Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development >
2024 , Vol. 14 >Issue 5: 814 - 824
DOI: https://doi.org/10.13809/j.cnki.cn32-1825/te.2024.05.018
Mechanism investigation on in-situ stress characteristics and mechanical integrity of fracture-cavity carbonate underground gas storage reservoir
Received date: 2023-06-02
Online published: 2024-10-11
Fracture-cavity carbonate reservoirs are highly heterogeneous, presenting complex relationships between reservoir pore space and seepage flow. These complexities pose significant challenges for in-situ stress analysis, selection of injection and production parameters, and evaluations of mechanical integrity. In order to further clarify the variation of in-situ stress during the operation of fracture-cavity carbonate underground gas storage(UGS), ensure the mechanical integrity during the operation of UGS and increase the upper limit pressure, the model was developed to analyze the stress distribution in fracture-cavity carbonate gas storage and to monitor the variations in four-dimensional in-situ stress. This model also assesses the mechanical integrity across different pore spaces. The findings reveal that: ① Stress concentration is more pronounced in fracture-cavity carbonate reservoirs than in homogeneous ones, with the lowest stress levels often occurring at cavity boundaries. ② Pore pressure and stress fluctuations are more severe in fracture-cavity environments, increasing the likelihood of shear or tensile failures at cavity boundaries during UGS operations. ③ During gas production, shear failure tends to occur along the direction of minimum principal stress, whereas tensile failure is more probable along the direction of maximum principal stress during gas injection. ④ Compared to homogeneous reservoirs, fracture-cavity reservoirs are more prone to tension or shear failures during gas injection but are generally safer during gas production, though shear failures around cavities are more likely. These results provide valuable theoretical and methodological insights for in-situ stress analysis and mechanical integrity assessments of fracture-cavity carbonate UGS.
ZHENG Xin , ZHAO Yuchao , ZHAO Zihan , TANG Huiying , ZHAO Yulong . Mechanism investigation on in-situ stress characteristics and mechanical integrity of fracture-cavity carbonate underground gas storage reservoir[J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2024 , 14(5) : 814 -824 . DOI: 10.13809/j.cnki.cn32-1825/te.2024.05.018
[1] | 贾善坡, 付晓飞, 王建军. 孔隙型地下储气库圈闭完整性评价[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2020. |
JIA Shanpo, FU Xiaofei, WANG Jianjun. Evaluation of trap integrity of porous underground gas storage[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2020. | |
[2] | SAMBO C, DUDUN A, SAMUEL S A, et al. A review on worldwide underground hydrogen storage operating and potential fields[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2022, 47(54): 22840-22880. |
[3] | MUHAMED N S, HAQ M B, Al SHEHRI D A, et al. Hydrogen storage in depleted gas reservoirs: A comprehensive review[J]. Fuel, 2023, 337: 127032. |
[4] | 唐晨飞, 张广文, 王延平, 等. 美国Aliso Canyon地下储气库泄漏事故概况及反思[J]. 安全、健康和环境, 2016, 16(7): 5-8. |
TANG Chenfei, ZHANG Guangwen, WANG Yanping, et al. The general situation and reflection of leak accident of the Aliso Canyon underground gas storage in United States[J]. Safety Health & Environment, 2016, 16(7): 5-8. | |
[5] | ZHANG F, AN M, YAN B, et al. A novel hydro-mechanical coupled analysis for the fractured vuggy carbonate reservoirs[J]. Computers and Geotechnics, 2019, 106: 68-82. |
[6] | 张东旭, 张烈辉, 唐慧莹, 等. 致密油多级压裂水平井流-固全耦合产能数值模拟[J]. 石油勘探与开发, 2022, 49(2): 338-347. |
ZHANG Dongxu, ZHANG Liehui, TANG Huiying, et al. Fully coupled fluid-solid productivity numerical simulation of multistage fractured horizontal well in tight oil reservoirs[J]. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2022, 49(2): 338-347. | |
[7] | 刘英君, 朱海燕, 唐煊赫, 等. 基于地质工程一体化的煤层气储层四维地应力演化模型及规律[J]. 天然气工业, 2022, 42(2): 82-92. |
LIU Yingjun, ZHU Haiyan, TANG Xuanhe, et al. Four-dimensional in-situ stress model of CBM reservoirs based on geology-engineering integration[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2022, 42(2): 82-92. | |
[8] | DESHMUKH S, SHARMA R, CHAUDHARY M, et al. Integrated 3D geomechanical modeling and its application for well planning in Bantumilli South area, Krishna-Godavari Basin, India[J]. The Leading Edge, 2020, 39(3): 182-187. |
[9] | HAMID O, OMAIR A, GUIZADA P. Reservoir geomechanics in carbonates[C]// Paper SPE-183704-MS presented at SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference, Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain, March 2017. |
[10] | RANJBAR A, HASSANI H, SHAHRIAR K. 3D geomechanical modeling and estimating the compaction and subsidence of Fahlian reservoir formation(X-field in SW of Iran)[J]. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 2017, 10(5): 116. |
[11] | 宋宪强, 马小明, 苏立萍, 等. 大港地区板中南储气库运行压力界限研究[J]. 中国锰业, 2018, 36(5): 51-54. |
SONG Xianqiang, MA Xiaoming, SU Liping, et al. A study of operation pressure limite of banzhongnan underground gas storage in Dagang[J]. China’s Manganese Industry, 2018, 36(5): 51-54. | |
[12] | 阳小平, 程林松, 何学良, 等. 地下储气库断层的完整性评价[J]. 油气储运, 2013, 32(6): 578-582. |
YANG Xiaoping, CHENG Linsong, HE Xueliang, et al. Faults integrity assessment of underground gas storage[J]. Oil & Gas Storage and Transportation, 2013, 32(6): 578-582. | |
[13] | 郑雅丽, 孙军昌, 邱小松, 等. 油气藏型储气库地质体完整性内涵与评价技术[J]. 天然气工业, 2020, 40(5): 94-103. |
ZHENG Yali, SUN Junchang, QIU Xiaosong, et al. Connotation and evaluation technique of geological integrity of UGSs in oil-gas fields[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2020, 40(5): 94-103. | |
[14] | WANG B, LI D Q, XU B, et al. Probabilistic-based geomechanical assessment of maximum operating pressure for an underground gas storage reservoir, NW China[J]. Geomechanics for Energy and the Environment, 2022(31): 100279. |
[15] | JEANNE P, ZHANG Y Q, RUTQVIST J. Influence of hysteretic stress path behavior on seal integrity during gas storage operation in a depleted reservoir[J]. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 2020, 12(4): 886-899. |
[16] | 赵昱超, 罗瑜, 李隆新, 等. 地下储气库地应力模拟研究与地质完整性评估: 以相国寺为例[J]. 地质力学学报, 2022, 28(4): 523-536. |
ZHAO Yuchao, LUO Yu, LI Longxin, et al. In-situ stress simulation and integrity evaluation of underground gas storage: A case study of the Xiangguosi underground gas storage, Sichuan, SW China[J]. Journal of Geomechanics, 2022, 28(4): 523-536. | |
[17] | SHI F, WANG D B, CHEN X G. A numerical study on the propagation mechanisms of hydraulic fractures in fracture-cavity carbonate reservoirs[J]. Computer Modeling in Engineering and Sciences, 2021, 127(2): 575-598. |
[18] | QIAO J M, TANG X H, HU M S, et al. The hydraulic fracturing with multiple influencing factors in carbonate fracture-cavity reservoirs[J]. Computers and Geotechnics, 2022(147): 104773. |
[19] | 康志江, 张冬梅, 张振坤, 等. 深层缝洞型油藏井间连通路径智能预测技术[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2023, 44(5): 1290-1299. |
KANG Zhijiang, ZHANG Dongmei, ZHANG Zhenkun, et al. Intelligent prediction of inter-well connectivity path in deep fractured-vuggy reservoirs[J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2023, 44(5): 1290-1299. | |
[20] | 覃建华, 杨琨, 丁艺, 等. 基于KL—E的地质力学模型参数反演及应用[J]. 西南石油大学学报(自然科学版), 2022, 44(2): 65-78. |
QIN Jianhua, YANG Kun, DING Yi, et al. Inversion of geomechanical model parameters based on KL expansion and its application[J]. Journal of Southwest Petroleum University(Science & Technology Edition), 2022, 44(2): 65-78. | |
[21] | AHMED B I, AL-JAWAD M S. Geomechanical modelling and two-way coupling simulation for carbonate gas reservoir[J]. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 2020, 10(8): 3619-3648. |
[22] | CAI W J, DENG J G, FENG Y C, et al. 3D geomechanics modeling of Indonesia B Oilfield and its application in wellbore stability[J]. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 2022, 15(4): 1866-7511. |
[23] | 杨军伟. 储气库圈闭地质体应力场数值模拟研究[D]. 大庆: 东北石油大学, 2022. |
YANG Junwei. Numerical simulation of geologic body stress field in gas storage traps[D]. Daqing: Northeast Petroleum University, 2022. | |
[24] | 秦勇, 李保柱, 胡水清, 等. 玛湖凹陷致密砾岩油藏四维地应力场模拟研究与应用[J]. 石油科技论坛, 2022, 41(2): 23-31. |
QIN Yong, LI Baozhu, HU Shuiqing, et al. Numerical simulation of four-dimensional stress field for tight glutenite reservoir in Mahu Sag, Junggar Basin[J]. Petroleum Science and Technology Forum, 2022, 41(2): 23-31. |
/
〈 |
|
〉 |