Reducing Formation Damage With Microbubble Based Drilling Fluid: Understanding the Blocking Ability
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Commonly, bridging materials used to reduce formation damage and mud losses in the near wellbore region consist of solid particles. These particles need to be removed after drilling through processes such as acidizing. Microbubble based drilling fluids utilize gas bubbles to bridge the pores instead of solid particles. These microbubbles can be easily removed during the initial stages of production thereby reducing the costs associated with stimulation processes. Although there has been some work done on the flow of the microbubbles through porous media, little is known as to under what conditions the microbubbles will or will not block the pores (e.g. foam quality, viscosity, fluid composition, pressure). Both the microbubble diameter and the rock pore size distribution play roles in determining sealing of the pores. In order to gain an appreciation of the pore blocking mechanism, experiments were conducted using micromodel cells to visually understand the blocking mechanism. The composition of the fluid is varied as well as the flow rate at which the fluid is injected. Through this, the pressure at which the microbubbles invade the medium and the optimum composition and quality of the fluid for pore blocking is determined. The average microbubble size at the invasion pressure is compared to the average pore size of the porous medium. By understanding the extent of the microbubble invasion under varying conditions, a greater comprehension of the pore blocking mechanism can be established. As well, the success rate of applying the microbubble system to various types of reservoirs can be evaluated. Introduction Common blocking agents used in the oil and gas industry to reduce formation damage and mud losses while drilling and to block highly permeable streaks in the reservoir during production can be composed of gels, solid particles, emulsions and foams (Seright and Liang, 1995). The ability of these fluids to block specific areas of the reservoir is determined through the reduction of permeability in high permeable zones and the ability to place the fluid in the correct area within the reservoir. Specifically, many studies have been conducted on the blocking ability of foam in porous media (Smith et al., 1969; Albrecht and Marsden, 1970; Hanssen and Dalland, 1990; Aarra and Skauge, 1994; Nimir and Seright, 1996; Khalil and Asghair, 2006). When discussing blocking ability, most of these studies are concerned with blocking the flow of gas (Albrecht and Marsden, 1970) Albrecht and Marsden (1970) found that with an increase in surfactant concentration, the blocking effect was greater. The efficiency foams to block gas propagation in porous media with crude oil was studied by Hanssen and Dalland (1990). They tested many different surfactants and found that there was no correlation between gas blocking and interfacial tension and that only a few foams blocked of the samples tested. They stated that the foam blocking is a complex phenomenon.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».