About This Item

Share This Item

The AAPG/Datapages Combined Publications Database

AAPG Bulletin

Abstract

AAPG Bulletin, V. 96, No. 6 (June 2012), P. 10991119.

Copyright copy2012. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.

DOI:10.1306/10171111052

Characterization of gas shale pore systems by porosimetry, pycnometry, surface area, and field emission scanning electron microscopy/transmission electron microscopy image analyses: Examples from the Barnett, Woodford, Haynesville, Marcellus, and Doig units

Gareth R. Chalmers,1 R. Marc Bustin,2 Ian M. Power3

1Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of British Columbia, 6339 Stores Road, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4; [email protected]
2Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of British Columbia, 6339 Stores Road, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4; [email protected]
3Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of British Columbia, 6339 Stores Road, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4; [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The nanometer-scaled pore systems of gas shale reservoirs were investigated from the Barnett, Marcellus, Woodford, and Haynesville gas shales in the United States and the Doig Formation of northeastern British Columbia, Canada. The purpose of this article is to provide awareness of the nature and variability in pore structures within gas shales and not to provide a representative evaluation on the previously mentioned North American reservoirs. To understand the pore system of these rocks, the total porosity, pore-size distribution, surface area, organic geochemistry, mineralogy, and image analyses by electron microscopy were performed. Total porosity from helium pycnometry ranges between 2.5 and 6.6%. Total organic carbon content ranges between 0.7 and 6.8 wt. %, and vitrinite reflectance measured between 1.45 and 2.37%. The gas shales in the United States are clay and quartz rich, with the Doig Formation samples being quartz and carbonate rich and clay poor. Higher porosity samples have higher values because of a greater abundance of mesopores compared with lower porosity samples. With decreasing total porosity, micropore volumes relatively increase whereas the sum of mesopores and macropore volumes decrease. Focused ion beam milling, field emission scanning electron microscopy, and transmission electron microscopy provide high-resolution (sim5 nm) images of pore distribution and geometries. Image analysis provides a visual appreciation of pore systems in gas shale reservoirs but is not a statistically valid method to evaluate gas shale reservoirs. Macropores and mesopores are observed as either intergranular porosity or are confined to kerogen-rich aggregates and show no preferred orientation or align parallel with the laminae of the shale. Networks of mesopores are observed to connect with the larger macropores within the kerogen-rich aggregates.

Pay-Per-View Purchase Options

The article is available through a document delivery service. Explain these Purchase Options.

Protected Document: $10
Internal PDF Document: $14
Open PDF Document: $24

AAPG Member?

Please login with your Member username and password.

Members of AAPG receive access to the full AAPG Bulletin Archives as part of their membership. For more information, contact the AAPG Membership Department at [email protected].