Combined technology of PCP and nano-CT quantitative characterization of dense oil reservoir pore throat characteristics

  • Hao ZhangEmail author
  • Yushuang Zhu
  • Ningyong Ma
  • Chuangfei Zhou
  • Yongchao Dang
  • Fei Shao
  • Jun Jiao
  • Li Li
  • Hengli Wang
  • Ming Li
Original Paper


The size of pore throats in tight oil reservoirs varies from a few tens of nanometers to several hundred micrometers. This complex and diverse microscopic pore throat structure restricts the exploration and development process, affecting the recovery rate. Size, shape, and spatial distribution of pore throats in tight oil reservoirs are revealed in this paper via a scanning electron microscope (SEM), casting thin-sections, high-pressure mercury injection, and Nano-CT. Results show that the pore type of the Chang 7 tight oil reservoir in the Xin’anbian area is mainly divided into three categories: intergranular pores, dissolution pores, and microfractures. Numerous nanoscale pore throats have developed in this area, which greatly contributes to reservoir capacity and seepage. Pore throat distribution on capillary pressure curves of different samples shows that when the threshold pressure is less than 1 Mpa, there are many micron-sized pores with good connectivity and pore throats form a large tubular shape with a throat radius between 3.6 and 1064 nm. When the threshold pressure ranges from 1 to 3 MPa, there are many nanoscale pores with good local connectivity, intragranular dissolution pores develop, and pore throats are in tube bundles and spherical in shape with the throat radius between 3.6−657 nm. When the threshold pressure is greater than 3 MPa, nanoscale microfractures develop and are connected to neighboring small spherical pores, small spherical nanopore spaces become isolated, vertical connectivity is poor, and the throat radius is between 3.6−242 nm.


Tight reservoir Microscopic pore throat structure Mercury injection Nano-CT Ordos Basin 


  1. Ambrose RJ, Hartman RC, Diaz-Campos M, Akkutlu IY, Sondergeld CH (2012) Shale gas-in-place calculations part I: new pore-scale considerations. SPEJ 17:219–229.SPE 13177. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arshadi M, Zolfaghari A, Piri M, Al-Muntasheri GA, Sayed M (2017) The effect of deformation on two phase flow through proppant-packed fractured shale samples: a micro-scale experimental investigation. Adv Water Resour 105:108–131. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bai B, Zhu Rk WST et al (2013) Multi-scale method of Nano (micro)-CT study on microscopic pore structure of tight sandstone of Yanchang Formation,Ordos Basin. Pet Explor Dev 40(3):329–333. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakke S, Oeren PE (1997) 3-D pore-scale modeling of sandstones and flow simulations in the pore networks. SPEJ 2:136–149. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrett EP, Joyner LG, Halenda PP (1951) The determination of pore volume and area distribution in porous substances. I. Computations from nitrogen iso-therms. J Am Chem Soc 73:373–380. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blunt MJ, Bijeljic B, Dong H, Gharbi O, Iglauer S, Mostaghimi P, Paluszny A, Pentland C (2013) Pore-scale imaging and modelling. Adv Water Resour 51:197–216. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Du J h, He HQ, Yang T et al (2014) Progress in China’s tight oil exploration and challenges. China Petroleum Exploration 19(1):1–9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. EIA US (2013) Technically recoverable shale oil and shale gas resources: an assessment of 137 shale formations in 41 countries outside the United States. US Department of Energy/EIA, Washington (DC)Google Scholar
  9. Fang SX, Hou F (1998) Reservoir geology of petroleum and natural gas. Petroleum University PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Feng SB, N XB, Liu F et al (2013) Exploring the characteristics and significance of reservoir space of Chang-7 tight oil reservoirs in Ordos Basin. Journal of Central South University (Science and Technology) 44(17):4574–4580Google Scholar
  11. Gao H, Jing XF, Zhang L (2013) Difference of micro-pore throat characteristics in extra-low permeability sandstone of different pore throat matching relationship. Pet Geol Exp 35(4):401–406. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Higgs KE, Zwingmann H, Reyes AG, Funnell RH (2007) Digenesis, porosity evolution, and petroleum emplacement in tight gas reservoirs, Taranaki basin, NewZealand. J Sediment Res 77:1003–1025. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hua WZ, Zheng FN, Qing W, Rui Z, Tian YZ, Teng FN, Yan Z (2015) Petrophysical characterization of tight oil reservoirs using pressure-controlled porosimetry combined with rate-controlled porosimetry. Fuel 154:233–242. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jia CZ, Zou CN, Li JZ et al (2012) Assessment criteria, main types, basic features and resource prospects of the tight oil in China. Acta Pet Sin 33:343–350. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jing LY, Deng X, Yan DZ, Tian YH, Mei JC, Jin LP (2013) Characteristics of tight oil in Triassic Yanchang Formation, Ordos Basin. Pet Explor Dev 40:161–169. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klaver J, Desbois G, Urai JL, Littke R (2012) BIB-SEM study of the pore space morphology in early mature Posidonia shale from the Hils area. Ger Int J Coal Geol 103:12–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuang LC, Tang Y, Lei DW et al (2012) Formation conditions and exploration potential of tight oil in the Permian saline lacustrine dolomitic rock, Junggar Basin, NW China. Pet Explor Dev 39:657–667. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuila U, Prasad M (2011) Understanding pore-structure and permeability in shales. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
  19. Lai J, Wang GW, Ran Y, Zhou ZL, Cui YF (2016) Impact of diagenesis on the reservoir quality of tight oil sandstones: the case of upper Triassic Yanchang Formation Chang 7 oil layers in Ordos Basin, China. J Pet Sci Eng 145:54–65. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Law BE, Curtis JB (2002) Introduction to unconventional petroleum systems. AAPG Bull 14:637–645. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lin SH, Zou CN, Yuan XJ (2011) Status quo of tight oil exploration in the United States and its implication. Lithologic Reservoirs 23(4):25–30Google Scholar
  22. Loucks RG, Reed RM, Ruppel SC, Jarvie DM (2009) Morphology, genesis, and distribution of nanometer-scale pores in siliceous mudstones of the Mississippian Barnett Shale. J Sediment Res 79:848–861. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Loucks RG, Reed RM, Ruppel SC, Hammes U (2012) Spectrum of pore types and networks in mudrocks and a descriptive classification for matrix-related mudrock pores. AAPG Bull 96:1071–1098. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. National Energy Board (2011) Tight oil development in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. National Energy Board, CalgaryGoogle Scholar
  25. Oeren PE, Bakke S, Arntzen OJ (1998) Extending predictive capabilities to network models. SPE 12:324–336. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reza B, Richard DH, Torsten F, Ayoub JA, Dessinges MN, England KW (2009) Fracture impact of yield stress and fracture-face damage on production with a three phase 2D model. SPE Production and Operations Journal 24(2):336–345. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rezaee R, Saeedi A, Clennell B (2012) Tight gas sands permeability estimation from mercury injection capillary pressure and nuclear magnetic resonance data. J Pet Sci Eng 88:92–99. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ritter HL, Drake LC (1945) Pressure porosimeter and determination of complete macropore size distributions. Ind Eng Chem Anal Ed 17:82–786. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schmitt M, Fernandes CP, Da Cunha Neto JA, Wolf FG, Dos Santos VS (2013) Characterization of pore systems in seal rocks using nitrogen gas adsorption combined with mercury injection capillary pressure techniques. Mar Pet Geol 39:138–149. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Silin DB, Jin G, Patzek TW (2003) Robust determination of pore space morphology in sedimentary rocks. SPE 84296.
  31. Tian H, Pan L, Xiao X, Wilkins RWT, Meng Z, Huang B (2013) A preliminary study on the pore characterization of lower Silurian black shales in the Chuandong thrust Fold Belt, southwestern China using low pressure N2 adsorption and FE-SEM methods. Mar Pet Geol 48:8–19. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wang ZL (2013) Research progress, existing problem and development trend of tight rock oil. Pet Geol Exp 35(6):587–595. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang XJ, Wang ML et al (2014) Microscopic characteristics of Chang 7 tight sandstone reservoir in Ordos Basin. Lithologic Reservoirs 26(3):80–83Google Scholar
  34. Wu H, Niu XB, Zhang CH et al (2015) Characteristics and influencing factors of movable fluid in Chang-7 tight oil reservoir in Longdong Area,Ordos Basin. Geological Science and Technology Information 34(3):120–125Google Scholar
  35. Xue JG, Ying HS (2015) Quantitative pore characterization and the relationship between pore distributions and organic matter in shale based on nano-CT image analysis: a case study for a lacustrine shale reservoir in the Triassic Chang 7 member, Ordos Basin, China. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 27:1630–1640. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yang H, Li SX, Liu XY (2013) Characteristics and resource prospects of tight oil and shale oil in Ordos basin. Acta Pet Sin 34:1):1–1)11. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yang F, Ning Z, Liu H (2014) Fractal characteristics of shales from a shale gas reservoir in the Sichuan Basin, China. Fuel 115:378–384. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yao JL, Deng XQ, Zhao YD et al (2013) Characteristics of tight oil in Triassic Yanchang Formation, Ordos Basin. Pet Explor Dev 40(2):150–158. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. You Y, Niu XB et al (2014) Study of pore features in Chang7 tight oil reservoir, Yanchang layer, Ordos Basin. Journal of China University of Petroleum 38(6):18–23.
  40. Yu J, Ma J (2015) Application of mercury injection and rate-controlled mercury penetration in quantitative characterization of microscopic pore structure of tight reservoirs: a case study of the Chang 7 reservoir in Huachi-Heshui area, the Ordos Basin. Pet Geol Exp 37(6):789–795. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhu R, Bai B, Cui JW et al (2013) Research advances of microstructure in unconventional tight oil and gas reservoirs. J Palaeogeogr 15(5):615–623.
  42. Zou CN, Yang ZT, Shi Z et al (2012) Nano-hydrocarbon and the accumulation in coexisting source and reservoir. Pet Explor Dev 39(1):12–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hao Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Yushuang Zhu
    • 1
  • Ningyong Ma
    • 3
  • Chuangfei Zhou
    • 4
  • Yongchao Dang
    • 5
  • Fei Shao
    • 5
  • Jun Jiao
    • 6
  • Li Li
    • 5
  • Hengli Wang
    • 1
    • 7
  • Ming Li
    • 1
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Continental Dynamics/Department of GeologyNorthwest UniversityXi’anPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Xi’an Shiyou UniversityXi’anPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.The 3rd Oil Production Factory, Changqing Oilfield Branch Company, Petro ChinaYan’anPeople’s Republic of China
  4. 4.The 6th Oil Production Factory, Changqing Oilfield Branch Company, Petro ChinaYan’anPeople’s Republic of China
  5. 5.The 1st Oil Production Factory,Changqing Oilfield Branch Company, Petro ChinaYan’anPeople’s Republic of China
  6. 6.Research Institute of Exploration and Development of Changqing Oilfield CompanyXi’anPeople’s Republic of China
  7. 7.Nanchong Professional Technical CollegeNanchongPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations