About This Item

Share This Item

The AAPG/Datapages Combined Publications Database

AAPG Bulletin

Abstract

AAPG Bulletin, V. 106, No. 8 (August 2022), P. 1605-1623.

Copyright ©2022. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.

DOI: 10.1306/02072219057

Mechanism and continuity of gypsum smears in the East Qiulitage anticline, Kuqa foreland basin, China

Tong Wu,1 Xiaofei Fu,2 Haixue Wang,3 Mingxu Lu,4 Lingdong Meng,5 and Lei Gong6

1Key Laboratory of China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) Fault Controlling Reservoir and Key Laboratory of Continental Shale Hydrocarbon Accumulation and Efficient Development, Ministry of Education, Northeast Petroleum University, Daqing, Heilongjiang, China; [email protected]
2Key Laboratory of CNPC Fault Controlling Reservoir and Key Laboratory of Continental Shale Hydrocarbon Accumulation and Efficient Development, Ministry of Education, Northeast Petroleum University, Daqing, Heilongjiang, China; [email protected]
3Key Laboratory of CNPC Fault Controlling Reservoir, Northeast Petroleum University, Daqing, Heilongjiang, China; [email protected]
4Daqing Oilfield Company, Daqing, Heilongjiang, China; [email protected]
5Key Laboratory of Oil & Gas Reservoir and Underground Gas Storage Integrity Evaluation of Heilongjiang Province and Key Laboratory of Mechanisms of Oil & Gas Accumulation and Source Evaluation of Heilongjiang Province, Daqing, Heilongjiang, China; [email protected]
6College of Geosciences, Northeast Petroleum University, Daqing, Heilongjiang, China; [email protected]

Abstract

Smears are formed when faults cross-cut layered sequences. They have been observed within mudstone, shale, siltstone, carbonate, coal, and others. Gypsum smears were observed on a section of the East Qiulitage anticline in the Kuqa foreland basin when describing segmented reverse faults. Samples including gypsum and mudstone were collected to study why gypsum developed smears instead of mudstone. Based on mechanical tests, we investigated the formation mechanism of gypsum smears. The uniaxial compressive strength tested using a Schmidt hammer and the peak strength and cohesion tested using a triaxial test system at different confining pressures suggest that mudstone is stronger than gypsum; as the confining pressure increases, the strength contrast increases, and gypsum is more ductile than mudstone. Finally, we propose that the competence contrast between layers is the most fundamental factor controlling the formation of smears in the process of fault deformation. Once a smear is formed, the fault throw and source bed thickness control its continuity. The gypsum smear factor derived from the shale smear factor is used to evaluate the continuity of sheared gypsum smears, which are continuous where the gypsum smear factor is 3.5–4 or less. Faults seal when smears are continuous; determining the mechanism and continuity of smears is important in cross-fault fluid flow problems, especially in oil and gas transport situations.

Pay-Per-View Purchase Options

The article is available through a document delivery service. Explain these Purchase Options.

Watermarked PDF Document: $14
Open PDF Document: $24

AAPG Member?

Please login with your Member username and password.

Members of AAPG receive access to the full AAPG Bulletin Archives as part of their membership. For more information, contact the AAPG Membership Department at [email protected].