【摘要】：井噴及井噴失控是鉆井工程中的頭等災(zāi)難性事故,導(dǎo)致井噴事故的原因分為人為因素、鉆井條件因素和地層等因素。從統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)中發(fā)現(xiàn)地層因素所占的比例很大,甚至高達(dá)50%,所以說(shuō)地層因素是導(dǎo)致鉆井井噴的內(nèi)在客觀因素,因此做好基于地層因素的井控風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)估工作是有效防范井噴事故發(fā)生、減少事故損失的基礎(chǔ)工作。在調(diào)研、統(tǒng)計(jì)的基礎(chǔ)上總結(jié)了常用的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的評(píng)價(jià)方法,并從評(píng)價(jià)方法的優(yōu)缺點(diǎn)和適用性進(jìn)行了分析比較。分析了灰色關(guān)聯(lián)評(píng)價(jià)法用于鉆井井控風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)價(jià)的優(yōu)勢(shì),將其引入鉆井井控風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)價(jià)。在應(yīng)用中針對(duì)傳統(tǒng)灰色關(guān)聯(lián)評(píng)價(jià)方法的不足,借鑒TOPSIS法的原理進(jìn)行相應(yīng)的改進(jìn),使其更加適合單井井控風(fēng)險(xiǎn)進(jìn)行定量評(píng)價(jià)。權(quán)重的計(jì)算是風(fēng)險(xiǎn)定量評(píng)價(jià)的核心技術(shù)之一,本文對(duì)比分析了常用的主觀和客觀權(quán)重確定法的原理、適用性及優(yōu)缺點(diǎn),并利用實(shí)例數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行指標(biāo)權(quán)重計(jì)算分析,結(jié)果表明單一采用主觀或者客觀權(quán)重確定法是有缺陷的。本文結(jié)合主、客觀權(quán)重確定法優(yōu)點(diǎn),提出了主客觀組合權(quán)重確定法,并說(shuō)明其適用條件及具體計(jì)算步驟。從導(dǎo)致井噴的三個(gè)內(nèi)在條件分析出發(fā),結(jié)合現(xiàn)場(chǎng)實(shí)際建立了包含三個(gè)層次、12個(gè)指標(biāo)的井控風(fēng)險(xiǎn)地層因素層次結(jié)構(gòu)圖,將每個(gè)指標(biāo)劃分為四個(gè)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)等級(jí),建立了相應(yīng)的等級(jí)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。結(jié)合地層因素指標(biāo)體系,以改進(jìn)的灰色關(guān)聯(lián)評(píng)價(jià)法為基礎(chǔ)建立了基于地層因素的鉆井井控風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)價(jià)模型。運(yùn)用基于地層因素的鉆井井控風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)價(jià)模型對(duì)3口典型的井進(jìn)行了評(píng)價(jià),確定其風(fēng)險(xiǎn)等級(jí),由權(quán)重找到關(guān)鍵誘因,該風(fēng)險(xiǎn)等級(jí)和關(guān)鍵誘因與現(xiàn)場(chǎng)實(shí)際基本一致,驗(yàn)證了所建立的定量評(píng)價(jià)模型具有一定的可靠性。可以為現(xiàn)場(chǎng)工程技術(shù)人員識(shí)別鉆井井控風(fēng)險(xiǎn),特別是隨鉆井控風(fēng)險(xiǎn),采取科學(xué)的工藝技術(shù)措施提供有意義的指導(dǎo)。
[Abstract]:Blowout and blowout out of control are the first catastrophic accidents in drilling engineering. The causes of blowout accidents are divided into human factors, drilling conditions factors and formation factors. It is found from the statistical data that the proportion of formation factors is very large, or even as high as 50%, so the formation factors are the internal objective factors that lead to drilling blowout. Therefore, doing a good job of well control risk assessment based on formation factors is the basic work to effectively prevent blowout accidents and reduce accident losses. On the basis of investigation and statistics, the common risk evaluation methods are summarized, and the advantages, disadvantages and applicability of the evaluation methods are analyzed and compared. The advantages of grey relational evaluation method in drilling well control risk assessment are analyzed and introduced into drilling well control risk assessment. In view of the shortcomings of the traditional grey relational evaluation method, the principle of TOPSIS method is used for reference to improve it, so that it is more suitable for quantitative evaluation of single well control risk. Weight calculation is one of the core techniques of risk quantitative evaluation. This paper compares and analyzes the principle, applicability, advantages and disadvantages of the commonly used subjective and objective weight determination methods, and uses the example data to calculate and analyze the index weight. The results show that it is defective to use the subjective or objective weight determination method alone. Based on the advantages of subjective and objective weight determination method, this paper puts forward the subjective and objective combination weight determination method, and explains its applicable conditions and concrete calculation steps. Based on the analysis of the three internal conditions leading to blowout, the hierarchical structure diagram of well control risk formation factors with three levels and 12 indexes is established in combination with the field practice, and each index is divided into four risk grades. The corresponding grade standards are established. Combined with the index system of formation factors, a drilling well control risk assessment model based on formation factors is established on the basis of the improved grey relational evaluation method. The risk evaluation model of drilling well control based on formation factors is used to evaluate three typical wells, and the risk grade is determined, and the key inducement is found by weight. The risk grade and key inducement are basically consistent with the actual situation in the field. It is verified that the established quantitative evaluation model has certain reliability. It can provide meaningful guidance for field engineers to identify the risk of drilling well control, especially the risk of well control while drilling, and to take scientific and technical measures.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)石油大學(xué)(華東)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：TE28

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 楊以春;;鉆井作業(yè)中的事故分析及風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理研究[J];中國(guó)石油和化工標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與質(zhì)量;2014年12期

2 孫月峰;張表志;閆雅飛;潘菲;;基于熵權(quán)的城市水資源安全模糊綜合評(píng)價(jià)研究[J];安全與環(huán)境學(xué)報(bào);2014年01期

3 牛曉旭;陳沅江;;山區(qū)高等級(jí)公路路側(cè)安全物元可拓評(píng)價(jià)研究[J];安全與環(huán)境學(xué)報(bào);2012年06期

4 方傳新;紀(jì)永強(qiáng);金業(yè)權(quán);;幾種常用鉆井風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)價(jià)方法的比較[J];中國(guó)石油和化工標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與質(zhì)量;2012年10期

5 李玉軍;任美鵬;李相方;聶明虎;杜鋼;史富全;;新疆油田鉆井井噴風(fēng)險(xiǎn)分級(jí)及井控管理[J];中國(guó)安全生產(chǎn)科學(xué)技術(shù);2012年07期

6 閆秋粉;南振岐;姚爾果;薛小虎;;軟件風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)估量化分析研究[J];計(jì)算機(jī)工程與設(shè)計(jì);2012年04期

7 譚莉;劉超;;基于模糊數(shù)的事件樹(shù)法在土石壩風(fēng)險(xiǎn)定量評(píng)估中的應(yīng)用[J];吉林水利;2012年02期

8 孫德強(qiáng);許金華;;重大能源工程事故定量風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)價(jià)思路與方法研究——以三高氣田鉆完井重大事故為例[J];中國(guó)能源;2011年10期

9 孫墾;蔡洪濤;楊崇豪;;風(fēng)險(xiǎn)定量分析中風(fēng)險(xiǎn)矩陣的構(gòu)建方法[J];華北水利水電學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年05期

10 彭剛;楊世軍;先齊;;輪古區(qū)塊深井復(fù)雜地層鉆頭選型研究與應(yīng)用[J];鉆采工藝;2011年05期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 蘇為華;多指標(biāo)綜合評(píng)價(jià)理論與方法問(wèn)題研究[D];廈門(mén)大學(xué);2000年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 程星華;基于灰色關(guān)聯(lián)-TOPSIS模型的農(nóng)村生活污水處理工藝綜合效能評(píng)價(jià)研究[D];華東師范大學(xué);2014年

，

本文編號(hào)：2491127