新疆库拜煤田铁列克矿区地应力分布及其对煤层气开发的影响

doi:10.19657/j.geoscience.1000-8527.2022.021

现代地质 ›› 2022, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (05): 1324-1332.DOI: 10.19657/j.geoscience.1000-8527.2022.021

新疆库拜煤田铁列克矿区地应力分布及其对煤层气开发的影响

魏永恒¹(), 葛燕燕¹(), 王刚², 王文峰¹, 田继军¹, 李鑫¹, 吴斌³, 张晓¹

1.新疆大学地质与矿业工程学院,新疆乌鲁木齐 830047
2.新疆维吾尔自治区煤田地质局煤层气研究开发中心,新疆乌鲁木齐 830046
3.新疆维吾尔自治区煤田地质局一六一地质勘探队,新疆乌鲁木齐 830046

收稿日期:2021-08-27 修回日期:2022-04-18 出版日期:2022-10-10 发布日期:2022-11-03
通讯作者: 葛燕燕
作者简介:葛燕燕,女,副教授,硕士生导师,1981年出生,地质资源与地质工程专业,主要从事非常规天然气勘探开发。Email: gyyxjdxgbc@163.com。
魏永恒,男,硕士研究生,1992年出生,地质资源与地质工程专业,主要从事非常规天然气勘探开发。Email: alex13838279881@163.com。
基金资助:
新疆维吾尔自治区自然科学基金项目(2019D01B43);国家自然科学基金项目(U1903303);国家自然科学基金项目(42002188);国家自然科学基金项目(42062012)

In-situ Stress Distribution and Its Influence on Coalbed Methane Development in Tielieke Mining Area, Kubai Coalfield, Xinjiang

WEI Yongheng¹(), GE Yanyan¹(), WANG Gang², WANG Wenfeng¹, TIAN Jijun¹, LI Xin¹, WU Bin³, ZHANG Xiao¹

1. College of Geology and Mining Engineering, Xinjiang University, Urumqi,Xinjiang 830047, China
2. Coalbed Methane Research and Development Center of Xinjiang Coal Geological Exploration Bureau, Urumqi,Xinjiang 830046, China
3. No.161 Coal Exploration Team, Xinjiang Coal Geological Exploration Bureau, Urumqi,Xinjiang 830046, China

Received:2021-08-27 Revised:2022-04-18 Online:2022-10-10 Published:2022-11-03
Contact: GE Yanyan

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

地应力、煤储层渗透率和煤储层压力等是影响煤层气开发的重要因素。通过分析新疆库拜煤田铁列克矿区注入/压降试井及原地应力测试数据,结合铁列克矿区煤层气井日产气量分析,研究了新疆库拜煤田铁列克矿区地应力变化规律及其对煤层气开发的影响,分析了铁西矿区和铁东矿区煤储层地应力特征及其对煤储层物性的影响。结果表明:(1)地应力状态在垂向上发生变化,埋深处于550~650 m、650~850 m和850~1 200 m时,地应力状态类型依次为σ_H>σ_v>σ_h、σ_H≈σ_v>σ_h和σ_v>σ_H>σ_h;(2)埋深850 m处既是垂直主应力和最大水平主应力的转换点也是渗透率趋势变化点,指示了地应力对渗透率的控制作用;(3)渗透率和煤储层压力与地应力分别呈负相关和正相关关系;(4)地应力对产能的负效应大于地应力对产能的正效应,使典型日产气量随着地应力的增大而减小;(5)铁西矿区和铁东矿区中部煤储层碎粒煤较发育、吸附孔体积和含气量均较大,是煤层气开发的有利区带。研究成果可为库拜煤田下一步煤层气开发提供理论指导。

关键词: 煤层气, 地应力, 煤储层渗透率, 煤储层压力, 含气量, 铁列克矿区

Abstract:

In-situ stress, coal reservoir permeability and coal reservoir pressure are the important factors on coalbed methane development.Based on the analysis of injection/fall-off well analysis and in-situ stress measurement data, and combined with the analysis of daily gas production of coalbed methane wells in the Tielieke mining area (Kubai coalfield, Xinjiang), we study the characteristics of in-situ stress distribution at Tielieke and its influence on CBM development.The results show that: (1) the in-situ stress state changes vertically, with σ_H>σ_v>σ_h, σ_H≈σ_v>σ_h and σ_v>σ_H>σ_h at 550-650 m, 650-850 m and 850-1,200 m reservoir depth, respectively; (2) 850 m depth is not only the conversion point of the vertical principal stress and the maximum horizontal principal stress, but also the transition point of permeability trend. This demonstrates the in-situ stress the control on permeability; (3) the in-situ stress correlates negatively with permeability, but positively with coal reservoir pressure; (4) for the in-situ stress, its negative effect of on productivity is greater than its positive effect on productivity, and hence the typical daily gas production decrease with increasing in-situ stress; (5) the central coal reservoirs in Tiexi and Tiedong mining areas have relatively developed granular coal, large adsorption pore volume and gas content, which are favorable intervals for CBM development.Our results provide theoretical guidance for further CBM development in the Kubai coalfield.

Key words: coalbed methane, in-situ stress, coal reservoir permeability, coal reservoir pressure, gas content, Tielieke mining area

中图分类号:

P618.11
P553

魏永恒, 葛燕燕, 王刚, 王文峰, 田继军, 李鑫, 吴斌, 张晓. 新疆库拜煤田铁列克矿区地应力分布及其对煤层气开发的影响[J]. 现代地质, 2022, 36(05): 1324-1332.

WEI Yongheng, GE Yanyan, WANG Gang, WANG Wenfeng, TIAN Jijun, LI Xin, WU Bin, ZHANG Xiao. In-situ Stress Distribution and Its Influence on Coalbed Methane Development in Tielieke Mining Area, Kubai Coalfield, Xinjiang[J]. Geoscience, 2022, 36(05): 1324-1332.

图/表 12

图1 库拜煤田位置图(a)和铁列克矿区构造纲要图(b)

Fig.1 Location map of the Kubai coalfield (a) and tectonic outline map of the Tielieke mining area (b)

表1 铁列克矿区注入/压降试验及地应力测量试验参数

Table 1 Parameters of injection/fall-off well test and in-situ stress measurement test in the Tielieke mining area

参数	范围(均值)
埋深h/m	563.38~1 157.61(813.18)
破裂压力P_f/MPa	8.44~24.65(15.32)
破裂压力梯度G_f/(MPa·hm^-1)	0.46~2.54(1.85)
闭合压力P_c/MPa	8.14~22.30(14.15)
闭合压力梯度G_c/(MPa·hm^-1)	0.98~2.47(1.76)
储层压力P_o/MPa	4.62~11.39(7.57)
储层压力梯度G_o/(MPa·hm^-1)	0.78~1.07(0.93)
渗透率k/mD	0.008~3.930(0.630)
温度T/℃	17.90~33.56(27.01)
最大水平主应力σ_H/MPa	9.33~33.52(20.22)
最大水平主应力梯度 G_H/(MPa·hm^-1)	1.37~3.91(2.53)
最小水平主应力σ_h/MPa	8.05~22.30(14.48)
最小水平主应力梯度 G_h/(MPa·hm^-1)	1.19~2.43(1.80)
垂向主应力σ_v/MPa	15.21~31.26(21.99)

图2 铁列克矿区最大水平主应力梯度(GH)、最小水平主应力梯度(Gh)、储层压力梯度(Go)和煤层埋深关系

Fig.2 Relationship between maximum horizontal principal stress gradient (GH), minimum horizontal principal stress gradient (Gh), reservoir pressure gradient(Go)and burial depth in the Tielieke mining area

图3 研究区储层最大水平主应力(σH)、最小水平主应力(σh)、储层压力(Po)、垂直主应力(σv)和静水压力(Ph)随煤层埋深变化图

Fig.3 Relationship between the maximum horizontal principal stress (σH), minimum horizontal principal stress (σh), reservoir pressure (Po), vertical principal stress (σv) and hydrostatic pressure (Ph) and the burial depth of the reservoirs in the study area

图4 铁列克矿区侧压力系数(λ)和深度(h)的关系

Fig.4 Relationship between λ and burial depth (h) in the Tielieke mining area

图5 铁列克矿区最大水平主应力和渗透率关系(a)、最小水平主应力和渗透率关系(b)和垂直主应力和渗透率关系(c)

Fig.5 Relationship between maximum horizontal principal stress and permeability (a), minimum horizontal principal stress and permeability (b), and vertical principal stress and permeability (c) in the Tielieke mining area

图6 铁列克矿区煤储层最大水平主应力-储层压力和渗透率关系(a)、最小水平主应力-储层压力和渗透率关系(b)以及垂直主应力-储层压力和渗透率关系(c)

Fig.6 Relationship between maximum horizontal principal stress-reservoir pressure and permeability (a), minimum horizontal principal stress-reservoir pressure and permeability (b), and vertical principal stress-reservoir pressure and permeability (c) in the Tielieke mining area

图7 铁列克矿区煤储层渗透率和深度关系

Fig.7 Relationship between coal reservoir permeability and burial depth in Tielieke mining area

图8 铁列克矿区最小水平主应力和煤储层压力关系

Fig.8 Relationship between minimum horizontal principal stress and reservoir pressure in the Tielieke mining area

图9 铁西矿区不同埋深煤储层特征差异

Fig.9 Feature differences of coal reservoirs with different burial depths in the west Tielieke area

图10 铁东矿区不同埋深煤储层特征差异

Fig.10 Feature differences of coal reservoirs with different burial depths in the east Tielieke area

图11 库拜煤田铁列克矿区最小水平主应力和典型日产气量关系

Fig.11 Relationship between minimum horizontal principal stress and typical daily gas production of the Tielieke mining area in the Kubai coalfield

参考文献 35

[1]	JU W, YANG Z B, QIN Y, et al. Characteristics of in-situ stress state and prediction of the permeability in the Upper Permian coalbed methane reservoir,western Guizhou region,SW China[J]. Journal of Petroleum Science & Engineering, 2018, 165: 199-211.
[2]	周三栋, 刘大锰, 孙邵华, 等. 准噶尔盆地南缘硫磺沟煤层气富集主控地质因素及有利区优选[J]. 现代地质, 2015, 29(1): 179-189.
[3]	JU W, JIANG B, QIN Y, et al. The present-day in-situ stress field within coalbed methane reservoirs, Yuwang Block,Laochang Basin, south China[J]. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 2019, 102: 61-73. DOI URL
[4]	孟召平, 侯泉林. 高煤级煤储层渗透性与应力耦合模型及控制机理[J]. 地球物理学报, 2013, 56(2): 667-675.
[5]	杨延辉, 孟召平, 陈彦君, 等. 沁南-夏店区块煤储层地应力条件及其对渗透性的影响[J]. 石油学报, 2015, 36(增): 91-96.
[6]	姜波, 汪吉林, 屈争辉, 等. 大宁-吉县地区地应力特征及其对煤储层渗透性的影响[J]. 地学前缘, 2016, 23(3): 17-23. DOI
[7]	刘大锰, 周三栋, 蔡益栋, 等. 地应力对煤储层渗透性影响及其控制机理研究[J]. 煤炭科学技术, 2017, 45(6): 1-8.
[8]	李勇, 汤达祯, 许浩, 等. 鄂尔多斯盆地柳林地区煤储层地应力场特征及其对裂隙的控制作用[J]. 煤炭学报, 2014, 39(增): 164-168.
[9]	文卓, 康永尚, 邓泽, 等. 中国含煤盆地浅-中深部现今地应力特点和分布规律[J]. 地质论评, 2019, 65(3): 729-742.
[10]	黄涛, 杨曙光, 吴斌. 库拜煤田顺发井田煤岩煤质及煤相特征分析[J]. 煤炭技术, 2020, 39(8): 74-76.
[11]	安庆, 张洲, 吴斌, 等. 新疆库拜煤田煤储层特征及开采技术建议[J]. 新疆地质, 2016, 34(2): 286-290.
[12]	陈新蔚, 李绍虎, 方庆新, 等. 库拜煤田露头层序地层学分析[J]. 新疆地质, 2013, 31(1): 77-82.
[13]	张洲. 围岩与煤储层裂隙对应关系研究及应用[D]. 武汉: 中国地质大学(武汉), 2016.
[14]	CHEN S D, TANG D Z, TAO S, et al. Characteristics of in-situ stress distribution and its significance on the coalbed methane (CBM) development in Fanzhuang-Zhengzhuang Block,Southern Qinshui Basin,China[J]. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2018, 161: 108-120. DOI URL
[15]	徐宏杰, 桑树勋, 易同生, 等. 黔西地区煤层埋深与地应力对其渗透性控制机制[J]. 地球科学--中国地质大学学报, 2014, 39(11): 1607-1616.
[16]	孟召平, 蓝强, 刘翠丽, 等. 鄂尔多斯盆地东南缘地应力、储层压力及其耦合关系[J]. 煤炭学报, 2013, 38(1): 122-128.
[17]	孟召平, 田永东, 李国富. 沁水盆地南部地应力场特征及其研究意义[J]. 煤炭学报, 2010, 35(6): 975-981.
[18]	ZHAO J L, TANG D Z, XU H, et al. Characteristic of in situ stress and its control on the coalbed methane reservoir permeability in the eastern margin of the Ordos Basin, China[J]. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 2016, 49(8): 3307-3322. DOI URL
[19]	HOEK E, BROWN E T. Underground excavations in rock[J]. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 1980, 18(2): 27.
[20]	徐正宣, 孟文, 郭长宝, 等. 川西折多山某深埋隧道地应力测量及其应用研究[J]. 现代地质, 2021, 35(1): 114-125.
[21]	KANG H, ZHANG X, SI L. Study on in situ stress distribution law in deep underground coal mining areas[M]//Proceedings of the 2009 International Symposium on Rock Mechanics:“Rock Characterization, Modelling and Engineering Design Methods”.Beijing:Beijing Coal Mining and Design Branch, China Coal Research Institute Beijing,China, 2009: 1.
[22]	ANDERSON E M. The Dynamics of Faulting and Dyke Formation with Application to Britain[M]. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1951.
[23]	BROWN E T, HOEK E. Trends in relationships between measured in-situ stresses and depth[J]. International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 1978, 15(4): 211-215.
[24]	孙良忠, 康永尚, 王金, 等. 地应力类型垂向转换及其对煤储层渗透率控制作用[J]. 高校地质学报, 2017, 23(1): 148-156.
[25]	李振, 邵龙义, 侯海海, 等. 高煤阶煤孔隙结构及分形特征[J]. 现代地质, 2017, 31(3): 595-605.
[26]	孟召平, 侯泉林. 煤储层应力敏感性及影响因素的试验分析[J]. 煤炭学报, 2012, 37(3): 430-437.
[27]	李叶朋, 申建, 杨春莉, 等. 沁水盆地郑庄区块地应力发育特征及其地质意义[J]. 煤炭科学技术, 2017, 45(10): 176-181.
[28]	戴朝霞, 孙蓓蕾, 曾凡桂. 沁水盆地南部长治区块煤层气田的地应力特征[J]. 现代地质, 2020, 34(2): 266-272.
[29]	MCKEE C R, BUMB A C, KOENIG R A. Stress-dependent permeability and porosity of coal and other geologic formations[J]. SPE Formation Evaluation, 1988, 3(1): 81-91. DOI URL
[30]	马如英, 王猛, 阿斯亚·巴克, 等. 准东南低阶煤覆压孔渗试验研究[J]. 中国矿业大学学报, 2020, 49(6): 1182-1192.
[31]	姚帅, 吴财芳, 杨长青, 等. 黔西比德-三塘盆地煤储层压力特征及差异成因研究[J]. 煤炭科学技术, 2019, 47(4): 162-168.
[32]	蔺亚兵, 申小龙, 刘军, 等. 黄陇侏罗纪煤田地应力特征及其地质意义[J]. 采矿与安全工程学报, 2020, 37(4): 819-827.
[33]	秦勇, 申建, 王宝文, 等. 深部煤层气成藏效应及其耦合关系[J]. 石油学报, 2012, 33(1): 48-54.
[34]	郭广山, 邢力仁, 廖夏, 等. 基于储层“三品质”的煤层气产能主控地质因素分析[J]. 天然气地球科学, 2018, 29(8): 1198-1204.
[35]	李俊乾, 刘大锰, 姚艳斌, 等. 基于主地质参数的煤层气有利开发区优选及应用[J]. 现代地质, 2014, 28(3): 653-658.

新疆库拜煤田铁列克矿区地应力分布及其对煤层气开发的影响

In-situ Stress Distribution and Its Influence on Coalbed Methane Development in Tielieke Mining Area, Kubai Coalfield, Xinjiang

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 12

参考文献 35

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	冯鹏, 李松, 汤达祯, 陈博, 钟广浩. 支持向量机在煤层地应力预测中的应用[J]. 现代地质, 2022, 36(05): 1333-1340.
[2]	翟佳宇, 张松航, 唐书恒, 郭慧秋, 刘冰, 纪朝琪. 云南老厂雨汪煤层气区块气水成因及产能响应[J]. 现代地质, 2022, 36(05): 1341-1350.
[3]	李金龙, 李倩, 蔡益栋, 陈伟, 陈志柱, 王坚, 薛晓辉. 云南老厂矿区煤层气储层地质条件及其资源潜力[J]. 现代地质, 2022, 36(05): 1351-1359.
[4]	闫涛滔, 郭怡琳, 孟艳军, 常锁亮, 金尚文, 康丽芳, 付鑫宇, 王青青, 赵媛, 张宇. 基于煤层气井生产数据的储层含气量校正新方法[J]. 现代地质, 2022, 36(05): 1360-1370.
[5]	郭长宝, 吴瑞安, 蒋良文, 钟宁, 王炀, 王栋, 张永双, 杨志华, 孟文, 李雪, 刘贵. 川藏铁路雅安—林芝段典型地质灾害与工程地质问题[J]. 现代地质, 2021, 35(01): 1-17.
[6]	徐正宣, 孟文, 郭长宝, 张鹏, 张广泽, 孙明乾, 陈群策, 陈宇. 川西折多山某深埋隧道地应力测量及其应用研究[J]. 现代地质, 2021, 35(01): 114-125.
[7]	孙炜锋, 郭长宝, 张广泽, 张永双, 徐正宣, 谭成轩, 李丹, 王献礼. 川西郭达山隧道水平孔地应力测量与工程意义[J]. 现代地质, 2021, 35(01): 126-136.
[8]	孟文, 郭长宝, 毛邦燕, 卢海峰, 陈群策, 徐学渊. 中尼铁路交通廊道现今构造应力场及其工程影响[J]. 现代地质, 2021, 35(01): 167-179.
[9]	戴朝霞, 孙蓓蕾, 曾凡桂. 沁水盆地南部长治区块煤层气田的地应力特征[J]. 现代地质, 2020, 34(02): 266-272.
[10]	高北斗, 王海超, 田继军, 韩旭, 冯烁, 王迪, 张振东. 准南煤田硫磺沟矿区向斜-承压式煤层气富集模式[J]. 现代地质, 2020, 34(02): 281-288.
[11]	张鹏, 曲亚明, 郭长宝, 丰成君, 孟文, 范玉璐, 谭成轩, 王磊. 西藏林芝地应力测量监测与尼泊尔M_S8.1级强震远场响应分析[J]. 现代地质, 2017, 31(05): 900-910.
[12]	吕玉民, 柳迎红, 王存武, 郭广山, 朱学申, 蒋锐. 沁水盆地寿阳区块煤层气井高产水影响因素[J]. 现代地质, 2017, 31(05): 1088-1094.
[13]	刘卓岩, 王成虎, 徐鑫, 慎乃齐, 贾晋. 基于地应力实测数据分析郯庐断裂带中段滑动趋势[J]. 现代地质, 2017, 31(04): 869-876.
[14]	丰成君, 张鹏, 戚帮申, 孟静, 谭成轩, 胡道功. 郯庐断裂带附近地壳浅层现今构造应力场[J]. 现代地质, 2017, 31(01): 46-70.
[15]	杨延辉，姚艳斌，王辉，陈龙伟. 基于地震多属性的郑庄区块煤层气开发甜点区优选[J]. 现代地质, 2016, 30(6): 1390-1398.