基于突变级数法的压裂层段组合方法研究

doi:10.13809/j.cnki.cn32-1825/te.2020.05.016

Abstract

Abstract:

In the late stage of extra-high water cut, the difference of fracturing layers becomes smaller and smaller, the geological factors taken into account increase gradually, and the combination of fracturing layers becomes more and more difficult, so that, the parameters, such as reservoir, physical property, oil content and production capacity, which can reflect reservoir characteristics are optimized. By using the mutation progression method, the multiple parameters of each small layer are reduced to one comprehensive evaluation value. Through this evaluation value, the quantitative combination of fractured strata is carried out, which solves the problem that some sand bodies in the fractured strata can not be fractured due to the unreasonable combination of fractured strata in the late stage of high water cut, and realizes the efficient and intelligent combination of fractured strata. By this method, the stratified combination of 25 fractured wells in the study area is completed, and the average daily oil increase is 0.5 t more than that of a single well in the same period, achieving a better effect. It is a good reference for the quantitative combination of fractured layers.

Key words: mutation progression method, interval combination, fracturing, reservoir parameters, physical parameters, oily parameters

CLC Number:

TE312

Shanyi ZHANG,Jinyu LAN. Research on fracturing layer combination method based on mutation series method[J]. Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2020, 10(5): 108-113.

Figures/Tables 8

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

References 22

[1]	薛颖. 基于油层分类标准的特低渗油藏压裂井层定量优选研究及应用[J]. 新疆石油天然气, 2019,15(3):58-63.
	XUE Y. A quantitative optimization research based on the classification criteria[J]. Xinjiang Oil &Gas, 2019,15(3):58-63.
[2]	高辉, 张晓, 何梦卿, 等. 基于测井数据体的页岩油储层可压裂性评价研究[J]. 地球物理学进展, 2018,33(2):603-612.
	GAO H, ZHANG X, HE M Q, et al. Study on evaluation of shale oil reservoir fracability based on well logging data volume[J]. Progress in Geophysics, 2018,33(2):603-612.
[3]	张文, 王禄春, 郭玮琪, 等. 特高含水期水驱油井压裂潜力研究[J]. 岩性油气藏, 2012,24(4):115-120.
	ZHANG W, WANG L C, GUO W Q, et al. Study on fracturing potential of water driving oil wells in extra-high water cut stage[J]. Lithologic Reservoirs, 2012,24(4):115-120.
[4]	HU Y, HAN L G, ZHANG P , et al. Multi-step full waveform inversion based on waveform mode decomposition[C]// paper SEG-2016-13712251 presented at the 2016 SEG International Exposition and Annual Meeting, 16-21 October 2016, Dallas, Texas, USA.
[5]	KLINGENSMITH B C, HOSSAINI M, FLEENOR S. Considering far-field fracture connectivity in stimulation treatment designs in the Permian Basin[C]// paper URTEC-2153821-MS presented at the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, 20-22 July 2015, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
[6]	SAHAI R, MISKIMINS J L, OLSON K E, et al. Laboratory results of proppant transport in complex fracture systems[C]// paper SPE-168579-MS presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, 4-6 February 2014, The Woodlands, Texas, USA.
[7]	翟文宝, 李军, 周英操, 等. 突变理论在页岩储层可压性评价中的应用[J]. 断块油气田, 2018,25(1):76-79.
	ZHAI W B, LI J, ZHOU Y C, et al. Application of catastrophe theory to fracability evaluation of shale reservoir[J]. Fault-Block Oil & Gas Field, 2018,25(1):76-79.
[8]	牛世忠. 红岗油田压裂选井选层方法研究及应用[J]. 石油天然气学报(江汉石油学院学报), 2005,27(6):916-918.
	NIU S Z. Method and its application of well selection for fracturing in Honggang Oilfield[J]. Journal of Oil and Gas Technology, 2005,27(6):916-918.
[9]	梁煌, 韩立国, 许卓, 等. 互相关与最小二乘加权目标函数全波形反演[J]. 世界地质, 2017,36(2):588-594.
	LIANG H, HAN L G, XU Z, et al. Full waveform inversion based on weighted cross-correlation and least squares objective function[J]. Global Geology, 2017,36(2):588-594.
[10]	王勃, 孙粉锦, 李贵中, 等. 基于模糊物元的煤层气高产富集区预测——以沁水盆地为例[J]. 天然气工业, 2010,30(11):22-25.
	WANG B, SUN F J, LI G Z, et al. Prediction of prolific CBM zones with the fuzzy matter clement method: A case study of the Qinshui Basin[J]. Natural Gas lndustry, 2010,30(11):22-25.
[11]	张善义, 兰金玉. 基于灰色关联分析的沉积微相定量描述技术及应用[J]. 断块油气田, 2019,26(1):25-28.
	ZHANG S Y, LAN J Y. Quantitative description technique of sedimentary micro-facies by grey relational analysis and its application[J]. Fault-Block Oil & Gas Field, 2019,26(1):25-28.
[12]	张善义, 兰金玉, 李冰. 基于粒子群算法的综合调整方案优化方法[J]. 特种油气藏, 2019,26(1):126-130.
	ZHANG S Y, LAN J Y, LI B. Comprehensive optimization of adjustment program based on particle swarm optimization[J]. Special Oil and Gas Reservoirs, 2019,26(1):126-130.
[13]	雷能忠. 基于RBF神经网络的煤储层随机建模[J]. 煤炭学报, 2012,37(7):1144-1149.
	LEI N Z. Stochastic simulation of coalbed methane reservoir by radial basis function neural network[J]. Journal of China Coal Society, 2012,37(7):1144-1149.
[14]	郑鸿明, 彭立, 李生杰. 模拟退火静校正[J]. 新疆石油地质, 2001,22(1):32-34.
	ZHENG H M, PENG L, LI S J. Conducting static correction by annealing analog[J]. Xinjiang Petroleum Geology, 2001,22(1):32-34.
[15]	梁昌勇, 柏桦, 蔡美菊, 等. 量子遗传算法研究进展[J]. 计算机应用研究, 2012,29(7):2401-2405.
	LIANG C Y, BAI H, CAI M J, et al. Advances in quantum genetic algorithm[J]. Application Research of Computers, 2012,29(7):2401-2405.
[16]	张强, 李盼池, 刘丽杰. 基于量子混合蛙跳算法的油田开发规划多目标优化[J]. 信息与控制, 2014,43(1):116-122. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1219.2014.00116
	ZHANG Q, LI P C, LIU L J. Multi-objective optimization of oilfield development plan based on uantum-shuffled frog-leaping algorithm[J]. Information and Control, 2014,43(1):116-122. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1219.2014.00116
[17]	白云飞, 叶振华. 基于突变优选理论的采矿方法选择[J]. 金属矿山, 2011,40(10):61-67.
	BAI Y F, YE Z H. Selection of mining method based on the mutation optimization theory[J]. Metal Mine, 2011,40(10):61-67.
[18]	师俊峰, 刘玉章, 吴晓东, 等. 基于突变理论的油气井出砂预测新方法[J]. 西南石油大学学报(自然科学版), 2010,32(2):128-132. doi: 10.3863/j.issn.1674-5086.2010.02.025
	SHI J F, LIU Y Z, WU X D, et al. A new probe of sand production prediction based on catastrophic theory[J]. Joumal of Souihwest Petrpleum University(Science &Technology Edition), 2010,32(2):128-132. doi: 10.3863/j.issn.1674-5086.2010.02.025
[19]	凌复华. 突变理论应用及其应用[M]. 上海: 上海交通大学出版社, 1987.
	LING F H. The theory and application of catastrophe theory[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press, 1987.
[20]	戴勇, 李正文, 吴大奎. 突变论在地震资料储层预测中的应用[J]. 天然气工业, 2006,26(6):47-49.
	DAI Y, LI Z W, WU D K. Application of catastrophic theory to seismic reservoir prediction[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2006,26(6):47-49.
[21]	何沙, 吉安民, 杨品, 等. 安全流变—突变模型在井喷事故中的应用分析巨[J]. 天然气工业, 2011,31(4):109-112. doi: 10.3787/j.issn.1000-0976.2011.04.025
	HE S, JI A M, YANG P, et al. Application of safety rheology-mutation models in well blowout accidents[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2011,31(4):109-112. doi: 10.3787/j.issn.1000-0976.2011.04.025
[22]	李绍飞, 孙书洪, 王向余. 突变理论在海河流域地下水环境风险评价中的应用[J]. 水利学报, 2007,38(11):1312-1317.
	LI S F, SUN S H, WANG X Y. Application of catastrophe theory to risk assessment of groundwater environment for river basin[J]. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 2007,38(11):1312-1317.

层号	物性参数		无量纲化处理		归一化值		中间突变指标值
层号	孔隙度/ %	渗透率/ 10^-3 μm²	孔隙度	渗透率	孔隙度	渗透率	中间突变指标值
P111a	25.40	302.00	0.35	0.68	0.71	0.82	0.76
P132	25.60	331.13	0.33	0.64	0.69	0.80	0.75
P142b	25.40	302.00	0.35	0.68	0.71	0.82	0.76

层号	储层参数			无量纲化处理			归一化值			中间突变指标值
层号	砂岩厚度/ m	有效厚度/ m	砂地比/ %	砂岩厚度	有效厚度	砂地比	砂岩厚度	有效厚度	砂地比	中间突变指标值
S34	0.4	0	0.3	0.12	0	0.46	0.49	0	0.68	0.39
S35b	0.2	0	0.1	0	0	0.07	0	0	0.26	0.09
S35c	0.8	0	0.4	0.35	0	0.73	0.71	0	0.85	0.52
S36	0.3	0	0.1	0.06	0	0.12	0.39	0	0.35	0.25
S37c	0.8	0	0.3	0.35	0	0.50	0.71	0	0.70	0.47
P111a	1.6	0.5	0.5	0.82	0.63	0.96	0.94	0.89	0.98	0.94
P132	1.3	0.4	0.2	0.65	0.50	0.38	0.80	0.79	0.78	0.79
P133a	0.2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
P133b	0.4	0	0.1	0.12	0	0.08	0.34	0	0.44	0.26
P141	0.9	0	0.3	0.41	0	0.57	0.74	0	0.75	0.50
P142a	0.6	0	0.2	0.24	0	0.40	0.62	0	0.80	0.47
P142b	1.9	0.8	0.4	1.00	1.00	0.79	1.00	1.00	0.93	0.98
P15	0.7	0	0.1	0.29	0	0.11	0.54	0	0.49	0.34

层号	产能参数				无量纲化处理				归一化值				中间突变指标值
层号	含水率/ %	地层压力/ MPa	采出程度/%	产液强度/ [t·（d·m）^-1]	含水率	地层压力	采出程度	产液强度	含水率	地层压力	采出程度	产液强度	中间突变指标值
S34	88.00	5.00	0.36	1.00	0.70	0.44	0.66	0.92	0.89	0.85	0.90	0.96	0.90
S35b	88.90	5.00	0.37	0	0.64	0.44	0.60	1.00	0.86	0.85	0.88	1.00	0.90
S35c	94.90	4.97	0.45	3.00	0.22	0.42	0.28	0.77	0.74	0.75	0.73	0.88	0.77
S36	98.00	5.02	0.50	1.00	0	0.45	0.05	0.92	0	0.77	0.48	0.96	0.55
S37c	85.80	4.75	0.33	2.50	0.86	0.30	0.80	0.81	0.93	0.79	0.94	0.93	0.90
P111a	94.70	4.54	0.46	6.20	0.23	0.18	0.22	0.53	0.61	0.71	0.68	0.73	0.68
P132	91.80	4.21	0.34	4.20	0.44	0	0.74	0.68	0.81	0	0.86	0.88	0.64
P133a	84.60	4.73	0.28	0	0.94	0.29	0.99	1.00	0.99	0.78	1.00	1.00	0.94
P133b	83.80	5.20	0.32	1.00	1.00	0.55	0.83	0.92	1.00	0.86	0.96	0.97	0.95
P141	88.40	5.05	0.37	3.50	0.68	0.47	0.60	0.74	0.88	0.86	0.88	0.86	0.87
P142a	87.70	5.12	0.36	0.50	0.73	0.51	0.66	0.96	0.90	0.87	0.90	0.98	0.91
P142b	93.20	5.10	0.31	6.88	0.34	0.50	0.85	0.48	0.80	0.79	0.92	0.83	0.84
P15	84.00	5.46	0.28	1.00	0.99	0.70	1.00	0.92	1.00	0.93	1.00	0.98	0.98

层号	含油性参数			无量纲化处理			归一化值			中间突变指标值
层号	剩余可采储量/10⁴ t	含油饱和度/ %	剩余油地质储量/10⁴ t	剩余可采储量	含油饱和度	剩余油地质储量	剩余可采储量	含油饱和度	剩余油地质储量	中间突变指标值
S34	23.39	0.37	107.48	0.14	0.44	0.03	0.51	0.66	0.42	0.53
S35b	19.83	0.37	90.40	0.11	0.44	0.01	0.48	0.66	0.33	0.49
S35c	18.73	0.37	145.74	0.10	0.44	0.08	0.47	0.66	0.53	0.55
S36	3.56	0.37	83.32	0	0.44	0	0	0.66	0.16	0.27
S37c	50.82	0.37	177.84	0.32	0.44	0.12	0.69	0.66	0.58	0.64
P111a	50.94	0.37	487.85	0.32	0.44	0.48	0.75	0.76	0.69	0.74
P132	64.53	0.37	442.88	0.42	0.47	0.43	0.80	0.68	0.75	0.75
P133a	23.63	0.37	80.08	0.14	0.44	0	0.52	0.66	0	0.39
P133b	150.18	0.37	471.16	1.00	0.44	0.46	1.00	0.81	0.77	0.86
P141	53.21	0.37	214.73	0.34	0.44	0.16	0.70	0.66	0.63	0.66
P142a	46.37	0.37	186.20	0.29	0.44	0.13	0.66	0.66	0.60	0.64
P142b	96.98	0.41	924.38	0.64	1.00	1.00	0.89	1.00	1.00	0.96
P15	77.62	0.37	225.80	0.51	0.44	0.17	0.71	0.76	0.64	0.70

层号	中间突变指标值				中间变量突变级数值				综合评价值	隔层厚度	优化组合层段
层号	储层发育	产能指标	含油指标	物性指标	储层发育	产能指标	含油指标	物性指标	综合评价值	隔层厚度	优化组合层段
S34	0.29	0.90	0.53	0	0.73	0.95	0.81	0	0.62	1.1	①
S35b	0.07	0.90	0.49	0	0.51	0.95	0.79	0	0.56	2.5	①
S35c	0.39	0.77	0.55	0	0.79	0.88	0.82	0	0.62	1.7	①
S36	0.19	0.55	0.27	0	0.66	0.74	0.65	0	0.51	2.5	②
S37c	0.35	0.90	0.64	0	0.77	0.95	0.86	0	0.65	3.5	③
P111a	0.70	0.68	0.74	0.76	0.92	0.93	0.90	0.87	0.90	1.7	④
P132	0.60	0.64	0.75	0.75	0.90	0.89	0.91	0.86	0.89	4.0	⑤
P133a	0	0.94	0.39	0	0	0.97	0.73	0	0.43	2.8	⑥
P133b	0.19	0.95	0.86	0	0.66	0.97	0.95	0	0.65	3.9	⑥
P141	0.37	0.87	0.66	0	0.78	0.93	0.87	0	0.65	1.0	⑦
P142a	0.35	0.91	0.64	0	0.77	0.96	0.86	0	0.65	0.7	⑦
P142b	0.73	0.84	0.96	0.76	0.94	0.94	0.98	0.93	0.95	5.7	⑦
P15	0.26	0.98	0.70	0	0.71	0.99	0.89	0	0.65	3.4	⑧

Research on fracturing layer combination method based on mutation series method

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Like

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 8

References 22

Related Articles 15

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0

时间	砂岩厚度/ m	有效厚度/ m	措施前日产油/t	措施前含水率/%	措施后日产油/t	措施后含水率/%	压裂前后日产油量差值/t	压裂前后含水率差值/%
2018年下半年使用该方法	13.1	5.0	1.4	89.0	5.3	85.6	3.9	-3.5
2017年下半年未使用该方法	13.5	5.2	1.6	87.0	5.0	86.4	3.4	-0.7
差值	-0.4	-0.2	-0.2	2.0	0.3	-0.8	0.5	-2.8

[1]	XU Ning, CHEN Zhewei, XU Wanchen, WANG Ling, CUI Xiaolei, JIANG Meizhong, ZHAN Changwu. Prediction and evaluation method for development effect of shale oil storage volume fracturing [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2024, 14(5): 741-748.
[2]	LIAO Kai, ZHANG Shicheng, XIE Bobo. Simulation of reasonable shut-in time for shale oil after volume fracturing [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2024, 14(5): 749-755.
[3]	WANG Weiheng, GUO Xin, ZHANG Bin, XIA Weiwei. Development and performance evaluation of fracturing-displacement agent（HDFD） for shale oil: A case study of the second member of Funing Formation, Subei Basin [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2024, 14(5): 771-778.
[4]	CHEN Xiang, WANG Guan, LIU Pingli, DU Juan, WANG Ming, CHEN Weihua, LI Jinlong, LIU Jinming, LIU Fei. Experimental and simulation study on fracture conductivity of acid-fracturing in Dengying Formation of Sichuan Basin [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2024, 14(4): 569-576.
[5]	YANG Zhaozhong, YUAN Jianfeng, ZHANG Jingqiang, LI Xiaogang, ZHU Jingyi, HE Jiangang. Research progress and understanding of fracturing fractures in horizontal wells of marine shale in Sichuan Basin [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2024, 14(4): 600-609.
[6]	LU Cong, LI Qiuyue, GUO Jianchun. Research progress of distributed optical fiber sensing technology in hydraulic fracturing [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2024, 14(4): 618-628.
[7]	LI Xuebin,JIN Lixin,CHEN Chaofeng,YU Tianxi,XIANG Yingjie,YI Duo. Key technologies of horizontal well fracturing for deep coal-rock gas: A case study of Jurassic in Baijiahai area, Junggar Basin [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2024, 14(4): 629-637.
[8]	ZHAO Haifeng, WANG Tengfei, LI Zhongbai, LIANG Wei, ZHANG Tao. Study on dynamic stress field for fracturing in horizontal well group of shale oil [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2024, 14(3): 352-363.
[9]	KONG Xiangwei,XU Hongxing,SHI Xian,CHEN Hang. Experimental simulation of fracture initiation and morphology in tight sandstone gas reservoirs temporary plugging fracturing [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2024, 14(3): 391-401.
[10]	LIU Xiao. Comparison of seam network morphology in coal reservoirs under different fracturing scales: A case of Yanchuannan CBM Gas Field [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2024, 14(3): 510-518.
[11]	ZHAO Kun,LI Zeyang,LIU Juanli,HU Ke,JIANG Ranran,WANG Weixiang,LIU Xiuzhen. Parameter optimization and field practice of CO₂ pre-fracturing process in Jimsar shale oil block [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2024, 14(1): 83-90.
[12]	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.
[13]	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.
[14]	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.
[15]	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.