摘要
常规地层流体取样的实验室PVT分析可以提供流体的粘度数据,但是取样及分析的成本较高.MDT流体取样可用于实验室的PVT分析,但是MDT井场作业和实验室的PVT分析之间存在时间差,因此,测试公司在MDT测试成果图上只给出了压降流度(K/μ).根据泥浆滤液粘度和岩心分析数据,文中提出了2种与MDT井场作业期同步的MDT压降流度与地层渗透率转换方法,即泥浆滤液粘度转换法和岩心分析数据转换法,并且在渤海地区进行了实际应用.对比分析表明,在裸眼井MDT测试的一般情况下,流入取样器的流体是泥浆滤液,应用泥浆滤液粘度转换法可以确定储层在真实条件下的渗透率;而在数据样本点满足统计要求的前提下,应用岩心分析数据转换法所求解的MDT渗透率相当于储层在理想条件下的渗透率;这两种方法所确定的渗透率的差异,指示了地层渗滤性能可能改善的潜力.
The conventional samples of formation fluids can be used in laboratory PVT measurements to provide viscosity data, but the cost of sampling and data analysis is relatively higher. Although the fluid samples from MDT operation are also suitable for the PVT measurements in lab, the testing company may only give the drawdown mobility data(K/μ) on the result plots, due to the time difference between MDT operation and lab PVT measurements. Based on the data of mud filtrate viscosity and core analyses, two methods are developed to transform MDT drawdown mobility into formation permeability simultaneously with the MDT operation, i.e. the mud filtrate viscosity method and the core data method. These two methods have been used in Bohai bay. When the MDT is conducted in a barefoot well, the mud filtrate viscosity method can be applied to calculate the true permeability of reservoir, because the sampling device is generally filled with mud filtrate. When the data samples can meet statistical requirements, the core data method may be used to calculate the ideal permeability of reservoir. The difference between permeabilities derived from the two methods could indicate the possible improvement potential of reservoir permeability.
出处
《中国海上油气（地质）》
2003年第3期211-214,共4页
China Offshore Oil and Gas(Geology)
基金
中国科学院知识创新工程项目，国家自然科学基金
