水驱油藏优势渗流通道识别及其效果分析

doi:10.19657/j.geoscience.1000-8527.2024.120

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

油藏中优势渗流通道的存在及其分布,显著影响着油藏开发对策与开发效果。本文综合运用多相渗流和储层地质理论,建立表征注采井间小层连通性及识别优势渗流通道存在的方法。基于小层对比法、地质建模法和示踪剂法,详细解剖某油田一个代表性井组的砂体连通性和优势渗流通道的发育特征。研究结果表明:在研究区实例井组的注采井间,三种方法得到的储层连通率差异较大,其中精度较高的示踪剂法确定的连通率为40%;并在重点解剖小层中识别出三条优势渗流通道,依据示踪剂见剂速度与回采率,对三条优势渗流通道的发育程度进行了分级。对比实际监测结果,小层对比分析法得到的连通率明显偏高,地质建模法与示踪剂法得到的连通率比较接近,两种方法得到的连通率均受到开发小层的储层沉积与相变规律、非均质性及实测资料精细度的影响。示踪剂法识别优势渗流通道效果最佳,比地质建模法的识别精度提高了25%。

关键词: 优势渗流通道, 井间连通性, 示踪剂, 小层对比, 油藏建模

Abstract:

The existence and distribution of dominant seepage channels in reservoirs significantly affect reservoir development countermeasures and development effects. This paper uses multiphase seepage and reservoir geology theory to establish a method to characterize the connectivity of sub-layers between injection and production wells and identify the existence of dominant seepage channels. Based on the sub-layer comparison method, geological modeling method and tracer method, the sand body connectivity and the development characteristics of dominant seepage channels of a representative well group in an oil field are dissected in detail. The research results show that among the injection-production wells in the example well group in the study area, the reservoir connectivity rates obtained by the three methods are quite different. Among them, the connectivity rate determined by the tracer method with higher accuracy is 40%, and three dominant seepage channels are identified in the key anatomical layers. The development degrees of the three dominant seepage channels are graded according to the tracer seepage rate and recovery rate. Compared with the actual monitoring results, the connectivity rate obtained by the comparative analysis of the sub-layer is obviously high, and the connectivity rate obtained by the geological modeling method and the tracer method is relatively close, and the connectivity rate obtained by the two methods is affected by the reservoir sedimentation and facies transformation law, heterogeneity and the fineness of the measured data of the developed sub-layer. The tracer method has the best effect in identifying the dominant seepage channel, and the identification accuracy is 25% higher than that of the geological modeling method.

Key words: dominant seepage channel, inter-well connectivity, tracer, sub-layer correlation, reservoir modeling

中图分类号:

P618.1

张庆宇, 鞠斌山. 水驱油藏优势渗流通道识别及其效果分析[J]. 现代地质, 2024, 38(06): 1523-1531.

ZHANG Qingyu, JU Binshan. Identification of Dominant Seepage Channels in Water-flooded Reservoirs and Analysis of Their Effects[J]. Geoscience, 2024, 38(06): 1523-1531.

图/表 9

图1 IW1-1井组小层划分对比方案(AC单位:μs/m ;SP单位:mV ;深度单位:m;电阻率单位:Ω·m)

Fig.1 Comparison scheme of sub-layer division of IW1-1 well group

图2 IW1-1井的小层厚度(K)与渗透率(H)乘积数值图(1 mD= 1×10-3 μm2)

Fig.2 Numerical plot of the product of sub-layer thickness and permeability of well IW1-1 (1 mD= 1×10-3 μm2)

图3 小层对比法识别优势渗流通道(以P1-2生产井为例)

Fig.3 Identification of dominant seepage channels by sub-layer correlation method (taking P1-2 production well as an example)

表1 运用小层对比法确定的IW1-1井组连通情况

Table 1 Connectivity of the IW1-1 well group determined by the sub-layer correlation method

生产井—注入井	小层对比连通率(%)
P1-1—IW1-1	66.67
P1-2—IW1-1	100.00
P1-3—IW1-1	83.33
P1-4—IW1-1	50.00
P1-5—IW1-1	66.67
全井组	73.33

表2 运用地质建模法确定的IW1-1井组连通情况

Table 2 Connectivity of the IW1-1 well group determined by geological modeling

生产井—注入井	地质建模连通率(%)
P1-1—IW1-1	66.67
P1-2—IW1-1	66.67
P1-3—IW1-1	33.33
P1-4—IW1-1	50.00
P1-5—IW1-1	33.33
全井组	50.00

表3 运用示踪剂法确定的IW1-1井组连通情况

Table 3 Connectivity determined by tracer method in the IW1-1 well group

生产井—注入井	示踪剂连通率(%)
P1-1—IW1-1	33.33
P1-2—IW1-1	66.67
P1-3—IW1-1	33.33
P1-4—IW1-1	33.33
P1-5—IW1-1	33.33
全井组	40.00

表4 IW1-1井组三种方法识别精确度对比

Table 4 Comparison of the identification accuracy of the three methods in the IW1-1 well group

生产井— 注入井	小层对比连通率(%)	地质建模连通率(%)	示踪剂连通率 (%)
P1-1—IW1-1	66.67	66.67	33.33
P1-2—IW1-1	100.00	66.67	66.67
P1-3—IW1-1	83.33	33.33	33.33
P1-4—IW1-1	50.00	50.00	33.33
P1-5—IW1-1	66.67	33.33	33.33
全井组	73.33	50.00	40.00

图4 IW1-1井组 L 1 2小层砂岩厚度(H)与渗透率(K)乘积等值线图

Fig.4 Contour plot of the product of the sub-layer thickness(H) and permeability(K) of the L 1 2 sub-layer in the Iw1-1 well group

图5 IW1-1井组的 L 1 2小层注、采井运用小层对比法(a)、地质建模法(b)和示踪剂法(c)揭示的储层连通状况

Fig.5 Reservoir connectivity revealed by the L 1 2 sub-layer injection and production well method of the IW1-1 well group by sub-layer comparison method (a), geological modeling method (b)and tracer method(c)

参考文献 33

[1]	林玉保. 高含水后期储层优势渗流通道形成机理[J]. 大庆石油地质与开发, 2018, 37(6): 33-37.
[2]	潘婷婷, 蔡银涛, 葸晓宇, 等. 井间储层连通性分析技术在新疆油田的应用[J]. 石油地球物理勘探, 2022, 57(增): 179-184.
[3]	刘晓彤, 轩玲玲, 朱春艳, 等. 中高渗透稠油油藏大孔道动态评价[J]. 现代地质, 2021, 35(2): 388-395.
[4]	曾流芳, 赵国景, 张子海, 等. 疏松砂岩油藏大孔道形成机理及判别方法[J]. 应用基础与工程科学学报, 2002, 10(3): 268-276.
[5]	李淑霞, 陈月明. 示踪剂产出曲线的形态特征[J]. 油气地质与采收率, 2002, 9(2): 66-67, 79.
[6]	孟凡顺, 黄伏生, 宋德才, 等. 费歇判别法识别大孔道[J]. 中国海洋大学学报(自然科学版), 2007, 37(1): 121-124, 110.
[7]	孟凡顺, 孙铁军, 朱炎, 等. 利用常规测井资料识别砂岩储层大孔道方法研究[J]. 中国海洋大学学报(自然科学版), 2007, 37(3): 463-468, 462.
[8]	VARGAS-GUZMÁN J A, AL-GAOUD A, DATTA-GUPTA A, et al. Identification of high permeability zones from dynamic data using streamline simulation and inverse modeling of geology[J]. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2009, 69(3/4): 283-291.
[9]	KHAN M Y, MANDAL A. The impact of permeability heterogeneity on water-alternating-gas displacement in highly stratified heterogeneous reservoirs[J]. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 2022, 12(3): 871-897.
[10]	BUKHANOV N, SUBBOTINA M, VOSKRESENKIY A, et al. Geological and dynamic similarity for reservoir state prediction by well connectivity[J]. Geoenergy Science and Engineering, 2024, 234: 212667.
[11]	杨勇. 正韵律厚油层优势渗流通道的形成条件和时机[J]. 油气地质与采收率, 2008, 15(3): 105-107.
[12]	FELSENTHAL M, GANGLE F J. A case study of thief zones in a California waterflood[J]. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1975, 27(11): 1385-1391.
[13]	YOUSEF A A, JENSEN J L, LAKE L W. Integrated interpretation of interwell connectivity using injection and production fluctuations[J]. Mathematical Geosciences, 2009, 41(1): 81-102.
[14]	陈月明, 姜汉桥, 李淑霞. 井间示踪剂监测技术在油藏非均质性描述中的应用[J]. 石油大学学报(自然科学版), 1994, 18(增): 1-8.
[15]	冯其红, 李淑霞. 井间示踪剂产出曲线自动拟合方法[J]. 石油勘探与开发, 2005, 32(5): 121-124.
[16]	史丽华. 微量物质井间示踪技术在识别油层大孔道中的应用[J]. 大庆石油地质与开发, 2007, 26(4): 130-132.
[17]	周丽清, 熊琦华, 吴胜和. 大孔道诊断和描述技术研究[J]. 石油勘探与开发, 2001, 28(1): 75-77.
[18]	盖平原. 注采井井间连通性的定量研究[J]. 油气田地面工程, 2011, 30(2): 19-21.
[19]	吴晓慧, 邓景夫, 陈晓明, 等. 注采连通性计算及渗流通道的定量识别[J]. 特种油气藏, 2019, 26(3):114-118.
[20]	龙国清, 韩大匡, 田昌炳, 等. 油藏开发阶段河流相基准面旋回划分与储层细分对比方法探讨[J]. 现代地质, 2009, 23(5): 963-967.
[21]	崔建, 沈贵红, 商琳, 等. 低渗透储层油水相对渗透率最优目标函数处理方法[J]. 特种油气藏, 2022, 29(1): 85-90. DOI
[22]	刘国超, 曹瑞波, 闫伟, 等. 聚驱后油层优势渗流通道参数计算方法及其应用[J]. 大庆石油地质与开发, 2023, 42(5): 90-98.
[23]	赵文景, 王敬, 钱其豪, 等. 非均质油藏水驱优势渗流通道演化规律[J]. 断块油气田, 2023, 30(5): 847-857.
[24]	石晓博, 谢昕, 谢诗章, 等. 分层示踪监测技术在储层非均质性研究中的应用[J]. 精细与专用化学品, 2024, 32(2): 28-31, 44.
[25]	张翼飞. 示踪剂回采率计算方法和在油田中的应用[J]. 石油化工应用, 2013, 32(1): 49-51.
[26]	雷霆, 倪天禄, 季岭, 等. 基于生产动态数据的水驱砂岩油藏井间优势渗流通道识别[J]. 复杂油气藏, 2020, 13(2): 38-42.
[27]	陆大卫. 测井分析、测井解释、测井评价、测井应用常用词辨析[J]. 测井技术, 2018, 42(6): 607-611.
[28]	史振中. 基于数值模拟的注采井间优势通道识别方法研究[D]. 大庆: 东北石油大学, 2019.
[29]	于春磊, 王硕亮, 张媛, 等. 疏松砂岩储层窜流通道平面分布规律研究[J]. 现代地质, 2016, 30(5): 1134-1140.
[30]	刘同敬, 姜汉桥, 李秀生, 等. 井间示踪剂测试半解析方法体系数学模型[J]. 石油学报, 2007, 28(5): 118-123. DOI
[31]	陈维余, 黄波, 高云峰. 井间微量物质示踪剂技术在绥中36-1油田的应用[J]. 天津科技, 2009, 36(5): 58-61.
[32]	王鸣川, 石成方, 朱维耀, 等. 优势渗流通道识别与精确描述[J]. 油气地质与采收率, 2016, 23(1): 79-84.
[33]	王晓明, 陈军斌, 任大忠. 陆相页岩油储层孔隙结构表征和渗流规律研究进展及展望[J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2023, 13(1):23-30.