|
|
|
| The tentative application of artificial intelligence algorithm to evaluating continental shale gas resources: A case study of Qintong sag in Subei (North Jiangsu) Basin |
Ying TAN1( ), Wei-Song YANG2, Zhen-Sheng LI3 |
1. East China Mineral Exploration & Development Bureau, Nanjing 21000, China
2. Communication and Electronic School, Jiangxi Science & Technology Normal University, Nanchang 330013, China
3. School of Resources and Environmental Engineering, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei 230009, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Taking Qintong sag of Subei basin in lower Yangtze area as the demonstration area, the authors investigated the evaluation of shale gas resources with the artificial intelligence method. With the combination algorithm designs, the authors conducted the whole process of demonstration operation based on continental shale gas resources evaluation parameters of the work area. First, Qintong sag was divided into 14 sample areas by the method of deformation structure partition; then, using the fuzzy mathematics method, the authors obtained quantitative and half-quantitative parameter values; after that, using factor analysis method the authors conducted the evaluation of 14 sample areas in a single plane; finally, composite evaluation of five shale gas layers in vertical direction of 14 sample areas was made based on the evaluation of 5 single planes. In order to get the equivalence data of each single layer, the authors introduced the zero value and grading values. The practise of the combination algorithm designs has the reference value for the shale gas resources evaluation system of artificial intelligence.
|
|
Received: 20 October 2017
Published: 20 February 2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 位置 | 断坡带 | 断垒带 | 断堑带 | 断阶带 | | 北断区 | 唐刘断坡1 | 练家断垒2 | | | | 中北断区 | 茅山断坡3 | 沭庄断垒4 | 溪南断堑5 | | | 中断区 | 吴堡断坡6 | 边城断垒7 | 储家断堑8 | 草舍断阶9 | | 中南断区 | | 华垛断垒10 | 港南断堑11 | 洲城断阶12 | | 南断区 | | | 郭村断堑13 | 姜庄断阶14 |
|
|
|
| 成岩相(权值) | 样品区号 | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | | 压实相(0.25) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 0 | | 胶结相(0.25) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 0 | | 溶蚀相(0.75) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 57 | 70 | 0 | 66 | 72 | 0 | 13 | 33 | 10 | 0 | 0 | | 填相(0.25) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 72 | 22 | 0 | 0 | | 有效面积/km2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 57 | 70.0 | 0 | 66 | 90 | 26 | 14 | 105 | 32 | 38 | 0 | | 总评分 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0 | 0.75 | 0.65 | 0.25 | 0.72 | 0.41 | 0.42 | 0.25 | 0 |
|
|
|
| 样品区号 | 主因子 | | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F6 | | 1 | -1.21 | -0.09 | -0.12 | -0.49 | -0.80 | -0.58 | | 2 | -1.25 | -0.13 | -0.25 | -0.20 | 0.11 | -0.25 | | 3 | -1.09 | 0.12 | -0.11 | -0.80 | 0.72 | -1.01 | | 4 | 0.81 | 0.01 | 1.49 | -0.25 | 0.33 | 0.93 | | 5 | 0.88 | 0.47 | 0.52 | 0.01 | -0.35 | 1.39 | | 6 | -1.16 | -0.42 | 0.91 | 0.17 | 1.11 | 0.07 | | 7 | 0.62 | -0.08 | 1.26 | -1.15 | 0.69 | 0.02 | | 8 | 1.31 | 0.82 | 0.31 | -1.99 | -0.87 | -1.78 | | 9 | 0.66 | 1.42 | -2.53 | -0.73 | 1.62 | 1.49 | | 10 | 0.24 | -0.80 | 1.27 | 0.63 | 0.48 | 1.09 | | 11 | 0.48 | -0.03 | -0.40 | -0.04 | -2.06 | 0.68 | | 12 | 0.61 | 2.18 | 0.42 | 2.69 | 0.44 | -1.41 | | 13 | -0.61 | 0.33 | 0.08 | 0.32 | -1.71 | 0.74 | | 14 | -1.00 | 0.26 | -0.72 | 0.10 | -1.22 | -0.47 | | 15(全零值) | -1.36 | -0.32 | -0.42 | 0.21 | -0.57 | 0.34 | | 16(全中值) | 0.57 | -1.66 | -0.97 | 1.08 | 0.25 | 0.10 | | 17(全优值) | 1.50 | -2.11 | -0.98 | 0.45 | 0.20 | -1.36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 样品区号 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | | 综合评价值B | 0.27 | 0.20 | 0.35 | 0.71 | 0.76 | 0.33 | 0.60 | 0.73 | 0.67 | 0.99 | 0.46 | 0.66 | 0.46 | 0.51 | 0.17 | 0.48 | 0.68 |
|
|
|
| 样品区分区 | 样品区号 | | Ⅰ类区 | 4、5、8、10 | | Ⅱ类区 | 7、9 | | Ⅲ类区 | 1、2、3、6、11、13、14 |
|
|
|
| 目的层 | 样品区号 | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | | 阜宁组四段B1 | 0.30 | 0.33 | 0.41 | 0.46 | 0.67 | 0.36 | 0.46 | 0.70 | 0.79 | 0.43 | 0.49 | 0.66 | 0.41 | 0.26 | 0.33 | 0.32 | 0.67 | | 阜宁组三段B2 | 0.27 | 0.26 | 0.35 | 0.71 | 0.76 | 0.33 | 0.60 | 0.73 | 0.67 | 0.99 | 0.46 | 0.66 | 0.46 | 0.37 | 0.17 | 0.48 | 0.68 | | 阜宁组二段B3 | 0.31 | 0.21 | 0.32 | 0.73 | 0.59 | 0.23 | 0.57 | 0.74 | 0.69 | 0.49 | 0.58 | 0.61 | 0.40 | 0.41 | 0.16 | 0.64 | 0.71 | | 阜宁组一段B4 | 0.40 | 0.48 | 0.44 | 0.48 | 0.47 | 0.44 | 0.52 | 0.63 | 0.46 | 0.56 | 0.56 | 0.36 | 0.35 | 0.46 | 0.11 | 0.49 | 0.66 | | 泰州组二段B5 | 0.46 | 0.63 | 0.46 | 0.61 | 0.45 | 0.36 | 0.36 | 0.50 | 0.67 | 0.37 | 0.46 | 0.56 | 0.36 | 0.35 | 0.25 | 0.66 | 0.72 | | ∑Bi | 1.74 | 1.91 | 1.88 | 2.99 | 2.94 | 1.72 | 2.51 | 3.30 | 3.28 | 2.50 | 2.55 | 2.85 | 1.98 | 1.85 | 1.02 | 2.79 | 3.44 | | B总 | 0.35 | 0.38 | 0.37 | 0.59 | 0.59 | 0.34 | 0.50 | 0.66 | 0.66 | 0.47 | 0.51 | 0.57 | 0.40 | 0.37 | 0.20 | 0.56 | 0.69 |
|
|
|
| 综合评价值B | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | | 阜宁组四段 | 0.54 | 0.50 | 0.62 | 0.69 | 1 | 0.53 | 0.70 | 1.06 | 1.18 | 0.65 | 0.73 | 0.99 | 0.61 | 0.39 | 0.49 | 0.79 | 1 | | 阜宁组三段 | 0.39 | 0.29 | 0.50 | 1.04 | 1.11 | 0.48 | 0.87 | 1.06 | 0.97 | 1.25 | 0.67 | 0.96 | 0.07 | 0.54 | 0.25 | 0.70 | 1 | | 阜宁组二段 | 0.43 | 0.34 | 0.45 | 1.03 | 0.83 | 0.33 | 0.81 | 1.04 | 0.97 | 0.69 | 0.81 | 0.86 | 0.57 | 0.58 | 0.22 | 0.89 | 1 | | 阜宁组一段 | 0.61 | 0.73 | 0.68 | 0.74 | 0.71 | 0.61 | 0.68 | 0.80 | 0.96 | 0.70 | 0.84 | 0.86 | 0.53 | 0.70 | 0.17 | 0.74 | 1 | | 泰州组二段 | 0.64 | 0.87 | 0.64 | 0.84 | 0.62 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.67 | 0.92 | 0.51 | 0.64 | 0.78 | 0.50 | 0.49 | 0.84 | 0.92 | 1 | | ∑B | 2.61 | 2.73 | 2.89 | 4.34 | 4.27 | 2.51 | 3.56 | 4.65 | 5.0 | 3.76 | 3.69 | 4.85 | 2.88 | 2.70 | 1.47 | 4.09 | 5 | | B1 | 0.52 | 0.55 | 0.58 | 0.89 | 0.85 | 0.50 | 0.71 | 0.93 | 1 | 0.79 | 0.74 | 0.89 | 0.58 | 0.54 | 2.94 | 0.81 | 1 |
|
|
|
| 样品区分区 | 样品区号 | | Ⅰ类区 | 9 | | Ⅱ类区 | 4、5、8、12 、10 | | Ⅲ类区 | 1、2、3、6、7、13、14 |
|
|
|
| [1] |
Silver D, Huang A, Maddison C, et al.Mastering the game of go with deep neural networks and tree search[J]. Nature,2016,529:484-489.
|
| [2] |
刘德良, 谈迎, 杨晓勇. 溱潼油气区带评价中的R型因子分析方法[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 1999, 20(4): 183-289.
|
| [3] |
樊敬亮, 黄志全, 钱铮, 等. 模糊评价方法在圈闭地质评价中的应用[J]. 西南石油学院学报, 2003, 25(5): 12-15.
|
| [4] |
谈迎, 李振生, 刘德良. CO2的气源和成藏及其预测[M]. 合肥: 中国科学技术大学出版社, 2010.
|
| [5] |
路坤桥, 孙玉学. 我国页岩气勘探开发的要点及层位[J]. 河南科学, 2015, 33(2): 257-260.
|
| [6] |
陶士振, 刘德良, 李昌伟. 华北陆块新区新层页岩气潜在勘探新领域——南华北下寒武统马店组烃源岩及其含气系统[J].天然气地球科学,2014,25(11):1767-1780.
|
| [7] |
王纳申,张译丹,黄家旋,等.用微地震技术评价姬塬油田体积压裂的效果[J].物探与化探, 2017,41(2):165-169
|
| [8] |
屈大鹏,陈超,王明飞,等.川东南地区基于海相泥页岩地层的压力系数预测[J].物探与化探,2016,40(2):349-352.
|
| [9] |
凌帆,朱裕振,周明磊,等.广域电磁法在南华北盆地长山隆起页岩气资源潜力评价中的应用[J].物探与化探,2017,41(2):369-376.
|
| [10] |
易庆. 油气资源评价系统的三层结构设计和实现[J]. 石油学报, 2005, 26(增B3): 16-21.
|
| [11] |
邱振, 邹才能, 李建忠, 等. 非常规油气资源评价进展与未来展望[J]. 天然气地球科学, 2013, 24(2):123-129.
|
| [12] |
郭秋麟, 陈宁生, 刘成林, 等. 油气资源评价方法研究进展与新一代评价软件系统[J]. 石油学报, 2015,36(10):33-38.
|
| [13] |
陶士振, 刘德良, 李振生, 等. 无机成因天然气[M]. 合肥: 中国科学技术大学出版社,2014.
|
| [14] |
谈迎, 邱旭明, 李亚辉. 下扬子区中、古生界变形结构分区[J]. 复杂油气藏, 2011, 4(1):14-18.
|
| [15] |
李昌伟, 陶士振, 董大忠. 国内外页岩气形成条件对比与有利区优选[J]. 天然气地球科学, 2015, 26(5):986-1000.
|
| [16] |
贾贝贝, 陈世悦, 鄢继华, 等. 沧东凹陷孔二段细粒沉积岩沉积微相研究[J]. 河南科学, 2016, 34(3): 371-377.
|
| [17] |
魏婷. 准噶尔盆地W井区西山窑组沉积微相类型及沉积模式模式[J]. 河南科学, 2017, 35(9): 1505-1512.
|
| [18] |
魏孟吉, 张世奇, 徐云飞. 东濮凹陷卫城地区沙三段储层特征及成岩作用研究[J]. 河南科学,2016,34(6):943-949.
|
| [19] |
戴金星,秦胜飞,陶士振.中国天然气工业发展趋势和天然气地学理论重要进展[J]. 天然气地球科学,2005,16(2):127-142.
|
| [20] |
陈安定, 唐焰. 苏北盆地热史埋藏史研究及其对南黄海南部盆地油气勘探的启示[J]. 中国海上油气, 2007,19(4): 234-239.
|
| [21] |
包建平, 梁星宇,朱翠山, 等. 苏北盆地盐城凹陷朱家墩气藏凝析油中的金刚烷类及其意义[J].天然气地球科学,2015,26(3): 505-511.
|
| [22] |
方朝合, 张枝焕, 王义凤, 等. 苏北盆地溱潼凹陷第三系烃源岩地球化学特征[J]. 西安石油大学学报:自然科学版, 2008,23(6): 1-5.
|
| [1] |
CHEN Xiu-Juan, LIU Zhi-Di, LIU Yu-Xi, CHAI Hui-Qiang, WANG Yong. Research into the pore structure of tight reservoirs:A review[J]. Geophysical and Geochemical Exploration, 2022, 46(1): 22-31. |
| [2] |
XIAO Guan-Hua, ZHANG Wei, CHEN Heng-Chun, ZHUO Wu, WANG Yan-Jun, REN Li-Ying. Application of shallow seismic reflection surveys in the exploration of urban underground space in Jinan[J]. Geophysical and Geochemical Exploration, 2022, 46(1): 96-103. |
|
|
|
|
