Multi-dimensional comprehensive development well location evaluation method
Through a multi-dimensional comprehensive development well location evaluation method, weights are assigned and indicators are scored for the reservoir types to be drilled, which solves the problems of well location selection and design optimization, reduces drilling risks, and improves the accuracy and efficiency of well location selection.
Patent Information
- Application Number
- CN202410323709.9
- Authority / Receiving Office
- CN · China
- Patent Type
- Applications(China)
- Current Assignee / Owner
- Filing Date
- 2024-03-21
- Publication Date
- 2025-09-23
AI Technical Summary
During the development of oil and gas fields, it is difficult to effectively reduce drilling risks through well location optimization and design optimization. Especially when waterline advancement is complicated and the remaining oil is unevenly distributed, the target layer of new drilling is often lost and water-flooded layers are encountered.
A multi-dimensional comprehensive development well location evaluation method is adopted. By classifying the reservoir types to be drilled, weights are assigned to primary indicators such as geological potential, reservoir potential and economic benefits, and then they are subdivided into multiple secondary indicators for scoring. Finally, the optimal ranking of well locations is obtained by accumulating them.
This method comprehensively measures the risk factors of the well site to be drilled, reduces drilling risks, and improves the accuracy and efficiency of well site optimization.
Smart Images
Figure CN120688900A_ABST
Abstract
Description
Technical Field
[0001] The present application relates to the field of oil and gas field development, and specifically to a multi-dimensional comprehensive development well location evaluation method. Background Art
[0002] In the development of oil and gas fields, a detailed description of the reservoir, especially an accurate understanding of the structure of local traps and reservoir conditions, is fundamental to precise development. As the water content of reservoirs increases, the direction of the waterline advances becomes more complex, and the distribution of remaining oil becomes a key focus of reservoir development research. In recent years, new wells have frequently experienced the loss of target formations, the encounter of water-flooded zones, and the discrepancy between the production capacity of newly commissioned wells and their planned performance. This has made the optimal well location and design extremely important. Summary of the Invention
[0003] The purpose of this application is to provide a multi-dimensional comprehensive development well site evaluation method, which can facilitate the optimal sorting of wells to be drilled by comprehensively measuring the risk factors of the well sites to be drilled, thereby reducing drilling risks.
[0004] This application is implemented as follows:
[0005] This application provides a multi-dimensional comprehensive development well location evaluation method, which includes the following steps:
[0006] The reservoir type of the development unit where the well is to be drilled is classified and divided into three primary indicators: geological potential, reservoir potential, and economic benefits, and given primary weights. The geological potential is divided into two secondary indicators: structural confirmation and reservoir distribution, and given secondary weights. The reservoir potential is divided into three secondary indicators: oil content, energy retention, and single well controlled reserves, and given secondary weights. The economic benefits are divided into three secondary indicators: production capacity, investment per million tons of production capacity, and development cost, and given secondary weights.
[0007] Scoring each secondary indicator of the well to be drilled is multiplied by the primary weight and the secondary weight and then accumulated to obtain the final score of the well to be drilled;
[0008] The final scores of the wells to be drilled are arranged in order of high to low to obtain the preferred ranking of development wells.
[0009] In some optional implementation schemes, the primary weight ratio of geological potential, reservoir potential and economic benefits is 4.5:3.5:2.
[0010] In some optional embodiments, the secondary weight ratio of structural implementation and reservoir distribution to geological potential is 7:3.
[0011] In some optional embodiments, the secondary weight ratio of oil content, energy retention, and single-well controlled reserves to reservoir potential is 5:3:2.
[0012] In some optional implementation plans, the secondary weight ratio of production capacity, million-ton capacity investment, and development cost to economic benefits is 4:4:2.
[0013] In some optional implementation schemes, each secondary indicator of drilling is scored according to a 10-point system and is divided into category one with 8-10 points, category two with 5-8 points, and category three with 0-5 points.
[0014] In some optional implementation schemes, when the scores of one of the secondary indicators among geological potential, reservoir potential, and economic benefit are all classified as three, it indicates that the well to be drilled has no mining value.
[0015] In some optional implementation schemes, each secondary indicator of the well to be drilled is scored on a 10-point scale and then multiplied by the primary weight and the secondary weight to obtain the final score of the well to be drilled.
[0016] The beneficial effects of the present application are as follows: the multi-dimensional comprehensive development well location evaluation method provided by the present application includes the following steps: classifying the reservoir type of the development unit where the well is to be drilled, dividing it into three primary indicators of geological potential, reservoir potential, and economic benefits, giving a primary weight; dividing the geological potential into two secondary indicators of structural implementation and reservoir distribution, giving a secondary weight; dividing the reservoir potential into three secondary indicators of oil content, energy retention, and single-well controlled reserves, giving a secondary weight; dividing the economic benefits into three secondary indicators of production capacity, million-ton production capacity investment, and development cost, giving a secondary weight; scoring each secondary indicator of the well to be drilled, and then multiplying it by the primary weight and the secondary weight to obtain the final score of the well to be drilled; arranging the final scores of the well to be drilled in order of high and low to obtain the preferred ranking of the development wells. The multi-dimensional comprehensive development well location evaluation method provided by the present application comprehensively measures the risk factors of the well location to be drilled, thereby facilitating the preferred ranking of the wells to be drilled and reducing drilling risks. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0017] In order to more clearly illustrate the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present application, the following is a brief introduction to the drawings required for use in the embodiments. It should be understood that the following drawings only show certain embodiments of the present application and therefore should not be regarded as limiting the scope. For ordinary technicians in this field, other relevant drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative work.
[0018] Figure 1 A flow chart of a multi-dimensional comprehensive development well location evaluation method provided in an embodiment of the present application;
[0019] Figure 2 This is the remaining oil distribution map of a small layer of a designed well in an oil field in Example 1 of the present application;
[0020] Figure 3The remaining oil distribution map of two sublayers of the designed well in a certain oil field in Example 1 of the present application is as follows;
[0021] Figure 4 The seismic geological interpretation profile of the designed well of a certain oil field in Example 1 of the present application;
[0022] Figure 5 This is the final score calculated using a multi-dimensional comprehensive development well location evaluation method for the designed wells of a certain oil field in Example 1 of this application. DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0023] In order to make the purpose, technical solutions and advantages of the embodiments of the present application clearer, the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present application will be clearly and completely described below in combination with the drawings in the embodiments of the present application. Obviously, the described embodiments are only part of the embodiments of the present application, not all of the embodiments.
[0024] The following detailed description of the embodiments of the present application provided in the accompanying drawings is not intended to limit the scope of the present application for protection, but merely represents selected embodiments of the present application. All other embodiments derived by persons of ordinary skill in the art based on the embodiments in this application without creative effort are within the scope of protection of this application.
[0025] The features and performance of the multi-dimensional comprehensive development well location evaluation method of the present application are further described in detail below with reference to the embodiments.
[0026] This application provides a multi-dimensional comprehensive development well location evaluation method, comprising the following steps:
[0027] like Figure 1 As shown in Table 1, the reservoir types of the development unit where the well is located are classified into medium-high permeability monolithic reservoirs, fault-block reservoirs, Class I heavy oil reservoirs, and Class II heavy oil reservoirs. The three primary indicators of geological potential, reservoir potential, and economic benefits are given primary weights, and the primary weight ratio of geological potential, reservoir potential, and economic benefits is 4.5:3.5:2. The geological potential is divided into two secondary indicators of structural implementation and reservoir distribution, and the secondary weights are given. The reservoir potential is divided into three secondary indicators of oil content, energy retention, and single-well controlled reserves, and the secondary weights are given. The economic benefit is divided into three secondary indicators of production capacity, million-ton production capacity investment, and development cost, and the secondary weights are given. The secondary weight ratio of structural implementation and reservoir distribution to geological potential is 7:3; the secondary weight ratio of oil content, energy retention, and single-well controlled reserves to reservoir potential is 5:3:2; the secondary weight ratio of production capacity, million-ton production capacity investment, and development cost to economic benefit is 4:4:2, as shown in Table 1 and Table 2 below. When any of the secondary indicators of geological potential, reservoir potential, and economic benefits are scored as Class 3, it indicates that the well to be drilled has no mining value.
[0028] Table 1 Weights and scoring criteria for individual indicators
[0029]
[0030]
[0031] Table 2 Weights of various reservoir classification indicators in an oil field
[0032]
[0033] Structural implementation: The degree of structural implementation is scored based on factors such as whether the structural morphology is clear, the reliability of the fault, and the distance between the deployment point and the fault, as shown in Table 3:
[0034] Category 1: The structural morphology is clear; the fault is highly reliable based on seismic and drilling analysis; the deployment point is 150-100m away from the fault;
[0035] Category II: The structural morphology is relatively clear; the fault is highly reliable based on seismic and drilling analysis; the deployment point is 100-50m away from the fault;
[0036] Category 3: The structural morphology is relatively clear; the fault reliability based on seismic and drilling analysis is moderate; the deployment point is 50-20m away from the fault.
[0037] Table 3 Structural implementation degree scoring range
[0038] Category 1 Category II Three categories Reservoir type Weight coefficient Boundary 1 Boundary 2 Boundary 3 Boundary 4 Low permeability fault block 3.15 150 100 50 20 Hypotonic whole mount 1.35 300 200 100 50 Medium-high permeability fault block 3.15 150 100 50 20 Medium and high osmosis package 1.35 300 200 100 50 Heavy oil type I 1.8 100 50 30 20 Heavy oil type II 1.8 100 50 30 20
[0039] Reservoir distribution: The main scoring criteria are the number and thickness of oil layers that may be encountered at the deployment point, as shown in Table 4.
[0040] Category 1: The main exploration layer is more than 2 layers, the reservoir thickness is 4-6m, the reservoir distribution is stable, and the reservoir prediction is highly consistent with the drilled wells;
[0041] Category II: 1-2 main exploration layers, reservoir thickness 2-4m, relatively stable reservoir distribution, and a high degree of consistency between reservoir prediction and existing wells;
[0042] Category 3: 1 main exploration layer, reservoir thickness 1-2m, and relatively stable reservoir distribution.
[0043] Table 4 Reservoir distribution scoring limits
[0044]
[0045]
[0046] Oil content: The oil saturation of the deployment area is the main indicator for scoring, and the others are reference indicators, as shown in Table 5.
[0047] Category 1: 60>SO>50, Rwg<Rb, fwg<85% or less;
[0048] Category II: 50>SO>40, Rb≤Rwg<1.5Rb, fwg<90%;
[0049] Category III: 40 <SO<30,1.5Rb≤Rwg,95%<fwg。
[0050] Among them, SO is oil saturation; Rwg is the recovery rate of the well group; Rb is the recovery rate of the block; fwg is the water content of the well group.
[0051] Table 5 Oil content rating limits
[0052] Category 1 Category II Three categories Reservoir type Weight coefficient Boundary 1 Boundary 2 Boundary 3 Boundary 4 Low permeability fault block 1.75 60 50 40 30 Hypotonic whole mount 1.75 60 50 40 30 Medium-high permeability fault block 1.75 60 50 40 30 Medium and high osmosis package 1.75 60 50 40 30 Heavy oil type I 1.75 60 50 40 30 Heavy oil type II 1.4 55 50 40 30
[0053] Energy retention level: The energy retention level of the deployment area is used as the main indicator for scoring, and the others are reference indicators, as shown in Table 6.
[0054] Category 1: Energy retention level above 80%, submergence above 300 meters, with multi-directional water wells or strong side water;
[0055] Category II: Energy retention level 50%-80%, submergence 100-300 meters, with one-way water well or edge water;
[0056] Category 3: Energy retention level below 50%, sinking depth below 100 meters, and no energy replenishment.
[0057] Table 6 Energy Conservation Level Scoring Limits
[0058]
[0059]
[0060] Single-well controlled reserves: The scoring standard is the value of the newly added controlled reserves of the main exploration layer of the deployed single well, as shown in Table 7.
[0061] Category 1: The total newly added controlled reserves of the main exploration layer are greater than 50,000 tons;
[0062] Category II: The total newly added controlled reserves of the main exploration layer are 30,000-50,000 tons;
[0063] Category 3: The total newly added controlled reserves of the main exploration layers are less than 30,000 tons.
[0064] Table 7 Single well controlled reserves rating limits
[0065] Category 1 Category II Three categories Reservoir type Weight coefficient Boundary 1 Boundary 2 Boundary 3 Boundary 4 Low permeability fault block 0.7 5 3 2 1 Hypotonic whole mount 0.7 5 3 2 1 Medium-high permeability fault block 0.7 7 5 3 1 Medium and high osmosis package 0.7 7 5 3 1 Heavy oil type I 0.7 7 5 3 1 Heavy oil type II 0.7 7 5 3 1
[0066] Productivity: The scoring standard is the multiple of the predicted single-well productivity of the deployed well and the average single-well production of the unit, as shown in Table 8.
[0067] Category 1: The production capacity is 3 times greater than the average single well production of this unit
[0068] Category II: The production capacity is 2-3 times the average single well production of this unit
[0069] Category 3: Production capacity is less than 2 times the average single well production of the unit
[0070] Table 8 Capacity multiple scoring limits
[0071] Category 1 Category II Three categories Reservoir type Weight coefficient Boundary 1 Boundary 2 Boundary 3 Boundary 4 Low permeability fault block 0.8 5 3 2 1 Hypotonic whole mount 0.8 5 3 2 1 Medium-high permeability fault block 0.8 5 3 2 1 Medium and high osmosis package 0.8 5 3 2 1 Heavy oil type I 0.8 5 3 2 1 Heavy oil type II 0.8 5 3 2 1
[0072] Million-ton capacity investment: Jianghan Oilfield and Bamianhe Oilfield are divided into two categories, with the million-ton capacity investment cost value as the scoring standard, as shown in Table 9.
[0073] Thin oil reservoirs:
[0074] Category 1: Investment in million-ton production capacity is less than 5 billion;
[0075] Category II: Investment in million-ton production capacity is between RMB 5 billion and RMB 7 billion;
[0076] Category 3: Investment in million-ton production capacity is greater than 7 billion.
[0077] Heavy oil reservoirs:
[0078] Category 1: Investment in million-ton production capacity is less than RMB 4 billion;
[0079] Category II: Investment in million-ton production capacity is between RMB 4 billion and RMB 6 billion;
[0080] Category 3: Investment in million-ton production capacity is greater than 6 billion.
[0081] Table 9 Scoring limits for million-ton capacity investment
[0082] Category 1 Category II Three categories Reservoir type Weight coefficient Boundary 1 Boundary 2 Boundary 3 Boundary 4 Low permeability fault block 0.8 30 50 70 90 Hypotonic whole mount 0.8 30 50 70 90 Medium-high permeability fault block 0.8 30 50 70 90 Medium and high osmosis package 0.8 30 50 70 90 Heavy oil type I 0.8 30 40 60 70 Heavy oil type II 0.8 30 40 60 70
[0083] Development cost: heavy oil reservoirs and light oil reservoirs are divided into two categories based on the development cost per barrel of crude oil, as shown in Table 10.
[0084] Table 10 Development cost scoring limits
[0085] Category 1 Category II Three categories Reservoir type Weight coefficient Boundary 1 Boundary 2 Boundary 3 Boundary 4 Low permeability fault block 0.4 10 15 25 35 Hypotonic whole mount 0.4 10 15 25 35 Medium-high permeability fault block 0.4 10 15 25 35 Medium and high osmosis package 0.4 10 15 25 35 Heavy oil type I 0.4 8 10 14 20 Heavy oil type II 0.4 8 10 14 20
[0086] Scoring each secondary indicator of the well to be drilled according to a 10-point system, multiplying it by the primary weight and the secondary weight, and adding them together to get the final score of the well to be drilled;
[0087] The final scores of the wells to be drilled are arranged in order of high to low to obtain the preferred ranking of development wells.
[0088] Example 1
[0089] With reference to Tables 1 to 10, this embodiment provides a multi-dimensional comprehensive development well location evaluation method, with a designed well in a certain oilfield of a certain oilfield branch in 2020 as the scoring object.
[0090] Step 1: Determine the reservoir type and select the corresponding indicator weight. The design well is located in a certain city oil field as shown in the following figure. Figure 2 and Figure 3 As shown in Table 2, it is determined to be a medium-high permeability fault block reservoir; the first-level weights of geology, reservoir, and economy are 4.5, 2.5, and 2 respectively. The second-level weight indicators are shown in Table 2.
[0091] Step 2: Score each secondary indicator on a 10-point scale.
[0092] Structural implementation: The cross-section of the designed well shows that the structural morphology is clear, the fault breakpoint is clear, and the fault is 110m away from the design point, with no risk of failure. Figure 4 As shown, the score in category 1 is 8.4.
[0093] Reservoir distribution: The reservoir distribution is stable, the regional drilling density is high, and the distance between the designed well and the adjacent well is 200m. The target layer is 16m / 3 layers, and the first category has 10 points.
[0094] Oil content: Offshore wells have good production, with cumulative production exceeding 10,000 tons and low water content. The deployment site is located in a weakly producing area, with an estimated oil saturation of 60-65%. A Class 1 score of 10 is given.
[0095] Energy retention: The wells are well-located with marginal water and injection wells to supplement energy. The adjacent well, Zhong 5 Slant-30, has a pump depth of 1850m, a dynamic liquid level of 1250m, a submergence of 600m, and a daily liquid flow rate of 25.4 cubic meters, indicating sufficient energy. The current energy retention level is approximately 60%, a Category II score of 6.0.
[0096] New controlled reserves in the well network: The new wells encountered two layers with a total of 59,000 tons of new controlled reserves, with a Class I score of 8.9.
[0097] Production capacity: Based on the oil production intensity of the surrounding wells that have been put into production in recent years, the new well's oil layer thickness is expected to be 6.5m, the initial production of a single well is 3.7t / d, the production capacity is calibrated to 2.6t / d, the daily oil level of the block is 1.6t / d, the calculated production capacity multiplier is 1.6, and the third category score is 3.1.
[0098] Investment in million-ton production capacity: The economic evaluation estimates that the investment in million-ton production capacity is 8.885 billion yuan, with a score of 0.3 in the third category.
[0099] Development cost: The development cost is estimated to be US$19.1 per barrel, with a Category II score of 6.8.
[0100] Step 3: Multiply the scores of each secondary indicator by the comprehensive weight, and take the sum of the weighted scores of the 8 secondary indicators as the final score of the well location. Figure 5 shown.
[0101] The embodiments described above are part of the embodiments of the present application, rather than all of the embodiments. The detailed description of the embodiments of the present application is not intended to limit the scope of the present application for protection, but merely represents selected embodiments of the present application. Based on the embodiments in the present application, all other embodiments obtained by ordinary technicians in this field without making creative efforts are within the scope of protection of this application.
Claims
1. A multi-dimensional comprehensive development well location evaluation method, characterized in that: It includes the following steps: The reservoir type of the development unit where the well is to be drilled is classified and divided into three primary indicators: geological potential, reservoir potential, and economic benefits, and given primary weights. The geological potential is divided into two secondary indicators: structural confirmation and reservoir distribution, and given secondary weights. The reservoir potential is divided into three secondary indicators: oil content, energy retention, and single well controlled reserves, and given secondary weights. The economic benefits are divided into three secondary indicators: production capacity, investment per million tons of production capacity, and development cost, and given secondary weights. Scoring each secondary indicator of the well to be drilled is multiplied by the primary weight and the secondary weight and then accumulated to obtain the final score of the well to be drilled; The final scores of the wells to be drilled are arranged in order of high to low to obtain the preferred ranking of development wells.
2. The multi-dimensional comprehensive development well location evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The primary weight ratio of the geological potential, the oil reservoir potential and the economic benefits is 4.5:3.5:
2.
3. The multi-dimensional comprehensive development well location evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The secondary weight ratio of the structural implementation and the reservoir distribution to the geological potential is 7:
3.
4. The multi-dimensional comprehensive development well location evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The secondary weight ratio of the oil content, the energy retention, and the single-well controlled reserves to the reservoir potential is 5:3:
2.
5. The multi-dimensional comprehensive development well location evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The secondary weight ratio of the production capacity, the million-ton production capacity investment, and the development cost to the economic benefits is 4:4:
2.
6. The multi-dimensional comprehensive development well location evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that: When scoring each secondary indicator of drilling according to the 10-point system, it is divided into category one with 8-10 points, category two with 5-8 points and category three with 0-5 points.
7. The multi-dimensional comprehensive development well location evaluation method according to claim 6, characterized in that: When the scores of one of the secondary indicators among geological potential, reservoir potential and economic benefits are all classified as three, it indicates that the well to be drilled has no mining value.
8. The multi-dimensional comprehensive development well location evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that: Each secondary indicator of the well to be drilled is scored on a 10-point scale, and then multiplied by the primary weight and the secondary weight to obtain the final score of the well to be drilled.