4.5 Article

Porosity of Devonian and Mississippian New Albany Shale across a maturation gradient: Insights from organic petrology, gas adsorption, and mercuty intrusion

期刊

AAPG BULLETIN
卷 97, 期 10, 页码 1621-1643

出版社

AMER ASSOC PETROLEUM GEOLOGIST
DOI: 10.1306/04011312194

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy, Basic Energy Sciences [DE-FG02-11ER16246]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The evolution of porosity in shales with increasing maturity was examined in a suite of five New Albany Shale samples spanning a maturity range from immature (vitrinite reflectance, R-o 0.35%) to postmature (R-o 1.41%). Devonian to lower Mississippian New Albany Shale samples from the Illinois Basin used in this study contain marine type II kerogen having total organic carbon contents from 1.2 to 13.0 wt. %. Organic petrology, CO2 and N-2 low-pressure adsorption, and mercury intrusion capillary pressure techniques were used to quantify pore volumes, pore sizes, and pore-size distributions. Increasing maturity of the New Albany Shale is paralleled by many changes in the characteristics of porosity. The total porosity of 9.1 vol. % in immature New Albany Shale decreases to 1.5 vol. To in the late mature sample, whereas total pore volumes decrease from 0.0365 to 0.0059 cm(3)/g in the same sequence. Reversing the trend at even higher maturity, the postmature New Albany Shale exhibits higher porosity and larger total pore volumes compared to the late mature sample. With increasing maturity, changes in total porosity and total pore volumes are accompanied by changes in pore-size distributions and relative proportions of micropores, mesopores, and macropores. Porosity-related variances are directly related to differences in the amount and character of the organic matter and mineralogical composition, but maturity exerts the dominant control upon these characteristics. We conclude that organic matter transformation due to hydrocarbon generation and migration is a pivotal cause of the observed porosity differences.

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

4.5
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