2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.coal.2016.03.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

BIB-SEM pore characterization of mature and post mature Posidonia Shale samples from the Hils area, Germany

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

4
51
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 134 publications
(55 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
4
51
0
Order By: Relevance
“…If we compare these values to the total porosity determined by who worked on exactly the same samples we find that only 10 % for WIC (or 24 % for HAD respectively) of the total porosity can be resolved using FIB-SEM. These differences are also similar to the results of Klaver et al (2012Klaver et al ( , 2016 and Mathia et al (2016). However, no trends towards higher porosities in one or the other sample were observed, likely due to spatial inhomogeneity.…”
Section: Porosity and Pore Size Distributionsupporting
confidence: 78%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…If we compare these values to the total porosity determined by who worked on exactly the same samples we find that only 10 % for WIC (or 24 % for HAD respectively) of the total porosity can be resolved using FIB-SEM. These differences are also similar to the results of Klaver et al (2012Klaver et al ( , 2016 and Mathia et al (2016). However, no trends towards higher porosities in one or the other sample were observed, likely due to spatial inhomogeneity.…”
Section: Porosity and Pore Size Distributionsupporting
confidence: 78%
“…With increasing maturity TOC contents decrease from 7.2-14.8 % (WIC) to 5.0-10.5 % (HAD). The porosity trends cannot be confirmed by direct observations performed with micro computed tomography (µ-CT) or scanning electron microscopy (SEM) in combination with focused-or broad-ion-beam polishing (FIB or BIB) as demonstrated by Klaver et al (2012Klaver et al ( , 2016, and Mathia et al (2016). Observed image porosities (0.2-3.0 %) were significantly lower due to a lack of resolution.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 93%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The pore structure characterization methods can be divided into two categories: (1) Direct method. To directly observe and obtain image by means of optical microscope, transmission electron microscope (TEM), scanning electron microscope (SEM), and other micro zone observation technologies in order to get the size, shape and distribution of pores and other qualitative informations in shales (Chalmers et al, 2012;Curtis et al, 2012;Loucks et al, 2012;Gu et al, 2015;Klaver et al, 2015Klaver et al, , 2016Li et al, 2015b;Tang et al, 2016;; (2) Indirect method. Mainly by means of probe gas adsorption techniques to quantitatively characterize the pore size and pore structure, including neutron scattering, high pressure mercury intrusion, low pressure gas adsorption and so on (Mastalerz et al, 2012(Mastalerz et al, , 2013Clarkson et al, 2013;Cao et al, 2015;Hu et al, 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%