Experimental Study on Foam-Assisted Gas Huff-and-Puff in the Jimsar Shale Oil Reservoir
-
摘要: 吉木萨尔页岩油藏储层渗透率极低，改造后存在大量人工裂缝和天然裂缝，采用注氮气吞吐方式开采易发生气窜，造成氮气波及范围小，页岩油采收率低。为了增大氮气波及范围、提高吉木萨尔页岩油藏的采收率，在评价泡沫封堵页岩裂缝能力的基础上，利用吉木萨尔页岩岩样进行了泡沫辅助注气吞吐试验，分析了泡沫辅助注气吞吐提高采收率的机理，研究了吞吐轮次和裂缝页岩岩样基质渗透率对泡沫辅助注气吞吐采收率的影响。研究发现：泡沫可以封堵裂缝，有效抑制气窜；当泡沫体积分数为50%、注气速率为2 mL/min时，突破压力最大，封堵效果最好；与氮气吞吐相比，泡沫辅助注气吞吐之所以能够提高采收率，是因为其不仅能够采出大孔隙和中孔隙中的原油，还能够采出微孔隙中的原油；在最优泡沫注入参数下，裂缝岩样的采收率随吞吐轮次增多而升高，但升高幅度逐渐减小；对于基质渗透率较高的裂缝岩样，泡沫辅助氮气吞吐的采收率也较高。研究结果为吉木萨尔页岩油藏采用泡沫辅助注气吞吐开发提供了理论依据。Abstract: Due to the fact that the Jimsar shale oil reservoir has low permeability and massive artificial and natural fractures, and gas channeling easily happens when N2 huff-and-puff is adopted for development, there is a problem of limited sweep range of N2 and low shale oil recovery. For a greater sweep range of N2 and enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in the Jimsar shale oil reservoir, the Jimsar shale samples were used for foam-assisted gas huff-and-puff experiments based on the evaluation of plugging capacity of foam for shale fractures. Besides, the team analyzed the EOR mechanism of foam-assisted gas huff-and-puff, and studied the influence of the huff-and-puff rounds and matrix permeability of fractured shale samples on the oil recovery by foam-assisted gas huff-and-puff. The experimental results showed that foam could seal fractures and effectively inhibit gas channeling, and when the foam volume fraction was 50% and the gas injection rate was 2 mL/min, the breakthrough pressure could reach the maximum value, with the best effect of plugging. Compared with N2 huff-and-puff, the foam-assisted gas huff-and-puff can improve the recovery of crude oil not only from the large and medium pores, but also from micropores. With optimal foam injection parameters, the recovery of fractured samples increase with the rounds of huff-and-puff, but the increasing extent will gradually fall. For fractured samples with high matrix permeability, the recovery of foam-assisted N2 huff-and-puff are also high. The results can provide the guidance for the development of the Jimsar shale oil by foam-assisted gas huff-and-puff.
-
西湖凹陷位于东海陆架盆地浙东坳陷东部，面积约5.9×104 km2，新生代地层最大沉积厚度超过1.0×104 m，主要目的层为古近系平湖组和花港组地层。储层岩性以长石砂岩和岩屑砂岩为主，埋深一般大于3 500.00 m，受压实成岩作用影响，储层物性一般偏低，孔隙度多在15%以下，渗透率一般小于10 mD。低孔低渗储层的流体性质识别一直是西湖凹陷油气勘探开发中的难题之一[1–3]，原因是储层束缚水含量高、电阻率对比度低，同时受储层孔隙结构影响，水层的电阻率往往也较高，通过电性判别难度较大[4–6]；另外，低孔低渗储层毛细管水含量高，当生产压差增大到一定数值后，一部分束缚水往往会转化为可动水，导致生产出水，影响油气产量，特别是气层一旦出水将严重影响最终的采收率，降低油气田开发的经济性[7–10]。针对上述问题，笔者利用油基钻井液的高侵特性，基于时移测井理念[11–12]，提出时移电阻率测井对比识别法，即通过对比随钻实时电阻率与复测电阻率的差异快速识别流体性质，并在西湖凹陷低孔低渗储层进行了现场应用，验证了其可行性和有效性。
1. 油基钻井液滤失性试验
西湖凹陷低孔低渗储层钻井使用的油基钻井液主要成分为白油，根据实际需要，其含量约占钻井液总体积的70%～85%，其余成分为水和各种添加剂，主要起乳化、降滤失和封堵作用。虽然油基钻井液比水基钻井液具有更好的井壁稳定和储层保护作用，但仍具有一定的侵入特性。为了分析油基钻井液的滤失特征，利用具有低孔低渗特征的人造岩心进行了滤失性试验，岩心参数见表1。
表 1 油基钻井液滤失性试验所用岩心的主要参数Table 1. Core parameters of oil-based drilling fluid filtration test编号 长度/cm 直径/cm 渗透率/mD 钻井液密度/（kg·L–1） 1 7.39 2.49 199 1.18 2 7.34 2.53 198 1.32 将岩心放入夹持器内，逐渐加压至13 MPa，并持续24 h，测量滤失量、滤饼厚度和滤液侵入深度。试验结果为：1号岩心滤饼厚4.0 mm，滤液侵入深度为 3.5 cm；2号岩心滤饼厚5.0 mm；滤液侵入深度为6.5 cm；滤失量与侵入时间的关系如图1所示。
![]()
图 1 油基钻井液滤失量与侵入时间的关系Figure 1. Relationship between fluid loss and intrusion time of oil-based drilling fluid从图1可以看出，油基钻井液存在一定的滤失性，滤液能够侵入岩心，滤失量与岩心物性、压差和时间都有一定的关系。这是因为，油基钻井液滤液侵入地层后，会对储层中原有流体产生一定的驱替作用，导致储层电性特征变化，所以可通过对比储层电性特征变化情况分析判断储层流体的性质。
2. 时移电阻率测井对比识别法原理
地层刚钻开时，油基钻井液滤液侵入量小，滤饼薄，冲洗带和过渡带较窄；钻开一段时间后，滤饼增厚，冲洗带和过渡带宽度增大[13]，如图2所示。所以，刚钻开地层进行随钻电阻率测井时，该电阻率一般可以代表地层真电阻率，即原状地层电阻率Rt；地层钻开一段时间后复测电阻率时，电阻率特别是探测深度较浅的电阻率（Rs）会包含冲洗带和过渡带的流体性质变化信息。对于水基钻井液，Rs相对于Rt增大或减小，取决于钻井液滤液矿化度和地层水矿化度的相对大小关系；但对于油基钻井液，由于钻井液滤液不导电，当地层水被驱替后，复测时电阻率Rs会变大，即复测Rs大于随钻测量Rs。时移电阻率测井对比识别法就是利用含有不同性质流体的储层被油基钻井液滤液驱替后、表现出不同的电性变化特征进行流体识别。
![]()
图 2 地层刚钻开和钻开一段时间后的井筒环境Figure 2. Wellbore environments after penetrating the formation soon and drilling for a while为了进一步说明时移电阻率测井对比识别法的技术原理，分别分析了探测深度与被探测地层电阻率的关系，以及油基钻井液滤液侵入不同地层后的电阻率变化特征。
首先用Schlumberger公司的ARC随钻电阻率测井仪（以下简称ARC测井仪）分析探测深度与被探测地层电阻率的关系。该仪器有5个源距（406.4，558.8，711.2，863.6和1 016.0 mm）的发射器，采用2种发射频率（400 kHz和2 MHz），所以可以获得20条电阻率曲线（10条相位电阻率和10条衰减电阻率）。其中，发射频率为2 MHz时，ARC测井仪探测深度与地层相位电阻率的关系曲线如图3所示。
![]()
图 3 P16H探测深度与被探测地层电阻率的关系曲线Figure 3. Relationship curve between P16H detection depth and the resistivity of measured formation由图3可知，P16H（源距为406.4 mm，频率为2 MHz的相位电阻率）探测深度最小，但其探测深度与地层电阻率相关，电阻率越高，探测深度越大。由于油基钻井液滤液侵入深度小，所以可以利用P16H电阻率的变化率分析侵入深度。
然后分析油基钻井液滤液分别侵入油气层、水层、含油气水层和干层后，冲洗带电阻率的变化情况。对于油气层，油气和油基钻井液滤液都是不导电的流体介质，油基滤液侵入地层后，地层电阻率基本不变；对于水层、含油气水层或同层，油基钻井液滤液侵入后会减小导电流体（水）的体积，导致储层的电阻率升高。实际复测时，同时测量砂岩储层及上下泥质围岩的电阻率，由于泥岩为非渗透性层，所以随钻实时电阻率和复测电阻率保持一致，通过使围岩电阻率重合，就可以确定砂岩储层电阻率的变化。钻井液滤液的侵入深度与储层物性、井筒过平衡压差、侵入时间及钻井液特性都有关系。例如，西湖凹陷某区域的典型低孔低渗储层，孔隙度为9%～18%，渗透率为1～50 mD，在较大正压差和较长完钻时间下的侵入深度一般较大。而致密层由于储层物性太差，滤液基本无侵入，所以地层电阻率基本不变。不同地层的具体变化特征见表2（其中，P16H实时，指P16H随钻实时电阻率；P16H复测，指P16H复测电阻率）。
表 2 油基钻井液滤液侵入不同地层后的电阻率变化特征Table 2. Characteristics of resistivity change after oil-based drilling fluid filtrate invaded different formations地层类型 钻井液滤液侵入情况 电阻率变化情况 ARC测井仪测量结果 油气层 一定压差下侵入 不变 P16H实时≈P16H复测 水层 一定压差下侵入 升高 P16H实时<P16H复测 含油气水层或同层 一定压差下侵入 升高 P16H实时<P16H复测 致密层 基本无侵入 不变 P16H实时≈P16H复测 3. 现场应用
时移电阻率测井对比识别法在西湖凹陷X1井和X2井进行了应用，均取得了成功，证明该方法可行且有效。
X1井4 450.00～4 475.00 m井段钻遇油气显示层，电阻率最高50 Ω·m，气测全量Tg最高12.0%，岩性为长石细砂岩，孔隙度为9%～11%，渗透率为1～5 mD，参照邻井信息，初步判断该层为气层。对该层进行了随钻电阻率复测，结果如图4所示。图4中，第五道“电阻率对比”指P16H随钻实时电阻率（P16H实时）与P16H复测电阻率（P16H 复测）的对比；P16H复测值大于P16H实时值（对应部分进行了蓝色充填），表明该层为非纯气层，存在一定量的可动水，或者说在该井钻井液过平衡压差约6.9 MPa的条件下，储层孔隙中的部分水可以流动。
![]()
图 4 X1井随钻电阻率实时值与复测值的对比Figure 4. Comparison on the resistivity while drilling real-time measurement and the re-tested value in Well X1X1井完钻后，在井深4 471.50 m处进行了电缆地层测试泵抽取样（MDT仪器），泵抽至45 min时，通过井下流体识别仪IFA开始观察到地层天然气流体，流线中的成分主要为天然气和油基钻井液；泵抽至160 min时，泵抽压差增大至4.13 MPa，流线出现了明显的地层水信号，说明在该压差下一部分毛细管水开始流动，转变为可动水。泵抽结束时，流线中水的体积比约为17%，该结果与电阻率复测分析结果完全一致（如图5所示）。这说明该层有一部分毛细管水在压差大于4.13 MPa时是可以流动的，可以称这部分水为弱束缚水；后续进行地层测试或开发时，生产压差应小于4.13 MPa，否则会导致地层出水，影响天然气产能。
![]()
图 5 X1井井深4 471.50 m MDT泵抽流体性质综合识别Figure 5. Comprehensive identification of 4 471.50 m MDT pumping fluids properties in Well X1X2井与X1井处于同一构造带，应用油基钻井液钻进。该井4 317.00～4 336.00 m井段钻遇油气显示层，岩性为长石细砂岩，孔隙度为10%～15%，渗透率为1～10 mD。储层上部电阻率约24 Ω·m，气测全量Tg最高约6.0%；储层下部电阻率为13 Ω·m，气测全量Tg约为2.8%。与邻区同层位油气层相比，该层整体电阻率较低，认为该层未达到纯油气层的标准，为此进行了电阻率随钻与复测对比，结果如图6所示。该井钻井液过平衡压差为7.13 MPa。图6中，第五道为P16H实时值和复测值的对比结果，可以看出井深4 330.00 m以浅的P16H实时值与P16H复测值一致，说明该层不含可动水，为纯油气层；井深4 330.00 m以深的P16H复测值明显大于P16H实时值，说明该层含可动水，推测为气水同层。
![]()
图 6 X2井随钻电阻率实时值与复测值的对比Figure 6. Comparison on the resistivity while drilling real-time measurement and the re-tested value in Well X2完钻后，X2井在井深4 321.20和4 333.00 m处分别进行了MDT泵抽取样。井深4 321.20 m处泵抽压差约13.8 MPa，泵抽时间为115 min，证实为纯轻质油层，不含水；井深4 333.00 m处泵抽压差为18.3 MPa，泵抽时间为120 min，后期含水率为60%，证实为油水同层，流体性质识别具体情况如图7所示。该井的泵抽结果与电阻率复测对比分析结果完全一致，再次证明了该方法的可行性和有效性。
![]()
图 7 X2井井深4 321.20和4 333.00 m MDT泵抽流体性质综合识别Figure 7. Comprehensive identification of MDT pumping fluid properties at 4 321.20 and 4 333.00 m in Well X24. 结论与建议
1）油基钻井液滤液侵入地层后，对储层中原有流体有一定驱替作用，从而引起储层电性特征的变化，通过对比该变化情况，就能够对储层中原有流体性质进行分析判断。
2）低孔低渗储层岩性和孔隙结构复杂，仅仅依靠对比电阻率的高低或者邻区经验识别流体的性质很难得到准确的结果。油基钻井液条件下利用时移电阻率测井对比识别法，可以快速识别低孔低渗储层的流体性质，现场应用也验证了该方法具有较高的准确性。
3）时移电阻率测井对比识别法具有较好的通用性，只要使用随钻电阻率和油基钻井液均可进行借鉴，特别是对于一些新区探井，该方法能够快速识别流体性质，为后续作业选择提供指导，提高作业效率并节省成本。
-
![]()
图 3 注入氮气过程中岩样两端的压差
Figure 3. Differential pressure at both ends of the core during N2 injection
![]()
图 4 注入泡沫和后续注氮气过程中岩样两端的压差
Figure 4. Differential pressure at both ends of the core during foam injection and following N2 injection
![]()
图 5 泡沫体积分数与封堵压差的关系
Figure 5. Relationship between the foam volume fraction and the differential pressure of plugging
![]()
图 7 注气速率与封堵压差的关系
Figure 7. Relationship between the gas injection rate and the differential pressure of plugging
![]()
图 8 2种吞吐模式累计采收率随时间的变化
Figure 8. Variation of cumulative oil recovery with time in two huff-and-puff modes
![]()
图 9 氮气吞吐一轮的岩样核磁T2谱图
Figure 9. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) T2 spectra for one-time N2 huff-and-puff
![]()
图 10 泡沫辅助氮气吞吐一轮的岩样核磁T2谱图
Figure 10. NMR T2 spectra for one-time foam-assisted N2 huff-and-puff
![]()
图 11 泡沫辅助氮气吞吐不同轮次的岩样核磁T2谱图
Figure 11. NMR T2 spectra for different rounds of foam-assisted N2 huff-and-puff
![]()
图 12 基质渗透率对泡沫辅助氮气吞吐采收率的影响
Figure 12. Influence of matrix permeability on oil recovery by foam-assisted N2 huff-and-puff
表 1 泡沫封堵试验用岩样的基本参数
Table 1 Basic parameters of cores for foam plugging experiments
岩样编号 直径/
mm长度/
mm孔隙度，
%渗透率/
mD1 24.86 100.515 2.76 0.007 2 25.03 100.110 3.02 0.006 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 裂缝岩样吞吐一轮前后不同类型孔隙的含油饱和度
Table 2 Oil saturation in different pore types before and after one-time huff-and-puff of fractured shale samples
孔隙类型 含油饱和度 吞吐前 泡沫辅助N2吞吐后 N2 吞吐后 微孔隙 0.0668 0. 0650 0.0668 中孔隙 0.4971 0.4772 0.4971 大孔隙 0.4361 0.4128 0.4354 合计 1.0000 0.9550 0.9993
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 页岩岩样泡沫辅助氮气吞吐不同轮次的采收率
Table 3 Oil recovery by different rounds of foam-assisted N2 huff-and-puff of shale samples
吞吐轮次 不同类型孔隙的采收率，% 采收率，% 小孔隙 中孔隙 大孔隙 1轮 0.16 1.99 2.42 4.57 2轮 0.21 2.99 4.14 7.35 3轮 0.25 3.66 5.80 9.72 4轮 0.25 4.14 6.59 10.98 5轮 0.25 4.47 7.22 11.94
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 3个页岩岩样的基本参数
Table 4 Basic parameters of three shale samples
岩样序号 直径/
mm长度/
mm基质渗透率/
mD3 25.295 100.311 0.010 4 25.274 100.203 0.008 5 25.156 100.274 0.001
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 贾承造,郑民,张永峰. 非常规油气地质学重要理论问题[J]. 石油学报,2014,35(1):1–10. doi: 10.7623/syxb201401001 JIA Chengzao, ZHENG Min, ZHANG Yongfeng. Four important theoretical issues of unconventional petroleum geology[J]. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 2014, 35(1): 1–10. doi: 10.7623/syxb201401001
[2] 王敏生,光新军,耿黎东. 页岩油高效开发钻井完井关键技术及发展方向[J]. 石油钻探技术,2019,47(5):1–10. WANG Minsheng, GUANG Xinjun, GENG Lidong. Key drilling/completion technologies and development trends in the efficient development of shale oil[J]. Petroleum Drilling Techniques, 2019, 47(5): 1–10.
[3] 闫林,陈福利,王志平,等. 我国页岩油有效开发面临的挑战及关键技术研究[J]. 石油钻探技术,2020,48(3):63–69. YAN Lin, CHEN Fuli, WANG Zhiping, et al. Challenges and technical countermeasures for effective development of shale oil in China[J]. Petroleum Drilling Techniques, 2020, 48(3): 63–69.
[4] 张锦宏. 中国石化页岩油工程技术现状与发展展望[J]. 石油钻探技术,2021,49(4):8–13. ZHANG Jinhong. Present status and development prospects of Sinopec shale oil engineering technologies[J]. Petroleum Drilling Techniques, 2021, 49(4): 8–13.
[5] WAN Tao, SHENG J J, SOLIMAN M Y. Evaluation of the EOR potential in shale oil reservoirs by cyclic gas injection[R]. SPWLA-2013-MM, 2013.
[6] GAMADI T D, ELLDAKLI F, SHENG J J. Compositional simulation evaluation of EOR potential in shale oil reservoirs by cyclic natural gas injection: Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, Denver, August 28, 2014[C].
[7] BAI Hao, ZHANG Qiliang, LI Zhaomin, et al. Effect of fracture on production characteristics and oil distribution during CO2 huff-n-puff under tight and low-permeability conditions[J]. Fuel, 2019, 246: 117–125. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2019.02.107
[8] YU Yang, SHENG J J. A comparative experimental study of IOR potential in fractured shale reservoirs by cyclic water and nitrogen gas injection[J]. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2017, 149: 844–850. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2016.11.034
[9] SHENG J J. Enhanced oil recovery in shale reservoirs by gas injection[J]. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 2015, 22: 252–259. doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2014.12.002
[10] LI Gang, MORIDIS G J, ZHANG Keni, et al. The use of huff and puff method in a single horizontal well in gas production from marine gas hydrate deposits in the Shenhu Area of South China Sea[J]. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2011, 77(1): 49–68. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2011.02.009
[11] GAMADI T D, SHENG J J, SOLIMAN M Y. An experimental study of cyclic gas injection to improve shale oil recovery[R]. SPE 166334, 2013.
[12] CHEN Cheng, BALHOFF M, MOHANTY K K. Effect of reservoir heterogeneity on primary recovery and CO2 huff ‘n’ puff recovery in shale-oil reservoirs[J]. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 2014, 17(3): 404–413.
[13] YU Yang, SHENG J J. An experimental investigation of the effect of pressure depletion rate on oil recovery from shale cores by cyclic N2 injection[R]. URTEC-2144010-MS, 2015.
[14] LI Lei, SHENG J J. Experimental study of core size effect on CH4 huff-n-puff enhanced oil recovery in liquid-rich shale reservoirs[J]. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 2016, 34: 1392–1402. doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2016.08.028
[15] 王曦. CO2泡沫体系性能评价及驱油实验研究[J]. 油气地质与采收率,2020,27(1):69–74. WANG Xi. Performance evaluation and oil displacement experiment study of CO2 foam system[J]. Petroleum Geology and Recovery Efficiency, 2020, 27(1): 69–74.
[16] 王健,吴松芸,余恒,等. CO2泡沫改善吸水剖面实验评价研究[J]. 油气藏评价与开发,2018,8(4):22–25. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-1426.2018.04.005 WANG Jian, WU Songyun, YU Heng, et al. Effect of CO2 foam on water absorption profile improvement[J]. Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2018, 8(4): 22–25. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-1426.2018.04.005
[17] 刘影,刘永建,范英才,等. 蒸汽驱开发后期热空气泡沫复合驱油研究[J]. 特种油气藏,2018,25(4):118–122. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-6535.2018.04.024 LIU Ying, LIU Yongjian, FAN Yingcai, et al. Study on hot air-foam combination flooding system in the late stage of steam flooding[J]. Special Oil & Gas Reservoirs, 2018, 25(4): 118–122. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-6535.2018.04.024
[18] 李士伦,汤勇,侯承希. 注CO2提高采收率技术现状及发展趋势[J]. 油气藏评价与开发,2019,9(3):1–8. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-1426.2019.03.001 LI Shilun, TANG Yong, HOU Chengxi. Present situation and development trend of CO2 injection enhanced oil recovery technology[J]. Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2019, 9(3): 1–8. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-1426.2019.03.001
[19] 刘双星,彭勃,刘琦,等. 驱油用CO2泡沫体系粒径对其性能影响研究[J]. 油气藏评价与开发,2020,10(3):33–38. LIU Shuangxing, PENG Bo, LIU Qi, et al. Study on impact of particle size of CO2 foam system for flooding on its performance[J]. Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2020, 10(3): 33–38.
[20] 邢晓璇. 泡沫驱微观驱油机理及驱油效果[J]. 油气地质与采收率,2020,27(3):106–112. XING Xiaoxuan. Microscopic displacement mechanism and oil displacement effect of foam flooding[J]. Petroleum Geology and Recovery Efficiency, 2020, 27(3): 106–112.
[21] 李松岩,王麟,韩瑞,等. 裂缝性致密油藏超临界CO2泡沫驱规律实验研究[J]. 油气地质与采收率,2020,27(1):29–35. LI Songyan, WANG Lin, HAN Rui, et al. Experimental study on supercritical CO2 foam flooding in fractured tight reservoirs[J]. Petroleum Geology and Recovery Efficiency, 2020, 27(1): 29–35.
[22] CASTEEL J F, DJABBARAH N F. Sweep improvement in CO2 flooding by use of foaming agents[J]. SPE Reservoir Engineering, 1988, 3(4): 1186–1192. doi: 10.2118/14392-PA
[23] LI Songyan, QIAO Chenyu, JI Guowei, et al. Experimental study of profile control with foam stabilized by clay particle and surfactant[J]. Energies, 2019, 12(5): 781. doi: 10.3390/en12050781
[24] FERNØ M A, EIDE Ø, STEINSBØ M, et al. Mobility control during CO2 EOR in fractured carbonates using foam: laboratory evaluation and numerical simulations[J]. Journal of Petroleum Science & Engineering, 2015, 135: 442–451.
[25] 刘祖鹏,李兆敏. CO2驱油泡沫防气窜技术实验研究[J]. 西南石油大学学报(自然科学版),2015,37(5):117–122. LIU Zupeng, LI Zhaomin. An experimental study on anti-channeling technology with foam in CO2 flooding[J]. Journal of Southwest Petroleum University(Science & Technology Edition), 2015, 37(5): 117–122.
[26] 吴永彬,张运军,段文标. 致密油油藏空气泡沫调驱机理实验[J]. 现代地质,2014,28(6):1315–1321. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-8527.2014.06.025 WU Yongbin, ZHANG Yunjun, DUAN Wenbiao. Experimental study on profile-controlling mechanisms of air foam flooding in tight oil reservoirs[J]. Geoscience, 2014, 28(6): 1315–1321. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-8527.2014.06.025
[27] 吕伟,刘笑春,白海龙,等. CO2响应性增强泡沫体系室内试验研究[J]. 石油钻探技术,2021,49(5):88–93. doi: 10.11911/syztjs.2021119 LYU Wei, LIU Xiaochun, BAI Hailong, et al. Laboratory test study of CO2 responsive enhanced foam system[J]. Petroleum Drilling Techniques, 2021, 49(5): 88–93. doi: 10.11911/syztjs.2021119
[28] 李晶晶,邓昌联,唐晓东,等. 稠油减氧空气泡沫驱注入参数优化及现场应用[J]. 特种油气藏,2020,27(4):131–135. LI Jingjing, DENG Changlian, TANG Xiaodong, et al. Injection parameter optimization of deoxidized air foam flooding for heavy oil reservoir and its field application [J]. Special Oil & Gas Reserviors, 2020, 27(4): 131–135.
[29] 华强. 超声波提高特低渗储层水驱波及体积实验研究[J]. 断块油气田,2021,28(1):115–119. HUA Qiang. Experimental study on ultrasonic improving water-flooding swept volume of ultra-low permeability reservoir[J]. Fault-Block Oil & Gas Field, 2021, 28(1): 115–119.
[30] 贾瑞轩,孙灵辉,苏致新,等. 二氧化碳吞吐致密油藏的可动用性[J]. 断块油气田,2020,27(4):504–508. JIA Ruixuan,SUN Linghui,SU Zhixin,et al. Availability of CO2 huff and puff in tight reservoir[J]. Fault-Block Oil & Gas Field, 2020, 27(4): 504–508.
[31] 狄勤丰,贾欣昌,罗强,等. 岩心驱替实验中基于LF-NMR的油、水动态定标方法及应用[J]. 石油钻采工艺,2020,42(1):181–188. DI Qinfeng, JIA Xinchang, LUO Qiang, et al. Method and application of oil and water dynamic calibration method based on LF-NMR in core displacement experiment[J]. Oil Drilling & Production Technology, 2020, 42(1): 181–188.
[32] 张冲, 萧汉敏, 肖朴夫, 等．盐间页岩油二氧化碳–纯水吞吐开发机理实验及开采特征[J/OL]．特种油气藏, 2021: 1-9．（2021-12-23）[2021-12-29]．http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/21.1357.TE. 20211222.1708.008.htm. ZHANG Chong, XIAO Hanmin, XIAO Pufu, et al.Development mechanism experiment and production characteristics of carbon dioxide pure water huff and puff of inter salt shale oil[J/OL]. Special Oil & Gas Reserviors, 2021: 1-8. (2021-12-23) [2021-12-29]. http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/21.1357.TE.20211222.1708.008.htm.
-
期刊类型引用(6)
1. 张浩，倪利平，罗刚，王雪亮，王亮. 油基钻井液侵入对核磁共振测井响应影响的实验研究. 科学技术与工程. 2023(12): 5013-5021 . 
百度学术
2. 罗健，张国栋，胡文亮，魏晓晗，何玉春. 低渗储层泥浆侵入特征与时移电阻率测井评价. 海洋石油. 2022(02): 55-60+76 . 百度学术
3. 吴进波，陈鸣，孙殿强，王锋，周基恒. 随钻地层测试在大斜度井油基钻井液中的应用. 石油钻采工艺. 2022(02): 178-185 . 百度学术
4. 张志强，王猛，杨杰. 油基泥浆环境下储层电阻率动态剖面反演方法研究及应用. 石化技术. 2021(06): 116-117 . 百度学术
5. 李新，米金泰，张卫，姚金志，李三国. 井下随钻核磁共振流体分析装置设计与试验验证. 石油钻探技术. 2020(02): 130-134 . 本站查看
6. 邱小雪，戴家才，陈猛，程伊博. 基于VOF对低产积液气井流动特征的数值模拟. 断块油气田. 2020(05): 619-623 . 百度学术
其他类型引用(2)
计量
- 文章访问数: 440
- HTML全文浏览量: 178
- PDF下载量: 61
- 被引次数: 8
