基于模糊综合评价的烟道气辅助SAGD过程评价

doi:10.16085/j.issn.1000-6613.2020-0483

化工进展 ›› 2021, Vol. 40 ›› Issue (1): 89-98.DOI: 10.16085/j.issn.1000-6613.2020-0483

基于模糊综合评价的烟道气辅助SAGD过程评价

赵东亚¹(), 卢帆¹, 曹磊¹^,², 李兆敏³, 鹿腾³, 杨建平⁴

^1.中国石油大学（华东）新能源学院，山东青岛 266580
^2.中国工程物理研究院总体工程研究所，四川绵阳 621999
^3.中国石油大学（华东）石油工程学院，山东青岛 266580
^4.中国石油辽河油田;高升采油厂，辽宁盘锦 124125

收稿日期:2020-04-02 出版日期:2021-01-05 发布日期:2021-01-12
通讯作者: 赵东亚
作者简介:赵东亚（1975—），男，教授，博士生导师，研究方向为过程建模、优化与控制。Email：dyzhao@upc.edu.cn。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金(61973315);国家科技重大专项(2016ZX05012002-004);中国石油大学（华东）自主创新科研计划(18CX05026A);青岛市民生科技计划(17-3-3-75-nsh)

Evaluation for flue gas-assisted SAGD based on the method of a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation

Dongya ZHAO¹(), Fan LU¹, Lei CAO¹^,², Zhaomin LI³, Teng LU³, Jianping YANG⁴

^1.College of New Energy, China University of Petroleum (East China), Qingdao 266580, Shandong, China
^2.Institute of Systems Engineering, China Academy of Engineering Physics, Mianyang 621999, Sichuan, China
^3.School of Petroleum Engineering, China University of Petroleum (East China), Qingdao 266580, Shandong, China
^4.Gaosheng Oil Production Plant of Petro China Liaohe Oilfield Company, Panjin 124125, Liaoning, China

Received:2020-04-02 Online:2021-01-05 Published:2021-01-12
Contact: Dongya ZHAO

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目前烟道气辅助蒸汽辅助重力泄油（SAGD）技术已在机理研究和数值模拟方面取得了进展，但由于实际投入油田试验的操作成本较高以及存在额外的能量消耗，所以无法直接判断和验证实际应用效果。为了更全面地评估注采方案，本文运用模糊综合评价法建立了多元评价体系，以环境、能量、工艺、经济为4个评价指标，对不同注采方案进行综合评价以选出综合性能最优的生产设计方案，为实际生产方案的选取提供参考，首次对烟道气辅助SAGD实际工程进行评价研究。基于“有无对比法”，将烟道气辅助SAGD与常规SAGD进行对比，结果表明烟道气辅助SAGD的综合效益更好，佐证了烟道气辅助SAGD驱油的优越性。为方便工程应用，开发了“烟气辅助SAGD驱油评价软件”，通过软件进行实例分析并进行方法对比，验证了本文方法的有效性、适用性和准确性。

关键词: 烟道气辅助SAGD, 模糊综合评价, 有无对比法, 石油, 烟道气

Abstract:

Flue gas-assisted SAGD has made advances in mechanism and numerical simulation. However, it is unable to judge and validate test results directly due to high operational costs and extra energy consumption in oilfield tests. In order to evaluate projects thoroughly, this paper establishes multiple evaluation systems of flue gas-assisted SAGD with a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method, taking environment, energy, technology, and the economy as four evaluation indexes, and conducts a comprehensive evaluation to select the production scheme with the best comprehensive performance. The flue gas-assisted SAGD is evaluated for the first time, which provides references for actual production. Comparing flue gas-assisted SAGD with SAGD based on "With and Without Methods", the merits of flue gas-assisted SAGD are visible, which are superior to those of SAGD. In order to facilitate field applications, flue gas-assisted SAGD evaluation software is developed and compared with other methods. The feasibility, availability, and accuracy of the proposed method are verified.

Key words: flue gas-assisted SAGD, fuzzy comprehensive evaluation, With and Without Methods, petroleum, flue gas

中图分类号:

TE345

赵东亚, 卢帆, 曹磊, 李兆敏, 鹿腾, 杨建平. 基于模糊综合评价的烟道气辅助SAGD过程评价[J]. 化工进展, 2021, 40(1): 89-98.

Dongya ZHAO, Fan LU, Lei CAO, Zhaomin LI, Teng LU, Jianping YANG. Evaluation for flue gas-assisted SAGD based on the method of a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation[J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2021, 40(1): 89-98.

图/表 8

图1 软件评价流程

图2 各方案评价指标计算结果及权重

图3 影响因素预测结果

图4 常规SAGD方案各指标和经济参数汇总

图5 烟道气辅助SAGD评价指标汇总

图6 烟道气辅助SAGD项目经济参数汇总

图7 烟道气辅助SAGD不同方案评语为“优”的评价结果

图8 注采方案评价的层次结构

参考文献 35

1	DONG Xiaohu, LIU Huiqing, CHEN Zhangxin, et al. An empirical correlation to predict the SAGD recovery performance[J]. Journal of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering, 2017, 17(3): 333-345.
2	ZARGAR Z, ALI S M F. Analytical modelling of steam chamber rise stage of steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) process[J]. Fuel, 2018, 233: 732-742.
3	O’BRIEN W J, MOORE R G, MEHTA S A, et al. Performance of air injection vs. CO₂/water injection in a tight, light-oil reservoir: a laboratory study[J]. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 2019, 22(3): SPE-190279-PA.
4	XI Changfeng, QI Zongyao, ZHANG Yunjun, et al. CO₂ assisted steam flooding in late steam flooding in heavy oil reservoirs[J]. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2019, 46(6): 1242-1250.
5	FENG Guoqing, LI Ying, YANG Zhidong, et al. Performance evaluation of nitrogen-assisted steam flooding process in heavy oil reservoir via numerical simulation[J]. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2020, 189: 106954.
6	WAN Tao, WANG XiaoJun, JING Ziyan, et al. Gas injection assisted steam huff-n-puff process for oil recovery from deep heavy oil reservoirs with low-permeability[J]. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2020, 185: 106613.
7	YEE C T, STROICH A. Flue gas injection into a mature SAGD steam chamber at the Dover Project (formerly UTF)[J]. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 2004, 43(1): 54-61.
8	TREVISAN O V, LABOISSIERE P, MONTE-MOR L S. Laboratory study on steam and flue gas co-injection for heavy oil recovery[C]// SPE Heavy Oil Conference-Canada, 2013.
9	ZHONG Liguo, DONG Zhaoxia, HOU Jirui, et al. Investigation on principles of enhanced offshore heavy oil recovery by coinjection of steam with flue gas[C]// Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2013.
10	李兆敏, 王勇, 李宾飞, 等. 烟道气在超稠油中的溶解特性[J]. 特种油气藏, 2010, 17(5): 84-86， 132.
	LI Zhaomin, WANG Yong, LI Bingfei, et al. Dissolubility of flue gas in super-heavy oil[J]. Special Oil & Gas Reservoirs, 2010, 17(5): 84-86, 132.
11	王勇. 烟道气辅助SAGD提高稠油开发效果研究[D]. 青岛: 中国石油大学（华东）, 2010.
	WANG Yong. Study on flue gas assisted SAGD to improve development efficiency of heavy oil[D]. Qingdao: China University of Petroleum（East China）, 2010.
12	李兆敏, 王勇, 高永荣, 等. 烟道气辅助SAGD数值模拟研究[J]. 特种油气藏, 2011, 18(1): 58-60, 138.
	LI Zhaomin, WANG Yong, GAO Yongrong, et al. Numerical simulation study of flue gas assisted SAGD[J]. Special Oil & Gas Reservoirs, 2011, 18(1): 58-60, 138.
13	LU Teng, LI Zhaomin, SUN Xiaona, et al. Production features of flue gas assisted SAGD technology[J]. Advanced Materials Research, 2012, 524/527: 1196-1202.
14	ZHAO Shunqiang, SUN Yongtao, SUN Yubao, et al. Case study of flue gas assisted SAGD in offshore heavy oil reservoirs[C]// SPE Asia Pacific Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference, 2015.
15	WANG Zhuangzhuang, LI Zhaomin, LU Teng, et al. Research on enhancing heavy oil recovery mechanism of flue gas assisted steam flooding[C]// Carbon Management Technology Conference, 2017.
16	ZHAO Haoran, ZHAO Huiru, GUO Sen. Evaluating the comprehensive benefit of eco-industrial parks by employing multi-criteria decision making approach for circular economy[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017, 142(4): 2262-2276.
17	İ KAYA, ÇOLAK M, TERZI F. A comprehensive review of fuzzy multi criteria decision making methodologies for energy policy making[J]. Energy Strategy Reviews, 2019, 24: 207-228.
18	YAO Xuelin, DENG Hongwei, ZHANG Ti, et al. Multistage fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of landslide hazards based on a cloud model[J]. PloS One, 2019, 14(11): e0224312.
19	马敏. 基于模糊综合评价法的油田区块分类指示评价[D]. 大庆: 东北石油大学, 2014.
	MA Min. Evaluation for classified index of oil block based on the method of fuzzy comprehensive evaluation[D]. Daqing: Northeast Petroleum University, 2014.
20	范秋芳, 赵亚丽. 基于层次分析法和模糊综合评价模型的中国石油安全预警研究[J]. 中外能源, 2014, 19(2): 8-12.
	FAN Qiufang, ZHAO Yali. A study on China’s oil security pre-warning based on AHP and fuzzy synthetic evaluation model[J]. Sino-Global Energy, 2014, 19(2): 8-12.
21	郭江涛. 石油化工建设项目环境影响后评价与案例分析[D]. 天津: 天津工业大学, 2018.
	GUO Jiangtao. Post-evaluation and case study of environmental impacts of petrochemical construction projects[D]. Tianjin: Tianjin Polytechnic University, 2018.
22	刘盈. 油气井完整性综合评价方法及管理系统研究[D]. 西安: 西安石油大学, 2018.
	LIU Ying. Comprehensive evaluation methods and management system of well integrity[D]. Xi’an: Xi’an Shiyou University, 2018.
23	刘浩旻, 张在旭. 国际油价波动背景下中国石油安全评价研究[J]. 中国石油大学学报(社会科学版), 2018, 34(6): 21-28.
	LIU Haomin, ZHANG Zaixu. Research on petroleum security evaluation in China under the background of international oil price fluctuation[J]. Journal of China University of Petroleum (Edition of Social Sciences), 2018, 34(6): 21-28.
24	耿金彪, 涂建新, 高洪强, 等. “有无对比法”在经济评价中的运用及相关概念分析[J]. 中国工程咨询, 2016(7): 21-22.
	GENG Jinbiao, TU Jianxin, GAO Hongqiang, et al. Application and relevant concepts analysis of With and Without Methods in economic evaluation[J]. Chinese Consulting Engineers, 2016(7): 21-22.
25	彭松水, 陆诗建. CCS-EOR项目碳净减排量方法学模型[J]. 油气田地面工程, 2015(4): 9-11.
	PENG Songshui, LU Shijian. CCS-EOR project net carbon reduction methodology model[J]. Oil-Gas Field Surface Engineering, 2015(4): 9-11.
26	国家计委能源研究所. 能源基础数据汇编[M]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2008.
	State Development Planning Commission Energy Institution. Compilation of energy basic data[M]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2008.
27	石油化工设计能耗计算标准: [S].
	Standard for calculation of energy consumption in petrochemical engineering design: [S].
28	文兼武. 中国能源统计年鉴2018[M]. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 2018.
	WEN Jianwu. China energy statistical yearbook 2018[M]. Beijing: China Statistic Press, 2018.
29	刘芳, 黄忠. 固定资产投资估算国内外比较分析[J]. 基建优化, 2003, 24(4): 26-29.
	LIU Fang, HUANG Zhong. A comparison of fix assets investments estimation between home and abroad[J]. Optimization of Capital Construction, 2003, 24(4): 26-29.
30	林永. 长输管道工程投资的简便估算公式[J]. 天然气与石油, 2000, 18(4): 56-58.
	LIN Yong. A simple formula for estimating the investment of long distance pipeline project[J]. Natural Gas and Oil, 2000, 18(4): 56-58.
31	Woodhill Engineering Consultants. Pipeline transmission of CO₂ and energy: transmission study-report[R]. Stoke Orchard, UK: Woodhill Engineering Consultants, 2002.
32	中石化发展计划部. 中石化经济评价方法与参数[K]. 2007.
	Sinopec Development planning Department. Sinopec economic evaluation methods and parameters[K]. 2007.
33	叶义成, 柯丽华, 黄德育. 系统综合评价技术及其应用[M]. 北京: 冶金工业出版社, 2006: 97-109.
	YE Yicheng, KE Lihuang, HUANG Deyu. System comprehensive evaluation technique and application[M]. Beijing: Metallurgical Industry Press, 2006: 97-109.
34	胡永宏, 贺思辉. 综合评价方法[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2000.
	HU Yonghong, He Sihui. Comprehensive evaluation method[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2000.
35	黄崇福, 王家鼎. 模糊信息优化处理技术及其应用[M]. 北京: 北京航空航天大学出版社, 1996.
	HUANG Chongfu, WANG Jiading. Fuzzy information optimization and application[M]. Beijing: Beihang University Press, 1996.

[1]	王云刚, 焦健, 邓世丰, 赵钦新, 邵怀爽. 冷凝换热与协同脱硫性能实验分析[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(8): 4230-4237.
[2]	谭利鹏, 申峻, 王玉高, 刘刚, 徐青柏. 煤沥青和石油沥青共混改性的研究进展[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(7): 3749-3759.
[3]	索寒生, 贾梦达, 宋光, 刘东庆. 数字孪生技术助力石化智能工厂[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(7): 3365-3373.
[4]	李若琳, 何少林, 苑宏英, 刘伯约, 纪冬丽, 宋阳, 刘博, 余绩庆, 徐英俊. 原位热解对油页岩物性及地下水水质影响探索[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(6): 3309-3318.
[5]	何川, 吴国勋, 李昂, 张发捷, 卞子君, 卢承政, 王丽朋, 赵民. 垃圾焚烧脱硝催化剂钙镁失活与活性恢复特性[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(5): 2413-2420.
[6]	戴行, 高瑞雪, 李奕国, 朱锦, 王静刚. 高玻璃化转变温度抗冲击透明聚酯的研究进展[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(5): 2555-2565.
[7]	刘美佳, 王刚, 张忠东, 何盛宝, 高金森. 石蜡基原油直接催化裂解制低碳烯烃新型炼化工艺的开发[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(10): 5191-5199.
[8]	张潇, 王占一, 吴峙颖, 刘玉婷, 刘子龙, 刘欣佳, 张遂安. 压裂支撑剂的覆膜改性技术[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(1): 386-400.
[9]	郑瑾, 韩瑞瑞, 李丹丹, 王馨妤, 高春阳, 杜显元, 张晓飞, 邹德勋. 过氧化尿素与微生物联合修复石油污染土壤[J]. 化工进展, 2022, 41(9): 5085-5093.
[10]	武传朋, 李传坤, 杨哲, 苟成冬, 高新江. 固体吸附材料脱除SO₂研究进展[J]. 化工进展, 2022, 41(7): 3840-3854.
[11]	莫乾赐, 叶海波, 林行素, 李国华, 陈伟崇, 卢苇. 基于测试数据的蔗渣锅炉能量分析及能效提升措施[J]. 化工进展, 2022, 41(6): 3350-3359.
[12]	龚鑫, 刘小冬, 温福山, 师楠, 刘东. 中间相炭微球乳化-聚合法制备及电化学性能[J]. 化工进展, 2022, 41(5): 2379-2388.
[13]	狄冠丞, 周强, 陶信, 尚瑜, 宋涛, 卢平, 徐贵玲. 掺硫介孔炭的制备及其汞脱除特性[J]. 化工进展, 2022, 41(5): 2761-2769.
[14]	黄晟, 王静宇, 李振宇. 碳中和目标下石油与化学工业绿色低碳发展路径分析[J]. 化工进展, 2022, 41(4): 1689-1703.
[15]	汪林, 蒲思淇, 王明新, 薛金娟, 韩莹. 过碳酸钠修复石油污染土壤及其环境效应[J]. 化工进展, 2022, 41(4): 2171-2179.

基于模糊综合评价的烟道气辅助SAGD过程评价

Evaluation for flue gas-assisted SAGD based on the method of a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 8

参考文献 35

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价