Advanced Search
Volume 40 Issue 1
. 
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
Abstract
References
Article Navigation >  PETROLEUM GEOLOGY & EXPERIMENT  > 2018  >  40(1): 126-132
FAN Ming, YU Lingjie, ZHANG Wentao, LIU Weixin, XU Ershe, YANG Zhenheng. Preservation mechanism of Fuling shale gas[J]. PETROLEUM GEOLOGY & EXPERIMENT, 2018, 40(1): 126-132. doi: 10.11781/sysydz201801126
Citation: FAN Ming, YU Lingjie, ZHANG Wentao, LIU Weixin, XU Ershe, YANG Zhenheng. Preservation mechanism of Fuling shale gas[J]. PETROLEUM GEOLOGY & EXPERIMENT, 2018, 40(1): 126-132. doi: 10.11781/sysydz201801126
shu

Preservation mechanism of Fuling shale gas

doi: 10.11781/sysydz201801126
  • 1.

    Wuxi Research Institute of Petroleum Geology, SINOPEC, Wuxi, Jiangsu 214126, China

  • 2. SINOPEC Key Laboratory of Petroleum Accumulation Mechanisms, Wuxi, Jiangsu 214126, China

  • Received Date: 2017-10-11
  • Rev Recd Date: 2018-01-02
  • Publish Date: 2018-01-28
    Abstract
  • The essential difference between conventional gas and shale gas in reservoir space is the difference in pore size or pore structure. The shale burial history, gas content, production data and isotope fractionation of desorbed gas in the Jiaoshiba area of Fuling, Sichuan Province indicate that shale gas was stored in the inter-connected pore units formed by single or multiple organic matter types, and its preservation mechanism was attributed to capillary pressure and static water pressure. Therefore, tectonic structure or trap shape has little impact on shale gas enrichment. The destruction of shale gas preservation conditions by tectonic activity was mainly determined by the decrease of static water pressure caused by tectonic movements, the destruction of lamination caused by geologic stress, and the decrease of capillary sealing ability caused by the opening of lamellae under horizontal compression conditions. Faults releasing tectonic force would not cause further destruction of lamination. On the contrary, they might be helpful for the preservation of a footwall which could be the optimum shale gas target. The recovery ratio of shale gas could be derived from the theory of capillary pressure, which would supply guidance for production.

     

    • FullText(HTML)
    • References(14)
  • [1]
    聂海宽,包书景,高波,等.四川盆地及其周缘下古生界页岩气保存条件研究[J].地学前缘,2012,19(3):280-294. NIE Haikuan,BAO Shujing,GAO Bo,et al.A study of shale gas preservation conditions for the Lower Paleozoic in Sichuan Basin and its periphery[J].Earth Science Frontiers,2012,19(3):280-294.
    [2]
    张涛,尹宏伟,贾东,等.下扬子区构造变形特征与页岩气保存条件[J].煤炭学报,2013,38(5):883-889. ZHANG Tao,YIN Hongwei,JIA Dong,et al.Structural deformation characteristics and shale gas preservation of Lower Yangtze region[J].Journal of China Coal Society,2013,38(5):883-889.
    [3]
    李海,白云山,王保忠,等.湘鄂西地区下古生界页岩气保存条件[J].油气地质与采收率,2014,21(6):22-25. LI Hai,BAI Yunshan,WANG Baozhong,et al.Preservation conditions research on shale gas in the Lower Paleozoic of western Hunan and Hubei area[J].Petroleum Geology and Recovery Efficiency,2014,21(6):22-25.
    [4]
    胡东风,张汉荣,倪楷,等.四川盆地东南缘海相页岩气保存条件及其主控因素[J].天然气工业,2014,34(6):17-23. HU Dongfen,ZHANG Hanrong,NI Kai,et al.Main controlling factors for gas preservation conditions of marine shales in southeastern margins of the Sichuan Basin[J].Natural Gas Industry,2014,34(6):17-23.
    [5]
    潘仁芳,唐小玲,孟江辉,等.桂中坳陷上古生界页岩气保存条件[J].石油与天然气地质,2014,35(4):534-541. PAN Renfang,TANG Xiaoling,MENG Jianghui,et al.Shale gas preservation conditions for the Upper Paleozoic in Guizhong Depression[J].Oil & Gas Geology,2014,35(4):534-541.
    [6]
    徐政语,姚根顺,梁兴,等.扬子陆块下古生界页岩气保存条件分析[J].石油实验地质,2015,37(4):407-417. XU Zhengyu,YAO Genshun,LIANG Xing,et al.Shale gas pre-servation conditions in the Lower Paleozoic,Yangtze block[J].Petroleum Geology & Experiment,2015,37(4):407-417.
    [7]
    张健,刘树根,冉波,等.异常高压与页岩气保存[J].成都理工大学学报(自然科学版),2016,43(2):177-187. ZHANG Jian,LIU Shugen,RAN Bo,et al.Abnormal overpre-ssure and shale gas preservation[J].Journal of Chengdu University of Technology (Science & Technology Edition),2016,43(2):177-187.
    [8]
    邹才能,陶士振,袁选俊,等."连续型"油气藏及其在全球的重要性:成藏、分布与评价[J].石油勘探与开发,2009,36(6):669-682. ZOU Caineng,TAO Shizhen,YUAN Xuanjun,et al.Global importance of "continuous" petroleum reservoirs:Accumulation, distribution and evaluation[J].Petroleum Exploration and Development,2009,36(6):669-682.
    [9]
    宋岩,姜林,马行陟.非常规油气藏的形成及其分布特征[J].古地理学报,2013,15(5):605-614. SONG Yan,JIANG Lin,MA Xingzhi.Formation and distribution characteristics of unconventional oil and gas reservoirs[J].Journal of Palaeogeography,2013,15(5):605-614.
    [10]
    余川,聂海宽,曾春林,等.四川盆地东部下古生界页岩储集空间特征及其对含气性的影响[J].地质学报,2014,88(7):1311-1320. YU Chuan,NIE Haikuan,ZENG Chunlin,et al.Shale reservoir space characteristics and the effect on gas content in Lower Palaeozoic Erathem of the Eastern Sichuan Basin[J].Acta Geologica Sinica,2014,88(7):1311-1320.
    [11]
    马勇,钟宁宁,程礼军,等.渝东南两套富有机质页岩的孔隙结构特征:来自FIB-SEM的新启示[J].石油实验地质,2015,37(1):109-116. MA Yong,ZHONG Ningning,CHENG Lijun,et al.Pore structure of two organic-rich shales in southeastern Chongqing area:Insight from Focused ion beam scanning electron microscope (FIB-SEM)[J].Petroleum Geology & Experiment,2015,37(1):109-116.
    [12]
    吴艳艳,曹海虹,丁安徐,等.页岩气储层孔隙特征差异及其对含气量影响[J].石油实验地质,2015,37(2):231-236. WU Yanyan,CAO Haihong,DING Anxu,et al.Pore characteristics of a shale gas reservoir and its effect on gas content[J].Petroleum Geology & Experiment,2015,37(2):231-236.
    [13]
    魏志红.四川盆地及其周缘五峰组-龙马溪组页岩气的晚期逸散[J].石油与天然气地质,2015,36(4):659-665. WEI Zhihong.Late fugitive emission of shale gas from Wufeng-Longmaxi formation in Sichuan Basin and its periphery[J].Oil & Gas Geology,2015,36(4):659-665.
    [14]
    刘玉婷.中外页岩气评价标准之比较研究[D].荆州:长江大学,2012. LIU Yuting.The trade-off study on evaluation criterion of domestic and external shale gas[D].Jingzhou:Yangtze University,2012.
    • Relative Articles

  • Relative Articles

    [1]HE Xipeng, WANG Kaiming, LUO Wei, GAO Yuqiao, LIU Nana, GUO Tao, ZHOU Yatong, WU Didi. Geological characteristics and main enrichment controlling factors of coalbed methane in Nanchuan area, southeastern Sichuan Basin[J]. PETROLEUM GEOLOGY & EXPERIMENT, 2025, 47(1): 64-76. doi: 10.11781/sysydz2025010064
    [2]WEI Fubin, LIU Zhujiang, CHEN Feiran, YAN Wei, WANG Qiang. Discussion on genesis and geological significance of "low resistivity and low gas content" of Longmaxi Formation shale in southeastern Sichuan[J]. PETROLEUM GEOLOGY & EXPERIMENT, 2023, 45(6): 1089-1096. doi: 10.11781/sysydz2023061089
    [3]SU Haikun, NIE Haikuan, GUO Shaobin, YANG Zhenheng, LI Donghui, SUN Chuanxiang, LU Ting, LIU Mi. Shale gas content evaluation for deep strata and its variation: a case study of Weirong, Yongchuan gas fields in Sichuan Basin[J]. PETROLEUM GEOLOGY & EXPERIMENT, 2022, 44(5): 815-824. doi: 10.11781/sysydz202205815
    [4]NI Kai, WANG Mingfa, LI Xiang. Enrichment model of shale gas in southeastern Sichuan Basin: a case study of Upper Ordovician Wufeng and Lower Silurian Longmaxi formations in Dingshan area[J]. PETROLEUM GEOLOGY & EXPERIMENT, 2021, 43(4): 580-588. doi: 10.11781/sysydz202104580
    [5]XU Lulu, WEN Yaru, ZHANG Yanlin, REN Zhijun, YANG Jie, WEN Jianhang, CHEN Wei, LUO Fan, DUAN Ke. Gas-bearing characteristics and preservation conditions of Upper Ordovician Wufeng-Lower Silurian Longmaxi shale in western Hubei[J]. PETROLEUM GEOLOGY & EXPERIMENT, 2021, 43(3): 395-405. doi: 10.11781/sysydz202103395
    [6]ZHU Tong. Main controlling factors and types of continental shale oil and gas enrichment in Sichuan Basin[J]. PETROLEUM GEOLOGY & EXPERIMENT, 2020, 42(3): 345-354. doi: 10.11781/sysydz202003345
    [7]YU Guangchun, WEI Xiangfeng, LI Fei, LIU Zhujiang. Disruptive effects of faulting on shale gas preservation in Upper Yangtze region[J]. PETROLEUM GEOLOGY & EXPERIMENT, 2020, 42(3): 355-362. doi: 10.11781/sysydz202003355
    [8]WANG Qiang, WEI Xiangfeng, WEI Fubin, YAN Jihong, WAN Li. Overpressure in shale gas reservoirs of Wufeng-Longmaxi formations, Fuling area, southeastern Sichuan Basin[J]. PETROLEUM GEOLOGY & EXPERIMENT, 2019, 41(3): 333-340. doi: 10.11781/sysydz201903333
    [9]LI Jinlei, YIN Cheng, WANG Mingfei, YANG Shasha, LIU Xiaojing, CHEN Chao. Preservation condition differences in Jiaoshiba area, Fuling,Sichuan Basin[J]. PETROLEUM GEOLOGY & EXPERIMENT, 2019, 41(3): 341-347. doi: 10.11781/sysydz201903341
    [10]LUO Bing, YU Fei, CHEN Yalin, DING Hongwei. Structural features and preservation evaluation of shale gas reservoirs in the Fuling area, Sichuan Basin[J]. PETROLEUM GEOLOGY & EXPERIMENT, 2018, 40(1): 103-109. doi: 10.11781/sysydz201801103
    [11]CHEN Yalin, YU Fei, LUO Bing, ZOU Xianjun. Formation pressure prediction and high pressure formation mechanisms of shale reservoirs in Fuling area, Sichuan Basin[J]. PETROLEUM GEOLOGY & EXPERIMENT, 2018, 40(1): 110-117. doi: 10.11781/sysydz201801110
    [12]GAN Yuqing, WANG Chao, FANG Dongliang, YANG Lanfang, ZHOU Xinke, ZHANG Ping. Element geochemical characteristics of the Wufeng-Longmaxi shale in Jiaoshiba area, Sichuan Basin and their significance to shale gas development[J]. PETROLEUM GEOLOGY & EXPERIMENT, 2018, 40(1): 78-89. doi: 10.11781/sysydz201801078
    [13]YI Jizheng, WANG Chao. Differential pore development characteristics in various shale lithofacies of Longmaxi Formation in Jiaoshiba area, Sichuan Basin[J]. PETROLEUM GEOLOGY & EXPERIMENT, 2018, 40(1): 13-19. doi: 10.11781/sysydz201801013
    [14]SHU Zhiguo, GUAN Hongmei, YU Lu, LIU Yun. Well logging evaluation of pore parameters for shale gas reservoirs in Jiaoshiba area, Sichuan Basin[J]. PETROLEUM GEOLOGY & EXPERIMENT, 2018, 40(1): 38-43. doi: 10.11781/sysydz201801038
    [15]WU Jiahe, LU Yaqiu, LIU Jie, LIANG Bang, WANG Yu, LIU Qiang. Low-grade fault recognition technology and its application in Wufeng-Longmaxi formations in Jiaoshiba area, Fuling, Sichuan Basin[J]. PETROLEUM GEOLOGY & EXPERIMENT, 2018, 40(1): 51-57. doi: 10.11781/sysydz201801051
    [16]Wei Xiangfeng, Li Yuping, Wei Zhihong, Liu Ruobing, Yu Guangchun, Wang Qingbo. Effects of preservation conditions on enrichment and high yield of shale gas in Sichuan Basin and its periphery[J]. PETROLEUM GEOLOGY & EXPERIMENT, 2017, 39(2): 147-153. doi: 10.11781/sysydz201702147
    [17]Wu Yanyan, Cao Haihong, Ding Anxu, Wang Liang, Cheng Yunyan. Pore characteristics of a shale gas reservoir and its effect on gas content[J]. PETROLEUM GEOLOGY & EXPERIMENT, 2015, 37(2): 231-236. doi: 10.11781/sysydz201502231
    [18]Song Zhenxiang, Li Zhongbo, Zhang Xi, Zhou Zhuoming, Yang Hao. Characteristics of shale gas reservoirs and evaluation of their gas potential in Sujiatun area, Lishu Fault Depression, Songliao Basin[J]. PETROLEUM GEOLOGY & EXPERIMENT, 2015, 37(5): 606-613. doi: 10.11781/sysydz201505606
    [19]Sun Qi, Li Tianyi, Zhou Yan, Yang Jun, Tao Ze, Yang Gansheng, Fan Dehua. Characteristics and prediction of overpressure in continental strata, YB area, northeastern Sichuan Basin[J]. PETROLEUM GEOLOGY & EXPERIMENT, 2012, 34(6): 611-616. doi: 10.11781/sysydz201206611
    [20]Xue Junmin, Gao Shengli, Gao Peng. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE UPPER PALEOZOIC COAL RESERVOIR AND ITS GAS-BEARING POTENTIAL IN SHENMU, THE ORDOS BASIN[J]. PETROLEUM GEOLOGY & EXPERIMENT, 2008, 30(1): 37-40. doi: 10.11781/sysydz200801037
    • Supplements(0)
    • Cited By

  • Cited by

    Periodical cited type(18)

    1. 吴建发，张成林，赵圣贤，张鉴，冯江荣，夏自强，方圆，李博，尹美璇，张德宽. 川南地区典型页岩气藏类型及勘探开发启示. 天然气地球科学. 2023(08): 1385-1400 .
    2. 王鹏威，陈筱，刘忠宝，杜伟，李东晖，金武军，王濡岳. 海相富有机质页岩储层压力预测方法——以涪陵页岩气田上奥陶统五峰组-下志留统龙马溪组页岩为例. 石油与天然气地质. 2022(02): 467-476 .
    3. 曾凌翔. 威远页岩气水平井控缝防窜技术优化与应用. 油气藏评价与开发. 2021(01): 81-85 .
    4. 王濡岳，胡宗全，董立，高波，孙川翔，杨滔，王冠平，尹帅. 页岩气储层表征评价技术进展与思考. 石油与天然气地质. 2021(01): 54-65 .
    5. 何骁，吴建发，雍锐，赵圣贤，周小金，张洞君，张德良，钟成旭. 四川盆地长宁——威远区块海相页岩气田成藏条件及勘探开发关键技术. 石油学报. 2021(02): 259-272 .
    6. 李桃，杨贵来，何伟，陈杨，周瑞琦，牟必鑫，魏洪刚. 西昌盆地五峰组—龙马溪组页岩气保存条件研究. 沉积与特提斯地质. 2021(03): 465-476 .
    7. 贾慧敏，闫玲，毛崇昊，张庆，张光波，樊彬. 煤层气储层毛管压力对煤层气开发效果的影响. 煤矿安全. 2020(05): 6-9+15 .
    8. 朱彤. 四川盆地陆相页岩油气富集主控因素及类型. 石油实验地质. 2020(03): 345-354 . 本站查看
    9. 弓义，李天宇，吴凯凯，包汉勇，王进，金爱民，楼章华，李梦瑶. 涪陵页岩气田五峰组——龙马溪组页岩气保存条件评价. 海相油气地质. 2020(03): 253-262 .
    10. 汪生秀，汪威，张志平，曾春林，王巧丽，余忠樯. 渝东南强变形区断裂对页岩气藏保存条件的控制作用. 断块油气田. 2020(06): 695-699 .
    11. 郑红军，周道容，殷启春，熊强青，王中鹏，方朝刚，滕龙，邵威，王元俊. 下扬子页岩气地质调查新进展及突破难点思考. 地质力学学报. 2020(06): 852-871 .
    12. 乔磊，田中兰，曾波，杨恒林，付盼，杨松. 页岩气水平井多因素耦合套变分析. 断块油气田. 2019(01): 107-110 .
    13. 王进，包汉勇，陆亚秋，柳筠，张梦吟. 涪陵焦石坝地区页岩气赋存特征定量表征及其主控因素. 地球科学. 2019(03): 1001-1011 .
    14. 张鹏，黄宇琪，杨军伟，刘洪洋. 黔西北龙潭组页岩吸附能力主控因素分析. 断块油气田. 2019(02): 162-167 .
    15. 贾慧敏，胡秋嘉，祁空军，覃蒙扶，毛崇昊，张光波. 煤层气流压回升型不正常井储层伤害机理与治理. 煤田地质与勘探. 2019(04): 69-75 .
    16. 蒋裕强，刘雄伟，付永红，陈虎，张海杰，燕军，陈超，谷一凡. 渝西地区海相页岩储层孔隙有效性评价. 石油学报. 2019(10): 1233-1243 .
    17. 高玉巧，高和群，何希鹏，丁安徐，张培先，何贵松. 四川盆地东南部页岩气同位素分馏特征及对产能的指示意义. 石油实验地质. 2019(06): 865-870 . 本站查看
    18. 张文涛. 毛细管突破压力模拟实验及页岩封闭能力. 石油实验地质. 2018(04): 577-582 . 本站查看

    Other cited types(7)

  • Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Amount of accessChart context menuAbstract Views, HTML Views, PDF Downloads StatisticsAbstract ViewsHTML ViewsPDF Downloads2024-072024-082024-092024-102024-112024-122025-012025-022025-032025-042025-052025-0601020304050
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Class DistributionFULLTEXT: 18.6 %FULLTEXT: 18.6 %META: 79.5 %META: 79.5 %PDF: 1.9 %PDF: 1.9 %FULLTEXTMETAPDF
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Area Distribution其他: 6.9 %其他: 6.9 %其他: 0.6 %其他: 0.6 %Central District: 0.3 %Central District: 0.3 %China: 1.2 %China: 1.2 %France: 0.1 %France: 0.1 %India: 0.1 %India: 0.1 %United States: 1.6 %United States: 1.6 %[]: 1.0 %[]: 1.0 %三门峡: 0.1 %三门峡: 0.1 %上海: 1.1 %上海: 1.1 %东莞: 0.1 %东莞: 0.1 %临汾: 0.4 %临汾: 0.4 %丽水: 0.4 %丽水: 0.4 %乌鲁木齐: 0.4 %乌鲁木齐: 0.4 %北京: 5.3 %北京: 5.3 %南京: 0.1 %南京: 0.1 %南昌: 0.1 %南昌: 0.1 %台州: 1.0 %台州: 1.0 %合肥: 0.1 %合肥: 0.1 %城南: 0.3 %城南: 0.3 %天津: 0.1 %天津: 0.1 %巴黎: 0.2 %巴黎: 0.2 %常州: 0.1 %常州: 0.1 %广州: 0.5 %广州: 0.5 %库比蒂诺: 0.2 %库比蒂诺: 0.2 %弗吉尼亚州: 0.5 %弗吉尼亚州: 0.5 %张家口: 5.6 %张家口: 5.6 %晋城: 0.1 %晋城: 0.1 %曼谷: 0.6 %曼谷: 0.6 %朝阳: 0.1 %朝阳: 0.1 %杭州: 0.8 %杭州: 0.8 %武汉: 0.5 %武汉: 0.5 %法尔肯施泰因: 1.0 %法尔肯施泰因: 1.0 %济南: 0.1 %济南: 0.1 %淄博: 0.1 %淄博: 0.1 %湘潭: 0.1 %湘潭: 0.1 %漯河: 0.3 %漯河: 0.3 %盐城: 0.1 %盐城: 0.1 %盘锦: 0.1 %盘锦: 0.1 %石家庄: 0.1 %石家庄: 0.1 %绵阳: 0.2 %绵阳: 0.2 %芒廷维尤: 42.1 %芒廷维尤: 42.1 %苏州: 0.1 %苏州: 0.1 %莫斯科: 0.4 %莫斯科: 0.4 %西宁: 22.2 %西宁: 22.2 %西安: 0.1 %西安: 0.1 %贵阳: 0.1 %贵阳: 0.1 %达州: 0.1 %达州: 0.1 %运城: 0.4 %运城: 0.4 %遵义: 0.2 %遵义: 0.2 %邯郸: 0.1 %邯郸: 0.1 %郑州: 0.4 %郑州: 0.4 %重庆: 0.1 %重庆: 0.1 %长沙: 0.4 %长沙: 0.4 %长治: 0.1 %长治: 0.1 %青岛: 0.1 %青岛: 0.1 %其他其他Central DistrictChinaFranceIndiaUnited States[]三门峡上海东莞临汾丽水乌鲁木齐北京南京南昌台州合肥城南天津巴黎常州广州库比蒂诺弗吉尼亚州张家口晋城曼谷朝阳杭州武汉法尔肯施泰因济南淄博湘潭漯河盐城盘锦石家庄绵阳芒廷维尤苏州莫斯科西宁西安贵阳达州运城遵义邯郸郑州重庆长沙长治青岛

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索
    Citation
    XML
    PDF-CN

    Article Metrics

    Article views (1703) PDF downloads(523) Cited by(25)
    Proportional views
    Related

    Website Copyright © Wuxi Research Institute of Petroleum Geology, SINOPEC 苏ICP备15009037号 苏公网安备32021102000780号

    Address：No. 2060, Lihu Avenue, Wuxi, Jiangsu   (214126) Tel：0510-68787204，68787203 Fax：0510-68787113 Email：sysydz.syky@sinopec.com

    Supported by: Beijing Renhe Information Technology Co. Ltd    

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return