2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.jngse.2021.104283
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Difference in pore structure characteristics between condensate and dry shale gas reservoirs: Insights from the pore contribution of different matrix components

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The pore structure of shale condensate gas reservoir is quite different from that of dry gas reservoir. In shale condensate gas reservoir, there are mainly organic matter (OM) pores, clay mineral (CM) pores, intragranular dissolution (ID) pores, and microfractures [7]. Micropores and mesoporous pores are mainly provided by OM and CM pores, while macropores are mainly provided by CM pores and microfractures [7].…”
Section: Reservoir Characteristics Resource Distribution and Exploita...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The pore structure of shale condensate gas reservoir is quite different from that of dry gas reservoir. In shale condensate gas reservoir, there are mainly organic matter (OM) pores, clay mineral (CM) pores, intragranular dissolution (ID) pores, and microfractures [7]. Micropores and mesoporous pores are mainly provided by OM and CM pores, while macropores are mainly provided by CM pores and microfractures [7].…”
Section: Reservoir Characteristics Resource Distribution and Exploita...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The mineral particles and organic matter in shale reservoirs contain large scale range of pores (nano/micro/millimeter scale) and micro-fractures, providing important storage space for shale gas enrichment, and also offered flow channels for shale gas seepage (Zhang et al, 2019;Zhao et al, 2022). By clarify the reasons for the complexity and heterogeneity of pore systems in shale gas reservoir, we can achieve more efficient development of deep shale gas resources (Yang et al, 2016;Zhang et al, 2020;Qiu et al, 2021;Xie et al, 2022;Cui et al, 2024). The characterization of pore structure in shale gas reservoirs involves many aspects, including pore types, pore shape, pore size, pore volume, pore specific surface area, spatial distribution of pore systems, connectivity between pores.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Organic-rich shales in China are deposited in marine, terrestrial, and marine-land transitional environments, with significant differences in their geochemical characteristics, reservoir properties, and gas-bearing properties. − Marine shale typically has high total organic carbon (TOC) content, with a high degree of thermal evolution and organic matter dominated by types I and II; sea-land transitional shale exhibits rapid vertical changes in TOC with some cyclicity, moderate thermal evolution, and kerogen mainly type III; terrestrial shale distribution is limited, with higher TOC at the sedimentary center, lower maturity, and dominance of types I and II1 kerogen. − According to the IUPAC, pores in shales are classified as micropores (<2 nm), mesopores (2–50 nm), and macropores (≥50 nm) . Most shale gas is adsorbed in organic nanometer pores or in the surface and interlayer pores of clay minerals. − Low-temperature CO 2 adsorption experiments can quantitatively characterize the micropore characteristics in shale. − The PSD characteristics significantly affect the gas storage capacity of shale. − Research on the genesis of PSD peaks of micropores mainly focuses on coal and transitional shales. − For example, Qu et al found that the micropores in tectonic deformation coal are lamellar pores of aromatic rings or columnar pores formed by stacking . Yu et al combined research on the origin of micropores in coal with micropores in transitional shales and found that the influence of clay minerals on the total micropore volume and pore volume of peak 2 (0.46–0.63 nm) is slightly bigger than that of TOC, whereas the influence on peak 3 (0.82 nm) is the opposite .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%