2012
DOI: 10.1306/08151110188
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Microstructural investigation of gas shales in two and three dimensions using nanometer-scale resolution imaging

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

8
262
1
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 559 publications
(272 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
8
262
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…12, 13 and 14. They all have exponential decay trend similar to pore-size distribution presented by (Curtis et al 2012;Chen et al 2013). The results of subsample analysis for Eagle Ford parallel indicated varying range of pore volume distribution.…”
Section: Pore Volume Characterisationsupporting
confidence: 70%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…12, 13 and 14. They all have exponential decay trend similar to pore-size distribution presented by (Curtis et al 2012;Chen et al 2013). The results of subsample analysis for Eagle Ford parallel indicated varying range of pore volume distribution.…”
Section: Pore Volume Characterisationsupporting
confidence: 70%
“…We compare our results with other available data estimated using other destructive numerical approaches such as Focus Ion Beam (FIB) milling and Scanning Electron (FIBSEM). The average porosity estimated using our non-destructive micro-CT scanning approach for the Eagle ford parallel was 0.173%, while Curtis et al (2012) and Shabro et al (2014) reported 0.4 and 13.2%, respectively, using destructive FIBSEM approach. These differences in the computed porosities cannot be exclusively attributed to differences in the imaging techniques; as Curtis et al (2012) reported, a porosity of 0.4% calculated from 125 lm 3 3D domain at a resolution of 10 nm, while Shabro et al (2014) reported a porosity of 13.2% for a 4.4 lm 3 domain sample volume at a lower resolution of 6 nm.…”
Section: Analysis Of Computed Porosity and Comparison With Other Methodsmentioning
confidence: 85%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The mineral composition of tight reservoir, the composition and properties of fluids (oil, gas, water) and 3D distribution of pore-throat system of tight reservoir can be understood by making full use of various technologies (Loucks et al, 2009;Lau et al, 2012;Curtis et al, 2012. Through the analysis of the mud logging data, logging information and oil production testing data, lower limits and grading evaluation criteria of tight reservoir can be determined using the six methods mentioned below.…”
Section: Lower Limits and Grading Criteria Evaluation Of Tight Reservoirmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By using these imaging methods, it is possible to receive a solid idea of a shale's internal (micro) structure and pore geometry (e.g., [6][7][8][9][10][11]). BIB milling in combination with SEM imaging delivers direct information about pore sizes, their morphology and spatial distribution, rock microstructure, and potential anisotropy as well as core damage due to sample handling (e.g., [3,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]). Additionally, in combination with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX), BIB-SEM enables the identification of individual grains [26,27].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%