枯竭气藏盐膏岩盖层CO2封存密闭性评价研究

doi:10.13809/j.cnki.cn32-1825/te.2025.04.014

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

在全球碳中和战略的背景下，以CO₂为主的温室气体排放不断增加，对全球气候、生态系统和人类生活产生了不利影响。CO₂地质封存是实现碳中和目标的重要技术手段，而盖层作为潜在封存构造的封堵屏障，其密闭性是关乎CO₂长期甚至永久封存的关键。盐膏岩盖层具有低孔、低渗、稳定性好和高突破压力等优良特性，可作为CO₂长期安全封存的盖层。然而，盐膏岩盖层与其他岩性盖层的物化性质存在较大差异，导致盐膏岩盖层CO₂封存密闭性评价仍然面临挑战，亟须建立一种适用于盐膏岩盖层的CO₂封存密闭性评价方法。首先，基于层次分析法，综合考虑盖层宏观指标、微观指标和突破压力等关键盖层密闭性影响因素，建立了盐膏岩盖层CO₂封存密闭性评价指标体系，并划分了不同指标的4个优劣等级，得出各指标对盐膏岩盖层的密闭性影响权重。其次，结合模糊数学综合评价法，计算出盐膏岩盖层CO₂封存密闭性评价总权值，形成了一套适合盐膏岩盖层的CO₂封存密闭性综合评价方法。最终，以四川盆地高石梯—磨溪区块为例，系统评价了这一潜在枯竭气藏盐膏岩盖层的CO₂封存密闭能力，发现高石梯—磨溪构造气藏盖层密闭性评价总权值为[2.5，3.0），评价等级为“较好”，说明具备较好的CO₂封存能力，适合未来开展CCS（碳捕集与封存）技术应用。研究成果可为盐膏岩盖层枯竭气藏CO₂埋存选址及封存安全评价提供一定的技术指导。

关键词: 四川盆地, 枯竭气藏, 盐膏岩盖层, CO₂封存, 密闭性评价

Abstract:

In the context of the global carbon neutrality strategy, greenhouse gas emissions —mainly CO_₂— are continuously rising, exerting adverse effects on the global climate, ecosystems, and human life. Geological storage of CO₂ is an important technological approach to achieving carbon neutrality targets. As sealing barriers within potential storage formations, the sealing property of caprocks is crucial for the long-term or even permanent CO₂ storage. Salt-gypsum caprocks exhibit favorable properties such as low porosity, low permeability, high structural stability, and high breakthrough pressure, making them promising candidates for long-term and secure CO₂ storage. However, their physicochemical characteristics differ significantly from those of other lithological caprocks, posing challenges to evaluating their sealing performance for CO₂ storage. Therefore, there is an urgent need to establish an evaluation method tailored to salt-gypsum caprocks. Firstly, based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), a comprehensive evaluation index system was developed by considering key influencing factors, such as macro indicators, micro indicators, and breakthrough pressure, affecting the sealing performance of caprocks. Four grading levels were defined for each index, and the influence weight of each index on the sealing performance of salt-gypsum caprocks was determined. Secondly, by integrating the Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation Method, the total weight for evaluating the sealing performance of salt-gypsum caprocks for CO₂ storage was calculated. This resulted in the development of a comprehensive evaluation method of CO₂ storage sealing tailored to these types of caprocks. Finally, the method was applied to the Gaoshiti-Moxi block in the Sichuan Basin as a case study, where the CO₂ storage sealing performance of its potential salt-gypsum caprock in a depleted gas reservoir was systematically evaluated. The results revealed that the total weight of the sealing performance evaluation of Gaoshiti-Moxi structural gas reservoir caprocks ranged from [2.5,3.0), corresponding to a grade of “relatively good”, indicating a relatively strong capacity for CO₂ storage. This suggested the site was suitable for the future application of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology. The research results can provide technical guidance for site selection and storage safety evaluation of CO₂ storage in depleted gas reservoirs with salt-gypsum caprocks.

Key words: Sichuan Basin, depleted gas reservoir, salt-gypsum caprocks, CO₂ storage, sealing performance evaluation

中图分类号:

TE34

蒋贝贝,刘佳波,张国强, 等. 枯竭气藏盐膏岩盖层CO₂封存密闭性评价研究[J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2025, 15(4): 646-655.

JIANG Beibei,LIU Jiabo,ZHANG Guoqiang, et al. Research on sealing performance evaluation of CO₂ storage in salt-gypsum caprocks of depleted gas reservoirs[J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2025, 15(4): 646-655.

图/表 12

图1

图2

表1

表2

表3

图3

表4

表5

盖层密闭能力综合评价标准"

评价集 $V$	$C 1$					$C 2$			$C 3$	$C 4$
评价集 $V$	埋深/km	厚度/m	连续性/km²	岩性	塑性系数	中值半径/nm	扩散系数/（cm²/s）	比表面积/（m²/g）	突破压力/MPa	孔隙度/%	渗透率/10^-3μm²
好	≥2.0	≥200	≥30	盐岩	≥6	<2	<10^-9	15~<30	≥15	<2	<10^-4
较好	1.5~<2.0	150~<200	25~<30	盐膏岩	4~<5	2~<4	10^-9~<10^-8	30~<40	12~<15	2~<5	10^-4~<10^-3
中等	1.0~<1.5	100~<150	20~<25	泥岩/页岩	3~<4	4~<8	10^-8~<10^-7	40~<60	10~<12	5~<8	10^-3~<10^-2
差	<1.0	<100	<20	砂岩	<3	≥8	≥10^-7	≥60	<10	≥8	≥10^-2
准则层权重系数	0.112					0.112			0.351	0.425
评价层权重系数	0.307	0.307	0.203	0.114	0.069	0.333	0.333	0.333	1.000	0.250	0.750

表5

表6

图4

图5

图6

参考文献 28

[1]	ASEM P, GARDONI P. A probabilistic, empirical model for permeability of mudstone[J]. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 2022, 69: 103262.
[2]	陈博文, 王锐, 李琦, 等. CO₂地质封存盖层密闭性研究现状与进展[J]. 高校地质学报, 2023, 29(1): 85-99.
	CHEN Bowen, WANG Rui, LI Qi, et al. Status and advances of research on caprock sealing properties of CO₂ geological storage[J]. Geological Journal of China Universities, 2023, 29(1): 85-99.
[3]	何祖清, 何同, 伊伟锴, 等. 中国石化枯竭气藏型储气库注采技术及发展建议[J]. 地质与勘探, 2020, 56(3): 605-613.
	HE Zuqing, HE Tong, YI Weikai, et al. Development suggestions and production technologies and development of Sinopec’s gas storage of depleted gas reservoir type[J]. Geology and Exploration, 2020, 56(3): 605-613.
[4]	刁玉杰, 朱国维, 金晓琳, 等. 四川盆地理论CO₂地质利用与封存潜力评估[J]. 地质通报, 2017, 36(6): 1088-1095.
	DIAO Yujie, ZHU Guowei, JIN Xiaolin, et al. Theoretical potential assessment of CO₂ geological utilization and storage in the Sichuan Basin[J]. Geological Bulletin of China, 2017, 36(6): 1088-1095.
[5]	徐振平, 陈书平, 罗彩明, 等. 塔里木盆地中寒武统膏盐岩分布及封闭性评价[J]. 中国石油勘探, 2023, 28(5): 54-67.
	XU Zhenping, CHEN Shuping, LUO Caiming, et al. Distribution and sealing capacity evaluation of gypsum-salt rocks in the Middle Cambrian in Tarim Basin[J]. China Petroleum Exploration, 2023, 28(5): 54-67.
[6]	张立松, 蒋梦罡, 李文杰, 等. 考虑地质断层激活后的 CO₂封存流体泄漏模型及数值分析[J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2022, 12(5): 754-763.
	ZHANG Lisong, JIANG Menggang, LI Wenjie, et al. Mathematical model and numerical analysis for leakage of fluid along geological fault during CO₂ storage[J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2022, 12(5): 754-763.
[7]	刘漪雯, 付美龙, 王长权, 等. CO₂驱不同注入方式对低渗透储层渗流能力的影响[J]. 油气地质与采收率, 2024, 31(2): 79-85.
	LIU Yiwen, FU Meilong, WANG Changquan, et al. Influence of different injection methods of CO₂ flooding on flow capacity of low permeability reservoirs[J]. Petroleum Geology and Recovery Efficiency, 2024, 31(2): 79-85.
[8]	陈龙龙, 汤瑞佳, 江绍静, 等. 致密砂岩油藏CO₂灌注提高混相程度研究[J]. 石油与天然气化工, 2024, 53(4): 79-84.
	CHEN Longlong, TANG Ruijia, JIANG Shaojing, et al. CO₂ perfusion to improve degree of miscibility in tight sandstone reservoir[J]. Chemical Engineering of Oil & Gas, 2024, 53(4): 79-84.
[9]	魏宁, 李小春, 王颖, 等. 不同温压条件下泥质粉砂岩二氧化碳突破压的试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2014, 35(1): 98-104.
	WEI Ning, LI Xiaochun, WANG Ying, et al. Experimental studies of CO2 breakthrough pressure of argillaceous siltstone under different pressures and temperatures[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2014, 35(1): 98-104.
[10]	张璐, 国建英, 林潼, 等. 碳酸盐岩盖层突破压力的影响因素分析[J]. 石油实验地质, 2021, 43(3): 461-467.
	ZHANG Lu, GUO Jianying, LIN Tong, et al. Influencing factors for breakthrough pressure of carbonate caprocks[J]. Petroleum Geology & Experiment, 2021, 43(3): 461-467.
[11]	刘桃, 吴通, 方朝刚, 等. 下扬子地区无为凹陷三叠系气藏超压特征及其成因分析[J]. 华东地质, 2023, 44(4): 415-423.
	LIU Tao, WU Tong, FANG Chaogang, et al. Overpressure characteristics and genesis of the Triassic gas reservoirs in Wuwei Depression of Lower Yangtze Region[J]. East China Geology, 2023, 44(4): 415-423.
[12]	俞凌杰, 范明, 刘伟新, 等. 盖层封闭机理研究[J]. 石油实验地质, 2011, 33(1): 91-95.
	YU Lingjie, FAN Ming, LIU Weixin, et al. Seal mechanism of cap rocks[J]. Petroleum Geology & Experiment, 2011, 33(1): 91-95.
[13]	刘丹青. 鄂尔多斯盆地CO₂地质封存联合页岩气开采技术研究[D]. 北京: 中国地质大学(北京), 2017.
	LIU Danqing. Study on the CO₂enhanced shale gas recovery technology in Ordos Basin, China[D]. Beijing: China University of Geosciences, 2017.
[14]	JIA S, WEN C X, FU X F, et al. A caprock evaluation methodology for underground gas storage in a deep depleted gas reservoir: A case study for the X9 lithologic trap of Langgu sag, Bohai Bay Basin, China[J]. Energies, 2022, 15(12): 4351.
[15]	JIN Z J, YUAN Y S, SUN D S, et al. Models for dynamic evaluation of mudstone/shale cap rocks and their applications in the Lower Paleozoic sequences, Sichuan Basin, SW China[J]. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 2014, 49: 121-128.
[16]	ZUO K, YANG J, LUO H W, et al. An efficient inversion method to interpret distributed temperature measurement of horizontal wells in shale gas reservoirs[J]. Petroleum Science and Technology, 2024, 42(1): 146-167.
[17]	徐振平, 陈书平, 罗彩明, 等. 塔里木盆地中寒武统膏盐岩分布及封闭性评价[J]. 中国石油勘探, 2023, 28(5): 54-67.
	XU Zhenping, CHEN Shuping, LUO Caiming, et al. Distribution and sealing capacity evaluation of gypsum-salt rocks in the Middle Cambrian in Tarim Basin[J]. China Petroleum Exploration, 2023, 28(5): 54-67.
[18]	李双建, 孙冬胜, 郑孟林, 等. 四川盆地寒武系盐相关构造及其控油气作用[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2014, 35(5): 622-631.
	LI Shuangjian, SUN Dongsheng, ZHENG Menglin, et al. Salt-related structure and its control on hydrocarbon of the Cambrian in Sichuan Basin[J] . Oil & Gas Geology, 2014, 35(5) : 622-631.
[19]	金之钧, 龙胜祥, 周雁, 等. 中国南方膏盐岩分布特征[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2006, 27(5): 571-583.
	JIN Zhijun, LONG Shengxiang, ZHOU Yan, et al. A study on the distribution of saline-deposit in southern China[J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2006, 27(5): 571-583.
[20]	林潼, 王铜山, 潘文庆, 等. 埋藏过程中膏岩封闭有效性演化特征: 以塔里木盆地寒武系深层膏岩盖层为例[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2021, 42 (6): 1354-1364.
	LIN Tong, WANG Tongshan, PAN Wenqing, et al. Evaluation of sealing effectiveness of gypsolyte during burial: A case study of the gypsolyte caprock in deep Cambrian, Tarim Basin[J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2021, 42(6): 1354-1364.
[21]	刘伟. 层状盐岩储气库围岩渗透特性及密闭性评价研究[D]. 北京: 中国科学院大学, 2015.
	LIU Wei. On surrounding rock permeability characteristics and tightness assessment of natural gas storage in bedded salt formation[D]. Beijing: University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2015.
[22]	高帅, 魏宁, 李小春. 盖岩CO₂突破压测试方法综述[J]. 岩土力学, 2015, 36(9): 2716-2727.
	GAO Shuai, WEI Ning, LI Xiaochun. Review of CO₂ breakthrough pressure measurement methods on caprocks[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2015, 36(9): 2716-2727.
[23]	高霞, 谢庆宾. 浅析膏盐岩发育与油气成藏的关系[J]. 石油地质与工程, 2007, 21(1): 9-11.
	GAO Xia, XIE Qingbin. Brief discussion on the relation between the development of salt & gypsum rock and hydrocarbon accumulation[J]. Petroleum Geology and Engineering, 2007, 21(1): 9-11.
[24]	刘林, 桑琴, 曹建, 等. 枯竭气藏改建储气库盖层封闭能力综合评价: 以川西北中坝气田须二气藏为例[J]. 大庆石油地质与开发, 2022, 41(6): 42-50.
	LIU Lin, SANG Qin, CAO Jian, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of sealing capacity of depleted gas reservoir reconstructed to gas storage: A case study of Xu 2 gas reservoir in Zhongba Gas Field, northwest Sichuan[J]. Petroleum Geology ＆ Oilfield Development in Daqing, 2022, 41(6): 42-50.
[25]	谢增业, 魏国齐, 李剑, 等. 四川盆地川中隆起带震旦系—二叠系天然气地球化学特征及成藏模式[J]. 中国石油勘探, 2021, 26(6): 50-67.
	XIE Zengye, WEI Guoqi, LI Jian, et al. Geochemical characteristics and accumulation pattern of gas reservoirs of the Sinian-Permian in central Sichuan uplift zone, Sichuan Basin[J]. China Petroleum Exploration, 2021, 26(6): 50-67.
[26]	马志立. 高石梯-磨溪地区灯四段碳酸盐岩储层特征研究[D]. 西安: 西安石油大学, 2019.
	MA Zhili. Carbonate reservoir characterization of the fourth section of dengying formation in Gao Shi Ti-Mo xi area[D]. Xi’an: Xi’an Shiyou University, 2019.
[27]	王宇鹏. 四川安岳大气田泥岩盖层封闭天然气有效性定量评价[D]. 大庆: 东北石油大学, 2019.
	WANG Yupeng. Quantitative evaluation of effectiveness of mudstone caprock sealing natural gas in Anyue gas field, Sichuan basin[D]. Daqing: Northeast Petroleum University, 2019.
[28]	张璐, 谢增业, 王志宏, 等. 四川盆地高石梯—磨溪地区震旦系—寒武系气藏盖层特征及封闭能力评价[J]. 天然气地球科学, 2015, 26(5): 796-804.
	ZHANG Lu, XIE Zengye, WANG Zhihong, et al. Caprock characteristics and sealing ability evaluation of Sinian-Cambrian gas reservoirs in Gaoshiti-Moxi Area, Sichuan Basin[J]. Natural Gas Geoscience, 2015, 26(5): 796-804.

岩性		塑性系数	孔隙度/%	渗透率/10^-3μm²	突破压力/MPa	弹性模量/10⁴ MPa	泊松比
盐-膏岩	盐岩	2.00~2.17	<3.0	<10^-4	>20.0	0.5~1.0	0.20~0.44
盐-膏岩	膏岩	2.00~2.17	2.0~8.0	10^-4~10^-3	5.0~10.0	1.5~4.0	0.20~0.45
泥岩		1.31~1.42	1.0~10.0	10^-8~10^-2	6.0~15.0	2.0~5.0	0.25~0.35
页岩		0.10~0.50	1.0~10.0	10^-9~10^-5	0.9~40.0	1.5~2.5	0.10~0.35
砂岩		0.20~0.40	1.6~28.0	1~10³	5.0~41.0	3.3~7.8	0.30~0.35

优势	封存作用
膏岩和盐岩通常以互层状产生，盐岩还具有地下流动性	可以愈合膏岩中的裂缝
深部盐膏层受到高温和较大应力作用时会发生蠕变^[18]，且塑性系数介于2.0~2.2，高出泥岩约1.53倍^[19]	构造挤压下盐膏岩盖层的密闭性能会随埋深而演化
盐膏岩具有更低的孔隙度，且盐膏岩孔隙度通常小于1%	抗剪切能力更强，不易产生断层和微裂缝^[20]

一级指标	二级指标	选取原因
宏观指标	CO₂埋深	①埋深反映盖层所处地质力学状态、岩石成岩程度和沉积环境^[20] ②盖层厚度越大说明其盖层横向展布范围越大、沉积环境越稳定 ③盖层连续性指不透水岩层（如页岩、盐岩、致密灰岩）在空间上的完整性和横向延展性是阻止CO₂垂向迁移的关键屏障 ④盖层岩性是评估CO₂封存场地可行性和长期安全性的关键因素，岩性越好，盖层密闭能力越强 ⑤塑性系数越大，岩石塑性变形能力越强
	盖层厚度
	盖层连续性
	盖层岩性
	塑性系数
微观指标	中值半径	①中值半径可提供关于盖层孔隙的平均大小信息，并间接反映盖层的渗透性 ②扩散系数是盖层结构致密性、微孔隙发育状况和密闭性的重要指标 ③比表面积是岩石颗粒大小、孔隙发育程度、压实与胶结程度的综合表现
	扩散系数
	比表面积
突破压力	突破压力	突破压力越大，则密闭性能越好^[22]
孔-渗指标	孔隙度	可衡量盖层岩石孔隙空间体积和CO₂气体在盖层中的流通能力^[23]
孔-渗指标	渗透率	可衡量盖层岩石孔隙空间体积和CO₂气体在盖层中的流通能力^[23]

指标 C_i : C_j	关系及a_ij	指标 C_i : C_j	关系及a_ij	指标 C_i : C_j	关系及a_ij	指标 C_i : C_j	关系及a_ij
C₁: C₁	同等 1	C₁: C₂	同等 1	C₁: C₃	强弱 1/4	C₁: C₄	较弱 1/3
C₂: C₁	同等 1	C₂: C₂	同等 1	C₂: C₃	强弱 1/4	C₂: C₄	较弱 1/3
C₃: C₁	强重 4	C₃: C₂	强重 4	C₃: C₃	同等 1	C₃: C₄	稍弱 1/2
C₄: C₁	较重 3	C₄: C₂	较重 3	C₄: C₃	稍重 2	C₄: C₄	同等 1

井号	层位	孔隙度/%	渗透率/10^-5μm²	中值半径/nm
高石11	龙王庙组	1.20	1.30	18.70
磨溪9-1	筇竹寺组	0.83	0.30	1.55
磨溪9-2	筇竹寺组	0.77	0.28	1.99
磨溪9-3	筇竹寺组	1.13	0.33	1.32
磨溪9-4	筇竹寺组	0.45	0.15	0.99

枯竭气藏盐膏岩盖层CO₂封存密闭性评价研究

Research on sealing performance evaluation of CO₂ storage in salt-gypsum caprocks of depleted gas reservoirs

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 12

参考文献 28

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	吴潇, 刘润昌. CO₂作用下碳酸盐岩物性及孔喉结构变化特征 [J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2025, 15(4): 571-578.
[2]	郭彤楼. 中国页岩气发展的回顾与思考——从志留系到寒武系 [J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2025, 15(3): 339-348.
[3]	朱苏阳, 刘伟, 王运峰, 贾春生, 陈朝刚, 彭小龙. 四川盆地煤层气勘探开发现状与前景 [J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2025, 15(2): 185-193.
[4]	杨雪, 田冲, 杨雨然, 张景缘, 王青, 吴伟, 罗超. 四川盆地长宁地区深层煤层气成藏特征与勘探潜力 [J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2025, 15(2): 194-204.
[5]	唐建东, 王智林, 葛政俊. 苏北盆地江苏油田CO₂驱油技术进展及应用 [J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2024, 14(1): 18-25.
[6]	薛冈, 熊炜, 张培先. 常压页岩气藏成因分析与有效开发——以四川盆地东南缘地区五峰组—龙马溪组页岩气藏为例 [J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2023, 13(5): 668-675.
[7]	杨宇,徐启林,刘荣和,黄东杰,颜平,王建猛. 枯竭气藏CO₂封存中的相平衡规律研究 [J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2023, 13(3): 280-287.
[8]	张立松,蒋梦罡,李文杰,张士岩,陈劭颖,王伟,孙致学. 考虑地质断层激活后的CO₂封存流体泄漏模型及数值分析 [J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2022, 12(5): 754-763.
[9]	李东晖,田玲钰,聂海宽,彭泽阳. 基于模糊层次分析法的页岩气井产能影响因素分析及综合评价模型——以四川盆地焦石坝页岩气田为例 [J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2022, 12(3): 417-428.
[10]	王红岩,董大忠,施振生,邱振,卢斌,邵男,孙莎莎,张素荣. 川南海相页岩岩石相类型及“甜点”分布——以长宁双河剖面五峰组—龙马溪组为例 [J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2022, 12(1): 68-81.
[11]	刘若冰,魏祥峰,刘珠江,燕继红,袁桃,魏富彬. JY1井五峰组—龙马溪组钻井地质剖面分析 [J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2022, 12(1): 47-57.
[12]	朱彤,张哲,冯动军,郑荣才,王烽,彭勇民. 梁平福禄镇剖面大安寨段泥页岩地质特征 [J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2022, 12(1): 139-149.
[13]	何文渊,冯子辉,张金友,白云风,付秀丽,赵莹,程心阳,高波,刘畅. 松辽盆地北部古龙凹陷古页8HC井地质剖面特征 [J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2022, 12(1): 1-9.
[14]	唐良睿,贾英,严谨,李广辉,汪勇,何佑伟,秦佳正,汤勇. 枯竭气藏CO₂埋存潜力计算方法研究 [J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2021, 11(6): 858-863.
[15]	张宗檩,吕广忠,王杰. 胜利油田CCUS技术及应用 [J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2021, 11(6): 812-822.