阜康白杨河矿区欠饱和浅层煤含气量测试方法对比研究
Comparative Study on Gas Content Measurement Methods for Undersaturated Shallow Coal in the Baiyanghe Mining Area, Fukang
DOI: 10.12677/ag.2026.169116, PDF,   
作者: 舒东楚*:长江大学石油工程学院,湖北 武汉;李菊花#, 孙航宇:长江大学石油工程学院,湖北 武汉;油气钻采工程湖北省重点实验室(长江大学),湖北 武汉
关键词: 欠饱和煤含气量解吸量损失气量测试方法Undersaturated Coal Gas Content Desorbed Gas Volume Lost Gas Volume Measurement Method
摘要: 针对新疆阜康白杨河矿区欠饱和煤传统含气量测试方法误差大、制约煤层气资源精准评价的问题,本研究以FK矿区4口取芯井(FC-2, FC-3, FS-24, FK56)实测数据为基础,对GB/T 19559-2008与GB/T 19559-2021两版含气量测试标准进行了系统的对比与评价,探讨了含气量与煤质、埋深及储层参数的关联规律。结果表明:41煤层为矿区主力储气层,横向含气稳定性强,含气饱和度普遍高于70% (排除异常灰分干扰);含气性呈现“优质埋深区间”特征,850~920 m埋深段因“压力适宜 + 煤质优质”成为含气峰值段,打破了“埋深越大含气量越高”的传统认知;工业分析指标与含气量显著相关,灰分、水分与含气饱和度呈负相关,挥发分存在38%~40.5%的适宜区间;以FK56井10个样品同台对比计算,2008版方法因采用常规取心、常温解吸及静态损失气估算,导致损失气量仅为2021版的25%~45%,总含气量平均误差达12.8% (95%置信区间约11.0%~14.6%,n = 10),而2021版通过高速保压取心、恒温(±1˚C)解吸及动态损失气校正等技术,将误差控制在±5%以内,可更准确地判定经济层。本研究为阜康浅层煤层气资源评价与开发方案优化提供了技术支撑,也为新疆类似欠饱和煤区含气量测试标准的选用与评价提供了参考。
Abstract: There is a key problem in the Baiyanghe Mining Area, Fukang. Traditional methods measure gas content in undersaturated coal. These methods have large errors. The errors restrict accurate evaluation of coalbed methane (CBM) resources. The measured data come from four cored wells in the mining area (FC-2, FC-3, FS-24, FK56). The study systematically compares and evaluates two versions of gas content measurement standards (GB/T 19559-2008 and GB/T 19559-2021). The laws link gas content to coal quality, burial depth, and reservoir parameters. The results are as follows: 41# coal seam is the main gas-storing layer in the mining area. Its lateral gas-bearing stability is strong. Gas saturation is generally higher than 70%. This excludes interference from abnormal ash content; The gas-bearing property has a high-quality burial depth interval feature. The burial depth section of 850~920 m is the gas content peak. This is due to “suitable pressure + high-quality coal properties”. It breaks the traditional cognition. The old idea was “the greater the burial depth, the higher the gas content”; Proximate analysis indices are significantly correlated with gas content. Ash content and moisture content show negative correlation with gas saturation. Volatile matter has a suitable range. The range is 38%~40.5%.; Based on the same-sample comparison of 10 specimens from Well FK56, the lost gas volume estimated by the 2008 version is only 25%~45% of that by the 2021 version, and the average error of total gas content reaches 12.8% (95% CI approximately 11.0%~14.6%, n = 10). In contrast, the 2021 version uses new technologies. These technologies include high-speed pressure-retaining coring, constant-temperature (±1˚C) desorption, and dynamic lost gas correction. It controls the error within ±5%. This allows more accurate identification of economic coal seams. This study provides technical support for CBM resource evaluation in Fukang’s shallow coal seams. It also helps optimize development plans. Besides, it offers a reference for the selection and evaluation of gas content measurement standards in similar undersaturated coal areas in Xinjiang.
文章引用:舒东楚, 李菊花, 孙航宇. 阜康白杨河矿区欠饱和浅层煤含气量测试方法对比研究[J]. 地球科学前沿, 2026, 16(9): 1307-1316. https://doi.org/10.12677/ag.2026.169116

参考文献

[1] 桑树勋, 李瑞明, 刘世奇, 等. 新疆煤层气大规模高效勘探开发关键技术领域研究进展与突破方向[J]. 煤炭学报, 2024, 49(1): 563-585.
[2] 郑司建, 桑树勋. 煤层气勘探开发研究进展与发展趋势[J]. 石油物探, 2022, 61(6): 951-962.
[3] 孙东玲, 梁运培, 黄旭超, 等. 新疆大倾角多煤组煤矿区煤层气开发利用进展与前景[J]. 煤炭科学技术, 2023, 51(S1): 162-172.
[4] 汤达祯, 杨曙光, 唐淑玲, 等. 准噶尔盆地煤层气勘探开发与地质研究进展[J]. 煤炭学报, 2021, 46(8): 2412-2425.
[5] 中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. GB/T 19559-2008煤层气含量测定方法[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2008: 2-6.
[6] 中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. GB/T 19559-2021煤层气含量测定方法[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2021: 2-6.
[7] 吴嘉仪. 大倾角储层煤层气井压力传播规律及排采控制模拟研究[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 北京: 中国石油大学(北京), 2021.
[8] 李站伟, 汤达祯, 唐淑玲, 等. 准噶尔盆地南缘富CO2低阶煤层气藏的形成机理研究[J]. 煤炭科学技术, 2021, 49(3): 175-180.
[9] 李文杰, 吴云利, 朱晓虎, 等. 基于全直径CT扫描的准噶尔盆地煤层气储层矿物表征及含气量预测[J]. 岩矿测试, 2026, 45(1): 86-100.
[10] 傅雪海, 简阔, 丁永明, 等. 低煤化储层三相态含气量模拟研究[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2015: 139-142.
[11] 傅雪海, 张小东, 韦重韬. 煤层含气量的测试、模拟与预测研究进展[J]. 中国矿业大学学报, 2021, 50(1): 13-31.
[12] 苗杰, 倪小明, 曹运兴, 等. 低阶煤含气量修正数学模型及应用[J]. 煤矿安全, 2017, 48(2): 153-155, 159.
[13] 张群, 范章群. 煤层气损失气含量模拟试验及结果分析[J]. 煤炭学报, 2009, 34(12): 1649-1654.
[14] 葛燕燕, 秦勇, 傅雪海, 等. 不同粒径煤样常压与带压解吸对比实验研究[J]. 中国矿业大学学报, 2015, 44(4): 673-678.
[15] Li, J., Lu, S., Zhang, P., Cai, J., Li, W., Wang, S., et al. (2020) Estimation of Gas-in-Place Content in Coal and Shale Reservoirs: A Process Analysis Method and Its Preliminary Application. Fuel, 259, Article ID: 116266.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.116266
[16] 国家能源局. NB/T 10018-2015低煤阶煤层含气量测定方法[S]. 北京: 中国电力出版社, 2015: 9-13.
[17] 周福宝, 康建宏, 王有湃, 等. 煤层瓦斯含量井下一站式自动化精准测定方法[J]. 煤炭学报, 2022, 47(8): 2873-2882.
[18] Zhang, J., Wei, C., Vandeginste, V., Ju, W., Qin, Z., Quan, F., et al. (2019) Experimental Simulation Study on Water Migration and Methane Depressurizing Desorption Based on Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Technology: A Case Study of Middle-Rank Coals from the Panguan Syncline in the Western Guizhou Region. Energy & Fuels, 33, 7993-8006.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.9b01041
[19] Quan, F., Wei, C., Zhang, J., Feng, S., Hao, S., Lu, G., et al. (2020) Study on Desorption and Diffusion Dynamics of Coal Reservoir through Step-by-Step Depressurization Simulation—An Experimental Simulation Study Based on LF-NMR Technology. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 75, Article ID: 103149.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2020.103149
[20] 韦波, 张冀, 李鑫, 等. 低煤化欠饱和煤心含气量预测数值模拟[J]. 煤矿安全, 2024, 55(3): 53-59.
[21] 侯伟, 徐凤银, 张雷, 等. 煤岩类型对煤储层吸附/解吸特征影响及实践意义——以保德区块为例[J]. 煤田地质与勘探, 2022, 50(3): 110-118.