Kerogen based characterization of major gas shales: Effects of kerogen fractionation |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Houston, Houston, TX, United States;2. Chevron Energy Technology Company, Houston, TX, United States;1. Harold Vance Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States;2. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, United States;1. U.S. Geological Survey, MS 956 National Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley Dr, Reston, VA, 20192, USA;2. Petrobras, CENPES/Gerência de Geoquímica Radial 7, Rua Horácio Macedo no. 950, Laboratório de Petrografia Orgânica, Cidade Universtitária – Ilha do Fundão, 21941-915, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil;3. Instituto Nacional del Carbón (INCAR-CSIC), Francisco Pintado fe 26, 33011, Oviedo, Spain;4. Energy Resources Consulting Pty Ltd, PO Box 54 (3/55 Clarence St), Coorparoo Qld, 4151, Australia;5. Oklahoma Geological Survey, 100 E. Boyd St. Rm. N-131, Norman, OK, 73019-0628, USA;6. Keiraville Konsultants Pty. Ltd., 7 Dallas Street, Keiraville, NSW, 2500, Australia;7. Kentucky Geological Survey, 228 MMRB, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, 40506-0107, USA;8. DGAOT-FCUP, Rua do Campo Alegre, 687, 4169-007, Porto, Portugal;9. Core Laboratories, 6316 Windfern Road, Houston, TX, 77040, USA;10. Laboratório de Palinofácies e Fácies Orgânica (LAFO), Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Av. Athos da Silveira Ramos, 274, Bloco J, Cidade Universitária, CEP. 21941-916, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil;11. Geological and Geophysical Institute of Hungary, Stefánia St. 14, Budapest, 1143, Hungary;12. University of Silesia, Faculty of Earth Sciences, 41-200 Sosnowiec ul. B?dzińska 60, Poland;13. Wilgendreef 45, 2272 EM, Voorburg, The Netherlands;14. Geochemical Services Group, Weatherford Laboratories Torridge House, 4 Buttgarden St., Bideford Devon EX39 2AU, UK;15. Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources, Geochemistry of Energy Resources and Gas Monitoring, Stilleweg 2, D-30655, Hannover, Germany;p. Indiana Geological Survey, Indiana University, 611 North Walnut Grove, Bloomington, IN, 47405-2208, USA;q. Newman Energy Research Ltd, 2 Rose St., Christchurch, 8002, New Zealand;r. U.S. Geological Survey, PO Box 25046, MS 977 Denver Federal Center, Lakewood, CO, 80225, USA;s. Coal & Organic Petrology Services Pty Ltd, Unit 23, 80 Box Rd., Taren Point, NSW, 2229, Australia;t. J.P. Petrographics, 90 Patterson Close SW, Calgary, Alberta, T3H 3K2, Canada;u. Energy Resources Consulting Pty Ltd, 25 Sandalwood Road, Farmborough Heights, NSW, 2526, Australia;v. Geological Survey of Canada Calgary, 3303 – 33rd Street N.W., Calgary, AB, T2L 2A7, Canada;w. Servicio Geológico Mexicano, Calle Industrial 6, Lote 6 Int 2, Zona Industrial Robinson, C.P 31074, Chihuahua, Chih., Mexico;x. Institute of Rock Structure and Mechanics AS CR, v.v.i., V Hole?ovi?kách 41, 182 09, Prague 8, Czech Republic;1. Natural Resources Canada, Geological Survey of Canada, Calgary, AB, Canada;2. Department of Geoscience, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada;3. Tenure and Geoscience Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Natural Gas Development, Victoria, BC, Canada |
| |
| Abstract: | Research into the origin and the mode of entrapment and expulsion of natural gas from unconventional plays requires the isolation and separation of kerogen in its purest and most intact form from the rock matrix. This study expands on the comparative analysis of the effects that isolation methods, conservative closed system versus conventional open system, have on kerogen’s elemental, isotopic and physical properties. Four major gas shales, including the Barnett, the Marcellus, the Haynesville and a Polish gas shale, were chosen. In addition, the Monterey shale, though not strictly a gas shale, was included to address the effects on sulfur rich, Type II-S kerogen.Results indicate that the kerogen residues from the conventional open system method showed lower recovery and higher mineral content than those from the conservative closed system method. Differences were manifested in the elemental analysis data, where kerogens isolated using the open system method showed a significant deficit in the organic C, H, O, S and N material balance. Furthermore, the recovered residues show different sulfur content and δ34S composition, most likely attributable to differences in pyrite content. Nevertheless, the relative abundances of the various macerals in the kerogen residues from the same parent shale are not very different; neither was the bulk δ13C composition of the recovered residues. This is not particularly surprising, considering that in all the five cases examined in this study, the organic matter was fairly homogeneous. |
| |
| Keywords: | Gas shale Kerogen Fractionation Sulfur isotopes Isolation |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
