2012
DOI: 10.1306/10171111052
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Characterization of gas shale pore systems by porosimetry, pycnometry, surface area, and field emission scanning electron microscopy/transmission electron microscopy image analyses: Examples from the Barnett, Woodford, Haynesville, Marcellus, and Doig units

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

25
770
5
2

Year Published

2015
2015
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1,237 publications
(802 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
25
770
5
2
Order By: Relevance
“…At this salt concentration there is a smaller density difference between the carbon dioxide solution and the pure brine solution [35] and consequently the Rayleigh number is relatively low. The experiment starts after admitting carbon dioxide into the cell at the required pressure.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 96%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…At this salt concentration there is a smaller density difference between the carbon dioxide solution and the pure brine solution [35] and consequently the Rayleigh number is relatively low. The experiment starts after admitting carbon dioxide into the cell at the required pressure.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…As the light beam, which traverses in the x-direction, encounters many gravity fingers it will be deflected in all directions and shows more a typical scattering pattern and the lower half, beyond the dark region, shows an increased intensity [35][36][37][38][39] . So even if the beam is deflected downwards the scattered light goes around the focal point and we expect a lighter region.…”
Section: Experimental Results and Interpretationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Porosity data from the North America shale and the Lower Paleozoic shale of the southern area of the Sichuan Basin show an obvious decrease when R o or EqR o is over 3.0 % (Wang et al 2013a), implying that this relationship indeed exists in natural shale systems. Figure 3 further shows that shale porosity varies widely from 3 % to 6 % when R o or EqR o value is between 1.0 % and 3.0 %, without a clear relationship with maturity, which reflects the combined effect of multiple factors (except for maturity), such as TOC content and mineral compositions on shale porosity (Curtis et al 2010;Chalmers and Bustin 2008;Chalmers et al 2012;Ross and Bustin 2009). When R o or EqR o is between 3 % and 5 %, shale porosity varies within a narrow range, mainly between 2 % and 4 %, having an obvious decreasing trend with increasing maturity.…”
Section: Geological Characteristics Of the Lower Paleozoic Shalementioning
confidence: 98%