桦甸盆地桦甸组与美国犹他盆地绿河组油页岩生物标志化合物特征对比

J4 ›› 2011, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (2): 391-399.

桦甸盆地桦甸组与美国犹他盆地绿河组油页岩生物标志化合物特征对比

孟庆涛^1,2|刘招君^1,2|柳蓉^1,2|孙平昌¹|胡菲¹|张京¹

1.吉林大学地球科学学院|长春130061;
2.东北亚生物演化与环境教育部重点实验室|长春130026

收稿日期:2010-05-18 出版日期:2011-03-26 发布日期:2011-03-26
通讯作者: 刘招君（1951-），男，黑龙江哈尔滨人，教授，博士生导师，主要从事层序地层学、含油气盆地分析、油页岩成矿理论、资源评价与综合利用研究 E-mail:liuzj@jlu.edu.cn
作者简介:孟庆涛(1984-)|女|黑龙江伊春人|讲师|博士|主要从事石油地质学、油页岩成矿理论和沉积地球化学研究|E-mail:mengqingtao55@163.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目（40972076）；吉林大学科学前沿与交叉学科创新项目（201003012）；吉林大学创新团队建设项目（201004001）；高等学校博士学科点专项科研基金项目（新教师基金课题）（200801831098）

Comparision on the Characteristics of Biomarkers of Oil Shale Between Huadian Formatin in Huadian Basin and Green River Formation in Uinta Basin of Western United States

MENG Qing-tao^{1, 2}, LIU Zhao-jun^{1, 2}, LIU Rong^{1, 2}, SUN Ping-chang¹, HU Fei¹, ZHANG Jing¹

1.College of Earth Sciences, Jilin University, Changchun130061, China;
2.Key-Lab for Evolution of Past Life and Environment in Northeast Asia, Ministry of Education, Changchun130026, China

Received:2010-05-18 Online:2011-03-26 Published:2011-03-26

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

在野外地质考察、岩心观察和大量测试数据分析的基础上，对我国东北地区桦甸盆地始新统桦甸组和美国犹他盆地始新统绿河组油页岩中类异戊二烯烷烃、甾类和萜类等生物标志化合物特征进行了详细的对比研究，并探讨其对两地油页岩在有机质来源及古沉积环境上的差异指示意义。结果表明：在GC谱图上，桦甸油页岩Pr/Ph为1.47～2.03，具姥鲛烷优势；而绿河油页岩Pr/Ph为0.34～0.44，具植烷优势。GC-MS分析表明:桦甸油页岩规则甾烷C₂₇-C₂₈-C₂₉呈反“L”型分布，∑(C₂₇+C₂₈)/∑C₂₉为0.63～2.52；绿河油页岩规则甾烷C₂₇-C₂₈-C₂₉呈钝角不对称“V”型分布，∑(C₂₇+C₂₈)/∑C₂₉为0.96～1.20。桦甸油页岩萜类化合物中萜烯＞ββ构型霍烷＞αβ构型霍烷，以C₂₉萜烯占优势；绿河油页岩中五环三萜烷＞三环萜烷＞四环萜烷，并检出丰富的γ-蜡烷和β-胡萝卜烷。两地油页岩生物标志化合物特征参数的对比分析揭示：桦甸油页岩为水生生物和高等植物双重生源，但细菌及藻类等水生生物的贡献较大，主要形成于弱还原淡水沉积环境；绿河油页岩有机质来源主要为细菌和藻类等水生生物，主要形成于强还原咸水沉积环境。

关键词: 生物标志化合物, 油页岩, 桦甸组, 绿河组, 始新统

Abstract:

Based on the field geological work, core observation and a lot of test data, the authors aim to develop comparative study on the characteristics of biomarkers of oil shale, including isoprenoid, steranes and terpanes, between Eocene Huadian Formation of Huadian basin in northeast China and Green River Formation of Uinta basin in western United States. The differences on the origin of organic matters and sedimentary environment of oil shale in the two places have been discussed. In GC spectra, the Pr/Ph of Huadian oil shale varies from 1.47 to 2.03, which shows that pristane is in dominated. However, the Pr/Ph of Green River oil shale varies from 0.34 to 0.44, showing phytane is in dominated. In the m/z217 GC-MS, the regular steranes C₂₇-C₂₈-C₂₉ of Huadian oil shale distributes with inverse “L” shape, and ∑(C₂₇+C₂₈)/∑C₂₉ ratio varies between 0.63 and 2.52, but Green River oil shale distributes with asymmetric “V” shape with obtuse angle, and ∑(C₂₇+C₂₈)/∑C₂₉ ratio varies between 0.96 and 1.20. In the m/z191 GC-MS, C₂₉ terpene in Huadian oil shale is most abundant, ββ configuration of hopane by the second, and then αβ configuration of hopane. But in Green River oil shale, C₃₀ hopane is most abundant, according to the relative abundance, pentacyclic triterpane are characterized by highest abundances, the tricyclic terpane by the second, and then tetracyclic terpane, and abundant gammacerane and βcarrotanes can also be detected. The characteristics parameters of biomarkers of oil shale in the two places reveals that the organic matters of Huadian oil shale are characterized by double origins from aquatic organisms and higher plants, but bacteria and algae are dominate, and the oil shale mainly forms in weak reduction environment with fresh water. However, the organic matters of Green River oil shale mainly are aquatic organisms, including bacteria and algae, and the oil shale forms in high reduction environment with salt water.

Key words: biomarker, oil shale, Huadian Formation, Green River Formation, Eocene

中图分类号:

P618.13

孟庆涛, 刘招君, 柳蓉, 孙平昌, 胡菲, 张京. 桦甸盆地桦甸组与美国犹他盆地绿河组油页岩生物标志化合物特征对比[J]. J4, 2011, 41(2): 391-399.

MENG Qing-tao, LIU Zhao-jun, LIU Rong, SUN Ping-chang, HU Fei, ZHANG Jing. Comparision on the Characteristics of Biomarkers of Oil Shale Between Huadian Formatin in Huadian Basin and Green River Formation in Uinta Basin of Western United States[J]. J4, 2011, 41(2): 391-399.

参考文献

相关文章 15

[1]	杨立红, 刘莹, 罗弋卜, 曾皓, 苏建政, 李迎超. 油页岩原位开采中高温腐蚀下的选材[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2025, 55(4): 1091-1102.
[2]	程瑶, 陆丹丹, 赵龙飞. 微波加热油页岩储层的热响应 [J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2025, 55(2): 387-400.
[3]	惠瑞瑞, 刘妍, 张志升, 张治东, 李斌, 郭爱华. 鄂尔多斯盆地安塞地区延长组长9段原油地球化学特征与油源对比[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2024, 54(5): 1468-1481.
[4]	张文, 蓝升, 马文良, 王佳. 新疆油页岩升温过程中孔隙结构演化特征[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2023, 53(6): 1689-1705.
[5]	赵慧博, 冯彩霞, 刘燊, 刘芳晓. 陕西省紫阳县下寒武统黑色岩系有机地球化学特征[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2023, 53(4): 1016-1032.
[6]	高家俊, 孟庆涛, 曾文人, 李金国, 李丽, 康嘉楠, . 依兰盆地始新统达连河组油页岩有机地球化学特征及沉积环境分析[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2023, 53(1): 60-72.
[7]	陈晨, 张颖, 朱江, 朱颖, 翟梁皓, 沈国军, 潘栋彬. 油页岩原位开采区注浆封闭浆液优化及其防渗效果实验[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2021, 51(3): 815-824.
[8]	李成博, 宁传奇, 钟长林, 任建超, 徐人吁, 殷淑芹. 中国油页岩矿勘查控制程度探讨[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2021, 51(1): 13-21.
[9]	海连富, 王磊, 马治军, 徐清海, 宋扬, 白金鹤. 宁夏固原炭山地区中侏罗统延安组油页岩特征及其沉积环境[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2020, 50(3): 747-756.
[10]	刘招君, 柳蓉, 孙平昌, 孟庆涛, 胡菲. 中国典型盆地油页岩特征及赋存规律[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2020, 50(2): 313-325.
[11]	王嗣敏, 臧东升, 王熙琼, 李杰, 韩嵩, 李建中. 辽西建昌盆地油页岩发育特征及沉积环境[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2020, 50(2): 326-340.
[12]	孟庆涛, 李金国, 刘招君, 胡菲, 徐川. 茂名盆地羊角含矿区始新统油柑窝组油页岩有机地球化学特征及沉积环境[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2020, 50(2): 356-367.
[13]	贾建亮, 刘招君, 孟庆涛, 孙平昌, 徐进军, 柳蓉, 白悦悦. 中国陆相油页岩含油率与总有机碳的响应机理[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2020, 50(2): 368-377.
[14]	宋宇, 刘招君, Achim Bechtel, 徐银波, 孟庆涛, 孙平昌, 朱凯. 老黑山盆地下白垩统穆棱组油页岩与煤含油率控制因素[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2020, 50(2): 378-391.
[15]	郑国栋, 孟庆涛, 刘招君. 松辽盆地北部青一段油页岩地球化学特征及其记录的古湖泊学信息[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2020, 50(2): 392-404.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed