Development characteristics and orientation of tight oil and gas in China

SUN Longde,ZOU Caineng,JIA Ailin,WEI Yunsheng,ZHU Rukai,WU Songtao,GUO Zhi

Table 7 Comparison of tight gas geological conditions between North America and China.

Comparison index Reservoirs thickness and distribution Deposit type Natural fracture Reservoir condition Burial depth/m Pressure coefficient Gas saturation/% Reserve abundance/ (108 m3·km2) Single-well ultimate cumulative production/ 108 m3 Tight gas in the San Juan Basin, USA 4 sets of gas reservoirs, 40-100 m Dominated by marine shore plain sand bar Fractures developed in local parts Effective porosity is 3%-12%, effective permeability is (0.001-0.100)×10-3 μm2 750- 2 650 1.4-1.7 >60 >5 Vertical well 0.2-1 Montney tight gas in the Western Canada Basin 60-180 m, lateral stability Marine shore plain, aeolian sand dominated No fracture Effective porosity is 3%-8%, effective permeability is (0.001-0.030)×10-3 μm2 2 100- 3 000 1.4-1.9 >70 6-9 Horizontal well >1 Sulige tight gas of Ordos Basin Gas-bearing sand bodies are small and scattered, about 10 m thick Braided river No fracture Matrix porosity is 3%-10%, effective permeability is (0.001-0.100)×10-3 μm2 3 000- 3 500 0.87 55- 60 1.3 Vertical well 0.1-0.3