4.7 Article

Hydrocarbon evaporative loss evaluation of lacustrine shale oil based on mass balance method: Permian Lucaogou Formation in Jimusaer Depression, Junggar Basin

期刊

MARINE AND PETROLEUM GEOLOGY
卷 91, 期 -, 页码 422-431

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2018.01.021

关键词

Hydrocarbon evaporative loss evaluation; Lacustrine shale; Mass balance method; Permian Lucaogou Formation; Junggar Basin

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2014CB239100]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hydrocarbon evaporative loss evaluation is important for shale oil resource assessment. We propose a mass balance model to evaluate the hydrocarbon evaporative loss (S1-loss) in this study. The proposed method is applied to a large Rock-Eval pyrolysis dataset on source rock samples from the Lucaogou Formation in the Jimusaer Depression of the Junggar Basin, NW China, as a case study to evaluate the S1-loss. The results indicate that the S1-loss can range from 0.12 to 7.25 mg/g Rock, corresponding to 11%-89% loss of the generated hydrocarbons (S1-loss/(Si + S1-loss)) due to evaporation before lab analysis. It appears that when Ro <= 1.3%, S1-loss and S1-loss/TOC decreases gradually with increasing Ro, likely corresponding to increasing oil density as results of heterogeneous source rock compositions and increased accommodation space via the creation of organic pores of large specific surface for heavy and large hydrocarbon molecules in oil window. When Ro > 1.3%, S1-loss/TOC begins to increase with increasing Ro as more oil crack to gaseous and light hydrocarbons that are more susceptible to evaporative loss. In the case of similar Ro, the relative S1-loss/TOC varies little among the samples but the absolute S1-loss amount increases with increasing TOC. Restricted by regional geological conditions in this study, we focused on the S1-loss for lacustrine type I kerogen only, and quantification of evaporative loss for other kerogen types remains a subject for further study.

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