库车坳陷迪北地区阿合组储层致密过程与油气充注耦合关系

doi:10.19657/j.geoscience.1000-8527.2024.072

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

下侏罗统阿合组是迪北地区致密油气勘探的重要目标层系,近年来迪北2井、迪北5井的钻探均获得了工业油气流,表明了迪北地区具有良好的勘探前景,同时迪北地区也是库车坳陷油气勘探的重要接替领域。前人针对迪北地区油气来源及油气成藏条件已经做了系统研究,但针对孔隙度演化定量表征的研究还相对薄弱,油气充注期次是两期还是三期存在争议。本次研究选取迪北5井、迪探2井的砂岩样品,利用铸体薄片、扫描电镜(SEM)、阴极发光、流体包裹体测温等手段,明确了阿合组储层成岩作用类型,厘定了成岩演化序列,运用反演回剥原理定量表征了储层孔隙度演化史,阐述了储层致密化过程与油气充注的耦合关系。结果表明,迪北地区阿合组经历了压实、溶蚀、胶结等成岩作用,强烈的压实作用是导致阿合组储层原生孔隙不发育的主要原因;阿合组经历了机械压实作用—早期方解石胶结—石英次生加大—长石溶蚀—原油充注—晚期方解石、铁方解石胶结—方解石溶蚀、天然气充注-构造挤压等成岩过程,具有多期溶蚀、多期胶结的特征;阿合组储层经历了两期油气充注,早期原油充注发生于康村组早期—中期(14.1 ~12.3 Ma),此时储层尚未致密,但原油充注规模较小,晚期天然气充注发生于康村组中期—晚期(10.2 ~8.1 Ma),储层已经致密(致密时间约为11 Ma),此时三叠系烃源岩处于成熟-高成熟阶段,包裹体较为发育,表明了天然气充注程度较高。因此,迪北地区阿合组储层致密化过程与油气成藏史之间耦合关系为“先致密后成藏”,这些认识有助于明确迪北地区阿合组油气富集规律,并为井位部署提供依据。

关键词: 库车坳陷, 迪北地区, 油气成藏, 储层致密化, 成岩演化

Abstract:

The Lower Jurassic Ahe Formation is a key target for tight oil and gas exploration in the Dibei area. In recent years, industrial oil and gas flows have been obtained from Wells Dibei 2 and Dibei 5, demonstrating favorable exploration prospects in the area, which also serves as a critical replacement zone for oil and gas exploration in the Kuqa Depression. Previous studies have systematically investigated hydrocarbon sources and accumulation conditions in the Dibei area, but research on the quantitative characterization of porosity evolution remains limited, and controversies persist regarding whether hydrocarbon charging occurred in two or three stages.In this study, sandstone samples from Wells Dibei 5 and Ditan 2 were analyzed using casting thin sections, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), cathodoluminescence, and fluid inclusion thermometry. These methods helped identify diagenetic types, clarify the diagenetic evolution sequence, quantitatively characterize the reservoir porosity evolution history using the inversion backstripping principle, and elaborate on the coupling relationship between reservoir densification and hydrocarbon charging.The results indicate that the Ahe Formation in the Dibei area underwent diagenetic processes including compaction, dissolution, and cementation, with intense compaction being the primary cause of underdeveloped primary pores. The diagenetic sequence is as follows: mechanical compaction→early calcite cementation→quartz overgrowth→feldspar dissolution→crude oil charging→late calcite and ferrocalcite cementation→calcite dissolution and natural gas charging→tectonic compression, featuring multi-stage dissolution and cementation.The Ahe Formation reservoir has undergone two stages of hydrocarbon charging. The early-stage crude oil charging occurred in the early-middle Kangcun Formation (14.1-12.3 Ma), when the reservoir was not yet densified, though the crude oil charging was on a small scale. The late-stage natural gas charging took place in the middle-late Kangcun Formation (10.2-8.1 Ma), by which time the reservoir had already been densified (with the densification time at approximately 11 Ma). At this stage, the Triassic source rocks were in the mature to high-maturity stage, and inclusions were well-developed, indicating a high intensity of natural gas charging.Thus, the coupling relationship between reservoir densification and hydrocarbon accumulation in the Ahe Formation is characterized by “densification prior to accumulation”. These findings help clarify hydrocarbon enrichment patterns in the Ahe Formation and provide a basis for well placement.

Key words: Kuqa Depression, Dibei Area, hydrocarbon accumulation, reservoir densification, diagenetic evolution

中图分类号:

P618.1

景涛涛, 李文浩, 董卫, 陈一凡, 王龙伟, 杨懿芳. 库车坳陷迪北地区阿合组储层致密过程与油气充注耦合关系[J]. 现代地质, 2025, 39(04): 1156-1168.

JING Taotao, LI Wenhao, DONG Wei, CHEN Yifan, WANG Longwei, YANG Yifang. Coupling Relationship Between the Reservoir Densification Process and Hydrocarbon Charging Process in the Ahe Formation in the Dibei Area of the Kuqa Depression[J]. Geoscience, 2025, 39(04): 1156-1168.

图/表 12

图1 库车坳陷构造位置图与迪北地区综合柱状图(图(b)据文献[34]修改) (a)库车坳陷构造位置图; (b)迪北地区综合柱状图

Fig.1 Structure location map of Kuqa Depression and composite columnar section of Dibei area (Fig.(b) modified according to reference [34])

图2 迪北地区阿合组致密砂岩岩石类型三角图(单位:%)

Fig.2 Triangle diagram of tight sandstone rock types of the Ahe Formation in Dibei area(unit: %)

图3 迪北地区阿合组致密砂岩储集空间类型 (a)迪北5井,5841.44 m,高岭石晶间孔、长石粒内溶孔;(b)迪北5井,5840.10 m,构造缝;(c)迪北5井,5839.42 m,长石粒内溶孔;(d)迪北5井,6051.89 m,伊利石晶间孔

Fig.3 Reservoir space types of tight sandstones in the Ahe Formation, Dibei area

图4 迪北地区阿合组物性频率分布直方图 (a)孔隙度;(b)渗透率

Fig.4 Frequency distribution histogram of physical properties of the Ahe Formation in Dibei area

图5 迪北地区迪北5井阿合组烃包裹体特征 (a)迪北5井,6048.61 m,石英愈合裂缝中的黄色荧光包裹体;(b)迪北5井,5841.44 m,多条石英裂缝中的蓝色荧光包裹体;(c)迪北5井,5841.44 m,石英愈合裂缝中的灰色气相烃包裹体

Fig.5 Characteristics of hydrocarbon inclusions in the Ahe Formation of Well Dibei 5, Dibei area

图6 迪北地区阿合组油气充注期次

Fig.6 Hydrocarbon charging periods of the Ahe Formation in Dibei area

图7 迪北地区阿合组成岩作用特征 (a)迪北5井,6051.89 m,颗粒间线-凹凸接触,正交光;(b)迪探2井,5129.69 m,白云母弯曲变形;正交光;(c)迪北5井,5846.15 m,石英颗粒被压裂,单偏光;(d)迪北5井,5839.42 m,方解石镶嵌式胶结,单偏光;(e)迪北5井,5839.42 m,石英次生加大,正交光;(f)迪北5井,5839.42 m,绿泥石充填孔隙;(g)迪北5井,5841.44 m,长石溶孔,单偏光;(h)迪北5井,5840.10 m,长石溶孔与构造缝,单偏光;(i)迪北5井,5840.10 m,长石溶孔与构造缝,单偏光

Fig.7 Diagenesis characteristics of the Ahe Formation in Dibei area

图8 迪北地区阿合组致密砂岩成岩演化序列 (a)迪探2井,5128.30 m,早期方解石胶结呈基底式胶结,晚期方解石胶结呈镶嵌式胶结,单偏光;(b)迪北5井,5838.32 m,石英次生加大与长石溶蚀,单偏光;(c)迪探2,5123.5 m,原油充注与长石溶蚀,单偏光;(d)迪探2井,5128.88 m,方解石胶结与原油充注,单偏光;(e)迪探2井,5128.88 m,方解石、铁方解石胶结,正交光;(f)迪北5井,5846.15 m,方解石交代长石,正交光;(g)迪北5井,5840.10 m,方解石溶蚀,单偏光;(h)迪北5井,5840.10 m,流体包裹体;(i)迪北5井,5840.10 m,构造裂缝,单偏光

Fig.8 Diagenetic evolution sequence of tight sandstones in the Ahe Formation, Dibei area

表1 迪北地区阿合组关键成岩作用始末时间与古埋深

Table 1 Timing and paleoburial depth of key diagenetic events in the Ahe Formation, Dibei area

关键成岩作用阶段	时间(Ma)	古埋深(m)
压实作用始	201.3	0
早期方解石、石英次生加大始	174.0	1012
长石溶蚀始	140.0	2209
晚期方解石、铁方解石胶结始	12.3	4795
晚期方解石、铁方解石溶蚀始	10.2	5084
构造挤压始	5.0	5740

图9 迪北地区阿合组面孔率与孔隙度关系

Fig.9 Relationship between surface porosity and porosity of the Ahe Formation in Dibei area

图10 迪北地区阿合组孔隙度演化史

Fig.10 Porosity evolution history of the Ahe Formation in Dibei area

图11 迪北地区阿合组储层致密过程与油气充注关系

Fig.11 Relationship between reservoir densification process and hydrocarbon charging in the Ahe Formation, Dibei area

参考文献 46

[1]	邹才能, 陶士振, 杨智, 等. 中国非常规油气勘探与研究新进展[J]. 矿物岩石地球化学通报, 2012, 31(4): 312-322.
[2]	贾承造. 中国石油工业上游发展面临的挑战与未来科技攻关方向[J]. 石油学报, 2020, 41(12): 1445-1464. DOI
[3]	戴金星, 倪云燕, 刘全有, 等. 四川超级气盆地[J]. 石油勘探与开发, 2021, 48(6): 1081-1088. DOI
[4]	何江, 杨羿, 陈文, 等. 窄河道型致密砂岩储层特征及主控因素——以天府气田金华区块沙溪庙组为例[J]. 断块油气田, 2024, 31(1):1-10.
[5]	甯波, 任大忠, 王虎, 等. 致密砂岩气藏微观孔隙结构多尺度联合表征[J]. 断块油气田, 2024, 31(1):34-41.
[6]	贾爱林, 位云生, 郭智, 等. 中国致密砂岩气开发现状与前景展望[J]. 天然气工业, 2022, 42(1): 83-92.
[7]	王晓明, 陈军斌, 任大忠. 陆相页岩油储层孔隙结构表征和渗流规律研究进展及展望[J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2023, 13(1): 23-30.
[8]	吕志凯, 唐海发, 刘群明, 等. 苏里格大型致密砂岩气田储层结构与水平井提高采收率对策[J]. 现代地质, 2018, 32(4): 832-841.
[9]	王俊鹏, 曾联波, 徐振平, 等. 成岩流体对超深致密砂岩储层构造裂缝充填及溶蚀改造的影响:以塔里木盆地克拉苏油气田为例[J]. 地学前缘, 2024, 31(3): 312-323. DOI
[10]	邹才能, 杨智, 张国生, 等. 非常规油气地质学理论技术及实践[J]. 地球科学, 2023, 48(6): 2376-2397.
[11]	宋林珂, 刘四兵, 曾青高, 等. 四川盆地川中-川西过渡带中侏罗统沙溪庙组致密砂岩相对优质储层成因机制[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2024, 54(2):371-388.
[12]	赵靖舟, 付金华, 姚泾利, 等. 鄂尔多斯盆地准连续型致密砂岩大气田成藏模式[J]. 石油学报, 2012, 33(增): 37-52. DOI
[13]	林中凯, 张少龙, 李传华, 等. 湖相页岩油地层岩相组合类型划分及其油气勘探意义——以博兴洼陷沙河街组为例[J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2023, 13(1): 39-51.
[14]	操应长, 远光辉, 杨海军, 等. 含油气盆地深层-超深层碎屑岩油气勘探现状与优质储层成因研究进展[J]. 石油学报, 2022, 43(1): 112-140. DOI
[15]	刘润川, 任战利, 马侃, 等. 鄂尔多斯盆地南部延长组油气成藏期次研究[J]. 现代地质, 2019, 33(6): 1263-1274.
[16]	李辉, 张涛, 侯雨庭, 等. 鄂尔多斯盆地三叠系延长组长7段陆相页岩层系致密储层充注物性下限及其控制因素[J]. 现代地质, 2024, 38(6):1498-1510.
[17]	姜振学, 林世国, 庞雄奇, 等. 两种类型致密砂岩气藏对比[J]. 石油实验地质, 2006, 28(3): 210-214,219.
[18]	田亚铭, 施泽进, 宋江海, 等. 宜川—旬邑地区长6-长8储层流体包裹体特征及意义[J]. 矿物岩石地球化学通报, 2011, 30(1): 80-87.
[19]	郭彦如, 刘俊榜, 杨华, 等. 鄂尔多斯盆地延长组低渗透致密岩性油藏成藏机理[J]. 石油勘探与开发, 2012, 39(4): 417-425.
[20]	唐雁刚, 杨宪彰, 谢会文, 等. 塔里木盆地库车坳陷侏罗系阿合组致密气藏特征与勘探潜力[J]. 中国石油勘探, 2021, 26(4): 113-124.
[21]	王清华, 张荣虎, 杨宪彰, 等. 库车坳陷东部迪北地区侏罗系阿合组致密砂岩气勘探重大突破及地质意义[J]. 石油学报, 2022, 43(8): 1049-1064. DOI
[22]	王军杰, 卢双舫, 林子智, 等. 致密砂砾岩成储界限及分级评价标准——以松辽盆地徐家围子断陷白垩系沙河子组为例[J]. 石油实验地质, 2024, 46(3):553-564.
[23]	刘圣鑫, 付汇琪, 冯兴强, 等. 致密砂岩裂缝网络复杂性及其影响因素研究[J]. 地质力学学报, 2024, 30(4):563-578.
[24]	卢斌, 冉启贵, 叶信林, 等. 库车坳陷迪北地区烃源岩生物标志化合物特征及其意义[J]. 科学技术与工程, 2016, 16(13): 1671-1815.
[25]	李峰, 姜振学, 李卓, 等. 库车坳陷迪北气藏流体包裹体特征及油气充注历史[J]. 中南大学学报(自然科学版), 2016, 47(2): 515-523.
[26]	李谨, 王超, 李剑, 等. 库车坳陷北部迪北段致密油气来源与勘探方向[J]. 中国石油勘探, 2019, 24(4): 485-497. DOI
[27]	史超群, 李勇, 袁文芳, 等. 致密砂岩储层构型特征及评价——以库车前陆盆地迪北地区侏罗系阿合组为例[J]. 中国矿业大学学报, 2021, 50(5): 877-892.
[28]	张宝收, 杨海军, 张鼐, 等. 迪北气藏侏罗系阿合组烃包裹体特征及成藏分析[J]. 新疆石油地质, 2019, 40(1): 41-47.
[29]	张国锋, 马玉杰, 韩伟, 等. 塔里木盆地库车坳陷东部早-中侏罗统沉积物源分析[J]. 沉积与特提斯地质, 2011, 31(3): 39-46.
[30]	何登发, 李德生, 何金有, 等. 塔里木盆地库车坳陷和西南坳陷油气地质特征类比及勘探启示[J]. 石油学报, 2013, 34(2): 201-218. DOI
[31]	张辉, 张冠杰, 徐珂, 等. 库车坳陷应力状态转换特征及其地质与力学响应[J]. 地学前缘, 2024, 31(5): 177-194. DOI
[32]	贾承造, 顾家裕, 张光亚. 库车拗陷大中型气田形成的地质条件[J]. 科学通报, 2002, 47(增): 49-55.
[33]	魏国齐, 张荣虎, 智凤琴, 等. 库车坳陷东部中生界构造-岩性地层油气藏形成条件与勘探方向[J]. 石油学报, 2021, 42(9): 1113-1125. DOI
[34]	赵双丰, 陈文, 高扬. 库车坳陷迪北凝析气藏流体地球化学特征及成藏过程解析[J]. 西安石油大学学报(自然科学版), 2022, 37(6): 1-10,139.
[35]	王华超, 韩登林, 欧阳传湘, 等. 库车坳陷北部阿合组致密砂岩储层特征及主控因素[J]. 岩性油气藏, 2019, 31(2): 115-123. DOI
[36]	严一鸣. 依奇克里克构造带侏罗系阿合组储层成岩特征研究[D]. 青岛: 中国石油大学(华东), 2016.
[37]	伍劲, 王波, 朱超, 等. 库车坳陷东部下侏罗统煤系地层碎屑岩中长石溶蚀对储集层物性的影响[J]. 新疆石油地质, 2019, 40(6): 649-657,665.
[38]	袁静, 成荣红, 朱忠谦, 等. 库车坳陷DB气田白垩系巴什基奇克组砂岩的多期溶蚀[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2016, 37(4): 546-555.
[39]	魏红兴, 黄梧桓, 罗海宁, 等. 库车坳陷东部断裂特征与构造演化[J]. 地球科学, 2016, 41(6): 1074-1080.
[40]	张玮, 徐振平, 赵凤全, 等. 库车坳陷东部构造变形样式及演化特征[J]. 新疆石油地质, 2019, 40(1): 48-53.
[41]	操应长, 葸克来, 王艳忠, 等. 冀中坳陷廊固凹西务构造带古近系沙河街组四段储集层孔隙度演化定量研究[J]. 古地理学报, 2013, 15(5): 593-604. DOI
[42]	ATHY L F. Density, Porosity, and Compaction of Sedimentary Rocks[J]. AAPG Bulletin, 1930, 14(1): 1-24.
[43]	刘震, 邵新军, 金博, 等. 压实过程中埋深和时间对碎屑岩孔隙度演化的共同影响[J]. 现代地质, 2007, 21(1): 125-132.
[44]	SOMBRA C L, CHANG H K. Burial history and porosity evolution of Brazilian Upper Jurassic to Tertiary sandstone reservoirs[J]. AAPG Bulletin, 1997, 69(1): 79-89.
[45]	潘荣, 朱筱敏, 谈明轩, 等. 库车坳陷克拉苏冲断带深部巴什基奇克组致密储层孔隙演化定量研究[J]. 地学前缘, 2018, 25(2): 159-169. DOI
[46]	张宝收, 鲁雪松, 孙雄伟, 等. 塔里木盆地迪北致密砂岩气藏储层物性下限研究[J]. 岩性油气藏, 2015, 27(1): 81-88.