黄河三角洲冲积平原区地震资料低频问题剖析

doi:10.6038/pg2018AA0483

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

随着胜利油田勘探开发的逐步深入,对地震资料分辨率的要求也越来越高,而位于海陆过渡带的黄河三角洲冲积平原区,由于受控于海洋与河流两种环境,海岸侵蚀与河道淤积交替出现,致使近地表结构异常复杂.在义古60—义古48—义东13连井地区,地震单炮记录出现了明显的低频现象.为找到产生低频的主要原因,通过静力触探、钻孔岩芯和近地表沉积物样品分析,对激发岩性中的有机腐殖质和贝壳层、激发岩性自身的物性参数、地表环境以及近地表微地貌进行了层层剖析,从中找出了该地区产生低频是由于近地表粉砂含量较大,岩性疏松,加之旱季时蒸发量大,使得激发岩性中含水率降低造成的.研究结果对于该区后续地震采集及类似地区地震采集具有很好的借鉴意义.

Abstract:

With the gradual deepening exploration in Sheng-li oilfield, the resolution ratio is getting higher and higher. Zhan-hua sag is located in the land-sea transition zone, as controlled by the ocean and river environments, coastal erosion and river deposition alternated fast, resulting in complex near surface structure. In the connected wells region of YG60-YG48-YD13, seismic shot records have low-frequency phenomena.In order to know the main reason, we used cone penetration test, drill core and near surface sediment samples, to analyze various possibilities, such as organic humus and shell bed which mixed in the lithology, physical parameters, surface environment and micro topography. Finally, we found out the cause of the low-frequency. That is the large silt content, the loose lithology, and the large evaporation during dry season, which results in the decrease of the water content in the shooting lithology. The result of the study is a good reference for follow-up work and similar areas seismic acquisition.

中图分类号:

P631
P738

于富文, 徐钰, 徐雷良. 2018. 黄河三角洲冲积平原区地震资料低频问题剖析. 地球物理学进展, 33(1): 426-431. doi: 10.6038/pg2018AA0483.

Fu-wen YU, Yu XU, Lei-liang XU. 2018. Seismic data analysis of low frequency in the Yellow river delta alluvial plain. Progress in Geophysics. 33(1): 426-431. doi: 10.6038/pg2018AA0483.

图/表 11

图1

图2

图3

图4

表3

表4

图5

图6

图7

参考文献

[1]	Chang S B. 1992. Handbook of Engineering Geology (in Chinese)[M]. 3rd ed. Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press.
[2]	Chen W J, Zhang Z L, Zhu Y , et al. 2008. Discussion on integrative near-surface survey method in Yongxin area[J]. Oil Geophysical Prospecting (in Chinese), 43(S2):70-73.
[3]	Cheng G D. 1991. The Modern Sedimentation and Pattern of the Yellow River Delta (in Chinese)[M]. Beijing: Geology Press.
[4]	Dong H, Liu S X, Wang C H , et al. 2009. Study on near-surface water content measurement by ground-penetrating radar[J]. Journal of Jilin University (Earth Science Edition) (in Chinese), 39(1):163-167.
[5]	Fan D H . 2009. Stratigraphic characteristics and sedimentary models of near-surface formations in the estuary area of the Yellow River Delta[J]. Oil & Gas Geology (in Chinese), 30(3):282-286.
[6]	Gao S M, Li Y F, An F T , et al. 1989. Formation and Depositional Environment in Yellow River Delta (in Chinese)[M]. Beijing: Science Press.
[7]	Jiang Z X, Wang L Q. 1994. A Study on Modern Sedimentation of the Yellow River Delta (in Chinese)[M]. Dongying: Petroleum University Press.
[8]	Li M H . 2008. Application of uphole methods in the investigation of near surface struture[J]. Progress in Exploration Geophysics (in Chinese), 31(5):378-382.
[9]	Li T S, Chen B D, Su D R . 2004. Application of twin-well microlog in near surface investigation[J]. Geophysical Prospecting for Petroleum (in Chinese), 43(5):471-474, 496.
[10]	Li Y P, Ma Z T, Sun P Y , et al. 2012. Converted-wave static correction method for thick weathering area[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics (in Chinese), 55(2):614-621, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0001-5733.2012.02.024.
[11]	Liu S X, Feng Y Q, Fu L , et al. 2012. Advances and numerical simulation of airborne ground penetrating radar[J]. Progress in Geophysics (in Chinese), 27(2):727-735, doi: 10.6038/j.issn.1004-2903.2012.02.040.
[12]	Liu S X, Zeng Z F . 2007. Numerical simulation for ground penetrating radar wave propagation in the dispersive medium[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics (in Chinese), 50(1):320-326, doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0001-5733.2007.01.040.
[13]	Liu Y K, Chang X, Wang H , et al. 2001. Estimation of near-surface velocity and seismic tomographic static corrections[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics (in Chinese), 44(2):272-278, doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0001-5733.2001.02.015.
[14]	Tan S Q, Xu J X, Zhang Q H , et al. 2003. Effect of ghost reflection and lithology on the selection of shooting well depth[J]. Petroleum Geophysics (in Chinese), 1(3):11-14.
[15]	Wang C H, Liu S X, Huang L . 2009. Measurement of near surface water content using ground-penetrating radar-a simulation study[J]. Progress in Geophysics (in Chinese), 24(2):737-741, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-2903.2009.02.051.
[16]	Xu K J, Hu L X, Liu Z , et al. 2011. Application of ground penetrating radar in the near-surface survey of complex mountain areas[J]. Progress in Geophysics (in Chinese), 26(2):714-718, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-2903.2011.02.042.
[17]	Zhang Z L, Nie X H, Bian X C . 2004. Environmental change of lakes in Xiaoqinghe river drainage, Shandong province[J]. Journal of Palaeogeography (in Chinese), 6(2):226-233.
[18]	常士骠 . 1992. 工程地质手册[M]. 3版. 北京: 中国建筑工业出版社.
[19]	陈吴金, 张志林, 朱勇 , 等. 2008. 永新地区综合表层调查方法探讨[J]. 石油地球物理勘探, 43(S2):70-73.
[20]	成国栋 . 1991. 黄河三角洲现代沉积作用及模式[M]. 北京: 地质出版社.
[21]	董航, 刘四新, 王春晖 , 等. 2009. 探地雷达测量近地表含水量的研究[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 39(1):163-167.
[22]	樊德华 . 2009. 黄河三角洲入海口地区近地表地层特征与沉积模式[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 30(3):282-286.
[23]	高善明, 李元芳, 安凤桐 , 等. 1989. 黄河三角洲形成和沉积环境[M]. 北京: 科学出版社.
[24]	姜在兴, 王留奇 . 1994. 黄河三角洲现代沉积研究[M]. 东营: 石油大学出版社.
[25]	李明海 . 2008. 地面微测井在山地表层结构调查中的应用[J]. 勘探地球物理进展, 31(5):378-382.
[26]	李天树, 陈宝德, 苏德仁 . 2004. 双井微测井技术在表层结构调查中的应用[J]. 石油物探, 43(5):471-474, 496.
[27]	李彦鹏, 马在田, 孙鹏远 , 等. 2012. 厚风化层覆盖区转换波静校正方法[J]. 地球物理学报, 55(2):614-621, doi: 10.3969/j.Issn.0001-5733.2012.02.024.
[28]	刘四新, 冯彦谦, 傅磊 , 等. 2012. 机载探地雷达的进展以及数值模拟[J]. 地球物理学进展, 27(2):727-735, doi: 10.6038/j.issn.1004-2903.2012.02.040.
[29]	刘四新, 曾昭发 . 2007. 频散介质中地质雷达波传播的数值模拟[J]. 地球物理学报, 50(1):320-326, doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0001-5733.2007.01.040.
[30]	刘伊克, 常旭, 王辉 , 等. 2001. 三维复杂地形近地表速度估算及地震层析静校正[J]. 地球物理学报, 44(2):272-278, doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0001-5733.2001.02.015.
[31]	谭绍泉, 徐锦玺, 张庆淮 , 等. 2003. 虚反射和岩性对激发井深选择的影响[J]. 油气地球物理, 1(3):11-14.
[32]	王春辉, 刘四新, 黄玲 . 2009. 探地雷达方法测量近地表含水量模拟研究[J]. 地球物理学进展, 24(2):737-741, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-2903.2009.02.051.
[33]	徐凯军, 胡立新, 刘展 , 等. 2011. 地质雷达在复杂山地近地表调查中的应用[J]. 地球物理学进展, 26(2):714-718, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-2903.2011.02.042.
[34]	张祖陆, 聂晓红, 卞学昌 . 2004. 山东小清河流域湖泊的环境变迁[J]. 古地理学报, 6(2):226-233.

取样深度 /m	含水率 W/%	比重 Gs	重度 γ/(kN/m³)	干重度 γ_d/(kN/m³)	孔隙比 e_o	饱和度 Sr/%	液限 W_L/%	塑限 W_P/%	塑性指数 I_P	液性指数 I_L	土样分类
10.50~10.70	36.2	2.71	18.1	13.3	0.995	99	39.0	22.8	16.2	0.83	粉质黏土
11.00~11.20	36.3	2.71	18.1	13.3	0.997	99	38.8	22.9	15.9	0.84	粉质黏土
11.70~11.90	26.9	2.67	18.7	14.7	0.774	93	28.2	19.8	8.4	0.85	粉土
12.20~12.40	27.0	2.66	18.7	14.7	0.769	93	27.7	20.1	7.6	0.91	粉土
12.50~12.70	34.2	2.71	18.3	13.6	0.945	98	37.4	22.1	15.3	0.79	粉质黏土
13.00~13.20	34.3	2.71	18.3	13.6	0.954	99	38.1	22.3	15.8	0.79	粉质黏土
13.50~13.70	34.8	2.71	18.3	13.6	0.954	99	37.6	22.1	15.5	0.82	粉质黏土
14.00~14.20	33.3	2.71	18.4	13.8	0.922	98	35.4	20.2	15.2	0.86	粉质黏土
14.50~14.70	26.9	2.67	18.7	14.7	0.774	93	28.0	20.0	8.0	0.86	粉土
15.00~15.20	27.0	2.67	18.8	14.8	0.766	94	27.9	19.8	8.1	0.89	粉土
15.50~15.70	32.4	2.71	18.5	14.0	0.898	98	35.0	19.9	15.1	0.83	粉质黏土
16.00~16.20	30.7	2.70	18.6	14.2	0.857	97	34.1	19.5	14.6	0.77	粉质黏土
16.50~16.70	31.0	2.70	18.7	14.3	0.852	98	33.6	19.2	14.4	0.82	粉质黏土
17.00~17.20	28.6	2.69	18.8	14.6	0.802	96	31.6	18.5	13.1	0.77	粉质黏土
17.50~17.70	28.2	2.69	18.9	14.7	0.787	96	31.3	18.0	13.3	0.77	粉质黏土

取样深度 /m	含水率 W/%	比重 Gs	重度 γ/(kN/m³)	干重度 γ_d/(kN/m³)	孔隙比 e_o	饱和度 Sr/%	液限 W_L/%	塑限 W_P/%	塑性指数 I_P	液性指数 I_L	土样分类
10.50~10.70	33.8	2.71	18.2	13.6	0.949	96	36.5	20.6	15.9	0.83	粉质黏土
11.00~11.20	34.5	2.71	18.3	13.6	0.949	99	37.5	21.3	16.2	0.81	粉质黏土
11.50~11.70	26.9	2.67	18.7	14.7	0.774	93	28.4	20.2	8.2	0.82	粉土
12.00~12.20	34.3	2.71	18.3	13.6	0.946	98	37.8	21.9	15.9	0.73	粉质黏土
12.60~12.80	26.8	2.67	18.7	14.7	0.773	93	28.2	20.2	8.0	0.83	粉土
13.00~13.20	26.9	2.66	18.8	14.8	0.758	94	28.0	20.2	7.8	0.86	粉土
13.50~13.70	27.0	2.66	18.8	14.8	0.759	95	27.7	20.0	7.7	0.91	粉土
14.00~14.20	30.6	2.69	18.7	14.3	0.839	98	33.3	19.8	13.5	0.80	粉质黏土
14.50~14.70	27.0	2.66	18.7	14.7	0.769	93	27.7	19.9	7.8	0.91	粉土
15.00~15.20	27.0	2.67	18.8	14.8	0.766	94	28.3	20.0	8.3	0.84	粉土
16.00~16.20	27.0	2.67	18.8	14.8	0.766	94	27.6	19.2	8.4	0.93	粉土
16.50~16.70	31.0	2.70	18.6	14.2	0.862	97	34.2	19.8	14.4	0.78	粉质黏土
17.00~17.20	28.3	2.69	18.9	14.7	0.788	97	31.4	18.4	13.0	0.76	粉质黏土
17.50~17.70	26.2	2.69	18.9	15.0	0.759	93	29.0	16.7	12.3	0.77	粉质黏土
18.00~18.20	26.3	2.69	18.8	14.9	0.770	92	28.6	17.4	11.2	0.79	粉质黏土