Adsorption of petroleum compounds in vitrinite: implications for petroleum expulsion from coal

Ritter, U; Grøver, Arnt

doi:10.1016/j.coal.2004.11.004

Cited by 27 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But the overwhelming majority of liquid hydrocarbons in the South Viking Graben derives from Upper Jurassic shaly source rocks (Justwan et al, 2006). The discrepancy between the observed oil and gas volumes and experimental data is explained by retention of hydrocarbons in the source rock (e.g., Sandvik et al, 1992;Behar et al, 1997;Ritter and Grøver, 2003). Since sophisticated adsorption models for retention in coal, such as in Ritter and Grøver (2003), are beyond the scope of this project and beyond the capabilities of the software used, the problem is approached by raising saturation thresholds for heavy and light oil.…”

Section: Article In Pressmentioning

confidence: 55%

“…The discrepancy between the observed oil and gas volumes and experimental data is explained by retention of hydrocarbons in the source rock (e.g., Sandvik et al, 1992;Behar et al, 1997;Ritter and Grøver, 2003). Since sophisticated adsorption models for retention in coal, such as in Ritter and Grøver (2003), are beyond the scope of this project and beyond the capabilities of the software used, the problem is approached by raising saturation thresholds for heavy and light oil. The observed situation in the South Viking Graben, where liquid hydrocarbons sourced from the Middle Jurassic are only encountered south of 58140 0 (Justwan et al, 2006), can be simulated by raising thresholds up to 7.5 and 5.5 kg HC/t rock for heavy and light oil, respectively from Case 3.…”

Section: Article In Pressmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Mechanisms of expulsion of hydrocarbons from the source rock are still subject to debate: Expulsion has been simulated previously by basin scale compaction and Darcy flow modelling (e.g., Ungerer et al, 1990), application of bulk saturation thresholds (e.g., Forbes et al, 1991) and as a function of absorption and adsorption within the kerogen (Sandvik et al, 1992;Pepper and Corvi, 1995;Ritter and Grøver, 2003). Expulsion in IRAP s /BasinAssist was modelled using a saturation threshold approach to expel hydrocarbons once a saturation threshold (kg HC/t rock) has been surpassed.…”

Section: Expulsionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Geothermal history and petroleum generation in the Norwegian South Viking Graben revealed by pseudo-3D basin modelling

Justwan

Meisingset²,

Dahl

et al. 2006

Marine and Petroleum Geology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Article In Pressmentioning

confidence: 55%

Section: Article In Pressmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Expulsionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Geothermal history and petroleum generation in the Norwegian South Viking Graben revealed by pseudo-3D basin modelling

Justwan

Meisingset²,

Dahl

et al. 2006

Marine and Petroleum Geology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Gas can be stored as free gas in pore spaces, dissolved in the remaining oil and pore water, or adsorbed on mineral surfaces (Brothers et al . ), in organic matter (Lamberson & Bustin ), or in vitrinite nanopores (Ritter & Grover ). The gas mass dissolved in residual oil and pore water can be calculated as:

M_{normalgs} = M_{normalo} S_{normalgo} + V_{w 1} {normalρ}_{normalw} S_{normalgw} .

…”

Section: Pressure Changes From Gas Generationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative estimation of overpressure caused by gas generation and application to the Baiyun Depression in the Pearl River Mouth Basin, South China Sea

Guo

Liu

et al. 2015

Geofluids

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hydrocarbon generation can yield high fluid pressures in sedimentary basins as the conversion of solid kerogen to hydrocarbons can result in an increase in fluid volume. To quantify the relationship between gas generation and overpressure in source rocks, a set of equations for computing the pressure change due to gas generation has been derived. Those equations can be used to quantitatively estimate overpressure generated by type III kerogen in source rocks by considering gas generation and leakage, gas dissolution in formation water and residual oil, thermal cracking of oil to gas, and hydrocarbon episodic expulsion from source rocks. The equations also take consideration of other factors including source rock porosity, transformation ratio, total organic carbon (TOC), hydrogen index, and compressibility of kerogen, oil, and water. As both oil and gas are taken into account in the equations, they can also be used to estimate the evolution of overpressure caused by hydrocarbon generation of type I and type II kerogen source rocks. Sensitivity analyses on the type III kerogen source rock indicate that hydrogen index is the most influential parameter for overpressure generation, while TOC and residual gas coefficient (b: ratio of residual gas over the total gas generated) have a moderate effect. Overpressure can be generated even if the gas leakage/loss in the source rock is up to 80% of the total gas generated. This suggests that the internal pressure seal of the source rock is not a critical factor on the pressure change as long as the source rocks are capable of sealing liquid oil. The equations were applied to evaluate the overpressure in the EoceneOligocene Enping Formation source rocks due to hydrocarbon generation in the Baiyun Depression, the Pearl River Mouth Basin by considering the source rock properties, hydrocarbon generation history, and hydrocarbon expulsion timing. Two episodes of overpressure development due to gas generation and release were modeled to have occurred in the Enping Formation source rock since 16 Ma. The overpressure release at 10.2-5.3 Ma via hydrocarbon expulsion was apparently related to the Dongsha phase of tectonic deformation, whereas the pressure release at 2-0 Ma was due to pressure generation that was exceeded the fracture-sealing pressure in the source rocks.

show abstract

“…Compared with the oil and wet gas yields, coal mainly generates dry gas that contributes great source to coal-bed methane. 30,31 It is coincided with the maceral components of GY coal which is a vitrinite-dominant and gas-prone source rock in Sichuan Basin. 32,33 3.4.…”

Section: Fractional Compositional Evolution Of Residual Oil Followinmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental Study on Fractional Compositions of Residual Oil from Shale and Coal of China Using Grain-Based MSSV Pyrolysis

Liao

Wang

2016

Energy Fuels

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For better understanding compositions and evolutions of residual oil of shale and coal, a grain-based microscale sealed vessel (MSSV) pyrolysis method to whole rock was used to investigate the residual oil contents and its fractional compositions from shale, coal, and coaly shale samples, as well as their variations at different temperatures and maturities. Quantities of extracted oil from residuals and yields of C1 to C5 gases were used to define oil, wet gas, and dry gas windows using equivalent Ro (%) calculated through EasyRo (%) method. Oil windows are defined as 0.6−1.3%Ro for shale and 0.5−1.2%Ro for coal; wet gas windows are 0.9−3.0%Ro for shale and 0.8−2.7%Ro for coal, and dry gas window are 1.3−4.0%Ro for shale and 1.2−4.0%Ro for coal, respectively. Coal shows relatively wider oil window than shale but similar gas window to shale. The maximum residual oil can reach 133.44 mg/g TOC, 69.84 mg/g TOC for marine and lacustrine shale, 10.03 mg/g TOC for coal, and 83.79 mg/g TOC for coaly shale, respectively. Comparing with natural residual oil, the laboratory residual oil of shale is much higher, while the residual oil in coal is mainly retained due to its unique structures. The results show that, in oil window, marine and lacustrine shale residual oil show mainly saturates, aromatics, resins but less asphaltenes, while coal residual oil are mainly asphaltenes, aromatics, resins but less saturates. In the wet and dry gas window, marine and lacustrine shale residual oil is mainly made up of saturates, aromatics, and resins, while coal residual oil is mainly made up of asphaltenes and resins. These results suggest that residual oil contents of marine shale, lacustrine shale, and coaly shale are higher with high proportions of saturated and aromatic hydrocarbons in low maturities which show high shale oil prospective than coal, while in high maturities the residual oil contents decrease quickly but still have higher potential for cracking gases which might become the source of shale gas. The residual oil in coal is low mainly in forms of aromatics, resins, and asphaltenes, which can only be the source of coal-bed methane as maturity increases.

show abstract

Adsorption of petroleum compounds in vitrinite: implications for petroleum expulsion from coal

Cited by 27 publications

References 36 publications

Geothermal history and petroleum generation in the Norwegian South Viking Graben revealed by pseudo-3D basin modelling

Geothermal history and petroleum generation in the Norwegian South Viking Graben revealed by pseudo-3D basin modelling

Quantitative estimation of overpressure caused by gas generation and application to the Baiyun Depression in the Pearl River Mouth Basin, South China Sea

Experimental Study on Fractional Compositions of Residual Oil from Shale and Coal of China Using Grain-Based MSSV Pyrolysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About