Quantitative Evaluation of Well Yield-Increasing Potential Based on Effective Permeability: A Case of H Gas Storage in Xinjiang

doi:10.7657/XJPG20200410

Abstract

Abstract:

Underground gas storage（UGS）plays an important role in seasonal peaking and supplying gas in emergency, and has the characteristics of large single well injection capacity, fast response and large volume huff-puff. H gas storage in Xinjiang, the largest underground gas storage in China encounters some problems such as large well productivity difference and limited yield-increasing in a same structural area during the initial four injection-production cycles. Therefore, a quantitative evaluation method of well yield-increasing potential based on effective permeability is proposed. Dynamic and static production data are used to analyze the factors influencing well productivity. Meanwhile, a quantitative evaluation model based on the modified effective permeability is developed on the basis of the binomial productivity equation of stable points, and charts are mapped for the model. By the end of the sixth cycle of gas production, the acidizing treatment has been finished in 5 wells selected according to the model charts, the cumulative incremental productivity is 191.0×10⁴ m³/d, the model prediction coincidence rate is 93.8% and the overall peaking capacity of the gas storage has been improved to 1 691.0×10⁴ m³/d.

Key words: underground gas storage, effective permeability, productivity evaluation, yield-increasing potential analysis, quantitative evaluation, acidizing treatment

CLC Number:

TE319

WANG Quan, CHEN Chao, LI Daoqing, QIU Peng, LIAO Wei, ZHANG Shijie. Quantitative Evaluation of Well Yield-Increasing Potential Based on Effective Permeability: A Case of H Gas Storage in Xinjiang[J]. Xinjiang Petroleum Geology, 2020, 41(4): 450-456.

Figures/Tables 11

Table 1

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 7.

Table 2

Table 3

Fig. 8.

References 16

[1]	丁国生, 谢萍. 中国地下储气库现状与发展展望[J]. 天然气工业, 2006,26(6):111-113.
	DING Guosheng, XIE Ping. Current situation and prospect of Chinese underground natural gas storage[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2006,26(6):111-113.
[2]	王彬, 陈超, 李道清, 等. 呼图壁储气库全周期交互注采动态评价方法[J]. 新疆石油地质, 2016,37(6):709-714.
	WANG Bin, CHEN Chao, LI Daoqing, et al. A method for full-cycle alternative injection-production performance evaluation of Hutubi underground gas storage[J]. Xinjiang Petroleum Geology, 2016,37(6):709-714.
[3]	王彬, 陈超, 李道清, 等. 新疆H储气库注采气能力评价方法[J]. 特种油气藏, 2015,22(5):25-30.
	WANG Bin, CHEN Chao, LI Daoqing, et al. A method for assessing the gas injection-production capacity of H-shaped UGS in Xinjiang oilfield[J]. Special Oil & Gas Reservoirs, 2015,22(5):25-30.
[4]	王晖, 张培军, 成友友, 等. 基于改进的回压试井方法评价低渗气藏气井产能[J]. 石油勘探与开发, 2014,41(4):453-456.
	WANG Hui, ZHANG Peijun, CHENG Youyou, et al. Evaluation of gas well productivity in low permeability gas reservoirs based on a modified back-pressure test method[J]. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2014,41(4):453-456.
[5]	何顺利, 门成全, 周家胜, 等. 大张坨储气库储层注采渗流特征研究[J]. 天然气工业, 2006,26(5):91-94.
	HE Shunli, MEN Chengquan, ZHOU Jiasheng, et al. Study on percolation characteristics of reservoirs injection-production in Dazhangtuo underground gas storage[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2006,26(5):91-94.
[6]	聂延波, 王洪峰, 王胜军, 等. 克深气田异常高压气井井筒异常堵塞治理[J]. 新疆石油地质, 2019,40(1):84-90.
	NIE Yanbo, WANG Hongfeng, WANG Shengjun, et al. Management of abnormal wellbore plugging in abnormal-high pressure gas wells, Keshen gas field[J]. Xinjiang Petroleum Geology, 2019,40(1):84-90.
[7]	唐立根, 王皆明, 丁国生, 等. 基于开发资料预测气藏改建储气库后井底流入动态[J]. 石油勘探与开发, 2016,43(1):127-130.
	TANG Ligen, WANG Jieming, DING Guosheng, et al. Downhole inflow-performance forecast for underground gas storage based on gas reservoir development data[J]. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2016,43(1):127-130.
[8]	孙军昌, 胥洪成, 王皆明, 等. 气藏型地下储气库建库注采机理与评价关键技术[J]. 天然气工业, 2018,38(4):138-144.
	SUN Junchang, XU Hongcheng, WANG Jieming, et al. Injection-production mechanisms and key evaluation technologies for underground gas storages rebuilt from gas reservoirs[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2018,38(4):138-144.
[9]	丁云宏, 张倩, 郑得文, 等. 微裂缝-孔隙型碳酸盐岩气藏改建地下储气库的渗流规律[J]. 天然气工业, 2015,35(1):109-114.
	DING Yunhong, ZHANG Qian, ZHENG Dewen, et al. Seepage laws in converting a microfissure-pore carbonate gas reservoir into a UGS[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2015,35(1):109-114.
[10]	陈元千. 油气藏工程计算方法[M]. 北京: 石油工业出版社, 1990.
	CHEN Yuanqian. Petroleum reservoir engineering calculation methods[M]. Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press, 1990.
[11]	陈显学, 温海波. 辽河油田双6储气库单井采气能力评价[J]. 新疆石油地质, 2017,38(6):715-718.
	CHEN Xianxue, WEN Haibo. Evaluation of single gas well production capacity of Shuang-6 gas storage in Liaohe oilfield[J]. Xinjiang Petroleum Geology, 2017,28(6):715-718.
[12]	BlASINGAME T A, JOHNSTON J L, LEE W J. Type curve analysis using the pressure integral method[R]. California:SPE California Regional Meeting, 1989.
[13]	孙贺东. 油气井现代产量递减分析方法及应用[M]. 北京: 石油工业出版社, 2013.
	SUN Hedong. Advanced production decline analysis and application[M]. Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press, 2013.
[14]	孙贺东, 朱忠谦, 施英, 等. 现代产量递减分析Blasingame图版制作之纠错[J]. 天然气工业, 2015,35(10):71-77.
	SUN Hedong, ZHU Zhongqian, SHI Ying, et al. A note on the Blasingame type curve plotting of production decline analysis[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2015,35(10):71-77.
[15]	AGARWALA R G, GARDNER D C, KINSTEIBER S W. Analyzing well production data using combined type curve and decline curve concepts[J]. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 1999,2(5):479-485.
[16]	马元琨, 柴小颖, 连运晓, 等. 多层合采气藏渗流机理及开发模拟:以柴达木盆地涩北气田为例[J]. 新疆石油地质, 2019,40(5):570-574.
	MA Yuankun, CHAI Xiaoying, LIAN Yunxiao, et al. Study on seepage mechanism and development simulation of commingled production for multi-layered gas reservoirs: a case of Sebei gas field, Qaidam basin[J]. Xinjiang Petroleum Geology, 2019,40(5):570-574.

井的类别	井数/口	注采能力（/10⁴ m³·d-1）		井控半径/m		分布特征
井的类别	井数/口	采气井	注气井	采气井	注气井	分布特征
高产井	14	>70	>55	>390	>400	构造高部位、污染轻
中产井	9	30~70	30~55	220~390	230~400	构造高部位、污染较重
低产井	7	<30	<30	<220	<230	构造低部位、污染严重

井的类别	井名	实际生产压差/MPa	增产措施前单井产能/ （10⁴ m³·d-1）	预测单井产能增加幅度/ （10⁴ m³·d-1）	增产措施后单井产能/（10⁴ m³·d-1）	实际单井产能增加幅度/（10⁴ m³·d-1）	模型符合率/%	增产措施实施批次
中产井	H7井	3..6	45.0	32.9~52.8	98.0	53.0	100.0	第一批
	H10井	3..7	37.0	40.6~60.9	65.0	28.0	69.0	第一批
	H18井	3..7	66.0	14.9~36.1	95.0	29.0	100.0	第一批
	H23井	3..5	42.0	40.5~62.2	98.0	56.0	100.0	第一批
	H15井	3..6	47.0	34.6~53.4				第二批
	H17井	3..8	27.0	56.7~75.8				第二批
	H27井	3..5	69.0	12.1~30.6				第二批
	H28井	3..7	62.0	13.1~30.0				第二批
	H29井	4.0	39.3	37.0~54.2				第二批
低产井	H1井	4.4	37.6	21.6~34.1	59.0	21.4	100.0	第一批
	H13井	4.5	0	22.5~33.5				第二批

增产措施	反应类型	波及范围	水窜风险	储气库适用性	措施推荐度
酸化工艺	以化学反应为主	解除近井地带污染	不易沟通水流动通道	满足储气库近井地带使用	推荐
压裂工艺	以物理造缝为主	人工造缝形成近井渗流通道	易沟通水层引起水窜	储气库高渗地层易出砂	不推荐
酸化压裂	化学反应和物理造缝相结合	溶蚀裂缝和人工造缝,对储集层改造较充分	更易沟通水层引起水窜	储气库注采井井身结构不满足酸化压裂措施	不推荐