Quantitative Evaluation Model of Water Blocking Damage of Fracturing Fluid in Tight Reservoirs and Analysis of Affecting Factors

doi:10.19596/j.cnki.1001-246x.8882

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to quantitatively evaluate water blocking damage of tight reservoirs in flowback period, based on the relationship between capillary pressure and relative permeability with water saturation, Darcy's formula was used to characterize gas-water two-phase flow equations in invaded areas, and a quantitative evaluation model of water blocking damage of fracturing fluid in tight reservoir was established. The water saturation, relative permeability and permeability damage degree of invaded areas in flowback period were solved by the Taylor's nonlinear solution method, and the effect of fracturing fluid invasion depth, fracturing fluid viscosity, flowback and production differential pressure and pressure sensitivity were analyzed. The results show that, water blocking damage starts to gradually be relieved once the pressure differential of flowback and production exceeds the capillary force. The higher the differential pressure between flowback and production, the more effectively water blockage can be relieved and the less damage water blockage can cause. It is challenging to release the water blockage at the flowback period when the invasion depth, viscosity, and stress sensitivity coefficient of the fracturing fluid are high. The higher the damage degree of the water blockage, the lower the recovery of gas will finally be.

Key words: tight reservoirs, water blocking damage, capillary pressure, relative permeability

Quanyu PAN, Linsong CHENG, Pin JIA, Jiangpeng HU, Zhihao JIA. Quantitative Evaluation Model of Water Blocking Damage of Fracturing Fluid in Tight Reservoirs and Analysis of Affecting Factors[J]. Chinese Journal of Computational Physics, 2025, 42(2): 192-201.

Figures/Tables 12

Fig.1 Schematic of gas-water occurrence state (a) initial gas-water occurrence state; (b) process of hydraulic fracturing fluid injection (formation of water blocking damage); (c) process of hydraulic fracturing fluid flowback (partial relief of water blocking damage)

Fig.2 Schematic of physical model of water blocking damage

Table 1 Basic parameters of rock samples

实验数据	岩样号	长度/cm	直径/cm	孔隙度/%	渗透率/(10^-3 μm²)	排采压差/MPa
Ref.[38]	S1	6.06	2.52	5.94	0.069 6	1.5
Ref.[38]	S3	6.45	2.50	11.39	0.181	1.5
Ref.[39]	4^#	5.08	2.54	5.05	0.061	1

Fig.3 Water saturation between experimental data and model solution results (a) validation results with experimental data[38]; (b) validation results with experimental data[39]

Fig.4 Effect of fracturing fluid viscosity on water blocking damage (a) influence on water saturation; (b) influence on damage ratio of permeability

Fig.5 Effect of fracturing fluid invasion depth on water blocking damage (a) variation of water saturation and damage ratio of permeability over time; (b) variation of water saturation and damage ratio of permeability with invasion depth

Fig.6 Effect of flowback and production differential pressure on water blocking damage (a) variation of water saturation and damage ratio of permeability over time; (b) variation of water saturation and damage ratio of permeability with pressure differential during flowback

Fig.7 Effect of stress sensitivity on water blocking damage (a) effect on water saturation; (b) effect on damage ratio of permeability

Table 2 Basic parameters of the model

参数	数值	参数	数值
基质渗透率/mD	0.07	基质含水饱和度/%	20
侵入区渗透率/mD	0.06	侵入区含水饱和度/%	40
裂缝区渗透率/mD	700	裂缝区含水饱和度/%	100
压裂液黏度/(mPa·s)	1	孔隙度/%	6.07
缝间距/m	65	排采压差/MPa	20
裂缝数量/条	23

Fig.8 Effect of differential pressure of flowback and production on water and gas production (a) effect on water production; (b) effect on gas production

Fig.9 Effect of fracturing fluid viscosity on water and gas production (a) effect on water production; (b) effect on gas production

Fig.10 Effect of invasion depth on water gas production (a) effect on water production; (b) effect on gas production

References 45

1	贾承造, 邹才能, 李建忠, 等. 中国致密油评价标准、主要类型、基本特征及资源前景[J]. 石油学报, 2012, 33(3): 343- 350.
2	杜旭林, 程林松, 牛烺昱, 等. 考虑水力压裂缝和天然裂缝动态闭合的三维离散缝网数值模拟[J]. 计算物理, 2022, 39(4): 453- 464. DOI
3	ZHU W, LIU Y, SHI Y, et al. Effect of dynamic threshold pressure gradient on production performance in water-bearing tight gas reservoir[J]. Advances in Geo-Energy Research, 2022, 6(4): 286- 295. DOI
4	WANG Y, KANG Y, WANG D, et al. Liquid phase blockage in micro-nano capillary pores of tight condensate reservoirs[J]. Capillarity, 2022, 5(1): 12- 22. DOI
5	方思冬, 王卫红, 吴永辉, 等. 基于改进格林元的压裂水平井动态分析方法[J]. 计算物理, 2020, 37(1): 69- 78. DOI
6	曹冲, 程林松, 张向阳, 等. 基于多变量小样本的渗流代理模型及产量预测方法[J]. 力学学报, 2021, 53(8): 2345- 2354.
7	刘广峰, 王连鹤, 孙仲博, 等. 致密砂岩储层孔喉结构研究进展[J]. 石油科学通报, 2022, 7(3): 406- 419. DOI
8	JIA Zhihao, CHENG Linsong, ZHOU Jinchong, et al. Upscaling simulation method of fluid flow for fracturing-shut in-flowback-production process in tight oil reservoirs: Hysteresis effects of capillary pressure and relative permeability[J]. Geoenergy Science and Engineering, 2023, 226, 211792. DOI
9	CHU W, ZHANG K. Fluid phase behavior of tight and shale reservoirs: Monte Carlo simulations[J]. Advances in Geo-Energy Research, 2023, 7(2): 132- 135. DOI
10	CAO Chong, CHENG Linsong, JIA Pin, et al. A dynamic fracture model combining with laplace transform and synchronous iteration method for transient behavior analysis of a four-zone system[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2022, 615(Part A): 128723.
11	盛军, 孙卫, 段宝虹, 等. 致密砂岩气藏水锁效应机理探析——以苏里格气田东南区上古生界盒8段储层为例[J]. 天然气地球科学, 2015, 26(10): 1972- 1978. DOI
12	聂法健, 田巍, 李中超, 等. 致密砂岩气藏水锁伤害及对产能的影响[J]. 科学技术与工程, 2016, 16(18): 30- 35. DOI
13	熊钰, 莫军, 李佩斯, 等. 致密储层干化主剂筛选评价与配方研制[J]. 西南石油大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 40(1): 165- 172.
14	范文永, 舒勇, 李礼, 等. 低渗透油气层水锁损害机理及低损害钻井液技术研究[J]. 钻井液与完井液, 2008, 25(4): 16- 19. DOI
15	耿娇娇, 鄢捷年, 邓田青, 等. 低渗透凝析气藏储层损害特征及钻井液保护技术[J]. 石油学报, 2011, 32(5): 893- 899.
16	郭继香, 张德兰, 杨军伟, 等. 致密气藏压裂液水锁抑制剂筛选及性能评价[J]. 应用化工, 2011, 40(11): 1994-1997, 2007. DOI
17	ELKEWIDY T I. Evaluation of formation damage/remediation potential of low permeability reservoirs[C]//the SPE European Formation Damage Conference & Exhibition. Noordwijk, The Netherlands: SPE, 2012: SPE-165093-MS.
18	郭建春, 陶亮, 陈迟, 等. 川南龙马溪组页岩储层水相渗吸规律[J]. 计算物理, 2021, 38(5): 565- 572. DOI
19	邸士莹, 程时清, 白文鹏, 等. 致密油藏动态裂缝扩展机理及应用[J]. 力学学报, 2021, 53(8): 2141- 2155.
20	CAO Y, TANG M, ZHANG Q, et al. Dynamic capillary pressure analysis of tight sandstone based on digital rock model[J]. Capillarity, 2020, 3(2): 28- 35. DOI
21	JIA Zhihao, CHENG Linsong, FENG Haoran, et al. Full composition numerical simulation of CO2 utilization process in shale reservoir using projection-based embedded discrete fracture model (pEDFM) considering nano-confinement effect[J]. Gas Science and Engineering, 2023, 111, 204932. DOI
22	赖南君, 叶仲斌, 刘向君, 等. 低渗透致密砂岩气藏水锁损害室内研究[J]. 天然气工业, 2005, 25(4): 125- 127. DOI
23	冯旭菲, 吴汉, 王尤富. 低渗透油藏水锁损害室内实验研究[J]. 当代化工, 2019, 48(11): 2626- 2629. DOI
24	苏玉亮, 韩秀虹, 王文东, 等. 致密油体积压裂耦合渗吸产能预测模型[J]. 深圳大学学报(理工版), 2018, 35(4): 345- 352.
25	蒋官澄, 王晓军, 关键, 等. 低渗特低渗储层水锁损害定量预测方法[J]. 石油钻探技术, 2012, 40(1): 69- 73. DOI
26	孙玉学, 谢建波, 才庆. 应用量子神经网络预测低渗储层水锁损害[J]. 特种油气藏, 2012, 19(6): 53- 55.
27	朱洪林, 刘向君, 姚光华, 等. 用数字岩心确定低渗透砂岩水锁临界值[J]. 天然气工业, 2016, 36(4): 41- 47.
28	唐洪明, 朱柏宇, 王茜, 等. 致密砂岩气层水锁机理及控制因素研究[J]. 中国科学(技术科学), 2018, 48(5): 537- 547.
29	贺承祖, 华明琪. 水锁机理的定量研究[J]. 钻井液与完井液, 2000, 17(3): 4- 7.
30	杨旭, 李皋, 孟英峰, 等. 低渗透气藏水锁损害定量评价模型[J]. 石油钻探技术, 2019, 47(1): 101- 106.
31	COREY A T. The interrelation between gas and oil relative permeabilities[J]. Producers Monthly, 1954, 19, 38- 41.
32	BURDINE N T. Relative permeability calculations from pore size distribution data[J]. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1953, 5(3): 71- 78.
33	GDANSKI R, FULTON D, SHEN C. Fracture-face-skin evolution during cleanup[J]. SPE Production & Operations, 2009, 24(1): 22- 34.
34	HOLDITCH S, MORSE R. The effects of non-darcy flow on the behavior of hydraulically fractured gas wells(includes associated paper 6417)[J]. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1976, 28(10): 1169- 1179.
35	HOLDITCH S A. Factors affecting water blocking and gas flow from hydraulically fractured gas wells[J]. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1979, 31(12): 1515- 1524.
36	李传亮. 储层岩石的应力敏感性评价方法[J]. 大庆石油地质与开发, 2006, 25(1): 40- 42.
37	李跃刚, 王文举, 万单夫, 等. 应力敏感对致密砂岩气藏气水两相渗流特征影响研究[J]. 科学技术与工程, 2017, 17(3): 69- 73.
38	江昀, 杨贤友, 李越, 等. 大北-克深区块致密砂岩气藏水锁伤害防治[J]. 深圳大学学报(理工版), 2017, 34(6): 640- 646.
39	游利军, 石玉江, 张海涛, 等. 致密砂岩气藏水相圈闭损害自然解除行为研究[J]. 天然气地球科学, 2013, 24(6): 1214- 1219.
40	宋学锋, 魏慧蕊, 李文杰, 等. 塔里木盆地M区块致密砂岩气藏水锁损害影响因素评价[J]. 断块油气田, 2022, 29(2): 224- 228.
41	刁红霞, 王彦兴, 熊超, 等. 低渗透砂岩油藏水锁损害影响因素研究[J]. 当代化工, 2016, 45(8): 1817-1819+1823.
42	崔文富. 驱替压力梯度对水驱油田采收率影响研究[J]. 计算物理, 2024, 41(3): 325- 333. DOI
43	丛海龙, 吴子森, 李虹, 等. 致密砂岩孔隙尺度应力敏感分析[J]. 科学技术与工程, 2019, 19(15): 105- 110.
44	田虓丰, 程林松, 李春兰, 等. 致密油藏液测应力敏感性计算模型[J]. 计算物理, 2015, 32(3): 334- 342.
45	JIA Pin, CHENG Linsong, CLARKSON C R, et al. Flow behavior analysis of two-phase (gas/water) flowback and early-time production from hydraulically-fractured shale gas wells using a hybrid numerical/analytical model[J]. International Journal of Coal Geology, 2017, 182, 14- 31.

[1]	Zhenjie ZHANG, Jianyuan FENG, Jianchao CAI, Kangli CHEN, Qingbang MENG. Driving Force for Spontaneous Imbibition Under Different Boundary Conditions [J]. Chinese Journal of Computational Physics, 2021, 38(5): 513-520.
[2]	Jiangtao ZHENG, Ninghong JIA, Huifang HU, Yong YANG, Yang JU, Moran WANG. Study on Liquid-Liquid Spontaneous Imbibition Dynamics in Bifurcated Channels [J]. Chinese Journal of Computational Physics, 2021, 38(5): 543-554.