The Main Controlling Factors of Glutenite Development and Their Impacts on Oil Energy Extraction

energies

Article The Main Controlling Factors of Glutenite Development and Their Impacts on Oil Energy Extraction

Yuping Wang 1,* , Chunmei Dong 1, Chengyan Lin 1 and Qingjie Hou 2,3

1 School of Geosciences, China University of Petroleum, Qingdao 266580, China; [email protected] (C.D.); [email protected] (C.L.) 2 Geophysical Research Institute, Sinopec Shengli Oilfield Company, Dongying 257022, China; [email protected] 3 Working Station for Postdoctoral Scientific Research, Shengli Oilfield, Dongying 257000, China * Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The glutenite reservoirs discovered in the Jiyang depression in Bohai Bay contribute greatly to proven oil and gas resources, which have reached 1.27 billion cubic meters. Both insufﬁcient studies on the glutenite distribution and incomplete understanding of the corresponding geology restrict further oil energy extraction. Hence, it is necessary to study the controlling factors of glutenite development. Sedimentation, tectonic faults, geophysical data, etc., was used in this paper to study these factors. Four main controlling factors involved in the development of glutenite fan bodies have been studied and summarized: the fault ramp controls the glutenite fan, the fault characteristics control the glutenite acreage, the fault throw controls the thickness of the glutenite, and the dimensions of the incised valleys control the glutenite transport capacity. Based on this geological understanding, this paper analyzes the relationship between oil productivity data and the factors controlling conglomerate development. With this, the reservoir in the study area is divided into a high production area, medium production area, and low production area. The C913 well was

Citation: Wang, Y.; Dong, C.; Lin, C.; deployed in the predicted high production area. The daily oil production reached 88 t/d, and the Hou, Q. The Main Controlling Factors energy exploitation effect was good. Therefore, this study provides important guidance for the of Glutenite Development and Their further extraction of oil energy. Impacts on Oil Energy Extraction. Energies 2021, 14, 1807. https://doi. Keywords: main controlling factors; incised valley; fault throw; glutenite; oil production org/10.3390/en14071807

Academic Editor: Hemanta Sarma 1. Introduction Received: 20 February 2021 The glutenite body is a kind of block-like geological rock body, which is composed Accepted: 23 March 2021 Published: 24 March 2021 of sandstone or conglomerate [1,2]. The glutenite reservoirs have a variety of rock types, such as sandstone, conglomerate, muddy conglomerate, sandy mudstone, etc. It can be

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral developed as a single fan body or a group of fans superimposed together, and is usually with regard to jurisdictional claims in developed in the steep slope zone of a continental faulted. The genetic types of glutenite published maps and institutional affil- include nearshore subaqueous fan, alluvial fan, turbidite fan, fan delta, etc. The seismic iations. reflection of glutenite is strong amplitude in the top surface boundary, low frequency inside, and no obvious stratification. Glutenite oil and gas reservoirs are generally close to their provenance and have many development stages [3]. The reservoirs usually have large thicknesses, high productivity per unit area, and great exploration potential [4]. The lithology of glutenite reservoirs changes rapidly, the reservoir connectivity is difficult to describe, Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. and exploration and development are difficult [5–8]. Therefore, to predict the distribution This article is an open access article of glutenite bodies, it is first necessary to systematically study the characteristics and distributed under the terms and control factors of glutenite development. conditions of the Creative Commons The Chezhen Sag has the characteristics of a typical continental faulted lake basin in Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// China. Its steep slope zone glutenite is extremely well developed. The oil and gas resources creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ are approximately 150 million tons and form the main target for the next exploration [9]; 4.0/). however, since exploration began in 1996, only a few exploratory wells have obtained

Energies 2021, 14, 1807. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14071807 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies Energies 2021, 14, 1807 2 of 16

economical oil production, which forms a large contrast with the excellent accumulation background. For example, the actual average daily oil production of the failed wells CD3 and GX13 is only 0.1 t/d.This may be due to the unclear distribution of glutenite bodies and unclear factors controlling development. Many scholars have analyzed the controlling factors for the development of glutenite fans and determined that the distribution of glutenite fans is mainly inﬂuenced by factors such as paleostructure, paleoclimate, ﬂuc- tuations in lake level, and hydrodynamic forces [10,11]. At present, the control mechanism of these conventional factors on the development of glutenite bodies is relatively clear, but research work has found that the Chezhen Sag is rich in fault assemblages and fan types, and their controlling factors have not been systematically studied by scholars. This paper takes the glutenite body in the Guojuzi area of the Chezhen Sag as an example, studies the correlations of various characteristic parameters of the glutenite body distribution with the fault fan combination type, incised valley thickness and depth, and systematically explains the development of the glutenite. On the basis of the geological study, this paper links the main control factors of glutenite with the actual production of petroleum energy, and also provides a guidance to promote the oil production.

2. Geological Background 2.1. Location and Strata The Chezhen Sag is a secondary depression in the northern part of the Jiyang De- pression in the Bohai Bay Basin; to the east is the Zhanhua Depression, to the west is the Qingyun Uplift, to the south are the Wudi Uplift and Yihezhuang Uplift, and to the north is the Chengzikou Uplift (Figure1). The Chezhen Sag is a rift-like continental basin with a narrow distribution from north to south and extends from east to west. The Guojuzi Sag is located in the Northeastern Chezhen Sag. The main faults include the Da 34 fault, Dawang Beida 35 nose structure, Guo 6 East fault, Chengdong Uplift, and secondary Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 16 depressions divided by the Guo 4 and Guo 2 faults; Guojuzi is one of the three sub-sags in the Chezhen Sag.

Figure 1. TheFigure geographical 1. The geographical location and location geological and geological structure structure of the study of the studyarea. area.

The Paleogene strata in this area are divided into the Kongdian Formation, Shahejie Formation, and Dongying Formation from bottom to top (Figure2). The glutenite mainly developed in the Shahejie Formation. The Shahejie Formation is divided into members 1, 2, 3, and 4 vertically. The fourth member is dominated by beach bar sand deposits in shallow lakes, the third member is dominated by nearshore underwater fans in deep lake and semideep lake environments, the second member is dominated by shallow beach bar

Figure 2. Stratigraphic development characteristics (Es1, Es2, Es3, and Es4 are short for members 1, 2, 3, and 4 in Shahejie Formation Eocene).

Energies 2021, 14, 1807 3 of 16

deposits, and the ﬁrst member is mainly developed in semideep lakes. Most submarine fans are deposited near the shore. The 2nd and 3rd members of the Shahejie Formation are the main layers where nearshore subaqueous fans of glutenite have developed.

Figure 2. Stratigraphic development characteristics (Es1, Es2, Es3, and Es4 are short for members 1, 2, 3, and 4 in Shahejie Formation Eocene).

2.2. Types of Glutenite Fans In the northern steep slope zone of the Guojuzi area, various types of glutenite fans, such as alluvial fans, fan deltas, nearshore underwater fans, and turbidite fans, are widely developed (Figure3). The remaining resources were approximately 220 million cubic meters, which were suitable for exploration. Important targets are alluvial fans, which are the products of weathering and denudation of parent rock carried by seasonal currents. They are fan-shaped deposits formed in locations where the slope of the terrain becomes gentler [12,13]. The alluvial fan is divided into fan root, fan middle, and outer fan. The braided rivers are present in the middle fan, where the reservoir with high porosity and permeability [14–16]. Fan deltas are fan-shaped deposits formed from high sediment inputs into stable water bodies. They are mainly composed of fan delta plains, fronts, and front fan deltas. Fan delta plains and fronts develop branch channels with high porosity and permeability; front fan deltas are mainly composed of silty clay, which consists of sandy clay and has poor physical properties [17–19]. Nearshore underwater fans are gravity ﬂow fans in which sediments directly enter the deeper waters of lakes, and most of their deposits are close to steep banks [20,21]. According to the differences in the provenance supply capacity, these fans can be divided into thick layers and thin layers. The thick layers have well-developed fan roots but poorly developed fan middle sections and fan margins; thin-layered fan bodies have well-developed interlayers, while glutenite has Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 16

fan. The braided rivers are present in the middle fan, where the reservoir with high porosity and permeability [14–16]. Fan deltas are fan-shaped deposits formed from high sediment inputs into stable water bodies. They are mainly composed of fan delta plains, fronts, and front fan deltas. Fan delta plains and fronts develop branch channels with high porosity and permeability; front fan deltas are mainly composed of silty clay, which consists of sandy clay and has poor physical properties [17–19]. Nearshore underwater fans are gravity flow fans in which sediments directly enter the deeper waters of lakes, and most of their deposits are close to steep banks [20,21]. According to the differences in

Energies 2021the, 14 ,provenance 1807 supply capacity, these fans can be divided into thick layers and thin lay- 4 of 16 ers. The thick layers have well-developed fan roots but poorly developed fan middle sections and fan margins; thin-layered fan bodies have well-developed interlayers, while glutenite has small vertical thickness and poor fan roots. The margins of a neutralization small vertical thickness and poor fan roots. The margins of a neutralization fan are well fan are well developed [22,23], the reservoir performance of the nearshore underwater developed [22,23], the reservoir performance of the nearshore underwater fan margins fan margins is betteris betterthan that than o thatf the of fan the root. fan root. A turbidite A turbidite fan fan is isproduced produced by by retransport retransport and sliding and sliding of a nearshoreof a nearshore underwater underwater fan fan glutenite glutenite bodybody [ 24[24–26–26]]. Its. Its main main trigger trigger mechanisms are mechanisms are earthquakes,earthquakes, gravity, gravity, waves,waves, andand other other external external forces. forces. Due Due to secondaryto second- transport or ary transport or longlong-distance-distance transport,transport, its maturity,its maturity, roundness, roundness, sorting sorting degree, anddegree, reservoir and porosity and reservoir porosity andpermeability permeability are higher are higher than those than of those nearshore of nearshore underwater underwater fans. fans.

FigureFigure 3. Incised 3. Incised valley valleyss and and sedimentary sedimentary facies facies in in the the northern steep steep slope slope zone zone of theof the Guojuzi Guojuzi area. area. Various types of glutenite fans, such as alluvial fans, fan deltas, nearshore underwater Various typesfans, of glutenite and turbidite fans, fans, such have as differentalluvial sedimentation fans, fan deltas, slopes, nearshore water depths, under- and deposition water fans, and turbiditetimes. The fans, sedimentation have different depths sedimentation of nearshore underwater slopes, water fans and depths, turbidite and fans are deep and are mainly developed in the third member of the Shahejie Formation; alluvial fans deposition times. The sedimentation depths of nearshore underwater fans and turbidite and fan deltas have relatively gentle sedimentary slopes and shallow water bodies and are fans are deep and aremainly main developedly developed in the in second the third and fourth member members of the of Shahejie the Shahejie Formation; Formation. alluvial fans and fan deltas have relatively gentle sedimentary slopes and shallow water bodies and are mainly3. Methods developed in the second and fourth members of the Shahejie Formation. The study area is an old oil production area with complete geological data. We col- lected all 72 wells’ geological data, including structural information, seismic data, well strat- 3. Methods iﬁcation data, rock section, oil production data, etc. The data are used for geological restudies to predict high-oil production areas. The development of glutenite fans in the The study areastudy is an area old mayoil production be affected byarea the with characteristics complete ofgeological faults, fault data. throws, We col- incised valleys, lected all 72 wells’and geological provenance data, supply. including In this study,structural the single information, factor analysis seismic method data, was well used to analyze the relationship between the four factors and the development of glutenite to determine the controlling factors affecting the development of glutenite.

stratification data, rock section, oil production data, etc. The data are used for geological restudies to predict high-oil production areas. The development of glutenite fans in the study area may be affected by the characteristics of faults, fault throws, incised valleys, and provenance supply. In this study, the single factor analysis method was used to analyze the relationship between the four factors and the development of glutenite to determine the controlling factors affecting the development of glutenite.

3.1. Fault Characteristics To clarify the control of fault characteristics on the development of glutenite, the fault characteristics are described in terms of three parameters: fault type, footwall block Energies 2021, 14, 1807 occurrence, and hanging wall block lithology. Glutenite is described according5 of 16 to two parameters: fan type and scale (Table 1). Their combinations are listed in order, and the geological data of the study area, such as geophysical data, logging data, and sedimen- fantary type facies and scaledistribution (Table1). maps, Their combinations are then obtained. are listed The in order, characteristics and the geological of glutenite data devel- ofopment the study corresponding area, such as geophysical to the character data, loggingistics of data, faults and in sedimentary the study area facies are distribu- identified. Fi- tionnally, maps, the aredevelopment then obtained. characteristics The characteristics of the of fault glutenite-glutenite development combination corresponding are determined, toand the the characteristics control relationship of faults in thebetween study areathe arefault identified. and the Finally,development the development of the glutenite char- fan is acteristicsclarified. of the fault-glutenite combination are determined, and the control relationship between the fault and the development of the glutenite fan is clarified. Table 1. Fault and glutenite characteristics. Table 1. Fault and glutenite characteristics. Fault Type Foot Wall Block Occurrence Hanging Wall Block Lithology Glutenite Fan Type Glutenite Scale Fault Type Foot Wall Block Occurrence Hanging Wall Block Lithology Glutenite Fan Type Glutenite Scale Planar fault Alluvial fan Planar fault Convex Clastic rock Alluvial fan Large Listric fault Convex Clastic rock Fan delta Large StepListric fault fault NearshoreFan delta underwater fan Step fault Concave Granite Nearshore underwater fan Small Concave Granite Small RampRamp-flat-flat fault fault TurbiditeTurbidite fan fan

3.2. Fault Throw 3.2. Fault Throw TheThe formula formula for for calculating calculating the faultthe fault throw throw is: [27 is:] [27] Di = Hi − hi Di = Hi − hi Here, i represents a certain geological historical period, D represents the fault throw, H isHere, the thickness i represents of athe certain footwall geological block, historical and h is period, the thickness D represents of the the hanging fault throw, wall block. H is the thickness of the footwall block, and h is the thickness of the hanging wall block. Assuming the basin subsidence amplitude is equal to the thickness of the sediment, the Assuming the basin subsidence amplitude is equal to the thickness of the sediment, the dif- ferencedifference between between the thicknesses the thicknesses on the two on sides the oftwo the sides fault equals of the the fault difference equals between the difference thebetween subsidence the subs amplitudesidence (Figureamplitudes4). According (Figure to 4). the According results of sequence to the results stratigraphy of sequence in stra- thetigraphy study area, in the reliable study stratigraphic area, reliable units stratigraphic are determined units and are combined determined with and drilling combined and with regionaldrilling structureand regional data tostructure calculate data the fault to calculate throw. the fault throw.

FigureFigure 4. 4.The The calculation calculation principle principle of fault of fault throw throw in the in study the area.study area.

3.3. Incised Valley Development 3.3. Incised Valley Development First, the type of incised valley was determined by using the seismic profile obser- vationFirst, method. the type The depthof incised of the valley valley was and d thickness,etermined width, by using and lengththe seismic of glutenite profile obser- werevation measured, method. andThe the depth relationship of the valley between and themthickness, was analyzed. width, and Incised length valleys of glutenite are were channels for the migration of glutenite, and their shape and size exert certain controls on the scale of glutenite. Different incised valley types correspond to different scales of glutenite. There are two causes of incised valleys: the first cause is paleomorphological lowlands and valleys formed by uneven denudation or secondary faults; the second cause is a valley controlled by a fault transition zone, which appears as the intersection of two or more faults, is often a place where multiple rivers converge, and is a channel for coarse clastic sediments to enter a lake basin. Second, based on the seismic reflection characteristics of the corresponding Guojuzi area, the shape of the glutenite trench, the horizontal distribution range, and the vertical Energies 2021, 14, 1807 6 of 16

depositional thickness were determined. The relationship between the glutenite valley shape and its thickness and width was established (Table2).

Table 2. Standards for classiﬁcation of incised valley types.

Glutenite Type Incised Valley Thickness/m Incised Valley Width/m Wide-deep 70–120 >2000 Narrow-deep 50–100 1000–1500 Wide-shallow 30–50 1500–2000 Narrow-shallow 30–50 <1000

4. Results 4.1. Fault-Glutenite Types and Characteristics Based on the geophysical data, combined with the different lithological characteristics of the hanging wall in the study area, a detailed study of the characteristics of fault type, source supply capacity, seismic reﬂection characteristics, development location, and scale of gravel fan rock was performed. The gravel fan bodies could be divided into eight categories (Table3, Figure5).

Table 3. Types and characteristics of glutenite bodies in the Guojuzi area.

Glutenite Strata Seismic Emission Hanging Wall Glutenite Developmental Fault Types Scale Occurrence Characteristics Lithology Position Listric fault Small Convex High-angle oblique Granite At the slope Planar fault Small Concave Low-angle oblique Granite At the slope Step fault Small Concave High-angle oblique Granite In the fault corner Step fault Small Convex Low-angle oblique Granite Near the fault side of the step Ramp-ﬂat fault Mid-small- Convex Low-angle oblique Granite Near the fault side of the slope Step fault Large Convex Mound-shaped Clastic rock Near the fault side of the step Ramp-ﬂat fault Large Convex Lamellar-shaped Clastic rock At the foot of the slope Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16 Step fault Large Concave Lenticular-shaped Clastic rock In the groove

Figure 5.5. TypesTypes ofof glutenite glutenite bodies bodies and and seismic seismic reﬂection reflection characteristics characteristics in thein Guojuzithe Guojuzi area. area. (a). Listric-convex(a). Listric-convex type- granite-smalltype-granite-small glutenite glutenite body; (b).body; Planar-concave (b). Planar type-granite-small-concave type-granite glutenite-small body; glutenite (c). Step-concave body; type-granite-small(c). Step-concave glutenitetype-granite body;-small (d). Step-convexglutenite body; type-granite-small (d). Step-convex glutenite type body;-granite (e). Ramp-ﬂat-convex-small glutenite type-granite-smallbody; (e). Ramp glutenite-flat-convex body; (typef). Step-granite type-convex-small glutenite type-clastic body; rock-large (f). Step glutenite type-convex body; ( gtype). Gentle-clastic slope rock type-convex-large glutenite type-clastic body; rock-large (g). Gentle glutenite slope body;type-convex (h). Step-concave-clastic type-clastic rock-large rock-large glutenite glutenite body; body.(h). Step-concave-clastic rock-large glutenite body.

4.2. Fault Throw The fault throws of the layers in the Guojuzi area ranged from 310.5 to 1342.8 m (Table 4). The maximum value was located in the S4 layer fault in the G2 well area, and the minimum value was located in the S2 period fault in the Guo6 well area. In general, the faults around Well G2 and Well C913 were larger than those around Well G6.

Table 4. Fault throw in the steep slope zone of the Guojuzi area.

Well Layer Fault Throw/m G2 S2 855.1 G2 S3 916.9 G2 S4 1342.8 G6 S2 310.5 G6 S3 436.6 G4 S2 1047.3 G4 S3 1278 C913 S3 1311.2 C913 S3 1192

4.3. Incised Valley 4.3.1. Incised Valley Types Six incised valleys mainly developed in Northern Guojuzi (Figure 3); among them, the source supply capacities of four incised valleys in the west were relatively small, and the scales of incised valleys 5 and 6 in the east were relatively large. According to their shapes, the incised valleys mainly include wide-deep, wide-shallow, narrow-deep, and narrow-shallow types (Figure 6), and their conveying capacities as migration channels differ. The wide and deep type had the strongest transport capacity and could form large-scale glutenite bodies; the wide-shallow type had strong transport capacity and could form medium-scale glutenite bodies; and the narrow and deep type had strong transport capacity and could form medium-scale glutenite bodies. The narrow and shallow type had the poorest transport capacity and could form small-scale glutenite bodies.

Energies 2021, 14, 1807 7 of 16

4.2. Fault Throw The fault throws of the layers in the Guojuzi area ranged from 310.5 to 1342.8 m (Table4) . The maximum value was located in the S4 layer fault in the G2 well area, and the minimum value was located in the S2 period fault in the Guo6 well area. In general, the faults around Well G2 and Well C913 were larger than those around Well G6.

Table 4. Fault throw in the steep slope zone of the Guojuzi area.

Well Layer Fault Throw/m G2 S2 855.1 G2 S3 916.9 G2 S4 1342.8 G6 S2 310.5 G6 S3 436.6 G4 S2 1047.3 G4 S3 1278 C913 S3 1311.2 C913 S3 1192

4.3. Incised Valley 4.3.1. Incised Valley Types Six incised valleys mainly developed in Northern Guojuzi (Figure3); among them, the source supply capacities of four incised valleys in the west were relatively small, and the scales of incised valleys 5 and 6 in the east were relatively large. According to their shapes, the incised valleys mainly include wide-deep, wide-shallow, narrow-deep, and narrow-shallow types (Figure6), and their conveying capacities as migration channels differ. The wide and deep type had the strongest transport capacity and could form large- Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW scale glutenite bodies; the wide-shallow type had strong transport capacity8 of 16 and could form medium-scale glutenite bodies; and the narrow and deep type had strong transport capacity and could form medium-scale glutenite bodies. The narrow and shallow type had the poorest transport capacity and could form small-scale glutenite bodies. Under the Under the same sedimentsame sediment supply supply conditions, conditions, the the transport transport capacities of of the the wide-deep, wide-deep, wide-shallow, wide-shallow, narrownarrow-deep,-deep, and and narrow narrow-shallow-shallow channelschannels were were approximately approximately 6:3:2.5:1. 6:3:2.5:1.

Figure 6. TypesFigure of incised 6. Types valley of inciseds in the valleys steep inslope the steep zone slope of the zone Guojuzi of the area Guojuzi area.

4.3.2. Incised Valley Features According to the incised valley characteristics statistical table for the Guojuzi area (Table 5), the study area contained all four incised valley types. Given the statistical results, the incised valley scale in the G2 well area was the largest, with the incised valley thickness as great as 116 m and the incised valley width as much as 3750 m. It is a wide and deep valley; the scale of the valleys in the G6 and G4 well areas was second only to that in the G2 well area; their thicknesses were greater than 70 m, and the incised valley widths were more than 2000 m. They were wide and deep incised valleys and narrow and deep incised valleys, respectively. In the D354 well area, there was a narrow and shallow incised valley with an incised valley thickness of only 39 m and an incised valley width of 482 m, making it the smallest incised valley in the region.

Table 5. Statistical table of incised valley characteristics in the Guojuzi area

Well Incised Valley Thickness/m Incised Valley Width/m Type D354 39 482 Narrow-shallow G4 73 2170 Wide-deep G2 116 3750 Wide-deep G6 45 1565 Wide-shallow GX13 71 1340 Narrow-deep G14 48 1220 Narrow-shallow CD3 59 998 Narrow-deep C913 98 2660 Wide-deep C918 42 976 Narrow-shallow

Energies 2021, 14, 1807 8 of 16

4.3.2. Incised Valley Features According to the incised valley characteristics statistical table for the Guojuzi area (Table5), the study area contained all four incised valley types. Given the statistical results, the incised valley scale in the G2 well area was the largest, with the incised valley thickness as great as 116 m and the incised valley width as much as 3750 m. It is a wide and deep valley; the scale of the valleys in the G6 and G4 well areas was second only to that in the G2 well area; their thicknesses were greater than 70 m, and the incised valley widths were more than 2000 m. They were wide and deep incised valleys and narrow and deep incised valleys, respectively. In the D354 well area, there was a narrow and shallow incised valley with an incised valley thickness of only 39 m and an incised valley width of 482 m, making it the smallest incised valley in the region.

Table 5. Statistical table of incised valley characteristics in the Guojuzi area.

5. Discussion 5.1. Fault Characteristics Control Glutenite Development 5.1.1. Fault Characteristics (1) Types of boundary faults The northern boundary of the Guojuzi area rifted along several main faults during its evolution, forming a “limited retreat type” boundary. The tectonic style and its activity patterns have caused obvious differences in the corresponding glutenite type [28–32], development scale, and reservoir performance. Specific faults and their combinations control the development of particular sand bodies and hydrocarbon reservoirs, and the types of boundary faults can be divided into planar fault, listric fault, step fault, and ramp- flat fault [33,34]. The area near a planar fault mainly develops thick layers of nearshore underwater fan deposits. The lithologies are coarse and mixed, and the stages are not obvious. Mudstone barriers are lacking, and the fan margin is poorly developed. The area near a listric fault mainly develops nearshore underwater fans, which are close to the fault. Compared with the fan body of a planar fault, front slump turbidite fans are relatively well developed, the glutenite is relatively thin, and certain mudstone interlayers are interlayered vertically. Step faults are a group of normal faults with approximately similar occurrence. The hanging wall of each fault declines in turn, and the profile presents a step shape. These areas are often composed of nearshore underwater fans and turbidite fans. Alluvial fans and fan deltas are also sometimes developed, nearshore underwater fans and fan deltas are often developed above two steps, and deep-water turbidite fans and slump turbidite fans form on lower steps. Ramp-flat fault is a fault that varies from steep to flat and back to steep again has a ramp-flat-ramp geometry at-ramp geometry. Alluvial fans and fan deltas are often present in the valleys between the main section and the buried hills, and the footwall of the faults close to the front are often encountered. (2) Stratigraphic occurrence of fault footwall block The stratigraphic occurrences of footwall blocks in the Guojuzi area can be divided into convex and concave. The fault forms can be divided into planar fault, listric fault, step fault, and ramp-flat fault. According to their combinations, they can be divided into Energies 2021, 14, 1807 9 of 16

eight types. The study area has mainly developed the following five forms: convex- listric combination, concave- listric combination, concave- planar combination, concave-step combination, and convex- ramp-flat combination. Convex-listric combination (Figure7a): The formation period of the convex strata in the study area basically coincided with the depositional period of glutenite, so the topography had a certain control on the deposition of glutenite. Glutenite was deposited in the low-lying places near the faults in convex strata; the shape was often lenticular, Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16 the scale was relatively small, and turbidites were mostly underdeveloped. Convex-ramp- flat (Figure7b) combination: The deposition of glutenite was affected by residual mounds in the strata, most of which are deposited on the low-lying side of a convex mound near From the theperspective fault. The of scale the ofdevelopment the glutenite thatvolume formed of glutenite, depends ona theconcave size of strata the space inside the combination wasresidual better mound. than a Alluvialconvex fansstrata and combination, fan delta glutenite and the were listric mostly and developed planar on the inner combinations wereside ofmostly a remnant better mound, than the and step turbidite and ramp deposits-flat combinations, were mostly developed depending on the outer side on the developmentof a remnant of the first mound. and second steps.

Figure 7. TheFigure types 7. of The boundary types of faults boundary and the faults distribution and the patterndistribution of glutenite pattern rock of glutenite in the steep rock slope in the belt steep in Guojuzi area. ((a). Convex-listricslope belt combination; in Guojuzi area. (b). ( convex-ramp-ﬂat(a). Convex-listric combination; combination; (c(b).). concave-listric convex-ramp-flat combination; combination; (d). (c concave-step). combination;concav (e). concave-planare-listric combinati combination).on; (d). concave-step combination; e. concave-planar combination).

(3) Lithologies on theConcave-listric hanging wall combination,of faults concave-planar combination (Figure7c,e): Concave When studyingstrata glutenite occurrences deposits had large affected accommodation by faults, attention spaces; largemust glutenitebe paid to deposits the can be formed with sufficient provenance, and large glutenite bodies that easily slide can continue to rock types of the hanging wall of the fault. Provenance lithologies with strong weather- form in front of a turbidite sand body. Concave-step combination (Figure7d): Nearshore ing resistance provide less sediment, and the scale of the glutenite body corresponding to underwater fan deposits were mostly developed at one step of the ladder, and turbidite its footwall is smaller. The Guojuzi area can be divided into granite and clastic rock deposits were developed in concave strata. Due to the limited accommodation space at the hanging wall blocks. The weathering resistance of granite was stronger than that of clas- second step, the scale of nearshore underwater fans was relatively small, and the scale of tic rocks, and the corresponding glutenite body on the footwall was relatively small. In turbidite deposits was generally larger. contrast, the volume of glutenite corresponding to a hanging wall with clastic rock was From the perspective of the development volume of glutenite, a concave strata combi- larger (Figure 3). nation was better than a convex strata combination, and the listric and planar combinations were mostly better than the step and ramp-flat combinations, depending on the develop- 5.1.2. Fault-Ramp Control Glutenite Fan Type ment of the first and second steps. There was only one main fault developed for the planar and listric faults (Figure 7a,e). The footwall(3) Lithologiesmainly develop on theed hangingnearshore wall underwater of faults fans. The water body was usually deep and littleWhen affected studying by waves, glutenite the porosity deposits and affected permeability by faults, were attention low. When must be paid to the the water bodyrock was types shallow, of the the hanging waves wallcould of pass the fault.over Provenancethe sedimentary lithologies fan. The with near- strong weathering shore underwaterresistance fan body provide after wave less sediment, transformation and the ha scaled highe of ther porosity glutenite and body permea- corresponding to its bility. footwall is smaller. The Guojuzi area can be divided into granite and clastic rock hanging There werewall two blocks. steps in The the weatheringstep fault (Figure resistance 7d). When of granite the water was stronger body of thanthe upper that of clastic rocks, step was deep,and the themain corresponding nearshore underwate gluteniter fans body were on the developed, footwall wasand fan relatively deltas small.de- In contrast, veloped locally. When the water body was shallow, fan or fan delta deposits were dominant. When the lower step had a deep-water body, it mainly developed turbidite fans. Under the influence of various trigger mechanisms, the sediments on the upper step might slide down the lower step to form a turbidite sand body. Under the condition of sufficient provenance supply, the lower steps developed nearshore underwater fan deposits. There are three steps on the ramp-flat fault (Figure 7b). The upper steps have shallow water bodies, with mainly fan deltas and local alluvial fans. The thickness of glutenite in the low-lying Guojuzi area between the uneven denudation zone and the boundary

Energies 2021, 14, 1807 10 of 16

the volume of glutenite corresponding to a hanging wall with clastic rock was larger (Figure3).

5.1.2. Fault-Ramp Control Glutenite Fan Type There was only one main fault developed for the planar and listric faults (Figure7a,e). The footwall mainly developed nearshore underwater fans. The water body was usually deep and little affected by waves, the porosity and permeability were low. When the water body was shallow, the waves could pass over the sedimentary fan. The nearshore underwater fan body after wave transformation had higher porosity and permeability. There were two steps in the step fault (Figure7d). When the water body of the upper step was deep, the main nearshore underwater fans were developed, and fan deltas developed locally. When the water body was shallow, fan or fan delta deposits were dominant. When the lower step had a deep-water body, it mainly developed turbidite fans. Under the influence of various trigger mechanisms, the sediments on the upper step might slide down the lower step to form a turbidite sand body. Under the condition of sufficient provenance supply, the lower steps developed nearshore underwater fan deposits. There are three steps on the ramp-flat fault (Figure7b). The upper steps have shallow water bodies, with mainly fan deltas and local alluvial fans. The thickness of glutenite in the low-lying Guojuzi area between the uneven denudation zone and the boundary was large, and the two steps were well developed. Nearshore underwater fan deposits and turbidite fan sand bodies were developed in front of the nearshore underwater fan. Planar type and listric faults corresponded to the development of nearshore underwater fans. The upper steps of step faults developed nearshore underwater fans or fan deltas, and the lower steps developed turbidite fans. The high steps of slope-flat faults mainly developed alluvial fans and fan delta plain deposits. The middle steps developed nearshore underwater fans and fan delta fronts, and the lower steps developed deep-water turbidite fans and slump turbidite fans. Among them, step and sloped faults were limited by the accommodation spaces of the two steps, and their corresponding gravels were few. Thus, a listric or planar fault that developed on a main fault and its corresponding fan composed the most favorable combination for oil and gas resources.

5.1.3. The Fault Characteristics Control the Glutenite Acreage The fault characteristics not only control the type of glutenite fan but also have a strong inﬂuence on the development area of the glutenite. According to the statistical results for different types of faults and their corresponding glutenite developmental scale (Table6), it was found that a fault with granite in the hanging wall block corresponded to an average area of 0.14 km2 for glutenite development, and the area of glutenite developed by faults with clastic rock in the hanging wall was 1.94 km2 on average. The average area of glutenite faults with convex occurrence in the footwall block was 0.59 km2, and the average area of glutenite associated with concave faults was 1.26 km2. In terms of the development area of glutenite, clastic rocks were obviously better than granite, and concave faults were better than convex faults.

Table 6. Fault characteristics and development area of glutenite in the Guojuzi area.

Fault Feature Type Glutenite Development Area/km2 Listric-convex-granite type 0.08 Planar-concave-granite type 0.13 Step-concave-granite type 0.17 Step-convex-granite type 0.09 Ramp-ﬂat-convex-granite type 0.26 Step-convex-clastic rock type 0.94 Gentle slope-convex-clastic rock type 1.42 Step-concave-clastic rock type 3.47 Energies 2021, 14, 1807 11 of 16

5.2. Fault Throw Controls the Thickness of Glutenite According to the relationship between the fault throw and the glutenite development index, there was a clear positive correlation between the fault throw and the thickness of the glutenite. The square value of the correlation coefﬁcient was 0.7551, which shows that the thickness of the glutenite body increased with increasing fault throw (Figure8). Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEWThe fault throw can produce accommodation space for glutenite; in an active fault area, 12 of 16

Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW the accommodation space is generally large, so the thickness of glutenite also increases.12 of 16 This shows that the fault throw controls the thickness of the glutenite body.

Figure 8. The relationship between the fault throw and the thickness of a glutenite body.

5.3.Figure FigureIncised 8. TheValley 8. relationshipThes Control relationship between the Transport the between fault Capacity throw the and of thefault Glutenite thickness throw of a and glutenite the body. thickness of a glutenite body. 5.3.The Incised thickness, Valleys Controlwidth, theand Transport length Capacityof glutenite of Glutenite indicate the ability of the incised valleys to transport sediments. The greater the thickness and width of glutenite are, the 5.3.The Incised thickness, Valley width,s andControl length the of glutenite Transport indicate Capacity the ability of of Glutenite the incised valleys longerto transport the extent, sediments. and the The stronger greater the the thickness transmission and width capacity. of glutenite Given are, the the intersectio longer the n of incisedextent, valley andThe the thickness thickness, stronger and the transmission widthglutenite, andthickness, capacity. length Givenwidth, of the gluteniteand intersection length, indicate ofthe incised thickness valley the of ability the of the incised val- incisedthicknessley svalley to and transports glutenitewere considered thickness, sediments. width,positively andThe length,correlated greater the thickness withthe thethickness of thickness, the incised and valleyswidth width, and of glutenite are, the lengthwere of considered the glutenite positively (Figure correlated 9). Therefore, with the thickness, incised valley width,s and control lengthled of th thee glutenitetransport capacity(Figurelonger of glutenite.9). Therefore,the extent, incised and valleys the controlled stronger the transportthe transmission capacity of glutenite. capacity. Given the intersection of incised valley thickness and glutenite thickness, width, and length, the thickness of the incised valleys were considered positively correlated with the thickness, width, and length of the glutenite (Figure 9). Therefore, incised valleys controlled the transport capacity of glutenite.

FigureFigure 9. The 9. Therelationship relationship betw betweeneen incised incised valley valley depth andand glutenite glutenite thickness, thickness, width, width and, and length. length.

5.4.5.4. Example Example of ofEnergy Energy Exploitation Exploitation TheThe glutenite glutenite reservoir reservoir isis a a low-permeability low-permeability tight tight one [one8]. The [8]. traditional The traditional evaluation evalua- methods conventional parameters such as porosity and permeability cannot meet the tion methods conventional parameters such as porosity and permeability cannot meet requirements of ﬁne exploration and productivity improvement [35,36]. Therefore, with the the requirements of fine exploration and productivity improvement [35,36]. Therefore, with the help of relevant geological understanding, the identification of glutenite reservoir is more accurate and efficient by using the glutenite main control factors. In well C916, which is located in the southeastern of the study area (Figure 3), the Figure 9. Thethickness relationship of glutenite between was incised 164 m with valley sufficient depth formation and glute energy.nite thickness, The 8 mm width nozzle, wasand length. employed during the flow period. Additionally, the daily oil production was 79 t/d. The good5.4. exploration Example results of Energy from Exploitationthis well result in the other four development wells. However, the production of these new wells was very low and did not reach the expected productivity.The The glutenite unclear understanding reservoir is of a the low development-permeability law of glutenitetight one fans [8]. leads The traditional evalua- to thistion failure. methods At present, conventional there were 17 parameters producing wells such in the as study porosity area. The and produc- permeability cannot meet tionthe data requirements of these Wells were of comparedfine exploration with the main and controlling productivity factors studiedimprovement in this [35,36]. Therefore, paper,with and the the relationshiphelp of relevant between themgeological was discussed. understanding, the identification of glutenite reser- A total of 11 development wells were located in the clastic rock hanging wall fault area.voir The isother more 6 wells accurate were lo andcated efficientin the granite by usinghanging the wall glutenite fault area. mainThe average control factors. daily productionsIn well of C916, these two which well groups is located were 31.2 in t/dthe and southeastern 5.4 t/d, respectively. of the It isstudy not area (Figure 3), the difficultthickness to find thatof glutenite the oil productivity was 164 of mthe withclastic sufficient hanging wall formation area was significantly energy. The 8 mm nozzle was employed during the flow period. Additionally, the daily oil production was 79 t/d. The good exploration results from this well result in the other four development wells. However, the production of these new wells was very low and did not reach the expected productivity. The unclear understanding of the development law of glutenite fans leads to this failure. At present, there were 17 producing wells in the study area. The production data of these Wells were compared with the main controlling factors studied in this paper, and the relationship between them was discussed. A total of 11 development wells were located in the clastic rock hanging wall fault area. The other 6 wells were located in the granite hanging wall fault area. The average daily productions of these two well groups were 31.2 t/d and 5.4 t/d, respectively. It is not difficult to find that the oil productivity of the clastic hanging wall area was significantly

Energies 2021, 14, 1807 12 of 16

help of relevant geological understanding, the identification of glutenite reservoir is more accurate and efficient by using the glutenite main control factors. In well C916, which is located in the southeastern of the study area (Figure3), the thickness of glutenite was 164 m with sufficient formation energy. The 8 mm nozzle was employed during the flow period. Additionally, the daily oil production was 79 t/d. The good exploration results from this well result in the other four development wells. However, the production of these new wells was very low and did not reach the expected productivity. The unclear understanding of the development law of glutenite fans leads to this failure. At present, there were 17 producing wells in the study area. The production data of these Wells were compared with the main controlling factors studied in this paper, and the relationship between them was discussed. Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 16 Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW A total of 11 development wells were located in the clastic rock hanging wall fault13 of 16 area. The other 6 wells were located in the granite hanging wall fault area. The average daily productions of these two well groups were 31.2 t/d and 5.4 t/d, respectively. It is not difficultbetter th toan find that that of the the oil granite productivity area (Figure of the clastic 10). The hanging data wallin Figure area was 11 could significantly also reflect the betterbetter than than that that of of the the granite granite area (Figure(Figure 10 10).). The The data data in in Figure Figure 11 could 11 could also also reflect reflect the the relationships between oil well production and the fault throw, the incised valley depth, relationshipsrelationships between between oil oil well well production and and the the fault fault throw, throw, the the incised incised valley valley depth, depth, thethe theincised incised incised valley valley valley width, width, width, respectively.respectively. respectively. All All the Allthe factors thefactors were factors were significantly were significantly significantly positively positi correlated. positivelyvely corre- corre- lated.Thelated. The square The square values square values of values the correlationof theof thecorrelation correlation coefficients coefficients werecoefficients all about were were 0.8, all which aboutall about shows 0.8, 0.8,which that which the shows shows thatoilthat the production theoil productionoil production increased increase with increase thed enlargement withd with the theenlargement of theenlargement fault throw, of theof the thefault incised fault throw, valley throw, the depth theincised incised and the incised valley width. We could conclude that more geological understanding of valleyvalley depth depth and and the theincised incised valley valley width. width. We Wecould could conclude conclude that that more more geological geological un- un- the glutenite directly accelerates the energy extraction. derstandingderstanding of the of theglutenite glutenite directly directly accelerates accelerates the theenergy energy extraction. extraction.

Figure 10. The relationship between oil production and lithology of hanging wall. FigureFigure 10. 10. TheThe relationship relationship between between oiloil productionproduction and and lithology lithology of hangingof hanging wall. wall.

Figure 11. The relationship between oil production and fault throw, thickness, and width of incised valley. FigureFigure 11. The 11. Therelationship relationship between between oil oil production production and and fault throw,throw, thickness, thickness, and and width width of incised of incised valley. valley.

AccordingAccordingAccording to the to to the theactual actual actual situation situation situation of petroleum of petroleum resource resource resource evaluation evaluation evaluation of glutenite of glutenite of glutenite in the in the in the study area, and referring to the study results of the same type reservoirs, we divide the studystudy area, area, and and referring referring to the to thestudy study results results of the of thesame same type type reservoirs, reservoirs, we wedivide divide the the gluteniteglutenite reservoir reservoir into into high producinghigh producing areas, medium areas, producingmedium producing areas, and low areas producing, and low pro- gluteniteareas (Table reservoir7). into high producing areas, medium producing areas, and low pro- ducingducing areas areas (Table (Table 7). 7).

TableTable 7. Comprehensive 7. Comprehensive evaluation evaluation standard standard of glutenite of glutenite reservoir reservoir in the in theGuojuzi Guojuzi area area. . Main Controlling Factors of Glutenite Reservoir Conventional Reservoir Parameters Reservoir Evaluation Daily Average Oil Main Controlling Factors of Glutenite Reservoir Conventional Reservoir Parameters Reservoir Evaluation Daily Average Oil Hanging Wall Fault Throw Incised Valley Incised Valley Permeability Parameters Production (t/d)Hanging Wall Fault Throw Incised Valley Incised Valley Porosity (%) Permeability Parameters Production (t/d) Lithology (m) Thickness (m) Width (m) Porosity (%) (×10−3 μm2) Lithology (m) Thickness (m) Width (m) (×10−3 μm2) High oil production area >25 Clastic rock >1200 >85 >2400 >12 >3 High oil production area >25 Clastic rock >1200 >85 >2400 >12 >3 Medium oil production area 10–25 Clastic rock 780–1200 55–85 1200–2400 10–2.7 0.2–3.2 Medium oil production area 10–25 Clastic rock 780–1200 55–85 1200–2400 10–2.7 0.2–3.2 Low oil production area <10 Granite <780 <55 <1200 <5.1 <0.4 Low oil production area <10 Granite <780 <55 <1200 <5.1 <0.4

UnderUnder the theguidance guidance of this of this standard, standard, it is itpredicted is predicted that that the thearea area around around well w C918ell C918 in in the thesoutheast southeast is the is thehigh high production production area area, the, thearea area around around well w G2,ell G2,G4 , G4and, and G6 G6in thein the middlemiddle of the of thestudy study area area is the is themedium medium production production area, area, and and the thearea area near near Well Well D354 D354 in in the thenorthwest northwest is the is thelow low production production area. area. According According to the to theprediction prediction results results of this of this pa- pa- per,per the, theC913 C913 well well wa swa deployeds deployed in the in thehigh high production production area area. The. The well well was was located located in a in a faultfault area area where where the thehanging hanging wall wall lithology lithology was was clastic clastic rock, rock, and and the thefault fault throw throw was was large.large. The The corresponding corresponding incised incised valley valley was was valley valley 6 (Figure 6 (Figure 3), which3), which was was the thelargest largest valleyvalley in thein thestu dystu dyarea. area. All Allthe theabove above factors factors were were favorable favorable for forthe thedevelopment development of of gluteniteglutenite fans, fans, which which were were consistent consistent with with the thecontrolling controlling factors factors discussed discussed in this in this paper. paper. TheThe daily daily oil productionoil production of the of thewell well reached reached 88 t/d, 88 t/d,and and the theenergy energy exploitation exploitation effect effect was was good.good. The The example example of wellof well C913 C913 prove proved thatd that the thecontrolling controlling factors factors of gluteniteof glutenite body body

Energies 2021, 14, 1807 13 of 16

Table 7. Comprehensive evaluation standard of glutenite reservoir in the Guojuzi area.

Main Controlling Factors of Glutenite Reservoir Conventional Reservoir Parameters Reservoir Evaluation Daily Average Oil Hanging Wall Incised Valley Incised Valley Permeability Parameters Production (t/d) Fault Throw (m) Porosity (%) Lithology Thickness (m) Width (m) (×10−3 µm2) High oil production area >25 Clastic rock >1200 >85 >2400 >12 >3 Medium oil production area 10–25 Clastic rock 780–1200 55–85 1200–2400 10–2.7 0.2–3.2 Low oil production area <10 Granite <780 <55 <1200 <5.1 <0.4 Energies 2021, 14, 1807 14 of 16

Under the guidance of this standard, it is predicted that the area around well C918 in the southeast is the high production area, the area around well G2, G4, and G6 in the middle of the study area is the medium production area, and the area near Well D354 in the northwest is the low production area. According to the prediction results of this paper, the C913 well was deployed in the high production area. The well was located in a fault area where the hanging wall lithology was clastic rock, and the fault throw was large. The corresponding incised valley was valley 6 (Figure3), which was the largest valley in the study area. All the above factors were favorable for the development of glutenite fans, which were consistent with the controlling factors discussed in this paper. The daily oil production of the well reached 88 t/d, and the energy exploitation effect was good. The example of well C913 proved that the controlling factors of glutenite body discussed here had a positive effect on energy production and could be taken as the reference and guidance for the similar reservoir production.

6. Conclusions 1. Fault ramps control the glutenite fan type. Different faults have different water depths, which determine the type of glutenite. The footwalls of planar and listric faults mainly developed nearshore underwater fans. The upper steps of step faults mainly developed nearshore underwater fans; in the lower step, the was deeper, and mostly turbidite fans developed. The upper steps of ramp-ﬂat faults mainly developed alluvial fans and fan delta plain deposits, the second steps (middle steps) developed nearshore underwater fans and fan delta fronts, and the third steps (lower steps) developed deep-water turbidite fans and slump turbidity. 2. The morphology of the footwall block of a fault in the study area could be divided into convex and concave, and glutenite developed on a large scale on concave strata. The lithology of the hanging wall of the fault could be divided into granite and clastic rock. A granite hanging wall corresponded to a small-scale glutenite body, and a hanging wall with clastic rock corresponded to a large-scale glutenite body. 3. Incised valleys control the transport and provide channels for the migration of glutenite. According to their shapes, there were wide-deep types, wide-shallow types, narrow-deep types, and narrow-shallow types. According to the relationship between the depth of the proximal valley near the glutenite in the mature exploration area and the thickness, width, and length of the glutenite, the transport index represents a method to predict the distribution range and thickness of glutenite by using the depth of nearby incised valleys. Six main incised valleys were developed in the northern part of Guojuzi, among which four incised valleys in the west had relatively small sediment supply capacities, while the eastern incised valleys 5 and 6 had relatively large sediment supply capacities. 4. Based on the analysis of the relationship between the main controlling factors of glutenite and oil productivity, this paper established an evaluation standard for glutenite reservoirs in the study area. The reservoir was divided into a high production area, medium production area and low production area. The high production area was located in the clastic rock hanging wall fault area, the daily average oil production was more than 25 t, the fault throw was more than 1200 m, and the thickness and width of the incised valley were more than 85 m and 2400 m, respectively. The middle production area was located in the clastic rock area, the daily average oil production was 10–25 t, the fault throw was 780–1200 m, and the thickness and width of the incised valley were 55–85 m and 1200–2400 m, respectively. The low production area was located in the granite hanging wall fault area, the daily average oil production was less than 10 t, the fault throw was less than 780 m, and the thickness and width of the incised valley were less than 55 m and 1200 m, respectively. Under the guidance of this standard, it is predicted that the area around well C918 in the southeast was the high production area. Newly developed oil wells in high-yield areas had a daily oil production rate of 88 t/d, and the oil energy production effect was very good. Energies 2021, 14, 1807 15 of 16

Therefore, the main controlling factors of conglomerate development were of great signiﬁcance to the oil production of similar reservoirs. Therefore, the main controlling factors of glutenite were of great signiﬁcance to oil extraction.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.W. and C.D.; methodology, Q.H.; validation, C.L.; formal analysis, Y.W. and C.D.; investigation, C.D.; resources, Y.W.; data curation, Y.W.; writing- original draft preparation, Y.W.; writing—review and editing, C.D.; supervision, C.D. and C.L.; project administration, C.L.; funding acquisition, Y.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was funded part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 2017ZX05072-002 and Grant 2017ZX05009-001. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest.

References 1. Earle, S. Physical Geology, 2nd ed.; BCcampus: Victoria, BC, Canada, 2015; pp. 148–152. 2. Wang, Y.G.; Yang, G.Q. Analysis on geophysical characteristics of glutenite reservoir. J. China Univ. Pet. 2001, 25, 16–20. [CrossRef] 3. Matenco, L.; Andriessen, P. The Source sink network, Quantifying the mass transfer from mountain ranges to deposition in sedimentary basins: Source to sink studies in the Danube Basin–Black Sea system. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2013, 103, 1–18. [CrossRef] 4. Genik, G.J. Petroleum geology of Cretaceous-Tertiary rift basins in Niger, Chad, and Central African Republic. AAPG Bull. 1993, 8, 1405–1434. [CrossRef] 5. Marr, J.G.; Swenson, J.B.; Paola, C.; Voller, V.R. A two-diffusion model of fluvial stratigraphy in closed depositional basins. Basin Res. 2000, 12, 381–398. [CrossRef] 6. Sømme, T.O.; Jackson, C.A.-L.; Vaksdal, M. Source-to-sink analysis of ancient sedimentary systems using a subsurface case study from the Møre-Trøndelag area of southern Norway: Part 1—Depositional setting and fan evolution. Basin Res. 2013, 25, 489–511. [CrossRef] 7. Sømme, T.O.; Jackson, C.A.-L. Source-to-sink analysis of ancient sedimentary systems using a subsurface case study from the Møre-Trøndelag area of southern Norway: Part 2—Sediment dispersal and forcing mechanisms. Basin Res. 2013, 25, 512–531. [CrossRef] 8. Li, L.; Zhai, M.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Z.; Huang, B.; Li, A.; Zuo, J.; Zhang, Q. Brittleness Evaluation of Glutenite Based on Energy Balance and Damage Evolution. Energies 2019, 12, 3421. [CrossRef] 9. Wang, Y.Z.; Song, G.Q.; Wang, X.Z. Index of provenance provision and its controlling action on the development of the beach and bar. Pet. Geol. Oilfield Dev. Daqing 2013, 32, 49–53. [CrossRef] 10. Zhou, L.; Fu, L.; Lou, D.; Lu, Y.; Feng, J.; Zhou, S.; Santosh, M.; Li, S. Structural anatomy and dynamics of evolution of the Qikou Sag, Bohai Bay Basin: Implications for the destruction of North China craton. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2012, 47, 94–106. [CrossRef] 11. Hornung, J.; Pflanz, D.; Hechler, A.; Beer, A.; Hinderer, M.; Maisch, M.; Bieg, U. 3-D architecture, depositional patterns and climate triggered sediment fluxes of an alpine alluvial fan (Samedan, Switzerland). Geomorphology 2010, 115, 202–214. [CrossRef] 12. Nava-Sanchez, E.; Cruz-Orozco, R.; Gorsline, D.S. Morphology and sedimentology of two contemporary fan deltas on the southeastern Baja California Peninsula, Mexico. Sediment. Geol. 1995, 98, 45–61. [CrossRef] 13. Soh, W.; Tanaka, T.; Taira, A. Geomorphology and sedimentary processes of a modern slope-type fan delta (Fujikawa fan delta), suruga trough, Japan. Sediment. Geol. 1995, 98, 79–95. [CrossRef] 14. Pomar, F.; Del Valle, L.; Fornós, J.; Gomez-Pujol, L. Late Pleistocene dune–sourced alluvial fans in coastal settings: Sedimentary facies and related processes (Mallorca, Western Mediterranean). Sediment. Geol. 2018, 367, 48–68. [CrossRef] 15. Kain, C.L.; Rigby, E.H.; Mazengarb, C. A combined morphometric, sedimentary, GIS and modelling analysis of flooding and debris flow hazard on a composite alluvial fan, Caveside, Tasmania. Sediment. Geol. 2018, 364, 286–301. [CrossRef] 16. Davor, P.; Marijan, K. Lower Miocene Alluvial Deposits of the Pozeska Mt. (Pannonian Basin, Northern Croatia): Cycles, Megacycles and Tectonic Implications. Geol. Croat. 1999, 52, 67–76. [CrossRef] 17. Tanaka, J.; Maejima, W. Fan-delta sedimentation on the basin margin slope of the Cretaceous, strike-slip Izumi Basin, southwestern Japan. Sediment. Geol. 1995, 98, 205–213. [CrossRef] 18. Cabello, P.; Falivene, O.; López-Blanco, M.; Howell, J.A.; Arbués, P.; Ramos, E.; López, P.C. An outcrop-based comparison of facies modelling strategies in fan-delta reservoir analogues from the Eocene Sant Llorenç del Munt fan-delta (NE Spain). Pet. Geosci. 2011, 17, 65–90. [CrossRef] 19. Liu, B.; Tan, C.; Yu, X.; Qu, J.; Zhao, X.; Zhang, L. Sedimentary characteristics and controls of a retreating, coarse-grained fan-delta system in the Lower Triassic, Mahu Depression, northwestern China. Geol. J. 2019, 54, 1141–1159. [CrossRef] 20. Bestland, E.A. A Miocene Gilbert-type fan-delta from a volcanically influenced lacustrine basin, Rusinga Island, Lake Victoria, Kenya. J. Geol. Soc. 1991, 148, 1067–1078. [CrossRef] Energies 2021, 14, 1807 16 of 16

21. Jia, J.; Liu, Z.; Miao, C.; Fang, S.; Zhou, R.; Meng, Q.; Chen, Y.; Yan, L.; Yang, D. Depositional model and evolution for a deep-water sublacustrine fan system from the syn-rift Lower Cretaceous Nantun Formation of the Tanan Depression (Tamtsag Basin, Mongolia). Mar. Pet. Geol. 2014, 57, 264–282. [CrossRef] 22. Kim, J.; Chough, S. A gravel lobe deposit in the prodelta of the Doumsan fan delta (Miocene), SE Korea. Sediment. Geol. 2000, 130, 183–203. [CrossRef] 23. McConnico, T.; Bassett, K.N. Gravelly Gilbert-type fan delta on the Conway Coast, New Zealand: Foreset depositional processes and clast imbrications. Sediment. Geol. 2007, 198, 147–166. [CrossRef] 24. Shanmugam, G. 50 years of the turbidite paradigm (1950s–1990s): Deep-water processes and facies models—a critical perspective. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2000, 17, 285–342. [CrossRef] 25. Kubo, Y.; Nakajima, T. Laboratory experiments and numerical simulation of sediment-wave formation by turbidity currents. Mar. Geol. 2002, 192, 105–121. [CrossRef] 26. Huang, Y. Sedimentary characteristics of turbidite fan and its implication for hydrocarbon exploration in Lower Congo Basin. Pet. Res. 2018, 3, 189–196. [CrossRef] 27. Zhao, Y.; Dai, J.S. Identification of growth fault by fault fall analysis. Pet. Explor. Dev. 2003, 30, 13–15. [CrossRef] 28. Stephen, A.D. Holmes’ Principles of Physical Geology. Geol. Mag. 1993, 130, 549. [CrossRef] 29. Willemse, E.J.; Peacock, D.C.; Aydin, A. Nucleation and growth of strike-slip faults in limestones from Somerset, U.K. J. Struct. Geol. 1997, 19, 1461–1477. [CrossRef] 30. Withjack, M.O.; Schlische, R.W.; Olsen, P.E.; Ashley, G.M. Rift-Basin Structure and Its Influence on Sedimentary Systems. Sediment. Continental Rifts 2002, 73, 57–81. [CrossRef] 31. Gong, Z.; Zhu, W.; Chen, P.P.-H. Revitalization of a mature oil-bearing basin by a paradigm shift in the exploration concept. A case history of Bohai Bay, Offshore China. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2010, 27, 1011–1027. [CrossRef] 32. Xie, X.; Cui, T.; Dietmar, M.R.; Gong, Z.; Guo, X.; Liu, X.; Zhang, C. Subsidence history and forming mechanism of anomalous tectonic subsidence in the Bozhong depression, Bohaiwan basin. Sci. China Ser. D Earth Sci. 2007, 50, 1310–1318. [CrossRef] 33. Peacock, D.; Nixon, C.; Rotevatn, A.; Sanderson, D.; Zuluaga, L. Glossary of fault and other fracture networks. J. Struct. Geol. 2016, 92, 12–29. [CrossRef] 34. Xu, J.R.; Zhao, Z.X.; Ishikawa, Y.Z. Regional characteristics of crustal stress field and tectonic motions in and around Chinese mainland. Chin. J. Geophys. 2008, 51, 770–781. [CrossRef] 35. Malvić,T. Middle Miocene Depositional Model in the Drava Depression Described by Geostatistical Porosity and Thickness Maps (Case study: Stari Gradac-Barcs Nyugat Field). Rud. Geol Naft. Zb. 2006, 18, 63–70. 36. Sremac, J.; Velić,J.; Bošnjak, M.; Velić,I.; Kudrnovski, D.; Troskot-Corbić,T.ˇ Depositional Model, Pebble Provenance and Possible Reservoir Potential of Cretaceous Conglomerates: Example from the Southern Slope of Medvednica Mt. (Northern Croatia). Geosciences 2018, 8, 456. [CrossRef]