首页> 外文会议>2006 SPE International Oil amp; Gas Conference and Exhibition in China >Interpretation of Water Injection/Falloff Test—Comparison Between Numerical and Levitan's Analytical Model
【24h】

Interpretation of Water Injection/Falloff Test—Comparison Between Numerical and Levitan's Analytical Model

机译:注水/降尘试验的解释—数值与Levitan分析模型的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Water injection /fall off tests are normally associated withrnwater flood project. Recently, interested in this type of wellrntests has developed in the area of reservoir appraisal. In thernvast majority of situations associated with explorationrnactivities, there is no infrastructure and equipment in place torncollect and export the hydrocarbon produced during well test.rnThe common practice used in the industry is to burn thernproduced fluid.rnThe demands to reduce emission during well tests putrnenormous pressure to avoid these tests together. This bringsrnlarge uncertainties to the reservior appraisal and increases therninvestment risk if a decision is made to sanction a project andrnto develop the field.Replacing a production/build up testrnsequence by an injection/fall off test sequence solves thernproblem of emission.rnLevitan [1] stated that three main problems due to using waterrninjection / fall off test might happen which are listed below:rnThe first problem is that the character of the system changesrnand Instead of single-phase flow we face now with two-phasernwater-oil flow by their own relative permeabilities. Thernsecond problem is injection of cold water includes temperaturernchanges in the formation and brings additional complication tornpressure behaviour through temperature effects on the oil andrnwater viscosities and the third one is injection of water mayrnresult in the formation fracturing and in coupling of rockrnmechanics and fluid flow problems. It is therefore, importantrnfor successful test interpretation to avoid fracturing and torninject water at below the formation fracturing pressure.rnThis paper is divided into two parts. In the first part we arerngoing to compare Numerical and Levitan's Analytical modelrnfor different injection and fall off periods using numerical partrnof Saphir well test software.In the second part as far as we have validated SaphirrnNumerical model compared with W-O Levitan Analyticalrnmodel, now this model is used to generate pressure responsesrnin order to investigate the influence of reservoir parameters.rnMethods of interpretation will be used and some specificrnadvantages of the numerical model will be shown.
机译:注水/降水测试通常与洪水工程有关。最近,在储层评价领域中对这种类型的试井技术产生了兴趣。在与勘探活动有关的大多数情况下,没有适当的基础设施和设备来收集和输出试井过程中产生的碳氢化合物。业内常用的做法是燃烧所产生的流体.rn在试井过程中减少排放的要求是巨大的压力避免一起进行这些测试。如果决定批准一个项目并开发该油田,这给储层评估带来了很大的不确定性,并增加了投资风险。通过注入/落下测试序列代替生产/建立测试序列可以解决排放问题。rnLevitan[1]指出。由于使用喷水/掉落测试可能会发生三个主要问题,如下所示:第一个问题是系统的特性发生了变化,我们现在面对的不是单相流,而是两相水油流,它们各自是相对的。磁导率第二个问题是注入冷水包括地层中的温度变化,并通过温度对油和水的粘度的影响而带来额外的复杂的撕裂行为,第三个问题是注入水可能导致地层破裂以及岩石力学和流体流动的耦合。因此,对于成功的测试解释,避免压裂和在低于地层压裂压力的情况下注水是至关重要的。本文分为两部分。在第一部分中,我们正在使用数值部分的Saphir试井软件比较不同注入和下降周期的数值模型和Levitan的分析模型。在第二部分中,我们已经将SaphirrnNumerical模型与WO Levitan Analyticalrn模型进行了比较,目前已使用该模型。为了研究储层参数的影响,本文采用了解释方法,并给出了数值模型的一些具体优点。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号