东胜气田气藏-井筒-集输管网系统一体化能效评价

1.西南石油大学石油与天然气工程学院;2.中国石化华北油气分公司;3.中国石化西北油田分公司油气运销部

东胜气田;气藏;井筒;集输管网;指标体系;能效评价

Evaluation of energy efficiency for the gas reservoir-wellbore-gathering and transmission pipeline network system in Dongsheng Gas Field
HE San1,LI Haomiao1,FAN Jinzheng2,QI Hongwei2,JI Yongqiang2,TANG Kai3,DU Mingxuan1,YU Rui1

1.School of Oil & Natural Gas Engineering, Southwest Petroleum University; 2.Sinopec North China Oil & Gas Company; 3.Oil and Gas Transportation and Sales Department, SINOPEC Northwest Oil Field Company

Dongsheng Gas Field, gas reservoir, wellbore, gathering and transportation pipeline network, integrated index system, evaluation of energy efficiency

DOI: 10.6047/j.issn.1000-8241.2025.02.011

备注

【目的】在油气田集输管网系统的能效评价中,通常未考虑气藏、井筒对集输管网系统的影响,建立的能效评价体系不够完善,无法直接反映三者之间的相互关系,导致评价结果难以体现整个生产系统的能效水平。东胜气田已进入低产低压阶段,单井产出差异大、液气比高、压降速度变化快等问题较为突出,亟需构建一套有针对性的评价方法,发现制约其能效的薄弱环节。【方法】基于现行的相关规范及东胜气田生产工艺,在集输管网系统能效评价的基础上,纳入井筒排采、气藏开发相关评价指标,建立了包含10项指标的气藏-井筒-集输管网系统一体化能效评价指标体系,并确定了指标边界值。根据各项指标的特点,建立了基于层次分析法-熵权法-模糊隶属函数法的能效评价混合算法。【结果】在东胜气田J区块的应用表明,工艺调整前其能效评分仅为58.4分,发现制约系统能效水平的关键因素包括排采效果不达标、压缩机组负荷率低及管道输送效率较低。结合气田生产情况,提出了优化排采工艺、调整管网结构等改进措施,调整后再次评分为81.83分,系统能效显著提升,符合现场实际需求。【结论】新建的能效综合评价体系与算法能够较好地反映不同生产工艺下气田的能效水平,可用于指导气田开展有效的工艺调整,应用实践表明所建立的能效评价指标体系及评价方法具有可行性。(图8表7,参[27]
[Objective] In the evaluation of energy efficiency for gathering and transportation pipeline network systems, the impact of gas reservoirs and wellbores is often overlooked. Existing energy efficiency evaluation systems do not adequately account for the interrelationships among these three components, resulting in evaluation outcomes that do not accurately reflect the overall energy efficiency of production systems. The Dongsheng Gas Field, currently in a low-production and low-pressure stage, faces significant challenges, including considerable production disparities among individual wells, high liquid-gas ratios, and accelerated pressure drop rates. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop targeted evaluation methods capable of identifying weak links that hinder energy efficiency. [Methods] Based on current relevant specifications and the production processes utilized in the Dongsheng Gas Field, evaluation indexes related to gas recovery through wellbore drainage and gas reservoir development were established as a complement to the energy efficiency evaluation of gathering and transportation pipeline network systems. This integrated evaluation index system of energy efficiency for the gas reservoir-wellbore-gathering and transmission pipeline network systems encompasses 10 indexes, along with their corresponding boundary values. In light of the characteristics of these indexes, a hybrid algorithm for energy efficiency evaluation was developed, leveraging the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method, the entropy weight method, and the fuzzy membership function method. [Results] The application of the proposed evaluation system and algorithm in Block J of the Dongsheng Gas Field yielded an energy efficiency score of only 58.4 prior to process adjustments. This score indicated that key factors limiting system energy efficiency included substandard gas recovery through drainage, low load rates of compressor units, and inefficient pipeline transportation. To address these challenges, improvement measures were proposed, including optimizing the drainage process and adjusting the pipeline network structure, taking into account the specific production conditions. As a result of these adjustments, the re-scored energy efficiency increased significantly to 81.83, reflecting a substantial improvement in system energy efficiency that aligns with the actual on-site production conditions. [Conclusion] This new integrated evaluation system and algorithm for energy efficiency is effective in reflecting the energy efficiency levels of gas fields across various production processes and guiding effective process adjustments for gas fields. The findings of this study validate the efficacy of the proposed index system and evaluation method for energy efficiency. (8 Figures, 7 Tables, 27 References)
·