苏北盆地盐城凹陷盐③断裂带构造演化及其控圈作用

doi:10.19657/j.geoscience.1000-8527.2023.081

现代地质 ›› 2024, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (02): 300-311.DOI: 10.19657/j.geoscience.1000-8527.2023.081

苏北盆地盐城凹陷盐③断裂带构造演化及其控圈作用

谢昭涵¹^,²(), 冯昌¹^,², 仇永峰³, 李鹤永³, 张建波⁴, 唐海氢⁵

1.东北石油大学地球科学学院,黑龙江大庆 163318
2.东北石油大学CNPC断裂控藏研究室,黑龙江大庆 163318
3.中国石油化工有限公司江苏油田分公司勘探开发研究院,江苏扬州 225009
4.中国石油华北油田公司第一采油厂, 河北任丘 062552
5.中国石油华北油田公司第三采油厂,河北河间 062450

收稿日期:2022-12-25 修回日期:2023-08-09 出版日期:2024-04-10 发布日期:2024-05-22
作者简介:谢昭涵,男,讲师,1988年出生,构造地质学专业,主要从事盆地构造演化及控藏作用的教学和研究工作。Email: 569430279@qq.com。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目“被动陆缘深水逆冲褶皱带和顶部正断层的演化机制及物理模拟”(42002143);中石化江苏油田分公司项目“盐城凹陷断裂特征及封闭与输导作用”(31450008-20-ZC0613-0012)

Tectonic Evolution of the Yan ③ Fault Zone and Its Trap-controlling Effect on Yancheng Sag, Subei Basin

XIE Zhaohan¹^,²(), FENG Chang¹^,², QIU Yongfeng³, LI Heyong³, ZHANG Jianbo⁴, TANG Haiqing⁵

1. School of Geosciences, Northeast Petroleum University, Daqing, Heilongjiang 163318, China
2. CNPC Fault Controlling Reservoir Research Laboratory, Northeast Petroleum University, Daqing, Heilongjiang 163318, China
3. Research Institute of Exploration and Development, SINOPEC Jiangsu Oilfield Company, Yangzhou, Jiangsu 225009, China
4. No.1 Oil Production Plant of Huabei Oilfield, CNPC, Renqiu, Hebei 062552, China
5. No.3 Oil Production Plant of Huabei Oilfield, CNPC, Hejian, Hebei 062450, China

Received:2022-12-25 Revised:2023-08-09 Online:2024-04-10 Published:2024-05-22

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

盐③断裂带位于苏北盆地盐城凹陷中,断裂带及周边区域发生过多期伸展-走滑复合的构造演化,控制圈闭的时空有效性。为阐明这些构造圈闭对油气差异聚集的影响,需先明确盐③断裂带在各时期的演化过程,并研究构造变形对圈闭的控制作用。本文基于盐城凹陷高精度三维地震资料,揭示主要断层和周边褶皱的几何学形态和运动学特征;结合断距回剥法定量恢复断层分段生长过程,进一步利用古构造图分析各期次的褶皱变形规律,解析各期次构造演化性质以及控圈作用。结果表明,盐③断裂带经历3个主要演化阶段:(1) 泰州—阜宁期(K₂t—E₁f₄)NW向伸展控制盐③正断层西段孤立生长、东段发生软连接,此时主干断裂的控陷作用不明显,圈闭不发育;(2) 阜宁期末发生短期快速的压扭作用,造成盐③断层再活动,同时形成一系列的NW向共轭剪切断层,此时沿着盐③断裂带形成了一系列的圈闭;(3) 戴南—盐城期(E₂d—Ny)发生SN向东强西弱的伸展,控制盐③断裂带东部再活动,并对圈闭进行调整。整体而言,盐城凹陷的构造活动强度具有“早强晚弱,东强西弱”的差异性,随着研究区构造应力场的不断变化,圈闭的构造幅度、面积逐渐缩小,构造高点也逐渐往SW向转移。

关键词: 盐城凹陷, 盐③断裂带, 古构造恢复, 控圈作用, 构造演化

Abstract:

The Yan ③ fault zone is located in the Yancheng Sag of Subei Basin, and it underwent multiple per-iods of extension-strike-slip tectonic activities in the fault zone or its surrounding areas, controlling the temporal and spatial validity of the traps. In order to elucidate the influence of these tectonic traps on the differential accumulation of oil and gas, it is necessary to clarify the evolution of the Yan ③ fault zones in different periods and understand the controls of the tectonic deformation on the traps. In this study, we used the high-precision 3D seismic data of Yancheng Sag to analyze the geometric morphology and kinematic characteristics of the main faults and surrounding secondary faults. Meanwhile, we use the back-stripping technique to quantitatively restore the growth of fault segmentation. A paleotectonic map was used to analyze the deformation laws of the tectonic belts at each stage, and analyze the tectonic evolution at each stage and their controls. The results show that the Yan ③ fault zone has undergone three major stages of evolutions. (1) During the sedimentation period of Taizhou-Funing Formation (K₂t-E₁f₄), the NW extension controlled the isolated growth of the western Yan ③ normal faults, and the two faults in the eastern section connected softly. At this stage, the fault has no clear controls on the depression, and the trap development is very weak. (2) At the end of Funing Period (E₁f₄) with the short-term compression-torsion occurring rapidly, it resulted in the reactivity of the Yan ③ faults and forming a series of NW trending conjugate shear faults, and a series of traps formed along the salt fault zone. (3) During the Danan-Yancheng period (E₂d-Ny), the SN extension was strong to the east and weak to the west, controlling the reactivity of the Yan ③ fault zone in the east, and meanwhile the tectonic activity adjusted the trap. In general, the overall tectonic activity intensity differs from the ‘high intensity in the early period and weak in the late period, and high intensity in the east and low intensity in the west’. Meanwhile, with the tectonic stress field constantly changing, the tectonic amplitude and area of the traps have been gradually decreased, and the structure has been gradually shifted to the SW direction.

Key words: Yancheng Sag, Yan ③ fault zone, restoration of paleo-structure, trap-controlling effect, tectonicevolution

中图分类号:

P542
TE121.1

谢昭涵, 冯昌, 仇永峰, 李鹤永, 张建波, 唐海氢. 苏北盆地盐城凹陷盐③断裂带构造演化及其控圈作用[J]. 现代地质, 2024, 38(02): 300-311.

XIE Zhaohan, FENG Chang, QIU Yongfeng, LI Heyong, ZHANG Jianbo, TANG Haiqing. Tectonic Evolution of the Yan ③ Fault Zone and Its Trap-controlling Effect on Yancheng Sag, Subei Basin[J]. Geoscience, 2024, 38(02): 300-311.

图/表 10

图1 苏北盆地构造简图及地层简表 (a) 苏北盆地区域位置图;(b) 盐城凹陷断裂纲要图;(c) 研究区断裂纲要图;(d) 盐城凹陷地层简表

Fig.1 Structural map and stratigraphic table of Subei Basin

图2 盐③断裂带三维可视化图(F1至F9为构成盐③断裂带的小断层)

Fig.2 3D visualization of the fault zone network in the Yan ③ fault zone

图3 盐③断裂带ES向地震解释剖面 (各个图上方以L开头的数字代表剖面编号,各剖面位置见图1(c);F1至F9指构成盐③断裂带的小断层,具体位置见图2;T为地震反射标志,T20为盐城组底,T30为戴南组底,T32为阜宁组三段底,T33为阜宁组二段底,T34为阜宁组底,T40为泰州组二段底界面)

Fig.3 Seismic interpretation profile in the Yan ③ fault zone

图4 盐③断裂断距-埋深曲线及断层生长指数(剖面位置见图1)

Fig.4 Depth-throw curve and fault growth index of the Yan ③ fault

图5 盐③断层断距-距离曲线和回剥结果 (a)现今;(b) 三垛组沉积后;(c) 戴南组沉积后;(d) 阜二段沉积后;(e) 泰州组沉积后。各个图的横轴代表测线号,其位置见图1

Fig.5 Depth-throw curves and back stripping result of the Yan ③ fault

图6 盐城凹陷盐③断裂构造演化史图(剖面位置见图1) (a)压扭段构造演化史;(b) 正断层段构造演化史

Fig.6 Tectonic evolution profile of the Yan ③ fault in Yancheng Sag (see Fig.1 for profile location)

图7 各时期不同地层古构造图和构造图 (a)阜二段沉积后阜一段顶面;(b) 阜宁组沉积后阜二段顶面;(c) 戴南组沉积后阜宁组顶面;(d) 垛二段沉积后戴南组顶面;(e) 三垛组沉积后垛二段顶面;(f) 三垛组顶界现今构造图

Fig.7 Maps of paleostructure and tectonic units in different stratigraphy and periods

图8 不同时期阜一段顶界古构造图 (a)阜二段沉积后;(b) 阜四段沉积后;(c) 戴南组沉积后;(d) 垛一段沉积后;(e) 三垛组沉积后;(f) 阜一段顶界现今构造图

Fig.8 Paleostructural maps of top interface of the first member of Funing Formation in different periods

图9 阜一段顶界面圈闭演化过程 (a)阜二段沉积后;(b) 阜四段沉积后;(c) 戴南组沉积后;(d) 垛一段沉积后;(e) 三垛组沉积后;(f) 现今

Fig.9 Trap evolution process of top interface of the first member of Funing Formation

表1 阜一段顶界面各时期圈闭参数变化统计

Table 1 Statistical table of the trap parameter changes in different periods

活动时期	圈闭总面积 (km²)	圈闭最大幅度(m)	圈闭总体积(km³)	圈闭个数
阜宁组沉积后	7.59	50	176.21	9
戴南组沉积后	6.28	50	127.32	10
三垛组一段沉积后	5.09	45	118.89	10
三垛组沉积后	3.68	40	55.24	10
现今	3.37	35	34.82	6

参考文献 37

[1]	连小翠, 张建培. 西湖凹陷反转构造样式与迁移规律[J]. 上海国土资源, 2016, 37(4): 83-88.
[2]	张厚福, 徐兆辉. 从油气藏研究的历史论地层-岩性油气藏勘探[J]. 岩性油气藏, 2008, 20(1): 114-123.
[3]	LEVORSEN A I, BERRY F A F. Geology of Petroleum[M]. 2nd ed. Tulsa: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Foundation, 2001.
[4]	张宙, 何新建, 唐贤君, 等. 东海盆地西湖凹陷构造圈闭特征及其油气藏类型[J]. 海洋地质前沿, 2022, 38(3): 27-35.
[5]	邱旭明. 苏北盆地断块圈闭分类及油气成藏特征[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2003, 24(4): 371-374.
[6]	陈安定. 苏北盆地构造特征及箕状断陷形成机理[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2010, 31(2): 140-150.
[7]	能源, 漆家福, 张春峰, 等. 金湖凹陷断裂特征及其石油地质意义[J]. 大地构造与成矿学, 2012, 36(1): 16-23.
[8]	毛凤鸣, 陈安定, 严元锋, 等. 苏北盆地复杂小断块油气成藏特征及地震识别技术[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2006, 27(6): 827-840.
[9]	陈伟, 邱旭明. 金湖凹陷石港断裂发育特征及其控圈作用[J]. 复杂油气藏, 2020, 13(3): 1-5, 17.
[10]	MORLEY C K, GABDI S, SEUSUTTHIYA K. Fault superimposition and linkage resulting from stress changes during rifting: Examples from 3D seismic data, Phitsanulok Basin, Thailand[J]. Journal of Structural Geology, 2007, 29(4): 646-663
[11]	周易. 分期异向分层伸展叠加变形数值模拟研究[D]. 北京: 中国石油大学(北京), 2018.
[12]	王海学, 吕延防, 付晓飞, 等. 断裂质量校正及其在油气勘探开发中的作用[J]. 中国矿业大学学报, 2014, 43(3): 482-490.
[13]	付晓飞, 孙兵, 王海学, 等. 断层分段生长定量表征及在油气成藏研究中的应用[J]. 中国矿业大学学报, 2015, 44(2): 271-281
[14]	PEACOCK A J. Handbook of Polyethylene:Structures, Properties, and Applications[M]. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2000.
[15]	漆家福. 渤海湾新生代盆地的两种构造系统及其成因解释[J]. 中国地质, 2004, 31(1): 15-22
[16]	FOSSEN H. Structural Geology[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010
[17]	WANG H X, FU X F, LIU S R, et al. Quantitative discrimination of normal fault segment growth and its geological significance: Example from the Tanan Depression, Tamtsag Basin, Mongolia[J]. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 2018, 65(5): 711-725.
[18]	CHILDS C, WATTERSON J, WALSH J J. Fault overlap zones within developing normal fault systems[J]. Journal of the Geological Society, 1995, 152(3): 535-549.
[19]	CARTWRIGHT J, TRUDGILL B, MANSFIELD C. Fault growth by segment linkage: An explanation for scatter in maximum displacement and trace length data from the Canyonlands grabens of SE Utah: Reply[J]. Journal of Structural Geology, 2000, 22(1): 141-143.
[20]	FAULDS J E, VARGA R J. The Role of Accommodation Zones and Transfer Zones in the Regional Segmentation of Extended Terranes[M]//Accommodation Zones and Transfer Zones:the Regional Segmentation of the Basin and Range Province. Washington: Geological Society of America, 1998
[21]	FRANKOWICZ E, MCCLAY K R. Extensional fault segmentation and linkages, Bonaparte Basin, outer North West Shelf, Australia[J]. AAPG Bulletin, 2010, 94(7): 977-1010.
[22]	陈友飞, 严钦尚, 许世远. 苏北盆地沉积环境演变及其构造背景[J]. 地质科学, 1993, 28(2): 151-160.
[23]	唐旭. 苏北盆地高邮凹陷断裂演化及砂箱物理模拟[D]. 大庆: 东北石油大学, 2019.
[24]	李希元. 苏北盆地石港断裂带成因机制及物理模拟[D]. 大庆: 东北石油大学, 2018.
[25]	舒良树, 王博, 王良书, 等. 苏北盆地晚白垩世—新近纪原型盆地分析[J]. 高校地质学报, 2005, 11(4): 534-543.
[26]	李志强, 杨波, 韩自军, 等. 南黄海中—新生代裂谷盆地构造-热演化:对成盆机制和烃源岩热演化的指示[J]. 地球科学, 2022, 47(5): 1652-1668.
[27]	刘东鹰, 邬冬茹. 断裂在盐城朱家墩气藏成藏中的作用[J]. 石油勘探与开发, 2003, 30(4): 5-6, 28.
[28]	祝厚勤, 庞雄奇, 王文军. 苏北盆地盐城凹陷朱家墩气藏成藏期次研究[J]. 煤田地质与勘探, 2006, 34(2): 26-29.
[29]	王国建, 邓平, 石美癸. 盐城凹陷朱家墩气田综合化探异常及其地质意义[J]. 物探与化探, 2005, 29(2): 131-134.
[30]	GE Hongxing, ANDERSON J K. Fault throw profile and kinematics of Normal fault: conceptual models and geologic examples[J]. 高校地质学报, 2007, 13(1): 75-88.
[31]	DUTTON D M, TRUDGILL B D. Four-dimensional analysis of the Sembo relay system, offshore Angola: Implications for fault growth in salt-detached settings[J]. AAPG Bulletin, 2009, 93(6): 763-794.
[32]	CHAPMAN T J, MENEILLY A W. The displacement patterns associated with a reverse-reactivated, normal growth fault[J]. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 1991, 56(1): 183-191.
[33]	CHILDS C, EASTON S J, VENDEVILLE B C, et al. Kinematic analysis of faults in a physical model of growth faulting above a viscous salt analogue[J]. Tectonophysics, 1993, 228(3/4): 313-329.
[34]	ROWAN M G, HART B S, NELSON S, et al. Three-dimensional geometry and evolution of a salt-related growth-fault array: Eugene Island 330 field, offshore Louisiana, Gulf of Mexico[J]. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 1998, 15(4): 309-328.
[35]	漆家福, 杨桥, 王子煜. 编制盆地复原古构造图的若干问题的讨论[J]. 地质科学, 2003, 38(3): 413-424.
[36]	谢昭涵. 尼日尔三角洲深水背斜断裂演化机制及封闭性评价: 以OML130区块Egina油田为例[D]. 大庆: 东北石油大学, 2017.
[37]	马如辉, 王安志. 利用构造恢复原理制作古构造演化图[J]. 天然气工业, 2006, 26(1): 34-36, 158.

苏北盆地盐城凹陷盐③断裂带构造演化及其控圈作用

Tectonic Evolution of the Yan ③ Fault Zone and Its Trap-controlling Effect on Yancheng Sag, Subei Basin

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 10

参考文献 37

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	汪锴, 王根厚, 贾庆军, 张笑. 琼东南盆地深水区松南—宝岛凹陷的构造演化及其与油气成藏关系[J]. 现代地质, 2023, 37(02): 245-258.
[2]	李波, 金胜, 叶高峰, 魏文博. 中亚造山带东段岩石圈电性结构特征及其构造涵义[J]. 现代地质, 2023, 37(01): 15-30.
[3]	吕古贤, 张宝林, 吕承训, 胡宝群, 曾勇, 郭涛, 申玉科, 王红才, 马立成, 焦建刚, 毕珉烽. 长江中下游地区新华夏构造体系的“米字型”结构特征[J]. 现代地质, 2021, 35(05): 1240-1250.
[4]	刘爱荣, 徐永婧, 刘成林, 庞尔成. 大同盆地地质特征及构造演化研究[J]. 现代地质, 2021, 35(05): 1296-1310.
[5]	孙自明, 张荣强, 孙炜, 郝运轻, 卞昌蓉. 四川盆地东部海相下组合油气勘探领域与有利勘探方向[J]. 现代地质, 2021, 35(03): 798-806.
[6]	余海波, 程秀申, 徐田武, 谈玉明, 漆家福. 东濮凹陷古近纪盆地结构控烃控藏特征[J]. 现代地质, 2020, 34(06): 1119-1131.
[7]	杨旺东, 高福磊, 王功文, 庞振山, 沈和明, 龚灵明, 申红涛, 张智强, 刘晓宁. 四川红泥坡铜矿床三维地质建模及控矿构造演化的新认识[J]. 现代地质, 2020, 34(03): 598-608.
[8]	罗晓华, 杨明慧, 贾春阳, 李占元, 雷志斌, 张少华. 晋北地区口泉断裂带晚中生代分段构造特征[J]. 现代地质, 2019, 33(03): 551-560.
[9]	武若晨, 顾雪祥, 章永梅, 何格, 康继祖, 余福承, 冯李强, 徐劲驰. 东昆仑造山带早古生代—早中生代构造演化的沉积地球化学记录[J]. 现代地质, 2017, 31(04): 716-733.
[10]	张祥信, 彭宇, 雷世和, 高永丰, 王广. 内蒙古中部苏尼特左旗地区勃勒金韧性剪切带的厘定及其地质意义[J]. 现代地质, 2017, 31(03): 433-442.
[11]	祁鹏, 王鹏, 崔敏, 蔡佳. 南黄海盆地北凹多幕正反转构造特征及其动力学分析[J]. 现代地质, 2017, 31(03): 443-449.
[12]	孙自明. 下刚果-刚果扇盆地沉积-构造演化与油气勘探领域[J]. 现代地质, 2016, 30(6): 1303-1310.
[13]	于冬冬 , 汤良杰 , 余一欣 , 陈茜. 川西和川东北地区差异构造演化及其对陆相层系天然气成藏的影响[J]. 现代地质, 2016, 30(5): 1085-1095.
[14]	尼加提·阿布都逊，木合塔尔·扎日，贾晓亮. 新疆南天山东段早石炭世—早二叠世花岗岩类及其对南天山洋盆闭合时间的约束[J]. 现代地质, 2016, 30(2): 263-273.
[15]	张在振，李照延，康海亮，彭定亮，周红科，高若函. 埕岛油田古生界地层特征及其构造意义[J]. 现代地质, 2015, 29(6): 1377-1386.