Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, Denver, Colorado, 12-14 August 2013 2013
DOI: 10.1190/urtec2013-065
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pores, Spores, Pollen and Pellets: Small, but Significant Constituents of Resource Shales

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These geometrical properties of Barnett samples—small pore size and low porosity—are expected to yield extremely slow transport. However, larger pores cannot be discounted in their roles of mass transport and connection of nanopore regions; the commonly used argon milling approach is biased against these pores [ Slatt et al , ]. We observed appreciable micron‐sized pores, and note that pores >1 µm account for 7.9–18% for Barnett samples.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…These geometrical properties of Barnett samples—small pore size and low porosity—are expected to yield extremely slow transport. However, larger pores cannot be discounted in their roles of mass transport and connection of nanopore regions; the commonly used argon milling approach is biased against these pores [ Slatt et al , ]. We observed appreciable micron‐sized pores, and note that pores >1 µm account for 7.9–18% for Barnett samples.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Using SEM/field-emission SEM methods to determine porosities of a range of shale, Slatt and O'Brian (2011) and Slatt et al (2013) reported that micropores ([1 lm in pore length and nanopores (\1 lm) are subequal. The micropores are commonly porous floccules (clumps of electrostatically charged clay flakes arranged in edge-face or edge-edge card house structure) of up to 10 lm in diameter, which are not often seen or identified in ion-milled shale surfaces, perhaps due to the collapse of floccules during milling (Slatt et al 2013).…”
Section: Mercury Intrusionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The micropores are commonly porous floccules (clumps of electrostatically charged clay flakes arranged in edge-face or edge-edge card house structure) of up to 10 lm in diameter, which are not often seen or identified in ion-milled shale surfaces, perhaps due to the collapse of floccules during milling (Slatt et al 2013). For the Eagle Ford shale with a high carbonate content, Slatt et al (2012) reported the presence of lm-sized pore types from coccospheres (internal chambers and hollow spines are up to 1 lm in diameter and several lm in length) and foraminifera (their internal chambers can be 10 lm in diameter).…”
Section: Mercury Intrusionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, they vary significantly from shale to shale (Slatt and O'Brien, 2011). Recently, several papers focused on the identification, characterization, and imaging of a wide range of pore types in gas-producing and/or potential shale resources in North America (Ross and Bustin, 2008;Loucks et al, 2009;Nelson 2009;Ambrose et al, 2010;Passey et al, 2010;Sondergeld et al, 2010;Curtis et al, 2011;Slatt and O'Brien, 2011;Chalmers et al, 2012;Loucks et al, 2012;Milliken et al, 2012;Slatt et al, 2013), China (Wei & Qin, 2013;Wang et al, 2013), and Europe (Bernard et al, 2012;Klaver et al, 2012). Clearly, a consensus is emerging that the matrix porosity, organic porosity, and micro-fracture porosity are the prevalent types of porosity in shale gas resources (Wang and Reed, 2009;Slatt and O'Brian, 2011;Loucks et al, 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%