问题描述：
英语翻译
要求：只求通顺,最好意思也通顺,纯粹软件翻译复制黏贴者勿扰
Casing Design and Well Construction in Phase II Wells.
One likely explanation for the casing pressure in the Phase II wells is the change in casing design and unsuccessful cementing in the wells.
The typical Phase I casing design was to run a tieback to surface from the 7⅝” production liner and to partially cement within the 9⅝” casing (Fig.4 (a)).To accommodate a larger tubing size,no tieback was run in the Phase II wells (Fig.4(b)).Without the cement sheath,casing connections,which are usually weak links in the well design in terms of both pressure and mechanical integrity,are likely to control the integrity of the wells.Premature failures at connections result in entry points for high-pressure gas or water zones to communicate with the production casing.This was confirmed by downhole video logs run in wells C-7 and C-8 during operations to remediate sustained casing pressure.Gas entry was seen to occur in a connection just below the 9⅝” liner top packer in each well.The type of connection used in the Phase II wells is particularly weak in terms of pressure seal when subjected to external pressure.
Poor cement jobs in Phase II wells,as a result of lost returns during cementing,could also be largely responsible for the exacerbated loss of pressure seal integrity in
Phase II wells.
Well Life vs.Well Rate.Figure 7 plots the well life,together with the completion type and production rate for both Phase I and Phase II wells.The plot shows a surprisingly
consistent correlation between well life and peak production rate – well life drastically decreases with peak production rate increase.The Phase II wells,which had much higher production rates,have a significantly shorter well life (controlled by casing pressure).Wells C-6,635#1 and C-3,which had a lower peak rate compared to other Phase I wells,also had relatively longer well lives.Well C-6,which had the lowest peak rate throughout its production history,had the longest well life.This could be an indication that near wellbore behavior associated with high drawdown impacts both the formation/cement interface bonding and ultimate sand disintegration.Another possible explanation is the prematured loss of connection leak integrity due to the extra thermal stress resulted from the high producing rate.
Another surprising observation is that,compared to cased and perforated completions,the gravel pack completions in wells E-1 and 635#1 neither significantly increased production nor increased well life.Later fracpack completions did significantly increase production.
Casing Damage in the Overburden.The casing damagelocations from some of the Phase II wells,picked by various caliper logs,are also listed in Table 1.Out of the eleven casing damages observed,four are within 160 feet of a liner overlap (possible depth error is about 50 to 100 feet),five are within 200 feet of a known fault (the damage in Well D3 is close to both),and three are unrelated to any known non-uniform loading source.No damage can be correlated to the Siph (D) 110 or other sands.It seems that damage correlated to faults significantly increased compared to Phase I wells.This can be explained by the hypothesis that fault movement is activated or accelerated in the later field life when accumulated field compaction became significant,above 2.5% strain in this case.Fig.7 plots measured/estimated ID reduction with depth in Phase II wells.It shows a general tendency of restriction increase with time and depth.
要求：只求通顺,最好意思也通顺,纯粹软件翻译复制黏贴者勿扰
Casing Design and Well Construction in Phase II Wells.
One likely explanation for the casing pressure in the Phase II wells is the change in casing design and unsuccessful cementing in the wells.
The typical Phase I casing design was to run a tieback to surface from the 7⅝” production liner and to partially cement within the 9⅝” casing (Fig.4 (a)).To accommodate a larger tubing size,no tieback was run in the Phase II wells (Fig.4(b)).Without the cement sheath,casing connections,which are usually weak links in the well design in terms of both pressure and mechanical integrity,are likely to control the integrity of the wells.Premature failures at connections result in entry points for high-pressure gas or water zones to communicate with the production casing.This was confirmed by downhole video logs run in wells C-7 and C-8 during operations to remediate sustained casing pressure.Gas entry was seen to occur in a connection just below the 9⅝” liner top packer in each well.The type of connection used in the Phase II wells is particularly weak in terms of pressure seal when subjected to external pressure.
Poor cement jobs in Phase II wells,as a result of lost returns during cementing,could also be largely responsible for the exacerbated loss of pressure seal integrity in
Phase II wells.
Well Life vs.Well Rate.Figure 7 plots the well life,together with the completion type and production rate for both Phase I and Phase II wells.The plot shows a surprisingly
consistent correlation between well life and peak production rate – well life drastically decreases with peak production rate increase.The Phase II wells,which had much higher production rates,have a significantly shorter well life (controlled by casing pressure).Wells C-6,635#1 and C-3,which had a lower peak rate compared to other Phase I wells,also had relatively longer well lives.Well C-6,which had the lowest peak rate throughout its production history,had the longest well life.This could be an indication that near wellbore behavior associated with high drawdown impacts both the formation/cement interface bonding and ultimate sand disintegration.Another possible explanation is the prematured loss of connection leak integrity due to the extra thermal stress resulted from the high producing rate.
Another surprising observation is that,compared to cased and perforated completions,the gravel pack completions in wells E-1 and 635#1 neither significantly increased production nor increased well life.Later fracpack completions did significantly increase production.
Casing Damage in the Overburden.The casing damagelocations from some of the Phase II wells,picked by various caliper logs,are also listed in Table 1.Out of the eleven casing damages observed,four are within 160 feet of a liner overlap (possible depth error is about 50 to 100 feet),five are within 200 feet of a known fault (the damage in Well D3 is close to both),and three are unrelated to any known non-uniform loading source.No damage can be correlated to the Siph (D) 110 or other sands.It seems that damage correlated to faults significantly increased compared to Phase I wells.This can be explained by the hypothesis that fault movement is activated or accelerated in the later field life when accumulated field compaction became significant,above 2.5% strain in this case.Fig.7 plots measured/estimated ID reduction with depth in Phase II wells.It shows a general tendency of restriction increase with time and depth.
问题解答：
我来补答展开全文阅读