Evaluation Method of Water Flooding Effect in Reservoirs with Ultra-High Water Cut
-
摘要:
针对常规水驱效果评价方法不适用于特高含水后期油藏的问题，通过筛选指标、确定指标权重和确立指标标准，研究了新的评价体系。利用逻辑分析、矿场统计和灰色关联分析等方法，从常用水驱效果评价指标中筛选出适合特高含水后期的12项指标，根据石油天然气行业标准《油田开发水平分级》（SY/T 6219—1996），结合矿场统计数据，制定了各项评价指标的标准，应用层次分析法确定了各项指标的权重，并采用模糊综合评判法评价水驱效果，形成了特高含水后期油藏水驱效果评价方法。应用实例表明，与传统方法相比，该评价方法简单快捷，结果较为准确，具有较好的现场实用价值。
Abstract:This study addressed problem that the conventional evaluation method of water flooding effect was not suitable for late-stage production in reservoirs with ultra-high water cut, a new evaluation system was studied by selecting indices, determining index weight and establishing an index standard. Firstly, with logical analysis, oil field statistics, and other methods, the team selected 12 suitable indicators for the late-stage high water-cut production from the commonly-used water flooding evaluation indicators. Secondly, standards for various indicators were formulated by integrating “Oilfield Development Level Classification” (SY/T 6219—1996) and oil field statistics. The weight of each indicator was determined by applying an analytic hierarchy process. Finally, the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method was used for evaluation. In this way, a water flooding effect evaluation method was established for oil reservoirs in the late-stage period of ultra-high water cut. Relevant analogs verified that this evaluation method was relatively accurate, simple and a valuable field practice compared with traditional methods.
-
-
![]()
图 1 特高含水后期期油藏水驱效果评价标准确定过程
Figure 1. Process for determining evaluation criteria of water flooding effect in reservoirs with ultra-high water cut
![]()
图 2 含水率与采出程度的关系曲线
Figure 2. Relationship between water cut and degree ofreserve recovery
表 1 评价指标筛选结果
Table 1 Screening result of evaluation indicators
指标分类 具体指标 筛选方法或原因 筛选结果 井网完善状况 水驱储量动用程度、水驱储量控制程度、注采井数比、
注采对应率、井网密度、单井控制地质储量因果关系、等价关系 水驱储量控制程度、
水驱储量动用程度注水利用情况 水驱指数、存水率、耗水比 地层开发情况 注水量、注采比 过程关系、等价关系 注采比 地层能量状况 地层压力、生产压差、地层压降、能量保持水平 能量保持水平 产液量变化情况 采液速度、增液速度 产油量变化情况 采油速度、无因次采油速度、采油指数、自然递减率、
综合递减率、总递减率定义关系、矿场统计法 自然递减率、综合递减率 开采程度 地层储量采出程度、可采储量采出程度、采收率、
水驱状况指数等价关系 水驱状况指数 含水变化情况 含水率、含水上升率、含水上升速度 定义关系 含水上升率 储采状况 储采平衡系数、储采比、剩余可采储量采油速度 灰色关联分析法 剩余可采储量采油速度 工作量及效果 新井：单井初采油量、单井初含水量、单井增加可采储量 不钻新井 措施井：措施总井次、老井措施有效率、单井措施增油量 灰色关联分析法 老井措施有效率 油水井管理状况 油水井开井率、油水井综合生产时率、注水层段合格率、
油水井利用率矿场统计 油水井综合生产时率 经济效益 吨油操作成本、老井经济极限含水率、新井经济极限初产油量 不钻新井 吨油操作成本 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 特高含水后期自然递减率的评价标准
Table 2 Standard of natural declining rate indicator in ultra-high water cut
油藏类型 自然递减率，% 好 中 差 整装 ≤10 10～20 ＞20 断块 ≤15 15～25 ＞25
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 特高含水后期综合生产时率的评价标准
Table 3 Standard of comprehensive production time rate indicatorin ultra-high water cut
油藏类型 综合生产时率，% 好 中 差 整装 ≥75 75～60 <60 断块 ≥70 70～55 <55
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 中高渗整装及复杂断块油藏特高含水后期开发效果评价指标的评价标准
Table 4 Standard of evaluation indicator for development effect of ultra-high water cut in medium and high permeability reservoirs and complex fault block reservoirs
评价指标 好 中 差 整装 断块 整装 断块 整装 断块 水驱储量控制程度，% ≥95 ≥80 75～95 60～80 <75 <60 水驱储量动用程度，% ≥85 ≥70 65～85 50～70 <65 <50 能量保持水平（高饱和油藏），% ≥100 ≥100 70～100 70～100 <70 <70 能量保持水平（低饱和油藏），% ≥80 ≥80 50～80 50～80 <50 <50 年注采比，% ≥0.9 ≥0.8 0.6～0.9 0.5～0.8 <0.6 <0.5 自然递减率，% <10 <13 10～20 10～20 ≥20 ≥20 综合递减率，% <5 <8 5～10 8～15 ≥10 ≥15 含水上升率，百分点 <0.20 <0.25 0.20～1.50 0.25～2.00 ≥1.50 ≥2.00 水驱状况指数，% ≥10 ≥20 0～10 0～20 <0 <0 剩余可采储量采油速度，% <10 <6 10～20 6～15 ≥20 ≥15 老井措施有效率，% ≥85 ≥90 60～85 65～90 <60 <65 综合生产时率，% ≥80 ≥75 50～80 50～75 <50 <50 吨油操作成本/万元 <0.6 <0.6 0.6～1.0 0.6～1.0 ≥1 ≥1
下载: 导出CSV
表 5 中高渗整装油藏和断块油藏开发效果评价指标的权重
Table 5 Weights of evaluation indicator for development effect in medium and high permeability reservoir and complex fault block reservoir
评价指标 指标权重 整装油藏 断块油藏 水驱储量控制程度 0.05 0.10 水驱储量动用程度 0.08 0.06 能量保持水平 0.08 0.10 年注采比 0.04 0.04 自然递减率 0.15 0.15 综合递减率 0.04 0.04 含水上升率 0.08 0.09 水驱状况指数 0.16 0.14 剩余可采储量采油速度 0.10 0.10 老井措施有效率 0.03 0.07 综合生产时率 0.07 0.09 吨油操作成本 0.12 0.12
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 李远光,方越,石璐,等. 特高含水油田高耗水层带识别方法研究:以双河油田为例[J]. 石油地质与工程, 2019, 33(4): 65–68. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-8217.2019.04.016 LI Yuanguang, FANG Yue, SHI Lu, et al. Identification method of high-water consumption zone in super high water cut oilfield:by taking Shuanghe Oilfield as an example[J]. Petroleum Geology and Engineering, 2019, 33(4): 65–68. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-8217.2019.04.016
[2] 司想,汪宁宇,焦冀博. 基于模糊综合评价法的水驱开发效果评价[J]. 化学工程师, 2019(4): 18–20. SI Xiang, WANG Ningyu, JIAO Jibo. Evaluation of waterflooding development based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method[J]. Chemical Engineer, 2019(4): 18–20.
[3] 孙伟．特高含水期油田开发评价体系及方法研究[D]．青岛: 中国石油大学（华东）, 2016． SUN Wei. Study of evaluation system and methods for oilfield development in high watercut stage[D]. Qingdao: China University of Petroleum(East China), 2016.
[4] 李迎辉,孔新海,刘道杰,等. 高含水油藏水驱开发效果评价方法研究[J]. 长江大学学报(自科版), 2018, 15(7): 69–73. LI Yinghui, KONG Xinhai, LIU Daojie, et al. Study on the evaluation method of waterflooding development effect in high water-cut reservoirs[J]. Journal of Yangtze University (Natural Science Edition), 2018, 15(7): 69–73.
[5] 俞启泰．俞启泰油田开发论文集[M]．北京: 石油工业出版社, 1999: 106–107． YU Qitai. Proceedings on oilfield development by YU Qitai[M]. Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press, 1999: 106–107.
[6] 马婧,张文,刘淑芬. 应用存水率与水驱指数评价油田水驱开发效果[J]. 当代化工, 2016, 45(2): 387–389. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-0460.2016.02.058 MA Jing, ZHANG Wen, LIU Shufen. Evaluation of water flooding development effect by using water storage rate and water flooding index[J]. Contemporary Chemical Industry, 2016, 45(2): 387–389. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-0460.2016.02.058
[7] 王利东,赵敏,刘静霞. 基于灰色关联分析和证据理论的语言值群决策模型[J]. 模糊系统与数学, 2017, 31(1): 86–92. WANG Lidong, ZHAO Min, LIU Jingxia. Group decision model based on grey related analysis and dempster-shafer theory under uncertain linguistic variables[J]. Fuzzy Systems and Mathematics, 2017, 31(1): 86–92.
[8] 董凤娟,卢学飞,刘敏艳,等. 基于灰关联的微观地质因素与微裂缝发育程度相关性分析[J]. 地质与勘探, 2016(5): 950–955. DONG Fengjuan, LU Xuefei, LIU Minyan, et al. Correlation analysis of microscopic geological factors and micro cracks based on grey association[J]. Geology and Exploration, 2016(5): 950–955.
[9] 俞启泰. 水驱砂岩油藏自然递减理论图版的制作与应用[J]. 石油勘探与开发, 1990,17(4): 81–84,77. YU Qitai. Construction and application of the theoretical natural decline type curve for a waterflooding sandstone reservoir[J]. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 1990,17(4): 81–84,77.
[10] 魏丽影,肖洪伟,尹淑敏. 喇萨杏油田特高含水期水驱开发效果综合评价方法研究[J]. 中国石油和化工标准与质量, 2019, 39(19): 19–21. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-4076.2019.19.008 WEI Liying, XIAO Hongwei, YIN Shumin. Study on comprehensive evaluation method of water flooding development effect in extra high water cut stage of Lasaxing Oilfield[J]. China Petroleum and Chemical Standards and Quality, 2019, 39(19): 19–21. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-4076.2019.19.008
[11] 刘笑莹,王胜男. 二三结合模式水驱开发效果评价方法[J]. 科学技术创新, 2017(30): 5–7. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-1328.2017.30.003 LIU Xiaoying, WANG Shengnan. Evaluation method of water flooding development effect in the combination mode of two and three[J]. Science and Technology Innovation, 2017(30): 5–7. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-1328.2017.30.003
[12] 马婧. 基于模糊综合评判法的油田水驱开发效果评价[J]. 辽宁化工, 2016, 45(6): 785–787. MA Jing. Evaluation of oilfield water flooding development effect based on the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method[J]. Liaoning Chemical Industry, 2016, 45(6): 785–787.
[13] 刘庆,张建宁,孔维军,等. 基于模糊层次分析的断块油藏水驱开发潜力评价方法研究[J]. 复杂油气藏, 2018, 11(4): 56–60. LIU Qing, ZHANG Jianning, KONG Weijun, et al. Study on evaluation method of developing potential for waterflooding fault-block reservoir based on fuzzy hierarchy analysis[J]. Complex Hydrocarbon Reservoirs, 2018, 11(4): 56–60.
-
期刊类型引用(4)
1. 车阳，乔磊，王建国，曹东建，杜卫强，蓝海峰. X井精准治理技术研究与应用. 断块油气田. 2023(02): 347-352 . 
百度学术
2. 李丹. 大庆油田嫩二段底部标准层进水后的黏滑变形计算模型. 长江大学学报(自然科学版). 2021(05): 56-65 . 百度学术
3. 李春阳. 预防斜井套损的注水压力修正方法. 内蒙古石油化工. 2020(02): 65-66 . 百度学术
4. 付盼，田中兰，李军，乔磊，董凯，胡超洋，吴志勇. 页岩气水平井压裂地层滑移致套损模拟试验研究. 石油机械. 2019(03): 61-67 . 百度学术
其他类型引用(1)
计量
- 文章访问数: 1336
- HTML全文浏览量: 421
- PDF下载量: 67
- 被引次数: 5
