بهینه‌‌سازی زاویه‌‌بندی در الگوی مشبک‌‌کاری مارپیچی منفرد در مخازن هیدروکربنی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشکده مهندسی معدن، نفت و ژئوفیزیک، دانشگاه صنعتی شاهرود، ایران

2 اداره مهندسی زمین‌‌شناسی، شرکت ملی مناطق نفت‌‌خیز جنوب، ایران

چکیده

جداره‌‌گذاری و مشبک‌‌کاری آن، به‌‌دلیل ایمنی اجرا و مقرون‌‌به‌‌صرفه بودن یکی از بهترین روش‌‌های تکمیل چاه در مخازن محتمل به ماسه‌‌زایی به‌‌شمار می‌‌آید. در طراحی آرایش مشبک‌‌کاری تعداد شلیک در هر فوت به‌‌طور معمول با حجم تولید هیدروکربن مورد نیاز تعیین می‌‌شود. در‌‌ نتیجه بهینه‌‌سازی زاویه‌‌بندی (Phasing) برای پیش‌گیری‌‌ از هم‌‌پوشانی نواحی آسیب‌‌دیده اطراف حفره‌‌های مجاور و کاهش برهم‌‌کنش آن‌‌ها یکی از اصلی‌‌ترین پارامترهای طراحی است. با توجه به عدم محدودیت و سادگی ایجاد الگوی مشبک‌‌کاری مارپیچی یکنواخت منفرد (Single Helical Pattern) نسبت‌‌به الگوهای دیگر، در این مطالعه با تمرکز بر کمترین فاصله بین حفره‌‌های مجاور (Perforation-to-Perforation Spacing) حاصل از زاویه‌‌بندی‌‌های مختلف در این الگو و کدنویسی روابط در محیط پایتون به‌روش جستجوی فراگیر (Brute-Force Search Approach)، به بررسی بهترین زاویه‌‌بندی‌‌ها برای تعداد 6، 9 و 12 شلیک در هر فوت در سه قطر چاه مرسوم پرداخته شده است. در نظر گرفتن بیش از سه دور حفره مشبک‌‌کاری (Wrap) متوالی در تعیین زاویه‌‌بندی بهینه و همچنین تأثیر توامان پایداری حفره‌‌های مشبک‌‌کاری و توزیع یکنواخت جریان در اطراف چاه در کاهش احتمال ماسه‌‌زایی، از نوآوری‌‌های این مطالعه به‌‌حساب می‌‌آیند. توزیع یکنواخت حفره‌‌های مشبک‌‌کاری با تعریف پارامتری به نام امتیاز تشابه متساوی‌‌الاضلاع (Equilateral Likeness Score) صورت گرفته است به‌‌طوری‌که کمترین مقدار آن بیان‌‌گر یکنواخت‌‌ترین حالت توزیع حفره‌‌های مجاور است. زاویه‌‌بندی‌‌های بهینه با الهام از دو دیدگاه مختلف؛ بیشترین اندازه مقدار فاصله‌‌بندی (Spacing) بین حفره‌‌ها و بیشترین اندازه مقدار زاویه‌‌بندی ممکن تعیین شده‌‌اند. مقایسه نتایج حاصل از تئوری ارائه‌‌شده و تئوری‌‌های پیشین نشان از امکان تفاوت زیاد اندازه مقدار زاویه‌‌بندی‌‌های تعیین‌‌شده در برخی از تراکم‌‌های شلیک دارد. اندازه زاویه‌‌بندی‌‌های بهینه برای تراکم‌‌های شلیک پیش‌‌گفته، در چاه با قطر in 8/41‌‌، به‌‌ترتیب، 127، 130 و 97o، در چاه با قطر in 8/61‌‌، به‌‌ترتیب، 130، 97 و 143o و در چاه با قطر in 2/81‌‌، به‌‌ترتیب، 97، 143 و 77o برآورد شده‌‌اند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Phasing Optimization in the Single Helical Perforation Pattern in Hydrocarbon Reservoirs

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ali Sheikholeslam 1
  • Seyedmohammad Esmaiel Jalali 1
  • Ahmad Ramezanzadeh 1
  • Hasan Shojaei 2
1 Faculty of Mining, Petroleum & Geophysics Engineering, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, Semnan, Iran
2 Department of Geological Engineering, National Iranian South Oilfields Company, Ahvaz, Khuzestan, Iran
چکیده [English]

The Cased, Cemented, and Perforated (CCP) completion method is considered one of the superior well completion methods in sand-prone reservoirs due to its execution safety and cost-effectiveness compared to alternative techniques. In the design of perforation configurations, the number of shots aligns with the requisite hydrocarbon production volume. Consequently, the optimization of the phase angle (phasing) emerges as a critical design parameter, typically deployed to forestall overlap within the impacted zones surrounding neighboring perforations and curtail their interaction. In light of the absence of constraints and the ease of establishing a single helical perforation pattern compared to alternatives, this study is dedicated to exploring the optimal phase angles within this pattern using a pythonic brute-force search approach. Moreover, emphasis is placed on achieving the minimum spacing between adjacent perforations, and the analysis is geared towards identifying the most optimal phase angles for 6, 9, and 12 shots per foot across three common wellbore diameters. Innovations of this study include the consideration of more than three consecutive wraps of perforations in determining the optimal phasing, as well as the simultaneous impact of perforation stability and uniform flow distribution around the wellbore in reducing the likelihood of sand production. The uniform distribution of perforations has been achieved by introducing a parameter known as the Equilateral Likeness Score (ELS), where its minimum value signifies the most uniform arrangement of adjacent perforations. The optimal phasing angles are determined by drawing inspiration from two distinct perspectives: maximizing the spacing between adjacent perforations and achieving the highest possible phasing values. A comparative analysis of the outcomes derived from the presented theory and existing ones underscores the potential for significant variations in the determined phasing values for certain shot densities. Ultimately, the optimal phase angles for the aforementioned shot densities are projected as 127, 130, and 97 degrees for a 41/8-inch wellbore, 130, 97, and 143 degrees for a 61/8-inch wellbore, and 97, 143, and 77 degrees for an 81/2-inch wellbore.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Weak Sandstone
  • Sand Production
  • Perforation
  • Single Helical Pattern
  • Phasing Optimization

مراجع


[1]. Sheikholeslam, A., Jalali, S.E., Ramezanzadeh, A., & Shojaei, H. (2023). Analytical evaluation of sand production process for oil and gas wells in the Asmari reservoir of the Ahwaz field. Journal of Petroleum Geomechanics, 6 (4), 25-50. doi.org/10.22107/JPG.2023.408338.1203. ##
[2]. Venkitaraman, A., Manrique, J.F., & Poe, B.D., Jr. (2001). A comprehensive approach to completion optimization. SPE Eastern Regional Meeting. doi.org/10.2118/72386-MS. ##
[3]. Roostapour, A. & Yildiz, T. (2005). Post-perforation flow models for API recommended practices 19B. SPE Production Operations Symposium. doi.org/10.2118/94245-MS. ##
[4]. Pasztor, A.V. & Toth, A. (2017). Effect of perforation parameters on the productivity of geothermal wells. MultiScience - XXXI. microCAD International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference. University of Miskolc, Hungary. doi.org/10.26649/musci.2017.002. ##
[5]. Behrmann, L.A., Hughes, K., Johnson, A.B., & Walton, I.C. (2002). New underbalanced perforating technique increases completion efficiency and eliminates costly acid stimulation. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. doi.org/10.2118/77364-MS. ##
[6]. Economides, M.J. (2013). Petroleum production systems. ##
[7]. Bell, W., Sukup, R., & Tariq, S. (1995). Perforating, in SPE Monograph Volume 16. Richardson, TX. doi: archive.org/details/perforating0000bell.##
[8]. According to a personal communication with Sani, M. (2024). ##
[9]. According to a personal communication with King, G.E. (2023). ##
[10]. Bellarby, J. (2009). Well completion design. ##
[11]. Locke, S. (1981). An advanced method for predicting the productivity ratio of a perforated well. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 33 (12), 2481-2488. doi.org/10.2118/8804-PA.##
[12]. Karakas, M. & Tariq, S.M. (1991). Semianalytical productivity models for perforated completions. SPE Production Engineering, 6 (01), 73-82. doi.org/10.2118/18247-PA. ##
[13]. Behrmann, L.A. & Halleck, P.M. (1988). Effects of wellbore pressure on perforator penetration depth. 63rd SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Houston, Texas. doi.org/10.2118/18243-MS. ##
[14]. Morita, N. (2022). Geomechanics of sand production and sand control. ##
[15]. Sarmadivaleh, M., Nabipour, A., Asadi, M.S., Sabogal Polania, J.M., & Rasouli, V. (2010). Identification of porosity damaged zones around a perforation tunnel based on DEM simulation. ISRM International Symposium - 6th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium. ##
[16]. Yew, C.H. & Zhang, X. (1993). A study of the damage zone created by shaped-charge perforating. Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium. Denver, CO, U.S.A. doi.org/10.2118/25902-MS. ##
[17]. Papamichos, E. & Furui, K. (2019). Analytical models for sand onset under field conditions. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 172 171-189. doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2018.09.009. ##
[18]. Zhang, J., Standifird, W.B., & Shen, X. (2007). Optimized perforation tunnel geometry, density and orientation to control sand production. European Formation Damage Conference. doi.org/10.2118/107785-MS. ##
[19]. Venkitaraman, A., Behrmann, L.A., & Noordermeer, A.H. (2000). Perforating requirements for sand prevention. SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control. doi.org/10.2118/58788-MS. ##
[20]. Zhang, Z., Guo, J., Liang, H., & Liu, Y. (2021). Numerical simulation of skin factors for perforated wells with crushed zone and drilling-fluid damage in tight gas reservoirs. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 90.  doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2021.103907. ##
[21]. Asadi, M. & Preston, F.W. (1994). Characterization of the jet perforation crushed zone by SEM and image analysis. SPE Formation Evaluation, 9 (02), 135-139. doi.org/10.2118/22812-PA. ##
[22]. Pucknell, J.K. & Behrmann, L.A. (1991). An investigation of the damaged zone created by perforating. 66th SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Dallas, Texas (511–522). doi.org/10.2118/22811-MS. ##
[23]. Craddock, G.G., Smith, J., & Haggerty, D. (2018). Perforation crushed zone characteristics in a subsurface sandstone. SPE International Conference and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control. doi.org/10.2118/189483-MS. ##
[24]. Martin, A., Behrmann, L., Venkitaraman, A., & Rogers, G. (2005-2007). Perforation. Schlumberger private seminar. Aberdeen, UK. ##
[25]. Grove, B.M. (2020). Downhole tool for creating evenly-spaced perforation tunnels. WIPO: WO 2020/256741 A1. Halliburton Co. patents.google.com/patent/WO2020256741A1.##
[26]. Behrmann, L.A., Lopez De Cardenas, J., & Parrott, R.A. (2000). Optimizing charge phasing of a perforating gun. WIPO: WO 2000/066881 A1. Schlumberger Tech. Corp. patents.google.com/patent/WO2000066881A1.##
[27]. Economides, M.J., Watters, L.T., & Dunn-Norman, S. (1998). Petroleum well construction. ##
[28]. Keese, J.A. & Oden, A.L. (1976). A comparison of jet perforating services Kern River field. SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control. doi.org/10.2118/5690-MS. ##
[29]. Hushbeck, D.F. (1986). Precision perforation breakdown for more effective stimulation jobs. International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering. doi.org/10.2118/14096-MS. ##
[30]. https://petrowiki.spe.org/Perforating_design. ##
[31]. National Iranian South Oilfields Company (NISOC). (2023). ##
[32]. King, G.E. (2009). Perforating basics: How the perforating processes work. ##
[33]. Behrmann, L.A. (1995). Apparatus and method for determining an optimum phase angle for phased charges in a perforating gun to maximize distances between perforations in a formation. US Patent: US 5,392,857 A. Schlumberger Tech. Corp. patents.google.com/patent/US5392857A.##
[34]. Brooks, J.E. & Lopez de Cardenas, J. (2004). Optimizing charge phasing of a perforating gun. US Patent: US 2004/0118607 A1. Schlumberger Tech. Corp. patents.google.com/patent/US20040118607A1.##
[35]. Hardesty, J.T. (2017). Optimal phasing of charges in a perforating system and method. US Patent: US 2017/0275975 A1. GEODynamics Inc. patents.google.com/patent/US20170275975A1.##
[36]. Hardesty, J.T. & Rollins, J.A. (2016). Limited entry phased perforating gun system and method. EPO: EP 3,101,221 A1. GEODynamics Inc. patents.google.com/patent/EP3101221A1.##
[37]. Hardesty, J.T. & Wesson, D.S. (2017). Optimal phasing of charges in a perforating system and method. US Patent: US 2017/0275973 A1. GEODynamics Inc. patents.google.com/patent/US20170275973A1.##
[38]. Revett, L.W. (1985). Spiral gun apparatus. US Patent: US 4,552,234 A. Halliburton Co. patents.google.com/patent/US4552234A.##
[39]. Coludrovich, E. (2009). Perforating.  Chevron Corp. ##
پژوهش نفت
دوره 34، 1403-4 - شماره پیاپی 137
مهر و آبان 1403
صفحه 72-89

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار