Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 91 (2021) 103946

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jngse

Examining the relationship between Tmax and vitrinite reflectance: An

empirical comparison between thermal maturity indicators
Jonathan C. Evenick
INPEX Corporation, Tokyo, Japan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: For over 40 years Rock-eval pyrolysis data have been used to assess thermal maturity and source rock potential.
Vitrinite reflectance There have been many published equations representing the transformation of Tmax to vitrinite reflectance (Ro)
Ro equivalence, but there has not been an attempt to investigate the empirical relationship using a large dataset. In
Tmax
this study, 33,732 approximately coincident measurements from 903 publications were utilized to test the
Production index
Hydrogen index
applicability and practicality of Tmax, hydrogen index (HI), and production index (PI) as thermal maturity in­
Thermal maturity dicators. Additional sample metadata (sample type, lithology, organofacies, sample age, and other Rock-eval
pyrolysis parameters) were also evaluated to ascertain if there were parameters that more frequently led to
higher confidence measurements.
There was a positive correlation between Tmax and Ro, but there is considerable scatter in the data. A stronger
trend was revealed in the mean, median, and mode values for each Tmax versus Ro pair that can be represented
by the equation Ro = (0.013 x Tmax) - 5.0 with a R2 value of 0.22, which may be an improvement upon pre­
viously published equations. There was a breakdown in the correlation between Tmax and Ro at the beginning of
the dry gas window (Ro values ~1.5; Tmax ~500 ◦ C), which was not unexpected since the S2 peak significantly
decreases through the wet gas window. Tmax-derived thermal maturity estimates are therefore most reliable
between the values of ~430 ◦ C and ~500 ◦ C. It was also observed that coals with high total organic content
(TOC) and S2 values had the least amount of data scatter among the different source rock organofacies. This may
be due to the higher initial S2 values and these samples having a more prominent S2 peak allowing them to yield
more reliable Tmax determinations.

1. Introduction
Since the development of Rock-eval pyrolysis in the 1970s, there has
been thousands of publications and millions of measurements with most
studies largely focused on source rock generative capacities and hy­
drocarbon potential. These large datasets have helped enable the map­
ping of unconventional shale oil/gas fairways (e.g., Jarvie et al., 2001;
2007; Houseknecht et al., 2014; Evenick, 2020). Rock-eval pyrolysis has
long been known to be a very practical technique that can provide in­
sights into a samples source rock quality (hydrogen content and total
organic content; TOC), thermal maturity, and general insights to the
kerogen type by using modified van Krevelen plots (i.e., Tissot et al.,
1974; Espitalie et al., 1977). The main three measurements that are used
for thermal maturity estimates derived from pyrolysis measurements are
Tmax (the temperature at which the second peak (S2) is observed during
Rock-eval analysis), the Hydrogen Index (HI), and the Production Index
(PI). HI is calculated by multiplying the S2 value by 100 and then
dividing by TOC value, and PI is a ratio of the S1 value (the first peak
measured during Rock-eval pyrolysis) divided by S1 + S2. For over 40
years, however, there have been numerous attempts and equations
related to the conversion of Tmax to a vitrinite reflectance (Ro) equiv­
alent value (e.g., Hatch et al., 1984; Espitalie et al., 1985; Delvaux et al.,
1990; Baskin and Peters, 1992; Duppenbecker, 1992; Gentzis et al.,
1993; Veld et al., 1993; Jarvie et al., 2001; Cornford et al., 2002;
Petersen et al., 2002; Petersen, 2006; Wust et al., 2012; Lewan and
Kotarba, 2014; Lee, 2015; Hackley and Baugher, 2016; Lewan and
Pawlewicz, 2017). Surprisingly, there has lacked any large and inclu­
sive, empirical investigation to test these equations and thermal matu­
rity indicators which is the main motivation for this study.
Tmax and HI have been shown to be practical thermal maturity in­
dicators within the immature to wet gas window if the sample is not
contaminated and has a suitable amount of organic material (e.g., Jarvie
et al., 2007; Katz and Lin, 2020; Yang and Horsfield, 2020). Since the S2
peak measured in wet gas and dry gas samples is considerable smaller

E-mail address: jonathan.evenick@inpex.co.jp.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2021.103946
Received 17 January 2021; Received in revised form 8 March 2021; Accepted 21 March 2021
Available online 6 April 2021
1875-5100/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
J.C. Evenick
than immature and oil-mature samples, the corresponding Tmax mea­
surement is consequently not a very reliable maturity indicator at higher
thermal maturities. It is, therefore, necessary to utilize Ro or other
thermal maturity indicators such as Thermal Alteration Index (TAI),
Color Alteration Index (CAI), or thermal stress estimates from burial
histories/basin models for additional calibration (Peters and Cassa,
1993). Research and applied studies of Ro and coal rank have been
conducted almost 100 years (Staplin, 1969; Burgess, 1977; Teichmuller
and Durand, 1983) and these parameters had been established as reli­
able thermal maturity indicators within the coal industry before being
widely adopted by the oil and gas industry in the 1960s. Ro, however, is
not a perfect thermal maturity indicator because it cannot be utilized in
pre-Silurian sediments since land plants (the source of the vitrinite) are
not found in older sediments. Ro is also prone to interpreter designations
of indigenous versus reworked vitrinite, interlaboratory standards, and
possible suppression of reflectance measurements (e.g., Gries et al.,
1997; Carr, 2000; Hackley et al., 2015). In spite of these shortcomings,
Ro data and Ro maps have been demonstrated to effectively predict the
in-situ thermal maturity very effectively in many, geologically diverse,
unconventional shale oil/gas fairways. For example, in the Eagle Ford
Shale play in southeast Texas, Ro data has been used to effectively map
out the in-situ hydrocarbon phase, gas-oil ratios (GOR), and oil gravities
(Fig. 1). These correlations have further demonstrated that Ro is a
dependable maturity indicator.
Additional attributes related to sample type, age, lithology, etc. were
also reviewed to ascertain their potential influence on the correlation of
thermal maturity indicators as previous studies have also examined (i.e.,
Waseda, 1996). The resulting analysis of this large dataset may help
interpreters and basin modelers better understand the limitations of
using Tmax or PI without any corroborating observations or measure­
ments. Furthermore, this study will highlight the potential error bars
surrounding these measurements. Within any large, compiled geological
dataset, it is expected that there will have some variability within the
data, but the advantage of using a very larger dataset is that it is easier to
estimate a more comprehensive correlation. A large dataset also can
better illustrate when potential correlations start to weaken or disappear
(e.g., the dry gas window has been calibrated as ~1.5 Ro based on the
GOR and oil API data as shown in Fig. 1). In unconventional shale
oil/gas fairways, the thermal maturity windows have broadly been
Fig. 1. Vitrinite reflectance map (left) representing the thermal maturity for the Eagle Ford (Cenomanian-Turonian) in eastern Texas derived from published mean
Ro measurements (green circles). This map was then utilized to extract the Ro estimated for producing wells within the main Eagle Ford fairway in south Texas. There
is a positive correlation between the 2nd month GOR and oil API with Ro (right) that closely corresponds with the beginning of the wet gas and dry gas window at
~1.1 and ~1.5 Ro respectively. Note there are dry gas wells (>1.5 Ro) that are not represented on these plots because they have no produced liquids associated with
them. Production data courtesy of Enverus.
2
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 91 (2021) 103946
calibrated by tens of thousands unconventional wells from immature
source rocks (e.g., Antrim biogenic play) to low-grade metamorphic
shales/slates at the edges of the Marcellus, Fayetteville, and Woodford
fairways (Martini et al., 1998; Houseknecht et al., 2014; Zagorski et al.,
2017).
2. Methodology
Rock-eval pyrolysis and Ro data were gathered from 903 published
sources and datasets. Some of these sources also compiled datasets and
publications so the references may not always reflect the original paper
or source (e.g., data listed in Australia Geoscience, the UK Oil and Gas
Authority, USGS reports may have been published previously or utilized
in subsequent studies). A concerted effort was made to retain the orig­
inal sources if it could be found or deduced. The methods, source of the
data, and the standards used with these compiled sources are often not
fully described in the publications and unfortunately this study also did
not capture this information. Likewise, details related to the mean vit­
rinite reflectance measurements of the indigenous vitrinite also are often
not provided (e.g., standards, histograms, etc.). With these noted
shortcomings, this study focused primarily on gathering a diverse as
possible dataset of approximately coincident measurements that were
spatially sampled within close proximity or split samples.
Data filtering, cleaning, and some additional calculations were also
performed to remove potentially suspect data as well as added values (e.
g., S1, S2, and S3 were calculated if they were not list, but PI, HI, and OI
were given). “Vitrinite” values published from pre-Silurian intervals
were regarded as Ro equivalent estimates (<1000 samples) and were
excluded in this study since vitrinite is unlikely present within these
samples (e.g., Botor et al., 2021). An additional ~1,000 samples from
~30 publications were also removed after flagging them as likely be
completely Ro equivalent data rather than measured Ro since the data
within these studies formed a perfectly linear Ro vs Tmax trend. In this
study, the ranges of Tmax and Ro values were constrained to 400–600 ◦ C
and 0.2 to 6.0 respectively.
Additional information related to sample type, lithology, orga­
nofacies, sample age, and other pyrolysis parameters were also captured
to ascertain their impacts on the correlations. The data extracted were
not always in table or digital data, so occasionally plots, charts, and
J.C. Evenick
maps were digitized to gather the data. Spatial joins and merges with
other published and unpublished datasets were performed to ascertain
any potential data redundancies. Often in the case of outcrops and mines
it was difficult to organize data from various authors that use different
datums, sampling protocols, or simply refer to a generalized mining
district or nearby population center. With respect to the organofacies
data captured, some conversions were required since many sources still
use the IFP classification, which would have classified all high maturity
samples as Type III or IV, which does not necessarily reflect the visual
kerogen identified or the depositional setting information. This is the
one portion of the dataset that involved some additional interpretation.
In cases that it was not straightforward or unclear, the organofacies was
listed as not available.
Lastly, when dealing with large geological datasets (e.g., heat flow
versus oceanic crustal age, porosity versus permeability, porosity versus
depth, etc.) it can be difficult to see the predominant trend in the overall
data cloud since there is often substantial data over-posting near the
middle of the data cluster. Outlier values too tend to skew the best fit
trendline in directions that do not follow the data trend as visually
perceived. Therefore, box and whisker plots were utilized to represent
the distributions of the data as other authors have done when dealing
with large geological datasets (i.e., Stein and Stein, 1992; Lucazeau,
2019). These plots also provide additional statistical information that
represents the median value as well as the 1st and 3rd quartiles repre­
sented by the top and bottom of the boxes (P25 and P75 values). The
lines or “whiskers” shown in these plots illustrate the data extents and
can effectively show the outlier values within a given distribution. Along
with the box and whisker plots the mode, mean, and median measured
Ro values for each Tmax value were also calculated. The references and
data sources used within this study are available as a Supplemental file.
3. Results
3.1. Tmax versus Ro
This study gathered 33,732 nearly coincident Tmax and Ro data
pairs with additional Rock-eval pyrolysis data and sample metadata. The
Tmax and Ro data were plotted on a standard cross-plot (Fig. 2) to reveal
the overall general trend between these two variables. The spread in the
data indicates an irrefutable correlation between the variables is un­
likely and this is reflected in the low R2 value of 0.26 for the equation of
Ro = (0.010 x Tmax) - 3.8. This trendline, however, does not match the
data particularly well within the Tmax range where Tmax has been more
established as a more reliable as a thermal maturity indicator (between
Tmax values of 430–500 ◦ C). Therefore, to better reveal the correlation
within this interval the average, median, and modal measured Ro values
of each Tmax measurement were calculated and the trendline for the
3
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 91 (2021) 103946
average Tmax values yielded the equation Ro = (0.013 x Tmax) - 5.0
with a R2 value of 0.95 (Fig. 3). This simplified representation of the
data more clearly shows the stronger correlation between the variables
within the oil and wet gas windows based on the limited scatter amongst
the mean, mode, and median values. This plot also illustrates why the
latter equation was generated over the windowed Tmax range. The
problem with using the entire data range is that there are two suspect
trends observed between Tmax values of 400 ◦ C and 425 ◦ C, where the
average value has a negative slope rather than positive, and Tmax
values > 500 ◦ C (~1.5 Ro) where the amount of data scatter greatly
increases.
Using the same data in Fig. 2, a box and whisker plot (Fig. 4) was
generated that provides further support for using the more refined
equation Ro = (0.013 x Tmax) - 5.0. It is clear that the more refined
equation does have a slightly lower R2 value (0.22 versus 0.26), but it is
a better representation of the maturity trends within the immature and
dry gas windows. Additionally, the box and whisker plot also depict the
1st and 3rd quartiles (P25 and P75 values) as well as the mean value for
each distribution. At lower levels of maturity (oil mature), the quartiles
are closer together indicating higher confidence in the correlations, but
the level of confidence decreases towards higher maturities as repre­
sented by the increasing box heights. Within the wet gas window (Ro
values between 1.1 and 1.5), P25 and P75 ranges span the entire wet gas
window, demonstrating that Tmax could be very difficult to confidently
define the boundaries between the wet and dry gas windows. Also, as
mentioned previously, Tmax values between 400 ◦ C and 425 ◦ C
(immature) there is a decreasing Ro versus Tmax trend, which is likely
an artifact of having some higher Ro within this interval that effectively
pulls up the statistical averages causing this erroneous trend. Similarly,
in the dry gas window and overmature thermal windows (stating at
~1.5 Ro and ~3.0 Ro respectively), the trend in the mean values flattens
out slightly because there are some low Tmax values within this range
that are pulling down the trend below the perceived visual trend that
may be better observed within Fig. 3. This indicates that at Tmax values
>500 ◦ C should be further scrutinized and corroborated before being
utilized as they likely are less reliable. The cause of this issue within the
dry gas window is because of a significant drop in the S2 value making
the S2 peak less prominent and therefore, the confidence in the Tmax
value to also be lower. This issue will be revisited in a later section
looking at HI as a thermal maturity indicator.
To analyze the data distributions around the calculated trendline,
~50% of the data were selected along the trendline to interrogate the
additional sample metadata collected. By viewing the histograms for
TOC, S2, HI, geologic age, organofacies, sample type, and lithology
(Fig. 5) it appears that there generally is an equal distribution repre­
sented within each parameter. This supports the high-level view that
there may not be an unambiguous correlation between Tmax and Ro (i.
Fig. 2. A cross-plot of 33,732 approximately
coincident Tmax and Ro measurements
showing a general correlation, but with
considerable scatter. The red line represents
the equation of the line derived from the
average Ro values between the Tmax values
of 430–500 ◦ C (where Tmax is considered to
be more reliable), and the blue line is the
trendline calculated across the entire Tmax
range that is undesirably skew by data
outside the beforementioned Tmax range.
The equation Ro = (0.013 x Tmax) - 5.0 is
proposed as be the most practical
correlation.
J.C. Evenick Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 91 (2021) 103946

Fig. 3. A plot of the average, median, and modal Ro values for each Tmax measurement. There is a strong trend observed within the oil window that progressively
weakens through the wet gas (1.1–1.5 Ro) and dry gas windows (1.5–3.0 Ro). The trendline was generated from the average data within the Tmax range of
430–500 ◦ C. The same line is presented in Fig. 2 as the Red line.

Fig. 4. A box and whisker plot of Tmax versus Ro utilizing the dataset shown in Fig. 2. This type of plot clearly illustrates the general correlation between these
thermal maturity parameters. The P25 and P75 ranges (the top and bottom of each blue box) also reveals how the Red trendline better honors the data over the Tmax
range with the inferred highest confidence levels (the smaller boxes). See Figs. 2 and 3 to see how the Red and Blue trendlines were derived.

e., Katz and Lin, 2020; Yang and Horsfield, 2020). However, looking in a
little more detail, there were some portions of particular histograms that
indicated that coals with over 40 wt% TOC, Organofacies F, with S2
values over 100 mg/g are more prevalent in the selected data subset (i.
e., having a higher occurrence rate). This is likely due to these samples
having higher and more pronounced S2 peaks that allows for a more
reliable Tmax measurement at higher maturities and irrespective of
their HI values being lower than oil-prone source rocks. Conversely,
there was a lower percentage of samples found among shale samples
with low TOC values (<1.0%), low S2 (0.3), and low HI values. Outcrop
samples also appeared to more consistently yield poorer thermal
maturity results perhaps due to weathering or hydrocarbon biodegra­
dation. There were similar ratios for cuttings and core samples which
was a bit surprising that core samples did not have a higher percentage.
Although Sanei et al. (2020) came to a similar conclusion about core and
cuttings yielding similar results assuming they are adequately cleaned
and handled prior to pyrolysis and Waseda (1996) also previously
reported similar observations.
There have been many previous proposed equations relating Tmax to
a Ro equivalent estimates (e.g., Hatch et al., 1984; Espitalie et al., 1985;
Delvaux et al., 1990; Baskin and Peters, 1992; Duppenbecker, 1992;
Gentzis et al., 1993; Veld et al., 1993; Jarvie et al., 2001; Cornford et al.,
2002; Petersen et al., 2002; Petersen, 2006; Wust et al., 2012; Lewan and
Kotarba, 2014; Lee, 2015; Hackley and Baugher, 2016; Lewan and
Pawlewicz, 2017), but perhaps the most commonly used equation is
Jarvie et al.’s (2001) equation of Ro = (0.018 x Tmax) - 7.16. The results
of this empirical study were compared with the equations from twenty
previous studies (Fig. 6) and although the results did not exactly match
any previous study, the equation was close to the equations put forth by
Espitalie et al. (1985) and Duppenbecker (1992). Overall, many of the
published equations are somewhat similar and tend to clustered be­
tween the Tmax values of ~420 ◦ C and 460 ◦ C, and deviate considerably
beyond this interval. The majority of the equations are quite close to
Jarvie et al.’s (2001) equation (e.g., Delvaux et al., 1990; Cornford et al.,

4
J.C. Evenick Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 91 (2021) 103946

Fig. 5. The distributions for different parameters within the entire dataset (blue histograms). About half of the data were selected (orange values) around the main
trendline to investigate what parameters occurred in higher percentages. The highlighted trend has very similar data distributions as the overall dataset indicating
that these are not necessarily critical variables for ensuring a higher confidence, Tmax-based thermal maturity estimate. However, coals with over 40 wt% TOC and
S2 values over 100 mg/g were more prevalent in the selected subset of data (i.e., they have a higher occurrence rate than ~50%).

Fig. 6. Various published Tmax versus Ro equivalent equations illustrating a range of published correlations. The Black line represents the equation Ro = (0.013 x
Tmax) - 5.0 proposed in this study. Note that many of the equations are somewhat similar at lower maturities and separate considerably at higher Tmax values. There
is also a cluster of equations near Jarvie et al.’s (2001) equation (bold Red line).

2002; Humble Geochemical Services, 2003; Petersen, 2006; Lee, 2015;
Drozd and Knowles, 2016), but these equations tend to track on the high
side range of the standard deviations for Tmax values > 450 ◦ C and on
the low side of the standard deviations for Tmax values < 420 ◦ C.
3.2. HI versus Tmax and Ro
Hydrogen index has also been used as a thermal maturity indicator in
unconventional fairways (e.g., Barnett, Bakken, and Point Pleasant, etc.)
because it decreases with increasing thermal maturity as was demon­
strated by Jarvie et al. (2007). In order to use this index as a thermal
maturity indicator the original HI value needs to be known, measured,
or estimated from the extrapolation of thermally mature samples to an
initial value. Just as Tmax, this technique can be advantageous to use in
pre-Silurian sediments that do not have vitrinite. This technique, how­
ever, can struggle because many source rocks laterally and vertically
have very different source rock quality and organofacies (e.g., Bohacs
et al., 2005; Dembicki, 2009; Evenick and McClain, 2013) and the
thermal maturity estimate must also be reliable.
A cross-plot of Tmax and Ro versus HI (Fig. 7) shows a general data
envelope that illustrates HI does decrease with increasing Tmax. Though
between 400 and 435 ◦ C, it is observed that some data HI values increase
rather than decrease. This HI rollover at low Tmax values has been
illustrated and discussed previously by Langford and Blanc-Valleron

5
J.C. Evenick
Fig. 7. A cross-plot of Tmax and Ro versus HI showing a sharp decrease in HI values in the wet gas window and the highest HI values are often observed around
435 ◦ C (Left). Conversely the highest HI values are observed at Ro values between ~0.20 and 0.25 (Right). The hydrogen index is not considered to be a very practical
thermal maturity indicator because it cannot be used at high maturities or on lower quality source rocks, and it requires knowledge of the initial HI that can spatially
change considerably. n = 30,053.
(1990), Dellisanti et al. (2010) and others. This issue has a significant
impact on what the projected original HI would be estimated based on
backward projecting thermally mature samples. The Tmax versus HI
plot also highlights that at Tmax values around 450 ◦ C or near the wet
gas window, HI values rapidly decrease. This can be detrimental to the
applicability of using this technique within the wet gas window and not
practical within the dry gas window (>~500 ◦ C).
A Ro versus HI plot, conversely has less outlier data at lower and high
thermal maturities, which further indicates that the thermal maturities
estimated by Ro are more reliable than Tmax. The perceived lack of a
rollover in the data envelope at lower thermal maturities indicates Ro
versus HI is also likely better to use for estimating the original HI.
Regardless, HI appears to suffer from the same limitations as Tmax and
with the introduction of source rock variability it is viewed as a weaker
thermal maturity indicator than Ro. Hydrogen index values, however,
can be used as a quality control step in assessing the thermal maturity (i.
e., high HI values at Tmax values over ~500 ◦ C or any data point outside
the general data envelope, depicted in Fig. 7, can be viewed as suspect).
Lastly, this technique is only applicable to source rocks that have a high
initial HI and at thermal maturities that span the immature to wet gas
window. If the initial HI were low the trend would be generally flat and
maturity estimates would be untrustworthy.
3.3. PI versus Tmax and Ro
Production index (PI) is also a commonly referenced thermal matu­
rity indicator. To investigate the use of PI as a reliable maturity indi­
cator, PI was cross-plotted again Tmax and Ro. The resulting plots
Fig. 8. Cross-plot of PI versus Tmax and Ro depicting a general Gaussian distribution rather than a linear trend. There is a high degree of data scattering in both plots
(R square values were 0.025 and 0.072 respectively). n = 25,913.
6
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 91 (2021) 103946
illustrate there is a general data envelope, but with significant scatter
(Fig. 8) and no clear correlation (R2 values calculated was 0.025). This is
not unexpected since the data envelope has more of a Gaussian distri­
bution rather than a linear trend. Equivalent box and whisker plots were
also generated (Fig. 9), which also have more of a Gaussian shape. The PI
versus Ro plot has a slightly more linear trend, but it also has very poor
R2 value (0.072). The beforementioned data envelope seen in Fig. 8 does
roughly match some vendor and published curves (e.g., Jin and Son­
nenberg, 2013). Notwithstanding, the production index is shown to be a
poor thermal maturity indicator and not a suitable measurement to
validate a Tmax-generated thermal maturity estimate. This is because PI
and Tmax are not independent from each other, and PI values do not
appear to correlate well with published thresholds (e.g., Peters and
Cassa, 1993).
4. Discussion
This study illustrates there is a considerable amount of uncertainty in
the thermal maturity parameters derived from Rock-eval pyrolysis and
these parameters do not perfectly correlate with Ro. It is expected that
there should be differences in the maturity trends with respect to
different types of kerogens due to different kinetics and require activa­
tion energies (e.g., Pepper and Corvi, 1995). These differences alone
cannot explain the large amount of data scatter and there are likely
many other factors leading to the lack of a straightforward and definitive
correlation between Tmax and Ro. The differences in pyrolysis ma­
chines, sample preparation (extracts versus non-extracted), sample
exposure to atmospheric conditions, drilling contamination, different
J.C. Evenick Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 91 (2021) 103946

Fig. 9. Box and whisker plots for PI versus Tmax and Ro illustrating a high degree of variability within the dataset. Even though there is a weak linear trend in the PI
versus Ro plot, the R2 value is very low (0.072). Both weak trends are also relatively flat as well, further signifying PI is not a good thermal maturity indicator.

techniques (e.g., low-temperature pyrolysis), and kinetic differences • HI can be used as a thermal maturity indicator, but requires addi­
occurring between kerogen types all likely to cause meaningful pertur­ tional assumptions, whereas the PI is not regarded as a useful ther­
bations in the measured S2 peak and corresponding Tmax value. mal maturity indicator.
Additionally, the measurement and interpretation of Ro data have
also not been fully standardized, which has been revealed in inter­ Declaration of competing interest
laboratory studies (Gries et al., 1997). So, there are likely many factors
leading to the lack of a high confidence correlation between Rock-eval The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
pyrolysis indicators and Ro. Practitioners should consider the error interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
bars on these measurements when making maps and models, the limits the work reported in this paper.
of each thermal maturity indicator. It is always advantageous to use
multiple thermal maturity indicators to help corroborate an interpre­
Acknowledgements
tation and should be regarded as best-practice when mapping and
modeling.
I would like to thank INPEX for permission to publish this work and
Koji Ochiai, Masamichi Fujimoto, Ko Nifuku, and Shimpei Mochiji for
5. Conclusions
discussions related to this topic. I additionally would like to thank Tony
Riccardi, Dan Jarvie, and Zhiyong He for many discussions related to
• 33,732 approximately coincident measurements of Tmax and Ro
this topic with respect to basin modeling and mapping. A review of this
from 903 data sources were compiled to empirically evaluate these
manuscript by Paul Hackley and two anonymous reviewers better
thermal maturity parameters.
refined and focused this manuscript. The ability to utilize Enverus’s
• Ro is a robust thermal maturity indicator, but there is no definitive
Eagle Ford production database was also greatly appreciated.
correlation between pyrolysis-based thermal maturity indicators and
Ro.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
• Tmax-derived thermal maturity estimates are most reliable between
the values of 430 ◦ C and 500 ◦ C, with a trendline equation of Ro =
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
(0.013 x Tmax) - 5.0; R2 = 0.22.
org/10.1016/j.jngse.2021.103946.
• Tmax to Ro equivalent correlations significantly weaken at the
beginning of the dry gas window (Ro values > 1.5; Tmax >500 ◦ C).
References
• Coals with over 40 wt% TOC and S2 values over 100 mg/g were
found to yield higher confidence Ro equivalent values. Baskin, D., Peters, K., 1992. Early generation characteristics of a sulfur-rich Monterey
• Tmax is a better thermal maturity proxy than HI and PI, but there is kerogen. AAPG (Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol.) Bull. 76, 1–13.
always a need to corroborate these estimates with another inde­ Bohacs, K., Grabowski, G., Carroll, A., Mankiewicz, P., Miskell-Gerhardt, K.,
Schwalbach, J., Wegner, M., Simo, J., 2005. Production, Destruction, and Dilution -
pendent maturity indicator.
the Many Paths to Source-Rock Development, vol. 82. SEPM, Special Publication,
pp. 61–101.

7
J.C. Evenick
Botor, D., Mazur, S., Anczkiewicz, A., Dunkl, I., Golonka, J., 2021. Paleozoic-Mesozoic
Thermal Evolution along the East European Platform Margin Based on Kerogen
Thermal Maturity Analysis Combined with Apatite and Zircon Low Temperature
Thermochronology in NE Poland: Solid Earth Discussions (in press).
Burgess, J.D., 1977. Historical review and methods of determining thermal alteration of
organic materials. Palynology 1, 1–7.
Carr, A.D., 2000. Suppression and retardation of vitrinite reflectance, Part 1. Formation
and significance for hydrocarbon generation. J. Petrol. Geol. 23, 313–343.
Cornford, C., Burgess, C., Kelly, R., 2002. Truths in Large Data Sets - III: Secure
Interpretations of Maturation, Generation and Expulsion, Emerging Concepts in
Organic Petrology and Geochemistry, Joint Meeting of the Canadian Society for Coal
Science and Organic Petrology, and the Society for Organic Petrology. Abstract.
A2.2.2.
Dellisanti, F., Pini, G., Baudin, F., 2010. Use of Tmax as a thermal maturity indicator in
orogenic successions and comparison with clay mineral evolution. Clay Miner. 45,
115–130.
Delvaux, D., Martin, H., Leplat, P., Paulet, J., 1990. Geochemical characterization of
sedimentary organic matter by means of pyrolysis kinetic parameters, Advances in
Organic Geochemistry 1989. Org. Geochem. 16 (1–3), 175–187.
Dembicki, H., 2009. Three common source rock evaluation errors made by geologists
during prospect or play appraisals. AAPG Bull. 93, 341–356.
Drozd, R., Knowles, W., 2016. Correlation of vitrinite reflectance and programmed
pyrolysis Tmax measurements. International Committee for Coal and Organic
Petrology, Houston, Texas.
Duppenbecker, S., 1992. Ph.D. thesis. Genese und expulsion von kohlenwasserstoffen
zewi regionen des Niedersachsischen Beckens unter besonderer Berucksichtigun de
Aufheizraten, vol. 4. Erdol und Organische Chemie, p. 318. Institut für Chemie und
Dynamik de Geospäre.
Espitalie, J., Deroo, G., Marquis, F., 1985. La pyrolyse Rock-Eval et ses applications. Rev.
Inst. Fr. Petrol 40, 755–784.
Espitalie, J., Madec, M., Tissot, B., Mennig, J., Leplat, P., 1977. Source rock
characterization method for petroleum exploration. In: Offshore Technology
Conference, OTC, vol. 2935, pp. 439–444.
Evenick, J., 2020. Late Cretaceous (Cenomanian and Turonian) organofacies and TOC
maps: example of leveraging the global rise in public-domain geochemical source
rock data. Mar. Petrol. Geol. 111, 301–308.
Evenick, J., McClain, T., 2013. Method for Characterizing Source Rock Organofacies
Using Bulk Rock Composition, vol. 103. AAPG, Memoir, pp. 71–80.
Gentzis, T., Goodarzi, F., Snowdon, L., 1993. Variation of maturity indicators (optical
and Rock-Eval) with respect to organic matter type and matrix lithology: an example
from Melville Island. Canad. Arct. Arch.: Mar. Petrol. Geol. 10, 507–513.
Gries, R., Clayton, J., Leonard, C., 1997. Geology, thermal maturation, and source rock
geochemistry in a volcanic covered basin: san Juan sag, south-central Colorado.
AAPG Bull. 81, 1133–1160.
Hackley, P., Baugher, G., 2016. Vitrinite reflectance ‘suppression’: fact or fiction in low
maturity Paleozoic shales?. In: AAPG ACE, Calgary June 2016, p. 18.
Hackley, P., Araujo, C., Borrego, A., Bouzinos, A., Cardott, B., Cook, A., Edle, C.,
Flores, D., Gentzis, T., Goncalves, P., Filho, J., Vido, M., Jelonek, I., Kommeren, K.,
Knowles, W., Kus, J., Mastalerz, M., Menezes, T., Newman, J., Oikonomopoulos, I.,
Pawlewicz, M., Pickel, W., Potter, J., Ranasinghe, P., Read, H., Reyes, J.,
Rodriquez, G., Souza, I., Ruiz, I., Sykorova, I., Valentine, B., 2015. Standardization of
reflectance measurements in dispersed organic matter: results of an exercise to
improve interlaboratory agreement. Mar. Petrol. Geol. 59, 22–34.
Hatch, J., Daws, T., Lubeck, C., Pawlewicz, M., Threlkeld, C., Vuletich, A., 1984. Organic
geochemical analyses for 247 organic-rich-rock and 11 oil samples from the middle
Pennsylvanian Cherokee and Marmaton groups, southeastern Iowa, Missouri,
southeastern Kansas, and northeastern Oklahoma: USGS. Open File Rep. 84–160, 41.
Houseknecht, D., Rouse, W., Paxton, S., Mars, J., Fulk, B., 2014. Upper Devonian-
Mississippian stratigraphic framework of the Arkoma basin and distribution of
potential source-rock facies in the Woodford-Chattanooga and Fayetteville-Caney
shale-gas systems. AAPG (Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol.) Bull. 98, 1739–1759.
Humble Geochemical Services, 2003. Tmax vs Ro equation, in Jarvie, Correlation of
Tmax and measured vitrinite reflectance. TCU Energy Institute Notes 2018, 13.
Jarvie, D., Claxton, B., Henk, F., Breyer, J., 2001. Oil and shale gas from the Barnett
shale, ft. Worth basin, Texas: AAPG national convention, june 3-6, 2001. Denver, CO,
AAPG Bullet. 85 (Suppl. ment), A100.
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 91 (2021) 103946
Jarvie, D., Hill, R., Ruble, T., Pollastro, R., 2007. Unconventional shale-gas systems: the
Mississippian Barnett Shale of north-central Texas as one model for thermogenic
shale-gas assessment. AAPG Bull. 91, 475–499.
Jin, H., Sonnenberg, S., 2013. Characterization for Source Rock Potential of the Bakken
Shales in the Williston Basin, North Dakota and Montana: Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Society of Petroleum
Engineers. URTEC 1581243, pp. 1–10.
Katz, B., Lin, F., 2020. Consideration of the limitations of thermal maturity with respect
to vitrinite reflectance, Tmax and other proxies. AAPG (Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol.) Bull.
(in press).
Langford, F., Blanc-Valleron, M., 1990. Interpreting Rock-eval pyrolysis data using
graphs of pyrolizable hydrocarbons vs. total organic carbon. AAPG Bull. 74,
799–804.
Lucazeau, F., 2019. Analysis and mapping of an updated terrestrial heat flow data set. G-
cubed 20, 4001–4024.
Lee, H.-T., 2015. A comparison between statistical analysis and grey model analysis on
assessed parameters of petroleum potential from organic materials. J. Energy Nat.
Resour. 4, 5–26.
Lewan, M., Kotarba, M., 2014. Thermal maturity limit for primary thermogenic-gas
generation from humic coals as determined by hydrous pyrolysis. AAPG (Am. Assoc.
Pet. Geol.) Bull. 98, 2581–2610.
Lewan, M., Pawlewicz, M., 2017. Reevaluation of thermal maturity and stages of
petroleum formation of the Mississippian Barnett Shale. In: Fort Worth Basin, vol.
101. AAPG Bulletin, Texas, pp. 1945–1970.
Martini, A., Walter, L., Budai, J., Ku, T., Kaiser, C., Schoell, M., 1998. Genetic and
temporal relations between formation waters and biogenic methane: upper Devonian
Antrim Shale, Michigan basin, USA. Geochem. Cosmochim. Acta 62, 1699–1720.
Pepper, A., Corvi, P., 1995. Simple kinetic models of petroleum formation. Part I: oil and
gas generation from kerogen. Mar. Petrol. Geol. 12, 291–319.
Peters, K., Cassa, M., 1993. Applied Source Rock Geochemistry, vol. 60. AAPG, Memoir,
pp. 93–120.
Petersen, H., Bojesen-Koefoed, J., Nytoft, H., 2002. Source rock evaluation of middle
Jurassic coals, North-East Greenland, by artificial maturation: aspects of petroleum
generation from coal. AAPG (Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol.) Bull. 86, 233–256.
Petersen, H., 2006. The petroleum generation potential and effective oil window of
humic coals related to coal composition and age. Int. J. Coal Geol. 67, 221–248.
Sanei, H., Ardakani, O., Akai, T., Akihisa, K., Jiang, C., Wood, J., 2020. Core versus
cuttings samples for geochemical and petrophysical analysis of unconventional
reservoir rocks. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–10.
Staplin, F., 1969. Sedimentary organic matter, organic metamorphism, and oil and gas
occurrence. Bull. Can. Petrol. Geol. 17, 47–66.
Stein, C., Stein, S., 1992. A model for the global variation in oceanic depth and heat flow
with lithospheric age. Nature 359, 123–129.
Teichmuller, M., Durand, B., 1983. Fluorescence microscopical rank studies on liptinites
and vitrinites in peat and coals, and comparison with results of the Rock-Eval
pyrolysis. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2, 197–230.
Tissot, B., Durand, B., Espitalie, J., Combaz, A., 1974. Influence of nature and diagenesis
of organic matter in formation of petroleum. AAPG (Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol.) Bull. 58,
499–506.
Veld, H., Fermont, W., Jegers, L., 1993. Organic petrological characterization of
Westphalian coals from The Netherlands: correlation between Tmax, vitrinite
reflectance, and hydrogen index. Org. Geochem. 20, 659–675.
Waseda, A., 1996. Correlation between vitrinite reflectance and Rock-Eval Tmax for
argillaceous rocks from national petroleum exploration wells in Japan. Res. Org.
Geochem. 11, 39–43 (Japanese with English abstract).
Wust, R., Hackley, P., Nassichuk, B., Willment, N., Brezovski, R., 2012. Vitrinite
Reflectance versus Pyrolysis Tmax Data: Assessing Thermal Maturity in Shale Plays
with Special Reference to the Duvernay Shale Play of Western Canadian Sedimentary
Basin, vol. 167031. SPE, Alberta, p. 11.
Yang, S., Horsfield, B., 2020. Critical review of the uncertainty of Tmax in revealing the
thermal maturity of organic matter in sedimentary rocks. Int. J. Coal Geol. 225 (in
press).
Zagorski, W., Emery, M., Ventura, J., 2017. The marcellus shale play: its discovery and
emergence as a major global hydrocarbon accumulation: AAPG. Memoir 113, 55–90.