页岩油原地量和可动油量评价方法与应用

doi:10.11743/ogg20210619

Abstract

Abstract:

The calculation of total oil yield (TOY) and movable oil yield (MOY) of shale is a core technology in assessing shale oil resource potential. A method of evaluating the heterogeneity of TOC content in shale samples and a calculation method to correct the content of adsorbed oil are proposed based on data of two separate pyrolysis experiments. The calculation method is subsequently applied to evaluate 29 shale samples from the Qianjiang Formation in the Jianghan Basin and 32 shale samples from the Shahejie Formation in the Bohai Bay Basin, and the results show that: (1) The mean deviations of TOC are 0.16% and 0.34%, respectively, indicating heterogeneity of the two sample groups; (2) The adsorbed oil content deviations of pre-and post-correction are 0.85 mg/g and 0.84 mg/g respectively, showing that the equivalent TOC correction can lead to more accurate results in calculating adsorbed oil, TOY and MOY. Besides, a method to calculate evaporative hydrocarbon loss is proposed based on shale oil density and formation oil volume factor. These newly proposed methods are used to evaluate the 7^th shale oil layer group of Yanchang Formation (Chang 7 shale oil layer group) in the Ordos Basin. The results are as follows: (1) Adsorbed oil accounts for 63% of the TOY, the MOY accounts for 37% of the TOY, the TOY is 3.5 times of S₁, and the evaporative hydrocarbon loss accounts for 9% of the TOY and 29% of S₁; (2) The shale oil in-place is 111.2×10⁸t and the movable oil in-place is 40.1×10⁸t in the study area, indicating that the Chang 7 shale oil layer group is of great exploration potential.

Key words: resource potential, total oil yield (TOY), movable oil yield (MOY), shale oil, Yanchang Formation, Ordos Basin

CLC Number:

TE122.1

Qiulin Guo, Jian Wang, Xiaoming Chen, Ningsheng Chen, Xiaozhi Wu, Zhuangxiaoxue Liu. Discussion on evaluation method of total oil and movable oil in-place[J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2021, 42(6): 1451-1463.

Figures/Tables 11

Fig.1

Table 1

Rock-Eval pyrolysis results, adsorbed oil content, and correction coefficient of the Qianjiang Formation shale, Jianghan Basin (Rock-Eval data from reference [26])"

样品编号	井名	深度/ m	全岩热解数据			抽提后的全岩热解数据			未校正的		等价TOC校正后的
样品编号	井名	深度/ m	S₁/（mg·g^-1）	S₂/（mg·g^-1）	TOC_A/%	S_1EX/（mg·g^-1）	S_2EX/（mg·g^-1）	TOC_EX/%	（S₁- S_1EX）/ （mg·g^-1）	（S₂- S_2EX）/ （mg·g^-1）	ΔS_2eq/（mg·g^-1）	k_eq	TOC_B/%	\|TOC_A-TOC_B\|/%	\|ΔS_2eq-ΔS₂\|/ （mg·g^-1）
1	Wangyun-11	1 746.1	2.99	14.48	2.59	0.04	11.30	2.03	2.95	3.18	2.67	1.05	2.48	0.11	0.51
2	Wangyun-11	1 747.0	4.60	25.60	4.48	0.06	22.62	3.80	4.54	2.98	2.35	1.03	4.43	0.05	0.63
3	Wangyun-11	1 749.3	20.86	17.14	4.48	0.06	3.59	1.44	20.80	13.55	12.99	1.16	4.30	0.18	0.56
4	Wangyun-11	1 714.3	3.05	2.10	0.94	0.01	0.69	0.65	3.04	1.41	1.50	0.86	1.02	0.08	0.09
5	Wangyun-11	1 710.6	9.09	9.78	3.68	0.03	4.77	2.33	9.06	5.01	4.57	1.09	3.50	0.18	0.44
6	Wangyun-11	1 707.3	10.97	7.61	2.98	0.01	1.95	1.25	10.96	5.66	5.04	1.32	2.64	0.35	0.62
7	Wangyun-11	1 705.9	9.92	8.17	3.40	0.03	2.80	2.01	9.89	5.37	5.18	1.07	3.28	0.12	0.19
8	Wangyun-11	1 704.7	2.02	1.47	0.62	0.01	0.44	0.26	2.01	1.03	0.82	1.48	0.51	0.11	0.21
9	Wangyun-11	1 649.2	4.50	55.96	8.54	0.15	50.82	7.52	4.35	5.14	1.58	1.07	8.31	0.23	3.56
10	Wangyun-11	1 646.5	17.09	16.70	4.63	0.04	3.99	1.93	17.05	12.71	12.16	1.14	4.41	0.22	0.55
11	Wangyun-11	1 645.1	8.81	12.61	3.02	0.03	5.72	1.48	8.78	6.89	5.55	1.23	2.79	0.23	1.34
12	Wangyun-11	1 633.0	4.65	31.39	5.33	0.10	26.13	4.48	4.55	5.26	4.89	1.01	5.30	0.03	0.37
13	Wangyun-11	1 632.3	8.82	57.62	9.71	0.26	49.11	8.14	8.56	8.51	6.71	1.04	9.56	0.15	1.80
14	Wangyun-11	1 309.3	5.57	46.03	6.03	0.28	36.94	4.92	5.29	9.09	10.88	0.95	6.12	0.09	1.79
15	Qianyeping-2	1 451.6	0.73	3.80	0.98	0.04	2.98	0.90	0.69	0.82	1.03	0.93	1.03	0.05	0.21
16	Qianyeping-2	1 463.5	3.67	33.15	5.58	0.21	27.54	4.75	3.46	5.61	4.77	1.03	5.51	0.07	0.84
17	Qianyeping-2	1 467.8	3.49	17.57	4.35	0.11	13.30	3.57	3.38	4.27	3.50	1.06	4.21	0.14	0.77
18	Qianyeping-2	1 471.1	1.53	10.98	2.72	0.10	8.17	2.19	1.43	2.81	1.85	1.12	2.54	0.18	0.96
19	Qianyeping-2	1 476.5	3.01	31.11	5.00	0.15	24.76	4.21	2.86	6.35	6.09	1.01	4.98	0.02	0.26
20	Qianyeping-2	1 481.9	0.80	6.50	1.47	0.07	4.61	1.20	0.73	1.89	1.60	1.06	1.42	0.05	0.29
21	Qianyeping-2	1 485.7	1.68	7.58	2.11	0.12	4.86	1.72	1.56	2.72	2.60	1.03	2.08	0.03	0.12
22	Qianyeping-2	1 492.2	3.76	24.63	3.89	0.17	21.87	3.29	3.59	2.76	1.69	1.05	3.82	0.07	1.07
23	Qianyeping-2	1 500.3	1.82	23.90	4.34	0.15	21.73	3.99	1.67	2.17	1.87	1.01	4.31	0.03	0.30
24	Qianyeping-2	1 507.1	0.35	2.37	0.90	0.03	1.65	0.88	0.32	0.72	0.87	0.91	0.97	0.07	0.15
25	Qianyeping-2	1 513.2	3.25	12.56	3.45	0.07	4.08	1.94	3.18	8.48	7.10	1.34	2.91	0.54	1.38
26	Qianyeping-2	1 518.8	1.91	6.89	2.60	0.05	3.49	2.05	1.86	3.40	3.18	1.06	2.49	0.11	0.22
27	Qianyeping-2	1 528.7	4.67	10.20	2.86	0.08	4.33	1.70	4.59	5.87	4.93	1.22	2.57	0.29	0.94
28	Qianyeping-2	1 535.2	10.95	34.75	6.85	0.20	23.45	4.85	10.75	11.30	9.98	1.06	6.69	0.16	1.32
29	Qianyeping-2	1 537.2	8.07	17.72	3.51	0.12	9.10	2.85	7.95	8.62	11.77	0.65	4.23	0.72	3.15
	平均值	—	—	—	3.83	—	—	—	—	5.30	4.82	1.07	3.74	0.16	0.85

Table 1

Table 2

Rock-Eval pyrolysis results, adsorbed oil content, and correction coefficient of the Shahejie Formation shale, Bohai Bay Basin (Rock-Eval data from reference [16])"

			全岩热解数据			抽提后的全岩热解数据			未校正的		等价TOC含量校正后的
样品编号	井名	深度/m	S₁/（mg·g^-1）	S₂/（mg·g^-1）	TOC_A/%	S_1EX/（mg·g^-1）	S_2EX/（mg·g^-1）	TOC_EX/%	（S₁- S_1EX）/ （mg·g^-1）	（S₂- S_2EX）/ （mg·g^-1）	ΔS_2eq/（mg·g^-1）	k_eq	TOC_B/%	\|TOC_A-TOC_B\|/%	\|ΔS_2eq-ΔS₂\|/ （mg·g^-1）
1	LY1–18	3 580.17	5.34	11.86	3.58	1.31	8.90	2.83	4.03	2.96	2.21	1.08	3.30	0.28	0.75
2	LY1–17	3 587.18	4.47	7.54	2.43	1.49	6.15	1.87	2.98	1.39	0.41	1.16	2.10	0.33	0.98
3	LY1–16	3 600.10	11.90	18.44	4.97	0.50	8.64	3.13	11.40	9.8	9.53	1.03	4.82	0.15	0.27
4	LY1–15	3 613.38	9.23	12.88	3.63	1.84	7.78	2.53	7.39	5.10	4.83	1.03	3.51	0.12	0.27
5	LY1–14	3 624.31	5.46	8.52	2.70	1.10	5.29	1.91	4.36	3.23	2.63	1.11	2.42	0.28	0.60
6	LY1–13	3 635.56	6.05	12.60	3.93	0.29	6.52	2.54	5.76	6.08	4.75	1.20	3.26	0.67	1.33
7	LY1–12	3 644.95	9.35	18.13	5.15	0.62	10.90	4.01	8.73	7.23	7.91	0.94	5.49	0.34	0.68
8	LY1–11-a	3 659.12	13.76	24.96	6.93	1.60	15.09	4.96	12.16	9.87	9.30	1.04	6.68	0.25	0.57
9	LY1–10	3 671.64	10.01	18.93	5.97	0.66	13.01	4.90	9.35	5.92	6.62	0.95	6.31	0.34	0.70
10	LY1–9	3 690.20	2.64	4.85	1.73	1.15	3.47	1.43	1.49	1.38	1.18	1.06	1.63	0.10	0.20
11	LY1–8	3 748.10	3.42	5.48	2.22	0.50	2.93	1.47	2.92	2.55	1.82	1.25	1.78	0.44	0.73
12	LY1–7	3 757.16	3.02	4.80	1.94	0.38	2.14	1.44	2.64	2.66	2.56	1.05	1.85	0.09	0.10
13	LY1–5	3 786.35	8.43	8.87	3.26	0.41	3.33	1.93	8.02	5.54	5.13	1.12	2.90	0.36	0.41
14	LY1–4	3 797.74	7.29	7.99	3.25	3.41	6.58	2.90	3.88	1.41	1.70	0.96	3.40	0.15	0.29
15	LY1–3	3 812.73	6.35	7.72	2.97	3.85	6.23	2.54	2.50	1.49	1.13	1.06	2.81	0.16	0.36
16	LY1–2	3 817.87	11.52	14.87	5.58	0.71	5.89	3.77	10.81	8.98	8.69	1.05	5.31	0.27	0.29
17	LY1–1	3 822.75	5.27	6.81	2.43	0.23	2.23	1.43	5.04	4.58	4.22	1.16	2.09	0.34	0.36
18	NY1–22	3 307.06	1.98	13.87	2.60	0.69	13.31	2.57	1.29	0.56	1.74	0.91	2.85	0.25	1.18
19	NY1–21	3 314.10	4.95	26.87	4.45	0.67	21.72	3.55	4.28	5.15	3.68	1.07	4.17	0.28	1.47
20	NY1–20	3 351.47	2.58	9.69	2.14	0.29	8.11	1.90	2.29	1.58	2.14	0.93	2.30	0.16	0.56
21	NY1–19	3 360.55	2.35	9.96	2.11	0.23	9.62	1.94	2.12	0.34	0.64	0.97	2.18	0.07	0.30
22	NY1–18	3 374.19	6.04	26.98	4.64	0.48	23.73	4.37	5.56	3.25	7.93	0.80	5.78	1.14	4.68
23	NY1–17	3 380.60	2.25	8.37	1.75	0.25	5.1	1.09	2.00	3.27	1.52	1.34	1.30	0.45	1.75
24	NY1–16	3 398.85	7.48	31.52	4.94	0.39	21.52	3.57	7.09	10.00	10.67	0.97	5.10	0.16	0.67
25	NY1–15	3 401.63	3.50	9.71	1.89	0.26	9.29	1.82	3.24	0.42	2.55	0.77	2.45	0.56	2.13
26	NY1–14	3 404.99	3.47	9.24	1.85	0.75	6.04	1.33	2.72	3.20	2.99	1.03	1.79	0.06	0.21
27	NY1–11	3 434.83	6.31	16.54	5.37	0.53	13.94	5.04	5.78	2.6	3.94	0.90	5.94	0.57	1.34
28	NY1–10	3 439.13	8.31	11.06	2.38	0.37	4.4	0.92	7.94	6.66	4.61	1.47	1.62	0.76	2.05
29	NY1–9	3 468.65	4.49	12.55	3.73	0.35	6.37	2.59	4.14	6.18	5.30	1.14	3.28	0.45	0.88
30	NY1–8	3 471.24	0.20	0.27	0.25	0.01	0.05	0.15	0.19	0.22	0.20	1.45	0.17	0.08	0.02
31	NY1–6	3 478.13	1.58	0.91	1.10	0.03	0.16	0.59	1.55	0.75	0.66	1.55	0.71	0.39	0.09
32	NY1–5	3 483.03	4.19	3.94	2.10	0.22	0.97	1.02	3.97	2.97	2.44	1.54	1.36	0.74	0.53
	平均值	—	—	—	3.25	—	—	—	—	3.98	3.93	1.1	3.15	0.34	0.84

Table 2

Fig.2

Fig.3

Table 3

Table 4

Fig.4

Table 5

Fig.5

Fig.6

References 29

1	Romero-Sarmiento M . A quick analytical approach to estimate both free versus sorbed hydrocarbon contents in liquid-rich source rocks[J]. AAPG Bulletin, 2019, 103 (9): 2031- 2043. doi: 10.1306/02151918152
2	Li J B, Wang M, Chen Z H, et al. Evaluating the total oil yield using a single routine Rock-Eval experiment on as-received shales[J/OL]. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 2019, 144, 104707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2019.104707.
3	郭秋麟, 米敬奎, 王建, 等. 改进的生烃潜力模型及关键参数模板[J]. 中国石油勘探, 2019, 24 (5): 661- 669. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-7703.2019.05.012
	Guo Qiulin , Mi Jingkui , Wang Jian , et al. An improved hydrocarbon generation model of source rocks and key parameter templates[J]. China Petroleum Exploration, 2019, 24 (5): 661- 669. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-7703.2019.05.012
4	Li M W, Chen Z H, Qian M H, et al. What are in pyrolysis S₁ peak and what are missed? Petroleum compositional characteristics revealed from programed pyrolysis and implications for shale oil mobility and resource potential[J/OL]. International Journal of Coal Geology, 2020, 217103321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2019.103321.
5	EIA, Drilling Productivity Report for key tight oil and shale regions[C]. U.S., Energy Information Administration, 2017.
6	Han Y , Horsfield B , Mahlstedt N , et al. Factors controlling source and reservoir characteristics in the Niobrara shale-oil system, Denver Basin[J]. AAPG Bulletin, 2019, 103 (9): 2045- 2072. doi: 10.1306/0121191619717287
7	Kuske S , Horsfield B , Jweda J , et al. Geochemical factors controlling the phase behavior of Eagle Ford Shale petroleum fluids[J]. AAPG Bulletin, 2019, 103 (4): 835- 870. doi: 10.1306/09051817227
8	杨雷, 金之钧. 全球页岩油发展及展望[J]. 中国石油勘探, 2019, 24 (5): 553- 559. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-7703.2019.05.002
	Yang Lei , Jin Zhijun . Global shale oil development and prospects[J]. China Petroleum Exploration, 2019, 24 (5): 553- 559. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-7703.2019.05.002
9	付金华, 牛小兵, 淡卫东, 等. 鄂尔多斯盆地中生界延长组长7段页岩油地质特征及勘探开发进展[J]. 中国石油勘探, 2019, 24 (5): 601- 614. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-7703.2019.05.007
	Fu Jinhua , Niu Xiaobing , Dan Weidong , et al. The geological characteristics and the progress on exploration and development of shale oil in Chang 7 Member of Mesozoic Yanchang Formation, Ordos Basin[J]. China Petroleum Exploration, 2019, 24 (5): 601- 614. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-7703.2019.05.007
10	支东明, 唐勇, 郑梦林, 等. 准噶尔盆地玛湖凹陷凤城组页岩油藏地质特征与成藏控制因素[J]. 中国石油勘探, 2019, 24 (5): 615- 623. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-7703.2019.05.008
	Zhi Dongming , Tang Yong , Zheng Menglin , et al. Geological characteristics and accumulation controlling factors of shale reservoirs in Fengcheng Formation, Mahu sag, Junggar Basin[J]. China Petroleum Exploration, 2019, 24 (5): 615- 623. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-7703.2019.05.008
11	孙换泉, 蔡勋育, 周德华, 等. 中国石化页岩油勘探实践与展望[J]. 中国石油勘探, 2019, 24 (5): 569- 575. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-7703.2019.05.004
	Sun Huanquan , Cai Xunyu , Zhou Dehua , et al. Practice and prospect of Sinopec shale oil exploration[J]. China Petroleum Exploration, 2019, 24 (5): 569- 575. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-7703.2019.05.004
12	杜金虎, 胡素云, 庞正炼, 等. 中国陆相页岩油类型、潜力及前景[J]. 中国石油勘探, 2019, 24 (5): 560- 568. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-7703.2019.05.003
	Du Jinhu , Hu Suyun , Pang Zhenglian , et al. The types, potentials and prospects of shale oil in China[J]. China Petroleum Exploration, 2019, 24 (5): 560- 568. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-7703.2019.05.003
13	Clarkson C R, Pedersen P K. Production analysis of Western Canadian unconventional light oil plays[R]. SPE, 149005, 2011.
14	Guo Q L , Wang S J , Chen X M . Assessment on tight oil resources in major basins in China[J]. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 2019, 178 (7): 52- 63.
15	Li M W , Chen Z H , Ma X X , et al. A numerical method for calculating total oil yield using a single routine Rock-Eval program: a case study of the Eocene Shahejie formation in Dongying depression, Bohai Bay Basin, China[J]. International Journal of Coal Geology, 2018, 191, 49- 65. doi: 10.1016/j.coal.2018.03.004
16	Li M W , Chen Z H , Ma X X , et al. Shale oil resource potential and oil mobility characteristics of the Eocene-Oligocene Shahejie Formation, Jiyang Super-Depression, Bohai Bay Basin of China[J]. International Journal of Coal Geology, 2019, 204, 130- 143. doi: 10.1016/j.coal.2019.01.013
17	谌卓恒, 黎茂稳, 姜春庆, 等. 页岩油的资源潜力及流动性评价方法[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2019, 40 (3): 459- 468.
	Chen Zhuoheng , Li Maowen , Jiang Chunqing , et al. Shale oil resource potential and its mobility assessment: A case study of Upper Devonian Duvernay shale in Western Canada Sedimentary Basin[J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2019, 40 (3): 459- 468.
18	蒋启贵, 黎茂稳, 钱门辉, 等. 不同赋存状态页岩油定量表征技术与应用研究[J]. 石油实验地质, 2016, 38 (6): 842- 849.
	Jiang Qigui , Li Maowen , Qian Menhui , et al. Quantitative characterization of shale oil in different occurrence state and its application[J]. Petroleum Geology & Experiment, 2016, 38 (6): 842- 849.
19	Delveaux D , Martin H , Leplat P , et al. Comparitive Rock-Eval pyrolysis as an improved tool for sedimentary organic matter analysis[J]. Organic Geochemistry, 1990, 16 (4): 1221- 1229.
20	Jarvie D M. Shale Rresource Systems for Oil and Gas: Part 2-Shale-Oil Resource Systems. In: Breyer, J.A. (Ed. ), Shale reservoirs-giant resources for the 21st century[C]. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir, 2012, 97: 89-119.
21	Jarvie D M. Petroleum systems in the Permian basin: Targeting optimum oil production[C]. TCU Energy Institute Presentation, 2018.
22	Michael G E, Packwood J, Holba A. Determination of in-situ hydrocarbon volumes in liquid rich shale plays[C]//Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, Denver, Colorado, USA, 2013.
23	薛海涛, 田善思, 王伟明, 等. 页岩油资源评价关键参数——含油率的校正[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2016, 37 (1): 15- 22.
	Xue Haitao , Tian Shansi , Wang Weiming , et al. Correction of oil content-one key parameter in shale oil resource assessment[J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2016, 37 (1): 15- 22.
24	余涛, 卢双舫, 李俊乾, 等. 东营凹陷页岩油游离资源有利区预测[J]. 断块油气田, 2018, 25 (1): 16- 21.
	Yu Tao , Lu Shuangfang , Li Junqian , et al. Prediction for favorable area of shale oil free resources in Dongying Sag[J]. Fault-Block Oil & Gas Field, 2018, 25 (1): 16- 21.
25	朱日房, 张林晔, 李政, 等. 陆相断陷盆地页岩油资源潜力评价[J]. 油气地质与采收率, 2019, 26 (1): 129- 137.
	Zhu Rifang , Zhang Linye , Li Zheng , et al. Evaluation of shale oil resource potential in continental rift basin: A case study of Lower Es3 Member in Dongying Sag[J]. Petroleum Geology and Recovery Efficiency, 2019, 26 (1): 129- 137.
26	Chen Z H , Li M W , Ma X X , et al. Generation kinetics based method for correcting effects of migrated oil on Rock-Eval data-An example from the Eocene Qianjiang Formation, Jianghan Basin, China[J]. International Journal of Coal Geology, 2018, 195 (5): 84- 101.
27	Jiang C Q , Chen Z H , Mort A , et al. Hydrocarbon evaporative loss from shale core samples as revealed by Rock-Eval and thermal desorption-gas chromatography analysis: Its geochemical and geological implications[J]. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 2016, 70, 294- 303. doi: 10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2015.11.021
28	Abrams M A , Gong C , Garnier C , et al. A new thermal extraction protocol to evaluate liquid rich unconventional oil in place and in-situ fluid chemistry[J]. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 2017, 88, 659- 675. doi: 10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2017.09.014
29	郭秋麟, 武娜, 陈宁生, 等. 鄂尔多斯盆地延长组7段致密油资源评价[J]. 石油学报, 2017, 38 (6): 658- 665.
	Guo Qiulin , Wu Na , Chen Ningsheng , et al. Assessement of tight oil resource in seventh Member of YanchangFormation, Ordors Basin[J]. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 2017, 38 (6): 658- 665.

地层原油				地面原油
密度/（g·cm^-3）	粘度/（mPa·s）	气油比/（m³·t^-1）	体积系数	密度/（g·cm^-3）	粘度（50 ℃）/（mPa·s）	初镏点/ ℃	凝固点/ ℃
0.748	1.48	68.83	1.222	0.839	6.64	74.99	23.17

[1]	Huimin LIU, Youshu BAO, Maowen LI, Zheng LI, Lianbo WU, Rifang ZHU, Dayang WANG, Xin WANG. Geochemical parameters for evaluating shale oil enrichment and mobility： A case study of shales in the Bakken Formation， Williston Basin and the Shahejie Formation， Jiyang Depression [J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2024, 45(3): 622-636.
[2]	Xiugang PU, Jiangchang DONG, Gongquan CHAI, Shunyao SONG, Zhannan SHI, Wenzhong HAN, Wei ZHANG, Delu XIE. Enrichment model of high-abundance organic matter in shales in the 2^nd member of the Paleogene Kongdian Formation， Cangdong Sag， Bohai Bay Basin [J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2024, 45(3): 696-709.
[3]	Weitao WU, Yansong FENG, Shixiang FEI, Yifei WANG, Heyuan WU, Xudong YANG. Enrichment factors and play fairway mapping for tight gas in the 5^th member of the Permian Shiqianfeng Formation， Shenmu gas field， Ordos Basin [J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2024, 45(3): 739-751.
[4]	Rui FANG, Yuqiang JIANG, Changcheng YANG, Haibo DENG, Chan JIANG, Haitao HONG, Song TANG, Yifan GU, Xun ZHU, Shasha SUN, Guangyin CAI. Occurrence states and mobility of shale oil in different lithologic assemblages in the Jurassic Lianggaoshan Formation， Sichuan Basin [J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2024, 45(3): 752-769.
[5]	Jun LI, Youlong ZOU, Jing LU. Well-log-based assessment of movable oil content in lacustrine shale oil reservoirs： A case study of the 2^nd member of the Paleogene Funing Formation， Subei Basin [J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2024, 45(3): 816-826.
[6]	Xiaoyu DU, Zhijun JIN, Lianbo ZENG, Guoping LIU, Sen YANG, Xinping LIANG, Guoqing LU. Evaluation of natural fracture effectiveness in deep lacustrine shale oil reservoirs based on formation microresistivity imaging logs [J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2024, 45(3): 852-865.
[7]	Zhe ZHAO, Bin BAI, Chang LIU, Lan WANG, Haiyan ZHOU, Yuxi LIU. Current status， advances， and prospects of CNPC’s exploration of onshore moderately to highly mature shale oil reservoirs [J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2024, 45(2): 327-340.
[8]	Chenglin LIU, Zhengang DING, Liyong FAN, Rui KANG, Sijie HONG, Yuxin ZHU, Jianfa CHEN, Haidong WANG, Nuo XU. Geochemical characteristics and enrichment factors of helium-bearing natural gas in the Ordos Basin [J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2024, 45(2): 384-392.
[9]	Junyu WAN, Jianhui ZHU, Suping YAO, Yi ZHANG, Chuntang LI, Wei ZHANG, Haijian JIANG, Jie WANG. Geobiological evaluation of hydrocarbon-generating organisms and source rocks in the Ordovician Majiagou Formation， east-central Ordos Basin [J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2024, 45(2): 393-405.
[10]	Hequn GAO, Yuqiao GAO, Xipeng HE, Jun NIE. Rock mechanical properties and controlling factors for shale oil reservoirs in the second member of the Paleogene Funing Formation， Subei Basin [J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2024, 45(2): 502-515.
[11]	LiHua YANG, ChiYang LIU, Lei HUANG, Yijun ZHOU, Yongtao LIU, Yang QIN. Discovery of suspected intrusive rock bodies in Gufengzhuang area， Ordos Basin and its geological significance [J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2024, 45(1): 142-156.
[12]	Liang SHI, Bojiang FAN, Zhonghou LI, Ziwei YU, Zijin LIN, Xinyang DAI. Migration differentiation of hydrocarbon components in the 7^th member of the Triassic Yanchang Formation， central Ordos Basin [J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2024, 45(1): 157-168.
[13]	Jiangjun CAO, Jiping WANG, Daofeng ZHANG, Long WANG, Xiaotian LI, Ya LI, Yuanyuan ZHANG, Hui XIA, Zhanhai YU. Effects of diagenetic evolution on gas-bearing properties of deep tight sandstone reservoirs： A case study of reservoirs in the 1^st member of the Permian Shanxi Formation in the Qingyang gas field， southwestern Ordos Basin [J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2024, 45(1): 169-184.
[14]	Xusheng GUO, Xiaoxiao MA, Maowen LI, Menhui QIAN, Zongquan HU. Mechanisms for lacustrine shale oil enrichment in Chinese sedimentary basins [J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2023, 44(6): 1333-1349.
[15]	Longde SUN, Xiaojun WANG, Zihui FENG, Hongmei SHAO, Huasen ZENG, Bo GAO, Hang JIANG. Formation mechanisms of nano-scale pores/fissures and shale oil enrichment characteristics for Gulong shale， Songliao Basin [J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2023, 44(6): 1350-1365.

Discussion on evaluation method of total oil and movable oil in-place

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 11

References 29

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

江汉盆地潜江组页岩				渤海湾盆地沙河街组页岩
样品编号	校正前ΔS₂/ （mg·g^-1）	校正后ΔS_2eq/ （mg·g^-1）	相对于ΔS₂的偏差/ %	样品编号	校正前ΔS₂/ （mg·g^-1）	校正后ΔS_2eq/ （mg·g^-1）	相对于ΔS₂的偏差/ %
1	3.18	2.67	16.04	1	2.96	2.21	25.45
2	2.98	2.35	21.14	2	1.39	0.41	70.25
3	13.55	12.99	4.13	3	9.80	9.53	2.73
4	1.41	1.50	6.38	4	5.10	4.83	5.22
5	5.01	4.57	8.78	5	3.23	2.63	18.73
6	5.66	5.04	10.95	6	6.08	4.75	21.93
7	5.37	5.18	3.54	7	7.23	7.91	9.39
8	1.03	0.82	20.39	8	9.87	9.30	5.75
9	5.14	1.58	69.26	9	5.92	6.62	11.83
10	12.71	12.16	4.33	10	1.38	1.18	14.64
11	6.89	5.55	19.45	11	2.55	1.82	28.54
12	5.26	4.89	7.03	12	2.66	2.56	3.82
13	8.51	6.71	21.15	13	5.54	5.13	7.43
14	9.09	10.88	19.69	14	1.41	1.70	20.50
15	0.82	1.03	25.61	15	1.49	1.13	23.98
16	5.61	4.77	14.97	16	8.98	8.69	3.28
17	4.27	3.50	18.03	17	4.58	4.22	7.88
18	2.81	1.85	34.16	18	0.56	1.74	210.30
19	6.35	6.09	4.09	19	5.15	3.68	28.59
20	1.89	1.60	15.34	20	1.58	2.14	35.29
21	2.72	2.60	4.41	21	0.34	0.64	88.48
22	2.76	1.69	38.77	22	3.25	7.93	144.07
23	2.17	1.87	13.82	23	3.27	1.52	53.47
24	0.72	0.87	20.83	24	10.00	10.67	6.68
25	8.48	7.10	16.27	25	0.42	2.55	507.53
26	3.40	3.18	6.47	26	3.20	2.99	6.59
27	5.87	4.93	16.01	27	2.60	3.94	51.51
28	11.30	9.98	11.68	28	6.66	4.61	30.77
29	8.62	11.77	36.54	29	6.18	5.30	14.22
平均值	5.30	4.82	17.56	30	0.22	0.20	10.32
				31	0.75	0.66	11.83
				32	2.97	2.44	17.79
				平均值	3.98	3.93	46.84