4.7 Article

Thermochemical sulphate reduction in Cambro-Ordovician carbonates in Central Tarim

期刊

MARINE AND PETROLEUM GEOLOGY
卷 18, 期 6, 页码 729-741

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0264-8172(01)00028-9

关键词

H2S; CO2; thermochemical sulphate reduction; organic sulphur; pyrite; Tarim Basin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

H2S and CO2 are found in elevated concentrations in Palaeozoic reservoirs in the Tarim Basin in China. We have carried out analyses on gas, petroleum, mineral cement and bulk rock compositions and isotope ratios together with petrography and fluid inclusion to assess the origin of the H2S. A deep crustal (e.g. volcanic) origin of the H2S and CO2 is unlikely since the inert gases, N-2 and He, have isotope ratios totally uncharacteristic of this source. Organic sources are also unlikely since the source rock has low a sulphur content and the sulphur isotope ratio of the petroleum correlates positively with the sulphur content, the opposite of what would be anticipated from petroleum-derived H2S. Bacterial sulphate reduction is unlikely because temperatures are too high for bacteria to have survived. Thermochemical sulphate reduction of petroleum fluids by anhydrite in Lower Ordovician and Cambrian carbonate reservoirs is the most likely source of both the H2S and the CO2 causing isotopically characteristic Pyrite, CO2 gas and calcite cement. H2S, and possibly CO2, migrated into Silurian sandstone reservoirs by cross formational flow. The H2S, with the same sulphur isotope ratio as Ordovician anhydrite, was partially lost from the fluid phase by extensive growth of late diagenetic pyrite. Similarly the CO2 was partially lost from the fluid phase by precipitation of late diagenetic calcite. The H2S that resulted from TSR underwent reaction with the remaining petroleum resulting in locally elevated organic sulphur concentrations in the petroleum and the progressive adoption of the Ordovician anhydrite sulphur isotope ratio. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据