Application of Heat Treatment to Enhance Permeability in Tight Gas Reservoirs
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract During the drilling and completion phases, the primary mechanisms of near-wellbore formation damage can be attributed to the following factors:pore throat constriction caused by clay swelling, deflocculating due to incompatible fluids or clay migration;water blocking resulting in a reduction in relative permeability to hydrocarbons;plugging with drill solids and mud products; andloading of the reservoir with drilling or completion fluids. In tight reservoirs, phase trapping and water-blocking are believed to be the primary causes of near-wellbore formation damage, resulting in very low productivity. Clay swelling and phase trapping in tight gas reservoirs during drilling and completion have long been identified as major problems. Preventive measures have been discussed in literature; however, prevention of clay damage and phase trapping is not always possible or effective and curative measures may then become necessary. Several curative methods have been attempted and presented in literature with mixed success. A formation heat treatment (FHT) process has been developed in the last four years and initial field test results showed promise. The primary mechanisms of the FHT process are to vaporize blocked water, dehydrate clay-bound water, destroy clay lattices and possibly create micro fractures due to thermally induced stresses, with the objective of removing near-wellbore drilling induced skin damage. The objective of this laboratory study was to evaluate the feasibility of applying the formation heat treatment process on cores taken from a tight gas reservoir. The results indicate that the FHT stimulation at 649 ° C resulted in a 210% improvement in permeability from the baseline undamaged value and 675% improvement from the damaged (water-trapped) value. The post FHT waterflooding of the core still showed 50% improvement in permeability from the baseline value and 275% more than the watertrapped value. Laboratory results along with the field logistics are presented in this paper. Introduction Formation damage can occur at any time during the history of a well-from the initial drilling and completion of the wellbore through to the depletion of the reservoir during production. Operations such as drilling, completion, workovers, and stimulation, which expose the formation to a foreign fluid, may cause formation damage because of adverse wellbore-fluid to formation interactions. Such damage is usually severe in horizontal wells, because of the longer exposure of the wellbore to the offending fluids(1 – 7). During the drilling and completion phases, the primary mechanisms of near-wellbore formation damage can be explained by the following factors:Pore throat constriction, caused either by clay swelling due to incompatible fluids or by clay migration,Water blocking due to reduction in relative permeability to hydrocarbon,Plugging with drill solids and mud products,Loading of the reservoir with drilling or completion fluids. In tight gas reservoirs, formation damage, due to phase trapping and water blocking, has long been identified as a major problem. Preventive measures against this type of damage are not always possible or effective, and curative measures may then become necessary. Several curative methods have been attempted and presented in the literature(8–15).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».