Evolution of petrophysical properties of oil shales during high-temperature compaction tests: Implications for petroleum expulsion

Thermal evolution and shale gas potential estimation of the Wealden and Posidonia Shale in NW‐Germany and the Netherlands: a 3D basin modelling study

“…Such effects are still poorly understood and up to now very few experimental data have been published for shales (e.g. Eseme et al, 2007Eseme et al, , 2012.…”

Geochemical and geological characteristics of Permian Lucaogou Formation shale of the well Ji174, Jimusar Sag, Junggar Basin, China: Implications for shale oil exploration

“…However, besides oil generation potential, oil generation quantity is also closely related to the thermal evolution degree of OM and the oil generation quantity of the Upper Member shale with very great oil generation potential may also be lower than that of the Lower Member shale when the thermal evolution degree is low. (b) The oil expulsion efficiencies of the different types of OM vary as follows: Type‐I kerogen > Type‐II 1 kerogen > Type‐II 2 kerogen > Type‐III kerogen (Eseme, Krooss, & Littke, ; Inan, Yalcin, & Mann, ; Sandvik, Young, & Curry, ; Stainforth, ). As previously discussed in Section , the OM type of the Upper Member shale is generally better than that of the Lower Member shale; therefore, it should have a higher oil expulsion efficiency, whereas in the case of shale oil generation quantities having little difference, the amount of residual oil in the Upper Member shale would be lower, resulting in lower oil‐bearing capacity in the shale, which may be the main reason for the oil‐bearing capacity of the Upper Member shale being significantly lower than that of the Lower Member shale.…”

“…However, for shale oil play, the shale featuring strong remaining hydrocarbons is an excellent source rock; hence, the shale featuring strong oil generation capacity and small oil expulsion efficiency is the most favourable for the formation and enrichment of shale oil. In general, the stronger the oil generation capacity, the greater the oil expulsion efficiency (Eseme et al, ; Inan et al, ; Sandvik et al, ; Stainforth, ). Hence, the oil‐bearing capacity of the Upper Member Shale is significantly lower than that of the Lower Member Shale under the context of the thermal maturity difference being small, even though the OM abundance and oil generation of the Upper Member Shale are overall higher than the Lower Member shale.…”

“…hence, the shale featuring strong oil generation capacity and small oil expulsion efficiency is the most favourable for the formation and enrichment of shale oil. In general, the stronger the oil generation capacity, the greater the oil expulsion efficiency (Eseme et al, 2012;Inan et al, 1998;Sandvik et al, 1992;Stainforth, 2009) Based on the above analyses, in the P2l Formation shale, the depth intervals of 3, 255-3,272, 3,282-3,298, and 3,317-3,334 of the Lower Member in the well Ji174 are ideally suited and have the greatest shale oil exploration potential of Jimusar Sag in Junggar Basin.…”

Gas Transfer Through Clay Barriers

“…In the context of petroleum system analysis, a significant volume of research has been undertaken regarding gas/oil expulsion mechanisms from sources rocks during burial history (Tissot & Pellet, 1971;Appold & Nunn, 2002), secondary migration (Luo et al, 2008) and the capillary sealing capacity of caprocks overlying natural gas accumulations (Berg, 1975;Schowalter, 1979;Krooss, 1992;Schlömer and Kross, 2004;Li et al, 2005;Berne et al, 2010). Recently, more attention has been paid to investigations of the transport efficiency of shales in the context of oil/gas shale production (Bustin et al, 2008;Eseme et al, 2012;Amann-Hildenbrand et al, 2012;Ghanizadeh et al, 2013Ghanizadeh et al, , 2014. Analysis of the migration mechanisms within partly unlithified strata becomes important when explaining the origin of overpressure zones, sub-seafloor gas domes and gas seepages (Hovland & Judd, 1988;Boudreau, 2012).…”