宜昌地区寒武系页岩层段吸水特征、孔隙结构差异性及对页岩储层评价的意义

doi:10.13745/j.esf.sf.2022.5.38

地学前缘 ›› 2023, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (3): 138-150.DOI: 10.13745/j.esf.sf.2022.5.38

宜昌地区寒武系页岩层段吸水特征、孔隙结构差异性及对页岩储层评价的意义

张六六¹(), 陈更新¹, 乐幸福¹, 张瑜³, 邵德勇³, 闫建萍², 孟康³, 张同伟⁴^,^*()

1.中国石油勘探开发研究院西北分院, 甘肃兰州 730000
2.兰州大学地质科学与矿产资源学院, 甘肃兰州 730000
3.西北大学地质学系大陆动力学国家重点实验室, 陕西西安 710069
4.Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78713, USA

收稿日期:2022-04-06 修回日期:2022-05-13 出版日期:2023-05-25 发布日期:2023-04-27
通信作者: *张同伟(1965—),男,教授,博士生导师,主要从事石油、天然气地质地球化学及成藏地球化学研究工作。E-mail: tongwei.zhang@beg.utexas.edu
作者简介:张六六(1993—),男,硕士研究生,地球化学专业。E-mail: zhangliuliu1993@163.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金重点项目(41730421)

Significance of water absorption characteristics and difference of pore structures in the Cambrian shale intervals, Yichang area for shale reservoir evaluation

ZHANG Liuliu¹(), CHEN Gengxin¹, LE Xingfu¹, ZHANG Yu³, SHAO Deyong³, YAN Jianping², MENG Kang³, ZHANG Tongwei⁴^,^*()

1. Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration and Development-Northwest,Petrochina, Lanzhou 730000, China
2. School of Earth Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
3. State Key Laboratory of Continental Dynamics, Department of Geology, Northwest University, Xi’an 710069, China
4. The Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA

Received:2022-04-06 Revised:2022-05-13 Online:2023-05-25 Published:2023-04-27

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

选取宜昌地区ZK003井寒武系页岩样品为研究对象,运用吸水实验、氦孔隙度测试、有机碳含量测定等方法,并结合矿物组成分析对水井沱组不同层段页岩孔隙发育特征及其影响因素进行对比。研究结果表明:宜昌地区寒武系水井沱组自下而上分为4段,不同层段页岩孔隙特征具有显著的差异,总体表现为TOC含量越高,页岩的单位岩石饱和吸水量越高,初始吸水速率越高,孔隙度也越大。其中富有机质一段和二段页岩TOC含量为1.8%~11.5%,平均为4.6%;页岩氦孔隙度为1.6%~5.8%,平均为3.9%;饱和吸水量为6.1~21.4 mg/g,平均为15.3 mg/g。水井沱组富有机质第一段页岩TOC含量比第二段高,而孔隙度、吸水量、吸水速率却明显比二段偏低,分析发现第一段碳酸盐矿物与吸水量呈良好负相关关系,而第二段页岩黏土矿物含量与岩石吸水量呈明显正相关,因此认为第一段中碳酸盐矿物的化学胶结作用阻碍了微、纳米孔隙的发育,而第二段页岩黏土矿物自身发育的微孔隙和较大比表面积,对水分子起到很强的吸附作用。富有机页岩第二段孔隙度高,顶、底板泥灰岩封隔性好,有利于页岩气的富集和保存,是研究区页岩气优质储层。研究结果可为寒武系页岩优质储层筛选及页岩气勘探的“甜点区”预测提供参考。

关键词: 宜昌地区, 下寒武统, 吸水实验, 孔隙结构, 保存条件

Abstract:

The Cambrian Shuijingtuo shale formation of Well ZK003, Liuxi, Yichang area is selected to study its pore development characteristics, where different formation layers are compared through water absorption experiment, helium porosity test, organic carbon content determination, and mineral composition analysis. The results of the study show that the Cambrian shale formation can be divided into members 1-4 from bottom to top, and different members have very different pore characteristics. In general, the higher the TOC content, the greater the water saturation limit (per gram of shale weight); and the higher the initial water absorption rate, the greater the porosity of shale. In shales from the organic-rich members 1 and 2, the TOC content ranges from 1.8% to 11.5%, averaging 4.6%; the helium porosity ranges from 1.6% to 5.8%, averaging 3.9%; and the water absorption saturation limit is between 6.1-21.4 mg/g shale weight, or on average 15.3 mg/g shale weight. Between the two members, shale from member 1 has higher TOC content but significantly lower porosity, water absorption value, and water absorption rate. The carbonate content in member 1 shows a good negative correlation with the water absorption value; whereas a positive correlation is observed for the clay content in member 2. It is believed that in member 1 carbonate cementation hinders the development of micropores and nanopores; while in member 2, development of micropores, which have large specific surface area and autogenic to porous clay, lead to strong water absorption. Overall, member 2 of the organic-rich shale formation has high porosity and good roof/floor isolation by overlaying marl and carbonate, which is conducive to the enrichment and preservation of shale gas, therefore making it a high-quality shale gas reservoir in the study area. The research results can be used for screening high-quality Cambrian shale reservoirs and predicting shale gas exploration “sweet spots”.

Key words: Yichang area, Lower-Cambrian, water absorption experiment, pore structure, preservation conditions

中图分类号:

P618.130.2

张六六, 陈更新, 乐幸福, 张瑜, 邵德勇, 闫建萍, 孟康, 张同伟. 宜昌地区寒武系页岩层段吸水特征、孔隙结构差异性及对页岩储层评价的意义[J]. 地学前缘, 2023, 30(3): 138-150.

ZHANG Liuliu, CHEN Gengxin, LE Xingfu, ZHANG Yu, SHAO Deyong, YAN Jianping, MENG Kang, ZHANG Tongwei. Significance of water absorption characteristics and difference of pore structures in the Cambrian shale intervals, Yichang area for shale reservoir evaluation[J]. Earth Science Frontiers, 2023, 30(3): 138-150.

图/表 9

表1 我国南方不同地区寒武系富有机质页岩孔隙度对比

Table 1 Comparison of TOC and porosity data for Cambrian organic-rich shales from different regions of southern China

区域	地层	页岩层位	TOC含量/%	孔隙度/%	数据来源
川东南地区	下志留统	龙马溪组	0.51~25.7 2.59	4.5~8.09 6.13	文献[19]
黔北地区	下志留统	龙马溪组	0.7~3.55 1.87	1~10 6.4	文献[20]
川东南地区	下寒武统	牛蹄塘组	2~33.41 8.93	2.10	文献[21-22]
川西南	下寒武统	筇竹寺组	0.55~3.44 1.39	0.94~4.74 2.5	文献[14]
鄂西地区	下寒武统	水井沱组	1.23~10.45 3.45	0.96~4.59 2.0~3.12	文献[12,23-24]

图1 宜昌地区地质构造简图(据文献[17]修改)

Fig.1 Simplified geological structural map of Yichang area. Modified after [17].

图2 ZK003井岩性柱状图

Fig.2 Stratigraphic column diagram of Well ZK003

图3 ZK003井剖面下寒武系水井沱组第一段和岩家河组岩性分界处含沥青样品

Fig.3 Asphalt-containing shale at the lithological boundary between member 1 and the Yanjiahe Formation

图4 ZK003井剖面寒武系不同层段TOC含量、吸水量、孔隙度和矿物组分在垂向上的变化

Fig.4 TOC, water absorption, porosity and mineral composition profiles in Well ZK003

图5 ZK003井下寒武系页岩层段分界处相邻样品的吸水曲线、吸水速率特征对比

Fig.5 Comparison of water absorption characteristics at the shale interval boundaries in Well ZK003

图6 ZK003井寒武系水井沱组富有机质第一段、二段页岩吸水曲线及初始吸水速率特征对比

Fig.6 Comparison of the characteristics of water absorption (left) and initial absorption rate (right) between organic-rich members 1 and 2 in Well ZK003

图7 ZK003井下寒武统水井沱组不同页岩层段氦孔隙度、吸水量和吸水孔隙度之间的关系

Fig.7 Relationship between helium porosity and water absorption value (a) or porosity calculated from water absorption measurement (b) in Well ZK003

图8 ZK003井寒武系水井沱组富有机质层段页岩吸水量与TOC含量和矿物组成的关系

Fig.8 Relationship between water absorption value and geochemical proxies in Well ZK003

参考文献 58

[1]	LOUCKS R G, RUPPEL S C. Mississippian Barnett Shale: lithofacies and depositional setting of a deep-water shale-gas succession in the Fort Worth Basin, Texas[J]. AAPG Bulletin, 2007, 91(4): 579-601. DOI URL
[2]	LOUCKS R G, REED R M, RUPPEL S C, et al. Morphology, genesis, and distribution of nanometer-scale pores in siliceous mudstones of the Mississippian barnett shale[J]. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 2009, 79(12): 848-861. DOI URL
[3]	李佳欣. 观音桥段地质特征及其对页岩气产量的影响: 以南川地区为例[J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2018, 8(4): 68-72.
[4]	LOUCKS R G, REED R M, RUPPEL S C, et al. Spectrum of pore types and networks in mudrocks and a descriptive classification for matrix-related mudrock pores[J]. AAPG Bulletin, 2012, 96(6): 1071-1098. DOI URL
[5]	TIAN H, PAN L, XIAO X M, et al. A preliminary study on the pore characterization of Lower Silurian black shales in the Chuandong Thrust Fold Belt, southwestern China using low pressure N₂ adsorption and FE-SEM methods[J]. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 2013, 48: 8-19. DOI URL
[6]	彭女佳, 何生, 郝芳, 等. 川东南彭水地区五峰组-龙马溪组页岩孔隙结构及差异性[J]. 地球科学, 2017, 42(7): 1134-1146.
[7]	王超, 张柏桥, 舒志国, 等. 焦石坝地区五峰组-龙马溪组页岩纹层发育特征及其储集意义[J]. 地球科学, 2019, 44(3): 972-982.
[8]	MILLIKEN T, SHAW J, EMSLIE R. The South Africa-Vietnam rhino horn trade nexus: a deadly combination of institutional lapses, corrupt wildlife industry professionals and Asian crime syndicates[M]. Johannesburg: TRAFFIC, 2012.
[9]	陈居凯, 朱炎铭, 付常青, 等. 滇东下寒武统筇竹寺组页岩矿物组成特征及意义[J]. 煤炭技术, 2016, 35(9): 101-103.
[10]	罗超, 刘树根, 孙玮, 等. 鄂西—渝东地区下寒武统牛蹄塘组黑色页岩孔隙结构特征[J]. 东北石油大学学报, 2014, 38(2): 8-17, 79, 5.
[11]	陈相霖, 郭天旭, 石砥石, 等. 陕南地区牛蹄塘组页岩孔隙结构特征及吸附能力[J]. 岩性油气藏, 2019, 31(5): 52-60.
[12]	李海, 刘安, 罗胜元, 等. 鄂西宜昌斜坡区寒武系页岩储层发育特征: 以鄂宜页1井为例[J]. 石油实验地质, 2019, 41(1): 76-82.
[13]	GAO B, LIU Z, SHU Z, et al. Reservoir characteristics and exploration of the Lower Cambrian shale gas in the Middle-Upper Yangtze area[J]. Oil and Gas Geology, 2020, 41(2): 284-294.
[14]	王鹏威, 刘忠宝, 金之钧, 等. 川西南地区下寒武统筇竹寺组页岩气纵向差异富集主控因素[J]. 地球科学, 2019, 44(11): 3628-3638.
[15]	韩双彪, 张金川, 杨超, 等. 渝东南下寒武页岩纳米级孔隙特征及其储气性能[J]. 煤炭学报, 2013, 38(6): 1038-1043.
[16]	邹才能, 赵群, 董大忠, 等. 页岩气基本特征、主要挑战与未来前景[J]. 天然气地球科学, 2017, 28(12): 1781-1796.
[17]	罗胜元, 陈孝红, 岳勇, 等. 中扬子宜昌地区沉积-构造演化与寒武系页岩气富集规律[J]. 天然气地球科学, 2020, 31(8): 1052-1068.
[18]	ZHAO W Z, LI J Z, YANG T, et al. Geological difference and its significance of marine shale gases in South China[J]. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2016, 43(4): 547-559. DOI URL
[19]	杨巍, 薛莲花, 唐俊, 等. 页岩孔隙度测量实验方法分析与评价[J]. 沉积学报, 2015, 33(6): 1258-1264.
[20]	李贤庆, 王哲, 郭曼, 等. 黔北地区下古生界页岩气储层孔隙结构特征[J]. 中国矿业大学学报, 2016, 45(6): 1172-1183.
[21]	聂海宽, 边瑞康, 张培先, 等. 川东南地区下古生界页岩储层微观类型与特征及其对含气量的影响[J]. 地学前缘, 2014, 21(4): 331-343.
[22]	张亚军. 四川盆地及邻区下古生界海相泥页岩吸水实验研究[D]. 兰州: 兰州大学, 2019.
[23]	杨松平, 赵征, 谭华. 鄂西地区水井沱组页岩气地质条件研究[J]. 中国煤炭地质, 2015, 27(4): 26-29.
[24]	陈孝红, 危凯, 张保民, 等. 湖北宜昌寒武系水井沱组页岩气藏主控地质因素和富集模式[J]. 中国地质, 2018, 45(2): 207-226.
[25]	何伟, 张金川, 李莉, 等. 湘西北常页1井下寒武统牛蹄塘组页岩气储层特征[J]. 中国煤炭地质, 2015, 27(1): 31-39.
[26]	王志刚. 涪陵页岩气勘探开发重大突破与启示[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2015, 36(1): 1-6.
[27]	王燕, 冯明刚, 魏祥峰, 等. 涪陵气田焦石坝区块页岩气储层储集空间特征及其定量评价[J]. 海相油气地质, 2016, 21(1): 29-34.
[28]	翟刚毅, 包书景, 王玉芳, 等. 古隆起边缘成藏模式与湖北宜昌页岩气重大发现[J]. 地球学报, 2017, 38(4): 441-447.
[29]	YANG W, ZUO R S, JIANG Z X, et al. Effect of lithofacies on pore structure and new insights into pore-preserving mechanisms of the over-mature Qiongzhusi marine shales in Lower Cambrian of the southern Sichuan Basin, China[J]. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 2018, 98: 746-762. DOI URL
[30]	何晶, 何生, 刘早学, 等. 鄂西黄陵背斜南翼下寒武统水井沱组页岩孔隙结构与吸附能力[J]. 石油学报, 2020, 41(1): 27-42. DOI
[31]	胡明毅, 邓庆杰, 胡忠贵. 上扬子地区下寒武统牛蹄塘组页岩气成藏条件[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2014, 35(2): 272-279.
[32]	刘艳杰, 程党性, 邱庆伦, 等. 南华北盆地下二叠统泥页岩孔隙特征及控制因素[J]. 天然气地球科学, 2020, 31(10): 1501-1513.
[33]	吕海刚. 四川盆地志留系龙马溪组泥页岩吸水模拟实验及对孔隙连通性的指示意义[D]. 兰州: 兰州大学, 2015.
[34]	邱小松, 胡明毅, 胡忠贵, 等. 页岩气资源评价方法及评价参数赋值: 以中扬子地区五峰组—龙马溪组为例[J]. 中国地质, 2014, 41(6): 2091-2098.
[35]	李艳霞, 林娟华, 龙幼康, 等. 中扬子地区下古生界海相泥-页岩含气勘探远景[J]. 地质通报, 2011, 30(增刊1): 349-356.
[36]	李忠雄, 陆永潮, 王剑, 等. 中扬子地区晚震旦世—早寒武世沉积特征及岩相古地理[J]. 古地理学报, 2004, 6(2): 151-162.
[37]	赵建华, 金之钧, 林畅松, 等. 上扬子地区下寒武统筇竹寺组页岩沉积环境[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2019, 40(4): 701-715.
[38]	孙健. 黔北地区浅层龙马溪组页岩含气性及其控制因素[D]. 北京: 中国科学院大学(中国科学院广州地球化学研究所), 2020.
[39]	SHAO D Y, ELLIS G S, LI Y F, et al. Experimental investigation of the role of rock fabric in gas generation and expulsion during thermal maturation: anhydrous closed-system pyrolysis of a bitumen-rich Eagle Ford Shale[J]. Organic Geochemistry, 2018, 119: 22-35. DOI URL
[40]	沈伟军, 郭伟, 李熙喆, 等. 水蒸气吸附法和氮气吸附法在表征页岩孔隙结构中的对比分析[J]. 天然气工业, 2017, 37 (增刊1): 78-84.
[41]	郝光宗, 邢丽缘, 梁强威. 饱和盐水溶液湿度固定点(2):数据来源与盐溶液选择[J]. 传感器世界, 1999, 5(12): 10-14.
[42]	于萍, 张瑜, 闫建萍, 等. 四川盆地龙马溪组页岩吸水特征及3种页岩孔隙度分析方法对比[J]. 天然气地球科学, 2020, 31(7): 1016-1027.
[43]	CHALMERS G R, BUSTIN R M, POWER I M. Characterization of gas shale pore systems by porosimetry, pycnometry, surface area, and field emission scanning electron microscopy/transmission electron microscopy image analyses: examples from the Barnett, Woodford, Haynesville, Marcellus, and Doig units[J]. AAPG Bulletin, 2012, 96(6): 1099-1119. DOI URL
[44]	QIN M Y, CAO Z, GUO J H, et al. Characteristics of shale reservoir and sweet spot identification of the lower Cambrian Niutitang formation in northwestern Hunan Province, China[J]. Acta Geologica Sinica-English Edition, 2019, 93(3): 573-587. DOI URL
[45]	蒲泊伶, 董大忠, 耳闯, 等. 川南地区龙马溪组页岩有利储层发育特征及其影响因素[J]. 天然气工业, 2013, 33(12): 41-47.
[46]	冯东, 李相方, 王香增, 等. 不同含水条件下黏土孔隙分布特征及甲烷吸附能力[J]. 煤炭学报, 2017, 42(9): 2402-2413.
[47]	张聪. 鄂西宜昌地区下寒武统水井沱组页岩生烃潜力与储层特征研究[D]. 北京: 中国地质大学(北京), 2020.
[48]	ROSS D J K, BUSTIN R M. Characterizing the shale gas resource potential of Devonian-Mississippian strata in the Western Canada sedimentary basin: application of an integrated formation evaluation[J]. AAPG Bulletin, 2008, 92(1): 87-125. DOI URL
[49]	郭彤楼. 涪陵页岩气田发现的启示与思考[J]. 地学前缘, 2016, 23(1): 29-43. DOI
[50]	王濡岳, 丁文龙, 龚大建, 等. 黔北地区海相页岩气保存条件: 以贵州岑巩区块下寒武统牛蹄塘组为例[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2016, 37(1): 45-55.
[51]	魏祥峰, 李宇平, 魏志红, 等. 保存条件对四川盆地及周缘海相页岩气富集高产的影响机制[J]. 石油实验地质, 2017, 39(2): 147-153.
[52]	王宁, 许锋, 王喆, 等. 上扬子地台北缘下寒武统牛蹄塘组海相页岩气地质条件及勘探潜力[J]. 地球科学与环境学报, 2020, 42(3): 329-341.
[53]	ZOU C N, YANG Z, SUN S S, et al. “Exploring petroleum inside source kitchen”: shale oil and gas in Sichuan Basin[J]. Science China Earth Sciences, 2020, 63(7): 934-953. DOI
[54]	门玉澎, 闫剑飞, 戚明辉, 等. 黔南地区下寒武统牛蹄塘组页岩气顶底板特征研究[J]. 沉积与特提斯地质, 2020, 40(1): 53-59.
[55]	付晓飞, 吴桐, 吕延防, 等. 油气藏盖层封闭性研究现状及未来发展趋势[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2018, 39(3): 454-471.
[56]	林潼, 王孝明, 张璐, 等. 盖层厚度对天然气封闭能力的实验分析[J]. 天然气地球科学, 2019, 30(3): 322-330.
[57]	邵德勇, 张六六, 张亚军, 等. 中上扬子地区下寒武统富有机质页岩吸水特征及对页岩气勘探的指示意义[J]. 天然气地球科学, 2020, 31(7): 1004-1015.
[58]	李海, 刘安, 罗胜元, 等. 鄂西宜昌地区寒武系页岩孔隙结构特征及发育主控因素[J]. 油气地质与采收率, 2018, 25(6): 16-23.

宜昌地区寒武系页岩层段吸水特征、孔隙结构差异性及对页岩储层评价的意义

Significance of water absorption characteristics and difference of pore structures in the Cambrian shale intervals, Yichang area for shale reservoir evaluation

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 9

参考文献 58

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	赵圣贤, 李博, 陈鑫, 刘文平, 张成林, 季春海, 刘永旸, 刘东晨, 曹埒焰, 陈玉龙, 李佳峻, 雷越, 谭静强. 川南天宫堂构造带五峰组—龙马溪组页岩不同纹层内部结构差异及其控制机理[J]. 地学前缘, 2024, 31(5): 75-88.
[2]	谷雨, 吴俊, 樊太亮, 吕峻岭. 塔北-塔中地区中、下寒武统岩性组合与变形特征及其对油气输导影响[J]. 地学前缘, 2024, 31(5): 313-331.
[3]	张同伟, 罗欢, 孟康. 我国南方不同地区寒武系页岩含气性差异主控因素探讨[J]. 地学前缘, 2023, 30(3): 1-13.
[4]	唐玄, 郑逢赞, 梁国栋, 马子杰, 张家政, 王玉芳, 张同伟. 黔北寒武系牛蹄塘组页岩孔隙分形表征[J]. 地学前缘, 2023, 30(3): 110-123.
[5]	孟康, 邵德勇, 张六六, 李立武, 张瑜, 罗欢, 宋辉, 张同伟. 鄂西宜昌地区寒武系水井沱组页岩破碎气地球化学特征及其对页岩含气性的指示意义[J]. 地学前缘, 2023, 30(3): 14-27.
[6]	宋辉, 邵德勇, 罗欢, 孟康, 张瑜, 唐玄, 张同伟. 鄂西宜昌地区下寒武统水井沱组草莓状黄铁矿SEM图像特征及古环境指示意义:以鄂阳页1井为例[J]. 地学前缘, 2023, 30(3): 195-207.
[7]	潘晓强, 华洪, 代乔坤, 骆劲舟, 刘紫薇. 宜昌地区寒武系水井沱组(第二统第三阶)生物组合面貌及其地层分布[J]. 地学前缘, 2023, 30(3): 28-43.
[8]	吴松涛，朱如凯，李勋，金旭，杨智，毛治国. 致密储层孔隙结构表征技术有效性评价与应用[J]. 地学前缘, 2018, 25(2): 191-203.
[9]	王濡岳，龚大建，冷济高，王兴华，丛森，丁文龙，付福全，杨滔，赖富强. 黔北地区下寒武统牛蹄塘组页岩储层发育特征：以岑巩区块为例[J]. 地学前缘, 2017, 24(6): 286-299.
[10]	陈江湛，曹函，孙平贺. 湘西北牛蹄塘组页岩可压裂性评价[J]. 地学前缘, 2017, 24(6): 390-398.
[11]	周翔，何生，刘萍，俱云娟. 鄂尔多斯盆地代家坪地区长6致密油储层孔隙结构特征及分类评价[J]. 地学前缘, 2016, 23(3): 253-265.
[12]	闫德宇，黄文辉，王婷灏，刘贝. 中、下扬子地区下寒武统黑色页岩微量元素富集特征[J]. 地学前缘, 2016, 23(3): 42-50.
[13]	唐书恒,范二平,张松航,姜文. 湘西北下古生界海相页岩储层特征与含气性分析[J]. 地学前缘, 2016, 23(2): 135-146.
[14]	姜振学, 唐相路, 李卓, 黄何鑫, 杨佩佩, 杨潇, 李卫兵, 郝进. 川东南地区龙马溪组页岩孔隙结构全孔径表征及其对含气性的控制[J]. 地学前缘, 2016, 23(2): 126-134.
[15]	陈冬霞，刘雨晨，庞雄奇. 川西坳陷须五段陆相页岩层系储层特征及对含气性的控制作用[J]. 地学前缘, 2016, 23(1): 174-184.