong, TIAN Jian, CHEN Qiang, SHI Bowen. Numerical simulation of flow fields and permeability evolution in real fractures under continuous loading stress [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(6): 834-843. |
[8] | CHEN Minfeng,QIN Lifeng,ZHAO Kang,WANG Yiwen. Effective injection-production well spacing in pressure-sensitive reservoir with low permeability [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(6): 855-862. |
[9] | YAN Lini, ZHU Hongquan, YE Sujuan, ZHU Li. Origin of “cake-like” fractures and its significance for gas exploration in the second member of Xujiahe Formation of Xinchang structural belt [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(5): 559-568. |
[10] | ZHANG Zhuang, ZHANG Shunli, HE Xiubin, XIE Dan, LIU Yanhua. Development characteristics of fractures in the second member of Xujiahe Formation in Hexingchang Gas Field, western Sichuan Depression and their main control factors of formation: A case study of Hexingchang Gas Field [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(5): 581-590. |
[11] | LI Jingchang, LU Ting, NIE Haikuan, FENG Dongjun, DU Wei, SUN Chuanxiang, LI Wangpeng. Confidence evaluation of fractures seismic detection in shale gas formations on WY23 Pad in Weirong [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(5): 614-626. |
[12] | 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. |
[13] | 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. |
[14] | SHI Leiting, ZHAO Qiming, REN Zhenyu, ZHU Shijie, ZHU Shanshan. Numerical simulation study on the influence of coal rock fracture morphology on seepage capacity [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(4): 424-432. |
[15] | HU Zhijian, LI Shuxin, WANG Jianjun, ZHOU Hong, ZHAO Yulong, ZHANG Liehui. Productivity evaluation of multi-stage fracturing horizontal wells in shale gas reservoir with complex artificial fracture occurrence [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(4): 459-466. |
|