The reservoirs of Sulige Gas Field are low-permeability and tight,with complex pore structure and significant differences in physical and gas-bearing properties,and it is difficult to accurately classify reservoir types,which is not conducive to the effective implementation of subsequent reservoir stimulation. To study the impact of reservoir types on reservoir stimulation,nine geological parameters that affect gas-well deliverability were selected： effective thickness,porosity,permeability,reservoir quality factor,permeability coefficient of variation,gas-bearing saturation,maximum total hydrocarbon of gas logging,natural gamma,and hydrodynamic index. Using the K-means clustering analysis algorithm,the effective reservoirs were classified into three types. A normalization method was used to define the reservoir classification coefficients,forming a quantitative evaluation method of reservoir types suitable for this gas field. Taking a single set of sand bodies as the study object,the quantitative analysis was conducted from four aspects： the ratio of effective thickness to sand body total thickness,type,effective thickness,and planar distribution scale of gas zones. Fifteen reservoir combination categories were classified and corresponding fracturing reconstruction scales were proposed to form differential fracturing reconstruction schemes,providing quantitative basis for reservoir stimulation. By calculating to determine the reservoir types of gas zones from 149 drilled wells in three blocks in the middle part of the gas field in 2023,the average coincidence rate is 93.0% compared with the fracturing gas testing results. The reservoir classification coefficient of the gas zone has a good exponential relationship with the open flow potential,which can be used to predict the gas zone productivity.
Key words
Sulige Gas Field /
tight gas reservoir /
reservoir classification /
differential reconstruction /
productivity /
fracturing /
cluster analysis
{{custom_keyword}} /
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
[1] 冀光,贾爱林,孟德伟,等.大型致密砂岩气田有效开发与提高采收率技术对策:以鄂尔多斯盆地苏里格气田为例[J].石油勘探与开发,2019,46(3):602-612.
JI Guang,JIA Ailin,MENG Dewei,et al. Technical strategies for effective development and gas recovery enhancement of a large tight gas field: A case study of Sulige Gas Field,Ordos Basin,NW China[J]. Petroleum Exploration and Development,2019,46(3):602-612.
[2] 孙永亮,陈琦,张泽,等.苏里格气田苏X 区块剩余气分布及井网加密方案研究[J].录井工程,2022,33(4)：140-144.
SUN Yongliang,CHEN Qi,ZHANG Ze,et al. Study on remaining gas distribution and well pattern thickening scheme of Su X block of Sulige Gas Field[J]. Mud Logging Engineering,2022,33(4)：140-144.
[3] 郝丽萍,刘俊东,赵然,等.苏里格气田测录井参数结合储集层有效性评价方法[J]. 录井工程,2019,30(2):50-55.
HAO Liping,LIU Jundong,ZHAO Ran,et al. Method for evaluating reservoir effectiveness by combination of well logging and mud logging parameters in Sulige Gas Field[J]. Mud Logging Engineering,2019,30(2):50-55.
[4] 赵全国,孙皓,邱丙静,等.苏里格气田气井分层产能贡献灰度评价[J].录井工程,2022,33(3):126-131.
ZHAO Quanguo,SUN Hao,QIU Bingjing,et al. Gray relation evaluation of layered productivity contribution of gas wells in Sulige Gas Field[J]. Mud Logging Engineering,2022,33(3):126-131.
[5] 刘金库,孙永亮,谢金梅.苏里格气田25区块盒8段基于水动力能量的沉积微相展布[J].新疆石油地质,2016,37(1):24-28.
LIU Jinku,SUN Yongliang,XIE Jinmei. Hydrodynamic energy-based sedimentary microfacies distribution of He-8 Member of Lower Shihezi Formation in Block-25,Sulige Gas Field[J]. Xinjiang Petroleum Geology,2016,37(1):24-28.
[6] 代金友,谢建慧,李子龙,等.苏里格气田东区储层分类评价[J].石油地质与工程,2017,31(2):57-60.
DAI Jinyou,XIE Jianhui,LI Zilong,et al. Reservoir classification and evaluation of He 8 and Shan 1 Members in the east of Sulige Gas Field[J]. Petroleum Geology & Engineering,2017,31(2):57-60.
[7] 张程恩,潘保芝,刘倩茹,等.储层品质因子RQI结合聚类算法进行储层分类评价研究[J]. 国外测井技术, 2012(4):11-13.
ZHANG Cheng′en,PAN Baozhi,LIU Qianru,et al. Reservoir classification evaluation research with combination of reservoir quality factor RQI and clustering algorithm[J].World Well Logging Technology,2012(4):11-13.
{{custom_fnGroup.title_en}}
Footnotes
{{custom_fn.content}}
PDF(1713 KB)
({{custom_author.role_en}}), {{javascript:window.custom_author_en_index++;}}
