US20200240243A1 - Method for intelligently determining hydrate drilling and production risks based on fuzzy judgment - Google Patents
Method for intelligently determining hydrate drilling and production risks based on fuzzy judgment Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- US20200240243A1 US20200240243A1 US16/747,294 US202016747294A US2020240243A1 US 20200240243 A1 US20200240243 A1 US 20200240243A1 US 202016747294 A US202016747294 A US 202016747294A US 2020240243 A1 US2020240243 A1 US 2020240243A1
- Authority
- US
- United States
- Prior art keywords
- evaluation factor
- value
- monitoring parameter
- determining
- primary
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Abandoned
Links
- 238000005553 drilling Methods 0.000 title claims abstract description 63
- 238000004519 manufacturing process Methods 0.000 title claims abstract description 59
- 238000000034 method Methods 0.000 title claims abstract description 38
- 238000011156 evaluation Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 180
- 238000012544 monitoring process Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 94
- 239000011159 matrix material Substances 0.000 claims abstract description 41
- 230000008859 change Effects 0.000 claims abstract description 31
- 239000013598 vector Substances 0.000 claims abstract description 20
- 239000010410 layer Substances 0.000 claims description 56
- 239000012530 fluid Substances 0.000 claims description 42
- 238000002347 injection Methods 0.000 claims description 22
- 239000007924 injection Substances 0.000 claims description 22
- 230000015572 biosynthetic process Effects 0.000 claims description 15
- 239000007789 gas Substances 0.000 claims description 15
- RWSOTUBLDIXVET-UHFFFAOYSA-N Dihydrogen sulfide Chemical compound S RWSOTUBLDIXVET-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 claims description 13
- 229910000037 hydrogen sulfide Inorganic materials 0.000 claims description 13
- 239000004215 Carbon black (E152) Substances 0.000 claims description 8
- 229930195733 hydrocarbon Natural products 0.000 claims description 8
- 150000002430 hydrocarbons Chemical class 0.000 claims description 8
- 230000004044 response Effects 0.000 claims description 7
- 239000011229 interlayer Substances 0.000 claims description 2
- NMJORVOYSJLJGU-UHFFFAOYSA-N methane clathrate Chemical compound C.C.C.C.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O NMJORVOYSJLJGU-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 13
- 230000008569 process Effects 0.000 description 9
- 238000004364 calculation method Methods 0.000 description 8
- 238000010276 construction Methods 0.000 description 4
- BTCSSZJGUNDROE-UHFFFAOYSA-N gamma-aminobutyric acid Chemical compound NCCCC(O)=O BTCSSZJGUNDROE-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 4
- 238000010586 diagram Methods 0.000 description 3
- 238000011160 research Methods 0.000 description 3
- XLYOFNOQVPJJNP-UHFFFAOYSA-N water Substances O XLYOFNOQVPJJNP-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 3
- 239000000470 constituent Substances 0.000 description 2
- 238000011161 development Methods 0.000 description 2
- VNWKTOKETHGBQD-UHFFFAOYSA-N methane Chemical compound C VNWKTOKETHGBQD-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 2
- 238000012986 modification Methods 0.000 description 2
- 230000004048 modification Effects 0.000 description 2
- 238000010606 normalization Methods 0.000 description 2
- 239000013078 crystal Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000006073 displacement reaction Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000005516 engineering process Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000011049 filling Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000000463 material Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000012821 model calculation Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000012806 monitoring device Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000003345 natural gas Substances 0.000 description 1
- 239000013049 sediment Substances 0.000 description 1
- 239000000243 solution Substances 0.000 description 1
- 239000000126 substance Substances 0.000 description 1
Images
Classifications
-
- E21B41/0092—
-
- E—FIXED CONSTRUCTIONS
- E21—EARTH OR ROCK DRILLING; MINING
- E21B—EARTH OR ROCK DRILLING; OBTAINING OIL, GAS, WATER, SOLUBLE OR MELTABLE MATERIALS OR A SLURRY OF MINERALS FROM WELLS
- E21B44/00—Automatic control systems specially adapted for drilling operations, i.e. self-operating systems which function to carry out or modify a drilling operation without intervention of a human operator, e.g. computer-controlled drilling systems; Systems specially adapted for monitoring a plurality of drilling variables or conditions
-
- E—FIXED CONSTRUCTIONS
- E21—EARTH OR ROCK DRILLING; MINING
- E21B—EARTH OR ROCK DRILLING; OBTAINING OIL, GAS, WATER, SOLUBLE OR MELTABLE MATERIALS OR A SLURRY OF MINERALS FROM WELLS
- E21B41/00—Equipment or details not covered by groups E21B15/00 - E21B40/00
- E21B41/0099—Equipment or details not covered by groups E21B15/00 - E21B40/00 specially adapted for drilling for or production of natural hydrate or clathrate gas reservoirs; Drilling through or monitoring of formations containing gas hydrates or clathrates
-
- E—FIXED CONSTRUCTIONS
- E21—EARTH OR ROCK DRILLING; MINING
- E21B—EARTH OR ROCK DRILLING; OBTAINING OIL, GAS, WATER, SOLUBLE OR MELTABLE MATERIALS OR A SLURRY OF MINERALS FROM WELLS
- E21B47/00—Survey of boreholes or wells
-
- E—FIXED CONSTRUCTIONS
- E21—EARTH OR ROCK DRILLING; MINING
- E21B—EARTH OR ROCK DRILLING; OBTAINING OIL, GAS, WATER, SOLUBLE OR MELTABLE MATERIALS OR A SLURRY OF MINERALS FROM WELLS
- E21B49/00—Testing the nature of borehole walls; Formation testing; Methods or apparatus for obtaining samples of soil or well fluids, specially adapted to earth drilling or wells
-
- E—FIXED CONSTRUCTIONS
- E21—EARTH OR ROCK DRILLING; MINING
- E21B—EARTH OR ROCK DRILLING; OBTAINING OIL, GAS, WATER, SOLUBLE OR MELTABLE MATERIALS OR A SLURRY OF MINERALS FROM WELLS
- E21B49/00—Testing the nature of borehole walls; Formation testing; Methods or apparatus for obtaining samples of soil or well fluids, specially adapted to earth drilling or wells
- E21B49/08—Obtaining fluid samples or testing fluids, in boreholes or wells
-
- E21B2041/0028—
-
- E—FIXED CONSTRUCTIONS
- E21—EARTH OR ROCK DRILLING; MINING
- E21B—EARTH OR ROCK DRILLING; OBTAINING OIL, GAS, WATER, SOLUBLE OR MELTABLE MATERIALS OR A SLURRY OF MINERALS FROM WELLS
- E21B2200/00—Special features related to earth drilling for obtaining oil, gas or water
- E21B2200/22—Fuzzy logic, artificial intelligence, neural networks or the like
Definitions
- the present invention relates to the technical field of intelligent judgment and research on natural gas hydrate drilling and production risks, and in particular to a method for intelligently determining hydrate drilling and production risks based on fuzzy judgment.
- Natural gas hydrate is a non-stoichiometric clathrate crystal substance generated by water and natural gas in a high-pressure and low-temperature environment. It is unconventional energy with high density and high heat value, mainly distributed in marine and terrestrial permafrost sediments. The amount of marine natural gas hydrate resources is about 100 times that of terrestrial permafrost. The exploitation of the marine natural gas hydrate has attracted much attention. The natural gas hydrate is generally considered to be the most potential replacement energy in the 21st century and is also new energy with the largest reserves yet to be developed.
- the present invention provides a method for intelligently determining hydrate drilling and production risks based on fuzzy judgment.
- the method has a reliable working principle and simple and convenient operations, and can quickly and accurately determine a risk type and generate an alarm when risks occur in the hydrate drilling and production process.
- the method enables a hydrate drilling and production operation process to be monitored in real time, thereby ensuring safe hydrate drilling and production, and filling the gap in intelligently determining risks in hydrate drilling and production.
- the present invention adopts the following technical solutions.
- Monitoring parameters in a hydrate drilling and production process are first hierarchically structured by using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and then classified into layers from top to bottom, including a target layer (composed of 8 risks), a primary evaluation factor layer (composed of monitoring parameter types, where a primary evaluation factor is a monitoring parameter type), and a secondary evaluation factor layer (composed of monitoring parameters, where a secondary evaluation factor is a monitoring parameter). Then a relative weight value of each primary evaluation factor is calculated (for example, when a certain risk occurs, the stronger the response of a certain primary evaluation factor to the risk, the greater the relative weight of this primary evaluation factor to this risk, that is, the greater the relative weight value of this primary evaluation factor).
- each secondary evaluation factor contained in each primary evaluation factor is calculated respectively (for example, when a certain risk occurs, the stronger the response of a certain secondary evaluation factor to the risk, the greater the relative weight of this secondary evaluation factor to this risk, that is, the greater the relative weight value of this secondary evaluation factor).
- each primary evaluation factor is respectively connected in series with the relative weight values of all secondary evaluation factors included in the primary evaluation factor (that is, the relative weight value of each primary evaluation factor is respectively multiplied with the relative weight values of all secondary evaluation factors included in this primary evaluation factor), and the relative weight values of the secondary evaluation factors connected in series are overall weight values of the secondary evaluation factors (that is, when the risk occurs, the greater the intensity of the comprehensive response of which secondary evaluation factor to the risk, the greater the overall weight value of this secondary evaluation factor).
- the foregoing steps are repeated to calculate a relative weight value of each primary evaluation factor of the remaining risks in the target layer and respectively calculate a relative weight value of each secondary evaluation factor contained in each primary evaluation factor and overall weight values of the secondary evaluation factors.
- a comprehensive determining weight matrix namely a comprehensive determining weight matrix of hydrate drilling and production risks, is constructed after the constructed column vectors are arranged in sequence, and the risks in the hydrate drilling and production process are quickly, accurately and intelligently determined by combining monitoring parameter change vectors.
- a method for intelligently determining hydrate drilling and production risks based on fuzzy judgment includes the following steps in sequence.
- Step 1 building a hierarchical structure model hierarchically structuring monitoring parameters in a hydrate drilling and production process by using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and classifying into layers from top to bottom, which include a target layer, a primary evaluation factor layer and a secondary evaluation factor layer, where the target layer is composed of 8 risks which are formation gas production, borehole instability, hydrate production, drill string fracture, H 2 S production, sticking, bit balling and piercing-caused leakage of a drilling tool respectively; the primary evaluation factor layer is composed of 3 kinds of monitoring parameters, which are an injection parameter, a drilling parameter and a return parameter respectively; the secondary evaluation factor layer is composed of 11 monitoring parameters, which are injection fluid pressure, injection fluid flow, hanging load, drilling time, torque, rotational speed, total hydrocarbon value, hydrogen sulfide concentration, return fluid flow, return fluid pressure and return fluid temperature respectively, to construct a hierarchical structure model.
- the target layer is composed of 8 risks which are formation gas production, borehole instability, hydrate production, drill string fracture, H 2 S production
- Step 2 constructing a determining matrix
- a nine-scale method with the process as follows: based on a selected risk in the target layer (namely a first layer), first using the nine-scale method to compare primary evaluation factors of the primary evaluation factor
- Scale values of each primary evaluation factor and each secondary evaluation factor are determined by using the nine-scale method.
- An example of determining a scale value is as follows: when the monitoring parameter i corresponding to the selected risk is compared with the monitoring parameter j, the scale value is determined according to a response intensity (namely importance) of the monitoring parameter i and the monitoring parameter j to the risk, and the scale value is quantitatively expressed by the triangular fuzzy number
- a ij % ( a 1 , a 2 , a 3 ) .
- the scale value is a judgment result of the importance of the monitoring parameter i and the monitoring parameter j to this risk.
- a primary evaluation factor determining matrix and a secondary evaluation factor determining matrix are respectively constructed, the constructed determining matrixes of the primary evaluation factors and the secondary evaluation factors are expressed by ⁇ tilde under (A) ⁇ , and an example of ⁇ tilde under (A) ⁇ is as follows:
- i refers to the i-th evaluation factor of a certain layer in the hierarchical structure model (a value of i is 1, 2, 3, . . . , m)
- j refers to the j-th evaluation factor of the same layer in the same hierarchical structure model as j (a value of j is 1, 2, 3, . . . , m), and in refers to the number of primary evaluation factors or the number of secondary evaluation factors.
- Step 3 establishing a comprehensive determining matrix and calculating a fuzzy weight value
- a ⁇ M 1 n ⁇ [ A ⁇ 1 + A ⁇ 2 + ⁇ + A ⁇ n ]
- ⁇ tilde under (A) ⁇ M refers to the comprehensive determining matrix
- ⁇ tilde under (A) ⁇ 1 , ⁇ tilde under (A) ⁇ 2 , and ⁇ tilde under (A) ⁇ n refer to determining matrixes constructed according to scale values determined by judgment results of the first expert, the second expert and the n-th expert respectively.
- a ⁇ k [ a cd k ] , a cd k
- a geometric average fuzzy weight calculation method (similar to an nth root method) is used to calculate the relative fuzzy weight value of each evaluation factor in the matrix (the relative fuzzy weight of each evaluation factor has already taken the normalization of a fuzzy number into account).
- a geometric mean of the i-th evaluation factor in the comprehensive determining matrix ⁇ tilde under (A) ⁇ M is:
- r i ( a i1 ⁇ a i2 ⁇ a i3 ⁇ . . . ⁇ a im ) 1/m
- a relative fuzzy weight value of the i-th evaluation factor is:
- Step 4 converting the relative fuzzy weight value of the i-th evaluation factor into an explicit value
- w i (R i , M i , L i ), L i is left extension of the triangular fuzzy number, R i is right extension of the triangular fuzzy number, and M i is a median of the triangular fuzzy number; converting the relative weight fuzzy weight value of the i-th evaluation factor into an explicit weight value DF i of the i-th evaluation factor, where a calculation formula of DF i is as follows:
- Step 5 normalizing the explicit weight value of the i-th evaluation factor
- w′ i is the relative weight value of the normalized i-th evaluation factor.
- Step 6 connecting relative weight values of each interlayer evaluation factor in series
- w′ Ti is the overall weight value of the i-th secondary evaluation factor
- w′ 1i is the relative weight value of the primary evaluation factor corresponding to the i-th secondary evaluation factor
- w′ 2i is the relative weight value of the i-th secondary evaluation factor.
- the overall weight of the i-th secondary evaluation factor relative to a certain risk is as follows:
- steps 2-6 are repeated, a relative weight value of each primary evaluation factor of the remaining risks in the target layer is calculated, a relative weight value of each secondary evaluation factor contained in each primary evaluation factor and overall weight values of the secondary evaluation factors are respectively calculated. Then the overall weight values of the secondary evaluation factors of each risk are constructed into column vectors in the same order, and a comprehensive determining weight matrix, namely a comprehensive determining weight matrix A T of hydrate drilling and production risks, is constructed after the constructed column vectors are arranged in sequence, where A T is shown as follows:
- a T [ w T ⁇ ⁇ 11 ′ ⁇ w T ⁇ ⁇ 1 ⁇ e ′ ⁇ ⁇ ⁇ w Tm ⁇ ⁇ 1 ′ ⁇ w Tme ′ ]
- Step 7 constructing a monitoring parameter change vector
- monitoring parameters such as injection fluid pressure, injection fluid flow, hanging load, drilling time, torque, rotational speed, total hydrocarbon value, hydrogen sulfide concentration, return fluid flow, return fluid pressure and return fluid temperature fluctuate within a normal range during normal construction (during construction without risks), in order to avoid the influence of fluctuation within the normal range of each monitoring parameter on risk judgment, a reasonable change range of monitoring parameters is established by analyzing monitoring data of a large number of drilled wells and combining the experience of field engineers. When the monitoring parameters fluctuate within this range, it is determined that the monitoring parameters do not change, otherwise, it is determined that the monitoring parameters have changed. During the construction process, there are two changes of the monitoring parameter value: increase and decrease.
- b i ⁇ ⁇ ⁇ S i S iL ( a )
- b i S ic - ( S iL + ⁇ ⁇ ⁇ H i ) ( S iL + ⁇ ⁇ ⁇ H i ) ( b )
- b i S ic - ( S iL - ⁇ ⁇ ⁇ H i ) ( S iL - ⁇ ⁇ ⁇ H i ) ( c )
- b i is a relative change rate of the i-th monitoring parameter (namely the i-th evaluation factor); ⁇ S i is a variation of a value of the i-th monitoring parameter; S ic is a measured value of the i-th monitoring parameter; S iL is a theoretical value of the i-th monitoring parameter; and ⁇ H i is a reasonable change range of the value of the i-th monitoring parameter.
- the relative change rate of the i-th monitoring parameter is calculated by formula a; when the initial value of the i-th monitoring parameter is 0, an increase of the measured value of the i-th monitoring parameter is calculated by using formula b; and a decrease of the measured value of the i-th monitoring parameter is calculated by using formula c.
- the value of the i-th monitoring parameter changes within a reasonable change range, it is defined as 0; when the change range of the i-th monitoring parameter is greater than or equal to 100%, it is defined as 1; and when the change range of the i-th monitoring parameter is between the reasonable change range and 100%, the value is taken as b i .
- the monitoring parameter change vector is expressed as follows:
- Step 8 determining a risk
- a value in Z indicates a possibility of each kind of risk; apparently, the greater the value of the element in Z, the greater the possibility of the corresponding risk; and in contrast, the smaller the value, the smaller the possibility of the corresponding risk.
- the method for intelligently determining hydrate drilling and production risks based on fuzzy judgment is established by using the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. This method can quickly and accurately realize functions of intelligent judgment, alarm and the like, and is used to monitor and determine in real time whether underground risks occur during the natural gas hydrate drilling and production operation, thereby ensuring the safety of the natural gas hydrate drilling and production operation.
- FIG. 1 is a hierarchical structure diagram of a method for intelligently determining hydrate drilling and production risks based on fuzzy judgment according to the present invention
- FIG. 2 is a risk and monitoring parameter response diagram of the present invention.
- FIG. 3 is a judgment result diagram of the present invention.
- a method for intelligently determining hydrate drilling and production risks based on fuzzy judgment specifically includes the following steps.
- a hierarchical structure model is built.
- a target layer is composed of 8 risks which are formation gas production, borehole instability, hydrate production, drill string fracture, H 2 S production, sticking, bit balling and piercing-caused leakage of a drilling tool respectively.
- a primary evaluation factor layer is composed of an injection parameter, a drilling parameter and a return parameter respectively.
- a secondary evaluation factor layer is composed of injection fluid pressure, injection fluid flow, hanging load, drilling time, torque, rotational speed, total hydrocarbon value, hydrogen sulfide concentration, return fluid flow, return fluid pressure and return fluid temperature.
- a determining matrix is constructed.
- a sub-region is constructed according to each primary evaluation factor of this risk and the next evaluation factor layer dominated by this primary evaluation factor, and a determining matrix is established for this sub-region (see Table 1): based on the formation gas production in the target layer (namely a first layer), the nine-scale method is first used to compare primary evaluation factors of the primary evaluation factor layer (namely a second layer) and determine a scale value, then a primary evaluation factor determining matrix of the formation gas production is established based on the determined scale value, and then based on each primary evaluation factor of the primary evaluation factor layer respectively, a secondary evaluation factor determining matrix of the formation gas production is established for secondary evaluation factors of the secondary evaluation factor layer (namely a third layer) contained in each primary evaluation factor.
- Scale values of each primary evaluation factor and each secondary evaluation factor are determined by using the nine-scale method to construct an evaluation matrix A as follows:
- a ⁇ 1 [ ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) ( 0.14 , 0.17 , 0.2 ) ( 0.14 , 0.17 , 0.2 ) ( 5 , 6 , 7 ) ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) ( 0.33 , 0.5 , 1 ) ( 5 , 6 , 7 ) ( 1 , 2 , 3 ) ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) ]
- a ⁇ 2 [ ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) ( 0.33 , 0.5 , 1 ) ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) ( 1 , 2 , 3 ) ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) ]
- a ⁇ 3 [ ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) ( 0.33 , 0.5 , 1 ) ( 0.14 , 0.17 , 0.2 ) ( 0.14 , 0.
- a comprehensive determining matrix is established and a fuzzy weight value is calculated.
- the established comprehensive determining matrix is as follows:
- a ⁇ M [ ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) ( 0.26 , 0.31 , 0.4 ) ( 0.17 , 0.21 , 0.29 ) ( 3.6 , 4.5 , 5.4 ) ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) ( 0.53 , 0.65 , 1 ) ( 4 , 5 , 6 ) ( 1.4 , 2 , 2.6 ) ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) ]
- the explicit weight value is normalized by formula (7) as follows:
- the weight calculation of the secondary evaluation factor layer is carried out in sequence, and then series connection is carried out between various layers, and finally the risk weight value of formation gas production is obtained as shown in Table 3.
- a well A is a deep water well located in the South China Sea. Take the well A as an example for trial calculation. Basic data of this well is as follows:
- Parameter name Data Parameter name Data Water depth (m) 1000 Geothermal gradient (° C./m) 0.025 Well depth (m) 5100 Submarine temperature (° C.) 4 Inlet temperature (° C.) 22 Outer diameter of drill string 127 (mm) Diameter of choke 76.2 Inner diameter of riser (mm) 472 manifold (mm) Drilling fluid density 1.3 Thermal conductivity of 2.25 (g/cm 3 ) formation ( W/(m ⁇ ° C.)) Displacement (L/s) 30 Thermal conductivity of 1.5 drilling fluid (W/(m ⁇ ° C.)) Bit size (mm) 215.9 Specific heat of drilling fluid 1675 (J/(kg ⁇ ° C.)) Bit pressure (kN) 40 Rotational speed (rad/min) 40 ⁇ 50
- b i is a relative change rate of the i-th monitoring parameter (namely the i-th evaluation factor); ⁇ S i is a variation of a value of the i-th monitoring parameter; S ic is a measured value of the i-th monitoring parameter; S iL is a theoretical value of the i-th monitoring parameter; ⁇ H i and is a reasonable change range of the value of the i-th monitoring parameter.
- the relative change rate of each monitoring parameter was calculated and the monitoring parameter change vector was constructed by using the obtained monitoring parameter related data at the well depth of 4833.7 m (as shown in Table 4).
- the finally obtained judgment result is as follows:
- the foregoing results correspond to the risk types to draw a histogram of risk occurrence probability (as shown in FIG. 3 ).
- fuzzy judgment it can be seen that the possibilities of piercing-caused leakage of a drilling tool and drill string fracture are relatively high, with the possibilities being 27.824% and 71.572% respectively. It can be determined that drill string fracture occurs when it is drilled to a depth of 4833.7 m. In actual drilling engineering, when it was drilled to 4833.7, a drill string fracture accident occurred.
- the results obtained by the method for intelligently determining hydrate drilling and production risks based on fuzzy judgment are consistent with the actual monitoring results on site.
Landscapes
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Geology (AREA)
- Life Sciences & Earth Sciences (AREA)
- Mining & Mineral Resources (AREA)
- Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Environmental & Geological Engineering (AREA)
- Fluid Mechanics (AREA)
- General Life Sciences & Earth Sciences (AREA)
- Geochemistry & Mineralogy (AREA)
- Geophysics (AREA)
- Testing Or Calibration Of Command Recording Devices (AREA)
- General Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Operations Research (AREA)
- Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)
Abstract
Description
- Not applicable.
- Not applicable.
- Not applicable.
- Not applicable.
- The present invention relates to the technical field of intelligent judgment and research on natural gas hydrate drilling and production risks, and in particular to a method for intelligently determining hydrate drilling and production risks based on fuzzy judgment.
- Natural gas hydrate is a non-stoichiometric clathrate crystal substance generated by water and natural gas in a high-pressure and low-temperature environment. It is unconventional energy with high density and high heat value, mainly distributed in marine and terrestrial permafrost sediments. The amount of marine natural gas hydrate resources is about 100 times that of terrestrial permafrost. The exploitation of the marine natural gas hydrate has attracted much attention. The natural gas hydrate is generally considered to be the most potential replacement energy in the 21st century and is also new energy with the largest reserves yet to be developed.
- For such a huge amount of resources, the drilling safety of natural gas hydrate reservoirs has become a major problem that restricts the development of a natural gas hydrate drilling and production technology. Hydrate drilling and production are often faced with eight types of risks, which are formation gas production, borehole instability, hydrate production, drill string fracture, H2S production, sticking, bit balling and piercing-caused leakage of a drilling tool. Basic risk monitoring and judgment methods have been established in the drilling process of conventional oil and gas reservoirs, but the methods are not perfect. At present, no scholars have proposed a method for determining risks in the natural gas hydrate drilling and production process. In order to ensure the safe and efficient exploitation of natural gas hydrate, there is an urgent need to provide a method for intelligently determining risks of natural gas hydrate during drilling.
- The present invention provides a method for intelligently determining hydrate drilling and production risks based on fuzzy judgment. The method has a reliable working principle and simple and convenient operations, and can quickly and accurately determine a risk type and generate an alarm when risks occur in the hydrate drilling and production process. The method enables a hydrate drilling and production operation process to be monitored in real time, thereby ensuring safe hydrate drilling and production, and filling the gap in intelligently determining risks in hydrate drilling and production.
- To achieve the foregoing objective, the present invention adopts the following technical solutions.
- Monitoring parameters in a hydrate drilling and production process are first hierarchically structured by using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and then classified into layers from top to bottom, including a target layer (composed of 8 risks), a primary evaluation factor layer (composed of monitoring parameter types, where a primary evaluation factor is a monitoring parameter type), and a secondary evaluation factor layer (composed of monitoring parameters, where a secondary evaluation factor is a monitoring parameter). Then a relative weight value of each primary evaluation factor is calculated (for example, when a certain risk occurs, the stronger the response of a certain primary evaluation factor to the risk, the greater the relative weight of this primary evaluation factor to this risk, that is, the greater the relative weight value of this primary evaluation factor). Then a relative weight value of each secondary evaluation factor contained in each primary evaluation factor is calculated respectively (for example, when a certain risk occurs, the stronger the response of a certain secondary evaluation factor to the risk, the greater the relative weight of this secondary evaluation factor to this risk, that is, the greater the relative weight value of this secondary evaluation factor). Then the relative weight value of each primary evaluation factor is respectively connected in series with the relative weight values of all secondary evaluation factors included in the primary evaluation factor (that is, the relative weight value of each primary evaluation factor is respectively multiplied with the relative weight values of all secondary evaluation factors included in this primary evaluation factor), and the relative weight values of the secondary evaluation factors connected in series are overall weight values of the secondary evaluation factors (that is, when the risk occurs, the greater the intensity of the comprehensive response of which secondary evaluation factor to the risk, the greater the overall weight value of this secondary evaluation factor). The foregoing steps are repeated to calculate a relative weight value of each primary evaluation factor of the remaining risks in the target layer and respectively calculate a relative weight value of each secondary evaluation factor contained in each primary evaluation factor and overall weight values of the secondary evaluation factors. Finally the overall weight values of the secondary evaluation factors of each risk are constructed into column vectors in the same order, and a comprehensive determining weight matrix, namely a comprehensive determining weight matrix of hydrate drilling and production risks, is constructed after the constructed column vectors are arranged in sequence, and the risks in the hydrate drilling and production process are quickly, accurately and intelligently determined by combining monitoring parameter change vectors.
- In the specification, if a factor does not specifically refer to an evaluation factor, it is simply referred to as an evaluation factor.
- A method for intelligently determining hydrate drilling and production risks based on fuzzy judgment includes the following steps in sequence.
- Step 1: building a hierarchical structure model hierarchically structuring monitoring parameters in a hydrate drilling and production process by using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and classifying into layers from top to bottom, which include a target layer, a primary evaluation factor layer and a secondary evaluation factor layer, where the target layer is composed of 8 risks which are formation gas production, borehole instability, hydrate production, drill string fracture, H2S production, sticking, bit balling and piercing-caused leakage of a drilling tool respectively; the primary evaluation factor layer is composed of 3 kinds of monitoring parameters, which are an injection parameter, a drilling parameter and a return parameter respectively; the secondary evaluation factor layer is composed of 11 monitoring parameters, which are injection fluid pressure, injection fluid flow, hanging load, drilling time, torque, rotational speed, total hydrocarbon value, hydrogen sulfide concentration, return fluid flow, return fluid pressure and return fluid temperature respectively, to construct a hierarchical structure model.
- Step 2: constructing a determining matrix
- in the constructed hierarchical structure model, constructing a sub-region according to each primary evaluation factor (monitoring parameter type) of a selected risk and the next evaluation factor layer (monitoring parameters) dominated by this primary evaluation factor, establishing a determining matrix for the sub-region, and evaluating relative importance of each evaluation factor in the sub-region by a nine-scale method, with the process as follows: based on a selected risk in the target layer (namely a first layer), first using the nine-scale method to compare primary evaluation factors of the primary evaluation factor layer (namely a second layer) and determine a scale value, then establishing a primary evaluation factor determining matrix based on the determined scale value, and then based on each primary evaluation factor of the primary evaluation factor layer respectively, establishing a secondary evaluation factor determining matrix for secondary evaluation factors of the secondary evaluation factor layer (namely a third layer) contained in each primary evaluation factor.
- Scale values of each primary evaluation factor and each secondary evaluation factor are determined by using the nine-scale method. An example of determining a scale value is as follows: when the monitoring parameter i corresponding to the selected risk is compared with the monitoring parameter j, the scale value is determined according to a response intensity (namely importance) of the monitoring parameter i and the monitoring parameter j to the risk, and the scale value is quantitatively expressed by the triangular fuzzy number
-
- The scale value is a judgment result of the importance of the monitoring parameter i and the monitoring parameter j to this risk. According to the scale values of the primary evaluation factor layer and the secondary evaluation factor layer, a primary evaluation factor determining matrix and a secondary evaluation factor determining matrix are respectively constructed, the constructed determining matrixes of the primary evaluation factors and the secondary evaluation factors are expressed by {tilde under (A)}, and an example of {tilde under (A)} is as follows:
-
- where i refers to the i-th evaluation factor of a certain layer in the hierarchical structure model (a value of i is 1, 2, 3, . . . , m), j refers to the j-th evaluation factor of the same layer in the same hierarchical structure model as j (a value of j is 1, 2, 3, . . . , m), and in refers to the number of primary evaluation factors or the number of secondary evaluation factors.
- Step 3: establishing a comprehensive determining matrix and calculating a fuzzy weight value
- setting the number of judging experts to be n to obtain a comprehensive determining matrix by using a fuzzy average method, as shown in the following formula:
-
- where {tilde under (A)}M refers to the comprehensive determining matrix, and {tilde under (A)}1, {tilde under (A)}2, and {tilde under (A)}n refer to determining matrixes constructed according to scale values determined by judgment results of the first expert, the second expert and the n-th expert respectively.
- Further, a determining matrix established by the k-th expert by evaluation is expressed as
-
- indicates a scale value determined by the k-th expert according to the importance of a same layer evaluation factor c relative to an evaluation factor d, and a comprehensive determining matrix is calculated as follows:
-
- Further, a geometric average fuzzy weight calculation method (similar to an nth root method) is used to calculate the relative fuzzy weight value of each evaluation factor in the matrix (the relative fuzzy weight of each evaluation factor has already taken the normalization of a fuzzy number into account).
- A geometric mean of the i-th evaluation factor in the comprehensive determining matrix {tilde under (A)}M is:
-
r i=(a i1 ×a i2 ×a i3 × . . . ×a im)1/m - A relative fuzzy weight value of the i-th evaluation factor is:
-
w i =r i×(r 1 +r 2 +r 3 + . . . +r n)−1 - Step 4: converting the relative fuzzy weight value of the i-th evaluation factor into an explicit value
- expressing the relative weight fuzzy weight value wi of the i-th evaluation factor in the form of a triangular fuzzy number, where wi=(Ri, Mi, Li), Li is left extension of the triangular fuzzy number, Ri is right extension of the triangular fuzzy number, and Mi is a median of the triangular fuzzy number; converting the relative weight fuzzy weight value of the i-th evaluation factor into an explicit weight value DFi of the i-th evaluation factor, where a calculation formula of DFi is as follows:
-
- Step 5: normalizing the explicit weight value of the i-th evaluation factor
- In order to compare the relative importance of each primary evaluation factor (including an injection parameter, a drilling parameter and a return parameter) and secondary evaluation factors (including injection fluid pressure, injection fluid flow, hanging load, drilling time, torque, rotational speed, total hydrocarbon value, hydrogen sulfide concentration, return fluid flow, return fluid pressure and return fluid temperature), an explicit weight value of the i-th evaluation factor is normalized, and a normalization formula is:
-
- w′i is the relative weight value of the normalized i-th evaluation factor.
- Step 6: connecting relative weight values of each interlayer evaluation factor in series
- respectively connecting in series the relative weight value of each primary evaluation factor with the relative weight values of all secondary evaluation factors contained in the primary evaluation factor (namely multiplying the relative weight value of each primary evaluation factor respectively with the relative weight values of all secondary evaluation factors contained in this primary evaluation factor), where the relative weight values of the secondary evaluation factors connected in series are the overall weight values of the secondary evaluation factors.
- w′Ti is the overall weight value of the i-th secondary evaluation factor, w′1i is the relative weight value of the primary evaluation factor corresponding to the i-th secondary evaluation factor, and w′2i is the relative weight value of the i-th secondary evaluation factor. The overall weight of the i-th secondary evaluation factor relative to a certain risk is as follows:
-
w′ Ti =w′ 1i ×w′ 2i - Further, steps 2-6 are repeated, a relative weight value of each primary evaluation factor of the remaining risks in the target layer is calculated, a relative weight value of each secondary evaluation factor contained in each primary evaluation factor and overall weight values of the secondary evaluation factors are respectively calculated. Then the overall weight values of the secondary evaluation factors of each risk are constructed into column vectors in the same order, and a comprehensive determining weight matrix, namely a comprehensive determining weight matrix AT of hydrate drilling and production risks, is constructed after the constructed column vectors are arranged in sequence, where AT is shown as follows:
-
- where e is the number of risks (e=8).
- Step 7: constructing a monitoring parameter change vector
- When a risk occur, what kind of risk occurs underground is determined based on a change trend of monitoring parameter values and the magnitude of the relative change rate of monitoring parameter values. The relative change rate of each monitoring parameter value at a certain well depth is used as a constituent element of the monitoring parameter change vector, and the relative change rate of monitoring parameter values reflects the response intensity of monitoring parameters to the risk. Since the monitoring parameters such as injection fluid pressure, injection fluid flow, hanging load, drilling time, torque, rotational speed, total hydrocarbon value, hydrogen sulfide concentration, return fluid flow, return fluid pressure and return fluid temperature fluctuate within a normal range during normal construction (during construction without risks), in order to avoid the influence of fluctuation within the normal range of each monitoring parameter on risk judgment, a reasonable change range of monitoring parameters is established by analyzing monitoring data of a large number of drilled wells and combining the experience of field engineers. When the monitoring parameters fluctuate within this range, it is determined that the monitoring parameters do not change, otherwise, it is determined that the monitoring parameters have changed. During the construction process, there are two changes of the monitoring parameter value: increase and decrease. The “+” indicates the increase of the monitoring parameter value and the “−” indicates the decrease of the monitoring parameter value. In the calculation process, an initial value of the monitoring parameter falls into two conditions: “0” and “not 0”. Based on the above principle, the calculation formula for a constituent element of a monitoring parameter change vector is established as follows:
-
- where bi is a relative change rate of the i-th monitoring parameter (namely the i-th evaluation factor); ΔSi is a variation of a value of the i-th monitoring parameter; Sic is a measured value of the i-th monitoring parameter; SiL is a theoretical value of the i-th monitoring parameter; and ΔHi is a reasonable change range of the value of the i-th monitoring parameter. When an initial value of the i-th monitoring parameter is not 0, the relative change rate of the i-th monitoring parameter is calculated by formula a; when the initial value of the i-th monitoring parameter is 0, an increase of the measured value of the i-th monitoring parameter is calculated by using formula b; and a decrease of the measured value of the i-th monitoring parameter is calculated by using formula c. When the value of the i-th monitoring parameter changes within a reasonable change range, it is defined as 0; when the change range of the i-th monitoring parameter is greater than or equal to 100%, it is defined as 1; and when the change range of the i-th monitoring parameter is between the reasonable change range and 100%, the value is taken as bi.
- Elements of the monitoring parameter change vector are sorted according to the arrangement sequence of the monitoring parameter in the column vector of the constructed comprehensive determining weight matrix, and finally the monitoring parameter change vector is constructed. The monitoring parameter change vector is expressed as follows:
-
B=(b 1 b 2 . . . b m) - Step 8: determining a risk
- After the comprehensive determining weight matrix and monitoring parameter change vector are established, the product between the two is a judgment result of hydrate drilling and production risks, as shown in the following formula:
-
- where a value in Z indicates a possibility of each kind of risk; apparently, the greater the value of the element in Z, the greater the possibility of the corresponding risk; and in contrast, the smaller the value, the smaller the possibility of the corresponding risk.
- In view of the risk judgment problem faced in the natural gas hydrate drilling and production process, according to the present invention, the method for intelligently determining hydrate drilling and production risks based on fuzzy judgment is established by using the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. This method can quickly and accurately realize functions of intelligent judgment, alarm and the like, and is used to monitor and determine in real time whether underground risks occur during the natural gas hydrate drilling and production operation, thereby ensuring the safety of the natural gas hydrate drilling and production operation.
-
FIG. 1 is a hierarchical structure diagram of a method for intelligently determining hydrate drilling and production risks based on fuzzy judgment according to the present invention; -
FIG. 2 is a risk and monitoring parameter response diagram of the present invention; and -
FIG. 3 is a judgment result diagram of the present invention. - The following further describes the present invention in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings and embodiments.
- A method for intelligently determining hydrate drilling and production risks based on fuzzy judgment specifically includes the following steps.
- A hierarchical structure model is built.
- As shown in
FIG. 1 , a target layer is composed of 8 risks which are formation gas production, borehole instability, hydrate production, drill string fracture, H2S production, sticking, bit balling and piercing-caused leakage of a drilling tool respectively. A primary evaluation factor layer is composed of an injection parameter, a drilling parameter and a return parameter respectively. A secondary evaluation factor layer is composed of injection fluid pressure, injection fluid flow, hanging load, drilling time, torque, rotational speed, total hydrocarbon value, hydrogen sulfide concentration, return fluid flow, return fluid pressure and return fluid temperature. - A determining matrix is constructed.
- With formation gas production an example, a sub-region is constructed according to each primary evaluation factor of this risk and the next evaluation factor layer dominated by this primary evaluation factor, and a determining matrix is established for this sub-region (see Table 1): based on the formation gas production in the target layer (namely a first layer), the nine-scale method is first used to compare primary evaluation factors of the primary evaluation factor layer (namely a second layer) and determine a scale value, then a primary evaluation factor determining matrix of the formation gas production is established based on the determined scale value, and then based on each primary evaluation factor of the primary evaluation factor layer respectively, a secondary evaluation factor determining matrix of the formation gas production is established for secondary evaluation factors of the secondary evaluation factor layer (namely a third layer) contained in each primary evaluation factor. Scale values of each primary evaluation factor and each secondary evaluation factor are determined by using the nine-scale method to construct an evaluation matrix A as follows:
-
-
TABLE 1 Evaluation scale table of a nine-scale method Scale value Meaning (1, 1, 1) Factors i and j are of equal importance. (1, 2, 3) The factor i is slightly more important than the factor j. (3, 4, 5) Compared with the factor j, the factor i is of great importance. (5, 6, 7) Compared with the factor j, the factor i is very important. (7, 8, 9) Compared with the factor j, the factor i is absolutely important. - A comprehensive determining matrix is established and a fuzzy weight value is calculated.
- The established comprehensive determining matrix is as follows:
-
- A geometric mean of each primary evaluation factor (monitoring parameter type) of the comprehensive determining matrix is solved:
-
r 1=[(1×0.26×0.17),(1×0.31×0.21),(1×0.4×0.29)]1/3=(0.354,0.402,0.488) -
r 2=[(3.6×1×0.53),(4.5×1×0.65),(5.4×1×1)]1/3=(1.240,1.430,1.754) -
r 3=[(4×1.4×1);(5×2×1),(6×2.6×1)]1/3=(1.776,2.154,2.499). - The sum of the geometric mean is:
-
r=r 1 +r 2 +r 3=(3.37,3.987,4.741) - The relative fuzzy weight value of each primary evaluation factor calculated by formula (5) is as follows:
-
- The relative fuzzy weight value of each evaluation factor is converted by formula (6) into an explicit value of the evaluation factor as follows:
-
- Similarly, the following can be obtained: DF2=0.38, and DF3=0.552.
- The explicit weight value is normalized by formula (7) as follows:
-
- Similarly, the following can be obtained: w′2=0.366, and w′3=0.531.
- Calculation results of relative weight values of the foregoing primary evaluation factor layer (monitoring parameter type) of formation gas production are summarized as shown in Table 2.
-
TABLE 2 Summary table of calculation results of relative weight of the primary evaluation factor layer (monitoring parameter type) of formation gas production Injection parameter Drilling parameter Return parameter Geometric mean ri (0.354, 0.402, 0.488) (1.24, 1.43, 1.754) (1.766, 2.154, 2.499) Fuzzy weight wi (0.075, 0.101, 0.145) (0.262, 0.359, 0.521) (0.375, 0.54, 0.742) Explicit normalized 0.103 0.366 0.531 weight wi′ - The weight calculation of the secondary evaluation factor layer is carried out in sequence, and then series connection is carried out between various layers, and finally the risk weight value of formation gas production is obtained as shown in Table 3.
-
TABLE 3 Summary table of risk weight of formation gas production Relative weight Relative weight Secondary Primary value of the Secondary value of the evaluation evaluation primary evaluation evaluation secondary evaluation factor Overall Target factor factor factor factor weight value Formation Injection 0.103 Injection fluid 1 0.103 gas parameter pressure production Injection fluid 0 0 flow Drilling 0.366 Hanging load 0.548 0.201 parameter Drilling time 0.452 0.165 Torque 0 0 Rotational speed 0 0 Return 0.531 Total 0.625 0.332 parameter hydrocarbon value Hydrogen sulfide 0 0 concentration Return fluid flow 0.126 0.067 Return fluid 0.249 0.132 pressure Return fluid 0 0 temperature - Finally, the comprehensive determining weight matrix of hydrate drilling risks is obtained as follows:
-
- Columns of the comprehensive determining weight matrix sequentially represent eight risk types which are formation gas production, borehole instability, hydrate production, drill string fracture, H2S production, sticking, bit balling and piercing-caused leakage of a drilling tool. In each column, overall weight values of injection fluid pressure, injection fluid flow, hanging load, drilling time, torque, rotational speed, total hydrocarbon value, hydrogen sulfide concentration, return fluid flow, return fluid pressure and return fluid temperature are represented sequentially.
- A well A is a deep water well located in the South China Sea. Take the well A as an example for trial calculation. Basic data of this well is as follows:
-
Parameter name Data Parameter name Data Water depth (m) 1000 Geothermal gradient (° C./m) 0.025 Well depth (m) 5100 Submarine temperature (° C.) 4 Inlet temperature (° C.) 22 Outer diameter of drill string 127 (mm) Diameter of choke 76.2 Inner diameter of riser (mm) 472 manifold (mm) Drilling fluid density 1.3 Thermal conductivity of 2.25 (g/cm3) formation ( W/(m · ° C.)) Displacement (L/s) 30 Thermal conductivity of 1.5 drilling fluid (W/(m · ° C.)) Bit size (mm) 215.9 Specific heat of drilling fluid 1675 (J/(kg · ° C.)) Bit pressure (kN) 40 Rotational speed (rad/min) 40 −50 - Downhole anomalies occurred when the well was drilled to a depth of 4833.7 m. Theoretical values of various monitoring parameters at 4833.7 m were calculated through the model. During the construction process, an on-site monitoring device acquired measured values of various monitoring parameters at the well section at a depth of 4833.7 m. Table 4 shows the theoretical values and the measured values corresponding to various monitoring parameters when the well was drilled to a depth of 4833.7 m.
- bi is a relative change rate of the i-th monitoring parameter (namely the i-th evaluation factor); ΔSi is a variation of a value of the i-th monitoring parameter; Sic is a measured value of the i-th monitoring parameter; SiL is a theoretical value of the i-th monitoring parameter; ΔHi and is a reasonable change range of the value of the i-th monitoring parameter.
-
TABLE 4 Comparison table of model calculation values and field measured values at a drill depth of 4833.7 m Monitoring parameter Injection fluid Injection Hanging Drilling Rotational pressure fluid flow load time Torque speed Parameter (MPa) (m3/min) (kN) (min/m) (kN · m) (rad/min) Theoretical 15.296 1.80 1745 5.5 11.85 50 value Measured 13.85 1.824 1653.55 6.3 6.82 50 value Monitoring parameter Total Hydrogen sulfide Return Return fluid Outlet Parameter hydrocarbon value concentration fluid flow pressure temperature value type (%) (ppm) (m3/min) (kPa) (° C.) Theoretical 4.06 0 1.80 14.57 22 value Measured 3.35 0 1.862 14.55 22 value - The relative change rate of each monitoring parameter was calculated and the monitoring parameter change vector was constructed by using the obtained monitoring parameter related data at the well depth of 4833.7 m (as shown in Table 4). The finally obtained judgment result is as follows:
-
Z=BA T=(0.604 0 0 0 71.572 0 0 27.824) - The foregoing results correspond to the risk types to draw a histogram of risk occurrence probability (as shown in
FIG. 3 ). Through fuzzy judgment, it can be seen that the possibilities of piercing-caused leakage of a drilling tool and drill string fracture are relatively high, with the possibilities being 27.824% and 71.572% respectively. It can be determined that drill string fracture occurs when it is drilled to a depth of 4833.7 m. In actual drilling engineering, when it was drilled to 4833.7, a drill string fracture accident occurred. The results obtained by the method for intelligently determining hydrate drilling and production risks based on fuzzy judgment are consistent with the actual monitoring results on site. - The foregoing descriptions are only preferred implementations of the present invention. It should be noted that for a person of ordinary skill in the art, several improvements and modifications may further be made without departing from the principle of the present invention. These improvements and modifications also fall within the protection scope of the present invention.
Claims (3)
r i=(a i1 ×a i2 ×a i3 × . . . ×a im)1/m
w i =r i×(r 1 +r 2 +r 3 + . . . +r m)−1;
w′ Ti =w′ 1i ×w 2i
B=(b 1 b 2 . . . b m);
Applications Claiming Priority (2)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
CN201910086578.6 | 2019-01-29 | ||
CN201910086578.6A CN109933745B (en) | 2019-01-29 | 2019-01-29 | Hydrate drilling and production risk intelligent judgment method based on fuzzy judgment |
Publications (1)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
US20200240243A1 true US20200240243A1 (en) | 2020-07-30 |
Family
ID=66985311
Family Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US16/747,294 Abandoned US20200240243A1 (en) | 2019-01-29 | 2020-01-20 | Method for intelligently determining hydrate drilling and production risks based on fuzzy judgment |
Country Status (2)
Country | Link |
---|---|
US (1) | US20200240243A1 (en) |
CN (1) | CN109933745B (en) |
Cited By (10)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
CN112185469A (en) * | 2020-09-16 | 2021-01-05 | 广州海洋地质调查局 | Method for predicting favorable gathering area of sea natural gas hydrate |
CN112906239A (en) * | 2021-03-11 | 2021-06-04 | 北京市水利规划设计研究院 | Safety performance evaluation method and device for comprehensive pipe gallery, processor and storage medium |
CN113033114A (en) * | 2021-03-04 | 2021-06-25 | 中国石油大学(北京) | Optimization method for mineral kinetic parameters in reservoir water rock reaction simulation |
CN113417602A (en) * | 2021-06-16 | 2021-09-21 | 深圳市佳运通电子有限公司 | Unattended intelligent centralized control device for oil field station |
CN113431496A (en) * | 2021-05-31 | 2021-09-24 | 中国舰船研究设计中心 | Drilling and production ship cooperative operation fault diagnosis and decision-making assisting method |
CN113569402A (en) * | 2021-07-23 | 2021-10-29 | 四川大学 | Multi-level comprehensive evaluation method for safety state of high-capacity battery energy storage system |
CN114818363A (en) * | 2022-05-16 | 2022-07-29 | 中建三局绿色产业投资有限公司 | Urban deep drainage tunnel silting risk assessment and prediction early warning method |
CN117217502A (en) * | 2023-11-09 | 2023-12-12 | 国网山西省电力公司晋中供电公司 | Power grid dispatching influence factor evaluation method, device, medium and equipment |
CN117541082A (en) * | 2024-01-05 | 2024-02-09 | 中国石油大学(华东) | Comprehensive evaluation method based on oil reservoir-shaft-equipment evaluation index integration |
WO2024060374A1 (en) * | 2022-09-20 | 2024-03-28 | 中煤科工集团重庆研究院有限公司 | Drilling sticking risk assessment and drilling parameter adjustment control method |
Families Citing this family (1)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
CN113236195B (en) * | 2021-06-15 | 2022-04-19 | 中国矿业大学 | Method for cooperatively regulating and controlling hydrate generation risk of drilling shaft by using three factors |
Family Cites Families (8)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US20120317058A1 (en) * | 2011-06-13 | 2012-12-13 | Abhulimen Kingsley E | Design of computer based risk and safety management system of complex production and multifunctional process facilities-application to fpso's |
CN102722634A (en) * | 2012-04-20 | 2012-10-10 | 湖南省防雷中心 | Regional lightning disaster risk evaluation method |
CN103413015A (en) * | 2013-04-24 | 2013-11-27 | 重庆科技学院 | Method for building city gas pipe network vulnerability evaluation model |
CN104376420A (en) * | 2014-11-20 | 2015-02-25 | 中国石油天然气股份有限公司 | Water breakthrough risk evaluation method and evaluation device for water-carrying gas reservoir gas well |
CN105023067A (en) * | 2015-08-04 | 2015-11-04 | 环境保护部南京环境科学研究所 | Analytic hierarchy process-fuzzy comprehensive evaluation-based chemical project environmental risk evaluation system |
CN105719063B (en) * | 2016-01-15 | 2021-10-08 | 西南石油大学 | Comprehensive evaluation method for shale gas reserve quality classification |
CN106940833A (en) * | 2017-01-13 | 2017-07-11 | 国网浙江省电力公司经济技术研究院 | A kind of power grid enterprises' sale of electricity side methods of risk assessment based on fuzzy number and improved AHP method |
CN109146293A (en) * | 2018-08-28 | 2019-01-04 | 常州大学 | One kind being based on the Municipal Gas Pipeline Risk Assessment Technique method of " five scaling laws " |
-
2019
- 2019-01-29 CN CN201910086578.6A patent/CN109933745B/en not_active Expired - Fee Related
-
2020
- 2020-01-20 US US16/747,294 patent/US20200240243A1/en not_active Abandoned
Cited By (11)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
CN112185469A (en) * | 2020-09-16 | 2021-01-05 | 广州海洋地质调查局 | Method for predicting favorable gathering area of sea natural gas hydrate |
CN113033114A (en) * | 2021-03-04 | 2021-06-25 | 中国石油大学(北京) | Optimization method for mineral kinetic parameters in reservoir water rock reaction simulation |
CN112906239A (en) * | 2021-03-11 | 2021-06-04 | 北京市水利规划设计研究院 | Safety performance evaluation method and device for comprehensive pipe gallery, processor and storage medium |
CN113431496A (en) * | 2021-05-31 | 2021-09-24 | 中国舰船研究设计中心 | Drilling and production ship cooperative operation fault diagnosis and decision-making assisting method |
CN113417602A (en) * | 2021-06-16 | 2021-09-21 | 深圳市佳运通电子有限公司 | Unattended intelligent centralized control device for oil field station |
CN113569402A (en) * | 2021-07-23 | 2021-10-29 | 四川大学 | Multi-level comprehensive evaluation method for safety state of high-capacity battery energy storage system |
CN114818363A (en) * | 2022-05-16 | 2022-07-29 | 中建三局绿色产业投资有限公司 | Urban deep drainage tunnel silting risk assessment and prediction early warning method |
WO2023178961A1 (en) * | 2022-05-16 | 2023-09-28 | 中建三局绿色产业投资有限公司 | Silting risk assessment, prediction and early warning method for urban deep water-drainage tunnel |
WO2024060374A1 (en) * | 2022-09-20 | 2024-03-28 | 中煤科工集团重庆研究院有限公司 | Drilling sticking risk assessment and drilling parameter adjustment control method |
CN117217502A (en) * | 2023-11-09 | 2023-12-12 | 国网山西省电力公司晋中供电公司 | Power grid dispatching influence factor evaluation method, device, medium and equipment |
CN117541082A (en) * | 2024-01-05 | 2024-02-09 | 中国石油大学(华东) | Comprehensive evaluation method based on oil reservoir-shaft-equipment evaluation index integration |
Also Published As
Publication number | Publication date |
---|---|
CN109933745B (en) | 2022-01-28 |
CN109933745A (en) | 2019-06-25 |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
US20200240243A1 (en) | Method for intelligently determining hydrate drilling and production risks based on fuzzy judgment | |
EP2917127B1 (en) | Well integrity management using coupled engineering analysis | |
CN107451325A (en) | Deep & ultra-deep well pressure break casing failure risk real-time quantitative appraisal procedure and device | |
BR112015009197B1 (en) | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PERFORMING A DRILLING OPERATION | |
CN108131130A (en) | To the analysis method and its device of gas well mouth casing annulus pressure monitoring data | |
Borozdin et al. | Drilling problems forecast system based on neural network | |
CN105464644A (en) | Wellhead pressure monitoring method and control system | |
Tariq et al. | New Inflow Performance Relationship for a Horizontal Well in a Naturally Fractured Solution Gas Drive Reservoirs using Artificial Intelligence Technique. | |
Liu et al. | A Machine Learning Method to infer inter-well connectivity using bottom-hole pressure data | |
Kumar et al. | Machine learning applications for a qualitative evaluation of the fracture network in the Wolfcamp shale using tracer and completion data | |
Li et al. | Research on intelligent judgment method of natural gas hydrate drilling risk | |
Wang et al. | Dynamic wellbore stability analysis based on thermo-poro-elastic model and quantitative risk assessment method | |
CN109763810A (en) | A kind of reservoir gas drilling risk recognition methods | |
Gong et al. | Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation in well control risk assessment based on AHP: A case study | |
Jiang et al. | Reserves estimation for geopressured gas reservoirs | |
Rafiei | Improved oil production and waterflood performance by water allocation management | |
Alireza et al. | Reducing consumed energy while drilling an oil well through a deep rig time analysis | |
Liu et al. | Multi-level of fracture network imaging: A HFTS use case and knowledge transferring | |
Krishna et al. | Application of deep learning technique to predict downhole pressure differential in eccentric annulus of ultra-deep well | |
CN109359871A (en) | Oil gas casing method for evaluating reliability | |
Luo et al. | A fuzzy system of candidate completion methods selection for multi-fractured horizontal wells in tight oil reservoirs | |
Zhang et al. | Well Integrity Analysis and Risk Assessment for Injection Wells in CO2 Flooding | |
Gao et al. | Fault detection in managed pressure drilling using slow feature analysis | |
Yang et al. | Fault diagnosis method and application of ESP well based on SPC rules and real-time data fusion | |
Zhai et al. | Pressure survey, analysis and diagnostic of small diameter velocity string to improve well monitoring and surveillance |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: SOUTHWEST PETROLEUM UNIVERSITY, CHINA Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:LI, HAITAO;WEI, NA;ZHAO, JINZHOU;AND OTHERS;REEL/FRAME:052491/0016 Effective date: 20200115 |
|
STPP | Information on status: patent application and granting procedure in general |
Free format text: DOCKETED NEW CASE - READY FOR EXAMINATION |
|
STPP | Information on status: patent application and granting procedure in general |
Free format text: NON FINAL ACTION MAILED |
|
STPP | Information on status: patent application and granting procedure in general |
Free format text: RESPONSE TO NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION ENTERED AND FORWARDED TO EXAMINER |
|
STPP | Information on status: patent application and granting procedure in general |
Free format text: FINAL REJECTION MAILED |
|
STPP | Information on status: patent application and granting procedure in general |
Free format text: RESPONSE AFTER FINAL ACTION FORWARDED TO EXAMINER |
|
STPP | Information on status: patent application and granting procedure in general |
Free format text: ADVISORY ACTION MAILED |
|
STCB | Information on status: application discontinuation |
Free format text: ABANDONED -- FAILURE TO RESPOND TO AN OFFICE ACTION |