压裂/压力泵送

谁是对的?骨折成像常常提供相互矛盾的措施

当有两种方法来衡量某件事,并且它们提供的数字显着不同时,您会使用哪一种?

两种技术的不同孔形状(左侧为 DarkVision 超声波技术,右侧为 EV 相机技术)。
两种技术的不同孔形状(左侧为 DarkVision 超声波技术,右侧为 EV 相机技术)。
资料来源:SPE 212358。

有两种方法可以测量压裂过程中由于侵蚀而导致的入口孔增长量,并且它们提供的结果通常是不同的。

这很重要,因为这些相互竞争的技术,一种使用摄像头,另一种使用超声波,已经成为测量压裂性能的重要工具。

当石油公司进行并行测试时,孔尺寸测量值存在足够的差异,从而提出了一个问题:哪一个是正确的?

虽然数据集的平均值和趋势线对于习惯于嘈杂的井下数据的工程师来说看起来足够接近,但特定入口孔的测量差异可能会让那些试图评估集群级别性能的人感到不安。

“它们之间存在相当大的分歧,差距高达 100%,许多差距达到 25% 或更高,”视觉成像先驱公司 EV 的视觉分析总监托本·泰蒙斯 (Tobben Tymons) 说。他在描述双井测试的结果时做出了这一观察,其中 EV 与 Archer 合作使用相机和超声波方法测量入口孔 ( SPE 212322 )。

在 2023 年 SPE 水力压裂技术会议暨展览会 (HFTC) 上发表的论文包括图 1,比较了侧井测试中阶段内使用照片和超声波作为彩色点对的测量结果。红点是基于外壳入口孔的相机图像;黄色是基于超声波的。

通过超声波和摄像头传感器进行单独的穿孔面积测量
图 1——1 号井第 37 阶段的超声波和摄像传感器的单个射孔面积测量结果,显示了测量差异和未测量的射孔。
资料来源:SPE 212322。

他们表明,这些工具可以为某些孔提供显着不同的测量结果。

SPE_logo_CMYK_trans_sm.png
成为 SPE 会员继续阅读
SPE 会员:请在页面顶部登录才能访问此会员专享内容。如果您还不是会员,但发现 JPT 内容很有价值,我们鼓励您成为 SPE 会员社区的一部分,以获得完全访问权限。
原文链接/jpt
Fracturing/pressure pumping

Who’s Right? Imaging of Fractures Often Delivers Conflicting Measures

When there are two ways to measure something, and they offer significantly different numbers, which do you use?

Different hole shapes from two technologies (ultrasonic by DarkVision on left, camera by EV on right).
Different hole shapes from two technologies (ultrasonic by DarkVision on left, camera by EV on right).
Source: SPE 212358.

There are two ways to measure how much entry holes grow due to erosion during fracturing, and the results they offer are often different.

This matters because these competing technologies, one using cameras and the other ultrasound, have become an essential tool for measuring fracturing performance.

When oil companies run side-by-side tests, there are enough differences in the hole size measurements to raise the question: Which one is right?

While the averages and trend lines for the data sets look close enough for engineers used to noisy downhole data, differences in the measures of specific entry holes can be disconcerting for those trying to evaluate performance at the cluster level.

“There is quite a bit of disagreement in them, with gaps of up to 100%, and many gaps of 25% or more,” said Tobben Tymons, visual analytics director for EV, the company that pioneered visual imaging. He made that observation when he described the result of a two-well test where EV partnered with Archer to measure entry holes using both camera and ultrasound methods (SPE 212322).

The paper presented at the 2023 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition (HFTC) included Fig. 1 comparing the measurements using photos and ultrasound as pairs of colored dots within a stage in a side‑by‑side well test. The red dots were based on a camera image of the entry holes in the casing; the yellow were based on ultrasound.

Individual perforation area measurements from ultrasound and camera sensors
Fig. 1—Individual perforation area measurements from ultrasound and camera sensors for Stage 37 of Well 1 demonstrating measurement differences and unmeasured perforations.
Source: SPE 212322.

They show that these tools can deliver significantly different measures for some of the holes.

×
SPE_logo_CMYK_trans_sm.png
Continue Reading with SPE Membership
SPE Members: Please sign in at the top of the page for access to this member-exclusive content. If you are not a member and you find JPT content valuable, we encourage you to become a part of the SPE member community to gain full access.