Determination of gas adsorption capacity in organic-rich marine shale: a case study of Wufeng-Lower Longmaxi Shale in the southeast Sichuan Basin

doi:10.1007/s11707-021-0912-y

Front. Earth Sci.

2022, Vol. 16

Issue (3) : 541-556 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-021-0912-y

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Determination of gas adsorption capacity in organic-rich marine shale: a case study of Wufeng-Lower Longmaxi Shale in the southeast Sichuan Basin

Yingchun GUO^1,²(

), Pengwei WANG³, Xiao CHEN⁴, Xinxin FANG¹

¹. Key Laboratory of Paleomagnetism and Tectonic Reconstruction, Ministry of Natural Resources, Institute of Geomechanics, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, Beijing 100081, China
². Key Laboratory of Petroleum Resources Research, Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China
³. Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration & Production, SINOPEC, Beijing 100083, China
⁴. CNOOC Research Institute, Beijing 100028, China

Download: PDF(3293 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

Determination of gas adsorption capacity under geological conditions is essential in evaluating shale gas resource potential. A quantitative determination of gas adsorption capacity was proposed through 1) investigating controlling geological factors (including both internal ones and external ones) of gas adsorption capacity in organic-rich marine shale with geochemical analysis, XRD diffraction, field-emission scanning electron microscopy, and methane sorption isotherms; 2) defining the relationship between gas adsorption capacity and single controlling factor; 3) establishing a comprehensive determination model with the consideration of all these controlling factors. The primary controlling factors of the sorption capacity for the studied O₃w-Lower S₁l shale are TOC, illite and quartz, temperature, pressure, R_o, and moisture (water saturation). Specifically, TOC, thermal maturity, illite, and pressure are positively correlated with sorption capacity, whereas, quartz and temperature contribute negatively to the sorption capacity. We present the quantitative model along with application examples from the Wufeng-Lower Longmaxi Shale in the southeast Sichuan Basin, west China, to demonstrate the approach in shale gas evaluation. The result shows that the comprehensive determination model provides a good and unbiased estimate of gas adsorption capacities with a high correlation coefficient (0.96) and bell-shaped residues centered at zero.

Keywords gas adsorption capacity quantitative determination marine shale Wufeng-Longmaxi Shale southeast Sichuan Basin

Corresponding Author(s): Yingchun GUO

Online First Date: 11 August 2021 Issue Date: 29 December 2022

Cite this article:

Yingchun GUO,Pengwei WANG,Xiao CHEN, et al. Determination of gas adsorption capacity in organic-rich marine shale: a case study of Wufeng-Lower Longmaxi Shale in the southeast Sichuan Basin[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2022, 16(3): 541-556.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/10.1007/s11707-021-0912-y
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/Y2022/V16/I3/541

Fig.1 Structure units of the Sichuan Basin and location of the study area.

Fig.2 Generalized Paleozoic stratigraphic column showing related information, e.g., lithology, strata classification, and thickness (Modified from Yang et al., 2016b).

Fig.3 Diagrams showing Present-day TOC of the O₃w–Lower S₁l shales.

Fig.4 General trends of conversed vitrinite reflectance (R_o, %) in the O₃w–Lower S₁l shales with increasing depth.

Fig.5 Plots of methane sorption capacities vs. TOC (a) /R_o (b) for the studied samples. Vl is the Langmuir volume.

Fig.6 Ternary diagram showing the variation in quartz and feldspar, clay mineral and carbonate contents (a) and the distribution of illite, illite/smectite mixed-layer, and chlorite (b).

Fig.7 Plots of methane sorption capacities vs. quartz (a), illite/smectite mixed-layer (b), and illite (c) for the studied samples. Vl is the Langmuir volume.

Fig.8 SEM images showing the variation of organic pores in the Wufeng-Longmaxi shales from the JY A well with thermal maturity and TOC. (a) Gray-black S₁l shale, 2339.33 m, TOC= 1.59%, R_o = 2.8%, organic pores are randomly distributed and vary significantly in size; (b) gray-black S₁l silty mudstone, 2376.1 m, TOC= 1.59%, R_o = 2.2%, pores are ellipse-like or subrounded and well-connected locally; (c) gray-black S₁l silty mudstone, 2385.4 m, TOC= 3.59%, R_o = 2.54%; (d) gray-black S₁l mudstone, 2397.1 m, TOC= 3.46%, R_o = 3.06%, ellipse-like pores with homogenous pore size; (e) gray-black S₁l mudstone, 2406.2 m, TOC= 4.77%, R_o = 3.13%, rounded and subrounded organic pores; (f) gray-black O₃w mudstone, TOC= 4.45%, R_o = 2.42%, subrounded or subangular organic pores with small pore size in the twisted kerogen.

Fig.9 Plots of Pp for organic pores vs. TOC (a) and R_o (b) for the studied samples. P_p represents the measured plane porosity.

Fig.10 SEM images showing matrix-hosted pores in the Lower S₁l shale. (a) Intragranular dissolved pores in the calcite grains from gray-black S₁l shale, bubble-like with various sizes, JY B well, 2593.7 m. (b) Illite-dominated clay mineral, abundant slit- or plate-like pores with maximum diameter up to hundreds of nanometer, JY B well, 2584.49 m.

Fig.11 Methane sorption isotherms at 30°C measured on JY A (a) and JY B (b) samples.

Fig.12 Methane sorption isotherms at different temperatures (30°C, 60°C, 90°C) measured on JY A sample.

Fig.13 Plots of methane sorption capacities vs. temperature for the studied samples. Vl is the Langmuir volume.

Member	Depth/m	TOC/%	R_o/%	Quartz content	Illite content	T/°C	P/MPa	Estimated C_g/(m³·t^–1)	Field-tested C_g/(m³·t^–1)
S₁l	2330.46	1.11	2.2	25.2	32.6	76.92	31.97	1.48	0.63
S₁l	2332.63	1	2.21	30.5	36.8	76.98	32.00	1.48
S₁l	2333.98	0.75	2.22	29.8	34.2	77.02	32.02	1.47
S₁l	2335.08	0.6	2.23	29.7	26.8	77.05	32.27	1.46
S₁l	2335.3	0.78	2.24	28.2	29.5	77.05	32.27	1.48
S₁l	2337.27	1.21	2.25	29.9	25.2	77.11	32.30	1.50
S₁l	2338.2	1.41	2.26	18.8	21.0	77.13	32.31	1.52
S₁l	2339.33	1.47	2.27	30.7	29.4	77.16	32.55	1.53
S₁l	2340.82	1.59	2.28	34.2	20.0	77.20	32.57	1.52	0.84
S₁l	2341.45	2.19	2.29	36.8	9.9	77.22	32.58	1.53
S₁l	2342.59	1.99	2.3	26	30.7	77.25	32.60	1.57	0.88
S₁l	2343.56	1.54	2.31	27.4	24.2	77.28	32.61	1.54
S₁l	2344.58	1.87	2.32	26.3	23.4	77.30	32.86	1.56
S₁l	2345.49	2.45	2.33	29.8	21.8	77.33	32.87	1.59
S₁l	2346.5	2.68	2.34	32.3	13.8	77.36	32.88	1.59	1.08
S₁l	2347.46	2.27	2.35	31.4	29.5	77.38	32.90	1.60
S₁l	2348.69	2.19	2.36	26.6	23.8	77.41	32.91	1.60	0.81
S₁l	2349.62	2.32	2.37	26.1	29.5	77.44	33.16	1.62
S₁l	2351	1.85	2.38	18.4	23.2	77.48	33.18	1.60
S₁l	2352.9	2.53	2.39	27.3	25.6	77.53	33.20	1.63
S₁l	2354.2	1.29	2.4	23.5	15.3	77.56	33.22	1.57
S₁l	2355.1	1.62	2.41	33.9	22.0	77.59	33.47	1.59	0.76
S₁l	2356.1	1.46	2.42	34.7	17.9	77.61	33.48	1.58
S₁l	2357.1	1.7	2.43	33.4	19.4	77.64	33.49	1.60	0.86
S₁l	2358.1	1.55	2.44	33	22.1	77.67	33.51	1.60	0.8
S₁l	2359	1.56	2.45	34.2	11.2	77.69	33.52	1.59
S₁l	2360	1.52	2.46	34.5	16.1	77.72	33.77	1.60	0.74
S₁l	2361	1.69	2.47	34	20.0	77.75	33.78	1.62
S₁l	2362	1.51	2.48	35	17.2	77.77	33.80	1.61
S₁l	2363.4	1.47	2.49	30.9	19.3	77.81	33.82	1.62
S₁l	2364.5	2.12	2.5	34.4	20.5	77.84	33.83	1.65	0.92
S₁l	2365.5	1.57	2.51	36.3	21.2	77.87	34.08	1.63
S₁l	2366.7	2.12	2.52	36.9	16.5	77.90	34.09	1.65	1.14
S₁l	2367.88	1.72	2.53	37.7	9.5	77.93	34.11	1.62
S₁l	2368.94	1.8	2.54	34	23.4	77.96	34.13	1.66
S₁l	2369.63	1.61	2.55	32.4	19.7	77.98	34.14	1.65	2.38
S₁l	2370.58	1.85	2.56	28.9	22.7	78.01	34.38	1.67
S₁l	2371.62	1.44	2.57	27.7	30.6	78.03	34.40	1.67
S₁l	2372.2	1.71	2.58	32.7	28.9	78.05	34.41	1.68
S₁l	2372.58	1.61	2.59	31.7	19.5	78.06	34.64	1.67	2.69
S₁l	2373.52	1.32	2.6	31.1	17.8	78.09	34.66	1.66	2.83
S₁l	2374.28	1.5	2.61	32.6	18.4	78.11	34.90	1.67
S₁l	2375.28	1.52	2.62	33.9	20.2	78.13	34.92	1.67
S₁l	2376.05	1.83	2.63	31.1	19.7	78.15	34.93	1.69
S₁l	2376.89	1.37	2.64	25.7	15.0	78.18	35.17	1.68
S₁l	2377.69	2.01	2.65	34.4	23.5	78.20	35.65	1.71
S₁l	2378.41	2.46	2.66	32.3	18.8	78.22	35.66	1.73	0.94
S₁l	2379.19	2.67	2.67	35.2	15.1	78.24	35.67	1.74
S₁l	2380.13	3.22	2.68	38.2	17.1	78.26	35.92	1.76
S₁l	2380.97	2.99	2.69	35	22.1	78.29	35.93	1.77
S₁l	2381.91	3.01	2.7	36.8	12.6	78.31	35.95	1.76	2
S₁l	2382.67	3.22	2.71	40.4	26.3	78.33	36.19	1.79
S₁l	2383.62	3.35	2.72	37.9	15.0	78.36	36.21	1.78	2.5
S₁l	2384.41	3.54	2.73	43.2	6.0	78.38	36.22	1.77
S₁l	2385.42	3.59	2.74	42.2	16.6	78.41	36.23	1.80
S₁l	2386.36	3.62	2.75	41.3	18.6	78.43	36.25	1.81
S₁l	2387.65	3.99	2.76	47.6	12.7	78.47	36.27	1.81	4.04
S₁l	2388.52	3.45	2.77	46.7	17.2	78.49	36.28	1.80
S₁l	2389.31	3.3	2.78	51.4	11.3	78.51	36.29	1.78
S₁l	2390.02	3.42	2.79	44.3	19.4	78.53	36.30	1.81
S₁l	2390.87	3.77	2.8	31.9	21.2	78.55	36.32	1.85
S₁l	2391.95	3.09	2.81	36	9.8	78.58	36.33	1.80	2.57
S₁l	2392.74	2.24	2.82	31	14.3	78.60	36.35	1.78	0.89
S₁l	2393.6	2.54	2.83	38	15.1	78.63	36.36	1.79
S₁l	2394.3	2.56	2.84	40.3	6.1	78.65	36.37	1.77
S₁l	2395.3	2.76	2.85	41.4	10.6	78.67	36.38	1.79
S₁l	2396	2.3	2.86	37.5	19.4	78.69	36.40	1.79
S₁l	2397.1	3.46	2.87	42.7	6.3	78.72	36.41	1.82	1.08
S₁l	2398	3.95	2.88	43.6	8.6	78.75	36.43	1.85
S₁l	2399	4.16	2.89	49.6	5.3	78.77	36.44	1.85
S₁l	2400.1	4.12	2.9	47.1	5.9	78.80	36.46	1.85	1.47
S₁l	2400.9	4.11	2.91	48.9	7.0	78.82	36.47	1.86
S₁l	2401.4	4.43	2.92	53	4.0	78.84	36.48	1.87
S₁l	2402.6	2.94	2.93	42.3	4.5	78.87	36.50	1.82	4.14
S₁l	2403.6	2.99	2.94	34.6	5.5	78.90	36.51	1.83
S₁l	2404.5	4.56	2.95	48.9	6.4	78.92	36.52	1.89
S₁l	2405.3	4.48	2.96	49.6	7.9	78.94	36.54	1.89	4.15
S₁l	2406.2	4.77	2.97	51.5	4.2	78.97	36.55	1.90	4.96
S₁l	2407.4	3.64	2.98	44.7	4.9	79.00	36.57	1.86
S₁l	2408	4.23	2.99	57.2	3.6	79.02	36.58	1.87
O₃w	2411.1	4.01	3	65.8	2.0	79.10	36.62	1.86
O₃w	2411.9	4.97	3.01	69.1	2.7	79.12	36.64	1.90
O₃w	2412.3	4.77	3.02	56.5	6.6	79.13	36.64	1.91	4.31
O₃w	2413.1	4.03	3.03	70.6	4.2	79.15	36.65	1.86
O₃w	2414.2	4.46	3.04	55.7	8.3	79.18	36.67	1.91
O₃w	2414.9	4.45	3.05	32.8	24.6	79.20	36.68	1.96	3.55

Tab.1 The controlling factors and estimated C_g with the quantitative expression (Eq. (9))

Fig.14 Comparison of (a) estimated gas adsorption capacity (C_g) and (b) measurementsand the residual distribution.

Fig.15 Determined methane sorption capacity of the O₃w–Lower S₁l shale in the JY A well. Formation temperature and pressure are from drilling data. C_g is the gas adsorption capacity.

Fig.16 The negative correlation between water saturation and TOC (a), and positive correlation between water saturation and clay minerals (b) of the Wufeng-Longmaxi shale.

1	R J Ambrose, R C Hartman, M Diaz-Campos, I Y Akkutlu, C H Sondergeld (2012). Shale gas-in-place calculations, part I: new pore-scale considerations. SPE J, 17(01): 219–229 https://doi.org/10.2118/131772-PA
2	G R L Chalmers, R M Bustin (2007). The organic matter distribution and methane capacity of the lower cretaceous strata of northeastern British Columbia, Canada. Int J Coal Geol, 70(1–3): 223–239 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2006.05.001
3	G R L Chalmers, R M Bustin (2008). Lower cretaceous gas shales in northeastern British Columbia, part I: geological controls on methane sorption capacity. Bull Can Pet Geol, 56(1): 1–21 https://doi.org/10.2113/gscpgbull.56.1.1
4	G R L Chalmers, R M Bustin (2010). The effects and distribution of moisture in gas shale reservoir systems. In: AAPG 2010 Annual Convention and Exhibition, April 11–14
5	L Chen, Y Lu, S Jiang, J Li, T Guo, C Luo (2015). Heterogeneity of the lower Silurian Longmaxi marine shale in the southeast Sichuan Basin of China. Mar Pet Geol, 65: 232–246 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2015.04.003
6	M Gasparik, P Bertier, Y Gensterblum, A Ghanizadeh, B M Krooss, R Littke (2014). Geological controls on the methane storage capacity in organic-rich shales. Int J Coal Geol, 123: 34–51 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2013.06.010
7	M Gasparik, A Ghanizadeh, P Bertier, Y Gensterblum, S Bouw, B M Krooss (2012). High-pressure methane sorption isotherms of black shales from the Netherlands. Energy Fuels, 26(8): 4995–5004 https://doi.org/10.1021/ef300405g
8	X Guo, Y Li, R Liu, Q Wang (2014). Characteristics and controlling factors of micropore structures of the Longmaxi shale in the Jiaoshiba area, Sichuan Basin. Natural Gas Industry B, 1(2): 165–171 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ngib.2014.11.007
9	P C Hackley, C V Araujo, A G Borrego, A Bouzinos, B J Cardott, A C Cook, C Eble, D Flores, T Gentzis, P A Gonçalves, J G Mendonça Filho, M Hámor-Vidó, I Jelonek, K Kommeren, W Knowles, J Kus, M Mastalerz, T R Menezes, J Newman, I K Oikonomopoulos, M Pawlewicz, W Pickel, J Potter, P Ranasinghe, H Read, J Reyes, G D L Rosa Rodriguez, I V Alves Fernandes de Souza, I Suárez-Ruiz, I Sýkorová, B J Valentine (2015). Standardization of reflectance measurements in dispersed organic matter: results of an exercise to improve interlaboratory agreement. Mar Pet Geol, 59: 22–34 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2014.07.015
10	A, Hartwig H M Schulz (2010). Applying classical shale gas evaluation concepts to Germany—part I: the basin and slope deposits of the Stassfurt Carbonate (Ca2, Zechstein, Upper Permian) in Brandenburg. Geochem, 70(1): 77–91
11	A Hartwig, S Könitzer, B Boucsein, B Horsfield, H M Schulz (2010). Applying classical shale gas evaluation concepts to Germany—part II: carboniferous in northeast Germany. Geochem, 70(1): 93–106
12	C C He, S He, X S Guo, J Z Yi, Z H Wei, Z G Shu, N J Peng (2018). Structural differences in organic pores between shales of the Wufeng Formation and of the Longmaxi Formation’s first Member, Jiaoshiba Block, Sichuan Basin. Oil & Gas Geol, 39(3): 472–484
13	J J Hickey, B Henk (2007). Lithofacies summary of the Mississippian Barnett Shale, Mitchell 2 TP Sims well, Wise County, Texas. AAPG Bull, 91(4): 437–443 https://doi.org/10.1306/12040606053
14	H Hu, T Zhang, J D Wiggins-Camacho, G S Ellis, M D Lewan, X Zhang (2015). Experimental investigation of changes in methane adsorption of bitumen-free woodford shale with thermal maturation induced by hydrous pyrolysis. Mar Pet Geol, 59: 114–128 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2014.07.029
15	D M Jarvie, R J Hill, T E Ruble, R M Pollastro (2007). Unconventional shale-gas systems: the Mississippian Barnett Shale of north-central Texas as one model for thermogenic shale-gas assessment. AAPG Bull, 91(4): 475–499 https://doi.org/10.1306/12190606068
16	L Ji, T Zhang, K L Milliken, J Qu, X Zhang (2012). Experimental investigation of main controls to methane adsorption in clay-rich rocks. Appl Geochem, 27(12): 2533–2545 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2012.08.027
17	W M Ji, F Hao, H Schulz, Y Song, J Tian (2019). The architecture of organic matter and its pores in highly mature gas shales of the Lower Silurian Longmaxi Formation in the Upper Yangtze Platform, south China. AAPG Bull, 103(12): 2909–2942 https://doi.org/10.1306/04101917386
18	J Li, X F Li, X Z Wang, Y N Xin, J F Han, J T Shi, Z Sun, R Wang (2016). Effect of water distribution on methane adsorption capacity in shale clay. Chinese J Theoretic App Mechan, 48(5): 1217–1228 (in Chinese) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2016.03.012
19	P Li, F Hao, X Guo, H Zou, X Yu, G Wang (2015). Processes involved in the origin and accumulation of hydrocarbon gases in the Yuanba gas field, Sichuan Basin, Southwest China. Mar Pet Geol, 59: 150–165 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2014.08.003
20	X C Lu, F C Li, A T Watson (1995). Adsorption measurements in Devonian shales. Fuel, 74(4): 599–603 https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-2361(95)98364-K
21	K L Milliken, D Rudnicki, D N Awwiller (2013). Organic matter–hosted pore system, Marcellus formation (Devonian), Pennsylvania. AAPG Bull, 97(2): 177–200 https://doi.org/10.1306/07231212048
22	C J Modica, S G Lapierre (2012). Estimation of kerogen porosity in source rocks as a function of thermal transformation: example from the Mowry Shale in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming. AAPG Bull, 96(1): 87–108 https://doi.org/10.1306/04111110201
23	M Pommer, K Milliken (2015). Pore types and pore-size distributions across thermal maturity, Eagle Ford Formation, Southern Texas. AAPG Bull, 99(09): 1713–1744 https://doi.org/10.1306/03051514151
24	U Raut, M Famá, B D Teolis, R A Baragiola (2007). Characterization of porosity in vapor-deposited amorphous solid water from methane adsorption. J Chem Phys, 127(20): 204713 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2796166 pmid: 18052452
25	D J K Ross, R M Bustin (2007). Shale gas potential of the lower Jurassic Gordondale member, northeastern British Columbia, Canada. Bull Can Pet Geol, 55(1): 51–75 https://doi.org/10.2113/gscpgbull.55.1.51
26	D J K Ross, R M Bustin (2008). Characterizing the shale gas resource potential of Devonian–Mississippian strata in the Western Canada sedimentary basin: application of an integrated formation evaluation. AAPG Bull, 92(1): 87–125 https://doi.org/10.1306/09040707048
27	D J K Ross, R Marc Bustin (2009). The importance of shale composition and pore structure upon gas storage potential of shale gas reservoirs. Mar Pet Geol, 26(6): 916–927 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2008.06.004
28	J Schoenherr, R Littke, J L Urai, P A Kukla, Z Rawahi (2007). Polyphase thermal evolution in the Infra-Cambrian Ara Group (South Oman Salt Basin) as deduced by maturity of solid reservoir bitumen. Org Geochem, 38(8): 1293–1318 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orggeochem.2007.03.010
29	J Tan, B Horsfield, R Fink, B Krooss, H M Schulz, E Rybacki, J Zhang, C J Boreham, G van Graas, B A Tocher (2014). Shale gas potential of the major marine shale formations in the upper Yangtze platform, South China, part III: mineralogical, lithofacial, petrophysical, and rock mechanical properties. Energy Fuels, 28(4): 2322–2342 https://doi.org/10.1021/ef4022703
30	H Tian, T Li, T Zhang, X Xiao (2016). Characterization of methane adsorption on overmature lower Silurian–upper Ordovician shales in Sichuan Basin, southwest China: experimental results and geological implications. Int J Coal Geol, 156: 36–49 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2016.01.013
31	K Ufer, H Stanjek, G Roth, R Dohrmann, R Kleeberg, S Kaufhold (2008). Quantitative phase analysis of bentonites by the Rietveld method. Clays Clay Miner, 56(2): 272–282 https://doi.org/10.1346/CCMN.2008.0560210
32	P Wang, Z Chen, Z Jin, C Jiang, M Sun, Y Guo, X Chen, Z Jia (2018). Shale oil and gas resources in organic pores of the Devonian Duvernay shale, western Canada sedimentary basin based on petroleum system modeling. J Nat Gas Sci Eng, 50: 33–42 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2017.10.027
33	P Wang, Z Chen, X Pang, K Hu, M Sun, X Chen (2016). Revised models for determining toc in shale play: example from Devonian Duvernay shale, Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. Mar Pet Geol, 70: 304–319 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2015.11.023
34	S Wang, Z Song, T Cao, X Song (2013). The methane sorption capacity of Paleozoic shales from the Sichuan Basin, China. Mar Pet Geol, 44: 112–119 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2013.03.007
35	R Yang, S He, Q Hu, D Hu, S Zhang, J Yi (2016b). Pore characterization and methane sorption capacity of over-mature organic-rich Wufeng and Longmaxi shales in the Southeast Sichuan Basin, China. Mar Pet Geol, 77: 247–261 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2016.06.001
36	R Yang, S He, J Z Yi, Q H Hu (2016a). Nano-scale pore structure and fractal dimension of organic-rich Wufeng-Longmaxi shale from Jiaoshiba area, Sichuan Basin: investigations using FE-SEM, gas adsorption and helium pycnometry. Mar Pet Geol, 70: 27–45 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2015.11.019
37	T Zhang, G S Ellis, S C Ruppel, K Milliken, R Yang (2012). Effect of organic-matter type and thermal maturity on methane adsorption in shale-gas systems. Org Geochem, 47(6): 120–131 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orggeochem.2012.03.012
38	C N Zou, G M Zhai, G Y Zhang, H J Wang, G S Zhang, J Z Li, Z M Wang, Z X Wen, F Ma, Y B Liang, Z Yang, X Li, K Liang (2015). Formation, distribution, potential and prediction of global conventional and unconventional hydrocarbon resources. Pet Explor Dev, 42(1): 14–28 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1876-3804(15)60002-7

[1]	Xin CHEN, Lei CHEN, Xiucheng TAN, Shu JIANG, Chao WANG. Impact of pyrite on shale gas enrichment—a case study of the Lower Silurian Longmaxi Formation in southeast Sichuan Basin[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2021, 15(2): 332-342.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed