Kicks及其在孔隙压力预测中的意义

IF 1.9 4区 地球科学 Q3 GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Petroleum Geoscience Pub Date : 2022-02-07 DOI:10.1144/petgeo2021-061
Jack Lee, R. Swarbrick, S. O'Connor
{"title":"Kicks及其在孔隙压力预测中的意义","authors":"Jack Lee, R. Swarbrick, S. O'Connor","doi":"10.1144/petgeo2021-061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Knowledge of subsurface formation pressures is critical for the calibration of predictions and models needed for safe drilling of deep wells, historically for oil and gas wells. The same details apply to the sequestration of CO2, ephemeral storage of gases such as hydrogen and for geothermal power. An estimated 10–14% of wells globally experience an unexpected influx of formation fluid, indicative of the controlling mud in the borehole at that time having a lower pressure than the surrounding formation. The drilling events, known as kicks and wellbore breathing, lead to, at best, downtime on the drilling rig which might affect the economic viability of the well, or in the extreme its safety with possible loss of life such as in the case of an uncontrolled blowout. Not all kicks are of equivalent value: dynamic and static kicks can be classified with a high degree of confidence and may become values for true formation pressure. Other types of fluid influx during drilling, including swab kicks and wellbore breathing, need to be identified and will not be accepted in a kick database. These types of influx may be eliminated as potential formation pressure values but, along with mud weights, can be valuable data to constrain the range of possible formation pressures, of significant where no other data exist. A new, rigorous evaluation procedure for determining formation pressure is presented, and compared with direct pore pressure measurements (e.g. RFT, MDT, RCI values). The comparison shows that the proposed methodology illustrates typical uncertainty of about 10 bar (145 psi) pressure over the full range of pressures for which data are available in this study. Thematic collection: This article is part of the Geopressure collection available at: https://www.lyellcollection.org/cc/geopressure","PeriodicalId":49704,"journal":{"name":"Petroleum Geoscience","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Kicks and their significance in pore pressure prediction\",\"authors\":\"Jack Lee, R. Swarbrick, S. O'Connor\",\"doi\":\"10.1144/petgeo2021-061\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Knowledge of subsurface formation pressures is critical for the calibration of predictions and models needed for safe drilling of deep wells, historically for oil and gas wells. The same details apply to the sequestration of CO2, ephemeral storage of gases such as hydrogen and for geothermal power. An estimated 10–14% of wells globally experience an unexpected influx of formation fluid, indicative of the controlling mud in the borehole at that time having a lower pressure than the surrounding formation. The drilling events, known as kicks and wellbore breathing, lead to, at best, downtime on the drilling rig which might affect the economic viability of the well, or in the extreme its safety with possible loss of life such as in the case of an uncontrolled blowout. Not all kicks are of equivalent value: dynamic and static kicks can be classified with a high degree of confidence and may become values for true formation pressure. Other types of fluid influx during drilling, including swab kicks and wellbore breathing, need to be identified and will not be accepted in a kick database. These types of influx may be eliminated as potential formation pressure values but, along with mud weights, can be valuable data to constrain the range of possible formation pressures, of significant where no other data exist. A new, rigorous evaluation procedure for determining formation pressure is presented, and compared with direct pore pressure measurements (e.g. RFT, MDT, RCI values). The comparison shows that the proposed methodology illustrates typical uncertainty of about 10 bar (145 psi) pressure over the full range of pressures for which data are available in this study. Thematic collection: This article is part of the Geopressure collection available at: https://www.lyellcollection.org/cc/geopressure\",\"PeriodicalId\":49704,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Petroleum Geoscience\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Petroleum Geoscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2021-061\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Petroleum Geoscience","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2021-061","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

了解地下地层压力对于校准深井安全钻井所需的预测和模型至关重要,历史上用于油气井。同样的细节也适用于二氧化碳的封存、氢气等气体的短暂储存以及地热发电。据估计,全球约有10-14%的井会遇到意外的地层流体流入,这表明当时井眼内的控制泥浆压力低于周围地层。钻井事件,即所谓的井涌和井筒呼吸,最多只能导致钻井平台停工,这可能会影响油井的经济可行性,或者在极端情况下,如发生失控的井喷,可能会造成生命损失。并不是所有的井涌都具有相同的价值:动态井涌和静态井涌可以高度可靠地进行分类,并可能成为真实地层压力的值。钻井过程中其他类型的流体流入,包括抽汲井涌和井筒呼吸,都需要识别,并且在井涌数据库中不被接受。这些类型的流入可以作为潜在的地层压力值消除,但与泥浆比重一起,可以作为限制可能的地层压力范围的有价值的数据,在没有其他数据的情况下具有重要意义。提出了一种新的、严格的评估方法来确定地层压力,并将其与直接孔隙压力测量(如RFT、MDT、RCI值)进行了比较。对比表明,在本研究中可获得的所有压力范围内,所提出的方法可以证明典型的不确定性约为10bar (145psi)压力。专题合集:本文是地质压力合集的一部分,可在https://www.lyellcollection.org/cc/geopressure找到
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Kicks and their significance in pore pressure prediction
Knowledge of subsurface formation pressures is critical for the calibration of predictions and models needed for safe drilling of deep wells, historically for oil and gas wells. The same details apply to the sequestration of CO2, ephemeral storage of gases such as hydrogen and for geothermal power. An estimated 10–14% of wells globally experience an unexpected influx of formation fluid, indicative of the controlling mud in the borehole at that time having a lower pressure than the surrounding formation. The drilling events, known as kicks and wellbore breathing, lead to, at best, downtime on the drilling rig which might affect the economic viability of the well, or in the extreme its safety with possible loss of life such as in the case of an uncontrolled blowout. Not all kicks are of equivalent value: dynamic and static kicks can be classified with a high degree of confidence and may become values for true formation pressure. Other types of fluid influx during drilling, including swab kicks and wellbore breathing, need to be identified and will not be accepted in a kick database. These types of influx may be eliminated as potential formation pressure values but, along with mud weights, can be valuable data to constrain the range of possible formation pressures, of significant where no other data exist. A new, rigorous evaluation procedure for determining formation pressure is presented, and compared with direct pore pressure measurements (e.g. RFT, MDT, RCI values). The comparison shows that the proposed methodology illustrates typical uncertainty of about 10 bar (145 psi) pressure over the full range of pressures for which data are available in this study. Thematic collection: This article is part of the Geopressure collection available at: https://www.lyellcollection.org/cc/geopressure
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Petroleum Geoscience
Petroleum Geoscience 地学-地球科学综合
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
11.80%
发文量
28
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Petroleum Geoscience is the international journal of geoenergy and applied earth science, and is co-owned by the Geological Society of London and the European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE). Petroleum Geoscience transcends disciplinary boundaries and publishes a balanced mix of articles covering exploration, exploitation, appraisal, development and enhancement of sub-surface hydrocarbon resources and carbon repositories. The integration of disciplines in an applied context, whether for fluid production, carbon storage or related geoenergy applications, is a particular strength of the journal. Articles on enhancing exploration efficiency, lowering technological and environmental risk, and improving hydrocarbon recovery communicate the latest developments in sub-surface geoscience to a wide readership. Petroleum Geoscience provides a multidisciplinary forum for those engaged in the science and technology of the rock-related sub-surface disciplines. The journal reaches some 8000 individual subscribers, and a further 1100 institutional subscriptions provide global access to readers including geologists, geophysicists, petroleum and reservoir engineers, petrophysicists and geochemists in both academia and industry. The journal aims to share knowledge of reservoir geoscience and to reflect the international nature of its development.
期刊最新文献
Research on Water Flooding Front Based on Dynamic and Static Data Inversion—A case study Petroleum source rocks characterisation and depositional environment of Kimmeridgian-Tithonian Sequences, Jaisalmer Basin, Western Rajasthan, India A quantitative study of microstructure of Indian Gondwana shale: a fractal and algebraic topology approach Seismic stratigraphy of the Cretaceous post-rift in Punta del Este Basin (offshore Uruguay) and its implications for deep-water reservoirs Integrated geological and geophysical workflow for structural modelling; case study from the contraction foothills zone of the Colombian Eastern Cordillera
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1