architecture differences,braided river bar,sandy braided river,Lower He8 Member,Sulige gasfield


,"/> <span>砂质辫状河储层构型差异特征分析——以苏里格气田盒8下亚段为例</span>

吉林大学学报(地球科学版) ›› 2023, Vol. 53 ›› Issue (1): 30-43.doi: 10.13278/j.cnki.jjuese.20210425

• 地质与资源 • 上一篇    下一篇

砂质辫状河储层构型差异特征分析——以苏里格气田盒8下亚段为例

罗超1,2,李晓颜1,刘渠洋3,张强4,于洲5,代洁1,尹楠鑫1,林魂1   

  1. 1.重庆科技学院复杂油气田勘探开发重庆市重点实验室,重庆401331

    2.西部低渗-特低渗油藏开发与治理教育部工程研究中心(西安石油大学),西安710065

    3.中国石油长庆油田第七采油厂,西安717606

    4.中国石油西南油气田川东北作业分公司,成都610021

    5.中国石油杭州地质研究院,杭州310023

     


  • 收稿日期:2021-12-22 出版日期:2023-01-26 发布日期:2023-04-04

Architecture Differences Analysis in Sandy Braided River Facies: A Case Study of Lower He8 Member in Sulige Gasfield

Luo Chao1,2, Li Xiaoyan1, Liu Quyang3, Zhang Qiang4, Yu Zhou5, Dai Jie1, Yin Nanxin1, Lin Hun1   

  1. 1. Chongqing Key Laboratory of Complex Oil and Gas Exploration and Development, Chongqing University of Science &

    Technology, Chongqing 401331, China

    2. Engineering Research Center of Development and Management for Low to Ultra-Low Permeability Oil & Gas Reservoirs in West

    China (Xi’an Shiyou University), Ministry of Education, Xi’an 710065, China

    3. CNPC Changqing Petroleum, No.7 Oil Production Company, Xi’an 717606, China

    4. PetroChina Southwest Oil & Gasfield CDB Operation Company, Chengdu 610021, China

    5. PetroChina Hangzhou Research Institute of Geology, Hangzhou 310023, China

  • Received:2021-12-22 Online:2023-01-26 Published:2023-04-04

摘要:

为厘清砂质辫状河同级别构型要素差异特征及成因,以鄂尔多斯盆地苏里格气田石盒子组盒8下亚段砂质辫状河沉积为例,综合现代沉积、野外露头及岩心等资料,选取H8x2-2、H8x1-3和H8x1-1典型层段开展定量构型表征,重点辨析五级至三级同级别构型单元差异特征。研究结果表明:盒8下亚段不同单层内单一辫流带宽度为650.0~1 750.0 m,受物源条件和基准面旋回升降等沉积分异作用影响,单一辫流带(五级)呈孤立式、侧向拼接式和垂向叠加式3种不同构型差异分布样式。洪水、辫状河道冲刷以及冲沟破坏等因素作用,使得单砂体级次(四级)的构型差异最显著,而优势岩相组合概率高于80%的H8x2-2单层心滩规模较大,平均厚度为7.2 m,长和宽分别为1 402.0 m和809.0 m。各单层心滩内构型(三级)差异性较小,其中落淤层具有厚度薄(0.1~0.4 m)、倾角缓(1°~3°)、透镜状分布的相似特征,单一增生体宽度主要分布在360.0~565.0 m,心滩内增生体个数、单个增生体的大小共同造就了各单层心滩平均规模的较大差异。以各级次构型单元差异特征为约束条件,建立了典型井组砂质辫状河储层构型空间分布的三维地质模型。


关键词: 储层构型差异, 心滩, 砂质辫状河, 盒8下亚段, 苏里格气田

Abstract:

 It is of great significance for the efficient development of sandy braided river reservoirs to clarify the different characteristics and genesis of the same level architecture elements. Based on modern deposit, field outcrop, and core, the quantitative architecture characterization was carried out in typical layers by taking the sandy braided river of lower He8 Member in Sulige gasfield as the study subject. Architecture differences were emphatically compared from the fifth to third level in typical layers of H8x2-2, H8x1-3, and H8x1-1. Influenced by source condition and base level change, the braided belt scale of lower He8 Member changes from 650.0 m to 1 750.0 m. The single braided belt has three different distribution patterns: Isolated type, lateral splicing type, and vertical superposition type. Architecture differences in individual sandbody are remarkably affected by flooding, channel erosion, and chute scour. The scale of braided river bar is greater with an average thickness of 7.2 m in the layer of advantage lithofacies probability higher than 80%. The average length and width are 1 402.0 m and 809.0 m in H8x2-2. The architecture differences of the third level are minor in braided bar. Falling-silt layers have the similar feature of thin, gentle and lenticular distribution. They are 0.1-0.4 m thick and with a dip angle of 1-3 degrees. Single lateral accretions are 360.0-565.0 m wide. The number of lateral accretions and the single size control the difference in the average bar scale in every layer. With the constraint of architecture differences in different levels, a three-dimensional geological model is built up to accurately reflect the distribution of sandy braided river architecture in Sulige gasfield, which can provide a reference for later development adjustment of the reservoir.


Key words: architecture differences')">

architecture differences, braided river bar, sandy braided river, Lower He8 Member,
')">Sulige gasfield


中图分类号: 

  • P618.13
[1] 乔雨朋, 邱隆伟, 宋子怡, 王军, 宋璠, 刘卫. 远源砂质辫状河储集层内部隔夹层研究与地质建模——以沾化凹陷孤东油田六区馆上段为例[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2020, 50(1): 41-51.
[2] 瞿雪姣, 李继强, 张吉, 赵忠军, 戚志林, 罗超. 辫状河致密砂岩储层构型单元定量表征方法[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2018, 48(5): 1342-1352.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 程立人,张予杰,张以春. 西藏申扎地区奥陶纪鹦鹉螺化石[J]. J4, 2005, 35(03): 273 -0282 .
[2] 李 秉 成. 陕西富平全新世古气候的初步研究[J]. J4, 2005, 35(03): 291 -0295 .
[3] 和钟铧,杨德明,王天武,郑常青. 冈底斯带巴嘎区二云母花岗岩SHRIMP锆石U-Pb定年[J]. J4, 2005, 35(03): 302 -0307 .
[4] 纪宏金,孙丰月,陈满,胡大千,时艳香,潘向清. 胶东地区裸露含金构造的地球化学评价[J]. J4, 2005, 35(03): 308 -0312 .
[5] 初凤友,孙国胜,李晓敏,马维林,赵宏樵. 中太平洋海山富钴结壳生长习性及控制因素[J]. J4, 2005, 35(03): 320 -0325 .
[6] 李斌,孟自芳,李相博,卢红选,郑民. 泌阳凹陷下第三系构造特征与沉积体系[J]. J4, 2005, 35(03): 332 -0339 .
[7] 李涛, 吴胜军,蔡述明,薛怀平,YASUNORI Nakayama. 涨渡湖通江前后调蓄能力模拟分析[J]. J4, 2005, 35(03): 351 -0355 .
[8] 旷理雄,郭建华,梅廉夫,童小兰,杨丽. 从油气勘探的角度论博格达山的隆升[J]. J4, 2005, 35(03): 346 -0350 .
[9] 章光新,邓伟,何岩,RAMSIS Salama. 水文响应单元法在盐渍化风险评价中的应用[J]. J4, 2005, 35(03): 356 -0360 .
[10] 王谦,吴志芳, 张汉泉,莫修文. 随机分形在刻划储层非均质特性中的应用[J]. J4, 2005, 35(03): 340 -0345 .