储气库不同类型砂岩储层压敏特征及其影响因素

李猛; 郑得文; 邱小松; 刘满仓

doi:10.11781/sysydz202302385

储气库不同类型砂岩储层压敏特征及其影响因素

doi: 10.11781/sysydz202302385

李猛^{1, 2,},
郑得文^{1, 2},
邱小松^{1, 2},
刘满仓^{1, 2}

1.
中国石油勘探开发研究院地下储库研究中心, 北京 100086
2.
中国石油天然气集团有限公司油气地下储库工程重点实验室, 河北廊坊 065007

基金项目:

中国石油辽河石油勘探局有限公司项目“双6储气库提压运行实验基础研究” LHSY-CQK-2021-JS-9265

详细信息

作者简介:
李猛(1998-), 男, 硕士生, 从事地下储气库选址与评价研究。E-mail: 1242435016@qq.com

中图分类号: TE122.2
计量
- 文章访问数: 220
- HTML全文浏览量: 83
- PDF下载量: 39
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2022-10-09
- 修回日期: 2023-01-16
- 刊出日期: 2023-03-28

Stress sensitivity characteristics and influencing factors of different types of sandstone reservoirs in gas storage

LI Meng^{1, 2
,},
ZHENG Dewen^{1, 2},
QIU Xiaosong^{1, 2},
LIU Mancang^{1, 2}

1.
Underground Oil and Gas Storage Research Center of Research Instituteof Petroleum Exploration and Development, CNPC, Beijing 100086, China
2.
Key Laboratory of Underground Oil and Gas Storage Engineering, CNPC, Langfang, Hebei 065007, China

摘要

摘要: 储气库库容和产能受多种因素影响，孔隙度和渗透率是其中的主要因素。为了揭示储气库不同类型砂岩储层在储气库工况下孔隙度和渗透率变化特征，针对渤海湾盆地辽河坳陷S储气库5块不同类型砂岩样品，开展应力敏感对比实验研究。结果表明，该储气库储层孔隙度与渗透率随有效应力的增加而减小，进而影响储气库的库容与产能，可以用孔隙度和渗透率的损害率来表征储气库库容和产能的损害程度。首次提出了表征库容与产能的损害因子，可用于定量评价交变载荷工况下储气库的库容和产能。S储气库储层孔隙度和渗透率损害率随有效应力的增加呈线性增加，泥质粉砂岩储层孔隙度应力损害率最大，中砂岩储层孔隙度应力损害率最小。该储气库泥质粉砂岩储层渗透率损害率同样也最大，且自身渗透率过低，应急保供时这类储层贡献较小；中砂岩储层渗透率损害率最小，对调峰保供能力影响不大。通过研究，明确了应力对储气库库容的定量化损害程度。依据不同类型储层的损害率合理优化储气库运行工况，可实现储气库库容和产能最大化。
- 地下储气库 /
- 覆压 /
- 孔隙度 /
- 渗透率 /
- 应力敏感性
Abstract: The storage capacity and productivity of gas storage are affected by many factors, among which porosity and permeability are the main factors. To reveal the variation characteristics of porosity and permeability of different types of sandstone reservoirs in gas storage, five different types of sandstone samples were collected from the S gas storage in the Liaohe Depression, Bohai Bay Basin, and stress sensibility comparative experiments were carried out. The results show that the porosity and permeability decrease with the increase of effective stress, which affects the storage capacity and productivity of the gas storage. The porosity and permeability damage rate can be used to characterize the damage degree of the storage capacity and productivity. A damage factor characterizing storage capacity and productivity was proposed for the first time, which can be used to quantitatively evaluate storage capacity and productivity of gas storage under alternating load conditions. The porosity and permeability damage rate of the S gas storage increase linearly with the increase of effective stress. The porosity stress damage rate of the argillaceous siltstone reservoir is the largest, and the porosity stress damage rate of the medium-grained sandstone reservoir is the lowest. The argillaceous siltstone reservoir also has the largest permeability damage rate and its own permeability is too low, so it contributes less during emergency supply assurance. The medium-grained sandstone reservoir has the smallest permeability damage rate, and it has little influence on the capacity of peak regulating and supply assurance. Through this study, the quantified damage degree of stress to gas storage capacity was determined. According to the damage rate of different types of reservoirs, the storage capacity and productivity of gas storage can be maximized by optimizing the operation condition of gas storage reasonably.
- underground gas storage /
- overburden pressure /
- porosity /
- permeability /
- stress sensitivity

HTML全文

图 1 渤海湾盆地辽河油田S储气库砂岩储层样品孔隙度和有效应力的关系

Figure 1. Relationship between porosity and effective stress of sandstone reservoir samples in S gas storage in Liaohe Oilfield, Bohai Bay Basin

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 渤海湾盆地辽河油田S储气库砂岩储层样品渗透率和有效应力之间的关系

Figure 2. Relationship between permeability and effective stress of sandstone reservoir samples in S gas storage in Liaohe Oilfield, Bohai Bay Basin

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 渤海湾盆地辽河油田S储气库砂岩储层各样品孔隙度和渗透率应力损害率与有效应力的关系

Figure 3. Relationship between porosity and permeability stress damage rate and effective stress of sandstone reservoir samples in S gas storage in Liaohe Oilfield, Bohai Bay Basin

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4 渤海湾盆地辽河油田S储气库砂岩储层样品实验前和进行5个周期应力后CT对比

Figure 4. CT contrast of sandstone reservoir samples before experiment and after periodic stress, S gas storage in Liaohe Oilfield, Bohai Bay Basin

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 渤海湾盆地辽河油田S储气库砂岩储层样品基本信息

Table 1. Basic information of sandstone reservoir samples in S gas storage in Liaohe Oilfield, Bohai Bay Basin

样品编号	直径/cm	长度/cm	采样深度/m	岩性	初始孔隙度/%	初始渗透率/10^-3 μm²
10-29-1	2.46	5.10	2 476.0	粗砂岩	20.5	271
15-26-1	2.46	5.02	2 511.0	中砂岩	23.1	92.1
12-28-2	2.48	5.14	2 494.0	细砂岩	14.9	1.00
8-18-1	2.47	5.10	2 451.0	粉砂岩	18.8	0.254
11-31-2	2.47	4.00	2 486.0	泥质粉砂岩	16.5	0.038 3

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 渤海湾盆地辽河油田S储气库砂岩储层样品全岩定量分析

Table 2. Whole rock quantitative analysis of sandstone reservoir samples in S gas storage in Liaohe Oilfield, Bohai Bay Basin

样品编号	岩性	矿物含量/%
样品编号	岩性	黏土	石英	钾长石	斜长石	方解石	白云石	菱铁矿	黄铁矿
10-29-1	粗砂岩	16.5	32.5	14.1	30.7	0.5	2.0	3.7
15-26-1	中砂岩	13.9	32.0	9.4	31.8	0.9	3.0	6.1	2.9
12-28-2	细砂岩	14.5	30.2	15.1	25.8		14.4
8-18-1	粉砂岩	19.7	25.8	7.8	19.9	2.9	13.7	9.6	0.6
11-31-2	泥质粉砂岩	18.3	38.9	8.1	28.6	1.2	2.7	2.2

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 渤海湾盆地辽河油田S储气库储层样品22 MPa下孔隙压缩系数

Table 3. Pore compression coefficient of reservoir samples at 22 MPa, S gas storage in Liaohe Oilfield, Bohai Bay Basin

样品编号	岩性	平均孔隙度/%	孔隙压缩系数C_p/MPa^-1
10-29-1	粗砂岩	18.86	0.002 28
15-26-1	中砂岩	21.90	0.002 57
12-28-2	细砂岩	14.07	0.002 39
8-18-1	粉砂岩	17.30	0.006 00
11-31-2	泥质粉砂岩	15.10	0.005 68

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 渤海湾盆地辽河油田S储气库储层样品孔隙度和渗透率应力损害率

Table 4. Porosity and permeability stress damage rate of reservoir samples in S gas storage in Liaohe Oilfield, Bohai Bay Basin

样品编号	岩性	孔隙度/%			D_φ₂/%	D_φ₃/%	渗透率/10^-3μm²			D_K₂/%	D_K₃/%
样品编号	岩性	φ₁	φ₂	φ₃	D_φ₂/%	D_φ₃/%	K₁	K₂	K₃	D_K₂/%	D_K₃/%
10-29-1	粗砂岩	20.5	18.6	18.5	8.9	9.7	271	221	209	18.4	22.8
15-26-1	中砂岩	23.1	21.6	21.5	6.3	6.9	92.1	78.7	73.8	14.5	19.7
12-28-2	细砂岩	14.9	13.8	13.6	6.9	8.7	1.00	0.504	0.512	49.5	48.8
8-18-1	粉砂岩	18.7	16.7	16.6	10.5	11.2	0.254	0.069 5	0.068 1	72.6	73.1
11-31-2	泥质粉砂岩	16.5	14.5	14.2	12.1	13.9	0.038 3	0.003 80	0.003 72	89.9	90.2
注：φ₁是初始孔隙度，φ₂是44 MPa下的孔隙度，φ₃是47 MPa下的孔隙度；K₁是初始渗透率，K₂是44 MPa下的渗透率，K₃是47 MPa下的渗透率；D_φ₂是44 MPa下的孔隙度损害率，D_φ₃是47 MPa的孔隙度损害率；D_K₂是44 MPa下的渗透率损害率，D_K₃是47 MPa的渗透率损害率。

下载: 导出CSV

表 5 渤海湾盆地辽河油田S储气库各类型储层库容和产能损害因子

Table 5. S gas storage capacity and productivity damage factors of each type of reservoir

样品编号	岩性	孔隙度/%		库容损害因子D_s/%	渗透率/10^-3μm²		产能损害因子D_p/%
样品编号	岩性	φ_i⁰	φ_i	库容损害因子D_s/%	K_i⁰	K_i	产能损害因子D_p/%
10-29-1	粗砂岩	18.8	18.6	2.3	226	221	9.2
15-26-1	中砂岩	21.9	21.6		81.1	78.7
12-28-2	细砂岩	14.1	13.8		0.529	0.51
8-18-1	粉砂岩	17.3	16.7		0.084	0.069
11-31-2	泥质粉砂岩	15.1	14.5		0.005 1	0.003 8

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(16)

[1]	阳小平, 程林松, 何学良, 等. 地下储气库多周期运行注采气能力预测方法[J]. 天然气工业, 2013, 33(4): 96-99. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-TRQG201304020.htm YANG Xiaoping, CHENG Linsong, HE Xueliang, et al. A prediction method for multi-stage injection and recovery capacity of underground gas storage[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2013, 33(4): 96-99. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-TRQG201304020.htm
[2]	李相臣, 康毅力, 罗平亚. 煤层气储层变形机理及对渗流能力的影响研究[J]. 中国矿业, 2009, 18(3): 99-102. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-4051.2009.03.028 LI Xiangchen, KANG Yili, LUO Pingya. Rock deformation mechanisms and its influence on poecolation ability for CBM reservoirs[J]. China Mining Magazine, 2009, 18(3): 99-102. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-4051.2009.03.028
[3]	贾文瑞, 李福垲, 肖敬修. 低渗透油田开发部署中几个问题的研究[J]. 石油勘探与开发, 1995, 22(4): 47-51. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0747.1995.04.017 JIA Wenrui, LI Fukai, XIAO Jingxiu. A study on some issues of development disposition of a low permeability oil field[J]. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 1995, 22(4): 47-51. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0747.1995.04.017
[4]	卢家亭, 李闽. 低渗砂岩渗透率应力敏感性实验研究[J]. 天然气地球科学, 2007, 18(3): 339-341. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-1926.2007.03.004 LU Jiating, LI Min. Experimental research on permeability sensitivity of low-permeability sand rock[J]. Natural Gas Geoscience, 2007, 18(3): 339-341. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-1926.2007.03.004
[5]	伍向阳, 陈祖安, 孙德明, 等. 静水压力下砂岩孔隙度变化实验研究[J]. 地球物理学报, 1995, 38(S1): 275-280. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DQWX5S1.027.htm WU Xiangyang, CHEN Zu'an, SUN Deming, et al. An experimental study of changes of porosity of sandstones with pressure[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 1995, 38(S1): 275-280. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DQWX5S1.027.htm
[6]	游利军, 孟森, 康毅力, 等. 气藏型储气库储层损害机理与保护技术对策[J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2021, 11(3): 395-403. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-KTDQ202103015.htm YOU Lijun, MENG Sen, KANG Yili, et al. Formation damage mechanism and protection measures for gas field storage[J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2021, 11(3): 395-403. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-KTDQ202103015.htm
[7]	曹耐, 雷刚. 致密储集层加压-卸压过程应力敏感性[J]. 石油勘探与开发, 2019, 46(1): 132-138. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SKYK201901013.htm CAO Nai, LEI Gang. Stress sensitivity of tight reservoirs during pressure loading and unloading process[J]. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2019, 46(1): 132-138. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SKYK201901013.htm
[8]	张广权, 范照伟, 曾大乾, 等. 交变载荷下储气库储层与盖层损伤规律[J]. 断块油气田, 2021, 28(6): 769-774. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DKYT202106011.htm ZHANG Guangquan, FAN Zhaowei, ZENG Daqian, et al. Damage law of reservoir and cap rock of gas storage under alternating load[J]. Fault-Block Oil & Gas Field, 2021, 28(6): 769-774. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DKYT202106011.htm
[9]	李继强, 赵冠群, 戚志林, 等. 气藏型储气库多周期注采储集层应力敏感效应[J]. 石油勘探与开发, 2021, 48(4): 835-842. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SKYK202104018.htm LI Jiqiang, ZHAO Guanqun, QI Zhilin, et al. Stress sensitivity of formation during multi-cycle gas injection and production in an underground gas storage rebuilt from gas reservoirs[J]. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2021, 48(4): 835-842. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SKYK202104018.htm
[10]	孔茜, 王环玲, 徐卫亚. 循环加卸载作用下砂岩孔隙度与渗透率演化规律试验研究[J]. 岩土工程学报, 2015, 37(10): 1893-1900. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YTGC201510024.htm KONG Qian, WANG Huanling, XU Weiya. Experimental study on permeability and porosity evolution of sandstone under cyclic loading and unloading[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2015, 37(10): 1893-1900. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YTGC201510024.htm
[11]	中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. GB/T 29172-2012, 岩心分析方法[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2012. General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People's Republic of China, Standardization Administration of China. GB/T 29172-2012, Practices for core analysis[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2012.
[12]	国家能源局. SY/T 6385-2016, 覆压下岩石孔隙度和渗透率的测定方法[S]. 东营: 胜利石油管理局地质科学研究院, 1999. National Energy Administration. SY/T 6385-2016, Porosity and permeability measurement under overburden pressure[S]. Dongying: Institute of Geological Sciences, Shengli Petroleum Administration, 1999.
[13]	杨巍, 薛莲花, 唐俊, 等. 页岩孔隙度测量实验方法分析与评价[J]. 沉积学报, 2015, 33(6): 1258-1264. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-CJXB201506018.htm YANG Wei, XUE LianHua, TANG Jun, et al. Analysis and evaluation of different measuring methods for shale porosity[J]. Acta Sedimentologica Sinica, 2015, 33(6): 1258-1264. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-CJXB201506018.htm
[14]	钟高润, 张小莉, 杜江民, 等. 致密砂岩储层应力敏感性实验研究[J]. 地球物理学进展, 2016, 31(3): 1300-1306. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DQWJ201603050.htm ZHONG Gaorun, ZHANG Xiaoli, DU Jiangmin, et al. Experiment of the stress sensitivity of tight sandstone reservoirs[J]. Progress in Geophysics, 2016, 31(3): 1300-1306. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DQWJ201603050.htm
[15]	孟召平, 侯泉林. 煤储层应力敏感性及影响因素的试验分析[J]. 煤炭学报, 2012, 37(3): 430-437. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-MTXB201203014.htm MENG Zhaoping, HOU Quanlin. Experimental research on stress sensitivity of coal reservoir and its influencing factors[J]. Journal of China Coal Society, 2012, 37(3): 430-437. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-MTXB201203014.htm
[16]	陈术源, 秦勇, 申建, 等. 高阶煤渗透率温度应力敏感性试验研究[J]. 煤炭学报, 2014, 39(9): 1845-1851. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-MTXB201409011.htm CHEN Shuyuan, QIN Yong, SHEN Jian, et al. Temperature-stress sensitivity of high-rank coal permeability[J]. Journal of China Coal Society, 2014, 39(9): 1845-1851. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-MTXB201409011.htm