Evaluation on Adaptability of Horizontal Well Development to Multi-Layer Tight Sandstone Gas Reservoirs

doi:10.7657/XJPG20220314

Abstract

Abstract:

For multi-layer gas reservoirs in the Shenmu gas field, improper selection of geological targets for horizontal well development may lead to the problems such as poor economic benefits and unrecovered reserves. The development scale and stacking patterns of sand bodies in these multi-layer gas reservoirs were investigated, and the single-layer, double-layer and multi-layer gas reservoir models were established by adopting the concept of reserves concentration. Taking the horizontal well stimulation ratio as the basis for economic benefit evaluation, the reservoir limit of horizontal well development in multi-layer reservoirs was evaluated. The research shows that large-scale composite effective reservoirs are locally developed in the Lower Permian Taiyuan formation and the second member of the Lower Permian Shanxi formation in the Shenmu gas field, with an effective thickness of 6.0-9.0 m and a length of 1 600-3 200 m. These intervals satisfy the optimal reservoir conditions for horizontal well development, namely the reserves concentration greater than 75% and the permeability ratio of the dominant layer to the secondary producing layer ranging from 0.8 to 3.9.

Key words: Shenmu gas field, multi-layer tight gas reservoir, reserves concentration, sand body stacking pattern, horizontal well development, physical property limit, stimulation ratio, economic benefit

CLC Number:

TE375

LIU Jiaojiao, WANG Delong, LIU Qian, TANG Jing. Evaluation on Adaptability of Horizontal Well Development to Multi-Layer Tight Sandstone Gas Reservoirs[J]. Xinjiang Petroleum Geology, 2022, 43(3): 354-359.

Figures/Tables 10

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Table 1.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Table 2.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 7.

Fig. 8.

References 21

[1]	杨华, 刘新社, 闫小雄, 等. 鄂尔多斯盆地神木气田的发现与天然气成藏地质特征[J]. 天然气工业, 2015,35(6):1-13.
	YANG Hua, LIU Xinshe, YAN Xiaoxiong, et al. The Shenmu gas field in the Ordos basin:its discovery and reservoir-forming geological characteristics[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2015,35(6):1-13.
[2]	周拓, 周兆华, 谷江瑞, 等. 神木气田二叠系气藏有利区预测[J]. 东北石油大学学报, 2013,37(1):38-44.
	ZHOU Tuo, ZHOU Zhaohua, GU Jiangrui, et al. Prediction of favorable areas for Permian gas reservoir in Shenmu gas field[J]. Journal of Northeast Petroleum University, 2013,37(1):38-44.
[3]	BAIHLY J, GRANT D, FAN L, et al. Horizontal wells in tight gas sands:a method for risk management to maximize success[R]. SPE 110067, 2009.
[4]	BAGHERIAN B, SARMADIVALEH M, GHALAMBOR A, et al. Optimization of multiple-fractured horizontal tight gas well[R]. SPE 127899, 2010.
[5]	张吉, 范倩倩, 王艳, 等. 苏里格致密砂岩气藏大井组混合井网立体开发技术[J]. 新疆石油地质, 2019,40(6):714-719.
	ZHANG Ji, FAN Qianqian, WANG Yan, et al. Mixed large well pattern development technology of tight sandstone gas in Sulige gas field,Ordos basin[J]. Xinjiang Petroleum Geology, 2019,40(6):714-719.
[6]	余淑明, 刘艳侠, 武力超, 等. 低渗透气藏水平井开发技术难点及攻关建议:以鄂尔多斯盆地为例[J]. 天然气工业, 2013,33(1):54-60.
	YU Shuming, LIU Yanxia, WU Lichao, et al. Technical difficulties and proposed countermeasures in drilling horizontal wells in low-permeability reservoirs:a case study from the Ordos basin[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2013,33(1):54-60.
[7]	郭智, 位云生, 孟德伟, 等. 苏里格致密砂岩气田水平井差异化部署新方法[J]. 天然气工业, 2022,42(2):100-109.
	GUO Zhi, WEI Yunsheng, MENG Dewei, et al. Differential deployment of horizontal wells in the Sulige tight sandstone gasfield[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2022,42(2):100-109.
[8]	费世祥, 王东旭, 林刚, 等. 致密砂岩气藏水平井整体开发关键地质技术:以苏里格气田苏东南区为例[J]. 天然气地球科学, 2014,25(10):1 620-1 629.
	FEI Shixiang, WANG Dongxu, LIN Gang, et al. The key geological technology for horizontal wells overall development in tight sandstone gas reservoirs:take the Sudongnan area of Sulige gasfield for an example[J]. Natural Gas Geoscience, 2014,25(10):1 620-1 629.
[9]	卢涛, 张吉, 李跃刚, 等. 苏里格气田致密砂岩气藏水平井开发技术及展望[J]. 天然气工业, 2013,33(8):38-43.
	LU Tao, ZHANG Ji, LI Yuegang, et al. Horizontal well development technology for tight sandstone gas reservoirs in the Sulige gasfield,Ordos basin[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2013,33(8):38-43.
[10]	王国亭, 孙建伟, 黄锦袖, 等. 神木气田低渗致密储层特征与水平井开发评价[J]. 西南石油大学学报(自然科学版), 2019,41(5):1-9.
	WANG guoting, SUN Jianwei, HUANG Jinxiu, et al. The characteristics of the low permeability tight reservoir in the Shenmu gas field and the evaluation of horizontal well development[J]. Journal of Southwest Petroleum University (Science & Technology Edition). 2019,41(5):1-9.
[11]	武力超, 朱玉双, 刘艳侠, 等. 矿权叠置区内多层系致密气藏开发技术探讨:以鄂尔多斯盆地神木气田为例[J]. 石油勘探与开发, 2015,42(6):826-832.
	WU Lichao, ZHU Yushuang, LIU Yanxia, et al. Development techniques of multi-layer tight gas reservoirs in mining rights overlapping blocks:a case study of the Shenmu gas field,Ordos basin,NW China[J]. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2015,42(6):826-832.
[12]	孟德伟, 贾爱林, 郭智, 等. 致密砂岩气藏有效砂体规模及气井开发指标评价:以鄂尔多斯盆地神木气田太原组气藏为例[J]. 中国矿业大学学报, 2018,47(5):1 046-1 054.
	MENG Dewei, JIA Ailin, GUO Zhi, et al. Effective sand scale and gas well development index evaluation:a case study of Taiyuan formation in Shenmu gas field,Ordos basin,NW China[J]. Journal of China University of Mining & Technology, 2018,47(5):1 046-1 054.
[13]	MIALL A D. Reconstructing the architecture and sequence stratigraphy of the preserved fluvial record as a tool for reservoir development:a reality check[J]. AAPG Bulletin, 2006,90(7):989-1 002.
[14]	胡光义, 陈飞, 范廷恩, 等. 基于复合砂体构型样式的河流相储层细分对比方法[J]. 大庆石油地质与开发, 2017,36(2):12-18.
	HU Guangyi, CHEN Fei, FAN Ting'en, et al. Subdividing and comparing method of the fluvial facies reservoirs based on the complex sandbody architecutres[J]. Petroleum Geology and Oilfield Development in Daqing, 2017,36(2):12-18.
[15]	位云生, 贾爱林, 郭智, 等. 致密砂岩气藏多段压裂水平井优化部署[J]. 天然气地球科学, 2019,30(6):919-924.
	WEI Yunsheng, JIA Ailin, GUO Zhi, et al. Optimal deployment of multi-stage fractured horizontal wells in tight sandstone gas reservoirs[J]. Natural Gas Geoscience, 2019,30(6):919-924.
[16]	王继平, 张城玮, 李建阳, 等. 苏里格气田致密砂岩气藏开发认识与稳产建议[J]. 天然气工业, 2021,41(2):100-110.
	WANG Jiping, ZHANG Chengwei, LI Jianyang, et al. Tight sandstone gas reservoirs in the Sulige gas field:development understandings and stable-production proposals[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2021,41(2):100-110.
[17]	尹涛, 陈新, 罗歆尧, 等. 多层系气藏有效储层极限厚度评价及应用[J]. 天然气技术与经济, 2021,15(5):83-88.
	YIN Tao, CHEN Xin, LUO Xinyao, et al. Evaluation on the minimum effective thickness of multi-layer gas reservoirs and its application[J]. Natural Gas Technology and Economy, 2021,15(5):83-88.
[18]	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.
[19]	赵志恒, 郑有成, 范宇, 等. 页岩储集层水平井段内多簇压裂技术应用现状及认识[J]. 新疆石油地质, 2020,41(4):499-504.
	ZHAO Zhiheng, ZHENG Youcheng, FAN Yu, et al. Application and cognition of multi-cluster fracturing technology in horizontal wells in shale reservoirs[J]. Xinjiang Petroleum Geology, 2020,41(4):499-504.
[20]	孙娜. 低渗气藏水平井产能影响因素敏感性分析[J]. 特种油气藏, 2011,18(5):96-99.
	SUN Na. Sensitivity analysis of the influential factors of horizontal well productivity in low permeability gas reservoir[J]. Special Oil & Gas Reservoirs, 2011,18(5):96-99.
[21]	孙元伟, 程远方, 时凤霞, 等. 致密气藏压裂水平井产能分析及压裂优化设计[J]. 新疆石油地质, 2018,39(6):727-731.
	SUN Yuanwei, CHENG Yuanfang, SHI Fengxia, et al. Productivity analysis and fracturing design optimization of fractured horizontal well in tight gas reservoirs[J]. Xinjiang Petroleum Geology, 2018,39(6):727-731.

层位	砂体类型	厚度/m	平均厚度/m	宽度/m	长度/m
山一段	单砂体	0.5~4.5	2.5	200~600	400~1200
山一段	复合砂体	4.0~12.0	6.5	500~1 200	1 000~2 200
山二段	单砂体	0.8~6.5	3.5	400~1 000	600~1 600
山二段	复合砂体	4.0~12.0	6.0	800~2 000	1 800~3 200
太原组	单砂体	0.6~5.0	2.8	400~1 000	500~1 400
太原组	复合砂体	4.0~15.0	7.1	800~1 800	1 600~2 800

模型类型	层	有效厚度/m	孔隙度/ %	渗透率/ mD	含气饱和度/%	储量集中度/%
多层式	层 1	5.0	7.4	0.40	59.65	33.3
	层 2	5.0	8.1	0.46	62.39	33.4
	层3	5.0	6.8	0.34	57.87	33.3
双层式	层 1	2.2	7.4	0.40	59.65	15.0
	层 2	7.2	8.1	0.46	62.39	45.0
	层3	5.6	6.8	0.34	57.87	40.0
单层式	层1	2.0	7.4	0.40	59.65	12.0
	层2	11.0	8.1	0.46	62.39	75.0
	层 3	2.0	6.8	0.34	57.87	13.0