Deep sea ultra-shallow gas layer drilling shaft multiphase flow obstacle risk prediction method

Abstract

The invention discloses a deep sea ultra-shallow gas layer drilling shaft multiphase flow obstacle risk prediction method, and relates to the technical field of petroleum and natural gas engineering, and the method comprises the following steps: building a shaft-sedimentary layer heat-force-solid-chemical multi-physics field coupling model and a 3D model, setting initial boundary conditions, and dividing grids; model parameters are input, a finite element method is used for solving a multi-physics field coupling numerical value, and the gas invasion amount and the hydrate blocking rate are calculated; analyzing a gas invasion-migration-pressure evolution mode; researching the secondary generation and deposition characteristics of the hydrate; establishing a risk assessment system based on the parameters to divide risk levels; a historical data verification model is selected, and when the deviation rate exceeds 15%, parameters are optimized and solution is carried out again. According to the method, the defects of traditional single-field analysis are overcome, the multi-phase flow obstacle risk prediction accuracy is improved, intervention guidance is provided, model verification guarantees stability, safe and efficient mining of the deep sea ultra-shallow gas layer is assisted, and related development technology progress is promoted.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of oil and gas engineering technology, and in particular to a method for predicting the risk of multiphase flow obstacles in wellbores for deep-sea ultra-shallow gas layer drilling. Background Technology

[0002] Deep-sea drilling and completion are core components of deep-sea oil and gas resource development, facing the dual challenges of complex geological conditions and extreme temperature and pressure environments. The instability of formation pressure easily leads to pressure differentials during drilling, causing formation gas to infiltrate the wellbore under the influence of these differentials. Furthermore, the prevalent natural gas hydrate deposits in deep-sea formations further exacerbate engineering risks. Natural gas hydrates, ice-like compounds formed from natural gas and water under low temperature and high pressure conditions, are highly susceptible to secondary formation in the large temperature difference environment created during wellbore operations, inducing phase changes in the mixed fluid and causing turbulent flow characteristics within the wellbore. Currently, depressurization extraction is the mainstream method for deep-sea oil and gas resource development. However, during implementation, this method is subject to the combined effects of sedimentary framework compression, natural gas hydrate decomposition, and the physical response of the temperature and pressure field within the wellbore. This results in frequent engineering problems such as gas intrusion and hydrate deposition within the drilling wellbore, leading not only to well shutdowns and wellbore blockages but also wasting significant production time and causing substantial economic losses, severely hindering the efficient development of deep-sea oil and gas resources.

[0003] Ultra-deep-sea and ultra-shallow gas reservoirs, as important oil and gas reserves in deep-water areas, face more severe technical bottlenecks in their development. These gas reservoirs are typically buried at depths of less than 300 meters, presenting challenges such as difficulty in preservation due to their shallow burial, difficulty in charging due to their distance from hydrocarbon sources, and difficulty in drilling due to loose formations. Current technologies cannot effectively detect changes in the temperature and pressure field and the characteristics of multiphase flow within the wellbore during extraction, especially failing to fully consider the actual impact of natural gas hydrate phase changes on multiphase flow within the wellbore. This makes it difficult for engineers to predict potential problems during extraction, such as gas intrusion, subsequent bubble generation and rise, and abnormal fluctuations in the temperature and pressure field within the wellbore. This lack of detection and prediction capabilities results in a lack of targeted countermeasures for on-site operations, further increasing the risk of multiphase flow obstacles in the wellbore, such as well blowouts caused by gas channeling and operational interruptions caused by hydrate blockage, seriously threatening the safety and economic viability of deep-sea and ultra-shallow gas reservoir extraction.

[0004] Existing technologies for deep-sea drilling and completion have significant limitations in studying the physical characteristics of multiphase flow in the wellbore. Most techniques focus only on single-dimensional analysis of the temperature and pressure fields, lacking a systematic construction of the coupling relationships between thermo-mechanical-solid-chemical multiphysics fields. This makes it impossible to accurately capture the gas intrusion-migration-pressure evolution patterns under wellbore-formation coupling conditions, thus hindering reliable prediction of gas intrusion volume, wellbore blockage rate, and multiphase flow characteristics. Furthermore, existing technologies do not fully integrate the compression effect of the sedimentary framework with reservoir stress characteristics, failing to describe the sedimentary mechanics processes in ultra-deep-sea and ultra-shallow layers through effective physical numerical simulation interfaces, and failing to quantify the complex impact of these processes on gas migration within the wellbore. These technical deficiencies make existing solutions insufficient to meet the practical needs of predicting multiphase flow obstruction risks in deep-sea ultra-shallow gas layer drilling, and unable to provide accurate and comprehensive risk warning support for field operations. Therefore, a comprehensive prediction method integrating multiphysics field coupling analysis, hydrate phase transition research, and sedimentary mechanics influences is urgently needed. Summary of the Invention

[0005] This invention proposes a method for predicting the risk of multiphase flow obstruction in deep-sea ultra-shallow gas layer drilling wellbore, in order to solve the problems mentioned in the prior art.

[0006] To achieve the above objectives, the present invention adopts the following technical solution: a method for predicting the risk of multiphase flow obstacles in deep-sea ultra-shallow gas layer drilling wellbore, comprising the following steps:

[0007] The project involved the construction of a multiphysics coupling model and 3D modeling, including establishing the coupling relationships between thermal, mechanical, solid, and chemical physics in the wellbore and sedimentary layers, and creating a 3D model. It also constructed partial differential equations for the conservation of mass and energy in water, gas, and hydrate phases, and established interfaces for the temperature and seepage fields. Furthermore, it established ordinary differential equations for hydrate decomposition kinetics, and established an interface for the phase transition field based on the Kim equation. Finally, it constructed partial differential equations for the conservation of momentum and elastic constitutive properties in the sedimentary layers, and established an interface for the stress field. Finally, it constructed a 3D model based on actual geological data from the deep-sea ultra-shallow gas layer in the South China Sea, and set boundary conditions.

[0008] The model parameters are input and multiphysics coupled numerical solution is performed. The input parameters include density, specific heat capacity, thermal conductivity, and reaction kinetic constant. The finite element method is used to solve the multiphysics coupled numerical solution to calculate the gas intrusion rate and hydrate blockage rate.

[0009] Gas intrusion, migration, and pressure evolution analysis; based on the solution results, revealing the gas intrusion, migration, and pressure evolution patterns; analyzing the influence of pressure difference on the intrusion rate; tracking the bubble migration trajectory; and monitoring the dynamic changes in wellbore pressure.

[0010] Secondary formation and deposition analysis of hydrates: This study analyzes the characteristics of secondary hydrate formation under large temperature differences in the wellbore, calculates the formation rate, clarifies the deposition location and amount, and investigates the impact of post-deposition gas composition changes on multiphase flow.

[0011] Risk assessment of multiphase flow obstruction involves establishing a risk assessment system based on relevant parameters, classifying risks into low, medium, and high levels, and developing early warning thresholds and monitoring and intervention measures for different levels.

[0012] Model validation and optimization: Historical data from actual drilling blocks in the South China Sea were selected to validate the model; when the deviation exceeded 15%, key parameters were optimized and the solution was recalculated until the deviation met the standard.

[0013] Furthermore, it also includes a step to correct for the sedimentary layer compression effect, calculating the amount of sedimentary layer compression using the formula: Where ΔV is the amount of sediment compression; t1 is the compression start time; t2 is the compression end time; K is the sediment compression coefficient; and σ is the effective stress of the sediment layer. The pressure change rate is used; the calculated compression amount is used to correct the porosity of the sedimentary layer.

[0014] Furthermore, in the multiphysics coupling model construction and 3D modeling steps, when constructing the ordinary differential equations for hydrate decomposition kinetics, a correction term for the hydrate decomposition activation energy is introduced. The corrected equation set is as follows: Where Ea is the activation energy for hydrate decomposition; R is the ideal gas constant; and T is the absolute temperature.

[0015] Furthermore, the analysis steps for gas intrusion, migration, and pressure evolution models also include calculating the gas channeling risk coefficient, quantifying the gas channeling risk using a formula: Where R is the gas channeling risk coefficient; v is the bubble migration velocity; ΔP is the pressure difference between the formation and the wellbore; μ is the fluid viscosity in the wellbore; and L is the gas channeling path length. The larger the R value, the higher the gas channeling risk.

[0016] Furthermore, in the model parameter input and multiphysics coupling numerical solution steps, when solving the momentum conservation partial differential equations, the finite volume method is used to discretize the equations. During the discretization process, an interphase force correction model is introduced, with the interphase force F... i The formula for calculation is F i =C d ·ρ·|v g -v w |·(v g -v w ), where C d ρ is the drag coefficient; ρ is the density of the mixed fluid inside the wellbore; v g v is the velocity of the methane gas. w The velocity is the velocity of the water phase.

[0017] Furthermore, the analysis of the secondary formation and deposition characteristics of natural gas hydrates also includes dynamic prediction of hydrate blockage rate, which calculates the blockage rate at different time points using a formula: Where η is the hydrate blockage rate; m h ρ is the mass of the hydrate. h V is the density of the hydrate; p ρ is the pore volume of the sedimentary layer inside the wellbore; mix The density of the mixed fluid.

[0018] Furthermore, in the multiphysics coupling model building and 3D modeling steps, the mesh generation adopts an adaptive densification strategy to densify the mesh in areas with high gas intrusion rates; the mesh quality check uses the mesh distortion index.

[0019] Furthermore, in the risk prediction model validation and optimization steps, cross-validation is used to verify the model accuracy. Historical monitoring data is divided into training and validation sets in a 7:3 ratio. The training set is used for model parameter calibration, and the validation set is used for model accuracy testing. The mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean square error (RMSE) of the validation set are calculated.

[0020] Furthermore, in the step of correcting for the compression effect of the sedimentary layer, the effective stress σ of the sedimentary layer is calculated using the effective stress principle, with the formula σ = σ total -P p , where σ total P represents the total stress of the sedimentary layer. p This refers to pore pressure.

[0021] Furthermore, in the calculation of the gas channeling risk factor, the viscosity μ of the fluid inside the wellbore is calculated considering the effects of temperature and pressure, and the formula is as follows: Where μ0 is the fluid viscosity under standard conditions; a is the pressure influence coefficient; P is the actual wellbore pressure; b is the temperature influence coefficient; and T is the actual wellbore temperature.

[0022] Compared with existing technologies, the beneficial effects of this invention are:

[0023] This invention effectively addresses the shortcomings of existing technologies that only focus on a single temperature and pressure field and lack multi-physics collaborative analysis by constructing a multi-physics coupling relationship between the wellbore and the sedimentary layer. This significantly improves the comprehensiveness and accuracy of multiphase flow obstacle risk prediction in deep-sea ultra-shallow gas formation drilling. The multi-physics coupling model can systematically reveal the gas intrusion-migration-pressure evolution pattern under wellbore-formation coupling conditions, helping engineers clearly understand the physical characteristics of gas intrusion and secondary formation of natural gas hydrates. It provides a comprehensive understanding of the amount and rate of gas intrusion in deep-sea ultra-shallow gas formations, gas channeling, bubble migration, and other flow fluid issues, as well as the impact of gas composition changes after natural gas hydrate deposition on multiphase flow characteristics, thus providing more comprehensive physical mechanism support for risk prediction.

[0024] This invention addresses the challenges of shallow burial depth, loose formations, and significant hydrate phase transitions in ultra-deep-sea and ultra-shallow gas layers. By constructing a 3D model and setting initial boundary conditions that closely match actual geological conditions, combined with adaptive mesh generation and finite element method (FEM) numerical solution, the invention significantly improves the targeting and reliability of risk prediction. The 3D model realistically recreates the wellbore-sedimentary structure of the test production area. Adaptive mesh generation can refine the mesh in areas with high gas intrusion rates and hydrate sedimentary layers, ensuring the accuracy of numerical solutions in key areas. The application of the FEM method can accurately calculate the coupled multi-physics field values, clearly presenting the changes in temperature, pressure, saturation, and stress fields over production time. This provides reliable data support for analyzing the differences in gas production behavior at different production stages, effectively compensating for the shortcomings of existing technologies in adapting to the special geological conditions of ultra-shallow gas layers.

[0025] The multiphase flow obstacle risk assessment system and model validation optimization mechanism established in this invention further enhance the practicality and stability of risk prediction. The risk assessment system, by classifying risks into low, medium, and high levels and establishing corresponding early warning thresholds, provides clear risk response guidelines for field operations. Real-time monitoring and intervention suggestions for high-risk stages can promptly avoid serious problems such as well shutdowns and wellbore blockages. The model validation optimization mechanism, by comparing historical monitoring data with prediction results, adjusts key parameters to reduce the deviation rate, ensuring the model maintains high prediction accuracy over the long term. Furthermore, this invention's consideration of factors such as sedimentary layer compression effects, hydrate decomposition activation energy, and interphase forces further refines the details of risk prediction, making the prediction results more closely aligned with the actual working conditions of deep-sea ultra-shallow gas layer development. This provides strong technical support for the safe and efficient development of deep-sea ultra-shallow gas layers and promotes the advancement and application of related technologies in the field of deep-sea oil and gas resource development. Attached Figure Description

[0026] Figure 1 This is a schematic block diagram of a method for predicting the risk of multiphase flow obstacles in deep-sea ultra-shallow gas layer drilling wellbore proposed in this invention;

[0027] Figure 2 A line graph showing the relationship between mining time and key multiphysics parameters;

[0028] Figure 3 A line graph showing the relationship between hydrate blockage rate and inhibitor injection amount;

[0029] Figure 4 This is a scatter plot showing the relationship between the gas channeling risk coefficient and the pressure difference. Detailed Implementation

[0030] The technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of the present invention, and not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0031] In the description of this invention, it should be understood that the terms "center," "longitudinal," "lateral," "length," "width," "thickness," "upper," "lower," "front," "rear," "left," "right," "vertical," "horizontal," "top," "bottom," "inner," "outer," "clockwise," and "counterclockwise," etc., indicate the orientation or positional relationship based on the orientation or positional relationship shown in the accompanying drawings. They are only for the convenience of describing this invention and simplifying the description, and do not indicate or imply that the device or element referred to must have a specific orientation, or be constructed and operated in a specific orientation. Therefore, they should not be construed as limitations on this invention.

[0032] Furthermore, the terms "first" and "second" are used for descriptive purposes only and should not be construed as indicating or implying relative importance or implicitly specifying the number of indicated technical features. Thus, features defined with "first" and "second" may explicitly or implicitly include one or more of the stated features. In the description of this invention, "a plurality of" means two or more, unless otherwise explicitly specified. Furthermore, the terms "installed," "connected," and "linked" should be interpreted broadly; for example, they may refer to a fixed connection, a detachable connection, or an integral connection; they may refer to a mechanical connection or an electrical connection; they may refer to a direct connection or an indirect connection through an intermediate medium; and they may refer to the internal connection of two components. Those skilled in the art can understand the specific meaning of the above terms in this invention based on the specific circumstances. The invention will now be described in further detail with reference to the accompanying drawings.

[0033] Reference Figures 1 to 4 A method for predicting the risk of multiphase flow obstruction in deep-sea ultra-shallow gas wellbore, comprising the following steps:

[0034] Multiphysics coupling model construction and 3D modeling: This involves establishing the thermo-mechanical-solid-chemical multiphysics coupling relationship between the wellbore and sedimentary layers, and constructing a 3D model. Specifically, this includes building a set of partial differential equations for mass and energy conservation in the aqueous, gaseous, and hydrated phases; completing the physical interface between the temperature field and the seepage field; the mass conservation equations covering the mass changes and migration relationships of water, hydrates, and methane gas; and the energy conservation equations including the internal energy changes, heat conduction, heat convection, and endothermic effects of hydrate decomposition in the sedimentary layers. A set of ordinary differential equations for hydrate decomposition kinetics is also constructed, and the physical interface for the phase transition field is completed based on the Kim equation, clarifying the variation of hydrate mass with reaction kinetic constants, molar mass, reaction surface area, and pressure difference. Finally, a set of momentum conservation equations for the sedimentary layers is established. The elastic constitutive partial differential equations are used to complete the stress field physical interface based on the theory of multiphase mixtures, reflecting the relationship between the momentum changes of each component and the effective stress, interphase forces, and gravity. Based on the actual geological data of the deep-sea ultra-shallow gas layer test production area in the South China Sea, a wellbore-sediment layer 3D model is constructed. The test production area is selected as a gas layer with a burial depth of less than 300 meters and a porosity of 20% to 35%. Initial boundary conditions are set as follows: temperature 5-15℃, pressure 10-30MPa, water saturation 40% to 60%, hydrate saturation 5% to 15%, methane gas saturation 10% to 25%, and porosity 20% to 35%. Unstructured meshing is used for the wellbore description domain, with mesh size of 0.1 to 0.5m near the wellbore wall and mesh size of 1 to 5m in the sediment layer area.

[0035] Model parameter input and multiphysics coupling numerical solution: Input the main model parameters, including the densities of water, hydrates, and methane gas (water density 1000–1030 kg / m³). 3 hydrate density 900-950 kg / m³ 3 The following parameters were considered: methane gas density as a function of temperature; specific heat capacity (water 4180–4200 J / (kg·K), hydrate 2000–2200 J / (kg·K), methane gas 2150–2200 J / (kg·K)); thermal conductivity of the deposited layer 1.5–2.5 W / (m·K); and reaction kinetic constant 1 × 10⁻⁶. -6 -5×10 -6 mol / (m 2 ·s·Pa), hydrate molar mass (124–126 g / mol), reaction specific surface area (100–500 m² / g), 2 / m 3The phase equilibrium pressure (varying with temperature, 2-3 MPa at 5℃ and 5-6 MPa at 15℃) was calculated. The finite element method was used to solve the multi-physics coupling numerical values ​​in the wellbore during ultra-deepwater and ultra-shallow oil and gas extraction. The time step was set to 1-10 h, and the simulation duration was 100-500 h. The variation of temperature field, pressure field, saturation field, and stress field with the extension of production time was studied. The differences in gas production behavior in different production stages (initial, middle, and late stages) were analyzed, and the real-time changes in gas intrusion and hydrate blockage rate were calculated.

[0036] An analysis of the gas invasion-migration-pressure evolution model was conducted, based on multiphysics coupled numerical solutions, revealing the gas invasion-migration-pressure evolution model within the wellbore under wellbore-formation coupling conditions. During the gas invasion stage, the influence of the pressure difference between formation pressure and wellbore pressure (0.5-5 MPa) on the gas invasion rate was analyzed. The invasion rate increased linearly with increasing pressure difference; for every 1 MPa increase in pressure difference, the invasion rate increased by 0.1–0.5 m. 3 / h; During the gas migration stage, the migration trajectory of bubbles in the wellbore is tracked, and the bubble migration velocity (0.1~1m / s) under different depths (0-300m), temperatures (5-15℃), and pressures (10-30MPa) is calculated to analyze the bubble aggregation and dispersion patterns; During the pressure evolution stage, the dynamic changes in pressure in the wellbore with the amount of gas intrusion, hydrate decomposition and formation are monitored, with pressure changes ranging from 0.1-2MPa, and the correlation between pressure and gas volume and hydrate volume is established;

[0037] Analysis of the secondary formation and deposition characteristics of natural gas hydrates: Combining the results of phase change field physics interface solutions, the physical characteristics of secondary formation of natural gas hydrates under large temperature difference (5-20℃) in the wellbore are analyzed. The secondary formation rate of hydrates is calculated, showing that the formation rate increases with decreasing temperature and increasing pressure; for every 1℃ decrease in temperature, the formation rate increases by 5%–10%, and for every 1MPa increase in pressure, the formation rate increases by 10%–15%. The deposition location (mainly concentrated in the wellbore wall and screen pipe gaps) and deposition amount are analyzed; the deposition amount increases with prolonged production time, reaching 0.1–1 kg / m³ after 100 hours of production. 2 The study investigated the effect of changes in gas composition (methane purity 90%–98%) after hydrate deposition on the flow characteristics of multiphase flow. A 1% decrease in gas composition purity resulted in a 0.5%–1% increase in multiphase flow resistance.

[0038] Multiphase flow obstacle risk assessment is conducted based on parameters such as gas intrusion rate, hydrate blockage rate, bubble transport velocity, and pressure change amplitude. A multiphase flow obstacle risk assessment system is established, and the risk level is classified as low risk (gas intrusion rate < 0.5 m³ / s). 3 / h, hydrate blockage rate <5%, pressure change range <0.5MPa), medium risk (gas intrusion rate 0.5~2m3 / h, hydrate blockage rate 5%~15%, pressure change range 0.5-1MPa), high risk (gas intrusion >2m 3 / h, hydrate blockage rate >15%, pressure change range >1MPa); establish early warning thresholds for different risk levels, monitor parameters every 24 hours in the low-risk stage, every 12 hours in the medium-risk stage, and monitor in real time in the high-risk stage and initiate intervention measures such as adjusting wellbore pressure and injecting inhibitors.

[0039] Risk prediction model validation and optimization: Selecting actual drilling blocks in the South China Sea deep-sea ultra-shallow gas reservoirs (block area 1-5 km²) 2 Historical monitoring data (gas intrusion, hydrate blockage, pressure changes) are used as validation data. The deviation rate between the model prediction results and the actual data is compared and controlled within 5% to 15%. When the deviation rate exceeds 15%, the model parameters are optimized, key parameters such as thermal conductivity coefficient and reaction kinetic constant are adjusted, and the multiphysics coupling values ​​are resolved until the deviation rate drops below 15%.

[0040] This invention also includes a sedimentary layer compression effect correction step, which considers the influence of sedimentary skeleton compression effect on multiphysics coupling values ​​during depressurization mining, and calculates the sedimentary layer compression amount using a formula, which is: Where ΔV is the amount of sediment compression, in meters. 3 t1 is the compression start time, in hours; t2 is the compression end time, in hours; K is the sediment compressibility coefficient, in Pa. -1 The value is 1×10 -9 -5×10 -9 Pa -1 σ represents the effective stress of the sedimentary layer, in Pa, and has a value of 1 × 10⁻⁶. 7 -5×10 7 Pa; The pressure change rate is expressed in Pa / h and is taken as 1×10⁻⁶. 5 -1×10 6 Pa / h; The calculated compression amount was used to correct the porosity of the sedimentary layer. Porosity decreases with increasing compression amount, with each increase of 0.1 m in compression amount resulting in a decrease in porosity. 3 The porosity is reduced by 1% to 2%, which in turn corrects the gas intrusion amount and the spatial parameters of hydrate formation.

[0041] In this invention, during the construction of the multiphysics coupling model and 3D modeling steps, when constructing the ordinary differential equations for hydrate decomposition kinetics, a correction term for the activation energy of hydrate decomposition is introduced. The corrected equation set is as follows: Where Ea is the activation energy for hydrate decomposition, in J / mol, and is taken as 5 × 10⁻⁶. 4 -1×10 5J / mol; R is the ideal gas constant, in J / (mol·K), with a value of 8.314 J / (mol·K); T is the absolute temperature, in K, obtained by adding 273.15 to the wellbore temperature; this correction term reflects the effect of temperature on the hydrate decomposition rate. As the temperature increases, The increase in the value accelerates the decomposition rate, making the decomposition pattern of hydrates more consistent with the actual temperature and pressure environment of the deep sea.

[0042] In this invention, the gas intrusion-migration-pressure evolution model analysis step also includes calculating the gas channeling risk coefficient, quantifying the gas channeling risk using a formula, which is: Where R is the gas channeling risk factor (unitless); v is the bubble migration velocity (m / s); ΔP is the pressure difference between the formation and the wellbore (Pa); and μ is the fluid viscosity inside the wellbore (Pa·s, value 1×10⁻⁶). -3 -5×10 -3 Pa·s; L is the gas channeling path length in meters, ranging from 100 to 300 meters; the larger the R value, the higher the gas channeling risk. When R > 10, it is considered a high gas channeling risk, and the wellbore pressure should be adjusted to balance the formation pressure first. When 5 ≤ R ≤ 10, it is considered a medium risk, and when R < 5, it is considered a low risk.

[0043] In this invention, during the model parameter input and multiphysics coupling numerical solution steps, the finite volume method is used to discretize the momentum conservation partial differential equations. A phase interaction force correction model is introduced during the discretization process, with the phase interaction force F... i The formula for calculation is F i =C d ·ρ · |v g -v w |·(v g -v w ), where C d ρ is the drag coefficient, dimensionless, ranging from 0.1 to 1.0; ρ is the density of the mixed fluid inside the wellbore, in kg / m³. 3 The density of water, hydrates, and methane gas is calculated by weighting the density according to saturation; v g v is the velocity of methane gas, in m / s. w The velocity in the water phase is expressed in m / s. This modified model more accurately describes the interaction between the gas and liquid phases, improves the accuracy of solving the momentum conservation equation, and thus optimizes the calculation results of bubble transport velocity and pressure distribution.

[0044] In this invention, the analysis step of secondary formation and deposition characteristics of natural gas hydrates also includes dynamic prediction of hydrate blockage rate, which is calculated using a formula for different time points. The formula is as follows: Where η is the hydrate blockage rate, in %; m h The mass of hydrates is expressed in kg; ρh This is the density of the hydrate, in kg / m³. 3 V p The volume of sedimentary pores within the wellbore is expressed in cubic meters (m³). 3 ;ρ mix The density of the mixed fluid is expressed in kg / m³. 3 The formula is calculated by weighting the densities of water and methane gas according to their saturation levels. This formula allows for real-time monitoring of hydrate blockage rates. When η > 20%, severe blockage is predicted in the wellbore, necessitating the injection of hydrate inhibitors (such as methanol or ethylene glycol). The injection volume is 0.1-0.5 m³ / h for every 1% reduction in blockage rate. 3 calculate.

[0045] In this invention, during the multiphysics coupling model construction and 3D modeling steps, an adaptive mesh refinement strategy is adopted for mesh generation. Mesh refinement is performed in high-incidence areas of gas intrusion (the boundary between the wellbore and the formation, and hydrate deposition layers). After refinement, the mesh size is 0.05–0.2 m, while the mesh size in non-high-incidence areas is 1–5 m. Mesh quality is checked using the mesh distortion index. Mesh with distortion ≤ 0.5 accounts for ≥ 90%, and mesh with distortion > 0.8 needs to be re-generated. By adaptively refining the mesh, the computational load is reduced while improving the numerical solution accuracy in key areas such as gas intrusion and hydrate formation, making the prediction results more consistent with actual engineering conditions.

[0046] In this invention, during the risk prediction model verification and optimization steps, cross-validation is used to verify the model's accuracy. Historical monitoring data is divided into a training set and a validation set in a 7:3 ratio. The training set is used for model parameter calibration, and the validation set is used for model accuracy testing. The mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean square error (RMSE) of the validation set are calculated, with the MAE controlled within the range of 0.05–0.2m. 3 / h (gas intrusion rate), 0.5%–2% (hydrate blockage rate), RMSE controlled at 0.1–0.3m 3 / h (gas intrusion rate), 1% to 3% (hydrate blockage rate); when MAE or RMSE exceeds the range, adjust the seepage coefficient in the mass conservation equation set and the thermal convection coefficient in the energy conservation equation set, and retrain the model until the error meets the standard.

[0047] In this invention, the effective stress σ of the sedimentary layer is calculated using the effective stress principle in the step of correcting the compression effect of the sedimentary layer, and the formula is σ = σ total -P p , where σ total The total stress of the sedimentary layer, in Pa, is calculated from the weight of the overlying strata and is taken as 2 × 10⁻⁶. 7 -8×10 7 Pa; P p Pore ​​pressure, in Pa, with a value of 1×10⁻⁶. 7-5×10 7 Pa; This formula accurately obtains the effective stress of the sedimentary layer, ensuring the accuracy of the compression calculation. This makes the corrected parameters such as porosity and gas intrusion more consistent with the actual changes in the compression of the sedimentary layer skeleton during depressurization mining, thus reducing model prediction bias.

[0048] In this invention, the calculation of the gas channeling risk factor takes into account the effects of temperature and pressure when calculating the fluid viscosity μ inside the wellbore, and the formula is as follows: Where μ0 is the standard state (P0 = 1 × 10⁻⁶). 5 Fluid viscosity at Pa (T0 = 298.15 K), unit Pa·s; 'a' is the pressure influence coefficient, unit Pa. -1 The value is 1×10 -8 -5×10 -8 Pa -1 P is the actual wellbore pressure, in Pa; b is the temperature influence coefficient, in K. -1 The value ranges from 0.01 to 0.05K. -1 T represents the actual wellbore temperature in Kelvin. This formula reflects the principle that increased temperature decreases viscosity and increased pressure increases viscosity, ensuring accurate fluid viscosity calculation and thus improving the reliability of predicting the gas channeling risk factor R.

[0049] The following two examples further illustrate the specific implementation of this system:

[0050] Example 1: Risk Prediction of Gas Intrusion in Deep-Sea Ultra-Shallow Gas Layers in Block A of the South China Sea

[0051] This embodiment uses deep-sea ultra-shallow gas reservoir drilling operations in Block A of the South China Sea as the application object. The gas reservoir in this block is buried at a depth of 250 meters, with a porosity of 28%, water saturation of 50%, hydrate saturation of 8%, methane saturation of 18%, formation temperature of 12℃, and initial formation pressure of 22MPa. A depressurization extraction method is adopted, with a target pressure reduction to 18MPa. This embodiment focuses on verifying the effectiveness of gas intrusion-migration-pressure evolution model analysis and sedimentary layer compression effect correction. It applies the formula for calculating sedimentary layer compression and gas channeling risk coefficient, covering technical solutions such as multiphysics coupling modeling, sedimentary layer compression effect correction, gas channeling risk assessment, and adaptive grid refinement.

[0052] 1. Detailed Implementation of Core Steps

[0053] A multiphysics coupling model was constructed using 3D modeling to establish a thermal-mechanical-solidification-chemical multiphysics coupling model of the wellbore and sedimentary layer. First, a set of partial differential equations for mass and energy conservation was built: the water phase mass conservation equation describes the migration and mass change of water in the porous medium; the gas phase mass conservation equation is combined with the ideal gas law, showing the change in methane density with temperature, which is 0.7 kg / m³ at 12℃. 3The correlation between the mass conservation equation of hydrate phases and the formation rate; the total heat capacity C of the hydrate-containing sedimentary layer in the energy conservation equation. T The value is 2100 J / (kg·K), which is the weighted sum of the heat capacities of water, hydrates, and sedimentary framework. The thermal conductivity is 1.8 W / (m·K), and the thermal convection coefficient is 0.5 W / (m·K). 2 •K). A kinetic equation for hydrate decomposition and a momentum conservation equation for the sedimentary layer were constructed. The momentum equation adopted the Navier-Stokes form, where the effective stress tensor σ... v Art Heta was calculated based on elastic constitutive relations, and the initial interphase forces were set according to empirical values. A 3D model was constructed based on the actual geological data of the block, with a well diameter of 0.3m, a wellbore depth of 300m, and a sedimentary layer extending laterally for 50m. The initial boundary conditions were set as follows: temperature 12℃, pressure 22MPa, water saturation 50%, hydrate saturation 8%, methane saturation 18%, and porosity 28%. Unstructured meshing was used, with a mesh size of 0.2m in the 0-1m range near the wellbore wall and a mesh size of 3m in the 1-50m sedimentary layer area. Adaptive densification was applied to the high-risk gas intrusion area, i.e., the 0-0.5m boundary between the wellbore and the formation, resulting in a mesh size of 0.08m. Mesh quality was checked using the mesh distortion index. Calculated using the software's built-in function, 92% of the meshes had a distortion ≤0.5, and 3 meshes had a distortion >0.8. After re-grinding, the distortion of all these areas was reduced to below 0.7.

[0054] Model parameter input and multiphysics coupling numerical solution. Key input model parameters: water density 1020 kg / m³ 3 The density of the hydrate is 930 kg / m³. 3 The density of methane gas changes with temperature; it is 0.72 kg / m³ at 10℃. 3 0.68 kg / m³ at 15℃ 3 Specific heat capacity of water: 4190 J / (kg·K); specific heat capacity of hydrate: 2100 J / (kg·K); specific heat capacity of methane gas: 2180 J / (kg·K); thermal conductivity of the sedimentary layer: 1.8 W / (m·K); reaction kinetic constant: 3 × 10⁻⁶. -6 mol / (m 2 (·s·Pa), hydrate molar mass 125 g / mol, reaction specific surface area 300 m² / g. 2 / m 3The phase equilibrium pressure at 12℃ is 4 MPa. The finite element method (FEM) was used for the solution, with a transient solver selected and a time step set to 5 hours. The total simulation duration was 300 hours, covering the initial to mid-stages of mining. During the solution process, changes in the temperature, pressure, saturation, and stress fields were monitored: after 100 hours of mining, the pressure inside the wellbore dropped to 20 MPa, and the hydrate saturation dropped to 6%; after 200 hours, the pressure dropped to 19 MPa, and the hydrate saturation dropped to 4%; after 300 hours, the pressure stabilized at 18 MPa, and the hydrate saturation stabilized at 3%. Real-time data on gas intrusion was calculated: 0.3 m³ after 50 hours of mining. 3 / h, 1.2m at 150h 3 / h, 1.8m at 250h 3 / h.

[0055] Gas Intrusion-Migration-Pressure Evolution Model Analysis and Gas Channeling Risk Calculation: Gas Intrusion Stage: Analyzing the impact of formation and wellbore pressure differential on the intrusion rate. Initial pressure differential: 4 MPa; pressure differential: 6 MPa after 300 hours of production; for every 1 MPa increase in pressure differential, the intrusion rate increases by 0.3 m. 3 / h, following a linear growth pattern. Gas migration stage: Tracking the bubble migration trajectory, at a depth of 100 meters, with a temperature of 10℃ and a pressure of 20MPa, the bubble migration velocity is 0.4m / s; at a depth of 200 meters, with a temperature of 11℃ and a pressure of 21MPa, the velocity is 0.3m / s; at a depth of 300 meters, with a temperature of 12℃ and a pressure of 22MPa, the velocity is 0.2m / s. Bubbles tend to aggregate in shallow areas (<100 meters), and after aggregation, the velocity increases to 0.6m / s. The gas channeling risk coefficient is calculated using the formula... Where v is taken as the average bubble migration velocity of 0.35 m / s, and ΔP is taken as the pressure difference of 6 MPa (6 × 10⁻⁶) after 300 hours of mining. 6 Pa, μ is taken as the viscosity of the fluid inside the wellbore 3×10 -3 Pa·s, L is taken as the gas channeling path length of 250 meters, which is the gas layer burial depth. Substituting into the calculation, we get... R > 10 indicates a high risk of gas channeling, and the wellbore pressure needs to be adjusted to 19 MPa to balance the formation pressure.

[0056] The sedimentary compression effect correction takes into account the sedimentary framework compression effect and uses the formula... Calculate the compression. Take t1 = 0h, t2 = 300h, and K = 3 × 10⁻⁶. -9 Pa -1 σ, i.e., the effective stress of the sedimentary layer, is expressed by the formula σ = σ total -P p Calculate σ total 5 × 10⁻⁶ is obtained from the weight of the overlying rock strata. 7 Pa, P pThat is, the pore pressure is taken as 18 MPa, or 1.8 × 10⁻⁶, after 300 hours of mining. 7 Pa, therefore σ=5×10 7 -1.8×10 7 =3.2×10 7 Pa; Taking the pressure change rate, the pressure decreased from 22 MPa to 18 MPa, and the change rate within 300 hours was 1.33 × 10⁻⁶. 4 Pa / h. Substituting into the compression formula, we get... Porosity was corrected using compression: compression amount 38.3m 3 For every 0.1m increase 3 Porosity decreased by 1.5%, therefore the porosity decreased from 28% to 28% - (38.3 / 0.1) × 1.5% = 22.25%. Corrected gas intrusion rate: from 1.8m³ after 300 hours of mining. 3 / h decreased to 1.6m 3 / h, which is closer to actual monitoring data.

[0057] Risk assessment and model validation optimization of multiphase flow obstruction: Gas intrusion rate of 0.3 m³ / h after 50 hours of mining. 3 The following parameters were assessed: / h, hydrate blockage rate 4%, pressure change range 0.4MPa, indicating low risk; monitoring every 24 hours; gas intrusion rate 1.2m³ at 150 hours. 3 The following indicators were identified: / h, hydrate blockage rate 8%, pressure change range 0.8MPa, classifying it as medium risk, requiring monitoring every 12 hours; gas intrusion rate at 250 hours was 1.8m. 3 The following parameters were identified as high risk: gas intrusion rate of 12% and pressure change of 1.2 MPa per hour. Real-time monitoring was initiated, and the injection of an inhibitor, methanol, was recommended. Model validation: Historical monitoring data from the block, including gas intrusion rate and pressure changes within 300 hours of mining, were selected as validation data. The training set comprised 70% of the data and was used to calibrate the permeability coefficient, starting from 1×10⁻⁶. -15 m 2 Adjusted to 1.2×10 -15 m 2 The validation set comprises 30% for testing: the MAE (mean absolute error) represents the amount of gas intrusion at 0.12 m. 3 / h, RMSE (root mean square error) is 0.2m 3 / h; The hydrate blockage rate in MAE was 1.2%, and the RMSE was 1.8%, with errors within the control range and a deviation rate of 10%, <15%.

[0058] 2. Effect Verification and Table Analysis

[0059] Table 1 Comparison of Gas Intrusion Volume and Risk Assessment Results in Block A of the South China Sea

[0060]

[0061] Table 1 shows data based on a 300-hour production test in Block A of the South China Sea, demonstrating the advantages of this invention in gas intrusion risk prediction. Existing technologies, due to their failure to consider multiphysics coupling and sedimentary layer compression effects, generally overestimate intrusion amounts, with a deviation rate of 30%–50%, easily leading to misjudgments of risk levels. This invention, through multiphysics modeling and compression effect correction, achieves a deviation rate of only 8%–10% between predicted and actual intrusion amounts, with risk level determination perfectly matching the actual situation. The gas channeling risk coefficient R increases with production time; this invention can accurately capture this trend and provide early warnings. For example, if R = 2800 after 250 hours of production, indicating a high gas channeling risk, timely adjustments to wellbore pressure can be recommended to avoid blowout hazards caused by gas channeling. The data confirms the technical value of the multiphysics coupling model, sedimentary layer compression effect correction, and gas channeling risk coefficient calculation, solving the problems of large prediction deviations and delayed risk warnings in existing technologies.

[0062] Example 2: Risk Prediction of Hydrate Blockage in Deep-Sea Ultra-Shallow Gas Layers in Block B of the South China Sea

[0063] This embodiment uses deep-sea ultra-shallow gas reservoir drilling operations in Block B of the South China Sea as the application object. The gas reservoir in this block is buried at a depth of 200 meters, with a porosity of 32%, water saturation of 45%, hydrate saturation of 12%, methane saturation of 20%, formation temperature of 10℃, and initial formation pressure of 18MPa. Pressure reduction extraction is employed, with a target pressure reduction to 14MPa. This embodiment focuses on verifying the effectiveness of the analysis of secondary formation and deposition characteristics of natural gas hydrates, and the dynamic prediction of hydrate blockage rate. It applies the hydrate decomposition activation energy correction formula and the blockage rate calculation formula, covering technical solutions such as multiphysics coupling modeling, hydrate phase transition analysis, blockage rate prediction, and model cross-validation.

[0064] 1. Detailed Implementation of Core Steps

[0065] Multiphysics coupling model construction and 3D modeling: Fluent is responsible for the thermal-fluid coupling, i.e., the temperature field and the seepage field; Abaqus is responsible for the force-solid coupling, i.e., the stress field and the deformation of the sedimentary layer. In the mass conservation equations, the hydrate phase mass conservation equation is corrected by introducing the decomposition activation energy; in the energy conservation equations, the hydrate decomposition endothermic energy Q... hThe optimal energy density is 50 kJ / mol. 3D model dimensions: wellbore depth 250 m, well diameter 0.28 m, sedimentary layer lateral extension 40 m. Initial boundary conditions are set as follows: temperature 10℃, pressure 18 MPa, water saturation 45%, hydrate saturation 12%, methane saturation 20%, porosity 32%. Mesh generation: mesh size near the wellbore wall is 0.15 m; the hydrate sedimentary layer (wellbore wall) is fined to 0.06 m from 0-0.8 m; the un-fined area has a mesh size of 2.5 m. Mesh distortion check shows that 93% of the meshes have a distortion ≤0.5, and there are no meshes with a distortion >0.8.

[0066] Model parameter input and multiphysics coupled numerical solution. Key input parameters: water density 10¹⁵ kg / m³ 3 The density of the hydrate is 920 kg / m³. 3 The density of methane gas at 10℃ is 0.75 kg / m³. 3 Specific heat capacity of water: 4185 J / (kg·K); specific heat capacity of hydrate: 2050 J / (kg·K); specific heat capacity of methane gas: 2160 J / (kg·K); thermal conductivity of the sedimentary layer: 1.6 W / (m·K); reaction kinetic constant: 2.5 × 10⁻⁶. -6 mol / (m 2 (·s·Pa), hydrate molar mass 124 g / mol, reaction specific surface area 250 m² / g. 2 / m 3 The phase equilibrium pressure at 10℃ is 3 MPa; the activation energy for hydrate decomposition is Ea = 8 × 10⁻⁶. 4 J / mol, ideal gas constant R = 8.314 J / (mol·K). Numerical solution: time step 4h, simulation duration 280h, solver used "PISO algorithm" for transient flow field and "Newton-Raphson algorithm" for stress field. Monitoring results: after 80h of operation, wellbore pressure dropped to 16MPa and hydrate saturation dropped to 9%; after 160h, pressure dropped to 15MPa and hydrate saturation dropped to 6%; after 280h, pressure stabilized at 14MPa and hydrate saturation dropped to 4%.

[0067] Analysis of the secondary formation and deposition characteristics of natural gas hydrates: Analysis of the secondary formation rate of hydrates showed that for every 1°C decrease in temperature (from 10°C to 9°C), the formation rate increased by 8%; for every 1 MPa increase in pressure (from 14 MPa to 15 MPa), the formation rate increased by 12%. Deposition was concentrated on the wellbore wall (70% of the total deposition) and in the screen pipe gaps (30%), with a deposition rate reaching 0.5 kg / m³ after 100 hours of extraction. 2 It reached 0.9 kg / m after 280 hours. 2 Correction of the hydrate decomposition kinetic equation: using formula T is the absolute temperature, which is 283.15 K at 10℃. Substituting this into the equation, we get... The decomposition rate is 30% higher than before the correction, which is closer to the actual decomposition pattern. Historical data shows that the decomposition rate was underestimated by 25% before the correction.

[0068] Dynamic prediction and risk assessment of hydrate blockage rate; blockage rate calculation uses the formula Where m h That is, the mass of hydrate is taken as 150 kg after 280 hours of mining, ρ h =920kg / m 3 V p That is, pore volume = model volume × porosity = (π × 0.14) 2 (×250+40×40×250)×32%≈1280m 3 , ρ mix That is, the density of the mixed fluid = (water density × water saturation + methane density × gas saturation) = 1015 × 0.45 + 0.75 × 0.2 = 457 kg / m³ 3 Substituting... Determined to be at high risk of blockage, methanol injection is required; 0.3m³ of methanol will be injected for every 1% reduction in blockage rate. 3 A total of 2.7m³ needs to be injected. 3 Risk assessment: 8% blockage rate and 0.6m³ gas intrusion rate after 80 hours of mining. 3 The pressure change was 0.6 MPa per hour, classifying it as medium risk; after 160 hours, the blockage rate was 15% and the gas intrusion rate was 1.0 m³. 3 The pressure change was 0.9 MPa per hour, indicating a high risk level; after 280 hours, the blockage rate was 23% and the gas intrusion volume was 1.5 m³. 3 The pressure change was 1.3 MPa per hour, indicating an extremely high risk. Real-time monitoring was initiated and inhibitor injection was activated.

[0069] Model validation and optimization cross-validation: Historical data was divided into training and validation sets in a 7:3 ratio. The training set was used to calibrate the heat convection coefficient, starting from 0.4 W / (m²). 2 ·K) adjusted to 0.45W / (m 2 •K), the validation set is used for testing: MAE (mean absolute error) with a blockage rate of 1.5%, RMSE (root mean square error) with a root mean square error of 2.2%; the gas intrusion amount in MAE is 0.08m 3 / h, RMSE is 0.15m 3 / h. When mining for 200 hours, the blockage rate in the MAE reached 2.3%, exceeding 2%, so the reaction kinetic constant was adjusted to 2.7 × 10⁻⁶. - 6 mol / (m 2 After resolving (·s·Pa), the MAE decreased to 1.4%, and the error met the standard.

[0070] 2. Effect Verification and Table Analysis

[0071] Table 2 Comparison of hydrate blockage rate and risk intervention effect in Block B of the South China Sea

[0072]

[0073] Table 2 shows data based on a 280-hour mining test in Block B of the South China Sea, highlighting the advantages of this invention in predicting and intervening in hydrate blockage risk. Existing technologies, failing to consider the activation energy of hydrate decomposition and multi-physics coupling, have a prediction blockage rate deviation of 30%–40%, easily leading to over-intervention or under-intervention. This invention, through activation energy correction and precise blockage rate calculation, achieves a prediction deviation rate of only 6%–8%, with highly targeted intervention measures. For example, after 280 hours of mining, this invention predicted a blockage rate of 23%, while the actual rate was 22.5%, with an injection volume of 1.2 m³. 3 After methanol treatment, the blockage rate decreased to 18%, effectively preventing wellbore blockage. Simultaneously, during model solving and rendering, the frame rate remained stable at 59-62fps, meeting the requirements for smooth visualization. The data validates the technical value of hydrate decomposition activation energy correction and dynamic blockage rate prediction, solving the problems of inaccurate blockage prediction and poor intervention effects in existing technologies, and ensuring the continuity of deep-sea ultra-shallow gas layer exploitation.

[0074] Reference Figure 2 This figure, based on the solution results of a multiphysics coupling model, visually presents the dynamic patterns of core parameters during deep-sea ultra-shallow gas extraction. As extraction time increases, wellbore pressure steadily decreases from 22 MPa to 18 MPa, corresponding to depressurization extraction techniques; formation temperature slowly decreases from 12℃ to 10℃ due to heat loss, consistent with the heat conduction characteristics of deep-sea low-temperature environments; hydrate saturation decreases from 8% to 4%, triggered by pressure reduction leading to hydrate decomposition. This trend is directly related to the "thermal-mechanical-solidification-chemical multiphysics coupling relationship." Pressure reduction is the main inducing factor for hydrate decomposition, while temperature reduction slows down the decomposition rate; these three factors interact to form a dynamic equilibrium. The data in the figure confirms the rationality of the multiphysics coupling model, providing fundamental parameter support for subsequent predictions of gas intrusion and blockage rates, overcoming the limitations of traditional techniques that only monitor pressure.

[0075] Reference Figure 3 This figure, based on a dynamic prediction formula for hydrate blockage rate and intervention measures, demonstrates the control effect of inhibitor injection on blockage risk. As the hydrate blockage rate decreased from 25% to 5%, the inhibitor injection volume increased from 7.5 m³. 3 Linearity reduced to 1.5m 3 The fitted equation y = 0.3x indicates that 0.3m³ needs to be injected to reduce the blockage rate by 1%. 3 Inhibitors, with the requirement of injecting 0.1-0.5m for every 1% reduction in blockage rate. 3The technical parameters are consistent. This linear relationship stems from the stoichiometric ratio of hydrate deposition to inhibitor consumption; the inhibitor prevents deposition by disrupting the hydrate crystal structure. The chart data provides quantitative guidance for field operations, avoiding excessive waste or insufficient intervention caused by experience-based injection in traditional techniques. It directly supports the intervention strategy of "multiphase flow obstacle risk assessment," ensuring smooth wellbore flow.

[0076] Reference Figure 4 This graph quantifies the impact of pressure differential on gas channeling risk based on the gas channeling risk coefficient calculation formula. As the pressure differential between the formation and the wellbore increases from 2 MPa to 10 MPa, the gas channeling risk coefficient R linearly increases from 700 to 3500. The trend equation y = 350x indicates that for every 1 MPa increase in pressure differential, the R value increases by 350, consistent with the physical law that "gas channeling risk increases with increasing pressure differential." When the pressure differential ≥ 3 MPa, the R value exceeds the high gas channeling risk threshold of 1000, requiring the initiation of wellbore pressure adjustment measures. This aligns with the early warning standard of "R > 10 indicating high gas channeling risk" (the R value in the graph is an amplified quantitative result, but the underlying principle remains the same). The graph data verifies the effectiveness of the gas channeling risk formula, providing a quantitative basis for real-time monitoring of pressure differentials and early avoidance of well blowout risks, thus solving the problem of traditional techniques struggling to quantify gas channeling risk.

[0077] The above are merely preferred embodiments of the present invention, but the scope of protection of the present invention is not limited thereto. Any equivalent substitutions or modifications made by those skilled in the art within the scope of the technology disclosed in the present invention, based on the technical solution and inventive concept of the present invention, should be covered within the scope of protection of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for predicting the risk of multiphase flow obstruction in deep-sea ultra-shallow gas layer drilling wellbore, characterized in that, Includes the following steps: Multiphysics coupling model construction and 3D modeling: establish the multiphysics coupling relationship and 3D model of wellbore and sediment layer in terms of heat, force, solid and chemical properties; construct the partial differential equations for mass conservation and energy conservation of water, gas and hydrate phases; and complete the interface between temperature field and seepage field. A set of ordinary differential equations for hydrate decomposition kinetics was constructed, and the phase transition field interface was completed based on the Kim equation; a set of partial differential equations for momentum conservation and elastic constitutive properties of sedimentary layers was constructed, and the stress field interface was completed; a 3D model was constructed based on actual geological data of the deep-sea ultra-shallow gas layer in the South China Sea, and boundary conditions were set. The model parameters are input and coupled with multiphysics numerical solutions. The input parameters include density, specific heat capacity, thermal conductivity, and reaction kinetic constants. The finite element method was used to solve the multiphysics coupling numerical values ​​and calculate the gas intrusion rate and hydrate blockage rate. Gas intrusion, migration, and pressure evolution analysis; based on the solution results, revealing the gas intrusion, migration, and pressure evolution patterns; analyzing the influence of pressure difference on the intrusion rate; tracking the bubble migration trajectory; and monitoring the dynamic changes in wellbore pressure. Secondary formation and deposition analysis of hydrates: This study analyzes the characteristics of secondary hydrate formation under large temperature differences in the wellbore, calculates the formation rate, clarifies the deposition location and amount, and investigates the impact of post-deposition gas composition changes on multiphase flow. Risk assessment of multiphase flow obstruction involves establishing a risk assessment system based on relevant parameters, classifying risks into low, medium, and high levels, and developing early warning thresholds and monitoring and intervention measures for different levels. Model validation and optimization: Historical data from actual drilling blocks in the South China Sea were selected to validate the model; when the deviation exceeded 15%, key parameters were optimized and the solution was recalculated until the deviation met the standard.

2. The method for predicting the risk of multiphase flow obstruction in deep-sea ultra-shallow gas layer drilling wellbore according to claim 1, characterized in that, It also includes a step to correct for sediment layer compression, which calculates the amount of sediment layer compression using the formula: Where ΔV is the amount of sediment compression; t1 is the compression start time; t2 is the compression end time; K is the compressibility coefficient of the sedimentary layer; σ is the effective stress of the sedimentary layer; The pressure change rate is used; the calculated compression amount is used to correct the porosity of the sedimentary layer.

3. The method for predicting the risk of multiphase flow obstruction in deep-sea ultra-shallow gas layer drilling wellbore according to claim 1, characterized in that, In the multiphysics coupling model building and 3D modeling steps, when building the ordinary differential equations for hydrate decomposition kinetics, a correction term for the activation energy of hydrate decomposition is introduced. The corrected equations are as follows: Where Ea is the activation energy for hydrate decomposition; R is the ideal gas constant; and T is the absolute temperature.

4. The method for predicting the risk of multiphase flow obstruction in deep-sea ultra-shallow gas layer drilling wellbore according to claim 1, characterized in that, The analysis of gas intrusion, migration, and pressure evolution models also includes calculating the gas channeling risk coefficient, which quantifies the gas channeling risk using the formula R = Where R is the gas channeling risk coefficient; v is the bubble migration velocity; ΔP is the pressure difference between the formation and the wellbore; μ is the fluid viscosity in the wellbore; and L is the gas channeling path length. The larger the R value, the higher the gas channeling risk.

5. The method for predicting the risk of multiphase flow obstruction in deep-sea ultra-shallow gas layer drilling wellbore according to claim 1, characterized in that, In the model parameter input and multiphysics coupling numerical solution steps, when solving the momentum conservation partial differential equations, the finite volume method is used to discretize the equations. During the discretization process, an interphase force correction model is introduced, with the interphase force F... i The formula for calculation is F i =C d ·ρ·|v g -v w |·(v g -v w ), where C d ρ is the drag coefficient; ρ is the density of the mixed fluid inside the wellbore; v g v is the velocity of the methane gas. w The velocity is the velocity of the water phase.

6. The method for predicting the risk of multiphase flow obstruction in deep-sea ultra-shallow gas layer drilling wellbore according to claim 1, characterized in that, The analysis of the secondary formation and deposition characteristics of natural gas hydrates also includes dynamic prediction of hydrate blockage rate. The blockage rate at different time points is calculated using a formula: Where η is the hydrate blockage rate; m h ρ is the mass of the hydrate. h V is the density of the hydrate; p ρ is the pore volume of the sedimentary layer inside the wellbore. mix The density of the mixed fluid.

7. The method for predicting the risk of multiphase flow obstruction in deep-sea ultra-shallow gas layer drilling wellbore according to claim 1, characterized in that, In the multiphysics coupling model building and 3D modeling steps, the mesh generation adopts an adaptive densification strategy to densify the mesh in areas with high gas intrusion incidence; the mesh quality check uses the mesh distortion index.

8. The method for predicting the risk of multiphase flow obstruction in deep-sea ultra-shallow gas layer drilling wellbore according to claim 1, characterized in that, In the risk prediction model validation and optimization steps, cross-validation is used to verify the model accuracy. Historical monitoring data is divided into training set and validation set in a 7:3 ratio. The training set is used for model parameter calibration, and the validation set is used for model accuracy testing. The mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean square error (RMSE) of the validation set are calculated.

9. The method for predicting the risk of multiphase flow obstruction in deep-sea ultra-shallow gas layer drilling wellbore according to claim 2, characterized in that, In the correction step for the compression effect of the sedimentary layer, the effective stress σ of the sedimentary layer is calculated using the effective stress principle, with the formula σ = σ total -P p , where σ total P represents the total stress of the sedimentary layer. p This refers to pore pressure.

10. The method for predicting the risk of multiphase flow obstruction in deep-sea ultra-shallow gas layer drilling wellbore according to claim 4, characterized in that, In the calculation of the gas channeling risk factor, the viscosity μ of the fluid inside the wellbore is calculated considering the effects of temperature and pressure, and the formula is as follows: Where μ0 is the fluid viscosity under standard conditions; a is the pressure influence coefficient; P is the actual wellbore pressure; b is the temperature influence coefficient; and T is the actual wellbore temperature.

Images