泥岩与页岩地化特征对比——以鄂尔多斯盆地安塞地区延长组7段为例

doi:10.11743/ogg20200601

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

鄂尔多斯盆地安塞地区，延长组7段（长7段）发育优质的页岩与泥岩烃源岩。开展泥岩与页岩的区别研究，有助于评价页岩与泥岩的品质，识别它们对油气资源的贡献。基于25口重点探井开展了岩心描述工作，同时选取泥岩及页岩样品共计81块开展地球化学测试与分析，以获得泥岩与页岩的地化特征并开展差异性对比。结果表明，长7段泥岩与页岩均处于热成熟生油的热演化范围、有机质丰度均达到好烃源岩标准、页岩有机质类型以Ⅰ型与Ⅱ₁型为主，而泥岩有机质类型以Ⅱ₁与Ⅱ₂型为主。在页岩与泥岩的地化特征对比上发现，页岩有机质丰度显著高于泥岩，其中最主要的影响因素是有机碳含量大于4%的页岩样品数量较多；页岩有机质类型更偏于生油，其中最主要的影响因素是高氢指数的腐泥质组分相对丰富；页岩的游离烃、热解烃以及生烃潜量均优于泥岩，但页岩中孔隙及微裂缝对游离烃的统计影响更大；由于页岩孔隙及微裂缝更容易发育，泥岩对烃类的滞留能力可能更强，而页岩中烃类的排运相对容易；泥岩与页岩的生标参数并无显著差异。

关键词: 泥岩, 页岩, 地化差异, 延长组, 安塞地区, 鄂尔多斯盆地

Abstract:

High-quality shale and mudstone source rocks are developed in the 7^th member of Yanchang Formation (Chang 7 member) in Ansai area within the Ordos Basin.A study of geochemical differences of the two rocks was considered necessary for evaluating their quality and identifying their contributions to oil and gas reservoirs.A core description of the Chang 7 member was then carried out based on 25 key exploration wells and a geochemical comparison of the rocks was also performed based on 81 mudstone and shale samples gathered from the member in the wells.The results show that both shale and mudstone samples are good source rocks with their thermal maturation and organic matter abundance values within favorable ranges, except that the shale samples are dominated by Types Ⅰ and Ⅱ₁ organic matters whereas the mudstone samples are dominated by Types Ⅱ₁ and Ⅱ₂ organic matters.Compared with mudstone in terms of geochemical features, shale has significantly higher abundance of organic matter with more shale samples having TOC values greater than 4% and is more oil-prone as it contains higher content of sapropel.Shale also has higher contents of free and pyrolysis hydrocarbons and greater hydrocarbon-generating potential than mudstone.However, it should be noted that the occurrence of more pores and micro-fractures in shale may have a greater impact on the content measurements of free hydrocarbon.Compared with shale, in which pores and micro-fractures are easily developed and serve as pathways for hydrocarbon expulsion and migration, mudstone demonstrates stronger retention capacity for hydrocarbons.In addition, there is no significant difference between shale and mudstone in terms of biomarker parameters.

Key words: mudstone, shale, geochemical difference, Yanchang Formation, Ansai area, Ordos Basin

中图分类号:

TE122.1

范柏江,梅启亮,王小军,等. 泥岩与页岩地化特征对比——以鄂尔多斯盆地安塞地区延长组7段为例[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2020, 41(6): 1119-1128. doi: 10.11743/ogg20200601 Bojiang Fan,Qiliang Mei,Xiaojun Wang,et al. Geochemical comparison of mudstone and shale—A case study of the 7^th member of Yanchang Formation in Ansai area, Ordos Basin[J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2020, 41(6): 1119-1128. doi: 10.11743/ogg20200601

图/表 15

图1

图2

图3

表1

表2

图4

图5

图6

图7

图8

图9

图10

图11

图12

图13

参考文献 17

1	郝运轻, 谢忠怀, 周自立, 等. 非常规油气勘探领域泥页岩综合分类命名方案探讨[J]. 油气地质与采收率, 2012, 19 (6): 16- 19.
	Hao Yunqing , Xie Zhonghuai , Zhou Zili , et al. Discussion on multi-factors identification of mudstone and shale[J]. Petroleum Geology and Recovery Efficiency, 2012, 19 (6): 16- 19.
2	王怡, 刘修善, 曾义金, 等. 泥页岩综合分类方法探索[J]. 钻井液与完井液, 2014, 31 (4): 82- 85.
	Wang Yi , Liu Xiushan , Zeng Yijin , et al. Research on integrated classification method of claystones and Shales[J]. Drilling Fluid & Completion Fluid, 2014, 31 (4): 82- 85.
3	王勇, 王学军, 宋国奇, 等. 渤海湾盆地济阳坳陷泥页岩岩相与页岩油富集关系[J]. 石油勘探与开发, 2016, 43 (5): 696- 704.
	Wang Yong , Wang Xuejun , Song Guoqi , et al. Genetic connection between mud shale lithofacies and shale oil enrichment in Jiyang Depression, Bohai Bay Basin[J]. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2016, 43 (5): 696- 704.
4	李玉喜, 聂海宽, 龙鹏宇. 我国富含有机质泥页岩发育特点与页岩气战略选区[J]. 天然气工业, 2009, 29 (12): 115- 118.
	Li Yuxi , Nei Haikuan , Long Pengyu . Development characteristics of organic-rich shale and strategic selection of shale gas exploration area in China[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2009, 29 (12): 115- 118.
5	林森虎, 袁选俊, 杨智. 陆相页岩与泥岩特征对比及其意义——以鄂尔多斯盆地延长组7段为例[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2017, 38 (3): 517- 523.
	Lin Senhu , Yuan Xuanjun , Yang Zhi . Comparative study on lacustrine shale and mudstone and its significance:A case from the 7-(th) member of Yanchang Formation in the Ordos Basin[J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2017, 38 (3): 517- 523.
6	刘群, 袁选俊, 林森虎, 等. 湖相泥岩、页岩的沉积环境和特征对比——以鄂尔多斯盆地延长组7段为例[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2018, 39 (3): 531- 540.
	Liu Qun , Yuan Xuanjun , Lin Senhu , et al. Depositional environment and characteristic comparison between lacustrine mudstone and shale:A case study from the chang 7 Member of the Yanchang Formation, Ordos Basin[J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2018, 39 (3): 531- 540.
7	邓继新, 史謌, 刘瑞珣, 等. 泥岩、页岩声速各向异性及其影响因素分析[J]. 地球物理学报, 2004, 47 (5): 862- 868.
	Deng Jixin , Shi Ge , Liu Ruixun , et al. Analysis of the velocity anisotropy and its affection factors in shale and mudstoneE[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 2004, 47 (5): 862- 868.
8	庞正炼, 邹才能, 陶士振, 等. 中国致密油形成分布与资源潜力评价[J]. 中国工程科学, 2012, 14 (7): 60- 67.
	Pang Zhenglian , Zou Caineng , Tao Shizhen , et al. Formation, distribution and resource evaluation of tight oil in China[J]. Engineering Science, 2012, 14 (7): 60- 67.
9	范柏江, 王香增, 吴小斌. 页岩的气体解析特征及地球化学认识——以鄂尔多斯盆地中南部长7段页岩为例[J]. 中国矿业大学学报, 2017, 46 (3): 554- 562.
	Fan Bojiang , Wang Xiangzeng , Wu Xiaobin . Desorption analysis of shale and its geochemical characteristics:A case study of the Chang 7 member shale in the central south Ordos basin[J]. Journal of China University of Mining & Technology, 2017, 46 (3): 554- 562.
10	师良, 王香增, 范柏江, 等. 鄂尔多斯盆地延长组砂质纹层发育特征与油气成藏[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2018, 39 (3): 522- 530.
	Shi Liang , Wang Xiangzeng , Fan Bojiang , et al. Characteristics of sandy lamination and its hydrocarbon accumulation, Yanchang Formation, Ordos Basin[J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2018, 39 (3): 522- 530.
11	高岗, 徐新德, 刘诗局, 等. 涠西南凹陷流沙港组二段优质烃源岩判别及其控油作用[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2020, 41 (2): 339- 347.
	Gao Gang , Xu Xinde , Liu Shiju , et al. Organic geochemistry identification of high-quality source rocks in the 2nd member of Liushagang Fm and its controls on petroleum occurrence in the Weixi'nan Sag, Beibuwan Basin[J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2020, 41 (2): 339- 347.
12	成海燕, 李安龙, 龚建明. 陆相烃源岩评价参数浅析[J]. 海洋地质前沿, 2008, 24 (2): 6- 10.
	Cheng Haiyan , Li Anlong , Gong Jianming . Appraisal parameters of terrestrial hydrocarbon source rocks[J]. Marine Geology Letters, 2008, 24 (2): 6- 10.
13	肖晖, 赵靖舟, 熊涛, 等. 鄂尔多斯盆地古隆起西侧奥陶系烃源岩评价及成藏模式[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2017, 38 (6): 1087- 1097.
	Xiao Hui , Zhao Jingzhou , Xiong Tao , et al. Evaluation of Ordovician source rocks and natural gas accumulation patterns in west flank of a paleo-uplift, Ordos basin[J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2017, 38 (6): 1087- 1097.
14	肖贤明, 金奎励. 显微组分的成烃作用模式[J]. 科学通报, 1991, 36 (3): 208- 211.
	Xiao Xianming , Jin Kuili . Hydrocarbon generation model of macerals in coal[J]. Chinese Science Bulletin, 1991, 36 (3): 208- 211.
15	柳波, 吕延防, 赵荣, 等. 三塘湖盆地马朗凹陷芦草沟组泥页岩系统地层超压与页岩油富集机理[J]. 石油勘探与开发, 2012, 39 (6): 699- 705.
	Liu Bo , Lü Yanfang , Zhao Rong , et al. Formation overpressure and shale oil enrichment in the shale system of Lucaogou Formation, Malang Sag, Santanghu Basin, NW China[J]. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2012, 39 (6): 699- 705.
16	Fan Bojiang , Shi Liang . Deep-lacustrine shale heterogeneity and its impact on hydrocarbon generation, expulsion, and retention:A case study from the Upper Triassic Yanchang Formation, Ordos Basin, China[J]. Natural Resources Research, 2019, 28 (1): 241- 257. doi: 10.1007/s11053-018-9387-2
17	Jia W , Wang Q , Liu J . The effect of oil expulsion or retention on further thermal degradation of kerogen in the high maturity stage:A pyrolysis study of type Ⅱ kerogen from Pingliang shale, China[J]. Organic Geochemistry, 2014, 71 (1): 17- 29.

	参数	TOC/%	(S₁+S₂)/ (mg·g^-1)	氯仿沥青“A”含量/%	总烃含量/10^-6	R_o/%	有机质类型
泥岩	数值范围	0.88~9.86	2.2~21.72	0.05~1.04	129.52~7282.20	0.72~1.10	Ⅱ₁与Ⅱ₂型为主
	平均数值	2.81	7.60	0.53	3569.44	0.87
	样品数/个	19	30	30	30	14
	评价	好	好	好	好
页岩	数值范围	0.86~10.81	3.00~32.41	0.33~1.48	253.95~8916.37	0.73~1.12	Ⅰ型与Ⅱ₁型为主
	平均数值	3.57	11.21	0.51	3208.80	0.94
	样品数/个	40	40	40	40	35
	评价	好	好	好	好

生标参数	泥岩(样品数17个)		页岩(样品数33个)
生标参数	数值范围	平均值	数值范围	平均值
伽马蜡烷/C₃₀藿烷	0.07~0.39	0.20	0.06~0.42	0.24
CPI(碳优势指数)	1.05~1.11	1.08	1.05~1.11	1.05
OEP(奇偶优势指数)	0.99~1.07	1.02	0.98~1.07	0.99
Ts/(Ts+Tm)	0.39~0.89	0.72	0.08~0.90	0.60
C₃₀重排藿烷/C₂₉Ts	0.58~4.85	2.31	0.60~6.87	2.05
C₃₁升藿烷22S/ (22S+22R)	0.41~0.59	0.50	0.30~0.59	0.49
C₃₂升霍烷22S/ (22S+22R)	0.52~0.58	0.56	0.45~0.60	0.53
孕甾烷/升孕甾烷	0.00~5.72	2.54	0~20.32	3.46
(孕甾烷+升孕甾烷)/ ααα20RC₂₉甾烷	0.08~3.40	1.68	0.07~4.41	1.47
C₂₉甾烷ββ/(αα+ββ)	0.27~0.50	0.42	0.24~0.52	0.38
αααC₂₉甾烷S/(S+R)	0.39~0.62	0.53	0.30~0.73	0.48
8β(H)-补身烷/ 8β(H)-升补身烷	0.79~1.61	1.23	0.79~3.17	1.51
Pr/Ph	1.22~2.17	1.64	1.22~2.17	1.65
C₂₇/C₂₉规则甾烷	0.40~0.78	0.56	0.39~1.24	0.65
Pr/nC₁₇	0.16~0.62	0.3	0.16~0.62	0.27
Ph/nC₁₈	0.09~0.25	0.14	0.09~0.25	0.14
C₂₇/(C₂₇+C₂₈+C₂₉)规则甾烷	0.20~0.28	0.24	0.19~0.40	0.27
C₂₈/(C₂₇+C₂₈+C₂₉)规则甾烷	0.26~0.37	0.33	0.17~0.40	0.30
C₂₉/(C₂₇+C₂₈+C₂₉)规则甾烷	0.36~0.52	0.43	0.35~0.54	0.43

[1]	刘惠民, 包友书, 黎茂稳, 李政, 吴连波, 朱日房, 王大洋, 王鑫. 页岩油富集可动性地球化学评价参数探讨[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2024, 45(3): 622-636.
[2]	蒲秀刚, 董姜畅, 柴公权, 宋舜尧, 时战楠, 韩文中, 张伟, 解德录. 渤海湾盆地沧东凹陷古近系孔店组二段页岩高丰度有机质富集模式[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2024, 45(3): 696-709.
[3]	吴伟涛, 冯炎松, 费世祥, 王一妃, 吴和源, 杨旭东. 鄂尔多斯盆地神木气田二叠系石千峰组5段致密气富集因素及有利区预测[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2024, 45(3): 739-751.
[4]	方锐, 蒋裕强, 杨长城, 邓海波, 蒋婵, 洪海涛, 唐松, 谷一凡, 朱讯, 孙莎莎, 蔡光银. 四川盆地侏罗系凉高山组不同岩性组合页岩油赋存状态及可动性[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2024, 45(3): 752-769.
[5]	李军, 邹友龙, 路菁. 陆相页岩油储层可动油含量测井评价方法[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2024, 45(3): 816-826.
[6]	杜晓宇, 金之钧, 曾联波, 刘国平, 杨森, 梁新平, 陆国青. 基于成像测井的深层陆相页岩油储层天然裂缝有效性评价[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2024, 45(3): 852-865.
[7]	邹才能, 董大忠, 熊伟, 傅国友, 赵群, 刘雯, 孔维亮, 张琴, 蔡光银, 王玉满, 梁峰, 刘翰林, 邱振. 中国页岩气新区带、新层系和新类型勘探进展、挑战及对策[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2024, 45(2): 309-326.
[8]	赵喆, 白斌, 刘畅, 王岚, 周海燕, 刘羽汐. 中国石油陆上中-高成熟度页岩油勘探现状、进展与未来思考[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2024, 45(2): 327-340.
[9]	刘成林, 丁振刚, 范立勇, 康锐, 洪思婕, 朱玉新, 陈践发, 王海东, 许诺. 鄂尔多斯盆地含氦天然气地球化学特征与富集影响因素[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2024, 45(2): 384-392.
[10]	万俊雨, 朱建辉, 姚素平, 张毅, 李春堂, 张威, 姜海健, 王杰. 鄂尔多斯盆地中、东部奥陶系马家沟组成烃生物及烃源岩地球生物学评价[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2024, 45(2): 393-405.
[11]	柳波, 蒙启安, 付晓飞, 林铁锋, 白云风, 田善思, 张金友, 姚瑶, 程心阳, 刘召. 松辽盆地白垩系青山口组一段页岩生、排烃组分特征及页岩油相态演化[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2024, 45(2): 406-419.
[12]	何骁, 郑马嘉, 刘勇, 赵群, 石学文, 姜振学, 吴伟, 伍亚, 宁诗坦, 唐相路, 刘达东. 四川盆地“槽-隆”控制下的寒武系筇竹寺组页岩储层特征及其差异性成因[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2024, 45(2): 420-439.
[13]	高和群, 高玉巧, 何希鹏, 聂军. 苏北盆地古近系阜宁组二段页岩油储层岩石力学特征及其控制因素[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2024, 45(2): 502-515.
[14]	杨丽华, 刘池洋, 黄雷, 周义军, 刘永涛, 秦阳. 鄂尔多斯盆地古峰庄地区疑似侵入岩体的发现及其地质意义[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2024, 45(1): 142-156.
[15]	师良, 范柏江, 李忠厚, 余紫巍, 蔺子瑾, 戴欣洋. 鄂尔多斯盆地中部三叠系延长组7段烃组分的运移分异作用[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2024, 45(1): 157-168.