Lithofacies classification and its controls on the pore structure distribution in Permian transitional shale in the northeastern Ordos Basin, China

被引:27
|
作者
Xue, Chunqi [1 ]
Wu, Jianguang [2 ]
Qiu, Longwei [1 ]
Zhong, Jianhua [1 ]
Zhang, Shouren [2 ]
Zhang, Bing [2 ]
Wu, Xiang [2 ]
Hao, Bing [1 ]
机构
[1] China Univ Petr East China, Coll Geosci, Qingdao 266580, Peoples R China
[2] China United Coalbed Methane, Beijing 100011, Peoples R China
关键词
Transitional shale; Lithofacies; Pore structure; Controlling factors; Ordos basin; METHANE ADSORPTION CAPACITY; MISSISSIPPIAN BARNETT SHALE; NATURAL-GAS ACCUMULATIONS; COAL-BEARING STRATA; ORGANIC-RICH SHALE; FORT-WORTH BASIN; SICHUAN BASIN; JIAOSHIBA AREA; FRACTAL CHARACTERISTICS; LONGMAXI SHALE;
D O I
10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107657
中图分类号
TE [石油、天然气工业]; TK [能源与动力工程];
学科分类号
0807 ; 0820 ;
摘要
Sea level changes more frequently during the deposition of transitional shale than marine shale, resulting in the strong heterogeneity and instability of the sedimentary environment and making transitional shale gas evaluation difficult. The appropriate identification and classification of transitional shale lithofacies types can improve evaluation of shale reservoirs and can provide the geological basis for the evaluation and potential of shale gas reservoirs during exploration and development. The lower Permian shale in the northeastern Ordos Basin is selected as the focus of this research. Based on X-ray diffraction (XRD), total organic content (TOC), vitrinite reflectance (R-o), nitrogen and carbon dioxide adsorption, and argon ion polishing scanning electron microscopy (AIP-SEM) data, the lower Permian transitional shale in the study area is divided into silty mudstone and muddy siltstone lithofacies. On this basis, the differences in the organic geochemical characteristics, pore development characteristics and influencing factors of the shale reservoir in the two lithofacies are compared. The results show that the mean values of w(TOC) and w(Ro) in the muddy siltstone lithofacies are 1.9% and 1.0%, respectively. Siliceous minerals dominate the composition of the rock, and the main types of reservoir spaces are mineral matrix pores, including interparticle (interP) pores and intraparticle (intraP) pores related to inorganic minerals. Macropores and mesopores are the main components of the pore volume, and account for 40.8% and 49.8% of the total volume, respectively. The pore structure is mainly affected by the TOC and siliceous mineral contents. In the silty mudstone lithofacies, the average values of w(TOC) and w(Ro) are 2.4% and 1.2%, respectively. The clay mineral content is relatively high. The main types of reservoir spaces are organic pores and interP pores. Additionally, the pore volumes of macropores, mesopores and micropores are almost the same, accounting for 24.9%, 44.6% and 30.4% of the total pore volume, respectively. The pore structure is mainly affected by the organic matter content and clay mineral content.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Nanoscale pore structure heterogeneity and its quantitative characterization in Chang7 lacustrine shale of the southeastern Ordos Basin, China
    Shan, Changan
    Zhao, Weiwei
    Wang, Fengqin
    Zhang, Kun
    Feng, Zhao
    Guo, Liulinbo
    Ma, Xueli
    Liao, Tian
    JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, 2020, 187 (187)
  • [42] Pore structure of transitional shales in the Ordos Basin, NW China: Effects of composition on gas storage capacity
    Xiong, Fengyang
    Jiang, Zhenxue
    Li, Peng
    Wang, Xiangzeng
    Bi, He
    Li, Yirun
    Wang, Ziyuan
    Amooie, Mohammad Amin
    Soltanian, Mohamad Reza
    Moortgat, Joachim
    FUEL, 2017, 206 : 504 - 515
  • [43] Shale lithofacies controls on porosity and pore structure: An example from Ordovician Goldwyer Formation, Canning Basin, Western Australia
    Iqbal, Muhammad Atif
    Rezaee, Reza
    Smith, Gregory
    Ekundayo, Jamiu M.
    JOURNAL OF NATURAL GAS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, 2021, 89 (89)
  • [44] The microdistribution of fluid and its effect on pore structure in shale: A case study of lacustrine Chang 7 shale, Ordos Basin
    Wu, Chenhui
    Tang, Xuan
    Li, Xiaoguang
    Zhang, Bin
    Li, Pei
    Jiang, Zaixing
    Liu, Yang
    Kong, Xiangfei
    Du, Kefeng
    Zhang, Jinchuan
    INTERPRETATION-A JOURNAL OF SUBSURFACE CHARACTERIZATION, 2023, 11 (01): : T89 - T105
  • [45] Fractal analysis of pore structures in transitional shale gas reservoirs in the Linxing area, Ordos Basin
    Shi, Shuai
    He, Jinxian
    Zhang, Xiaoli
    Wu, Hongchen
    Yu, Ziqi
    Wang, Jian
    Yang, Tiantian
    Wang, Wei
    FRONTIERS IN EARTH SCIENCE, 2022, 10
  • [46] Characteristics and origin of desorption gas of the Permian Shanxi Formation shale in the Ordos Basin, China
    Sun, Zepeng
    Wang, Yongli
    Wei, Zhifu
    Zhang, Mingfeng
    Wang, Gen
    Wang, Zixiang
    ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION, 2017, 35 (06) : 792 - 806
  • [47] Geological controls on the pore system of lacustrine unconventional shale reservoirs: The Triassic Chang 7 member in the Ordos Basin, China
    Wang, Guanping
    Zhang, Qian
    Zhu, Rukai
    Tang, Xuan
    Liu, Kouqi
    Jin, Zhijun
    GEOENERGY SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, 2023, 221
  • [48] Pore Structure and Its Controls of Shale in the Qingshankou Formation, Sanzhao Sag, Songliao Basin
    Zhang, Surong
    Wu, Songtao
    Zhu, Rukai
    Zhang, Jingya
    Liu, Chang
    Zhang, Tianshu
    Cai, Yi
    Li, Mengying
    Hua, Ganlin
    Kang, Yuan
    Wang, Bo
    ENERGIES, 2023, 16 (06)
  • [49] Influence of pore structure characteristics on the Permian Shan-1 reservoir in Longdong, Southwest Ordos Basin, China
    Xu, Guangjun
    Li, Hao
    Tang, Lei
    Gong, Xiaoke
    Xie, Yuxin
    Zhao, Danni
    Chen, Jiangmeng
    Wei, Qinlian
    Open Geosciences, 2024, 16 (01)
  • [50] Effect of Shale Lithofacies on Pore Structure of the Wufeng-Longmaxi Shale in Southeast Chongqing, China
    Zhang, Luchuan
    Lu, Shuangfang
    Jiang, Shu
    Xiao, Dianshi
    Chen, Lei
    Liu, Yang
    Zhang, Yuying
    Li, Bo
    Gong, Cheng
    ENERGY & FUELS, 2018, 32 (06) : 6603 - 6618