4.7 Article

Thermal maturity evaluation from inertinites by Raman spectroscopy: The 'RaMM' technique

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COAL GEOLOGY
卷 128, 期 -, 页码 143-152

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.coal.2014.03.006

关键词

Maturity; Rank; Inertinite; Vitrinite; Maceral; Raman spectroscopy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new thermal maturity evaluation tool, RaMM (Raman Maturity Method), enables determination of equivalent vitrinite reflectance from Raman spectra of inertinite. Except for the avoidance of liptinites, the method does not require identification of maceral type; measured assemblages ranging from all inertinite to all vitrinite are suitable. The method uses five parameters derived from the first order vibrational spectrum of carbon. Data from about a dozen humic grains are averaged although a reasonable estimate of thermal maturity can be obtained from a single inertinite grain. RaMM yields equivalent vitrinite reflectance ('RaMM EqVR') values based on a multilinear regression equation derived from data on 163 macerals from ten reference coals having vitrinite reflectances ranging from similar to 0.4 to similar to 1.2%. Cross-calibration on the reference coals, and application to a suite of 14 other coals spanning this rank range agree well with measured VR values. Limited data on isometamorphic coals suggest that RaMM EqVR can solve the problems caused by vitrinites with high H/C atomic ratios and consequent suppressed vitrinite reflectance; this is accomplished by deriving 'normal' reflectance values in a similar way as inertinites with low H/C are referred back to their equivalent vitrinite reflectance values. The RaMM method is affected by post-sampling maceral oxidation but to what degree is uncertain at present. The methodology and calibration have been established and future work will demonstrate applications to dispersed organic matter in samples from petroleum exploration wells, especially where vitrinite is absent or rare. (C) 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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