en
×

分享给微信好友或者朋友圈

使用微信“扫一扫”功能。
作者简介:

石磊(1986—),男,湖北汉川人,工程师,硕士,从事测井综合解释及测井方法等研究工作。E-mail:shilei22@cnooc.com.cn。

中图分类号:TE319

文献标识码:A

文章编号:1009-9603(2022)02-0046-07

DOI:10.13673/j.cnki.cn37-1359/te.2022.02.005

参考文献 1
徐锦绣,吕洪志,崔云江.渤海地区电缆地层测试应用效果分析[J].中国海上油气,2008,20(2):106-110.XU Jinxiu,LÜ Hongzhi,CUI Yunjiang.An application analysis of wireline formation test in Bohai region[J].China Offshore Oil and Gas,2008,20(2):106-110.
参考文献 2
冯永仁,左有祥,王健,等.地层测试技术及其应用的进展与挑战[J].测井技术,2019,43(3):217-227.FENG Yongren,ZUO Youxiang,WANG Jian,et al.Advances and challenges in formation test and practical application[J].Well Logging Technology,2019,43(3):217-227.
参考文献 3
马建国,任国富,郭辽原,等.用新式地层取样测试器测试纯油气层产能[J].测井技术,2005,29(2):148-152.MA Jianguo,REN Guofu,GUO Liaoyuan,et al.Oil-gas layer de⁃ liverability test by new formation sampling tester[J].Well Log⁃ ging Technology,2005,29(2):148-152.
参考文献 4
蔡军,孙建孟,刘坤.电缆地层测试资料在储层污染评价中的应用研究[J].测井技术,2015,39(2):236-241.CAI Jun,SUN Jianmeng,LIU Kun.Application of wireline forma⁃ tion test data to the evaluation of reservoir contamination[J].Well Logging Technology,2015,39(2):236-241.
参考文献 5
鹿克峰,简洁,朱文娟,等.利用MDT压降流度求取低渗气藏气相渗透率的方法[J].中国海上油气,2015,27(6):53-56.LU Kefeng,JIAN Jie,ZHU Wenjuan,et al.Calculating gas phase permeability with drawdown fluidity tested by MDT for low perme⁃ ability gas reservoir[J].China Offshore Oil and Gas,2015,27(6):53-56.
参考文献 6
杨冬,张海荣,吴一雄,等.电缆地层测试资料在低渗气藏产能预测中的应用[J].中国海上油气,2018,30(6):109-114.YANG Dong,ZHANG Hairong,WU Yixiong,et al.Application of cable formation test data in productivity prediction of low permea⁃ bility gas reservoirs[J].China Offshore Oil and Gas,2018,30(6):109-114.
参考文献 7
高永德,孙殿强,杨冬,等.基于电缆地层测试资料储层有效渗透率计算方法研究[J].地质科技情报,2019,38(2):137-142.GAO Yongde,SUN Dianqiang,YANG Dong,et al.Computing methods for reservoir effective permeability based on wireline for⁃ mation test data[J].Geological Science and Technology Informa⁃ tion,2019,38(2):137-142.
参考文献 8
SCHLUMBERGER Limited.Fundamentals of formation testing [M].Sugar Land:Schlumberger Marketing Communications,2006.
参考文献 9
PROETT Mark,MUSHARFI Nedhal,MANTILLA Andrés,et al.Objectively quantifying wireline and LWD pressure test quality [J].Petrophysics,2015,56(2):101-115.
参考文献 10
张聪慧,刘树巩,李义.利用电缆地层测试资料进行低渗储层流度计算和产能预测[J].中国海上油气,2013,25(1):43-45.ZHANG Conghui,LIU Shugong,LI Yi.A discussion on methods to determine reservoir mobility and productivity by using wireline formation test data[J].China Offshore Oil and Gas,2013,25(1):43-45.
参考文献 11
STEWART George,WITTMANN Manfred.Interpretation of the pressure response of the repeat formation tester[R].Las Vegas:SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,1979.
参考文献 12
DUSSAN V.A robust method for calculating formation mobility with a formation tester[J].SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineer⁃ ing,2011,14(2):239-247.
参考文献 13
吕正祥,文艺,赵福,等.珠一坳陷陆丰地区文昌组成岩作用特征及孔隙发育成因[J].特种油气藏,2019,26(3):18-23.LÜ Zhengxiang,WEN Yi,ZHAO Fu,et al.Diagenesis and pore genesis of Wenchang formation in Lufeng of Zhuyi Depression[J].Special Oil & Gas Reservoirs,2019,26(3):18-23.
参考文献 14
韩国猛,吴雪松,崔宇,等.渤海湾盆地黄骅坳陷二叠系致密砂岩储层特征、主控因素及发育模式[J].中国石油勘探,2019,24(4):509-519.HAN Guomeng,WU Xuesong,CUI Yu,et al.Characteristics,con⁃ trol factors and development models of Permian tight sandstone reservoirs in Huanghua depression,Bohai Bay Basin[J].China Pe⁃ troleum Exploration,2019,24(4):509-519.
参考文献 15
张国栋,陈忠云,张志强.低渗透率储层流度计算改进方法探讨[J].测井技术,2016,40(1):40-45.ZHANG Guodong,CHEN Zhongyun,ZHANG Zhiqiang.Mobility calculation and correction methods of formation tester in low-per⁃ meability sands[J].Well Logging Technology,2016,40(1):40-45.
参考文献 16
石磊,冯进,管耀.水基泥浆污染下流度转渗透率的校正方法 [J].油气井测试,2021,30(1):9-15.SHI Lei,FENG Jin,GUANG Yao.A correction method of trans⁃ forming mobility polluted by water-based mud to permeability[J].Well Testing,2021,30(1):9-15.
参考文献 17
郑文宽,刘月田,刘逸盛,等.微裂缝各向异性相对渗透率实验 [J].断块油气田,2019,26(3):364-366.ZHENG Wenkuan,LIU Yuetian,LIU Yisheng,et al.Anisotropy experiment of microfracture relative permeability[J].Fault-Block Oil and Gas Field,2019,26(3):364-366.
参考文献 18
匡立春.电缆地层测试资料应用导论[M].北京:石油工业出版社,2005.KUANG Lichun.An introduction to application of the wireline for⁃ mation data[M].Beijing:Petroleum Industry Press,2005.
参考文献 19
冯强汉,邓宝康,杨映洲,等.致密砂岩凝析气藏反凝析伤害评价及解除方法[J].大庆石油地质与开发,2020,39(2):139-146.FENG Qianghan,DENG Baokang,YANG Yingzhou,et al.Evalua⁃ tions and removing methods of the retrograde condensate damage for the gas condensate reservoirs in the tight sandstone[J].Petro⁃ leum Geology & Oilfield Development in Daqing,2020,39(2):139-146.
参考文献 20
杨洋.低孔低渗气藏高温高压储层损害因素分析[J].断块油气田,2019,26(5):622-625.YANG Yang.Damage factors of high temperature and high pres⁃ sure reservoirs in low porosity and low permeability formation[J].Fault-Block Oil and Gas Field,2019,26(5):622-625.
参考文献 21
范翔宇,夏宏泉,陈平,等.钻井泥浆污染储层程度的测井评价方法研究[J].天然气工业,2005,25(10):76-78.FAN Xiangyu,XIA Hongquan,CHEN Ping,et al.Logging evalua⁃ tion mechanism of reservoir pollution level by drilling fluid[J].Natural Gas Industry,2005,25(10):76-78.
参考文献 22
崔传智,杨经纬,吴忠维,等.高含水期五点法压裂井网的动态产能预测方法[J].油气地质与采收率,2019,26(3):78-84.CUI Chuanzhi,YANG Jingwei,WU Zhongwei,et al.Dynamic pro⁃ ductivity prediction method of five-spot fractured well pattern in high water cut stage[J].Petroleum Geology and Recovery Efficien⁃ cy,2019,26(3):78-84.
参考文献 23
胡建鹏,陈强,黄容.逐步贝叶斯判别分析中的变量优化方法研究[J].计算机工程与应用,2014,50(21):63-67,138.HU Jianpeng,CHEN Qiang,HUANG Rong.Study on variable op⁃ timization method in stepwise Bayes discriminant analysis[J].Computer Engineering and Applications,2014,50(21):63-67,138.
参考文献 24
王清辉,冯进,管耀,等.基于动态资料的低孔低渗砂岩储层渗透率测井评价方法——以陆丰凹陷古近系为例[J].石油学报,2019,40(S1):206-216.WANG Qinghui,FENG Jin,GUAN Yao,et al.Permeability log⁃ ging evaluation method of low-porosity low-permeability sand⁃ stone reservoirs based on dynamic data:a case study of Paleogene strata in Lufeng sag[J].Acta Petrolei Sinica,2019,40(S1):206-216.
参考文献 25
梅丹,胡勇,王倩.裂缝对气藏储层渗透率及气井产能的贡献 [J].石油实验地质,2019,41(5):769-772.MEI Dan,HU Yong,WANG Qian.Experimental study on fracture contribution to gas reservoir permeability and well capacity[J].Petroleum Geology & Experiment,2019,41(5):769-772.
参考文献 26
王克文,孙建孟,李文娟.升尺度在求解等价渗透率中的研究现状及发展趋势[J].油气地质与采收率,2007,14(2):84-88.WANG Kewen,SUN Jianmeng,LI Wenjuan.Present state and fu⁃ ture trend of upscaling on calculating equivalent permeability[J].Petroleum Geology and Recovery Efficiency,2007,14(2):84-88.
参考文献 27
程大勇,李彦来,房娜,等.聚驱相对渗透率曲线变化规律实验研究[J].油气藏评价与开发,2019,9(2):56-59.CHENG Dayong,LI Yanlai,FANG Na,et al.Experimental study on variation law of relative permeability curves of polymer flooding [J].Reservoir Evaluation and Development,2019,9(2):56-59.
参考文献 28
刘同敬,第五鹏祥,赵习森,等.致密油藏注气后储层渗流特征参数动态反演方法[J].油气地质与采收率,2020,27(1):93-100.LIU Tongjing,DIWU Pengxiang,ZHAO Xisen,et al.Dynamic in⁃ version method of percolation characteristic parameters after gas injection in tight reservoirs[J].Petroleum Geology and Recovery Efficiency,2020,27(1):93-100.
目录contents

    摘要

    南海东部地区不同仪器的测压资料解释存在系统误差,导致古近系储层流度与岩心渗透率相关性较差,测压渗透率与 DST渗透率匹配度较低。针对南海东部地区古近系低渗透储层,改进测压资料质量的定量评价标准,统一流度计算方法,进一步分析储层污染并建立污染校正模型,利用贝叶斯判别法建立了污染判别函数,实现污染判别及校正。结合地层测试的动态渗透率与岩心分析的静态渗透率,基于测井渗透率,建立了渗透率升尺度转换模型。结果表明,测压校正渗透率与经岩心渗透率标定的测井渗透率吻合度较高,进一步应用渗透率转换方法得到升尺度渗透率与DST渗透率较接近,显著改善了测压资料的渗透率评价精度。

    Abstract

    Systematic errors are encountered in the interpretation of pressure data from different instruments in the eastern South China Sea;as a result,the correlation between mobility and core permeability is poor,and the matching between the permeability from pressure measurement and DST is low. Aiming at the Paleogene low permeability reservoirs in the east- ern South China Sea,this paper improved the quantitative evaluation standard of pressure data quality and unified the meth- od for mobility calculation. Reservoir pollution was analyzed to build a mobility correction model,and the discriminant function of pollution was established by the Bayesian discriminant method for pollution discrimination and correction. In ad- dition,given the dynamic permeability from wireline formation testing and the static permeability from core analysis,the up- scaling permeability conversion model was constructed considering logging permeability. The results demonstrate that the permeability corrected by pressure measurement and the logging permeability calibrated by core permeability are in good agreement,and the upscaling permeability is obtained by conversion and close to DST permeability. This study significantly improves the permeability evaluation accuracy of pressure data.

  • 电缆地层测试技术在海上油气田应用广泛,在替代钻杆地层测试(DST)节省成本等方面正发挥着越来越重要的作用[1-2]。与传统试油分析和常规岩心分析相比,电缆地层测试优势更为明显,不仅能够准确得到任意深度地层的压力资料进而表征地层流体渗流特征,且作业时间短,更为经济。但是,由于电缆地层测试的压力预测试抽吸体积小、波及范围小,测量结果只能反映地层冲洗带泥浆滤液的渗流特性,所以测压流度不可避免地受泥浆侵入所造成的储层污染的影响。马建国等介绍了电缆地层测试确定储层参数的方法,包括污染系数等储层损害性参数的确定方法[3];蔡军等给出储层污染综合指数以及由流度和综合指标交会图给出的储层污染程度判别标准图版[4]。但这些方法未从测压质量入手进行系统评估,具有一定局限性。鹿克峰等均提出利用岩心相渗实验建立相关关系,将低渗透气藏电缆地层测试流度转换为气相渗透率的方法[5-6];高永德等利用球形流流度建立视径向流流度计算方法,然后通过区域相渗资料、流体黏度将视径向流流度转换为有效渗透率[7]。以上方法转换后的渗透率仍为离散的单点渗透率,未充分利用测井获得的连续渗透率曲线进行升尺度转换研究,难以实现与DST渗透率的精确对比。

  • 为此,以南海东部地区古近系低渗透储层为主要研究对象,通过对测压资料质量定量评价、流度归一化、储层污染校正、渗透率升尺度转换等处理,显著改善了电缆地层测试渗透率与 DST 渗透率评价精度。

  • 1 测压资料质量定量评价及流度计算

  • 1.1 古近系测压资料质量评价方法的改进

  • 测压资料质量一般包含有效点、致密点、干点、超压和坐封失败点等多种类型[8]。由于不同仪器对测压资料质量评价标准不同,导致现场对储层物性认识存在歧义。为了统一认识,重新对测压资料质量进行定量评价,通过敏感性分析,最终采用压力恢复三参数建立综合评价标准:①压力稳定性参数,即压力恢复最后 60 s压力数据的线性回归线斜率。②压力测量稳定性参数,即压力恢复最后 60 s 压力数据在线性回归线附近的离散度。③温度稳定性参数,即压力恢复最后 60 s温度数据的线性回归线斜率[9]。引入基于上述参数的测压质量评价分数,其表达式为:

  • QC=i1+i2+i3×1003
    (1)
  • 如果压力稳定性参数小于阈值,则 i 1=1,反之,i 1=0;如果压力测量稳定性参数小于阈值,则i 2=1,反之,i 2=0;如果温度稳定性参数小于阈值,则 i 3=1,反之,i 3=0。电缆地层测试测压资料质量评价分数越高,代表测压资料质量越好,流度测量结果更可靠。剔除低质量评价分数(QC ≤33)流度资料点后,能有效提升流度与岩心渗透率的相关关系。

  • 考虑到研究区不同储层类型物性差异较大,采用同一质量评价参数阈值会造成测压资料质量的误判。统计研究区古近系储层物性数据,岩心渗透率为 1 mD左右,资料点流度主要为 1 mD/(mPa·s)。选取研究区 163 个有效测压点数据,按储层类型分别确定这3个质量评价参数的阈值,结果参见表1。

  • 表1 测压数据质量评价参数阈值

  • Table1 Thresholds of quality evaluation parameters of pressure data

  • 1.2 测压资料流度归一化处理

  • 研究靶区电缆地层测试仪器主要有斯伦贝谢的 MDT 和贝克休斯的 RCI 等。不同仪器流度计算方法不同,造成测压流度存在较大差异,对渗透率计算造成显著影响[10]。流度计算方法主要包括 2 种:①压降稳态法是基于球形渗流方程稳定解的方法[11]。②面积积分法是一种改进的压降稳态法[12]

  • 西江-24 井主要目的层为古近系文昌组砂岩,埋藏较深,为 4 043.5~4 481.8 m,岩性主要为细砂岩及中砂岩,孔隙度为 10%~15%,渗透率为 0.5~47.3 mD,相近孔隙度对应的渗透率差异较大,储层非均质性较强,现场物性识别主要依赖地层压力测试[13-14]。该井在目的层分别进行了RCI测压作业和 MDT测压作业,RCI测压点流度由压降稳态法得出, MDT 测压点流度由面积积分法得出。从图1a 中可以看出,RCI流度和 MDT流度在相同埋深下分布不一致,且 RCI 流度普遍比 MDT 流度大一个数量级。在实际测试过程中,低渗透储层的流动压力不稳定,压降稳态法计算的流度结果存在不确定性,而面积积分法可以通过数学方法对未出现稳态流的压力进行校正,计算得到更准确的流度[15]

  • 基于上述认识,统一采用面积积分法处理西江-24井的 MDT和 RCI的测压资料,从图1b可以看出,RCI 流度和 MDT 流度在相同埋深下分布较一致,消除了不同仪器流度计算方法对流度结果的影响。

  • 图1 西江-24井流度计算方法改进前后流度分布对比

  • Fig.1 Comparison of mobility distribution before and after improvement of mobility calculation method in Well Xijiang-24

  • 2 储层污染识别

  • 2.1 岩心条件下储层污染评价

  • 测量岩心渗透率前,需对岩心样品进行适当的洗油洗盐等操作,实验测量的岩心渗透率就基本等于不受地层污染影响的绝对渗透率,而流度反映的是冲洗带的水相渗透率,两者之间存在相态差异[16]。相比绝对渗透率,水相渗透率不仅反映了岩心本身的属性,而且反映了水在岩石中的分布以及他们之间的相互作用[17]。通过区域资料确定储层泥浆滤液的黏度、水相渗透率与绝对渗透率的转换关系后,将流度转换为绝对渗透率,即测压渗透率,从而消除流度与岩心渗透率的相态差异。

  • 统计研究区测压点对应的岩心实验数据,建立测压渗透率与岩心渗透率的关系(图2),同一深度测压渗透率和对应的岩心渗透率相差数倍甚至百倍,原因在于储层污染[18-20]。受泥浆滤液污染的影响,流度测量值变小,从而计算的测压渗透率会明显偏小,导致测压渗透率与对应的岩心渗透率存在较大差异。为此,结合岩心、测压与测试资料开展近井带储层污染评价研究,建立流度校正模型,提高测压资料评价储层精度。

  • 图2 测压渗透率与岩心渗透率的关系

  • Fig.2 Relationship between pressure measurement permeability and core permeability

  • 储层没有受到污染时,岩心渗透率与对应的测压渗透率相等,岩心渗透率与测压渗透率比值即为 1;当岩心渗透率与测压渗透率比越大,表明流度测量值受污染影响较大,即岩心渗透率与测压渗透率比越大表明储层污染越严重。据此可以定量评价储层受污染的程度,定义岩心渗透率与测压渗透率比为表征储层污染的污染指数,其表达式为:

  • I=Kcore KM
    (2)
  • 依据污染指数计算结果,对储层污染程度进行定量划分:当污染指数小于 2 时,定义为轻度污染; 当污染指数为2~7时,定义为中度污染;当污染指数大于 7 时,定义为重度污染。统计出不同污染程度的岩心渗透率与测压渗透率的关系,建立测压渗透率校正到岩心渗透率的污染校正公式(图3)。重度污染、中度污染、轻度污染的校正计算式分别为:

  • KJ=20.849KM0.9569
    (3)
  • KJ=3.8248KM0.9872
    (4)
  • KJ=1.055KM1.0525
    (5)
  • 图3 储层污染划分及校正

  • Fig.3 Reservoir pollution partition and correction

  • 2.2 无岩心条件下储层污染识别

  • 针对在无岩心条件下,测压流度测量值受储层污染影响而校正难的问题,采用贝叶斯判别法识别储层污染程度。由于泥浆污染会导致近井带地层压力变化,压力预测试反映近井带地层,所以测压时的压力变化会携带泥浆污染信息,可用泥浆压力、地层压力、预测试体积等测压参数来评价储层污染程度[21-22]

  • 贝叶斯判别法认为空间中有G个互相独立的总体,均服从多元正态分布,且协方差相同。利用已经确定的变量数据,考虑先验概率,建立每个总体的判别函数,计算待判别样本属于每个总体的条件概率,条件概率最大的总体即为该样本所属的类别[23]。基于储层污染程度,通过贝叶斯判别法,由泥浆压力、地层压力、预测试体积等测压参数建立了储层污染程度的贝叶斯判别函数。基于岩心条件下测压点的储层污染划分数据,储层污染判别结果(表2)显示,贝叶斯判别函数对 84.8% 的分组验证分类数据进行了正确判别,对 82.9% 的交叉验证分类数据进行了正确判别,表明建立的贝叶斯判别函数较准确。重度污染、中度污染、轻度污染的贝叶斯判别函数表达式分别为:

  • Y1=0.053a+37.100b-0.113c+0.333d+25.740e-891.114
    (6)
  • Y2=0.057a+32.060b-0.103c+0.317d+27.588e-844.992
    (7)
  • Y3=0.025a+33.898b-0.115c+0.322d+26.148e-804.245
    (8)
  • 表2 储层污染判别结果

  • Table2 Judgment results of reservoir pollution

  • 注:交叉验证是每个样本都由该类样本以外的所有样本派生的判别函数进行分类识别的一种方法;总符合率是对所有样本进行分组验证或者交叉验证后的数据统计结果。

  • 实际运用中,通过测压资料得到测压参数,将测压参数代入贝叶斯判别函数中,可得到每一种污染程度的判别函数值,判别函数值最大者所归属类即为测压处的储层污染程度,然后采用相应的校正公式对测压渗透率进行校正,获得测压校正渗透率。

  • 3 渗透率升尺度转换

  • 不同来源的渗透率在表征尺度、相态方面存在差异,在数值上有所不同。岩心渗透率和测井计算的渗透率均反映的是绝对渗透率,只能反映冲洗带地层的渗透性;DST 测试得到的渗透率为油相渗透率,能反映数百米内原状地层的渗透性[24-25]。因此,需对电缆地层测试资料获得的渗透率进行渗透率升尺度转换研究[26-28]。具体步骤包括:①在 DST 测试层段内,利用测压校正渗透率、岩心渗透率对测井渗透率进行刻度,此时测井渗透率为小尺度的绝对渗透率;再根据岩心分析得到的绝对渗透率与最大油相渗透率的转换关系,将测井渗透率转换为测井最大油相渗透率,完成测井渗透率的相态转换。 ②剔除 DST 层段中非储层段对渗透率跨尺度转换的影响,对测井最大油相渗透率进行厚度加权平均,得到测井最大油相渗透率均值。③建立最大油相渗透率均值与实测 DST测试渗透率的转换关系,得到升尺度渗透率。由岩心渗透率与最大油相渗透率的关系(图4)可知,两者相关性较好,其转换模型为:

  • Ko=0.3361Kcore 1.1161
    (9)
  • 图4 岩心渗透率与最大油相渗透率关系

  • Fig.4 Relationship between core permeability and maximum oil-phase permeability

  • 由最大油相渗透率均值与 DST 测试渗透率的关系(图5)可以看出,两者呈较好的幂函数关系,其转换模型为:

  • KDST=1.7122Komean 0.9648
    (10)
  • 4 应用效果

  • 根据建立的测压资料质量评价方法和流度校正方法,对陆丰-14 井电缆地层测试数据进行了质量评价与流度校正(图6)。从图6可以看出,流度与经岩心渗透率标定的测井渗透率差距较大,在经过流度污染程度判别和污染校正后,测压校正渗透率与经岩心渗透率标定的测井渗透率较吻合。另外,测压点测压资料质量较差时,其流度受储层污染程度的影响也偏大。

  • 图5 最大油相渗透率均值与DST测试渗透率关系

  • Fig.5 Relationship between maximum oil-phase permeability and DST permeability

  • 基于渗透率升尺度转换研究,利用污染校正后的测压渗透率,对已进行 DST 测试的 4 口井进行升尺度渗透率计算,由表3可以看出,升尺度渗透率较测井渗透率均值更接近 DST测试渗透率,相对误差在30%以内,达到行业精度要求。

  • 图6 陆丰-14井测压资料处理成果

  • Fig.6 Results of pressure data processing of Well Lufeng-14

  • 表3 升尺度渗透率计算结果

  • Table3 Calculation results of upscaling permeability

  • 5 结论

  • 通过对南海东部古近系 40 余口井的实际测压资料处理和系统分析研究认为:①对测压资料再处理,采用压力恢复三参数建立了测压评价质量分数,改进了测压资料的质量评价方法;分析不同仪器测压流度存在的差异,通过统一采用面积积分法计算流度消除了差异。②依据岩心资料划分了储层污染程度,建立了污染校正公式,无岩心条件下,通过测压参数利用贝叶斯判别法进行流度污染识别与校正,测压渗透率经校正后与经岩心渗透率标定的测井渗透率吻合程度显著提高。③利用电缆地层测试获得的测压校正渗透率和岩心相渗资料,以测井连续渗透率为桥梁,建立渗透率升尺度转换模型,获得的升尺度渗透率能代表储层较大范围内的渗流能力,与 DST 测试渗透率更接近,相对误差在30%以内。

  • 符号解释

  • a ——流度,mD/(mPa·s);

  • A40H ——高频衰减深探测电阻率,Ω•m;

  • b ——预测试泵速,cm3 /s;

  • c ——泥浆压力,kPa;

  • CAL ——井径,in;

  • CNCF ——补偿中子,cm3 /cm3

  • d ——地层压力,kPa;

  • DT ——声波时差,μs/ft;

  • e ——预测试体积,cm3

  • G ——互相独立的样本数,个;

  • GR ——自然伽马,API;

  • i 1i 2i 3——测压资料质量评价的判定值;

  • I ——污染指数;

  • KINT ——测井渗透率,mD;

  • K core——岩心渗透率,mD;

  • K M——测压渗透率,mD;

  • K J——测压校正渗透率,mD;

  • K o——最大油相渗透率,mD;

  • K DST——DST测试渗透率,mD;

  • K omean——最大油相渗透率均值,mD;

  • P16H ——高频相移浅探测电阻率,Ω•m;

  • P28H ——高频相移中探测电阻率,Ω•m;

  • P40H ——高频相移深探测电阻率,Ω•m;

  • PE ——光电吸收截面指数,B/e;

  • QC ——电缆地层测试测压质量评价分数;

  • Y 1Y 2Y 3——重度污染、中度污染和轻度污染的贝叶斯判别函数;

  • ZDEN ——地层密度,g/cm3

  • 参考文献

    • [1] 徐锦绣,吕洪志,崔云江.渤海地区电缆地层测试应用效果分析[J].中国海上油气,2008,20(2):106-110.XU Jinxiu,LÜ Hongzhi,CUI Yunjiang.An application analysis of wireline formation test in Bohai region[J].China Offshore Oil and Gas,2008,20(2):106-110.

    • [2] 冯永仁,左有祥,王健,等.地层测试技术及其应用的进展与挑战[J].测井技术,2019,43(3):217-227.FENG Yongren,ZUO Youxiang,WANG Jian,et al.Advances and challenges in formation test and practical application[J].Well Logging Technology,2019,43(3):217-227.

    • [3] 马建国,任国富,郭辽原,等.用新式地层取样测试器测试纯油气层产能[J].测井技术,2005,29(2):148-152.MA Jianguo,REN Guofu,GUO Liaoyuan,et al.Oil-gas layer de⁃ liverability test by new formation sampling tester[J].Well Log⁃ ging Technology,2005,29(2):148-152.

    • [4] 蔡军,孙建孟,刘坤.电缆地层测试资料在储层污染评价中的应用研究[J].测井技术,2015,39(2):236-241.CAI Jun,SUN Jianmeng,LIU Kun.Application of wireline forma⁃ tion test data to the evaluation of reservoir contamination[J].Well Logging Technology,2015,39(2):236-241.

    • [5] 鹿克峰,简洁,朱文娟,等.利用MDT压降流度求取低渗气藏气相渗透率的方法[J].中国海上油气,2015,27(6):53-56.LU Kefeng,JIAN Jie,ZHU Wenjuan,et al.Calculating gas phase permeability with drawdown fluidity tested by MDT for low perme⁃ ability gas reservoir[J].China Offshore Oil and Gas,2015,27(6):53-56.

    • [6] 杨冬,张海荣,吴一雄,等.电缆地层测试资料在低渗气藏产能预测中的应用[J].中国海上油气,2018,30(6):109-114.YANG Dong,ZHANG Hairong,WU Yixiong,et al.Application of cable formation test data in productivity prediction of low permea⁃ bility gas reservoirs[J].China Offshore Oil and Gas,2018,30(6):109-114.

    • [7] 高永德,孙殿强,杨冬,等.基于电缆地层测试资料储层有效渗透率计算方法研究[J].地质科技情报,2019,38(2):137-142.GAO Yongde,SUN Dianqiang,YANG Dong,et al.Computing methods for reservoir effective permeability based on wireline for⁃ mation test data[J].Geological Science and Technology Informa⁃ tion,2019,38(2):137-142.

    • [8] SCHLUMBERGER Limited.Fundamentals of formation testing [M].Sugar Land:Schlumberger Marketing Communications,2006.

    • [9] PROETT Mark,MUSHARFI Nedhal,MANTILLA Andrés,et al.Objectively quantifying wireline and LWD pressure test quality [J].Petrophysics,2015,56(2):101-115.

    • [10] 张聪慧,刘树巩,李义.利用电缆地层测试资料进行低渗储层流度计算和产能预测[J].中国海上油气,2013,25(1):43-45.ZHANG Conghui,LIU Shugong,LI Yi.A discussion on methods to determine reservoir mobility and productivity by using wireline formation test data[J].China Offshore Oil and Gas,2013,25(1):43-45.

    • [11] STEWART George,WITTMANN Manfred.Interpretation of the pressure response of the repeat formation tester[R].Las Vegas:SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,1979.

    • [12] DUSSAN V.A robust method for calculating formation mobility with a formation tester[J].SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineer⁃ ing,2011,14(2):239-247.

    • [13] 吕正祥,文艺,赵福,等.珠一坳陷陆丰地区文昌组成岩作用特征及孔隙发育成因[J].特种油气藏,2019,26(3):18-23.LÜ Zhengxiang,WEN Yi,ZHAO Fu,et al.Diagenesis and pore genesis of Wenchang formation in Lufeng of Zhuyi Depression[J].Special Oil & Gas Reservoirs,2019,26(3):18-23.

    • [14] 韩国猛,吴雪松,崔宇,等.渤海湾盆地黄骅坳陷二叠系致密砂岩储层特征、主控因素及发育模式[J].中国石油勘探,2019,24(4):509-519.HAN Guomeng,WU Xuesong,CUI Yu,et al.Characteristics,con⁃ trol factors and development models of Permian tight sandstone reservoirs in Huanghua depression,Bohai Bay Basin[J].China Pe⁃ troleum Exploration,2019,24(4):509-519.

    • [15] 张国栋,陈忠云,张志强.低渗透率储层流度计算改进方法探讨[J].测井技术,2016,40(1):40-45.ZHANG Guodong,CHEN Zhongyun,ZHANG Zhiqiang.Mobility calculation and correction methods of formation tester in low-per⁃ meability sands[J].Well Logging Technology,2016,40(1):40-45.

    • [16] 石磊,冯进,管耀.水基泥浆污染下流度转渗透率的校正方法 [J].油气井测试,2021,30(1):9-15.SHI Lei,FENG Jin,GUANG Yao.A correction method of trans⁃ forming mobility polluted by water-based mud to permeability[J].Well Testing,2021,30(1):9-15.

    • [17] 郑文宽,刘月田,刘逸盛,等.微裂缝各向异性相对渗透率实验 [J].断块油气田,2019,26(3):364-366.ZHENG Wenkuan,LIU Yuetian,LIU Yisheng,et al.Anisotropy experiment of microfracture relative permeability[J].Fault-Block Oil and Gas Field,2019,26(3):364-366.

    • [18] 匡立春.电缆地层测试资料应用导论[M].北京:石油工业出版社,2005.KUANG Lichun.An introduction to application of the wireline for⁃ mation data[M].Beijing:Petroleum Industry Press,2005.

    • [19] 冯强汉,邓宝康,杨映洲,等.致密砂岩凝析气藏反凝析伤害评价及解除方法[J].大庆石油地质与开发,2020,39(2):139-146.FENG Qianghan,DENG Baokang,YANG Yingzhou,et al.Evalua⁃ tions and removing methods of the retrograde condensate damage for the gas condensate reservoirs in the tight sandstone[J].Petro⁃ leum Geology & Oilfield Development in Daqing,2020,39(2):139-146.

    • [20] 杨洋.低孔低渗气藏高温高压储层损害因素分析[J].断块油气田,2019,26(5):622-625.YANG Yang.Damage factors of high temperature and high pres⁃ sure reservoirs in low porosity and low permeability formation[J].Fault-Block Oil and Gas Field,2019,26(5):622-625.

    • [21] 范翔宇,夏宏泉,陈平,等.钻井泥浆污染储层程度的测井评价方法研究[J].天然气工业,2005,25(10):76-78.FAN Xiangyu,XIA Hongquan,CHEN Ping,et al.Logging evalua⁃ tion mechanism of reservoir pollution level by drilling fluid[J].Natural Gas Industry,2005,25(10):76-78.

    • [22] 崔传智,杨经纬,吴忠维,等.高含水期五点法压裂井网的动态产能预测方法[J].油气地质与采收率,2019,26(3):78-84.CUI Chuanzhi,YANG Jingwei,WU Zhongwei,et al.Dynamic pro⁃ ductivity prediction method of five-spot fractured well pattern in high water cut stage[J].Petroleum Geology and Recovery Efficien⁃ cy,2019,26(3):78-84.

    • [23] 胡建鹏,陈强,黄容.逐步贝叶斯判别分析中的变量优化方法研究[J].计算机工程与应用,2014,50(21):63-67,138.HU Jianpeng,CHEN Qiang,HUANG Rong.Study on variable op⁃ timization method in stepwise Bayes discriminant analysis[J].Computer Engineering and Applications,2014,50(21):63-67,138.

    • [24] 王清辉,冯进,管耀,等.基于动态资料的低孔低渗砂岩储层渗透率测井评价方法——以陆丰凹陷古近系为例[J].石油学报,2019,40(S1):206-216.WANG Qinghui,FENG Jin,GUAN Yao,et al.Permeability log⁃ ging evaluation method of low-porosity low-permeability sand⁃ stone reservoirs based on dynamic data:a case study of Paleogene strata in Lufeng sag[J].Acta Petrolei Sinica,2019,40(S1):206-216.

    • [25] 梅丹,胡勇,王倩.裂缝对气藏储层渗透率及气井产能的贡献 [J].石油实验地质,2019,41(5):769-772.MEI Dan,HU Yong,WANG Qian.Experimental study on fracture contribution to gas reservoir permeability and well capacity[J].Petroleum Geology & Experiment,2019,41(5):769-772.

    • [26] 王克文,孙建孟,李文娟.升尺度在求解等价渗透率中的研究现状及发展趋势[J].油气地质与采收率,2007,14(2):84-88.WANG Kewen,SUN Jianmeng,LI Wenjuan.Present state and fu⁃ ture trend of upscaling on calculating equivalent permeability[J].Petroleum Geology and Recovery Efficiency,2007,14(2):84-88.

    • [27] 程大勇,李彦来,房娜,等.聚驱相对渗透率曲线变化规律实验研究[J].油气藏评价与开发,2019,9(2):56-59.CHENG Dayong,LI Yanlai,FANG Na,et al.Experimental study on variation law of relative permeability curves of polymer flooding [J].Reservoir Evaluation and Development,2019,9(2):56-59.

    • [28] 刘同敬,第五鹏祥,赵习森,等.致密油藏注气后储层渗流特征参数动态反演方法[J].油气地质与采收率,2020,27(1):93-100.LIU Tongjing,DIWU Pengxiang,ZHAO Xisen,et al.Dynamic in⁃ version method of percolation characteristic parameters after gas injection in tight reservoirs[J].Petroleum Geology and Recovery Efficiency,2020,27(1):93-100.

  • 参考文献

    • [1] 徐锦绣,吕洪志,崔云江.渤海地区电缆地层测试应用效果分析[J].中国海上油气,2008,20(2):106-110.XU Jinxiu,LÜ Hongzhi,CUI Yunjiang.An application analysis of wireline formation test in Bohai region[J].China Offshore Oil and Gas,2008,20(2):106-110.

    • [2] 冯永仁,左有祥,王健,等.地层测试技术及其应用的进展与挑战[J].测井技术,2019,43(3):217-227.FENG Yongren,ZUO Youxiang,WANG Jian,et al.Advances and challenges in formation test and practical application[J].Well Logging Technology,2019,43(3):217-227.

    • [3] 马建国,任国富,郭辽原,等.用新式地层取样测试器测试纯油气层产能[J].测井技术,2005,29(2):148-152.MA Jianguo,REN Guofu,GUO Liaoyuan,et al.Oil-gas layer de⁃ liverability test by new formation sampling tester[J].Well Log⁃ ging Technology,2005,29(2):148-152.

    • [4] 蔡军,孙建孟,刘坤.电缆地层测试资料在储层污染评价中的应用研究[J].测井技术,2015,39(2):236-241.CAI Jun,SUN Jianmeng,LIU Kun.Application of wireline forma⁃ tion test data to the evaluation of reservoir contamination[J].Well Logging Technology,2015,39(2):236-241.

    • [5] 鹿克峰,简洁,朱文娟,等.利用MDT压降流度求取低渗气藏气相渗透率的方法[J].中国海上油气,2015,27(6):53-56.LU Kefeng,JIAN Jie,ZHU Wenjuan,et al.Calculating gas phase permeability with drawdown fluidity tested by MDT for low perme⁃ ability gas reservoir[J].China Offshore Oil and Gas,2015,27(6):53-56.

    • [6] 杨冬,张海荣,吴一雄,等.电缆地层测试资料在低渗气藏产能预测中的应用[J].中国海上油气,2018,30(6):109-114.YANG Dong,ZHANG Hairong,WU Yixiong,et al.Application of cable formation test data in productivity prediction of low permea⁃ bility gas reservoirs[J].China Offshore Oil and Gas,2018,30(6):109-114.

    • [7] 高永德,孙殿强,杨冬,等.基于电缆地层测试资料储层有效渗透率计算方法研究[J].地质科技情报,2019,38(2):137-142.GAO Yongde,SUN Dianqiang,YANG Dong,et al.Computing methods for reservoir effective permeability based on wireline for⁃ mation test data[J].Geological Science and Technology Informa⁃ tion,2019,38(2):137-142.

    • [8] SCHLUMBERGER Limited.Fundamentals of formation testing [M].Sugar Land:Schlumberger Marketing Communications,2006.

    • [9] PROETT Mark,MUSHARFI Nedhal,MANTILLA Andrés,et al.Objectively quantifying wireline and LWD pressure test quality [J].Petrophysics,2015,56(2):101-115.

    • [10] 张聪慧,刘树巩,李义.利用电缆地层测试资料进行低渗储层流度计算和产能预测[J].中国海上油气,2013,25(1):43-45.ZHANG Conghui,LIU Shugong,LI Yi.A discussion on methods to determine reservoir mobility and productivity by using wireline formation test data[J].China Offshore Oil and Gas,2013,25(1):43-45.

    • [11] STEWART George,WITTMANN Manfred.Interpretation of the pressure response of the repeat formation tester[R].Las Vegas:SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,1979.

    • [12] DUSSAN V.A robust method for calculating formation mobility with a formation tester[J].SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineer⁃ ing,2011,14(2):239-247.

    • [13] 吕正祥,文艺,赵福,等.珠一坳陷陆丰地区文昌组成岩作用特征及孔隙发育成因[J].特种油气藏,2019,26(3):18-23.LÜ Zhengxiang,WEN Yi,ZHAO Fu,et al.Diagenesis and pore genesis of Wenchang formation in Lufeng of Zhuyi Depression[J].Special Oil & Gas Reservoirs,2019,26(3):18-23.

    • [14] 韩国猛,吴雪松,崔宇,等.渤海湾盆地黄骅坳陷二叠系致密砂岩储层特征、主控因素及发育模式[J].中国石油勘探,2019,24(4):509-519.HAN Guomeng,WU Xuesong,CUI Yu,et al.Characteristics,con⁃ trol factors and development models of Permian tight sandstone reservoirs in Huanghua depression,Bohai Bay Basin[J].China Pe⁃ troleum Exploration,2019,24(4):509-519.

    • [15] 张国栋,陈忠云,张志强.低渗透率储层流度计算改进方法探讨[J].测井技术,2016,40(1):40-45.ZHANG Guodong,CHEN Zhongyun,ZHANG Zhiqiang.Mobility calculation and correction methods of formation tester in low-per⁃ meability sands[J].Well Logging Technology,2016,40(1):40-45.

    • [16] 石磊,冯进,管耀.水基泥浆污染下流度转渗透率的校正方法 [J].油气井测试,2021,30(1):9-15.SHI Lei,FENG Jin,GUANG Yao.A correction method of trans⁃ forming mobility polluted by water-based mud to permeability[J].Well Testing,2021,30(1):9-15.

    • [17] 郑文宽,刘月田,刘逸盛,等.微裂缝各向异性相对渗透率实验 [J].断块油气田,2019,26(3):364-366.ZHENG Wenkuan,LIU Yuetian,LIU Yisheng,et al.Anisotropy experiment of microfracture relative permeability[J].Fault-Block Oil and Gas Field,2019,26(3):364-366.

    • [18] 匡立春.电缆地层测试资料应用导论[M].北京:石油工业出版社,2005.KUANG Lichun.An introduction to application of the wireline for⁃ mation data[M].Beijing:Petroleum Industry Press,2005.

    • [19] 冯强汉,邓宝康,杨映洲,等.致密砂岩凝析气藏反凝析伤害评价及解除方法[J].大庆石油地质与开发,2020,39(2):139-146.FENG Qianghan,DENG Baokang,YANG Yingzhou,et al.Evalua⁃ tions and removing methods of the retrograde condensate damage for the gas condensate reservoirs in the tight sandstone[J].Petro⁃ leum Geology & Oilfield Development in Daqing,2020,39(2):139-146.

    • [20] 杨洋.低孔低渗气藏高温高压储层损害因素分析[J].断块油气田,2019,26(5):622-625.YANG Yang.Damage factors of high temperature and high pres⁃ sure reservoirs in low porosity and low permeability formation[J].Fault-Block Oil and Gas Field,2019,26(5):622-625.

    • [21] 范翔宇,夏宏泉,陈平,等.钻井泥浆污染储层程度的测井评价方法研究[J].天然气工业,2005,25(10):76-78.FAN Xiangyu,XIA Hongquan,CHEN Ping,et al.Logging evalua⁃ tion mechanism of reservoir pollution level by drilling fluid[J].Natural Gas Industry,2005,25(10):76-78.

    • [22] 崔传智,杨经纬,吴忠维,等.高含水期五点法压裂井网的动态产能预测方法[J].油气地质与采收率,2019,26(3):78-84.CUI Chuanzhi,YANG Jingwei,WU Zhongwei,et al.Dynamic pro⁃ ductivity prediction method of five-spot fractured well pattern in high water cut stage[J].Petroleum Geology and Recovery Efficien⁃ cy,2019,26(3):78-84.

    • [23] 胡建鹏,陈强,黄容.逐步贝叶斯判别分析中的变量优化方法研究[J].计算机工程与应用,2014,50(21):63-67,138.HU Jianpeng,CHEN Qiang,HUANG Rong.Study on variable op⁃ timization method in stepwise Bayes discriminant analysis[J].Computer Engineering and Applications,2014,50(21):63-67,138.

    • [24] 王清辉,冯进,管耀,等.基于动态资料的低孔低渗砂岩储层渗透率测井评价方法——以陆丰凹陷古近系为例[J].石油学报,2019,40(S1):206-216.WANG Qinghui,FENG Jin,GUAN Yao,et al.Permeability log⁃ ging evaluation method of low-porosity low-permeability sand⁃ stone reservoirs based on dynamic data:a case study of Paleogene strata in Lufeng sag[J].Acta Petrolei Sinica,2019,40(S1):206-216.

    • [25] 梅丹,胡勇,王倩.裂缝对气藏储层渗透率及气井产能的贡献 [J].石油实验地质,2019,41(5):769-772.MEI Dan,HU Yong,WANG Qian.Experimental study on fracture contribution to gas reservoir permeability and well capacity[J].Petroleum Geology & Experiment,2019,41(5):769-772.

    • [26] 王克文,孙建孟,李文娟.升尺度在求解等价渗透率中的研究现状及发展趋势[J].油气地质与采收率,2007,14(2):84-88.WANG Kewen,SUN Jianmeng,LI Wenjuan.Present state and fu⁃ ture trend of upscaling on calculating equivalent permeability[J].Petroleum Geology and Recovery Efficiency,2007,14(2):84-88.

    • [27] 程大勇,李彦来,房娜,等.聚驱相对渗透率曲线变化规律实验研究[J].油气藏评价与开发,2019,9(2):56-59.CHENG Dayong,LI Yanlai,FANG Na,et al.Experimental study on variation law of relative permeability curves of polymer flooding [J].Reservoir Evaluation and Development,2019,9(2):56-59.

    • [28] 刘同敬,第五鹏祥,赵习森,等.致密油藏注气后储层渗流特征参数动态反演方法[J].油气地质与采收率,2020,27(1):93-100.LIU Tongjing,DIWU Pengxiang,ZHAO Xisen,et al.Dynamic in⁃ version method of percolation characteristic parameters after gas injection in tight reservoirs[J].Petroleum Geology and Recovery Efficiency,2020,27(1):93-100.

  • ×
    《油气地质与采收率》
    《油气地质与采收率》入选北大《中文核心期刊要目总览》2020年版