Total shale oil inventory from an extended Rock-Eval approach on non-extracted and extracted source rocks from Germany

Zink, Klaus-Gerhard; Scheeder, Georg; Stueck, H.L.; Biermann, Steffen; Blumenberg, Martin

doi:10.1016/j.coal.2016.06.023

Cited by 30 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The heavy components present in kerogen, micropores and disconnected pore systems in the adsorption state can only be released at higher temperatures or when the pyrolysis temperature of organic matter is reached (Jarvie, 2012;Li M. W. et al, 2020). Zink et al (2016) proposed that the amount of extractable S 2 component is 2.2-3.6 times the measured S 1 amount, and if this part of highcarbon number alkanes and aromatic hydrocarbons is ignored, the shale retained oil content is much underestimated. Jarvie (2012) pointed out that the oil content can be obtained according to S 1 and S 2 before and after extraction as presented in Eq.…”

Section: Pyrolysis Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oil Retention in Shales: A Review of the Mechanism, Controls and Assessment

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shale oil is a vital alternative energy source for oil and gas and has recently received an extensive attention. Characterization of the shale oil content provides an important guiding significance for resource potential evaluation, sweet spot prediction, and development of shale oil. In this paper, the mechanism, evaluation and influencing factors of oil retention in shales are reviewed. Oil is retained in shales through adsorption and swelling of kerogen, adsorption onto minerals and storage in shale pores. Quite a few methods are developed for oil content evaluation, such as three-dimensional fluorescence quantitation, two-dimensional nuclear magnetic resonance (2D NMR), solvent extraction, pyrolysis, multiple extraction-multiple pyrolysis-multiple chromatography, logging calculation, statistical regression, pyrolysis simulation experiment, and mass balance calculation. However, the limitations of these methods represent a challenge in practical applications. On this basis, the influencing factors of the oil retention are summarized from the microscale to the macroscale. The oil retention capacity is comprehensively controlled by organic matter abundance, type and maturity, mineral composition and diagenesis, oil storage space, shale thickness, and preservation conditions. Finally, oil mobility evaluation methods are introduced, mainly including the multitemperature pyrolysis, 2D NMR, and adsorption-swelling experiment, and the influencing factors of movable shale oil are briefly discussed. The aim of this paper is to deepen the understanding of shale oil evaluation and provide a basis for further research.

show abstract

Section: Pyrolysis Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oil Retention in Shales: A Review of the Mechanism, Controls and Assessment

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Collins and Lapierre [24] noted that 20%-65% of the S 2 peak was soluble in common organic solvents. Zink et al [10] found that the total oil included the extractable S 2 component was 2.2 to 3.6 times higher than that determined from S 1 only. This phenomenon not only overestimates the remaining hydrocarbon generation potential (S 2 ) but also substantially underestimates the amount of original-oil-in-place in sedimentary basins (Abrams et al, 2017 [11]; Han et al, 2017 [25]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Investigation on Oil Physical States of Hybrid Shale Oil System: A Case Study on Cretaceous Second White Speckled Shale Formation from Highwood River Outcrop, Southern Alberta

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nine samples collected from the Upper Cretaceous Second White Speckled Shale Formation at the Highwood River outcrop in southern Alberta were geochemically characterized for their oil contents, physical states, and chemical compositions. Cold extraction was performed on 8–10 mm and 2–5 mm chips sequentially to obtain the first and second extractable organic matter (EOM-1 and EOM-2), while Soxhlet extraction was performed on powder from previously extracted chips to obtain the third extract (EOM-3). EOM-1 can be roughly regarded as free oil and EOM-2 is weakly adsorbed on mineral surfaces, while EOM-3 may represent the oil strongly adsorbed on kerogen. While both extraction yields and Rock-Eval pyrolysates differed from their original values due to the evaporative loss during outcropping, there was a generally positive correlation between the total EOM and total oil derived from Rock-Eval pyrolysis. EOM-1 was linearly correlated with Rock-Eval S1, while the extractable S2 content was well correlated with the loss of TOC, suggesting that TOC content was the main constraint for adsorbed oils. A bulk composition analysis illustrated that EOM-1 contained more saturated hydrocarbons, while EOM-3 was enriched in resins and asphaltenes. More detailed fractionation between the free and adsorbed oils was demonstrated by molecular compositions of each extract using quantitative GC-MS analysis. Lower-molecular-weight n-alkanes and smaller-ring-number aromatic compounds were preferentially concentrated in EOM-1 as compared to their higher-molecular or greater-ring-number counterparts and vice versa for EOM-3. Fractionation between isoprenoids and adjacent eluted n-alkanes, isomers of steranes, hopanes, alkylnaphthalenes, alkylphenanthrenes and alkyldibenzothiophenes was insignificant, suggesting no allogenic charge from deep strata. Strong chemical fractionation between saturated and aromatic hydrocarbon fractions was observed with EOM-1 apparently enriched in n-alkanes, while EOM-3 retained more aromatic hydrocarbons. However, the difference between free and adsorbed state oils was less dramatic than the variation from shales and siltstones. Lithological heterogeneities controlled both the amount and composition of retained fluids. Oil that resided in shales (source rock) behaved more similar to the EOM-3, with diffusive expulsion leading to the release of discrete molecules from a more adsorbed or occluded phase to a more free phase in siltstones with more connected pores and/or fractures (reservoir). Under current technical conditions, only the free oil can flow and will be the recoverable resource. Therefore, the highest potential can be expected from intervals adjacent to organic-rich beds. The compositional variations due to expulsion and primary migration from source rocks to reservoirs illustrated in the present study will contribute to a better understanding of the distribution of hydrocarbons generated and stored within the shale plays.

show abstract

“…Zink et al, 2016). The T max values higher than 600 C (sample KP1, Lower Devonian limestone from Kotelny Island; samples ST3, ST4, ST5 e Upper Jurassic siltstones from Stolbovoy Island) are maximum values for the RockEval method, and they show up when the S 2 -peak cannot reach its maximum within the S 2 -temperature range.…”

Section: Toc and Rock-eval Studiesmentioning

confidence: 97%