中美常压页岩气赋存状态及其对可动性与产量的影响——以彭水和阿巴拉契亚为例

doi:10.13809/j.cnki.cn32-1825/te.2022.03.001

油气藏评价与开发 ›› 2022, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (3): 399-406.doi: 10.13809/j.cnki.cn32-1825/te.2022.03.001

• 专家论坛 • 下一篇

中美常压页岩气赋存状态及其对可动性与产量的影响——以彭水和阿巴拉契亚为例

蒋恕^1,²(),李醇^1,²,陈国辉^1,²,郭彤楼³,吴聿元⁴,何希鹏⁴,高玉巧⁴,张培先⁴

1. 构造与油气资源教育部重点实验室,湖北武汉 430074
2. 中国地质大学（武汉）,湖北武汉 430074
3. 中国石化西南油气分公司,四川成都 610041
4. 中国石化华东油气分公司,江苏南京 210019

收稿日期:2022-09-10 出版日期:2022-06-26 发布日期:2022-06-24
作者简介:蒋恕（1976—）,男,教授,博士研究生导师,构造与油气资源教育部重点实验室主任,学科首席,主要从事常规和非常规油气及地热勘探开发研究。地址：湖北省武汉市洪山区鲁磨路388号中国地质大学（武汉）,邮政编码：430074。E-mail: jiangsu@cug.edu.cn
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金重点项目“复杂构造带常压页岩气动态赋存机理与可动性研究”(42130803);国家自然科学基金面上项目“不同岩相页岩油与油页岩储层原位加热增孔致裂机理与预测”(42072174);中国石化华东油气分公司常压页岩气研究项目“川东南与美国常压页岩气对比及技术策略研究”(34600000-19-ZC0607-0004)

Occurrence of normally-pressured shale gas in China and the United States and their effects on mobility and production: A case study of southeast Sichuan Basin and Appalachia Basin

JIANG Shu^1,²(),LI Chun^1,²,CHEN Guohui^1,²,GUO Tonglou³,WU Yuyuan⁴,HE Xipeng⁴,GAO Yuqiao⁴,ZHANG Peixian⁴

1. Key Laboratory of Tectonics and Petroleum Resources Ministry of Education, Wuhan, Hubei 430074, China
2. China University of Geosciences（Wuhan）, Wuhan, Hubei 430074, China
3. Sinopec Southwest Oil and Gas Company, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, China
4. Sinopec Southwest Oil and Gas Company, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210019, China

Received:2022-09-10 Online:2022-06-26 Published:2022-06-24

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

美国阿巴拉契亚盆地Ohio组页岩、Marcellus组页岩等常压页岩气区已获得商业化开采,中国川东南地区五峰组—龙马溪组页岩虽已初步开发,但由于埋深大、储层物性差等原因导致产出效益没有美国典型页岩气田好。常压页岩气因储层深度导致绝对压力存在差异,从而对气体赋存状态产生影响,进而对含气性与可动性产生显著影响,因而亟须对中美常压页岩气储层条件、气体赋存状态、含气性、可动性差异等开展定量化研究。选取典型常压的中国彭水地区隆页1井五峰组—龙马溪组页岩与美国阿巴拉契亚盆地Marcellus组页岩与Ohio组页岩作为研究对象,以体积法为基础,综合考虑页岩储层温度、储层压力、成熟度、水、油对吸附程度与最大吸附能力的影响,以及温度、压力、孔隙度与含水饱和度对确定游离气量的影响,对三组页岩储层含气性进行评价,并以三组页岩储层压力作为起始压力,以5 MPa的降压幅度进行降压生产模拟,在分别阐明降压生产中吸附、游离气产出过程的基础上,揭示中美常压页岩气产量差异的根本原因：国内五峰组—龙马溪组页岩相比于阿巴拉契亚盆地Marcellus组页岩吸附能力较弱,吸附气量较低,游离气含量较低,导致总产气量也明显较低;而相比于Ohio组页岩,常压的五峰组—龙马溪组页岩埋深大,温度、压力高,由此造成吸附气采出程度极低,含气孔隙度略低导致游离气采出程度较低,二者综合导致总产气量也明显较低。

关键词: 常压页岩气, 赋存状态, 含气性, 页岩气产量, 五峰组—龙马溪组页岩, 美国页岩

Abstract:

Normal pressure shale gas plays such as the Ohio Formation Shale and Marcellus Formation Shale in the Appalachian Basin in the U.S. have been developed commercially. Although Wufeng-Longmaxi Shale in southeast Sichuan Basin in China has been initially developed, its production efficiency is not obvious and its cost is high due to the large burial depth and poor reservoir properties physical properties. In the normal pressure shale gas formation, the absolute pressure changes at different depths, which influences the gas occurrence state, and then has a significant influence on gas content and mobility. Therefore, it is urgent to carry out quantitative research on the differences of normal pressure shale gas reservoir conditions, gas occurrence state, gas content and mobility between China and the US. In this study, the Wufeng-Longmaxi shales of Well-LY1 in Pengshui of China and the Marcellus shale and Ohio Shale of Appalachian Basin in the United States are selected as the research objects under normal pressure. Based on the volume method, and with the considering of the influence of the temperature, pressure, maturity, water and oil on the adsorption capability and maximum adsorption capacity, and the temperature and pressure, porosity and water saturation on the determination of free gas volume, the gas content of three groups of shale reservoirs is evaluated. The reservoir pressures are considered as the initial pressures and the simulation are conducted based on a pressure drop of 5 MPa. On the basis of clarifying the desorption process of adsorption and free gas in the depressurized production respectively, the fundamental cause of the difference in normal pressure shale gas production between China and the U.S. is revealed. Compared to the Marcellus Shale in Appalachian Basin, the lower adsorption capacity, porosity and free gas of the Wufeng-Longmaxi shales result in low production of adsorbed gas and free gas. However, compared to the shale of the Ohio Formation, the deeper burial, higher temperature and higher pressure in the Wufeng-Longmaxi shales result in the extremely low recovery rate of adsorbed gas. Its lower porosity also contributes to the lower free gas production.

Key words: normal pressure shale gas, occurrence state, gas content, shale gas production, Wufeng-Longmaxi shale, U.S. Shales

中图分类号:

TE122

蒋恕,李醇,陈国辉,郭彤楼,吴聿元,何希鹏,高玉巧,张培先. 中美常压页岩气赋存状态及其对可动性与产量的影响——以彭水和阿巴拉契亚为例[J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2022, 12(3): 399-406.

JIANG Shu,LI Chun,CHEN Guohui,GUO Tonglou,WU Yuyuan,HE Xipeng,GAO Yuqiao,ZHANG Peixian. Occurrence of normally-pressured shale gas in China and the United States and their effects on mobility and production: A case study of southeast Sichuan Basin and Appalachia Basin[J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2022, 12(3): 399-406.

图/表 12

表1

图1

图2

图3

图4

图5

图6

图7

图8

图9

图10

图11

参考文献 21

[1]	郭彤楼, 蒋恕, 张培先, 等. 四川盆地外围常压页岩气勘探开发进展与攻关方向[J]. 石油实验地质, 2020, 42(5):837-845.
	GUO Tonglou, JIANG Shu, ZHANG Peixian, et al. Progress and direction of exploration and development of normally-pressured shale gas from the periphery of Sichuan Basin[J]. Petroleum Geology & Experiment, 2020, 42(5): 837-845.
[2]	LANCASTER D E, GULDRY F K, GRAHAM R L, et al. A case study of the evaluations completion’ and testing of a devonian shale gas well[J]. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1989, 41(5): 509-518. doi: 10.2118/17037-PA
[3]	GUO C H, XU J C, WU K L, et al. Study on gas flow through nano pores of shale gas reservoirs[J]. Fuel, 2015, 143: 107-117. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2014.11.032
[4]	DARABI H, ETTEHAD A, JAVADPOUR F, et al. Gas flow in ultra-tight shale strata[J]. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 2012, 710(12): 641-658. doi: 10.1017/jfm.2012.424
[5]	SMITH T H. Temperature and pressure controls on the fractured Devonian shale gas play of the Appalachian Basin, Ohio Geological Society: Major natural gas plays of the Appalachian Basin[C]// Paper presented at the October 1994 Ohio Geological Society Second Annual Technical Symposium: “Major Natural Gas Plays of the Appalachian Basin of Ohio and Surrounding Areas”, Canton, Ohio, USA, October 1994.
[6]	JAVADPOUR F, FISHER D, UNSWORTH M. Nanoscale gas flow in shale gas sediments[J]. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 2007, 46(10): 55-61.
[7]	HAO F, ZOU H Y, LU Y C. Mechanisms of shale gas storage: Implications for shale gas exploration in China[J]. AAPG Bulletin, 2013, 97(8): 1325-1346. doi: 10.1306/02141312091
[8]	HU Q H, LIU X G, GAO Z Y, et al. Pore structure and tracer migration behavior of typical American and Chinese shales[J]. Petroleum Science, 2015, 12(4): 651-663. doi: 10.1007/s12182-015-0051-8
[9]	邹才能, 董大忠, 杨桦, 等. 中国页岩气形成条件及勘探实践[J]. 天然气工业, 2011, 31(12):26-39.
	ZOU Caineng, DONG Dazhong, YANG Hua, et al. Conditions of shale gas accumulation and exploration practices in China[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2011, 31(12): 26-39.
[10]	李建忠, 李登华, 董大忠, 等. 中美页岩气成藏条件、分布特征差异研究与启示[J]. 中国工程科学, 2012, 14(6):56-63.
	LI Jianzhong, LI Denghua, DONG Dazhong, et al. Comparison and enlightenment on formation condition and distribution characteristics of shale gas between China and U.S.[J]. Strategic Study of CAE, 2012, 14(6): 56-63.
[11]	万玉金, 李熙喆, 卢斌, 等. Fayetteville页岩气开发实践与启示[J]. 天然气地球科学, 2019, 30(11):1655-1666.
	WAN Yujin, LI Xizhe, LU Bin, et al. The development of Fayetteville shale play and its implications[J]. Natural Gas Geoscience, 2019, 30(11): 1655-1666.
[12]	郭彤楼. 中国式页岩气关键地质问题与成藏富集主控因素[J]. 石油勘探与开发, 2016, 43(3):317-326.
	GUO Tonglou. Key geological issues and main controls on accumulation and enrichment of Chinese shale gas[J]. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2016, 43(3): 317-326.
[13]	SHUMAKER R C. A detailed geologic study of three fractured Devonian shale gas fields in the Appalachian Basin[C]// Paper SPE-10791-MS presented at the SPE Unconventional Gas Recovery Symposium, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, May 1982.
[14]	曾凡武. 彭水地区五峰组—龙马溪组页岩气富集主控因素[J]. 中国煤炭地质, 2016, 28(11):25-29.
	ZENG Fanwu. Main controlling factors of shale gas enrichment in Pengshui Area Wufeng, Longmaxi Formations[J]. Coal Geology of China, 2016, 28(11): 25-29.
[15]	何希鹏, 王运海, 王彦祺, 等. 渝东南盆缘转换带常压页岩气勘探实践[J]. 中国石油勘探, 2020, 25(1):126-136.
	HE Xipeng, WANG Yunhai, WANG Yanqi, et al. Exploration practices of normal-pressure shale gas in the marginal transition zone of the southeast Sichuan Basin[J]. China Petroleum Exploration, 2020, 25(1): 126-136.
[16]	NUTTAL B C, EBLE C, BUSTIN R M, et al. Analysis of Devonian black shales in Kentucky for potential carbon dioxide sequestration and enhanced natural gas production[C]// Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies 5, Vancouver, Canada, September 2004.
[17]	FRUHNE K H, MERCER J C. Fractured shale gas reservoir performance study: An offset well interference field test[J]. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1984, 36(2): 291-300. doi: 10.2118/11224-PA
[18]	方栋梁, 孟志勇. 页岩气富集高产主控因素分析——以四川盆地涪陵地区五峰组—龙马溪组一段页岩为例[J]. 石油实验地质, 2020, 42(1):37-41.
	FANG Dongliang, MENG Zhiyong. Main controlling factors of shale gas enrichment and high yield: a case study of Wufeng-Longmaxi formations in Fuling area, Sichuan Basin[J]. Petroleum Geology & Experiment, 2020, 42(1): 37-41.
[19]	颜彩娜, 金之钧, 赵建华, 等. 美国Marcellus页岩与中国南方龙马溪组页岩地质特征对比及启示[J]. 地质科技情报, 2016, 35(6):122-130.
	YAN Caina, JIN Zhijun, ZHAO Jianhua, et al. Comparison of Marcellus shale in United States and Longmaxi Formation shale in southern China[J]. Geological Science and Technology Information, 2016, 35(6): 122-130.
[20]	JARVIE D M, HILL R J, RUBLE T, et al. Unconventional shale-gas systems: The Mississippian Barnett Shale of north-central Texas as one model for thermogenic shale-gas assessment[J]. AAPG Bulletin, 2007, 91(4): 475-499. doi: 10.1306/12190606068
[21]	SCHEPERS K C, NUTTALL B, OUDINOT A, et al. Reservoir modeling and simulation of the Devonian gas shale of eastern Kentucky for enhanced gas recovery and CO₂ storage[C]// Paper SPE-126620-MS presented at the SPE International Conference on CO₂ Capture, Storage, and Utilization, San Diego, California, USA, November 2009.

页岩	深度（m）	压力系数	温度（℃）	压力（MPa）
五峰组— 龙马溪组	2 000 ~ 2 800	1.06	83.7 ~ 109.1	20.8 ~ 29.1
Ohio	700 ~ 1 300	0.58	21.5 ~ 41.3	4.5 ~ 8.3
Marcellus	1 500 ~ 2 800	0.93	47.9 ~ 90.8	13.6 ~ 25.3
Lewis	900 ~ 1 800	0.74	72.0 ~ 94.0	4.6 ~ 9.3

中美常压页岩气赋存状态及其对可动性与产量的影响——以彭水和阿巴拉契亚为例

Occurrence of normally-pressured shale gas in China and the United States and their effects on mobility and production: A case study of southeast Sichuan Basin and Appalachia Basin

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 21

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 10

[1]	姚红生, 王伟, 何希鹏, 郑永旺, 倪振玉. 南川复杂构造带常压页岩气地质工程一体化开发实践 [J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2023, 13(5): 537-547.
[2]	韩克宁, 王伟, 樊冬艳, 姚军, 罗飞, 杨灿. 基于产量递减与LSTM耦合的常压页岩气井产量预测 [J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2023, 13(5): 647-656.
[3]	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.
[4]	高照普. 鄂尔多斯盆地北缘什股壕气区盒2+3段沉积微相及其含气性研究 [J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2022, 12(2): 292-301.
[5]	王运海,任建华,陈祖华,梅俊伟,胡春锋,王伟,卢比. 常压页岩气田一体化效益开发及智能化评价 [J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2021, 11(4): 487-496.
[6]	胡春锋,梅俊伟,李仕钊,卢比,马军,钱劲. 四川盆地东部南川常压页岩气开发效果地质与工程因素分析 [J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2021, 11(4): 559-568.
[7]	何希鹏,高玉巧,何贵松,张培先,刘明,孙斌,汪凯明,周頔娜,任建华. 渝东南南川页岩气田地质特征及勘探开发关键技术 [J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2021, 11(3): 305-316.
[8]	杨怀成,夏苏疆,高启国,毛国扬. 常压页岩气全电动压裂装备及技术示范应用效果分析 [J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2021, 11(3): 348-355.
[9]	张国荣,王俊方,张龙富,陈士奎. 南川常压页岩气田高效开发关键技术进展 [J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2021, 11(3): 365-376.
[10]	彭勇民,龙胜祥,何希鹏,唐建信,聂海宽,高玉巧,薛冈,凡渝东,刘雨林. 彭水地区常压页岩气储层特征及有利区评价 [J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2020, 10(5): 12-19.
[11]	刘厚裕. 页岩气低密度三维地震勘探方法适应性评估分析 [J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2020, 10(5): 34-41.
[12]	岑涛,夏海帮,雷林. 渝东南常压页岩气压裂关键技术研究与应用 [J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2020, 10(5): 70-76.
[13]	段承琏,魏风玲,魏瑞玲,刘芳,刘静,吴小丁. 彭水区块常压页岩气高效排采技术研究 [J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2020, 10(1): 64-70.
[14]	方志雄. 中国南方常压页岩气勘探开发面临的挑战及对策 [J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2019, 9(5): 1-13.
[15]	郭彤楼. 页岩气勘探开发中的几个地质问题 [J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2019, 9(5): 14-19.