en
×

分享给微信好友或者朋友圈

使用微信“扫一扫”功能。
作者简介:

付广,男,1962年生。教授,博士生导师,从事油气藏形成与保存研究。E-mail:fuguang2008@126.com。

参考文献
Chen Wei, Wu Zhiping, Hou Feng, Kong Fei. 2010. Internal structures of fault zones and their relationship with hydrocarbon migration and accumulation. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 31(5): 774~780 (in Chinese with English abstract).
参考文献
Fu Guang, Liu Hongxia, Duan Haifeng. 2005. Seal mechanisms of different transporting passways of fault and their research methods. Petroleum Geology and Experiment, 27(4): 404~408+4 (in Chinese with English abstract).
参考文献
Fu Guang, Yang Mian, Lü Yanfang, Shi Jijian. 2013. A quantitative evaluation method for ancient lateral sealing of fault. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 34(S1): 78~83 (in Chinese with English abstract).
参考文献
Fu Guang, Zhang Bowei, Wu Wei. 2016. Mechanism and detection of regional mudstone caprock sealing oil and gas migration along transporting fault. Journal of China University of Petroleum (Edition of Natural Science), 40(3): 36~43 (in Chinese with English abstract).
参考文献
Fu Xiaofei, Fang Deqing, Lü Yanfang, Fu Guang, Sun Yonghe. 2005. Method of evaluating vertical sealing of faults in terms of the internal structure of fault zones. Earth Science—Journal of China University of Geosciences, 30(3): 328~336 (in Chinese with English abstract).
参考文献
Fu Xiaofei, Xu Peng, Wei Changzhu, Lü Yanfang. 2012. Internal structure of normal fault zone and hydrocarbon migration and conservation. Earth Science Frontiers, 19(6): 200~212 (in Chinese with English abstract).
参考文献
Fu Xiaofei, Xiao Jianhua, Meng Lingdong. 2014. Fault deformation mechanisms and internal structure characteristics of fault zone in pure sandstone. Journal of Jilin University (Earth Science Edition), 44(1): 25~37 (in Chinese with English abstract).
参考文献
Jiang Weidong, Hu Chunming. 2005. Transporting passages of overthrust falts and their transporting gas characteristics in Kuche depression. Xinjiang Oil & Gas, 1(1): 23~29 (in Chinese with English abstract).
参考文献
Jiang Zhenxue, Pang Xiongqi, Huang Zhilong. 2000. A method for studying the oil and gas migration stages in superposed basin and its application. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 27(4): 22~25 (in Chinese with English abstract).
参考文献
Liu Tao, Zhang Hongbing, Xu Zijiang, Dan Zhiwei, Wu Qilin, Song Peng. 2018. Analysis of the conditions of faults as the dominant channel of oil and gas migration: a case study of Zhuyi West area. Periodical of Ocean University of China, 48(2): 73~78 (in Chinese with English abstract).
参考文献
Luo Qun. 2011. Transporting and sealing capacity of fault belt and its controlling on reservoir. Petroleum Geology and Experiment, 33(5): 474~479 (in Chinese with English abstract).
参考文献
Luo Shengyuan, He Sheng, Wang Hao. 2012. Review on fault internal structure and the influence on fault sealing ability. Advances in Earth Sciences, 27(2): 154~164 (in Chinese with English abstract).
参考文献
Sun Tongwen, Fu Guang, Lü Yanfang, Zhao Rong. 2012. A discussion on fault conduit fluid mechanism and fault conduit form. Geological Review, 58(6): 1081~1090 (in Chinese with English abstract).
参考文献
Sun Tongwen, Wang Wei, Gao Huajuan, Lü Yanfang, Fu Guang. 2017. Research progress of fault-sandbody coupling lateral shunt oil and gas. Progress in Geophysics, 32(5): 2071~2077 (in Chinese with English abstract).
参考文献
Wang Shengzhu, Wu Qianqian, Song Meiyuan, Yu Hongzhou, Zhang Guanlong. 2018. Quantitative evaluation of the transportation of fault zone and its controlling effect on hydrocarbon migration and accumulation: case study of Hala'alat Mountain tectonic belt in the north margin of Junggar Basin. Natural Gas Geoscience, 29(11): 1559~1567 (in Chinese with English abstract).
参考文献
Wu Guoping, Su Jiangyu, Cheng Shi, Huang Jingzhi. 2008. A method for obtaining shaliness using wiener filtering based on logging data natural gamma ray. Earth Science (Journal of China University of Geosciences), 33(4): 572~576 (in Chinese with English abstract).
参考文献
Wu Zhiping, Chen Wei, Xue Yan, Song Guoqi, Liu Huimin. 2010. Structural characteristics of faulting zone and its ability in transporting and sealing oil and gas. Acta Geologica Sinica, 84(4): 570~578 (in Chinese with English abstract).
参考文献
Yielding G, Freeman B, Needham D T. 1997. Quantitative fault seal prediction. AAPG Bulletin, 81(6): 898~915.
参考文献
Zhang Bowei, Fu Guang, Zhang Juhe, Chen Xueqing, Lan Jingjing, Hu Xinlei. 2017. Analysis on the different sealing conditions required by mudstone caprock at different fault evolution stages: a case study on the 1st Member of Qingshankou Formation in the Sanzhao Depression and 2nd Member of Dongying Formation in the structure No. 5 of the Nanpu Sag. Oil & Gas Geology, 38(1): 22~28 (in Chinese with English abstract).
参考文献
陈伟, 吴智平, 侯峰, 孔菲. 2010. 断裂带内部结构特征及其与油气运聚关系. 石油学报, 31(5): 774~780.
参考文献
付广, 刘洪霞, 段海风. 2005. 断层不同输导通道封闭机理及其研究方法. 石油实验地质, 27(4): 404~408+4.
参考文献
付广, 杨勉, 吕延防, 史集建. 2013. 断层古侧向封闭性定量评价方法及其应用. 石油学报, 34(S1): 78~83.
参考文献
付广, 张博为, 吴伟. 2016. 区域性泥岩盖层阻止油气沿输导断裂运移机制及其判别方法. 中国石油大学学报(自然科学版), 40(3): 36~43.
参考文献
付晓飞, 方德庆, 吕延防, 付广, 孙永河. 2005. 从断裂带内部结构出发评价断层垂向封闭性的方法. 地球科学——中国地质大学学报, 30(3): 328~336.
参考文献
付晓飞, 许鹏, 魏长柱, 吕延防. 2012. 张性断裂带内部结构特征及油气运移和保存研究. 地学前缘, 19(6): 200~212.
参考文献
付晓飞, 肖建华, 孟令东. 2014. 断裂在纯净砂岩中的变形机制及断裂带内部结构. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 44(1): 25~37.
参考文献
蒋维东, 胡春明. 2005. 库车坳陷逆掩断裂输导通道及输导天然气特征. 新疆石油天然气, 1(1): 23~29.
参考文献
姜振学, 庞雄奇, 黄志龙. 2000. 叠合盆地油气运聚期次研究方法及应用. 石油勘探与开发, 27(4): 22~25.
参考文献
刘涛, 张宏兵, 许自强, 但志伟, 吴其林, 宋鹏. 2018. 断裂作为油气运移优势通道的条件分析——以珠一西地区为例. 中国海洋大学学报(自然科学版), 48(2): 73~78.
参考文献
罗群. 2011. 断裂带的输导与封闭性及其控藏特征. 石油实验地质, 33(5): 474~479.
参考文献
罗胜元, 何生, 王浩. 2012. 断层内部结构及其对封闭性的影响. 地球科学进展, 27(2): 154~164.
参考文献
孙同文, 付广, 吕延防, 赵荣. 2012. 断裂输导流体的机制及输导形式探讨. 地质论评, 58(6): 1081~1090.
参考文献
孙同文, 王伟, 高华娟, 吕延防, 付广. 2017. 断裂-砂体耦合侧向分流油气研究进展. 地球物理学进展, 32(5): 2071~2077.
参考文献
王圣柱, 吴倩倩, 宋梅远, 于洪洲, 张关龙. 2018. 断裂带内部结构及其对油气运聚的控制作用——以准噶尔盆地北缘哈山构造带为例. 天然气地球科学, 29(11): 1559~1567.
参考文献
吴国平, 苏江玉, 成实, 黄婧芝. 2008. 基于自然伽马测井信号的维纳滤波法求取泥质含量. 地球科学(中国地质大学学报), 33(4): 572~576.
参考文献
吴智平, 陈伟, 薛雁, 宋国奇, 刘惠民. 2010. 断裂带的结构特征及其对油气的输导和封堵性. 地质学报, 84(4): 570~578.
参考文献
张博为, 付广, 张居和, 陈雪晴, 兰晶晶, 胡欣蕾. 2017. 沿不同时期断裂运移的油气被泥岩盖层封闭所需条件的差异性——以三肇凹陷青一段和南堡凹陷5号构造东二段为例. 石油与天然气地质, 38(1): 22~28.
目录contents

    摘要

    为了研究含油气盆地下生上储式受断裂控制油气分布规律,在断裂输导向遮挡油气转换时期及其与油气运聚成藏之间关系研究的基础上,通过确定断裂在盖层内填充物排替压力随时间变化关系和盖层之下储层岩石排替压力随时间变化关系,取二者相等时所对应时期,建立了一套断裂输导向遮挡油气转换时期的厘定方法,并将其应用于渤海湾盆地南堡凹陷老爷庙构造F5断裂在东营组二段输导向遮挡油气转换时期的厘定中。结果表明:东营组一段沉积末期F5断裂在东二段输导向遮挡油气转换时期早于沙河街组三段和一段源岩大量排烃期,不利于沙三段和沙一段源岩生成的油气在东二段运聚成藏;明化镇组下段沉积末期F5断裂输导油气时期晚于沙三段和沙一段源岩大量排烃期,且至今未向遮挡油气时期转换,更不利于沙三段和沙一段源岩生成的油气在东二段运聚成藏。这与目前老爷庙构造东二段仅在构造高部位找到油气,而在构造低部位未找到油气相吻合。表明该方法用于厘定断裂输导向遮挡油气转换时期是可行的。

    Abstract

    In order to study the distribution law of hydrocarbons controlled by faults in the lower source and upper reservoir type of petroliferous basins, a set of determination methods for the conversion period from fault transport to obstruction oil and gas was established. The method was derived based on (i) the study of the conversion period from fault transport to obstruction oil and gas, (ii) its relationship with hydrocarbon migration and accumulation, and (iii) by determining the relationship between the displacement pressure of fault filler in the caprock and that of reservoir rock under the caprock with time, and considering the period when the two were equal. The new method was then used to determine the conversion period from transport to obstruction oil and gas of the F5 fault in the 2nd member of the Dongying Formation in the Laoyemiao structure of the Nanpu Sag, Bohai Bay Basin. The results show that the conversion period from transport to obstruction oil and gas of the F5 fault in the 2nd member of the Dongying Formation is earlier than the period of massive hydrocarbon expulsion from the source rocks of the 3rd member of the Shahejie Formation and the 1st member of the Shahejie Formation at the late period of sedimentation of the 1st member of the Dongying Formation. This is not conducive to the migration and accumulation of oil and gas generated from the source rocks of the 3rd member of the Shahejie Formation and the 1st member of the Shahejie Formation in the 2nd member of the Dongying Formation. In the late period of sedimentation of the lower member of the Minghuazhen Formation, the oil and gas transport period of the F5 fault is later than the period of massive hydrocarbon expulsion from the source rocks of the 3rd member of the Shahejie Formation and the 1st member of the Shahejie Formation, and it has not been converted to the period of sealing oil and gas so far. This is even more unfavorable for the migration and accumulation of oil and gas generated from the source rocks of the 3rd member of the Shahejie Formation and the 1st member of the Shahejie Formation in the 2nd member of the Dongying Formation. The results are coincident with the fact that the oil and gas in the 2nd member of the Dongying Formation of the Laoyemiao structure has only been found in the high part of the structure, but not in the low part of the structure. It suggests that the method is feasible to be applied in determining the conversion period from fault transport to obstruction oil and gas.

  • 油气勘探实践表明,断裂在油气成藏中既可以对油气运移起到输导作用,又可对油气聚集起到遮挡作用,使油气在断裂附近聚集分布,只是二者所发生的时期不同而已。那么断裂什么时期可对油气运移起输导作用?又是什么时期开始对油气聚集起遮挡作用?这一直是断裂在含油气盆地油气成藏中所起作用研究的热点问题,也是被争论的问题之一。

  • 关于断裂输导和遮挡油气时期,目前主要研究观点认为断裂在活动时期伴生有大量裂缝形成,这些伴生裂缝较围岩地层具有相对较高的孔渗性,可作为油气运移的输导通道(Fu Xiaofei et al.,20052012; Chen Wei et al.,2010; Wu Zhiping et al.,2010; Luo Qun,2011; Sun Tongwen et al.,2012; Liu Tao et al.,2018; Wang Shengzhu et al.,2018),此时期断裂可对油气运移起输导作用; 而当断裂停止活动后,在上覆沉积荷载重量、区域主压应力和地下水携带矿物质沉淀胶结等作用下,断裂伴生裂缝紧闭愈合,失去输导油气能力,断裂开始封闭,对油气聚集形成遮挡(Fu Guang et al.,2005; Jiang Weidong et al.,2005; Luo Shengyuan et al.,2012; Fu Xiaofei et al.,2014; Sun Tongwen et al.,2017; Zhang Bowei et al.,2017),此时期断裂对油气聚集起遮挡作用。上述这些研究成果通常是将断裂停止活动时期作为断裂输导向遮挡油气的转换时期,这对研究断裂输导油气时期起到了一定的作用。

  • 然而,断裂停止活动后,断裂并非立即对油气运移失去输导能力。虽然断裂伴生裂缝在上覆沉积荷载重量和区域主压应力作用下可以紧闭愈合,失去输导油气能力,但此时期断裂填充物尚未压实成岩,还具有一定的孔渗性,仍可通过孔隙输导油气,断裂对油气运移仍可起到输导作用。由此看出,以往将断裂停止活动时期作为断裂输导向遮挡油气转换时期不符合地下实际,可能人为地缩短了断裂输导油气时期,放大了断裂遮挡油气时期,造成对油气运聚规律认识出现偏差,给油气勘探带来一定风险。因此,开展断裂输导向遮挡油气转换时期厘定方法研究,对于正确认识含油气盆地断裂在油气成藏中所起作用和指导油气勘探均具重要意义。

  • 1 断裂输导向遮挡油气转换时期及其与油气运聚成藏的关系

  • 断裂活动时期,由于断裂伴生裂缝的形成,不仅因其孔渗性好于围岩地层,可成为油气向上输导的有利通道,而且因其形成造成了断裂带内地层孔隙流体压力释放降低,使断裂带与围岩地层之间产生了地层孔隙流体压力差,围岩地层孔隙中的油气在此地层孔隙流体压力差的作用下向断裂伴生裂缝中运移,进入到断裂伴生裂缝中的油气仍会在其剩余地层孔隙流体压力差的作用下沿断裂向上输导运移,此时期断裂对油气运移起着输导作用(图1中a时期)。当断裂停止活动后,由于受上覆沉积荷载重量和区域主压应力的作用,断裂伴生裂缝紧闭愈合失去输导能力,已不再是断裂输导油气的通道,但此时期断裂并没有失去输导作用,因为此时期断裂填充物尚未压实成岩,仍然具有一定的孔渗性,虽然断裂填充物孔隙输导油气能力相对伴生裂缝要弱,但仍可输导一定量的油气,此时期还应为断裂输导油气时期(图1中b时期)。只有当断裂填充物压实成岩程度增加,其孔渗性降低到一定程度后,其排替压力开始等于盖层之下储层岩石排替压力时,断裂输导油气作用才开始停止,此时期断裂对油气运移已不起输导作用,而起遮挡作用(图1中c时期)。

  • 图1中b与c之间分界时期应为断裂输导向遮挡油气转换时期,即断裂在盖层内填充物排替压力(因其孔渗性最差,最能反映整条断裂输导油气能力)和盖层之下储层岩石排替压力相等时所对应的时期。如图2中t c所示,t c之前断裂活动时期a和断裂停止活动至开始遮挡时期b合起来为断裂输导油气时期; t c之后为断裂遮挡油气时期c。

  • 断裂输导向遮挡油气转换时期只有与源岩大量排烃期合理配置时,才有利于油气运移和聚集(图3)。由图3可以看出,只有断裂输导向遮挡油气转换时期与源岩大量排烃期同期,断裂才既可以输导大量油气,又可以封闭大量油气,有利于油气运聚成藏(图3a); 反之,断裂输导向遮挡油气转换时期早于或晚于源岩大量排烃期,均不利于油气运聚成藏(图3b、c)。

  • 2 断裂输导向遮挡油气转换时期厘定方法

  • 由上可知,要厘定断裂输导向遮挡油气转换时期,就必须确定出断裂在盖层内填充物排替压力随时间变化关系和盖层之下储层岩石排替压力随时间变化关系,取二者相等时所对应的时期,即为断裂输导向遮挡油气转换时期。

  • 图1 断裂输导向遮挡油气转换过程中断裂带及输导能力演化特征示意图

  • Fig.1 Schematic of evolution characteristics of fault zone and transport capacity during the conversion period from fault transport to obstruction oil and gas

  • P c—储层岩石排替压力; P f—断裂填充物排替压力; a—断裂活动时期; b—断裂停止活动至开始遮挡时期; c—断裂遮挡时期

  • P c—Displacement pressure of reservoir rock; P f—displacement pressure of fault filler; a—period of fault activity; b—period from the stopping of fault activity to the beginning of sealing; c—period of fault sealing

  • 由于受到钻井和取芯的影响,目前难以利用钻井取芯和测试样品的方法获取断裂在盖层内填充物排替压力随时间变化关系,只能借助于间接方法。假设断裂填充物为倾置于围岩中的岩层,其物质成分主要来自断层两盘被错断地层岩石,断裂填充物排替压力同围岩一样也主要受到其压实埋深与泥质含量的影响,即断裂填充物泥质含量越高、压实埋深越大,断裂填充物排替压力越大; 反之,断裂填充物排替压力越小。据此可知,只要确定出断裂填充物泥质含量,按照文献(Fu Guang et al.,2013)中围岩实测排替压力与其压实埋深及质量含量之间关系,便可以得到断裂填充物排替压力与其压实埋深之间关系。首先利用断裂在盖层内断距和被其错断地层岩层厚度和泥质含量(可利用自然伽马测井值,由文献(Wu Guoping et al.,2008)中泥质含量的计算方法求得),由式1(Yielding et al.,1997)计算断裂在盖层内填充物泥质含量,将计算结果代入研究区利用围岩实测排替压力与其压实埋深和泥质含量之间关系所建立的经验公式(2)中,得到与断裂在盖层内填充物具有相同泥质含量围岩排替压力随其压实埋深变化关系; 然后将该变化关系由围岩停止沉积时期(t s)移至断裂填充物开始压实时期(t 0),作为断裂在盖层内填充物排替压力随其压实埋深变化关系; 最后利用地层古埋深恢复方法(Jiang Zhenxue et al.,2000)恢复断裂填充物古压实埋深,便可以得到断裂在盖层内填充物排替压力随时间变化关系(图4)。

  • 图2 断裂输导向遮挡油气转换时期厘定示意图

  • Fig.2 Schematic for the determination of the conversion period from fault transport to obstruction oil and gas

  • P c—储层岩石排替压力; P f—断裂填充物排替压力; a—断裂活动时期; b—断裂停止活动至开始遮挡时期; c—断裂遮挡时期; t c—断裂输导向遮挡油气转换时期

  • P c—Displacement pressure of reservoir rock; P f—displacement pressure of fault filler; a—period of fault activity; b—period from the stopping of fault activity to the beginning of sealing; c—period of fault sealing; t c—the conversion period from fault transport to obstruction oil and gas

  • Rf=i=1n HiRiL
    (1)
  • 式中,R f 为断裂填充物泥质含量(%); Hi为被断裂错断第i层岩层厚度(m); Ri为被断裂错断第i层岩层泥质含量(%); L为断裂断距(m); n为被断裂错断岩层层数。

  • Ps=aZsRs100b
    (2)
  • 式中,P s为围岩实测排替压力(MPa); Z s为围岩压实埋深(m); R s为围岩泥质含量(%); a、b为与地区有关的常数。

  • 由于受钻井和取芯的限制,盖层之下储层岩石未必进行岩石排替压力测试,故也只能利用计算方法建立储层岩石排替压力随时间变化关系。利用自然伽马测井资料,由岩层泥质含量计算方法(Wu Guoping et al.,2008),求得盖层之下储层岩石的泥质含量; 将求取结果代入利用研究区储层岩石实测排替压力与其压实埋深和泥质含量之间关系所建立的经验公式(3)中,得到盖层之下储层岩石排替压力随其压实埋深变化关系; 利用地层古埋深恢复方法(Jiang Zhenxue et al.,2000)恢复盖层之下储层岩石古压实埋深,便可以得到盖层之下储层岩石排替压力随时间变化关系(图2)。

  • 图3 断裂输导向遮挡油气转换时期与油气运聚成藏关系示意图

  • Fig.3 Schematic of the relationship between the conversion period from fault transport to obstruction oil and gas and hydrocarbon migration and accumulation

  • (a)—既有利于油气运移,又有利于油气聚集;(b)—有利于油气运移,但不利于油气聚集;(c)—不利于油气运移,但有利于油气聚集

  • (a) —It is not only conducive to oil and gas migration, but also conducive to oil and gas accumulation; (b) —it is conducive to oil and gas migration, but not conducive to oil and gas accumulation; (c) —it is not conducive to oil and gas migration, but is conducive to oil and gas accumulation

  • Pc=cedZcRc
    (3)
  • 图4 断裂填充物排替压力随时间变化关系

  • Fig.4 Relationship between the displacement pressure of fault filler and the time

  • P s—围岩排替压力; P f—断裂填充物排替压力; t s—围岩停止沉积时期; t 0—断裂停止活动时期

  • P s—Displacement pressure of surrounding rock; P f—displacement pressure of fault filler; t s—the period when the surrounding rock stopped depositing; t 0—the period of fault stopping activity

  • 式中,P c为储层岩石实测排替压力(MPa); Z c为储层岩石压实埋深(m); R c为储层岩石泥质含量(%); c、d为与地区有关的常数。

  • 取上述断裂在盖层内填充物排替压力与盖层之下储层岩石排替压力相等时所对应的时期,即为断裂输导向遮挡油气转换时期(图2)。

  • 3 实例应用

  • 本文选取渤海湾盆地南堡凹陷老爷庙构造F5断裂作为应用实例,利用上述方法厘定其在东二段内输导向遮挡油气转换时期,并通过厘定结果与目前F5断裂附近东二段内已发现油气之间关系分析,验证该方法用于厘定断裂输导向遮挡油气转换时期的可行性。

  • 老爷庙构造是一个位于南堡凹陷中北部的受断裂控制的北北东向背斜构造,面积约为150 km2。该构造从下至上发育的地层有古近系、新近系和第四系,其中古近系有孔店组、沙河街组和东营组,新近系有馆陶组和明化镇组。目前老爷庙构造在东二段内已发现了大量油气,油源对比结果表明,其油气主要来自下伏沙三段和沙一段源岩,为下生上储式生储盖组合。F5断裂是位于老爷庙构造中部的一条北北东向正断裂,平面延伸长度约为12.18 km(图5a)。该断裂剖面上向南倾斜,倾角为50°~72°,断距为0~115 m,从基底一直向上断至明化镇组上段顶部(图5b)。由图5b可以看出,F5断裂连接了沙三段和沙一段源岩以及东二段目的储层,且在油气成藏期——明化镇组沉积中晚期(Zhang Bowei et al.,2017)活动,应是东二段的油源断裂。F5断裂在向上输导沙三段和沙一段源岩生成油气的过程中,由于受到东二段泥岩盖层的阻挡(Fu Guang et al.,2016),便向东二段泥岩盖层之下砂体中发生侧向分流运移。然而,目前F5断裂附近东二段已发现油气有限,主要分布在构造高部位,低部位无油气发现,这除了受到构造的控制外,主要是受到F5断裂在东二段内输导向遮挡油气转换时期相对早晚的控制。只有F5断裂在东二段内输导向遮挡油气转换时期与沙三段和沙一段源岩大量排烃期合理配置时,才有利于油气聚集与保存。因此,能否准确地厘定出F5断裂在东二段输导向遮挡油气转换时期,对于正确认识F5断裂在老爷庙构造东二段油气成藏中所起作用和其附近油气分布规律至关重要。

  • 由图5b可知,老爷庙构造F5断裂从基底一直断至明化镇组上段顶部,表明其是一条长期活动的断裂。由断裂生长指数计算结果可以看出,F5断裂主要在沙二、三段(约45.5~31.0 Ma)、东一段(约25.3~23.8 Ma)和明化镇组下段(约5.32~2.58 Ma)沉积时期活动(图6)。由图7可以看出,老爷庙构造沙三段和沙一段源岩在东二段沉积末期开始向外排烃,在馆陶组沉积晚期达到排烃高峰期,至今仍在向外排烃。F5断裂只在东一段和明化镇组下段沉积时期可以输导沙三段和沙一段源岩生成排出的油气。

  • 将F5断裂在东二段泥岩盖层内断距(49.32 m)和被其错断东二段泥岩盖层各岩层厚度与其泥质含量乘积的和(21.21 m)代入公式(1)中进行计算,得到F5断裂在东二段泥岩盖层内断裂填充物泥质含量约为0.43,把该计算结果代入到南堡凹陷围岩实测排替压力与其压实埋深和泥质含量之间经验关系公式(4)中,得到与断裂填充物具有相同泥质含量围岩排替压力随压实埋深变化关系; 将该变化关系由围岩停止沉积时期(25.3 Ma)分别移至东一段沉积末期(23.8 Ma)和明化镇组下段沉积末期(2.58 Ma)断裂填充物开始压实成岩时期(因沙二、三段沉积时期,F5断裂活动时,东二段尚未沉积,不能输导油气,故不必进行研究),分别作为东一段沉积末期和明化镇组下段沉积末期断裂填充物排替压力随压实埋深变化关系; 通过恢复断裂填充物古压实埋深,便可以得到东一段沉积末期和明化镇组下段沉积末期断裂填充物排替压力随时间变化关系(图8)。

  • 图5 渤海湾地老爷庙构造油气分布与F5断裂关系

  • Fig.5 Relationship between the oil and gas distribution and the F5 fault in Laoyemiao structure, Bohai basin

  • (a)—平面图;(b)—剖面图; Ek —孔店组; Es3—沙三段; Es2—沙二段; Es1—沙一段; Ed 3—东三段; Ed 2—东二段; Ed 1—东一段; Ng—馆陶组; Nm —明化镇组

  • (a) —Plan view; (b) —section view; Ek —Kongdian Formation; Es3—the 3rd member of Shahejie Formation; Es2—the 2nd member of Shahejie Formation; Es1—the 1st member of Shahejie Formation; Ed 3—the 3rd member of Dongying Formation; Ed 2—the 2nd member of Dongying Formation; Ed 1—the 1st member of Dongying Formation; Ng—Guantao Formation; Nm —Minghuazhen Formation

  • 图6 渤海湾盆地老爷庙F5断裂在不同层位生长指数分布

  • Fig.6 Distribution of growth index of the F5 fault in different layers in Laoyemiao, Bohai basin

  • Es 2+3—沙二、三段; Es1—沙一段; Ed 2—东二段; Ed 1—东一段; Ng —馆陶组; NmL—明化镇组下段; NmU—明化镇组上段; Q—第四系

  • Es 2+3—The 2nd and 3rd member of Shahejie Formation; Es1—the 1st member of Shahejie Formation; Ed 2—the 2nd member of Dongying Formation; Ed 1—the 1st member of Dongying Formation; Ng —Guantao Formation; NmL—the lower Member of Minghuazhen Formation; NmU—the upper Member of Minghuazhen Formation; Q—Quaternary

  • Ps=0.031ZsRs1001.507
    (4)
  • 式中,P s为南堡凹陷围岩实测排替压力(MPa); Z s为南堡凹陷围岩压实埋深(m); R s为南堡凹陷围岩泥质含量(%)。

  • 由自然伽马测井资料,按照岩层泥质含量计算方法(Wu Guoping et al.,2008),求得东二段砂岩储层泥质含量约为0.17,将该结果代入到南堡凹陷砂岩储层实测排替压力与其压实埋深和泥质含量之间经验关系公式(5)中,得到东二段砂岩储层排替压力随压实埋深变化关系,通过恢复东二段砂岩储层古压实埋深,可以得到东二段砂岩储层排替压力随时间变化关系(图8)。

  • Pc=0.0593e1.662×10-3ZcRc
    (5)
  • 式中,P c为南堡凹陷储层岩石实测排替压力(MPa); Z c为南堡凹陷储层岩石压实埋深(m); R c为南堡凹陷储层岩石泥质含量(%)。

  • 由东一段沉积末期和明化镇组下段沉积末期断裂填充物排替压力随时间变化关系与东二段砂岩储层排替压力随时间变化关系,可以得到在东一段沉积末期二者相等时期约为20.1 Ma,即F5断裂在东二段内输导向遮挡油气转换时期约为20.1 Ma; 在明化镇组下段沉积末期断裂填充物至今尚未形成封闭,即F5断裂在输导,还没有向遮挡转换(图8)。

  • 由图7可以看出,老爷庙构造东一段沉积末期F5断裂在东二段内输导向遮挡油气转换时期早于沙三段和沙一段源岩大量排烃期,不利于沙三段和沙一段源岩生成的油气在东二段运聚成藏; 明化镇组下段沉积末期F5断裂输导油气时期晚于沙三段和沙一段源岩大量排烃期,且至今未向遮挡转换,更不利于沙三段和沙一段源岩生成的油气在东二段运聚成藏。这可能是造成目前老爷庙构造东二段仅在构造高部位找到油气,而构造低部位未找到油气的根本原因(图5a)。

  • 图7 渤海湾盆地老爷庙源岩排烃量与F5断裂在东二段输导向遮挡油气转换时期之间关系

  • Fig.7 Relationship between the hydrocarbon excretion from source rocks and the conversion period from transport to obstruction oil and gas of the F5 fault in the2nd member of Dongying Formation in Laoyemiao, Bohai basin

  • Es2+3—沙二、三段; Es1—沙一段; Ed 2—东二段; Ed 1—东一段; Ng —馆陶组; NmL—明化镇组下段; NmU—明化镇组上段; Q—第四系; t c1—东一段沉积末期断裂输导向遮挡油气转换时期

  • Es2+3—The 2nd and 3rd member of Shahejie Formation; Es1—the 1st member of Shahejie Formation; Ed 2—the 2nd member of Dongying Formation; Ed 1—the 1st member of Dongying Formation; Ng —Guantao Formation; NmL—the lower Member of Minghuazhen Formation; NmU—the upper Member of Minghuazhen Formation; Q—Quaternary; t c1—the conversion period from fault transport to obstruction oil and gas at the late period of sedimentation of the 1st member of Dongying Formation

  • 4 结论

  • (1)断裂输导向遮挡油气转换时期应为断裂在盖层内填充物排替压力与盖层之下储层岩石排替压力相等时所对应时期,只有其与源岩大量排烃期同期,才有利于油气运聚成藏; 否则不利于油气运聚成藏。

  • (2)通过确定断裂在盖层内填充物排替压力随时间变化关系和盖层之下储层岩石排替压力随时间变化关系,取二者相等时所对应时期,建立了一套断裂输导向遮挡油气转换时期的厘定方法,实例应用结果表明该方法用于厘定断裂输导向遮挡油气转换时期是可行的。

  • (3)渤海湾盆地南堡凹陷老爷庙构造在东一段沉积末期F5断裂在东二段输导向遮挡油气转换时期早于沙三段和沙一段源岩大量排烃期,不利于沙三段和沙一段源岩生成的油气在东二段运聚成藏; 明化镇组下段沉积末期F5断裂输导油气时期晚于沙三段和沙一段源岩大量排烃期,且至今未向遮挡油气时期转换,更不利于沙三段和沙一段源岩生成的油气在东二段运聚成藏。

  • 图8 渤海湾盆地老爷庙F5断裂在东二段输导向遮挡油气转换时期厘定

  • Fig.8 Determination of the conversion period from transport to obstruction oil and gas of the F5 fault in the2nd member of Dongying Formation of Laoyemiao Bohai basin

  • P s—与断裂填充物具相同泥质含量围岩排替压力; P c—东二段砂岩储层排替压力; P f1—东一段沉积末期断裂填充物排替压力; P f2—明化镇组下段沉积末期断裂填充物排替压力; t s—东二段围岩停止沉积时期; t 01—东一段沉积末期断裂停止活动时期; t 02—明化镇组下段沉积末期断裂停止活动时期; t c1—东一段沉积末期断裂输导向遮挡油气转换时期

  • P s—Displacement pressure of surrounding rock with the same shale content as the fault filler; P c—displacement pressure of reservoir rock of the 2nd member of Dongying Formation; P f1—displacement pressure of fault filler at the late period of sedimentation of the 1st member of Dongying Formation; P f2—displacement pressure of fault filler at the late period of sedimentation of the lower Member of Minghuazhen Formation; t s—the period when the surrounding rocks stop depositing of the 2nd member of Dongying Formation; t 01—the period when the faults stopped to be active at the late period of sedimentation of the 1st member of Dongying Formation; t 02—the period when the faults stopped to be active at the late period of sedimentation of the lower Member of Minghuazhen Formation; t c1—the conversion period from fault transport to obstruction oil and gas at the late period of sedimentation of the 1st member of Dongying Formation

  • (4)该方法适用于砂泥岩含油气盆地下生上储式断裂输导向遮挡油气转换时期的厘定。

  • 参考文献

    • Chen Wei, Wu Zhiping, Hou Feng, Kong Fei. 2010. Internal structures of fault zones and their relationship with hydrocarbon migration and accumulation. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 31(5): 774~780 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Fu Guang, Liu Hongxia, Duan Haifeng. 2005. Seal mechanisms of different transporting passways of fault and their research methods. Petroleum Geology and Experiment, 27(4): 404~408+4 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Fu Guang, Yang Mian, Lü Yanfang, Shi Jijian. 2013. A quantitative evaluation method for ancient lateral sealing of fault. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 34(S1): 78~83 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Fu Guang, Zhang Bowei, Wu Wei. 2016. Mechanism and detection of regional mudstone caprock sealing oil and gas migration along transporting fault. Journal of China University of Petroleum (Edition of Natural Science), 40(3): 36~43 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Fu Xiaofei, Fang Deqing, Lü Yanfang, Fu Guang, Sun Yonghe. 2005. Method of evaluating vertical sealing of faults in terms of the internal structure of fault zones. Earth Science—Journal of China University of Geosciences, 30(3): 328~336 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Fu Xiaofei, Xu Peng, Wei Changzhu, Lü Yanfang. 2012. Internal structure of normal fault zone and hydrocarbon migration and conservation. Earth Science Frontiers, 19(6): 200~212 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Fu Xiaofei, Xiao Jianhua, Meng Lingdong. 2014. Fault deformation mechanisms and internal structure characteristics of fault zone in pure sandstone. Journal of Jilin University (Earth Science Edition), 44(1): 25~37 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Jiang Weidong, Hu Chunming. 2005. Transporting passages of overthrust falts and their transporting gas characteristics in Kuche depression. Xinjiang Oil & Gas, 1(1): 23~29 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Jiang Zhenxue, Pang Xiongqi, Huang Zhilong. 2000. A method for studying the oil and gas migration stages in superposed basin and its application. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 27(4): 22~25 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Liu Tao, Zhang Hongbing, Xu Zijiang, Dan Zhiwei, Wu Qilin, Song Peng. 2018. Analysis of the conditions of faults as the dominant channel of oil and gas migration: a case study of Zhuyi West area. Periodical of Ocean University of China, 48(2): 73~78 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Luo Qun. 2011. Transporting and sealing capacity of fault belt and its controlling on reservoir. Petroleum Geology and Experiment, 33(5): 474~479 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Luo Shengyuan, He Sheng, Wang Hao. 2012. Review on fault internal structure and the influence on fault sealing ability. Advances in Earth Sciences, 27(2): 154~164 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Sun Tongwen, Fu Guang, Lü Yanfang, Zhao Rong. 2012. A discussion on fault conduit fluid mechanism and fault conduit form. Geological Review, 58(6): 1081~1090 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Sun Tongwen, Wang Wei, Gao Huajuan, Lü Yanfang, Fu Guang. 2017. Research progress of fault-sandbody coupling lateral shunt oil and gas. Progress in Geophysics, 32(5): 2071~2077 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Wang Shengzhu, Wu Qianqian, Song Meiyuan, Yu Hongzhou, Zhang Guanlong. 2018. Quantitative evaluation of the transportation of fault zone and its controlling effect on hydrocarbon migration and accumulation: case study of Hala'alat Mountain tectonic belt in the north margin of Junggar Basin. Natural Gas Geoscience, 29(11): 1559~1567 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Wu Guoping, Su Jiangyu, Cheng Shi, Huang Jingzhi. 2008. A method for obtaining shaliness using wiener filtering based on logging data natural gamma ray. Earth Science (Journal of China University of Geosciences), 33(4): 572~576 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Wu Zhiping, Chen Wei, Xue Yan, Song Guoqi, Liu Huimin. 2010. Structural characteristics of faulting zone and its ability in transporting and sealing oil and gas. Acta Geologica Sinica, 84(4): 570~578 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Yielding G, Freeman B, Needham D T. 1997. Quantitative fault seal prediction. AAPG Bulletin, 81(6): 898~915.

    • Zhang Bowei, Fu Guang, Zhang Juhe, Chen Xueqing, Lan Jingjing, Hu Xinlei. 2017. Analysis on the different sealing conditions required by mudstone caprock at different fault evolution stages: a case study on the 1st Member of Qingshankou Formation in the Sanzhao Depression and 2nd Member of Dongying Formation in the structure No. 5 of the Nanpu Sag. Oil & Gas Geology, 38(1): 22~28 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • 陈伟, 吴智平, 侯峰, 孔菲. 2010. 断裂带内部结构特征及其与油气运聚关系. 石油学报, 31(5): 774~780.

    • 付广, 刘洪霞, 段海风. 2005. 断层不同输导通道封闭机理及其研究方法. 石油实验地质, 27(4): 404~408+4.

    • 付广, 杨勉, 吕延防, 史集建. 2013. 断层古侧向封闭性定量评价方法及其应用. 石油学报, 34(S1): 78~83.

    • 付广, 张博为, 吴伟. 2016. 区域性泥岩盖层阻止油气沿输导断裂运移机制及其判别方法. 中国石油大学学报(自然科学版), 40(3): 36~43.

    • 付晓飞, 方德庆, 吕延防, 付广, 孙永河. 2005. 从断裂带内部结构出发评价断层垂向封闭性的方法. 地球科学——中国地质大学学报, 30(3): 328~336.

    • 付晓飞, 许鹏, 魏长柱, 吕延防. 2012. 张性断裂带内部结构特征及油气运移和保存研究. 地学前缘, 19(6): 200~212.

    • 付晓飞, 肖建华, 孟令东. 2014. 断裂在纯净砂岩中的变形机制及断裂带内部结构. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 44(1): 25~37.

    • 蒋维东, 胡春明. 2005. 库车坳陷逆掩断裂输导通道及输导天然气特征. 新疆石油天然气, 1(1): 23~29.

    • 姜振学, 庞雄奇, 黄志龙. 2000. 叠合盆地油气运聚期次研究方法及应用. 石油勘探与开发, 27(4): 22~25.

    • 刘涛, 张宏兵, 许自强, 但志伟, 吴其林, 宋鹏. 2018. 断裂作为油气运移优势通道的条件分析——以珠一西地区为例. 中国海洋大学学报(自然科学版), 48(2): 73~78.

    • 罗群. 2011. 断裂带的输导与封闭性及其控藏特征. 石油实验地质, 33(5): 474~479.

    • 罗胜元, 何生, 王浩. 2012. 断层内部结构及其对封闭性的影响. 地球科学进展, 27(2): 154~164.

    • 孙同文, 付广, 吕延防, 赵荣. 2012. 断裂输导流体的机制及输导形式探讨. 地质论评, 58(6): 1081~1090.

    • 孙同文, 王伟, 高华娟, 吕延防, 付广. 2017. 断裂-砂体耦合侧向分流油气研究进展. 地球物理学进展, 32(5): 2071~2077.

    • 王圣柱, 吴倩倩, 宋梅远, 于洪洲, 张关龙. 2018. 断裂带内部结构及其对油气运聚的控制作用——以准噶尔盆地北缘哈山构造带为例. 天然气地球科学, 29(11): 1559~1567.

    • 吴国平, 苏江玉, 成实, 黄婧芝. 2008. 基于自然伽马测井信号的维纳滤波法求取泥质含量. 地球科学(中国地质大学学报), 33(4): 572~576.

    • 吴智平, 陈伟, 薛雁, 宋国奇, 刘惠民. 2010. 断裂带的结构特征及其对油气的输导和封堵性. 地质学报, 84(4): 570~578.

    • 张博为, 付广, 张居和, 陈雪晴, 兰晶晶, 胡欣蕾. 2017. 沿不同时期断裂运移的油气被泥岩盖层封闭所需条件的差异性——以三肇凹陷青一段和南堡凹陷5号构造东二段为例. 石油与天然气地质, 38(1): 22~28.

  • 参考文献

    • Chen Wei, Wu Zhiping, Hou Feng, Kong Fei. 2010. Internal structures of fault zones and their relationship with hydrocarbon migration and accumulation. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 31(5): 774~780 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Fu Guang, Liu Hongxia, Duan Haifeng. 2005. Seal mechanisms of different transporting passways of fault and their research methods. Petroleum Geology and Experiment, 27(4): 404~408+4 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Fu Guang, Yang Mian, Lü Yanfang, Shi Jijian. 2013. A quantitative evaluation method for ancient lateral sealing of fault. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 34(S1): 78~83 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Fu Guang, Zhang Bowei, Wu Wei. 2016. Mechanism and detection of regional mudstone caprock sealing oil and gas migration along transporting fault. Journal of China University of Petroleum (Edition of Natural Science), 40(3): 36~43 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Fu Xiaofei, Fang Deqing, Lü Yanfang, Fu Guang, Sun Yonghe. 2005. Method of evaluating vertical sealing of faults in terms of the internal structure of fault zones. Earth Science—Journal of China University of Geosciences, 30(3): 328~336 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Fu Xiaofei, Xu Peng, Wei Changzhu, Lü Yanfang. 2012. Internal structure of normal fault zone and hydrocarbon migration and conservation. Earth Science Frontiers, 19(6): 200~212 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Fu Xiaofei, Xiao Jianhua, Meng Lingdong. 2014. Fault deformation mechanisms and internal structure characteristics of fault zone in pure sandstone. Journal of Jilin University (Earth Science Edition), 44(1): 25~37 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Jiang Weidong, Hu Chunming. 2005. Transporting passages of overthrust falts and their transporting gas characteristics in Kuche depression. Xinjiang Oil & Gas, 1(1): 23~29 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Jiang Zhenxue, Pang Xiongqi, Huang Zhilong. 2000. A method for studying the oil and gas migration stages in superposed basin and its application. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 27(4): 22~25 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Liu Tao, Zhang Hongbing, Xu Zijiang, Dan Zhiwei, Wu Qilin, Song Peng. 2018. Analysis of the conditions of faults as the dominant channel of oil and gas migration: a case study of Zhuyi West area. Periodical of Ocean University of China, 48(2): 73~78 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Luo Qun. 2011. Transporting and sealing capacity of fault belt and its controlling on reservoir. Petroleum Geology and Experiment, 33(5): 474~479 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Luo Shengyuan, He Sheng, Wang Hao. 2012. Review on fault internal structure and the influence on fault sealing ability. Advances in Earth Sciences, 27(2): 154~164 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Sun Tongwen, Fu Guang, Lü Yanfang, Zhao Rong. 2012. A discussion on fault conduit fluid mechanism and fault conduit form. Geological Review, 58(6): 1081~1090 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Sun Tongwen, Wang Wei, Gao Huajuan, Lü Yanfang, Fu Guang. 2017. Research progress of fault-sandbody coupling lateral shunt oil and gas. Progress in Geophysics, 32(5): 2071~2077 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Wang Shengzhu, Wu Qianqian, Song Meiyuan, Yu Hongzhou, Zhang Guanlong. 2018. Quantitative evaluation of the transportation of fault zone and its controlling effect on hydrocarbon migration and accumulation: case study of Hala'alat Mountain tectonic belt in the north margin of Junggar Basin. Natural Gas Geoscience, 29(11): 1559~1567 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Wu Guoping, Su Jiangyu, Cheng Shi, Huang Jingzhi. 2008. A method for obtaining shaliness using wiener filtering based on logging data natural gamma ray. Earth Science (Journal of China University of Geosciences), 33(4): 572~576 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Wu Zhiping, Chen Wei, Xue Yan, Song Guoqi, Liu Huimin. 2010. Structural characteristics of faulting zone and its ability in transporting and sealing oil and gas. Acta Geologica Sinica, 84(4): 570~578 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • Yielding G, Freeman B, Needham D T. 1997. Quantitative fault seal prediction. AAPG Bulletin, 81(6): 898~915.

    • Zhang Bowei, Fu Guang, Zhang Juhe, Chen Xueqing, Lan Jingjing, Hu Xinlei. 2017. Analysis on the different sealing conditions required by mudstone caprock at different fault evolution stages: a case study on the 1st Member of Qingshankou Formation in the Sanzhao Depression and 2nd Member of Dongying Formation in the structure No. 5 of the Nanpu Sag. Oil & Gas Geology, 38(1): 22~28 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    • 陈伟, 吴智平, 侯峰, 孔菲. 2010. 断裂带内部结构特征及其与油气运聚关系. 石油学报, 31(5): 774~780.

    • 付广, 刘洪霞, 段海风. 2005. 断层不同输导通道封闭机理及其研究方法. 石油实验地质, 27(4): 404~408+4.

    • 付广, 杨勉, 吕延防, 史集建. 2013. 断层古侧向封闭性定量评价方法及其应用. 石油学报, 34(S1): 78~83.

    • 付广, 张博为, 吴伟. 2016. 区域性泥岩盖层阻止油气沿输导断裂运移机制及其判别方法. 中国石油大学学报(自然科学版), 40(3): 36~43.

    • 付晓飞, 方德庆, 吕延防, 付广, 孙永河. 2005. 从断裂带内部结构出发评价断层垂向封闭性的方法. 地球科学——中国地质大学学报, 30(3): 328~336.

    • 付晓飞, 许鹏, 魏长柱, 吕延防. 2012. 张性断裂带内部结构特征及油气运移和保存研究. 地学前缘, 19(6): 200~212.

    • 付晓飞, 肖建华, 孟令东. 2014. 断裂在纯净砂岩中的变形机制及断裂带内部结构. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 44(1): 25~37.

    • 蒋维东, 胡春明. 2005. 库车坳陷逆掩断裂输导通道及输导天然气特征. 新疆石油天然气, 1(1): 23~29.

    • 姜振学, 庞雄奇, 黄志龙. 2000. 叠合盆地油气运聚期次研究方法及应用. 石油勘探与开发, 27(4): 22~25.

    • 刘涛, 张宏兵, 许自强, 但志伟, 吴其林, 宋鹏. 2018. 断裂作为油气运移优势通道的条件分析——以珠一西地区为例. 中国海洋大学学报(自然科学版), 48(2): 73~78.

    • 罗群. 2011. 断裂带的输导与封闭性及其控藏特征. 石油实验地质, 33(5): 474~479.

    • 罗胜元, 何生, 王浩. 2012. 断层内部结构及其对封闭性的影响. 地球科学进展, 27(2): 154~164.

    • 孙同文, 付广, 吕延防, 赵荣. 2012. 断裂输导流体的机制及输导形式探讨. 地质论评, 58(6): 1081~1090.

    • 孙同文, 王伟, 高华娟, 吕延防, 付广. 2017. 断裂-砂体耦合侧向分流油气研究进展. 地球物理学进展, 32(5): 2071~2077.

    • 王圣柱, 吴倩倩, 宋梅远, 于洪洲, 张关龙. 2018. 断裂带内部结构及其对油气运聚的控制作用——以准噶尔盆地北缘哈山构造带为例. 天然气地球科学, 29(11): 1559~1567.

    • 吴国平, 苏江玉, 成实, 黄婧芝. 2008. 基于自然伽马测井信号的维纳滤波法求取泥质含量. 地球科学(中国地质大学学报), 33(4): 572~576.

    • 吴智平, 陈伟, 薛雁, 宋国奇, 刘惠民. 2010. 断裂带的结构特征及其对油气的输导和封堵性. 地质学报, 84(4): 570~578.

    • 张博为, 付广, 张居和, 陈雪晴, 兰晶晶, 胡欣蕾. 2017. 沿不同时期断裂运移的油气被泥岩盖层封闭所需条件的差异性——以三肇凹陷青一段和南堡凹陷5号构造东二段为例. 石油与天然气地质, 38(1): 22~28.