Frontiers of Earth Science

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 148–159 | Cite as

The pore structure and fractal characteristics of shales with low thermal maturity from the Yuqia Coalfield, northern Qaidam Basin, northwestern China

  • Haihai Hou
  • Longyi ShaoEmail author
  • Yonghong Li
  • Zhen Li
  • Wenlong Zhang
  • Huaijun Wen
Research Article


The continental shales from the Middle Jurassic Shimengou Formation of the northern Qaidam Basin, northwestern China, have been investigated in recent years because of their shale gas potential. In this study, a total of twenty-two shale samples were collected from the YQ-1 borehole in the Yuqia Coalfield, northern Qaidam Basin. The total organic carbon (TOC) contents, pore structure parameters, and fractal characteristics of the samples were investigated using TOC analysis, low-temperature nitrogen adsorption experiments, and fractal analysis. The results show that the average pore size of the Shimengou shales varied from 8.149 nm to 20.635 nm with a mean value of 10.74 nm, which is considered mesopore-sized. The pores of the shales are mainly inkbottle- and slit-shaped. The sedimentary environment plays an essential role in controlling the TOC contents of the low maturity shales, with the TOC values of shales from deep to semi-deep lake facies (mean: 5.23%) being notably higher than those of the shore-shallow lake facies (mean: 0.65%). The fractal dimensions range from 2.4639 to 2.6857 with a mean of 2.6122, higher than those of marine shales, which indicates that the pore surface was rougher and the pore structure more complex in these continental shales. The fractal dimensions increase with increasing total pore volume and total specific surface area, and with decreasing average pore size. With increasing TOC contents in shales, the fractal dimensions increase first and then decrease, with the highest value occurring at 2% of TOC content, which is in accordance with the trends between the TOC and both total specific surface area and total pore volume. The pore structure complexity and pore surface roughness of these low-maturity shales would be controlled by the combined effects of both sedimentary environments and the TOC contents.


shale gas pore structure fractal dimension Yuqia Coalfield Jurassic northern Qaidam Basin 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



This research was supported by the National Science and Technology Major Project (2016ZX05041004-003) and the China Geological Survey Scientific Research Project (12120114019501 and 1212011220794). The authors are grateful for the valuable comments from two anonymous reviewers.


  1. Barrett E P, Joyner L G, Halenda P P (1951). The determination of pore volume and area distribution in porous substances. I. Computations from nitrogen isotherms. J Am Chem Soc, 73(1): 373–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernard S, Horsfield B, Schulz H M, Wirth R, Schreiber A, Sherwood N (2012). Geochemical evolution of organic-rich shales with increasing maturity: a STXM and TEM study of the Posidonia Shale (Lower Toarcian, northern Germany). Mar Pet Geol, 31(1): 70–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowker K A (2007). Barnett shale gas production, Fort Worth Basin: issues and discussion. AAPG Bull, 91(4): 523–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brunauer S, Emmett P H, Teller E (1938). Adsorption of gases in multimolecular layers. J Am Chem Soc, 60(2): 309–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cao T T, Song Z G, Luo H Y, Liu G X (2015). The differences of microscopic pore structure characteristics of coal, oil shale and shales and their storage mechanisms. Natural Gas Geoscience, 26(11): 2208–2218 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  6. Chalmers G R, Bustin R M (2008). Lower Cretaceous gas shales in northeastern British Columbia, Part I: geological controls on methane sorption capacity. Bull Can Pet Geol, 56(1): 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chalmers G R, Bustin R M, Power I M (2012). 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. AAPG Bull, 96(6): 1099–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Donaldson E C, Kendall R F, Baker B A, Manning F S (1975). Surfacearea measurement of geological matereials. Soc Pet Eng J, 15(02): 111–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dow W G (1977). Kerogen studies and geological interpretations. J Geochem Explor, 7(2): 79–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fildani A, Hanson A D, Chen Z Z, Moldowan J D, Graham S A, Arriola P R (2005). Geochemical characteristics of oil and source rocks and implication for petroleum system, Talara basin, northwest Peru. AAPG Bull, 89(11): 1519–1545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gauden P A, Terzyk A P, Rychlicki G (2001). The new correlation between microporosity of strictly microporous activated carbons and fractal dimension on the basis of the Polanyi-Dubinin theory of adsorption. Carbon, 39(2): 267–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gregg S J, Sing K S W (1982). Adsorption, Surface Area and Porosity (2nd ed). London: Academic Press, 42–55Google Scholar
  13. Li A, Ding W L, He J H, Dai P, Yin S, Xie F (2016). Investigation of pore structure and fractal characteristics of organic-rich shale reservoirs: a case study of Lower Cambrian Qiongzhusi Formation in Malong block of eastern Yunnan Province, South China. Mar Pet Geol, 70: 46–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Li M, Shao L Y, Lu J, Spiro B, Wen H J, Li Y H (2014). Sequence stratigraphy and paleogeography of the Middle Jurassic coal measures in the Yuqia Coalfield, northern Qaidam Basin, northwestern China. AAPG Bull, 98(12): 2531–2550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Li Y J, Li X J, Wang Y L, Yu Q C (2015). Effects of composition and pore structure on the reservoir gas capacity of Carboniferous shale from Qaidam Basin, China. Mar Pet Geol, 62: 44–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Liang L X, Xiong J, Liu X J (2015). An investigation of the fractal characteristics of the Upper Ordovician Wufeng Formation shale using nitrogen adsorption analysis. J Nat Gas Sci Eng, 27(10): 402–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liu S X, Zhong J H, Ma Y S, Yin C M, Liu C L, Li Z X, Liu X, Li Y, Liu X G (2015a). Study of microscopic pore structure and adsorption isothermal of carboniferous shale, Eastern Qaidam Basin. Journal of China University of Petroleum, 39(1): 33–42 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  18. Liu X J, Xiong J, Liang L X (2015b). Investigation of pore structure and fractal characteristics of organic-rich Yanchang Formation shale in central China by nitrogen adsorption/desorption analysis. J Nat Gas Sci Eng, 22: 62–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Loucks R G, Reed R M, Ruppel S C, Hammes U (2012). Spectrum of pore types and networks in mudrocks and a descriptive classification for matrix-related mudrock pores. AAPG Bull, 96(6): 1071–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Luo C, Liu S G, Sun W, Ran B, Wang S Y, Yang D, Bai Z Q, Ye Y C, Zhang X, Deng B (2014). Pore structure characterization of black shale in the Lower Cambrian Niutitang Formation in western Hubei and eastern Chongqing area. Journal of Northeast Petroleum University, 38(2): 8–17 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  21. Micromeritics Instrument Corporation (2012). TriStarII 3020 Operator’s Manual. Georgia: C15–C20Google Scholar
  22. Milliken K L, Rudnicki M, Awwiller D N, Zhang T (2013). Organic matter-hosted pore system, Marcellus Formation (Devonian), Pennsylvains. AAPG Bull, 97(2): 177–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Montgomery S L, Jarvie D M, Bowker K A, Pollastro R M (2005). Mississippian Barnett shale, Fort Worth Basin, North-Central Texas: gas-shale play with multi-trillion cubic foot potential. AAPG Bull, 89 (2): 155–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nakagawa T, Komaki I, Sakawa M, Nishikawa K (2000). Small angle Xray scattering sudy on change of fractal property of Witbank coal with heat treatment. Fuel, 79(11): 1341–1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pfeifer P, Avnir D (1983). Chemistry in noninteger dimensions between two and three. I. Fractal theory of heterogeneous surfaces. J Chem Phys, 79(7): 3558–3565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pyun S I, Rhee C K (2004). An investigation of fractal characteristics of mesoporous carbon electrodes with various pore structures. Electrochim Acta, 49(24): 4171–4180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Qi H, Ma J, Wong P Z (2002). Adsorption isotherms of fractal surfaces. Colloid Surface A, 206(1‒3): 401–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rigby S P (2005). Predicting surface diffusivities of molecules from equilibrium adsorption isotherms. Colloid Surface A, 262(1‒3): 139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shao L Y, Li M, Li Y H, Zhang Y P, Lu J, Zhang W L, Tian Z, Wen H J (2014). Geological characteristics and controlling factors of shale gas in the Jurassic of the northern Qaidam Basin. Earth Sci Front, 21(4): 311–322 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  30. Shao L Y, Liu L, Wen H J, Li Y H, Zhang W L, Li M (2016). Characteristics and influencing factors of nanopores in the Midddle Jurassic Shimengou shale in Well YQ-1 of the northern Qaidam Basin. Earth Sci Front, 23(1): 164–173 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  31. Sing K S W (1982). Reporting physisorption data for gas/solid systems with special reference to the determination of surface area and porosity. Pure Appl Chem, 54(11): 2201–2218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tang X L, Jiang Z X, Li Z, Gao Z Y, Bai Y Q, Zhao S, Feng J (2015). The effect of the variation in material composition on the heterogeneous pore structure of high-maturity shale of the Silurian Longmaxi formation in the southeastern Sichuan Basin, China. J Nat Gas Sci Eng, 23: 464–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang M, Xue H T, Tian S S, Wilkins R W T, Wang Z W (2015). Fractal characteristics of Upper Cretaceous lacustrine shale from the Songliao Basin, NE China. Mar Pet Geol, 67: 144–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wang X Z, Gao S L, Gao C (2014). Geological features of Mesozoic lacustrine shale gas in south of Ordos Basin, NW China. Petrol Explor Develop, 41(3): 326–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wu J G, Liu D M, Yao Y B (2014). Characteristics and controlling factors of nanopores in shales in Weibei, Ordos Basin. Oil & Gas Geology, 35(4): 542–550 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  36. Xiao Z H, Wang C H, Yang F R, Feng T, Wang Q R, Huang Y R, Chen X Y, Deng Y (2013). Reservoir conditions of shale gas in Lower Cambrian Niutitang Formation, northwestern Hunan. Acta Geol Sin, 87(10): 1612–1623 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  37. Xie H P (1996). A Study for Fractal and Rock Mechanics. Beijing: Science Publishing House, 93–95 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  38. Yang F, Ning Z F, Liu H Q (2014). Fractal characteristics of shales from a shale gas reservoir in the Sichuan Basin, China. Fuel, 115(1): 378–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yao Y B, Liu D M, Tang D Z, Tang S H, Huang W H (2008). Fractal characterization of adsorption-pores of coals from North China: an investigation on CH4 adsorption capacity of coals. Int J Coal Geol, 73 (1): 27–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhang D W, Li Y X, Zhang J C, Qiao D W, Jiang WL, Zhang J F (2012). The Evaluation of Shale Gas Resources and Potential Investigation in China. Beijing: Geology Publishing House, 70–78 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  41. Zhang J C, Jin Z J, Yuan M S (2004). Reservoir mechanism of shale gas and its distribution. Natural Gas Industry, 24(7): 15–18 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  42. Zhu X M (2008). Sedimentary Petrology (4th ed). Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press, 208–286 (in Chinese)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Haihai Hou
    • 1
  • Longyi Shao
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yonghong Li
    • 2
  • Zhen Li
    • 1
  • Wenlong Zhang
    • 2
  • Huaijun Wen
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Geoscience and Surveying EngineeringChina University of Mining and TechnologyBeijingChina
  2. 2.No.105 Exploration TeamQinghai Bureau of Coal Geological ExplorationXiningChina

Personalised recommendations