阿姆河右岸中下侏罗统构造变形及构造圈闭特征
|
摘要
阿姆河右岸区块为CNPC在阿姆河盆地的重要合作区块,目前对该区中下侏罗统构造面貌认识不甚清楚,严重制约着该区深部的油气勘探进展。充分利用已有的地质、钻探资料及新近采集的三维地震资料,通过对研究区中下侏罗统层序界面的全区追踪对比,探讨了阿姆河右岸区块中部三维地震区的中下侏罗统构造变形特征,在此基础上进一步分析了中下侏罗统构造圈闭类型及其成藏有效性。研究表明,研究区中下侏罗统构造是在晚二叠世-三叠纪断陷阶段形成的查尔朱断阶背景上,经过侏罗纪-古近纪的坳陷阶段和新近纪以来的来自南东方向的强烈挤压改造形成的综合产物。整体来看中下侏罗统主要发育有NW-SE向、近EW向、NEE-SWW向和NE-SW向4组断裂,不同走向断裂其形成时代、运动学特征、演化过程及在空间上的分布等方面都存在明显差异。受不同断裂活动性质的影响,研究区发育有NW-SE向、NE-SW向及NNE-SWW向3组不同走向的褶皱构造。受中下侏罗统构造变形过程的控制,研究区构造圈闭主要为背斜型圈闭,它们多被断裂切割改造,形成断层-背斜复合型圈闭。根据圈闭发育的控制因素可以分为在基底古隆起基础上发育起来的背斜型圈闭(A型)和与基底古隆起无关的新近纪形成的挤压背斜型圈闭(B型)。不同类型圈闭的成藏有效性存在明显差异。A型圈闭由于是在基底古隆起基础上发育起来的,中下侏罗统储层发育相对较好;B型圈闭主要位于研究区东部,早中侏罗世该区位于水体较深部位,储层发育差。根据A型圈闭在后期构造运动中被改造的强弱,可进一步分为A-1型和A-2型圈闭。A-1型圈闭后期被改造程度弱,早期古隆起边缘断裂的后期活动未将早期(新近纪以前)可能已经形成的中下侏罗统原生油气藏完全破坏掉,从而一部分原生油气藏被保存下来;而A-2型圈闭后期被改造程度强,早期断裂的后期活动或新生断裂将早期可能形成的中下侏罗统原生油气藏严重破坏。3类构造圈闭中下侏罗统成藏有效性以A-1型圈闭最好,A-2型圈闭次之,B型圈闭最差。
The Amu-Dar'ya right bank area is one of the important overseas cooperative areas of the China National Petroleum Corporation. The structural feature of the Lower-middle Jurassic series in this area is not understood well currently,which restricts the next exploration activity. In this paper,making full use of existing geological and drilling data as well as late-collective 3D seismic data,we investigate the structural feature of the Lower-middle Jurassic series in the middle of the Amu-Dar'ya right bank area by tracing and matching of the strata surfaces,and further analyze the style of the structural trapping and their effectiveness in the formation of hydrocarbon reservoirs. The investigation indicates that four groups of faults develop in the Lower-middle Jurassic series in this area with their strike being NW-SE,nearly EW,NEE-SWW and NE-SW direction respectively,and there are obvious differences among their formation time,kinetic characteristics,evolutionary process and spatial distribution. Similarly,in this area develop three groups of fold structures with their strikes being NW-SE,NE-SW and NNE-SWW,respectively. Under the influence of the structural development,the main type of structural trapping is anticline trap,which is often cut by faults and is remolded to form fault-anticline composite trap. According to the main controlling factors of the trap development,the anticline traps could be classified into the anticline trap (Type A)that develops on the palaeohigh of the basement rock,and the compressive anticline trap(Type B) that develops in the Neogene era and is independent of the palaeohigh of the basement rock. The type A is drape fold in the early period and is reformed during the subsequent compressional movement,with being formalized in the Neogene era. There are obvious differences in the effectiveness of the formation of hydrocarbon reservoirs between various types of structural traps. The type A develops on the palaeohigh of the basement rock so that the reservoir of the Lower-middle Jurassic series develops well. Contrarily,the type B is mainly located at the east of the research area,where the depositional water was so deep in the Earlymiddle Jurassic that the reservoir of the Lower-middle Jurassic series develops badly. According to reconstruction extent of the subsequent compressional movement,the type A could be further divided into type A1 and type A-2 . The type A-1 was reconstructed weakly during the after compressional movement,so the reactivity of the faults being located at the edge of the palaeohigh of the basement rock in the early stage couldn't destroy the primary oil gas pools of the Lower-middle Jurassic series that were formed before Neogene completely with some native reservoirs saved. The type A-2 was remolded so intensely during the after compressional movement that the reactivity of the existing faults or neogenic faults' activity almost eliminate the primary oil gas pools of the Lower-middle Jurassic series. As a whole,the effectiveness in the formation of hydrocarbon reservoirs in the Lower-middle Jurassic series of the type A-1 is better than that of the type A-2 ,which is better than the type B.
The Amu-Dar'ya right bank area is one of the important overseas cooperative areas of the China National Petroleum Corporation. The structural feature of the Lower-middle Jurassic series in this area is not understood well currently,which restricts the next exploration activity. In this paper,making full use of existing geological and drilling data as well as late-collective 3D seismic data,we investigate the structural feature of the Lower-middle Jurassic series in the middle of the Amu-Dar'ya right bank area by tracing and matching of the strata surfaces,and further analyze the style of the structural trapping and their effectiveness in the formation of hydrocarbon reservoirs. The investigation indicates that four groups of faults develop in the Lower-middle Jurassic series in this area with their strike being NW-SE,nearly EW,NEE-SWW and NE-SW direction respectively,and there are obvious differences among their formation time,kinetic characteristics,evolutionary process and spatial distribution. Similarly,in this area develop three groups of fold structures with their strikes being NW-SE,NE-SW and NNE-SWW,respectively. Under the influence of the structural development,the main type of structural trapping is anticline trap,which is often cut by faults and is remolded to form fault-anticline composite trap. According to the main controlling factors of the trap development,the anticline traps could be classified into the anticline trap (Type A)that develops on the palaeohigh of the basement rock,and the compressive anticline trap(Type B) that develops in the Neogene era and is independent of the palaeohigh of the basement rock. The type A is drape fold in the early period and is reformed during the subsequent compressional movement,with being formalized in the Neogene era. There are obvious differences in the effectiveness of the formation of hydrocarbon reservoirs between various types of structural traps. The type A develops on the palaeohigh of the basement rock so that the reservoir of the Lower-middle Jurassic series develops well. Contrarily,the type B is mainly located at the east of the research area,where the depositional water was so deep in the Earlymiddle Jurassic that the reservoir of the Lower-middle Jurassic series develops badly. According to reconstruction extent of the subsequent compressional movement,the type A could be further divided into type A1 and type A-2 . The type A-1 was reconstructed weakly during the after compressional movement,so the reactivity of the faults being located at the edge of the palaeohigh of the basement rock in the early stage couldn't destroy the primary oil gas pools of the Lower-middle Jurassic series that were formed before Neogene completely with some native reservoirs saved. The type A-2 was remolded so intensely during the after compressional movement that the reactivity of the existing faults or neogenic faults' activity almost eliminate the primary oil gas pools of the Lower-middle Jurassic series. As a whole,the effectiveness in the formation of hydrocarbon reservoirs in the Lower-middle Jurassic series of the type A-1 is better than that of the type A-2 ,which is better than the type B.
引文
[1]国外含油气盆地勘探开发丛书编委会.中亚含油气地区[M].安作相,胡征钦,译.北京:石油工业出版社,1993:5-212.
[2]Kravchenko K N,Koshelev N I,Kravchenko N E,et al.The re-gional structure of the turanian platform and its development[J].Tectonophysics,1976,36(1/3):263-273.
[3]Boris A Natal'in,A M Cell Sengr.Late Palaeozoic to Triassic evolution of the Turan and Scythian platforms:The pre-history of the Palaeo-Tethyan closure[J].Tectonophysics,2005,404:175-202.
[4]施央申,卢华复,贾东,等.中亚大陆古生代构造形成及演化[J].高校地质学报,1996,2(2):134-145.
[5]中俄土合作研究项目组.中俄土天然气地质研究新进展[M].北京:石油工业出版社,1995:126-229.
[6]徐文世,刘秀联,余志清,等.中亚阿姆河含油气盆地构造特征[J].天然气地球科学,2009,20(5):744-748.
[7]严维理,江鸿,吴先忠,等.阿姆河右岸区块地质特征与钻井设计[J].天然气工业,2010,30(5):73-76.
[8]李浩武,童晓光,王素花,等.阿姆河盆地侏罗系成藏组合地质特征及勘探潜力[J].天然气工业,2010,30(5):6-12.
[9]Brookfield M E,Hashmat A.The geology and petroleum potential of the North Afghan platform and adjacent areas[J].Earth Sci-ence Review,2001,55:41-71.
[10]徐树宝,王素花,孙晓军.土库曼斯坦油气地质和资源潜力[J].石油科技论坛,2007(6):31-38.
[11]孙林.土库曼斯坦阿姆河右岸三维勘探区侏罗系盐下礁体识别及目标选择[D].北京:中国地质大学,2010:15-45.
[12]李国玉,金之钧.新编世界含油气盆地图集(上册)[M].北京:石油工业出版社,2005:28-31.
[13]罗金海,车自成.中亚与中国西部侏罗纪沉积盆地的成因分析[J].西北大学学报:自然科学版,2001,31(2):167-170.
[14]张志伟,何永垚,王春生,等.中亚地区阿姆河盆地查尔朱、布哈拉阶地构造特征及演化[J].海相油气地质,2010,15(4):48-56.
[15]徐剑良,程绪彬,吴蕾,等.阿姆河右岸区块构造演化与成藏条件[J].天然气工业,2010,30(5):18-20.
[16]唐克东,邵济安.中亚褶皱区构造演化问题——俄罗斯学者近年研究成果评价[J].现代地质,1997,11(1):21-27.
[2]Kravchenko K N,Koshelev N I,Kravchenko N E,et al.The re-gional structure of the turanian platform and its development[J].Tectonophysics,1976,36(1/3):263-273.
[3]Boris A Natal'in,A M Cell Sengr.Late Palaeozoic to Triassic evolution of the Turan and Scythian platforms:The pre-history of the Palaeo-Tethyan closure[J].Tectonophysics,2005,404:175-202.
[4]施央申,卢华复,贾东,等.中亚大陆古生代构造形成及演化[J].高校地质学报,1996,2(2):134-145.
[5]中俄土合作研究项目组.中俄土天然气地质研究新进展[M].北京:石油工业出版社,1995:126-229.
[6]徐文世,刘秀联,余志清,等.中亚阿姆河含油气盆地构造特征[J].天然气地球科学,2009,20(5):744-748.
[7]严维理,江鸿,吴先忠,等.阿姆河右岸区块地质特征与钻井设计[J].天然气工业,2010,30(5):73-76.
[8]李浩武,童晓光,王素花,等.阿姆河盆地侏罗系成藏组合地质特征及勘探潜力[J].天然气工业,2010,30(5):6-12.
[9]Brookfield M E,Hashmat A.The geology and petroleum potential of the North Afghan platform and adjacent areas[J].Earth Sci-ence Review,2001,55:41-71.
[10]徐树宝,王素花,孙晓军.土库曼斯坦油气地质和资源潜力[J].石油科技论坛,2007(6):31-38.
[11]孙林.土库曼斯坦阿姆河右岸三维勘探区侏罗系盐下礁体识别及目标选择[D].北京:中国地质大学,2010:15-45.
[12]李国玉,金之钧.新编世界含油气盆地图集(上册)[M].北京:石油工业出版社,2005:28-31.
[13]罗金海,车自成.中亚与中国西部侏罗纪沉积盆地的成因分析[J].西北大学学报:自然科学版,2001,31(2):167-170.
[14]张志伟,何永垚,王春生,等.中亚地区阿姆河盆地查尔朱、布哈拉阶地构造特征及演化[J].海相油气地质,2010,15(4):48-56.
[15]徐剑良,程绪彬,吴蕾,等.阿姆河右岸区块构造演化与成藏条件[J].天然气工业,2010,30(5):18-20.
[16]唐克东,邵济安.中亚褶皱区构造演化问题——俄罗斯学者近年研究成果评价[J].现代地质,1997,11(1):21-27.
版权所有：© 2023 中国地质图书馆 中国地质调查局地学文献中心