优质页岩气储层测井特征分析

doi:10.13809/j.cnki.cn32-1825/te.2022.03.006

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

不同产能页岩气井,其储层测井响应特征存在明显差异。通过对比分析不同产能页岩气井测井曲线响应特征,进而总结高产页岩气储层的测井响应特征。分析不同产能页岩气井在岩性、电性、物性、地应力和孔隙压力等方面的差异,利用电阻率测井、放射性测井和声波扫描等地球物理测井信息,围绕有机质品质和地层压力等反映页岩气产能的关键参数,形成了一套基于测井综合响应特征的优质高产页岩储层识别方法。结果表明,优质高产页岩储层电性特征表现为高伽马、低密度、低中子、高声波时差和中高电阻率等特征,纵、横波时差交会图显示地层呈高压特征,该套分析方法能够准确判别页岩储层勘探开发潜力。通过川东南不同页岩气区块不同类型页岩气层现场试气结果与测井综合分析判定结果对比表明,该套判别方法符合率高,可以为页岩气井后期完井方案决策提供科学依据。

关键词: 页岩气, 有机碳, 含气量, 地应力, 地层压力, 电阻率

Abstract:

The logging response characteristics of different productivity shale gas wells are obviously different. By comparing and analyzing the logging response characteristics of shale gas well with different productivity, the logging response characteristics of high production shale gas reservoir are summarized. Then, by the analyses of the differences of lithology, electrical properties, physical properties, in-situ stress and pore pressure in shale gas wells with different productivity, and the geophysics logging information such as resistivity logging, radioactive logging and acoustic scanning, etc., a set of high-quality and high-yield shale reservoir identification methods based on integrated logging response characteristics is developed by considering the key parameters of organic quality and formation pressure to reflect shale gas productivity. The results show that the electrical characteristics of high-quality and high-yield shale reservoirs are high gamma-ray, low density, low neutron, high acoustic time difference and medium-high resistivity. This set of analysis method can accurately identify the exploration and development potential of shale reservoirs. The comparison between the field gas test results of different types of shale gas reservoirs in different shale gas blocks in southeastern Sichuan and the results of comprehensive well logging analysis shows that the method has a high coincidence rate. It can provide scientific basis for later completion plan decision of shale gas well.

Key words: shale gas, organic carbon, gas content, rock mechanics, formation pressure, resistivity

中图分类号:

TE132

马林,蒋夏妮,龚劲松. 优质页岩气储层测井特征分析[J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2022, 12(3): 445-454.

MA Lin,JIANG Xiani,GONG Jinsong. Analysis of logging characteristics of high quality shale gas reservoirs[J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2022, 12(3): 445-454.

图/表 13

图1

图2

图3

图4

图5

图6

图7

图8

表1

表2

图9

图10

图11

参考文献 23

[1]	石文睿, 张超谟, 张占松, 等. 涪陵页岩气田焦石坝页岩气储层含气量测井评价[J]. 测井技术, 2015, 39(3):357-362.
	SHI Wenrui, ZHANG Chaomo, ZHANG Zhansong, et al. Well logging evaluation of Jiaoshiba shale gas reservoir in Fuling District Shale gas field[J]. Logging Techniques, 2015, 39(3): 357-362.
[2]	刘双莲. 页理对测井响应及岩石力学参数影响分析[J]. 非常规油气, 2019, 6(4):1-5.
	LIU Shuanglian. Effect analysis of shale bedding on well logging response and rock mechanics parameters[J]. Unconventional Oil & Gas, 2019, 6(4): 1-5.
[3]	颜磊. 川南海相页岩气测井综合评价技术及应用研究[D]. 成都: 成都理工大学, 2019.
	YAN Lei. Comprehensive evaluation technique and application of marine shale gas logging in south Sichuan[D]. Chengdu: Chengdu University of Technology, 2019.
[4]	夏宏泉, 王瀚玮, 赵昊. 测井多参数两向量法识别页岩气地质“甜点”[J]. 天然气工业, 2017, 37(11):36-42.
	XIA Hongquan, WANG Hanwei, ZHAO Hao. Identification of shale gas geological sweet spot by log multi-parameter two-vector method[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2017, 37(11): 36-42.
[5]	徐春露, 孙建孟, 董旭, 等. 页岩气储层孔隙压力测井预测新方法[J]. 石油学报, 2017, 38(6):666-676.
	XU Chunlu, SUN Jianmeng, DONG Xu, et al. A new logging prediction method of Pore pressure in shale gas reservoir[J]. Journal of Petroleum Sciences, 2017, 38(6): 666-676.
[6]	王濡岳, 冷济高, 丁文龙, 等. 上扬子地区下寒武统牛蹄塘组优质页岩储层测井识别——以贵州岑巩页岩气区块为例[J]. 天然气地球科学, 2015, 26(12): 2395-2407.
	WANG Ruyue, LENG Jigao, DING Wenlong, et al. Logging identification of high quality shale reservoir of lower Cambrian Niutitang formation in upper Yangtze region——Taking Cengong shale gas block as an example[J]. Natural Gas Geoscience, 2015, 26(12): 2395-2407.
[7]	王玉满, 李新景, 王皓, 等. 中上扬子地区下志留统龙马溪组有机质炭化区预测[J]. 天然气地球科学, 2020, 31(2):151-162.
	WANG Yuman, LI Xinjing, WANG Hao, et al. Carbonation prediction of organic matter in the Lower Silurian Longmaxi formation in the middle and Upper Yangtze region[J]. Natural Gas Geoscience, 2020, 31(2): 151-162.
[8]	赫志兵. M凹陷泥页岩储层有效烃源岩测井评价及应用[J]. 长江大学学报(自科版), 2016, 13(29):18-23.
	HE Zhibing. Logging evaluation and application of effective source rock in shale reservoir of M SAG[J]. Journal of Changjiang University(Natural Science), 2016, 13(29): 18-23.
[9]	陆亚秋, 梁榜, 王超, 等. 四川盆地涪陵页岩气田江东区块下古生界深层页岩气勘探开发实践与启示[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2021, 42(1):241-250.
	LU Yaqiu, LIANG Bang, WANG Chao, et al. Exploration and development of Paleozoic deep shale gas in Jiangdong block, Fuling District shale gas field, Sichuan Basin[J]. Petroleum and Natural Gas Geology, 2021, 42(1): 241-250.
[10]	冷玥, 赵迪斐, 郭英海, 等. 页岩气储层测井评价技术研究与应用现状[J]. 非常规油气, 2019, 6(6):117-123.
	LENG Yue, ZHAO Difei, GUO Yinghai, et al. The application status of shale gas reservoir logging evaluation[J]. Unconventional Oil & Gas, 2019, 6(6): 117-123.
[11]	张庆国, 黄莹双, 张容基, 等. 基于地化参数的页岩:由储层孔隙度解释模型研究[J]. 非常规油气, 2021, 8(5):9-17.
	ZHANG Qingguo, HUANG Yingshuang, ZHANG Rongji, et al. Study on porosity interpretation model of shale oil reservoir based on geochemical parameters[J]. Unconventional Oil & Gas, 2021, 8(5): 9-17.
[12]	吴奇, 梁兴, 鲜成钢, 等. 地质—工程一体化高效开发中国南方海相页岩气[J]. 中国石油勘探, 2015, 20(4):1-23.
	WU Qi, LIANG Xing, XIAN Chenggang, et al. Geoscience-to-production integration ensures effective and efficient South China marine shale gas development[J]. China Petroleum Exploration, 2015, 20(4): 1-23.
[13]	刘乃震, 王国勇. 四川盆地威远区块页岩气甜点厘定与精准导向钻井[J]. 石油勘探与开发, 2016, 43(6):978-985.
	LIU Naizhen, WANG Guoyong. Shale gas dessert determination and precision guided drilling in Weiyuan County Block, Sichuan Basin[J]. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2016, 43(6): 978-985.
[14]	吴雪平. 页岩气水平井地质导向钻进中的储层“甜点”评价技术[J]. 天然气工业, 2016, 36(5):74-80.
	WU Xueping. Reservoir “sweet spot” evaluation technique in geo-steering drilling of horizontal shale gas well[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2016, 36(5): 74-80.
[15]	谢小国, 罗兵, 尹亮先, 等. 低阻页岩气储层影响因素分析[J]. 四川地质学报, 2017, 37(3):433-437.
	XIE Xiaoguo, LUO Bing, YIN Liangxian, et al. Analysis of influencing factors of low resistivity shale gas reservoir[J]. Journal of Sichuan Geology, 2017, 37(3): 433-437.
[16]	BOB C, MIKE M. Log evaluation of gas shale: A 35-year perspective[R]. Denver: Denver Well Logging Society, 2010.
[17]	王道富, 王玉满, 董大忠, 等. 川南下寒武统筇竹寺组页岩储集空间定量表征[J]. 天然气工业, 2013, 33(7):1-10.
	WANG Daofu, WANG Yuman, DONG Dazhong, et al. Quantitative characterization of shale reservoir space of the Lower Cambrian Qiongzhu Temple formation in southern river[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2013, 33(7): 1-10.
[18]	何希鹏, 高玉巧, 唐显春, 等. 渝东南地区常压页岩气富集主控因素分析[J]. 天然气地球科学, 2017, 28(4):654-664.
	HE Xipeng, GAO Yuqiao, TANG Xianchun, et al. Analysis of main control factors of normal pressure shale gas enrichment in southeast Chongqing[J]. Natural Gas Geoscience, 2017, 28(4): 654-664.
[19]	TINGAY M, HILLIS R, SWARBRICK R, et al. “Vertically transferred”overpressures in Brunei: Evidence for a new mechanism for the formation of high magnitude overpressures[J]. Geology, 2007, 35(11): 1023-1026. doi: 10.1130/G23906A.1
[20]	LAHANN R W, SWARBRIK R E. Overpressures generation by load transfer following shale framework weakening due to smectite diagenesis[J]. Geofluids, 2011, 11(4): 362-375. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-8123.2011.00350.x
[21]	HEDBERG H D. Relation of methane generation to undercom-pacted shales, shale diapirs, and mud volcanoes[J]. AAPG Bulletin, 1974, 58(4): 661-673.
[22]	李双建, 袁玉松, 孙炜, 等. 四川盆地志留系页岩气超压形成与破坏机理及主控因素[J]. 天然气地球科学, 2016, 27(5):924-931.
	LI Shuangjian, YUAN Yusong, SUN Wei, et al. Formation and failure mechanism of Silurian shale gas overpressure in Sichuan Basin and its main controlling factors[J]. Natural Gas Geoscience, 2016, 27(5): 924-931.
[23]	李军, 张超谟, 王贵文, 等. 挤压盆地泥岩对地应力响应特征机理及地质应用[J]. 测井技术, 2004, 28(2):141-144.
	LI Jun, ZHANG Chaomo, WANG Guiwen, et al. Shale responses to terrestrial-stress, response mechanism and application in the tectonic compressive areas[J]. Well Logging Technology, 2004, 28(2): 141-144.

井名	普通页岩纵横波时差交会斜率	含气页岩纵横波时差交会斜率	计算地层压力系数	实测地层压力系数	相对误差（%）
S1	0.036 97	0.027 64	1.34	1.66	19.2
J3	0.036 52	0.025 90	1.41	1.35	4.5
J4	0.037 33	0.030 71	1.22	1.12	8.9
J5	0.034 64	0.028 86	1.20	1.15	4.3
L1	0.042 58	0.038 35	1.11	1.08	2.8
P1	0.037 81	0.036 45	1.04	0.98	6.1

井名	最大水平主应力（MPa）	最小水平主应力（MPa）	应力差异系数（%）	压力类型
P1	57	39	46.2	常压
L1	67	51	31.4	常压
L2	61	46	32.6	常压
L3	71	57	24.6	常压
J3	52	45	15.6	超压
J1	84	77	9.1	超压
J4	75	68	10.3	超压
J5	63	54	16.7	超压
S1	81	72	12.5	超压
S2	72	66	9.1	超压