Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Comparative analysis identifies pressure prediction methods and controlling factors in overpressure systems, suggesting implications for hydrocarbon distribution.
Overpressure systems in the Qingshankou Formation of the Gulong Sag have a significant impact on unconventional shale oil accumulation, but their distribution and genesis are unknown. This study uses a comparative analysis of three primary pressure prediction methods—the equivalent depth method, the Eaton method, and the Bowers method—to investigate the genetic mechanisms of overpressure and their controlling factors. The study clarifies the link between overpressure and hydrocarbon distribution. The key findings are as follows. (1) The Eaton method is identified as the best approach for estimating current formation pore pressure. The Qingshankou Formation exhibits mild overpressure development, with a maximum pressure coefficient of 1.44. (2) Hydrocarbon-generating overpressure, driven by source rock maturation, is confirmed as the dominant mechanism through integrated acoustic velocity–density cross plots and logging analysis. (3) Tectonic-sedimentary factors, such as burial depth, source rock thickness, sand-mud ratio, and faults, collectively control the spatial variability of overpressure. (4) The distribution of the Gulong shale oil and the Fuyu tight oil is influenced by overpressure, with the northwestern part of the sag and the adjacent sand bodies being the respectively favorable areas. These results lay the groundwork for accurately reconstructing paleopressure and better understanding the hydrocarbon accumulation potential of shale oil and Fuyu tight oil. They also provide guidance on the exploration and development of unconventional resources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: