In-situ Stress Characteristics and Fracture Distribution Prediction of Different Segments in Shunbei No.4 Strike-Slip Fault Zone, Tarim Basin

doi:10.7657/XJPG20250101

Abstract

Abstract:

Based on the development background of the strike-slip fault zone in the Shunbei area of the Tarim Basin, the in-situ stress states, the fracture systems around faults, and the well productivity characteristics in different segments of the Shunbei No.4 strike-slip fault zone were analyzed by using geomechanical theories. According to the reservoir mechanical properties obtained through P-wave and S-wave logging and rock mechanics experiments, a 3D geomechanical model was constructed. Based on the elastoplastic theory, and by using the finite element numerical simulation method, the fracture development characteristics of the target layer controlled by the strike-slip faults were predicted. The research results show that the in-situ stress patterns vary across segments in the fault zone. The differences in structures of geological units control the in-situ stress distribution, and regions with high fracture density typically exhibit a strip-like distribution on both sides of the fault or between faults. High fracture density combined with Anderson-type Ⅰa and Ⅲ stress states is associated with wells exhibiting high yields. The in-situ stress conditions, fracture development characteristics, and key factors controlling high well productivity in different segments in the Shunbei strike-slip fault zone were clarified.

Key words: Tarim Basin, Shunbei area, Shunbei No.4 strike-slip fault zone, in-situ stress, fracture prediction, structural segment, numerical simulation

CLC Number:

TE122

HUANG Chao, GUO Honghui, ZHANG Shenglong, ZHU Lintao, FENG Jianwei, DU He. In-situ Stress Characteristics and Fracture Distribution Prediction of Different Segments in Shunbei No.4 Strike-Slip Fault Zone, Tarim Basin[J]. Xinjiang Petroleum Geology, 2025, 46(1): 1-12.

Figures/Tables 11

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Table 1.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 7.

Fig. 8.

Fig. 9.

Table 2.

References 35

[1]	贾承造. 含油气盆地深层—超深层油气勘探开发的科学技术问题[J]. 中国石油大学学报(自然科学版), 2023, 47(5):1-12.
	JIA Chengzao. Key scientific and technological problems of petroleum exploration and development in deep and ultra-deep formation[J]. Journal of China University of Petroleum(Edition of Natural Science), 2023, 47(5):1-12.
[2]	漆立新, 丁勇. 塔里木盆地顺北地区东西部海相油气成藏差异[J]. 石油实验地质, 2023, 45(1):20-28.
	QI Lixin, DING Yong. Differences in marine hydrocarbon accumulation between the eastern and western parts of Shunbei area,Tarim Basin[J]. Petroleum Geology & Experiment, 2023, 45(1):20-28.
[3]	云露, 邓尚. 塔里木盆地深层走滑断裂差异变形与控储控藏特征:以顺北油气田为例[J]. 石油学报, 2022, 43(6):770-787. doi: 10.7623/syxb202206003
	YUN Lu, DENG Shang. Structural styles of deep strike-slip faults in Tarim Basin and the characteristics of their control on reservoir formation and hydrocarbon accumulation:A case study of Shunbei oil and gas field[J]. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 2022, 43(6):770-787.
[4]	李映涛, 汝智星, 邓尚, 等. 塔里木盆地顺北特深碳酸盐岩储层天然裂缝实验评价及油气意义[J]. 石油实验地质, 2023, 45(3):422-433.
	LI Yingtao, RU Zhixing, DENG Shang, et al. Experimental evaluation and hydrocarbon significance of natural fractures in Shunbei ultra-deep carbonate reservoir,Tarim Basin[J]. Petroleum Geology & Experiment, 2023, 45(3):422-433.
[5]	吕文雅, 曾联波, 周思宾, 等. 鄂尔多斯盆地西南部致密砂岩储层微观裂缝特征及控制因素:以红河油田长8储层为例[J]. 天然气地球科学, 2020, 31(1):37-46. doi: 10.11764/j.issn.1672-1926.2019.08.006
	LÜ Wenya, ZENG Lianbo, ZHOU Sibin, et al. Microfracture characteristics and its controlling factors in the tight oil sandstones in the southwest Ordos Basin:Case study of the eighth member of the Yanchang formation in Honghe oilfield[J]. Natural Gas Geoscience, 2020, 31(1):37-46. doi: 10.11764/j.issn.1672-1926.2019.08.006
[6]	焦方正. 塔里木盆地顺托果勒地区北东向走滑断裂带的油气勘探意义[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2017, 38(5):831-839.
	JIAO Fangzheng. Significance of oil and gas exploration in NE strike-slip fault belts in Shuntuoguole area of Tarim Basin[J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2017, 38(5):831-839.
[7]	DURIEZ J, SCHOLTÈS L, DONZÉ F V. Micromechanics of wing crack propagation for different flaw properties[J]. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2016,153:378-398.
[8]	MARRETT R, GALE J F W, GÓMEZ L A, et al. Correlation analysis of fracture arrangement in space[J]. Journal of Structural Geology, 2018,108:16-33.
[9]	童亨茂. 成像测井资料在构造裂缝预测和评价中的应用[J]. 天然气工业, 2006, 26(9):58-61.
	TONG Hengmao. Application of imaging well logging data in prediction of structural fracture[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2006, 26(9):58-61.
[10]	孙帅, 侯贵廷. 岩石力学参数影响断背斜内张裂缝发育带的概念模型[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2020, 41(3):455-462.
	SUN Shuai, HOU Guiting. Analysis of conceptual models for the influence of rock mechanics on tensile zone in faulted anticlines[J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2020, 41(3):455-462.
[11]	曾联波, 巩磊, 祖克威, 等. 柴达木盆地西部古近系储层裂缝有效性的影响因素[J]. 地质学报, 2012, 86(11):1809-1814.
	ZENG Lianbo, GONG Lei, ZU Kewei, et al. Influence factors on fracture validity of Paleogene reservoir,western Qaidam Basin[J]. Acta Geologica Sinica, 2012, 86(11):1809-1814.
[12]	张庆莲, 侯贵廷, 潘文庆, 等. 皮羌走滑断裂控制构造裂缝发育的力学机制模拟[J]. 地质力学学报, 2012, 18(2):110-119.
	ZHANG Qinglian, HOU Guiting, PAN Wenqing, et al. Numerical simulation of structural fractures controlled by Piqiang strike-slip fault[J]. Journal of Geomechanics, 2012, 18(2):110-119.
[13]	黄彦庆, 肖开华, 金武军, 等. 川东北元坝西部须家河组致密砂岩裂缝发育特征及控制因素[J]. 地质科技通报, 2023, 42(2):105-114.
	HUANG Yanqing, XIAO Kaihua, JIN Wujun, et al. Characteristics and controlling factors of tight sandstone reservoir fractures in the Xujiahe formation of the western Yuanba area,northeastern Sichuan Basin[J]. Bulletin of Geological Science and Technology, 2023, 42(2):105-114.
[14]	鲍典, 曹飞, 张娟, 等. 超深层走滑断裂带应力场模拟及其开发意义:以顺北5号断裂带南段为例[J]. 科学技术与工程, 2023, 23(31):13254-13264.
	BAO Dian, CAO Fei, ZHANG Juan, et al. Simulation of stress field in ultra deep strike slip fault zone and its development significance:A case study of the southern section of Shunbei No.5 fault zone[J]. Science Technology and Engineering, 2023, 23(31):13254-13264.
[15]	张继标, 邓尚, 韩俊, 等. 多期构造应力控制走滑断控储层发育机理与差异性研究:以塔里木盆地顺北地区为例[J]. 石油实验地质, 2024, 46(4):775-785.
	ZHANG Jibiao, DENG Shang, HAN Jun, et al. Study on development mechanism and variability of strike-slip fault-controlled reservoirs regulated by multi-stage structural stress:A case study of the Shunbei area,Tarim Basin[J]. Petroleum Geology & Experiment, 2024, 46(4):775-785.
[16]	丁文龙, 李云涛, 韩俊, 等. 碳酸盐岩储层高精度构造应力场模拟与裂缝多参数分布预测方法及其应用[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2024, 45(3):827-851.
	DING Wenlong, LI Yuntao, HAN Jun, et al. Methods for high-precision tectonic stress field simulation and multi-parameter prediction of fracture distribution for carbonate reservoirs and their application[J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2024, 45(3):827-851.
[17]	刘敬寿, 丁文龙, 杨海盟, 等. 鄂尔多斯盆地华庆地区天然裂缝与岩石力学层演化:基于数值模拟的定量分析[J]. 地球科学, 2023, 48(7):2572-2588.
	LIU Jingshou, DING Wenlong, YANG Haimeng, et al. Natural fractures and rock mechanical stratigraphy evaluation in Huaqing area,Ordos Basin:A quantitative analysis based on numerical simulation[J]. Earth Science, 2023, 48(7):2572-2588.
[18]	李海英, 韩俊, 陈平, 等. 塔里木盆地顺北4号走滑断裂带变形特征及有利区评价[J]. 新疆石油地质, 2023, 44(2):127-135.
	LI Haiying, HAN Jun, CHEN Ping, et al. Deformation and favorable area evaluation of Shunbei No.4 strike-slip fault zone in Tarim Basin[J]. Xinjiang Petroleum Geology, 2023, 44(2):127-135.
[19]	邓尚, 李慧莉, 张仲培, 等. 塔里木盆地顺北及邻区主干走滑断裂带差异活动特征及其与油气富集的关系[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2018, 39(5):878-888.
	DENG Shang, LI Huili, ZHANG Zhongpei, et al. Characteristics of differential activities in major strike-slip fault zones and their control on hydrocarbon enrichment in Shunbei area and its surroundings,Tarim Basin[J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2018, 39(5):878-888.
[20]	孙东, 杨丽莎, 王宏斌, 等. 塔里木盆地哈拉哈塘地区走滑断裂体系对奥陶系海相碳酸盐岩储层的控制作用[J]. 天然气地球科学, 2015, 26(增刊1):80-87.
	SUN Dong, YANG Lisha, WANG Hongbin, et al. Strike-slip fault system in Halahatang area of Tarim Basin and its control on reservoirs of Ordovician marine carbonate rock[J]. Natural Gas Geoscience, 2015,26 (Supp.1):80-87.
[21]	王挺, 汪杰, 江厚顺, 等. 页岩水平井水力压裂裂缝扩展及防窜三维地质模拟[J]. 新疆石油地质, 2023, 44(6):720-728.
	WANG Ting, WANG Jie, JIANG Houshun, et al. 3D geological simulation of hydraulic fracture propagation and frac-hit prevention in horizontal shale gas wells[J]. Xinjiang Petroleum Geology, 2023, 44(6):720-728.
[22]	王平. 地质力学方法研究:不同构造力作用下地应力的类型和分布[J]. 石油学报, 1992, 13(1):1-12. doi: 10.7623/syxb199201001
	WANG Ping. A geomechanical technique:Types and distribution of geostress under various tectonic forces[J]. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 1992, 13(1):1-12.
[23]	时梦璇, 刘之的, 杨学峰, 等. 地层孔隙压力地球物理测井预测技术综述及展望[J]. 地球物理学进展, 2020, 35(5):1845-1853.
	SHI Mengxuan, LIU Zhidi, YANG Xuefeng, et al. Review and prospect prediction technology for formation pore pressure by geophysical well logging[J]. Progress in Geophysics, 2020, 35(5):1845-1853.
[24]	刘军, 黄超, 周磊, 等. 基于阵列声波测井估算碳酸盐岩储层岩石力学和地应力参数:以顺北4号带为例[J]. 地质力学学报, 2024, 30(3):394-407.
	LIU Jun, HUANG Chao, ZHOU Lei, et al. Estimation of the rock mechanics and in-situ stress parameters of carbonate reservoirs using array sonic logging:A case study of Shunbei No.4 block[J]. Journal of Geomechanics, 2024, 30(3):394-407.
[25]	DAVIS G H, BUMP A P, GARCIA P E, et al. Conjugate Riedel deformation band shear zones[J]. Journal of Structural Geology, 2000,22:169-190.
[26]	AN L J, SAMMIS C G. Development of strike-slip faults:Shear experiments in granular materials and clay using a new technique[J]. Journal of Structural Geology, 1996,18:1061-1077.
[27]	陈波, 田崇鲁. 储层构造裂缝数值模拟技术的应用实例[J]. 石油学报, 1998, 19(4):50-54. doi: 10.7623/syxb199804009
	CHEN Bo, TIAN Chonglu. Numerical simulation technique for structural fractures in a reservoir:Case studies[J]. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 1998, 19(4):50-54. doi: 10.7623/syxb199804009
[28]	GOODMAN R E. Subaudible noise during compression of rocks[J]. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 1963,74:487-490.
[29]	董平川. 利用岩芯古地磁定向研究油藏水平主应力方向[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2004, 23(14):2480-2483.
	DONG Pingchuan. Orientation determination of maximum horizontal stress in reservoir formation by paleomagnetic orientation of cores[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2004, 23(14):2480-2483.
[30]	王喜双, 李晋超, 王绍民, 等. 塔里木盆地构造应力场与油气聚集[J]. 石油学报, 1997, 18(1):23-28. doi: 10.7623/syxb199701004
	WANG Xishuang, LI Jinchao, WANG Shaomin, et al. Oil and gas accumulation and structural stress field in Tarim Basin[J]. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 1997, 18(1):23-28. doi: 10.7623/syxb199701004
[31]	REN Qiqiang, FENG Jianwei, JOHNSTON S, et al. The influence of argillaceous content in carbonate rocks on the 3D modeling and characterization of tectonic fracture parameters:Example from the Carboniferous and Ordovician formations in the Hetianhe gas field,Tarim Basin,NW China[J]. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2021,203:108668.
[32]	EBERHARDT E, STEAD D, STIMPSON B, et al. Identifying crack initiation and propagation thresholds in brittle rock[J]. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1998, 35(2):222-233.
[33]	冯建伟, 戴俊生, 马占荣, 等. 低渗透砂岩裂缝参数与应力场关系理论模型[J]. 石油学报, 2011, 32(4):664-671. doi: 10.7623/syxb201104015
	FENG Jianwei, DAI Junsheng, MA Zhanrong, et al. The theoretical model between fracture parameters and stress field of low-permeability sandstones[J]. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 2011, 32(4):664-671. doi: 10.7623/syxb201104015
[34]	周辉, 李震, 杨艳霜, 等. 岩石统一能量屈服准则[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2013, 32(11):2170-2184.
	ZHOU Hui, LI Zhen, YANG Yanshuang, et al. Unified energy yield criterion of rock[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2013, 32(11):2170-2184.
[35]	REN Qiqiang, FENG Jianwei, JOHNSTON S, et al. Quantitative characterization of interlayer fractures in carbonate rocks based on finite element numerical simulation[J]. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2020,195:107942.

地质单元	杨氏模量/GPa	泊松比	抗压强度/MPa	抗剪强度/MPa	摩擦系数
良里塔格组	52.8~78.7（63.2）	0.250~0.280（0.260）	108.9~154.1（128.9）	35.23
一间房组	74.9~80.3（77.8）	0.285~0.295（0.290）	159.1~171.8（165.8）	58.03
鹰山组	72.6~76.3（74.1）	0.290~0.300（0.295）	151.7~164.1（155.4）	54.39
断裂带	18.0	0.350	60.0	8.00	0.25

断裂分段	应力模式	井名	裂缝密度/ （条·m^-1）	日产油量/t	日产气量/ 10⁴ m³
张剪段	Ⅰa型	顺41H井顺44X井顺45H井	0.81~1.10 0.75~1.10 0.70~0.97	522.9 414.8 366.0	49.9 41.3 55.8
挤压段	Ⅱ型	顺43X井顺42H井	0.40~1.10	106.4 73.4	18.5 25.7
压剪段	Ⅲ型	顺49H井顺46H井	0.81~1.10 0.85~1.10	238.1 285.1	37.8 36.6
拉张段	Ⅰb型	顺45X井顺44H井顺41X井	0.59~0.70 0.36~0.65	128.2 133.1 96.1	24.7 30.7 28.8