Marine frontier basin petroleum resources assessment: A case study of the Carboniferous of the Delingha Depression, Qaidam Basin

doi:10.13745/j.esf.sf.2020.5.27

Abstract

Abstract:

Petroleum resources assessment for the marine frontier areas must face the challenges of few geologic data, low level of knowledge, and difficult parameter acquisition, which affect the credibility of petroleum resource assessment results. In this case study, we evaluated the Carboniferous of the Delingha Depression, Qaidam Basin using multiple methods, including resources assessment by basin modeling and analogous comparison and key parameter determination by geophysical, geochemical and petroleum geological analyses. Taking into account the source-reservoir-caprock association, we delineated the favorable exploration zones through simulation of hydrocarbon migration/accumulation and calculation of petroleum resources in different zones. There are four types of source rocks, mudstone, carbonaceous mudstone, coal and marl, in the upper Carboniferus, and two types of source rocks, mudstone and marl, in the Lower Carboniferous. In the Crook Formation, the upper Carboniferous source rocks have higher organic matter abundances, with the total organic (TOC) contents equaling >1.0%, 6.0%-10.0%, >60% and >0.3% in most mudstone, carbonaceous mudstone, coal and marl, respectively. The main types of organic matters are types II and III, with a small amount of type I. Most hydrocarbon rocks are mature and high mature. Clastic and carbonate reservoirs are developed in the Carboniferous strata into three sets of regional caprocks and five sets of local caprocks with varying forms of source-reservoir-caprock associations, including self source-self reservoir-self cap, lower source-upper reservoir and upper cap, and upper source-lower reservoir-upper cap. The hydrocarbon generation period of the Carboniferous was mainly from the Late Carboniferous to Middle Triassic, and the hydrocarbon generation peak moment was from the Middle Permian to Middle Triassic, when the basic geological conditions for petroleum formation were generally favorable. The Carboniferous of the eastern Qaidan Basin possesses 0.38 billion of petroleum, 0.16 billion tones of oil and 276 billion cubic meters of gas resources, with petroleum resources mainly distributing in the Ounan Sag and Oulongbuluke Uplift.

Key words: Delingha Depression, Carboniferous, hydrocarbon source rock, basin modeling, resource assessment

CLC Number:

P618.13

LIU Chenglin, ZHANG Yu, YANG Shenghao, LI Zongxing, TIAN Jixian, PENG Bo, MA Yinsheng, YANG Yuanyuan, KONG Hua. Marine frontier basin petroleum resources assessment: A case study of the Carboniferous of the Delingha Depression, Qaidam Basin[J]. Earth Science Frontiers, 2021, 28(1): 295-307.

Figures/Tables 21

Fig.1 Structural unit division of the Delingha Depression in the Qaidam Basin. Modified from [15,16].

Fig.2 Comprehensive stratigraphic column of and oil and gas source-reservoir-cap assemblages in the Delingha Depression, Qaidam Basin. Modified from [17].

Table 1 Thickness statistics for the Carboniferous hydrocarbon source rocks in the Delingha Depression, Qaidam Basin

地层	岩性	烃源岩厚度/m
扎布萨尕秀组	泥灰岩	62
	泥岩	24
	碳质泥岩	14
	煤	3
克鲁克组	泥灰岩	51
	泥岩	125
	碳质泥岩	17
	煤	2.8
怀头他拉组	泥灰岩	84
怀头他拉组	泥岩	44
城墙沟组	泥灰岩	14
城墙沟组	泥岩	17

Fig.3 Carboniferous source rock sample distributions in the Delingha Depression, Qaidam Basin

Table 2 Evaluation of Carboniferous hydrocarbon source rocks in the Delingha Depression, Qaidam Basin

层位	岩性	TOC含量/%	(S₁+S₂)/(mg·g^-1)	氯仿沥青“A”含量/%	综合评价
C₂zh	灰岩	0.06~2.05 0.5(6)	0.03~0.56 0.2(6)	0.002 1~0.003 3 0.002 4(6)	中等-差
	泥岩	0.026~5.78 1.35(114)	0.02~5.19 0.627 4(114)	0.001 4~0.021 4 0.004 9(23)	好-很好
	碳质泥岩	6.29~25.67 14.69(5)	0.72~70.25 30.55(5)		好-很好
	煤	45.79~52.59 47.218(5)	11.61~169.43 46.57(5)	0.119 8~0.306 4 0.213 1(2)	差-中等
C₂k	灰岩	0.01~5.13 0.68(67)	0.02~3.75 0.36(80)	0.001 6~0.017 3 0.006 7(12)	中等-好
	泥岩	0.003 7~5.98 1.85(356)	0.02~9.45 0.67(403)	0.000 9~0.157 1 0.015 8(158)	很好-极好
	碳质泥岩	6.105~39.32 12.37(41)	0.174 8~50.99 7.82(43)	0.002 7~0.104 7 0.024 3(23)	中等-好
	煤	42.2~98.34 76.12(18)	2.31~159.14 90.01(19)	0.004 1~1.234 1 0.8371(2)	中等-好
C₁h	灰岩	0.01~0.39 0.09(25)	0.02~0.7 0.037(30)	0.000 8~0.010 1 0.003 9(12)	差-中等
C₁h	泥岩	0.06~4 0.76(99)	0.02~0.55 0.075(99)	0.000 85~0.005 3 0.002 56(30)	差-中等
C₁c	灰岩	0.01~0.49 0.15(23)	0.01~0.08 0.037(23)	0.001 4~0.005 1 0.002 4(9)	差-中等
C₁c	泥岩	0.01~1.42 0.48(16)	0.01~0.56 0.099(16)	0.000 9~0.003 8 0.002 6(9)	差-中等

Fig.4 Cross-plots of organic matter richness for Carboniferous hydrocarbon source rocks of various lithologies and formations in the Delingha Depression, Qaidam Basin. (a) Limestone; (b) Mudstone; (c) Carbonaceous mudstone; and (d) Coal.

Fig.5 Classification of organic matter types in the Carboniferous hydrocarbon source rocks from the Keluke Formation, Delingha Depression, Qaidam Basin

Fig.6 Vitrinite reflectance properties of hydrocarbon source rocks of the Carboniferous of the Delingha Depression, Qaidam Basin

Table 3 Statistics of vitrinite reflectance of Carboniferous hydrocarbon source rocks in the Delingha Depression, Qaidam Basin

层位	R_o/%
C₂zh	0.77~1.4 1.03(54)
C₂k	0.68~1.75 1.35(54)
C₁h	1.04~1.39 1.18(16)
C₁c	1.08~1.24 1.16(6)

Fig.7 Cross-plots of reservoir porosity and permeability for the Carboniferous of the Delingha Depression, Qaidam Basin (Left: Clastic reservoir; Right: Carbonate reservoir)

Fig.8 Oil and gas accumulation model for the Shihuigou area

Fig.9 Oil and gas accumulation model for the Wanggaxiu area

Fig.10 Thermal evolution history of the Delingha Depression, Qaidam Basin. Adapted from [35].

Fig.11 Paleotemperature recovery in Well Lenke-1

Fig.12 Erosion thickness recovery through the seismic section of Well Qingdedi-1 by using the stratigraphic trend extension method

Table 4 Erosion thickness recovery results for Well Qingdedi-1

构造运动	剥蚀时间/Ma	剥蚀厚度/m	剥蚀地层
印支运动	226~195	2 850	上石炭统、二叠系、三叠系
燕山早期运动	168~145	1 550	中下侏罗统
燕山晚期运动	86~48	1 360	下白垩统
喜马拉雅早期	30~22	140	古近系
喜马拉雅晚期	5~1.3	380	新近系

Fig.13 Geohistory and thermal evolution history of Well Qingdedi-1

Fig.14 History of source rock oil and gas generation in the Keluke Formation of Well Qingdedi-1 (C2kN: Mudstone; C2kH: Marl; C2kT: Carbonaceous mudstone; C2kM: Coal)

Fig.15 Intensity contours for source rock oil and gas generation in the Keluke Formation of the Delingha Depression, Qaidam Basin

Fig.16 Results of oil and gas migration and accumulation modeling for the Carboniferous of the Delingha Depression in the Qaidam Basin

Table 5 Petroleum resources distribution in the Carboniferous of the Delingha Depression in the Qaidam Basin

构造单元	资源量/(10⁸ t)
	扎布萨尕秀组		克鲁克组		怀头他拉组		城墙沟组		合计
	石油	天然气	石油	天然气	石油	天然气	石油	天然气	石油	天然气
德令哈凹陷	0.052	0.050	0.043	0.066	0.001	0.001	0.001	0.001	0.097	0.118
欧龙布鲁克凸起	0.199	0.193	0.329	0.528	0.014	0.011			0.541	0.732
欧南凹陷	0.168	0.166	0.722	1.116	0.031	0.021	0.003	0.003	0.924	1.306
埃姆尼克凸起			0.006	0.007	0.022	0.014	0.001	0.001	0.029	0.023
霍布逊凹陷					0.027	0.021	0.006	0.008	0.034	0.029
合计	0.418	0.409	1.099	1.717	0.097	0.067	0.011	0.015	1.63	2.21

References 43

[1]	AHLBRANDT T S, KLETT T R. Comparison of methods used to estimate conventional undiscovered petroleum resources: world examples[J]. Natural Resources Research, 2005, 14(3):187-210. DOI URL
[2]	ATTANASI E D, CHARPENTIER R R. Comparison of two probability distributions used to model sizes of undiscovered oil and gas accumulations: does the tail wag the assessment[J]. Mathematical Geology, 2002, 34(6):767-777. DOI URL
[3]	CHARPENTIER R R, KLETT T R. Monte Carlo simulation method[M]∥US Geological Survey World Energy Assessment Team. US Geological Survey World Petroleum Assessment 2000. Denver: US Geological Survey, 2000: 12.
[4]	KLETT T R, GAUTIER D L, AHLBRANDT T S. An evaluation of the US Geological Survey World Petroleum Assessment 2000[J]. AAPG Bulletin, 2005, 89(8):1033-1042. DOI URL
[5]	LIU C L, ZHU J, ZHAO W. Oil reserves, production forecast for 81 China land frontier basins[J]. Oil & Gas Journal, 2011, 109(6):62-66.
[6]	郑民, 李建忠, 吴晓智, 等. 我国主要含油气盆地油气资源潜力及未来重点勘探领域[J]. 地球科学, 2019, 44(3):833-847.
[7]	葛岩, 刘成林, 许恩爱, 等. 中国西北三大含油气盆地石炭系生烃潜力对比[J]. 西安石油大学学报(自然科学版), 2016, 31(2):38-43.
[8]	付锁堂, 马达德, 陈琰, 等. 柴达木盆地油气勘探新进展[J]. 石油学报, 2016, 37(增刊1):1-10.
[9]	付锁堂. 柴达木盆地油气勘探潜在领域[J]. 中国石油勘探, 2016, 21(5):1-10.
[10]	国土资源部油气资源战略研究中心. 全国石油天然气资源评价[M]. 北京: 中国大地出版社, 2010.
[11]	马寅生, 尹成明, 刘成林, 等. 柴达木盆地石炭系油气资源调查评价进展[J]. 地球学报, 2012, 33(2):135-144.
[12]	甘贵元, 严晓兰, 赵东升, 等. 柴达木盆地德令哈断陷石油地质特征及勘探前景[J]. 石油实验地质, 2006(5):499-503.
[13]	周刚. 柴达木盆地东部地区石炭系油气资源评价[D]. 东营: 中国石油大学(华东), 2012.
[14]	刘文平. 柴达木盆地德令哈地区油气资源评价[D]. 东营: 中国石油大学(华东), 2013.
[15]	曾庆猛, 刘成林, 马寅生, 等. 电磁资料在柴达木盆地东部地区石炭系勘探中的应用[J]. 地质力学学报, 2017, 23(1):125-134.
[16]	曾庆猛, 刘成林, 张贵斌, 等. 柴达木盆地东部石炭系地震层速度求取方法的研究[J]. 地学前缘, 2016, 23(5):176-183.
[17]	葛岩, 刘成林, 谢英刚, 等. 柴达木盆地石炭系油气勘探前景[J]. 油气地质与采收率, 2014, 21(2):57-61, 115.
[18]	张谦, 刘成林, 李宗星, 等. 柴东石炭系天然沥青特征及形成的主控因素[J]. 地学前缘, 2016, 23(5):167-175.
[19]	刘成林, 马寅生, 周刚, 等. 柴达木盆地石炭系生烃证据[J]. 石油学报, 2012, 33(6):925-931.
[20]	PALACAS J G. Petroleum geochemistry and source rock potential of carbonate rocks (AAPG Studies in Geology)[M]. Tulsa: AAPG, 1984: 127-134.
[21]	刘晓光. 柴达木盆地东部石炭系页岩沉积与地球化学特征研究[D]. 东营: 中国石油大学(华东), 2014.
[22]	王大华, 林武, 李军亮, 等. 柴东石灰沟地区上石炭统烃源岩评价及潜力分析[J]. 石油天然气学报, 2013, 35(8):17-20.
[23]	郝石生, 高岗, 王飞宇, 等. 高-过成熟海相烃源岩[M]. 北京: 石油工业出版社, 1996: 98-109.
[24]	廖晓, 王震亮, 范昌育, 等. 低勘探程度地区烃源岩综合评价: 以塔里木盆地西南拗陷石炭系烃源岩为例[J]. 西北大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 48(2):261-267.
[25]	柳广弟. 石油地质学[M]. 4版. 北京: 石油工业出版社, 2009: 47-49.
[26]	黄第藩, 李晋超. 干酪根类型划分的X图解[J]. 地球化学, 1982(1):21-30.
[27]	孔伟思, 方石, 袁魏, 等. 镜质体反射率的研究现状[J]. 当代化工, 2015(5):1020-1028.
[28]	MANN U, MÜLLER P J. Source rock evaluation by well log analysis (Lower Toarcian, Hils syncline)[J]. Organic Geochemistry, 1988, 13(1):109-119. DOI URL
[29]	程鹏举, 于青春. 非饱和低渗砂岩突破压力试验研究: 以柴达木盆地东部石炭系砂岩为例[J]. 水文地质工程地质, 2017, 44(6):77-82, 101.
[30]	马龙杰, 彭博, 于青春. 柴达木盆地东部石炭系致密灰岩孔渗特征[J]. 中国岩溶, 2017, 36(1):15-22.
[31]	刘文静. 柴达木盆地东部石灰沟地区石炭系地层三维结构和孔渗模型[D]. 北京: 中国地质大学(北京), 2018.
[32]	高俊, 夏露, 李英杰, 等. 柴达木盆地东部石炭系页岩气储层渗流特征研究[J]. 地学前缘, 2016, 23(5):103-112.
[33]	贾承造, 邹才能, 李建忠, 等. 中国致密油评价标准、主要类型、基本特征及资源前景[J]. 石油学报, 2012, 33(3):343-350.
[34]	张成. 柴达木盆地东部石炭系非饱和页岩突破压力与渗流特征[D]. 北京: 中国地质大学(北京), 2018.
[35]	刘文平, 刘成林, 万茂霞, 等. 柴达木盆地德令哈地区下古生界成藏地质条件研究[J]. 地学前缘, 2016, 23(5):119-126.
[36]	李宗星, 邱楠生, 马寅生, 等. 柴达木盆地东部古生代以来构造-热演化[J]. 地学前缘, 2017, 24(3):157-167.
[37]	李宗星, 高俊, 李文飞, 等. 柴达木盆地地温场分布特征及控制因素[J]. 地学前缘, 2016, 23(5):23-32.
[38]	刘成林, 车长波. 常规与非常规油气资源评价方法与应用[M]. 北京: 地质出版社, 2012.
[39]	柳广弟, 赵文智, 胡素云, 等. 油气运聚单元石油运聚系数的预测模型[J]. 石油勘探与开发, 2003(5):53-55.
[40]	刘成林, 刘人和, 罗霞, 等. 天然气资源评价重点参数研究[J]. 沉积学报, 2004(增刊1):79-83.
[41]	周凤英, 张水昌, 孙玉善. 塔里木盆地轮南地区油气运移的路径、期次及方向研究[J]. 地质论评, 2001, 47(3):329-335.
[42]	王小凤, 武红岭, 马寅生, 等. 柴达木盆地北缘地区构造应力场、流体势场对油气运聚的控制作用[J]. 地球学报, 2006, 27(5):419-423.
[43]	MAGOON L B, DOW W G. The petroleum system-from source to trap[M]. Tulsa: AAPG, 1994.